POLICE HEADQUARTERS /' Ci/ ofS��E�
�sP,���.���E��. r)
,CoxO t4
O�
}
a�Q
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
\ERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NORTH STREET
HEALTH AGENT May 26 , 1986
(617) 741-1800
Debbie Hilbert
Planning Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Debbie,
The site plan review for the City of Salem, new Salem Police
facility, Margin Street Salem, MA, will be discussed at the
neat Board of Health meeting. The board respectfully requests
that the applicant or a representative be present at this
meeting. The meeting will be held on June 9 , 1987 at 9
North Street , second floor at 7 : 30 p.m.
Very truly yours ,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
ROBERT E . BLENRHORN, C .H .O .
Health Agent
LT c�tI1G11T� CcI;��[Cl"�LCSL' '1
a
"� 'u �Ic�lTltllt i�Dc�TI�
�<=rvr cN`�' lrr/1tE �tI�-Cllt G1'PPIt
MAY21°S
REQUEST FOR REVIEW COMMENTS CI'1,Y U= SALLM
HEALTH DUT.
7 r7 SPECIAL PERMIT
DATE: / {'I (a,(_/ GC�� 19 .1
TO: ( ) BUILDING INSPECTOR ( ) CONSERVATION COMMISSION
( ) CITY ENGINEER ( ) Other:
�() BOARD OF HEALTH
Attached please find the application referenced below. The Planning Board re-
quests that you review this application relative to Section VII of of the
Zoning Ordinance. We would appreciate your completing the form below and
returning it to us. Notice of the public hearing for this application will
be forwarded to you.
( ) WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS (.k) SITE PLAN REVIEW '
( ) CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ( ) BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
( ) PLANNED UNITT DE
VELOPMENT
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME & ADDRESS: /�/,() �P/?'J 71J�/CP•
CONTACT PERSONS AND PHONE: /;
Applicant: CITY: VS - "7�.-�7��
COMMENTS DUE BY: (uiy 3,
(Failure to comment within 35 days shall be deemd lack of opposition. )
( Concur with proposal (Explain on reverse side)
( ) Need more information (Explain on reverse side)
C ) Cannot concur with proposal (Explain on reverse side)
(_ 1 Comments included
C H.0. HEALTH AGENT JUNE 10, 1987
EVIEWER'S SIGNATURE TITLE „ DATE
Salem Health Department June 13, 1987
As discussed during the Board of Health meeting on June 9, 1987 the applicant
will submit to the following specifications:
1 . The design proposal concur with the City Engineering Department and City
Plumbing Inspector for utility tie-ins for drinking water, sanitary waste
(sewage) , gas lines, and/or any other utility service.
IA. Measures be taken to assure that the extension of the drinking water lines
does not create a negative or low pressure situation. .
2. Prior to drinking water service being put into service it be tested for
presure and bacteria by a certified laboratory and the results submitted
to the Planning and Health Departments in writing.
3. Employ an acceptable method for removal of all construction debris, vegetation
waste, and any unacceptable excavation material from site during construction.
3A, Submit results of any 21E tests (i.e. , hazardous waste ) to the Health ani
Planning Departments in writing.
4. Employ an acceptable method for dust and street cleaning control during site
construction and submit copy of method utilized to the Health and Planning
Departments in writing.
5. Prior to site startup and also during site construction employ a licensed pest
control firm for site evaluation and service with a copy of the service program
sent to the Planning And Health Departments.
6. All backfilling be done in accordance with good engineering practices to prevent
future damage to all underground utilities.
7. Employ an acceptable method or means for the holding and disposal of trash
(rubbish) after site development with a copy of this method sent to the Health
and Planning Departments in writing. Submit a method of feeding of the trash
within the building to the trash unit, with means to remove the unit from the
outside of buildings
8. Measures be taken to assure that air pollution due to odors and noise does
not occur during and after site construction.
9. The design proposal concur with the State Sanitary Code relative to Lock.ip
and Correctional Institutions, submittal specifications to Mass Public Health
for approval.
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O,
HEALTH AGENT
r
1
1
1
1
r �, _.
�\"'`1 'p
� � ��F:�
� � �
��
��� �`
,� e
r � � �
' ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED POLICE HEADQUARTERS SITE
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
MAY, 1987
i
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION I
PROJECT LIMITS 2
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
SITE USE AND HISTORY 3
SITE OWNERSHIP 4
' SITE INSPECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH 5
AND VISUAL SITE INSPECTION
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION - STAGE 2 5
CONCLUSION OF STAGE 2 SUBSURFACE 7
INVESTIGATION AND TESTING
PERSONS CONTACTED 7
REFERENCES 7
REPORT LIMITATIONS 7
APPENDIX A - BORING LOGS
APPENDIX B - SOILS ANALYSIS
' ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
' PROPOSED POLICE HEADQUARTERS SITE
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Site Assessment is to determine whether or
not the site for the proposed Police Headquarters for the Salem
Police Department contains any hazardous material or hazardous
waste or has been the site of any release of any such hazardous
material or hazardous waste or presents any threat of release of
any hazardous material or hazardous waste as .defined in
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 21C and 21E which release or
threat of release would represent a potential liability to the
property owner in accordance with the provisions of MGL, C.21E.
The assessment was conducted in two phases. The first phase
involved research into the past use and history of the Site as
may be determined through available records; deed descriptions;
maps and plans; City and State agency and department records
' regarding complaints, odors, fires, accidents, spills, permits,
filings, orders and other actions; and discussions with municipal
and state agency personnel regarding their knowledge and
familiarity with the site and its current and past uses. The
second phase, which is based in part on information obtained
during the first phase, consists of a two-stage physical
investigation of the site. The first stage consists of a site
' walk-over to assess the surficial characteristics of the site
including topography, vegetation, visible conditions, which might
reflect dumping or discharges onto the site, or any visible
impacts which might be related to any oil or hazardous material
spill or release. The second stage involves the collection of
subsurface soil and groundwater data to determine the presence
and extent of buried or migrating materials or contaminants.
