WS-5813_20918_CA_CAP_20030702

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
ESKIMO JOE'S
1705 COTTON GROVE ROAD (NC HIGHWAY 8)
LEXINGTON, DAVIDSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INCIDENT NO.: 20918
RISK CLASSIFICATION: HIGH RISK
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
Prepared For
UST Owner/Property Owner
High Falls Oil Company
P.O. Box29
High Falls, North Carolina 27259
Prepared By
S&ME,Inc.
3 718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
July 2, 2003
r
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Certification for the Submittal of a Corrective Action Plan
Under 15A NCAC 2L .0106( c)
Monitoring Report
Responsible Party: H \G~ FAU.S. OIL (OMPAr-''f
Address: P.o. f>ox_ 2.9
City: l:\:l Cb4: FA~ State: N<-Zip Code: 2."1,SS
Site Name:_-=£:.....:S_K_\ /Yl....;...c.o_...,,'J1...;:0:....;:E'---'1s _______ --------+
Address: !1oS C<.)Tll,t.J G'24JE t2-0 AD (Ne... 1--\-\G\-\~'f 8)
City: L£X IN&"T0"'1 County: oAv,osorJ Zip Code: '2..'"'1"2..9'2..
Groundwater Section Incident Number:_--=2::;;..0___:;;.~,.!..\ 6=-------
I, 09v,o t2.. LOf11f" , ~fessional Engine~icensed Geologist (circle one) for
St ME ,..,. ~. (firm or company of employment), do hereby certify that the
information indicated below is enclosed as part of the required Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and
that to the best of my knowledge the data, site assessments, engineering plans and other
associated materials are correct and accurate.
Each item must be initialed by hand by the certifying licensed professional.
1. W-L. A listing of the names and addresses of those individuals required to be notified to
meet the notification requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0114(a) is enclosed. Copies
of letters and certified mail receipts are also enclosed.
2. Da.'-A Professional Engineer or Licensed Geologist has prepared, reviewed, and
certified all applicable parts of the CAP in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.0103(e).
3. Dflv A site assessment is attached or on file at the appropriate Regional Office which
provides the information required by ISA NCAC 2L .0106(g).
4. DtL A description of the proposed corrective action and supportingjustification is
enclosed.
5. D£.L.. Specific plans and engineering details are enclosed and propose the use of the best
available technology for the restoration of groundwater quality to the levels of the
groundwater standards prescribed in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
6. DfL\... A schedule for the implementation and operationofthe CAP is enclosed.
(OVER)
GW-l00(c) Rev.7/00
68 July 2000
t Monitoring Report
A monitoring plan is enclosed which has the capacity to evaluate the effectiveness
of the remedial activity and the movement of the contaminant plume, and which
meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0110.
8. OQ..L-The activity which resulted in the contamination incident is not pe
State as defined in 15A NCAC 2L .0106(e).
(Please Affix
NOTE:Any modifications made to this form may result in the return of your
69 July 2000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
July 2, 2003
High Falls Oil Company
P.O. Box 29
High Falls, North Carolina 27259
Attention:
Reference:
Mr. Steven Majors
Director of Fuel Operations & Maintenance
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN REPORT
Eskimo Joe's
1705 Cotton Grove Road (NC Highway 8)
Lexington, Davidson County, North Carolina
Incident No. 20918
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
Dear Mr. Majors:
Since 1973
Three Decades ... Three Reasons
We listen. We respond. We solve.
S&ME, Inc. has completed the enclosed Corrective Action Plan that discusses the site activities
recommended to remediate the petroleum soil and groundwater impacts at the site. In order to
comply with state and federal requirements, S&ME forwarded a copy of the Corrective Action Plan
to the following agency:
North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management, UST Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107
If you have any questions or we can be of any additional service, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
S&MEinc.
&J~.~
David R. Loftis, P .E.
Project Engineer
DRL/EQHB/drl
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27 410
[phone]
[phone] fax
[phone]
~0 -~~
Edmund Q.B. Henriques, P.G.
