W912QR21R0040_VVES_HAZMAT_Report-0002.pdf

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Van Voorhis Elementary School 120 Folger Street Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

May 28, 2020

Prepared for:

Jacobs 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 900 Orlando, Florida 32801

Prepared by:

HP Environmental, Inc.

104 Elden Street Herndon, Virginia 20170

W912QR21R0040_VVES_HAZMAT_Report-0002

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Property: Van Voorhis Elementary School

120 Folger Street Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

Prepared for: Ms. Molly Hester, AIA, LEED AP

Project Manager Jacobs 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 900

Orlando, Florida 32801

Prepared by: HP Environmental, Inc.

104 Elden Street Herndon, Virginia 20170

Date of Report: May 28, 2020

Written by:

Jesse Sanders Geologist

Reviewed by:

Kent D. Campbell, CPG Director of Site Assessment, Monitoring & Compliance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

1.2 Scope of Work

1.3 Significant Assumptions

1.4 Purpose and Limitations

1.5 Deviations from Scope of Work

1.6 Reliance

2.0 USER/OWNER PROVIDED INFORMATION

2.1 Title Records

2.2 Specialized Knowledge

2.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information

2.4 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations

2.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information

2.6 Reason for Performing this Phase I

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCY INQUIRIES

3.1 Environmental Database Review

3.2 Local Government Agencies

4.0 PHYSICAL SETTING

4.1 Topography and Surface Water Characteristics

4.2 Soils and Subsurface Geology

4.3 Groundwater Characteristics

5.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

5.1 Property Ownership

5.2 Property Use

5.3 Data Gaps

5.4 Previous Environmental Assessments

6.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY RECONNAISANCE

6.1 Subject Property Setting

6.1.1 Exterior

6.1.2 Interior

6.1.3 Limiting Conditions

6.2 General Subject Property Setting

6.2.1 Current Use of the Property

6.2.2 Past Use of the Property

6.2.3 Current Use of Adjoining Properties

6.2.4 Past Use of Adjoining Properties

6.2.5 General Description of Structure(s)

6.2.6 Roads

6.2.7 Potable Water Supply

6.2.8 Sewage Disposal System

6.3 Exterior and Interior Observations

6.3.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified

Use

6.3.2 Storage Tanks

6.3.3 Odors

6.3.4 Pools of Liquid

6.3.5 Drums

6.3.6 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Containers

6.3.7 Unidentified Substance Containers

6.3.8 PCBs

6.4 Interior Observations

6.4.1 Heating and Cooling

6.4.2 Stains or Corrosion

6.4.3 Drains and Sumps

6.5 Exterior Observations

6.5.1 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons

6.5.2 Stained Soil or Pavement

6.5.3 Stressed Vegetation

6.5.4 Solid Waste

6.5.5 Wastewater

6.5.6 Wells

6.5.7 Septic Systems

6.5.8 Asbestos-Containing Materials

6.5.9 Lead-Based Paint

6.5.10 Radon

6.5.11 Mold

7.0 INTERVIEWS WITH PAST AND PRESENT OWNERS AND

OCCUPANTS

7.1 Objective

7.2 Content

7.3 Interviews

7.3.1 Key Subject Property Manager

7.3.2 Current Occupants

7.3.3 Current Owner

7.3.4 Report User

7.3.5 Past Owners, Operators, Occupants

7.3.6 State and/or Local Government Officials

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL’S CERTIFICATION

10.0 REFERENCES

Figures and Table

Figure 1 Subject Property Location Map Figure 2 Subject Property Sketch Table 1 Past Ownership Summary

Appendices

Appendix A Supporting Documentation Appendix B Environmental Database Report Appendix C Subject Property Photographs Appendix D Resume of Environmental Professional

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACBMs asbestos-containing building materials AST aboveground storage tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability

Information System CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Actions and Associated TSD EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ESA Environmental Site Assessment FOIA Freedom of Information Act FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites HCDW1 Hardin County Water District No. 1 HPE HP Environmental, Inc.

Jacobs Jacobs Buildings and Infrastructure LQG RCRA Large Quantity Generator LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System MSL Mean Sea Level NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned Sites NonGen RCRA Non-Generator NPL National Priority List PCB polychlorinated biphenyl pCi/L picoCuries per liter RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Recognized Environmental Condition RUST Registered Underground Storage Tank SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site SQG RCRA Small Quantity Generator SWLF Solid Waste Landfills, Incinerators, or Transfer Stations TSD RCRA Permitted Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities UST underground storage tank

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HP Environmental, Inc. (HPE) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Van Voorhis Elementary School addressed as 120 Folger Street, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 (the “Subject Property”). This ESA was performed on behalf of Jacobs (the “Client”) in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-13 and HPE’s proposal dated September 14, 2018.

