., #127--/". i Council Agenda Item: 1I!?7 SUMMARY: Presentation of the Final Report of the Phase IT Environmental Assessment for Addison Airport Fuel Farm from Washington Group International,
Inc. -BACKGROUND: . Washington Group International has completed the work for the Airport Fuel Farm Phase IT Environmental Assessment. The work included a soil vapor survey, push probe
soil sampling, ground water sampling, installation of monitoring wells, documents review, site reconnaissance, personnel interviews, and report documentation. Preliminary results of
this work were reported to Council at a meeting on March 6, 2002. Ron Bow lin with Washington Group will present to the Council the final report of the Environmental Phase IT Assessment
and a recommended course of action based on the results of the assessment. An Executive Summary of the findings is attached. Attachment: Executive Summary -Final Report: Phase IT Environmental
Assessment 
G WashingtonEXECUTIVE SUMMARY SOIL VAPOR PROGRAM • Three hydrocarbon plumes have been identified in the fuel farm area • Previously unknown releases have occurred at the former fuel
dispenser • Strong methane signature indicates active intrinsic biodegradation of hydrocarbons • No evidence that contamination has migrated under Addison Road SOIL SAMPLE PROGRAM •
Samples have been collected from 17 boring locations based on the soil vapor surveys • Twenty-three samples were selected for analysis • Bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from
3 ft to 11 ft • Only one sample reported benzene greater than the PST target level • Seven samples reported total petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations greater than the PST target
level • No polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were reported above PST target levels • Contamination appears to be caused from surface releases from current operational practices
• The most extensive area of contamination is at the former fuel dispenser GROUNDWATER SAMPLE PROGRAM • Oroundwater was encountered in only two boring locations • Oroundwater was not
encountered above the bedrock surface • Oroundwater appears to be under perched and confined conditions • Groundwater does show evidence of contamination. One P AH constituent was reported
at levels greater than the PST target level • Nine monitoring wells are present onsite that were not sampled • No free-phase product was observed CONCLUSIONS • Low concentrations of
contaminants in soil and groundwater should qualify this site for a Plan A closure • Stricter TNRCC requirements will apply to LPST sites in 2003 if new releases occur • Future releases
to the environment must be mitigated to qualify for Plan A closure • Intrinsic biodegradation of hydrocarbons is actively occurring onsite. • Natural attenuation for a corrective action
is applicable • The groundwater plume must be verified that it is contained and degrading • Plan A closure for the entire site cannot be submitted to the TNRCC until such time that current
fueling operations are halted 
-_._.....••_....._---------Washington FINAL REpORT PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDISON AIRPORT ADDISON, TEXAS PREPARED FOR: TOWN OF ADDISON 16801 WESTGROVE DRIVE ADDISoN, TEXAS
, , PREPARED By: WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. HOUSTON, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 2002 
G Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...................................................1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PuRPoSE ...............................................
.... 1 SOIL VAPOR PROGRAM ..........................................................................2 SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM .....................................................................5
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROGRAM ....................................................12 DOCUMENT REVIEW AND SITE REcONNAISSANCE................................... 13 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.......................................................................... 17 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................ 17 LIMITATIONS
••....•.•.........•....•.•.....••..•.•........••••...•.•.......•..•••.•••::..•..•.••....•21 FIGURES Figure 1-Site Layout Plan Figure 2 -Addison Fuel Farm Areas Figure 3 -Fuel Storage
Area #1 Figure 4 -Fuel Storage Area #2 Figure 5 -Fuel Storage Area #3 Figure 6 -Fuel Storage Area #4 Figure 7 -Soil Vapor Sampling Location Map Figure 8 -Methane Isoconcentration Map'
Figure 9 -Propane Isoconcentration Map Figure 10 -N-butane Isoconcentration Map Figure 11 -CS+ Hydrocarbons Isoconcentration Map Figure 12 -Boring Location Map Figure 13 -Structure Contour
Map Figure 14 -Analytical Results Location Map . TABLES Table 1 -Summary ofAnalytical Results Table 2 -Tank. Equipment Summary APPENDICES Attachment A -ETI Report Attachment B -Boring
Logs Attachment C -Analytical Reports Attachment D -EDR Report Attachment E -Aerial Photographs 
" Washington PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Addison Airport is a general aviation airport with a single runway that occupies about 368 acres ofland within Addison, Texas, just
north ofDallas. The airport is owned by the Town ofAddison and is currently oPerated and maintained by the joint venture of Washington Staubach. The airport supports general aviation
activities for corporate jets and private aircraft. It is one ofthe largest and busiest general aviation airports in the country. The airport contains several fixed base operators (FBO),
office buildings, maintenance shops, hangars, and fuel farms. A site location map is presented as Figure 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PuRPoSE The Addison Airport has four fuel storage areas
located in the southeastern comer ofthe property (Figure 2). From the information available, and initially' .based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update developed by Camp
Dresser & McKee (CDM), there are currently 29 registered underground storage tanks (USTs) located at at the airport fuel storage areas. Ten ofthese USTs are inactive; the remaining 19
active USTs are currently being used by on-site FBO's. There has also been concern that additional unregistered underground fuel storage tanks may be on the airport property. According
to Town .of Addison Fire Department drawings, dated February 28, 2001, there are four fuel storage areas operated by six operators: Mercury Air (Storage Areas #1 and #3), Million Air
(Storage Area #1), Stern Air (Storage Area #2), Addison Express (Storage Area #3); R. Stem (Storage Area #3), and Cherry Air (Storage Area #4). Current airport management personnel indicate
that only Million Air, Mercury Air, Addison Express, and Cherry Air are currently operating tanks at the airport. Layouts of the fuel storage areas as recorded by the Addison Fire Department
Operations Divisioq are included as Figures 3 through 6. The objective ofthis project was to obtain sufficient data to delineate the lateral extent ofcontamination at the fuel storage
area. Our technical approach consisted ofa combination ofinvasive field exploration through soil vapor analysis, subsurface soil and groundwater sample collection and analysis, document
review, and interviews with knowledgeable persons. The data were studied to establish an understanding ofthe environmental and physical conditions ofthe tank farms and adjacent areas
at the airport. Discussions ofeach technical program are discussed in the following sections. Phase nEnvironrnental Assessment Pagel Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
G Washington SOIL VAPOR PROGRAM A initial soil vapor survey was conducted in the fuel storage areas from December 14 through 18, 2001 by Exploration Technologies, Inc. (BTl), from Houston,
Texas, under the oversight ofWashington. Soil vapor samples were collected at 89 locations within and around the fuel storage and former dispenser areas. A second round ofsoil vapor
samples were collected by ETI at 48 additional locations on July 22 throng 25, 2002 to further define the hydrocarbon plumes on the airport property and to evaluate potential migration
beneath Addison Road (Figure 7). Soil vapor samples were collected on a grid spacing of about 40 ft. Some adjustment to the grid was required based on surface structures and field screening
measurements. Soil vapors were collected by advancing a collection rod to a depth ofaround 4 ft below ground surface (bgs). Vapor that exists within the interstices of the soil was drawn
out and collected in an evacuated glass sample 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀮􀀠On-site qualitative analysis for methane, oxygen, and carbon dioxide assisted in the field placement ofcollection locations.
The primaIy purpose ofthe soil vapor survey was to assist in determining the lateral extent and concentrations oforganic hydrocarbon compounds that may be present in the soils andlor
groundwater. The survey included the determination and quantification ofCI to C4 hydrocarbon (methane, ethane, propane, and butanes) and C5+ hydrocarbon (pentanes through xylenes) vapors
in the subsurface environment. Two dominant product signatures were noted: aviation gasoline and jet fuel. The complete ETl report discussing field procedures, laboratory protocol, and
analytical results is included as Attachment A The ETI report discusses five areas ofconcern. These areas are shown and numbered on the plume maps and used in this text for discussion.
Methane is a major component ofnatural gas; however, liquid petroleum products such as aviation gasoline and jet fuel contain no, or trace levels, ofmethane. Methane is generated from
the anaerobic biodegradation oforganic compounds, including fuel-related compounds. Because methane is such a light gas it migrates vertically easily through even relatively impermeable
soils, such as clays. The methane isoconcentration map (Figure 8) shows areas consistent with anaerobic biodegradation ofpetroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils. Propane and n-butane
have relatively high volatility and tend to indicate more recent releases to, or within, the subsurface environment. Propane and n-butane are never generated biogenically and are useful
in mapping vapor trails associated with hydrocarbon Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 2 Addison Airport Fuel Fann A1ea September 2002 
􀁾􀀠Washington products. The propane and n-butane isoconcentration maps (Figures 9 and 10, respectively) indicate relatively recent release activity. C5+ hydrocarbons compounds have
low to moderate solubility and volatility compared to the other compounds and tend. to remain closer to petroleum product sources since they are basically liquids rather than gases at
standard temperature and pressure. They are therefore good indicators ofpast and present episodes of release. The C5+ isoconcentration map is presented as Figure 11. Areas 1 and 2. These
two areas are located in the southern part ofthe fuel farm. The C5+ and methane plume maps indicate a relatively large hydrocarbon plume with three primary areas ofconcentrated or elevated
soil vapors. The elevated methane areas are consistent with anaerobic biodegradation ofpetroleum hydrocarbons in the subsurface soils. The lack ofsignificant propane and n-butane signatures
indicate 􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁳􀁥􀀠plumes are from relatively older releases. A propane and n-butane signature is present at sampling point 85 that does not show any anomalous C5+ or methane signatures.
This most likely represents a release from an aircraft stored in the adjoining T-hangar. Based on the location and past operational history ofthese tanks, the plume generated in Area
1 is the older ofthe releases, based on size and methane results. C5+ and methane concentrations in Area 2 occur at locations known to have very recent releases from tank filling operations.
The shape and Concentration ofthe plume indicates that soil vapors from subsurface contamination are slowly migrating to the west. There is no evidence to suggest that contamination
extends.eastward beneath Addison Road. Area 3. Areas 3 contains elevated concentrations ofC5+ hydrocarbons, methane, propane, and n-butane. Comparison ofthe plume maps indicate that
recent re1ease(s) have occurred just west ofthe northern part of Area 3. Moderate biodegradation is occurring! west ofthe northern part ofArea 3 where C5+, propane, and n-butane signatures
are present. Area 4. Relatively large C5+ and methane plumes are present around and west of Area 4. C5+ hydrocarbons appear to be conCl;llll:rated and traverse the northern portion of
the Area 4 tank farm. The presence ofthe elevated C5+ hydrocarbons, which remain in the subsurface soils for a extended period oftime, suggest the presence ofrelatively older petroleum
hydrocarbons. A lobate extension to the north follows the path ofabandoned fuel lines to the former dispenser in Area 5. The methane signature jndicates that significant biodegradation
ofthe hydrocarbons is occurring. N-buiane concentrations are present in the northern portion ofthe Area 4 tanks and west ofthe tank area at the T-hangar fenceline. Propane signatures
are also strong along the funceline. This suggests that there Phase nEnvironmental Assessment Page 3 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
" Wa .... lngton has been recent releases from spillage during operations adjoining the tank area, and that releases have occurred from vehicles parked along the fence line. No off site
migration of hydrocarbons is indicated from the soil vapor data; however, while concentrations are decreasing to the north and west, the C5+ \IDd methane plumes are still open. Area
5. Area 5 is located north ofthe fuel storage tanks, in the area ofthe former fuel dispenser. Although the C5+ hydrocarbon map does not indicate substantial contamination from older
releases, the methane map indicates that significant anerobic biodegradation is occurring in an east-west line centered on the dispenser. The C5+ and methane plumes suggest that past
releases have occurred during filling ofaircraft at "the dispenser and from fuel line leaks. An additional area ofmethane generation is present northwest ofthe former dispenser, near
the hangars. Area 5 diffilrs from the other areas in that it is capped with concrete and asphalt. The concentration ofC5+ hydrocarbons would be expected to be lower since the dispenser
is now closed and biodegradation activity appears to be significant. The propane and n-butane maps also indicate anomalous concentrations in the area. The area in front ofthe hangars
was historically and is currently used to fuel aircraft. This would account for the plume extending northward. The concrete/asphalt cap would also reduce volati1ization ofthe propane
and n-butane and allow for lateral migration beneath the cap as releases fbund their way through surface joints and cracks. No offsite migration is indicated from the soil vapor data;
however, the C5+ and methane plumes are open to the north and west. Summary, Three distinct hydrocarbon plumes have been identified in the survey area. The soil vapor concentrations
ofC5+ hydrocarbons indicate releases in the surface and/or subsurface have occurred over an undetermined period oftime. Methane concentrations are also elevated in the areas ofC5+ contamination.
indicating that biodegradation is active in the destruction ofthe petroleum compounds. This strongly' suggests that natural attenuation is occurring in the subsurface. Elevated levels
ofpropane and n-butane indicate that recent releases have"occurred within the fuel storage areas. Results ofthe soil vapor program iIidicate that contamination has not migrated east
under Addison Road. The southern plume (Areas 1 and 2) is closed in all directions. The central plume (Areas 3 and 4) remains open to the west under the T -hangars for C5+ and methane;
however, the low vapor concentrations suggest that closure ofthe iSOcOntours does not extend much further. The Area 5 plume is also open to the west and to the north. Decreasing isoconcentrations
suggest that closure exists in the near iateral direction. Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 4 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
o wasttlngton SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM Soil samples were collected during two separate sampling efforts using direct-push technology. The direct push method was selected for its cost efficient
way ofcollecting the maximum number of soil samples possible in a short time period, and produce limited drilling wastes. The results ofthe soil vapor analysis were used to identifY
the most appropriate surface locations to collect subsurface soil samples for analytical testing. Soil Sample COUectiOB. During the first soil sampling effort 10 surface locations for
sampling (PB-l through PB-I 0) were identified based on the real-time field methane and early laboratory results ofthe soil vapor survey. Soil samples were collected continuously at
each location and logged for soil type, color and other visual characteristics, olfactory sensation, and headspace (organic vapor response) analysis using a photoionization detector
(PlD). The soil sample with the greatest headspace reading was selected for analysis. Soil samples were collected at seven locations during the second effort (PB-ll through PB-I7) based
on the combined soil vapor studies. Two samples were selected from each boring location, where possible, based the headspace reading, depth, and visual inspection. Soil sampling locations
are shown on Figure 12. The direct-push sampling method consisted ofa mounted hydraulic hammer system used to advance a 4-ft SpliHpoon sampler into the subsurface. The 4-ft sampler allowed
for ease and speed in collection ofcontinuous samples. The split-spoon was then extracted and the sample was exposed fur logging, observation, and sample collection. The sampling effort
hit refusal depths rariging from 6 ft to 11 ft. Refusal was defined when the hydraulic hammer could no longer advance while the sampler was empty. Soil collected from the subsurface
was visually logged for lithology and other observable details by a qualified geologist. Soil logs are included as Attachment B. . ) A sample from each 2-ft soil interval was collected
for organic vapor response. Maximum organic vapor responses were recorded for each sample interval. No organic vapor responses were recorded for any sample intervals at PB-5, 7, 8, and
17. These locations correspond with areas ofvery limited C5+ hydrocarbon vapor signatures; The greatest organic vapor responses recorded Were at PB-3, 9, 10, 13, and 14, with responses
of275 ppm, 250 ppm, 300 ppm, 268 ppm, and 374 ppm, respectively. Maximum organic vapor responses at each location and the depth ofsample are shown on the analytical result table (Table
1). Organic vapor responses at each sampling interval are also shown on the soil boring logs. Phase II Environmental Assessment PageS Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
􀁾􀀠 Washington TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS (MG/KG) Parameter Sample Location PB·I PB·l PB-3 Depth, ft 5-6 7-8 2-4 (PlD, ppm) (96) . (93) (275) Benzene· ND ND ND Toluene 0,005
0,0051 0,005 Ethylbenzene ND ND 0,065 '. Xylenes + 0.0021 0.002J 0,0021 MIBE ND ND ND TPH: C6-C12 440 ND 570 TPH: C12 -C28 1000 ND 1200 PB-4 6-7 (3) ND 0,009 ND 0,003J ND ND ND .sAMPLE
LocATION PB·5 5-6 (0) ND 0,012 ND 0,0021 ND ND ND PB-6 5-6 . (130) ND 0,012 ND 0,0021 ND 59 100 PB·7 PB·8 3-4 4-5 (0) (0) ND ND 0,0061 0,008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PB-9 PB-IO
3-4 4·5 (250) (300) 2.2 ND 0.1701 0,11 6,2 ND 1.75 ND 2,4 ND -42 480 ND 1200 ----------------PB-4W (mg/L) ND ND ND ND ND ND 2 TNRCC PST Target Levels: Soil Groundwater Benzene: 0.74
mg/kg 0.0294mgIL Toluene: 503mglkg 7.3mgIL Etbylbenzene: 83Smg/kg 3.65mgIL Xylenes: 968mglkg 73mgIL MTBE: 37mg/kg 0.37mgIL TPH: lOOmglkg ;5 mg/L Note: Target Levels are defined by the
TNRCC PST (petroleum storage tank) Division as those hydrocarbon coilcentrations for soil and groundwater that indicate a need for further investigation andIor remediation, NO = Not
Detected . Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 6 Addison Airport Fuel Fann Area August 2002 
---o Wasbl...cton Parameter Sample Location Depth, ft (pID, ppm) Benzene Toluene Ethvlbenzene X}'lenes + . MlBE TPH:C6-CI2 TPH: CI2 -C28 2-Methylnaphthalene TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL
REsULTS (MG/KG) SAMPLE LoCATION PB·l1A PB-llB PB·12A PB-l2B l'B'l3A PB-l3B ·PB-14A PB·14B PB·15k PB-16A PB-17A PB-I7B OW·A OW-A 1-2 4-5 0-2 6-7 2-4 6-8 2-4 􀀶􀁾􀀠2-3 2-3.5 2-4 5-7 13-14
(mgIL) (2) (4) (4) (62) (210) (268) (374) (145) (65) (78) (0) (0) (108) ND ND ND ND ND O.OOH ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 56 ND ND ND 22 NA ND NA ND .2-Methylnapbtbalene.
73mgfkg O.073mgfL 􀁾􀁔􀀠ND NDND ND ND ND ND ND 0.015 ND 0.0011 ND 0.003 NDND ND 0.015 NDND ND 0.004 0.0021 ND ND ND ND 0.003J NDND ND 0.002J 0.003J NDND 0.003J ND ND ND 0.001 ND 0.O03}
NDND ND ND ND ND 0.021ND ND NDND 320 840 14 ND 98 ND 0.0062ND. 14 0.0055410 ND 43 NDND 170 ND ND ND VO.081 ""'3.00 NA ND ND NDNA 3.80 NA Groundwater Note: Target Levels are defined by
TNRCC PST (petroleum storage tank) Division as those hydrocarbon concentrations for soil and groundwater that indicate a need fur further investigation and/or remediation. ND = Not Detected
NA '" Not Analyzed Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 7 Addison Ahport Fuel Faun Area September 2002 
All sample handling equipment was cleaned between soil sample intervals. After boring completion, the borings were grouted with cement, bentonite, or other acceptable material to inhibit
stratigraphic cross-contamination. Drilling and sampling wastes were coUected in a 55-galIon drum and sealed. . Subsurface Conditions. Where refusal was encountered, the bedrock generally
consisted ofa laminated, weathered (friable) limy siltstone. Occasionally, refusal was encountered in a weathered chalky material.. The upper 1 fl: to 2 ft consisted ofa sandy loam,
fill material. From 2 ft to refusal the subsurface soil consisted ofinterbedded dark brown silty clay and clayey sand, tan sandy silt, and tan sands. All granular materials were dry
and showed no indications ofrecent percolation ofprecipitation. The cohesive clayey soils tended to have greater moisture contents in the northern portion ofthe study area. A file review
conducted ofpast boring activity produced boring logs scattered throughout the fuel storage areas. These boring logs were used to identify the approximate depth to bedrock across the
site. A structure contour map based on depth to bedrock is presented as Figure 13. The contour lines indicate approximate depth to bedrock. The map indicates that there are three areas
where bedrock reaches a depth of about 7 feet below ground surface (bgs). The two areas in the north have enough control to show that they are closed depressions with a elevated "saddle"
between them. ·It is important to note that these two areas correspond very closely to the areas identified by the soil vapor survey as the areas ofgreatest hydrocarbon accumulation.
These areas could likely act as "bathtubs" allowing hydrocarbon releases to accumulate from surface or subsurface releases. The structure contour map was used in conjunction with the
soil vapor maps for selecting the boring locations for the second soil sampling event. . 1 Analytical Results. One sample from each boring at locations PB-I through PB10 was selected
for analysis based on organic vapor response andlor visual observation. Two samples were selected from each boring at locations PB-ll through PB-17, where depth to bedrock allowed. Soil
samples were placed in laboratory-cleaned glass jars with appropriate labels and placed in an ice-filled cooler for transport to the laboratory. Selected soil samples were analyzed and
reported for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) by Method 8260, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by TNRCC Method 1005, and polynuclear
ardrnatic hydrocarbons (PAH) by Method 8270C. Chain-of-custody documents accompanied the samples. A summary ofthe reported analytical results is presented in Table 1. The concentrations
of Phase nEnvironmental Assessment PageS Addison Airport Fuel Fann Area August 2002 
G Washington detected constituents and their location to the site is presented on Figure 14. The full analytical report is included as Attachment C. Table 1also includes the TNRCC Petrolewn
Storage Tank (PST) target concentration levels for soil and groundwater. A target concentration is the maximum allowable contaminant concentration in a particular contaminated media.
Ifmeasured site contaminant levels exceed a target concentration the site must address that media and constituent for further action (remediation" institutional controls, attenuation).
Areas 1 and 2. Areas 1 and 2 included boringsPB-l, 2, 3, 4, and 15. Reported concentrations for BTEX constituents are 4 to 5 orders of magnitude less than the PST target levels. The
greatest concentrations reported were 0.009 mg/kg (toluene), 0.065 mg/kg (ethylbenzene), and 0.003J mg/kg (total xylenes), with target concentration levels of503 mg/kg, 835 mg/kg, and
968 mg/kg, respectively. No benzene was identified in the.. , samples collected from Areas 1 and 2. MTBE was reported at a concentration of0.065 mg/kg, and has a target level of37 mg/kg.
'TPH concentrations did exceed the PST target level oft00 mg/kg for soil at PB-l and PB-3 at concentrations of 1440 mg/kg and 1770 mg!kg, respectively. The soil sample at PH-3 was collected
at a depth of2 ft to 4 ft bgs. This is an area ofoccasional historic surface releases. The PlD reading at this sampling interval was 275 ppm, decreasing to 10 ppm at the bottom ofthe
borehole (7 ft). A drainline has been documented in the vicinity ofthe PB-3 location that exits just . southwest ofPB-l. The drainline empties into an unlined surface drainage feature.
A visual line break is present dose to the PB-I location. Surface releases from the fuel storage area have been documented to have entered the drain line and entered the drainage ditch.
TPH concentrations at PB-I are most likely historically related to these incidents. • ! Areas 3 and 4. Soil contamination for Areas 3 and 4 were characterized by samples from PH-5, 8,
9, 10, 10, and 14. Only one sample location was placed in Area 3 (PB-5) because ofthe low soil vapor signatures; a minor concentration ofC5+ vapors were identified (4 ppmv). This was
used as a control point to compare low soil vapor signatures to the quantitative soil analyses. PB·8 was located north ofthe Area 3 and 4 plwne to assess potential releases along the
fuel line and as an additional control point. PB-5 and 8 reported minor concentrations oftoluene, 0.012 mg/kg and 0.008 mg/kg, respectively. During the first collection event, borings
PB-9 and 10 were located within the area ofgreater C5+ vapor signatures. PB-9, at a depth of3 ft t6 4 ft, reported the greatest concentrations ofBTEX and MTBE constituents at 2.2 mg/kg,
om7J mg/kg, 6.2 mg/kg, 1.75 mg/kg, and 2.4 mg/kg, respectively; only benzene exceed the target Phase nEnvironmental Assessment Page 9 Addison Airport Fuel Farm AIea September 2002 
\9 Washington concentration for soil of0.74 mglkg. TPH was reported at both PB-9 (42 mglkg) and PB10 (1680 mglkg); with PB-l 0 exceeding the target soil level of 100 mglkg. Based on
the final round ofthe soil vapor survey a borehole (PB-14) was located in the area ofgreatest CS+ concentration. -Samples were collected at depths of2 to 4 ft and 6 to 8 ft. BTEX and
MTBE were either not detected or less than the PQL. In the 2 to 4 ft sample, TPH results were reported at 1250 mglkg. This sample was also analyzed for PAH compounds and identified 2-methyinaphthalen
e at 3 mglkg. The target level for 2-methylnephthalene in soil is 73 mglkg. TPH results for the 6 to 8 ft sample were 28 mglkg. As will be discussed in the section on groundwater sampling,
the boring at PB-14 was extended below the top ofbedrock to a depth of 15 ft. A continuous core ofthe bedrock from 7 to 15 ft was collected and logged. A sample was 􀁳􀁥􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁤􀀮for
analysis from the very bottom ofthe core sample. Analytical results reported BTEX concentrations of 0.015 mglkg, O.ot5 mglkg, o.oo:(ijnglkg, and 0.007 mglkg, respectively. No TPH or
P AH compounds were reported. Area 5. The hydrocarbon plume in Area 5 is generally centered around a former dispenser island. The dispenser was supplied with aviation gasoline from two
underground tanks at the northern storage tank area in Area 4. Borings (pB-6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17) were located in Area 5 based on the soil vapor survey to sample the areas ofgreatest
C5+ and methane concentrations, and to assist in adding closure to the vapor plume maps. Borings PB-6, 12, and 13 were located within the area ofgreatest C5+and methane signatures from the soil vapor survey; located south, west, and east ofthe dispenser, respectively. The greatest reported concentrations were at PB-6 and PB-B. AtPB-6, at
depth of5 to 6 ft, combined BTEX concentrations were 0.014 mglkg, with a TPH concentration of 159 mglkg. PB-13 is located along the fuel supply line and reported concentrations, at a
depth of6 to 8 ft, ofcombined BTEX at 0.007 mglkg and TPH at 490 mglkg. PAH analysis on the TPH sample reported 2-methylnaphthalene at 3.80 mglkg. Samples from PB-13 at a depth of2 to
4 ft did not report any detectable compounds. West ofthe dispenser at PB-12, no compounds were identified at a depth of o to 2 ft, and only a TPH concentration of78 mglkg was reported
from the 6 to 7 ft soil sample. Soil samples were collected at the edges ofthe open soil vapor plume of ea 5. PB-7 was collected at a depth of3 to 4 ft and reported only toluene at 0.0
J glkg. Pbase nEnvironmental Assessmen1 Pago 10 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
G Washington Borings PB-11 and PB-17 were located at the open edges ofthe Area 5 􀁰􀁬􀁾􀀠The only reported constituent from soil samples at these locations was toluene at 􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁏􀁾􀁧􀁬􀁫􀁧at
PB-ll (4 to 5 ft). The C5+ soil vapor plume was open to the west in Area 5. PB-16 reached bedrock at a depth of3.5 ft. The 􀁾􀁩􀁬􀀠sample collected at this depth reported a TPH concentration
of 141 mgIkg. PAH analysis reported no detectable compounds. An addition boring (OW-B) was drilled to a depth of 15 ft at location PB-13 to determine ifgroundwater was present below
top ofbedrock in the area ofthe lowest structure contour. The bedrock was sampled continuously with a core barrel from top of bedrock to terminal depth (7 to 15 ft). The stratigraphy
consisted ofchalky siltstone, weathered silty clays, and laminated shale. No organic vapor responses were recorded from any interval below top ofbedrock. Summary. Soil sample locations
were based on the results of􀁾􀁾􀁥.soil vapor surveys. Fina110cations were selected to evaluate the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. Soil samples were collected in areas
showing the greatest signatures of hydrocarbon vapors and at locations to evaluate the open soil vapor plumes. Areas 1 and 2 presents how the occurrence ofsurface releases, even subsequent
to corrective action following the release, has continued to migrate both vertically and to the west. At Areas 1 and 2 there is no deterrent to contain surface releases from entering
the soils except at the containment pads where the tanker trucks off-load. Only TPH levels exceed the PST target levels; however, based on P AH concentrations related to the presence
ofTPH data from other locations at the,fuel fium, it is very unlikely that any PAH constituents will exceed target levels. No evidence offree-phase product was observed in Areas 1 or
2, Areas 3 and 4 are indicative ofareas that have experienced numerous surface releases, with no provision for containment except for off-loading pads, The areas of , ! contamination
are similar to the geometry ofthe underlying bedrock surface. This would allow for accumulation and concentration ofhydrocarbons. Significant anerobic biodegradation is occurring throughout
the plume area. Although TPH concentrations exceed PST target levels, the PAH analyses shows no cause for action. No evidence of free-phase product was observed in Areas 3 or 4. Area
5 is an area ofcontamination not documented prior to this study. The geometry ofthe C5+ and methane soil vapor plumes indicate that the release to the soils was most likely caused from
leaking fuel supply lines. The 􀁦􀁵􀁥􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠no longer supply product to the dispenser. Borings were located in areas that served as both the greatest hydrocarbon concentration and
the lowest surface for top ofbedrock. Perimeter borings Phase nEnviromnental Assessment Page 11 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
indicate the area ofcontamination is contained. No evidence offree-phase product was observed in Area 5. There is a marked reversal when the plumes from Area 4 and Area 5 are compared.