Environmental Department Manager
www.smeinc.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
ESKIMO JOE
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
Site Name and Location :
Groundwater Incident No:
Facility No.:
Date of Report:
Eskimo Joe's
1705 Cotton Grove Road (NC Highway 8)
Lexington, Davidson County, North
20918
0-011312
July 2, 2003
Risk Classification: High Risk
{Water supply wells located within 1,500 feet of the release; dissolved petroleum
constituents in groundwater at concentrations exceeding NCAC 2L Standards)
Land Use Category: Soil-to-Groundwater
UST Operator: High Falls Oil Company
P.O. Box29
High Falls, North Carolina 27259
Property Owner: Harvey H. Hayes
Consultant/Contractor:
Release Information:
Date Discovery Confirmed:
Quantity of Release:
Cause and Source of Release:
Location of Release:
163 Woods Island Road
Lexington, North Carolina 27292
S&ME, Inc.
Attention: Edmund Henriques, L.G
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, N.C. 27410
[phone]
November 16, 2000
Unknown
Leak from Underground Storage Tank System
Latitude:
Longitude:
N 35 Degrees 46.598"
W 80 Degrees 15.595"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXCECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........•....••...•................•.....•.....•.••..•..•..•........•....••...••.•..•••••.••••••...••..•..• i
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SITE ASSESSMENT HISTORY ......................................................................................... 2
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................................... 2
2.2 SURROUNDING IMP ACTS .................................................................................... 4
2.3 SOIL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 6
2.4 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Free Product ................................................................................................... 7
2.4.4 Groundwater Flow ......................................................................................... 7
3.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ........................................................ 8
3.1 TARGET CLEANUP LEVELS ............................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Target Cleanup Levels for Contaminated Soils ......................................... 8
3.1.2 Target Cleanup Levels for Groundwater ................................................... 8
3.2 ST ART-UP AND COMPLETION GOALS ........................................................... 9
4.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 10
4.1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE CONTAMINANTS ................................................................................... 10
4.2 PATHWAYS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE ........................................................... 10
4.3 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION ...................... 11
4.4 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS AT RISK. ................................................................ 12
5.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 13
5.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL CONTAMINATION .................. 13
5.1.1 Soil Excavation and Treatment .................................................................. 13
5.1.2 Soil Vapor Extraction .................................................................................. 14
5.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNDWATER ................................ 15
5.2.1 Pump and Treat ........................................................................................... 15
5.2.2 Air-Sparging ................................................................................................. 16
5.2.3 Combined Pump & Treat and Air Sparging ............................................ 18
5.3 JUSTIFICATION OF SELECTED REMEDY .................................................... 19
6.0 PILOT TESTING AND RESULTS ................................................................................... 20
6.1 AIR SPARGE EV ALUATION ............................................................................... 22
6.2 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) EVALUATION ...................................... 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page No.
6.3 ADDITIONAL SITE DATA ................................................................................... 23
6.2.1 Biodegradation/Attenuation Data .............................................................. 23
7.0 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .......................................................................... 24
7.1 REMEDIAL WELL DETAILS ............................................................................. 25
7.1.1 Air Sparge Well Network ........................................................................... 25
7.1.2 Soil Vapor Extraction Well Network ........................................................ 26
7.1.3 Utility Trench Details .................................................................................. 26
7.2 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .......................................................................... 27
7.2.1 Air Sparging Unit ........................................................................................ 27
7.2.2 Vacuum Extraction Unit ............................................................................. 27
7.3 SYSTEM SECURITY AND SAFETY .................................................................. 28
7.4 AIR EMISSION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 28
7.5 SYSTEM LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................... 29
7.6 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 29
8.0 FOLLOW-UP MONITORING AND EVALUATIONS ................................................. 30
8.1 EVALUATIONOFTHEGROUNDWATER
REMEDIAL ACTION SYSTEM ........................................................................... 30
8.2 EVALUATION OF IN-SITU SOIL REMEDIATION ....................................... 32
9.0 CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 33
10.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 37
TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Properties with Potential Water Wells within a 1500' Radius
UST Closure Soil Sample Results
Preliminary Site Assessment Soil TPH Sample Results
Risk-Based Soil Analyses Summary
Monitor Well/ Groundwater Elevation Data
Groundwater Analytical Summary
Implementation Schedule
Physical, Chemical, and Toxic Characteristics of Common Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Contaminants
Budgetary Cost Estimate
I
I
I FIGURES
I Figure 1:
Figure 2:
I Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
I Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
I Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
I Figure 12:
APPENDICES
I Appendix I:
I
Appendix II:
Appendix III:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map
Site Plan Map
Water Well Location Map
Horizontal Extent of Soil Impacts
Benzene Isoconcentration Map
Total VOC Isoconcentration Map
Groundwater Contour Map
Proposed Air Sparge Well Location Map
Air Sparge Well Construction Log
Proposed Soil Vapor Extraction Well Location Map
Soil Vapor Extraction Construction Log
Remediation System Layout
Well Construction Logs
Air Emission Registration Letter
Air Sparge Well Pressure Calculation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S&ME Inc. was authorized by High Falls Oil Company to provide a Corrective Action Plan to
address soil and groundwater impacts from a leaking petroleum underground storage tank at
Eskimo Joes located at 1705 Cotton Grove Road in Lexington, Davidson County, North Carolina.
