CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION FORMER …

ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. H y d r o g e o l o g y , W a t e r Q u a l i t y , G I S P l a n n i n g ,

C o n t a m i n a n t F a t e & T r a n s p o r t , R e m e d i a t i o n ,

& R e g u l a t o r y C o m p l i a n c e a n d P e r m i t t i n g

P . O . B o x 1 5 3 3 S t o w e , V e r m o n t 0 5 6 7 2 p h o n e 8 0 2 . 2 5 3 . 4 2 8 0 f a x 8 0 2 . 2 5 3 . 4 2 5 8

CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION

FORMER NEWPORT CENTER CORNER STORE 4127 VT Route 105

Newport Center, Vermont 05857

SMS Site #: 2007-3636

10 July 2008

Prepared for:

Mr. Gilles Desjarlais Desjarlais Fuels

P.O. Box 99 Troy, Vermont 05868

Phone: (802) 744-6814

Prepared by:

Ross Environmental Associates, Inc. PO Box 1533

Stowe, VT 05672

James Gascoyne Project Scientist

Phone: 802-253-4280 Fax: 802-253-4258

ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. H y d r o g e o l o g y , W a t e r Q u a l i t y , G I S P l a n n i n g ,

C o n t a m i n a n t F a t e & T r a n s p o r t , R e m e d i a t i o n ,

& R e g u l a t o r y C o m p l i a n c e a n d P e r m i t t i n g


R.E.A. Project #: 26-136 Document #: 26136CAFI

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Background ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Location and Physical Setting .................................................................... 3 1.3 Contaminants of Concern ................................................................................... 3 1.4 Hydrogeologic Setting ........................................................................................ 3 1.5 Contaminant Distribution and Trends ................................................................ 4 1.6 Objectives and Scope of Work………………………………………………… 5 2.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION .................................................................. 6 2.1 No Action (Natural Attenuation) ........................................................................6 2.1.1 Advantages..................................................................................................6 2.1.2 Disadvantages .............................................................................................7 2.1.3 Evaluation ...................................................................................................7 2.2 Source Removal by Soil Excavation with ORC Application .............................7 2.2.1 Advantages..................................................................................................7 2.2.2 Disadvantages .............................................................................................8 2.2.3 Evaluation ...................................................................................................8 2.3 Surfactant Flushing ..............................................................................................8 2.3.1 Advantages..................................................................................................9 2.3.2 Disadvantages .............................................................................................9 2.3.3 Evaluation ...................................................................................................9 2.4 Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) ..........................................................................10 2.4.1 Advantages................................................................................................10 2.4.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................10

2.4.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................11 2.5 Oxygen Injection................................................................................................11 2.5.1 Advantages................................................................................................11 2.5.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................11

2.5.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................12 2.6 Soil Vapor Extraction / Air Sparging.................................................................12 2.6.1 Advantages................................................................................................12 2.6.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................12 2.6.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................13 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 14 4.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS


APPENDIX A: Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Vicinity Map – Orthophotograph Figure 3 Site Map w/Monitoring Wells and Soil Borings Figure 4 Ground-Water Contour Map – April 2008 Figure 5 Contaminant Distribution – April 2008 APPENDIX B: Tables Table 1 Contaminants of Concern Table 2 Groundwater Elevations – April 2008 Table 3 Summary of Soil Analytical Data – May 2008 Table 4 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data – April 2008 Table 5 Field Measurement Data – April 2008 APPENDIX C: Soil Boring Logs APPENDIX D: Laboratory Analytical Reports - Soil Boring, May 2008 APPENDIX E: Times-Series Graphs - Water Quality APPENDIX F: Laboratory Analytical Reports - Water Quality, April 2008 APPENDIX G: Natural Attenuation Data – September 2007 & April 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store page i Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc

Ross Environmental Associates, Inc. (R.E.A.) has completed a Corrective Action Feasibility Investigation

(CAFI) at the Former Newport Center Corner Store in Newport Center, Vermont to address the presence of

residual gasoline contamination above Vermont regulatory standards in the underlying surficial aquifer at the

site and its eminent intrusion into the nearby Sleeper Pond. Based on information collected during the CAFI

and previous site investigations, R.E.A. has concluded the following:

• No action was rejected as a remedial alternative because it does not mitigate the risk to surface water,

indoor air, or drinking water supplies, and the time-frame necessary to achieve remedial goals is

excessive due to the presence of contamination above State regulatory standards.

• An effective overall site remediation should be implemented at each source area. At this time,

R.E.A. anticipates that a combination of source removal and Oxygen Release Compound (ORC)

application will be most effective at the site. Source removal by excavation is recommended as a

remedial alternative because the area of the gasoline contamination is heavily populated by clay soils

and because contamination is dispersing down-gradient beneath the building and toward the Sleeper

Pond. Increases in petroleum compounds in MW-1 (located between source area and the pond)

indicate a need to remove soils from the source area in order to decrease the volume of petroleum

contamination available for dispersion. R.E.A. estimates that up to 750 cubic yards of PCS may

need to be excavated from the source areas. R.E.A. proposes applying ORC to the open excavation

as a finishing compound to remediate residual petroleum contamination that was not removed

during soil excavation. The ORC will benefit the immediate area and adjacent downgradient areas by

supplying oxygen to the microbial community

• Surfactant flushing is unlikely to be an acceptable remediation alternative due to the absence of free-

phase gasoline, and due to the subsurface soil, which consists of tight clay and silty soils within the

source area and beyond.

• MPE is unlikely to be an acceptable remediation alternative due to the absence of free-phase

gasoline.

• Soil vapor extraction / air sparging (SVE/AS) is a recommended remedial option for this site in

combination with the potential removal of PCS from the source area. SVE/AS could be used to

remediate any residual dissolved-phase contamination located outside the source area of the plume.

A high vacuum system may be needed due to clay soils which are found throughout the site.

• Oxygen injection is not recommended as a primary remedial option at the site due to the presence of

clay soils that would limit the effectiveness of dispersed oxygen and would not remediate gross

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store page ii Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc

contamination within an acceptable timetable; however, oxygen injection may be utilized as a

polishing technique to address low level residual contamination following the removal of PCS.

On the basis of the results of this investigation, R.E.A. makes the following recommendations:

• R.E.A. estimates that up to 750 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil may need to be

removed from two different areas; one encompassing approximately 1,500 square feet and the

other encompassing approximately 1,000 square feet. Both areas assume the average depth of

excavation to be eight feet. The excavation should take place in the area of the former pump

island and USTs. All excavated PCS should be trucked to the Waste USA landfill in Coventry,

Vermont or to Environmental soils Management, Inc. (ESMI) in Loudon, New Hampshire for

subsequent treatment via thermal destruction Depending on site conditions at the time of soil

excavation, dewatering and treatment of petroleum contaminated water may be necessary.

• Monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-3 should be replaced following soil excavation, since both

monitoring wells are located within the footprint of the proposed excavation

• Quarterly sampling of all monitoring wells should be continued. Samples should be analyzed for

the possible presence of volatile petroleum compounds in accordance with EPA Method 8021B.

• During the next quarterly sampling event, geochemical conditions at the site should be evaluated

for ORC application in MW-2A, and MW-3A. Specifically, ORP, pH, dissolved oxygen,

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and chemical oxygen demand should be measured at these

locations.

• A summary report should be completed following the completion of source area removal,

monitoring well replacement and the groundwater sampling.

CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 1 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report details the results of a Corrective Action Feasibility Investigation (CAFI) performed at the

Former Newport Center Corner Store located in Newport Center, Vermont (Figure 1, Appendix A). This

report has been prepared by the Ross Environmental Associates, Inc. (R.E.A.) under the direction of the Mr.

Gilles Desjarlais, of Desjarlais Fuel. The CAFI was initiated with Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation (VT DEC) approval as outlined in the letter from Mr. Gerold Noyes of the VT DEC dated 21

April 2008.

1.1 Site Background

The subject property has undergone numerous changes in ownership over the years; but is presently

owned by Mr. Roland Brasseur of Newport Center. The site is currently occupied by a daycare and

residential apartments; however, formerly the site was occupied by a convenience store and retail gasoline

outlet for over 20 years.

