sporting goods properties inc, environmental … · facility name: sporting goods properties, inc....

RCRA RECORDS CENTE

FILE LOC. I?-/3 ' OTHER - / o a 7 6 L

DOCUMENTATIONOF ENVIRONMENTALINDICATORDETERMINATION Interim Final 2/5/99

RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control

Facility Name: Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. (Formerly Remington Arms) Facility Address: 615 Asylum Street Bridgeport, Connecticut Facility EPA ID #: CTDOO143216

1. Has all available relevant/significant information on known and reasonably suspected releases to the groundwater media, 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 #8 and enter "IN" (more information needed) status code.

BACKGROUND

Definition of Environmental Indicators (for the RCRA Corrective Action) Environmental Indicators (EI) are measures being used by the RCRA Corrective Action program to go beyond programmatic activity measures (e.g., reports received and approved, etc.) to track changes in the quality of the environment. The two 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.

Definition of uMieration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI A positive "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI determination ("YE" status code) indicates that the migration of "contaminated" groundwater has stabilized, and that monitoring will be conducted to confirm that contaminated groundwater remains within the original "area of contaminated groundwater" (for all groundwater "contamination" subject to RCRA corrective action at or fkom the identified facility (i.e., site-wide)).

relations hi^ of EI to Final Remedies While Final remedies remain the long-term objective of the RCRA Corrective Action program the EI are near-term objectives which are currently being used as Program measures for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, GPRA). The "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" EI pertains ONLY to the physical migration (i.e., further spread) of contaminated ground water and contaminants within groundwater (e.g., non-aqueous phase liquids or NAPLs). Achieving this EI does not substitute for achieving other stabilization or final remedy requirements and expectations associated with sources of contamination and the need to restore, wherever practicable, contaminated groundwater to be suitable for its designated current and fiture uses. ;o

u 3 cn

Duration / Amlicabilitv of El Determinations BEI Determinations status codes should remain in RCRIS national database ONLY as long as they remain true (i.e., RCRIS status codes must be changed when the regulatory authorities become aware of contrary information).

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI)RCRIS code (CA750)

2. Is groundwater known or reasonably suspected to be "contaminated" above appropriately protective "levels" (i.e., applicable promulgated standards, as well as other appropriate standards, guidelines, guidance, or criteria) from releases subject to RCRA Corrective Action, anywhere at, or fkom, the facility?

X If yes - continue after identifying key contaminants, citing appropriate "levels," and referencing supporting documentation. If no - skip to #8 and enter "YE" status code, after citing appropriate "levels," and referencing supportingdocumentation to demonstrate that groundwater is not "contaminated." If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN"status code.

Rationale and Reference(s):

Because the site is designated as a Class GB Area in accordance with the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (RSRs), groundwater impacts are compared to the Smfkce Water Protection Criteria (SWPC).

The Current Conditions Assessment (CCA) for Groundwater and Surface Water at the Lake Success Business Park (LSBP) was presented as Appendix D in the Revised Site Conceptual Model (Site Conceptual Model) (DuPont, 2003). The CCA detailed the results of groundwater and surface water sampling through 200 1 to assess the current status of groundwater and surface watei quality at the LSBP site (Fig& 1). Additional work has been completed since the CCA, and is documented in the June 2005 Site Conceptual Model Investigation Activities Interim Report (Interim Report).

Three areas of the site (AX-2 Area, the AEC 9 Area, and the Southwest Area) have been identified where groundwater is known or reasonably suspected to be "contaminated" above appropriately protective "levels". In these three areas, constituents have been consistently identified at concentrationsnear or exceeding the established SWPC. The locations of these three areas and the wells in each area are depicted in Figure 2. Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 present a summary of the most recent groundwater sampling results. Table 3A includes the most recent groundwater sample results from wells that monitor the closed surface impoundment, located in the Southwest Area of the site. Detailed below are the compounds exceeding the SWPC in each of these areas.

AEC-2 AREA

Monitoring well MW-2R is located in the AEC 2 area. As detailed in the CCA, the compounds detected in samples from MW-2R that exceed the respective SWPC in historical sampling events fkom 1995 through 2003 are summarized on the following table.

Compounds in MW-2R Exceeding the SWPC

Surface Water Protection Criteria (@)

4

132

96

0.077

Compound

Arsenic

Carbon Tetrachloride

I , 1-Dichloroethene

Phenanthrene

Concentration Range (pg/I,)

9.7

370 -930

140-280

0.09

Tetrachloroethene(PCE)

AEC 9 AREA

Trichloroethene (TCE) 1 74,000 - 180,000

Groundwater in the AEC 9 area has been evaluated in four wells.

Two of the wells, MW-8R and MW-8s were installed in bedrock and overburden, respectively, to monitor groundwater as it flowed out of the AEC 9 area where the majority of the former site manufacturing was conducted. As detailed in the CCA, sampling was performed in these wells as part of the site-wide sampling effort in August and November 200 1. More recently, these wells were sampled in May and July 2005. Results h r n the May sampling round were reported in the Interim Report. May and July sampling results are summarized in Tables 1-3.

In the May and July sampling rounds, PCE was detected in groundwater samples fiom both MW-8R and MW-8s at concentrations exceeding the SWPC of 88 pg/L. Both total and dissolved arsenic was detected at concentrations exceeding the SWPC in the May 2005 sample b m MW-8R. However, arsenic concentrations were below the SWPC in the sample collected 6om MW-8R in July 2005.

The third well in the AEC 9 area, MW-21, was installed in April 2005 as part of supplemental investigation activities to evaluate potential data gaps in the Conceptual Model. This well was installed near the upgradient extent of AEC 9 to determine if chlorinated organic solvents were present in that location. Samples were also collected 6om this well in May and July 2005. The results of the May sampling event were reported in the Interim Report and the results of both the May and July events are summarized in Tables 1-3. The results of the first round of sampling indicated none of the analytes were present at concentrations exceeding the SWPC. In the July 2005 round, only PCE, at a concentration of 3 10 pg/L, was detected above the SWPC. This well is located near a former process area, which is the likely source of VOCs in the southwest area.

The fourth well, MW-22, is located to the southeast in a drift channel. Samples collected fiom this well contained no VOCs exceeding the SWPC. Bedrock outcrops are located between the locations of wells MW-21 and MW-22. Where rock does not outcrop between the two wells, depth to bedrock was determined during seismic reffaction work detailed in the Site Conceptual Model to be between six and ten feet below grade. Groundwater sampling results, the presence of bedrock between the two wells, and the overall drainage out of AEC 9 through Tracer Brook demonstrate that there is no apparent migration pathway of VOCs in the direction of MW-22.