' Based on the results of the second stage subsurface
-1-
i
' investigation, additional subsurface and/or off-site
investigations may be recommended.
This preliminary Assessment presents the findings and conclusions
of the Phase 1 investigation of the past use and history of the
site and the results of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 investigations
i conducted to this point under Phase 2 of the Site Assessment
process.
PROJECT LIMITS
The project is located at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue
and Margin Street in Salem, Massachusetts on a proposed site
i measuring 1. 337 acres in area. The site location is shown on
Figure 1.
The proposed 1. 337 acre site is part of a larger parcel of
approximately 5. 06 acres in size presently owned by New England
' Power Company. The remainder of the site not acquired by the City
of Salem for the proposed project will remain under the ownership
and control of New England Power.
On-site subsurface investigations conducted under this Site
Assessment were limited to the 1. 337 acre site of the proposed
project.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is flat with just over a foot of topographic variation
over 960 feet along its north/south axis. The site is bounded on
the east by a concrete retaining wall running along the entire
' length of the site. The retaining wall, which is approximately
18 feet high, separates the project site from the MBTA northern
i service commuter rail lines. An abandoned set of railroad tracks
extends northerly along the western boundary of the site for a
distance of about 460 feet. Adjoining property to the west and
south of the site is owned by the MBTA and New England Power
-2-
i
1
- 'BEVERLY r, o o f e HARBOR
ean
,� ( (/ OZ .ij;:{� �' o iii Qi � i;•'
ti
Z
O
G
i
P�O
0
��ImimO � O�� i SalzmdF�°r 1,inal
a v � o�® �v. Wh
t
s� S� I •
Yet
se
n l(� �✓ �f ` . �. 1 3z ��� " ° \ iii\ 3 �°�
Iter Ip,�, LOCUS . a fan mR V �, o
s� n �( �1i ❑ Long pt—6Q
•� pia,JU
r
e
esti �l I' set
L � /
alme6'
W N Of Q •/)1 IckErg
02 2
Source. USGS Salem Quadrangle
PROPOSED SALEM POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS FIGURE
SITE LOCUS MAP 1
Company. The intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Margin Street
marks the site's northern boundary.
An area at the northeast end of the site measuring approximately
350 feet (north/south) by 80 feet (east/west) is presently used
for parking by employees at nearby businesses. The remainder of
the site is vegetated, primarily with grasses and weeds. The half
dozen or so trees on the site include whiter birch and crabapple.
Extensive gnawing of the base of the trees and of the lower limbs
within 4-9 inches from the ground, together with spoor combined
to suggest a small but biologically stressed rabbit population on
or near the site. The principle factor responsible for the stress
on the animal population is the limited supply and availability
of food in this area. The vegetation throughout the site appeared
robust with no visible indications of , environmental stress or
contamination.
SITE USE AND HISTORY
A review of available maps and records at the Engineering and
Public Works Department and Assessor's Office of the City of
Salem and the Essex County Registry of Deeds was made to assess
the past use and history of the proposed project site.
A map of the City of Salem, dated 1851, shows the entire site
under water at the northeastern end of what was at that time
identified as Mill Pond. Tracks owned by the Eastern Railroad
Company cross Mill Pond, presumably on piles or other foundation
supports from south to north running into the Eastern Railroad
Depot at what was then the intersection of Mill and Washington
Streets. An Atlas, dated 1874, shows the same configuration.
Figure 2 shows a section of the 1851 map with the project site
highlighted.
' An Atlas, dated 1897, shows significant alteration of the Pond by
filling and an additional railroad spur track on the site. An
Atlas, dated 1911, shows the addition of a wood freight shed on
-3-
i
s'J� ``,,��`IJ� J'ri ,ys,r � us 17.L1' 'N�'�c�tl, Ir• '�� "' ♦ U,.�f 1�1J ✓yU�` X�. �
[ t � ,9�• 'O. f u mr`3, p.�t t0... ' \.� �.. � � , .� � � �' a�vL l'v.
MIA
12 OM.in
y�ym VUO � Y4
�6j
y z AREA OF SITE �- `C� u • --
11111. �uPond
1 •� X0
log— T. No S A IL
1 a
s1w pow
.,.®oi�'1"a
Y
It
Pat
1T�
i , :� _
..,Nu
�yrom an actual Survey
!J.S.a.T3Y Y:nYq:Y1MIPlT{
' � Iswwgmtnm xirmmr_v:.r.f.a l>,�aresa.
PROPOSED SALEM POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS •�uY�ry FIGURE
SITE CIRCA 1851 2
the west side of the site near the spur tracks. The 1957 Sanborn
map shows the freight shed still in place at that time.
A number of municipal departments were consulting regarding any
past records of pollution, dumping, fires, health problems or
concerns or spills or releases of any kind on or near the
proposed site. Departments consulted include Engineering and
Public Works, Health, Building Inspector and Fire Marshall. None
of the individuals contacted or records consulted suggest or
_ reflect any past history of violation or problems on or near the
site of the proposed project. Further, a review of the files of
the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Northeast
Region, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste was conducted. No
records were identified regarding any reported problems or
incidents on the subject site or adjacent and surrounding
properties.
SITE OWNERSHIP
The site is presently owned by the New England Power Company
(NEPCO) by deed dated 1977 from New England Telephone and
Telegraph Company (NET&T) . NET&T purchased the site from HIA
Pearl Company in 1971. HIA Pearl Company acquired a portion of
the site from the Boston and Maine Railroad (B& RR) in 1961 and
the remainder of the site from Mahoney & Company in 1964. Mahoney
& Company acquired their respective portion of the site from the
B&M RR in 1958. The site was under the ownership of the B&M RR
from its acquisition of the Eastern Railroad to 1958 and 1961 .
