Oswegatchie Fire Station Building Committee

OSWEGATCHIE FIRE STATION BUILDING COMMITTEE
AUGUST 20, 2026
POLICE DEPARTMENT
6:30 PM
1. 
Calito Order
2. 
Pledge of Allegiance
3. 
Public Comment
4. 
Opening Remarks
5. 
Review and Approve August 6" Meeting Minutes
6. 
Invoice Payments
* 
N. Kepple Law, LUC; Inv. #367 dated 8/5/26 for $120.00 for Review Steve Smith email
regarding change order subcommittee procedure
© 
Barton & Loguidice, inv. #14777 for $9,165.20 for Soil Investigations at AOC 1 & AOC 3.
© 
Barton & Logui 
#14188 for $5,160.50 for Ground Penetrating Radar Survey
© 
Special Testing Laboratories, inv. #40316 for $7,721.00 for Soil Inspection.
7. 
Old Business
8. 
Current Business
© 
Request fromm Barton & Loguidice for Additional Funds for Phase Ill Soil Investigation/Soil
Management 
Plan
© Status 
of subcommittee.

* 
Letter from Tim Condon —continued discussion on subcommittee.
* 
Barton & Loguidice Phase III Environmental Site Investigation Report and Remedial Plan
for 439 & 441 Boston Post Road,
* 
Barton & Loguidice Soil Management Plan for Oswegatchie Fire Station.
11. Confirm Next Meeting Date and Objective
September 
3, 2026 at 6:30pm
12. Adjournment

15 Rope Fey Road
Waterford, CT 06385
00511-Waterford
Oswegatchie Bldg Comm, 2023 (BFC-23-223-001)
Type 
Date 
Atty/Para 
Notes
Service 
07/27/2026 
NK 
Review Steve Smith email re
‘change order subcommittee
procedure
DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT.
Please make all amounts payable to: N KEPPLE LAW, LLC
Paget ott
Quantity Rate (USD) 
Total (USD)
0.60 
$200.00 
$120.00
Subtotal 
os
Total 
$120.00 USD

Plan
POH 260587
Professional 
Services thru July 18,2026
Phase 
3 
Soil Investigations at AOC 1 & AOC 3
Reimbursable Expenses
PHOENIX ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES, INC.
71112026 
PHOENIX 
9,295.00
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC
Total Reimbursables 
9,295.00 
9,295.00
Total this Phase 
$9,295.00
Billing Limits 
Current 
Prior 
To-Date
Total Billings 
9,295.00 
19,584.80 
28,879.80
Limit 
28,750.00
Adjustment 
129.80
Total Amount Due 
$9,165.20
Outstanding Invoices
Number 
Date 
Balance
14188 
6/1/2026 
5,160.50
Total 
5,160.50

Plan
PO# 260587
Professional 
Services thru May 16,2026
Phase 
1 
Ground Penetrating Radar Survey
Professional Personnel
Hours 
Rate 
Amount
ERSINGHAUS, SAMUEL 
7.25 
100.00 
725.00
Totals 
7.25 
725.00
Total Labor 
725.00
Consultants
CORBUILT LLC
5/15/2026 
= CORBUILT LLC 
577.50
Total Consultants 
577.50 
577.50
Unit Billing
‘5/7/2026 
80.0 Miles @ 0.725 
58.00
Total Units 
58.00 
58.00
Total this Phase 
$1,360.50
Phase 
2 
Clearance and Preparation of Boring Plan
Professional Personnel
Hours 
Rate 
Amount
McCARTHY, BRIAN 
8.00 
190.00 
1,520.00
Totals 
8.00 
1,520.00
Total Labor 
1,520.00
Total this Phase 
$1,520.00
Phase 
5 
Soil Management Plan
Professional Personnel
Hours 
Rate 
Amount
McCARTHY, BRIAN 
12.00 
190.00 
2,280.00
Totals 
12.00 
2,280.00
Total Labor 
2,280.00
Total this Phase 
$2,280.00
Total Amount Due 
$5,160.50
ee

p
ATTN: Shea Davy
15 Rope Ferry Rd
Waterford, CT 06385
‘CustomerID 
i 
‘Customer PO, 
i 
ual
Waterford-Oswegatchi 
| 
260649 
Net30 Days
Sales Rep ID 
i 
Shipping Method 
[ 
Ship Date 
i 
Due 
Dato 
|
l 
8/30/26
[Quantity 
——ttem 
Description 
Unit Price 
‘Amount
7.00’ Special-halt 
{06-12-26 Special inspection - Halfday (N. 
450,000 
450.00
| 
Lok, PE)- Initial Review
1.00 Curing Box 
07-06-26 Curing Box 
275.000 
27500
4.00 Sampling 
07-06-26 Sampling - 6 Soil Samples. 
150.000 
150000
41.00 | Sampling 
07-08-28 Sampling - 4 Soil Samples 
150.000 
15000
1.00 | Sieve 
07-08-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75.00
2680112
1.00 Grain Cuve 
07-08-26 Grain Size Distribution Curve - 
40.000 | 
40,00
| 
2680112 
i
1.00 | Soils Description 
07-08-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
| 
2680112
1.00 | Sieve 
07-08-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75.00
2680113
4.00 Grain Curve 
07-08-26 Grain Size Distibution Curve - 
40,000 
40.00
| 
2650113
| 
1.00 Soils Description 
07-08-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680113
1.00 | Proctor 
07-08-26 Proctor 
- 2680114 
95,000 
95.00
1.00 Sieve 
07-08-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75.00
| 
2680114
1.00 | Grain Curve 
07-08-26 Grain Size Distibution Curve - 
40.000 
40.00
| Subtotal 
Continued
Sales Tax 
— 
T 
Continued
Total Invoice Amount 
| 
Continued
‘Check/Credit Memo No: 
PaymenvCredit Applied 
-
[Total 
- 
Continued)
We will add finance charges on invoices more than 30 days overdue.

p
ATTN: Shea Davy
15 Rope Ferry Rd
Waterford, 
CT 06385
[Customer 
td) 
T 
: 
"Customer PO. 
Es 
Payment Terms 
=
Walerford-Oswegatchi 
260649 
- 
Net 30 Days 
|
Sales Rep ID 
I 
Shipping Method 
i 
Ship Date 
| 
Due Date
8/30/26
| 
i 
Description 
[Unit Price 
| 
Amount
i 
2680114
1.00 | Soils Description 
07-08-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680114
1.00 | Proctor 
07-08-26 Proctor - 2680115 
95.000| 
95.00
1.00 | Sieve 
07-08-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 | 
75.00
2680115
1.00 | Grain Curve 
07-08-26 Grain Size Distibution Curve - 
40.000 
40.00
2680115
1.00 | Soils Description 
07-08-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680115
1.00 | Proctor 
07-08-26 Proctor - 2650116 
95.000 
95.00
1.00] Sieve 
07-09-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75.00
2680116
1.00 Grain Curve 
07-09-26 Grain Size Distribution Curve - 
40.000 
40.00
2680116
41.00 Soils Description 
07-09-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680116
1.00 | Proctor 
07-09-26 Proctor - 2680117 
95.000 
95.00
1.00 Sieve 
07-09-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75.00
2680117
1.00 Grain Cuve 
07-09-26 Grain Size Distribution Curve 
40.000 
40.00
Subtotal 
Continued,
| Sales Tax 
Continued
| Total Invoice Amount 
- 
Continued,
Check/Credit Memo No: 
| Paymen¥/Credit Applied 
-
[Torat 
I 
Continued |
‘We will add finance charges on invoices more than 30 days overdue.