This report discusses target cleanup levels, evaluates remedial alternatives, and proposes
corrective actions to comply with applicable regulations.
SOURCE INFORMATION
• Three underground storage tanks (USTs) stored petroleum products for retail sale on the
subject site. S&ME is not aware of any other petroleum fuel storage on the subject site.
• The source of the release is believed to be the former gasoline UST system. This conclusion
is based on information provided by the analytical results for both soil and groundwater
samples obtained during site assessment activities.
• The volume of released product is unknown.
INITIAL ABATEMENT/EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION
• The UST system was removed in November 2000.
• Petroleum impacted soils related to releases from the UST system have not been removed
from the subsurface. S&ME is not aware of a previous generation of tanks in the UST basin
or of the presence of other USTs on the site.
• Free product has not been detected in the subsurface during any assessment activities;
therefore, no free product investigation or removal has been necessary.
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
• Two potable water wells were confirmed to be in use within 1000 feet of the release source
area. The nearest well serves Lopp's Welding Shop located topographically upgradient and
on the opposite side of Cotton Grove Road. Analytical results for water sample obtained
from the Lopp well evidence no detectable target compounds according to Method 6230D.
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Twelve additional possible water supply wells were observed within a 1,500 feet radius of the
site; however, all but one of these sites had visible city water meters and were confirmed to
use municipal water. Two of the 14 wells are reportedly used for irrigation purposes;
however, both are located greater than 250 feet from the source area. The remaining wells
are reportedly not in use.
• Public water supplies are available within 1,500 feet of the release location.
• The nearest surface water body·is an unnamed tributary to Tar Creek located approximately
1,200 feet west of the release location.
• The subject site is not known to be located within a Well Head Protection area as defined in
USC 300h-7(e).
• The subject site is not located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic region.
• No subsurface vaults were observed or identified to S&ME in the vicinity of the release, with
the following exceptions. Septic tanks and leach fields associated with the convenience store
are located northwest of the building. These structures are located beyond the horizontal
extent of soil contamination and are located above the depth to groundwater.
• The surrounding land use is commercial. Properties adjacent to the site are developed as
commercial properties. Other commercial and residential properties are located within 1,500
feet of the release location.
The potential for exposure to the contamination within 1,500 feet of the source area is most likely
to occur in groundwater. Groundwater is a source of drinking water for residential and commercial
properties near the subject site. There is a potential for off-site migration of contamination.
SAMPLING AND INVESTIGATION RESULTS
• The release of petroleum fuel products from the subject gasoline UST system resulted in
petroleum contamination in the soil underlying the UST basin. Soil contamination due to the
releases from the gasoline UST basin extends vertically to the water table.
