SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR THE GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK SITE
(OPERABLE UNIT OF LAKE BOTTOM SUBSITE)
AND FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR THE LCP BRIDGE STREET SUBSITE
ONONDAGA LAKE SUPERFUND SITE
ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK
SrX
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
New York, New York
Evangelista
Pat
Digitally signed by Pat
Evangelista
Date: 2022.09.30
16:00:27 -04'00'
09/30/2022
Pat Evangelista, Director
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
Date
-------
Table of Contents
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 4
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 5
Basis for Taking Action 5
Response Actions 6
Status of Implementation 11
Institutional Controls 12
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance 14
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW 19
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 24
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews 24
Data Review 24
Site Inspection 40
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 41
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 41
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? 44
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 47
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 47
OTHER FINDINGS 48
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 49
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 49
APPENDIX A - FIGURES I
APPENDIX B - TABLES Ill
APPENDIX C - REFERENCES IV
ii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AMSL
Above Mean Sea Level
ANC
Atmospheric Nitrogen Company
BERA
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
BSQV
Bioaccumulation-Based Sediment Quality Value
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
Cubic Feet per Second
cm
centimeters
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FYR
Five-Year Review
GBNMC
Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
ICs
Institutional Controls
IRM
Interim Remedial Measure
LEL
Lowest Effects Level
LOAEL
Lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
LCP
Linden Chemicals and Plastics
MCL
maximum contaminant level
Metro
Syracuse Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility
J^g/kg
Micrograms per Kilogram
mg/kg
Milligrams per Kilogram
ng/kg
Nanograms per Kilogram
ng/L
Nanograms per Liter
NPL
National Priorities List
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH
New York State Department of Health
OM&M
Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring
OU
Operable Unit
PCBs
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCDD/PCDFs Poly chlorinated Dibenzodioxins/Poly chlorinated Dibenzofur
PFAS
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFBA
perfluorobutanoic acid
PFBS
perfluorobutane sulfonic acid
PFOA
perfluorooctanoic acid
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RAO
Remedial Action Objectives
RG
Remedial Goal
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RME
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
TEQ
Toxicity Equivalent
UCL
Upper Confidence Limit
UU/UE
Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure
WW
Wet Weight
111
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Onondaga Lake site currently includes eleven subsites (subsites are defined as any site that is situated
on Onondaga Lake's shores or tributaries that has contributed contamination to or threatens to contribute
contamination to Onondaga Lake). Each subsite is an operable unit (OU).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this five-year review (FYR) for the LCP
Bridge Street subsite (OU5) as well as Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek (OUs 20 and 24) (GBNMC) (part
of the Lake Bottom subsite) concurrently because they are located in close proximity to each other and
because portions of GBNMC are downstream of and were impacted by historical releases from the LCP
Bridge Street subsite.
The purpose of these FYRs is to assess current information to determine if the implemented remedial
measures are, and will continue to be, protective of human health and the environment. The triggering
action for this statutory review is the completion date of the previous GBNMC FYR, which occurred in
2017. The previous FYR for the LCP Bridge Street subsite was completed in 2020.
Remedial activities at the LCP Bridge Street subsite included removal of contaminated sediments from
the West Flume, on-site ditches, and wetlands; restoration of wetlands; installation of a low-permeability
cutoff wall around this subsite; installation of a low-permeability landfill cover; and hydraulic control and
collection of contaminated groundwater inside the cutoff wall. There has been general improvement in the
effectiveness of the hydraulic control system within the soil/sediment containment area over time,
particularly since completion of the landfill cover in 2015 and replacement of the groundwater extraction
pumps in 2017-2020.
Remediation activities at GBNMC included excavation of mercury-contaminated channel sediments and
floodplain soils/sediments, transport of excavated materials to the LCP Bridge Street Subsite Final Cover
Area, placement of clean imported material with appropriate substrate types and thickness, and performing
site restoration in accordance with approved designs.
The 2017 GBNMC FYR and 2020 LCP Bridge Street FYR reports presented environmental data for
evaluation periods ending in 2016 and 2018, respectively. This FYR report presents available
environmental data since those reports were issued, but the discussion and presentation of the data includes
much of the prior results from the 2017 and 2020 reports to support the evaluation of the data and provide
additional context for it.
At the LCP Bridge Street subsite, the average dissolved mercury concentration in West Flume surface
water between 2014 and 2018 was below the New York State protection of wildlife surface water standard
of 2.6 nanograms/liter (ng/L). Although average dissolved mercury concentrations in surface water may
be useful for looking at trend analysis, compliance will be based primarily on individual station
concentrations. There were no exceedances of this standard at individual stations in the West Flume from
2015 to 2018. Wetland C had elevated dissolved mercury concentrations in surface water in 2016, but all
samples were below the standard in 2017 and 2018. No surface water samples were collected from the
West Flume or Wetland C in 2019 or 2020. All surface water samples in Wetland A were above the
standard every year since 2015 through 2020.
Two Remediation Goals (RG) for surface water were established in the GBNMC Record of Decision
(ROD). The New York State protection of wildlife surface water standard of 2.6 ng/L is applied to each
iv
-------
of the six surface water locations sampled. The more stringent New York State protection of human health
via fish consumption surface water standard of 0.7 ng/L is applied to five of the locations which support
populations of sport fish (i.e., those that are consumed by humans). Following remediation, levels of
dissolved mercury in GBNMC surface water samples were below the protection of wildlife goal of 2.6
ng/L. Average levels of dissolved mercury were also below the RG of 0.7 ng/L for protection of human
health via fish consumption in the four sampling events in Geddes Brook since 2015 and in three sampling
events during low flow conditions in Ninemile Creek. As stated previously, although average dissolved
mercury concentrations in surface water may be useful for looking at trend analysis, compliance will be
based primarily on individual station concentrations. During the last two events in Geddes Brook, there
was one exceedance of the 0.7 ng/L RG for dissolved mercury in 2017 and no exceedances at any of the
five locations supporting sport fish in 2019. There were no exceedances at the four downstream locations
during the three low-flow events in Ninemile Creek (2015 to 2017). While average levels of dissolved
mercury were above the 0.7 ng/L criterion in Ninemile Creek during high flow conditions in the
downstream area of the Creek in 2015 and 2016, the levels were consistent with levels of dissolved
mercury in Ninemile Creek at the upstream location and were lower than the criterion at all locations in
2017.
A summary of the post-remediation results and RGs for dissolved mercury in LCP Bridge Street Subsite
and GBNMC surface water is provided in Table ES-1, below.
Table I.S-1
Surface Water Average/Maximum Levels - Dissolved Mercury (nanograms per liter)
AiVii
2013
2014
2015
201(.
2017
20IS
201«)
2020
Sii rl';icc
\\;i(er
Crilerisi/
Kemod i;i 1 icin
(¦dills'
I.CP Wetland
C
-
1.22/1.75
0.66/0.71
2.75/3.67
0.74/0.82
1.16/1.31
-
-
2.6
LCP Wetland
A
-
0.98/1.40
3.6/4.6
6.15/6.95
6.07/8.68
4.8/5.71
4.17/5.59
3.79/5.18
LCP West
Flume
-
1.84/3.20
0.79/1.01
1.49/1.87
0.75/1.19
1.12/1.41
-
-
Geddes Brook
0.25/0.38
0.96/2.0
0.37/0.77
0.32/0.44
0.61/1.53
-
0.39/0.74
-
2.6
0.7
Ninemile
Creek
(Downstream -
Low Flow)
-
-
0.18/0.19
0.19/0.24
0.12/0.13
-
-
-
Ninemile
Creek
(Downstream -
High Flow)2
-
-
1.21/1.37
1.2/1.38
0.17/0.21
-
-
-
Table ES-1 Notes:
1. ROD remediation goals for mercury in surface water include 2.6 ng/L for protection of wildlife and 0.7 ng/L for protection
of human health via fish consumption. The 0.7 ng/L standard does not apply to the LCP Bridge Street subsite because the West
Flume and open water wetland areas do not support fish that are large enough for human consumption. This standard also does
not apply to a perched wetland location at Geddes Brook, which is one of six Geddes Brook surface water sampling locations,
since surface water at the perched wetland location does not support fish large enough for human consumption as well.
2. Dissolved mercury levels at NMC Upstream during high flow were 1.09, 1.21 and 0.17 ng/L in 2015, 2016 and 2017,
respectively.
v
-------
No RGs are specified in the ROD for unfiltered mercury and methylmercury in surface water. However,
post-remediation levels of unfiltered mercury and methylmercury in surface water are below baseline (pre-
remediation) levels in Geddes Brook, and are below baseline and/or upstream levels in lower Ninemile
Creek, except for unfiltered mercury under low flow conditions in 2015 and 2016.
Sediment results at the LCP Bridge Street subsite in Wetland C and the West Flume continue to show
decreased total mercury concentrations relative to pre-remediation conditions. Discrete sample results
have been below the Ninemile Creek bioaccumulation-based sediment quality value (BSQV) of 0.8
mg/kg, which serves as a useful benchmark for evaluating trends at LCP. As in the case for surface water,
elevated levels of mercury in sediment remain in Wetland A. Supplemental data collected in 2018, 2020
and 2021 indicate that additional remedial actions in and adjacent to a portion of Wetland A are needed
to ensure long-term protectiveness to ecological receptors.
Post-remediation levels of total mercury in Geddes Brook sediment, Ninemile Creek channel sediment,
and Ninemile Creek (Reach CD) floodplain soil are below the RGs. While no RGs are specified in the
ROD for methylmercury in sediment, post-remediation levels of methylmercury in Geddes Brook and
Ninemile Creek channel sediment are below baseline levels.
In the SYW-10 forested wetland area, average total mercury levels in soil/sediment in the combined
remediated and unremediated areas are above the BSQV of 0.6 mg/kg; however, this is not unanticipated,
given that a sizeable area within the SYW-10 area was excluded from remediation so as to continue to
provide forested wetland functions, consistent with the remedial objective, conceptual approach, and
design for SYW-10. Average total mercury levels in soil/sediment in the remediated area within SYW-10
are below the mercury BSQV of 0.6 mg/kg for floodplain soil.
A summary of the post-remediation results for mercury in sediment/floodplain soil and sediment/soil RGs
for LCP Bridge Street Subsite and GBNMC is provided in Table ES-2, below.
vi
-------
Table ES-2
Sediment/Soil Average Levels - Mercury (milligrams per kilogram)
Area/
Media
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Sediment/Soil
Criteria/Remediation Goals
LCP Wetland
C
-
0.18
0.13
0.18
0.19
0.11
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
0.8
1.3
LCP Wetland
A
-
0.92
0.92
1.24
2.76
1.83
0.49
0.86
-
LCP West
Flume
-
0.48
0.3
0.29
0.38
0.12
-
-
-
LCP Wetland
A Upland
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.15
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
Geddes
Brook Soil/
Sediment
0.044
0.052
0.063
0.028
0.039
-
-
-
-
0.15
0.18
-
0.6
0.8
1.3
SYW-10 Soil/
Sediment
Remediated
Area
-
-
0.07
0.06
-
0.08
-
-
-
SYW-10 Soil/
Sediment
Combined
Remediated
+ Un-
remediated
Area
-
-
1.47
1.9
-
1.45
-
-
-
Ninemile
Creek
Channel
Sediment
-
-
-
0.07
-
0.06
-
-
-
0.15
-
-
-
0.8
1.3
Ninemile
Creek Reach
CD Soil
-
-
-
0.033
-
0.075
-
-
-
-
0.18
-
0.6
-
-
Table ES-2 Notes:
1. ROD remediation goals for mercury in GBNMC soil/sediment include 0.15 mg/kg (NYSDEC Lowest Effect Level), 0.18
mg/kg (NYSDEC unrestricted use soil cleanup objective), 0.6 mg/kg (Floodplain Soil BSQV), 0.8 mg/kg (Sediment BSQV)
and 1.3 mg/kg (NYSDEC Severe Effect Level). ROD remediation goals for mercury in LCP Bridge Street Subsite sediment
include 0.2 mg/kg (site-specific total mercury background value identified within sediments from the West Flume at locations
upstream of the site). While the remedial goals for GBNMC soil/sediment are not applicable to LCP, they may be considered
when evaluating results for LCP soil/sediment.
2. LCP Wetland A Upland Soil 2021 average represents a weighted average of the 0-0.5', 0.5-1' and 1-2' sample depth intervals
at 8 sample locations.
In the Geddes Brook floodplain area, average post-remediation levels of mercury and methylmercury in
earthworm composite samples and small mammals were below average baseline levels. Detected levels
of total mercury and methylmercury in earthworms in the Ninemile Creek (Reach CD) floodplain area are
well below levels detected during baseline sampling. Total mercury was not detected in small mammals
in the Ninemile Creek (Reach CD) floodplain area. Average total mercury levels in small mammals in
both the remediated and unremediated areas in SYW-10 are below baseline levels. In addition, total
mercury was not detected in small mammals in the remediated area in 2016 and 2018 and was also not
detected in four of the five small mammal samples from the unremediated area in 2018. These results
indicate that mercury concentrations within biota have been reduced on a site-wide basis despite some
elevated levels of mercury remaining in soil in the unremediated area. Thus, potential exposures to higher
trophic level receptors have also been considerably reduced.
vii
-------
The average and 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) total mercury concentrations in prey fish collected
from the West Flume during the 2015 to 2018 review period were generally lower than values observed
during the previous review period, and remained below baseline concentrations. The average and 95%
UCL concentrations of total mercury in Geddes Brook prey fish and Ninemile Creek prey and sport fish
(all species combined) in the downstream (remediated) locations are below the ROD RGs except for the
2017 95% UCL values for Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek prey fish which were slightly higher than
the RG. As the 95% UCLs in Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek prey fish as well as in one of the sport
fish species (Rock Bass) in Ninemile Creek exceeded the RGs in 2017, and the fish data collected in 2019
were determined not to be usable, an additional fish sampling event will be conducted in both Geddes
Brook and Ninemile Creek in 2022. The RGs are based on protection of ecological receptors (based on
the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) target tissue concentrations calculated from exposure
parameters used in the GBNMC Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) for the mink, river otter
and belted kingfisher) and EPA's methylmercury National Recommended Water Quality criterion for the
protection of human health due to consumption of fish. A summary of the post-remediation results and
RGs for mercury in fish tissue is provided in Table ES-3, below.
Table I.S-3
l-'isli - Average and 95% 1(1.s1 lor Mercury (milligrams per kilogram wel weight)
Vivsi Mcriiii
2013
2014
21115
2IIH.
201"
2111N
Krlllrlliilliiili
(miiiK-
Avg
'J5
1 ( 1
•J5
1 ( 1
•>5
1 ( 1
•>5
1 ( 1
'J5
1 ( 1.
\\!!
•>5
1 (1
I.CP Prey
Fish
-
-
-
-
0.041
0.052
-
-
0.11
0.12
0.066
0.077
0.1
Geddes
Brook Prey
Fish
0.083
0.1
0.072
0.09
-
-
0.058
0.09
0.09
0.104
-
-
Ninemile
Creek Prey
Fish
(Downstream
)
-
-
-
-
0.065
0.088
0.051
0.067
0.085
0.103
-
-
Ninemile
Creek Sport
Fish (All
Species
Combined)
(Downstream
)
-
-
-
-
0.099
0.16
0.106
0.15
0.17
0.2
-
-
0.3
Table ES-3 Notes:
1. The 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean.
2. The RGs are specific to Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek, but the prey fish RG may be considered as a point of comparison
for mercury levels in LCP prey fish.
The averages and 95% UCLs for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDFs) in Ninemile Creek sport fish are within
the acceptable risk range for cancer effects and below the noncancer targets for children and adults, except
for the 2015 and 2016 means and 2015-2017 95% UCLs for PCBs, which were above the noncancer target
for children. However, the 2015-2017 mean PCB concentrations in upstream sport fish were also above
this lower noncancer target. The targets are based on protection of human health due to consumption of
fish. A summary of the post-remediation results for PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs in sport fish along with fish
tissue targets is provided in Table ES-4, below.
viii
-------
Table I.S-4
Sport I'isli - .Ninemile ( reck Downs! renin Average nnd 95% I Cl.s Cor PC"lis
(iiii(To
-------
dredging/excavating in the areas where residual contamination remains beneath clean cover material at
levels above that which would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
x
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the
environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports
such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and
document recommendations to address them.
The Onondaga Lake site currently includes eleven subsites (subsites are defined as any site that is
situated on Onondaga Lake's shores or tributaries that has contributed contamination to or threatens
to contribute contamination to Onondaga Lake). Each subsite is an operable unit (OU).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing FYRs for the LCP Bridge Street
subsite, which is OU5 of the Onondaga Lake site, and for Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek
(GBNMC) (part of the Lake Bottom subsite), which is OU20 and OU24 of the Onondaga Lake
site, concurrently because they are located in close proximity to each other and because portions
of GBNMC are downstream of and were impacted by historical releases from the LCP Bridge
Street subsite. The FYRs are being conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Section 121, consistent with the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), and
considering EPA policy.
This is the fourth FYR for the LCP Bridge Street subsite and the second FYR for GBNMC. The
triggering action for this statutory review is the completion date of the previous GBNMC FYR,
which was September 17, 2017 (the completion date of the previous FYR for the LCP Bridge
Street subsite was June 11, 2020). These FYRs have been prepared because hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain at the sites above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
The LCP Bridge Street and GBNMC teams were led by the EPA remedial project managers
(RPMs) Mark Granger and Robert Nunes, respectively. Other team members included EPA
hydrogeologist, Kathryn Flynn, EPA human health and ecological risk assessor, Nicholas
Mazziotta, EPA community involvement coordinator, Larisa Romanowski, and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) project managers, Timothy Larson, Tracy
Smith, and Kristin Granzen.
The potential responsible party for the subsites is Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell).
Honeywell's principal contractor for the project was notified of the initiation of the FYR The
review began on August 30, 2021.
Site Background
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
The LCP Bridge Street subsite is located in the Village of Solvay, Onondaga County, New York
in an industrial area south of the New York State Fairgrounds complex and a Conrail right-of-way
-------
and north of Belle Isle Road. A scrap yard owned by Ben Weitsman of Syracuse and the former
NAKOH Chemical Company are located northeast of the subsite. The WPS Syracuse
Cogeneration facility (formerly known as Kamine) is located immediately west of the subsite (See
Figure l1 for the subsite location).
The LCP Bridge Street subsite encompasses approximately 30 acres, 20 acres of which housed
various former industrial, storage, and office buildings, as well as storage tanks and railroad tracks.
These structures were remediated (e.g., tank cleaning, lead and asbestos abatement) and
demolished during an Interim Remedial Measure (IRM) completed in 2001. This 20-acre area
subsequently became a soil/sediment containment area covered with a low-permeability cap and
surrounded by a slurry wall. The containment area received excavated contaminated soil, sediment,
and debris from subsite-related remedial action (RA) efforts, as well as RA efforts related to
materials that had migrated to GBNMC. The containment area is surrounded by a fence that
prevents public access. The remaining 10 acres are associated with flumes, wetlands, ditches, and
other non-facility features. See Figure 2 for the site plan.
From the mid-1800s to 1908, the land on which the LCP Bridge Street subsite is located was
occupied by several companies that produced salt from naturally-occurring brine springs in the
area. The subsite was subsequently developed and used for commercial/industrial purposes by the
Atmospheric Nitrogen Company (ANC). ANC constructed and operated a plant that manufactured
ammonia. Ammonia production eventually ceased and in the early 1950s, the facility was
demolished. The resulting debris was used to fill the subsite.
In 1953, the Allied Chemical Corporation, a predecessor to AlliedSignal and then Honeywell,
constructed a chlor-alkali facility at the LCP Bridge Street property to manufacture caustic soda
(sodium hydroxide) and chlorine gas. In 1979, the facility was purchased by LCP. LCP installed a
hydrochloric-acid production process in 1980 and a sodium-hypochlorite bleach production
process in 1981. Manufacturing operations ceased in 1988. The eastern portion of the facility was
leased by the HoltraChem Manufacturing Company from the mid-1990s through 1998 and was
used as a product transfer station for the distribution of caustic soda and acids. Currently, no
operations are conducted at the LCP Bridge Street subsite.
The on-site aquifers are not used for drinking water. Residents located in the vicinity of the LCP
Bridge Street subsite use the public water supply provided by Onondaga County. Groundwater
near the subsite will not be used as a source of potable water under future-use scenarios.
The property and surrounding areas are presently zoned industrial, and the reasonably-anticipated
future land use is not expected to change.
GBNMC
GBNMC is located southwest of Onondaga Lake (see Figure 1). As is implied by its name,
GBNMC consists of portions of Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek.
1 Figures can be found in Appendix A.
2
-------
Geddes Brook, a Class C stream below the Old Erie Canal and Class C trout stream upstream of
the Old Erie Canal, originates in the Town of Camillus (located southwest of Syracuse, New York)
and flows approximately three miles northeast to its confluence with the West Flume, a drainage
ditch that passes through the LCP Bridge Street subsite, and an additional 0.3 miles north to
Ninemile Creek on the perimeter of the New York State Fairgrounds in Syracuse, New York (see
Figure 3).2
Ninemile Creek, a Class C stream downstream of the former Honeywell water intake and a Class
C trout stream upstream of the intake, originates at Otisco Lake and flows approximately 16 miles
northeast to its mouth at Onondaga Lake. Ninemile Creek receives surface water from Beaver
Meadow Brook and Geddes Brook at approximately 2.8 miles and 1.3 miles, respectively,
upstream of Onondaga Lake (see Figure 3). Between Amboy Dam and Onondaga Lake, Ninemile
Creek flows adjacent to Solvay Wastebeds 1 through 8, 9 through 11, and 12 through 15. During
the time that Honeywell utilized the Solvay process for the production of soda ash (1881 to 1986),
wastes from this process were disposed of in numerous wastebeds along Onondaga Lake and
Ninemile Creek. Wastebeds 1 through 8 were used from as early as 1916 until 1944 and Wastebeds
9 through 15 were used from 1944 until 1986. Upstream of the dam, Ninemile Creek flows through
woodlands, farmlands, and some light industrial/commercial areas. Ground surface elevations
range from approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the most upstream section of
Ninemile Creek addressed in this study, to approximately 363 feet AMSL where the stream enters
Onondaga Lake (NYSDEC and EPA, 2009b and NYSDEC and EPA, 2009c).
GBNMC is defined as the channel sediments, floodplain soils/sediments, and surface water of the
two waterbodies that were impacted or had the potential to be impacted by the disposal of
hazardous and industrial wastes. This definition was based on the understanding at the time of the
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) work plan (1998) that contaminants from
Honeywell's operations (e.g., LCP Bridge Street and Solvay Wastebeds) were discharged (directly
or indirectly) to GBNMC, where they settled into the stream beds, banks, and floodplains.
The stretch of Ninemile Creek downstream of the area just above the confluence with Geddes
Brook has been designated as "lower Ninemile Creek," which was further subdivided into three
reaches (AB, BC, and CD). Major physical features within and near the Site, the approximate
limits of the respective operable units, and the approximate limits of lower Ninemile Creek
Reaches AB, BC, and CD are shown in the aerial photographs presented in Figures 3 and 4.
For more details related to subsites' background, physical characteristics, geology/hydrogeology,
land/resource use, and history, please refer to: www.epa.gov/superfund/onondaga-lake.
Appendix C, attached, summarizes the documents utilized to prepare this FYR.
2 The Old Erie Canal is adjacent and parallel to Gerelock Road which is shown on Figure 3.
3
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Onondaga Lake site (LCP Bridge Street Subsite - Operable Unit 05)
EPA ID: NYD986913580
Region: 2
State: NY
City/County: Town of Geddes, Onondaga County
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Have all OUs of the Onondaga Lake NPL site achieved
construction completion?
No
Lead agency: State
[If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]:
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Mark Granger
Author affiliation: EPA
Review period: 6/12/2020 - 9/29/2022
Date of site inspection: 7/14/2022
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 4
Triggering action date: 6/11/2020
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 6/11/2025
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Onondaga Lake site (GBNMC - Operable Units 20 and 24)
EPA ID: NYD986913580
Region: 2
State: NY
City/County: Town of Geddes, Onondaga County
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Have all OUs of the Onondaga Lake NPL site achieved
construction completion?
No
4
-------
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: State
[If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]:
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Robert Nunes
Author affiliation: EPA
Review period: 9/8/2017- 9/29/2022
Date of site inspection: 7/14/2022
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 2
Triggering action date: 9/7/2017
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/7/2022
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
In 1995, the State of New York and Honeywell entered into a Stipulation and Order, under the
1992 Onondaga Lake RI/FS Interim Consent Decree, to conduct an RI/FS at the LCP Bridge Street
subsite. Field work was completed in 1996. In 1997, Honeywell (as AlliedSignal) completed an
RI report for the subsite. The report was subsequently modified by NYSDEC and reissued in 1999.
Honeywell completed the FS in May 1999. The need for a remedy was driven by the presence of
unacceptable risks to human and ecological receptors attributable to mercury and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
GBNMC
As part of the RI process, a baseline risk assessment was conducted for GBNMC to estimate the
risks to human health and the environment. The baseline risk assessment, consisting of a human
health risk assessment (HHRA), which evaluated risks to people, and a BERA, which evaluated
risks to the environment, analyzed the potential for adverse effects, both under current conditions,
and if no actions are taken to control or reduce exposure to hazardous substances at GBNMC.
The HHRA concluded that contamination at GBNMC presented risks to human health that were
above EPA guidelines, particularly as a result of fish consumption. The primary sources of these
cancer risks and noncancer health hazards were methylmercury, PCBs, and polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDFs).
5
-------
The BERA concluded that comparisons of tissue concentrations and modeled doses of chemicals
to toxicity reference values showed exceedances of hazard quotients for site-related chemicals.
Many of the contaminants at the site were persistent and, therefore, the risks associated with these
contaminants were unlikely to decrease significantly in the absence of remediation. On the basis
of these comparisons, it was determined through the BERA that all receptors of concern were at
risk. Contaminants and stressors at the Site either impacted or potentially impacted every trophic
level examined in the BERA.
Based upon the results of the RI, HHRA and BERA for GBNMC, NYSDEC and EPA determined
that active remediation was necessary to protect public health or welfare and the environment from
actual and threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. In addition, the
control of contamination migrating from GBNMC into Onondaga Lake is an integral part of the
overall remediation of Onondaga Lake.
Response Actions
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
In 1986, LCP submitted a closure plan for surface impoundments and subsequently obtained
NYSDEC approval. The closure entailed the removal of sludge, liners, and impacted soil
associated with the impoundments. The surface-impoundment closures were completed in 1989.
In 1990, PCB-contaminated soils were excavated and removed from the Eastern Rectiformer Area
by LCP in accordance with the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). In 1995, approximately
21,000 gallons of PCB-impacted oil were drained from transformers and rectifiers in the Western
Rectiformer Area. As part of an IRM conducted by Honeywell (as AlliedSignal), approximately
200,000 pounds of PCB-impacted electrical equipment and the 21,000 gallons of PCB-impacted
oil were disposed of off-site under TSCA and NYSDEC Part 375 requirements.
In 1999, an IRM involving the drumming and off-site disposal of hazardous laboratory chemicals
was conducted by Honeywell. That year, a hazardous wastewater and sludge IRM was also
completed. Under this action, Honeywell removed hazardous wastewaters and sludges from the
on-site tanks and disposed of the waste off-site.
In 1999, NYSDEC collected groundwater samples from north of the West Flume on an adjacent
property in the vicinity of the Peroxide Building. Laboratory analysis characterized the
groundwater as having elevated xylene concentrations (xylene was used by Allied Chemical in the
hydrogen peroxide process).
In 2000, an IRM was performed to remove portions of the on-site sewers that may have been
releasing mercury-impacted water into the West Flume and East Ditch and plugged the
downgradient ends of the sewers.
IRMs involving the decontamination and demolition of on-site structures were performed from
2000 to 2001. The measures implemented included the removal and recycling of elemental
mercury from cells inside the Former Mercury Cell Building.
6
-------
Based upon the results of the RI/FS, in 2000, a remedy for the subsite was selected in a Record of
Decision (ROD). The following remedial action objectives (RAOs) were identified:
• Eliminate, to the extent practicable, contaminant migration from the LCP Bridge Street
subsite to the Onondaga Lake environs and environmental media (groundwater, surface
waters, soil, air and sediment);
• Restore, to the extent practicable, groundwater quality to levels which meet state and
federal drinking water standards;
• Mitigate, to the extent practicable, the migration and potential migration of contaminated
waters through LCP Bridge Street subsite sewers;
• Eliminate, to the extent practicable, the direct-contact threat associated with contaminated
soil, surface water and groundwater; and
• Reduce, to the extent practicable, the level of contaminants in surface water and sediments
to attain surface water Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
and sediment remedial goals to be protective of fish, wildlife and the resources upon which
they depend.
The key components of the LCP Bridge Street subsite selected remedy include:
• Excavation of approximately 54,300 cubic yards (CY) of sediment exceeding upstream
mercury concentrations. Backfilling of the excavated areas with clean fill and revegetating
such areas, as appropriate. All excavated material will be dewatered, characterized and
placed on-site under a New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 equivalent low-permeability
cap. Restoration of any wetlands impacted by remedial activities. The restored wetlands
will require routine inspection for several years to ensure adequate survival of the planted
vegetation;
• Cleaning sewer catch basins and manhole structures and filling the LCP Bridge Street
subsite sewer systems with grout;
• Excavation of approximately 3,200 CY of brine muds and placement of the brine muds
onsite under a New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 equivalent low-permeability cap;
• Excavation and on-site treatment of approximately 4,500 CY of mercury-contaminated
principal threat waste shallow soils at the facility with on-site placement of the treated soils
under a New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 equivalent low-permeability cap;
• Excavation and off-site disposal of soils that contain PCB contamination above NYSDEC
Division of Environmental Remediation Technical and Administrative Guidance
Memorandum levels. All excavated material will be characterized and transported for
treatment/disposal at an off-site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act- and/or Toxic
Substances Control Act-compliant facility, as appropriate;
• Installation of a New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 equivalent low-permeability cap over
the facility to contain LCP Bridge Street subsite soils, excavated sediments and brine muds
and demolition debris;
• Hydraulic containment of both the shallow and deep aquifers with a subsurface barrier wall
and a groundwater collection-and-treatment system to maintain proper hydraulic gradients;
• Implementation of institutional controls (ICs) (i.e., deed restrictions) to prohibit the use of
groundwater at the LCP Bridge Street subsite and the disturbance of the subsite cap and
slurry wall; and
7
-------
• Long-term monitoring of groundwater, surface water, sediment and biota to ensure the
effectiveness of the selected remedy.
GBNMC
In 2002, Honeywell entered into a consent order with NYSDEC to perform an IRM to address
contaminated channel sediments and floodplain soils/sediments associated with lower Geddes
Brook. The scope of the IRM included full bank-to-bank removal (estimated to be 4,200 CY) from
lower Geddes Brook, beginning at the confluence with the West Flume and ending at the
confluence with Ninemile Creek. In addition to sediment removal, impacted floodplain
soils/sediments associated with lower Geddes Brook (estimated to be 63,000 CY) were also
remediated. In 2009, NYSDEC and EPA selected the LCP Bridge Street subsite containment
system as the disposal location for contaminated channel sediment and floodplain soil/sediment
that were removed under the IRM (NYSDEC and EPA, 2009a). Pursuant to the IRM, which was
performed from 2011 through 2013, approximately 102,400 CY of contaminated sediments and
floodplain soils/sediments over approximately 16 acres were removed from the Geddes Brook
channel and adjoining floodplains, the Geddes Brook culverts, and the Outfall 019 drainage ditch
and associated floodplains (Parsons, 2014a). Following removal, approximately one foot of
vegetated cover was placed in areas where soil/sediment had been excavated, resulting in a lower
overall elevation with the intent to establish an emergent wetland. Restoration of the Geddes Brook
channel downstream of the culverts included its relocation westward to provide increased buffer
from the State Fair Landfill and to provide increased channel length and better connectivity with
the emergent wetland/floodplain.
RODs were issued for GBNMC (OU20 and OU24 of the Onondaga Lake Site) in 2009.
The RAOs, which were the same for both OUs, are:
• RAO 1: To eliminate or reduce, to the extent practicable, further transport of sediments
and soils, containing mercury and other chemical parameters of interest (CPOIs), from the
channel and floodplain of lower Geddes Brook and lower Ninemile Creek to Geddes
Brook, Ninemile Creek, and, ultimately, Onondaga Lake.
• RAO 2: To eliminate or reduce, to the extent practicable, existing and potential future
adverse ecological effects on fish and wildlife resources, as well as potential risks to
humans.
• RAO 3: To eliminate or reduce, to the extent practicable, levels of mercury and other
CPOIs in surface water to meet surface water quality standards.
To achieve the RAOs, remedial goals (RGs) were developed to provide specific goals to address
the four primary affected media within the Site: channel sediments, floodplain soils/sediments,
biological tissue, and surface water.
The RODs present the following RGs:
8
-------
• RG 1: Reduce, contain, or control, to the extent practicable, mercury and other CPOI
concentrations in erodible channel sediments and in erodible floodplain soils/sediments
within the Site.
• RG 2: Achieve CPOI concentrations, to the extent practicable, in channel sediments and
floodplain soils/sediments that are protective of human health and fish and wildlife
resources. This RG covers a range of risk levels for mercury and other CPOIs.
• RG 3: Achieve CPOI concentrations, to the extent practicable, in fish tissue that are
protective of humans and wildlife that consume fish.
• RG 4: Achieve, to the extent practicable, aqueous CPOI concentrations to meet surface
water quality standards.
The remedy outlined in the first GBNMC ROD included: removal, placement of an isolation cap
or backfill, and placement of a habitat layer. The remedy outlined in the second GBNMC ROD
included: removal of Ninemile Creek channel sediments and floodplain soils/sediments in Reach
AB to various depths and placement of backfill and habitat layer. These remedies included the
dredging/excavation and removal of an estimated 117,000 CY of contaminated channel sediments
and floodplain soils/sediments covering approximately 30 acres. The remedies also included
restoration of the streambed and banks, wetlands, and habitats of Ninemile Creek following
sediment and soil removal and placement of an isolation cap or backfill, where needed. This
included the placement of a habitat layer with appropriate substrate types and thickness, as well as
planting of appropriate species of wetlands and uplands vegetation. The major components of the
OU20 and OU24 remedies are illustrated on Figures 5a and 5b, respectively.
The intent of the selected remedies was to address all areas of the GBNMC site (with the exception
of a portion of the forested wetland in Reach AB, as further discussed below), such that
concentrations of mercury and other CPOIs following remediation were expected to be below
NYSDEC's sediment criteria (including the lowest effects level [LEL] of 0.15 milligrams per
kilogram [mg/kg] for mercury) in the top two feet of channel sediments and 6 NYCRR Part 375
unrestricted use soil cleanup objectives (including the objective of 0.18 mg/kg for mercury) in the
top two feet in floodplain areas. The selected remedies were also to attain a 0.8 mg/kg site-specific
bioaccumulation-based sediment quality value (BSQV) for mercury in sediments for protection of
wildlife consumption of fish and a 0.6 mg/kg site-specific BSQV for mercury in floodplain soils
for protection of wildlife consumption of terrestrial invertebrates.3 The selected remedies were
also intended to achieve fish tissue mercury concentrations ranging from 0.1 mg/kg wet weight
(ww), which is for protection of ecological receptors, and which is based on the LOAEL target
tissue concentrations calculated based on exposure parameters used in the GBNMC BERA for the
mink, river otter and belted kingfisher, to 0.3 mg/kg ww, which is based on EPA's methylmercury
National Recommended Water Quality criterion for the protection of human health from the
consumption of organisms.
3 The mercury BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg is a LOAEL-based sediment target that is protective of the most sensitive
ecological receptors, the mink and river otter, that consume fish. As this target is below the lower end of
the calculated human health target range based on fish consumption, it is also protective of human health.
The mercury BSQV of 0.6 mg/kg is a LOAEL-based soil target that is protective of the short-tailed shrew,
the most sensitive ecologcal receptor that consumes terrestrial invertebrates. Additional information on the
development of the BSQVs is presented in the GBNMC RODs.
9
-------
In addition to the RGs for mercury in fish tissue cited above, ecological target tissue concentrations
for mercury based on the no-observed-adverse-effect levels, as well as target tissue concentrations
for PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs, corresponding to both the 10"4 (1 in 10,000) and 10"5 (1 in 100,000)
excess cancer risk levels as well as non-cancer effects for human health exposure were developed
in the FS report, based on exposure parameters from the GBNMC HHRA and BERA, and were
included in the RODs. Although these targets were not cited as remediation goals in the
descriptions of the selected remedies, they may be considered points of reference for evaluations
of reduction of risk for human and wildlife consumers of fish.
It was indicated in the GBNMC RODs that PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs were not widespread in
GBNMC sediments and that the areas where these contaminants were elevated were generally
located within the areas addressed under the selected remedies. The reduction in PCB and
PCDD/PCDF concentrations in sediment as a result of the implementation of the remedies were
expected to result in reduced fish tissue concentrations over time, to the extent that GBNMC
sediments contribute to the body burden of these contaminants in fish tissue. The exposures to
these compounds would be reduced to the same or greater extent as that of mercury. It was
therefore expected that if the remediation goals for mercury in fish tissue are met in the future, the
future fish tissue concentrations for PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs would fall within the target tissue
concentration ranges for each contaminant and receptor. If this assumption is proven not to be the
case in the future, based on ongoing fish tissue monitoring, then an evaluation will take place to
determine why this assumption may no longer be valid. Remediation goals and target
concentrations for fish are further presented in Table 1 4
The remedy for GBNMC OU2 included the performance of a focused study during the design
phase on the 27.2-acre Class I forested wetland portion of SYW-10 to identify areas that would
require remediation and areas that could be excluded from remediation to preserve valuable
habitat. A conceptual approach for this area was developed and incorporated into the Remedial
Design for Reaches BC and AB.5 The remedial approach for this area is shown on Figure 6. It
was expected that remediation of the indicated area, in conjunction with the remediation of the
immediately adjacent areas, including the forested uplands and spits, would result in lower
mercury concentrations in soil on a site-wide average basis (especially in the biologically-active
zone), reduced mercury concentrations in biota from remediated areas, and reduced exposure to
higher level receptors such as the red-tailed hawk.
The remedy for Reach BC included the removal of channel sediment to allow for the installation
of an isolation cap and habitat layer and the removal of soil overlying structural stone on the
adjoining banks and backfill/restoration with approximately one foot of vegetated habitat layer. In
4 Tables identified numerically can be found in Appendix B. Tables identified with capital letters can be
found in the body of the text.
5 The lower 300 feet of the Ninemile Creek channel, as well as the adjacent SYW-10 wetland spits (see
Figure 5b) which were included in the selected remedy in the OU2 ROD, were incorporated in the remedial
design for the Onondaga Lake site. Remediation and restoration of the lower 300 feet of the channel and
the wetland spits have been completed under the Onondaga Lake remedy and long-term monitoring and
maintenance of these areas is being performed under the lake monitoring program and, thus, these areas are
included in the Five-Year Reviews for the Onondaga Lake Bottom site.
10
-------
2013, an Explanation of Significant Differences was issued for a 240-foot long stretch of the Reach
BC channel and adjoining banks in the vicinity of railroad and roadway bridges, an overpass
abutment for NYS 695, and an Onondaga County sewage force main (see Figures 4 and 7). Based
on an evaluation of construction implementability and safety conducted as part of the remedial
design, it was determined that sediment excavation in this area posed hazards (worker safety and
structural stability) because of its proximity to the bridge supports and low clearances under
bridges and utility conduits. In addition, supplemental sediment characterization data gathered
during the remedial design indicated that the concentrations of contaminants in channel sediments
and stream bank soils in this area are relatively low. Because of the noted hazards, in combination
with the low levels of contaminants in this area, the remedy for this area was modified to eliminate
channel removal and backfilling. Material would only be removed from a portion of the bank and
floodplain that is accessible. The excavated areas would be backfilled and revegetated in a manner
consistent with other site areas that are being remediated, while taking into consideration existing
infrastructure to avoid potential structural impacts and hazards to workers (NYSDEC and EPA,
2013).
