DocID 109651

DOCUMENTATION OF EN^^RONMENTAL INDICATOR DETERMINATION Interim Final 2/5/99

RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725) ^^Ao

Current Human Exposures Under Control ^ ^ 0 / A , ,

Facility Name: Doncasters (Former INCO) yt̂ r. y 9«. Facility Address: 36 Spring Lane. Farmington. CT ^ ^ 0 / ^ y . 'O Facility EPA ID #: CTD059831479 . ^'IQ^

'̂ 'X 1. Has all available relevant/significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to soil, groundwater, surface water/sediments, and air, subject to RCRA Corrective Action (e.g., from Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU), Regulated Units (RU), and Areas of Concern (AOC)), been considered in this EI determination? ,

X If yes - check here and continue with #2 below.

If no - re-evaluate existing data, or

if data are not available skip to #6 and enter"IN'* (more infonnation needed) status code.

BACKGROUND

pefinition of Environmental Indicators (for the RCRA Corrective Action)

Environmental Indicatoi-s (EI) are measures being used by the RCRA Conective Action program to go beyond programmatic activity measures (e.g., reports received and approved, etc.) to ti-ack changes in the quality of the environment. The t\vo EI developed to-date indicate the quality of the environment in relation to current human exposures to contamination and the migration of contaminated groundwater. An EI for non-human (ecological) receptors is intended to be developed in the future.

Pefinition of "Current Human Exposures Under Control" EI

A positive "Current Human Exposui'es Under Conti'ol" EI determmation ("YE" status code) indicates tiiat there are no "unacceptable" human exposures to "contamination" (i.e., contaminants in concentrations in excess of appropriate risk-based levels) that can be reasonably expected under current land- and groundwater-use conditions (for all "contamination" subject to RCRA conective action at or from the identified faciUty (i.e., site-wide)).

Relationship of EI to Final Remedies

While Final remedies remain the long-teim objective of the RCRA Corrective Action program the EI ai'e near-term objectives which are currently being used as Program measui'es for the Government Perfonnance and Results Act of 1993, GPRA). The "Current Human Exposui'es Under Conti'ol" EI are for reasonably expected human exposures xinder cmrent land- and groundwater-use conditions ONLY, and do not consider potential future land- or groxmdwater-use conditions or ecological receptors. The RCRA Corrective Action program's overall mission to protect human health and the environment requires that Final remedies address these issues (i.e., potential future human exposure scenarios, fiiture land and groundwater uses, and ecological receptors).

Duration / Applicability of EI Determinations

EI Detenninations status codes should remain in RCRIS national database ONLY as long as they remain u-ue (i.e., RCRIS status codes must be changed when the regulatoiy authorities become aware of contiary information).

Current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725)

Page 2

Are groundwater, soil, surface water, sediments, or aii" media known or reasonably suspected to be "contaminated"' above appropriately protective risk-based "levels" (applicable promulgated standards, as well as other appropriate standards, guidelines, guidance, or criteria) from releases subject to RCRA Con-ective Action (firom SWMUs, RUs or AOCs)?

Yes No X Rationale / Key Contaminants Groundwater X_ ___ Hexavalent chromium, nickel Air (indoors) ̂ X_ ' Surface Soil (e,g,, <2 ft) X Hexavalent chromium, nickel Surface Water , 2 ^ _ Sediment X Subsurf Soil (e,g., >2 ft) X_ Hexavalent chromium, nickel Ail* (outdoors) X_,,

If no (for all media) - skip to #6, and enter "YE," status code after providing or citing appropriate "levels," and referencing sufficient supporting documentation demonstrating that these "levels" aie not exceeded.

If yes (for any media) - continue after ideutifymg key contaminants in each "contaminated" medium, citing appropriate "levels" (or provide an explanation for the detennination that the medium could pose an xmacceptable risk), and referencing supporting documentation.

If unknown (for any media) - skip to #6 and enter "IN" status code.

Rationale and Reference(s): Soil - Residual nickel, and hexavalent and total chromium is present in soils beneath the eastern portions of the building, the result of releases of metal-containing bruie solution from "Tank No. 15". This area is subject to an Environmental Land Use Restriction (ELURl which prohibits the removal of the overlying building-Concentrations of nickel and cluomium are documented on page 6 of the February 1997 Environmental Condition Assessment Form (ECAF). Attached) Other releases (nickel) fi'om fonner facility operations to soils in the electro­chemical machining CECM) sludge staging area was remediated via excavation in 1994. . Groundwater - Overburden groundwater has been documented to have been affected bv hexavalent chromium. The present condition of the groundwater is summarized on Table 2 of the 2009 Semi-Annual Natural Attenuation

Groundwater Monitoring Report (see attached). The affected overburden groundwater (located primarily in the deep overburden) has not reached any adjacent parcel, ' Surface Water - Overburden groundwater has not reached or affected surface water, as noted in the 2009 Report (noted above). Groundwater appears to have reached steady state, and no movement of contamination in the overburden aquifer has been observed for a period of at least five (5) years. .

