RECORD OF DECISION
Operable Unit Three
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site
Niagara County, New York
£
<
30
\
J*1"
Sz
PRO^°
O
z
LLI
o
J
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
New York, New York
September 2024
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site
Niagara County, New York
Superfund Site Identification Number: NYN000206456
Operable Unit: 03
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 Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site (Site)
in Niagara County, New York. This remedy is being chosen in accordance with the requirements
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This decision document explains the factual
and legal basis for selecting the OU3 remedy. The attached index (see Appendix III) identifies
the items that comprise the Administrative Record for this action, upon which the selected remedy
is based.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was consulted on
the planned remedy in accordance with Section 121(f) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(f), and
concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances at or 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 selected remedy described in this document addresses contaminated sediment and floodplain
soil in a discrete portion of the Site, identified as OU3. For the purposes of this OU3 ROD, OU3
is comprised of the portion of the Eighteen Mile Creek (Creek) beginning from Harwood Street
and extending downstream for approximately 5.3-miles, referred to herein as the sediment
ii
-------
transitional area (STA)1, as well as certain floodplain soil adjacent to the STA. As described in the
Decision Summary, below, in more detail, the portion of this remedy addressing sediments is an
interim remedy, and the portion addressing floodplain soils is a final remedy.
The major components of the selected interim remedy for sediment include the following:
Excavation of contaminated sediment that exceeds the remedial action level (RAL) of 1
parts per million (ppm) for PCBs within the STA followed by backfilling with clean sand
and covering with a suitable habitat layer to create conditions for the re-establishment of
natural conditions in the Creek.
Construction of access roads and staging areas in upland areas. Following remediation of
the Creek, removal of the access roads and staging areas in accordance with the habitat
reconstruction plan.
Water and air quality monitoring during construction.
Development of a monitoring plan to track PCB concentrations in sediment, surface water,
and fish tissue over time in the STA.
Institutional controls in the form of informational devices to limit exposure to PCBs. EPA
is relying on existing New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) fish consumption
advisories. NYSDOH periodically reviews fish PCB data to ensure the advisories are up to
date and considers whether the fish consumption advisories need modification. Other
informational devices could include outreach programs to inform the public to promote
knowledge of and voluntary compliance with the fish consumption advisories.
The major components of the selected final remedy for floodplain soil include the following:
Excavation and oft-Site disposal of PCB- and lead-contaminated floodplain soil exceeding
the remediation goals adj acent to the STA regardless of the land use designation. Backfill
of excavated areas with clean fill material and topsoil.
Construction of temporary access roads from the remediation areas to the closest public
roads and the staging area.
Implementation of erosion and sediment controls at each remediation area to prevent the
migration of floodplain soil to the Creek.
Water and air quality monitoring during construction.
Following remediation of the Creek, removal of the access roads and staging areas, and
restoration of the impacted areas in accordance with the habitat reconstruction plan.
1 Although EPA's OU3 investigation of the Creek initially included the full length of the Creek downstream of
Harwood Street (Reaches 9 through 1), and adjacent floodplains to this portion of the Creek, EPA has redefined OU3
to consist of the Creek (bank to bank) starting at the downstream end of OU2 (beginning of Reach 9) and extending
approximately 3,800 feet downstream of the convergence with the East Branch in Reach 6 at Station 312+93, and
adjacent floodplains. The STA extends for approximately 5.3 miles (28,000 ft) and includes Reaches 9, 8, 7, and the
upper portion of Reach 6. The station number refers to the length of the centerline of the Creek starting from the
headwaters at the Canal. The downstream extent of the STA was determined based on an assessment of the mixing
and depositional zone downstream of the confluence between the East Branch and the Creek. Portions of the Creek
downstream of OU3 will be addressed in a future operable unit(s).
iii
-------
Development of a Site Management Plan (SMP) to provide for management of floodplain
soil post-construction, including the use of institutional controls to limit future use of the
commercial properties and impose restrictions on excavation, and periodic reviews.
During the remedial design, additional sampling of floodplain soil adjacent to the STA will be
conducted. Risk evaluations, based on land use designations, will be performed to determine if
additional properties or areas require remediation. The Creek banks will be a particular area of
attention due to their high potential for use and Contaminants of Concern (COC) levels exposure
by human and ecologic receptors and their potential to be a source of COC release and transport
and to re-contaminate the OU3 sediment remedy if unaddressed. Design sampling will ensure that
Creek banks that exceed RALs are delineated for remediation. The selected remedy is a final
remedy for addressing floodplain soil in the STA.
In addition, EPA's investigations of groundwater within the Creek Corridor have not revealed a
source of the generally low-level volatile organic compounds (VOCs) concentrations detected in
groundwater. As a result, no action will be taken to address Creek Corridor groundwater.
The estimated present-worth cost of the selected remedy is $192,076,000.
The environmental benefits of the selected remedy may be improved by consideration, during
remedy design or implementation, of technologies and practices that are sustainable in accordance
with EPA Region 2's Clean and Green Energy Policy and NYSDEC's Green Remediation Policy2.
The remaining areas of the Creek (commencing immediately downstream of the STA to the
Creek's discharge at Lake Ontario) that are not addressed by this ROD would be addressed under
separate, future action(s). The impoundment areas upstream of Newfane Dam and Burt Dam have
historically acted as sinks for contaminated sediment, and, as such, these areas have been identified
as potential sources of downstream contamination in the event of a change in the flow regime of
the Creek. These remaining areas require additional evaluation to establish a final remedy for the
full length of the Creek. This evaluation will identify and address the following:
data gaps including the nature and extent of contamination within these remaining areas;
the characteristics of the sediment bed behind the Newfane and Burt dams;
a study of the impacts from having addressed the source areas;
an assessment of the fate and transport mechanisms of the remaining contamination in the
Creek, including residual soil contamination following excavation of floodplain soil in the
STA;
bathymetry monitoring of sediment to evaluate recovery, accumulation and/or erosion; and
a long-term monitoring program.
After a comprehensive evaluation of the full length of the Creek is conducted, a final remedy for
the entire length of the Creek will be determined. The final remedy would include final remediation
2 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-01/documents/r2_clean_and_green_update.pdf and
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/der31.pdf
iv
-------
goals for contaminated sediment, including the Creek Corridor (OU2) and the ST A (OU3), as well
as any additional remedial action objectives that are determined necessary, including for additional
media such as surface water. In addition, floodplain soil sampling will be conducted downstream
of the ST A as part of a separate investigation. Separate response actions or a future operable unit(s)
would address risks identified in floodplain soil downstream of the STA.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory requirements for remedial actions set forth in Section
121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, as follows: 1) it is protective of human health and the
environment; 2) it meets a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants that at least attains the legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) under federal and state laws; 3) it is cost-effective; and 4) it utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition. Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, includes a preference for remedies that
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous substances as a principal element (or justify not satisfying the preference). The selected
remedy may satisfy the preference for treatment to the extent that contaminated material requires
treatment prior to land disposal.
This remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the Site
above levels that will not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Pursuant to Section
121(c) of CERCLA, statutory reviews will be conducted no less often than once every five years
after the initiation of construction to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human
health and environment. If justified by the review, additional remedial actions may be implemented
to remove, treat, or contain the contaminants.
ROD DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST
The ROD contains the remedy selection information noted below. More details may be found in
the Administrative Record file for this action.
Contaminants of concern and their respective concentrations may be found in the
"Summary of Site Characterization" section;
Current and reasonably-anticipated future land use assumptions and current and potential
future beneficial uses of groundwater used in the baseline risk assessment and ROD are
discussed in the "Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses" section;
Baseline risk represented by the contaminants of concern may be found in the " Summary
of Site Risks" section;
Cleanup levels established for contaminants of concern and the basis for these levels maybe
be found in the "Remedial Action Objectives" section;
Estimated capital, annual operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present-worth costs
are discussed in the "Description of Remedial Alternatives" section;
A discussion of principal threat waste may be found in the "Principal Threat Waste"
section; and
Key factors used in selecting the remedy (i.e., how the selected remedy provides the best
V
-------
balance of tradeoffs with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria, highlighting
criteria key to the decision) may be found in the "Comparative Analysis of Alternatives"
and "Statutory Determinations" sections.
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE
PADDV Digitally signed by
DMr\r\ T BARRY BREEN
RDCPM Date: 2024.09.12
DI"\CCI\ 18:07:09 -04'00'
Barry Breen, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Date
Office of Land and Emergency Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
vi
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Operable Unit Three
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site
Niagara County, New York
^t0 srX
* A '
\ rf
PRO^
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
New York, New York
September 2024
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION ii
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 5
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 5
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 5
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 6
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 8
5.1 Overview 8
5.2 Geology and Hydrogeology 8
5.3 Results of the Previous Investigations 9
5.4 Environmental Justice 13
5.5 Climate Change 13
6.0 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND RESOURCE USES 13
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 14
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 14
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 20
7.3 Summary of Human Health and Ecological Risks 21
7.4 Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment 22
7.5 Basis for Taking Action 23
8.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIV ES 23
8.1 Remediation Goals 24
9.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIV ES 25
9.1 Description of Common Elements of Sediment Alternatives 26
9.2 Description of Sediment Transition Area (STA) Remedial Alternatives 27
9.3 Description of Common Elements of Floodplain Soil Alternatives 29
9.4 Description of Floodplain Soil (Soil) Remedial Alternatives 30
10.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIV ES 31
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 33
10.2 Compliance with ARARs 33
10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 35
10.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume via Treatment 36
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness 36
10.6 Implementability 37
2
-------
10.7 Cost 38
10.8 State/Support Agency & Tribal Acceptance 38
10.9 Community Acceptance 38
11.0 PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTE 39
12.0 SELECTED REMEDY 39
12.1 Description of the Selected Remedy 39
12.2 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy 41
12.3 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy 41
12.4 Green Remediation 42
13.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 42
13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 43
13.2 Compliance with ARARs 43
13.3 Cost-Effectiveness 43
13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable 44
13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 44
13.6 Five-Year Review Requirements 44
14.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 44
3
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
APPENDIX
II
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
APPENDIX
III
APPENDIX
IV
APPENDIX
V
Site Location Map
Site Overview Map
Conceptual Site Model
TABLES
Selection of Exposure Pathways
Contaminants of Concern
Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure
Point Concentrations
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data Summary
Cancer Toxicity Data Summary
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-carcinogens
Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens
Summary of Lead Model Results
Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Floodplain Soil
ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Chemical Specific
ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Location Specific
ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
ADMINISTRATIV E RECORD INDEX
NEW YORK STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
RESPONSIV ENESS SUMMARY
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Written Comments Submitted During Public Comment Period
Proposed Plan
Public Notice
Public Meeting Transcript
4
-------
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site (Site) is located in Niagara County, New York. The main
channel of the Creek originates just south of the New York State Barge Canal (Canal) and flows
north for approximately 15 miles until it discharges to Lake Ontario in Olcott, New York. The
Eighteen Mile Creek watershed includes the two main tributaries: East Branch of Eighteen Mile
Creek and Gulf Creek. A Site location map is provided as Figure 1.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Creek Corridor has a long history of industrial use dating back to the 19th century when it was
used as a source of hydropower. Various industrial plants operated at properties within the Creek
Corridor, including the former United Paperboard Company, the White Transportation Company,
the former Flintkote Company, and various operations at Upson Park. Damaged drums, ash, slag
material, and contaminated fill material have been observed at these properties. Aerial photographs
also suggest that by 1938, fill was disposed in the section of 300 Mill Street between the Creek
and the Mill race, which is a small segment of the Creek that splits and flows around an area of soil
and fill on the Flintkote property, known as the Island. Downstream of Harwood Street, Eighteen
Mile Creek drops down the Niagara Escarpment and passes through approximately 12 miles of
rural Niagara County. Land use within this portion of the Creek watershed consists primarily of
cropland and orchards, with residential, commercial, and small industrial areas located closer to
the City of Lockport and further downstream around Newfane. Several other industrial facilities
are located along Eighteen Mile Creek, including the City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment
Plant, VanChlor Inc., Twin Lakes Chemical, and VanDeMark Chemical. Several dams were
constructed to provide power near Newfane, two of which remain today. Newfane Dam was
originally built in the 1830s near the end of McKee Street and E wings Road to provide power for
the Newfane mill district; the current dam was built in 1912 and is not in service. Burt Dam was
built farther north of Newfane in 1924, creating a 95-acre impoundment that extends
approximately two miles upstream of the dam. The original dam generated power until the 1950s.
It was restored in 1988 and still is currently operational. To date, EPA has not identified any viable
potentially responsible parties at the Site. As a result, EPA elected to investigate the Site using
federal funds.
The people of the T uscarora and the Tonawanda Seneca Nations fish and hunt at various locations
along the Creek. The Tuscarora Nation reservation is located about 1 1 miles west of the City of
Lockport, and the Tonawanda Seneca Nation reservation is located about 14 miles southeast of the
City of Lockport.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
On July 19, 2024, EP A released a Proposed Plan for cleanup of OU3 of the Site, which described
a number of remedial alternatives including the preferred remedial alternative, to the public for
comment. EPA made supporting documentation comprising the administrative record for that
proposed decision available to the public at the information repositories maintained at the EPA
Region 2 Office in New York City, the Lockport Public Library, 23 East Avenue in Lockport, the
Newfane Public Library, 2761 Maple Avenue, Newfane, and EPA's website for the Site at:
www.epa.gov/superfund/eighteenmile-creek.
5
-------
EPA published notice of the start of a public comment period and the availability for the above-
referenced documents in the Lockport Union-Sun Journal on July 19, 2024. A copy of the public
notice published in the Lockport Union-Sun Journal can be found in Appendix V. EPA accepted
public comments on the Proposed Plan from July 19, 2024 through August 19, 2024.
On August 1, 2024, EPA held a public meeting at the Newfane Town Hall located at 2737 Main
Street, Newfane, New York, to inform local officials and interested citizens about the Superfund
process, to present the Proposed Plan for OU3 of the Site, including the preferred remedial
alternatives, and to respond to questions and comments from the attendees. Responses to the
questions and comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the public comment
period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Section 300.5 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 C.F.R. § 300.5, defines an OU as a discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward
comprehensively addressing a site's problems. A di screte portion of a remedial response eliminates
or mitigates a release, a threat of release, or a pathway of exposure. The cleanup of a site can be
divided into a number of OUs, depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the
site. The EPA also uses interim actions to address areas or contaminated media, such as sediment,
that ultimately may be included in the final record of decision for a site. Interim actions are used,
for example, to institute temporary measures to stabilize a site or operable unit and/or prevent
further migration of contaminants or further environmental degradation until such time as a final
remedial decision is made. As noted above, to date EPA has designated the following OUs for the
Site.
OU 1 addressed the risks associated with the residential soil contamination at nine
residential properties located on Water Street and the threats posed from the deteriorating
building at the Flintkote property. On September 30, 2013, EPA selected a final cleanup
plan for OlJ 1 (OlJ 1 ROD). As part of EPA" s selected remedy for OlJ 1, residents on Water
Street were permanently relocated from their homes because of the presence of PCB-
contaminated soils in residential yards and the likelihood of recontamination based on
recurring flooding of the properties with PCB-contaminated water and sediments from the
Creek, given their properties" location within the Creek's floodplain. It was determined
that the OlJ 1 soil excavation work would be performed at the time of the cleanup of the
OU2 sediments to prevent the Creek from re-contaminating the above-referenced
residential properties subsequent to their cleanup. Following the relocations, the structures
at the OU 1 properties were demolished. The buildings at the Flintkote property were also
demolished.
OU2 addresses the contaminated soil at the following properties adjacent to the Creek: the
former United Paperboard Company property, the White Transportation property, the
former Flintkote Plant property (Flintkote), and Upson Park. OU2 also addresses
contaminated sediment within the Creek Corridor; an approximately 4,000-foot segment
of the Creek that extends from the Canal to Harwood Street in the City of Lockport. The
cleanup plan for OU2 includes bank-to-bank excavation of sediment in the Creek Corridor
and a combination of soil excavation and capping at the upland properties. This remedy is
currently in the remedial action phase and began in Summer 2024.
OU3, the subject of this remedy, addresses sediments within a portion of the Creek, referred
6
-------
to as the Sediment Transition Area (STA)3. The ST A is a subset area of the full length of
the Creek comprising the portion of the Creek beginning from Harwood Street and
extending downstream for approximately 5.3 miles (upper portion of Reach 6 through
Reach 9; see Figure 2). The selected remedy in this OU3 ROD is an interim action for
sediments in the STA and is not intended to attain acceptable Contaminants of Concern
(COC) levels in all media throughout the Creek. A future, final remedy will establish
acceptable COC levels in sediments that are protective of human health and the
environment. Floodplain soils impacted by the Creek adjacent to the STA are also included
within this OU. Creek Corridor groundwater is also included in this OU. The selected
remedy in this OU3 ROD is a final remedy for floodplain soil adjacent to the STA and
groundwater.
OU4 addresses lead-contaminated soils at certain residential properties in the vicinity of
the former Flintkote Property. EPA selected a cleanup plan for OU4 (in the OU4 ROD) in
2019, which calls for the excavation and off-Site disposal of lead-contaminated soils found
to be located at the residential properties. The remedy for the first phase of the OU4
remediation includes 33 residential properties, and construction began in Summer 2024.
Soil sampling at additional residential properties, referred to as Phase 2 of OU4, is ongoing.
Future Operable Unit(s)
The remaining areas of the Creek (commencing immediately downstream of the STA to
the Creek's discharge at Lake Ontario) that are not addressed by this ROD will be
addressed under separate, future action(s). The impoundment areas upstream of Newfane
Dam and Burt Dam have historically acted as sinks for contaminated sediment, and as such
these areas have been identified as potential sources of downstream contamination in the
event of a change in the flow regime of the Creek. Figure 3 depicts the location of these
two dams. These remaining areas require additional evaluation to establish a final remedy
for the full length of the Creek.
After a comprehensive evaluation of the full length of the Creek is conducted, a final
remedy for the entire length of the Creek will be established. The final remedy would
include final remediation goals for contaminated sediment, including the Creek Corridor
(OU2) and the STA (OU3), as well as any additional remedial action objectives that are
determined necessary, including for additional media such as surface water. In addition,
floodplain soil sampling will be conducted downstream of the STA as part of a separate
investigation. Separate response actions or a future operable unit(s) would address risks
identified in floodplain soil downstream of the STA.
3 Although EPA's OU3 investigation of the Creek initially included the full length of the Creek downstream of
Harwood Street (Reaches 9 through 1), and adjacent floodplains to this portion of the Creek, EPA has redefined OU3
to consist of the Creek (bank to bank) starting at the downstream end of OU2 (beginning of Reach 9) and extending
approximately 3,800 feet downstream of the convergence with the East Branch in Reach 6 at Station 312+93, and
adjacent floodplains. The STA extends for approximately 5.3 miles (28,000 ft) and includes Reaches 9, 8, 7, and the
upper portion of Reach 6. The station number refers to the length of the centerline of the Creek starting from the
headwaters at the Canal. The downstream extent of the STA was determined based on an assessment of the mixing
and depositional zone downstream of the confluence between the East Branch and the Creek. Portions of the Creek
downstream of OU3 will be addressed in a future operable unit(s).
7
-------
5.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Overview
The area encompassing OU3 consists of residential properties, vacant land, some light commercial
use and agricultural land. It is expected that the future land use in this area will remain the same.
5.2 Geology and Hydrogeology
Overburden deposits throughout OU3, and much of the Creek Corridor consists of mostly glacial
tills and lacustrine silts and clays overlying bedrock. According to the Soil Survey of Niagara
County (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1972), the length of the
majority of OU3 is classified as glacial till with areas of lake-laid sands and silts with reported
gravelly glacial outwash along the Olcott Harbor.
Observations made during the remedial investigation within the Creek Corridor are generally
consistent with previous geologic studies of the area that indicate glacial tills and lacustrine silts
and clays overlying bedrock of the Clinton and Medina Groups along Clinton Street, which include
the Thorold and Grimsby Formations. The overburden on and around the Canal Corporation
property was observed to consist mainly of sandy fill material and weathered bedrock likely from
historical construction of the Erie Canal overlying native lacustrine silts and clays. Based on the
regional strati graphic and structural information and depths of bedrock wells, it is believed that
the bedrock wells are set within the Thorold and Grimsby Formations of the Medina Group.
The Eighteen Mile Creek watershed is located within both the Ontario and Huron plains, which
are two relatively flat plains that are separated by the Niagara Escarpment, which runs generally
east/west along the northern portion of the City of Lockport. The watershed has a drainage area of
approximately 90 square miles and includes Eighteen Mile Creek; two main tributaries, the East
Branch of Eighteen Mile Creek and Gulf Creek; and several minor tributaries (see Figure 1).
Within the watershed area, the escarpment ranges from 100 to 175 feet. The maximum elevations
within the watershed occur within the Huron Plain in the southern portion of the watershed and
are approximately 635 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southwestern portion and
approximately 655 feet AMSL along the southeastern extent.
The Headwater West Branch and the Main Branch of Eighteen Mile Creek are located within a
well-incised, steeply sloped channel for most of their lengths in the Creek Corridor. The channel
walls range in height, but average approximately 35 feet. In OU3, the East Branch and Gulf Creek
lacks the incised channel characteristic of the rest of Eighteen Mile Creek.
The Creek Corridor is located in an area of deep, well-drained to excessively drained, mediutn-
textured soils formed in glacial outwash deposits composed primarily of sand and gravel. The
remaining area north in OU3 is located mainly in deep, somewhat poorly drained and moderately
well-drained soils, and medium-textured loamy soil over fine and very fine sand.
Groundwater underlying the Creek Corridor area occurs in both the soil and fill material above the
bedrock (the overburden) and the upper fractured bedrock, and it flows toward the Creek along
some portion of the Corridor. The City of Lockport is the provider of potable water to residents
8
-------
within the Creek Corridor and surface water from the east branch of the Niagara River is its
primary source.
5.3 Results of the Previous Investigations
Creek Corridor
Beginning in 1999, NYSDEC conducted several investigations at the Site related to the Creek
Corridor. NYSDEC investigations of the former United Paperboard Company property, Upson
Park, and the White Transportation property documented the presence of fill material on these
properties, with surface and subsurface soil and fill contaminated with PCBs, metals, and serni-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The erosion and runoff of contaminated fill material from
properties adjacent to the Creek appears to be the primary mechanism for transport of
contamination to the Creek. PCBs and lead concentrations in soil at these properties are as high as
630 parts per million (ppm) and 77,300 ppm, respectively. Sediment samples collected in the Creek
Corridor and the Mi 11 race revealed concentrations of PCBs and lead up to 25,400 ppm and 15,000
ppm, respectively. A turbine located at the Flintkote property is also believed to be a source of
PCB contamination in the Creek. As mentioned in the Scope and Role section above, EPA selected
the OU2 remedy to address soil and sediment contamination in the Creek Corridor in 2017. The
remedial design that provides the detailed specifications for the performance of that remedy has
been completed, and construction activities for this work began this summer.
Sediment
Several studies were completed under projects funded by EPA Region 2, the EPA Great Lakes
Legacy Act (GLLA), and the EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). EPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) has identified part of the Eighteen Mile Creek as an area of
concern (AOC) for Lake Ontario as part of its GLRI because of its sediment contamination and
poor water quality. In March 2015, a report summarizing data collected for the characterization of
the AOC under the GLLA program was prepared for the EPA's GLNPO. The R1 report included
sediment data collected under investigations performed by various agencies from Olcott Harbor
(mouth of the Creek) upstream through the City of Lockport to the Canal and including the Creek
Corridor. The results of the R1 are presented in the 2015 report entitled "Final Remedial
Investigation Report, Eighteen Mile Creek, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study."
Surface Water
While surface water in the Creek has not been extensively sampled as part of previous sediment
investigations, water quality has been evaluated as part of regional studies conducted by EP A and
NYSDEC. Historical samples collected to measure concentrations of PCBs, mercury, and
dioxins/furans were obtained in 1993 and 1994 as part of a NYSDEC study to track contaminants
to Lake Ontario. Results of this study are presented in a report entitled, Trackdown of Chemical
Contaminants to Lake Ontario from New York State Tributaries.
GLNPO conducted semiannual monitoring of the surface water discharge from Eighteen Mile
Creek and several other tributaries from 2002 to 2010. Results from these monitoring events are
presented in the 201 1 report entitled. Field Data Report, Lake Ontario Tributaries.
9
-------
The data indicate that Eighteen Mile Creek had the highest PCB concentrations (0.043 - 0.093
micrograms/1 iter ((.ig/L)) in surface water compared to other major tributaries to Lake Ontario.
Bioaccumulation
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers performed two studies in 2003 that focused on
bioaccumulation and food web modeling that established a significant bioaccumulation potential
for PCBs in fish tissue by collecting sediment and fish samples in the Creek. The earliest studies
focused on the area downstream of Burt Dam, and more recent investigations included collecting
sediment and fish tissue data from upstream of Burt Dam and Newfane Dam. In part, the studies
found that PCBs were highly bioavailable and predicted to cause wildlife bioaccumulation risks.
Results from these studies are presented in the following 2004 reports: " Volume I (Project Report
Overview): Sediment Sampling, Biological Analyses, and Chemical Analyses for Eighteenmile
Creek", " Volume II: Laboratory Reports Sediment Sampling, Biological Analyses, and Chemical
Analyses for Eighteenmile Creek AOC\ and "Final Bioaccumulation Modeling and Ecological
Risk Assessment, Eighteenmile Creek Great Lakes Area of Concern
For the Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District, several studies were completed to
evaluate beneficial use impairments in the Eighteen Mile Creek AOC. A study was performed in
2006 to evaluate whether PCBs and metals continued to migrate from upstream source areas and
to identify other potential sources of contamination. Another investigation was conducted in 2007
downstream of Burt Dam to determine: (a) whether the Eighteen Mile Creek AOC was impaired
based upon the existence of fish tumors and other deformities, (b) the status of fish and wildlife
populations, and (c) the status of any bird or mammal deformities or reproductive impairment.
Finally, baseline benthic community and fish sampling and a pilot study on the use of powdered
activated carbon to reduce PCB bioavailability in Eighteen Mile Creek sediment were completed
in 2012.
More recent studies assessing beneficial use impairments in the Eighteen Mile Creek AOC are
also included in the Administrative Record file.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has also monitored fish populations in the
Creek, and there is currently a fish consumption advisory for the entire Eighteen Mile Creek issued
by NYSDOH because of the presence of PCBs. For more information regarding the advisory,
please refer to the following website www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/fish/health_
advisories/by_county.htm?county=niagara.
5.3.1 Results of EPA's Operable Unit 3 Remedial Investigation
In 2018, EPA initiated a separate investigation of sediments, surface water, biota, and floodplain
soil along the Creek. Groundwater within the Creek Corridor was further investigated as part of
EPA's investigations in an effort to define the nature and extent of the groundwater contamination
and locate the source(s) of the low-level concentrations detected during previous studies.
Consistent with previous investigations, the Creek was divided into smaller investigation areas, or
reaches, based on the following physical characteristics (see Figure 2):
o Reach 1 consists of the Creek channel from Burt Dam to the mouth of the Creek in Olcott
Harbor where the Creek discharges into Lake Ontario.
10
-------
o Reach 2 consists of the impoundment immediately upstream of Burt Dam.
o Reach 3 is the historical channel that was flooded after the Burt Dam was installed,
o Reach 4 is the section of the Creek located immediately downstream of Newfane Dam.
o Reach 5 consists of the impoundment immediately upstream of Newfane Dam.
o Reach 6 extends from the upstream end of the Newfane Dam impoundment to the
confluence of the main channel and the East Branch,
o Reach 7 runs from the confluence of the main channel and the East Branch to the
downstream portion of the Niagara Escarpment,
o Reach 8 is a 2,000-foot-long section of the Creek that cascades down the steep gradient of
the Niagara Escarpment,
o Reach 9 is an approximately 1,000-foot-long section of the Creek immediately
downstream of OU2.
The following provides an overview of the sampling conducted by EPA in the Creek over multiple
phases.
Phase I A, conducted from May to June 2018, included surface water, floodplain soil, and soil
sampling of agricultural areas that were irrigated with Creek water. Bathymetric surveys and light
detection and ranging (LiDAR) surveys were also conducted. Five groundwater monitoring wells
were installed on the west side of the Creek Corridor.
Phase IB, conducted from October to November 2018, included surface water sampling. Game
and forage fish from the Creek were collected, and tissue samples were analyzed. Groundwater
sampling was conducted from monitoring wells installed in Spring 2018 as well as existing wells
in the Creek Corridor.
Phase 11 A, conducted in July 2019, included surface water sampling targeting high-flow events
and floodplain soil.
Phase 111, conducted from October to November 2020, included the following: surface water
sampling targeting high-flow and low-flow events; a filtration study to examine the relationship
between particle size and PCB concentrations in surface water; floodplain soil sampling; surface
sediment sampling; sediment core collection and analysis; additional bathymetric surveys; and
young-of-year4 fish sampling.
The results indicate that chemical contamination of the sediment in the Creek generally decreases
in concentration moving downstream (the Reach numbers descend from Reach 9 to Reach 1 as
they flow downstream to Lake Ontario). For Reaches 1 through 9, the highest concentrations of
PCBs were detected in Reaches 6 and 7 where a significant portion of the contaminated sediment
has settled. A maximum PCB concentration at 97 ppm was detected in Reach 7. Elevated
concentrations of PCBs and lead are found in shallow and deeper sediments behind Burt Dam and
Newfane Dam. Lead concentrations ranged from 3.8 ppm in Reach 5 to a maximum concentration
of 6,760 ppm in Reach 2. The higher concentrations in the sediment at depth behind the dams
indicate that the major contributions of PCBs and lead were from historical sources. However,
high concentrations of PCBs in both the total and dissolved phases of surface water indicate that
4 "Young-of-year" refers to all the fish species that arc younger than one year of age.
11
-------
PCBs in the shallow sediments of Reaches 6 and 7 are being transported and deposited downstream
by sediment resuspension and resettling.
Floodplain soil sampling in areas prone to flooding revealed maximum PCB and lead
concentrations of 26 ppm and 2,630 ppm, respectively. The higher concentrations for both PCBs
and lead were primarily on properties within Reach 7. Areas with steeper banks were not impacted
by deposition of contaminated sediment. Soil sampling conducted in nearby areas irrigated with
water from the Creek did not reveal PCB detections.
Surface water was analyzed over three years under a range of flow conditions. Additional studies
designed to understand contaminant sources and migration pathways included passive sampler and
filtration studies. While PCBs were consistently detected in both the whole-water and field-filtered
samples, based on the absolute magnitude of total PCB concentration in whole-water samples
compared to the total PCB concentration in the field-filtered samples, suspended solids contribute
the largest load of PCBs into the water column. For example, total PCB concentrations ranged
from 20 to 160 ng/L for whole-water samples collected from 2018 to 2020, whereas the
corresponding field-filtered samples, where suspended solids were removed, had reported total
PCB concentration of less than 7 ng/L. Lead was consistently detected in the whole-water samples
in all reaches of the Creek at concentrations that exceed background levels. Lead was not
consistently found in the dissolved phase. Lead concentrations in Reaches 1 to 7 are comparable
to the concentration in the OU2 source area. Except for the lead concentrations collected during
very high flows, resuspension of the contaminated sediment does not appear to be a significant
mechanism to transport lead in the water column currently. In general, metals in surface water are
not currently a significant contaminant source or migration pathway. In addition, other
contaminants such as poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons also are not currently a significant
contaminant source or migration pathway in surface water. As discussed below, migration of
sediment via surface water, however, is likely the mechanism for transport of contamination in the
Creek downstream of the OU2 sources.
The uptake of PCBs from sediment and surface water has resulted in elevated concentrations of
PCBs in fish tissue and biota. Sampling of game fish including largemouth bass, northern pike,
and walleye revealed PCB concentrations ranging from 0.26 ppm to 27 ppm. Sampling of forage
fish including pumpkinseed, common shiner, and rock bass revealed maximum PCB and lead
concentrations of 8.5 ppm and 8.3 ppm, respectively. Mercury detections in the fish from the Creek
are generally low.
Contaminant Fate and Transport
The main transport method of contaminated material in the Creek is through sediment movement
in the surface water with deposition in sediment beds and on floodplains. This sediment transport
has been identified to occur through the following two processes: (1) transport of fine-grained
sediment through resuspension of fine sediment in the water column, with the suspended fine
sediments being transported downstream, and the settling of suspended sediments in quiescent
conditions; and (2) movement of sand as bed load and resettlement.
The transport of contaminants throughout the Creek is influenced by the geology, hydrology, and
geomorphology of the surrounding area along with the presence of wetlands, structures, and
obstructions in the Creek.
12
-------
An analysis of sediment erosion and deposition and contaminant movement at the Site revealed
the following:
Upstream sources of PCBs in OU2 likely contribute to PCB concentrations in surface water
and sediment in the STA and further downstream; and
High flows or other disturbances can mobilize the elevated concentrations of PCBs in
Reaches 7 and 6 and redistribute them downstream.
5.4 Environmental Justice
According to EPA's EJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool,
www.epa.gov/ejscreen, there are no demographic indicators for communities on each side of the
Creek along 0U3 of the Site that would indicate a community with environmental justice concerns.
However, an EJScreen analysis of the local community upstream of 0U3, including the area
encompassing 0U1, 0U2 and 0U4, found that this area exceeded the 80th percentile relative to
the rest of New York State for air toxics cancer risk and lead-based paint. The Air Toxics Cancer
Risk results are based upon lifetime cancer risk from inhalation of air toxics, as risk per lifetime
per million people. The remedy is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to environmental
resources that would affect the populations living within the vicinity of the Site.
5.5 Climate Change
Low-lying areas within the City of Lockport are subject to flooding. The Resilient New York Flood
Mitigation Initiative Report for Eighteen Mile Creek, dated November 2020, states that more
frequent and intense precipitation events are expected because of climate change, resulting in a
higher likelihood of flooding along the Creek. The increased flooding may reduce the lifespan of
capping and backfill material through increased erosional forces from faster flow.
6.0 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND RESOURCE USES
6.1 Land Uses
In OU3 land use includes vacant land, residential, commercial, and agricultural. The land uses vary
slightly between the reaches. Residential land use accounts for the highest percentage in more
populous areas along Reaches 1, 2, and 4. Vacant land accounts for the highest percentage of land
use in less populous areas along Reaches 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Within OU3 there are several industrial facilities and inactive hazardous waste sites located along
or in vicinity of the Creek, including the Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant (Reach 7), the Old
Upper Mountain Road Landfill site on Gulf Creek (Reach 7) and VanDeMark Chemical, Inc.
(Reach 8).
6.2 Groundwater
As discussed above in Section 5, the groundwater investigations that were conducted as part of the
OU3 Remedial Investigation (RI) were a continuation of the groundwater investigation of the
Creek Corridor conducted during the OU2 RI. Groundwater in the geographic area of OU3 was
not investigated as part of the OU3 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
13
-------
The most recent groundwater sampling conducted in 2018 and 2019 generally showed low level
concentrations of VOCs, including trichloroethylene (TCE), with some exceedances of federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and state standards in some monitoring wells. For example,
in 2019, the highest concentration of TCE was detected in well MW-14, at a concentration of 1 1
pg/L, compared to the federal MCL and state standard of 5 (.ig/L. This represents a decline from
2007, when TCE was detected in MW-14 at a concentration of 20 (.ig/L.
The results also revealed fluctuating concentrations in TCE daughter products (cis-1, 2-
dichloroethylene, trans-1, 2-dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride), with higher concentrations of
the daughter products occurring downgradient of the TCE detections. For example, at MW-5 cis-
1, 2-dichloroethylene was detected at a concentration of 8.4 (.ig/L in 2019, compared to the federal
MCL and state standard of 70 (.ig/L and 5 (.ig/L, respectively. This represents a decline from 2007.
Historically, TCE has not been detected in MW-5. Trend analyses including historical data
collected by NYSDEC beginning in 2007 show an ongoing reduction in concentrations of
chlorinated VOCs. Furthermore, the City of Lockport is the provider of potable water to residents
within the Creek Corridor and surface water from the east branch of the Niagara River is its
primary source.
The groundwater investigation within the Creek Corridor identified a limited area of contamination
with no historical or active source of VOCs and evidence of on-going natural attenuation of the
contaminants in the groundwater. Since groundwater is not expected to be a significant source of
contamination to the Creek, it was determined that groundwater in the Creek Corridor would not
be addressed further as part of the FS.
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the RI/FS, EP A conducted a baseline risk assessment to estimate the current and future
effects of contaminants on human health and the environment. A baseline risk assessment is an
analysis of the potential adverse human health and ecological effects of releases of hazardous
substances from a site in the absence of any actions or controls to mitigate such releases, under
current and future land and resource uses. The baseline risk assessment includes a baseline human
health risk assessment (BHHRA) and a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA). It
provides the basis for taking action and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that
need to be addressed by the remedial action. This section of the ROD summarizes the results of
the risk assessments for OU3 of the Site.
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) scenario:
Hazard Identification - uses the analytical data collected to identify the contaminants of
potential concern at the Site for each medium, with consideration of a number of factors
explained below;
Exposure Assessment - estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed;
14
-------
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); and
Risk Characterization - summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks. The risk
characterization also identifies contamination with concentrations which exceed acceptable
levels, defined by the NCP as an excess lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 x 10"6 to 1 x
10"4 (one in a million to one in ten thousand) or a non-cancer Hazard Index (HI) greater
than 1 (HI > 1); contaminants at these concentrations are considered chemicals of concern
(COCs) and are typically those that will require remediation at the Site. Also included in
this section is a discussion of the uncertainties associated with these risks.
7.1.1 Hazard Identification
The COCs in each medium were identified based on such factors as toxicity, frequency of
occurrence, fate and transport of the contaminants in the environment, concentrations, mobility,
persistence, and bioaccumulation. Analytical information that was collected to determine the
nature and extent of contamination was evaluated to determine the presence of chemicals
exceeding concentrations of potential concern.
Site COCs included PCBs and metals in soil, sediment, and fish. The associated risks and hazards
from exposure to these chemicals are discussed in the sections below.
Table 1: Selection of Exposure Pathways provides a list of potential exposure pathways under
Current and Future exposure assumptions, including the rationale for the selection of each
pathway. A comprehensive list of all Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) can be found in
the BHHRA and in the administrative record for the Site. Only the COCs, or those chemicals
requiring remediation at the Site, are listed in risk Table 2: Contaminants of Concern.
7.1.2 Exposure Assessment
The BHHRA is a baseline human health risk assessment and therefore assumes no remediation has
been performed and no institutional controls (ICs) are in place to mitigate or remove hazardous
substance releases. Cancer risks and non-cancer His were calculated based on an estimate of the
RME expected to occur under current and future Site conditions. The RME is defined as the highest
exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at the Site.
The Site is currently zoned for residential and commercial land use within this portion of the
Eighteen Mile Creek watershed and consists primarily of cropland, orchards and vacant land, with
residential, commercial, and small industrial areas located closer to the City of Lockport and
around Newfane. Newfane includes the hamlet of Newfane on Route 78, which is centrally located
within the town and on the east bank of Eighteen Mile Creek (see Figure 2). Several other
industrial facilities and inactive hazardous waste sites are located along or in the vicinity of
Eighteen Mile Creek within OU3, including the City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant,
VanDeMark Chemical, Inc., and the Old Upper Mountain Road Landfill site on Gulf Creek.
The BHHRA evaluated current and future risks to the recreational user, angler, and visitor
trespasser on a reach-specific basis. In addition to the recreational areas within the OU3 area, there
15
-------
are several residential properties along the Site study area. Current and future risks to the residents
were individually evaluated based on samples collected on the individual residential properties
during the RI. Risks were evaluated under baseline conditions, in the absence of any remedial
action and/or institutional controls to prevent exposure. The COCs that are found in surface water
and sediment in the creek are consumed by biota, and contaminants, such as PCBs, that are known
to bioaccumulate and bio-magnify within the food chain. Therefore, the following receptors were
evaluated in the BHHRA:
Recreational users: Adult (older than 18 years), adolescent (7 to 18 years), and children
(6 years and younger) exposed through incidental ingestion and dermal contact with
surface water; incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediment; and inhalation of
dust particles from floodplain soil and exposed Creek nearshore sediment.
Visitor/trespasser: Adult, adolescent, and children exposed through incidental ingestion,
dermal contact, and inhalation of dust particles with floodplain soil.
Resident: Adult and children exposed through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation of dust particles from floodplain soil.
Angler: Adult and adolescent exposed through incidental ingestion of and dermal contact
with surface water, incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of dust particles
from floodplain soil and nearshore sediment in the Creek.
Fish Consumers: Adult, adolescent, and child exposed through ingestion of fish caught in
the Creek.
EPA anticipates that the future land use will remain consistent with current use. The BHHRA
evaluated potential risks to populations associated with both current and potential future land uses.
The assessment of the transect data included the following assumptions:
Properties zoned as residential were assessed individually under a residential exposure
scenario.
Creek bank/floodplain soil samples were collected along 13 total soil transects located in
five of the nine reaches, with the transects extending in a perpendicular direction away from
the banks of the Creek. The sample locations were selected based on the potential for
exposure from flooding.
Soil samples collected from the floodplain areas were used in the risk assessment to assess
exposures of residents on a property-by-property basis, as well as exposures of the angler
or recreational user who are exposed on a less frequent basis than the resident.
In some limited instances, a transect traversed more than one property.
Exposures to fish tissue under current/future exposures were evaluated in Zone 3.5
5 For purposes of the BHHRA. fish consumption in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is inclusive of the
reaches that arc included in OU3.
16
-------
Exposure pathways were identified for each potentially exposed population and each potential
exposure scenario for the soil, sediment, surface water, and fish. A summary of the exposure
pathways evaluated in the BHHRA can be found in Table 1: Selection of Exposure Pathways.
Table 2: Contaminants of Concern summarizes the minimum/maximum concentrations,
detection frequency, and selection of Contaminants of Concern.
Typically, exposures are evaluated using a statistical estimate of the exposure point concentration,
which is usually an upper bound estimate of the average concentration for each contaminant, but
in some cases may be the maximum detected concentration based on the number of samples
collected. A summary of the exposure point concentrations for the COCs in each medium can be
found in Table 3: Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure
Point Concentrations. A comprehensive list of the exposure point concentrations for all COPCs
can be found in the BHHRA.
The Exposure Assessment evaluates current and future exposures to contaminants in surface
soil/sediment, residential soil and fish. The BHHRA provides the specific exposure assumptions
for the RME and Central Tendency Exposure (CTE) or Average Exposures for receptors including
young children, adolescents, and adults. Exposure factors and other values were largely obtained
from EPA's Standard Default Exposure Assumptions, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Parts E and F, and a 1991 study on fish consumption and are detailed in the BHHRA.
7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
The types of adverse health effects associated with contaminant exposures and the relationship
between magnitude of exposure and severity of adverse health effects were determined. Potential
health effects are contaminant-specific and may include the risk of developing cancer over a
lifetime or other non-cancer health effects, such as changes in the normal functions of organs
within the body (e.g., changes in the effectiveness of the immune system). Some contaminants are
capable of causing both cancer and non-cancer health effects.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic risks and non-cancer hazards due to
exposure to site chemicals are considered separately. Consistent with current EPA policy, it was
assumed that the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus, cancer risks
and non-cancer hazards associated with exposures to individual COPCs were summed to indicate
the potential risks and hazards associated with mixtures of potential carcinogens and
noncarcinogens, respectively.
Non-Cancer Toxicity Values: Toxicity data for the BHHRA were obtained from the EPA
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, the Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity
Database (PPRTV), or another source that was identified as an appropriate reference for toxicity
values. This information is detailed in Table 4: Non-Cancer Toxicity Data Summary. Additional
toxicity information for all other COPCs are available in the BHHRA. Table 5 identifies chronic
toxicity values including information on the Oral Reference Dose (RfD) and Inhalation Reference
Concentration (RfC).
Cancer Toxicity Values: Chemicals are classified based on the potential to cause cancer. The five
classifications include: Known Human Carcinogen, Probable Human Carcinogen, Possible Human
Carcinogen, Not Classifiable Human Carcinogen, and Non-Human Carcinogen. In addition.
17
-------
Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs) are used to evaluate plausible upper bound estimates of actual cancer
risks when combined with exposure assumptions. Table 5: Cancer Toxicity Data Summary
summarizes the cancer toxicity data for oral and inhalation exposures for the chemicals evaluated
in the BHHRA.
7.1.4 Risk Characterization
This step summarized and combined outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide
a quantitative assessment of Site risks. Exposures were evaluated based on the potential risk of
developing cancer and the potential for non-cancer health hazards.
Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Non-cancer hazards were assessed using a HI approach, based on a comparison of expected
contaminant intakes and benchmark comparison levels of intake (RfDs, RfCs). RfDs and RfCs are
estimates of daily exposure levels for humans (including sensitive individuals) which are thought
to be safe over a lifetime of exposure. The estimated intake of chemicals identified in
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water)
is compared to the RfDs or the RfCs to derive the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for the contaminant in
the particular media. The HI is obtained by adding the HQs for all compounds within a particular
medium that impacts a particular receptor population.
The HQ for oral and dermal exposures is calculated as below. The HQ for inhalation exposures is
calculated using a similar model that incorporates the RfC, rather than the RfD.
HQ = Intake/RfD
Where: HQ = Hazard Quotient
Intake = estimated intake for a chemical (mg/kg-day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
The intake and the RfD represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic, sub-chronic, or acute).
The HI is calculated by summing the HQs for all chemicals for likely exposure scenarios for a
specific population (e.g., young child, adolescent, or adult). The non-cancer HI is a "threshold
level," set at an HI of less than 1, below which non-cancer health effects are not expected to occur.
An HI greater than 1 indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur
due to site-related exposures, with the potential for health effects increasing as the HI increases.
When the calculated HI for all chemicals for a specific population exceeds 1, separate HQ values
are then calculated for those chemicals which are known to act on the same target organ. These
discrete HI values are then compared to the acceptable limit of 1 to evaluate the potential for non-
cancer health effects on a specific target organ. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or
across media. A summary of the noncarcinogenic hazards associated with these chemicals for each
exposure pathway is provided in Table 6: Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Hazards for Transects 10 to 25 for those transects with non-cancer His greater than the goal of
protection of HI = 1.
18
-------
Table 6 indicates that the HI for non-cancer effects are primarily from PCBs (effects on the
immune system). The Young Child Resident in Transects 10, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25 exhibits
His above 1 as a result of exposure to PCBs via floodplain soil. The adult, adolescent, and young
child consuming fish from the creek exceeded an HI equal to 1, primarily due to PCBs.
Carcinogenic Risks
For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a carcinogen, using the CSF for oral
and dermal exposures and the inhalation unit risk (RJR) for inhalation exposures. Excess lifetime
cancer risk for oral and dermal exposures is calculated from the equation below, while the equation
for inhalation exposures uses the IUR, rather than the CSF. Table 7: Risk Characterization
Summary - Cancer Risks, provides the results.
Risk = LADD x SF
Where: Risk = a unitless probability (1 x 10"6) of an individual developing cancer
LADD = lifetime average daily dose averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day)
SF = cancer slope factor, expressed as [1/(mg/kg-day)]
These risks are probabilities that are usually expressed in scientific notation (such as 1 x 10"4). An
excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"4 indicates that one additional incidence of cancer may occur
in a population of 10,000 people who are exposed under the conditions identified in the assessment.
Again, as stated in the NCP, the acceptable risk range for site-related exposure is 10"6 to 10"4.
Results of the BHHRA presented in Tables 6 and 7 provide the Risk Characterization for Non-
carcinogens and Carcinogens, respectively. The following bullet explains how PCBs and dioxin-
like PCBs were evaluated:
The assessment evaluated potential cancer risks and non-cancer hazards from exposure to dioxin-
like and non-dioxin-like PCB congeners. The evaluation did not identify enhancement of risks and
hazards from exposures to PCBs. The Uncertainty Section describes these uncertainties.6
Table 7: Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens summarizes the calculated risks from
exposure to PCBs based on Aroclors 1248, 1254, and 1260. The Young Child Resident in Transect
19 exhibits a risk of 1.2 x 10"4 that exceeds the risk range of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4 as a result of
exposure to PCBs via floodplain soil. As shown in Table 7, cancer risks from ingestion of fish
6 PCBs are a group of man-made organic chemicals consisting of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine atoms. The number
of chlorine atoms and their location in a PCB molecule determine many of its physical and chemical properties. PCBs
have a range of toxicity. Compounds that have chemical structures, physico-chemical properties, and toxic responses
similar to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) arc referred to as "dioxin-like" PCBs. These chemicals persist
and bioaccumulatc in fatty tissues of animals and humans. EPA evaluates PCBs as dioxin-like and non-dioxin-like
compounds in the risk assessment based on sampling data results to ensure risks are appropriately captured.
19
-------
caught also exceeded the risk range for the adult (3.7 x 10"3), adolescent (2.3 x 10"3), and young
child (2.0 x 10"3).
Lead
Lead was evaluated using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEIJBK) and Adult Lead
Model (ALM) models. The models evaluated potential blood lead levels and the percentage of
individuals with blood lead levels (BLLs) greater than 5%. Table 8 summarizes the Lead Model
Results for the adult and child.
The mean lead concentration was used to calculate the probability of the maternal blood level
exceeding the target blood level of 5 (.ig/dL in accordance with EPA guidance. Where risk from
lead was evaluated for non-residential exposure, the probability of exceeding 5 (.ig/dL was less
than 5%.
The IEIJBK model results show that sediment exposures in Reaches 6 and 7 are associated with
predicted elevated BLLs greater than the goal of 5% or less of the exposed population with BLLs
greater than 5 (.ig/dL. Exposures to floodplain soil in the transects identified in Table 8 are
associated with predicted elevated BLLs above the goal of no more than 5% of the populations
with BLLs above 5 (.ig/dL.
Section 8.1 details the remediation goals for lead in soil. Further detail on the non-cancer hazards
and cancer risks from all COCs, as well as the evaluation of exposure to lead, can be found in the
BHHRA.
7.2 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.
In July 2018, a screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) was completed for the full
length of the Creek. The purpose of the SLERA was to assess risk posed to ecological receptors
because of Site-related contaminants. The SLERA indicates that ecological risks may be present
for benthic macroinvertebrates and wildlife that consume invertebrates from soil or sediment. A
copy of the Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment, dated July 2018, is available in
the Administrative Record file for this Operable Unit.
20
-------
In an effort to better define risks, in 2019 and 2020 additional sampling was conducted to
investigate sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation of contaminants from soil and sediment into
invertebrates that reside in those media. The results were incorporated in a baseline ecological risk
assessment (BERA).
While the BERA evaluated the portion of the Creek beginning at the end of the Creek Corridor
(Harwood Street) and continuing to where the Creek discharges into Lake Ontario in Olcott, the
evaluation of potential ecological hazards and chemical of potential ecological concerns
(COPECs) was separated into three distinct areas of the Creek. The three areas are: (1)
Downstream from Burt Dam, (2) Between Burt Dam and Newfane Dam, and (3) Upstream from
Newfane Dam. For the purposes of this Proposed Plan, the results presented below are for the area
upstream of Newfane Dam, including the STA.
Surface Soil
Terrestrial invertivores wildlife (e.g., American robin and shrew) are highly at risk to surface soil
exposure. Through direct exposure, incidental ingestion of contaminated soil and consumption of
contaminated food items it was determined that several contaminants of concern (COCs) pose a
risk to terrestrial invertivores that feed and dwell within the flood plain soils (i.e., HQs exceeded
1.0 for one or more contaminants). COCs, including PCBs and lead, can accumulate in soil fauna
and subsequently put American robin and shrew at risk to COCs exposures.
Sediment
Insectivorous aquatic-dependent wildlife (e.g., tree swallow and little brown bat) and fish-eating
wildlife (e.g., great blue heron and mink) are highly at risk to sediment exposure. Through direct
exposure, incidental ingestion of contaminated sediment and consumption of contaminated food
items it was determined that several COCs, including PCBs and lead, pose a risk to insectivorous
aquatic-dependent life and fish-eating wildlife that feed and dwell within the contaminated
sediment (i.e., HQs exceeded 1.0 for one or more contaminants). COCs accumulated in benthic
macroinvertebrates and forage fish population can put tree swallow, little brown bat, blue heron
and mink at risk to COCs exposures.
Overall, the BERA results revealed a wide range of contaminants that present risks to various
ecological receptors. The major source of risk from Site-related contaminants are PCBs and metals.
The affected ecological receptors are insectivorous aquatic dependent wildlife (e.g., tree swallow
and little brown bat), terrestrial insectivorous wildlife (e.g., American robin and shrew), and fish-
eating wildlife (e.g., great blue heron and mink). Based on the results of the BERA, ecological
receptors in areas upstream from Newfane Dam are greatly affected by contaminants.
7.3 Summary of Human Health and Ecological Risks
The results of the HHRA indicate that contamination present in the STA poses unacceptable cancer
risks and non-cancer health hazards. In addition, concentrations of lead in soil at adjacent
floodplain properties exceed EPA's goal of protection, no more than 5% of the population with
BLLs above 5 |ig/dL. The consumption of fish from the STA within OU3 of the Site also presents
an unacceptable human health exposure risk (cancer risks and non-cancer hazards). Overall, the
21
-------
BHHRA found cancer risks and non-cancer hazards for various receptors including the
current/future recreational user; current and future visitor/trespasser; were within the risk range
and below the goal of protection of a Hazard Quotient (HQ)/HI of 1. Surface water exposure did
not pose a risk or hazard above EPA's thresholds. Details of all the exposure pathways evaluated
but not included in the ROD can be found in the BHHRA for the sites. The BERA results also
caused EPA to conclude that PCBs, copper, lead, and PAHs pose a potential risk to terrestrial
plants, soil invertebrates, benthos, and terrestrial and aquatic dependent wildlife.
7.4 Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in these evaluations, 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 error 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 would
come in contact with the COCs, the period of time over which such exposure would occur, and in
the models used to estimate the concentrations of the chemicals at the point of exposure. Exposure
Point Concentrations (EPCs) for fish tissue were based on tissue samples including both skinless
and skin-on fillet samples, consistent with EPA guidance. EPCs derived for organic COCs in fish
may be overestimated for those individuals consuming only skinless fillets since fatty tissues
concentrate many organic compounds. Conversely, the EPC derived for methyl mercury in fish
may be underestimated for those individuals consuming only skinless fillets (mercury concentrates
in muscle tissue).
