SUPPLEMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT Former Kestler’s ... · 2.0 BACKGROUND ... evaluate the risk to off-Site sensitive receptors, including the indoor air and drinking water

2113 Stony Brook Road Northfield, Vermont 05663

(802) 485-9466

SUPPLEMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

Former Kestler’s Market

286 US Route 2 Alburgh Center, Vermont 05440

(SMS #2004-3278)

June 8, 2010

Prepared for:

Mr. Gerold Noyes, P.E. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

Waste Management Division 103 South Main Street, West Building

Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0404

Prepared by:

Applied GeoSolutions, LLC

Contact: Eric J. Swiech, P.G.

Principal Hydrogeologist

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Site Description and Physical Setting ................................................ 1 2.2 Previous Work ...................................................................................... 2 3.0 WORK COMPLETED ................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Geophysical Survey .............................................................................. 3 3.2 Soil Borings / Sampling ....................................................................... 3 3.3 Monitoring Well Installations ............................................................. 4 3.4 Monitoring Well Survey ....................................................................... 5 3.5 Hydraulic Monitoring .......................................................................... 5 3.6 Water Quality Sampling ...................................................................... 5 3.7 Indoor Air Screening ............................................................................ 6 4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS….. ............................................................................... 6 4.1 Geophysical Surveys ............................................................................ 6 4.2 Geology/Hydrogeology ...................................................................... 6 4.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control ................................................ 8 4.4 Contaminant Distribution .................................................................... 8 4.4.1 Soil ................................................................................................. 8 4.4.1.1 Field PID Readings ........................................................... 8 4.4.1.2 VOCs, TPH, and Lead .................................................... 10 4.4.2 Ground Water ............................................................................ 11 4.4.2.1 VOCs and TPH ................................................................ 11 4.4.2.2 Metals ................................................................................ 12 4.4.3 Indoor Air ................................................................................... 13 5.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ............................................................................. 13 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 16 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 EM61 – Bottom Coil Response Figure 4 Water-Table Contour Map: 04/15/10 Figure 5 Soil Analytical Results: 04/09/10 Figure 6 Ground Water Analytical Results: 04/15/10

TABLES Table 4-1 Liquid Level Monitoring Data: April 15, 2010 Table 4-2 Peak PID Readings: April 9, 2010 Table 4-3 Soil Analytical Results: April 9, 2010 Table 4-4 VOC and TPH Analytical Results: April 2010 Table 4-5 Metals Analytical Results: April 2010 APPENDIX A: Soil Boring Logs APPENDIX B: Laboratory Reports

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Applied GeoSolutions, LLC (AGS) was retained by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) Waste Management Division (WMD) to complete a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) at the Former Kestler’s Market (Site or Property), located at 286 US Route 2 in Alburgh Center, Vermont (Figure 1). The objective of the SSI was to further characterize the source, magnitude, and extent of petroleum contamination previously identified at the Site, and to better evaluate the impact and risk to sensitive receptors. The former Kestler’s Market Site is located on the west side of US Route 2 at the intersection of Center Bay Road. The Site is bound by US Route 2 to the east, a vacant residence to the north, and farm land to the south and west. The Property is currently owned by Mr. Walter Mashtare. There are two structures on the Property: a main building and a garage. The main building is located immediately west of US Route 2, and is divided with the former market occupying the southern half of the building, and residential space occupying the northern half of the building. The building is currently vacant. The SSI concluded that gasoline was released to the subsurface at the Site in the vicinity of the former UST. The volume of the release(s) is unknown. The petroleum release has impacted soil and ground water. Gasoline constituents are known to be present in the vapor, sorbed, and dissolved phases. No measureable free-phase non aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) was detected in any of the Site monitoring wells; however, heavy sheening was observed in several soil borings, suggesting residual NAPL may also be present.

The magnitude and extent of gasoline-related impact to soil and ground water on the Property has been reasonably characterized; however, the downgradient extent of contamination has not been defined, and may extend off-Site, beneath US Route 2.

On-Site soils within the upper two feet bgs are impacted by ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at concentrations above the respective residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) at concentrations above the Vermont Department of Health’s cleanup guidelines of 200 milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg) and 1,000 mg/Kg for residential and commercial Sites, respectively (for direct contact). The area of on-Site soil with photoionization detector (PID) readings greater than 200 parts per million volume (ppmv) is estimated at about 750 ft2, and extends from the former UST area to US Route 2.

The shallow overburden aquifer is impacted by target petroleum-related volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and total lead at concentrations above respective Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards (VGESs); however, target VOCs have not been

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

detected in downgradient bedrock water supplies. The on-Site portion of the 1,000 micrograms per Liter (µg/L) total dissolved VOC isopleth covers an estimated 700 ft2; the downgradient horizontal extent of the plume has not been determined. There are insufficient monitoring data to determine whether the dissolved-phase VOC plume is expanding, receding, or stabilized, since there is only one round of analytical data. Sensitive receptors /media impacted or at potential risk include soil, ground water, subsurface utilities, and indoor air. The downgradient extent of the contaminant plume should be characterized to better evaluate the risk to off-Site sensitive receptors, including the indoor air and drinking water supplies at 1 and 4 Center Bay Road. Once this delineation is completed, the need for corrective action and/or monitoring can be determined.

Former Kestler’s Market, Alburgh Center, VT Applied GeoSolutions, LLC Supplemental Site Investigation Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Applied GeoSolutions, LLC (AGS) was retained by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) Waste Management Division (WMD) to complete a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) at the Former Kestler’s Market (Site or Property), located at 286 US Route 2 in Alburgh Center, Vermont (Figure 1). The objective of the SSI was to further characterize the source, magnitude, and extent of petroleum contamination previously identified at the Site, and to better evaluate the impact and risk to sensitive receptors. The SSI was completed under the VT ARRA LUST Trust Fund Program (contract #15801), in general accordance with the work plan and cost estimate prepared by AGS, dated March 11, 2010, which was approved by Mr. Gerold Noyes of the VT DEC in a letter dated March 15, 2010. 2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Site Description and Physical Setting The former Kestler’s Market Site is located on the west side of US Route 2 at the intersection of Center Bay Road (Figure 1). The Site is bound by US Route 2 to the east, a vacant residence to the north, and farm land to the south and west. The Property is currently owned by Mr. Walter Mashtare. There are two structures on the Property: a main building and a garage. The main building is located immediately west of US Route 2, and is divided with the former market occupying the southern half of the building, and residential space occupying the northern half of the building. The basement of the main building has an earthen floor and stone foundation. A 275-gallon, heating oil aboveground storage tank (AST) is located off the northeast corner of the main building. A single-car garage is located off the northwest corner of the main building. The Property is currently vacant.