The GBNMC selected remedies also include institutional controls (ICs). These are described
below.
Status of Implementation
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
Remedial construction, which was performed from 2004 to 2007 and 2011 to 2012 (supplemental
excavation work during the later period), included the removal of contaminated sediments from
the West Flume, on-site ditches, and wetlands; restoration of the wetlands; installation of a low-
permeability cutoff wall around the subsite; and installation of an interim low-permeability cap.
Contaminated groundwater inside the cutoff wall is collected and conveyed to an on-site
groundwater extraction building that houses two 10,000-gallon storage tanks and a pretreatment
system. The pretreatment system includes a filter feed pump, two 5-micron bag filters, two
granular activated carbon vessels, and a flow meter. Pre-treated groundwater is conveyed to a
sewer main from which it flows to the Syracuse Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Metro) for additional treatment. Remediation of the LCP Bridge Street subsite has eliminated
discharges of contaminants, mainly mercury, to the West Flume, some of which migrated to
Onondaga Lake through GBNMC.6 Construction of a final cap was completed in 2015. The
subsite is undergoing long-term operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M).
GBNMC
Under the IRM implemented consistent with the 2002 consent order Honeywell entered into with
NYSDEC, approximately 102,400 CY of mercury-contaminated sediments and floodplain
soils/sediments were removed from the Geddes Brook channel and adjoining floodplains, the
Geddes Brook culverts, and the Outfall 019 drainage ditch and associated floodplains from 2011
6 Mercury was used in the mercury cell process to manufacture caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and
chlorine gas at the chlor-alkali facility located at LCP Bridge Street.
11
-------
through 2013. Following the excavations, clean material was placed over the area, and the area
was subsequently restored. As the excavations removed nearly 100% of the mercury mass in the
floodplain soil and sediment, the IRM was the final action for the Geddes Brook area. A
Construction Completion Report documenting the remedial work implemented at Geddes Brook
was approved by NYSDEC in 2014.
Excavation/dredging of the mercury-contaminated soil/sediment began in Reach CD of Ninemile
Creek in 2012. In accordance with the Reach CD design, a portion of Reach CD was relocated to
facilitate remedial construction and to create a buffer between Ninemile Creek and Wastebeds 9
and 10. This phase of the construction was completed in 2012 (Parsons, 2016a). In coordination
with construction of an Onondaga Lake Canalways Trail extension, excavations in SYW-10 began
in 2012 in the southern corner where the Trail Extension footprint overlapped the SYW-10
removal limits. Excavations in the remainder of SYW-10 were performed in 2013. Remedial work
in Reaches BC and AB was performed from 2013 to 2014 (Parsons, 2016b).
In addition to the IRM volume of 102,400 CY for Geddes Brook, 127,250 CY of contaminated
soil/sediment were removed from Ninemile Creek Reaches CD, BC, and AB and were transported
via dump truck to the LCP Bridge Street Final Cover Area. If excavated material was unsuitable
for transport upon removal, a solidification agent (pelletized quicklime) was added to the material
prior to its transport. Construction water generated during the effort was treated at a temporary
water treatment plant located adjacent to the LCP Bridge Street Final Cover Area. Treated
construction water was initially discharged to the West Flume, but beginning in 2012, treated water
was conveyed to Metro. The excavated areas were backfilled with clean imported fill. Site
restoration features, which included crib walls, woody debris, rock features, live stakes, gabion
baskets, downed trees, stone with joint plantings, large flat stone piles, rock lunker structures,
small trees and shrubs, were installed consistent with the designs. Construction Completion
Reports for the work implemented at Ninemile Creek Reach CD and Reaches BC/AB were
approved by NYSDEC in 2016. Operation, maintenance and monitoring activities at the Site
commenced following completion of construction.
Restoration at Geddes Brook included the planting of 74 large trees (Parsons and Anchor QEA,
2011).
Institutional Controls
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
The LCP Bridge Street Subsite ROD called for ICs (i.e., deed restrictions) to prohibit the use of
groundwater, prohibit the disturbance of the Part 360 cap and slurry wall, and restrict unacceptable
future use at the subsite. Because obtaining owner approval was not possible (the property was
abandoned in bankruptcy and corporate dissolution in the 1980s), consistent with NYSDEC
Division of Environmental Remediation-33, Institutional Controls: A Guide to Drafting and
Recording Institutional Controls, an Environmental Notice was finalized in lieu of deed
restrictions in 2015. Table A, below, summarizes the implemented ICs at the LCP Bridge Street
Subsite.
12
-------
Table A: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls at the LCP Bridge
Street Subsite
Mediii. engineered
conlmis. ;¦ iid iiiviis Ihiil do
mil support I 1 /I 1. hiised
on current conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs ( idled
lor in llie
Decision
Documents
Impiieled
Piireells)
IC
OI).jec(i\e
TillcoNC
Instrument
Implcmcnlcd
iiiul Diilc (or
plii lined)
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Subsite
property
Restrict groundwater
use on the subsite
property.
Environmental
Notice
May 2015
Engineered Controls
Yes
Yes
Subsite
property
Protect engineering
controls (e.g., cap
and slurry wall) on
the subsite property.
Environmental
Notice
May 2015
Future Land Use
Yes
Yes
Subsite
property
Restrict
unacceptable future
use of the subsite
property.
Environmental
Notice
May 2015
GBNMC
The GBNMC selected remedies include ICs in the form of environmental easements to restrict
dredging/excavating in the areas where residual contamination would remain beneath the habitat
layer at levels above that which would allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure. In
accordance with the selected remedies, it will be certified on an annual basis that the ICs are in
place and that remedy-related OM&M is being performed. In addition, the New York State
Department of Health (NYSDOH) fish consumption advisories for Onondaga Lake and its
tributaries, including GBNMC, remain in effect. Table B, below, summarizes the planned and
implemented ICs at GBNMC.
13
-------
Table B: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls at GBN1V
[C
Mcriiii. eiiiiineeml
controls. ;iihI ;iro;is lliiil do
noi support I I /I 1. bused
oil ciirrcnl conditions
ICs
Nmlfil
l( s( iillod
lor in (lie
Decision
Documents
Impiiclcd
Piircclls)
l<
OI).jec(i\e
lilleol'K
1 list i n men (
Implemented
iind Diile (or
pliiniied)
Soil, sediment
Yes
Yes
Site-wide
Restrict
dredging/excavating in
the areas where
residual contamination
remains at the surface
or beneath the habitat
layer at levels above
that which would
allow for unlimited
use or unrestricted
exposure.
It is
anticipated
that
Environmental
Easements will
be in place by
06/30/23
Fish7
Yes
Yes
Lower
Geddes
Brook,
Lower
Ninemile
Creek
Provide an advisory
regarding consumption
of fish
NYSDOH fish
consumption
advisory for
Onondaga
Lake and its
tributaries
(Implemented)
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
OM&M requirements are identified in the OM&M Plan for the LCP Bridge Street subsite and
include the operation of the groundwater collection system and the implementation of monitoring
and inspections. OM&M activities are documented and submitted to NYSDEC in monthly reports
(Parsons, 2009).
Subsite inspections focus on four major items: 1) general site conditions (i.e., access roads, security
fence/gates, signs, erosion control measures); 2) the groundwater collection/storage system (i.e.,
building structure, extraction wells, piezometers, pumps, instrumentation, storage tanks); 3) Part
360 cap condition (i.e., vegetative cover, vent pipes, drainage system, settlement and subsidence);
and 4) static water-level measurements within the groundwater piezometers upgradient and
downgradient of the cut-off wall.
The monitoring components of the OM&M Plan for the LCP Bridge Street subsite include:
7 From 1970 to 1985, fishing on Onondaga Lake was banned due to contamination. A NYSDOH fish
consumption advisory for the lake and its tributaries has been in place since 1986, with modifications, as
appropriate.
14
-------
• periodic sampling of groundwater, surface water/sediment, and biota; and
• wetlands assessments.
Three monitoring wells located within the area with deep elemental mercury within the Part 360
cap soil/sediment containment area are sampled quarterly for total mercury and inspected for the
presence of elemental mercury. The OM&M Plan specifies that if elemental mercury is detected
in a monitoring well, the three monitoring wells should be sampled each month for three months.
In addition, groundwater from piezometers located outside the cut-off wall are sampled quarterly
and analyzed for total mercury. See Figure 8 for the locations of monitoring wells and
piezometers.
The LCP Bridge Street subsite groundwater extraction and pretreatment system is designed to
maintain a horizontal inward and vertical upward hydraulic gradient within the cut-off wall. The
design pumping rate is approximately 5 to 25 gallons per minute (gpm). The system includes 15
pumping wells which were originally electric positive displacement pumps. From 2014 to 2017,
the annual pumping volumes showed that the pumping rate was less than 3.3 gpm. Fourteen of the
15 pumps were replaced in 2017 with Grundfos submersible pumps to improve overall system
efficiencies and improve the ability to perform regular maintenance. Pump replacement for one
of the 15 pumps was delayed until early 2019 because the original pump was difficult to remove.
Throughout 2019 and 2020, several of the pumps were replaced. In addition, three interior
groundwater monitoring wells, MW-34D, MW-35D, and MW-36D, were redeveloped in spring
2019 and silt was removed from each well. Since the pumps were replaced, hydraulic containment
has improved and higher pumping rates have been maintained. Pumping rates after the first pump
replacements have been almost four times higher than the pumping rates achieved in 2016 and
2017 before the pump replacements. In 2020, the annual pumping volume showed that the
pumping rate was approximately 8.8 gpm. Analytical results for groundwater collected from
piezometers located outside and downgradient of the slurry wall, as well as the interior
groundwater monitoring wells, are discussed in the "Data Review" section below.
There are nine surface water/sediment annual monitoring locations. Surface water is analyzed for
total and dissolved mercury and methylmercury. Sediments are analyzed for total mercury and
methylmercury. Prey fish in and around the West Flume, Wetland A, and Wetland C have been
collected and analyzed for total mercury most recently in 2015, 2017, and 2018. The data
generated from these efforts are discussed in the Data Review section below.
Consistent with the requirements of the OM&M Plan, restored Wetlands A and C were monitored
twice annually for five years to evaluate the success of the restoration. The parameters monitored
included vegetation (type, percent cover, and frequency), hydrology, invasive species (species,
location and approximate size of patch), and wildlife usage. The monitoring program for the
restored Wetland B was completed in 2012 (EPA, 2020). Monitoring of Wetlands A and C was
conducted for five consecutive years (2013 through 2017) following restoration. Because
monitoring results demonstrated successful restoration, habitat monitoring was discontinued in
2018 with NYSDEC approval and consistent with recommendations made in the 2017 Annual
Report (Parsons, 2020a). The findings from that five-year program are summarized in the Draft
LCP/Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek 2020 Annual and Five-Year Comprehensive Report (Parsons,
2022b).
15
-------
Baseline sampling was conducted in 2005 to establish body burden at the subsite prior to
remediation to ensure that, in addition to overall habitat improvement, potential construction-
related body burden increases were subsequently obviated. The OM&M Plan established a long-
term monitoring program that analyzes mercury concentrations in prey fish, benthic
macroinvertebrates, small mammals, and earthworms. The OM&M Plan specifies that monitoring
should continue every two to three years until the results indicate that the remedy has been effective
and the contaminant concentrations have stabilized. Based on the results of the monitoring
program through 2013, the recommendation was made to discontinue the biota sampling; however,
NYSDEC requested that prey fish be collected following the 2015 completion of construction of
the final site cover.
Biota collection (small mammals, earthworms, and macroinvertebrates) from Wetlands A and B
and the West Flume was discontinued after 2012 due to stabilized concentrations (Wetland C was
not restored until 2012).
There has been general improvement in the effectiveness of the LCP Bridge Street subsite
hydraulic control system within the soil/sediment containment area over time, particularly since
completion of the landfill cover in 2015 and replacement of the groundwater extraction pumps in
2017-2020. In addition, monitoring wells MW-34D, MW-35D, and MW-36D were redeveloped
in 2019 and silt was removed from each. As a result of these actions, hydraulic containment trends
have improved and higher pumping rates have been maintained.
GBNMC
OM&M activities were performed at GBNMC consistent with the selected remedies, the 2011
OM&M Plan for Geddes Brook, the 2016 draft OM&M Plan for Ninemile Creek, the 2018 final
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for Ninemile Creek and annual monitoring scoping memoranda.
Maintenance and restoration activities in wetland areas included invasive vegetation control,
planting/seeding in areas of sparse vegetation, and tree replacement. Vegetation monitoring at the
Site included quantitative vegetation sampling at 51 plot locations. Thirty plot locations are in the
Geddes Brook area, including five in Outfall 019, and 21 plot locations are in the Ninemile Creek
area, including three in SYW-10 (Parsons, 2022b) (see Figures 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d). At each
station, 100- and 400-square foot sample plots were established to evaluate herbaceous and woody
vegetation, respectively. Overall plant cover at the site was calculated using data from the sample
plots. Annual goals for percent cover of seeded areas and survival of trees/shrubs and invasive
species are provided in the OM&M plans. Monitoring of restored wetlands was required to be
conducted for five years after restoration (up to 2017 in Geddes Brook and Reach CD, up to 2018
in SYW-10, and up to 2019 in Reaches BC/AB). At the end of five years, the data are evaluated
for comparison against restoration goals and to determine if additional monitoring and
maintenance is necessary for specific habitats or species, taking into consideration any major
replanting or reseeding that was performed. In addition, due to the time needed for woody material
(trees and shrubs) to develop, monitoring in these areas may extend longer than the five-year
monitoring period. The monitoring results of the restored wetlands for Geddes Brook, Reach CD,
Reaches BC/AB, and SYW-10 are depicted on Figures 10a, 10b, 10c and lOd), respectively, and
are further discussed below.
16
-------
Data collected from plots in Geddes Brook in 2017, the fifth year of the five-year monitoring
program, showed that vegetation coverage across the site was at 93 percent, exceeding the
restoration goal of 85 percent or greater. Invasive species cover was less than 1 percent, which met
the restoration goal of less than 5 percent. (Parsons, 2022b; Parsons, 2011).
The results from data collected from plots in Reach CD in 2017, which was in the fifth year of
restoration monitoring for that reach of Ninemile Creek, indicated that vegetative cover was 100
percent in riparian areas and 96 percent in wetland areas. Cover in both areas exceed the restoration
goals of 90 percent and 85 percent, respectively. Invasive species cover at the site is less than one
percent, which is less than the 10 percent maximum threshold (Parsons, 2022b; Parsons, 2020a,
Parsons, 2018). Periodic site inspections were conducted in 2018 and 2020 to verify there were no
erosion concerns in Reach CD.
During the fifth year of restoration monitoring for SYW-10 in 2018, the average percent cover was
100 percent (the entire sampling area is wetland). Cover in all riparian areas exceeded the fifth-
year restoration goal of 85 percent. Invasive species cover in SYW-10 in 2018 was four percent,
which met the fifth year goal of less than 10 percent (Parsons 2022b; Parsons, 2022a; Parsons,
2018).
At Reaches AB and BC in 2019, which was the fifth year of restoration monitoring, the measured
vegetative cover was 93 percent in wetland areas and 99 percent in upland areas, both of which
exceeds the restoration goal of 85 percent. Invasive species cover measured at the site was zero
percent in wetland areas and were at one percent in upland areas, both of which are less than the
10 percent threshold (Parsons, 2022b, Parsons, 2022c).
Initial restoration at Geddes Brook included the planting 74 large trees (Parsons and Anchor QEA,
2011). During the 2013 to 2017 five-year monitoring period, annual large tree condition surveys
were used to identify any trees needing to be replaced to meet the fifth-year goal of having all 74
planted large trees present and alive. Trees that were replaced were either replaced with a single
comparably sized tree of the same species, a different species that had performed well at Geddes
Brook, or by multiple smaller trees (i.e., 2:1 or greater ratio). Because of the greater than 1:1
replacement ratio in some cases, after the fifth year of monitoring, 98 large trees or their smaller
replacements (approximately 130 percent of the original number planted) were present and alive.
Periodic site visits were made in 2018 and 2019 during the growing season to monitor the condition
of nine replacement trees installed at Geddes Brook in 2017 and to verify that there were no erosion
concerns per the GBNMC Site Management Plan. The final visit in fall 2019 confirmed that all
nine trees had survived (see Figure 11 for the tree locations). During the site visits to monitor the
replacement trees, no erosion concerns were noted. (Parsons, 2022c; Parsons, 2022b).
During the design process, it was recognized that the extent of remedial action needed across
Ninemile Creek Reaches AB, BC, CD, Geddes Brook/Outfall-019 and SYW-10 would affect the
ability to restore acreage at each individual subsite to the exact amount present prior to the remedy.
Therefore, the wetland restoration goal was defined as achieving a total wetland acreage across all
the sites combined, that was at least equal to the overall acreage of wetlands present within the
remedial boundaries prior to remediation. To achieve this, some subsites were designed and
constructed with the goal of establishing more wetland acreage overall than existed prior to the
17
-------
remedy to mitigate for areas that would have less. In addition, more wetland acreage was designed
overall than existed prior to the remedy to provide a buffer in the event that some restored
wetland/riparian areas were drier than expected and were delineated as upland. Based on
comparisons between pre-remedy and fifth-year delineations, wetland acreages goals have been
met. Fifth-year wetland delineations were conducted in 2017 for Geddes Brook/Outfall-019 and
Ninemile Creek Reach CD; in 2018 for SYW-10; and in 2019 for Reaches AB and BC. Total
wetland acreages delineated during these events across all sites equaled 20.35 acres, slightly
exceeding the goal of restoring at least as much wetland acreage as was present prior to remedy
implementation (20.06 acres). (See Table 2.) (Parsons, 2022c)
In accordance with the 2018 Ninemile Creek Operation, Monitoring and Maintenance (OM&M)
Plan, Ninemile Creek channel surface elevation and composition data is to be collected along
multiple transects across the creek to verify that the channel had remained stable following the
completion of the remedy. The goal stated in the M&M Plan was that no individual survey point
along these transects should exhibit a bed loss of 12 inches or greater and no more than 25 percent
of the surveyed points on a given transect should exhibit a bed loss of between six and 12 inches.
If the survey results were generally consistent with as-built conditions, future transect surveys
would not be required as part of routine monitoring. Additionally, under the M&M Plan, all 10
stations would be surveyed should a 50-year or greater flow event (>3,000 cubic feet per second
[cfs]) occur. Should a 100-year or greater flow event (>3,400 cfs) occur first, no additional surveys
would be necessary if the post 100-year survey results were within tolerance.
Monitoring of the bed elevation was performed annually between 2014 and 2018. The monitoring
included collecting elevation and composition data of the channel surface material along multiple
transects across the creek. As called for in the Ninemile Creek M&M plan, these surveys were
completed at five stations in 2014 and 2015, eight stations in 2017, and all 10 stations in 2016 and
2018. Transect stations are depicted on Figure 12. As discussed in the Draft 2018 Annual Report
(Parsons, 2021), results from these surveys show that the goals stated in the M&M plan were met
in all areas and in all years. None of the 464 individual survey points exhibited a bed loss of greater
than 12 inches in any of the surveys, and no more than 25 percent of the survey points on any
transect exhibited a bed loss of greater than six inches. The survey results show that the channel is
consistent with as-built conditions.
Following the successful completion of the monitoring required under the OM&M Plan and as
discussed in the Draft 2018 Annual Report (Parsons 2021), routine channel elevation monitoring
was discontinued in 2018. As stated in the OM&M Plan, following the next 50-year or greater
flow event (greater than 3,000 cfs) in Ninemile Creek, all 10 previously monitored stations will be
re-surveyed to verify no significant bed-loss has occurred. Should a 100-year or greater flow event
(greater than 3,400 cfs) occur first, no additional surveys will be necessary if the post 100-year
survey results are within tolerance stated in the OM&M Plan.
As discussed in the Draft 2019 Annual Report (Parsons 2022a), the Onondaga Creek U.S.
Geological Survey Spencer Street Gauge was used as a surrogate for Ninemile Creek in 2020.
During 2020, since no flows were observed greater than the 50-year flow event of 3,000 cfs, no
channel monitoring was necessary. Flows will continue to be monitored and reported in annual
18
-------
reports. If flows are observed greater than these thresholds, monitoring of the Ninemile Creek
channel will be implemented in coordination with NYSDEC (Parsons, 2022b).
Potential site impacts from climate change have been assessed, and the performance of the
remedies is currently not believed to be at risk due to the expected effects of climate change in the
region and near the LCP Bridge Street subsite or GBNMC. As indicated above, additional channel
elevation monitoring will be conducted in Ninemile Creek following the next 50-year and/or 100-
year or greater flow event consistent with the OM&M Plan. If site impacts are observed as a result
of such flow events, these will be documented and, corrective measures will be implemented, as
appropriate. In addition, the monitoring program for Ninemile Creek includes an adaptive
management approach to identify potential concerns that can be corrected with maintenance
activities, as feasible, on a case-by-case basis. Adaptive management will include evaluation of
monitoring data to identify deviation from design conditions. Based on those data, installing
alternative plant species (or focusing on those performing well at the site), site modifications (e.g.,
addition of more structure), or additional data collection may be implemented (Parsons, 2018).
Site-wide inspections will also be performed at GBNMC after all severe weather conditions that
may affect engineering controls. Moreover, periodic assessments, which consider the potential
vulnerabilities of the GBNMC remedial systems and/or engineering controls to severe
storms/weather events and associated flooding, will be conducted as needed. These assessments
will include discussion of potential vulnerabilities resulting from wind damage or erosion which
may occur during periods of severe rain events. The cap at the LCP Bridge Street subsite has not
been found to have been impacted by any severe weather events since the cap was constructed.
As the cap at the LCP Bridge Street subsite is inspected on a routine basis, any impacts to it that
may occur as a result of severe weather events would be known and addressed in a timely manner.
Results pertaining to contaminant concentrations in LCP Bridge Street Subsite and GBNMC media
are discussed in the Data Review section below.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the previous FYRs as
well as the recommendations and other findings from the previous FYRs and the current status of
those recommendations and other findings.
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
Tables C, D, and E, below, summarize the protectiveness determinations and statements, and the
status of recommendations and other findings, respectively, from the 2020 FYR.
19
-------
Table C: Protectiveness Determinations and Statements from the 2020 LCP Bridge Street
Subsite Five-Year Review
ou#
Protectiveness Determination
Protectiveness Statement
5
Short-term Protective
The remedy for OU5 is protective of human health
and the environment in the short-term since exposure
routes have been eliminated and biota data suggests
that tissue concentrations are below baseline levels.
To be protective in the long-term, the inward gradient
in the deep zone needs to be evaluated for additional
optimization measures and sediment and surface
water data from Wetland A needs to be further
assessed to evaluate what actions, if any, may be
necessary to address the elevated contaminant
concentrations there.
Table D: Status of Recommendations from the 2020 LCP Brit
ge Street Subsite Five-Year Review
OU#
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
5
The deep
zone
requires
further
evaluation
with respect
to sustained
inward
gradients.
The piezometer
data from the deep
zone and the need
for potential
additional
optimization
measures to achieve
inward gradients
should be
evaluated.
Ongoing
The evaluation of the
piezometer data is
currently ongoing.
Click here
to enter a
date
5
Mercury
levels in
Wetland A
sediment
and surface
water are
above the
cleanup
goals.
Sediment and
surface water data
should continue to
be collected from
Wetland A and
compared to the
cleanup goals
established by
the ROD and
historical
benchmarks to
evaluate what
actions, if any, may
be necessary to
address the elevated
contaminant
concentrations
identified in
sediment there.
Ongoing
Additional surface
water and sediment
sampling in Wetland A
was conducted in 2020
and supplemental
sampling of
soil/sediment in
Wetland A was
conducted in 2021.
Additional removal of
soil/sediment in areas
with elevated levels of
mercury is anticipated
in 2023. Future
monitoring of media at
Wetland A will be
performed following
the planned removal
activities.
Click here
to enter a
date
20
-------
Table E: Status of Other Findings from the 2020 LCP Bridge Street Subsite Five-Year Review
ou#
Other Findings
Current Status
5
Consideration should be given to sampling piezometer
clusters PZ-6B and PZ-7B as part of the groundwater
sampling program.
This finding remains
under discussion.
Continued sample collection from the West Flume is
recommended to ensure that the decreasing
contamination trends observed there are sustained.
This finding is being
incorporated into
upcoming sampling
efforts.
As groundwater quality outside the eastern side of the
soil/sediment containment area lacks definition, the three
PZ-5B piezometers should be added to the quarterly
groundwater monitoring schedule.
This finding remains
under discussion.
Based on an evaluation of the data to be collected from
Wetland A, consideration should be given to the
resumption of biota sampling there.
This finding will be
discussed further
after the additional
removal of
soil/sediment in
Wetland A is
complete.
GBNMC
Tables F, G, and H, below, summarize the protectiveness determinations and statements, and the status of
recommendations and other findings, respectively, from the 2017 FYR.
Table F: Protectiveness Determinations and Statements from the 2017 GBNMC Five-Year Review
OU #s
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
20, 24
Short-term Protective
The implemented actions at the Site are protective of human
health and the environment in the short-term because
sediment and floodplain soils have been excavated and
remediated areas have been restored to reduce potential
exposure to Site contaminants. In addition, post-
remediation monitoring indicates that the cover system
remains in place and that contaminant levels in surface soil
and sediment in remediated areas have decreased relative to
pre-remediation conditions. For the implemented actions to
be protective in the long-term, ICs need to be implemented.
21
-------
Table G: Status of Recommendations from the 2017 GI
INMC Five-Year Review
OU #s
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
20, 24
The selected
remedies include ICs
in the form of
environmental
easements to restrict
dredging/excavating
in the areas where
residual
contamination would
remain beneath the
habitat layer at levels
above that which
would allow for
unlimited use or
unrestricted
exposure.
The required
institutional
controls need to be
implemented.
Ongoing
The ICs include
several
environmental
easements within
the GBNMC
project area. The
development of
easements require
extensive
coordination and
negotiations among
various entities,
including property
owners and their
legal
representatives,
approval by
NYSDEC and
filing with the
County Clerk's
office. The required
easements have not
yet been finalized.
Click here to
enter a date
Table H: Status of Other Findings from the 2017 GBNMC Five-Year Review
OU #s
Other Findings
Current Status
20, 24
The available post-construction
data for soil/sediment and biota
other than fish are limited and
additional monitoring of these
media is not currently scheduled
in the Ninemile Creek and SYW-
10 areas, or in the Geddes Brook
area beyond 2017. It is
recommended that monitoring of
surface water, soil/sediment, and
biota should continue pursuant to
the GBNMC OM&M Plans until
it is determined by NYSDEC and
EPA that the RGs have been
achieved and to fully evaluate
remedy effectiveness.
The First GB/NMC FYR (2017) included data collected
through 2016. As noted in Table 3 herein, this Second FYR
also includes data for all media in GB in 2017 and surface
water of GB in 2019. Fish were also sampled in 2017 and
2019 in both GB and NMC, although, as noted above, the
2019 fish data were determined not to be usable.
Soil/sediment were sampled in NMC and SYW-10 in 2018,
and earthworms and mammals were sampled in SYW-10 in
2018.
As required by the GB Operations, Maintenance and
Monitoring Plan (OMMP) (Parsons, 2011), sampling and
analysis of biota other than fish (benthic macroinvertebrates
in sediments, earthworms in soil, small mammals) was
completed in years 1, 2, 4, and 5 (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017)
following remedial construction of the GB IRM (completed
in 2012). As required by the NMC OMMP (Parsons, 2018),
sampling and analysis of biota other than fish, including
benthic macroinvertebrates in all three reaches of NMC, and
22
-------
earthworms and small mammals in the NMC Reach CD
floodplain, were completed in 2016 as a post-remedy baseline
sampling event, as well as earthworms and small mammals in
SYW-10 remediated and unremediated areas in 2015, 2016,
and 2018. The need for additional biota sampling other than
fish will be evaluated.
Fish (in both GB and NMC) and surface water (in GB)
monitoring will be performed in 2022, if necessary.
Monitoring after 2022 will continue, as needed, until it is
determined by NYSDEC and EPA that the GB/NMC
goals/targets have been achieved and to fully evaluate
continued remedy effectiveness.
The extent of any public outreach
that may have been performed in
regard to increasing awareness of
the NYSDOH fish consumption
advisory for Onondaga Lake and
its tributaries specific to the Site
is not clear. It is recommended
that New York State provide EPA
with information on any Site-
related outreach activities that
have been performed to date
relating to the Onondaga Lake
fish consumption advisory and
any future planned activities to
enhance outreach and increase
public awareness of the advisory.
NYSDOH has been performing outreach activities to increase
awareness of the fish consumption advisory for Onondaga
Lake. In addition, ATSDR established the Biomonitoring of
Great Lakes Populations (BGLP) program and funded the
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) for the
BGLP-II Program between 2013 and 2018. The BGLP-II
Program's general objective was to develop information
about the levels of specific contaminants found within certain
adult populations in central NY State who ate fish caught in
the Great Lakes Basin's Onondaga Lake and nearby water
bodies. Recruitment began in 2015 and focused on Burmese
and Bhutanese refugees, and low income, local anglers from
the City of Syracuse. Participants included 311 refugee adults
from Burma and Bhutan and 89 local anglers residing in
Syracuse area who eat fish from Onondaga Lake and nearby
waters. NYSDOH has reviewed this data and believes that the
fish consumption advisories for Onondaga Lake, including
Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek, are appropriate for those
consuming fish from Onondaga Lake and its tributaries.
NYSDOH will continue to conduct additional outreach and
educational activities to increase awareness of Onondaga
Lake, and its tributaries, fish consumption advisories and safe
practices for cleaning and cooking fish to reduce toxins.
It was noted during the site
inspection that stormwater runoff
from the NYS 695 overpass was
cascading directly onto Geddes
Brook. It may be appropriate to
contact the New York State
Department of Transportation to
determine if stormwater flow can
be redirected or otherwise
modified so as to minimize its
potential impact on the brook.
NYSDOT was notified of the issue following the site
inspection. As it was determined that no erosion of Geddes
Brook is occurring as a result of stormwater runoff from the
overpass, no further action is warranted.
23
-------
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews
On August 6, 2021, EPA Region 2 posted a notice on its website indicating that it would be
reviewing site cleanups and remedies at Superfund sites in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the GBNMC Subsite. The announcement can be found at
the following web address: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/R2-fivevearreviews. EPA is
conducting the reviews of the LCP Bridge Street and GBNMC Subsites concurrently and will be
issuing a single five-year review report because the Subsites are located in close proximity to each
other and because portions of Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek are downstream of, and were
impacted by historical releases from, the LCP Bridge Street facility.
In addition to this notification, the EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) for the site,
Larisa Romanowski, posted a public notice on the EPA site webpage
(www.epa.gov/superfund/onondaga-lake) and provided the notice to the town of Geddes and
village of Solvay on April 5, 2022, with a request that the notice be posted in municipal offices
and on their respective webpages. In addition, on April 11, 2022, the notice was distributed via
the NYSDEC's Onondaga Lake News email listserv, which includes approximately 10,000
subscribers. This notice indicated that a FYR would be conducted at the LCP Bridge Street and
GBNMC Subsites to ensure that the cleanups at the sites continue to be protective of human health
and the environment. Once the FYR is completed, the results will be made available at the
following repository: NYSDEC Albany and Syracuse offices; the Onondaga County Public
Library, Syracuse Branch at the Galleries, 447 South Salina Street, Syracuse New York; the Solvay
Public Library, 615 Woods Road, Solvay, New York; the Atlantic States Legal Foundation, 658
West Onondaga Street, Syracuse, New York and the EPA Region 2 Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, New York. In addition, the final report will be posted on
the following webpage: www.epa.gov/superfund/onondaga-lake. Efforts will be made to reach out
to local public officials to inform them of the results.
Data Review
Monitoring activities conducted at the LCP Bridge Street subsite from 2014 through 2020
consisted of monitoring of groundwater, sediment, surface water, wetlands, and biota.
Groundwater monitoring consisted of monitoring groundwater elevations and contamination
levels in accordance with the LCP Bridge Street OM&M Plan to determine if a horizontal inward
and vertical upward hydraulic gradients are being maintained within the cut-off wall of the
groundwater extraction system and pre-treatment system. A discussion of the monitoring results
relating to the effectiveness of the hydraulic containment system is included below. Analytical
results for collected groundwater, as well as for sediment, surface water, wetlands, and biota at
LCP Bridge Street subsite, are also provided in this section.
Monitoring of GBNMC surface water, channel sediment, floodplain soil/sediment, and fish tissue
was conducted in order to provide sufficient data to assess progress toward achieving the RGs and
the RAOs established in the RODs. In addition, monitoring of GBNMC biota other than fish,
including benthic macroinvertebrates, earthworms, and small mammals, has been conducted to
24
-------
help evaluate remedy effectiveness. Following the completion of construction, monitoring
commenced in 2013 and 2015 in Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek (including SYW-10),
respectively, consistent with the Geddes Brook OM&M Plan, the draft Ninemile Creek OM&M
Plan, and direction from NYSDEC.
A discussion of the post-construction monitoring results that includes data collected between 2013
and 2020 is provided below. A summary of the conducted sampling events is also presented in
Table 3. The 2017 GBNMC FYR and 2020 LCP Bridge Street FYR reports presented
environmental data for evaluation periods from 2013-2016 and 2013-2018, respectively. This
FYR report presents available environmental data since those reports were issued, but the
discussion and presentation of the data includes much of the prior results from the 2017 and 2020
reports to support the evaluation of the data and provide additional context. It should also be noted
that while fish samples were collected from both Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek in 2019, it
was determined by NYSDEC and Honeywell that the laboratory had not adhered to project
standard operating procedures for the processing and homogenization of the samples (see
Attachment A of the revised 2019 report [Parsons, 2022]) and, thus, the 2019 fish tissue data are
not presented or discussed herein. At least one additional round of fish sampling in GBNMC will
be conducted in 2022.
The presentation of the data in the text below generally focuses on the mean and range (i.e.,
minimum, maximum) of the numerical values. Non-detect values are represented as V2 of the
detection limit. For locations where duplicate samples were collected, the mean of the original and
duplicate sample results at the location were used in the calculations. With respect to fish tissue
results, the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of the mean8 is also presented where it can be
calculated. In addition, statistical metrics that may be used to demonstrate whether the
concentrations of adult sport fish and prey fish are statistically below the stated goals are currently
under development and will be considered, as may be appropriate, in subsequent GBNMC-LCP
Bridge Street subsite FYRs.
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
LCP Bridge Street Surface Water/Sediment
During the period from 2014 through 2018, surface water and sediment samples were collected
annually from two locations in Wetland A, three locations in Wetland C, and four locations in the
West Flume. Surface water and sediment samples were also collected at an additional location,
LCP1-SED-110, within Wetland A in 2019 and 2020 (Parsons, 2022b) (see Figure 13 for the
sampling locations).
All surface water samples were analyzed for dissolved mercury, total mercury, and
methylmercury. Analytical results for all surface water analyses pertaining to the West Flume,
Wetland A and Wetland C for the baseline and 2014-2018 periods are included in Table 4.
Analytical results for the 2019 and 2020 surface water analyses conducted for Wetland A are also
included in Table 4. Surface water dissolved mercury concentrations by location are depicted on
Figure 14. The NY State surface water standard is 2.6 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for dissolved
8 The 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean.
25
-------
mercury, based on wildlife protection. The human health standard based on fish consumption (0.7
ng/L) does not apply to the LCP Bridge Street subsite because, unlike Geddes Brook and Ninemile
Creek, the West Flume and open water wetland areas do not support this route of exposure. Fish
at the LCP Bridge Street subsite are not large enough for human consumption (NYSDEC 1999)
and the LCP Bridge Street subsite is not accessible to the public, nor is it expected to be accessible
in the future. In addition, because Wetland A only intermittently contains standing water, it is not
capable of sustaining a sport fish population (Parsons, 2022c; Parsons 2022b). Average dissolved
mercury concentrations by area for the West Flume, Wetland A and Wetland C surface water since
2009 are depicted on Figure 15. Dissolved mercury concentrations for individual sample locations
within the West Flume, Wetland A and Wetland C surface water are depicted over time in Figures
16a, 16b, and 16c, respectively.
In the West Flume, no dissolved mercury surface water samples exceeded the 2.6 ng/L standard
from 2015 to 2018. The average dissolved mercury concentration from the West Flume in 2018
was 1.12 ng/L. Wetland C had elevated dissolved mercury concentrations of 3.55 ng/L at location
LCP-SW-71 and 3.64 ng/L at location LCP-SW-70 in 2016, but all samples were below the
standard in 2017 and 2018.
All samples in Wetland A were above the 2.6 ng/L standard every year since 2015. In 2019 and
2020, dissolved mercury averaged 4.17 ng/L (range of 3.33 to 5.59 ng/L) and 3.79 ng/L (range of
2.14 to 5.18 ng/L), respectively, in Wetland A.
Recent surface water concentrations of both total and methylmercury are two to three orders-of-
magnitude lower than baseline results. There are no criteria for total mercury or methylmercury
in surface water (Parsons, 2022b).
Annual sediment results for total mercury in Wetland C and West Flume sediments from 2014
through 2018 were generally consistent with concentrations observed during the previous
monitoring period (2008 through 2013) (see Figures 17, 18a and 18b) and Table 5), including
sample results collected in 2008 shortly after construction completion. These results are lower than
the pre-remediation mercury concentrations reported in the RI. All Wetland C and West Flume
sediment sample results for mercury since 2015 have been below the Ninemile Creek BSQV of
0.8 mg/kg for mercury in sediments for protection of wildlife consumption of fish and the Severe
Effect Level (SEL) of 1.3 mg/kg. Average levels of mercury in West Flume sediment were above
the ROD cleanup goal of 0.2 mg/kg for mercury from 2014 to 2017, but below it in 2018. Average
levels of mercury in Wetland C sediment were below the 0.2 mg/kg cleanup goal from 2014 to
2018 (Parsons, 2022b).
Average total mercury results in Wetland A sediment from 2014 through 2020 ranged from 0.5
mg/kg to 2.8 mg/kg, with the highest result (5.3 mg/kg) occurring in 2017 at sediment location
LCP-SW-68 (Table 5 and Figures 17, 18c and 19). Due to elevated results at sediment location
LCP-SW-68, supplemental sampling was conducted at additional locations in Wetland A and the
West Ditch in 2018. Supplemental sediment sampling locations are shown on Figure 20 and
sample results are presented in Table 6. Mercury concentrations in 17 of the 26 samples collected
from Wetland A in 2018 exceeded the ROD cleanup goal of 0.2 mg/kg. Six of these results
(ranging from 1.29 to 5.92 mg/kg) also exceeded the NYSDEC Class C value for mercury in
26
-------
sediment (1 mg/kg). Class C values are considered likely to pose risk to aquatic life (EPA, 2020).
Following a review of these results, a second supplemental sampling event in Wetland A was
conducted in 2020.
In 2020, sampling of both sediment and soil locations was conducted in Wetland A. Samples were
collected from 28 stations at three depth intervals (0-6 inches, 6-12 inches, and 12-18 inches) for
a total of 84 samples (see Figure 21). Each sediment and soil sample was analyzed for total
mercury; the results can be found in Table 7a. The range of total mercury concentrations was
0.052 mg/kg at sediment location LCP1-SED-126 to 14 mg/kg at sediment location LCP1-SED-
133. The results confirmed that there are elevated mercury concentrations in Wetland A sediments.
Based on these elevated results and on discussions with NYSDEC it was recommended that
additional soil samples would be collected in an adjacent upland area in 2021 (Parsons, 2022b).
In 2021, soil sampling was conducted in the adjacent upland area to Wetland A. Samples were
collected from eight stations at three depth intervals (0-6 inches, 6-12 inches, and 12-24 inches)
for a total of 24 samples (see Figure 22). Each soil sample was analyzed for total mercury; the
results can be found in Table 7b. All the 2021 samples exceeded 0.2 mg/kg and the maximum
concentration of 65 mg/kg was found at the surface soil sample locations at both LCP1-SB-05 and
LCP1-SB-09. These findings further indicate the presence of contamination within the upland area
directly southeast of Wetland A. Based on the results from the three supplemental events,
additional remediation in and adjacent to Wetland A is anticipated.