According to Ms. June Reilly of the VT DEC UST Program, two gasoline USTs (one 550-gallon tank and

one 2,000-gallon tank) were installed in 1980. Ms. Reilly indicated that these tanks were removed from

the ground in 1990 when two permitted 8,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) were installed

(Facility ID#1683). Mr. Marc Coleman (former VT DEC UST inspector) was on-site during the 12

December 1990 removal of the tanks. Petroleum contaminated soils were noted at the time of removal,

but PID screening results ranged from 5.0 to 20.0 ppmv, which were below the standards at that time.

Consequently, no further work was required by the VT DEC and the facility was never considered a

hazardous waste site.

On 8 January 2007, R.E.A. provided oversight for the removal of two 8,000-gallon gasoline USTs

located approximately four feet east of the deck attached to the southern portion of the on-site building.

Both USTs were found to be in fair condition with minor rust and pitting, but no visible holes or weeps.

The pump island, which was also removed on 8 January 2007, had been removed prior to R.E.A.’s

arrival onsite; however, soils in the general vicinity showed olfactory and visual evidence of petroleum

contamination. Petroleum odors and staining were noted within the tank, pump island, and piping

portions of the excavation. PID readings ranged between 0.0 and 1,645 ppmv which are above the

current VT DEC threshold guideline of 20.0 ppmv.

In March 2007, R.E.A. conducted an initial site investigation (ISI) as required by the VT DEC. Field

investigation included: installation of three soil boring/monitoring wells, field screening of subsurface

soil samples for the possible presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sampling and analysis of

water from three on-site monitoring wells, screening the on-site building for the presence of volatile


organic compounds (VOCs) with a PID and a receptor survey to identify potential risks to the

environment and human health.

Information obtained during the ISI indicated that groundwater beneath the site had been impacted by

petroleum. The extent of subsurface contamination was not fully defined and contamination appeared to

extend off-site. Based on information included in the ISI report, the VT DEC requested additional work

to further evaluate the possible downgradient extent of contamination and possible impacts to nearby

sensitive receptors. A supplemental site investigation, which included the installation of additional soil

boring/monitoring wells, further defined the contamination plume, and indicated that the neighboring

property to the north had not been impacted.

Significant findings of the previous site investigations completed by R.E.A., which relate directly to

selecting the appropriate site remedy, are outlined below:

• Gasoline fuel has been released to the subsurface at the site.

• On 8 January 2007, R.E.A provided oversight for the closure of two 8,000-gallon gasoline USTs,

which were observed to be in fair condition with minor rust and pitting.

• Soil staining and petroleum odors were noted on soils beneath the former pump island during

the UST closure.

• The soils at the Site consist of gray clay, silt, and medium brown sand with some coarse sand and

unsorted gravel.

• Samples collected from soil boring/monitoring wells installed on the property indicate that

groundwater beneath the Site contains gasoline-related compounds at levels exceeding Vermont

regulatory standards.

• Concentrations of volatile petroleum compounds measured in MW-1 have increased over the

past three sampling events. MW-1 is located within the daycare playground within 35 feet of

Sleeper Pond, and consistently has a shallow depth to water measurement.

• Indoor air of the onsite building has not been impacted by the residual gasoline contamination.

• Drinking water for a majority of residences in the village area is supplied by the Newport Center

Water System (WSID #5204). No drinking water supply wells were identified in the immediate

vicinity of the site.


1.2 Site Location and Physical Setting

The property, which is currently owned by Mr. Roland Brasseur, is occupied by a two story building

that houses a daycare on the first floor and apartments on the second floor. The former pump island

was located approximately 20 feet northeast of the building and two 8,000-gallon gasoline underground

storage tanks (USTs) were located approximately four feet east of the deck attached to the southern

portion of the building. The property is located at 4127 VT Route 105 at the intersection of VT Route

105 and Cross Road in Newport Center, Vermont (Figure 1 and 2, Appendix A). Drinking water for

the former Newport Center Corner Store is provided by the Newport Center Water System (WSID

#5204) and wastewater disposal is provided by the Newport Center Municipal Wastewater System.

The ground surface slopes moderately to the north following Mud Creek with an average elevation of

approximately 820 feet above mean sea level (Maptech, 1998). The nearest surface water feature is a

small pond (Sleeper Pond) formed by Mud Creek, and is located approximately 140 feet southwest of

the former UST system. The geographic coordinates of the site are: latitude 44o 57’ 1.9” N, and

longitude 72o 18’ 23.8” W.

1.3 Contaminants of Concern

Based on available information, the contaminants of concern (COC) at the former Newport Center

Corner Store appear to be petroleum-related compounds including: MtBE, benzene, toluene,

naphthalene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes. All of

these contaminants are typically associated with gasoline. MtBE is a gasoline additive introduced in the

early 1980’s to replace tetra-ethyl lead and to improve combustion and reduce carbon monoxide

emissions. A summary of various regulatory standards and chemical properties for these compounds is

included on Table 1, Appendix B

1.4 Hydrogeologic Setting

The surficial geology in the vicinity of the site is mapped as post-glacial fluvial, recent alluvium

deposits. (Stewart and MacClintock, 1970). Bedrock in the area is mapped as a Moretown member,

which consists of quartzite and quartz-plagioclase granulite separated by ‘pinstriping’ partings that

contain muscovite, chlorite, epidote and biotite (Doll, 1961). No bedrock outcrops were observed on

the site or adjacent properties.

On 5 and 6 May 2008, R.E.A. provided oversight during the installation of thirteen soil borings that

were installed on the Site to further define the extent of subsurface soil contamination around the

former pump island and tank area (Figure 3, Appendix A). Subsurface soil generally consisted of


brown silt and gray clay. Groundwater was encountered between 3 and 8 feet bgs during completion

of soil borings in May 2008. PID readings on soil samples collected from the soil borings located at

the north of the pump island area (SB-2 & SB-3) were 0.4 to 12.0 ppmv. The highest PID readings

(292 to 969 ppmv) were obtained on soil samples collected at the water table from SB-1, SB-4, SB-6, &

SB-7, which are located adjacent to and downgradient of the former pump-island and from SB-5 & SB-

12, which are located adjacent to and downgradient of the former USTs. A summary of the soil

descriptions and PID readings are included on the soil boring logs included in Appendix C. Atlantis

Drilling, LLC of Barrington, New Hampshire installed the soil borings under direct supervision of

R.E.A.

Ground-water flow in the unconfined surficial aquifer at the site is toward the south, in the direction of

Sleeper Pond. The hydraulic gradient has generally ranged between four and five percent. Water-level

measurements and elevation calculations for the most recent groundwater sampling event, conducted

in April 2008 are presented in Table 2, Appendix B and the ground-water contour map prepared using

this data is presented as Figure 4, Appendix A.

The effective porosity of the predominantly clay and sand encountered below the water-table is

presumably around 0.4, with hydraulic conductivities of 0.005 to 5.7 feet per day (Freeze & Cherry,

1979). Assuming Darcian flow, these estimates combine with the calculated horizontal gradient of five

(5) percent to yield an estimated range of ground-water flow velocities of between 6.25 x 10-4 to 7.12 x

10-1 feet per day. Contaminant migration would be less accounting for retardation and dispersion of

the contaminants.

1.5 Contaminant Distribution and Trends

Laboratory analysis and PID screening data of soil samples collected during the May 2008 soil boring

program identified the presence of significant levels of petroleum contamination and confirmed the

presence of two separate source areas; the former pump-island and the former USTs. The U.S. EPA

Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for benzene in soil at a residential setting was exceeded

in the soil sample collected from eight feet bgs in the SB-1 soil boring. No other Region 9 PRGs were

exceeded in any of the soil samples and none of the U.S. EPA Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations

(RBCS) were exceeded in any of the soil samples collected in May 2008. Total VOC concentrations

were 276,360, 41,278 and 24,830 micrograms per kilogram (µg/Kg) in the soil samples collected from

SB-1, SB-5 and SB-12, respectively. Also, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected in the

SB-1, SB-5 and SB-12 samples at 875, 80 and 616 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg), respectively. A

summary of the laboratory analytical results is included on Table 3 in Appendix B and laboratory

reports are included in Appendix D.