Drinking water for the Site is provided by a dug well located within the southern portion of the Property. Neighboring properties are served by drilled bedrock wells. All properties in the vicinity of the Site have individual, on-site septic systems. The USGS topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1) shows the overall topography of the area gently sloping toward Lake Champlain’ Ransoms Bay, located about


1,500 feet east of the Site. In front of the Property, there is a local rise to the edge of the road, which is banked towards the west. South of the Site the topography gently slopes toward an ephemeral stream that flows from west to east. There is a catch basin located in the northeast portion of the Property that collects storm water from this area, and discharges it to a swale within the southeast portion of the Site via a storm drain that parallels US Route 2. The balance of storm water runoff from the Site likely flows toward the ephemeral stream to the south of the Site.

The Property was formerly a local market and gas station. A single fuel dispenser was located in front of the store that was served by an underground storage tank (UST) located off the northeast corner of the main building. According to Mr. Mashtare, the UST and fuel dispenser were removed approximately 26 years ago; however, the VT DEC does not have a record of these activities. 2.2 Previous Work

In October 2004, Phelps Engineering encountered gasoline-contaminated soil in front of the former Kestler’s Market while completing exploration soil borings for a new waterline along US Route 2. The water line has not been installed to date. The Sites Management Section (SMS) subsequently hired the environmental consulting firm Heindel & Noyes (H&N) to implement a limited site investigation to assess the likely source of contamination and possible impacts on sensitive receptors.

H&N acquired site history from the Property owner, conducted a reconnaissance of the area surrounding the zone of contamination, screened the basement of the main building with a photoionization detector (PID), and sampled on-Site and neighboring water supply wells at 1, 4, 5, and 8 Center Bay Road, and 277 US Route 2. No immediate risk to human health and the environment, or contaminated water supplies were found during H&N’s limited site assessment.

In 2009, the SMS received a federal EPA grant to investigate and perform limited cleanup at Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites where the owner is unable to do this work themselves. As such, the SMS contracted AGS under the Site Investigation Contract to complete a SSI at the Property. AGS understands that the SMS has obtained a Consent for Access to Property signed by Mr. Mashtare.


3.0 WORK COMPLETED

3.1 Geophysical Survey On April 2, 2010, AGS completed a ground penetrating radar (GPR) and EM61 geophysical survey within accessible areas within the eastern portion of the Site. The objectives of the GPR / EM61 survey were to:

• identify and map, if present, possible out-of-service USTs and associated appurtenances that may remain on the Property; and

• identify and map known and unknown underground utilities in the survey area.

The survey area was divided into transects spaced about 3 feet apart in the general north-south direction, and transects spaced about 3 feet apart in the general east-west direction. AGS utilized a GSSI SIR-3000 GPR System with a 400 MHz antenna to complete GPR profiles across the grid areas. AGS utilized a Geonics EM61 High Sensitivity Metal Detector unit to complete the electromagnetic survey within the grid areas.

GPR data were evaluated real-time in the field; EM61 data were processed following the field survey. Results of the surveys are discussed in Section 4.0.

3.2 Soil Borings / Sampling On April 9, 2010, AGS conducted a soil boring / soil sampling program at the Site to help determine the degree and extent of potential petroleum impact to the subsurface. A total of eleven (11) soil borings were completed (SB-1 through SB-11). Soil boring locations are provided on Figure 2. Soil boring logs are provided in Appendix A. Soil boring SB-1 was advanced within the former UST grave (where Phelps Engineering encountered contamination). Soil boring SB-3 was completed upgradient of the former UST. Soil boring SB-8 was advanced in the suspected vicinity of the former fuel dispenser. The addition borings were completed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of the on-Site contamination. Soil borings SB-2 and SB-5 were completed to a depth of five (5) feet below ground surface (bgs); soil boring SB-10 was advanced 15 feet bgs. All other borings were advanced to ten (10) feet bgs.


Soil borings were advanced by Stone Environmental, Inc. (SEI) using a track-mounted Geoprobe® unit (model 6610 DT), under the supervision of AGS. Soil samples were collected in five-foot intervals, using macrocore sampling liners and dual tube sampling technology. Soil samples were logged by AGS for texture and screened for the possible presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a portable PID (Ion Science Model 1000 plus), with a 10.6 eV lamp. The PID was calibrated on-Site using ambient air and 100 ppmv isobutylene.

Soil samples were collected from soil borings SB-1 and SB-4 at the 1.5 to 2-foot depth interval for subsequent laboratory analysis of VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and lead by EPA methods 8021B, 8015, and 6010B respectively. Sample selection was biased towards those exhibiting the highest PID readings and visual/olfactory evidence of contamination. Samples for VOC analysis were preserved in the field with methanol. Following collection, all samples were placed in an ice-filled cooler and transported under a chain-of-custody to Endyne, Inc., of Williston, Vermont for subsequent analysis.

3.3 Monitoring Well Installations

In order to further assess contaminant and hydrogeologic conditions at the Site, monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-7) were constructed within seven (7) of the eleven (11) soil borings; no wells were constructed in soil borings SB-2, SB-5, SB-10, or SB-11. All wells were screened across the water table; deeply screened piezometers were not installed as proposed due the presence of a clay unit at depth. The locations of the monitoring wells, relative to Site features, are presented on Figure 2.

