Initial Site Investigation Report - Vermont · The Site may be located (as shown on Figure 1, Appendix A) using the Norton, Vermont U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) 7-1/2 minute

Initial Site Investigation Report

Norton Gas 24 Route 114

Norton, Vermont LAG Project #07053

August 1, 2007

Prepared for:

Mr. Ashley Desmond Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

Waste Management Division Sites Management Section

103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0404

Prepared by:

Lincoln Applied Geology, Inc. 163 Revell Road Lincoln, Vermont

Iossy Medvinsky, CPG, CHMM Senior Geologist and Chief of Operations

August 1, 2007 Mr. Ashley Desmond Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Waste Management Division Sites Management Section 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0404

RE: Initial Site Investigation Report

Norton Gas 24 Route 114 Norton, Vermont LAG Project #07053

Dear Mr. Desmond: On behalf of Norton Gas, Inc., Lincoln Applied Geology, Inc. (LAG) is pleased to provide you with this Initial Site Investigation Report for the above referenced site. This report complies with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC) Site Investigation Procedure document, dated June 2005. If you have any questions or comments regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Lincoln Applied Geology, Inc. Iossy Medvinsky, CPG, CHMM Senior Geologist and Chief of Operations IM/DM/LR:im Enclosures cc: Norton Gas, Inc. – Daniel Audet F:\CLIENTS\2007\07053\Site Investigation\Initial Site Investigation Report.doc

rcooke

Iossy

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Background Information.................................................................................... 1 2.2 Surrounding Area.............................................................................................. 2

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION......................................................................................... 2 3.1 Site Health and Safety Plan .............................................................................. 2 3.2 Subsurface Investigation................................................................................... 2 3.3 Drinking Water Well .......................................................................................... 4 3.4 Analytical Results.............................................................................................. 4

3.4.1 Soil Screening............................................................................................ 4 3.4.2 Ground Water Results ............................................................................... 4

3.5 Conceptual Model ............................................................................................. 5 3.6 Sensitive Receptor Survey................................................................................ 5 3.7 Geology ............................................................................................................ 6

3.7.1 Regional Geology ...................................................................................... 6 3.7.2 Local Geology............................................................................................ 6

3.8 Hydrogeology.................................................................................................... 7 3.8.1 Regional Hydrogeology.............................................................................. 7 3.8.2 Local Hydrogeology ................................................................................... 7

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................... 8 4.1 Work Plan and Estimated Costs ....................................................................... 9

Appendixes Appendix A............................................................................................ Figures 1-11 Appendix B............................................................................Health and Safety Plan Appendix C...................................................................................... Soil Boring Logs Appendix D............................................................................................... Tables 1-2 Appendix E............................................................Laboratory Certificate of Analysis Appendix F ................................................ Additional Investigation Estimated Costs

Initial Site Investigation Report August 1, 2007 Norton Gas, Norton, Vermont

Lincoln Applied Geology, Inc. 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On June 27 and 28, 2007, Lincoln Applied Geology, Inc. (LAG) performed a subsurface investigation at the Norton Gas filling station located at 24 Route 114 in Norton, Vermont (the ASite@). The investigation consisted of the installation of nine soil borings, four of which were converted into monitoring wells. Collected soils were inspected for atypical discoloration and petroleum odors. In addition, the soils were screened for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with a photoionization detector (PID). Ground water samples were collected from the monitoring wells and on-site water supply well and analyzed for VOCs. According to the analytical results, three of the monitoring wells contained VOC concentrations exceeding the standards established by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC). No free product was observed in any of the wells. The Site drinking well did not contain any detectable VOC concentration.

The total extent of the soil and ground water plumes has not been yet established. Based on the elevated VOC concentrations present in the soil and ground water, LAG recommends that an additional subsurface investigation, consisting of four monitoring wells and three hand augered soil borings, be completed to delineate the full extent and magnitude of contamination at the Site. 2.0 INTRODUCTION

This Initial Site Investigation was performed in response to soil petroleum contamination discovered by LAG during an underground storage tank (UST) closure. The Site may be located (as shown on Figure 1, Appendix A) using the Norton, Vermont U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) 7-1/2 minute quadrangle map at a latitude of 45.010ºN and a longitude of 71.795ºW. The current Site owner is Mr. Daniel Audet of Norton Gas, Inc., phone number (819) 844-2511.