• Laboratory soil analyses by EPA Method 5030 detected a maximum concentration of 530
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline directly
beneath one of the gasoline USTs. Soil samples from six locations contained one or more
volatile organic compounds at concentrations that exceed the corresponding "soil to
groundwater" maximum soil contaminant concentrations (MSCCs). However, the detected
concentrations do not exceed the "Industrial/Commercial" MSCCs. Two compounds,
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bromomethane and Methylene Chloride were detected for which no MSCC exists. Soil
samples from 12 and 17 feet below grade, beneath the gasoline USTs, contained C5-C8
Aliphatic hydrocarbons and C9-C22 Aromatic hydrocarbons at concentrations that exceed the
corresponding "soil to groundwater" MSCCs. However, the detected concentrations do not
exceed the "Industrial/Commercial" MSCCs. Contaminated soil is likely in contact with the
water table, based on the presence of dissolved constituents in groundwater at a location
adjacent to the UST system.
• Groundwater samples obtained from source monitor wells MW-1 and MW-2 detected several
volatile organic compounds in the groundwater beneath the subject site at levels that exceed the
water quality standards set for class GA groundwater in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
These organic compounds include benzene (14,000 µg/L), ethylbenzene (3,000 µg/L), toluene
(23,000 µg/L), xylenes (17,300 µg/L), MTBE (8,800 µg/L), 1,2-dichloroethane (200 µg/L), and
ethylene dibromide (100 µg/L). Of these compounds, only the detected concentrations of
benzene and ethylene dibromide exceed the corresponding Gross Contaminant Levels (GCLs).
As evidenced by the groundwater sample obtained from vertical extent monitor well DW-1, the
contaminant plume extends vertically to a depth of 70 feet below grade, beneath the source area.
• Free product was not detected during current assessment activities.
• Groundwater at the site in the unconfined, surficial aquifer flows in an overall west-northwest
direction from the source area. Comparing the June 2002 groundwater elevation data with
the October 2002 data indicates seasonal fluctuations.
• Based upon the site's current High Risk classification, the Soil-to-Groundwater MSCCs will
serve as the applicable cleanup levels unless the site risk can be reduced.
CONDITIONS OR ACTIONS TO LOWER THE RISK CLASSIFICATION
Based upon the availability of a municipal water supply to surrounding area, the risk
classification can be lowered from High Risk to Low Risk by connecting all potable water supply
well users within 1000 feet of the source area to the municipal water supply and reducing
petroleum concentrations in groundwater to below GCLs.
PROPOSED REMEDY FOR SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
The proposed corrective actions for the subject site include the use of air sparging and soil vapor
extraction to remediate the petroleum-impacted soil and groundwater. Based on the radius of
influence derived from previous pilot testing in the Piedmont area, the proposed well network
includes seven (7) vertical air sparging wells and five ( 5) vertical vapor extraction wells. The
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
proposed network of sparge wells and vapor recovery wells is designed to remediate the soils and
groundwater using volatilization and bioremediation mechanisms.
S&ME anticipates the system to be installed and in operation by February 2004. S&ME estimates
the cost of the system installation and 6 months ofO&M and monitoring to be $135,300.
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
The subject property is located at 1705 Cotton Grove Road (NC Highway 8) in Davidson County,
North Carolina (see Figure 1). Harvey and Betty Hayes owns the subject property, which is an
inactive convenience store with retail fuel sales and (Figure 2). The subject site and surrounding
properties along Cotton Grove Road (NC Highway 8) are zoned for General Business.
This Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is submitted in accordance with North Carolina corrective
action requirements under Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2N .0707
and in order to comply with groundwater quality requirements as specified under 15A NCAC 2L
.0106. The goal of the CAP is to attempt to restore the shallow aquifer beneath the subject facility
to levels acceptable to the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
(DENR).
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
2.0 SITE ASSESSMENT HISTORY
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
High Falls Oil Company purchased the subject UST system, which was comprised of two 6,000
gallon USTs and one 8,000 gasoline UST, from Quick Check in 1992. The UST system
remained in operation until January 2000. In November 2000, the UST system was permanently
closed by removal. The locations of the former USTs are illustrated on Figure 2. Analytical
results from collected soil samples at the time of closure indicated that a release had occurred
beneath the east ends of both 6,000 gallon USTs. Subsequently, High Falls Oil Company
contracted S&ME to conduct the investigations required to complete Phase I and Phase II
Limited Site Assessment Reports. After completion of the Limited Site Assessment
investigations, High Falls Oil Company contracted S&ME to conduct the investigations required
to complete a Comprehensive Site Assessment. Prior site assessments/reports and corresponding
findings include:
• "Preliminary Site Assessment" Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services Co, Inc., 1999.