Based on . the inspection of available records the site was used
solely as a railroad with associated freight storage facility
over its entire history. There is no record of any industrial or
commercial use or activity which would suggest any related
surface or subsurface contamination. There are no records of any
above ground or buried fuel, oil or other storage tanks, anywhere
on the proposed project site. A 24 inch storm sewer crosses the
site flowing west to east owned and maintained by the City of
-4-
i
Salem. The design of the proposed project should include
consideration for the relocation of the storm sewer as may be
required.
SITE INSPECTION
An initial site inspection was performed on February 23 , 1987. A
light snow cover (1-2 inches +) precluded visual observation of
much of the surface of the site. Vegetation and small randomly
scattered piles of rubbish including rugs, clothing, household
materials, broken bottles, cans and construction materials, were
1 generally visible protruding through the snow cover. Railroad
ties, other wood scraps and discarded construction materials were
observed along the retaining wall which runs along the easterly
side of the site.
A subsequent site inspection was made on March 10, 1987 at which
time there was no snow cover. No visible signs of oil, gasoline
or other chemical spill or release were observed on the surface
of the site.
CONCLUSIONS OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND VISUAL SITE INSPECTION
Based on the review of information obtained and described
regarding the history and use and ownership of the site and its
current observed condition, it was concluded that a subsurface
investigation should be conducted to determine the physical and
chemical characteristics of the soil underlying the site to
determine the nature of the material used to fill Mill Pond to
create the existing site.
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION - STAGE 2
' Three test borings were made as shown on Figure 3 , Boring
Location Plan. Borings were performed using a continuous split
spoon to depths of 14 to 16 feet. Up to 12 feet of fill was
encountered consisting of sand, gravel, cobble and cinders.
-5-
CO.
UJB nog,
r4 waC3'oJo� 0.wmo'� r��� �q� 11
� npp
' LOCUS MAP
0
21E-103
•.I I Y..n. rua..Rl CO o �4
X00 o
— 21 E-104
_
E-102 —
S I'• F
�.� L COxCn[R rt
PROPOSED SALEM POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS FIGURE
SITE PLAN & BORING LOCATIONS 3
Underlying the fill are grey silts and sands with traces of
shells and vegetation, indicative of the original pond bottom and
estuarine origins of the Mill Pond. Boring logs are found in
Appendix A. A fourth boring location was deleted from the
program based on the consistency of the materials encountered in
the first three orings completed.
Soil samples were collected from the test borings at 2 foot
intervals using a split spoon sampler. Samples were composited
for wide scan analysis. Sample portions are available for
inspection at Maguire's Waltham Office.
Samples were analyzed in the laboratory for EPA Hazardous
Substance List (HSL) metals, EP toxicity, hexavalent chromium,
oil and grease, volatile organics, herbicides, pesticides and
PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) . Results of all laboratory
analyses are provided in Appendix B.
Analysis of the soil samples revealed minor concentrations of oil
and grease and very low levels of Aroclor 1260 which is a PCB.
The PCB appeared in two of the three samples. The reliable
reporting limit for the analysis of this material based on the
test method used is 160 micrograms per kilogram (parts per
billion or ppb) .
One of the samples reported shows a value of 130 ppb which is of
limited value other than to indicate that particular compound is
rin deed present in that sample. The value from the second sample
is 380 ppb. DEQE has established an informal action limit for
PCB' s in soil at 1 part per million (ppm) , which is equivalent to
1, 000 ppb. This informal action limit is based on a No Adverse
Health Limit of 1 ppm.
Based on the DEQE guidance and action levels available and in
effect at the time of this writing, the levels of PCB in soil
underlying this site appear sufficiently low to not present a
' threat to health or the environment.
-6-
CONCLUSIONS OF STAGE 2 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND TESTING
Based on the sample analysis from the test borings performed,
either the site at some point following its initial filling and
subsequent use as a railroad track and siding or the material
used to fill the Mill Pond to create the existing site either
contained or were exposed to PCB's. The extremely low levels of
PCB's found in the soil do not suggest that a release or threat
of release has occurred or; is present, respectively. Such results
are not atypical in an urban, industrial municipality such as
Salem. The results do not appear to present an impediment to the
intended use or development of this site.
PERSONS CONTACTED REGARDING THE SITE
Robert Gates, Salem Engineering Department
Robert Blinkhorn, Salem Health Department
William Munroe, Salem Building Inspector
Fire Marshall, Fire Prevention Bureau
Massachusetts DEQE, Salem Files, Northeast Regional Office
REFERENCES
Salem USGS Quadrangle
Property Records - Salem Assessor's Office
Records and Maps - Salem Engineering and Public Works Department
Deed Descriptions - Essex County Registry of Deeds
REPORT LIMITATIONS
1. The information provided in this Report is based upon
personal interviews and research of available documents,
records and maps held by the appropriate government and
private agencies. This information is subject to the
limitations of historical documentation, availability and
accuracy of pertinent records, and the personal recollection
of those persons contacted.
2 . The initial site investigation took into account the natural
and man-made features of the site including any unusual or
suspect phenomena. These factors combined with the site's
geology, hydrology, topography and past and present land
uses served as a basis for choosing a methodology for
subsurface investigations and sampling. The subsurface data
is meant as a representative overview of the site.
3 .' The location and analysis of borings and soil samples were
based upon the same considerations listed in 1 and 2 above.
4. This Report has been prepared exclusively for the City of
Salem, Massachusetts and may only be used by the City of
Salem.
-8-
z �
� s
H U'
a z
w �
swam
G GUILD DRILLING CO., INC. SHEET
100 WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE, R. I. DATE
AO
TO
C E Maguire, Inc. Waltham' Mass'. HOLE NO. B-102
PROJECT NAME Monitor Wells @ Jefferson (LOCATIOATIO N Salem, Mass. LINE 8 STA.
