FPM_report.hw704020.2018-04-25.AnnualMonitoringFinal.pdf

FINAL

ANNUAL LONG-TERM MONITORING REPORT

SITE SS005, AIR FORCE PLANT 59

JOHNSON CITY, NEW YORK

Prepared for:

Air Force Civil Engineer Center

Building 171

2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 163, Joint Base San Antonio Lackland, TX

Prepared by:

FPM

FPM Remediations Inc.

181 Kenwood Avenue

Oneida, NY 13421

Contract Number FA8903-17-C-0037

April 2018

2017 Annual LTM Report FPM

AFP-59, Site SS005 ii April 2018

Johnson City, New York

This page is intentionally left blank.

AFP-59, Site SS005 iii April 2018

Johnson City, New York

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 SITE HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 LONG TERM MONITORING..................................................................................... 1-3

2 2017 LONG-TERM MONITORING ACTIVITIES ........................................................ 2-1

2.1 PURPOSE OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING ACTIVITIES ............................ 2-1

2.2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AND ABANDONMENT ......................... 2-1

2.2.1 Well Abandonment .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.2 Well Installation ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 WATER SAMPLING ................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.1 Monitoring Well Sampling ...................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.2 Municipal Potable Water Sampling ......................................................................... 2-3

3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM LONG-TERM MONITORING ............................. 3-1

3.1 SHALLOW ZONE MONITORING WELL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................... 3-1

3.2 DEEP ZONE AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................................................. 3-1

3.3 MUNICIPAL POTABLE WATER SUPPLY ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................. 3-2

4 DATA TREND SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 4-1

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 5-1

6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 6-1

AFP-59, Site SS005 iv April 2018

Johnson City, New York

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 2 Site Features

Figure 3 Detected Concentrations of VOCs and 1,4-dioxane (Dec 2017)

Figure 4 Concentration vs. Time - DW3 - cis-1,2-DCE

Figure 5 Concentration vs. Time - URS-2D - cis-1,2-DCE

Figure 6 Concentration vs. Time - SW-4 / SW-4RE - TCE and cis-1,2-DCE

Figure 7 Concentration vs. Time - SW-7 / SW-7RE - TCE and cis-1,2-DCE

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Analytes Detected in Groundwater December 2017

Table 2 Summary of Analytes Detected in Potable Water Supply December 2017

Table 3 Data Trend Analysis for VOCs in Groundwater

LIST OF APPENDICES

(Appendices will be provided on CD only)

Appendix A Daily Field Reports

Appendix B Raw Laboratory Data

Appendix C Validated Laboratory Data

Appendix D Well Installation and Abandonment Logs

Appendix E Soil Disposal Documentation

Appendix F Well Survey Data

Appendix G NYSDEC EQuIS Submittal Documentation

AFP-59, Site SS005 v April 2018

Johnson City, New York

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center

AFP Air Force Plant

AWQS Ambient Water Quality Standards

BCIDA Broome County Industrial Development Agency

COC Chain of custody

CY cubic yard

DCA Dichloroethane

DCE Dichloroethene

DPT Direct Push Technology

DUSR Data Usability Summary Report

EBS Environmental Baseline Survey

EDDs Electronic data deliverables

FPM FPM Remediations, Inc.

FSP Field Sampling Plan

GWQS Groundwater Quality Standards for Class GA Groundwater

HSP Health and Safety Plan

LTM Long term monitoring

MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels for Drinking Water g/L Micrograms per liter

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOH New York State Department of Health

QA Quality assurance

RI Remedial Investigation

SIM Select ion monitoring

SVOCs Semi volatile organic compounds

TCA trichloroethane

TCE trichloroethylene/trichloroethene

USDOE United States Department of Energy

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

AFP-59, Site SS005 vi April 2018

Johnson City, New York

VOCs Volatile organic compounds

VI Vapor intrusion

WP Work Plan

AFP-59, Site SS005 1-1 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

1 INTRODUCTION

FPM Remediations Inc. (FPM) has prepared this 2017 Annual Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)

Report to meet the requirements set forth in the US Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC)

Contract No. FA8903- 17-C-0037. This LTM report documents the activities completed in 2017 at Site SS005 located at former Air Force Plant (AFP) 59 in Johnson City, New York (Figure 1).

The AFP 59 site is located within a combined residential and commercial area (Figure 2). It is adjoined to the north by Route 17C, across which are residential and commercial properties; to the east by the ramp to Route 201 and Little Choconut Creek, which is a tributary of the

Susquehanna River; to the south by Little Choconut Creek, across which is a coal-fired power generation plant; and to the west by residential properties and the Camden Street well field, which is a municipal water supply well field for Johnson City approximately two blocks away from the AFP 59 site.

The AFP 59 site is listed on the NYSDEC List of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites and has been assigned Site No. 7-04-020. Based on New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) recommendation, the groundwater at the site is currently undergoing long term groundwater monitoring, which was initiated in November 2004 (AECOM 2009). The site is not undergoing active remediation at present; however, the Air Force funded the Village of

Johnson City Water Department air stripper in 1999.

1.1 SITE HISTORY

Site SS005 is located within the approximately 30-acre Air Force Plant (AFP) 59 facility in

Johnson City, New York. Site SS005 was occupied by a building that was used by the federal government during World War II to produce propeller blades for fighters, bombers, and air transports. After the war, the government leased the facility for manufacturing and warehousing.

General Electric moved into the plant during the Korean conflict to produce armament systems and engine controls, and operated the facility unto the 1980s to produce flight controls, weapon controls, and inertial navigation and guidance systems for military and commercial aircraft. The business was bought by Martin Marietta in the early 1990s, and Lockheed Martin was formed by the merger of Lockheed Corp. with Martin Marietta in 1995. The building was then taken over by BAE Systems in 2000. Flooding caused by Tropical Storm Lee inundated the site in

September 2011, and BAE announced in November 2011 it would not resume operations there.

The Broome County Industrial Development Agency (BCIDA) has functioned as the site’s landlord under a deed agreement in effect since 1997. After BAE Systems left, BCIDA assumed responsibility for upkeep of the facility until the building was demolished in January 2017. The

Air Force transferred property ownership to BCIDA in February 2018. The site is currently unoccupied.

The AF initiated groundwater investigations at the site in the 1990s, which revealed several chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater at concentrations above the

NYSDEC Ambient Water Quality Standards (AWQS) (US DOE 1995). Additionally, several

AFP-59, Site SS005 1-2 April 2018

Johnson City, New York samples collected by the Johnson City Water Department, which is located about two blocks west of the site, revealed elevated levels of chlorinated VOCs in their supply wells. Since then, subsequent groundwater monitoring results have identified VOCs and 1,4-dioxane in several of the groundwater monitoring wells associated with the site.