EPCs for all COCs may be underestimated for those individuals consuming whole fish. In addition,
PCBs, dioxins, furans, and dioxin-like PCBs were evaluated in the HHRA. In the environment,
PCBs occur as mixtures whose compositions differ from the commercial mixtures (Aroclors). This
is because after release into the environment, the mixture composition changes over time through
partitioning, chemical transformation, and preferential bioaccumulation discussed in EPA's
publication: "PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental
Mixtures" published in 1996.
PCB congener data are useful for assessing potential risks and hazards from environmental PCB
contamination when PCB patterns from Aroclors are weathered or degraded and for comparison
with available historical tissue data. The HHRA did not find enhancement of dioxin-like PCBs.
All of the receptors and exposure scenario combinations are considered possible under
current/future conditions for the different exposure areas and were quantitatively evaluated.
22
-------
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from studies in 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 OU3 of the Site, and
it is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
Non-cancer hazards and cancer risks were quantified only for a selected subset (the COPCs) of
chemicals detected in environmental media. While omission of other chemicals based on screening
or lack of toxicity information may underestimate total non-cancer hazards and cancer risks, this
is not considered a significant source of uncertainty because the chemicals that were excluded were
present at low concentrations. More specific information concerning public health risks, including
a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is
presented in the HHRA.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative evaluation of
the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the BHHRA and
BERA reports.
7.5 Basis for Taking Action
Based on the results of the OU3 RI/FS, HHRA, and BERA, actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from OU3, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in
the ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or
the environment.
8.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are specific media-specific goals to protect human health and
the environment; they specify the contaminant(s) of concern, the exposure route(s), receptor(s),
and acceptable contaminant level(s) for each exposure route. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), to-be-considered (TBC) advisories, criteria and guidance, and site-specific risk-based
levels and background (i.e., reference area) concentrations.
Interim and final remedial action objectives have been established for OU3:
Sediment Interim RAOs:
Reduce the mass, transport, and exposure to PCBs in sediment throughout the Creek
channel by remediating areas that serve as sources of COCs to the Creek system.
Floodplain Soil Final RAOs:
Minimize human exposure risk from contact with contaminated floodplain soil by reducing
COC concentrations in soil to remedial goals.
Minimize risks to ecological receptors from contact with contaminated floodplain soil by
reducing the COC concentrations in soil to remedial goals.
Minimize the transport of floodplain soil containing COCs by reducing the potential for
interaction with adjacent areas and the Creek.
23
-------
8.1 Remediation Goals
Achieving RAOs relies on the remedial alternative's ability to meet remediation goals/ cleanup
levels derived from remediation goals (RGs), which are generally chemical-specific goals for each
medium and/or exposure route that are established to protect human health and the environment.
They can be based on such factors as ARARs, risk, and from comparison to background levels of
contaminants in the environment that occur naturally or are from other industrial sources.
To achieve the floodplain soil RAOs, EPA has identified a soil cleanup goal, or RG, for
contaminated soil to attain a degree of cleanup that ensures the protection of human health and the
environment. The two-tiered RG for lead in soils described below is based on the New York State" s
6 NYCRR Part 375 Residential Soil Cleanup Objectives and EPA Region 2's lead approach
consistent with OLEM Directive 9200.2-167. The remediation goal is also consistent with the 2024
"OLEM Updated Residential Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective
Action Facilities," which establishes a regional screening level (RSL) of 200 ppm where there are
no additional sources of lead (e.g., lead water service lines, lead-based paint non-attainment areas
where lead concentrations exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards) are present.7
The following remediation goals have been identified for adjacent floodplain residential, including
agricultural, properties within the ST A:
Lead: 400 ppm8'9
PCBs: 1 ppm
The following remediation goals have been identified for adjacent surface (0 to 2 ft) floodplain
commercial properties within the ST A:
Lead: 1,000 ppm
PCBs: 1 ppm
The RGs for surface commercial soils are consistent with the RGs established in the OU2 remedy.
It is EPA's expectation that by targeting PCBs and lead, risks posed by other contaminants found
in floodplain soil, such as mercury, would also be addressed. The remedy to be selected for
floodplain soils in the STA is intended to be a final remedy. However, the proposed interim remedy
for sediments in the STA is not intended to attain acceptable COC levels in all media throughout
the Creek. A future, final remedy will establish acceptable COC levels in sediments that are
protective of human health and the environment. An interim remedy should be consistent with and
7 Updated Scientific Considerations for Lead in Soil Cleanups. December 22, 2016
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1884174.pdf and Updated Residential Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and
RCRA Corrective Action Facilities https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-01/olem-residential-lead-soil-
guidance-2024_signed_508.pdf
8 In addition to targeting detections of lead above 400 ppm. the average soil concentration across each residential
property will be at or below 200 ppm.
9 By remediating floodplain soils to an average concentration at or below 200 ppm. the goal of protection (target blood
lead level of 5 ug/dL) outlined in the 2024 Updated Residential Soil Lead Guidance will be met. These levels would
also be protective of recreational users and ecological receptors.
24
-------
not preclude a final protective remedy. Interim action remediation goals are associated with the
interim actions and reflect the limited scope of the interim action.
To achieve the interim sediment remedy RAOs, a remedial action level (RAL) of 1 ppm for PCBs
will be used to delineate PCB source sediments within the ST A for remediation. The RAL of 1
ppm is consistent with other sediment cleanups in New York State. This RAL is not a final RG for
the Creek sediments, however, and the practical outcome of this RAL is that a large mass of source
material that is acting as a continuing source to the rest of Eighteen Mile Creek will be addressed.
The RAL of 1 ppm for PCBs satisfies the interim RAO of source control and PCB migration
reduction. In addition, given the widespread presence of PCBs, addressing PCBs above the RAL
in the ST A is also expected to address other potential co-located contaminants, such as lead and
mercury.
As indicated in the Scope and Role of Action section above, a separate comprehensive evaluation
would be conducted for the full length of the Creek. A subsequent or final remedy will identify the
final RAOs and remediation goals for sediment along the entire length of the Creek.
9.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Section 12l(b)( 1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(l), requires that a remedial action be
protective of human health and the environment, be cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Section 12 l(b)( 1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ, as
a principal element, treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site. Section 121(d) further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of control of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at least attains ARARs under federal and state
laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C.
§9621(d)(4).
To address the RAOs, the FS identified three primary areas that have the greatest potential for
transporting significant contamination downstream based upon transport modeling and data
identifying the areas with the highest levels of contamination. The three primary areas identified
in the FS Report are the STA and two sediment depositional areas (SDAs) located immediately
upstream of Newfane Dam and Burt Dam (represented by Reaches 2 and 5, respectively). While
the STA was identified as the primary source of continuing contamination related to elevated
contaminant concentrations that occur with sediment erosion and surface water flow from the East
Branch, contaminated sediments have accumulated and are present behind the impoundment areas
of both Newfane Dam and Burt Dam. While the FS Report included remedial alternatives for the
two SDAs and floodplain soil adjacent to the SDAs, for the purposes of this ROD, alternatives for
the two SDAs and floodplain soil not adjacent to the STA are not being addressed at this time. As
indicated in the Scope and Role of Action section, above, further evaluations and long-term
monitoring of these areas is needed before a cleanup plan for these remaining portions of the Creek
can be developed.
Potential technologies applicable to sediment contamination within the STA as well as
contaminated floodplain soil at properties adjacent to the STA were identified and screened using
25
-------
the effectiveness, implementability, and cost criteria, with emphasis on effectiveness. Those
technologies that passed the initial screening were assembled into alternatives.
This ROD evaluates in detail eight remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination
associated with the Site. The time to implement a remedial alternative reflects only the time
required to construct or implement the remedy and does not include the time required to negotiate
with the responsible parties, design the remedy, procure contracts for design and construction, or
conduct operation and maintenance at the Site. Detailed information regarding the alternatives can
be found in the FS Report.
9.1 Description of Common Elements of Sediment Alternatives
All of the sediment alternatives, with the exception of STA1 ('No Action) and STA2 (Monitored
Natural Recovery, Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional Controls), would include the
following common components:
Sediment Delineation and Cultural Resource Evaluation: Based on data collected to date, an
estimated 80% of the STA Creek bed area exceeds the RAL. During the remedial design, additional
sampling would be conducted to refine the areas requiring remediation. In addition, a Phase IB
cultural resource investigation would be performed to assess the presence or absence of
archaeological deposits.
During implementation of the remedial action, temporary cofferdams or other barriers would be
installed to divert water around active work areas to allow for excavation in dry conditions.
Diversion piping would be used to divert water around the work area. Excavated sediment would
be transferred from the Creek to the staging area. Confirmation samples would be collected at the
bottom of excavation to verify the RAL has been met. Confirmation samples would be analyzed
for PCBs, and additional excavation and sampling may be required to demonstrate the RAL has
been met.
Access Roads: Access roads and staging areas would be constructed in upland areas to allow
equipment access and facilitate implementation of the proposed remedial activities along the
Creek. A staging area for contaminated material storage and dewatering, wastewater treatment,
and clean fill material storage would be established. Construction would require clearing and
grubbing of vegetation. Following remediation of the Creek, the access roads and staging areas
would be removed, and the areas restored in accordance with the habitat reconstruction plan.
Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Sediment: Excavated sediment exceeding RALs would be
transported off-Site for disposal at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or a Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulated landfill, as appropriate, based on the concentrations of
contaminants in the excavated sediment. If necessary to meet the requirements of the disposal
facilities, contaminated material would be treated prior to land disposal.
Construction Monitoring: Water quality downstream of the work areas would be monitored
during construction activities. Air quality would be monitored throughout construction activities
to protect workers and the public.
26
-------
Long Term Monitoring: A monitoring plan would be developed during the remedial design to
track PCB concentrations in sediment, surface water and fish tissue to monitor aquatic media. The
monitoring plan would evaluate remaining residual soil contamination in the floodplain soil, the
potential for bank erosion, and an assessment of the fate and transport mechanisms of the
remaining contamination to contaminate sediments in the Creek. Results would be used to assess
the effectiveness of the remedial alternative in reducing PCB concentrations in fish tissue and to
develop a final remedy for the Creek.
Institutional Controls: Institutional controls refer to non-engineering measures intended to ensure
the protectiveness of a remedy and to restrict human activities so as to prevent or reduce the
potential for exposure to contaminated media. Institutional controls in the form of informational
devices, such as NYSDOH fish consumption advisories, would continue to be implemented to
limit exposure to PCBs. NYSDOH periodically reviews fish PCB data to ensure the advisories are
up to date and considers whether the fish consumption advisories need modification.
9.2 Description of Sediment Transition Area (STA) Remedial Alternatives
Alternative STA1: No Action
Alternative 1, the "No Action" alternative, is required by the NCP to provide an environmental
baseline against which impacts of the other remedial alternatives can be compared. No action
would be initiated to remediate contaminated media or otherwise mitigate the migration of
contamination that poses unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. This alternative
also does not include monitoring or institutional controls.
Alternative STA2: Monitored Natural Recovery. Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional
Controls
The Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) alternative for sediments relies on the naturally occurring
transport and deposition of cleaner upstream material to reduce exposure to contaminant
concentrations over time through burial.
A MNR monitoring program would be developed to document and evaluate the performance of
natural recovery, including the evaluation of changes in PCB concentrations over time as clean
sediment from upstream areas is deposited within the STA. This alternative also includes
institutional controls and long-term monitoring, as described in the Common Elements of the
Sediment Alternatives Section, above.
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
0 years
$0
$0
$0
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
$0
$337,000
$1,999,000
0 years
27
-------
Alternative STA3: Excavation. Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional Controls
Alternative STA3 includes the excavation of all sediment within the STA, consistent with the
response selected in the OU2 remedy of bank-to-bank excavation down to native material,
followed by backfilling with up to two feet of clean sand and covered with a suitable habitat layer
to create conditions for the reestablishment of natural conditions in the Creek. The RI investigation
found that PCBs above the RAL are present in sediments in Reach 7 down to 4 feet below the
sediment surface. In addition to targeting deeper sediments that exceed the RAL, this alternative
would include removal of PCBs at concentrations lower than the RAL of 1 ppm.
For the conceptual design, it is estimated that the average depth of sediment to native material is
less than two feet, resulting in the removal of an estimated 96,000 cubic yards of sediment.
Contaminated material would be sent for off-Site disposal.
Alternative STA4: Pre-Dredge to Accommodate Cap. Capping. Long-Term Monitoring, and
Institutional Controls
Alternative STA4 includes the excavation of approximately one foot of contaminated sediment in
areas within the STA that exceed the RAL followed by the placement of clean sand and suitable
habitat material to create a cap over the remaining contaminated sediment.
For the conceptual design, it is estimated that the removal of approximately one foot of existing
sediment is needed to support the placement of a cap that would minimize the potential for
mobilization of contaminated sediment without creating adverse impacts associated with flooding.
In addition, contaminated sediment with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm would be
removed regardless of the depth. Under this alternative, an estimated 41,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment would be excavated and sent for off-Site disposal.
Alternative STA5: Excavation to RAL. Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional Controls
Alternative STA5 includes the excavation of contaminated sediment above the RAL within the
STA followed by backfilling with clean sand and covering with a suitable habitat layer to create
conditions for the reestablishment of natural conditions in the Creek.
For the conceptual design, it is estimated that the average depth of the excavation to meet the RAL
would be approximately 1.3 feet, resulting in the removal of an estimated 54,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment. Contaminated material would be sent for off-Site disposal. While
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
$102,273,000
$268,000
$82,440,000
16 months
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
$61,940,000
$296,000
$53,025,000
12 months
28
-------
estimated excavation depths across the STA were calculated in the FS, the estimated excavation
depth was based on the average depths of samples exceeding the RAL. Post-excavation sampling
would be performed prior to backfilling to confirm that the RAL has been met.
9.3 Description of Common Elements of Floodplain Soil Alternatives
Each of the floodplain soil alternatives, with the exception of Soil 1 (No Action), include the
following common components:
Remediation Areas: Sampling in flood-prone areas conducted as part of the R1 revealed 17 areas
adjacent to the STA that are impacted by Site-related contamination requiring remediation. The
FS Report divides remediation areas into the following two categories.
Adjacent floodplain soil areas (not farmland or developed residential areas); and
Adjacent farmland and developed residential floodplain soil areas.
The purple-colored sections within the STA on Figure 2 represent the floodplain soil remediation
areas. Refer to Figures 5-18 through 5-22 in the FS Report for the specific areas targeted for
remediation depicted by creek reach.
During the remedial design, additional sampling of floodplain soil adjacent to the STA would be
conducted to further delineate nature and extent and refine volume estimates. The additional
sampling would also provide a better estimate of the residual contamination remaining in the
floodplain soil, thereby providing data needed to conduct the assessment of the fate and transport
mechanisms of the remaining contamination in the floodplain, as outlined in the discussion on
future operable units and the long-term monitoring plan as outlined in the common elements
section for the sediment alternatives. EPA conservatively assumed that contaminated soil extends
to 2 feet deep although samples in the remedial investigation only went to a depth of 1 foot.
Floodplain soils that were not sampled during the R1 but are prone to river flooding would also be
sampled as part of the remedial design. This additional data would be used for risk evaluations to
determine if, based on land use designations or the potential for floodplain soil to re-contaminate
sediments in the Creek, additional properties or areas require remediation. EPA has conservatively
estimated, for cost estimation purposes, that additional sampling may identify up to 1 1 additional
acres that would require remediation as part of this OU. In addition, floodplain soil sampling would
also be conducted downstream of the STA as part of a separate investigation. Separate response
actions or a future operable unit would address risks identified in floodplain soil downstream of
Excavation and Soil Management: Construction of the active floodplain soil alternatives would
require clearing and grubbing of vegetation. Temporary access roads from the remediation areas
to nearby public roads and the staging area would be constructed. Excavated contaminated
floodplain soil would be transported to a staging area for storage and dewatering prior to off-Site
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
$75,104,000
$237,000
$60,769,000
9 months
the STA.
29
-------
disposal. Erosion and sediment controls at each remediation area would be installed to prevent the
migration of floodplain soil to the Creek. Water and air quality would be monitored during
construction. In areas requiring excavation, verification samples would be collected to confirm
that contaminated soil in excess of the RGs has been removed and the remedial action objectives
have been met. Excavated areas would be backfilled by placing clean fill material and topsoil.
Following remediation of the Creek, access roads and staging areas would be removed, and
impacted areas would be restored in accordance with the habitat reconstruction plan.
Site Management Plan (SMP): Development of a SMP to provide for management of floodplain
soil postconstruction, including the use of institutional controls and periodic reviews for those
alternatives where contamination is left in place above levels that allow for unrestricted use.
9.4 Description of Floodplain Soil (Soil) Remedial Alternatives
Alternative Soil 1: No Action
Alternative 1, the "No Action" alternative, is required by the NCP to provide an environmental
baseline against which impacts of the other remedial alternatives can be compared. No action
would be initiated to remediate contaminated media or otherwise mitigate the migration of
contamination that poses unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. This alternative
also does not include monitoring or institutional controls.
Alternative Soil2: Limited Floodplain Soil Excavation. Soil Cover, and Institutional Controls
Under this alternative, lead and PCB-contaminated floodplain soil would be addressed through a
combination of excavation and/or installation of a cover system based on land use. While
floodplain soil areas in residential and farmland areas would be excavated to remove all
contaminated soil above the RGs and backfilled with clean topsoil, non-developed areas including
commercial areas would have a soil cover system installed. The cover system, with an estimated
thickness of two to three feet, would be vegetated and constructed to isolate floodplain soil
exceeding the RGs from erosion, transport, and/or migration to surrounding areas. In areas with
steep slopes, riprap would be placed as the top layer to prevent erosion. During the remedial design,
investigations would be conducted to determine the need for the addition of amendments, such as
activated carbon, as well as to evaluate the impact of the cover system on wetlands.
Because contaminated soil would remain at the impacted properties adjacent to the STA above
levels that would otherwise allow for unrestricted use following remediation, institutional controls
would be implemented. Institutional controls may include environmental easements/ restrictive
covenants, deed notices, and/or zoning restrictions to limit future use of the properties and would
require maintenance of the cover material and impose restrictions on excavation of these
properties.
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
0 years
$0
$0
$0
30
-------
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining at the Site that are above levels
that would otherwise allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, CERCLA requires that
the Site be reviewed at least once every five years. If justified by the review, additional response
actions may be implemented.
Alternative Soil3: Floodplain Soil Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
This alternative includes the excavation and off-Site disposal of PCB- and lead-contaminated
floodplain soil exceeding the RGs adjacent to the ST A regardless of the land use designation.
These areas would be backfilled with clean fill and topsoil.
Because contaminated soil would remain at the impacted commercial properties adjacent to the
STA above levels that would otherwise allow for unrestricted use following remediation,
institutional controls would be implemented. Institutional controls may include environmental
easements/ restrictive covenants, deed notices, and/or zoning restrictions to limit future use of the
commercial properties and impose restrictions on excavation.
10.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy for a site, EPA considers the factors set out in Section 12 l(b)( 1) of CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(l), by conducting a detailed analysis of the viable remedial alternatives
pursuant to the NCP, 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(e)(9), EPA's Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, and EPA's A Guide to
Preparing Super fund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision
Documents, OSWER 9200.1-23.P. The detailed analysis consists of an assessment of the
individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria and a comparative analysis focusing
upon the relative performance of each alternative against those criteria.
The first two criteria are known as "threshold criteria" because they are the minimum requirements
that each response measure must meet in order to be eligible for selection:
1. 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.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the
applicable (legally enforceable), or relevant and appropriate (requirements that pertain to
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
$42,941,000
$51,000
$39,363,000
2 years
Total Capital Cost:
Total O&M:
Total Present Net Worth:
Construction Timeframe:
$149,125,000
$0
$131,307,000
2 years
31
-------
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site such that their use
is well suited to the site) requirements of federal and state environmental statutes and
requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver. Other federal or state advisories,
criteria, or guidance may be identified by EPA as "to be considered", or "TBCs". While
TBCs are not required to be adhered to under the NCP, they may be useful in determining
what is protective or how to carry out certain actions or requirements.
The following "five primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to identify the
major trade-offs between alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers 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, effectiveness and reliability of the
measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or
untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment refers to a remedial technology's
expected ability to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants at the site through treatment.
5. 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 to workers, the
community and the environment during the construction and implementation periods until
cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, from
design through construction and operation, including the availability of materials and
services needed, administrative feasibility, and coordination with other governmental
entities.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the net present-
worth costs calculated using a 7% discount rate.
The following "modifying" criteria are used in the final evaluation of the remedial alternatives
after the formal comment period, and they may prompt modification of the preferred remedy that
was presented in the Proposed Plan:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and the Proposed
Plan, the State supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the preferred
alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives described
in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be
discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives considered in this OU3 ROD, based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above, follows.
32
-------
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment determines whether an alternative
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment through institutional
controls, engineering controls, or treatment.
Sediment Alternatives
Alternative STA1 ('No Action) is not protective of human health and the environment because it
does not eliminate, reduce, or control risk of exposure to contaminated sediment. STA2 relies on
natural processes, such as sedimentation to cover the surface sediment with cleaner sediment from
upstream, in order to reduce the PCB concentration at the sediment surface and reduce risk. While
sedimentation of clean backfill material from the cleanup of upstream Creek Corridor as part of
OU2 is expected to result in some reduction of contaminant concentrations within the STA over
time, because sediment within the STA is prone to resuspension, the redistribution and
redeposition of contaminated sediment to downstream areas is likely. As a result. Alternative
STA2 would not achieve the RAOs.
While Alternatives ST A3, STA4, and STA5 each include removal of contaminated sediments,
under Alternative STA4, only contaminants within the top one foot would be removed followed
by the installation of a cap to prevent mobilization or exposure to underlying contaminated
sediment. Therefore, while Alternatives ST A3, STA4, and TA5 would achieve the RAOs, under
Alternative STA4 monitoring and maintenance of the cap would be required to ensure protection
over the long term.
Floodplain Soil Alternatives
Alternative Soil 1 (No Action) is not protective of human health and the environment because it
does not eliminate, reduce, or control risk of exposure to contaminated floodplain soil. Alternative
Soil2 and Alternative Soil3 would be protective of human health and the environment as
contaminated material would either be removed from the Site or capped. Under Alternative Soil2,
contaminated soils would remain in place above the RGs in non-developed areas or areas not used
as farmland, and protection would be achieved through the placement of cover material and
implementation of institutional controls.
10.2 Compliance with ARARs
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements of other federal and state environmental statutes or provides a basis
for invoking a waiver.
Sediment Alternatives
There are currently no federal or state promulgated standards for contaminant levels in sediments.
There are, however, other federal or state advisories, criteria, or guidance (which are used as TBC
criteria). Specifically, NYSDEC's "Screening and Assessment of Contaminated Sediment
Guidance" (2014) sediment screening values are a TBC criterion. The RAL of 1 ppm for PCBs is
consistently evaluated and often applied at contaminated sediment sites in New York State. This
33
-------
value is also supported by NYSDEC's "Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated
Sediments"
Because the contaminated sediments would not be addressed under Alternative STA1, the RAL
for PCBs would not be achieved. Under Alternative STA2, a long-term monitoring program would
track if there were progress toward achieving the RAL over the long term. Alternative STA3 would
achieve the RAL through the full removal of sediment. Alternative STA4 would achieve the RAL
through a combination of isolation and removal of sediment. STA5 would achieve the RAL
through the removal of sediments that exceed the RAL.
Because there is no active remediation associated with the sediment for Alternative STA 1 or
STA2, action-specific and location-specific ARARs do not apply. Alternatives STA3 through
STA5 are expected to comply with action-specific and location-specific ARARs for water quality
monitoring during excavation of sediments and wastewater discharge resulting from sediment
dewatering. Mitigation may be required to address location-specific ARARs in relation to the
construction of access roads through the floodplains and wetlands.
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a Stage IB Cultural Resource
Investigation would be performed during the design phase to evaluate the existence of cultural and
archaeological resources within the STA that could be impacted by the implementation of this
alternative.
RCRA and TSCA are federal laws that mandate procedures for managing, treating, transporting,
storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes and PCBs, respectively. All portions of RCRA that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the proposed remedy for the Site would be met by
Alternatives STA 1 through STA5, and all portions of TSCA would be met by Alternatives STA 1
through STA5 as well.
It should be noted that under CERCLA, remedial actions must comply with all federal and state
environmental requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations, unless such ARARs are waived
under certain specific conditions. Because the remedy for the STA portion of OU3 is an interim
remedy, identification of ARARs is not necessary at this time. It is nonetheless expected that each
of the selected remedies will be designed in such a way that attains location- and action-specific
ARARs. Chemical-specific ARARs would be addressed by the eventual, final remedy selected for
the full length of the Creek.
Floodplain Soil Alternatives
EPA has identified NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR Part 375 soil cleanup objectives as an ARAR, a TBC,
or an 'other guidance" to consider in addressing contaminated soil at OU3. Alternative Soil 1 would
not achieve RGs for soil because no measures would be implemented and contaminated soil would
remain in place. Alternative Soil2 would prevent direct contact with PCB- and lead-contaminated
soil exceeding the RGs through a combination of removal and capping. Under Alternative Soil2,
in order to comply with location-specific ARARs related to the protection of wetlands and
floodplains, mitigative measures or modification to the conceptual design of the cover system may
need to be evaluated during the design for areas that receive a cap because of the impacts to
wetlands and floodplain soils. Areas receiving a cover system would require long-term monitoring
and maintenance to verify continued compliance with ARARs. Soil3 complies with ARARs
34
-------
through the removal of PCB- and lead-contaminated soil exceeding the RGs. RCRA and TSCA
are federal laws that mandate procedures for managing, treating, transporting, storing and
disposing of hazardous wastes and PCBs. All portions of RCRA and TSC A that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the proposed remedy for OU3 would be required to be met with
Alternatives Soil2 and Soil3.
10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the ability of an alternative to maintain
protection of human health and the environment over time.
Sediment Alternatives
Alternatives STA1 and STA2 remove no PCBs from the Creek and include no active measures to
reduce residual risk at the Site. Neither option would prevent mobilization of PCBs in sediment
that are vulnerable to erosional forces. Each of these alternatives therefore would allow for the
continued exposure of PCBs over the long-term and thus do not promote long-term effectiveness
and permanence.
Alternative STA3 and Alternative STA5 reduce residual risk through excavation of PCB-
contaminated sediment. Alternative STA3 and Alternative STA5 are considered more permanent
than Alternative STA4. Alternative STA4 includes limited excavation of sediment followed by
capping to isolate the contaminated sediment, and long-term monitoring of the cap.
Low-lying areas within the City of Lockport are subject to flooding. The Resilient New York Flood
Mitigation Initiative Report for Eighteen Mile Creek, dated November 2020, states that more
frequent and intense precipitation events are expected because of climate change, resulting in a
higher likelihood of flooding along the Creek. The increased flooding may reduce the lifespan of
capping and backfill material through increased erosional forces from faster flow. If Alternative
STA4 is selected, an evaluation of the need for additional armoring would need to be performed
during the remedial design to ensure that the cap would withstand such events. In addition,
inspections of the cap would be conducted periodically, including after major storm events, and
any necessary maintenance of the cover system would be performed.
Floodplain Soil Alternatives
Alternative Soil 1 would not provide a permanent or long-term effective solution to contaminated
floodplain soil as no remediation would occur. Under Alternative Soil2, long-term risks at the
residential and farming properties would be permanently removed since contaminated floodplain
soil would be permanently removed and disposed of off-Site. At the commercial properties.
Alternative Soil2 provides long-term effectiveness through effective maintenance of a cover
system and institutional controls such as land-use restrictions. Under Alternative Soil3, long-term
risks would be permanently removed since contaminated floodplain soil would be excavated and
disposed of off-Site.
35
-------
10.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume via Treatment
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment evaluates an
alternative's use of treatment to reduce the harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability
to move in the environment and the amount of contamination present.
Sediment Alternatives
For Alternatives STA1 and STA2, the only possible way to reduce contaminant concentrations in
sediment would be natural recovery processes. Under these alternatives, there would be no
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. Alternatives STA3, STA4, and STA5
would permanently remove various volumes of sediment from the Creek through excavation,
although not through treatment. Off-Site treatment, if required, would reduce the toxicity of the
contaminated sediment prior to disposal. Placement of a cap, which is a component of Alternative
STA4, would provide reduction of mobility of the contaminated sediment through isolation of
contaminants, but would not reduce mobility through treatment.
Floodplain Soil Alternatives
Alternative Soil 1 would not achieve any reduction in the mobility, toxicity, or volume because
contaminated soil would remain in place as is. Alternative Soil2 would use a combination of
capping and removal to achieve a reduction in mobility, volume, and exposure to contaminants,
but not through treatment. Alternative Soil2 would not reduce the toxicity of the contaminants at
properties that are capped. Under Alternative Soil3, the mobility, volume, and exposure to
contaminants would be reduced but not through treatment. Furthermore, off-Site treatment, if
required, would reduce the toxicity of the contaminated soil prior to disposal.
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative and the
risks the alternative poses to workers, residents and the environment during implementation.
Sediment Alternatives
Alternatives STA 1 would not create new, adverse short-term impacts because no remediation
activities would take place. Alternative STA2 would have few adverse short-term impacts since
the only activities would be monitoring of conditions in the Creek to assess changes in site
conditions. Alternatives ST A3, STA4, and STA5 involve active remediation, similar in size and
scope, and have the potential for similar short-term risks. Based on the higher volume of sediment
that would be removed. Alternative STA3 would have the greatest duration of impacts given the
longer project schedule. No time is required for construction of Alternative STA 1 or Alternative
STA2. Alternatives ST A3, STA4, and STA5 are estimated to take 16, 12, and 9 months,
respectively.
The risks to remediation workers and nearby residents under all of the active alternatives would
be mitigated by following appropriate health and safety protocols, by exercising sound engineering
practices, and by utilizing proper protective equipment.
36
-------
Floodolain Soil Alternatives
Alternative Soil 1 would have no adverse short-term impacts or risks since no remediation activities
would take place. Both Alternatives Soil2 and Soil3 would have similar adverse short-term risks
associated with construction activities. Similar to the sediment alternatives, the risks to
remediation workers and nearby residents under all of the active alternatives would be mitigated
by following appropriate health and safety protocols, by exercising sound engineering practices,
and by utilizing proper protective equipment.
No time is required for construction of Alternative Soil 1. Time required for implementation of
Alternative Soil2 is estimated to take two years. Alternative Soil3 is also estimated to take two
years.
10.6 Implementability
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy from design
through construction and operation. Factors such as availability of services and materials,
administrative feasibility, and coordination with other governmental entities are also considered.
Sediment Alternatives
There are no implementability issues with Alternative STA1 and STA2, which do not involve any
active remediation. The technologies and methods to perform the active alternatives, ST A3, STA4,
and STA5, are well established. Given the topography, steep slopes, presence of heavy woods or
wetlands, and in water structures (e.g., bridges and culverts) in some sections of the STA, some of
the remediation areas may be difficult to access. Construction of temporary access roads for
multiple access points in addition to siting of the material stockpile and processing area for
excavated material may be logistically, but not necessarily technically, challenging because this
work would likely require use of a large area of private land in the vicinity of the STA. Under
Alternative STA4, one foot of contaminated sediment would be removed to facilitate the
installation of a cap. The design of this cap would need to take into consideration that the total
thickness of the cap should not impact the depth of open water or increase the potential for
flooding, both while ensuring that the cap would weather erosional forces resulting from storm
events. The cap specifications would be evaluated further during the remedial design. In addition,
in order to perform excavation activities under Alternatives STA3, STA4, and STA5, temporary
cofferdams or other barriers would be installed to divert water around active work areas to allow
for excavation in dry conditions. Because the release of water from the upstream Canal impacts
water flow in the Creek, coordination with the Canal Corporation regarding these releases is
essential. As it relates to the design and implementation of the OU2 selected remedy, EPA has
already been coordinating closely with the Canal Corporation on this matter.
Floodplain Soil Alternatives
Alternative Soil 1 would be the easiest to implement as there are no construction activities to
implement. Both Alternatives Soil2 and Soil3 use common construction technologies and are
technically feasible to implement. Alternative Soil2 may be slightly more difficult to implement
as the areas receiving the cover system would require long-term monitoring and maintenance.
37
-------
10.7 Cost
Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as present
worth cost. Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in terms of today's dollar
value. Cost estimates are expected to be accurate within a range of+50 to -30 percent. This is a
standard assumption in accordance with EPA guidance.
The estimated capital, operation and maintenance costs, and present worth costs assuming a 7%
discount rate over a period of 30 years are discussed in detail in the FS Report. The cost estimate
summary for the selected remedy is presented in Table 9 and Table 10, which can be found in
Appendix II. The cost estimates are based on the best available information. Alternative STA1
and SOIL1 have no cost because no activities are implemented. The estimated capital, annual
O&M, and total present-worth costs are presented below:
Alternative
Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
Present Worth
Sediment
STA1
$0
$0
$0
STA2
$0
$337,000
$1,999,000
STA3
$102,273,000
$268,000
$82,440,000
STA4
$61,940,000
$296,000
$53,025,000
STA5
$75,104,000
$237,000
$60,769,000
Floodplain Soi
Soil 1
$0
$0
$0
Soi 12
$42,941,000
$51,000
$39,363,000
Soi 13
$149,125,000
$0
$131,307,000
10.8 State/Support Agency & Tribal Acceptance
State/Support Agency acceptance considers whether the State and or Support Agency agrees with
the EPA's analyses and recommendations.
10.8.1 State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy. A letter of concurrence is attached in Appendix IV.
10.8.2 Tribal Acceptance
EPA provided the Proposed Plan and notification of the public meeting to the Tuscarora Nation.
The Tuscarora Nation provided no comments for the Proposed Plan. EPA will maintain its
consultation with the Tuscarora Nation for all future response actions planned for the Site.
10.9 Community Acceptance
Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with EPA's analyses and
preferred alternative. Comments received on the Proposed Plan are an important indicator of
community acceptance.
38
-------
EPA solicited input from the community on the remedial alternatives proposed for OU3 at the Site.
Verbal comments were received from community members at the August 1, 2024 public meeting
and were generally related to the nature and extent of contamination at the Site. A copy of the
public meeting transcript is provided as Attachment D to Appendix V. During the comment
period from July 19, 2024 through August 19, 2024, six comment letters were received via e-mail
or regular mail. Copies of the comment letters are provided as Attachment A to Appendix V.
Comments were generally positive and supportive of the preferred alternatives. Responses to the
questions and comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the public comment
period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix V).
11.0 PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTE
The NCP establishes an expectation that the EPA will use treatment to address the principal threats
posed by a site whenever practicable (NCP Section 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). The "principal threat"
concept is applied to the characterization of "source materials" at a Superfund site. A source
material is material that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
that act as a reservoir for the migration of contamination to groundwater, surface water, or air, or
act as a source for direct exposure. Principal threat wastes are those source materials considered
to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained or would present a
significant risk to human health or the environment in the event that exposure should occur. The
decision to treat these wastes is made on a site-specific basis through a detailed analysis of
alternatives, using the remedy selection criteria described above. The manner in which principal
threat wastes are addressed provides a basis for making a statutory finding that the remedy employs
treatment as a principal element.
Based upon EPA"s guidance, principal threats at commercial properties include soils contaminated
at concentrations greater than or equal to 500 ppm PCBs. For residential areas, principal threats
will generally include soils contaminated with PCBs at concentrations greater than 100 ppm.
EPA's findings to date have not revealed the presence of principal threat wastes in floodplain soil
or elsewhere in OU3.
12.0 SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon the requirements of CERCLA, the results of OU3 investigations, the detailed analysis
of the alternatives, and public comments, EP A has determined that Alternative STA5: Excavation
to RAL, Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional Controls and Alternative Soil3: Floodplain Soil
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal best satisfy the requirements of CERCLA Section 121, 42
U.S.C. §9621, and provides the best balance of tradeoffs among the remedial alternatives with
respect to the NCP's nine evaluation criteria, 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9).
12.1 Description of the Selected Remedy
The major components of the selected sediment interim remedy include the following:
Excavation of contaminated sediment that exceeds the RAL of 1 ppm for PCBs within the
STA followed by backfilling with clean sand and covering with a suitable habitat layer to
create conditions for the re-establishment of natural conditions in the Creek.
39
-------
Construction of access roads and staging areas in upland areas. Following remediation of
the Creek, removal of the access roads and staging areas in accordance with the habitat
reconstruction plan.
Water and air quality monitoring during construction.
Development of a monitoring plan to track PCB concentrations in sediment, surface water,
and fish tissue over time in the STA.
Institutional controls in the form of informational devices to limit exposure to PCBs. EPA
is relying on existing NYSDOH fish consumption advisories. NYSDOH periodically
reviews fish PCB data to ensure the advisories are up to date and considers whether the
fish consumption advisories need modification. Other informational devices could include
outreach programs to inform the public to promote knowledge of and voluntary compliance
with the fish consumption advisories.
The major components of the selected floodplain soil final remedy include the following:
Excavation and off-Site disposal of PCB- and lead-contaminated floodplain soil exceeding
the remediation goals adj acent to the STA regardless of the land use designation. Backfill
of excavated areas with clean fill material and topsoil.
Construction of temporary access roads from the remediation areas to the closest public
roads and the staging area.
Implementation of erosion and sediment controls at each remediation area to prevent the
migration of floodplain soil to the Creek.
Water and air quality monitoring during construction.
Following remediation of the Creek, removal of the access roads and staging areas, and
restoration of the impacted areas in accordance with the habitat reconstruction plan.
Development of a SMP to provide for management of floodplain soil post-construction,
including the use of institutional controls to limit future use of the commercial properties
and impose restrictions on excavation, and periodic reviews.
During the remedial design, additional sampling of floodplain soil adjacent to the STA will be
conducted. Risk evaluations, based on land use designations, will be performed to determine if
additional properties or areas require remediation. The Creek banks will be a particular area of
attention due to their high potential for use and COC exposure by human and ecologic receptors
and their potential to be a source of COC release and transport and to re-contaminate the OU3
sediment remedy if unaddressed. Design sampling will ensure that Creek banks that exceed RALs
are delineated for remediation. The selected remedy is a final remedy for addressing floodplain
soil in the STA.
In addition, EPA's investigations of groundwater within the Creek Corridor have not revealed a
source of the generally low-level VOCs concentrations detected in groundwater. As a result, no
action will be taken to address Creek Corridor groundwater.
The remaining areas of the Creek (commencing immediately downstream of the STA to the
Creek's discharge at Lake Ontario) that are not addressed by this ROD would be addressed under
separate, future action(s). The impoundment areas upstream of Newfane Dam and Burt Dam have
historically acted as sinks for contaminated sediment, and, as such, these areas have been identified
as potential sources of downstream contamination in the event of a change in the flow regime of
40
-------
the Creek. These remaining areas require additional evaluation to establish a final remedy for the
full length of the Creek. This evaluation will identify and address the following:
data gaps including the nature and extent of contamination within these remaining areas;
the characteristics of the sediment bed behind the Newfane and Burt dams;
a study of the impacts from having addressed the source areas;
an assessment of the fate and transport mechanisms of the remaining contamination in the
Creek, including residual soil contamination following excavation of floodplain soil in the
STA;
bathymetry monitoring of sediment to evaluate recovery, accumulation and/or erosion; and
a long-term monitoring program.
After a comprehensive evaluation of the full length of the Creek is conducted, a final remedy for
the entire length of the Creek will be determined. The final remedy would include final remediation
goals for contaminated sediment, including the Creek Corridor (OU2) and the STA (OU3), as well
as any additional remedial action objectives that are determined necessary, including for additional
media such as surface water. In addition, floodplain soil sampling will be conducted downstream
of the STA as part of a separate investigation. Separate response actions or a future operable unit(s)
would address risks identified in floodplain soil downstream of the STA.
12.2 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy
While Alternative STA5 is more expensive than Alternatives STA2 and STA4, Alternative STA5
permanently removes contaminated sediment exceeding the RAL and would not require the
maintenance of a cover system over large areas required under STA4, or the monitoring of elevated
PCB concentrations in sediment prone to erosional forces required under STA2. Although
Alternative STA3 removes the greatest volume of sediment, the additional sediment excavation
results in a substantial cost increase while providing comparable risk reduction to Alternative
STA5. Similarly, Alternative Soil3 would permanently remove the contaminated floodplain soil
from the banks of the Creek, thereby eliminating the potential for contaminated floodplain soil to
find its way into the Creek and allows the properties to be used without restrictions. EPA has
conservatively estimated, for cost estimation purposes, that additional sampling may identify up
to 1 1 additional acres that would require remediation as part of this OU.
12.3 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy
The results of the HHRA indicate that the contaminated floodplain soil present current and/or
potential future unacceptable exposure risks. Under the selected remedy, remediation of
contaminated floodplain soil will address these current and potential future risks. Additionally, the
selected remedy would permanently remove the contaminated floodplain soil from the banks of
the Creek, thereby eliminating the potential for contaminated floodplain soil to find its way into
the Creek and allow the properties to be used without restrictions.
In addition, the consumption of fish from the Creek presents an unacceptable human health risk.
The selected interim remedy for PCB-contaminated sediments in the Creek Channel will result in
the excavation of sediment above the RAL in the STA. The excavation of these sediments will
eliminate the exposures to these contaminants in the aquatic system and their potential for
41
-------
downstream transport. The lower PCB concentrations in sediments in this portion of the Creek,
are anticipated to reduce PCB levels in the water column and fish and other biota, thereby reducing
the level of risk to human and ecological receptors.
Final remedial goals for contaminated sediment will be developed as part of a comprehensive
evaluation that will be conducted as part of a future operable unit.
12.4 Green Remediation
The EPA Region 2 Clean and Green Policy10 provides guidance for the implementation of green
remediation for response actions in the region. The goal of this policy is to enhance the
environmental benefits of federal cleanup programs by promoting technologies and practices that
are sustainable, while complying with all applicable laws and regulations. The objectives of green
remediation are to: protect human health and the environment by achieving remedial action goals;
support human and ecological use and reuse of remediated land; minimize impacts to water quality
and water resources; reduce air emissions and greenhouse gas production; minimize material use
and waste production; and conserve natural resources and energy.
This policy establishes touchstone practices that are both quantifiable and reportable. The region
uses reporting requirements in enforcement instruments, grants, and contracts to collect and report
metrics annually. Examples of touchstone practices that may be used during the implementation
of the selected remedy are:
Use of renewable energy, and energy conservation and efficiency approaches including
Energy Star equipment
Cleaner fuels and clean diesel technologies and strategies
Water conservation and efficiency approaches including WaterSense products
Sustainable site design
Industrial material reuse or recycling within regulatory requirements
Recycling applications for materials generated at or removed from the site
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies
Green remediation techniques, as detailed in NYSDEC's Division of Environmental Remediation
(DER) DER-31 Green Remediation Program Policy, will also be considered during the
implementation of the selected remedy to reduce short-term environmental impacts.
13.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA Section 12l(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 12l(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 Section
10 See www.epa.gov/sites/default/Files/2016-01/documents/i2_clean_and_green_update.pdf
42
-------
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 Section 121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4).
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the selected remedy meets the
requirements of CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. §9621:
13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected interim remedy for sediment in the STA will protect human health by reducing the
future health risks and hazards associated with the consumption of fish through reducing the
concentration of contaminants in fish in the Creek until a comprehensive evaluation is completed
for the entire Creek as part of separate response actions or a future operable unit(s) downstream of
the STA. In the interim, EPA is relying on existing NYSDOH fish consumption advisories.
NYSDOH periodically reviews fish PCB data to ensure the advisories are up to date and considers
whether the fish consumption advisories need modification. This institutional control will assist in
the protecting human health over both the short- and long-term at this operable unit by helping to
control and limit exposure to hazardous substances.
The selected remedy for floodplain soil in the STA will protect human health and the environment
because it reduces or eliminates human exposure to contamination in soil through the excavation
of contaminated material.
13.2 Compliance with ARARs
Because the remedy for the STA portion of OU3 is an interim remedy, identification of ARARs is
not necessary at this time. It is nonetheless expected that each of the selected remedies will be
designed in such a way that attains location- and action-specific ARARs. Chemical-specific
ARARs would be addressed by the eventual, final remedy selected for the full length of the Creek.
The selected remedy for the floodplains complies with chemical-specific, location-specific, and
action-specific ARARs. A complete list of the ARARs, TBCs, and other guidance are presented
in Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13, which can be found in Appendix II.
13.3 Cost-Effectiveness
A cost-effective remedy is one in which costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness (40
C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)). Overall effectiveness is based on the evaluations of long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment, and
short-term effectiveness. Overall effectiveness was evaluated by assessing three of the five
balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity,
mobility, and volume through treatment; and short-term effectiveness). Overall effectiveness was
then compared to costs to determine cost-effectiveness.
Each of the alternatives underwent a detailed cost analysis. In that analysis, capital and operation
and maintenance costs were estimated and used to develop present-worth costs. In the present-
worth cost analysis, operation and maintenance costs were calculated for the estimated life of each
alternative. The total estimated present worth cost for implementing the selected remedy is
$192,076,000.
43
-------
Based on the comparison of overall effectiveness to cost, the selected remedy meets the statutory
requirement that Superfund remedies be cost effective (40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)) in that it
represents reasonable value for the money to be spent and is thus cost effective.
13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy complies with the statutory mandate to utilize permanent solutions,
alternative treatment technologies, and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent
practicable. Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and
comply with ARARs (or provide a basis for invoking an ARAR waiver), EPA has determined that
the selected floodplain soil remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives
with respect to the balancing criteria, while also considering the statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element, the bias against off-Site disposal without treatment, and State/support
agency and community acceptance. Implementation of the selected remedy will remove
contaminated floodplain soil from residential and commercial properties thereby eliminating
and/or preventing the risk to human receptors in the future. Implementation of the selected remedy
will additionally permanently remove sediment in the ST A above the sediment RAL, which in turn
will reduce PCB levels in fish, thereby reducing the level of risk to humans and ecological
receptors.
13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy results in the removal of approximately 93,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment and soil from OU3. The soil and sediment excavation will provide for an immediate
reduction in the mobility of contaminated media from OU3. Although treatment is not a principal
element of the remedy, based on sampling performed to date, some of the contaminated soil may
require treatment prior to land disposal at an off-Site facility. Off-site treatment, if required would
reduce the toxicity of the contaminated soil prior to land disposal. This remedy only addresses a
portion of the Site. Subsequent actions that are planned to identify and address fully the remaining
threats posed by the Site may include treatment.
13.6 Five-Year Review Requirements
This remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining in
floodplain soils at commercial properties above levels that would otherwise allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621(c), statutory
reviews will be conducted five years after the completion of the remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection to human health and the environment.
14.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for OU3 of the Site was released on July 19,2024. The Proposed Plan identified
Alternative STA5: Excavation to RAL, Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional Controls as the
preferred alternative for remediating the STA, and Alternative Soil3: Floodplain Soil Excavation
and Oft-Site Disposal as the preferred alternative for remediating floodplain soil in the STA.
44
-------
EPA reviewed all written (including electronic formats such as e-mail) and verbal comments
received during the public comment period and has determined that no significant changes to the
remedy, as originally proposed in the Proposed Plan, are necessary or appropriate.
45
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3 Record of Decision
Niagara County, New York
-------
79285
RAILROAD
.6£S)J8.
"DRAKE SETTLEMENT
'DRAKE SETTLEMENT
LAFFLER
KELLER
WALLACE
J57471
CORWIN
UNNAMED
KETCHUM
PROSPECT
Newfane Dam
MCKEE
HOWELL
$7897
DALE
MCCLELLAND
HATTER
JACQUES
ROUNI
31300
31293
The Island
027407
( eadi 7)
0U3 Eighteen
Mile Creek 1
Headwater
East
Branch y
MONROE
_ Canal Corp.
Property
SHUNPIKE
WASHINGTON
Headwater
H/esf Branch
GRAND
^836495
CORINTH IA
COURT
CALEDONIA
5 GREEN 5 5
City of Lock port
NIAGARA ^
?ark m
V7A
Creek Channel
OU1
Water Street
~
Water Street Properties
OU2-
Other Properties
Former Flintkote Plant Site
~
~
~
Former United Paperboard
Company Property
Form er Wh it e Tran sportation
Property
Upson Park
OU4
Residential
~
Residential Properties
1 Miles
Creek Centerline
Reach Feet
Dam Location
Surface
Waterbody
Eighteen Mile Creek
Sediment
Depositional Area
Burt (SDA Burt)
Sediment
Depositional Area
Newfane (SDA
Newfane)
Sediment
Transitional Area
(STA)
Municipal Boundary
~ Creek Corridor/OU2
¦ Impacted Floodplain
B Soil Area
Wilson
Newfane Dam
to East Branch
Impoundment
(Readi 6)
Branch to
ridor Site
CreekCorridor
William Street
'°0o Dam
Clinton Street
Dam
Mill Pond
Olcott Hartjor
to Burt Dam
(Reach 1)joo.e
Burt Dam/
Impoundment
(Reaches 2 and 3)
Hamlet of
Newfane
Below Newfane Dam
each 4)
N« wfaneDam
poundmen
(Reach 3)
Hamlet of
Olcott Beach
Figure 2 - Site Overview Map
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3 Record of Decision
Niagara County, New York
-------
Figure 3- Conceptual Site Model
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3 Record of Decision
Niagara County, New York
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
Table 1
Selection of Exposure Pathways
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or
Exclusion of Exposure Pathway
Sediment
Surface
Sediment
(Starting
Depth: 0 to
0.5 feet)
Reaches 6 & 7
Recreational
User
Child
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Quantitative
Recreational users may contact surface sediment
during recreational activities such as swimming,
wading, and kayaking. Exposures to sediment
include incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation. The assessment will quantify
exposures to adults, adolescents, and young
children. The recreational user will also come into
contact with floodplain soil and surface water
while accessing the creek. This is a complete
pathway for adults, adolescents, and young
children.
Current/
Future
Sediment
Surface
Sediment
(Starting
Depth: 0 to
0.5 feet)
Reaches 6 & 7
Angler
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Quantitative
Anglers may contact surface sediment during
fishing activities. Exposures to sediment include
incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation. This is a complete pathway for adults
and adolescents. Exposure to young children
(younger than 6 years) are not quantified based on
safety considerations; however, it is expected that
they will consume fish caught by adults and
adolescents. The angler will also come into
contact with floodplain soil and surface water
while accessing the creek.
Floodplain
Soil
Surface Soil
(0 to 1 feet)
Reaches 6 & 7
Recreational
User
Child
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Quantitative
Recreational users may contact surface soil during
recreational activities such as swimming, wading,
and kayaking. Exposures to soil include incidental
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. The
assessment will quantify exposures to adults,
adolescents, and young children. The recreational
user will also come into contact with sediment
and surface water while accessing the creek. This
is a complete pathway for adults, adolescents, and
young children.
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table 1
Selection of Exposure Pathways
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or
Exclusion of Exposure Pathway
Floodplain
Soil
Surface Soil
(0 to 1 feet)
Reaches 6 & 7
Angler
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Quantitative
Anglers may contact surface soil during fishing
activities. Exposures to soil include incidental
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. This is a
complete pathway for adults and adolescents.
Exposure to young children (younger than 6 years)
are not quantified based on safety considerations;
however, it is expected that they will consume
fish caught by adults and adolescents. The angler
will also come into contact with sediment and
surface water while accessing the creek.
Current/
Future
Floodplain
Soil
Surface Soil
(0 to 1 feet)
Reaches 6 & 7
Resident
Child
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Quantitative
Residents who live along the creek may contact
surface soil during activities such as yard
maintenance and general access to floodplain
areas along the creek. Exposures to soil include
incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation. This is a potentially complete pathway
for current and future adults and young children.
Floodplain
Soil
Surface Soil
(0 to 1 feet)
Reaches 6 & 7
Visitor/ Trespasser
Child
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Quantitative
Site visitors and trespassers may contact surface
soil during access to creek properties. Exposures
to soil include incidental ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation. This is a complete
pathway for adults, adolescents, and young
children.
Surface
Water
Surface
Water
Reaches 6 & 7
Recreational
User
Child
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Quantitative
Recreational users may contact surface water
during recreational activities such as swimming,
wading, and kayaking. Exposures to surface water
include incidental ingestion of surface water and
dermal contact. This is a complete pathway for
adults, adolescents, and young children. The
recreational user will also come into contact with
sediment and floodplain soil while accessing the
creek.
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table 1
Selection of Exposure Pathways
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or
Exclusion of Exposure Pathway
Surface
Water
Surface
Water
Reaches 6 & 7
Angler
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Quantitative
Anglers may contact surface water during fishing
activities. Exposures to surface water include
incidental ingestion and dermal contact. This is a
complete pathway for adults and adolescents.
Exposure to young children (younger than 6 years)
are not quantified based on safety considerations;
however, it is expected that they will consume
fish caught by adults and adolescents. The angler
will also come into contact with floodplain soils
and sediment while accessing the creek.
Current/
Future
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Reaches 6 & 7
Angler
Child
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Quantitative
Anglers are known to fish throughout the creek.
Anglers are assumed to consume the fish caught
within the creek; therefore, ingestion of fish tissue
is a potential exposure route. It is also assumed
that anglers will share fish with younger
individuals. This is a complete pathway for adults,
adolescents, and young children.
Floodplain
Soil
Surface Soil
(0 to 1 feet)
Reaches 8 & 9
Onsite Worker
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Qualitative
Areas along Reaches 8 and 9 are zoned industrial;
therefore, site workers may be present on
properties abutting the creek. However, due to the
steep banks and poor access to areas along the
creek workers are not expected to have contact to
the bank areas; therefore, this an incomplete
pathway and will be discussed in the Uncertainty
Section.
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 1
Selection of Exposure Pathways
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or
Exclusion of Exposure Pathway
Floodplain
Soil
Surface Soil
(0 to 1 feet)
Reach 6
Outdoor Worker
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Qualitative
A commercial topsoil business operates within
Reach 6 along the floodplains of the creek.
Outdoor workers may contact contaminated soil
during daily activities. Exposures include
incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation. Interviews with the business owner
indicates that soil near the creek bank has never
been excavated and the business only operates on
a limited, as-needed basis. This is an incomplete
pathway will be discussed in the Uncertainty
Section.