LCP Bridge Street Biota
The 2005 average and 95% UCL baseline for the LCP Bridge Street subsite prey fish are 0.14
mg/kg and 0.18 mg/kg, respectively. Three sampling events (2015, 2017, and 2018) were
conducted to collect and analyze prey fish from three reaches (A, B, and C) within the West Flume.
Five samples from each location were analyzed for total mercury. The average and 95% UCL prey
fish tissue values for mercury for the 2015-2018 sampling period ranged between 0.04 - 0.11
mg/kg and 0.05 - 0.12 mg/kg, respectively, within the three reaches during each sampling event.
See Table 8 and Figure 23 for mean and 95% values. Scatter plots for the mercury concentrations
in LCP OU1 prey fish are depicted on Figure 24a. The types of fish species and sample locations
with results for individual fish are shown on Figure 24b. These results show that concentrations
have continued to decline since the previous monitoring period (2008 to 2013) in all three reaches
to levels below the average and 95% baseline concentrations of 0.14 mg/kg and 0.18 mg/kg,
respectively (EPA, 2020; Parsons, 2022b). RGs were not identified in the LCP Bridge Street
Subsite ROD for contaminants in prey fish. Although not specific to LCP, the most recent mercury
results in 2018 also show that the mean (0.07 mg/kg ww) and 95% UCL (0.08 mg/kg ww)
concentrations are below the Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek RG in small prey fish for
protection of ecological receptors of 0.1 mg/kg. In 2018, only one of the 15 samples in the West
Flume exceeded 0.1 mg/kg. However, due to elevated mercury concentration for both surface
water and sediment in Wetland A, an additional prey fish sampling event was conducted in 2021
at the same three reaches (A, B, and C) within the West Flume (Parsons, 2022b). Analytical data
from these samples have been received but were not available for review during the development
of this report.
27
-------
LCP Bridge Street Groundwater
Groundwater samples are collected from four piezometer clusters (PZ-1B, PZ-2B, PZ-3B and PZ-
4B, each with the depth designators -S, -I and -D for shallow, intermediate and deep, respectively)
located on the outside of the cut-off wall and from three monitoring wells located within the
soil/sediment containment area. Samples are collected quarterly and analyzed for total mercury.
Due to ongoing construction activities, no samples were collected from the piezometers in the
second and third quarters of 2015, nor from the three monitoring wells in 2014 and 2015.
Mercury was reported as not detected (ND) for most piezometers for a majority of the sampling
quarters from 2014 to 2020 (Table 9). Of the detections reported, most tended to be lower than
0.1 |ig/L, below the NYSDEC Groundwater Standard of 0.7 |ig/L. However, mercury
concentrations in shallow piezometer PZ-2B-S on the downgradient side of the soil/sediment
containment area were consistently elevated, ranging from 1.4 to 2.5 |ig/L during the reporting
period. These results display an increase during this FYR period, but are within the range of
concentrations measured since 2008 at this shallow well location. The intermediate downgradient
piezometer PZ-3B-I showed more frequent detections (all 0.25 |ig/L or below) in this period that
may also be increasing, but were well below the 0.7 |ig/L standard (See Table 9).
Three monitoring wells (MW-34D, MW-35D and MW-36D) located within the soil/sediment
containment area and downgradient of the area with deep elemental mercury were analyzed for
total mercury. Concentrations in groundwater samples collected quarterly from these wells ranged
from 0.2 to 0.92 |ig/L in monitoring well MW 34D, 1.9 to 4.9 ug/L in monitoring well MW 35D,
and non-detect to 3.9 |ig/L in monitoring well MW-36D. Although no decreasing trends were
noted, mercury concentrations are lower compared to those reported in 2011 before the above-
noted construction (a maximum of 17.6 |ig/L at MW-35D was reported). Monitoring well
analytical results data from 2014 through 2020 can be found in Table 10. The monitoring wells
were also inspected for the presence of elemental mercury via visual means and, in 2019/2020,
using a conductance probe. Elemental mercury was not present during any of the sampling events.
The primary mechanism for hydraulic containment at the Site is the perimeter low-permeability
barrier wall which is tied into the underlying low-permeability layer of glacial till. The barrier
wall, as specified in the design, is a minimum of three feet thick, has a permeability of less than
10"7 centimeters per second (cm/sec), which is the same permeability requirement as a landfill clay
liner. To achieve total containment in the long term, groundwater is extracted from within the
containment area with a goal of reaching inward and upward hydraulic gradients.
Hydraulic containment is monitored biweekly via the collection of static water level elevations in
a series of piezometer pairs located within and outside the soil/sediment containment area, as
shown in Figure 8, to confirm that there is an inward and upward groundwater flow around the
containment area. The piezometer network includes:
¦ Seven pairs of shallow piezometers within the shallow aquifer
¦ Seven pairs of intermediate piezometers within the deep aquifer
¦ Seven pairs of deep piezometers within the underlying low-permeability till layer
28
-------
Evidence of inward gradients is based upon interior shallow, intermediate, and deep piezometer
readings that are less than the corresponding exterior shallow, intermediate and deep piezometer
readings. Upward gradients are demonstrated by the deep piezometer readings being higher than
the intermediate levels at piezometer locations inside the area. Detailed plots of gradients between
paired piezometers for 2015 through October 2021 are provided in Figures 25a through 25h.
In the shallow piezometers, piezometer pair PZ-2 fluctuated between inward and outward from
January 2018 to late 2019, but an inward gradient has been maintained since late 2019. Water
levels in piezometer pair PZ-3 have shown an inward gradient since 2017 and water levels in
piezometer pair PZ-4 achieved an inward gradient since December 2018 except for a period in
mid-2020. Gradients at piezometer pairs PZ-5 and PZ-7 were inward throughout the reporting
period and have shown improvement since 2016. Gradients at piezometer pair PZ-6 have been
inward since September 2014. The gradient at piezometer pair PZ-1 has improved, but this
piezometer pair has never achieved an inward gradient.
The gradients at intermediate piezometer pairs PZ-2 and PZ-3 have been improving since late
2017, and although they are fluctuating, they have been inward since 2018. The gradient at
piezometer PZ-1 has been inward during most events since 2018, though it had an outward gradient
in early 2020. The gradient at piezometer PZ-4 has been inward since late 2017. The gradients at
intermediate piezometer pairs PZ-5, PZ-6, and PZ-7 were consistently inward during this period.
Most of the deep piezometer pairs had an improvement in the inward gradient in this period, but
the water levels at piezometer PZ-4 showed a flat or slightly outward gradient and the water levels
at piezometer PZ-5 show an outward gradient, with approximately 4 feet of head difference.
At the piezometer pairs measuring vertical gradients, PZ-4, PZ-5, PZ-6, and PZ-7 have shown an
upward gradient in this period and piezometer pairs at PZ-2 and PZ-3 have shown an upward
vertical gradient starting in 2018. The gradient at the intermediate and deep piezometer pair at PZ-
1 has been close to flat since the piezometers were installed.
Although the shallow, intermediate, deep, and upward gradients improved in this period, the
shallow piezometer pair at PZ-1 and the deep piezometer pair at PZ-5have not displayed consistent
containment and will require further evaluation.
In response to a request from NYSDEC that groundwater at the Honeywell Syracuse Sites be
sampled and analyzed for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and 1,4-dioxane,
groundwater samples were collected at three LCP Bridge Street subsite locations, MW-35D, PZ-
6B-S, and PZ-2B-D, in October 2018. Select PFAS compounds were detected in samples collected
from all three locations with the maximum levels being estimated concentrations of 6.5 ng/L for
both perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) at MW-35-D. 1,4-
dioxane was detected at two of the three groundwater monitoring locations with the maximum
level being 0.59 [j,g/L at PZ-2B-D (Honeywell, 2019). The detected levels of PFOA and 1,4-
dioxane are lower than NYS drinking water standards adopted in 2020 for public water systems
that set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of 10 ng/L for PFOA and 1 [j,g/L for 1,4-dioxane.
There are no groundwater or drinking water standards for PFBA.
29
-------
GBNMC
Geddes Brook Surface Water
Consistent with the OM&M Plan (Parsons, 2011), six surface water monitoring locations in
Geddes Brook and Outfall 019 (see Figure 26) were sampled annually between 2013 and 2017,
and again in 2019 for dissolved mercury, total mercury, and methylmercury.
During the review period, dissolved mercury concentrations at the Geddes Brook and Outfall 019
sampling stations averaged 0.25 ng/L (range 0.15 to 0.38 ng/L), 0.96 ng/L (range 0.66 to 2.0 ng/L),
0.37 ng/L (range 0.19 to 0.77 ng/L), 0.32 ng/L (range 0.25 to 0.44 ng/L), 0.61 ng/L (range 0.14 to
1.53 ng/L) and 0.39 ng/L (range 0.27 to 0.74 ng/L) in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019,
respectively. The average concentrations are below the ROD goals of 2.6 ng/L for protection of
wildlife and 0.7 ng/L for protection of human health via fish consumption, except for the 2014
mean concentration, which exceeded the more stringent goal. The post-remediation average levels
of dissolved mercury are lower than the average 2010/2011 baseline sampling dissolved mercury
level of 1.59 ng/L (range 0.6 to 2.88 ng/L). In the 2017 event, the dissolved mercury goal of 0.7
ng/L was exceeded at one (GB-SW-03CGW) of the five locations (GB-SW-01WP, GB-SW-
02WWL, GB-SW-03CGW, GB-SW-04GB, and GB-SW-060F) supporting sport fish. In 2019,
however, none of the five locations exhibited results that exceeded this goal.9 Sitewide averages
of dissolved mercury in Geddes Brook are depicted on Figure 27. Individual concentrations for
each station of dissolved mercury in Geddes Brook are depicted over time and by location on
Figures 28 and 29, respectively.
Total mercury in Geddes Brook surface water averaged 0.98 ng/L (range 0.15 to 1.79 ng/L), 1.37
ng/L (range 0.70 to 2.30 ng/L), 1.71 ng/L (range 0.38 to 3.77 ng/L), 1.10 ng/L (range 0.25 to 3.91
ng/L), 1.69 ng/L (range 0.55 to 4.21 ng/L), and 0.95 ng/L (range 0.25 to 2.21 ng/L) in 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019, respectively. Methylmercury levels averaged 0.074 ng/L (range
0.026 to 0.17 ng/L), 0.13 ng/L (range 0.05 to 0.33 ng/L), 0.16 ng/L (range 0.01 to 0.50 ng/L), 0.07
ng/L (range 0.01 to 0.26 ng/L), 0.65 ng/L (range 0.09 to 1.66 ng/L) and 0.11 ng/L (range 0.01 to
0.24 ng/L) in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019, respectively. These average post-
remediation levels continue to be notably lower than the average total mercury level of 23.86 ng/L
(range 2.7 to 89.4 ng/L) documented during 2010/2011 baseline sampling conducted at low flow
and high flow conditions, and the 1992 baseline average for methylmercury of 0.62 ng/L (range
0.08 to 1.83 ng/L).10 No goals are specified in the ROD for total mercury or methylmercury in
surface water (see Table 11 for concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury in Geddes
Brook surface water). In addition, annual average concentrations of total mercury in Geddes Brook
have been consistently lower than the annual average concentrations in the West Flume (ranging
from 4.3 to 17.6 ng/L) during the 2014 to 2018 period.
9 Note that Geddes Brook location GB-SW-05PW is situated in a perched wetland that is not capable of
supporting sport fish populations. As such, the results from this location are not compared to the dissolved
mercury RG of 0.7 ng/L, which protects human health via fish consumption.
10 Baseline sampling in 2010/2011 did not include analyses for methylmercury in surface water, however,
methylmercury (unfiltered) baseline sampling was conducted in lower Geddes Brook and lower Ninemile
Creek in 1992.
30
-------
Geddes Brook Sediment
The Geddes Brook OM&M Plan established six sediment monitoring locations that were
collocated with the surface water sample locations (Figure 26) and have been analyzed annually
for total mercury and methylmercury. Samples were collected annually between 2013 and 2017,
and the results for total mercury and methylmercury in Geddes Brook sediment are presented in
Table 12. The results for total mercury as sitewide averages for Geddes Brook sediment are also
presented in Figure 30). The results for total mercury for Geddes Brook sediment for each station
are also presented by location and as a time series in Figures 29 and 31, respectively. A narrative
summary of the results is provided below.
Sediment concentrations for total mercury in Geddes Brook (and adjacent wetland areas) and the
Outfall 019 area averaged 0.044 mg/kg (range 0.028 to 0.067 mg/kg), 0.052 mg/kg (range 0.025
to 0.095 mg/kg), 0.063 mg/kg (range 0.040 to 0.095 mg/kg), 0.028 mg/kg (range 0.014 to 0.045
mg/kg) and 0.04 mg/kg (range 0.02 to 0.06 mg/kg) in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017,
respectively. These levels are lower than the LEL for mercury in sediment (0.15 mg/kg)11, the Part
375 unrestricted use soil cleanup objective of 0.18 mg/kg for mercury for floodplain soil and the
site-specific mercury BSQVs for floodplain soil and sediment of 0.6 and 0.8 mg/kg, respectively.
The levels are also lower than the average total mercury levels in Geddes Brook sediment of 5.37
mg/kg (range 0.8 to 14.2 mg/kg) in baseline samples (0-15 centimeters [cm]) collected in 2010.
Goals are not specified in the ROD for methylmercury in sediment; however, concentrations
documented between 2013 and 2017 were, like total mercury levels in sediment, notably lower
than during the baseline period. Methylmercury averaged 0.33 micrograms per kilogram ([j,g/kg)
(range 0.027 to 0.953) |ig/kg, 0.39 |ig/kg (range 0.025 to 0.710 (J,g/kg), 0.401 (J,g/kg (range 0.010
to 0.912 (J,g/kg), 0.405 (J,g/kg (range 0.030 to 1.440 (J,g/kg) and 0.23 |ig/kg (range 0.03 to 0.66
(j,g/kg) in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The averages for methylmercury are
below the average of 4.31 |ig/kg (range 0.34 to 8.65 (J,g/kg) in lower Geddes Brook sediment
baseline samples (0-15 cm) collected in 2010.
Geddes Brook Biota
Baseline sampling was conducted in 2010 at the Geddes Brook site to establish mercury
concentrations in biota prior to remediation. Prey (forage) fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, small
mammals, and earthworms were sampled for mercury in 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017 at the locations
shown on Figure 32. Prey fish were also collected and sampled for mercury at the indicated
locations in 2019 but those data were determined not to be usable as noted above. Among these
biota, prey fish are the only biota collected that have RGs. Prey fish species collected included
Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Sunfish (Lepomis spp.), Round Goby (Neogobius
melanostomus), Shorthead Redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum), White Suckers (Catostomus
commersoni), Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), Brook
Stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus). It is conservatively
assumed that all mercury in fish is methylmercury, making methylmercury analysis unnecessary
in prey fish.
11 The LEL of 0.15 mg/kg is the lowest of four criteria identified for GBNMC soil/sediment. (See Table
ES-2 above.)
31
-------
The average for total mercury concentrations in prey fish collected during 2013, 2014, 2016 and
2017 were 0.08 mg/kg ww (range 0.042 to 0.165 mg/kg ww), 0.07 mg/kg ww (range 0.015 to
0.175 mg/kg ww), 0.06 mg/kg ww (range 0.015 to 0.190 mg/kg ww), and 0.09 mg/kg ww (range
0.046 to 0.140 mg/kg ww), respectively. The averages were below the baseline average of 0.135
mg/kg ww (range 0.088 to 0.190 mg/kg ww) and the RG of 0.1 mg/kg ww for protection of
ecological receptors specified in the ROD. The 95% UCL for total mercury concentrations in prey
fish collected during 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 were 0.10 mg/kg ww, 0.09 mg/kg ww, 0.09 mg/kg
ww, and 0.10 mg/kg ww, respectively. The 95% UCLs were at or just below the RG of 0.1 mg/kg
ww in 2013, 2014, and 2016, and marginally above the goal in 2017. As the 95% UCL and six of
the 15 prey fish samples (40 percent) in Geddes Brook exceeded the goal in 2017, an additional
prey fish sampling event was conducted in 2019. However, as noted above, those data were
determined not to be usable. At least one additional event will be conducted in 2022. (See Figures
33 and 34 and Table 13). Total mercury concentrations in Geddes Brook prey fish and other biota
are presented by location in Figure 35.
Total mercury and methylmercury results for Geddes Brook biota other than fish are presented in
Tables 14a, 14b, and 14c and Figures 36a and 36b. For the benthic macroinvertebrates, species
have varied with each sampling event depending on availability. Species collected in post-
remediation samples included the dragonfly nymph (Anisoptera), crayfish (Astacoidea), amphipod
(.Amphipoda), and damselfly (Zygoptera). Total mercury concentrations in macroinvertebrates
averaged 0.03 mg/kg ww (range 0.015 to 0.056 mg/kg ww), 0.13 mg/kg ww (range 0.030 to 0.360
mg/kg ww), 0.02 mg/kg ww (range 0.005 to 0.028 mg/kg ww) and 0.02 mg/kg ww (range non-
detect to 0.05 mg/kg ww) in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The average levels of total
mercury in macroinvertebrates in 2016 and 2017 were lower than the average total mercury levels
in macroinvertebrates in 2013 (0.031 mg/kg [range 0.015 to 0.042 mg/kg]) and in 2014 (0.13
mg/kg [range 0.03 to 0.36 mg/kg]).
As in the case for total mercury, the average methylmercury concentrations in macroinvertebrates
in 2016 and 2017 were lower than the corresponding means in 2013 and 2014. Methylmercury
concentrations in macroinvertebrates averaged 46.7 (J,g/kg ww (range 21.1 to 78.5 |ig/kg ww), 76.4
[j,g/kg ww (range 24.1 to 148.0 |ig/kg ww), 15.6 (J,g/kg ww (range 4.4 to 28.3 (J,g/kg ww) and 21.1
[j,g/kg ww (range 11.7 to 37.5 (^g/kg ww) in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017, respectively
Total mercury concentrations in earthworms collected in the Geddes Brook area averaged 0.025
mg/kg ww (range 0.010 to 0.050 mg/kg ww), 0.173 mg/kg ww (range 0.080 to 0.230 mg/kg ww),
0.039 mg/kg ww (range 0.030 to 0.047 mg/kg ww) and 0.06 mg/kg ww (range 0.05 to 0.08 mg/kw
ww) in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The averages are below the average baseline
concentration (2010) for total mercury of 0.196 mg/kg ww (range 0.036 to 0.380 mg/kg ww).12
Methylmercury concentrations in earthworms collected in Geddes Brook averaged 20 (J,g/kg ww
12 Baseline sampling of earthworms in GBNMC included a depuration (purging in a clean environment)
step prior to analysis. Earthworms in SYW-10 were not depurated during baseline sampling. Contaminant
levels in baseline samples would likely be lower if the sampling procedure included a depuration step
relative to contaminant levels in samples that do not undergo depuration. Post-remediation earthworm
samples from Geddes Brook in 2013 and 2014 and SYW-10 in 2015 were depurated. None ofthe earthworm
samples collected between 2016 and 2018 from Geddes Brook, Ninemile Creek or SYW-10 underwent a
depuration step.
32
-------
(range 16.0 to 23.7 |ig/kg ww), 1.6 (J,g/kg ww (range 0.8 to 2.1 (J,g/kg ww) and 2.6 (J,g/kg ww (range
1.4 to 4.4 (J,g/kg ww) in 2013, 2016 and 2017, respectively. These levels were below the average
baseline concentration for methylmercury of 59 (J,g/kg ww. Methylmercury was not detected in the
2014 earthworm samples.
Small mammals collected in the Geddes Brook area included the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), the meadow vole (Microtus pennnsylvanicus), and the Northern Short-tailed Shrew
(Blarina brevicauda). Total mercury concentrations in small mammals collected in the Geddes
Brook area averaged 0.016 mg/kg ww (range 0.005 to 0.025 mg/kg ww), 0.012 mg/kg ww (range
0.010 to 0.020 mg/kg ww), 0.039 mg/kg ww (range 0.005 to 0.106 mg/kg ww) and 0.04 mg/kg
ww (range 0.005 to 0.132 mg/kg ww) in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The averages
are below the average baseline (2010) concentration for total mercury of 0.109 mg/kg ww (range
0.011 to 0.400 mg/kg ww). Methylmercury concentrations in Geddes Brook area small mammals
averaged 9.4 (J,g/kg ww (range 3.4 to 14.0 (J,g/kg ww), 7.2 (J,g/kg ww (range 4.8 to 16.4 |ig/kg ww),
19.7 (J,g/kg ww (range 0.2 to 53.2 (J,g/kg ww) and 35.3 (J,g/kg ww (range 1.0 to 137 (J,g/kg ww) in
2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The averages are below the average baseline (2010)
concentration for methylmercury of 72.2 |ig/kg ww (range 11.5 to 225.0 (J,g/kg ww).
Ninemile Creek Surface Water
Sampling of surface water was conducted in Ninemile Creek in 2015, 2016 and 2017 at one
location upstream of the site and four locations downstream of the confluence with Geddes Brook
(one in Reach CD, one in Reach BC, and two in Reach AB); once during high flow and once
during low flow conditions. The sample locations are provided on Figure 37. Samples were
analyzed for dissolved mercury, total (unfiltered) mercury, and methylmercury. Analytical results
are reported on Table 15. Analytical results for dissolved mercury are presented by location on
Figure 38. Dissolved mercury sitewide averages and dissolved mercury concentrations for each
station in Ninemile Creek as a time series are depicted on Figures 39a and 39b, respectively. A
narrative summary of the dissolved mercury, total mercury and methylmercury results for both
low and high flow conditions is presented below.
Dissolved mercury concentrations at the four downstream Ninemile Creek sampling stations
averaged 0.18 ng/L (range 0.17 to 0.19 ng/L), 0.19 ng/L (range 0.16 to 0.24 ng/L) and 0.12 ng/L
(range 0.11 to 0.13 ng/L) during low flow conditions in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The
averages as well as all individual samples during low flow are below the ROD goals of 2.6 ng/L
for the protection of wildlife and 0.7 ng/L for the protection of human health due to fish
consumption. The dissolved mercury concentrations in the upstream location in 2015, 2016 and
2017 were 0.19 ng/L, 0.16 ng/L and 0.20 ng/L, respectively. Dissolved mercury concentrations at
the four downstream stations during high flow conditions averaged 1.21 ng/L (range 1.04 to 1.37
ng/L), 1.20 ng/L (range 1.10 to 1.38 ng/L) and 0.17 ng/L (range 0.15 to 0.21 ng/L) in 2015, 2016
and 2017, respectively. The 2015 and 2016 levels during high flow are below the ROD goal of 2.6
ng/L, but above the 0.7 ng/L goal. This is not contrary to what might be anticipated since the
dissolved mercury concentrations at the upstream location during high flow were comparable at
1.09 ng/L and 1.21 ng/L in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Therefore, the exceedances of the 0.7
ng/L goal in 2015 and 2016 during high flow are not believed to be due to site-related sources.
The 2017 dissolved mercury levels during high flow were below both the 2.6 ng/L and the 0.7
ng/L goals.
33
-------
During high flow conditions, total (unfiltered) mercury at the four downstream Ninemile Creek
surface water stations averaged 42.78 ng/L (range 15.70 to 55.40 ng/L), 66.46 ng/L (range 61.70
to 69.25 ng/L) and 2.77 ng/L (range 2.73 to 3.1 ng/L) in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The
average detected levels during high flow conditions in 2015 and 2016 were significantly higher
than the average detected level of 14.93 ng/L (range 8.35 to 18.70 ng/L) during 2011 high flow
baseline sampling in Ninemile Creek. It should be noted, however, that total mercury levels were
also elevated in the upstream sampling location in Ninemile Creek during the high flow sampling
events in 2015 (50.10 ng/L) and 2016 (78.40 ng/L) and were higher than the average levels at the
downstream locations for the corresponding years. The elevated total mercury levels in 2015 and
2016 during high flow relative to baseline conditions at high flow may be attributable to higher
average flow rates at the time of sampling in 2015 (630 cfs) and 2016 (809 cfs) as compared to the
average flow rate at the time of high flow baseline sampling (340 cfs). At the four downstream
sampling stations during low flow conditions, total mercury in Ninemile Creek surface water
averaged 2.50 ng/L (range 0.82 to 5.10 ng/L), 2.67 ng/L (range 1.39 to 4.60 ng/L) and 0.85 ng/L
(range 0.64 to 1.78 ng/L) in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. These total mercury levels in
Ninemile Creek during low flow are similar to levels in Geddes Brook during these years.
At the four downstream sampling stations during low flow conditions, methylmercury levels in
Ninemile Creek surface water averaged 0.07 ng/L (range 0.05 to 0.10 ng/L), 0.12 ng/L (range 0.04
to 0.29 ng/L) and 0.04 ng/L (range 0.03 to 0.05 ng/L) in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The
averages for methylmercury at the upstream and downstream locations under low flow conditions
are below the 1992 baseline average of 0.15 ng/L (range 0.11 to 0.20 ng/L) during low flow.
During high flow conditions, methylmercury in Ninemile Creek surface water at the downstream
sampling locations averaged 0.58 ng/L (range 0.40 to 0.70 ng/L), 1.32 ng/L (range 1.17 to 1.53
ng/L), and 0.06 ng/L (range 0.06 to 0.07 ng/L) in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The 1992
baseline average for methylmercury in Ninemile Creek was 0.45 ng/L (range 0.13 to 1.44 ng/L)
during high flow. During both the 2015 and 2016 high flow sampling events in Ninemile Creek,
methylmercury levels were higher at the upstream sampling location relative to any of the
downstream locations. As noted above, no goals are specified in the ROD for total mercury or
methylmercury in surface water.
Ninemile Creek Sediment and Macroinvertebrates
Four channel surface sediment samples (0-15 cm) were collected in the downstream reaches of
Ninemile Creek (one in Reach CD, two in Reach BC, and one in Reach AB) in 2016 and 2018.
(See Figure 40 for sample locations) and analyzed for total mercury and methylmercury. The
results for total mercury and methylmercury in Ninemile Creek channel sediment are presented on
Table 16. Total mercury Ninemile Creek channel sediment sitewide averages are shown on
Figure 41. Total Ninemile Creek channel sediment mercury concentrations at individual stations
are shown as a time series and by location on Figures 42a and 42b, respectively.
Channel sediment concentrations for total mercury averaged 0.07 mg/kg (range 0.04 to 0.15
mg/kg) in 2016. These levels did not exceed the LEL for mercury in sediment (0.15 mg/kg) and
were lower than the site-specific mercury BSQV for sediment of 0.8 mg/kg. The average
concentration for total mercury in Ninemile Creek channel sediment in 2016 was also lower than
the average baseline (2010) level of 0.5 mg/kg for lower Ninemile Creek channel sediment (range
34
-------
0.04 to 1.1 mg/kg). Mercury was not detected in any of the Ninemile Creek channel sediment
samples in 2018. Using one-half the detection limit for the non-detect samples, the average level
of mercury in channel sediment (0.06 mg/kg) in 2018 was also lower than the mercury LEL and
the mercury BSQV for sediment. Goals are not specified in the ROD for methylmercury in
sediment; however, the average methylmercury levels of 0.43 microgram per kilogram (|ig/kg)
(range 0.22 to 0.69 |ig/kg) and 0.60 (J,g/kg (range 0.10 to 1.01 (J,g/kg) in 2016 and 2018,
respectively, in Ninemile Creek channel sediment are below the average baseline level of 0.66
[j,g/kg (range 0.3 to 1.35 (J,g/kg).
Benthic macroinvertebrates (crayfish) were collected in 2016 at three locations in Ninemile Creek
(one per reach) as shown on Figure 40. Analytical results are shown in Table 17 and Figures 42b,
43a, and 43b. Methylmercury concentrations in 2016 averaged 21.9 (J,g/kg, which was higher
than the average observed during the baseline; however, the macroinvertebrates collected during
baseline sampling were limited to amphipods and chironomids (Chironomidae), whereas sampling
in 2016 was limited to crayfish, and therefore the results are not directly comparable. Total
mercury concentrations averaged 0.021 mg/kg, which was lower than the average concentration
observed during baseline (Parsons, 2022b).
Ninemile Creek Fish
The Ninemile Creek 2015 OM&M Sampling Work Plan established protocols for monitoring prey
fish (as whole body samples) and sport fish (as fillets) in Ninemile Creek Reaches AB, BC, and
CD, as well as at an upstream reference location. Prey fish and sport fish tissue data are evaluated
for comparison to RGs for mercury (both sport fish and prey fish) and target concentrations for
organics (sport fish only), which are intended to be protective of ecological receptors and of human
health due to consumption of fish, respectively. The range of goals and targets used for comparison
to the data include the ecological goal of 0.1 mg/kg for mercury in prey fish, and human health
based cancer and non-cancer targets of 0.12 to 1.1 mg/kg (120 to 1,100 (^g/kg) for PCBs and 4.2
to 10 ng/kg for PCDD/PCDFs in sport fish. These goals and targets are presented on Table 18.
Small prey fish were targeted for collection at four sampling locations in Ninemile Creek in 2015,
2016 and 2017. Three locations were in the remediation areas, while a fourth was located upstream
(see Figure 44 for sample locations). All prey fish samples were composited and analyzed for total
mercury and percent moisture. The results for mercury in individual Ninemile Creek prey fish for
the 2015-2017 period are shown on Figure 45. A subset of the 2015, 2016 and 2017 prey fish
samples was analyzed for PCBs and lipid content and a subset of the 2015 and 2017 samples was
analyzed for PCDD/PCDFs. Prey fish species collected included Creek Chub, Round Goby,
Banded Killifish (Fundulus diaphanus), and White Suckers.
The averages for total mercury concentrations in prey fish collected in Ninemile Creek
downstream locations during 2015, 2016 and 2017 were 0.065 mg/kg ww (range 0.013 to 0.168
mg/kg ww), 0.051 mg/kg ww (range 0.018 to 0.137 mg/kg ww), and 0.085 mg/kg ww (range 0.028
to 0.136 mg/kg ww), respectively. The averages were below the RG of 0.1 mg/kg ww for
protection of ecological receptors specified in the ROD. The 95% UCL of the mean for total
mercury concentrations in downstream Ninemile Creek prey fish collected during 2015, 2016 and
2017 were 0.088 mg/kg ww, 0.067 mg/kg ww and 0.103 mg/kg ww, respectively. The 95% UCLs
were below the RG of 0.1 mg/kg ww for protection of ecological receptors in 2015 and 2016, but
35
-------
marginally above it in 2017. As the 95% UCL and seven of the 15 prey fish samples (47 percent)
in Ninemile Creek exceeded the goal in 2017, an additional prey fish sampling event was
conducted in 2019. However, as noted above, those data were determined not to be usable. At least
one additional event will be conducted in 2022 (see Figures 46 and 47 and Table 19a).
Average prey fish PCB concentrations in Ninemile Creek have decreased since monitoring
commenced in 2015 (see Table 19a, Figures 48a and 48b). At the downstream locations, PCBs
detected in prey fish averaged 217 (J,g/kg ww (range 52 to 1,100 (J,g/kg ww), 85 |ig/kg ww (range
51 to 157 |^g/kg ww), and 68 (J,g/kg ww (range 34 to 91 |ig/kg ww) in 2015, 2016 and 2017,
respectively. At the downstream locations, 95% UCLs for PCBs in prey fish were 685 (J,g/kg ww,
115 (J,g/kg ww, and 81 (^g/kg ww in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. At the upstream locations,
PCBs detected in prey fish averaged 169 (J,g/kg ww (range 143 to 194 |ig/kg ww), 157 |ig/kg ww
(range 46 to 267 |ig/kg ww) and 95 (J,g/kg ww (range 91 to 98 (J,g/kg ww), in 2015, 2016 and 2017,
respectively. Due to an insufficient number of collected samples, 95% UCLs could not be
calculated for PCBs in upstream prey fish. In 2017, the mean and maximum concentrations at the
downstream and upstream locations were comparable. The average levels of PCBs for prey fish
at both the upstream and downstream locations in Ninemile Creek were below the 2002 baseline
average of 278 (J,g/kg ww (range 250 to 300 |ig/kg ww). There are no goals or target concentrations
in prey fish specified in the GBNMC RODs for PCBs.
The average levels of PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in 2015 prey fish were 0.295
nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) ww (range 0.19 to 0.406 ng/kg ww) and 0.650 ng/kg ww (range
0.527 to 0.773 ng/kg ww) for downstream and upstream samples, respectively (see Table 19a and
Figures 48c and 48d). The average levels of PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in 2017 prey
fish were 0.309 ng/kg ww (range 0.134 to 0.591 ng/kg ww) and 0.285 ng/kg ww (range 0.207 to
0.363 ng/kg ww) for downstream and upstream samples, respectively. The 95% UCLs of
PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in downstream prey fish were 0.347 ng/kg ww and 0.416
ng/kg ww in 2015 and 2017, respectively. The average levels of PCDD/PCDFs for prey fish at
both the upstream and downstream locations in Ninemile Creek in 2015 and 2017 were below the
2002 baseline average of 1.801 ng/kg ww (range 1.347 to 2.324 (J,g/kg ww). The 95% UCLs of
PCDD/PCDFs for prey fish at both the upstream and downstream locations in Ninemile Creek in
2017 were below the 2011 95% UCL of 2.630 ng/kg ww for the downstream locations. There are
no goals or target concentrations in prey fish specified in the GBNMC RODs for PCDD/PCDFs.
Sport fish were targeted for collection from two locations in Ninemile Creek in 2015, 2016 and
2017. One location encompassed all of the downstream reaches, while the other represented the
upstream location (see Figure 44 for sample locations). All samples were analyzed for mercury
and percent moisture. The results for mercury in individual sport fish are shown on Figure 45. As
noted above, it is assumed that all mercury in fish is methylmercury, making methylmercury
analysis unnecessary in sport fish. Sport fish species collected in the downstream reach included
Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), Brown Bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), Rock Bass (Ambloplites
rupestris), and Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). Only Brown Trout were collected at the
upstream location. Mercury results for sport fish are presented in Table 19b and Figures 49a, 49b
and 49c. Total mercury levels in downstream sport fish (all species combined) averaged 0.099
mg/kg ww (range 0.039 to 0.442 mg/kg ww), 0.106 mg/kg ww (range 0.029 to 0.400 mg/kg ww)
and 0.17 mg/kg ww (range 0.027 to 0.408 mg/kg ww), in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The
average concentrations as well as the 95% UCLs (as can be seen on Figure 49a are below the
36
-------
ROD goal of 0.3 mg/kg ww for human consumption of sport fish. As shown on Figure 49c, total
mercury levels exceeded the ROD goal in only one of the 11 downstream sport fish samples in
2015, one of the 17 downstream sport fish samples in 2016 and three of the 24 downstream sport
fish samples in 2017. As these three exceedances in 2017 were all in Rock Bass (of the eight Rock
Bass samples in 2017) and the 95% UCL (0.325 mg/kg ww) for this species also exceeded the 0.3
mg/kg goal (see Figure 49b), an additional sport fish sampling event was conducted in Ninemile
Creek for Rock Bass in 2019. However, as noted above, those data were determined not to be
usable. At least one additional event will be conducted in 2022. Total mercury in upstream samples
averaged 0.056 mg/kg ww (range 0.04 to 0.07 mg/kg ww), 0.041 mg/kg ww (range 0.020 to 0.050
mg/kg ww) and 0.096 mg/kg ww (range 0.041 to 0.133 mg/kg ww) in 2015, 2016 and 2017,
respectively.
As in the case for the prey fish, a subset of the 2015, 2016 and 2017 sport fish samples was
analyzed for PCBs and lipid content and a subset of the 2015 and 2017 samples was analyzed for
PCDD/PCDFs. The results for PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs in sport fish are presented in Table 19b
and Figures 50a, 50b, 50c and 50d.
From the downstream location in Ninemile Creek, PCB levels in sport fish (all Brown Trout)
averaged 129 (J,g/kg ww (range 76 to 183 (J,g/kg ww), 146 (J,g/kg ww (range 97 to 210 (J,g/kg ww)
and 111 (J,g/kg ww (range 60 to 180 (J,g/kg ww), in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. At the
downstream location in Ninemile Creek, the 95% UCLs for PCBs in sport fish were 151 (J,g/kg
ww, 171 |^g/kg ww and 137 (J,g/kg ww in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The means and 95%
UCLs for PCBs in sport fish collected from the downstream location in all three years are below
the fish tissue target concentration of 1,100 ng/kg ww based on a reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) excess cancer risk of one in 10,000 and the fish tissue target concentration of 190 (J,g/kg
ww based on non-cancer effects for adults. The average level of PCBs in sport fish collected from
the downstream location in 2017 was below the target of 120 ng/kg ww based on non-cancer
effects for children, whereas the average levels of PCBs in sport fish collected from the
downstream location in 2015 and 2016 and the 95% UCLs for the downstream location in all three
years were above this target. The 2015, 2016 and 2017 averages and 95% UCLs for PCBs in
downstream sport fish (Brown Trout) were below the 2011 baseline average and 95% UCL for
PCBs in sport fish (Channel Catfish) of 1,107 ug/kg ww (range 650 to 1,700 ug/kg ww) and 2014
ug/kg ww, respectively.
At the upstream location, PCB levels in sport fish averaged 132 ug/kg ww (range 112 to 151 ng/kg
ww), 187 p,g/kg ww (range 150 to 223 ug/kg ww), and 185 ug/kg ww (range 170 to 200 ug/kg
ww), in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The average levels in sport fish collected from the
upstream locations in 2015, 2016 and 2017 were below the fish tissue cancer target concentration
of 1,100 p,g/kg ww and the target of 190 ug/kg ww based on non-cancer effects for adults, but
above the 120 ug/kg ww based on non-cancer effects for children. Due to an insufficient number
of collected samples, 95% UCLs could not be calculated for PCBs in upstream sport fish.
The average levels of PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in sport fish (all Brown Trout) in
2015 were 0.353 ng/kg ww (range 0.169 to 0.734 ng/kg ww) and 0.262 ng/kg ww (range 0.186 to
0.337 ng/kg ww) for downstream and upstream samples, respectively. The average levels of
PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in sport fish in 2017 were 0.414 ng/kg ww (range 0.188
37
-------
to 0.715 ng/kg ww) and 1.238 ng/kg ww (range 0.331 to 2.144 ng/kg ww) for downstream and
upstream samples, respectively. The 95% UCLs for PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in
downstream sport fish were 0.487 ng/kg ww and 0.591 ng/kg ww in 2015 and 2017, respectively.
The averages and 95% UCLs in sport fish in both 2015 and 2017 are below the target of 10 ng/kg
ww based on an RME excess cancer risk of one in 10,000 (i.e., lxlO"4) for adults. They are also
below the RME noncancer endpoint target of 4.2 ng/kg ww. The PCB and PCDD/PCDF cancer
and noncancer targets are based on protection of human health due to fish consumption for children
and are protective of both adults and children. The 2015 and 2017 averages and 95% UCLs for
PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in sport fish (Brown Trout) were below the 2011 baseline
average and 95% UCL for PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD) in sport fish (Channel Catfish)
of 1.801 ng/kg ww (range 1.347 to 2.324 ng/kg ww) and 2.630 ng/kg ww, respectively.
In addition to mercury, the sport fish (Rock Bass) collected in Ninemile Creek in 2019 were to be
analyzed for PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs. As noted above, those data were determined not to be
usable. At least one additional event, including analysis of PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs, will be
conducted in 2022.
Ninemile Creek Floodplain Soil and Biota
Four Ninemile Creek floodplain soil samples were collected from three locations in 2016 and 2018
in the Reach CD area (see Figure 40 and analyzed for total mercury and methylmercury). The
average detected concentrations of these samples for total mercury were 0.033 mg/kg (range 0.031
to 0.034 mg/kg) and 0.075 mg/kg (range 0.07 to 0.08 mg/kg) in 2016 and 2018, respectively.