Footnotes:

' "Contamination" and "contaminated" describes media containing contaminants (ia any fonn, NAPL and/or dissolved, vapors, or solids, that are subject to RCRA) in concentrations in excess of appropriately protective risk-based "levels" (for the media, that identify risks within the acceptable risk range).

^ Recent evidence (from the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, and others) suggest that unacceptable indoor ah" concentiations are more common in stnictures above groimdwater with volatile contambiants lhan previously beUeved. This is a rapidly developmg field and reviewers ai"e encouraged to look to the latest guidance for the appropriate methods and scale of demonstration necessaiy to be reasonably certam that indoor aii* (in structures located above (and adjacent to) groundwater with volatile contaminants) does not present unacceptable risks.

Current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725)

Page 3

3, Are there complete pathways bet̂ veen "contamination" and human receptors such that exposures can be

reasonably expected under the cunent (land- and groundwater-use) conditions?

Summary Exposure Pathway Evaluation Table

Potential Human Receptors (Under,Current Conditions)

"Contaminated" Media Residents Workers Day-Care Constniction Trespassers Recreation Food^ Groundwater . No Afr (indoors) Soil (surface e.g., <2 ft ..̂ •. ._\_. No . ___ Surface Water . Sediment Soil (subsurface e.g., >2 ft) No Air (outdoors) ^ Instructions for Sununary Exposure Pathway Evaluation Table:

1, Strike-out specific Media including Human Receptors'spaces for Media which are not "contaminated") as identified in #2 above.

2. enter "yes" or "no" for potential "completeness" under each "Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor combination (Pathway).

Note: In order to focus the evaluation to the most probable combinations some potential "Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor combinations (Pathways) do not have check spaces (" "). While these combinations may not be probable in most situations they may be possible in some settings and should be added as necessaiy. , ,.

X If no (pathways are not complete for any contaminated media-receptor combination) -skip to #6, and enter "YE" status code, after explaining and/or referencing condition(s) in-place, whether natural or man-made, preventmg a complete exposure pathway fi-om each contaminated medium (e.g., use optional Pathway Evaluation Work Sheet to analyze major pathways). ,

If yes (pathSvays are complete for any "Contaminated" Media - Human Receptor combination) - continue after providing supporting explanation,

If unknown (for any "Contaminated" Media - Hiunan Receptor combination) - skip to #6 and enter "IN" status code

Rationale and Reference(s):_Groundwater condition is essentially "static", with insufficient mass loading of contaminants at the source to affect downgradient or off-site receptors. Affected soil bieneath competent slab-Institutional controls in place to preclude disturbance. Reference: Section 4,2.1 of the 1999 "Supplemental Investigation Report. New England Airfoil Facility. 36 Spring Lane. Farmington. CT (portions attached)

Indirect Pathway/Receptor (e.g., vegetables, fruits, crops, meat and dairy products, fish, shellfish, etc)

Current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725)

Page 4

Can the exposures from any of the complete pathways identified in #3 be reasonably expected to be "significant"'' (i.e., potentially "unacceptable" because exposures can be reasonably expected to be: I) greater m magnitude (intensity, frequency and/or dm-ation) than assumed in the derivation of the acceptable "levels" (used to identify the "contamination"); or 2) the combmation of exposure magnitude (perhaps even though low) and contammant concentrations (which may be substantially above the acceptable "levels") could result in greater than acceptable risks)?

If no (exposures can not be reasonably expected to be significant (i.e., potentially. "unacceptable") for any complete exposure pathway) - skip to #6 and enter "YE" status code after explaining and/or referencing documentation justifying why the exposures (from each of the complete pathways) to "contamination" (identified in #3) are not expected to be "significant."

^ If yes (exposures could be reasonably expected to be "significant" (i.e., potentially "unacceptable") for any complete exposure pathway) - continue after providing a description (of each potentially "unacceptable" exposure pathway) and explaining and/or referencmg documentation justifying why the exposures (from each of the remaining complete pathways) to "contamination" (identified in #3) are not expected to be "significant."

If unkno\vn (for any complete pathway) - skip to #6 and enter "IN" status code

Rationale and Reference(s):_

•* If there is any question on whether the identified exposures are "significant" (i.e., potentially "unacceptable") consuh a human health,Risk Assessment specialist with appropriate education, traming and expenence.

Current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA725)

Page 5

Can the "significant" exposures (identified in #4) be shown to be within acceptable limits?

If yes (all "significant" exposures have been sho\vn to be witliin acceptable limits) -continue and enter "YE" after summarizmg and referencing documentation justifying why all "significant" exposures to "contamination" are within acceptable limits (e.g., a site-specific Human Health Risk Assessment).

If no (there are current exposures that can be reasonably expected to be "unacceptable")-continue and enter "NO" status code after providing a description of each potentially "unacceptable" exposure.

