CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION

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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


• 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.


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:


• 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


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.


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.


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

structure.

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

contaminated water extracted.

• Effective technology for plume containment.


biodegradation.

2.4.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of MPE are as follows:

• Moderately high installation, operation, and maintenance costs.

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

this issue.

• 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.


• 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:


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

structure.


biodegradation.

2.5.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of Oxygen Injection are as follows:

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

• Not effective for unsaturated zone, only effective below water table.

• Generally not effective at removing free-phase product.


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

oxygen injection.

• May not be effective technology for plume containment.


this issue.

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

specific conditions.

2.5.3 Evaluation

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

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:


• 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.


• 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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


Dry

TABLE 5BFIELD MEASUREMENT DATA

Former Morristown Corners StoreMorrisville, Vermont

Dry

Dry

R.E.A. 28010ph.xls


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


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 --- ---




350


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 --- ---




350


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


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 --- ---




350


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 --- ---




350


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


DD


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

http://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.




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


Collection Time:


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






Client Sample ID: On-site Sump


Matrix: AQUEOUS


Collection Time:


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


Collection Time:


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






Client Sample ID: TB


Matrix: TRIP BLANK


Collection Time:


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




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


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






Client Sample ID: Carbon Drum

Lab ID: 0811036-06 Collection Date: 11/13/2008 12:00:00 PM

Matrix: SOLID


Collection Time:

FLASH POINT / IGNITABILITY SW1010 Analyst: GM

Ignitability 11/21/20080 °F 1>200




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


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


GG

Documents

CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION