brownfields phase ii environmental site assessment … · (esa) conducted in august 2006 at the...

BROWNFIELDS PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Woodstock Jungle

Pleasant Street Woodstock, Vermont

KAS# 502060051 VTDEC # 2005-3356

October 2006

Revised February 2007

Prepared for

Two River Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission The King Farm 3117 Rose Hill

Woodstock, VT 05091

Prepared by

www.kas-consulting.com

368 Avenue D, Suite 15 • P.O. Box 787 • Williston, VT 05495 • 802-383-0486 • Fax 802-383-0490

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report Woodstock Jungle

October 2006, Revised February 2007 i KAS# 502060051

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of the Brownfields Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted in August 2006 at the Woodstock Jungle property on Pleasant Street (Route 4) in Woodstock, Vermont (herein referred to as the Site). Completed work was conducted for the Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission (TRORC). The primary purpose of the Phase II ESA was to determine whether groundwater and soils beneath the site have been contaminated by off-site property upgradient activities including several gasoline filling stations. Another purpose of the Phase II ESA was to ascertain whether on site activities (past and present) have impacted the site’s environmental quality. The scope of the Phase II investigative work included installation of seven groundwater monitoring wells along the site’s southern boundary, and associated soil sampling, groundwater sample collection and laboratory analyses, sampling of water and sediment from the adjacent stream east of the site, and on site shallow soils sampling. The results of this testing are summarized below and in the following report. Soil Testing Results Results of soil testing indicate that polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are often by-products of incomplete combustion of fuels, were detected in most of the soil samples, including three of the four background soil samples. Some PAH levels were above residential soil standards including the background samples. It appears that PAH compounds are nearly ubiquitous in surface soils across the site which is consistent with the site’s history of use for utility and railroad activities. Other shallow soils testing indicated generally low to non-detectable levels of contamination. No volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in any of the soil samples collected during monitoring well advancement. Relatively few petroleum related VOCs were detected in shallow soils elsewhere on the site. The most notable VOC detections were in the vicinity of the former road oil (Tarvia) tank on the site’s lower plateau. However, none of the VOCs were present above residential soil standards. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were reported in many of the shallow on-site soil samples at levels both below and above the Department of Environmental Conservation’s residential guidance levels. Metals were detected in shallow surface soils, including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. However, only arsenic was reported above residential soil standards, as is common in many areas of the northeastern United States. The distribution of arsenic in shallow soils is suggestive of an off site source. Polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) were detected in three shallow soil samples. Two of the reported PCB concentrations were below residential standards while one reported concentration was above the residential standard. The reported PCB concentration above the standard was located along the southern property line adjacent to the Alsup property.


October 2006, Revised February 2007 ii KAS# 502060051

Groundwater Testing Results Groundwater measurements indicate that surficial groundwater is approximately 20’ below grade on the site’s upper plateau, and that groundwater appears to be flowing toward the north at a relatively shallow gradient of 4%. The groundwater flow rate is estimated to be 1 foot per day. Groundwater testing results indicate that the gasoline additive MtBE is present above detection limits but below groundwater standards in two of seven monitoring wells. The source of the MtBE is not known but is presumed to be gasoline related. No other dissolved phase contamination was reported above laboratory detection limits. Levels of several metals were reported in the monitoring wells but at concentrations less than the state standards. Surface Water and Sediment Testing Results No VOCs or metals were reported above detection limits in surface water (upstream or downstream). Stream sediment did not contain reported VOCs, but was reported to contain several PAH compounds. None were reported to be above the NOAA SQuiRT sediment criteria. PAH levels were higher in the upgradient sediment sample than in the downgradient sediment sample, suggesting that the PAH compounds are from an off-site source. Several metals were reported in the stream sediment, at levels in excess of the NOAA SQuiRT background levels. These included lead, nickel and zinc. Lead was higher in the upstream sediment sample than in the downstream sediment sample. The opposite was true for nickel and zinc. Recommendations KAS recommends that additional Phase II Assessment activities be conducted to further define the extent and magnitude of on site contamination, notably total petroleum, PAH and PCBs in shallow soil.

.


October 2006, Revised February 2007 iii KAS# 502060051

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1

2.0 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................................1 2.1 JUNGLE PROPERTY INVESTIGATIVE HISTORY ............................................................................................2

3.0 APPROVED WORK SCOPE ......................................................................................................................3

4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN .............................................................................................3

5.0 SHALLOW SOILS SAMPLING.................................................................................................................4 5.1 PRE-DRILLING ACTIVITIES ..........................................................................................................................4 5.2 SOIL BORING ADVANCEMENT AND SCREENING OF SUBSURFACE SOILS ......................................................4 5.3 SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS .........................................................4

6.0 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING................................................................................7 6.1 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING.......................................................................................................................7 6.2 STREAM SEDIMENT SAMPLING ....................................................................................................................8

7.0 SOIL BORING ADVANCEMENT AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION...........................9 7.1 SOIL BORING ADVANCEMENT AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION .....................................................9 7.2 SITE MONITORING WELL SURVEY .............................................................................................................10

8.0 GROUNDWATER FLOW GAUGING, SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ..............................................10 8.1 MONITORING WELL GAUGING AND ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER FLOW ...................................................10 8.2 MONITORING WELL SAMPLING AND LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS ..............................................10

9.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RISK ANALYSIS .................................................................................12 9.1 NATURAL CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................................12 9.2 CONTAMINATION SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................13 9.3 POTENTIAL SOURCES.................................................................................................................................13 9.4 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS.............................................................................................................................14

10.0 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION...................................................................................................15

11.0 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................16

12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................17


October 2006, Revised February 2007 iv KAS# 502060051

APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Maps Site Location Map Area Map Site Map Groundwater Contour Map Total PAH Distribution Map Total Arsenic Distribution Map Total Lead Distribution Map APPENDIX B – Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams APPENDIX C – Shallow Soil Quality Data Summary Laboratory Analytical Reports APPENDIX D. – Surface Water and Sediment Quality Data Summary Laboratory Analytical Reports APPENDIX E. –Liquid Level Monitoring Data APPENDIX F. – Low Flow Sampling Data

Groundwater Quality Data Summary Laboratory Analytical Reports

APPENDIX G. - Data Validation Report APPENDIX H. – Site Photographs


October 2006, Revised February 2007 1 KAS #502060051

1.0 INTRODUCTION KAS, Inc. (KAS) has completed a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the Woodstock Jungle property (Site) in Woodstock, Vermont. A Site Location Map, Area Map and Site Map are included in Appendix A. Work was completed for the Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission (TRORC) in accord with KAS’ professional services agreement dated July 2005, amended April 2006 and in accordance with the KAS Work Plan – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) – Woodstock Jungle dated April 2006, revised June 20061. The original work plan was revised in response to comments received from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 on May 25, 2006 and from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on May 24, 2006. The scope of work was developed in accordance with ASTM E 1903-97 Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Site is currently owned by the Village of Woodstock, Vermont. The Phase II ESA work was proposed to address various Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and other environmental risk factors identified during a Phase I ESA.2 The objective of KAS’s Phase II ESA was to define the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination at the Site. Elements of this Phase II ESA included the following: 1) preparation of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to comply with the EPA’s Brownfields Program requirements, 2) shallow surface soil screening and sampling at various on site locations, 3) installation of seven groundwater monitoring wells and associated soil sampling; 4) groundwater sampling from the newly installed monitoring wells, 5) data validation as specified in the QAPP; and 6) preparation of a final report. 2.0 BACKGROUND The Jungle property is a 3.20 acre parcel currently used for parking and storage by the Town of Woodstock Department of Public Works. It is owned by the Village of Woodstock and is located north of Pleasant Street and south of the Ottauquechee River on the east side of Woodstock Village. The Village and Town of Woodstock will facilitate private mixed use development at the property. Given the property's prime location in Woodstock Village, a combination of commercial and residential uses is anticipated. A Phase I ESA was completed in December 2005.3 No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) as defined by ASTM were documented on the property during the Phase I ESA, but two off-site RECs were documented:

Historic releases of gasoline at the Cumberland Farms station southeast of the property. Historic releases of gasoline at the former F.A. Richmond Ford station (currently

Maplefields) southeast of the property. Additionally, the Phase I ESA identified several on site environmental conditions, as follows. 1 KAS, Inc. Work Plan – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) – Woodstock Jungle, KAS, Inc., April 2006, Revised June, 2006. 2 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the Jungle-Municipal Storage Yard, Pleasant Street, Woodstock, Vermont, December 2005. 3 VHB, ibid.



Potential fill soils of unknown quality. Historic use as a railroad site. Tarvia oil storage and dispensation. Debris piles which may contain contamination. Stockpiled telephone poles that may contain creosote or other chemicals.

Specific technical tasks contained in this work plan address RECs as defined in ASTM Practice E-1527-00 and the other environmental conditions identified in the Phase I ESA report. Additionally, although not specifically referenced as RECs or environmental concerns in the conclusions of the Phase I ESA report, the following nearby sites in KAS’ opinion also have some potential to have impacted the environmental quality of the Jungle property.

The adjacent Alsup property which was historically used for mechanical fabrication, a laundromat, and for automotive repair.

The existing Sunoco gasoline station to the south of the Alsup property. The work scope in this work plan also address these off site uses.

2.1 Jungle Property Investigative History No other on site environmental investigations are known to have taken place other than the VHB Phase I ESA. Four of the off site properties referenced above have been the subject of environmental investigations. These include the Alsup property, the Cumberland Farms station, the former F.A. Richmond Gulf station (presently abandoned), and the former F.A. Richmond Ford Station (Maplefields). These investigations are summarized at Section 4, pages 11-20 of the Phase I ESA report4 and are not repeated here. The Gerrish Motors property located well south and east of the Jungle property has also been investigated but in KAS’ opinion poses little risk to the environmental quality of the Jungle property and is not further considered herein. The Phase I ESA Report reports on a conversation with the DEC’s site manager for the Gerrish Motors property.5 During this conversation it was indicated that the only off site area affected by the Gerrish contamination is north of the Cumberland Farms property which would put it outside the area influencing the Jungle property. Additionally, upgradient monitoring wells on both the Cumberland Farms property and the former F.A. Richmond Ford property have been tested numerous times and have been found to have very little to non-detectable levels of contamination. The Sunoco gasoline filling station on the south side of Pleasant Street has been in business for many years. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) registry indicates that this station hosts three gasoline USTs (6,280 gallons each) and one diesel fuel UST (6,280 gallons). All the USTs were installed in 1985.6 According to a representative

4 VHB, ibid. 5 VHB, ibid, pg. 19. 6 Vermont DEC UST Registry, Accessed on line 4/11/06 at http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/ust/USTlist.htm#W



of W.A. Sandri of Greenfield, Massachusetts, the USTs are constructed of single wall steel. The UST piping was replaced in the late 1980’s or the early 1990’s. No environmental assessment reports are available for the station, and no monitoring wells or other environmental monitoring data exist.7 The specific scope of work that was accomplished during this Phase II ESA is summarized in Section 3.0. Specific task descriptions are included in Sections 4.0-10.0. 3.0 APPROVED WORK SCOPE The approved scope of work is presented in KAS’ final work plan8 and also in the approved quality assurance project plan (QAPP).9 The final work scope also included stream sediment sampling for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the request of the USEPA project manager.10 The following specific work elements were completed and are described in subsequent sections of this report.

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Shallow Soils Sampling Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Soil Borings and Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation Groundwater Flow Gauging, Sampling and Analysis Updated Conceptual Model and Risk Analysis, including a Sensitive Receptor Survey Laboratory Data Validation Report Preparation, including conclusions and recommendations.

4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN KAS prepared a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prior to the initiation of fieldwork. The QAPP was prepared in accordance with the EPA document, Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessment, (EPA, 9/98, 540-R-98-038). The purpose of the QAPP is to develop data quality objectives, a sampling design (soil and groundwater), analytical precision requirements, and quality assurance guidelines. Version 1 of the QAPP (dated July 12, 2006) was submitted to the EPA and comments were received via electronic mail from Mr. Alan Peterson of the EPA on July 14, 2006.11 Due to the minor nature of comments received, the QAPP was approved by EPA on July 18, 200612 and a final QAPP with signatures was submitted to EPA and DEC on July 26, 2006.

