061511 Site Investigation Report DRAFT · Site Investigation - Mintzer Brothers The Johnson Company, Inc. Rutland, Vermont -1- June 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On May 10,

Site Investigation

Mintzer Brothers Property Strongs Avenue

Rutland, Vermont

SMS Site # 92-1324 Latitude 43° 36' 11"N

Longitude 72° 58' 32"E

Prepared for: Ryan, Smith & Carbine, LTD

Mead Building-Merchants Row PO Box 310

Rutland, Vermont 05702-0310 Contact: Tom Dowling, Esq.

(802) 786-1000

Prepared By: The Johnson Company, Inc. 100 State Street, Suite 600

Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Contact: Kurt Muller

(802) 229-4600

June 16, 2011

Phase (check one) Type (check one)□Initial Site Investigation □Corrective Action Feasibility Investigation □Corrective Action Plan □Corrective Action Summary Report ×Operations & Monitoring Report

□Work Scope □Technical Report □PCF Reimbursement Request □General Correspondence

Site Investigation - Mintzer Brothers The Johnson Company, Inc. Rutland, Vermont -i- June 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On May 10, 2011 The Johnson Company performed a round of groundwater monitoring at the Mintzer Brothers Property, located at 60 Strongs Avenue in Rutland, Vermont (the Site). In addition to the annual groundwater monitoring, monitoring wells MW-1 and JMW-9 were closed in accordance with Vermont State regulations: MW-1 was a redundant up-gradient well and concentrations in JMW-9 were shown to be declining. Based upon the work completed to date at the Site and the data collected from the recent groundwater investigation, The Johnson Company concludes the following: The potentiometric groundwater surface, as gauged on May 10, 2011 indicates that

groundwater flow is towards the south-southwest across the Site, with an overall hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.050 foot/foot recorded between MW-5 and JMW-8.

Groundwater sampling and analysis indicated that elevated concentrations of petroleum-related VOCs in exceedance of the Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards (VGES) exist at the Site in five (5) of the seven (7) wells sampled on May 10, 2011. Total VOC concentrations in wells with contaminants in exceedance of VGES are as follows: MW-3 (13,780 µg/L), MW-4 (73 µg/L), JMW-6 (43,513 µg/L), MW-7 (63,512 µg/L), and MW-8 (19,821 µg/L).

Total VOC concentrations in the following wells decreased between April 2010 and May 2011: MW-2 (2,405 µg/L in 2010 vs. 130 µg/L in 2011), MW-3 (19,500 µg/L vs. 13,780 µg/L), and JMW-6 (60,120 µg/L vs. 43,513 µg/L).

Total VOC concentrations in the following wells have remained relatively constant since the April 2010 sampling event: MW-5 (no detections during either sample event), and MW-7 (64,108 µg/L vs. 63,512 µg/L).

Total VOC concentrations in JMW-4 increased as compared to the 2010 analytical results from JMW-4. No VGES exceedances were reported in the 2010 sample, whereas exceedances of MTBE and Benzene were reported in the 2011 sample.

Total VOC concentrations in JMW-8 doubled between April 2010 and May 2011 from 9,530 µg/L to 19,821 µg/L.

These analytical results, particularly the generally decreasing concentrations in the more up-gradient wells (MW-2 and MW-3) and the increasing concentrations in the down-gradient wells JMW-4 and JMW-8 suggests that the contaminant plume is migrating in a south-southwesterly direction (hydraulically down-gradient).

Based on the lack of sensitive receptors to the contaminants monitored on Site, The

Johnson Company recommends the existing monitoring wells continue to be monitored on an annual basis in order to continue tracking contaminant concentrations and contaminant plume migration at the Site. Future monitoring events should indicate inspection of the slope leading to the Rutland Railyard property to south west of the site for indications of petroleum impacts.

Site Investigation - Mintzer Brothers The Johnson Company, Inc. Rutland, Vermont -ii- June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1 2.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 2 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 GROUNDWATER HYDRAULICS ........................................................................................ 3 3.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ............................................................................................... 4 3.3 RECEPTOR ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 6 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................ 7

4.0 WELL CLOSURE (MW-1 & JMW-9) ................................................................................. 8 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 9

TABLES Table 1: Summary of Groundwater Relative Elevations .................................................................3 Table 2: Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results – May 2011 ...............................................5 FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Plan and Monitoring Well Locations Figure 3: Groundwater Elevation Map Figure 4: Total Petroleum VOC Delineation, May 2011 Figure 5: Total BTEX Delineation, May 2011 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Sampling Logs Attachment 2: Laboratory Reports Attachment 3: Historic Analytical Groundwater Data Attachment 4: MW-1 and JMW-9 Well Closure Report

Site Investigation - Mintzer Brothers The Johnson Company, Inc. Rutland, Vermont -1- June 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2011, The Johnson Company performed groundwater monitoring at the

Mintzer Brothers Property, located at 60 Strongs Avenue in Rutland, Vermont (the Site),

illustrated in Figure 1. In addition to the monitoring, two monitoring wells, MW-1 and JMW-9,

were closed as they are no longer required to characterize groundwater conditions at the Site.