Current/
Future
Agricultural
Products
Agricultural
Products
Reaches 6 & 7
Consumer of
Agricultural
Products
Child
Adolescent
Adult
Ingestion
Qualitative
Orchards and farms are observed to abut the
creek, and historically farmers have irrigated
produce fields with creek water. The irrigated
fields were sampled for PCB Aroclors and
approximately 20% of the samples were analyzed
for PCB congeners. All of the soil results for PCB
Aroclors were non-detect; however, there were
low-level detections for PCB congeners found
within the disturbed portion of the soils. The
individual PCB congeners were evaluated against
the residential soil RSLs and none of the soil
concentrations were found to exceed the RSL
values. Therefore, PCB concentrations in the
irrigated soil are not likely to result in a risk, and
this is an incomplete pathway that will be
discussed in the Uncertainty Section.
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table 2
Contaminants of Concern
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Surface Sediment (Starting Depth: 0 to 0.5 feet)
Exposure Point
Contaminant of
Concern
CASRN
Units
Minimum
Concentration and
Qualifier (1)
Maximum
Concentration and
Qualifier (1)
Detection
Frequency
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Screening
Toxicity
Value
Basis for
Toxicity Value
(C/NC) (2)
COPC
Flag (Y/N)
Rationale for
Selection of
Deletion (2)
Reach 6
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
28.9
J
4500
J
90/90
OU3-R6-SD02-
Z1-OCT20
4500
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
Reach 7
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
57.3
2940
J
106/106
R7-103-C
2940
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
Reach 7
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.039
J
41
J
54/105
R7-187-C-COMP
41
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
Reach 7
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.022
J
97
91/106
R7-089-C
97
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
Key at end of table.
Page 1 of 5
-------
Table 2
Contaminants of Concern
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Medium:
Floodplain Soil
Exposure Medium:
Surface Soil (0 to 1 feet)
Minimum
Maximum
Location of
Concentration
Screening
Basis for
Rationale for
Contaminant of
Concentration and
Concentration and
Detection
Maximum
Used for
Toxicity
Toxicity Value
COPC
Selection of
Exposure Point
Concern
CASRN
Units
Qualifier (1)
Qualifier (1)
Frequency
Concentration
Screening
Value
(C/NC) (2)
Flag (Y/N)
Deletion (2)
OU3-R6-T06E-
Reach 6
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
1370
1370
66/66
S03-Z2
1370
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T12E-
Reach 7
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
6.5
2630
J
200/200
S03-Z2
2630
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T10W-
Resident Transect 10
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
6.6
10.6
13/13
S02-Z2
10.6
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T10W-
Resident Transect 10
Iron
7439-89-6
mg/kg
16300
22700
13/13
S02-Z2
22700
5500
NC
Yes
ASL, EN
OU3-R7-T10W-
Resident Transect 10
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
366
827
13/13
S04-Z2
827
180
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T10W-
Resident Transect 10
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.45
JN
13
J+
4/13
S01-Z1
13
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T10W-
Resident Transect 10
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.061
JN
8
J+
7/13
S01-Z1
8
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T13E-
Resident Transect 13
Arsenic
7440-38-2
mg/kg
5.1
39.8
10/10
S02-Z1
39.8
0.68
C
Yes
ASL, KHC
OU3-R7-T13E-
Resident Transect 13
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
8
42.5
10/10
S02-Z1
42.5
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T13E-
Resident Transect 13
Iron
7439-89-6
mg/kg
17800
35300
10/10
S02-Z1
35300
5500
NC
Yes
ASL, EN
OU3-R7-T13E-
Resident Transect 13
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.054
3.7
4/10
S01-Z1
3.7
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T13E-
Resident Transect 13
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.0075
J
2
6/10
S01-Z1
2
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
Key at end of table.
Page 2 of 5
-------
Table 2
Contaminants of Concern
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Medium:
Floodplain Soil
Exposure Medium:
Surface Soil (0 to 1 feet)
Minimum
Maximum
Location of
Concentration
Screening
Basis for
Rationale for
Contaminant of
Concentration and
Concentration and
Detection
Maximum
Used for
Toxicity
Toxicity Value
COPC
Selection of
Exposure Point
Concern
CASRN
Units
Qualifier (1)
Qualifier (1)
Frequency
Concentration
Screening
Value
(C/NC) (2)
Flag (Y/N)
Deletion (2)
OU3-R7-T15E-
Resident Transect 15
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
7.7
20
10/10
S01-Z2
20
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T15E-
Resident Transect 15
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
16.7
1780
10/10
S01-Z2
1780
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T15E-
Resident Transect 15
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
306
877
10/10
S01-Z1
877
180
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T15E-
Resident Transect 15
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.79
4.2
4/10
S03-Z2
4.2
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T15E-
Resident Transect 15
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.94
6.3
4/10
S03-Z2
6.3
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T15E-
Resident Transect 15
Aroclor 1260
11096-82-5
mg/kg
0.54
J
0.54
J
1/10
S03-Z1
0.54
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T17W-
Resident Transect 17
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
9.8
556
12/12
S05-Z2
556
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T18W-
Resident Transect 18
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
22.8
527
12/12
S01-Z2
527
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T19W-
Resident Transect 19
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
3.9
10.4
14/14
S04-Z2
10.4
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T19W-
Resident Transect 19
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
11.9
594
14/14
S05-Z2
594
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T19W-
Resident Transect 19
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
248
J
880
14/14
S04-Z1
880
180
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T19W-
Resident Transect 19
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.025
J
25
10/14
S01-Z1
25
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T19W-
Resident Transect 19
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.047
J
17
8/14
S01-Z1
17
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T19W-
Resident Transect 19
Aroclor 1260
11096-82-5
mg/kg
0.031
J
0.13
4/14
S02-Z2
0.13
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T20W-
Resident Transect 20
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
4.8
12.1
10/10
S01-Z2
12.1
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T20W-
Resident Transect 20
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
274
887
10/10
S01-Z2
887
180
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T20W-
Resident Transect 20
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.011
J-
0.79
6/10
S04-Z2
0.79
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T20W-
Resident Transect 20
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.011
J-
0.81
J
6/10
S04-Z2
0.81
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
Key at end of table.
Page 3 of 5
-------
Table 2
Contaminants of Concern
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Medium:
Floodplain Soil
Exposure Medium:
Surface Soil (0 to 1 feet)
Minimum
Maximum
Location of
Concentration
Screening
Basis for
Rationale for
Contaminant of
Concentration and
Concentration and
Detection
Maximum
Used for
Toxicity
Toxicity Value
COPC
Selection of
Exposure Point
Concern
CASRN
Units
Qualifier (1)
Qualifier (1)
Frequency
Concentration
Screening
Value
(C/NC) (2)
Flag (Y/N)
Deletion (2)
OU3-R7-T22E-
Resident Transect 22
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
6.8
12.8
8/8
S04-Z1
12.8
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T22E-
Resident Transect 22
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
58
841
8/8
S04-Z1
841
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T22E-
Resident Transect 22
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
479
812
8/8
S03-Z2
81.2
180
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T22E-
Resident Transect 22
Mercury
7439-97-6
mg/kg
0.092
J
6.7
8/8
S04-Z1
6.7
1.1
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T22E-
Resident Transect 22
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.0069
J
1
J
3/8
S04-Z2
1
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T22E-
Resident Transect 22
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.0086
J
1
5/8
S04-Z1
1
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T23E-
Resident Transect 23
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
6.9
14.3
10/10
S03-Z1
14.3
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T23E-
Resident Transect 23
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
397
906
10/10
S03-Z2
906
180
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T23E-
Resident Transect 23
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.064
J
5
4/10
S03-Z1
5
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T23E-
Resident Transect 23
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.13
7.6
4/10
S03-Z1
7.6
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T25E-
Resident Transect 25
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
9.3
15.5
10/10
S04-Z2
15.5
2.3
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T25E-
Resident Transect 25
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
6.5
933
10/10
S04-Z2
933
200
IEUBK Model
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T25E-
Resident Transect 25
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
588
2440
10/10
S01-Z2
2440
180
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T25E-
Resident Transect 25
Mercury
7439-97-6
mg/kg
0.019
J
6.9
10/10
S01-Z1
6.9
1.1
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T25E-
Resident Transect 25
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.072
0.94
J-
4/10
S04-Z1
0.94
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
OU3-R7-T25E-
Resident Transect 25
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.064
1.5
J-
4/10
S04-Z1
1.5
0.12
NC
Yes
ASL
Key at end of table.
Page 4 of 5
-------
Table 2
Contaminants of Concern
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Point
Contaminant of
Concern
CASRN
Units
Minimum
Concentration and
Qualifier (1)
Maximum
Concentration and
Qualifier (1)
Detection
Frequency
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Screening
Toxicity
Value
Basis for
Toxicity Value
(C/NC) (2)
COPC
Flag
Rationale for
Selection of
Deletion (3)
Zone 3 (4)
Mercury
7439-97-6
mg/kg
0.026
J-
0.3
J-
20/20
OU3-P3-
FISH05L-OCT18
0.3
0.0154
NC
Yes
ASL
Zone 3 (4)
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
mg/kg
0.231
12.9
20/20
OU3-P3-
FISH16L-OCT18
4.87
0.00208
C
Yes
ASL
Zone 3 (4)
Aroclor 1254
11097-69-1
mg/kg
0.459
12.6
20/20
OU3-P3-
FISH16L-OCT18
11.6
0.00208
c
Yes
ASL
Zone 3 (4)
Aroclor 1260
11096-82-5
mg/kg
0.0982
J-
1.71
17/20
OU3-P3-
FISH05L-OCT18
1.71
0.00208
c
Yes
ASL
Acronyms:
CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Notes:
(1) Minimum and Maximum Qualifiers used in the Tables include: J = estimated; J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low.
(2) C = Cancer; NC = Non-Cancer; IEUBK = Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
(3) The Rationale for Selecting or not Selecting Chemicals of Potential Concern included:
ASL - Above Screening Levels; BSL - Below Screening Levels; KHC - Known Human Carcinogen; NSL - No Screening Level; EN - Essential Nutrient;
and IFD - Infrequent Detection (<5% of samples).
(4) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Page 5 of 5
-------
Table 3
Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Medium:
Sediment
Exposure Medium:
Surface Sediment (Starting Depth: 0 to 0.5 feet)
Exposure
Contaminant of
Minimum
Maximum
Concentration
Frequency of
Exposure Point
Exposure Point
Statistical
Point
Concern
Concentration
Concentration
Units
Detection
Concentration
Concentration
Measure
and Qualifier (1)
and Qualifier (1)
Units
Reach 6
Lead
28.9
J
4500
J
mg/kg
90/90
623
mg/kg
Mean
Reach 7
Lead
57.3
2940
J
mg/kg
106/106
613
mg/kg
Mean
Reach 7
Aroclor 1248
0.039
J
41
J
mg/kg
54/105
4.58
mg/kg
95% UCL
Reach 7
Aroclor 1254
0.022
J
97
mg/kg
91/106
8.28
mg/kg
95% UCL
Key at end of table.
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table 3
Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Floodplain Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (0 to 1 feet)
Exposure
Point
Contaminant of
Concern
Minimum
Concentration
and Qualifier (1)
Maximum
Concentration
and Qualifier (1)
Concentration
Units
Frequency of
Detection
Exposure Point
Concentration
Exposure Point
Concentration
Units
Statistical
Measure
Reach 6
Lead
1370
1370
mg/kg
66/66
254
mg/kg
Mean
Reach 7
Lead
6.5
2630
J
mg/kg
200/200
341
mg/kg
Mean
Resident Transect 10
Cobalt
6.6
10.6
mg/kg
13/13
9.47
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 10
Iron
16300
22700
mg/kg
13/13
20700
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 10
Manganese
366
827
mg/kg
13/13
675
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 10
Aroclor 1248
0.45
JN
13
J+
mg/kg
4/13
3.93
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 10
Aroclor 1254
0.061
JN
8
J+
mg/kg
7/13
2.56
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 13
Arsenic
5.1
39.8
mg/kg
10/10
25.2
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 13
Cobalt
8
42.5
mg/kg
10/10
28
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 13
Iron
17800
35300
mg/kg
10/10
24800
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 13
Aroclor 1248
0.054
3.7
mg/kg
4/10
1.46
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 13
Aroclor 1254
0.0075
J
2
mg/kg
6/10
2
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 15
Cobalt
7.7
20
mg/kg
10/10
14
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 15
Lead
16.7
1780
mg/kg
10/10
450
mg/kg
Mean
Resident Transect 15
Manganese
306
877
mg/kg
10/10
667
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 15
Aroclor 1248
0.79
4.2
mg/kg
4/10
4.2
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 15
Aroclor 1254
0.94
6.3
mg/kg
4/10
5.13
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 15
Aroclor 1260
0.54
J
0.54
J
mg/kg
1/10
0.54
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 17
Lead
9.8
556
mg/kg
12/12
208
mg/kg
Mean
Resident Transect 18
Lead
22.8
527
mg/kg
12/12
242
mg/kg
Mean
Resident Transect 19
Cobalt
3.9
10.4
mg/kg
14/14
7.84
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 19
Lead
11.9
594
mg/kg
14/14
256
mg/kg
Mean
Resident Transect 19
Manganese
248
J
880
mg/kg
14/14
705
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 19
Aroclor 1248
0.025
J
25
mg/kg
10/14
20
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 19
Aroclor 1254
0.047
J
17
mg/kg
8/14
17
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 19
Aroclor 1260
0.031
J
13
mg/kg
4/14
0.0609
mg/kg
95% UCL
Key at end of table.
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table 3
Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Floodplain Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (0 to 1 feet)
Exposure
Point
Contaminant of
Concern
Minimum
Concentration
and Qualifier (1)
Maximum
Concentration
and Qualifier (1)
Concentration
Units
Frequency of
Detection
Exposure Point
Concentration
Exposure Point
Concentration
Units
Statistical
Measure
Resident Transect 20
Cobalt
4.80
12.10
mg/kg
10/10
10.4
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 20
Manganese
274.00
887.00
mg/kg
10/10
644
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 20
Aroclor 1248
0.01
J-
0.79
mg/kg
6/10
0.79
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 20
Aroclor 1254
0.01
J-
0.81
J
mg/kg
6/10
0.81
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 22
Cobalt
6.8
12.8
mg/kg
8/8
10.7
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 22
Lead
58
841
mg/kg
8/8
291
mg/kg
Mean
Resident Transect 22
Manganese
479
81.2
mg/kg
8/8
677
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 22
Mercury
0.092
J
6.7
mg/kg
8/8
6.7
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 22
Aroclor 1248
0.0069
J
1
J
mg/kg
3/8
0.561
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 22
Aroclor 1254
0.0086
J
1
mg/kg
5/8
1
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 23
Cobalt
6.9
14.3
mg/kg
10/10
11.8
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 23
Manganese
397
906
mg/kg
10/10
804
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 23
Aroclor 1248
0.064
J
5
mg/kg
4/10
5
mg/kg
Max Detect
Resident Transect 23
Aroclor 1254
0.13
7.6
mg/kg
4/10
5.98
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 25
Cobalt
9.3
15.5
mg/kg
10/10
13.9
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 25
Lead
6.5
933
mg/kg
10/10
287
mg/kg
Mean
Resident Transect 25
Manganese
588
2440
mg/kg
10/10
1230
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 25
Mercury
0.019
J
6.9
mg/kg
10/10
4.21
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 25
Aroclor 1248
0.072
0.94
J-
mg/kg
4/10
0.332
mg/kg
95% UCL
Resident Transect 25
Aroclor 1254
0.064
1.5
J-
mg/kg
4/10
1.33
mg/kg
95% UCL
Key at end of table.
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 3
Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure
Contaminant of
Minimum
Maximum
Concentration
Frequency of
Exposure Point
Exposure Point
Statistical
Point
Concern
Concentration
Concentration
Units
Detection
Concentration
Concentration
Measure
and Qualifier (1)
and Qualifier (1)
Units
Zone 3 (2)
Aroclor 1248
0.026
J-
0.3
J-
mg/kg
20/20
7.37
mg/kg
95% UCL
Zone 3 (2)
Aroclor 1254
0.231
12.9
mg/kg
20/20
7.95
mg/kg
95% UCL
Zone 3 (2)
Aroclor 1260
0.459
12.6
mg/kg
17/20
0.685
mg/kg
95% UCL
Zone 3 (2)
Mercury
0.0982
J-
1.71
mg/kg
20/20
0.16
mg/kg
95% UCL
Acronyms:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; UCL = upper confidence limit
Notes:
(1) Minimum and Maximum Qualifiers used in the Tables include: J = estimated; J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low.
(2) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is inclusive of reaches 6 and 7.
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table 4
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data Summary
Pathway: Ingestion/Dermal
Contaminant
of Concern
Chronic/
Subchronic
Oral RfD
Value
Oral RfD
Units
Absorp.
Efficiency
(Dermal)
Adjusted
RfD
(Dermal)
Adj. Dermal
RfD Units
Primary
Target
Organ
Combined
Uncertainty
/Modifying
Factors
Sources
of RfD Target
Organ
Dates of
RfD
Aroclor 1248 (1)
Chronic
2.00E-05
mg/kg-day
1
2.00E-05
mg/kg-day
Immune, dermal, ocular
300
IRIS
10/1/1994
Aroclor 1254
Chronic
2.00E-05
mg/kg-day
1
2.00E-05
mg/kg-day
Immune, dermal, ocular
300
IRIS
10/1/1994
Aroclor 1260 (1)
Chronic
2.00E-05
mg/kg-day
1
2.00E-05
mg/kg-day
Immune, dermal, ocular
300
IRIS
10/1/1994
Aluminum
Chronic
1
mg/kg-day
1
1
mg/kg-day
Neurological
100
PPRTV
10/29/2006
Arsenic, Inorganic
Chronic
0.0003
mg/kg-day
1
0.0003
mg/kg-day
Skin and cardiovascular system
3
IRIS
9/1/1991
Cobalt
Chronic
0.0003
mg/kg-day
1
0.0003
mg/kg-day
Thyroid
3000
PPRTV
8/25/2008
Iron
Chronic
0.7
mg/kg-day
1
0.7
mg/kg-day
GI Tract
1.5
PPRTV
9/11/2006
Lead
Chronic
Calculated using the Adult Lead and the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Models, consistent with guidance.
Manganese
Chronic
0.14
mg/kg-day
1
0.14
mg/kg-day
Nervous
1
IRIS
11/1/1995
Mercury (elemental)
Chronic
0.00016
mg/kg-day
1
0.00016
mg/kg-day
NA
NA
CALEPA
NA
Pathway: Inhalation
Contaminant
Chronic/
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Primary
Combined
Sources
Dates of RfC
of Concern
Subchronic
RfC
RfC Units
RfD
RfD Units
Target Organ
Uncertainty
of RfD Target
(If
(If available)
/Modifying
Organ
available)
Factors
Aroclor 1248
Chronic
-
-
No RfD
-
-
-
-
-
Aroclor 1254
Chronic
-
-
No RfD
-
-
-
-
-
Aroclor 1260
Chronic
-
-
No RfD
-
-
-
-
-
Aluminum
Chronic
0.005
mg/m3
No RfD
-
Neurological
300
PPRTV
10/29/2006
Arsenic, Inorganic
Chronic
0.000015
mg/m3
No RfD
-
NA
NA
CALEPA
NA
Cobalt
Chronic
0.000006
mg/m3
No RfD
-
Respiratory Tract; Lung
300
PPRTV
8/25/2008
Iron
Chronic
--
--
No RfD
--
--
--
--
--
Lead
Chronic
Calculated using the Adult Lead and the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Models, consistent with guidance.
Manganese
Chronic
0.00005
mg/m3
No RfD
--
Nervous
1000
IRIS
12/1/1993
Mercury (elemental)
Chronic
0.0003
mg/m3
No RfD
--
Nervous
30
IRIS
6/1/1995
Notes:
GI = gastrointestinal
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram-day
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
NA = not applicable
RfC = reference concentration
RfD = reference dose
Sources:
CALEPA = California Environmental Protection Agency
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
PPRTV = Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values
(1) The toxicity values from Aroclor 1254 were applied to Aroclor 1248 and Aroclor 1260.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 5
Cancer Toxicity Data Summary
Pathway: Ingestion/ Dermal
Contaminant of Concern
Oral Cancer
Units
Adjusted Cancer
Slope Factor
Weight of Evidence/
Source
Date
Aroclor 1248
2
(mg/kg-day)"1
2
(mg/kg-day)"1
B2
(1) IRIS
1996
Aroclor 1254
2
(mg/kg-day)"1
2
(mg/kg-day)"1
B2
(1) IRIS
1996
Aroclor 1260
2
(mg/kg-day)"1
2
(mg/kg-day)"1
B2
(1) IRIS
1996
Aluminum
-
-
Arsenic, Inorganic
1.5
(mg/kg-day)"1
1.5
(mg/kg-day)"1
A
IRIS
6/1/1995
Cobalt
-
-
Iron
-
-
Lead
Addressed using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic and Adult Lead Models
Manganese
-
-
D
IRIS
9/26/1988
Mercury (elemental)
-
-
-
-
D
IRIS
5/1/1995
Pathway: Inhalation
Contaminant of Concern
Unit Risk
Units
Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor
Weight of Evidence/
Source
Date
Aroclor 1248
0.000571429
(Hg/m3)"1
No Slope Factor
B2
(2) IRIS
1996
Aroclor 1254
0.000571429
(Hg/m3)"1
No Slope Factor
B2
(2) IRIS
1996
Aroclor 1260
0.000571429
(Hg/m3)"1
No Slope Factor
B2
(2) IRIS
1996
Aluminum
-
Arsenic, Inorganic
0.0043
(Hg/m3)"1
No Slope Factor
A
IRIS
6/1/1995
Cobalt
0.009
(Hg/m3)"1
No Slope Factor
LI
PPRTV
8/25/2008
Iron
-
-
Lead
Addressed using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic and Adult Lead Models
Manganese
D
IRIS
9/26/1988
Mercury (elemental)
-
-
-
-
D
IRIS
5/1/1995
Weight of Evidence for Cancer Classifications: Sources:
A: Human carcinogen IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
B2: Probable human carcinogen - based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals PPRTV = Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values
D: Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
LI: Likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation route
Notes:
(1) SURROGATE. See Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
(2) SURROGATE. See Polychlorinated Biphenyls (derived from oral slope factor).
NA = not applicable
(Hg/m3)"1 = (micrograms per cubic meter)"1
(mg/kg-day)"1 = (milligrams per kilogram-day)"1
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 6
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 10
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Cobalt
Endocrine
0.4
0.0011
NA
0.4
Transect
10
Iron
Gastrointestinal
0.38
NA
NA
0.38
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Manganese
Nervous
0.36
0.0095
NA
0.37
Aroclor 1248
Immune
2.5
NA
0.83
3.3
Aroclor 1254
Immune
1.6
NA
0.54
2.2
See BHHRA Table 9.63-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
5.6
0.013
1.4
7
Exposure Point Total
7
Exposure Medium Total
7
Medium Total
7
Receptor HI Total
7
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
0.4
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media =
0.38
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
5.5
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
0.56
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 13
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Arsenic
Dermal
0.64
0.0012
0.076
0.72
Transect
13
Cobalt
Endocrine
1.2
0.0033
NA
1.2
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Iron
Gastrointestinal
0.45
NA
NA
0.45
Aroclor 1248
Immune
0.93
NA
0.31
1.2
Aroclor 1254
Immune
1.3
NA
0.42
1.7
See BHHRA Table 9.67-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
5.2
0.015
0.82
6
Exposure Point Total
6
Exposure Medium Total
6
Medium Total
6
Receptor HI Total
6
Total Dermal HI Across All Media =
0.72
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
1.2
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media =
0.59
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
2.9
Page 1 of 7
-------
Table 6
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 15
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Cobalt
Endocrine
0.6
0.0016
NA
0.6
Transect
15
Manganese
Nervous
0.36
0.0094
NA
0.36
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Aroclor 1248
Immune
2.7
NA
0.89
3.6
Aroclor 1254
Immune
3.3
NA
1.1
4.4
Aroclor 1260
Immune
0.35
NA
0.11
0.46
See BHHRA Table 9.69-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
8.3
0.16
2.2
11
Exposure Point Total
11
Exposure Medium Total
11
Medium Total
11
Receptor HI Total
11
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
0.6
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
8.4
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
0.64
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 19
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Cobalt
Endocrine
0.33
0.00092
NA
0.33
Transect
19
Manganese
Nervous
0.38
0.0099
NA
0.39
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Aroclor 1248
Immune
13
NA
4.2
17
Aroclor 1254
Immune
11
NA
3.6
14
Aroclor 1260
Immune
0.039
NA
0.013
0.052
See BHHRA Table 9.77-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
25
0.11
7.9
33
Exposure Point Total
33
Exposure Medium Total
33
Medium Total
33
Receptor HI Total
33
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
0.33
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
32
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
0.57
Page 2 of 7
-------
Table 6
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 20
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Cobalt
Endocrine
0.44
0.0012
NA
0.44
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Transect
Manganese
Nervous
0.34
0.0091
NA
0.35
20
Aroclor 1248
Immune
0.51
NA
0.17
0.67
Aroclor 1254
Immune
0.52
NA
0.17
0.69
See BHHRA Table 9.79-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
2
0.011
0.36
2.3
Exposure Point Total
2.3
Exposure Medium Total
2.3
Medium Total
2.3
Receptor HI Total
2.3
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
0.44
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
1.4
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
0.35
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 22
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Cobalt
Endocrine
0.45
0.0013
NA
0.46
Transect
22
Manganese
Nervous
0.36
0.0095
NA
0.37
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Mercury
Nervous
0.54
0.62
NA
1.2
Aroclor 1248
Immune
0.36
NA
0.12
0.48
Aroclor 1254
Immune
0.64
NA
0.21
0.85
See BHHRA Table 9.83-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
2.8
0.63
0.38
3.8
Exposure Point Total
3.8
Exposure Medium Total
3.8
Medium Total
3.8
Receptor HI Total
3.8
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
0.46
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
1.3
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
1.5
Page 3 of 7
-------
Table 6
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 23
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Cobalt
Endocrine
0.5
0.0014
NA
0.51
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Transect
Manganese
Nervous
0.43
0.011
NA
0.44
23
Aroclor 1248
Immune
3.2
NA
1.1
4.3
Aroclor 1254
Immune
3.8
NA
1.3
5.1
See BHHRA Table 9.85-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
8.4
0.11
2.4
11
Exposure Point Total
11
Exposure Medium Total
11
Medium Total
11
Receptor HI Total
11
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
0.51
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
9.4
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
0.61
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 25
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Cobalt
Endocrine
0.59
0.0016
NA
0.6
Transect
25
Manganese
Nervous
0.66
0.017
NA
0.67
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Mercury
Nervous
0.34
0.39
NA
0.72
Aroclor 1248
Immune
0.21
NA
0.071
0.28
Aroclor 1254
Immune
0.85
NA
0.28
1.1
See BHHRA Table 9.89-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
3.1
0.41
0.38
3.9
Exposure Point Total
3.9
Exposure Medium Total
3.9
Medium Total
3.9
Receptor HI Total
3.9
Total Endocrine HI Across All Media =
0.6
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
1.4
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
1.4
Page 4 of 7
-------
Table 6
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Adult
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Aroclor 1248
Immune
150
-
-
150
Fish Tissue
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1254
Immune
160
-
-
160
Aroclor 1260
Immune
14
-
-
14
See BHHRA Table 9.41-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
320
-
-
320
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
320
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
320
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
320
Receptor HI Total
320
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
320
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Adolescent
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Aroclor 1248
Immune
150
-
-
150
Fish Tissue
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1254
Immune
160
-
-
160
Aroclor 1260
Immune
14
-
-
14
See BHHRA Table 9.42-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
328
-
-
328
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
328
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
328
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
328
Receptor HI Total
328
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
326.9
Page 5 of 7
-------
Table 6
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Mercury
Nervous
1.1
-
-
1.1
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1248
Immune
260
-
-
260
Fillets
Aroclor 1254
Immune
280
-
-
280
Aroclor 1260
Immune
24
-
-
24
See BHHRA Table 9.43-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
567
-
-
567
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
567
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
567
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
567
Receptor HI Total
567
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
567
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
1.1
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Adult
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Aroclor 1248
Immune
150
-
-
150
Fish Tissue
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1254
Immune
160
-
-
160
Aroclor 1260
Immune
14
-
-
14
See BHHRA Table 9.56-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
319
-
-
319
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
319
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
319
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
319
Receptor HI Total
319
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
319
Page 6 of 7
-------
Table 6
Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Adolescent
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Aroclor 1248
Immune
150
-
-
150
Fish Tissue
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1254
Immune
160
-
-
160
Aroclor 1260
Immune
14
-
-
14
See BHHRA Table 9.57-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
327
-
-
327
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
327
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
327
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
327
Receptor HI Total
327
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
327
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Primary target
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
Concern
Organ
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes T otal
Mercury
Nervous
1.1
-
-
1.1
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1248
Immune
260
-
-
260
Fillets
Aroclor 1254
Immune
280
-
-
280
Aroclor 1260
Immune
24
-
-
24
See BHHRA Table 9.58-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
566
-
-
566
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
566
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
566
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
566
Receptor HI Total
566
Total Immune HI Across All Media =
566
Total Nervous HI Across All Media =
1.1
Page 7 of 7
-------
Table 7
Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Transect 19
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Residential
Receptor Age
Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Carcinogenic Risk
Medium
Point
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure Routes
Total
Cobalt
NA
(1)
NA
(1)
Manganese
NA
NA
NA
NA
Floodplain Soil
Soil
Transect 19
Aroclor 1248
4.40E-05
1.80E-06
1.50E-05
6.00E-05
Aroclor 1254
3.70E-05
(1)
1.20E-05
5.10E-05
Aroclor 1260
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
See BHHRA Table 9.77-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
9.10E-05
2.80E-06
2.90E-05
1.20E-04
(1) Results were not presented
Exposure Point Total
1.20E-04
because they represent a risk below
Exposure Medium Total
1.20E-04
1E-06.
Medium Total
1.20E-04
Receptor Risk Total
1.20E-04
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Type: Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Contaminant of
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure Routes
Total
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1248
1.70E-03
1.70E-03
Aroclor 1254
1.80E-03
1.80E-03
Aroclor 1260
1.60E-04
1.60E-04
See BHHRA Table 9.41-RME for full results.
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Chemical Total
3.70E-03
3.70E-03
Exposure Point Total 3.70E-03
Exposure Medium Total 3.70E-03
Medium Total 3.70E-03
Receptor Risk Total 3.70E-03
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table 7
Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Adolescent
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Carcinogenic Risk
Medium
Point
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure Routes
Total
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Aroclor 1248
1.00E-03
1.00E-03
Fish Tissue
Zone 3 (1)
Aroclor 1254
1.10E-03
1.10E-03
Aroclor 1260
9.60E-05
9.60E-05
See BHHRA Table 9.42-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
2.30E-03
2.30E-03
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
2.30E-03
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
2.30E-03
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
2.30E-03
Receptor Risk Total
2.30E-03
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Type: Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Contaminant of
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure Routes
Total
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Zone 3 (1)
Mercury
NA
NA
Aroclor 1248
8.90E-04
8.90E-04
Aroclor 1254
9.60E-04
9.60E-04
Aroclor 1260
8.30E-05
8.30E-05
See BHHRA Table 9.43-RME for full results.
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Chemical Total
2.00E-03
2.00E-03
Exposure Point Total 2.00E-03
Exposure Medium Total 2.00E-03
Medium Total 2.00E-03
Receptor Risk Total 2.00E-03
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table 7
Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Exposure Medium:
Fish Tissue
Exposure Type:
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population:
Angler
Receptor Age
Adult
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Contaminant of
Carcinogenic Risk
Medium
Point
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure Routes
Total
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Aroclor 1248
1.70E-03
1.70E-03
Fish Tissue
Zone 3(1)
Aroclor 1254
1.80E-03
1.80E-03
Aroclor 1260
1.60E-04
1.60E-04
See BHHRA Table 9.56-RME for full results.
Chemical Total
3.70E-03
3.70E-03
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
Exposure Point Total
3.70E-03
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
Exposure Medium Total
3.70E-03
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Medium Total
3.70E-03
Receptor Risk Total
3.70E-03
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Type: Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age Adolescent
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Contaminant of
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure Routes
Total
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Zone 3(1)
Aroclor 1248
1.00E-03
1.00E-03
Aroclor 1254
1.10E-03
1.10E-03
Aroclor 1260
9.60E-05
9.60E-05
See BHHRA Table 9.57-RME for full results.
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Chemical Total
2.30E-03
2.30E-03
Exposure Point Total 2.30E-03
Exposure Medium Total 2.30E-03
Medium Total 2.30E-03
Receptor Risk Total 2.30E-03
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 7
Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Type: Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age Young Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Contaminant of
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure Routes
Total
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fillets
Zone 3 (1)
Mercury
NA
NA
Aroclor 1248
8.90E-04
8.90E-04
Aroclor 1254
9.60E-04
9.60E-04
Aroclor 1260
8.30E-05
8.30E-05
See BHHRA Table 9.58-RME for full results.
(1) For purposes of the BHHRA, fish consumption
in the Creek was broken into zones. Zone 3 is
inclusive of the reaches that are included in OU3.
Chemical Total
2.00E-03
2.00E-03
Exposure Point Total 2.00E-03
Exposure Medium Total 2.00E-03
Medium Total 2.00E-03
Receptor Risk Total 2.00E-03
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table 8
Summary of Lead Model Results
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Area
Exposure
Medium
Receptor
Lead
Model
Used
Maximum Lead
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Exposure Point
Concentration
Used in Model
(m«/k«)
Percent (%) of
Individuals with
BLLs > 5 jig/dL
Current/
Future
Reach 6
Sediment
Adult
ALM
4383
623
0.07
Reach 7
Sediment
Adult
ALM
2940
613
0.07
Reach 6
Floodplain Soil
Adult
ALM
1370
254
NA
Reach 7
Floodplain Soil
Adult
ALM
2630
341
NA
Reach 6
Sediment
Child Recreational User
IEUBK
4383
623
100 (1)
Reach 7
Sediment
Child Recreational User
IEUBK
2940
613
99 (2)
Transect 15
Floodplain Soil
Child Resident
IEUBK
1780
450
27
Transect 17
Floodplain Soil
Child Resident
IEUBK
556
208
5.4
Transect 18
Floodplain Soil
Child Resident
IEUBK
527
242
7.6
Transect 19
Floodplain Soil
Child Resident
IEUBK
594
256
8.7
Transect 22
Floodplain Soil
Child Resident
IEUBK
841
291
11
Transect 25
Floodplain Soil
Child Resident
IEUBK
933
287
11
Notes:
(1) The probability of exceeding 5 (ig/dL was rounded from 99.8% to 100%.
(2) The probability of exceeding 5 (ig/dL was rounded from 98.8% to 99%.
Sediment ALM data was obtained from text table located in BHHRA section 7.5.1.
Soil ALM data was obtained from text table located in BHHRA section 7.5.3 and Appendix B Tables 2.10 and 2.14.
Sediment IEUBK data was obtained from text table located in BHHRA section 7.5.2.
Soil IEUBK data was obtained from text table located in BHHRA section 7.5.4. and the following Appendix B Tables: 2.9, 2.11,2.13, 2.24, 2.26, 2.27,
2.28, 2.31, and 2.34.
Acronyms:
ALM = adult lead model; BLL = blood lead level; IEUBK = Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic;
(ig/dL = micrograms per deciliter; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; NA = not applicable
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
PDI
Total
$256,000
PDI costs
Lump sum covering all associated sampling and analysis for a PDI
1
LS
$256,000
$256,000
General Requirements
Total
$6,801,100
Institutional Controls
Fish consumption
Addressed by state agency
NA
Bonds and Insurance
Performance and Payment Bond
Assumed l°o of project cost
1
LS
$375,254
$375,300
Insurance
Assumed 2°o of project cost
1
LS
$750,508
$750,600
Mobilization
General mobilization
Assumed 5°o of project cost, includes items such as trailers, toilets, utilities, incidentals,
etc.
1
LS
$1,876,271
$1,876,300
Excavator
hydraulic excavator, unknown quantity
1
LS
$13,048
$13,100
Other mobile equipment
Generator, skid steer, material transfer equipment, etc.
1
LS
$65,239
$65,300
Backfill equipment
Placement equipment, etc.
1
LS
$105,034
$105,100
Mechanical dredge
Dredge mob/demob, maximum
1
LS
$75,749
$75,800
Programmatic and General Labor
Program Management/Oversight/QA
Project Manager, maximum cost xl.25, assumed working 2 days/week assuming a 5-day
work week
40
Week
$1,425
$57,000
Project Manager
Project Manager, maximum cost, full time
40
Week
$2,850
$114,000
Administrative assistance
Clerk, average cost, full time
40
Week
$495
$19,800
Job Superintendent
Job Superintendent, maximum cost, full time
40
Week
$2,650
$106,000
SSHS Officer
Job Superintendent, maximum cost x.75, full time
40
Week
$1,988
$79,500
Foreman
General purpose laborer, average xl.5, full time, 2 personnel
40
Week
$5,524
$221,000
General laborers
General purpose laborer, average, full time, 14 personnel
40
Week
$25,780
$1,031,300
OH and benefits
35°o of personnel cost
1
LS
$570,010
$570,100
Per diem
Hotel, car/gas, and food. Assumed 20 people - proj mngr, admin assistant, job super,
SSHS officer, 2 foremen, 14 laborers (unit cost *20)
200
day
$5,480
$1,096,000
General Mobile Equipment and Operators
Water truck
6000 gal capacity, weekly rental
40
Week
$3,480
$139,200
Street sweeper
Vacuum assisted, 4 CY, 220 gal, weekly rental
40
Week
$2,640
$105,700
Site Work
Total
$7,240,700
Silt fence (out of water)
Install and removal, stakes every 10ft, assumed sum of perimeter of processing facility,
and 2x length of access roads
15.831
LF
$2
$35,200
Silt curtain (in water)
50ft long, 1ft wide, 5ft deep turbidity curtain, assumed 500ft
500
LF
$14
$7,100
Vegetation clearing
For installation of access roads and excavation work (if needed)
14
Acre
$4,636
$62,900
Temporary fencing
Orange safety fence, re-used as work moves to different areas, 20° o replacement
2.640
LF
$4
$9,600
I Temporary Access Roads
Geotextile fabric
Mirafi FW 500 for base, assume additional 25° o for overlap
145.125
SF
$0.3
$44,100
2" crusher run stone
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
8.708
Ton
$11
$98,000
Transport cost
Assume 2 moves - source to staging and staging to access
4.300
LCY
$8
$35,700
Placement cost
Dozer 80 HP, 300' haul from stockpile, sand and gravel
4.300
LCY
$3
$12,100
Key at end of table.
Page 1 of9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Water Diversion System
Assume removal would occur in the dry and water would be diverted around work areas.
Assume 2000ft work section at a time
Coffer dams - 8ft (including filling equipment)
Flexible structure filled with water to form barrier between the work area and the creek
250
LF
$215
$53,900
Side dams - 4ft ( as necessary)
Assumed 10°o of the coffer dam length
25
LF
$100
$2,500
Pipelines (3, 36" HDPE pipes)
Water transfer around active work area
6.000
LF
$130
$782,900
Tributary flow controls - small
As needed depending on work area
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Pumping systems (including generator)
Assumed one needed per 100 LF of dam
3
Each
$70,000
$210,000
Initial installation
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
Segment relocation/reset
Length of remedial area/ work section length
14
Each
$130,000
$1,820,000
Excavation
Excavation
Hydraulic excavator, crawler mounted, 1-1/2 CY bucket, +15°ofor soft soil/sand, +15°o
for loading into trucks, +100°b for wet excavation. Cost converted to weekly unit based
on production rate.
50
Week
$15,850
$792,500
Transport to processing facility
16.5 CY truck, 45 mph avg, 20min load/unload, cycle 8 miles
61.541
LCY
$3
$193,900
Backfill
Sand
Material cost
Assumed bank run sand
81.414
Ton
$15
$1,200,900
Transport cost
Assume 2 moves - source to staging and staging to access
59.426
LCY
$10
$608,000
Placement cost
Excavator, crawler mounted, 1-1/2 CY bucket, +15°o for soft soil/sand
52
Day
$1,587
$82,100
Source analytical testing
DER-10 testing, including PFAS and 1,4 Dioxane
52
Each
$1,408
$73,300
Gravel
Material cost
Assume bank run gravel
19.001
Ton
$11
$206,200
Transport cost
(assume 2 trips - source to staging and staging to access)
9.383
LCY
$8
$77,700
Placement cost
Excavator, crawler mounted, 1-1/2 CY bucket
8
Day
$1,380
$11,300
Source analytical testing
DER-10 testing, including PFAS and 1,4 Dioxane
9
Each
$1,408
$12,700
Habitat Layer Material
Add 3 inches of topsoil for organic content for habitat restoration
Material cost
Assumed topsoil
8.570
Ton
$33
$282,900
Transport cost
Assume 2 moves - source to staging and staging to access
6.255
LCY
$8
$51,800
Placement cost
Hydraulic excavator, crawler mounted, 1-1/2 CY bucket, +15°ofor soft soil/sand
5
Day
$1,587
$8,700
Source analytical testing
DER-10 testing, including PFAS and 1,4 Dioxane
6
Each
$1,408
$8,500
Habitat restoration
LTnit cost assumed same as wetland restoration cost. Includes seeding and planting
3
Acre
$33,000
$93,300
Water quality monitoring
Sampling analysis for TSS, TDS periodically
80
Each
$25
$2,000
Water quality equipment
Rental of equipment to periodically evaluate water conditions during work
40
Week
$172
$6,900
Air quality monitoring during construction
Assume 5 Dust-trac rentals with tripod/enclosure at a monthly rate
10
Month
$713
$7,200
|Bathymetric/Topographic Surveys
Pre-excavation
20
Acre
$839
$17,000
Post-excavation
20
Acre
$839
$17,000
Post-backfill
20
Acre
$839
$17,000
Post-dredging confirmatory sample collection
(sediment)
30x30ft grids is EPA standard, so 1 per 900SF. Sampling for PCBs
980
Each
$77
$75,800
Key at end of table.
Page 2 of 9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Processing Facility
Total
$18,556,900
Clear vegetation and strip topsoil
Topsoil stripping and stockpiling, 6" deep, 200' haul
52.732
SY
$0.3
$15,300
Construct staging area
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Temporary fencing
6FT high 11 gauge chain link fencing
4.568
LF
$6
$28,100
Paving
Processing facility footprint not including storage pads. Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder
course, 3" thick and wearing course, 1" thick
352.631
SF
$2
$746,500
Dewatering/Material Storage Pads
Geocomposite Liner
Decon pad/processing area
37.305
SF
$3
$97,400
Unprocessed material stockpile
49.398
SF
$3
$129,000
Hazardous material stockpile
11.302
SF
$3
$29,500
Clean backfill material stockpiles
23.951
SF
$3
$62,600
Jersey Barriers
Decon pad/processing area
846
LF
$130
$110,400
Unprocessed material stockpile
903
LF
$130
$117,900
Hazardous material stockpile
437
LF
$130
$57,100
Clean backfill material stockpiles
645
LF
$130
$84,200
Base Coarse Aggregate
Decon pad/processing area
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
37.305
SF
$2
$58,500
Unprocessed material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
49.398
SF
$2
$77,400
Hazardous material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
11.302
SF
$2
$17,700
Clean backfill material stockpiles
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
23.951
SF
$2
$37,500
Top Coarse Aggregate
Decon pad/processing area
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
37.305
SF
$1
$20,600
Unprocessed material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
49.398
SF
$1
$27,300
Hazardous material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
11.302
SF
$1
$6,300
Clean backfill material stockpiles
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
23.951
SF
$1
$13,200
Stone Subbase
Paved areas not stockpiles
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
26.447
Ton
$11
$297,600
Decon pad/processing area
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
2.798
Ton
$11
$31,500
Unprocessed material stockpile
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
3.705
Ton
$11
$41,700
Hazardous material stockpile
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
848
Ton
$11
$9,600
Clean backfill material stockpiles
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
1.796
Ton
$11
$20,300
Stone transport
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
20.214
LCY
$5
$103,700
Stone placement
Dozer 80 HP, 300' haul from stockpile, sand and gravel
20.214
LCY
$3
$56,600
Contact Water Management System
Perforated pipe - dewatering cells, decon pad, 2
Assumed 1/2 of the combined perimeter of the unprocessed and hazardous material
882
LF
$17
$15,000
stockpiles
stockpile perimeter, and 1/4 of the processing area perimeter
Straw bales - dewatering cell, decon pad, 2
stockpiles
Assumed perimeter of unprocessed and hazardous material stockpiles, and 1/4 of the
processing area perimeter
1.552
LF
$9
$14,200
Contact water transfer pipe, valves, fittings,
sand bags, etc.
Assumed 1/4 of the processing facility perimeter
1.142
LF
$7
$7,500
Pipe boots, pipe clamps
Assumed l/100ft of transfer pipe
12
Each
$130
$1,600
Sumps
Assumed 1/stockpile needing water management
3
Each
$3,262
$9,800
Pumps
Assumed 2/stockpile needing water management
6
Each
$848
$5,100
Sump excavation
Assumed 4'x4'x3' sump
5
CY
$13
$100
Key at end of table.
Page 3 of 9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Pipe trench excavation
Assumed trench l'xl'xlength of transfer pipe
42
CY
$13
$600
Pipe trench steel plating
Assumed 500ft/day
3
Day
$117
$400
Contact water storage tank - rental
21,000 gal frac tank rental - unit price based on quantity of tanks
40
week
$1,500
$60,000
Mob/demob of tank
21,000 gal frac tank rental, assumed 6 tanks - 3 treated, 3 untreated
6
Each
$1,500
$9,000
Asphalt Berms
12" wide, 4" tall, 60 LF/ton, laid with pavement
Material stockpile
Assumed perimeter of material stockpiles
1.985
LF
$2
$4,100
Decon pad
Assumed 1/4 of the processing area perimeter
212
LF
$2
$500
Storm water diversion
Assumed perimeter of processing facility
4.568
LF
$2
$9,400
Dredging Material Screening and Moisture
Control
Pug mill and screening plant
10
Month
$15,000
$150,000
Stabilization material
CKD, assumed 5-15°o of tons of material excavated (10 lbs. CKD/Ton of material
excavated with an average of 10° o of material)
38
Ton
$3,000
$113,900
CKD storage
10
Month
$7,000
$70,000
Chemical stabilization (metals)
Assumed 10° o of material will be considered hazardous and needs to be stabilized
5.351
CY
$20
$104,800
Haul and Disposal
Subtitle D facility
excavated/dredged material
75.880
Ton
$97
$7,360,400
Transport
20 CY truck (20min load time) from staging area to disposal facility
55.387
LCY
$22
$1,193,600
Subtitle D facility
access road stone and processing facility stone
49.641
Ton
$97
$4,815,200
Transport
20 CY truck (20min load time) from staging area to disposal facility
24.514
LCY
$22
$528,300
Subtitle C/TSC A facility
Assumed 10° o of material will be considered hazardous
8.431
Ton
$194
$1,635,700
Transport
20 CY truck (20min load time) from staging area to disposal facility
6.154
LCY
$22
$132,700
Waste profile sampling
1 sample per 5,000 CY
11
Each
$680
$7,500
Site Restoration
Total
$1,661,610
Site Decontamination at Processing Facility
Remove and dispose of containment systems
1
LS
$6,524
$6,600
Remove and dispose of asphalt berms
Berms, bituminous, 4" or more in height
6.765
LF
$4
$29,400
Remove and dispose of paved areas
Pavement removal, bituminous roads, 4-6" thick
474.587
SF
$1
$367,100
Removal of stone subbase for paved areas
Wheeled front end loader, 3 CY bucket, select granular fill
17.577
BCY
$10
$174,400
Decon and remove equipment
1
LS
$19,572
$19,600
Remove contact water system
1
LS
$13,048
$13,100
Soil testing under containment areas
1/2000 SF of processing facility
237
Each
$77
$18,400
Soil Removal
Excavation
Flydraulic excavator, crawler mounted, 1-1/2 CY bucket
1.830
BCY
$1
$2,600
Transport cost for disposal
20 CY truck (20min load time), 45mph avg, from staging area to disposal facility
2.104
LCY
$22
$45,400
Disposal cost
Subtitle D facility assumed
2.882
Ton
$97
$279,600
Site Restoration
Soil preparation
Rough grade and scarify common earth to receive topsoil, 200F1P dozer with scarifier.
590.7
MSF
$23
$13,610
I Soil Restoration
Placement cost
Dozer 80 F1P, 300' haul from stockpile, sandy clay and loam
11
Day
$1,587
$17,400
Re-vegetation
Flydro seeding including seed and fertilizer
590.687
SF
$0.1
$65,700
Tree planting
Tree density 1 per 100SF, includes placement of bagged and burlapped 12" dia ball trees
via backhoe/loader, 48F1P. Assumed transport cost per tree to be $20
590.687
SF
$1
$515,400
Wetland restoration
3
Acre
$33,000
$93,300
Key at end of table.
Page 4 of 9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Special Construction
Total
$6,011,300
Dewatering plant operations
CY of excavated material
53,514
CY
$98
$5,236,800
Wetland mitigation activities
3
Acre
$58,715
$165,900
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTP mobilization/demobilization
1
LS
$32,619
$32,700
WWTP rental
10
Month
$45,667
$456,700
WWTP operator
10
Month
$9,786
$97,900
WWTP residuals disposal
1
LS
$13,048
$13,100
Water discharge fees
Costs for sampling for COCs, TSS, TDS periodically in discharge water plus a base
monthly cost. Assumed sampling happens bi-monthly.
10
Month
$818
$8,200
1
Capital Costs Subtotal:
$40,527,700
10% Legal, administrative, engineering fees, project management
- not including sediment or soil disposal costs:
$2,643,700
10% design
- not including sediment or soil disposal costs:
$2,643,700
15% construction management
- not including sediment or soil disposal costs:
$3,965,600
20% overhead and profit
$7,991,600
30% Contingencies:
$17,331,700
Capital Cost Total:
$75,104,000
Annual Sampling (Baseline and once per year for first 4 years)
Annual Project Management and Oversight
Project management
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Technical support
1
LS
$6,000
$6,000
Quality assurance
1
LS
$2,000
$2,000
Sampling Labor
Sampling Labor
Event involves Sediment, surface water, and fish sampling: 1 day for mob, 1 day for
demob = 16hrs, 2-person crew for mob/demob
32
Hour
$125
$4,000
Surface Water
Assumed $125 per person per hour, 2-person crew (for boat work) can get 15 samples
locations per day in a 10 hr day collected. Another 2-person crew to process and package
samples. 40hrs/day/15 samples is 2.67hrs per sample.
662
Hour
$125
$82,800
Fish
Assumed $125 per person per hour, 2-person crew (for boat work) can get 15 samples
locations per day in a 10 hr day collected. Another 2-person crew to process and package
samples. 40hrs/day/15 samples is 2.67hrs per sample.
80
Hour
$125
$10,100
Surface Water Sampling
Equipment
4
Event
$744
$3,000
Analysis
PCBs
Analysis cost includes bottles and quantity for QC
248
Each
$77
$19,200
Biological Sampling (Fish)
Game fish, feeder fish, and YOY fish
Equipment
1
Event
$3,212
$3,300
Analysis
PCBs
Analysis cost includes bottles and quantity for QC
30
Each
$134
$4,100
Annual Reporting
Baseline/Annual reporting
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
1 1
Baseline and Years 1-4 Annual Cost Subtotal:
$154,500
10% Legal, Administrative and Engineering Fees:
$15,500
20% overhead and profit
$11,600
30% Contingencies:
$54,500
Baseline and Years 1-4 Annual CostTotal:
$237,000
Key at end of table.
Page 5 of 9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Periodic Costs (Every 5 Years)
5-yr review, data evaluation, and reporting
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
Maintain institutional controls
Addressed by State Agency
NA
Periodic Sampling (Once every 5 years for Years 5-30, starting at Year 5)
Annual Project Management and Oversight
Project management
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Technical support
1
LS
$6,000
$6,000
Quality assurance
1
LS
$2,000
$2,000
Sampling Labor
Sampling Labor
Event involves Sediment, surface water, and fish sampling: 1 day for mob, 1 day for
demob = 16hrs, 2-person crew for mob/demob
32
Hour
$125
$4,000
Surface Water
Assumed $125 per person per hour, 2-person crew (for boat work) can get 15 samples
locations per day in a 10 hr day collected. Another 2-person crew to process and package
samples. 40hrs/day/15 samples is 2.67hrs per sample.
166
Hour
$125
$20,700
Fish
Assumed $125 per person per hour, 2-person crew (for boat work) can get 15 samples
locations per day in a 10 hr day collected. Another 2-person crew to process and package
samples. 40hrs/day/15 samples is 2.67hrs per sample.
80
Hour
$125
$10,100
Surface Water Sampling
Equipment
1
Event
$744
$1,000
Analysis
PCBs
Analysis cost includes bottles and quantity for QC
62
Each
$77
$4,800
Biological Sampling (Fish)
Game fish, feeder fish, and YOY fish
Equipment
1
Event
$3,212
$3,300
Analysis
PCBs
Analysis cost includes bottles and quantity for QC
30
Each
$134
$4,100
1
Periodic Cost Subtotal:
$91,000
10% Legal, Administrative and Engineering Fees:
$9,100
20% Overhead and Profit:
$11,300
30% Contingencies:
$33,500
Periodic Cost Total:
$145,000
1 1
Key at end of table.
Page 6 of 9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description Comments Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Key
BCY = bank cubic yards
CKD = cement kiln dust
COC = contaminant of concern
CY = cubic yards
DIA = diameter
EA = each
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FOB = freight on board
FS = feasibility study
GPS = Global Positioning System
HR = hour
H&S = health and safety
LCY = loose cubic yards
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
Basis of Cost
Costs based on a variety of sources including published and unpublished sources such as RS Means, communications with vendors (written and verbal), and internal databases of cost based on previous
experience. Costs FOB Lockport, New York. RS Means costs were based on 2022 rates in Niagara Falls, New York.
Present worth calculations based on a 30-year operating period and a 7% annual interest rate per "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study" (EPA 540-R-00-002
August 2000), the preamble to the NCP (55 FR 8666).
Estimated schedule for completion of work based on 1 mg/kg PCB cleanup level - 9 months including removal and restoration. Schedule assumes that the excavation rate would be approximately 1,000 CY
per day. Schedule assumes that the restoration rate would be approximately 1,000 CY per day. Schedule assumes that one working season would be 9 months and no work would occur over winter. Schedule
assumes equipment and supplies are readily available.
