Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoil Management Plan Recvd 10/19/16 Schoolhouse Road and Griffing V" lib Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Soil Management Plan......................................................................................................................2 2.1 Soil Management Activities........................................................................................2 2.2 Closure Report...........................................................................................................4 2.3 Construction Health and Safety Plan.........................................................................5 2.4 Community Air Monitoring Plan.................................................................................5 List of Attachments Attachment A—Figures Figure 1 —Site Location Map Figure 2—Soil Management Plan—Soil Stripping Plan Attachment B—Pesticide Report,Nelson&Pope,November 8,2007 Attachment C—Preparer Information Table of Contents VAb 100 Introduction VHB has prepared this Soil Management Plan(SMP)for the development of The Heritage at Cutchogue(hereinafter"The Heritage" and the "proposed action"). The proposed action consists of a request for site plan approval,which,upon implementation,would culminate in the development of The Heritage, a 124-unit, age-restricted condominium complex,to be situated on 45.99±acres at the intersection of Schoolhouse Road and Griffing Street,in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York(hereinafter the"subject property"). Based upon the results of the Pesticide Report for the Heritage @ Cutchogue(Pesticide Report),prepared by Nelson&Pope(N&P)in 2007(included in Attachment B of this SMP),soil sampling was conducted throughout the subject property in order to investigate potential subsurface impacts relating to agricultural uses. As indicated in the DEIS,impacted soils relating to mercury and arsenic were identified in surficial soils(down to at least six inches)and SMP activities were warranted throughout the subject property. However,it should be noted that soil sample results under the Pesticide Report were compared to standards that have since been superseded by the prevailing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC) Division of Environmental Remediation(DER)Soil Cleanup Objectives(SCOs) provided in 6 NYCRR§375-6.8(a)or(b). When compared to prevailing NYSDEC Part 375 Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objectives(UUSCOs),mercury detections fall below the most stringent SCOs(i.e.,below 0.18 micrograms per kilogram [ug/kg] [a.k.a.parts per billion(ppb[]) and only arsenic requires on-site soil management. Given these conditions,VHB has developed this SMP to manage on-site soils impacted with arsenic. Furthermore,VHB has prepared an associated site-specific Construction Health and Safety Plan(CHASP)and a Community Air Monitoring Plan(CAMP) (both documents provided under separate cover)to address both worker safety during SMP and construction activities, and to mitigate fugitive dust migration in accordance with New York State Department of Health(NYSDOH) guidelines. 1 Introduction V" lib 2oO Soil Management Plan 2.1 Soil Management Activities The following protocols are considered generally acceptable for on-site management of arsenic-impacted soils in Suffolk County: > Removal and proper off-site disposal,with or without replacement of clean soils > Vertical mixing,where it can be demonstrated that cleaner soils are present below the surface. > On-site stockpiling,for example,landscaped berms and revegetation at a portion of the site that will remain as undeveloped open space(i.e.,buffer areas,not playgrounds or ball fields). > On-site burial in excavated areas. > Disposal below paving or an impervious cap may also be considered, depending on contaminant concentrations,where potential ground and surface water impacts are not an issue. > Placement of one-foot of clean material overlying impacted soils in areas slated for development as open areas. Based upon the vertical and lateral extent of arsenic impacts at the subject property, the following SMP procedures will be implemented at the subject property: Soil Stripping; Mixing;and Re-Use The development will feature a four-phase buildout. As indicated on the Soil Management Plan—Soil Stripping Plan(see Figure 2,provided in Attachment A of this SMP),four(4)designated stockpile areas have been included in the redevelopment plans and will be utilized for each associated buildout phase. For each development phase,up to twelve(12)inches of topsoil material will be stripped off by the general contractor from the respective development phase area and stockpiled in the designated stockpile area. Topsoil will only be stripped in the 2 Soil Management Plan V" lib respective project phase areas or as directed by the project engineer. Care will be taken to protect and not disturb areas that are designated to be left in natural conditions. Care will also be taken during the removal and/or relocation of any trees through the site during soil management/site clearing activities. Such care may include the use of canvas to collect soil that may fall from the tree spade in order to prevent any inadvertent distribution of arsenic-impacted soils. In the short term(with a maximum of 48 hours), stripped and stockpiled soils will be covered with plastic sheeting to prevent dust issues. If the stockpiles are to be placed for more than a few days,the stockpiles may be hydro-mulched to encourage short term vegetation growth,thus negating the need to cover the piles with plastic sheeting. Dust suppression techniques (e.g.,use of water trucks,etc.)will be employed at the subject property in order to minimize potential for fugitive dust migration. Details regarding on-site controls with regard to fugitive dust are provided in the CAMP provided under separate cover. On-site construction workers will be informed of the soil conditions and will be provided protective gear(e.g.,gloves,long-sleeve shorts,etc.), as requested.On-site hazards and safety measures will be effectively communicated to all on-site workers, including the general contractor,through the use and implementation of the site- specific CHASP,which has been provided under separate cover. Due to mixing during excavation and staging,the potential exists for arsenic- impacted concentrations within the stockpiled soils to fall below currently applicable regulatory standards. As such, stockpile sampling for arsenic will be conducted in accordance with the testing protocol and frequency set forth in NYSDEC DER-10 Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation,May 2010,Table 5.4(e)10 involving discrete and composite sampling. Soil samples(either discrete or composite)will be collected directly into laboratory-supplied glassware and placed into a cooler packed with ice and stored at a temperature of 4°Celsius pending transport to a NYSDOH Environmental Laboratory Approval Program(ELAP) and a National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program(NELAP)—certified laboratory with appropriate chain-of-custody. Any potential sampling equipment to be utilized during the collection(i.e., stainless hand tools,etc.)will be field decontaminated between each use utilizing an Alconox potable water wash and potable water rinse. Stockpile sample results will be compared to the NYSDEC Part 375 Unrestricted Use Soil Clean-up Objective(UUSCO)of 13 milligrams per kilogram(mg/kg)(a.k.a.parts per million[ppm])for arsenic, as outlined in Table 375-6.8(a),December 14,2006. Stockpiles that contain levels of arsenic below the NYSDEC standard of 13 mg/kg will be utilized as topsoil for final grading and landscaping. If any stockpile sample results contain arsenic that exceeds the applicable NYSDEC standard of 13 mg/kg, clean sand will be utilized by the general contractor to mix with the impacted 3 Soil Management Plan VAb stockpiles in order to reduce levels of arsenic to concentrations that fall below the most stringent regulatory standard. Care will be exercised in order to ensure that topsoil is not made overly sandy such that plant life can be supported. In certain cases, additional clean soils may be added to stockpiles in order to avoid the excessive addition of clean sand. Upon completion of mixing, stockpiles will be re- sampled for arsenic in accordance with the testing protocols established in NYSDEC's DER-10. If arsenic levels fall below the NYSDEC standard of 13 mg/kg, the general contractor will utilize the respective stockpiles as topsoil. It should be noted that topsoil will only be used in areas approved by the geotechnical engineer and environmental consultant(i.e.,landscaped areas,etc.). Areas that require mixing with constructible and compactible fill materials(i.e.,to be installed below pavement, etc.)will be placed accordingly in accordance with the recommendations set forth by the geotechnical engineer's recommendations to ensure structural integrity. In addition,once a soil stockpile is deemed "clean' and ready for re-use,the incorporation of organic matter soil amendment(i.e.,composted leaf mold)may be included in clean stockpiled soils(to be used in shrub planting beds)in order to increase water-holding capacity for reuse. Specifically, a ratio of one part clean organic matter(to be imported from off-site)and two parts native topsoil will be applied for such soils. In order to prevent fugitive dust migration,mixing of impacted soil with clean sand will be limited to within the subject property and will take place at a minimum of 150 feet from the property boundaries. Furthermore,in order to prevent stormwater runoff and adverse erosion conditions at the site during soil management activities, the general contractor will be required to adhere to the requirements outlined in the project stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)related to management of stormwater and erosion and sediment control,which has been provided under separate cover. Surplus soils will be utilized as topsoil in landscaped areas throughout the subject property. In some cases,up to 18-inches of topsoil may be placed throughout the site by the general contractor. As currently proposed, all soils to be managed as part of the SMP activities will remain on-site, and no off-site disposal is anticipated. 2.2 Closure Report At the conclusion of SMP activities, a SMP Summary Report will be prepared and submitted to the Client. The SMP Summary Report will provide a summary of all soil management activities conducted on-site and will include a photo log,figures and any, although not anticipated,potential deviations from the Soil Management Plan due to site constraints. 4 Soil Management Plan V" lib 2.3 Construction Health and Safety Plan As previously indicated,on-site construction workers will be informed of the soil conditions and will be provided protective gear(e.g.,gloves,long-sleeve shirts,etc.), as requested.On-site hazards and safety measures will be effectively communicated to all on-site workers including the general contractor through the use and implementation of the site-specific CHASP,which has been provided under separate cover. 2.4 Community Air Monitoring Plan As previously indicated, dust suppression techniques (e.g.,use of water trucks,etc.) will be employed at the subject property in order to minimize potential for fugitive dust migration. Details regarding on-site controls with regard to fugitive dust are provided in the CAMP provided under separate cover. \ \nylidata\projects\29305.00 Heritage CutchogueAProjRecords\FinalDocs\Fleritage SMP.docx 5 Soil Management Plan This Soil Management Plan was prepared by: Prepared by: Bryan Murky Senior Project Manager VBB Engineering,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,P.0 Signature: Supervised by. Stephen Kaplan Director,OHM Services VIJB Engineerh-ig,Surveying and Landscape Arc-hitecture, C. Signature: by�A ...... Attachment A Figures Attachment A r I gree � �%��/'�/ / ':✓ I� r' „ , r I" ill v„ h y. I IIIIIIIII " i i,,' / l r .., °����rN .: � I � / � "�%niq����lli/ / ,l� ��� I� � �Iii, ',',q •u O uj , e / P , u , l v / r r PLUM ISLAND GARDINERS IS. , i J / SHELTER ISLAND i S S SOUTHOLD k � f ' �,,,,k�',,,EAST HAMPTON RIVERHEAD - T ROOKHAVEN SOUTHAMPTON IiSHINNECOCK BAY r The Heritage at Cutchogue Figure 1 — Site Location n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane N Legend I inch=386 feet g Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold w E "3rx t S Digital y g ' ' Feet Subject Property SOURCE:2013 NYS Digital Ortho-ima>ery Suffolk Count NY 11935 �u, ©NYSITS,2013.Hamlet Center boundary 3'� S 0 135 270 540 Cutchogue Hamlet Center Boundary sha efile based on Southold Hamlet Study, VHB Ref.29305.00 i9111u 11111111 11111111 111111 2 North American Datum,1983-New York Long Island State Plane ()() V" lib Attachment B Pesticide Report, Nelson & Pope, November 8, 2007 Attachment B I F- Pesticide Report The Heritage * Cutchogue Cut hogue, New 'York N&PJob# 00026 November S, 2007 i Pesticide Report The Heritage @ Cutchogue Cutchogue,New York THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 11 PAGES OF TEXT I Prepared For: Heritage @ Cutchogue,LLC 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford,New York 11763 Prepared By: Nelson&Pope 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville,New York 11747 (631)427-5665 Long Island Analytical Laboratories,Inc. 110 Colin Drive Holbrook,New York 11741 i i I i i I Pesticide Report I The Heritage @ Cutchogue i i CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Page 1 of 11 . 2.0 SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM Page 3 of 11 I I 2.1 Sample Collection Page 3 of 11 2.2 Sampling Program Rationale Page 3 of 11 3.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS Page 4 of II i 3.1 Analytical Test Methods -- -- Page 4 of 11 3.2 Analytical Results Page 4 of 11 I 4.0 QUALITY ASSITRANCE QUALIT'Y CONTROL Page 6 of 11 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Page 8 of 11 6.0 REFERENCES Page 10 of 11 APPENDICES Page 11 of 11 i 1 Pesticide Report The Heritage @ Cutchogue 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Nelson &Pope, LLP has been contracted-to prepare a Pesticide Report for the subject property. This report is intended to determine the concentration of pesticides and metals in site soils, since these substances were widely used for weed and pest control in Long Island agricultural practice. The subject property consists of a 46.16 acre parcel of fallow farm field and wooded land located in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, Cutchogue. The parcel is more specifically identified as SCTM No. 1000-102-1-33.3. This document will be used to assist in evaluating the environmental and/or public health implications regarding the current concentrations of agricultural chemicals in on-site soils. The sampling program was designed and completed by N&P. Laboratory analytical data was prepared by Long Island Analytical Laboratories, Inc. The protocol used to direct this investigation was based upon the guidance offered by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) in a report entitled Procedures for Municipalities to Evaluate the Need for Soil Sampling and Soil Management at Subdivisions or Other Construction Projects with Potentially Contaminated Soils. This SCDHS document is based on initial guidance from the New York State Department of Health Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment. The following sections detail the subject property and surrounding area characteristics, sampling program, protocol and quality assurance, lab analysis and results. A total of eighteen (18) soil samples were collected from nine (9) sampling locations situated throughout the property. Specifically, soil samples were collected from depths of 0-3 and 3-6 inches at each of the nine (9) sampling locations. Due to the past use of a majority of the property for agricultural purposes, the samples collected from five (5) locations were analyzed for the presence of pesticides and metals and the samples collected from the remaining four (4) locations were analyzed for arsenic which is a common constituent associated with pesticides. Initially, only the samples from the 0-3 inch intervals were analyzed. If any detected compounds within each individual sample were found to exceed their respective regulatory guidance values only then was the associated 3-6 inch interval sample analyzed. Review of the analytical results revealed the presence of elevated levels of arsenic and mercury which exceeded there respective regulatory agency guidance values across the subject property. As a result the 3-6 inch interval samples were analyzed for the presence of arsenic and mercury only and the analytical results revealed elevated concentrations of both constituents. In order to identify the depth to which arsenic and mercury were present, soil samples were collected from the three (3) of the previous sampling locations which exhibited the highest concentrations. The following sections of this report outline the sampling measures taken and provides a map illustrating the location of the samples collected. Appropriate recommendations are provided in Section 5.0. j The Heritage- -Cutchogue Pesticide Report 2.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM(SAP) 2.