SOUTHWEST AREA

The Southwest Area, which includes the closed Surface Impoundment and the areas to the south and east of the Impoundment, is downgradient of a former manufacturing building that sat on a topographic and bedrock high that separatesthis area h r n the AEC 9, discussed above. The results of previous groundwater monitoring have been detailed in the CCA. The Interim Report detailed results of groundwater samples collected in May 2005 fkom wells in the Southwest Area. Tables 1-3 present a summary of the two most recent rounds of groundwater data collected tiom these wells in May and July 2005. The concentrations of compounds that exceeded the respective SWPC values in those wells are shaded.

136,000 -83,000

2,340

Analysis of recent groundwater samples collected tiom monitoring wells in the Southwest Area detected concentrations of analytes exceeding the respective SWPC. Phenanthrene was detected in the sample h m MW-7S collected in July 2005. Phenanthrene was not detected in the sample £?om MW-7s collected in May 2005 and, as detailed in the CCA, has only been sporadically detected in samples collected fiom this well historically.

88

In both the May and July 2005 rounds PCE was detected in the samples collected from MW-7R at concentrations exceeding the SWPC. In the sample tiom the May 2005 round, PCE was also

identified in the sample fiom MW-23D in excess of the SWPC. However, the sample collected in July 2005 had a concentration of PCE below the SWPC.

In the May 2005 round, I , I-dichloroethene was detected in the groundwater sample collected fiom MW-7R at a concentration exceeding the SWPC. In the July 2005 round, I , 1-dichloroethenewas detected at a concentration below the SWPC.

Arsenic was present in MW- 13s at concentrationsexceeding the SWPC in the May 2005; the sample fiom MW-7R collected in May 2005 did not contain arsenic above the SWPC. Arsenic was detected in the July 2005 samples h m MW-7R and MW-13s at concentrations above the SWPC.

Mercury was detected in the samples fiom MW-7R collected in May and July at concentrations exceeding the SWPC. Mercury was not detected in any other wells at concentrations exceeding the SWPC during these two rounds.

Footnotes: lLLContamination"and "contaminated describes media containing contaminants (in any form, NAPL andfor dissolved, vapors, or solids, that are subject to RCRA) in concentrations in excess of appropriate "levels" (appropriate for the protection of the groundwaterresource and its beneficial uses).

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Environmental Indicator (El)RCRIS code (CA750)

Page 3

3. Has the migration of contaminated groundwater stabilized (such that contaminated groundwater is expected to remain within "existing area of contaminated groundwater"2 as defined by the monitoring locations designated at the time of this determination)?

-X- If yes - continue, after presenting or referencing the physical evidence (e.g., groundwater smpling/measurement/migrationbarrier data) and rationale why contaminated groundwater is expected to remain within the (horizontal or vertical) dimensions of the "existing area of groundwater c~ntarnination"~).

If no (contaminated groundwater is observed or expected to migrate beyond the designated locations defining the "existing area of groundwater contarninatiod"') - skip to #8 and enter " N O status code, after providing an explanation.

If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.


Groundwater sampling data b m the 2001 site-wide sampling efforts through the most recent May and July 2005 sampling round indicate that migration of the contaminauts in the three areas identified in Question 2, above (the AEC-2 Area, the AEC-9 Area, and the Southwest Area) have stabilized.

THEAEC-2 AREA;

Groundwater in AEC 2, monitored by well MW-2R, discharges to surface water at the northern end of Lake Success. Therefore, the existing area of contarninatedgroundwater in AEC-2 does not appear to be increasing in size. The locations of Lake Success and monitoring well MW-2R are depicted in Figure 2.

THE AEC-9 AREA:

Groundwater in the AEC 9 area appears to discharge to Tracer Brook. Therefore, the existing area of contaminated groundwater in AEC 9 is not reasonably expected to be increasing in size.

THE SOUTHWEST AREA

Groundwater in the Southwest Area appears to discharge to the wetland that crosses the property boundary in the southern section of Subbasin C (see Figure 2). Therefore, the existing area of contaminated groundwater in the Southwest Area is not reasonably expected to be increasing in size.

"existing area of contaminated groundwater" is an area (with horizontal and vertical dimensions) that has been verifiably demonstrated to contain all relevant groundwater contamination for this determination, and is defmed by designated (monitoring) locations proximate to the outer perimeter of "contamination" that can and will be sampledltested in the f3ture to physically verifL that all "contaminated" groundwater remains within this area, and that the further migration of "contaminated" groundwater is not occurring. Reasonable allowances in the proximity of the monitoring locations are permissible to incorporate formal remedy decisions (i.e., including public participation) allowing a limited area for natural attenuation.

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)

Page 4

4. Does "contaminated" groundwater discharge into surface water bodies?

-X- If yes - continue after identifying potentially affected surface water bodies.

- If no - skip to #7 (and enter a "YE" status code in #8, if #7 = yes) after providing an explanation andlor referencing documentation supporting that groundwater "contamination" does not enter surface water bodies.

If unknown - skip to #8 and enter "IN" status code.


Groundwater in the area of AEC 2, monitored by well MW-2R, discharges to surface water at the northern end of Lake Success. The locations of Lake Success and monitoring well MW-2R are depicted in Figure 2.

The MW-8 well cluster monitors water draining h m the AEC 9 area. Groundwater fkom this area dischargesto surface water in Tracer Brook. The locations of MW-8 cluster wells and Tracer Brook are depicted on Figure 2.

The southwest area of the site draii into the surface water body at the south end of the Surface Impoundment and west of the MW-7well cluster. The location of this surface water body and the southwest area wells are depicted in Figure 2.

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Environmental Indicator (EL) RCRIS code (CA750)

Page 5

5. Is the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water likely to be "insignificantn (i.e., the maximum concentration3 of each contaminant discharging into surface water is less than 10 times their appropriategroundwater "level," and there are no other conditions (e.g., the nature, and number, of discharging contaminants, or environmental setting), which significantly increase the potential for unacceptable impacts to surface water, sediments, or eco-systems at these concentrations)?

If yes - skip to #7 (and enter "YE" status code in #8 if #7 = yes), after documenting: 1) the maximum known or reasonably suspected concentratiod of @ contaminants discharged above their groundwater "level," the value of the appropriate "level(s)," and if there is evidence that the concentrations are increasing; and 2) provide a statement of professionaljudgementJexplanation (or reference documentation) supporting that the discharge of groundwater contaminants into the surface water is not anticipated to have unacceptable impacts to the receiving surface water, sediments, or eco-system.

-X- If no - (the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water is potentially significant)- continue after documenting: 1) the maximum known or reasonably suspected concentration3 of &contaminant discharged above its groundwater "level," the value of the appropriate "level(s)," and if there is evidence that the concentrationsare increasing; and 2) for any contaminants

discharging into surface water in concentrations3 greater than 100 times their appropriate groundwater "levels," the estimated total amount (mass in kgtyr) of each of these contaminantsthat are being discharged (loaded) into the surface water body (at the time of the determination), and identifjl if there is evidence that the amount of discharging contaminants is increasing.

If unknown - enter "IN"status code in #8.