The Site is bisected by Strongs Avenue and is comprised of two parcels: a 2.9 acre parcel to the

west (West property) and a 0.22 acre parcel to the east (East property; see Figure 2). As of

December 2, 1992, the Site has been listed with the Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation (VTDEC) on the Active Hazardous Waste Site List (VTDEC Site No. 92-1324), as

a result of the discovery of free phase petroleum product during the decommissioning of several

underground petroleum storage tanks (USTs) on the East property.

The most recent (May 10, 2011) groundwater monitoring and well closure event follows

extensive investigation activities which were conducted at the Site between 1992 and December

2007 which included: 1) closure of seven (7) USTs on the East property and five (5) USTs on the

West property; 2) excavation of petroleum contaminated soil from the East property and onsite

treatment of that soil on the West property; 3) installation and intermittent sampling of eight

groundwater monitoring wells; 4) a limited soil vapor investigation using PETREX methods; 5)

a limited soil test pit investigation; 6) a limited indoor air screening effort; and 7) screening of

the adjacent catch basins. More recently, on November 29, 2007, one soil boring was advanced

and four monitoring wells were installed (one new location and three of which were replacement

wells for those that had been destroyed as of 2006). Since the November 2007 investigation,

groundwater monitoring rounds were performed by The Johnson Company on December 20,

2007, October 29, 2008, April 22, 2010, and most recently on May 10, 2011. The May 10, 2011

field effort also included closure of groundwater monitoring wells MW-1 and JMW-9.

This report is intended to provide a summary of the May 10, 2011 groundwater

monitoring and well closure event. This investigation included inspection of all nine (9) wells.


Water levels were measured in all nine (9) of the on-site monitoring wells, and analytical

samples were collected from seven (7) of the nine (9) wells. The two wells which were not

sampled (MW-1 and JMW-9) were closed in accordance with Vermont State regulations.

2.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

The groundwater samples collected during the May 2011 sampling event were from

monitoring wells MW-2, MW-3, JMW-4, MW-5, JMW-6, MW-7, and JMW-8 pursuant to the

approved work plan for groundwater monitoring revised February 11, 2010. Approval of the

well closure effort was provided in emails from Mr. Matt Moran on June 17, 2010 but the main

scope of work outlined in the February 2010 plan was not changed. A site sketch, provided in

Figure 2, shows monitoring well locations and other pertinent site features.

Prior to groundwater sampling, the annular space inside each well casing was field

screened with a photoionization detector (PID), a depth to water relative to the top of casing

(TOC) for each well was measured using a decontaminated electronic water meter, and any

odors present upon opening the well casing associated with the field screening were noted.

These data are presented in Table 1 and depth-to-water readings were used to generate a relative

groundwater elevation contour map (see Figure 3).

Groundwater samples were collected from all seven (7) wells using dedicated bailers.

Wells were bailed until 3 well volumes were purged or the well was purged dry in an effort to

collect a sample of representative groundwater conditions. Wells which were purged dry were

allowed to recharge prior to sample collection. Physiochemical parameters were not measured

during this sampling event.

Two hydrochloric acid-preserved 40 milliliter glass vials (for the analysis of VOCs via

EPA Method 8021B) were filled for each sample. Additionally, two unpreserved 40 milliliter

glass vials (for low-level analysis of Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) via EPA method 504.1) were

filled while sampling JMW-6, MW-7 and JMW-8. Low level EDB analysis was not required for


MW-2, MW-3, JMW-4, and MW-5, as previous results have confirmed a lack of EDB at these

particular locations. With the exception of JMW-6, all sample vials packaged in a chilled cooler

immediately following collection and shipped under chain of custody protocol, accompanied

with a trip and temperature blank to Eastern Analytical Laboratories, Inc. of Concord, New

Hampshire (Eastern). The JMW-6 sample deviation is discussed in Section 3.4 – Quality

Control.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 GROUNDWATER HYDRAULICS

A summary of depth to water readings, TOC elevations, relative groundwater elevations

and PID readings is provided in Table 1. These data were used to generate the relative

groundwater elevation contour map provided in Figure 3.