All monitoring wells were installed to a depth of about eight (8) feet bgs. Monitoring wells were constructed using one-inch diameter schedule 40 poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) with flush-threaded joints. Wells consisted of about seven (7) feet of factory-slotted 0.010” screen with sections of PVC riser added to extend the top of the casings to approximately 0.3 feet bgs. Each borehole annulus was backfilled with #1 sand pack to above the screened interval, and a bentonite-chip surface seal was set within each annulus immediately above the sand pack. Well casings were topped with expansion caps, and protected at the surface with flush-mounted road boxes. Immediately following installation, wells were developed to remove fine-grained sediment via a peristaltic pump.


3.4 Monitoring Well Survey

On April 9, 2010, AGS surveyed the newly installed monitoring wells relative to existing Site features using an automatic level, with an azimuth accuracy of ± 1.0 feet, and an elevation accuracy of ± 0.01 feet. Elevations were surveyed relative to an arbitrary Site datum of 100.00 feet.

3.5 Hydraulic Monitoring On April 15, 2010, AGS collected a synoptic round of liquid levels in on-Site monitoring wells using an electronic interface probe. No free-phase petroleum product was observed in the monitoring wells. Ground water elevations were subsequently calculated for each monitoring well by subtracting the measured depth-to-water readings from the respective surveyed top-of-casing elevations, which are relative to an arbitrary Site datum of 100.00 feet. 3.6 Water Quality Sampling

On April 15, 2010, AGS collected ground water samples from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-7, and the water supply well located at 1 Center Bay Road. AGS collected a water sample from the residence / bed & breakfast at 4 Center Bay Road on April 16th. The on-Site dug well water supply was not sampled because: 1) the well was determined to be hydraulically upgradient of the on-Site petroleum contamination, and not at risk of impact from the release; and 2) the well is no longer in service, and did not have power supplied to the pump.

Prior to purging, AGS collected a synoptic round of liquid levels in the monitoring wells using an electronic interface probe; the probe was properly decontaminated in between locations. Monitoring wells were purged and sampled using a peristaltic pump, with dedicated Teflon-line polyethylene and silicone tubing. Approximately three (3) well volumes were removed from each well prior to sampling. The water supply samples were collected upstream of any water treatment systems, after allowing the water to flow for about 10 minutes at the maximum flow rate. No aerators were present upstream of the sampling locations. AGS acquired a trip blank and duplicate sample from MW-3 for quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) purposes.


Following collection, all samples were properly preserved and placed in an ice-filled cooler for transport under a chain-of-custody to the VT DEC laboratory in Waterbury, Vermont. The trip blank and samples from the monitoring wells were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8021B; supply well samples were analyzed for VOCs via EPA Method 8260B. All samples, except the trip blank, were analyzed for TPH (diesel-range organics) by EPA method 8015B, and RCRA 8 metals (via EPA 245.1 and SW 6020A). Of note, for metals analysis, AGS only requested that the laboratory analyze for lead; the full RCRA 8 list was provided due to laboratory error.

3.7 Indoor Air Screening On April 2, 2010, AGS used a PID (Ion Science model 1000+) to screen the ambient air within the first floor of the northern portion of the on-Site building. The basement of the building contained significant standing water, and did not have lighting; as such, AGS deemed these conditions unsafe and did not screen the basement with a PID.

4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS

4.1 Geophysical Survey Several anomalies were imaged by the GPR / EM61 surveys; however, none of the anomalies suggested the presence of existing UST systems within the surveyed area. Most of the anomalies were related to surficial metal or known utilities. EM61 data collected in the field were post processed; Figure 3 provides the Bottom Coil (C2) EM61 data as a high resolution color plot in units of mV for each survey. Green to light blue areas represent background areas where little or no subsurface metallic conductors exist. Yellow through red and magenta colors represent elevated EM61 response due to surface or subsurface metallic conductors. GPR data were interpreted in real time in the field.

4.2 Geology/Hydrogeology

According to the surficial geology map for the area (provided in H&N’s Site Investigation Report), the Site is located on glacial till, just west of a contact with marine clay deposits. However, based the soil boring logs generated during the SSI, overburden materials within the investigated portion of the Site generally consist of a couple feet of fine to coarse sand with varying amount of silt and


organic matter, overlying fine sands to about seven (7) to eight (8) feet bgs. The sand is underlain by a thin layer (<1 foot thick) of fine sand and silty clay (with shell fragments), which overlies silty clay. Bedrock was not encountered on-Site during the SSI to the maximum exploratory depth of 15 feet bgs. According to the drinking water well logs for wells believed to be located at 1 and 4 Center Bay Road, which were obtained from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources GIS website, bedrock was encountered at these locations between nine (9) and 15 feet bgs. Bedrock beneath the Site is mapped as the Stony Point Formation, which is calcareous black shale that grades into argillaceous limestone.

On April 15, 2010, depth-to-water measurements in the overburden monitoring wells ranged from about two (2) feet bgs in monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-7 to about three (3) feet bgs in monitoring well MW-3. The water table was generally present within the fine sand unit. Calculated relative ground water elevations ranged from 94.92 feet at monitoring well MW-7 to 95.58 feet at monitoring well MW-2 (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1. Liquid-Level Monitoring Data: April 15, 2010

Well I.D.

Top-of-Casing

Elevation (feet)

Depth-to-Product

(feet BTOC)

Depth-to-Water (feet

BTOC)

Ground Water

Elevation (feet)

MW-1 97.83 -- 2.53 95.30 MW-2 97.50 -- 1.92 95.58 MW-3 97.84 -- 2.68 95.16 MW-4 97.34 -- 2.31 95.03 MW-5 97.10 -- 2.31 94.79 MW-6 97.38 -- 2.06 95.32 MW-7 96.64 -- 1.72 94.92 Note: BTOC = Below Top of Casing

The average water-table gradient across the investigated area of the Site was about 0.016 feet/foot. Assuming ground water flow is perpendicular to equipotential hydraulic-head contours (Figure 4), apparent shallow ground water flow in the overburden aquifer was generally to the east / southeast,


towards US Route 2. Vertical ground water flow components within the overburden aquifer were not quantified.

