cd03: 5/5/1995: corrective action plan: corrective …at the project site within five feet of the...

L LAW CATLIN * ENVTRONMENTAL AND

ENGiNEERNG CONSULTANTS b.w

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE RESTORATION OF PETROLEUM

CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER

BUILDING TC-912 MINI “C” SERVICE STATION

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP GEIGER, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for:

Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Atlantic Division 1510 Gilbert Street

Norfolk, Virginia 235 1 l-6287

Prepared by:

Law Engineering, Inc. 3301 Atlantic Avenue

Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

Law Engineering Project No. 30740-5-0500 Law Engineering Phase No. 0032

May 5, 1995

Enclosure (1)

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

May 5, 1995

Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic Division 1510 Gilbert Street Norfolk, Virginia 235 1 l-6287

Attention: Mr. Mark M. Barnes, P.E.

Subject: CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE RESTORATION OF PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER BUILDING TC-912 MINI “C” SERVICE STATION MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP GEIGER, NORTH CAROLINA LAW ENGINEERING JOB NO. 30740-S-0500 LAW ENGINEERING PHASE NO. 0032

Dear Mr. Barnes:

In accordance with Naval Facilities Engineering Command Order for Supplies or Services Contract No. N62470-93-D-4020 Delivery Order No. 0032 dated March 24, 1994, Law Engineering is pleased to present this Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the Restoration of Petroleum Contaminated Soil and Groundwater at the above-referenced project site for your review and comment. The objective of our services, as described in the attached report, is to prepare a CAP in accordance with North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources document: Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soils and Groundwater Section 15.3 and 15A NCAC 2N .0707. The attached Plan includes a discussion and conceptual details of the proposed remedial system which are not intended as construction documents.

This report is intended for the exclusive use of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division. The contents should not be relied upon by any other parties without the express, written consent of Law Engineering, Inc. The findings are relevant to the dates of our site work and should not be relied upon to represent site conditions on other dates.

LAW ENGINEERING, INC. 3301 ATLANTIC AVENUE l RALEIGH, NC 27604

P. 0. BOX 18288 l RALEIGH, NC 27619 (919) 876-0416 l FAX (919) 872-3253

ONE OF ME IJaw COMPANIES @

Correcrive Acrion Plan for the Restoration of Petroleum Contaminated Soil and Groundwater Building TC-912

May 5, 1995 Page 2

We appreciate the opportunity to continue to provide our environmental services on this project. If any questions arise, please contact us at (919) 8764416.

Sincerely,

LAW ENGINEERI

TLL/WDD/tll/pjp

cc: Neal Paul-Activity Kathy Molino-Letter Only W. Douglass Dixon-Letter Only

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1

OBJECTIVES OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN ................. 2 2.1 Statement of Goals and Expected Accomplishments .................. 2 2.2 Target Clean-un Concentrations (Remediation End-Points) .............. 2 2.3 Target Corrective Action Schedule ............................ 3

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .................................... 3

EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES .................... 4 4.1 Alternative 1: PumD/Air StriD/Infiltration ........................ 4 4.2 Alternative 2: SVE/Air Snarging ............................. 5 4.3 Cost Comnarison of the Two Alternatives ........................ 5

4.3.1 Alternative 1 ......... -: ........................... 6 4.3.2 Alternative 2 ..................................... 6

4.4 Statement of Recommendation ............................... 6

PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEM ....................... 6 5.1 General DescriDtion of System ............................... 6 5.2 Basis for Selection of AS/SVE Svstem .......................... 8

5.2.1 Results of Pilot Studies ............................... 8 5.3 Svstem Securitv and Safety Measures ........................... 8 5.4 Limitations ........................................... 8 5.5 Oneration and Maintenance of the System ........................ 8 5.6 Monitoring. System Evaluation and Renortinq ..................... 8

PERMITS ................................................ 9

SITE RESTORATION PLAN ................................... 9

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN SCHEDULE ......................... 10

REFERENCES ............................................. 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

TABLES

Table 2.1 Summary of Laboratory Analytical Results; Soil Samples Table 2.2 Summary of Laboratory Analytical Results; Groundwater Samples

(Hydropunch) Table 2.3 Summary of Laboratory Analytical Results; Groundwater Samples

(Monitoring Wells) Table 3.1 Summary of Exposure Pathways Table 3.2 Physical and Chemical Properties of Select Petroleum

Components Table 4.1 Remedial Technology Screening Process Table 4.2 Cost Comparison of Remedial Alternatives

DRAWINGS

Drawing 1.1 Topographic Site Map Drawing 1.2 Drinking Water Supply and Site Location Map Drawing 1.3 TPH Concentrations (Soil) Drawing 1.4 Total BTEX Concentration Isopleth Map - Groundwater Drawing 1.5 Water Table Elevation Contour Map Drawing 5.1 Proposed Soil Vapor Extraction Trench Locations Drawing 5.2 Proposed Air Sparge Well Locations Drawing 5.3 Treatment System Schematic Drawing 8.1 Corrective Action Plan Schedule

APPENDIX A Air Sparge/Soil Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Results

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On March 24, 1994, the Commander of the Atlantic Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Norfolk, Virginia, contracted with Law Engineering, Inc. by issuing Delivery Order No. 0032 to provide a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for Building TC-912, the former Mini “C” store at Camp Geiger, Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base (MCB) North Carolina (Drawings 1.1 and 1.2). Building TC-912 reportedly contained five underground storage tanks (USTs) that were used to store fuel. According to Ms. Debra Pickett, a chemist with the Installation Restoration Division of the Environmental Management Division at Camp Lejuene, the following tanks existed on site:

0 TC-912-1, a 6000-gallon regular gasoline UST;

0 TC-912-2, a 4000-gallon unleaded gasoline UST;

0 TC-912-3, a 6000-gallon premium unleaded gasoline UST;

0 TC-912-4, a 550-gallon diesel UST; and

0 TC-912-5, a 550-gallon used oil UST

In June of 1990, UST TC-912-1 failed a tank system check performed by Jones and Frank. Subsequent to the leak test, the USTs listed above were deactivated in 1990. In June of 1992, two 6000-gallon USTs, one 4000-gallon UST, and one 550-gallon UST were removed from the subject site. The total quantity of soil excavated during the UST closure was estimated to be 200 cubic yards that was placed back into the excavation following tank excavation activities. Two closure soil samples were collected by Environmental and Regulatory Consultants, Inc. (1992) beneath UST TC-912-2 and are summarized in the Tank Removal Report dated September 15, 1992. The chemical analysis results confirmed the presence of petroleum related constituents in soils beneath UST TC-912-2. The 550-gallon used oil tank apparently has not been removed from the site.

Site assessment activities were performed in August 1991 (ATEC, 1992), November 1993 (Law,1993) and February 1994 (Law, 1994). These investigations defined the horizontal extent of petroleum related constituents present at concentrations which exceeded regulatory levels in vadose zone soil and shallow groundwater at the subject site. Based on the most recent data, it appears that the vertical extent of petroleum related constituents dissolved within the surficial aquifer has not been defined.

Law Engineering has documented levels of Total Petroleum ‘Hydrocarbons (TPH) in site soils that exceed actions levels established by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM), Groundwater Section in the immediate vicinity of the tank pit area. The maximum concentration of TPH reported in vadose zone soils at the site was 340 mg/kg. The spatial distribution of detected TPH in vadose zone soils at the subject site is shown in Drawing 1.3. The estimated volume of contaminated vadose zone soil is 320 cubic yards.

Law Engineering has documented levels of ground-water contamination of several constituents in excess of North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards. The majority of shallow ground-water contamination at the subject site appears to be in the immediate vicinity of the tank pit area. Ground-water contamination was also reported at deeper depths within the surficial aquifer downgradient of the tank pit area. The spatial distribution of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX) in the surficial aquifer at the subject site is shown on Drawing 1.4. The petroleum constituents that exceed

Corrective Action Plan for the Restoration of Petroleum Contaminated Soil and Groundwater Building TC-912

May 5. 1995 Page 2

the ground-water quality standards, as listed in Section .0200 of North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, include: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, bromoform and chloroform. The site groundwater is a Class GA groundwater.

The depth to groundwater during site assessment activities in February 1994 ranged between one and five feet below land surface (bls). The general direction of shallow ground-water flow at the subject site was northeast as shown on Drawing 1.5.

2.0 OBJJZCTIVES OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

2.1 Statement of Goals and Exnected AccomDlishments

The objectives of this CAP are two fold. The first objective is the reduction in concentration of adsorbed petroleum hydrocarbons contained in vadose zone soil. The second objective is the reduction of dissolved-phase petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater beneath the project site.

2.2 Target Clean-un Concentrations (Remediation End-Points)

The basis for establishing soil remediation end-points is outlined in the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources document entitled Groundwafer Section Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soils and Groundwater (Guidelines). As described in the Guidelines, when contaminated soils are located within five feet of the seasonal high water table, the target soil cleanup level for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) is 10 mg/Kg as detected by EPA Method 5030 and 40 mg/Kg as detected by EPA Method 3550. Petroleum contaminated soil has been documented at the project site within five feet of the seasonal high water table (Table 2.1). Thus, the target clean-up levels are 10 mg/Kg and 40 mg/Kg as detected by EPA Methods 5030 and 3550, respectively. Based on these analytical results and visual evidence, an estimate of the spatial extent of soil contamination is provided on Drawing 1.3.

Groundwater Quality Standards have been established by the State and are outlined in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. These standards are adopted as the target clean-up concentrations for groundwater beneath the project site. These standards, as well as concentrations detected in the project site groundwaters, are listed in Tables 2.2 and 2.3.

