A04_-_SoW_Attachment_2_-_Kodiak_NWR_SCR_Report.PDF

16-090-01R2

FORMER USFWS TRIPLEX

512 MILL BAY ROAD

KODIAK, ALASKA

SITE CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES REPORT

JANUARY 2017

Prepared for: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Region 7 Division of Engineering & Facilities 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503

On behalf of: Bratslavsky Consulting Engineers, Inc.

500 W 27th Avenue, Suite A Anchorage, Alaska 99503

Prepared by: BGES, INC.

1042 E. 6th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Site Characterization Activities Report 512 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska

Page i 16-090-01R2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND

3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES

3.1 Deviations from the Work Plan

3.2 Soil Boring Advancement and Collection of Soil Samples

3.3 Monitoring Well Installation and Survey

3.4 Well Development and Collection of Groundwater Samples

3.5 Investigation of Potential Seeps and or Drainages Downgradient of the Site

4.0 EVALUATION OF LABORATORY DATA

4.1 Soil Samples

4.2 Water Samples

5.0 LABORATORY DATA QUALITY REVIEW

5.1 Soil Samples - Work Order 1167298

5.2 Water Samples - Work Order 1167278

6.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.0 EXCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

FIGURES (Located at End of Report) Figure 1 Property Vicinity Map Figure 2 Soil Boring/Monitoring Well Locations, Sample Results.

Figure 3 Groundwater Flow Direction Diagram

TABLES (Located at End of Report) Table 1 Monitoring Well Sampling Data Table 2 Soil Analytical Results Table 3 Groundwater Analytical Results

APPENDICES (Located at End of Report) Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Field Notes, Soil Boring Logs, Well Completion Logs, & Groundwater Monitoring

Logs Appendix C Laboratory Analytical Data Appendix D Laboratory Analytical Data Quality Control Checklists Appendix E Conceptual Site Model Appendix F ADEC Work Plan Deviation Approval

Page ii 16-090-01R2

ACRONYMS

AAC - Alaska Administrative Code ADEC - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation AK - Alaska Method bg - Below Grade BCE - Bratslavsky Consulting Engineers, Inc.

BGES - Braunstein Geological and Environmental Services BTEX - Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes C - Celsius CSM - Conceptual Site Model DRO - Diesel Range Organics DPT - Direct Push Technology EPA - Environmental Protection Agency HSA - Hollow-Stem Auger GRO - Gasoline Range Organics LCS - Laboratory Control Sample LCSD - Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate LOQ - Limit of Quantitation MS - Matrix Spike MSD - Matrix Spike Duplicate ORP - Oxidation Reduction Potential µg/L - Micrograms per Liter mg/Kg - Milligrams per Kilogram ml/min - Milliliter per minute QC - Quality Control QEP - Qualified Environmental Professional PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PID - Photoionization Detector ppm - Parts Per Million PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride RPD - Relative Percent Difference SGS - SGS North America, Inc.

TOC - Top of Casing UST - Underground Storage Tank

Page 1 of 15 16-090-01R2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

BGES, Inc. (BGES) was retained by Bratslavsky Consulting Engineers, Inc. (BCE) to conduct characterization activities of the soils and groundwater for the property located at 512 Mill Bay Road in

Kodiak, Alaska, hereafter referred to as the subject property (Figure 1). The site characterization activities consisted of the advancement of soil borings, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and the collection and analysis of soil and groundwater samples to determine if contamination is present and if so, is it potentially migrating off of the subject property. Field activities were accomplished during December of 2016.

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND

Contamination was initially discovered during building improvements on the subject property during

2006. It was noted on the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) spill summary report for this site that approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel were released. Two abandoned tanks and diesel contamination were discovered on the north side of the triplex. Approximately 140 cubic yards of contaminated soils were excavated and transported offsite to TC Enterprises’ lot on August 25, 2006 and placed in a stockpile. The results of these activities are documented in the Kodiak Triplex Contaminated

Soil Excavation Corrective Action Plan Summary Report, prepared by Travis/Peterson Environmental

Consulting, Inc. (TPECI) in November of 2006.

In October of 2006, the contaminated soils were placed in containers and transported to a landfill operated by General Environmental Management in Kent, Washington for disposal. During excavation activities, groundwater was encountered at approximately 3 feet below grade (bg) and it was reported that groundwater was likely adversely impacted; however, groundwater was not investigated during 2006.

The spill site case was closed by the ADEC in 2006. Further excavation was not performed in 2006 because it would potentially compromise the building foundation and require removal of the tanks.

During removal of the building foundation in April of 2016, contaminated soils were discovered beneath the foundation. The ADEC reopened the spill site case for the subject property. The estimated volume of soil and groundwater contamination beneath the building foundation was much larger than previously anticipated. The area was covered with plastic and backfilled with the understanding that assessment of contamination would be addressed in the future in a phased approach. These two phases would consist of site assessment to define the extent of contamination and remediation activities to address the

Page 2 of 15 16-090-01R2 contamination present at the subject property. The site characterization phase of this planned course of action is the subject of this report.

3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES

All field work was performed by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) as defined by the ADEC.

Additionally, all field work was performed in accordance with ADEC regulations, guidance, and the approved Work Plan for Site Characterization Activities (dated October 2016), with a few deviations as described below. Photographs of field activities are included in Appendix A.