The bottom of the storm sewer drain that parallels US Route 2 on the eastern portion of the Site is about 3.5 feet bgs (as measured at the catch basin), which is below the water-table depth on April 15th; as such, this underground utility may have been influencing shallow ground water flow, either acting as a preferential pathway or hydraulic barrier (diverting shallow ground water flow beneath the pipe), depending on the integrity of the pipe and the hydraulic properties of the bedding materials used for installing the drain.

Of note, during the SSI field visits, the basement of the on-Site building was flooded and the building was vacant. However, according to Mr. Mashtare, when the building was occupied, water would be pumped from the basement under high water-table conditions. Under this scenario, local shallow ground water flow patterns would be altered as ground water was drawn towards the pump.

4.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control

Several of the individual VOC concentrations in ground water samples MW-1, MW-3, and MW-4 were estimated by the laboratory because the concentrations were outside of the calibration range. According to Dr. Gerald DiVincenzo of the VT DEC laboratory, the reported estimated values are likely biased low.

No VOCs were detected in the trip blank. The relative percent difference (RPD) of the blind field duplicate sample collected from MW-3 ranged from 0.04 percent to 10 percent of the original sample results for individual VOCs. The RPD for the TPH duplicate was 3.4 percent. The RPD for detected metals ranged from 11.2 percent to 46.9 percent. 4.4 Contaminant Distribution 4.4.1 Soil

4.4.1.1 PID Field Screening Peak PID headspace readings (per soil boring) obtained during the soil boring program are displayed on Figure 5, and in Table 4-2.


Table 4-2. Peak PID Readings: April 9, 2010 Boring

Location Approximate Depth (ft bgs)

Peak Headspace PID Reading (ppmv)

SB-1 / MW-1 2 1,700 SB-2 1 11.4

SB-4 / MW-3 2 3,970 SB-6 / MW-4 2.5 685 SB-7 / MW-5 5 24

SB-10 2.5 937 SB-11 2 220

No elevated PID readings (i.e. >1 ppmv) were recorded at soil borings SB-3, SB-5, SB-8, and SB-9.

In general, the highest PID readings, and visual/olfactory evidence of contamination, were observed within the “smear zone” located in the sandy deposits between about two (2) to five (5) feet bgs. PID readings decreased significantly within the underlying silty clay unit.

PID readings are also provided on the boring logs (Appendix A).


4.4.1.2 VOCs, TPH, and Lead

Soil laboratory analytical results are included in Table 4-3, and on Figure 5. Laboratory report forms are included in Appendix B.

Table 4-3. Soil Analytical Results: April 9, 2010

Sample ID:Sample Collection Date:Approximate Sample Depth (ft bgs):

VOCsMTBE µg/Kg 43,000 220,000 ND< 6,860 ND< 8,300Benzene µg/Kg 1,100 5,400 ND< 3,430 ND< 4,150

Toluene µg/Kg 5,000,000 45,000,000Ethylbenzene µg/Kg 5,400 27,000Total Xylenes µg/Kg 630,000 2,700,0001,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/Kg 62,000 260,0001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/Kg 780,000 10,000,000Naphthalene µg/Kg -- --

TPHC7-C10 TPH mg/Kg -- --C10-C26 TPH (DRO) mg/Kg -- --C26-C40 TPH mg/Kg -- -- ND< 150 ND< 150Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/Kg -- --

MetalsTotal Lead mg/Kg 400 800

63,200

21,50087,200

666,000432,000146,000

31 45

Units

424 679

1,420 2,150

1,420588

282,000

14,50068,900

440,000

92,90026,400

Analyte RSL - Residential

RSL - Industrial

4/9/20101.5-2

SB-4/1.5-2'

4/9/2010

SB-1/1.5-2'

1.5-2

Notes: Shaded values exceed the RSL for residential and/or industrial settings. ND = None Detected above quantitation limit ND values in bold font indicate detection limit was above the RSL for the respective compound.

Soil analytical results for individual analytes were compared to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) (for direct contact exposure pathway). There is no RSL established for TPH; however, the VT DEC WMD has a long-standing policy of using TPH cleanup guidelines of 200 milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg) and 1,000 mg/Kg for residential and commercial properties, respectively, which were established by the VT Department of Health (DOH).


Ethylbenzene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene were detected at concentrations above the respective residential and industrial RSLs in soil samples SB-1/1.5-2 and SB-4/1.5-2. Total xylenes were detected at a concentration above the residential RSL in soil sample SB-/1.5-2. No other analytes exceeded the respective RSLs.

TPH concentrations in soil samples SB-1/1.5-2 and SB-4/1.5-2 exceeded the VT DOH’s cleanup guidelines for both residential and commercial properties.

4.4.2 Ground Water 4.4.2.1 VOCs and TPH

Analytical results for VOCs and TPH are included in Table 4-4, and on Figure 6. Laboratory report forms are included in Appendix B.

Table 4-4. VOC and TPH Analytical Results: April 2010

Sample Location MTBE Benzene Toluene Ethyl-

benzene Total

Xylenes Total TMBs

Naph-thalene

Total Target VOCs

TPH (DRO)

MW-1* 41.2 17.0 1,140 2,290 12,060 2,776 356 18,680 5.4 MW-2 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 4.5 1.2 ND<2.0 5.7 ND<0.2 MW-3* ND<1.0 58.6 587 1,380 7,330 2,267 340 11,962.6 5.7 MW-4* ND<1.0 2.7 22.4 53.8 1,328 2,507 220 4,134 6.5 MW-5 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 2.1 ND<2.0 2.1 ND<0.2 MW-6 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 3.0 ND<2.0 3.0 ND<0.2 MW-7 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND ND<0.2

1 Center Bay ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND ND<0.2

4 Center Bay ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND ND<0.2

VGES 40.0 5.0 1,000.0 700.0 10,000.0 350.0 20.0 -- -- Notes: * = Concentrations of several compounds outside calibration range; these values were estimated. All concentrations reported in µg/L, except TPH, reported in mg/L. Shaded values exceed the VGES.