_̂ :_ If unknown (for any potentially "unacceptable" exposure) - continue and enter "IN" status code

Rationale and Reference(s):

Current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator (El) RCRIS code (CA725)

6. Check the appropriate RCRIS status codes for the Current Human Exposures Under Confrol EI event code (CA725), and obtain Supervisor (or appropriate Manager) signature and date on the EI determmation below (and attach appropriate supporting documentation as well as a map of the facility):

X YE - Yes, "Current Human Exposures Under Control" has been verified. Based on a review of the information contained in this EI Determination, "Current Human Bxposuies" are expected to be "Under Control" at the Doncasters ("fonner New England AirfoiD Facility, EPA ID # (CTD0S983147f. located at (36 Spring Lane. Farmington. CTl under current and reasonably expected conditions. This determination will be re-evaluated when the Agency/State becomes aware of significant changes at the facility,

NO - "Cunent Human Exposures" are NOT "Under Contt'ol,"

IN - More information is needed to make a determination.

Prepared, by (signature) ___£l/_ Date July 16.2010 (print) Robert J, Drake. PE. Ph.D.. LBP (title) Senior Project Manager

DEP reviewed 1,

(title).

by (signature) Qs'/Z^Cf j S r J ^ i D Dale ( I ^ P ^ ^ H L M O

(print) S ^ f ^ M t / f e ^ . ! ^ d ^

DEP Supervisor (signature) p -TS^- -^^ / l ^^^ i^ ,^^ Date *? " 2-> - rp (print) /7>/,/rr) /^ / /ud f j iy i sT (title) ^ ^ A :

(EPA Region or State) CTDEP ^r^^^^ All References may be found at; j j S ^ ^ ' ' '

Connecticut Depailment of Environmental Protection located at 79 Elm Sfreet, Hartford, Connecticut

DEP file room contact telephone and e-mail numbere \ •

Name; Terry Parker Phone: 860 424-3936 E-mail: terry,parker@ct.gov ^

riNAL NOTE: THE HUMAN EXPOSURES EI IS A QUALrTATIVE SCREENLNG OF EXPOSURES AND THE DETERMINATIONS WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR RESTRICTING THE SCOPE OF MORE DETAILED (E.G., SITE-SPECIFIC) ASSESSMENTS OF RISK.

6-

Part V: Contaminants in the Environment (cont.)

List for each release area the codes for contaminants of concern, and for each contaminant the following: the number of samples in which the contaminant was detected / the maximum and mean concentrations of the contaminant / and depth at which the maximum concentration was detected: (Check box if an addendum table is used ^ ) Reference Addendum No. 7

Provide site name, address and town from Part I, Item 1:

36 Spring Lane Farmington, CT. 06032

INCO Engineering Products Inc.

| | | | | i ] | a | ( | ; A r e | | |

Brine solution Tank No. 4

(Nortlieast corner of bldg.)

Brine solution Tank No. 15

(East side of bldg.)

dpntaiTiinants of ; coricertitiesteid

Cl

Cl

Na

Cr

Ni

'Cdhtaiiiinahts , : inspil/Waste:

ND

6 samples, 0-3f t. l,200mg/kg max. 697mg/kg mean

6 samples, 0-3ft. 2,100mg/kg max. l,221mg/kg mean

6 samples, 0-3ft. l,110mg/kg max. 463mg/kgmean

6 samples, 0-3ft. 2,350mg/kgmax. 854mg/kg mean

— : — ^ " 1 ^ :—: '~~'~^~7 •" :,' '

C6ntani|nants 1 Jn:gr(3undi water . 4 GW samples 30,000mg/l max. 10,000mg/lmean

2 samples 3,50bmg/I max. 2,500mg/lmean

ND

ND

ND

,0 Contarhinahts: jn surface vyater;

6 samples 30.2mg/l max. ll.Omg/1 mean

ND ^

ND

ND

ND

Bureau of Water Management DEP-PERD-PTP.200 6 of 8 Rev. 10/01/95

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

Nezu England Airfoil Facility 36 Spring Lane Farmington, Connecticut

August 17,1999

Prepared For: "

INMETCO, Inc. c/o INCO United States, Inc. PO Box 720 245 Portersville Road Ellwood City, Pennsylvania 16117

Prepared By:

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, Inc. 74 Batterson Park Road Farmington, Connecticut 06032

4.0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS AND CONTAMINATION RISK

The following issues are addressed in this Section:

e The potential for the presence of an on-going release of contamination at the Site;

« The identification of critical potential receptors of the identified contamination; and

e An evaluation of the likelihood of exposure/risk associated with this contamination.

4.1 EVALUATION OF ON-GOING RELEASE POTENTIAL

The defined area of residual soil contamination (see "Decision Document", Appendix F) is an area of approximately 50 feet by 210 feet located beneath the eastern wing of the building. This is an area where a brine solution was released from facility operations, and where chromium and nickel are assumed to exceed Direct Exposure Criteria (DEC) and Pollutant Mobility Criteria (PMC). This release area is the subject of an Environmental Land Use Restriction (ELUR).

As noted in the Decision Document, "Such polluted soil does not pose a risk to human health provided the building is not demolished and soil is not excavated or disturbed such that people come into contact with it. Such polluted soil does not pose a risk to groundwater quality provided the building is not demolished".

