0320-0017-Task-210-Report-Enfield Track Improvements June 2025.pdf

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/ Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation

Enfield Track Improvements Enfield, Connecticut

June 2025

Connecticut Department of Transportation Environmental Compliance Unit 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, Connecticut 06111

State Project Number 0320-0017

Assignment Number 623-7778

June 3, 2025

Mr. Daniel Imig, P.E.

Transportation Supervising Engineer

Office of Environmental Compliance

Connecticut Department of Transportation

P.O. Box 317546

Newington, CT 06131-7546

Attention: Ms. Denise Young

RE: Task Order Environmental Compliance

Enfield Track Improvements

Enfield, Connecticut

CORE No. 23DOT0143AA, State Project No. 0320-0017, Assignment No. 623-7778

Fuss & O’Neill Project No. 20210730.A30

Dear Mr. Imig:

We are pleased to submit the enclosed Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Task 210 –

Subsurface Site Investigation report conducted at the above-referenced site.

Thank you for the opportunity to conduct this work. Please contact the undersigned if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Ethan Stewart, CHMM Robert M. Danielson, LEP

Senior Environmental Scientist Vice President

Enclosure

Table of Contents

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Task 210 – Subsurface Site Investigation Enfield Railroad Improvements - Enfield i

1 Introduction 1

2 Background and Project Information 1

3 Local Environment and Receptors 2

3.1 Physiographic Setting 2

3.2 Site Geology 2

3.3 Groundwater 2

3.4 Aquifer Protection Area 2

3.5 Surface Water 2

4 Subsurface Investigation 3

4.1 Constituents of Concern 3

4.2 Phase II ESA / Task 210 SSI Investigative Procedures 4

5 Analytical Evaluation 5

5.1 Soil Criteria 6

5.2 Groundwater Criteria 7

6 Soil Analytical Results 8

6.1 Soil Analytical Results 8

6.1.1 Subsurface Material 8

6.1.2 ETPH and SVOC Analytical Results 8

6.1.3 VOC Analytical Results 9

6.1.4 PCB Analytical Results 9

6.1.5 Herbicide and Pesticide Analytical Results 9

6.1.6 Metals Analytical Results 9

6.1.7 Specific Conductance, Flashpoint, Ignitability, Corrosivity, pH, Conductivity, Reactivity

Analytical Results, and Field Screening 10

7 Groundwater Analytical Results 10

7.1.1 ETPH and SVOC Analytical Results 10

7.1.2 VOC Analytical Results 11

7.1.3 PCB Analytical Results 11

7.1.4 Herbicide and Pesticide Analytical Results 11

7.1.5 Metals Analytical Results 11

8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 11

Table of Contents

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Task 210 – Subsurface Site Investigation Enfield Railroad Improvements - Enfield ii

9 Discussion of Affected Resources 12

10 Conclusion and Recommendations 13

11 References 14

12 Limitations of Work 15

Figures End of Text

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figures 2-3 Soil Boring Location Plan

Figures 4-5 Preliminary AOEC Plans

Tables End of Text

Table 1 Summary of Detected Constituents in Soil – RSR Criteria

Table 2 Summary of Detected Constituents in Groundwater – RSR Criteria

Table 3 Summary of Detected Constituents in Groundwater – General Permit MCLs

List of Appendices End of Text

Appendix A Soil Boring Logs

Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Reports

1 Introduction

On behalf of the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT), Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)/Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation (SSI) report in support of State Project No. 0320-0017, Enfield Track Improvements Project located in Enfield, Connecticut.

This report provides a brief description of the project area, a discussion of the local environment and receptors, the investigation rationale, a summary of the data obtained during the investigation, an analytical evaluation, and recommendations.

2 Background and Project Information

The overall project includes construction of a new railroad station, railroad track improvements, parking and travel areas, various stormwater handling improvements, and various general site improvements.

The objective of this ESA/SSI is to assess the absence or presence of soil and groundwater contamination, document the nature and extent of contamination, identify source, receptor relationship associated with any releases, and to assess the potential pollutant impacts that may be encountered during construction of the proposed improvements.

While no formal historical research was completed on this specific Site, previous reports completed within the area indicate that the Site is a linear railway transportation corridor with up to two sets of railroad tracks that have occupied the area since at least the late 1880s and it is known that historical railroad operations could have releases of petroleum, pesticides, metals or volatiles from maintenance of the railroad spurs, or from releases that occurred during the operation of the rail line. Therefore, the entire rail corridor was identified as an area of concern (AOC). As defined by Connecticut’s 2010 Site Characterization Guidance

Document (CTDEP, 2010), an AOC is described as follows:

Locations or areas at a site where hazardous waste and or hazardous substances (including petroleum products) have been or may have been used, stored, treated, handled, spilled, and/or released to the environment

The definition of an AOC is generally consistent with the definition of a recognized environmental condition

(REC) contained in Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments E 1527-21 developed by ATSM

International (ASTM, 2021), but may also include additional areas, such as loading areas where hazardous materials may have been handled, even in the absence of release indicators.

It is anticipated that Task 310 Plans, Specifications and Estimate will subsequently be prepared to assess construction related activities (i.e., proper storage, classification, transport, and disposal of contaminated materials), in relationship to the environmental conditions prevalent within the project limits, as well as specify remedial work to be included in the Contract Bid Documents.

3 Local Environment and Receptors

3.1 Physiographic Setting

The site is primarily flat, with railroad tracks, some drainage structures or swales and some vegetative cover along boundaries. The site is adjacent to various land developments, residents, roadways, commercial, and vacant parcels.

3.2 Site Geology

Surficial material adjacent to the subject site is mapped as primarily fines, with some areas of alluvium overlying fines (CT ECO).

Bedrock beneath the subject site is mapped as Portland Arkose described as reddish-brown arkose based on USGS information (CT ECO).

3.3 Groundwater

The quality of groundwater beneath the Site is located within two classifications, GA and GB. The area north of Freshwater Brook for approximately 1,800 feet is classified by the Connecticut Department of Energy and

Environmental Protection as Class GB (DEEP, 2023). Such groundwater is presumed not to be suitable for human consumption without treatment and is used for industrial process water and cooling waters (CTDEP, 2011). Groundwater within the remaining Site area is classified as Class GA (DEEP, 2023). GA groundwater is presumed to be used for existing private and potential public or private supplies of water suitable for drinking without treatment (CTDEP, 2011).