3.1 Deviations from the Work Plan

During the performance of the site characterization, the following deviations from the ADEC-approved work plan were made after receiving further approval from the ADEC Project Manager for this site.

o Soil samples were only collected from the zone of soil/groundwater interface “smear zone” in Soil Borings SB18 through SB22;

o A groundwater sample was not collected from Monitoring Well MW3 because of the presence of free product on top of the groundwater;

o The monitoring wells were developed approximately 2 hours after installation, and

Monitoring Wells MW1 and MW2 were purged and sampled approximately 12 hours after development;

o Monitoring Wells MW1 and MW2 were purged dry and allowed to recharge to at least 80 percent of their capacities prior to sample collection.

Additionally, water quality parameters for pH, temperature, specific conductivity, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) were not measured during purging because of the limited capacity of the monitoring wells.

This practice is in accordance with ADEC approved methods for sampling monitoring wells with a low recharge rate.

Because the depth to bedrock was greater than anticipated, the scope of work was increased, and the number of soil sample containers was limited, therefore, the duplicate soil sample collection frequency was reduced.

Page 3 of 15 16-090-01R2

3.2 Soil Boring Advancement and Collection of Soil Samples

BGES observed and documented the advancement of 22 soil borings at the subject property on December

13 and 14, 2016. The soil borings were placed in a manner intended to define the lateral extent of contamination as reported in previous field activities (Figure 2). The borings were advanced using a

GeoProbe 6712DT drilling rig equipped with direct push technology (DPT) provided by Denali Drilling, Inc. of Anchorage, Alaska. All soil borings were advanced to bedrock, which varied in depth from 4 feet to 10 feet below grade (bg). Static and percussion forces were utilized to advance a 5-foot Macro-Core sampler for the collection of soil samples from the smear zone of each soil boring. The Macro-Core sampler contained a disposable fitted plastic sleeve for capturing the soil samples during advancement of each soil boring. The stainless-steel portion of the Macro-Core sampler was decontaminated by washing in a solution of laboratory grade detergent prior to re-use and a new plastic sleeve was used for the collection of each soil sample.

Upon retrieval, a portion of the recovered soil sample from each Macro-Core sampler was placed in laboratory-supplied containers for laboratory analysis utilizing a clean stainless-steel spoon. Sample portions scheduled to be analyzed for volatile compounds were collected first (prior to the field screening sample) and preserved with methanol immediately after collection. The methanol provided by the laboratory was added to the sample in a manner that completely covered the sample. The samples were labeled, placed in ice-filled coolers, and maintained by BGES personnel until delivery to the laboratory.

The coolers were hand-delivered under chain of custody protocol to SGS North America, Inc. (SGS) in

Anchorage, Alaska, an ADEC-approved laboratory, for analysis. A duplicate soil sample was collected as a quality control (QC) procedure under a reduced frequency, as described in Section 3.1 above. All soil sampling activities were conducted in general accordance with ADEC's Field Sampling Guidance, dated

March 2016, and the approved Work Plan for Site Characterization Activities dated October, 2016.

A second portion of each sample was placed into a sealable plastic bag using a clean, stainless-steel spoon, and labeled with a unique sample number and the time of collection. The soils were field-screened utilizing a photoionization detector (PID), which was calibrated prior to use with 100 parts per million

(ppm) isobutylene gas. The field screening samples were allowed to warm for at least ten minutes to greater than 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and then the plastic bags were agitated for approximately 15 seconds within 1 hour of collection, at which point the probe of the PID was inserted into the bag and the greatest reading was recorded.

Page 4 of 15 16-090-01R2

The soils encountered during advancement of the soil borings generally consisted of brown to grey clays, with dark, fine to coarse-grained gravels. All field screening samples from Soil Borings SB1 through SB7, SB10, SB11, SB14 through SB16, and SB18 through SB22 exhibited PID readings of 0 ppm, and no olfactory or visual evidence of contamination was noted in any of the soils encountered during the advancement of these soil borings, with the exception of SB11, which exhibited free product and strong odor on the extreme bottom of the Macro-Core sampler. It is noted that the portion of soils within the bottom tip of the Macro-Core sampler were unrecoverable, and these soils are not represented in the associated soil samples derived from SB11.

Soils encountered in Soil Borings SB8, SB9, SB12, SB13, SB17 exhibited PID readings between 2 and 60 ppm, with varying degrees of visual and olfactory indications of diesel contamination. In general, contaminated soils were located immediately above bedrock, and below a layer of clay that that was present above the bedrock. The greatest indications of contamination were observed in Soil Borings SB8, and

SB9, which were advanced in the approximate location of the former USTs described in Section 2.

Groundwater was encountered in many of the soil borings in a thin band situated directly above the bedrock and below the clay layer and varied in thickness from 0.01 foot to 4 feet, with the greater thicknesses being located in Soil Borings, SB8, SB9, SB11, and SB12.

Drill cuttings (soil) generated during the soil boring advancement activities were placed into two, 55-gallon drums, which were labeled as containing potentially contaminated soil, with contact information for BCE.

The drums were left onsite pending analytical results so that an appropriate disposal method could be determined. Field Notes and Soil Boring Logs are included in Appendix B.