• , . f • •

Based on the foregoing, it appears that there is residual contamination in soils on the Site, but that on-going releases are unlikely, due to the impervious cover provided by the building and surrounding pavement The tanks from which the historical release of brine occurred have been removed, and no longer serve as an on-going source of contaminants. Review of the Conceptual Model of the Aquifer (Section 3.0) indicates that recharge for the overburden aquifer is derived primarily from areas up­gradient of the identified release areas. The identified release areas, and the areas affected by the contaminant pltime in the overburden aquifer, are located beneath buildings or impervious pavement. No direct recharge in these areas, which could mobilize soil contaminants, is indicated.

4.2 CRITICAL POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

ERM has identified the following critical potential receptors for the contamination identified on the Site:

ERM • 4 -1 . • f:projects\lnco7\1067.007.002a.doc

•

«

Employees of the active facility, who may be exposed to residual contaminants in the Site soils; ' ,

Scott Swamp Brook/the watercourse located east of the Site, which is the assumed discharge location for the overburden aquifer; and

Connecticut Spring, which may initiate a groundwater recovery/treatment system in the near future, and could be affected by contaminants in the overburden aquifer.

The CT DEP also indicated that various off-site water supply wells, located over 1,000 feet to the south on Spring Lane, should be evaluated as well. However, as no contaminant transport in the bedrock aquifer is indicated, there is no transport mechanism for the contamination to reach these wells, and no further evaluation is indicated.

4.2.1 Employees of the Facility

The primary means of contact for the employees at the facility is direct exposure (dermal and/or ingestion) to contaminated Site soils. However, as noted in the ELUR Decision Document, the presence of the building and the restrictions on its removal and/or disturbance of the identified contaminated soils will serve to prevent such exposure. So long as the ELUR remains in force and its limitations complied with, there is no indication of significant risk associated with the contaminated soil.

4.2.2 Scott Swamp Brook

The concern with this potential receptor is the discharge of brine and/or chromium and nickel to this water body from the overburden aquifer. Based on ERM's analysis of contaminant transport in the overburden aquifer, there is no dociunented lateral or downgradient movement of significant concentrations of contaminants in the overburden aquifer. The most critical parameter, hexavalent chromium, can be seen to have reached steady state in the overburden aquifer (see Figure 6). Historically, samples collected from Scott Swamp Brook have shown no evidence of brine or chromium.

Based on this absence of transport in the overburden aquifer, there appears to be no significant risk to Scott Swamp Brook.

4.2.3 Connecticut Spring

The concern with this potential receptor is the transport of brine in the capture zone of the groundwater recovery system anticipated for this property. Here, the data indicates that there is no significant transport of contaminants in the overburden aquifer onto this adjacent property. Further, the overburden aquifer along the property boundary is exti*emely thin, and frequently non-existent. Under these conditions, future

ERM 4 - 2 ' f:projects\lnco7\1067.007.002a.doc

transport of contaminants through the overburden aquifer onto the Connecticut Spring property is not considered likely.

The absence of significant flow in the bedrock aquifer suggests that transport through this medium would be similarly constrained.

Based on the foregoing, there appears to be no significant risk of transport of brine or metals through the overburden or bedrock aquifers onto Connecticut Spring property in quantities which would affect the performance of the anticipated groundwater recovery system.

In summary, the documented soil contamination is isolated form direct exposure through the use of the ELUR, while significant groundwater contamination has not (and appears not to be likely to) spread beyond the property boundary.

ERM 4 -3 f:projects\lnco7\1067.007,002a,doc

1 Februaa-y 2010 Reference: 0101729

Environmental Resources Management

n Hartland Street, Suite 300 East Hartfoi-d/CT 06108 (860) 466-8500 (860) 466-8501 (fax)

Mr, Rich Krystanowicz Director, Human Resources Doncasters, Inc. 36 Spring Lane Farmington, Comiecticut 06032

: -»

I I

-.----&, • ^

' i l

-

. - - ? ^ n m

Re: Semi-Annual Natural Attenuation Groundwater Monitoring Report - Summer & Winter 2009 New England Airfoil Facility 36 Spring Lane, Farmington, Connecticut

Dear Mr. Krystanowicz;

ERM Consulting & Engineering, Inc. (ERM) is pleased to submit this Semi-Annual Natural Attenuation Grotindxoater Monitoring Report for the New England Airfoil Facility located at 36 Spring Lane in Farmington, Connecticut (the "Site"). This letter report suromarizes the current and historical groundwater quality data, describes the calculated direction of groimdwater flow, and provides an assessment of current progress of the natural attenuation process.

REVIEW OF MONITORING PROGRAM

The revised (and approved) Natural Attenuation Monitoring Program (NAMP) consists of the semi-amiual collection and analysis of samples from the following locations:

o Monitoring Wells MW-6a, MW-8, MW-9, and MW-13.