Final clean-up levels for contaminated soil and groundwater are likely to be decided through negotiations with DEM after a sufficient time period of system operation and data collection to demonstrate that either: (a) clean-up goals have been achieved or (b) further system operation will not provide a cost-effective means of soil and/or ground-water remediation. Final groundwater clean-up levels may ultimately be established as the result of applications to DEM for variances from established standards or reclassification of the contaminated groundwater.


May 5, 1995 Page 3

2.3 Target Corrective Action Schedule

In order to achieve remediation endpoints, we anticipate that the chosen system will operate for five to ten years. The Corrective Action Plan schedule for implementation of the selected remedial system is discussed in Section 8.0.

3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

The problems presented by the presence petroleum constituents in the soil and groundwater at Building TC-912 may be viewed in terms of health and safety concerns as well as environmental concerns. Fuel contamination, in any one of four physical states or “phases” (residual, vapor, liquid, dissolved), may be transmitted to receptors via ingestion, inhalation or adsorption. An evaluation of contaminated media and exposure pathways at the project site is summarized in Table 3.1.

Receptors may be exposed to the hydrocarbons found in the soil primarily through inhalation of volatilized compounds and dermal contact with soil at hydrocarbon contamination sites. Exposure to these soils is contingent upon subsurface disturbance. Exposure to vapors through subsurface confinements is unlikely because subsurface confinements have not been identified in the vicinity of soil contamination. Exposure via ingestion most commonly occurs from consumption of drinking water obtained from contaminated wells or contaminated public water supplies. Based on the United States Geologic Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report (USGS, 1989), operational water-supply wells located within a one-half mile radius of the project site include; NC-52, TC-600, TC-700, TC-901, TC- 1251, TC-1253, TC-1255 and MCAS 1254 as shown on Drawing 1.2. According to Mr. Stanley Miller, Water Treatment Plant Operations Supervisor for the MCB in Camp Lejeune, the results of a water quality study conducted by Greenhome and O’Mara did not report evidence of organic contaminants in ground-water samples collected from water-supply wells TC-600 and TC-700. Evaluation of the extent of the shallow dissolved-phase plume indicates that the plume does not extend to these supply wells. Based on conversations with Mr. Miller, water-supply well TC-901 has been abandoned.

Exposure to petroleum contamination in surface water is contingent upon the discharge of ground-water contaminants. Currently, the contaminant plume has not been shown to extend to surface waters.

With respect to environmental concerns, the presence of vadose zone soil contamination in the vicinity of the former tank group location is an environmental concern because petroleum within the soil serves as a potential source for the continued degradation of groundwater beneath the project site.

In addition, the plume of dissolved-phase contamination will potentially enlarge under the influence of natural groundwater movement, thus increasing the area adversely impacted by the petroleum release. If no action is taken or post remedial contamination remains, the receptors at greatest apparent risk are Edwards Creek and Brinson Creek, both of which discharge to the New River.

Gasoline and diesel fuel are composed of many different compounds consisting primarily of hydrocarbons. Each of the compounds exhibit individual physical and chemical properties in the


May 5, 1995 Page 4

environment and, therefore, it is difficult to predict their behavior. However, the degree of biodegradability, toxicity, and physical properties of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX) and naphthalene are summarized in Table 3.2.

4.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Law conducted a cursory evaluation for numerous remedial technologies associated with the remediation of soil and groundwater. The feasibility of each technology was evaluated with respect to application for Building TC-912. The evaluation addressed feasibility of each technology with respect to site specific remedial objectives, contaminant properties and physical site considerations. In performing the evaluation, the following questions served as guides for selection of appropriate responses as presented in Table 4.1:

What are the remedial objectives for this site and what is the degree of probable success (feasibility) of using the listed technology in accomplishing each objective?

With respect to the contaminant property listed, does the class of target contaminants rank high, moderate or low and what is the degree of probable success (feasibility) in using the listed technology to recover and/or treat the target contaminants?

With respect to the site specific consideration listed, what is the need or constraint imposed by this consideration and what is the degree of probable success (feasibility) of using the listed technology to satisfy this need or overcome the constraint?

When compared to the various technologies available, the cost-effectiveness of the listed technology is considered to be high, moderate or low?

Law then selected the “most feasible” technologies to address the contaminated media (soil and groundwater) at the project site. From these twelve “most feasible” technologies, two alternative remedial approaches were considered to remediate soil and groundwater at the site. Each alternative is described below followed by a cost evaluation of the two alternatives.

4.1 Alternative 1: l%mD/Air Strin/Infiltration

For Alternative 1, the soil remediation and the groundwater remediation systems are coupled together. A series of strategically placed wells are located throughout the dissolved-phased plume. A total fluids recovery pump is located in each well. The contaminated water recovered from the wells is delivered into an oil/water separator placed in a conveniently located equipment building. Although free product has not been observed at the site, it is considered a safe conservative practice to include an oil/water separator to prevent free product from entering the air stripper or disposal systems should remediation efforts “free up” residual free product. Oil, separated as the liquids pass through the oil/water separator, is routed to a storage tank. The water exiting the oil/water separator is routed to an air stripper. The air stripper is designed to remove dissolved-phase constituents from the groundwater. The contaminants at the project site are dominated by high Henry’s law constant hydrocarbons which


May 5. 1995 Page 5

“air strip” readily. Because of this attribute, the use of carbon treatment after the stripping will not likely be required.

Upon completion of treatment, the effluent water will be disposed in an infiltration gallery situated above soil which contains adsorbed petroleum hydrocarbons. After treated water exits the air stripper, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous will be added into the flow stream. This process of nutrient-enhanced “soil flushing” is used to stimulate the bacteria present within the vadose zone in an effort to remove petroleum adsorbed to the soil. As the nutrient-rich water passes through the petroleum contaminated vadose zone soil, naturally-occurring, hydrocarbon-consuming bacteria will have access to these nutrients. Availability of these nutrients will improve the size and health of the bacterial colony with the subsequent effect of an increase in the consumption of the petroleum hydrocarbons.

We anticipate that some petroleum will be flushed from the soil and will enter the water table where it is recovered and treated by the pumping well network and the air stripper. Disposal of treated groundwater via an infiltration gallery may require a “non-discharge” permit from NCDEHNR.

4.2 Alternative 2: SVE/Air Snarzinq

For Alternative 2 the removal of adsorbed petroleum from the vadose zone soil will be conducted by soil vapor extraction (SVE). The soil vapor extraction system will be coupled with a ground-water treatment system. The groundwater treatment system will employ an air sparging technique.

A network of sparge wells, which extend into the saturated zone, will be located throughout the dissolved hydrocarbon plume. All sparge wells will be manifolded together through a subsurface pipe network to a conveniently located equipment building. A shallow horizontal network of screened pipe will be located throughout the vadose zone soil plume and the dissolved-hydrocarbon plume exhibiting BTEX concentrations which we estimate exceed 100 ppb. This horizontal pipe network is used for vapor extraction and will be placed in shallow trenches which are manifolded together and routed to the equipment building. The equipment building will house the separate blower systems. One blower will be used to generate vacuum and will be linked to the horizontal screened pipe network manifold. The second blower will be used to deliver pressurized air into the sparge air manifold. In this configuration, the vapor extraction system will not only remove adsorbed petroleum from the vadose zone soil but will also capture and remove petroleum laden vapor liberated from the groundwater as a result of sparging. Registration of the system with NCDEHNR will be required.

4.3 Cost Comnarison of the Two Alternatives

The following discussion includes costs associated with the two alternatives. Projected annual and lifetime operating costs are also presented. Costs are based on our experience with sites similar to the subject site. A cost comparison of the two selected remedial technologies is shown in Table 4.2.


May 5, 1995 Page 6

4.3.1 Alternative 1: Pump/Air Strip/Infiltration

The estimated installed cost of the aquifer restoration and source control system which includes two recovery wells, two total fluids pumps, an oil/water separator, an air stripper and a 5O’X50’ infiltration gallery is $68,000. Ground-water disposal using infiltration gallery was the least cost effective groundwater disposal option (Table 4.1). However, the infiltration gallery was selected based on the added benefit of dispersing nutrient-enriched treated groundwater to vadose zone soils as a means of source control. The estimated annual operating cost for the system in 1994 dollars is $54,000. The estimated time of operation for the “pump and treat” system is 8 years which results in a total lifetime cost for the system of $565,000.

4.3.2 Alternative 2: SVE/Air Sparging

The estimated installed cost of the aquifer restoration and source control system which includes 11 air sparge wells, 240 feet of vapor extraction trench and the mechanical equipment for the air sparge/SVE system is $80,000. The annual operating cost for the air sparge/SVE system in 1994 dollars is $48,000. Based on previous experience with similar systems the estimated time of operation is 5 years which results in a total lifetime cost of $340,000.

4.4 Statement of Recommendation

We recommend the selection of Alternative 2 for remediation of soil and groundwater at Building TC- 912 based on the following rationale:

0 Total lifetime cost of Alternative 2 is less than Alternative 1.

0 Treatment system operation life of Alternative 2 is less than Alternative 1.

0 Eliminates disposal of treated groundwater.

5.0 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEM

5.1 General DescriDtion of System

The corrective action system will consist of air sparging and soil vacuum extraction (AS/SVE). The AS/SVE system will include a blower and moisture separation system as shown in Drawing 5.1. The AS/SVE system will operate by enhancing the volatilization of adsorbed and dissolved-phase volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the unsaturated zone and surficial aquifer, respectively. The extracted vapors will be discharged to the atmosphere. The following assumptions were made regarding the ASISVE system:

0 Condensation from the moisture separation system will be up to 20 gallons/day at an estimated concentration of 365 PglP and will be delivered to the MCB POTW.