These levels are below the site-specific mercury BSQV for soil of 0.6 mg/kg, the Part 375
unrestricted use soil cleanup objective of 0.18 mg/kg for mercury and the average total mercury
baseline concentration of 0.50 mg/kg (range 0.13 to 0.71 mg/kg) from samples collected in 2010.
The averages for methylmercury of 0.42 |ig/kg (range 0.39 to 0.46 (J,g/kg) and 0.54 |ig/kg (range
0.30 to 0.68 |ig/kg) in 2016 and 2018, respectively, are below the average methylmercury baseline
concentration of 2.07 |ig/kg (range 1.57 to 2.34 (J,g/kg). Goals for methylmercury in floodplain
soil are not specified in the ROD. Ninemile Creek floodplain soil results for total mercury and
methylmercury are presented on Table 16. The results for total mercury in Ninemile Creek
floodplain soil by location, as well as the results for Ninemile Creek earthworms and small
mammals which are discussed below, are shown on Figure 42b.
Earthworm composite samples co-located with the floodplain soil samples in 2016 were analyzed
for total mercury and methylmercury. The average concentrations of the earthworm samples for
total mercury and methylmercury were 0.025 mg/kg ww (range 0.024 to 0.026 mg/kg ww) and 1.5
[j,g/kg ww (range 0.4 to 3.3 (J,g/kg ww), respectively. These levels are well below Ninemile Creek
earthworm concentrations detected during baseline sampling in 2010. The average concentrations
of the earthworm samples for total mercury and methylmercury during baseline sampling were
0.70 mg/kg ww (range 0.34 to 0.97 mg/kg ww) and 31.5 (J,g/kg ww (range 21 to 43.2 (J,g/kg ww),
respectively. Ninemile Creek earthworm results for total mercury and methylmercury are
presented on Table 20 (EPA, 2017; Parsons, 2022b).13
13 Also, see Footnote 12 regarding depuration of earthworm samples.
38
-------
Two white-footed mice, two meadow voles, and one deer mouse were collected in the Reach CD
area in 2016 (see Figure 17). Although baseline mammal sampling adjacent to Ninemile Creek
included methylmercury as well as total mercury, it was assumed that all total mercury would be
in the form of methylmercury for the 2016 Ninemile Creek mammal samples. For this reason, the
2016 Ninemile Creek small mammal samples were analyzed for total mercury only. In these five
samples, total mercury was not detected (less than 0.01 mg/kg ww). In the Ninemile Creek baseline
samples (2010), average total mercury in the deer mice was 0.038 mg/kg ww and total mercury
was 0.048 mg/kg ww in the one white-footed mouse collected. The total mercury results for
Ninemile Creek small mammals are provided on Table 21 (EPA, 2017; Parsons, 2022b).
SYW-10 Soil/Sediment and Biota
As noted above, some areas of SYW-10 were not remediated to preserve a valuable habitat not
found on other areas of the lakeshore. Soil/sediment and earthworm samples were collected in
SYW-10 in 2015, 2016 and 2018. These samples were analyzed for total mercury and
methylmercury consistent with the established monitoring protocols in the Ninemile Creek 2015
OM&M Sampling Work Plan. Small mammal samples were also collected in SYW-10 in 2015,
2016 and 2018, and analyzed for total mercury consistent with the Work Plan. Sample locations
for soil/sediment and biota are provided on Figure 51. Analytical results by location for SYW-10
soil/sediment and biota are presented on Figure 52.
Post-remediation soil/sediment samples (composite samples from the top six inches) were
collected from ten stations in SYW-10 in 2015, 2016 and 2018 consistent with baseline monitoring
locations in both remediated (six stations) and unremediated (four stations) areas. Total mercury
and methylmercury results for the SYW-10 soil/sediment samples are provided on Table 22. Total
mercury was detected at all six remediated stations in 2015 and 2016. In 2018, total mercury in
soil/sediment was only detected in two of the six remediated area locations; levels in these two
samples were below the LEL of 0.15 mg/kg, the Part 375 unrestricted use mercury soil cleanup
objective of 0.18 mg/kg, and the site specific mercury BSQVs of 0.6 mg/kg and 0.8 mg/kg for soil
and sediment, respectively. The calculated mean for mercury in the remediated area in 2018 (0.08
mg/kg), as well as the calculated means calculated for 2015 (0.07 mg/kg) and 2016 (0.06 mg/kg)
were also below the LEL (SYW-10 mercury concentrations in soil within remediated areas at
individual sample locations as a time series are depicted on Figure 53).
Soil/sediment total mercury concentrations for the combined remediated and unremediated areas
averaged 1.47 mg/kg, 1.90 mg/kg, and 1.45 mg/kg in 2015, 2016, and 2018, respectively (see
Figure 54). While the mean concentrations exceed the mercury BSQVs, this is not unanticipated
given that a sizeable area within the SYW-10 area was excluded from remediation so as to continue
to provide forested wetland functions, consistent with the remedial objective, and the conceptual
approach and design for SYW-10. In the remediated areas, methylmercury in soil/sediment
averaged 1.96 (J,g/kg, 1.29 (J,g/kg, and 1.74 (J,g/kg in 2015, 2016, and 2018, respectively.
Soil/sediment methylmercury concentrations for the combined remediated and unremediated areas
averaged 7.42 (J,g/kg in 2018, which is slightly higher than the calculated means for 2015 (6.16
(j,g/kg) and 2016 (6.65 (J,g/kg). Goals for methylmercury in SYW-10 sediment or floodplain soil
are not specified in the GBNMC OU2 ROD.
39
-------
Earthworm samples in SYW-10 were collected in 2015, 2016 and 2018 and were collocated with
the soil/sediment samples. Total mercury and methylmercury results for the SYW-10 earthworm
samples are summarized in Table 23. Total mercury results for the SYW-10 earthworm samples
are also provided in Figure 55. In the SYW-10 remediated areas, total mercury averaged 0.13
mg/kg ww (range 0.04 to 0.19 mg/kg ww), 0.13 mg/kg ww (range 0.08 to 0.19 mg/kg ww) and
0.12 mg/kg ww (range 0.09 to 0.17 mg/kg ww) in the 2015, 2016 and 2018 earthworm samples,
respectively. In the SYW-10 remediated areas, methylmercury earthworm samples averaged 111.3
[j,g/kg ww (range 26.8 to 181.0 (J,g/kg ww), 39.6 |ig/kg ww (range 22.8 to 61.1 (J,g/kg ww) and 37.3
[j,g/kg ww (range 18.3 to 54.9 (J,g/kg ww) in 2015, 2016 and 2018, respectively. As anticipated,
earthworm total mercury and methylmercury levels were higher in unremediated areas relative to
the remediated areas. Earthworm concentrations for total mercury in SYW-10 for the combined
remediated and unremediated areas averaged 0.20 mg/kg ww (range 0.04 to 0.49 mg/kg ww), 0.33
mg/kg ww (range 0.08 to 1.25 mg/kg ww) and 0.36 mg/kg ww (range 0.09 to 1.23 mg/kg ww) in
2015, 2016 and 2018, respectively. Earthworm methylmercury concentrations for the combined
remediated and unremediated areas averaged 157.5 (J,g/kg ww (range 14.3 to 515.0 |ig/kg ww),
127.1 (J,g/kg ww (range 22.8 to 506.0 (J,g/kg ww) and 168.5 (J,g/kg ww (range 18.3 to 549.0 (J,g/kg
ww) in 2015, 2016 and 2018, respectively. While goals for total mercury and methylmercury in
earthworms are not specified in the GBNMC OU2 ROD, the 2015, 2016 and 2018 average
concentrations for mercury and methylmercury for earthworms collected from the remediated
areas in SYW-10 are lower than baseline levels for the SYW-10 remediated areas.14
Small mammal (white-footed mouse, deer mouse and meadow vole) samples were collected in
2015, 2016 and 2018 from the large contiguous areas of the remediated and unremediated zones
of SYW-10 and analyzed for total mercury (see Table 24 and Figure 56). Total mercury was
detected in all of the SYW-10 small mammal samples collected in 2015 and in all five of the 2016
small mammal samples collected in the non-remediated area. All five of the small mammal
samples (all deer mice) collected in the SYW-10 remediated area in 2016 were non-detect for total
mercury. In 2018, mercury was not detected in nine of ten samples, including all samples from
remediated areas and four of the five samples collected from unremediated areas. Small mammal
total mercury concentrations in SYW-10 for the combined remediated and unremediated areas
averaged 0.027 mg/kg ww and 0.022 mg/kg ww in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Using one-half
the detection limit for the nine samples in which mercury was not detected and the reported value
for the single detected sample, the average mercury concentration was 0.04 mg/kg in 2018
(Parsons, 2022a). The average total mercury concentrations in small mammals from the combined
remediated and unremediated areas of SYW-10 in 2015, 2016 and 2018 were approximately one
order-of-magnitude lower than the average baseline concentration (0.29 mg/kg ww) in 2010.
Site Inspection
An inspection of the LCP Bridge Street Subsite and GBNMC related to this FYR was conducted
on July 14, 2022. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.
Those in attendance included Mr. Nunes; Mr. Granger, Ms. Flynn, Mr. Mazziotta, Mr. Smith, Ms.
Granzen, Hazel Powless and Alma Lowry representing the Onondaga Nation; Mark Arrigo of
Parsons (Honeywell contractor); Craig Milburn of Brown and Sanford (Honeywell consultant),
14 Also, see Footnote 12 regarding depuration of earthworm samples.
40
-------
James Lighton and John Formoza of Jacobs Engineering Group (Honeywell consultant).
During the inspection, the cap at the LCP Bridge Street Subsite was observed to be in good
condition. No significant areas of erosion or slumping in the GBNMC channel areas were
observed. Vegetative cover, including native plants, shrubs, and trees, were observed to be well
established and in good condition throughout the LCP Bridge Street Subsite and GBNMC,
including the remediated as well as the unremediated area of Wetland SYW-10.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
ICP Bridge Street
The September 2000 ROD called for the excavation of sediment exceeding upstream mercury
concentrations, backfilling of the excavated areas with clean fill and re-vegetating, sewer system
closure, mercury removal from soil on the former plant property, construction of an underground
cut-off wall and low-permeability engineered soil cover over the soil/sediment containment area,
installation of an on-site groundwater collection system and long-term monitoring of groundwater,
surface water, sediment and biota to ensure the effectiveness of the selected remedy. The ROD
also calls for the implementation of ICs to prohibit the use of groundwater at the LCP Bridge Street
subsite and to prohibit the disturbance of the subsite Part 360 cap and slurry wall.
These measures were necessary to achieve the RAOs, to the extent practicable, of eliminating
contaminant migration from the LCP Bridge Street subsite to the Onondaga Lake environs and
environmental media; restoring groundwater quality to state and federal drinking water standards;
mitigating the migration of contaminated waters through LCP subsite sewers; eliminating the
direct contact threat associated with contaminated soil, surface water, and groundwater and
reducing the level of contaminants in surface water and sediments to attain surface water ARARs
and sediment remedial goals to be protective of fish, wildlife and the resources upon which they
depend.
There has been general improvement in the effectiveness of the LCP Bridge Street subsite
hydraulic control system within the soil/sediment containment area over time, particularly since
completion of the landfill cover in 2015 and replacement of the groundwater extraction pumps in
2017-2020. In addition, monitoring wells MW-34D, MW-35D, and MW-36D were redeveloped
in spring 2019, and silt was removed from each. Since the pumps were replaced, hydraulic
containment trends have improved and higher pumping rates have been maintained. Additional
monitoring will be needed to evaluate the containment of groundwater within the hydraulic
containment system.
Sediment results in Wetland C and the West Flume continue to show decreased total mercury
concentrations relative to pre-remediation conditions. Discrete sample results have been below the
SEL of 1.3 mg/kg and the Ninemile Creek BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg, which serves as a useful
benchmark for evaluating trends at the LCP Bridge Street subsite. As of 2018, average
41
-------
concentrations within each area were below the remedial goal of 0.2 mg/kg as well. In addition,
dissolved mercury concentrations in surface water within the West Flume and Wetland C were
below the 2.6 ng/L standard for protection of wildlife during this review period since 2017, thus
verifying the protectiveness of the remedy in these areas. Although some concentrations exceeded
the human health standard based on fish consumption (0.7 ng/L), this metric does not apply to the
LCP Site because the West Flume and open water wetland areas do not support this route of
exposure since fish at the site are not large enough for human consumption.
Elevated levels of mercury in sediment and surface water remain in Wetland A. Exposures to
ecological receptors are not currently considered significant, since biota sampling has indicated a
lack of significant impacts to higher trophic level receptors in the past and because fish and
predatory birds are intermittently present in this area of the LCP Bridge Street subsite. Exposures
to humans are not considered likely because the site is not accessible to the public and fish within
Wetland A are not present or large enough for human consumption. Nevertheless, data collected
in 2018, 2020 and 2021 indicate that the RG for mercury in sediment has not been met and
additional remedial actions in and adjacent to a portion of Wetland A are needed to ensure long-
term protectiveness to ecological receptors.
Average mercury concentrations in prey fish collected from the West Flume during the 2015 to
2018 review period were generally lower than values observed during the previous review period,
and remained below baseline concentrations. As documented in the 2nd FYR (2014), biota
collection (small mammals, earthworms, and macroinvertebrates) from Wetlands A and B and the
West Flume was discontinued after 2012 due to stabilized concentrations (Wetland C was not
restored until 2012 and therefore was not included in the biota sampling prior to 2012). Due to
elevated mercury concentrations for both surface water and sediment in Wetland A, an additional
prey fish sampling event was conducted in 2021 within the West Flume. Analytical results for
these prey fish were not available at the time that this report was developed.
GBNMC
Following the remediation in the GBNMC areas conducted from 2011 through 2014, the levels of
dissolved mercury in GBNMC surface water samples were below the ROD goal of 2.6 ng/L for
protection of wildlife. While the average levels of dissolved mercury were above the ROD goal
of 0.7 ng/L for protection of human health via fish consumption in Geddes Brook in 2014, they
were below that level in the four sampling events conducted between 2015 and 2019, and during
low flow conditions for the three sampling events conducted in Ninemile Creek between 2015 and
2017. There was one exceedance of the 0.7 ng/L goal at one of the five Geddes Brook locations
supporting sport fish populations in 2017, but none in 2019. While levels of dissolved mercury
were above the 0.7 ng/L criterion in Ninemile Creek during high flow conditions, the levels were
consistent with levels of dissolved mercury in Ninemile Creek upstream of the Site. While no RGs
are specified in the ROD for unfiltered mercury and methylmercury in surface water, post-
remediation levels of unfiltered mercury and methylmercury in surface water are below baseline
levels in Geddes Brook, and are below baseline and/or upstream levels in lower Ninemile Creek,
except for unfiltered mercury under low flow conditions in 2015 and 2016.
42
-------
Post-remediation levels of total mercury in GBNMC wetland and channel sediment continue to be
below the ROD RGs and baseline levels. While no RGs are specified in the ROD for
methylmercury in sediment, post-remediation levels of methylmercury in GBNMC wetland and
channel sediment are below baseline levels.
The average concentrations of total mercury in Geddes Brook prey fish, as well as Ninemile Creek
prey and sport fish (in all species combined) in the downstream (remediated) locations, are below
the RGs established in the RODs (0.1 mg/kg in prey fish and 0.3 mg/kg in sport fish). In 2017, the
95% UCLs for total mercury in GBNMC prey fish were marginally above the RGs established in
the RODs. As the 95% UCLs and six of the 15 prey fish samples (40 percent) in Geddes Brook
and seven of the 15 prey fish samples (47 percent) in Ninemile Creek exceeded the goals in 2017,
and the data collected in 2019 were determined not to be usable, an additional prey fish sampling
event will be conducted in both Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek in 2022.
Between 2015 and 2017, the 95% UCLs for total mercury in Ninemile Creek sport fish (for all
species combined) were below the RGs established in the RODs. However, as noted above, the
three exceedances in 2017 were all in Rock Bass (of the eight Rock Bass samples in 2017) and the
95% UCL (0.325 mg/kg ww) for this species also exceeded the 0.3 mg/kg goal. Therefore, at least
one additional sport fish sampling event will be conducted in 2022.
Furthermore, the means and 95% UCLs for PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs in Ninemile Creek sport fish
are within the acceptable risk range for cancer effects and below the noncancer targets for children
and adults, except for the 2015 and 2016 means and 95% UCLs for PCBs between 2015-2017,
which were above the noncancer target for children. However, the mean PCB concentrations in
upstream fish were also above this lower noncancer target.
The RGs for mercury and targets for PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs are based on protection of ecological
receptors and protection of human health due to consumption of fish. Fish tissue monitoring will
continue into the next FYR period for assessing attainment of goals and targets15 and for further
trend evaluation. As stated under the Data Review Section, statistical metrics used to determine
whether fish tissue results have met stated goals and targets are currently under development, and
may be utilized in subsequent FYRs.
In the Geddes Brook floodplain area, average post-remediation levels of mercury and
methylmercury in earthworm composite samples and small mammals are below the average
baseline levels. In Ninemile Creek (Reach CD) floodplain soil, the levels of total mercury are well
below the Part 375 unrestricted use soil cleanup objective of 0.18 mg/kg and the BSQV of 0.6
mg/kg. Detected levels of total mercury and methylmercury in collocated Ninemile Creek
floodplain soil and earthworms are well below levels detected during baseline sampling. Total
mercury was not detected in small mammals in the Ninemile Creek (Reach CD) floodplain area.
In the SYW-10 area, total mercury levels in soil/sediment in the combined remediated and
unremediated areas are above the Site-specific mercury BSQV of 0.6 mg/kg; however, this is not
15 As noted in the NMC OMMP, to account for natural variability, performance criteria for fish tissue will
be considered to have been met after multiple years of data indicate attainment. Performance criteria would
need to be met at least three years in a row or four years out of five.
43
-------
unanticipated, given that a sizeable area within the SYW-10 area was excluded from remediation
so as to continue to provide forested wetland functions, consistent with the remedial objective,
conceptual approach, and design for SYW-10. The average total mercury levels in soil/sediment
in the remediated area within SYW-10 are below the Part 375 unrestricted use soil cleanup
objective of 0.18 mg/kg and the BSQV of 0.6 mg/kg for soil. The average total mercury levels in
small mammals in both the remediated and unremediated areas in SYW-10 are below baseline
levels. In addition, total mercury was not detected in small mammals in the remediated area in
2016 and 2018 and was also not detected in four of the five small mammal samples from the
unremediated area in 2018. These results indicate that mercury concentrations within biota have
been reduced on a site-wide basis despite some elevated levels of mercury remaining in soil in the
unremediated area. Thus, potential exposures to higher trophic level receptors have also been
considerably reduced which is consistent with the RAOs developed for the site.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
LCP Bridge Street
There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the LCP Bridge Street subsite or land
uses that would affect the protectiveness of the selected remedy. The exposure assumptions and
toxicity values that were used to estimate the potential risk and hazards to human health and
ecological receptors from exposure to LCP Bridge Street subsite contaminants followed the
general practice at the time the risk assessment was performed. Although specific parameters and
toxicity values may have changed, the risk assessment process that was used is still consistent with
current practices and the need for a remedial action remains valid.
The RAOs and remedial goals discussed under Section II remain valid as well. For groundwater,
the remedy identified in the ROD includes containment of groundwater inside the soil/sediment
containment area at the subsite in both the shallow and the deep aquifers and ICs in the form of
deed restrictions to prohibit the use of groundwater, and restoration of groundwater quality outside
the soil/sediment containment area to levels which meet state and federal standards. Groundwater
within the containment area is being controlled by an extraction and treatment system and no
potable wells are impacted by LCP Bridge Street subsite-related contamination. The excavation of
contaminated soils and sediments was intended to interrupt potential future commercial/industrial
exposure pathways and to remove contaminant pathways to ecological receptors. Shallow soils
associated with unacceptable risks were excavated, treated, and relocated to the onsite
soil/sediment containment area. The most significant risk driver in the shallow soils was mercury,
therefore, a cap was placed over shallow soils with mercury concentrations exceeding 0.1 mg/kg,
which was determined to be protective of human health and the environment for any foreseeable
future activity at this subsite. Surface soils contaminated with PCBs above 1 mg/kg and subsurface
soils with PCBs above 10 mg/kg were excavated and disposed of off-site. These levels remain
protective of human health, based on the commercial/industrial exposures that are expected to
occur at this subsite.
The remedial goal for contaminated sediment in the ROD was the site-specific total mercury
background value identified within sediments from the West Flume at locations upstream of the
site (0.2 mg/kg). This is also equivalent to the July 2014 NYSDEC Screening and Assessment of
44
-------
Contaminated Sediment guidance which identifies 0.2 mg/kg as a concentration where sediments
are considered to be of low risk to aquatic life (i.e., Class A values). Surface water concentrations
are compared to the NYSDEC Part 703 Surface Water Quality Standards for protection of wildlife
(2.6 ng/L), which are still valid. Post-remediation monitoring has been conducted in all areas where
contaminated soils and sediments have been excavated. Mercury concentrations in sediment and
surface water from the West Flume and Wetland C have continued to decline to levels below
cleanup goals. Mercury concentrations in Wetland A sediment and surface water, however, remain
elevated. Exposures to humans are not considered to be likely since this site is not accessible to
the public and fish within Wetland A are not present or are small and not large enough for human
consumption. Exposures to ecological receptors are not currently considered significant, since
biota sampling indicated stabilized results below baseline levels, thus indicating a lack of
significant impacts to higher trophic level receptors. Further, Wetland A is often dry at certain
times during the warmer months as recharge from precipitation is limited due to the presence of
thick vegetation on the landfill cover. As a result, fish and predatory birds that could be exposed
are infrequently present. Therefore, although some individual ecological receptors may be exposed
to elevated mercury from sediment, impacts at the community level are not currently considered
significant. Nevertheless, supplemental sediment and soil sampling results from 2018, 2020, and
2021 indicate that additional remedial action is needed to ensure long-term protectiveness to
ecological receptors by preventing any further transport of mercury into the wetland from the
upland areas sampled.
Vapor Intrusion
The potential for vapor intrusion was evaluated during the 2009 FYR. During that evaluation,
groundwater concentrations were compared to health-based screening criteria provided in the EPA
2002 Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater
and Soils. This guidance provides concentrations of chemicals in groundwater associated with
indoor air concentrations at acceptable levels of cancer risk and noncancer hazard using residential
exposure assumptions. At the time, no occupied buildings were above the contaminated
groundwater, and the FYR recommended that future FYRs should continue to evaluate this
pathway if the buildings become occupied or if new buildings are constructed over the
contaminated groundwater. As of this current FYR, no buildings have been constructed or have
become occupied over the contaminated groundwater and there are no plans in either case prior
to the next FYR.
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
In 2020, the New York State Department of Health Drinking Water Program formally adopted the
drinking water MCLs of 10 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS as well as 1 [j,g/L for 1,4-dioxane. Although
PFAS compounds and 1,4-dioxane were detected in samples collected from the subsite, the
maximum concentrations of these chemicals were below the referenced standards. There are
currently no groundwater or drinking water standards for PFBA. In May 2022, EPA released
updated Regional Screening Levels for several PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS,
using toxicity values from ATSDR. The tapwater RSLs for these chemicals (based on a hazard of
1) are 60 ng/L and 40 ng/L, respectively, and are greater than the current State standards. Any
45
-------
further updates related to groundwater or drinking water standards and toxicity values of emerging
contaminants will be monitored through the next FYR period.
GBNMC
There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the GBNMC Site over the past five years
that would change the protectiveness of the remedy. Land use assumptions, exposure assumptions
and pathways, and clean-up levels considered in the decision documents followed Agency
guidance and policy and remain valid. Although specific parameters may have changed since the
time the risk assessment was completed, the process that was used also remains valid.
The RAOs discussed under Section II remain valid as well. The current GBNMC Site and
surrounding land use is primarily commercial and industrial and is not expected to change in the
future. Potential exposure to channel sediments and floodplain soil has been mitigated through
excavation, placement of clean material and restoration. Although the GBNMC HHRA concluded
that exposure to contaminants in fish tissue, primarily methylmercury and PCBs, would result in
noncarcinogenic hazards that exceeded EPA's benchmarks, there is currently a fish advisory for
consumption of fish caught from Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. In addition, an analysis of fish
tissue samples collected from Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek between 2015 and 2017 indicates
that average concentrations, and in some cases 95% UCLs, for total mercury (conservatively
assumed to be methylmercury), PCBs and PCDD/PCDF are below the risk-based RGs and target
levels established for the Site. Statistical metrics used to determine whether fish tissue results have
met these goals and target concentrations are currently under development, and fish tissue
monitoring will continue into the next FYR period for further trend evaluation.
Although the ecological risk assessment screening and toxicity values used to support the 2009
GBNMC RODs may not necessarily reflect the current studies and values, the selected cleanup
levels and screening values are still appropriate and protective of ecological receptors.
Furthermore, where RGs were not established, monitoring studies comparing baseline and post-
remediation conditions for media and biota were conducted to determine the protectiveness of the
remedy, which is a valid method of measuring protectiveness in this system. The data collected
post-remediation continue to show that concentrations in Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek biota
are lower than baseline conditions.
Changes in Toxicity Characteristics
At the time of the GBNMC RODs, the human health target fish tissue concentrations for
PCDD/PCDFs were based on RME carcinogenic risks at risk targets ranging from lxlO"5 (1.0
ng/kg) to lxlO"4 (10.0 ng/kg). Noncarcinogenic targets were not developed for PCDD/PCDFs prior
to the issuance of the ROD since a noncarcinogenic reference dose (RfD) was not available.
Subsequent to the issuance of the ROD, an RME noncancer endpoint target of 4.2 ng/kg was
developed using the EPA 2012 reference dose of 7xlO"10mg/kg-day. This target falls within the
range based on carcinogenic risks. Therefore, the PCDD/PCDF targets for comparison with the
PCDD/PCDF fish tissue data considered in this FYR included the noncancer endpoint, 4.2 ng/kg
(noncancer), in addition to the 10.0 ng/kg (lxlO"4) cancer risk.
46
-------
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
There is no new information that calls into question the protectiveness of the LCP Bridge Street
and GBNMC site remedies.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Table I, below, presents the recommendations and follow-up actions for this FYR. There are also
some suggestions to improve remedy performance noted below.
Table I: Issues and Recommendations
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issiics/Uccoinmcndalions Idenlilled in (lie I'ive-Year Review:
None.
Issues and Recommendations Idenlilled in (lie hive-Year Review:
OU: 5
(Inside
Groundwater)
Issue Category: Operations and Maintenance
Issue: The deep zone requires further evaluation with respect to sustained
inward gradients.
Recommendation: The piezometer data from the deep zone and the need
for potential additional optimization measures should be evaluated.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone
Date
No
Yes
PRP
State
9/30/2025
OU: 5
(Soil/Sediment)
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Mercury levels in Wetland A sediment and surface water are above
the cleanup goals. Mercury concentrations in upland soil located adjacent to
Wetland A are also at levels above criteria.
Recommendation: Sediment and surface water data should continue to be
collected from Wetland A and compared to the cleanup goals established by
the ROD and historical benchmarks to evaluate what actions are necessary to
address the elevated contaminant concentrations identified in sediment there.
Additional sampling of upland soil located adjacent to Wetland A may also
be conducted to help evaluate additional remedial measures to address
elevated levels of mercury present in this area.
47
-------
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone
Date
No
Yes
PRP
State
12/31/2025
OUs: 20 and
24
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: All institutional controls are not in place. The selected remedies
include ICs in the form of environmental easements to restrict
dredging/excavating in the areas where residual contamination would remain
at the surface or beneath the habitat layer at levels above that which would
allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure.
Recommendation: Institutional controls should be put into place.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone
Date
No
Yes
PRP
State
6/30/2023
OTHER FINDINGS
In addition, the following are recommendations that were identified during the FYR and may
improve management of O&M but do not affect current and/or future protectiveness:
• The analytical results from fish tissue samples collected from GBNMC in 2019 were
not utilized due to concerns about data quality. Therefore, fish tissue samples should be
collected from GBNMC and monitoring should continue to confirm the remedy remains
protective.
• The need for additional sampling in the West Flume will be considered after review of
data in the recently-received draft 2021 Annual Monitoring and Maintenance Report for
LCP/GBNMC.
48
-------
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Table J, below, presents the operable unit and sitewide protectiveness statements.
Table J: Protectiveness Statements
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
OU 05 (LCP Bridge Street Subsite) Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy for OU5 is protective of human health and the
environment in the short-term since exposure routes have been eliminated and biota data suggest
that tissue concentrations are below baseline levels. For the remedy to be protective in the long-
term, additional remedial action will be needed to address elevated levels of mercury in upland
soil immediately adjacent to Wetland A, and sediment and surface water in Wetland A. The
remedial measures to be implemented in and adjacent to Wetland A will be determined after
additional collection and evaluation of soil, surface water and sediment data. In addition, the
inward gradient in the deep zone in the area of the hydraulic containment system needs to be
evaluated.
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
OUs 20 and 24 (GBNMC) Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy for OU20 and 24 is protective of human health and the
environment in the short-term because sediment and floodplain soils have been excavated and
remediated areas have been restored to reduce potential exposure to Site contaminants. For the
implemented actions to be protective in the long-term, ICs need to be implemented.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR report for GBNMC and the LCP Bridge Street subsite of the Onondaga Lake
Superfund Site is required five years from the completion date of this review.
49
-------
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Figure 2. LCP Site Plan
Figure 3. Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek and Vicinity
Figure 4. GBNMC Site Map
Figure 5a. Ninemile Creek OU1 Alternative 3 (Selected Remedy) Remedial Approach and Geddes Brook IRM
Figure 5b. Ninemile Creek OU2 Alternative 3 (Selected Remedy) Remedial Approach
Figure 6. SYW-10 Remedial Approach Area
Figure 7. Aerial View of ESD Area (Utility Bridge to Sewer Lines)
Figure 8. LCP Piezometer/Monitoring Well Locations
Figure 9a. Geddes Brook and Outfall 019 Quantitative Vegetative Monitoring Plot Locations
Figure 9b. Ninemile Creek Reach CD Quantitative Vegetative Monitoring Plot Locations
Figure 9c. Ninemile Creek Reach BC Quantitative Vegetative Monitoring Plot Locations
Figure 9d. SYW-10 and Ninemile Creek Reach AB Quantitative Vegetative Monitoring Plot Locations
Figure 10a. Geddes Brook Vegetation Cover (2013-2017)
Figure 10b. Ninemile Creek Reach CD Vegetation Cover (2013-2017)
Figure 10c. Ninemile Creek Reaches AB and BC Vegetation Cover (2015-2019)
Figure lOd. SYW-10 Vegetation Cover (2014-2018)
Figure 11. Geddes Brook and Outfall 019 Large Tree Locations
Figure 12. Ninemile Creek Transect Locations
Figure 13. LCP Annual Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations
Figure 14. LCP Surface Water Dissolved Mercury Concentrations (2014-2020)
Figure 15. Average Dissolved Mercury by Area in Surface Water of LCP (2009-2020)
Figure 16a. Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of LCP West Flume (2009-2018)
Figure 16b. Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of LCP Wetland A (2009-2020)
Figure 16c. Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of LCP Wetland C (2014-2018)
Figure 17. LCP Average Total Mercury by Area in Sediment (2008-2020)
Figure 18a. LCP West Flume Total Mercury in Sediment (2008-2018)
Figure 18b. LCP Wetland C Total Mercury in Sediment (2014-2018)
Figure 18c. LCP Wetland A Total Mercury in Sediment (2008-2020)
Figure 19. LCP Sediment Total Mercury Concentrations (2014-2020)
Figure 20. 2018 Supplemental Sediment and Soil Sampling Locations
Figure 21. 2020 Supplemental Sediment and Soil Sampling Locations
Figure 22. 2021 Supplemental Soil Sampling Locations
Figure 23. Box and Whisker Plots of Mercury Concentrations in LCP Bridge St (West Flume) Prey Fish (2008-
2018)
Figure 24a. Scatter Plots of Mercury Concentrations in LCP Bridge St (West Flume) Prey Fish (2008-2018)
Figure 24b. LCP Prey Fish Mercury Concentrations (2015-2018)
Figure 25a. Upgradient Piezometer Shallow Horizontal Gradient
Figure 25b. Downgradient Piezometer Shallow Horizontal Gradient
Figure 25c. Upgradient Piezometer Intermediate Horizontal Gradient
Figure 25d. Downgradient Piezometer Intermediate Horizontal Gradient
Figure 25e. Upgradient Piezometer Vertical Gradient
Figure 25f. Downgradient Piezometer Vertical Gradient
Figure 25g. Upgradient Piezometer Deep Horizontal Gradient
Figure 25h. Downgradient Piezometer Deep Horizontal Gradient
Figure 26. Geddes Brook Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
Figure 27. Average Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of Geddes Brook (2013-2019)
Figure 28. Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of Geddes Brook (2013-2019)
Figure 29. Geddes Brook Surface Water and Sediment Mercury Concentrations (2013-2019)
Figure 30. Geddes Brook Sitewide Average Total Mercury in Sediment (2013-2017)
Figure 31. Geddes Brook Total Mercury in Sediment (2013-2017)
-------
Figure 32. Geddes Brook Biota Sample Locations
Figure 33. Box and Whisker Plots of Mercury Concentrations in Geddes Brook Prey Fish (2013-2017)
Figure 34. Scatter Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Geddes Brook Prey Fish (2013-2017)
Figure 35. Geddes Brook Biota Mercury Concentrations (2013-2017)
Figure 36a.Geddes Brook Mercury Concentrations in Biota Otherthan Fish (2013-2017)
Figure 36b.Geddes Brook Methylmercury Concentrations in Biota Otherthan Fish (2013-2017)
Figure 37. Ninemile Creek Surface Water Sampling Locations
Figure 38. Ninemile Creek Surface Water Dissolved Mercury Concentrations (2015-2017)
Figure 39a.Ninemile Creek Average Dissolved Mercury Concentrations in Surface Water (2015-2017)
Figure 39b.Ninemile Creek Dissolved Mercury Concentrations in Surface Water (2015-2017)
Figure 40. Ninemile Creek Soil/Sediment and Biota Sampling Locations
Figure 41. Ninemile Creek Average Mercury Concentration in Floodplain Soils and Channel Sediments (2016
and 2018)
Figure 42a.Ninemile Creek Mercury Concentration in Floodplain Soils and Channel Sediments (2016 and 2018)
Figure 42b.Ninemile Creek Soil/Sediment and Biota Total Mercury Concentrations (2016 and 2018)
Figure 43a.Ninemile Creek Mercury Concentrations in Biota Otherthan Fish (Baseline and 2016)
Figure 43b.Ninemile Creek Methylmercury Concentrations in Biota Otherthan Fish (Baseline and 2016)
Figure 44. Ninemile Creek Prey Fish and Sport Fish Sampling Locations
Figure 45. Ninemile Creek Prey Fish and Sport Fish Mercury Concentrations (2015-2017)
Figure 46. Box and Whisker Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Prey Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 47. Scatter Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Prey Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 48a. Box and Whisker Plot of PCB Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Prey Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 48b.Scatter Plot of PCB Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Prey Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 48c. Box and Whisker Plot of Dioxin/Furan TEQs in Ninemile Creek Prey Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 48d.Scatter Plot of Dioxin/Furan TEQs in Ninemile Creek Prey Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 49a. Box and Whisker Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish: Upstream vs.
Downstream (2015-2017)
Figure 49b. Box and Whisker Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish: Downstream Species
(2015-2017)
Figure 49c. Scatter Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 50a. Box and Whisker Plot of PCB Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 50b. Scatter Plot of PCB Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 50c. Box and Whisker Plot of Dioxin/Furan TEQs in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 50d. Scatter Plot of Dioxin/Furan TEQs in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish (2015-2017)
Figure 51. SYW-10 Biota and Sediment Sampling Locations
Figure 52. SYW-10 Biota and Sediment Total Mercury Concentrations (2015, 2016 and 2018)
Figure 53. SYW-10 Mercury Concentrations in Soil within Remediated Areas (2015-2018)
Figure 54. SYW-10 Sitewide Average Mercury Concentrations in Floodplain Soil (2015-2018)
Figure 55. SYW-10 Mercury Concentrations in Earthworms (2015-2018)
Figure 56. SYW-10 Average Mercury Concentrations in Small Mammals (2015-2018)
II
-------
RLE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL ~SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEG0RIES\2020-5-YR~REVIEW\452663-SLM OMM 2020.DWG
PLOT DATE: 8/2/2010 1:51 PM PLOTTED 8Y: RUSSO, JILL [US-US]
Liverpool
'"S,
\
Sun
F lower
Park
FIGURE 1
mm „¦« LCP/GEDDES 8ROOK/NINEMILE CREEK 2020
nOnflyllNBSM annual report and five-year
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SITE LOCATION MAP
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 « 315-451-8560
C|,.5ln"
0,\Q< «lmb^0rfc
Gilford Si
tytnour
SliOnnard S»
Hopkins Rd
GB/NMC SITE
Blueb&rry &
LATITUDE: N43" 04' 30"
LONGITUDE: W76' 13' 56'
SOURCE ARCVIEW GIS- WORLD
STREET MAP
Onondaga
Lake
Onondaga
Lake
LCP SITE
-------
Figure 2: LCP Site Plan
-------
Area Enlarged
SYW-10
SYW-10
Operable
Unit 1
LEGEND
Allied Bridge
Solvay Wastebeds
Select NYSDEC Wetlands
% State
Fairgrounds
SYW-18
—¦ Site Limits
Source: NYS Digital Orthoimagery
Survey (1994-1999)
Semet Residue
Ponds
lSYW-14
Amboy Dam|
Former Willis
Ave. Plant
Bridge Street
Site
Main Plant
Site
Mathews
Ave. Landfill
Willis Ave.
Ballfield Site
Figure 3
Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek and Vicinity
Source: Modified from Rl Figure 1-2 (TAMS/Earth Tech, 2003c)
Onondaga Lake
-------
SYW-10
Forested
Wetland
Ninemile
R6j|ch
Wastebeds 9&10
Geddes Brook
NYS Fair Grounds
FIGURE 4
M nimbi CrHili
Bfrituifi, lw» T'ertt
GBNMC Site Map
301 Plainfield Rd, Suite 350, Syracuse NY, (315) 451-9560
Onondaga Lake
NMC Spits
Geddes Brook and Ninemile
Creek Reaches CD and BC
comprise OU-1; Reach AB
comprises OU-2.
Ninemile Creek
Reach AB
-------
Geddes Brook
Remove Approximately 3 to 6 ft of
Sediment to Allow for Remediation
and Restoration. Install Habitat
Restoration Layer; Include
Isolation Cap, if Required.
Remove Soil/Sediment to Clay and
Restore with Approximately 1 ft of
Clean Soil.
nactive Utility Berm
Remove
Sediment from
Existing
Channel
Consistent with
Geddes Brook
IRM. Restore
as Wetland.
Break in
Grade
Relocate Channel (Approximate)
to Enhance Sinuosity, Connectivity
and Ability to Migrate.
Remove Soil/Sediment
from Existing Channel and
Floodplain. Restore with
Clean Soil to Existing Grade.
GEDDES BROOK IRM
Shoreline
Reach BC
Backfill Existing Channel.
Restore with Minimum 2 ft of
Clean Soil Over Channel
and Adjacent to Wastebeds
to Ease Slopes.
Remove 2 ft of Soil/Sediment
from Floodplain. Restore
with 2 ft of Clean Soil
Break In
Grade
• *'-"v
Remove Soil/ Sediment
Overlying Structural Stone.
Restore with 1 ft of Clean Soil.
/\ a
Hot Spot Removal Area1
' :
Remove Sediment as Required
for Habitat/Isolation Cap
Effectiveness and to Address
Water Depth and Flooding
Requirements. Install Isolation
Cap and Habitat Layer.
Break in
Grade
Break in
Grade
Relocate Channel
(Approximate)
Break in
Grade
Remove Approximately 3 to 6 ft of
Sediment to Allow for Remediation
and Restoration. Install Habitat
Restoration Layer; Include
Isolation Cap, if Required.