Area 4 shows higher C5+ and lower methane vapor signatures than Area 5. Area 5 no longer has an active source for potential releases; therefore, the C5+ signature is decreasing while
the biodegradation is allowed to continue. The asphalt and concrete cover also serves to somewhat contain the soil vapors. In Area 4, while anerobic degradation ofthe hydrocarbons is
occurr,ing, the operation ofthe fuel farm still allow for occasional releases offresh hydrocarbons elevating the CS+ signature. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROGRAM The site hydrogeology is
dominated by the Austin Group ofUpper Cretaceous age (66 to 90 million years before present). The Austin Chalk member is ilie Unit that underlies the airport. It is a non-water bearing
unit, generally impermeable, consisting of impure chalk, marl, and siltstone. This unit forms the bedrock surface beneath the weathered surtace soils. The impermeability ofthe Austin
Chalk mitigates groundwater from vertical migration. This can cause local perching ofgroundwater water in areas were percolation of precipitation and surtace water is present. The Austin
Chalk is not classified as a major or minor aquifer system within the State ofTexas by the Texas Buresu ofEconomic Geology. Nme existing monitoring wells have been identified in and
throughout the fuel storage area. The wells are owned by various operators and were installed subsequent to TNRCC requests following release determinations. Some ofthem are waiting on
approval from the TNRCC to abandoned and remove the wells. Evaluating the condition ofthese monitoring wells or collecting samples from them was not part ofthis study.. l During the
first set offield activities groundwater was only encountered at PB-4; located where the tank removal and closure ofthe Texas Pro Air fuel storage farm occurred. During the soil sampling
program groundwater was encountered at a depth of " 9 ft. One-inch diameter PVC casing, with 5 ftof screen, was inserted into the boring to the final depth ofthe boring at 11 ft. The
water level was allowed to stabilize for two hours, where it reached a level of7 ft bgs. Because the prolific nature ofthe perched water was unknown. only two gallons ofwater were purged
from the well before sample collection began to assure adequate sample was available. The water was noticeably clearer after the purging. After collection ofthe water sample, the casing
was pulled and the borehole grouted with 􀁢􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁯􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁾􀀠pellets. The groundwater sample was analyzed for Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 12 Addison Airport Fuel Fann Area
September 2002 
BTEX, MTBE, and TPH. The only compound reported was TPH at 2 mgIL. The PST target level for TPH in groundwater is 5 mgIL. No groundwater was encountered above the bedrock contact in
any other soil borings. Because ofthe similar geometry afthe hydrocarbon plume maps and the structure contour maps, two well locations were selected: at the location ofPB-14 (Area 4)
and near PB·13 (Area 5). The welllborehole at PB-14 was designated as OW-A The soils were very dry until groundwater was encountered at 11 ft. The borehole was terminated at a depth
of 15 ft. A 2-in. PVC well was installed with 10ft ofslotted screen and completed flush with the ground surface in accordance with TNRCC guidance. The monitoring well log sheet and well
report form are included in Attachment B folloWing the log ofboring for PB-l4. The well was developed using a submersible pump until the gr0l;l!ldwater was clear and pH and conductivity
stabilized. The well was purged until fully evacuated then allowed to recharge. Each evacuation produced about 10 gallons. A total of 45 gallons was purged. The monitoring well was allowed
to stabilize for 2 hours prior to sampling. The static water level was measured at 3.2 ft below the top ofthe well casing. The groundwater sample was collected using a peristaltic pump
and analyzed for BTEx, MTBE, TPH, and PAHs. No free-phase product or sheen was observed. The analytical results reported no BTEX Constituents detected, MTBE at 0.021 mgIL, TPH at 0.0117
mgIL, and 2-methyInaphtha1ene at 0.087 mgIL. Only the 2-methylnaphthalene exceeded PST target levels for groundwater of0.073 mgIL. DOCUMENT REVIEW AND SITE RECONNAISSANCE As part ofthis
initial study, a review ofavailable documents and a visual . )reconnaissance ofthe fuel storage areas were conducted. The four fuel storage areas were previously presented as Figures
2 through 6. Document Review. Available files from the airport and Town were reviewed, along with a regulatory database search conducted by Environmental Data Resources, '. Inc. (EDR).
In addition, addition, where available, files at the TNRCC in Austin, Texas were reviewed. The EDR database search did riot identify any new actions or events sinCe the August 2001 Phase
I ESA The complete report of the regulatory database search findings within the search radii is included as Attachment D. A set ofaerial photographs (1942, 1958, 1970, 1984, and 1994)
were obtained with the 􀁤􀁡􀁴􀁡􀁢􀁾􀀠search and are included in this report in Attaclunent E. Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 13 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002

C9 Washington Review ofboth the TNRCC and Town files provided numerous records confirming surface spills that occurred at the fuel farm by various operators. Many of these were greater
than the TNRCC-specified reportable quantity for petroleum products and were assigned a LRST (leaking registered storage tank) number for corrective action tracking. No records were
identified that documented leakage ofpetroleum storage tanks in the subsurface. Old boring logs and an electromagnetic survey ofthe fuel farm area were also present. The existing storage
tanks have been installed at dates ranging from 1957 through 1985. Current registration ofthe tanks with the TNRCC has occurred from 1986 through 1998. Only the Million Air fuel farm
(storage area #2) was compliant with tank release detection (TRD) requirements by using groundwater monitoring. All other operators have reported inventory control, static inventory
reconciliation, and tightness testing as their primary and secondary methods ofTRD. By December 1998, the'TNRCC also required that a cathodic protection system (CPS) be installed on
all steel underground storage tanks that were not wrapped in fiberglass. Only Million Air, Addison Express, R. Stern, and Cherry Air have reported that a CPS is installed at their facilities.
Current regulations regarding underground storage tanks also require spill and overflow protection (SOP). The current operators have reported SOP systems to include shut-off valves,
flow restrictor valves, and spill containerlliqnid tight sumps. Table 2 presents a briefequipment summary ofthe items reported by the operators to the TNRCC .. Site Reconnaissance. A
site reconnaissance was conducted during the soil vapor and soil sampling programs to visually observe conditions ofthe fuel storage areas. The purpose ofthe reconnaissance was to assist
in evaluating the site-specific conditions that could possibly contribute to hydrocarbon contamination in the surface and subsurface soils and groundwater. . , Initial inspection showed
that each ofthe four fuel storage areas had a curbed containment area fur off-loading ofthe fuel tankers. However, most ofthe past reported surface spills were caused by overflowing
and spillage within the tank area. None ofthe current fuel farms has spill control measures to mitigate spread ofhydrocarbons to the surface and eventual subsurface soils when a spill
occurs. A1.ty spills or overfill events are discharged directly onto the ground surface. During a recent spill at the Addison Express fuel area (storage area #3), it was identified that
a surface drain existed along the nearest T-hangar that led directly to a storm water diversion ditch. 'SpiUs ofsignificant amounts could flow across the ground surface and asphalt/concrete
to the storm water Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 14 Addison AUport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
G Washlngmn drainage pipe and into the ditch. Records also indicate that spills at storage area #4 (Cherry Air) have shown up in the ditch also. Ten ofthe 29 USTs within the four fuel
storage areas have not been actively receiving and distributing fuel for over 12 months. Inactive tanks are required to be taken out ofservice. Discussions with the tank operators indicate
that fuel is probably still present in these tanks. Ifthe tanks are not brought back into service in the very near future, closure plans should be made to remove the fuel and tanks completely.
However, tanks left in the ground without any fuel inthe interim run the possibility ofbeing pushed upward, out ofthe ground by the buoyant soils below. Another item that may contribute
to continued contamination is the filling operations. Fueling suppliers have 24 hours access to the fuel farm areas. Spills have occurred through misunderstanding ofwhich tanks are in
need of fuel, 􀀮􀁾􀁤􀀠inadvertently filling a full or near-full tank. Based on the spill records available it is also very questionable whether the overflow prevention and warning equipment
is adequate or even operating. Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 15 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
G Washington INSERT TABLE 2 Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 16 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area August 2002 
'It '" c m I-􀁾􀀠0 E Q) 00 TABLE 2 -TANK EQUIPMENT SUMMARY "0., "0 i!!-Q)c 􀁾􀀠Q) l!!'E Oi11 'Iii '" 0 Q) CI) 0 c 0:: 􀁾􀀠'It Cl 0:: I-!ill Cl 0:: I-CI) (l. 0 '" C 􀁾􀀠;= 0 'E 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠C.
CI) 􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁾􀁧􀁴􀁯􀁮􀀠􀁾􀀠0 u Q) 0:: 􀁾􀀠0 0􀁾􀀠1 2 3 Millennium as Fairway-os Fairway-os 4,000 12,000 12,000 MoGas Jet A Jet A 1/1/57 1/1/57 1/1/57 5/8/86 5/8/86 5/8/86 IC IC IC S SIR
SIR SOV SOV 4 Millennium as 12,000 AvGas 1/1/57 5/8/86 IC SIR SOV 8 9 1 -as 6 Mercury 7 􀁍􀁥􀁲􀁣􀁵􀁾􀀠Million Air 12,000 AvGas 1/1/84 5/8/86 GM I MIllion Air 12,000 AvGas 1/1/84 Million
Air 5,000 MoGas 1/1/84 Million Alr 12,000 Jet A 1/1/84 5/8/86 GM IC X SC 5/8/86 GM IC X SC 5/8/86 GM IC X SC 5/8/86 GM IC X SC 6/86 6/86 10/92 IC SIR 2 Mercury 12,000 AvGas 1/1/85 11110/92
IC SIR FRV IC IT X 11/10/92 IC SIR FRV Addison Express 4,000 MoGas 1/1/82 4/27/98 X Addison Express 12,000 AvGas 1/1/82 4/27/98 IC IT X FRV Addison Express 12,000 AvGas 1/1/82 4127/98
IC IT X FRV Addison Express 12,000 Jet A 1/1/82 . 4/27/98 IC IT X FRV Addison Express 12,000 Jet A 1/1/82 􀀴􀀯􀀲􀀷􀀯􀀹􀁾􀀠IC IT X FRV Addison R. R. Cherry Air 12,000 Jet A 1/1/83 2112190
2 Cherry Air 12,000 Jet A 1/1/83 2112190 IC IT X SOV IC = Inventory Control; SIR = = Cathodic Protection System; SOV = Shut-off Valve; FRV = Flow Restrlctor Valve; IT= Tightness Testing
= Groundwater MonHorlng; SC = Spill ContalnerlLlquld-Tlght Sump r= Not Present Phase II Environmental Assessment ..Addison Allport 􀁾􀁵􀁥􀀱􀀠Farm Area September 2002 Page 16 
(!II WallllingtonSUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following represent our findings based on the study items conducted: I. Subsurface soils are contaminated with, petroleum hydrocarbons at the
fuel storage tank and dispenser areas. 2. Contamination has occurred through operational surface spills oVer an extended period oftime, and possibly through leaking underground storage
tanks. 3. Contamination does not appear to have nugrated offsite, including under Addison Road to the east. 4. Contamination in the area ofthe former fuel dispenser has not been previously
reported to the TNRCC. A Release Determination Report is now required to be submitted based on the results ofthis study. " S. Analytical results ofthe soil vapor survey indicate that
natural attenuation and biodegradation is occurring in the subsurface soils where petroleum hydrocarbons have been identified. 6. Hydrocarbons in the soil have been identified at concentrations
greater than TNRCCPST target levels. 7. Groundwater was not encountered in the area ofthe former dispenser. Contaminated groundwater was identified west ofArea 4 below the top ofbedrock.
8. Groundwater beneath the site appears to be under both confined and perched conditions. 9. The current fuel storage areas operated by the FBO's do not fully comply with current TNRCC
petroleum storage tank regulations. CONCLUSIONS This report serves as a summary ofTasks I through 7 for our 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁾􀀠scope ofwork for the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
The objective ofthe Phase II study was to obtain sufficient data to delineate the extent ofcontamination in the fuel farm area. Based on our findings, the following items are submitted
as the next course ofaction to be taken by the Town ofAddison. The TNRCC has developed rules to implement a risk-based corrective action program for Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST)'
sites. The goal ofthis program is to get low risk sites to closure quickly and appropriately. Closure is initially conducted under a Plan A site evaluation. Ifafter the Plan A evaluation,
the exit criteria do not close individual pathways, then ''further corrective action" may be required. This could consist Phase IT Environmental Assessment Page 17 Addison Airport Fuel
Fann Area August 2002 
ofa Plan B evaluation, site cleanup (including natural attenuation), or implementation of controls. Closing the pathway with controls means the immediate placement ofan institutional
control that would be the basis for immediate closure ofthat pathway. We believe the data collected for the fuel farm ,Provide the ability to seek closure under the Plan A evaluation
with implementation of natural attenuation where addition action may be necessary. if PLAN A EVALUATION. This Phase n enviro ntal site assessment, in conjunction with the requirements
ofthe Petroleum Storage lmk Division Assessment Report Form (TNRCC-0562), would constitute a Plan A ev uation. The completed form and study include a series offlow charts and exit criteria:
evaluate and document whether exposure pathways (air, soil, and groundwater) can be closed. The exit criteria will close individual exposure pathways that either 1) do not exceed Plan
A target concentrations, or 2) can be qualitatively determined to have no likely potential for current or future exposure. Closure ofa pathway does not mean closure ofthe case. Only
when all pathways can be closed, is complete site closure appropriate. The assessment report form is completed for all releases to the environment. These forms have been completed in
the past for the individual releases the tank operators have experienced over the years; allowing each individual release to be closed. This would continue to be the case ifthe fuel
farm remains to operating under its currentl(condition. However, beginning in 2003 releases that occur at LPST sites will no longer be handled under the PST target guidelines, but will
be administered under the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP). The TRRP program has more conservative target and action levels than the current PST program, and requires more documentation
and trend analysis for natural attenuation alternatives to be accepted. Most ofthe fuel farm could be grandfathered into the PST program should corrective action be conducted after TRRP
becomes effective for LPST sites. Ifnew releases commingle with older releases or contamination, or they cannot be differentiated, then the more conservative TRRP guidelines and corrective
action program will need to be followed. This could affect the closure program for the entire site. A brief summary ofthe items within the Plan A assessment report that have an affect
on this program are discussed below. PLAN A SURVEYS. These surveys consist ofitems that are either readily available or can be found in current documentation. A receptor survey and water
well inventory would identifY the potential receptors and exposure pathways, shouid any exist. It is used to determine the final target cleanup level. Combined with the site assessment
the potential migration pathways that require evaluation are selected.. . Phase II Environmental Assessment PagelS Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
G Washington SOIL ASSESSMENT. The Phase II study characterized the subsurface soils of the source areas. Besides one incident of benzene, TPH was the only other constituent to exceed
the PST target level for soil. The TPH target level of 100 mg/kg is an indication that P AH analyses may be required to 􀁡􀁣􀁨􀁩􀁾􀁶􀁥􀀠construction worker protection. Samples selected
for PAH analysis only identified one PAH constituent (2-methylnapathalene) at levels well below the target level. The overall low contaminant levels in the soil, impervious cover over
a large majority ofthe affected soil area, and the lack ofknown receptors that could be exposed, sets a strong basis for natural attenuation: Soil vapor analyses also show that active
anerobic biodegradation is occurring in the subsurface soils were hydrocarbon contamination is present. An essential point for closing the soil pathway under Plan A is the mitigation
of potential releases. As long as surface spills following current operational practices occur the site site will not be eligible for closure under the PST Plan A guidelines'" Ascenario
of no future releases is necessary. GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT. Target groundwater concentrations are established to be protective ofimpacts to wells that supply drinking water or other
domestic use where ingestion is a pathway, or inhalation of volatiles and dermal exposure to construction workers. The Plan A evaluation will need to document that the contaminated groundwater
plume has stabilized, hydrocarbon concentrations are decreasing, and vapors do not cause a potential hazard to any receptors. Generally four sampling events for contaminants and two
rounds ofnatural attenuation parameters are required to show that groundwater has been contained. This --could be 􀁡􀁣􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁩􀁳􀁨􀁾􀁴􀁨􀀠quarterly sampling. Additional wells may
be required to define the extent ofcontaminated groundwater. However, with the additional wells from " previous operator activities it is possible that the combination ofall wells, based
on the current understanding of the hydrogeology, could satisty monitoring requirements. Mitigation offuture releases would be required for the Town to proceed with closUre requirements
for groundwater. " NATURAL ATTENUATION. Natural attenuation is the reduction in mass or concentration ofa chemical ofconcern over time or distance from the source due to naturally occurring
physical, chemical, and biological processes, such as: biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption, and volatilization. Natural attenuation in soils is generally accepted by the
TNRCC at LPST sites if nonaqueous-phase hydrocarbons are iiiot present, future releases are mitigated, and risk " Phase II Environmental Assessment Page 19 Addison Airport Fuel Farm
Area September 2002 
G Washington to the construction worker has been evaluated. The soil conditions and concentrations of hydrocarbons at the airport fuel farm meet these initial criteria. Natural attenuation
is also a likely remedial alternative for contaminated groundwater at the site. For the purposes ofthis study only two 􀁧􀁲􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁾􀁲􀀠locations (PB-II and OW-A) yielded a sample
for analysis. There are nine additional wells identified in the fuel farm area that may be in adequate condition for monitoring the groundwater parameters. Additiono.\ -documentation
ofhydrocarbon degradation in groundwater will probably be required. The TNRCC requires four sampling events to establish a decline in hydrocarbon concentrations, and at least two events
ofnatural attenuation parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, iron (ll), oxidation-reduction potential, and pH. . SUMMARY. This site is an ideal candidate for the obtaining closure through
the PST Plan A guidelines ifsurface releases can be mitigated. This is not likely to occur occur until a , new fuel farm is constructed and the existing storage area is no longer operatina.
Every new release episode will make it more diffiCult to close under the PST guidelines instead ofthe upcoming TRRP. Because ofthe low hydrocarbon concentrations in the soil and groundwater,
active anerobic biodegradation, lack ofa prolific aquifer, no free-phase product, and no receptors in the vicinity, acceptance ofa natural attenuation scenario would provide the most
cost efficient and scientific alternative to remediation. The minor exceedance ofthe PST target levels can be handled with simple controls and short-term monitoring ofthe soil and groundwater
media. EsTIMATED COSTS OF NATURAL ATTENUATION SCENARIO. Costs associated with developing a natural alternative scenario to present to the TNRCC are discussed briefly in this section.
The estimates are provided to give the Town a general idea ofthe level pf I effort and appropriation that might be required to close the site under the PST Plan A guidelines. guidelines.
It does not take into account additional risk evaluations (plan"B) should conditions change or ifTRRP guidelines are required. Our estimated costs for closure under a natural attenuation
scenario is between $65,000 and $80,000. This does not include any construction, demolition, tank removal, or quality control that may be required. Items that will and/or may be required
to complete the Plan A are shown below: • Stop future releases to soil and groundwater (this may require current fueling operations and practices to cease) • Evaluate ifexisting wells
are adequate for groundwater monitoring Phase n Environmental Assessment Page 20 Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
􀁾􀀠WashIngton • Collect first round ofcontaminant and natural attenuation indicator parameters • NotifY TNRCC ofintent to submit a Plan A closure and schedule a meeting • Conduct necessary
field tasks based on the TNRCC meeting • Submittal ofPian A documentation, and Corrective Action Plan • Monitor conditions for approximately one year (four quarterly sampling events)
• Submit request for closure The Environmental Assessment study and Assessment Report Form (plan A) need to be submitted to the TNRCC along with a proposed Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
The CAP will outline the rationale ofthe program based on the closure or potential closure of the contaminated media at the site. Meetings with the TNRCC should occur prior to beginning
the Assessment Report Forni, during interim sampling ofgroundwater, and prior to presenting the closure request documentation. The initial 􀁭􀁾with the TNRCC will help in defining whether
additiornII monitoring wells will be required to define the extent ofgroundwater contamination in the upper bedrock. LIMIT A nONS The information, data, interpretations, conclusions,
and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the scope ofwork agreed to between Washington Group International and the Town ofAddison and have been presented under use
of standard engineering practices and care. This report should not be used for any purpose other than fur what it was intended. , ) " Phase nEnviromnenllll Assessment Page 21 Addison
Airport Fuel Farm AmI September 2002 
1" = 700' 􀁾􀀭􀀭-350 0 700 l 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠D ADDISON AIRPORT SITE LAYOUT PLANADDISON. TEXAS • 
Addison Airport Fuel Farm , \ ,, " , ,, t •N " .., .., ; .. '. \, .. " , ; ; " \ , ,, , i. r '.' I\I' ,! i 􀁾􀀺􀀿􀀬􀀠111 ;'; 􀁬􀁾􀀡􀁩􀁾􀀢􀀠􀁾􀀠'. \, '., ; ; \ .., \, I ; ; • I\ \ \,
; ; Foo"'..03 ; ; J ! .. 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀭..... -.-.-.j'ii:; 'IL ', ...'.'... : I" ::: 􀁴􀁾􀁩􀁬􀀺􀀠 14 ;.t, n',I] I: . \..___􀁾􀀮􀁬__ .1 FlJltWay AYial:ion (912)312_ Milllanfvt (972)
248-1llOO ShllnAjr (912) 98<).2633 '1'2 Mitlton!t",StE.'m/tvr .3 􀁾􀁦􀀨􀀻􀁕􀁲􀁹􀀠AI: . (972) 9JG<J216 Addt:;on Eltplem (912) 71:>7ilOO St....... t4 ChmyAil (214) 24$-t707 I 􀁾.. (·1i0.
IJEI'j\'frMr'.NT cWFRATI<lN'S !}IVISI(H>i ).r."H.... itn '" \Y 1.<·;1 I{ 􀀧􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀠Figure .2 
Addison Airport Fuel Farm l...􀁲􀀮􀁵􀁥􀀮􀁉􀀮􀁓􀀮􀁴􀁯􀀮􀁲􀁡􀀮􀁧􀀮􀁥􀀮􀁡􀀮􀁲􀁾..#.I.. (') 0 ::l III -5' 3 (\l a "U 􀁾􀀠t N " I 􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀠, FoiIwIy"-)􀁾􀁁􀀠12,000001,i: 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭"',
,Foi_A...."" ! i JeA }, " 12,000 GIll, , -'-'( AVa. (100LIJ " \ 12,000001, --I ....__.."_.--IA_ " , , \ I , , AV_ (100 l.1:) 12.000 001. , ---,.,..;;;;. -. " 􀀱􀀥􀁾􀁾􀀠12,oooGol. -J4A
Containment Pit ", ) , "" '0 􀀬􀁾􀀠1*, 􀀺􀁾􀀠Emergency I Fuel Shutoffl ,I l·l!U.[)I.J>..􀁜􀁒􀁲􀁾􀁴􀁬􀀠SI (\1'1-.1<.\! It 􀁾􀁎􀁾􀀠111\ ISII 􀀩􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁬􀀮􀀢􀀬􀀢􀀬􀁾􀀧􀂻􀁍􀀢􀁮􀁜􀀠n\\ YA,:!);
':»(.,' I'Igurr 3 
Addison Airport Fuel Faml Emergency;Fuel Storage area #2 Fuel Shutoff! *1 I ' 􀀮􀁾'.􀁩􀁾􀀠" , 􀁾'iji!r t , 􀀧􀁡􀁳􀁾􀀠, I E .. " HRF DEI'!\RTMI'NI N , I \ 􀁾􀀠I i!r, 'f'J -'0, ___ "J OPFflA noNS III VI'>lClN 􀁉􀀩􀁦􀁕􀀮􀂷􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀨􀀻􀀠h\ I.""" ,",',hY ;':':".fol 
•• , I, \, \ \ . __ ._ 􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁾􀀠._ ••. 􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀢􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀢􀁟􀀬􀀠_._. v. _"_, .\ " 􀀧􀀮􀁾',.􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠__ .,_.!, 􀁾􀀠, ,􀀡􀁾􀀠i i Addison Airport Fuel Faml Fuel Storage area
#3 i i Ii j. i i i , 􀁾􀀬., , li Addison ttpf8'B5 ',AJ«'" 12.000 Gill. _E...... ,,'" i , J.. '" i17.000 GIl. ,. 􀁾􀀢􀀠Addiao" E:rpro&Ss !' "",A 12,OOOGoi. RSI4m J"A 12,000_ RSItm I JotI'
12,000011. t"RE lllYARTMrNi (lPERA(l(INS I'llVISft)N N􀀡􀀱􀁾􀁁􀀧􀁬􀀮􀁲..." III 1/.,,\ ; \,1L1< >§: , -. i §'[ 􀁪􀁾i3 i2 : ! [,*' !,j ! i Emergency Fuel Shutoff 􀁾􀀠, i Emergency Fuel
Shutoff Figun: :'0 
f-oJ'\(:<}.􀁾􀀮􀀠_. 􀁾􀀠••_._._. •\ \ \ •\ \ \ \ \ Addison Airport Fuel Fann Fuel Storage area #4 "'.rea 3 _____ .•. _.M. 􀁾􀀠,.... ._____ . M ___ ••• 􀁾__ ••• ___ • _ • O:enco ChonyAit
JaA 12.000 Gal. Ch«ty Air J"A 1'2,000011. • 􀁾􀀠; i:1 ;' i" Emergency * [iI".MI",. • '. Fuel Shutoff , , . , • -I--.-.-.-...􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭_._,--.-.-.-.-... " ... 􀀢􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀬􀁾.......