REPORTSENT,TO above & Margin Sts. PROJ.NO. OFFSET
SAMPLES SENT TO Taken at SiteTOUR J08 N0. 87-837 SURF. ELEV.
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS Dare Time .
CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR.
START 3/16/8
(�
At_ ' after_Hours Type H/S S/S 16/87 .COMPLETE 3 am.
Size i.0. Auger 1-3/8" TOTAL HRS.
At cfter__Hours 140 BORING FOREMAN J. Ha d
Hemmer Wt urda Hammer Fall 30BIT INSPECTOR
-- "
SOILS ENGR.
LOCATION OF BORING
Casing Sample Type Blows per fi" Moisture
F s P v P Strata aOIL IDENTIFICATION SAMPLE
Blows Deaths of an Sampler Remarks include colo,gradation Type of
o. Density e ; v0
W per From- 7o ample From Te or Change soil eta-Rock-cologtype,condirion,hord-
f of _ 0-611 6-12 12-18 Consist. Elev. ness,Drilling time, seams and etc. No. Pen Rec.
0'-2' D 10 10 11 Brown fine to coarse Sand, 1 24' 18"
12 Gravel Cobbles & etc.
2'-4' D 11 15 14 ' 2 -2-791-01
15 FILL
-6 D 21 17 11
6
6'-8' D 11 10 8
9
8'-10' D 4 3 4 Brown coarse to fine Sand S 24 10'
8 & Gravel
10' -12' D
13N16'
12'-14' D 3 3 6 Gra SILT & Shells 7 2 8 '
9 Gray fine to coarse SAND,
14'-16' 6 some silt, trace of shells 8 24' l8'9
0
Bottom of Boring 16'
r
Installed 2" Obs. Well
10' Screen - 4' Solid
3 Bags of Ottawa Sand
Pail of Bentonite Balls
Bag of Cement
One Gate Box
GROUND SURFACE TO USED Auger "CASING: THEN S S t0 16
Sample Type Proportions Used 1401b Wt.00"fallon2'00. Sampler SUMMARY ,
O-Dry C-Cared 6:.sasned trace Oto to% Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Earth Boring Z6
UP-Undisturbed Pswn lirtle 10!020% 0-10 Loose ( 0-4 Soft 30 Hord Rock Coring
TP-Test Pt A-G,;yar `)-Vane Test some 20to350/a 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 vi
Samples —�
UT=U,dish:r-ed Tti,..all n 35 rc 50%, 3G.50 _r Dense 8-15 Stiff 2
tl _ F Vo v Dense 15-=n v-Goff HOLE NO B-1
�71 GUILD DRILLING CO., INC. SHEET—1 of 1
100 WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE, R. I. DATE
TO C E Maguire, Inc. ADDRESS Waltham, Mass.
HOLE NO. B-103
PROJECT NAME Monitor Wells @ Jefferson Salem, Mass. LINE 9 STA.
above & Margin S tS710N OFFSET
REPORT SENT 70 PROJ.N0.
SAMPLES SENT TO -Taken at Site OUR JOB NO. 87-837 SURF. ELEV.
Data Time
SGROUNO 'NATER OBSERVATIONS CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. START 3/16/8 7 p.m..;
At_ t after_Hours
Type H/S S/S COMPLETE 3/16/87 $l.!
Size LD. Auger 1-3/8" TOTAL HRS. I
BORING FOREMAN
J. Ha a ur a
At after--Hours Hemmer Wt_ 1401
30" 61T INSPECTOR
Hammer Fall SOILS ENGR.
LOCATION OF SORING
= Casing Scmp;e Type Blows per Ei Moisture SOIL IDENTIFICATIONI
Scrota SAMPLE
i Blows Depths of an SamplerDensil Remarks include color,gradation, Type of
per Fram- To ompe From To or y Change soiletc. Rock-color,type,condition,hard--
` foot _ 0-611 Ei-!� Consist. Elev. ness,Drilling time, seams and etc. No. Pen Rea
0'-21 D 6 12 17 Brown fine to coarse Sand, 1 24' 12"1
' 17 Gravel, Cinders FILL
21-4' D 9 10 9 2 24' 3"
4'-6' 4 6 10
4
-8 D
2
8 -10 D WOR 4 3
3
D = 11' 18
1 Gray Organic SILT, Clay &
12' Shells trace of vegetation
12'-14 D 1 2 7 Gray fine to coarse SAND, 7 24 18
17 14' Layer Silt trace of gravel
14'-16' 2 5 1 Gray fine to medium SAND, 8 2024"'
1 15' trace of silt
Gray SILT, trace of
16' vegetation (organic)
Bottom of Boring 16'
I
Installed 2" Obs. Well
10' Screen - 4' Solid
3 Bags of Ottawa Sand
Pail of Bentonite Balls
Bag of Cement
One Gate Box
GROUND SURFACE TO USED ager "CASING: THEN S t0 Lo
Somc!e Type Prooarnons Used1401b Wt.x30"falron2"0D. Scmoler SUMMARY
D:Dry
'ed "ace W=.+dswd mace Oro 10a/o Cuhesionless Density Cchesive Consistency Earth Bor�nq �6'
UP--,no,slurced F:sicn c!1e IC ro20°/o 0.10 Loose 0-4 Soft 30 + Hard Reck Coring
TP=Te-t Po A-al qer V=V,re FestBorne 20!a.,5 0/c 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M/Stift Samples
<
!1T-..-.: s•-- - ..a,i -,.� ,<.rc<n ,i 40-iO ,e.Cense .rse-1C S.�tff
r NOLO NO 3-103
GUILD DRILLING CO., INC.