ATTN: Shea Davy
15 Rope Ferry Rd
Waterford, CT 06385
: 
Customer ID 
CustomerPO 
it 
Payment Terms
“Waterford Oswegatcht 
260649 
__Net 30 Days
Sales Rep ID 
Shipping Method 
i 
Ship Date 
I 
Due Date
8/30/26
‘Quantiy 
Kem 
Deséription 
[DUnitPrice 
[Amount
2680117
41.00 Soils Description 
07-09-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680117
1 00) Proctor 
07-10-26 Proctor - 2680121 
95.000 
95,00
1.00 | Sieve 
07-10-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis 
75.000 
75.00
1.00 | Grain Curve 
07-10-28 Grain Size Distibution Curve - 
40.000 
40.00
2680121
1.00 | Soils Description 
07-10-26 Soils Description & Identi 
40.000 
40.00
| 
2680121
1.00 | Proctor 
07-10-26 Proctor 
- 2680122 
95.000 
95.00
i} 
1.00 Sieve 
07-10-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75,00
2650122
1.00 Grain Curve 
07-10-26 Grain Size Distibution Curve - 
40.000 
40,00
2680122
1.00 | Soils Description 
07-10-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680122
1.00 Proctor 
07-10-26 Proctor 
- 2680123 
95.000 
95.00
| 
1.00 | Sieve 
07-10-26 Gradalion (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75.00
| 
2680123
1.00 Grain Curve 
07-10-26 Grain Size Distribution Curve - 
40.000 
40.00
Subtotal 
Continued
Sales Tax 
Continued
Total Invoice Amount 
T 
Continued
Check/Credit Memo No: 
Paymenv/Credit Applied 
7
TOTAL 
Continued
‘We will add finance charges on invoices more than 30 days overdue.

|
p
| ATTN’ shea Davy
| 
15 Rope Ferry Rd
Waterford, CT 06385
ze 
CustomerID 
Customer PO. 
I 
Payment Terms 
=
Waterford-Oswegatchi 
| 
___ 
260649 
_ 
Net 30 Days 
____|
i 
Sales Rep ID 
| 
Shipping Method 
| 
“ship Date 
[Due Date
| 
_ 
8306 
|
[Quantity] 
Item 
= 
Description 
Unit Price 
| 
Amount 
|
2650123
1.00 Soits Description 
07-10-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680123
1.00 Proctor 
07-13-26 Proctor - 2680120 
95.000 
95.00
1.00 Sieve 
07-13-26 Gradation (Sieve) Analysis - 
75.000 
75.00
| 2680120
1.00 Grain Curve 
07-13-26 Grain Size Distibution Curve - 
40.000 
40.00
2680120
1.00 | Soits Description 
07-13-26 Soils Description & Identification - 
40.000 
40.00
2680120
1.00 | Soils 
07-14-26 Soils Inspection 
390.000 
39000
1.00 | Soils 
07-15-26 Soils Inspection 
390.000 
39000
2.00 | Soil Density Tests 
07-15-26 Soll Density Tests (2) 
3.000 
600
1.00 | Soils 
07-16-26 Soils Inspection 
390.000 
39000
1.00 | Soils 
07-17-26 Soils Inspection 
390.000 
39000
1.00 Rebar-C-half 
07-24-26 Rebar Inspection (Concrete) - 
280.000 
28000
Halliday
1.00 | Concrete-half 
07-24-26 Concrete Inspection - Halfday 
270.000 
27000
5.00 Cylinders 
07-24-26 Concrete Cylinders (5) 
18.000, 
90.00
1.00 Rebar-C-half 
07-27-26 Rebar Inspection (Concrete) - 
280.000 
28000
Halfday
‘Subtotal 
Continued
Sales Tax 
_ 
Continued
Total Invoice Amount 
7 
Continued
‘Check/Credit Memo No: 
PaymenvCredit Applied 
| 
a 
_|
TOTAL 
Fel] 
Continued |
‘We will add finance charges on invoices more than 30 days overdue.

p
| 
ATTN: Shea Davy
16 Rope Ferry Rd
Waterford, CT 06385
|
[CustomerID 
T 
‘Customer PO 
T 
Payment Terms 
Fae
Waterford-Oswegatchi 
2 
260849 
__Net 30 Days 
-
{ 
Sales Rep ID 
{ 
Shipping Method 
Ship Date 
Due Date
: 
8/30/28
Quantity 
| 
tom 
i 
Description 
[Unit Price 
Amount 
|
1.00 | Concrete-half 
07-27-26 Concrete Inspection - Halfday 
270.000 
27000"
5.00 Cylinders 
07-27-26 Concrete Cylinders (6) 
18.000 
90.00
1.00 | Special-hait 
07-30-26 Special inspection - Halfday (N. 
450.000 
450.00
| 
Lok, PE) - File Review
1.00 Rebar-C-halt 
07-31-26 Rebar Inspection (Concrete) - 
280.000 
280.00
Halfday
1.00 Concrete-halt 
07-31-26 Concrete Inspection - Halfday 
270.000 
27000
5.00 Cylinders 
07-31-26 Concrete Cylinders (5) 
18.000 
90.00
1.00 Speciat-hait 
07-31-26 Special Inspection - Halfday 
(N 
450.000 
45000
Lok, PE)- Field Review
|
| 
i
Subtotal 
7,721.00
Sales Tax
Total Invoice Amount 
7721.00
Check/Credit Memo No: 
Paymenv/Credit Applied 
- 
ee
TOTAL 
7,721.00
We wil add finance charges on invoices more than 30 days overdue.