The Vermont Ground Water Enforcement Standards (VGESs) 1 for several volatile petroleum

compounds have been exceeded in the shallow groundwater formation beneath the site. Petroleum

contamination has been detected in MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-6 and MW-7. Petroleum

contamination has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4

and MW-5, which are located on the neighboring property to the north.

No evidence of impact to Sleeper Pond by the residual gasoline contamination has been noted;

however, given the proximity of monitoring well MW-1 to the surface water, and the fact that

concentrations of gasoline contamination have increased in samples collected from MW-1 over the

past three sampling events, the pond remains threatened. Additionally, the water table is relatively

shallow in the location of MW-1, with depth to water ranging from 0.5 to 1.78 ft bgs, which also

increases the risk to human health by contact with the contamination. A summary of the most recent

groundwater analytical results and field measurement data from April 2008 are included on Table 4

and Table 5, Appendix B and the contaminant distribution map for April 2008 is presented as Figure

5, Appendix A. Time–series graphs showing historical groundwater concentrations versus time are

included in Appendix E and laboratory reports for groundwater samples collected in April 2008 are

included in Appendix F.

1.6 Objectives and Scope of Work

The objectives of this CAFI were to:

• Evaluate the likely effectiveness of the various remedial alternatives, based on site specific

conditions; and

• Identify potentially appropriate monitoring and/or remedial actions based on the site

conditions.

To accomplish these objectives, R.E.A. has:

• Reviewed available information regarding various remedial alternatives and their applicability to

this site.

• Prepared this summary report, which details the work performed, qualitatively assesses costs

for selected remedial alternatives, provides conclusions and offers recommendations for

further action.

1The Vermont DEC has established groundwater enforcement standards for eight petroleum related VOCs, as follows: benzene - 5 ug/L; toluene - 1,000 ug/L; ethylbenzene - 700 ug/L; total xylenes - 10,000 ug/L; MTBE - 40 ug/L; naphthalene – 20 ug/L; and 1,3,5-trimethyl benzene & 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene – 350 ug/L combined.


2.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

This section focuses on evaluating remedial alternatives to address petroleum contamination present on Site.

The remedial goals for the Site are to reduce residual contamination in the vadose zone and smear zone, and

mitigate the potential risk to Sleeper Pond and to human health, since the property is occupied by a daycare

facility. R.E.A. evaluated select applicable remedial alternatives to determine their appropriateness for

achieving the remedial goals. These remedial alternatives include:

• No Action • Source Removal by Soil Excavation with ORC Application • Surfactant Flushing • Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) • Oxygen Injection • Soil Vapor Extraction/Air Sparging

R.E.A. reviewed these alternatives in general accordance with the following criteria:

• Effectiveness of the alternative for protecting human health including meeting the applicable cleanup standards, and reducing the toxicity, mobility, and mass of contaminants.

• Implementation of the alternative including the need for and availability of specialized equipment and the availability of previous study results that have been conducted using the technology.

• Timeliness of each alternative including how quickly the alternative will achieve the required cleanup objective.

• Relative cost of each alternative including capital and operation and maintenance costs.

2.1 No Action (Natural Attenuation)

No action, also referred to as “natural attenuation” and “intrinsic bioremediation”, simply allows natural

processes, such as biodegradation, adsorption, dilution, dispersion, and volatilization, to reduce

contaminant levels without active remediation.

2.1.1 Advantages

The advantages of no action are as follows:

• Low cost.

• Requires no active remediation.

• Easily implemented with no periodic operation and maintenance.


2.1.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of no action are as follows:

• Does not actively reduce free or dissolved-phase contaminant levels in the surficial

aquifer.

• The time-frame needed to achieve remediation goals (contaminant levels below

Vermont regulatory standards) is on the order of tens to hundreds of years.

• Does not eliminate or effectively reduce the threat to sensitive receptors. At this site,

Sleeper Pond and human health (on the daycare playground) is threatened by petroleum

contamination.

2.1.3 Evaluation

Groundwater samples from selected monitoring wells located within and downgradient of the

contaminant plume were evaluated for natural attenuation potential by R.E.A. in September 2007

and April 2008. Although geochemical conditions appear to be favorable for natural attenuation; the

fact that concentrations of volatile petroleum compounds are increasing in down gradient monitoring

wells indicates that more aggressive remediation is required before Sleeper Pond, located

downgradient of the contamination, becomes impacted by contamination. Additionally, the daycare

playground is located in the area of monitoring well MW-1, and the shallow depth the contaminated

groundwater poses a risk to human health by contact exposure. Natural attenuation data collected

during the September 2007 sampling event is included in Appendix E.

2.2 Source Removal by Soil Excavation with ORC Application

Source removal involves the physical removal and subsequent treatment or disposal of contaminated

material from the area of the release. Based on the site and contaminant characteristics, this remedial

option would be effective at the site when combined with oxygen release compound (ORC) treatment.

Based on available information, R.E.A. estimates that approximately 450 cubic yards of petroleum

contaminated soil and approximately 300 cubic yards would need to be removed from the area of the

former USTs. These estimates assume removal of soil from an area encompassing approximately 1,500

square feet adjacent to the former pump-island and approximately 1,000 square feet adjacent to the

former USTs. Both areas assume the average depth of excavation to be eight feet. Soil excavation would

not extend beneath the building; therefore, ORC would be applied following the excavation of the source

area to treat residual contamination that extends underneath the building.


R.E.A. proposes using in-situ chemical oxidation in the form of Oxy-Clean AdvancedTM to accelerate

bioremediation at the former Newport Corner Deli. Oxy-Clean AdvancedTM is a water soluble chemical

oxidation product that produces a safe form of hydrogen peroxide in the reaction. R.E.A. proposes to

add Oxy-Clean AdvancedTM to the bottom of the excavation and as a soil amendment to the backfill

material following excavation of contaminated soils, thus treating residual contamination in the saturated

zone of the source area and contamination in the saturated zone underneath the building. Oxy-Clean

Advanced™ can be manufactured with up to 18% available oxygen and with various nutrients or a

catalyst that can enhance the rate of reaction.

2.2.1 Advantages

The advantages of source removal are as follows:

• Low to moderate cost.

• Reduces the long-term source of residual contamination impacting ground water at the

Site and Sleeper Pond, and mitigates the risk to human health by reducing contact

threats.

• Majority of the intrusive remediation activities are completed within a short time frame,

typically on the order of a few days.

• The time-frame needed to achieve source area remediation would be minimal.

• Easily implemented with standard construction equipment.

• Source excavation may complement other remedial techniques at the site.

2.2.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of source removal are as follows:

• Dewatering may be required to remove contamination beneath the water table, which

would increase the costs by having to treat or dispose of the water.

• Potential to generate fugitive emissions of gasoline vapors during excavation.

• Excavated soils would require off-site treatment such as, stockpiling and poly-

encapsulation, asphalt batching, or disposal as hazardous waste.

2.2.3 Evaluation

Source removal by excavation appears to be the most suitable technology to mitigate source area

contamination based on the costs, the relatively short time frame, and the effectiveness of removing

the majority of the contamination. Source area excavation would likely be most effective if

combined with another form of remediation, such as soil vapor extraction to polish the site after

gross contaminant removal.


2.3 Surfactant Flushing

Surfactant flushing involves installation of an injection well within the source area and recovery wells

downgradient of the source area. A specialized surfactant is introduced to the subsurface to increase

solubility, and reduce surface tension to mobilize free-phase diesel from within the soil pores. With

appropriate Site conditions, this technique enhances biodegradation of diesel contaminants by removing

free-phase diesel and introducing oxygen through the contaminated zones. Recovered surfactant and

diesel is collected and treated through an oil-water separator and the surfactant is filtered for reuse.

