Upload
others
View
13
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Morristown Corner Store 639 Morristown Corner Rd
Morristown, Vermont 05661 Site Coordinates:
44o 56’ 59.32” N 72o 12’ 03.60’’ W
SMS Site #: (93-1496)
19 December 2008
Prepared For:
Ms. Jeannette Lepine 4693 Mud City Loop
Morristown, VT 05661
Phone: (802) 888-4076
Prepared By:
Ross Environmental Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1533
Stowe, Vermont 05672
Phone: (802) 253-4280 Fax: (802) 253-4258
R.E.A. Project No. 28-010
R.E.A. Document #: 28010CAFI.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Background ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Location and Physical Setting .................................................................... 4 1.3 Contaminants of Concern ................................................................................... 5 1.4 Hydrogeologic Setting ........................................................................................ 5 1.5 Contaminant Distribution and Trends ................................................................ 6 1.6 Objectives and Scope of Work………………………………………………… 7
2.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION .................................................................. 8
2.1 No Action (Natural Attenuation) ........................................................................8 2.1.1 Advantages..................................................................................................9 2.1.2 Disadvantages .............................................................................................9 2.1.3 Evaluation ...................................................................................................9 2.2 Source Removal by Soil Excavation with ORC Application .............................9 2.2.1 Advantages..................................................................................................9 2.2.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................10 2.2.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................10 2.3 Surfactant Flushing ............................................................................................10 2.3.1 Advantages................................................................................................11 2.3.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................11 2.3.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................11 2.4 Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) ..........................................................................12 2.4.1 Advantages................................................................................................12 2.4.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................12
2.4.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................13 2.5 Oxygen Injection................................................................................................13 2.5.1 Advantages................................................................................................13 2.5.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................13
2.5.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................14 2.6 Soil Vapor Extraction / Air Sparging.................................................................14 2.6.1 Advantages................................................................................................14 2.6.2 Disadvantages ...........................................................................................15 2.6.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................15 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 16 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 17
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 4A/4B Ground-Water Contour Map – August & November 2008 Figure 5A/5B Contaminant Distribution – August & November 2008 Figure 6 Site Map w/ Proposed SVE System Layout APPENDIX B: Tables Table 1 Contaminants of Concern Table 2A/2B Groundwater Elevations – August & November 2008 Table 3 Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations Table 4A/4B Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data August & November2008 Table 5A/5B Field Measurement Data – August & November 2008 APPENDIX C: Time Series Graphs APPENDIX D: Soil Boring Logs APPENDIX E: Laboratory Analytical Reports - Water Quality, August & November 2008 APPENDIX F: Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Pilot Test Results APPENDIX G: Cost Estimate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store page i Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
Ross Environmental Associates, Inc. (R.E.A.) has completed a Corrective Action Feasibility Investigation (CAFI) at the Former Morristown Corner Store in Morristown, Vermont to address the presence of residual gasoline contamination above Vermont regulatory standards in the underlying surgical aquifer at the site. Based on information collected during the CAFI and previous site investigations, R.E.A. has concluded the following:
• Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is a recommended remedial option for this site. Results of the SVE pilot study completed in November 2008 indicated that SVE was effective at removing subsurface contaminants.
• Natural Attenuation (No action) is not recommended as a remedial alternative, because it does not mitigate the risk of contamination traveling off site and the time-frame necessary to achieve remedial goals is excessive due to the presence of contamination above State regulatory standards.
• Source removal by excavation is not recommended due to the large quantity of soil know to be contaminated at the site, the documented depth of contamination (up to 20 feet bgs) and the associated high cost of soil removal and disposal.
• Surfactant flushing is not recommended for this site because free phase contamination is not present, and the site is populated primarily by poorly sorted soils with varying mixture of sand, silt, clay and gravel, which inhibits the mobility and recovery of the surfactant and contaminants.
• MPE is unlikely to be an acceptable remediation alternative due to the absence of free-phase gasoline. Also, a majority of the subsurface contamination is located within the unsaturated soils above the water table, which indicates that another technology such as SVE would be more appropriate and more cost effective.
• Oxygen injection is not recommended as a primary remedial option at the site, due to the presence of a significant volume of PCS located within the unsaturated zone, above the water table.
On the basis of the results of this investigation, R.E.A. makes the following recommendations:
• R.E.A. recommends that a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system be implemented at the site and that an associated Corrective Action Plan (CAP) be prepared.
• Quarterly sampling of all monitoring wells and the basement sump of the on-site building should be continued. Samples should be analyzed for the possible presence of volatile petroleum compounds in accordance with EPA Method 8021B.
• A surface water sample should be collected quarterly from the drainage swale located east and south of MW-5, if water is present, and should be analyzed for the possible presence of volatile petroleum compounds in accordance with U.S. EPA Method 8021b.
• The ambient air in the onsite basement and in the basement located at 623 Morristown Corners Road should be screened quarterly with a PID to test for the possible presence of VOCs.
• A summary report should be completed following the installation of the SVE system and the next sampling event.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 1 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a Corrective Action Feasibility Investigation (CAFI) performed at the
Former Morristown Corner Store located at the corner of Stagecoach Road and Morristown Corners Road in
Morristown, Vermont (Figure 1, Appendix A). This report has been prepared by Ross Environmental
Associates, Inc. (R.E.A.) under the direction of the Ms. Jeannette Lepine, the former owner, in cooperation
with the current owner Mr. Joe Padulo. 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 3 September 2008.
1.1 Site Background
The property was formerly used as a gas station, at unknown dates in the past, used as a convenience
store throughout the 2000’s. The property was sold to Mr. Joe Padulo and converted into a market
during the summer/fall of 2008. In April 2008, R.E.A. was hired by Ms. Lepine to assist in compliance
with the State of Vermont DEC groundwater monitoring requirements, as stated in a letter dated 31
October 2001, and to address previously discovered and inadequately defined petroleum contamination
related to two former 1,000 gallon gasoline USTs and associated pump-island removed from the property
on 29 September 1993.
According to the Griffin International report titled “Report on the Subsurface Petroleum Contamination at
Morristown Corner Store, Stage Coach Road” dated November 16, 1994 the property was not an active gas
station at the time of the tank removal in 1993. The Griffin International report also stated that the two
1,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) that were removed were installed around the late 1970’s
and were in good condition at the time of removal.
Photo-ionization detector (PID) readings obtained on soil samples collected during the closure
assessment exceeded 1,300 ppmv, which exceed the VT DEC guideline of 20 parts per million-volume
(ppmv) for gasoline contaminated soils. The vertical and horizontal extent of contamination was not
defined during the UST closure. Based on the findings of the UST closure, the gasoline USTs appear to
be the source of the subsurface petroleum contamination discovered on site. In September 1994, Griffin
International installed one monitoring well in the vicinity of the former USTs as requested by the VT
DEC. Petroleum contamination was identified above state guidelines in both soil and groundwater at
that time.