3.3 Monitoring Well Installation and Survey

Soil Boring SB22 was completed as Monitoring Well MW1; MW2 and MW3 were advanced in dedicated soil borings near north and northeast of Shed #2, respectively (Figure 2), and were advanced utilizing hollow-stem auger (HSA) drilling technology in accordance with ADEC Monitoring Well Guidance (dated

September 2013). The objectives of installing these monitoring wells was to determine the general groundwater flow direction, to evaluate the potential presence of groundwater contamination, and to determine whether or not contamination was potentially migrating off of the subject property. The monitoring wells were constructed utilizing 2-inch diameter Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) solid casing and Schedule 40 PVC well screen (0.010-inch machine slot) and completed at the approximate depths of 6.5 feet bg, 7.5 feet bg, and 9.5 feet bg for MW1, MW2, and MW3, respectively. As such, Page 5 of 15 16-090-01R2 approximately one half of the screened interval of each well was installed below the surface of the groundwater table at the time of drilling. The tops of the monitoring wells were sealed with expandable plugs. The annular spaces of the borings were backfilled with an appropriate filter sand from the total depth of the borehole to approximately 1.5 to 2 feet above the screened interval. A bentonite chip seal was placed above the sand to the approximate depths of 1 foot bg, 1 foot bg, and 1.5 foot bg, for MW1, MW2, and MW3, respectively, and was hydrated prior to placing a flush-mounted cover over each of the monitoring wells. Then a cement seal was placed above the bentonite and around the protective covers, and the annular space within the protective covers was completed with sand. Well Completion Logs are included in Appendix B.

BGES surveyed the tops of the well casings and ground elevations for each of the monitoring wells upon completion of installation activities. The wells were surveyed to the nearest vertical 0.01 foot, utilizing a fixed, semi-permanent reference point. The reference point for the survey was the cement slab adjacent to the northwest corner of Shed #1 on Figure 2. All wells were measured from a marked point on the north side of the top of casing (TOC).

The relative groundwater elevations in each of the monitoring wells were calculated utilizing the surveyed monitoring well casing elevations and the measured depths to water (Table 1). Then, the calculated groundwater elevations for the subject property were utilized to create a groundwater elevation contour map, which suggests that groundwater flows in a south-southwesterly direction (Figure 3). A hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.04 foot per linear foot was calculated for this sampling event. The depths to water, the total depths of wells, and the calculated water elevations are presented in Table 1.

3.4 Well Development and Collection of Groundwater Samples

The monitoring wells were developed using disposable polyethylene bailers, at least 2 hours after installation with approval from the ADEC Project Manager. The bailers were surged in the wells to dislodge any silt and sediment, which was then removed along with water in the bailers. This process continued until each of the wells were purged dry. Monitoring Well MW3 exhibited very strong diesel odors at the time of well development, and free product was observed within the bailer. The thickness of the free product was not measured at the time of field activities because an oil/water interface probe was not available.

Groundwater samples were collected from MW1 and MW2 using a low-flow sampling methodology at least 12 hours after well development, with approval from the ADEC Project Manager. Groundwater

Page 6 of 15 16-090-01R2 samples were not collected from Monitoring Well MW3 because of the presence of free product within the well casing. A positive-displacement bladder pump and dedicated tubing were used during the low-flow purging and sampling activities. The pump intake was set at the bottom of the monitoring well casing.

The pumping rate utilized during the purging and sampling activities was approximately 40 milliliters per minute (ml/min). Prior to the purging and collection of the groundwater samples, the depth to water (from the top of casing) and the total depth of each well were measured with an electronic water level indicator;

which was decontaminated prior to its use in each well by washing it in an Alconox (laboratory grade detergent) solution, followed by a potable water rinse. Using this information, as well as the diameters of the well casings, the volume of water in each well was calculated. Each of the wells were purged dry and allowed to recharge to at least 80 percent capacity. The groundwater was pumped directly into the laboratory-supplied sample jars, and the containers for volatile analyses were filled first. Care was taken during the sampling process to minimize the potential that headspace was created within the sample containers, and that none of the preservative was spilled. It should be noted that because of the extremely limited volume within the monitoring wells, groundwater parameters for pH, temperature, conductivity, and ORP were not collected during this sampling event in order to collect as much sample volume as possible.

As a QC measure, a duplicate groundwater sample was collected from Monitoring Well MW2, and was identified as MW4-1-1215. The duplicate sample was submitted “blindly” to the laboratory for analysis.

The samples were labeled, stored and transported in a chilled cooler, and delivered under chain of custody protocol to SGS for analysis. The groundwater monitoring logs are presented in Appendix B.

Investigation-derived waste generated during the monitoring well development and sampling activities included approximately nine gallons of purge water. This waste stream was placed in a 55-gallon drum that was labeled and temporarily stored on the subject property. The drum was labeled as containing potentially-contaminated water, with contact information for BCE.

3.5 Investigation of Potential Seeps and or Drainages Downgradient of the Site

An investigation was conducted to determine if any seeps or surface waters located downgradient of the known area of contamination were visible. No direct observations of seeps were noted during the field activities, however a drainage to the west of the site, exhibited the terminal end of what appeared to be a subsurface drainage pipe, which appeared to extend from the general location of the contamination plume.

It should be noted that no visual evidence of contamination was observed near the terminus of this drainage pipe at the time of our field activities.

Page 7 of 15 16-090-01R2

4.0 EVALUATION OF LABORATORY DATA

Laboratory analyses of the soil and water samples collected during these sampling activities were performed by SGS, an ADEC-approved laboratory. Soil and water sample locations and analytical results are presented on Figure 2. A summary of the soil and water analytical results are presented in Tables 2, and 3, respectively. Copies of the laboratory data are provided in Appendix C.

4.1 Soil Samples

Soil sample results are compared to the ADEC Method 2 Cleanup Criteria listed in 18 Alaska

Administrative Code (AAC) 75.341 – Tables B1 and B2, Migration to Groundwater values, effective

November 6, 2016. The cleanup criteria from Table B2 were listed in the “over 40-inch zone” (referring to annual precipitation).