The direction of groundwater flow within the surficial geological unit is influenced by a number of factors, including the physical characteristics of the geological unit (such as particle size), the local topography, the presence of surface water bodies, the depth to bedrock, and the type of aquifer. For an unconsolidated, unconfined aquifer, groundwater generally flows in the direction of the greatest topographic gradient. Based on USGS mapping and field observations of the local topography and surface water hydrogeology, the inferred groundwater flow direction is to the west, towards the Connecticut River.

3.4 Aquifer Protection Area

Based on the CT DEEP Aquifer Protection Area map, the Site is not within an Aquifer Protection Area (APA).

3.5 Surface Water

The nearest surface water body, Freshwater Brook, bisects the Site from east to west (USGS, 2023).

Freshwater Brook is classified by the State of Connecticut as Class A (DEEP, 2023). Designated uses of such inland surface waters are for potential drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use, agricultural and industrial supply, and other legitimate uses including navigation (CTDEP, 2011).

The Connecticut River is located approximately 400 feet west of the Site (USGS, 2023). The surface water body is classified by the State of Connecticut as Class B (DEEP, 2023). Designated uses of such inland surface waters are for recreational use, fish and wildlife habitat, agricultural and industrial supply and other legitimate uses including navigation (CTDEP, 2011).

4 Subsurface Investigation

Based upon the anticipated construction activities and the existing surrounding land use, which is predominantly residentially developed, Fuss & O’Neill conducted a sampling program within the proposed project limits. The subsurface site investigation was conducted in accordance with our task assignment and the approved Work Plan dated October 2024. The following subsections detail the investigation, which was conducted within the proposed project limits on April 3 and 4, 2025.

4.1 Constituents of Concern

As stated above, the proposed project area is located within a railroad railway that has been in place since the 1800s and it is known that historical railroad operations could have releases of petroleum, pesticides, metals or volatiles from maintenance of the railroad spurs, or from releases that occurred during the operation of the rail line. Site soils and groundwater are compared to applicable regulatory criteria with one or more of the following analytical parameters were selected for each soil sample collected from the Site:

• Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ETPH) by Connecticut ETPH Method

• Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260

• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8082

• Chlorinated Pesticides by EPA Method 8081

• Chlorinated Herbicides by EPA Method 8151

• MCP 14 Metals by EPA Method 6010/7471

• SPLP RCRA 8 Metals + copper, nickel, zinc by EPA Method 6000/7000

• TCLP RCRA 8 Metals + copper, nickel, zinc by EPA Method 1311/6010/7470

• Specific Conductance by SW9050

• Flashpoint by SW1010

• Ignitability by SW846-Ignit

• Corrosivity (pH) by SW846-9045

• Reactivity (sulfide/cyanide) by SW846-React

One or more of the following analytical parameters were selected for each groundwater sample collected from the Site:

• Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ETPH) by Connecticut ETPH Method

• Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260

• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8082

• Chlorinated Pesticides by EPA Method 8081

• Chlorinated Herbicides by EPA Method 8151

• Total and Dissolved RCRA 8 Metals + copper, nickel, zinc by EPA Method 6000/7000

4.2 Phase II ESA / Task 210 SSI Investigative

Procedures

This field investigation included soil sampling at the Site, the sample locations, are shown on Figures 2 and

3. The field activities include the following:

• Field marking nineteen (19) total soil boring locations and notifying “Call Before You Dig” (CBYD), completed on March 14, 2025, CBYDs #20251105034 and #20251105051.

• The advancement of nineteen (19) soil borings using Geoprobe™ drill rig on April 3 and 4, 2025.

• The sampling of two (2) ballast grab samples on April 4, 2025.

• The sampling of two (2) temporary monitoring wells on April 4 and 7, 2025.

• Field screening of soil samples for VOCs and petroleum using a photoionization detector (PID).

• The laboratory analysis of thirty-six (36) soil samples to evaluate potential releases likely to be encountered during the construction phase of the project.

Geoprobe™ Soil Sampling

On April 3 and 4, 2025 nineteen (19) soil borings, identified as TB-1 through TB-19, were advanced up to 10 fbg using a track-mounted Geoprobe direct-push drill rig or hand auger. The depths of soil borings were based on anticipated intrusive construction activities. Soil samples were obtained continuously during advancement of the soil borings using a 2-inch diameter, 5-foot long, sampling device equipped with disposable acetate liners.

A representative portion of each soil core was screened with a PID to detect estimated quantities of total

VOCs in vapor emitted from the soil. The PID was equipped with a 10.6 eV bulb and was calibrated to isobutylene standard gas (100 parts per million (ppm)). PID readings were not identified above background

(2.0 ppm) and are provided with the boring logs included in Appendix A. No odors or other pertinent information was observed within the borings.

Soil samples were selected for laboratory analysis based upon observations (physical evidence of contamination and/or lithology change), the results of the field screening, and anticipated depth of intrusive construction activities. If visual screening did not indicate contamination, the surficial soil sample was collected for laboratory analyses. The samples were submitted under proper chain of custody Phoenix

Environmental Laboratories, Manchester, Connecticut, a State of Connecticut Department of Public Health certified environmental testing laboratory. Soil samples were analyzed by a State-certified analytical laboratory using Connecticut’s reasonable confidence protocols (RCPs).

Field sampling protocols were performed in accordance with the CTDEEP’s Guidance for Collecting &

Preserving Soil & Sediment Samples for Laboratory Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds document dated March 1, 2006. All boring locations were back-filled upon completion and all down-hole sampling equipment was decontaminated in the field between each use utilizing dry methods and Alconox® solution.

Project Quality Assurance / Quality Control Practices

The DEEP’s Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Guidance was used to ensure that the analytical results generated during the investigation are of known and appropriate quality. Specifically, the

Laboratory Quality Assurance Control Reasonable Confidence Protocols (RCPs) were utilized for all laboratory analytical methods. The Laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, Data Quality

Assessment and Data Usability Evaluation (DQA/DUE) Guidance was utilized to ensure that the analytical data used is of known and sufficient level of quality for the intended purpose.