7 KAS, Inc., telephone conversation with Ms. Sharon Abbott of W.A. Sandri, Inc. on February 22, 2006; (800) 628-1900. 8 KAS, Inc. Work Plan – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) – Woodstock Jungle, KAS, Inc., April 2006, Revised June, 2006. 9 KAS Inc., Brownfield Quality Assurance Project Plan, Woodstock Jungle, July 14, 2006, 10 Memorandum, USEPA, Alan Peterson to Sally Mansur, TRORC, July 14, 2006. 11 Memorandum, USEPA, Alan Peterson to Sally Mansur, TRORC, July 14, 2006. 12 QAPP Signed Cover Page July 18, 2006.



5.0 SHALLOW SOILS SAMPLING To assess the potential extent of contaminants in shallow soils, sixteen shallow soil borings were advanced at the Site on August 2-3, 2006. These included four borings in each of three composite sampling areas, and four background samples.

5.1 Pre-Drilling Activities Prior to the initiation of subsurface activities at the Site, KAS pre-marked potential drilling locations as required by Dig Safe on July 21, 2006. Dig Safe Number 20062910764 was obtained prior to the initiation of drilling activities. The Town of Woodstock was also contacted for clearance of drilling locations related to municipal water and sewer lines.

5.2 Soil Boring Advancement and Screening of Subsurface Soils On August 2, 2006 KAS advanced sixteen shallow soil borings on the site using a hand auger. Four soil borings were advanced to 24” depth in each of areas 1, 2 and 3 which were selected to provide an overview of on site shallow soil conditions. Samples from the four soil borings were composited within areas 1, 2 and 3 for laboratory analytical purposes (except for the VOC samples) and the resulting samples were labeled SS-1, SS-2 and SS-3. A duplicate sample from SS-1 was also tested. Soil borings B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 were advanced to collect background surface soil conditions. The approximate sample collection locations are depicted on the Site Map in Appendix A. Soils were screened using the KAS Jar/Polyethylene Bag Headspace Screening Protocol, which conforms to state and industry standards. Soil samples were screened in the field using a MiniRae Plus Classic photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 10.6 eV bulb. The PID was calibrated using an isobutylene reference prior to its use. The PID screening results indicated that all readings were 0.0 parts per million (ppm) except for the SS-2 composite sample which induced a PID reading of 28.7 ppm during headspace field screening. Also on August 2-3, 2006, KAS advanced seven soil borings using a hollow stem auger drilling rig and a split spoon sampler. Shallow soil samples were collected from six of the seven borings at the 0-2’ depth interval except for SB-1, which was sampled from 4-6’ depth. The shallow soil testing results are presented below. A detailed description of the boring methodology and results is provided in Section 6 of this report.

5.3 Shallow Soil Sample Collection and Laboratory Analysis Thirteen shallow soil samples and two duplicate samples were collected during the shallow soil study. These are summarized as follows.

Three composite soil samples (except VOCs) and one duplicate from areas 1, 2 and 3; Six grab soil samples from SB-1 through SB-6, and one duplicate; and, Four background soil samples.

Soil samples (except background) were analyzed for the following test parameters:



VOCs via EPA Method 8260b with Method 5035 (methanol) preservation; TPH via EPA Method 8015; Thirteen priority pollutant metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc)13; Acid Base Neutral Semivolatile organic compounds via EPA Method 8270c; and, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) via EPA Method 8082.

The background samples were tested for 13 priority pollutant metals and PAH via Method 8270c only. The samples were placed in a cooler with ice for storage and transportation to Endyne, Incorporated Laboratory Services of Williston, Vermont (Endyne). Chain of custody procedures were followed. Tabulated results and laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix C. VOCs via EPA Method 8260b No VOCs were reported at concentrations in excess of the EPA’s Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) for a residential site. All of the soil samples collected during boring advancement with the hollow stem auger (along the southern margin of the site) were non-detect for all tested VOCs. Various petroleum related VOCs were reported in the samples from areas 1, 2 and 3 at concentrations below the residential PRGs. No non-petroleum related VOCs were reported above detection limits. SVOCs via EPA Method 8270 The only SVOCs reported above detection limits were polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); no non-PAH SVOCs were reported. Detectable levels of PAH were reported in five of nine site samples, three of four background samples and one of two duplicates. The levels of total PAH ranged from non-detect to 19,290 micrograms per kilogram (dry) (ug/kg) in the samples, and from non-detect 17,990 ug/kg in the background samples. Levels of Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were reported at concentrations in excess of the residential PRG in various shallow soil samples. Total PAH concentrations were plotted and contoured to create the PAH Distribution Map in Appendix A. The PAH Distribution map indicates PAH compounds reported above residential PRGs in call out boxes. A distinct spatial distribution of PAH compounds is noted, with total PAH concentrations increasing toward the north. Non-detect PAH concentrations were noted in the southeastern corner of the site. The highest PAH levels were noted in the site’s lower plateau area.

13 The approved project work plan and budget specified analysis for 13 priority pollutant metals. The approved QAPP specified analysis for 20 metals including 13 priority pollutant metals and seven additional metals. Laboratory analysis was conducted for the 13 PP metals per the approved work plan and budget.



Total Metals Concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc were generally reported in most or all of the shallow soil samples and duplicate samples. Occasional detections of cadmium and mercury were also reported. Antimony, beryllium, selenium, silver, and thallium were not reported above detection limits in any of the shallow soil samples. Except for arsenic, all of the reported metals concentrations were well below the residential PRGs. Arsenic concentrations were reportedly above the residential PRG of 0.39 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) or else were non-detect with the detection limit elevated above the PRG. The reported arsenic concentrations ranged from 3.13 mg/kg to 31.7 mg/kg in the site samples, and from 5.80 mg/kg to 51.8 mg/kg in the background samples. All but two of the reported arsenic concentrations were below 6 mg/kg. Total arsenic concentrations were plotted and contoured to create the Total Arsenic Distribution Map in Appendix A. The Total Arsenic Distribution map indicates a distinct spatial distribution of arsenic in shallow soils across the site, with low to moderate concentrations across most of the site and the highest concentrations appearing to be off site to the south and east. Total lead concentrations were plotted and contoured to create the Total Lead Distribution Map in Appendix A. The Total Lead Distribution map indicates a distinct spatial distribution of lead in shallow soils across the site, with low to moderate concentrations on the west and south sides of the site and higher concentrations noted on the east side of the site. All of the reported total lead concentrations were below the residential PRG. The rest of the total metals concentrations appeared to have more uniform concentrations across the site, and being well below the residential PRGs, spatial distribution plots were not prepared. TPH via EPA Method 8015DRO TPH was reported above detection limits in six of nine site samples and in two duplicate samples. Background samples were not tested for TPH. The reported concentration range was from 6.6 mg/kg to 11,500 mg/kg, which was in the former Tarvia oil tank vicinity. The reported TPH concentrations exceeded the DEC’s advisory level for residential sites in two locations, at the Tarvia oil tank and in SB-5, in which a “transmission fluid” odor was reported in the shallow soils by the drilling supervisor. PCBs via EPA Method 8082 PCBs were reported above detection limits in two of the site samples and in one duplicate sample. The sole congener reported was Arochlor 1260, at concentrations ranging from 12.5 ug/kg to 335 ug/kg. Two of three detections were less than the residential PRG and one of the detections (SB-2) was above the residential PRG. The detection limits ranged from 10.0 to 154 ug/kg.



6.0 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING To assess the potential for impact to surface water and sediment, field measurements and samples were collected on August 3, 2006. The two sampling locations included an upstream location and a downstream location, both of which are depicted on the Site Map in Appendix A. Tabular data summaries and laboratory analytical data are included in Appendix D.

6.1 Surface Water Sampling Both field measurements and samples for laboratory analysis were collected from the small stream bordering the site on its eastern side. Field measurements were collected at the upstream and the downstream sampling locations for pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and turbidity, using hand held field equipment. Surface water samples were collected by dipping new pre-cleaned sampling containers into the flowing stream. These samples were analyzed for the following test parameters:

VOCs via EPA Method 8260b with Method 5035 (methanol) preservation; and, Thirteen priority pollutant metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc). The samples were placed in a cooler with ice for storage and transportation to Endyne. Chain of custody procedures were followed. Tabulated results are included in Appendix C. Laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix D. Results were compared to the Vermont Water Quality Standards (effective February 2006) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRT) for acute and chronic exposures. Field Measurements The results of the field measurements indicated no significant change in field measured parameters from the upstream location to the downstream location. The pH was slightly acidic upstream and slightly basic downstream. The upstream pH measurement was collected on August 31, 2006 due to a meter malfunction on August 3, 2006. Conductivity was low, dissolved oxygen was relatively high, and turbidity was very low at both the upstream and downstream locations. VOCs via EPA Method 8260b No VOCs were reported at concentrations in excess of laboratory reporting limits. All of the laboratory reporting limits were below the relevant Vermont Water Quality Standards except for tetrachloroethylene, which has a slightly lower VWQS criteria for consumption of organisms and water (0.8 ug/l) than the relevant reporting limit (1.0 ug/l).



Total Metals No total metals were reported at concentrations above laboratory reporting limits, some of which (arsenic and mercury) were above the Vermont Water Quality Standards and the NOAA SQuiRT criteria for chronic or acute freshwater.

6.2 Stream Sediment Sampling Upstream and downstream sediment samples were collected using hand tools and were analyzed for the following test parameters:

VOCs via EPA Method 8260b with Method 5035 (methanol) preservation; Acid Base Neutral SVOCs via EPA Method 8270c; and, Thirteen priority pollutant metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc). The samples were placed in a cooler with ice for storage and transportation to Endyne. Chain of custody procedures were followed. Tabulated results are included in Appendix C. Laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix D. Results were compared to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRT) for acute and chronic exposures. VOCs via EPA Method 8260b No VOCs were reported at concentrations in excess of method detection limits. SVOCs via EPA Method 8270 The only SVOCs reported above detection limits were PAH; no non-PAH SVOCs were reported. Detectable levels of PAH were reported in both the upstream and the downstream sediment samples. The levels of total PAH were higher in the upstream sample than in the downstream sample by an approximate factor of 2. The sole PAH reported above the NOAA SQuiRT criteria was Benzo(a)pyrene in both the upstream and the downstream samples. Total Metals Concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc were reported above detection limits. The reported concentration of lead in the upstream sediment sample exceeded the NOAA SQuiRT criteria, while the reported concentrations of nickel and zinc in the downstream sediment sample exceeded the NOAA SQuiRT criteria.



7.0 SOIL BORING ADVANCEMENT AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION To assess the potential extent of groundwater contamination migrating from upgradient off site sources, seven soil borings/ monitoring wells were installed at the Site on August 2-3, 2006. One of the monitoring well locations consists of a shallow and deep couplet well to allow for assessment of potential downward migration of contamination.

7.1 Soil Boring Advancement and Monitoring Well Installation On August 2-3, 2006, the soil borings were advanced at the site by T&K Drilling of East Swanzy, New Hampshire under the supervision of a KAS drilling supervisor. Soil borings were advanced using a truck mounted 4¼ inch I.D. hollow-stem auger drill rig. During advancement of the seven soil borings, a two-foot split spoon sampler was advanced ahead of the augers continuously for the first 10 feet of each boring, and at five foot intervals thereafter. Undisturbed soil samples were collected from the boring with the split-spoon sampler during advancement of the seven soil borings. The soil samples were logged by the drilling supervisor and screened for VOCs using a MiniRae Plus Classic Model PID equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp. Prior to screening, the PID was calibrated with isobutylene with reference made to benzene. Soils were screened using the KAS Jar/Polyethylene Bag Headspace Screening Protocol. Soil characteristics and PID measurements were recorded by the drilling supervisor. Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams are included in Appendix B. Site photographs are included in Appendix H. Shallow Soil Sample Collection and Testing Shallow soil samples were collected from the 0-2’ depth interval from the soil borings for field screening and laboratory analysis (except at MW06-1s 4-6’). The results of this testing are described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report. Soil Boring Advancement Soils encountered during advancement of soil borings MW-1 through MW-6 consisted mostly of gravelly sand with some silt at depths up to 10 feet below grade. Below 10’ depth, the soils became finer grained and were generally sandy silt or silty sand, with some gravel. The water table was encountered at approximately 17’ depth in the soil borings. No odors were noted during soil boring advancement except at the 0-2’ depth interval of soil boring SB-5, where a “transmission fluid” odor was noted by the drilling supervisor. No recovery was noted in the 15’-17’ interval of several of the soil borings, where it is inferred that the split spoon sampler pushed rocks ahead of itself, preventing the soils from entering the sampler. Penetration effort was low to moderate, with generally <20 blow counts needed to advance the split spoon sampler in 6” intervals. Refusal was not encountered, except at MW06-1d, where refusal on inferred bedrock was encountered at 25’ depth. Monitoring Well Installation Monitoring wells were constructed with 2-inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC well screen and riser within the annular space of each of the soil borings. A ten-foot length of 0.010-inch, factory-slotted screen was installed in the annular space of each boring except at MW06-1d, where a two foot well screen was installed with its base set at the contact with inferred bedrock. A silica sand pack was installed in the annular space around each well screen from the bottom of the boring to



approximately one-foot above the top of the screened interval of the monitoring well. An approximate two-foot thick bentonite seal was then installed above the sand pack and another bentonite seal (one-foot thick) was placed approximately four feet below grade to minimize surface water infiltration. Each well was fitted with a gripper cap and secured with a flush mounted water-tight road box. Monitoring wells were developed by taking a minimum of ten well volumes of water from the well by using a disposable bailer on August 3, 2006.