In 1994 Earth Tech completed a Remedial Investigation (RI) that included collecting soil samples in the direct vicinity of SS005 which was where the Plating Building was located. The

RI included the collection of soil and groundwater samples (EarthTech, 1996). A total of 18 soil samples associated with the plating room were collected and analyzed during the RI. Several

VOCs were detected in the soil samples including trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane

(TCA), and xylenes. Groundwater samples were also collected during the RI from 13 shallow and deep zone monitoring wells. Chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected across the site in the shallow zone aquifer groundwater samples. The highest concentrations were found downgradient of the Plating Room. The most frequently detected compounds in the shallow zone were 1,1,1-

TCA and its degradation products (1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), 1,1-DCE, vinyl chloride, and chloroethane) and TCE and its breakdown products (cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, vinyl chloride, and chloroethane). The investigation concluded that the general groundwater flow direction of the shallow and deep aquifers below AFP-59 is westerly to southwesterly toward the Camden Street well field (EarthTech, 1996). A Supplemental Site

Inspection was performed in 1995 and identified soil and groundwater contamination, including semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and TCE contamination in groundwater (Argonne, 1995).

In 2005, soil excavation activities were performed in the East Basement of the Manufacturing

Building at AFP-59 (Earth Tech, 2005) to remove TCE contaminated soils. Approximately 119 cubic yards (CY) of soil were removed from the East Basement, however, due to structural concerns, not all TCE-contaminated soils were removed. Further delineation sampling of the

VOC contaminated area occurred during the Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) Phase II

(CB&I, 2015), which is discussed below. Additionally, soil vapor sampling in 2009 and 2011 revealed a widespread vapor intrusion (VI) issue beneath the building, including detections of

TCE and methylene chloride that were detected above New York State Department of Health

(NYSDOH) air guideline values

In September 2011 Tropical Storm Lee caused severe flooding which inundated the site and permanently caused site operation to cease. A Phase II EBS was performed in the summer of

2014 (CB&I, 2015). As part of the EBS, 21 direct push technology (DPT) borings were advanced beneath the building slab in areas that formerly used chlorinated solvents, were adjacent to pits and plating shops, and in areas that had previous hits of VOC contamination in soil gas. One DPT boring exhibited a TCE exceedance that was above residential standards. As a result of the EBS Phase II and previous investigations, three Areas of Concern (AOCs) were identified and recommended for contaminated soil removal activities. The three AOCs included an area of low-level VOC contamination adjacent to the east basement of the production building. A total of 6,201 CY of contaminated soil, which included 154 CY of VOC contaminated soil, was removed from this area from February to April 2017 (CB&I, 2017).

Post-excavation confirmatory sampling results indicated that contaminated soil associated with historical operations had been removed to below residential standards.

AFP-59, Site SS005 1-3 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

1.2 LONG TERM MONITORING

The AF is currently conducting long-term groundwater monitoring at AFP 59. The 2017 LTM activities included well installation, well abandonment, and groundwater sampling. These activities were completed in accordance with the Final Work Plan (WP) (FPM, 2017), which included the Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP), and the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) previously submitted by FPM and approved by NYSDEC. The well installation activities included installing replacement wells for monitoring wells SW-4 and SW-7, which were abandoned in advance of building demolition activities. Monitoring well abandonment activities included abandoning an unidentified monitoring well located near the center of the site, along the southern fence line. Well installation and abandonment were completed on November 20, 2017.

On December 12th and 14th 2017, groundwater samples were collected from six on-site groundwater monitoring wells (SW-3, DW-3, SW-4RE, SW-7RE, DW-9, and SW-9), five off-site groundwater monitoring wells (URS-2S, URS-2D, URS-3D, URS-5S, BM-121), raw (i.e.

pre-treatment) water samples from two water supply wells (JC-2 and JC-3) and a finished (i.e.

post-treatment) water sample located at the Johnson City Water Department (Figure 2).

Groundwater monitoring well samples were analyzed for VOCs by Method 8260C and for 1-4-

Dioxane by Method 8270DSIM. The samples taken from the Johnson City Municipal Water wells were analyzed for VOCs by Method SW8260C and for 1-4-Dioxane by Method 522SIM.

The table below lists the total number of groundwater samples collected for each sample type

(e.g. environmental sample, duplicate sample) during the December 2017 sampling event.

Method Matrix

Sample

Quantity

Qty

Equipment

Blank Qty

Trip

Blank

Qty

Field

Duplicate

Qty

MS/MSD

Sample

Qty

Total

Sample

Qty

Annual Sampling Event

8260C Groundwater 14 1 1 1 1 18

8270DSIM Groundwater 11 1 0 1 1 14

522SIM Groundwater 3 0 0 0 0 3

AFP-59, Site SS005 1-4 April 2018

2017Annual LTM Report FPM

AFP-59 2-1 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

2 2017 LONG-TERM MONITORING ACTIVITIES

2.1 PURPOSE OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Based on the conclusions presented in the Final Remedial Investigation Report (Earth Tech, 1996) and recommendations made by the NYSDEC, it was determined that VOCs and 1,4-dioxane are the only chemicals of potential concern (COPC) in AFP-59 groundwater. The LTM objectives for the project were to sample and evaluate VOC and 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater.

Groundwater samples were collected from six on-site groundwater monitoring wells, five off-site groundwater monitoring wells, and raw water samples from two water supply wells and a finished water sample located at the Johnson City Water Department. All samples were analyzed at ALS Environmental laboratory of Rochester, New York. Field notes are provided in

Appendix A, and laboratory results and data usability reports are provided in Appendix B and

Appendix C, respectively.

Well installation logs for SW-4RE and SW-7RE, and an abandonment logs for an unidentified well, are provided in Appendix D. Soil disposal documentation is provided in Appendix E, survey data is provided Appendix F, and NYSDEC EQuIS® electronic data deliverable is provided in Appendix G.

2.2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AND ABANDONMENT

Prior to groundwater sampling activities, one previously undocumented monitoring well was abandoned, and two new monitoring wells (SW-4RE and SW-7RE) were installed to replace wells SW-4 and SW-7, which were destroyed during building demolition.

2.2.1 Well Abandonment

The abandoned monitoring well was located along the site’s southern fence line, just west of a gate that permits access to the levees (Figure 2). The well was sounded prior to abandonment to determine that the total well depth was approximately 29 feet. The well was then abandoned on

November 20th, 2017 as indicated in the Final WP (FPM, 2017) using a modified grout-in-place method to limit potential impacts to the levy, as requested by the NYSDEC Division of Water

Resources. The approved abandonment method included perforating the well casing, using a tremie rod to place a cement-bentonite grout into the well from the bottom to within one foot of the ground surface, and removing all well materials and protective bollards to approximately one foot below ground surface. A well abandonment log is provided in Appendix D.