The maximum known or reasonably suspected concentrations of key contaminants potentially discharging to surface water have been identified in the response to Question 2, above and in attached Tables 1,2, and 3 (SWPC was the appropriate criteria used in Question 2). Of those constituents, only PCE in MW-2R has been detected at concentrations exceeding 100 times the appropriate groundwater level (SWPC).

THE AEC-2 AREA The SWPC for PCE is 88 pg/L. As summarized in Table 2 of the CCA, historic concentrations of PCE in MW-2R have ranged h m 36,000 to 83,000 pglL. Data from 6 sampling events, h m October 1990 to June 2003, do not show evidence that PCE concentrations are increasing in this well. As demonstrated in the Conceptual Model with the borehole geophysical evaluation and packer testing, little or no migration through bedrock is likely given the extremely low transmissivity in MW-2R bedrock (0.000126 to 0.000238 square meters per second) and low hydraulic conductivity (0.0000414 to 0.0000781 meters per second). Therefore, the mass loading of PCE to surface water will also be extremely small.

THE AEC 9 AREA As described in the response to Question 2, above, PCE was detected above the SWPC, in groundwater samples from MW-8R and MW-8s in the May and July 2005 sampling rounds and in MW-21 'in excess of the SWPC in July 2005. Data from six sampling events at MW-8R and at

five sampling events at MW-8S, fiom October 1990 to July 2005, do not show evidence that PCE concentrations are increasing. As only two sampling events have been performed at MW-2 1, it cannot be determined whether PCE concentrations are showing an increasing trend above any seasonal fluctuations that may be occurring. Therefore, semi-annual groundwater monitoring will be performed at this well until it can be shown that PCE concentrations are not increasing over time at this well.

Arsenic (dissolved and total) was detected in the May 2005 sample 6om MW-8R at levels above the S W C , but arsenic concentrations were below the SWPC in the July 2005 sample. Data fiom five sampling events at MW-8R fiom October 1990 to July 2005 do not show evidence that arsenic concentrations are increasing at this well.

THE SOUTHWEST AREA Phenanthrene was detected in the July 2005 sample 6om MW-7s at a concentration above the SWPC. Phenanthrene has been detected sporadically in groundwater in the Southwest Area, but concentrations do not appear to be increasing.

1,l-Dichloroethene was detected at MW-7R in May 2005 in excess of the SWPC. Data 6-om eight sampling events at this well fiom October 1990 to July 2005 do not show evidence that 1,l-dichoroetbene concentrations are increasing in groundwater.

PCE was detected in excess of the SWPC at MW-7R in May and July 2005 and at MW-23D in May 2005. Historic data fiom the Southwest Area do not show evidence that PCE concentrations in groundwater are increasing in groundwater in this area

Arsenic was detected in excess of the S W C in the May and July 2005 samples from MW-13s and in the July 2005 samples from MW-7R. Historic data from the Southwest Area do not show evidence that arsenic concentrations are increasing in groundwater.

Mercury was detected in excess of the SWPC in the May and July 2005 samples collected from MW-7R. Mercury has not been previously detected in excess of the SWPC in this well. Given the low concentration at which the SWPC is established, SWPC exceedances in the two most recent rounds does not constitute a sufficient basis for concluding that mercury concentrations are increasing. Results for mercury in the semi-annual monitoring for this well will be examined closely to assess concentration trends.

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI)RCRIS code (CA750)

Page 6

6. Can the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater into surface water be shown to be "currently acceptable" (i.e., not cause impacts to s h c e water, sediments or eco-systems that should not be

allowed to continue until a final remedy decision can be made and implemented4)?

-X- If yes - continue after either: 1) identifLingthe Final Remedy decision incorporating these conditions, or other site-specific criteria (developed for the protection of the site's surface water, sediments, and eco-systems), and referencing supporting documentation demonstrating that these criteria are not exceeded by the discharging groundwater; OR

2) providing or referencingan interim-a~sessment.,~appropriate to the potential for impact, that shows the discharge of groundwater contaminants into the surface water is (in the opinion of a trained specialists, including ecologist) adequately protective of receiving surface water, sediments, and eco-systems, until such time when a full assessment and final remedy decision can be made. Factors which should be considered in the interim-assessment(where appropriate to help identify the impact associated with discharging groundwater) include: surface water body size, flow, use/classificatiodbabitatsand contaminant loading limits, other sources of surface watertsediment contamination, surface water and sediment sample results and comparisons to available and appropriate surface water and sediment "levels," as well as any other factors, such as effects on ecological receptors (e.g., via bieassays.benthic surveys or site-specific ecological Risk ~ssessments),that the overseeing regulatory agency would deem appropriate for making the EI determination.

If no - (the discharge of "contaminated" groundwater can not be shown to be "currentty acceptable") - skip to #8 and enter 'TJO status code, after documenting the currently unacceptable impacts to the surface water body, sediments, andtor eco-systems.

- If unknown - skip to 8 and enter "IN" status code.


AEC 2 AREA

As detailed in the Site Conceptual Model and the CCA, surface water sample LSW-3 (Figure 2) was collected near the location of MW-2R to determine if groundwater discharging into Lake Success was impacting s h c e water quality. The most recent analytical results fiom MW-2R, from samples collected in October and November 2001 and June 2003, indicated that the following six analytes were present in groundwater from MW-2R in excess of their respective SWF'C.

Arsenic Phenantbrene Carbon Tetrachloride I , 1-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene

Analytical results presented in the CCA f?om LSW-3 indicate that none of the above analytes found in groundwater in MW-2R at concentrationsexceeding the respective SWPC were detected in either the August or November 2001 surface water samples.

Given the limited ability for PCE-impacted groundwater to migrate in the MW-2R area, mixing of groundwater is sufficient to reduce the concentration of water discharging to surface water

adjacent to AEC 2 to concentrations below applicable surface water criteria. This is demonstrated by the results of surface water sampling for location LSW-3. The results from this sample, summarized in Table 1 of the CCA. In August and November 2001, samples were collected from the surface water immediately adjacent to AEC 2 close to the location of MW-2R. Concentrations of PCE were not detected in either sample indicating that while elevated concentrations of PCE are present in groundwater in MW-2R, PCE-impacted groundwater is not impacting surface water. This indicates that the discharge of groundwater from the AEC-2 area into surface water is currently acceptable.

AEC 9 AREA Tracer Brook is the surface water body into which water from the AEC 9 area drains. As reported in the June 2005 Interim Report, to verify groundwater impacts in this area were not impacting surface water, samples were collected from two locations in Tracer Brook (TB-01 and TB-02). Surface water sample locations TB-0 1 and TB-02 are depicted on Figure 2.