Under the scope of the initial site investigation, R.E.A. provided environmental oversight for the
installation of four soil borings/monitoring wells and the rehabilitation of the previously existing
monitoring well (MW-5) on 19 May 2008. Subsurface soil samples were screened in the field for the
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 2 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
possible presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a portable photo-ionization detector
(PID). PID readings on soil samples collected from the borings completed on 19 May 2008 ranged
between 0.0 and 957 ppmv. The highest PID readings were noted on subsurface soils collected from
MW-1, which is located in the general vicinity of the former pump island.
During the May 2008 groundwater sampling event, the Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standard
(VGES) 1 for benzene was exceeded in samples collected from MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5 and the
VGESs for toluene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and naphthalene were exceeded in
the groundwater sample collected from MW-5. MtBE, ethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene and naphthalene were also detected at levels that exceeded VGESs in MW-3. Low
concentrations of additional petroleum compounds, below the corresponding VGESs, were also detected
in the samples collected from all monitoring wells sampled. Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) was
detected at concentrations of 850, 13,000, 280 and 7,600 ug/L in the samples collected from MW-2,
MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5, respectively. Data collected and analyzed under the ISI did not fully define the
extent and degree of petroleum contamination. Although data did suggest that the likely source of the
contamination was the former UST system. Based on the above information, the Vermont DEC
requested that R.E.A. execute a supplemental site investigation (SSI).
The SSI, which was conducted in August 2008, included: installation of eight soil borings, field screening
of subsurface soil samples for the possible presence of VOCs, collection and analysis of groundwater
from four onsite monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-5), collection and analysis of water
from the onsite sump, the standing water located in the basement of 623 Morristown Corners Road
(adjacent property) and the surface water located in the drainage swale southeast of the subject property,
screening of ambient air in the basement of the subject property and ambient air in the basement of the
adjacent property (623 Morristown Corners Road) for the possible presence of VOCs and a receptor
survey to identify potential risks to human health and the environment.
PID readings of soil samples collected during the installation of the soil borings ranged from 0.0 to 1,710
ppmv with the highest reading at SB-5 between zero to three feet below ground surface (bgs). PID
readings above the state action level for gasoline (20 ppmv) were detected as deep as 20 feet bgs. A low
concentration of toluene (3.9 ug/L) was detected in the water sample collected from the onsite sump on
24 July 2008. Renovations taking place on the property around the time of the sampling event could be a
potential source of the toluene detected in the sump sample. The ambient air in the onsite and
neighboring basements were screened with a PID and readings at both locations were 0.0 ppmv. MtBE
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; xylenes - 10,000 ug/L; MTBE - 40 ug/L; naphthalene – 20 ug/L, 1,3,5-trimethyl benzene and 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene – 350 ug/L combined.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 3 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
was found to be present at a low concentration (3.2 ug/L) in the off-site surface water sample obtained
from the drainage swale. No petroleum related compounds were detected in the standing water in the
neighboring basement. No sample was collected from MW-4 due to site work that had taken place in the
area that had buried or destroyed the monitoring well. Several petroleum related compounds detected in
MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-5 exceeded the respective VGESs. In general, concentrations of
petroleum related compounds appeared to have increased between the May and August 2008 sampling
events. Total VOCs in the four monitoring wells sampled on 1 August 2008 ranged from 343.1 to 19,660
ug/L.
On 11 November 2008, R.E.A. performed a soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test on monitoring well
MW-5, which has historically contained high VOC concentrations (Figure 3, Attachment A). Data
collected during the SVE pilot test indicates that a 28-foot radius of influence (ROI) was achieved with
the removal of approximately 0.026 pounds of gasoline over the 4.5 hour time frame. Removal of
contaminants during the SVE pilot study, coupled with a fluctuation in water table elevation, have
lowered the total VOC concentrations in groundwater samples collected form MW-5. Prior to the SVE
pilot test, total VOC concentrations in the groundwater sample collected from MW-5 was >11,000 µg/L
(August 2008). The total VOC concentration in the sample collected from MW-5 following the SVE
pilot test was 109 µg/L (November 2008).
On 13 November 2008, two on-site monitoring wells and the basement sump were sampled and analyzed
for the possible presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as part of continued monitoring at the
site. The three additional on-site monitoring wells were not sampled as they were dry. Unlike previous
sampling events, the VGESs for volatile petroleum compounds were not exceeded in the groundwater
samples collected from MW-2 or MW-5. Results indicate that VOC concentrations in monitoring wells
MW-2 and MW-5 have decreased since the last sampling event on 1 August 2008. However, it is possible
that groundwater at these depths is no longer in contact with contaminants that still persist in the
overlying vadose zone. The decrease in total VOC concentrations among the samples collected from
MW-5 is also likely attributed to the SVE pilot study that extracted contaminants from this well on 11
November 2008. The analytical results for the 13 November 2008 sampling event are summarized on
Table 4B in Appendix B, time-series graphs summarizing historical water quality data are included as
Appendix C and the laboratory analytical report is included as Appendix E. Contaminant distribution,
based on samples collected on 13 November 2008, is shown on Figure 5B, Appendix B.
Information indicates that the source area of petroleum contamination is the former USTs removed in
1993 and the former pump-island. Contaminant concentrations detected in the groundwater samples
collected from monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-2, which are located near the eastern and northern
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 4 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
property boundaries and soil borings installed along the northern perimeter and northeastern corner of
the property indicate that petroleum contamination has likely traveled off site and beneath the on-site
building. MtBE identified in the off-site surface water could potentially be related to petroleum
contamination emanating from the Morristown Corner Store property, but may be related to overland
runoff from the adjacent roadway. Based on available information, the extent of subsurface
contamination has not been fully determined, and the degree and extent to which downgradient or off-
site sensitive receptors have been impacted is unknown.
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.
• Soil staining and petroleum odors were noted on soils throughout the site.
• The soils at the Site primarily consisted of silty sands, sandy clay and clay with some pockets of
gravel and clay.
• 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.
• Indoor air of the onsite building has not been impacted by the residual gasoline contamination.
• Drinking water for the area is supplied by the Morristown Corners Water Association (WSID
#5158). No drinking water supply wells were identified in the immediate vicinity of the site.
1.2 Site Location and Physical Setting
The property is located on the southwest corner of Stagecoach Road and Morristown Corner Road in
Morristown, Vermont (Figure 1 & 2, Appendix A). The second floor and attic area of the building are
currently used as a residential rental property. The first floor of the building is currently operated as a
market. The southern portion of the ground floor is being used as a commercial art gallery (Jacob Walker
Art Gallery). The basement is accessed through a bulkhead located on the eastern side of the building or
through interior stairs located in the retail portion of the building. The property was formerly a gas
station and convenience store up until the mid 2000s. In October 2008, the store was renovated and
reopened as the Green Top Market. Drinking water for the site is provided by the Morristown Corners
Water Association (WSID # 5158) water system. Wastewater disposal for the site is provided by a
conventional onsite septic system located near the southwestern corner of the building.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 5 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
The ground surface at the site is relatively flat with the general area sloping to the southwest. A steep
embankment and drainage area borders the property to the south and east. The average elevation is 216
feet above mean sea level (Maptech, 1998). The geographic coordinates of the site are: latitude 44o 56’
59.32” N and longitude 72o 12’ 03.60’’ W.