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION A total of eighteen (18) soil samples were collected from nine (9) locations situated throughout the subject property on October 24, 2007. The soil samples were collected from depths of 0-3 and 3-6 inches below grade. Samples collected from five (5) of the locations were analyzed for the presence of pesticides and metals and the samples collected from the remaining four (4) locations were analyzed for arsenic which is a common constituent associated with pesticide use. The depths of the soil samples were selected to provide a profile of the soil located on the subject property. Initially, only the samples from the 0-3 inch intervals were analyzed. If any detected compounds within each individual sample were found to exceed their respective regulatory guidance values only then was the associated 3-6 inch interval sample tested. Results from both sample intervals revealed the presence of elevated concentrations of two (2) metals and as a result it was concluded that further sampling was necessary to identify the depth to which these inorganic compounds were present at the subject property. Additional sampling was conducted at the three (3) previous sampling locations which exhibited the highest concentrations and samples were collected at depths of 9-12 inches, 15-18 inches and 21-24 inches below ground surface on November 10, 2007. The sampling scheme employed was consistent with guidance j available from SCDHS as referenced herein. A stainless steel hand auger decontaminated between uses (see Section 4.0), was used to extract all of the soil samples from the subject property. Figure 1 provides a map that identifies the various locations from which the soil samples were collected. The topography of the subject property is relatively flat. 2.2 SAMPLING PROGRAM RATIONALE Soil samples were collected in accordance with the recommendations of the SCDHS and NYSDOH,noted as follows: • samples were collected at depths of 0-3,3-6,9-12, 15-18 and 21-24 inches. • samples were directed toward those areas likely to.have accumulated the highest contaminant levels. • samples were analyzed for the presence of pesticides and metals. ' I Laboratory analysis results are discussed in Section 3.0. Since the proposed property will be used for a residential subdivision, the concentration of pesticides and metals is an important issue. In accordance with SCDHS and NYSDOH recommendations, the sampling and analysis program was intended to determine: • if site activities had caused degradation of soil quality on site; • if a soil management plan (SMP) is appropriate given the concentration of contaminants and the intended use of the site. The following section provides the laboratory analysis for the site samples, including test methods and analytical results. I Page 2 of 11 ����� 7�.�,. _.. �,.ni I- -T-i,, ,�, -,f­,�7 w.,,;;; -- - '4- �j --- I - , __ � " , ,,r 5z ,--.45i.'r ,,,,, --�_ , _27 - - - R — _14V e ,�, 'T, 'T R,*-,,�-.,-�.. , !!,,�,, T j�.� -, RMIMORtFIR, _7TRF. If- NI�IIWA �,..� I �� ,! 'Mi? ZROW, � 11.�._W � , 11 �_ ��, -, � . ... .*,, N I arry,, -�,_,.­i��,.....::::: .,� "I 1��, "" � , - � , , - - I �.._ �111 �, .- - t .w, �,v , ,,�, -, ­­­ _,_ . ,�-r,--�-'.-.�,;-2,--�-',",i*".-..f��,�.,� ,f.-,Iii, . -.. _.,,.,�`�-O ... ,�i;i ggar ze_.-�,;- - U `, " �- -� ,. . S. , -"' - - - , ��.,, : ,- -�-�. I - . , ­� --i,.-;, ,- -..,. 1*1 .: O""t'g ­, K�,- � ,,, ­ , �l . � -,-,..­­3C.r.,L,;,, -,.-I'M ,V � ." :,­_ .,_ , ,11 I - 6, Ily :" ..42 .1 r.4. _,,, �, , ,. R a . �� %,;�,.,v;OP�,L ",:.,.:,�5�R_4.!,?�;;.-?��&,�,,,,*,,., ., .-, .� ,T . . .11. 1 " ,�v.- . , -A ,,�,_- ,-, k� , , , A-4 , ,P, _��,;. �, .-�,_F-�,�..- e:-. ,-,.-'., , .. ,, A,,.-,.-?.-�,,�A,�,�`S,��%, !��-:�%� ,jv,,�� ;- , . ., V_ - , -, " - . - _,Illv.�111,111 U -. .-.... �. .. - ­ -.1 �,,,,, ._ . '411- �­� �­I I, , , � .. � , N _)4 �� � T.,. � _1 -- q l I V-,��P,,,-�,,��,:,;,_-j,-, - , .1"i I , *��­��V ., 1) t, , , ,? .,, r ,,,�;�_ -.',, , -... ­., -­ ..� , - _ - � � -�,� "- , I.z,,,f,,z�F!A,,,*,,.,!_-,,-, .� - �0_1 - I . "", --- - , �z . - I ii W� ., - "-4.- I . � w - -, � ,-. - , . �;&,,t az � .,,.,-.,I ,7,14cl-,_ ­V�,X.," .- - , , __ ._. ,,;i - .. - , , , -- X. - j-, !�_�,-, ,i�- �I-i-, e��&��i�,-�,R.:.,­�J,,,_�._­_ , -,I - ,W.11�4_,Iyl: . -�,.,� - 1.11.1� I , _ .1. _� ,I - ,, I � ��. ,, , -:, ;,�,:��It!V�,-;,�,,,,s ,,A` , - ,7� 'I. ," � . ,,Io I , ,�,j,�--,, ,* 1�",11 v ; --1.1,...... I . .�-��.��:. , ­-�Z,,,_` ,2� , ;,, � I�,_* -A, A.P i�;_,�.._:._ . , - �, ,,,,�, ­ .­�­ ,- - ,� �­.k_ �� � ,,-­4­,,i,,,t, , - ,K�,,-,-Z�..A�_,I,­,.,,I _;,._.�-��-,,, ;d ., .,..,.), 1_1� ..".-;.:,,,.�­. ,.. ,, -, ,-.,;,. �,"I ��,,..,­ --u'v 7, -"':,.-,.�."��.",,� � 1.�,U,_10"g- , ',',,,* ,. ,6', F��.- _M..,,,� �,,i�t,,�� � - . , . , � -j�,o!v,,-a -1-------- ---'r E�� ,. ­-, I" - . , i*� -.,,,, *-7,';F',-.I-,N,r---%.-�85,.,; . t,, -,�*_N, - 1�1,.,,�ql , -, - , I -0 ,- , , - -:� 3-D-T -1� � , -,g- , I- "' , . , -;., 'A,- -- --�--, .-,-J "--7�V -m I.- J, �.�., , ".- ., ,,A�W�� g � ­� - Fa ,.I.I... _.1, : , - , , . I. - e--,: V il�� ,,,'Vx , - � 1, - _,.", .1.� 1 .:-, _.I ,,�4A�Z., I ` .,_v .,._ , i. , � .- - .,-.. V_,;r,*,�,,,-, �-,�,�'i'�l-'��'..�l'.1i.i�,�,..Ii 'llk.��I� ! � ..FIA ---j ­­,­­- _,� ,,�,�,�,,,,�'lr,.'-,4--,��-,4-�� �... - - , ,I- , . Jr--,�. ,.-- X_ , -1. ,,�:F., . .-, �I " ,., -- - _" - " _,:��I - -".�, 11 � ?�!e_ , ",,;��,I�I.,,� � I I � ­..A I I ­_,oi,s_��, -1 � �s,4. , ,� - ti"a ", , , .� -� , -, -- ,"-,,��-,, - ��,­ ,, --.�-.,,--RW-� - I , .­ �,­�� �� �.._- ,� -, .,�i ,..,,1:.,J,_0!.�., :,, -,,, 1�11 $�" I � .- T,afi , � -:.'L', -"k I . ,8,1�1 IkIll 'T - � ." kj, -,,. . M:I IVWA� , , , ��-,��, -1��-,..'�4,11�..,,��,�,:��.,�-�".*'---:-..�'�"""!,�,�,� -.,,�,�-�;,­,��:�_, , . �, ;. ,,�-,,,� �.. � " ," , .i`,_I,_I 1.11 , -I".�­,-1-1�,�.�".-.'�41"(,�'��'I'�..;���F , �� ,�i"L ,��!.�,,2T4,0<.,-4-"-"�,',�'r'�,,���L,*"-,;�'-'��,-q!�� -,�, .,",�,, - , -!� , - il") _, - _.,�,.,­__,�., 111�1­q_ -- :1,_', i _.i,Si ,M111- �I � I INV,,,�w�,.-,­�­.­­ ��.,al,,,N,.,.���� ,,- - - -;��,az,,,f,.,.�.�- ­ � -.1_� .,:.,-" 11 , ,9 ip N iawO,2-,--,._,,,;�,i��,�. , - I 1-h-.7"1­�,r - , ., ..�Ri� T . ,$ --,, � --%, , Y, -, -" - � , P ,;,_.��, -;�f,� ". � KA., -;:., �,-,,.,,7-_�­­, - - ,;?%. -�-,�.;%.. ..,:-,­-,.,;% . . ;., -x,-.4"� _;.�,,Z�- ,4 , ,c� .mt- N', .,,:,4.,,�,-,,.,__ ,k !�,t. I I'll wl; -,��i;Az','��4 ,�-�-�­,ti i�tl-'----- -i-'-' .�­, -,... -�. - �..,.. I r � _. , e�, - ,.?;i t� , M,,�r.-�,"',�­_10, - "I,I;... , I I � ,­ ,�,;­ - --- ., "I-,­-4-if,-- I -- ­ ,-- �_�:, A ,_� 9- � _- , .1 �.1,., - -�i ,�� � ", ::�_,,,I,i�,"- - - -'Y',I,(,*.I,I,I ,qag �._, ,r!�:,)N_,,---E$_ "" , --,- , , -ggiuq,g�,�j�,__,,- �,.,,__-.�, BAP 1 - .1 �-.-, "I.,:, .,� ,.-j-`�..,:�,�-,., .,"",- " , , , , - V4 21--, -?,�4�111 � ;�.�.. ­_­-,.`,-,�z,,&�.,,,-_ ,!,�.2z . 1 �� , --- -.,�i,,�- a - z - , ��, _ 't,,�,111._,.._,�,,�:-, -,.,,.�,",v�d�,g-,4 4; I$ , . �,�,� - - . - ,- ,�,t,,,ll-�,,�! �`,, I .(I . I , ,,� , -- - -, v,"% -, -,- -,� __��,i,,,_z, ,., . � � ,��,,,,V.�, -.,� �g ze ,1p_, .- ,I,1�1_ . �,, , �.,�,-...�,-�.,�� i,,�,,,­,.,,__ ,,,�,­,_-. .,.-�:­, '.."r - 1,"D, ,041 - L,��_ : , , _­.,.,. - 'I ,-, ,!�,,,1,V� 't"!g­Z�,;,, --,- .-., ,;, .--- Igig i�, 1-m-, i. -..; , ,f�� :��,,_�,ii� a - . 111��­< . 7 J,? ,�7, � I �,_Sll`,:_.,," .,"1. � . �-',-,-".--,.-" 'RI.-­., - , 14�� , , �:,..,� F - - - .1- - - . . , ;, �,, - � ;� MG -k- � � ,�Y,W e�,�4�,;, - I _!.` : , - � , .��,,�,,N,,_.-,-. ..-, ,- "-A, , _i,-- , �Fi-,�,,'�-�,.";",,I,q�X�-';'�� OXO - ,_ � _. I , �! . , m�1o,"v-,-T, , m5� z�., 'l . �-q,lr��,, -, -,- "��f, . - -I- .. , . I.; �,, , 'I .� , .'m ,P_ im , ,� --,, ��,;,� - 'i -,� , -- �,,o,t,,.,-�� � - -�.,,,,, � ,.�� 'i", ,, �,, .:� ,:. - -p"- �.��,.-,4* �;,��i,,f­ , �,_ ��,�.� . � - �, ,,,, � . - , ­ ,11i - m `� , . ,,, , �. ...,; - - . , - - � -,A-, . ..,,-,�,;,"­ � - _-, - �. , , ... .1-M ,. , "'-. .,:,,,�Z��,,-,-,-- .�;, - "", IM_*.��, ___,�_ --,� ,z � -" —, ,- 11 11-"!;.-I.."..�Y�,��1," . .�,.,-.,:--,� ---.�,,,,�, D,Z,�IzicLltr,, � � ,, - __ "I'll, 7 ,.1..:ivl�-,, --[- - -1, .I, , . ,W I , , ... I- .,. ;.. ,­ ":- _, ,_--1 _­ I .- I,- ,-_,�_ � - ­_- .-1. , ,�, ,� �, ,�z.: ', _C.Paii� �i�. ,,.,;!;,�,�,-,7,�,,,,�� .11 .,. -t•, � L�,),--,, -I!, — , . , 2, . ,,� - .- .",:.., - _.,�,7, .;,.,._,�­131,_0,��,40, zl.�Wl,� - . I __ -i-­ �- rsv, I _.- -, . .- . ., _,,�%��,jc.VV�-��., -1,1­1" li�, - 1:1b�r _1 ., -z.-,�- , , �� +.64 ---,- - .,.", " , -ve".,-��; I, �-,� II -- .. _ , ,- .. ,. .,�--- ---- - ��,%,,-­ �,,:K,,,-jk_��_,,�;;, ,.-,t, I , , ,"I - ..- , , , - � . ,,:�;, .,,, - i, � ,,-, ,� --- ,�, . ,! �,. .I- - .�, - ', 1, ,1:- ,� , �� ­ , � ­ -, ; , � ,;,.�,�­, ", , � I :-- ,.� - ., _-, ­., ,S, ,I �I.t, ,�..��,,,' .. -. ­:­.�.�,�­ .,; -,;�� .1;-I_­­* -t-a�,tj ��, .`iA51­ , � - T, o,__-_-.._ ..11� - _-,� , , N F , - ,N.. .. - , - Ili*.- ,. - ,. � " , , - . , _�.. ,. " ,- � ,-1-1.1 L�:Q.�V_ ,, ,�, .,, - .f�Y*,.. ., - - _F - - -�.-_, - � , �,. -.-U�E- o--,,f!U - - We il ,h , ,� .,,�_� . ., i;, , ,�,, . .� , � -4?�f- I., -, . ..,Til ` , I - ! .�_�-�-­­-,�,�,�i�,, 1- V,- ��, -.;'.i 7"'. 1,._�K-4� ...0-, ., ,­"I,�i*,­ 4 ,.__", ::.{t.­Ii�, R,id �,&-, �� ., . -, f ,-,:,-,,,, �, . ? , ­ .I, " , .�li* -1,,. � , , - :�. # , .�. ..- ,_ ,� - ,.,- , .�,J,� I.- , -"F . ,R� I �,-, I ,x ,� M . . - "J,- �f jq;, �,,. I i.,A _.n.I. - -Q - - �, .,,�.,z�i, % , . - - - M M,L__�.-1, �­.,T .2, , .I, , - 1�I!,,�, , �,.� ,- :, c�lt,n5��� :q� - ,__ _ " - , -, .,7,"a,qg, i 4, - I,--M - 0 - " . -,,,. � - -,a- -, ,- - .. . " ,-, � , ,, , . �, - - - -w::.",'.. "'. oj,-L��,�7r!,�.,:., " , ..5;I_ ���_� ,,: , � �,�.,, _, "., ,� M � .,I I - I-, 4" 7�-, : - �_�, I gi, . ;v _� - -_ ,. I �­1�I ­, _�,� ,f��,,,��,, t g , 3, , tj,., !, .*:-" .,.-.,. ", . . ,.,v ­ '*.�-,,-,_, .,�-­. ., , - .0 y R!,�h ,�_1, ,�I kl , , � � "', , �_,,m�,,,.,!� -1 .-1,A.,t-.,�W� i�.g�,,iI; ,,,- _�N_., , -,I�.,,- �V,­ 11 --1 - _!��, ,� � , ,�� -.-,, -, ___ _�� )��4, W,-- ,: __5W . - -� - - � ." - -�- ", - �, I , ;,i, �tin� , -2 . - . - , A, ,,, 1 _.. _.,,r-i�y�,�� - ", �r, - -,, I. �11 I ,;q_� ,--,"i), .:� -. . ,- S�,��,,I,il,­,­I�l-1 I... 04,;�i` -, - I ,,I*j ,. -;. . j. ..� _. ,m7A5i ..- 3"_', � ,,,,. .�,-F ��,,,�faf;tV , �, ; , , , , a-3l, " .-:-,�� �:, -I ,-Z�, .iE.'-',7,1�,-;�,,,,, -.--��--.1- - v - A�,-_ISZ,?z, ,, ': -- * , .. e��_,,, 1� - - - ­_i�� , ;,,�, !,�,, "p, % "v%`.0,?i%� ,,Wlt,�Ij,Q-� ,"�,-1-;', ��, ..gR%-, ,!�,, , iia�,`,-. ,�,��7� - .�_- ,­�,�- _ � , - -� - -1 - _�- , �. _�i�_ -,,, 1,­�_gpi ,7 " , %Ii, ,- ,;, �, ,j7 ,� , - ,Z ....... - , I....... . . � ," �,,-�,'.',-.,_17. ?, _., ,7"�-(-"34���-�� ��� j,! ,,- -A-g,, M.� ,;q ., . .. 1-:. ''.... ,.%I v: , , - I , " . ,, - - P..---'.Z i:!,* -,,,��,,; , ­ . -!vj- - I i, , -� .1 ,�� J�,f", _-,pi F j , .., , I .. , AR ", ,. - - ,-, , , - - -- , _4�,,,--5, q­,,:%�, , ..., ` "': , . _ - , . . � . ­)., ,,I ,�r- - � - .- ,�,:-._,.,,� .- -i .,Z� ;,,.:I.,..*,,:;:,,_,r�-:,�,�-.:-";.',���,..�.�,i4�,,,':- ,��z��,,`�,., * ,- - A . �,-�--,I,�V_12.K,,,N,, ­!� , . , �.. . .. .. - , -" , , ,"' "-,-�,�.�-,-,.:,I,`,,,- ,im I� F ,­ ,.., .6 , 4�� , .,- � ,, � 1". . IV &­,�, . ,, �­`,,�,�­, 'r .F �n�, -,..,,�,��L ., t,_..�,, - , -A ­�,!M, 7., ,,-107", 0:,�i,��,-1�V I . ­�,,1��,,�.,," .,�,, 1� - _'p,;.; . ..",�,2, _. � ..Ii"-��,�,�,,-�li,,...I-ra",7����- � ,,;44 xfd,,-,,i,�,�RV,.1,�i��� iz- - . - - -, __ �,�, ,.01"U. ,4, -- -.�. 1�9 7.,,U��,�.-_�,z -- -- g,?,,_Z��,, *, 240",, � �,A.tA . --� ",` , "I .... I .; - � � ,� , - " ,_ .". ,-. ,;��.. 4_1�, �iq� ,,,. .­,Z�,,, ,- ­ ��, �. ) � 't,�_, ­,.�­_, , ,,,i4 -, ,,1 -;3V,��,,.. ., !�., " - - .g�,Z t -.--;- -- . -, -Y, ,, , , �., .7� , , �> s'. , . . I ,-.,- , . . X A - . ;.11, , . V��,k%4,�,-L-, .�,_"I..--.,".., -�.� --Y-_ rig ,w,Ij-,,­,--. -1--�'l�,,�-v�e4,�Tj.��!�r,�,��*,��-�,*, l.z-', p:­�Igon,--_ - - *PN- ��-�,, ;.�. PrI�­1_1�_�­. t-R -A%---,,--_, �� , ,., ? T, : �, ., , . ,,� --,,�� - ,. " Zj,]�. A2_ g, . - ,- - .�., ., --,, - - . � yok:,T� �.,.,, -i�, A, 7"� - .."'. ��., '. .1'. - , ,:, I , - - - ; - _. .� .. ,.--l-,"t , - ,�m " �g�,�- _,g ; , 1.-.,l . - -; ,* ,; _�.! -, N ." ,. 1,,, ,*,,,,,,-�I, ,� -;,���r"f-'�4,5t-�,��i,."Ij�,,��.-)�:zjk,k,4a ---'I-I-, , �,- 17 1 . ..­ e --,!�: .,:,�,,��--,7_`..�,, ,-".*,,: .i_�, ­ ,',,I �� , -.1f.1-1—1-,�­IZI ,,, I- .. I -.1 . ., .- . : " -.,, - - -1. ,t,2 %A;_ " . - - � 1, �_�, .:: . ­..-1 1. .,­.� ., ._,�Z��,�;,!�� -:,,--_�� - , -,,."I�,,�.,,.��.._..1, _- I�� . . ,,� ..-,- , ;�. .,.,".I " ;- . , ., ,, � - 1 , " __:f�,�;011,11�.�,�,,, ,.,,, IyII­_� I I,;,� ,�,,,, -, t , ,,L, , ,R, -��x 1, . . , :1 411,�._ - � �.­,, „-- �� -R,Hifi 7 - - "It ,, . vy,T� —,�� I Z IrI,�_Ii`;­_, ­ %” ,,�J�.� ...... ,:;--: . " j-!,-,�ir,),nU,-;, -, �: ,�, N W ,A, - � I , . I ,.i��.i, A-,'-"*lr _.,J,,�,!, ,�;, �, `�-Q,,,-�, . , -,.,;,.�, ,� *,-,-,,._�_,,: �"�",-,..-.-_:fI. ,�,.j- ,.,!.., - , j" _.. , ,.W.,_-,- ,-; ,.��,�,*,,,.,,��,,,15��f­,_k,a,!., ,0,4=m, �,�,-t,ipm j g ,4`�,�,,�,,,,,, , -i .. . . , , ,� �, I _ -, , , _ , ,..,­,,,, -�,-,, . ­� -, -.-,� . .. � I .- - , , ,,.!0 ,. ,L,j...... ,".,�Ii -, !�,� . , ,,-�3"-,-�z-,-;A�v,�f-��,"T?a - , , !n ,_ �, -,, .­ , , -��� -1 �� I.-I -,,i, ---� ,: ,-"":;:F. .� - .;.�", - - - �­,�, .1, .1 � c ._",., , ­: -�-',�'-,!;,--,.,�,�-tL�,:-..�4 � .."t�_�, ,� N;� , J.�"A 5�, ,,,�,,.- - � .1, , ,.. - .,- , ,., ,,��A�� - - ,,,,�, i ,, ­­ .11, - - ",_-, . - ,- � -_-:f. ,:%, -4-,,,_:-.,. .1-" --"."I' - , , . .1.. , v - ". . I I_,: - _t �EYY�- ,, , ,- 7 . _. , ,�, L-'.' " Z-,7v.�-i��,�.31��,.�_Ii,-��z-� �1�,,,,w ,,,, ,�,,_ . 'i;��: " I 'y --- , .- -_,L*' -, .�,. , __ ., , �, ��211,�, , - - - � fl, , I .1 , _1 - -,- -�! - - L ., , - ,f -;3, -g.,s;�-P,,Vi,., Wmii�qzn,���._ �,,C,,,�, , ,� _ - , ,�,_ _�' 0 - . ��_�_� - ,.,T_.j,,r 7--z,,,l�`t,_ �ER--"-- f ,,f,,% ,il.", ;__ :. :-,� .,;.-!-,....��� - ,"',v,,-,-,-�!c-_.�-,� :�..:,�,.,. ,,�,1� - �;� ,-�,--"-,:-,; i) ,� ,�14--, 14,1 . ,��-M--�O,f� ,,.,_*-,,�,-,. ,,._-, I , � , , - - - � ,�,.�Y i , -, , ,,�4,k,,2.. .,. �- - . , ,�, ..,,,...� i� , I -1 j��i . , ,�,_ ;, . ,,�,��7 , gi - , - . , I� - - ,..�-.,-.-,; ."!%�,4­,.��.p - " - ` -- K ,,�,�;,r,,, ,_" , ,-11-1 �,,,�,,.,-. `!�i.--.�-"t'!".--S_n__I.�.,, :.­�, �, .� --- � . �__I,t.,�,�., , -, .,.I ,� p -,1%. , - �, -12', ��.-,t,,,,'�',i�,�.,�t,-�,��-�,�; %,,, I I � . .. ] , _.. W, Mi,�, ,-O ,. L .., - p.-��1.,(,., � .,..,� , ..- L. ,,Nii,�,,:��; '�t,4"l�,'��,�-�"'�",q.,-', I -..-, ,;.'. .2 . -',.-, _ - - g ��"i-��� �! ,. -,�p�4--z,.�_V,�i ---� V , - - - - . ..."., �� " - .,,�, � ��, . 1. . ��,,,jli- -,�,.,�, , ., -1. ,��1, , ­�_V-�,Nf�N�Ii,,,.,-� _-.w� � , - --It ,I ,(�,!�jj ;T,,-44��iariax ,,,,-,V�!-;.,,,�.;I,q � ,,,.,, .,, - - - -,,�,:�-�,�,,._-,,�T­ -,..-, i.- .";z,-�,7.,`­ , .,�,*�� ,--� _,�­I,-.,t� , '. ,�,�!,,.1 7' .":`,,,,,�:�-,--��,- ._, ,. . �._l__j--,f."----nl,,a��,,,,,i _ ,,�._."I:�.,�---,�,*,: , -. "I ,�q��1,-q- ,. "-, - - - . ,, ­;.--j 1. � - .. - "---' 4F�q -,!�,g; �12, - , i�­._ ,_..,,.�,.;,,-.-:--,:- �.�­�ij.­%,-,.,_,�... -,,,,.�_,,,,�!�I.,a -,- I _.. " 'L .i�,,.`i�:, "" ­ , �,. "�,�-",.,�-, ,. � ,a� , �*- --: :,; ,� , ,..,,,, ­ - . ,,, - , ,. _ , - , _� I. - -.4 q . ..- - - - - " .`;�p,,?]V,Ai*,,� -,14V�?,.­.-,h �,,, -�,,,�,�,�, f �.�..�.,.-. .:,, - -� ­� _- "44- 1 ..�, �. , "',% � �, ,� ��,. , �-,-.,. _,_,,.-. - , 'obi-, --- - �::,";' ,�:.'. :,.- -_, I j ,.* ..�-_-:�`A,�4..��-- L_��j.,,-,., -��,,,�Lz,��,,1,5,t��,,�,z"k �`� , ". ., . _ -, , jj:j ,--oa, .-� -;J,. , - � _ oj�,;��A�.,,,T, M­ _ ,�.­O,,M!A_ .� . , ',,5,7_ ,_�.,_.. �. - , --- --�j,- 'If,],' -.%:_�-., `��`,Ov4 t?"'Y"!,� ,,�,K�; ,,�,e, ��N,�=,� I 'I ,; .;,I, - t, ,,�-- .,,,�.,-�,:"��ll-i�;,-,--�" , . �,,��-; .,,� I I , . .,., � 1'. -,��_K ... �. III-f-I.-l- - . . _4 ,5 11_--ij _-­ _-t`,-,�Z,zx-� '��.�i�" z��-,,-,,� .,�.,__ ,,g:.� _� ,4! - -, - . .�.. ,,, - ��,,�L.:o,- �--, .:,:.: ; ., I;�� ,, p -1 , , - , , - - . . - - .i��z I-L-1- ;� F-W,Z,,j,,j.�s ,,-.,,,,,��., , *4,�-�,'7;*-.;-,-,-!',-�,,.:;,.:''.,-,,�. -I �.. . �j -, 4,� , -­­ � "vi., , __I., -,�? I. :::,. I _.i�,."I," ,-�.-1, �, .."',;.. ,-,,,,--..!,,�t.,.,-,,., ..­-.�, ,,�,1-, - -, .,4:,�, j - .Ii,!­I,.­,,,-, " � , Ii-v I �.��I,.� 'A'j,".�. , . -, -:, - f. . . � _P;4,,,`, I-- !I? �-;­,.,-� -,-- , ­ , , " , .. ",�, ;� -,qvK�,:,,� : - , , I "I.- �.,_, . Z.-',- 11"-,,�.,�;11,��,�E.�i,l�����-,,,,'�,���",!!- .���- , ,,,,��A.Od:!�,��. - , -1 , I , ,3�, 't 7,�,-.,�� , � 1 -v F ,�. , , - � - -.,:, �� ,,�!­­.".�.�:�-!-�l,-�'-i'i-��-,.��,�!,-Yl���--"�C,F.--,i�1-1-1�-� ,,! -,,!,�.�,� ,�,,,,,fi,�,, ,:z- , ." -, � , -, " I ,,-, ;_ . _.- a ... ! I I -�. . ,�,-, ,-,-,-�;­� "l- , . � 1,-..'e.: s - t � I I 11- , ';,,��., .��`,­,"I - ,...�::�I-,.."-:,'. -,:--,, �- -.-f-,-..,.- .- - 111-. , f�� .1 �_ ,.. , -".. . , I.j�­L-,-�-� ,- "', . - - --, . . .1 ,, � .,: . -4--1�_,, .�, - ",.:, . .�: ,,-,�- , - , , ---I.. ,.,.J,_­ !_ ,,- ,��7,����,��-,--'��,",,--.'!,iI�!�,,�t� .r,.,,,,i I i 'r-, .,, - -- ,� . , ,� ,��,- �..,,_- . ,,, ,,�,,�,�,�, ;- , I. , - , - :, ..,�� , � , , �, �., � ,� '. -.­�,_�-�,,-,,--,..":.-,,.,,�, ,��, ,E� " -- ,�-,, j,4,!,,�� - - , - ", .. . ., t,%..,��,m,_a., I . f , , .1,,:� 1;,� ... ,1� . �i_ - ,_,�r , - �z �I . _ - - -, , ,,, �� � . �:���,�" -j, -- I -, , -, -,,�.; �" , ,:�.t -J, - . I ... ;v-, �T,:-,� .,!,,��,.,,.,-,i, , ..-Y -R,,i'P"v,�,,� , , ,� �,"',.". -.1,�, ,.�-.:_­.: .. �:,_ � ,., , .�. "--, - ,�,- ,,� ,-4.,- - I -� .,­�. .� r I � a 0. - I_. . . I -, . - � -_ -l"*,, ,� - ,t. ,,,.z --, �. . , . - . .:� _-:­ - -,. ,,�_, . ,- "t . , ­. , ,, . .. a I ..���, 1,�%­_ �­,�,,,,,;-�,, ,, ��; . I - T 't- - . . .� -, - .- ] :!..,i:� _ ,.-, -, - . - -t- , --, - � ... - .-- � � ,. � - . - -.- ,- , , ---r­_(­�,��, - _.- .--,:,-t,1 -" ,- ,�,,�,,..�,6*jd� �. I . A,�� .P, - - - - " . .�I- . ..;.-.. � ", -!��.,,­-,Zl-,,,5���,,���- � j"��P r'.,1;,,�,", I - . � - , - � . ,t�,,� �,,,, -, -,��. Y, - . , -�:_- i_� : �� �� _� -. ,;-,�. , ,� .,,�C�--j,­..,i:.- �_�I , . . . � ., . . . .,- , 1, ,. , - ,,, J., , ,.,. .7 -,� �, -�,�,,�,., "� ,��:� ... . .... �_; ;�,, :i .. � . I - ­­_�",-.,.:1,__i,� I . ­.