., 􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀭FenCd HRE !}EI'ARTMEN r Exposul'e􀀨􀀩􀁉􀀩􀁉􀀺􀁒􀁉􀁜􀁔􀁬􀁮􀁎􀁾􀀠D1V1S!{)N t !,fl. .....l>•• ll! , 􀁾􀁟􀀢􀀧􀀱􀀠\ 􀁾􀀨􀁉􀁪􀀮􀁫􀀠N􀁾􀀯􀀡􀁴􀀢􀀧􀁬􀀠
􀁾􀀠.. Q .. 􀁾􀀠.... -􀁾􀀠.. • .... 0 • a • • .. • . ... • .. Oc • .. 0 .. .. .. Oc a ---.... » .. .. ):.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 " -0 . . :\ . . I 􀁬􀁾􀀠-i§I I • 
. 'I: . I:, 􀀭􀀭􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀿􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀭􀁩􀁔􀁦􀁬􀁦􀁾􀁊􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁬􀁴􀂷􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠Ii" 4!. tJe,Il' • : 􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀱􀀠"'Iif!i! '" $I 􀁾􀀠i 
.. 
a: l-, PB-1 t 􀁮􀁬􀁾􀀠" I 􀁉􀁟􀁾􀁊􀀠... " .. " " --.....,.---;;,,;-,--􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀠.. 116 "' .... o 50 tOO ; ' CRAPHIC SCALE IN 1EET TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES. INC. HOUSTON.
TX LEGEND PZVz;tArsos ContoininQ USTs .. 1. • , • ADDISON ROAD ... • .., ... ... ·0 " .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .,. ... " ·n , 􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀠.... u • • n ... .. PB-12 " • " PB-S.. .0' 10 •
" 􀀬􀀮􀁐􀁂􀀭􀁾􀀠.PB-13A PB.!7 .. " •.. .. '" '" ... PB-17 ... • " ... '" ... '" M' PB-n... • II \ /I ( FIGURE 12 FUEl. F_ AREA ADDISON. TEXAS ADDISON AIRPORT 
o 50 '00 : ! ClUPalC SC.l.LE IN rur a: TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES. INC. HOUSTON. TX -" LEGEND ut>za Areas Containing USTs : FIGURE 13 ". ". '" ... " 
PB-2 -B tt) 'Toluene' Xylona" I.;PB-l (5-6 ft) Toluene' 0.005 Xylenes+' 0.002J C6 -012.' 440 '" 012 -C2B' 1000 0.005J 0.002J ,. PB-3 (2-4 tt) Toluene. 0.005 EthylbenzenO' 0.065 Xylena+:
. 0.002J . C6 􀁾􀀠012' 570 . C12 -C2B" 1200 " " c:--V:E=;:::':::ii==,'"Pa-4 (6-7 fl:) ". Toluene. 0.009 Xylenes+' 0.003J OW-A (mg/Ll MiSE: 0.021 C6 -012: 0.0082 C12 -C28' 0.0055 2-Methylnaphthalene'
0.087 PB-15 (2-3 ft) Toluene' 0.003 MTBE: O.OO3J UJ tH Pa-5 (5-6 ttl Toluene' Xylenes<: PB-l0 (4-5 ft) Toluene' C6 -012: 012 -C28' ADDISON ROAD 0.012 0.002J OW-A (13-14 tt) Benzene:
0.015 Toluene. 0.015 Ethylbenzene' 0.003.1 Xylene+' 0.007 P8-9 . (3-4ft) Benzene' 2.2 Toluene: 0.17OJ Ethylbenzene' 6.2 Xylenes+' 1.75 MTBE' 2.4 J C6 -012. 42 pe-16(2-3.5 ft) C6 􀁾􀀠C12:
012 -C28: PB-14 (2-4 ft) Ethylbenzene. 0.002J Xylenes.: 0.003J C6 -.012' 840 012 -C26. 410 . 2-Methylnaphthalene' 3.00. (6-8 ft) Xylenes+' 0.003J C6 -012' 14 C12 -C28' 14 " .. " .. .,.
" .. " " .. PB-12 (0-2 ttl No Parameters Detected (S-7 ft) C6 -012' 56 012 -C2B' 22 22 " pe-8(5-6 ft) Toluene· Xylenes+.C6 􀁾􀀠012, 012 -C26' m' ,. " ... ... ,---------, \PB-17 (2-4
ft) No Parameters Detected . (5-7 ft).No Parameters Detected PB-ll (1-2 ft) No Parameters. Dotected (4-5 ft) Toluene: O.OOlJ 0.012 P8-13 (6-8 ft)0.002J 59 100 Toluene. O.OOlJ Ethylbenzene.
0.004 Xylenee+. 0.002J CS -012: 320 012 -C28' 170 2-Methylnaphtholene: 3.BO (2-4 tt) PB-7 '" (3-4 ftl Toluene' No Forametere Detected O.OOSJ 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭'"
.,. ," o.ooe ( FIGURE 14 􀁾WashingtonWId-._ ". TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES. INC. HOUSTON.TX o 50 100 NOTE: J>J..L VJ>J..UES ARE INLEGEND MG/KG UNLESS pZ?27A Areas ContainitlQ
USTsCRAPHIC SCALE IN FE£T OTHERWISE NOTED 
ATTACHMENT A ETIREpORT < , Note: One copy of the original Enreport has been submitted under separate cover. A copy is included as an Attachment for ease in review. Phase II Environmental
Assessment Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
NEAR-SURFACE GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATION OF PETROLEUM HYDROcARBON GAS CONSTITUENTS " ADDISON AIRPORT ADDISON, TEXAS Prepared For: Washington Group International Houston, Texas '. ! " August
2002 .".... 
.. ';...., -:: TABLE OF CONTENTS '."!O.-:. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 3.0 SOIL VAPOR SURVEY 3.1 Sampling Methodology 3.2 Sample Analyses 3.3 Data Interpretation 4.0 DISCUSSION
OF RESULTS 4.1 Areas 1 and 2 4.2 Areas 3 and 4 4.3 Area 5 4.4 Product Types 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS TABLES PLATES APPENDICES • I :.' 
Table 1. Table 2. • Plate 1. Plate 2. Plate 3. Plate 4. Plate 5. Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Tables .. 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠I . Volatile Organic C1-C4 & C5+ Hydrocarbons (ppmvJ & CO2 (%J
BTEX (ppmv) Analyses List ()f Plates Soil Gas Sampling Locations Methane Concentrations (ppmv) Propane Concentrations (ppmv) Normal-Butane Concentrations (ppmv) C5+ Concentrations (ppmv)
Appendices Chain of Custody Logs Laboratory QiJality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures Sample Chromatograms , l ii 
I 1.0 INTRODUCTION Exploration Technologies, Inc, (ETI). Houston, Texas was contracted by Washington Group 􀁊􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁮􀀡􀁾􀀱􀀡􀀡􀀰􀁮􀁡􀁬􀀠(WGI) of Houston, T\=xas to conduct a near-surface
geochemical investigation '6n the fuel farms and former dispenser located in the southeastern corner of Addison Airport located in Addison, Texas (Plate 1). According to a Phase • Environmental
Site Assessment Update by Camp Dresser & McKee (COM) there are 29 registered underground storage tanks (USTs) located in the fuel farms. Eleven of the USTs are currently inactive; the
remaining 18 active USTs are schedUled to remain in service until a new bulk fuel storage/dispensing facility is constructed. A soil vapor survey was conducted in the southeastern corner
of the ... irport property. in and around the fuel farms and former dispenser area in December 2001, to aid in establishing baseline environmental conditions. The primary purpose of
ETl's geochemical assessment was to determine the areal extent and concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contained in subsurface soils and/or groundwater. Since the areal
extent of VOCs was not fully delineated during the initial survey, a follow-up survey was conducted in June 2002. The surveys included the determination and quantification . of C1-C4
(methane. ethane, propane and butanes) and C5+ (pentane-xylenes+) hydrocarbon vapors and carbon dioxide in the subsurface environment. The locations at which soil vapor samples were
collected are shown on Plate 1. , , 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work performed by ETI to date includes: 1) collection of soil vapor samples (December 14 -18, 2001) at 89 locations,
2) collection of soil vapor samples (June 18-21, 2002) at 48 locations 3) field screening analyses of samples for methane, carbon dioxide andoxygen, 4) analysis of samples for C1-C4
and C5+ hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide in ETl's central laboratory, 5) preparation of contour "plume" maps for various hydrocarbon and biogenic gas constituents. and 6) interpretation
of the the data/results. 1 
3.0 SOIL VAPOR SURVEY 3.1 Sampling Methodology ,At each 􀁳􀁡􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀀠location, a field blank (ambierit air) sample was collected through the sampling probe into an evacuated 125-cc
septum top glass bottle prior to inserting the • probe into near-surface sOils. This procedure provides a background air sample for analysis to test field decontamination procedures
and ambient air quality .. Following the collection of the blank, a manually operated %-inch 00 steel pounder-ba( was advanced to a depth of four feet below ground surface. It was necessary
to drill a % inch diameter hole through road base, concrete, and/or asphalt surfaces at the majority of sampling locations prior to advancing the pounder-bar. Upon removal of the 􀁰􀁾􀁾􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁲􀀭􀁢􀁡
􀁲􀀬􀀠a 4-foot long, Y:.-inch OD stainless steel sampling probe with a perforated tip was inserted into the sampling hole. The sampling probe is designed to fit and seal the walls of
the hole made by the pounder-bar. An attempt was made to advance the sampling probe to to a depth of four feet at all lo.cations to ensure uniformity in sampling conditions. In some
instances, the high moisture content of the near-surface soils necessitated sample collection at depths shallower than anticipated. The actual depths from which samples were obtained
are shown on Table 1. After purging the probe of ambient air, an evacuated 125-cc septum top glass bottle was placed on a needle affixed to the top of the probe to collect the soil vapor
sample. A three-way valve was opened to allow the soil vapors to flow through the probe into the . . " ! evacuated bottle. Subsequent to filling the bottle with 125 cc of soil vapor,
an additional 60 cc of vapor were added using a 60-cc syringe attached to the three-way valve to overpressure the sample bottle. The positive pressure in the bottle prevents the influx
of ambient air into the bottle during transportation to the laboratory and subsequent handling " of the sample. In the event leakage should occur, gas will leak out of the bottle, thus
preserving the integrity of the sample. Following collection of the sample, the bottle was removed from the needle and the puncture hole in the septum was sealed with a silicone rubber
adhesive sealant. The sampling hole at each locatiorj was backfilled with bentonite, and a vinyl based concrete path material was used to provide a hard, color compatible seal flush
with the (concrete or asphalt) ground surface. 2 
All samples were recorded on chain of custody logs immediately following collection. Chain of custody logs are included in Appendix A. The steel pol,l.IJger-bar was washed with a. biodegradable
soap solution and rinsed with tap water 􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁲􀀠to the collection of a soil vapor sample at each location. The stainless steel sampling probe was similarly washed outside, and inside
by injecting the • biodegradable soap solution through the probe, followed by a water rinse. The probe was then flushed internally with compressed breathing air for 10 seconds at a pressure
of approximately 25 psi. 3.2 Sample Analyses All soil vapor samples were initially analyzed (screened) in the field for methane, carbon dioxide (C02} and oxygen using an infrared gas
analyzer. The results of these screening analyses were used to adjust the sampJinggrid and to add additional sample locations in areas where elevated biological gases were detected.
All soil vapor samples collected were analyzed in Exploration Technologies, Inc.'s Houston, Texas laboratory for C1-C4 (methane, ethane, propane, iso-butane and normalbutane) and C5+
(pentane-xylenes+) hydrocarbon constituents using two independent flame ionization detector (FlO) gas chromatographs. The actual compounds present, concentrations, component ratios,
and chromatographic signatures are utilized to identify the source{s}, extent, andfor migration pathways. Results (Table 1) are reported in parts , per million by volume (ppmv). Light
(C1-C4) hydrocarbon analyses measure the lightest, most volatile compounds present in natural and refined products. Light hydrocarbon analyses allow for the identification and differentiation
of methane (both thermogenic and biogenic), and other naturally occurring and refined hydrocarbon products. C5+ (pentane-xylenes+) hydrocarbon analyses yield a quantitative measure of
the actual concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon vapors present in shallow subsurfaca sons. Due to the large number of individual hydrocarbon compounds present in naturally occurring
occurring and 
processed petroleum products (such as crude oil, fuel oil, aviation fuel, diesel, gasoline, etc.), the results of C5+ hydrocarbon analyses are grouped according to the relative boiling
points of the various compounds. C5+ results are presented for the following four groups of hY9.f;ocarbon compounds: pent<!ne to benzene (C5-BZ), benzene to toluene (BZ-TL), 􀁴􀁯􀁬􀁵􀁾􀁮􀁥􀀠to
xylene (TL-XYL), and xylenes+ (XYL +). Results of these analyses are presented in parts per million by volume (ppmv) in Table 1. The FlO gas chromatograph • used for C5+ hydrocarbon
analyses contains a high-resolution capillary column, allowing for the identification and separation of. individual compounds (such as BTEX) and identification of specific product signatures.
BTEX analyses were performed for the initial survey samples; these results (Table 2) are reported in parts per million by volume (ppmv). Carbon dioxide (C02) analyses were performed
using a gas chromatograph equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCO). Results are reported in percent (%) by volume. When petroleum products are released to subsurface soils
and/or groundwater, biodegradation of the hydrocarbon compounds can occur. The degradation of hydrocarbon compounds by aerobic and/or anaerobic bacteria can generate Significant concentrations
of carbon dioxide and/or methane in the subsurface environment. Measurements of methane and CO" therefore, provide additional site-specific information regarding the presence of. hydrocarbon
constituents and the likelihood and degree to which inlrinsic bioremediation is occurring in the subsurface environment. Trip blanks and ten percent of ambient air blanks (collected
prior 10 each' soil vapor , I sample) are analyzed for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). These blanks are analyzed applying the same procedures and protocols used for the aCtual
soil vapor samples. The laboratory and QA/QC procedures utilized by ETI are included in Appendix B. '. 3.3 Data Interpretation Methane is a major component of natural gas, however. liquid
petroleum products (such as aviation gasoline, jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, etc.) contain no (or trace levels of) methane. Methane is generated from the anaerobic biodegradation of organic
SUbstrates. In soil vapor samples, methane is a very useful trace gas since it essentially does not ',.. 
occur naturally in large quantities in the subsurface except within areas containing 􀁳􀁩􀀡􀀺􀀱􀁾􀁩􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁬􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁳􀀠of hydrocarbon contaminated soils and/or groundwater. Methane
is also , the lightest gas associated with subsurface contamination, and therefore, migrates vertically even.li:lrough relatively impermeabl,e sediments. In contrast to methane, ethane.
propane and butanes are never biogenically generated . • . These light gases indicate the presence of hydrocarbon products. Although ethane, propane and butane are essentially removed
in refineries (and sold as separate products). their solubility in processed products (aviation gasoline. gasoline. jet fuel, diesel, etc.) prevents these compounds from being removed
entirely from processed products. These compounds remain as very volatile tracers that allow the mapping of vapor trails associated with products that have leaked from USTs, distribution
lines, etc. These light gases are always vapors at normal temperatures and pressures, and thus thus can be detected at some distance from free product (if present) because of their volatility.
The C5+ (pentane-xylenes+) compounds are less volatile and less soluble. and therefore, tend to remain closer to petroleum product sources since they are basically liquids rather than
gases. Because of these relationships, a combination of soil vapor plume maps provide an excellent way to locate subsurface contamination and migration pathways followed by the lost
products· as they move through the subsurface environment. Carbon dioXide, which can be generated through the aerobic biodegradation of . hydrocarbons, can also be a useful gas for identifying
subsurface contamination. . I Although CO2 concentrations were elevated in some vapor samples, the overwhelming majority of samples contained concentrations at or below background levels
«;;%). The CO2 data derived from this survey were not used in the interpretation due to the limited number of elevated data points. It should be noted that soil vapor surveys do not
yield false positives when samples are properly collected and analyzed. The various vapor components measured do not occur naturally in elevated concentrations and can only be sourced
by a petroleum product release/loss. The presence of elevated levels of these components in shallow soil vapors indicates the presence of a shallow hydrocarbon source or hydrocarbon
contamination. " Elevated hydrocarbon vapors will either represent a cone of dispersion from a local 5 
source (leak or spill) or represent a vapor trail (migration pathway) fOllowed by subsurface contamination that underlies a given site. The vertical distribution of the subsurface contamination
can only be determined by· analyzing the vertical distribution of the petroleum prqgucts from soil cores and/or liquids collected during drilling operations. The 􀁾􀀠-'" vertical extent
of subsurface contamination can not 'be determined from soil vapor data only . • 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Analytical results of soil vapor samples collected in the fuel farm and the
former fuel dispenser areas (in the 'northemmost part of the survey area) of 􀁾􀁥􀀮airport indicate elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocerbon and biogenic gas (methane) vapors
in subsurface soils and/or groundwater (Table 1). Concentrations of various hydrocarbon constituents were posted on the base map and contoured to display the areal exten.t of petroleum
and biogenic gases in the subsurface environment. "Plume" maps generated (for the lightest to heaviest mOlecular weight constituents) for methane, propane, normalbutane (n-butane), and
C5+ (pentane-xylehes+) hydrocarbons are included as Plates 2. 3, 4, and 5, respectively. For purposes of this report. the fuel farm and former fuel dispenser (near sample location 77)
areas have been assigned numbers from 1 to 5 (from south to north). These numbers (areas) are shown on Plates 1 through 5. The methane map (Plate 2) shows areas where anaerobic biodegradation
of petroleum , , hydrocarbons has occurred. Propane and normal-butane (n-butane) maps (Plates 3and 4) were prepared to show concentrations and locations of relatively highly volatile
hydrocarbon constituents present in subsurface soils. The C5+ hydrocarbons map (Plate .5) was constructed to show the distribution of heavier molecular weight volatile petroleum compounds
that remain in subsurface soils for an extended period of time. 4.1 Areas 1 and 2 Areas 1 and 2 (southern part of the survey area) contain elevated concentrations of methane. propane,
n-butane and C5+ hydrocarbons. A relatively large C5+ plume ,. (approximately 240 feet x 200 feet) and a smaller C5+ plume (approximately 40 feet x 40 6 
feet) were delineated in this part of the survey area (Plate 5). C5+ concentrations up to 17,594 ppmv (site location 109) and 4,617 ppmv (sample location 39) were measured in the small
and large plumes, respectively. The methane plume (Plate 2) present in Areas 1 and 2, althp.\Jgh smaller in areal extent,,is located in the same general vicinity of the site. The 􀁨􀁩􀁾􀁨􀁥􀁳􀁴􀀠meth
ane concentration was measured at sample location 42 (242,436 ppmv or 24.2 "!oj. The high methane concentrations are consistent with the anaerobic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons
in subsurface soils {and/or groundw<;lterJ. Above background to moderate concentrations of propane (Plate 3) and n-butane (Plate 4) wera also measured in samples collected in Areas 1
and 2. These highly volatile constituents exhibit plume geometries with limited areal extents. The moderate concentrations of propane (Plate 3) and n-butane (Plate 4) are 􀁳􀁵􀁧􀁧􀁾􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀠of
relatively fresh petroleum hydrocarbons since these compounds generally generally dissipate/biodegrade rapidly in near-surface soils. The elevated C5+ and methane concentrations and
the rasultirig plumes (Plates 5 and 2, respectively) indicate Areas 1 and 2 contain relatively old petroleum hydrocarbons that were released to subsurface soils and/or groundwater. The
similarities in the C5+ and methane plumes are consistent with the continued anaerobic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons that have remained in subsurface soils over an extended
period of time. Although portions of Areas 1and 2 also contain more volatile constituents (propane and nbutane). the extent of these constituents are very limited and suggest isolated
areas where "fresher" petroleum contaminants are present in the subsurface environment. It is., not uncommon for propane and n-butane to be present, and the respective plumes to be similar
in areas that contain less volatilized .and/or degraded contaminants. No off-site migration of contaminants is indicated in Areas 1 and 2. Except for the small C5+ plume in the vicinity
of sample location 109, all constituent plumes are closed. 4.2 Areas 3 and 4 Araas 3 and 4 (central part of the survey area) contain elevated concentrations of methane, propane, n-butane
and C5+ hydrocarbons. The southemmost portion of this region contains low magnitude propane, n-butane and methane plumes (in the vicinity of 7 
sample location 23) having limited areal extents (Plates 2, 3, and 4). All plumes are closed and are not considered significant. ,. Relatively large:C5+ and methane plumes .(measuring
approximately 400 feet x 200 feet) were mapped in the central and northern portions of Areas 3 and 4 (Plates 2 and 5). C5+ concentrations up to 3,315 ppmv (site location 12) and methane
concentrations up to • 86,880 ppmv or 8.7 % (sample location 27) were measured in this relatively large plume . .. The plumes are located in the same general region and are similar in
overall areal extents. Low to elevated concentrations of propane (Plate 3) and n-butane (Plate 4) were also measured in samples collected in Areas 3 and 4. These highly volatile constituents
exhibit relatively large areal extents, measuring up to 200 feet x 150 feet (n-butane plume). Concentrations of propane and n-butane up to 20 ppmv and 43 ppmv, respectively, were measured
in samples collected in these areas. These concentrations of propane (Plate 3) and n-butane (Plate 4) suggest relatively fresh petroleum hydrocarbon products in Areas 3 and 4 (as opposed
to Areas 1 and 2) since these compounds dissipate rapidly and biodegrade readily in near-surface soils. Since there are no known unloading operations in Areas 3 and 4, the presence of
these volatile constituents suggest the possible migration of contaminants (in soils and/or groundwater) to the west. The presence of elevated C5+ hydrocarbons, which remain in subsurface
soils for an , 􀁾􀀠! extended period of time, and elevated (anaerobic) methane in the region suggest the presence of relatively old petroleum hydrocarbons. Multiple release's of petroleum
products in Areas' 3 and 4 are likely; the elevated C5+ and methane indicate older losses, while the propane and n-butane indicate more recent losses. No off-site migration of contaminants
is indicated in Areas 3 and 4. The more volatile component (propane and n-butane) plumes are closed. Although the C5+ and methane concentrations generally decrease to the west, west,
both the C5+ and -methane plumes are open to the west (Plates 5 and 2. respectively). • 8 
4.3 Area 5 Area 5 􀀨􀁮􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁾􀁬􀀧􀀡􀁭􀀠part of the survey area). the vicinity of the site where the former fuel . . -. dispenser wa's located. contains elevated concentrations of all
the constituents discussed above (methane, propane, n-butane and C5+ ,hydrocarbons). The Constituent plumes in'. Area 5 exhibit large areal extents (Plates 2. 3; 4 and 5), measuring
up to 200 feet x 300 feet (methane plume). Low to moderate concentrations of propane (up to 7 ppmv at location 78) and n-butane (up to 35, ppmv at location 73) were measured in the vicinity
of the former fuel dispenser (Plates 3,and 4). The propane and n-butane concentrations/plumes 􀁾􀀮􀁵􀁧􀀬􀁧􀁥􀁳􀁴􀀠the limited presence of relatively fresh petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants
in near-surface soils and/or groundwater. The areal extents of the various constituent plumes are similar in Area 5. The C5+ concentratipns in the area are moderate to high; the highest
C5+ concentration was measured in sample 95 (1.715 ppmv) located at the northern edge of the survey area. The highest concentrations of methane measured in the survey area are located
in Area 5 (Plate 2). Methane concentrations of 296.215 ppmv (or 29.6%) and 266.661 ppmv (or 26.7%) were measured at sample locations 80 and 73, respectively. The highest methane concentrations
trend east west across Area 5 and encompass the former fuel dispenser. " ! The elevated C5+ hydrocarbons, which remain in subsurface soils for an extended period of time, and the high
(anaerobic) methane concentrations present in Area 5 suggest a history of releases in the vicinity of the former fuel dispenser. In general. the releases '. appear to be relatively old
since the propane and n-butane in the vicinity are modest. No off-site migration of contaminants to the east is indicated in Area 5. The methane. propane. n-butane. and C5+ hydrocarbons
plumes. however, are open to the north and west based on data collected to date (Plates 2-5). 9 
4.4 Product Types Chromatograms were generated for each of the soil vapor samples to identify individual : , hydrocarbon 'compounds and determine product signatures (or "fingerprints").