Sampling of these wells was conducted on July 8 and December 11, 2009, Prior to collection of groundwater samples, groundwater elevations were determined in all accessible on-site and off-site wells. Bedi'ock elevations were not determined prior to collection of gromidwater samples due to accessibility issues. The water level data determinations £U*e included in the attached Table 1.

Mr. Rich Kiystanowicz 1 February 2010 Page 2

Laboratory analysis was conducted as follows:

a Sodium, chloride, soluble chromium, and hexavalent chromium at wells MW-6A, MW-9, and MW-13; and

e Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) at MW-8 and MW-13.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

The following is a summary of the notable observations during the July and December 2009 natural attenuation monitoring events.

Groundivater Flow Direction

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the overburden water table elevation contours for July and December, respectively, flowing to the southeast, similar to historical sampling events.

Groundivater Analytical Results

The analytical results from the NAMP sampling and liistorical analytical results can be found in the attached Table 2. As was the case dtiring the previous sampling events, water samples contained excessive amounts of silt and other fine materials. All samples were filtered in the laboratory and all reported results reflect soluble concentrations only. Based on this data, the following observations are made:

o Soluble chromium was detected in MW-9 and MVy-6a at concentrations above the GA Groundwater Protection Criteria (GWPC) of 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for the July and December 2009 sampling events, respectively. Analytical results for the July 2009 sampling event indicated a decrease in soluble chroijnium concentrations in groundwater samples collected from MW-̂ 6a, MW-9 and MW-13 relative to the previous December 2008 sampling event, however, the concenh'ation of soluble chromium in groundwater samples collected from MW-9 remained above the GWPC at 0.172 mg/L. Analytical results for the December 2009 sampling event indicated an increase in soluble chi'omium concentrations in groundwater samples collected from MW-6a and MW-13, where the MW-6a sample exceeded the GWPC at 0.0522 iTig/L and a decrease in soluble chroinium concentTations for the MW-9 sample below laboratory detection limits.

Environmental Resources Management

;,! r.. T T̂ .̂ • Environmental A4i'. Rich Kr\'Stauowicz „ .1 n 1 .. nrnn Resources 1 Februari'2010 ^„ \ „ „ •' Management Page 3 • "

» Hexavalent chromium was detected in groundwater samples collected from MW-6a, MW-9 and MW-13 at concentrations in excess of the SWPC of 0.11 mg/L for the July 2009 sampling event and was not detected in excess of the SWPC of 0.11 mg/L for the December 2009 sampling event. Analytical results for the July 2009 sampling event indicated an increase in hexavalent clu'omium concentrations in groundwater samples collected from MW-13, a decrease in hexavalent chromium concentrations in groundwater samples collected from MW-9 and hexavalent concentrations remained unchanged in groundwater samples . . collected from MW-6a relative to the previous December 2008 sampling event. Analytical results for the December 2009 sampling event indicated a decrease in hexavalent chroinium concentrations in groundwater samples collected from MW-6a, MW-9 and MW-13 to below the SWPC of 0.11 mg/L.

, 0 As indicated by analytical results, TPH was detected above laboratory Method Detection Limits (MDLs), normally the same value as the GA GWPC, for the July and December 2009 sampling event. TPH in groundwater collected from MW-8 exceeded tlie GA GWPC value of 0.1 mg/L, Overall, the July and December 2009 sampling eventsi indicated decreasing levels of TPH from the December 2008 sampling event. '

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The sixteenth and seventeenth semi-amiual sampling events of the NAMP at the former New England Airfoil facility in Farmington Connecticut were conducted on July 8, 2009 and December 11, 2009. Based on these results and observations, the following assumptions have been made:

o Overburden gromidwater samples indicate that concentrations appear to be generally similar to previous levels;

o Groundwater flow directions are consistent with former findings; and

o Continuation of the revised NAMP sampling effort appears warranted, due to residual concentrations of chromiiim and TPH remaining above applicable standards.

, , „ , , , , . Environmental Mr. Rich Krvstaiiowicz „ .. V. . ,;«..« Resources P a g e r " ^ Management

Please call the undersigned with any questions regarding tliis submittal.

Regards,

Robert Drake, PE, Ph.D., LEP Senior Project Manager

Michael B. Teetsel, C.P.G, Principal

Enclosures: Table 1 Groundwater Elevation Determination Table 2 Smmnary of Groundwater Analysis Data Since 1992 Figure 1 Overburden Groundwater Contours, July 2009 Figure 2 Overburden Groundwater Contours, December 2009 Appendix A Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

0101729\REPORT - 2009\DONCASTERS FARMINGTON GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT FINAL 1 FEBRUARY 2010.DOC

\ IUIAJ.. aWlOWUOHrroKNGWaiLOMTKN M/«-?- (SCRE£M£DATCROUNnYiMERTftet£]

" " ^ • r (SCREENED AT TOP OF DEDBXKI

UW.1 . f ASANOCMaS MONH'ORMC WOLS

B STORM ^WERCATCMOASn

O MVMIE

. STORM SEWER P tPDJC

PROPERTYUe

^I ' J i CS0Urmv.'ATEREL£VAT10N(FEE0

» CROUNWWERCaVIOlRlFEH)