The most recent groundwater sampling data from MW-2 1 and the MW-8 cluster wells located in AEC 9 is summarized in Table 1 (VOCs), Table 2 (PAHs), and Table 3 (metals). This data, generated from analysis of samples collected in May and July 2005, indicates that the only analytes in groundwater that exceeded the SWPC were PCE and arsenic, although arsenic was only identified in one of the sampling rounds. In laboratory analysis of surface water samples TB-01 and TB-02, summarized in Table 4, PCE was not identified above the detection limit. Also, arsenic was not detected in either sample from Tracer Brook above the Connecticut Freshwater Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria (FCALC). This data indicates that the discharge of groundwater from the AEC 9 area into surface water is currently acceptable.

SOUTHWEST AREA As detailed in the Site Conceptual Model, groundwater in the southwest area of the site discharges into the surface water body south of the Surface Impoundment. The most recent groundwater analytical results from the wells in the Southwest Area (Tables 1-3), indicates that five constituents are present in groundwater at concentrations exceeding the respective SWPC including arsenic, mercury, phenanthrene, I , l -dichloroethene, and PCE. To evaluate the surface water quality in this surface water body, samples were collected in May 2005 from three locations (Figure 2). Results of this sampling, summarized in Table 4, were detailed in the June 2005 Interim Report. None of the five compounds exceeding the SWPC in groundwater were identified in samples collected from this surface water body at concentrations exceeding the applicable FCALCs, indicating that the discharge of groundwater from the Southwest Area into surface water is currently acceptable.

Note, because areas of inflowing groundwater can be critical habitats (e.g., nurseries or thermal refugia) for many species, appropriate specialist (e.g., ecologist) should be included in management decisions that could eliminate these areas by significantly altering or reversing groundwater flow pathways near surface water bodies.

The understanding of the impacts of contaminated groundwater discharges into surface water bodies is a rapidly developing field and reviewers are encouraged to look to the latest guidance for the appropriate methods and scale of demonstration to be reasonably certain that discharges are not causing currently unacceptable impacts to the surface waters, sediments or eco-systems.

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRlS code (CA750)

Page 7

7. Will groundwater monitoring / measurement data (and surface water/sediment/ecologicaldata, as necessary) be collected in the future to verify that contaminated groundwater has remained within the horizontal (or vertical, as necessary) dimensions of the "existing area of contaminated groundwater?"

X If yes - continue after providing or citing documentation for planned activities or future samplinglmeasurementevents. Specifically identify the welVmeasurement locations which will be tested in the future to verify the expectation (identified in #3) that groundwater contamination will not be migrating horizontally (or vertically, as necessary) beyond the "existing area of groundwater contamination."

If no - enter " N O status code in #8.

If unknown - enter "W status code in #8.

Rationale and Reference(s): The only locations on the site where groundwater concentrationshave been demonstrated to be regularly exceeding applicable criteria are in areas of AEC 2, AEC 9, and the Southwest area. To verify that contaminated groundwater will remain within the horizontal (or vertical, as necessary) dimensions of the "existing area of contaminated groundwater" ongoing groundwater monitoring will be conducted.

In the Southwest area, semi-annual groundwater monitoring will be conducted in the following nine wells (see Figure 3):

Sampling will be performed in April and October of each year. Samples will be analyzed for all constituents detected historically in this area, includingthose detected in the surface impoundment monitoring wells, and their respective degradation products.

Following the April sampling round, a letter report will be generated describing the sampling activities and transmitting results. With the completion of the October sampling round, a more comprehensive Annual Report of Groundwater Monitoring will be prepared to include the results from the April sampling as well as the results fiom the October round and any other groundwater sampling performed at the other two areas of interest (MW-2R and the MW-8 cluster). The annual report will evaluate the April and October data relative to all previous groundwater sample results h m the respective area. Both reports will include contour interpretationsof groundwater elevation data collected prior to each sampling round from a subset of site groundwater monitoring points extending beyond the limits of the wells to be sampled. Reports will be transmitted to EPA within 60 days of the date of sampling.

In the AEC 2 and AEC 9 locations, where no indication exists that the observed impacts have migrated off-site or are impacting surface water, comprehensivegroundwater monitoring at all monitoring wells in these locations will not be performed immediately. However, semi-annual groundwater monitoring will be conducted at well MW-2 1 until it can be shown that PCE concentrations in this well are not increasing over time.

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS code (CA750)

Page 8

8. Check the appropriate RCRIS status codes for the Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control EI (event code CA750), and obtain Supervisor (or appropriate Manager) signature and date on the EI determination below (attach appropriate supporting documentation as well as a map of the facility).

-YE- YE - Yes, "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control" has been verified. Based on a review of the information contained in this EI determination, it has been determined that the "Migration of Contaminated Groundwater" is "Under Control" at the Lake Success Business Park Site/ Former Remington Arms facility, EPA ID # CTD001453216, located at 6 15 Asylum Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Specifically, this determination indicates that the migration of "contaminated groundwater is under control, and that monitoring will be conducted to confirm that contaminated groundwater remains within the "existing area of contaminated groundwater" This determination will be re-evaluated when the Agency becomes aware of significant changes at the facility.

NO - Unacceptable migration of contaminated groundwater is observed or expected.

IN - More information is needed to make a determination.

Completed by Date ?/'2 2

(title) RCRA dcilitv Manager --

Supervisor Date ?/$AS JtitleKhief. RCRA Corrective Action Section (EPA Region or State) EPA Region I

Locations where References may be found: Remington Arms Company Phase I RCRA Facility Investigation, dated February 1991, prepared

by BCM Engineers (EPA RCRA Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Boston, MA) Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (www.de~.state.ct.us/wtr/re~s/remediation/rsr.~d~ Connecticut Water Quality Standards (http:Ndep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/wqs.pdt) Revised LSBP Site Conceptual Model, dated December 2003 and revised in August 2004,

prepared by DuPont's Corporate Remediation Group (EPA RCRA Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Boston, MA)

Site Conceptual Model Investigation Activities Interim Report, dated June 2005, prepared by DuPont's Corporate Remediation Group (EPA RCRA Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Boston, MA)

Contact telephone and e-mail numbers

(name) Stephanie Carr (phone #) 617.918.1363 (e-mail) carr.ste~hanie@e~a.pov

Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination (CA 750)

Figures Figure 1 Site Locus Figure 2 Site Layout - Groundwater and Surface Water Sample Locations Figure 3 Groundwater Sampling Locations.

Tables

Table 1 Groundwater Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Analytical Results Table 2 Groundwater Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Sample Analytical Results Table 3 Groundwater Metals Sample Analytical Results Table 3A Surface Impoundment Well Groundwater Analytical Results (2004) Table 4 Surface Water Sample Analytical Results

SITE LOCATION MAP

Lake Success Business Park Bridgeport. Connecticut

IU -.ED m m oo "LC a I-=mo' na 701%016

ax ~ f ~ l r n ~ D ~ C O OUR x / l a / ~

S C A L E

v 2000 0 2000 FEET

-RT, CT - 7.5 YWTE SEMS WRANGLE

4mD A n AUioncs between

Corporate Rmdauon Group D u P d and OR3 Dwmond

Borlcy M ~ l lPlozo. B d d n g 27 Wilrningtm. Delaware 19805

SOUTHWEST AREA MONITORING Lam&

S C A L E WELL LOCATIONSMwqyw"wbwowm~w WELL - LAKE SUCCESS BUSINESS PARK 200 0 200'

MONITOftlNG WOlS TO BE SAUPLED w-75/7R SEMI-ANNUALLY

BRIDGEPORT, CT+

FIGURE NO.