Labor rates include overhead and profit and are not included in the overall overhead and profit markup
Predesign Investigations
Predesign investigations to be conducted prior to the Remedial Design to more thoroughly delineate excavation areas, determine contact water treatment requirements, investigate obstacles to construction,
and other Site features.
Topographic survey conducted for the staging area and access points. Bathymetric survey conducted for the entire remedial area.
Additional sampling will include delineation of the area requiring removal by establishing additional sample transects along the STA.
Additional sediment samples will be collected based on a rate of: 1 transect per 200 feet of creek centerline in the remedial area (excluding the transects collected during the Rl), 3 sample locations per
transect, 3 samples per location (surface, 1ft, 2ft), and 1 MS/MSD and 1 QA/QC sample per 20 samples. Samples will be analyzed for PCBs.
Additional flow monitoring and modeling in the creek to assess variations in flow that will impact operations.
Equipment assumed for sediment sampling include: Petite Ponar, Macrocorer, Macro Core Liner, GPS, small work boat, and ancillary supplies.
Sample bottle shipping costs included in analytical costs
General Requirements
Contractor management and non specific labor costs include project management, QA/QC, Health and Safety. Equipment charges include operator.
Implementation of institutional controls are assumed to be conducted by the appropriate government agency
General costs associated with project implementation including project trailers, communications, sanitation, PPE and other H&S safety supplies, and various sundries required for project implementation as a
percentage of project capital costs (5%).
MS/MSD = matrix spike and spike duplicate
MSF = thousand square feet
OTR = over the road
OU = operable unit
NCP = National Contingency Plan
OH = overhead
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
PDI = predesign investigations
QA/QC = quality assurance/control
RAL = remedial action level
SSHS = site safety and health superintendent
TDS = total dissolved solids
TSS = total suspended solids
YO Y = young-of-year
Page 7 of 9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description Comments Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Site Work
Site work includes general preparation activities prior to construction as well as other Site-wide activities conducted throughout the construction period.
Vegetation clearing will be limited to areas necessary for access and areas impacted by removal operations includes removal of small, medium, and large size trees and grubbing of stumps.
Temporary safety fencing assumed to be around active access roads and work areas, will be salvaged and reused as access roads shifted.
Temporary access road construction - estimated total for project - 8 entrance areas of varying lengths depending on distance from the creek to the closest public road, 12 feet wide, aggregate covered.
Assumed one access road would be utilized at a time.
Coffer dams will be utilized to section off parts of the remedial area to allow for excavation work to occur in the dry. Diversion piping would allow for creek water to flow around the work area. It is assumed
a 2,000ft stretch of the creek would be excavated at a time and the coffer dams would be shifted after each area is capped.
Excavated material will be loaded onto trucks to be transferred to the staging/processing area to be dewatered.
Confirmation sampling would be conducted following excavation to verify if contaminated material remains.
Following removal of sediment, backfill would be placed to meet preconstruction grades. Backfill would primarily consist of sand, with 2 inches of topsoil (to allow for habitat restoration), and mixing in
approximately 3 inches of gravel.
Air quality monitoring will include VOCs, PCBs, and fugitive dust.
Distance from source to staging area for #2 run of crusher stone, topsoil, and gravel assumed to be 20 miles.
Distance from source to staging area for sand assumed to be 10 miles.
Distance from staging area to work area assumed to be an average of 8 miles.
Distance from staging area to disposal facility assumed to be 100 miles.
Clean material source sampling assumed to be 1 sample per 1000 CY of material
Processing Facility
Material staging areas will be constructed at the processing facility for temporary storage and dewatering of sediment prior to testing and processing, processed materials, hazardous /TSCA material requiring
segregation, clean materials for backfill/cap, etc. The areas will be lined with a geocomposite liner material and jersey barriers to establish the perimeter of each area. Contact water from these areas will be
collected and processed with other contact water generated at the Site.
A contact water collection system will be constructed around the perimeter of the material storage bins to collect runoff and divert it to the contact water treatment system. The collection system will consist
of perforated pipes in the storage area draining to a sump. Water in the sump will be pumped to the frac tanks.
Frac tank(s) will be used to store water that has come into contact with contaminated materials generated at the Site. Wastewater from dewatering operations will also be stored in the frac tanks. Excess water
will be treated and discharged to the creek. The estimated cost in this estimate assumes discharge to Eighteen Mile Creek.
Prior to off-site disposal, sediment will be moisture conditioned by the addition of CKD, or other approved materials. The reagent will be mixed with the sediment in a pug mill prior to shipment to the
disposal facility.
Sediment will be stabilized as necessary in accordance with RCRA land disposal regulations. Additional processing may be required based on the final waste characteristics of the sediment and soil. For this
FS, it was estimated that approximately 10% of sediment will require stabilization.
Following processing, the soil and sediment will be shipped off-site for disposal. If a beneficial use can be found for the material during the remedial design phase and the processed material meets the
material specifications, it may reduce the overall cost of remediation. For this analysis it was assumed that approximately 90% of the material can be shipped to a Subtitle D landfill for disposal, with the
remaining going to a Subtitle C landfill.
Site Restoration
It is anticipated that wetland disturbance would include the construction of access roads and other construction activities. Access roads will be removed and wetland areas will be restored and replanted
following the completion of construction. Wetland disturbance is assumed to be 75% of the area of the access roads.
Disturbed areas will be regraded prior to restoration to blend with preconstruction conditions.
Site cleanup activities will include the removal of all equipment, cleaning and testing of paved surface, and restoration of paving to preconstruction conditions.
Assumed topsoil would be cleared from staging area and replaced during site restoration. Assume spreading to match pre construction depths
Removal and disposal of silt fence included in costs for installation of silt fence
Sweeping and washing of roads included in cost of rental of cleaning equipment
Assumed that the contaminated material stockpile area would need to be excavated to 1ft in depth to remove residual contamination from the processing facility
Page 8 of 9
-------
Table 9: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Sediment
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description Comments Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Special Construction
A contractor will be retained to provide equipment and operate an on-site dewatering facility.
Annual and Periodic Costs
Annual and periodic surface water sampling rates based on 1 sample/500ft of creek centerline within the remedial area, and 1 MS/MSD and 1 field duplicate sample per 20 samples.
Annual surface water sampling activities assumed to occur quarterly to account for seasonal variation.
Annual and periodic fish sampling rates based on 1 sample/lOOOft of creek centerline within the remedial area, and 1 MS/MSD sample per 20 samples
Equipment assumed for surface water include: Peristaltic Pumps, Myron Ultrameter, Water quality meter, filters, silicone tubing, small work boat and ancillary supplies.
Equipment assumed for Biological sampling include: Electroshocker, Generator, small work boat and ancillary supplies.
In accordance with the USEPA requirements, a 5-year review will be completed at the site to evaluate site conditions as well as to recommend modifications to the selected remedy.
Sample bottle shipping costs included in analytical costs
Page 9 of 9
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedyfor Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Predesign Investigations
Total
$2,100,000
PDI costs
Lump sum covering all associated sampling and analysis for a PDI
1
LS
$2,100,000
$2,100,000
General Requirements
Total
$6,504,500
Bonds and Insurance
Performance and Payment Bond
Assumed I"., of project cost
1
LS
$743,072
$743,100
Insurance
Assumed 2% of project cost
1
LS
$1,486,143
$1,486,200
Mobilization
General mobilization
Assumed 5% of project cost, includes items such as trailers, toilets, utilities, incidentals,
etc.
1
LS
$3,538,433
$3,538,500
Excavator
Hydraulic excavator, quantity unknown
1
LS
$13,048
$13,100
Other mobile equipment
Generator, skid steer, etc.
1
LS
$65,239
$65,300
Backfill equipment
Dozer, front loader, etc.
1
LS
$105,034
$105,100
Programmatic and General Labor
Program Management/Oversight/QA
Project Manager, maximum cost xl .25, assumed working 2 days/week assuming a 5-
day work week
8
Week
$1,425
$11,400
Project Manager
Project Manager, maximum cost, full time
8
Week
$2,850
$22,800
Administrative assistance
Clerk, average cost, full time
8
Week
$495
$4,000
Job Superintendent
Job Superintendent, maximum cost, full time
8
Week
$2,650
$21,200
SSHS Officer
Job Superintendent, maximum cost x.75, full time
8
Week
$1,988
$15,900
Foreman
General purpose laborer, average xl.5, full time, 2 personnel
8
Week
$5,506
$44,100
General laborers
General purpose laborer, average, full time, 9 personnel
8
Week
$16,518
$132,200
OH and benefits
35% of personnel cost
1
LS
$88,060
$88,100
Per diem
Hotel, car/gas, and food. Assumed 15 people - proj mngr, admin assistant, job super,
SSHS officer, 2 foremen, 9 laborers (unit cost *15)
40
day
$4,110
$164,400
General Mobile Equipment and Operators
Water truck
6000 gal capacity, weekly rental
8
Week
$3,480
$27,900
Street sweeper
Vacuum assisted, 4 CY, 220 gal, weekly rental
8
Week
$2,640
$21,200
Site Work
Total
$5,981,500
include install and removal, stakes every 1 Oft, assumed sum of perimeter of processing
Silt fence (out of water)
facility, 2x length of access roads, and perimeter of remedial areas excluding the creek
edge
494.434
LF
$2
$865,300
Silt curtain (in water)
50ft long, 1ft wide, 5ft deep turbidity curtain, assumed installation rate at 50ft/hour.
Assumed length of remedial area along the creek edge
3.871
LF
$14
$54,600
Vegetation clearing
Installation of access roads and excavation work (if needed)
14
Acre
$4,636
$64,300
T emporary fencing
Orange safety fence, assumed 50% of remedial area perimeter and re-used as work
moves to different areas with 20% replacement
11.751
LF
$4
$42,400
Inspection of Dam condition
In area surrounding Newfane dam, in relation to soil excavation
1
Each
$5,000
$5,000
Key at end of table.
Page 1 of 8
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Temporary Access Roads
Geotextile fabric
Mirafi FW 500 for base, assume additional 25% for overlap
196.750
SF
$0.3
$59,700
2" crasher run stone
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
13.576
Ton
$11
$152,800
Transport cost
Assume 2 moves - source to staging and staging to access
6.704
LCY
$8
$55,600
Placement cost
Dozer 80 HP, 300' haul from stockpile, sand and gravel
6.704
LCY
$3
$18,800
Water Diversion System
Coffer dams - 8ft (including filling equipment)
Flexible structure filled with water to form barrier between the work area and the creek
1.200
LF
$215
$258,400
Side dams - 4ft (in low spots as necessary)
Assumed 10% of the coffer dam length
120
LF
$98
$11,800
Tributary controls - small
as needed depending on work area
1
LS
$19,572
$19,600
Pumping systems (including generator)
Assumed one needed per 1000 LF of dam
2
Each
$65,239
$130,500
Initial installation
1
LS
$195,716
$195,800
Segment relocation/reset
Assumed relocating to each remediation area
13
Each
$130,477
$1,696,300
Excavation
Excavation
Hydraulic excavator, crawler mounted, 1-1/2 CY bucket, +15% for soft soil/sand, +15%
33
Day
$1,105
$36,600
for loading into tracks, +50% for wet excavation
Transport to processing facility
16.5 CY track, 45 mph avg, 20min load/unload, cycle 8 miles
38.004
LCY
$4
$143,300
Backfill Placement
Common Fill
Material cost
39.050
Ton
$7
$283,200
Transport cost
Assume 2 moves - source to staging and staging to access
28.503
LCY
$6
$184,800
Placement cost
Dozer 80 HP, 300' haul from stockpile, common earth
29
Day
$3,140
$89,600
Source analytical testing
DER-10 testing
25
Each
$1,408
$35,300
Topsoil
Material cost
13.017
Ton
$33
$429,600
Transport cost
Assume 2 moves - source to staging and staging to access
9.501
LCY
$8
$78,700
Placement cost
Dozer 80 HP, 300' haul from stockpile, sandy clay and loam
10
Day
$2,890
$27,500
Source analytical testing
DER-10 testing
9
Each
$1,408
$12,700
Re-vegetation
Hydro seeding including seed and fertilizer
446.139
SF
$0.1
$49,600
Tree planting
Tree density 1 per 100SF, includes placement of bagged and burlapped 12" dia ball
trees via backhoe/loader, 48HP. Assumed transport cost per tree to be $20
446.139
SF
$1
$401,700
Habitat restoration
Unit cost assumed same as wetland restoration. Includes seeding and planting
13
Acre
$33,000
$417,400
Water quality monitoring
Sampling analysis for TSS, TDS periodically
16
Each
$25
$400
Water quality equipment
Rental of equipment to periodically evaluate water conditions during work
8
Week
$172
$1,400
Air quality monitoring during construction
Assume 5 Dust-trac rentals with tripod/enclosure at a monthly rate
2
Month
$713
$1,500
Bathymetric/Topographic Surveys
Pre-excavation
10
Acre
$839
$8,600
Post-excavation
10
Acre
$839
$8,600
Post-Backfill
10
Acre
$839
$8,600
Periodic
10
Acre
$839
$8,600
Post-excavation confirmatory sample collection
(soil)
30x30ft grids is EPA standard, so 1 per 900SF plus sidewall samples, testing for PCBs,
and lead
723
Each
$170
$122,900
Key at end of table.
Page 2 of 8
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Processing Facility
Total
$17,043,300
Clear vegetation and strip topsoil
Topsoil stripping and stockpiling, 6" deep, 200' haul
52.242
SY
$0.3
$15,200
Construct staging area
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Temporary security fencing
6FT high 11 gauge chain link fencing
4.273
LF
$6
$26,300
Paving
Processing facility footprint not including storage pads. Plant-mix asphalt paving,
binder course, 3" thick and wearing course, 1" thick
345.762
SF
$2
$731,900
Dewatering/Material Storage Pads
Geocomposite Liner
Decon pad/processing area
21.003
SF
$3
$54,900
Unprocessed material stockpile
60.971
SF
$3
$159,200
Hazardous material stockpile
14.204
SF
$3
$37,100
Clean backfill material stockpiles
28.239
SF
$3
$73,700
Jersey Barriers
Decon pad/processing area
585
LF
$130
$76,400
Unprocessed material stockpile
1.136
LF
$130
$148,300
Hazardous material stockpile
479
LF
$130
$62,500
Clean backfill material stockpiles
754
LF
$130
$98,400
Coarse Aggregate
Decon pad/processing area
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
21.003
SF
$2
$32,900
Unprocessed material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
60.971
SF
$2
$95,500
Hazardous material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
14.204
SF
$2
$22,300
Clean backfill material stockpiles
Plant-mix asphalt paving, binder course, 3" thick
28.239
SF
$2
$44,300
Fine Aggregate
Decon pad/processing area
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
21.003
SF
$1
$11,600
Unprocessed material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
60.971
SF
$1
$33,700
Hazardous material stockpile
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
14.204
SF
$1
$7,900
Clean backfill material stockpiles
Plant-mix asphalt paving, wearing course, 1" thick
28.239
SF
$1
$15,600
Stone Subbase
Paved areas not stockpiles
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
25.932
Ton
$11
$291,800
Decon pad/processing area
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
1.575
Ton
$11
$17,800
Unprocessed material stockpile
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
4.573
Ton
$11
$51,500
Hazardous material stockpile
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
1.065
Ton
$11
$12,000
Clean backfill material stockpiles
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
2.118
Ton
$11
$23,900
Stone transport
2" crusher run stone, material cost (12" thick)
20.026
LCY
$5
$102,800
Stone placement
Dozer 80 HP, 300' haul from stockpile, sand and gravel
20.026
LCY
$3
$56,100
Contact Water Management System
Perforated pipe - dewatering cells, decon pad, 2
stockpiles
Assumed 1/2 of the combined perimeter of the unprocessed and hazardous material
stockpile perimeter, and 1/4 of the processing area perimeter
954
LF
$17
$16,200
Straw bales - dewatering cell, decon pad, 2
stockpiles
Assumed perimeter of unprocessed and hazardous material stockpiles, and 1/4 of the
processing area perimeter
1.761
LF
$9
$16,100
Contact water transfer pipe, valves, fittings,
sand bags, etc.
Assumed 1/4 of the processing facility perimeter
1.068
LF
$7
$7,000
Key at end of table.
Page 3 of 8
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Pipe boots, pipe clamps
Assumed l/100ft of transfer pipe
11
Each
$130
$1,500
Sumps
Assumed 1/stockpile needing water management
3
Each
$3,262
$9,800
Pumps
Assumed 2/stockpile needing water management
6
Each
$848
$5,100
Sump excavation
Assumed 4'x4'x3' sump
5
CY
$13
$100
Pipe trench excavation
Assumed trench l'xl'xlength of transfer pipe
40
CY
$13
$600
Pipe trench steel plating
Assumed 500ft/day
3
Day
$117
$400
Contact water storage tank - rental
21,000 gal frac tank rental, assumed 6 tanks - 3 treated, 3 untreated
8
week
$9,000
$72,000
Mob/demob of tank
21,000 gal frac tank rental, assumed 6 tanks - 3 treated, 3 untreated
6
Each
$1,000
$6,000
Asphalt Berms
12" wide, 4" tall, 60 LF/ton, laid with pavement
Material stockpile
Assumed perimeter of material stockpiles
2.369
LF
$2
$4,900
Decon pad
Assumed 1/4 of the processing area perimeter
146
LF
$2
$300
Stormwater diversion
Assumed perimeter of processing facility
4.273
LF
$2
$8,800
Material Screening
Pug mill and screening plant
2
Month
$15,000
$30,000
Chemical stabilization (metals)
Assumed 10% of material will be considered hazardous and needs to be stabilized
29.743
CY
$100
$2,974,300
Haul and Disposal
Subtitle D facility Disposal
excavated material
46.859
Ton
$97
$4,545,400
Transport
20 CY truck (20min load time) from staging area to disposal facility
34.204
LCY
$3
$107,800
Subtitle D facility Disposal
access road stone and processing facility stone
54.129
Ton
$97
$5,250,500
Transport
20 CY truck (20min load time) from staging area to disposal facility
26.730
LCY
$22
$576,100
Subtitle C/TSCA facility Disposal
5.207
Ton
$194
$1,010,100
Transport
20 CY truck (20min load time) from staging area to disposal facility
3.800
LCY
$22
$81,900
Waste profile sampling
1 sample per 5,000 CY
7
Each
$680
$4,800
Site Restoration
Total
$40,768,560
Site Decontamination at Processing Site
Remove and dispose of containment systems
1
LS
$6,524
$6,600
Remove and dispose of asphalt berms
Berms, bituminous, 4" or more in height
6.788
LF
$4
$29,500
Remove and dispose of paved areas
Pavement removal, bituminous roads, 4-6" thick
470.179
SF
$1
$363,700
Removal of stone subbase for paved areas
Wheeled front end loader, 3 CY bucket, select granular fill
17.414
BCY
$10
$172,800
Decon and remove equipment
1
LS
$19,572
$19,600
Remove contact water system
1
LS
$13,048
$13,100
Soil testing under containment areas
1/2000 SF of processing facility
236
Each
$283
$66,900
Soil Removal
Excavation
Hydraulic excavator, crawler mounted, 1-1/2 CY bucket
2.258
BCY
$1
$3,200
Transport cost for disposal
20 CY truck (20min load time), 45mph avg, from staging area to disposal facility
2.597
LCY
$22
$56,000
Disposal cost
Subtitle D facility assumed
3.558
Ton
$97
$345,200
| Site Restoration
Soil preparation
Rough grade and scarify common earth to receive topsoil, 200HP dozer with scarifier.
627.6
MSF
$23
$14,460
Key at end of table.
Page 4 of 8
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description
Comments
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Soil Restoration
Placement cost
Dozer 80 HP, 300' haul from stockpile, sandy clay and loam
13,365
LCY
$2,890
$38,625,200
Re-vegetation
Hydro seeding including seed and fertilizer
627,579
SF
$0.1
$69,800
Tree planting
Tree density 1 per 100SF, includes placement of bagged and burlapped 12" dia ball
trees via backhoe/loader, 48HP. Assumed transport cost per tree to be $20
627,579
SF
$1
$565,100
Wetland restoration
13
Acre
$33,000
$417,400
Special Construction $4,138,600
Dewatering plant operations
CY of excavated material
33,047
CY
$98
$3,234,000
Wetland mitigation activities
13
Acre
$59,000
$746,100
Wastewater treatment plant
WWTP mobilization/demobilization
1
LS
$32,619
$32,700
WWTP rental
2
Month
$45,667
$91,400
WWTP operator
2
Month
$9,786
$19,600
WWTP residuals disposal
1
LS
$13,048
$13,100
Water discharge permits
Costs for sampling for COCs, TSS, TDS periodically in discharge water plus a base
monthly cost. Assumed sampling happens bi-monthly.
2
Month
$818
$1,700
I
Capital Costs Subtotal:
$76,536,500
10% Legal, administrative, engineering fees, project management - not including sediment or soil disposal costs:
$6,538,600
10% design - not including sediment or soil disposal costs:
$6,538,600
15% construction management - not including sediment or soil disposal costs:
$9,807,800
20% Overhead and Profit:
$15,289,700
30% Contingencies:
$34,413,400
Capital Cost Total:
$149,125,000
1 1
Key
BCY = bank cubic yards
CKD = cement kiln dust
COC = contaminant of concern
CY = cubic yards
DIA = diameter
EA = each
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FOB = freight on board
FS = feasibility study
GPS = Global Positioning System
HR = hour
H&S = health and safety
LCY = loose cubic yards
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
MS/MSD = matrix spike and spike duplicate
MSF = thousand square feet
OTR = over the road
OU = operable unit
NCP = National Contingency Plan
OH = overhead
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
PDI = predesign investigations
QA/QC = quality assurance/control
RAL = remedial action level
SSHS = site safety and health superintendent
STA = sediment transitional area
TDS = total dissolved solids
TSS = total suspended solids
Y 0 Y = young-of-year
Page 5 of 8
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description Comments Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Basis of Cost
Costs based on a variety of sources including published and unpublished sources such as RS Means, communications with vendors (written and verbal), and internal databases of cost based on previous
experience. Costs FOB Lockport, New York. RS Means costs were based on 2022 rates in Niagara Falls, New York.
Present worth calculations based on a 30-year operating period and a 7% annual interest rate per "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study" (EPA 540-R-00-
002 August 2000), the preamble to the NCP (55 FR 8666).
Estimated schedule for completion of work based on 1 mg/kg PCB and 200/400/1000 mg/kg lead cleanup level - 2 months including removal and restoration. Schedule assumes that the excavation rate
would be approximately 1,000 CY per day. Schedule assumes that the restoration rate would be approximately 1,000 CY per day. Schedule assumes that one working season would be 9 months and no
work would occur over winter. Schedule assumes equipment and supplies are readily available.
Labor rates include overhead and profit and are not included in the overall overhead and profit markup
In accordance with the USEPA requirements, as all contaminated material would be removed a 5-year review will not be required.
Predesign Investigations
Predesign investigations to be conducted prior to the Remedial Design to more thoroughly delineate excavation areas, determine contact water treatment requirements, investigate obstacles to construction,
and other Site features.
Topographic survey conducted for the staging area and access points plus remediation areas.
Additional sampling will include further delineation of the depth and areal extent of the identified Adjacent floodplain soil remedial areas along with sampling of the remainder of the Adjacent floodplain
soil areas to identify other potentially contaminated locations. The additional sampling will also include a focus on residential zoned properties in the Adjacent floodplains that did not have sampling done
during previous investigations.
Additional floodplain soil samples will be collected based on a rate of: 4 samples per acre of creek floodplain outside of the current remedial areas; 10 additional samples per residential zoned properties
within the floodplain; 1 sample per 250 ft of the perimeter of the remedial areas (excluding edge along the creek) to delineate the remedial areas; 2 samples per location (1ft, 2ft), and 1 MS/MSD and 1
QA/QC sample per 20 samples. The additional samples will be analyzed for lead and PCBs.
Equipment assumed for floodplain soil sampling include: bowls and spoons, hand augers, GPS, and ancillary supplies.
Sample bottle shipping costs included in analytical costs
Additional sampling for the Non-Adajcent floodplain soil areas was included in the PDI to evaluate the conditions of the Non-Adjacent floodplain soil areas. This additional sampling will also include a
focus on residential zoned properties in the Non-Adjacent floodplains that did not have sampling done during previous investigations
The Non-Adjacent floodplain soil sampling includes samples being collected based on a rate of: 4 samples per acre of creek floodplain within the non-adjacent areas; 10 additional samples per residential
zoned properties within the non-adjacent floodplain areas; 2 samples per location (1ft, 2ft), and 1 MS/MSD and 1 QA/QC sample per 20 samples. The additional samples will be analized for lead and
PCBs.
General Requirements
Contractor management and non specific labor costs include project management, QA/QC, Health and Safety. Equipment charges include operator.
Implementation of institutional controls are assumed to be conducted by the appropriate government agency
General costs associated with project implementation including project trailers, communications, sanitation, PPE and other H&S safety supplies, and various sundries required for project implementation as
a percentage of project capital costs (5%).
Page 6 of 8
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description Comments Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Site Work
Site work includes general preparation activities prior to construction as well as other Site-wide activities conducted throughout the construction period.
Vegetation clearing will be limited to areas necessary for access and areas impacted by removal operations includes removal of small, medium, and large size trees and grubbing of stumps.
Temporary safety fencing assumed to be around active access roads and work areas, will be salvaged and reused as access roads shifted.
Temporary access road construction - estimated total for project - 14 entrance areas of varying lengths depending on distance from the remedial area to the closest public road, 12 feet wide, aggregate
covered. Assumed one access road would be utilized at a time.
Coffer dams will be utilized to section off the shoreline of the remedial areas to allow for excavation work to occur in the dry. It is assumed that the coffer dams would be shifted after each area is excavated
and restored.
Floodplain soils would be excavated using standard construction excavation equipment such as end loaders and excavators, and loaded into trucks for transport to the processing facility. Average depth of
excavation assumed to be 2 feet over impacted areas.
Excavated material will be loaded onto trucks to be transferred to the staging/processing area to be dewatered and processed for disposal.
Confirmation sampling would be conducted following excavation to verify if contaminated material remains.
Following excavation, backfill would be placed to meet pre-construction grades. Backfill would primarily consist of common fill, with 6 inches of topsoil (to allow for habitat restoration).
Air quality monitoring will include VOCs, PCBs, and fugitive dust.
Distance from source to staging area for #2 run of crusher stone, topsoil assumed to be 20 miles.
Distance from source to staging area for common fill assumed to be 10 miles.
Distance from staging area to work area assumed to be an average of 8 miles.
Distance from staging area to disposal facility assumed to be 100 miles.
Clean material source sampling assumed to be 1 sample per 1000 CY of material
Processing Facility
Material staging areas will be constructed at the processing facility for temporary storage and dewatering of floodplain soil prior to testing and processing, processed materials, hazardous /TSCA material
requiring segregation, clean materials for backfill/cover, etc. The areas will be lined with a geocomposite liner material and jersey barriers to establish the perimeter of each area. Contact water from these
areas will be collected and processed with other contact water generated at the Site.
A contact water collection system will be constructed around the perimeter of the material storage bins to collect runoff and divert it to the contact water treatment system. The collection system will
consist of perforated pipes in the storage area draining to a sump. Water in the sump will be pumped to the frac tanks.
Frac tank(s) will be used to store water that has come into contact with contaminated materials generated at the Site. Wastewater from dewatering operations will also be stored in the frac tanks. Excess
water will be treated and discharged to the creek. The estimated cost in this estimate assumes discharge to Eighteen Mile Creek.
Floodplain soil will be stabilized as necessary in accordance with RCRA land disposal regulations. Additional processing may be required based on the final waste characteristics of the floodplain soil. For
this FS, it was estimated that approximately 10% of floodplain will require stabilization.
Following processing, the floodplain soil will be shipped off-site for disposal. If a beneficial use can be found for the material during the remedial design phase and the processed material meets the material
specifications, it may reduce the overall cost of remediation. For this analysis it was assumed that approximately 90% of the material can be shipped to a Subtitle D landfill for disposal following on-site
treatment for lead, with the remaining going to a Subtitle C landfill.
Page 7 of 8
-------
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy for Flood plain Soil
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3, Niagara County, New York
Description Comments Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Site Restoration
It is anticipated that wetland disturbance would include the construction of access roads and other construction activities. Access roads will be removed and wetland areas will be restored and replanted
following the completion of construction. Wetland disturbance is assumed to be 50% of the area of the access roads and 100% of the area of the remedial areas.
Disturbed areas will be regraded prior to restoration to blend with preconstruction conditions.
Site cleanup activities will include the removal of all equipment, cleaning and testing of paved surface, and restoration of paving to preconstruction conditions.
Assumed topsoil would be stripped from the staging area and replaced during site restoration. Assume spreading to match pre construction depths
Removal and disposal of silt fence included in costs for installation of silt fence
Sweeping and washing of roads included in cost of rental of cleaning equipment
Assumed that the contaminated material stockpile area would need to be excavated to 1ft in depth to remove residual contamination from the processing facility
Special Construction
A contractor will be retained to provide equipment and operate an on-site dewatering facility.
Page 8 of 8
-------
Table 11: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Chemical Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site 0U3
Niagara County, New York
Chemical-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Regulatory Synopsis
Federal
Surface Water
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (CWA)
CWA §304
40 CFR Part 131
Establishes criteria for setting water quality standards
for surface water bodies based on the latest scientific
data on impacts that a constituent concentration has on a
particular aquatic species and/or human health; criteria
used as guidance by states in setting water quality
standards.
National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria
63 Federal Register 68354
Established national recommended water quality criteria
for a range of contaminants including PCBs in
freshwater.
Toxic Pollutant Effluent
Standards and Prohibitions
40 CFR Part 129.105(a)(4)
Establishes the ambient water criteria for PCBs in
navigable waters as 0.001|ig/L.
Soil
USEPA Regional Screening
Levels for Soils
Regional Screening Levels Generic
Tables as of May 2021
Provides concentrations for compounds and analytes
based on their most recent risk assessment data.
Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-
screening-1 evel s-rsl s-gen eric-tables
Air
No promulgated Chemical-Specific Federal ARARs for air were identified for this project
Key at end of table.
Page 1 of3
-------
Table 11: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Chemical Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site 0U3
Niagara County, New York
Chemical-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Regulatory Synopsis
State
Surface Water
NYSDEC Water Quality
Standards and Classifications
6 NYCRR Parts 700 - 701.14,
701.19-702.17, 702.22-703.5,
703.7- 706
Establishes surface water quality standards and effluent
limitations.
New York State Division of
Water TOGS Ambient Water
Quality Standards and
Guidance Values
TOGS 1.1.1
Provides screening criteria for surface water.
NYSDOH - Sources of Water
Supply - Standards of Raw
Water Quality
10 NYCRR Part 170.4
Establishes quality standards for sources of water for
public water supplies.
Soil
NYSDEC - Environmental
Remediation Programs, Soil
Cleanup Objectives
6 NYCRR Part 375-6. Tables 375-
6.8(a) and 375-6.8(b)
Establishes standards for soil cleanups.
NYSDEC Commissioner
Policy 51/Soil Cleanup
Guidance
CP-51 Section 5
Section 5 of CP-51 describes the process for selecting
soil cleanup objectives based on 6 NYCRR Part 375
Section 6.8 and Appendix E of the Technical Support
Document for Part 375. This regulation is not applicable
for PAHs.
Air
No promulgated chemical-specific State ARARs for air were identified for this project
Key at end of table.
Page 2 of3
-------
Table 11: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Chemical Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site 0U3
Niagara County, New York
Chemical-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Regulatory Synopsis
Sediment
NYSDEC Division of Water
TOGS Sediment Quality
Threshold Values
TOGS 5.1.9 In-Water and Riparian
Management of Sediment and
Dredged Material, Table 2
Establishes standards for dredged freshwater sediment
to be placed in water or in riparian areas.
NYSDEC Screening and
Assessment of Contaminated
Sediment, Sediment Guidance
Values
NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife
and Marine Resources, Table 5 -
Freshwater Sediment Guidance
Values
Establishes screening values for contaminated
freshwater sediments.
Key:
ARAR = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
CWA = Clean Water Act
MCL = maximum contaminant level
NYCRR = New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
NYSDEC = New York Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH = New York State Department of Health
OSWER = Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
SDWA = Safe Drinking Water Act
TBC = To Be Considered
TOGS = Technical and Operational Guidance Series
USC = United States Code
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VISL = Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table 12: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Location Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Location-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
Federal
Waterways
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
40 CFR Parts 322,
323m, and 329
Governs coordination of activities in navigable waters.
Congressional approval required for any obstruction of the
navigable capacity of the waters of the United States, and for
construction of bridges, wharfs, piers, and other structures
across navigable waters.
USACE regulations in 33 CFR 322, 323 and 329 provide
permitting authority for work in or affecting navigable
waters, and discharge of dredged or fill material in the
waters of the United States.
Coastal Zone Management Act
15 CFR Parts 923 and
930
Established that federal agencies that conduct or support
activities that directly affect a coastal resource must
undertake those activities in a manner that is consistent, to
the maximum extent practicable, with State coastal zone
management programs that have been approved by NOAA.
Floodplains and Wetlands
USEPA Statement of Procedures on
Floodplain Management and Wetlands
Protection
Executive Order 11988 (floodplain
management)
Executive Order 11990 (protection of
wetlands)
40 CFR Part 6,
Appendix A, Sections 3
and 4
Establishes requirements associated with actions that have
impacts on wetlands or floodplains.
Clean Water Act Section 404
40 CFR Part 230 and
33 CFR Parts 320-330
Prohibits discharge into wetlands.
Key at end of table.
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table 12: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Location Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Location-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
USEPA National Guidance, WQSW
Appendix B to Chapter
2 - General Program
Guidance of the Water
Quality Standards
Handbook, December
1983 (updated July
1990)
Provides for the inclusion of wetlands in the definition of
State waters. The WQSW guidance requires monitoring of
wetlands for water quality management activities including
the assessment and control of NPS pollution, and waste
disposal activities (sewage sludge, CERCLA, RCRA).
National Environmental Policy Act;
40 CFR 6.302(b)(2005)
42 USC §§ 4321-4370h
Regulates activities within a floodplain.
RCRA Regulations - Location
Standard
40 CFR Part 264.18
Regulates the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of hazardous waste management facilities
within the 100-year floodplain.
General Requirements for Site Remediation
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
16 USC § 661-666
Requires consideration of the effects of a proposed action on
wetlands and areas affecting streams (including floodplains),
as well as other protected habitats. Federal agencies must
consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
the appropriate State agency with jurisdiction over wildlife
resources prior to issuing permits or undertaking actions
involving the modification of any body of water (including
impoundment, diversion, deepening, or otherwise controlled
or modified for any purpose).
National Historic Preservation Act and
Protection of Historic Properties
16 USC §470, et. seq.
and 36 CFR Part 800
Establishes procedures to provide for preservation of
historical and archeological data that might be destroyed
through alteration of terrain as a result of a federal
construction project or a federally licensed activity or
program.
Endangered Species Act
16 USC §1531 et seq.,
50 CFR Parts 17 and
424
Requires that the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species and/or its habitat not be impacted by a
federal activity.
Key at end of table.
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table 12: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Location Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Location-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and
Management Act
Public Law 94-265, as
amended
through October 11,
1996
Requires that federal agencies consult with National Marine
Fisheries Services on actions that may adversely affect
essential fish habitats, defined as "those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth
to maturity."
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
16 USC 703-712
Requires that federal agencies consult with USFWS during
remedial design and remedial construction to ensure that the
cleanup of the site does not unnecessarily impact migratory
birds.
Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act
16 USC 668-668c
Actions must be taken to conserve critical habitat in areas
where species are present.
Farmland Protection Policy Act of
1981
7 CFR Part 658
Regulates the extent to which federal programs contribute to
the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural uses.
State
Waterways
New York State - Use and Protection
of Waters
6 NYCRR Part 608
Establishes requirements with excavation or placement of fill
in navigable waters.
Floodplains and Wetlands
New York State Freshwater Wetlands
Regulations
6 NYCRR Parts 662-
665
Establishes permit requirement regulations, wetland maps
and classifications.
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
New York State Floodplain
Development Permits
6 NYCRR Part 500
Describes permitting requirements for development in
floodplains.
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
Key at end of table.
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 12: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Location Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Location-specific ARARs, TBCs, and
other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
New York State Floodplain
Management Criteria for State
Projects
6 NYCRR Part 502
Provides floodplain management criteria for State projects.
General Requirements for Site Remediation
New York State Endangered and
Threatened Species of Fish and
Wildlife
6 NYCRR Part 182
Provides standards for the protection of threatened and
endangered species.
New York State Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational Rivers Permit Program
6 NYCRR Part 666
Provides regulations for the administration and management
of the wild, scenic, and recreational rivers system in New
York State.
New York State Protected Native
Plant Species
ECL Section 9-1503
and 6 NYCRR Part
193.3
Lists the protection requirements and restrictions on
removing identified endangered, threatened, rare, and
exploitable native plant species.
New York State Waterfront
Revitalization of Coastal Areas and
Inland Waterways
Executive Article 42,
Section 910-923
Policy on designation or use of coastal and inland waterway
resources while preventing the loss of living marine
resources and wildlife, diminution of open space area or
public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, and
impairment of scenic beauty or permanent adverse changes
to ecological systems.
Key:
ARAR = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
ECL = Environmental Conservation Law
NYCRR = New York Code of Rules and Regulations
NPS = Non-Point Source Pollution
NYSDEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TBC = To Be Considered
USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC = United States Code
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WQSW = Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table 13: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Action-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
Federal
Surface Water
CWA - USEPA Administered Permit
Programs: National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and Criteria and Standards
for the NPDES
40 CFR Part 401
40 CFR Parts 122 and
125
Provides NPDES permit requirements for point source
discharges, including the NPDES Best Management Practice
Program. These regulations include, but are not limited to,
requirements for compliance with water quality standards,
discharge monitoring system, and records maintenance.
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(CWA)
40 CFR Part 401
40 CFR Parts 121.2,
122-125
Requires federal license or permit applicants provide a
certification that any discharges (e.g., dredged material
dewatering effluent, placement of fill, discharges of decants
water) will comply with the CWA, including water quality
standard requirements (water quality certification).
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(CWA)
33 USC §1251 et seq.
33 USC §404
40 CFR Part 230
Requires assurance that action taken meets applicable
federal/state water quality limitations.
Regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into
navigable waters of the United States, also regulates the
construction of any structure in navigable waters and provides
guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill
material.
Key at end of table.
Page lof 7
-------
Table 13: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Action-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
Soil
RCRA Criteria for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills
40 CFR Part 258
Establishes criteria for use in determining which solid waste
disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable probability
of adverse effects.
Area of Contamination Policy
55 FR 8758- 8760,
March 8, 1990
This policy addresses consolidation of contiguous waste
within an AOC. Movement of media contaminated with
hazardous wastes within an AOC does not typically trigger
RCRA requirements.
Corrective Action Management Units
40 CFR Part 264.552
These regulations provide exceptions to Land Disposal
Restrictions requirements and establish rules for consolidation
and treatment of noncontiguous waste within the Site.
Sediment
RCRA Hazardous Waste, Non-
Hazardous Waste and Other Wastes
Management System
40 CFR Parts 239-299
Evaluate and control of material that contains a listed waste,
or that displays a hazardous waste characteristic based on one
of four criteria - reactivity, ignitability, flammability, and
toxicity -as measured through the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure test. Regulates storage, treatment, and
disposal of listed or characteristic waste unless an exemption
applies.
RCRA Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
40 CFR Part 261
42 USC 6921 et seq.
Describes methods for identifying hazardous wastes and lists
known hazardous wastes.
RCRA Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR Part 262
Describes standards applicable to generators of hazardous
wastes.
RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention
- Applicability and Design and
Operation of Facility
40 CFR Parts 264.30-
264.37
Outlines the requirements for safety equipment and spill
control.
RCRA - Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures
40 CFR Parts 264.50-
264.56
Outlines the requirements for emergency procedures to be
used following explosions, fires, etc.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
PCBs Manufacturing, Processing,
15 USC §2601 et seq.
40 CFR Part 761.50
40 CFR Part 761.61
Regulates PCBs from manufacture to disposal, identifies
cleanup and disposal requirements for PCB-contaminated
sediments, storage requirements and decontamination
Key at end of table.
Page 2 of7
-------
Table 13: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Action-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
Distribution, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use
Prohibitions
40 CFR Part 761.65
40 CFR Part 761.79
standards and procedures for removing disposal requirements
for various PCB waste types and provides cleanup and
disposal options for PCB remediation waste.
Air
CAA - National Primary and
Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards for PMio and PM2.5
40 CFR Parts 50.6 and
50.7
Establishes air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5.
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans
40 CFR Part 52
Sets forth the requirements for the implementation plan
approvals.
Standards for Performance for New
Stationary Sources
40 CFR Part 60
Establishes the provisions for the owner or operator to meet
for any new stationary source.
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
40 CFR Part 61
Establishes the national air emissions standards for
construction of facilities that emit or have the potential to
emit one or more hazardous materials.
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories
40 CFR Part 63
Establishes the national emission standards for stationary
sources that emit or have the potential to emit one or more
hazardous air pollutants.
Clean Air Act
42 USC § 7401-7671
40 CFR Parts 50, 51,
and 52
Identifies emission requirements for "major" sources of lead,
NOx, CO, PM10, and SO2 in attainment and non-attainment
areas.
Waste Transportation and Disposal
USDOT Rules for Transportation of
Hazardous Materials
49 USC §1801-1819
49 CFR Parts 107,
171, 172, 177, 179
Outlines procedures for the packaging, labeling, manifesting,
and transporting of hazardous materials.
RCRA Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR Part 263
Establishes standards for hazardous waste transporters.
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
40 CFR Section 6901
40 CFR Part 268
Identifies hazardous wastes restricted from land disposal and
provides treatment standards under which an otherwise
prohibited waste may be disposed of on land.
Key at end of table.
Page 3 of7
-------
Table 13: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Action-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
General Requirements for Site Remediation
Federal Pretreatment Regulations for
Existing and New Sources of
Pollution
40 CFR Part 403
Provide pretreatment criteria that waste streams must meet
prior to discharge to Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
State
Surface Water
Fish and Wildlife Management
Practices Cooperative Program
NYS ECL §11-0513
Establishes that no deleterious or poisonous substances shall
be thrown or allowed to run into any public or private waters
in quantities injurious to fish life, protected wildlife, or
waterfowl inhabiting those waters, or injurious to the
propagation of fish, protected wildlife, or waterfowl therein.
Environmental Conservation Water
Resources Permits
ECL Article 15, Title
5
Lists the permit requirements for working in or modifying
protected creeks and streams.
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
Soil
NYSDEC - Technical Guidance for
Site Investigation and Remediation
DER-10 Chapters 1
and 5
Provides guidance on investigations and remediation within
New York.
Air
NYSDEC - Prevention and Control of
Air Contaminants and Air Pollution:
Air Pollution Prohibited and Visible
Emissions Limited
6 NYCRR Parts 211.1
and 211.2
Prohibits air pollution and visible emissions.
NYSDEC Air Quality Classifications
System - Classification Levels and
Air Quality Standards - Particulates
6 NYCRR Part
256. land Part 257.3
Establishes air quality classification levels based on land use
and associated air quality standards.
NYSDOH - Generic Community Air
Monitoring Plan
DER-10, Appendix
1A
Provides a generic plan for monitoring of air quality during
remedial construction.
Key at end of table.
Page 4 of7
-------
Table 13: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Action-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
Noise
New York State - Noise from Heavy
Motor Vehicles - Scope and
Allowable Noise Levels
6NYCRR Parts 450.1
and 450.3.
Provides sound level limits during construction activities.
Waste Transportation and Disposal
NYSDEC TOGS Industrial SPDES
Permit Drafting Strategy for Surface
Water
TOGS 1.2.1
Provides guidance for writing permits for discharges of
wastewater from industrial facilities
and for writing requirements equivalent to SPDES permits for
discharges from remediation.
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
SPDES Permits
6 NYCRR Parts 750 -
758
Standards for stormwater runoff and surface water discharges.
Governs the discharge of any wastes into or adjacent to State
waters that may alter the physical, chemical, or biological
properties of State waters, except as authorized pursuant to a
NPDES or State permit.
Use and Protection of Waters
6 NYCRR Part 608
Permit requirements for discharge of chemicals to New York
waters.
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
New York State Classifications of
Surface Waters and Groundwaters
6 NYCRR Part 701
Establishes restrictions for discharge into surface waters.
Key at end of table.
Page 5 of7
-------
Table 13: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Action-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
New York Waste Transporter Permit
Program
6 NYCRR Part 364
Establishes permit requirements for transportation of
regulated waste.
On-site CERCLA response actions are exempt from permit
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e), although
such activities must comply with substantive requirements of
these regulations.
New York State Standards for
Universal Waste and Restrictions
6 NYCRR Part 374-3
and 6 NYCRR Part
376
Establishes standards for the treatment and disposal of
hazardous wastes.
Environmental Conservation
Industrial Hazardous Waste
Management
ECL Article 27, Title
9
Identifies transport and disposal requirements for hazardous
waste generated from and by industrial facilities.
General Requirements for Site Remediation
New York Solid Waste Management
Facilities General Requirements
6 NYCRR Part 360
Sets standards and criteria for all solid waste management
facilities, including design, construction, operation, and
closure requirements for municipal solid waste landfills.
New York State Standards for Waste
Transportation
6 NYCRR Part 364
Regulates the collection, transport and delivery of regulated
waste including hazardous wastes.
New York State Hazardous Waste
Management System - General
6 NYCRR Part 370
Provides definition of terms and general standards applicable
to hazardous waste management systems.
New York State Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste
6 NYCRR Part 371
Describes methods for identifying hazardous wastes and lists
known hazardous wastes.
New York State Hazardous Waste
Manifest System and Related
Standard for Generators, Transporters
and Facilities
6 NYCRR Part 372
Establishes record keeping requirements and standards related
to the manifest system for hazardous wastes.
New York State Hazardous
Management Facilities
6 NYCRR Part 373
Regulates treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
Key at end of table.
Page 6 of 7
-------
Table 13: ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines Screening Table, Action Specific
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3
Niagara County, New York
Action-specific ARARs, TBCs, and other Guidelines
Requirement
Code/Citation
Requirement Synopsis
New York State Management of
Specific Hazardous Waste
6 NYCRR Part 374
Establishes standards for the management of specific
hazardous wastes.
New York State Environmental
Remediation Programs
6 NYCRR Part 375
Identifies processes for investigation and remedial action at
state funded Registry site; provides exception from NYSDEC
permits.
Key:
AOC = area of contamination
ARAR = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CAA = Clean Air Act
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
CO = Carbon monoxide
CWA = Clean Water Act
DER = Division of Environmental Remediation
ECL = Environmental Conservation Law
FR = Federal Register
LDR = Land Disposal Restrictions
NOx = Nitric oxide
NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NYCRR = New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
NYSDEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH = New York State Department of Health
NYSDOT = New York State Department of Transportation
NYSECL = New York State Environmental Conservation Law
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
PM2.5 = particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
PMio = particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SO2 = Sulfur dioxide
SPDES = State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
TBC = To Be Considered
TOGS = Technical and Operational Guidance Series
TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act
USC = United States Code
USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 7 of 7
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
FINAL
09/09/2024 REGION ID: 02
Site Name: EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
CERCLIS ID: NYN000206456
OUID: 03
SSID: A269
Action:
DocID:
Doc Date:
Title:
Image
Count:
Doc Type:
Addressee Name/Organization:
Author Name/Organization:
631145
09/09/2024
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
6
Administrative Record
Index
(US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY)
677064
03/01/2004
SEDIMENT SAMPLING. BIOLOGICAL ANALYSES AND
CHEMICAL ANALYSES VOLUME 1 - PROJECT REPORT
OVERVIEW FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
SITE
63
Report
676562
03/01/2004
SEDIMENT SAMPLING. BIOLOGICAL ANALYSES AND
CHEMICAL ANALYSES VOLUME 2 - LABORATORY
REPORTS FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
SITE
300
Report
407751
01/01/2007
NYSDEC FINAL REPORT FOR EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
PCB SOURCE TRACKDOWN PROJECT FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
48
Report
(NIAGARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND
TOURISM)
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
319202
04/01/2009
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENT INVESTIGATION FOR
THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
1657
Report
(NIAGARA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT)
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
676547
01/20/2012
BIOACCUMULATION MODELING AND ECOLOGICAL
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE
CREEK SITE
140
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS)
Page 1 of 6
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
FINAL
09/09/2024 REGION ID: 02
Site Name: EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
CERCLIS ID: NYN000206456
OUID: 03
SSID: A269
Action:
DocID:
Doc Date:
Title:
Image
Count:
Doc Type:
Addressee Name/Organization:
Author Name/Organization:
676549
04/10/2013
BASELINE BENTHIC COMMUNITY SAMPLING REPORT
FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
39
Report
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
676561
01/15/2014
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE OLCOTT
HARBOR SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS FOR OU3
FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
9
Memorandum
665817
03/30/2015
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT MARCH 2015
FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
784
Report
(US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY)
(CH2M HILL)
436262
07/01/2016
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT OU2 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
463
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
719193
01/26/2017
JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH ARTICLE -
ASSESSING THE STATUS OF SEDIMENT TOXICITY AND
MACRO INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES IN THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK AREA OF CONCERN FOR OU3
FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
9
Publication
707156
07/10/2019
REVISED PHASE 2 REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
780
Work Plan
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
Page 2 of 6
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
FINAL
09/09/2024 REGION ID: 02
Site Name: EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
CERCLIS ID: NYN000206456
OUID: 03
SSID: A269
Action:
DocID:
Doc Date:
Title:
Image
Count:
Doc Type:
Addressee Name/Organization:
Author Name/Organization:
676546
09/01/2019
PHASE 1 DATA EVALUATION REPORT FOR FISH
TISSUE FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
476
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
676557
09/01/2019
PHASE 1 DATA EVALUATION REPORT FOR OU3 FOR
THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
2739
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
646825
09/01/2019
REDACTED - REVISED PHASE 2 REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN ADDENDUM FOR
ADDITIONAL FLOODPLAIN PROPERTIES FOR OU3 FOR
THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
12
Work Plan
676558
01/21/2020
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE REVIEW OF THE
FISH CONSUMPTION RATES AS APPLICABLE TO THE
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR OU3 FOR
THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
3
Memorandum
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
676552
02/17/2020
DRAFT FINAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
55
Report
(WSP)
719192
05/01/2020
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
65
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS)
Page 3 of 6
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
FINAL
09/09/2024 REGION ID: 02
Site Name: EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
CERCLIS ID: NYN000206456
OUID: 03
SSID: A269
Action:
DocID:
Doc Date:
Title:
Image
Count:
Doc Type:
Addressee Name/Organization:
Author Name/Organization:
719195
10/24/2020
JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH ARTICLE -
CONDITION OF RESIDENT FISH COMMUNITIES IN THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK AREA OF CONCERN FOR OU3
FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
8
Publication
676554
08/10/2021
PHASE 3 DATA EVALUATION REPORT FOR OU3 FOR
THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
1168
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
(ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
INCORPORATED)
707154
10/01/2021
PHASE 2 DATA EVALUATION REPORT FOR OU3 FOR
THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
5053
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
(WSP USA SOLUTIONS INC.)
628475
02/18/2022
FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU3
FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
2854
Report
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS KANSAS
CITY DISTRICT) | (US ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY)
676556
04/27/2022
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES REPORT FOR
THE CREEK CORRIDOR NEAR NEWFANE FOR OU3 FOR
THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
144
Memorandum
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY) | DARPINIAN,AMY (US ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | KONDRK,JACLYN
(US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY)
(WSP)
Page 4 of 6
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
FINAL
09/09/2024 REGION ID: 02
Site Name: EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
CERCLIS ID: NYN000206456
OUID: 03
SSID: A269
Action:
DocID:
Doc Date:
Title:
Image
Count:
Doc Type:
Addressee Name/Organization:
Author Name/Organization:
719191
05/16/2022
FINAL BASELINE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
2044
Report
(US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY)
(WSP USA SOLUTIONS INC.)
676551
07/15/2022
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN EVALUATION FOR
OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
10
Memorandum
(US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | (US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY) | DANIELS,TODD,A (US ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS) | KONDRK,JACLYN
(US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY)
(WSP)
676555
07/21/2022
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE ANALYSIS OF
SEDIMENT EROSION AND DEPOSITION AND
CONTAMINANT MOVEMENT FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
41
Memorandum
(WSP)
(LIMNOTECH INCORPORATED)
719190
07/21/2022
REVISED AREA OF CONCERN MINK PREY SURVEY AND
OAK ORCHARD CREEK ADD-ON FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
57
Report
(STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK)
654446
12/08/2022
ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT EROSION AND DEPOSITION
AND CONTAMINANT MOVEMENT FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
41
Memorandum
(LIMNOTECH INCORPORATED)
Page 5 of 6
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
FINAL
09/09/2024 REGION ID: 02
Site Name: EIGHTEENMILE CREEK
CERCLIS ID: NYN000206456
OUID: 03
SSID: A269
Action:
DocID:
Doc Date:
Title:
Image
Count:
Doc Type:
Addressee Name/Organization:
Author Name/Organization:
665737
01/19/2023
FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
398
Report
(US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY)
(WSP USA SOLUTIONS INC.)
719194
09/01/2023
JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH ARTICLE -
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF
MACRO INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY CONDITION
AND SEDIMENT TOXICITY IN THE EIGHTEENMILE
CREEK AREA OF CONCERN FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
10
Publication
704651
07/19/2024
PROPOSED PLAN FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE
CREEK SITE
25
Publication
(US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY)
744489
09/09/2024
MEMORANDUM TO FILE REGARDING THE PROPOSED
PLAN FOR OU3 FOR THE EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
1
Memorandum
O'Leary,Christopher,J (U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
744490
07/19/2024
REVISED PROPOSED PLAN FOR OU3 FOR THE
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK SITE
25
Memorandum
O'Leary,Christopher,J (U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
Page 6 of 6
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DnfMo-t «f Environmental R^i
R 12th Floor, A I
P .r.ri4,v °>/05 1 F; (518) 40
icHlatfori, Olfici ot tl i - Director
iv New York 12 1 ^ ?< >11
September 10, 2024
Transmitted via Email
Mr. Pat Evangelista, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
United States EPA, Region 2
290 Broadway, Floor 19
New York, New York 10007-1866
Evangelista.Pat@epa.gov
RE: Eighteen Mile Creek, Site No. 932156
OU3 Record of Decision - New York State Concurrence
Dear Pat:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) has
reviewed the Record of Decision (dated September 2024). We understand the remedy
selected addresses contaminated sediments in the portion of Eighteen Mile Creek
(Creek) beginning from Harwood Street and extending downstream for approximately 5.3
miles, referred to as the sediment transitional area (STA), as well as certain floodplain
soil adjacent to the STA, designated as EPA Operable Unit 3 (OU3). The portion of this
remedy addressing sediments is an interim remedy, and the portion addressing floodplain
soils is a final remedy.