The Subject Property is developed with the Van Voorhis Elementary School which consists of several interconnected one-story buildings, a stand-alone gymnasium building, two storage sheds, and a small parking lot. The Subject Property is located north of the intersection of Folger Street and Conroy Avenue (Figure 1). Tax records were not reasonably accessible as the Subject Property is located on land owned by the federal government and is therefore exempt from taxation at the county level. As part of this ESA, an inspection of the Subject Property was conducted by Mr. Jesse Sanders of HPE on Monday, May 18, 2020. HPE was accompanied by Mr. Tim McDaniels, the Custodial Manager, during the interior and exterior inspection of the Subject Property.

The Subject Property is composed of a single-level interconnected set of buildings that expanded as the elementary school grew from 1959 through 1997, a stand-alone gymnasium building, two storage sheds, and a small parking lot. According to historical records, the Subject Property was developed with the primary portions of the current structure in 1959. Based on the historical research conducted by HPE as part of this ESA, it is not known what the Subject Property was prior to its development into the school.

We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the Van Voorhis Elementary School located at 120 Folger Street, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 “the property”. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (REC) in connection with the property.

A significant data gap has occurred during the performance of this Phase I ESA in that the history of the Subject Property could not be determined prior to 1959. The Subject Property was in use as a school at that time which does not present any specific environmental concerns, but the use of the property prior to 1959 is not known. Given that the Subject Property is and was part of an active military installation this data gap is thought to be significant.

No off-site environmental concerns were identified that were likely to have negatively affected the environmental integrity of the Subject Property.

This Executive Summary is a synopsis of the full report and should not to be used as a stand-alone document. HPE recommends that the user read the entirety of the report.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

HP Environmental, Inc. (HPE) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Van Voorhis Elementary School addressed as 120 Folger Street, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 (the “Subject Property”). This ESA was performed on behalf of Jacobs (the “Client”) in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-13 and HPE’s proposal dated September 14, 2018.

1.1 Objectives

The primary objective of this ESA is to provide information relating to the Subject Property’s environmental integrity that may be useful to the Client during real estate transactions and demonstrate appropriate inquiry into the previous uses and ownership of the Subject Property consistent with good commercial or customary practice. Specifically, this ESA is intended to demonstrate that the Client has exercised due diligence in accordance with accepted industry practices and to identify potential environmental liabilities or areas in need of further investigation that are not addressed within the standard scope of ASTM E1527-13.

1.2 Scope of Work

The ESA was conducted from November 6, 2019 through May 28, 2020. The project was placed on hold more than once to accommodate scheduling conflicts. HPE’s representative, Jesse Sanders, inspected the Subject Property and performed inquiries and research related to the ESA.

HPE’s assessment of the Subject Property included at a minimum, the following tasks:

• A Subject Property inspection of the facility was performed to evaluate current conditions, tenant or occupant practices, and the presence of uncontrolled hazardous substances or related activities that have the potential to negatively impact the environmental integrity of the property. During the Subject Property inspection particular attention was paid to any hazardous materials, hazardous waste activities, storage containers and tanks, and any unusual surface features. Photographs of current Subject Property conditions were taken and are included in this report.

• A visual reconnaissance of adjoining properties was conducted in order to identify potential sources of contamination or activities that could negatively impact the environmental integrity of the Subject Property.

• Interviews with persons knowledgeable about the Subject Property were conducted in order to gather information related to environmental management practices and Subject Property history.

• A historical overview of the Subject Property was developed through a review of available information such as aerial photographs; historical maps and directories;

federal, state, and local records; title information; and operating documents and permits.

• A Subject Property-specific database was ordered that detailed federal and state environmentally regulated facilities located within ASTM-specific radii of the Subject Property. The database was reviewed, and the results confirmed in the field to the extent possible.

1.3 Significant Assumptions

HPE has assumed that the areas of the Subject Property that were accessible at the time of the Subject Property visit are representative of the portions of the Subject Property that were not directly viewed. HPE has also assumed that information and data provided by others was accurate and reliable.