3

PERCHLORATE

1 1 1 - T R I C H L O R O W E

1 1 2 2 - T E T R A C H L O R O W E

1 1 2 - T R I C H L O R O W E

1 1 - D I C H L O R O W E

1 1-DICHLORO€WlENE

1 2 - D I C H L O R O W E

1 2-DICHLOROPROPANE

1 CDlOXANE

2-BUTWONE

2-HOUNONE

4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE

ACETONE

BENZENE

BROMODlCHLOROMETHMlE

BROMOFORM

B R O M O M W E

CARBON DlSULFlDE

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE

CHLOROBENZENE

CHLOROETHANE

CHLOROFORM

CHLOROMEMWE

CIS1 2 DICHLORONENE

CIS1 +DICHLOROPROPENE

DIBROMOCHLOROMEWE

ETHYLBENZENE

MEWYLENE CHLORIDE

STYRENE

TETRACHLOROETHENE

TOLUENE

TRANS1 2-DICHLORONENE

TRANS1 IDICHLOROPROPENE

TRlCHLOROETnENE

VINYL CHLORIDE

XYLENE (TOTAL)

TABLE 1 May and July 2006 Oroundwater VOCs Analytical Results

Lake Success Business Park Bridgeport, Connecticut

M W J R MWdR DUP

CT RSRI SWPC - CornedmA RsmsLatlcn Standard RepalattonsSurface Water Protection Cntena

Shaded Values Exceed Applicable Standard

NE- No C o n d l c M RSR Simdard EstaMrhed

W Cmsn%rst lomAre In M c r o ~ p sPar L l t u (u#LI

-MW-SS DUP

--95-0 10J

< 0 6 U

<1 U

4 8 U

<1 U

< 0 8 U

<1 U

<1 U

4 5 U

<3 U

-3u <3 U

<8 u < 0 5 U

<1 u C l U

<1 U

<1 U

E l u <o a U

<1 U

<O 8 U

< l u co 8 U

<1 U

< l U

<0 8 U

<Z U

<1 U

< 0 8 U

<o 7 U

4 8 U

c1 U

<1 U

<1 U

a 8 U -

-M W J S

-J W S--o m 1 J

<o 8 U

C l U

<O 8 U

<1 U

a 8 U

<1 U

<1 U

0 7 J

<3U

<3 U

<3 U

4 U

<o 5 U

<1 U

<1 U

<1 u <1 u <1 u

<O 8 u <1 U

<O 8 U

Cl U

<O 6 U

4 U

C l U

dJ 8 U

<2 u t l U

<O 8 u <o 7 U

'0 8 U

<1 U

<1 U

<1 U

< 0 8 U-

"<'' - Non detect at stated reporting lhmlt

Y.yM

< l 6

510

C l U

cO8U

3W

150

C l U

<1 U

0 8 J

<3 U

<3 U

<3U

<6 U

c o 5 u

<1 U

<1 U

< l u <1 U

C l U

< 0 8 U

<1 u ~ 0 8 U

'1 U

1 J

<1 U

<IOU

4 8 U

c2 U

C l U

620

c 0 7 u

<OBU

<1 U

42

2 J

< 0 8 U

El 750 tables xls

J I M 5

a 69

300 <l U

cO8U

200

64

C l u <1 U

OQJ

-3U

a u <3 U

G3 U

a 5 u

1 J

C l U

C l U

< I U

< I u C08U

<1 U

4J

4 U

2 J

C l U

C l U

~ 0 8 U

c2 U C l u 330

< 0 7 U

< 0 8 U

4 U

20

<1 U

< 0 8 U

TABLE 1 May and July 2006 Groundwater VOCs Analytical Results

Analyte

PERCHLORATE

1 1 1 TRICHLOROETFUNE

1 1 2 2-TETRACHLOROWE

112 - T R I C H L O R O W E

1 1-DICHLOROETWWE

1 1-DICHLOROETHENE

1 2-DICHLOROOWV.1E

1 2-DICHLOROPROPANE

1 CDIOXANE

24LITANONE

2-HEXMNE

CMETHYL-2-PENTANONE

ACETONE

BENZENE

BROMODICHLOROMETHANE

BROMOFORM

BROMOMETWWE

CARBON DlSULFlDE


CHLOROBENZENE

C H L O R O W E

CHLOROFORM

C H L O R O M W E

CIS1 2-DICHLOROETHENE

CIS1 WJICHLOROPROPENE

DlBROMOCHLORMvlWE

ETHYLBENZENE

METHYLENE CHLORIDE

STYRENE

TETRACHLOROETHENE

TOLUENE

TRUiS1 2-DICHLOROETHENE

TRANS1 5-DICHLOROPROPENE

TRICHLOROETHENE

VINYL CHLORIDE

XYLENE (TOTAL)


".-" - N o n detect a t stated reportmg lhmtt El 750 tables xls

TABLE 1 May and July 2006 Groundwater VOCs Analytical Resuls


-

PERCHLORATE

1 . 1 . 1 - T R I C H L O R O ~ E

1.1.2.2-TETRACHLOROEMANE

1.1 .2 -TRICHLOROWE

1 . 1 - D I C H L O R O W E

1. l -DICHLORONENE

1.2-DICHLORO-E

1.2-DICHLOROPROPbNE

1,CDIOXANE

2-MANOFIE

2 - H W E

CMETHIL-2-PEMANONE

ACETONE

BENZENE


BROMOFORM

BROMOMEPANE

CARBON DISULFIDE


CHLOROBENZENE

CHLOROETHANE

CHLOROFORM

CHLOROMETHANE

C I S 1 2-DICHLOROEMENE

CIS1 2-DICHLOROPROPENE

DIBROMCCHLOROMEMANE

ETHYLBENZENE

METHILENE CHLORIDE

STYRENE

TETRACHLOROETHENE

TOLUENE

TiW451.2-DICHLOROElHENE

TRANS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE

TRICHLORONENE

VINYL CHLORIDE

XYLENE (TOTALI

CT RSRI SWPC - Connectlcd. Rcmsaatlon Standard

Shaded V a w s Exceed Apphcable Slandard

NE- NOComct lcu l RSR Standard Esa tbhed

M ConeeMratrms k a In Mlcropnps P a L11.r (uqlL)

