FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR PETER COOPER CORPORATION (MARKHAMS) SUPERFUND SITE

TOWN OF DAYTON CATTARAUGUS COUNTY, NEW YORK

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

New York, NY

Emergency and Remedial Response Division

216706

iiiiniiiaiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiii

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. iii

Five-Year Review Summary Form iv

I . Introduction 1

I I . Site Chronology 1 III . Background 1

Physical Characteristics 1

Land and Resource Use 1

History of Contamination 2

Initial Response 2

Basis for Taking Action 3

IV. Remedial Actions 5

Remedy Implementation 5

Landfill Cap Construction 6

Passive Gas Venting ;.... 7

Institutional Controls Implementation 7

Site Management Plan 8

System Operation/Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring 8

V. Progress Since Last Five-Year Review ,-. 9

VI. Five-Year Review Process 9

Administrative Components 9

Community Involvement ; 9

Document Review , 9

Data Review 10

Site Inspection , 13

Interviews 13

VII. Technical Assessment 13

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?. 13

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? 13

i

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? 15

Technical Assessment Summary 15

VIII . Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ; 15

IX. Protectiveness Statement '. 16

X. Next Review '. 16

TABLES

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events 17

Table 2: Estimated Annual Monitoring Costs 18

Table 3: List of Documents Reviewed : '. 19 Table 4: Summary of Groundwater Inorganic Compounds and Leachate Parameters Analytical

Results Detected Above GWQS 20

Table 5: Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Collected from Wetland F detected Above GWQS 21

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Map : 22

Figure 2: Top of Final Grade 23

Figure 3: Site Plan & Monitoring Well Locations 24

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The remedy for the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site located in the Town of Dayton, Cattaraugus County, New York included consolidation of various waste/fill piles into a single waste/fill area, followed by capping with a low permeability soil cover, groundwater monitoring, and institutional controls (ICs). The Site achieved construction completion with the signing of the preliminary close out report on November 25, 2008. The trigger for this five-year review was the start of construction on July 30, 2008. This is a statutory five-year review because contamination remains at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

The assessment of this five-year review found that based upon reviews of the Record of Decision (ROD), annual groundwater sampling results, and Site inspection reports as prepared by the potentially responsible parties (PRP's) contractor, Benchmark Environmental Engineering and Science PLLC (Benchmark), as well as a Site visit conducted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel on April 10, 2013, it was concluded that the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision document and is protective of human health and the environment.

This is the first five-year review for the Peter Cooper Markhams Superfund Site.

iii

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams)

EPA ID: NYD980592547

Region: 2 State: NY City/County: Dayton/Cattaraugus

NPL Status: Deleted

Multiple OUs? No

Has the Site achieved construction completion? Yes

Lead agency: EPA

If "Other Federal Agency" was selected above, enter Agency name: N/A

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Sherrel Henry

Author affiliation: EPA

Review period: 07/30/2008-04/30/2013 Date of site inspection: 04/10/2013

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 1

Triggering action date: 7/30/2008

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 7/30/2013

Operable. Unit: 01

Issues/Recommendations

Protectiveness Determination: Protective

Addendum Due Date (if applicable): N/A

Protectiveness Statement: The implemented remedy for the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site protects human health and the environment.

iv

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement (if applicable)

For sites that have achieved construction completion, enter a sitewide protectiveness determination and statement.

Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date Protective " (applicable):

N/A

Protectiveness Statement: The implemented remedy for the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site protects human health and the environment.

r

I. Introduction

This first five-year review for the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site,(the Site), located in the Town of Dayton, Cattaraugus County, New York, was conducted by the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Sherrel Henry. It was conducted pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. and 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(H), and done in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of five-year reviews is to ensure that implemented remedies protect public health and the environment and that they function as intended by the Site decision documents. This report will become part of the Site file.

In accordance with Section 1.3.3 of the five-year review guidance, this five-year review is triggered by the start of construction of the remedial action on July 30, 2008. The five-year

. review is required because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

II. Site Chronology

Table 1, which is attached, summarizes the site-related events running from the disposal of hazardous wastes at the Site to the present.

III. Background

Physical Characteristics

The Site is located off Bentley Road, approximately six miles south of the Village of Gowanda in the Town of Dayton, Cattaraugus County,\New York (see Figure 1). The Site is approximately 103 acres in size and is bordered to the northwest by Bentley Road, to the northeast by a wooded property and farm field, to the southeast by a railroad right-of-way, and to the southwest by hardwood forest. Site access is restricted by a locked gate at the Bentley Road entrance.

Land and Resource Use

The historic land use of the Site has involved disposal of certain wastes generated from a former animal glue and adhesives manufacturing company from 1955 to 1971. No further disposal reportedly occurred at the Site after September 1971.

An approximately 15 to 20-acre area within the central and southeast portion of the Site contained several covered/vegetated waste fill piles arranged in an elliptical pattern. The fill piles varied in size and elevation, with base dimensions ranging from approximately 1,100 to 160,000 square feet and elevations of 5 to 15 feet above surrounding grade. The total area covered by fil l piles (base area) was approximately seven acres.

1

The current land use for the surrounding property is rural, consisting of small farm fields, open meadows and forests. The majority of the Site is characterized by mature hardwood tree cover, as well as open fields. No structures are present on the property, with the exception of a natural gas wellhead located east of the access drive.

History of Contamination

The Site was used for the disposal of wastes remaining after the manufacturing process from the Peter Cooper Corporation (PCC), a former animal glue and adhesives plant located in Gowanda, New York. Materials disposed at the Site were reported to consist of "cookhouse sludge," residue pile material and vacuum filter sludge. Cookhouse sludge was so named because of a cooking cycle that occurred just prior to extraction of the glue. It was derived primarily from chrome-tanned hides obtained from tanneries and leather finishers. Residue pile material is air-dried cookhouse sludge, which was stabilized to a fairly dry, granular form. Vacuum filter sludge is produced during dewatering of cookhouse sludge. The waste material has been'shown to contain elevated levels of chromium, arsenic, zinc and several organic compounds.

From approximately 1955 until September 1971, it was reported that approximately 9,600 tons of waste material from the Gowanda plant were placed at the Site over an approximately 15-acre area.

In addition, PCC transferred approximately 38,600 additional tons of waste materials from the Gowanda plant to the Site pursuant to a New York State Supreme Court Order (8 t h J.D. Cattaraugus County), dated June 1971. PCC arranged the material into several waste piles approximately 20 feet high and covering a total of approximately seven acres, mostly in the original disposal area. In 1972, the waste piles were graded and covered with six inches of soil or stabilized residue, followed by seeding to promote cover vegetation.

Initial Response

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) completed preliminary Site investigations in 1983 and 1985 and identified the presence of arsenic, chromium and zinc in soil samples. In 1986, pursuant to a Consent Order with NYSDEC, PCC performed a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) at the Site. The RI, which was completed in 1989, indicated the presence of total chromium, hexavalent chromium and arsenic above background levels in waste materials and some adjacent soils. The FS for the Site was completed in March 1991.

In conjunction with the 1989 RJ, interim remedial measures were performed to remove a number of buried containers that had been disposed within an isolated area of the Site. The containers reportedly held off-specification animal glues, Dextrin and oil. The containers and impacted soils were excavated and transported off-site to the BFI Niagara Landfill in Tonawanda, New York for disposal as a nonhazardous waste. One drum of animal glue was sent to Chemical Waste Management, Inc. in Model City, New York for disposal as hazardous waste, as the cost of the analysis required to demonstrate that the material was nonhazardous was deemed by PCC not to be cost-effective.

2

Basis for Taking Action

In 1993, EPA conducted a sampling inspection, which included the collection and analysis of soil and surface water samples from the Site. Chromium and arsenic were detected in soils above background concentrations within the waste piles. On April 23, 1999, EPA proposed the Site for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the Site was added to the NPL on February 3, 2000.

On September 29, 2000, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to several PRPs to perform the RI/FS for the Site, subject to EPA oversight. The PRPs performed the RI/FS from 2001 to 2006 and the final RI report was submitted to EPA in February 2005. The list of constituents detected in Site media and considered to be chemicals of concern (COCs) at the Site included: arsenic, total chromium and hexavalent chromium (metal COCs). The results of the RI suggested that low concentrations of metal COCs can leach from the waste fill and into the groundwater. However, the data from native soil samples (nonwaste fill) collected below the waste fill indicated that metal COCs have not migrated substantially in native soil. Arsenic and chromium concentrations detected in the surface soil samples from the cover of the fill piles were above soil criteria. Soil testing beneath the fill piles identified decreasing metal COCs with depth. Metal COCs were reported to exceed the NYS Groundwater Quality Standards and Guidance Values (GWQS/GVs) in groundwater monitoring well (MW) MW-2S for arsenic, chromium, zinc and benzene (with benzene only slightly above the GWQS/GVs). In the RI report, difficulties in obtaining representative samples from MW-2S were identified possibly due to the age of the well and construction materials. The report concluded that the groundwater analytical results collected from MW-2S during the first and second sampling events might not be representative of Site groundwater. To address the limitations of the sampling from MW-2S, the ROD required that any groundwater monitoring program at the Site include replacing MW-2S and, conducting analytical sampling for metals. As a result, MW-2S was decommissioned by the PRP contractor in September 2008. Upon removal, MW-2S was found to be constructed of steel casing and screen and was visibly rusted/rotted. MW-2S was replaced with a new polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well, identified as MW-2SR. Site data indicate that transport of trace metals and organic compounds is not considered significant.

The RI concluded that all groundwater from the Site ultimately discharges to Wetland F before reaching the southwestern property boundary located more than 500 feet across the wetland. See Figure 3). Site-related chemicals in the overburden groundwater are transported beneath the Site to the southwest in the direction of Wetland F. Water quality data indicate subsurface conditions are not conducive to transport of metal COCs. Although chromium was widely detected in soils across the Site, chromium concentrations were not elevated in groundwater (except in MW-2S). During the first groundwater sampling event of the RI, hexavalent chromium was detected at a low concentration in one of 18 samples analyzed: the detection was not confirmed in the second sampling event. The lack of hexavalent chromium in groundwater suggests conditions are not suitable for the oxidation of trivalent chromium (Cr+3) to hexavalent chromium (Cr+6). The slightly alkaline subsurface soil' conditions and relatively low concentrations of manganese

3

inhibit reactions that can produce hexavalent chromium. These results are indicative that the groundwater contamination is limited to a relatively small area, under the waste piles. Based on the results of the RI report, a risk assessment was performed for the Site. The risk assessment determined that if infiltration of rainwater through the waste/fill material were not curtailed, then the quality of Site groundwater would continue to degrade, resulting in a potential future risk from groundwater ingestion.

The human health risk assessment (HHRA) evaluated cancer risks and noncancer Hazards in the presence and absence of MW-2S as discussed below.

The HHRA found the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) cancer risks for the future industrial worker from ingestion of groundwater were 3 x 104 (three in ten thousand) with arsenic the major contributor (2.4 x 10^). The central tendency exposure (CTE) or average risk from ingestion of groundwater was 6 x 10"5 (or six in one hundred thousand) and the main contributor was arsenic. The cancer risks to the future construction worker were within the acceptable risk range.

The noncancer Hazard Index (HI) for the future industrial worker from ingestion of groundwater was 230 and the main contributors were iron (Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 94)) and thallium (HQ = 119). The CTE or average HI for the future industrial worker from ingestion of groundwater was 155 and the main contributors were thallium (HQ = 81.9) and iron (HQ = 66).

The HHRA identified difficulties that occurred in obtaining representative samples from well MW-2S (as discussed above). Evaluation of the groundwater data in the absence of MW-2S found cancer risks based on the RME for the future industrial worker of 7 x 10"5, which is within the acceptable risk range.

Excluding data from the noncancer assessment yielded an HI=8 that is primarily associated with hexavalent chromium (HQ = 1.2) and manganese (HQ = 5.9). The CTE or average noncancer HI was 1.9 and consisted of hexavalent chromium (HQ = 1) and manganese (HQ = 0.9). The noncancer HI for the future construction worker was 5.2 and exceeds the goal of protection of an HI = 1. The main chemicals contributing to this HI were cadmium (HI = 1.9) and thallium (HI =1.6).

A screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) was completed in 2006. The SLERA determined that only a minimal increased ecological hazard was present to avian omnivores and insectivores preying on invertebrates exposed to elevated COC concentrations at the Site, with remaining ecological receptors at or within acceptable risk levels. The SLERA further indicated that the most significant risk is .primarily due to direct soil/fill exposure. Considering the available data, the SLERA concluded that any ecological impact would be highly localized.

A FS was then completed and was submitted to EPA in August 2006. The FS Report was developed based on the "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (EPA/540/G-89/004, October 1988)." The FS Report identified and evaluated remedial alternatives that were effective and implementable based on Site conditions.

4-

IV. Remedial Actions

On December 1, 2006, EPA issued a ROD selecting a remedial action for the Site. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) were developed as a result of data collected during the RI to aid in the development and screening of remedial alternatives to be considered for the ROD. The RAOs for the Site are:

Reduce or eliminate any direct contact threat associated with the contaminated soils/fill.

Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration from contaminated soils to the groundwater.

The major components of the selected remedy include the following:

Consolidating the waste/fill piles into seven acres or less, followed by capping the consolidated wastes with a low permeability soil cover, consistent with the requirements of 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 36.0, including seeding with a seed mixture to foster natural habitat. Waste piles moved during consolidation will be replaced by native soil. Removal of waste/fill piles will insure that any remaining soil chemicals will be within background concentrations.

Imposing ICs in the form of an environmental easement/restrictive covenant filed in the property records of Cattaraugus County that will at a minimum require: (a) restricting activities on the Site that could compromise the integrity of the cap; and (b) restricting the use of groundwater as a source of potable or process water unless groundwater quality standards are met.

- Developing a Site Management Plan (SMP) that provides for the proper management of all remedy components post-construction, such as ICs, and also includes: (a) monitoring of groundwater to ensure that, following the soil consolidation and capping, the contamination is attenuating and groundwater quality continues to improve; (b) an inventory of any Site use restrictions; (c) necessary provisions for ensuring the easement/covenant remains in place and is effective; (d) provision for any operation and maintenance required of the components of the remedy; and (e) the owner/operator or entity responsible for maintenance of the Site to complete and submit periodic certifications concerning the status of the institutional and engineering controls for the Site.

- Evaluating Site conditions at least once every five years to ensure that the remedy continues to protect public health and the environment.

Remedy Implementation

The ROD was implemented pursuant to a Consent Decree (CD) entered into by EPA and the performing settling defendants (PSDs). This CD was entered by the United States District Court

5

for the Western-District of New York on February 19, 2008. On March 12, 2008 Benchmark was approved as the supervising contractor to conduct the remedial design (RD) and construction work at the Site.

In accordance with the requirements of the CD and the Statement of Work, the PSDs prepared a RD Report which was approved by EPA on July 3, 2008. The RD Report outlined the following remedial construction measures: mobilization, Site preparation, waste/fill consolidation and grading, and cover system (barrier layer material placement and compaction, topsoil and seeding, and passive gas venting).

Zoladz Construction Company, Inc. was approved as the subcontractor to Benchmark for the remedial action (RA) and mobilized to the Site on July 30, 2008. A field trailer with temporary power and lighting was installed at the Site as per the project specifications. A project sign was erected with the name of the Site and pertinent contact information.

Site preparation work included clearing, grubbing and access improvements required for consolidation and covering work. To facilitate heavy equipment access to the Site, the access drive extending from Bentley Road to the northwestern limit of the waste fill was reestablished and shored up with NYSDEC-approved aggregate material. In addition to the access drive, clearing was performed in and around the area of the waste consolidation to allow equipment access. Trees, shrubs, brush and stumps within the clearing limits were removed, mulched and hauled offsite to facilitate construction work. Vegetation was stripped from the surface of the waste fill where cover soils were placed. The vegetative layer as well as the excess soil generated from the clearing work was disposed beneath the cover soils.

Waste/fill consolidation involved relocation of the various waste/fill piles located at areas across the center of the Site into a single area. Waste/fill that was located within the consolidation footprint was graded and compacted to conform to the selected subgrade contouring. Waste/fill located outside of the selected consolidated footprint was excavated, hauled and compacted within the consolidated area. Consolidated waste/fill was placed in maximum 12-inch lifts and compacted with a roller to 90% modified density.

A total of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of waste/fill was consolidated and compacted. The waste fill consolidated area has a footprint of approximately four acres, with an average peak elevation (including cover soil) of 14 feet above surrounding grade. See Figure 2.

Landfill Cap Construction

The final cap includes all the construction components in the approved RD Report. The final landfill cap meets the grading requirements of 6 NYCCR Part 360-2.13(q)2(ii) that specify that the barrier component of the cap have a slope of no less than four percent to promote positive drainage and no more than 33 percent to minimize erosion. See Figure 2.

Cover System

The final cover system was constructed to function with minimum maintenance, minimize infiltration, promote drainage, and minimize erosion. The cover system was designed with an 18-

6

inch thick recompacted low permeability (less than 1 x 10"6 cm/sec) soil barrier layer and 6 inches of topsoil. The cover system was installed from September 24 to October 14, 2008.

Barrier Layer

Material evaluation of the barrier layer off-site borrow source was performed in accordance with the construction specifications and construction quality assurance project plan (CQAPP). Samples of the barrier layer soils were collected from a virgin borrow source located in the Town of Ellington, NY. Results indicated that the borrow source material met appropriate standards and was acceptable for use at the Site.

Barrier soil was placed and compacted to provide a thickness of 18 inches across the final waste surface. Barrier layer soil was compacted with rollers. Smooth drum rollers were used for temporary sealing of the lifts and for the stockpiled soils.

Topsoil, Seeding and Tree Planting

The topsoil layer is the uppermost component of the cover system. Its functions are to protect the underlying layer from mechanical damage and (in conjunction with a vegetative cover) to protect against erosion. Following the final grading and compaction of the barrier layer, topsoil was placed to a depth of six inches (after placement and rolling). Topsoil was placed and graded to a smooth, even surface and was rolled and raked to remove ridges and fil l in depressions, ruts and low spots. Grade stakes were used to verify the thickness of the topsoil layer.

A conservation seed mixture was used to foster a natural habitat and minimize maintenance requirements. Seed was placed using a hydro-seeding process blending together seed, water, fertilizer, fiber mulch and lime in a tank and applying the mixture through a spraying hose.

Fifty trees, including 25 hardwood trees, 13 poplars and 12 birch trees were replanted at various locations across the Site to provide shelter for the wildlife and stimulate repopulation of the wooded areas outside of the consolidated area.

Passive Gas Venting

Passive gas-venting wells were installed through the waste/fill to relieve gas buildup beneath the cover system. Wells were installed in accordance with guidelines at a density of approximately one well per acre (five wells). The gas-venting wells were constructed of 40-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC with 180 degree (gooseneck) risers and bird screens. The gas-venting wells were installed at five feet into the waste and were screened in a three-foot diameter annular space.

Institutional Controls Implementation

The ROD requires the implementation of ICs. The ICs involve filing of an Environmental Easement and Restrictive Covenant to restrict the use of on-site groundwater as a source of potable or process water and to restrict activities on the Site that could compromise the integrity of the cap.

7

The owner of record of the Site, PCC is an inactive Delaware Corporation. A search for potential corporate successors was conducted and none were found. The PSDs consistent with the obligation to use reasonable best efforts to implement the ICs, commenced an action in Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, against PCC to secure an order from the court to provide the PSDs with access to the Site and to give permission to implement the ICs by filing the Easement and Covenant in the Office of the Clerk of Cattaraugus County. The Court granted legal access to the Site on July 1, 2008 and the Environmental Easement and Restrictive Covenant were recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Cattaraugus County on July 13, 2008.

ICs that have been established include an environmental easement and a restrictive covenant that preclude the use of groundwater as a source of potable or process water and restricts activities on the Site that could compromise the integrity of the consolidation area cover. The Environmental Easement and Restrictive Covenant are included with the SMP.

Site Management Plan

The ROD requires the implementation of a SMP. The SMP was approved by EPA in July 2009. The purpose of the SMP is to assure that proper procedures are in place to provide for long-term protection of human health and the environment after remedial construction is complete. The SMP includes the following three main components:

A post-remedial operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan.

A soil/fill management plan identifying proper management of any residual impacted subsurface soil/fill that might be encountered during redevelopment or post-remedial construction activities at the Site, i f undertaken.

A description of the institutional and engineering controls incorporated into the remedy, including the mechanisms that will be used to implement, maintain, monitor and enforce the controls continually.

Site Completion

The Site achieved construction completion status with the signing of the Preliminary Close-Out Report on November 25, 2008 and was removed from the NPL on September 20, 2010.