2.2.2 Well Installation

Replacement monitoring wells MW-4RE and MW-7RE were installed on November 20th, 2017 to approximate the location and construction of the original wells (MW-4 and MW-7), which were abandoned in advance of building demolition activities. The replacement wells were installed within approximately five feet of the original well locations (Figure 2). The site

AFP-59 2-2 April 2018

Johnson City, New York elevation has increased by the addition of approximately 4 feet of fill since the original wells were installed, therefore, the replacement well depths were increased by the same amount.

The replacement wells were completed by advancing a 4¼ inch hollow stem augers to approximately 33 feet. Once at the terminal depth, 15 feet of 2-inch diameter 0.010-inch slot well screen was installed, with Schedule 40 PVC well casing to the ground surface. A No. 2 sand filter pack was installed from the bottom of the bore hole, extending to approximately two feet above the well screen. A two-foot bentonite seal was placed above the well screen, and the remainder of the bore hole was filled with a cement bentonite grout. Both monitoring wells were finished as a flush mount well with protective steel covers.

After 48 hours following installation, wells MW-4RE and MW-7RE were developed by removing 74 gallons of water, and 68 gallons of water, respectively. The wells were developed in accordance with the procedures described in the Final WP (FPM, 2017).

Soil cuttings generated during well installation were sampled, and disposed of at a licensed off-site disposal facility (Appendix E). Additionally, monitoring wells included in the LTM program were surveyed for location and elevation by a New York State Licensed Surveyor in

January 2018. The survey data can be found in Appendix F.

2.3 WATER SAMPLING

Groundwater samples were collected on December 12th and 14th, 2017 at the following monitoring wells:

On-Site Wells Off-Site Wells

Shallow Zone Aquifer SW-3, SW-9, SW-4RE and SW-7RE BM-121, URS-2S, and URS-5S

Deep Zone Aquifer DW-3 and DW-9 URS-2D and URS-3D

In addition to the groundwater monitoring wells sampled, samples were also taken from the

Johnson City municipal water supply facilities on December 12th, 2017. Two raw water (i.e., pre-treatment) samples were taken from municipal supply wells JC-2 and JC-3, and one finished water (post-treatment) supply sample was taken from the water distribution system. The sample collection is described in Sections 2.3.1 and Section 2.3.2 below.

2.3.1 Monitoring Well Sampling

Prior to groundwater sampling, water levels were measured in each monitoring well sampled, and at upgradient monitoring well SW-1, using a Solinst® Interface Probe. After water level gauging, the groundwater monitoring wells were purged and sampled via the low flow method as described in the Final WP (FPM, 2017). During purging, field parameters including pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential, temperature, and turbidity were monitored for stabilization using multi-parameter water quality meter. Water levels were

AFP-59 2-3 April 2018

Johnson City, New York also monitored and recorded throughout the purging. Once field parameter readings were stabilized, the groundwater samples were collected directly from the tubing exiting the pump into laboratory provided bottles. The on-site and off-site groundwater wells were sampled and analyzed for VOCs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] Method 8260C) and 1,4-dioxane (USEPA Method 8270D). The field parameter readings were recorded on FPM’s Low-

Flow Groundwater Purge/Sampling Logs (Appendix A), and are summarized on Table 1.

2.3.2 Municipal Potable Water Sampling

Three water samples were taken from the John City municipal water supply system. The

Johnson City municipal water supply is currently operating an air stripper designed to remove

VOCs from the groundwater that is fed into the municipal supply. The samples collected included two raw (i.e. pre-treatment) samples from supply wells JC-2 and JC-3; and one finished

(i.e. post-treatment) water sample taken from the distribution system.

The three municipal water supply well samples were collected by opening a spigot connected to each well’s pump (pre-treatment), or the post-treatment piping. Water was allowed to flow from the spigot for approximately 5 minutes to purge the piping before the sample was collected directly from the spigot into laboratory provided bottles. Each of these three potable water samples were analyzed for VOCs via USEPA Method 8260C, and 1,4-dioxane via USEPA

Method 522 SIM.

AFP-59 2-4 April 2018

AFP-59 3-1 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM LONG-TERM MONITORING

The analytical results for 2017 LTM sampling activities are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.

Groundwater monitoring well sampling results are summarized in Table 1, and municipal water supply sampling results are summarized in Table 2. The groundwater sampling results are depicted on Figure 3.

3.1 SHALLOW ZONE MONITORING WELL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Groundwater samples were taken from four on-site shallow zone monitoring wells (SW-3, SW-

4RE, SW-7RE, and SW-9) and three off-site shallow zone monitoring wells (BM-121, URS-2S, and URS-5S). The groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs by USEPA Method 8260C, and 1,4-dioxane by USEPA Method 8270D SIM (Table 1).

The results indicate that VOCs were detected in all on-site shallow zone monitoring wells sampled (SW-3, SW-9, SW-4RE, and SW-7RE), and in samples from two off-site wells (URS-

2S and URS-5S). However, only two shallow wells, onsite wells SW-4RE and SW-7RE, had

VOCs that exceeded the NYSDEC Class GA GWQS. At well SW-4RE and well SW-7RE, the concentration of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) exceeded the

NYSDEC Class GA GWQS, however, all other detected compounds were reported at concentrations below their respective NYSDEC Class GA GWQS.

Groundwater sample results indicate that 1,4-dioxane was detected in all on-site and off-site shallow zone monitoring wells sampled. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane ranged from 0.054 J µg/L (SW-9) to 15 µg/L (URS-2S) at the shallow zone aquifer wells. No NYS water quality standard currently exists for 1,4-dioxane.

3.2 DEEP ZONE AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Groundwater samples were taken from two on-site deep zone monitoring wells (DW-3 and DW-

9) and two off-site deep zone monitoring wells (URS-2D and URS-3D). The groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs by USEPA Method 8260C, and 1,4-dioxane by Method 8270D

SIM (Table 1).

The results indicate that VOCs were detected in one on-site deep zone monitoring well (DW-3) and both off-site deep zone monitoring wells (URS-2D and URS-3D). However, only two deep wells, on-site well DW-3 and off-site well URS-2D, had VOCs that exceeded the NYSDEC

Class GA GWQS. At well DW-3 and well URS-2D, the concentration of cis-1,2-DCE exceeded the NYSDEC Class GA GWQS, however, all other detected compounds were reported at concentrations below their respective NYSDEC Class GA GWQS.

Groundwater sample results for 1,4-dioxane indicate that 1,4 dioxane was detected in all on-site and off-site deep zone monitoring wells sampled. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane ranged from

5.2 µg/L (DW-3) to 21 µg/L (URS-2D) at the deep zone aquifer wells.