To assess the collection of samples in the field in terms of the sampling techniques and decontamination procedures followed, QA/QC samples were collected and analyzed.

Laboratory prepared trip blanks (soil) accompanied the samples obtained during field sampling activities each day. The soil trip blank consisted of one (1) methanol and two (2) de-ionized 40 ml vials. The trip blank was placed in the sample cooler with the daily samples until delivery to the laboratory for analysis of

EPA Method 8260 volatile organic compounds. The data from the trip blank samples was included in the laboratory report and was used to assess the effectiveness of the decontamination procedures used in the field. Data that may have resulted from cross-contamination due to poor field decontamination and sample storage practices was qualified so that data users are aware of the potential origins of the contaminants.

All samples collected in the field were stored in a manner that preserves the integrity of the sample chemistry. Samples intended for organic analyses were stored in an ice-filled cooler until delivery to the laboratory. Chain-of-Custody (COC) forms were filled out and accompanied all the samples collected as a legal record of possession of the samples. The COC is initiated in the field and accompanies the containers during sample collection, transportation to the lab, analysis, and final disposal of the samples.

All sampling equipment was either dedicated to a specific sample or was decontaminated prior to and between each use. Sampling equipment was not placed near solvents, gasoline, or other materials that may impact the integrity of the sampler.

5 Analytical Evaluation

Soil and groundwater samples were compared to the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations

(RSRs) and in addition, groundwater was also compared to both the surface water and sanitary sewer

Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs) established in the “General Permit for the Discharge of Groundwater

Remediation Wastewater” to determine if Groundwater Areas of Environmental Concern (GW AOEC) for construction dewatering exist within the project limits that would require special handling.

RSRs

The soil analytical results were compared to the numeric criteria listed in the Connecticut Remediation

Standard Regulations (RSRs), Sections 22a-133k-1 through 22a-133k-3 of the Regulations of Connecticut

State Agencies (RCSA), amended February 16, 2021.

The RSRs were developed by the DEEP to define the remediation performance standards for soil and groundwater, specific numeric cleanup criteria, and processes for establishing alternative site-specific standards. The RSRs apply to any action which is required pursuant to Chapters 445, 446k, or Section 22a-

208a(c)(2) of the General Statutes, including but not limited to any such action required to be taken or verified by a Licensed Environmental Professional (LEP). The Regulations also outline the processes for establishing alternative site-specific numerical standards for certain sites and criterion for additional polluting substances not specified in the RSRs, upon approval from DEEP. The RSR criteria are based on the property usage (industrial/commercial or residential) and the DEEP groundwater quality designation (“GA” or

“GB”). Based on our review of the state groundwater quality maps, the site is located in both an area designated as “GA” and “GB” quality groundwater.

Additional Polluting Substances (APS) - A number of substances have been detected at the Site for which the DEEP has not established RSR criteria and/or alternative Site-specific criteria have not been calculated.

DEEP does, however, have a “fast-track” list of additional polluting substances and associated criteria, and we have used those criteria in our evaluation of Site conditions. However, use of the additional polluting substances criteria requires DEEP approval prior to a final regulatory compliance determination.

The numeric criteria in the RSRs, including APS, were utilized as guidelines to evaluate the data and to make conclusions regarding concentrations of regulated compounds detected in soil and groundwater.

General Permit (Groundwater)

In addition to the RSRs, groundwater is compared to compared to both the surface water and sanitary sewer

MCLs established in the “General Permit for the Discharge of Groundwater Remediation Wastewater”, which is appropriate for handling impacted groundwater during construction activities.

5.1 Soil Criteria

RSR

The RSRs contain two sets of soil criteria; the Direct Exposure Criteria (DEC) and the Pollutant Mobility

Criteria (PMC), as summarized below.

Direct Exposure Criteria

The DEC are designed to protect human health from risks associated with exposure to pollutants in contaminated soil within fifteen (15 feet) of the ground surface. Different DEC apply to a property depending on land use, either “residential” or “industrial/commercial”, as defined by the RSRs.

The less stringent Industrial/Commercial (IDEC) cannot be used unless an Environmental Use Restriction

(EUR) has been recorded on the property deed restricting the site to industrial/commercial uses.

The DEC for substances other than PCBs do not apply to “inaccessible” soil at a release area provided that such soil is less than 15-feet from the ground surface and Environmental Use Restriction (EUR) is in effect with respect to the subject parcel or to the portion of such parcel containing such release area.

The DEC do not apply to metals, petroleum hydrocarbons or semi-volatile substances in soil provided such pollution is the results of an incidental release due to the normal operation of motor vehicles, not including refueling, repair or maintenance of a motor vehicle; or normal paving maintenance of a consolidated bituminous concrete surface provided such bituminous concrete surface has been maintained for its intended purpose.

Pollutant Mobility Criteria

The PMC are designed to protect groundwater quality by reducing or eliminating the potential for migration of pollutants to the groundwater from contaminated soil. Different PMC apply to a property depending on the groundwater quality at the site, as designated by DEEP. In a “GA” groundwater classification area the PMC apply to soil located above the seasonal low water table and in a “GB” groundwater classification area the

PMC apply to soil located above the seasonal high-water table. The PMC do not apply to “environmentally isolated” soil at a release area provided that an Environmental Use Restriction (EUR) is in effect with respect to the subject parcel or to the portion of such parcel containing such release area. The PMC do not apply to polluted fill on a parcel if the fill meets the requirements of section 22a-133k-2(c)(4)(B)(i) through (vi). The

PMC do not apply to substances, other than volatile substances, in soil at a release area provided the release area meets the requirements of section 22a-133k-2(c)(4)(C)(i) through (v).

The PMC do not apply to metals, petroleum hydrocarbons or semi-volatile substances in soil provided such pollution is the result of an incidental release due to normal operation of motor vehicles, not including refueling, repair or maintenance of a motor vehicle; or normal paving and maintenance of a consolidated bituminous concrete surface provided such bituminous concrete surface has been maintained for its intended purpose.

Since the site is located in both a “GA” and “GB” groundwater quality area, the appropriate PMC was used for comparison to the analytical results based on which groundwater quality area the soil boring was completed, see Table 1 for soil boring PMC designation.