The purpose of this initial investigation was to evaluate the environmental

condition of the Site associated with the previous removal of two USTs. The following Site Investigation Report summarizes, field activities, analytical results, conclusions, and recommendations associated with this investigation.

2.1 Background Information

Two USTs were found at the Site by MacIntyre Services, LLC when performing cathodic protection work. One 1,500-gallon diesel fuel and one 1,000-gallon kerosene tank were found in the same excavation along the west side of the Site. The age of the tanks is not known. The Site Layout Map, presented as Figure 2 in Appendix A depicts the location of the former USTs.



The diesel fuel UST contained approximately 175 gallons of mostly water while the kerosene tank contained approximately 60 gallons of product. Elevated VOCs were detected within the tank excavation when using a field PID. PID screening indicated readings of up to 728.0 parts per million (ppm). In addition, strong petroleum odors were noticed in the sampled soils. Moisture was detected in the soils; however, no ground water was observed in the cavity.

Although the Site is an active gasoline station, the original building at the

Site burned down in January of 2007 and the property is currently for sale. According to MacIntyre Services, LLC, two gasoline USTs of approximately 3,000-gallon capacity each were removed in 1989-1990. Two 8,000-gallon split USTs are currently used at the Site.

2.2 Surrounding Area

The Site is bound by Route 114 on the east, by railroad property on the west, by PBB Global Logistics on the north, and by vacant land on the south (see Figure 3, Site Vicinity Map in Appendix A). A vacant lot and the Norton Town Office (formerly Norton Village School) exist east and across Route 114. Vacant land exists north of PBB Global Logistics and further south of the Site. The west side of the property contains a steep drop, with an offset of approximately 20 feet to adjacent railroad tracks.

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 3.1 Site Health and Safety Plan

Prior to filed activities, a Health and Safety Plan (H&SP) was developed

per OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120. The H&SP served to maintain safe working conditions and included: designated zones of operation, required protective equipment, decontamination procedures for equipment and personnel, hazards present at the Site, means of communication, escape routes, and directions to nearby medical facilities. In addition, the H&SP contained pertinent petroleum contaminant properties and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the contaminants. A copy of the H&SP is included in Appendix B.

3.2 Subsurface Investigation

A subsurface investigation was performed at the Site on June 27 and 28,

2007. The investigation consisted of the placement of nine soil borings to depths ranging from 12 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). The borings were advanced using a Simco 2800 truck-mounted drill rig with adaptable hydraulic-push capabilities to probe the soil for classification purposes. Soil samples were



collected from the subsurface and logged according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Textural Classification (see Soil Boring Logs in Appendix C). After the borings were inspected and classified, the drill rig advanced 4.25-inch hollow-stem augers (HSAs) through the subsurface using a 140-pound automatic hammer in accordance with ASTM Method D-1586. Four of the nine borings were converted into 2.0-inch inside diameter (I.D.) Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) monitoring wells fitted with 10.0-foot long, 0.01-inch screens of the same material. The locations of the soil borings/monitoring wells are presented in the Site Layout Map, presented as Figure 2 in Appendix A. The soil samples were transferred directly into new zip-lock bags to minimize contact with any external sources and screened for VOCs with a PID equipped with a 10.2 eV lamp.

Depth-to-water (DTW) measurements were obtained from the monitoring wells using a pre-cleaned Solinst7 water level indicator. After the monitoring wells were developed, ground water purging and sampling was performed using new, dedicated polyethylene bailers. Each sample was placed into two new, glass 40-ml VOAs sealed with Teflon-lined caps and preserved with diluted hydrochloric (HCl) acid. VOAs were filled to ensure no airspace was present. The samples were placed in an iced cooler maintained at 4oC. Strict quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols, including the submittal of a trip blank along with the rest of the samples, was followed for all field and laboratory procedures in accordance with USEPA SW-846 methodology. All laboratory samples were labeled with the project name, identification code, sampling location and date, and submitted to Green Mountain Laboratories, Inc. of Montpelier, Vermont and tested for VOC by method EPA 8260M. The sample collected from MW-4 was also analyzed for EPA 8011. Chain of Custody Forms were completed for the water samples to provide a record of each individual contacting the sample from the point of origin through the analysis. Field activities performed at the Site during this phase included: • Identifying underground utilities by Dig Safe • Mobilization/demobilization of drill rig • Drilling and sampling of 140 ft of subsurface soils • Soil classification and description • Field screening of soil samples with a PID • Sampling tools decontamination • Monitoring well installation • Monitoring well gauging and surveying • Monitoring well development and purging • Collection of ground water samples for laboratory analysis • Ground water equipment decontamination



3.3 Drinking Water Well

The water supply well was also sampled to determine the quality of the drinking water and quantify current concentrations. As a result of the fire which occurred in early 2007, no internal faucets were available to sample the drinking water. Therefore, the water was sampled by connecting a generator to the existing downwell pump and allowing it to discharge for 15 minutes. Six new, glass 40-ml VOAs were used to collect the samples, which were submitted to Green Mountain Laboratories, Inc. in conjunction with the monitoring wells samples, and analyzed for EPA 524.2 and EPA 504.1.

3.4 Analytical Results 3.4.1 Soil Screening

PID readings obtained from the soil samples varied from 0 to 620 ppm (B-6/MW-2). The Soil Boring Logs presented in Appendix C show the PID levels obtained during the subsurface investigation. In addition, Figures 4 through 8 in Appendix A show the PID concentrations at specified depth intervals and the extent of the soil contamination. According to the PID screening results, soil concentrations exceeding 20 ppm extend to the length of the UST system. However, the soil plume boundary has not been delineated; therefore, additional soil sampling will be required to further evaluate the Site.

3.4.2 Ground Water Results

Ground water analytical data indicated that the highest total VOC concentrations were detected in monitoring wells MW-2 at 2,529 parts per billion (ppb) and MW-3 at 1,650 ppb. Ground Water Quality Enforcement Standards (GQES) were exceeded for specific parameters in wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3. VOC concentrations in MW-4 were either not detected (ND) or above the laboratory detection limit but below the GQES. Leaded gasoline indicators such as ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2 DCA) were also tested in the submitted samples. According to the laboratory data, only DCA slightly exceeded the GQES of 5 ppb in MW-3. All other analyses yielded ND concentrations. No free product or sheen was observed during the sampling event. Table 1 in Appendix D shows the concentrations in a tabulated format while Figure 9 in Appendix A depicts the total targeted VOCs at the Site. Appendix E presents the Laboratory Certificate of Analysis. The ground water data show that the ground water plume has not yet been delineated and further investigations in the form of additional borings/wells are necessary at the Site.



Analytical results for the drinking water supply well indicated that all VOC parameters were ND; therefore, dissolved petroleum concentrations have not reached the drinking water aquifer. In addition, EDB and DCA results indicated ND concentrations.

3.5 Conceptual Model

The exact cause of the petroleum contamination at the Site is unknown. A visual inspection of the previously removed tanks at the Site indicated that they were in relatively good condition with no signs of perforations. Since the current USTs are periodically tested for tightness, it is possible that the contamination is derived from the tanks removed in 1989-1990. The contaminants appeared to have migrated gravitationally down into the water table through the more permeable interbedded silty sands and sandy silts followed by a horizontal downgradient migration. The more permeable units were encountered at depths varying from 5.0 to 8.0 feet bgs, and deeper.

3.6 Sensitive Receptor Survey

A survey of the Site and surrounding properties was performed to determine possible sensitive receptor impacts. As depicted in the Site Vicinity Map, the Site and nearby properties have drinking water wells. The Site’s drinking well is approximately 95 feet north of the identified contamination. The immediate surrounding receptor is the PBB Global Logistics neighboring property, which is located north and hydrogeologically cross-gradient from the Site. It is not known if that property contains a basement; however, it is sufficiently far from the tank area to be impacted by any vapors. The ground water flows in a general northeasterly direction, towards Averill Creek, located at approximately 0.25 miles. The Site Vicinity Map in Appendix A depicts the drinking water wells that could be identified during this survey.

Electricity is supplied by aboveground lines. No other underground utility

corridors, such as sanitary or storm water sewers, which may create a migrational pathway for the contamination appears to exist at or near the Site.