- *- I..I,-� I . I � .,.-, , ,-.-,,-,,,, _ -; �-_��,Z�,:_,""�, � _.I I� � ,, ��.1" .� ��,��-,.t_�.._ "P _. ..� -, - - I .- ,--,, , - , _.,�t .. -lz,-'.-,,�,-!,��.��,,,��,'-�',��- "'. . ->_�.. :., �I I "a, � S.6 � . .$�V�� .. � -.6 p . �1 I . I I . . I � - ,�. - , . - .,., - - ;I�. � � I ._, __ Ii. � - :1 ,, � 7, I . - ,,: . ,- , � ��.., I , . . -�� , ,,7,:--,, * I . - . 1�1 �. . - .i� - _�, ., ,Ps-�Sz �, :. � .._I� , . . - - - .t.,.. � ,,_; ,­�_,,­ __;_ , , -,. I .r-,,.�I.'.- ,-. 45, - I I � - �- .-,�, `6.1q_.-1,_,.I ir- � � - ­:- .,"!-,_� � ,,�,- , �;,. : . .,'-.-,�� ,. .,�.__t 4. � . �!,,,,-2., .-. - � �.. � . w , I .- .; � P.5�5,� ., . �','7, �` � -,- " . ..�._ -,' .", ,- .- , ­_ ,;. _�,�;.��,,. , : , . .-�I . . � , , . , .." .,,.., "A;� " . . I,. .1 V 11 *&A -_- I T. � . I. ,. , . � � . . � .: . 4,. ,,.,�,n , Li, -. - ;�;,. .��.,,..,, ,.i I*. .-..-. -1 .1 I.� ��;, ,., "�!,-,­ � � �.,.. 11 . - , * . . . . .1 . -- ,, /",, _,,,....., !:,." I,.�� , , � . ,.�,'-,,- ! - . q .,- ­ I - . , . - , . . . , , -I .-I�­t�,,.,�. , � �-. . ".�,--,, 11,. I.. , ... .�-.! 112 �: .',;�� �r , . . . �*;. , -.1 . ,. ,,"-,.:,�,., �. - ,,, 1*.: - �- ,,;--!�, ''.. ��, �I ,. ,Ir"� -- .- ..- - . ., �.. � . . s V - 9!, N-,-,, � ,.1. u,�! , 1I i 1, �. .1 I.. � .I w I, ._­ , -F]"11 4, __ _t.,N 1,: - i,,,---;,,,- , . � , I., , , ,��,,;,�-,,,,,�-- - ­_ � -_ . -,".�, - ­­"-,, ,J� " ,z4_, . . -,,,, . ­ -,��j, �T , ,-,--"r,;,,, 1�­��, , �: - . I . _", ­� 'to., -*� I -, , � � I .- ,1 " , �I I I �. -,-,) W�" ��, -- ,t.� _�%: - - I I- P �,.-,­,, � .... . ... , . - - . N� , _-, _ � �:- .! .. ,�. m?,,, - __.- - ,� � _ "i 4, . . - - - -- - ---- ,-,,, 't � -, .-, ,, ,� I- 7 .- , � W_ . , ­ � . �­­,.pj - . _,��,_;L �,_.,. � , -. - _. �.,--1�4�_,.. -.�.,� -:,,�q��.X�� ., I- - . I I - 11 I ,.� .1 -,.i;,,.. ,r,,�,,,k,;r, �,�,:­�,.,� .., -,.`,� , .., :..,. � . i _., - 1 -- . I_. -,�,-.,­:,.�:, , i:,� ­ , ­ I . _� . :', - ;. .���"01�­., .,�.,,���, . ., ,,� , � , ,� �, : , -T� - - ,-.:,>: - " . I I � ., 'o- . ;� --,- _ , L, �,;6t"'.-f,:;. __ ,, . �.,­ , ,,, ,, �­, ! O .� ,_. , .,. I , I � , -,-" - . " � -. t�:�, .__ -, .-,,%.��.,-.---,. � . , , , Q .,A__-, f �,. v ic-,,- , ­­_. __ - . ". � �., � . ,, �� � _.., �. �.� � � ,. ,,.,...,4 11P,.,- 'I.-, .. -. - - 1. I- I �,.I - . ,4��.,, .... - - � I- - , . , , , , ,, , ,,-- - , rI___.,�_,,.,_�2_,;r_ .. �__ , I - �: -- " Y. ..� ,.,-,"-�,�i�­ � , . ; , ,-,,��,��"I*,-I,li-11 , .- .. 1 _i�,- 1- �- ,., � - -,i, , - � .,;�,.,---- �,71)� - , ,," 11 1� ..�.-- _ ._,;__j,. -, -I...'Y , :, " . �11 --' , i�. :';'J"�_ �� . -- * i ,, �_. , * , 1. ,­- ...i � ", , -, �,,, --, ,.-, i - , , _ I - -�, 6 ,, -1 - ,�-.�7 �, ,1�f,._:i,,.,..��';.I. Y_,:,L., . - ., ,, , ­� �;.,�t --- -., ,�­��. -.,- .,_�-- _,�. " � - , ..!��,�i!_..-,. ��_. � _� - . I I � . -- - �I_t I .1 I �.,..�. iN,f� .-,- . . � , �_:: „_�,��!� ,�,�;.,: , ll ,.,---�-,, .;�,_I- .,_�,._, ”,� :. . , � -111, , I � . , . . , . � ,!, , �,. "Z,�j,'b*, -,-,. "I', .,.�. . I.,, --�,.,­,,� , .1,", I . -11 �,. �. -, �­,. .,. .:. ",�,_d_ � , , -,-, ­ I - . ,� � , 1. ­ - _:.-,,;,��,, .��I ..- , � . . - .,._. . .�, .� - ��, , �:;.,,,, N " , *.,��. -.;�.-*.�!%" � -, , ,,� I- -, I ­ � e�, - ,_ --'t -Nli,K; �- . , . �,, .:! .- � - - - - 1-1 � � I 11111�11�,,., w�.,_ - �"I -- -_._ :�, .- : ,-1 . . . - - FIG-JURS-I.. .* I .Heift At 499" is . i LOCATION MAP` !I I : i - __ . ... .. . I, , . � 34ORTH� .... _. = *.4901 . - . . + i Phim§d 11 ESA. . I = - - - - .- . - ...SOWP�:.Mwomo%*�Wo&,%"04 � The Heritage-@-eutchogue Pesticide Report 1 3.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS 3.1 ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS The soil samples were transported to a New York State Certified Commercial ELAP Laboratory for analysis. Selection of the analytical test methods for the soil samples was based on the NYSDOH and SCDHS recommended soil sampling parameters for agricultural soils on Long Island. Analysis of the soil samples consisted of pesticides and SCDHS metals for five (5) of the 0-3 inch samples and only arsenic for four (4) of the 0-3 inch samples. Review of the analytical results revealed that the 3-6 inch samples from all of the locations required testing. Specifically, all of the 3-6 inch samples were analyzed for arsenic and in addition, three (3) of the 3-6 inch samples were analyzed for mercury as well. Review of the results continued to reveal elevated concentrations of mercury and arsenic. In order to identify the depth to which arsenic and mercury were present, soil samples were collected from the three (3) of the previous sampling locations which exhibited the highest concentrations. A summary of the parameters analyzed for each sample is provided in Table 1. I 3.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS Review of the analytical results for the 0-3 inch interval samples revealed that the five (5) samples selected to be analyzed for pesticides all contained elevated levels of pesticide compounds. However, none of the pesticide compounds detected were found to exceed there respective United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) or New York State Department of Environmental Protection (NYSDEC) Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum(TAGM)4046 recommended-soil-cleanup objectives. -In - addition, each of these five (5) samples were also analyzed for the presence of metals. All of the samples were found to contain elevated levels of several metals. Of these metals detected, only arsenic was found to exceed its corresponding SCDHS guidance value of 4 mg/kg in all of the samples analyzed. In addition, mercury was found to exceed its—corresponding NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective of 0.1 mg/kg in three (3) of the nine (9) samples analyzed but was detected below its corresponding USEPA SSL of 610 mg/kg. I With regard to the four(4) 0-3 inch samples analyzed only for arsenic, all were found to contain elevated levels which exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. Based on the 0-3 inch sample results, the 3-6 interval samples from each of the locations were analyzed as per the parameters summarized in Table 1. Review of the 3-6 inch interval sample results revealed that arsenic exceeded the SCDHS guidance value in all of the samples analyzed. With regard to mercury, it was found to be detected above its NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective in three (3) of the 3-6 inch samples analyzed and was also found to be below its USEPA SSL in each of these samples as well. I Page 4 of 11 The Heritage @ Cutchogue Pesticide Report Table 1 Individual Sample Parameters 0-3 Pesticides & SCDH Metals 3-6 Arsenic 0-3 Pesticides & SCDH Metals 3-6 Arsenic&Mercury 9-12 Arsenic&Mercury 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury 21-24 Arsenic &Mercury 0-3 Arsenic 3-6 Arsenic 0-3 Arsenic 3-6 Arsenic 0-3 Pesticides& SCDH Metals 3-6 Arsenic&Mercury 9-12 Arsenic &Mercury 15-18 Arsenic &Mercury 21-24 Arsenic &Mercury 0-3 Pesticides& SCDH Metals 3-6 Arsenic 0-3 Arsenic 3-6 Arsenic 0-3 Pesticides& SCDH Metals 3-6 Arsenic &Mercury 0-3 Arsenic 3-6 Arsenic 9-12 Arsenic &Mercury 15-1.8 Arsenic&Mercury 21-24 Arsenic &Mercury Based on the 3-6 inch sample results samples were collected from the 9-12, 15-18 and 21-24 inch intervals from the locations of PS-2, PS-5 and PS-9 to further evaluate the vertical extent of arsenic and mercury contamination. Review of the analytical results detected the presence of mercury in seven (7) of the nine (9) samples collected but none were found to exceed the USEPA SSL or NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective for mercury. Arsenic was detected in six (6) of the nine (9) samples collected and only one (1) exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. i A summary of the analytical results is provided in Tables 2A, 2B and 2C. The original laboratory analysis sheets as provided by Long Island Analytical Laboratories, Inc. are presented in Appendix A of this document. C Page 5 of 11 I i 0 i r( CIO OOo � O0000 � s o CIO v' OOOOOo � o o N N N ON ,--� .--r .-y �+ O V) bn to tn M C4 Cl M �} �, � ' d' ddQ'iQQC, Q'iQ'iQ'i •' Q'iQ'irrQ��'irrQ��'id z Z+ �O vl 00 OO O ,- 00 ,-,Is I .-y o0 .-y .-y Is, Ilm In N U _ to Cli ooC� m Qi M H Z zll� z z V M to Cl) ID 0000 "0 O� M �o 00 - l� vl O M 00 U N � o � N cid F X o A W F 4§ A Zw o � * � C/D AAA . � � � � � � •� •� i A A A v o o o W WPQPQ TUU z a Z i . L m 4.K ( j o �c 03 cl x O * O c m Ei W Np Q 44) CD v� u v, a m W U N O MCD w o CD N o � Q z� U co C) � o � 01 O� O R v •C. � zoaw z N � ¢ � a � N O Z > a� U A �abyi ctl 0co F gz� bA 0 zrA � o 0 � z i � z W F a it 4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES (QA/QC) Sampling protocol was conducted in accordance with USEPA accepted sampling procedures for hazardous waste streams (Municipal Research Laboratory, 1980, Sampling and Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Material Waste Streams, USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio EPA-.600\280- 018) and ASTM Material Sampling Procedures. All samples were collected by or under the auspices of USEPA trained personnel having completed the course Sampling of Hazardous Materials, offered by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Separate QA/QC measures were implemented for each of the instruments used in the Sampling and Analysis Program. Sampling instruments included a stainless steel hand auger and sample vessels. Prior to arrival on the subject property and between sample locations, the hand auger was decontaminated by washing with a detergent (alconox/liquinox) and potable water solution with distilled water rinse. All sample vessels were "level A" certified decontaminated containers. Samples were placed into vessels consistent with the analytical parameters. After acquisition, samples were preserved in the field. All containerized samples were refrigerated to 4° C during transport. A sample represents physical evidence, therefore, an essential part of liability reduction is the proper control of gathered evidence. To establish proper control, the following sample identification and chain-of-custody procedures were followed. Sample Identification Sample identification was executed by use of a sample tag, logbook and manifest. Documentation provides the following:. 1. Project Code 2. Sample Laboratory Number 3. Sample Preservation 4. Instrument Used for Source Soil Grabs 5. Composite Medium Used for Source Soil Grabs 6. Date Sample was Secured from Source Soil 7. Time Sample was Secured from Source Soil j 8. Person Who Secured Sample from Source Soil Chain-of-Custody Procedures Due to the evidential nature of samples, possession was traceable from the time the samples were collected until they were received by the testing laboratory. A sample was considered under custody if. It was in a person's possession,or It was in a person's view, after being in possession,or It was in a person's possession and they were to lock it up,or It is in a designated secure area. i � I Page 6 of 10 The Heritage @ Cutchogue Pesticide Report When transferring custody, the individuals relinquishing and receiving signed, dated and noted the time of the Chain-of- Custody Form. Laboratory Custody Procedures A designated sample custodian accepted custody of the shipped samples and verified that the information on the sample tags matched that on the Chain-of-Custody records. Pertinent information as to shipment, pick-up, courier, etc. was entered in the "remarks" section. The custodian then entered the sample tag data into a bound logbook which was arranged by project code and station number. The laboratory custodian used the sample tag number or assigned an unique laboratory number to each sample tag and assured that all samples were transferred to the proper analyst or stored in the appropriate source area. I The custodian distributed samples to the appropriate analysts. Laboratory personnel were . responsible for the care and custody of samples from the time they were received until the sample was exhausted or returned to the custodian. All identifying data sheets and laboratory records were retained as part of the permanent site record. Samples received by the laboratory were retained until after analysis and quality assurance checks were completed. i i I I I i i i Page 7 of 11 The Heritage @ Cutchogue Pesticide Report l I 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This investigation was completed in order to determine if certain pesticide related compounds were present in the soils of the subject property. A sampling and analysis program (SAP) was designed to determine the concentrations of pesticides and metals in the soil in accordance with guidance offered by SCDHS and NYSDOH. The SAP consisted of collection of discrete soil samples at depths of 0-3 and 3-6 inches on the property. Laboratory analysis of the soil samples was performed using analytical test methods consistent with expected parameters and SCDHS/NYSDOH guidance. The following presents an evaluation of the results of this investigation. 1. A total of eighteen (18) soil samples from nine (9) sampling locations were collected from low points and strategic locations throughout the property. Specifically, samples were collected from 0-3 and 3-6 inch intervals at nine(9) individual sampling locations. Soil samples were analyzed for compounds related to former pesticide application due to the past and present use of the property for agricultural purposes. 2. Review of the analytical results for the 0-3 inch interval samples revealed that the five (5) samples selected to be analyzed for pesticides all contained elevated levels of pesticide compounds. However, none of the pesticide compounds detected were found to exceed there respective United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) or New York State Department of Environmental Protection (NYSDEC) Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) 4046 recommended soil cleanup objectives. In addition, each of these five(5) samples were also analyzed for the presence of metals. All of the samples were found to contain elevated levels of several metals. Of these metals detected, only arsenic was found to exceed its corresponding SCDHS guidance value of 4 mg/kg in all of the samples analyzed. In addition,mercury was found to exceed its corresponding NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective of 0.1 mg/kg in three (3) of the nine (9) samples analyzed but was detected below its corresponding USEPA SSL of 610 mg/kg. With regard to the four(4) 0-3 inch samples analyzed only for arsenic, all were found to contain elevated levels which exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. Based on the 0-3 inch sample results, all three (3) the 3-6 interval samples were analyzed for arsenic and three(3) of the samples were analyzed for mercury. Review of the 3-6 inch interval sample results revealed that arsenic exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. With regard to mercury,it was also detected above its NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective in all three (3) of the 3-6 inch samples analyzed but was found to be below its USEPA SSL in each of these samples as well. 3. Based on the 3-6 inch sample results samples were collected from the 9-12, 15-18 and 21-24 inch intervals from the locations of PS-2; PS-5 and PS-9 to further evaluate the vertical extent of arsenic and mercury contamination. Review of the analytical results detected the presence of mercury in seven(7) of the nine(9) samples collected but none were found to exceed the USEPA SSL or NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective for mercury. Arsenic was detected in six (6) of the nine (9) samples collected and one (1) exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. I i i i i I i Page 8 of 11 The Heritage @ Cutchogue Pesticide Report In summary, representative soils on the subject property were sampled and analyzed for the presence of pesticides and metals. Based on the laboratory results, elevated concentrations of arsenic and mercury were identified. As a result, it is recommended that a soil management plan be prepared to mitigate potential exposure to arsenic and mercury. i i i i I i i i i I� i i Date of Completion Gary Becker,P.E. NELSON&POPE i i Page 9 of 11 The-Heritage a-C—utehogue Pesticide Report i 6.0 REFERENCES New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 1992, Sampling Guidelines and Protocols, Technology Background and Quality Control/Quality Assurance for NYSDEC Spill Response Program,NYSDEC, Albany,New York. NYSDEC, 1994, Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum HWR-94-4046, Determination of soil cleanup objectives and cleanup levels, Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, Albany,New York. NYSDOH, 1996, letter dated July 15, 1996 from Edward Horn, Ph.D., Director Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment to Frank Randall, Chief,Inspection Services Bureau NYSDOH. SCDHS, Procedures for Municipalities to Evaluate the Need for Soil Sampling and Soil Management at Subdivisions or Other Construction Proiects with Potentially Contaminated Soils. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1996, Publication 9355.4-23, Soil Screening Guidance User's Guide, Washington, D.C. i i i I i i i i i r i i Page 10 of 11 The Heritage @ Cutchogue Pesticide Report i I I i APPENDICES r Page 11 of 11 I I I I I i APPENDIX A LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. LABORATORY DATA SHEETS i i dr n 1 ter> vgarua�s LLL E3W;P,gMVLtV7'{ PLANNNS a CONS'LLTINC; PA-50-Piz UAPJ V.