1.3 Contaminants of Concern
Based on available information, the contaminants of concern (COC) at the Former Morristown Corner
Store appear to be VOCs including: Methyl tert-butyl ether (MtBE), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethlybenzene and naphthalene. All of these compounds are typically
associated with petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. MtBE is a gasoline additive used
starting in the early 1980’s to improve combustion and reduce carbon monoxide emissions and was
detected in MW-3 and MW-5; MtBE was detected in the nearby surface water swale. A summary of
various regulatory standards and chemical properties for these compounds is included on Table 1,
Appendix A.
1.4 Hydrogeologic Setting
The surficial geology in the vicinity of the site is mapped as littoral sediment consisting of pebbly sand
(Stewart and MacClintock, 1970). Bedrock in the area is mapped as the Hazens Notch Formation, which
consists of interbedded carbonaceous and noncarbonaceous schists. (Doll, 1961).
Soil borings indicate that the site is directly underlain by silty sands, sandy clay and clay with some
pockets of gravel and clay. Bedrock beneath the site was not encountered in soil borings, which extended
as deep as 30 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil boring and monitoring well logs are included as
Appendix D.
Ground-water flow in the unconfined surficial aquifer at the site is predominately toward the southeast.
The hydraulic gradient has generally ranged between three and four percent. Water-level measurements
and elevation calculations for the August and November 2008 groundwater sampling events, are
presented in Tables 2A and 2B, Appendix B, respectively and the ground-water contour maps prepared
using this data are presented as Figure 4A & B, Appendix A.
On 13 November 2008, R.E.A. measured hydraulic conductivity rates by conducting Bower and Rice
Method slug tests on monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-5. The results of the testing indicate hydraulic
conductivity beneath the site ranges from 0.30 to 1.34 feet/day. Two slug tests were performed on MW-
2 and three slug tests were performed on MW-5 to assist in remedial strategy evaluation. Tests
performed on monitoring well MW-2 indicated hydraulic conductivity rates of 0.30 and 0.32 feet/day and
tests performed on monitoring well MW-5 indicate hydraulic conductivity rates of 1.34, 0.86 and 1.10
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 6 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
feet/day. Aquifer/well parameters and hydraulic conductivity calculations are presented in Table 3,
Attachment B.
1.5 Contaminant Distribution and Trends
Based on available information, the source of petroleum contamination discovered at the Morristown
Corner Store appears to be related to the two underground storage tanks removed on 29 September 1993
and the former pump-island. Contaminated groundwater samples were collected in the direct vicinity
and downgradient of the tank graves and near the former pump-island. Laboratory analysis of these
samples indicated the presence of petroleum compounds associated with gasoline. Contaminant
concentrations detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-5 and MW-2,
which are located near the eastern and northern property boundaries and soil borings installed along the
northern perimeter and northeastern corner of the property indicate that petroleum contamination has
likely traveled off site. Soil borings identified contaminated soils extending laterally from Stagecoach
Road, along the northern property boundary to the northeast corner of the property boundary and
vertically to a depth of at least 20 feet bgs. MtBE identified in the off-site surface water could potentially
be related to petroleum contamination emanating from the Morristown Corner Store property but may
also be related to overland runoff from nearby roadways. Based on available information, the extent of
subsurface contamination has not been fully determined, and the degree and extent to which
downgradient or off-site sensitive receptors have been impacted is unknown.
A review of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) GIS database reveals no other possible sources of
petroleum contamination identified upgradient or adjacent to the site. The ANR Natural Resource
Interest Locator indicates the presence of a UST at the site. However, according to the related report
and contact information posted in the ANR website, this tank belongs to the Morristown Town Garage
located on Cochran Road. It is believed that the ANR GIS database has misplaced the UST label, which
should be associated with a property approximately 1.3 miles to the south.
On 30 July 2008, R.E.A. provided oversight during the installation of eight soil borings. Due to site
work and grading that had taken place on site, soil borings could not be installed in the area extending
from MW-3 to the eastern property line to the south of MW-4. Soil boring locations are shown on
Figure 3, Appendix A and boring logs, including PID readings, are shown in Appendix D. PID readings
on soil samples collected from the borings ranged between 0.0 and 1,710 ppmv. The highest PID
readings (800 to 1,710 ppmv) were noted on subsurface soils collected from SB-5, which is located in the
paved parking area approximately 27 feet north of MW-5. Soil samples collected from throughout the
boring profiles of SB-4, SB-5 and SB-7 had PID readings that exceeded the state action limit for gasoline
contaminated soils to depths of 15 to 20 bgs. Significant dark staining was observed in SB-4, SB-5 and
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 7 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
SB-7. A strong odor was noted in SB-2 at a depth of 12 feet bgs, but PID levels did not exceed action
levels until approximately 15 feet bgs (62 ppmv). Soil samples collected at approximately 4 feet bgs from
the soil boring located on the corner of Morristown Corners Road and Stagecoach Road (SB-3) exhibited
a PID reading of 27.3 ppmv, which is above state action levels. The remainder of soils sampled from SB-
3 were below 20 ppmv. PID readings from the boring advanced on the northeastern corner of the
property (SB-6) were 144 to 100 ppmv at one to four feet bgs and 1.5 to 4.1 ppmv from 4 to 12 feet bgs.
PID readings from the soil boring (SB-8) south of and upgradient from MW-5 and readings from the
boring on the western side of the building (SB-1) were all below state action level to a depth of 12 feet
bgs. Data for the soil borings indicate that the soils in the area surrounding MW-1 to the north and west
(former pump island location) are contaminated with petroleum related compounds to at least a depth of
15 to 20 feet bgs. Soil characteristics and PID readings recorded during soil boring installation indicate
that petroleum contamination in the area around SB-2, SB-4, SB-5 and SB-7 is in and below the clay soil
layer.
The ambient air in the onsite and neighboring basements were screened with a PID and readings at both
locations were 0.0 ppmv. MtBE was found to be present in a low concentration (3.2 ug/L) in the off site
surface water sample obtained from the drainage swale. No petroleum related compounds were detected
in the standing water in the neighboring basement. No sample was collected from MW-4 due to site
work that had taken place in the area that had buried or destroyed the monitoring well. The well has
since been uncovered. Several petroleum related compounds detected in MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-
5 exceeded the corresponding VGES. In general, concentrations of petroleum related compounds
appear to have increased from the previous sampling event in June of 2008. Total VOCs in the four
monitoring wells sampled on 1 August 2008 ranged from 343.1 to 19,660 ug/L.