1 Additional hot-spot areas in the southern
channel around the large island would also
ilso
be removed. s.ee text.
Figure 5a.
Ninemile Creek OU1 Alternative 3 (Selected Remedy) Remedial Approach and Geddes Brook IRM
Source: Modified from Supplemental FS (Parsons, 2008a)
-------
Remove 2 ft. of Soil/Sediment in
a Portion of the Forested Wetland
Replace With 2 ft. Clean Soil.
Break in Grade
Transect 19+00
Break in Grade
OU2 Site areas
Floodplain Adjacent to I-690
Floodplain Adjacent to Wastebeds 1-8
SYW-10 Delineated Wetland and
Adjacent to I-690
SYW-10- Upland
SYW-10 Spit Areas
Upland Adjacent to Eastern Spit
Stream Channel
370' Contour
NYSDEC Reach Boundaries
y///> Delineated Wetland (Based
On Both Federaland NY State
M e th o d o lo g ie s)
Remove 3 ft Soil/Sediment
Replace With Clean Soil.
Replace with Clean Soil. ;
Upland - Remove 2 ft Soil/Sediment.
Replace With 2 ft Clean Soil.
Remove 3 -4 ft Soil/Sediment.
Replace With 2 -3 ft Clean Soil
' 1 ^ V
Remove Sediment Overlying Marl Layer
and a Portion of Marl Layer, As Necessary
to Allow for the Installation of a Habitat
Layer (2 ft) and Sand Base Layer (0.5 ft),
and to Meet Water Depth and Flooding
Requirements.
Remove 2 ft Son/Sediment.
Replace With 2 ft Clean Soil
rements! " "
"" . v, ¦
• •- ' . ¦¦ ¦ 4,' i . " r • - •>
,\ v '•.¦I J:' . "ill
*•, • ' * i
Remove 2 ft
I Soil/Sediment.
Replace With 2 ft Clean Soil,
v
Remove Soil/Sediment
Overlying Structural Stone.
Replace With 1 ft Clean Soil.
Break in Grade
Remove Approximately 2.5 ft <
to Allow for the Installation of
Remove Approximately 2.5 ft of Sediment
to Allow for the Installation of a Habitat
Layer (2 ft) and Sand Base Layer (0.5 ft),
and to Meet Water Depth and Flooding
Requirements.
Note: Removal depths noted above are preliminary and would be finalized during remedial design.
Forested ¦fci
Floodplain
Figure 5b
source: Modified from ou2 Supplementalfs (Parsons, 2009) Ninemile Creek OU2 Alternative 3 (Selected Remedy) Remedial Approach
-------
X
\\
A
Onondaga
^^^MO-SEIHK
SYW10-EW-04
@-SED-05
.
StW10-EW-05
/
/
I
f
y ' ~ /^SWto-SBD-08
/(jyCi7/\/\
V y / SYW10-EW-08 \
SYWIO-EW-Oo
/
/
„ X / Sm0-S£D-07
/ < («n
s*/"TSho-SED-H \
\ NN//
r
\
/»
\
stmno-SEi^^^
\
/
SYW10-EW-0#
®)-SED-10
/
/
/
smio-ew-10
/
/
\
\
N
/SY^\0-SED-02
0
/
SYW10-CW-C2
/
\
\
(A
s
\
\
\
f sf^U)-SED-01
(£7 /
v STW10-EW-01 /
/
/¦
/
/
/
NOTES:
1. THE AREA IS PARTITIONED INTO REMEDIATED (STATION 1) AND
UNREMEDIED (STATION 2).
"S
/
©
SYW-10
S <¦ y
sf
ONONDAGA LAKE
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
GEDDES BROOK
OUTFALL 019
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
L£££Mi
~
o
RESTORATION AREA
EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
STREAM BED
SMALL MAMMAL REMEDIATED AREA, STATION 1
SMALL MAMMAL UNREMEDIED AREA, STATION 2
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
DESIGNATED EARTHWORM SAMPLING AREA STATION
EARTHWORM SAMPLES
80 40
80
160
SCALE: 1 "=80'
FIGURE 6
HoMyirol
LCP OU—1/6EDDES BROOK/MNEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SYW-10 REMEDIAL APPROACH AREA
PARSONS
301 PLAINRELD ROW). SUTC 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 * 315-451-9560
FILE NAME: r:\HONFYWOL -S»\4326KS GB-NlvC 202' PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATE0OR!ES\2C2G-5-YR'-RFV1F^i528S3-SYW-1O-?O18-BIOtA SAMPIIKG LOCATIONS.DWG
F'-OT DATE: 5/9/2022 1 34 F'V PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL [US-US]
-------
Figure 7 - Aerial View of ESD Area (Utility Bridge to Sewer Lines)
Two 18"
Sewer Lines
Bridge abutment
in channel
Restricted Access to Bank
Low Bridge Clearance
(~7 ft)
USGS Equipment,
Walkway, Building, &
Assoc. Power Lines
Overhead Power
Lines
Restricted Access to Bank
-------
LEGEND:
-0- PUMPING WELL LOCATIONS
PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
120 60 0 120 240
SCALE: 1"=120'
FIGURE 8
I.CP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE—YEAR
COMPREHEND BFPORT
LCP PIEZOMETER/MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PLAINRELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NT 13212 « 315-451-9560
FILE NAME: P:\H0NEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVMMO TECHNICAL CATEG0R|!S\2020-5-YR-REVIl*V452663-LCP-0MM 2020.DWG
PLOT DATE; 10/27/2021 12:30 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
-------
UTILITY BERM
GEDDES BROOK CHANNEL
GB4
GB3
563.06
GEDDES BROOK
OUTFALL 019
3SS.32
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
STREAM BED
VEGETATED TRAFF!CABLE LANE
RIPARIAN LOCATIONS
WETLAND LOCATIONS
STAFF GAUGES
NOTES:
LOCATION DESIGNATIONS ARE BASED ON FINAL DESIGN
(PARSONS, 2011),
SCALE: v=200*
FIGURE 9a
¦ a " ICF 0U-1/GED0ES BROOK/NINEMIE CRTO"
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AMD HVE-YEAR
comprehbbme. 3BSB
GEDDES BROOK AND OUTFALL 019
QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION MONITORING
PLOT LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 Pi AlHFin n pn.n sulTF 350, SYRACUSE Hi 13212 » 315-481-9500
SYW-10
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
GEDDES BROOK
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
-ILE NAVE: P-\HONEvA'ELL -SV.R\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECH^CAL CATE3ORIES\202O -5 -YR -REVIEV,'\452E63 -GB VEGPiCk-OMM 202C.DWG
JLOI CAIL: 11/2/2021 3 48 PM PLOIILL) UY- RdSSO, JILL'
-------
©SYW-10
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
SITE KEY PLAN
OUTFALL 019 (NOT TO SCALE)
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
NOTES:
1. LOCATION DESIGNATIONS ARE BASED ON FINAL DESIGN
(PARSONS, 2011).
FIGURE 9b
M ¦ LCP OU—1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND RVE-YEW:
COMPREH FMSfl/E REPORT
NINEMILE CREEK REACH CD
QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION MONITORING
PLOT LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PLAIMREUD ROM), SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 « 315-451-9560
GEDDES BROOK
SCALE: 1 "=1 50'
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
STREAM BED
RIPARIAN MONITORING LOCATIONS
WETLAND MONITORING LOCATIONS
STAFF GAUGE
Wis NAME: P;\HONPft}FI I -EYR\452fi63 GFHNMC 2021 ««\10 TFCHNKVU CATF.GQRIFS\2n?a-5-YR-RFVIFW\'t5?663-\|HC-vEOPlOT OMM 2020,D',VG
PLOT DATE: 11/2/2021 3:51 PM PLOTTED BY RUSSO, JILL
-------
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYW-10
NiNEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
GEDDES BROOK
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
OUTFALL 019
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
Fit®- NAME: =:\bONEYWEU. -SYR\452663 GB NMC 2021 PVUflJO "CHNICAL CATEGORIES\2020 5-YR REVIE«\452663 NMC-VEGPLOT OMM 2G20.DWG
PLOT DATL: 11/2/2021 iSff f%t FKJTTEX BY: RUSSO, -JlH
FIGURE 9c
¦ ¦ LCP OU—1/GEDDES BROOK/N1NEMILE CREEK
IRJWWwil 2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
NINEMILE CREEK REACH BC
QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION MONITORING
PLOT LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 plainfield road, surre 350, Syracuse, ny 13212 « 315-451-9560
NOTES:
1. LOCATION DESIGNATIONS ARE BASED ON FINAL DESIGN
(PARSONS, 2011).
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
STREAM BED
RIPARIAN MONITORING LOCATIONS
WETLAND MONITORING LOCATIONS
-------
FILE NAME P\B0iC«6LL -S*R\45BD6*-6B-NMC OMM 20!7-201 S\10" TECHNICAL 0«KORIES\?016-ANNI W.\450SM-SfW-10-«Wr OHf IBIf.DWS:
fter DATE 11/2/2041 J-:58 Hi FWTTffll » ftLSSQ, jJB|
©
SYW-10
ONONDAGA LAKE
NINEMILE CHEEK
REACH AS
OUTFALL 019
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
GEDDES BROOK
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
STREAM BED
RIPARIAN MONITORING LOCATIONS
WETLAND MONITORING LOCATIONS
200 100 0 200 400
SCALE: 1 "=200'
FIGURE 9d
¦ a ¦ LOP OU-1/GEDDES SROOK/NMEMt£ C??EEK
NOnCErWlM 2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-TOR
CTWPRfiHBm REPORT
SYW-10 AND NINEMILE CREEK REACH AB
QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION MONITORING
PLOT LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 360, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 » 315-461-9560
-------
FIGURE 10a
Honeywei
GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK/LCP OU-1 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Maximum Invasive Species Cover Goal
Geddes Brook Vegetation Cover (2013-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
¦Wetland Areas
¦ Upland Areas
¦ Invasives
Percent Cover Goal
Maximum Invasive Species Cover Goal
FIGURE 10b
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Reach CD Vegetation Cover
(2013-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
¦Wetland Areas
¦ Upland Areas
¦ Invasives
Total Vegetation Target (85%)
Maxiumum Invasive Species Cover Goal (10%)
FIGURE 10c
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Reaches AB and BC Vegetation
Cover (2015-2019)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
¦Wetland Areas
¦ Invasives
Percent Cover Goal (85%)
Maxiumum Invasive Species Cover Goal (10%)
FIGURE lOd
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SYW-10 Vegetation Cover (2014-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
•FILE NAME. P\HONBfWELL -3TR\4S0&S4-G3-NMC OMM »t7-20t9\1O TECHNIUtt. ¦ \
MT DOT: 7,2\M2a \U1 PM fttTTEDsBft RUSS®,, JUL
©SYW-10
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
STREAM BED
VEGETATED TRAFFICABLE LANE
TREE LOCATIONS
• TREE MONITORED IN 2018 AND 2019
NOTES:
1, TREE NUMBERS WHICH INCLUDE "b", *c" OR "d" DENOTE PREVIOUSLY
REPLACED TREES.
FIGURE 11
Homywel 2019 ANNUAL OM&M REPORT
GEDDES BROOK AND OUTFALL 019
LARGE TREE LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROMJ, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 » 315-451-9560
GEDDES BROOK
y
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
OUTFALL 019
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
-------
NINEMILE CREEK-
REACH AB
NOTES:
1.
MONITORING OF BED ELEVATION WAS COMPLETED FROM 2014
TO 2018 AT THE FOLLOWING STATIONS.
YEAR
STATIONS SURVEYED
2014
10, 30, 50, 61, 67
2015
10, 30, 50, 61, 67
2016
8, 10, 15. 30, 43, 50. 54, 61, 64. 67
2017
15, 30, 43, 50, 54, 61, 64, 67
2018
8. 10, 15, 30. 43, 50, 54. 61, 64, 67
30+00?
AS STATED IN THE M&M PLAN, FOLLOWING THE NEXT
50-YEAR OR GREATER FLOW EVENT (GREATER THAN 3,000
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (CFS)) IN NINEMILE CREEK, ALL
10 PREVIOUSLY MONITORED STATIONS WILL BE RE-SURVEYED
TO VERIFY NO SIGNIFICANT BED-LOSS HAS OCCURRED.
SHOULD A 100-YEAR OR GREATER FLOW EVENT (GREATER
THAN 3,400 CFS) OCCUR FIRST, NO ADDITIONAL SURVEYS
WILL BE NECESSARY IF THE POST 100-YEAR SURVEY
RESULTS ARE WITHIN TOLERANCE STATED IN THE M&M PLAN.
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC-
143+00]
©
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
STREAM BED
TRANSECT LOCATIONS WITH THE HIGHEST
SHEAR STRESS
ADDITIONAL TRANSECT LOCATIONS
r/\,
300 150
300
600
SCALE: 1 "=300'
V-
FIGURE 12
Honeywel
LCP OU—1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHEMSft/E REPORT
NINEMILE CREEK TRANSECT
LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PLAINF1ELD ROAD, SUITE 350. SYRACUSE. NY 13212 * 315-451-9560
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\448443 GB-NMC 0MM\10.0 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\10.2 CAD\2016 FIGURES\NMC\448443-NMC-SW & SED TRANSECT-2016.DWG
PLOT DATE: 3/29/2022 8:59 AM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL [US-US]
-------
WEST FLUME
EXCAVATION
AREA -7.,-'-
WETLAND C
•\'>srV"J
WETLAND A
EXCAVATION AREA
WETLAND B
EXCAVATION AREA
SOIL/SEDIMENT
CONTAINMENT
AREA
FILE NAME: P:'.HONEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVMMO TECHNICAL CATEGORIES' 2020-5-YR-RB/irv, ¦ 452663-LCP-SWSS OMM 2020.DW6
PLOT DATE; 10/29/2021 12:08 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
LEGEND
RESTORATION AREA LIMIT
EXISTING CONTOURS
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
NOTE: LCP1 —SED—110 COLLECTED
IN 2019 AND 2020.
FIGURE 13
Honeywefl
LCP OU
2020
—1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
I ANNUAL REPORT AND RVE-YBW
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
LCP ANNUAL SURFACE
WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 * 315-451-9560
-------
Dissolved Mercury{ng/L)
RAILROAD
WETLAND C
WEST FLUME
WETLAND A
NOTE:
FIELD DUPLICATES SHOWN
IN PARENTHESIS.
ILE NAME: P:\H0NEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\2020-5-YR-REVIEW\452663-LCP-2014-2020-TAGS.DWG
PLOT DATE: 10/29/2021 4:24 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
EXISTING CONTOURS
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
LCP1-SW-63
Year I Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Dissolved Mercury {ng/L)
Dissolved Mercury {ng/L)
0.78 (0.64)
3.55(3.78)
0.77(0.87)
1.1H 1.27}
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
LCP1
LEGEND
FIGURE 14
u H LCP OU-1/GEDDES BR00K/MNEMIL£ GREEK
H@n^lP0a mm annum, m«m Ma fm-year
^ miiDDCuniMr bnAar
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
LCP SURFACE WATER DISSOLVED
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
(2014-2020)
PARSONS
¦im piftiNFinn Rmn ama fmrw ny, 1,171?, phqhf- auaiaagfiefl
SCALE: 1 "=300'
Dissolved Mercury (ng/t)
SOIL/SEDIMENT
CONTAINMENT
AREA
7
-SW-63
LCP1-SW-61
Dissolved Mercury {ng/L)
-WETLAND B
Dissolved Mercury {ng/L)
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
R (3.6 J)
-------
25
20
IWetland C
Notes:
(a) Data collection at Wetland C began in 2014
(b) Data displayed only from annual monitoring locations
(c) West Flume and Wetland C annual monitoring concluded in 2018
(d) Baseline averages for West Flume, Wetland A, and Wetland C were
1,285 ng/L, 1,998 ng/L, and 1,998 ng/L (NYSDEC & TAMS, 1998)
(e) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/L for the protection of wildlife
i
-
o
(N
o o
(N (N
cn o
I CM
o o
(N (N
« E
.E o
ll_ O
FIGURE 15
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Average Dissolved Mercury by Area in
Surface Water of LCP (2009-2020)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
3.5
CUD
^2.5
c
o
'+-<
CD
l_
4->
3 15
o ¦L~J
0.5
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/L for the protection of wildlife
2009
Sample Locations
—LCPl-SW-60
—LCPl-SW-61
—X- LCP1-SW-62
—A- LCP1-SW-63
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Notes:
a) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
FIGURE 16a
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of LCP
West Flume (2009-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
25
20
CbO
c
§15
£
CD
U
c
o
u
>•
10
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/Lfor the protection of wildlife
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Sample Locations
—LCPl-SW-67
—LCP1-SW-68
—X—LCP1-SED-110
Notes:
a) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
b) LCP1-SED-110 only collected in 2019 and 2020
FIGURE 16 h
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of LCP
Wetland A (2009-2020)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
3.5
£
O
£
CD
U
£
O
u
s-
1.5
"O
CD
JD
a #\
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/L for the protection of wildlife
/ \
/ \
// \
0.5
2014
Sample Locations
—LCPl-SW-69
—LCP1-SW-70
—*¦ LCP1-SW-71
2015
2016
2017
2018
Notes:
(a) Data collection at Wetland C began in 2014
(b) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
FIGURE 16c
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of LCP
Wetland C (2014-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
3.00
2.50
w> 2.00
c
o
c 1.50
3 i.oo
0.50
o.oo
I
00
o
o
(N
I
I West Flume
Wetland A
(N
i
o
o
(N
(N
o
5
4—1 CD
O)
O O
CD
% ^
5 s
CT3 0
E
lli cr
O CD
¦4—' oa
-------
2012
c 1.0
(u
u
£
O
u
>. 0.8
2008 2009 2010 2011
Sample Locations
—LCPl-SW-60
—LCPl-SW-61
—X—LCP1-SW-62
—A— LCP1-SW-63
Notes:
(a) Data displayed only from annual monitoring locations
(b) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
FIGURE 18a
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
LCP West Flume Total Mercury in Sediment
(2008-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.45
0.40
0.35
ao
< 0.30
tLO
£
c
o
¦£3 0.25
ro
i_
4->
c
u
o 0.20
u
s-
k_
3
a! 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
"O
CD
CD
CL
E
\
\
/X \
¦
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Sample Locations
^^LCPl-SW-69
^^LCPl-SW-70
—K- LCP1-SW-71
Notes:
(a) Data collection at Wetland C began in 2014
(b) Data displayed only from annual monitoring locations
(c) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
FIGURE 18 h
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
LCP Wetland C Total Mercury in Sediment
(2014-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
6.00
5.00
4.00
euo
£_
s-
u
O
E
O
E
O
E
# \
o
O # \
~CD / \
d # \
i_L # \
Q
• 'J
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Sample Locations
^^LCPl-SW-67
^^LCPl-SW-68
—X- LCP1-SED-110
Notes:
(a) Data displayed only from annual monitoring locations
(b) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
(c) LCP1-SED-110 only collected in 2019 and 2020
FIGURE IBr
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
LCP Wetland A Total Mercury in Sediment
(2008-2020)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
WETLAND C
WETLAND B
SOIL/SEDIMENT
CONTAINMENT
AREA
NOTE:
FIELD DUPLICATES SHOWN
IN PARENTHESIS.
ILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\2020—5-YR—REVirW\452663—LCP—2014—2020-TAGS.DWG
PLOT DATE: 10/29/2021 4:27 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOURS
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 19
HomyweM
lgp qu-i/siddbs mow/m&m creek
2020 ANNUAL KPOKT AND RV6-YEAR
mPQWT
LCP SEDIMENT
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
(2014=2020)
PARSONS
0.257 (0.309)
0.178J (0.164J)
0.340 (0.234)
0.572 J (0.266J)
RAILROAD -
LCP1-SW-70
Year
Interval
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2014
0-0.5'
0.140
2015
0-0.5'
0.134 J
2016
0-0.5'
0.203
2017
0'-0.5'
0.132 J
2018
0-0.5'
0.0556J
LCP1SW-S9
Year
Interval
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2014
0-0.5'
0.117
2015
0-0.5'
0.0737 J
2016
0-0.5'
0.0375 J
2017
0-0.5'
0.0307 J
2018
0'-0.5'
0.0526J
LCP1-SW-62
Year
Interval
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2014
0'-0.5'
0.424 J
2015
0-0.5'
0.313 J
2016
0'-0.5'
0.205
2017
0-0.5'
0.559 J
2018
0'-0.5'
0.186J
LCP1-SW-63
Year
Interval
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2014
0-0.5'
0.116
2015
0-0.5'
0.0524 J
2016
0'-0.5'
0.0795 J
2017
0'-0.5'
0.0515 J
2018
0'-0.5'
0.100 J
LCP1-SW-60
Year
Interval
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2014
0'-0.5'
0.968 J
2015
0-0.5'
0.693 J
2016
0'-0.5'
0.472
2017
0'-0.5'
0.514 J
2018
0'-0.5'
0.0778 UJ
WEST FLUME
LCP1-SW-62
LCP1-SW-63
SCALE: 1 "=300
0^051
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
0.21(0.18)
3016
Interval
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
0'-0.5'
0 0.5
0-0.5'
Q'-0.5'
O'-0.5'
-------
LEGEND
WETLAND A
— WEST DiTCH CENTERLINE
— EXISTING CONTOURS
0
2018 SEDIMENT AND SOIL
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
OMM SAMPLE LOCATION
SEDIMENT AND SOIL RESAMPLE
LOCATIONS (LOCATIONS SAMPLED
201 1)
SEDIMENT AND SOIL RESAMPL E
LOCATION (LOCATION SAMPLED
2011) AND NEW SURFACE
WATER LOCATION,
ADDITIONAL REMOVAL AREAS (2011)
WEST DITCH ADDITIONAL
REMOVAL AREAS (2011)
100 50 0 100
SCALE: f-100'
200
FIGURE 20
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROQK/NINEMILE CREEK
ttuiPVWPlI 2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
^ COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
2018 SUPPLEMENTAL SEDIMENT AND
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
301 PLJJNFEU) ROW, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13212, PHONE: 315-451-9560
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -5YR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEG0RIES\2020-5-YR-REVIEW\452663-LCP-0MMSUPP-SED-2020.DWG
PLOT DATE: 11/8/2021 11:53 AM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
-------
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\2C20-5-YR-REVIEW\4-52663-2C20-WET-A.DVilG
PLOT DATE: 3/25/2022 4:11 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, Jill [US-US]
-------
WETLAND A
50
LEGEND
WETLAND A
WEST DITCH CENTERLINE
EXISTING' CONTOURS
ADDITIONAL REMOVAL AREAS (2D11)
WEST DTCH ADDITIONAL
REMOVAL AREAS (201 1)
2021 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
25
SCALE;
50
= 50'
loo
FIGURE 22
__ .. LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
HOWiVWell 2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
* COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
2021 SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13212, PHONE: 315-451-9560
FILL NAME: F:\HONEYWELL -SYR\450564-GB-NMC OMM 2017-2018\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\2020-ANNUAL 0MM\450564-LCP-SK001 .DWG
PLOT DATE: 11/8/2021 12:08 PM PLOnED BY: RUSSO, JILL
-------
06'
U)
-------
g»06
(D
£
-I—'
-------
WETLAND C
WETLAND A
Reach B
Reach C
Species
Mercury (nig/kg)
Species
Mercury (mg/kg)
Fathead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
0.0187 J
Fathead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
0.0409 J
0.05 56 J
WETLAND B
0.0938 U
SOIL/SEDIMENT
CONTAINMENT
AREA
0.0462 J
0.0697 J
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\2020-5-YR-REVIEW\452663-LCP-20H-2020-TAGS.DWG
PLOT DATE: 10/29/2021 4:29 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
Fathead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Creek Chub
Fathe ad Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Lepomis spp
Lepomis spp
Bluntnose Minnow
Creek Chub
Lepomis spp.
Creek Chub
Lepomis spp
Lepomis spp
Creek Chub
LEGEND
NOTE:
PREY FISH WERE SAMPLED FROM AREAS IN THE
DESIGNATED STATIONS WHERE ACCESS AND
FLOW CONDITIONS ALLOWED.
EXISTING CONTOURS
PREYFISH STATION REACH A
PREY FISH STATION REACH B
PREYFISH STATION REACH C
FIGURE 24b
J LCP OU—1/SEDOE5 BROOK/NMEliLE CREEK
2C2B Annual report and five-year
LCP PREY FISH MERCURY
CONCENTRATIONS
(2015-2018)
PARSONS
301 RLAINF1ELD ROAD, SUfTE 350, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13212, PHONE: 315-451-9560
F athe ad Minnow
Lepomis spp,
Lepomis spp.
Reach A
RAILROAD
WEST FLUME
Year
Species
Mercury (mg/kg)
Creek Chub
Creek Chub
Fathead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Creek Chub
Bluntnose Minnow
Brook Stickleback
Creek Chub
Creek Chub
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Creek Chub
-------
Upgradient Piezometer Horizontal Gradient: PZ-5, PZ-6, PZ-7
Shallow Outside versus Shallow Inside Head Difference (SB vs SA)
NOTE:
• Head differentials greater than zero indicate an inward horizontal gradient
• Dotted line indicates that the water elevation measured in the interior piezometer was
below the bottom of the screened interval and therefore is representative of the water
level within the piezometer sump below the screened interval, not the water level in the
surrounding area. Therefore, the head difference is equal to or greater than what is
shown by the dotted line.
FIGURE 25a
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Upgradient Piezometer
Shallow Horizontal Gradient
PARSONS
;a8§"$u\iNFiELD roan Suite ?.fo. : 'a 13212 phone (?.ifi 4Fi-9FbO
Landfill Cover Cap
Completion - October 2015
5,00
b
4,00
PZ-5
PZ-6
PZ-7
Date
Original Mechanical Pumps
replaced for Submersible
Pumps with higher pumping
rates (Oct-Nov 2017)
Piezometer Redevelopment
(Sept-Oct) 2019
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 2\Appendix A Figures 9-22
-------
Downgradient Piezometer Horizontal Gradient: PZ-1, PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4
Shallow Outside versus Shallow Inside Head Difference (SB vs SA)
NOTE:
• Head differentials greater than zero indicate an inward horizontal gradient
• Dotted line indicates that the water elevation measured in the interior piezometer was
below the bottom of the screened interval and therefore is representative of the water
level within the piezometer sump below the screened interval, not the water level in the
surrounding area. Therefore, the head difference is equal to or greater than what is
shown by the dotted line.
FIGURE 25b
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Downgradient Piezometer
Shallow Horizontal Gradient
r PARSONS
Landfill Cover Cap
Completion - October 2015
3,00
Q
1,00
PZ-1
PZ-2
PZ-3
PZ-4
Date
Original Mechanical Pumps
replaced for Submersible
Pumps with higher pumping
rates (Oct-Nov 2017)
Piezometer Redevelopment
(Sept-Oct) 2019
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 2\Appendix A Figures 9-22
-------
(Sept-Oct) 2019
NOTE:
• Head differentials greater than zero indicate an inward horizontal gradient
FIGURE 25c
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Upgradient Piezometer
Intermediate Horizontal Gradient
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
Upgradient Piezometer Horizontal Gradient: PZ-5, PZ-6, PZ-7
Intermediate Outside versus Intermediate Inside Head Difference (lB vs lA)
Completion - October 2015
Landfill Cover Cap
replaced for Submersible
Pumps with higher pumping
rates (Oct-Nov 2017)
Original Mechanical Pumps
PZ-5
PZ-6
PZ-7
Piezometer Redevelopment
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 2\Appendix A Figures 9-22
-------
NOTE:
• Head differentials greater than zero indicate an inward horizontal gradient
• Dotted line indicates that the water elevation measured in the interior piezometer was
below the bottom of the screened interval and therefore is representative of the water
level within the piezometer sump below the screened interval, not the water level in the
surrounding area. Therefore, the head difference is equal to or greater than what is
shown by the dotted line.
FIGURE 25d
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Downgradient Piezometer
Intermediate Horizontal Gradient
: PARSONS
Downgradient Piezometer Horizontal Gradient: PZ-1, PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4
Intermediate Outside versus Intermediate Inside Head Difference (lB vs lA)
PZ-l
PZ-2
PZ-3
PZ-4
Landfill Cover Cap
Completion - October 2015
Original Mechanical Pumps
replaced for Submersible
Pumps with higher pumping
rates (Oct-Nov 2017)
(Sept-Oct) 2019
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 2\Appendix A Figures 9-22
-------
Upgradient Piezometer Vertical Gradient: PZ-5, PZ-6, PZ-7
Deep Inside versus Intermediate Inside Head Difference (DA vs lA)
Date
NOTE:
• Head differentials greater than zero indicate an inward horizontal gradient
• Dotted line indicates that the water elevation measured in the interior piezometer was
below the bottom of the screened interval and therefore is representative of the water
level within the piezometer sump below the screened interval, not the water level in the
surrounding area. Therefore, the head difference is equal to or greater than what is
shown by the dotted line.
_ FIGURE 25e
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Upgradient Piezometer
Vertical Gradient
PARSONS
301 -PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
P:\Horieywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 2\Appendix A Figures 9-22
-------
NOTE:
• Head differentials greater than zero indicate an inward horizontal gradient
• Dotted line indicates that the water elevation measured in the interior piezometer was
below the bottom of the screened interval and therefore is representative of the water
level within the piezometer sump below the screened interval, not the water level in the
surrounding area. Therefore, the head difference is equal to or greater than what is
shown by the dotted line.
FIGURE 25f
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Downgradient Piezometer
Vertical Gradient
PARSONS
NY 13212 F'H 8-" UV. C,' Hi- '1
Date
PZ-3
PZ-4
Downgradient Piezometer Vertical Gradient: PZ-1, PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4
Deep Inside versus Intermediate Inside Head Difference (DA vs lA)
PZ-1
PZ-2
Landfill Cover Cap
Completion - October 2015
Original Mechanical Pumps
replaced for Submersible
Pumps with higher pumping
rates (Oct-Nov 2017)
Piezometer Redevelopment
(Sept-Oct) 2019
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 2\Appendix A Figures 9-22
-------
Upgradient Piezometer Horizontal Gradient: PZ-5, PZ-6, PZ-7
Deep Outside versus Deep Inside Head Difference (lB vs lA)
12.00
10.00
a.oo
6.00
g 4.00
ji]
S 2,00
T5
0.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
Piezometer Redevelopment
(Sept-Oct) 2019
i
—/
/y,
7
. /
Original Mechanical Pumps
replaced for Submersible
Landfill Cover Cap
Completion - October 2015
Pumps with higher pumping
rates (Oct-Nov 2017)
¦PZ-5
¦PZ-6
PZ-7
J3
O
Q
U
o
-Q
u
O
(U
jl)
3
u
O
-Q
B
u
o
-------
NOTE:
• Head differentials greater than zero indicate an inward horizontal gradient
FIGURE 25h
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Downgradient Piezometer
Deep Horizontal Gradient
: PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
- PZ-1
PZ-2
PZ-3
Downgradient Piezometer Horizontal Gradient: PZ-1, PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4
Deep Outside versus Deep Inside Head Difference (lB vs lA)
Landfill Cover Cap
Completion - October 2015
Original Mechanical Pumps
replaced for Submersible
Pumps with higher pumping
rates (Oct-Nov 2017)
Date
-1.00
Piezometer Redevelopment
(Sept-Oct) 2019
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 2\Appendix A Figures 9-22
-------
©
^3
Afo,
CrQ?k
/
¦J
£S=^KT^, 1>-"^
\
\
MSI
.'-- GB-SED-02WWL ;.-• JipgB
..-G3-SW-02-ftWi .? f ¦:' \ GB-Seb^OSPW ^
y
\
\
\
\
iSBh.$Wv.05PVKli
«DK|^V^|^g
Ml
\§^ vJSfc
:'\\% .,^-TYc
\
X
GB-SED-01WP
t
1
\
*0
v
!
9
/
\ i
\
>
/
©
SYW-10
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
\
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
GEDDES BROOK
r—" 'f t
OUTFALL 019
V«
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
200 100 0
200
400
7
SCALE: 1 "=200'
FIGURE 26
Hone^wei
UCP QU—1/GEDDEB BROOK/MINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FWE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
GEDDES BROOK SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PARSONS
m^uiaflEua-BiaD-siJiiE^iSQ-aiBAaiSE. ta um * M^aai^asso
FIIF NAVF: P:\HDNFYW I -SYR\15/6fi.l Qfl-NMC PVH\i3 TFCHNICAI CATFG03IF$\?C?0-5-YR-RFV!EW-57S5.1S-S3-S-[) AND 3W-OMM-2a?O.OVfS
PLOT DATE: 10/26/2021 3:43 PM PLOTTED BY: RJSSO. JILL
-------
3.0
2.5
2.0
ao
£
£
O
£
CD
U
£
O
u
s-
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/Lforthe protection of wildlife
ROD goal: 0.7 ng/Lforthe protection of human health based on fish consumption
Baseline
(2010-2011)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
I Average
Average (Without GB-SW-05PW)
Notes:
(a) Each column represents the sitewide average
(b) No data collected in 2018 as approved by NYSDEC
(c) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
(d) The human health fish consumption goal for dissolved mercury
concentrations (0.7 ng/L) does not apply to GB-SW-05PW, as it is located
in the perched wetland and only intermittently contains standing water.
Therefore, averages for dissolved mercury are displayed both with and
without GB-SW-05PW.
FIGURE 27
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Average Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of
Geddes Brook (2013-2019)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/Lforthe protection of wildlife
2.5
ao
£
£
O
£ 1.5
u
£
O
u
s-
0.5
0
2013
Sample Locations
—GB-SW-01WP
—GB-SW-04GB
2014
GB-SW-02WWL
GB-SW-05PW
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
GB-SW-03CGW
GB-SW-06OF
Notes:
(a) No data collected in 2018 as approved by NYSDEC
(b) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
(c) The human health fish consumption goal for dissolved mercury
concentrations (0.7 ng/L) does not apply to GB-SW-05PW, as it is
located in the perched wetland and only intermittently contains
standing water.
FIGURE
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Dissolved Mercury in Surface Water of Geddes
Brook (2013-2019)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
©
GB-SW-02WWL
GB-SED-02WWL
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Year
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
0.38 J
2013
0.065 J
2014
0.86 J
2014
0.034 J
2015
0.28 J
2015
0.095 J
2016
0.50 U
2016
0.030 J
2017
0.34J
2017
0.051 J
2019
0.080 U
—-
GB-SW-03CGW
GB-SED-03CGW
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Year
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
0.17 J
2013
0.028 J
2014
0.68 J
2014
0.025 J
2015
0.41 J
2015
0.040 J
2016
0.50 U
2016
0.014 J
2017
1.14
2017
0.021 J
2019
0.50 U
At!n\
}*rnite
C'oe*
GB-SW-01WP
GB-SED-01WP
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Year
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
0.21 J (0.28 J)
2013
0.0399J (0.0414J)
2014
0.72 J
2014
0.0550
2015
0.19 J
2015
0,0548 J
2016
0.50 U
2016
0.0216 J
2017
0.14 J
2017
0.0348 J
2019
1.0 U
GB-SW-04GB
GB-SED-04GB
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L]
Year
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
0.17 J
2013
0.028 J
2014
2.00
2014
0.030 J
2015
0.40 J
2015
0.047 J
2016
0.50 U
2016
0.025 J
2017
0.22 J
2017
0.040 J
2019
0.50 U
/
GB-SW-05PW
GB-SED-Q5PW
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Year
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
0.15 J
2013
0.034 J
2014
0.66 J
2014
0.095
2015
0.77
2015
0.066 J
2016
0.44 J
2016
0.030 J
2017
1.53
2017
0.030 J
2019
0.74
©
SYW-10
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
GEDDES BROOK
OUTFALL 019
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
'n^i;c- Q&Of t-
GB-SW-060F
GB-SED-06OF
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Year
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
0.38 J
2013
0.067 J
2014
1.10J (0.60J)
2014
0.081 (0.060)
2015
0.20 J (0.17J)
2015
0.072 J {0.075 J)
2016
0.50 U (0.50 U)
2016
0.041 J (0.049 J)
2017
0.26 J (0.28 J)
2017
0.057 J (0.058 J)
2019
0.51 J (0.45 J)
LEGEND:
— — RESTORATION AREA
•f SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
200 100
200
400
SCALE: 1 "=200'
7
FIGURE 29
>flOfl€^lV0fl
LCP 0U-1/GFDDES ESROQK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
GEDDES BROOK SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
(2013-2019)
PARSONS
301 PLANFiaB ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 * 315-481-9560
ffjF NA,V-r- P;\HiMFY?,'F I -BYiy5?S83 GB-NMC /S?' pAtl J TFCHNIfiAl -VlP-FVlF#'' •" 'MrfJ-'STT ANC l»>
P._OT DATE; 11/3/2321 2;12 PVI lOTTED BY: RUSSO, J _L
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
bo 0.7
Ctf)
£
c
o
0.6
c 0.5
-------
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
euo
£_
¦B 0.5
(D
&_
+J
C
•
-------
©
2 £
\o Q
SCM
£
%wfo
iri3D<
6B-01CH
GB-01CH
V'V-^VV, '; W'l
V ^•eSjW ^gSPy lA1 j)/M J
w?a
V
^ *vy >v • .- .* S .»* *; \V\ . _
/
GB-02WP
GB-030F
i
¦
1
,.l \n mm
\
\ 1
>
\
J
200
SCALE: 1 "=200'
©
svw-10
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
GEDDES BROOK
r—¦-
<
OUTFALL 019 "7/-^^
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND:
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
RESTORATION AREA
BENTHIC MACROINVERT SAMPLING AREAS
FISH SAMPLING AREAS
SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLING AREAS
EARTHWORM SAMPLES
NOTES:
1. SAMPLE AREAS FOR FISH, MACROINVERTEBRATES
AND SMALL MAMMALS DEPICT THE RANGE WHERE
SAMPLING OCCURED.
2. FISH SAMPLING AREAS IN THE EAST FLOODPLAIN
WERE INTENDED TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE THAT
FISH FROM NINEMILE CREEK WERE INADVERTENTLY
COLLECTED.
3. SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLING AREAS FOCUSED ON
INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE SITE TO MINIMIZE THE
CHANCE THAT MIGRANTS FROM OFF SITE WERE
COLLECTED,
FIGURE 32
Hoviepell
LOP OU—1/GEDDES BRGOK/NINEMLE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
S2M£EKbENsrvE repori
GEDDES BROOK
BIOTA SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PIAINF1ELC ROAD SLKTE 350, STFWCUSE, NT 13212 » 315-451-9560
-------
Baseline
2013 2014
Year
2016
2017
Notes:
(a) 95% UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population
mean; calculated using ProUCL Version 5.1. For data sets with
NDs, ProUCL selected the statistical method.
(b) Mean concentration calculated by ProUCL using the same
statistical method used for 95% UCL, unless 3 or fewer results
were detected. In that case, for plots showing the 95% UCL, the
arithmetic mean was calculated with non-detects substituted for
V2 the MDL.
FIGURE 33
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Box and Whisker Plots of Mercury Concentrations
in Geddes Brook Prey Fish (2013-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.20 -
'S> 0 .15 -
CO
J*.