5.2 Groundwater Criteria

RSR

Surface Water Protection Criteria (SWPC)

The SWPC ensures that surface water quality is not impaired by the discharge of contaminated groundwater into a surface water body. Groundwater at the Site discharges to the Connecticut River.

Volatilization Criteria (VC)

Volatilization criteria protect human health from volatile substances (i.e. VOCs) that may migrate into overlying buildings from shallow groundwater and apply to:

• groundwater impacted by volatile organic substance within 30 feet of the ground surface and within

30 feet or less of the lowest portion of that building under which groundwater is polluted with such substances and

• groundwater impacted by volatile petroleum substance within 10 feet of the ground surface and within 10 feet or less of the lowest portion of a building under which groundwater is polluted with such substances.

Groundwater Handling During Construction

Under the DEEP RSRs contaminants in the groundwater are compared either to background quality or the

Ground Water Protection Criteria (GWPC), the Volatilization Criteria (VC), as well as the Surface Water

Protection Criteria (SWPC). However, CTDOT has had numerous discussions with DEEP staff regarding groundwater encountered during “Construction Projects” and the applicability of the RSRs to these situations. Based on the guidance provided by DEEP, groundwater samples collected are also compared to the MCLs for the “General Permit for the Discharge of Groundwater Remediation Wastewater” to determine if

GW AOEC(s) for construction dewatering exist within the project limits that would require special handling.

6 Soil Analytical Results

This section presents the findings of the Subsurface Site Investigation. Boring logs are included in

Appendix A, laboratory analytical reports are provided in Appendix B, and sampling locations are shown on

Figures 2 and 3. Analytical results are summarized in Table 1.

6.1 Soil Analytical Results

To determine if releases may have occurred where future construction and excavation activities will be conducted for the proposed project, nineteen soil borings (TB-1 through TB-19) were advanced to depths up to 10 feet below grade (fbg). Table 1 summarizes the soil analytical results comparing them to the RSRs.

Analytical results and field observations are discussed below. In addition, two (2) ballast stone (BAL-2 and

BAL-3) samples were collected from the surface.

6.1.1 Subsurface Material

As indicated in soil boring logs included in Appendix A, the subsurface materials encountered in borings conducted at the site consist primarily of clayey-sand material with varying amounts of gravel, silt, and fill.

PID readings were not detected above background concentrations in any of the soil borings.

6.1.2 ETPH and SVOC Analytical Results

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were analyzed for ETPH and SVOCs. Two (2) ballast samples were analyzed for ETPH. ETPH was detected above laboratory detection limits in eight (8) of the soil samples analyzed.

SVOCs were detected above laboratory detection limits in seventeen (17) of the samples analyzed. SVOCs were not reported above laboratory detection limits in the remaining samples analyzed.

RSR Criteria

ETPH was detected above the RSRs criteria in four soil samples. Three samples; TB-4 (0-3’) at 610 mg/kg, TB-4 (3-5’) at 760 mg/kg, and TB-5 (0-3’) at 800 mg/kg, had detections above the RDEC and GA PMC, and one sample; TB-9 (3-5’) at 3,100 mg/kg had a detection above the RDEC, IC DEC, and GB PMC.

ETPH was not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the ballast samples analyzed.

SVOCs were detected above the RSR criteria in thirteen (13) of the samples analyzed. Various SVOCs were detected above applicable RSR criteria in the following soil samples; TB-1 (0-3’), TB-1 (3-5’), TB-3 (0-

3’), TB-4 (0-3’), TB-4 (3-5’), TB-5 (0-3’), TB-5 (3-5’), TB-6 (0-3’), TB-8 (0-3’), TB-9 (0-3’), TB-9 (3-5’), TB-13

(0-3’), and TB-19 (0-3’). SVOC compounds were detected in soil samples; TB-6 (3-5’), TB-7 (0-3’), TB-10 (0-

3’), and TB-12 (0-3’) above laboratory detection limits, but below RSR criteria.

6.1.3 VOC Analytical Results

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were analyzed for VOCs. No VOC compounds were detected above laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples analyzed.

6.1.4 PCB Analytical Results

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were analyzed for PCBs. Two (2) ballast samples were analyzed for

PCBs. PCBs were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil or ballast samples analyzed.

6.1.5 Herbicide and Pesticide Analytical Results

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides. Herbicides were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples analyzed.

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were analyzed for chlorinated pesticides. Chlorinated pesticides were detected above the laboratory reporting limits in nine (9) of the soil samples analyzed. Chlorinated pesticides were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the remaining soil samples analyzed.

Chlorinated pesticide compounds (one or more of the following: 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, aldrin or chlordane) were detected above the RSR criteria in nine (9) of the samples analyzed. Soil borings with GA PMC exceedances include TB-1 (0-3’), TB-4 (0-3’), TB-4 (3-5’), TB-5 (0-3’), and TB-5 (3-5’). Soil borings with GB PMC exceedances include TB-6 (0-3’), TB-9 (0-3’), TB-9 (3-5’), and TB-14 (0-3’).

6.1.6 Metals Analytical Results

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were submitted to the laboratory for MCP 14 metals. One or more of the following MCP 14 metals; arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, vanadium and zinc were detected above laboratory detection limits.

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were analyzed for TCLP RCRA 8 metals, total copper, nickel, and zinc.

One or more of the following metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were detected above laboratory detection limits.

A total of thirty-six (36) soil samples were analyzed for SPLP RCRA 8 metals, total copper, nickel, and zinc.

One or more of the following metals: arsenic, barium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc.

Various total metals were detected above laboratory reporting limits in all the samples analyzed. Antimony was detected above RSR criteria in one sample, TB-9 (3-5’) at 40.7 mg/kg which is above the RDEC of 27 mg/kg. Arsenic was detected above RSR criteria in nine (9) samples, TB-1 (0-3’) at 34.8 mg/kg, TB-3 (0-3’) at 18 mg/kg, TB-4 (0-3’) at 31.2 mg/kg, TB-4 (3-5’) at 62 mg/kg, TB-5 (0-3’) at 56.3 mg/kg, TB-5 (3-5’) at 119 mg/kg, TB-6 (0-3’) at 12.8 mg/kg, TB-9 (3-5’) at 26.5 mg/kg, and TB-13 (0-3’) at 32.4 mg/kg which is above the RDEC 0f 10 mg/kg. Lead was detected above RSR criteria in three (3) samples, TB-1 (0-3’) at 407 mg/kg, TB-9 (3-5’) at 511 mg/kg, and TB-14 (0-3’) at 1,200 mg/kg which is above the RDEC of 400 mg/kg.