A summary of the groundwater analytical results from August & November 2008 are included on Table
4A & B, Appendix B, respectively. Contaminant distribution maps for August and November 2008 are
presented as Figure 5A & B, Appendix A, respectively. Soil boring logs with corresponding PID
readings are included as appendix C. Time–series graphs showing historical groundwater concentrations
versus time are included in Appendix D and laboratory reports for groundwater samples collected in
August and November 2008 are included in Appendix E.
1.6 Objectives and Scope of Work
The objectives of this CAFI were to:
• Measure hydraulic conductivity rates in soils underlying the site;
• Evaluate the likely effectiveness of the various remedial alternatives, based on site specific
conditions; and
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 8 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
• 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.
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 sensitive receptors and to human health. 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 • 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.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 9 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
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.
2.1.3 Evaluation
No action is not recommended at the Former Morristown Corner Store as a remedial alternative
because it does not mitigate the risk of contamination traveling off site and the time-frame necessary
to achieve remedial goals is excessive due to the presence of contamination above State regulatory
standards.
2.2 Source Removal by Soil Excavation
Source removal involves the physical removal and subsequent treatment or disposal of contaminated material
from the area of the release. Based on available information, R.E.A. estimates that a total of 3,000 cubic
yards of soil would need to be excavated from the Site. Approximately 2,516 cubic yards of soil (assuming
soil removal to 15 ft bgs) would need to be excavated in the area north of the porch (location of former
pump-island) in order to attempt to fully removed PCS. The area near SB-5, along the border of Morristown
Corners Road, was found to be contaminated to 20 feet bgs. The boring installed at the northeastern
property boundary (SB-6) indicates that PCS in this area extends to approximately 4 feet bgs. Assuming
petroleum contaminated soils in the area from east of SB-7 and SB-5 to the property boundary to MW-5 only
extend 4 feet bgs, an additional 491 cubic yards would need to be excavated. It is possible additional yardage
would need to be excavated.
2.2.1 Advantages
The advantages of source removal are as follows:
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 10 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
• Reduces the long-term source of residual contamination impacting groundwater at the
Site.
• 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:
• High cost of removal and disposal.
• Petroleum contamination at the site is >15 feet bgs.
• Potential to undermine building.
• Unable to remove PCS beneath the building.
• 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 is not recommended at the Former Morristown Corner Store due to
the large quantity of soil know to be contaminated at the site, the documented depth of
contamination (>20 feet bgs) and the associated high cost of soil removal and disposal. In order for
this technology to be most effective, it would need to be combined with another technology such as
application of an oxygen release compound (ORC), soil vapor extraction or oxygen injection, which
would increase overall costs considerably.
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 gasoline contaminants by removing
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 11 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
free-phase gasoline and introducing oxygen through the contaminated zones. Recovered surfactant and
gasoline 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.
• The soil type not generally conducive to surfactant flushing. Subsurface soils at the site
consisted predominantly of silty sands, sandy clay and clay with some pockets of gravel
and clay, suggesting the presence of complex layering and preferential flow paths that
may influence the migration of surfactants.
• Moderately intrusive to on-site land-use.
• Disposal of recovered free-phase diesel fuel.
• Lack of hydraulic control, 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 poorly sorted soils with varying mixture of sand, silt, clay and
gravel, which inhibits the mobility and recovery of the surfactant and contaminants.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 12 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
2.4 Multi-Phase Extraction
Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) applies 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.
• Readily available equipment.
• 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.
• Exposes larger area of subsurface soils, enhancing soil aeration and promoting
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.
• Depth to groundwater at the Site is greater than 30 feet bgs, which greatly increases the
installation costs.
• Equipment associated with this technology typically generates noise levels that may not
be acceptable in a residential area.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 13 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
• No free product present at Site, indicating that this technology would be over-designed
for site conditions.
2.4.3 Evaluation
Multi-Phase Extraction is unlikely to be an acceptable remediation alternative due to the absence of
free-phase gasoline. Also, a majority of the subsurface contamination is located within the
unsaturated soils above the water table, which indicates that another technology such as SVE would
be more appropriate and more cost effective.
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:
• Readily available equipment.
• Effective technology for removal of contamination that may be beneath the on-site
structure.
• Exposes larger area of subsurface soils, enhancing soil aeration and promoting
biodegradation.
2.5.2 Disadvantages
The disadvantages of Oxygen Injection are as follows:
• Moderate to high installation, operation, and maintenance costs.
• Not effective for unsaturated zone, only effective below water table.
• Generally not effective at removing free-phase product.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 14 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
• Low soil permeability in the saturated zone is not favorable for the implementation of
oxygen injection.
• May not be effective technology for plume containment.
• Moderately intrusive to on-site land-use; however, proper siting of system can minimize
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
a significant volume of PCS located within the unsaturated zone, above the water table. This
technology could be effective if combined with another removal option that addresses PCS in the
unsaturated zone.
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 contaminant recovered by the SVE system. On 11 November 2008, R.E.A.
performed a soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test at the Former Morristown Corner Store to evaluate site
specific response to this technology.
2.6.1 Advantages
The advantages of Soil Vapor / Air Sparging are as follows:
• Readily available equipment.
• Effective technology for removal of contamination located within the unsaturated zone
above the water table and that may be located beneath the building.
• Based on the pilot study results, subsurface soils are suitable for the use of SVE and the
radius of influence was estimated to be approximately 28 feet.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 15 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
• Vapor removal rates during the pilot study were very favorable. During the SVE pilot
test, PID readings of the effluent air stream increased steadily form 8.3 to 154 ppmv
with an average of 97.3 ppmv.
• 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:
• Moderate installation, operation, and maintenance costs, depending on site specific
conditions.
• Moderately intrusive to on-site land-use; however, proper siting of system can minimize
this issue.
• Frequent disposal of activated carbon from vapor emissions.
2.6.3 Evaluation
On 11 November 2008, R.E.A. performed a soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test on monitoring
well MW-5, which has historically contained high VOC concentrations (Figure 3, Attachment A).
This work was performed to evaluate the technology for site remediation of vapor-phase petroleum
in the overburden, and to collect site-specific data. Tests were performed with an average vacuum
pull of 55-inches of water with a maximum output of 20 cubic feet per minute (CFM). Ten vapor
points were driven into the ground and vacuum pressure was measured at these points and within the
surrounding monitoring wells at varying intervals.
A 2 horse-power regenerative blower provided the vacuum necessary to mobilize vapors and air
within the vadose zone. All extracted vapors were treated with granulated carbon before being
discharged to the atmosphere. Graph 1, Appendix F represents the data collected during the
vacuum test performed on monitoring well MW-5. Graph 1 also displays the vacuum data in the
surrounding monitoring points, Graph 2 displays the applied vacuum vs. airflow, and Graph 3
shows the radius of influence vs. applied vacuum. Graph 4 shows the PID readings of the SVE
effluent versus time over the duration of the pilot test.