May 5. 1995 Page 7

0 Effluent air from the vacuum extraction system will not require treatment,

The corrective action system for the site will consist of three soil vapor extraction trenches and 11 air sparging wells. Based on pilot test results discussed in Section 5.2.1, it is estimated that the radius of influence from each vacuum extraction trench and sparge well will be 25 and 45 feet, respectively. The total volumetric flow rate of the vacuum system at the project site is estimated to be 1134 cubic feet per minute (cfm) with a vacuum of 2.2 inches of mercury applied at the trench. The soil vapor extraction trench will consist of 4-inch diameter PVC pipe inserted into a 2’X 2’cross section trench. Two soil vapor extraction trenches, 100 feet in length, will be placed in the immediate vicinity of the tank pit area as shown in Drawing 5.1. One soil vapor extraction trench, 40 feet in length, will be placed west of Building TC-912 to extract vapors that may potentially migrate towards or are trapped beneath the building. Each trench will consist of 4-inch diameter slotted PVC pipe and sand filter media.

Air sparging involves forcing compressed air into the water table to facilitate volatilization of adsorbed and dissolved VOCs in the surficial aquifer into the unsaturated zone, which may then be removed by the vacuum extraction system. Each air sparging well will consist of 4-inch PVC pipe inserted in 8-inch diameter boreholes. The wells will be screened (.OZinch slots) beneath the shallow ground-water table from 17.5 to 20 feet bls. The approximate location of the sparge wells and their estimated influence zones are shown on Drawing 5.2. Based on pilot test results, the anticipated sparge flow rate for the system is approximately 16.5 scfm with a delivery pressure of 10.5 psi applied at each well.

Two distinct areas regarding the operation of the proposed system exist at the project site. The “hot” zone area is located in the vicinity of Building TC-9 12 and includes concentrations of BTEX that exceed 100 PglC. The second area is located outside of the “hot” zone and extends throughout the remaining portion of the BTEX contaminant plume.

The operation of the system inside the “hot” zone area will combine Air sparging and SVE to restore the surficial aquifer and unsaturated zone soil. In this process, contaminants dissolved in groundwater are stripped by air which is bubbled into the contaminated saturated zone by sparging techniques. Contaminants dissolved in the groundwater move from the water into the sparge air (Henry’s Law). The buoyant contaminant laden air rises through the saturated zone into the unsaturated zone. When air sparging is used in conjunction with a vacuum extraction trench, the contaminant laden vapor rising into the unsaturated zone by the air sparging process can be controlled. SVE will be used to control vapors in this area due to the concentrations of BTEX reported in this area coupled with the presence of base personnel in the vicinity.

The operation of the system outside of the “hot” zone will only use air sparging to restore the surficial aquifer. Vapors generated from operation of the air sparge system in this area are expected to be minimal and will diffuse through the unsaturated zone and discharge to the atmosphere.

The SVE and air sparging wells will be connected to the necessary operational equipment. A central vacuum blower will extract air and volatilized contaminants from the soil vapor extraction trenches. The process flow and system diagram is shown in Drawing 5.3.


May 5, 1995 Page 8

5.2 Basis for Selection of AS/SVE Svstem

As described in Section 4.0, the system is recommended for the reasons stated in Section 4.4. The suitability of this approach to the site was evaluated by a pilot study as described in the following sections.

5.2.1 Results of Pilot Studies

A vapor extraction and air sparging pilot test was performed at the Building TC-912 project site by Law on April 3 and 4, 1995. Pilot test results are detailed in Appendix A.

5.3 Svstem Securitv and Safety Measures

The system will be contained within a secured building located in an area that is well travelled during normal business hours. This area is lighted at night and on weekends. The system should not require explosion-proof wiring and will be outfitted with system failure controls and alarms (visual and/or audible).

5.4 Limitations

Biofouling occurs when sufficient dissolved oxygen and dissolved iron is present in the aquifer system. Dissolved iron concentration in the groundwater at the project site is 6.5 mg/L which is within the range that EPA considers appropriate for successful air sparging. We have not observed evidence of biofouling in similar sparge systems, and Mr. David Aerial of EPA Region IV has not observed biofouling due to sparging activities. However, if biofouling were to occur, iron bacteria may be destroyed by introducing oxidizing agents, such as sodium hypochlorite, into the sparge well system.

5.5 Oneration and Maintenance of the System

Routine operation and maintenance will be provided on a twice-monthly basis to assist in achieving continuous operation of the remediation system. During start-up of the SVE/air sparging system, an air sample will be collected from the system effluent and analyzed for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes by EPA Method 18. After review of air sample laboratory results, the system flow rate may be adjusted.

Periodic changes of lubricating oil will be required to maintain equipment.

5.6 Monitorinp. Svstem Evaluation and ReDortinq

A monitoring system will be initiated after completion of startup in order to assess the effectiveness of the remedial system.

Corrective Action Pfan for the Restoration of Petroleum Contaminated Soil and Groundwater Building TC-912

The monitoring program will include:

May 5, 1995 Page 9

Quarterly field measurements of ground-water and vacuum levels in existing monitoring wells to evaluate changes in groundwater flow characteristics produced by the SVE/sparge system, and to evaluate the dimensions of the capture zone.

Quarterly sampling and laboratory testing of groundwater from existing monitoring wells to document groundwater quality. Laboratory testing will be performed for purgeable aromatics by EPA Method 602, modified to include MTBE and xylenes and PAHs by EPA Method 610. Duplicates, rinsates and trip blanks will be collected during sampling activities.

Monthly sampling of the effluent vapors, and testing for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes by EPA Method 18.

Twice-monthly inspection of system components and performance of preventative maintenance tasks on system equipment.

Confirmation sampling and laboratory testing of soil collected from the vadose zone will be conducted to document the residual concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons present in the soil prior to system shut-down. Laboratory testing will be performed for TPH by EPA Methods 8015/3550 and 5030.

After shut down of the system, annual sampling of the monitoring wells as described above will be conducted for three years.

The remediation system will be evaluated after each sampling and testing event to monitor the effectiveness of the air sparge/SVE system. Adjustments to blower flow rates and to the general operation of the treatment system may be necessary to obtain the optimum capture of the contaminant plume. The results of monitoring and system evaluation will be reported to the DEM Regional Office on a annual basis.

6.0 PERMITS

It is anticipated that operation of the SVE/air sparge system will not require an air discharge permit. We understand the NCDEHNR considers ground-water treatment systems as “temporary” and as such do not require an air discharge permit, simply registration. The registration will be completed prior to initiating operation of the system.

7.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN

Following the completion of corrective action activities, the treatment system will be disassembled and removed from the subject site. Selected components of the SVE/air sparge system may be temporarily


May 5, 1995 Page 10

stored for future use. Sparge wells will be abandoned according to DEM requirements for well abandonment. Manifold and vapor extraction lines will be abandoned in place by capping all open pipeline ends.

8.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN SCHEDULE

As indicated in Drawing 8.1, source control and aquifer restoration will begin approximately 19 months form the initiation of the corrective action. Upon completion of the aquifer restoration, post operation monitoring will occur and continue for 36 months. The corrective action, including post operation monitoring, will require approximately 9.5 years to complete.

9.0 REFERENCES

ATEC Associates, Inc., Underground Storage Tank Site Check Investigation Report, Equipment and Maintenance Shop, Building TC-912, UST-S-941-2, Camp Geiger, North Carolina, ATEC Project Number: 26-17485, 1992.

Environmental Protection Agency, Cleanun of Releases from Petroleum USTs: Selected Technologies; April, 1988.

Freeze, R. Allan and Cherry, John A., Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.

Law Engineering, Inc., Draft Leaking Underground Storage Tank Site Assessment Report, Building TC- 912 Equipment and Maintenance Shop UST S-941-2, Marine Corps Base, Camp Geiger, North Carolina, Law Engineering Job No. 475-08136-01, March 4, 1993.

Law Engineering, Inc., Draft Addendum to Leaking Underground Storage Tank Site Assessment Report, Building TC-912, Mini “C” Service Station, Marine Corps Base, Camp Geiger, North Carolina, Law Engineering Job No. 475-09179-01, dated March 7, 1994.

Lyman, Warren, et al., Cleanun of Petroleum Contaminated Soils at Underground Storage Tanks, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1990.

North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, Classification and Water Oualitv Standards ADDlicable to the Groundwater of North Carolina, North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina, August 4, 1989.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources: Division of Environmental Management; Groundwater Section, Groundwater Section Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soils and Groundwater, March 1993.


May 5, 1995 Page II

Sittig, Marshal, Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1985.

U.S.G.S., Assessment of Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic Data at Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Base, North Carolina, Water-Resources Investigations Report 894096, Harned, Douglas A., Orville, B. Lloyd, Jr., Treece, M.W., Jr., 1989.

TABLES

SAMPLE LOCATION

SAMPLE DEPTH

(FT.)

LABORATORY RESULTS

1

340 19

160 85

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

110

B-1A

B-1B 4.5-6.0

B-2A

B-2B 4.5-6.0

B-3A

B-3B 4.5-6.0

B-4A

B-4B 4.5-6.0

B-5

B-5 DUP

2.5-4.0

B-6 DUP

B-7

B-9

MW-4s *

MW-GA

MW-6B

MW-7A

4.5-6.0

1.5-3.0

ND Not detected; ~88 laboratory reports for applicable detection limit

l TPH-DiesellTPH-Gasoline not distinguished m reported data.

NC Action Level for: Low Boiling Point Hydrocarbons (Gasoline) = 10 mg/Kg Medium Boiling Point Hydrocarbons (Diesel) = 40 mg/Kg

SAMPLE LOCATION

SAMPLE DEPTH

(F-l-.)