2.3.1 Advantages

The advantages of Surfactant flushing are as follows:

• Proven performance at sites where contamination is within the shallow overburden

formation.

• Readily available equipment.

• May be effective at removing free-phase product while minimizing the volume of

contaminated water extracted.

• Effective technology for plume containment.

• Exposes larger area of subsurface soils, enhancing soil aeration and promoting

biodegradation.

• Timeframe of 6 months or less under ideal conditions.

2.3.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of Surfactant flushing are as follows:

• High installation, operation, and maintenance costs.

• Moderately intrusive to on-site land-use.

• Disposal of recovered free-phase diesel fuel.

• Lack of hydraulic control, which may under extreme circumstances spread

contamination to previously unaffected areas.

2.3.3 Evaluation

Surfactant flushing is not recommended for this site because free phase contamination is not present,

and the site is populated primarily by tight clay, which inhibits the mobility and recovery of the

surfactant and contaminants.


2.4 Single-Pump Multi-Phase Extraction

Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) applies of a high vacuum to a tube inserted at the free-product interface in

a recovery well, and extracts liquids (free product and ground water) and soil vapor simultaneously. With

appropriate Site conditions, this technique enhances free-phase product recovery without “smearing” the

product, and promotes biodegradation of petroleum contaminants by introducing oxygen through the

contaminated zones. Recovered liquids and vapors are separated above ground for treatment.

Contaminated groundwater is separated from any recovered free-phase product and then treated by air

stripping and/or carbon adsorption. Depending on VOC concentrations recovered from the treated

groundwater and vapors waste streams, emissions from the MPE system are generally treated through

activated carbon or thermal destruction prior to being released to the environment.

2.4.1 Advantages

The advantages of MPE are as follows:

• Proven performance under wide range of Site conditions.


• Effective technology for removal of contamination that may be beneath the on-site

structure.

• May be effective at removing free-phase product while minimizing the volume of

contaminated water extracted.

• Effective technology for plume containment.


biodegradation.

2.4.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of MPE are as follows:

• Moderately high installation, operation, and maintenance costs.

• Moderately intrusive to on-site land-use; however, proper siting of system can minimize

this issue.

• Equipment associated with this technology typically generates noise levels that may not

be acceptable in a residential area; however, land use at the site consists of heavy

equipment and industrial activities.


2.4.3 Evaluation

Multi-Phase Extraction is unlikely to be an acceptable remediation alternative due to the absence of

free-phase gasoline.

2.5 Oxygen Injection

Oxygen injection involves installation of multiple injection points within the contaminant plume, which

are manifolded together and connected to the treatment system. The oxygen injection process includes a

pressure-swing adsorption oxygen generator that separates nitrogen from air producing a gas stream of

90-95% oxygen. The oxygen is stored in a vessel and delivered to the subsurface at controlled cycled

rates. The solubility of oxygen gas in groundwater can be as high as 40 mg/L, which is approximately

four times greater than using air. At the higher concentrations, oxygen readily transports by advection

and dispersion resulting in the complete oxygenation of a plume in a shorter time period. This

remediation alternative is not suited for sites containing free-phase petroleum contamination; however,

oxygen injection is extremely effective for treating dissolved-phase contaminants following the removal

of free product.

2.5.1 Advantages

The advantages of Oxygen Injection are as follows:


• Effective technology for removal of contamination that may be beneath the on-site

structure.


biodegradation.

2.5.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of Oxygen Injection are as follows:

• Moderate to high installation, operation, and maintenance costs.

• Generally not be effective at removing free-phase product.

• Low soil permeability in the saturated zone is not favorable for the implementation of

oxygen injection.

• May not be effective technology for plume containment.


this issue.


• Oxygen injection is a relatively slow process, and its success is highly dependent on site-

specific conditions.

2.5.3 Evaluation

Oxygen injection is not recommended as a primary remedial option at the site, due to the presence of

tight soils, which would limit the effectiveness of dispersed oxygen, and would not likely achieve

remedial goals within a reasonable timeframe. This technology; however, could be utilized after

source area excavation to address low level residual dissolved-phase contamination on the Site.

2.6 Soil Vapor Extraction / Air Sparging

Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in situ remedial technology that involves the removal of volatile

contaminants adsorbed on the soils above the water table under a vacuum from extraction wells screened

within the unsaturated zone. Volatile constituents of the contaminate mass and the vapors are pulled

toward the extraction wells. Extracted vapor is then treated commonly with carbon adsorption before

being released to the atmosphere. The increased subsurface airflow can also stimulate biodegradation of

some of the contaminants. Air Sparging involves the injection of contaminant-free air into the

subsurface saturated zone, enabling volatilization of hydrocarbons from a dissolved to a vapor state. Air

Sparging is often combined with SVE to maximize contaminant removal beneath the water table, thereby

increasing the amount of contaminate recovered by the SVE system.

2.6.1 Advantages

The advantages of Soil Vapor / Air Sparging are as follows:


• Effective technology for removal of contamination that may be beneath the garage.

• Exposes larger area of subsurface soils, enhancing soil aeration & promoting

biodegradation.

• Relatively rapid time-frame (2 -3 years) for remediation of the source area.

2.6.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of Soil Vapor / Air Sparging are as follows:

• High installation, operation, and maintenance costs.

• May not be effective technology for plume containment.


this issue.

• Frequent disposal of activated carbon from vapor emissions.


2.6.3 Evaluation

Soil vapor extraction / air sparging (SVE/AS) is a recommended remedial option for this site after

the potential removal of PCS from the source area to address residual dissolved-phase

contamination. A high vacuum system may be needed due to clay soils which are found throughout

the site.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the results of this investigation and the conclusions stated above, R.E.A. recommends the

following:

• R.E.A. estimates that up to 750 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil may need to be

removed from two different areas; one encompassing approximately 1,500 square feet and the

other encompassing approximately 1,000 square feet. Both areas assume the average depth of

excavation to be eight feet. The excavation should take place in the area of the former pump

island and USTs. All excavated PCS should be trucked to the Waste USA landfill in Coventry,

Vermont or to Environmental Soils Management, Inc. (ESMI) in Loudon, New Hampshire for

subsequent treatment via thermal destruction Depending on site conditions at the time of soil

excavation, dewatering and treatment of petroleum contaminated water may be necessary.

• Monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-3 should be replaced following soil excavation, since both

monitoring wells are located within the footprint of the proposed excavation

• Quarterly sampling of all monitoring wells should be continued. Samples should be analyzed for

the possible presence of volatile petroleum compounds in accordance with EPA Method 8021B.

• During the next quarterly sampling event following soil excavation, geochemical conditions at

the site should be evaluated for ORC application in MW-2A, and MW-3A. Specifically, ORP,

pH, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and chemical oxygen demand

should be measured at these locations.

• A summary report should be completed following the completion of source area removal,

monitoring well replacement and the groundwater sampling.


4.0 REFERENCES

ASTM, 1999. “Assessment and Remediation of Petroleum Release Sites”. American Society for Testing and

Materials. West Conshohocken, PA. May 1999.

API, 1995. “In-Situ Air Sparging: Evaluation of Petroleum Industry Sites and Considerations for

Applicability, Design and Operation.” American Petroleum Institute (API), Health and

Environmental Sciences Department. API Publication No. 4609. April 1995.

Doll, C.G. and others, 1961. Geologic Map of Vermont, Office of the State Geologist.

Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, John Wiley and Sons,

New York, 824 p.

Fetter, C.W., 1994. Applied Hydrogeology, 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 691 p.

Stewart, D.P. and MacClintock, P., 1970. Surficial Geologic Map of Vermont, Office of the State Geologist.

U.S. EPA. 1994. “Assessment, Control and Remediation of LNAPL Contaminated Sites.” U.S. Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. September-October 1994.

Volume I, pp. 11-12.