Two dominant product type signatures were noted: aviation gasoline and jet fuel. A third .. signature noted in the soU vapor samples was an aviation gasoline and jet fuel mix. The majority
of the hydrocarbon contamination, detected in fuel fanm areas (Are'as 2, 3 and 4), and the former dispenser (Area 5) is attributable to the loss or losses of aviation gasoline. Sample
chromatograms showing aviation gasoline signatures for samples 3 (Area 1), 42 (Area 2), 53 (Area 3), 58 and 62 (Area 4), and 76 (Area 5) are included in Appendix C. A jet fuel signature
is dominant in samples collected at locations 9, 10 and 46 (Areas 1 and 2) and location 77, adjacent to the former fuel dispenser (Area 5). Chromatograms for these samples are included
in Appendix C. An aviation gasolineJjet fuel mix is apparent on the northem side of Area 3 (samples 50 and 55). in close proximity to the USTs in Area 4 (samples 52 and 61 " and east
of the fonmer dispenser in Area 5 (sample 73). The aviation gasoline is dominant in all samples that contain a mixture of products. In general, the aviation gasoline, jet fuel, and product
mix signatures show a moderate degree of volatili:z:ation and pr weathering. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS , I Exploration Technologies, Inc. (ETI) conducted a near-surface geochemical
investigation in the southeastern corner of Addison Airport, in the vicinity of the fuel farms and former .dispenser area, to aid in establishing baseline environmental conditions. The
primary purpose of ETl's assessment was to determine the concentrations and areal extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contained in subsurface soils and/or groundwater, Soil vapor
surveys (initial and follow-up surveys) were conducted on the airport property using ETl's proprietary collection equipment/system. The surveys included the determination and quantification
of C1-C4 (methane, ethane, propane and butanes) and C5+ (pentane-xylenes+) hydrocarbon vapors and carbon dioxide in the subsurface " environment. 10 
Analytical laboratory results of soil vapor samples collected on the airport property indicate elevated concentrations of C1 ·C4 and C5+ hydrocarbon constituents. These vapor constituflnts
are included in subsurfiilce soils and/or groundwater beneath a large 􀁾􀀮􀀠. part of the survey area. Contour plume maps (Plates 2-5) were prepared to graphically illustrate the concentration
gradients and areal extents of hydrocarbon vapors (methane, , propane, nomnal·butane, and C5+) contained in the subsurface environment. The propane and nomnal·butane (n·butane) maps
(Plates 3 and 4, respectively) show concentrations and locations of highly volatile hydrocarbon constituents present in near· surface soils. The C5+ hydrocarbons map (Plate 5) shows
the distribution of heavier molecular weight volatile petroleum compounds that remain in subSurface soils for an extended period of time. The methane map (Plate 2) shows concentrations
and areas in which anaerobic degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons has occurred. The C5+ (pentane·xylenes+) hydrocarbons map exhibits three discrete substantial plumes in the survey
area. Elevated concentrations of C5+ hydrocarbonswere measured in the vicinity of the fuel farms (Areas 1 and 2. and Areas 3 and 4) and the former fuel dispenser (Area 5). The highest C5+ concentrations vary from 1,715 ppmv (Area 5)
and 17.595 ppmv (Area 2). ,These elevated C5+ concentrations indicate releases of petroleum hydrocarbon products on the airport property over an undetemnined period of time. Methane
concentrations are high in those areas containing high C5+ concentrations; methane plume geometries (Plate 2) are, also similar to those of C5+ (Plate 5), High concentrations of methane
vary from 86,880 (or 8.7%) in Areas 3 and 4 to 242,435 ppmv (or 24.2 %J in Areas 1 and 2 to 296.215 ppmv (or 29.6%) in Area 5. These methane concentrations are consistent with the anaerobic
biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons represented by C5+ (and propane, n·butane. etc.) measured in near· surface soils. Elevated concentrations of propane (Plate 3) and n-butane (Plate
4) are commonly associated with either relatively recent releases of petroleum products or the presence of.' relatively "fresh" hydrocarbon contaminants present in near surface soils
and/or 
groundwater. Significant propane and n-butane concentrations were measured at several sample locations in Areas 1, 2, 4 and 5. The areal extents of the propane and n-butane plumes, however,
are smaller and unlike those of the C5+ and methane plumes. Small isolated are<;l.?.within the various plumes 19cated in Areas 1 and 2, Area? 3 and 4, and Area 5 contcil'n hydrocarbon
contaminants that appear to be relatively fresh and or related to relatively recent releases of hydrocarbons . ., The additional soil vapor data gathered dllring the follow-up survey
(May 2002) were very helpful in better delineating the various constituent plumes. All hydrocarbon and biogenic gas plumes mapped using the soil vapor data are closed to the east, and
therefore, no off-site migration of contaminants beneath or across Addison Road is indicated. The C5+ and methane plumes remain open to the north and west in Areas 3 f!nd 4, and Area
5. The n-butane plume is also open to the north and west in Area 5. Based on the soil vapor sample sample chromatograms, the majority of the hydrocarbon contamination detected in the
fuel farm areas (Areas 2, 3 and 4), and the former fuel dispenser area (Area 5) is the result of losses/releases of aviation gasoline. Losses of jet fuel are also apparent in Areas 1
and 2, and in the vicinity of the former fuel dispenser (Area 5). A mixture of aviation gasoline and jet fuel was also noted in several of the soil vapor samples. Where a product mix
.is evident, the aviation gasoline signatures dominate the samples. The hydrocarbon vapors detected suggest multiple losses of petroleum hydrocarbon fuels • ! (aviation gasoline and
jet fuel) over an undetermined period of time. A moderate degree of volatilization and/or weathering of the various products (and product mix) is evidentin the sample chromatograms.
Sample chroniatograms are included in Appendix C. Natural attenuation of the petroleum hydrocarbon products released/lost in the fuel farm and dispenser areas is strongly suggested by
the high concentrations of biogenic methane. Although the soil vapor constituent data indicate natural attenuation has occurred, the rate at which biodegradation (methanogenesis) is
proceeding, the actual contaminant concentrations that remain in the subsurface soils and/or groundwater, and/or the relative timing of the losses can not be ascertained with the data
collected to ," 12 
date. Historical information regarding site operations is the key to determining the relative timing of specific releasesllosses of specific products. A soil vapor slJrvey is an excellent
technique for delineating the relative magnitUdes, 􀁔􀀧􀁾􀀠• sources. and 'areal distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons and biogenic gases (methane) contained in subsurface soils and
groundwater. The concentrations and distribution of ... these soil vapors are important in defining areas containing subsurface hydrocarbon contamination that require additional investigation
and evaluation. The actual degree to which soils and groundwater have been impacted (and whether free .product exists) cannot unequivocally be determined from the soil vapor data. There
is no substitute for the drilling/sampling of borings and/or monitoring wells. The soil vapor data and plume maps should be used as guides for the placement of borings and 􀁭􀁯􀀬􀀬􀀡􀁩􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠w
ells during future assessment activities. Submitted this 61l! day of August, 2002 EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Environmental Division Patrick N. Agostino, Ph.D. Vice President . )
.. "': .', 13 
ATTACHMENT B BORING LOGS , 1 Phase II Environmental Assessment Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
LOG OF BORING Project Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) crlent .. Town 0f Add'l.son Addison, Texas Dry Augered 0 to ',....Wash Bored to " ELEV.! SOIL SYMBOLSI SAMPLER SYMBOLS " DEPTH TEST
DATA , 􀁾.... o X <,i' XX -!-1.5 RX X:><; 􀀸􀁩􀁾􀀠􀀹􀀵􀁾--3 􀁒􀁾􀀠X X--4.5 XX 􀁾􀁯􀀠--6 -7.5-,.. -9 , "'. Push DrillingI􀀬􀁾.., 6 ft Water at ft ft Water at . ft Description Loamy Fill
PID 􀁾􀀠0 Friable, Compacted Sand PIn = 0 "Dark Brown, Silty Clay (CLl No Odor pm 􀁾􀀠0 Light Brown, Silty Sand (SM) Dry, Blocky. PID"= 0 SM. wi occ. white chalk seams, Odor present,
PIn = 96 Refusal @6 ft McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. Boring No. : PB-1 File No. : 25361 D ta e: 1 18 02--Elevation: ft Caving at ft after hrs. we IDens. 1%): ,..fl .. , au .,uu!
5" LL PI #200(tl(tfJ. 1%) , , . 
. LOG OF BORING Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Boring No. ; PB-2 File .No. ; 25361 Town of Addison Date; 1-18-02 Addison, Texas Elevation : ft 0 to 8 ft Water at ft Caving at . ft to
ft Water at . ft after hrs. Project : 􀁃􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠; '; Dry Augered Wash Bored ELEV.I ! SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS TEST DATA :x 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠:x DEPTH.. -,...0 . --1.5 . --3 --4.5 --7.5
we Den$. au or UU SttDescription U. PI '200(") (pen ltd) !%) . Friable Sand, Fill PID = 0 . Dark Brown to Black, Organic,Silty Clay (CL), bec. Brown @3 ft. wI Fe and chalk nodles @4
ft, PID = 0 Lt. Brown to Gray, Very SiltySand (SM) , friable, v. dry,odor, PID = 5 SAA. Brown @6 ft, wI occ. chalk seams, odor. PID : 92 SAA, wI occ. white chalk seams, Odor present,
PID = 93 ., Refusal @8 ft I -I􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀠",," ''''''"' McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 
LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ES.l\. (Fuel Farm. Area) Client : Town of Addison , Addison, Texas Dry Augered 0 to Wash Bored .;.'. to . ELEV.I SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS DEPTH
TEST DATAI • -,-0 --1.5 --3 +4.5 -r-6 --7.5 --9 7 ft Water at ft ft Water at ft Description Black Loamy Fill, PIO = 0 '. Tan, Sandy Fill, Dry, Hard, PIO = 0 Black, Organic, Clay Fill,
PIO = 4 Gray/Tan Sandstone, Friable, Dry, PIO = 275 Light Brown, Silty/Clayey Sand (SC), PID = 40 w/.organic seams'@5 ft, PID = 11 bec, Light Gray ae 6 fe, PID = 10 Refusal @7 ft we'
(%1 Boring No. : PB-3 File No, : 2536:1 Date: :1/:18/2002 Elevation : ft Caving at after hrs, ft , ' Don,., au (lif UU' (poll' (toll' 5tr (%) LL PI I#200 , ., " McBride· Ratcliff and
Associates, Inc. 
LOG OF BORING Project . Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm.Area) Client : Town of Addison " Addison, Texas Dry Augered 0 to 11 ft Water at 9 ft Wash Bored to ft Watel at ft Boring No. : PB-4 File
No. : 25361 Date: 1/18/2002 Elevation: ft Caving at after hrs. ft ELEV.! SOIL SYMBOLS wc; 'Oens. au Qr uu StrSAMPLEA SYMBOLS U. PI; #2.00Description !'lIo!: ipef) iton 1%1DEPTH TEST
OATAI • Gravel/Sand Fill, PID = 0 Dark Gray to Black Clayey Sand (SC) Fill, No Odor, PID = 1 --1.5 bec. Light Gray to Light Brown, PID = 1 SM, PID = 2 Brown Sandstone, Friable, Dry,No·Odor,
PID = 1 --4.5 --6 Light Gray Silty Clay (CL) , Slight Odor. PID = 1 Gray Siltstone, Friable, Dry.thin bedded, slight odor, PID = --7.5 3 <"7 SM, wet at 10 ft-XX 􀁾􀁥XX􀁾􀀠:0 􀁡􀀡􀀠g
X X ., I I",." Push Drilling, Water at 11 ft, Static at 9 ft after 30 min. McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. I 
. LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ES.1I. (Fuel Fanr. Area) Boring No. : PB-4 ,. File No. : 25361 ELEV.I . 1 SOIL SYMBOLS I au or UUOen#. Str'we PILL #200SAMPLER SYMBOLS Description
(tan , 1%1Ipet}1%1DEPTH TEsT DATA \ ..IIJ Refusal @11 ft .. ,, " 1. " • . " , McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 􀁾􀁩􀀭􀁬􀀠0,5 .' '--12 , '--13.5 --15 -1-16,5 --18 --19.5 ...,-21
I -I --22.5 
lOG OF BORING Project . Phase II -ESP.. (Fuel Client : Town of Addison , Addison, Texas Dry Augered 0 to 7 ft Wash Bored to ft Farm .!!..rea) Water at Water at ft ft Boring No. : PB-5
File No. : 25361 Date: 1/18/2002 Elevation: Caving at after hrs. ft ft ELEV.I SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS DEPTH TEST DATAI , -0 -i-1 .5 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠<X :x :x :x -i-3 :% r :% r :% :xi :x
:x+4.5 :x :x :x :x +6 :% 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀷􀀮􀀵􀀠.'--9 + we IDens. ; au or uu 5tr LL PI; #2.00Description {%I [pell i {.,n) , {%I Gravel/Sand Fi,ll Black Silty Clay (CL), Fill, PID = 0 Light
Brown Clayey Sand (SC) , Fill, PID = 0 Tan Siltstone, Dry, Friable. PID = {) 􀁓􀁁􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠bec. Gray @6.75 ft Refusal @7 ft I Push DrillingI""" McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. i

􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ESP.. (Fuel Farm Area) Client . Town of Addison , Addison, Texas Dry Augered 0 to Wash Bored to I £loIN.1 SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER sYMBOLS DEPTH
TEST DATA • -0 •􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠x::<S 􀁾􀀠:8 x: :>< x: :>< <> x: :x :x :x :x XO X X -:-1.5 -:-3 --4.5 -. -6 --7.5 --9 push Drillig 1""°' 6 ft Water at ft ft Water at . ft Description Asphalt
Dark Brown Sandy Fill, PID = 15 Black, Firm, Silty Clay (CL) , Odor, PID = 85 Black Chalk/Clay, interbedded, Odor, PID = 130 􀁒􀁥􀁦􀀧􀁾􀁳􀁡􀁬􀀠@6 fc McBride-Ratcliff and Associates,
Inc. Boring No. : PB-6 File No. : 25361 Date: 1/18/2002 Elevation: ft Caving at ft after hrs. we 1%) , Dena. au or uu (pcfl (tsf} .. Sn I LL PI 􀁾􀀲􀀰􀁡!%) ., . I 
i LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Client . Town of Addison Addison, Texas Dry Augered 0 to 6 ft Water at Water atWash Bored to ft ft ft Boring No. : PB-7 File
No. : 25361 Date: 1/18/2002 Elevation: Caving at after hrs. ft ft ELEV.I SOil SYMBOLS we Dens. UU or UU Str iSAMPLER SYMBOLS Description 1%) Ipell lull 1%) II PI: #200DEPTH TESTOATA
--0 • Asphalt Dark Brown Sandy Fill, PIO = 0 X Black, Firm, Silty Clay (CLl,:5<: Odor, PIO = 0 --1.5 X X Black Chalk/Clay, interbedded, Odor, PIO = 0 -i-4.5 .. --6 Refusal @6 ft --7.5
., · ! I Push DrilligI,,<"<, ( McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. --9 
· .. LOG OF BORING Project ; Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Itrea) Boring No. : PE-8 File No. : 25361 Client : Town of Addison Date: 1/18/2002 ".7 Addison, Texas Elevation : ft Dry Augered
0 to <5 ft Water at ft Caving at ft Wash Bored :;."" to ft Water at ft after hrs. a.EV.1 . SOIL SYMBOLS I SAMPLER SYMBOLS DEPTH TEST DATA Description we 􀁾􀀠Den'S. au or UU Str 1%1 ;
{pell {toll 1%1 II PI #200 ,. -rO Asphalt Dark Brown Sandy Fill, prD = 0 Dark Brown Clay (CH), Firm, No:x :x Odor, wi calcareous nodules, PID -1.5 = 0 Tan Siltstone, :Dry. Friable, prD
= 0 --4.5 --6 Refusal @6 ft --7.5 --9 Push Drillig McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 
LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm .?-.rea) Boring No. : PB-9 File No. : 25361 Client : Town of Addison Date: 1/lB/2002 Addison, Texas Elevation: ft Dry Augered 0 to 6
ft Water at ft Caving at ft Wash Bored to ft Water at ft after hrs. EL.EV.I .DEPTH • -,-0 r r r r . -:-1.5 --3 􀁾􀀠r -1-4.5 -:-6 I SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS TEST DATA X X X X Xx Xx
􀁾􀀠x: X Description Gravel/Sand Base Brown Sand, dry, friable, strongodor, PID = 230 Dark Gray Clay (CH) , strongodor, bec. light gray @4 ft, wi calcareos and chalk nodules, PID = 250
we ('161 Oen:l, (peft au or UU (uft Str ('161 LL PI #200 Brown/Gray Siltstone, hard, odor, PID = 110 . dry, SM, PID = 100 Refusal @6 ft, PID = 10 , , .. Direct.Push Drilling ,I McBride-Ratcliff
and Associates, Inc. 
􀂷􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀠LOG OF BORING , Project : Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Client : Town of Addison Addison, Texas Dry Augered a., to Wash Bored,", to ELEV,/SOIL
SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS . DEPTH TEST DATAI -;-0 -I.. 1.5 -",3 -"'4,5 --6 -'-7.5 6 ft Water at ft ft Water at ft Description Sand/Gravel Base, Fill Black Clay (CH) , strong odor, firm,
I?In = 150 Gray and Brown Silty Clay (CL) , hard, dry, friable, I?ID 􀁾􀀠300 SM, I?In = B 0 Refusal @6 ft Boring No. : PB-10 File 􀁎􀁯􀁾􀀠: 25361 Date: 1/18/2002 Elevation: ft Caving
at ft after hrs. we IO.en4.1%1 !pell au or uu Stt ':lull !%1 tL' PI #200 , , iii I II McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. I 
LOG OF BORING Project ; Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Client Town of Addison , Addison, Texas DryAugered to ft .,::., Water at Water at ft ftWash Bored to ft ELEV.I I SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPI.ER
SYMBOLS DEPTH TEST DATA --:-0 --2 --4 --6 --8 --12 Boring Terminated ® 8 ft. Description Asphalt wi Shell Base Fill; Becomes Black to Dark Gray Clay ® 1 ft. wi rock fragmentsPID=O @:2
ft. PID=O ® 3 ft. Black, Dark Gray & Brown CLAY (CH) wi calcareous nodules ® 5 ft. PID=4 ® 5 ft. -,PID=2 @6 ft. Gray & Brown Silty CLAY (CL) wi calcareous nodules ptD=O @7 ft. Brown
Siltstone (Weathered)PID=O @7 ft. Refusal @8 ft. Boring No. ; PB-ll File No. : 25361 Date: 7/22/02 Elevation : ft Caving at ft after hrs. we Dens. QU at UU Str ' i (%1 (pel) t..􀁾􀀠1%1
i LL PI I #200 \ I McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 
LOG OF BORING Project .. Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Boring No. : PB-12 File No. : 25361 Client : Town of Addison Date: 7/22/02, Addison, Texas Elevation : ft Dry Augered to -.:!.:Wash
Bored to I ELEV./SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMIIOLS DEPTH TEST DATA . --0 􀁾􀀠;09 --2 --4 --6 t-8 --10 lI􀁾􀀭􀀱􀀲􀀠ft Water at ft Caving at ft ft Water at ft after hrs. weDescription 1%1
Asphalt wi shell base FILL: Becomes Black CLAY @1 ft. I PID=4 Brown Clayey SAND (SC) wi occasional calcareous nodules I?ID=6 Brown Silty CLAY (CL) wi siltstone nodules -wi silt seams
@5 ft. PID=24 PID=62 @6 ft. -Becomes Tan Siltstone @6.8 ft. very dry Refusal @7 ft. ; Dens. QU or UU (pen (bH : Stt LL PI #200(%1 • I . I I Boring Terminated @7 ft. McBride-Ratcliff
and Associates. Inc. 
LOG OF BORING Project . Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Client : Town of Addison .' Addison, Texas Dry Augered to ft Water at Water at ft ft ... Wash Bored to ft ELEV.f DEPTH . -rO· +2
-1-4 -1-6 -1-8 +10 +12 I SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS TEST DATA Bo.ring Terminated @8 ft. Description Asphalt wi shell base FILL: Black Clay wi rock pieces @1 ft., slight odor PID=25
Light Brown & Gray CLAY (CH) wi silt pockets, strong odor PID=210 PID=125 @4 ft. -Becomes dark gray @6 ft. PID=268 Tan Siltstone @7.8 ft., very _ dry Refusal @8 ft. Boring No. : PB-13A
File No. : 25361 Date: 7/22/02 Elevation : ft Caving at ft after hrs. we Denl. au or UU 1%1 (pet) (td) Str (%1 \ '. LL PI #200 McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 
LOG OF BORING 􀁐􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁣􀁴􀀠: Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Boring No. : PB-1.3B File No. : 25361 Client . Town of Addison Date: 7/22/02-,' Addison, Texas Elevation : ft Dry Augered
to ft Water at ft Caving at ft Wash Bored to ft Water at ft after hrs. ELEV.I sm. SYMBOLS we Den.. au or UU StrSAMPLER SYMBOLS PI #200LLDescription 1%1 II>"I] ltd) 1%1IDEPTH TEsT DATA
--8 +10 -r12 .--14 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠+16 +18 􀁾􀀠Brown Chalky Siltstone veryhard. dry -Dark Gray Shale seam @7.5 to 8.0 ft. . -Weathered Silty Clay Seam @8.5 ft. Gray Shale. very dry, laminated
and fissile -wi clay seam @9.5 ft. to 9.75 ft. PID=O @10.ft. PIDuO @11 FT. -Becomes Light Gray, chalky @13.5 ft •• very dryPID=O , ! Boring Terminated @14 ft. McBride-Ratcliff and Associates,
Inc. 
LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Client ...:-: : Town of Addison Addison, Texas Dry Augered to Wash Bored 􀀭􀁾􀀺􀀠.to ELEV.I I SOil SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS DEPTH
TEST DATA -:-0 --2 --4 +6 . --8 --10 ·--12 :x:x 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I Boring Terminated ® 8 ft. ft Water at ft ft Water at . ft Description Rock/Shell Base FILL: Brown £ Gray Sandy CLAY
® 2 ft. w/rock fragments and odor PID=374 ® 3 ft. Brown Silty CLAY. (CL) very dry,fissile and slight odor PID=33 ® 4 ft .. PID=145 @6 ft. PID=40 ® 7.5 ft . ·Refusal ® 8 it. wc (%1 McBride-Ratcliff
and Associates, Inc. Boring No. : PB-14A File No. : 25361 Date: 7/22/02 Elevation : ft Caving at ft after hrs. au or UU Stf 1..1l ,%) Ll PI #200 
LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Client : Town of Addison , Addison, Texas Dry Augered "to ft Water at Water atWash Bored "". to ft ELEV.t I SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER
SYMBOLS DEPTH TEST DATA -1-10 Description Dark Gray Shale, dry wi tan siltstone layers -wi slight odor PID=35 @9 ft .. Brown & Gray Silty Clay(weathered) ft ft -wI strong odor and wet
@12 ft. -1-12 -1-14 -1-16 -1-18 -1-20 Boring Terminated @15 ft. I PID=210 @12 ft.' Tan siltstone wI weathered seams, very hard & dry PID=10e @14 ft. Boring No. ; PB-14B File No. : 25361
Date: 7/22/02 Elevation : ft Caving at ft after hrs. we Den.. au or"uu 5tr 1%) (poll ('ofl (%) LL PI #lOO " ! McBride-Ratcliffand Associates, Inc. 
Attention Owner: Confidentiality Privilege Notice on reverse side ofowner's 􀁾􀁰􀁹􀀮􀀠1 exas ,Q' . Or and . .􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀮􀁯􀀺􀀠''::'' DrilleriPump. 􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀡􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀠P.O. Box 12157 Austin,
TexBs 7Wl1 (512) 463·7880 FAX (512) 463·8616 Email .t.,,, .. Toll free (800) 􀁂􀁾􀀰􀀳􀁾􀀮􀀹􀀲􀀰􀀲􀀠This form must be completed and filed with the department and owner within 60 days
upon completion ofthe well. 1) WELkM DRT A. •􀁾􀁾􀁗W.li.1'o flFICATlON AND T. nul" 􀁾􀀧􀀻􀁾􀁯􀁦􀀮􀂷....'· 􀀺􀀮􀀱􀀱􀀶􀁾􀀠! Drive . 􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀠􀁉􀁾􀁸􀀠􀀱􀁾􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀱􀀠2) WELL LOCATION
3) Type of Work Lat. 32 I 57 I 58 LonfZ, 96 I 49 I 51 IGrld# !i1J New Well 0 Deepening o Reconditioning 4) Proposed Use (check) !i1J Monitor 0 Environmental Soil Boring o Oomesde 5)
Nt Olndustrial Olrrigation Olnjedion 0 Publie Supply 0 Oe;watering 0 Testwell PB-14 ,plans, ito the 0 Yes 0 No 6) :Date . of Hole 7) Drilling Method 􀀨􀁾􀁨􀀬􀀮􀀢􀁬􀁲􀁜􀀠0 Driven Started
_--,7-",12",2,-"10,,,2__ Dia. (in) From (It) To (ft) [:J Air ROlli!)' 0 Mud Rota!)' [:J llotcd o Air Air Hammer 0 Cable Tool [:J Jetted· i Completed _-,-,712.U=02=-_ 2. 8.0 Ii' Other
􀀭􀀢􀁄􀀬􀀭􀀢􀁩􀁲􀀺􀀮􀀽􀁥􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁥􀁴􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁐􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁵􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁳􀁨􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀬􀀬􀀬􀁾___ , Fror, (ft) To (ft) I and color' 8) Borehole Completion 0 Open Hole 0 Wall . IN/A 1--.-:..------------:-------
----i9)Cementing Data Cementing from 0 ft. to 8.0 ft. # ofsacks used...J:L. 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀲􀀡􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀱􀀠===ft. to II:. # of,acks used -(Use ,ofWell , .'"
Method Used ...:;TRE==:M"'I=E'--:-__________ 113\ Plugged 0, W.lI I ",i'hin dR hnnr< N/A Cementing By ALFREDO PALACIOS 􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀮􀀧􀁾left! i􀁩􀁾􀁮􀁬􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀺􀁭􀀻􀁌􀀴..
􀀧􀀽􀀢􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀽..􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀽􀀧,.􀁄􀀽􀁬􀁡􀁣􀁥􀁤􀁾􀀢􀂷􀁉􀁩􀀭􀁾,n·􀁷􀁥􀀽􀀢􀀺􀀫􀁾....􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁌􀁾􀁉uistance to scpdc system field orother co....tr.lted contamination __ ft. 􀁾􀀠To(ft)
From(R) To (H) Methodofverilicationofabovedistance_'__'.c.'______ 10) Surface Completion . 1---:-I----t-----t----:-I---.,----i[:JSpe<ilied Surface Slab Installed 14) TYPIlpump NIA 0
Specified Surface SI.... lnstalled o Turbine 0 Jet 0 Submersible [:J Cylinder 0 Pities. Adapter Used 􀁏􀁾􀀠iO ' N/A 􀁾􀀡􀁄􀁥􀁾􀁯􀁴􀁨􀁬􀁴􀁯􀀺􀀬􀀭􀀬􀁬􀀧ou;;;'m􀁾􀁄􀀧􀀻􀀻1bo:;wl;:s.. ;;;cvli;nd;;...i.JC
.'iet.",-.;;􀁥􀁴􀁥􀀻􀀺􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁦􀁴􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀽􀀻􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀁬􀁉􀀩􀀠Water Level 􀁩􀁾􀀵􀀩􀀠Water Test N/A Static level ___ft. below Date _-,-;1__-,;1_ i '., 0 Pump 0
Bailer 0 Jetted 0 Estimated Artesian Flow gpm. Date _.!..I__..!./_ IYield: ft. .R. hIS. I􀁾􀁾YQU 􀀧􀀻􀀭􀁾􀁮􀁧􀁴􀁹penetrate any strata which contain undesimble constituents? ! tfYes X
NO Ifyes, did YDU submit a REPORT OF UNDESIRABLE WATER? 􀁩􀁾ofwater ... .. Depth ofStrata Iwas " "', I analysis mode? 1:1 Yes' i:l No . ----'--12) • NIA r------------------------------i'
, Name (type or Print) BEST ...􀁮􀁾• TM.... , INC. ILie. No. 􀀢􀁒􀁾􀀢􀀠U . Form provfded by Forme On..,A..Oh,k, Inc. (Danae, Teoal (214) 3404429 
At1cntion Owner: Texas 􀁏􀁾􀁔􀀠; and This fann must be completed ConfidentillHty Privilege Notice . v••􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀠..." , 􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁲􀀠and filed with the department on reverse side ofowner's
copy. P.O. /lox 12157 AusUn. Texas 􀀷􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀯􀀸􀁾􀁽􀁑􀁏􀁖FAX (512) 463-1J616 and owner within 60 daysToll ·upon completion ofthe well,Email ... •...4 -". WELL 1)C A. ,WEr. :ATTON AND
T.Of 'BV" DATA 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁮􀀠of. 􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀱􀁾􀀢􀀸􀁏􀁴􀀠! Drive 􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁏􀁉􀀠2) WELL LOCA' 􀀧􀁖􀁉􀁾􀀠􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁴􀁹􀀠I􀀢􀀡􀁾􀀺􀀧􀁉􀀠Address14651 􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁁􀀢􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠􀀱􀁾􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀱􀀠3)
Type of Work Lat. 32 I 57 I 58 ILonl!. 96 I 49 I 51 Grid # New Well Cl Deepening 4) Proposed Use (check) !Xl Monitor Cl Environmental Soil Boring CJ Domestic 5) Nt CJ Reconditioning
CJ JOOusma! CJ Irrigation CJ Injection CJ Public Supply CJ De-watering CJ Testwell PB-14B , olans: CJ Yes CJ No. 6) : Date ' of Hole i7) Drilling Method (check) CJ Driven Started 7122102
Di•. (in) From (ft) To (ft) CJ AirRoWy CJ MudRoWy D Bored D Air Hammer D Cable Tool D Jetted Jetted Completed 7122102 2 15.0 II) Other Direct Push 􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁬􀀡􀀮􀁯􀁾􀀠(ft) To (It) L ,
and color 01 􀁉􀁾􀀠D Open Hole D Wan 10 Drk. 1!I'8Y shall Under-reamed D Gravel Packed li!l Other ..>TTT,.,,.,...n '--10 Brown & I!ray􀁾TV CLAY 13 13 15 TanSILTSTC . (Usc ",verse sioe
01 "e.1 􀁏􀁷􀁮􀀮􀁾􀁳􀀠COpy.lll 13) Plugged o Well plugged within 48 hours NIA Casin.left in, ",U: , .Iaced in well: from (tt) To (ft) from (ft) To (ft, Sacks used 14) 1'ypepump N/A CJ
Turbine o Jet CJ Submersible CJ Cylinder CJ Other n..ok I pump bowls. cvlinder_ ieL etc.. It 15) Water Test N/A • J t' ',' CJ Pomp CJ Baiter OJW<l o Estimated Yield: I!.J)m with ft.
hIS. 16) Water Quality . 􀁾􀁤you Jcnowingly penetrate any strata which contain undesirable constituents? o Yes XNO Ifyes, did you submit a REPORT OF UNDESIRABLE WATER? Type ofwster Depth
ofStnIla w; " 'OIlalvsis made? L Yes W No A. , orl .1', Name (type or print) BEST nun.f.TlII,., , .,. I.a. ./? ICity IJ 'f/Vd1J WL,......􀁾􀀠t pa'. 􀁉􀁦􀁴􀀮􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠ft.1O It 􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀠:€
􀂷􀁾􀀿􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀂷􀁾􀂷􀀠􀁾􀀨􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠INIA 9)' : Data Cementing from 0 ft.1O 15.0 ft. # ofsacks used 􀁾􀀠tl to fl. # .fsacks used -Method Used TREMlE Cementing By ALFREDO PALACIOS to
septic system field or other concentrated contamination ft.-Method of verification of above distance ' ! 10) Surface Completion' N/A D Specified Surface Slab InsJalled D Specified Surface
Sleeve Installed Cl Pitless Adapter Used D, ' , Used 11) Water Level Stalic level It below Dalc I I A....,i," Flow gpm. Dale I I 12) Tvne Denth . , N/A 􀁬􀀨􀀧􀀻􀁾􀀮􀀠INC. I Lie. No.