Soil samples were analyzed for gasoline range organics (GRO) by Alaska Method (AK) 101; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method SW

8021B; and DRO by AK 102. Additionally, four soil samples, including one duplicate soil sample, were analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA method 8270D SIM.

As a quality control procedure, a trip blank sample accompanied all field samples scheduled for volatile analyses at all times from sample collection until submission to the laboratory. The trip blank was analyzed for GRO and BTEX by the same methods described above, to determine if cross-contamination of the samples had occurred. The collection of duplicate samples was reduced below the frequency recommended by the ADEC because of limited sample collection containers as described in Section 3.1 above, and was approved in advance by the ADEC project manager for this site.

Soil samples collected from the subject property were labeled, for example, SB1-3-1213, where the prefix

“SB1” indicates the boring from which the soil sample was collected; “-3” indicates the sample number within the soil boring; and, “-1213” indicates the month and the day the sample was collected.

Twenty-seven soil samples, including one duplicate soil sample, were submitted to the laboratory for analysis from locations intended to define the vertical and lateral extent of contamination at the subject property (Figure 2).

Soil Samples SB8-2-1213, SB8-3-1213 (duplicate of SB8-2-1213), SB9-2-1213, SB12-2-1214, and SB21-

1-1214 exhibited concentrations of DRO at 301 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg), 352 mg/Kg, 1,210

Page 8 of 15 16-090-01R2 mg/Kg, 628 mg/Kg, and 384 mg/Kg respectively, which exceed the ADEC cleanup criterion of 230 mg/Kg.

Soil Samples SB2-2-1213, SB6-2-1213, SB8-1-1213, SB14-3-1213, SB17-1-1213, and SB22-1-1214 exhibited concentrations of DRO, and Soil Sample SB13-3-1213 exhibited a concentration of GRO, which were less than the ADEC cleanup criteria. It should be noted that the reported concentration of DRO within

Soil Sample SB14-3-1213 is qualified with a “J” because the concentration is less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ) and should therefore be considered and estimated quantity. Soil Sample SB9-1-1213 exhibited a concentration of toluene that was less than the ADEC cleanup criterion, and Soil Samples SB9-

1-1213, SB9-2-1213, and SB13-3-1213 exhibited concentrations of total xylenes that were less than the

ADEC cleanup criterion. Additionally, Soil Samples SB8-2-1213 and its duplicate SB8-3-1213, SB11-2-

1213, and SB12-2-1213 exhibited concentrations of several PAH analytes, all of which were less than the applicable ADEC cleanup criteria.

No other analytes were detected above LOQ the and the LOQs were all below the applicable ADEC cleanup criteria with the exception of benzene in samples SB2-2-1213, SB6-2-1213, SB14-3-1213, and SB22-1-

1214, in which the LOQs exceed the ADEC cleanup criterion, however, the limit of detection (LOD) was less than the ADEC cleanup criterion. Therefore, the LOD is used in place of the LOQ with regards to these samples in Table 2.

4.2 Water Samples

Water sample results are compared to the ADEC Method 2 Cleanup Criteria listed in 18 AAC 75.345 -

Table C for groundwater effective November 6, 2016. Water samples were analyzed for GRO, BTEX, and

DRO, by the same methods described above. Additionally, Water Sample MW2-1-1215 and its duplicate, Water Sample MW4-1-1215 were analyzed for PAHs by the method described above. As a quality control procedure, a trip blank sample accompanied all field samples scheduled for volatile analyses at all times from sample collection until submission to the laboratory. The trip blank sample was analyzed for GRO and BTEX by the same methods described above, to determine if cross-contamination of the samples had occurred.

Water samples collected from the subject property were labeled, for example, MW1-2-1215, where the prefix “MW1” indicates the monitoring well from which the water sample was collected, “-2” indicates the sample number from the monitoring well, and “-1215” indicates the month and the day the sample was collected. The reason there is a second water sample from MW1 (MW1-2-1215) is because a sample was originally collected from this monitoring well without purging, because of a concern regarding the ability

Page 9 of 15 16-090-01R2 of the well to recharge in a reasonable time. However, after sampling, it was determined that the recharge rate was sufficient for purging to be accomplished prior to collecting a sample, therefore, the well was resampled and the second sample was labeled as MW1-2-1215).

A total of three water samples, including one duplicate sample, were collected from Monitoring Wells

MW1 and MW2 on December 15, 2016. All three samples were submitted to SGS for analysis. No analytes were detected in the water samples at concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanup criteria.

Sample MW4-1-1215 (duplicate sample collected from MW2) exhibited concentrations of 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and phenanthrene at 0.0612 micrograms per liter (µg/L), 0.0618 µg/L, and 0.0564 µg/L respectively which are below the applicable ADEC cleanup criteria for these analytes. No other analytes were detected above the laboratory’s LOQs in any of the submitted water samples, and the LOQs were all below the applicable ADEC cleanup criteria.

5.0 LABORATORY DATA QUALITY REVIEW

Data quality was reviewed in accordance with ADEC guidance and standard industry practices. The soil and groundwater samples were hand-delivered under standard chain-of-custody protocol to SGS, an

ADEC-approved laboratory in Anchorage, Alaska. ADEC laboratory data review checklists were completed for each laboratory work order, and are attached in Appendix D. The checklists provide an overview of the quality of the laboratory data. The following is a discussion of our evaluation of sample conditions and laboratory procedures for the soil and water samples collected during the October 2016 field activities.

5.1 Soil Samples - Work Order 1167298

The samples contained the proper preservatives for the requested analyses and no unusual sample conditions were noted by the laboratory. A trip blank accompanied the samples through the entirety of the sampling process and delivery to the laboratory.