Table 1 Summary of Relative Groundwater Elevations

Mintzer Brothers Property, Rutland, VT

Location ID Date

Top of Casing

(ft)

Total Depth

(ftbtoc)

Depth to Groundwater

(ftbtoc)

Relative Groundwater

Elev. (ft) PID

(ppmV) MW-1* 5/10/2011 101.28 25.34 4.16 97.12 0

MW-2 @

5/10/2011 99.75 18.73 0.79 98.96

0.2

MW-3** 5/10/2011 97.96 12.00 0.93 97.03 4.1

JMW-4 5/10/2011 90.49 11.87 2.35 88.14 0.2

MW-5 5/10/2011 101.33 10.05 3.95 97.38 0

JMW-6 5/10/2011 90.98 10.14 2.45 88.53 21.3

MW-7 5/10/2011 92.06 9.30 0.50 91.56 74.2

JMW-8 5/10/2011 89.05 11.56 5.08 83.97 36.8

JMW-9 5/10/2011 95.36 9.31 3.94 91.42 0.3 Notes: All elevations relative to Giancola Construction survey of wells December, 2002 ftbtoc = feet below top of PVC casing. ppmV = Parts per million by volume

* Top of Casing Elevation based on JCO survey of 10/28/08 ** well installed at angle and depth below top of casing and water table elevation may be inaccurate @ Groundwater elevation is anomalous compared to previous years, and was excluded from the groundwater isocontours shown in Figure 3


The most recent groundwater elevation data indicate an overall south-southwesterly flow

direction at an average hydraulic gradient of 0.050 foot/foot. This flow direction and gradient is

consistent with the 2010 potentiometric data. Note that the groundwater elevation measured in

MW-2 appears to be anomalous (the groundwater elevation in MW-2 is approximately 4 ft

higher than in 2010 while potentiometric elevations in other wells are generally consistent with

2010 elevations), and is excluded from the groundwater potentiometric map. The gradient was

calculated for the groundwater flow path between monitoring wells MW-5 and JMW-8.

Monitoring well MW-3 was installed at an angle; therefore groundwater elevations from this

location were not used when determining the potentiometric map for these data.

3.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Physiochemical parameters were not required or collected during this sampling round.

Instead of purging until stabilization of physiochemical parameters, the wells were purged until

either three well volumes had been removed or the wells had been purged dry, whereupon

analytical samples were collected after sufficient recovery of water into the well. Sample

collection logs are provided in Attachment 1.

Copies of the laboratory reports provided by Eastern for the groundwater analyses are

included in Attachment 2. The final laboratory reports were received by The Johnson Company

on May 20, 2011.

A summary table of detected compounds in groundwater samples collected on May 10,

2011 is provided in Table 2; Figures 4 and 5 are graphical representations of total petroleum-

related VOC concentrations and total BTEX concentrations in groundwater, respectively.

Finally, a summary table of historical groundwater analytical data collected from the Site is

included as Attachment 3.

The results received from the laboratory analyses reveal that of the seven (7) monitoring

wells sampled, MW-5 did not contain VOC concentrations above laboratory detection limits and

MW-2 did not have exceedances of Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards (VGES).

However, the following five (5) wells all reported exceedances of VGES:


MW-3: Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Naphthalene, and total Trimethylbenzenes JMW-4: MTBE and Benzene JMW-6 and JMW-8: MTBE, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, total

Trimethylbenzenes, and EDB MW-7: MTBE, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, total Trimethylbenzenes, and EDB Table 2 summarizes these analytical results.

Table 2

Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results-May 10, 2011

Mintzer Brothers Property, Strongs Avenue, Rutland, VT

(All concentrations are reported in units of ug/L )

Location ID

MTBE Benzene Toluene Ethyl-benzene

Total Xylenes

Total BTEX

Naph-thalene

1,3,5 TMB

1,2,4 TMB

EDB 1,2-DCA

Total VOCs

MW-2 < 5 3 5 29 56 93 6 6 25 < 1 < 2 130

MW-3 < 50 5,100 120 2,000 3,760 10980 700 < 50 2,100 < 50 < 30 13,780

JMW-4 66 7 < 1 < 1 < 2 7 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 73

MW-5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 ND < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 ND