15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT 06385
Re: 
Request for Additional funds for Phase Ill Soil Investigation/Soil Management Plan
441 Boston Post Road, Waterford, CT
708.7545
Dear Ms. Davy:
We are asking to increase our initial approved cost estimate from $28,750 to $36,250 for the referenced
work scope above. Our underestimated items included the final report/remedial plan and the soil
management plan, Due to the sample results that required state notification on REACT, additional time
was needed for CTDEEP correspondence, discussions, and regulatory review applicable to the Site.
If you have any questions, please contact me. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you.
Sincerely,
BARTON & LOGUIDICE, LLC
=~
mee 
Mur m Buses
Brian ‘McCarthy LEP 
Mark Zessin, PE
Lead Hydrogeologist 
Senior Vice President
BM/sed
Attachments
Authorization
Barton & Loguidice, LLC (“Engineer”) is hereby authorized by Shea Davy (“Buyer”) to proceed with the
services described herein in accordance with the attached Terms and Conditions.
Shea Davy-Purchasing Agent 
Date
‘Town of Waterford, Connecticut
The experience to
listen
The powerto
solve 
©
ning 
Brock Dive 
(06033 
Office: 
(860)629-8770 
+ Fa

Attachment A
Standard Terms and Conditions

y
,
p
p
de
ths Aseement 
or oherise conection wth Consultants serves
1D 
Conla! sall commence pote ws services upen he all execution of
ths Ascemest ad shall provide tose erie nih 
esol ine nao eve
‘hal Consliam be obliged opt scrces 
on schedule which 
the
‘Constan'profesuona jadgemen does not roe Casa sien ime to
evo 
aceordance wh the arcanum ae
‘©All dig document prepared 
o famed by Consol ae inseam 
of
sericea Count eas ene 
an ropes mrt cig the
“operight andthe right reuse) sch decumentn eter onl the Project
‘emmpleed Coma grins Owner a mted lecase tus the trae of eve
‘eclisively (I)petforance of design or perion (2) fr Pry! consirction a she
"tended purpose of the ocumens, and (3) forthe purpose of raters ad epi 
of
‘he Pres, roher documents, pots, des nd plans 
defined ne poe
ope of Work
Consuan shall at nay 
ne spervise. diet or ave cnt 
ve any
<entactor's work, or stl Consult emo over o responsi fr the
‘nes, mebods,echniques. sequences or procedures of onsarion selected 
or sed 
by
‘ny concn, fr safety pecan nd programs inden 1 
conracor's werk
{ropes nor for ny fate of aay content comghy wh es nd elation
‘eplesbiet concter's Wonk
TE 
Conslant niet gurantee 
the perfomance of ny conacar not
‘sues respon fr any onc feo fms aod perform 
wok in
‘cordance wih he coat betwen Ott ond sch conc,
Consuls shal at be tespomuble fr thea or mon of any
contacto. stbconacto, of spp ro 
ay contac 
agent 
orem soy
‘te persons (except Consol 
employes) the Projet seo thre
Farmshing 
of peserming ty cannon worker for any sco egding.
‘erection oF clifton of he conection ont or asics 
of See
‘made by Owner o an hid party who te advice and consataton f Consultant
Gift Consteton Const Docent special requ the Cont
‘0 provide profesor engn erie or cristions 
by 4 denis profesional elated
{es3stems materials, o equipment te Conant shal spe the props
evforsonc and desig eer 
th such eves mat tatty, The Conan shal
feview and ke epropriatenton ob Shop Drawings nd ter submits lied othe
‘Work denened rere bythe Contractor's desig poertonal provided 
the
subentas beat 
uc professionals cla ian when sbi othe Cons
The Constants eve bl be fr he sed puro of eheckng for conerace
svt information given andthe dsiga concep exreted 
the Contact Documents The
{Cont tal be elie rly pon, and sal tbe sponse fo. 
dey
i 
acurcy 
of he Serves, cetfcnos 
al appeals prea peved 
by sch
‘vign proteome
Ti 
“Unless others nod unde this Agrees the pais acknoede
that Comets cope fers dos wot che 
serve ea on ay
{evionmenhl Condon (the presence 
of wshewox PC plan, aeades
substance 
of waste ad nonce mses) 
One eoprescts 
19 Coma a to
‘hebest of ws Knowledge 
Haatdus Emons Candsien does nt ex 
he
Sie, except ns expres aloe tothe Consult 
weing If Cosshan ot ay
‘thes party encounter Harrdous Environmental Condon Conta may
‘pion ad waht bi fr eonsequetl oan ee darages suspend performance
‘st servces 
on the porn ofthe Projet acted thereby unl Owner) flan,
‘ppropmate specs consultants 
of catacir to dei and. 
appropri, abs
‘emedin,o emove le Haardou Enamel Conon nd) wan 
a he
Se fl compliance wit ppleable Law nd Regula
1 
The erie tobe pote 
by Consul under ths Agreement DO NOT
INCLUDE advie of ecommendstins with respect 
the sane race,
terms or any ehe aie of mune ewes mania Serve. gach
Invest contac or exe Step. Any ops. avila
‘seonspenatons prone by Constant eundersoed by the pres 
this Agrees
tote sinc engacermg 
er ote ech opinvors, advice slam ce
‘ecemsmendoions. Consuls is no's" air” mined by 1S USC Book
‘or the ened rues of the Sects 
and Exchange Commision 
The thet pace ots
‘Ageement sald determine wdepedealy whe hey rei he serie 
of 9
Imomcpa 
ad ee
J 
TheConsalas sal nt be reid ocacae cenit, gunaiees
‘aan 
or mak epesertatins 
ha woul nis peofesnal udgment eae
bowed, sermces or respnstiues beyond the spe ofthis Agreement,
1K 
When eanamting em in lectern ig forma the
‘emsmiting party makes wo represents 
eng ee compat, ably. f|
readabiyof 
he tems renling fom he repeats 
ie of sates application
Packages, operaingsysems, or computer bredwae feng fom ha sed m the
‘rahing 
ot tans 
ie items, 
om howe ceablahed in opphcable aos
pve
y
,
p
g
‘been pd ill amounts defor services, expec, 
ote hed charges.
40 
Additional Services
‘Avo serces may be requved ia Consan’sprofersonal jdersnt sate of
“anges nthe Foxe orunftesencicumlances 
The Canela! sal ars
Seteesnndonts thon st forth nthe PROPOSAL mul apr yer
{od Coma Ovoet sal ay Comet for any Advonal Sve poled
Fallows (1) asim 
mutually 
ted tom 
ting oF (2) 
mt abana
"grecren maou equal ob cumulative hour charged tthe Proj yc
‘ember 
exch cs of Comma cployee ngage n ponding the nl
‘Serues tins 
the Coma» four ling rts for cach appeal ling cone
effect atthe ame he Adio Servier te perormed pi rembutsable espns 
se
‘hages for Constants Subcom ia.
50. 
Dispute Resolution
‘ner and Consulta 
gic to notte al apes betwen them in god fh Gr a
od 
of 30 dys from the dae of notice by ether party af the ensteee 
ofthe disc
Ifa dispute volves mates ote ha claim 
by Cons 
opment offen nd th
pes fl eave the espe through ngoiton then Ove sod Coma 
ogee
‘kt they shal ist sub nad ll such asec. oanterlnme eps, ad
‘her mane n quan eter hen sing ola 
lating othe Agree 
the
each thereof *Dspues 
to medion by tall acceptable met. rr
(Coast agit partcpte nthe mon proces 
geo fh 
to seth cost
ofthe mediation cq Te proces sal be conduc cone 
bn ad
Sail be completed 
wn IS0day of he dt of wt 
by ther pry 
of 
he exec
fofthedspate sch mediation 
unuecensfl 
mrtg 
4 Daye. the (sh
ts rym gfe 
an erbve dpe esl f Yet coe (2)
‘Ste party may neck ee the Date seve tot 
of omc 
dco
60. 
Accrual of 
Claims
All aos 
of action bene the partes 
to this Agree 
nt mctaing thse perzing 2
ets ares to tof flrs 
prform in accordance wth he ligt 
of the
‘Agree ce fates to prfom in secardance withthe sand 
of ae shal eds
{ohaveacroed nd th apple 
sns of bation shall commence rin nt er
‘an ete he dt of Subaantal Completion for act ares ot fast
‘erform oceurnng pote Substatal Completion, othe dnte of sence eth 
Nice
[St Accepabiny of Work 
(or silane of the final completion ofthe Pune ft
‘x nares oat 
Eres 
petform cea 
fe Subwantel Comps
10 
Controlling Law
‘This Agreements to be gover 
by he a ofthe an which the prt lca
KO 
Successors, Assigns, and Henefiiuries
(One and 
Constant exch sete bud 
ad he patie, succes, eH
alanisuatos aed legal Yepresertatees 
of Owner an Cn 
(a om extn
Pere ete he sigs of Over ad Conlon 
ar hereon othe er
ryt ths Agreement and tothe partners. accessor, xeon 
ad
[Rea represennives an stil assis) 
such ee pam esta al svc
agreements and dlgnions ofthis Agieeme!_ Nether Owner nr Const
‘sign suble-orwasfer any ght under or mrs (clon. ut wou Ta
‘ome that ate do 
may become dc) nhs Agreement thot I wit cnet
the other exept othe sett ny ssipament bling o ante nde
‘oc exced bylaw Unk pecially 
sated tothe comrey any wien conse
‘a asigament, 20 migoment wl reese 
or dcr he tag fom any dy ot
esponsay nde ths Agra The proton hal wt prt Colton fo
nningSubeonulas 
as 
ders remorably neces 
he completion 
the
sevientenderad rand
9.0 
Vermination
[Conant secs related the prostate eon a any eson Comsat
‘al becomes 
or un pl amenable expense onc eh desing,
pase 
legume. ad, requested 9 wring bythe Ono fr cots
tasks shove vabe wuld lbenwise elle pepae 
no 
eto the sao amped
and ucampleed ks. and wassenbe roe tr more Hes,
10.0 Total Agrcement/Seversbitty
This Agrecment iclug 
any expres 
incorporated Exhibits, comstis the emir
Agreement betmeen Owe ad Consul aod wpe al on wien ool
Uuodestandings Ths Apseement may oly be amended, plemented. medic.
‘canceled 
by 
daly exectied writen strrent If any erm or condom 
of this
‘Agrement shal tomy ete, be ound al, ei or enforceable the eine
ronson sal man fl fore and effec woth este slloned by apc nt