'A'􀁾􀀠Istate TX IZit) 77549 I I I n,,,, Fonn p",vlded by Fonno On·A-Olok.lnc., Dall... T•••• ' (214) 340-11429 . V TDl:.R FORM 004WWO 􀀬􀀧􀀬􀀧􀁃􀁯􀁰􀁬􀁥􀀧􀂷􀁬􀁴􀁯􀀢􀀧􀁔􀁄􀁌􀁴􀁾􀀷􀀶􀁗􀁮􀀭􀀮􀁲􀁲􀀠Dnll
erlPump Inltalter,,\ J ,i' 􀁾􀀺􀀠􀁊􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀠:':'1 :-;:.<. , .) : ; i ::;;; l 
Attention Owner: leXaS 􀀺􀁯􀁾T '. 􀁡􀁾􀁤􀀠Rponllltinn This form must be completed Confidentiality Privilege Notice DrillerlPump Installer Program and filed with the department on reverse
side ofowner's copy. P.O. Box 12157 Austin. Texas 78711 (512) 463·7880 FAX (512) 463·8616 and owner within 60 daysToll (rae (800) 803·9202 upon completion of the well.Email address:
􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀀮􀁷􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁮􀁳􀁥􀀮􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁥􀀮􀁴􀁸􀀮􀁵􀁳􀀠WELLRE ORT In A. WELL Will'< nilCATlON AND LOCATION DATA 􀁉􀁾􀀺􀁮􀁯􀁦􀀮􀀠, 􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀸􀀻􀀱􀀠Drive 􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁃􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀻􀁯􀁯􀁬􀀠12)
WELL LOCATION . . 􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁡􀁳􀀠􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀵􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁴􀀠􀀧􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁃􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀻􀁯􀁯􀁬􀀠13) Type of Work Lat. 32 I 57 I 58 Lon!!. 96 I 49 I 51 . IGrid # [EJ Ne)'lWell o Deepening
4) Proposed Use (check) [E] Monitor Cl Environmental Soil Boring Cl Domestic 5) Nt D Reconditioning Cl Industrial D Irrigation D Injection o Publie Supply o De.walering 0 Teslwell OW-A
I"", .". were Dlans 110 the DYes 0 No, 6) Drilling Date n;.m.'.. of Hole 7) Drilling Drilling Method (check) Cl Driven Started 712302 Dia. (in) From (ft) To (ft) o Air Rotary o Mud ROlary
o Bored o Air Hammer 0 Cable Tool o Jetted Completed 712302 8 I "UKN"..'" 15.0 􀁾􀀠Other Hollow Stem Auger From (ft) To (ft) n Land color of: 8) Borehole Completion o Open Hole o Straight
Wan 0 10 Drk. gray shale o Under-reamed [EJ Gravel Packed 0 Other 10 13 Brown & 􀀡􀀡􀁲􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁔􀁙􀀠CLAY :inlerval from . 3.0 I\. 10 15.0 I\. 13 15 Tan SILT STOI , and Well Screen Data
􀁦􀀻􀁾􀁡􀁩􀀠U?!d 􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀠􀁉􀁍􀁦􀀢􀁾􀀠,ettmg (n) 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠'.IFrom To 2 N 􀁾􀁈􀁔􀀬􀀴􀀰􀀠C 0 5 . . 2 N ISCHL40PVC 5 15 10.010 9) ( : Data Cementing from 0 1\.10 2.0 I\. #
ofsacks used Y,-I\. 10 I\. # ofsacks used -(Use ,orWell Owne(s copy, II. Method Used TREMIE 13) Plugged o Wen plugged within 48 hours N/A Cemenling By ALFREDO PALACIOS Casin.lelt in
well: , Dlae<d in well: , septic system field or other concentrated contamination I\. From (Itt To (It) From (It) To (It) Sacks used Method of verification of above distance . , -10)
Completion' IBSpeeified Surface Slab Installed 􀁾􀁾􀁔􀁹􀁰􀁥􀁰􀁵􀁭􀁰􀀠N/A Cl Specified Surface Sleeve Installed o'Turbine o Jet o Submersible o Cylinder' o PiUess Adapler Used o Other
o ,A, A I Procedure Used Deoth 10 DumD bowls. <vlinder. 􀁩􀁥􀁾􀀠etc., I\. 1\) Water Level 􀁾􀀵􀀩􀀠Water Test N/A Static level ft. below Date I I o Pump 0 Bailer o Jetted Cl Estimated
A..􀁾􀁩􀀬􀁮􀀠Flow gpm. Date I I Yield: gpm with I\. I alter hrs. 􀁾􀀶􀁾􀀠Water Quality 112) Type DeDth 􀁾􀁤􀁟􀁾􀁯􀁵􀀠,knowingly penetrate any strata which contain undesirable constituents?
o Yes XNO Ifyes, did you submila REPORT OF UNDESIRABLE WATER? """"V"" '" ;Z,O TO 3.0 Type ofwaler Depth ofStrata Was a chemical-analysis made? 0 Yes 0 No or Individual's Name (type or
print) BEST nRTT.l .INc.: ;"'''. INC, I Lie. No. 􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁾􀀠u ,1"11», /2 I City FRIENDSWOOD IState TX IZip 77549 .-9fff¥lfLJ 􀁾􀁤􀁁􀀠'o,l...J. ,/. OJ!;) 11'0'. I.,••􀁾􀀠I I I I Da'e .
v ll'1:ft FORM 004WWD 􀀧􀀺􀀮􀁊􀁾􀀧􀁬􀁉􀀺􀁉􀀠C.opl" to 􀁔􀁰􀁾􀁒􀀧􀀢􀀭􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀮DrfllerfPump Installer Form provIded by Forms On-A-Dlsk,lnc. (Dallas, Texas ( (214) 340-9429 . I. \. .. -I
..·l ; , .,! 􀀮􀀡􀀧􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠; .. -: .j '.: J j J 􀀮􀁣􀀮􀁾􀁊􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠 
Monitor Well Data Sheet Permittee or Site Name: Town of Addison MSW Permit No.: __N_A_______ County: -Dallas Monitor WeIlI.D. No.: -"O"'W.:::-A"'--______ 􀁄􀁡􀁴􀁾􀀠of Monitor Well Installation:
􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀷􀀯􀀬􀀭􀀬􀀲􀀢􀀬􀀲􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀬􀁉􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁏􀁾􀀲􀀬􀀭􀀭______ Date of Monitor Well Monitor Well Latitude: 32.57.69 Longitude: 96.49.• 83 Development: _7..../_2_3.:../_02___ Monitor Well
Groundwater Gradient Position: Monitor Well Driller Upgradient Downgradient _X__ Name: Best Drilling Services License No.: 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀵􀁾􀀰􀁾􀀳􀁾􀀶􀁣􀀺􀀮􀀭􀁾􀁍􀀬􀀭􀀭___• NOTES: • Report
all depths from Surface Elevation and all Elevations relative to Mean Sea level (MSL). to nearest hundredth of a fool. Diameler of boring should be at least 4 Inches larger than diameter
of well casing. .. . • Use flush screw joint casing only. 2-inch diameter or larger, with o-rings or PTFE tape in joints (4-inch diameler recommend). • Wen development should continue
until water Is clear. and pH and conductivity are stable. Geoillgist, Hydrologisl. or Engineer Supervising Well Installation: Ronald A. Bowlin StaHc Water Level Elevation (with respectto
MSL) after Well Development -:;..,.------:-:--,--7'i"--.,.-== Name of Geologic Formation(s) in which Well Is completed: Austin Chalk -residual .weathered material Type of Locking Device:
Screw-plug seal Type of Casing Protection: Steel -Hush mounted Concrete Surface Pad (with steel reinforcement) Dimensions: 4 f t X 4 f t ..z:r---..., 4-___Top of ProtecHve Collar Elevation:
____ "---Top of Casing Elevation: ____ Surface ...___ Surveyor's Pin Elevation: ____Elevation: Concrete Seal Depth: 2 ft \ , Casing Seal (backfill) Material: __N_A____ Bentonite Seal
Filter Pack Filter Pack Material: -;;-_.,-_ 20/40 Silica Sand Well Screen Top Depth: 􀀭􀀽􀀵􀀭􀀽􀀮􀁦􀁾􀁴􀁟􀀠· TNRCC-1030a 
LOG OF BORING Project . Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm, Area) Boring No. : PB-J.5 File No. : 25361 Client : Town of Addison Date: 7/22/02 ., Addison, Texas Elevation: ft Dry Augered to ft
Water at ft Caving at ft Wash Bored to ft Water at ft after hrs. ELEV.I SOIL SYMBOLS we Dens. QU or UU StrSAMPLER SYMBOLs Ll PI· #200Description (%1 (pcll (toll (%1DEPTH TEST DATAI --0
x;x x;x X><S X;X , X;X X;X FILL: Brown Sand wi clay, dry 􀀧􀁾􀀠-2 PID=O ® 2 ft. Gray Siltstone, friable . _ laminated, slight odor PID=65 Refusal ® 3 ft. --6 --8 • I --10 . --12 I Boring
Terminated ® 3 ft. McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 
I LOG OF BORING Project ; Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Boring No. : PB-16 File No. : 25361 Client : Town of Addison Date: 7/22/02 􀁾􀀠Addison, Texas Elevation: ft Dry Augered " to
ft Water at ft Caving at ft Wash Bored 'c: to ft Water at ft after hrs. ELEV.I SOIL SYMBOLS we 06ttt. au or UU StrSAMPLER SYMBOLS LL PI #200Description 1%) I.en.I'of) 1%1TDEPTH TEST DATA • --0 --2 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠--4 'l-II-I-8 -1-10 -1-12 Asphalt wI sand & shell base FILL: Becomes 'Black Clay @1 ft. 􀁐􀁉􀁄􀁾􀁏􀀠-Becomes Brown Silty Clay @2 ft. -h-PID-O
_ Brown CLAY (CH) wI silt pockets PID-78 Refusal @3.5 ft. " Terminated @3.5 ft. McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 
LOG OF BORING Project : Phase II -ESA (Fuel Farm Area) Cli,ent : Town of Addison 􀁾􀀠Addison, Texas Dry Augered to Wash Bored to ft ft Water at Water at ft ft Boring No. : PB-17 File
No. : 25361 Date: 7/22/02 Elevation: ft Caving at ft after hrs. ELEV.I SOIL SYMBOLS w·c i Den.. au or UU StrSAMPLER SYMBOLS LL PI #200Description !%I i (.of) '10" 1%1DEPTH TEST DATAI
I --2 , --4 􀁾􀀭􀀶􀀠--8 --10 --12 lii"'A Q<, :Qi: 􀁾􀀠:x :>< :x :>< :Q 􀁾􀀠>0 􀁾􀀠:>< >0 :x , , ,XX 0;Asphalt wi shell and sand base FILL: Becomes Black Clay @1 ft. wi rock piecesPID_Q
PID=Q @3 ft. and very dry PID=O @5 ft. Tan Siltstone, very dry @7 ft. PID=Q Refusal @7 ft. " Boring Terminated @7 ft. McBride-Ratcliff and Associates, Inc. 
ATTACHMENT C ANALYTICAL REpORTS , , Phase II Environmental Assessment Addison Airport Fuel Farm Area September 2002 
THE WASHINGTON GROUP lmVIRONMEN'l.'AL SERv.tC;SS r.Ali0RATORY 301 Chelsea Parkway Boothwyn, Pa. 19061 • (610) 497-8000 Report For: WGI-Houston (Addison)RE: 􀁾􀀵􀀳􀀶􀀱􀀮􀀰􀀰􀀱􀀠 Mr. Ron8owlin
.9433 Kirby Dr. Houston TX 77054 Job Number 78U0232 Swmn.o.ryNumber 69681 August 08, 2002 Reviewed 􀁢􀁙􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁌􀁾􀀰􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠Project Manager Elizabeth Witouski
NJ ID# PA343 ;SPA 1D# PA00078 PA ID# 23 -272 CA IDlI 02105CA R1 10# 238 CT 1D# PH0687 NY IDlI 11345 MD 10# 286 MA 􀁾􀀣􀀠M-PAO?8 Total Pages =206 
The Washington Group 􀁉􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁄􀁡􀁬􀀠•llnviroWli""t"l Service" Laboratory Data Summary 08/16/02 10.28,11 summary II 69681 Projectl/78310232 WGI-Houston (Addison)RE, 25361.001
Log Description Code Parameter Result Limit Units Sampled Started Co:iq>lete Analyst 269141lA pa'IIA GOI Benzen& NO 4 ugtkg'dry 0712212002 06{02!2002 08{02{2002 PSS 289140A P8'IIA GOI
Ethylbenzene ND 4 ",,{kg·dry 07{22{2002 08{02!2002 08{O2{2002 PSS 289141lA PB·IIA GOI Toluene NO 4 ug{kg-dry 07/22/2002 08{02{2ciO?; . OB{02{2002 PS5 289141lA P8-IIA GOI Xylenes-MetelPara
NO 4 ug{kg·dry 07{2212oo2 08{02{2002 08/02{2002 pss 289140A PB-IIA GOI Xylenes-Ortho II!l 4 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 08102/2002 08/02/2002 PSS 289140B PB·IIA 763TS EXT'TPM TX SOIL corrplete
07/2212002 07{28/2002 07{28/2002 MXH 2891408 P8-IIA GIlTX >nC12 to ne28 II!l 16 ..../k.·dry 07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 􀁾􀀠289140B PB·IIA GIlTX nC6 to nCI2 II!l 16 lTl9/kg-dry
07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/3012002 foIA1' . 289140C 􀁾􀁂􀀭􀁬􀁉􀁁􀀠SD6 !lATER BY EVA. 23_6 X as received 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 07125/2002 MeH 289141A PB-118 GOI Benzene NO 5 US/kg-dry 07/22/2002
06/02/2002 08/0Z/2002 pss 289141A PB-II. GOI Ethy\benzene NO 5 ""/kg-dry 07/2212002 08/02/2002 06/0212002 PSS 289141A PB-II. GOI Toluene I J 5· Ug!kg'dry ·07122/2002 0810212002 06/02/2002
P55 289141A PB-lIB GOI Xylenes-MetalPara NO 5 ug/kg-dry 07122/2002 OB/02/2002 0610212002 pss 289141A PB-116 GOI Xylenes"Ortho NO 5 US/kg-dry 07/22/2002 06/02/2002 08/0212002 pss 2891418
PB-116 763T5 EXT-1PM lX SOIL c"""lete 07/22/2002 07l2B/2002 07l2B12002 . NK" 269141B· P8-118 GIITX >nC12 to nC2S ND 19 lTl9/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07130/2002 07/30/2002 NXH 2891418 P8-118
GIIlX nCo to nel2 NO 19 .../ks-dry 0712212002 07130/2002 0713012002 MXH 26914IC P8-11B 760 EXT BN SOL IDS c:::cJo1PLETE 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 0712512002 JYL 289141C P8-116 GIO Z-Methylnaphthalen.
NO 460 ""/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07127/2002 s. 289141C PB-l1B GIO "''''Mph thene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 07122/2002 07/2712002 07/2712002 SAl! 2B9141C PB-116 Gl0 Aeon""" thyl."" NO 460
u9lks'dry 0712212002 07127/2002 07/27/2002 5AB 289141C P6-IIB GIO Anthracene NO 460 ",,/kg-dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002 07t2712002 SAB 289141C PB-118 OlD Ben2(a)anthraeene NO 460 ",,/kg-dry
07122/2002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAl! 289141C PS-118 OlD Benzo(a)pyrene NO 460 u9lkg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SA8 289141C PB-118 GIO SenzG(b)flU9ranthene NO 460 ug/kg-dry
07/22/2002 07127/2002 07/27t2002 SAG 69681 Page 0002 
The Washington 􀁇􀁾􀁯􀁵􀁰􀀠Xnternetional • Bnvironmentai Services Laboratory Data Summery 􀀰􀀸􀀱􀁾􀀶􀀱􀀰􀀲􀀠􀁾􀁏􀁉􀀲􀀸􀀱􀁾􀀱􀀠S.-ry j! 􀀶􀀹􀀶􀀸􀁾􀀠Projectll 􀀱􀀸􀀳􀁾􀀰􀀲􀀳􀀲􀀠􀁉􀀧􀁉􀁇􀁘􀁾􀁈􀁏􀁵..
ton (Addison)Rlli. 􀀲􀀵􀀳􀀶􀁾􀀮􀁏􀁏􀁾􀀠Log Description Code ParAmeter Result Limit I1nits Sampled Started CcWplete lInalyst 289141C P8-11. Gl0 8enzo(ghi)perylene ND 460 ug/kg-dry 0112212002
0712712002 07/27/2002 SAB 289141C PO-II. Gl0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07127/2002 SAS 289141C pa-11s lilO Chrysene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 0712712002
07127/2002 SAS 289141C PB-l10 Gl0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 􀀰􀀷􀁉􀀲􀁭􀁯􀁩􀁩􀁾􀀺􀀠07/2712002 SAB 289141C PB-118 Gl0 fluor.nthene NO UO ug/kg-dry 07122/2002 0712712002
0712712002 SAB U9141C P8-118 "'0 Iluorene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 07l27/Z002 0112712002 SA8 289141C PB-IIB lilO rndeno(I.2.3-cd)pyrene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 0712112002 07/2712002
SAB 289141C PO-lIB Gl0 Naphtnalene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 01127/01127/2002 0712712002 SAS 289141C F8-118 GIO Phenanthrene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 07127/2002 07127/2002 SAB 289141C
F8-IIB GIO pyrene NO 460 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 0712112002 0712712002 Sfl 289141C PB-I1B s06 IMTER BY eVAP 27•• %as received 0712212002 07/2512002 07/25/Z002 HeH 2B914lA PB-llA GOI Benzene
NO 4 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 08/03/2002 08/0312002 pss 289,4lA PB-llA GOI Ethylbenzene ND 4 ug/kg-dry 07/22/Z002 OB/03/2002 08/0312002 PSS 28914lA PB-12A GOI ToLuene: NO 4 ug/kg-dry 0712212002
08/0312002 08/01/2002 PSS 28914lA P8-IlA 001 Xylenes-Meta&para NO 4 ug/ks-dry 07122/2002 08/0312002 08/03/2002' P5S 28914lA PB-llA GOI xylenes-ol"tko NO 4 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 08/03/2002
08/03/2002 ,PS5 2891428 PB-llA 76315 eXT-1PM TX SOIL Calplete 0712212002 07/2B/2002 07/2B12002 HXH 2891428 PB-llA G11TX >nC12 to ne28 till 17 lI1S/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07130/2002 07/30/2002
HXH 2891428 PB-llA GIITX nC6 to ncl2 till 17 II1S/kg-dry 071Z2/2002 0713012002 07130/2002 HXH 289142C n-tlA 506 \lATER 8Y EVAP 22.3 " as rec:e ived 07/22/2002 0712S/2OO2 07/25/2002 HeH
289143A .8-128 001 8et1zene NO 4 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 􀁐􀁓􀁾􀀠28914.A P8-12B 001 Ethylbenz"",, 1/1) 4 ug/kg;dry 0712212002 08/0312002 08/0312002 PS 289143,\ P8-12B
001 Toluene NO 4 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 08/03/2002 08/0312002 PSS 289143A PB-I21I GOt Xytenes·Heta&Pare NO 4 ug/kg:dry 07/2212092 08/0312002 08/0./2002 PSS 289143A P8-1211 GOI XylefM!s"Ortho
NO 4 ug/ks-dry 07122/2002 08/0312002 08/03/2002 PSS 2891438 .B-12I! 76315 EXT-TPH lX SOIL Cooptet. 07/2212002 01128/2002 0112812002 HXH 2891418 .B-I28 OI1TX >ne12 to ne2S 56 10 mg/kg-dry
07/2212002 0713012002 07/30/2002 HXH 69681 Page 30B3 
The Washington Group lntern'ati,onal' Environmental'Servines Laboratory Data Summary 08/16/02 10,28,17 ' summary' # 696Bl Project# 7B310232 WGl-Houston 􀀨􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁾􀁮􀀩􀁒􀁂􀀮􀀠'25361.001
,Log Desnription COde Parameter Result ..,Limit Units Sampled Started Complete Analyst 2891438 P8-128 'lUX nt6 to nel2 22 10 I!III/kg-dry 0712212002 07130/2002 07/3012002 .KH 289143e
PB-I2B 760 EXT BN SOLIDS Ctf4PLETE 0712212002 071251200L 07/25/2002 JYL ... 289143C pa-l2l! GIO 2-Methylnap,thalene 10 420 ugttg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 07/27/2002 SAB289143C Pll-128
GI0 A.....thene tro 420 ugtkg-dry 0712212002 07/2712002 07127/2002 SA8289143C P8-12S GIO AC"","pI\thylene NO 420 uBlkS-dry 07/2212002 07/2712002 07/27/2002 SAS289143C P8-12S GIO Anthracene
NO 420 ug!tg-dry 0712212002 07127/2002 0712712002 SAS289143c PS-12B GIO Benz(a}enthracene NO 420 ugtkg-dry 07/22/2002 07127/2002 07/27/2002 SAP289143C PS-128 GIO Benz:o(a)pyt'ene NO
420 ug!tg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 0712712002 SA.289143C PS-128 GIO eenzo(b}fluoranthene tro 420 ug!tg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAS289143C PS-12B GIO Benzo(ghi)perytene
NO 420 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07127/2002 07127/2002 SAS289143C .PB-128 GIO aenzo(k)fluoranthene tro 420 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07/2712002 0712712002 SAS289143C PB·128 GI0 Cbtysene NO 420
ug/kg·dry 07122/2002 07/27/2002 07127/2002289143C PB-12S GIO Dibenz(a,h,anthracene SAS tro 420 ugtkg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 07/2712002 SAS289143C PS-12B GI0 fluotanthene NO 420 ug/tg-dry
0712212002 07!27/2ool 0712712002 SAS289143C PS-12S GIO Fluorene NO 420 uB/kg-dry 07/2212002 (17/27/2002 07/2712002 SAS289143C PB-12B GIO 􀁊􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁯􀀨􀀱􀀬􀀲􀀬􀀳􀁾􀁣􀁤􀀩􀁰􀁹􀁲􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀠NO
420 ugtkg-dry 0712212002 07/2712002 07/27/2002 SAl!289143C PB-128 GIO Naph tba I ene NO 420 ugtkg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 07127/2002 SAB289143C PB-I2B 010 Phenanthrene NO 420 ug/kg-dry
0712212002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAS289143C PB-I2B Gl0 Pyrone NO 420 US/kg-dry 0712212002 07/2712002 07/27/2002 SAS 289143C pa-l2e S06 \lATER BY EVAP 21.2 X as i"eceived 07/2212002 07/26/2002
07/2812002 JST 289144A PS-I3A GOI Benzene NO 2 us/kg-dry 0712212002 08/04/2002 08/0412002 PIS289144A PB-13A GOI Ethy\benzef'\e tro 2 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 08/04/2002 08/0412002 PSS289144A
PS-13A GOI Toluene" 110 '2 ug/tg-dry 07/22/2002 08/0412002 0810412002 psr289144A PS-I3A GOI Xytene$-Meta&Para NO 2 uBlkg:dry 07/22/2002 08/04/2002 08/0412002 PSS2B9144A PS-I3A GOI Xylenes-Ortho
NO 2 􀁵􀁧􀀡􀁴􀁧􀁾􀁤􀁲􀁹􀀠07/2212002 0810412002 OS/04/2002 PSS 2891448 PS-13A 763TS EXT-TPS TX SOIL 􀁾􀁬􀁥􀁴􀀮􀀠07/22/2002 0712812002 07/28/2002 HXH 289144S P8-13A GilT)( >nC12 to nC28
tro 10 I>I/kg-c!ry 07/2212002 07l30nOO2 07130/2002 HKH289144S PS-13A GI1TX nC6 to nCl?_ HO 10 I!III/kg-dry 07/2212002 0713012002 07/30/2002 MXH 69681 p.,ge 0tiHl4 
The Washington Group International Environment,al s ..rvices Laboratory, Oata Sumn..ry, 08/16/02 ,10.28.17 S_ry II 69681 Project# 78310232 WGI-KouBton (Addison)RB. 25361.001 . ·'i Log
Description Code Parametar Result Limit ll'Ili ts Sampled Started Complete ,Analyst 2891440 PB-13A $06 􀁾􀁁􀁙􀁅􀁒􀀠BY EVAP 24.0 %6S received 1J1/2Z12002 01125/2002 07/25/2002 HOK 289145A
PB-13. GOI Benz_ NO 3 ug/kg-dry 01/2212002 08/04/200j!, , 0810412002 PSS 289145A PS-13B .01 Ethylbenzene NO 3 "i/ks-dry 0112212002 08/04/2002' 0810412002 P'5 289145A ps-l3. GOI To\tJene
NO 3 us/kg-dry 01/2212002 08104/2002 08/04/2002 P55 289145A PS-138 GOI Xylene$MMeta&Para NO 3 U!l/kg-dry 01/22/2002 08104/2002 08/04/2002 PSS 289145A PS'13S GOI Xylerre$"'Ortho NO 3
us/kg-dry 01/221?JJ02 08104/2002 08/0412002 P55 2891458 pa-\ls 163TS EXT;YP" TX SOIL Conplete 01/2212002 0712812002 07/2812002 "'X'· 2891458 P8-13a GnTX >l1C12 to nel8 NO 21 mo/kg,dry
07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 HXK 2891458 PB-lla .11TX ne6 t. nCI2 NO 21 mg/kg-dry 0712212002 07130/2002 07/3012002 HXH 2891450 PS-13S 760 EXT 8N SOLIDS COIPlETE 07/22/2002 07125/2002
07125/2002 JYl 2891450 PB'138 GIO .2-Methylnaphthalene 3800 430 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 ' ,01/27/2002 07/27/2002 SA. 289145C PB-IlB .10 Acenaphthenc NO 430 ug/k9-dry 01/22/2002 0112712002
01/27/2002 SAS Z89145C pa-138 GIO Acenaphthvlene NO 430 ug/kg-dry 07122/2002 0712712002 07/27/?JJ02 'SAB 289145C PB-13B GIO Anthracene NO 430 US/kg-dry 0712212002 1J1/21/2OO2 07127/2002
SAB 2B9145C PB-13B Gl0 8enz(a)anthraccne NO 430 uglkg-dry 07/22/2002 07/2112f102 01/21/2002 SA. 289145C PB-138 Gl0 Bettto(a)pyrene NO 430 US/k9-dry 01/22/2002 07/27/2002 071Z712oo2 SAD
2B9145C PB'13B GIO Benzo(b)fluoranthene NO 430 US/kg-dry 07/'12/2002 07/27/?JJ02 01/27/?JJ02 SAS 2891450 ps,13a Gl0 Benzo(ghi)perylene NO 430 us/kg-dry 07/2212002 07lZ7/2ooZ 01/27l2OOZ
SAB 28914SC PS'13S GIO Benzo(k}fluorenthene NO 430 us/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/21/2002 07/27/2OOZ SAS 289145c PB' US GIO Chrysene NO 430 us/kg-dry 07/2Zl2OO2 07/21/ZOO2 01/27/2002 SAS 289145C
PS-IlB IlB Gl0 OibenzC4,h)anthracene NO 430 us/kg-dry 1J1122/2002 07/27/2002 07/2712002 SAB 289145& P8' 13S GIO fluoranthene 110 430 U!lIkg-dry 07/2212OOZ 01l21/ZOO2 07/2712002 S/J 289145C
PB-13S • 10 Fluorene Ill) 430 ll9/itg.-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SA• 289145C PB-US 010 􀀱􀁾􀀨􀀱􀀮􀀲􀀮􀀳􀀭􀁣􀁤􀀩􀁰􀁹􀁲􀁥􀁮􀁯􀀠110 430 us/kg:dry D?12212oo2 07/2712002 01/27/2002
SAS 2891450 PS-138 GIO Naphthalene lID 430 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 01121/2002 07/27/2002 SA. 2B914SC PB-llB GIO Phenanthrene NO 430 U!lIkg-dry 07/2212002 0712712002 0712712002 SAS '289145C
PS-13S .10 Pyrene NO 430 UB/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/2712002 0712712002 .AB 289145C PB-13B S06 IIA fER BY £VAP 22_B 􀁾􀀠8S received 0112212002 01/2512002 07125/2002 HCN 6%B! Page eeas 
The Wasbington Group International Bnvironmental Services Laboratory Data Summary 08/16(02 10:28.17 . Summary II 69681 Project" 78310232 WGI-Bouston (Adclison)RR. 25361.001 • Log Description
Code Paramet.er Result Limit Units SlIlIlpled Sta>:ted .:;C01Pplete Analyst 289146A P8-14A GOI Benzene ND 2 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 08/04/200, 0810412D02 PSS 289146A PB-14A GOI Ethylbenzene
, J 2 ug!kg-dry 07/2212002 08/0412002 08/0412002 PSS,289146A PB-14A GOI Toluene NO ug/kg-dry 0712212002 􀀰􀀸􀀡􀁏􀁖􀀲􀀰􀀰􀁾􀀮􀀠08/0412002 PSS 289146A PB-14A GOI 􀁘􀁹􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀂷􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁡􀀦􀁐􀀮􀁲􀁡􀀠1
J 2 U91k.-dry 07122/2002 08/0412002 08/0412002 PSS,289146A P8-14A GOI lCylenes"Ortho 2 J U91ko-dry 07/2212002 08104/2002 08/0412002 ?SS 2891466 P8-14A 763TS EXT-TPH TX SOIL Co!rplete
ff712212002 07/28/2002 07/2812002 "". 2891468 PB-14A GllTX >ne12 to ne2S 8400 20 Ill9Ikg-dry 0712212002 07/30/2002 07/3012002 /IY'" 2891468 PB-14A G1TTX nC6 to nC12 410 10 Ill9Ikg-dry
07/22/2002 ff7/30/2oo2 07/30/2002 H. 289146C PB-14A 760 EXT BN SOLIDS catPLEJE 07122/2002 07/25/2002 0712512002 JYL 289146C PB-14A 010 􀀲􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁴􀁨􀁹􀁬􀁮􀁡􀁰􀁨􀁴􀁨􀀮􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁯􀀠3000 420
IJ!Jlkg-dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAS 289146C PO-I4A .10 􀁁􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁬􀀧􀁬􀁥􀀠NO 420 u9lkg-dry 07/22/2002 '" ff7/27/2002 07/2712002 SAB 289146C PB-14A Gl0 Ace""!'llthyle...