No VOCs or TPH (DRO) were detected in the water supply samples collected from 1 Center Bay Road and 4 Center Bay Road. In samples collected from the overburden monitoring wells, total target VOC concentrations ranged from none detected in MW-7 to 18,680 micrograms per


Liter (µg/L) in monitoring well MW-1, located near the former UST. Target VOCs include methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, total trimethylbenzenes, and naphthalene. One or more VOC was detected at concentrations above the respective Vermont Ground Water Enforcement Standard (VGES) in samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-3, and MW-4 TPH concentrations ranged from non-detect (MW-2, MW-5, MW-6, and MW-7) to 6.5 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) in MW-4. There is not currently a VGES established for TPH. 4.4.2.2 Metals

Analytical results for metals are included in Table 4-5; lead results are also provided on Figure 6. Laboratory report forms are included in Appendix B.

Table 4-5. Metals Analytical Results: April 2010

Sample ID: MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 1

Center Bay

4 Center

Bay

Parameter VGES Turbidity (NTU) -- 669 31 53 14 >1,000 331 18 2 NA Total Metals

Arsenic 10.0 2.62 ND<1 1.11 ND<1 8.24 1.56 ND<1 ND<1 1.05

Barium 2,000.0 309 73.9 302 129 589 135 51.0 550 472 Cadmium 5.0 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1

Chromium 100.0 14.0 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5 75.1 13.3 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5

Lead 15.0 34.7 ND<1 13.4 13.0 33.9 55.1 1.35 1.99 9.76

Mercury 2.0 ND<0.2 ND<0.2 ND<0.2 ND<0.2 ND<0.2 ND<0.2 ND<0.2 ND<0.2 ND<0.2

Selenium 50.0 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5 ND<5

Silver 100.0 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 Notes: All concentrations reported in µg/L, unless otherwise noted. Shaded values exceed the VGES.

Lead was detected above the VGES of 15.0 µg/L in samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-5, and MW-6. Of note, sample turbidity readings for MW-1, MW-5, and MW-6 were relatively high (669 NTU, >1,000 NTU, and 331 NTU, respectively) compared to the other water samples.


4.4.3 Indoor Air On April 2, 2010, ambient PID readings within the northern portion of the first floor of the on-Site building were non-detect (i.e. 0.0 ppmv).

5.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AGS has developed a conceptual site model (CSM) based on the available hydrogeologic and contaminant distribution data available for the Site. Gasoline appears to have been released at the Site from a former UST system. The release(s) occurred over 26 years ago (the time the UST is reported to have been removed); however, the precise timing and volume of the release(s) is unknown. Given the contaminant distribution observed during the SSI, gasoline was likely released to the subsurface in the suspected vicinity of former gasoline UST, but not near the suspected location of the former fuel dispenser. Gasoline is comprised of hundreds of individual compounds. These compounds are typically readily sorbed to soil and organic matter, have a relatively low aqueous solubility, and are biodegradable (under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions). In general, once released to the subsurface, petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g. gasoline) can partition into four phases: 1) vapor (i.e. soil gas), 2) aqueous (dissolved in pore water or ground water), 3) sorbed (to soil minerals and organic matter), and 4) remain as light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL), either residual or mobile. The phase partitioning and migration of petroleum hydrocarbons, once released to the subsurface, depends on several factors, including: the volume of the release, the physical and chemical properties of the individual hydrocarbon compounds, and the physical and chemical properties of the media that the hydrocarbons were released into. At the former Kestler’s Market Site, the gasoline release has impacted soil and ground water at concentrations above applicable standards for select compounds, and hydrocarbons are known to be present in the vapor, sorbed, and dissolved phases. No measureable free-phase NAPL was detected in any of the Site monitoring wells; however, heavy sheening was observed in several soil borings, suggesting residual LNAPL may also be present. The magnitude and extent of gasoline-related impact to soil and ground water on the Property has been reasonably characterized; however, the downgradient extent of contamination has not been defined, and may extend off-Site, beneath US Route 2.


On-Site soils within the upper two feet bgs are impacted by ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at concentrations above the respective residential RSLs, and TPH at concentrations above the VT DOH cleanup guidelines of 200 mg/Kg and 1,000 mg/Kg for residential and commercial Sites, respectively (for direct contact). The area of on-Site soil with PID readings greater than 200 ppmv is estimated at about 750 ft2, and extends from the former UST area to US Route 2 (Figure 5). Vertically, the highest PID readings, and visual/olfactory evidence of contamination, were generally observed within the “smear zone” located in the sandy deposits between about 1.5 to 5 feet bgs; PID readings decreased significantly within the underlying silty clay unit. The shallow overburden aquifer is impacted by target petroleum-related VOCs and total lead at concentrations above respective VGESs; however, target VOCs have not been detected in downgradient bedrock water supplies. The dissolved-phase VOC plume appears to have migrated within the shallow overburden aquifer from the former UST area to the east/southeast, in the direction of shallow ground water flow, and likely extends off-Site beneath US Route 2. The on-Site portion of the 1,000 µg/L total dissolved VOC isopleth covers an estimated 700 ft2; the downgradient horizontal extent of the plume has not been determined (Figure 6). There are insufficient monitoring data to determine whether the dissolved-phase VOC plume is expanding, receding, or stabilized, since there is only one round of analytical data. Given the shallow water table, the storm drain that parallels US Route 2, oblique to shallow ground water flow, may influence contaminant migration by either acting as a preferential pathway or partial hydraulic barrier, depending on the integrity of the pipe and the hydraulic properties of the bedding materials used for installing the drain. Dissolved VOC mass flux likely occurs predominantly within the more conductive sand unit that is present to about seven (7) to eight (8) feet bgs. The hydraulic conductivity (K) of the underlying silty clay unit is likely several orders of magnitude less than that of the sand unit, and PID field screening suggests gross petroleum contamination has not migrated significantly downward into the silty clay. As such, the silty clay unit may limit the risk of dissolved-phase impact to the downgradient bedrock water supplies. However, since the extensiveness of the silty-clay unit downgradient of the Site is unknown, bedrock in this area is believed to be fairly shallow (within 9 to 15 feet bgs), and the hydraulic relationship between the overburden and bedrock aquifer is currently unknown, the bedrock aquifer may be still be at risk without data to prove otherwise. Given the age of the former gasoline UST, it likely once stored leaded gasoline. Lead was detected at concentrations below the RSLs (for direct contact) in both of the shallow soil samples collected within the suspected gasoline release area; since a “background” soil sample was not collected and analyzed, there are insufficient data to evaluate whether the presence of lead in shallow soils is naturally occurring or attributed to the