- M L ANP AMA, AJ4AkVff1C*-AL NJJDF:P� '7-0-Vavaumv 49-nYT,C-AA 1'(ZVPQw, 1 of 12 pageq October 30,2007 N-olson&Pope Eric Arnesen 572 Wait Whitm an Road Melville, New York 11747 FR'o�- Heritage Q Clitcho-que Dear Mr,A=n-sen; Enalo,sed please find the Laboratory Analysis Reports) for sample(s) received on October 24, 2007, Long Island .Analytical Laboratories analyzed the samples on October 25, 2007 for the followin.g. CLIENT ID ANALYSIS EPA 8081,SDH Metals PS-2 j0%3") EPA 8981 SGDH Metals PS,3{0"-3"} Total Arsenic Analysis P" fo"-s') Total Arsenio Analysis_. PS-5{0-"-3-} l EPA 8081,.§�CDVH,�Mie'tals PS-6 J8--3-1 EPA 848I, SCDH Metals P$-7 {0"-3"}. Total Arsenic Analysis PS-8 EPA 8G81, §CDH Metals PS- Total Arsenic Analysis Sarr,PIES received at 3.9°C. Report revitiafi dated November 9,2007 If you have any questions or require further information, pleaso call at your convenience. Long Island Analyfical Laboratories lac, is a NELAP accredited laboratory. All reported results meet the requiremeols of the NELAP standards UnfeSS notad qbove. Report shall not be reproduced except in full, %,jthoul It)@ written approval.of the laboratory. . Long Island Analytical Laboratories would Ilke to thank you for the opportunity to he of sp'[wica- to you- Best R aq a rd s, Long Island AnaOcalLaboratorles, /no, Sill I C, C.o I rt Dr V e 1-1 o I b r o to k, 1`1 n,,v o rK 11 e 41 1`1n n?' (6,31 4-7 2-22-4 CID Fax- iG'11 72-a505 - .mail: L 7AL,,-L*-Dl tali nc.-com of 12 pa-ges Client. Nei-son & Pope Client Il?, i-jaritage @ Cutchogue (PS-1 receima-d-, 10124107 Laboratory ID: 1147358 Date extH-3Gtod; 10125!07 tkilatrix., Soil Q- ,-ate N'ah =qd; 10125/07 FLAP#: 11693 PESTICIDES EPA VIETHOD 8081 COMPOUND CAS No. MIX RESULTS ugfkg Flag­ Alarm 30A-002 5 ug/kq 5 uufkri SHC BHC- If BHC jLlf) danal Glilordane '127 8-G3-•C 15 ugAg 4 RDD 72-54-89 4.W-DDE 72-55-9 _­jugKO 141 4,4'-D13T 50-29-3 5 Ljqlka 179 Endosuffor;11 f 33212-66-9 5 uo)ko -5.4 Endosulfart suffe-le 1 1031-0r'-8 8*iic�k2__ "O!D 1- 5 uq�ka 0.70 nurin I 72-20=8 Endfin aldeli G—L 15 yde 7421-93-4 5 ud Hep;echlor. 76-44-G &ticJ-k-Q —Heptash#Gr e xid i 10274.57-3 5 44'-Medwxyehlor 1 72-4:3-5 ucgka -:5 Toxaphana 8001.35-2 2100 ug!kg y --200 Eni rin kc-lone, 1 53494-70-5 J- 5uuj11(9 MDLMinimum fGafertion Limit. Cvicaflat-51:1 on a wet weight Msiis At" Michael Veraldi-l-aboralory Director %AND JIAI MMY T,CA L LABIBAC-ITATORMS WC. "�GWORRM-18AU71,"Aft V-XIMM'4 WZAY' (6.21'j 41-72-E-51H, EnvaH 3 ter 12 page Client: N Ison &Pope Client ID: Heritage C-UtChogw Dale received: 10/24107 Labarata ID: 11.47358 Date anai :ped: Cee Below (:1trix: Sail METALS ANAL *SIS PARAMETER IADL DATE RESULTS mg/lcg FLAG ANALYZED _ ILVER, Ag 1.65 rrt ,'Ict 10125W <1.65 _ 3 ARSENIC, As 1.65 m .1p 3fl125107 5.87 f3raRYLLIUM, Be 1.65 maltc0 1�tr251(�� <1.65 _..:.-CADMIUM, Cd 1.00 rat 1tc� 1012510-7 <1.00 6HR.tblAWN1, Cr 1.65 rnglkg 10125/07 7.06 COPPER,..Cu 1.65 rng/kg 10125167 5,08 I MERCURY, Hg- 0,U-20 mgtkg 10126107 � tl.DB � NICKEL, NI1.65 rrt.11c ( /0125107 3.4� � L.EAD, PI7 1.65 m lk 10125107 _8.13 NOL=MinimuM f3aection Liml cacuratead alt a wet weicghl basis Performed by EPA Methcd 60-IOB ' *Method: EPA 7471 A � a iciial�loraldi-Laboratary director i i i 1me �+S`BOAILAV IGZ'lts b4 ill] f_aI! DrN,e Hii!bron k.. N'e1y Y C, K 11.=!1 I tJ (� y .4 ^ n----- - �^ >2-tt 50" �'Ti {1: i IAL4--'ii 0ilPi .=:0�Il ��.tYLr 114+1.. (.,c/��1�.�,( .^y�y I->�J1,1�! i.i� -�� .lei-L��'�IS� �!'l:� i.li���l� � J-.i 4-� e �t li-�L 1Ji'i?'flFLil(tl I +t of 12 Wages Client- Nelson ,& Pope Client lid: Heritage ci Culchoqu _ (PS-2 4"-3' } DateLaboratup IQ: 1 1473% .� : . — Dale extracted. 0/25)07 Matrix: Soil Date ana-tyzed: 10f25/07 ,. ( ELAR 11693 �_, ---- — PESTICIDES EPA METHOD 8481 COMPOUND CAS No. MDL RESULTS ug1KqFtaq Aldrin 3U t70- 5 Irtkc 5 a=BI C__....._ 319-84-6 a V-JkG t�-t H4i 319-86-8 BHC iCin ;nom Qhiord -9- 5 i�47�k <5 - .) 2789.r�_ -b' 15 t,4d!o :.. . -15 i 1 to -J;� i 4,4+-DDD- 72-54-9 5 up11s9 17,2 4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 I-aN _ 424 4,4-DDT _ 50-29-3. _ 5 undo t 3307 {� t iFldr=n 6Q-57-1 5 ugtkg 's 7.75 _ Endci_ufbri ! J59=9$ $ 5 u ris -:5 Er,ciculrr, li ?3,212-_55:g I 5 uc7Ar ��.�,.. — EndOCILIII-fan suiiate 5 u lkq. - FEndrh 72-20-5 a u12-1 He tachlu t 1,-$ 5 u-ft A 9.30 t #aq►dor eoxide 102.=.57•-;a, UgrKg TbxAphene. . uool1 2 5- 100 uglkq =200 Endrin kc-Alorie 53494-70.4 tkl L=6,'Flr�►tiltrr? r�cte�tion Limit. C alcuialed on a vi=_1 wEight basis Mich2el 5tfe-leDirector i i E r�• WING L.A.`:3'€ SNI �!' LiI c 0 �n 1NC- rf�i=��� K, tja�rf `hr1, 1 '1 _...- ri L F�Y,._L f. +� r• _Y'�i=F,� X111'�fl' = x7•j '-a -�4J0 i X I,f:::i�� �'rC•�i�:�• T Ilifir: ;.iAL%!:iiir.�.4iii;.i:Clit7 of 12.paces Clieni: Nelson & PopeT Client ID: heritage Ctitcho0ue^� Date received: 10,'241071 Laborator ID: 1147-359 CJsto anal zed: See Below t mr tox: Soil � i METALS ANALYSIS PARAMETER MDL DATE RESULT'S mg/1(g FLAG _ ANALYZED _ SILVERr,�tg 1,65mglkg 1012&'07 T ,1,65 ; ARS EN C,W1,65 m9Jkg 1012 107 ..T-- 12.0 BERYLLIUM, Be 1,65 m 1kq 10125107 - <1.65 � ! CAMMUM, Cd 1.i7t m ttt 10/25107 — <1.00 CHROMIUM, Cr 1._65 mgfkg 10125/07 COPPER. Cu1,65 n-i .fkg I 10125117 MERCI�RY, Ho•4.... .D20 m !kc# 1!7!25107 O.10 NICKEL, Ni 1,65 mg1k9 10125107 -� 2.7(} _ LEAD, Pb 1.65 rn r k9 10;,125107 . !IPA T Minimum l7 eCtfun Lit .,L Calculated on a wet weighi basis Perf-imn,ad by EPA fvlethcd 601013 .Melhod: EPA 7471A MichaeOleraldi-Laboratary Dir©ctGr ! LONG i i i ,i.. r I r 1 ISLANID LAAO AT I-8 1$N . i7 s � i✓rl .�A1.AJVTMr q -!)1-rU ftty9TOB-r^ P;io n -r 0- - F� er. i'?-11�,.! Email::_IA,i_: `liulir:r;-c(.1m I r5 of-ILI pules Client: Nefson & Pope ---�. _ Client D. HerPkage @ Cuich que ate 3 +ed: 10124107 �T�boratory ID; 11.47362 Date extracted; :10/25107 - ...Matrix; �So l _._.��... Dateanalyzed- 1012W07 ELAP M 11,603 PESTICIDE EPA ME-MOD 8081 COMPOUND CAS No. MDL RESULTS ugIRg Fla Abdrin i 309-.00.2 5 urx k❑ 3 -c :r3lic'_.._.- . 31g 84 r f 5 f 5 uefkG °=5 6- BHC -5 ttglk9 � -BUG(Lfndartet 55 6g'4 I' S ugPltg {5 f -- DhlordanG- 15 ugrks_3 k {15 .f,4`-. ]DD.. iz-5�'�8 5 u rk� L .�f 4,4'-DFM= 5 uglkg 3.99 F.M. 4,41•DDT M-29-3 .5 ugikg } 7f)1 9 17�ieldriri...... ......,..,T -raj 1 a ug"kg �..... 1� EndosTurfa,i ' 59 8-8 �.5R uc�'kq 4 rS 1 "Endosulfan 11 ;;33212-05--B LICACI 3 40.6 Endnsulfan s�lufiate IM1-GM 5 uglkg _a 422 �ri€ir'lr, _ 72-20 ardehyde 7121-9.3-4 5 ugiK Hep tact hr 43-44-56?ugfkg 5T l f SL' iaeFilc�� �r xl Q024-573 5 u ik� �1 -ffar �J l ,4` AMhok1rchf r _ i 2-4;3.5 g ugtk 1�xaphene 5001-35_2 2nr; u4tkq X204 Endrin ketone 53404-10-6 5 u-A -'S MOL- Minimum Delei:ficn Li7rd. tGalcutal d on a wai limight ba is a r° fh� f r Michael Veraldi-L aborator'y+ Director I i I MAIN ei WO HIMIC, -,10 4-hn Drive Ho Ibm g-I': No-,: "-Lrk 1:'4`• :`r'C't' �`.zG�`.�':'ra.�'�'e; f°r`I0MENU }"f7CJllra l:`"i"'..1; i c:-_+itl_t(] F:i 3� i93 '! I G-ri,�'.r�.1 j F�^%II: f_Ir•._ ?ll- I 7 of 12 paps Climi; Nelson & POP& 1: Client ID- HefitmgiB @D Cutichogue I (PS-5 (0%3")) re-celved, I W24107 Laborat M� ID; 1147362 Date analyzed: Seq. Uelow fulptrix: Soil METALS ANALYSIS PARAMETER MOL DATE FESVLTS mglkg FLAG ANALYZED -S1LVER`-'A—g 1,65 mgikg .. .-10/25107 ARSENIC, As 1.65 m_qfkg 10/26107 13n8 BERYLLIUNI, Be 1,65 mft— 10125107 CADMIUM, Cd 1.00 Frig1w 10125107 --1.00 1 CHROMIUM, Cr 1.635 m0(g 10125107 10/25/07 12,160 C,QPPER, Cu 1.65 m qfk- g 10125/07 0.12 MERCURY, Hq- 0,020 mgflkKg 1.65 3.ao NICKEL, Ni L.EAD, Pb171 CalculaiFed Dn a wetviuighi bpsla M DL= wnr.m urrii DetEcHE-11-1 irn ii. 1?,-rfDrMF.-d by EPA rviMod 60108 Wethud: �PA 7'"71A hi: A 106 Michael Veraidi-Liabomlory Director LIONS 1SLAND ASA WTICAC, ;1--<' -irk LABORAVORK-S INC.- I GUC 0 1ri-1.)Tive 'How-rook, 472-a400 -85C, 472 5 8 ol 12 pagas Client: Relst, &-p-ope Client ID, I-L-ORge @ Cut-chogue. -L PLL Data mlceived. 10/24107 Laboratory ID; 1147-3133 Date ex1ra�tQd- 10125107 i Matrix, Soil Date Einahized: 10125fO7 FU.kP 4: 11603 PESTICIDES EPA METHOD 8081 COMPOUND CAS No. MOL RESULTp_pRft Rag Aldrin i�Ipl -BHC 31!9-84.6 b tvil;g g),V,,q 31 m5j L 13HG 379-86,8 5 ut0qq BHC (UndanO f 58-50-9 l 5 ugfp g -<5 Chfordena 1279!--03-6 15 ugfka. '15 4,4'-WD 72-54-!1 5 UWkg 12.3 �.4--DDE I 72-5:5-9 5 uQ;kq34_5 4,4'-DDI' 50-29-9 5 ug;'kg 441 Dieldrin W-57-1 t 6 uglig 8.50 F,qdosulfiM N 33212-65-9 i ZA ugdw ErWostjffaa suffate 5 Uq?1(g Endrin 72-20--8 5 kjq�kg4 Endrin dfe! 21-93-4 5 ug.lkq yl- T,d—e FlepWchlor M-4-1-8 5 u,,qlkq 1-ic-pla h1orep e &Z-597-3 5 u9-1 n. —.- 4A-ME!1hbxyc11lG,-r 72-43-5r,_ Toxophene 13 20D uglkq Endrin ket-onz 5349440-6 5 ugi?,.,g NIX= Mintmtjrr Dotaction Urnit. Calculated an a w2twraight basis Michael Veraldi-Lab"rglopy Director L01MG UiLAND ANALYTICAL LADCRATC-IRIES HIM 1,1 G cul-In Driv, 1-off-r- unk- ANA4,YFIVAi p 1,10 11 .t_3 1 4"2--'A 00 - F,�)x -1652 11 47 2 r 0-5, 12' -zi i L rr-AL- r [i'i j!n e-, 9 of-12 piaps Client- Nelson & Pope Client ID-, 1-Ierjt-,jgo, @ Cutchogue, (PS-6 [W-3-1) Data roecived: 10/24107 —ateal:a@ I d: $ee BeIGW Matrix: Soil METALS ANALYSIS PARAM5TER WIDIL DATE RESULTS mgJkg FLAG ANALYZED -1 OJ25107 SILVER,Ag 1.65 mg/lig ARSENIC,As 1-65 mg/k.g 1 W5107 17.4 BERYLLIUM, Be 1,6.5,929iSq 1OJ'25107 CADMIUM, Cd 1-QrJ m /k 10125/07 <1 CHROMIUK.qa , ^ 1..65 mglkg 10125/07 7.68 COPPER, 1.65 mglkg 0125/07 8.59 MERCURY, 0,07 ,.gz.o mR/kg— 10/25107 NICKEL, Ni 1.9 k. 1 WSW 3,79 LEAD, Pb 10125/07 12.1 MEIL= Minitryum Dalection Limit. CaL-ulaled or,awel welght basis Parlormed by EPA Mel-hod 601 OB .rylethr.d.EPA 7471A ell, fulichael Veraldi-Labon,tori Diredor WHO ISLAND ANALYTICAL cofirl [)WE; 57-'0101'00k, HEV/ YO 1[;* 74 4�k IG311 47P-t %T'OWS MACYT OAr SMUTIM TOM' a7? 1G 0f V� p'-)g es Client NQ.Isian & Pope Clfe.nti-D--—Heritage @ Cut-chogue, -d. (PS-810- -" �vo(t: 10/24107 ate recei Laborator ID: 1147365 Date ev,-tfactt--d-. 10/25101 jlvlat(k Buil Date analyzed: -11WZ5107 j ELAP 9-: 11693 PESTICIDES EPA METHOD 8081 COMPOUND CAS No. MQL RESULTS uqJkq Flag �ldlifl'— BOJ-'0o-2., 5 ligilkg 1 <.5 S� 2-319-84-6.__ 5 uglkg <5 119-85- 6 uglk.g C5 — 8-BHC 319-86-8 L 1 5 —J" Clhlordane VM9-03-� t5 ia 'Itg I 15 4,4:-D DID 72-.r-4-E[ 5 uglico 14.6 72-55.9 6 uglkg . 320 4,4-EIDT 0-29-3—L —ugrl.c9 32-5 Dieldrin 5 u 115 i u1115.8 Endinsuffan I 95�M&8 5 ugil(g 8.10 INjosulfall If 33212-55-9 1 '6' Endow5tiffan sulfate IG31-07-0 ug"k-wo 140 Endrin 2-20-8 5 L1911(Q <5 Endrin afdehyr'F, 7421-93-4 1 5 ug-kq Heplachim 76-44-8 5 LigArg 1*5 I D24-57_3 Li — <5 ' gliq , 1'2-13-55 Ucj")(g 1 7.6D Tt)xaphQ;)@ 8001-35-2 200 u.,Q)kq I <200 Endrin ket-aine :'3494-70-5 LigIli q <5 PAUL=Polinimum Detedion Limii Calculated on a'wet weight ba&is .AA Michael Vera'di-La b orratory Difedor A N A Ell:T!0,Ak U400RAT".1 NIS INC. 1-10- C ci=z'n vq c! ' O i roxik-, N E vi r I. >17 1 "TON AW-Wric...41 smumgms:t-mv- phr w (631.1i 2 ':�-lplo �G31; 4 7 8z5*Gn- , E rn,7i il, L tiw,!:.i zlcn 11 ai 12 baa es Cl 71e—rj t., CUtehoque eJsojj & Pope Client ID: Heritage @ bate received- 10124/07 Labofatory ID: 1147305 Date anal ,r See Below Matrix.. Soil — METALS ANALYSIS ARAMETER .MD1DATE RESULTS mgtkg FLAG PANALYZED 10125107 6� SILVER,Ag 1.65 mgfkg 'I. I.B5 mg/k 10125107 1 03 AR-$t-=NlC, As - 2 . BERYLLIUNL lie 1,65 mgfk-q. ',0125107 1,65 p. .CADi #Id 1,00 rngjkg W125- 107 <1.00 CHROMIUK..-Ur 1,65 mg*9 10125107 7.96 1DJ25107 16.5 COPPER, Cu 1,85 mg,*g MERCURY, H. Aw10125107 0.11 O mg1ka NICKEL. N!.9 .6;5 M-2L�9— 10125107 3.44 LEAD, P8 1W25107 11.8 MDL=Minirnuffl Deme on Unit. Perfmrm�d by EPA MeffivJ 60.108 ot,pjethodl: EPA 7471A Michael Veraldilaburaitw)? Director LONG ylstku ED ANAWTIC-A-1 11"r4l ive Hnlbraci�,.. N-ow yon,- UABORAMOWIES MC 1*1 11 n D r unfll2 8-5 0 E E, i I L I A-1- a i r!c.c;ani � 472-3400 F-jx 1. i 121,cf 12 pages Client: Nelson &Pape _ Ghent ID, Heritage Outcho tip � Date received: 10,124/07 Laboratop !a: See BE!low Date extracted: Ql 51Q7 ma(rix: foil Date anahged: -1W25t'07 ESP ff, 116931--_: TOTAL. ARSENIC ANALYSIS Lab ID Client la MRL Result* mgYkq FLAG 1147360t65 T-3°} 1:1a5 mgrkq 14.5 11473 I _ P "= .`}::__...,._ 1.s5 in. k.9 12-8 1147:364 i'S [1„.. ._..N mQL 10,8 114736 C PS-9 f0"-311} 1.65 ►7acgft . .... 1�3 � MR =Minimurn Repr-tinq Limit Calculated an a vret.weight baz is Perfo trioti by;;IN•846 telethod 60105 �u Michael Veraldi-Laboratory OirrectoG i I i j I I 1' LONA ' ISLAND ANAL. TICAL 111..1 Cain I_!{ilio I'lu!e. i4 _..._.._ "i;liSf_".t�'7'`s#$.z lffitYUCALSt:-C.aom"5r• ,<iv- '�i �'r. A7 .34`00 Fax i" .t7` t5 E ff"',k `-Iial �+ ,- ���IIOt:_ _�1. �' �.1 .1 1:7::� 'i l ^•J�iLJ Er::-_iil. I. 1 L NYSDDH ELAPR 11693 -LONG USEPA#NY01273 ISLAND cTDOHB PH-0284 AIHA#164456 ANALYTICAL NJDP#NY012 LABORATORIES INC. PADEP#68.2943 "MMORROWS ANALYTICAL MUTTONS TODAY' 1 of 3 pages ( ' October 31, 2007 Nelson & Pope NOV Eric Arnesen Z�Q7 572 Walt Whitman Road .sur Melville, New York 11747 NEL . ..... . .. .:. Re: . � .Heritage'" '.. . . ..: : .. ... ..:::. . . i Dear Mr. Arnesen: i Enclosed please find the Laboratory Analysis Report(s) for sample(s) received on October 30, 2007. Long Island Analytical Laboratories analyzed the, samples on October 31, 2007 for the following: CLIENT ID ANALYSIS PS-1 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis j PS-2 3"-6" Total Arsenic and Mercury Analysis PS-3 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis PS-4 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis PS-5 J3--6-j Total Arsenic and Mercua Analysis PS-6 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis PS-7 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis I PS-8 3"-6" Total Arsenic and Mercury Anal sis PS-9 3"-6" Total Arsenic Anal sis Samples received at 3.4°C. If you have any questions or require further information, please call at your I convenience. Long Island Analytical Laboratories Inc. is a NELAP accredited laboratory. All reported results meet the requirements of the NELAP standards unless noted above. Report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Long Island Analytical Laboratories would like to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. Best Regards, I i Long Island Analytical Laboratories, Inc. C` 110 Colin Drive - Holbrook, New York 11741 Phone (631 ) 472-3400 • Fax (631 ) 472-8505 - Email: LIAL@lialinc.com I 2 of 3 pages Client: Nelson & Poe Client 1D: Heritage Date received: 10/30/07 Laboratory ID: 1147602-1147610 Date extracted: 10/31/07 Matrix: Soil Date analyzed: 10/31/07 FLAP#: 11693 TOTAL ARSENIC ANALYSIS Lab ID Client ID MRL Results mg/kg FLAG 1147602 PS-1 3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 7.22 1147603 PS-2 {3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 17.5 1147604 PS-3 3"-6" 1.65 mq/kq m /k3.31 1147605 PS-4 3"-6"} 1.65 mg/kg 14.0 1147606 PS-5 {3"-6"} 1.65 mg/kg 16.1 1147607 PS-6_j3"-6") 1.65 mg/kg 17.5 1147608 PS-7 3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 11.5 1147609 PS-8 3"-6" 1.65 mg/k11.4 1147610 PS-9 {3"-6"} 1.65 mg/kg 16.4 MRL= Minimum Reporting Limit . Calculated on a wet weight basis Performed by SW-846 Method 60108 I Michael Veraldi-Laboratory Director I � I LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES INC. 110 Colin Drive - Holbrook, New York 11741 'TOMORROWS ANALMCALsC TIMTODAY- Phone (631) 472-3400 - Fax (631) 472-8505 • Email: LIAL@lia)inc.com 3 of 3 pages Client: Nelson & Pope Client ID: Heritage Date received: 10/30/07 Laboratory ID: See Below Date extracted, 10/31/07 Matrix: Soil Date analyzed: 10131/07 ELAP #: 11693 TOTAL MERCURY ANALYSIS i Lab ID # Client ID MDL Results mg/kg FLAG 1147603 1 PS-2 {3"-6"}__ ___l 0.020mg/kg 0.14 1147606 PS-5 {3%6" 0.020 mg/kg 0.15 1147609 PS-8 (3n-6") 0.020 mg/kg 0.12 MDL= Minimum Detection Limit. Calculated on a wet weight basis SW-846 7471A i Michael Veraldi-Laboratory Director I i i i i LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATOWES INC. 110 Colin Drive • Holbrook, New York 11741 I MMO OWSAA LYWCALSOW100TODAYn Phone (631) 472-3400 • Fax (631) 472-8505 - Email: LIAL@lialinc.com td',', C-1 7. A-J H-11 AHORWI(XIES 1.4. I of 3 pages November la, 2007 Nelson, Pope&Voorhis Eric Arneseri 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, rdew York 11747 Re: Fleiitage @ Cutchogue Dear torr.Arrpesen, Enclosed please find the Laboratory Analysis Report(s) for sarnple(s) fee-eived on November 12, 2007, Long Island Analytical Laboratories analyzed the samples on Novembet 13,2007 for the folfomng; CLIENT ID ANALYSIS B-2 9-12 Toti, I Arsenic & Pile rcury Anafvs3is B-2 15-1 a Total Arsenic;& Merc.ur B-2 21-24 Total Arsenic& Mercurj��al, B-5 9-12 Total Arest-Ne& Mercury Anal sis B-5 15-18 Total Arsenic& Kq�-Ruq Arial,.-r-sis B-5 21-24 Tota I rrsenic&Merr-un,Anatvsiss B-9 9-12 Total Amenic&Mer,-,qy �Arral psis B-915-1 S Total Arsenic& Mercuri Analysis B-9 21-24 Tota I Arsenic & Mercupy An rysis Rar S niplesreceived at2-C If you have any questions or require further information, please c841 at your conveniencew. Long Island Analytical Laboratories Inc. is @ NE-LAP accredited labora- tory. All reported resells meet the recloirements of 'lie NEL AP standards w ifess noted above. Report shel'! not be reproduced except h full, vAhoul 'thewitten approval of the laboratory_ Long Island Analytical Laboratories would fiRe ba thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you, Best Regards- Long IsfandAnaljWcalLaboratorlds, Inc, ............... 11 0 ;-cflijj Gj'lvr - 11-jolbrook, New Ybr'k -11 1 Phones` f 63 21 ---M2-8A00, X j6:?�1 .5 - E> ail: L I A,L.Of,I i:-71 'Utcho ue diet[, Nelson & Pope ! Client 10: He6lage�_! -.(,-trhogue Date received: 11112107 EL Date extracted: 11113107 Dato analyz d 11113107693 TOTAL ARSENIC ANALYSIS Lab 11) Client 10 MRL Results m0kg Flag 1148350 t B-2 9-12 1 1465 njgllcg 2.26 1-1-48351 B-2 15-18 1.65!