The major components of the selected interim remedy for sediment include the following:
Excavation of contaminated sediment that exceeds the remedial action level (RAL)
of 1 part per million (ppm) for PCBs within the STA followed by backfilling with
clean sand and covering with a suitable habitat layer to create conditions for the
re-establishment of natural conditions in the Creek.
Construction of access roads and staging areas in upland areas. Following
remediation of the Creek, removal of the access roads and staging areas in
accordance with the habitat reconstruction plan.
Water and air quality monitoring during construction.
Development of a monitoring plan to track PCB concentrations in surface water
and fish tissue.
Department of
Environmental
Conservation
i
-------
Institutional controls in the form of informational devices to limit exposure to PCBs.
EPA is relying on existing New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) fish
consumption advisories. NYSDOH periodically reviews fish PCB data to ensure
the advisories are up to date and considers whether the fish consumption
advisories need modification. Other informational devices could include outreach
programs to inform the public to promote knowledge of and voluntary compliance
with the fish consumption advisories.
The major components of the selected final remedy for floodplain soil include the
following:
Excavation and off-Site disposal of PCB- and lead-contaminated floodplain soil
exceeding the remediation goals adjacent to the STA regardless of the land use
designation. Backfill of excavated areas with clean fill material and topsoil.
Construction of temporary access roads from the remediation areas to the closest
public roads and the staging area.
Implementation of erosion and sediment controls at each remediation area to
prevent the migration of floodplain soil to the Creek.
Water and air quality monitoring during construction.
Following remediation of the Creek, removal of the access roads and staging
areas, and restoration of the impacted areas in accordance with the habitat
reconstruction plan.
Development of a Site Management Plan (SMP) to provide for management of
floodplain soil post-construction, including the use of institutional controls to limit
future use of the commercial properties and impose restrictions on excavation, and
periodic reviews.
During the remedial design, additional sampling of floodplain soil adjacent to the
STA will be conducted. Risk evaluations, based on land use designations, will be
performed to determine if additional properties or areas require remediation. The selected
remedy is a final remedy for addressing floodplain soil in the STA.
In addition, EPA's investigations of groundwater within the OU2 Creek Corridor
have not revealed a source of the generally low-level volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
concentrations detected in groundwater. As a result, no action will be taken to address
Creek Corridor groundwater.
-------
The environmental benefits of the selected remedy may be enhanced by
employing design technologies and practices that are sustainable.
The remaining areas of the Creek (commencing immediately downstream of the
STA to the Creek's discharge at Lake Ontario) that are not addressed by this ROD will be
addressed under separate, future action(s). The impoundment areas upstream of
Newfane Dam and Burt Dam have historically acted as sinks for contaminated sediment,
and, as such, these areas have been identified as potential sources of downstream
contamination in the event of a change in the flow regime of the Creek. These remaining
areas require additional evaluation to establish a final remedy for the full length of the
Creek. This evaluation will identify and address the following:
data gaps including the nature and extent of contamination within these remaining
areas;
the characteristics of the sediment bed behind the Newfane and Burt dams;
a study of the impacts from having addressed the source areas;
an assessment of the fate and transport mechanisms of the remaining
contamination in the Creek, including residual soil contamination following
excavation of floodplain soil in the STA;
bathymetry monitoring of sediment to evaluate recovery, accumulation and/or
erosion; and
a long-term monitoring program.
After a comprehensive evaluation of the full length of the Creek is conducted, a
final remedy for the entire length of the Creek will be determined. The final remedy will
include final remediation goals for contaminated sediment, including the Creek Corridor
(OU2) and the STA (OU3), as well as any additional remedial action objectives that are
determined necessary, including for additional media such as surface water. In addition,
floodplain soil sampling will be conducted downstream of the STA as part of a separate
investigation. Separate response actions or a future operable unit(s) would address risks
identified in floodplain soil downstream of the STA.
EPA released the Proposed Plan for the cleanup of OU3 to the public for comment
on July 19, 2024. EPA also held a public meeting on August 1, 2024 to present the
Proposed Plan for OU3 to local officials and interested citizens and to solicit input from
the community on the remedial alternatives proposed for OU3. EPA considered all written
and oral comments submitted during the public comment period (July 19, 2024 through
August 19, 2024), which are documented in the Responsiveness Summary section of the
-------
ROD, and determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified
in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate. With this understanding, we concur
with the selected remedy for the Eighteen Mile Creek OU3 Site.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr.
Steven Moeller at (716) 851-7220.
Sincerely,
Andrew 0. Guglielmi
Director
Division of Environmental Remediation
ec: P. Mannino, USEPA, Region 2 (mannino.pietro@epa.gov)
C. O'Leary, USEPA, Region 2 (olearv.christopher@epa.gov)
S. Bogardus, NYSDOH (sara.bogardus@health.nv.gov)
A. Martin, NYSDOH (angela.martin@health.nv.gov)
M. Cruden, NYSDEC (michael.cruden@dec.nv.gov)
S. Radon, NYSDEC, Region 9 (stanlev.radon@dec.ny.gov)
S. Moeller, NYSDEC, Region 9 (steven.moeller@dec.nv.gov)
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of the significant comments and concerns
submitted by the public on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) July 19, 2024
Proposed Plan for the Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site (Site), Operable Unit 3 (OU3), and the
EPA's responses to those comments and concerns. All comments summarized in this document
have been considered in EPA's final decision regarding the selection of the remedy for OU3 at the
Site.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
On July 19, 2024, EP A released a Proposed Plan for the cleanup of OU3 of the Site to the public
for comment, along with a remedial investigation (RI) report, feasibility study (FS) report, human
health risk assessment (HHRA) report, and ecological risk assessment. These documents, as well
as others that collectively comprise the administrative record for this decision, were made available
to the public at the information repositories maintained at the EPA Region 2 Office in New York
City, the Lockport Public Library located at 23 East Avenue in Lockport, and Newfane Public
Library located at 2761 Maple Avenue, Newfane and online at: www.epa.gov/superfund/
eighteenmile-creek.
On July 19, 2024, EPA published a notice in the Lockport Union-Sun and Journal informing the
public of the commencement of the public comment period for the Proposed Plan, the upcoming
public meeting on August 1, 2024, a description of the preferred alternatives, contact information
for EP A personnel, and the availability of the above-referenced documents. The public comment
period ran from July 19, 2024 to August 19, 2024. EPA held a public meeting on August 1, 2024
at 6:00 P.M. at Newfane Town Hall located at 2737 Main Street, Newfane, New York, to inform
officials and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to present the Proposed Plan for OU3
of the Site, including the preferred remedial alternatives, and to respond to questions and
comments from the attendees. Responses to the questions and comments received at the public
meeting and in writing during the public comment period are included in this Responsiveness
Summary.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comments and/or questions were received at the public meeting, and six written comments were
received during the comment period from July 19, 2024 to August 19, 2024. Copies of the
comment letters are provided in Attachment A of this Responsiveness Summary. A summary of
significant comments provided at the public meeting and in writing, as well as EPA's responses to
them, are provided below.
-------
Comment #1: An individual noted that the regulatory limit for lead is five parts per million (ppm),
however, EPA is proposing a higher cleanup level for floodplain soils. The individual asked for an
explanation on why EPA is proposing a higher cleanup level for lead.
Response to Comment #1: The regulatory level referenced by the commenter pertains to that used
with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), a test method used to determine if a
waste is hazardous. The TCLP test does not measure the total lead in a sample, but rather the test
is designed to simulate what happens to a waste product during leaching in a landfill setting.
Leaching occurs when rainwater is filtered through wastes that are deposited in a landfill. When
the rainwater liquid meets the buried wastes, it draws out leachate (chemicals and/or other
constituents of those wastes). While the TCLP test will be employed during construction to
determine how excavated soil and sediment will be disposed at an off-site facility, it is not being
used to delineate soil or sediment that must be removed during the cleanup. If the concentration of
lead in a TCLP extract for excavated soils is greater than or equal to five ppm, the waste must be
managed as hazardous.
As part of the remedial investigation/feasibility study for OU3 of the Site, an assessment of lead
exposure was conducted. To support the assessment, and consistent with EPA guidance, sediment
and floodplain soil samples were analyzed to measure total lead concentrations.
Per EPA Region 2's approach to evaluating lead, sediment and residential soil concentrations were
compared with a screening level of 200 ppm, and those concentrations greater than the screening
level were identified for further evaluation; non-residential soil concentrations were compared to
800 ppm. The adult lead model was used to predict the maternal blood lead level (BLLs) for adult
non-residential exposures, and the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic model was used to
evaluate BLLs for the residential child (seven years and younger). Both models are designed to
determine the probability of the BLL exceeding five micrograms per deciliter ((.ig/dL) based on
the average or mean lead concentration.
The selected remedy identifies the remediation goals for contaminated soil to attain a degree of
cleanup that ensures the protection of human health and the environment. The two-tiered
remediation goal for lead in soils described is based on the New York State's 6 NYCRR Part 375
Residential Soil Cleanup Objectives and EPA Region 2's lead approach consistent with OLEM
Directive 9200.2-167. The remediation goals are also consistent with the 2024 "OLEM Updated
Residential Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities."
Comment #2: Representatives from several environment service companies inquired about
opportunities for doing business at the Site.
Response to Comment #2: EPA expects to enter into an inter-agency agreement with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the performance of the remedial design for the selected remedy. The
Army Corps of Engineers would therefore be responsible for contracting related to the design and
-------
construction of the remedy. For information regarding the contracting process, refer to
www, epa. gov/ contracts.
Comment #3: A resident noted that a number of people from lower Lockport have died of cancer
and residents in the vicinity of the former Flintkote Plant property were informed of measures that
should be taken to minimize their exposure to soils on their properties. In addition, the commenter
noted that people have been told that eating one fish caught from the Creek could endanger their
life because of the contamination.
Response to Comment #3: The OU3 Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRAs) prepared for the
site identify certain exposure scenarios that would present unacceptable risks to those that are
exposed to specific areas of contaminated soils or consume specific quantities of fish, and that is
the basis for EPA taking action to address the sediment and soil contamination in those areas. It
should be noted that, based on sampling conducted to date, the soil contamination does not present
a risk to visitors to the properties or those living in the vicinity of these properties. EPA has
provided homeowners within both OU3 and OU4 the results of soil sampling conducted on their
properties. Based on the sampling results, homeowners were provided with recommendations to
avoid disturbing the soil to reduce potential exposure before the cleanup could begin. The
recommendations are consistent with those provided by other public health agencies regarding
how to reduce exposures to lead. For sites with immediate health risks, EPA utilizes its Removal
Program, which has the authority to remove hazardous waste in time critical, emergency situations.
The concentrations of lead found at the OU4 properties to date have not warranted a time critical
removal action by EPA. The construction of the remedy for the first phase of the OU4 remediation,
which addresses lead-contaminated soils at certain residential properties in the vicinity of the
former Flintkote Property, began in Summer 2024. Soil sampling at additional residential
properties, referred to as Phase 2 of OU4, is ongoing. Remediation of OU3 residential properties
would commence once the remedial design for the floodplain soils is completed.
Fish consumption advisories, including the advisory for the Eighteen Mile Creek, are issued by
the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) and updated annually. Information
concerning fish consumption advisories is contained in the "Health Advisories" section of the
NYSDECs New York Freshwater Fishing, Official Regulation Guide, which is provided when a
fishing license is issued. In addition, information concerning the fish consumption advisory can
also be found at: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/fish/health advisories/. The
advisory for Eighteen Mile Creek, upstream of Burt Dam is "DON'T EAT" for all fish.
Comment #4: Individuals inquired if there would be any actions taken north of Burt Dam.
Response to Comment #4: The impoundment areas upstream of Newfane Dam and Burt Dam
have historically acted as sinks for contaminated sediment, and as such these areas have been
identified as potential sources of downstream contamination in the event of a change in the flow
regime of the Creek. These areas require additional evaluation. After a comprehensive evaluation
is conducted, EPA will present the findings and a cleanup plan to the public for comment.
-------
Comment #5: A resident inquired about the steps that EPA is taking to locate existing (or defunct)
businesses in the area that polluted Eighteen Mile Creek.
Response to Comment #5: EPA has various tools available to evaluate operational and ownership
history at properties of potential concern, including the issuance of written requests for information
pursuant to Section 104(e) of CERCLA. EPA has used the information received in response to
such information requests, in conjunction with data collected as part of investigations and
inspections, to inform EPA's decision regarding releases at the Site. To date, no viable potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) for the Site have been identified, however the PRP search is on-going.
Comment #6: Several individuals expressed frustration regarding the presence of raw sewage in
the Creek. Individuals noted areas from the City of Lockport to Lake Ontario that are prone to this
issue during heavy rain events. One individual noted that the metal grate intended to prevent debris
from entering the Creek near his property is in disrepair and no longer serves its intended purpose.
Response to Comment #6: The commenters are likely describing combined sewer overflow
events. A combined sewer system collects rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial
wastewater into one pipe. Normally, it can transport all the wastewater to a treatment plant.
Sometimes during large storm events, the amount of runoff exceeds the capacity of the system.
When that happens, untreated stormwater and wastewater flows into nearby waterbodies.
Combined sewer overflows are monitored and regulated by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Water. NYSDEC regulates discharges of
wastewater into waterbodies through its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES).
The City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is the only property within the ST A
that has an active SPDES permit. The primary outfall for the WWTP is located at the upstream
limit of the STA. The permit includes a monitoring program for various contaminants including
lead, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, nitrogen, selenium, phosphorus, bromodich 1 oromethane,
dibromoch 1 oromethane, chloroform, trichloroethylene, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. It is EPA's
understanding that there have been no exceedances of the limits reported by NYSDEC, indicating
that this plant is not a potential source of contamination to Eighteen Mile Creek. Former City of
Lockport Mayor Michelle Roman, in attendance at the public meeting, provided some information
to those in attendance regarding the City of Lockport"s efforts to upgrade the sewage treatment
system. In addition, while not related to the OU3 remedy, it is EPA's understanding that Town of
Newfane is receiving financing from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Water
Infrastructure Improvement (WIIA) grant for the planning, design, and construction of wastewater
treatment plant process upgrades.
Comment #7: A Newfane Town Planning Board Member, Mr. William Clark, noted the
importance of the tourism and fishing economy in Newfane and expressed the need to address
pressing environmental issues such as local agricultural runoff and industrial output from local
hazardous waste sites.
-------
Response to Comment #7: While agricultural runoff was considered as a migration pathway in
the conceptual site model, particularly in Reach 6, the remedial investigation did not reveal the
agricultural properties as the source of the primary contaminants of concern for OU3. Active
hazardous waste facilities along the Creek, such as the VanDeMark Chemical Company facility,
are being managed by NYSDEC pursuant to its authority under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Program. For information related to these facilities, contact Steve Moeller at
NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Remediation, at steven.inoeller@dec.iiY.gov.
Comment #8: A commenter noted that waterways such as the Eighteen Mile Creek have a direct
effect on the area of concern that the Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District
manages. The commenter suggested that EPA should work closely with the Niagara County Soil
and Water Conservation District, New York State, and the Niagara County Health Department.
Response to Comment #8: EPA has and will continue to coordinate with federal, state, and local
agencies working on the part of the Eighteen Mile Creek identified as an area of concern for Lake
Ontario under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Comment #9: Several individuals noted their support for the preferred alternative.
Response to Comment #9: Comment noted.
Comment #10: An individual expressed the need for EPA to maintain safe working conditions
and the safety of the residents during construction.
Response to Comment #10: Safety is of the utmost importance to EPA. Best management
practices will be employed during the performance of the work and a community air monitoring
program will be implemented in compliance with the Health and Safety Plan developed for the
Site.
Comment #11: A City of Lockport Alderman inquired about the status of sampling plans for
residential properties along Plank Road.
Response to Comment #11: Sampling of floodplain soils along Plank Road was conducted as
part of the OU3 remedial investigation. The results revealed elevated concentrations of PCBs and
lead. This area is targeted for excavation as part of the selected remedy for floodplain soils. As
part of the remedial design phase, additional sampling will be conducted to delineate the areas
requiring excavation.
Comment #12: Niagara County Legislator Carl a Speranza requested clarification regarding the
depth of excavation for contaminated sediment under the preferred alternative.
Response to Comment #12: The preferred alternative to address sediment, STA5, includes the
excavation of contaminated sediment above the remedial action level of 1 ppm for PCBs. To
-------
achieve this remedial action level, the average depth of excavation is expected to be
approximately 1.3 feet. The depth of excavation will be further informed by design sampling, as
well as confirmation sampling performed during the implementation of the remedy.
Comment #13: A resident requested a list of addresses that would be cleaned up as part of the
selected remedy.
Response to Comment #13: Refer to the figures in the Feasibility Study Report for properties
within the STA requiring floodplain soil excavation. The Feasibility Study Report is included in
the Administrative Record file for this decision and is available on EPA's webpage
(www.epa.gov/superfund/eighteenmile-creek) for the Site. Personal information, including
addresses, has been redacted in an effort to maintain the homeowner's privacy.
Comment #14: Several individuals inquired about the soil cleanup at the OU4 residential
properties located along Mill Street and in the vicinity of the former Flintkote Plant Property.
Information was requested on the following: the contractor performing the work, schedule, and
landfill receiving the excavated soil.
Response to Comment #14: While not related to the OU3 remedy, the following responds to this
comment. EPA entered into an interagency agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
the performance of the remedial action for the OU4 Phase 1 properties. Sevenson Environmental
Services, Inc. was subsequently awarded a task order from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
perform the work. Pursuant to work plans reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and EPA, excavated soil is directly loaded onto trucks for off-Site disposal.
CWM Chemical Services, LLC, Model City, in Niagara County, New York has been approved to
receive excavated soil from the Site. Additional landfills may be approved in the future.
Construction activities began in August 2024 and the excavation of contaminated soil is expected
to begin in September. It is anticipated that the that it could take up to 2 to 3 years to complete the
cleanup at the Phase 1 properties.
Comment #15: Several individuals inquired about the air monitoring that will be performed.
Information was requested on the following: who is collecting the data, whether the data will be
shared with the public, and who to contact with further concerns or questions.
Response to Comment #15: During the implementation of OU1, OU2, and OU4, EPA's
contractor, Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc., will be conducting air monitoring pursuant to
a community air monitoring plan reviewed by the EPA, US ACE, and NYSDEC. EPA expects to
periodically post a summary of the air monitoring data collected during periods of active
construction for OlJ 1, OU2, and OU3 on its webpage for the Site at www.epa.gov/
superfund/ei ghteenmile-creek. To maintain the privacy of the residential property owners at OU4,
air monitoring data collected during remedial activities will be provided to the homeowner upon
request. Any additional questions should be directed to EPA's remedial project manager,
Christopher O'Leary at olearv.christopher@epa.gov.
-------
Comment #16: A homeowner of a residential property sampled as part of Phase 2 of OU4 asked
if there will be a meeting to discuss Operable Unit 4.
Response to Comment #16: While not related to the OU3 remedy, EPA has the following
response to this comment. EPA continues to sample residential properties as part of Phase 2 and
will follow a process similar to that used during Phase 1. EPA will provide each property owner
with a copy and explanation of the results for their property. If EPA determines a soil cleanup on
the property is warranted, next steps will be discussed with the property owner, and an in-person
meeting will be held prior to the start of any clean up.
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT A
LETTERS SUBMITTED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
-------
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Doug Nicholson
Q"Learv. Christopher
18 Mile Creek, Lockport
Wednesday, August 7, 2024 7:34:43 AM
Caution: This email originated from outside EPA, please exercise additional caution when
deciding whether to open attachments or click on provided links.
)ear Mr. O'Leary
Concerning our contamination in Lockport, can you list the address's of the mitigation of soil?
Also, are there plans to clear/ dredge 18 mile creek at the area of Plank and Stone road below
Gooding Street?
Thank you for your time.
Doug Nicholson
-------
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Josh Randall
Q"Learv. Christopher
18-Mile Superfund Comment
Monday, August 19, 2024 12:16:02 PM
I Caution: This email originated from outside EPA, please exercise additional caution when
deciding whether to open attachments or click on provided links.
Hello,
I provided verbal comments during the public meeting on August 1, and some of that is
included here.
The proposed preferred alternative plan for OU3 of the 18-Mile Creek Superfund site is the
best option presented and should be completed for the health and safety of any future
residents of the area. EPA understands the importance of limiting the spread of PCBs, their
continued harm to the Great Lakes, and the most effective procedure for reducing their risk.
My interest is the process surrounding the remediation.
OU3 primarily follows the length of 18-mile creek for 5.3 miles through the Town of Lockport
and into the Town of Newfane. These waterways also have a direct effect on the AOC that
Niagara SWCD is managing. These two organizations should be working more closely together,
especially so that the general public is able to better understand the process of remediation
across multiple scales and different BUI. Additionally, NYS has provided new septic system
replacement funds to each county through their Health Departments. Niagara Health
Department will be installing new septic systems for people living within 250 feet of priority
waterways, including 18-mile creek. Their input as well as other members of the Niagara
Health Department should be sought out on the proposed remediation as well as timelines
shared.
Outside of OU3, remediation is also including a section of residential work with OU4. There
has been close communication between EPA/Army Corps and the residents living there, which
is an important part of the process. However, in order to maintain safe working conditions and
safety for the residents there will be air quality monitors on site that will not be publicly
viewable until after the process is complete. EPA maintains a robust AirNow mapping website
to allow for the public to view up to date air quality information. Because the remediation has
been contracted out to a third party, they do not have the ability to post this information
currently. Looking forward to OU3 and other remediation in the area, air quality data should be
accessible at the time of work to anyone. There are people that work/drive/visit the area where
remediation is occurring that may not have the knowledge shared with residents, and they
deserve to be able to check air levels to make their own decisions about being present in the
area.
Josh Randall
(He/Him)
-------
Natural Resources Educator
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Niagara County
Cornell Cooperative Extension is an equal opportunity, affirmative action educator and employer
-------
Date:
Attachments:
From:
To:
Subject:
Allen Bullock
Q"Learv. Christopher
Comments on proposed clean up options for 18 Mile Creek and information on in-situ treatment and capping
considerations for PCB impacted sediment
Friday, August 16, 2024 9:11:44 AM
image001.jpg
TPS AguaGate+ PAC.pdf
AauaBlok General Brochure - New Web version.pdf
I Caution: This email originated from outside EPA, please exercise additional caution when
deciding whether to open attachments or click on provided links.
Hi Christopher,
I have had a chance to review the proposed remedies on your website and would like to submit
the following information for consideration:
Please find the attached material that may be of interest to you and your team, that provides
information on In-situ treatment and engineered reactive capping to address lower PCB
concentration areas. Both have proven performance (mitigating PCB concerns), would
minimize environmental impact (vs. dredging) and help maintain the integrity of cultural
resources in ecologically sensitive areas.
The first (MD PCB Site) utilized AquaGate+ PAC as an in-situ remedy to address PCBs in lower
impact/concentration areas throughout the site. The Year 1 Monitoring Data is also
summarized in the document and revealed significant reductions in 28 Day Bioaccumulation
(> 85%) and In Situ Porewater (>90%), which you indicated were primary drivers as you
consider/select your final remedy for this site. Data from the 1 -year review (along with several
other recent projects/pilot studies) has consistently shown that benthic mixing begins almost
immediately upon amendment placement and often within 30 days, there is already
substantial reduction in pore water concentrations and overall recovery.
There is another project (EPA Region 5 - Thomson Reservoir) currently beginning construction
for a 69-acre area where AquaGate+PAC will be used to mitigate PCB concerns through in-situ
treatment:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/news-and-stories/mpca-releases-assessment-of-thomson-
reservoir-proiect-in-st-louis-river-area-of-concern.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-22-miHion-help-restore-st-louis-river-
minnesota
This in-situ treatment remedy was again selected over dredging after considering previous
successful applications where PCB concentrations were significantly reduced with minimal
environmental/ecological impact.
I hope you find this information helpful and would be more than happy to arrange a call/brief
presentation to provide more details on these projects as well as others that may be of
interest.
-------
Thankyou once again foryourtime and consideration.
Best regards,
-------
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Gregg LaForce
Q"Learv. Christopher
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site
Monday, July 22, 2024 12:00:34 PM
Outlook-A picture .pno
Outlook-fi2ab5a2
Outlook-tffkuiQ5
I Caution: This email originated from outside EPA, please exercise additional caution when
deciding whether to open attachments or click on provided links.
Chris,
I hope you are doing well.
I saw the recent press release that the public comment period has opened for this
superfund site with a public hearing on August 1 st.
Other than the NYSDEC, are you partnering with another environmental consulting firm
for the remediation and cleanup phases of this site? I have already reviewed some of the
public documentations.
I represent one of the largest independent environmental laboratory networks in the
world and have facilities in NY including a full-service lab in Rochester that would gladly
be willing to assist you for any testing requirements you may need for this site.
Gregg LaForce
Technical Sales Representative
New York Region
-------
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Thomas Tedesco
Q"Learv. Christopher
Lockport Union-Sun & Journal - Eighteenmile Creek Superfund meeting
Friday, August 2, 2024 3:09:50 PM
Caution: This email originated from outside EPA, please exercise additional caution when deciding whether to open
attachments or click on provided links.
Hi Christopher,
It's Thomas Tedesco from the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal. It was nice meeting you last night at the meeting in
Newfane, NY.
Just wanted to follow up with you here. You can send me the presentation that you gave on the project last night at
your earliest convenience.
I'll let you know if I have any questions or need anything further!
Thanks,
Thomas
Thomas Tedesco
-------
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Q"Learv. Christopher
Basile. Michael
Sample results for 4410 purdy rd Lkpt.
Friday, August 9, 2024 5:58:02 PM
Caution: This email originated from outside EPA, please exercise additional caution when
deciding whether to open attachments or click on provided links.
ii Chris,
As recently discussed at the meeting on 8/1/24 in Newfane ny, I am jus^mailim^ou as a
reminder to collect my results of your sampling at my property located
Lockport ny 14094.
Thank-you!
Kevin Drake.
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT B
PROPOSED PLAN
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
^tDSX
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site
£ \ Operable Unit 3
^ / Niagara County, New York
PRO^
July 19, 2024
EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan identifies the remedial alternatives
considered to address contaminated sediment and
floodplain soil in a discrete portion of the Eighteen Mile
Creek Superfund site (Site) referred to herein as Operable
Unit 3 (OU3), and also identifies its preferred remedial
alternative with the rationale for this preference. OU3 is
comprised of the portion of the Eighteen Mile Creek
(Creek) beginning from Harwood Street and extending
downstream for approximately 5.3 miles, referred to
herein as the sediment transitional area (STA), as well as
certain floodplain soil adjacent to the STA1. In September
2016, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU2
at the Site in which it selected a remedy addressing soil
and sediment in the Creek Corridor, which is the
approximately 4,000-foot-long segment of the Creek that
extends from the New York State Barge Canal (Canal) to
Harwood Street in the City of Lockport. Refer to the
Scope and Role Section on the next page for details
regarding that ROD, referred to as the OU2 ROD. The
STA is the portion of the Creek commencing immediately
downstream of OU2. A Site location map is provided as
Figure 1.
This Proposed Plan was developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead agency,
in consultation with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the support
agency. EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its
public participation responsibilities under Section 117(a)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA,
also known as Superfund), as amended, and Section
300.430(f) and 300.435(c) of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). The nature and extent of contamination at OU3 of
1 Although EPA's OU3 investigation of the Creek initially included
the full length of the Creek downstream of Harwood Street (Reaches 9
through 1), and adjacent floodplains to this portion of the Creek, EPA
has redefined OU3 to consist of the Creek (bank to bank) starting at
the downstream end of OU2 (beginning of Reach 9) and extending
approximately 3,800 feet downstream of the convergence with the East
Branch in Reach 6 at Station 312+93, and adjacent floodplains. The
STA extends for approximately 5.3 miles (28,000 ft) and includes
the Site and the remedial alternatives summarized in this
Proposed Plan are more fully described in the Remedial
Investigation (RI) Report, dated February 2022, and the
Feasibility Study (FS) Report, dated January 2023, as well
as other documents in the Administrative Record file for
this decision. EPA encourages the public to review these
documents to gain a more comprehensive understanding of
the Site, the Superfund activities that have been conducted,
the remedial alternatives that have been considered, and the
remedial alternative that is being proposed.
The purpose of this Proposed Plan is to inform the public
of EPA's preferred alternative and to solicit public
comments pertaining to all of the remedial alternatives
evaluated, including the preferred alternative. The
preferred alternative for the contaminated sediment,
referred to as Alternative STA5, includes the following:
excavation and off-Site disposal of contaminated sediment,
placing clean backfill over disturbed areas, long-term
monitoring and institutional controls, such as existing fish
consumption advisories. The preferred alternative for
floodplain soil at properties adjacent to the STA, referred
to as Soil3, includes the excavation and off-Site disposal of
lead and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated
floodplain soil at 17 discrete areas encompassing
approximately 11 acres. During the pre-design
investigation, sampling of additional floodplain soil would
be performed at properties adjacent to the STA, including
properties that have not yet been sampled, and separate risk
evaluations would be conducted for each of these areas. The
FS includes estimates that this sampling and the separate
risk evaluations could reveal up to an additional 11 acres
requiring remediation.
In addition, investigations of groundwater at the Site
focused on the sources of contamination within the Creek
Corridor (OU2) since groundwater predominantly flows
Reaches 9, 8, 7, and the upper portion of Reach 6. The station number
refers to the length of the centerline of the Creek starting from the
headwaters at the Canal. The downstream extent of the STA was
determined based on an assessment of the mixing and depositional zone
downstream of the confluence between the East Branch and the Creek.
Portions of the Creek downstream of OU3 will be addressed in a future
operable unit(s).
744490
-------
toward the Creek. Studies initiated by NYSDEC in 1999
revealed generally low-level concentrations of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater. As part of
EPA's investigation of groundwater at properties along
the Creek Corridor, additional groundwater monitoring
wells were installed, and sampling revealed results
consistent with NYSDEC's investigation. Refer to the
Results of EPA's Groundwater Investigation section
below for more details regarding the contaminant
concentrations detected. For the reasons discussed on
Page 7, EPA is recommending that no action is necessary
to address groundwater within the Creek Corridor at the
Site.
The proposed alternatives described in this Proposed Plan
to address the sediment and soil contamination are the
preferred alternatives for OU3 of the Site. Changes to the
preferred alternative, or a change from the preferred
alternative to another remedial alternative described in this
Proposed Plan, may be made if public comments or
additional data indicate that such a change will result in a
more appropriate remedial action. The final decision
regarding the selection of a remedy will be made after EPA
has taken into consideration all public comments. For this
reason, EPA is soliciting public comments on all of the
alternatives considered in the Proposed Plan and on the
detailed analysis section of the FS Report because EPA
may, after consideration of comments, select an
alternative other than the preferred alternative.
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
July 19, 2024 to August 19, 2024
EPA will accept written comments on the Proposed
Plan during the public comment period.
PUBLIC MEETING:
August 1, 2024 at 6:00 pm
EPA will hold a public meeting to explain the Proposed
Plan. Oral and written comments will be accepted at the
meeting. The meeting will be held at Newfane Town
Hall located at 2737 Main Street, Newfane, NY 14108.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA relies on public input to ensure the concerns of the
community are considered in selecting an effective
remedy for each Superfund site. To this end, this
Proposed Plan has been made available to the public for a
public comment period which begins on July 19,2024 and
concludes on August 19, 2024.
A public meeting will be held on August 1, 2024 at
Newfane Town Hall located at 2737 Main Street, Newfane,
New York at 6:00 p.m. to present the conclusions of the
RI/FS, elaborate further on the reasons for recommending
the preferred alternative, and receive public comments (see
the "Mark Your Calendar" box above).
Comments received at the public meeting, as well as
written comments received during the public comment
period, will be documented in a Responsiveness Summary
that will be a portion of a Record of Decision
(OU3 ROD), the document that will memorialize the
selection of a remedy for this OU3. Written comments on
the Proposed Plan should be addressed to:
Christopher O'Lcary
Remedial Project Manager
Western New York Remediation Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway - 19th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Telephone: (212) 637-4378
Email: olearv.christopher@epa.gov
PUBLIC INFORMATION REPOSITORIES
Copies of the Proposed Plan and supporting
documentation are available at the
following information repositories.
Lockport Public Library
23 East Avenue
Lockport, New York 14094
Telephone: (716) 433-5935
Newfane Public Library
2761 Maple Avenue
Newfane, New York 14108
Telephone: (716) 778-9344
USEPA - Region II
Superfund Records Center
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Telephone: (212) 637-4308
Hours: Monday - Friday: 9 AM to 5 PM
EPA's website for the Eighteen Mile
Creek Superfund Site:
www.epa.gov/superfund/eighteenmile-creek
2
-------
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
Site remediation activities are sometimes separated into
different phases, or Operable Units (OUs), so that
remediation of different aspects of a site can proceed
separately, resulting in a more efficient and expeditious
cleanup of the entire site. EPA is addressing the Eighteen
Mile Creek Site in multiple OUs.
OU1 addressed the risks associated with the residential
soil contamination at nine residential properties located
on Water Street and the threats posed from the
deteriorating Flintkote Plant building. On September 30,
2013, EPA selected a final cleanup plan for OU1 (OU1
ROD). As part of EPA's selected remedy for OU1,
residents on Water Street were permanently relocated
from their homes because of the presence of PCB-
contaminated soils in residential yards and the likelihood
of recontamination based on recurring flooding of the
properties with PCB contaminated water and sediments
from the Creek, given their properties' location within the
Creek's floodplain. It was determined that the OU1 soil
excavation work would be performed at the time of the
cleanup of the OU2 sediments to prevent the Creek from
re-contaminating the above-referenced residential
properties subsequent to their cleanup. Following the
relocations, the structures at the OU1 properties were
demolished. The buildings at the Flintkote property were
also demolished.
On January 19, 2017, EPA selected the OU2 remedy,
which addressed the contaminated soil at the following
properties adjacent to the Creek: the former Flintkote
Plant property (Flintkote), Upson Park, the White
Transportation property, and the former United
Paperboard Company property. The remedy set forth in
the OU2 ROD also addressed contaminated sediment
within the Creek Corridor. An overview of the Creek
Corridor is included in Figure 2. As discussed further
below, the highest levels of PCB contamination in
sediments, and the presence of PCBs on adjacent
properties, occurs within the Creek Corridor, which is
why this portion of the Creek is being addressed first. The
cleanup plan for OU2 includes bank-to-bank excavation
of sediment in the Creek Corridor and a combination of
soil excavation and capping at the upland properties. This
remedy is currently in the remedial action phase and
construction is scheduled to begin in Summer 2024.
OU3 is the subject of this Proposed Plan and is comprised
of sediments within a portion of the Creek, referred to as
the STA. The STA is a subset area of the full length of the
Creek comprising the portion of the Creek beginning from
Harwood Street and extending downstream for
approximately 5.3 miles (upper portion of Reach 6
through Reach 9; see Figure 2). Floodplain soils impacted
by the Creek adjacent to the STA are also included within
this OU. Evaluations conducted during EPA's investigation
of OU3 revealed that the STA contains approximately 21%
of the overall mass of PCBs in the Creek, as well as the
highest contaminant concentration in the sediment
downstream of OU2. The sediment in this area is erodible
during major flow events or other disturbances to the
sediment, and it is considered a source of contamination
downstream. The downstream cutoff point for this area,
approximately 3,800 feet downstream of the convergence
with the East Branch (Station 312+93), was based on an
assessment of the mixing and settlement zone downstream
of the convergence of the Creek and the East Branch. Based
on this assessment, the area downstream of the STA is
beyond the influence of the East Branch flow, including the
resettling of sediment onto the Creek bed that was
resuspended. This Proposed Plan describes the remedial
alternatives considered for an interim remedy to address the
sediments within the STA and a final remedy to address
floodplain soils impacted by the Creek adjacent to the STA.
The RI included an investigation of the nature and extent of
groundwater contamination within the Creek Corridor; a
decision related to Creek Corridor groundwater will be
included in the OU3 ROD.
OU4 addresses lead-contaminated soils at certain
residential properties in the vicinity of the former Flintkote
Property. EPA selected a cleanup plan for OU4 (in the OU4
ROD) in 2019, which calls for the excavation and off-Site
disposal of lead-contaminated soils found to be located at
the residential properties. The remedy for the first phase of
the OU4 remediation includes 33 residential properties, and
construction is scheduled to begin in Summer 2024. Soil
sampling at additional residential properties, referred to as
Phase 2 of OU4, is ongoing.
Future Operable Unit(s)
The remaining areas of the Creek (commencing
immediately downstream of the STA to the Creek's
discharge at Lake Ontario) that are not addressed by this
Proposed Plan would be addressed under separate, future
action(s). The impoundment areas upstream of Newfane
Dam and Burt Dam have historically acted as sinks for
contaminated sediment, and as such these areas have been
identified as potential pockets of downstream
contamination in the event of a change in the flow regime
of the Creek. Figure 3 depicts the location of these two
dams. These remaining areas require additional evaluation
to establish a final remedy for the full length of the Creek.
This evaluation will identify and address the following:
data gaps including the nature and extent of
contamination within these remaining areas;
3
-------
the characteristics of the sediment bed behind the
Newfane and Burt dams;
a study of the impacts from having addressed the
source areas;
an assessment of the fate and transport
mechanisms of the remaining contamination in
the Creek, including residual soil contamination
following excavation of floodplain soil in the
STA;
bathymetry monitoring of sediment to evaluate
recovery, accumulation and/or erosion; and
a long-term monitoring program.
After a comprehensive evaluation of the full length of the
Creek is conducted, a final remedy for the entire length of
the Creek will be established. The final remedy would
include final remediation goals for contaminated
sediment, including the Creek Corridor (OU2) and the
STA (OU3) as well as any additional remedial action
objectives that are determined necessary, including
remedial action objectives for additional media such as
surface water. In addition, floodplain soil sampling will
be conducted downstream of the STA as part of a separate
investigation. Separate response actions or a future
operable unit(s) would address risks identified in
floodplain soil downstream of the STA.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Site is located in Niagara County, New York. The
main channel of the Creek originates just south of the
Canal and flows north for approximately 15 miles until it
discharges to Lake Ontario in Olcott, New York. The
Eighteen Mile Creek watershed includes the two main
tributaries: East Branch of Eighteen Mile Creek and Gulf
Creek.
The Creek Corridor has a long history of industrial use
dating back to the 19th century when it was used as a
source of hydropower. Various industrial plants operated
at properties within the Creek Corridor, including the
former United Paperboard Company, the White
Transportation Company, the former Flintkote Company,
and various operations at Upson Park. Damaged drums,
ash, slag material, and contaminated fill material have
been observed at these properties. Aerial photographs also
suggest that by 1938, fill was disposed in the section of
300 Mill Street between the Creek and the Millrace,
which is a small segment of the Creek that splits and flows
around an area of soil and fill on the Flintkote property,
known as the Island.
Downstream of Harwood Street, Eighteen Mile Creek
drops down the Niagara Escarpment and passes through
approximately 12 miles of rural Niagara County. Land
use within this portion of the Creek watershed consists
primarily of cropland and orchards, with residential,
commercial, and small industrial areas located closer to the
city of Lockport and further downstream around Newfane.
Several other industrial facilities are located along Eighteen
Mile Creek, including the City of Lockport Wastewater
Treatment Plant, VanChlor Inc., Twin Lakes Chemical, and
Van De Mark Chemical.
Several dams were constructed to provide power near
Newfane, two of which remain today. Newfane Dam was
originally built in the 1830s near the end of McKee Street
and Ewings Road to provide power for the Newfane mill
district; the current dam was built in 1912 and is not in
service. Burt Dam was built farther north of Newfane in
1924, creating a 95-acre impoundment that extends
approximately two miles upstream of the dam. The original
dam generated power until the 1950s. It was restored in
1988 and still operates.
To date, EPA has not identified any viable potentially
responsible parties at the Site. As a result, EPA elected to
investigate the Site using federal funds.
According to EPA's EJScreen: Environmental Justice
Screening and Mapping Tool (www.epa.gov/eiscreen),
there are no demographic indicators for communities on
each side of the Creek along OU3 of the Site that would
indicate a community with environmental justice concerns.
However, an EJScreen analysis of the local community
upstream of OU3, including the area encompassing OU1,
OU2 and OU4, found that this area exceeded the 80th
percentile relative to the rest of New York State for air
toxics cancer risk and lead-based paint. The Air Toxics
Cancer Risk results are based upon lifetime cancer risk
from inhalation of air toxics, as risk per lifetime per million
people. The proposed remedy is not anticipated to result in
adverse impacts to environmental resources that would
affect the populations living within the vicinity of the Site.
During the design, a community health and safety plan
would be developed to evaluate risks to surrounding
communities and to adopt practices to mitigate these short-
term risks. Risks that would be evaluated include those
associated with potentially increased levels of traffic, the
potential for air emissions, issues associated with the
transportation of contaminated materials, and potential
issues associated with noise and lighting.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Creek Corridor:
Beginning in 1999, NYSDEC conducted several
investigations at the Site related to the Creek Corridor.
NYSDEC investigations of the former United Paperboard
Company property, Upson Park, and the White
-------
Transportation property documented the presence of fill
material on these properties, with surface and subsurface
soil and fill contaminated with PCBs, metals, and semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The erosion and
runoff of contaminated fill material from properties
adjacent to the Creek appears to be the primary
mechanism for transport of contamination to the Creek.
PCBs and lead concentrations in soil at these properties
are as high as 630 parts per million (ppm) and 77,300
ppm, respectively. Sediment samples collected in the
Creek Corridor and the millrace revealed concentrations
of PCBs and lead up to 25,400 ppm and 15,000 ppm,
respectively. The turbine at the Flintkote property is also
believed to be a source of PCBs contamination in the
Creek. As mentioned in the Scope and Role section of this
Proposed Plan, EPA selected the OU2 remedy to address
soil and sediment contamination in the Creek Corridor in
2017. The remedial design that provides the detailed
specifications for the performance of that remedy has
been completed, and construction activities for this work
are anticipated to begin this summer.
Sediment:
Several studies were completed under projects funded by
EPA Region 2, the EPA Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA),
and the EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
has identified part of the Eighteen Mile Creek as an area
of concern (AOC) for Lake Ontario as part of its GLRI
because of its sediment contamination and poor water
quality. In March 2015, a report summarizing data
collected for the characterization of the AOC under the
GLLA program was prepared for the EPA's GLNPO. The
RI report included sediment data collected under
investigations performed by various agencies from Olcott
Harbor (mouth of the Creek) upstream through the city of
Lockport to the Canal and including the Creek Corridor.
The results of the RI are presented in the 2015 report
entitled "Final Remedial Investigation Report, Eighteen
Mile Creek, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study".
Surface Water:
While surface water in the Creek has not been extensively
sampled as part of previous sediment investigations,
water quality has been evaluated as part of regional
studies conducted by EPA and NYSDEC. Historical
samples collected to measure concentrations of PCBs,
mercury, and dioxins/furans were obtained in 1993 and
1994 as part of a NYSDEC study to track contaminants to
Lake Ontario. Results of this study are presented in a
report entitled, "Trackdown of Chemical Contaminants to
Lake Ontario from New York State Tributaries
GLNPO conducted semiannual monitoring of the surface
water discharge from Eighteen Mile Creek and several
other tributaries from 2002 to 2010. Results from these
monitoring events are presented in the 2011 report entitled,
"Field Data Report, Lake Ontario Tributaries
The data indicate that Eighteen Mile Creek had the highest
PCB concentrations (0.043 - 0.093 micrograms/liter
(|ig/L)) in surface water compared to other major tributaries
to Lake Ontario.
Bioaccumulation:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers performed two studies
in 2003 that focused on bioaccumulation and food web
modeling that established a significant bioaccumulation
potential for PCBs in fish tissue by collecting sediment and
fish samples in the Creek. The earliest studies focused on
the area downstream of Burt Dam, and more recent
investigations included collecting sediment and fish tissue
data from upstream of Burt Dam and Newfane Dam. In
part, the studies found that PCBs were highly bioavailable
and predicted to cause wildlife bioaccumulation risks.
Results from these studies are presented in the following
2004 reports: "Volume I (Project Report Overview):
Sediment Sampling, Biological Analyses, and Chemical
Analyses for Eighteenmile Creek", "Volume II: Laboratory
Reports Sediment Sampling, Biological Analyses, and
Chemical Analyses for Eighteenmile Creek AOC", and
"Final Bioaccumulation Modeling and Ecological Risk
Assessment, Eighteenmile Creek Great Lakes Area of
Concern
For the Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation
District, several studies were completed to evaluate
beneficial use impairments in the Eighteen Mile Creek
AOC. A study was performed in 2006 to evaluate whether
PCBs and metals continued to migrate from upstream
source areas and to identify other potential sources of
contamination. Another investigation was conducted in
2007 downstream of Burt Dam to determine (a) whether the
Eighteen Mile Creek AOC was impaired based upon the
existence of fish tumors and other deformities, (b) the status
of fish and wildlife populations, and (c) the status of any
bird or mammal deformities or reproductive impairment.
Finally, baseline benthic community and fish sampling and
a pilot study on the use of powdered activated carbon to
reduce PCB bioavailability in Eighteen Mile Creek
sediment were completed in 2012.
More recent studies assessing beneficial use impairments in
the Eighteen Mile Creek AOC are also included in the
Administrative Record file.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has also
monitored fish populations in the Creek, and there is
currently a fish consumption advisory for the entire
Eighteen Mile Creek issued by NYSDOH because of the
5
-------
presence of PCBs. For more information regarding the
advisory, please refer to the following website:
httos://www.health.nv.gov/environmental/outdoors/fish/
health advisories/bv countv.htm?countv=niagara
All reports referenced in this Proposed Plan can be found
in the Administrative Record file for this action.
RESULTS OF EPA'S OU3 REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
In 2018, EPA initiated a separate investigation of
sediments, surface water, biota, and floodplain soil along
the Creek. Groundwater within the Creek Corridor was
further investigated as part of EPA's investigations in an
effort to define the nature and extent of the groundwater
contamination and locate the source(s) of the low-level
concentrations detected during previous studies.
Consistent with previous investigations, the Creek was
divided into smaller investigation areas, or reaches, based
on the following physical characteristics (see Figure 2):
o Reach 1 consists of the Creek channel from Burt
Dam to the mouth of the Creek in Olcott Harbor
where the Creek discharges into Lake Ontario,
o Reach 2 consists of the impoundment
immediately upstream of Burt Dam.
o Reach 3 is the historical channel that was flooded
after the Burt Dam was installed,
o Reach 4 is the section of the Creek located
immediately downstream of Newfane Dam.
o Reach 5 consists of the impoundment
immediately upstream of Newfane Dam.
o Reach 6 extends from the upstream end of the
Newfane Dam impoundment to the confluence of
the main channel and the East Branch,
o Reach 7 runs from the confluence of the main
channel and the East Branch to the downstream
portion of the Niagara Escarpment,
o Reach 8 is a 2,000-foot-long section of the Creek
that cascades down the steep gradient of the
Niagara Escarpment,
o Reach 9 is an approximately 1,000-foot-long
section of the Creek immediately downstream of
OU2.
The following provides an overview of the sampling
conducted by EPA in the Creek over multiple phases.
Phase IA, conducted from May to June 2018, included
surface water, floodplain soil, and soil sampling of
agricultural areas that were irrigated with Creek water.
Bathymetric surveys and light detection and ranging
(LiDAR) surveys were also conducted. Five groundwater
monitoring wells were installed on the west side of the
Creek Corridor.
Phase IB, conducted from October to November 2018,
included surface water sampling. Game and forage fish
from the Creek were collected, and tissue samples were
analyzed. Groundwater sampling was conducted from
monitoring wells installed in Spring 2018 as well as
existing wells in the Creek Corridor.
Phase IIA, conducted in July 2019, included surface water
sampling targeting high-flow events and floodplain soil.
Phase III, conducted from October to November 2020,
included the following: surface water sampling targeting
high-flow and low-flow events; a filtration study to
examine the relationship between particle size and PCB
concentrations in surface water; floodplain soil sampling;
surface sediment sampling; sediment core collection and
analysis; additional bathymetric surveys; and young-of-
year2 fish sampling.
The results indicate that chemical contamination of the
sediment in the Creek generally decreases in concentration
moving downstream (the Reach numbers descend from
Reach 9 to Reach 1 as they flow downstream to Lake
Ontario). For Reaches 1 through 9, the highest
concentrations of PCBs were detected in Reaches 6 and 7
where a significant portion of the contaminated sediment
has settled. A maximum PCB concentration at 97 ppm was
detected in Reach 7. Elevated concentrations of PCBs and
lead are found in shallow and deeper sediments behind Burt
Dam and Newfane Dam. Lead concentrations ranged from
3.8 ppm in Reach 5 to a maximum concentration of 6,760
ppm in Reach 2. The higher concentrations in the sediment
at depth behind the dams indicate that the major
contributions of PCBs and lead were from historical
sources. However, high concentrations of PCBs in both the
total and dissolved phases of surface water indicate that
PCBs in the shallow sediments of Reaches 6 and 7 are being
transported and deposited downstream by sediment
re suspension and resettling.
Floodplain soil sampling in areas prone to flooding
revealed maximum PCB and lead concentrations of 26 ppm
and 2,630 ppm, respectively. The higher concentrations for
both PCBs and lead were primarily on properties within
Reach 7. Areas with steeper banks were not impacted by
deposition of contaminated sediment. Soil sampling
2 "Young-of-year" refers to all the fish species that are younger than
one year of age.
6
-------
conducted in nearby areas irrigated with water from the
Creek did not reveal PCB detections.
Surface water was analyzed over three years under a range
of flow conditions. Additional studies designed to
understand contaminant sources and migration pathways
included passive sampler and filtration studies. While
PCBs were consistently detected in both the whole-water
and field-filtered samples, based on the absolute
magnitude of total PCB concentration in whole-water
samples compared to the total PCB concentration in the
field-filtered samples, suspended solids contribute the
largest load of PCBs into the water column. For example,
total PCB concentrations ranged from 20 to 160 ng/L for
whole-water samples collected from 2018 to 2020,
whereas the corresponding field-filtered samples, where
suspended solids were removed, had reported total PCB
concentration of less than 7 ng/L. Lead was consistently
detected in the total phase in all reaches of the Creek at
concentrations that exceed background levels. Lead was
not consistently found in the dissolved phase. Lead
concentrations in Reaches 1 to 7 are comparable to the
concentration in the OU2 source area. Except for the lead
concentrations collected during very high flows,
resuspension of the contaminated sediment does not
appear to be a mechanism to transport lead in the water
column. Metals in surface water are not a significant
contaminant source or migration pathway. In addition,
other contaminants such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons also are not a significant contaminant
source or migration pathway in surface water.
The uptake of PCBs from sediment and surface water has
resulted in elevated concentrations of PCBs in fish tissue
and biota. Sampling of game fish including largemouth
bass, northern pike, and walleye revealed PCB
concentrations ranging from 0.26 ppm to 27 ppm.
Sampling of forage fish including pumpkinseed fish,
common shiner, and rock bass revealed maximum PCB
and lead concentrations of 8.5 ppm and 8.3 ppm,
respectively. Mercury detections in the fish from the
Creek are generally low.
RESULTS OF EPA'S GROUNDWATER
INVESTIGATION IN THE CREEK CORRIDOR
The most recent groundwater sampling conducted in 2018
and 2019 generally showed low level concentrations of
VOCs, including trichloroethylene (TCE), with some
exceedances of federal maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) and state standards in some monitoring wells. For
example, in 2019, the highest concentration of TCE was
detected in well MW-14, at a concentration of 11 |ig/L.
compared to the federal MCL and state standard of 5
|ig/L. This represents a decline from 2007, when TCE was
detected in MW-14 at a concentration of 20 |ig/L.
The results also show fluctuating concentrations in TCE
daughter products (cis-1. 2-dichloroethylene, trans-1, 2-
dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride), with higher
concentrations of the daughter products occurring
downgradient of the TCE detections. For example, at MW-
5 cis-1, 2-dichloroethylene was detected at a concentration
of 8.4 |ig/L in 2019, compared to the federal MCL and state
standard of 70 |ig/L and 5 |ig/L. respectively. This
represents a decline from 2007. Historically, TCE has not
been detected in MW-5. Trend analyses including historical
data collected by NYSDEC beginning in 2007 show an
ongoing reduction in concentrations of chlorinated VOCs.
Based on the groundwater investigation conducted within
the Creek Corridor, no historical or active source of VOCs
has been identified, and groundwater is not expected to be
a significant source of groundwater contamination to the
Creek. Furthermore, the City of Lockport is the provider of
potable water to residents within the Creek Corridor and
surface water from the east branch of the Niagara River is
its primary source.
The groundwater investigation within the Creek Corridor
identified a limited area of contamination with no historical
or active source of VOCs and evidence of on-going natural
attenuation of the contaminants in the groundwater. Since
groundwater is not expected to be a significant source of
contamination to the Creek, it was determined that
groundwater in the Creek Corridor would not be addressed
further as part of the FS.
CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT
The main transport method of contaminated material in the
Creek is through sediment movement in the surface water
with deposition in sediment beds and on floodplains. This
sediment transport has been identified to occur through the
following two processes: (1) transport of fine-grained
sediment through resuspension of fine sediment in the
water column, with the suspended fine sediments being
transported downstream, and the settling of suspended
sediments in quiescent conditions; and (2) movement of
sand as bed load and resettlement.
The transport of contaminants throughout the Creek is
influenced by the geology, hydrology, and geomorphology
of the surrounding area along with the presence of
wetlands, structures, and obstructions in the Creek.
An analysis of sediment erosion and deposition and
contaminant movement at the Site revealed the following:
Upstream sources of PCBs in OU2 likely
contribute to PCB concentrations in surface water
7
-------
and sediment in the STA and further downstream;
and
High flows or other disturbances can mobilize the
elevated concentrations of PCBs in Reaches 7
and 6 and redistribute them downstream.
PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTE
The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use
treatment to address the principal threats posed by a Site
wherever practicable (NCP Section
300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). The "principal threat" concept is
applied to the characterization of "source materials" at a
Superfund site. Source material includes or contains
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act
as a reservoir for migration of contamination to ground
water, surface water, or air, or acts as a source for direct
exposure. Principal threat wastes are source materials
considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that
generally cannot be reliably contained or that would
present a significant risk to human health, or the
environment should exposure occur. For residential areas,
principal threats will generally include soils contaminated
with PCBs at concentrations greaterthan 100 ppm. EPA's
findings to date in OU3 have not revealed the presence of
principal threat wastes in floodplain soil or elsewhere in
OU3.
RISK SUMMARY
A site-specific Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
(BHHRA) for the full length of the Creek was developed
to quantitatively evaluate both cancer risks and noncancer
health hazards from exposure to contaminants. The
BHHRA is part of the RI/FS to assess Site-related cancer
risks and noncancer health hazards to chemicals including
lead and PCBs. Risks were evaluated under baseline
conditions, in the absence of any response action and/or
institutional controls. A copy of the Final Baseline
Human Health Risk Assessment for OU33, dated May
2022, is available in the Administrative Record file for
this decision. A four-step human health risk assessment
process was used for assessing Site-related cancer risks
and noncancer hazards. The four-step process is
comprised of Hazard Identification/Data Collection and
Evaluation, Toxicity Assessment, Exposure Assessment,
and Risk Characterization (see the "What is Human
Health Risk and How is it Calculated" box on page 10).
The BHHRA quantitatively evaluated cancer risks and
noncancer health hazards from exposure to chemical
contaminants in sediment, soil, surface water, and fish
tissue within the length of the Creek beginning at the end
of the Creek Corridor (Harwood Street) and continuing to
where the Creek discharges into Lake Ontario in Olcott,
New York. The BHHRA evaluated current and future risks
to recreational users of the Creek, anglers, visitors/
trespassers on a reach-specific basis, and residents based on
sampling transects along the Creek. The BHHRA included
floodplain soil sampling data for the separate exposure
areas representing individual properties along the Creek.
While the BHHRA encompassed an area greater than the
subject of this Proposed Plan, the following risk assessment
summary focuses on the STA and floodplain soils adjacent
to the STA.
The BHHRA followed EPA guidelines, guidance, and
policies, and more specifically the Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund. EPA evaluated risks to the
reasonable maximum exposed (RME) individual in the
BHHRA that are expected to occur under current and/or
future land use. The RME individual is defined as "the
highest exposure that might reasonably be expected to
occur" and is well above the average case of exposure but
within the range of possibility.
Hazard Identification/Data Collection and Evaluation
Soil, sediment, surface water, and fish tissue data relied
upon in the BHHRA were collected during the 2018/2019
field investigations. Sediment data from historical
investigations were also used to support the BHHRA.
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment estimates the relationship between
the extent of exposure to a contaminant and the likelihood
and/or severity of adverse health effects. The toxicity
assessment has the following two parts:
Hazard identification - a qualitative description of
the potential toxicity of Site chemicals of potential
concern (COPCs).
Dose-response - a quantitative estimate of toxicity
for each COPC. For carcinogenic effects, the slope
factor (SF) is determined for oral and dermal
exposure and the inhalation unit risk (IUR) is used
for inhalation exposure; for noncancer effects, the
reference dose (RfD) is used to evaluate oral and
dermal exposures while the reference
concentration (RfC) is used to evaluate inhalation
exposures.
3 While the BHHRA document included in the Administrative Record
file specifies OU3 in its title, this document assesses cancer risks and
non-cancer hazards for the full length of the Creek (Reaches 9 to 1).
8
However, the information provided in the Risk Summary section of the
Proposed Plan focuses on the results for the STA.
-------
Chemical-specific toxicological parameters (i.e.. RfDs,
RfCs, SFs, and IURs) are obtained following EPA's tiered
process for selecting toxicity values. The SF for
chemicals identified with a Mutagenic Mode of Action
were evaluated but did not exceed the risk range or a
hazard index (HI) of 1.
Exposure Assessment
Exposure parameters used to calculate intakes and doses
were obtained from the Superfund standard default
exposure assumptions, EPA's Exposure Factors
Handbook, and the 2014 standard default exposure
assumptions. Parameters, such as the quantity of sediment
and surface water ingested, or exposure durations for
recreational users, anglers, and visitor/trespasser, are
estimates based on professional judgment. Exposure
parameters were selected to be health-protective
consistent with the definition of RME discussed above.
The exposure assessment evaluated individuals who may
contact environmental media in the Creek (e.g., sediment,
soil, surface water, and fish tissue) based on a review of
current and reasonably foreseeable future land use at the
Site. Receptors or individuals who may be exposed
include:
Recreational users: Adult (older than 18 years),
adolescent (7 to 18 years), and children (6 years and
younger) exposed through incidental ingestion and
dermal contact with surface water; incidental
ingestion and dermal contact with sediment; and
inhalation of dust particles from floodplain soil and
exposed Creek nearshore sediment.
Visitor/trespasser: Adult, adolescent, and children
exposed through incidental ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation of dust particles with floodplain soil.
Resident: Adult and children exposed through
incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of
dust particles from floodplain soil.
Angler: Adult and adolescent exposed through
incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with
surface water, incidental ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation of dust particles from floodplain soil
and nearshore sediment in the Creek.
Fish Consumers: Adult, adolescent, and child
exposed through ingestion of fish caught in the Creek.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization, the final step of the risk assessment
process, combines the information from the exposure
assessment and toxicity assessment to yield estimated
cancer risks and noncancer hazards from exposure to
chemicals in the media of concern (e.g., soil, sediment,
groundwater, and fish tissue). The risk characterization
step also involves an evaluation of the uncertainty
associated with the quantified cancer risks and noncancer
health hazards.
EPA uses the cancer risks and the noncancer hazard
quotient (HQ) for individual chemicals and the hazard
index (HI) for total chemicals calculated based on RME
exposures to determine whether Site risks and hazards are
above or below the risk range established under the NCP (1
x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4, or one in a million to one in ten thousand
cancer risk) and the goal of protection of an HQ/HI less
than or equal to 1. A separate assessment was conducted
for lead using Region 2's lead approach described below.
Sampling was conducted per the designated reaches and the
results were further broken down into transects to aid in
organizing data collection, present results, and calculate
cancer risks and noncancer hazards for upland residential
and commercial properties. This was needed to inform risk
management decisions.
The assessment of the transect data included the following
assumptions:
Properties zoned as residential were assessed
individually under a residential exposure scenario.
Creek bank/floodplain soil samples were collected
along 13 total soil transects located in five of the
nine reaches, with the transects extending in a
perpendicular direction away from the banks of the
Creek. The sample locations were selected based
on the potential for exposure from flooding.
Soil samples collected from the floodplain areas
were used in the risk assessment to assess
exposures of residents on a property-by-property
basis, as well as exposures of the angler or
recreational user who are exposed on a less
frequent basis than the resident.
In some limited instances, a transect traversed more
than one property.
Table 1 provides a summary of cancer risks exceeding the
risk range and a noncancer HI of 1 from fish consumption
in Reaches 6 and 7. Table 2 provides a summary of the risk
assessment results for floodplain soil for the transects
evaluated in Reaches 6 and 7. The assessment for
floodplain soil revealed the cancer risks were within the
risk range and the noncancer HQ varied across properties.
As discussed in more detail below, lead was evaluated
separately.
-------
Table 1: Summary of Current/Future Angler Cancer
Risks and Noncancer Hazards from Fish
*In Reach 6, the chemical drivers for the cancer risk and noncancer hazards is
PCBs, while PCBs and mercury are the drivers in Reach 7.
Table 2: Summary of Noncancer His Greater than 1
4 Since the risk assessment was performed, EPA released new
guidance for lead in residential soils: Updated Residential Soil Lead
Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities.
The evaluation described here is consistent with this new guidance.
and PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 1.3
23
7
PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 9.4
25
7
Mercury and manganese are associated
with potential impacts to the nervous
system with a target organ HI of 1.4.
PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 1.4
Lead
Lead in sediment and floodplain soils were evaluated
consistent with EPA Superfund guidance. Concentrations
in surface water were compared with the EPA's Office of
Water Lead Action Level of 15 micrograms per liter. Per
EPA Region 2's approach to evaluating lead, sediment and
residential soil concentrations were compared with a
screening level of200 ppm and those concentrations greater
than the screening level were identified for further
evaluation; non-residential soil concentrations were
compared to 800 ppm.4
The adult lead model (ALM) was used to predict the
maternal blood lead level (BLLs) for adult non-residential
exposures, and the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
(IEUBK) model was used to evaluate BLLs for the
residential child (seven years and younger). Both models
are designed to determine the probability of the BLL
exceeding five micrograms per deciliter (|ig/dL) based on
the average or mean lead concentration.
IEUBK Model Results for Soil and Sediment
A summary of the lead risk assessment results are provided
below for exposure to sediment in each of the reaches and
floodplain soils in each of the transects. Tables 3 and 4
provide the maximum, mean (average) sediment/soil and
IEUBK model results. The maximum lead concentrations
at Transects 02, 07, and 21 did not exceed the screening
level of 200 mg/kg; therefore, risk from lead exposure was
not further evaluated. Based on soil concentrations, the
IEUBK modelling resulted in a conclusion that at Transects
10, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23, and 24, the probability of child blood
level exceeding 5 (ig/dL was less than 5%, while at
Transects 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 25 the probability
of child blood level exceeding 5 (ig/dL was greater than 5%.
The probability of the blood lead level exceeding 5 (ig/dL
in Reach 1 was less than 5%, and the probability of
exceeding 5 (ig/dL greater than 5% in all other reaches.
5 While the IEUBK model guidance standard default value for lead
evaluations of the child receptor is seven years, the BHHRA provides for
an age range of six years for the child exposed to other chemicals.
Consumption
Reach
Receptors
Cancer Risk
Noncancer
Hazard
6
Child
2.0 x 10"3
567
Adolescent
2.3 x 10"3
328
Adult
3.7 x 10"3
320
7
Child
2.0 x 10"3
566
Adolescent
2.3 x 10"3
327
Adult
3.7 x 10"3
319
from Exposure to Soil
Transect
#
Reach
#
Basis for HQs > 1 Based on Effects
on the Same Target Organ.
06
6
Aluminum, manganese, and mercury
are associated with potential impacts
on the nervous system with a target
organ HI of 1.1, and PCBs are
associated with potential impacts on
the immune system with a target organ
HI of 1.1
08
6
PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 3.9
10
7
PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 5.5
13
7
Cobalt is associated with potential
impacts on the endocrine system with
a target organ HI of 1.2, and PCBs are
associated with potential impacts on
the immune system with a target organ
HI of 2.9
15
7
PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 8.4
19
7
PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 3.5
20
7
PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 3.5
20
7
Mercury and manganese are associated
with potential impacts to the nervous
system with a target organ HI of 1.5,
and PCBs are associated with potential
impacts on the immune system with a
target organ HI of 1.3
22
7
Mercury and manganese are associated
with potential impacts to the nervous
system with a target organ HI of 1.5,
-------
Table 3: Summary of Maximum and Average Lead
Concentrations in Sediment by Reach Based on Blood
Lead Levels (BLL) Greater than 5 jig/dL and IEUBK
Model Results
Reach
Maximum
Concentration
Lead Level
(mg/kg)
Average
(Mean) Lead
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Percent of
Individuals
with BLLs > 5
Ug/dL
6
4,383
623
100
7
2,940
613
99
Table 4:
Average
and IEUE
Lead Trar
Concentration i
:K Model Resu
isect Evaluation Providing
n Soil, Average Blood Level,
ts
Transect
Average Soil
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Predicted
Blood Lead
Level
(ug/dL)
IEUBK Model
Results with
BLLs > 5%
above 5 ug/dL
05
375
19
Yes
06
498
32
Yes
08
278
10
Yes
15
450
27
Yes
17
208
5.4
Yes
18
242
7.6
Yes
19
256
8.7
Yes
22
291
11
Yes
25
287
11
Yes
In summary, the HHRA demonstrated unacceptable risk
and hazard throughout the Creek from fish consumption
(Table 1) primarily attributed to PCBs. Additionally,
exposures to floodplain soil in the transects identified in
Table 3 demonstrate hazards at or above the goal of
protection, as well as predicted BLLs above the goal of no
more than 5% of the population with BLLs above 5
(ig/dL. Sediment exposures in Reaches 6 and 7 are also
associated with predicted elevated BLLs in young child
receptors.
Ecological Risk Assessment
In July 2018, a screening level ecological risk assessment
(SLERA) was completed for the full length of the Creek.
The purpose of the SLERA was to assess risk posed to
ecological receptors because of Site-related contaminants.
The SLERA indicates that ecological risks may be present
for benthic macroinvertebrates and wildlife that consume
invertebrates from soil or sediment. A copy of the Final
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment, dated July
2018, is available in the Administrative Record file for
this Operable Unit.
In an effort to better define risks, in 2019 and 2020
additional sampling was conducted to investigate
sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation of contaminants
from soil and sediment into invertebrates that reside in
those media. The results were incorporated in a baseline
ecological risk assessment (BERA).
While the BERA evaluated the portion of the Creek
beginning at the end of the Creek Corridor (Harwood
Street) and continuing to where the Creek discharges into
Lake Ontario in Olcott, the evaluation of potential
ecological hazards and chemical of potential ecological
concerns (COPECs) was separated into three distinct areas
of the Creek. The three areas are: (1) Downstream from
Burt Dam, (2) Between Burt Dam and Newfane Dam, and
(3) Upstream from Newfane Dam. For the purposes of this
Proposed Plan, the results presented below are for the area
upstream of Newfane Dam, including the STA.
Surface Soil
Terrestrial invertivores wildlife (e.g., American robin and
shrew) are highly at risk to surface soil exposure. Through
direct exposure, incidental ingestion of contaminated soil
and consumption of contaminated food items it was
determined that several contaminants of concern (COCs)
pose a risk to terrestrial invertivores that feed and dwell
within the flood plain soils (i.e., HQs exceeded 1.0 for one
or more contaminants). COCs, including PCBs and lead,
can accumulate in soil fauna and subsequently put
American robin and shrew at risk to COCs exposures.
Sediment
Insectivorous aquatic-dependent wildlife (e.g., tree
swallow and little brown bat) and fish-eating wildlife (e.g.,
great blue heron and mink) are highly at risk to sediment
exposure. Through direct exposure, incidental ingestion of
contaminated sediment and consumption of contaminated
food items it was determined that several COCs, including
PCBs and lead, pose a risk to insectivorous aquatic-
dependent life and fish-eating wildlife that feed and dwell
within the contaminated sediment (i.e., HQs exceeded 1.0
for one or more contaminants). COCs accumulated in
benthic macroinvertebrates and forage fish population can
put tree swallow, little brown bat, blue heron and mink at
risk to COCs exposures.
Overall, the BERA results revealed a wide range of
contaminants that present risks to various ecological
receptors. The major source of risk from Site-related
contaminants are PCBs and metals. The affected ecological
receptors are insectivorous aquatic dependent wildlife (e.g.,
tree swallow and little brown bat), terrestrial insectivorous
wildlife (e.g., American robin and shrew), and fish-eating
wildlife (e.g., great blue heron and mink). Based on the
results of the BERA, ecological receptors in areas upstream
from Newfane Dam are greatly affected by contaminants.
-------
It is EPA's current judgment that the Preferred
Alternative identified in this Proposed Plan, or one of the
other active measures considered in the Proposed Plan, is
necessary to protect public health or welfare or the
environment from actual or threatened releases of
pollutants or contaminants from this Site that may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health or welfare.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are specific goals to
protect human health and the environment. RAOs are
based on available information and standards such as
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), to-be-considered (TBC) guidance, and site-
specific risk-based levels.
The following interim RAOs have been established for
OU3:
Sediment Interim RAOs:
Reduce the mass, transport, and exposure to
PCBs in sediment throughout the Creek channel
by remediating areas that serve as sources of
COCs to the Creek system.
Floodplain Soil Final RAOs:
Minimize human exposure risk from contact with
contaminated floodplain soil by reducing COC
concentrations in soil to remedial goals.
Minimize risks to ecological receptors from
contact with contaminated floodplain soil by
reducing the COC concentrations in soil to
remedial goals.
Minimize the transport of floodplain soil
containing COCs by reducing the potential for
interaction with adjacent areas and the Creek.
PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS
To achieve the RAOs, EPA has identified a soil cleanup
goal, or Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG), for
contaminated soil to attain a degree of cleanup that
ensures the protection of human health and the
environment. The two-tiered PRG for lead in soils
described below is based on the New York State's 6
NYCRR Part 375 Residential Soil Cleanup Objectives
and EPA Region 2's lead approach consistent with OLEM
Directive 9200.2-167. The PRG is also consistent with the
2024 "OLEM Updated Residential Soil Lead Guidance
for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action
Facilities," which establishes a regional screening level
(RSL) of 200 ppm where there are no additional sources
of lead (e.g., lead water service lines, lead-based paint
WHAT IS HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HOW IS IT
CALCULATED?
A Supcrfund human health risk assessment is an analysis of the
potential adverse health effects caused bv hazardous substances
releases from a site in the absence of any actions to control or
mitigate these releases: it estimates the "baseline risk" in the
absence of any remedial actions at the site undercurrent and future
land uses. To estimate this baseline risk at a Supcrfund site, a four-
step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks
for reasonable maximum exposure scenarios.
Hazard Identification: The hazard identification step identifies
the contaminants of concern at the site in various media (i.e.. soil,
groundwater, surface water, air. etc.) based on such factors as
toxicity, frequency of occurrence, fate and transport of the
contaminants in the environment, concentrations of the
contaminants in specific media, mobility, persistence, and
bioaccumulation.
Exposure Assessment: In this step, the different exposure
pathways through which people might be exposed to the
contaminants identified in the previous step arc evaluated.
Examples of exposure pathways include incidental ingestion of
and dermal contact with contaminated soil. Factors relating to the
exposure assessment include but arc not limited to the
concentrations that people might be exposed to and the potential
frequency and duration of exposure. Using these factors, a
"reasonable maximum exposure" scenario, which portrays the
highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected
to occur, is calculated.
Toxicity Assessment: The toxicity assessment determines the
types of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures,
and the relationship between the magnitude of exposure (dose) and
severity of adverse effects (response). Potential health effects arc
chemical-specific and may include the risk of developing cancer
over a lifetime or other noncanccr health effects such as changes
in the normal functions of organs within the body (e.g.. changes in
the effectiveness of the immune system). Some chemicals arc
capable of causing both cancer and noncanccr health effects.
Risk Characterization: This step summarizes and combines
outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a
quantitative assessment of site risks. Exposures arc evaluated
based on the potential risk for developing cancer and the potential
for noncanccr health hazards. The likelihood of an individual
developing cancer is expressed as a probability. For example, a 10"
1 cancer risk means a "onc-in-len-lhousand excess cancer risk": or
one additional cancer may be seen in a population of 1 ().()()() people
as a result of exposure to site contaminants under the conditions
explained in the Exposure Assessment. Current federal Supcrfund
guidelines for acceptable exposures arc an individual lifetime
excess cancer risk in the range of 10" ' to 10"'' (corresponding to a
onc-in-len-lhousand to a onc-in-a-million excess cancer risk). For
noncanccr health effects, a "hazard index" (HI) is calculated. An
HI represents the sum of the individual exposure levels compared
to their corresponding RfDs. The key concept for a noncanccr HI
is that a "threshold level" (measured as an HI of 1) exists below
which noncanccr health effects arc not expected to occur.
-------
non-attainment areas where lead concentrations exceed
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards) are
present.6
The following PRGs have been identified for adjacent
floodplain residential, including agricultural, properties
within the STA:
Lead: 400 ppm
In addition to targeting detections of lead above
400 ppm, the average soil concentration across
each residential property will be at or below 200
ppm.
PCBs: 1 ppm
By remediating floodplain soils to an average
concentration at or below 200 ppm, the goal of protection
(target blood lead level of 5 ug/dL) outlined in the 2024
Updated Residential Soil Lead Guidance will be met.
These levels would also be protective of recreational users
and ecological receptors.
The following PRGs have been identified for adjacent
surface (0 to 2 ft) floodplain commercial properties within
the STA:
Lead: 1,000 ppm
PCBs: 1 ppm
The PRGs for surface commercial soils are consistent
with the PRGs established in the OU2 remedy.
It is EPA's expectation that by targeting PCBs and lead,
risks posed by other contaminants found in floodplain
soil, such as mercury, would also be addressed. The
remedy to be selected for floodplain soils in the STA is
intended to be a final remedy. However, the proposed
interim remedy for sediments in the STA is not intended
to attain acceptable COC levels in all media throughout
the Creek. A future, final remedy will establish acceptable
COC levels in sediments that are protective of human
health and the environment. An interim remedy should be
consistent with and not preclude a final protective
remedy. Interim action remediation goals are associated
with the interim actions and reflect the limited scope of
the interim action.
To achieve the interim remedy RAOs, a remedial action
level (RAL) of 1 ppm for PCBs will be used to delineate
PCB source sediments within the STA for remediation.
The RAL of 1 ppm is consistent with other sediment
cleanups in New York State. This RAL is not a final PRG
6 See Updated Scientific Considerations for Lead in Soil Cleanups,
December 22, 2016 https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1884174.pdf
and Updated Residential Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and
RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
for the Creek sediments, however, and the practical
outcome of this RAL is that a large mass of source material
that is acting as a continuing source to the rest of Eighteen
Mile Creek will be addressed. The RAL of 1 ppm for PCBs
satisfies interim Site objectives of source control and PCB
migration reduction. In addition, given the widespread
presence of PCBs, addressing PCBs above the RAL in the
STA is also expected to address other potential COCs, such
as lead and mercury.
As indicated in the Scope and Role of Action section above,
a separate comprehensive evaluation would be conducted
for the full length of the Creek. A subsequent or final
remedy will identify the final RAOs and remediation goals
for sediment along the entire length of the Creek.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b)(1),
mandates that remedial actions must be protective of human
health and the environment, be cost-effective, comply with
ARARS, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives
to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also
establishes a preference for remedial actions that employ,
as a principal element, treatment to reduce permanently and
significantly the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants at a
site. Section 121(d) further specifies that a remedial action
must attain a level or standard of control of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants that at least attains
ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can
be justified pursuant to Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4).
To address the RAOs, the FS identified three primary areas
that have the greatest potential for transporting significant
contamination downstream based upon transport modeling
and data identifying the areas with the highest levels of
contamination. The three primary areas identified in the FS
Report are the STA and two sediment depositional areas
(SDAs) located immediately upstream of Newfane Dam
and Burt Dam (represented by Reaches 2 and 5,
respectively). While the STA was identified as the primary
source of continuing contamination related to elevated
contaminant concentrations that occur with sediment
erosion and surface water flow from the East Branch,
contaminated sediments have accumulated and are present
behind the impoundment areas of both Newfane Dam and
Burt Dam. While the FS Report included remedial
alternatives for the two SDAs and floodplain soil adjacent
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-01/olem-residential-
lead-soil-guidance-2024_signed_508. pdf
-------
to the SDAs, for the purposes of this Proposed Plan,
alternatives for the two SDAs and floodplain soil not
adjacent to the STA are not being addressed at this time.
As indicated in the Scope and Role of Action section,
above, further evaluations and long-term monitoring of
these areas is needed before a cleanup plan for these
remaining portions of the Creek can be developed.
In this Proposed Plan, as discussed below, EPA has
considered alternatives for sediment contamination
within the STA as well as contaminated floodplain soil at
properties adjacent to the STA. Detailed descriptions of
all the remedial alternatives for addressing the
contamination associated with OU3 can be found in the
FS Report.
The construction time for each alternative reflects only
the actual time required to construct or implement the
action and does not include the time for other activities,
such as that required to design the remedy, negotiate the
performance of the remedy with any potentially
responsible parties, obtain funding or procure the
contracts for design and construction.
Sediment Alternatives
Common Elements of the Sediment Alternatives
All of the sediment alternatives, with the exception of
STA1 (No Action) and STA2 (Monitored Natural
Recovery, Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional
Controls), would include the following common
components:
Sediment Delineation and Cultural Resource
Evaluation: Based on data collected to date, an estimated
80% of the STA Creek bed area exceeds the RAL. During
the remedial design, additional sampling would be
conducted to refine the areas requiring remediation. In
addition, a Phase IB cultural resource investigation would
be performed to assess the presence or absence of
archaeological deposits.
During implementation of the remedial action, temporary
cofferdams or other barriers would be installed to divert
water around active work areas to allow for excavation in
dry conditions. Diversion piping would be used to divert
water around the work area. Excavated sediment would
be transferred from the Creek to the staging area.
Confirmation samples would be collected at the bottom of
excavation to verify the RAL has been met. Confirmation
samples would be analyzed for PCBs, and additional
excavation and sampling may be required to demonstrate
the RAL has been met.
Access Roads: Access roads and staging areas would be
constructed in upland areas to allow equipment access and
facilitate implementation of the proposed remedial
activities along the Creek. A staging area for contaminated
material storage and dewatering, wastewater treatment, and
clean fill material storage would be established.
Construction would require clearing and grubbing of
vegetation. Following remediation of the Creek, the access
roads and staging areas would be removed, and the areas
restored in accordance with the habitat reconstruction plan.
Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Sediment: Excavated
sediment exceeding RALs would be transported off-Site for
disposal at a RCRA or TSCA regulated landfill, as
appropriate, based on the concentrations of contaminants in
the excavated sediment. If necessary to meet the
requirements of the disposal facilities, contaminated
material would be treated prior to land disposal.
Construction Monitoring: Water quality downstream of
the work areas would be monitored during construction
activities. Air quality would be monitored throughout
construction activities to protect workers and the public.
Long Term Monitoring: A monitoring plan would be
developed during the remedial design to track PCB
concentrations in sediment, surface water and fish tissue.
The monitoring plan would evaluate remaining residual soil
contamination in the floodplain soil, the potential for bank
erosion, and an assessment of the fate and transport
mechanisms of the remaining contamination to contaminate
sediments in the Creek. Results would be used to assess the
effectiveness of the remedial alternative in reducing PCB
concentrations in fish tissue and to develop a final remedy
for the Creek.
Institutional Controls: Institutional controls refer to non-
engineering measures intended to ensure the protectiveness
of a remedy and to restrict human activities so as to prevent
or reduce the potential for exposure to contaminated media.
Institutional controls in the form of informational devices,
such as NYSDOH fish consumption advisories, would be
implemented to limit exposure to PCBs. NYSDOH
periodically reviews fish PCB data to ensure the advisories
are up to date and considers whether the fish consumption
advisories need modification.
STA1: No Action
The NCP requires that a "No Action" alternative be
developed as a baseline for comparing other remedial
alternatives. Under this sediment alternative, there would
be no remedial action conducted at the Site for sediments
in the STA. This alternative does not include monitoring.
14
-------
Capital Cost: $0
Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $0
Present-Worth Cost: $0
Construction Time: Not Applicable
STA2: Monitored Natural Recovery, Long-Term
Monitoring, and Institutional Controls
The Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) alternative for
sediments relies on the naturally occurring transport and
deposition of cleaner upstream material to reduce
exposure to contaminant concentrations over time
through burial.
A MNR monitoring program would be developed to
document and evaluate the performance of natural
recovery, including the evaluation of changes in PCB
concentrations over time as clean sediment from upstream
areas is deposited within the STA. This alternative also
includes institutional controls and long-term monitoring,
as described in the Common Elements of the Sediment
Alternatives Section, above.
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Costs:
Present-Worth Cost:
Construction Time:
$0
$337,000
$1,999,000
Not Applicable
STA3: Excavation, Long-Term Monitoring, and
Institutional Controls
Alternative STA3 includes the excavation of all sediment
within the STA, consistent with the response selected in
the OU2 remedy of bank-to-bank excavation down to
native material, followed by backfilling with up to two
feet of clean sand and covered with a suitable habitat layer
to create conditions for the reestablishment of natural
conditions in the Creek. The RI investigation found that
PCBs above the RAL are present in sediments in Reach 7
down to 4 feet below the sediment surface. In addition to
targeting deeper sediments that exceed the RAL, this
alternative would include removal of PCBs at
concentrations lower than the RAL of 1 ppm.
For the conceptual design, it is estimated that the average
depth of sediment to native material is less than two feet,
resulting in the removal of an estimated 96,000 cubic
yards of sediment. Contaminated material would be sent
for off-Site disposal.
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Costs:
Present-Worth Cost:
Construction Time:
$102,273,000
$268,000
$82,440,000
16 months
STA4: Pre-Dredge to Accommodate Cap, Capping,
Long-Term Monitoring, and Institutional Controls
Alternative STA4 includes the excavation of approximately
one foot of contaminated sediment in areas within the STA
that exceed the RAL followed by the placement of clean
sand and suitable habitat material to create a cap over the
remaining contaminated sediment.
For the conceptual design, it is estimated that the removal
of approximately one foot of existing sediment is needed to
support the placement of a cap that would minimize the
potential for mobilization of contaminated sediment
without creating adverse impacts associated with flooding.
In addition, contaminated sediment with PCB
concentrations greater than 50 ppm would be removed
regardless of the depth. Under this alternative, an estimated
41,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment would be
excavated and sent for off-Site disposal.
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Costs:
Present-Worth Cost:
Construction Time:
$61,940,000
$296,000
$53,025,000
12 months
STA5: Excavation to RAL, Long-Term Monitoring,
and Institutional Controls
Alternative STA5 includes the excavation of contaminated
sediment above the RAL within the STA followed by
backfilling with clean sand and covering with a suitable
habitat layer to create conditions for the reestablishment of
natural conditions in the Creek.
For the conceptual design, it is estimated that the average
depth of the excavation to meet the RAL would be
approximately 1.3 feet, resulting in the removal of an
estimated 54,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment.
Contaminated material would be sent for off-Site disposal.
While estimated excavation depths across the STA were
calculated in the FS, the estimated excavation depth was
based on the average depths of samples exceeding the RAL.
Post-excavation sampling would be performed prior to
backfilling to confirm that the RAL has been met.
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Costs:
Present-Worth Cost:
Construction Time:
$75,104,000
$237,000
$60,769,000
9 months
15
-------
Floodplain Soil Alternatives
Common Elements of the Floodplain Soil Alternatives
Each of the floodplain soil alternatives, with the exception
of SOIL1 (No Action), include the following common
components:
Remediation Areas: Sampling in flood-prone areas
conducted as part of the RI revealed 17 areas adjacent to
the STA that are impacted by Site-related contamination
requiring remediation. The FS Report divides remediation
areas into the following two categories.
Adjacent floodplain soil areas (not farmland or
developed residential areas); and
Adjacent farmland and developed residential
floodplain soil areas.
The purple-colored sections within the STA on Figure 2
represent the floodplain soil remediation areas. Refer to
Figures 5-18 through 5-22 in the FS Report for the
specific areas targeted for remediation depicted by creek
reach.
During the remedial design, additional sampling of
floodplain soil adjacent to the STA would be conducted
to further delineate nature and extent and refine volume
estimates. The additional sampling would also provide a
better estimate of the residual contamination remaining in
the floodplain soil, thereby providing data needed to
conduct the assessment of the fate and transport
mechanisms of the remaining contamination in the Creek,
as outlined in the discussion on future operable units and
the long-term monitoring plan as outlined in the common
elements section for the sediment alternatives. EPA
conservatively assumed that contaminated soil extends to
2 feet deep although samples in the remedial investigation
only went to a depth of 1 foot.
Floodplain soils that were not sampled during the RI but
are prone to river flooding would also be sampled as part
of the remedial design. This additional data would be used
for risk evaluations to determine if, based on land use
designations or the potential for floodplain soil to re-
contaminate sediments in the Creek, additional properties
or areas require remediation. EPA has conservatively
estimated, for cost estimation purposes, that additional
sampling may identify up to 11 additional acres that
would require remediation as part of this OU. In addition,
floodplain soil sampling would also be conducted
downstream of the STA as part of a separate investigation.
Separate response actions or a future operable unit would
address risks identified in floodplain soil downstream of
the STA.
Excavation and Soil Management: Construction of the
active floodplain soil alternatives would require clearing
and grubbing of vegetation. Temporary access roads from
the remediation areas to nearby public roads and the staging
area would be constructed. Excavated contaminated
floodplain soil would be transported to a staging area for
storage and dewatering prior to off-Site disposal. Erosion
and sediment controls at each remediation area would be
installed to prevent the migration of floodplain soil to the
Creek. Water and air quality would be monitored during
construction. In areas requiring excavation, verification
samples would be collected to confirm that contaminated
soil in excess of the PRGs has been removed and the
remedial action objectives have been met. Excavated areas
would be backfilled by placing clean fill material and
topsoil. Following remediation of the Creek, access roads
and staging areas would be removed, and impacted areas
would be restored in accordance with the habitat
reconstruction plan.
Site Management Plan (SMP): Development of a SMP to
provide for management of floodplain soil post-
construction, including the use of institutional controls and
periodic reviews.
Soill: No Action
As mentioned above, the NCP requires that a "No Action"
alternative be developed as a baseline for comparing other
remedial alternatives. Under this alternative, there would be
no remedial action conducted to address floodplain soil
adjacent to the STA at the Site. This alternative does not
include monitoring.
Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $0
Present-Worth Cost: $0
Construction Time: Not Applicable
Soil2: Limited Floodplain Soil Excavation, Soil Cover,
and Institutional Controls
Under this alternative, lead and PCB-contaminated
floodplain soil would be addressed through a combination
of excavation and/or installation of a cover system based on
land use. While floodplain soil areas in residential and
farmland areas would be excavated to remove all
contaminated soil above the PRGs and backfilled with
clean topsoil, non-developed areas including commercial
areas would have a soil cover system installed. The cover
system, with an estimated thickness of two to three feet,
would be vegetated and constructed to isolate floodplain
soil exceeding the PRGs from erosion, transport, and/or
migration to surrounding areas. In areas with steep slopes,
-------
riprap would be placed as the top layer to prevent erosion.
During the remedial design, investigations would be
conducted to determine the need for the addition of
amendments, such as activated carbon, as well as to
evaluate the impact of the cover system on wetlands.
Because contaminated soil would remain at the impacted
properties adjacent to the STA above levels that would
otherwise allow for unrestricted use following
remediation, institutional controls would be implemented.
Institutional controls may include environmental
easements/restrictive covenants, deed notices, and/or
zoning restrictions to limit future use of the properties and
would require maintenance of the cover material and
impose restrictions on excavation of these properties.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining at the Site that are above levels that would
otherwise allow for unrestricted use and unlimited
exposure, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at
least once every five years. If justified by the review,
additional response actions may be implemented.
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Costs:
Present-Worth Cost:
Construction Time:
$42,941,000
$51,000
$39,363,000
2 years
Soil3: Floodplain Soil Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal
This alternative includes the excavation and off-Site
disposal of PCB and lead contaminated floodplain soil
exceeding the PRGs adjacent to the STA regardless of the
land use designation. These areas would be backfilled
with clean fill and topsoil.
Because contaminated soil would remain at the impacted
commercial properties adjacent to the STA above levels
that would otherwise allow for unrestricted use following
remediation, institutional controls would be implemented.
Institutional controls may include environmental
easements/restrictive covenants, deed notices, and/or
zoning restrictions to limit future use of the commercial
properties and impose restrictions on excavation.
Capital Cost:
Annual O&M Costs:
Present-Worth Cost:
Construction Time:
$149,125,000
$0
$131,307,000
2 years
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives,
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation criteria
set forth in the NCP, namely, overall protection of human
health and the environment, compliance with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements, long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment, short-term
effectiveness, implementability, cost, and state and
community acceptance. Refer to the text box, below,
entitled "Evaluation Criteria for Superfund Remedial
Alternatives", for a description of the evaluation criteria.
This section of the Proposed Plan profiles the relative
performance of each alternative against the nine criteria,
noting how each compare to the other options under
consideration. A more detailed analysis of alternatives can
be found in the FS Report.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
A threshold requirement of CERCLA is that the selected
remedial action be protective of human health and the
environment. An alternative is protective if it reduces
current and potential risk associated with each exposure
pathway at a site to acceptable levels.
Sediment:
Alternative STA1 (No Action) is not protective of human
health and the environment because it does not eliminate,
reduce, or control risk of exposure to contaminated
sediment. STA2 relies on natural processes, such as
sedimentation to cover the surface sediment with cleaner
sediment from upstream, in order to reduce the PCB
concentration at the sediment surface and reduce risk.
While sedimentation of clean backfill material from the
cleanup of upstream Creek Corridor as part of OU2 is
expected to result in some reduction of contaminant
concentrations within the STA over time, because sediment
within the STA is prone to resuspension, the redistribution
and redeposition of contaminated sediment to downstream
areas is likely. As a result, Alternative STA2 would not
achieve the RAOs.
While Alternatives STA3, STA4, and STA5 each include
removal of contaminated sediments, under Alternative
STA4, only contaminants within the top one foot would be
removed followed by the installation of a cap to prevent
mobilization or exposure to underlying contaminated
sediment. Therefore, while Alternatives STA3, STA4, and
STA5 would achieve the RAOs, under Alternative STA4
monitoring and maintenance of the cap would be required
to ensure protection over the long term.
17
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SUPERFUND
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the
Environment evaluates whether and how an alternative
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and
the environment through institutional controls,
engineering controls, or treatment.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) evaluates whether
the alternative meets federal and state environmental
statutes, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to
the Site, or whether a waiver is justified.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the
ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human
health and the environment over time.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume (TMV) of
Contaminants through Treatment evaluates an
alternative's use of treatment to reduce the harmful effects
of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the
environment, and the amount of contamination present.
Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time
needed to implement an alternative and the risks the
alternative poses to workers, the community, and the
environment during implementation.
Implementability considers the technical and
administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative,
including factors such as the relative availability of goods
and services.
Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and
maintenance costs, as well as present-worth cost. Present-
worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in
terms of today's dollar value. Cost estimates are expected
to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent.
State/Support Agency Acceptance considers whether
the State agrees with EPA's analyses and
recommendations, as described in the RI/FS and Proposed
Plan.
Community Acceptance considers whether the local
community agrees with EPA's analyses and preferred
alternative. Comments received on the Proposed Plan are
an important indicator of community acceptance.
Floodylain Soil:
Alternative Soill (No Action) is not protective of human
health and the environment because it does not eliminate,
reduce, or control risk of exposure to contaminated
floodplain soil. Alternative Soil2 and Alternative Soil3
would be protective of human health and the environment
as contaminated material would either be removed from the
Site or capped. Under Alternative Soil2, contaminated soils
would remain in place above the PRGs in non- developed
areas or areas not used as farmland, and protection would
be achieved through the placement of cover material and
implementation of institutional controls.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Sediment:
There are currently no federal or state promulgated
standards for contaminant levels in sediments. There are,
however, other federal or state advisories, criteria, or
guidance (which are used as TBC criteria). Specifically,
NYSDEC's "Screening and Assessment of Contaminated
Sediment Guidance" (2014) sediment screening values are
a TBC criteria. The RAL of 1 ppm for PCBs is consistently
evaluated and often applied at contaminated sediment sites
in New York State. This value is also supported by
NYS DEC's "Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments."7
Because the contaminated sediments would not be
addressed under Alternative STA1, the RAL for PCBs
would not be achieved. Under Alternative STA2, a long-
term monitoring program would track if there were
progress toward achieving the RAL over the long term.
Alternative STA3 would achieve the RAL through the full
removal of sediment. Alternative STA4 would achieve the
RAL through a combination of isolation and removal of
sediment. STA5 would achieve the RAL through the
removal of sediments that exceed the RAL.
Because there is no active remediation associated with the
sediment for Alternative STA1 or STA2, action-specific
and location-specific ARARs do not apply. Alternatives
STA3 through STA5 are expected to comply with action-
specific and location-specific ARARs for water quality
monitoring during excavation of sediments and wastewater
discharge resulting from sediment dewatering. Mitigation
may be required to address location-specific ARARs in
relation to the construction of access roads through the
floodplains and wetlands.
7 NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/screenasssedfin.pdf
Sediments, June 24, 2014.
18
-------
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, a Stage IB Cultural Resource
Investigation would be performed during the design phase
to evaluate the existence of cultural and archaeological
resources within the STA that could be impacted by the
implementation of this alternative.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are federal
laws that mandate procedures for managing, treating,
transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes
and PCBs, respectively. All portions of RCRA that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the proposed
remedy for the Site would be met by Alternatives STA1
through STA5, and all portions of TSCA would be met by
Alternatives STA1 through STA5 as well.
Floodylain Soil:
EPA has identified NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR Part 375 soil
cleanup objectives as an ARAR, a TBC, or an 'other
guidance' to consider in addressing contaminated soil at
OU3. Alternative Soill would not achieve PRGs for soil
because no measures would be implemented and
contaminated soil would remain in place. Alternative
Soil2 would prevent direct contact with PCB and lead
contaminated soil exceeding the PRGs through a
combination of removal and capping. Under Alternative
Soil2, in order to comply with location-specific ARARs
related to the protection of wetlands and floodplains,
mitigative measures or modification to the conceptual
design of the cover system may need to be evaluated
during the design for areas that receive a cap because of
the impacts to wetlands and floodplain soils. Areas
receiving a cover system would require long-term
monitoring and maintenance to verify continued
compliance with ARARs. Soil3 complies with ARARs
through the removal of PCB and lead contaminated soil
exceeding the PRGs.
RCRA and TSCA are federal laws that mandate
procedures for managing, treating, transporting, storing
and disposing of hazardous wastes and PCBs. All portions
of RCRA and TSCA that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the proposed remedy for OU3 would be
required to be met with Alternatives Soil2 and Soil3.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Sediment:
Alternatives STA1 and STA2 remove no PCBs from the
Creek and include no active measures to reduce residual
risk at the Site. Neither option would prevent mobilization
of PCBs in sediment that are vulnerable to erosional
forces. Each of these alternatives therefore would allow
for the continued exposure of PCBs over the long-term
and thus do not promote long-term effectiveness and
permanence.
Alternative STA3 and Alternative STA5 reduce residual
risk through excavation of PCB contaminated sediment.
Alternative STA3 and Alternative STA5 are considered
more permanent than Alternative STA4. Alternative STA4
includes limited excavation of sediment followed by
capping to isolate the contaminated sediment, and long-
term monitoring of the cap.
Low-lying areas within the City of Lockport are subject to
flooding. The Resilient New York Flood Mitigation
Initiative Report for Eighteen Mile Creek, dated November
2020, states that more frequent and intense precipitation
events are expected because of climate change, resulting in
a higher likelihood of flooding along the Creek. The
increased flooding may reduce the lifespan of capping and
backfill material through increased erosional forces from
faster flow. If Alternative STA4 is selected, an evaluation
of the need for additional armoring would need to be
performed during the remedial design to ensure that the cap
would withstand such events. In addition, inspections of the
cap would be conducted periodically, including after major
storm events, and any necessary maintenance of the cover
system would be performed.
Floodylain Soil:
Alternative Soil 1 would not provide a permanent or long-
term effective solution to contaminated floodplain soil as
no remediation would occur. Under Alternative Soil2, long-
term risks at the residential and farming properties would
be permanently removed since contaminated floodplain soil
would be permanently removed and disposed of off-Site.
At the commercial properties, Alternative Soil2 provides
long-term effectiveness through effective maintenance of a
cover system and institutional controls such as land-use
restrictions. Under Alternative Soil3, long-term risks would
be permanently removed since contaminated floodplain soil
would be excavated and disposed of off-Site.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Sediment:
For Alternatives STA1 and STA2, the only possible way to
reduce contaminant concentrations in sediment would be
natural recovery processes. Under these alternatives, there
would be no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment. Alternatives STA3, STA4, and STA5
would permanently remove various volumes of sediment
from the Creek through excavation, although not through
treatment. Off-Site treatment, if required, would reduce the
toxicity of the contaminated sediment prior to disposal.
Placement of a cap, which is a component of Alternative
-------
STA4, would provide reduction of mobility of the
contaminated sediment through isolation of contaminants,
but would not reduce mobility through treatment.
Floodylain Soil:
Alternative Soil 1 would not achieve any reduction in the
mobility, toxicity, or volume because contaminated soil
would remain in place as is. Alternative Soil2 would use
a combination of capping and removal to achieve a
reduction in mobility, volume, and exposure to
contaminants, but not through treatment. Alternative
Soil2 would not reduce the toxicity of the contaminants at
properties that are capped. Under Alternative Soil3, the
mobility, volume, and exposure to contaminants would be
reduced but not through treatment. Furthermore, off-Site
treatment, if required, would reduce the toxicity of the
contaminated soil prior to disposal.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Sediment:
Alternatives STA1 would not create new, adverse short-
term impacts because no remediation activities would
take place. Alternative STA2 would have few adverse
short-term impacts since the only activities would be
monitoring of conditions in the Creek to assess changes
in site conditions. Alternatives STA3, STA4, and STA5
involve active remediation, similar in size and scope, and
have the potential for similar short-term risks. Based on
the higher volume of sediment that would be removed,
Alternative STA3 would have the greatest duration of
impacts given the longer project schedule. No time is
required for construction of Alternative STA1 or
Alternative STA2. Alternatives STA3, STA4, and STA5
are estimated to take 16, 12, and 9 months, respectively.
The risks to remediation workers and nearby residents
under all of the active alternatives would be mitigated by
following appropriate health and safety protocols, by
exercising sound engineering practices, and by utilizing
proper protective equipment.
Floodylain Soil:
Alternative Soill would have no adverse short-term
impacts or risks since no remediation activities would
take place. Both Alternatives Soil2 and Soil3 would have
similar adverse short-term risks associated with
construction activities. Similar to the sediment
alternatives, the risks to remediation workers and nearby
residents under all of the active alternatives would be
mitigated by following appropriate health and safety
protocols, by exercising sound engineering practices, and
by utilizing proper protective equipment.
No time is required for construction of Alternative Soill.
Time required for implementation of Alternative Soil2 is
estimated to take two years. Alternative Soil3 is also
estimated to take two years.
Implementability
Sediment:
There are no implementability issues with Alternative
STA1 and STA2, which do not involve any active
remediation. The technologies and methods to perform the
active alternatives, STA3, STA4, and STA5, are well
established. Given the topography, steep slopes, presence
of heavy woods or wetlands, and in water structures (e.g.,
bridges and culverts) in some sections of the STA, some of
the remediation areas may be difficult to access.
Construction of temporary access roads for multiple access
points in addition to siting of the material stockpile and
processing area for excavated material may be logistically,
but not necessarily technically, challenging because this
work would likely require use of a large area of private land
in the vicinity of the STA. Under Alternative STA4, one
foot of contaminated sediment would be removed to
facilitate the installation of a cap. The design of this cap
would need to take into consideration that the total
thickness of the cap should not impact the depth of open
water or increase the potential for flooding, both while
ensuring that the cap would weather erosional forces
resulting from storm events. The cap specifications would
be evaluated further during the remedial design. In addition,
in order to perform excavation activities under Alternatives
STA3, STA4, and STA5, temporary cofferdams or other
barriers would be installed to divert water around active
work areas to allow for excavation in dry conditions.
Because the release of water from the upstream Canal
impacts water flow in the Creek, coordination with the
Canal Corporation regarding these releases is essential. As
it relates to the design and implementation of the OU2
selected remedy, EPA has already been coordinating
closely with the Canal Corporation on this matter.
Floodylain Soil:
Alternative Soil 1 would be the easiest to implement as there
are no construction activities to implement. Both
Alternatives Soil2 and Soil3 use common construction
technologies and are technically feasible to implement.
Alternative Soil2 may be slightly more difficult to
implement as the areas receiving the cover system would
require long-term monitoring and maintenance.
Cost
The estimated capital, operation and maintenance, and
present worth costs assuming a 7% discount rate over a
period of 30 years are presented in the table below and
-------
discussed in detail in the FS Report. The cost estimates
are based on the best available information. Alternative 1
has no cost because no activities are implemented. The
present worth cost for the preferred sediment alternative,
Alternative STA5, is $60,769,000. The present worth cost
for the preferred floodplain soil alternative, Alternative
SOIL3, is $131,307,000.
Alternative
Capital Cost
Annual
O&M
Costs*
Present
Worth**
Sediment
STA1
$0
$0
$0
STA2
$0
$337,000
$1,999,000
STA3
$102,273,000
$268,000
$82,440,000
STA4
$61,940,000
$296,000
$53,025,000
STA5
$75,104,000
$237,000
$60,769,000
Floodplain Soil
Soill
$0
$0
$0
Soil2
$42,941,000
$51,000
$39,363,000
Soil3
$149,125,000
$0
$131,307,000
* Annual cost is for the first five years. Refer to the FS for details regarding
subsequent periodic costs.
** 30-year present worth cost calculations includes a 7% discount rate.
State/Support Agency Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred alternatives for
sediments and floodplain soil.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternatives for
sediments and floodplain soil will be evaluated after the
public comment period ends and will be described and
responded to in the Responsiveness Summary section of
the Record of Decision for this OU. The Record of
Decision is the document that formalizes the selection of
the remedy for an OU.
PREFERRED REMEDY AND BASIS FOR
PREFERENCE
Basis for the Remedy Preference
Based upon an evaluation of the remedial alternatives,
EPA, in consultation with NYSDEC, proposes
Alternative STA5: Excavation to RAL, Long-Term
Monitoring, and Institutional Controls as an interim
remedy for the STA.
The preferred remedy for the STA has the following key
components:
Excavation of contaminated sediment that
exceeds the RAL of 1 ppm for PCBs within the
STA followed by backfilling with clean sand and
covered with a suitable habitat layer to create
conditions for the reestablishment of natural
conditions in the Creek.
Construction of access roads and staging areas in
upland areas. Following remediation of the Creek,
the access roads and staging areas would be
removed and the areas restored in accordance with
the habitat reconstruction plan.
Water and air quality monitoring during
construction.
Development of a monitoring plan to track PCB
concentrations in surface water and fish tissue.
Institutional controls in the form of informational
devices to limit exposure to PCBs. EPA is relying
on existing NYSDOH fish consumption advisories.
NYSDOH periodically reviews fish PCB data to
ensure the advisories are up to date and considers
whether the fish consumption advisories need
modification. Other informational devices could
include outreach programs to inform the public to
promote knowledge of and voluntary compliance
with the fish consumption advisories.
For Floodplain Soil, EPA, in consultation with NYSDEC,
proposes Alternative Soil3: Floodplain Soil Excavation and
Off-Site Disposal. The preferred remedy is considered a
final remedy for floodplain soil in the STA, and has the
following key components:
Excavation and off-Site disposal of PCB and lead
contaminated floodplain soil exceeding the PRGs
adjacent to the STA regardless of the land use
designation. Backfill of excavated areas with clean
fill material and topsoil.
Construction of temporary access roads from the
remediation areas to the closest public roads and
the staging area.
Implementation of erosion and sediment controls at
each remediation area to prevent the migration of
floodplain soil to the Creek.
Water and air quality monitoring during
construction.
Following remediation of the Creek, access roads
and staging areas would be removed, and impacted
areas would be restored in accordance with the
habitat reconstruction plan.
Development of a SMP to provide for management
of floodplain soil post-construction, including the
use of institutional controls and periodic reviews.
Institutional controls would limit future use of the
commercial properties and impose restrictions on
excavation.
During the remedial design, additional sampling of
floodplain soil adjacent to the STA would be conducted.
21
-------
Risk evaluations, based on land use designations, would
be performed to determine if additional properties or areas
require remediation. The preferred alternative is a final
remedy for addressing floodplain soil in the STA.
The estimated present worth of the preferred alternative
remedy is $192,076,000. Further detail of the cost is
presented in Appendix D of the FS Report.
In addition, EPA's investigations of groundwater within
the Creek Corridor have not revealed a source of the
generally low-level VOC concentrations detected in
groundwater. As a result, EPA is recommending taking
no action to address Creek Corridor groundwater.
The environmental benefits of the preferred alternative
may be enhanced by consideration, during the design, of
technologies and practices that are sustainable in
accordance with both the EPA Region 2's Clean and
Green Energy Policy andNYSDEC's Green Remediation
Policy8. This would include consideration of green
remediation technologies and practices.
While Alternative STA5 is more expensive than
Alternatives STA2 and STA4, Alternative STA5
permanently removes contaminated sediment exceeding
the RAL and would not require the maintenance of a
cover system over large areas required under STA4, or the
monitoring of elevated PCB concentrations in sediment
prone to erosional forces required under STA2. Although
Alternative STA3 removes the greatest volume of
sediment, the additional sediment excavation results in
substantial cost increase while providing comparable risk
reduction to Alternative STA5. Alternative STA5 has a
present net worth of $60,769,000. Similarly, Alternative
Soil3 would permanently remove the contaminated
floodplain soil from the banks of the Creek, thereby
eliminating the potential for contaminated floodplain soil
to find its way into the Creek and allow the properties to
be used without restrictions. EPA has conservatively
estimated, for cost estimation purposes, that additional
sampling may identify up to 11 additional acres that
would require remediation as part of this OU. Alternative
SOIL3 has a present net worth of $131,307,000.
Based upon the information currently available, EPA
believes the preferred alternative meets the threshold
criteria and provides the best balance of tradeoffs among
the other alternatives with respect to the balancing
criteria. EPA expects the preferred alternative to satisfy
the following statutory requirements of CERCLA
§121(b): 1) is protective of human health and the
8 See http://www.epa.gov/greenercleanups/epa-region-2-cleanand-
green-policy and
environment; 2) complies with ARARs; 3) is cost effective;
4) utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. The preferred alternative may
satisfy the preference for treatment, since, if necessary to
meet the requirements of the disposal facilities,
contaminated material would be treated to address lead
concentrations prior to land disposal. Long-term
monitoring and five-year reviews would be performed to
assure the protectiveness of the remedy. With respect to the
two modifying criteria of the comparative analysis, state
acceptance and community acceptance: NYSDEC concurs
with the preferred alternative; community acceptance will
be evaluated upon the close of the public comment period.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/der31 .pdf
22
-------
2
~ Miles
m Dam
Eighteen Mile Creek
Project Location
Major Tributary
New York State
Barge Canal
Watershed Boundary
Town/City Boundary
LAKE ONTARIO
Olcott Harbor
Town of
Somerset
Town of
R o y a ! t o n
Town of
Wilson
Watershed Boundary
Town of
Cambria
Town of
Pendleton
NEWFANE DAM
I
I
! T o w n o f
H a rt I a n d
Town of
L o c k p o rt
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3 Proposed Plan
Niagara County, New York
-------
79285
Hamlet of
OlcottBeach
Olcott Hartjor
to Burt Dam
(Reach 1)joo.e
RAILROAD
¦DRAKESETTLEMENT
¦DRAKE SETTLEMENT
cm
LAFFLER
Burt Dam/
Impoundment
[Reaches 2 and 3)
WALLACE
J57471
j CORWIN ¦
'UNNAMED'
Below f ewtane Dam
(ijeach 4)
'KETCHUM
Hamlet of
Newfane
"PROSRECT'l
N( wfanepam
MCKEE«
¦HOWELL
$7897
¦DALE"
MCCLELLAND'
¦HATTER-
-JACQUES
Newfane Dam
to Eaft Branch
Impoundment
(Reach 6)
ROUNI
31300
31293
The Island
027407
Eas Branch to
C01 ridor Site
( eadi7)
Wilson
Cambria
0U3 Eighteen
Mile Creek 1
Headwater
East
Branch y
MONROE
_ Canal Corp.