'<" - Non detect at stated reporting l m t El 750 tables xls

PERCHLORATE

1.1.1-TRICHLOROETMNE

1.1.2 2 - T r n A C H L O R O E W E

1 1.2-TRICHLOROETn*NE

1 . 1 - D I C H L O R O ~ E

1.1-DICHLOROETHENE

1.2-DICHLOROETHWE

3.2-DICHLOROPROPANE

1.CDIOXANE

2 - B U T W E

2-HOUNONE

CMETHIL-2-PENTWE

ACETONE

BENZENE

BROMODICHLOROMETWNE

BROMOFORM

BROMW-E

UIRBON DISULFIDE


CHLOROBENZENE

CHLORO-E

CHLOROFORM

CHLOROMETWWE

CIS1.2-DICHLOROEWENE

CIS1 3+ICHLOROPROPENE

DIBRWUDCHLOROM€TWNE

€n-NLBENZENE

METHYLENECHLORIDE

STYRENE

TETRACHLOROETHENE

TOLUENE

TRANS1 2-DICHLOROETHENE

TRANS1 3DICHLOROPROPENE

TRlCHLOROEiHENE

VINYL CHLORIDE

XYLENE (TOTALI

1.280

NE

88

2,970

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

710

NE

10 8W

NE

NE

132

420.m

NE

14.100

NE

NE

NE

1.020 580.WO

48 COO

NE

88

4 w0.m

TABLE I May and July 2005 aroundwater VOCs Analytical Results


CO8U CO8U

C l u < I U

<1 U <1 U

OBJ < 0 5 U

<3 U <3u a U <3u <3 U 4 U

<B U <B U

c o 5 u 4 5 U

<1 U <1U

<1 u <1 U

<1 U c1 u C l u <1 u < I U <1U

cO8U cO8U

C l U '1 U

CO8U < 0 8 U

c1 u <1 U

< 0 8 U <OBU

C l u <1 U

<1 U <1 U

cO8U < 0 8 U

<2 U '2 u C l U r l U

<OBU c o e u

c o 7 u < 0 7 U

<OBU sO8U

<1 U '1 U

<1 U < 1 U

< l u <1 U

< 0 8 U < 0 8 U

DUP

-JuCOS --

4 033W

CO 8 U

C l U

48 U

t l U

<O 8 U

<1 U

q1 U

<o 5 U

<3 U

<3 U

<3U

-3 U

<O 5 u c1 u e l u C l U

<1 U

'1 U

C08U

<IU

co 8 U

C l U

.;o 8 U

<1 U

<1 u <O 8 U

<2 u <1 u a 8 U

<o 7 U

<o 8 u <1 U

<1 u <1 U

a 8 u -

-Ulna5 --OMOJ

CO 8 U

<1 U

c0 8 U

<1 U

40 8 U

C l U

< I U

--0 5 U

a u E3 U

<3U

c6 U

c 0 5 U

<1 u <1 u C l U

<1 U

<1 U

<o 8 U

<IU

<O 8 U

<1 u <O 8 U

<1 U

C l u c 0 8 U

c2 U

< I u 0 8 J

<o 7 U

co 8 U

'1 u d u C I U

co 8 U-CT RSRs SWPC - Connedlcrl Remsdanm Standard

Shahd Valuts Excud Apphcabk Slandsrd

NE- No Connedlctd RSR Standard Establshd

U Com.Mratlons h a In Ucrouaps Pw Lller ( W L )

"<" - Non detec t a t stated reportmg l m t El 750 tables xls

TABLE 1 May and July 2005 Groundwater VOCs Analytical Results


PERCHLORATE

1 1 1 - T R I C H L O R O W E

1 1 2 2-TETRACHLOROmUNE

1 1 2 - T R I C H L O R O W E

1 1-DICHLOROETWE

1 1-DICHLOROETHENE

1 2-DICHLOROETHWE

1 2-DICHLOROPROPANE

1 CDIOXANE

2 - B U T W E

2-HD(ANONE

+METHYL-2-PEWANONE

ACOTXIE

BENZENE


BROMOFORM

BROMOMEWWE

CARBON DlSULFlDE


CHLOROBENZENE

C H L O R O W E

CHLOROFORM

CHLOROMETHANE

CIS1 2-DICHLOROElhENE

CIS1 IDICHLOROPROPENE

DlBROMXHLOROMmUNE

ETUYLBENZENE

MmMLENE CHLORIDE

STYRENE

TETRACHLOROEMENE

TOLUENE

TRANS1 2 DICHLOROETHENE

T W S l IDICHLOROPROPENE

TRICHLOROEC-IENE

VINYL CHLORIDE

XYLENE (TOTAL)

CT RSR, MW-23D.:1 wy45 , NE <O 33

82,003 11

110 <1 U

1230 <O 8 U

NE 61

W 27

2.870 < I U

NE c l U

NE 1 2 J

NE c3 U

NE C 3 U

NE <3 U

NE <a u 710 SO 5 U

NE <1 U

i0.8W c l U

NE '1 U

NE c l U

132 <1 U

4 2 0 . m c0 8 U

NE <1 U

14,100 cO8U

NE <1 U

NE OGJ

NE <1 U

1020 <1 U

580 000 <O 8 U

48.000 c2 U

NE < 1 U

88 92 4000000 1 0 7 U

NE c0 8 U

NE <1 U

2 340 8

15.750 <1 U

NE c0 8 U

CT RSRs SWPC .Cmnectlcd RemedlahonStandard

Shaded Values Exceed Apphcs* Standard

NE- No C m e c l ~ MRSR Stmdard Establlshcd

AJ Concentratlons Are In Mcrograps Per Llter UdL)

QNQCSamples

"c'' - Non detect at stated repor tmg Ihrn~t E l 750 tables xls

TABLE 2 May and July 2005 Groundwater SVOC Analytical Results


2 METHYLNAPHTHALENE

ACENAPHTHENE

ACENAPHTHYLENE 0 3

ANTHRACENE

0 3BENZO(AW4THRACENE c0 020 U

BENZO(AIPYRENE 0 3 c0 020 U

BENZqBIFLUORANTHENE 0 3 c0 039 U

BENZO(GH IIPERYLENE rO 098 U

BENZO1K)FLUORANTHENE 0 3 <O020 U

CHRYSENE ~0 078 U

DIBENZ(A H)ANTHRACENE - c0 039U FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE

INDENq12 3CD)PYRENE c0 078 U

NAPHTHALENE

PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

w - 5 s DUP MW4s W - 7 R MW-7s MW4R

Nay45 July45 Maya ( W y 4 5 May45 I July* -45 1 July45

CT RSRs YW4S MW-11D MW-11S MW-I l R MW.lSS MWd30Analyte

May45 I July45 M y 4 5 I July45 Map05 ( July45 May45 I J W 4 5 May45 I W 4 5 May45 1 J W 4 5

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE

ACENAPHTHENE

ACENAPHTHYLENE

ANTHRACENE

BENZO1A)ANTHRACENE

BENZqAlPYRENE

BENZOIBIFLUORANTHENE

BENZO(G H IIPERYLENE

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE

CHRYSENE

DlBENZlA HnNTHRACENE

FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE

INDENOII 2 3CDIPYRENE

NAPHTHALENE

PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

Ndes

CT RSRs SWPC - Cmnct lcu RemedmtlonStandard Regulations Surface Water Rotect~onCntma