SO 0 Sa!la(l'=1ixn SO 100

Figure 1 - Overburden Groundwaler Contours

July 2009

New England AirfoK Facility

36 Spring Lane

Farmington, CT H R M j ;

Oft^ X BEDROQCWEU

ST.l STREAM a/*IPl£ „j^» SHXIOWUOWTORWOWILLOCATCT ^ " ^ ISCREENECATCROUNOVMTEHTABIE)

' " ^ ^ (KREENEOATTOPCFDEOtOCXI

lAVI + A1U»)0.N£D UONtTORWC WEL13

a STOflW SEWER CATCH flASW

' o MANHOtE

5T0RAISEWEBP1PEIWE

PROPSiTTLtC

:^a.:r CROWDWATEREteVATlOrtiFEET)

' — cRau«D'.VArERcotnajR{FEEn

Figuro 2 - Overburden Groundwater Contours December 2009,

New England Airfoil Fadlity i, |...., 36 Spring Lane } i i^. Farmington, CT BRM

Table 1: Groimdwater Elevation Determination New England Airfoil

36 Spring Lane, Farmington, CT Work Order No. 0017573

Well ID

MW-14 •MW-13A MW-13 MW-15 MW-ll MW-9 MW-6a MW-8

•MW-17

OVERBURDEN WELL SUMMARY TAB Casing

Elevation (ft)

228.44 232.73 233.11 226,42 227.56 231.57 232.27 233.78 223,08

DTW (ft) Groundwater 7/8/2009 Elevation

16.65 211.79 destroyed

16.61 NF

22.67 24.9 16.03 14,28 14,22

216.5 -

204.89 , 206.67 216.24 219.5

206.85

DTW (ft) 12/11/2009

17.98

LE Groundwater

Elevation

210.46 destroyed |

17.9 NF

24.S2 . 26.01 17.29„ 14.73' 14.67

215.21 -

202.74 205.56 214.98 219.05 208.41

BEDROCK WELL SUMMARY TABLE WeU

ID

BR-9 BR-17 BR-18 .BR-4

Casing Elevation (ft)

233,43 224.3 219.52 226.50

DTW (ft) Groundwater 7/8/2009 Elevation

destroyed NM . ISTF

.NM

---

DTW (ft) 12/11/2009

Groundwater | Elevation |

destroyed | NM NF NM

1 --

WeU ID

MW-1 MW-2 MW-6

Casing Elevation (ft)

Unknown Unknown Unknown

DTW (ft) DTB (ft) 7/8/2009

16,23 17,27 15.08

24.14 26.03 22.21 •

DTW (ft) DTB (ft) 1

12/11/2009 1

17.38 18.4 15.77

24.14 26.03 22.21

NM = Not Measured NF = Not Found

ERM, Inc. Table 1 WellElevationTable.xk, 1/11/2010,Pagel of 1

.̂

I S I L L I D

&m'.«A

VVf i -^

MVV- l l

i m - . i j

K t W - i j i

X

K l > - - H J

k n r . 1 9

MW-17

.BR-9

Blt.17

BR-IS

3 r - i

ST-J

N o l u

BUi ikCc)

• : A n « I r

• • i l V e D ,

t ; S u r T l f i

A N A L Y I l i

T o t i l Q K E u n l t n l C I

. • N k b • •. • T W

. Sodium Chl f l r td . T o U Q

. .Nlcto l . 5 « U a m CWf l r id .

• Total Q

H»>*i.-»Jenl C I N I c l .

TPh

SffUam

To ( * IC i H e a i i t o X O

• .; N n U TPt

S r f h m , O J o r i d , T O U I Q

N t h S W m a

atartd,

H E u i - ^ l m r O

• K k i i .• K f c t a

. . . scrf l- . • . •• Q J « U , • • r ^ i c i

H o i v t f c n t Cr

• : • - -TotalCi

H e u n l w i i C i

S - l t a n Chfar id.

Chlor id. T c W Q

Six lk .m

• T o l i i Q

T o U l M

SwUmn

r s t i i o T O B J N '

Vi- r rCbur fa lun]

J - n ' M I M l y i f d l c i n d t . ' t t f r u n i i d e ]

C A C H T C

. •OB ••

. : . N B

NE

a i

ai

•OJ) • • . . N I

0 1 • 0 1

NE

0 1 0 1

•. N I • •• N I

. . N E

cue

' • 0 1

.NK

• NB • 0 1

• K B

•QBS

•. OJ

•NE •

•• O t a

• a i

dnaed.

r d l n a l o l P A

- M h , t t , C l

> f t r v r a i n r d

j J t r y H R P A v

S1\PC » 6 l

K B NG NE

D J l

oes KB

NE NE NB

a i l

N I NE

O i l O H

•. H I

NB NH

• O i l 0 £ l

ME

0 « NE •

- NB . NB • .

a n •

o «

o i l

O H

N'E

N I

•.OES

NE

NE

O H -

i v i h o d S W t l J

i n o w p u i h r d

C N l i l i i u n i a i

5 f l , « p » H

S

167

l A O

U 4

3 ^

m 1 ^

ND:.N

C^w n̂

Jl ' lhec

4-\ f m ) « 0

vco

] .3I»

t a

oldctr .

