This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
R.E.A. Project #: 26-136 Document #: 26136CAFI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
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
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
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
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 2 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 3 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 4 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 5 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 6 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 7 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 8 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 9 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 10 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
• 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.
• 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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 11 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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:
• 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.
• 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.
• Moderately intrusive to on-site land-use; however, proper siting of system can minimize
this issue.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 12 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
• 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:
• Readily available equipment.
• 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.
• Moderately intrusive to on-site land-use; however, proper siting of system can minimize
this issue.
• Frequent disposal of activated carbon from vapor emissions.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 13 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.doc
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.
CAFI Report – Former Newport Center Corner Store Page 14 Ross Environmental Associates, Inc 26136CAFI.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,
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
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
Monitoring Date: 23 April 2008
350
TABLE 4GROUND-WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Former Newport Center Corner StoreNewport Center, Vermont
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: 23 April 2008
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
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
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
Newport Center, Vermont
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:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 8.0' 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 0.4
5
4-8 0.2
10
10-12
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-2
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
5-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
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
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 8.0' Installation Date:
5.0' 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 12.0
5
4-8 0.1
10
10-12
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 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
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-3
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
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:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' Installation Date:
3.0' 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
0-4 969
5
4-8 922
10
10-12 49.9
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-4
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
5-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
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
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' Installation Date:
6.0' 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 4.5
5
4-8 767
10
10-12 21.5
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 12.0' bgs. Sample collected from 8.0' bgs.
Fill SAND with some Gravel
dense, moist grey CLAY
wet brown SILT with some Clay
---
---
Geoprobe
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-5
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
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:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' Installation Date:
8.0' 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 10.8
5
4-8 875
10
10-12 35.3
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-6
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
5-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
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
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' Installation Date:
8.0' 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 44.6
5
4-8 292
10
10-12 43.9
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 12.0' bgs.
fill SAND with some Gravel
brown SILT with some grey Clay
moist grey CLAY with some brown Silt
---
---
Geoprobe
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-7
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
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:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' Installation Date:
8.0' 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 11.5
5
4-8 53.7
10
10-12 38.5
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-8
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
5-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
Boring to 12.0' bgs.
fill SAND with some Gravel
brown SILT with some grey Clay
moist brown SILT
grey CLAY moist
Concrete
Native Material
Bentonite
Filter Sand
Riser
Screen
Water Level
miniRAE 2000
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' 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 0.2
5
4-8 0.2
10
10-12 2.8
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 12.0' bgs.
fill SAND with some Gravel. Wet at 7.0'
brown SILT and CLAY
---
---
Geoprobe
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-9
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' Installation Date:
3.0' 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 0.0
5
4-8 3.7
10
10-12 7.6
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-10
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
Boring to 12.0' bgs.
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
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 4.0' Installation Date:
-- 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 0.0
5
4-8
10
10-12
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
refusal at 4.0' bgs
fill SAND with some gravel.
---
---
Geoprobe
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-11
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 2.0' Installation Date:
-- 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
0.0
0-4
5
4-8
10
10-12
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-11A
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
fill SAND with some gravel.
refusal at 2.0' bgs
Concrete
Native Material
Bentonite
Filter Sand
Riser
Screen
Water Level
miniRAE 2000
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 6.0' Installation Date:
-- 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 0.0
5
4-8
10
10-12
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
fill SAND with some gravel.
refusal at 6.0' bgs. Wood in tip.
---
---
Geoprobe
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-11B
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 11.0' Installation Date:
4.5' 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 1.4
5
4-8 14.0
10
1.1
10-12
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-11C
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
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
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 8.0' Installation Date:
-- 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 1.3
5
4-8 824
10
10-12 14.6
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
medium brown sand.
dark stained SILT
grey SILT with some Clay
very wet brown SILT with some Clay
Boring to 12.0' bgs.
---
---
Geoprobe
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-12
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
Site Name:
Site Location:
Well Depth: -- Boring Depth: 12.0' Installation Date:
8.0' 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 0.4
5
4-8 0.1
10
10-12 13.3
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
Gascoyne
Depth to Water (during drilling):
Atlantis Drilling
BORING / WELL IDENTIFICATION: SB-13
Newport Center Corner Store
Newport Center, Vermont
6-May-08
26-136
---
---
Geoprobe
Sample Description / Notes
6 inch recovery with brown SAND
Boring to 12.0' bgs.
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
BLOW COUNT (COHESIVE SOILS) BLOW COUNT (GRANULAR SOILS)PROPORTIONS USED NOTES:
ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESPHONE: (802) 253-4280 FAX: (802) 253-4258
P.O. Box 1533Stowe, VT 05672
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS SOIL BORING – May 2008
AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX
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
Ross Environmental Associates
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.