The temperatures of the two coolers in which the samples were shipped were measured to be 0.7 and 0.9 degree Celsius at the time of receipt at the laboratory, which is within the ADEC prescribed optimal temperature range of 0 to 6 degrees Celsius.

Soil Samples SB2-2-1213, SB6-2-1213, SB14-3-1213, and SB22-1-1214 were noted to contain a high moisture content, which according to the laboratory, can result in an elevated practical quantitation limit

(PQL), therefore, DRO concentrations within these samples are considered estimates and are qualified with

Page 10 of 15 16-090-01R2 a "J" in Table 2. However, because the reported concentrations of DRO within these samples are an order of magnitude lower than the ADEC cleanup criterion, it is our opinion that these data QC failures do not affect the interpretation of the data for their intended use.

Soil Sample SB22-1-1214 was noted to have low sample mass in the container destined to be analyzed for volatile constituents, indicating the potential for the LOQs within this sample to be elevated, and the concentrations are qualified with a "J" in Table 2. However, because GRO, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were not detected above the LOQs and because the LOQs were at least one order of magnitude less than the applicable ADEC cleanup criteria, it is our opinion that these data QC failures do not affect the usability of the data for its intended purpose. Because the LOQ for benzene within this sample is greater than the ADEC cleanup criterion, and because the laboratory reported the benzene concentration as non-detectable, but below half of the LOQ, and because half of the LOQ was still above the ADEC cleanup criterion, the potential for benzene to be present within this sample at a concentration greater than the ADEC cleanup criterion cannot be completely ruled out. However, because benzene was not detected above the

LOQs in any of the soils submitted for analysis from this site, there is a reduced potential for the benzene concentration in this sample to exceed the ADEC cleanup criterion.

The surrogate 4-bromofluorobenzene (4-BFB) associated with the analysis of GRO in Soil Sample

SB16-1-1213 was recovered at 34.1 percent, which is below the laboratory's QC criteria of 50 to 150 percent. Because of this, the reported concentration of GRO within this soil sample may be biased low and is qualified with a “J” in Table 2 as an estimated quantity; however, because GRO was not detected above the laboratory's LOQ, and because the LOQ was more than one order of magnitude less than the ADEC cleanup criterion, it is our opinion that this data QC failure does not affect the usability of the data for their intended purpose.

The RPDs for the recovery of chrysene and benzo[b]fluoranthane between the matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples, which were derived from the parent sample SB11-2-1213, were greater than the laboratory's control limits indicating a potential matrix interference with regard to these analytes.

Because of this, the reported concentrations of these analytes may be considered estimated within the parent sample and are qualified with a “J” in Table 2. However, because the reported concentrations of these analytes within the parent sample were more than one order of magnitude less than the ADEC cleanup criteria, it is our opinion that this data QC failure does not affect the usability of the data for their intended purpose.

Page 11 of 15 16-090-01R2

The recovery of p & m xylene within the MSD derived from the parent sample SB2-2-1213 was less than the laboratory control limit, indicating a potential matrix interference with regard to this analyte, and a possibly low bias for this analyte. However, because the laboratory control spike (LCS) and laboratory control spike duplicate (LCSD) had p & m xylenes recoveries within acceptable limits, and because the reported concentrations of these analytes in all of the project samples were either not detected above the

LOQs (and the LOQs were at least an order of magnitude less than the ADEC cleanup criterion for this analyte) or were detected at a concentration that is one order of magnitude below the ADEC cleanup criterion, it is our opinion that this data QC failure does not affect the usability of the data for its intended use.

The relative percent difference (RPD) between the MS/MSD for total xylenes, derived from the parent sample SB2-2-1213 were 20.3 and 20.4 percent respectfully, and were noted as being within the laboratory control limits, “with proper rounding.” Because of this, it is our opinion that this data QC failure does not affect the usability of the data for their intended use.

Benzene was detected at a concentration equal to the LOQ within the method blank. However, because benzene was not detected above the LOQ within any of the laboratory samples, no further action was taken.

Because of this it is our opinion that this data QC failure does not affect the usability of the data for their intended use.

The RPDs between the reported concentrations of several analytes within Soil Sample SB8-2-1213 and its duplicate SB8-3-1213 ranged from 2 to 45 percent, which is within the ADEC prescribed limit of 50 percent for soils.

There were no other data QC failures identified in regards to this work order.

5.2 Water Samples - Work Order 1167278

The samples contained the proper preservatives for the requested analyses. Limited volume was submitted for the analysis of DRO and PAHs in all applicable samples. Additionally, high amounts of sediment were noted within the samples, which may cause interference with extraction and volatiles. However, because the detected concentrations of analytes within the samples were more than one order of magnitude less than the applicable cleanup criteria, and because the LOQs of analytes that were not detected were significantly less than the applicable ADEC cleanup criteria it is our opinion that this data QC failure does not affect the usability of the data for their intended purpose.

Page 12 of 15 16-090-01R2

The temperature of the cooler containing the samples was measured to be 0.0 degree at the time of the receipt, which is within the ADEC prescribed optimal range of 0 to 6 degrees Celsius.

Trip blank Vials (4 A-C) were created in August of 2016. Vial A had a 6 millimeter (mm) bubble and vials

B and C had bubbles greater than 6 mm. Because all of the volatile analyses exhibited non-detectable concentrations of all analytes, this occurrence does not affect the interpretation of the data. No other data

QC failures were noted on the case narrative for this work order.