SHEET 1 OF 1
100 WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE, R. I. DATE I
TO C E Maguire, Inc. Waltham, Mass. HOLE NO. B-104
ADORE SS LINE 8 STA.
V PROJECT NAME Monitor We11S @Jefferson LOCATION Salem, Mass.
REPORT SENT TO above / & Marin SCS. OFFSET
PROD.N0.
SAMPLES SENT TO Taken at Site OURJOBNO. 87-837 SURF. ELEV.
Dore Time
GROUND `NATER OBSERVATIONS CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. START 3/16/8
S
At_ ' after—Hours Type H/S S/S COMPLETE 3/16/87 a.m.
S,zeI D. Auger 1-3/8" TOTAL HRS.
At after--Hours Hammer 'Wt. 1401 BORING FOREMAN J. He aour a
30" _ BIT INSPECTOR
Hammer Fall � 507t•S ENGR.
LOCATION OF BORING:
= Casing Sample Trpe Blows per fi' Moisture Strata SOIL IDENTIFICATION SAMPLE
CL Density Blows Depths of on Sampler Remarks include colo,gradation,Type of
C per From- To ample From To or Change $ail etc.-Rock-color,type,condition,hard-
foot _ 0-6_ _ 6-Ir 2 Z-!8 Consist. Elev. ness,Drilling time, seams and ett. No. Pen Rec.
0'-2' D 4 10 14 Brown fine to coarse Sand, 1 24' 18"
' 14 Gravel, Cinders, Cobbles
2 -4 D 25 25 20 FILL 2 24' 8"
13 4'
4'-6' D 6 5 6 Brown fine to medium SAND 2 18
10 6'
6t-8f Ti 14 8 9 Brown coarse to fine SAND -9Tri
6 & Gravel
81-10, D 4 3 4
2
10'-12 1 1 11 11'
4 1 12' Gra SILT trace ve etation
12 -14 D 8 7 5 Gray ine to medium S D,
6 14' trace of coarse sand
Bottom of Boring 14'
1�
Installed 2" Obs. Well
10' Screen - 4' Solid
3 Bags of Ottawa Sand
tk Pail of Bentonite Balls
Bag of Cement
One Gate Box
tGROUND SURFACE TO USED Auger "CASING: THEN S to
Samcle TypeProportions Usea 14010WI.x3O'fauon2'�CO. Somp!er SUMMARY
O=Dry C-Cored 'N=sashed Mace Oto 10%a Coneslonless Densly Cohesive Consistency Earth Bonnq 14
uP:.;nasturaed
Piston dne C,o200% 0-10 Loose 0-4 Soft 3C Hard Rock Coring
7::Test R" A--accr `J=`I:ne Test ;ome 20!035% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-B M/Shtf Samples �—
..c:1 30-°O Dense 6-15 Stiff B-104
H
Cq W
>C
^L^�]
�W
O
y
�EX7NAME: maguire/28 (R)P: (3/31) 01
ERCO/ADI,-1SIO..DE ENSECO 6NCORPORAiED -11,14
CLIENT: C.E. Maguire INORGANIC ANALYSIS
SAMPLE RECEIVED: 03/16/87
ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 03/31/87 SOLID
RESULTS IN: uq/g (pom) dry wt
REPORTED BY: Lh5
CHECKED BY: M all - Data Report -
ERCO Client
ID ID Ag As Be Cd Cr Cu Hg
87-002909 621E-102 0.76 3.3 0.41 <0.57 19 14 0.10
87-002911 B21E-103 0.91 4.6 0.50 <0.57 32 20 0.046
87-002913 821E-104 <0.58 7.2 0.31 <0.58 22 19 0.094
ENSECO
Blank <0.50 <0.30 <0.10 <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 <0.020.
If customer has any questions regarding analysis, refer to sample in question by its
ERCO ID#.
�TEXTNAME: maguire/28 (R)P: (3/31) 02
ERCO/A OMSiON OF ENSECO NCORPORA7ED
CLIENT: C.E. Maguire INORGANIC ANALYSIS
SAMPLE RECEIVED: 03/16/87
ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 03/31/87 SOLID
RESULTS IN: vq/g (pom) dry wt
REPORTED BY: LA5
CHECKED BY: MSIA - Data Report -
ERCO Client
�. ID ID Ni Pb Sb Se T1 Zn
87-002909 B21E-102 14 21 <1.1 <0.57 <1.1 63
87-002911 B21E-103 19 25 <1.1 <0.59 <1.2 58
87-002913 B21E-104 15 32 <1.2 <0.59 <1.2 52
ENSECO
Blank <4.0 <5.0 <1.0 <0.50 <1.0 <5.0
If customer has any questions regarding analysis, refer to sample in question by its
ERCO IDN.
r
�EXTNAME: maguire/6 (R)P: (4/6) 01 -
ERCO/ADwiSIO.OP ENSECO INCORPORATED
CLIENT: C.E. Maguire INORGANIC ANALYSIS
SAMPLE RECEIVED: 03/16/87
ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 04/06/87 EP TOXICITY
RESULTS IN: jig/ml (ppm)
REPORTED BY: (1kl
CHECKED BY: col. - Data Report -
ERCO Client
ID ID Ag As Ba Cd Cr Hg Pb Se
87-002910 B21E-102 <0.020 <0.010 <2.0 <0.020 <0.20 <0.0002 <0.20 <0.010
87-002912 B21E-103 <0.020 <0.010 <2.0 <0.020 <0.20 <0.0002 <0.20 <0.010
87-002914 B21E-104 <0.020 <0.010 <2.0 <0.020 <0.20 <0.0002 <0.20 <0.010
EP TOX
Blank <0.020 <0.010 <2.0 <0.020 <0.20 <0.0002 <0.20 <0.010
If customer has any questions regarding analysis, refer to sample in question by its
ERGO IDN.