O)
E
£=
O
0.10
sz
-------
01CH
Year Species
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2016
2016
2016
2017
2017
2017
Crayfish
Dragonfly Nymphes
Dragonfly Nymphes
Crayfish
Crayfish
Dragonfly Nymphes
Dragonfly Nymphes
Crayfish
Amphipod
Crayfish
Crayfish
Dragonl'ty Nymphes
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.015 J
0.041 J
0.040 J
0.070
0.060
0.360
0.020 J
0.022 J
0.011 U
0.013 J
0.013 J
0.019 J
GB-EW-03
Year
Species
Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
Earthworm
0.015 J
2014
Earthworm
0.230
2016
Earthworm
0.047 J
2017
Earthworm
0.083 J
Year
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
01CH
Species
Round Goby
Round Goby
Sunfish
Pumpkinscod
Lepomis
Round Goby
Round Goby
Lepomis
Surifisll
Pumpkinseed
Creek chub
Creek chub
Mercury (mg/kgj
0.052 J
0.11
0.057 J
0.10
0.049 J
0.075
0.044
0.069
0.063
0.047
0.161
0.015 J
Round goby
0.052 J
Round goby
Round goby
Round goby
Round goby
Round goby
Round goby
Round goby
0.059 J
0.057 J
0.061 J
0.108
0.046 J
0.070 J
0.056 J
GB-EW-02
Year
Species
Mercury (mg/kg)
2013
Earthworm
0.050 J
2014
Earthworm
0.210
2016
Earthworm
0.042 J
2017
Earthworm
0.063 J
GB-MAM-01
Year
2013
2014
2016
2017
Species
White Footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
Meadow Vole
White Footed Mouse
Mercury (mg/kgj
0.012 J
0.020 U
0.010 U
0.009 U
GB-MAM-02
Year
2013
2014
2016
2017
Species
White Footed Mouse
White Footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
Meadow Vole
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.013 J
0.020
0.010 U
0.010 U
GB-MAM-03
Year
2013
2014
2016
2017
Species
White Footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
White Footed Mouse
White Footed Mouse
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.025 J
0.020 U
0.009 U
0.010 U
GB-MAM-04
Year
2013
2014
2016
2017
Species
White Footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
Northern Short-tailed Shrew
Northern Short-tailed Shrew
©
SYW-10
r
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
GEDDES BROOK
I
I
\ i.j
OUTFALL 019
i£££M2i
ii -w,
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
— — RESTORATION AREA
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING AREAS
FISH SAMPLING AREAS
SMALL MAMMAL SAMPUNG AREAS
EARTHWORM SAMPLES
NOTES:
1.
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.025 J
0.020 U
0.076 J
0.070 j
SAMPLE AREAS FOR FISH, MACROINVERTEBRATES
AND SMALL MAMMALS DEPICT THE RANGE WHERE
SAMPLING OCCURED.
2. FISH SAMPLING AREAS IN THE EAST FLOODPLAIN
WERE INTENDED TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE THAT
FISH FROM NINEMILE CREEK WERE INADVERTENTLY
COLLECTED.
3. SMALL MAMMAL SAMPUNG AREAS FOCUSED ON
INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE SITE TO MINIMIZE THE
CHANCE THAT MIGRANTS FROM OFF SITE WERE
COLLECTED.
200 100 0
200
400
SCALE: r=20G'
FIGURE 35
LCP OU—1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE—YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
GEDDES BROOK BIOTA
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
(2013-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAJNF1ELD ROAD. SUITE 350. SYRACUSE, NY 13212 » 315-451-9560
-------
0.35
0.3
_ 0.25
tLO
tLO
£
.1 0.2
c
(D
O
C
o
u
3
u
0.15
0.1
0.05
i h
i i.
Baseline 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Baseline 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Baseline 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
(2010) (2010) (2010)
Macroinvertebrates
Earthworms
Small Mammals
Notes:
(a) Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval
(b) Each column represents the sitewide average
(c) Per the Geddes Brook OM&M Plan, no data was collected in 2015
(d) Dragonfly nymphs composed a large proportion of post-remedy samples but
were not part of baseline sampling, therefore results are depicted with and without
dragonfly nymphs
Represents all macroinvertebrate data
Represents macroinvertebrate data excluding
dragonfly nymphs
FIGURE 36a
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Geddes Brook Mercury Concentrations in Biota
Other than Fish (2013-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
140.0
120.0
w> 100.0
D
C
o
c
(D
O
c
o
u
>
(D
E
>
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
i
o
CM
O
(N
O
(N
O
(N
O
(N
O
(N
O
CM
O
(N
ND
o
(N
o
(N
a.
I
tD
r--
H
H
o
o
o
T—1
(N
(N
o
CM
-------
©
fvj
NMC-STA-00
AMBOY DAM
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM WATER
SAMPLING LOCATION
800 0 800 1600
SCALE: 1 "=80CT
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
I
A
it
\
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
1 \
NMC~ST\01
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
A
.. . S.'-i-
&
SB915-SW-12
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM WATER
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYVfELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\2020-5-YR-REVIEW\452663-NMC-SW-SED SAMP-OMM 2020.DWG
PLOT DATE: 11/2/2021 12:38 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
"A-04
©
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM
WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
NMC-STA-00
NMC-STA-04
NMC-STA-03
NMC-STA-02
NMC-STA—01
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM
WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
NINEMILE CREEK KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
STREAM BED
NINEMILE CREEK SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
(CHLORIDE, SODIUM, TDS)
NOTES:
1. SURFACE WATER SAMPLING WAS CONDUCTED IN 2015, 2016, AND
2017 AT 5 SAMPLING LOCATIONS. ONE SAMPUNG EVENT OCCURRED
DURING HIGH FLOW CONDITIONS (FLOW >200cfs„ USGS STATION
04240300 NINEMILE CREEK LAKELAND, 70th PERCENTILE FLOW
2010-2014) AND ANOTHER DURING LOW FLOW CONDITIONS (FLOW
<65cfs„ USGS STATION 04240300 NINEMILE CREEK LAKELAND, 30th
PERCENTILE FLOW 210-2014). TOTAL OF 10 SAMPLES WERE
COLLECTED IN EACH SAMPLE YEAR.
2. DOWNSTREAM SURFACE WATER SAMPUNG LOCATIONS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH BASELINE SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS (GEDDES
BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK BASELINE MONITORING DATA SUMMARY
REPORT, MARCH 2013).
3. SURFACE WATER SAMPUNG INCLUDED RECORDING THE FOLLOWING
FIELD PARAMETERS; DO, pH, TEMPERATURE AND CONDUCTIVITY.
400
200
400
FIGURE 37
LCP OU-1 /GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
NINEMILE CREEK SURFACE
WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SCALE: 1 "=400'
PARSONS
30) PLAINF1ELD ROAD, SUfTE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 * 315-451-9560
-------
©
¦¦
v
NMC-STA-00
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Low Flow
High Flow
2015
0.19 J
1.09
2016
0.16 J
1.21
2017
0.20 J
0.18 J
Wm|
•Ks
iSjt NMC-STA-00 >$£3
NMC-STA-04
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Low Flow
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
High Flow
2015
0.17 J (0.18J)
1.37(1.37)
2016
0.25 j (0.23 J)
1.41 (1.35)
2017
0.13 J (0.13 J)
0.23 J (0.19 j)
NMC-STA-03
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Low Flow
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
High Flow
2015
0.18 J
in
2016
0.16 J
1.17
2017
0.12 J
0.16 i
AMBOY DAM
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM WATER
SAMPLING LOCATION
800 0 800 1600
NMC-STA-01
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Low Flow
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
High Flow
2015
0.19 J
1.04
2016
0.16 J
1.10
2017
0.11J
0.17 j
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BCft
NMC-STA-02
Year
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
Low Flow
Dissolved Mercury (ng/L)
High Flow
20 15
0.17 J
1. 33
2016
0.20J
1.16
2017
0.11 J
0.15 J
400
0 200
©
400
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM WATER
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SCALE: 1 "=400'
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM
WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
E NMC-STA-00 .
NMC-STA-04
NMC-STA-03
C' K3>ti *
• ~njM _ s
NMC-STA-02
NMC^STA-01
\ /
#M
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM
WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
NINEMILE CREEK KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND:
RESTORATION AREA
STREAM BED
NINEMILE CREEK SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
NOTES:
1.
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING WAS CONDUCTED IN 2015, 2016, AND
2017 AT 5 SAMPLING LOCATIONS. ONE SAMPUNG EVENT OCCURRED
DURING HIGH FLOW CONDITIONS (FLOW >200cfs.. USGS STATION
04240300 NINEMILE CREEK LAKELAND, 70th PERCENTILE FLOW
2010-2014) AND ANOTHER DURING LOW FLOW CONDITIONS (FLOW
<65cfs., USGS STATION 04240300 NINEMILE CREEK LAKELAND, 30th
PERCENTILE FLOW 210-2014). TOTAL OF 10 SAMPLES WERE
COLLECTED IN EACH SAMPLE YEAR.
2. DOWNSTREAM SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH BASELINE SURFACE WATER SAMPUNG LOCATIONS (GEDDES
BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK BASELINE MONITORING DATA SUMMARY
REPORT, MARCH 2013).
3. SURFACE WATER SAMPLING INCLUDED RECORDING THE FOLLOWING
FIELD PARAMETERS: DO, pH, TEMPERATURE AND CONDUCTIVITY.
FIGURE 38
HOMpwel
LCP OU-1 /GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FiVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
NINEMILE CREEK SURFACE WATER
DISSOLVED MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
(2015-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUTC 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 » 315-451-9560
FILE NAME: P:\H0NEYY/ELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEG0RIES\2020-5-YR-REVIEW\452663-NMC-SW-SED SAMP-OMM 2020.DWG
PLOT DATE: 4/25/2022 2:16 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL [US-US]
-------
2.5
Ctf)
c
c
o
S 1.5
u
c
o
u
>•
0.5
Baseline
2015 2016 2017
High Flow
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/Lforthe protection of wildlife
ROD goal: 0.7 ng/Lfor the protection of
human health based on fish consumption
Baseline 2015 2016 2017
Low Flow
I Baseline ¦ Upstream ¦ Downstream
Notes:
(a) Each column represents the sitewide average
(b) Upstream locations are outside the remediation area and
are used for reference
(c) Downstream locations are within the remediation area and
consistent with baseline locations
(d) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
FIGURE 39a
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Average Dissolved Mercury
Concentrations in Surface Water (2015-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
3.0
ROD goal: 2.6 ng/Lfor the protection of wildlife
2.5
bo 2.0
£
£
O
CD
£ 1.5
u
£
O
u
s-
5 1.0
0.5
0.0
ROD goal: 0.7 ng/Lfor the protection of human health based on fish consumption
2015
2016
Low Flow
NMC-STA-01
¦NMC-STA-03
2017
2015
2016
High Flow
2017
Sample Locations
—NMC-STA-00
-X- NMC-STA-02
—NMC-STA-04
Notes:
a) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
FIGURE 39b
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Dissolved Mercury Concentrations
in Surface Water (2015-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
NINEMILE CREEK -
REACH BC
• NMC- ™-STA06
NMC-STA-\
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGQRIES\2020-5-YR-REVIEW\452663-NMC-SW & SED SAMPLQCS-2020.DWG
PLOT DATE: 11/2/2021 1:30 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
LEGEND:
NINEMILE CREEK KEY PU\N
(NOT TO SCALE)
RESTORATION AREA
STREAM BED
^ SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
CO-LOCATED MACROINVERTEBRATE AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
• CO-LOCATED FLOODPLAIN SOIL/SEDIMENT
AND EARTHWORM SAMPLE LOCATION
SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLING LOCATION
2016 SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLES
SOIL AND SEDIMENT NOTES:
J, CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SOIL/SEDIMENT SAMPLING WERE CONDUCTED IN 2016 AND 201S AS
PART OF A POST-REMEDIATION BASELINE EVALUATION.
2. EACH FLOODPLAIN SOIL SAMPLE WAS A COMPOSITE CONSISTING OF FIVE GRAB SAMPLES FROM THE
TOP SIX INCHES OF SOIL/SEDIMENT. GRAB SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED WITHIN A TEN FOOT RADIUS
OF THE DESIGNATED SAMPLE LOCATION.
3. EACH CHANNEL SEDIMENT SAMPLE WAS A COMPOSITE CONSISTING OF FIVE GRAB SAMPLES FROM
THE TOP SIX INCHES OF THE FINE MATERIAL THAT IS OVERLYING ON THE COARSE CHANNEL BED.
BIOTA NOTES:
1. FIVE SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED WITHIN THE HIGHLIGHTED STATION.
2. EARTHWORM SAMPLING WAS CARRIED OUT AT 3 STATIONS (SHOWN) WHERE ONE SAMPLE PER
STATION WAS COLLECTED RESULTING IN 3 SAMPLES.
3. MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING WAS CARRIED OUT AT 3 STATIONS (SHOWN) WHERE ONE SAMPLE
PER STATION WAS COLLECTED RESULTING IN 3 SAMPLES.
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
400
200
400
SCALE: 1 "=400'
FIGURE 40
LCP OU-t/GroDK^ROOKTWlNEMlLE^Rrar
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND RVE—YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
NINEMILE CREEK
SOIL/SEDIMENT AND BIOTA
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PLAJNFIELD ROAD, SUfTE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 ~ 315-451-9560
-------
0.9
ROD goal for Channel Sediments: BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg
for the protection of wildlife consumption offish
0.8
Baseline 2016 2018
Channel
Notes:
(a) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
ROD goal for Floodplain Soils: BSQV of 0.6 mg/kgfor the
protection wildlife consumption of terrestrial invertebrates
Baseline 2016 2018
Floodplain
FIGURE41
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Average Mercury Concentration In
Floodplain Soils and Channel Sediments (2016 and 2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.9
0.8
ROD goal for Channel Sediments: BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg
for the protection of wildlife consumption offish
0.7
m 0.6
£
O
0.5
£
CD
U
£
O
u
s-
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
¦NMC-STA-01
2016 2018
Channel
¦—NMC-STA-03 —*— NMC-STA-05 —^NMC-STA-06
Notes:
a) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
ROD goal for Floodplain Soils: BSQV of 0.6 mg/kgfor the
protection wildlife consumption of terrestrial invertebrates
2016 2018
Floodplain
¦NMC-FP01-STA04 —NMC-FP01-STA05 —*— NMC-FP01-STA06
FIGURE 42a
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Mercury Concentration In Floodplain Soils
and Channel Sediments (2016 and 2018)
parsons
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
FILE NAME: P:\H0NEYWELL -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\2020-5-YR-REVIEW\452663-NMC-SW & SED SAMPL0CS-2Q20.DWG
PLOT DATE: 11/1/2021 1:11 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
SYW-10
SCALE: 1 "=400'
PARSONS
301 PLAINFiELD ROM), SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 » 315-451-9560
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
NINEMILE CREEK KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
RESTORATION AREA
STREAM BED
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
CO-LOCATED MACROINVERTEBRATE AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
CO-LOCATED FLOODPLAIN SOIL/SEDIMENT
AND EARTHWORM SAMPLE LOCATION
SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLING LOCATION
2016 SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLES
SOIL AND SEDIMENT NOTES:
1. CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SOIL/SEDIMENT SAMPLING WERE CONDUCTED IN 2016 AND 2018 AS
PART OF A POST-REMEDIATION BASELINE EVALUATION.
2. EACH FLOODPLAIN SOIL SAMPLE WAS A COMPOSITE CONSISTING OF FIVE GRAB SAMPLES FROM THE
TOP SIX INCHES OF SOIL/SEDIMENT. GRAB SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED WITHIN A TEN FOOT RADIUS
OF THE DESIGNATED SAMPLE LOCATION.
3, EACH CHANNEL SEDIMENT SAMPLE WAS A COMPOSITE CONSISTING OF FIVE GRAB SAMPLES FROM
THE TOP SIX INCHES OF THE FINE MATERIAL THAT IS OVERLYING ON THE COARSE CHANNEL BED.
BIOTA NOTES:
1. FIVE SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED IN 2016 WITHIN THE HIGHLIGHTED STATION.
2. EARTHWORM SAMPLING WAS CARRIED OUT AT 3 STATIONS (SHOWN) WHERE ONE SAMPLE PER
STATION WAS COLLECTED RESULTING IN 3 SAMPLES.
LEGEND:
*
*
Year
2016
2018
NMC-STA-05
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
0.042 J
0.130 U
NMC-STA-05
Year
Species
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
Crayfish
0.026 J
MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING WAS CARRIED OUT AT 3 STATIONS (SHOWN) WHERE ONE SAMPLE
PER STATION WAS COLLECTED RESULTING IN 3 SAMPLES.
Hon^ywel
FIGURE 42b
~~ LCP^OU^I/CiEDFES" BfC
-------
1.2
Sc
£_
£
O
'+J
(D
c 0.6
(u
u
c
o
u
>•
0.4
0.2
Baseline
(2010-2011)
2016
Baseline
(2010-2011)
2016
Baseline
(2010-2011)
2016
Macroinvertebrates
Earthworms
Small Mammals
Notes:
(a) Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval
(b) Each column represents the sitewide average
(c) Only one sample collected for macroinvertebrate baseline
FIGURE 43a
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Mercury Concentrations in Biota
Other than Fish (Baseline and 2016)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
50
45
40
I
1? 35
£
O
'ra 30
Baseline 2016
(2010-2011)
Macroinvertebrates
Notes:
(a) Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval
(b) Each column represents the sitewide average
(c) Macroinvertebrate baseline sampling was limited to
amphipods and chironomids; 2016 was limited to crayfish.
Baseline 2016
(2010-2011)
Earthworms
FIGURE 43b
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Ninemile Creek Methylmercury Concentrations in
Biota Other than Fish (Baseline and 2016)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
ILE CREEK
REACH 3
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
UPSTREAM SAMPLING
LOCATION
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM FISH
SAMPLING LOCATION
2500 0 2500 5000
SCALE: 1 "=2500'
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM FISH
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
F F MMF; PhYHCNFYWFI -&YR*43fS5 gF-NSC 7071 PVSAlC- TFCbMICAl ffAT'GOfi ^\707n-5-Y8^FV*^\4r>7B6J-f-iVC-PRFYFISl- SAwjM iS®
FLCT Dffili 10/27/2Q21 1 :Q7 FM PLC-EC Ev: RISSC. JIL_
NINEMILE CREEK KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND:
* > RESTORATION AREA
STREAM BED
SPORTFISH/PREYFISH STATION 1 - (UPSTREAM)
SPORTFISH STATION 2 (DOWNSTREAM)
PREYFISH STATION 2 (REACH CD)
PREYFISH STATION 3 (REACH BC)
PREYFISH STATION 4 (REACH AB)
NOTES:
1. DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH BASELINE SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS (GEDDES
BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK BASELINE MONITORING DATA
SUMMARY REPORT, MARCH 2013).
2. PREYFISH AND SPORTFISH WERE SAMPLED FROM ACCESSIBLE
AREAS IN THE DESIGNATED STATIONS WHERE ACCESS AND
FLOW CONDITIONS ALLOWED.
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM
FISH SAMPLING LOCATION
§§0ft€$n«il
FIGURE 44
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
2020 ANNUAL REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
MPR
200
400
NINEMILE CREEK PREYFISH AND
SPORTFISH SAMPLING LOCATIONS
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM
FISH SAMPLING LOCATIO
SCALE: 1"=400'
PARSONS
301 PLAJNFIELD ROAD, SUfTE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 * 315-451-9560
-------
Creek chub
Creek chub
2015
Creek chub
2015
Creek chub
201fi
Creek chub
20'lfi
Creek chub
2016
CieeK chub
201fi
White Sucker
2016
Whita Sucker
2016
Whits Sucker
2017
Whit® Sucker
2017
0.077 J
0.041 J
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM
SAMPLING LOCATION
2500 0 2500
5000
SCALE: 1 =2500
Mercury (mg/kg|
C.034J
0.013 J
— NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
Creak chub
Banded KCIififth
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
Banded KM fish
0.054 J
Banded Killifiah
C.01SJ
Rcurrd goo>
Rour d goby
Banded Kill-fish
White Sucker
0.02® J
White Sucker
0.034 J
White Sucker
0.040 J
Round cow
NMC-PF-04
Species
Mercury (mg/kg)
Banded Killitish
Banded Killitish
8anded Killifish
Banded Killifish
0.072 J
Banded Killifish
Banded Killifish
Banded Killifish
Banded Killifish
Banded Killifish
Banded Killifish
Banded KSlifish
Banded Killifish
0.100
Banded Killifish
Banded Killifish
Banded Killifish
0.130
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
NMC-SF-01
SpHcie*
NMC-PF-01
eiuwri Tiuut
Species
Mercury (mc/kg)
Brown Trout
0.041 J
0.020 J
UPSTREAM
LOCATION
Whita Sucker
'Ah t» Sicker
Creek chub
creek cnuo
SAMPLING
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM FISH
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
F F MMF: P„\HGNFr'.VFI Gfi-hVIC K71 PV"vt\lO TFCFNEAi eAT-rffiR r.S\5a?0-:5~YR-f?FV'.r'.VMS?66J-t'!VC-PRFYFISI- SAV.P ,F IOC 3.W 20?0.*)«n
PLOT >i(. 11 /' /2021 12:22 FM PLC'-ED Ev: RLS3C. JIL_
BrOWn Tfnvlt
Brown Bullhead
Brown Bullheafl
Brown Trout
2015
Sunfish
Sunfish
Sunffeh
Sunfish
Round Gcbj-
^curd goby
Green Sunfish
Banded Killifish
0.041 J
Green Sunfish
Barded Klliifwh
Banded Kill fish
Gr«#n Sunfish
Bunded Kill,fish
Green Sunfish
Banded KBlfwh
Green Sunfish
Banded Killifish
Green Sunfish
Green Sunfish
FIGURE 45
¦ ¦ n LCP OU-t /SEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK
KOII€$W0II 2020 ANNUM. REPORT AND FWE-VEAR
I COMPREHENSIVE report
NINEMILE CREEK PREYFISH AND
SPORTFISH MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
(2015-2017)
NINEMILE CREEK KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND;
— RESTORATION AREA
STREAM BED
SPORTFISH/PREYFISH STATION 1 - (UPSTREAM)
SPORTFISH STATION 2 (DOWNSTREAM)
PREYFISH STATION 2 (REACH CD)
PREYFISH STATION 3 (REACH BC)
PREYFISH STATION 4 (REACH AB)
NOTES:
1. DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH BASELINE SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS (GEDDES
BRQOK/NINEMILE CREEK BASELINE MONITORING DATA
SUMMARY REPORT, MARCH 2013).
2. PREYFISH AND SPORTFISH WERE SAMPLED FROM ACCESSIBLE
AREAS IN THE DESIGNATED STATIONS WHERE ACCESS AND
FLOW CONDITIONS ALLOWED.
NINEMILE CREEK DOWNSTREAM
FISH SAMPLING LOCATIONS
NINEMILE CREEK UPSTREAM
FISH SAMPLING LOCATION
Mercurv (ms/kgl
2015 Round Gcby
2015 Round Gcbj*
T37IT
—
Brown Bullhead 1 0,190
Sunfish j 0.052 i
Sunfish 1 0.029 >
Species
0 043 J
0 039 J
0.110 J
0.041 J
Round Gcb>-
Round Gcby
Rcurd gooy
3curd gob?
SCALE: 1 "=400'
PARSONS
301 PLA1NFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 * 315-451-9550
-------
Upstream (Reference)
Downstream
o
2-
Legend:
75th Percentile-
-Maxlmum
25th Percentile-
-95UCL
-Mean
-Median
-Minimum
Legend:
Ecological performance criterion for protection of ecological receptors (0.1
mg/kg)
Notes:
(a) 95% UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; calculated
using ProUCL Version 5.1. For data sets with NDs, ProUCL selected the statistical
method.
(b) Mean concentration calculated by ProUCL using the same statistical method
used for 95% UCL, unless 3 or fewer results were detected. In that case, for plots
showing the 95% UCL, the arithmetic mean was calculated with non-detects
substituted for the MDL.
Figure 46
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMiLE CREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Box and Whisker Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Prey
Fish (2015-2017)
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.20
gj
!£ 0.15-
d>
§
05
E
o
2 0.10-
-------
CJ
£=
O
O
g 100-
Q_
"ro
Upstream (Reference)
JL
HT
2016
Year
1250
0)
1000
75 0
CJ)
O)
Z3
s=
o
TO
c= 500
-------
1250 -f
1000
"
-------
1.00
v 0.75-
O
Q
0.25-
o.oo-
Legend:
Upstream (Reference)
2015
2017
Year
75th Percentile-
25th Percentile-
-Mean
-Median
1.00"
v 0.75-
i 0.50-
O
0.25
Downstream
2015
2017
Year
Notes:
(a) Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ was calculated as a sum of congeners;
¥2 the method detection limit was used for non-detects
(b) 95% UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population
mean; calculated using ProLICL Version 5.1. For data sets with
NDs, ProLICL selected the statistical method. 95% UCL not
shown for data sets with 3 or fewer samples
Figure 48c
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Box and Whisker Plot of Dioxin/Furan TEQs in Ninemile Creek Prey Fish
(2015-2017)
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
1.00
O)
® 0.75
-t—'
<1)
6)
o
-t—"
C3
0.50-
-------
Upstream (Reference)
0.5-
o)0.4"
E 0.3---
o02
) 0.1
0.0
T
0.5
o)0.4
E 0.3
O0.2
; 0.1 -
o.o-
2015
2016
Year
2017
Downstream
2015
Notes:
(a) Upstream (Reference) collection limited to Brown Trout only
(b) Downstream collection consisted of Brown Trout (2015, 2016, 2017), Rock Bass (2015,
2017), Brown Bullhead (2015, 2016), and Green Sunfish (2016, 2017). Averages
presented in downstream box plot are representative of all downstream species
combined
(c) 95% UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; calculated using
ProUCL Version 5.1. For data sets with NDs, ProUCL selected the statistical method.
(d)Mean concentration calculated by ProUCL using the same statistical method used for
95% UCL, unless 3 or fewer results were detected. In that case, for plots showing the
95% UCL, the arithmetic mean was calculated with non-detects substituted for Vz the
MDL.
2016
Year
2017
Legend:
-Maximum
75th Percentile-
25th Percentile-
-95UCL
-Mean
-Median
— Human health criteria for
the protection of human
health due to consumption
(0.3 mg/kg)
Figure 49a
Honeywel
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Box and Whisker Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport
Fish: Upstream vs. Downstream (2015-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
Downstream Brown Trout
Downstream Brown Bullhead
Downstream Green Sunfish
*0.5-
! 0.4-
0.3"
! 0.2
O
0.1 -
o.o-
"X"
"X
' 0.4
: 0.3-
£ 0.2
o
0
1 01
0.0
*0.5-
: o.4-
0.3 --
! 0.2
o
0.1 -
o.o-
2015
2016
Year
2017
2015
2016
2016
2017
Legend:
Year
Notes:
Year
75th Percentile-
-Maxlmum
Downstream Rock Bass
.0.5-
• 0.4-
25th Percentile-
-95UCL
-Mean
-Median
-Minimum
Human health criteria for
the protection of human health
due to consumption (0.3
mg/kg)
! 0.2'
: o.i-
o.o-
(a) Downstream collection consisted of Brown Trout (2015, 2016, 2017), Brown Bullhead (2015, 2016),
Green Sunfish (2016, 2017) and Rock Bass (2015, 2017)
- Brown Bullhead collection limited to two individuals in 2015, one individual in 2016
- Rock Bass collection limited to one individual in 2015
(b) 95% UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; calculated using ProllCL Version
5.1. For data sets with NDs, ProllCL selected the statistical method.
(c) Mean concentration calculated by ProllCL using the same statistical method used for 95% UCL, unless
3 or fewer results were detected. In that case, for plots showing the 95% UCL, the arithmetic mean
was calculated with non-detects substituted for V2 the MDL.
2015
2017
Year
Figure 49b
Honeywell
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK 2020 ANNUAL REPORT
AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Box and Whisker Plot of Mercury Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish:
Downstream Species (2015-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.5
0.4-
g>
-------
Upstream (Reference)
Downstream
Legend:
75th Percentile—
25th Percentile-
-Mean
-Median
2016
Year
2016
Year
Notes:
(a) Subset of fish collected analyzed for PCBs consisted only of Brown Trout for both Upstream and Downstream
(b) 95% UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; calculated using ProUCL Version 5.1. For
data sets with NDs, ProUCL selected the statistical method.
(c) Mean concentration calculated by ProUCL using the same statistical method used for 95% UCL, unless 3 or
fewer results were detected. In that case, for plots showing the 95% UCL, the arithmetic mean was calculated
with non-detects substituted for Vz the MDL.
1 in 100,000 Excess Adult Cancer Risk Target Level (110 iJg/kg)
Noncancer risk level in children (120 IJg/kg)
Noncancer risk level in adults (190 |Jg/kg)
Figure 50a
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILE CREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Box and Whisker Plot of PCB Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport
Fish (2015-2017)
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
250
A 1 in 10,000 Excess Adult Cancer Risk Level (1,100 |Jg/kg)
200-
zs
o
01
o
150
o
O
m
o
Q.
"ro
o
100-
50-
2015
2016
Year
2017
Notes:
(a) Subset offish collected analyzed for PCBs consisted only of Brown Trout for both
Upstream and Downstream
(b)Open symbol indicates a non-detect
(c) Individual non-detects are plotted using V2 the MDL
Location
• Downstream
Upstream
Species
• Brown Trout
1 in 100,000 Excess Adult Cancer Risk Target Level (110 |Jg/kg)
Noncancer Target level in children (120 |Jg/kg)
Noncancer Target level in adults (190 pg/kg)
Figure 50b
HnnnnniifrllLCP 0U-VGeddes brook/ninemile creek 2020 annual
IKHltgrweil REPORT AND five-year comprehensive report
Scatter Plot of PCB Concentrations in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish (2015-
2017)
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
o)3 -
02
o
O
01
LU
0-
Upstream (Reference)
Downstream
A1 in 10,000 Excess Adult Cancer Risk Target 10.0 ng/kg
A Noncancer Risk Level for Adults 6.5 ng/kg
Legend:
4-
o) 3 -
c 2"1
o
O
a 1
0-
A1 in 10,000 Excess Adult Cancer Risk Target 10.0 ng/kg
A Noncancer Risk Level for Adults 6.5 ng/kg
2015
2017
2015
2017
Year
Year
75th Percentile-
25th Percentile-
-Mean
-Median
Notes:
(a) Subset offish collected analyzed for dioxin/furans consisted only of Brown Trout for both Upstream and Downstream
(b) Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ was calculated as a sum of congeners; V2 the method detection limit was used for non-detects
(c) 95% UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; calculated using ProUCL Version 5.1. For data sets with NDs,
ProUCL selected the statistical method. 95% UCL not shown for data sets with 3 or fewer samples
— 1 in 100,000 Excess Adult Cancer Risk Target Level (1.0 ng/kg)
Noncancer Risk level in children (4.2 ng/kg)
Figure 50c
Honeywel
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BR00K/NINEMILE CREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
Box and Whisker Plot of Dioxin/Furan TEQs in Ninemile Creek Sport Fish
(2015-2017)
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
4-
-t—1
c
-------
V
\
Onondaga Lake
^^^flO-SED-04
SYW10-EW-04
@-SED-05
.
StW10-EW-05
/
I
y ~ /^Snho-SEE-08
^ SYW10-EW-06— ^
SYW10-EW-0^
\
/
/"sJvho-SED-03
(£L
/
\
/
0-EW-03
/ \"
\
-------
liiWiHI
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYW10-EW-Q5
Mercury (mg/kg)
Earlhworm
SYW10-EW-06
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.18 J
Earlhworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
SYW10-SED-05
Earthworm
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH AB
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
SYW10-SED-06
Onondaga Lake
SYW10-EW-04
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
Earthworm
SYW10-EW-08
Earthworm
Mercury (mg/kg)
Species
Earthworm
Earthworm
SYW10-SED-04
Earthworm
Total Mercury (mg/kg).
Earthworm
SYW10-SED-G8
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
2.97 J
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH BC
NINEMILE CREEK
REACH CD
SYW10-SM-01-04
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.010 J
White Footed Mouse
Deer Mouse
SYW10-EW-04
Deer Mouse
GEDDES BROOK
SYW10-SM-01-05
Mercury (mg/kg)
Meadow Vole
SYW1O-EW-O0
Deer Mouse
SYW10-EW-06
SYW 10-SM-02-04
Deer Mouse
Mercury (mg/kg)
Species
White Footed Mouse
SITE KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
Deer Mouse
OUTFALL 019
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-
SYW10-SM-02-05
Mercury (mg/kg)
mm
Meadow Vole
SYW 10-EW-09
White Footed Mouse
RESTORATION AREA
Mercury ^mg/kgj
0 17 J
White Footed Mouse
Earthworm
EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
Earthworm
Earthworm
STREAM BED
L0-SED-10
SYW10-SED-09
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
SMALL MAMMAL REMEDIATED AREA, STATION 1
SYW10-EW-03
Mercury (mg/kg)
Species
SMALL MAMMAL UNREMEDIATED AREA, STATION 2
Earthworm
Earthworm
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
Earthworm
SYW10-SED-03
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
0.03 J
Year
DESIGNATED EARTHWORM SAMPLING AREA STATION
SYW 10-EW-10
Mercury (mg/kg)
2018
Earthworm
EARTHWORM SAMPLES
Earthworm
Earthworm
SYW10-EW-02
SYW10-SED-10
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.06 J
Species
Earthworm
TotaI Mercury (mg/kg)
Earthworm
Earthworm
SYW10-SED-02
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
SCALE: 1 "=80
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.49
Spedes
Earthworm
Earthworm
FIGURE 52
SYW10-EW-01
Earthworm
Mercury (rng/k$)
C.14 J
LCP OU—1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMIl£ CREEK
2020 mUUM. REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SYW-10 BIOTA AND SEDIMENT
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
(2015, 2016, AND 2018)
SYW10-SED-07
¦WyP® PESyp 1W12PMI
Earthworm
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
Earthworm
THE AREA IS PARTITIONED INTO REMEDIATED (STATION 1) AND
UNREMEDIATED (STATION 2).
Earthworm
SYW10-SED-01
Total Mercury (me/kg)
0.13 J
A MINIMUM OF 10 TRAPS WERE DEPLOYED OVERNIGHT TO COLLECT
SUFFICIENT SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLE NUMBERS. SAMPLING WAS FOCUSED IN
THE LARGE CONTIGUOUS SECTIONS OF THE STATIONS, WITH SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN THE OTHER AREAS WHEN ADEQUATE SAMPLES COULD NOT BE
COLLECTED FROM PREFERRED AREAS.
301 PLAJNHELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 » 315-451-9560
FILE NAME:. F:\HONFYVFLL -Sffl\4S?tt3 Gfi-NMC 2Q21 PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATFG0RIES\ffi2C-5-YR-REVIF'#\452SS-3-SvV,l-1 C»-201 6-RIQTA 3AMPIIKG LQCATIOWS.DWC-
P.OT DATE 11/1/202' 2:17 Pv PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
-------
0.7
0.6
ROD goal: 0.6 mg/kg BSQVfor the protection wildlife consumption of terrestrial invertebrates
ao
£
£
CD
o 0.3
u
0.2
0.1
2015
2016
2017
2018
Sample Locations
—SYW10-SED-01
—SYW10-SED-02
—X- SYW10-SED-03
—A—SYW10-SED-06
—SYW10-SED-09
¦SYW10-SED-10
Notes:
(a) Soils within remediated areas were sampled in 2015, 2016,
and 2018 in accordance with the Ninemile Creek M&M Plan
(b) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
FIGURE 53
Honeywell
LCP OU-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SYW-10 Mercury Concentrations in Soil within
Remediated Areas (2015-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
6
5
Ctf)
c
o
c
(D
U
c
o
u
>
Baseline
2015
2016
Notes:
a) Floodplain soils were sampled in 2015, 2016, and 2018 in
accordance with the Ninemile Creek M&M Plan
b) Field duplicates are averaged together for all calculations
FIGURE 54
Honeywell
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SYW-10 Sitewide Average Mercury
Concentrations in Floodplain Soil (2015-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
1.2
1
tio
^ 0.8
tLO
c
o
c 0.6
v 0.4
0.2
i i
i
2010-2011 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015
Baseline Remediated
Notes:
a) Earthworms were collected in 2015, 2016, and 2018 in
accordance with the Ninemile Creek M&M Plan
b) Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval
2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018
Unremediated Sitewide
FIGURE 55
Honeywell
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SYW-10 Mercury Concentrations in Earthworms
(2015-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.45
0.40
0.35
HO
g 0.30
c
o
| 0.25
c
OJ
o
c
5 0.20
s-
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
i
a ¦ I
n ¦
2010-2011 2015
Baseline
2016 2017
Remediated
2018
2015
2016 2017
Unremediated
2018
2015
2016 2017
Sitewide Average
1
2018
Notes:
a) Small mammals were collected in 2015, 2016, and 2018 in
accordance with the Ninemile Creek M&M Plan
b) Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval
FIGURE 56
Honeywell
LCP 0U-1/GEDDES BROOK/NINEMILECREEK 2020 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SYW-10 Average Mercury Concentrations in Small
Mammals (2015-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
APPENDIX B - TABLES
Table 1. Target Tissue Concentrations for Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Fish
Table 2. Geddes Brook, Ninemile Creek, and SYW-10 Wetland Acreages
Table 3. Summary of LCP/GBNMC Post-Remedy Sampling (2013-2020)
Table 4. Average LCP Surface Water Analytical Results 2014-2020
Table 5. LCP Sediment Analytical Results 2014-2020
Table 6. LCP Sediment Results from Supplemental Sampling Conducted in 2018
Table 7a. LCP Sediment Results from Supplemental Sampling Conducted in 2020
Table 7b. LCP Sediment Results from Supplemental Sampling Conducted in 2021
Table 8. Summary of LCP Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Prey Fish Whole Body (2008-2018)
Table 9. LCP Piezometer Analytical Results 2014-2020
Table 10. LCP Monitoring Well Analytical Results 2014-2020
Table 11. Average Geddes Brook Surface Water Analytical Results 2013-2019
Table 12. Average Geddes Brook Sediment Analytical Results 2013-2017
Table 13. Summary of Geddes Brook Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Prey Fish Whole Body (2013-2017)
Table 14a. 2013-2017 Geddes Brook Macroinvertebrate Analytical Results
Table 14b. 2013-2017 Geddes Brook Earthworm Analytical Results
Table 14c. 2013-2017 Geddes Brook Small Mammal Analytical Results
Table 15. Average Ninemile Creek Surface Water Analytical Results 2015-2017
Table 16. Ninemile Creek Floodplain Soil and Channel Sediment Analytical Results 2016 and 2018
Table 17. Ninemile Creek Macroinvertebrate Analytical Results 2016
Table 18. Fish Tissue Remedial Goals (Mercury) and Target Concentrations (Organics)
Table 19a Summary of Ninemile Creek Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Prey Fish Whole Body (2015-
2017)
Table 19b. Summary ofNinemile Creek Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Fillet (2015-2017)
Table 20. 2016 Ninemile Creek Earthworm Analytical Results
Table 21. 2016 Ninemile Creek Small Mammal Analytical Results
Table 22. 2015-2018 SYW-10 Floodplain Soil Analytical Results
Table 23. 2015-2018 SYW-10 Earthworm Analytical Results
Table 24. 2015-2018 SYW-10 Small Mammal Analytical Results
III
-------
Table 1: Target Tissue Concentrations for Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Fish
(all concentrations in mg/kg wet weight)
Contaminants of Concern
Target Tissue Concentrations
Human Health - Fish Fillets
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Mercury (as MeHg)3
0.3
Total PCBs4
0.11 to 1.1
PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD)5
1 x 10"6to 1 x 10"5
Ecological Exposure
Small Fish (3-18 cm) - Whole Fish1-2
NOAEL
LOAEL
Mercury (as MeHg)
0.009
0.187
Ecological Exposure
Large Fish (18-60 cm) - Whole Fish1'2
NOAEL
LOAEL
Mercury (as MeHg)
0.014
0.345
Table 1 Notes:
1. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level; LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level.
2. NOAELs and LOAELs for small (3 to 18 cm) fish are based on the belted kingfisher and mink. NOAELs and LOAELs for large
(18 to 60 cm) fish are based on the great blue heron and river otter.
3. The human health target tissue concentration for mercury (0.3 mg/kg ww) is based on EPA's National Recommended Water
Quality Criterion for methylmercury, as measured in fish tissue. Under the Reasonable Maximum Exposure scenario, human health
mercury target fish tissue concentrations range from 0.6 to 0.9 mg/kg ww with the lower end of the range based on young children
and the upper end of the range based on adults.