LABORATORY RESULTS

ND ND 3.0-4.5 MW-7B

MW-9A 1.5-3.0 ND I ND

MW-9B 3.0-4.5 ND I ND

MW-1 OA 1.5-3.0 ND I 4.0

MW-1 OB 4.5-6.0 ND I ND

1.5-3.0 ND I ND MW-11A

MW-11B 3.0-4.5 ND I ND

MW-12A 1.5-3.0 ND ND

ND ND MW-12B 3.0-4.5

MW-13A 1.5-3.0 ND I ND

MW-13B 3.0-4.5

MW14S 1 .O-2.5

MW15S 1 .O-2.5

MW16S 1 .O-2.5 ND ND

ND ND MW17S 1 .O-2.5

ND Not detected; see laboratory reports for applicable detection limit

l TPH-DiesellTPH-Gasoline not distinguishedm reported data.

NC Action Level for: Low Boiling Point Hydrocarbons (Gasoline) = 10 mg/Kg Medium Boiling Point Hydrocarbons (Diesel) = 40 mg/Kg

PARAMETER HYDRDPUNCH #

HYDRDPUNCH TYPE

SCREENED INTERVAL

(FT.1

HP-1 1S HP-l lSDUP* HP-1 2s HP-l 3S HP-14S HP-15s HP-16s HP-17D

SHALLOW SHALLOW SHALLOW SHALLOW SHALLOW SHALLOW SHALLOW DEEP

4.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 I 4.0-7.0 I

I I

4.0-7.0 I 19.0-20.00 I

I I

N.C. GROUNDWATER

STANDARDS

II I DATE SAMPLED 2l7/94 2l8194 2l8194 2/E/94 2/E/94 2/E/94 2/E/94 218194

EPA METHOD 602

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

’ Xvlenes (Total)

ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 INDr;D~I ND

MTBE

EPA METHOD 610

Naphthalene ND ND __ __

Acenaphthene ND ND __ __

Acenaphthylene ND ND __ __

Anthracene ND ND __ __

Fluorene ND ND __ __

Phenanthrene ND ND __ __

Fluoranthene ND ND __ __

Pyrene ND ND __ --

Eenzo fg.h.iJ pervlene ND I ND I __

I __

ND ND __ ND 21

ND ND __ ND .*

ND I ND 1 -. I ND I l * II

All results are ug/l. I Duplicate Sample l . Numerical standard has not been established, therefore, the presence of these substances in ground water is a violation of the North Carolina Groundwater Standards.

ND Not Detected; see laboratory reports for applicable detection limits. __ Sample not analyzed for this parameter

Shaded Area = Concentration that exceeds regulatory action level.

PARAMETER HYDROPUNCH #

HYDROPUNCH TYPE

HP-18

SHALLOW

HP-19

SHALLOW

HP-20

SHALLOW

HP-21

SHALLOW

HP-22

DEEP

N.C. GRDUNDWATER STANDARDS

SCREENED INTERVAL 4.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 4.0-7.0 19.0-20.0 (FT.1

DATE SAMPLED 2l8194 2/E/94 2/E/94 2l8194 2/E/94

EPA METHOD 602

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes (Totall

ND ND ND ND 170 1000

ND ND ND ND ~~~~~:~.:~:~~~~ ,.,. ,...,i.,.i,., 29

ND ND ND ND 500 530

1.4.Dichlorobenzene I ND I ND I ND I ND I ND I 75

MTBE I ND I ND I ND I ND -1 ND I 200

Naphthalene ND ND __ ND 13 21 I I I I

Acenaphthene ND ND __ ND ND l *

Acenaphthylene I ND ND ND I ND “. __

Anthracene

Fluorene

Phenanthrene

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

Chrysene

Benzo (9,h.i) perylene

ND ND . . __ ND ND

ND ND __ ND ND . .

ND ND __ ND ND 210

ND ND __ ND ND .*

ND ND ND ND l * __

ND ND __ ND ND .*

ND ND __ ND ND “(I

All results are ugll. l Duplicate Sample l * Numerical standard has not been established, therefore, the presence of these substances in ground water is a violation of the North Carolina Groundwater Standards.

ND Not Detected; see laboratory reports for applicable detection limits. -- Sample not analyzed for this parameter

Shaded Area = Concentration that exceeds regulatory action level.

.-

PARAMETER HYDROPUNCH #

HYDROPUNCH TYPE

HPlS

SHALLOW

HPSS

SHALLOW

HPBS

SHALLOW

HP4S

SHALLOW

HPSS

SHALLOW

HPGS

SHALLOW

HPlD

DEEP

HPPD

DEEP

HP3D

DEEP

HP7D

DEEP

N.C. GROUNDWATER

STANDARDS

SCREENED __ __ -- -_ -- __ -- __ -_ __

INTERVAL

(FT.1

DATE SAMPLED 11110192 11110192 11110192 11110192 1 lllOl92 11110192 11112l92 11112l92 11112192 11112192

EPA METHOD 602

Benzene

.:.>:.:.::.:: :. . . . . . .,...,. :.:.: ..:.:: :..,. ;: ~,~,~~~~~~~~ ND

ND ND ND ND 2.0 1

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

21.0 ND ND 3.1 ND ND 5.0 4.0 ND ND 1000 . . . . . : ,.,.,.: .,.,. . . . . :...:: ..:.::..

I’ iii~~~~~~~~:~ ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 1.3 ND ND 29

Xylenes (Total) 33.0 ND ND ND ND ND 8.0 4.7 ND ND 400

1 ,CDichlorobenzene ND ND ND 0.7 1 .o ND ND ND ND ND 75

MTBE ND ND ND ND ND 1.6 ND ND 20

EPA METHOD 610

Naphthalene __ __ _. __ _- __ __ __ ._ ._ 21

Acenaphthene ._ __ _- -_ _- l * -_ __ __ __ __

Acenaphthylene __ __ __ __ _- l * __ __ __ __ __

Anthracene __ __ __ -_ _- l . __ __ __ __ __

Fluorene -_ __ __ __ _- l * __ __ __ __ -_

Phenanthrene ._ __ __ __ _- __ __ __ __ __ 210

Fluoranthene ._ -_ __ __ _- ** __ __ -_ __ ._

Pyrene __ __ __ __ _- -_ __ .* __ -_ __

Chrysene __ __ __ __ __ __ __ .* __ __ __

Benzo 1g.h.i) perylene __ __ __ _- __ -_ __ X. -_ __ ._

All results are ugll. l Duplicate Sample t*

Jl

Numberical standard has not been established, therefore, the presence of these substances in ground water is a violation of the North Carolina Groundwater Standards.

ND Not Detected; see laboratory reports for applicable detection limits. __ Sample not analyzed for this parameter

Shaded Area = Concentrations detected above NC groundwater standards

PARAMETER WELL #

WELL TPYE

SCREENED INTERVAL

IFTI

MW-1W MW-2W MW-3W MW-4W MW-5W MW14S MW15S MW16S MW17S MWl7SA

II II II II II II II II II II

1.76-14.0 2.6-14.0 2.5-14.0 1.75-14.0 10.0-14.0 3.0-13.0 3.0-13.0 3.0-13.0 3.0-13.0 3.0-13.0

DATE 8128192 8128192 8128192 8128192 8128192 2l15l94 2i15l94 2/l 5194 2/l 5194 2/l 5194 SAMPLED

EPA METHOD 602

CL= .,.:.y. >:.:.::. ,.:.,: .: ‘, . . :

. . . . . . ::.I:.).. .:.:.r.:

I:‘,::;:; . . . . . . . .

,::j:::::: ?.:.;:y:< :::::::.:

jj:.jgx:

i

::::::::,:,:,:,:: : :.

..,. ,.:.:., ,.,. :.,.:.:.

.,.,.,., . . . . . . . . . . . ., ,.,... . ...” ; :.: .,..,.., :.; :::

:.:.... . . ..::..:. .:::::::

TRIP N.C. BLANK STANDARDS

N/A

NIA

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylanes (total1

1,4-Dichlorobanzena

MTBE

6300 280 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND 530

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 75

__ __ _- __ __ ND ND ND ND ND ND 200

NOTES:

All results are pug/l ND = Not detected; see laboratory reports for applicable detection limits. __ = Sample not analyzed for this parameter. Shaded area = Concentration that exceeds regulatory action level.

PARAMETER I

WELL # MW-6D I

DATE SAMPLED 11 /I 9192

EPA METHOD 602

MW-7D 1 PW-6 1 MW-9S

11119/92 11119/92 11119192 11 I1 9192 11119/92 11/19/92 11 I1 9192 N/A

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes (total)

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

MTBE

.:.,.: : ,.,.. ;::::::::::::y ::. . . ND ND

~~~ ND ::::::: .:.: 7: :;.:, :j31:;:;:::::i:::.:x::::;: ND

~~~~~~ ND .:.:.:.:.):.:.::::~:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:....... ND ND 1

ND ND 56 ND ND 3.1 ND ND ND 1000

ND ND ND ND 7.6 ND ND ND 29

ND ND 220 ND ND 12.0 ND ND ND 530

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 75

ND ND ND ND ND 6.4 ND ND ND 200

NOTES. L

All results are rug/l

ND = Not detected; see laboratory reports for applicable detection limits. -_ = Sample not analyzed for this parameter.

Shaded area = Concentration that exceeds regulatory action levels.