AFP-59 3-2 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

3.3 MUNICIPAL POTABLE WATER SUPPLY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Samples were collected from two pre-treatment raw Johnson City Water Department supply wells, JC-2 and JC-3, as well as a sample of the post-treatment finished water supply. Each of these samples was analyzed for VOCs by USEPA Method 8260C and for 1,4-dioxane by

USEPA Method 522 SIM (Table 2).

It should be noted that the three brominated compounds detected in the Finished Water Supply sample are common chlorine disinfection byproducts and have not been detected in the site groundwater samples; therefore, it is concluded these compounds are not associated with site groundwater impacts. No exceedances were noted of either the NYSDEC GWQS, or the USEPA

Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water for the finished water supply sample.

Additionally, there were no exceedances of the NYSDEC GWQS for the two-pre-treatment raw

Johnson City Water Department supply wells.

AFP-59 4-1 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

4 DATA TREND SUMMARY

The historic and current concentrations of the most commonly detected VOCs in groundwater at both the on-site and off-site monitoring and municipal supply wells are summarized in Table 3.

VOC exceedances occurred at monitoring wells DW-3, URS-2D, SW-4RE, and SW-7RE during the December 2017 sampling event. VOC time vs concentrations plots were constructed for these wells and are summarized below:

Figure 4 presents a graph of cis-1,2-DCE concentrations at well DW-3 over time, with the associated NYSDEC Class GA GWQS (5 µg/L) for reference. Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE have fluctuated greatly over time at well DW-3, with the highest historical concentrations reported at 73.1 µg/L in June 2008. Following the demolition of AFP-59 in January 2017 concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE decreased from 51 µg/L in December 2016 to 32 µg/L in

December 2017. The decrease could be related to a reduced contaminant mass following removal of contaminated soils, or it could be related to variability and fluctuations in water quality data commonly encountered with time.

Figure 5 presents a graph of cis-1,2-DCE concentrations at off-site well URS-2D over time with the associated NYSDEC Class GA GWQS (5 µg/L) for reference. The highest historical concentration of cis-1,2-DCE measured at Well URS-2D was 72.7 µg/L in November 2008.

Concentrations have historically exceeded the NYSDEC Class GA GWQS and have been stable with a range from 61 µg/L to 72.7 µg/L over the past ten years. Overall, cis-1,2-DCE concentrations appear steady, with no obvious increasing or decreasing trend.

Figure 6 presents a graph of cis-1,2-DCE and TCE concentrations at on-site well SW-4RE over time, with the associated NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for both compounds (5 µg/L) for reference. SW-4RE is a replacement well for SW-4 which was decommissioned during the demolition of AFP-59 in 2017. SW-4RE is within 5 feet of previously destroyed SW-4 and is screened to the same depth. Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE have fluctuated greatly over time.

Following the demolition of AFP-59 in Spring 2017, concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE increased from 2.7 µg/L in December 2016 to 11 µg/L in December 2017. Similar to 1,2-DCE, concentrations of TCE have also fluctuated greatly over time. Following the demolition of AFP-

59 in Spring 2017 concentrations of TCE increased from 4.9 µg/L in December 2016 to 141 µg/L in December 2017. The fluctuations of TCE and DCE in SW-4 have generally followed similar trends, increasing and decreasing. The December 2017 sampling round at SW-4RE followed a similar trend. This positively correlated trend demonstrates that there is currently no evidence that TCE is naturally degrading to DCE at a significant rate.

Figure 7 presents a graph of cis-1,2-DCE and TCE concentrations at on-site well SW-7RE over time, with the associated NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for both compounds (5 µg/L) for reference. SW-7RE is a replacement well for SW-7 which was decommissioned during the demolition of AFP-59 in 2017. SW-7RE is within 5 feet of previously destroyed SW-7 and is screened to the same depth. Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE have fluctuated greatly over time.

Following demolition of AFP-59 in Spring 2017, concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE increased from

AFP-59 4-2 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

40 µg/L in December 2016 to 92 µg/L in December 2017. Similar to 1,2-DCE, concentrations of

TCE have also fluctuated greatly over time. Following the demolition of AFP-59 in Spring

2017, concentrations of TCE decreased from 9.5 µg/L in December 2016 to 6 µg/L in December

2017. The fluctuations of TCE and DCE in SW7 have generally followed similar trends, increasing and decreasing together. The December 2017 sampling at SW-7RE departs from that historic trend, with DCE increasing and TCE decreasing since the previous event. It cannot be determined from a single sampling event if this represents a change in the actual trends of these two compounds, but if it is confirmed by future events may indicate reductive dichlorination of

TCE to DCE.

A review of the historical and current (i.e., December 2017) sampling results for the shallow zone monitoring wells that didn’t show an exceedance in December 2017 indicate

SW-9 had minor detections of VOCs, none of which exceeded the respective NYSDEC

Class GA GWQS. There is no historical data for this well, so no data trend analysis was conducted for these results.

The detected VOC concentrations for on-site monitoring well SW-3 have remained stable. TCE was the only VOC detection in the December 2017 sampling event (0.61 J µg/L)

The off-site monitoring wells URS-2S and URS-5S had detected VOC concentrations which generally remained stable.

The off-site well BM-121 showed no VOC detections in December 2017, which is a decreasing trend from December 2016 (TCE detection at 0.28 J µg/L).

As for the deep zone aquifer, the historical data for the wells that didn’t show an exceedance in

December 2017 indicates:

The on-site monitoring well DW-9 was sampled during the December 2017 sampling event and had a detection of TCE at 0.8 J µg/L. All VOCs were non- detect in the

December 2016 round.

The off-site monitoring well URS-3D had detections of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE. All detections were well below the respective Maximum Contaminant

Levels (MCL) and similar to previous results.

The December 2017 sampling results for the two municipal supply wells, JC-2 and JC-3, indicate all detected VOC concentrations have been consistent below 1 µg/L which is well below the

NYSDEC GWQS. Additionally, the analytical results from the Finished Water Supply sample indicate there has been a slight decrease in the 1,4-dioxane concentration at this location, from

0.600 µg/L in December 2016 to 0.536 µg/L in December 2017. The USEPA has listed 1,4-dioxane as a probable human carcinogen, however they have not yet established a drinking water

AFP-59 4-3 April 2018

Johnson City, New York standard or MCL for this compound as the long-term health effects of 1,4-dioxane are not well known at this time.

AFP-59 4-4 April 2018

AFP-59 5-1 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Concentrations of TCE and cis-1,2-DCE continued to exceed their respective NYSDEC GWQS of 5 µg/L in shallow monitoring wells SW-4RE and SW-7RE, where there have been historical exceedances of both compounds. Groundwater concentrations detected in the other two on-site shallow aquifer wells (SW-3 and SW-9) did not show any exceedances of chlorinated compounds. The three off-site shallow aquifer wells (BM-121, URS-2S, and URS-5S) also did not show any exceedances of chlorinated compounds.

Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE exceeded the NYSDEC GWQS in the deeper monitoring wells.

Monitoring well DW-3, located on the AFP 59 boundary, and monitoring well URS-2D, located off-site at a downgradient location, exceeded the NYSDEC GWQS for cis-1.2-DCE during the

December 2017 groundwater sampling event.

Analytical results from water samples collected from the municipal water wells JC-2 and JC-3 revealed all VOCs to be below their respective NYSDEC GWQS. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane at JC-2 and JC-3 remained stable. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane also remain stable at the finished water supply sampling location.

The results of the LTM activities indicate groundwater exceeding the NYSDEC GWQS has migrated off AFP-59 property into the deep monitoring wells. FPM recommends the continuation of quarterly sampling for the municipal water wells and the finished water supply sampling location to monitor Johnson City drinking water quality. It is also recommended that

URS-2D and URS-3D continue to be sampled semi-annually to monitor the off-site deep aquifer trends that are down gradient of the suspected source. All additional on and off-site wells should continue to be sampled on an annual basis to monitor contaminant levels. A summary of planned sampling events at AFP-59 is listed below:

Sampling Frequency

Well Quarterly-

March 2018

Semi-Annual–

June 2018

Quarterly-

September 2018

JC-2 X X X

JC-3 X X X

Post-Treatment X X X

URS-2D X

URS-3D X

AFP-59 5-2 April 2018

AFP-59 6-1 April 2018

Johnson City, New York

6 REFERENCES

AECOM, Memorandum: Long-Term Monitoring Activities and Soil-Gas Investigation at Air

Force Plant 59, Johnson City New York, March 2009.

CB&I Federal Services LLC (CB&I), Final Phase II Environmental Baseline Survey Report, Air

Force Plant 59, Johnson City New York, April 2015.

CB&I, Final Soil Removal Action Report, Air Force Plant 59, Johnson City New York, November 2017.

Earth Tech, Remedial Investigation Report Addendum – Air Force Plant 59, July 1996.

Earth Tech, Letter Report Manufacturing Building East Basement Soil Excavation, – Air Force

Plant 59, December 2005.

Energy Research Systems, Argonne National Library (Argonne), Supplemental Site Inspection for Air Force Plant 59, Johnson City, New York, Volume 1: Investigation Report, August

1995.

FPM Remediations, Final Work Plan, Long-Term Monitoring, Monitoring Well Installation, and

Monitoring Well Abandonment at Site SS005 – AFP-59, November 2017.

HydroGeoLogic, Inc, Final Health and Safety Plan, Base-Wide Long Term Monitoring at Air

Force Plant 59, Johnson City, New York, June 2012.

United States Department of Energy, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory

(US DOE), Supplemental Site Inspection Report for Air Force Plant 59, Johnson City, New York. Volume 1: Investigation report. August 1995.

AFP-59 6-2 April 2018

FIGURES

P at h

Y

G

IS

P ro je c ts

\A F

P

Jo h n so n

C it y \P ro je ct s\

L T

M \G

W \F ig B as e_

L o c.

m x d

Building (Demolished)

Johnson City Municipal Supply Well Field

Site SS005

977000

977000

978000

978000

979000

979000

980000

980000

981000

981000

982000

982000

983000

983000

984000

984000

985000

985000

986000

986000

987000

987000

988000

988000

989000

989000

990000

990000

991000

991000

992000

992000

993000

993000

994000

994000

995000

995000

996000

996000

997000

997000

998000

998000

999000

999000

1000000

1000000

1001000

1001000

1002000

1002000

FIGURE 1

Canada

PA

ME

VT

WV

NJ

NH

OH

MA

CT

MD

VA DE

RI

New York

Site

Location

AFP-59

Key Features Approximate Property

Boundary

Location of Johnson City

Municipal Supply Well Field

Site SS005

1 inch = 2,000 feet Coordinate System:NAD 1983 StatePlane New York Central FIPS 3102 Feet

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: North American 1983

Units: Foot US

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT

P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Basemap Date: 6/12/2015

Air Force Plant 59

Site SS005

Johnson City, New York

AFP-59

Location

0 2,000 4,0001,000

Feet

0 500 1,000250

Meters

P at h

Y

G

IS

P ro je ct s\

A F

P

Jo h n so n

C it y \P ro je ct s\

L T

M \G

W

\F ig

S it e_

F ea tu re s.

m x d

A

AA

A

!A !A

<A

<A

A

A

A

A

A A

A A

A

AA

AA

!A

(Building Demolished)

Unidentified Abandoned WellSW-9

JC-3

JC-2

DW-9

DW-3

SW-3

SW-7RE SW-4RE

URS-2D

URS-2SURS-3D

BM-121

URS-5S

IW-9

SW-1

SW-4SW-7

DW-1

URS-81

URS-9S

URS-7S

Imagery ©2018 , DigitalGlobe, New York GIS

984400

984400

985000

985000

985600

985600

986200

986200

986800

986800

FIGURE 2

Site

Location

Map

Extent

AFP-59

Key Features A Monitoring well

!A Abandoned Monitoring Well

<A Municipal Water Well

Approximate Property

Boundary

Site SS005

Building (Demolished)

Location of Johnson City

Municipal Supply Well Field

1 inch = 200 feet Coordinate System:NAD 1983 StatePlane New York Central FIPS 3102 Feet

Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: North American 1983

Units: Foot US

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT

P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Basemap Date: 6/12/2015

Air Force Plant 59

Site SS005

Johnson City, New York

AFP-59

Site Features

0 200 400100

Feet

0 50 10025

Meters

Notes:

1. The bolded wells are currently in the sampling network.

FIGURE 4

CONCENTRATION vs. TIME

DW-3

cis-1,2-DCE

AFP-59

Johnson City, NY

C on ce nt ra tio n (µ g/ L

Time cis-1,2-DCE

NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for cis-1,2-DCE (5 µg/L)

AFP-59 Building Demolished in Spring 2017

FIGURE 5

URS-2D

cis-1,2-DCE

AFP-59

Johnson City, NY

C on ce nt ra tio n (µ g/ L

Time cis-1,2-DCE

NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for cis-1,2-DCE (5 µg/L)

AFP-59 Building demolished in Spring 2017

FIGURE 6

SW-4 / SW-4RE

TCE and cis-1,2-DCE

AFP-59

Johnson City, NY ci s-

1, 2-

D C

E C on ce nt ra tio n

(µ g/

L

T C

E C on ce nt ra tio n

(µ g/

L

Time

TCE

NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for TCE (5 µg/L) cis-1,2-DCE

NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for cis-1,2-DCE (5 µg/L)