4. The human health target tissue concentrations for total PCBs are based on RME carcinogenic risks at risk targets ranging from 1E-
05 (0.11 mg/kg) to 1E-04 (1.1 mg/kg). The RME targets based on non-cancer effects of PCBs (0.12 mg/kg ww and 0.19 mg/kg ww
for children and adults, respectively), fall within the range based on carcinogenic risks. A target concentration based on the 1E-06
risk level may not be achievable since it is much lower than mean background concentration (0.04 mg/kg ww) in U.S. waters.
5. TEQ = toxicity equivalent (toxicity-weighted mass of dioxin mixtures). The human health target tissue concentrations for
PCDD/PCDFs are based on RME carcinogenic risks at risk targets ranging from 1E-05 (1E-06 mg/kg ww) to 1E-04 (1E-05 mg/kg
ww). Non-carcinogenic targets were not developed for PCDD/PCDFs prior to the issuance of the GBNMC RODs. Subsequent to
their issuance, a RME noncancer endpoint target of 4.2E-06 mg/kg was developed using the parameters presented in Appendix I of
the FS for a target concentration for the non-cancer endpoint, and using the EPA 2012 reference dose of 7E-10 mg/kg-day. The RME
target based on non-cancer effects PCDD/PCDFs fall within the range based on carcinogenic risks. A target concentration based on
the 1E-06 risk level is much lower than mean background concentration (8E-07 mg/kg ww) in US waters and may not be achievable.
-------
Honeywell
I PARSONS
TABLE 2: GEDDES BROOK, NINEMILE CREEK, AND SYW-10 WETLAND ACREAGES
Site
Pre-Remedy Acreages
Post Remedy Delineated Acreages
Geddes Brook
12.201
11.782
0utfall-019
2.163
2.194
Ninemile Creek Reach AB
0.935
0.976
Ninemile Creek Reach BC
1.205
0.686
Ninemile Creek Reach CD
1.555
1.942
SYW-10
2.025
2.797
Totals
20.06
20.35
Notes:
1Appendix E - Geddes Brook and Floodplain Restoration Design 100% Design Report (Parsons 2013). Includes the open water channel of
Geddes Brook.
2 Appendix D- 2017 Annual Report (Parsons 2020b). Geddes Brook acreage includes the open water channel of Geddes Brook. Ninemile
Creek Reach CD includes aquatic bed.
3 Calculated from Wetland/Floodplain Assessment, NMC and Lower Reach of Geddes Brook 2009, Figures 8 and E-8 (TES 2009).
Includes the open water channel of Outfall 019.
4 Appendix D- 2017 Annual Report (Parsons 2020b). Includes the open water channel of Outfall 019.
5Appendix E - Ninemile Creek 100% Design Report Reaches BC and AB (Parsons 2011).
6 Appendix F- 2019 Annual Report (Parsons 2021b).
7 Appendix C- 2018 Annual Report (Parsons 2021a).
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\
Table 5.1 Wetland Acreages 4-5-22.xlsxTABLE 5.1
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3: Summary of LCP/GB/NMC Post-Remedy Sampling (2013-2020)
Matrix
Parameter
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
GB
NMC
SYW
10
LCP
OU1
Sport Fish
Total Hg
PCBs and PCDD/Fs
PCBs
(~)
(•)
~ •
~ *
~ •
~ •
Prey Fish
Total Hg
PCBs and PCDD/Fs
PCBs
(~)
(•)
I*)
~
~
~ •
~
~
~ *
~
~ •
~
~
~
~ •
Benthic Invertebrates
Total Hg and MeHg
(¦)
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
Earthworms
Total Hg and MeHg
(¦)
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
Small Mammals
Total Hg
Total Hg and MeHg
(~)
(¦)
¦
¦
~
¦
~
~
¦
~
Surface Water
Total Dissolved Hg
Total Hg and MeHg
(0)
(¦)
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
¦ 0
Soil/Sediment Sampling
Total Hg and MeHg
(¦)
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
Groundwater Quality
Total Hg
(~)
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Notes:
1. Post-remedy sampling from 2013 to 2020 is based on the 2017 GBNMC FYR Report, 2020 LCP Bridge Street subsite FYR Report, GBNMC/LCP
Bridge Street subsite M&M Annual Reports for 2017, 2018, and 2019, and GBNMC/LCP Bridge Street subsite 2020 Sampling Scope.
2. GB IRM remedial construction completed in 2012. SYW-10 remedial construction completed in 2013 and restoration in 2014. NMC remedial
construction completed in 2014 and restoration in 2015.
3. For fish samples, PCBs, dioxins/furans (PCDD/PCDFs), and lipids are a subset of the mercury samples.
4. For LCP Bridges Street Subsite and GB post-remedy sampling, surface water was sampled during low-flow events each year that samples were
collected. For NMC post-remedy sampling, surface water was sampled in two events each year (one low flow and one high flow) that samples
were collected.
5. Groundwater data collected quarterly at LCP at 4 exterior piezometer locations downgradient of slurry wall and 3 interior monitoring wells.
6. Sampling events shown in blue represent data that were reported in the 2017 GBNMC FYR Report or the 2020 LCP Bridge Street Subsite FYR
Report. These data are also discussed in the 2022 GBNMC - LCP Bridge Street FYR Report along with the subsequent data to support the
evaluation of the more recent results and provide additional context.
7. Data for the 2019 fish sampling events (shown in red) were determined not to be usable. It is anticipated that fish monitoring will be conducted
in 2022.
AECOM
11/23/2021
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 4: AVERAGE LCP SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020
Remedial Goal
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
None
None
2.6 ng/L1
Baseline Results2"''
October 2014
September 2015
Location
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
West Flume
LCP1-SW-60
6.90
0.16
0.25
J
3.81
0.15
0.78
LCP1-SW-61
9050 (Max)
19
2,252 (Max)
3.10
0.09
J
3.20
12.70
0.17
1.01
LCP1-SW-62
(Max)
3.50
0.21
1.90
8.30
0.17
0.64
LCP1-SW-63
3.50
0.05
J
2.00
4.33
0.11
0.72
Average
6042
12
1,285
4.25
0.13
1.84
7.29
0.15
0.79
Wetland A
LCP1-SW-67
104,904 (Max)
420 (Max)
2,838 (Max)
1.20
0.03
u
0.56
J
23.50
4.90
2.60
LCP1-SW-68
2.80
0.03
u
1.40
8.94
4.20
4.60
Average
59404
144
1,998
2.00
0.02
0.98
16.22
4.55
3.60
Wetland C
LCP1-SW-69
1.40
0.13
0.42
J
5.38
0.44
0.69
LCP1-SW-70
104,904 (Max)
420 (Max)
2,838 (Max)
6.00
0.30
1.50
16.60
0.91
0.59
LCP1-SW-71
12.80/7.60®
J
0.32/0.29®
2.00/1.50®
16.80/11.70®
J
0.98/1.09®
0.78/0.64®
Average
59404
144
1,998
5.87
0.25
1.22
12.08
0.79
0.66
November 2016
October 2017
October 2018
Location
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
West Flume
LCP1-SW-60
39.80
0.21
J+
1.52
10.40
0.10
0.85
8.21
0.21
1.16
LCP1-SW-61
19.30
0.23
J+
1.77
28.30
0.11
1.19
21.00
0.20
1.41
LCP1-SW-62
8.42
0.11
J+
1.87
5.02
0.11
0.55
15.90
0.16
1.11
LCP1-SW-63
2.75
0.08
J+
0.81
2.16
0.09
0.39
J
3.12
0.12
0.79
Average
17.57
0.16
J+
1.49
11.47
0.10
0.75
12.06
0.17
1.12
Wetland A
LCP1-SW-67
8.84
3.07
J+
5.35
6.17
2.42
3.45
5.91
1.05
3.88
LCP1-SW-68
23.90
3.94
J+
6.95
27.40
7.27
8.68
12.70
1.32
5.71
Average
16.37
3.51
J+
6.15
16.79
4.85
6.07
9.31
1.19
4.80
Wetland C
LCP1-SW-69
6.32
0.27
J+
0.94
3.06
0.03
u
0.63
4.01
0.13
0.99
LCP1-SW-70
16.00
0.24
J+
3.64
10.30
0.33
0.78
5.01
0.14
1.31
LCP1-SW-71
16.90/21.30®
0.28/0.21®
J+
3.55/3.78®
16.00/15.90®
0.36/0.39®
0.77/0.87®
55.00/7.98®
J
0.22/0.21®
1.11/1.27®
Average
13.81
0.25
J+
2.75
9.77
0.14
0.74
13.50
0.16
1.16
West Ditch
LCP1-SED-107
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.48/12.4®
J
1.15/1.20®
0.64/0.62®
Remedial Goal for the protection of wildlife.
2 Baseline results are from Table 4.2-1 of the Remedial Investigation (NYSDEC & TAMS, 1998).
3Wetlands A and C were created following the remedy so the baseline results are for Ponded/Wetland Areas sampled during the Remedial Investigation.
4 J: Result is considered an estimate; J+: Result is considered estimated biased high at the value given; U: Not detected; R: Unusable value.
5 For individual non-detects (U), ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
6 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations
7 Part of the 2018 supplemental sampling
8 Per recommendations made in the 2018 Annual Report, samples were not collected in the West Flume and Wetland C in 2019 and 2020
9 Per recommendations made in the 2018 and 2019 Annual Reports, location LCP-SED-110 was also sampled in 2019 and 2020
NA: Not analyzed
\\NYSYR04FS01 VProjectsVHoneywell -SYRU52663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports®.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xlsx/Table 2.6 Surface Water
Page 1 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 4: AVERAGE LCP SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020 (CONTINUED)
Location
November 2019
December 2020
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier4'6
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier4'5
Result
Qualifier4,5
Result
Qualifier14,5
Result
Qualifier4,5
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
Wetland A 8
LCP1-SW-67
4.65/5.03®
1.94/1.37®
R/3.58®
R/J
8.34/5.80®
J
0.75/0.56®
5.32/5.03®
LCP1-SW-68
11.10
1.37
3.33
32.40
J
4.25
J
4.06
LCP1-SED-1109
6.10
0.70
J
5.59
J
15.10
0.14
2.14
Average
7.35
1.24
4.17
18.19
1.68
3.79
Remedial Goal for the protection of wildlife.
2 Baseline results are from Table 4.2-1 of the Remedial Investigation (NYSDEC & TAMS, 1998).
3Wetlands A and C were created following the remedy so the baseline results are for Ponded/Wetland Areas sampled during the Remedial Investigation.
4 J: Result is considered an estimate; J+: Result is considered estimated biased high at the value given; U: Not detected; R: Unusable value.
5 For individual non-detects (U), ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
6 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations
7 Part of the 2018 supplemental sampling
8 Per recommendations made in the 2018 Annual Report, samples were not collected in the West Flume and Wetland C in 2019 and 2020
9 Per recommendations made in the 2018 and 2019 Annual Reports, location LCP-SED-110 was also sampled in 2019 and 2020
NA: Not analyzed
\\NYSYR04FS01 \ProjectsVHoneywell -SYRA452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xlsx/Table 2.6 Surface Water
Page 2 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 5 LCP SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020
Site Goal1
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
0.8
None
Baseline Results2,8
October 20149
Location
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
West Flume
LCP1-SW-60
0.97
J
0.49
J
LCP1-SW-61
Max
Max
0.42
1.62
LCP1-SW-62
(48)
(11)
0.42
J
1.46
J
LCP1-SW-63
0.12
0.36
J
Average
33
9.0
0.48
0.98
Wetland A 4
LCP1-SW-67
Max
Max
0.23
1.24
LCP1-SW-68
(131)
(74)
1.60
1.75
Average
18
22
0.92
1.50
Wetland C4
LCP1-SW-69
Max
(131)
Max
(74)
0.12
1.30
LCP1-SW-70
0.14
1.71
LCP1-SW-71
0.26/0.315
0.87/1.165
Average
18
22
0.18
1.34
September 20159
November 20169
Location
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
West Flume
LCP1-SW-60
0.69
J
1.16
J
0.47
1.87
J
LCP1-SW-61
0.14
J
0.99
0.40
1.96
LCP1-SW-62
0.31
J
1.30
J
0.21
1.41
LCP1-SW-63
0.05
J
0.26
0.08
J
0.34
Average
0.30
0.93
0.29
1.40
Wetland A
LCP1-SW-67
0.26
J
0.95
0.43
3.37
LCP1-SW-68
1.57
10.20
2.04
6.48
Average
0.92
5.57
1.24
4.93
Wetland C
LCP1-SW-69
0.07
J
1.30
0.04
J
1.46
LCP1-SW-70
0.13
J
1.86
0.20
2.43
LCP1-SW-71
0.18/0.165
J
3.16/1.65s
J
0.34/0.235
2.32/2.55®
Average
0.13
1.86
0.18
2.11
1 There are no long-term sediment goals established in the LCP OU-1 ROD or OM&M Plan. The site specific background sediment concentration identified in the ROD was 0.2 mg/kg. Downstream Ninemile Creek Site goal of 0.8
mg/kg (mercury in sediments for the protection of wildlife consumption of fish) used as benchmark for evaluating the LCP OU-1 sediment results.
2 Baseline results are from Table 4.2-4 of the Remedial Investigation (NYSDEC & TAMS, 1998).
3 J: Result is considered an estimate; U: Not detected.
4 Wetlands A and C were created following the remedy so the baseline results are for all "Ponded/Wetland Areas" sampled during the Remedial Investigation.
5 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations.
6 Per recommendations made in the Draft 2018 Annual Report, samples were not collected in the West Flume and Wetland C in 2019 and 2020.
7Per recommendations made in the Draft 2018 and Draft 2019 Annual Reports, location LCP-SED-110 was also sampled in 2019 and 2020.
8 Sample depths: range from both 0.0' - 0.5' and 0.5' - 2.0'
9 Sample depth: 0.0' - 0.5'
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xlsx/Table 2.7 Sediment
Page 1 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 5 LCP SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020 (CONTINUED)
Location
October 20179
October 20189
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
TOC by Lloyd Kahn
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
TOC by Lloyd Kahn
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
mg/kg
ug^kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
West Flume
LCP1-SW-60
0.51
J
3.08
J
60700.0
J
0.08
UJ
1.73
J
49300.0
LCP1-SW-61
0.38
0.89
40900.0
J
0.10
J
1.26
52200.0
LCP1-SW-62
0.56
J
2.58
J
80700.0
J
0.19
J
1.91
J
48500.0
LCP1-SW-63
0.06
J
0.10
68000.0
J
0.10
J
0.26
J
99200.0
Average
0.38
1.66
62575.0
0.12
1.29
62300.0
Wetland A
LCP1-SW-67
0.28
1.63
14000.0
J
0.22
2.54
37900.0
LCP1-SW-68
5.25
8.72
16000.0
J
3.43
7.22
37700.0
Average
2.76
5.18
15000.0
1.83
4.88
37800.0
Wetland C
LCP1-SW-69
0.03
J
1.32
11400
J
0.05
J
0.42
J
15100
LCP1-SW-70
0.13
J
2.58
41300
0.06
J
1.61
32900
LCP1-SW-71
0.57/0.2713
J
2.34/1.55b
29300.0/16800.C
J
0.32/0.II13
J
0.18/1.4113
J
57800/14300^
J
Average
0.19
1.9
25250.0
0.11
0.94
28017
Location6
November 20199
December 20209
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
TOC by Lloyd Kahn
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
TOC by Lloyd Kahn
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
Result
Qualifier3
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
Wetland A
LCP1-SW-67
0.211/0.1845
0.155/0.7975
J
15700/139005
0.38/0.45
1.07/1.735
9500/100005
LCP1-SW-68
0.98
1.63
17000
1.90
2.51
J
19000
LCP1-SED-1107
0.28
1.20
25400
0.30
0.38
J
14000
Average
0.49
1.10
19067
0.86
1.43
14250
1 There are no long-term sediment goals established in the LCP OU-1 ROD or OM&M Plan. The site specific background sediment concentration identified in the ROD was 0.2 mg/kg. Downstream Ninemile Creek Site goal of
0.8 mg/kg (mercury in sediments for the protection of wildlife consumption of fish) used as benchmark for evalutating the LCP OU-1 sediment results.
2 Baseline results are from Table 4.2-4 of the Remedial Investigation (NYSDEC & TAMS, 1998).
3 J: Result is considered an estimate; U: not detected
4 Wetlands A and C were created following the rememdy so the baseline results are for all "Ponded/Wetland Areas" sampled during Remedial Investigation.
5 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations.
6 Per recommendations made in the Draft 2018 Annual Report, samples were not collected in the West Flume and Wetland C in 2019 and 2020.
7 Per recommendations made in the Draft 2018 and Draft 2019 Annual Reports, location LCP-SED-110 was also sampled in 2019 and 2020.
8 Sample depths: average from both 0.0' - 0.5' and 0.5' - 2.0'
9Sample depth: 0.0' - 0.5'
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xlsx/Table 2.7 Sediment
Page 2 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 6 - LCP SEDIMENT RESULTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING CONDUCTED IN 2018
Location
October 2018
Total Mercury
Result
mg/kg
Qualifier1
LCP1-SED-96
0.86
J
LCP1-SED-97
0.13
J
LCP1-SED-98
0.21
J
LCP1-SED-98 (Field Dup)
0.22
LCP1-SED-99
0.11
J
LCP1-SED-100
0.25
J
LCP1-SED-101A
0.38
J
LCP1-SED-102
0.21
J
LCP1-SED-103
0.08
J
LCP1-SED-110
0.24
LCP1-SED-113
0.46
LCP1-SED-116
0.12
J
LCP1-SED-117
0.85
LCP1-SED-118
3.37
LCP1-SED-119
5.92
LCP1-SED-120
0.25
LCP1-SED-121
1.29
LCP1-SED-122
0.07
J
LCP1-SED-123
0.15
J
LCP1-SED-124
3.56
LCP1-SED-125
0.16
J
LCP1-SED-126
0.08
J
LCP1-SED-127
0.59
J
LCP1-SED-128
3.75
LCP1-SS-120
0.18
J
LCP1-SW-67
0.23
LCP1-SW-68
2.26
^l: Result is considered an estimate.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\LCP Tables 11-03-
21.xlsx/Table 2.9 2018 Supplement Sed
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
RARSOIM!
TABLE 7a LCP SEDIMENT RESULTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING CONDUCTED IN 2020
Location
October 2020
Depth
Interval (ft)
Total Mercury
Result
mg/kg
Qualifier1
LCP1-SB-01
0-0.5
1.8
0.5-1.0
3.0
1.0-1.5
NA
LCP1-SB-02
0-0.5
2
0.5-1.0
2.4
1.0 -1.5
NA
LCP1-SB-02 (Field Dup)
0-0.5
1.9
0.5-1.0
2.3
1.0 -1.5
NA
LCP1-SB-03
0-0.5
2.8
0.5-1
4.6
1.0 -1.5
NA
LCP1-SED-96
0-0.5
0.63
0.5-1.0
0.28
1.0-1.5
0.42
LCP1-SED-97
0-0.5
0.34
0.5-1.0
0.21
1.0-1.5
0.17
LCP1-SED-110
0-0.5
0.30
0.5-1.0
0.12
1.0-1.5
0.10
LCP1-SED-113
0-0.5
0.50
0.5-1.0
0.40
1.0-1.5
1.1
LCP1-SED-116
0-0.5
0.12
0.5-1.0
0.15
1.0-1.5
NA
LCP1-SED-117
0-0.5
0.42
0.5-1.0
1.4
1.0-1.5
NA
LCP1-SED-118
0-0.5
5.7
0.5-1.0
1.3
1.0-1.5
NA
LCP1-SED-119
0-0.5
5.7
0.5-1.0
1.3
1.0-1.5
0.51
LCP1-SED-119
(Field Dup)
0-0.5
8.9
0.5-1.0
1.9
1.0-1.5
0.53
LCP1-SED-120
0-0.5
0.39
J
0.5-1.0
0.78
1.0-1.5
0.53
LCP1-SED-121
0-0.5
1.7
0.5-1.0
0.13
1.0-1.5
0.11
LCP1-SED-122
0-0.5
0.10
0.5-1.0
0.088
1.0-1.5
0.11
LCP1-SED-123
0-0.5
0.13
0.5-1.0
0.14
1.0-1.5
0.19
LCP1-SED-123
(Field Dup)
0-0.5
0.13
0.5-1.0
0.12
1.0-1.5
0.26
LCP1-SED-124
0-0.5
4
0.5-1.0
2.6
1.0-1.5
1.8
LCP1-SED-125
0-0.5
0.16
0.5-1.0
0.19
1.0-1.5
0.083
1J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\HoneywelI -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xlsV
TABLE 2.10 2020 Supplement Sed
Page 1 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
fr
TABLE 7a LCP SEDIMENT RESULTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING CONDUCTED IN 2020
Location
October 2020
Depth
Interval
Total Mercury
Result
mg/kg
Qualifier1
LCP1-SED-125
(Field Dup)
0-0.5
0.18
0.5-1.0
0.17
1.0-1.5
0.088
LCP1-SED-126
0-0.5
0.32
0.5-1.0
0.09
1.0-1.5
0.052
J
LCP1-SED-127
0-0.5
0.26
0.5-1.0
0.22
1.0-1.5
0.21
LCP1-SED-128
0-0.5
1.6
0.5-1.0
1.4
1.0-1.5
1.4
LCP1-SED-129
0-0.5
5.8
0.5-1.0
0.29
1.0-1.5
0.39
LCP1-SED-130
0-0.5
1.7
J
0.5-1.0
0.78
1.0-1.5
0.42
LCP1-SED-131
0-0.5
1.9
0.5-1.0
1.6
1.0-1.5
NA
LCP1-SED-132
0-0.5
7.5
0.5-1.0
2.7
1.0-1.5
3.4
LCP1-SED-133
0-0.5
14
0.5-1.0
2.3
1.0-1.5
2.2
LCP1-SED-134
0-0.5
9.2
0.5-1.0
1.1
1.0-1.5
0.69
LCP1-SW-67
0-0.5
1
0.5-1.0
0.23
1.0-1.5
0.17
LCP1-SW-68
0-0.5
3.6
0.5-1.0
4
J
1.0-1.5
2.3
J
1i: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\HoneywelI -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xlsV
TABLE 2.10 2020 Supplement Sed
Page 2 of 2
-------
Honeywell
I PARSONS
TABLE 7b LCP SOIL RESULTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING CONDUCTED IN 2021
Location
July 2021
Depth
Interval (ft)
Total Mercury
Result
mg/kg
Qualifier1
LCP1-SB-04
0-0.5
41
0.5 -1.0
9.6/1.6
J
1.0-2
16
J
LCP1-SB-05
0-0.5
65
0.5 -1.0
15
1.0-2
1.7
LCP1-SB-06
0-0.5
24
0.5 -1.0
9.2
1.0-2
4.6
LCP1-SB-07
0-0.5
30
0.5 -1.0
11
1.0-2
1.5
LCP1-SB-08
0-0.5
11
0.5 -1.0
5.9
1.0-2
8.2
LCP1-SB-09
0-0.5
65
0.5 -1.0
0.4
1.0-2
6.9
LC PI-SB-10
0-0.5
23
0.5 -1.0
0.29
1.0-2
4.3
LCP1-SB-11
0-0.5
24
0.5 -1.0
0.32
1.0-2
1.9
^l: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP
Tables 04-05-22.xlsx/
TABLE 2.11 2021 Supplement
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF LCP FISH TISSUE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS: PREY FISH WHOLE BODY (2008-2018)
Taxon
Chemical
Name
Year
Sample Size
Number of
Detections
Mean1
Min
Max
95% UCL
Value1
95% UCL Calculation
Type
Small Prey
Fish
Mercury 2
(mg/kg)
1995
(Remedial
Investigation)
0.82
2005
(Baseline)
15
15
0.14
0.02
0.38
0.18
95% Student's-t UCL
2008
15
15
0.28
0.15
0.52
0.32
95% Student's-t UCL
2009
15
15
0.20
0.071
0.41
0.25
95% Student's-t UCL
2010
15
15
0.20
0.10
0.29
0.23
95% Student's-t UCL
2011
15
15
0.25
0.092
0.35
0.28
95% Student's-t UCL
2012
14
14
0.18
0.086
0.33
0.22
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
15
14
0.041
0.012
0.11
0.052
95% KM (t) UCL
2017
15
12
0.11
0.051
0.17
0.12
95% KM (t) UCL
2018
15
15
0.066
0.034
0.12
0.077
95% Student's-t UCL
Notes:
1. Mean and 95% UCL were calculated using ProUCL version 5.1 and were not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects (USEPA 2015). 95% UCL is an estimate of
the upper bound for the true population mean. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method (i.e.,
one-half of the detection/reporting limit).
2. There are no long-term prey fish goals established in the LCP OU-1 ROD or OM&M Plan. Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek prey fish goal of 0.1 mg/kgfor the
protection of ecological receptors is used as benchmark for evaluating the LCP OU-1 prey fish results.
Abbreviations:
KM: Kaplan-Meier
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
ND: non-detect
UCL: upper confidence limit
Reference:
USEPA, 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/proucl_5.l_user-guide.pdf
Accessed May 22, 2020.
P:\Honeywell -SYRA452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year ComprehensiveYRev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-25-22.xlsx/Table 2.8 Prey Fish
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
RARSOIM!
TABLE 9 LCP PIEZOMETER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020
Location
1st Quarter (March) 2014
2nd Quarter (April) 2014
3rd Quarter (September) 2014
4th Quarter (November) 2014
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1'2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PZ-1B-S
Note 3
Note 3
ND (0.038)
U
0.038
J
PZ-1B-I
ND (0.038)
U
ND (0.038)
U
ND (0.038)
U
ND (0.038)
U
PZ-1B-D
ND (0.038/0.038)4
U
ND (0.038/0.038)4
U
ND (0.038/0.038)4
u
ND (0.038/0.038)4
U
PZ-2B-S
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.5
PZ-2B-I
0.063
J
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
0.076
J
PZ-2B-D
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
PZ-3B-S
Note 3
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
PZ-3B-I
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
0.041
J
PZ-3B-D
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
PZ-4B-S
Note 3
Note 3
ND (0.038)
u
Note 3
PZ-4B-I
ND (0.038)
u
0.043
J
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
PZ-4B-D
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
ND (0.038)
u
Location
1st Quarter (March) 2015
2nd Quarter 2015
3rd Quarter 2015
4th Quarter (October) 2015
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1'2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PZ-1B-S
Note 3
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
U
PZ-1B-I
ND (0.038)
U
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-1B-D
ND (0.038/0.038)4
u
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12/0.12)4
u
PZ-2B-S
1.9
Note 5
Note 5
1.9
PZ-2B-I
ND (0.038)
u
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-2B-D
ND (0.038)
u
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-3B-S
Note 3
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-3B-I
0.058
J
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-3B-D
ND (0.038)
u
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-4B-S
Note 3
u
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-4B-I
0.046
J
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
PZ-4B-D
ND (0.038)
u
Note 5
Note 5
ND (0.12)
u
Location
1st Quarter (March) 2016
2nd Quarter (June) 2016
3rd Quarter (August) 2016
4th Quarter (October) 2016
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1'2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PZ-1B-S
ND (0.052)
U
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
PZ-1B-I
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
U
ND (0.052)
U
ND (0.052)
U
PZ-1B-D
ND (0.052/0.052)"
u
ND (0.052/0.052)"
U
ND (0.052/0.052)"
U
ND (0.052/0.052)"
u
PZ-2B-S
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.8
PZ-2B-I
0.150
J
ND (0.2)
u
0.094
J
ND (0.052)
u
PZ-2B-D
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
PZ-3B-S
Note 3
0.058
J
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
PZ-3B-I
0.079
J
ND (0.2)
u
0.080
J
ND (0.052)
u
PZ-3B-D
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
PZ-4B-S
Note 3
0.053
J
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
PZ-4B-I
ND (0.052)
u
0.080
J
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
PZ-4B-D
0.063
J
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
ND (0.052)
u
Location
1st Quarter (March) 2017
2nd Quarter (June) 2017
3rd Quarter (August) 2017
4th Quarter (October) 2017
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1'2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1'2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PZ-1B-S
ND (0.065)
U
ND (0.12)
U
ND (0.065)
U
ND (0.083)
U
PZ-1B-I
ND (0.065)
UJ
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.083)
u
PZ-1B-D
ND (0.065/0.065)4
UJ
ND (0.12/0.12)4
u
ND (0.065/0.065)4
u
ND (0.083/0.083)4
u
PZ-2B-S
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.1
PZ-2B-I
ND (0.065)
UJ
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.083)
u
PZ-2B-D
ND (0.065)
UJ
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.083)
u
PZ-3B-S
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.083)
u
PZ-3B-I
0.077
J
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
0.25
J
PZ-3B-D
ND (0.065)
UJ
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.083)
u
PZ-4B-S
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.083)
u
PZ-4B-I
ND (0.065)
UJ
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
0.26
J
PZ-4B-D
ND (0.065)
UJ
ND (0.12)
u
ND (0.065)
u
ND (0.083)
u
1J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
2ND: Non-Detect, method detection limit shown in parenthesis.
3 Not sampled due to low water level.
4 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations.
5 Not sampled due to construction activities on the Landfill
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\HoneywelI -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xls>/Table 2.3 Piezometer Analytical
Page 1 of 2
-------
Honeywell
RARSOIM!
TABLE 9 LCP PIEZOMETER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020
Location
1st Quarter (February) 2018
2nd Quarter (May) 2018
3rd Quarter (August) 2018
4th Quarter (October) 2018
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PZ-1B-S
ND (0.083)
U
ND (0.13)
U
ND (0.095)
U
ND (0.095)
U
PZ-1B-I
ND (0.083)
U
ND (0.13)
U
ND (0.095)
U
ND (0.095)
U
PZ-1B-D
ND (0.083/0.083)4
u
ND (0.13/0.13)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
PZ-2B-S
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.5
PZ-2B-I
ND (0.083)
u
ND (0.13)
u
ND (0.095)
u
0.098
J
PZ-2B-D
ND (0.083)
u
ND (0.13)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.092)
u
PZ-3B-S
ND (0.083)
u
ND (0.13)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-3B-I
0.25
u
ND (0.4)
u
0.11
J
ND (0.190)
u
PZ-3B-D
ND (0.083)
u
ND (0.13)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.092)
u
PZ-4B-S
ND (0.083)
u
ND (0.13)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-4B-I
ND (0.083)
u
ND (0.13)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-4B-D
ND (0.083)
u
ND (0.13)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
Location
1st Quarter (March) 2019
2nd Quarter (May) 2019
3rd Quarter (August) 2019
4th Quarter (October) 2019
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PZ-1B-S
ND (0.095)
U
ND (0.095)
U
ND (0.095)
U
ND (0.095)
U
PZ-1B-I
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-1B-D
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
PZ-2B-S
1.9
2
1.7
1.9
PZ-2B-I
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
0.15
J
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-2B-D
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-3B-S
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-3B-I
0.1
J
0.12
J
0.15
J
ND (0.29)
u
PZ-3B-D
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-4B-S
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
0.11
J
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-4B-I
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
0.11
J
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-4B-D
0.13
J
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
Location
1st Quarter (January) 2020
2nd Quarter (April) 2020
3rd Quarter (July) 2020
4th Quarter (October) 2020
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
Result
Qualifier1,2
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PZ-1B-S
ND (0.095)
U
0.13
J
ND (0.095)
U
ND (0.095)
U
PZ-1B-I
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
U
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-1B-D
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
ND (0.095/0.095)4
u
PZ-2B-S
2.4
2.4
2.5
1.9
PZ-2B-I
ND (0.095)
u
0.097
J
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-2B-D
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-3B-S
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-3B-I
0.098
J
0.15
J
0.095
J
0.11
J
PZ-3B-D
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-4B-S
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
0.16
J
PZ-4B-I
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
PZ-4B-D
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
ND (0.095)
u
1J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
2ND: Non-Detect, method detection limit shown in parenthesis.
3 Not sampled due to low water level.
4 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations.
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\HoneywelI -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\LCP Tables 04-05-22.xlsVTable 2.3 Piezometer Analytical
Page 2 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 10 - LCP MONITORING WELL ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020
Location
1st Quarter 20141
2nd Quarter 20141
3rd Quarter 20141
4th Quarter 20141
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MW-34D
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
MW-35D
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
MW-36D
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Location
1st Ouarter 20151
2nd Quarter 20151
3rd Quarter 20151
4th Quarter 20151
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MW-34D
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
MW-35D
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
MW-36D
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Location
1st Quarter (March) 2016
2nd Quarter (June) 2016
3rd Quarter (August; 2016
4th Quarter (October) 2016
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MW-34D
0.8
J
0.46
0.31
0.29
MW-35D
3.7
3.8
3.1
3.9
MW-36D
3.9
1.0
J
1.2
J
1.1
Location
1st Ouarter 'March) 2017
2nd Quarter (June) 2017
3rd Quarter (August^ 2017
4th Ouarter 'October) 2017
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MW-34D
0.26
0.2
0.29
0.69
J
MW-35D
1.9
2.3
2.5
3.3
MW-36D
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.7
Location
1st Quarter (February) 2018
2nd Quarter (May) 2018
3rd Quarter (August; 2018
4th Quarter (October) 2018
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MW-34D
0.28
J
0.65
0.45
0.53
MW-35D
2.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
MW-36D
3.6
ND (0.13)
U
2.2
2.0
1 Not sampled due to ongoing construction activities
2 J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
3 ND: Non-Detect, method detection limit shown in parenthesis.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\LCP Tables ll-03-21.xlsx/Table 2.4 Monitoring Wells
Page 1 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 10 - LCP MONITORING WELL ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2014-2020 (CONTINUED)
Location
1st Quarter (March) 2019
2nd Quarter (June) 2019
3rd Quarter (August; 2019
4th Quarter (October) 2019
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MW-34D
0.77
0.39
0.39
0.92
MW-35D
3.5
4.9
4.2
3.5
MW-36D
2.3
0.95
1.7
1.1
Location
1st Quarter 'February) 2020
2nd Quarter (April) 2020
3rd Quarter (July) 2020
4th Quarter 'October) 2020
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
Result
Qualifier2,3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MW-34D
0.4
0.63
0.59
0.33
MW-35D
2.6
2.8
3.4
2.5
MW-36D
0.7
1.6
1.3
2
1 Not sampled due to ongoing construction activities
2 J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
3 ND: Non-Detect, method detection limit shown in parenthesis.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\LCP Tables ll-03-21.xlsx/Table 2.4 Monitoring Wells
Page 2 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 11 AVERAGE GEDDES BROOK SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2013-2019
ROD Remedial
Goals1
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
None
None
2.6 ng/L *'
None
None
0.7 ng/L 1
Location
Baseline Results4
October 2013
September 2014
Total Mercury
Methylmercury5
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
GB-SW-01WP
(2.7 to 89.4)
(0.08 to 1.83)
(0.6 to 2.88)
1.01/1.13
0.096/0.087
J
0.21/0.28
J
1.1
0.06
J
0.716
J
GB-SW-02WWL
1.79
0.17
J
0.38
J
1.2
0.23
0.856
J
GB-SW-03CGW
0.74
0.07
J
0.17
J
1.1
0.06
J
0.682
J
GB-SW-04GB
0.81
0.032
J
0.17
J
1.8
0.05
J
2.0
GB-SW-05PW
0.15
J
0.026
UJ
0.15
J
2.3
0.33
0.664
J
GB-SW-060F
1.2
0.07
J
0.38
J
0.755/0.701
J
0.05/0.04
J
1.1/0.6
J
Average8,9
23.9
0.62
1.59
0.96
0.074
0.25/0.279
1.37
0.13
0.96/1.029
Location
September 2015
October 2016
October 2017
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
GB-SW-01WP
1.84
0.101
0.19
J
0.5
U
0.026
U
0.50
U
0.55
0.125
0.14
J
GB-SW-02WWL
0.62
0.171
0.28
J
0.79
0.04
J
0.50
U
1.13
1.29
0.34
J
GB-SW-03CGW
1.19
0.143
0.41
J
0.50
U
0.026
U
0.50
u
1.54
0.525
1.14
GB-SW-04GB
2.46
0.053
0.4
J
0.66
0.026
u
0.50
u
1.26
0.089
0.22
J
GB-SW-05PW
3.77
0.499
0.77
3.91
0.258
0.44
J
4.21
1.66
1.53
GB-SW-060F
0.42/0.33
J
0.026/0.026
U
0.2/0.17
J
0.56/0.68
0.064/0.089
0.5/0.5
u
1.24/1.7
J
0.249/0.169
J
0.26/0.28
J
Average8,9
1.71
0.163
0.37/0.299
1.10
0.069
0.28/0.259
1.69
0.65
0.61/0.429
Location
October 2019
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
Result
Qualifier6,7
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
GB-SW-01WP
0.50
U
0.10
J
1.0
U
GB-SW-02WWL
0.50
U
0.12
0.08
U
GB-SW-03CGW
0.55
J
0.079
0.50
u
GB-SW-04GB
1.51
0.026
U
0.50
u
GB-SW-05PW
2.21
0.208
0.74
GB-SW-060F
0.86/0.79
0.239/0.097
J
0.51/0.45
J
Average8,9
0.95
0.11
0.39/0.309
x NYSDEC/United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
2 Remedial Goal for the protection of wildlife.
3 Remedial Goal for the protection of human health based on consumption offish.
4 Values observed during 2010/2011 baseline sampling conducted during low flow and high flow conditions.
5 Methylmercury was not analyzed for during 2010/2011 baseline sampling Data from Honeywell/PTI 1992 (NYSDEC, 2003).
6 J: Result is considered an estimate; U: Not detected
7 For individual non-detects, ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
8 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations
9 The human health fish consumption goal for dissolved mercury concentrations (0.7 ng/L) does not apply to GB-SW-05PW, as it is located in the perched wetland and only intermittently contains standing water. Therefore, averages for dissolved mercury are displayed both with and without GB-SW-05PW.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2020 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\
GB Tables 06-13-22.xlsxTable 3.2 Surface Water
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 12 - AVERAGE GEDDES BROOK SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2013-2017
ROD Remedial
Goals
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Note 2, 3
None
Location
Baseline Results4
October 2013
September 2014
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
GB-SED-01WP
(0.8 to 14.2)
(0.3 to 8.7)
0.0399/0.0414
J
0.422/1.15
J
0.055
GB-SED-02WWL
0.0647
J
0.953
0.034
J
0.43
J
GB-SED-03CGW
0.0279
J
0.097
0.025
J
0.12
J
GB-SED-04GB
0.0284
J
0.027
J
0.03
J
0.05
U
GB-SED-05PW
0.0341
J
0.031
J
0.095
0.71
GB-SED-060F
0.067
J
0.062
J
0.081/0.06
0.75/0.53
Average7
5.37
4.31
0.04379
0.326
0.052
0.39
Location
September 2015
October 2016
October 2017
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
Result
Qualifier5,6
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
GB-SW-01WP
0.0548
J
0.14
0.0216
J
1.44
J-
0.0348
J
0.091
GB-SW-02WWL
0.0947
J
0.476
J
0.03
J
0.162
0.0512
J
0.203
GB-SW-03CGW
0.0404
J
0.307
0.0135
J
0.061
J
0.0212
J
0.055
J
GB-SW-04GB
0.0465
J
0.019
U
0.0245
J
0.03
J
0.0399
J
0.028
J
GB-SW-05PW
0.0663
J
0.563
0.0304
J
0.236
0.0296
J
0.348
GB-SW-060F
0.0719/0.0749
J
0.714/1.11
J
0.0412/0.0492
J
0.468/0.528
0.0573/0.0582
J
0.517/0.807
Average7
0.0627
0.401
0.0275
0.405
0.0391
0.231
1 NYSDEC/United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
2 As stated in the Response Action Document (RAD), "The remediation of the floodplain pursuant to this IRM will result in the removal of 100% of mercury above the sediment toxicity targets (0.15, 0.5,1.3 and 2.0 mg/kg) in the sediment/soil located above the clay layer in
the Geddes Brook floodplain."
3 The BSQV for mercury in sediments for the protection of wildlife consumption offish is 0.8 mg/kg and the BSQV for mercury in floodplain soils for protection of wildlife consumption of terrestrial invertebrates is 0.6 mg/kg on a surface-weighted- average basis.
4 Baseline averages based on 2010/2011 Baseline Monitoring Program.
5 J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected. J-: Result is considered estimated biased low at the given value.
6 For individual non-detects, ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
7 Field Duplicate are averaged together for all calculations
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\
GB Tables ll-01-21.xlsxTable 3.3 Sediment
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 13 - SUMMARY OF GEDDES BROOK FISH TISSUE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS: PREY FISH WHOLE BODY (2013-2017)
Taxon
Chemical
Name
Year
Sample
Size
Number of
Detections
Mean1
Min
Max
95% UCL
Value1
95% UCL Calculation Type
Small Prey
Fish
Mercury
(mg/kg)
2010
(Baseline)
4
4
0.135
0.088
0.19
0.185
95% Student's-t UCL
2013
15
15
0.083
0.042
0.17
0.10
95% Modified-t UCL
2014
15
15
0.072
0.015
0.18
0.09
95% Student's-t UCL
2016
15
15
0.058
0.015
0.19
0.09
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
15
15
0.090
0.046
0.14
0.10
95% Student's-t UCL
Notes:
1. Mean and 95% UCL were calculated using ProUCL version 5.1 and were not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects (USEPA 2015). 95% UCL is an
estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than the
substitution method (i.e., one-half of the detection/reporting limit).
Abbreviations:
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
ND: non-detect
UCL: upper confidence limit
Reference:
USEPA, 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/proucl_5.l_user-guide.pdf
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\
GB Tables ll-01-21.xlsxTable 3.4 Prey Fish
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 14a: 2013 - 2017 GEDDES BROOK MACROIINVERTEBRATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROD
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Remedial
None
None
Baseline1
2013
Mercury
Methylmercury
Mercury
Methylmercury
Location
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Organism
Location
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Organism
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
01CH
01CH
0.0151
J
25
J
Crayfish
01CH
01CH
0.0409
J
70.3
J
Dragonfly Nymphs
01CH
01CH
0.0404
J
46.6
J
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
0.11/(0.021
to 0.030)
75.4/
02WP
0.0418
J
61.3
J
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
(4.54 to
Crayfish / Amphipod
02WP
0.0153
J
45.7
J
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
9.1)
02WP
0.0555
J
78.5
J
Dragonfly Nymphs
030F
030F
0.0192
J
26.3
J
Amphipod
030F
030F
0.0296
J
45.1
J
Dragonfly Nymphs
030F
030F
0.0165
J
21.1
J
Dragonfly Nymphs
Average
0.11/0.03
75.4/6.3
Crayfish/Amphipod
Average
0.0305
46.7
2014
2016
Mercury
Methylmercury
Mercury
Methylmercury
Location
Result2
Qualifier3'4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Organism
Location
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Organism
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
01CH
0.07
52.7
Crayfish
01CH
0.0202
J
21.6
Dragonfly Nymphs
01CH
0.06
39.7
Crayfish
01CH
0.0218
J
24.7
Crayfish
01CH
0.36
148
Dragonfly Nymphs
01CH
0.0106
U
4.4
Amphipod
02WP
0.04
24.4
Crayfish
02WP
0.0171
J
11.5
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
0.03
24.1
Crayfish
02WP
0.0097
U
10.5
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
0.23
144
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
0.0102
J
9.6
J+
Damsel Fly
030F
0.1
77.3
Dragonfly Nymphs
030F
0.0136
J
18.2
Dragonfly Nymphs
030F
0.17
113
Dragonfly Nymphs
030F
0.0281
J
28.3
Crayfish
030F
0.09
64.2
Crayfish
030F
0.0189
J
11.5
Amphipod
Average
0.13
76.4
Average
0.0156
15.6
2017
Mercury
Methylmercury
Location
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Organism
mg/kg
ug/kg
01CH
0.0127
J
19.2
Crayfish
01CH
0.0126
J
16.7
Crayfish
01CH
0.0186
J
30.9
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
0.0098
U
11.7
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
0.0097
U
16.2
Dragonfly Nymphs
02WP
0.0095
u
15.7
Dragonfly Nymphs
030F
0.0166
J
19
Crayfish
030F
0.0168
J
22.8
Crayfish
030F
0.0463
J
37.5
Dragonfly Nymphs
Average
0.0154
21.1
Macroinvertebrate baseline average based on seven samples (one crayfish and six amphipods) from two stations sampled in 2010.
! Wet weight.
! J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected. J+: Result is considered estimated biased high at the given value.
1 For individual non-detects, ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
' Not sampled in 2015 in accordance with the Geddes Brook OM&M Plan
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\GB Tables ll-01-21.xlsxTable 3.5 Macro
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 14b 2013 - 2017 GEDDES BROOK EARTHWORM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROD
Remedial
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
None
None
E
Jaseline1
2013
Location
Mercury
Methylmercury
Organism
Location
Mercury
Methylmercury
Organism
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
GB-EW-01
(0.036 to
0.38)
(28.7 to
97.8)
Earthworms
GB-EW-01
0.0103
J
20.2
Earthworms
GB-EW-02
Earthworms
GB-EW-02
0.0499
J
23.7
Earthworms
GB-EW-03
Earthworms
GB-EW-03
0.0146
J
16
Earthworms
Average
0.2
59
Average
0.0249
20.0
2014
2016
Location
Mercury
Methylmercury
Organism
Location
Mercury
Methylmercury
Organism
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
GB-EW-01
0.08
9.9
U
Earthworms
GB-EW-01
0.0295
J
0.8
J
Earthworms
GB-EW-02
0.21
9.8
u
Earthworms
GB-EW-02
0.0418
J
2.1
Earthworms
GB-EW-03
0.23
9.6
u
Earthworms
GB-EW-03
0.0468
J
1.8
J
Earthworms
Average
0.17
4.9
Average
0.0394
1.6
2017
Location
Mercury
Methylmercury
Organism
Result2
Qualifier3,4
Result2
Qualifier3,4
mg/kg
ug/kg
GB-EW-01
0.0476
J
1.4
J
Earthworms
GB-EW-02
0.063
J
4.4
Earthworms
GB-EW-03
0.0831
J
2.1
Earthworms
Average
0.0646
2.6
1 Earthworm baseline average based on six samples from two stations sampled in 2010. Note that earthworms were depurated for 24 hours during baseline in 2010 and for 48 hours in 2013 and 2014.
Samples from Geddes Brook in 2016 and 2017 did not include the depuration step, at the request of the NYSDEC.
2 Wet weight
3 J = Result is considered an estimate; U = Not detected.
4 For individual non-detects, ND=l/2 the reporting limit was used in calculations.
5 Not sampled in 2015 in accordance with the Geddes Brook OM&M Plan
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\GB Tables 04-25-22.xlsxTable 3.6 EW
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 14c: 2013 - 2017 GEDDES BROOK SMALL MAMMAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROD
Remedial
Total Mercury
Methyl mercury
None
None
Baseline1
2013
Location
Mercury
Methyl mercury
Organism
Location
Mercury
Methylmercury
Organism
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier3,4
Result2
ug/kg
Qualifier3,4
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier3,4
Result2
ug/kg
Qualifier3,4
GB-MAM-01
(0.011 to
0.400)
(11.5 to
225.0)
(Deer Mouse, White Footed
Mouse)
GB-MAM-01
0.0123
J
14.0
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-02
GB-MAM-02
0.0125
J
3.4
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-03
GB-MAM-03
0.0251
J
12.1
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-04
GB-MAM-04
0.0252
J
12.6
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-05
GB-MAM-05
0.0097
U
5.1
White Footed Mouse
Average
0.11
72.2
Average
0.0160
9.44
2014
2016
Location
Mercury
Methyl mercury
Organism
Location
Mercury
Methylmercury
Organism
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier3,4
Result2
ug/kg
Qualifier3,4
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier3,4
Result2
ug/kg
Qualifier3,4
GB-MAM-01
0.02
U
9.8
U
Meadow Vole
GB-MAM-01
0.01
U
0.40
U
Meadow Vole
GB-MAM-02
0.02
16.4
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-02
0.0099
U
0.50
U
Meadow Vole
GB-MAM-03
0.02
U
9.9
U
Meadow Vole
GB-MAM-03
0.0093
U
0.40
U
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-04
0.02
U
9.5
U
Meadow Vole
GB-MAM-04
0.0763
J
44.7
J+
Northern Short-tailed Shrew
GB-MAM-05
0.02
U
9.8
U
Meadow Vole
GB-MAM-05
0.11
53.2
J+
Meadow Vole
Average
0.01
7.20
Average
0.0394
19.7
2017
Location
Mercury
Methyl mercury
Organism
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier3,4
Result2
ug/kg
Qualifier3,4
GB-MAM-01
0.0092
U
1.5
J
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-02
0.0095
U
1.0
J
Meadow Vole
GB-MAM-03
0.0098
U
2.6
White Footed Mouse
GB-MAM-04
0.0698
J
34.6
Northern Short-tailed Shrew
GB-MAM-05
0.132
137
Northern Short-tailed Shrew
Average
0.0432
35.3
1 Small mammal baseline average based on eight samples from two stations sampled in 2010.
2 Wet weight.
3 J: Result is considered an estimate.U: Not detected. J+: Result is considered estimated biased high at the given value.
4 For individual non-detects, ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
5 Not sampled in 2015 in accordance with the Geddes Brook OM&M Plan
P:\Honeywell -SYRU52663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB NMC 5-Year ComprehensiveVRev 0\Tables\GB Tables 11-01-21.xlsxTable 3.7 Small Mammals
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSON:
TABLE 15 - AVERAGE NINEMILE CREEK SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2015-2017
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
ROD Remedial Goals1
None
None
2.6 2
0.7 3
Location ID
Baseline - Low Flow
2015 - Low Flow
2016 - Low Flow
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
NMC-STA-005
(1.05 to 1.48)6
(0.11 to 0.20)7'8
(0.18 to 0.32)6
1.09
0.06
0.19
J
1.20
0.05
J+
0.16
J
NMC-STA-01
0.82
0.053
0.19
J
1.39
0.04
J
0.16
J
NMC-STA-02
5.1
0.06
0.17
J
4.60
0.07
J+
0.20
J
NMC-STA-03
2.87
0.103
0.18
J
2.63
0.10
J+
0.16
J
NMC-STA-04
1.18/1.24
0.069/0.058
0.17/0.18
J
2.23/1.89
0.18/0.40
J
0.25/0.23
J
Average9
1.26
0.15
0.24
2.50
0.07
0.18
2.67
0.12
0.19
Location ID
Baseline - High Flow
2015 - High Flow
2016- High Flow
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
NMC-STA-005
(8.35 to 18.70)5
(0.13 to 1.44)6'7
(1.13 to 2.46)5
50.1
0.864
1.09
78.4
1.55
1.21
NMC-STA-01
52.7
0.701
1.04
67.2
1.53
1.10
NMC-STA-02
47.3
0.605
1.33
67.7
1.32
1.16
NMC-STA-03
15.7
0.397
1.11
61.7
1.17
1.17
NMC-STA-04
75.1/35.7
J
0.557/0.664
1.37/1.37
73.2/65.3
1.31/1.24
1.41/1.35
Average9
14.9
0.45
1.45
42.8
0.58
1.21
66.46
1.32
1.2
Notes:
1 NYSDEC/United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
2 Remedial Goal for the protection of wildlife.
3 Remedial Goal for the protection of human health based on consumption offish.
4J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected. J+: Result is considered estimated biased high at the given value.
5 Upstream Reference location
6 Values observed during 2010/2011 baseline sampling conducted during low flow and high flow conditions.
7 Methylmercury was not analyzed for during 2010/2011 baseline sampling.
8 Data from Honeywell/PTI 1992 (NYSDEC, 2003).
9 Averages only include downstream sample locations (NMC-STA-01 through NMC-STA-04)
10 Field Duplicates are averaged together for all calculations.
P:\Honeywell -SYRU52663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year ComprehensiveVRev 0\Tables\NMC Tables ll-01-21.xlsx
Table 4.2 Surface Water
Page 1 Of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 15 - AVERAGE NINEMILE CREEK SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2015-2017
(continued)
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
ROD Remedial Goals1
None
None
2.6 2
0.7 3
Location ID
Baseline - Low Flow
2017 - Low Flow
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
NMC-STA-005
(1.05 to 1.48)6
(0.11 to 0.20)7'8
(0.18 to 0.32)6
1.42
0.05
J
0.20
J
NMC-STA-01
0.64
0.04
J
0.11
J
NMC-STA-02
0.87
0.04
J
0.11
J
NMC-STA-03
0.69
0.03
J
0.12
J
NMC-STA-04
1.78/0.61
J
0.03/0.04
J
0.13/0.13
J
Average9
1.26
0.15
0.24
0.85
0.04
0.12
Location ID
Baseline - High Flow
2017- High Flow
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Dissolved Mercury
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
Result
Qualifier4
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
NMC-STA-005
(8.35 to 18.70)5
(0.13 to 1.44)6'7
(1.13 to 2.46)5
2.44
0.05
0.18
J
NMC-STA-01
2.73
0.06
0.17
J
NMC-STA-02
2.77
0.07
0.15
J
NMC-STA-03
3.1
0.06
0.16
J
NMC-STA-04
2.98/2.55
0.07/0.06
0.23/0.19
J
Average9
14.9
0.45
1.45
2.77
0.06
0.17
Notes:
1 NYSDEC/United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
2 Remedial Goal for the protection of wildlife.
3 Remedial Goal for the protection of human health based on consumption offish.
4J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected. J+: Result is considered estimated biased high at the given value.
5 Upstream Reference location
6 Values observed during 2010/2011 baseline sampling conducted during low flow and high flow conditions.
7 Methylmercury was not analyzed for during 2010/2011 baseline sampling.
8 Data from Honeywell/PTI 1992 (NYSDEC, 2003).
9 Averages only include downstream sample locations (NMC-STA-01 through NMC-STA-04)
10 Field Duplicates are averaged together for all calculations.
P:\Honeywell -SYRU52663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year ComprehensiveVRev 0\Tables\NMC Tables ll-01-21.xlsx
Table 4.2 Surface Water
Page 2 of 2
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 16 - NINEMILE CREEK FLOODPLAIN SOIL AND CHANNEL SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2016 AND 2018
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
ROD Remedial Goals1
Note 2
None
Baseline3
2016
201S
Location ID
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Result
mg/kg
Qualifier4
Result
ug/kg
Qualifier4
Result
mg/kg
Qualifier4
Result
ug/kg
Qualifier4
Result
mg/kg
Qualifier4
Result
ug/kg
Qualifier4
NMC CHANNEL
NMC-STA-01
0.0384/0.0421
J
0.018/0.824
UJ/J
0.152/0.143
UJ/U
0.788/1.05
NMC-STA-03
(0.04-1.1)
(0.3-1.35)
0.149
J
0.692
J
0.102
u
0.373
NMC-STA-05
0.0419
J
0.396
0.126
u
1.01
NMC-STA-06
0.0457
J
0.22
0.102
u
0.101
Average
0.50
0.66
0.0692
0.431
0.060
0.601
NMC FLOODPLAIN
NMC-FP01-STA04
0.0343
J
0.413
0.0784
J
0.675
J
NMC-FP01-STA05
(0.13-0.71)
(1.57-2.34)
0.0339
J
0.46
0.0744
J
0.601
NMC-FP01-STA06
0.0258/0.0356
J
0.417/0.369
0.0771/0.0688
J
0.371/0.303
Average
0.50
2.07
0.0330
0.422
0.0753
0.538
Notes:
1NYSDEC/United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
2The BSQV for mercury in sediments for the protection of wildlife consumption of fish is 0.8 mg/kg, the
BSQV for mercury in floodplain soils for protection of wildlife consumption of terrestrial invertebrates is
0.6 mg/kg on a surface-weighted-average basis, and the LEL of 0.15 mg/kg. These three values
represent a range of remedial goals for soil/sediment.
3Values observed during 2010/2011 baseline sampling
4J: Result is considered an estimate. U: Not detected.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\NMC Tables ll-01-21.xlsx\Table 4.4 Sediment
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 17 - 2016 NINEMILE CREEK MACROINVERTEBRATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Baseline1
2016
Location
Mercury
Methyl mercury
Mercury
Methyl mercury
Result2
mg/kg
Result2
ug/kg
Organism
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier3
Result2
ug/kg
Qualifier3
Organism
NMC-STA-01
(Amphipod/
Chironomid)
0.020
J
18.7
Crayfish
NMC-STA-03
0.029
(2.4-6.1)
0.016
J
33.6
J+
Crayfish
NMC-STA-05
0.026
J
13.4
J+
Crayfish
Average
0.029
4.08
0.021
21.9
^"Values observed during 2010/2011 baseline sampling
2 Wet weight
3 J = estimated value. U = Compound was not detected
P:\Honeywell -SYRA452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\NMC Tables 11-01-21.xlsx
Table 4.7 Macro
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 18
FISH TISSUE REMEDIAL GOALS (MERCURY) AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS (ORGANIC CHEMICALS)
LCP OU-11
Human Health
Ecological
Remedial Goals
Mercury ung kgi
None
None
Geddes Brook
Human Health
Ecological
Remedial Goals
Mercury ung kgi
None
0.1
Ninemile Creek
Human Health
Ecological
Remedial Goals
Mercury ung kgi
0.3
0.1
Target Concentrations
1 in 100,000
Excess Adult
Cancer Risk
1 in 10,000
Excess Adult
Cancer Risk
Noncancer
Target
(Child)
Noncancer
Target
(Adult)
Total PCBs (pg/kg)2
110
1,100
120
190
NA
Dioxin/Furan TEQ
(ng/kg)3
1.0
10.0
4.2
6.5
NA
Notes:
1. No long-term prey fish goals were established in the LCP OU-1 ROD or OM&M Plan. Goals
established for Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek prey fish are useful benchmarks for
evaluating the LCP OU-1 results.
2. The human health target tissue concentrations for total PCBs based on RME carcinogenic
risks at risk targets of 10 5 and 10 4 for adults are 110 pg/kg and 1100 pg/kg, respectively.
The RME targets based on non-cancer effects of 120 to 190 pg/kg fall within the range
based on the carcinogenic risk target of 10 5. A target concentration based on the 10 6 risk
level (0.011 mg/kg) is much lower than mean background concentrations in U.S. water and
may not be achievable.
3. Although non-carcinogenic targets were not developed for dioxin/furans at the time of the
ROD (2009), using the parameters presented in Appendix I of the FS (Parsons 2005) for a
target concentration for the non-cancer endpoint, and using the USEPA 2012 reference dose
of 7E-10 mg/kg-day, the non-cancer target at a hazard quotient of 1 was determined by
USEPA to be 6.5 ng/kgfor adults and 4.2 ng/kgfor children. These RME targets based on
non-cancer effects of PCDD/PCDFs fall within the range based on carcinogenic risks at the
10"5 (1 ng/kg) and 10 4 (10 ng/kg) levels.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\Table X.X Fish Tissue Goals and Targets
Table_04252022.docx
4/25/2022
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 19a SUMMARY OF NINEMILE CREEK FISH TISSUE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS: PREY FISH WHOLE BODY (2015-2017)
Taxon
Chemical Name
Location
Year
Sample
Size
Number of
Detections
Mean1
Min
Max
95% UCL
Value1
95% UCL Calculation Type
_
0.043
0.059
0.054
95% Student's-t UCL
Upstream
2016
5
5
0.059
0.046
0.069
0.068
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
5
5
0.047
0.040
0.054
0.052
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2010
(Baseline)
9
3
0.0127
0.011
0.015
0.0116
95% KM(t) UCL
Downstream
2015
15
15
0.065
0.013
0.168
0.088
95% Student's-t UCL
2016
15
15
0.051
0.018
0.137
0.067
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
15
15
0.085
0.028
0.136
0.103
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
2
2
168.5
143.0
194.0
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Upstream
2016
2
2
156.5
46.0
267.0
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Total PCBs2 (Mg/kg)
2017
2
2
94.5
91.0
98.0
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
2015
8
8
216.6
52.0
1100.0
684.3
95% H-UCL
Small Prey Fish
Downstream
2016
8
8
85.1
51.0
157.0
115.3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
8
8
68.4
34.0
91.0
80.8
95% Student's-t UCL
Upstream
2015
2
2 (32/34)
0.650
0.527
0.773
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ3
2017
2
2 (19/34)
0.285
0.207
0.363
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
(ng/kg)2'3'4
Downstream
2015
8
8 (119/136)
0.295
0.19
0.406
0.347
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
8
8 ( 88/136)
0.309
0.134
0.591
0.416
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
2
2
4.30
4.30
4.30
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Upstream
2016
2
2
1.75
1.40
2.10
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
2017
2
2
5.30
5.00
5.60
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Percent Lipid (% by weight)
2010
(Baseline)
9
9
0.83
0.27
1.3
1.03
95% Student's-t UCL
Downstream
2015
8
8
4.51
3.20
7.10
5.40
95% Student's-t UCL
2016
8
8
4.03
2.10
8.70
5.48
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
8
8
3.00
2.30
3.70
3.27
95% Student's-t UCL
Notes:
1. Mean and 95% UCL were calculated using ProUCL version 5.1 and were not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects (USEPA 2015). 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical
method was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method (i.e., one-half of the detection/reporting limit).
2. Baseline organic fish data from 2010 not used due to organic data quality issues. Prey fish not analyzed for organics in 2011 baseline.
3. TEQ: Toxic Equivalent Quotient - calculated using human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) from Van den Berget al. (2006)
4. Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ was calculated as a sum of congeners; 1/2 the method detection limit was used for non-detects.
5. Number of detection is total TEQ detections; number in parentheses are number of congeners detected/congeners analyzed (i.e., 17 congeners times 8 samples).
Abbreviations: Reference:
-- Insufficient data to calculate Mean or 95% UCL; 3 or fewer results were detects USEPA, 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/proucl_5.l_user-
KM: Kaplan-Meier guide.pdf
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
ng/kg: nanograms per kilogram
ND: non-detect
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl
TEQ: toxicity equivalent quotient
UCL: upper confidence limit
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\HoneywelI -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\NMC Tables 04-05-22.xlsx\Table 4.9 Prey Fish Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSON
TABLE 19b SUMMARY OF NINEMILE CREEK FISH TISSUE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS: SPORTFISH FILLET (2015-2017)
Taxon
Chemical Name
Location
Year
Sample Size
Number of Detections
Mean1
Min
Max
95% UCL Value1
95% UCL Calculation Type
Mercury (mg/kg)
3
3
1.047
0.94
1.2
1.276
95% Student's-t UCL
Channel Catfish
Total PCBs (|Jg/kg)
2011 (Baseline)
3
3
1107
650
1700
2014
95% Student's-t UCL
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ2 (ng/kg)3,4
Downstream
3
3 (13/51)
1.801
1.347
2.324
2.630
95% Student's-t UCL
Percent Lipid (% by weight)
3
3
2.267
1.3
3.5
4.162
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
6
6
0.056
0.042
0.072
0.067
95% Student's-t UCL
Upstream
2016
6
6
0.041
0.020
0.050
0.049
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2017
6
6
0.096
0.041
0.133
0.122
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
8
8
0.062
0.039
0.108
0.080
95% Student's-t UCL
Downstream
2016
8
8
0.069
0.033
0.111
0.087
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
8
8
0.119
0.061
0.250
0.159
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
2
2
131.5
112.0
151.0
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Upstream
2016
2
2
186.5
150.0
223.0
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Total PCBs (|Jg/kg)
2017
2
2
185.0
170.0
200.0
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
2015
8
7
128.7
76.0
183.0
151.3
95% KM (t) UCL
Brown Trout
Downstream
2016
8
8
145.9
97.0
210.0
170.5
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
8
8
111.4
60.0
180.0
137.4
95% Student's-t UCL
Upstream
2015
2
2 (25/34)
0.262
0.186
0.337
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ2 (ng/kg)3,4
2017
2
2 (33/34)
1.238
0.331
2.144
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Downstream
2015
8
8 (99/136)
0.353
0.169
0.734
0.487
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
6
6 (88/102)
0.414
0.188
0.715
0.591
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
2
2
1.355
0.410
2.300
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Upstream
2016
2
2
1.350
1.100
1.600
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Percent Lipid (% by weight)
2017
2
2
1.550
1.000
2.100
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
2015
8
8
1.049
0.160
2.300
1.568
95% Student's-t UCL
Downstream
2016
8
8
2.201
0.660
8.900
5.268
95% H-UCL
2017
8
8
0.880
0.260
2.100
1.299
95% Student's-t UCL
Rock Bass
Mercury (mg/kg)
Downstream
2015
1
1
0.442
0.442
0.442
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
2017
8
7
0.268
0.114
0.408
0.325
95% KM (t) UCL
Brown Bullhead
Mercury (mg/kg)
Downstream
2015
2
2
0.075
0.071
0.079
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
2016
1
1
0.194
0.194
0.194
NA
Fewer than 3 detections
Green Sunfish
Mercury (mg/kg)
Downstream
2016
8
8
0.132
0.029
0.400
0.210
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
8
8
0.131
0.027
0.222
0.184
95% Student's-t UCL
Notes:
1. Mean and 95% UCL were calculated using ProUCL version 5.1 and were not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects (USEPA,2015). 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than
the substitution method (i.e., one-half of the detection/reporting limit).
2. TEQ: Toxic Equivalent Quotient - calculated using human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) from Van den Berg et al. (2006)
2. Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ was calculated as a sum of congeners; 1/2 the method detection limit was used for non-detects.
4. Number of detection is total TEQ detections; number in parentheses are number of congeners detected/congeners analyzed (i.e., 17 congeners times 8 samples).
Abbreviations: Reference:
- Insufficient data to calculate Mean or 95% UCL; 3 or fewer results were detects USEPA, 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-7/041 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/proucl_5.l_user-guide.pdf Accessed May 22, 2020.
KM: Kaplan-Meier
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
ng/kg: nanograms per kilogram
ND: non-detect
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl
TEQ: toxicity equivalent quotient
UCL: upper confidence limit
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\NMC Tables 04-05-22.xlsxTable 4.8 Sport Fish
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 20 - 2016 NINEMILE CREEK EARTHWORM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Baseline1
2016
Location
Mercury
Methyl mercury
Mercury
Methyl mercury
Result2
mg/kg
Result2
ug/kg
Organism
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier3
Result"
ug/kg
Qualifier3
Organism
NMC-FP01-STA04
0.026
J
3.3
Earthworm
NMC-FP01-STA05
(0.34-0.97)
(21-43.2)
Earthworm
0.026
J
0.9
J
Earthworm
NMC-FP01-STA06
0.024
J
0.4
J
Earthworm
Average
0.7
31.5
0.025
1.5
1 Values observed during 2010/2011 baseline sampling
2 Wet weight
3 J = estimated value. U = Compound was not detected
P:\Honeywell -SYRA452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\NMC Tables 11-01-21.xlsx
Table 4.6 Earthworms
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 21 - 2016 NINEMILE CREEK SMALL MAMMAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Location
Baseline1
2016
Mercury
Organism
Mercury
Organism
Result2
mg/kg
Result2
mg/kg
Qualifier0,4
NMC-FP-03
(0.037 - 0.048)
(Deer Mouse/White
Footed Mouse)
0.009
U
Meadow Vole
NMC-FP-03
0.010
U
Deer Mouse
NMC-FP-03
0.010
U
White Footed Mouse
NMC-FP-03
0.009
U
White Footed Mouse
NMC-FP-03
0.009
U
Meadow Vole
Average
0.040
0.005
^"Values observed during 2010/2011 baseline sampling
2 Wet weight
3 J = estimated value. U = Compound was not detected
4 For individual non-detects, ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\NMC Tables ll-01-21.xlsx
Table 4.5 Small Mammals
Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 22 2015 - 2018 SYW-10 FL00DPLAIN SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROD Remedial Goals
Total Mercury Methylmercury
Note 1 None
Location ID
Baseline2,3
2015
Mercury Methylmercury
Mercury Methylmercury
Result4
Qualifier5
Result4
Qualifier5
Result4
Qualifier5
Result4
Qualifier5
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
SYW10-SED-01 (Remediated)
(3.2 to 13.4)
(1.34 to
8.45)
0.129
J
3.70
SYW10-SED-02 (Remediated)
0.069
J
0.80
SYW10-SED-03(Remediated)
0.026
J
0.71
SYW10-SED-06 (Remediated)
0.030
J
1.97
SYW10-SED-09 (Remediated)
0.076
J
2.46
SYW10-SED-10 (Remediated)
0.094/0.109
J
2.49/1.77
SYW10-SED-04 (Unremediated)
(0.24 to 4.1)
(1.98 to
13.6)
3.240
J
6.39
J
SYW10-SED-05 (Unremediated)
4.090
J
12.20
J
SYW10-SED-07 (Unremediated)
3.920
17.60
SYW10-SED-08 (Unremediated)
2.970
J
13.60
J
Remediated Average
7 58
4.37
0.072
1.96
Unremediated Average
2.49
7.85
3.555
12.45
Sitewide Average
5.54
5 76
1.465
6.16
Location ID
2016
2018
Mercury Methylmercury
Mercury Methylmercury
Result4
Qualifier5
Result4
Qualifier5
Result4
Qualifier5
Result4
Qualifier5
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
SYW10-SED-01 (Remediated)
0.110
J
2.30
J
0.107
J
1.62
SYW10-SED-02 (Remediated)
0.062
J
0.35
0.108
U
1.76
SYW10-SED-03(Remediated)
0.035
J
0.73
0.0942
U
1.00
SYW10-SED-06 (Remediated)
0.028
J
1.09
0.111
u
1.84
SYW10-SED-09 (Remediated)
0.035
J
1.24
0.102
u
2.57
SYW10-SED-10 (Remediated)
0.104/0.117
J
2.23/1.81
0.135/0.137
J
2.05/1.22
J
SYW10-SED-04 (Unremediated)
0.467
4.77
3.53
J
9.28
J
SYW10-SED-05 (Unremediated)
2.860
J
11.50
J
2.51
J
9.48
J
SYW10-SED-07 (Unremediated)
7.450
19.70
4.69
J
13.50
SYW10-SED-08 (Unremediated)
7.870
J
22.80
J
3.31
J
31.50
J
Remediated Average
0063
1.29
0.08
1.74
Unremediated Average
4 662
14 69
3.51
15.94
Sitewide Average
1.903
6.65
1.45
7.42
1 Site specific BSQV for mercury in sediments for the protection of wildlife consumption offish of 0.8 mg/kg and a site specific BSQV for mercury in floodplain soils for protection of
wildlife consumption of terrestrial invertebrates of 0.6 mg/kg.
2 Sediment average calculated using surface sediment data from locations with co-located earthworm samples.
3 Baseline averages based on 2010/2011 Baseline
4 For individual nondetects, ND=l/2 the MDLwas used in calculations.
5 J = estimated value; U = compound was not detected
\\NYSYR04FS01\Projects\HoneywelI -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev l\Tables\NMC Tables 04-05-22.xlsxTable 4.10 SYW-10 SEBige 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 23: 2015 - 2018 SYW-10 EARTHWORM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Location ID
Baseline1
20152
Mercury
Methylmercury
Mercury
Methylmercury
Result3
Qualifier4
Result3
Qualifier4
Result3
Qualifier4
Result3
Qualifier4
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
SYW10-EW-01 (Remediated)
(0.34 to 0.77)
(56 to 486)
0.139
J
69.30
SYW10-EW-02 (Remediated)
0.055
J
42.70
SYW10-EW-03 (Remediated)
0.043
J
26.80
SYW10-EW-06 (Remediated)
0.177
J
167.00
SYW10-EW-09 (Remediated)
0.174
J
181.00
SYW10-EW-10 (Remediated)
0.188
J
181.00
SYW10-EW-04 (Unremediated)
(0.093 to
0.52)
(11.6 to 125)
0.264
J+
14.30
SYW10-EW-05 (Unremediated)
0.195
J
98.50
SYW10-EW-07 (Unremediated)
0.490
515.00
SYW10-EW-08 (Unremediated)
0.309
279.00
Remediated Average
0.465
201.23
0.130
111.30
Unremediated Average
0.297
59.94
0.320
226.70
Sitewide Average
0.390
137.00
0.200
157.50
Location ID
2016
2018
Mercury
Methylmercury
Mercury
Methylmercury
Result3
Qualifier4
Result3
Qualifier4
Result3
Qualifier4
Result3
Qualifier4
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
SYW10-EW-01 (Remediated)
0.185
50.70
0.130
37.00
SYW10-EW-02 (Remediated)
0.123
28.60
0.109
J
36.00
SYW10-EW-03 (Remediated)
0.084
J
22.80
0.109
J
40.50
SYW10-EW-06 (Remediated)
0.161
39.70
0.132
J
18.30
SYW10-EW-09 (Remediated)
0.131
61.10
0.092
J
36.80
SYW10-EW-10 (Remediated)
0.084
J
34.90
0.165
54.90
SYW10-EW-04 (Unremediated)
0.431
122.00
0.586
192.00
SYW10-EW-05 (Unremediated)
0.391
86.90
0.391
186.00
SYW10-EW-07 (Unremediated)
1.250
506.00
1.230
549.00
SYW10-EW-08 (Unremediated)
0.476
318.00
0.668
534.00
Remediated Average
0.130
39.63
0.123
37.25
Unremediated Average
0.640
258.23
0.719
365.25
Sitewide Average
0.330
127.07
0.361
168.45
1 Baseline averages based on 2010/2011
2 Earthworm samples were depurated for 48 hours in 2015, and were not depurated in 2016 and 2018.
3 For individual nondetects, ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
4 J = estimated value; J+: Result is considered estimated biased high at the given value; U = compound was not detected
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\NMC Tables ll-01-21.xlsxTable 4.11 SYW-10 EW Page 1 of 1
-------
Honeywell
PARSONS
TABLE 24: 2015-2018 SYW-10 SMALL MAMMAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Location ID
Baseline1
2015
Mercury
Species
Mercury
Species4
Result2
Qualifier3
Result2
Qualifier3
mg/kg
mg/kg
SYW10-SM-01-01 (Remediated)
(0.034 to
0.54)
White Footed Mouse,
Northern Short-Tailed
Shrew
0.010
J
Meadow Vole
SYW10-SM-01-02 (Remediated)
0.063
J
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-01-03 (Remediated)
0.026
J
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-01-04 (Remediated)
0.010
J
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-01-05 (Remediated)
0.015
J
Meadow Vole
SYW10-SM-02-01 (Unremediated)
(0.009 to 1.6)
0.021
J
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-02 (Unremediated)
0.025
J
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-03 (Unremediated)
0.038
J
Meadow Vole
SYW10-SM-02-04 (Unremediated)
0.036
J
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-05 (Unremediated)
0.029
J
Meadow Vole
Remediated Average
0.174
0.030
Unremediated Average
0.381
0.030
Sltewlde Average
0.290
0.030
Location ID
2016
2018
Mercury
Species4
Mercury
Species4
Result2
Qualifier3
Result2
Qualifier3
mg/kg
mg/kg
SYW10-SM-01-01 (Remediated)
0.010
u
Deer Mouse
0.077
u
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-01-02 (Remediated)
0.010
u
Deer Mouse
0.074
u
Deer Mouse
SYW10-SM-01-03 (Remediated)
0.009
u
Deer Mouse
0.074
u
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-01-04 (Remediated)
0.009
u
Deer Mouse
0.073
u
Deer Mouse
SYW10-SM-01-05 (Remediated)
0.010
u
Deer Mouse
0.030
u
Deer Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-01 (Unremediated)
0.088
J
Deer Mouse
0.073
u
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-02 (Unremediated)
0.033
J
Deer Mouse
0.077
u
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-03 (Unremediated)
0.026
J
White Footed Mouse
0.075
u
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-04 (Unremediated)
0.027
J
Deer Mouse
0.076
u
White Footed Mouse
SYW10-SM-02-05 (Unremediated)
0.021
J
White Footed Mouse
0.061
J
White Footed Mouse
Remediated Average
0.005
0.030
Unremediated Average
0.040
0.040
Sltewlde Average
0.020
0.040
1 Baseline averages based on 2010/2011
2 For individual nondetects, ND=l/2 the MDL was used in calculations.
3 J = estimated value; U = compound was not detected
4Small mammals are collected based on available species during the year collected.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\452663 GB-NMC 2021 PVM\09 Reports\9.1 2021 GB_NMC 5-Year Comprehensive\Rev 0\Tables\NMC Tables ll-01-21.xlsxTable 4.12 SYW-10 SM
Page 1 of 1
-------
APPENDIX C - REFERENCES
EPA. 2020. Third Five-Year Review Report for the LCP Bridge Street Subsite of the Onondaga Lake Site. June.
Honeywell. 2019. Honeywell Emerging Contaminants Sampling Report; Semet Residue Ponds (734008), Willis
Avenue (734026), LCP Bridge Street (734049), Wastebed B/Harbor Brook/SYW-12 (734075), Willis Avenue
Ballfield (734072), and Wastebeds 1-8 (734081), March 13.
NYSDEC and EPA. 2009a. Response Action Document, Geddes Brook Interim Remedial Measure, Onondaga Lake
Superfund Site. April.
NYSDEC and EPA. 2009b. Record of Decision. Operable Unit 1 of the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Site
Operable Unit of the Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite, Onondaga Lake Superfund Site. April.
NYSDEC and EPA. 2009c. Record of Decision. Operable Unit 2 of the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Site
Operable Unit of the Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite, Onondaga Lake Superfund Site. October.
NYSDEC and EPA. 2013. Explanation of Significant Differences, Operable Unit 1 of the Geddes Brook/Ninemile
Creek Site, Onondaga Lake Superfund Site. September.
Parsons. 1997. Remedial Investigation Report for the LCP OU1 Site. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by Parsons,
Syracuse, NY.
Parsons. 2004. Final Remedial Investigation Report forthe LCP OU2 Site. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by Parsons,
Solvay, NY. September.
Parsons. 2009. Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan for the LCP Bridge Street Site. Prepared for
Honeywell, Inc. by Parsons, Syracuse, NY. September.
Parsons. 2011. 100% Design Report for the Geddes Brook Interim Remedial Measure. Appendix E: Operation,
Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan for the Geddes Brook Site. Prepared for Honeywell, Syracuse, New York.
February.
Parsons. 2014a. Construction Completion Report for the Geddes Brook Interim Remedial Measure, Site No.
NYD986913580. Prepared for Honeywell. October.
Parsons. 2016a. Construction Completion Report forthe Ninemile Creek Reach CD Remedial Action. Prepared for
Honeywell. July.
Parsons. 2016b. Construction Completion Report for the Ninemile Creek Reaches BC and AB Remedial Action.
Prepared for Honeywell. September.
Parsons. 2018. Ninemile Creek Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by
Parsons, Syracuse, NY. August.
Parsons. 2020a. Final 2017 Annual Monitoring and Maintenance Report for Geddes Brook, Ninemile Creek, and
LCP Bridge Street (OU1) Sites. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by Parsons, Syracuse, NY. July.
Parsons. 2020b. LCP OU1 Remedial Goal Monitoring 2020 Wetland A Supplemental Sediment and Soil Sampling
Work Plan. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by Parsons, Syracuse, NY. October.
Parsons. 2021. LCP OU1 Wetland A Adjacent Area Soil Sampling Work Plan. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by
Parsons, Syracuse, NY. July.
IV
-------
Parsons. 2022a. Revised Draft 2018 Annual Monitoring and Maintenance Report for Geddes Brook, Ninemile
Creek, and LCP Bridge Street (OU1) Sites. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by Parsons, Syracuse, NY. January.
Parsons. 2022b. Revised Draft LCP OUl/Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek 2020 Annual and Five-Year
Comprehensive Report. August.
Parsons. 2022c. Revised Draft 2019 Annual Monitoring and Maintenance Report for Geddes Brook, Ninemile
Creek, and LCP Bridge Street (OU1) Sites. Prepared for Honeywell, Inc. by Parsons, Syracuse, NY. September.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2011. 100% Design Report for the Geddes Brook Interim Remedial Measure. Prepared
for Honeywell, Inc. By Parsons, Syracuse, NY. In association with Anchor QEA, Liverpool, NY. March.
V
------- |