-n ik 1.98 114:6352 B- 21-24 1.66 m ka, <1.65 9L --1148353 B,5 9-12 1.6 1148354 B-515-18: 1.65 rt qfkg 2.31 11481"55 B-5 21-W-- 1.65 mg./k-g 2-45 1148356 1.65 m911(g 2.08 1148357 B-9 15-18 1 1.65 ma/kg- <1,0 1148358 B-p.21-24 1 1.65�mqLkqq 41-65 %�—RL-=7'jv—jj6jmjjn, Repprting Urnit Cakelated on a vial weighi basis Peffomed by M-846 hieffiod 601118 Michael VeirWdi-Laboratory Difector LONG ISLAND LABORAMCM INC. 11c, Calin Drive Ynrlw, ;17,10 "MUCIUM10 ANA071-C-Ai Mb-IMM,10PAY' P I tPJ31 4 Fpx f ES-1 3 of 3 pagoG Client Nelson Pom Client IUD: Heritage Gutchogue__— I -ate received: 11112/07 Lab-oratoyl ID: See- Below Date. a x1tracted-, 11113 107 Matrix: Soil @I ad11113107 ELAP#, 11693 TOTAL MERCURY ANALYSIS Lab ID&I 1lent ID MDL Resufts mq/kq Fla q. 1148350 B-2 -12 0.020 mq&j 0-036 1148351 Br2 15-18 OQP- PL_q(kg 114-83$2 B-2 21-24 0.020 mg1kg J 0-()!,2 .1148353 B-5 9.,12 0.020 me 0.087 1148354 8-5 E5-10 0.020 Ig 0-039 1 T-4EF3-519 B-'6 21-24 0.020 a)q4Q 0,01 1148356 B-9 Ick-12 1 0.020 mg lkq. 0,024 1148357 -1, 5-18 J0.020 mglkg -,0,02 1148358 L3—21-24 0-020 m 1kci MDL =f0irl-irrium Doi ictior,Limit Calculated on a wet weight�asis SIN-846?47 1 A A Micharat Vora Id i-Labaratory Director ISLAND ANALY TIC Ail LABONft4iTPjP.C-FS :to Co I j n L)Ov c, Ho;b f r:i, v/ Vb r k i7--1 '1�jO,000r-T ;U`1 - F r M .a-i �. 1 ...s et I'D Q6.. V _ •�n �!•'� til N ,.. o _ IJ� . ��r '- i,..�._,G Irl .'N 1'il i•.] L7 j _�1 iT'-5• t`_r,.i' it. "f`i 1C.�!�F s �'"1" C; a r,]7 l'y�. ``.] r•. �'re.t .,� `!�(t l-j,,44^y�.iri rg -2 �P „pl `-" O C" S;r,t�-1a", -w T _ r=':7 r v (_„r i _`I%.-•. L.•^,ice- • ..r r7 a, i- i' _,i %% 1`. t+t, •` 1t ,II. -,r t r i =�i<•"a r' '� ,`'t' (- •I�..i _;i Q l7 3ec'_ rr, rk r -� rt, ttj 7j T i? I' Oil Fj �, 1 to �i � 1 1 _....,_....:� � !1 �_2• ;fie SLf � 4 k � n 2 1TP14, rFlr { r [ to :b rn -i. z P P'Y ni 1 .a. r K i13 f ``Jf , t � � tt _ y r,"t I g K� ,^•. •7;. �' =?t k?t r; Y4 c� ,{, '-.:�lw''--.�F'S•p ,n; � m c,yy 0 DID FT Lin FTI 1 rn rn La ' f f �, Lei•? 1�_ °' € ISLAM ANAIN"MAI X § WIN,- 9 ADORIO NRILES -N LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. DATA REPORTING FLAGS For repooling results, the following "Flags'are Used, A: Tlame not suppNed by client, may haves exceeded holding tirneL 0: Holding time exceeded, results cannot be used for regulator~}Purposes 0: Mirdmum-detection limit:raised due to matrix inlerfarence D: Minimum defection I-MMI:ralsedi due Io wgel compound imerfere-nee E: Nlinimurn detection limit raisieddue to ron-trarget compound !nteif-- enc Rr Mininiurn detection lirnit raised due to insufficimni sample vobume G.- Sample received in incorrect container H:Sa m,p9e nut preserved, corrected upon recel pt ' 8: Dilution W-a-ler does not mee'q.QG Crfterla J: Estimated concentration. exceeds calibration range K:Target compound found in blank L: Subcontractor ELAP#11398 M: Subcontractor ELAP#10320 N: Su bcontra rAor NVLAP#10204x.0 0:Suhcontr2ctor A]HA#1 03GO5 P: Subcontractor A2LA 2004.01 Q:Sub-contractor ELAP 411026 R; Subcontractor ELAP#10155 8, 8 ubcont-natlor FLAP-011-11.50 1 T:Subcontractor CTC U. Subcontractor ELAP 411685 V: QC affected by matrix VV: Subcontractor ELAP#10248 X: QG does not meet acceptance criteria Y, Sarnple conatalner received with head space Z: Insufficient sample volume received AA: Preliminary reSU115, cannot be used fur regulatory puTD5es. BB: Spike recovery does not meet OC criteria due to high target concentration CC: Date-reported be(mv the lover limit of quantitation and should be considered to have an increased quantitative uncertainty. DD, Sampling inforination not supplied andfor sample not taken by qualiff-Jed technician, thereforeve-riffabiffty of the report is limited to results only. Report canfica be used for rogtilatory purpos--es. E E- Subcontractor FLAP : #11777 FR Unable to verify that etre wipe samples submitted conform to ASTM E1702 or specifications issued by Die EPA. ......................... 11 0 C.'c'flin Drive %q York -11711 N::-31! 47'22-134UO = F�'ix fC'11 T 47,214-1501-5 ° Ernall:- The Heritage @ Cutchogue f I ATTACHMENT B I SCDHS GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS I i i i i I i I i - SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROCEDURES FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO EVALUATE THE NEED FOR SOIL SAMPLING AND SOIL MANAGEMENT AT SUBDIVISIONS OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS WITH POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED SOILS (Draft February 2006) 1.0 Background &Purpose Over the past few years, municipal planning agencies have referred proposed residential and commercial/industrial construction projects that may contain potentially contaminated soils to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) for review and approval. Although not required by the sanitary code, SCDHS reviewed the projects as a courtesy to the municipality, but will no longer be able—to- provide this service. This document has been generated, with input from the New York State Department of Health, to provide guidance to municipalities for reviewing soil sampling plans, evaluating soil sample results and approving Soil Management Plans (SMP) if they are deemed necessary. Sampling and analysis protocols, soil screening levels, and remedial strategies are included in this guidance document. 2.0 Applicability Determinations of applicability of this document should be based on the historic use of the parcel of land, on actual soil sample data, and/or on any other factors that the municipality deems relevant to the likelihood that residual contamination is present in soils on the tract. This document applies only to direct exposure pathways, such as dermal exposure, ingestion and inhalation. At present the county uses New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum {t AGM) HWR-94-4046 to evaluate the potential for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to contaminate the groundwater. This guidance document applies only to tracts of land with non-hazardous soils, which are defined as soils that do not contain hazardous wastes or substances, as defined by 6 NYSCRR Part 371.1(d) or other relevant New York State codes. Data on sites that prove to contain hazardous soils or that may be sources of groundwater contamination should be referred to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or other appropriate agency for regulatory action. i 3.0 Sampling If soil evaluation is required by a municipality, based on historical use of the site, the owner of a realty subdivision or other development project should conduct a sampling program of surface and/or subsurface soils on the subject tract in conformance with Appendix B of this document. Appendix B provides guidance on the development of a soil sampling plan including the recommended number of sampling locations, based on past and future use, sample collection protocols, and sample analysis protocols. ( The soil sampling plan should normally consist of collection of soils at each subdivision lot, and any locations known or suspected to be chemical mixing areas, chemical disposal or i i i spill areas, greenhouses, barns, drainage structures, floor drains, leaching pools, or runoff sites including sumps or swales, or areas of disturbed vegetation. Reduced sampling may be appropriate at sites consisting wholly of prior uniform use (e.g., a single agricultural field), and may be sampled at fewer representative locations. Said samples should be collected from.the low point on the subdivided parcel (or subdivision lot), or from any other location that is likely to be the settling point for fine-grained sediments, and/or proposed rear yard area of lots within residential subdivisions. A. Sampling Protocols Soil samples should 'be collected in accordance with New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) protocols and analyzed at an Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (FLAP), or National Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (NELAP) approved laboratory. Composite samples from multiple locations and/or depths should not be used. Appropriate sample collection procedures and containers should be obtained from the laboratory performing-the analyses. The analytical results should be reported on a dry weight basis. i It is recommended that at least 2 sets of soil samples be taken from each collection point; the first from the surface to a depth of two to three inches, and a second sample from a depth of three to six inches. Deeper samples may also be warranted at some sites. Analysis of the surface sample should be reviewed to determine the need for-a SMP using the EPA Soil Screening levels (SSLs) provided in Appendix A. Analysis of the deeper samples can be delayed until the need for a SMP is determined. These samples can provide additional information that may be necessary in evaluating the SMP strategies. �. B. Laboratory Analysis Protocols All analyses should be conducted by a laboratory that is certified for the required analytical methods through either FLAP or NELAP programs. Results should be reported on a dry weight basis. At a minimum, it is recommended that soils from former agricultural sites be analyzed for metals and chlorinated pesticides. Analyses for chlorphenoxy acid, organophosphate, or other pesticides and chemicals should be considered based on site- specific conditions. At a minimum, the following analytes should be required for soils at former agricultural sites: Metals Chlorinated Pesticides arsenic aldrin endosulfan I &11 beryllium alpha-BHC endosulfan sulfate cadmium beta-BHC endrin chromium gamma-BHC endrin aldehyde copper chlordane heptachlor lead 4,4-DDD heptachlor epoxide mercury 4,4-DDE methoxychlor nickel 4,4-DDT toxaphene silver dieldrin i I 1 C. Soil Screening Levels The need to develop a soil management plan should be based on USEPA generic soil screening levels(SSLs contained in Appendix A)for residential, commercial/industrial scenarios or other relevant screening levels. The attached SSLs are taken from EPA document OSWER 9355.4-24 December 2002 (Appendix A/Exhibit A-1) (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/soil/ssg_appa-c.pdf) I Most SSLs are attainable on Long Island, but it is important to note that typical background levels of arsenic in non-agricultural soils in Suffolk County range from <1-4 ppm and may exceed the EPA SSL (unpublished SCDHS data and Sanok et al, 1995). Therefore, to account for natural or background arsenic concentrations in Suffolk County soils, it is recommended that a soil screening action level of 4 ppm be applied. ffhis level corresponds to a cancer risk of 1/100,000 according to the USEPA Generic SSL gbidance document.) D. Soil Management Plan i When a surficial soil sample or samples exceed an applicable SSL, analysis should be performed of the deeper samples to determine the vertical extent of the contamination. Based on these analyses, a soil management plan (SMP) that addresses the areas of elevated contamination should be developed and submitted to the municipality for review and approval. An SMP should be designed to minimize or prevent dermal contact, ingestion, or inhalation of contaminated soils by future site residents or workers, and be protective of ground and surface waters. An SMP should mitigate contamination so as to achieve SSLs, or get as close to SSLs as practicable. _ The SMP should be based upon contaminant concentrations detected in surficial and deeper samples and may include the collection and analysis of additional samples. Mitigation measures may include options such.as: removal and proper off-site disposal of contaminated soils, vertical mixing, where it can be demonstrated that cleaner 'soils are present below the surface; on-site stockpiling, e.g., in landscape berms, and revegetation at a portion of the site that will remain as undeveloped open space (i.e., buffer areas, not playgrounds or ball fields). On-site burial in excavated areas, or disposal below paving or an impervious cap may also be considered, depending on contaminant concentrations, where potential groundwater and surface water impacts are not issues. Post remediation (end point) samples should be included as part of the SMP to demonstrate adequate reductions in soil concentrations. j E. Confirmatory End Point Samples I Post remediation/management samples should be collected in approximately the same locations as the initial elevated samples for contaminants of concern. Such samples should be collected and analyzed as specified in Sections A and B, above, or as specified in the approved SMP. Depending an initial contaminant concentrations, it may be possible to limit post SMP analysis to the specific contaminants identified in the initial sampling. Sampling of any soils to be brought onto the site may also be prudent to ensure the quality of the fill material. i i APPENDIX A GENERIC SSLs FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL SCENARIOS This appendix provides generic SSLs for 109 chemicals under residential and non-residential (i.e.,commercial/industrial)exposure scenarios. ExhibitA-1 presents updated generic SSLs for the residential-exposure scenario. The generic SSLs for three of the pathways in this exhibit — inhalation of volatiles in outdoor air, inhalation of fugitive dust,and migration to ground water— were calculated using the same equations and default values for exposure assumptions found in'the 1995 SSG(and reproduced in Appendix B of this document). However,they incorporate updated values for dispersion factors,for toxicity,and for other chemical-specific parameters presented in Appendix C. The exhibit also presents new SSLs for concurrent exposures via soil ingestion and dermal absorption that are based, in part, on a new quantitative approach for evaluating dermal absorption. SSLs for combined direct ingestion and dermal absorption exposures to contaminants were calculated according to the method described in Section 3.2.1 of this document. 'The generic residential SSLs in Exhibit A-1 supersede those published in the 1995 SSG. Exhibits A-2 and A-3 present commercial1industrial SSLs for the outdoor woricer and indoor worker receptors,respectively. These SSLs have been calculated using the equations and the default values for exposure assumptions and other input parameters presented in Section 4.2.3 of this guidance document. All generic SSLs presented in this appendix, both residential and i commercial/industrial, are rounded to two significant figures,with the exception of values less than 10 mg/kg, which are rounded to one significant figure. As noted above, the values in this.Appendix are based on chemical-specific physical and toxicological parameters presented in Appendix C. The values in Appendix C represent the most recent values available and are current as of the date of publication of this guidance. However, physicalkchemical and toxicological data are subject to revision and should therefore be confirmed before referencing screening levels in the following tables. Trichloroethylene,in particular, is based on a draft risk assessment, and because the document is still undergoing review, the health benchmark values should be considered provisional. EPA does not present generic SSLs for the construction exposure scenario because the complexity -and variability of exposure conditions for construction activities precludes the development of such values. For information on developing SSLs for exposures during construction activities; users should refer to Chapter 5 or Appendix E of the guidance document. The generic residential and non-residential SSLs are not necessarily protective of all known human exposure pathways or ecological threats. Before applying SSLit is therefore necessary p g s� to compare the conceptual site model (developed in Step I of the soil screening process) with the assumptions underlying the generic SSLs to ensure that site conditions andexposure pathways are consistent with these assumptions (See Exhibit A-4.) If this comparison indicates that the site is more complex than the generic SSL scenario, or that there are significant exposure pathways not accounted for by the SSL scenario, then generic SSLs alone are not sufficient to evaluate the site, { and additional, more detailed site-specific investigation is necessary. A-I I ' In each exhibit, the first column presents SSLs based on the combined soil ingestion and dermal absorption exposure pathway. When data on dermal absorption from soil are unavailable, these SSLs are based on ingestion exposures only. SSLs for this pathway may be updated in the future as dermal absorption data become available for other contaminants. The second column in Exhibits A-I and A-2 presents SSLs for the outdoor inhalation of volatiles pathway. Although residential receptors and indoor workers are potentially exposed to volatiles in indoor air as well, EPA has not calculated generic SSLs for migration of volatiles into indoor air because it is very difficult to identify suitable standardized default values for inputs such as dimensions of commercial buildings and the distance between contamination and a building's foundation. EPA provides spreadsheet models that can be used to calculate SSLs for this pathway using the simple site-specific or detailed site-specific approaches.' The third column in Exhibit A-i and A-2 lists SSLs for the inhalation of fugitive dusts pathway. Because inhalation of fugitive dust is typically not a,concern for organic compounds, SSLs for this pathway are presented only for inorganic compounds, which am listed at the end ofeach exhibit. Conversely, with the exception of mercury,no SSLs for the