AFP-59 Building demolished in Spring 2017

SW-4RE (replacment well for abandoned SW-4)

FIGURE 7

SW-7 / SW-7RE

TCE and cis-1,2-DCE

AFP-59

Johnson City, NY ci s-

1, 2-

D C

E C on ce nt ra tio n

(µ g/

L

T C

E C on ce nt ra tio n

(µ g/

L

Time

TCE

NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for TCE (5 µg/L) cis-1,2-DCE

NYSDEC Class GA GWQS for cis-1,2-DCE (5 µg/L)

AFP-59 Building demolished in Spring 2017

SW-4RE (replacment well for abandoned SW-4)

TABLES

Sample ID URS-2S URS-2D URS-3D URS-5S BM-121 Sample Date 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 12/12/2017 Laboratory ALS Environmental ALS Environmental ALS Environmental ALS Environmental ALS Environmental

Description Off-Site Shallow MW Off-Site Deep MW Off-Site Deep MW Off-Site Shallow MW Off-Site Shallow MW

Analyte/Parameter. Result (µg/L)

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) 5 2.8 J U 1.1 J U U 1,1,1-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 5 U U U U U 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 5 1.7 J 0.30 J U U U 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) 5 U U U U U trichloroethene (TCE) 5 3.6 J U 1.6 J 0.53 J U cis-1,2-dichloroethene 5 1.4 66 0.77 J U U trans-1,2-dichloroethene 5 U U U U U vinyl chloride 2 U U U U U 1,4-Dioxane NS U 21 J U U U

1,4-Dioxane via Method 8270D

SIM

1,4-Dioxane NS 15 0.072 6.2 0.11 J 0.11 (0.11 J)

1,4-Dioxane via Method 522 SIM 1,4-Dioxane NS NA NA NA NA NA pH NS 6.52 7.16 6.8 7.04 7.59 Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) NS 1.86 3.13 1.77 2.12 1.5 Temperature, Final (°C) NS 12.6 12.4 10.3 10.6 12 Turbidity (NTU) NS 22.3 48.43 96.68 20.22 12.8 Dissolved Oxygen NS 0.67 0.43 2.22 3.13 1.63 ORP (mV) NS -6.3 -68.5 71.2 79.9 -158.2

Sample ID SW-3 DW-3 SW-9 DW-9 SW-4RE SW-7RE Sample Date 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 Laboratory ALS Environmental ALS Environmental ALS Environmental ALS Environmental ALS Environmental ALS Environmental

Description On-Site Shallow MW On-Site Deep MW On-Site Shallow MW On-Site Deep MW On-Site Shallow MW On-Site Shallow MW

Analyte/Parameter.

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) 5 U U 1.3 J U 0.82 J 1.5 J 1,1,1-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 5 U U U U 0.37 J 1.5 J 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 5 U 0.21 J 0.59 J U 0.64 J 4.4 J 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) 5 U U U U 1.2 J U trichloroethene (TCE) 5 0.61 J U 0.80 J U 140 6 cis-1,2-dichloroethene 5 U 32 0.54 J U 11 92 trans-1,2-dichloroethene 5 U U U U 0.68 U vinyl chloride 2 U U U U U 1.9 J 1,4-Dioxane NS U U U U U U

1,4-Dioxane via Method 8270D

SIM

1,4-Dioxane NS 0.075 5.2 0.054 8 6.7 3.1

1,4-Dioxane via Method 522 SIM 1,4-Dioxane NS NA NA NA NA NA NA pH NS 6.6 7.32 7.19 6.98 7.33 7.12 Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) NS 1.63 1.47 1.18 1.65 1.7 1.58 Temperature, Final (°C) NS 13.2 10.9 12.6 11.3 11.8 11.9 Turbidity (NTU) NS 1.78 14.1 5.23 20.4 NA* 1228 Dissolved Oxygen NS 1.63 0.53 1.8 0.6 8.94 0.25 ORP (mV) NS 113 81 135 -100.9 74.7 118

Notes:

Yellow Highlighting and bold font indicates analyte exceeds respective NYSDEC standard ºC - Degrees Celcius Parentheses indiacate a duplicate sample was taken mS/cm - Millisiemens per centimeter MW - Monitoring Well ORP - Oxidation-reduction potential µg/L - Micrograms / liter (All concentrations are given in µg/L) mV - millivolts J - Result is an estimated value, analyte was positvely detected in sample above method detection limit (MDL), but below reporting limig (RL) mg/L - Milligrams per liter U - Analyte was not detected above MDL given NTU - Nephelometric turbidity units NS - No standard available NA - Not analyzed. *- turbidity meter out of range and sporadically shutting off.

Table 1

Analysis

Analysis

Volatile Organic Compounds via Method 8260C

Field Parameters

NYSDEC

Groundwater

Quality Standards for Class GA

Groundwater (µg/L)

NYSDEC

Groundwater

Quality Standards for Class GA

Groundwater (µg/L)

Volatile Organic Compounds via Method 8260C

Result (µg/L)

Summary of Analytes in Groundwater - December 2017 Site SS005, Air Force Plant 59

Johnson City, New York

Field Parameters

Sample ID Finished Water Supply Sample Date 12/12/2017 Laboratory ALS Environmental Description Post-Treatment Potable Water Supply

Analyte/Parameter. Result (µg/L)

Bromodichloromethane 80 0 0.42 J

Bromoform 80 0 1.9 J

Dibromochloromethane 80 60 1.3 J

1,4-Dioxane via Method 522 SIM 1,4-Dioxane NS NS 0.536

Sample ID JC-2 JC-3 Sample Date 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 Laboratory ALS Environmental ALS Environmental

Description Municipal Supply Well Municipal Supply Well

Analyte/Parameter.

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) 5 U 0.41 J 1,1,1-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 5 U U 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 5 U U 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) 5 U U trichloroethene (TCE) 5 0.54 J 0.52 J cis-1,2-dichloroethene 5 0.69 J U trans-1,2-dichloroethene 5 U U vinyl chloride 2 U U 1,4-Dioxane NS U U

1,4-Dioxane via Method 8270D

SIM

1,4-Dioxane NS NA NA

1,4-Dioxane via Method 522 SIM 1,4-Dioxane NS 0.594 0.492

Notes:

MCL - EPA's regulatory Maximum Contaminant Levels - the highest level of a contaminaint that is allowed in drinking water MCLG's - EPA's non-regulatory Maximum Contaminant Level Goals - the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health µg/L - Micrograms / liter (All concentrations are given in µg/L) J - Result is an estimated value, analyte was positvely detected in sample above method detection limit (MDL), but below reporting limig (RL) Bold font indicates result is above its respective MCLG NS - No standard available All other analytes not listed on this table were not detected above their respective MDLs