cxsuiont cnt
Prapund 
omen) 
sons 
Ppt ya as
eo 
et oer anh 
scpton 
ee 
TTT
‘OPS: Waterford 
FO Wave. This is pet Gost Request CRISI07S, Deparimant 
of Puble SafeypCT

1D tnaivicuavtol rorriter 
—C] Geormoraion 
[] Scerporation 
[] Parinerehip 
1] trusvestalo | *##insivetions 
on page
Zc. 
nar ne tax clssteation (© = C corporation, $= 5 corporation, P« Partnership} 
C | Exempt 
payee code (tan 
5
No: Check ho “LLC" box above ann the ont space, ener tho spprepite code (CS. Fr 
to tak
<lsacation of 
LC, unos ts a 
regarded erty. A sregarded onity shows saad check Uw appropriate | Exemption 
rm Forlgn Accoust Tax
Print 
or 
ype.
See 
Specific 
Instructions 
o
Box forte tox clasieton ott owner 
‘Gomptance 
Aa FATCA) reporting
Dotter 
(500 instructions) 
‘code 
Gt any)
‘98 on nea you checked "Partereip" or “TrusVestet,” or checked "LLC" and erred “P= asl ax clascaton, 
Cs
SE septa 
na form to pare 
a et 
which yourave an owneroo wien check | MPG 
oncom 
inna
‘his box i you have any foreign partners, owners, or beneficiaries. 
See instructions 
o 
a
‘5 Advan (ir, ret. 
ad ap. site co) See natratons, 
‘ouostors 
name and adress options
[1800 West Park Drive, 2nd Floor
Gly, late and 2 code
Westborough, MA 01561
7. 
Ust account number) hare opto
[GERI Taxpayer identification Number (TIN)
Enter your TIN in the appropriate 
box. The TIN provided 
must match the name given on ine 1 to avoid 
[Sesh seaury number 
]
backup withholing. For individuals, this is generally your social securty number (SSN). Howover, Yor &
Fesient sion, sole proprietor, or disregarded ently, see tha instructions for Per | later. For other 
- 
-
nities ts your employer kentication number EN 
you donot have a rumba, see How o.geta 
=
TIN, later.
\Note: If the account i in more than one name, see the instructions 
for ine 1. See also What Name and
‘Number To Give the Requester for guidelines on whose number to enter, 
4}1]-lalo]sfololal2
[EMI_Contitcation
Unde nates of perry, | eFlyat
{The number shown on his ers my correct taxpayer iestiiatin rumba (ram wating fora rumber ob issued tome: and
2 Lam no subject to backup wtincng because (alam exempt rom back witioldng, or) nave no een oid byte eral Revenue
Service (RS) thal | am subject to backup withholding as 8 resul ofa fallure to report alliterest or dividends, oc) the IRS has notified me that 
'am
‘no longer subject to backup withholding; and
3.1 
ama US. cltzen or other U.S. person (defined below); and
4. 
The FATCA code(s} entered on this form (any indicating that | am exempt 
from FATCA reporting 
Is corcec
Cortfication instructions. You must cross out em 2 above 
if you have been tid by the IRS that you 
ae currently subject to backup withholding
because you have 
fed to report ll iferest and cvends on your tx retum. For oa esate transactions, tem 2 does not apply. For morigage intrest pad,
acquisition ¢ abandonment of secured property, cancelation of debt, contibutions to an individual erent arrangement (A), and, generally, payments
‘ther than interest and cividends, you are nol required to sign the certification, but you must provide 
your correct TIN, Sea the instructions for at 
lotr
iran por —~>D a> 
owe (1 19] 204
t
Now in 3b has been added to his form. A flow-through ent fs
General Instructions 
‘required to complete this line to indicate that it has direct or indirect
‘Section references ae tothe Internal Revenues Code uness otherwise 
foreign parners, owners, or beneficiaries whi groves the Fores W.9
rated 
to another flowhvougn en in whieh i hasan ounership 
intrest. This
Future developments. For the latest information about developments. 
‘change is intended to provide a flow-through entity with information
{elated 
to Form W8 and ts instructions, such as legislation enacted 
{eaten 
tne taunt 
det rl pare, owners.
ater 
hed, 90 to wants 
govIFormN®. 
oticares, 
so that can salisy any applicable reporting
open an 
Late 
ee 
we. 
‘tequirements. For example, a partnership that has 
any eel ped
What’: 
partners may be required 
to complete Schedules 2 and K-3. 
See re
at's New 
Partnership Instructions for Schedules K-2 and K-3 (Form 1085).
Line aa has bean modified to cant how a dsregarded entity completes
tin Aa LC als eprog etyast cs 
Purpose of Form
appropiate box 
forthe tax claslication ofits owner. 
Otherwise, it
Shouig 
check he Lc boxan et appropiate er cenatenion, 
AN ddl or ny Fom W-9 request we requiem
information retura withthe IRS 
is ghving you this form because 
they
‘Gat No. 10239x 
Form W-9 few. 3-2026)