Property
SHUNPIKE
WASHINGTON
Headwater
M/esf Branch
GRAND
3836495
'CORINTH IA
-GREEN | J- g
City of Lock port
NIAGARA ^
CALEDONIA
V7A
Creek Channel
OU1
Water Street
~
Water Street Properties
OU2-
Other Properties
~
Former Flintkote Plant Site
~
~
~
Former United Paperboard
Company Property
Form er Wh it e Tran sportation
Property
Upson Park
OU4
Residential
~
Residential Properties
0.S 1 Miles
3
Creek Centerline
^ Reach Feet
A Dam Location
Surface
Waterbody
Eighteen Mile Creek
Sediment
Depositional Area
Burt (SDA Burt)
Sediment
Depositional Area
Newfane (SDA
Newfane)
Sediment
Transitional Area
(STA)
Municipal Boundary
~ Creek Corridor/OU2
¦ Impacted Floodplain
B Soil Area
CreekCorridor
William Street
'°oo Dam
Clinton Street
Dam
Mill Pond
Figure 2 - Overview Map
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3 Proposed Plan
Niagara County, New York
-------
Industrial
Properties
OU2 Source Areas
(Former Industrial Area)
KEY
High to low concentration of
Contaminants of Concern in sediment
Dam
Gulf Creek
Confluence
Wastewatdf
Treatment Plant
Surface Water
l or Irrigation
Runoff« A ^.Outfall
anara Pcr-arnmont Are»a\ i _ _ . r-> . _ . . i. 1
Reach 8 (Niagara Escarpment Area)
Reach 9
East Branch
Confluence
Reach 7
Migration Pathways
=> Majority of the contamination within OU3 is currently due to re-suspension of PCBs and metals from OU2 that have been
historically deposited into Reaches 7 and 6. Contaminants are re-suspended and deposited as they move downstream in the
creek primarily due to high flow events.
Contaminants migrate to surface water and biota.
Surface water transports contaminants to Lake Ontario. Surface water flooding or irrigation can transport contaminants to banks
Size of the arrow qualitatively represents the surface water flow velocity
(thicker arrow = areas of higher flow; thinner arrow = areas of lower flow).
Fish and other biota may be impacted via direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated media (sediment, surface water,
potentially floodplain soil) or ingestion of contaminated food items.
Other sources may add contaminants to creek.
Reach 2
Figure 3- Conceptual Site Model
Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site OU3 Proposed Plan
Niagara County, New York
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT C
PUBLIC NOTICE
-------
lH An official website of the United States government
Q.
MENU
News Releases: Region 02 CONTACT US
EPA Seeks Community Input on
Proposed Cleanup Plan for Eighteen
Mile Creek Superfund Site in Niagara
County, NY
July 19, 2024
Contact Information
Stephen McBay (mcbay.stephen@epa.gov)
(212)-637-3672
Mike Basille (basille.michael@epa.gov)
(646) 369-0055
NEW YORK - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is inviting the public to comment on its proposed
cleanup plan to address contaminated creek sediment and flood plain soil along a portion of the Eighteen Mile
Creek Superfund site in Niagara County, New York. The 30-day public comment period runs from July 19 to
August 19, 2024. EPA will host a public meeting at Newfane Townhall located at 2737 Main Street, Newfane, New
York on August 1, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the cleanup plan.
"EPA's proposed cleanup for this portion of the creek is to remove and dispose the contaminated sediment and
floodplain soil that threaten human health as well as fish and wildlife," said Regional Administrator Lisa F.
Garcia. "We encourage the public to join our meeting, ask questions and share their views on the proposed
plan."
Under the proposed cleanup plan and with EPA oversight, contractors would remove and dispose of
contaminated sediment, replace clean fill and monitor sediment, surface water and fish tissue long term. The
plan recommends that contractors remove and properly disposed of floodplain soil that is contaminated with
lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within a specific 11-acre area. By targeting these specific areas, the
EPA can accelerate the cleanup by removing some known sources of contamination while continuing to
evaluate the downstream segment of the creek. EPA will propose further cleanup for the areas of the creek not
covered by this proposed plan.
Eighteen Mile Creek has a long history of industrial use dating back to the 19th century when it was used to
produce hydropower. The main channel of the creek originates just south of the New York State Barge Canal
and flows north for about 15 miles until it discharges to Lake Ontario in Olcott, New York. The Eighteen Mile
Creek watershed includes the two main tributaries: East Branch of Eighteen Mile Creek and Gulf Creek.
-------
EPA added the Eighteen Mile Creek site to the National Priorities List in 2012 and is cleaning up the site in
several phases, or Operable Units (OUs). OU1 addressed residential soil contamination and structural hazards
posed by buildings at the former Flintkote Plant property. OU2 focuses on soil cleanup at nearby commercial
properties acting as sources of contamination to the Creek Corridor and sediment within the Creek Corridor.
The current proposal relates to OU3 and will address contaminated sediment and the contaminated creek
floodplain soil, extending roughly 5.3 miles downstream from Harwood Street. OU4 is dedicated to resolving
lead contamination in residential soil near the former Flintkote Plant property. Cleanup actions for OU1, OU2,
and OU4 are underway, with construction set for Summer 2024, funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Written comments on the proposed plan may be submitted to Christopher O'Leary, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway - 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007 or via email:
OLeary.Christopher@epa.gov.
For additional background and to seethe proposed cleanup plan, visit the Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund site
profile page.
Follow EPA Region 2 on X Q3 and visit our Facebook (23
page.
For more information about EPA Region 2, visit our website .
24-055
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
LAST UPDATED ON JULY 19,2024
wi
Discover.
Accessibility
Statement
< https://e pa. gov/a ccessi bi li ty/epa
-accessibility-statement>
Budget &
Performance
Contracting
< https://e pa. gov/cont ra cts>
EPA www Web
Snapshot
< https://e pa.gov/utiliti es/wwwe pa
gov-snapshots>
Grants
< https://e pa. gov/gra nts>
Connect.
Data
Inspector General
Jobs
Newsroom
Regulations.gov e
Subscribe
Ask.
Contact EPA
EPA Disclaimers
Hotlines
FOIA Requests
Frequent Questions
-------
White House e
USA.gov E
Follow.
Plain Writing
Privacy
Privacy and Security
Notice
-------
STATE OF NEW YORK
NIAGARA COUNTY,} SS,
Jackie Bilogan, of said county, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
she is now and during the whole time hereinafter mentioned was the Clerk of
LOCKPORT UNION-SUN & JOURNAL
A newspaper published in the County and State aforesaid,
and that the annexed printed legal # 336446
was printed and published in said paper on the following dates:
07/19/2024
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
7 ^
Teresa L McCarthy 02/26/2026 /
Notary Public
Expiration Date
r
IfcRESA I dcCARTHV
The EPA Invites the Public to Comment on the Proposed
Cleanup Plan Addressing Sediment and Floodplaln Soil
along a Portion of the Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund SKe
In Loekport, Niagara County, New York
Tti» U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a
proposed cleanup plan for a portion of the Eighteen Mile Creek
Superfund Site in Niag.n C.'.inty, V /. »or>
The CPA is asking the public to comment on the plan during a
30 day public comment period, which begins on July 19,2024
and end"> on August 19, 2024. The proposed plan identifies the
cleanup options and EPA's preferred cleanup plan. The EPA's
oroposed pian regarding in diint"-: uvni:ii, * ^i,:uu ...I ilir
creek, beginning at H.irwood Street and extending downstream
for approximately 5.3 mtles includes excavating and disposing
off-site contaminated sediment, placing clean backfill over the
disturbed areas, long term monitoring and.institutional controls.
The preferred cleanup option for the floodplain soil includes
excavating and disposing off-site the floodplain soil that is
contaminated with lead and polychlorinated biphenyls across
approximately 11 acres. Targeting these specific areas will allow
the EPA to expedite the cleanup while continuing to evaluate
the downstream segment of the creek.
The EPA wiil hold an in-person public meeting at 6:00 p.m. on
August 1, 2024 at the Newfane Town Hall located at 2737 Main
Street, Newfane, New York. At the meeting, the EPA will present
information on its investigation, elaborate further on the
reasons for recommending the preferred cleanup option, and
solicit public comment oh the proposed cleanup plan.
The proposed cleanup plan can be found online at: www.epa.
gov/superfund/eighteenmile-creek. You may also find it at the
following repositories: Loekport Public Library, 23 East Avenue,
Loekport, New York; Newfane Public Library, 2761 Maple
Avenue, Newfane, New York; and at the EPA Records Center, 290
Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, New York.
Written comments regarding the proposed plan must be
submitted no later than August 19,2024 to Christopher O'Leary,
Remedial Project Manager, EPA 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New
York, NY 10007, or via email: OLeary.Christopher@epa.gov.
-------
vvEPA
THE EPA PROPOSES A PLAN TO CLEAN UP A PORTION
OF THE EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
NIAGARA COUNTY, NEW YORK
NY
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
JULY 2024
.. jl
The Proposed Plan
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking public comment on a proposed cleanup plan to
address contaminated sediment and floodplain soil at part of the Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund site.
The EPA's plan identifies its preferred cleanup options for the portion of the Eighteen Mile Creek site
that begins from Harwood Street and extends downstream for approximately 5.3 miles, referred to as
the sediment transitional area.
The EPA is proposing to dig up the contaminated sediment and put clean backfill material over
disturbed areas. The contaminated material will be disposed of off-site. The EPA is also proposing to
dig up the floodplain soil contaminated with lead and polychlorinated biphenyls, also known as PCBs.
The EPA cleanup plan includes long-term monitoring and institutional controls, such as existing fish
consumption advisories.
Based on the EPA's groundwater investigation within the Creek Corridor, the agency found no
historical or active source of volatile organic compounds. The groundwater is not expected to be a
significant source of contamination to the creek. As a result, the EPA is recommending that no action
is needed to address groundwater within the Creek Corridor.
Public Comment Period:
The EPA is requesting the public's input on its proposed plan from July 19, 2024 to August 19, 2024.
The public is encouraged to review the plan, attend the public meeting, and comment on the cleanup
options. To provide comments to the EPA, read the document online at:
www.epa.gov/superfund/eighteenmile-creek and send your comments to Christopher O'Leary, Remedial
Project Manager via email to OLeary.Christopher@epa.gov or mail to 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New
York, NY 10007-1866 by August 19, 2024.
Public Meeting: A public meeting to present the proposed cleanup plan and take public comments.
Date and Time: August 1, 2024 at 6:00 PM
Location: Newfane Town Hall located at 2737 Main Street, Newfane, NY 14108
Get Involved with the EPA's Clean Up!
Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
704653
https://www.facebook.com/epareqion2/
https://x.com/EPAreqion2
-------
Past Activities
The EPA finalized a cleanup plan in 2013 to address
contaminated soil located on certain residential properties on
Water Street in Lockport, New York. As part of the 2013 plan,
the EPA relocated residents at five properties before
demolishing the structures. The EPA finished transporting and
disposing of debris off-site as well as installing a fence in 2015.
The cleanup plan for this portion of the site also indicated that
the contaminated soil at the nine, flood-prone residential
properties would be removed at the same time that the EPA
would address the contaminated sediment and soil in non-
residential properties.
In 2017, the EPA selected another plan that included removing
sediment in the Creek Corridor from bank-to-bank. The plan
also included removing contaminated soil at the Upson Park,
the United Paperboard Company, and White Transportation
properties, as well as removing contaminated soil from the
former Flintkote plant before placing a cap.
The Creek Corridor is the furthest upstream portion of the
creek and contains the highest levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls, or PCB contamination, which is why the EPA is
addressing this portion of the creek first. The agency is
coordinating its cleanup of the Creek Corridor with the cleanup
of the residential properties that have soil contaminated with
lead and PCBs and are prone to flooding along Water Street.
Construction for this portion of the cleanup is scheduled to
begin this summer.
The EPA selected a third cleanup plan in 2019 to address the
residential properties with lead contaminated soil. The EPA's
plan to clean up these residential properties is to remove and
dispose of off-site the contaminated soil. The agency will clean
up at least 33 residential properties; however, the agency is
continuing to study the extent of contamination and adjust the
number of properties that will need to be addressed.
Construction at the first group of residential properties is
scheduled to begin this summer.
Background
The Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund site is located in Niagara
County, New York. The main channel of the creek starts just
south of the canal and flows north for approximately 15 miles
until it discharges to Lake Ontario in Olcott, New York. The
Eighteen Mile Creek watershed includes the East Branch of
Eighteen Mile Creek and Gulf Creek tributaries.
Figure 1 - Eighteen Mile Creek Site Location Map
>Y*.
¦ V:
QUI Eighteen
Mile Creek ;
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
THE EPA PROPOSES A PLAN TO CLEAN UP A PORTION
OF THE EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
NIAGARA COUNTY, NEW YORK
JULY 2024
,¦""7
NY
Nj.
PR
USV1
EPA Contact Information
Michael Basile
Community Involvement Coordinator
(646) 369-0055
basile.michael@epa.gov
Christopher O'Leary
Remedial Project Manager
(212) 637-4378
oleary.christopher@epa.gov
Information Repositories
EPA Superfund Records Center
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-4345
Lockport Public Library
23 East Avenue
Lockport, NY 14094
(716) 433-5935
Newfane Public Library
2761 Maple Avenue
Newfane, NY 14108
(716) 778-9344
https://www.facebook.com/eparegion2/
https://x.com/EPAregion2
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT D
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Transcript of Video File:
10 EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
11 PUBLIC MEETING
12 THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2 024
13
14 Video Runtime: 1 Hour 56 seconds
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 2
2
1
(Beginning of Video Recording.)
MR. BASILE: Can I have -- can I have your
3 attention, please?
4
First of all, let me -- I'll introduce
5 myself. My name is Mike Basile. I'm the Public
6 Affairs Officer and Community Involvement Coordinator
7 for the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
8 I'd like to welcome you to the Eighteen Mile Creek
9 proposed plan public meeting. Thank you for taking the
10 time to come out for this meeting tonight.
11 I just want to give you a few little ground
12 rules, okay? The meeting is being videotaped. It will
13 eventually be transcribed into the public record and
14 we'll have a transcript. So I ask you to just give our
15 speaker, the remedial project manager, the opportunity
16 to make the presentation, and then when he's done,
17 we'll go into a question and answer period at which
18 time I will come up to you with this microphone, and I
19 will ask you to, just remember, state your name, spell
2 0 your name, and give us your address for the public
21 record. It will then go into the official transcript.
22 We have a few individuals from different
23 agencies that are here this evening. Some of them will
24 not be speaking. Some may be answering questions, and
25 I'd like to recognize them at this time. From the New
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 3
1 York State Department of Health, Sara Bogardus. Sara
2 is right here. From the New York State Department of
3 Environmental Conservation, Steve Moeller. Thank you,
4 Steve. From our agency who won't -- won't be speaking,
5 but possibly will be answering some questions, is Pete
6 Mannino from our Superfund program, right here. Kelly
7 Gaffney from our Superfund program, and Marian Olsen,
8 our risk assessor with EPA.
9 We also have two other individuals I'd like
10 to recognize at this time: Scott Collins from Cornell
11 Cooperative Extension, he works on Eighteen Mile Creek,
12 the area of concern, and he's the remedial coordinator,
13 Scott. And from the City of Lockport, Mark Devine, the
14 Third Ward Alderman from the city of Lockport. Mark.
15 Very good. Okay. Very good.
16 MR. DEVINE: Well, you've got a county
17 legislature here, too, that just came in, Carla
18 Speranza.
19 MR. BASILE: Oh, just came in. Your first
2 0 name again?
21 MS. SPERANZA: Carla Speranza. I represent
22 part of lower town and the north end of the City of
23 Lockport.
24 MR. BASILE: Carla, welcome and welcome --
25 welcome to the meeting. Okay.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 4
1 MR. DEVINE: And also Michelle --
2 MR. BASILE: The form --
3 MR. DEVINE: -- Roman, the former mayor of
4 Lockport.
5 MR. BASILE: The -- the former mayor -- the
6 former mayor of Lockport, Michelle Roman. Thank you.
7 Thanks very much, Mark. Thank you very much.
8 At this time, I'd like to call upon our
9 remedial project manager, Christopher O'Leary, who will
10 make the presentation and explain to you the history of
11 the site and why we're here this evening. Christopher.
12 MR. O'LEARY: Great. Thank you, Mike. Good
13 evening and welcome to the Eighteen Mile Creek Operable
14 Unit 3 Proposed Plan Public Meeting. I appreciate and
15 thank everyone for listening to the next steps with
16 regards to the site. My name is Chris O'Leary, and as
17 mentioned, I'm the remedial project manager for the
18 Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund site.
19 Mike did the team introductions already, but
20 just to call out everyone again, I am the remedial
21 project manager. Mike Basile is the community
22 involvement coordinator. Pete Mannino is the western
23 New York remediation section supervisor. Marian Olsen,
24 down there in purple shirt, is the human health risk
25 assessor. And then we have representatives from the
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 5
1 New York State Department of Health and the New York
2 State Department of Enviromental Conservation.
3 Tonight's agenda. I'm here tonight, as
4 mentioned, to present to everyone the Proposed Cleanup
5 Plan for the Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund site. This
6 presentation will provide an overview of the Proposed
7 Cleanup Plan and more details can be found within the
8 July 19th Proposed Plan Document. The agenda will be
9 split into five parts and will include an overview of
10 the Superfund process, a brief site background, the
11 cleanup options and preferred alternatives, EPA's next
12 steps, and lastly, the meeting will be open to question
13 and answer, comment period. This presentation should
14 last about 2 0 minutes.
15 To begin, I would like to explain a little
16 bit about Superfund or something called CERCLA, which
17 stands for the Comprehensive Environmental Response
18 Compensation and Liability Act. CERCLA was passed in
19 1980 by Congress. The law provides funding for cleanup
20 of hazardous waste sites. It also grants the EPA the
21 authority to require potential responsible parties to
22 pay for cleanup activities.
23 This next slide here is a flow diagram of
24 the Superfund process. As seen here in the top left,
25 blue box (laser pointer being used to indicate location
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 6
1 of discussed material), this is an initial discovery of
2 the site, and it begins with the preliminary
3 assessment.
4 The -- the site is then evaluated for
5 possible addition to the National Priorities List, and
6 at that time it would become an official Superfund
7 site, the second box here (laser pointer being used to
8 indicate location of discussed material). A remedial
9 investigation is conducted to understand the nature and
10 extent of the contamination at the site and a
11 feasibility study is performed to analyze the different
12 methods available to clean up the site.
13 Then we issue a proposed plan, which is what
14 we are here tonight to talk about. After listening to
15 the community's concerns and comments, we will take all
16 of that into account and issue something called a
17 record of decision, which documents the selected remedy
18 for the site. Then we move on to the remedial design
19 and the remedial action phase, which is when we sit
2 0 down with the contractors, we review how the cleanup
21 will proceed and discuss next steps that are taken to
22 implement and construct the remedial design, as you can
23 see down here (laser pointer being used to indicate
24 location of discussed material).
25 Then we have the construction completion
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 7
1 phase and the site then is deleted from the National
2 Priorities List and -- to be reused by the community.
3 As you can see with the blue -- or sorry, the green
4 bubble here (laser pointer being used to indicate
5 location of discussed material), community involvement
6 is important and it is included with all steps of the
7 Superfund process. So again, I'd like to thank
8 everyone for coming out tonight.
9 A little background information on the
10 Eighteen Mile Creek site. The site is located in
11 Niagara County, New York. The main channel of the
12 Eighteen Mile Creek originates just south of Erie Canal
13 and flows north for about 15 miles until it discharges
14 until -- into Lake Ontario located in Olcott, New York.
15 The creek watershed includes two main tributaries, the
16 east branch of Eighteen Mile Creek and Gulf Creek.
17 Eighteen Mile Creek has had a long history
18 of industrial use dating back to the 19th century when
19 it was used as a source of hydropower. There were
20 several properties along and adjacent to the creek
21 where various forms of manufacturing occurred,
22 resulting in contamination of the soils and creek
23 sediments.
24 The New York State Department of
25 Environmental Conservation conducted numerous studies
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 8
1 of Eighteen Mile Creek before the site was listed on
2 the National Priorities List in 2012. EPA, since then,
3 has conducted supplemental investigations to build upon
4 what the state has already done.
5 Now, I will provide just a brief overview of
6 the site. Site remediation activities are sometimes
7 separated into different phases or operable units, OUs,
8 so that remediation of different aspects of the site
9 can proceed separately, resulting in a more efficient
10 and expeditious cleanup of the entire site. The
11 Eighteen Mile Creek site has been divided into operable
12 units to address the contamination more efficiently in
13 this case. OU1 addresses the risk associated with
14 residential soil contamination at nine residential
15 properties located on Water Street and threats posed by
16 the former Flintkote Plant Building seen on the figure
17 in blue -- oops --up here. This is OU1 (laser pointer
18 being used to indicate location of discussed material).
19 OU2 addresses the contamination sediment in
20 the approximate 4,000-foot segment of the creek
21 corridor seen in the figure in yellow, red, purple, and
22 green. So yellow, red, purple, and green (laser
23 pointer being used to indicate location of discussed
24 material). This is what we consider OU2.
25 OU4 addresses lead contamination soil at
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 9
1 certain residential properties on Mill Street and
2 several other adjoining residential streets east of the
3 former Flintkote plant property seen in orange here
4 (laser pointer being used to indicate location of
5 discussed material).
6 I'm here tonight to talk to you about
7 Operable Unit 3 and, specifically, about the cleanup
8 plan to address the sediment in this portion of the
9 site. Although EPA's Operable Unit 3 investigation of
10 the creek initially included the full length of the
11 creek downstream of Harwood Street, discharging into
12 Lake Ontario, EPA has redefined the Operable Unit 3
13 area.
14 You might be wondering why it was redefined?
15 It was due to the large size and complexity of the
16 original Operable Unit 3, so it was subdivided into
17 smaller manageable pieces. The original piece started
18 at the end of OU2 and had discharged all the way up at
19 Lake Ontario. So what you see here in the red circle
20 (laser pointer being used to indicate location of
21 discussed material) is the new defined Operable Unit 3
22 area. The downstream extent of the new subset area was
23 determined based on creek characteristics and sediment
24 mixing. It was also subdivided this way because of the
25 contamination levels to be discussed in the next slide.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 10
1 The cleanup plan is addressing specific
2 areas as a means of source control, the subset area the
3 full length of the creek beginning from Harwood Street
4 extending downstream for about 5.3 miles. Adjacent
5 floodplain soils that have been impacted by the creek
6 are also included. It's also important to note that
7 any portions of the creek downstream of 0U3 that are
8 not included will be addressed under further operable
9 units.
10 Operable Unit 3 is comprised of sediments
11 within a portion of the creek referred to as the
12 sediment transitional area or STA. I will talk about
13 the STA further now. As you may recall, the
14 contaminants of concern for Eighteen Mile Creek are
15 PCBs and lead.
16 The previous investigations performed
17 revealed that within the STA area, again, this red
18 circle on the figure, contains about 21 percent of the
19 overall -- overall mass of PCBs within the creek. It
20 also contains the highest contaminant concentrations in
21 the sediment downstream of 0U2. Other characteristics
22 of the -- something we call the STA, is it erodes
23 easily and is acting as a source of contamination to
24 the rest of Eighteen Mile Creek and has a large area of
25 the creek and a large volume of sediment.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 11
1 Any floodplain soils adjacent to Operable
2 Unit, these include residential, commercial, and
3 agricultural properties, will be included. A minimum
4 of 29 adjacent floodplain properties will be addressed
5 in this Proposed Plan Action. The EPA is aware that
6 additional sampling is necessary to further define
7 areas that may require remediation. Additional
8 properties within the STA may include, based upon
9 future sampling and risk assessments.
10 As part of the remedial investigation and
11 feasibility study, remedial action objectives or RAOs
12 were developed. Remedial action objectives are goals
13 to protect human health and the environment. I won't
14 read this slide word for word, but in summary, these
15 bullets state that current and future risk will reduce,
16 prevent -- sorry, reduce, prevent, and the migration of
17 contaminants will be minimized. These RAOs are
18 consistent with upgradient Record of Decisions for
19 Operable Units 1 and 2.
2 0 To achieve the RAOs, EPA has set goals, or
21 something we refer to as preliminary remediation goals
22 or PRGs, for the contaminated soil to obtain a degree
23 of cleanup that ensures the protection of human health
24 and the environment. As you can see here on the chart,
25 on the lower bottom of the slide, the interim cleanup
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 12
1 goal for PCBs in sediment is one part per million. The
2 PRGs are consistent with the PRGs established in the
3 0U2 remedy.
4 Next, we will discuss the goals for the
5 floodplain soils. EPA has selected preliminary
6 remediation goals for cleaning up of the soil, as well.
7 These values have been selected based on land use of
8 either residential or commercial for PCBs and lead.
9 More details can be found in the Proposed Plan Document
10 regarding to these PRGs.
11 Now that we've discussed the site
12 background, we're aware of the contamination and the
13 cleanup goals for the sediment and floodplain soils, I
14 would like to now review how the remediation will
15 accomplish these goals. The EPA evaluates the
16 alternatives against nine criteria to ultimately select
17 a preferred remedial alternative. The first two are
18 threshold criteria, meaning they must be met. It must
19 protect human health in the environment on or near the
20 site.
21 It also must meet all federal, state, and
22 environmental regulations. The next five criteria, 3
23 through 7, are known as balancing criteria. They have
24 trade-offs and are assessed individually so that the
25 best option can be chosen given the site-specific data
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 13
1 and conditions.
2 The final two, 8 and 9, are modifying
3 criteria because new information or comments from the
4 community may provide and modify the preferred remedial
5 alternative and cause other alternatives to be
6 considered.
7 Now that we're aware of how each alternative
8 is evaluated, I want to discuss them individually.
9 There are five alternatives that we have developed for
10 the sediment cleanup of OU3. The first alternative
11 looks at what happens if we take no action. This
12 alternative is used as a baseline to compare to other
13 alternatives. Under this alternative sediment --
14 sorry. Under this sediment alternative, there will be
15 no remediation conducted at the site for the sediments.
16 The -- the alternative also does not include any
17 monitoring. The cost of this sediment alternative is
18 $0.
19 The second alternative, STA 2: Monitored
2 0 Natural Recovery, Long-Term Monitoring and
21 Institutional Controls for sediment relies on naturally
22 occurring transport and deposition of cleaner, upstream
23 material to reduce exposure to contaminant
24 concentrations over time through burial.
25 This alternative also includes long-term
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 14
1 monitoring, which would develop --be developed during
2 the remedial design to track PCB concentrations in
3 sediment, surface water and fish tissue. It also
4 includes institutional controls. An example of an
5 institutional control would be the, "do not eat fish
6 consumption advisory." No sediment would be removed
7 under this alternative. And the cost for STA number 2
8 is $1,999,000.
9 The third alternative STA 3: Excavation,
10 Long-Term Monitoring and Institutional Controls
11 includes the excavation of all sediment. Consistent
12 with the response selected for the OU2 remedy of a
13 bank-to-bank excavation down to native material. This
14 alternative also includes long term monitoring and
15 institutional controls. An estimated 96,000 cubic
16 yards of sediment would be removed under this
17 alternative. The cost is $82,440,000.
18 Alternative four includes the excavation of
19 approximate -- oh, sorry. Let me restart. Alternative
20 four, STA 4: Pre-Dredge to Accommodate Cap, Capping,
21 Long-Term Monitoring and Institutional Controls
22 includes the excavation of approximately one foot of
23 contaminated sediment in areas that exceed the remedial
24 action levels. This alternative also includes long-
25 term monitoring institutional control, an estimated
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 15
1 41,000 cubic yards of sediment would be removed, and
2 the cost is $53,025,000.
3 Last, the fifth alternative, Excavation to
4 Remedial Action Levels, Long-Term Monitoring and
5 Institutional Controls is excavation of contaminated
6 sediment above the remedial action levels. This
7 alternative also includes long-term monitoring and
8 institutional controls. An estimated 40 -- sorry,
9 54,000 cubic yards of sediment would be removed under
10 this alternative. The cost is 60,700,000 -- sorry,
11 $60,769,000.
12 Now we will discuss the alternative for the
13 Floodplain Soils. The first alternative looks at what
14 happens, again, if we take no action. This
15 alternatives only use as a baseline to compare to the
16 other alternatives. This has no remediation, no
17 monitoring, and zero cubic yards of floodplain removal.
18 The cost for soil 1, floodplain soil alternative is $0.
19 The alternative 2, titled Limited Floodplain
20 Soil Excavation, Soil Cover, and Institutional
21 controls, which lead, and PCB contaminated floodplain
22 soil would be addressed through a combination of
23 excavation and/or installation of a cover system based
24 on land use. This alternative would require
25 institutional controls due to the contamination
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 16
1 remaining in place. An institutional control may
2 include environmental easements, restrictive covenants,
3 and deed notices. An estimated 5,000 cubic yards of
4 sediment would be removed. Sorry, 5,000 cubic yards of
5 soil would be removed. The cost is $39,363,000.
6 Alternative three, titled Floodplain Soil
7 Excavation and Off-Site Disposal includes the
8 excavation and off-site disposal of PCB and lead
9 contaminated floodplain soil exceeding the remedial
10 goals adjacent to the STA regardless of land use.
11 These areas would be back filled with clean material
12 and60, topsoil. This alternative would require
13 institutional controls due to contamination remaining
14 in place at commercial properties. An estimated 39,000
15 cubic yards of soil would be removed. The cost is
16 estimated at $131,307,000. In the next slide, I will
17 provide the EPAs Preferred Alternatives for both of
18 these topics.
19 On this slide, these two tables summarize
20 EPAs Preferred Alternatives. The top table is for the
21 sediment alternative, and the bottom table is a summary
22 for the soil alternative. The charts also include the
23 amount of contaminated soil and sediment that would be
24 removed under each alternative as well as the cost for
25 each option.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 17
1 To summarize, the preferred sediment cleanup
2 is STA 5, excavation of sediment above remedial action
3 levels in Eighteen Mile Creek 0U3. The preferred soil
4 cleanup, soil three, is a targeted removal of PCBs and
5 lead contaminated flood plain soil exceeding the
6 preliminary remediation goals. The total cost for the
7 Preferred Alternatives for 0U2 is $192 million, 670 --
8 sorry, $192,076,000. A further breakdown of the
9 alternative costs are presented in appendix D of the
10 feasibility study report.
11 The next steps following this meeting is the
12 EPA relies on public input to ensure the concerns of
13 the community are considered in selecting an effective
14 remedy for each Superfund Site. To this end the
15 proposed plan has been made available to the public for
16 public comment period, which began on July 19th and
17 ends August 19th. Comments received at this meeting as
18 well as comments written during this public comment
19 period will be included in the appendix of the record
20 of decision. The record of decision will memorialize
21 the selection of the remedy for this operable unit
22 number three.
23 Copies of the proposed plan and supporting
24 documentation are available at the following
25 information repositories; the Lockport Public Library,
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 18
1 the Newfane Public Library, and EPA - Region II
2 Superfund Records Center. Tonight's presentation and
3 all additional site documents can also be found on the
4 Eighteen Mile Creek Superfund Site website -- webpage.
5 The link is here.
6 Written comments on the proposed plan should
7 be addressed to me at -- the address you see here on
8 the screen. I will leave this slide up for a few
9 minutes.
10 And now following this presentation of
11 material, you probably have some questions. So I want
12 to thank you for listening to the presentation. I will
13 turn things back to Mike Basile with the microphone so
14 that he can answer and take some questions. Thank you.
15 MR. BASILE: Okay. Thanks very much, Chris.
16 Really appreciate it. In addition to the information
17 that's on the screen, on your agenda, there's
18 information there and how you can reach Chris O'Leary
19 as well.
20 We really value community input. It's truly
21 the cornerstone. I remember when this site went on the
22 National Priorities List in 2012, and the first meeting
23 we held at Cornell Cooperative Extension in Lockport,
24 we must have attracted close to 100 people and there --
25 there was a -- there still is an awful lot of interest.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 19
1 As Chris indicated, we have been actively
2 involved with doing a lot of sampling and activities
3 and a -- a lot of work will begin probably within the
4 next month or two. You -- if you live in the Lockport
5 area, in the city of Lockport, you've probably seen an
6 awful lot of the equipment being staged and we're --
7 we're really happy to see that. And we're going to be
8 reaching out to many of the residents who live in that
9 area.
10 You must remember one thing, I as a
11 community involvement coordinator, Eighteen Mile Creek
12 isn't your typical Superfund Site. When -- when we
13 deal with Superfund Sites there -- many times, there
14 are abandoned facilities or companies that were in
15 business, who are no longer in business that have
16 impacted a community and they could be 20, 3 0 or 4 0
17 acres. This site is a site that I call, rambles. It
18 rambles 15 miles from the city of Lockport up towards
19 Olcott, Newfane, towards Wilson, and out into Lake
20 Ontario. It's a massive site.
21 And as Christopher indicated that we have an
22 awful lot of operable units, and tonight we're here to
23 get your input on the operable unit that he's outlined.
24 We'll be more than happy to entertain questions at this
25 time. And remember, I'll bring the mic to you, and
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 20
1 I'll ask you to state your name, spell your name, and
2 your address. Yes.
3 MR. WOODWARD: Thank you. My name is Jim
4 Woodward (phonetic). I live on West Creek Road with my
5 wife and -- in Newfane, and I do have a question.
6 Where did you come up with a 400 PPM level for lead?
7 Because in the hazardous waste business at five
8 milligrams per liter is considered a hazardous waste,
9 and you folks have deemed 400 to be acceptable?
10 MR. O'LEARY: Okay.
11 MR. BASILE: Okay. There you go.
12 MR. MANNINO: Thanks. I just wanted to
13 clarify. So you -- you correct about the -- the
14 concentrations, but there are two different analytical
15 methods, one is a T clip, total, and the other one is
16 the -- one is the T clip, and the other one is the
17 totals. So --
18 Correct. So they used to divide by 20
19 methods. So you would -- you'd go five times 20, 100
20 would be acceptable.
21 Correct. But so I'm -- I'm familiar with
22 the dilution standard that you're talking about, but
23 our cleanup goals are based on New York State and EPA
24 promulgated standards for health-related purposes. And
25 I'll turn it over to Mary and our human health risk
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 21
1 assessor to talk about the 400 number and how it's
2 consistent with EPAs updated policy, right? But I just
3 wanted to clarify the T clip versus the totals, just so
4 that everyone is aware of that.
5 MR. BASILE: Stay right there. Mary, there
6 you go. There you go.
7 MS. OLSEN: Thank you. Okay.
8 Thank you for your question. So the way
9 that EPA assesses lead is, we have two models. We use
10 the adult lead model for adults, and we have a
11 children's model, which is the integrated exposure
12 uptake biokinetic model.
13 And EPA is going through a process right now
14 of looking at the approaches that we're using. And in
15 the proposed plan, we talk about our goal is actually
16 an average of less than 200 and no blood lead level
17 above five micrograms per deciliter. So those are the
18 values we will be using. The 400 is basically a not to
19 exceed value within this whole process that we use for
2 0 the lead. And the models and other information are
21 available on EPA's webpage for the lead models. IEUBK
22 for children and adult lead, which is for older
23 individuals.
24 MR. BASILE: Okay. Another question? Any
25 other questions?
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 22
1 They had -- they had two mics, but
2 unfortunately only one of the mics works tonight.
3 MR. WOODWARD: Thanks, Mike.
4 MR. BASILE: Here's your --
5 MR. DEVINE: All right. Couple things here.
6 Nice seeing you again, Chris.
7 MR. O'LEARY: Yes.
8 MR. DEVINE: And I'm going to address a
9 couple of the -- two phases of the project. The first
10 phase -- I'm going go right back to first phase, your
11 cleanup on Mill Street, the soil on Mill Street area,
12 and the adjacent neighborhoods. Okay. I know that you
13 guys have been staging, but have you actually been
14 starting to take soil out yet?
15 MR. O'LEARY: We have not. We are -- the
16 staging area has been set up and the goal is --
17 MR. MANNINO: Approximately two weeks for
18 the first property. The shovel should be in the
19 ground.
2 0 MR. DEVINE: Okay. And now my second
21 question pertaining to that is: When you guys start
22 excavating, are you going to be taking the soil right
23 out or is it going to be stored down there at Blue
24 Blocks?
25 MR. MANNINO: Yeah. No, it's a direct load
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
1
right on the top --
Page 23
2
MR. DEVINE:
It's going to be direct load?
3
MR. MANNINO:
-- to the disposal.
4
MR. DEVINE:
Okay. Where is the disposal
5
facility?
6
MR. MANNINO:
We're currently looking at
7
Model City and we're working through the administrative
8
process to get that approved.
9
MR. DEVINE:
Where? In Lewiston? That's
10
where --
11
MR. O'LEARY:
Yeah. Lewiston, Niagara
12
County.
13
MR. DEVINE:
So down in Lewiston? Okay.
14
Thank you.
15
MR. BASILE:
Okay.
16
MR. DEVINE:
And now that -- well, now I
17
want to just ask about
your second phase. So I see you
18
-- since last time I talked to you, when I met you last
19
year. And when you took over as project manager, we
20
had talked about expanding some of your testing at the
21
Plank Road area, right
by our wastewater treatment plan
22
in Lockport.
23
MR. BASILE:
Uh-huh.
24
MR. DEVINE:
With the -- with your new, you
25
know, vision of what needs to be done. Did you expand
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 24
1 your testing down the plank road area for those six
2 residents that go Stone Road?
3 Yeah. So what we'd like to do with that
4 area. So that area along Plank Road that was sampled
5 is a low-lying flood plain area, right?
6 MR. MANNINO: Right.
7 MR. DEVINE: So after the record of
8 decision is signed, we enter --
9 I apologize.
10 -- we enter what's called the remedial
11 design phase where we develop all the specifications on
12 how the clean up is going to be done. The first step
13 of that process is to go out and collect additional
14 data to determine exactly what our cut lines are going
15 to be. Right now, as Chris mentioned, we have limited
16 data and we need to collect additional data.
17 So the -- when you refer to as the expansion
18 is the additional step out to see how much soil has to
19 be excavated. Now, what all the -- what the data shows
20 along these floodplain areas is, as you move up in
21 elevation, in OU3 and further downstream, the
22 concentrations significantly drop off once you are
23 outside of the floodplain. So we can share that type
24 of data with you.
25 But so the -- the simple answer to your
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 25
1 question is, that additional sampling would happen as
2 part of the pre-design investigation phase, which would
3 happen after the record of the decision, not before it.
4 Thank you. Okay.
5 MS. KEENY: Thank you very much. I hope you
6 don't mind if I don't stand, but I unfortunately broke
7 my back in two places. So anyway, I am here tonight to
8 really represent Shirley Nicholas. Shirley Nicholas is
9 the lady who was responsible for the initial
10 investigation into the situation in lower town. I'd
11 like to share the picture with you if you wouldn't
12 mind.
13 MR. O'LEARY: Okay.
14 MS. KEENY: Now, Shirley was approximately
15 4'4", weighed about 75 pounds --
16 MR. O'LEARY: Uh-huh.
17 MS. KEENY: -- and had a heart of gold. And
18 her goal was to see to it that the contamination in
19 lower town was remediated as she and the number of
20 people that are with me tonight I'd wish to introduce.
21 Our legislator for that area, Carla Speranza; Mark
22 Devine in the back who walked the area with us; our
23 previous mayor, Michelle; and there's a gentleman
24 that's sat with us tonight that walked.
25 Now, we would go from house to house,
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 26
1 knocking on the doors, asking about the health. One
2 health -- house in particular, the gentleman had
3 cancer, the wife had cancer, they died from cancer.
4 The Chihuahua died from cancer and the son died from
5 cancer. I was present at Shirley's home when they came
6 in from New York City and they told her that she should
7 tear up her vegetable garden. She should not eat any
8 fruit from the trees.
9 That -- in addition to that, her shoes
10 should be removed before she went in the house. That
11 the pads of the dog and the cat, they should all be
12 washed. And as we went on further going down the
13 street, we learned the same thing. They had the same
14 type of contamination. There was a great deal of
15 cancer there.
16 And I cannot say enough nice things about
17 Mike Basile because Mike has stayed with us year after
18 year after year, trying to see to it that we do have
19 the correct remedial recommendations that are down
2 0 there. And then I want to say thank you, thank you,
21 thank you to Kathy Hochul, because it was Kathy Hochul
22 who came to Lockport. And when she was in Congress,
23 she assured us of the $22 million for the cleanup.
24 Without her efforts and without Shirley, there would be
25 nothing being done today.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 27
1 Our concern all along has been the health of
2 the people in lower town. And apparently it flows
3 beyond that. It goes down through Newfane, to your
4 fishing area, where your fish are contaminated. We
5 have been told that to eat one fish could very much
6 endanger your life because of the contamination. And I
7 know everyone that is here, you know, we're all
8 concerned about our brothers and sisters. You know, we
9 -- we -- we're just here to help one another. And
10 again, I cannot say enough nice things about Mike
11 Basile, and thank you so much for listening to me.
12 MR. O'LEARY: You're welcome. Thank you.
13 MR. BASILE: Thank you, Jean. Thanks very
14 much.
15 MS. SPERANZA: Thank you. It's going to be
16 tough to follow that, but I'll try. Carla Speranza, I
17 live at 6438 Lincoln Avenue in the town of Lockport.
18 However, I am the legislator for District 12, which
19 represents this -- the part of the City of Lockport and
2 0 northward to Old Niagara Road. But I also grew up out
21 on Johnson Road in between Stone and 104, adjacent to
22 Purdy Road. So very familiar with that, this part of
23 Lockport, and Newfane.
24 And I would like, Mr. O'Leary, if you could,
25 could you go back a few slides in the presentation?
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 28
1 I'd like to just do kind of a deeper dive. You had
2 your --we had the recommendation slide. Can you go
3 back to the detailed slides for each of the EPA's
4 recommendations? I just want to check my --
5 MR. O'LEARY: The preferred -- this one?
6 MS. SPERANZA: Right, right.
7 MR. O'LEARY: Okay.
8 MS. SPERANZA: So STA 5 and SOIL 3. Yes.
9 Could you go back to -- to the detailed slides for
10 each?
11 MR. O'LEARY: So STA 5 is this one?
12 MS. SPERANZA: Yes. Okay. Just in my head,
13 I wanted to clear because one of the proposed options
14 was only going one foot down. And I just in my head, I
15 wanted to make sure that this -- the recommendation or
16 the preference, the EPAs not limited to one foot depth
17 of excavation that you are going to do. It's basically
18 more we are looking to go as deep as we sort of need to
19 go here.
2 0 MR. O'LEARY: We excavate --
21 MS. SPERANZA: Is that a correct assumption?
22 MR. O'LEARY: Correct. We will excavate
23 until we get to the remedial action level. The one
24 that you were referring to is this one, STA 4. That's
25 the one foot and then the capping. So we prefer and
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 29
1 the preferred alternative for the EPA is STA 5.
2 MS. SPERANZA: Okay. Thank you. And can
3 you take us to the number 4, the SOIL 4?
4 MR. O'LEARY: SOIL 3?
5 MS. SPERANZA: Okay, SOIL 3. Okay.
6 MR. O'LEARY: SOIL 3. That's this one.
7 MS. SPERANZA: So basically the same kind of
8 approach?
9 MR. O'LEARY: Correct. This would be soil
10 excavation and off-site disposal. Correct.
11 MS. SPERANZA: Okay. Of --
12 MR. O'LEARY: Of the floodplain soils.
13 MS. SPERANZA: Okay, thank you. Thank you,
14 Mr. Basile.
15 MR. BASILE: Thank you.
16 Any other questions? Are there any other
17 questions? Yes.
18 MR. CLARK: My name is Bill Clark. I live
19 in Olcott. And Mike and I go way back. We worked on
2 0 the Love Canal project some -- I can't believe you're
21 not retired yet. Anyway.
22 MR. BASILE: We -- we were younger then.
23 Just a little younger then, Bill.
24 MR. CLARK: I chair the Town of Newfane
25 Planning Board and, you know, I -- I think, you know,
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 30
1 what you're proposing here, I mean, it's got to be
2 fantastic. I mean, you're -- you're talking about
3 spending almost $200 million, you know, to help clean
4 up the Eighteen Mile Creek. And much of the work is
5 going to be done in the town of Lockport, City of
6 Lockport, but it's got to be a huge benefit for the
7 town of Newfane. You know, as we look at the cleaning
8 up the creek that -- that, you know, as it goes to the
9 -- all the way to Lake Ontario in Olcott.
10 I guess the -- the -- the question I have
11 is, you know, I think we -- we also, here in Newfane,
12 have some more immediate problems. You know, I think
13 you're looking at -- you know, a lot of what the
14 contamination you're looking at here, the sediment and
15 so forth, you know, what was put there that you're
16 cleaning up was put there decades ago and, you know, it
17 needs to be cleaned up. That's very clear.
18 But also, even today, you know, if we look
19 at our tourism economy here in Newfane and -- and all
20 the -- the fishing and tourism activity that occurs in
21 Olcott, you know, we're dealing with pressing
22 environmental and pollution problems this day and we're
23 continuing, you know, to, you know, deal with
24 pollution, you know, that -- that is going on, you
25 know, as we speak here.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 31
1 You know, specifically, you know, we're
2 told, you know, that, you know, there may be pollution
3 issues related to agricultural runoff. There may be
4 pollution issues related to industrial output. There
5 may be pollution issues related to sewage treatment.
6 There may be sewage -- you know, contamination issues
7 related to birds and avian, you know, and gulls and --
8 and -- and cormorants and -- and others.
9 You know, so, you know, there's a whole, you
10 know -- this project here looks at, you know, some of
11 the issues that go way back and it -- it targets a very
12 defined area under the Superfund and I appreciate that.
13 But I think I guess I'm talking more to, like, some of
14 the State Environmental and Health folks that are here.
15 You know, you know, we've been told that all of these
16 potential contamination issues are going on around us,
17 but we don't really see any comprehensive testing going
18 on to determine what it is.
19 You know, we're told, it's -- it's -- it's,
20 you know, the -- the agriculture going on. We're told
21 it's suburban. We're told it's the, you know -- the,
22 you know -- the industrial. We're told it's, you know,
23 all these different issues. But, you know -- and, you
24 know, we're looking I think at this stage, also, to
25 have some kind of comprehensive testing done, you know,
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 32
1 so that we can -- you know, we can stop this or control
2 or manage this -- this kind of pollution that we're
3 seeing.
4 MR. BASILE: Thank you, Bill. Thank you
5 very much. And I -- and I am sure, at the end of this
6 meeting, please avail yourself of the state
7 representatives that are here from the DEC and DOH.
8 Any other questions? Any other questions?
9 Yes, sir.
10 MR. HELLNER: Yeah. Hi, I am Brian Hellner,
11 2653 Fuller Road, Burt. I just had a question. I
12 couldn't really tell from the map, it wasn't really,
13 you know, easy to read, but is there anything that
14 would be done north of the dam, or is that in, like,
15 another step down the road?
16 MR. O'LEARY: Great question. So the
17 Operable Unit 3 is this green part you see here on the
18 figure. I know it's difficult to see. If you come up
19 to the front here, there are larger figures that are
2 0 blown up.
21 But to answer your question, yes.
22 Everything north of where OU3 ends will be handled
23 under additional action phases of the project.
24 MR. MANNINO: Chris, do you want to mention
25 that the two impoundments by the dams have been
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 33
1 identified as depositional areas? Our plan calls for
2 further evaluations of that.
3 MR. O'LEARY: Okay. Yeah. So in the -- one
4 of the documents that are in the administrative record,
5 which you can look at the document repositories, is the
6 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. If you look
7 at those documents, they actually go into, as -- as
8 Pete mentioned, behind the impoundments of Newfane Dam,
9 but more importantly behind the impoundment of Burt
10 Dam. There is a -- a great deal of sediment at this
11 position.
12 And up here, again, with the figures, I
13 don't include this there, but this is a -- a what we
14 call a conceptual site model. And this runs from the
15 end of OU2 all the way down to Lake Ontario. And you
16 can see, just by looking at the illustration, this
17 piece here is the amount of material that's gauged to
18 be right behind Burt Dam. And then this is the
19 material behind Newfane Dam.
2 0 So as you can see, the amount of material
21 behind Burt Dam needs to be handled differently. So
22 that was another reason why OU3 was made smaller when
23 it was discovered how much material was actually behind
24 the impoundment at that point.
25 That's a great question.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
2
1
3 Just a quick question. Approximately how many years
4 are we talking about before the project is completed?
6 in lower town, how is it going to be removed? Are
7 those trucks going to be covered or is the dust going
8 to be, you know, floating through the air? And have
9 you contracted with trucking companies that will be
10 willing to dispose of it in a proper manner? Thank
11 you.
12 MR. MANNINO: Yeah. Fine.
13 So we work on the residential properties
14 along Mill Street in that area. We're focusing on the
15 block we call block two. That work's going to start in
16 about two weeks, right? That's our current schedule.
17 It could deviate a little bit.
18 The trucks are going to be covered before
19 they leave the property and then go to the disposal
20 facility. We're going to have best management
21 practices to keep the dust down. There's going to be a
22 community air monitoring program where we continuously
23 check concentrations of dust and add water or do
24 whatever we need to do to keep those concentrations
25 down. If we can't do the work safely, we're going to
5
And with regards to the removal of the soil
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 35
1 stop the work and take a look at what we can do to keep
2 the dust down. Slow it down, add more water, whatever
3 the best management practice is. That's all laid out
4 in our work plans that we have that have been approved.
5 So I hope that addresses your question
6 regarding the dust. Was there another piece to that?
7 MR. O'LEARY: Have you mentioned the
8 contractor?
9 MR. MANNINO: So Sevenson Environmental
10 Services is the prime contractor performing the
11 residential cleanup. It's being overseen through an
12 inter-agency agreement that we have with the United
13 States Army Corps of Engineers. We have a trailer set
14 up on Mill Street. And so that's where the Army Corps
15 and Sevenson is set up to keep track of daily
16 activities. And they will be contracting out to
17 various trucking companies. I don't know who they are
18 at this point, so.
19 But does that answer your question, Jean?
2 0 You good? Thanks.
21 MR. BEIDLE: Hi, my name is Jeremy Beidle
22 (phonetic). I have property at 165 Olcott Street and
23 157 Olcott Street. Just a question one -- will there
24 be a meeting about Operable Unit number 4? Is there a
25 future meeting for that, or is this pretty much that?
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 36
1 MR. MANNINO: So we divided Opera --
2 Operable Unit 4 into two phases of work. The first
3 phase handles -- I think it's the first 32 or 33
4 properties.
5 MR. BEIDLE: I'm in phase two.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You are part of phase
7 two?
8 MR. BEIDLE: Two, yeah.
9 MR. MANNINO: Okay. So what we're doing is
10 we're collecting the data. We're sampling. We're
11 sharing the results with each of the property owners as
12 we have it. Right? At that point, we will have to
13 make a decision as to whether or not we need to come
14 out with a -- a new decision document or work under the
15 existing record of decision. If that's the case, we'll
16 have another public meeting.
17 But regardless of that, before -- what we've
18 been doing with the phase one properties is before the
19 work starts, we're meeting with the homeowners one-on-
20 one, talking about the specific details, about the work
21 that's going to be coming on with respect to that
22 property.
23 So we're having, you know, communications
24 with the individual property owners ahead of the work
25 starting. And so my expectation is, is that with the
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 37
1 phase two properties we would be doing the same exact
2 thing.
3 When you say one -- one-on-one, do you mean
4 face-to-face or --
5 MR. BEIDLE: Face-to-face, in person.
6 MR. MANNINO: Okay.
7 Yep. The suitable location -- our
8 convenience for you. We sit down, we go over the
9 detailed sampling results. Show you the area where we
10 -- the data shows we need to dig, how we're going to
11 restore the property and, you know, the schedule for
12 doing that work. And walk through any issues you may
13 have with respect to how that work is going to be
14 performed. So --
15 Thank you.
16 MR. BASILE: Sure. Any other questions?
17 MR. CLARK: Yes, Mike. Just -- I can -- I
18 can blow -- I can blast it from out here.
19 MR. BASILE: Okay. Okay.
2 0 MR. CLARK: Is there -- you mentioned the --
21 the contamination build up behind the Burt Dam in
22 Newfane. Is there -- you know, is there any confidence
23 level that there will be future phases here that will
24 go further down from the creek?
25 MR. BASILE: Of course. Yep.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 38
1 MR. CLARK: Are you going to address some of
2 those issues and problems?
3 MR. O'LEARY: Yeah. So it's a great
4 question. And the goal is to address further
5 downstream of the end of Operable Unit 3 with further
6 actions, based on looking at the data, looking at the
7 results, looking at the investigations, it will then be
8 decided. I can't tell you now what operable units will
9 be and how it'll be handled, but it is something being
10 looked at right now.
11 MR. BASILE: Good. Are there any other
12 questions? Are there -- yes. Okay.
13 MR. GOODMAN: Greetings. My name is Steven
14 Goodman (phonetic), 3098 Lockport Olcott Road in
15 Newfane. I've lived there since 1979. I've come to
16 these meetings on and off for the last 45 years. When
17 I first started coming to these meetings, a couple of
18 the old fellows that I knew in the area said, yeah,
19 we've been coming to these meetings for 40 years,
2 0 nothing's happening and blah, blah, blah. They're
21 dead, so it's -- I'm sure I'll be at the same way,
22 probably, when it's all said and done.