Table 2 Summary of Analytes Detected in Potable Water Supply - December 2017

Site SS005, Air Force Plant 59 Johnson City, New York

Analysis

EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) (µg/L)

EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) (µg/L)

Analysis

Volatile Organic Compounds via Method 8260C

Volatile Organic Compounds via Method 8260C

NYSDEC Groundwater Quality Standards for Class GA

Groundwater (µg/L) Result (µg/L)

Table 3 Data Tend Analysis for VOCs in Groundwater

Site SS005, Air Force Plant 59 AFCEC Contract no. FA8903-16C-0022

Johnson City, New York

92-Jan 0.5 − − − − − − NA 01-Nov 0.11 J − − − − − − NA 10-Nov 0.11 − − − − − − NA 16-Dec − − − − − − − 0.047 92-Jan 0.6 − − − − − − NA 94-Dec − − − − − − 1.8 NA 10-Nov 0.18 − − − − − − NA 14-Nov 0.19 F − − − − − − − 86-Sep − 6 − − − − − NA 92-Jan 12 9 − − − 5 − NA 94-Dec 0.5 1.8 − − − − − NA 95-Dec 0.86 2.8 − − − − 0.44 NA 97-Jun − 1 − − − − − NA 98-Nov 0.22 0.81 − − − − 0.1 NA 99-Apr 0.51 0.71 − − − − 0.17 NA 99-Nov 0.29 0.9 − − − − 0.39 NA 00-May 0.69 1 − − − 0.55 1.29 NA 00-Nov 0.43 0.9 − − j − 0.22 NA 01-May 0.46 0.8 − − − 0.32 1.29 NA 01-Nov 0.32 J 0.5 J − − − − − NA 02-May 0.42 J 0.8 J − − − 0.46 J − NA 03-May 0.584 J 0.893 J − − − 0.302 J 1.37 J NA 03-Nov 0.398 J 0.856 J − − − − 0.511 J NA 04-Jun 0.9 J 0.94 J − − − 0.95 J 3.7 NA 04-Nov 0.52 J 1 0.26 J − − 0.38 J 1.5 NA 05-Oct 0.47 J 0.86 J − − − − 0.55 J NA 08-Jun 0.661 J 1.31 − − − 0.403 J 1.45 − 08-Nov 0.345 J 0.759 J − − − − − NA 09-Nov 0.367 J 0.62 J − − − − 0.539 J NA

43414 0.41 0.59 − − − − 0.17 NA

2011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12-Aug − 0.51 − − − − 0.28 F NA 13-Oct − 0.70 F − − − − 1 − 14-Nov 0.26 F 0.51 F − − − − 0.31 F − 15-Nov 0.24 F 0.42 F − − − − 0.27 F − 16-Dec − 0.49 J − − − − 0.39 J 0.14 17-Dec − 0.61 J − − − − − 0.075 92-Jan 0.3 − − − − 0.3 − NA 94-Dec − − 0.28 − − 0.26 36 NA 95-Dec − − − − − − 5.2 NA 97-Apr − − − − − − 41 NA 97-Jul − − − − − − 49 NA

98-Nov − − − − − 0.34 66 NA 99-Apr − − 0.28 0.11 − 0.35 67 NA 00-May − − − − 0.25 0.16 24.98 NA 00-Nov − − − − 0.25 0.16 16.85 NA 01-May − − − − − − 13.29 NA 01-Nov − − − − − − 13.58 NA 02-May − − − − − 0.1 J 21.08 NA 03-Nov − − − − − − 1.18 J NA 04-Jun − − − − − − 1.3 NA 04-Nov − − − − − − 2.1 NA 05-Oct − − − − − − 3 NA 08-Jun − − − − − − 73.1 14.3 08-Nov − − − − − 0.41 J 67.3 NA 09-Nov − − − − − 0.369 J 64.3 NA 10-Nov − − − − − − 8.4 NA 12-Aug − − − − − 0.32 F 56 NA 13-Oct − − 0.18 F 0.32 F − − 57 2.7 14-Nov − − − − − 0.32 F 49 11 M 15-Nov − − − − − 0.31 F 50 6.7 16-Dec − − − − − 0.35 J 51 7.9 17-Dec − − − − − 0.21 J 32 5.2 cis-1,2-dichloroethene 1,4-dioxane

Compounds and Detected Concentrations (µg/L)

SW1

Well ID Sample Date 1,1,1-trichloroethane trichloroethene vinyl chloride 1,1-dichloroethene

DW1

trans-1,2-dichloroethene

1,1-dichloroethane

SW3

DW3

Table 3 (Continued)

Site SS005, Air Force Plant 59 AFCEC Contract no. FA8903-16C-0022

Johnson City, New York cis-1,2-dichloroethene 1,4-dioxane

Compounds and Detected Concentrations (µg/L) Well ID Sample Date 1,1,1-trichloroethane trichloroethene vinyl chloride 1,1-dichloroethene trans-1,2-dichloroethene

1,1-dichloroethane

92-Jan 2 97 − 0.3 − 0.6 − NA 94-Dec 20 370 − 2.1 − 8.5 19 NA 95-Dec 34 1200 − 4.9 2.1 6.9 34 NA 97-Apr − − − − − 7.1 71 NA 97-Jul 23 290 − − − − 15 NA

98-Nov 8 46 0.42 0.82 − 9 10 NA 99-Apr 1.9 9.53 − − − 0.87 1.85 NA 99-Nov 2.13 9.5 − 0.18 − 7.7 7.15 NA 00-May 2.88 8 0.11 0.21 0.49 1.67 4.3 NA 00-Nov 1.14 15.2 1.49 0.29 − 15.25 11.18 NA 01-May 3.35 34 − 0.36 0.38 1.3 3.19 NA 01-Nov 0.88 5.7 0.43 J 0.12 J − 7.18 5.27 NA 02-May 2.54 21.63 − 0.34 J − 0.79 J 2.07 NA 03-May 3.05 J 9.09 J − − − 1.44 J 3.36 J NA 03-Nov 2.03 4.63 − − − 0.93 1.93 NA 04-Jun 2.8 41 − 0.57 J 0.11 1.3 3.3 NA 04-Nov 3.1 56 − 0.88 J 0.19 J 1.4 4.1 NA 05-Oct 2.2 43 − 1 − 1.7 6.3 NA 08-Jun 2.98 17.8 − 0.751 J 0.364 J 1.51 4.35 8.18 08-Nov 0.513 J 12.7 − − − 0.825 J 3.38 NA 09-Nov 1.38 11.1 − − − 0.536 J 1.85 NA 10-Nov 1.6 48 − 0.64 − 1.1 3.2 NA 12-Aug 0.66 11 − − − 0.64 F 2.3 NA 13-Oct 1.8 6.6 − 0.26 F − − 2.6 0.81 M 14-Nov 0.75 F 3.4 − 0.46 F − − 1.7 2.5 M 15-Nov 0.64 F 4.9 − − − 0.58 F 2.7 1.6