FIGURES

AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX

AA

Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 1,400 feet Site Coordinates: 44o 59’42.0” N, 72o 23’ 47.3” W

Source: USGS 1981. Newport Center Quadrangle, VT. Figure 1 Provisional Edition 1986. (7.5 minute series) Site Location Map Topographic map. Maptech, Inc. 1998. Newport Center Corner Store R.E.A. Project No. 26-136 Newport Center, Vermont

▲ North

Approx. Location Corner Store

ROUTE 105

VANCE HILL RD

CR

OSS R

D

EASTERN AV

SCHOOL ST

AR

MST

RO

NG

RD

CHURCH ST

BRIGGS RD

LAWSON RD

CROSS RD

Ë

0 100 200 300 40050Meters

R.E.A. 26-136For Planning Purposes Only.

Former Newport Center Corner StoreIntersection of VT Route 105/Cross Road

Newport Center, VT

Map Source:Orthophotograph # 4407206USDA. Photo Date. 2003

Former Newport Center Corner Store

Figure 2

TABLES


BB

residential Industrial MtBE 1634-04-4 --- 40 -- 32 70 0.7404 2.89 1.20 51 g/L @ 25 oC

Benzene 71-43-2 5.0 5.0 1.2 0.64 1.4 0.8789 1.69 2.13 1,820 @ 22 oC

Toluene 108-88-3 1,000 1,000 6,800 520 520 0.8669 2.06 2.65 519.5 @ 25 oC

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 700 700 3,100 400 400 0.8670 2.22 3.13 187 @ 25 oC

Total Xylenes 95-47-6 10,000 10,000 -- 270 420 0.8802 2.11 3.13 152 @ 20 oC

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 526-73-8 -- 350 -- 21 70 0.8944 2.80 3.55 75.2 mg/kg @ 25oC

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 -- 350 -- 52 170 0.8758 3.57 3.65 51.9 mg/kg @ 25 oC

Naphthalene 91-20-3 -- 20 -- 56 190 1.145 2.74 3.40 31.7 @ 25oC

Montgomery, J.H., 2000. "Groundwater Chemicals - Desk Refrence" Third Edition. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FloridaEPA MCL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Maximum Contaminant Level. In micrograms per liter (ug/L).Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards (VGESs). In micrograms per liter (ug/L).Vermont Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for the protection of human health in Class B waters. In micrograms per liter (ug/L).PRG - U.S. EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) for soil. In milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg)Soil sorption coefficient, log Koc

Octanol/water partition coefficient, log Kow

Newport Center, VermontFormer Newport Center Corner Store

Contaminants of ConcernTABLE 1

CASNParameter EPA MCL (ug/L)

VGES (ug/L) water solubility (mg/L)EPA Region IX PRGs - soilWQC

(ug/L)density (g/cm3)

@ 20/4 oClog Koc log Kow

R.E.A. 26136COC properties.xls

TABLE 2GROUND WATER ELEVATION CALCULATIONS

Former Newport Center Corner StoreNewport Center, Vermont

Well I.D. Top of Casing Elevation (ft)

Depth to Water (feet, TOC)

Water Table Elevation (ft)

MW-1 92.72 0.50 92.22

MW-2 100.82 4.02 96.80

MW-3 101.95 2.65 99.30

MW-4 102.25 5.34 96.91

MW-5 99.33 3.03 96.30

MW-6 102.68 6.34 96.34

MW-7 100.56 6.83 93.73

All values reported in feet relative to arbitrary site datum of 100.00 feet

Monitoring Date: 23 April 2008

R.E.A. 26136GWE.xls

Sample ID PRG Residential

RBC Residential SB-1 8ft SB-5 8ft SB-12 7ft

MtBE 32,000 160,000 ND<1,040 ND<380 ND<760

benzene 640 12,000 14,500 630 ND<380

toluene 520,000 6.3E*06 73,300 9,390 ND<380

ethylbenzene 400,000 7.8E*06 20,900 2,950 2,880

total xylenes 270,000 1.6E*07 98,700 18,200 2,230

1,3,5-TMB 21,000 --- 15,400 2,160 10,500

1,2,4-TMB 52,000 --- 45,500 7,220 7,170

naphthalene 56,000 1.6E*06 8,060 728 2,050

Total VOCs * --- --- 276,360 41,278 24,830

TPH (mg/L) --- --- 875 80.0 616

Ignitability --- --- negative negative negativeNotes:All soil results reported as micrograms per kilogram (ug/Kg), unless indicated otherwise.ND: Not detected at indicated detection limit. 1,3,5-TMB = 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and 1,2,4-TMB = 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene.PRG - U.S. EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) for soil in Residential Areas.RBC -U.S. EPA Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations (RBC) for soil in Residential Areas (2004).Areas shaded are exceedences of the Industrial PRGs or RBCs

Newport Center, Vermont

TABLE 3SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL SOIL RESULTS

Sampling Date - 58/2008Former Newport Corner Store

R.E.A. 26136soilLab.xls

Parameter VGES MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 Dup (MW-2)

% Difference 2/1/08 Trip Blank

MtBE 40 27.4 49 ND<400 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<40 ND<2.0 ND<100 -- ND<2.0

Benzene 5.0 ND<1.0 184 1,050 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 315 ND<1.0 193 -4.9 ND<1.0

Toluene 1,000 ND<1.0 482 1,080 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 133 ND<1.0 502 -4.1 ND<1.0

Ethylbenzene 700 ND<1.0 1,020 871 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 544 ND<1.0 1,080 -5.9 ND<1.0

Total Xylenes 10,000 ND<2.0 4,640 4,190 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 545 ND<2.0 5,300 -14.2 ND<2.0

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene ND<1.0 255 605 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 102 ND<1.0 272 -6.7 ND<1.0

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene ND<1.0 722 1,080 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 128 ND<1.0 827 -14.5 ND<1.0

Naphthalene 20 ND<2.0 210 ND<400 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 113 ND<2.0 209 0.5 ND<2.0

Total VOCs* -- 27.4 7,562 8,876 ND ND 1,880 ND 8,383 -10.9 ND

UIPs -- 0 >10 > 10 0 0 > 10 0 >10 --- 0

Notes: All results reported as micrograms per liter (ug/L), unless indicated otherwise.ND: None detected at indicated detection limit. Shaded values indicate exceedance of Vermont Groundwater Enforcement standard (VGES)UIP: Unidentified Peaks


350

TABLE 4GROUND-WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS


R.E.A. 26136btex.xls

Well ID pH (su)temperature

(oC)

Specific conductivity

(u S)ORP (mV) TDS

(ppm) Comments

MW-1 7.11 8.14 766 -259 0.734

MW-2 7.04 3.24 1,142 -85 1.27 strong odor - duplicate collected

MW-3 6.75 5.67 2,354 63 2.427 strong odor

MW-4 6.84 8.94 835 36 0.779 cloudy

MW-5 7.21 10.17 495 -146 0.449 cloudy

MW-6 6.70 12.40 1,353 -329 1.165

MW-7 7.12 10.32 818 4.0 0.738 cloudy

pH reported in standard units (s.u.).Specific conductivity reported in microsiemens (uS) or millisiemens (mS).Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) reported in millivolts (mV).Total dissolved solids (TDS) reported in parts per million (ppm) or parts per (ppt) thousand.