Sample MW4-2-1215 was a duplicate of MW2-1-1215, however, because none of the analytes were detected in both the sample and its duplicate, the RPDs for these analytes could not be calculated.

6.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Utilizing historical and current information, on-site observations, and ADEC guidance documents, a conceptual site model (CSM) has been developed to depict potential exposure pathways for human receptors identified or suspected for the subject property (Appendix E). Contamination at the subject property originated from two abandoned heating oil USTs that were encountered during excavation activities.

A graphic conceptual site model detailing the various potential exposure media, transport mechanisms, exposure pathways and human receptors for identified contamination at this site was prepared and is included in Appendix E. The medium identified at the site to which the contamination was directly released is subsurface soil. The contamination has migrated to the groundwater. The transport mechanisms through which contamination could have mobilized were identified to be direct release to subsurface soil, migration to groundwater, migration to surface water, and volatilization. Potential exposure media at this site include soil, groundwater, surface water, air, and biota.

Potential exposure pathways through which contamination at this site could impact potential current and/or future human receptors were identified to be incidental soil ingestion, dermal absorption of contaminants in soil, ingestion of groundwater and surface water, dermal absorption of contaminants in groundwater and surface water, inhalation of indoor air, inhalation of outdoor air, and ingestion of wild or farmed foods.

Potential current and/or future human receptors for this site were identified to be future residents, current and future site visitors or trespassers, current and future commercial or industrial workers, current and future construction workers, current and future farmers or subsistence harvesters, and current and future subsistence consumers.

Page 13 of 15 16-090-01R2

Based on the analytical results from the site characterization activities, there appears to be several completed pathways to human receptors, mainly stemming from contamination in the soil and groundwater on the subject property. It should be noted that a portion of the subject property was being utilized as a vegetable garden at the time of this report.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As described above, BGES observed the advancement of 22 soil borings, one of which was completed as a monitoring well, and two additional monitoring wells installed within borings that did not include soil sampling, at the property located at 512 Mill Bay Road, in an effort to define the vertical and lateral extent of contamination on the subject property stemming from the release of heating oil from two USTs which adversely impacted the soils and groundwater at the subject property.

Soil and groundwater samples were collected from these soil borings and two of the three monitoring wells.

In general, the vertical extent of contamination has been defined as extending from the ground surface to bedrock, which varies in depth from four to ten feet bg across the site. The lateral extent of contamination was defined in all directions except to the northwest in the vicinity of Soil Boring SB21, as evidenced by the analytical results of Soil Sample SB21-1-1214, which exhibited a concentration of DRO at 384 mg/Kg, exceeding the ADEC cleanup criterion of 230 mg/Kg. Soil samples SB8-2-1213 and its duplicate SB8-3-

1213, SB9-2-1213, and SB12-2-1213 were collected from Soil Borings SB8, SB9, and SB12, respectively;

which were located within the defined plume of contamination. These samples exhibited concentrations of DRO of 301 mg/Kg, 352 mg/Kg, 1,210 mg/Kg, and 628 mg/Kg respectively.

Groundwater Samples MW1-2-1215, MW2-1-1215 and its duplicate MW4-1-1215, which were collected form Monitoring Wells, MW1 and MW2 respectively, did not exhibit concentrations of any analytes greater than the applicable ADEC cleanup criteria. Monitoring Well MW3 was not sampled because of the presence of significant free product within the groundwater. The thickness of free product within

Monitoring Well MW3 was not measured because an oil/water interface probe was not available at the time of field activities.

Groundwater at the site was measured to flow generally south southwesterly at a gradient of 0.04 foot per linear foot.

An investigation was conducted to determine if any seeps or surface waters located downgradient of the known area of contamination were visible. No direct observations of seeps were noted during the field

Page 14 of 15 16-090-01R2 activities, however a drainage to the west of the site, exhibited the terminal end of what appeared to be a subsurface drainage pipe, which appeared to extend from the location of the contamination plume. It should be noted that no evidence of contamination was observed near the terminus of this drainage pipe at the time of our field activities.

In summary, soil contamination has been defined laterally in all directions except to the northwest, which extends onto the adjacent property to the north. Groundwater contamination appears to be defined in all directions, based upon the results of groundwater samples collected from Monitoring Wells MW1 and

MW2, as well as from soil samples collected from the smear zone in the soil borings.

It is recommended that additional site characterization activities be conducted to further define the lateral extent of soil contamination to the northwest. This can be accomplished through the advancement and sampling of additional soil borings or shallow test pits. Groundwater contamination, namely the presence of free product, should be further assessed for the feasibility of recovery or remediation. Additionally, Monitoring Wells MW1 and MW2 should be sampled again, preferably in the spring or summer to determine if dissolved-phase contamination and/or free product is migrating away from the source area during seasonal groundwater fluctuations.

Alternatively, the soil contamination can be remediated by excavating and disposing of the contaminated soil at an appropriate disposal facility. The extent of contamination to the northwest can also be defined and removed concurrently with the excavation of the contaminated soils on the subject property, if desired.

The contaminated groundwater and/or free product will be removed and managed for disposal during excavation via a dewatering, recovery, and appropriate treatment process.

Investigation-derived waste for this project includes soils generated during the advancement of soil borings, purge water generated during water sampling activities, and decontamination water. These wastes are currently stored on site in two 55-gallon drums (drill cuttings) and one 55-gallon drum (wastewater). Based on the results of the soil and water sampling activities, we recommend that the soil and water be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations, after permission to do so is obtained from the ADEC.