No other total metals were detected above RSR criteria.

Various SPLP metals detected above laboratory reporting limits in twenty-four (24) the samples analyzed.

Several SPLP metals were detected above RSR criteria including; arsenic (0.05 mg/l) in TB-1 (0-3’) at 0.057 mg/l, TB-5 (3-5’) at 0.112 mg/l, and TB-6 (0-3’) at 0.013 mg/l; and lead (0.015 mg/l) in TB-1 (0-3’) at 0.645 mg/l, TB-1 (3-5’) at 0.038 mg/l, TB-2 (0-3’) at 0.045 mg/l, TB-3 (0-3’) at 0.023 mg/l, TB-3 (3-5’) at 0.092 mg/l, TB-4 (3-5’) at 0.02 mg/l, TB-5 (0-3’) at 0.039 mg/l, TB-5 (3-5’) at 0.137 mg/l, TB-9 (3-5’) at 0.161 mg/l, TB-13

(3-5’) at 0.04 mg/l, and TB-14 (0-3’) at 0.285 mg/l.

Various TCLP metals were detected above laboratory reporting limits in thirty-five (35) the samples analyzed.

TCLP lead in soil sample TB-14 (0-3’) at 5.37 mg/l was above the threshold for characteristically hazardous waste. No other samples analyzed were reported at concentrations above thresholds for characteristically hazardous waste.

6.1.7 Specific Conductance, Flashpoint, Ignitability, Corrosivity, pH, Conductivity, Reactivity Analytical Results, and Field Screening

A total of thirty-six (36) samples were submitted to the laboratory for typical soil disposal analytical including specific conductance, flashpoint, ignitability, corrosivity, pH, conductivity, and reactivity analysis. The pH result in soil samples TB-7 (0-3’) at 4.96 s.u. and TB-10 (0-3’) at 4.77 s.u. are below typical soil background results and typical disposal limits.

Field screening of all soil during the field investigation was performed with a handheld PID. None of the soil screened registered above 0.0 ppm.

7 Groundwater Analytical Results

Two (2) grab groundwater samples were analyzed from temporarily installed monitoring wells at the location of soil borings, TB-2 (TB-2 GW) and TB-15 (TB-15 GW).

7.1.1 ETPH and SVOC Analytical Results

Two (2) groundwater samples were analyzed for ETPH and SVOCs.

ETPH was not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the groundwater samples obtained.

SVOCs were detected above laboratory reporting limits in the groundwater sample obtained from TB-2 GW and TB-15 GW. Benzo(a)anthracene and benzo(b)fluoranthene were detected in both groundwater samples.

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene and phenanthrene were also detected in TB-2 GW. No other SVOCs were reported above laboratory detection limits.

7.1.2 VOC Analytical Results

Two (2) groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs. VOCs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the groundwater samples obtained.

7.1.3 PCB Analytical Results

Two (2) groundwater samples were analyzed for PCBs. PCB compounds were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in the groundwater samples obtained.

7.1.4 Herbicide and Pesticide Analytical Results

Two (2) groundwater samples were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides and pesticides. Herbicides and pesticides were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in the groundwater samples analyzed.

7.1.5 Metals Analytical Results

Two (2) groundwater samples were submitted to the laboratory for total and dissolved metals analysis.

Total metals: arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc were detected above laboratory detection limits in TB-2 GW, and barium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were detected above laboratory detection limits in TB-

15 GW. Dissolved metals: barium and zinc were detected above laboratory detection limits in TB-2 GW, and barium, nickel, and zinc were detected above laboratory detection limits in TB-15 GW.

Total arsenic was detected at 56 ug/L in TB-2 GW, which is above the SWPC and GWPC.

General Permit Limits

Various total metals, dissolved barium and nickel were detected above laboratory reporting limits in the two

(2) groundwater samples. Total arsenic was detected at a concentration of 56 ug/l in sample TB-2 GW, which is above the surface water maximum concentration limit (MCL) of 0.021 ug/l. None of the remaining metals reported were above the Surface Water or Sanitary Sewer MCLs.

8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

All equipment intended for use during the sampling program was decontaminated before arrival at the site.

In addition, all non-dedicated sample collection equipment was decontaminated in the field between each discrete sampling location to avoid cross contamination. The following QA/QC procedures were followed at the site:

• Selection of analytical methods with appropriate detection limits

• Use of pre-determined sampling handling and custody procedures

• Use of pre-determined data management and documentation procedures

• Selection of sampling locations and COCs appropriate to the potential release area

• Use of trip blanks for quality assurance/quality control

• Use of Connecticut’s RCP and laboratory QA/QC procedures

The analytical data is of adequate quality for the intended purpose of the project.

9 Discussion of Affected Resources

The following provides a summary of the potential sources of soil contamination identified during completion of this Phase II ESA / Task 210 SSI, an evaluation of potential pathways for migration, and the identification of preliminary Areas of Environmental Concern (AOECs), defined as soil and/or groundwater concentrations greater than the RSR criteria and General Permit limits within the project area.

Based on the Phase II ESA / Task 210 SSI results, soil and groundwater AOECs were identified within the project limits, see Figures 4 and 5.

HAZ-AOEC – Contaminated Soil in the Vicinity of Boring TB-14.

TCLP lead was detected at 5.37 mg/l which exceeds the characteristically hazardous threshold. In addition, total and SPLP lead, and chlorinated pesticides were detected at concentrations exceeding applicable RSR criteria in the soil sample. Potential receptors of the impacted soil include workers involved in the construction activities.

AOEC 1, 2, and 3 – Contaminated Soil in the vicinity of Borings TB-1, TB-2, TB-3, TB-4, TB-5, TB-6, TB-8, TB-9, TB-13, TB-14, and TB-19.