CONTAMINATED MEDIUM

Free Product

Soil

Groundwater

Surface Water

Vapor

INGESTION (EATING)

NA

Contingent Exposure (2)

Exposure Unlikely (31

No Exposure (4)

NA

INGESTION (DRINKING)

No Exposure (1)

NA

Exposure Unlikely (3)

No Exposure (4)

NA

INHALATION

NA

NA

NA

NA

Exposure Unlikely (51

ADSORPTION

No Exposure (I 1

Contingent Exposure(2)

Exposure Unlikey (3)

No Exposure (4)

NA

NOTES:

(I) (2) (3)

(4) (5)

NA

No free product detected. Potential for exposure only if subsurface below 3 feet BLS is disturbed. Via use of MCB water supply wells for drinking, cooking, and bathing; however, no indication of contaminants in nearby wells based on IO/92 Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc. sampling results. Also, assessment results indicate shallow contaminant plume does not extend to water supply wells. Ground-water sampling results indicted that plume does not extend to surface waters. Building TC-912 is slab on grade construction and direct access to subsurface contamination is not present. Not Applicable

PARAMETER

Benzene

Ethylbenzene

Toluene

p-Xylenes

Napthalene

NOTES:

TOXICITY’” DEGREE OF SOLUBILITY’*’

WI BIODEGf32$~ABILITY mgll

013’ co.39 1780

1.4 <0.009 167

14.3 co.12 537

6,000’4’ co.1 1 162

0 co.20 31.7

LIQUID VAPOR DENSITY”’ DENSITY’*’

g/cm’ g/m3

0.885 321

0.867 41.1

0.867 110

0.864 35.8

1.025 0.37

K,,‘Z’ VISCOSITY’*’ I/kg cPoise

38 0.638

210 0.666

90 0.580

220 0.608

690 NA

(I)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Maximum concentration to protect human health permissible in water. Reference: Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinooens, 1985.

Reference: Cleanup of Petroleum-Contaminated Soils at Underaround Storane Tanks, 1990. All physical/chemical properties are identified at the reference temperature of 20°C and standard atmospheric pressure.

An additional lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 100,000 results from a concentration of 6.6 lug/l.

No criteria has been set, but EPA suggests a permissible goal of 6,000 pg/l based on health effects.

Refractory index (ratio of BOD5 to COD) is a measure of relative biodegradability of a compound. Compounds are classified as: relatively undegradable (O<RI<O.Ol), moderately degradable (0.01 <RI<O.l) and relatively degradable (Rl>O.l).

NA - Not Available

-

CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES -

M

A

I

N

T

A

I

N

A

E

s

T

H

E

T

I

c

s

=

-

0 -

NA

0

0

NA -

.

.

.

.

.

. -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

.

. -

.

.

.

.

.

. -

0 .

.

. -

.

.

.

.

=

F

II

E

E

P

R

0

0

u

c

T

R

E

C

0

"

E

R

Y

P

L

II

M

E

c

0

N

T

II

0

L

s

0

”

R

c

E

c

0

N

T

R

0

L

s

0

”

R

c

E

R

E

M

0

”

A

L

”

A

P

0

R

c

0

N

T

R

0

L

B

I

0

0

E

0

R

A

0

A

B

1

L

I

T

Y

s

0

L

”

B

I

L

I

T

Y

”

0

L

A

T

I

L

I

T

Y

D

E

P

T

H

0

F

c

0

I-4

T

A

M

I

N

A

N

T

s

0

E

P

7

H

T

0

0

R

0

”

N

0

w

A

T

E

R

5

0

I

I.

P

E

R

M

B

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

P

H

Y

s

I

c

A

L

A

c

c

E

s

s

R

E

0

u

L

A

T

0

R

Y

P

E

R

M

I

T

T

I

N

0

s

E

N

s

I

T

I

v

E

E

N

"

I

R

0

N

M

E

N

T

s

s

Y

s

T

E

M

c

L

0

s

"

R

E

c

0

s

T

E

F

F

E

c

T

I

”

E

N

E

s

s

REMEDIAL TEcHNoLoGY -

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA =

-

NA -

0

NA

0

NA -

NA .

0

0

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA .

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA .

NA .

-

.

0

0

x =

-

0 -

0 .

0 .

-

.

.

.

.

.

. -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

.

. -

0 .

.

.

0

0 -

0 .

.

. -

.

.

.

.

=

SOIL REMO”*L - VADOSE ZONE ONLY

Eacanlim NA -

NA NA NA NA -

NA NA NA NA NA NA

la.4 -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

. . . NA -

NA

NA .

NA

NA NA NA . NA NA 0 H . . .

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

x

Pi.4

NA .

.

NA

NA .

0

NA -

0

0

0

0

0 .

hl

L

H

M

0 .

.

.

.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA .

NA

NA .

NA

NA .

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA -

Pi.4

NA

.

NA .

NA

NA .

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA .

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

.

.

.

.

.

NA -

NA

NA

NA

Ii*

0

0

0

0 .

NA

.

.

.

.

NA .

.

.

.

.

.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

.

.

NA

NA

NA

NA -

.

.

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

i-4.4

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0 .

.

. . .

.

. . .

.

. 0 .

L

M -

H

M

L

hl

L

H

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

.

.

0 .

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

x

x

x .

NA

NA

NA

i-u

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA .

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA .

.

.

.

NA

NA

NA

.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

WA

NA .

.

WA -

NA

NA

NA

Ii*

NA

NA

NA

WA -

NA

NA

NA

NA

.

NA

NA . -

NA

NA

NA

NA

.

NA

NA .

.

.

NA .

.

.

NA .

.

.

0 .

.

.

0 .

0

0 .

0

M

M

H

L

NA

NA

NA

NA =

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pi.4

NA

NA

Ii.4 =

N.A

NA

NA

NA

=

NA

NA

NA

NA =

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

.

.

NA

NA

.

.

NA

NA

.

.

NA

NA

0

0 .

.

0 .

.

.

L

L

H

M L - L L - - - - - - - - -

x - Low FE*SIBILm H-HIGH M - MOORRAR L-LOW NA - NO’,’ AWLICABLE l - SELECTED TBCHNOLocY

ITEM PUMP AND TREAT/NUTRIENT- ENRICHED SOIL FLUSHING

(dollars)

SVElAlR SPARGING (dollars)

Pilot Test 4,000 6,000

Permittina 4,000

Equipment (materials and labor)

Wells 2,000 7.000

Pumps 2,000 NA

Bio-tank/Feed Pump 3,000 NA

Oil/Water Separator 8,000 NA

Air Stripper 10,000 NA

Infiltration Gallery 4,000 NA

Controls

Building

4,000 4,000

6,000 6,000 I I

Pipe (Material Only)

1,000 2,000

Blower (Sparge) NA 5,000

Blower (Vacuum)

Utility Trenching 5,000 28,000

Electrical 4,000 3,000

Supervision/Management 11,000 11,000

INSTALLED COST (1994 $1: 68,000 80.000

Annual Monitoring (1994 $1

Annual Electricity (1994 $1

Life Operating Cost (+I:

5 1,000 40,000

3,000 8,000

II 5 years I I 260,000 II

8 years 497,000

Total Life Cost 565.000 340.000

DRA WINGS

SITEI)(&j

. --

NORTH JACKSONVILLE SOUTH, N.C. NW/4 NEW RI’ER 15’ PUADRANCLE

34077~F4-TF-024

1952 ?HOTOINSF’EC’ID :08%

DNA 5553 III NW-SERIES VB42

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

NOTE: SITE LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE. I

CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET

GRAPHIC SCALE FEET

TOPOGRAPHIC SITE MAP BUILDING TC-912

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP GEIGER, NORTH CAROLINA

DRAWN: Jey DATE: APRIL 1995

DFT CHECK: 50 ! SCALE: 1: 24000

ENG CHECK: Ga JOB: 475-09988-01

DWG: 1.1 I

/ Verona

i

OTC-700 LOCATION OF WATER-SUPPLY WELL AND WELL NUMEER

l/2 MILE RADIUS AROUND SITE LAW ENGINEERING

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA II I I I

DRINKING-WATER SUPPLY DRAWN:,J@j DATE: APRIL 1995

AND SITE LOCATION MAP DFT CHECK: 5Lch. SCALE: 1”=6560’

MINI C STORE SERVICE STATION ENG CHECK: JOB: 475-09988-01 CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA LW . ,

APPROVAL: s DWG: 1.2

EFERENCE: DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

7 t C;‘? P..- I_ s I y: ,3 c-3 : .*_* Y’ ‘c961 ‘NVld S311lllln aNV 3lIS SdkJ03 3NltlVW 3661 A~flt11333 ‘ZEO’Z’L’L’S: # ‘3Ma a3383 B wlw,vy

(110s) SNOllV8lN33N03 Hdl

‘3)1/W NI 3w slins3tl

‘SNOllV’301 llEIM/3Nlt108 13313S &lOzl SI NMOHS VlVa

‘-b66 L ‘EELI aNV ~2661 H3kiVW ‘Z66L ‘833 NI a313naN03 S~N~WSS~SSV WO~J a31337703 SVM NMOHS viva Hdl

GILON

0 L631

NOIlVNIWVlN03 110s JO V’3kk’ 3lVWIXOtiddV

SNOilV/301 3Nll 13nj 3lvWlXOtlddV - - -

SNOllV’301 )1NVl 33Vt1OlS r - 1 aNnoti383aNn 3lvwIxotiddv L _ J

I (133la Hdl/SV3 Hdl) a313313a Hdl ON IN/

J SNOllV/301 113M 3NltlOllNOW 0

SNOllV301 3Nlt108 110s @

006 31 :aN3331

laN/aN1 piiJ 9-a ,-SP-MPi

----- .16/8 ‘NOKEldSNI Cll3lj ‘3NI ‘31833 fC96L ‘NVld S3llllll~ CINV 311s SdtfO3 3NklVW ‘t661 AUVfltrEl3j ‘ZEO’Z’L’L’S: # ‘3Ma aJ3&& Wl)131”( :33N321/333ki ___