NO . 4ZO U91kg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 ff7/2712oo2 SAB 􀀲􀀸􀁾􀀱􀀴􀀶􀁃􀀠PB-14A Gl0 Anthracene NO 420 US/kg-dry . 07/22/2002 07/2712002 0712712002 SAB 289146C PB-14A Gl0 . "Benl(a)anthrac.ene
NO 420 u./kg-dry 0712212D02 0712712002 07127/2002 SAB 2B9146C PI!-14A Gl0 SenIO(o)pyrene NO 420 us/ko-dry 07/2212002 07127/2002 0712712002 SAS 289146C PB-14A Gl0 BonzoCblfluor.nthone
ND 420 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/2712002 07/27/2002 SAS 289146C PB-14A Gl0 Ben%O(ghllporyl_ NO 420 u91kg-dry 07/22/20DZ 07127/2002 07/27/2002 SAB 289146C PS-14A Gl0 8eoto(k)fluoranthene
NO 420 ug/ko-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07127/2002 SAB 289146C PS-14A Gl0 Chryo.... NO 4ZO 􀁕􀀹􀁊􀁫􀀹􀁾􀁤􀁲􀁹􀀠07/2212002 07127/2002 07/2712002 SAS 2S9146C PS-14A Gl0 Ofbenz(Ofbenz(6,h)anthraecne
􀁾􀁏􀀠420 us/kg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 0712712002 SAS 2B9146C PB·14A Gl0 fluoranthene NO 420 u9lkg-dry 07122/2002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAB 289146C PB-14A 010 Fluorene NO 420 U91kg-dry
07122/2002 07/2712002 0712712002 SAS 289146C PS-I4A Gl0 IndenoCl.2.3-.d)pyr.... NO 420 us/kg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 0712712002 SI 289146C PB-14A 010 Naphthalene NO 420 􀁵􀁧􀀯􀁫􀁾􀀭􀁤􀁲􀁹􀀠07/22120
02 07/2712002 0712712002 SA. 2B9146C PB-14A Gl0 Phenanthrene NO 420 ug/kg:dry 07/2212002 0712712002 0712712002 SAS 2B9146C PS-14A Gl0 pyrene NO 420 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07127/2002 0712712002
$AS 2S9146C PB-I4A . S06 WATtR BY EVAI' 19.9 X as received 07/2212002 07125/2002 07/25/2002 HeN 289147A P8-14B GOI 􀀸􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀠NO 6 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/02/2002 08/02/2002 PSS 289147A
PB-14B GOI EthyLbenzene NO 6 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 08/02/2002 08/0212002 PSS 69681 Page GGa6 
The Washington Group rnternational • Environmanta1·Servicea Laboratory Data summary. 08/16/02 10.28,17 Swmnary # G!l681 Project# 78310232 WGr-uouston (Addison)RB. 25361.00i Log Description
code Parameter Result L:!mit Udts Sampled Started 􀁃􀁾􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁥􀀠AnAlyst 269147A PB-14B GOI Totuene NO 6 U9/kg-dry 07122/2002 08/02/2002 08/02/2002 PSS 289147A P8-14B GOI Xytenes-H&ta&Para
3 J 6 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/02/2002 08/02/2002 PSS 289147A P8-148 GOI Xylenes-Ortho NO 6 'l9/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/02/2002 PSSOB/02/20.!lf: 2891478 P8-148 763TS 􀁾􀁘􀁔􀀭􀁔􀁐􀁈􀀠TX SOIL
Cooq>let. 07122/2002 07/28/2002 07/28/2002 HXH 2891478 P8-148 .11TX >nc12 to ne2S 14 10 ",,/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 HXR 2891478 P8-148 GIITX I1C6 to ne12 14 10 ",,/kg-dry
07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/3012002 HXH 2891470 PS-148 S06 \lATER 8Y EVAP 10.5 x as recefved 07/2212002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002 Me 289148A PS-ISA 001 8en:cene 4 3 ",,/kg-dry 07/2212002 08/0412002
06/0412002 PSS 289148A PS-15A GOI ethylbenzene NO 3 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 06/04/2002 0810412002 PSS 289146A P.-15A GOI Totuene 3 3 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/0412002 08104/2002 PSS 289148A
PB-1SA GOI 􀁘􀁹􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁍􀁥􀁴􀁡􀀦􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁡􀀠NO 3 us/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/04/2002 08104/2002 pss 289148A P6-15,\ GOI 􀁘􀁹􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁨􀁯􀀠N' 3 US/kg-dry 07122/2002 08/04/2002
. 08/04/2002 pss 2891468 PS-ISA 763TS EXT-TPH TX SOil Ccn:plete 07122/2002 07/28/2002 07/28/2002 "KXH 269146B PB-1SA .IHX >ne12 to nC2B NO 17 ms/k.-dry 07/22/2002 07130/2002 0713012002
Ml(H 2891488 PB-1SA Gl1TX nc6 to ne12 NO 17 "9Ik.-dry 0712212002 07/30/2002 0713012002 MXH 289148C PB-15A 760 EXT 8M SOliDS t<l!PlETE 0712212002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002 JYl 289148C PB-15A
.10 2-Hethylnaphthalene NO 360 u9/k.-dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 BAS 2891411<: PB-1SA Gl0 Acenephthene NO 360 "!Ilks-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAs 2891480 PB'15A
Gl0 Acenaphthylene NO 360 ",,/kg-dry 07/22/2002· 07/27/2002 07127/2002 SA' 28914SC PB-15A .' Gl0 Anthracene NO 380 ug/kg.-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 $A, 289148C PS-15A Gl0
Benz{a)anthracene NO 380 US/k,j-dry 07122/2002 07/27/2002 07127/2002 SAB 289146C PB-15A Gl0 8emo(a)pyrene NO 380 ug/kg'dry 07/2212002 0712712002 07127/2002 SAB 289146C P8-15A .10 8ento(b)fluorlnthene
ND 380 IJ9/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAB 2B9148<: P6-1SA Gl0 Senzc(shl)perylene NO 3M u9lkQ"dry 07/22/2002 07/2712002. 07/2712002 SAB 289148C P6-1 5A Gl0 􀁂􀁥􀁮􀁺􀁯􀀨􀁫􀀩􀁦􀁬􀁵􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁴�
�􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀧􀀠NO 380 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07127/2002 07/2712002 sAB 289148C PB-15A Gl0 Chrysene NO 3BO U9/kg'dry 07/22/2002 071Z7/2002 0712712002 SA8 2891460 ps-15A Gl0 Dibenz(B,hlanthracene
NO 380 us/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB 69681 Page e@@7 
􀁾􀁨􀁥􀀠Washington Group International • Environmentd Service.. Iiaborato'ri Data 􀁓􀁵􀁭􀁭􀁡􀁾􀀠08/16/02 10.28.17 SlllIZIIIary II 69681 Proj.."tll 18310232 WGI-Houston' (AddisonlRBi
25361.001 Log Description Code Parameter Result Limit Onits Sampled Started Complete Analyst 2891480 PS-15A .10 fluoranthene NO 380 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAS 289148C
P8-15A GIG fluorene NO 3BO us/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/27/20U2 SAS 289148C PS-15A GIG Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NO 380 us!kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SA. 289148C P8-15A
Gl0 H4phthelene NO 380 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 07127!idfrz 07127/2002 SA. 28914BC PS-15A Gl0 Phenanthrene NO 380 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/2712002 SAS 289148C PS-15A GIO Pyre""
NO 380 us/kg-dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAe 289148C PB-15A S06 IIATER BY EVAI' 11.4 " as recei veil 07/2212002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002 HeR 289149A PS-16A GOI Bent-me NO 2 us/kg-dry
07/2212002 08/04/2002 08104/2002 289149A 289149A P8-1M P8-1M GOt GOI Ethylbentene Totuene NO NO Z 2 ug/kg-dry ""kg-dry 07/2212002 07/2212002 08/04/2002 08/04/2002 0810412002 08/0412002
PSS .SS 289149A pa-1M G01 Xylenes*Meta&Para NO 2 ug/kg·dry 0712212002 08/04/2002 08/0412002 .S5 289149A -.B-1M GOI 􀁘􀁹􀁴􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀤􀁾􀁏..tho NO 2 US/kg-dry 0712212002 08/04/2002 08/0412002
.S5 289149B PS-IM 763TS EXT-TPH IX soIL Ccrrplete 07/22/2002 􀀰􀀷􀀱􀀲􀁂􀀯􀀲􀁏􀁾􀀠07128/2002 MlCR 2891498 PB-16A GlllX >nc12 to ne2S 9B 10 mg/kg-dry 07/22/2002 0713112002 0713112002 HXH
2891498 PB-16A GtITX nC6 to ne12 43 10 ""'/k9-dry 0712212002 07131/2002 0713112002 MlCH 289149C PB-1M 760 EXT 8N SOL IDS ClJMPLETE 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002 JYL 289149C .s-1M
G10 2-Methylnaphthalene NO 370 us/kg-dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB 2891490 PB-1M cl0 Acenaphthene NO 370 US/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB 289149C .S-IM Gl0 Acenaphthylene
NO 370 US/kg-dry 07/2212002 07127/2002 0712712002 SAB 2891490 .8-1M Gl0 Anthracene NO 370 US/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/2712002 SAB 2891490 289149C .8-IM .8-1M ,. Gl0 Gl0 Benz{a)anthracene
Benlo(a)pyrenc NO NO 370 370 US/kg-dry 􀁕􀁓􀀯􀁫􀁾􀀭􀁤􀁲􀁹􀀠07/22/2002 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 07127/2002 07/27/20U2 sr S. 289149C '8-1M G10 Benzo(b)f(uoranthene NO 370 ug/kg-dry
07/22/2002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAB 2891490 '8-1M Gl0 Benlo(ghi)perytene NO 370 us/kg"dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 0712712002 SAD 289149C PIH6A Gl0 Benlo(k)fluoranthene NO 370 ug/kg-dry
07/2212002 07/27/2002 07127!20U2 SAS 289149C .S-IM Gl0 Chrysene NO 370 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07127/2002 SAD 289,49C PB-1M .10 􀁄􀁾􀁢􀁥􀁮􀁺􀀨􀁡􀀬􀁨􀀩􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁨􀁲􀁡􀁥􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀠NO
370 ug/kg-drY 07/2212002 07127/2002 07/2712002 SAS 2891490 .8-1M Gl0 F(uoranthene NO 370 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07127!20U2 5AS 289149C .S-IM G10 fluorene 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠NO 370 ug/kg-dry
07122/2002 07127/2002 0712712002 SAe 69681 Page 0008 
•The Washington Group rnternational , ZIlviro""';Iltal. Services ;Laboratory Ilat.. ·summ...ry· 08/16/02 io.• 28.J.7 S"""""rY /I 6 9 6 81 􀁐􀁾􀁯􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁴􀀣􀀠78310232 WGX-Houston (AddisOlljREI
25361.001 Log Description Code Pa.rameter R .... ult L:i3it Units Sampled Started .., Complet:e Analyst 289t49C 289149C 289149C 2891490 PB-l6A PB-16A PS-16A P.-16A Gl0 Gl0 Gl0 Gl0 􀁊􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁯􀀨􀀱􀀬�
�􀀬􀀳􀁾􀁣􀁤􀁽􀁰􀁹􀁲􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀠Naphthalene Phencmthrene Pyrene NO NO NO ND 370 370 370 370 1J!I/kg-dry USlkS-dry ug/kg-dry ug/kg-dry 07/W2oo2 0712212002 07122/2002 07/22/2002 07/2712002
0712712002 􀀰􀀷􀀯􀁚􀀷􀁉􀀲􀁏􀁏􀁾􀀠. 0712712002' 07/2712002 0712712002 07/2712002 07/2712002 SAS SAS SAD SAS 2891490 P8-16A S06 WATER 8Y EVAP 10.5 X as receIved 07/2212002 07125/2002 07/25/2002
MeR 289150A 2B915OA 289150A 289150A 289150A PS-17A PB-17A PS-17A P8-17A PB-17A GOI GOI GOI GOI GOI Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene 􀁘􀁹􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁍􀁥􀁴􀁡􀀦􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁡􀀠Xy!.....,.-Ortho liD
110 NO NO NO 4 4 4 4 4 1J!!/kg-dry 1J!!/kg·dry 1J!!/kg-dry 1J!I/kg-dry us/us/kg-dry 07/2212002 07/2212002 07/2212002 0712212002 07/2212002 08/03/2002 C8/0312oo2 08/03/2002 08/03/2002
08/0)12002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 06/03/2002 C8/03/2002 08/03/2002 PS5., ps, .ss PSS 2891508 P.-17A 763TS EXT-TPN TK san Corl1l lete 07/2212002 07/281Z002 071Z6/2002 MXR 2691508 289150B
PB-17A PB-17A Gl1TX Gl1TX .nClt to nC2B nC6 to nC12 NO NO 20 20 I19Iks-dry mg/kg-dry 01/22i2002 0712212002 07/30/2002 07j30/Z002 07130/2002 07130/2002 KXH KXK 269150C PB-17A 760 EXT
BN SOliDS CQU>L£rE 0712212002 0712512002 07/25/2002 JYL 289150C 269150C 289150C 289150C 269150C 289150C 289150C .289150C Z89t50C 289150C 289150C 269150C 289150C 289150C Z89ISOC .8-17A
PB-17A 1'8-17" P8-17A pg-17A P8-17A P8-17A P8-17A fa-ITA P8-1!A 1'8-17A P8-17A PB-17A 1'8-17A P8-17A Gl0 GIO 010 Gl0 GIO ala GIO Gl0 Gl0 Gl0 Gl0 Gl0 GIO GIO GIO 2-Methylnapbthalone Ac:enaphthene
Acenapnthylene Anthracene Benz(a)anthracene Benzoca)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene BenZo(gh ilperylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysme Dibenz(a,hlantnracene fluotanthene Fluorene Inck.no(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Napnthale"" NO NP NO NO NO NO NO NO 110 NO NO NO NO NO NO 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 us/kg-dry us/kg-dry ug/kg-dry us/kg-dry ug/kg-dry ug/kg-dry 1J!!/kg-dry
1J!!/kg:dry USlkg-,dry 1J!!/kg-dry u!llks-dry ug/kg-dry uS/kg-dry 1J!I/kg-dry ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 07/2212002 07/2212002 0712212002 071Z212002 0712212002 0712212002 07/22/2002 0712212002
071W2002 071Z2I2002 07/2212002 .0712212002 07/2212002 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 0712712002 07127/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 07/2712002 07/2712002 071Z7j2002
07/27/2002 07/2.712002 071Z7I2002 07127/2002 07127/2002 0712712002 07127/2002 07/2712002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 071271Z002 07/27/2002 0712712002 0712712002 0712712002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002
07127/2002 07/27/2002 SAB SAB SAg SAIl SAB $AS SA: SAIl SAD SAIl SAB SAB SAS SAIl SAIl 69681 Page 0009• 
The washington GrC?up Interna.tional .. Bnviromnenta1 SerVices Laboratory· Datil S_ry ·08/16/02 ·10.28:17 Summary II" 69681 ProjectH 78310232 WGI-Houston (Addison)RB. 25361.001 Log Description
Code Parameter Result Limit Units Sampled Stllrted Complete Analyst 289150C PB·17A Gl0 Phenanthrene NO 440 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/2712002 07/2712002 SAB 289150C PB·17A Gl0 pyrene NO
440 ug/k:g-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB 289150C P8-17A S06 \lATER 8Y EVAP 24.5 X as received 07/22/2002 􀀰􀀷􀀡􀀲􀀵􀀯􀀲􀁩􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀺􀀠. 07/25/2002 HCH 289151A P8-17B GOI Benzene
NO 5 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 PSS 28915tA P8-17B GOI Ethylbenzene NO 5 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 PSS 289151A P8-17B GOI TolUene NO 5 US/kg-dry 07/22/2002
08/03/2002 08/03/2002 PSS 289151A PB-I7B GOI Xylenes-Meta&para NO 5 us/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 􀁐􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠289151A PB-I7B GOI Xylenes-Ortho NO 5 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002
08/03/2002 2891518 PB-I7B 763TS EXT-TPH ne SOIL COO'plete 07/22/2002 07/28/2002 07128/2002 HXH 289151B PB-I7B G1ITX >ne12 to nC26 NO 21 mg/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 HXH
289151B PB-17B GIITX nc6 to ne12 NO 21 .../kg-drY 07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 HXH 289151c P8-17B ·506 \lATER BY EVAP 25.2 X as recet.ved 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002 HCH 289152A
OI/-A GOI Benzene 15 3 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 PSS 289152A OI/-A GOI Ethylbenzene 3 J 3 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 PSS ·289152A OI/-A GOI Toluene 15
3 us/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 DB/03/2002 PSS 289152A OI/-A GOI Xylenes-Heta&Para 5 3 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 PSS 289152A OI/-A GOI Xylenes-Ortho 2 J 3 ug/kg-dry
07/22/2002 08/03/2002 08/03/2002 PSS 2891528 OI/-A 763TS EXT-TPH TX SOIL CtqJlete 07/22/2002 07/28/2002 07/28/2002 HXH 289152B OI/-A Gllne >nC12 to nC28 NO 14 mg/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/30/2002
07/30/2002 r . 2891528 OI/-A GIITX nC6 to nC12 NO 14 􀁭􀁧􀀯􀁫􀁾􀀭􀁤􀁲􀁹􀀠07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 H:A .• 289152C OI/-A 760 EXT BN SOL IDS InIPLETE 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 07/25/2002
JYL 289152C OIl-A GIO 2"Het.hylnaphthal ene NO 390 us/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB 289152C 011-A GIO Acenaphthene NO 390 us/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB
289152C 289152C OI/-A OIl-A GIO GIO Acenaphthylene Anthracene.NO NO 390 390 ug/kg-dry US/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/22/2002 07/2'T/2002 07/2712002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB SAB 69681 Page
0010 
The Waahington Group 􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀁬􀀠• Envircnmental.Services Laborat?ry Data Summary OB/16/02.10.28.17 Summary II 696B1 Projectll 78310232 WGZ-Roustcn (AddisQn}RB. 25361.001
Log' Description Code Parameter Resu1t Limit: Units Sampled Started Complete Analyst 289152C Ol/-A Gl0 􀀸􀁥􀁮􀁺􀀨􀁡􀀩􀁂􀁮􀁴􀁨􀁲􀁡􀁣􀁾􀀠NO 390 ug/kg-dry 07/22/Z002 0712712002 07/27/2002
SA. 289152C W-A 610 Bcnzo(a)pyrene NO 390 us/kg-dry 07/22/Z002 07127/2002 07/27/2002 SAS 289152C W-A Gl0 Benzo(b)fluoronthene NO 390 us/kg-dry 07/2212002 07l27/20.0r. 07/27/2002 SAS
289152C W-A Gl0 Bcnzo(shi)perylene NO 390 us/kg-dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002· 07/27/2002 SAB 289152C OIl-A Gl0 8enzoCk)fluoranthene NIl 390 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/27/Z002 SA.