Vacuum data collected in the tests indicates that the soils at the site allow sufficient air flow within
the general area where the vacuum is applied. The estimated radius of influence (ROI) based on the
field data collected during the pilot test was determined to be 36.9 feet. Graphs 3 indicates that a 28-
foot ROI would be achieved with an estimated average vacuum rate of 53” H2O (20 CFM), which is
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 16 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
consistent with the observed ROI estimated from the field data. During the pilot test, the mass
removal rate was estimated to be approximately 0.006 pounds per hour with a total mass removal of
approximately 0.026 pounds of gasoline (equivalent to approximately 0.0 gallons) over the 4.5 hour
time frame. Also, PID readings increase steadily from 8.3 to 154 ppmv during the pilot test with an
average effluent concentration of 97.3 ppmv (Graph 4). Based on the vacuum rates recorded during
the test, the site appears to be characterized by soils conducive to SVE. Removal of contaminants
during the SVE pilot study, coupled with a fluctuation in water table elevation, has lowered the total
VOC concentrations in groundwater samples collected form MW-5. Prior to the SVE pilot test, total
VOC concentrations in the groundwater sample collected from MW-5 was >11,000 µg/L (August
2008). The total VOC concentration in the sample collected from MW-5 following the SVE pilot
test was 109 µg/L (November 2008). Therefore, R.E.A. recommends preparing a Corrective Action
Plan (CAP) for the installation of a SVE system at this site. A cost estimate for the installation of an
SVE system is included as Appendix G and the proposed SVE system layout is included as Figure 6,
Attachment A. Assuming a 25-foot ROI, six SVE points would be required to treat petroleum
contamination in the unsaturated zone.
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. recommends that a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system be implemented at the site and
that an associated Corrective Action Plan (CAP) be prepared.
• Quarterly sampling of all monitoring wells and the basement sump of the on-site building should
be continued. Samples should be analyzed for the possible presence of volatile petroleum
compounds in accordance with EPA Method 8021B.
• A surface water sample should be collected quarterly from the drainage swale located east and
south of MW-5, if water is present, and should be analyzed for the possible presence of volatile
petroleum compounds in accordance with U.S. EPA Method 8021b.
• The ambient air in the onsite basement and in the basement located at 623 Morristown Corners
Road should be screened quarterly with a PID to test for the possible presence of VOCs.
• A summary report should be completed following the installation of the SVE/AS system and the
next sampling event.
CAFI Report – Former Morristown Corner Store Page 17 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 28010CAFI.doc
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.
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
AA
!(
Figure 1Site Map
Morristown Corner StoreMorristown, Vermont
ISite Coordinates:44º 56’ 59.32” N, 72º 12’ 03.60’’ W
F:\Projects\28010\2810Fig1.pdfE:\PROJECTS_JS\MorristownCorner\Site_Maps.mxd
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
USGS: Sterling Mountain Vermont Quadrangle 1:24000, 1998Morrisville Quadrangle 1:24000, 1999
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
Morristown Corner Store
!(
STAG
ECOA
CH RD
WALTON RD
MAC M
ILLER
RD
MORRISTOWN CORNERS RDCOTE HILL RD
STICKELL RDTE
RRIL
GORG
E LN
Figure 2Aerial Photo
Morristown Corner StoreMorristown, Vermont
ISite Coordinates:44º 56’ 59.32” N, 72º 12’ 03.60’’ W
F:\Projects\28010\2810Fig2.pdfE:\PROJECTS_JS\MorristownCorner\Site_Maps.mxd
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Aerial Photo: NAIP 2003
1 inch equals 500 feet
Morristown Corner Store
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
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
n-propylbenzene 103-65-1 -- -- -- 240 240 0.8620 2.87 3.57 60.24 @ 25 oC
sec-butylbenzene 135-98-8 -- -- -- 220 220 0.8621 2.95 4.24 171 @ 25 oC
isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 -- -- -- -- -- 0.8618 3.45 3.63 48.3 mg/kg @ 25 oC
4-isopropyltoluene 99-87-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1,2-dichloropropane 78-87-5 5.0 5.0 -- 0.34 0.74 1.16 1.67 1.99 2,700 @ 25 ºC
1,2-dichloroethane 107-06-2 5.0 5.0 -- 0.28 0.60 1.25 1.25 1.48 8,300 @ 25 ºC
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
water solubility (mg/L)EPA Region IX PRGs - soil
mg/kgWQC (ug/L)
density (g/cm3) @ 20/4 oC
log Koc log KowCASNParameter EPA MCL (ug/L)
VGES (ug/L)
Morristown, VermontMorristown Corner Store
Contaminants of ConcernTABLE 1
R.E.A. 28010COC
TABLE 2AGROUND WATER ELEVATION CALCULATIONS
Morristown Corner StoreMorrisville, Vermont
Well I.D. Top of Casing Elevation (ft)
Depth to Water (feet, TOC)
Water Table Elevation (ft)
MW-1 102.21 13.31 88.90
MW-2 100.63 27.10 73.53
MW-3 100.45 26.15 74.30
MW-5 104.49 27.09 77.40
All values reported in feet relative to arbitrary site datum of 100.00 feet
Monitoring Date: 1 August 2008
R.E.A. 28010GWE
TABLE 2BGROUND WATER ELEVATION CALCULATIONS
Morristown Corner StoreMorrisville, Vermont
Well I.D. Top of Casing Elevation (ft)
Depth to Water (feet, TOC)
Water Table Elevation (ft)
MW-1 102.21 Dry ---
MW-2 100.63 28.49 72.14
MW-3 100.45 Dry ---
MW-4 Dry ---
MW-5 104.49 28.57 75.92
All values reported in feet relative to arbitrary site datum of 100.00 feet
Monitoring Date: 13 November 2008
R.E.A. 28010GWE
LOCATION UNITS MW-2 MW-2 MW-5 MW-5 MW-5Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
TEST TYPE RISING RISING RISING RISING RISINGTEST DATE 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008
A = Dimensionless Coefficient (from graph) unitless 1.92 1.92 2.49 2.49 2.49B = Dimensionless Coefficient (from graph) unitless 1.26 1.26 1.42 1.42 1.42Re = Effective Radius feetrw = Radius (gravel pack ) feet 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.50ln Re/rw = unitless 1.08 1.08 1.72 1.37 1.37Depth to Water Table Below Grade feet 28.49 28.49 28.57 28.57 28.57Depth to Bottom of Aquifer Below Grade feet 32 32 38 38 38D = Aquifer Thickness (or h) feet 3.51 3.51 9.43 9.43 9.43Depth to Bottom of Well Screen Below Grade feet 32 32 38 38 38H = Submergence (or Lw) feet 3.51 3.51 9.43 9.43 9.43L = Length of Screen Below Water Table (or Le) feet 3.51 3.51 9.43 9.43 9.43rc = Radius (casing)* feet 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17Yo = Value of Y at time =0 on Y vs. time plot feet 3.3498 3.3497 3.3546 3.3534 3.3535Yt = Value of Y at time =t on Y vs. time plot feet 3.3600 3.3600 3.3620 3.3616 3.3617t = time on Y vs. time plot minutes 19.7 21.22 2.83 3.53 2.75K = Hydraulic Conductivity feet/day 0.32 0.30 1.34 0.86 1.10T = Transmissivity square feet/day 1.14 1.06 12.62 8.08 10.37
NOTES:
K = (rc(^2)ln(Re/rw)/2L)*(1/t)*(ln(Yo/Yt)) T = K*D ln(Re/rw) = ((1.1/ln(H/rw)))+(A+Bln((D-H)/rw)/(L/rw))))^(-1)
* If the water level rises/falls in the screened section of the well with gravel pack around it, the thickness and porosity of the gravel pack need to be taken into account when calculating rc using the equation [(1-n)rc^2+nrw^2]^1/2.