Shaded Values Exceed&phcabk Slandard

NE- No Connedmd RSR Standard Establshed

A4 ConccntratlonsAre In Mlcrograps Per Llter ( u w I

"<" - Non detect at stated reporting l~mlt Shaded results exceed CT SWPC El 750 tables xls


Lake Success Business Park Bridgeport. Connecticut

24ETHYLNAPHTHALENE

ACENAPHTHENE

ACENAPHTHYIENE

ANTHRACENE

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE

BENZO(A)PYRENE

BENZMBIFLUORANTHENE

BENZO(G.HIIPERYLENE

BENZO(Kf LUORANTHENE

CHRYSENE

DIBENZ(AH)ANTHRACENE

FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE

INDENQ1.2 3CD)PYRENE

NAPHTHALENE

PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE

ACENAPHTHENE

ACENAPHTHYLENE

ANTHRACENE

BENZWAfiNTHRACENE

BENZO(A)PYRENE

BENZQB)FLUORANTHENE

BENZO(G H 1)PERYLENE

BENZO(KYLU0RANTHENE

CHRYSENE

DIBENZlA HfiNTHRACENE

FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE

INDENOI1 2 ICDIPYRENE

NAPHTHALENE

PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

Ndes

CT RSRs SWPC Conwctlcul Rernedallm Standard Regulal~onsSurfaceWater Protedlon Cnlena

ShadedValuts Exceed Apphcable Standard

NE No Connectlcd RSR Standard Eslabhshed

41Concenlrat~onsAre In M~crograpsPer L~leriugR~

"c"- Non detect at stated r e p o r t ~ n ghmlt Shaded results exceed CT SWPC El 750 tables xls



2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE

ACENAPHTHENE

ACENAPHTHYLENE

ANTHRACENE

BENZO(AHNTHRACENE

BENZO(A)PYRENE

BENZO(6)FLUORANTHENE

BENZO(G H.I)PERYLENE

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE

CHRYSENE

D1BENZIAH)ANTHRACENE

FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE

INDENOI1 2.4.CD)PYRENE

NAPHTHALENE

PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

NdeS

CT RSRSSWPc .Conned~cdRemed(n1lon Sandard Repdat~onsSurface Wster Prdoctm Cnlena

Shaded V a b 5 ExceedAgpLaMc Standard

NE- No Comedlcul RSR Standard Estnbished

N Concertratlons Are In Mlcrograps Per Uter iu@)

"i"- Non detect at stated reportmg llrnlt Shaded results exceed CT SWPC El 750 tables xls

TABLE 3 May and July 2005 Groundwater Metals Analytical Results

ALUMINUM (Total) ANTIMONY (D~ssolved) ANTIMONY (Total) ARSENIC (D~ssolved) ARSENIC (Total) BARIUM (Dlasolved) BARIUM (Total) BERYLLIUM (Dissolved) BERYLLIUM (Total) CADMIUM (Dissolved) CADMIUM (Total) CALCIUM (D~ssolved) CALCIUM (Total) CHROMIUM (Dissolved) CHROMIUM (Total) COBALT (D~uolved) COBALT (Total) COPPER (Dlrsolved) COPPER (Total) IRON (D~rsolved) IRON (Total) LEAD (D~ssolved) LEAD (Total) MAGNESIUM (Dlrsolved) MAGNESIUM (Total) MANGANESE (D~ssolvad) MANGANESE (Total) MERCURY (D~ssolved) MERCURY (Total) NICKEL (Dmolved) NICKEL (Total) POTASSIUM (Dvsolved) POTASSIUM (Total) SELENIUM (Dissolved) SELENIUM (Total) SILVER (D~ssolved) SILVER (Total) SODIUM (D~ssolved) SODIUM (Total) THALLIUM (Dissolved) THALLIUM (Total) VANADIUM (Dissolved) VANADIUM (Total) ZINC (Dissolved) ZINC (Total)


CT R S R ~SWPC - ConnactlcutRernedlat~onStandard Regulat~onsSurtace Water Proted~onCr~ter~a Shaded Values ExceedApplcable Standard NE- No Connect~cutRSR Standard Establ~shed All ConcanlratlonsAre In MlcrograpsPer L~ter(ug/L)

"<" - Non detecl at stated reportlnp limlt El 750 tables xls

ALUMINUM i~ota l ) '

ANTIMONY (D~ssolved) ANTIMONY (Total) ARSENIC (Dlasolved) ARSENIC (Total) BARIUM (Dissolved) BARIUM (Total) BERYLLIUM (Dissolved) BERYLLIUM (Total) CADMIUM (Dissolved) CADMIUM (Total) CALCIUM (Dissolved) CALCIUM (Total) CHROMIUM (DissolvedJ CHROMIUM (Total) COBALT (Dissolved) COBALT (Total) COPPER (Diuolved) COPPER (Total) IRON (D~ssolved) IRON (Total) LEAD (D~ssolvad) LEAD (Tdel) MAGNESIUM (Diuolved) MAGNESIUM (Total) MANGANESE (Dissolved) MANGANESE (Total) MERCURY (Dissolved) MERCURY (Total) NICKEL (Dissolved) NICKEL (Total) POTASSIUM (Dasolved) POTASSIUM (Total) SELENIUM (Dissolved) SELENIUM (Total) SILVER (Dissolved) SILVER (Tdal) SODIUM (Diasolved) SODIUM (Total) THALLIUM (Dissolved) THALLIUM (Total) VANADIUM (Dissolved) VANADIUM (Total)



CT RSRs SWPC - Connedlwt Remed~atronSt ShadedValues ExceedApplrcable Standard NE- No Connectrut RSR Standard Establ~shec All ConcentratlonsAre In Mlaograps Per Llter

'Y - Non dstect at stated reporting l m t El 750tables xls


ALUMINUM (Total) ANTIMONY (D~srdved) ANTIMONY (Total) ARSENIC (Dissolved) ARSENIC (Total) BARIUM (Dissolved) BARIUM (Total) BERYLLIUM (Dtssolved) BERYLLIUM (Total) CADMIUM (Dissolved) CADMIUM (Total) CALCIUM (D~ssolved) CALCIUM (Total) CHROMIUM (Dtmlved) CHROMIUM (Total) COBALT (Dlrsolved) COBALT (Total) COPPER (Dlrsolved) COPPER (Total) IRON (D~asolved) IRON (Total) LEAD (Dissolved) LEAD (Total) MAGNESIUM (Dlsrolved) MAGNESIUM (Total) MANGANESE (D~swlved) MANGANESE (Total) MERCURY (Dissolved) MERCURY (Total) NICKEL (D~nnolved) NICKEL (Total) POTASSIUM (Dissolved) POTASSIUM (Total) SELENIUM (Dtsrolved) SELENIUM (Total) SILVER (D~ssolved) SILVER (Total) SODIUM (Dissolved) SODIUM (Total) THALLIUM (D~ssolved) THALLIUM (Total) VANADIUM (D~srolved) VANADIUM (Total) ZlNC (Dissolved) ZlNC (Total)