289152C W-A G10 CIlrysene NO 390 US/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07127/2002 0712712002 SAB 289152C OIl-A Gl0 􀁾􀁩􀁢􀁥􀁮􀁚􀀨􀁄􀀬􀁢􀀩􀀸􀁮􀁴􀁨􀁲􀁡􀁥􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀠NO 390 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/2002 07/27/Z002
SAS 28915ZC W-A Gl0 fluoranthene NO 390 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 07127/2002 07/27/Z002 SAS 28915ZC IiW-A 610 Fluorene NO 390 ug/kg-dry 07/22/Z002 07127/2002 07/27/2002 sr 289152C OIl-A Gl0
Indcno(1,2,3·cd)pyrene NIl 390 ug/kg-dry 07/22/ZOO2 0712712002 07/27/2002 S; 289152C OIl-A 610 Naphthalene NO 390 us/kg-dry 0712212002 07/271Z002 07/27/2002 SAD 2D9152C IiW-A Gl0 􀁾􀁨􀁥􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁨􀁲􀁥
􀁮􀁥􀀠NO 390 us/kg-dry 07122/2002 07/2712002 07/27/2002 SAS 2B915ZC IiW-A Gl0 P)lrene NO 390 ug/k9-dry 07/2212002 07127/2002 07/2712002 SAD 28915ZC OIl-A S06 WATER 8Y EVAP 13.9 X as
reeelved 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 07/2512002 􀁈􀁃􀁾􀀠289153A IlilP2 GOI Benzene NO 4 ug/k9-dry 071221Z002 08/04/2002 0810412002 PSS 2&9153A DUP2 GOI Ethy! bente"" 4 4 uglk9-dry 07122/2002
08/0412002 08104/2002 . PSS 289153A DUP2 GOI ToLuene 1 J 4 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 08104/2002 08104/2002 PSS 289153A DUP2 GOI Xylenes-Heta&P.r. NO 4 uglkg-dry 0712212002 08/0412902 08104/2002
PSS 289153A DUP2 GOI Xylenes-ortho 2 J 4 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 08/04/Z002 08/04/2002 PSg 2891538 DUP2 763TS EXT·TPH TX SOIL C"",lete 0712212002 07/28/2002 0712812002 HXH 2891538 DUP2
Gl1TX >nC12 to ne28 J20 15 mg/k9-dry 07/22/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 HXH 2891530 DUP2 Gl1TX nC6 to nel2 170 15 11'I1/k9-dry 0712212002 07/30/2002 07/3012002 HXH 289153C OUP2 760 EXT
BH SlllIOS InWlETe 0712212002 07125/2002 07/25/2002 JYl 289153C OUP2 Gl0 2-Hethylnaphth.lene NO «0 ug/k9-dry 0712212002 07127/2002 07/27/2002 SAS 289153C OUP2 Gl0 Acenaphth.... e NIl
«0 US/k9-dry 0712212002 0712712002 07/27/Z002 SAB 289153C DUP2 GiO Acenaphthylene NIl 440ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 0712712002 07/2712002 SAB 2S9153C DUP2 010 Anthracene ND 440 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002 071Z7I2oo2 sAo 289153C DUP2 GlO 􀀸􀁥􀁮􀁚􀀨􀁡􀀩􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁡􀁣􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀠NO
440 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 0712712002 0712712002 SA8 289153C OUP2 Gl0 Benzo(alpyrene NO 440 us/kg'dry 07/2212002 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SA8 69681 Page 0011 
The Washington Group International IInvirQnmental Services Laboratory Data Swamary 08/16/02 10.28:'17 " Sl1lDIIIA"ry II 69U1 Projectll 78310232 Hal-Houston (AddisonlRlh "25361.001 •
Log Description Code Parameter Result Limit Units S .... p1ed Started )Complete Analyst 2891530 DUPZ Gl0 BenzQ(b)fluoranthene NO 440 ug/kg-dry 07{22J200l 07/27/2002 07/27/200l SAB l89153C
DUP2 Gla Bonzo(ghl)porylene NO 440 ug/kg-dry 07/22/2002 07/2712002 07127/2002 SAl! Z89153C DUPZ G1D Benzo(klfluoranthene NO 440 ug/kg-dry 07/22/l00Z 􀀰􀀷􀁬􀀲􀀷􀀯􀀲􀀰􀁒􀁾􀀢􀀠07/2712002
SAS 289153C DUP2 GlO Chrysene lID 440 ug/kg-dry 07/Z2IZ002 07/2712002 07127/2002 SAS 289153C DUPZ Gla Oibenz(a,h)anthracene lID 440 ug/kg-dry 0712217.OOZ 07/27/2002 07/27/2002 SAB 289153C
DUPZ GlO Fluor-anthene lID 440 ug/kg-dry 0712212002 07/27/Z002 07/27/2002 SA8 289153C OUPl Gl0 fluorene NO 440 us/kg-dry 07/2212002 01/l7/2002 07/21/2002 SA8 289153C OUP2 Gl0 lndeno(1,,2,3-cd)pyr,ene
ND 440 ug/kg-dry 01/2212002 07/2712002 07/27/200Z SAS 289153C DUPl Gl0 .aFl1thale"" NO 440 ug/kg-dry 07/2212002 01/27/2002 07/2712002 􀁓􀁾􀁏􀀠2S9l53C OUP2 G1D Phenanthrene NO 440 us/kg-dry
07/Z2IlO02 07127/2002 07/21/2002 S, 289153C DUP?' Gl0 Pyrene ND 440 US/kg-dry 07lZ21l002 01/2112002 07/l7/2002 SAS 289153C OUPZ 506 \lATER BY EVAP 23.8 􀁾􀀠8S received 0712212002 07/25/2002
07125/2002 HeM .' Approved by: 􀁾􀀠Report prepjn. \:\c\Ir!.() LOJ( 6%81 Page 13012 
THE WASHINGTON GROUP ENVIRONHENTAL LABORATORY 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁡􀀻"" Methods Used for Summary# Cod.. 760• 763TS G01IIA G10 GllTX S06 􀀶􀀧􀀶􀁓􀁾􀀻􀀠'" "" D .... cription Ext.llroc.-Sonication BN (Solids) SW 846 Method
3SS0B-mod. 􀁅􀁸􀁴􀁲􀁁􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠for TPH Soil/Texas THRCe Method 1005 SW-846 S03S/B260B/IIA UST VOCs -BTEX;CUmene'INaph.,EDB,EDC lIolynuclear aromatic.. (IIAl1) by GC/MS/SW-84S Method
S270C mod TIIK by GC-PID/Texas TNRCC Method 1005 Water by 􀁥􀁶􀁡􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀯􀀠EIIA·SOO Mtd lSO.3 " 
The Washington Croup ",1)", Environmental Laboratory a.. '" DATA QUALIFIERS The following'tist shows data qualifiers that inay appear in this report, and the meaning of each. .. Qualifier
Meaning B Compound was detected in the associated blank. D Result was obtained from a different dilution than other ana1ytes. E Result is estimated. Usually, this qualifier indeicates
that the result is above the calibrated range of the instrument J Result is estimated. Usually this qualifier indicates the reported concentration is below the laboratory's reporting
limit. N Indicates a Tentatively Identified Compound. ND Analyte was not detected. U Analyte was not detected (U and ND qualifiers are interchangable). ABBREVIATIONS . The following
list shows abbreviations that conunonly occur in analytical reports. Abbreviation Meaning .DL Dilution LCS Laboratory Control Sample ' I LCSS Laboratory Control Sample (soil) LCSW Laboratory
Control Sample (water) MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate NR No Recovery PB Preparation Blank PS Post-Digestion Spike RE Reanalysis RPD Relative Percent Difference SR Serial
Dilution 
Date->:_=______ o flush l Z a 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠day. ..,efl"l!!lH2)__ 0 Std.(-12)__ 0 o.llo, ____ oNPDES Analysis Required Washington Laboratory . 301 Chelsea Parkway Boothwyn. PA 19061 Phone:
6104S7011000 Fax: 610-497-11005 69681 Page 13015 
THE WASHINGTON GROUP ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LABORATORY 301 Chelsea Parkway Boothwyn; Pa. 19061 (610) 497-6000 WGI-Bouston (Addison)RE: 25361.001 Mr. Ron Bowlin 9433 Kirby Dr. Houston
TX 77054 76310232 69.80 " 1,August 05, 2002 NJ IDII PA343 EPA IDII PA00078 PA IDII 23 -272 CA IDII 02105CA RX IDII 238 CT IDII PH0657 NY ID# 11345 NO IDII 266 MA ID# M-PA078• Total Pages
=42 
The Washington Group ,International ' Environmental Serviees Laboratory Data, Summary 08/16/02 09,59,24 Sllllllliary '# 6968'0 'Project# 78310232 1iG:r-liouston (Addis;'n)RB, 25361_001
"ILog Description Code Pa.rameter Result Liloit units Sampled Started Complete Analyst 289138A CAl-A GOl Benzene NO 5 ug/l 0712312002 08/0512002 08/0512002 PSS 289138A lXI-A GOI Ethytbenzene
NO 5 ug/l 07/23/2002 08/05/2002.. -08/05/2002 PSS 289138A OIl-A GOl Toluene NO 5 ug/l 07/2312002 08/05/2002' 08/05/2002 PSS 2B91J8A OIl-A GOI 􀁘􀁹􀁴􀁾􀀭􀁍􀁥􀁴􀁡􀀦􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁡􀀠NO 5 IJg/L
07/23/2002 08/05/2002 08/05/2002 PSS 289138A OIl-A GOI Xvlenes"Ortho NO 5 IJg/l 07/23/2002 08/05/2002 OB/05/2002 PS. 289138B OIl-A 763111 EXT-1PH TX K20 Coa!>lete 07/23/2002 07/2812002
07/28/2002 HXH 289138B OIl-A GIITX >nc12 to nc28 6.2 2 mg/L 07/23/2002 07/29/2002 07/29/2002 H. 289138B OIl-A OIITX rt::6 to nel2 5.5 2 moIL 07/23/2002 07/29/2002 07129/2002 OXH 289138C
lXI-A 759 EXT BN H2O Ca!PLETE 07/23/2002 07/25/2002 07129/2002 OJN 289138C CAl-A Gl0 2-Hethylnaphthalene 87 10 uglL 07/23/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 .AB 289138C CAl-A Gl0 Acenaphthene
,NO 10 ,IJg/L 07/23/2002 07/30/2002 07/3012002 SAS 289138C CAl-A Gl0 Acenaphthytene NO 10 us/L 07/23/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 SAS 289138C CAl-A 010 Anthracene NIl 10 "gIL '07/23/2002
07/30/2002 07/3012002 ' SAB 289138C OIl-A 010 Benz(a}anthraeene NO 10 US/L 07/23/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 'AB 289138C CAl-A Gl0 Benzo(a)llyrene NO 10 US/l 07/23/2002 07/30/2q02 07/30/2002
SAS 289138C CAl-A GIO 􀁂􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁯􀀨􀁢􀀩􀁦􀁬􀁵􀁯􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁮􀁥􀀠lID 10 uo/l 07/23/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 SAS 289138C OIl-A OlD BenZo{gbi)perylene NO 10 "s/l 07/23/2002 07130/2002
07/30/2002 SAS 289138C OIl-A Gl0 Senzo(k)ftuoranthene NO 10 􀁾􀁧􀀯􀁬􀀠07/23/2002 07/30/2002 07130/2002 SAS 28913SC OII-A Gl0 Chrysene NO 10 US/L 0712312002 07130/2002 07130/2002 SAS
289138C CAl-A 010 Dibenl(a,h)anthraeene WO 10 ug/L 0712312002 0713012002 07130/2002 'AB 289138C 289138C 289138C 289138C CAl-A OIl-A CAl-A CAl-A ,. 010 GIO Gl0 010 fluoranthene Fluorene
Indeno(Indeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene Naphtha Lene NO NO WO NO 10 10 10 10 "gIl ' ug/l ug/l : ug/l . 07123/2002 07123/2002 07/23/2002 􀁾􀀷􀀱􀀲􀀳􀀯􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀲􀀠07/30/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 07/3012002
07/30/2002 07/3012002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 SAS •s..,-289138C CAl-A Gl0 Phenanthrene NO 10 ug/l 07/2312002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002 SAS 289138C OIl-A 010 pyrene NO 10 ug/L 07/23/2002 07/30/2002
07/30/2002 SAB 289139 Trip Blent GOI Ben:t.ene I/O 5 "gil 07/23/2002 08/06/2002 08/06/2002 PSS 289139 trip Blank GDI Ethylbeotene NO 5 ug/l 07/2312002 08/66/2002 08/06/2002 PSS 69680
Page 131302 
The 􀁗􀁡􀁂􀁨􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁯􀁮􀀠Group 􀁉􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀀱􀀠• 􀁂􀁮􀁶􀁩􀁲􀁯􀁮􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁡􀁬􀂷􀀠Services Laboratory Data 􀁓􀁾􀁲􀁹􀀠08/16/02 09,59,24 SWlllllary.# 69680' Project# 78310232
WGI-Bouston(lIddisonnUh 25361.0'01 Log Description Code Parameter Result Limit Units Sampled Started Coolplete Analyst 289139 Trip 8lank GOl Toluene ND 5 US/L 07123/2002 08/0612002 08/0612002
PSS 289139 TrIp Slank GOl Xylenes-Meta&Para ND 5 US/L 0712312002 08/06/2002 08/06/2002 PSS 289139 Trip Blank GOl xylene$"Ortho ND 5 ug/L 07/23/2002 08106/2002 08/06/2002 PSS \ .; 􀁾.
.\' .' Appro\red by: tMt Report prep;1Y\" tio.;m III 􀁾􀀠69680 Page 0003 
THE WASHINGTON GROUP 􀁅􀁎􀁖􀁾􀁒􀁏􀁎􀁍􀁅􀁎􀁔􀁁􀁌􀀠LABORATORY 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁲􀁯"" "" Methods Used for Summary# 63680, ...,'" -::!.: Code Description • 753 Extraction Base/Neutral (H2O) SW-S46 Hethod 3520C 763TW Extraction for TPH Aqueous/Texax
THRCC 􀁈􀁥􀁴􀁾􀁯􀁤􀀠1005 GOIPA SW-846 􀀵􀀰􀀳􀀵􀀯􀀸􀀲􀁾􀁏􀁂􀀯􀁾􀁁􀀠UST VOCs -BTEXtCUmenelNaph.;EDB;EDC GIO Polynuclear 􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁣􀁳􀀠(PAB) by GC/MS/SW-846 Method S270C Mod Gll'.1.'lC
'.!.'PH by GC-FIIl/T""',," THRCC Method laOS \ , 
...The Washington croup cr. EnVironmental Laboratory t\) 0.. DATA QUALIFIERS ,, The 􀁦􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁯􀁷􀁩􀁾􀁧􀀧􀀱􀁩􀁳􀁴􀀠shows data qualifiers 􀁴􀁨􀁡􀁴􀀧􀁾􀁡􀁹􀀠appear in this report, and the
meaning of each. • Qualifier Meaning B Compound was detected in the associated blank. D Result was obtained from a different dilution than other analytes. E Result is estimated. Usually,
this qualifier indeicates that the result is above the calibrated range of the instrument J Result is estimated. Usually this qualifier indicates the reported concentration is below
the laboratory's reporting limit. N Indicates a Tentatively Identified Compound. ND Analyte was not detected. U Analyte was not detected (U and ND qualifiers are interchaogable). ABBREVIATIONS
The following list shows abbreviations that cornmouly occur in analytical reports. Abbreviation Meaning. DL Dilution .. ·LCS Laboratory Control Sample ' I LCSS Laboratory Control Sample
(soil) . LCSW Laboratory Control Sample (water) MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate NR No Recovery PB Preparation Blank . PS Post-Digestion Spike RE Reanalysis RPD Relative Percent
Difference ; SR Serial Dilution 
o OIho, _____ oNPDES p.ACL 696813 Page 1313136 
HP LaserJet 3200se TOALASERJET 3200 9724502837 JAN-29-2002 11:01AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration 56 1/29/2002 11:00:53AM Send 917137976578 1:00 TOWNOP ADDISoN
PUBLIC WORKS [iM !<A/ITo: From: Jim Pierce, P.E. Asst Public Wks. Dlr. Company: IU(G6,"1 let Pbone: 972/450-2879 FAX: 9721450-2837 FAX#: i-713-717-65"7ft jpiUU@daddlson.tt:w Date: /-2-'1-01-16801
Westgrove P.O.Box 9010 # oCpsges (including 􀁣􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀀩􀀺􀁾􀀠Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: 􀁾rkrod:M 􀁾􀀠I o Origin] iD mail 0 Per Jour requesl 0 FYI 0 C.U me 􀁾􀁭􀁭􀀻􀀺pWtr7t 􀁡􀁴􀀫􀁾􀀠invent
Pages Result 2 OK 
--. -11-/2.-01 1-(3 -Of 
__________________________ _ 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁀􀀠Public Works I Engineering 16801 Westgrove' P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Telephone: 19721450·2871 • Fax: 19721 450·2837 TO 􀀦􀀬􀁾􀁾1ij!J
hi'f GENTLEMAN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ntAttached D Under separate cover via ______the following items: D Shop Drawings 􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀠D Plans D Samples D Specifications D__________________________D
Copy of letter D Change order DATE -31-0/JOB NO. ATTENTION REi COPIES 􀁾DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 􀁾􀁊􀁾􀀠AJ 􀁦􀁾o'?./fi7 ;://l'UIJ JZ:--'-:A 􀀯􀁾􀁶􀁨􀀮􀁰􀀮􀀺􀁦􀀮􀁴􀁁I o If,,;, Jh JJ 4;"
'--. • THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval D Approved as submitted D Resubmit ____copies for approval 􀁾For your use D Approved as noted D Submit copies for distribution
D As requested D Returned for corrections D Return corrected prints D For review and comment D D FOR BIDS DUE __________ 19,___ D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIGNED: 􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁬􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀮􀁪􀀻􀀮
􀁬􀁚􀁾􀀸􀀺􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭If enclosures are not as noted, please nQ;; us us at once. 
___________________________ __ -----_®Public Works /Engineering 16801 Westgrove. P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Telephone: [972[ 450-2871 • Fax: 19721450-2837 DATE JOBNa. ATTENTION
GENTLEMAN: WE ARE SENDING YOU j(Attached D Under separate cover via ______ the following items: D Shop Drawings D Prints D Plans D Samples D Specifications D_____________________________D
Copy of letter D Change order COPtES DATE NO. /> DESCRIPTION ( (f/fi-! CU AA f 􀁾􀀮􀂣􀁗􀀮􀁊􀀠d' 􀀮􀀯􀁊􀁾dJ/7 .A'"1 I'.+.p? UFJZr () r7 I I P THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D
For approval D Approved as submitted D Resubmit ______ copies for approval jQ For your use D Approved as noted D Submit copies for distribution D As requested D Returned for corrections
D Return corrected prints D For review and comment D D FOR BIDS DUE ___________________ 19__ D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS _______________________________________________________________
____ COPY TO ___________________________________ SIGNED: 􀀬􀁾􀀨􀁾􀀠If enclosures are not as noted, please nOlif!us at once. 
DATE SUBMITTED: November 16, 2001 FOR COUNCIL MEETING: November Zl, 2001 > • Council Agenda Item: _____ SUMMARY: This Item is to award a contract to conduct a Phase nEnvironmental Assessment
ofthe Addison AiIport Fuel Farm. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds Available: $85,000 Cost: $\19,500 Funding Source: Airport Fund BACKGROUND: The Airport Phase I Environmental Assessment Update
ofthe Airport that was completed in August 2001 by Camp, Dresser and McKee, recommended that a Phase nEnvironmental Assessment be performed on the AiIport Fuel Farm. The purpose ofa
Phase nis to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination, ifany, as a result ofoperatiOllS at the fuel fann. The Town solicited statements ofqualificatiOllS ftom interested
firms, and received ten responses. The Town evaluated the responses and selected Washington Group International to submit a proposal to do the work. The Town requested that Washington
prepare their proposal to include alI ofthe likely activities that may be required with the current knowledge we have about the fuel fann. A copy ofWashington's proposal is attached.
The totaJ cost ofthe proposal ($119,500 with one round of sampling) exceeds the amount budgeted by $34,500, and this is because Washington's proposal is "all inclusive" as requested
by the Town. However, staff believes that the project may come within the budgeted amount ifwhat we suspect is true, i.e., soil contamination is not serious, groundwater has not been
affected, and additional rounds of sampling are not required. Task Items 1-3 will produce hasic information on the extent ofcontamination and will be used to guide the remaining activities.
Ifcontamination is not serious, Tasks 4, 5, and 6 will be minimal. Task 7 is needed regardless ofcontamination, as a good site plan ofthe existing fuel fann is essential for future planning
and operations. Tasks 8 and 9 result from all ofthe prior work. As ofthis writing, our Attorney is negotiating the Work Authorization Terms with Washington.. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends
that the City Manager be authorized to contract with Washington Group International for Tasks 1 through 3, and Task 7, for an amount of$42,600, as well as the appropriate portion ofTasks
4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, as approved by staff, for a total amount not to exceed the budgeted amount of$85,OOO. All subject to approval ofthe Work Authorization Terms by the City Attorney.

Administrative Recommendation: Administration recommends approval. Item #R14 -Acceptance and approval of Rates all Changes f· r Addison Airport for calendar year 2002. Attachments: 1.
Council Agenda Item Overview 2. Memorandum from Mark Acevedo 3. Addison Airport Rental Rates Administrative Recommendation: Administration recommends approval. Item #R15 -Acceptance
and approval of the final report of the Fuel Farm Committee related to the site relocation and operating methodology of the Addison Airport Fuel Farm. Attachments: 1. Council Agenda
Item Overview 2. Memorandum from Mark Acevedo 3. Recommendation to City Council 4. Airport Development Concept Drawing 5. Environmental Assessment Update 6. Addison Airport Fuel Farm
Storage Drawings Administrative Recommendation: Administration recommends approval of the new location for the fuel farm as proposed by the committee. Town agrees to finance building
of fuel farm with construction costs passed on to those who lease the tanks. EXECUTIVE SESSION Item #ES-1 -Closed (Executive) session of the City Council as authorized by Section 551.071
of the Texas Government Code to consult with and seek the advice of the City Attorney regarding pending litigation, to wit: Shara City Council Agend a 11-13-01 
November 8, 2001 Town ofAddison 5300 Belt Line Road Addison, TX 75001 Dear Addison Council Members, As the current fuel farm operators at Addison Airport, we would appreciate the opportunity
to bring forth information to your attention concerning the existing condition of the current fuel farms. Enclosed are the recommendations from the phase I environmental assessment prepared
by Camp, Dressor & McKee concerning the environmental compliance of the fuel farms. Responses to those recommendations with back-up information in the Exhibit A are included as well.
I am confident after reviewing this information we will come to a mutual agreement there is not a contamination issue with the current fuel farms. Nor are there any operational or safety
issues at the current fuel farms. Therefore it should not be necessary to spend millions of dollars to relocate the farm at the fuel farm operator's or the Town of Addison's expense.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the airport , management on resolving resolving this issue. SinCerely, Jack Hopkins General Manger Million Air Dallas Ray Stern Partner
R. Stem FBO, LP Kenneth Donaldson President Cherry Air Vincent Hilgeman General Manager Mercury Air Center Edward Morales General Manager Addison Express 
__________________________ _ -----_®Public Works I Engineering 16801 Westgrove. P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001-9010 DATE 1/-f)..-6/IJOBNa. ATTENTION RE, /J';/du; /J"/1,/A./n:!-.;:::::;;
/L:::. f Telephone: 1972J 450-2871 • Fax: 1972J 450-2837 GENTLEMAN: WE ARE SENDING YOU iAttached D Under separate cover via ______the following items: D Shop Drawings D Prints D Plans
D Samples D Specifications D Copy of letter D Change order D_________________________ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION /􀁾 J-d/-t/I--/)., I./tfl/K: 􀁾rh-JI-Ipl/􀀯􀀧􀀮􀁲􀁡􀀴􀀡􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀮􀁁􀁉􀁁􀀠I3i􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠,z
::;; /> ..... ;()/1 A A k.-? bn1::L /)􀁡􀀮􀀮􀀯􀁁􀁾􀀠j.A A?;",' .;/.:; I THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval D Approved as submitted D Resubmit ____copies for approval
AFar your use D Approved as noted D Submit copies for distribution D As requested D Returned for corrections D Return corrected prints D For review and comment D D FOR BIDS DUE __________
19___ D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO _________________ 􀁓􀁉􀁇􀁎􀁅􀁄􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭If enclosures are not as noted, please n 
􀁾􀁉􀁎􀁾􀁾􀀠M-􀁾􀁾􀀠t?/.tM..u-ffl/1,//.EJ 􀁾􀁾􀀠\ fii f/IZ it) 􀁾WL 􀁾; {d 􀀧􀁾􀁃􀁮􀁾􀀠( 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀱􀁾􀀭,Mc.,) 1J 􀁾􀁾􀁣􀁊􀁯􀁶􀀠
Jim Pierce From: HILL, JOHN Ohill@cowlesthompson.com] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 7:26 AM To: 'jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us' Cc: DIPPEL, KEN Subject: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Add!$(In 􀁾􀀠SeOI)4l or Work for En ... <<Addison -Scope of Work for Environmental Site Assessment {Airport Phase II) (fuel farm). DOC» Jim--attached is a red-lined copy of the work
authorization terms of the proposal from Washington regarding the Phase II environmental site assessment at the fuel farm. Please review and let me know if you would like to discuss.
A few notes regarding the proposal letter: 1. Under "Backgroundll , the third sentence provides that the Town is to provide baseline conditions in the fuel farm area, "specifically the
presence or abasence of hydrocarbon contaminationu• Is that correct? 2. Under "Technical Approach", the first sentence states that there is to be only ulimited invasive field exploration."
Is that correct? Also, the second sentence provides that the "objective will be to establish a reasonable understanding of environmental and physical conditions of the tank farms and
adjacnet areas at the airport." Depending on what the Town expects Washington to do, a better word than reasonable might be Jfextensiveu or "thoroughll • 3. Note that under "Price",
paragraph I provides that the "Town will provide unrestricted access to Fuel Areas .•. " We need to make sure that we can provide such access. Please let me know if you have any questions
or comment. John ! 
􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁩􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁾􀂮􀀠Public Works I Engineering 16801 Westgrove. P.O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Telephone: (972) 450-2871 • Fax:
(972) 450-2837 fJaMi 􀁕􀁊􀁾TO ___􀁾􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀭__.-_________ 􀁕􀁪􀁾􀀠 GENTLEMAN: WE ARE SENDING YOU 􀁾􀁴􀁴􀁡􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁤􀀠o Shop Drawings 6Prints o Copy of letter o Change order DATE IJOB
NO.'1-1'-/-0/ATTENTION RE: /,/-1&Uw a .M'-' r--􀁾􀀠.I I􀀧􀁾􀁁􀁾􀀠o Under separate cover via ______the following items: o Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications 0 _______________ COPIES DATE
NO. DESCRIPTION ( &v7.., 􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀴􀀠..... 􀀬􀁪􀁊􀀮􀀯􀁾􀀠I' r::I.A 1J'Jd 77L/.ec c Eft /" 􀁾􀀠1J.LI1,A􀁾􀁾􀀠/t" -" 􀁾􀁷􀁾A-( LPfr*9/,/-7/I THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: o For
approval o Approved as submitted o Resubmit ____copies for approval 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁹􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁵􀁳􀁥􀀠o Approved as noted o Submit copies for distribution o As requested o Retumed for corrections
o Return corrected prints o For review and comment 0 ___________________________ o FOR BIDS DUE __________ 19____ o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO __________________ If enclosures
are not as noted, 􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀹􀀢􀁈􀁊􀀠us at once. 
ADDISON AIRPORT September 13, 200 I David Pearce HAND DELIVERED 9/13/01 Airport Manager, Addison Airport 4651 Airport Parkway Addison, TX 75001 RE: Closure ofLPST #91471 at Addison Airport
Fuel Farm Dear David: I would like to respond to last Friday's discussion regarding closure of the entire Addison Airport Fuel Farm area. I am very concerned to learn on Friday that
to your knowledge no action had been taken by you or the Town on the LPST case on the Town's fuel tanks. Enclosed you will find a copy ofthe letter and enclosures sent to you from EA
Engineering, Science, & Technology, Inc. This letter indicated in its second paragraph that you had 180 days from case closure to plug and abandon the four wells referenced and to prepare
the Final Site Closure Report. According to the enclosed TNRCC letter, you may have missed the simple opportunity to obtain this final closure. However, I did take the liberty and contact
Applied Earth Sciences, Inc. at their offices on Trinity Mills, as indicated by the TNRCC letter, page two, last paragraph. I spoke with a Frank Clark who indicated that he could arrange
a crew to plug and abandon the monitor wells with as little as 48 hours notice. This information was passed on to you Monday, September 10 via your voice message on the telephone. The
only person available was Darci Nuezil. She indicated you were in the office but busy and that she would forward the information to you. You have yet to call me back. You also have EA
Engineering's reference should you desire to contact them for help in closing the site. As you mayor may not know, the process for closure ofan LPST such as exists in the Addison Airport
Fuel Farm area can be fairly complex and lengthy. Hopefully there is still a good chance to obtain immediate closure ifyou act quickly and with proper assistance. Should you choose to
delay an immediate attempt at final closure, the likely hood ofadditional unnecessary delays and added expense are a high probability. ADDISON AIRPORT OF TEXAS, INC.• 4505 ClAIRE CHENNAULT·
· DALLAS, TEXAS 75248· 9721248-7733 FAX 9721248·2416 
Please let me know what you or the Town have done or plan to do concerning this LPST. Also, what fimding source will be used for any costs associated with this? If! can assist you in
any way, please feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, 􀁾􀁾􀂫... Sam Stuart President Addison Airport ofTexas, Inc. Cc: Mark Acevedo-Public Works, Town ofAddison Chris Terry-Ass!.