1.4 Purpose and Limitations

In addition to the tasks referenced in Section 1.2 of this report, the Scope of Work for the ESA also included an evaluation of oil or hazardous materials that are, have been, or potentially could be released onto the subject property or in the vicinity of the subject property. The scope of the ESA included a Subject Property and Subject Property vicinity inspection; interviews with Subject Property personnel; interviews with local officials; and a review of federal, state, and local records. The work was performed in accordance with generally accepted environmental consulting practices and the ASTM minimum standards for the performance of Phase I ESAs and is subject to the following limitations:

• This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client, Jacobs. The opinions rendered herein are based on professional expertise and experience using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by other professionals practicing in this field. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice presented in this report. Any use of, or reliance on, this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.

• The findings set forth in this report are strictly limited to the date of the evaluation. The conclusions presented in the report are based solely on the services described herein and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of agreed upon services.

• The purpose of this report was to assess the physical characteristics of the Subject Property with respect to the presence in the environment of oil or hazardous material.

No specific recommendation was made to check on the compliance of present or past owners or operators of the subject property with federal, state, or local laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise.

• Partial findings of this investigation are based on data provided by others. No warranty is expressed or implied with the usage of such data. A portion of the information provided in this report is based upon personal interviews and research of all available documents, records, and maps held by the appropriate government and private agencies. The information relied on in this report is subject to the limitations of historical documentation, availability and accuracy of pertinent records, and the personal recollection of those persons contacted by HPE.

• The initial Subject Property investigation took into account the natural and man-made features of the Subject Property, including any unusual or suspect phenomenon. Those factors, with the Subject Property's geology, hydrology, topography, and past and present land uses, served as a combined basis for determining areas of environmental concern. The presence of asbestos, radon, lead-based paint, lead-in-water, radioactive materials, and biological hazards was not investigated.

• This report represents a good-faith effort conducted in a professional manner consistent with applicable environmental industry standards. HPE makes no representation whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including, but not limited to, ownership of property or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. Except as otherwise may be requested by the Client, HPE disclaims any obligation to update this report for events taking place after the date on which this assessment was conducted.

• Neither HPE, nor any staff member assigned to this investigation has any interest or contemplated interest, financial or otherwise, in the subject or surrounding properties, or in any entity which owns, leases, or occupies the subject or surrounding properties or which may be responsible for environmental issues identified during the course of this investigation, and has no personal bias with respect to the parties involved.

1.5 Deviations from Scope of Work

There were no deviations from the Scope of Work outlined in Section 1.2 of this report.

1.6 Reliance

The report has been prepared for the sole use of Jacobs. No other users may rely on this report without the express written consent of HP Environmental, Inc.

2.0 USER/OWNER PROVIDED INFORMATION

The following sections provide a summary and discussion of User, Owner, and Subject Property Manager provided information. This information was solicited from the User, Owner, and Subject Property Manager by HPE at the onset of this assessment.

Responses, if received, are included in Appendix A.

2.1 Title Records

A chain of title was not provided to HPE by the Client or current property owner. Local online real estate assessment records were not readily available for review by HPE. HPE made inquiries to the local county property value assessor’s office and was informed that if the property is on Fort Knox it is on federal land and exempt from taxation. No prior deed records were readily available for review.

2.2 Specialized Knowledge

The User questionnaire was not returned indicated that they had no specialized knowledge of the Subject Property with regard to potential environmental issues.

2.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information

HPE was not aware of any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information related to the Subject Property. The User did not respond to our request for similar information.

2.4 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations

The Owner questionnaire was not returned. The Client did not retain HPE to perform a deed search for the Subject Property. HPE’s subsequent evaluation of practicably reviewable data indicates that no environmental liens, engineering controls, or activity and use limitations were recorded for the Subject Property.

2.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information

Information obtained by HPE during the performance of this assessment from parties with knowledge of the Subject Property, including, but not limited to the user report, is included in other sections of this report.

2.6 Reason for Performing this Phase I

Representatives of the Client indicated to HPE that the reason for the completion of this Phase I ESA is for possible renovation of the property.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCY INQUIRIES

This section of the report details the results of the regulatory record search as well as information obtained from local sources that are relevant to the history or environmental integrity of the Subject Property.

3.1 Environmental Database Review

HPE obtained an environmental database report for the Subject Property from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). This report, attached as Appendix B, is a compilation of several federal and state environmental databases. Representative regulated Sites identified in the EDR report are summarized below:

• National Priority List (NPL) and Delisted NPL The Subject Property was not listed.

No NPL facilities were listed within one mile of the Subject Property.

• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) The Subject Property was not listed. No CERCLIS facilities were listed within one-half mile of the Subject Property. Four State Hazardous Waste Sites (SHWS) were located within one mile. Three of these are petroleum related, all of which are closed, one with a no action required and two with “Option C Restored.” The “Option C Restored” designation stems from compliance with KRS 224.01-400 (18) and 401 KAR 100:030; effectively this is understood to mean that any release referred to has either been successfully contained and removed, was too small to be a hazard to health or the environment, or if left in place any health or environmental hazard has been mitigated via engineering or institutional controls. The fourth SHWS is labelled North Dixie Highway as a Formerly Used Defense Site Property (FUDS) and is also listed as closed, however the type of hazardous waste is unidentified. HPE has looked into ongoing work by the environmental arm of the U.S. Army environmental staff and it is thought to be testing to characterize nuclear radiation stemming from the use of Davy Crocket M29s at O’Brien Range to the northeast of the Subject Property. HPE further found a 2018 final report showing that representative soil and water sampling showed low concentrations of radiation, attributed to natural concentrations, which did not require further action. All four SHWS are listed as closed and greater than one-half mile away.

Their exact location is difficult to ascertain but, HPE has reasonably determined their approximate region from the given records and all are of sufficient distance or downgradient from the Subject Property such that they are not thought to be of environmental concern.

• CERCLIS--No Further Remedial Action Planned Sites (NFRAP) The Subject Property was not listed. No NFRAP facilities were identified within one-half mile of the Subject Property.

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Actions and Associated TSD (CORRACTS) The Subject Property was not listed. No RCRA CORRACTS facilities were listed within one mile of the Subject Property.

• RCRA Permitted Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) The Subject Property was not listed. No TSDF facilities were identified within one-half mile of the Subject Property.

• Solid Waste Landfills, Incinerators, or Transfer Stations (SWLF) The Subject Property was not listed. No SWLF facilities were listed within one-half mile of the Subject Property.

• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) The Subject Property was not listed.

No LUSTs are reported within the search radii.

• Registered Underground Storage Tanks (RUST) The Subject Property was not listed.

No active RUST facilities abut the Subject Property. According to the EDR database an historic RUST (1000-gallon diesel) was removed from a location approximately 400 feet south and hydraulically downgradient of the Subject Property.

• RCRA Large and Small Quantity Generators (LQGs and SQGs), Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs), and Non-Generators (NonGens) The Subject Property address was not listed. No LQGs, SQGs, or NonGens were located on the adjoining properties.

• Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) The Subject Property was not listed.

• Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) The Subject Property was not listed. No VCP facilities were located within one-half mile.

• Institutional Controls and Engineering Controls (IC/EC) The Subject Property was not listed. Additionally, no IC/EC or environmental deed restrictions were noted in the deed documents reviewed for the Subject Property.

• Historical Cleaners The Subject Property was not listed as having been a cleaner.

3.2 Local Government Agencies

No additional records were requested from local government agencies as a part of this Phase I ESA.

4.0 PHYSICAL SETTING

This section of the report describes the topography, surface water, subsurface geology, and groundwater characteristics of the Subject Property based on the physical inspection and published sources.

4.1 Topography and Surface Water Characteristics

The Subject Property is situated on gently sloping terrain that grades to the south at an elevation of approximately 720 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Regionally the land surface slopes to the south. The nearest surface water body to the Subject Property is the North Fork of Dry Branch approximately 3,850 feet south of the Subject Property. Surface water runoff at the Subject Property is directed to catchment basins around the school and flows via sheet flow southward from the paved parking and street areas that generally discharge to the local storm sewer system.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map reviewed for the Subject Property, Fort Knox, Kentucky dated 1991 shows the Subject Property as it lies today. The current Subject Property improvements are shown on the topographic and geologic maps.

The following considerations are not part of the ASTM Standard E1527 – 13 and are considered “non-scope” considerations, however on behalf of the Client, HPE reviewed readily available records for the following “non-scope” considerations:

Based on information obtained from the National Wetland Inventory Map for the area of the Subject Property, no wetlands were identified on or adjacent to the Subject Property. A review of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area of the Subject Property indicates the property is not located within a 100-year flood plain. Copies of the wetland and flood plain maps are provided in Appendix A.

4.2 Soils and Subsurface Geology

According to the online U.S. Department of Agriculture web soil survey, the soils for the Subject Property are mapped as 93% Crider silt loam and 7% Baxter very gravelly silt loam.

The underlying St. Louis Limestone is Mississippian in age and actually an interbedded sedimentary sequence of limestone, dolomite, and shale which is described in the Geologic Map of the Fort Knox Quadrangle, North-Central Kentucky, dated 1977 by the Kentucky Geological Survey.