:3Ma ,O~=,, t :31v3s 7u’ :lVAOtlddV -775 :133H3 lja ___-__--___~-~--

Tl0r 9661 1ladV :31va :)133H3 3N3 d2r :NMV’tla II

VNllOtf‘d=> HItION ‘H313lW 3Nlt133Nl3N3 MY1

lN3WSS3SSV WnaN3ClClV 3Nlt133Nl3N3 MVl SlN3S3tld3& 1X31 al08 r-l

X318 JO l/6’-’ s NVHl SS31 m

(lins3tr d33a ‘lins3tl MOllvHS) m

X318 JO l/6” OC6 m

a3133130 ION f7iFTJ

H13ldOSI qdd 01 --o L-

SNOllV’301 H3NndOtfaAH B

SNOllV,301 113M 3NltJOlINOW 0

OZZ-dH H3nOtlHl S L t-dH SL LMW H3nOtlHl SP LMW :P66L A~Vnt183j MVl

GIL-dH H3nO&Hl Sl-dH SClMW H3nOtJHl a9MW Y66L H3klVW MVl

SGMW H3nOtlHl SLMW :Z66L AtlVfltl83j 331V r- ZON3331

:S!llON

L

006 31

1 \

I-

r

_J -S+ ?dH P

laNl $

L-dH ml

S+$H

ml SS-dH B’

v*i \ aLL-dHP . \

/

b ,CIN l

\ ‘\ /

/ ,/

\ 16’szl. / Sll-MW \ ‘ml/

/ \

\ *(aNI

- c, S69H U’ SQL-MW

F HlklON

Lb/'8 ‘NOl133dSNI (713lj ‘3NI ‘3133 fE96L ‘NV-id S3l1llllfl CINV 311s SdkJ03 3Nl&lVW ‘t7661 ,wVn@33j ‘zco’z’~‘~‘S: # ‘gMa a33&Jz q Wl)1aW

VNIlOWi’3 HI&JON ‘8133133 dWV’3 Z 16-31 3NIClllfEl

dVP4 WlOlN03 NOllV’A313 318Vl t131VM

‘13A31 V3S NV3W 01 133dS3tl HllM (1333) NOllVA313 tl3lVM-aNnOtl3 MOllVHS Izs.8

tlla MOlj kl31VMaNfl0~3 3lVWIXOtlddV

I

SNOllV301 113M 3NltlOllNOW 0 ‘~66 t uwnt1833 ‘viva

lN3WSS3SSV WflaN3aaV 3Nlti33Nl3N3 MVl SlN3S3tld3tl IX31 al08

‘~66 t ‘833 NI a31331103 viva ~oiiv~313 3iavl t13iv~

SC.MW H3flOk.IHl S LMW :Z661 A&lVfki834 331V IaN

r TZliON

i I I e piEi& S6-MP4

-

r

SP -M W\

SE-M 0 1631

I ---. L.....-..-

so

\

SSL-N\v\I

9’81

\ I ZP81 l

Stt-MN

\

\

\ I

2’8 I 9P8L l

sgt-N\1/v

HltlON

-~---___---

L’S

-LO-88660-k

-~- __--

:3Ma

:El0r

“2961 ‘Nb’ld S311llllfl QNV 311s Sdtl03 3Nlkk’W ‘~661 hwntlw ‘zco~z~t-t3: # 5Ma a3383 T www :33N3333tl

,os=,, t zl1v’3s ‘,7Z WAOtlddV y-l 3 :)133H3 130

S66 t ll&IdV :3lva p&r :)133H3 3N3 6;; ;‘ :NMV’tlCl II

b’NIlOkl’v’J3 HI&ION ‘H313-lW

7 VNNlOtlV3 HltlON ‘24’33lT3 dVIV’3

3Nl833Nl3N3 MVl Z 16-31 3NlClllnEI

SNOllV301 H3N3tIl N0113V’tllX3 UOdVA 110s 03SOdOYd

‘1333 SZ SI 33N3nlANI JO SfIlClVtr H3NIkll NOllW’lX3 tlOdVA

‘qddao t 0333x3 H~IHM s~ouwiN33~03 iv NOUVNIWV~NO~ EllVMaNfl083 X318 JO V3tlV 3lVWIXOkiddV

ZUON

NOIlVNIWVlN03 110s 30 t’38V 31VWIXOUddV md

AtlVaNnOa v3w 3Al133333 3AS - -

H3N3tll NOl13VtllX3 tlOdVA a3SOdOtld -

SNOIlV301 3Nil 13f-U 31VWIXOklddV -------

SNOIlV301 MN!‘1 33VklOlS aNnokw3aNn 3ivwixo8ddv :I 1

1333 NI - 3lV’3S 3lHdVW

HlklON

--farEm Ii 006 3i

/I VNIlOW’3 HI&ION ‘H313lV’tI ’

3NlkEEINKIN3 MVl

‘1333 SP SI 33N3flljNI A0 SfllCW 33WdS MV

J

0 1631

H&ION

H13ldOSI qdd ot

006 31

I

‘16/8 ‘NOU33dSNI 013lj ‘3NI ‘3J833 :E961 ‘NVld S3U.l-lUll CINV XLlS SdtjO3 3&jVW ‘+661 A,tlVfQja ‘ZEO’Z’I’L’S: # ‘3hta ag])ja q fl~)(ayy :ZJ~NJ~J~~&J

00s0-s-OPLOE

lO8?XOON

T / RELIEF VALVE

EXAUST SILENCER

DRAIN PIPE ’

LEGEND

----- SEPARATOR DRAIN ASSEMBLY

VACCUM BLOWER ASSEMBLY L BALL VALVE

INLET SILENCER I INLET FILTER

VACUClM RELIEF VALVE

AIR FLOW -

DISCHARGE SILENCER VAPOR EXTRACTION TRENCH -

I I MANIFOLD

L,J.-Ll

AlR SPARGER ASSEMBLY -.-----

0 PRESSURE GAUGE

0 VACCUM GAUGE

lz BLEED OUT VALVE

SAMPLE PORT

I’

.

AIR SPARGE WELLS AIR SPARGE WELLS JS988ROl JS988ROl

- - I

TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC DRAl

BUILDING TC-912 BUILDING TC-912 SCALE: CAMP GEIGER, NORTH CAROLINA CAMP GEIGER, NORTH CAROLINA

DFT CHECK: LLY NOT TO SCALE

ENG CHECK: JOB: 475-09988-01 I _

DWG: 5.3 REFERENCE: REFERENCE:

APPROVAL: p/,

. - . . . . II.. .

CORRECWEACTlONPLAN SCHEDULE BUILDING TC-912

CAMP GEIGER, NORTH CAROLINA

LAW ENGINEERING JOB NO.: 475-08988-01

TASK 1

TASK 2

TASK 3

TASK 4

TASK 5

TASK 5

TASK 7

TASK 8

TIMEINYONTHS 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 28 28 30 32 34 38 78 80 82 04

p:::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii pi:;:\ . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; : ; . ;

............... . ...... ............... ........ : : : : : : : ~::::;;:::;;;;;;;;; :;;;;;;

........ ......... :: : ......... ....... ..... :.....::::: : : : : : 1.. ................. ....... ...... ................ .... : ............................... . : : : : : :

................................. . : . ....... : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ..... .... .................................... . . : : : : :

.................................... .......

8U8U8U88 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... . : ....... . ....... .........

. . : . .... ..... : : : : ......... ......... ...... . .-G- ......... ......... ......... ....... A ..... ..... : : : ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : :

.................................... ... * . ‘ . ...... : : :

110112114116118

TASK 1: DEVELOPNENT OF A DETAILED TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN, SUBCONTJUCCOR BID DOCU-WNTS AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS TASK 2: PILOT TEST TASK 3: TASK 4: TASK 5: TASK 6: TASK 7: TASK 8:

PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF A DETAILED EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENTDELTVERY WE/AIR SPARGESYSTEMINSTUWON SVEi/AIR SPARGE SYSTEN START UP AND OPERATION (TO SYSTELlEFFECTIVENESSYONlTORING POST OPERATION MONITORING (3 YEARS)

5YEARS)

APPENDIX A

PILOT TEST RESULTS

A vapor extraction and air sparging pilot test was performed at the Building TC-912 project site by Law on April 3 and 4, 1995. During the test, Law installed a temporary soil vapor extraction trench and three temporary vapor extraction observation wells as well as one permanent sparge well and three permanent sparge observation wells at the project site. Law applied a series of vacuums at the vapor extraction trench, and then measured the influence of the applied vacuum on the surrounding soils in the vapor extraction observation wells. Law also injected pressurized air into the sparge well and observed the influence of sparging at the sparge observation wells. The purpose of the test was to (1) estimate the area of effective influence for the sparging and vapor extraction wells, (2) establish criteria for blower selection (operating vacuum/pressure and flow rate) and (3) to estimate the “worst case” VOC emissions from each well. This was accomplished to evaluate the practicality of air spargingkoil vapor extraction as a remediation technique, and to assist in developing an effective system design.

Pilot Test Results

Vacuum Extraction Trench

0 distance of influence: 25 feet (see Attachment AA and Attachment CC)

0 exhaust flow rate: 127 cubic feet per minute at 2.2 in Hg for each 20 feet of trench.

0 Less than 18.7 lbs/yr of benzene and less than .21 lbs/day of total volatile organic compounds are produced by the system. Because the estimated mass flow rate of benzene may exceed the regulatory limit of 8.0 lbs/yr, monitoring benzene concentrations and volatile organic compounds during system operation is recommended as discussed in Section 5.6

Design Parameters

Vacuum Extraction Trench

0 effective distance of influence: 25 feet

0 total volumetric flow rate: 1134 cfm total flow at 2.2 in Hg vacuum measured at each trench (Attachment CC) (This flow rate is 75 % of the total system flow rate as determined during the pilot test to accommodate “short circuit” problems encountered during the pilot test)

Suame Well

0 radii of influence: 30 feet (see Attachment AA and Attachment CC)

0 Injection flow rate: 1.5 cubic feet per minute at 10.9 psi

Suareing Wells

0 synergistic effective radius of influence: 45 feet*

0 total volumetric flow rate: 16.5 cfm total system flow at 10.5 psi pressure measured each at well (Attachment CC)

* The synergistic effect of operating the system in a well field as opposed to a single test point is estimated to affect the radius of influence by a factor of 1.5.