Source: Bouwer, The Bouwer and Rice Slug Test - An Update, Ground Water, Vol. 27, No. 3. May-June 1989.
TABLE 2. HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CALCULATIONS
Morristown CornerstoreMorristown, Vermont
Marin Environmental, Inc. slugtest.xls
Parameter MtBE Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene
Total Xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-TMB Naphtha
leneTotal VOCs UIPs
MW-1 ND<100 1,060 1,800 241 3,140 475 922 204 7,842 10
MW-2 ND<2.0 88.4 149 21.7 70.3 7.7 6.0 ND<2.0 343.1 10
MW-3 177 1,130 379 1,170 4,540 535 1,440 230 9,601 10
MW-5 ND<100 1,380 6,410 1,850 7,920 437 1,320 343 19,660 10Neighboring Sump/
basement 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 0
Onsite Sump* ND<2.0 ND<1.0 3.9 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 3.9 1
VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 -- --
Suface Water 3.2 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 3.2 0
WQC --- 1.2 6,800 3,100 --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-1 ND<100 1,060 1,800 241 3,140 475 922 204 7,842 10
Dup (MW-1) ND<100 1,090 1,910 258 3,400 585 1,070 191 8,504 10
% Difference --- 2.75 5.76 6.59 7.65 18.80 13.83 -6.81 --- ---
Trip Blank 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 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 Standards (VGESs).UIP: Un-Identified Peaks* Onsite sump sample collected 24 July 2008
Surface Water Samples
QA/QC Samples
Monitoring Date: 1 August 2008
Morrisville, VermontMorristown Corner Store
GROUND-WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSTABLE 4A
350
R.E.A. 28010btx.xls
Parameter MtBE Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene
Total Xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-TMB Naphtha
leneTotal VOCs
MW-1 dry --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-2 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND
MW-3 dry --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-4 dry --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-5 7.3 1.8 23 2.3 66 6.3 3.1 ND<1.0 109.8
Neighboring Sump/ basement ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND
Onsite Sump ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND
VGES 40 5.0 1,000 700 10,000 20 --
MW-2 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND
Dup (MW-2) ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND
% Difference --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0
Trip Blank ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<2.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND
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 Standards (VGESs).
GROUND-WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSTABLE 4B
350
QA/QC Samples
Monitoring Date: 13 November 2008
Morrisville, VermontMorristown Corner Store
R.E.A. 28010btx.xls
Well ID pH (su)temperature
(oC)
Specific conductivity
(u S)ORP (mV) TDS
(ppm) Comments
MW-1 5.23 15.5 628.9 172 224.5 Odor during purge
MW-2 5.32 12.5 7,874 327 6,495 Odor during purge
MW-3 6.54 15 2,397 200 1,740 Odor, low water
MW-4
MW-5 6.11 13.6 6,459 153 3,370 Odor during purge
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.
Monitoring Date: 1 August 2008
Destroyed/Buried
TABLE 5A FIELD MEASUREMENT DATA
Former Morristown Corners StoreMorrisville, Vermont
R.E.A. 28010ph.xls
Well ID pH (su)temperature
(oC)
Specific conductivity
(u S)ORP (mV) TDS
(ppm) Comments
MW-1
MW-2 7.31 5.6 >3999 >2000 283 Odor during purge
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5 6.91 6.8 >3999 >2000 315 Odor during purge
on-site sump 7.49 12.1 637 322 312 no odor
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.
Monitoring Date: 13 November 2008
Dry
TABLE 5BFIELD MEASUREMENT DATA
Former Morristown Corners StoreMorrisville, Vermont
Dry
Dry
R.E.A. 28010ph.xls
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
CC
Date MTBE benzene toluene ethyl benzene
total xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-
TMBnaphtha-
leneTotal VOCs
Ground Water
Elevation
8/1/2008 ND 1,060 1,800 241 3,140 475 922 204 7,842 88.90
VGES 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.VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards
Summary of Ground Water Analytical Results for MW-1
Former Morristown Corner StoreMorrisville, Vermont
350
Time-Series Graph for MW-1
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
5/22/08 6/21/08 7/21/08 8/21/08 9/20/08 10/21/08 11/20/08
DATE
Con
cent
ratio
ns (u
g/L)
70.00
74.00
78.00
82.00
86.00
90.00
Elev
atio
n (ft
)
benzene MTBE Total VOCs Ground Water Elevation
R.E.A. 28010btx.xls
Date MTBE benzene toluene ethyl benzene
total xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-
TMBnaphtha-
leneTotal VOCs
Ground Water
Elevation
5/28/2008 ND 49 170 19.0 149 5.1 9.2 ND 412.0 72.44
8/1/2008 ND 88.4 149 21.7 70.3 7.7 6.0 ND 343.1 73.53
11/13/2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 72.14
VGES 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.VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards
Summary of Ground Water Analytical Results for MW-2
Former Morristown Corner StoreMorrisville, Vermont
350
Time-Series Graph for MW-2
0
100
200
300
400
500
5/8/08 6/7/08 7/8/08 8/7/08 9/7/08 10/7/08 11/6/08 12/7/08
DATE
Con
cent
ratio
ns (u
g/L)
54.00
58.00
62.00
66.00
70.00
74.00
Elev
atio
n (ft
)
Benzene MtBE Total VOCs Groundwater Elevations
R.E.A. 28010btx.xls
Date MTBE benzene toluene ethyl benzene total xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-
TMBnaphtha-
leneTotal VOCs
Ground Water
Elevation
5/28/2008 120 920 570 750 4,300 300 1,100 250 8,619 73.43
8/1/2008 177 1,130 379 1,170 4,540 535 1,440 230 9,601 74.30
VGES 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.VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards
Summary of Ground Water Analytical Results for MW-3
Former Morristown Corner StoreMorrisville, Vermont
350
Time-Series Graph for MW-3
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
5/8/08 6/7/08 7/7/08 8/7/08 9/6/08 10/7/08 11/6/08 12/7/08
DATE
Con
cent
ratio
ns (u
g/L)
56.00
60.00
64.00
68.00
72.00
76.00
Elev
atio
n (ft
)
Benzene MtBE Total VOCs Groundwater Elevation
R.E.A. 28010btx.xls
Date MTBE benzene toluene ethyl benzene
total xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-TMB naphtha-
leneTotal VOCs
Ground Water
Elevation
5/28/2008 3.4 18.0 4.7 ND<2.0 87 13.0 13.0 5.6 145 72.36
VGES 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.VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards
Summary of Ground Water Analytical Results for MW-4
Former Morristown Corner StoreMorrisville, Vermont
350
Time-Series Graph for MW-4
0
100
200
300
400
500
5/22/08 6/21/08 7/21/08 8/21/08 9/20/08 10/21/08 11/20/08
DATE
Con
cent
ratio
ns (u
g/L)
54.00
58.00
62.00
66.00
70.00
74.00
Elev
atio
n (ft
)
benzene MTBE Total VOCs Ground Water Elevation
R.E.A. 28010btx.xls
Date MTBE benzene toluene ethyl benzene total xylenes 1,3,5-TMB 1,2,4-