CT RSRs SWPC - Connecllwt Remed~at~onSt Shaded Values E x d Applmble Standard NE- No Connmlwt RSR Slanderd Establ~shec All Concentrat~onsAre In Mluograps Per Llter

"<" - Non dated at stated reportlrtg h i t Page 4 of 5 El 750 tables xlr



LUMINUM (Total)

TIMONY (Total) SENlC (D~ssolved)

ARSENIC (Total) BARIUM (Durolved) BARIUM (Total) BERYLLIUM (D~ssolved) BERYLLIUM (Total) CADMIUM (D~ssolved) CADMIUM (Total) CALCIUM (D~ssolved) CALCIUM (Total) CHROMIUM (D~srolved) CHROMIUM (Total) COBALT (D~ssolved) COBALT (Total) COPPER (D~ewlved) COPPER (Total) IRON (D~ssolved) IRON (Total)

ILEAD i~isso~ved) LEAD (Tolal) MAGNESIUM (Dissolved) MAGNESIUM (Total) MANGANESE i~~& lved ) MANGANESE (Total) MERCURY (D~ssolved) MERCURY (Total) NICKEL (DIsMIv~~) NICKEL (Total) POTASSIUM (Dissolved) POTASSIUM (Total) SELENIUM (D~rrolved) SELENIUM (Total) SILVER (D~swlved) SILVER (Total) SODIUM (D~molved) SODIUM (Total) THALLIUM (D~ssolved) THALLIUM (Total) VANADIUM (D~ssolved) VANADIUM (Total) ZINC (D~ssolved) 123 LING (total) 123

Notes CT RSRs SWPC - Connectcut Remedlat~onSt Shedea Values E x m AqpltcdbleSlandsrd NE- No Connect~cutRSR Standard Establlrhac All ConwntrationsAre In M~crograpsPer L~ter

"<" - Non detect at stated reporting llrn~t Page 5 of 5 El 750 tables XIS

TABLE 3A Surface lmpoundmentAnalytical Results

Lake Success Business Park April and October 2004

Notes: SWPC: Surface Water Protection Criteria

Volatile Organics reported in units of u@, Metals reported in mg/L. "<" - constituent below detection limit shown. ND - not detected at detection limit shown. J - Estimated concentration - between the Method Detection Lim~t(MDL) and the Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL). NE - No standard established

- ** - Secondary Drinking Water Regulations Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals. It is used here for comparison in the absence of an SWPC. - Treatment Technique Standard -When there is no reliable method that is economically or technically feasable to measure a contaminant at particularly low concentrations, a Treatment Technique (TT) is set rather than an MCL. A treatment technique (TT) is an enforceable procedure or level of technological pcrfomance which public water systems must follow to ensure control of a contaminant. It is used here for comparison in the absence of an SWPC.

Surface lmpoundment table3a.xls

TABLE 3A Surface lmpoundment Analytical Results

Lake Success Business Park April and October 2004

Notes: SWPC: Surface Water Protection Criteria Volatile Organics reported in units of ugL, Metals reported in mgR. "<" -constituent below detection limit shown. ND - not detected at detection limit shown. J - Estimated concentration - between the Method Detection Limit (MDL) and the Practical Quantitat~onLimit (PQL).

NE -No standard established - Treatment Technique Standard - When there is no reliable method that is economically or technically feasable to measure a contaminantat particularly low concentrations. a Treatment Technique (7T)is set rather than an SWPC. A treatment technique (lT)is an enforceable procedure or level of technological performance which public water systems

must follow to ensure control of a contaminant. It is used here for comparison in the absence of an SWPC

Surface lmpoundment table3a.xls

TABLE 4 May 2005 Surface Water Analytrcal Results


PAH Compounds 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE

ACENAPHMENE ACENAPHTHYLENE

ANTHRACENE

BENZ~A)ANTHRACENE

BENZO(A)PYRENE

BENZO(6)FLUORANMENE

BENZqG,H,I)PERYLENE

6ENZqK)FLUORANTHENE CHRYSENE

DIBEw.HpwmRAcENE FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE INDENO(1.2,34D)PYRENE

NAPHTHALENE PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

"<" - Non detect at stated reporting limit Shaded values exceed media protection standard 2of 3

TABLE 4 May 2005 Surface Water Analflcal Results


Metals

ALUMINUM (Dissolved)

ALUMINUM (Total)

ANTIMONY (Dissolved)

ANTIMONY (Total)

ARSENIC (Dissolved)

ARSENIC (Total) BARIUM (Dissolved)

BARIUM (Total)

BERYLLIUM (Dissolved)

BERYLLIUM (Total)

CADMIUM (Dissolved)

CADMIUM (Total)

CALCIUM (Dissolved)

CALCIUM (Total)

CHROMIUM (Dissolved)

CHROMIUM (Total)

COBALT (Dissolved)

COBALT (Total)

COPPER (Dissolved)

COPPER (Total)

IRON (Dissolved)

IRON (Total)

LEAD (Dissolved)

LEAD (Total)

MAGNESIUM (Dissolved)

MAGNESIUM (Total)

MANGANESE (Dissolved)

MANGANESE (Total)

MERCURY (Dissolved)

MERCURY (Total)

NICKEL (Dissolved)

NICKEL (Total)

POTASSIUM (Dissolved)

POTASSIUM (Total)

SELENIUM (Dissolved)

SELENIUM (Total)

SILVER (Dissolved)

SILVER (Total)

SODIUM (Dissolved)

SODIUM (Total)

THALLIUM (Dissolved)

THALLIUM (Total)

VANADIUM (Dissolved)

VANADIUM (Total)

ZINC (Dissolved)

Ug/l

ug/l

ugn

ugn

Ug/l

usn ugll

ug/l ugll

ugn ugll

ug/l ugll

ugll

ugn ugll

ugll

ug/l

ugn ugll

ug/l

ug/l

ug/l

usn ugll

ugll

ugn ug/l

ug/l

ugn ugll

ugn ugll

ug/l

ugll ugll

ug/l

ugn ugll

ug/l ugll

Ug/l

ugn ugll

ugll

FCALC

NE

NE

NE

NE

150

150 NE

NE

NE

NE

1.35 1.35

NE

NE

42

42 NE

NE

4.8 4.8 NE

NE

1.2 1.2

NE

NE

NE

NE 0.77 0.77 28.9 28.9

NE

NE

5 5

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

65

(ZINC (~otal) u9" 1 65

"<" - Non detect at stated reporting limit Shaded values exceed media protection standard

sporting goods properties inc, environmental … · facility name: sporting goods properties, inc....

Documents