7.2 Site Monitoring Well Survey Monitoring wells MW06-1s and 1d through MW06-6 were located in azimuth and elevation relative to prominent Site and vicinity features on August 30, 2006 and subsequently were incorporated into the Site Map. The elevation of Site monitoring wells were determined relative to an arbitrary datum of 100’ set at the top of the PVC casing at monitoring well MW06-4. 8.0 GROUNDWATER FLOW GAUGING, SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Gauging, sampling and analysis of groundwater was conducted to estimate flow direction and rate, and to ascertain whether there are groundwater quality impacts.

8.1 Monitoring Well Gauging and Estimated Groundwater Flow On August 30-31, 2006, depths to water measurements were gauged using a KeckTM interface probe in monitoring wells MW06-1s, -1d, -2, -3, -4, -5 and -6. No light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) was measured or observed in any of these wells. Water levels were measured using KAS’ Water/Product Level Measurement Protocol. Liquid Level Monitoring Data are included in Appendix E. The measured depths to groundwater were subtracted from the surveyed top of casing elevations, resulting in relative groundwater elevations at each of the seven newly installed monitoring wells. The relative groundwater elevations were plotted on the Site Map, and lines of presumed equal groundwater elevation were drawn, to create the “Groundwater Contour Map” presented in Appendix A. The arrows on the groundwater contour map indicate the estimated groundwater flow direction toward the north and toward the Ottauquechee River at a hydraulic gradient between 4-5%.

8.2 Monitoring Well Sampling and Laboratory Analytical Results On August 30-31, 2006 following well gauging, a Mega-Typhoon, four stage, low flow sampling pump was placed in each monitoring well. The pump and polyethylene tubing (poly tubing) was placed generally at the calculated midpoint of the water column within each well. The pump was connected to a low-flow controller device, which was connected to a truck battery. The pump was then activated and the controller power was increased until discharge was observed from the poly tubing. Following activation of the pump within each well, the flow rate was controlled until water drawdown within the well and field parameter measurements had stabilized or until one hour of low flow pumping had elapsed. Discharge was directed into a container of known volume from which flow rate was calculated. Low flow sampling data are included in Appendix F.



On August 30-31, 2006, temperature, pH, and conductivity field parameters were measured during evacuation of groundwater within each well. Once stabilization of field parameters had occurred or if evacuation of the well had proceeded for over sixty minutes, groundwater samples were collected. Stabilized field measurements generally indicated that:

pH measurements were slightly basic except at MW06-3 and -6 where slightly acidic measurements were collected.

Conductivity was very consistent (around 400us) except at MW06-1s and -1d, where conductivity readings were about 50% higher than the other wells.

Temperature readings ranged from 12-19 degrees C and may reflect ambient air temperatures.

Turbidity readings were low and ranged from 10-36 NTU. Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells MW06-1 through MW06-6 and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, thirteen priority pollutant metals via EPA Methods SM3113B, 200.7, and 245.1, and TPH by EPA Method 8015-DRO. A duplicate sample was collected from monitoring well MW06-3 and analyzed for the same parameters. A trip blank sample was collected on the day of sample collection, which was analyzed by EPA Method 8260B. Monitoring well development and sampling was conducted in accordance with KAS’s Low Flow Purging & Sampling Protocol. Tabulated results are included in the Groundwater Quality Data Summary included in Appendix F. The laboratory analytical reports are also included in Appendix F. The following summarizes the results of each of the methods tested for on August 30-31, 2006: VOCs via EPA Method 8260b: The gasoline additive MtBE was reported at concentrations above detection limits but below the VGES in the samples collected from monitoring wells MW06-1s and MW06-1d. No other VOCs were detected above the laboratory detection limit in the groundwater samples collected on August 30-31, 2006. The detection limits ranged from 1.0 to 10.0 ppb. Three unidentified peaks (UIPs) were reported in the samples collected from MW06-1s and MW06-1d. No UIPs were reported in the samples collected from MW06-2 through MW06-6 on August 30-31, 2006. Priority Pollutant Metals: Concentrations of arsenic, copper, lead and zinc were reported above detection limits in one or more of the groundwater samples collected on August 30-31, 2006. None were reported above the VGES. None of the samples were reported to contain concentrations of antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, selenium, sliver or thallium at concentration above detection limits. TPH via EPA Method 8015DRO: No concentrations of TPH were reported in the groundwater samples collected on August 30-31, 2006.



9.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RISK ANALYSIS

9.1 Natural Conditions The Jungle property occupies two river terraces that slope northwestward toward the Ottauquechee River.14 Bedrock in this area is mapped as amphibolite and schist of the Devonian Aged Standing Pond Volcanic series.15 The surficial geology of this area consists of recent and/or Pleistocene aged sand and gravel associated with fluvial processes according to the Surficial Geological Map of Vermont.16 The river at this location flows toward the northeast as part of a broad northwesterly concave arc. Shallow groundwater in the area has been documented by several individual site investigations to flow mainly northwestward toward the Ottauquechee River.17,18,19 Given the locations of these sites to the south and east of the property, the Jungle property is potentially hydraulically downgradient of the four known or suspected hazardous sites listed in Section 2.0. Depths to groundwater reported during this investigation ranges from 17.3 to 21.2 feet below grade in the newly installed monitoring wells which is within the range of groundwater depths reported from nearby sites, from 9-40 feet below grade. Monitoring well MW-10 at the Cumberland Farms site, is at approximately the same elevation as the upper plateau of the Jungle property under investigation, and depth to groundwater in MW-10 has ranged from 12-14 feet below top of casing.20 Groundwater beneath the site appears to be flowing toward the Ottauquechee River at a moderate hydraulic gradient of 4-5%. Soils below the water table are reported to be poorly graded sand and well graded sands with some silt. Hydraulic conductivity of these materials is estimated to be on the order of 10-2 centimeters per second.21 Under these conditions of hydraulic conductivity and groundwater flow gradient, the groundwater flow velocity is likely to be on the order of 1 foot per day. The small stream that borders the property on its eastern side flows northward into the Ottauquechee River. Observations made during the Phase II ESA site work lead to the belief that this stream is likely to be a gaining stream as it passes by the site on its approach to the Ottauquechee River. Seeps noted along the stream banks suggest that groundwater locally flows toward the stream. No piezometers tests were proposed or conducted during the Phase II ESA to confirm this belief.

14 U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map of Woodstock, Vermont, 1983, viewed on line at http://terraserver.microsoft.com 15 Doll et. al., Centennial Geological Map of the State of Vermont, 1961. 16 Doll et. al., Surficial Geological Map of the State of Vermont, 1970. 17 Environmental Compliance Services, Supplemental Site Investigation Report, Cumberland Farms #4008, June 2003, Figure 1, Water Table Contour Map. 18 Verterre Group, Inc., Former F.A. Richmond Gulf, November 2004 Groundwater Monitoring Results, Figure 3, Groundwater Contour Plan. 19 Verterre Group, Inc., Former F.A. Richmond Ford, May 2005 Groundwater Monitoring Results, Figure 3, Groundwater Contour Map. 20 Environmental Compliance Services, 2004 Annual Summary Report, Cumberland Farms #4008, Table 2. 21 Fetter, C.W., Applied Hydrogeology, Chas. E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1980, page 75.



9.2 Contamination Summary It appears that the dominant on site contaminant is PAH in shallow soils. Levels of PAH range from non-detect in the southeast corner of the site, to over 10 parts per million in the northern part of the site. A few of the PAH levels (notably, benzo(a)anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene) are in excess of Region IX PRGs. PAH compounds are generally not prone to migrate to groundwater and given the probable depth to groundwater of 10-15’ in the northern part of the site, it is not believed that PAH contamination in groundwater is highly likely unless elevated concentrations exist in soil at depth. Arsenic concentrations by contrast to the PAH concentrations, are elevated off-site toward the south and east, and decline markedly toward the north. There does not appear to be a source of arsenic on site, and the on site levels appear to be consistent with KAS’ observations at many other properties in the northeastern United States. Lead in shallow soils does not exceed residential PRGs but does show a distinct distribution with higher concentrations noted in the eastern portion of the site, and lower concentrations to the north, west and south. Petroleum contamination of shallow soils does not appear to be a significant concern except in the vicinity of the former Tarvia oil tank where it appears that an historic release has taken place. A TPH concentration of 11,500 mg/kg was reported from a composite soil sample in the area of the tank. Other than the TPH concentration, and associated elevated levels of naphthalene and trimethylbenzene at this one location, there appears to be little in the way of significant petroleum contamination in shallow soils. The reported “transmission fluid” odor in the shallow soils of MW06-5 appears to be a localized spill resulting from vehicle use in the area. Pentachlorophenol was not detected in any of the shallow soil samples, indicating that historic and current storage of utility poles treated with pentachlorophenol has not had a significant impact on the environmental quality of the site. PCBs were detected at very low levels in a few soil samples, indicating that PCB containing oils were likely used or stored on site at one time or another. Possible sources of PCBs can include oils in electrical transformers and other electrical devices and hydraulic fluids. The sole contaminant detected in the groundwater monitoring wells was the gasoline additive MtBE. It was detected in only two of the seven wells, and was detected in both the deep and shallow wells adjacent to the Alsup property. Metals do not appear to be a concern in groundwater.

9.3 Potential Sources The sources of on site shallow soil contamination could include on site petroleum products storage and use, on site storage of asphalt, historic railroad uses, or combustion by-products. The historic Tarvia oil tank appears to have had an associated release based on test data. Vehicle use and storage on site may also have had a localized impact on soil quality. The groundwater monitoring well network was designed to detect contamination moving onto the property from upgradient sources. The most likely source of the MtBE is a gasoline release. The location of the gasoline release is not known. The MtBE may be from the Alsup property or from one or more of the gasoline stations located upgradient of the site, or it may be from another



unknown source. Based on the lack of elevated PID readings in soils in the affected well locations, the gasoline release does not appear to be on-site, at least not in the immediate vicinity of the wells. The contaminant plume at the Cumberland Farms station appears to be very well defined and does not appear to migrate onto the site, based on non-detect levels of petroleum compounds noted in groundwater in MW06-5 and -6 and the stream. Only low level contamination is currently found at the Maplefields station which likewise does not appear to impact the property based on monitoring well testing results. The downgradient extent of contamination emanating from the former F.A. Richmond Gulf station has not been defined22 and given the presence of persistent free product there, this site represents a concern for contaminant migration. And, the unknown environmental conditions at the Sunoco station have potential for subsurface contamination and off site migration. Both the F.A. Richmond Gulf station and the Sunoco station are located farther to the west than are the other stations, and given that the MtBE contamination was detected in only the westernmost wells at the site, these two stations are more likely sources than are the Cumberland Farms or the Maplefields properties. Although past site uses at the Alsup property immediately upgradient of the Jungle property include auto repair, mechanical fabrication and laundromat, it does not appear that significant contamination, if present at all, has migrated onto the site. It is not known whether the laundromat uses included dry cleaning.23 Although two soil borings were advanced and monitoring wells installed on the Alsup property, no water or soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis and the Phase I ESA report concluded that the past assessment was not extensive enough to adequately assess the potential that releases of hazardous chemicals could have occurred on the property.24 It is possible that the MtBE detected in two monitoring wells could have emanated from the Alsup property. The higher conductivity readings in the same two wells relative to the other monitoring wells could be indicative of higher total dissolved solids in the groundwater in that area.