Geologically, the Subject Property is located in the Mississippian Plateau Physiographic Province, also known as the Pennyroyal Region of Kentucky. This region is characterized by karst terrain: sinkholes, streamless valleys, springs, and caverns, which develop from the natural erosional processes of the underlying limestone.

4.3 Groundwater Characteristics

No Subject Property-specific groundwater data was available for review by HPE. However, the local groundwater will most likely mimic the local topography and flow generally toward the south. HPE did not observe any evidence of groundwater monitoring wells or drinking water supply wells on Subject Property during the inspection. Based on a southerly direction of groundwater flow in the area of the subject property, properties located to the north of the Subject Property are considered to be upgradient, while properties located to the south are considered to be downgradient.

5.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

This section provides the general history of the Subject Property including previous property owners, past usage, and environmental background.

5.1 Property Ownership

A chain of title was not provided to HPE by the Client. Based on the information obtained by HPE from local online real estate assessment records, the current owner of the Subject Property is the United States federal government. No environmental liens, deed restrictions, or institutional or engineering controls were noted in the records reviewed. No past owners of the Subject Property were deemed to be environmentally suspect. No deed for the Subject Property was readily available for this report.

5.2 Property Use

The history of the property was reconstructed based on the physical inspection; a review of aerial photographs for the years 1959, 1978, 1983, 1987, 1993, 1998, 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016; and a review of the city directories for the years 1992, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2014. No aerial photographs earlier than 1959 or later than 2016 were available for review. No city directories earlier than 1992 or later than 2014 were available for review.

No Sanborn maps were available for review. The historical review indicates that the Subject Property has been developed with the current improvements since at least 1959. Prior to the construction of the current structure the use of the Subject Property was not readily ascertainable.

Following is a summary of the aerial photography review conducted by HPE as part of this

ESA:

• In the 1959 through 2016 aerial photographs the Subject Property is already developed and expands slightly over time. In 1998 the northernmost building appears to be added to the site, and the Subject Property is as it appears today. Abutting properties appear to be small residential tracts and the military airport is located across the highway approximately one-half mile east.

Following is a summary of the city directory review conducted by HPE as part of this ESA:

• In the 1992 through 2014 directories the Subject Property is not listed. A generic listing for Ft. Knox Community School District at 5549 and 5550 Folger Street is listed.

The historical research conducted by HPE did not reveal any obvious environmental concerns with respect to past property uses. Copies of appropriate historical records are included in Appendix A.

5.3 Data Gaps

A data gap was encountered during the performance of the Phase I ESA as the history of the Subject Property was not traced prior to 1940, or to the first undeveloped use, also what information was available was not found in five-year intervals. Given the nature and historical use of the wider Fort Knox base, this is thought to be a significant data gap, as the historical use of the Subject Property over time is not readily apparent. No Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were available for review either, which may have informed prior use. All readily available historical sources were reviewed as a part of this assessment. Aerial photographs were reviewed back to 1959. According to historical research conducted by HPE as part of this ESA, prior to the construction of the current improvements in approximately 1959 and 1998, the Subject Property was of an unknown use. Absent information of any prior documented uses the data gap is thought to be significant.

5.4 Previous Environmental Assessments

No prior environmental reports were provided for review by HPE.

Based on the records review and interviews completed by HPE no current or former Subject Property activities required environmental permitting.

6.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY RECONNAISANCE

HPE inspected the Subject Property on May 18, 2020. HPE’s inspector, Jesse Sanders, walked the entirety of the exterior area and representative portions of the interior of the Subject Property. HPE was accompanied by Mr. Tim McDaniels, Custodian, during the interior and exterior inspection of the Subject Property. This section describes the condition of the Subject Property at the time of the inspection. Photographs taken during the Subject Property inspection are attached as Appendix C. A generalized Subject Property sketch of the subject property is provided as Figure 2.

6.1 Subject Property Setting

The Subject Property consists of several interconnected one-story buildings utilized as an elementary school, a standalone gymnasium building, two storage sheds, and a small parking lot. The Subject Property is located north of the intersection of Folger Street and Conroy Avenue (Figure 1).

6.1.1 Exterior

The exterior of the Subject Property building is comprised of brick, wood, and glass. The building exterior appeared to be in fair condition.

6.1.2 Interior

Interior finishes include bare concrete floors, floor tiles, laminate and hardwood flooring, sheetrock covered walls, and drywall and drop tile ceilings. At the time of HPE’s inspection, the interior finishes appeared to be in fair condition with no indications of historical water leaks in the tenant spaces accessed, except for the northernmost addition which has been condemned for foundation and roofing problems (per Mr. McDaniels).