TABLE 5 FIELD MEASUREMENT DATA

Former Newport Center Corner StoreNewport Center, VT

R.E.A. 26136ph.xls

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS & SOIL BORING/MONITORING WELL

CONSTRUCTION LOGS


CC

Site Name:

Site Location:

Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 10.0' Installation Date:

7.0' Job Number:

Screen Diameter: -- Depth: -- REA Representative:

Screen Type/Size: Drilling Company:

Riser Diameter: -- Depth: -- Sampling Method:

Riser Type/Size: Reference Point (RP):

Depth (ft) Sample Depth (ft)

Blows/6” and Recovery (in) PID (ppm) Well Profile Legend

0-4 6.6

5

4-8 824

10

10-12 62.7

15

20

25

AND 33-50% LITTLE 10-20% <2 VERY SOFT 8-15 STIFF 0-4 VERY LOOSE 30-50 DENSE

SOME 20-33% TRACE 0-10% 2-4 SOFT 15-30 VERY STIFF 4-10 LOOSE >50 VERY DENSE

4-8 MEDIUM STIFF >30 HARD 10-30 MEDIUM DENSE

miniRAE 2000

BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:

Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Sample Description / Notes

Boring to 12' bgs. Soil Sample was collectedfrom 8' bgs H.S. sample

4" Asphalt. Brown SILT with some staining

brown SILT

moist dark stained SILT with some Clay

wet grey CLAY

dense brown SILT and CLAY

wet grey CLAY

---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne

Depth to Water (during drilling):

Atlantis Drilling

BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-1

Newport Center Corner Store


5-May-08

26-136

ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258

P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672

Site Name:

Site Location:


7.0' Job Number:







0-4 0.4

5

4-8 0.2

10

10-12

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




5-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe


4" Asphalt. Grey CLAY with some brown Silt

moist Grey CLAY and brown SILT

Boring to 8' bgs. PID readings 0.0 ppm sostopped boring

wet brown SILT

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




Site Name:

Site Location:


5.0' Job Number:







0-4 12.0

5

4-8 0.1

10

10-12

15

20

25




miniRAE 2000


Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand


Boring to 8' bgs. PID readings 0.0 ppm, sostopped boring

wet brown SILT with some Sand

fill SAND. Wet at 3.0' bgs

wet grey CLAY

---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




5-May-08

26-136



Site Name:

Site Location:


3.0' Job Number:







0-4 969

5

4-8 922

10

10-12 49.9

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




5-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe


fill SAND with some Gravel. Wet at 3.0' bgs

brown SILT and CLAY

very wet grey CLAY and SILT

Boring to 12' bgs.

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




Site Name:

Site Location:


6.0' Job Number:







0-4 4.5

5

4-8 767

10

10-12 21.5

15

20

25




miniRAE 2000


Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand


Boring to 12.0' bgs. Sample collected from 8.0' bgs.

Fill SAND with some Gravel

dense, moist grey CLAY

wet brown SILT with some Clay

---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




5-May-08

26-136



Site Name:

Site Location:


8.0' Job Number:







0-4 10.8

5

4-8 875

10

10-12 35.3

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




5-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe


Boring to 12.0' bgs.

moist grey CLAY with some SILT

fill SAND with some Gravel

brown SILT and SAND

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




Site Name:

Site Location:


8.0' Job Number:







0-4 44.6

5

4-8 292

10

10-12 43.9

15

20

25




miniRAE 2000


Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand




brown SILT with some grey Clay

moist grey CLAY with some brown Silt

---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




5-May-08

26-136



Site Name:

Site Location:


8.0' Job Number:







0-4 11.5

5

4-8 53.7

10

10-12 38.5

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




5-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe




brown SILT with some grey Clay

moist brown SILT

grey CLAY moist

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




Site Name:

Site Location:


7.0' Job Number:







0-4 0.2

5

4-8 0.2

10

10-12 2.8

15

20

25




miniRAE 2000


Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand



fill SAND with some Gravel. Wet at 7.0'

brown SILT and CLAY

---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




6-May-08

26-136



Site Name:

Site Location:


3.0' Job Number:







0-4 0.0

5

4-8 3.7

10

10-12 7.6

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




6-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe



fill SAND with some Silt. moist at 3.0'

brown SILT wet at 8.0'

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




Site Name:

Site Location:


-- Job Number:







0-4 0.0

5

4-8

10

10-12

15

20

25




miniRAE 2000


Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand


refusal at 4.0' bgs

fill SAND with some gravel.

---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




6-May-08

26-136



Site Name:

Site Location:


-- Job Number:







0.0

0-4

5

4-8

10

10-12

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling

BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-11A



6-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe



refusal at 2.0' bgs

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




Site Name:

Site Location:


-- Job Number:







0-4 0.0

5

4-8

10

10-12

15

20

25




miniRAE 2000


Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand



refusal at 6.0' bgs. Wood in tip.

---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling

BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-11B



6-May-08

26-136



Site Name:

Site Location:


4.5' Job Number:







0-4 1.4

5

4-8 14.0

10

1.1

10-12

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling

BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-11C



6-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe


fill SAND with some Gravel.

moist at 4.5' bgs. fill SAND with some Silt and Gravel.

very wet fill SAND with some sheening. A lot of blowback

Boring to 11.0' bgs

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




Site Name:

Site Location:


-- Job Number:







0-4 1.3

5

4-8 824

10

10-12 14.6

15

20

25




miniRAE 2000


Riser

Screen

Water Level

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand


medium brown sand.

dark stained SILT

grey SILT with some Clay

very wet brown SILT with some Clay


---

---

Geoprobe

Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




6-May-08

26-136



Site Name:

Site Location:


8.0' Job Number:







0-4 0.4

5

4-8 0.1

10

10-12 13.3

15

20

25




Gascoyne


Atlantis Drilling




6-May-08

26-136

---

---

Geoprobe


6 inch recovery with brown SAND


medium brown SAND with some Gravel

wet brown SAND

grey SILT with some Clay. Staining observed

Concrete

Native Material

Bentonite

Filter Sand

Riser

Screen

Water Level

miniRAE 2000




LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS SOIL BORING – May 2008


DD

Laboratory Report

NPC Corner Store 26-130PROJECT:

DATE RECEIVED:

WORK ORDER:

DATE REPORTED:

090219

Ross Environmental Associates

PO Box 1533

Stowe, VT 05672

Atten: James Gascoyne SAMPLER:

May 20, 2008

0805-06216

JG

May 08, 2008

Enclosed please find the results of the analyses performed for the samples referenced on the attached chain of custody located at the end of this report.

The column labeled Lab/Tech in the accompanying report denotes the laboratory facility where the testing was performed and the technician who conducted the assay. A "W" designates the Williston, VT lab under NELAC certification ELAP 11263; "R" designates the Randolph, VT facility under certification NH 2037 and “N” the Plattsburgh, NY lab under certification ELAP 11892. “Sub” indicates the testing was performed by a subcontracted laboratory. The accreditation status of the subcontracted lab is referenced in the corresponding NELAC and Qual fields.

This NELAC column also denotes the accreditation status of each laboratory for each

reported parameter. “A” indicates the referenced laboratory is NELAC accredited for the parameter reported. “N” indicates the laboratory is not accredited. “U” indicates that NELAC does not offer accreditation for that parameter in that specific matrix. Test results denoted with an “A” meet all National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program requirements except where denoted by pertinent data qualifiers. Test results are representative of the samples as they were received at the laboratory

Endyne, Inc. warrants, to the best of its knowledge and belief, the accuracy of the analytical

test results contained in this report, but makes no other warranty, expressed or implied, especially no warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Page 1 of 3

Reviewed by:

Harry B. Locker, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director

ELAP 11263

160 James Brown Dr., Williston, VT 05495

Ph 802-879-4333 Fax 802-879-7103

www.endynelabs.com

NH2037

P.O. Box 405, Randolph, VT 05060

Ph 802-728-6313 Fax 802-728-6044

Laboratory Report


Page 2 of 3

CLIENT:PROJECT: NPC Corner Store 26-130

WORK ORDER:DATE RECEIVED

0805-0621605/08/2008

DATE REPORTED: 05/20/2008

001 Date Sampled: 5/5/08Site: SB-1 Time: 11:30

Analysis Date/TimeMethodParameter Result NELACLab/TechUnits Qual.