9.4 Potential Receptors With respect to potential impact on potentially sensitive receptors, the following observations are made. Site users could potentially come into contact with PAH, PCB or petroleum contamination in shallow soils but given the industrial nature of the site and the lack of prolonged occupancy by persons, this risk would appear to be very marginal. There are at present no residents on the property that could be anticipated to have more than incidental contact with surface soils. Should the property ultimately be developed into residential use, some provision for isolating or removing the contaminated soils would need to be implemented because some of the reported concentrations are above the residential risk levels. With respect to water supplies, the levels of contamination detected in the surficial aquifer to date do not indicate an imminent threat. MtBE was detected at levels below the VGES in the surficial aquifer. The area is served by a municipal water supply system and there are only two private water supply wells located within 1,000 feet of the site according to the DEC’s on line water supply well

22 VHB, page 15. 23 VHB, page 20. 24 VHB, page 21.



locator.25 The groundwater quality beneath the rest of the property is not tested and should be checked, but given the nature of the contamination found in shallow soils (dominantly PAH and heavy oil), extensive groundwater contamination is not predicted. A buried sewer line traverses the lower plateau portion of the property. The approximate path of this sewer is shown on the site map. Information from the Woodstock Public Works Department obtained by KAS indicates that the sewer is buried 6 ½ feet deep in this area.26 Groundwater depth in this area is believed to be from 10-15 feet below ground surface, leaving the sewer between 3 ½ to 8 ½ feet above the groundwater table. By virtue of the vertical separation between shallow groundwater and the sewer, it does not appear that this sewer line would serve as a preferential flow conduit for contaminated groundwater. The only exception could be in the vicinity of the stream-sewer crossing where the ground surface drops markedly and where the sewer may be in the groundwater. However, groundwater should locally flow toward the stream so the importance of the sewer line as a conduit for contaminant migration in this relatively small area would be minimal. There is one non-residential building currently located on-site. Based on the lack of VOC contamination reported in soils and the elevated structure of the building, it is expected that there is minimal risk of petroleum vapor migration posed to the on site building or to any neighboring or future buildings located on site. The stream is a potentially sensitive receptor of contamination detected on the site. However, since the dominant contamination is PAH which are essentially non-mobile under normal environmental conditions, and since the sole VOC contamination was detected on the western side of the property, it is not believed that the stream was an actual receptor of on site contamination at the time the Phase II ESA was performed. The lack of detectable VOCs and metals in the stream water samples further supports this belief. No potential jurisdictional wetlands were observed in the immediate vicinity (Site and abutters) of the Site. The Ottauquechee River is located immediately north of the Site. Based on the data collected during this investigation, the River is not believed to be a threatened potential receptor. 10.0 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION Upon receipt of all laboratory analytical data collected during this Phase II ESA, KAS’s quality assurance officer (QAO) performed data validation as described in the QAPP. The validation evaluated the usability of the groundwater and soil quality data generated throughout the investigation. The Data Validation Report is included in Appendix G. QAPP Modifications Representative samples were collected in an appropriate manner. The scope of work and sampling procedures detailed in the QAPP were not modified based upon field conditions encountered.

25 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Private Well Locator, viewed on line 4/11/06 at http://maps.anr.state.vt.us/website/welldriller/viewer.htm 26 Town of Woodstock Manager electronic mail message to KAS, Inc. 6/6/06.



Verification of Sampling Procedures & Chain of Custody As indicated in the data validation report, KAS’s QAO determined that sampling appears to have been performed appropriately and is representative of the field conditions encountered. Data should be accepted based on field sampling procedures documented although minor deficiencies were noted in the field data sheets. Lab QA/QC Findings It was documented that representative samples were collected in an appropriate manner. However, the validation report notes a few areas in which the data did not meet all of the requirements as specified in the QAPP. The data collected for this investigation were accepted by the QAO with a few qualifications as noted in the Data Validation Report included in Appendix G. 11.0 CONCLUSIONS KAS has performed a Phase II ESA at the Woodstock Jungle in accordance with the approved project work plan and the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, KAS presents the following conclusions:

Absorbed phase PAH contamination is present in shallow soils across the majority of the property. Some of the concentrations are above residential PRGs. The source of the PAH contamination is not known, and may include on site petroleum products storage and use, on site storage of asphalt, historic railroad uses, or combustion by-products.

Arsenic was reported in shallow soils at levels similar to those reported from many sites in Vermont. Higher arsenic levels were reported at two locations along the south property line, suggesting a possible off site source.

PCBs were detected at three locations in shallow soil samples, one of which was in excess of the residential PRG.

Lead was detected in on site shallow soils at levels below residential standards. Petroleum contamination was noted in a few locations, most notably in the vicinity of the

former Tarvia Oil tank. Groundwater testing results indicate that the gasoline additive MtBE was detected at low

levels (below the VGES) in two of seven monitoring wells. No other detectable groundwater contamination was found.

The stream adjacent to the site does not appear to have been impacted by on site activities. Stream sediment does contain PAH contamination which diminishes in intensity from upstream to downstream sampling locations.

No current sensitive receptors were identified as being at potential risk from contamination detected on the site. Future residential development would require protective measures due to shallow soil contamination.



12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS KAS makes the following recommendations:

Additional shallow soil testing should be conducted for PAH, PCBs and TPH to further

define the extent of contamination.

If the results of additional shallow soil testing indicate that contamination may have migrated to groundwater, then additional groundwater monitoring wells should be installed on the property’s northern (lower) plateau area and tested to verify that contamination reported in shallow soils has not migrated to groundwater.

Additional investigations should be conducted to determine the source of MtBE in

groundwater in monitoring wells MW06-1s and -1d.


October 2006, Revised February 2007 KAS #502060051

MAPS

Source: http://terraserver.microsoft.com/usgsentry.aspx

Woodstock JungleWoodstock, VT

Site Location MapUSGS Mapping Date: 04/12/06

Drawing No. 1 By: ARL

SUBJECTPROPERTY SITE

N



Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams

Well No: MW06-1sSite: Woodstock JungleTown, State: Woodstock, VT

KAS Project #: 502060051 Date Installed: 8/2/2006VTDEC Site #: Drilling Method: HSA

Drilled by : T & K Drilling Boring Diameter.: 8.25"Driller: Sean McGarry Development Method: Bailer

Logged by: JE Screened Length: 10'Pen/Rec(') Interval (') Soil Characteristics

Grade = 0 BlowCounts PID (ppm) Top Soil Surface

1.0 24"/15" 0' - 2' Well Graded Sand With Silt and Gravel SM2.0 5-8-11-9 0 moist, brown/olive, blocky SW3.0 Ft<Grade 24"/11" 2' - 4' Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand GP4.0 8-8-23-21 1.5 moist,brown, homogenous GM5.0 24"/16" 4'-6' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP6.0 12-16-17-10 2.6 dry, grey, homogenous7.0 24"/14" 6'-8' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP8.0 5-10-16-22 0.1 moist, brown, homogenous9.0 24"/14" 8'-10' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP

10.0 17-11-9-9 0.1 moist, brown, homogenous11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0 NR 15'-17' NO RECOVERY17.0 9-10-11-13 NR

18.0 24"/16" 17'-19' Well Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel SW19.0 4-4-31-14 0 wet, dark brown, homogenous SM20.0

21.0 24"/11" 20'-22' Silty Sand with Gravel SM22.0 15-12-3-9 0 wet, dark brown, homogenous23.0 Base of Exploration at 23'24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.030.0

Road Box with Bolt Down Cover, Set in Cement. Locking Plug.

Existing Surface. 2" ID, Schedule 40 PVC Riser.Bentonite Seal Placed in Annulus. 2" ID, Schedule 40 PVC, 0.010"-Slotted Well Screen

Grade #1 Silica Sand Pack Placed in Annulus. Plug PointDrill Cuttings Placed in Annulus.

Approximate Water Level During Drilling, below gradeStatic Water Level, below top of casing

BORING LOG AND WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM

Legend

Well Construction

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Lette

r Sym

bol

~17' 8/2/06

18.05' 8/30/06

Well No: MW06-1dSite: Woodstock JungleTown, State: Woodstock, VT





1.0 24"/10" 0' - 2' Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand GP2.0 4-9-11-10 0 moist, brown, homogenous GM3.0 Ft<Grade 24"/12" 2' - 4' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP4.0 4-11-17-21 0 dry,dark brown, homogenous5.0 24"/12" 4'-6' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP6.0 10-26-15-16 0 dry, brown, homogenous7.0 24"/13" 6'-8' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP8.0 13-20-24-31 0 dry, brown, blocky9.0 24"/0" 8'-10' No Recovery

10.0 20-26-23-23 NR

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0 24"/17" 15'-17' Silty Sand with Gravel SM17.0 7-7-9-9 0 Moist to Wet, homogenous18.0

19.0

20.0 24"/6" 20'-22' Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel SP21.0 8-10-12-7 0 wet, dark brown, homogenous22.0

23.0 24"/5" 25'-27' Silty Sand SM24.0 50+ 0 wet, dark brown, homogenous25.0 Base of Exploration at 25', Bedrock Refusal 26.0

27.0

28.0

29.030.0





Legend


Well Construction

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Lette

r Sym

bol

~16.5' 8/2/06

18.16' 8/30/06

Well No: MW06-2Site: Woodstock JungleTown, State: Woodstock, VT





1.0 24"/17" 0' - 2' Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand GP2.0 5-6-5-9 0 moist, light brown, homogenous GM3.0 Ft<Grade 24"/14" 2' - 4' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP4.0 9-18-22-18 0 dry, greyish bown, homogenous5.0 24"/17" 4'-6' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP6.0 8-13-15-26 0 dry, brown/grey, blocky7.0 24"/12" 6'-8' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP8.0 9-23-14-13 0 dry, light brown, homogenous9.0 24"/17" 8'-10' Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel SP

10.0 5-7-8-9 0 moist, brown, homogenous11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0 24"/18" 15'-17' Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel SP17.0 7-6-6-6 0 moist/wet, dark bown, homogenous18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0 24"/2" 20'-22' Silty Sand SM22.0 22-40+ 0 wet, dark brown, homogenous23.0 Base of Exploration at 23'24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.030.0





Legend


Well Construction

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Lette

r Sym

bol

~16.3' 8/2/06

~17.6' 8/30/06






1.0 24"/10" 0' - 2' Well Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand GW2.0 7-6-5-9 0 moist, brown, homogenous GM3.0 Ft<Grade 24"/12" 2' - 4' Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel SP4.0 7-8-9-13 0 moist, brown, homogenous5.0 24"/14" 4'-6' Silty Gravel with Sand GM6.0 13-15-10-7 0 moist7.0 24"/10" 6'-8' Silty Gravel with Sand GM8.0 8-16-35-26 0 moist, light brown, homogenous9.0 24"/7" 8'-10' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP

10.0 35-27-19-12 0 dry, orange/brown, homogenous11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0 NR 15'-17' NR, Pushed Rock17.0 47-27-50+ NR

18.0 24"/15" 17'-19' Silty Sand with Gravel SM19.0 26-10-9-8 0 wet, dark brown, homogenous20.0

21.0 24"/8" 20'-22' Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel SP22.0 16-5-4-7 0 wet, brown, homogenous SM23.0 Base of Exploration at 23'24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.030.0





Legend


Well Construction

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Lette

r Sym

bol

~17.0' 8/2/06~17.33' 8/30/06






1.0 24"/18" 0' - 2' Silty Gravel with Sand GM2.0 5-10-11-10 0 moist, brown/gray, homogenous3.0 Ft<Grade 24"/12" 2' - 4' Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel GP4.0 8-16-35-26 0 moist, brown, homogenous5.0 24"/16" 4'-6' Silty Gravel GW6.0 9-21-22-13 0 dry, light brown, homogenous7.0 24"/8" 6'-8' Well Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand GM8.0 11-27-34-35 0 dry, light brown, homogenous GM9.0 24"/16" 8'-10' Silty Gravel with Sand GM

10.0 9-13-14-10 0 moist, dark brown/gray, blocky11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0 24"/18" 15'-17' Sandy Silt SM17.0 5-5-5-6 0 moist/wet, olive, homogenous18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0 NR 20'-22' NR22.0 6-8-9-8 NR

23.0 24"/14" 22-24' Lean Clay with Sand CL24.0 3-4-5-7 0 wet, gray, homogenous25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.030.0





Legend


Well Construction

Base exploration 23'

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Lette

r Sym

bol

~15.0' 8/2/06

~18.92' 8/30/06






1.0 24"/12" 0' - 2' Sandy Fat Clay with Gravel ML2.0 4-2-4-3 0 moist, brown, homogenous (transmission fluid odor)3.0 Ft<Grade 24"/9" 2' - 4' Sandy Silt with Gravel ML4.0 5-2-3-3 0 moist, olive, homogenous5.0 24"/7" 4'-6' Sandy Silt with Gravel ML6.0 3-3-3-2 0 moist, olive, homogenous7.0 24"/18" 6'-8' Silt with Sand ML8.0 2-2-2-2 0 moist, olive , homogenous9.0 24"/17" 8'-10' Sandy Silt ML

10.0 3-2-2-2 0 moist, olive , homogenous11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0 24"/12" 15'-17' Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel SP17.0 5-7-4-3 NR moist/wet, homogenous18.0 SM19.0

20.0

21.0 24"/6" 20'-22' Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand GP22.0 4-4-3-2 0 wet, brown/orange/gray, homogenous23.0 Base of Exploration at 23'24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.030.0





Legend


Well Construction

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Lette

r Sym

bol

~15.0' 8/2/06

18.41' 8/30/06






1.0 24"/16" 0' - 2' Well Graded Sand SW2.0 3-4-4-9 0 dry, light brown,homogenous3.0 Ft<Grade 24"/12" 2' - 4' Silty Sand SM4.0 4-4-2-2 0 dry, brown, blocky/homogenous5.0 24"/13" 4'-6' Silty Sand SM6.0 2-2-3-3 0 dry, light brown, homogenous7.0 24"/4" 6'-8' Sandy Silt ML8.0 5-25-14-10 0 dry, gray/brown, homogenous9.0 24"/7" 8'-10' Silty Gravel GM

10.0 20-6-8-2 0 moist, light brown, blocky11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0 NR 15'-17' NR17.0 11-8-7-7 NR

18.0 24"/6" 17'-19' Silt ML19.0 6/6/1964 0 moist/wet, light brown, homogenous20.0 24"/14" 20'-22' Sandy Silt ML21.0 3-4-4-5 0 moist/wet, brown, homogenous22.0

23.0 24"/12" 25'-27' Well Graded Sand with Clay SW24.0 8-8-4-6 0 wet, brown/grey, blocky SC25.0 Base of Exploration at 25', 26.0

27.0

28.0

29.030.0





Legend


Well Construction

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Lette

r Sym

bol

~17.0' 8/3/06

21.15' 8/30/06



Shallow Soil Quality Data Summary and Laboratory Analytical Reports

Soil Boring Sampling Data SummarySoil Boring Results SummaryWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, Vermont KAS #502060051October 2006

Sample Date: 2-3 Aug 06Soil Boring Sample SB-1s/MW06-1s SB-2/MW06-2 SB-3/MW06-3 SB-4/MW06-4 SB-5/M06-5 SB-6/MW06-6 DUPLICATE SB-5 EPA Region IX EPA Region IXSample Depth (ft.) 4-6' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' PRG PRGPETROLEUM VOCs, EPA Method 8260b Residential IndustrialBenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 600. 1,300.Toluene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 520,000. 520,000.Ethylbenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 8,900. 8,900.Total Xylenes ND <18.0 ND <22.0 ND <28.0 ND <20.0 ND <22.0 ND <16.0 ND <24.0 270,000. 270,000.MTBE ND <18.0 ND <22.0 ND <28.0 ND <20.0 ND <22.0 ND <16.0 ND <24.0 62,000. 62,000.1,3,5-trimethylbenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 21,000. 70,000.1,2,4-trimethylbenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 52,000. 170,000.Naphthalene ND <18.0 ND <22.0 ND <28.0 ND <20.0 ND <22.0 ND <16.0 ND <24.0 56,000. 190,000.n-Butylbenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 240,000. 240,000.sec-Butylbenzne ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 220,000. 220,000.tert-Butylbenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 390,000. 390,000.Isopropylbenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 240,000. 2,000,000.p-Isopropytoluene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 NS NSn-Propylbenzene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 240,000. 240,000.NON-PETROLEUM VOCs, EPA Method 8260bTetrachloroethene (PCE) ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 1,500. 3,400.Trichloroethene (TCE) ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 53. 110.1,1-Dichloroethane ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 510,000. 1,700,000.cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 43,000. 150,000.trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 69,000. 230,000.1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND <18.0 ND <22.0 ND <28.0 ND <20.0 ND <22.0 ND <16.0 ND <24.0 5. 11.Chloroform ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 3,600. 12,000.Styrene ND <9.0 ND <11.0 ND <14.0 ND <10.0 ND <11.0 ND <8.0 ND <12.0 1,700. 1,700.Vinyl Chloride ND <18.0 ND <22.0 ND <28.0 ND <20.0 ND <22.0 ND <16.0 ND <24.0 79. 750.Total Reported VOCs ND ND ND ND ND ND ND - -PCBs, EPA Method 8082Arochlor-1016 ND <127. ND <29.0 ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 ND <10.0 ND <78.0 3,900. 21,000.Arochlor-1221 ND <127. ND <29.0 ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 ND <10.0 ND <78.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1232 ND <127. ND <29.0 ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 ND <10.0 ND <78.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1242 ND <127. ND <29.0 ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 ND <10.0 ND <78.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1248 ND <127. ND <29.0 ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 ND <10.0 ND <78.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1254 ND <127. ND <29.0 ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 ND <10.0 ND <78.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1260 ND <127. 335. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 12.5 ND <78.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1268 ND <127. ND <29.0 ND <20.0 ND <20.0 ND <75.0 ND <10.0 ND <78.0 NS NSTOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, EPA Method 8015DROTPH 8015 DRO (mg/Kg) ND <5.0 ND <5.0 6.6 ND <5.0 1,970. 133. 2,730. 200* 1,000*NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal*Values based on the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline (ref. DEC Memorandum 12/30/92).TPH values above the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline are shaded.Values above PRG are shadedND <1.0 = Not Detected < Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in boldNS = No PRG Standard

Soil Boring Sampling Data SummarySoil Boring Results SummaryWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, Vermont KAS #502060051October 2006

Sample Date: 2-3 Aug 06Soil Boring Sample SB-1s/MW06-1s SB-2/MW06-2 SB-3/MW06-3 SB-4/MW06-4 SB-5/M06-5 SB-6/MW06-6 DUPLICATE SB-5 EPA Region IX EPA Region IXSample Depth (ft.) 4-6' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' PRG PRGPAHs, EPA Method 8270CAcenaphthene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 3,700,000. 29,000,000.Acenaphthylene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. NS NSAnthracene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 22,000,000. 100,000,000.Benzo(a)anthracene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 620. 2,100.Benzo(b&k)fluoranthene ND <60.0 143. 142. ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 6,200. 21,000.Benzo(a)pyrene ND <60.0 78.9 82.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 62. 210.Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. NS NSChrysene ND <60.0 77.5 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 62,000. 210,000.Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 62. 210.Fluoranthene ND <60.0 109. 105. ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 2,300,000. 22,000,000.Fluorene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 2,700,000. 26,000,000.Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 620. 2,100.1-Methylnaphthalene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. NS NS2-Methylnaphthalene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. NS NSNaphthalene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 56,000. 190,000.Phenanthrene ND <60.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. NS NSPyrene ND <60.0 102. 102. ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <10,400 ND <800. 2,300,000. 29,000,000.Total Reported PAHs ND 510. 431. ND ND ND NDTOTAL METALS (mg/kg, dry weight)Total Antimony ND <0.656 ND <0.665 ND <0.925 ND <1.06 ND <1.08 ND <0.954 ND <1.08 31 410Total Arsenic 4.30 3.30 31.7 3.84 3.33 3.70 ND <2.69 0.39 1.6Total Beryllium ND <1.64 ND <1.66 ND <0.231 ND <2.64 ND <2.70 ND <2.39 ND <2.69 150 1,900Total Cadmium ND <1.15 ND <1.16 ND <1.62 ND <1.85 ND <1.89 ND <1.67 ND <1.88 37 450Total Chromium 7.17 12.2 12.8 ND <1.06 4.97 16.7 6.11 210 450Total Copper 26.4 22.9 31.1 26.8 27.1 26.0 24.8 3,100 41,000Total Lead 8.28 30.7 25.3 17.1 63.6 141. 27.3 400 800Total Mercury ND <0.224 0.239 ND <0.227 ND <0.258 ND <0.286 ND <0.257 ND <0.205 23 310Total Nickel 17.7 16.0 19.4 19.3 22.6 18.6 22.1 1,600 20,000Total Selenium ND <1.64 ND <1.66 ND <2.31 ND <2.64 ND <2.70 ND <2.39 ND <2.69 390 5,100Total Silver ND <1.64 ND <1.66 ND <2.31 ND <2.64 ND <2.70 ND <2.39 ND <2.69 390 5,100Total Thallium ND <0.328 ND <0.333 ND <0.463 ND <0.527 ND <5.40 ND <0.477 ND <0.537 5.2 67Total Zinc 50.2 70.7 59.5 86.3 69.7 85.0 69.2 23,000 100,000NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal*Values based on the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline (ref. DEC Memorandum 12/30/92).TPH values above the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline are shaded.Values above PRG are shadedND <1.0 = Not Detected < Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in boldNS = No PRG Standard

Shallow Soil Boring Results SummaryWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, Vermont KAS #502060051October 2006

Sample Date: August 2, 2006Soil Sample SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 Duplicate SS-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 EPA Region IX EPA Region IXSample Depth (ft.) 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' PRG PRGPETROLEUM VOCs, EPA Method 8260b Residential IndustrialBenzene 56.5 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 64.0 600. 1,300.Toluene ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 520,000. 520,000.Ethylbenzene 15.8 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 22.9 8,900. 8,900.Total Xylenes ND <24.0 ND <136. ND <22.0 28.4 270,000. 270,000.MTBE ND <24.0 ND <136. 76.8 ND <26.0 62,000. 62,000.1,3,5-trimethylbenzene ND <12.0 132. ND <11.0 ND <13.0 21,000. 70,000.1,2,4-trimethylbenzene ND <12.0 326. ND <11.0 ND <13.0 52,000. 170,000.Naphthalene ND <24.0 1,500. ND <22.0 ND <26.0 56,000. 190,000.n-Butylbenzene ND <12.0 106. ND <11.0 ND <13.0 240,000. 240,000.sec-Butylbenzne ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 220,000. 220,000.tert-Butylbenzene ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 390,000. 390,000.Isopropylbenzene ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 240,000. 2,000,000.p-Isopropytoluene ND <12.0 74.3 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 NS NSn-Propylbenzene ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 14.6 240,000. 240,000.NON-PETROLEUM VOCs, EPA Method 8260bTetrachloroethene (PCE) ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 1,500. 3,400.Trichloroethene (TCE) ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 53. 110.1,1-Dichloroethane ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 510,000. 1,700,000.cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 43,000. 150,000.trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 69,000. 230,000.1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND <24.0 ND <136. ND <11.0 ND <26.0 5. 11.Chloroform ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 3,600. 12,000.Styrene ND <12.0 ND <68.0 ND <11.0 ND <13.0 1,700. 1,700.Vinyl Chloride ND <24.0 ND <136. ND <22.0 ND <26.0 79. 750.Total Reported VOCs 72.3 2,138. 76.8 130. - -TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, EPA Method 8015DROTPH 8015 DRO (mg/Kg) 86.9 11,500. 24.7 16.9 200* 1,000*NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal*Values based on the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline (ref. DEC Memorandum 12/30/92).TPH values above the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline are shaded.Values above PRG are shadedND <1.0 = Not Detected < Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in boldNS = No PRG Standard

Background Sample not tested for TPH

Background Samples not tested for VOCs

Background Samples not tested for VOCs

Shallow Soil Boring Results SummaryWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, Vermont KAS #502060051October 2006

Sample Date: August 2, 2006Soil Sample SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 Duplicate SS-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 EPA Region IX EPA Region IXSample Depth (ft.) 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' 0-2' PRG PRGPAHs, EPA Method 8270 (ug/kg, dry)Acenaphthene ND <80.0 ND <1,160. ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <120. ND <80.0 3,700,000. 29,000,000.Acenaphthylene 101. ND <1,160. ND <80.0 216. ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <120. 150. NS NSAnthracene 321. ND <1,160. ND <80.0 224. ND <80.0 1,030. ND <120. 202. 22,000,000. 100,000,000.Benzo(a)anthracene 964. 2,130. 179. 1,230. 139. 1,160. ND <120. 760. 620. 2,100.Benzo(b&k)fluoranthene 1,380. 3,600. 365. 2,110. 294. 1,740. ND <120. 1,380. 6,200. 21,000.Benzo(a)pyrene 869. 2,190. 226. 1,200. 168. ND <800. ND <120. 833. 62. 210.Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 445. 1,700. 157. 694. 120. ND <800. ND <120. 546. NS NSChrysene 906. 2,570. 249. 1,280. 186. 1,300. ND <120. 885. 62,000. 210,000.Dibenzofuran 74.5 ND <1,160. ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <120. ND <80.0 1,500. 16,000.Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 143. ND <1,160. ND <80.0 198. ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <120. 140. 62. 210.Fluoranthene 2,350. ND <1,160. 413. 2,800. 313. 4,050. ND <120. 1,880. 2,300,000. 22,000,000.Fluorene 126. ND <1,160. ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <120. 86.5 2,700,000. 26,000,000.Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 475. 1,500. 143. 692. 118. ND <800. ND <120. 488. 620. 2,100.1-Methylnaphthalene ND <80.0 ND <1,160. ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <120. ND <80.0 NS NS2-Methylnaphthalene ND <80.0 ND <1,160. ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <800. ND <120. ND <80.0 NS NSNaphthalene ND <80.0 ND <1,160. ND <80.0 ND <80.0 ND <80.0 1,060. ND <120. ND <80.0 56,000. 190,000.Phenanthrene 1,520. 1,170. 178. 1,260. 135. 4,560. ND <120. 1,040. NS NSPyrene 1,890. 4,530. 387. 2,250. 280. 3,090. ND <120. 1,620. 2,300,000. 29,000,000.Total Reported PAHs 11,565. 19,390. 2,297. 14,154. 1,753. 17,990. ND 10,011. - -TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)Total Antimony ND <0.870 ND <1.12 ND <0.810 ND <0.908 ND <0.819 ND <1.03 ND <1.53 ND <0.969 31 410Total Arsenic 3.13 ND <2.80 ND <2.02 4.92 5.80 ND <2.57 51.8 ND <2.42 0.39 1.6Total Beryllium ND <2.18 ND <2.80 ND <2.02 ND <2.27 ND <2.05 ND <2.57 ND <3.83 ND <2.42 150 1,900Total Cadmium ND <1.52 2.58 ND <1.42 ND <1.59 ND <1.43 ND <1.80 ND <2.68 ND <1.70 37 450Total Chromium 13.1 18.5 13.7 13.4 10.2 39.1 16.9 14.1 210 450Total Copper 18.4 37.0 32.8 21.9 19.1 20.8 34.5 18.9 3,100 41,000Total Lead 47.3 301. 21.6 31.5 34.1 15.0 25.9 80.7 400 800Total Mercury 0.280 0.361 0.231 0.177 ND <0.213 ND <0.273 ND <0.346 ND <0.266 23 310Total Nickel 17.1 24.4 25.3 18.3 14.7 49.8 25.8 20.1 1,600 20,000Total Selenium ND <2.18 ND <2.80 ND <2.02 ND <2.27 ND <2.05 ND <2.57 ND <3.83 ND <2.42 390 5,100Total Silver ND <2.18 ND <2.80 ND <2.02 ND <2.27 ND <2.05 ND <2.57 ND <3.83 ND <2.42 390 5,100Total Thallium ND <0.435 ND <0.560 ND <0.405 ND <0.454 ND <0.409 ND <0.514 ND <0.766 ND <0.484 5.2 67Total Zinc 66.0 414. 81.3 65.5 109. 77.3 74.7 295. 23,000 100,000PCBs, EPA Method 8082 (ug/kg, dry)Arochlor-1016 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 3,900. 21,000.Arochlor-1221 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1232 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1242 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1248 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1254 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 220. 740.Arochlor-1260 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 52.2 220. 740.Arochlor-1268 ND <20.0 ND <154. ND <20.0 ND <20.0 NS NSNOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal*Values based on the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline (ref. DEC Memorandum 12/30/92).TPH values above the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline are shaded.Values above PRG are shadedND <1.0 = Not Detected < Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in boldNS = No PRG Standard

Background Samples not tested for PCBs



Surface Water and Sediment Quality Data Summary and Laboratory Analytical Reports

Stream Quality MeasurementWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, VermontKAS #502060051October 3, 2006

Upstream Measurements collected on August 3, 2006 *Time pH conductivity (us) Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Temp. (celsius) Turbidity (NTU)

10:00 6.85 323 9.18 19.4 2.7

Downstream Measurements collected on August 3, 2006.Time pH conductivity (us) Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Temp. (celsius) Turbidity (NTU)

8:50 7.37 319 9.26 20.3 0.2Note:

NTU: nephelometric turbidity units* upstream pH measurement collected 8/31/06 due to instrument malfunction on August 3, 2006

Water Quality Summary, Woodstock, VermontWoodstock JungleKAS #502060051October 2006

Sample Collection Date: August 3, 2006Surface Water

Upstream Downstream NOAAVolatile Organic Compounds (8260b) (ug/l) H2O+Organisms Organisms SQuiRT (ug/l)Benzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 1.2 71.0 5.3Toluene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 6,800. 200,000. 17,500.Ethylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 3,100. 29,000. 32,000.Xylenes ND <2.0 ND <2.0 NS NS NSTotal BTEX ND ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NSNaphthalene ND <2.0 ND <2.0 NS NS NSIsopropylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NSn-Propylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NSn-Butylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NSsec-Butylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NStert-Butylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NSp-Isopropyltoluene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 NS NS NSMTBE ND <2.0 ND <2.0 NS NS NSAcetone ND <10.0 ND <10.0 NS NS NS2-Butanone ND <10.0 ND <10.0 NS NS NSDibromomethane ND <2.0 ND <2.0 NS NS NSDiethyl Ether ND <5.0 ND <5.0 NS NS NSTetrachloroethene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 0.8 8.85 840Trichloroethene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 2.7 81.0 21900Vinyl Chloride ND <2.0 ND <2.0 2 525 NSTotal VOCs ND ND - PP 13 Metals (ug/L)Total Antimony ND <5.0 ND <5.0 14 4300 0.030Total Arsenic ND <20 ND <20 0.02 1.5 0.150Total Beryllium ND <2 ND <2 NS NS 0.0053Total Cadmium ND <2 ND <2 NS NS 0.001Total Chromium ND <20 ND <20 NS NS NSTotal Copper ND <20 ND <20 NS NS 0.009Total Lead ND <20 ND <20 NS NS 0.0025Total Mercury ND <1 ND <1 0.14 0.15 0.00012Total Nickel ND <20 ND <20 610 4600 0.052Total Selenium ND <50 ND <50 NS NS 0.005Total Silver ND <20 ND <20 NS NS 0.00012Total Thallium ND <1 ND <1 1.7 6.3 0.040Total Zinc ND <20 ND <20 NS NS 0.11

NOTES: All values reported in ug/L, unless otherwise indicated.EPA Method 8260b used for laboratory analysis for VOCs EPA Method 6010 / 7471 / SM 3113B used for laboratory analysis for metalsND<X - Not Detected (Detection Limit)Values above Vermont WQS (Vermont Water Quality Standards) are shaded.Values above the laboratory detection limit are in boldShaded standards means that the standard is below the laboratory reporting limitNS means no standard for this compoundOnly detected compounds, major petroleum and chlorinated solvents included in table.Vermont WQS = Vermont Water Quality Standards, effective February 9, 2006,

Vermont WQS (ug/l)

Sediment Sampling Data SummarySurface Water and Sediment Results SummaryWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, Vermont KAS #502060051October 2006

Sample Date: 3-Aug-06Sediment Sample Upstream Downstream NOAA EPA Region IX EPA Region IX

SQuiRT PRG PRGPETROLEUM VOCs, EPA Method 8260b (ug/kg dry weight) Bkg/CCC/CMC Residential IndustrialBenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 5,300. 600. 1,300.Toluene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 17,500. 520,000. 520,000.Ethylbenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 32,000. 8,900. 8,900.Total Xylenes ND <14.0 ND <26.0 NS 270,000. 270,000.MTBE ND <14.0 ND <26.0 NS 62,000. 62,000.1,3,5-trimethylbenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 21,000. 70,000.1,2,4-trimethylbenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 52,000. 170,000.Naphthalene ND <14.0 ND <26.0 NS 56,000. 190,000.n-Butylbenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 240,000. 240,000.sec-Butylbenzne ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 220,000. 220,000.tert-Butylbenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 390,000. 390,000.Isopropylbenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 240,000. 2,000,000.p-Isopropytoluene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS NS NSn-Propylbenzene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 240,000. 240,000.NON-PETROLEUM VOCs, EPA Method 8260b (ug/kg dry weight)Tetrachloroethene (PCE) ND <7.0 ND <13.0 840. 1,500. 3,400.Trichloroethene (TCE) ND <7.0 ND <13.0 21,900. 53. 110.1,1-Dichloroethane ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 510,000. 1,700,000.cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 11,600. 43,000. 150,000.trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 11,600. 69,000. 230,000.1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND <14.0 ND <26.0 NS 5. 11.Chloroform ND <7.0 ND <13.0 28,900. 3,600. 12,000.Styrene ND <7.0 ND <13.0 NS 1,700. 1,700.Vinyl Chloride ND <14.0 ND <26.0 NS 79. 750.Total Reported VOCs ND ND - -PAHs, EPA Method 8270C (ug/kg dry weight)Acenaphthene ND <80.0 ND <80.0 520 3,700,000. 29,000,000.Acenaphthylene ND <80.0 ND <80.0 NS NS NSAnthracene ND <80.0 ND <80.0 NS 22,000,000. 100,000,000.Benzo(a)anthracene 199. 114. NS 620. 2,100.Benzo(b&k)fluoranthene 324. 202. NS 6,200. 21,000.Benzo(a)pyrene 205. 131. NS 62. 210.Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 139. 92.2 NS NS NSChrysene 204. 118. NS 62,000. 210,000.Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 76.8 ND <80.0 NS 62. 210.Fluoranthene 484. 246. 3,980. 2,300,000. 22,000,000.Fluorene ND <80.0 ND <80.0 NS 2,700,000. 26,000,000.Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 132. 90.1 NS 620. 2,100.1-Methylnaphthalene ND <80.0 ND <80.0 NS NS NS2-Methylnaphthalene ND <80.0 ND <80.0 NS NS NSNaphthalene ND <80.0 ND <80.0 620. 56,000. 190,000.Phenanthrene 353. 134. NS NS NSPyrene 391. 212. NS 2,300,000. 29,000,000.Total Reported PAHs 2,508. 1,339.TOTAL METALS (mg/kg dry weight)Total Antimony ND <0.384 ND <0.632 0.160 31 410Total Arsenic ND <0.961 ND <1.58 1.1 0.39 1.6Total Beryllium ND <0.961 ND <1.58 NS 150 1,900Total Cadmium ND <0.673 ND <1.11 0.3 37 450Total Chromium ND <0.384 3.21 13 210 450Total Copper 11.4 16.3 25 3,100 41,000Total Lead 30.3 13.9 17 400 800Total Mercury ND <0.076 ND <0.101 0.051 23 310Total Nickel 9.79 13.5 9.9 1,600 20,000Total Selenium ND <0.961 ND <1.58 0.29 390 5,100Total Silver ND <0.961 ND <1.58 0.5 390 5,100Total Thallium ND <0.192 ND <0.316 NS 5.2 67Total Zinc 34.5 45.3 38 23,000 100,000

NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.PRG = USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation GoalSQuiRT = NOAA Screening Quick Reference Table Freshwater Sediment Background (metals) CCC/CMC (organics), 1999.*Values based on the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline (ref. DEC Memorandum 12/30/92).TPH values above the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline are shaded.Values above PRG or SQuiRT are shadedNS = No relevant numerical criteria found.