Attachment to W-9
Fiber AssetCo LLC d/b/a Zayo (FEIN 334987371) is a 100% owned subsidiary of Fiber Upper Holdings,
LLC. The W-9 form lists Fiber AssetCo LLC on line 2 because the entity is disregarded for US tax purposes.
As a disregarded entity, all income earned by Fiber AssetCo is reported on the US income tax return filed
by Fiber Upper Holdings, LLC, which has elected to be treated as a C corporation for US tax purposes,
Therefore, Fiber Upper Holdings, LLC (FEIN 41-4950932) is shown as the taxpayer on Line 1 on Form W-9
because itis, for US tax purposes, the first regarded taxpayer corporation in the ownership structure and
where the income will be reported

Eric & David,
Please see email correspondence from CT DOT below regarding the replacement of the traffic
signal at Oswegatchie Fire Station. At this time the DOT will not allow us to pursue replacement
of the signal however, they are allowing this to be reconsidered after opening. I suggest we jump
on a call to discuss and then schedule a call with DOT staff and potentially the fire chief and
police chief to discuss this further.
1am available tomorrow from 11-2 or after 3PM. Please let me know what time works best for
everyone.
Thank you,
Matt Baldino, PE, PTOE
Project Manager
B3Solli
P: (203) 880-5455
(203) 885-6780
E: matthew @sollille.com

| You don't often get email from catherine.watras@ct.gov. Learn why this is important
Good afternoon Mr. Baldino,
This is in response to your June 4, 2026 request for preliminary feedback from the Connecticut
Department of Transportation’s (CTDOT) Division of Traffic Engineering if the CTDOT would
support the installation of a new emergency-vehicle traffic control signal at the proposed
driveway to the new Oswegatchie Fire Station on U.S. Route 1
The CTDOT, in the past and under certain circumstances, has allowed the installation of
emergency-vehicle traffic control signal at fire stations by the requesting town. The current
position of the CTDOT is that such installations can be problematic. The normal operation of an
emergency-vehicle traffic control signal is to have solid green or flashing yellow on the main
road, in this case, U.S. Route 1. Motorists that frequently travel the road would see a solid green
or flashing yellow indication most of the time. On the few occasions when the signal turns solid
yellow, then red, it is possible that motorists “conditioned” to see the solid green or flashing
yellow operation might not notice the change.
The CTDOT recommends that the Town of Waterford proceeds with the design of the new
Oswegatchie Fire Station and access driveway without the installation of 
a new emergency-
vehicle traffic control signal at this time. If the Town feels that emergency vehicles are having
difficulty to exit onto U.S. Route | safely and quickly after the opening of the new site driveway,
the CTDOT could reevaluate to potentially reconsider allowing the installation of 
a new
emergency-vehicle traffic control signal at the new driveway.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above.
Thank you,
Cathy
Catherine Watras, PE
Transportation Engineer
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Division of Traffic Engineering

pp
g
p
p
g
August 3rd, 2026.
In speaking diractly with members of the Building Committee following that meeting, several
‘expressed that their true intention was simply to find a practical solution for job-site emergencies
to prevent costly construction delays. | appreciate their desire to keep the project moving
efficiently, and | recognize that the committee was acting in good faith to solve an operational
challange.
However, a critical disconnect exists between that intended purpose, loca! ordinance, and what
was recorded in the official record. Under Chapter 2.88 of the Waterford Code of Ordinances,
the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) established this Building Committee as a carefully
balanced 9-member body representing the various elected boards and bodies to the fire service
both career and volunteer as well as members of the public all of which were to hold full
fiduciary and operational oversight over public funds. The RTM entrusted this project 
to the
complete body—not a subset, Delegating $50,000 in spending authority to a three-person panel
conflicts with Chapter 2.88 and the RTM's clear intent, which | believe the committee lacks the
statutory authority to redelegate its legislative mandate or alter its voting quorum.
‘While members may have discussed handling "emergencies," the official meeting minutes
contain no requirement restricting this $50,000 authority to emergency situations, nor is there
any definition of what constitutes an emergency. Further what the record does reflect is not an
‘emergency but a desire not to have lengthy meetings as stated on page 3 of the July 16th
meeting minutes by Steve Smith “when this thing 
is running we have 20 change orders, we
could 
be here till 2am.” As written and recorded, the vote grants blanket, discretionery
approval power for any change order up to $50,000. This suggests that the motion as recorded
may not fully reflect the committee's nuanced intent, creating a dangerous precedent on paper
that far exceeds what members thought they were authorizing.
Moreover 
on the motion itself, the committee set a $50,000 threshold per change order,
however they set no cumulative ceiling which may result in a few individuals binding the Town to
hundreds of thousands of dollars. One can see how this creates immense fiscal risk and
possible negative public optics.
As captured appropriately in the meeting minutes subcommittees are distinct public bodies
under Connecticut FOIA laws, requiring 24-hour notice, agendas, and formal minutes for every