Ground surface at the Site either slopes west (towards the railroad tracks)

or north. As previously stated, the Norton Town Office is located immediately across Route 114 and a business is located to the north of the Site. Houses and farmland exist west and across the tracks. No immediate ponds, wetlands, creeks, or other sensitive ecological areas appear to be affected by the contamination.

Based upon this investigation, there are three (3) possible risks associated

with the Site: 1) direct contact with the soils, 2) inhalation of vapors from the



subsurface, and 3) use of ground water from the impacted zone. Direct contact with the soils would become a risk only if construction was undertaken in the impacted areas. The use of ground water from the impacted zone would have three (3) risks associated with it, namely ingestion of contaminants, absorption of contaminants through the skin from direct contact (e.g. shower/bath water), and inhalation of volatilized contaminants.

The risk to construction workers is only hypothetical, since it becomes a

risk only if construction takes place in the impacted soil areas. If remedial activities that require ground disturbance occur in the future, the health risk can be adequately managed by the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and monitoring. The potential risk of inhalation of vapors from volatilized soil or ground water contaminants is relatively low due to: 1) the lack of VOC contamination at the surface; 2) the limited concentrations of contaminants observed in Site soils; and 3) the depth to ground water at the Site. Possible human receptors include Site workers, Site customers, and off-Site personnel/people. The only reasonably possible human receptors of any significance are possible construction workers if they excavate in the areas where shallow soils are impacted.

There are no known surface environmental or ecological receptors at the

Site since contaminants are restricted to the subsurface in mostly paved areas and any movement of contaminants would be further into the subsurface.

3.7 Geology 3.7.1 Regional Geology

Bedrock beneath the Site, as mapped on the Centennial Geologic

Map of Vermont (1961), consists of Middle Devonian undifferentiated granitic rocks.

Surficial unconsolidated deposits atop the bedrock are mapped on

the Surficial Geologic Map of Vermont (1970) as glacial till deposited during the Burlington Drift.

3.7.2 Local Geology

The soils encountered and classified during the subsurface investigation indicated the presence of interbedded silty sand, sandy silts, silty clays, and clays. In general, fine to medium, well sorted silty sands and sandy silts were encountered from near the surface to a variable depth of 8.0 feet bgs followed by silty clays and clays to a maximum drilled depth of 20.0 feet bgs. The specific soil classification of each boring is



shown on the boring logs/monitoring well details included in Appendix C. North-south and east-west Geologic Cross-Sections are presented as Figure 10 in Appendix A.

3.8 Hydrogeology 3.8.1 Regional Hydrogeology

According to the Norton, Vermont U.S.G.S. topographic map

presented as Figure 1 in Appendix A, several bodies of water exist in this area including the Coaticook River located to the west of the Site at approximately 0.25 miles, the Black Turn Brook located to the north at approximately 0.25 miles, the Number Six Brook located southeast at approximately 1.0 mile, and Baldwin Pond located northwest of the Site at approximately 5.0 miles. Regional ground water is estimated to flow in a general northwesterly direction. Drinking water wells in this area are 250-300 feet deep.

3.8.2 Local Hydrogeology

Ground water was encountered at the Site at different intervals

depending on the degree of sands and the location of the sandy units. In general, saturated conditions were observed at approximately 5.0, 8.0, and 12.0 feet bgs. The less permeable clayey soils were noticed to be moist, suggesting a hydraulic connection between the stratigraphic units.

Liquid level data is presented in Table 2. Figure 11 in Appendix A

depicts ground water contours for the June 28, 2007 sampling event. According to this data, ground water beneath the Site appears to mound near the UST cavities, most likely due to a recharge effect associated with the backfill material around the tanks. In general, ground water flows in a northeasterly direction at a relatively uniform gradient of 0.125 ft/ft. Static ground water elevations were observed between 487.37 and 492.59 feet during the June 2007 sampling event.

The following calculations were completed to determine the

hydrogeologic properties for the Site.