System Operation/Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring

Benchmark is conducting long-term monitoring and maintenance activities on behalf of the PSDs in accordance with the post-remedial OM&M Plan which is included as Part I of the SMP. During the first year of post-closure care and monitoring, the Site was inspected by Benchmark semi-annually and which was reduced, thereafter, to annual monitoring. The primary activities associated with OM&M include the following:

visual inspection of the cap with regard to vegetative cover, settlement, stability and any need for corrective action,

8

inspection of the gas vents,

inspection of the access roads and gate,

- inspection of the condition of monitoring wells, including but not limited to working locks, adequate surface seals and protective casings, and sediment intrusion,

monitoring of groundwater (semi-annually first year, annually thereafter), wetland surface water, and groundwater elevation, and

submittal of annual reports summarizing the results of the OM&M activities.

OM&M costs include cap structure maintenance, sampling and monitoring efforts, and monitoring well and gas-vent maintenance. The OM&M costs for the first five years average $21,000 per year, which is higher than the $15,000 per year originally estimated in the ROD. Table 2 provides an estimate of annual monitoring costs.

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

This is the first five-year review for this Site.

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

The five-year review team consisted of: Sherrel Henry (RPM), Pietro Mannino (Western New York Remediation Section Chief), Marian Olsen (Human Health Risk Assessor), Roberta Mclntyre (Hydrogeologist), Michael Mintzer (Attorney), Michael Basile (Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC)) and Michael Clemetson (Ecological Risk Assessor).

Community Involvement

Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied as required in CERCLA 113(k) and Section 117. All documents and information which EPA relied on or considered in conducting this five-year review are available for the public to review at the information repositories located at the EPA Region 2 offices, at 290 Broadway in New York City, and at the information repository at the Town of Dayton, Town Building, located at 9100 Route 62 in South Dayton, New York.

The Region's community involvement staff conducted an active campaign to ensure that the residents were well informed about the activities at the Site. Community involvement activities included routine publication of progress fact sheets.

Document Review

9

This five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including O&M records and monitoring data identified in Table 3.

Data Review

The primary objectives of the implemented remedy are to control the source of contamination at the Site, to reduce and minimize the migration of contaminants into the groundwater and to minimize any potential human health and environmental impacts resulting from exposure to contamination at the Site. These objectives were accomplished by the construction of a containment system. A long-term monitoring program was designed to ensure that the implemented remedy remains effective.

The long-term monitoring program, which is being conducted by Benchmark under, contract to the PSDs, includes the annual inspection of the landfill cover system; monitoring of the gas-venting system; inspection of groundwater level monitoring; collection of groundwater samples from selected wells; monitoring status of the institutional controls; and providing annual reports on these activities to NYSDEC and EPA.

Cover System Inspection

The landfill cover system is inspected for cracking/breaches in cover, loss of slope, surface material erosion, insufficient vegetative cover growth, erosion of vegetative cover, and areas of surface settlement. The results of the inspections are reported in the post-closure field inspection reports which are generated by Benchmark annually and submitted to NYSDEC and EPA. The most recent inspection report, dated June 2012, indicated that the cover system is in good condition.

Gas-Venting System Inspection

Passive gas-venting wells were installed through the waste/fill to relieve gas buildup beneath the cover system. Wells were installed in accordance with guidelines at a density of approximately one well per acre (five wells). The gas-venting wells were constructed of 40-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC with 180 degree (gooseneck) risers and bird screens. The gas-venting wells were installed five feet into the waste and were screened in a three-foot diameter annular space.

Based on methane gas conditions measured during advancement of soil borings into the waste/fill during the RI, it was determined that gas venting to the atmosphere did not pose a health or fire risk. Gas vents are inspected annually for physical integrity, as well as monitored for explosive gases and hydrogen sulfide at the point of vent discharge. The most recent inspection report, dated June 2012, indicated that the gas-vent monitoring system is intact and operational.

Groundwater Elevation Level Monitoring

Static water level measurements collected from the seven shallow monitoring wells between June 2009 and June 2012, were reviewed to determine i f any changes in the direction of groundwater flow occurred over this time period. Based on the analysis of groundwater flow direction established during the RI phase of the project, the inferred shallow groundwater flow

10

direction is from the northeast to the southwest ultimately discharging to Wetland F (see Figure 3) before reaching the southwestern property boundary located more than 500 feet across the wetland. Based on the results of the groundwater elevation monitoring performed from 2009 to 2012, there are no significant changes to the direction of groundwater flow and the monitoring well network is adequate for determining the groundwater gradient.

Groundwater Quality Monitoring

The PSDs are required to perform groundwater sampling at the Site to monitor groundwater flow and quality conditions,to ensure that the selected remedy for the Site continues to be protective of human health and the environment. Groundwater monitoring is being performed at the following network locations, where the "S" identifier indicates a shallow overburden monitoring well (see Figure 3):

- Upgradient monitoring well MW-9S.

- Perimeter downgradient monitoring wells MW-5S, MW-7S and MW-8S.

Downgradient Wetland F (surface water).

Monitoring wells MW-4S and MW-6S were sampled during the semi-annual monitoring events. Based on the nondetectable contaminant levels measured at these locations, it was determined that sampling from these monitoring wells would be discontinued.

All samples were analyzed for inorganic parameters, and NYSDEC Part 360 leachate indicator parameters.

Results from MW-2S

To address the limitations of the sampling from monitoring well MW-2S, the RI recommended that any groundwater monitoring program at the Site include replacing well MW-2S and conducting analytical sampling for metals. Monitoring well MW-2S was decommissioned by Benchmark in September 2008. It was found to be constructed of steel casing and screen, and to be visibly rusted/rotted on removal. Well MW-2S was replaced with a new PVC replacement well (MW-2SR).

Monitoring well MW-2SR was sampled during the first semi-annual monitoring event in April 2009. Due to the low concentration detected and the absence of arsenic and hexavalent chromium in MW-2SR, it was determined that sampling from this monitoring well would be discontinued. Monitoring at this location was limited to groundwater elevation measurement during subsequent sampling events as specified in the post-construction OM&M plan.

Results of Inorganic (Metal) Analyses

The COCs identified in the ROD were arsenic, total chromium, hexavalent chromium and manganese. Four of the seven groundwater monitoring wells (MW-5S, MW-7S, MW-8S and MW-9S) and surface water from Wetland F were sampled semi-annually before May 2010 and thereafter on an annual basis for total metals (arsenic, total chromium, hexavalent chromium

11

iron and manganese). Groundwater samples were collected in June 2009, December 2009, May 2010, June 2011 and June 2012.

The metals concentrations reported for the June 2009 to June 2012 sampling events for arsenic, total chromium, and hexavalent chromium were noridetectable or below GWQS/GV at all monitoring locations. The remaining metals analyses (i.e., total iron and manganese) reported for all sampling events yielded concentrations above but within an order of magnitude of the GWQS/GV at all monitoring locations with the exception of MW-7S and upgradient well MW-9S.

The results from the most current round of groundwater sampling (June 2012) indicate iron concentrations exceeding the GWQS in monitoring well MW-7S (17.8 micro gram/liter (mg/L)) above the GWQS of (0.3 mg/L). Manganese was reported in MW-5S (1.6 mg/L) and MW-8S (6.0 mg/L) above the GWQS of 0.3 mg/L. Table 4 .presents a summary of groundwater inorganic analytical results collected from monitoring wells for all sampling events and detected above GWQS.

The results from 2009, 2010 and 2011 sampling events revealed that both iron and manganese concentrations exceeded the GWQS in surface water samples collected from Wetland F. No surface water sample was collected from the Wetland F location in the June 2012 sampling as the sample location was dry. Table 5 presents a summary of surface water analytical results collected from Wetland F and detected above GWQS.

Iron and manganese concentration exceeded the GWQS in monitoring wells MW-5S, MW-7S, MW-8S, and Wetland F samples during most of the sampling events. In addition, the results from the June 2009 sampling event indicate iron and manganese concentrations: exceeding the GWQS in upgradient monitoring well MW-9S. Iron was detected at 1.5mg/L and manganese was detected at 0.3 mg/L compared to the GWQS of 0.3 mg/L for both compounds. Results from MW-5S and MW-7S were consistent with the MW-9S values which are indicative of background. MW-8S, however, fluctuated at concentrations above the GWQS concentrations for manganese during the last five years of sampling. However, this well is the only well exhibiting elevated manganese. Wetland sampling does not indicate concentrations exceeding those naturally occurring in groundwater. Therefore, EPA concludes this result is localized and groundwater monitoring will continue to ensure manganese concentrations do not continue to increase. Iron does not have a primary standard, and therefore is not considered COCs for the Site. . '

Results of Leachate Indicator Parameters Analyses y

The leachate indicator parameters included alkalinity, ammonia, nitrate, phenols and sulfide. The only leachate-related contaminants detected above GWQS were nitrate detected in MW-9S and sulfide detected in surface water from Wetland F.

Results from the December 2009, 2010 and 2011 sampling events revealed detections of nitrate in monitoring well MW-9S at 11.1 mg/L, 12.1 mg/L and 13.8 mg/L, respectively, exceeding the GWQS of 10 mg/L (see Table 4). Leachate-related contaminants were not detected in any other monitoring wells during the other sampling events conducted during the review period for this five-year review.

12

Results from the June 2009 sampling event revealed a detection of total sulfide in the surface water sample collected from Wetland F at a concentration of 0.17 mg/L, exceeding the GWQS of 0.05 mg/L (see Table 5). Leachate-related contaminants were not detected above GWQS during any other sampling events from Wetland F.

The results from the 2009 through 2012 groundwater and surface water monitoring data revealed no significant impact by leaching from the containment cell area into the water table.

Site Inspection

The Site was inspected by the EPA CIC, Michael Basile and the NYSDEC Project Manager, Maurice Moore on April 10, 2013. The inspection team also included Michael Hutchinson, a representative from Benchmark.

Interviews

No interviews were conducted for thisjreview.

VII. Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

The primary objectives of the implemented remedy are to control the source of contamination at the Site, to minimize the migration of contaminants into the groundwater, and to minimize any potential human health risks resulting from the exposure to contamination at the Site. These objectives were accomplished by the installation of the landfill cap, the implementation of a groundwater monitoring program, and implementation of institutional controls. The landfill cap is well-maintained and operating as designed. On-site data continue to indicate no or low detections of manganese and iron, nitrate and sulfide. The groundwater at the Site is not currently used as a potable drinking water source. The PRPs continue to maintain the environmental easements/ restrictive covenant on the property and any future redevelopment will be consistent with planned future land use and restrictions. Therefore, the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision document.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid?