It appears the committee’s motion was elther incomplete, in violation of Ordinance 2.88 or
imprecisely recorded relative to its actual intent. | respectfully urge you to work with Town
Counsel Kristi Kelly, Finance Director Allen, and the Building Committee Chair Tuneski to review
this matter. Rescind this subcommittee and reaffirm that all financial decisions and change
orders remain with the full ¢-member committee as mandated by Chapter 2.88 which will
‘ensure the project stays on track while fully safeguarding taxpayer funds and respacting the will
of the RTM and the public they represent.
‘Thank you for your leadership and attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Timthy Condon
Representative Town Meeting
District 1 Representative
cc:
‘Town Counsel
Director of Finance
Oswegatchie Fire Station Building Committee Chair
RTM Moderator

Town of Waterford
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT 06385
Re: 
Phase Ill Environmental Site Investigation Report and Remedial Plan
439 & 441 Boston Post Road, Waterford, Connecticut
File: 
3261.053.002
Dear Ms. Davy:
Barton & Loguidice, LLC (B&L) conducted a Phase Ill Environmental Site Investigation (Phase Ill ESI) at
the subject property, hereafter referred to as the Site, located at 439 and 441 Boston Post Road in
Waterford, Connecticut. The Phase Il! ESI was performed to delineate impacts of hazardous substances
and/or petroleum products to soil and groundwater at identified areas of concern (AOC) determined
during a Limited Phase Il ESA completed in August 2024. 
The data from this Phase Il ESI is presented in
this report along with the plan for remediation.
Background
B&L performed Phase | Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) at the Site in Waterford, Connecticut in
2024 and a Limited Phase II ESA for the Site in 2024. 
Both parcels are owned and operated by
Oswegatchie Fire Company #4, Inc. The Site is utilized as a volunteer fire station for the Town of
Waterford, Connecticut. Two (2) Areas of Concern (AC) identified during the Phase Il ESA consisting of
the former UST fueling location (AOC 1) and at the location of a drum, scrap metal and dumpster
storage area (AOC 3) were further investigated during the Phase Ill ESI, in attempts to determine the
extent of substances of concern in soil. The Phase Il ESA results identified substances of concern in soil
at AOC 1 and AOC 3 consisting of extractable total petroleum hydrocarbons (CTETPH), volatile organic
‘compounds {VOC}, polynuclear aromatic compounds (PAH), and naturally occurring concentrations of
metals.
Groundwater samples were also collected from three temporary monitoring wells during the Phase II
ESA that identified ETPH, PAH, VOC, and polyfluorinated alky! substances (PFAS) at AOC 1 and AOC 3.
The concentrations of PAH, ETPH and PFAS in AOC 1 and AOC 3 exceeded the Connecticut Remediation
Standard Regulations (RSR) remedial criteria for several compounds. The occurrence of PFAS in
groundwater at the Site warranted soil to be analyzed for PFAS during the Phase lll ESI. 
Soil was not
analyzed for PFAS during the Phase 1! ESA,
The experience to
listen
The power to
solve 
©
5 Winding 100k Drive, Glastonbury, CT. 
06033 » Office: (860) 633-8770 
« Fax: 860.633.5971 « BartonondLogen

The scope of the Phase Ill ESI consisted of:
* 
Conducting a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey in the areas of AOC 1 and AOC 3 to verify
the presence or absence of formerly used gasoline and 
diesel USTs, underground utilities or
other underground structures prior to drilling and sampling.
* 
Performing ten (10) soil borings at AOC 1 and five (5) soil borings at AOC 3 to depths of fifteen
(15) feet below grade. The samples were collected at locations near and beyond where Phase Il
ESA soil samples indicated concentrations of substances of concern that exceeded applicable
regulatory standards. Samples were collected from 0-5’ below grade and 5-10’ below grade in
each boring. The sample locations were intended to reach the extent of degraded soils in these
‘two AOCs.
‘The Phase III ESI boring locations were marked on the ground surface and representatives from Call
Before You Dig (CBYD) attended the Site to mark out all existing utilities leading into the Site. The Site
location is depicted on the Figure 1. 
The locations of the AOCs and boring locations are shown on Figure
2
Soil Boring Methods
A total of fifteen soil borings were installed and sampled by Cisco Geotechnical, LLC of Glastonbury,
Connecticut on June 5, 2026. The borings were advanced into the subsurface by direct push method.
Soil samples were containerized in-situ by dedicated acetate sleeves that measured S feet in length. Soil
borings were attempted to be installed to a maximum depth of fifteen feet below ground surface (BGS).
Borings were advanced into the subsurface and soil samples were collected continuously at five-foot
increments. Soils were described by color, grain size and type, moisture, odor, and soil gas readings.
Soil gas concentrations were determined by a photoionization detector (PID) that detects organic
vapors. Groundwater depth below grade was also recorded on the boring logs as saturated or wet soil.
Soil samples were described and logged in the field by Patrick McKay of B&L. Soil samples were
collected in new laboratory supplied 
containers and delivered to Phoenix Environmental Laboratories,
Inc. (Phoenix) in Manchester, Connecticut, under chain-of-custody procedures. Soll samples 
for
laboratory analysis were chosen based on visual observations, odor, PID screening readings, and the
location of the soil-water interface. One soil sample from each interval of 0-5’ and 5-10’, for a total of
two samples from each boring, were submitted for analysis
Boring logs that describe the soil characteristics, depth of groundwater table and soil gas concentrations
are provided in Appendix A of this report.

y
y
a data reports are presented in Appendix 8.
Soil Regulatory Comparison
Soil results were compared to the Residential Direct Exposure Criteria (RDEC), the Residential Direct
Exposure Criteria for Additional Polluting Substances (RDEC APS), the GA Pollutant Mobility Criteria
(GAPMC), and the GAPMC for Additional Polluting Substances (GAPMC APS) as presented in the
Connecticut Remediation Standards Regulations (RSRs) and the Additional Polluting Substances CTOEEP
Technical Support Document. The Site is a “GA” groundwater classified area. Soil results for RDEC APS.
and the GAPMC APS for PFAS were compared to the sum of Perfiuorooctanoic Acid (PFOA),
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate(PFOS), Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA), Perfluorohexane Sulfonate (PFHxS)
and Perfluoroheptanoic Acid (PFHpA). Soil analytical results are compared to applicable RSR and APS
criteria 
in Table 1.
Results
Soil and Groundwater Field Observations
Soil encountered in borings across the Site consisted of fine to coarse sand with some gravel, silt and
minor amounts of clay. The groundwater table was encountered at depths ranging from 6 to 12 feet
below grade at the two AQCs, consistent with the Phase It findings. 
Alll soil samples were screened for
VOCs with a PID. VOCs were not detected by field screening at any of the boring locations. Soils at all
boring locations were not observed to be stained or having any indication of petroleum sheen. Soil
samples from boring 8-21 and B-22 were odorous. Borings B-13 and 8-20 encountered drilling refusal at
7’ and 8’ below grade, respectively.
Summary 
of Analytical Soil Resul
Soil sample identification corresponds to the boring location where the sample was collected, i.e.
sample B-10 (0-5') was collected from Boring B-10 at a depth interval of 0-5’ below grade. As stated
above, all soil samples were collected from intervals of 0-5’ and 5-10’ below grade surface.