1) In order to plot the Ground Water Contour Map presented in Appendix A, the calculation shown below was used:

D1 = D2 (X1 - XC) (X1 - X2)



Where: D1 = Isophreatic distance from well A D2 = Distance from well A to well B X1 = Static water level of well A X2 = Static water level of well B XC = Isophreatic water level to be plotted

2) The ground water gradient at the Site was determined using the following equation:

L

hhI BA )( −=

Where: I = Gradient L = Distance from well A to well B perpendicular to the gradient hA = Static water level of well A hB = Static water level of well B

3) The ground water flow velocity was determined using an adaptation of Darcy’s equation, as follows:

nIKV =

Where: V = Velocity of groundwater flow K = Hydraulic conductivity I = Gradient n = porosity of media

Hence: V = 3.2 x 10-6 ft/sec x (0.125 ft/ft / (0.35) = 1.1 x 10-6 ft/sec or 0.09 ft/day.

Based on the saturated silty sand unit, the hydraulic conductivity

was estimated at 1.0 x 10-4 cm/sec or 3.2 x 10-6 ft/sec. An estimated porosity of 35% was assigned to this unit. Therefore, the estimated ground water velocity for the Site is 0.09 ft/day.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On June 27 and 28, 2007, LAG placed nine soil borings at the Site to depths ranging from 12 to 20 feet bgs. In order to evaluate the ground water quality at the Site, four of the borings were completed as monitoring wells. Soils consist of interbedded silty sands, sandy silts, and clays. Headspace analysis in soils indicated VOC



concentrations varying from 0 to 620 ppm at depths of approximately 2.0 to 10.0 feet bgs. The current extent of the soil contamination has not been established.

Analytical results for the ground water samples collected from the monitoring wells indicated that the GQES was exceeded in MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4. Static ground water levels were observed between 7.67 and 12.68 ft. Ground water flows in a general northeasterly direction at an estimated velocity of 0.09 ft/day. The lateral extent of the ground water contamination has not yet been determined. Laboratory analysis for the Site’s drinking water supply well indicated no VOC contamination in the aquifer. Since the neighboring property to the north (closest off-site well) is several hundred feet away from the impacted area and the Site drinking supply well, which is hydrogeologically upgradient from the neighboring property, is not impacted, then it is unlikely that the off-site drinking well has been affected by the ground water contamination. Similarly, no other sensitive receptors appear to be affected by the Site contamination. In conclusion, the extent of the soil and ground water contamination at the Site needs to be further investigated and evaluated. Based on the elevated VOC concentrations present in soils and ground water, LAG recommends that an additional subsurface investigation be completed in accordance with the VDEC regulations. The scope of work and number of borings/wells is outlined in Section 4.1. Due to the steep slope along the west side of the Site, three hand augered soil borings will be placed and the soils inspected for petroleum seepage evidenced by sheens, odors, or PID readings. The additional subsurface investigation will allow for a better understanding of the magnitude and extent of the contamination and will aid on the future development of a corrective action. 4.1 Work Plan and Estimated Costs

LAG proposes to drill four soil borings at the Site, all of which will be converted into 2.0-inch PVC monitoring wells. In addition, three hand augered soil borings will be placed in the slope along the western portion of the Site. The proposed locations of the borings/wells are depicted in the Site Layout Map presented as Figure 2 in Appendix A. The soils will be classified in the field and screened for VOCs with a PID. The wells will be surveyed and top-of-casing (TOC) elevations obtained followed by DTW levels to determine current ground water elevations. In addition, the Site’s structures will be surveyed to generate a more accurate Site plan for future use. The new monitoring wells will be developed, purged, and sampled for VOC and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analyses. Estimated costs to accomplish these tasks are provided in Appendix F.

F:\CLIENTS\2007\07053\Site Investigation\Initial Site Investigation Report.doc

Appendix A

Figures 1-11

Appendix B

Health and Safety Plan

Appendix D

Tables 1 & 2

Project: Norton GasLocation: Norton, VermontLAG Project #: 07053

Ground Water Quality Results (ppb)

Table 1Site # 2007-3654

Sheet 1 of 1

Data Point Compound 6/28/07Benzene 5 19.0Toluene 1,000 3.8

Ethylbenzene 700 NDXylenes 10,000 ND

Total BTEX 22.8 0.0 0.01,3,5-trimethylbenzene ND1,2,4-trimethylbenzene ND

Naphthalene 20 NDMTBE 40 7.5

Total Targeted VOC's 30.3 0.0 0.0Benzene 5 42.0Toluene 1,000 480.0

Ethylbenzene 700 170.0Xylenes 10,000 640.0

Total BTEX 1,332.0 0.0 0.01,3,5-TrimethylBenzene 380.01,2,4-TrimethylBenzene 790.0