JMW-6 500 9,700 20,000 2,000 9,600 41300 < 500 400 1,300 13 < 50 43,513

MW-7 300 17,000 22,000 2,800 15,700 57500 600 600 2,100 11 < 50 61,111

VOC-Dup 300 18,000 23,000 3,000 15,900 59900 600 600 2,100 12 < 50 63,512 RPD % 0.00% 5.71% 4.44% 6.90% 1.27% 4.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.70% --- 3.85% JMW-8 1,000 2,700 7,300 1,400 6,200 17600 < 300 220 1,000 0.8 < 30 19,821

Eq. Blank < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 ND < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 ND

Trip Blank < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 ND < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 ND

VGES 40 5 1,000 700 10,000 20 350* 0.05 5

Notes:

Total BTEX = Sum of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, O-Xylene, and MP-Xylene concentrations

For purposes of calculating Total BTEX and Total VOCs, non-detects are assumed to be zero

MTBE = methyl-tert-butyl ether

TMB = Trimethylbenzenes

EDB = Ethylene Dibromide

Eq. Blank - Equipment blank collected by passing deionized water over decontaminate sampling equipment into appropriate sample containers 1,2-DCA = 1,2 – Dichloroethane

RPD % = Relative Percent Difference = [(X1 - X2)/Xaverage] x 100

VGES = Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards

RPD not calculated where one or more results is a non-detect

ND = non-detect (the quantitation limit is given)

Boldface and shaded concentrations exceed Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards

All analyses were performed using EPA Method 8021B with the exception of EDB in J-MW-6, MW-7, J-MW-8, and VOC-Dup.

J-MW-6, MW-7, J-MW-8, and VOC-Dup EDB analysis by 8011/504

All analysis, with the exception of EDB, were performed by Eastern Analytical Inc. Laboratories of Concord, NH

VOC-Dup. is a Duplicate sample of MW-7

* as of 2/26/2007 combined 1,2,4 – Trimethylbenzenes and 1,3,5 – Trimethylbenzenes VGES is 350 µg/L


The reported total VOC concentrations in JMW-4 increased for the second sampling

round in a row. In 2008 and 2010, no compounds reported in the JMW-4 sample were present

above VGES, but the 2010 detected concentrations were greater than the 2008 detected

concentrations. In 2011, both MTBE and Benzene concentrations exceed VGES. The JMW-8

sample reported a total VOC concentration more than twice the reported 2010 concentration.

This increase in total VOC concentration is primarily a result of increases in MTBE, Benzene,

and Toluene concentrations. Reported total VOC concentrations in the other five samples were

stable (MW-5 and MW-7) or declining (MW-2, MW-3, and JMW-6) as compared to the May

2010 total VOC concentrations.

3.3 RECEPTOR ANALYSIS

There is one private water supply well located approximately 1,500-feet to the west, and

is registered under Record No. 50121. Based on topography and the location of the Otter Creek

(4,000 feet to the west, and 50 feet lower in elevation) with respect to the former USTs, the

closest water supply well is likely hydraulically down gradient from the former USTs. However,

this well is in a highly industrial area of the city with several other state listed hazardous sites in

its vicinity. One of the listed hazardous sites is situated between the Mintzer Brothers property

and this supply well in question. The exact status of this well is unknown, however the Agency

of Natural Resource’s Well locator database reported that the well was set in gravel and is 230

feet deep.

The nearest surface water body is the Otter Creek, located approximately 4,000 feet west

of the former USTs. According to Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Significant Habitat

Map (1997), there are no mapped wetlands either on, or in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

The classified wetland nearest the site is located approximately 3,500-feet to the south east, and

is considered to be up-gradient of the presumed groundwater flow direction. Given the relative

proximity and the presumed direction of groundwater flow it is unlikely that these wetlands have

been influenced by the former USTs at the Site.


The closest residences to the Site are approximately 500 feet to the east. Their indoor air

quality is not likely to be affected as a result of the former USTs and the minimal amounts of

petroleum impacted soil and groundwater. Previous monitoring reports associated with

investigations at the Site indicated that indoor air quality in the basement of the Mintzer property

retail store (located between the Site and the residences of interest) had been screened and no

detections of volatile vapors were identified. The building where the vapor screening took place

is situated approximately 100 feet to the east of the UST 5 tank grave (where elevated PID

readings were observed).

3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

Appropriate measures were taken to assure a strict level of quality control. The relative

percent difference (RPD) between the duplicate and parent sample were all less than 10 percent

indicating a good correlation between the parent and the duplicate. The duplicate sample was

collected from monitoring well MW-7. The specific RPDs for each analyte are provided in Table

3.