During February 1999, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) contracted
Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc. (Ogden) to conduct a preliminary site
assessment (PSA) of the subject site. The PSA was initiated as a result of plans to widen Cotton
Grove Road (NC Highway 8), which included an expansion of the highway right-of-way,
resulting in the taking of one of the subject site's two fuel dispenser islands. The purpose of the
PSA was to confirm the size and orientation of the US Ts on the parcel, to determine if soil and
groundwater had been impacted as a result of prior use of the property, and to estimate the
volume of impacted soils if discovered. The results of this assessment indicated the existence of
petroleum,.impacted soil and groundwater at the subject site. No evidence of impacted soil and
groundwater was found to be within the NCDOT right-of-way.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
• UST System Closure, 2000.
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
On November 16, 2000, the site's three gasoline USTs were permanently closed by removal.
Prior to removal, the facility's retail fuel service operations were taken out of service around
January 2000 due to NCDOT's project to widen NC Highway 8. The UST closure soil sample
analytical results provided evidence of a release beneath the east ends of both 6000-gallon
gasoline USTs.
• "Phase I Limited Site Assessment', S&ME, Inc., June 18, 2002.
"Phase II Limited Site Assessment', S&ME, Inc., July 11, 2002.
The results of the limited site assessment detected petroleum-contaminated soil remaining as a
secondary source of petroleum contamination. The groundwater analytical results indicated NCAC
2L groundwater quality exceedences in all monitoring wells installed at the subject site during the
limited site assessment. Benzene was detected in a temporary monitoring point location and at two
permanent monitoring well locations at concentrations exceeding the corresponding Gross
Contaminant Level. No free product was detected in any of the site's monitoring wells. The
subject release was classified as "High Risk" and the land use was classified as
Industrial/Commercial. It is S&ME's opinion that the subject site's land use should be classified as
soil-to-groundwater for remediation purposes due to the presence of 2 active water supply wells
within 1,000 feet of the source area.
• "Comprehensive Site Assessment" S&ME, Inc., October 2002.
Results of this assessment indicate that petroleum-impacted soil remains as a secondary source to
groundwater contamination beneath the gasoline UST basin and extending to the saturated zone.
With regard to the Risk-Based analytical methods, C5-C8 Aliphatic hydrocarbons, C9-C22
Aromatic hydrocarbons, and up to 9 volatile organic compounds were detected at concentrations
that exceed the corresponding "Soil-to-Groundwater" MSCCs.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~·
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
Groundwater analytical results detected benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes,
naphthalene, 1,2-dichloroethane, ethylene dibromide (EDB), 1,2-dichoropropane, chloroform,
and bromodichloromethane at levels that exceed the water quality standards set for class GA
groundwater in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Dissolved C5-C8 Aliphatics, C9-Cl8
Aliphatics, and C9-C22 Aromatics were detected at concentrations exceeding the Interim
Groundwater Standard.
As evidenced by the analyses of groundwater samples obtained from vertical extent monitor well
DW-1, the contaminant plume extends vertically into the bedrock aquifer beneath the source area.
2.2 SURROUNDING IMPACTS
According to the specifications outlined in 15A NCAC 2L .0200, groundwater underlying the
subject site is categorized as Class GA (i.e., it is an existing or potential source of drinking
water). S&ME conducted a survey of addresses within a 1,500-feet radius of the site. The
survey included a visual reconnaissance by vehicle and on-foot to locate water meters and any
water well structures.
S&ME did observe 14 potential wellhead-related structures within 1,500 feet of the source area;
however, all of these locations did have visible water meters, except for the ·vacant home on
Hedrick Avenue. S&ME confirmed two active water supply wells within 1,000 feet of the
source area (see Figure 3, wells W-14 and W-3). Two sites confirmed to use municipal water
reportedly use the wells for irrigation purposes (see Figure 3, wells W-7 and W-9). An
abandoned water well (filled with cement) is visible on the subject site, adjacent to the Eskimo
Joe's building. Table 1 provides a summary of the observed water well locations, which are
also depicted on Figure 3.