8.0 EXCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

This report presents facts, observations, and inferences based on conditions observed during the period of our project activities, and only those conditions that were evaluated as part of our scope of work. Our conclusions are based solely on our observations made and work conducted, and only apply to the

Page 15 of 15 16-090-01R2 immediate vicinities of the locations where samples were collected. In addition, changes to site conditions may have occurred since the completion of our project activities. These changes may be from the actions of man or nature. Changes in regulations may also impact the interpretation of site conditions. BGES will not disclose our findings to any parties other than our client as listed above, except as directed by our client, or as required by law.

The field work for this project was performed by Kris Shippen and this report was prepared by Kris

Shippen, Environmental Scientist I of BGES. Mr. Shippen has conducted numerous site characterization and remedial efforts throughout Alaska; and he is a QEP as defined by the ADEC. The BGES Project

Manager was Jayne Martin, Senior Environmental Scientist of BGES. Ms. Martin reviewed portions of the report for this project. Ms. Martin has more than 25 years of environmental consulting experience and has conducted and managed hundreds of site characterization throughout Alaska and the lower 48 states.

Portions of the report were reviewed by Robert N. Braunstein C.P.G., Principal Geologist of BGES. Mr.

Robert Braunstein has more than 30 years of professional environmental and geological consulting experience, and has conducted and managed thousands of environmental projects involving site characterization throughout Alaska and the lower 48 states.

Sincerely, BGES, INC.

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

Kris Shippen Jayne Martin Robert N. Braunstein, C.P.G.

Environmental Scientist I Senior Environmental Scientist Principal Geologist

Approximate Property Location

512 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska

Property Vicinity Map

January 2017 Figure 1

Source: Google Earth Pro©; GINA; USGS DRG

0 ½ 1

Approximate Scale (Miles)

SB 1

SB 2

SB 3

SB 4

SB 5

SB 6

SB 7 SB 16

SB 15

SB 13

SB 12

SB 11

SB 8

SB 9 SB 14

SB 22/ MW1

SB 17

SB 21

SB 18

SB 19

SB 20

SB 10 N

January 2017

Figure 2

Former USF&WS Triplex 512 Mill Bay Road

Kodiak, Alaska Soil Boring/Monitoring Well Locations, Sample Results

Shed #1

Shed #2 Shed #3

LEGEND

= Approximate Soil Boring Location (concentrations are less than ADEC cleanup criteria)

= Approximate Soil Boring Location (concentrations exceed the ADEC cleanup criterion)

= Approximate Soil Boring Location (visually-contaminated, results are less than ADEC cleanup criteria)

= Approximate Monitoring Well Location (concentrations are less than ADEC cleanup criteria)

= Approximate Monitoring Well Location (not sampled due to presence of free product)

= Estimated Extent of 2005 Excavation of Contaminated Soils

= Estimated Extent of Contamination Based on Previous Investigations

= Estimated Extent of Contamination Based on Current Investigation

= Approximate Northern Property Boundary

= Approximate Former Triplex Building Footprint ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; bg = below grade; DRO = diesel range organics; mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram; PID = photoionization detector; ppm = parts per million

SB8-2-1213 & SB8-3-13 (5 to 10 feet bg) (SB8-3-1213 is a duplicate of SB2-1213;

the greatest concentration is presented) PID = 60 ppm DRO = 352 mg/Kg

Note: Only concentrations that exceeded the ADEC cleanup criteria are presented on this figure.

SB9-2-1213 (5 to 10 feet bg) PID = 58 ppm DRO = 1,210 mg/Kg

SB12-2-1213 (5 to 9 feet bg) PID = 20 ppm DRO = 628 mg/Kg

SB21-1-1214 (0 to 5 feet bg) PID = 0 ppm DRO = 384 mg/Kg

Approximate Scale in Feet

0 25 50

MW2

MW3

N

Shed #1

Shed #2 Shed #3

LEGEND

= Approximate Monitoring Well Location (concentrations are less than ADEC cleanup criteria)

= Approximate Monitoring Well Location (not sampled due to presence of free product)

= Groundwater Elevation (in feet)

= Groundwater Elevation Contour (dashed where inferred)

= Estimated Extent of 2005 Excavation of Contaminated Soils

= Estimated Extent of Contamination Based on Previous Investigations

= Approximate Northern Property Boundary

= Approximate Former Triplex Building Footprint ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; bg = below grade; DRO = diesel range organics; mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram; PID = photoionization detector; ppm = parts per million; Groundwater gradient was calculated to be 0.04 foot per linear foot

Approximate Scale in Feet

0 25 50

MW1

94.10

MW2

93.44

MW3

93.93

January 2017

Figure 3

Former USF&WS Triplex 512 Mill Bay Road

Kodiak, Alaska Groundwater Flow Direction Diagram

93.44

Approximate Direction of Groundwater Flow

Groundwater Elevation in MW3 is adjusted for the presence of approximately

0.02 foot of free product

TABLE 1

KODIAK, ALASKA

MONITORING WELL SAMPLING DATA

BGES, INC.