�EXTNAME: maguire/7 (R)P: (4/7) 01
E RCO/A DIVISION OF E NSECO NCORPORATFD
CLIENT: C.E. Maguire, Inc. INORGANIC ANALYSIS
�- SAMPLE RECEIVED: 03/16/87
ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 04/07/87
RESULTS IN: _ ug/g (ppm) dry wt*
REPORTED BY: Mb, J2c
CHECKED BY: (94 - Data Report -
Chromium,
ERCO Client Hexavalent Oil &
ID ID (mg/1) Grease
i87-002909 B21E-102 NA 180
87-002910 B21E-102 <0.01 NA
EP TOX
87-002911 B21E-103 NA 400
87-002912 B21E-103 <0.01 NA
EP TOX
87-002913 B21E-104 NA 600
87-002914 B21E-104 <0.01 NA
EP TOX
ERCO Blank <0.01 <100
•�% ERCO Blank 103% 106%
Spike
�! ERCO Blank 107% 107%
Spike Dup.
-J
1 If customer has any questions regarding analysis, . refer to sample in question by its
!� ERCO ID#.
*Unless otherwise indicated.
NA = Not applicable.
�EXTNAME: cem/2 (R)P: (4/2) 05
ERCO/A DIVISION OE ENSECO INCORPORATED
' HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST (HSL) VOLATILE ORGANICS
EPA Method 624/HSL List
' Client Name: C.E. Maguire, Inc.
Client ID: Trip Blank
Laboratory ID: 87-002908 ENSECO ID:
Matrix: Water Sampled: 03/16/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized: 03/16/87 Prepared: 03/25/87 Analyzed: 03/25/87
Reporting
�i Parameter Result .Units Limit
Chloromethane ND pg/L 5
Bromomethane ND
p9/L 5
Vinyl chloride ND
p9/L 5
Chloroethane NO pg/L 5
r Methylene chloride NO pg/L 10
Acetone NO pg/L 50
Carbon disulfide NO pg/L 2
1,1-Dichloroethene NO pg/L 2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND pg/L 2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND pg/L 2
Chloroform ND pg/L 2
1,2-Dichloroethane ND pg/L 2
2-Butanone ND pg/L 10
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND pg/L 2
Carbon tetrachloride NO pg/L 2
Vinyl acetate NO pg/L 10
Bromodichloromethane NO pg/L 2
1,2-Dichloropropane NO pg/L 2
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, ND pg/L 2
Trichloroethene NO pg/L 2
Dibromochloromethane NO pg/L 2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane NO pg/L 2
Benzene NO pg/L 2 .
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene NO pg/L 2
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether NO pg/L 10
Bromoform ND pg/L 2
4-Methyl-2-pentanone NO pg/L 10
2-Hexanone NO pg/L 10
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane NO pg/L 2
Tetrachloroethene ND pg/L 2
Toluene NO pg/L 2
Chlorobenzene NO pg/L 2
Ethyl benzene ND pg/L 2
Styrene NO pg/L 2
Total xylenes NO pg/L 2
NO = Not detected.
Reported by �-s Approved by 1 �
TEXTNAME: cem/2 (R)P: (4/2) 06
E RCO/A DiViS,ON OF E N S E CO 1 1COR➢OR ED
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST (HSL) VOLATILE ORGANICS
/ EPA Method 8240/HSL List
Client Name: C.E. Maguire, Inc.
Client ID: 821E-102
Laboratory ID: 87-002909 ENSECO ID: 87-002909
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/16/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized: 03/16/87 Prepared: 03/23/87 Analyzed: 03/29/87
Reporting
Parameter Result Units Limit
Chloromethane ND pg/kg (dry wt).: 130
Bromomethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 130
Vinyl chloride NO jig/kg (dry wt) 130
Chloroethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 130
Methylene chloride NO pg/kg (dry wt) 500
Acetone NO pg/kg (dry wt) 1,300
Carbon disulfide NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
1,1-Dichloroethene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
1,1-Dichloroethane NO pglkg (dry wt) 50
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene ND pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Chloroform NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
1,2-Dichloroethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
2-Butanone NO pg/kg (dry wt) 250
1,1,1-Trichloroethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Carbon tetrachloride NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Vinyl acetate ND pg/kg (dry wt) 250
Bromodichloromethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
1,2-Dichloropropane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Trichloroethene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Dibromochloromethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
1,1,2-Trichloroethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Benzene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether NO pg/kg (dry wt) 250
Bromoform NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
4-Methyl-2-pentanone NO pg/kg (dry wt) 250
2-Hexanone NO pg/kg (dry wt) 250
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Tetrachlorcethene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Toluene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 130
Chlorobenzene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Ethyl benzene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Styrene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Total xylenes NO pg/kg (dry wt) 50
Percent solids 88
NO = Not detected.
Reported by Approved by
t
TEXTNAME: cem/2 (R)P: (4/2) 07
ERCO/A 01MION OF ENSECO INCORPORATED
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST (HSL) VOLATILE ORGANICS
It EPA Method 8240/HSL List
Client Name: C.E. Maguire, Inc.