6.1.3 Limiting Conditions

HPE encountered no limiting conditions during the Subject Property inspection except that two small exterior sheds were not accessible with Mr. McDaniels’s keys. Mr. McDaniels indicated one was for class material storage and the other was for equipment storage with no more than “a few five-gallon gas cans” for use in Subject Property landscape maintenance.

6.2 General Subject Property Setting

The Subject Property is comprised of the entirety of Van Voorhis Elementary School which consists of several interconnected one-story buildings, a standalone gymnasium building, two storage sheds, and a small parking lot. The Subject Property is located north of the intersection of Folger Street and Conroy Avenue (Figure 1).

6.2.1 Current Use of the Property

The Subject Property is currently vacant outside of the kitchen, office, and maintenance staff as a result of state mandated school restrictions due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

Mr. McDaniels indicated the northernmost building addition has been condemned and has been out of use for an extended period.

6.2.2 Past Use of the Property

Prior to the development of the current improvements from 1959 to 1998 it is unclear what the Subject Property had been previously.

6.2.3 Current Use of Adjoining Properties

HPE conducted a visual inspection of areas adjoining the Subject Property in order to determine the potential for surrounding properties to impact the environmental integrity of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is bound on all sides with a mix of residential housing, schools, and wooded land (Figure 2). There were no environmentally suspect uses such as dry cleaners or gas stations on the abutting properties. HPE’s visual inspection of the adjoining properties, as well as the environmental database prepared for this investigation, did not reveal the presence of any significant environmental concerns.

HPE did not observe any unusual odors or standing surface water, pits, lagoons, stressed vegetation, or unusual mounds or depressions on the adjoining properties.

6.2.4 Past Use of Adjoining Properties

Prior to the construction of the current improvements on the abutting properties their past use had been a mix of residential and scholastic.

6.2.5 General Description of Structure(s)

The Subject Property is developed as an elementary school and surrounding grounds. This consists of several interconnected one-story buildings, a standalone gymnasium building, two storage sheds, and a small parking lot.

6.2.6 Roads

There is vehicular access to the Subject Property via the entrance from Folger Street from the north accessing a turnaround or from the south accessing the parking lot.

6.2.7 Potable Water Supply

Water is supplied to the Subject Property by Hardin County Water District No.1. A review of the Water Quality Report 2019 for Hardin County Water District No.1 (the most recent report available) indicates that the water supplied to the Subject Property is in compliance with all applicable regulations.

6.2.8 Sewage Disposal System

Wastewater from the Subject Property building is discharged to the local municipal sewer system.

6.3 Exterior and Interior Observations

The exterior of the structure appeared to be in fair to good condition and there were no indications of improper waste storage, releases, or other obvious signs of environmental impact.

The interior of the Subject Property was in fair to good condition except in the condemned northernmost building. No active leaks were apparent in any of the interior spaces accessed by HPE during the Subject Property visit except in the condemned northernmost building.

6.3.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Use

Routine maintenance and cleaning chemicals were observed at the Subject Property.

These chemicals were observed to be stored in the appropriate containers with no signs of spills or leaks.

6.3.2 Storage Tanks

Based on HPE’s inspection, there are no underground storage tanks (USTs), above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), or above-or below-ground pipelines at the Subject Property. No evidence of USTs such as vent pipes or fill pipes or areas of patched asphalt where tanks may have been installed or removed was noted. HPE interviewed Ms. Lesley Dennis, Installation and Restoration Manager for the Fort Know Environmental Department. Ms.

Dennis reviewed historical records that did not reveal the past or present use of USTs at the Subject Property nor were there any records of chemical spills or releases.

The environmental database reviewed by HPE as a part of this ESA indicated that no storage tanks were registered for the Subject Property, either currently or historically.

6.3.3 Odors

No significant odors were noted during the Subject Property inspection.

6.3.4 Pools of Liquid

No pools of liquid were observed during the Subject Property inspection.

6.3.5 Drums

No drums were observed during the Subject Property inspection, except for one drum of descaling chemicals in a chiller building at the south end of the Subject Property.

6.3.6 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Containers

Routine maintenance and cleaning chemicals were observed during the Subject Property visit. These chemicals were observed to be stored in the appropriate containers with no signs of spills or leaks.

6.3.7 Unidentified Substance Containers

No unidentified substance containers were observed during the Subject Property inspection.