ATTACHMENT AA SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND SPARGE TEST GRAPHS

VA

CU

UM

(IN

CH

ES

O

F W

ATE

R)

13

3 r

0000

--

--

HN

u M

EA

SU

RE

ME

NTS

(P

PM

)

0

WA

TE

R E

LEV

ATI

ON

CH

AN

GE

(F

EE

T)

PP

PP

PP

0

- ru

cd

-P

C

Jl

6,

PR

ES

SU

RE

(IN

CH

ES

OF

WA

TE

R)

cd

0

DIS

SO

LVE

D O

XY

GE

N C

HA

NG

E

(PP

M)

n m

m

2

<

I -L

0 -

Iu

cd

A

I I

I

ATTACHMENT BB SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND SPARGE PILOT TEST TABLES

Obvrmin WrlI XI

TIME PRESS”RE FLOW oburv*iml welt .a Obwrvalia Well n

Wd (6) wh) D.O. ml” Depth to Vder Rarun D.O. KN”

(wm)

Depth to uam

@pm) FTmlm D.O.

(far) “WC mu Depth to W.ta

@pm) (wm) P-WC

met) “WC (ppm) (PP”) VCCI) ‘WC

srkgrm NA NA .7, 0 7.31 NA .55 cl 7.1, NA -53 0 7.12 NA

,251 70 M z.15 2 7.26 0 1.31 0 7.15 Cl I.05 0 7.39 0

1345 too 60 9 I .5

I 7 22

I 25 3, 0 7 I5 a5 57 0 7.39 0

I, ..c:‘ii.ii:i~::l::.~:, .: ::I .,; ,:: :,I ,&. :y.:

,442 15.7. 180 3.54 70 6.91 .05 .59 0 7.m 0 I5 0 7 36 0

1xlo1 152 180 4.52 6.5 606 2.0 .8 Cl 7.01 3 5 :../

cl 7 32 .: . . :.. . ..: . . . . ::: :. : ,,:i .:., :j .,.,. :.::.:... .:., . . . . . . . ..:. ‘. .,

05

:,..< @j,l.. ‘, .#+: ::.: .’ .:. )w .;, .;;:i ,j ,. ;, ~:.~~fijj:ij,,:;.~~, ::. j: ~“.~~:.~~~~, j y;,: .” ,$y~$~ .:g6’. .:..:. .+ ,;$G.< y.1. c,:< ,.:::.;.:::;: :.:::.:.::: . . . . . i,:’ ,.::.:c::--:. :::‘.. -:;+I. ., :,

.:,:;; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.. .: .,.,.,. :.. ..:*: . . . . . . :::,::. .,.....,.,.,..... ..:.... .,::,::::;.,::‘;3.: j:;> : :., . . .a ~.. ::.

. . . 7.31 05

ATTACHMENT CC SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND SPARGE PILOT TEST CALCULATIONS

’ L L 3301 ATLANTIC AVE.

I

LAW ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 18288 RALEIGH, NC 27819 919-8780418

GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL 8 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

I CONSULTANTS

JO8 NO. SHEET / OF c-

JO8 NAME /7 - ?/Z

_..._.- - /

t. -.. _I . f __.- -. . . .---. _ . . ..- -.. I- ----- +? . &dL $4 .%I.. -.--. _ - . . ^..

I -. --. . .._-_ ~~ ---. . . ..-. 1 . ..-_ -.- I --__ -_--_-. . ___. . -.-.-. ._._ “. I-------,- -

. ..-- . . ..-_*_ L ‘/ -- ,....-. ..-. -~. . --. ._^_. -... . . - -. . . .-.. .r__ . ---.

. _. ._- I

5. . I .--- _ 1 -

--. .” -_

I : _. -_ . ._- - -. . -

-. --.. -- __-. .--- - - . .--. --- .-. - _

LAW ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS

3301 ATLANTIC AVE. P.O. BOX 18288 RALEIGH, NC 27619 9198784418

-.. I- I

I_ . . . . . --

--- . -.- .- -..- .

. -_-.. . _ TV=, --. . . . ._ ..- - .-- . .~ ..--. ..-- . -.- .-... . . . . . ._-__- . .

I

--.*. -. - . -.-.. -:.&33/c .- . - -. _ . . . -.

__- . __-” _I ___ . . .-. ._ . . - - . . -. _. _

. . - - - . . -__-_ . , _-__. . . - . - _ . - - - - . . - . . ._ . ._ - . - - . . - . - . - . _.^ _.___.

. -.

-..

._ . .

. ....... -. ... _ ...

-- ..-_ 1 _ -. _ --- ..---_ -._ --. ..... . --..-. .. ----_

3301 ATLANTIC AVE.

LAW ENGINEERING P.O. 80X 18288

!

RALEIGH, NC 27819 919-876-0416


I CONSULTANTS

JO8 NO. SHEET3 OF 5

JO6 NAME 7i - p/z

t A LAW ENGINEERING

3301 ATLANTIC AVE. P.O. 80X 18288 RALEIGH, NC 27819 919-8784Z416

I GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS

t

JO8 NO. SHEET t OF-

JO8 NAME n - *A

I LAW ENGINEERING

3301 ATLANTIC AVE. P.O. 80X 18288 RALEIGH. NC 27819

JO8 NO. SHEET q OF 5

JO8 NAME YtL- .9/P

I 91 g-878&16 GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL 8 CONSTRKTlON MATERIALS CONSULTANTS

I

I .--- . ~--__ ..~.-&...-. .._c_ . . ..__^ - . --.- . .---- . _-... . ___..

I xe&. ~%wxh?a? /=ihzcAz& . ..-_.-. : ____._ . . . .

-- .-__. d/l/ ./%a277 s-y , -.. - I : i - . ..-- _ - --._ i +...._A._. , &-

. A. . _.__._-. , j *

-.- . -- -. . . .-- _- _ . .- ----A-- /

i 7’ --. -- -. . .__c._l

c

- .-,. . -.__ -.----- .--- . .__A_ ? ___ 1 - -.-- . .--1 ..-.-.-

/ .-. . _ -2zLm$LZ p/-m&T. . + --p-.-+ ..-- . -- -_ i /

L -+.- __-... : _i_ / i+r .j _._. f

/ I / . . ..__i_ -..,.- Le.,

I

_? . .-..L “. .-._... . .-___ ,. ;

-A.--L.-‘-- ..-- ~. . ..- --_.. i..- -... ./-

..-L_-. . --- . -&---+ -+..+ y.----- . -- it -- +-...-L-- : I . . ___ --- - ..--_.-__

--m----7 ’ 1 -..-. .l---.-+ : 1 1

I I 1 , ( i

.- 1

:-. : .---. -.... __L L. , ., . .-.- . .;...+.- : I : , ! I I I I i

3301 ATLANTIC AVE.

I

LAW ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 18288 RALEIGH, NC 27819 919-878-0418


I CONSULTANTS

JOB NO. SHEET OF

JO8 NAME =a- 9//

SUBJECT

BY a,/ DATE 6’-c-,95

CHECKED BY .?=- DATE ,5-3-- 9 .F

- . . . .._-_ _. _. . .--* .I_~. _.. .---. .--._. -- _ . _ -. -- --__. .-__I_.

ATTACHMENT DO SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND SPARGE PILOT TEST FIELD DATA

1- IAw-

I- r

=- mo-m

v :: SOIL BORING LOGS stm8llo - --cAsoLpu=

mm=-- FAX (9lsylDl-m36 LAW ENGINEERING

VISUAL DESCRIPTION OF SOILS

LAW ENGINEERING, INC. LAW ENGINEERNO. INC. 6710 OLEANOER OR WlLMINOTON. NC 19lOHS2-1196 19101791-1339

TYPE II MONITORING INSTALLATION RECORD

FLUSH MOUNT

PROTECTIVE COVER

LOCKABLE CAP

BENT/GROUT SEAL DEPTH OF TOP

BENTONITE SEAL

TOTAL DEPTH

OF BOREHOLE

SOLID RISER PIPE 25.3’ SCREEN

SAND PACK

WELL SCREEN

WELL CAP

NOTES:

REFERENCE ELEVATION = TOP OF INNER CASING

GROUND WATER STABIZED AT - FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

GROUND WATER LEVEL MEASURED ON F:\lZJOATA\USR(CMMUILAJACI\WELLREC\PUIN

LAW ENGINEERING, INC. LAW ENWNEEWNG. INC. 9710 OLEANDER DR WILMINGTON, NC 1910~451-1199 ~910~791-1338


FLUSH MOUNT

PROTECTIVE COVER

LOCKABLE CAP

BENT/GROUT SEAL

BENTONITE SEAL

SOLID RISER PIPE

SAND PACK

WELL SCREEN

WELL CAP

I DEPTH TO TOP

OF CASING

J I

DEPTH OF TOP

OF SEAL

,:. ..:. .: :. LENGTH OF CAP

i...:.. ,: .,: :.:.