Client ID: 621E-103
Laboratory ID: 87-002911 ENSECO ID: 87-002911
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/16/87 Received: 03/16/87
r Authorized: 03/16/87 Prepared: 03/23/87 Analyzed: 03/29/87
Reporting
' Parameter Result Units Limit
Chloromethane NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 150
Bromomethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 150
Vinyl chloride NO Ng/kg (dry wt) 150
Chloroethane ND Vg/kg (dry wt) 150
Methylene chloride NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 600
Acetone NO Vg/kg (dry wt) 1,500
Carbon disulfide ND ug/kg (dry wt) 60
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/kg (dry wt) 60
1,1-Dichloroethane ND jig/kg (dry wt) 60
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND Vg/kg (dry wt) 60
Chloroform NO Vg/kg (dry wt) 60
1,2-Dichloroethane NO lig/kg (dry wt) 60
2-Butanone NO lig/kg (dry wt) 300
1,1,1-Trichloroethane NO Vg/kg (dry wt) 60
Carbon tetrachloride ND Ug/kg (dry wt) 60
Vinyl acetate NO ug/kg (dry wt) 300
Bromodichloromethane NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 60
1,2-Dichlaropropane NO µg/kg (dry wt) 60
trans-1,3-Dichlorapropene NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 60
Trichloroethene NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 60
Dibromochloromethane NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 60
1,1,2-Trichloroethane NO lig/kg (dry wt) 60
Benzene NO lig/kg (dry wt) 60
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene NO ug/kg (dry wt) 60
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ND jig/kg (dry wt) 300
Bromoform NO pg/kg (dry wt) 60
4-Methyl-2-pentanone NO ug/kg (dry wt) 300
2-Hexanone NO ug/kg (dry wt) 300
' 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 60
Tetrachloroethene NO lig/kg (dry wt) 60
Toluene NO jig/kg (dry wt) 150
Chlorobenzene NO jig/kg (dry wt) 60
Ethyl benzene NO jig/kg (dry wt) 60
Styrene NO Vg/kg (dry wt) 60
Total xylenes NO pg/kg (dry wt) 60
Percent solids 80
' NO = Not detected.
Reported by h S Approved by
t
�EXTNAME: cem/2 (R)P: (4/2) 08
ERCO/A Drv1510..of ENSFCO INCORPORATED
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST (HSL) VOLATILE ORGANICS
' EPA Method 8240/HSL List
Client Name: C.E. Maguire, Inc.
Client ID: B21E-104
Laboratory ID: 87-002913 ENSECO ID: 87-002913
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/16/87 Received: 03/16/87
r Authorized: 03/16/87 Prepared: 03/23/87 Analyzed: 03/29/87
' Reporting
Parameter Result Units Limit
Chloromethane NO pg/kg (dry wt) 180
Bromomethane NO lig/kg (dry wt) 180
Vinyl chloride NO jig/kg (dry wt) 180
Chloroethane NO ►ig/kg (dry wt) 180
Methylene chloride ND lig/kg (dry wt) 700
Acetone NO ug/kg (dry wt) 1,800
Carbon disulfide ND ug/kg (dry wt) 70
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/kg (dry wt) 70
1,1-Dichloroethane NO , Ug/kg (dry wt) 70
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 70
Chloroform ND pg/kg (dry wt) 70
1,2-Dichloroethane NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 70
2-Butanone NO jig/kg (dry wt) 350
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/kg (dry wt) 70
Carbon tetrachloride ND Kg/kg (dry wt) 70
Vinyl acetate ND )ig/kg (dry wt) 350
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/kg (dry wt) 70
1,2-Dichloropropane NO Ng/kg (dry wt) 70
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene NO lig/kg (dry wt) 70
Trichloroethene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 70
Dibromochloromethane NO lig/kg (dry wt) 70
1,1,2-Trichlor0ethane NO jig/kg (dry wt) 70
Benzene NO jig/kg (dry wt) 70
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene NO jig/kg (dry wt) 70
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether NO ug/kg (dry wt) 350
Bromoform NO µg/kg (dry wt) 70
4-Methyl-2-pentanone NO jig/kg (dry wt) 350
2-Hexanone ND ug/kg (dry wt) 350
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane NO lig/kg (dry wt) 70
Tetrachloroethene ND Kg/kg (dry wt) 70
Toluene NO µg/kg (dry wt) 180
Chlorobenzene ND trig/kg (dry wt) 70
Ethyl benzene NO pg/kg (dry wt) 70
Styrene NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 70
Total xylenes NO 11g/kg (dry wt) 70
Percent solids 71
NO = Not detected.
Reported by l S Approved by
TEXTNAME: cem/7 (R)P: (4/6) 01
ERCO/A DIVISION OF ENSECO INCORPORATED
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
HERBICIDES
EPA Method 615
Client Name: C.E. Maguire
Client ID: B21E-102
Laboratory ID: 87-002909 ENSECO ID: 87-002909
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/15/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized: 03/17/87 Prepared: 03/18/87 Analyzed: 04/04/87
Reporting Regulated
Parameter Result Units . Limit Limit
2,4-D NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 800 10,000
Silvex NO 11g/kg (dry wt) 400 1,000
% Solid = 89
ND = Not detected.
Reported by E✓ Approved by yNL
�EXTNAME: cem/7 (R)P: (4/6) 02
E RCO/A DIVISION OF ENS ECO INCORPORATED
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
HERBICIDES
tEPA Method 615
Client Name: C.E. Maguire
Client ID: B21E-103
Laboratory ID: 87-002911 ENSECO ID: 87-002911
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/15/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized: 03/17/87 Prepared: 03/18/87 Analyzed: 04/04/87
Reporting Regulated
Parameter Result Units Limit Limit
2,4-D ND Vg/kg (dry wt) 800 10,000
Silvex NO ug/kg (dry wt) 400 1,000
% Solid = 82
E
r
NO = Not detected.
Reported by Approved by ��I�l
TEXTNAME: cem/7 (R)P: (4/6) 03
ERCO/Ao„•I5,o,.Of ENSECO INCORPORaifO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
HERBICIDES
tEPA Method 615
Client Name: C.E. Maquire
Client ID: B21E-104
Laboratory ID: 87-002913 ENSECO ID: 87-002913
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/15/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized: 03/17/87 Prepared: 03/18/87 Analyzed: 04/04/87
Reporting Regulated
Parameter Result Units Limit Limit
2,4-0 NO pg/kg (dry wt) 20 10,000
Silvex NO pg/kg (dry wt) 10 1,000
% Solid = 83
NO = Not detected.