former gasoline release. Total lead was detected in both of the supply well samples and each of the overburden monitoring well samples, except monitoring well MW-2; however, total lead was only detected above the VGES of 15.0 µg/L in samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-5, and MW-6. Evaluating total lead, turbidity, and VOC data from overburden ground water samples, in the context of Site hydrogeology and their spatial distribution relative to the gasoline release area, it is possible that lead from the former gasoline release is attributing to elevated lead concentrations in ground water (above background levels); however, VGES exceedances may be attributed to high sample turbidity. Sensitive Receptor Evaluation Based on the current CSM, potential exposure pathways to human and/or ecological receptors are evaluated below.

• Indoor Air – For the on-Site building, there currently does not appear to be a

significant exposure risk to human receptors via vapor intrusion of petroleum VOCs to indoor air because, among other factors: A. the building is vacant;

B. during the ISI, PID readings in the basement were non-detect, and during the

SSI, PID readings on the first floor were non-detect;

C. the dissolved-phase VOC plume is hydraulically downgradient of the building; and

D. concentrations of target dissolved-phase VOCs in the overburden monitoring

wells were below the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services’ (NHDES) respective “GW-2” screening levels, provided in the NHDES guidance document titled Vapor Intrusion Guidance, dated July 2006. The VT DEC does not currently have a vapor intrusion guidance document of its own.

However, the downgradient residences at 1 and 4 Center Bay Road may be at risk of vapor intrusion without data to prove otherwise, because: 1) the water table is relatively shallow and the downgradient extent of the dissolved-phase VOC plume has not been defined; and 2) it is possible that the plumes’ center of mass has migrated off-Site (i.e. “GW-2” screening levels may be exceeded off-Site).


• Soil – On-Site soils within the upper two feet bgs are impacted by ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at concentrations above the respective residential RSLs, and TPH at concentrations above the VT DOH cleanup guidelines of 200 mg/Kg and 1,000 mg/Kg for residential and commercial Sites, respectively (for direct contact). Exposure pathways for humans through impacted soils include dermal absorption (via direct contact), ingestion, and inhalation. The soils are currently covered with about six (6) inches of gravel, and as such, may not present a significant risk to human health or the environment. However, any future Site redevelopment or intrusive activities could possibly result in exposure.

• Ground Water – Although the shallow overburden aquifer is impacted by target petroleum-related VOCs and total lead at concentrations above respective VGESs, target VOCs have not been detected in downgradient bedrock water supplies to date, and lead, although detected in these wells, was not present at concentrations above the VGES. However, since the extent and status (i.e. advancing, stable, or receding) of the dissolved VOC plume has not been defined, and the hydraulic relationship between the overburden and bedrock aquifers is unknown, the downgradient bedrock drinking water wells may be at risk for future impact.

• Subsurface Utilities – The storm drain on the eastern portion of the Site may be impacted by petroleum contaminants; no other subsurface utilities appear to be impacted or at risk at this time.

No other sensitive receptors appears to be impacted or at significant risk.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Given the results of the SSI and previous Site work, AGS has drawn the following conclusions:

• No existing USTs were identified within the study area, indicating that the gasoline UST has been removed.

• Gasoline appears to have been released at the Site from a former UST system. The release(s) occurred over 26 years ago (the time the UST is reported to have been removed); however, the precise timing and volume of the release(s) is unknown.


• The petroleum release has impacted soil and ground water. Gasoline constituents are known to be present in the vapor, sorbed, and dissolved phases. No measureable free-phase NAPL was detected in any of the Site monitoring wells; however, heavy sheening was observed in several soil borings, suggesting residual NAPL may also be present.

• The magnitude and extent of gasoline-related impact to soil and ground water on the Property has been reasonably characterized; however, the downgradient extent of contamination has not been defined, and may extend off-Site, beneath US Route 2.

• On-Site soils within the upper two feet bgs are impacted by ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene at concentrations above the respective residential RSLs, and TPH at concentrations above the VT DOH cleanup guidelines of 200 mg/Kg and 1,000 mg/Kg for residential and commercial Sites, respectively (for direct contact). The area of on-Site soil with PID readings greater than 200 ppmv is estimated at about 750 ft2, and extends from the former UST area to US Route 2.

• The shallow overburden aquifer is impacted by target petroleum-related VOCs and total lead at concentrations above respective VGESs; however, target VOCs have not been detected in downgradient bedrock water supplies. The on-Site portion of the 1,000 µg/L total dissolved VOC isopleth covers an estimated 700 ft2; the downgradient horizontal extent of the plume has not been determined. There are insufficient monitoring data to determine whether the dissolved-phase VOC plume is expanding, receding, or stabilized, since there is only one round of analytical data.

• Sensitive receptors /media impacted or at potential risk include soil, ground

water, subsurface utilities, and indoor air.

Based on the above conclusions, AGS recommends that the downgradient extent of the contaminant plume be characterized to better evaluate the risk to off-Site sensitive receptors, including the indoor air and drinking water supplies at 1 and 4 Center Bay Road. Once this delineation is completed, the need for corrective action and/or monitoring can be determined.

Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.