I DEPTH TO TOP

OF SAND

SCREEN -

INTERVAL

TOTAL DEPTH

OF BOREHOLE

NOTES:

REFERENCE ELEVATlON = TOP OF INNER CASING

GROUND WATER STABIZED AT - FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

GROUND WATER LEVEL MEASURED ON -

LAW ENGINEERING. INC. LAW ENWNEElUNG, INC. 6710 OlEANoER OR W’UWGTON. NC 1910~462.1186 i9101791.1339


FLUSH MOUNT

PROTECTIVE COVER-\

LOCKABLE CAP

BENT/GROUT SEAL

BENTONITE SEAL

SOLID RISER PIPE

SAND PACK

WELL SCREEN

WELL CAP

DEPTH TO TOP

OF CASING

I DEPTH OF TOP

OF SEAL

DEPTH TO TOP

OF SAND

TOTAL DEPTH

OF BOREHOLE

m3’

SCREEN

INTERVAL

is5

NOTES:

REFERENCE ELEVATION 6 TOP OF INNER CASING

GROUND WATER STABIZED AT - FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING GROUND WATER LEVEL MEASURED ON -

F:\IZJDATA\“STNC OEMWU.lACI\WBUIEC\PUIN

LAW ENGINEERING, INC. UW ENWNEEFUNG. INC. 9710 OuxNoER OR WWNQTON. NC t910~462-1199

TYPE II MONlTORlNG INSTALLATION RECORD m101791-1939

BACKFILL MATERIAL TOJPEDO SAND 1

LOCKABLE CAP

BENT/GROUT SEAL

FLUSH MOUNT

PROTECTlVE COVER

DEPTH OF TOP

OF SEAL

BENTONITE SEAL

SOLID RISER PIPE

SAN0 PACK

WELL SCREEN

WELL CAP

DEPTH TO TOP .- - _ -.- bl- SAND

SCREEN - .--.

TOTAL DEPTH

OF BOREHOLE

NOTES:

REFERENCE ELEVATION = TOP OF INNER CASING

GROUND WATER STABIZED AT - FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING GROUND WATER LEVEL MEASURED ON -

LAW ENGINEERING VISUAL DESCRIPTION OF SOILS

---_--- .--.- ---- u-l IOU “1 v-w ,Y ,, -

ORING NUMBER: es- I COORDINATES:

LEVATION: GWLt DATJZ/TIME

EOLOGIST/ENGINEER: sti Gh, l/@d DATE STARTED: 3*31. q5

l#ULLING METHODS: 41/k efa DATE COMPLETED: 3*31$5 PAGE OF

mrm aDolsoN Rgz -: ZBCO ~fwbi?um m SYMB. 0 mC5Do

@-& do7 5zJtwnGu

-5 -

- 10

-15

-20

-

-30

NOTE&

SOIL BORING LOGS

LAW ENGINEERING VISITAl. lM?.W!RIPTION OF SC-ML!'3

-5 -

- 10

-15

-20 . m

I m

-25 I

w e e

-30

NOTES

.____ -- ------- --. -- ----

‘ROJECT NUMBER: 475 - 099&9-01 PROJECT NAME: &DG m - 9/z

lORING NUMBER: 0w-z COORDINATES:

EJZVATIOM GWLi DATE/TIME

;EOLOGIST/ENGINEER: z/i/j 00 ,& DATE STARTED: 3*31%

MULLING METHODS: G//i+ m DATE COMPLETED: 3.3jq’s PAGE OF

LluaLa -cm Elmz -: usm -sAnPIml WI snm. m =@W

do- 20)&- Gwm

SOIL BORING LOGS

. .““a- I----- ----

ROJECT NUMBER: 474 -~9fj&~j PROJECT NAME: -6 irz; q/z c

lORING NUMBER: ms-3 COORDINATES:

:LEVATION: GWLt DATE/TIME

;EOLOGIST/ENGINEEk 3~ G;t){dl\l DATE STARTED: 24*3/J% NILLING METHODS: 4% km DATE COMPLETED: .3.3/a 95 PAGE OF

Ama EtDwsoN aec -: c6m Jlarra- m SFME 0 =@m)

(a-z&lor sAI”1PGZ

- 10

.

-l5

-30

NOTES:

-r -J .

.

ATTACHMENT EE LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

March 21, 1995

Mr. Dan Nielsen Law Engineering, Inc. 3301 Atlantic Avenue Raleigh, NC 27604

Subject: Chemical Analysis of Samples Received on 03/17/95 Project Number: 475-09988-01

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

Law Environmental National Laboratories has completed its analysis of your samples and reports the results on the following pages. These results relate only to the contents of the samples as submitted. This report shall not be reproduced without the approval of Law Environmental National Laboratories or the contracting authority.

If further assistance is needed, please feel free to contact Kelli Silvia or myself at (904) 944-9772.

IRONMENTAL NATIONAL LABORATORIES

Enclosures: Data Report Invoice

LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 7215PINEFOAESTROAD PENSACOLA,FL32.526

904-944-9772 FAX 904-944-9463

LAW ENVIRONMENTAL NATIONAL LABORATORIES TEST DATA REPORT

03J2lt95 --- Project Information --- Mr. Dan Nielsen - 475 Page 1

Law Engineering, Inc. Project Name: TC912

3301 Atlantic Avenue Cit. #12024 Proj. #475-09988-01

Raleigh, NC 27604

--- Sample Information --- Date Sampled: 03/l 6195 Station ID: Mw-12 Time Sampled: 08:OO Lab ID: AA68266 Log In Date: 03/17/95 Collector: FISCHER Log In Time: 12:33

--- Test Information --- Analysis Parameter Units Method Det Lim Result Date Tech 610-ICP Met Dig. W. NC 303OC NC 303OC Done 03/17/95 JRG

ClO-ICP Met. W. EPA 6010 ug/L EPA 6010 TITLE- 03/20/95 CLH

Iron ug/L EPA 6010 50 6500 03/20/95 CLH

Remarks:

Signed:

W aboratory Manager

Ik -- LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

= NATlONALlABORATORlES CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD 03496

-- 5

-= 7215PlNEFORESTROAD 7 ): PENSACOLA,FLORlDA32526 NAME OF FACILITY -__- __-- __--- ~-.

= (904) 944-9772 INFORMATION

NPDES NUMBER STREET ADDRESS.

DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL AND YELLOW COPIES ACCOMPANY SAMPLE SHIPMENT TO LABORATORY. / TAINED BY SAMPLERS. Y

REMARKS

”

‘SOURCE CODES RECOVERY WELL - RW NPDES DISCHARGE - ND RCRA MONITORING WELL - MW DRINKING WATER _ DW SOIL I SEDIMENT - SO HAZARDOUS WASTE - HW SLUDGE - SL SURFACE WATER - SW

NON-AQUEOUS - NA

Law Environmental, Inc. 7215 Pine Forest Road

Pensacola, Florida 32526 904/944-9772

Analytical Request Form

To:

From: rBrancti/Companv Name) - (Dept or Name)

COC Number: 1/46

Project Name: 7c - w Project Number: v ?f- @9&Q/

Date Shipped: Date results requested:

Sample Analysis ID Requested

Comments:

Detection Sample Limit8 Req. Type Method

Y

INVOICE

From: Law Environmental, Inc. Pensacola Branch 7215 Pine Forest Road Pensacola, Florida 32526

Invoice Number: 238061 Date: March 21, 1995

To: Mr. Dan Nielsen - 475 Law Engineering, Inc. 3301 Atlantic Avenue Raleigh, NC 27604 Clt. #12024 Proj. #475-09988-01

The following charges are due for the indicated sample which was submitted to this laboratory on 03/17/95:

Lab Sample I.D.: AA68266

Purchase order number: 47509988

Parameter Analyzed Quantity Unit Price Total Price

610-ICP Met. W. EPA 6010 1 $15.00 $15.00

Analysis charges subtotal for this invoice: $15.00

Total amount due on this invoice: $15.00

Remit payment to: Law Environmental, Inc. P.O. Box 102051 Atlanta, Georgia 30368-0051

TERM: Wet cash upon receipt of invoice. A late paylnnt chargo of 18% per l mun of the mexinun

a-t MY be rddcd in the event PlYnant is not nude within 30 dew after invoice dete.

Sample ID: SAMPLE%3 Date Collected: 3/311YF

T%m? culiecLed: 15:42

Project Name: CAMP l9l3Jmm BUG. 312 Date Received: 4/ L/95

%qkr:POEI!S!rTAYLORUCE 'Lima Received: 9:W

AIHA Cerrificate #; 517 Sample Type: Air Tube

analyte Result utlits Date Time Analyst Method _*_-____---__-----_----- ____------- ------ ----I-__ ----- m-L------- --- _----

TOlU~ Ekmzene Xylene Ethyl benzene

c 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 c 10.0

ugf t ube 4/ 605 7:05 G. Baun ug/tube 4/ 6195 7:05 G. Baun u.gItube 4,’ 6/95 7;05 G. Baun ug/tube 4/ 6.‘95 7:OS G. Bauh

Sample ID; SAMPLE ?tl Date Cdlected: 3/31/95

Project I 475-0998a-Ql Titne Collxcted: 15:10

Project Name : CAMP LEJEW BLW. 212 Date Received: 41 1/95

Sampler: ROBERT TAYLOR BLAKE Time Received: 9:dO

AIBA Certificate #: 517

Analyte Real t Units Date Time Analyst Method -___-_____---------_---- ---s..------ -wmL_- -_-----_ ____- -em..------ -------_

ToXuene Beneetle Xylene Ethyl benzene

e 10.0 ug/ tube 41 6195 7105 G. Saun < 10.0 ug/ tube 4/ 6/95 7:05 G. &tam c 10.0 q/tube 4/ 6/95 7~05 G. Baun < 10.0 u/g/ w3!z 4/ 6195 7:OS G. Mun

Project: 475-09988-01 Time Collected: 1:28

Date Received: 4/ l/95

.Sgmpltr: E0EER'l' TAslLoB RL#XE Tim Received: 9:CO

m Certificate #: 517

Analyte Result IbitS Date Time Ahalyst Method _-----__-_----_---_"___I -I__------- ------ ----I--- ----- --m------s --______

Tolucne meene Xylene Ethyl benzene

-c 10.0 @z 10.0 < 10~0 c 10.0

ug?' truha 41 6/95 3:05 G. Sam q/tube 41 6195 7:05 G. Sam u&tube 4f 6f95 7;05 G. l3au.u u.g/tube 41 6/95 7:05 G. Eaun

cd03: 5/5/1995: corrective action plan: corrective …at the project site within five feet of the...

Documents