The exposure assumptions and toxicity values that were used to estimate the potential cancer risks and noncancer hazards in the risk assessment supporting the 2006 ROD for human health followed the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund used by the EPA. The process that was used in the human health risk assessment is still valid. In addition, given that soils are covered with a cap, the human exposure pathways have been interrupted.

The following sections highlight determinations based on exposures to soils and groundwater,

a. Soil.

The current industrial land use has not changed for this Site. The HHRA found that exposures to

13

trespassers under the current scenario, and future industrial and construction workers to on-site COCs were within the risk range and below the goal of protection of an HI = 1 and remedial action for exposure to soils was not needed. These exposure assumptions are still valid.

Overall, the remedial actions to address soil contamination continue to interrupt exposures and the soil remedy is protective.

b. Groundwater.

Currently, the groundwater under the landfill is classified by the State of New York as "GA" indicating a potential potable water supply although groundwater at the Site is not presently used as a potable water supply and is not likely to be used as such in the future.

As discussed in the Section, Basis for Taking Action, the noncancer hazards greater than an HI = 1 was associated with future consumption of groundwater by industrial workers. The COCs identified in groundwater were arsenic, total chromium, hexavalent chromium and manganese when the calculated Exposure Point Concentrations included MW-2S and hexavalent chromium and manganese when MW-2S was not included in the calculations. Based on the results of the groundwater sampling in the absence of MW-2S, the COCs are hexavalent chromium (With an HI= 1.2 that slightly exceeds the goal of protection of an HI = 1) and manganese (HI = 5.9).

Currently, the cancer and noncancer toxicity file of chromium is being updated through the integrated risk information system (IRIS) process that provides the Agency-wide toxicity values. The health hazards from exposure to these chemicals will need to be addressed- when the IRIS values are finalized in a subsequent five-year review.

The exposures to groundwater at the Site have been interrupted since individuals within the area are not consuming groundwater from the aquifer under the Site but rather obtain their drinking water from a municipal source. In addition ICs were developed to prevent use of the groundwater. The remedy remains protective.

c. Vapor Intrusion.

This pathway was not evaluated based on the nature of the contamination (i.e., metals) and consistent with the 2002 draft OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soil (EPA530-D-02-004) Vapor Intrusion guidance that indicates evaluation of this pathway is not appropriate when the residence is more than 100 feet from the Site and where the COCs are not volatile (http://www.epa.gOv/oswer/vaporintrusion/guidance.html#Item6).

Are the Cleanup Values Selected in the ROD Still Valid?

The selected remedy was designed to prevent exposure to contaminated soil and reduce the migration of hazardous substances, pollutants and contamination from the soil to the surrounding soil or groundwater. As such, specific ARARs were not established for the soils at the Site.

a. Soil.

14

Since the surface soils did not pose an unacceptable risk under the industrial landuse, cleanup levels were not developed.

b. Groundwater.

Groundwater standards were not adopted for the Site. Rather, ICs and environmental easements were placed on the property to ensure that the groundwater at the Site is not used for any drinking or potable purposes and that no activities are conducted on the seven acres consolidated waste area that would disturb the cap placed on the area. The cap has two purposes. The first is to prevent contact with the waste materials. The second is to reduce infiltration of rainfall into the waste material, thereby reducing the generation of leachate which mobilizes contaminants into the groundwater. Groundwater monitoring at the Site indicates that site-related COCs are not impacting groundwater above NY GWQS.

Ecological Risk Assessment

The SLERA conducted for the Site and discussed in the 2006 ROD indicated that the most significant risk is primarily due to direct soil/fill exposure. Considering the available data, the SLERA concluded that any ecological impact would be highly localized.

Overall, the remedial actions to address soil contamination continue to interrupt potential ecological exposures and the soil remedy is protective.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

There is no information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

Technical Assessment Summary

Overall, the remedy remains protective based on the past remedial actions, ongoing monitoring, and maintenance of the landfill Part 360 cap that provides a barrier that interrupts potential ingestion and direct contact with contaminated soil. Access to the Site is limited by a locked gate to prevent entry onto the Site by unauthorized personnel. ICs, in the form of an environmental

' easement/restrictive covenant have been implemented to restrict the use of groundwater as a source of potable water and to maintain the integrity of the cap. Potential exposures to methane gas have also been addressed through the establishment of a passive gas system on the landfill.

VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

The selected remedy has been fully implemented. The five-year review does not identify any issues, recommendations or follow-up actions. There are ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring activities included in the selected remedy.. As was anticipated by the decision documents, these activities are subject to routine modification and adjustment. New York State requires annual certifications that ICs are in place. The PSDs are responsible for this certifications and this information was included in the 2012 Annual Monitoring and Maintenance

15

Summary Report as Attachment 3 (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Institutional and Engineering Certification Form).

IX. Protectiveness Statement

The implemented remedy for the Peter Cooper (Markhams) Superfund Site protects human health and the environment.

X. Next Review

Since hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Peter Cooper (Markhams) Superfund Site, the next five-year review for the Site should be completed within five years of the signature date of this review.