Name: ROUSES POINTDate: 3/13/2010Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet

Location: 044° 56' 50.72" N 073° 16' 12.58" W NAD 27Caption: Figure 1. Site Location Map

SITESITE

Magnetic Declination

16° W

SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILES

0 1000 YARDS

0 1 KILOMETER

APPENDIX A

Site Name: Kestler's Market Client: VT DEC Permit No.: NALocation: Rt. 2, Alburgh, Center, VT Drilling Dates: 4/9/2010Project: Field Log By: Eric SwiechDriller: Mike Jordan Company: SEI Drilling Method: Geoprobe (6610 DT)

5-foot dual-tube samplerLatitude: Longitude: Borehole Diam. (in.): 3.25"State Plane Coordinate Feet (North): Outer Casing: NAState Plane Coordinate Feet (East): Well Diameter (inches) 1Outer Casing (OC) Elevation (feet): NA Casing Length (feet): See BelowInner Casing (IC) Elevation (feet): NA Screen Length (feet): See BelowGround Elevation (feet): NA Screen Slot Size: 10Datum: MSL Sand Pack: #1Notes: Flush-mounted roadbox

Depth (feet) PID Response (ppm) Recovery Sample IDs0-5' RUN

1 0-6": Gravel (stay mat) 346-33": Brn f. SAND, and Silt. Strong gasoline odors. Wet @ 20".

2 SB-1/1.5-2'1700

3

4 400

55-10' RUN

6 0-7": Sluff. 1217-28": Grey f. SAND, trace Silt. Wet.

7 100056"

812

96

10E.O.B. @ 10'. Set well @ 8' bgs, w/ 7' of 10-slot screen. #1 sand to 1' bgs, bentonite chips to 0.5' bgs.

PID readings obtained w/ Ion Science Model 1000+ (10.6 eV lamp)

28-56": Grey Silty Clay.

Drilling LogSB-1 / MW-1

Description

Kestler_Boring Logs - SB-1


5-foot dual-tube samplerLatitude: Longitude: Borehole Diam. (in.): 3.25"State Plane Coordinate Feet (North): Outer Casing: NAState Plane Coordinate Feet (East): Well Diameter (inches) NAOuter Casing (OC) Elevation (feet): NA Casing Length (feet): NAInner Casing (IC) Elevation (feet): NA Screen Length (feet): NAGround Elevation (feet): NA Screen Slot Size: NADatum: MSL Sand Pack: NANotes:


1 0-6": Gravel (stay mat)11.4

244"

3 6

41.5

5

6

7

8

9

6-33": Brn f. SAND, and Silt. Yellow/orange mottles @ 32-34". Wet @ 33".

Drilling LogSB-2

Description

33-44": Grey f. SAND, trace Silt. Wet.

10E.O.B. @ 5'. No monitoring well. Backfilled w/ bentonite chips.






1 0-6": Gravel (stay mat)6-29": Brn f. SAND, and Silt. Wet @ 27".

229-44": Orange/brn f. SAND. Wet. 0 44"

3

4

55-10' RUN

6 0-36": As above, changing to grey at 8".36-52": Grey f. SAND, some Silt, and shells. Wet.

70 58"

8

9




Description






1 0-6": Gravel (stay mat)6-39": Brn f.-c. SAND, some Silt, little Gravel. Wet @ 24". 1200 SB-4/1.5-2'

239"

3 3970

41500

55-10' RUN

6 2000-42": Grey f. SAND, little Silt. Wet.

725 49"

814

9


Description

42-49": Grey f. Sand, and Silty Clay.

1310

E.O.B. @ 10'. Set well @ 8' bgs, w/ 7' of 10-slot screen. #1 sand to 1' bgs, bentonite chips to 0.5' bgs.






1 0-6": Gravel (stay mat)

21 to 2 47"

3

4

5

6

7

8

9



Drilling LogSB-5

Description

6-20": Brn f. -c. SAND, some Silt. Moist.

20-47": F. SAND, trace Silt. Wet @ 32".





1 0-6": Gravel (stay mat)600

222-34": Brn f. SAND. Moist - Wet. Blk staining and heavy sheening. 34"

3 685

4400

55-10' RUN

6 0-34": As above. 28034-48": Grey f. SAND, some Silty clay, and shells. Wet.

7 3557"

8 55

9 50

10 55E.O.B. @ 10'. Set well @ 8' bgs, w/ 7' of 10-slot screen. #1 sand to 1' bgs, bentonite chips to 0.5' bgs.


6-22": Brn f. SAND, some Silt and organic matter. Blk-drk brn mottles @16-20".


Description






1 0-9": Gravel (stay mat) 1

2 329-47": Brn-orange f. SAND, trace Silt. Wet. 48"

31

424

55-10' RUN

6 0-28": As above. 228-58": Grey f. SAND, some Silty clay, and shells. Wet.

7 358"

8 1

9 0.2

10 0.2E.O.B. @ 10'. Set well @ 8' bgs, w/ 7' of 10-slot screen. #1 sand to 1' bgs, bentonite chips to 0.5' bgs.



Description

9-29": blk - drk Brn f. SAND, some Silt and organic matter.





1 0-2": Top soil.2-6": Gravel.

2 6-26": F. SAND, some Silt and organic matter. <126-51": Brn-orange f. SAND, trace Silt. Wet. 51"

3

4

55-10' RUN

6 0-31": As above. <131-58": Grey Silty clay.

72 58"

8<1

9<1




Description





1 0-2": Top soil. 0.1

28-38": F. SAND, trace Silt. Wet @27". 0 38"

3

40

55-10' RUN

6 0-14": As above. 014-30": Grey f. SAND, and Silty clay, and shells. Wet.

70 58"

8


Description

2-8": Gravel.

30-58": Silty Clay

9 0.2

10 0.2E.O.B. @ 10'. Set well @ 8' bgs, w/ 7' of 10-slot screen. #1 sand to 1' bgs, bentonite chips to 0.5' bgs.