inhalation of volatiles pathway are provided for inorganic compounds because these chemicals exhibit extremely low volatility. The user should note that several of the generic SSLs for the inhalation of volatiles pathway are determined by the chemical-specific soil saturation limit(C,,) which is used to screen for the presence of non-aqueous phase liquids(NAPLs). As indicated in Section 4.2.3, in situations where the residual concentration of a compound that is a liquid at ambient soil temperature exceeds CS,,, the compound may exist as free-phase liquid (see Exhibit C-3 in Appendix C -for a list of those compounds present in liquid phase at typical ambient soil temperatures). In these cases, further investigation will be required. The final two columns in Exhibits A-I through A-3 present generic SSLs for the migration to ground water pathway. The generic commercial/industrial SSLs for this pathway are the some as those for residential use and are unchanged from the 1996 SSG. As discussed in Section 4.2.3, this approach protects potential potable ground water resources that may be present beneath sites with commercial/industrial uses and protects off--site residents who may ingest ground water contaminated by the site. The migration to ground water SSLs are back-calculated from an acceptable target soil leachate concentration using a dilution-attenuation factor(DAF). The first of the two columns of SSLs for this pathway presents levels calculated using a DAF of 20 to account for reductions in contaminant concentration due to natural processes occurring in the subsurface. The second column presents SSL values for the migration to ground water pathway calculated assuming a DAF of one (i.e.,no dilution or attenuation between the source and the receptor well). These levels should be used at sites where little or no dilution or attenuation of soil leachate concentrations is expected; this will be the case at sites with characteristics such as shallow water tables,fractured media, karst topography, or source size greater than 30 acres. ' The vapor intrusion spreadsheets can be found on EPA's web site at http://unvw.Cpa-gov/superfund/ programs/risk/airmodel/johnson_ettinger.htm. i A-2 I j I: { After all possible SSLs for all potential receptors at a site have been identified from the tables in Exhibits A-1 through A-3, the site manager should select the lowest applicable SSL for each exposure pathway to be used for comparison to site contaminant concentrations in soil. Generally, where the relevant SSL for a given pathway of concern is not exceeded, the user may eliminate the pathway from further investigation. If all pathways of concern are eliminated for an area of the site based on comparison with residential SSLs, that area can be eliminated from further investigation. However, if commercial/industrial SSLs are used in soil screening evaluations, elimination of an area from further consideration is contingent on an analysis of institutional control options. Users should consult Section 4.3.2 of the guidance document for more information. The final exhibit in this appendix(Exhibit A-4)presents the default values for physical site characteristics that are used in calculating SSLs(both residential and commercial/industrial)for the inhalation and migration to ground water pathways. These values describe the nature of the contaminant source area,the characteristics of site soil,meteorologic conditions, and hydrogeologic characteristics, and serve either as direct input parameters for SSL equations or as assumptions-for developing input parameters for the equations. This appendix does not include SSLs for lead, dioxin, or PCBs, because EPA has issued separate documents that specify risk-based concentrations for these contaminants in soil. For guidance on addressing soil contaminated with lead,dioxin,or PCBs,please refer to the following sources: Lead: •• U.S. EPA, 1994.Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance far CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities, EPA/540/F-94/043, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.Directive 9355.4-12. I •• U.S. EPA, 1996. Recommendations of the Technical Review Prorkgroup fo Lead far an Interhn Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil, Technical Review Workgroup for Lead(TRW), Washington,D.C. i •• US EPA, 1999. Frequently Asked Questions on the Adult Lead Model: Guidance Document, Technical Review Worlcgroup for Lead (TRW), Washington, D.C. http://wvvw.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/programs/lead/ adfags.htm i i A-3 i i i J PCBs: •• US EPA, 1990. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfttnd Sites with PCB Contamination. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington, D.C. NTIS PB91-921206CDH. (Currently being updated by the EPA PCB work group.) Dioxin: •• U.S. EPA. 1998.Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites. OSWER Directive 9200.4-26. I •• U.S. EPA.2000. Draft Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,S- Tetrachlorodibeiizo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. Office of Research and Development, Washington,D.C. EPA/600/P-00/00113g. September. Analysis of Effects of Source Size on Generic SSLs The generic SSLs presented have been developed assuming an infinite source and a 0.5 acre j source size. For an analysis of the sensitivity of generic SSLs to changes in source size and the depths to which infinite source SSLs are protective at larger sites,please refer to Attachment A and Table A-3 in the Technical Background Document of the 1996 SSG.-Additional detail is also provided in the guidance documents specifically addressing screening levels for soils contaminated with lead, dioxin, or PCBs(listed above). I I i I I I i i I I I A-4 Exhibit A-1 I GENERIC SSLs FOR RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO' Inhalation Migration to Ground Water Inhalation of Compound Ingestion- of Fugitive Dermal Volatiles Particulates DAF=20 DAF=1 Organics CAS No. (mglkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Acenaphthene 83-32-9 3,400 ° - - 570 ° 29 ° Acetone(2-Pr0p2none) 67-64-1 7,800 °'0 ° 0.8 ° Aldrin 309-00-2 0.04 `'° 3 - 0.5 ° 0.02 ° Anthracene 120-12-7 17,000 ' - ` -- 12,000 ° 590 Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.6 ° - ` - 2 ° 0_08 " Benzene 71-43-2 12 `'` 0.8 ° - 0.03 0.002 r Benzo(b)Buoranthene 205-99-2 0.6 ° - ` - 5 ° 0,2 °•r Benzo(kplluoranlhene 207-08-9 6 - C - 99 ` 2 ° Benzoic acid 65-85-0 310,000 °'` - C - 400 '" 20 °h Benzo(a)pyrene a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.06 °'r - - 8 0.4 8is(2-chtoroethyt)ether 111-44-4 0.4 0.2 °'r - 0.0004 0'1 0.00002 j B1s(2-ethylhexyl)phtha1ale 117-81-7 35 ° - - 3,600 180 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 10 `'` - ` - 0.6 0.03 Bromoform(tribromomethane) 75-25-2 81 `` 52 ` - 0.8 0.04 Butanol 71-36-3 7,800 °'` - - 17 ° 0.9 ° Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 12,000 ° - -- 930 ° 810 ° Carbazole 86-74-8 24 ` - ` - 0.6 ° 0.03 °'r j Carbon.disulride 75-15-0 7,800 °'` 720 ° - 32 ° 2 ° Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 5 `'Q 0.3 ° - 0.07 0.003 Chlordane 57-74-9 2 72 ° - 10 0.5 p-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 240 ° - - 0.7 ° 0.03 - - i Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1,600 °'` 380 ° - 1 0.07 Chlorodlbromomelhane 124-48-1 8 `'° - ` - 0.4 0.02 Chloroform 67-66-3 780 °'` - C - 0.6 0.03 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 310 ° -- -- 4 °N 0.2 °1" Chrysene 218-01-9 62 ° -- ` - 160 ` 8 ° DDD 72-54-8 3 `'° - ` - 16 0.8 ` DDE 72-55-9 2 `` - ` - 54 ° 3 e DDT 50-29-3 2 ` - 9 - 32 ° -Z ° Dibenz(a,h)anlhracene 53-70-3 0.06 `'r - _ 2 ° 008 °•r Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 6,100 ° - - 2,300 ° 270 ° 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 5.500 ° 600 ° - 17 0.9 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 10646-7 20 ° - 9 -- 2 0,1 r 3,3-Dichloroben7idine 91-94-1 1 - - ` - 0.007 `'r 0.0003 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 7,800 1,200 ° - 23 ° 1 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 7 `'` 0.4 ° -- 0.02 0.001 r 1,1-Dichloroelhylene 75-35-0 3900 °'` 290 ° - 0.06 0.003 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 780 °'` - ` - 0.4 0.02 trans-1,2-Dichloroelhylene 156-60-5 1,600 °'` - - 0.7 0.03 I 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 180 ° - - 1 °'" 0.05 °"` 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy- 94-75-7 690 " - ° - 0.4 °a 0,02 n.k acetic acid 1,2-Dlchtoropropene 78-87-5 9 °'` 15 ° - 0.03 0.001 r I 1 3-Dichloro ronene 542-75-6 6 `° 1 ° - 0.0134 ° 0.0002 ° i j A-5 i l Exhibit A-1 (continued) GENERIC SSLs FOR RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO' Inhalation Migrationgnder ' of Compound Ingestion- Inhalation Fugitive Organics(continued? Dermal of Volatiles Particulates DAF=20 CAS No. (mg/kg) (mgtkg) (mgtkg) (mgtkg) Dieldrin 60-57-1 0,04 `'° 1 ° - 0.004 ° ' Diethyiphthalate 84-66-2 49,000 ° - - 470 b °2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 1,200 - ` 9 ° °2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 120 -- ` - 0.2 b'''k k2,4Dinitr❑toluene i2i-142 0.7 ° - ` - 0.0008 '' 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 0.7 ° - ` - 0,0007 °'� 0.00003 ej Di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 1,200 ° - ° - ° n 10,000 10,000 Endosulfan 115-29-7 470 °'` -- ° - 18 ° 0.9 ° Endrin 72-20-8 23 °'` - ` - 1 0.05 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 7,800 b.` 400 d - 13 0.7 Fluoranthene 206-440 2;300- " - - 4.300 ° 210 ° Fluorene 86-731 2,300 ° - ` - 560 ° 26 ° Heptachtor 76-44-8 0.1 `'0 4 - 23 1 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.07 G° 5 - 0.7 0.03 Hexachtor❑benzene 118-741 0.3 ° i - 2 0.1 ' Hexachforo-1,3-buladiene 87-68-3 6 ° 8 0 - 2 0.1 a-HCH(a-BHC) 319-84-6 0.1 `° 0.7 ° - 0.0005 0.00003 °' p-•HCH(P-BHC) 319-85-7 0.4 C0 6 ° - 0.003 0.0001 y-HCH(Undane) 58-89-9 0.4 ° - ` - 0.009 0.0005 ' Hexachl❑rocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 370 29 ° - 400 20 Hexachtoroethane 67-72-1 35 54 ° - 0.5 e 0.02 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 0.6 ° - ` - i4 ° 0.7 ° tsophorone 78-59-1 510 - ` - 0.5 ° 0.03 `'' Methoxychlor 72-43-5 390 - ` - 160 8 Methyl bromide 74-83-9 110 9 ° 02 b 0.01 b'' Methylene chloride 75-09-2 85 13 - 0.02 ° 0.001 2-Methylphenot(o-cresol) 95118-7 3,100 Naphthalene 9i-20-3 1,100 b 170 C -.- B4 " 4 -°- Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 31 ° 90 b - 0.1 b" 0.007 N-Nltr❑sodiphenylamine 86-30.6 99 ` -- - 1 0.06 N-Nitrosodf-n-propylamine 621-64-7 0.07 `•' - - 0.0000 0.000002 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 3 0.03 0,001 Phenol 108-95-2 18,000 b - - 100 b 5 ° Pyrene 129-00-0 1,700 b - - 4,200 ° 210 b Styrene 100-02-5 16,000 1,500 ` - 4 0.2 Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 3 " 0.6 - 0.003 0.0002 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18 4 1 1 - 0.06 0.003 ' Toluene 108-88-3 16,000 °c 650 d - 12 0.6 Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.6 87 ` - 31 2 1,2,4-Trichiorobenzene 120-82-1 610 ° 3,200 5 p g 1,1,1-Trichtoroethane 71-55-6 - 1,200 ° - 2 0.1 1,1,2-Trichtoroethane 79-00-5 11 `'° 1 - 0.02 0.0009 ' Trichloroethylene" 79-01-6 2 4` 0.07 - 0.06 0.003 ' 2,4,5-Trichlorop hen of 95-95.4 6,100 ° - - 270 b1 14bL 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-0ri••2 44 200 - 0.2 "b 0.008 J` A-6 I . t I ' t Exhibit A-1 (continued) GENERIC SSLs FOR RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO- Inhalation Migration to Ground Water of Compound Ingestion- Inhalation Fugitive 1 Organics(confinuelo Dermal of Volatiles Particulates DAF=20 DAF=1 CAS No. (mg/kg) {mg/kg) {mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 78,000 °C 980 ° — 170 ° 8 ° Vinyl chloride(chloroethene) 75-41-4 0.4 `°h D.6 °'' — 0.01 �w O.00D7 m-Xylene 108-38-3 160,000 °'` — ` — 210 10 c-Xylene 95-47-6 160,000 °L — — 190 9 p Xylene 106 42-3 160,000 °'` - ` — 200 10 Inorganics Antimony 7440-36-0 31 °'C — — 5 0.3 Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.4 ° — 770 ° 29 k 1 k Barium 7440-39-3 5,500 °'` — 710,000 ° 1,600 k 82 k Beryllium 7440-41-7 160 co — 1,400 ° 63 k 3 k Cadmium --7440-43-9 70 ° — 1,800 ° 8 k k 0.4 Chromium(total) 7440-47-3 230 °'` — 280 ° 38 k 2 k Chromium(Ill) 16065-83-1 120,000 Chromium(VI) 18540-29.9 230 °'` — 280 38 k 2 k j Cyanide(amenable) 57-12-5 1,600 °'0 — — ` 40 2 Mercury *7782-49-2 23 °'s� 10 -- 2 k 4.1 k Nickel. 1,600 °'` — 14 000 k k 130 7 Selenium 390 °'` — — ` 5 k 0.3 k Silver 7440-22-4 390 ° — _ ` 3q °•k 2 °.k Thallium 7440-28-0 6 °'"" — — ° 0.7 k 0.04 Vanadium 7440-62-2 550 ` — — ` 6,000 ° 300 ° Zinc 7440 66-6 23 000 °C — ` 12 000 °'k 624 'k DAF=Dilution Attenuation Factor ' Screening level based on human health criteria only � ° Calculated values correspond to a noncancer hazard quotient of 1.For exposure to multiple non-carcinogens,EPA evaluates contaminants according to their critical effect.See section 2.3 for further discussion- ` Ingestion-Dermal pathway;no dermal absorption data available;calculated based on ingestion data only. Inhalation of volatiles pathway:no toxicity criteria available ° Soil Saturation Limit(Csai) ` Calculated values correspond to a cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000.For multiple carcinogens,EPA believes values will accumulate to be within acceptable risk levels.See section 2.3 for further discussion. Level is at or below Contract Laboratory Program required quantification limit for Regular Analytical Services(RAS) ° Chemical-speclfic properties are such that this pathway is not of concern at any soil contaminant concentration " SSL is based on continuous exposure to vinyl chloride over a lifetime, SSL is based on continuous exposure to vinyl chloride during adulthood. I SSL is based on dietary RID for Cadmium k SSL for pH of 6.8 SSL is based on RfD for mercuric chloride(CAS No.007847-94-7) " SSL Is based on RfD for thallium chloride(CAS No.7791-12-0) Health benchmark values are based on NCEA's Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment:Synthesis and Characterization- f Extemal Review Draft(ORD,August,2001).The trichloroethylene draft risk assessment is stili under review. As a result,the health benchmark values are subject to change. I i A-7 i I .. I i I ' Exhibit A-2 GENERIC SSL.s FOR COMMERCIAIJINDUSTRIAL SCENARIO: OUTDOOR WORKER RECEPTOR' Inhalation Migration to Ground Water of Compound Ingestion- Inhalation Fugitive Dermal of Volatiles Particulates DAF=20 DAF--1 Organics CAS No. (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mglkg) Acenaphthene 83-32-9 37,000 b - ` - 570 b 29 b Acetone(2-Propanone) 67-64-1 110,000 °'` - ` -- 16 0.8 ° Aldrin 309-00-2 0.2 `'e 6 e - 0.5 a 0.02 ° Anthracene 120.12-7 180,000 ° - ` - 12,000 ° 590 ° Senz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 2 - c - 2 0.08 Benzene 71-43-2 58 °E 1 Q - 0.03 0.002 Senzo(b)Ouoranthene 205-99-2 2 ` - ` - 5 ° 0-2 Senzo(k)iluoranthene 207-08-9 23 ` - ` - 49 2 ` Benzoic acid 65-85-0 1,000.000 °'` -- ` - 400 °'I 20 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.2 ° - ` - 8 0.4 Sis(2-chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 2* 0.4 - - 0.0004 0.00002 Bls(2-e1hylhexyl)phthalale 117-81-7 140 ` - ` - 3,600 180 Bromodichlororrmethane 75-27-4 51 - ` - 0.6 0.03 Bromoform 75-25-2 400 ce 88 e - 0.8 0.04 (tribromomethane) Butanol 71-36-3 110,000 -- ` _ 17 ° 0.9 ° Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 140,000 ° - 930 ° 810 ° Carbazole 86-74-8 96 - ` - 0.6 ° 0.03 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 110,000 720 ° - 32 ° 2 ° Carbon telrachlorlde 56-23-5 24 0.6 ° - 0.07 0.003 Chlordane 57-74-9 7 e 120 ° - 10 0.5 p-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 2,700 ° - ` - 0.7 ° 0.03 Chtorobenzene 108-90-7 23,000 °'` 540 ° - 1 0.07 Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1 38 `'e - - 0.4 0.02 Chloroform 67-66-3 11,000 °'` - ` - 0.6 0.03 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 3,400 . ° - ` - 4 0.2 Chrysene 218-01-9 230 e - - 160 - ` 8 DDD 72-54-8 13 - ` - 16 a 0.8 ° DDE 72-55-9 9 --- 54 3 ° DDT 50-29-3 8 e - e - 32 e 2 e Dibenz(a,h)anthrecene 53-70-3 0.2 ` -- ` -- 2 ° 0.00 e'r Digi-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 68,000 b - ` -- 2,300 ° 270 ° 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 62,000 ° 600 ° - 17 0.9 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 80 ` - e - 2 I 0.1 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine91-941 4 ` - ` - 0.007 0.0003 e'r 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 110,000 b'` 1,700 d - 23 ° 1 n 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 35 0.6 ` - 0.02 0.001 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-354 57,000 410 ° -- 0.06 0.003 cis-1,2-Diehloroethylene 156-59-2 11,000 °'` - ` - 0.4 0.02 trans-1,2-Dlchloroethylene 156-60-5 23.000 - ` - 0.7 0.03 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 2,100 - ` - 1 2.4-Dichlorophenoxy- 94-75-7 8,500 ° - C - 0.4 °j 0.02 bj acetic acid 1,2-Dichloropropene 78-87-5 47 21 ° - 0.03 0.001 j 1,3-Dichloropropene 542-75.6 32 2 ` - 0.004 ` 1 0.0002 ° A-8 - I , i ' 4 "1 Exhibit A-2(continued) GENERIC SSLs FOR COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL SCENARIO: OUTDOOR WORKER.RECEPTOR' Inhalation Migration to Ground Water 1 of Compound Ingestion- Inhalation Fugitive Dermal of Volatiles Particulates DAF=20 DAF=1 Organics(continued) CAS No. (mglkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.2 2 - 0-004 0.0002 `' Dielhylphthalate 84-66-2 550,000 ° - - 470 ° 23 ° 2,4-Dimethylphenol - 105-67-9 14,000__._.