SW-4RE1 17-Dec 0.82 J 140 − 1.2 J 0.68 J − 11 6.7 94-Dec 4.6 56 6.2 1 0.3 33 150 NA 95-Dec 2.2 43 6.8 0.8 20 130 NA 97-Jul − 17.8 − − − − 2 NA

98-Nov 2.5 12.7 3.4 0.65 0.28 12 82 NA 99-Apr 1.23 15 − − − 1.46 5.25 NA 99-Nov 1.01 7.9 − 0.19 − 3.38 18.8 NA 00-May 0.67 4 − − 0.12 0.71 2.43 NA 00-Nov 0.91 11 0.52 0.15 − 3.48 16.06 NA 01-May 1.18 3.95 − − − 0.47 1.46 NA 01-Nov 0.8 J 5.7 0.85 J 0.19 J 0.13 J 3.02 25.89 NA 02-May 0.87 J 1.5 − − − 0.47 J 2.79 NA 03-May 1.5 J 3.8 − − − 0.409 J 1.43 J NA 03-Nov 0.674 J 1.9 − − − 0.509 2.76 NA 04-Jun 1 1 − − − 0.3 J 1.1 NA 04-Nov 1.5 2.1 0.47 J 0.25 J − 1.5 J 10 J NA 05-Oct 0.73 J 3.1 − − − 1.4 12 NA 08-Jun 2.5 2.94 − − − 1.59 6.34 4.66 08-Nov 1.88 8.15 1.21 M − 0.302 J 5.04 35.3 M NA 09-Nov 1.24 2.42 − − − 0.905 J 5.21 NA 10-Nov 1 2.4 1 0.21 0.096 0.58 4.3 NA 12-Aug 2 9.9 1.2 0.65 0.21 F 6.5 44 NA 13-Oct − 2.5 − 0.93 F − − 7 0.43 F 14-Nov 1.9 7.8 0.78 F 0.67 F 0.2 F 4.6 33 4.4 M 15-Nov 1.8 9.5 1.2 F 0.52 F 0.16 F 5.1 40 6

SW-7RE1 17-Dec 1.5 J 6 1.9 J − − 4.4 J 92 3.1 16-Dec − − − − − − − 3.1 17-Dec − 0.8 J − − − − − 8

SW9 17-Dec 1.3 J 0.8 J − − − 0.59 J 0.54 J 0.054 15-Nov − − − − − − − 0.4 F 16-Dec − 0.28 J − − − − − 0.25 17-Dec − − − − − − − 0.11 08-Jun 2.2 2.19 − − − 0.569 J 0.996 J NA 08-Nov 2.99 2.79 − − − 1.07 1.46 NA 10-Nov 2.2 2.6 − 0.37 J − 1.1 1.3 NA 12-Jul 3.3 4.4 − − − 1.6 1.9 NA 13-Oct 1.6 2.3 − − − 1.1 1.2 1.8 F 14-Nov 4.1 3.7 − 0.32 F − 2.1 1.2 20 M 15-Nov 2.4 2.8 − − − 1.3 1.8 12 16-Dec 2.3 J 3.3 J − − − 1.8 J 2.5 J 14 17-Dec 2.8 J 3.6 J − − − 1.7 J 1.4 J 27 J

SW4

SW7

DW9

BM-121

URS-2S

Table 3 (Continued)

Site SS005, Air Force Plant 59 AFCEC Contract no. FA8903-16C-0022

Johnson City, New York cis-1,2-dichloroethene 1,4-dioxane

Compounds and Detected Concentrations (µg/L) Well ID Sample Date 1,1,1-trichloroethane trichloroethene vinyl chloride 1,1-dichloroethene trans-1,2-dichloroethene

1,1-dichloroethane

08-Jun − − 0.354 J − − 0.339 J 71.9 NA 08-Nov − − 0.364 J − − 0.244 J 72.7 NA 10-Nov − − 0.22 J − 0.11 J 0.23 J 69 NA 12-Jul − − 0.22 J − − 0.27 J 71 NA 13-Oct − − − − 0.17 F 0.21 F 62 7.4 14-Nov − − − − − 0.27 F 67 28 M 15-Nov − − − − − 0.2 F 61 21 16-Dec − − − − − − 67 25 17-Dec − − − − − 0.3 J 66 21 J 13-Oct 0.99 F 1.7 − − − − 0.9 F 1.8 F 14-Nov 1.3 1.9 − − − − 0.95 F 4.7 M 15-Nov 1 1.6 − − − − 0.9 F 5.8 16-Dec 1.3 J 1.8 J − − − − 0.74 J 6.9 17-Dec 1.1 J 1.6 J − − − − 0.77 J 6.2 13-Oct 0.5 F 0.63 F − − − − − − 14-Nov 0.68 F 0.65 F − − − − − − 15-Nov 0.52 F 0.56 F − − − − − 0.4 F 16-Dec 0.48 J 0.48 J − − − − − 0.26 17-Dec − 0.53 J − − − − − 0.11 J 13-Oct 0.36 F 0.48 F − − − − 0.29 F − 14-Nov 0.24 F 0.33 F − − − − 0.23 F 0.739 F 15-Nov 0.33 F 0.39 F − − − − 0.24 F 0.896 F 16-Dec − 0.47 J − − − − 0.78 J 0.715 17-Dec − 0.54 J − − − − 0.69 J 0.594 12-Aug 0.56 0.92 − − − − 0.26 J NA 16-Dec 0.59 J 0.62 J − − − − − 0.604 17-Dec 0.41 J 0.52 J − − − − − 0.492 16-Dec − − − − − − − 0.6 17-Dec − − − − − − − 0.536

Post Treatment

JC-3

URS-2D2

URS-3D

URS-5S

JC-2

NOTES:

— = analyte not detected above laboratory method detection limits NS = well not sampled during event NA = data not available J = result is an estimated value, analyte was positively deteted in sample above method detection limit (MDL) but below reporting limit (RL) F = Added by HydroGeologic, the analyte was positively identified but the associated numerical value is below the reporting limit (RL) M = matrix effect. The analyte concentration was estimated due to matrix effect and therefore estimated 1,4-Dioxane concentrations were measured using method 8260C and 8270D except for the the public water supply wells, which used method 522SIM.

The highest concentrations was used for reporting.

Bolded concentrations are exceedance on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's groundwater quality standards for class GA Groundwater 1 = indicates montoring wells SW-4RE and SW-7RE are replacements for abandoned wells SW4 and SW7 respectively 2= The 1,4-Dioxane reading for URS-2D was…