The Lopp Welding Shop well was sampled on September 27, 2002. Analytical results detected no
target compounds above the method detection limit according to Method 6230D.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
Based on interviews conducted by S&ME with Mr. Greg Stabler with Davidson Water,
municipal water is available to all properties located within 1,500 feet of the source area. The
water supply for Davidson Water is the Yadkin River and the water supply for the City of
Lexington is Lake Toma-Lex.
The nearest surface water body is an unnamed tributary to Tar Creek located approximately
1,200 feet to the west of the source area (see Figure 1). An unnamed tributary to Abbott's Creek
is located approximately 1,200 feet east southeast of the source area. No other surface water
bodies were observed within 1,500 feet of the source area.
S&ME interviewed Mr. John Hendren of the Davidson County Health Department concerning
the presence of Wellhead Protection Areas near the source area. Mr. Hendren stated that he was
not aware of any Wellhead Protection Areas located within 1,500 feet of the source area. Based
on a review of the NCDENR WebPages listing Approved Wellhead Protection Areas, the subject
site is not known to be located within a Well Head Protection area as defined in USC 300h-7(e).
No subsurface vaults were observed or identified in the vicinity of the release. S&ME is not aware
of explosion hazards or other health and safety hazards associated with this release of petroleum
products. On site conduits located beyond the release source area include a septic tank behind
Eskimo Joe's building and the abandoned water well next to the building. Neither of these
structures intersects the petroleum contamination source area.
The subject site is currently vacant. The subject site and surrounding sites within 1,500 feet are
zoned for General Business (B-3), Manufacturing District Restricted (M-1), and Medium Density
Residential (R-8). An "Industrial/Commercial" site land use classification is recommended since
the zoning classification for the subject site and the surrounding properties along Highway 8
(Cotton Grove Road) are General Business. No residential sites are contiguous with the subject
property. To the west of the site is an area zoned M-1. The nearest residential area is located on the
opposite side of Highway 8 (east of the subject site), behind the businesses that line the highway.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
The Davidson County Planning Department provided the zoning information. Due to the site's
location along Highway 8, it is unlikely that the site land use would revert from general business to
residential use.
2.3 SOIL ASSESSMENT
The horizontal extent of soils with one or more compounds exceeding the corresponding Soil-to-
Groundwater Maximum Soil Contamination Concentrations (MSCC) is presented in Figure 4. The
soil contamination is vertically delineated between 9.5 and 21 feet below grade (BG). The
restoration of the petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils will target the Soil-to-Groundwater
MSCC's. A summary of each soil sample identification, sampling date, sampling method and
corresponding sample depth is provided in Tables 2, 3, and 4. These tables summarize the
analytical method performed on each soil sample and the reported analytical data.
2.4 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT
S&ME installed six permanent, Type II, shallow groundwater monitoring wells (MW-I through
MW-6) as shown on Figure 2. In addition to the shallow monitor wells, S&ME installed one
Type III, vertical extent monitoring well designated DW-1, to assess the vertical extent of
groundwater impacts. The corresponding well logs are included in Appendix I. The pertinent
monitoring well construction data is summarized in Table 5.
During this site assessment, groundwater samples were collected from the seven monitor wells and
one geoprobe location (G-1/L-W) on the subject property, and one off-site geoprobe location (U-1).
Table 6 provides a summary of the historical groundwater analytical results and also provides the
applicable NCAC 15 2L groundwater quality and GCL standards for comparison.
The estimated extent of groundwater contamination as represented by benzene and total volatile
organic compounds is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
2.4.1 Free Product
Free product was not detected during current assessment activities.