TMBnaphtha-
leneTotal VOCs
Ground Water
Elevation
5/28/2008 15 170 1,200 270 2,160 160 410 99 7,600 76.39
8/1/2008 ND 1,380 6,410 1,850 7,920 437 1,320 343 19,660 77.4011/13/2008 7.3 1.8 23 2.3 66 6.3 3.1 ND 109.8 75.92
VGES 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.VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards
Summary of Ground Water Analytical Results for MW-5
Former Morristown Corner StoreMorrisville, Vermont
350
Time-Series Graph for MW-5
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
5/8/08 6/7/08 7/8/08 8/7/08 9/7/08 10/7/08 11/6/08 12/7/08
DATE
Con
cent
ratio
ns (u
g/L)
58.00
62.00
66.00
70.00
74.00
78.00
Elev
atio
n (ft
)
Benzene MtBE Total VOCs Groundwater Elevation
R.E.A. 28010btx.xls
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
DD
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
EE
21-Nov-08Date:AMRO Environmental Laboratories Corp.
Project: 28-010 Morristown Corner StoreCLIENT: Ross Environmental Associates
Lab Order: 0811036Work Order Sample Summary
Date Received: 11/14/2008
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Collection Date Collection Time
0811036-01A MW-2 11/13/2008 12:55 PM0811036-02A MW-5 11/13/2008 11:35 AM0811036-03A On-site Sump 11/13/2008 11:25 AM0811036-04A Dup 11/13/2008 12:00 AM0811036-05A TB 11/13/2008 8:15 AM0811036-06A Carbon Drum 11/13/2008 12:00 PM0811036-06B Carbon Drum 11/13/2008 12:00 PM
1
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
DATA COMMENT PAGE
Organic Data Qualifiers
ND Indicates compound was analyzed for, but not detected at or above the reporting limit.
J Indicates an estimated value. This flag is used either when estimating a concentration for tentatively identified compounds where a 1:1 response is assumed, or when the data indicates the presence of a compound that meets the identification criteria but the result is less than the sample quantitation limit but greater than the method detection limit.
H Method prescribed holding time exceeded.
E This flag identifies compounds whose concentrations exceed the calibration range of the instrument for that specific analysis.
B This flag is used when the analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample.
R RPD outside accepted recovery limits
RL Reporting limit; defined as the lowest concentration the laboratory can accurately quantitate.
S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits.
# See Case Narrative
Micro Data Qualifiers
TNTC Too numerous to count
Inorganic Data Qualifiers
ND or U Indicates element was analyzed for, but not detected at or above the reporting limit.
J Indicates a value greater than or equal to the method detection limit, but less than the quantitation limit.
H Indicates analytical holding time exceedance.
B Indicates that the analyte is found in the associated blank, as well as in the sample.
MSA Indicates value determined by the Method of Standard Addition
E This flag identifies compounds whose concentrations exceed the calibration range of the instrument for that specific analysis.
R RPD outside accepted recovery limits
RL Reporting limit; defined as the lowest concentration the laboratory can accurately quantitate.
S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits.
W Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis is out of control limits (85-115), while sample absorbance is less than 50% of spike absorbance.
* Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
+ Indicates the correlation coefficient for the Method of Standard Addition is less than 0.995
# See Case Narrative
Report Comments:1. Soil, sediment and sludge sample results are reported on a "dry weight" basis.2. Reporting limits are adjusted for sample size used, dilutions and moisture content, if applicable.
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Project: 28-010 Morristown Corner StoreCLIENT: Ross Environmental Associates Lab Order: 0811036
AMRO Environmental Laboratories Corp. Date: 21-Nov-08
Client Sample ID: MW-2
Lab ID: 0811036-01 Collection Date: 11/13/2008 12:55:00 PM
Matrix: AQUEOUS
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedRL DF
Collection Time:
EPA 8260B AROMATIC VOLATILES BY GC/MS SW8260B Analyst: SK
Methyl tert-butyl ether 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDBenzene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDToluene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDEthylbenzene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDm,p-Xylene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1NDo-Xylene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDNaphthalene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM85-119 %REC 197.8 Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM79-131 %REC 196.4 Surr: Toluene-d8 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM90-110 %REC 195.2 Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 11/17/2008 2:28:00 PM76-117 %REC 196.8
Client Sample ID: MW-5
Lab ID: 0811036-02 Collection Date: 11/13/2008 11:35:00 AM
Matrix: AQUEOUS
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedRL DF
Collection Time:
EPA 8260B AROMATIC VOLATILES BY GC/MS SW8260B Analyst: SK
Methyl tert-butyl ether 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 17.3Benzene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 11.8Toluene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 123Ethylbenzene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 12.3m,p-Xylene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM2.0 µg/L 129o-Xylene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1371,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 16.31,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 13.1Naphthalene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM85-119 %REC 1108 Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM79-131 %REC 1113 Surr: Toluene-d8 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM90-110 %REC 196.0 Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 11/18/2008 3:28:00 PM76-117 %REC 1105
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Project: 28-010 Morristown Corner StoreCLIENT: Ross Environmental Associates Lab Order: 0811036
AMRO Environmental Laboratories Corp. Date: 21-Nov-08
Client Sample ID: On-site Sump
Lab ID: 0811036-03 Collection Date: 11/13/2008 11:25:00 AM
Matrix: AQUEOUS
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedRL DF
Collection Time:
EPA 8260B AROMATIC VOLATILES BY GC/MS SW8260B Analyst: SK
Methyl tert-butyl ether 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDBenzene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDToluene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDEthylbenzene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDm,p-Xylene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1NDo-Xylene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDNaphthalene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM85-119 %REC 1106 Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM79-131 %REC 1103 Surr: Toluene-d8 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM90-110 %REC 197.2 Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 11/17/2008 7:03:00 PM76-117 %REC 1102