One or more of the following compounds: ETPH, SVOCs, pesticides, total and SPLP metals were detected at concentrations exceeding applicable RSR criteria in the soil samples collected from TB-1, TB-2, TB-3, TB-

4, TB-5, TB-6, TB-7, TB-8, TB-9, TB-13, TB14, TB-15, and TB-19 at various depths. The identified AOEC spans the majority of the project limits with the source of contaminants are likely associated within the historic railway. Potential receptors of the impacted soil include workers involved in the construction activities.

GW AOEC – Contaminated Groundwater in the Vicinity of Temporary Groundwater Wells TB-2GW and TB-15GW.

SVOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding applicable RSR criteria, but below the General Permit

MCLs in the groundwater samples collected from TB-2GW and TB-15GW. The SVOC results only slightly exceeded the RSR criteria and below GP MCLs, which is likely related to sediments in the sample, field turbidity at the time of sampling was 12.47 and 3.24 NTU. Historic parcel and adjacent parcel activities will likely keep the area a groundwater AOEC during construction, however the removal of sediment from water discharges will presumably address the SVOCs detected in the samples collected.

10 Conclusion and Recommendations

The results of the environmental investigation indicated that contaminants of concern (COCs) locally exist in soil and groundwater within the proposed project limits at concentrations above RSR criteria and groundwater discharge limits per the general permit, therefore soil and groundwater AOECs have been identified within the project limits.

• Laboratory analysis indicated that soil sampled from TB-14 contained TCLP lead above the hazardous lead threshold.

• Laboratory analysis indicate that soil sampled from TB-1, TB-2, TB-3, TB-4, TB-5, TB-6, TB-8, TB-9, TB-13, TB-14, and TB-19 within the projects contain one or more of the following parameters above

RSR criteria: ETPH, total antimony, total/SPLP arsenic, total/SPLP lead, pesticides, and SVOCs.

Various other parameters were reported at low levels.

• Laboratory analyses indicated that soil sampled from TB-7, TB-10, TB-11, TB-12, TB-16, TB-17, and

TB-19 within the project limits contain low levels of one or more of the following: ETPH, total/SPLP metals, and SVOCs.

• Laboratory analyses indicated that soil sampled from TB-7 and TB-10 within the project limits has reported low pH. pH was reported below typical background and disposal concentrations.

• None of the soil samples analyzed were detected above Significant Environmental Hazard limits.

• General construction sediment controls for dewatering activities would be necessary prior to discharge. Groundwater was not impacted with contaminants that would require special treatment, other than sediment control in the areas tested.

Fuss & O’Neill recommends that a Task 310 – Plans, Specifications, and Estimates be assigned to prepare plans and specifications for the proper management and/or disposal of controlled materials (soil and groundwater) that may be reused, removed, handled, transported, or disposed during construction activities and for the establishment of appropriate worker health and safety protocols, due to site historical operations.

AOEC limits will be adjusted during the Task 310 to accommodate construction aspects of the project.

11 References

State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP), Remediation Standard

Regulations, Sections 22a-133k-1 through –3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, February

2021.

CTDEEP, “Water Quality Classifications Map of Manchester”, CTECO website.

CTDEEP, “Recommended Numeric Criteria for Common Additional Polluting Substances and Certain

Alternative Criteria”, December 10, 2015.

State of Connecticut Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Compliance, CTDOT “On-Call

Contaminated Soil/Groundwater Scopes” Manual.

Rogers, John, USGS, “Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut”, dated 1985.

Stone, J., USGS, “Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut”, dated 1992.

12 Limitations of Work

This document was prepared for the sole use of the Connecticut Department of Transportation as the only intended beneficiaries of our work. Those who may use or rely upon the report and the services (hereafter

“work product”) performed by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries or independent professional associates, subconsultants and subcontractors (collectively the “Consultant”) expressly accept the work product upon the following specific conditions.

1. Consultant represents that it prepared the work product in accordance with the professional and industry standards prevailing at the time such services were rendered.

2. The work product may contain information that is time sensitive. The work product was prepared by

Consultant subject to the particular scope limitations, budgetary and time constraints and business objectives of the Client which are detailed therein or in the contract between Consultant and Client.

Changes in use, tenants, work practices, storage, Federal, state, or local laws, rules or regulations may affect the work product.

3. The observations described and upon which the work product was based were made under the conditions stated therein. Any conclusions presented in the work product were based solely upon the services described therein, and not on scientific or engineering tasks or procedures beyond the scope of described services.

4. In preparing its work product, Consultant may have relied on certain information provided by state and local officials and information and representations made by other parties referenced therein, and on information contained in the files of state and/or local agencies made available at the time of the project. To the extent that such files which may affect the conclusions of the work product are missing, incomplete, inaccurate, or not provided, Consultant is not responsible. Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided by these various sources, Consultant did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or received during the course of this project. Consultant assumes no responsibility or liability to discover or determine any defects in such information which could result in failure to identify contamination or other defect in, at or near the site. Unless specifically stated in the work product, Consultant assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of drawings and reports obtained, received, or reviewed.

5. If the purpose of this project was to assess the physical characteristics of the subject site with respect to the presence in the environment of hazardous substances, waste or petroleum and chemical products and wastes as defined in the work product, unless otherwise noted, no specific attempt was made to check the compliance of present or past owners or operators of the subject site with Federal, state, or local laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise.

6. If water level readings have been made, these observations were made at the times and under the conditions stated in the report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in water levels may occur due to variations in rainfall, passage of time and other factors and such fluctuations may affect the conclusions and recommendations presented herein.

7. Except as noted in the work product, no quantitative laboratory testing was performed as part of the project. Where such analyses have been conducted by an outside laboratory, Consultant has relied upon the data provided, and unless otherwise described in the work product has not conducted an independent evaluation of the reliability of these tests.

8. If the conclusions and recommendations contained in the work product are based, in part, upon various types of chemical data, then the conclusions and recommendations are contingent upon the validity of such data. These data (if obtained) have been reviewed and interpretations made by

Consultant. If indicated in the work product, some of these data may be preliminary or screening-level data and should be confirmed with quantitative analyses if more specific information is necessary. Moreover, it should be noted that variations in the types and concentrations of contaminants and variations in their flow paths may occur due to seasonal water table fluctuations, past disposal practices, the passage of time and other factors.