Well Number MW1 MW2 MW3a

Date Sampled 12/15/16 12/15/16 NA Date of Depth and Elevation Measurement 12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16 Time of Depth to Water Measurement 10:05 10:26 11:00 Time Sample Collected 14:10 16:19 NA Top of Casing Elevation (feet) 99.15 99.05 99.31 Depth to Water (feet below top of casing) 5.05 5.61 5.38 Water Elevation (feet) 94.10 93.44 93.93 Total Depth of Well (feet below top of casing) 5.98 7.33 9.30 Ground Elevation 99.56 99.29 99.34 Depth to Water (feet below top of ground surface) 5.46 5.85 5.41 Well Casing Diameter (Inches) 2 2 2 Standing Water Well Volume (gallons) 0.15 0.28 0.64 Purge Volume-Actual (gallons) 0.5 0.28 0.0 Temperature (degrees Celsius) NA NA NA pH (standard units) NA NA NA Conductivity (millisiemans per centimeter) NA NA NA ORP (oxidation reduction potential) NA NA NA Notes: Well was found to contain Sampler: K. Shippen approximately 0.02 feet of Field parameters were not measured because a limited volume of water free product; subsequently was present in each well during the sampling activities. the well was not sampled.

Weather conditions on December 15, 2016 were rainy with an aadjusted for free product ambient temperature of approximately 34 degrees Fahrenheit.

NA = not available; NS = not sampled

A water sample was not collected from MW3 because of the presence of free product.

1/30/2017 Page 1 of 1 16-090-01

TABLE 2

KODIAK, ALASKA

SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

BGES, INC.

Page 1 of 4 16-090-01

Sample No. Parameter LOQ (mg/Kg)

ADEC Cleanup Criteria (mg/Kg)1 Analytical Method

SB1-3-1213 GRO ND 2.47 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO ND 23.2 230 AK 102

Depth = 5 - 10 feet Benzene ND 0.0123 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0247 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0247 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0741 1.5 SW 8021B

SB2-1-1213 GRO ND 2.50 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO ND 22.4 230 AK 102

Depth = 0 - 5 feet Benzene ND 0.0125 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0250 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0250 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0750 1.5 SW 8021B

SB2-2-1213 GRO ND 4.69 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO 54.6 J 28.5 230 AK 102

Depth = 5 - 6 feet Benzene2 ND J 0.00750 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0469 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0469 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.1407 1.5 SW 8021B

SB3-1-1213 GRO ND 3.04 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO ND 22.1 230 AK 102

Depth = 0 - 5 feet Benzene ND 0.0152 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0304 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0304 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0912 1.5 SW 8021B

SB4-2-1213 GRO ND 3.13 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO ND 24.6 230 AK 102

Depth = 5 - 8 feet Benzene ND 0.0156 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0313 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0313 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0939 1.5 SW 8021B

SB5-2-1213 GRO ND 3.02 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO ND 25.3 230 AK 102

Depth = 5 - 9 feet Benzene ND 0.0151 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0302 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0302 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0905 1.5 SW 8021B

SB6-2-1213 GRO ND 5.40 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO 26.1 J 32.0 230 AK 102

Depth = 5 - 9 feet Benzene2 ND J 0.00863 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0540 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0540 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.1620 1.5 SW 8021B

SB7-1-1213 GRO ND 2.32 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO ND 22.0 230 AK 102

Depth = 0 - 4.5 feet Benzene ND 0.0116 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0232 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0232 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0696 1.5 SW 8021B

SB8-1-1213 GRO ND 4.41 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO 40.9 28.4 230 AK 102

Depth = 0 - 5 feet Benzene ND 0.0220 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0441 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0441 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.1322 1.5 SW 8021B

Results (mg/Kg)

KODIAK, ALASKA

SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

BGES, INC.

Page 2 of 4 16-090-01

Sample No. Parameter LOQ (mg/Kg)

ADEC Cleanup Criteria (mg/Kg)1 Analytical MethodResults (mg/Kg)

SB8-2-1213 GRO ND 2.73 260 AK 101

PID = 60 ppm DRO 301 24.8 230 AK 102

Depth = 5 - 10 feet Benzene ND 0.0137 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0273 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0273 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0820 1.5 SW 8021B 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.237 0.0248 0.41 8270D SIM 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.199 0.0248 1.3 8270D SIM Acenaphthene 0.0454 0.0248 37 8270D SIM Anthracene 0.0552 0.0248 390 8270D SIM Fluorene 0.174 0.0248 36 8270D SIM Naphthalene 0.0359 0.0248 0.038 8270D SIM Phenanthrene 0.335 0.0248 39 8270D SIM All Other PAH's ND 0.0248 Varies 8270D SIM

SB8-3-1213

Duplicate of SB8-2-1213 GRO ND 2.53 260 AK 101

RPD = 16% DRO 352 23.6 230 AK 102

Benzene ND 0.0127 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0253 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene ND 0.0253 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes ND 0.0760 1.5 SW 8021B

RPD = 45% 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.150 0.0239 0.41 8270D SIM RPD = 43% 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.128 0.0239 1.3 8270D SIM RPD = 32% Acenaphthene 0.0328 0.0239 37 8270D SIM RPD = 2% Anthracene 0.0541 0.0239 390 8270D SIM

RPD = 18% Fluorene 0.146 0.0239 36 8270D SIM Naphthalene ND 0.0239 0.038 8270D SIM

RPD = 19% Phenanthrene 0.277 0.0239 39 8270D SIM All Other PAH's ND 0.0239 Varies 8270D SIM

SB9-1-1213 GRO ND 2.01 260 AK 101

PID = 0 ppm DRO ND 21.1 230 AK 102

Depth = 0 - 5 feet Benzene ND 0.0101 0.022 SW 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 0.0201 0.13 SW 8021B Toluene 0.0228 0.0201 6.7 SW 8021B Total Xylenes 0.0644 0.0604 1.5 SW 8021B

SB9-2-1213 GRO 4.30 2.37 260 AK 101

PID = 58 ppm DRO 1,210 97.1 230 AK 102

Depth = 5 - 10 feet Benzene ND…