Client Sample ID: Dup
Lab ID: 0811036-04 Collection Date: 11/13/2008
Matrix: AQUEOUS
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedRL DF
Collection Time:
EPA 8260B AROMATIC VOLATILES BY GC/MS SW8260B Analyst: SK
Methyl tert-butyl ether 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDBenzene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDToluene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDEthylbenzene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDm,p-Xylene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1NDo-Xylene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDNaphthalene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM85-119 %REC 1107 Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM79-131 %REC 1108 Surr: Toluene-d8 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM90-110 %REC 195.5 Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 11/18/2008 2:54:00 PM76-117 %REC 1104
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Project: 28-010 Morristown Corner StoreCLIENT: Ross Environmental Associates Lab Order: 0811036
AMRO Environmental Laboratories Corp. Date: 21-Nov-08
Client Sample ID: TB
Lab ID: 0811036-05 Collection Date: 11/13/2008 8:15:00 AM
Matrix: TRIP BLANK
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedRL DF
Collection Time:
EPA 8260B AROMATIC VOLATILES BY GC/MS SW8260B Analyst: SK
Methyl tert-butyl ether 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDBenzene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDToluene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDEthylbenzene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDm,p-Xylene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1NDo-Xylene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM2.0 µg/L 1ND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1NDNaphthalene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM1.0 µg/L 1ND Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM85-119 %REC 1113 Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM79-131 %REC 197.8 Surr: Toluene-d8 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM90-110 %REC 196.3 Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 11/17/2008 3:02:00 PM76-117 %REC 1101
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Project: 28-010 Morristown Corner Store
Client Sample ID: Carbon DrumCollection Date: 11/13/2008 12:00:00 PM
Matrix: SOLID
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedRL
CLIENT: Ross Environmental AssociatesLab Order: 0811036
Lab ID: 0811036-06A
DF
AMRO Environmental Laboratories Corp. Date: 21-Nov-08
VOLATILES, TCLP LEACHED SW1311/8260B Analyst: SK
Benzene 11/18/2008 4:36:00 PM0.020 mg/L 10ND Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 11/18/2008 4:36:00 PM77-127 %REC 10110 Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 11/18/2008 4:36:00 PM79-117 %REC 10102 Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 11/18/2008 4:36:00 PM85-116 %REC 10111 Surr: Toluene-d8 11/18/2008 4:36:00 PM86-114 %REC 1097.7
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Project: 28-010 Morristown Corner StoreCLIENT: Ross Environmental Associates Lab Order: 0811036
AMRO Environmental Laboratories Corp. Date: 21-Nov-08
Client Sample ID: Carbon Drum
Lab ID: 0811036-06 Collection Date: 11/13/2008 12:00:00 PM
Matrix: SOLID
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedRL DF
Collection Time:
FLASH POINT / IGNITABILITY SW1010 Analyst: GM
Ignitability 11/21/20080 °F 1>200
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Laboratory Report
Morristown Cornerstore #28-010PROJECT:
DATE RECEIVED:
WORK ORDER:
DATE REPORTED:
090219Ross Environmental Associates
PO Box 1533
Stowe, VT 05672
Atten: Jenny Schwartz SAMPLER:
August 07, 2008
0807-10421
JS
July 25, 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.
Reviewed by:
Harry B. Locker, Ph.D.
Laboratory Director
160 James Brown Dr., Williston, VT 05495
Ph 802-879-4333 Fax 802-879-7103
P.O. Box 405, Randolph, VT 05060
Ph 802-728-6313 Fax 802-728-6044
ELAP 11263
www.endynelabs.com
NH2037
Laboratory Report
Ross Environmental Associates
Page 2 of 2
CLIENT:PROJECT: Morristown Cornerstore #28-010
WORK ORDER:DATE RECEIVED:
0807-1042107/25/2008
8/7/2008REPORT DATE:
EPA 8021BTEST METHOD:
001 Date Sampled: 7/24/08Site: Sump 8/4/08 JRMWAnalysis Date:16:20
QualNelac
Result
UnitResult
Result
ParameterQualNelac
Result
UnitResult
Result
Parameter
Vt Petroleum List 8021B < 2.0 NMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ug/L
< 1.0 NBenzene ug/L 3.9 NToluene ug/L
< 1.0 NEthylbenzene ug/L < 2.0 NXylenes, Total ug/L
< 1.0 N1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ug/L < 1.0 N1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ug/L
< 2.0 NNaphthalene ug/L 99 NSurr. 1 (Bromobenzene) %
1 NUnidentified Peaks
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
FF
GRAPH 1VACUUM RADIUS OF INFLUENCE
(55 Inches of Water Applied Vacuum)
Former Morristown Corner StoreMorristown, Vermont
Point Distance (feet) Vacuum (in H20) log Vacuum
VP-1 1 0.1 -1.00VP-2 2 0.1 -1.00VP-3 3 0.2 -0.70VP-5 5 0.4 -0.40VP-6 6 0.3 -0.52VP-7 7 0.3 -0.52VP-8 8 0.1 -1.00VP-10 13.0 0.4 -0.40MW-2 24.0 0.9 -0.05MW-3 21.0 0.90 -0.05ROI 36.9 0.37 -0.43
y = 0.0382x - 0.9075
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Test Point (feet)
Log
Vac
uum
(In
ches
of W
ater
)
log vacuum
Linear (log vacuum)
R.E.A. 28010 design flows.xls
R.E.A. Appendix F - Graph 2 28010 design flows.xls
APPLIED VACUUM vs. AIRFLOW RATESVE-1 - Pilot Test Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Applied Vacuum (inches of water)
Airf
low
(CFM
)
Design Vacuum
Design Flow Rate
R.E.A. Appendix F - Graph 3 28010 design flows.xls
APPLIED VACUUM vs. RADIUS OF INFLUENCESVE-1 - Pilot Test Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Applied Vacuum (inches of water)
RO
I (fe
et)
Design Vacuum
Design ROI(SVE ONLY)
Graph 4
SVE Effluent PID Readings
Former Morristown Corner StoreMorristown, VT
Time PID Reading (ppmv)
flow rate (CFM)
9:10 0 0
9:20 8.3 4
9:30 41.4 4.5
9:40 76.2 4.5
9:50 64.5 4.5
10:00 105 4.5
10:35 143 3.7
11:05 117 4.5
11:35 140 4
12:05 138 4
12:35 142 4
13:05 136 4
13:35 154 4Average 97.3 3.9
Duration of SVE Test was 4 hours and 25 minutesAverage total gasoline recovery rate 0.006 lbs/hourAverage Mass of gasoline recovered 0.026 lbs removed during pilot study (equivalent to approx. 0.2 gallons)
SVE Effluent PID Readings vs Time
0
50
100
150
200
7:12 8:24 9:36 10:48 12:00 13:12 14:24
Time
part
s pe
r mill
ion
- vol
ume
PID Reading (ppmv)
R.E.A. 28010 design flows.xls
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
GG