Negative 12:335/15/08 JSSW UEPA Chap. 7.1Ignitability

Vt Petroleum List 8260B

< 1,040 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)

103 % 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BSurr. 1 (Dibromofluromethane)

14,500 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BBenzene

103 % 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BSurr. 2 (Toluene d8)

73,300 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BToluene

20,900 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BEthylbenzene

98,700 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BXylenes, Total

109 % 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BSurr. 3 (4-Bromofluorobenzene)

15,400 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW NEPA 8260B1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene


8,060 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BNaphthalene

> 10 5/14/08 DAWW UEPA 8260BUnidentified Peaks

875 mg/Kg 5/14/08 DAWW UEPA 8015BTPH Gas Range Organics





< 380 ug/Kg, Dry 5/15/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)


630 ug/Kg, Dry 5/15/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BBenzene


9,390 ug/Kg, Dry 5/15/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BToluene






728 ug/Kg, Dry 5/15/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BNaphthalene


80.0 mg/Kg 5/14/08 DAWW UEPA 8015BTPH Gas Range Organics





< 760 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)

Laboratory Report


Page 3 of 3

CLIENT:PROJECT: NPC Corner Store 26-130

WORK ORDER:DATE RECEIVED

0805-0621605/08/2008

DATE REPORTED: 05/20/2008




< 380 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BBenzene


< 380 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BToluene






2,050 ug/Kg, Dry 5/14/08 DAWW AEPA 8260BNaphthalene


616 mg/Kg 5/14/08 DAWW UEPA 8015BTPH Gas Range Organics

TIME-SERIES GRAPHS WATER QUALITY


EE

Date MTBE benzene toluene ethyl benzene total xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-

TMBnaphtha-

leneTotal VOCs

Ground Water

Elevation

3/16/2007 30.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 30.0 91.82

6/6/2007 27.8 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.1 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.1 27.8 91.469/27/2007 22.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.1 22.0 90.941/24/2008 29.5 ND<2.0 4.8 3.7 24.0 ND<2.0 5.5 ND<4.0 67.5 91.614/23/2008 27.4 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 27.4 92.22VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --- ---

Notes: Results given in micrograms per liter (ug/L), unless indicated otherwise.ND- None detected at indicated detection limit.UIP: Unidentified Peaks.VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards


Summary of Ground Water Analytical Results for MW-1

350

Time-Series Graph for MW-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

3/1/07 4/30/07 6/30/07 8/30/07 10/30/07 12/30/07 2/29/08 4/29/08 6/29/08

DATE

Con

cent

ratio

ns (u

g/L)

74.00

78.00

82.00

86.00

90.00

94.00

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

benzene MTBE Total VOCs Ground Water Elevation



TMBnaphtha-

leneTotal VOCs

Ground Water

Elevation

3/16/2007 ND<2.0 680 24,000 5,100 30,500 810 3,200 940 65,230 92.31

6/6/2007 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9/27/2007 ND<200 209 842 1,820 9,200 465 1,510 448 14,494 95.571/24/2008 ND<200 407 2,870 3,160 15,300 686 2,200 607 25,230 94.764/23/2008 49.0 184 482 1,020 4,640 255 722 210 7,562 96.80VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --- ---




350


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

3/1/07 4/30/07 6/30/07 8/30/07 10/30/07 12/30/07 2/29/08 4/29/08 6/29/08

DATE

Con

cent

ratio

ns (u

g/L)

78.00

82.00

86.00

90.00

94.00

98.00

Elev

atio

n (ft

)




TMBnaphtha-

leneTotal VOCs

Ground Water

Elevation

3/16/2007 160 490 1,100 420 5,900 680 2,300 230 11,280 97.71

6/6/2007 519 4,120 4,800 1,800 7,480 649 1,420 479 21,267 98.859/27/2007 1,100 6,250 834 1,510 4,430 666 1,670 366 16,826 97.001/24/2008 2,220 6,510 1,170 1,500 3,990 547 1,280 283 17,500 95.604/23/2008 ND<400 1,050 1,080 871 4,190 605 1,080 ND<400 8,876 99.30VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --- ---




350


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

3/1/07 4/30/07 6/30/07 8/30/07 10/30/07 12/30/07 2/29/08 4/29/08 6/29/08

DATE

Con

cent

ratio

ns (u

g/L)

80.00

84.00

88.00

92.00

96.00

100.00

Elev

atio

n (ft

)




TMBnaphtha-

leneTotal VOCs

Ground Water

Elevation6/6/2007 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.1 ND< 1.2 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.1 ND< 2.0 ND 96.679/27/2007 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND 95.851/24/2008 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND 96.734/23/2008 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND 96.91VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --- ---




350


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

2/7/07 4/8/07 6/8/07 8/8/07 10/8/07 12/8/07 2/7/08 4/7/08 6/7/08

DATE

Con

cent

ratio

ns (u

g/L)

78.00

82.00

86.00

90.00

94.00

98.00

Elev

atio

n (ft

)




TMBnaphtha-

leneTotal VOCs

Ground Water

Elevation6/6/2007 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.2 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND 98.919/27/2007 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND 93.531/24/2008 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND 94.914/23/2008 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 1.0 ND< 2.0 ND 96.30VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --- ---




350


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

2/7/07 4/8/07 6/8/07 8/8/07 10/8/07 12/8/07 2/7/08 4/7/08 6/7/08

DATE

Con

cent

ratio

ns (u

g/L)

80.00

84.00

88.00

92.00

96.00

100.00

Elev

atio

n (ft

)




TMBnaphtha-

leneTotal VOCs

Ground Water

Elevation6/6/2007 53 647 128 790 653 134 172 150 2,727 95.289/27/2007 <20 251 33.4 129 93.1 22.2 18.8 37.5 585 95.781/24/2008 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND 96.214/23/2008 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND 96.34VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --- ---




350


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2/7/2007 4/8/2007 6/8/2007 8/8/2007 10/8/2007 12/8/2007 2/7/2008 4/7/2008 6/7/2008

DATE

Con

cent

ratio

ns (u

g/L)

76.00

80.00

84.00

88.00

92.00

96.00

Elev

atio

n (ft

)




TMBnaphtha-

leneTotal VOCs

Ground Water

Elevation6/6/2007 3.9 1.1 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 5.0 95.469/27/2007 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND 92.411/24/2008 7.8 67.6 17.2 76.9 68.8 17.4 13.0 19.2 288 93.104/23/2008 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND 93.73VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --- ---




350


0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

2/7/07 4/8/07 6/8/07 8/8/07 10/8/07 12/8/07 2/7/08 4/7/08 6/7/08

DATE

Con

cent

ratio

ns (u

g/L)

78.00

82.00

86.00

90.00

94.00

Elev

atio

n (ft

)



LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS WATER QUALITY – APRIL 2008


FF

NATURAL ATTENUATION


GG

Laboratory Report

CLIENT: Ross Environmental AssociatesPROJECT: NPC Comer StoreREPORT DATE: 5/27/2008

WORK ORDER:DATE RECEIVED:

0804-0541804/25/2008

~7.18.14

316

50577

)J!).j!§

SO

Celsius

ffig/L

ffig/L

ffig/L

~ Analysis Date

Client Data 4/23/08 13:50


SMI82320B 4/30/08 15:45

SM 4500 CO2 B 5/23/08

SMI82540C 4/29/08

Lab!rech

ARF

ARF

W JSSWMLF

WSAL

~uU

NUN

~

00]

Parameter

pH per Client

Temperature per Client

A]kalinity, as CaCO3

Carbon Dioxide

Solids, Total Dissolved

~7.043.24

195

50

1,110

~SU

Celsius

rng/Lrng/Lrng/L

~Client DataClient Data

SM182320BSM 4500 CO2B

SM182540C

LabtTech

ARF

ARF

W JSSWMLF

WSAL

~uUN

UN

~

002

Parameter

pH per ClientTemperature per ClientAlkalinity, as CaCO3Carbon DioxideSolids, Total Dissolved

~6.75

5.67

406

190

1,930

!J!!j!§

SU

Celsius

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

~ Analysis Date



SM182320B 4/30/08 15:45

SM 4500 CO2 B 5/23/08

SM182540C 4/29/08

Labtrech

ARF

ARF

W JSSWMLFWSAL

~uUNUN

Q!!!!L

003

Parameter

pH per Client


Alkalinity, as CaCO3

Carbon Dioxide


~6.84

8.94

273

70

645

~SU

Celsius

mg/Lrog/Lrog/L

~ Analysis Date

Client Data 4/23/08 13:15Client Data 4/23/08 13: 15

SMI82320B 4/30/08 15:45SM 4500 CO2 B 5/23/08

SM18 2540C 4/29/08

Lab{[ech

ARF

ARF

W JSSWMLFWSAL

~uUNUN

~

004

Parameter

pH per Client


Alkalinity, asCaCO3

Carbon Dioxide


~7.21

10.17

277

35

]J!)j:t§.