6.3.8 PCBs

Given that PCBs were phased out of use in the late 1970s and the current improvements were originally constructed in 1959, it is possible transformers at the Subject Property once contained PCBs. Five external pad mounted transformers were observed around the Subject Property. None of these transformers had labels indicating the use of non-PCB containing oil, however all appeared to be intact with no indication of leaks.

6.4 Interior Observations

Interior areas include classrooms, office, kitchen, cafeteria, gymnasium, utility rooms, custodian rooms, cleaning supply storage areas, the unoccupied condemned building, bathrooms, and mechanical spaces. All of these areas observed during the inspection appeared to be in fair to good condition with no environmental concerns noted.

6.4.1 Heating and Cooling

The building is heated with natural gas and cooled electrically. The current boilers are gas-fired but Mr. McDaniels was not aware if heating oil had been used to fire the boilers in the past.

6.4.2 Stains or Corrosion

No stains or corrosion was observed during the inspection of the Subject Property except in the boiler rooms and chiller rooms where floor and rust stains were prevalent, particularly in the condemned northernmost building mechanical spaces.

6.4.3 Drains and Sumps

Drains were observed in the mechanical spaces, janitorial closets, gymnasium storage area, and bathrooms. The drains appear to flow via gravity into the local sewer system.

6.5 Exterior Observations

The following sections provide details of HPE’s visual inspection of the exterior of the Subject Property made on the date of the visit.

6.5.1 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons

No stressed vegetation, standing surface water, unusual odors, surface staining, pits, ponds, lagoons, surface impoundments, or other significant topographic anomalies were observed on the Subject Property.

6.5.2 Stained Soil or Pavement

No stained soil or pavement was observed during the Subject Property inspection.

6.5.3 Stressed Vegetation

No stressed vegetation was observed during the Subject Property inspection.

6.5.4 Solid Waste

Solid wastes are disposed of in a single standard dumpster located in the loading dock area.

No evidence of improper waste disposal was noted associated with the dumpster.

6.5.5 Wastewater

Other than permitted discharges to the sanitary sewer, no wastewater discharges were noted at the Subject Property.

6.5.6 Wells

No indications of groundwater monitoring wells or drinking water supply wells were noted at the Subject Property.

6.5.7 Septic Systems

The Subject Property is served by municipal sanitary sewer. No septic systems were noted at the Subject Property.

6.5.8 Asbestos-Containing Materials

HPE was retained to perform an asbestos survey of the property and these results are provided under separate cover.

6.5.9 Lead-Based Paint

Not used.

6.5.10 Radon

A radon screening for the Subject Property was not included in the scope of work.

According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study of indoor radon levels in the 40121 zip code, the Subject Property is located in an area where approximately 100 percent of the buildings tested had average indoor radon gas concentrations of less than 4 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L), which is the EPA’s recommended guideline for indoor radon levels in residential structures. There is no current radon guideline for commercial uses.

6.5.11 Mold

HPE performed a limited visual assessment for the presence of mold, conditions conducive to mold, and evidence of moisture in readily accessible interior areas of the Subject Property and found none. No active leaks or areas of suspect mold were observed other than in the utility room of the condemned portion of the Subject Property. This assessment does not constitute a comprehensive mold survey of the Subject Property, but represents conclusions based on field observations made on the date of the visit and interviews with Subject Property personnel.

7.0 INTERVIEWS WITH PAST AND PRESENT OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS

7.1 Objective

The objective of the interview process was to obtain information related to current and past property uses and to obtain information related to RECs.

7.2 Content

Copies of the questionnaires submitted by HPE, if completed and returned, are included in Appendix A to this report.

7.3 Interviews

HPE interviewed Mr. Tim McDaniels, Custodian, during the Subject Property visit.

Information obtained during these interviews is included in other sections of this report.

HPE also interviewed Ms. Lesley Dennis, Installation and Restoration Manager for the Fort Know Environmental Department. Ms. Dennis reviewed historical records that did not reveal the past or present use of USTs at the Subject Property nor were there any records of chemical spills or releases.

7.3.1 Key Site Manager

The Key Site Manager questionnaire was not returned.

7.3.2 Current Occupants

HPE was asked not to interview the current occupants.

7.3.3 Current Owner

A copy of the Owner questionnaire was not returned.

7.3.4 Report User

The Report User questionnaire was not returned.

7.3.5 Past Owners, Operators, Occupants

No past owners, operators, or occupants were available for interview.