9. Chemical analyses may have been performed for specific parameters during the course of this project, as described in the work product. However, it should be noted that additional chemical constituents not included in the analyses conducted for the project may be present in soil, groundwater, surface water, sediments or building materials at the subject site.

10. Ownership and property interests of all documents, including reports, electronic media, drawings and specifications, prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this project are subject to the terms and conditions specified in the contract between the Consultant and Client, whether or not the project is completed.

11. Unless otherwise specifically noted in the work product or a requirement of the contract between the

Consultant and Client, any reuse, modification or disbursement of documents to third parties will be at the sole risk of the third party and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant.

12. In the event that any questions arise with respect to the scope or meaning of Consultant’s work product, immediately contact Consultant for clarification, explanation or to update the work product.

In addition, Consultant has the right to verify, at the party’s expense, the accuracy of the information contained in the work product, as deemed necessary by Consultant, based upon the passage of time or other material change in conditions since conducting the work.

13. Any use of or reliance on the work product shall constitute acceptance of the terms hereof.

Figures

APPROX. LOC. AMTRAK ELECTRIC

CH LNK FE.

POST

WOOD

BD.FE.

(2 )A

PPROX.

LOC.

MPL

12"

MPL

12"

BLOCK

CONC.

#2386

CL&P

24'' RCP

10"PVC

EL=70.14

E-V-1

EL=76.56

E-S-3

WALL

EL=

.3

E-

S-

E-34x

CP

#387

CL&P

#28239

CL&P

RR ROW LINE

(FND)

IP

(FND)

MS

SPK

BT=66.63

FL=67.53S

FL=69.03E

FL=67.73N

TF=76.43

"C"CB

(PER BIGELOW PLANS)

APPROX.LOC. WATER MAIN

GATE

YANKEE

GAS

CON.PAD

3/4" conduit found

EL.=75.66

GAS MAIN

5" PVC ELEC

(CT. WATER)

APPROX. LOC. 8" MAIN

TP-G5 2" PlasticEL.=72.22

TP-W6 8" DuctileEL.=72.31

TP-G7 2" PlasticEL.=72.84

EL=74.88

E-S-8

BALLAST

BRUSH

BRUSH

WALL

BRUSH

W A

L L

APPROX. LOC. AMTRAK ELECTRIC

#27742

CL&P

#28240

CL&P#6376

CL&P

28326

CL&P

#13851

CL&P

PADS

CONC

PAD

CONC

BLOCK

CONC

WALL

CONC

F E

N C

E

C H

L N

K

K

F E

N C

E

G R

A

U

R B

WG

GRAN CURB

WG

HYD

''CL''CB

C C

B

G R

R B

BRIDGE

#1517

C.L.F.

C .L .F

CON.PAD

GRAV DR

CON.PAD

BCLC

B

IT

D R

B C

L C

B C

L C

BOX

ELEC

HYD

C O

N C .W

A L

K

#3365

CL&P

WG

OLD E.BOX

POLE W/

C O

N C .W

A L

K C .L .F

SPUR-96

WD FR

STY

2½

DR.

GRAV.

#3405

CL&P

C.L.F.

24''MCE

CON.CURB

BIT.WALK

CULV.BOX

CONC.

CONC.WALL

WD.PST.

97H/T

SPUR-

OAK

18"

#3675

CL&P

BIR

BLK.

12"

WGWLL

CONC.

WGWLL

CONC.

WALL

TIMB.

WALL

TIMB.

MM 53.94

MM 53.96

PAD

CONC

BRUSH

WALL

TMB.

WALL

TMB.

W D .R

IL

C .L .F

BLOCK

1 STY

BLK.

STY

CLP

#10203

MH

SAN

WG

BIT

WK.

WALK

CONC

BX.

EL.

PAD's

CON.

C.L.F.

WALL

BLK.

DR.

BIT.

GAR.

2 CAR

BRK.

STY.

2 1/2

FR.

WD.

2 STY

#102

CL&P

MP. 54

C O

N C

WALL

CONC. CON.STPS

PARKING

BIT

WD.FR.

3 STY

POLE

LINE

CLOTHES

BRUSH

DR.

BIT.

WD.FR.

1½ STY

WD.FR.

2½ STY

G R

A V

WG

WALL

STONE

SHED

BRICK

2½ STY

WD/BRICK

2½ STY

C .L .F

C .L .F

C .L .F

C.L.F.

B R

D

F E

B R

D

F E

WD.FR.

3 STY

SHED

BRICK

1½ STY.

SHED

36"MPL

BOARD FENCE

BIT

WD.FR.

2½ STY

WG

WG

GG

GG

WD.FR.

STY

2 1/2

GAR.

2 CAR C

.L .F

BIT.

SHRUBS

CONC

WK.

BIT.

C O

N C

C U

R B

WALL

CONC

GG

BIT.

BIT.

S H

R U

B S

C .L .F

SHED

WD.FR.

2½ STY

BIT.

WALK

CONC

RC

P

BOX CULV.

2'x2'BRICK

HEADWALL

CONC.

DEBRIS

BURIED W/

BT=59.89

FL=59.84

N

FL=60.34

E

FL=59.94

SE

TF=65.24

APPROX.LOC.YANKEE GAS

(J.KING)

LOC.WTR.

APPROX.

418.49'

N13°45'1"W

ASH

10"

ASH

15"

ASH

24"

MPL

15"

R

C P

R

C P

R

C P

FL=58.42N

TF=60.32

FL=56.10W

FL=56.40S

TF=60.30

BT=75.

43FL=75

.35EFL=75

.55NTF=79.

35SAN MH

BT=65.

14FL=66

.64SEFL=66

.64EFL=66

.74NTF=74.

64"C"C

B

R C

P

"R

C P

RCP

24"

A P

P R

O X .L

O C

G

S

M

IN

FL=58.09

FL=57.99S

FL=58.19N

TF=66.99

SAN MH

BT=62.

78FL=63

.98NWFL=63

.78SEFL=63

.98ETF=74.

38STM MH

EL=76

.46

E-S-

EL=76.20

E-S-2

EL=76.92

E-S-6

EL=68.77

E-S-11

EL=67.21

E-S-4

E L

.4

E S

M

IN

T

R E

E T

COMMERCE STREET

(FND)

CHD

U

G

E C

A P

P R

O X .L

O C

BALLAST

BALLAST

HYD.