Liquid Level Monitoring Data

Liquid Level Monitoring DataWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, Vermont

8/30-31/06Top Specific Corrected Corrected

Well I.D. of Casing Depth To Depth To Product Gravity Water Depth Water TableElevation Product Water Thickness Of Product Equivalent To Water Elevation

MW06-1s 100.62 18.05 82.57MW06-1d 100.76 18.16 82.60MW06-2 100.23 17.60 82.63MW06-3 99.92 17.33 82.59MW06-4 100.00 18.92 81.08MW06-5 98.66 18.41 80.25MW06-6 98.31 21.15 77.16All Values Reported in FeetTop-of-Casing Elevations Measured in Feet Relative to MW06-4 set at 100.00'Top-of-Casing Elevations Surveyed August 30, 2006



Low Flow Sampling Data Groundwater Quality Data Summary Laboratory Analytical Reports

Low Flow Sampling DataWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, VermontKAS #502060051October 2006

MW06-1s 8/30/2006Time pH conductivity (us) Temperature (C) Turbidity (NTU)

12:15 7.35 654 16.7 FFF12:20 7.41 623 16.8 FFF12:25 7.34 599 16.5 70.812:30 7.35 628 16.6 91.412:35 7.45 611 17.4 57.012:40 7.50 614 17.1 40.412:45 7.44 622 17.1 31.112:50 7.40 617 16.7 38.812:55 7.39 615 16.5 37.512:59 7.38 617 16.6 36.013:00

MW06-1d 8/30/2006Time pH conductivity (us) Temperature (C) Turbidity (NTU)

13:30 7.56 672 19.4 FFF13:35 7.46 678 17.4 FFF13:40 7.34 679 18.0 361.013:45 7.38 682 16.7 137.013:50 7.48 708 17.6 85.613:55 7.78 704 16.9 40.014:00 7.55 703 16.7 24.414:05 7.52 707 16.7 12.714:10 7.49 711 17.0 11.514:15 7.47 701 16.7 10.514:20

MW06-2 8/30/2006Time pH conductivity (us) Temperature (C) Turbidity (NTU)

15:05 7.49 386 18.4 FFF15:10 7.55 378 18.5 FFF15:15 7.56 388 18.4 135.015:20 7.61 371 18.4 74.215:25 7.41 385 18.1 18.115:30 7.47 385 18.2 12.915:35 7.48 381 17.6 12.315:40 7.58 382 17.8 11.515:45

Note:NTU: nephelometric turbidity unitsFFF: over-range

Sample Collected

Sample Collected

Sample Collected

Low Flow Sampling DataWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, VermontKAS #502060051

October 2006MW06-3 8/31/2006Time pH conductivity (us) Temperature (C) Turbidity (NTU)

7:20 6.81 329 12.5 FFF7:25 6.88 327 12.5 339.07:30 6.82 329 12.6 213.07:35 6.79 328 12.6 172.07:40 6.78 317 12.5 158.07:45 6.75 322 12.8 85.07:50 6.71 307 13.6 64.67:55 6.65 307 13.7 53.18:00 6.80 322 13.8 43.78:05 6.70 315 14.1 33.58:10 6.70 319 13.9 33.58:15 6.68 329 14.3 28.58:20 6.63 328 14.4 29.58:25 6.65 327 14.3 30.08:30


9:15 6.98 405 14.5 15.29:20 7.04 406 14.0 16.29:25 7.00 410 14.5 14.99:30 7.12 411 14.3 15.09:40


10:05 7.03 387 19.2 FFF10:15 7.20 385 18.5 121.010:20 7.16 390 18.7 83.410:25 6.96 385 18.8 68.710:30 7.20 391 19.3 32.710:35 7.09 380 19.0 30.110:40 7.12 384 19.4 30.410:45


11:05 6.62 404 17.3 150.011:10 6.32 415 17.7 48.211:15 6.61 414 17.8 16.411:20 6.69 410 17.6 12.211:25 6.63 418 17.8 11.111:30

Note:NTU: nephelometric turbidity unitsFFF: over-range

Sample Collected

Sample Collected

Sample Collected

Sample Collected

Groundwater Quality SummaryWoodstock Jungle, Woodstock, VermontKAS #502060051October 2006

Sample Date: August 30-31, 2006Sampling Location

MW06-1S MW06-1D MW06-2 MW06-3 MW06-4 MW06-5 MW06-6 Duplicate Volatile Organic Compounds (8260b) VGES (ug/L)Benzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 5.Toluene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 1,000.Ethylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 700.Xylenes ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 10,000.Total BTEX ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 4.1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 5.Naphthalene ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 20.Isopropylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 -n-Proplybenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 -n-Butylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 -sec-Butylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 -tert-Butylbenzene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 -p-Isopropyltoluene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 -MTBE 9.5 12.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 40.Acetone ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 700.2-Butanone ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 ND <10.0 4,200.Dibromomethane ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 -Diethyl Ether ND <5.0 ND <5.0 ND <5.0 ND <5.0 ND <5.0 ND <5.0 ND <5.0 ND <5.0 -Tetrachloroethene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 5.Trichloroethene ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 ND <1.0 5.Vinyl Chloride ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 ND <2.0 2.Total VOCs 9.5 12.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND - TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, EPA Method 8015DROTPH 8015 DRO (mg/l) ND <0.40 ND <0.40 ND <0.40 ND <0.40 ND <0.40 ND <0.40 ND <0.40 ND <0.40 -PP 13 Metals (mg/L) VGES (mg/L)Total Antimony ND <0.003 ND <0.003 ND <0.003 ND <0.003 ND <0.003 ND <0.003 ND <0.003 ND <0.003 0.006Total Arsenic 0.006 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 0.007 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 0.003 0.010Total Beryllium ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 0.004Total Cadmium ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 0.005Total Chromium ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 0.10Total Copper 0.022 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 1.3Total Lead 0.008 0.002 ND <0.001 0.008 ND <0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.015Total Mercury ND <0.001 ND <0.001 ND <0.001 ND <0.001 ND <0.001 ND <0.001 ND <0.001 ND <0.001 0.002Total Nickel ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 0.100Total Selenium ND <0.010 ND <0.010 ND <0.010 ND <0.010 ND <0.010 ND <0.010 ND <0.010 ND <0.010 0.050Total Silver ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 0.1Total Thallium ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.020 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 ND <0.002 0.002Total Zinc 0.032 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 0.026 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 ND <0.020 5

NOTES: All values reported in ug/L, unless otherwise indicated.EPA Method 8260b used for laboratory analysis for VOCs EPA Method 6010 / 7471 / SM 3113B used for laboratory analysis for metalsND<X - Not Detected (Detection Limit)Values above VGES (Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards) are shaded.Values above the laboratory detection limit are in bold - means no VGES for this compoundOnly detected compounds, major petroleum and chlorinated solvents included in table.



Data Validation Report

Data Validation Report Woodstock Jungle – Woodstock, VT

October 17, 2006 KAS Project No. 502060051

Project Description Summary:

This data validation report applies to the sampling and analysis of soil and water samples

as described in the scope of work of the approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

dated July 14, 2006. The sampling occurred over the course of August 2-3, 2006 and

August 30-31, 2006. Field quality control samples included a duplicate. Laboratory

analysis was performed by Endyne, Inc. Laboratory of Williston, VT. Please refer to the

QAPP for additional details concerning the site background, work scope, and standard

operating procedures. The following specific data were validated:

• Three shallow soil samples (plus one duplicate sample and four background

samples) and three soil boring samples (plus one duplicate and one background

sample) collected on August 2, 2006 for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis

by EPA Method 8260B, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analysis by EPA

Method 8015 DRO, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) analysis by EPA

Method 8270C, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analysis by EPA Method 8082,

and 13 priority pollutant metals;

• Three soil boring samples (plus one duplicate sample) collected on August 3,

2006 for VOC analysis by EPA Method 8260B, TPH analysis by EPA Method

8015 DRO, PAH analysis by EPA Method 8270C, PCB analysis by EPA Method

8082, and 13 priority pollutant metals;

• Two surface water samples collected on August 3, 2006 for VOC analysis by

EPA Method 8260B, and 13 Priority Metals; and

• Two sediment samples collected on August 3, 2006 for VOC analysis by EPA

Method 8260B, 13 Priority Metals, and PAH analysis by EPA Method 8270C.

• Three groundwater samples collected on August 30, 2006 for VOC analysis by

EPA Method 8260B, TPH analysis by EPA Method 8015 DRO, and 13 priority

pollutant metals; and

• Four groundwater samples (plus one duplicate sample) collected on August 30-

31, 2006 for VOC analysis by EPA Method 8260B, TPH analysis by EPA Method

8015 DRO, and 13 priority pollutant metals.



Field Quality Control:

Field Duplicate (August 2, 2006):

A duplicate analysis of SS-1 was collected. The RPD of the duplicate samples for TPH

was 134.9% which is well above the accepted value of 50%, indicating a poor correlation

between the duplicated samples. The contaminant concentrations for the duplicate samples

for PCB were all non-detect except for arochlor-1260 (52.2ppb) in the duplicate sample;

therefore a RPD value could not be calculated. The absolute RPD values of the duplicate

samples for VOCs ranged from 12.4% to 36.7%, which is below the accepted value of

50%, indicating a good correlation between the duplicate samples. However, two

compounds were reported just above detection levels in the duplicate, but not in SS-1. The

absolute RPD values of the duplicate samples for PAHs ranged from 17.4% to 72.6%. All

values were below the accepted value of 50% with the exception of Acenaphthylene,

indicating a good correlation between the duplicate samples.


A duplicate analysis of SB-5 was collected. The absolute RPD value of the duplicate

samples for TPH was 32.3%, which is below the accepted value of 50%, indicating a good

correlation between the duplicated samples. The absolute RPD values for the duplicate

samples for metals ranged from 0.7% to 79.9%. All values were below the accepted value

of 50% with the exception of Lead, indicating a good correlation between the duplicated

samples.


A duplicate analysis of MW06-3 was collected. The absolute RPD value of the duplicate

samples for TPH could not be calculated because both samples were non-detect. The

absolute RPD values for metals were 80.0% and 90.9%. These RPD values exceed the

acceptable groundwater range of 30%; however the difference between contaminant levels

is 0.004 ppb and 0.005 ppb. The absolute RPD value of the duplicate samples for VOCs

could not be calculated because both samples were non-detect.



Verification of Sampling Procedures:

Sampling Procedures:

Pre-printed field data sheets and the field notebooks were reviewed to ensure proper

documentation of the sampling conditions. All entries were made with permanent ink.

Entries included the initials of the sampler, sampling location, time, and date. All entries

and equipment used were recorded on the Daily Work Report Sheet for each date. Weather

conditions were noted as sunny, humid and 90° Fahrenheit on August 2, 2006. Weather

conditions were noted as cloudy and 75° Fahrenheit on August 3, 2006. Weather

conditions were not noted on August 30 and 31, 2006. The samplers were interviewed to

confirm the sampling conditions documented in the field data sheets. Sampling was

performed in accordance with the procedures specified in the QAPP.

Chain of Custody:

The chain of custody forms were reviewed to ensure the sample identification, number,

type and size of sample containers, preservatives used; and signatures were properly

recorded and were in accordance with the requirements of the QAPP. The laboratory was

able to analyze these samples in accordance with the standard procedure.

Laboratory Quality Control Findings:

The laboratory data was examined to evaluate whether data should be accepted, qualified,

or rejected. The following are the significant findings of the laboratory data validation:

•VOC soil analysis should be accepted with the following qualification:

1. The laboratory QA/QC did not fall within laboratory guidelines for 2-

chloroethyl vinyl ether, and therefore the data is acceptable on a

qualitative basis, but not a quantitative basis. However, 2-chloroethyl

vinyl ether was non-detect for all samples and should not affect the data.

•TPH soil analysis should be accepted without condition

•Metals soil analysis should be accepted with the following qualification:



1. The laboratory detection limit for Arsenic is above the EPA Region IX

PRG Residential limit of 0.39mg/kg and Industrial limit of 1.60mg/kg.

Therefore, the levels of Arsenic could be above the PRGs, but still be

non-detect.

•PAH soil analysis for should be accepted with the following qualifications:

1. The laboratory QA/QC did not fall within laboratory guidelines for

Benzidine, and therefore the data is acceptable on a qualitative basis, but

not a quantitative basis. However, Benzidine was non-detect for all

samples and should not affect the data.

2. The laboratory detection limits were higher than the EPA Region IX

PRGs for Benzo(a)pyrene in four samples, for Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

in nine samples, and for several compounds in SB-5 and SB-6.

Therefore, it is possible these compounds were above PRG reporting

limits, but still non-detect.

3. The three acid surrogates and base/neutral surrogate 1 were below the

accepted value of 40%, with the lowest value of 24% for Acid Surrogate

3. Therefore, the data is acceptable on a qualitative basis, but not a

quantitative basis. This indicates the reported concentrations may be

lower than the actual concentrations in the soil.

•PCB soil analysis should be accepted with the following qualification:

1. The laboratory detection limits exceed the reporting limits specified in

the QAPP in SS-2 and SB-1S. Therefore, compounds could be above

reporting limits despite being below detection levels.