7.3.6 State and/or Local Government Officials

State and local government records were reviewed both online and as a part of the environmental database. HPE called the Fort Knox, Environmental GIS, Environmental EMS, and Hazardous Waste in an effort to gather additional information regarding the property but did not receive a call back. The non-response may be due to this assessment being performed during the Covid-19 pandemic when work-from-home orders were common.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

HPE performed a Phase I ESA of the Van Voorhis Elementary School addressed as 120 Folger Street, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 (the “Subject Property”). This ESA was performed on behalf of Jacobs (the “Client”) in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-13 and HPE’s proposal dated September 14, 2018.

The Subject Property is developed with the Van Voorhis Elementary School, which consists of several interconnected one-story buildings, a stand-alone gymnasium building, two storage sheds, and a small parking lot. The Subject Property is located north of the intersection of Folger Street and Conroy Avenue (Figure 1). Tax records were not reasonably accessible as the Subject Property is located on land owned by the federal government and is therefore exempt from taxation at the county level. As part of this ESA, an inspection of the Subject Property was conducted by Mr. Jesse Sanders of HPE on Monday, May 18, 2020. HPE was accompanied by Mr. Tim McDaniels, the Custodial Manager, during the interior and exterior inspection of the Subject Property.

The Subject Property is composed of a single-level interconnected set of buildings that expanded as the elementary school grew from 1959 through 1998, a stand-alone gymnasium building, two storage sheds, and a small parking lot. According to historical records, the Subject Property was developed with the primary portions of the current structure in 1959. Based on the historical research conducted by HPE as part of this ESA, it is not known what the Subject Property was prior to its development into the school.

We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the Van Voorhis Elementary School located at 120 Folger Street, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 “the property”. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the property.

A significant data gap has occurred during the performance of this Phase I ESA in that the history of the Subject Property could not be determined prior to 1959. The Subject Property was in use as a school at that time which does not present any specific environmental concerns, but the use of the property prior to 1959 is not known. Given that the Subject Property is and was part of an active military installation this data gap is thought to be significant.

No off-site environmental concerns were identified that were likely to have negatively affected the environmental integrity of the Subject Property.

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL’S CERTIFICATION

I, Kent D. Campbell declare, that to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 CFR 312.

Additionally, I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR 312. A copy of the Environmental Professional’s resume is included in Appendix D.

Kent D. Campbell, CPG

10.0 REFERENCES

Aerial photographs and historical maps obtained from Environmental Data Resources.

City Directories obtained from Environmental Data Resources.

EDR Environmental Database Search Report, dated May 19, 2020.

Hardin County Water District No. 1, Water Quality Report 2019.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Meade and Hardin Counties, Kentucky.

National Wetland Inventory Map, Wetlands Mapper Online Database.

United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (WSS).

United States Geologic Survey/Department of the Interior: 7.5-minute Topographic, Fort Knox, Kentucky, dated 1991.

United States Geologic Survey/Department of the Interior: Geologic Map of the Fort Knox Quadrangle, North-Central Kentucky, dated 1977.

FIGURES AND TABLE

Image Provided By ESRI Street Map

Boundaries are approximate

STREET MAP

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St Van Voorhis Elementary School

TABLE 1

Property Ownership Summary

120 Folger Street

Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

Purchaser Purchase Date

Unknown NA

No prior deed referenced No prior deed referenced

APPENDIX A

Supporting Documentation

Image Provided By EDR Aerials

AERIAL - 1959

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St

AERIAL - 1978

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St

AERIAL - 1987

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St

AERIAL - 1993

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St

AERIAL - 1998

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St

AERIAL - 2008

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St

AERIAL - 2016

11/11/2019 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

120 Folger St

21093C0040D 8/16/2007 Not Printed

AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD

Zone X

FORT KNOX MILITARY RESERVATION

21FED

Hardin County 210097

USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet

Ü

°5

9'1 9.3

2"W 37°54'17.47"N

85°58'41.87"W

37°53'49.08"N

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS

Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99

With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D

NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X

Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D

Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall

Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation

Coastal Transect

Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature

Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)

Effective LOMRs

Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary

Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped

This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 11/11/2019 at 9:40:26 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES

OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS

1:6,000

B 20.2

The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov

Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond

Lake Other Riverine

November 11, 2019

0 0.06 0.120.03 mi

0 0.1 0.20.05 km

1:3,609

This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

Some or all of these definitions may be found in this report:

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) - the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG) - the level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

Below Detection Levels (BDL) - laboratory analysis indicates that the contaminant is not present.

Not Applicable (N/A) - does not apply.

Parts per million (ppm) - or milligrams per liter, (mg/l). One part per million corresponds to one minute in two years or a single penny…