16

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date

Waste disposal activities occurred at the Site 01/1995-9/1971

NYSDEC completed Phase I and II Investigation 1983 & 1985

Interim remedial measures - Removal of Buried Containers 1989-

Site added to the NPL 02/04/2000

EPA issued UAO to several PRPs 09/27/2000

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study made available to the public

04/30/2006

ROD selecting the Site remedy issued 09/30/2006

CD for the RD and RA entered by the Court 02/19/2008

Start of remedial action at the Site (date that triggers first five-year review)

07/30/2008

EPA approves remedial action report 06/30/2009

EPA signed final close-out report 07/19/2010

Site deleted from the NPL 09/22/2010

17

Table 2: Annual Monitoring Costs

Sampling and Analysis $12,000

Site Inspection and Maintenance .'. $9,000

Total Annual Monitoring Costs $21,000

18

Table 3: List of Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in completing the third Five-Year Review:

• PCC Markhams Record of Decision (December 2006) • Site Management Plan (SMP) ( February 2009) • Superfund Final Closeout Report PCC Markhams (July 2010) • Post-Remedial Groundwater Monitoring (June 2009) • Post-Remedial Groundwater Monitoring/Annual Monitoring & Maintenance Summary Report (December 2009) • Post-Remedial Groundwater Monitoring/ Monitoring & Maintenance Summary Report (May 2010) • Post-Remedial Groundwater Monitoring/ Monitoring & Maintenance Summary Report (June 2011) • Post-Remedial Groundwater Monitoring/Annual Monitoring & Maintenance Summary Report (June 2012) • EPA Guidance for Conducting Five-Year Reviews

19

Table 4: Summary of Groundwater Inorganic Compounds and Leachate Parameters Analytical Results Detected Above GWQS

Parameters MW 5-S MW-7S GWQS Parameters 06/19/09 12/30/09 5/28/10 6/22/11 6/26/12 06/19/09 12/30/09 5/28/10 6/22/11 6/26/12

GWQS

Total Inorganic Compounds (mg/L)

Manganese 1.610 1.45 1.50 1.80 1.6 - 0.43 - - - 0.30

Iron 0.41 - 0.51 0.56 - 104 83.3 17.8 25.0 17.8 0.30

Soluble Inorganic Compounds (mg/L)

Manganese NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND ND 0.30

Iron NA NA NA NA NA ND ND 10.8 CF6 10.2 NA 0.50

Parameters MW-8S MW-9S GWQS X U l U l l l v l v i J X U l U l l l v l v i J

06/19/09 12/30/09 5/28/10 6/22/11 6/26/12 06/19/09 12/30/09 5/28/10 6/22/11 6/26/12

Total Inorganic Compounds (mg/L)

Manganese 19.6 1.54 2.34 14.30 6 1.54 - - - - 0.03

Iron 1.93 ND - 0.61 - 0.322 - - - - 0.03

Leachate-Related Contaminants (mg/L)

Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 11.1 D 12.1 D 13.8 D - 10

CF6-Results confirmed by reanalysis ND-Parameter was not detected above lab reporting limits NA-Not Analyzed D-Dilution required due to high concentration of target analyte(s)

20

Table 5: Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Collected from Wetland F detected Above GWQS

Parameter

Wetland-F

GWQS Parameter 06/19/09 12/30/09 5/28/10 6/22/11 6/26/12 GWQS

Total Inorganic Compounds (mg/L)

Manganese 0.68 0.31 0.39 0.51 (NW) 0.30

Iron 0.65 6.14 0.72 0.94 (NW) 0.30

Leachate-Related Contaminant (mg/L)

Sulfide, Total 0.17 0.05

NW-No Water present

Figure 1-Site Location Map

22

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP

PETER COOPER MARKHAMS SITE MARKHAMS. NEW YORK

Figure 2- Top of Final Grade

23

TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE

TREE TYPE . #

Ash 8

Maples 9

Oak 8

Hybrid Poplars 13

River Birch 6

White Spire 6

CONTAINMENT CELL COVER SEED MIX

SEED TYPE % OF MIX

KY-31 TALL FESCUE 35.76%

TONGA PERENNIAL RYE GRASS 24.61%

ENSYLVA CREEPING RED FESCUE 19.71%

CROWN ROYALE OF CHAROGRASS 13.52%

NORDIC BIRDS FOOT TREFOIL 3.93%

OTHER CROP 0.17%

WEED SEEDS 0.03%

INERT MATTER 2.27%

NON-CONTAINMENT CELL SEED MIX

SEED TYPE % OF MIX

LITTLE BLUEST EM 29.64%

VIRGINIA WILD RYE 24J1%

INDIANGRASS 17.93%

BIG BLUESTEM 12.86%

SwrTCHGRASS 6.00%

OTHER CROP 0.02%

WEED SEEDS 0.01%

INERT MATTER 8.63%

/

/

/

LEGEND

MAJOR COUNTOR (5' INTERVALS)

MINOR COUNTOR (V INTERVALS)

o GV GAS VENT

X ' m » FINAL GRADE SPOT ELEVATION

0 REPLACEMENT TREE (TYP. OF 50)

NOTES

VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON SITE CONTROL POINTS.

HORIZONAL DATUM BASED "ON NEW YORK STATE PLANE COORDINATES, WEST ZONE, NAD 1983.

SCALE: 1 INCH = 140 FEET SCALE IN FEET

(apwodmate)

S g S £.

z O_J u z -J

z *

s 5 o tt Z 2

> O w z z u

< UJ

cc < LU

si- I OQS i j j z I

< Q 2 £ r r Z < 2

.. O < ni

8

m E H °-

i

FIGURE 2

Figure 3- Site Plan & Monitoring Well Locations

24