Reported by Et- Approved by `/u�
TEXTNAME: maguire/4 (R)P: (4/7) 01
ERCO/A DIVISION OF ENSECO INCORPORATED
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES/PCBs
EPA Method 8080
Client Name: C.E. Maguire
Client ID: 821E-102
Laboratory ID: 87-002909 ENSECO ID: 87-002909
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/15/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized: 03/17/87 Prepared: 03/18/87 Analyzed: 04/06/87
Reporting
Parameter Result Units Limit
alpha-BHC NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
beta-BHC NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
delta-BHC NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 8
gamma-BHC (Lindane) NO pg/kg (dry wt) 8
Heptachlor NO ug/kg (dry wt) 8
Aldrin NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
Heptachlor Epoxide NO ug/kg (dry wt) 8
Endosulfan I NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
Dieldrin NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DDE NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
Endrin NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
Endosulfan II NO )ig/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DDD NO ug/kg (dry wt) 16
Endosulfan Sulfate NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DDT NO lig/kg (dry wt) 16
Endrin Aldehyde NO pg/kg (dry wt) 16
Methoxychlor NO jig/kg (dry wt) 80
Chlordane NO jig/kg (dry wt) 80
Toxaphene NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 160
Aroclor-1016 NO )ig/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1221 NO ug/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1232 NO jig/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1242 ND Ug/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1248 NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1254 NO ug/kg (dry wt) 160
Aroclor-1260 -------------------- 380 jig/kg (dry wt) 160
Percent solids ------------------- 89
r:
NO = Not detected.
Reported by Approved by YNL
t
�EXTNAME: maguire/4 (R)P: (4/7) 02
E RCO/A DIVISION OF E N S E CO INCORPORATED
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES/PCBs
EPA Method 8080
Client Name: C.E. Maguire
Client ID: B21E-103
Laboratory ID: 87-002911 ENSECO ID: 87-002911
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/15/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized: 03/17/87 Prepared: 03/18/87 Analyzed: 04/06/87
Reporting
Parameter Result Units Limit
alpha-BHC NO lig/kg (dry wt) 8
beta-BHC NO lig/kg (dry wt) 8
delta-BHC NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 8
gamma-BHC (Lindane) NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
Heptachlor NO )1g/kg (dry wt) 8
Aldrin NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
Heptachlor Epoxide NO ug/kg (dry wt) .8
Endosulfan I NO Vg/.kg (dry wt) 8
Dieldrin NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DDE NO ug/kg (dry wt) 16
Endrin NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
Endosulfan II NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DOD NO 11g/kg (dry wt) 16
' Endosulfan Sulfate NO µg/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DDT NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
Endrin Aldehyde NO lig/kg (dry wt) 16
Methoxychlor NO jig/kg (dry wt) 80
Chlordane NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 80
Toxaphene NO jig/kg (dry wt) 160
Aroclor-1016 NO ug/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1221 NO ug/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1232 NO jig/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1242 NO lig/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1248 NO lig/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1254 NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 160
Aroclor-1260 NO µg/kg (dry wt) 160
Percent solids ------------------- 83
NO = Not detected.
Reported by EL Approved by \Ia4-
t
�EXTNAME: maguire/4 (R)P: (4/7) 03
ERCO/A DIVISION OP ENSECO INCORPORATED
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES/PCBs
EPA Method 8080
Client Name: C.E. Maguire
Client ID: 821E-104
Laboratory ID: 87-002913 ENSECO ID: 87-002913
Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/15/87 Received: 03/16/87
Authorized:° 03/17/87 Prepared: 03/18/87 Analyzed: 04/06/87
Reporting
Parameter Result Units Limit
alpha-BHC ND jig/kg (dry wt) 8
beta-BHC ND Kg/kg (dry wt) 8
delta-BHC NO Ng/kg (dry wt) 8 .
gamma-BHC (Lindane) NO pg/kg (dry wt) 8
Heptachlor NO Kg/kg (dry wt) 8
Aldrin NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
Heptachlor Epoxide NO ug/kg (dry wt) 8
Endosulfan I NO jig/kg (dry wt) 8
Dieldrin NO lig/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DDE NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 16
Endrin NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 16
Endosulfan II NO lig/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DDD NO lig/kg (dry wt) 16
Endosulfan Sulfate NO jig/kg (dry wt) 16
4,4'-DOT NO Ug/kg (dry wt) 16
Endrin Aldehyde ND ug/kg (dry wt) 16
Methoxychlor NO jig/kg (dry wt) 80
Chlordane NO ug/kg (dry wt) 80
Toxaphene NO ug/kg (dry wt) 160
Aroclor-1016 NO pg/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1221 NO pg/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1232 NO pg/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1242 NO pg/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1248 ND jig/kg (dry wt) 80
Aroclor-1254 ND )ig/kg (dry wt) 160
Aroclor-1260 -------------------- 130 jig/kg (dry wt) 160
Percent solids ------------------- 83
NO = Not detected.
Reported by Er Approved by `6k-
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r,,conortt,�
GERARD KAVANAUGH ONE SALEM GREEN
CITY PLANNER 01970
(617) 744-4580
> 9
J �tiT
�CUpvi.
July 6, 1987 �{�
Mr. Robert Blenkhorn I ( i'9
Health Agent J) "(Puy
D N
Salem Health Department QUL 6 198'
9 North St.
Salem, MA 01970 CITY U1' SALEM
RE: Salem Police Station, Margin St. HEALTH DDT.
Dear Mr. Blenkhorn:
As per the conditions set by the Board of Health for the Police
Station Site Plan Review permit, enclosed is a copy of our Environmental
Site Assessment Report (21E) for your records.
Please call if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
k J"' Qj
Debra Hilbert
Staff Planner
Enc.