K i x a ?

J g n i r f

J u l b r E

1 •? . .

^ I W Z J M

3 ,«0 WOO

\SXD

t r i .

fat the

i f i ( e x c

U l t l K t

v™ 5.40)

1,000

K E ; C i

mrtaL.,

U n t t o

m / t u .

1-Voo

I W ) I M U

b »

l A O

I t f t l l U

W r l U

.1 V M

v r o V "

.» 7 «

i . i m RT;.:.)

i n l i b i l

Q ) t > r a

1.

» » • • •

OSJ

J x L

1 . 9 .

I J l U < 0 ) l OBI

4 1 4

W M I.4S0

3.61

I f f l 657 002 0 0 / OJU

I E ) 0.0i

BcldlT]

^ 'ov .M.

(thimrn

f

1 ^ JJ50

0 6 J O M

i » BSJ OJO U.1I (QO

13JO0

K«; i I M

p t l n l l u

K T t d r H

»•

U » 3,CT 091 O90

om

1,1M 1,E» 3J8 4 »

<aai MS 710 OOI

ow <aot

« J 7 <CUJ1

W o c r

i i l t i

- * • • •

aw (lAi*

om

1 ^

VW

>« * J 2

0.11 510 f73

M U O M

N D

0 2 1

S J , ™

V O l .T . l U J

i™ JSO

ae/ w v M l

I K

rfu,£.

i 1 ^ 1

9179 0 3 1

V M S.U

710

0,14 OJO

«00 •B l ' . ' J

U S

Dm l U l

.1,003 7.7J 1 4 ) I J i

% 1

I J I U

u o O M

t J 3 0

VW 4_1«

« 0 MO

ih','. O W

mOMC

1 l . TO

u o I B S 015

] ^

y f a

U J

t u 630 O U O U

<0 03

I J O J

rf;*̂ , L M O U l i b

r i len i

1

1,900

I JO 1^0

I f W ) U U I « 0 l-AO

oo> • I U

uo D.09 a i Q

<<0AI

& m i t r i K

U O 150 DOS

I Vra 4,100 1X0 140

om

7,400

470 f f a 0 J 2

l O S J

l a u

1-JO 170

a e

T A B L E a SUMMAnYOPINORGANICGnOUN'DWATra ANALYSIS SINCE 199

N'm Enjta<id Aii;((iil, 36 Spiini LmnFimti»jfwt, CT

. J

f D / i f * t

1. Vm

uso I J O

e O ( S

\fm 1,VU JJO 5 J 0 O M

430 SW 0.D1I

IH15 < 0 «

t a o UTOl

U O

...i 1.90J

I JO l i O

ou;

1 ^

VO) 5J0 I M 008 4 » UO O i l IIJH

<ao3

t M O

2 «

+ ^ A

N A M P

• 5 -

1,900

L W L90 W l

^̂ Vm 17U U O

<0OZ

WOO

F!'.?.

IJO

h l M t a

could r

t r a n J

1.TO

u o U B

JJOO

leo

I t J t n F

« l t w £ r

HV-13h

A l t o m

^ ""*: i ^

1 ^

•'W 410 O M 0.03

< a Q i

330 l ,4t t .

<UUJ

* W 4 i y

f U c d

'% 1,7M

l A O

<«» 1,400

y x i ,

9.0S

OJD 0 0 7

S ^

0 7 1

13^000 i ^ n i o

2 . « 1 J » 013

cnlbirii.4

1 1,5(0

1.70

- B O i

lyTO

AIO

O H J 400

OJP

<aoJ

<ao;

<nsa

<(i,OJ

M W I J ,

Pioxia i

6,

1-1,«V1 1700 u o

1 ^ 1,400 4.10

310 OJM

7an

i i t f n • n i K a

1.70

W < ] 0 )

» 19

r. uoo

u o

1.M0 7 * 0 n o i t a

OJU

j , « f l (^Wl a i l 040

7 , W i i j x n

0 1 )

g j i ;

BO <3CI5 OOI

a.

i,i™ ^ 4 « ) U l

V O 0104

z;u

O l t

0<SI

57 OOU

m

0.7J

< s . n . p W

1

» 1 MO as7 ao9

t , « «

1300 U 6 L W < j i n

1,430 1,700 J . M 3.70

<101

m 43)

aou 007

o m

0.1S0 0014

003

327

OES

1£J 135

MW

li™ i m JJO

uo o i l ) M I 0.01

0.11

0E t7

0017

QOl

J4J *m' o i l 030

3

1.2S0

r7? 140

\ m \ i m

7 U

VR W

n i l

1«X) n u n i l 0 0 1

7 ^ i M n

l i O oaa

M O07J

0 3

m KO

• L M

« i »