•VOC groundwater analysis should be accepted without condition

•TPH groundwater analysis should be accepted without condition

•Metals groundwater analysis should be accepted without condition

•VOC sediment analysis should be accepted without condition

•Metals sediment analysis should be accepted without condition

•PAH sediment analysis should be accepted with the following qualification:



1. The laboratory QA/QC did not fall within laboratory guidelines for

Benzidine, and therefore the data is acceptable on a qualitative basis, but

not a quantitative basis. However, Benzidine was non-detect for all

samples and should not affect the data.

•VOC surface water analysis should be accepted without condition

•Metals surface water analysis should be accepted without condition

Michala Peabody

Quality Assurance Officer

Attachments:

Laboratory Data Validation Check Lists and RPD Calculations

Relative PercentDifference Calculations

Data Validation ReportWoodstock Jungle

Woodstock, Vermont

August 2, 2006 Duplicate SS-1 RPD

acetone ND ND - benzene 64.0 56.5 -12.4bromobenzene ND ND - bromochloromethane ND ND - bromodichloromethane ND ND - bromoform ND ND - bromomethane ND ND - 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) ND ND - n-butylbenzene ND ND - sec-butylbenzene ND ND - tert-butylbenzene ND ND - carbon disulfide ND ND - carbon tetrachloride ND ND - chlorobenzene ND ND - chloroethane ND ND - 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether ND ND - Chloroform ND ND - Chloromethane ND ND - 2-Chlorotoluene ND ND - 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND - Dibromochloromethane ND ND - 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane ND ND - 1,2-Dibromoethane ND ND - dibromomethane ND ND - 1,2-dichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND - Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND - 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND - 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND - 1,1-dichloroethene ND ND - cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND - trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND - 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND - 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND - 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND - 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND - cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND - trans 1 3 dichloropropene ND ND - diethyl ether ND ND - ethylbenzene 22.9 15.8 -36.7hexachlorobutadiene ND ND - 2-Hexanone (methy butyl ketone) ND ND - isopropylbenzene (cumene) ND ND - p-isopropyltoluene ND ND - methylene chloride ND ND - 4-methyl-2-pentanone ND ND - MTBE ND ND - Naphthalene ND ND - n-Propylbenzene 14.6 ND - styrene ND ND - 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND - 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND - Tetrachloroethene ND ND - Tetrahydrofuran ND ND - Toluene ND ND - 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane ND ND - 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND - Trichloroethene ND ND - Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND - 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND - 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND - 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND - Vinyl Chloride ND ND - Xylenes (Total) 28.4 ND - Total VOCs 129.9 72. -57.0NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.EPA Method 8260b used for laboratory analysis for VOCs ND<1.0 = Not Detected< Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in bold

Volatile Organic Compounds (8260B)

October 2006VTDEC Site #2005-3356

KAS Inc. # 502060051



Woodstock, Vermont

August 2, 2006 Duplicate SS-1 RPD

Arochlor-1016 ND(20.0) ND(20.0) n/aArochlor-1221 ND(20.0) ND(20.0) n/aArochlor-1232 ND(20.0) ND(20.0) n/aArochlor-1242 ND(20.0) ND(20.0) n/aArochlor-1248 ND(20.0) ND(20.0) n/aArochlor-1254 ND(20.0) ND(20.0) n/aArochlor-1260 ND(20.0) 52.2 n/aArochlor-1268 ND(20.0) ND(20.0) n/a

TPH 8015 DRO (mg/Kg) 16.9 86.9 134.9

Acenaphthene ND(80.0) ND(80.0) - Acenaphthylene 216 101 -72.6Anthracene 224 321 35.6Benzo(a)anthracene 1,230 964 -24.2Benzo(b&k)fluoranthene 2,110 1,380 -41.8Benzo(a)pyrene 1,200 869 -32.0Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 694 445 -43.7Chrysene 1,280 906 -34.2Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 198 143 -32.3Fluoranthene 2,800 2,350 -17.5Fluorene ND(80.0) 126 - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 692 475 -37.21-Methylnaphthalene ND(80.0) ND(80.0) - 2-Methylnaphthalene ND(80.0) ND(80.0) - Naphthalene ND(80.0) ND(80.0) - Phenanthrene 1,260 1,520 18.7Pyrene 2,250 1,890 -17.4

Total Antimony ND ND -Total Arsenic 4.92 3.13 44.5Total Beryllium ND ND -Total Cadmium ND ND -Total Chromium 13.40 13.10 2.3Total Copper 21.90 18.40 17.4Total Lead 31.50 47.30 40.1Total Mercury 0.18 0.28 45.1Total Nickel 18.30 17.10 6.8Total Selenium ND ND -Total Silver ND ND -Total Thallium ND ND -Total Zinc 65.50 66.00 0.8

NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.EPA Method 8015DRO used for laboratory analysis for TPH TPH values above the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline are shaded.Values based on the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline (ref. DEC Memorandum 12/30/92).ND<1.0 = Not Detected< Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in bold

TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, EPA Method 8015DRO

PAHs, EPA Method 8270C

TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)

PCBs, EPA Method 8082


KAS Inc. # 502060051



Woodstock, Vermont

8/3/2006 Duplicate SB-5 RPD

acetone ND ND - benzene ND ND - bromobenzene ND ND - bromochloromethane ND ND - bromodichloromethane ND ND - bromoform ND ND - bromomethane ND ND - 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) ND ND - n-butylbenzene ND ND - sec-butylbenzene ND ND - tert-butylbenzene ND ND - carbon disulfide ND ND - carbon tetrachloride ND ND - chlorobenzene ND ND - chloroethane ND ND - 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether ND ND - Chloroform ND ND - Chloromethane ND ND - 2-Chlorotoluene ND ND - 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND - Dibromochloromethane ND ND - 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane ND ND - 1,2-Dibromoethane ND ND - dibromomethane ND ND - 1,2-dichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND - Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND - 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND - 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND - 1,1-dichloroethene ND ND - cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND - trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND - 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND - 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND - 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND - 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND - cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND - trans 1 3 dichloropropene ND ND - diethyl ether ND ND - ethylbenzene ND ND - hexachlorobutadiene ND ND - 2-Hexanone (methy butyl ketone) ND ND - isopropylbenzene (cumene) ND ND - p-isopropyltoluene ND ND - methylene chloride ND ND - 4-methyl-2-pentanone ND ND - MTBE ND ND - Naphthalene ND ND - n-Propylbenzene ND ND - styrene ND ND - 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND - 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND - Tetrachloroethene ND ND - Tetrahydrofuran ND ND - Toluene ND ND - 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane ND ND - 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND - Trichloroethene ND ND - Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND - 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND - 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND - 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND - Vinyl Chloride ND ND - Xylenes (Total) ND ND - Total VOCs 0 0. -NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.EPA Method 8260b used for laboratory analysis for VOCs ND<1.0 = Not Detected< Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in bold

Volatile Organic Compounds (8260b)


KAS Inc. # 502060051



Woodstock, Vermont

8/3/2006 Duplicate SB-5 RPD

Arochlor-1016 ND ND n/aArochlor-1221 ND ND n/aArochlor-1232 ND ND n/aArochlor-1242 ND ND n/aArochlor-1248 ND ND n/aArochlor-1254 ND ND n/aArochlor-1260 ND ND n/aArochlor-1268 ND ND n/aTOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, EPA Method 8015DROTPH 8015 DRO (mg/Kg) 2,730. 1,970. -32.3

Acenaphthene ND ND - Acenaphthylene ND ND - Anthracene ND ND - Benzo(a)anthracene ND ND - Benzo(b&k)fluoranthene ND ND - Benzo(a)pyrene ND ND - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND ND - Chrysene ND ND - Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND ND - Fluoranthene ND ND - Fluorene ND ND - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND ND - 1-Methylnaphthalene ND ND - 2-Methylnaphthalene ND ND - Naphthalene ND ND - Phenanthrene ND ND - Pyrene ND ND -

Total Antimony ND ND -Total Arsenic ND 3.33 -Total Beryllium ND ND -Total Cadmium ND ND -Total Chromium 6.11 4.97 20.6Total Copper 24.80 27.10 8.9Total Lead 27.30 63.60 79.9Total Mercury ND ND -Total Nickel 22.10 22.60 2.2Total Selenium ND ND -Total Silver ND ND -Total Thallium ND ND -Total Zinc 69.20 69.70 0.7NOTES: All values reported in ug/kg, dry, unless otherwise indicated.EPA Method 8015DRO used for laboratory analysis for TPH TPH values above the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline are shaded.Values based on the VTDEC TPH Soil Cleanup Guideline (ref. DEC Memorandum 12/30/92).ND<1.0 = Not Detected< Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in bold

PAHs, EPA Method 8270C

TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)

PCBs, EPA Method 8082


KAS Inc. # 502060051



Woodstock, Vermont

Duplicate MW06-2 RPD

acetone ND ND - benzene ND ND - bromobenzene ND ND - bromochloromethane ND ND - bromodichloromethane ND ND - bromoform ND ND - bromomethane ND ND - 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) ND ND - n-butylbenzene ND ND - sec-butylbenzene ND ND - tert-butylbenzene ND ND - carbon disulfide ND ND - carbon tetrachloride ND ND - chlorobenzene ND ND - chloroethane ND ND - 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether ND ND - Chloroform ND ND - Chloromethane ND ND - 2-Chlorotoluene ND ND - 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND - Dibromochloromethane ND ND - 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane ND ND - 1,2-Dibromoethane ND ND - dibromomethane ND ND - 1,2-dichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND - Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND - 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND - 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND - 1,1-dichloroethene ND ND - cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND - trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND - 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND - 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND - 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND - 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND - cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND - trans 1 3 dichloropropene ND ND - diethyl ether ND ND - ethylbenzene ND ND - hexachlorobutadiene ND ND - 2-Hexanone (methy butyl ketone) ND ND - isopropylbenzene (cumene) ND ND - p-isopropyltoluene ND ND - methylene chloride ND ND - 4-methyl-2-pentanone ND ND - MTBE ND ND - Naphthalene ND ND - n-Propylbenzene ND ND - styrene ND ND - 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND - 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND - Tetrachloroethene ND ND - Tetrahydrofuran ND ND - Toluene ND ND - 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND - 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane ND ND - 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND - Trichloroethene ND ND - Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND - 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND - 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND - 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND - Vinyl Chloride ND ND - Xylenes (Total) ND ND - Total VOCs 0 0. -NOTES: All values reported in ug/LEPA Method 8260b used for laboratory analysis for VOCs

Volatile Organic Compounds (8260b)August 30-31, 2006


KAS Inc. #502060051



Woodstock, Vermont

ND<1.0 = Not Detected< Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in bold

Duplicate MW06-2 RPDTOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, EPA Method 8015DROTPH 8015 DRO (mg/Kg) ND ND - TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)Total Antimony ND(0.003) ND(0.003) -Total Arsenic 0.003 0.007 80.0Total Beryllium ND(0.002) ND(0.002) -Total Cadmium ND(0.002) ND(0.002) -Total Chromium ND(0.020) ND(0.020) -Total Copper ND(0.020) 0.020 -Total Lead 0.003 0.008 90.9Total Mercury ND(0.001) ND(0.001) -Total Nickel ND(0.020) ND(0.020) -Total Selenium ND(0.010) ND(0.010) -Total Silver ND(0.020) ND(0.020) -Total Thallium ND(0.002) ND(0.002) -Total Zinc ND(0.020) 0.026 -NOTES: All values reported in ug/LEPA Method 8260b used for laboratory analysis for VOCs EPA Method 8015DRO used for laboratory analysis for TPH ND<1.0 = Not Detected< Detection LimitResults reported above detection limits are indicated in bold

August 30-31, 2006


KAS Inc. #502060051



Site Photographs

PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION Woodstock JungleWoodstock, Vermont

8/2/2006

Plate 1: (left) Area 2 shallow soil testing area (historic Tarvia Oil tank); (right) Premarking along south property line.

Plate 2: (left) well installation MW06-6; completed installation MW06-1s and -1d (right)

PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION Woodstock JungleWoodstock, Vermont

8/2/2006

Plate 3: Completed installation MW06-2 (Left); MW06-5 (right).

Plate 4: Upstream sampling station (left);

brownfields phase ii environmental site assessment … · (esa) conducted in august 2006 at the...

Documents