POST

F.O.

POST

MTL

T E

L .M

A

IN

A P

P R

O X .L

O C

T E

L .M

A

IN

A P

P R

O X .L

O C

E.WALLCONC.

#3406

CL&P

GG

WG

WG

#3409

CL&P

GG

#3410

CL&P

#28238

CL&P

#3386

CL&P

"C"CB

IDN

O

APPROX.LOC. YANKEE GAS

CL&P #2842

RCP

15"

''C

M P

EB-5/

CP

FL=62

.12

FL=58.26E

FL=58.16W

TF=64.26

SAN.MH

24"SAN

SAN

24"

"S

AN

FL=52.11S

FL=52.31SE

FL=52.21N

TF=59.21

SAN.MH

FL=54.15S

FL=54.05N

TF=61.35

SAN.MH

FL=59.67S

FL=59.57N

TF=68.67

SAN.MH

S

A N

8"SAN

8"SAN

8"SAN

A P

P R

O X .L

O C .W

A T

IN

S. RIVER STREET

N. RIVER STREET

24"CLAY

24"CLAY

PIPE THRU MH

S

A N

FL=52.13SW

FL=52.23N

TF=59.33

SAN.MH

PVC

10"

12"

WALLS

BRWNSTN.

FL=50

.49

B.P.(FND)

N/F

CHD

N/F

CHD

MAYLOTT

RUTH E.

N/F

LEASE LINE IN FAVOR OF CL&P

STONE

& RITA

FREDERICK

N/F

WHALEN

JAMES A.

N/F

ZIEMINICKI

JOEL F.

N/F

FOSS

ANGELA M.

JEFFREY R.

N/F

FOSS

ANGELA M.

JEFFREY R.

N/F

INC.

REALTY

ISLAND

N/F

LEVESQUE

MONIQUE E.

N/F

RR ROW LINE

RR ROW LINE

(FND)

B.P.

A

B A

N D

O N

O

W

T

O

F

R

W

P

A

LEASE LINE IN FAVOR OF CL&P

ETAL

RITA M. NEAL

N/F

ENFIELD

OF

TOWN

N/F

LLC

COMMONS,

BIGELOW

NORTHLAND

N/F

(AMTRAK)

PASSENGER CORPORATION

NATIONAL RAILROAD

N/F

TOP OF 18"=2.9

BT=SILTED IN

FL=57.12 e FL=57.62 n

TF=61.32

SAN MH

T.P.10

T .P .4

T .P .2

T .P .3

T .P .1

T .P .6

OHW-A

OHW-A

OHW-A

OHW-A

OHW-B

OHW-B

OHW-B

OHW-B

DR.

BIT.

E-S-10

E

R

FL=55.35W

FL=55.75SE

TF=60.75

FL=55.3W

FL=55.9SW

FL=55.50E

TF=61.20

B

IG

E L

P

A N

S

A P

P R

O X .L

O C

A B

A N

D

IN

P

IG

E L

A N

S

A P

P R

O X .L

O C .U

E C

APPROX.LOC. 8" (CT. WATER) MAIN

FL=53.44 s FL=53.34 nw

TF=58.04

SAN.MH

EB-3

RS-202

NO ACCESS

BOLTED

GRATE

BT=54.49

TF=61.82

"C"CB

CONC. WALK

CONC. CURB

24"SAN

C O

N C

FL=50.68

FL=47

.28

12'' PVC

18'' R

CP

LC=55.79

LC=55.79

18'' RCP 2

"S

AN

"S

A N

BT=55.9

FL=55.66NW

FL=55.76SE

TF=58.86

"C"CB

"C"CB

"C"CB

J O

IN

T

B R

ID

G E

J O

IN

T

B R

ID

G E

S

T E

E L

MH

MH OVER?)

(PAVED

STM MH

BT=51.92

FL=55.22

TF=57.52

CL-CB

P

IP

E S

P

V C

TF=57.82

TF=58.21

5" Electric Conduit (PVC)

EL.=56.12

3" Gas Abandoned (steel)

EL.=55.88

3" Gas Abandoned (steel)

EL.=55.19

Unknown 5" conduit (possible abandoned?)

EL.=57.35

3" Gas Abandoned (steel)

EL.=54.83

Unknown pipe

EL.=54.54

8" Water (DIP)

EL.=54.69

OTHERS)(LOC. BYSAN. MH

(FND)

I.P.

BCLC

BCLC RS-98

"C-L

" CB

"C"

CB

"C-L

" CB

SAN.MH

R

S

E W

E R

''SEWER

FL=67

.06 nwFL=67 .16 eTF=74.

BIT LOT

BT=62.

73FL=63

.73 eFL=63 .73 nTF=67.

BT=56.

89FL=58

.29TF=60.

12'' RCP

BT=57.

90FL=57

.90 nwFL=58 .10 swFL=58 .60 sTF=60.

FL'S

UNOBTAINABLE

NOTE-MH OVER MH

BT=57.

TF=61.9

TF=62.

'' R

C P

MARKER

GEODETIC

ENFIELD

(FIELD L

OC.) W

ATER

A P

P R

O X .L

O C

W A

T

IN

#3366

CL&P

PIPE

VENT

GAS

APPROX.LOC. 8" (CT. WATER) MAIN

5" PVC ELEC

PIPE

VENT

GAS

GAS MAIN

ABANDONED

Gas Valve

CAPPED

GAS MAIN

(048 -198-

01)(DOT)ST. OF CT.

TAKING LINE(048

-198-

03)

(048-198-02)

EL.=55.12

Conc Cap over Sanitary (north edge)

EL.=55.44

Conc Cap over Sanitary (south edge)

Conc Cap over Sanitary (south edge)

EL.=55.58

EL.=55.59

Conc Cap over Sanitary (north edge)

EL.=58.55

Boring E-S-9A

Sant. MH (cover 18" below pvmnt)EL.=59.28

TP-W10 8" DuctileEL.=59.35

EL.=59.80

Boring E-S-2A

EL.=59.95

TP-G11 4" steel (per EG this is now abandoned)

TP-COM2 top of ductbank

EL.=60.12

EL.=60.42

TP-G10 8" steel

TP-E6 top of concrete ductbank

EL.=60.60

W…