1 0-14": Gravel (stay mat)733

240"

3 937

4851

5

6

7

8

9

1010-12.5' RUN 18

11 Swelling Clay. 2 58"20

12 212.5-15' RUN

13As above. 8 58"

145

15

E.O.B. @ 5'. No monitoring well. Backfilled w/ bentonite chips.


Drilling LogSB-10

Description

14-33": F. SAND, some Silt, little organic matter. Blk staining and strong gasoline odors @ 21-26". Wet @ 33".

33-40": Olive f. SAND, trace Silt. Wet.





1 0-6": Gravel (stay mat) 200

2 22049"

3 16

420

5

6

7

8

9



Drilling LogSB-11

Description

6-32": Brn f. SAND, some Silt and organic matter.

32-49": Grey f. SAND,. Wet.


APPENDIX B

Laboratory Report

Kestler'sPROJECT:

DATE RECEIVED:WORK ORDER:

DATE REPORTED:

090420Applied Geosolutions, LLC2113 Stony Brook Rd.Northfield, VT 05663

Atten: Eric Swiech SAMPLER:April 27, 2010

1004-04689

Eric

April 16, 2010

Enclosed please find the results of the analyses performed for the samples referenced on the attached chain of custody located at the end of this report.

The column labeled Lab/Tech in the accompanying report denotes the laboratory facility where the testing was performed and the technician who conducted the assay. A "W" designates the Williston, VT lab under NELAC certification ELAP 11263; "R" designates the Lebanon, NH facility under certification NH 2037 and “N” the Plattsburgh, NY lab under certification ELAP 11892. “Sub” indicates the testing was performed by a subcontracted laboratory. The accreditation status of the subcontracted lab is referenced in the corresponding NELAC and Qual fields.

This NELAC column also denotes the accreditation status of each laboratory for each

reported parameter. “A” indicates the referenced laboratory is NELAC accredited for the parameter reported. “N” indicates the laboratory is not accredited. “U” indicates that NELAC does not offer accreditation for that parameter in that specific matrix. Test results denoted with an “A” meet all National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program requirements except where denoted by pertinent data qualifiers. Test results are representative of the samples as they were received at the laboratory

Endyne, Inc. warrants, to the best of its knowledge and belief, the accuracy of the analytical

test results contained in this report, but makes no other warranty, expressed or implied, especially no warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Page 1 of 2

Reviewed by:

Harry B. Locker, Ph.D.Laboratory Director

NH2037 ELAP11263160 James Brown Dr., Williston, VT 05495Ph 802-879-4333 Fax 802-879-7103

www.endynelabs.com56 Etna Road, Lebanon, NH 03766

Ph 603-678-4891 Fax 603-678-4893

Laboratory Report

Applied Geosolutions, LLCCLIENT:PROJECT: Kestler's

WORK ORDER:DATE RECEIVED:

1004-0468904/16/2010

4/27/2010REPORT DATE:

001 Date Sampled: 4/9/10Site: SB-1/1.5-2' Time: 9:45Analysis DateMethodParameter Result NELACLab/TechUnits Qual.

31 mg/Kg, dry 4/23/10 ATHW AEPA 6010BLead, Total

002 Date Sampled: 4/9/10Site: SB-4/1.5-2' Time:13:00Analysis DateMethodParameter Result NELACLab/TechUnits Qual.

45 mg/Kg, dry 4/23/10 ATHW AEPA 6010BLead, TotalTEST METHOD:

001 Sampled: 4/9/10Site: SB-1/1.5-2' 4/20/10 KAWWTest Date: 9:45Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual

EPA 8015B

Completed UExtraction by EPA 3550B 424 Amg/Kg, dryC7-C10 TPH588 Amg/Kg, dryC10-C26 TPH-DRO < 150 Amg/Kg, dryC26-C40 TPH

1,040 Amg/Kg, dryTot. Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6-C18 UHydrocarbon Window

TEST METHOD:001 Sampled: 4/9/10Site: SB-1/1.5-2' 4/21/10 DAWWTest Date: 9:45Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual

EPA 8260B

< 6,860 Aug/Kg, DryMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 3,430 Aug/Kg, DryBenzene14,500 Aug/Kg, DryToluene 68,900 Aug/Kg, DryEthylbenzene440,000 Aug/Kg, DryXylenes, Total 92,900 Aug/Kg, Dry1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene282,000 Aug/Kg, Dry1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 26,400 Aug/Kg, DryNaphthalene

98 A%Surr. 1 (Dibromofluoromethane) 101 A%Surr. 2 (Toluene d8)100 A%Surr. 3 (4-Bromofluorobenzene) > 10 UUnidentified Peaks

TEST METHOD:002 Sampled: 4/9/10Site: SB-4/1.5-2' 4/20/10 KAWWTest Date:13:00Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual

EPA 8015B

Completed UExtraction by EPA 3550B 679 Amg/Kg, dryC7-C10 TPH1,420 Amg/Kg, dryC10-C26 TPH-DRO < 150 Amg/Kg, dryC26-C40 TPH2,150 Amg/Kg, dryTot. Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6-C36 UHydrocarbon Window

TEST METHOD:002 Sampled: 4/9/10Site: SB-4/1.5-2' 4/21/10 DAWWTest Date:13:00Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual Parameter Result Unit Nelac Qual

EPA 8260B

< 8,300 Aug/Kg, DryMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 4,150 Aug/Kg, DryBenzene21,500 Aug/Kg, DryToluene 87,200 Aug/Kg, DryEthylbenzene666,000 Aug/Kg, DryXylenes, Total 146,000 Aug/Kg, Dry1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene432,000 Aug/Kg, Dry1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 63,200 Aug/Kg, DryNaphthalene

96 A%Surr. 1 (Dibromofluoromethane) 97 A%Surr. 2 (Toluene d8)97 A%Surr. 3 (4-Bromofluorobenzene) > 10 UUnidentified Peaks

Page 2 of 2

Documents

SUPPLEMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT Former Kestler’s ... · 2.0 BACKGROUND ... evaluate the risk to off-Site sensitive receptors, including the indoor air and drinking water