°. _ .-.- `.. . - 9 ° 0.4 b 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 1,400 ° - - - 0.2 d1j 0.008 01j 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 3 - - 0.0008 `' 0.00004 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 3 e - ` - 0.0007 `'' 0.00003 Dl-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 14,000 ° - ` -- 10.000 ° 10,000 ° Endosulfan 115-29-7 6,800 °'` - - 18 ° 0.9 " Endrin 72-20-8 340 °c - ` - 1 0.05 -- Ethylbenzene 10041-4 110,000 °'` 400 ° - 13 0.7 Ruoranthene 206-44-0 24,000 ° - - 4,300 ° 210 ° Fluorene 86-73-7 24,000 ° - - 560 ° 28 ° i Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.7 s` 7 ` - 23 1 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.3 s° B - 0.7 0.03 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 1 ` 2 ` - 2 0.1 ' Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 25 13 ` - 2 0.1 O-HCH(a-BHC) 319-84-6 0.5 `` 1 ° - 0.0005 `I 0.00003 (3 HCH(p-BHC) 319-85-7 2 S` - ° - 0.003 0.0001 `'` y-HCH(Lindane) 58.89-9 2 - - 0.009: 0.0005 ' Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 4,100 ° 41 ° - 400 . 20 Hexachloroeihane . 67-72-1 140 ` 92 ` - 0.5 ` 0.02 SI Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 2 - - 14 07 ° Isophorone 78-59-1 2,000 - - 0.5 ` 0.03 . `'' Methoxychlor 7243-5 5,700 °C - - 160 8 Methyl bromide 74-83-9 1.600 °` 13 ° - 0.2 ° 0.01 °'' Melhylene chloride 75-09-2 420 " 22 - 0.02 e0.001 `'' 2-Methylphenoi(D-cresol) 95-48-7 34,000 ° - - 15 0.8 ° Naphthalene 91-20-3 12,000 ° 240 ° - 64 ° 4 ° Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 340 ° 130 ° - 0.1 M 0.007 N-Nitrosodiphenvlarrine 86-30-6 390 ` - ` - 1 0.06 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 0.3 - - 0.00005 °' 0.000002 `'' Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 10 - - 0.03 ci 0,001 Phenol 108-95-2 210,000 ° - - 100 ° 5 ° Pyrene 129-00-0 18,000 ° - - 4,200 ° 210 ° Styrene 100-42-5 230,000 °e 1,500 ° - 4 0.2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 16 " 1 e - 0.003 0.0002 `' Tetrachioroeihylene 127-1 B-4 6 " 2 ' - o.06 0.003 ' Toluene 108-88-3 230,000 °'` 650 ° - 12 0.6 Toxaphene 8001-35.2 3 " 150 ° - 31 2 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 6,800 ° 3,200 - 5 0.3 ' 1,1,1-Trichloroelhane 71-55-6 - 1,200 ° - ? 0.1 1,1,2-1richioroethane 79-00-5 56 " 2 e - 0.02 0.0009 ` Trichloroethylene" 79-01-6 8 " 0.1 - 0.06 0.003 ' 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 68,000 ° - - 270 °j 14 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-061 170 340 ° - 0.2 A-9 i t 1 Exhibit A-2(continued) GENERIC SSLs FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SCENARIO: OUTDOOR WORKER RECEPTOR' Inhalation Migration to Ground Water of Compound Ingestion- Inhalation Fugitive Dermal of Volatiles Particulates DAF=20 DAF=1 Organics(continued) CAS No. (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mglkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 1,000,000 1,400. ° — 170 ° 8 ° Vinyl chloride(chiomethene) 75-01-4 4 `°'" 1 °� — 0.01 '"� 0.0007 'h m-Xylene 108-38-3 1,000,000 °c — — 210 10 o-Xylene 95-47-5 1,000,000 °` - — 190 9 p-Xylene 105-42-3 1,000,000 °c — — 200 10 Inorganics Antimony 7440-36.0 450 °C — — 5 0.3 Arsenic 7440-38.2 2 ° 1,400 29 ' 1 1 Barium 7440-39-3... . 79,000 4c – 1,000,000 ° 1,600 1 82 1 Beryllium 7440-41-7 2,300 " — 2,600 63 ' 3 1 Cadmium 7440-43-9 900 °' — 3,400 8 1 0.4 1 Chromium(total) 7440-47-3 3,400 °` — 510 38 ' 2 1 Chromium(Ill) 16065-83-1 1,000,000 °.` Chromium(VI) 18540-29.9 3,400 °` -- 510 38 ' 2 1 Cyanide(amenable) 57-12-5 23,000 °'` -- — 40 2 Mercury 7439-97-6 340 °'`'` i4 °'" — 2 r g300 Nickel7440-02-0 23,000 °'` — 26,000 130 +Selenium 7782-49-2 5,700 °'` — -- ` 5Sliver 7440-22-4 5,700 °` – — 34 °1 allium 7440-28-0 91 t%00.7 Vanadium 7440-62-2 7,900 °c — — 6,000 °t 744 b.c 12,000 DAF=Dilution Attenuation Factor ' Screening level based on human health criteria only ° Calculated values correspond to a noncancer hazard quotient or 1.For exposure to multiple non-carcinogens,EPA evaluates contaminants according to[heir critical effect.See section 2.3 for further discussion. ` Ingestion-Dermal pathway,no dermal absorption data available;calculated based on ingestion data only. Inhalation of volaliles pathway:no toxicity criteria available ° Soil Saturation Limit(Csal) ` Calculated values correspond to a cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000.For multiple carcinogens,EPA believes values will accumulate to be within acceptable risk levels.See section 2.3 for further discussion. j ' Level is at or below Contract Laboratory Program required quantification limit for Regular Analytical Services(RAS) ° Chemical-specific properties are such that this pathway is not of concern at any soil contaminant concentration ° SSL is based an continuous exposure to vinyt chloride during adulthood. ' SSL is based on dietary RfD for Cadmium 1 SSL for pti of 5.8 ` SSL is based on RID for mercuric chloride(CAS No.007847-94-7) ' SSL is based on RID for thallium chloride(CAS No.7791-12-0) Health benchmark values are based on NCEA's Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment:Synthesis and Characterization- Extemal Review Draft(ORD,August,2001).The trichloroethylene draft risk assessment is still under review. As a result,the health benchmark values are subject to change. I i A-10 Ili Exhibit A-3 ± GENERIC SSLs FOR COMMERCtAUINDUSTRIAL SCENARIO. INDOOR WORKER RECEPTOR; Migration to Ground Water Compound Ingestion-Dermal" DAF=20 DAF=1 +. Organics CAS No. (mglkg) (mgikg) (mglkg) Acenaphthene 83-32-9 120,000 ° 570 ° 29 ° Acetone(2-Propanone) 67-64-1 200,000 ° 16 0.8 ° Aldrin 309-00-2 0.3 ` 0.5 ` 0.02 ° Anthracene 120-12-7 610,000 ° 12,000 ° 590 ° Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 8 ° 2 ° 0.08 e.r Benzene 71-43-2 100 ` 0.03 0.002 ' Benzo(b)tluoranthene 205-99-2 8 ` 5 ° 0.2 ° Benzo(k)ifuoranthene 207-08-9 78 49 a2 ° Benzoic acid 65-85-0 1,0003000 ° 400 °'i 20 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.8 ° 8 0,4 Sis(2-chloroethyi)elher 111-44-4 5 ` 0.0004 0.00002 Bts(2-ethythexyl)phlhalate 117-81-7 410 ` 3,600 180 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 92 ` 0.6 0.03 Bromoform 75.25-2 720 0.8 0.04 (tn'bromomethane) . Butanol 71-36-3 200,000 17 0.9 ° Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 410,000 ° 930 ° 810 ° Carbazole 65-74-8 290 ` 0,6 ° 0.03 r•� Carbon dlsulGde 75-15-0 200,000 ° 32 ° 2 ° Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 44 ` 0.07 0.003 Chlordane 67-74-9 16 ` 10 0.5 p-Chloroanlline 10647-8 8,200 0.7 ° 0.03 Chtorobenzene 108-90-7 41,000 ° 1 0.07 Chtorodtbromomelhane 124 48-1 68 ` 0.4 0.02 Chloroform 67-66-3 20,000 ° 0.6 0.03 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 10,000 4 0.2 Chrysene 218-01-9 780 ` 160 ` 8 ° DDD 72-54-8 24 ` 16 ` 0.8 ° DDE 72-55-9 17 ` 54 ° 3 ° DDT 50-29-3 17 ° 32 2 ° Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.8 ` 2 ° 0.08 e.r Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 200.000 ° 2,300 ° 270 ° 1,2-Dlchtorobenzene 95-50-1 180,000 ° 17 0.9 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 240 ` 2 0.1 ' i 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 13 ° 0.007 0-0003 `'r 1,1-Dichloroelhane 75-34-3 200,000 ° 23 ° 1 ° 1.2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 63 ` 0.02 0.001 ' 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-35-4 100,000 ° 0.06 0.003 ' cis-1,2-Dichloroethytene 156-59-2 20,000 ° 0.4 0.02 trans-l,2-Dichioroethylene 156-60-5 41,000 ° 0.7 0.03 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 6,100 ° 1 °d 0.05 2,4-Dichtorophenoxy- 94-75-7 20,000 0 0.4 ° 0.02 °; j acetic acid i A-11 Exhibit A-3(continued) GENERIC SSLs FOR COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL SCENARIO: INDOOR WORKER RECEPTOR' Migration to Ground Water ` Compound Ingestion-Dermal* DAF=20 DAF=1 Organics(conUnuedJ I CAS No. (mgtkg) (mg/kg) (mgtkg) 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 84 0.03 0.001 ` £ 1,3-Dfchloropropene 542-75-6 57 0.004 0.0002 Diefdrin 60-57-1 0.4 ° 0.004 ` 0.0002 Diethylphihalate 84-66-2 1,000,000 ° 470 ° 23 ° 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 41,000 b9 ° 0.4 ° 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 4,100 ° 0.2 °•" 0.008 °v 2,4Dinitrofoluene 121-14-2 8 e 0.0008 °` 0.00004 2,&-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 8 0.0007 *TF 0,00003 Di n-oclyl phthalate 117-84-0 41,000 ° 10,000 ° 10,000 ° Endosulfan 115-29-7 12,000 T18fb 0.9 ° Endrin 72-20-8 610 1 0.05Efhylbenzene 100-41-4 200,000 13 0 7Ffuoranthene 206-44-0 82,000 4,300 ° 210 ° Fluorene 86-73-7 82,000 ' 560 ° 28 ° Heplachlor 76-44-8 1 23 1 Heptachlor Epoxfde 1024-57-3 0.6 0.7 0.03 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 4 ` 2 0.1 ' Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 73 2 0.1 -HCH(••SHC) 319-84-6 0.9 0.0005 j 4.1 0.00003 i, •HCH(•-BHC) 319-85-7 3 0.003 0.0001 � -HCH(Undane) 58-89-9 4 0.009 0.0005 ` Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 12,000 ° 400 20 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 410 e 0.5 10.02 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 8 e14 0.7 ` Isophorone 7&59-1 6,000 e 0.5 0.03 Methoxychlor 7213-5 10,000 ° 160 8 Methyl bromide 7483-9 2,900 ° 0.2 ° 0.01 °f �.i Methylene chloride 75-09-2 760 0.02 0.001 i 2-Methyiphenol(o-cresol) 95-48-7 100,000 ° 15 ° 0-8 ° Naphthalene 91-20-3 41,000 ° 84 ° 4 ° Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 1.000 ° 0.1 °` 0.007 N-Nilrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 1,200 e1 e 0.06 N-Nifrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 0.8 0.00005 " 0.000002_ Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 48 0.03 U 0.001 I Phenol 108-95-2 610,000 ° 100 Pyrene 129-00-0 61,000 ° 4,200 " 210 ° Styrene 100-42-5 410,000 ° 4 0.2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 29 0.003 `"' 0.0002 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 11 0.06 0.003 ` Toluene 108-88-3 410,000 ° 12 0.6 Toxaphene 8001-35-2 5 31 2 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 20,000 ° 5 0.3 ` 11,1-Trichloroethane 71 55 6 - ` 2 01 1,1,2-Tnchtoroethane 79.00-5 100 ` 0.02 0.0009 ` Trichloroethylene" 79-01-6 14 0.06 0.003 ` 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95 4 200,000 ° 270 °j 14 °J A-12 i I Exhibit A-3(continued) GENERIC SSLs FOR COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL SCENARIO: INDOOR WORKER RECEPTOR' Migration to Ground Water Compound Ingestion-Dermal* DAF=20 DAF=1 Organics(continued) CAS No. (mglkg) (mgikg) (mglkg) 1 2,4.6-Trichloraphenot 88-06-2 520 ` 0.2 0.008 '•'J Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 1,000,000 °'` 170 b 8 ° Vinyl chloride(chloroethene) 75-014 8 °h 0.01 '", 0.0007 46 m-Xylene 108-38-3 1,000,000 ° 210 10 o-Xylene 95-47-6 1,000,000 h 190 9 p-Xylene 106-42-3 1,000,000 " 200 10 Inorganics Antimony 7440-36-0 820 ° 5 0-3 Arsenic 7440-38-2 4 ° 29 i 1 i Barium 7440-39-3 140,000 ° 1,600 i 82 Beryllium 7440-41-7 4,100 ° 63 } 3 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2,000 °'' 8 1 0.4 i Chromium(total) 7440-47-3 6,100 ° 38 i 2 Chromium(III) 16065-83-1 1,000,000 b — Chromium(VI) 18540-29-9 6,100 b 38 2 Cyanide(amenable) 57-12-5 41,000 ° 40 2 Mercury 7439-97-6 610 n k 2 i 0.1 Nickel 7440-02-0 41,000 ° 130 7 Selenium 778249-2 10,000 b 5 0.3 i Silver 7440-22-4 10,D00 34 b' 2 bJ i Thallium 744D 28-0 160 °'� 0.7 1 0.04 Vanadium 7440-62-2 14,000 b 6,000 b 300 b zinc 7440-66-6 610,000 b 12,000 bi 620 b I DAF=Dilution Attenuation f=actor No dermal absorption data available for indoor worker receptor;calculated based on ingestion data only ' Screening levet based on human health criteria only Calculated values correspond to a noncancer hazard quotient of 1 ` Ingestion-Dermal pathway:no dermal absorption data available;calculated based on ingestion data only. inhalation of volatiles pathway:no toxicity criteria available ° Soil Saturation Limit(Csat) j Calculated values correspond to a cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000 ' Level is at or below Contract Laboratory Program-required quanllfieafion limit for Regular Analytical Services(RAS) Chemical-specific properties are such that this pathway is not of concern at any soil contaminant concentration ° SSL Is based on continuous exposure to vinyl chloride during adulthood. SSL is based on dietary RID for Cadmium SSL for pH of 6.8 ` SSL is based on RfD for mercuric chloride(CAS No.007847-94-7) ' SSL is based on RID for thallium chloride(CAS No.7791-12-0) Health benchmark values are based on NCEA's Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment:Synthesis and Characterization-External Review Draft(ORD,August,2001).The trichloroethylene draft risk assessment is still under review. As a result,the health benchmark values are subject to change. I A-I3 Exhibit A-4 GENERIC SSI—s: DEFAULT VALUES FOR PARAMETERS DESCRIBING SITE CONDITIONS- INHALATION AND)MIGRATION TO GROUND WATER PATHWAYS SSL I'athway t Nfigratlon to Ground Parameter Inhalation %Vater Method Source Characteristics Continuous vegetative cover • • 50 percent Roughness height • • 0.5 cm for open terrain;used to derive U,.; Source area(A} 0.5 acres(2,024m));used to derive L for GW Source length(L) •• 45 m(assumes square source) Source depth •• Extends to water table(i.e_,no attenuation in unsaturated zone) Soil Characteristics Soil texture Loam,defines soil characteristics/parameters Dry soil bulk density(•6) 1.5 kg/L Soil porosity(n) 0.43 Vol.soil water content(0,,.) 0.15 fINH);0.30(GW;Indoor INH)* Vol.soil air content(G.) 0.28 ONI•I);0.13(GW;indoor INI:I)'r Soil organic carbon(Cj 0.00&(0,6%,INM;0,002(0.2%,(3W) Soil pH 6.8•used to determine• H-s ecific r raetals and K Ionizable • P P 'd( ) be( organics) Mode soil aggregate size •• 0.5 mm;used to derive U, I� Threshold windspecd Q 7 m (Uv) - • 11.32 m/s iVfcteoro logien l Data j Mean annual windspeed(Um) •• 4.69 m/s(Minneapolis,MN) Air dispersion factor(QiC) • • 90th percentile conterminous U.S. Volatilization Q/C •. 6E_I8;Los Angeles,CA;0.5-acre source Fugitive particulate QIC •1 93:77;M-inneapolis,MN;0.5-acre source Hydrogcologic Characteristics (DAG•) Hydrogeologic setting • • Generic(national);surficial aquifer Dilution/attenuation factor(DAF) • • 20 or I j • • 1 Indicates parameters used directly in the SSL equations, •• Indicates parameters/assumptions used to develop input parameters for SSL equations. INH=Inhalation pathway. GW=Migration to g ground water pathway. Indoor INH=Inhalation of volatiles in indoor air pathway. s The inhalation of volatiles in indoor air pathway is evaluated using subsurface soil defaults for 0.and 0,. The model's default parameters assume contamination located directly beneath a basement floor that is two meters below the ground surface, i l A-14 E Appendix B 1 Generic Guidance for Evaluating Surface Soils on Properties Being Converted to Residential or Public Uses' 1. Issues related to managing soils on a property should be evaluated in conjunction with engineering design issues related to water supplies, sewage disposal systems and erosion and dust control measures that might be affected by certain soil management options. 2. If a municipality determines that soil sampling is appropriate, NYSDOH suggests that the municipality advise the applicant to collect soil samples from the surface to a. depth of two or three inches, to represent potential exposures to soil contaminants when children play in and incidentally ingest soil. If contaminant levels in surface soil exceed Soil Screening Levels-and background ranges, the applicant should prepare a soil management plan (SMP) to address the areas of elevated contamination. The scope of a SMP is related to the goals of the developer, the nature of the site and the extent of elevated levels, but does not necessarily involve the removal of material from the site. i Six-inch deep soil samples can be collected at the same time as the surface samples, saving the bottom interval of the samples for analysis pending the j results of the surface samples. Analytical results from this second interval are often useful for determining the vertical extent of contamination and for evaluating various options proposed by the developer or his agent for addressing areas with elevated contaminant levels during the normal course of on-site activities. In addition, the results from the upper and lower intervals can be combined to reflect the potential for exposure to contaminated soils during gardening activities. 3. If the municipality determines that sampling is appropriate, they may want the sampling plan to take into account the proposed development plan and the likely mechanism of exposure (e.g., gardening, children playing, etc.). Initial sampling efforts should be focused on areas that are likely to have accumulated the highest contaminant levels (such as suspected pesticide mixing areas) and that reflect the areas that are most likely to be frequented by children once the development is complete (such as residential yards, play areas and common - ° areas). Collecting samples from areas that are proposed to be paved over or from which soil is intended to be removed to establish final grades is less important. Similarly, sampling can be less important in areas that will be under building, driveways, parking lots or other features that make it unlikely that young children could come into contact with these soils. However, notification mechanisms such as deed restrictions may be appropriate for these areas, if left unsampled or if contamination is not addressed, to prevent excavation of contaminated soils during future construction or maintenance activities. i I Page 2 4. If the municipality determines that sampling is appropriate, they may wan' to consider having the samples analyzed for lead, arsenic and DDT and its metabolites, because these were widely used and are persistent. It is appropriate to substitute or supplement these analyses based on the extent of knowledge of the property and its potential past uses on the part _of the landowner or developer_ Samples should be analyzed by a laboratory that is certified through the State Health Department's Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (FLAP), or the National Environmental Approval Program (NELAP). 