According to the final laboratory report received from Eastern on May 20, 2011, 1)

samples were extracted and analyzed within holding time limits; 2) instrumentation was

calibrated in accordance with the method requirements; 3) the method blanks were free of

contamination at the reporting limits; 4) Sample surrogate recoveries were within the acceptable

range, and 5) the associated matrix spikes and/or Laboratory Control Samples met acceptance

criteria.

Eastern reported the following analytes with detection limits above their respective

VGES standard: 1,2-Dichloroethane (MW-3, JMW-6, MW-7, and JMW-8); EDB (MW-2, MW-

3, JMW-4, and MW-5). The elevated 1,2-Dichloroethane laboratory reporting limits are the

results of the laboratory diluting the samples, which is often required when samples are of high

concentrations. The EDB reporting limits noted above were elevated because low-level EDB

analysis via EPA method 504 was not required for these samples.


The elevated 1,2-Dichloroethane elevated reporting limits are not considered significant

because the samples with these elevated reporting limits contained significant exceedances of

other analytes. The elevated EDB reporting limits are not considered significant because EDB

has not historically been detected in these wells.

The sample from MW-6 was not placed in the ice-filled cooler immediately upon

collection. Instead, the sample was inadvertently left un-chilled for a period of approximately 21

hours. This deviation from sampling protocol was discussed with Ms. Kathleen Noonan-Kelly

of Eastern Analytical Services. Ms. Noonan-Kelly indicated that this deviation would be

unlikely to affect the analytical results, provided no bubbles were present in the sample VOAs.

The VOAs were inspected by JCO staff at approximately 9AM on May 6, 2011, and no bubbles

were observed. As no bubbles were present, the sample was immediately placed in the JCO

sample preservation refrigerator to await transport to the laboratory for analysis. No bubbles

were noted upon sample receipt at the laboratory so the results are considered valid. In

summary, the data quality objectives were met.

4.0 WELL CLOSURE (MW-1 & JMW-9)

Following completion of the groundwater sample collection effort, wells MW-1 and

JMW-9 were closed in accordance with Vermont State Regulations. To close MW-1, the road

box was first removed using an iron bar, and a hole was dug around the casing to a depth of

approximately 2 ft below ground surface (bgs). A tripod-mounted winch was then used to pull

the casing up approximately 1 foot and the bottom cap was punched out using 30 ft of heavy

steel pipe. Approximately 5 gallons of thick grout (at ratio of 7 cups bentonite powder to 3

gallons water) were poured down the well. During grouting, the well casing was pulled up to

approximately 2.5 ft above ground surface (ags) and filled with grout to create hydraulic pressure

to force the grout down the casing. As the borehole stopped accepting additional grout, a section

of the casing was cut off, the new top of casing pulled up to approximately 2.5 ft bgs, and

additional grout was added to the well. Once the casing was completely removed, approximately

¾ of a bag of bentonite chips were poured down the hole. A short section of the former well


casing was used to push this bentonite down the borehole, as the chips tended to bridge on the

thick grout. The hole was filled to approximately 2 ft bgs with bentonite chips, which were

hydrated using tap water. Concrete was placed from 2 ft bgs to 0.5 ft bgs. Topsoil was placed in

the hole and compacted to ground surface. The area was then seeded with a grass-seed/mulch

mixture and hydrated.

During removal of JMW-9, the road box was removed and a hole dug around the casing

to a depth of approximately 1.5 ft bgs. The bottom cap of JMW-9 could not be punched out so

the casing was removed entirely and approximately 2 gallons of thick liquid grout were poured

down the well, followed by ¼ of a bag of bentonite chips. The former well casing was used as a

plunger to force the grout and chips down the borehole. The chips were placed to approximately

1.5 ft bgs, concrete was placed from 1.5-0.5 ft bgs, and the remainder of the hole was backfilled

to grade with compacted Site soil. Grass dug up during the road box removal was placed around

the former well location and hydrated.

Following closure of these wells, a well closure report was prepared and submitted to the

State of Vermont. A copy of this report is attached as Attachment 4.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the work completed to date at the Site and the data collected from the recent

groundwater investigation on May 10, 2011, The Johnson Company concludes the following:

The potentiometric groundwater surface, as gauged on May 10, 2011 indicates that

groundwater flow is towards the south-southwest across the Site, with an overall hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.050 foot/foot recorded between MW-5 and JMW-8.