SUCelsius

ffigiL

ffigiL

~ Analysis Date



SMI82320B 4/30/08 15:45

SM 4500 CO2 B 5/23/08

Lab!rech

ARF

ARF

W JSS

WMLF

~uUNU

Q!!!!l

005

Parameter

pH per Client



Carbon Dioxide

Page 2 of 6

Analysis Date

4/23/08 13:404/23/08 13:404/30/08 15:45

5/23/084/29/08

Laboratory Report

CLIENT: Ross Environmental Associates.PROJECT: NPC Corner StoreREPORT DATE: 5/27/2008


0804-0541804/25/2008

Solids, Total Dissolved 428 ffig/L SM182540C 4/29/08 WSAL N

~6.712.4

620280940

Un!!§.

SUC:elsius

ffig/L

ffig/L

illg/L

~Client Data

Client Data

SM182320B

SM 4500 CO2 B

SM182540C

Lab!rech

ARF

ARF

W JSS

WMLFWSAL

~uUN

UN

QJ!!!l

006

Parameter

pH per Client



Carbon Dioxide


~7.12

10.3233243

652

~SU

Celsius

mgiL

mgiLmgiL

~ Analysis Date



SM182320B 4/30/08 15:45

SM 4500 CO2 B 5/23/08

SM182540C 4/29/08

Labrrech

ARF

ARF

W JSS

WMLF

WSAL

~uUNUN

~

007

Parameter

pH per Client



Carbon Dioxide


Page 3 of 6

Analysis Date

4/23/08 13:254/23/08 13:254/30/08 15:455/23/084/29/08

Laboratory Report



0804-0541804/25/2008

TEST METHOp: EPA 8021B

001

Parameter

Methyl-I-butyl ether (MTBE)

Toluene

Xylenes, Total

1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene

Surf I (Bromobenzene)

~27.4

<.1.0

<2.0

< 1.0

92

!,J!!i\

Dg/L

Dg/L

Dg/L

Dg/L%

~ Parameter

Benzene

Ethylbenzene


NaphthaleneUnidentified Peaks

~<10

< 1.0

< 1.0

<2.0

0

!J!1!!

Ug/L

Ug/L

Ug/L

Ug/L

~

TEST METHOp: EPA 8021B

002

Parameter

Methyl-I-butyl ether (MTBE)

Toluene

Xylenes, Total


Surr I (Bromobenzene)

~49.0

482

4,640722

82

JJ.!!i! ~ug/L N

ug/L N

ug/L N

ug/L N

% N

QYM Parameter

Benzene

Efuylbenzene

1,3,5- Trimefuylbenzene

NaphfualeneUnidentified Peaks

~184

1,020

255

210

> 10

!1!l!!Ug/L

Ug/L

Ug/L

Ug/L

~

TEST METHOD: EPA 80218

003 Site: MW-3 Datefrime Sampled: 4/23/08 13:35 Analysis Date: 5/1/08 W JRM

Parameter ~ !J!)j! ~ Q!!1!! Parameter ~ !.!!!i! ~ Q!!1!!Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 400 1Ig/L N Benzene 1,050 ug/L N

Toluene 1,080 1Ig/L N Ethylbenzene 871 1Ig/L N

Xylenes, Total 4,190 1Ig/L N 1,3,5-Trirnethylbenzene 605 1Ig/L N

1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 1,080 1Ig/L N Naphthalene < 400 ug/L N

SUIT I (Brornobenzene) 84 % N Unidentified Peaks > 1O N

TESTMElliOD: EPA8021B

004 Site: MW-4 DatefTime Sampled: 4/23/08 13:15 Analysis Date: 5/2/08 W JRM

Parameter ~ !,J!!.i! ~ Q!!i!1 Parameter ~ !,J!!.i! ~ Q!!i!1Methyl-I-butyl ether (MTBE) < 2.0 Ug/L N Benzene < 1.0 ug/L N

Toluene < 1.0 ug/L N Ethylbenzene < 1.0 ug/L N

Xylenes, Total <2.0 ug/L N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 1,0 ug/L N

1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene < 1.0 ug/L N Naphthalene < 20 Ug/L N

SuIT I (Bromobenzene) 89 % N Unidentified Peaks 0 N

Page 4 of 6

~N

N

N

N

N

~N

N

N

N

~N

N

N

N

Laboratory Report



0804-0541804/25/2008

'rEST METHOD: EPA 8021B

005 Site: MW-5 DatefTirne Sampled: 4/23/08 13:00 Analysis Date: 5/1/08 W JRM

Parameter ~ 1!nJ! ~ Q-Y!!l Parameter ~ l!!!J! ~ ~Methyl-I-butyl ether (MTBE) < 2.0 Ug/L N Benzene < 10 ug/L N


Xylenes, Total <2.0 ug/L N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 1.0 ug/L N

1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene < 10 ug/L N Naphthalene < 2.0 ug/L N

Sun ] (Bromobenzene) 90 % N Unidentified Peaks 0 N


006 Site: MW-6 Dateffime S 4/23/08 13:25 Anal sis Date: 5/1/08 W JRM

Parameter ~ !IIIJ! ~ Parameter ~ !1!Ji! ~ ~Methyl-I-butyl ether (MTBE) < 40.0 Ug/L N Benzene 315 ug/L N

Toluene 133 Ug/L N Ethylbenzene 544 ug/L N

Xylenes, Total 545 ug/L N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 102 ug/L N

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 128 Ug/L N Naphthalene 113 Ug/L N

Surf. I (Bromobenzene) 85 % N Unidentified Peaks > 10 N

'fEST METHOD: EPA 8021B

007 Site: MW-7 DatefTime Sampled: 4/23/08 13:10 Analysis Date: 5/1/08 W JRM

Parameter ~ 1[IIJ! ~ Q!!.!!1 Parameter ~ 1!!!i! ~ Q!!.!!1Methyl-I-butyl etlter (MTBE) < 2.0 ug/L N Benzene < 1.0 ug/L N

Toluene < 1.0 ug/L N Etltylbenzene < 1.0 ug/L N

Xylenes, Total < 2.0 ug/L N 1,3,5- Trimetltylbenzene < 1.0 ug/L N

1,2,4- Trimetltylbenzene < 1.0 ug/L N Naphtltalene < 2.0 ug/L N

Surr I (Bromobenzene) 87 % N Unidentified Peaks 0 N


008 Site: Pond DatefTirne Sampled: 4/23/08 17:15 Analysis Date: 5/2/08 W JRM

Parameter ~ 1m..!! ~ Q!!!!l Parameter ~ !1!li! ~ Q!!!!lMethyl-I-butyl ether (MTBE) 20.2 ug/L N Benzene < 1.0 ug/L N


Xylenes, Total 2.5 ug/L N 1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene < 1.0 ug/L N

1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 1.0 ug/L N Naphthalene < 2.0 ug/L N

SUIT 1 (Bromobenzene) 88 % N Unidentified Peaks 0 N

Page 5 of 6

Laboratory Report

CLIENT: Ross Environmental Associate~.PROJECT: NPC Corner StoreREPORT DATE: 5/27/2008


0804-0541804/25/2008

TEST METHOD: EPA 8021B

009 DatefTime SpIed: 4/23/08 13:50 Analysis Date: 5/2/08 W JRM

Parameter ~ 1J!!i.\ ~ ~ Parameter ~ 1!!!i! ~ Q!!!!lMethyl-I-butyl ether (MTBE) < 100 Ug/L N Benzene 193 Ug/L N

Toluene 502 ug/L N Ethylbenzene 1,080 ug/L N

Xylenes, Total 5,300 ug/L N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 272 ug/L N

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 827 ug/L N Naphthalene 209 ug/L N

Sun 1 (Bromobenzene) 83 % N Unidentified Peaks > 10 N

Page 6 of 6

Documents

CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION FORMER …