2.4.2 Groundwater Flow
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
Using the calculated groundwater elevation data for the Type II monitor wells, a potentiometric
surface map was prepared. For comparison, groundwater elevation data collected during
September and June events in 2002 are depicted in Figure 7. As illustrated in Figure 7, the
groundwater flow direction in June was toward the west, while the September data suggests an
easterly groundwater flow direction. The shallow aquifer surface contours represented by the June
2002 data are generally consistent with the surface topography of the immediate area (see Figure 1).
Table 5 contains historical groundwater elevation data.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
3.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The primary source of the identified soil and groundwater contaminants was eliminated when the
underground storage tank (UST) system was removed on November 16, 2000. The objectives of
the activities outlined in this report are to remediate soil and groundwater at the site in a timely
fashion to meet regulatory requirements for site closure.
3.1 TARGET CLEANUP LEVELS
3.1.1 Target Cleanup Levels for Contaminated Soils
As discussed in Section 2, the soil was impacted by a release of gasoline. The restoration of the
petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils will target the corresponding Maximum Soil Contaminant
Concentrations (MSCC's), using the soil-to-groundwater category clean-up goals for high risk sites.
Table 4 displays the MSCC's for the corresponding detected petroleum hydrocarbon constituents.
3.1.2 Target Cleanup Levels for Groundwater
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106, the remedial actions proposed in this CAP will attempt to
restore groundwater quality "to the level of the standard, or as close thereto as is economically and
technologically feasible." Therefore, the proposed target clean-up concentrations for groundwater
contaminants will be the North Carolina standards codified in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Table 6
contains the 2L and Interim Standards for the petroleum hydrocarbon constituents detected at the
referenced site.
As detailed in Section 7.0, efforts to reduce the detected groundwater contaminants to
concentrations below the 2L water quality standards (for Class GA groundwater) will employ active
remediation measures. The effects of the proposed "active remediation" will be monitored during
the implementation of this proposed CAP. If the monitoring data suggests that continued operation
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
of the remediation system will not result in a significant decrease in the dissolved contaminant
concentrations, then the responsible party may request approval to tenninate active remediation
prior to achieving the groundwater standards in accordance with 1 SA NCAC 2L .0106(m).
3.2 TARGET START-UP AND COMPLETION GOALS
Initiation of the CAP requires the preparation of a bid specification for the installation of the
remedial action system. The lowest bid from the qualified bidders is accepted and the work
subsequently authorized. Installation of the remediation system is dependent upon the acceptance
of an air emissions source registration by the NCDENR. A copy of the Air Registration letter from
S&ME can be found in Appendix II. A CAP implementation schedule displaying estimated
completion times for various tasks can be found in Table 7. The goal of the CAP is to restore the
impacted soil and groundwater at the subject site to levels acceptable to the NCDENR. It is
estimated that several years of "active remediation" will be required to accurately estimate the time
frame required to attain the necessary final clean-up standards. The CAP groundwater monitoring
database will be used to estimate the time frame required to attain or approach the final clean-up
goals. The soil and groundwater remediation system will be shutdown following the NCDENR's
approval for termination of the corrective action.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
4.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
4.1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTAMINANTS
As seen in Tables 2-4 and 6, laboratory analyses of soil and groundwater samples collected during
previous investigations suggests the release of gasoline. Table 8 presents a summary of the
physical and chemical characteristics of compounds detected in the soil and groundwater as well as
their toxicity and persistence as described in 40 CFR 300 Appendix A.
4.2 PATHWAYS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE
The closure of the UST system is believed to have removed the primary contaminant sources. The
following provides discussion of the common pathways for human exposure to the detected soil
and groundwater contaminants.
Absorption/Dermal Contact
The site currently is currently vacant and is used as overflow parking for Jimmy's BBQ. The
contaminated soil is believed to be located at least 9 feet or more below ground surface and is
capped by asphalt paving. The contaminated groundwater is located 24 feet below grade.
Therefore, ingestion of the impacted soil and/or absorption of contaminants from this area via skin
contact is not likely.