Groundwater sampling and analysis indicated that elevated concentrations of petroleum-related VOCs in exceedance of the Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards (VGES) exist at the Site in five (5) of the seven (7) wells sampled on May 10, 2011. Total VOC concentrations in wells with contaminants in exceedance of VGES are as follows: MW-3 (13,780 µg/L), MW-4 (73 µg/L), JMW-6 (43,513 µg/L), MW-7 (63,512 µg/L), and MW-8 (19,821 µg/L).


Total VOC concentrations in the following wells decreased between April 2010 and May 2011: MW-2 (2,405 µg/L in 2010 vs. 130 µg/L in 2011), MW-3 (19,500 µg/L vs. 13,780 µg/L), and JMW-6 (60,120 µg/L vs. 43,513 µg/L).

Total VOC concentrations in the following wells have remained relatively constant since the April 2010 sampling event: MW-5 (no detections during either sample event), and MW-7 (64,108 µg/L vs. 63,512 µg/L).

Total VOC concentrations in JMW-4 increased as compared to the 2010 analytical results from JMW-4. No VGES exceedances were reported in the 2010 sample, whereas exceedances of MTBE and Benzene were reported in the 2011 sample.

Total VOC concentrations in JMW-8 doubled between April 2010 and May 2011 from 9,530 µg/L to 19,821 µg/L.

These analytical results, particularly the generally decreasing concentrations in the more up-gradient wells (MW-2 and MW-3) and the increasing concentrations in the down-gradient wells JMW-4 and JMW-8 suggests that the contaminant plume is migrating in a south-southwesterly direction (hydraulically down-gradient).

Based on the lack of sensitive receptors to the contaminants monitored on Site, The

Johnson Company recommends the existing monitoring wells continue to be monitored on an

annual basis in order to continue tracking contaminant concentrations and contaminant plume

migration at the Site. Future monitoring events should indicate inspection of the slope leading to

the Rutland Railyard property to south west of the site for indications of petroleum impacts.

FIGURES

��

� � �

��

��

��

��

�� !��"#"$%&#'�(�)�&*%&�$+!��

�,��-�,��./��0�%"�1!� &+��(�!�(!2�&�*��$��!!%��$

��/��

��

��3/��4��,��3��455

��

3��566� �7�5�7�8��&#%

��

�3�9�

ATTACHMENT 1

SAMPLING LOGS

ATTACHMENT 2

LABORATORY REPORTS

ATTACHMENT 3

HISTORIC ANALYTICAL GROUNDWATER DATA

Attachment 3: Historic Analytical Groundwater Sampling ResultsMintzer Brothers, Strongs Avenue, Rutland, VermontAll units in ug/LJCO Number: 1-1865-4

Location Sample Date VGES Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSBenzene 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylbenzene 700 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSXylenes (total) 10,000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSLocation Sample Date VGES

Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 ND ND 170 U 50 U 25 U 50 U 13 U 5Benzene 5 161 1690 1400 1800 1200 370 53 1601,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 64.9 1560 660 740 1880 620 45 380Ethylbenzene 700 51.9 929 1400 1000 620 370 43 280Xylenes (total) 10,000 55.6 2519 3400 1500 3000 2300 160 11001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

333 6,698 7,030 5,040 6,700 3,660 301 1,920Location Sample Date VGES

Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 13,500 4,950 13,000 9,600 6,600 19,000 22,000 5,700Benzene 5 13,100 3,070 3,200 4,000 2,200 3,300 3,600 2,4001,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 15,200 1,590 520 650 560 560 370 U 500Ethylbenzene 700 996 1,170 1,600 2,100 1,600 1,500 1,700 1,600Xylenes (total) 10,000 7,440 9,000 12,200 13,000 13,000 12,000 9,700 10,0001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

50,236 19,780 30,520 29,350 23,960 36,360 37,370 19,700

11/18/1999 4/11/2000 4/2/2002 12/4/2002

12/4/2002

8/18/1993 8/26/1997 8/19/1999 11/18/1999 4/11/2000 4/2/2002 12/4/2002

8/18/1993

8/26/1997 8/19/1999 11/18/1999 4/2/20024/11/20008/18/1993

7/3/2001

7/3/2001

7/3/2001

350*

8/26/1997 8/19/1999

350*

350*

MW-1

MW-2

MW-3

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

K:\1-1865-4\2011 May Monitoring Report\Attachments\Attachment 3 - Historical GW analytical 060611 DRAFT.xls Page 1 of 8


Location Sample Date VGES Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 13.6 11.5 25 21 ND 33 ND 13Benzene 5 ND ND 6.5 0.9 ND 53 1.7 0.81,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 ND ND ND ND ND 1.8 ND NDEthylbenzene 700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDXylenes (total) 10,000 ND ND ND ND ND 4.5 ND ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