5. If the municipality determines that sampling is appropriate, it is recommended that discrete samples, rather than composite samples, be collected. Compositing samples from a large area or from disparate areas makes interpreting the results more difficult. This difficulty is increased as the number of locations composited into a single sample is increased and as the locations composited are further apart. I Guidance based on recommendations from New York State Depaj?anent Of Health-Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment—April 14, 1998 J • I r I � i �7 l I ` i j F t I I Attachment C Preparer Information Attachment C Stephen Kaplan Director of OHM Services Stephen IIs IAIrectolr`of Ofll & I""laza irdoU S Ma'telrllals and Ima inages I"3Ihase I' and Phase Ill. n r , 6Assessments, Csiat � projects. consults Iplrvate centsllendng inStUflonsIle all OUnel, a�dnnUinic"p�lies.Asinecessiry Ire codnates approvals, �elrIrm �fling� and relnnedi �ton efforts wftnregullregulatory gencies.oir Stephen Ihas perforined I 1hase II/IMI: investilga fllons for colMIMUnica fllons facillliltiles; �r f residentila 1, colnnlnnelrcia 1, and indUstlrila all plropelrtiles; and Iheall't'Inca ire facilll files. yP d s c' .�years of professional experience Education Smithtown Concrete Site Study and Remediation, Smithtown, NY BA, Economics, State Stephen is managing the assessment and remediation for the residential redevelopment of a University of New York at 23-acre former concrete manufacturing site with municipal and private landfill. Based on the Geneseo, 1992 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed, VHB found contaminated soil related to a Registrations/ 10,000-gallon fuel oil tank, historic buried debris, and methane. Stephen is overseeing the UST Certifications removal plan, Health and Safety Plan, geophysical survey, groundwater, soil, soil vapor Asbestos Inspector (including landfill gas survey) and air sampling. He and his team are coordinating with New (Asbestos Inspection), 2001 York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of OSHA Certified Hazardous Health Services. Waste Health and Safety Operator(OSHA 1910.120) Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn, NY (40 hour), 2004 Stephen oversaw the design and implementation of a large-scale groundwater remediation OSHA Construction Safety system associated with a former leaking underground storage tank located at the Polytechnic and Health Certificate (10- Institute in Brooklyn. The groundwater remediation system is designed to collect and capture Hour), 2012 contaminated groundwater and recover product floating on the groundwater table. Stephen coordinated with various additional team consultants in order to gather information needed to produce a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation-approved remedial action work plan inclusive of a Health and Safety Plan and Community Air Monitoring Program. Semi-annual soil vapor monitoring is ongoing as part of the approved Work Plan. T.C. Dunham Paint Company,Yonkers, NY Stephen provided consulting services including emergency response, and production and oversight of an approved remedial action work plan (RAWP) associated with a 4-alarm paint warehouse fire that impacted a large area in Yonkers. He teamed with various consultants and coordinated with various regulatory agencies, including the City of Yonkers, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to generate various approved documents including a remedial action work plan, health and safety plan, and community air monitoring program plan. Remediation was conducted in accordance with the Work Plans prepared by Stephen and a no further action letter was obtained for the project. Verizon Wireless Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments,Various, NY Stephen has performed and overseen over one thousand Phase I and/or Phase II ESAs in the five boroughs and in various locations in New York for Verizon Wireless' service expansion. The Phase I ESAs include review of site information, health department and NYSDEC documentation, and visual inspections. He supports Phase II ESAs by preparing scopes of work and budgets, associated site-specific health and safety plans (HASPS), conducting soil and groundwater investigations. If soil or groundwater impacts are identified by these Phase II ESAs, Stephen also prepares soil and groundwater management plans (S/GWMPs) with Stephen Kaplan associated budget estimates, oversees the implementation of these S/GWMPs and prepares summary closeout reports. Long Island MacArthur Airport On-Call Environmental Consulting, Islip, NY Stephen was the Project Manager responsible for a three-year on-call agreement with the Town of Islip providing environmental consulting services. Monthly groundwater sampling was conducted at various locations of the airport property in accordance with the Town of Islip's NYSDEC SPDES compliance. Other consulting services include Phase I and Phase II investigations, permitting, underground storage tank investigations, wetlands investigations, and remediation. To accomplish the goals of each task order, Stephen responded quickly to requests and worked closely with the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, and the NYSDEC. Avalon Bay Great Neck Communities, Great Neck, NY Stephen oversaw the investigation and remediation services associated with for the former Commander Oil-Great Neck Facility in Great Neck, NY. VHB conducted Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment services on behalf of Avalon Bay Communities as part of due diligence for the redevelopment of the 3.49- acre parcel utilized as a Major Oil Storage Facility (MOSF) adjacent to Manhasset Bay. As part of its investigatory activities, VHB conducted geophysical investigations, installed soil borings and monitoring wells, completed a groundwater tidal effects study, wrote a Remedial Action Work Plan for submittal to NYSDEC. New York State Psychiatric Center Hospital Redevelopment Projects Phase I and II ESAs, Central Islip, Brentwood, Melville and Dover Knolls, NY Stephen coordinated site redevelopment issues with multiple parties following the initial Phase I and II ESAs at Central Islip. Coordination included working with County DOH, NYSDEC and the USEPA. Stephen's involvement with these projects included managing the removal of an electrical substation; remediation of PCB-contaminated soil; demolition of four out-of-service 500,000-gallon fuel oil ASTs; and remediation of fuel oil contamination. At one site, a soil management plan developed by Stephen addressed heavy metal and pesticide impacts at a former agricultural-use section. In addition, a portion of one former psychiatric center was developed as senior affordable housing which required that Stephen prepare various documents to satisfy HUD financing requirements. The Landmark Colony Phase II ESA, Staten Island, NY Stephen prepared a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan for the development of a 427,000-square-foot construction project. This property redevelopment is for a mixed-use commercial and residential active design community in Staten Island. Since the project site has hazardous materials from its previous institutional uses, Stephen developed the Work Plan to include asbestos and lead-based paint surveys, a geophysical survey, soil and groundwater sampling, as well as soil vapor sampling. He prepared a NYCDEP-approved Work Plan in accordance with the current City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual for the NYCDEP to evaluate site conditions and response actions to be implemented during the site redevelopment. Taystee Bakery Phase IAI ESA,West Harlem, NY Stephen oversaw Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for the redevelopment of a block of vacant buildings located in West Harlem that were formerly utilized as a bakery. As part of the Phase II ESA, a petroleum spill incident was identified, reported and closed by the NYSDEC. He and his team also created a Work Plan approved by the New York City Mayor's Office of Environmental Remediation (OER) for the required E-Designation investigation of the property. Bryan Murty Senior Project Manager 131ryaan MUirty manages and conduct's Il'Inaase I'and II'3Ilaaase ILII. II.:.nv4-4anirnent'aall SII't'e iAssessments. Inaaddifllon„ I131ryaan pelrforlrm�s vaalr OUs env4-onlrm�entaall selrv�ces incll u g vaalpoir saalrmnlplliing/aalrmnbent aa4-g,uaallil'ty analysis, design„ ovelrsiglh't and r teclnnicaall support of small l and Ilaalrge-scaalle Irelrnediaa'fllon projects, as wellll as n6se studileso I131ryaan aallso Ipaalrtilcilpaates in vaalriMs env4-onlrmnen'taall Ipllaanniing aactilviflles„ iIncllud6ng Iplrepaalraa'flon of I1'.)iraaft and II ilnaall II:::nv4-onlraaentaall Impact Statements. Education .1.1 years of pro fessi.on al experience BA, Environmental Sciences, United States Armed Forces Reserve Center/Nike Missile Base,Amityville, NY State University of New York at Binghamton, 2005York Bryan performed Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for the closure and redevelopment of the former United States Armed Forces Reserve Center and Nike Registrations/ Missile Base located in Amityville, New York. He evaluated all environmental conditions Certifications at the property including sub-slab soil vapor and ambient air quality analyses, multi- New York City Office of depth soil sampling, underground injection control (UIC), as well as groundwater and Environmental Remediation wastewater sampling within abandoned missile silos. ($50K) Gold Certified Professional (Brownfield Industry), 2015 Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn, NY OSHA Certified Hazardous Bryan assisted in the design and implementation of a large-scale groundwater Waste Health and Safety remediation system associated with a former leaking underground storage tank located Operator(OSHA 1910.120), at the Polytechnic Institute in Brooklyn. The groundwater remediation system is 2006 designed to collect and capture contaminated groundwater and recover product OSHA Construction Safety floating on the groundwater table. In order to achieve this, Bryan coordinated with and Health Certificate (10- various additional team consultants in order to gather information needed to produce a Hour), 2012 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation-approved remedial action work plan. ($50K) Nassau Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) Career Preparatory High School, Westbury, NY Bryan provided consulting services including a review of adjacent industrial and former Superfund sites within the surrounding properties. Bryan also conducts sub-slab soil vapor and indoor air monitoring in accordance with New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) protocols in order to ensure surrounding industrial properties are not adversely affecting the school. ($25K) Taystee Bakery,West Harlem, NY Bryan performed Phase I and Phase II ESAs for the redevelopment of a block of vacant buildings located in West Harlem that were formerly utilized as a commercial bakery. Bryan also corresponded with the NYSDEC for closure of an on-site spill, and created a New York City Office of Environmental Remediation (NYCOER)-approved Work Plan for the remediation of the property that is scheduled to be implemented in the coming year. ($12K) The Riverwalk Redevelopment, Patchogue, NY Bryan assisted in the preparation of Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, as well as the facility closure (including soil, groundwater, UIC analysis and l3iyain IlMuiily underground storage tank removal) of the former Clare Rose beverage distribution center in Patchogue, New York for redevelopment into market rate condominiums. Costco Redevelopment, Hicksville, NY Bryan prepared Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and assisted in preparation of the revised FEIS for the redevelopment of the property at West John Street and Charlotte Avenue. New York City Phase I ESA Experience, New York, NY Bryan has prepared numerous Phase I Environmental Site Assessments throughout the five boroughs for such projects as the Tastyee Bakery Site near Columbia University,- Jewish niversity;Jewish Home Lifecare on the Upper West Side; 7 World Trade Center in Manhattan; Bossert Hotel in Brooklyn; Attorney Street in Manhattan; Park Lane Hotel,the former Helmsley Hotel, in Manhattan; and many others. As a result of the research for these projects and the coordination with environmental agencies, Bryan understands New York City environmental issues, the regulations governing these issues, and the remediation protocols. T.C. Dunham Paint Company,Yonkers, NY Bryan provided consulting services including emergency response, and production and oversight of an approved remedial action work plan associated with a 4-alarm paint warehouse fire that impacted a large area in Yonkers. He teamed with various consultants and coordinated with various regulatory agencies, including the City of Yonkers, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to generate various approved documents including a remedial action work plan, health and safety plan (HASP) and community air monitoring program (CAMP) plan. Former Bay Shore Armory, Bay Shore, NY Bryan performed a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the re-use and redevelopment of the former New York State Armory property. He coordinated with sub-contractors and provided field oversight for a geophysical survey,the sampling from several large leaching fields, abandoned underground structures including vehicle lifts,tanks and an oil/water separator. Queen of Peace Cemetery and Residential Subdivision, Old Westbury, NY Bryan prepared the FEIS for the development of a cemetery for the Diocese of Rockville Centre. Nassau Coliseum Redevelopment, Lighthouse at Long Island, Uniondale, NY Bryan assisted in preparation of the DGEIS for the redevelopment of the existing Nassau County Veterans Memorial Coliseum to a multi-use entertainment and residential complex in the Town of Hempstead. EIS for Heartland Town Square Redevelopment, Brentwood, NY Bryan assisted in preparation of the EIS for the rezoning and redevelopment of the 475± acre former Pilgrim Psychiatric Center as a Smart Growth Community. l3iyain IlMuiily Sheltair Aviation, Republic Airport, Farmingdale, NY Bryan assisted in preparation of the Hazardous Materials section of DEIS for proposed redevelopment and improvement of a former residential subdivision as a privatejet terminal. Pulte Homes, Courthouse Commons, Central Islip, NY Bryan prepared Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and assisted in the monitoring of a large-scale remediation of a landfill at the former Central Islip Psychiatric Facility under the direction of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for the ultimate redevelopment of the property as a residential condominium complex. ($125K) Lowe's Home Centers,Various Nassau County and Suffolk County Sites, NY Bryan prepared Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for several Lowe's stores throughout Long Island. Verizon Wireless Phase I& Phase II Environmental Site Assessments,Various Locations, NY Bryan has performed over 60 Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) in the five boroughs and over 200 in various locations in New York for Verizon Wireless' service expansion. He supports Phase II ESAs by performing soil sampling, groundwater investigations/monitoring and soil vapor monitoring, and also provides remedial investigation support. PANYNJ Passenger Facility Charge, Newark, NJ, New York, NY, New Windsor, NY Bryan assisted in developing and administering the 2010 PFC application for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for Newark Liberty International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia Airport and Stewart International Airport. This application includes $570 million in capital development projects that incorporate terminal expansion, runway and taxiway pavement rehabilitation and security enhancements. Working with Port Authority staff, assisted in developing each project description justification through detailed meetings with a variety of Port Authority staff (technical services, accounting, planning)throughout the agency. The application received considerable support by the airlines and worked diligently with Port Authority staff and the FAA to the eventual approval of the application. Country Point at Plainview, Plainview, NY Bryan conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on the former Nassau County Sanitorium and associated recreational playing fields in Plainview, New York. He used this information to provide integrated services and incorporated some into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to analyze existing conditions, potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with the redevelopment of the former Nassau County Sanitorium to a multi-family residential subdivision.