23 I appreciate that the quality of the creek
24 has improved a ton, I see it in my backyard all the
25 time. However, last Friday I was out kayaking the Lake
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 39
1 Ontario on the west side of the -- over towards the
2 Bluff. Raw sewage, a lot of raw sewage, it's right in
3 that immediate area floating around, but I had to
4 yonder through that last week, on Friday. I don't know
5 where that's coming from, but I think that's certainly
6 a concern, I -- piggybacking on Bill Clark's comment
7 about the current situation of dropping things through.
8 I also have a question about -- I remember
9 going to the first Earth Day. It was 1970 or '71 and
10 Alan Van De Mark, I think was the gentleman's name, was
11 insisting along the Eighteen Mile Creek, Red Snake
12 Hill, was insisting that the things that they were
13 putting in the creek were -- were cleaning the creek
14 and it was a different color every time you went
15 through there, any old timers that went through there
16 back in the day.
17 What are some of those industry's
18 responsibilities to some of these gigondal fees that
19 are going on? I mean, I know this is all federal stuff
20 and state stuff, but aren't there some responsibilities
21 to some of those gentlemen and some of those
22 industries, that are still going? I know a lot of them
23 are gone, but some -- some are still going.
24 Again, I appreciate the -- the quality of
25 the creek, it's a big improvement, but there's a lot of
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 40
1 work to do yet. And again, there's still stuff being
2 dumped in the creek that has no business being in
3 there. Thank you.
4 MR. BASILE: Thank you.
5 MR. O'LEARY: And again, thank you. Great
6 questions. So the first question you had regarding the
7 raw sewage or sewage that you -- you saw in the creek.
8 That's not handled under the purview of the -- the
9 federal government, that would be something you'd have
10 to find out from the city of Lockport and -- and check
11 with their CSOs and -- and understanding to find out
12 why that is and why that's the case. Regarding your
13 second question.
14 MR. GOODMAN: Yeah. About Van De Mark and
15 other --
16 MR. O'LEARY: Correct.
17 MR. GOODMAN: -- active facilities?
18 MR. O'LEARY: Yeah, active facilities. So
19 under Superfund, we continue to evaluate, we look for
20 potential responsible parties, or in this case,
21 chemical companies or -- or companies that could cause
22 the contamination or the pollution. So that's an
23 ongoing process. Right now, Eighteen Mile Creek, the
24 entire work that you've seen in OU1, OU2, OU3, and OU4,
25 there is no potential responsible party. This is being
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 41
1 handled by the federal taxpayers. 0U1, 2, and 4 is
2 being handled on the -- bipartisan --
3 MR. BASILE: Bipartisan infrastructure.
4 MR. O'LEARY: -- infrastructure law
5 legislation money funding, that's how that's being
6 handled. But we will continue to evaluate, that's why
7 we have these community meetings. The community might
8 be aware of something or know of some history that
9 we're not aware of and could point us in the direction
10 of another potential responsible party.
11 So that would be why we -- you know, we can
12 reach out and any communication that you might have or
13 --or knowledge that you might be aware of can help,
14 obviously, potentially, find the PRP. As far as the
15 state sites. I don't know, Steve, did you want to
16 speak to either Van De Mark or Vanchlor?
17 MR. MOELLER: I can. There's a -- Van De
18 Mark chemical is a state site. There is a remedial
19 system along the creek down grading of the plant. The
20 contamination of concern there currently is coal tar
21 that was deposited there, probably in the early 1900s
22 before Van De Mark Chemical was even there. Van De
23 Mark itself produces phosgene gas chemistries. So most
24 of their stuff would be airborne rather than water
25 related or soil related contamination. There is
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 42
1 groundwater contamination also related to the coal tar
2 previously -- it was disposed there.
3 Vanchlor landfill used to be a Van De Mark
4 landfill, and then the ownership of it went over to
5 Vanchlor Company, which is on Jackson Street or Plank
6 Road. Their landfill will be there, it's a capped and
7 closed landfill and it'll be monitored. It's currently
8 monitored. In fact, the annual sampling is coming up
9 in two weeks. It'll be monitored for a long, long
10 time, but there's very minimal contamination associated
11 with that landfill, it's an older landfill and it's
12 also a state site.
13 MR. O'LEARY: Thank you, Steven.
14 MR. GOODMAN: Thank you.
15 MR. BASILE: Any other questions? Yes.
16 MS. ROMAN: Michelle Roman, Cherry Street in
17 Lockport. I wanted to address -- I don't have the
18 answers to everything about the sewage treatment plant,
19 but they are under the New York State DEC.
20 So our sewage plant has to follow all of
21 their regulations and rules. And we were working on,
22 and we just started the UV system for -- sanitizing the
23 sewage before it goes into the creek. And sometimes
24 there will be an overflow incident, but it's really not
25 that often.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 43
1 And I know that some other people told me
2 that some of the houses along Eighteen Mile Creek go
3 directly into the creek, and they're not hooked up to
4 any kind of sewage line, it goes directly into the
5 creek and there's a number of houses that do that. And
6 because when I asked the DEC, like, what is happening,
7 what's going on with our monitoring and stuff?
8 So I understand your concerns, I share them.
9 And also, there was -- there's discussion of the
10 Newfane sewage facility treatment plant right on Lake
11 Ontario and how the currents and everything happened in
12 the lake. So there's a lot of potential things that
13 need to be looked at. And -- those are things that I
14 continue to ask about.
15 MR. BASILE: Are there any other questions?
16 Does anyone else have a question? Remember, we're in a
17 30-day public --
18 MR. O'LEARY: Mike.
19 MR. BASILE: Okay. Right here. Yes, sir.
2 0 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just a couple quick
21 questions. One was, you mentioned that there's going
22 to be the community air quality monitoring. Is that
23 going to be publicly accessible, like, through the, is
24 it EPA Air Now site or something? Is it -- but -- but
25 in general, is the data for that going to be available
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 44
1 to the public to view in real time?
2 MR. MANNINO: I don't believe it -- it is.
3 We can look into putting some of the data on once we've
4 had a -- a -- a chance to, kind of, consolidate it.
5 But I -- the current plan is not to have it live, but
6 we can provide updates to, and post that on the
7 website. We can look into doing something like that.
8 Okay.
9 Or, you know, again, I'm -- I -- I can't
10 commit to exactly what we'll do, but we'll look at what
11 additional information we could post on our website,
12 whether it's a -- any exceedances or -- or anything
13 along those lines. But we can go back and look at
14 that.
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. And so is
16 that -- is that Army Corps that's doing the air
17 monitoring or is it EPA?
18 MR. MANNINO: So the air monitoring is going
19 to be done by Sevenson Environmental Services, it's
20 their equipment. The oversight, the actual folks
21 present there is the Army Corps of Engineers, they'll
22 have a daily presence. And EPA will be periodically on
23 site.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And so if people
25 have concerns at any point during the -- the process,
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 45
1 can they -- is there a direct contact for them for Army
2 Corps?
3 MR. MANNINO: So our -- our preference would
4 be, if you -- you have any questions regarding the OU
5 0U4 work, that is currently managed by Julio Vasquez,
6 who couldn't be here this evening. Feel free to give
7 him a call and I -- his number --
8 Or -- or -- myself.
9 -- or -- or -- or Chris. Julio's number is
10 212-637-4323.
11 Is it 212?
12 212-637-4323.
13 Or you call me and I can get you in touch.
14 Yeah. Okay.
15 Yeah. We'll -- we'll -- we'll -- we'll --
16 we'll make sure you have the right number. Sometimes I
17 get dyslexia with those fours -- those threes and those
18 twos, so I apologize. But what -- when it comes to any
19 of the individual homeowners --
20 Yes.
21 -- okay? We are working closely with them
22 as we get closer to doing work on that block.
23 So if any particular homeowner were to have
24 a concern, we will definitely be sharing that
25 information much closer. When it comes to the -- the
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Page 46
1 larger community and our ability to post that
2 information or some of that information on the website.
3 That's where, you know, I -- I've got to go back to the
4 team and see what we can do versus what might take some
5 time.
6 But for individual homeowners, if they have
7 any questions about what that data looks like for their
8 property or the neighboring property, we will share
9 that as soon as possible. Yeah. We -- we're trying to
10 have very close working relationships with each of the
11 homeowners. And right now, we're focusing on this one
12 particular block. Once the work starts, we're going to
13 keep rolling that out.
14 Got you. Thank you.
15 MR. BASILE: Thank you. Are there any other
16 questions? Any other questions?
17 Just want to remind you that we're in a
18 public comment period, 19th July to 19th August. If
19 you have any comments that you would like, or you think
20 of something, like, two or three days after you've left
21 here, you can -- you can either call Chris, you can put
22 them in writing, you can go on internet via e-mail and
23 send it to him. And we'll be more than happy to
24 respond to those questions up to and including August
25 the 19th.
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
1
Page 47
If there aren't any other questions,
2
remember, we do have a website for Eighteen Mile Creek
3
that we post all of our documents to, community update,
4
all the activities that are ongoing with Eighteen Mile
5
Creek. I want to thank you on behalf of the EPA and
6
the state. And thank you for coming out and taking the
7
time.
8
Remember, we'll close the meeting but the
9
state representatives and our EPA folks will be here
10
for a while. If you have any questions, please feel
11
free to go up to them. Enjoy the rest of your summer.
12
Thank you very much.
13
(MEETING CONCLUDED)
14
(End of Video Recording.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
1
CERTIFICATE
Page 48
2
3
I,Doug Yarborough, do hereby
certify
4
that I was
authorized to and transcribed
the
5
foregoing
recorded proceedings, and that
the
6
transcript
is a true record, to the best
of my
7
ability.
8
9
10
11
Dated this 7th day of August,
2024 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: $0..accessible
$
$0 13:18
15 : 18
$1,999,000
14 : 8
$131,307,000
16 : 16
$192 17:7
$192,076,000
17 : 8
$200 30:3
$22 26:23
$39,363,000
16 : 5
$53,025,000
15 : 2
$60,769,000
15 : 11
$82,440,000
14 : 17
1
1 11:19
15 : 18
100 18:24
20:19
104 27:21
12 27:18
15 7:13
19 : 18
157 35:23
165 35:22
1900s 41:21
1970 39:9
1979 38:15
1980 5:19
19th 5:8
7 :18
17:16,17
46 : 18,25
2
2 11:19
13:19 14 : 7
15:19 41:1
20 5:14
19 : 16
20:18,19
200 21:16
2012 8:2
18 : 22
21 10:18
212 45:11
212-637-4323
45:10,12
2653 32:11
29 11:4
3
3 4:14 9:7,
9,12,16,21
10 : 10
12 : 22 14 : 9
28:8 29:4,
5,6 32:17
38 : 5
30 19:16
3 0-day 43:17
3098 38:14
32 36:3
33 36:3
39,000 16:14
4
4 14:20
28:24 29:3
35 : 24 36:2
41 : 1
4 1 411 2 5:15
4,000-foot
8 : 20
40 15:8
19 : 16
38:19
400 20:6,9
21:1,18
41,000 15:1
45 38:16
5
5 17:2
28:8,11
29 : 1
5,000 16:3,4
5.3 10:4
54,000 15:9
6
60,700,000
15 : 10
6438 27:17
670 17:7
7
7 12:23
71 39:9
75 25:15
8
8 13 : 2
9
9 13 : 2
96,000 14:15
A
abandoned
19 : 14
ability 4 6:1
acceptable
20:9,20
accessible
43 : 23
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: Accommodate..approaches
Accommodate
14 : 20
accomplish
12 : 15
account 6:16
achieve
11 : 20
acres 19:17
Act 5:18
acting 10:23
action 6:19
11:5,11,12
13 : 11
14 : 24
15:4,6,14
17:2 28 : 23
32 : 23
actions 3 8:6
active
40:17,18
actively
19 : 1
activities
5:22 8:6
19:2 35:16
47 : 4
activity
30:20
actual 44:20
add 3 4:23
35 : 2
addition 6 : 5
18:16 26:9
additional
11:6,7
18:3
24:13,16,
18 25:1
32 : 23
44 : 11
address 2:20
8:12 9:8
18:7 20:2
22:8 38:1,
4 42:17
addressed
10:8 11:4
15:22 18:7
addresses
8:13,19,25
35 : 5
addressing
10 : 1
adjacent
7:20 10:4
11:1,4
16 : 10
22 : 12
27:21
adjoining
9:2
administrative
23 : 7 33:4
adult 21:10,
22
adults 21:10
advisory
14 : 6
Affairs 2 : 6
agencies
2 : 23
agency 2 : 7
3 : 4
agenda 5:3,8
18 : 17
agreement
35 : 12
agricultural
11:3 31:3
agriculture
31:20
ahead 3 6:24
air 34:8,22
43:22,24
44 : 16,18
airborne
41 : 24
Alan 3 9:10
Alderman
3 : 14
alternative
12 : 17
13:5,7,10,
12,13,14,
16,17,19,
25 14:7,9,
14,17,18,
19, 24
15:3,7,10,
12,13,18,
19, 24
16:6,12,
21,22,24
17:9 29:1
alternatives
5:11 12:16
13:5,9,13
15:15,16
16:17,20
17 : 7
amount 16:23
33 : 17,20
analytical
20 : 14
analyze 6:11
and/or 15:23
and60 16:12
annual 4 2:8
answering
2 : 24 3:5
answers
42 : 18
apologize
24 : 9 45:18
apparently
27 : 2
appendix
17:9,19
approach
29 : 8
approaches
21 : 14
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: approved..blah
approved
assessments
22 : 10
26 : 17
23 : 8 35:4
11 : 9
25:7,22
27:11,13
approximate
assessor 3 : 8
27:25
29 : 14,15,
8:20 14:19
4:25 21:1
28:3,9
29:19
22 32:4
37 : 16,19,
approximately
assumption
31 : 11
25 38:11
14 : 22
28:21
39:16
40:4 41:3
22 : 17
assured
44 : 13 46:3
42 : 15
25 : 14 34:3
26 : 23
background
43:15,19
area 3:12
attention
5:10 7:9
46 : 15
9:13,22
2:3
12 : 12
began 17:16
10:2,12,
17, 24
attracted
backyard
begin 5:15
19:5,9
18 : 24
38 : 24
19:3
22:11,16
August 17:17
balancing
beginning
23 : 21
46:18,24
12 : 23
2:1 10:3
24:1,4,5
begins 6 : 2
authority
bank-to-bank
25:21,22
27:4 31:12
5:21
14 : 13
behalf 4 7:5
34:14 37:9
avail 3 2:6
based 9:23
Beidle 3 5:21
38:18 39:3
Avenue 2 7:17
11:8 12 : 7
36:5,8
areas 10:2
average
15 : 23
20:23 38:6
37 : 5
11:7 14 : 23
21 : 16
benefit 3 0:6
16 : 11
baseline
big 3 9:25
24 : 20 33:1
avian 31:7
13 : 12
Army 3 5:13,
14 44:16,
aware 11:5
15 : 15
Bill 29:18,
12:12 13:7
basically
23 32:4
21 45:1
21:4 41:8,
21 : 18
3 9:6
9, 13
28:17 29:7
biokinetic
aspects 8 : 8
awful 18:25
Basile 2:2,5
21 : 12
assessed
19:6,22
3:19,24
bipartisan
12 : 24
4:2,5,21
41:2,3
assesses
B
18:13,15
birds 31:7
21 : 9
20 : 11
back 7:18
21 : 5,24
22 : 4
23:15,23
bit 5:16
assessment
6:3
16 : 11
18 : 13
34 : 17
blah 38:20
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: blast.xleaning
blast 3 7:18
bullets
27 : 16
chosen 12:25
block 34:15
11 : 15
case 8:13
Chris 4:16
45 : 22
burial 13:24
36 : 15
18 : 15,18
46 : 12
Blocks 22:24
blood 21:16
blow 3 7:18
blown 3 2:20
blue 5:25
Burt 32:11
33:9,18,21
37:21
business
19 : 15 20:7
40 : 2
40 : 12,20
cat 26:11
Center 18:2
century 7:18
CERCLA 5:16,
18
19:1 22:6
24 : 15
32 : 24 45:9
46 : 21
Christopher
4:9,11
19 : 21
7:3 8:17
C
chair 2 9:24
circle 9:19
22 : 23
Bluff 39:2
Board 2 9:25
Bogardus 3 : 1
bottom 11:25
16 : 21
call 4:8,20
10:22
19 : 17
33 : 14
34 : 15
45:7,13
46:21
chance 44:4
channel 7:11
characteristic
s 9 : 23
10 : 21
chart 11:24
10 : 18
city 3:13,
14, 22
19:5,18
23 : 7 26:6
27:19 30:5
40 : 10
box 5:25
6 : 7
called 5:16
6:16 24 : 10
charts 16:22
check 2 8:4
clarify
20:13 21:3
branch 7:16
breakdown
17 : 8
Brian 3 2:10
bring 19:25
calls 33:1
Canal 7:12
29:20
cancer 2 6:3,
4,5,15
34 : 23
40:10
chemical
40:21
41 : 18,22
chemistries
Clark 29:18,
24 37:17,
20 38:1
Clark1s 3 9:6
clean 6:12
16 : 11
broke 25:6
Cap 14:20
41 : 23
24 : 12 30:3
brothers
capped 4 2:6
Cherry 4 2:16
cleaned
27 : 8
capping
Chihuahua
30 : 17
bubble 7 : 4
14 : 20
26:4
cleaner
build 8 : 3
28:25
children
13 : 22
37:21
Carla 3:17,
21 : 22
cleaning
Building
8 : 16
21, 24
25 : 21
children1s
21 : 11
12 : 6 30:7,
16 39:13
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: cleanup..contaminated
cleanup 5:4,
7,11,19,22
6:20 8:10
9:7 10:1
11:23,25
12 : 13
13 : 10
17:1,4
20 : 23
22 : 11
26 : 23
35 : 11
clear 2 8:13
30:17
clip 2 0:15,
16 21:3
close 18:24
46:10 47:8
closed 42:7
closely
45 : 21
closer
45 :22,25
coal 41:20
42 : 1
collect
24:13,16
collecting
36:10
Collins 3:10
color 3 9:14
combination
15 : 22
comment 5:13
17:16,18
39:6 46:18
comments
6:15 13 :3
17:17,18
18:6 46:19
commercial
11:2 12 : 8
16 : 14
commit 44:10
communication
41 : 12
communications
36 : 23
community
2:6 4:21
7:2,5 13 :4
17 : 13
18 : 20
19 : 11,16
34:22 41:7
43 : 22 46:1
47:3
community1s
6 :15
companies
19 : 14 34:9
35 : 17
40:21
Company 4 2:5
compare
13 : 12
15 : 15
Compensation
5 : 18
completed
34 : 4
completion
6 : 25
complexity
9 : 15
comprehens ive
5 : 17
31 : 17,25
comprised
10 : 10
concentrations
10 : 20
13:24 14:2
20 : 14
24 : 22
34:23,24
conceptual
33 : 14
concern 3:12
10 : 14 27:1
39:6 41:20
45 : 24
concerned
27 : 8
concerns
6:15 17:12
43:8 44 : 25
CONCLUDED
47 : 13
conditions
13 : 1
conducted
6:9 7:25
8:3 13 : 15
confidence
37 : 22
Congress
5:19 26:22
Conservation
3:3 5:2
7 : 25
considered
13:6 17 : 13
20 : 8
consistent
11 : 18 12 : 2
14 : 11 21:2
consolidate
44 : 4
construct
6 : 22
construction
6 : 25
consumption
14 : 6
contact 45:1
contaminant
10 : 20
13 : 23
contaminants
10 : 14
11 : 17
contaminated
11 : 22
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: contaminationdata
14 : 23
15 : 5,21
16:9,23
17:5 27:4
contamination
6:10 7:22
8:12,14,
19,25 9:25
10 : 23
12 : 12
15 : 25
16 : 13
25 : 18
26 : 14 27:6
30 : 14
31:6,16
37:21
40:22
41 : 20,25
42:1,10
continue
40:19 41:6
43 : 14
continuing
30 : 23
continuously
34 : 22
contracted
34 : 9
contracting
35 : 16
contractor
35:8,10
contractors
6 : 20
control 10:2
14:5,25
16:1 32:1
controls
13 : 21
14:4,10,
15, 21
15:5,8,21,
25 16:13
convenience
37 : 8
Cooperative
3:11 18:23
coordinator
2:6 3:12
4:22 19:11
Copies 17:23
cormorants
31 : 8
Cornell 3:10
18 : 23
cornerstone
18 : 21
Corps 3 5:13,
14 44:16,
21 45:2
correct
20 : 13,18,
21 26:19
28:21,22
29:9,10
40 : 16
corridor
8:21
cost 13:17
14:7,17
15:2,10,18
16:5,15,24
17 : 6
costs 17:9
county 3:16
7:11 23 : 12
couple 22:5,
9 38:17
43 : 20
covenants
16 : 2
cover 15:20,
23
covered
34:7,18
creek 2 : 8
3:11 4 : 13,
18 5:5
7:10,12,
15,16,17,
20,22 8:1,
11,20
9:10,11,23
10:3,5,7,
11,14,19,
24,25 17:3
18:4 19:11
20:4 30:4,
8 37 : 24
38 : 23
39 : 11,13,
25 40:2,7,
23 41:19
42 : 23
43 : 2,3 , 5
47:2,5
criteria
12:16,18,
22,23 13:3
CSOS 40:11
cubic 14:15
15 : 1,9,17
16:3,4,15
current
11 : 15
34 : 16 39:7
44 : 5
currents
43 : 11
cut 24:14
D
daily 3 5:15
44 : 22
dam 3 2:14
33:8,10,
18,19,21
37:21
dams 3 2:25
data 12:25
24:14,16,
19, 24
36 : 10
37:10 38:6
43 :25 44 :3
46 : 7
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: dating..documents
dating 7:18
day 3 0:22
39:9,16
days 4 6:20
De 3 9:10
40 : 14
41:16,17,
22 42:3
dead 3 8:21
deal 19:13
26 : 14
30 : 23
33 : 10
dealing
30:21
DEC 3 2:7
42:19 43:6
decades
30:16
decided 3 8:8
deciliter
21 : 17
decision
6:17 17:20
24:8 25:3
36:13,14,
15
Decisions
11 : 18
deed 16:3
deemed 2 0:9
deep 2 8:18
deeper 2 8:1
define 11:6
defined 9:21
31 : 12
degree 11:22
deleted 7 :1
Department
3:1,2 5:1,
2 7:24
deposited
41:21
deposition
13 : 22
depositional
33 : 1
depth 2 8:16
design 6:18,
22 14:2
24 : 11
detailed
28:3,9
37 : 9
details 5 : 7
12:9 36:20
determine
24 : 14
31 : 18
determined
9:23
develop 14:1
24 : 11
developed
11 : 12 13 : 9
14 : 1
deviate
34 : 17
Devine 3:13,
16 4:1,3
22:5,8,20
23:2,4,9,
13,16,24
24:7 25:22
diagram 5:23
died 2 6:3,4
differently
33 : 21
difficult
32 : 18
dig 3 7:10
dilution
20:22
direct 2 2:25
23 : 2 45:1
direction
41 : 9
directly
43 :3,4
discharged
9 : 18
discharges
7 : 13
discharging
9 : 11
discovered
33 : 23
discovery
6 : 1
discuss 6:21
12:4 13 : 8
15 : 12
discussed
6:1,8,24
7:5 8:18,
23 9:5,21,
25 12:11
discussion
43 : 9
disposal
16:7,8
23 :3, 4
29 : 10
34 : 19
dispose
34 : 10
disposed
42 : 2
District
27 : 18
dive 2 8:1
divide 2 0:18
divided 8:11
36 : 1
document 5 : 8
12 : 9 33:5
36 : 14
documentation
17 : 24
documents
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: dog..excavate
6:17 18:3
33:4,7
47:3
dog 2 6:11
DOH 3 2:7
doors 2 6:1
downstream
9:11,22
10:4,7,21
24:21 38:5
drop 24:22
dropping
39:7
due 9:15
15 : 25
16 : 13
dumped 4 0:2
dust 34:7,
21, 23
35:2,6
dyslexia
45 : 17
E
e-mail 4 6:22
early 41:21
Earth 3 9:9
easements
16 : 2
easily 10:23
east 7:16
9 : 2
easy 3 2:13
eat 14:5
26:7 27:5
economy
30:19
effective
17 : 13
efficient
8 : 9
efficiently
8 :12
efforts
26 : 24
Eighteen 2 : 8
3:11 4 : 13,
18 5:5
7:10,12,
16,17 8:1,
11 10:14,
24 17:3
18:4 19:11
30:4 39:11
40:23 43 : 2
47:2,4
elevation
24 : 21
end 3:22
9:18 17 : 14
32:5 33 : 15
38:5 47 : 14
endanger
27 : 6
ends 17:17
32 : 22
Engineers
35 : 13
44 : 21
En j oy 4 7:11
ensure 17:12
ensures
11 : 23
enter 24:8,
10
entertain
19 : 24
entire 8:10
40:24
Enviromental
5 : 2
environment
11 : 13,24
12 : 19
environmental
2:7 3:3
5:17 7:25
12:22 16:2
30:22
31:14 35:9
44 : 19
EPA 3 : 8
5:20 8:2
9:12 11:5,
20 12 : 5,15
17 : 12 18:1
20 : 23
21 : 9,13
29:1 43:24
44 : 17,22
47:5,9
EPA1 s 5:11
9:9 21:21
28:3
EPAS 16:17,
20 21:2
28 : 16
equipment
19:6 44:20
Erie 7:12
erodes 10:22
established
12 : 2
estimated
14 : 15,25
15:8 16:3,
14, 16
evaluate
40:19 41:6
evaluated
6:4 13 : 8
evaluates
12 : 15
evaluations
33 : 2
evening 2:23
4:11,13
45 : 6
eventually
2 : 13
exact 3 7:1
excavate
28 : 20,22
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Index: excavated..future
excavated
24 : 19
excavating
22 : 22
excavation
14:9,11,
13,18,22
15:3,5,20,
23 16:7,8
17:2 28:17
29:10
exceed 14:23
21 : 19
exceedances
44 : 12
exceeding
16:9 17:5
existing
36 : 15
expand 23:25
expanding
23 : 20
expansion
24 : 17
expectation
36:25
expeditious
8 : 10
explain 4:10
5 : 15
exposure
13 : 23
21 : 11
extending
10:4
Extension
3:11 18:23
extent 6:10
9:22
face-to-face
37:4,5
facilities
19 : 14
40:17,18
facility
23 : 5 34:20
43 : 10
fact 42:8
familiar
20:21
27:22
fantastic
30:2
feasibility
6:11 11:11
17 : 10
federal
12 : 21
39:19 40:9
41 : 1
feel 45:6
47:10
fees 3 9:18
fellows
38 : 18
figure 8:16,
21 10:18
32 : 18
figures
32 : 19
33 : 12
filled 16:11
final 13:2
find 4 0:10,
11 41:14
Fine 34:12
fish 14:3,5
27:4,5
fishing 2 7:4
30:20
Flintkote
8:16 9:3
floating
34:8 39:3
flood 17:5
24 : 5
floodplain
10:5 11:1,
4 12:5,13
15:13,17,
18,19,21
16:6,9
24:20,23
29 : 12
flow 5:23
flows 7:13
27 : 2
focusing
34 : 14
46 : 11
folks 2 0:9
31 : 14
44:20 47:9
follow 2 7:16
42 : 20
foot 14:22
28:14,16,
25
form 4 : 2
forms 7:21
found 5 : 7
12 : 9 18:3
fours 45:17
free 45:6
47 : 11
Friday 3 8:25
39:4
front 3 2:19
fruit 2 6:8
full 9:10
10:3
Fuller 3 2:11
funding 5:19
41 : 5
future 11:9,
15 35:25
37 : 23
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: Gaffney..illustration
G
Gaffney 3 : 7
garden 2 6:7
gas 41:23
gauged 3 3:17
general
43 : 25
gentleman
25:23 26:2
gentleman1s
39:10
gentlemen
39:21
gigondal
39:18
give 2:11,
14.20 45:6
goal 12:1
21 : 15
22 : 16
25:18 38:4
goals 11:12,
20.21
12:4,6,13,
15 16:10
17:6 20:23
gold 25:17
good 3:15
4:12 35:20
38 : 11
Goodman
38:13,14
40:14,17
42 : 14
government
40 : 9
grading
41:19
grants 5:20
great 4:12
26 : 14
32 : 16
33 : 10,25
38:3 40:5
green 7 : 3
8:22 32:17
grew 2 7:20
ground 2:11
22 : 19
groundwater
42 : 1
guess 3 0:10
31 : 13
Gulf 7:16
gulls 31:7
guys 2 2:13,
21
H
handled
32 : 22
33:21 38:9
40:8 41:1,
2,6
handles 3 6:3
happen 2 5:1,
3
happened
43 : 11
happening
38:20 43:6
happy 19:7,
24 46:23
Harwood 9:11
10:3
hazardous
5:20 20:7,
8
head 2 8:12,
14
health 3 : 1
4:24 5:1
11 : 13,23
12 : 19
20:25
26:1,2
27:1 31:14
health-related
20 : 24
heart 2 5:17
held 18:23
Hellner
32:10 34:1
highest
10 : 20
Hill 39:12
history 4:10
7:17 41:8
Hochul 2 6:21
home 2 6:5
homeowner
45 : 23
homeowners
36 : 19
45 : 19
46:6,11
hooked 43:3
hope 2 5:5
35 : 5
house 25:25
26:2,10
houses 43:2,
5
huge 3 0:6
human 4:24
11 : 13,23
12 : 19
20 : 25
hydropower
7 : 19
I
identified
33 : 1
IEUBK 21:21
II 18:1
illustration
33 : 16
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: impacted..Keeny
impacted
10:5 19:16
implement
6 : 22
important
7:6 10:6
importantly
33 : 9
impoundment
33:9,24
impoundments
32:25 33:8
improved
38 : 24
improvement
39:25
incident
42 : 24
include 5 : 9
11 :2,8
13 : 16
16:2,22
33 : 13
included 7 : 6
9:10 10:6,
8 11:3
17 : 19
includes
7:15 13 : 25
14:4,11,
14,18,22,
24 15:7
16 : 7
including
46 : 24
individual
36 : 24
45:19 46:6
individual ly
12:24 13:8
individuals
2:22 3:9
21 : 23
industrial
7:18 31:4,
22
industries
39:22
industry1s
39:17
information
7:9 13 :3
17 : 25
18:16,18
21:20
44 : 11
45:25 46:2
infrastructure
41:3,4
initial 6 : 1
25 : 9
initially
9 :10
input 17:12
18 : 20
19 : 23
insisting
39 : 11,12
installation
15 : 23
institutional
13 : 21
14:4,5,10,
15,21,25
15:5,8,20,
25 16:1,13
integrated
21 : 11
inter-agency
35 : 12
interest
18 : 25
interim
11 : 25
internet
46 : 22
introduce
2:4 25 :20
introductions
4 : 19
investigation
6:9 9:9
11 : 10
25 :2,10
Investigation/
feasibility
33 : 6
investigations
8:3 10:16
38 : 7
involved
19 : 2
involvement
2:6 4:22
7:5 19:11
issue 6:13,
16
issues 31:3,
4,5,6,11,
16, 23
37:12 38:2
J
Jackson 42:5
Jean 2 7:13
34:2 35:19
Jeremy 3 5:21
Jim 2 0:3
Johnson
27 : 21
Julio 45:5
Julio 1s 45:9
July 5 : 8
17 : 16
46 : 18
K
Kathy 2 6:21
kayaking
38 : 25
Keeny 2 5:5,
14,17 34:2
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting
Index: Kelly..lot
Kelly 3 : 6
kind 2 8:1
29:7 31:25
32:2 43 :4
44 : 4
knew 3 8:18
knocking
26 : 1
knowledge
41 : 13
lady 25:9
laid 3 5:3
lake 7:14
9:12,19
19:19 30:9
33 : 15
38:25
43:10,12
land 12:7
15 : 24
16 : 10
landfill
42 : 3,4,6,
7, 11
large 9:15
10:24,25
larger 3 2:19
46 : 1
laser 5:25
6:7,23 7:4
8:17,22
9:4,20
lastly 5:12
law 5:19
41 : 4
lead 8:25
10:15 12 : 8
15:21 16:8
17:5 20:6
21:9,10,
16,20,21,
22
learned
26 : 13
leave 18:8
34 : 19
left 5:24
46:20
legislation
41 : 5
legislator
25 : 21
27 : 18
legislature
3 :17
length 9:10
10:3
level 2 0:6
21 : 16
28 : 23
37 : 23
levels 9:25
14 : 24
15 :4, 6
17:3
Lewiston
23:9,11,13
Liability
5 : 18
Library
17:25 18:1
life 2 7:6
limited
15 : 19
24 : 15
28 : 16
Lincoln
27 : 17
lines 24:14
44 : 13
link 18:5
List 6 : 5
7:2 8:2
18 : 22
listed 8 : 1
listening
4:15 6 : 14
18 : 12
27 : 11
liter 2 0:8
live 19:4,8
20:4 27:17
29:18 44:5
lived 3 8:15
load 2 2:25
23 : 2
located
7:10,14
8 : 15
location
5:25 6:8,
24 7:5
8 : 18,23
9:4,20
37 : 7
Lockport
3:13,14,23
4:4,6
17 : 25
18 : 23
19:4,5,18
23 : 22
26 : 22
27 : 17,19,
23 30:5,6
34:2 38:14
40 : 10
42 : 17
long 7:17
14 : 14 42:9
long- 14:24
long-term
13 : 20,25
14 : 10,21
15 :4, 7
longer 19:15
looked 3 8:10
43 : 13
lot 18:25
19:2,3,6,
22 30:13
39 :2,22,25
43 : 12
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: Love..million
Love 2 9:20
low-lying
24 : 5
lower 3:22
11 : 25
25 : 10,19
27:2 34:6
M
made 17:15
33 : 22
main 7:11,
15
make 2:16
4:10 28:15
36 : 13
45 : 16
manage 3 2:2
manageable
9 : 17
managed 4 5:5
management
34 :20 35:3
manager 2:15
4:9,17,21
23 : 19
manner 3 4:10
Mannino 3 : 6
4:22 20:12
22:17,25
23 :3, 6
24:6 32:24
34 : 12 35:9
36:1,9
37:6 44:2,
18 45:3
manufacturing
7:21
map 3 2:12
Marian 3 : 7
4:23
Mark 3:13,
14 4:7
25 : 21
39:10
40 : 14
41:16,18,
22,23 42:3
Mary 2 0:25
21 : 5
mass 10:19
massive
19:20
material
6:1,8,24
7:5 8:18,
24 9:5,21
13 : 23
14 : 13
16 : 11
18 : 11
33:17,19,
20, 23
mayor 4:3,5,
6 25:23
meaning
12 : 18
means 10:2
meet all
12 : 21
meeting 2:9,
10,12 3:25
4 : 14 5:12
17:11,17
18:22 32:6
35 :24,25
36 : 16,19
47 : 8,13
meetings
38:16,17,
19 41:7
memorialize
17 : 20
mention
32 : 24
mentioned
4:17 5:4
24 : 15 33:8
35:7 37:20
43 : 21
met 12:18
23 : 18
methods 6:12
20 : 15,19
mic 19:25
Michelle
4:1,6
25 : 23
42 : 16
micrograms
21 : 17
microphone
2:18 18:13
mics 2 2:1,2
migration
11 : 16
Mike 2 : 5
4 : 12,19,21
18:13 22:3
26 : 17
27 : 10
29 : 19
37:17
43 : 18
Mile 2 : 8
3:11 4:13,
18 5:5
7:10,12,
16,17 8:1,
11 10:14,
24 17:3
18:4 19:11
30:4 39:11
40 : 23 43:2
47:2,4
miles 7:13
10:4 19:18
Mill 9:1
22 : 11
34 : 14
35 : 14
milligrams
20 : 8
million 12:1
17:7 26:23
30:3
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: mind..Ontario
mind 2 5:6,
12
minimal
42 : 10
minimized
11 : 17
minimum 11:3
minutes 5:14
18 : 9
mixing 9:24
model 21:10,
11,12 23 : 7
33 : 14
models 21:9,
20,21
modify 13:4
modifying
13 : 2
Moeller 3 : 3
41 : 17
money 41:5
monitored
13 : 19
42:7,8,9
monitoring
13 : 17,20
14:1,10,
14,21,25
15:4,7,17
34 : 22
43:7,22
44:17,18
month 19:4
move 6:18
24 : 20
N
National 6 : 5
7:1 8:2
18 : 22
native 14:13
Natural
13 : 20
naturally
13 : 21
nature 6 : 9
neighborhoods
22 : 12
neighboring
46 : 8
Newfane 18:1
19:19 20:5
27:3,23
29 : 24
30:7,11,19
33:8,19
37:22
38 : 15
43 : 10
Niagara 7:11
23 : 11
27:20
nice 2 2:6
26 : 16
27:10
Nicholas
25 : 8
north 3:22
7 : 13
32 : 14,22
northward
27 : 20
note 10:6
nothing1s
38:20
notices 16:3
number 14:7
17:22 21:1
25:19 29:3
35 : 24 43:5
45:7,9,16
numerous
7 : 25
0
01LEARY 4:9,
12, 16
18 : 18
20:10
22:7,15
23 : 11
25 : 13,16
27:12,24
28:5,7,11,
20,22
29:4,6,9,
12 32:16
33:3 35:7
38:3 40:5,
16,18 41:4
42 : 13
43 : 18
objectives
11:11,12
obtain 11:22
occurred
7 : 21
occurring
13 : 22
occurs 3 0:20
off-site
16:7,8
29 : 10
Officer 2 : 6
official
2:21 6:6
Olcott 7:14
19 : 19
29 : 19
30:9,21
35 :22,23
38 : 14
older 21:22
42 : 11
Olsen 3 : 7
4:23 21:7
one-on-
36 : 19
one-on-one
37:3
ongoing
40 : 23 47:4
Ontario 7:14
9 : 12,19
19:20 30:9
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: oops..plan
33 : 15 39:1
43 : 11
oops 8:17
open 5:12
Opera 3 6:1
operable
4:13 8:7,
11 9:7,9,
12,16,21
10:8,10
11:1,19
17 : 21
19:22,23
32 : 17
35 : 24 36:2
38:5,8
opportunity
2 : 15
option 12:25
16 : 25
options 5:11
28 : 13
orange 9 : 3
original
9:16,17
originates
7 : 12
OU 4 5:4
OU1 8:13,17
40:24 41:1
OU2 8:19,24
9:18 10:21
12:3 14:12
17:7 33 : 15
40:24
OU3 10:7
13:10 17:3
24 : 21
32 : 22
33 : 22
40:24
OU4 8:25
40:24 45:5
OUS 8 : 7
outlined
19 : 23
output 31:4
overflow
42 : 24
overseen
35 : 11
oversight
44:20
overview
5:6,9 8:5
owners
36 : 11,24
ownership
42 : 4
P
pads 2 6:11
part 3:22
11:10 12 : 1
25 : 2
27:19,22
32:17 36:6
parties 5:21
40:20
parts 5 : 9
party 4 0:25
41 : 10
passed 5:18
pay 5:22
PCB 14:2
15:21 16:8
PCBS 10:15,
19 12 : 1,8
17 : 4
people 18:24
25:20 27:2
43:1 44:24
percent
10 : 18
performed
6:11 10:16
37 : 14
performing
35 : 10
period 2:17
5 : 13
17 : 16,19
46 : 18
periodically
44 : 22
person 3 7:5
pertaining
22 : 21
Pete 3 : 5
4:22 33:8
phase 6:19
7:1 22:10
23 : 17
24 : 11 25:2
3 6:3,5,6,
18 37:1
phases 8 : 7
22:9 32:23
36:2 37:23
phonetic
20:4 34:2
35 : 22
38 : 14
phosgene
41 : 23
picture
25 : 11
piece 9:17
33 : 17 35:6
pieces 9:17
piggybacking
39:6
place 16:1,
14
places 25:7
plain 17:5
24 : 5
plan 2 : 9
4:14 5:5,
7,8 6 : 13
9:8 10:1
11:5 12 : 9
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: plank..proposed
17:15,23
possibly 3 : 5
presence
5 : 10,24
18:6 21:15
post 44:6,
44 : 22
7:7 21 : 13,
23:21 33:1
11 46:1
19 23:8
present 5 : 4
44 : 5
47:3
26:5 44:21
24 : 13
plank 23:21
24:1,4
potential
5:21 31:16
presentation
2:16 4:10
40 : 23
44 : 25
42 : 5
40:20,25
5:6,13
produces
Planning
41:10
18:2,10,12
41 : 23
29:25
43 : 12
27 : 25
program 3:6,
plans 3 5:4
7 34:22
potentially
presented
plant 8:16
41 : 14
17 : 9
project 2:15
9:3 41:19
pounds 2 5:15
pressing
4:9,17,21
42:18,20
43 : 10
PPM 20:6
practice
30:21
pretty 35:25
22:9 23:19
29:20
31 : 10
point 33:24
35:3
prevent
32 :23 34 :4
35 : 18
36:12 41:9
practices
11 : 16
promulgated
44 : 25
34 : 21
previous
20 : 24
pointer 5:25
6:7,23 7:4
pre-design
25 : 2
10 : 16
25 : 23
proper 34:10
properties
8:17,23
Pre-dredge
previously
7:20 8 : 15
9:4,20
14 : 20
42:2
9:1 11:3,
policy 21:2
prefer 28:25
PRGS 11:22
4,8 16:14
12:2,10
34 : 13
pollution
preference
prime 3 5:10
36:4,18
30 :22,24
28:16 45:3
37 : 1
31:2,4,5
preferred
Priorities
32:2 40:22
6:5 7:2
property 9 : 3
5:11 12:17
22 : 18
portion 9 : 8
13 :4
8:2 18:22
34 : 19
10 : 11
16 : 17,20
problems
35 : 22
portions
17:1,3,7
30 : 12,22
36 : 11,22,
10 : 7
28:5 29:1
38 : 2
24 37:11
posed 8:15
preliminary
proceed 6:21
46 : 8
position
33 : 11
6:2 11 :21
12:5 17:6
8 : 9
process
proposed 2 : 9
4 : 14 5:4,
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: proposing..remaining
6,8 6:13
11:5 12:9
17:15,23
18:6 21:15
28 : 13
proposing
30:1
protect
11 : 13
12 : 19
protection
2:7 11 : 23
provide 5 : 6
8:5 13 :4
16:17 44:6
PRP 41:14
public 2:5,
9,13,20
4 : 14
17:12,15,
16,18,25
18:1 36:16
43:17 44:1
46 : 18
publicly
43 : 23
Purdy 2 7:22
purple 4:24
8:21,22
purposes
20 : 24
purview 4 0:8
put 3 0:15,
16 46:21
putting
39 : 13 44:3
Q
quality
38 : 23
39 : 24
43 : 22
question
2:17 5:12
20:5 21:8,
24 22:21
25:1 30:10
32:11,16,
21 33:25
34 :3 35:5,
19,23 38:4
39:8 40:6,
13 43:16
questions
2:24 3:5
18:11,14
19 : 24
21:25
29 : 16,17
32:8 37:16
38:12 40:6
42 : 15
43 : 15,21
45:4 46:7,
16, 24
47:1,10
quick 34:3
43 : 20
R
rambles
19 : 17,18
RAOS 11:11,
17,20
raw 3 9:2
40 : 7
reach 18:18
41 : 12
reaching
19 : 8
read 11:14
32 : 13
real 44:1
reason 33:22
recall 10:13
received
17 : 17
recognize
2:25 3:10
recommendation
28 :2,15
recommendation
s 26:19
28:4
record 2:13,
21 6:17
11 : 18
17 : 19,20
24 : 7 25:3
33:4 36 : 15
Recording
2:1 47:14
Records 18:2
Recovery
13 : 20
red 8:21,22
9:19 10:17
39 : 11
redefined
9:12,14
reduce
11 : 15,16
13 : 23
refer 11:21
24 : 17
referred
10 : 11
referring
28 : 24
Region 18:1
regulations
12 : 22
42 : 21
related
31:3,4,5,7
41:25 42:1
relationships
46 : 10
relies 13:21
17 : 12
remaining
16 : 1,13
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: remediaL.sediment
remedial
15 : 1,9
responsible
42 : 6
2:15 3:12
16:4,5,15,
5:21 25:9
rolling
4:9,17,20
24 26:10
40:20,25
46 : 13
6:8,18,19,
34 : 6
41 : 10
22 11:10,
11, 12
report 17:10
rest 10:24
47:11
Roman 4:3,6
42 : 16
12:17 13:4
repositories
rules 2:12
14:2,23
17:25 33:5
restart
42 : 21
15 :4, 6
represent
14 : 19
runoff 31:3
16:9 17:2
3:21 25:8
restore
24 : 10
representative
37:11
runs 3 3:14
26 : 19
s 4:2532:7
restrictive
28 : 23 33:6
47 : 9
16 : 2
S
41 : 18
represents
resulting
safely 34:25
remediated
25 : 19
27:19
7:22 8:9
sampled 24:4
remediation
require 5:21
11:7 15:24
results
36:11 37:9
sampling
11:6,9
19:2 25:1
4:23 8:6,8
11:7,21
16 : 12
38 : 7
12:6,14
residential
retired
36:10 37:9
13 : 15
8:14 9:1,2
29:21
42 : 8
15:16 17:6
11:2 12 : 8
reused 7 : 2
sanitizing
remedy 6:17
34 : 13
35 : 11
revealed
42 : 22
12:3 14:12
10 : 17
Sara 3 : 1
17:14,21
residents
sat 25:24
19:8 24 : 2
review 6:20
remember
2:19 18:21
respect
12 : 14
schedule
19:10,25
36:21
risk 3 : 8
34:16
37 : 13
4:24 8 : 13
37:11
39:8 43:16
47:2,8
remind 4 6:17
respond
46 : 24
11:9,15
20:25
Scott 3:10,
13
removal
response
road 2 0:4
23:21
screen 18:8,
17
15:17 17:4
5:17 14 : 12
24:1,2, 4
34 : 5
responsibiliti
27:20,21,
section 4:23
removed
es 3 9:18,20
22 32:11,
sediment
14:6,16
15 38:14
8:19 9:8,
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: sediments..speaking
23 10:12,
35 : 13,15
43 : 19
28:3,9
21,25
Sevenson
sisters 2 7:8
Slow 3 5:2
12:1,13
13:10,13,
14,17,21
35 : 9,15
44 : 19
sit 6:19
37 : 8
smaller 9:17
33 : 22
14:3,6,11,
sewage 31:5,
site 4:11,
Snake 3 9:11
16, 23
15:1,6,9
16:4,21,23
17:1,2
6 39:2
40 : 7
42:18,20,
23 43:4,10
16,18 5:5,
10 6:2,4,
7,10,12,18
7:1,10
soil 8:14,
25 11:22
12 : 6
15:18,20,
30 : 14
share 24:23
8:1,6,8,
22 16:5,6,
33 : 10
25:11 43 : 8
10,11 9:9
9,15,22,23
sediments
46 : 8
12:11,20
17:3,4,5
7:23 10:10
sharing
13 : 15
22 : 11,14,
13 : 15
36 : 11
17:14
22 24:18
segment 8:20
45 : 24
18:3,4,21
19:12,17,
28:8 29:3,
4,5,6,9
select 12:16
Shirley
25:8,14
20 33 : 14
41:18
-1- / ¦/ / w / -/
34:5 41:25
selected
6:17 12:5,
7 14:12
26 : 24
Shirley1s
26 : 5
42 : 12
43 : 24
44 : 23
soils 7:22
10:5 11:1
12:5,13
selecting
15 : 13
17 : 13
shirt 4:24
site-specific
29 : 12
shoes 2 6:9
12 : 25
selection
son 26:4
17 : 21
shovel 2 2:18
sites 5:20
19 : 13
sort 28:18
send 4 6:23
Show 3 7:9
41 : 15
source 7:19
separated
shows 24:19
situation
10 : 2,23
8 : 7
37:10
25:10 39:7
south 7:12
separately
side 3 9:1
size 9:15
speak 3 0:25
8 : 9
signed 24:8
slide 5:23
41 : 16
Services
35 : 10
significantly
9 : 25
speaker 2:15
24 : 22
11 : 14,25
36:6 43:20
44 : 19
simple 24:25
16 : 16,19
44:15,24
set 11:20
18:8 28:2
speaking
sir 3 2:9
22 : 16
slides 27:25
2:24 3:4
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: specific..talked
specific
10:1 36:20
specifically
9:7 31:1
specifications
24 : 11
spell 2:19
20 : 1
spending
30:3
Speranza
3:18,21
25 : 21
27 : 15,16
2 8:6,8,12,
21 29:2,5,
7,11,13
split 5 : 9
STA 10:12,
13,17,22
11:8 13:19
14:7,9,20
16:10 17:2
28:8,11,24
29 : 1
stage 31:24
staged 19:6
staging
22 : 13,16
stand 25:6
standard
20:22
standards
20 : 24
stands 5:17
start 22:21
34 : 15
started 9:17
38 : 17
42 : 22
starting
22 : 14
36:25
starts 3 6:19
46 : 12
state 2:19
3:1,2 5:1,
2 7:24 8:4
11 : 15
12 : 21
20 : 1,23
31 : 14 32:6
39:20
41:15,18
42 : 12,19
47:6,9
States 2 : 7
35 : 13
Stay 21:5
stayed 26:17
step 24:12,
18 32:15
steps 4:15
5:12 6:21
7:6 17:11
Steve 3:3,4
41 : 15
Steven 3 8:13
42 : 13
Stone 24:2
27 : 21
s top 3 2:1
35 : 1
stored 22:23
street 8:15
9:1,11
10:3 22:11
26 : 13
34 : 14
35 : 14,22,
23 42:5,16
streets 9 : 2
studies 7:25
s tudy 6:11
11 : 11
17:10 33:6
stuff 3 9:19,
20 40:1
41:24 43:7
subdivided
9:16,24
subset 9:22
10 : 2
suburban
31:21
suitable
37 : 7
summarize
16:19 17:1
summary
11 : 14
16 : 21
summer 4 7:11
Superfund
3:6,7 4:18
5:5,10,16,
24 6:6 7:7
17 : 14
18:2,4
19 : 12,13
31 : 12
40 : 19
supervisor
4 : 23
supplemental
8:3
supporting
17 : 23
surface 14:3
system 15:23
41 : 19
42 : 22
T
table 16:2 0,
21
tables 16:19
taking 2 : 9
22:22 47:6
talk 6:14
9:6 10:12
21 : 1,15
talked
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: talkingunit
23 : 18,20
talking
20:22 30:2
31 : 13 34:4
36:20
tar 41:20
42 : 1
targeted
17 : 4
targets
31 : 11
taxpayers
41 : 1
team 4:19
46:4
tear 2 6:7
term 14:14,
25
testing
23 : 20 24:1
31 : 17,25
thing 19:10
26:13 37:2
things 18:13
22:5 26:16
27 : 10
39 : 7,12
43:12,13
threats 8:15
threes 45:17
threshold
12 : 18
time 2:10,
18,25 3:10
4:8 6:6
13 : 24
19:25
23 : 18
38:25
39 : 14
42:10 44:1
46:5 47:7
timers 3 9:15
times 19:13
20:19
tissue 14:3
titled 15:19
16 : 6
today 2 6:25
30:18
told 2 6:6
27:5 31:2,
15,19,20,
21,22 43:1
ton 3 8:24
tonight 2:10
5:3 6:14
7:8 9:6
19:22 22:2
25:7,20,24
Tonight1s
5:3 18:2
top 5:24
16:20 23 : 1
topics 16:18
topsoil
16 : 12
total 17:6
20 : 15
totals 2 0:17
21:3
touch 45:13
tough 2 7:16
tourism
30:19,20
town 3:22
25:10,19
27:2,17
29 : 24
30:5,7
34 : 6
track 14:2
35 : 15
trade-offs
12 : 24
trailer
35 : 13
transcribed
2 : 13
transcript
2 : 14,21
transitional
10 : 12
transport
13 : 22
treatment
23 : 21 31:5
42 : 18
43 : 10
trees 2 6:8
tributaries
7 : 15
trucking
34:9 35:17
trucks 34:7,
18
turn 18:13
20 : 25
twos 4 5:18
type 24:23
26 : 14
typical
19 : 12
U
Uh-huh 23:23
25 : 16
ultimately
12 : 16
understand
6:9 43 : 8
understanding
40 : 11
UNIDENTIFIED
36:6 43:20
44 : 15,24
unit 4:14
9:7,9,12,
16,21
10:10 11:2
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
-------
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting Index: United..younger
17 : 21
26 : 7
46:2 47:2
46 : 10
19 : 23
versus 21:3
week 3 9:4
works 3:11
32 : 17
35 : 24 36:2
46:4
weeks 2 2:17
22 : 2
38 : 5
Video 2 : 1
34:16 42:9
writing
47 : 14
weighed
46 : 22
United 2 : 7
35 : 12
view 44:1
25 : 15
written
units 8:7,12
vision 23:25
west 2 0:4
17:18 18:6
10:9 11:19
39:1
volume 10:25
v
19:22 38:8
western 4:22
update 4 7:3
W
wife 2 0:5
yards 14:16
updated 21:2
26:3
15 : 1,9,17
walk 3 7:12
16:3,4,15
updates 44:6
walked
Wilson 19:19
year 23:19
upgradient
25:22,24
wondering
26:17,18
11 : 18
wanted 2 0:12
9 : 14
years 34:3
upstream
21:3
Woodward
38 : 16,19
13 : 22
28 : 13,15
20:3,4
42 : 17
22:3
yellow 8:21,
uptake 21:12
22
UV 42:22
Ward 3:14
word 11:14
work 19:3
yonder 3 9:4
washed 2 6:12
York 3:1,2
30:4
V
waste 5:20
34 : 13,25
4 : 23 5:1
values 12:7
20:7,8
35:1,4
7:11,14,24
21 : 18
wastewater
36 :2,14,
20:23 26:6
23 : 21
19,20,24
42 : 19
Van 3 9:10
40:14
water 8:15
37 : 12,13
younger
41:16,17,
14:3 34:23
40 : 1,24
29 :22,23
22 42:3
35:2 41:24
45:5,22
46 : 12
Vanchlor
watershed
work1 s 34:15
41 : 16
7 :15
42 :3, 5
webpage 18:4
worked 2 9:19
Vasquez 45:5
21:21
working 23:7
vegetable
website 18:4
44 : 7,11
42 : 21
45 : 21
www.huseby.com
Huseby Global Litigation
800-333-2082
------- |