13.6 11.5 31.5 21.9 ND 92.3 1.7 13.8Location Sample Date VGES

Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 NS ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzene 5 NS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 NS ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEthylbenzene 700 NS ND ND ND ND ND ND NDXylenes (total) 10,000 NS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS ND ND ND ND ND ND NDLocation Sample Date VGES

Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 NS ND 660 510 210 430 350 330Benzene 5 NS 566 2,800 2,100 470 1,700 740 7501,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 NS 683 4,300 2,200 200 650 350 400Ethylbenzene 700 NS 33 660 550 92 300 190 290Xylenes (total) 10,000 NS 834 2,800 2,600 480 790 280 5901,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS 2,116 11,220 7,960 1,452 3,870 1,910 2,360

4/11/2000 7/3/2001 4/2/2002 12/4/2002

350*

4/11/2000 7/3/2001 4/2/2002 12/4/20028/18/1993 8/26/1997 8/19/1999

4/2/2002 12/4/20024/11/20008/18/1993 8/26/1997 8/19/1999 11/18/1999

TOTAL VOCs

7/3/2001

350*

8/19/1999 11/18/1999

MW-5

JMW-6

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

350*

11/18/1999

8/18/1993 8/26/1997

JMW-4



Location Sample Date VGES Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 NS 7,480 6,500 9,200 3,000 13,000 4,300 5,600Benzene 5 NS 30,300 27,000 26,000 18,000 20,000 13,000 15,0001,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 NS 28,900 30,000 26,000 28,000 27,000 21,000 24,000Ethylbenzene 700 NS 1,030 2,000 1,800 1,300 1,800 1,700 1,600Xylenes (total) 10,000 NS 7,330 9,700 15,000 13,000 14,000 11,000 14,0001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS 75,040 75,200 78,000 63,300 75,800 51,000 60,200Location Sample Date VGES

Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 NS 17.1 87 82 ND 46 9.6 18Benzene 5 NS 60.5 130 15 ND 220 1.7 3.61,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 NS ND 5.6 ND ND 9.8 ND NDEthylbenzene 700 NS ND 1.1 0.9 ND 1.8 ND NDXylenes (total) 10,000 NS ND 8.6 1 ND 5.8 ND ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS 77.6 232.3 98.9 ND 283.4 11.3 21.6

350*

4/11/2000 7/3/2001 4/2/2002 12/4/20028/18/1993 8/26/1997 8/19/1999 11/18/1999

12/4/20028/26/1997 8/19/1999 11/18/1999 4/11/20008/18/1993

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

MW-7

JMW-8

350*

7/3/2001 4/2/2002



Location Sample Date VGES Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSBenzene 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2-Dichloroethane 5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSToluene 1,000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylbenzene 700 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSXylenes (total) 10,000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNaphthalene 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSEthylene Dibromide 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Notes:Bold/Shaded = Exceeds Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standard (VGES)JCO = The Johnson Company, Montpelier, VT NS = Not SampledND = Not Detected above laboratory detection limits350* = as of 2/26/2007 combined 1,2,4 - trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5 - trimethylbenzene VGES is 350 ppbClosed - Well Decommissioned in accordance with Vermont Well Closure regulations

11/18/1999

350*

4/11/2000 7/3/2001 4/2/2002 12/4/20028/18/1993 8/26/1997 8/19/1999

JMW-9

TOTAL VOCs



Location Sample Date VGES Methyl-t-Butyl Ether 40Benzene 51,2-Dichloroethane 5Toluene 1,000Ethylbenzene 700Xylenes (total) 10,0001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneNaphthalene 20Ethylene Dibromide 0.05



350*

350*

350*

MW-1

MW-2

MW-3

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

ND U 5 U 5 NSND U 1 U 1 NS

NS U 2 U 2 NS

ND U 1 U 1 NS

ND U 1 U 1 NS

ND U 1 U 1 NS

ND U 1 U 1 NS

ND U 1 U 1 NS

ND U 5 U 5 NS

NS 0.03 U 0.02 NS

ND 0.03 0 NS

U 100 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5269 10 110 77 3NS U 2 U 2 U 5 U 2709 35 580 230 5899 50 900 430 29