City Manager, Town ofAddison Bob Barrett-City Council and Fuel Farm Site Location committee member Mike Tiller-President, Addison Airport Aviation Business Association 
EA Engineering, Science, & Technology, Inc. 1420 Valwood Parkway, Suite 170 Carrollton, Texas 75006 Phone: (972) 484-1420 Fax (972) 247-7220 April 17: 2001 Mr. David Pierce Addison Airport
4651 Airport Parkway Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Closure of Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST) Case, Fuel Farm Located at Southwest Comer of Addison Road at Roscoe Turner Street, Addison,
Dallas (Dallas County), Texas (LPST ID No. 91471, Facility ID No. 0000022). Dear Mr. Pierce: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA) has provided environmental consulting services
to the former Addison Airport ofTexas, Inc. (AATI, Sam Stuart) associated with the referenced LPST case. In December, 2000 EA submitted a Site Closure Request Form to the TNRCC, along
with a Cost Preapproval Proposal and Work Plan for the plugging and abandonment (P&A) of four monitor wells associated with the LPST case, and preparation of the Final Site Closure Report.
On March 13, 2001 the TNRCC submitted a Corrective Action Response Form approving the proposed costs for the P&A of the monitor wells and the preparation of the Final Site Closure Report
to Mr. Stuart of the former AATI. On March 20, 2001 Mr. Stuart received a letter from the TNRCC concurring that the LPST case at the site has met closure requirements and the monitor
wells should be removed. EA contacted Mr. Stuart and was informed that AATI is no longer responsible for management of Addison Airport and was directed to contact you about the P&A of
the monitor wells. Mr. Stuart told EA that Washington Staubach Addison Airport Joint Venture was the Responsible Party for the remaining activities associated with the LPST case. Per
the Texas Water Code, all of the monitor wells must be plugged within 180 days of case closure. The Final Site Closure Report should be submitted to the TNRCC within 30 days of the P&activities.

David Pierce April 17, 2001 Addison Airport Page 2 Attached are the TNRCC CARF, Letter of Concurrence, and the Cost Preapproval Proposal for Site Closure Activities. EA will perform
the P&A of the monitor wells and complete the Final Site Closure Report for the TNRCC approved amount of $3,342. Also attached are EA's Standard Terms and Conditions. The TNRCC Cost
Preapproval Proposal approved by the TNRCC will serve as Exhibit A. In order to authorize EA to perform the P&A activities, please sign the terms and conditions and fa" the signed copy
to EA. Retain the original for your flies. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to call Roger Place or me at (972) 4841420. Sincerely, 􀁾􀀯􀀻􀁣􀀭Todd Frazee Project Manager CAPM01237
cc: Mr. Sam Stuart (4505 Claire Chennault, Dallas, Texas 75248) attachments 
MAR 20 '01 10: 15AM DALLAS. TEXAS Robert J. Huston, Chairman R, 8. "Ralph" Mar'luez, Commissioner John M, Baker. Ccmmissioner Jeffrey A, Sallas, Executive Director. TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Po/lUlion March 14. 2001 Mr. Sam Stuart Addison Airport ofTexas, Inc, 4505 Claire Chennault Dallas, Texas 15248 Re:
File Review for Closure of Subsurface Release of Hydrocarbons at AATI Fuel Fmn, 41&& Roscoe Turner, Dallas (Dallas County), T= (LPST ID No. 91471 -Facility ID No, 0000022 -Priority 4,
1) R-4 Dear Mr, Stuart: This letter confiuns the completion of corrective action requirements for the release incident at the above-referenced facility. Based upon the submitted information
and with the provision that the documentation provided to this agency was accurate and representative ofsite conditions, we concur with your recommendation that tbe site bas met closure
requirements, Therefore. no further corrective action is necessary, The criteria includes, includes, but are not limited tc the following: groundwater concentrations indicate the contaminallt
plume is stable llIld declining; groundwater 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠in all wells (except MW-2) are less than Category II. Plan Atarget levels; concentra,lons detected in MW·2
appear to be steady or declining; soil and groundwat¢!' contaminant levels are =idered protective for construction workers based on calculated site specific target levels fOr this site;
and soil contaminant levels are less than health based soil concentrations. Please note that financial assurance must be maintained for all operational storage tanks at this site, Please
be aware that case closure is based on identified exposure pathways and that any remaining contaminant levels and potential exposure pathways should be evaluated when conducting any
future soil excavation or construction activities at this site. Please ensure that any wastes gene(ated from these activities are handled in compliance with all applicable regulations.
regulations. Please be advised that all monitor wens which are not now in use and/or will not be used in the next 180 days must be properly plugged and abandoned pursuant to Chapter
32,017 oftbe Texas Water Code and in accordance with Title Title 16, Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Section 76.1004, P.o, 80.' 13081 • Austin, T.... 1(\711·3081 • 5121239·1000 • Internet
address: www.tnrcc.state.tx.us ...􀁩􀀱􀁉􀁌􀁾􀁑􀀠on r:eqodtd 􀁾􀁣􀀨􀁲􀀱􀁊􀀡􀁦􀁁􀁁􀀠iO)'<h;uu iok 
􀀡􀁾􀁉􀁈􀁴􀀧􀀨􀀢􀀠0::::;1;3 • I!iL L"" LOHI'! LJHLLH::i, I 􀁴􀀮􀀮􀀨􀁜􀁈􀁾􀀠Mr. Stuart Page 2 March14, 2001 A State ofTexas Plugging Report (Form No. TNRCC-0055) is ri:quired to be submitte<l to the Water Well Drillers Section ofthe Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, P.
O. BOl( J2157, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 787) 1, within thirty (30) days of plugging completion. If you have any questions regarding the future use of an existing monitor well,
please contact the Texas Department ofLicensing and Regulation at 512f463-7880 or 800f803-9202, If there are to be any other necessary site restoration activities performed to complete
site closure, complete a Final Site 􀁃􀁬􀁏􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁲􀁥􀀠Report and submit the report to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Central Office in A.ustin to document
actual site closure. For sites eligible for reimbursement through the Petroleum Storage Tank Remediation Fund, written preapproval should be obtained prior to initiation of site closure
activities. Reimbursement claims for activities that are not preapproved will not be paid until all claims for preapproved work are processed and paid, Please note that the Final Site
Closure Report, ifnecessary, will be the last submittal associated with this case, This letter signifies the completion of corrective action associated with the release, No subsequent
TNRCC correspondence will be issued in response to the Final Site Closure Report. Please note that all correspondence must include the LPST and Facility ID Numbers and must be submitted
to the TNRCC Central Office ill Austi!). Should you have any questions, please contact Curt Champlin ofApplied Earth Sciences, Inc (PST Privatization Contractor) at 51 2f990-7467 ext.
205. Please reference this LPST ID Numberwhen making inquiries. Your cooperation in this matter has been appreciated, Sincerely, Dennis Rogers TNRCC Oosite Representative Petroleum Storage
Tank-Responsible Party Remediation Section ORR/sec 91471.foo 
1-'. C:/4MAR 14 '01 09:21AM DALLAS TEXAS TNRCC FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: TO: FROM: NO. C'F PAGES (including Chis sheet): Name Organization Fax Number TEXAS NATURAL Name Telephone Fax Number
MR BBANDON GRIESEL 􀁾􀀧􀁉􀁓􀁏􀁎􀀠AIRPORT --12]2) 249-2416 :; t 􀁾􀀠RESOURCE 􀁾􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁅􀁒􀁖􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀠COMMISSION CUrt Champlin Cgorgipator-AES, Inc. 5121990-7467 5121239-2216 Mail MC-13Z,
PO Box 13087. Austin. Tx 79711-3087 NOTES: Response to Corrective Action Proposal(s)LPST i: 091471 􀀬􀁆􀁑􀁣􀁩􀀱􀁩􀁾􀁹􀀠rv: 0000022. for If you have any problems receiving this fax, please
call 512/990-7467 . Please note that new Corrective Action Preapproval 􀁆􀁯􀁾􀀠have been required since September 1.1995. The forme are available at no cost by downloading from the 􀁾􀁣􀁣􀀠Bulletin
Board Services (SSS) 􀀨􀀵􀀱􀀲􀀨􀀲􀀳􀁾􀀭􀀰􀀷􀀰􀀰􀀩􀀬􀀠or over the 􀁉􀁮􀀧􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁥􀁴􀀠at http://www.tnrcc.stat:e.tx.us. You may also order the forms on diskett.e from che TNRCC, MC-19S.
P.O. Box 13089. Austin, TX 78711-3088 (please specify the Corrective Action Preapproval Forms on diskette). A pamphlet with reproducible forms is available at no cost by calling 'fNRCC
E'ublicat.ions at 512/239-0028. Please note that all LI?Sl' corrective action proposals and reports need to be prepared by a;:1 environmental contracting/consulting firm registered as
a Corrective Action Specialist (CAS) and need to have the the signatures and regietrlltion munbers of both the CAS and rQgistp.red Corrective ACt:.i01l Project: 􀁍􀀺􀁡􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠(CAPMI
inoludC!d pU;J;suant to Title 30, Texa$ Administrative Code (TAC). Subchapter J. Any proposal that has been prepared by II consulting firm not registered as a CAS by the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) or which does not include the signature and registration number of the Project Manager may be rejected. Please reserve the use of the telefax
machines 􀁦􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩􀁴􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠proposals and daea for LPST cases that rank as new priority l's and for emergenoy abatement activities. 'I :01 
MRR 14 '01 09:21RM DRLLRE TEXRS TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION LPST CORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSE FORM 􀁉􀀮􀁐􀁓􀁔􀀮􀁾􀁉􀁄􀀺􀀠091.471 12/26/2000 Proposal 􀁆􀁯􀁾􀀧􀀠SITE CLOSURB
GENSRAL INFORMATION Ll?S'I'-IO Res,ponsible Party Facility # & Name Fa.cility Address Facility City CAPM &: Name RCAS & Warne 091471 priority, 4.1 ADDISON AIRPORT Tel: 972/248-7733 0000022
ADDISON AIRPORT 47B8 ROSCOE 􀁔􀁃􀁾􀁒􀀠DALLAS County: DALLAS CAPM01366 TODD NICKERSON RCAS00127 EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY. INC. TNRCC TECHNICAL RESPONSE Proposed activity
is approved as proposed. Approval is for the plugging and abandonment·of the four monitor wells. please provide the required documentation upon completion of the project. ACTIVITY COST
SUMMARY Proposed Cost: :3.342.00 . Maximum Pre-Approved: 3,342.00 Date: 3/0Sl/01 Telephone: 512/990-7467Signature: 􀀨􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾􀀠rt G Coordinator-AES, Inc. Appr.oval:
􀀿􀁥􀁩􀁦􀁾􀀠Project Manager, AES, Inc. 􀁾􀀮􀀠Emmanuel Ekpo or 􀁍􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁡􀀠􀁌􀁾􀁅􀁲􀁯􀁮􀀠or Dennis RogersTNRCC On-site RepreGentativeResponsible Party Remediation 􀁓􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠Page
1 II 
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION LPST CORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSE FORM 􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁔􀀭􀁾􀁄􀀬􀀠􀀰􀀹􀀱􀀴􀀷􀁾􀀠12/26/2000 proposal PorI SITE CLOSURE Pursuant to 30 TAC Section 334.82
(bl, 'you are required 1:;0 notify all parties affected by the 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁡􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀠If you determine that contamination from the release has migrat;ed off-site, or if you are
required by the TNRCC to conduct further assessment or oeher 􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁾􀁶􀁥􀀠actions off-site, then. you are 􀁲􀁥􀁱􀁵􀁩􀁲􀁾􀁤􀀠to 􀁮􀁯􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁹􀀠the affected landowner(sl within
30 days of 􀁤􀁯􀁣􀁵􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁮􀁧􀀠the lmpact. plesse note that landowners may include 􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀠local 􀁯􀁷􀁮􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠of right-of-way properties. For the purpose of this requirement,
notice shall be through any means described in 30 TAC Section 334.62 (al.Please provide documentation that the affected landowner(s) has/have been notified within 30 days of potification.
Please note that fai1ure to notify affected parties ae required herein is grounds for 􀁦􀁯􀁯􀁾􀁬􀀠snfQrcement 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁣􀁥􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁧􀁳􀀮􀀠Please note that 􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁰􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁡􀁬􀀠of this
activity DOES NOT guaranteereimbursement. 􀁥􀁬􀁩􀁧􀁾􀁢􀁬􀁾􀁴􀁹􀀠is determined at the time of reimbursement application review. If the release is eligible, the preapproved amount is the
maximum allowable for the proposed activities. The actual amount of reimbursement will be determined after the completedx-eimbursement application and a.ll related receipts and invoices
are 􀁳􀁵􀁢􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀬􀀠and the completed activity is subject to technical and and reirnbursable cost revi.ew. In all instances, the completed work must be technically justifiable
and should serve to advanoe the site in the corrective action process. The amount of 􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁰􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁤􀀠work performed should be based on completion of the 􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁾􀁴􀁹􀀧􀁳􀀠objectives.
􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁹􀀬􀀠please also note that preapproved amounts include all eligible markup. Claims for reimbursement· should only be submitted after the c<:>mpletion of an annual
crcJ.e for remediation 9¥stem operation and maintenance,. and quarter y groundwater 􀁭􀁯􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁮􀁧􀀠unless a more frequent fl.ling period is previously approved by the PST Reimbursement
Section. The Reimbursement Section can be reached at 􀀵􀁾􀀲􀀯􀀲􀀳􀀹􀀭􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀱􀀮􀀠Pags 2 9lV2S,.22L61'0l 
􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁁􀀠Engineering, Science, 􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁤Technology, Inc. EA as used herein means EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Client as used herein means the other party 10 this Agreement.
WHEREAS, EA provides an extensive range of integrated and comprehensive consulting, engineering, scientific, and analytical services; and WHEREAS, Client desires to utilize EA's services.
NOW. THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, EA agrees to provide the professional services described herein, and Client agrees to accept and 􀁾for such services, all in accordance
with the following terms and condi"ons: 1. Definitions The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below whenever they are used in this Agreement: a) 'Scope of Work" (SOW)
shall mean the deSCription of the services to be provided by EA as mutually agreed upon by EA and Client. and will be performed on either a fixed pnce or time and materials basi.. The
SOW and the Price will be set out in the attached Exhibit 'A" (or EA'. Proposal letter). incorporated 3.by reference into this Agreement b) 'Documentation' shall mean deliverable documentation
as described in the SOW. c) 'Equipment" shall mean all indoor and outdoor equipment used by EA at Client sites for the purpose of providing services as described in the SOW. d) 'Proprietary
Information" shall mean all data. information, manuals, materials, trade secrets, patents. products, processes. plans, whether in written, graphic or oral form, and similar proprietary
know-how of EA. 4.2. CompensationiBiliing EA's invoices will ba issued at least monlhly and are payable uponreceipt. Balanceslhirty (30) days past due are subject to interest at 1.5%
per month. After five (5) days written notice, EA may suspend services under any Client Agreement until all past due accounts have been paid. The SOW is often not fully definable prior
to the execution of this Agreement as investigation may uncover additional facts and inloonation requiring an alleration in the SOW andlor the Price for the services. For services on
a time and materials basis. the proposed tees are EA's best estimate of the charges required to complete the SOW. EA will infonn Client of any material changes to eilher the SOW or Ihe
Price that may be reqUired and which mayaller the terms of Ihis Agreement. 5.Costs and schedule ccimmHmenls are subject 10 renegotiation for unreasonable delays caused by Clienr. failure
10 provide free access to sampling areas, spacified facilities. or infonnation, or for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences, or force majeure, such as fires. floods, strikes, riots.
unavailability of labor or materials or services, acts of God oroflhe public enemy, or acts or regulations of any governmental agency. Temporary wort< stoppage caused by any of the above
may resull in additional cost beyond Ihat outlined in this Agreement. In the event EA is required to respond to a subpoena. govemment 6. inquiry or oIIher legal process related to the
services in connection with a proceeding to which II is not a party. Client shall reimburse EA for its costs and compensate EA at its Ihen standard rates for the time spent gathering
information and documents. Client agrees to compensate EA at the rate of one and one-half times EA's then current hourly rates for time spent in any deposHion, healing. proceeding or
trial. CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT For services provided on atime-and-materials basis, the minimum time segment lor field work is four (4) hours and one hour for work done at any of
EA', offices. The rental or use of ·EA's Equipmerilwill be charged 10 the project in accordance with EA's 'Corporate Equipment Rate Billing Schedule" which is either incorporated Into
the rates shown In ExhibH 8, or is available upon Client's request. Rates are subject to annuat edjustment each September. EA's labor rates for services provided on a time-and-materials
basis, are fIXed for one year with annual adjustment upon notice to Client. Expenses related to the services and reimbursable by Client ("Other Direct Costs") indude without limitation,
travel and living expenses, phone, FAX, overnight delivery services. postage, shipping, and production costs; identifiable drafiing and word proceSSing supplies; equipment usage and
rental fees; and expendable materials and supplies. Other Direct Costs are reimbursable by Client and are billed at EA's cost plus 20 percent. Required subconsullant andlor subcontractor
costs are reimbursable by Client and are billed at EA's cost plus 20%. Any local or state taxes or fees (except state income taxes), such costs are in addHion to any quoted Price. Tennination
This Agreement may be tenninated by eHher party in the event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of tile terminafing
party. Such termination Is effected upon providing: (1) not less tIlan thirty (30) calendar days wotten notice, and (2) an opportuniIY for consuHatian with the terminating party plior
to termination. Client will ba responsible for all services and direct expenses associated with the project through the effective date of cancellation, plus reasonable feels) andlor
expenses for reallocation and demobilization of personnel and equipment. Confidentiallnfonnallonllnventlons All Proprietary Information fumished by EA in connection with this Agreement,
but not developed as a resutt of work under this Agreement or'under prior agreements between Client and EA, shall be held confidential by Client, and returned to EA within thirty (30)
days ollhe completion of tile services or conclusion of the llUgation wherein EA's services were provided. All inventions, techniques, and improvements held by EA to be proprietary or
trade secrets of EA plior to any use on 􀁢􀁥􀁨􀁡􀁾􀀠of Client, as well as all inventions, techniques. and improvements developed by EA independent of the services rendered to Client
under this Agreement. remain the property of EA. Documents provided by Client will remain the Clienfs property, but EA may retain one confidential file copy. Governing Law This Agreement
shall be deemed made in, and in all respects interpreted, construed. and govemed by, the laws 01 the State of Marytand, U.S.A.. All disputes arising hereunder are to be resolved in the
state and federal courts having jurisdiction of such disputes Sitting in the State of Maryland or hearing appeals therefrom. Both parties consent to the jurisdiction of such courts over
them for the purposes ofthis 􀁁􀁧􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠and agree to accept service of process by registered mail. Standard of Car. EA will prepare all worl< and provide services in accordance
with generally accepted professional pnactices ordinarily' exercised by reputable companies performing the same or simdar services in the same geographic area. NO WARRANTIES OR GUARANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT,AND fW'( IMPUEDWARRANTIES 
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. Client shall fumish documents or information reasonably within Clienrs control and deemed necessary by
EA forpreper performance of ils services. EA may rely upon Client-provIded documents in performing the services required under this Agreement and EA assumes no responsibitity or liability
for their accuracy. Clienl agrees 10 advise EA, nO later than upon the execution ofthis Agreement, 01 any hazardous substance or any condttioil, known or thet reasonably should be known
by Client, existing in, on, or n_the sHe where EA's services are to be perfomned, Ihal presents a potential danger to human health, the environment, or EA's equipment. Client agrees
to a continuing obligation to provide EA related information as 􀁾􀀠becomes available to the Client. By virtue 01 entering into this Agreement or providing services hereunder, EA does
not assume control of, or responsibility as an operator or otherwise for, the site or the person(s) in charge 01 the site, or undertake responsibirrty for reporting to any federal, state
or local public agencies anyconditions atthe site that may present apotential 􀁤􀁡􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀠to public heafth, safety or the environment. Client agrees to nolity the apprepliate federal,
state or local public agencies as reqUlred by law; or otherwise to disclose, in a timely manner, anyinformation that may be necessary to prevent damage to human heafth, safety, or the
environment. Upon Clienrs request, EA's woll< product may be provided on magnetic media. By such request Client agrees that the written copy retained by EA in its files shall be the
official base document. The Client will retain one conformed written copy. EA makes no warranty or representation to Client that the magnetic copy is accurate or complele. Any modifications
of such magnetic copy by Client shell be Clienrs risk and without liability to EA. Such magnetic copy is subject to all conditions of this Agreement. 7. Indemnification Each party shell
Indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party from and agains! all liability, loss, cost, expense, or damage caused by the indemnifying party's negligent acts or negligentomissions
in the performance of this contract. However in the event of any loss, damage or liability, whether to person or to properly, arising out of the sole negligence of efther EA or Client,
such party will assume full responsibility for any liability arising thereof and hold harmless the other party. EA and Client further agree that if either EA or Client engages In willful
misconduct, such party shall assume full responsibility for any liability arising thereof irrespectiveof the nature and degree of the other party's negligence, and will indemnify and
hold hannless the other party. In no event shatl EA be liable for any special, incidental, economic, or consequential damages whatsoever, regardless of the legal theory under which such
damages may be incurred. In no event will EA's liability under this prevision or Agreement exceed the the lesser of the fees actually paid to EA under this Agreement .or $50,000. For
claims related to or involving pollution, toxic subslances or hazardous wastes or for any other claims arising from underground hazards, Client agrees to release, defend, indemnify and
hold harmless EA and its Officers, directors, employees, agents, consuitsnts, and subcontractors from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including, but not limned to, reasonable
fees and expen_ of aHomeys and consubants, and court costs, arising out of the performance of this Agreemenl Such indemnification and release includes claims which arise out of the actual,
alleged, or threatened dispersal, escape, or release of chemicals, wastes, liquids. gases or any other material, imtant, contaminant or pollutant regardless of the legal theory under
which such damages may be incuned. EA's field personnel will avoid hazards or umities which are visible to them at the site. EA is not responsible for any damage or loss to property
owned by Client or third parties due undisclosed orunknown surface or subsurface cond"ruons, except to the extent such damage or loss is a diract result of EA's negligence. 8. Severability
If any temn or provision 01 this Agreement is held or deemed to be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be ineffective
to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without renderinll invalid or unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of thIS Agreement 9. Third Party Rights EA's services
under this Agreement are being performed solely for the benefit ofClient, and no other entity shall have any claim against EA because of this Agreement or the performance or nonperfonnance
of services provided by EA hereunder. 10. Entire Agri.ernent This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. It may not be modified or tenninated orally. Any modification
to these tenns and conditions wilhout the wriHen approval of EA shall be null and void. In no event wililhe temns of any purchase order, woll< order or any other document provided by
Client modify or amend this Agreement, even if 􀁾􀀠is signed by EA, unless EA signs a written statement expressly Indicaling that such tenns supersede the terms of this Agreement. Any
such terms are expressly rejected by EA. 11. Assignment EA reserves the right to assign this A!ireement to its affiliates, subsidiaries, or successors as necessary In order to effectively
carry out and complete the services specified by this Agreement. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A • EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY. tNC. By'_________________ Name"______________________________________
_ Title:,________________________________________ Oate'____________________________ CLIENT By:,___________________ Name"________________________________________ Title'._______________________________
_________ Oal.'____________________________ 
-----___ ---------------__ I ...,..Plan B, CAP, and Sfta Cfosure Cost Proposal LPST# !j1471 Facility ID 􀁍􀀧􀁬􀁴􀁆􀀼􀁯􀁯􀁬􀀢􀀭􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁊􀁉􀁯􀁯􀁯􀁩􀁉􀁯􀁯􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧""'--""'*-􀁏􀁉􀀭􀁬􀁾􀁫􀁉􀁩􀁉􀁯􀁟􀁾􀀠l
l-l_c......---, .. .. -. 􀁾􀁡􀁾􀁾􀀠-.􀁾_.---.. '--.. ....._.. T..... -. .. .. .. ---􀁴􀀮􀀺􀁁􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀮􀁍􀁯􀁟􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠.. 􀁴􀀮􀀺􀁁􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀠 􀁉􀁗􀁯􀁾􀀠.. ---. .. u: .. It i Totel---III
-.,...... C. Oth«r Coat...... .. _.-... -• , on --. ...un_ • . m0" ---."... ... 􀀬􀁾􀀠..--.n. •--.n. OUI I....-.. 􀁾􀀮􀀠 .. • m ..,. : .. .........---􀁦􀁴􀀬􀁉􀀬􀁬􀁉􀁋􀁟􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁟􀀠.. u;
lIn .. .. 1==·---... ....-,.. 10 ! .. .. .. o • 􀁃􀀮􀁔􀁣􀁴􀁢􀁉􀁉􀁾􀀠.,,' .. ..._-.n. D.TnMI 􀁁􀀮􀀮􀁔􀁯􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠 J1.150 ... -.. ... ()w""1"""-Io,,, .."lilt!"""" ... .. ;J ....t>...u)
•.• ... ......-... -.-.. ..0 -􀁾..P,UQ􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁟􀁾􀀽􀁮􀀠n .. .. ""'---...........lGJ'j N_.......#lQl)l .. .. 􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀠0. Total T/1IWIIIlriU eo-"'" III.. .. .. u..u ,.. ... IE. 􀁔􀁯􀁴􀁡􀁬􀁓􀁉􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁐
􀁬􀁑􀀨􀁬􀁏􀁍􀁤􀀠Co.t $1,8$11 A+6+C.O_8.. 􀁔􀁯􀁢􀁴􀁊􀁎􀁴􀁃􀁏􀁴􀁴􀁡􀀢􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁾___􀁾_________􀁾􀀽􀀠-I -' 􀁾􀀠", n> .. •• i ..-􀁑􀁾___"''T''''''''''-----.􀁾...... ... ...., 􀁑􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀬..􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭_.--,{M.06"""*""'''''''' .....-••_.--... I...-.NlNlIi1II:'.C___"'*"_lWI..."""'''''''"''"'____...-Ir!..
_􀁴􀁬􀀼􀁇􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁮􀀮􀁯􀀮􀁾􀁷􀀮􀀮􀀧􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁯􀁯􀀠􀀢􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁉􀁯􀁦􀀮􀁟___..t.""____ItfN__......... ..___ ..........._I_.I........_._Io....c -........􀁟􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁥􀁯􀀮􀀮􀀭􀁟......... 􀁾􀀬..
c...__􀁾􀁪􀀠....􀁎􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁾 ..... M'''''''. ....,.....____............-.....,.... __.I...I:'ooII ...mACC __• _ _. --... ---_. _.----.... _.....