Naphthalene 20 27.0MTBE 40 ND

Total Targeted VOC's 2,529.0 0.0 0.0Benzene 5 1,200.0Toluene 1,000 26.0


Total BTEX 1,326.0 0.0 0.01,3,5-TrimethylBenzene ND1,2,4-TrimethylBenzene 20.0

Naphthalene 20 30.0MTBE 40 260.0

Total Targeted VOC's 1,636.0 0.0 0.0Benzene 5 1.4Toluene 1,000 3.9


Total BTEX 17.5 0.0 0.01,3,5-TrimethylBenzene 2.41,2,4-TrimethylBenzene 4.1

Naphthalene 20 NDMTBE 40 ND

Total Targeted VOC's 24.0 0.0 0.0

350

350

VDEC, GQES (ppb)

MW-1

MW-2

350

350

MW-3

MW-4

NOTES:

ND - Not DetectedBDL - Below Detection LimitsLight Grey Cell = Constituent exceeds the VDEC Ground Water Quality Enforcement Standards (GQES)Dark Grey Cell = Well Dry or Inaccessible

Project: Norton GasLocation: Norton, VermontLAG Project #07053

Liquid Level Monitoring Data Table 2VDEC Site #2007-3654

Well ID TOC Elevation

Total Well Depth

Depth to Product

Depth to Water

Product Thickness

Water Table

ElevationMW-1 500.34 14.60 - 7.75 - 492.59MW-2 500.05 14.75 - 12.68 - 487.37MW-3 499.76 14.65 - 10.70 - 489.06MW-4 498.45 14.75 - 7.67 - 490.78

June 28, 2007

Notes:

TOC: Top of well casing elevationWells surveyed to an arbitrary elevation of 500.00 feet mean sea level (msl)

Appendix E

Laboratory Certificate of Analysis

Appendix F

Additional Investigation Estimated Costs

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COST ESTIMATENORTON GAS

NORTON, VERMONT

Subsurface InvestigationLAG Proposal #IM-07017

Task I Subsurface Investigation

Drilling rig, Mobilization, and Materials - 1 event @ lump sum 3,712.50$

Geologist - 20 hr(s) @ $60.00 per hour 1,200.00$ Field Technician - 4 hr(s) @ $35.00 per hour 140.00$ Hand Auger - 1 day(s) @ $50.00 per day 50.00$ PID - 1 day(s) @ $80.00 per day 80.00$ Generator and Pump - 1 day(s) @ $110.00 per day 110.00$ VOC Water - 4 sample(s) $120.00 per day 480.00$ TPH Water - 4 sample(s) $92.00 per day 368.00$ Lodging and Meals - 1 day(s) @ $145.00 per day 145.00$ Mileage - 496 mile(s) @ $0.42 per mile 208.32$

Total Task I 6,493.82$

Task II Site Surveying

Field Technicians Crew - 12 hr(s) @ $35.00 per hour 420.00$ Surveying Equipment - 1 day(s) @ $50.00 per day 50.00$

Total Task II 470.00$

Task III Summary Report

Principal - 0.5 hr(s) @ $90.00 per hour 45.00$ Senior Project Geologist - 1 hr(s) @ $85.00 per hour 85.00$ Geologist - 15 hr(s) @ $60.00 per hour 900.00$ Draftsperson - 2.0 hr(s) @ $45.00 per hour 90.00$ Clerical - 1.0 hr(s) @ $35.00 per hour 35.00$

Total Task III 1,155.00$

Grand Total: 8,118.82$

Drilling and sampling 4 soil borings and converting 4 of them into 2" ID PVC monitoring wells. Well gauging, development, and sampling.

Summary report which will include sampling procedures, laboratory analyses, QA/QC protocols, boring logs, ground water flow map, tabulated headspace analysis results, conclusions, and recommendations

Survey site and obtain TOC elevations.

Documents

Initial Site Investigation Report - Vermont · The Site may be located (as shown on Figure 1, Appendix A) using the Norton, Vermont U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) 7-1/2 minute