3970 108 2100 1220 56ND 4 120 78 6ND 37 490 300 25ND 11 160 70 6NS 0.19 U 0.02 U 5 U 1

5,847 255 4460 2405 130

NS 1,000 530 170 U 50NS 6,700 6,600 6,900 5,100NS U 5 U 50 U 50 U 30NS 180 150 260 120NS 1,600 1,500 2,300 2,000NS 6,440 3,810 6,410 3,760NS 610 210 160 U 50NS 2,200 1,400 2,600 2,100NS 700 400 700 700NS U 0.02 U 0.02 U 50 U 50NS 19,430 14600 19500 13780

4/22/2010

4/23/2010

4/23/2010

12/8/2004

12/8/2004

12/8/2004

12/20/2007

12/20/2007

12/20/2007

10/29/2008

10/29/2008

10/29/2008

ClosedClosedClosedClosed

Closed

5/10/2011

5/10/2011

ClosedClosedClosedClosedClosedClosed






350*

TOTAL VOCs

350*

MW-5

JMW-6

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

350*

JMW-4

262 470 U 5 30 6622.1 U 1 U 1 2 7NS U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2

U 1 1 U 1 10 U 1U 1 U 1 U 1 2 U 1U 2 1 U 1 9 U 2

NS U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1NS U 1 U 1 1 U 1NS U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5NS U 0.02 U 0.02 U 1 U 1

284.1 472 0 54 73

ND NS U 5 U 5 U 5U 1 NS U 1 U 1 U 1

NS NS U 2 U 2 U 2U 1 NS U 1 U 1 U 1U 1 NS U 1 U 1 U 1U 2 NS U 1 U 2 U 2

NS NS U 1 U 1 U 1NS NS U 1 U 1 U 1NS NS U 5 U 5 U 5NS NS U 0.02 U 1 U 1ND NS 0 0 0

884 3,600 1,500 300 5002,090 19,000 20,000 16,000 9,700NS U 5 U 20 U 20 U 50476 26,000 22,000 27,000 20,000116 1,800 2,200 2,600 2,000258 9,200 10,000 12,100 9,600NS 450 330 300 400NS 1,500 1,300 1,300 1,300NS 4,200 500 500 U 500NS 26 70 20 13

3,824 65,776 57900 60120 43513

4/23/2010

4/23/2010

4/23/201012/8/2004

12/8/2004

12/20/2007

12/20/2007

12/8/2004 12/20/2007 10/29/2008

5/10/2011

10/29/2008

10/29/2008

5/10/2011

5/10/2011





350*

TOTAL VOCs

TOTAL VOCs

MW-7

JMW-8

350*

6,420 1,100 410 400 30015,200 18,000 6,300 18,000 17,000

NS U 5 U 5 U 20 U 5027,100 25,000 5,700 21,000 22,0001,770 2,200 1,200 3,300 2,80011,100 10,700 7,100 17,900 15,700

NS 430 250 600 600NS 1,400 990 2,200 2,100NS 400 300 700 600NS 6 0.20 8 11

61,590 59,236 22250.2 64108 61111

NS 1,300 740 120 1,000NS 2,800 2,200 1,500 2,700NS U 5 U 5 U 10 U 30NS 9,800 1,600 1,000 7,300NS 1,500 1,300 1,400 1,400NS 7,000 3,700 4,100 6,200NS 450 210 110 220NS 1,400 950 1,100 1,000NS 400 290 200 U 300NS 1 0.89 0.16 0.8NS 24,651 10990.9 9530 19821

4/23/2010

4/23/201012/8/2004 12/20/2007

12/20/200712/8/2004 10/29/2008

10/29/2008

5/10/2011

5/10/2011




Notes:Bold/Shaded = Exceeds Vermont GroundwateJCO = The Johnson Company, Montpelier, VT NS = Not SampledND = Not Detected above laboratory detection l350* = as of 2/26/2007 combined 1,2,4 - trimethClosed - Well Decommissioned in accordance w

350*

JMW-9

TOTAL VOCs

NS U 5 U 5 U 5NS U 2 U 1 U 1NS U 2 U 2 U 2NS 23 U 1 U 1NS 73 U 1 U 1NS 1,050 7 U 2NS 170 2 U 1NS 310 4 U 1NS 70 U 5 U 5NS U 0 U 0.02 U 1NS 1,696 13 0

4/23/201012/8/2004 12/20/2007 10/29/2008

ClosedClosedClosedClosedClosedClosed

ClosedClosedClosedClosedClosed


ATTACHMENT 4

MW-1 AND JMW-9 WELL CLOSURE REPORT

Documents

061511 Site Investigation Report DRAFT · Site Investigation - Mintzer Brothers The Johnson Company, Inc. Rutland, Vermont -1- June 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On May 10,