5 10 at boring B 15 also contained a CTETPH concentration of 190 mg/kg that did not exceed the
applicable criteria. CTETPH concentrations were not detected at other deeper samples at AOC 1.
Borings 8-10, 8-11, B-12 and B-13 were drilled west of B-14 through B-19 due to an anomaly of
disturbed soils indicated during the GPR survey. Soil samples from B-10 through 8-13 did not indicate
concentrations of CTETPH that exceeded applicable criteria, although low concentrations of CTETPH
were detected.
The summary presented with the analytical report indicated that the CTETPH results from borings B-14
through B-19 contained a multicomponent hydrocarbon distribution in the range of C16 through C36
that may be indicative of medium to heavy petroleum compounds such as motor oil, lubricating oil,
hydraulic oil and coal tar derivative. CTETPH results from B-10 through B-13 contained low
concentrations of hydrocarbons indicating the range of gasoline and diesel fuel, i.e. C4-C12 and C10-C24,
respectively.
Borings B-10, B-11, B-14, B-15 and B-19 were drille 
the northern most parcel area near the property
boundary. The property boundary was not marked-out prior to completing these borings.
PAH concentrations were detected in all borings at AOC 1 exceeding applicable criteria. 
The
concentrations of PAH in borings B-10, 6-11, 8-12 and 6-13 were noticeably lower in concentrations
than borings further east that included 8-14, 8-15, B-16, 8-17, 8-18 and B-19, similar to the CTETPH
results in these locations. 
PAH concentrations exceeded criteria from all borings at AOC 1 from the 0-5
interval and from the 5-10" interval 
at borings B-11, 8-12, 8-13, 8-15, 8-16, and B-17. The 0-5’ sample
concentrations of PAH from each boring at AOC 1 were higher than the 5-10’ PAH sample concentration
except for borings 8-12 and 8-13 where the deeper samples had higher concentrations of PAH than the
0-5' samples.
PFAS was analyzed from selected borings in AOC 1 that included 8-11 (0-5'), B-12 (0-5'),B-15 (0-5'), B-16
(0-5'), and 8-17 (0-5'). The sum of five PFAS compounds is used as the GAPMC APS (1.4 g/kg) for
regulatory remedial criteria. GAPMC APS was exceeded for PFAS in each boring, with concentrations
consisting 
of 8-11 (2.66 g/kg), B-12 (2.41 g/kg), B-15 (5.79 pg/kg), B-16 (4.42 g/kg) and 8-17 (3.63,
He/kg).
aoc 
3
Soil sample results from AOC 3 (drum, scrap metal and dumpster storage area) indicated four of five
boring locations exceeded the RDEC and GAPMC of 500 mg/kg for CTETPH from the 0-5’ interval and/or
the 5-10’ interval. The borings were performed on the periphery of boring 8-6 that was drilled during
the Phase Il ESA. The samples that exceeded the remedial criteria for CTETPH consisted of B-20 0-5’
(870 mg/kg), B-21 5-10’ (510 mg/kg), 8-22 0-5’ (1,500 mg/kg), 8-23 0-5’ (590 mg/kg), and B-23 5-10’ (800
mg/kg).
he Stn Pat 
esr 9 64108)

gs B 20, 8 22 and B 23 were noticeably higher than the other Phase Ill ESI
borings at this AOC. Most of the PAH concentrations decreased with depth in each boring except for B
20 where concentrations increased with depth.
PFAS was tested for in the 0-5’ sample interval at each boring in AOC 3. 
The GAPMC APS of 1.4 jig/kg for
PFAS was exceeded in borings 8-20 (264.2 g/kg), B-21 (30.57 g/kg), 8-22 (2.8 g/kg), and B-23 (31.31
g/kg) and B-17 (3.63 g/kg). PFAS was detected in boring B-24 0-5’ at a concentration that did not
exceed the criterion.
Assurance/Quality 
Control 
IC) results
The reasonable confidence protocol laboratory analysis QA/QC certification form from Phoenix
indicated:
* 
QA/QC performance criteria were followed including an explanation of criteria falling outside of
acceptable guidelines, as specified in the CT DEEP method-specific
© 
Method specific holding times were all met
© 
Samples were received as described
© 
Samples received at an appropriate temperature
* 
AILQA/QC performance criteria specified 
in the RCP documents were not achieved, see SVOA
narrative
'* 
Reporting limits were specified on the chain of custody
‘+ 
Reporting limits for the data were met
‘+ 
For each analytical method not all constituent results were reported
‘+ 
Project specific matrix spikes and laboratory duplicates were included in this data set for the
applicable RCPs.
‘The CTETPH narrative indicated that QA/QC performance criteria specified in the RCP Protocol were
achieved. The Semi Volatile Organic (SVOA) narrative indicated that not all QA/QC performance criteria
specified in the RCP documents were achieved. The MS/MSD RPD exceeds the method criteria for one
or more analytes, therefore there may be variability in the reported result for anthracene,
penzo(ghi)perylene, indeno ( 1,2,3-cd}pyrene.

protocol laboratory analysis QA/QC certification form from SGS indicated:
‘+ 
AIIQA/QC performance criteria were followed as specified
‘+ 
Method specified preservation holding times were met
‘© 
Samples were received at an appropriate temperature
‘© 
RCP QA/QC performance criteria documents were achieved
‘+ 
Reporting limits were referenced on the Chain of Custody
‘© 
Reporting 
li
its of quantitation were met
‘* 
Results 
for all reported constituents were 
identified in the method specific list.
'* 
Project specific matrix spikes and laboratory duplicates were included in the data set for the
applicable RCPS
Based on the quality control data discussed above and the use of the RCPs for all methods employed
during this investigation, we can rely on the data generated to support the Site characterization.
Summary, Potential Receptors 
and Conclusions
The Phase Ill ESI subsurface investigation was completed at AOC 1 and AOC 3 at the Site on June 5",
2026, to determine the horizonal and vertical nature and extent of substances of concern in soil that
exceed regulatory criteria, warranting remedial measures. The fifteen (15) borings completed during
this Phase Ill ESI were located peripherally beyond the initial soil sample locations where CTETPH and
PAH concentrations in soil exceeded regulatory criteria, as determined during a Phase Il ESA on the Site
in 2024. As a note, groundwater sample results from the Phase Il ESA exceeded Groundwater
Protection Criteria (GWPC) and Surface Water Protection Criteria (SWPC) for both PAH and PFAS at AOC
1 (MW B-4) and AOC 3 (MW-8-6).
AGPR survey was initially conducted in 2026 to attempt to locate any subsurface structures, unmarked
utilities or obstructions in the drilling areas. The results of the GPR survey indicated that no consistent
GPR findings aligned with a UST were observed within the two AOC areas. One area at AOC 1 was
identified as having disturbed soils that were noted as consistent with a former tank grave backfill. No
areas were identified at AOC 3 by the GPR survey. A one page summary of the GPR survey is provided in
Appendix C.
Based on the soil results from the Phase Ill ESI, notification of a release of constituents to soil and
groundwater was made to CT DEEP in July 2026. This notification will be referred to the UST and
Remediation group at CTDEEP and will be added to the REACT (release, environmental assessment and
cleanup tracker) database for reference during the remediation of these two areas. 
It will be necessary
to characterize the full nature and extent of the releases of soil and groundwater at both ACs in
215002 Omega 
Phas 
ep 
6

consisting of addresses #'s 426, 428, 430, 438, 442, 448 and 452 are all served by public water. The
building at #436 Boston Post Road appears to be a former non-operating auto service/gas station and
there is no water service account at that location. The Oswegatchie Fire Station at #441 Boston Post
Road and another house owned by the Oswegatchie Fire Station at #435 Boston Post Road are also
confirmed to be serviced by public water. Based on this as noted in the Conceptual Site Model Table,
there does not appear 
to be any risk of exposure or ingestion of contaminants from the Site
groundwater to hydraulically downgradient human receptors.
Aoc1
AOC 1 is the former location of two 1,000-gallon USTs, one contained gasoline and the other diesel fuel.
Concrete structures associated with the former UST distribution pumps were located and observed near
the investigation area. 
The soil sampling results from the Phase Ill ESI at AOC 1 identified soils that
would be subject to remediation based on elevated concentrations of CTETPH, PAH and PFAS that
exceed the RDEC, RDEC APS, GAPMC and GAPMC APS. The soil borings were completed at locations
peripheral to the soil borings completed during the Limited Phase Il ESA in 2024. The soils exceeding
applicable remedial criteria appear to extend beyond the property boundary at this AOC. Borings at the
property boundary where samples exceed the remedial criteria consist of B-10, 8-11, B-12, 8-14, B-15,
and B-19. Based on the results, soil remedy will be warranted to the northeast of these borings (shown
on Figure 2) that will ikely extend beyond the subject property. The contaminated soil at this AOC
appears to extend to the southeast, northwest and southwest beyond the borings completed during the
Phase Ill ESI and include 8-10, B-12, 8-13, B-16, 8-17 and B-18. 
The vertical extent of contaminated soils
at this AOC were reached in 8-10, B-14, 8-18 and B-19, where the soil samples from the 5-10 foot
interval did not exceed applicable criteria.
aoc 
3
AOC 3 is the location of a storage shed, former storage containers and a material debris pile that was
identified during the Phase | ESA in 2024. The soit sampling results for AOC 3 identified the areas
peripherally beyond borings 6-6, 8-8 and B-9 (drilled during the Phase I! ESA) that will be subject to
remediation due to elevated concentrations of CTETPH, PAH and PFAS. The horizontal extent of soil
exceeding applicable remedial criteria at AOC 3 was not reached during the Phase III ESI. The vertical
extent of contamination in soil exceeding applicable criteria was reached in boring B-24 only. Borings B-
20, B-21, 8-22 and B-23 were drilled northeast of the storage shed and soil samples from 0-5 and 5-10
feet below grade exceeded applicable criteria for CTETPH, PAH and PFAS. PFAS samples exceeded the
applicable GAPMC APS from the 0-5’ interval only as PFAS was not analyzed from the 5-10’ sample
interval. 
The vertical extent of soil that will require remediation at AOC 3 was also not determined as
soil samples from the 5-10" interval contained concentrations of PAH that exceeded applicable criteria,
Soil boring 8-24, located on the southern side of the storage shed also contained elevated PAH in the O-
5’ soil sample.
E1672 Obes 
fr Staton Phas 
ep 00 34108,

Recognized 
| Released | 
Impacted | Extent 
of | Anticipated | Potable 
Receptors
Environmental 
| Substances | 
Media 
Impact 
| 
LandUse | Water
Conditions 
Reached 
Source
Former gasoline | CTETPH, 
| Soil, 
No, 
Commercial, 
| Public 
| Soil; low risk of human
and diesel 
fuel UST | PAH, PEAS | Groundwater | partiallyin 
| Municipal 
Fire | Water 
| exposure 
due to
area (AOC 1) 
vertical 
| Station 
supply | remoteness, private
direction 
restricted area. GW; low
at 8-10, 8- 
human risk, no
14, 8-18 
substances detected in
and 8-19 
<downgradient well MW-
B1 to south. Additional
monitoring locations
warranted to define
extent of GW plume.
Intermittent Surface
water to north not
evaluated.
Storage shed and | CTETPH, 
| Soil, 
No, 
Commercial, | Public 
| Soil low risk due to
eutdoor materials 
| PAH, PEAS | Groundwater | partiallyin | Municipal 
Fire | Water | restricted area. GW;
debris area (AOC 3) 
vertical | Station 
Supply | additional monitoring
direction 
locations are warranted
at 8-24 
to determine extent of
plume. Low risk to
human receptors as all
surrounding residences
are served by public
water. Intermittent
surface water to north
not evaluated.
In addition to the conceptual site model summary table above, it is 
implied that concentrations of
regulated constituents have exceeded remedial criteria for both AOCs that will need to be addressed in
accordance with the Risk Based Cleanup Regulations (RBCR). The subject site has been utilized as a
municipal Fire Station in the Town of Waterford, Connecticut since the late 1920's, and will continue in
that use.
Remedial 
Plan
AOC1
The presumptive remedy of soil excavation and offsite soil disposal may be the preferred method of
remedy at AOC 1 as appropriate labor and equipment will be available at the Site due to other Site
construction activity in 2026. 
Based on the results of the Phase Ill ESI, contaminated soil may be
excavated to a depth of the seasonal low groundwater table near borings 8-12 and 8-13 as contaminant
concentrations increased with depth at these boring locations (likely location of former USTs) and
2260702 Oost 
en Sten Phe Re 36360)

p
[AOC 
estimated quantity of 
| Yards 
| Tons
soil for disposal 
=
0-5 feet below grade 
239 
358
0-10 feet below grade 
74 
1
[Total Estimated Soil 
Disposal 
| 313 
469
[aoc1
The soil volume