-:1 a.^ 1 4 0

« I 1,100

u o 110 O M 2 M

DJ I6 n u

1,4m-

rtM OJS

749

1 ^

nw n « i

79 97

0031 002

I J l ISO M l a 4 i

N O

g^B-

NAlff . . . 1 1

791

I J W

I M

11 W ) SCO I f f

- i n o • <amo

193 710

0J)U4 •q).io

ojno +

<ni low i « i n 4 M

<iino i r i

00135

ftll <mno < l i ) IO

^ n i f p <OI110

40X1 u

oca .«tno <L010

<L(no

<i(no 113

0007

<1£0J

115

< ioa3

•oos

•1 64.1

I M 1 J 0

•«.0C8 < l l 679 (03 1.S6 ).7B

<1J»5 S i i l r o 013 O i l

O i l

O J I o a n

DXY

-aoio

O.tCQ 51.1

• J X

o u 41001

o,ox doi

^ t m

n,i <]Cf f i

o o u 411

•<10O3

9

• I "

33

nn3 O O l l l

. « . l 490 W )

n t U 7,15

<00111 220 IJO

0067

4 1 1 1 «

a i 4 <i-m +-H

DXY

T9B

<aou

i M i J f l n i t

oim O 0 1 1 1

^̂̂ «̂

<oinii I S J

«aoa5 <oaB

19J

-otf»

J

0351

< ] . t 366

610 a»3 . i »

<1.C0)

ISO

L S W oos

<10]J9 • « 1

0:07 •41017

DRV

O i O O

O.CCI 115 110

a m a i 7

< u c o

0.01 ^ I L U I I

•<aoiis I S J

<toau •oiaB)

136

L J A O O H

•4L0011

1:; a m

IJOO

i m -

0 D 3 U OJ»S

• « J

^ I f O

117 101'

01)147 < l , l t D

•flXOlW

OODS <aoM O.C05

131 1 M

0136 aiss

<ID330

47.6

<uaa •jioaM

ao3C» M i )

•OXO30

4 ) COM

140

< l j B i Q "OOBO

§ •

2 ) 1

11731 a»50

* o i 117 351

O J U asco

779 140

o w n aojo

•4.1

OJPO

l i s S Z I

00303 <ttiCO

+

O i t S I B ) 4 U

00990 (CLSa

•410150 M S

*UUU30

•*WSO

0.016]

144

<Lano •tLOQM

14.6

•omso 4UXIJ0

1 0 7 1 1 -

- f t l * • o f m , -

1 - 1 9 1

sa a4< 057 ooa

219

I U 0(061 aou

•<11

nmH -nwi

•41003

144

ao»4 0016 4UB3 4L01

-om5--OMft • m 147

IL1U a i l

-aaa <\l

aoosi 3 0 1

•<LaH

J l J

a o u < a j a i

4 434

0 2 M

o i l •4L0175

• ( t t l

173 S12

a M 3

<1017S 213 253

OJ • < j n 7 3

- 4 1

00914 0X91

0 0 1 7 5

t l -

CHT

< c n 7 j

3 3 5

64 < l i U l ( < u n o

<LI1175

3 4 J <U13U 0007

1» MJ

<AoUI

•41017:

• q ) i o i

U l <un i •4).00J

1

O M * OJS

•411

+

KO 133

0CU19

•4L0H)

•<ai

':Llia •diooa

• » " t

160 247

aam < i in f>

* n o o

)7a 46E

O O U I OO l l

a o B f I U

T J B 3 -eO iU I )

• ! •

<f l .a )a

•<0.Dn3

115

. 1 .

1U7I

« J 3

O O V l

mui

9

161 116

0.4 0 4 1 -BOIO

• O l 390 433

I J ( t 0 7 1

•OCIOO

714 aoin

4 0 1 0

251 - 7 1 1

aoui 007 -OOI

i 7 1

< i ( i i n •dlOlO .0004 161 117

0121

0 1 1

41010)

<O01

1B.6

<aoo3 41iXH

I 9 J -lOOOS <aoa)

-1

a n

M DL»1

» 9

M l

U l

i

1 1 !

a j i i a t t i

• j l l » 7

DJS9

0 J «

m

n m

1;. i;s

01*6 B.17

1.1 I S I M l

0JJ7 031

^ 1 ^ 361

014

i ^w

OlCfi O l »

"JM im

oi«« 065

196 ica

(16

• 5

o i l

•4LI 141 191

o a r D.U

7 «

<|L123

-

93J

Oi»4 c O ^

1,7 164 317

B.«J 0.4S

<0. l

< (J»S

.? "a

• 7

711 31E

D0457 < O i i

I S 711 470

a i T i

DLJOO

4 1 1

1 1 1 0

<a ia

t. eso

o o i 11

4I.0W

4 1 1

OQJO

' •7'^-Si. •

C / p K t > n / : ^ H M / TtKt 3 C1V4I i J fA . ' IT i ^ Kfclnta* i ^