Vapor Inhalation
Vapors will likely be produced from air sparging activities at the site. Vapors that are produced
during the remediation process will be recovered and removed by the soil vapor extraction (SVE)
system; therefore, inhalation is not currently considered to be a significant exposure pathway.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
Following the installation and activation of the SVE system, off-gas vapors will be monitored to
determine if they represent a potential exposure pathway. Ambient air monitoring will be
conducted to assess the capture and control of subsurface vapors. If necessary, eflluent discharge
from the SVE system will be routed through a vapor phase carbon filtration unit prior to discharge
to the atmosphere.
Consumption of Impacted Groundwater
Two active water supply wells, located 300 feet and 700 feet from the source area, were confirmed
to be present within 1,000 feet of the release source. Table 1 displays the findings of the supply
well survey. S&ME was informed by Davidson Water that municipal water service is available to
all properties located within 1,500 feet of the subject site. Since the well used by Mr. Bruce Lopp is
located within 500 feet of the source area, the supply well should be sampled and analyzed on a
semi-annual basis.
4.3 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION
Based on the estimated post-remedial concentrations of the contaminants of interest, no negative
impacts to the soil, groundwater, or surface waters are anticipated.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
4.4 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS AT RISK
Water Supply Wells
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
According to the specifications outlined in 15A NCAC 2L .0200, groundwater underlying the
subject site is categorized as Class GA (i.e., it is an existing or potential source of drinking
water). Currently, municipal drinking water is available to all properties located within 1,500
feet of the subject site. Two active water supply wells are located within 1,500 feet radius of the
site.
Surface Waters
The nearest surface water body is an unnamed tributary to Tar Creek located approximately
1,200 feet to the west of the source area (see Figure 1). An unnamed tributary to Abbott's Creek
is located approximately 1,200 feet east southeast of the source area. No other surface water
bodies were observed within 1,500 feet of the source area.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
5.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
5.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL CONTAMINATION
Several remedial technologies are potentially applicable to the remediation of the impacted soil at
the subject site. Soil remediation options include excavation of the impacted soil with off-site
disposal/remediation, soil vapor extraction, and natural attenuation of the contaminants. The
potential application of these methods is discussed below.
5.1.1 Soil Excavation and Treatment
All soil containing risk-based concentrations that exceed the corresponding Maximum Soil
Contaminant Concentrations (MSCC's), using the soil to groundwater category clean-up goals for
high risk sites, could be excavated and transported to a permitted off-site disposal facility.
Treatment options include low temperature thermal desorption, biological reductions, and land
application.
Advantages Include: (a) Removes contaminated soil permanently, resulting in no prolonged
treatment process or required monitoring. (b) Removal of the soil eliminates potential additional
leaching of petroleum hydrocarbons :from the soil into the groundwater.
Disadvantages Includes: This option was considered impractical because the chosen method for
groundwater remediation ( air sparging) will require soil vapor extraction to control and reomove
developing vapors. Air sparging used in combination with SVE has been shown to remediate both
impacted groundwater and soils.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
Estimated Cost
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
No attempt was made to estimate the cost of this option. In-situ remediation alternatives are
generally considered to be more practical.
5.1.2 Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in-situ remedial technology that reduces concentrations of volatile
constituents in petroleum products adsorbed to soils in the vadose zone. With this technology, a
vacuum is applied to the soil matrix to create a negative pressure gradient that causes movement of
vapors toward the extraction point. Vertical or horizontal vapor extraction wells coupled with a
blower (vacuum unit) are used to create a vacuum and induce air flow within the impacted soil
area. The air flow should remove the petroleum hydrocarbons through volatilization and
bioremediation.
Advantages Include: (a) Typically lower overall cost when compared to soil excavation and
disposal. (b) Provides for soil treatment and vapor control when combined with air sparging for
groundwater remediation. ( c) This technology has been proven effective in reducing the
concentration of some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and certain semi-volatile organic
compounds. SVE is typically more successful when applied to the lighter petroleum products such
as gasoline. ( d) Can add oxygen to the subsurface, which can stimulate biodegradation of petroleum
contaminants.
Disadvantages: (a) This process requires a longer period of time as compared with soil removal.
(b) The process requires subsequent soil sampling and analyses to document its effectiveness.
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
Estimated Cost
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
A budgetary cost estimate for soil vapor extraction is included as part of a combined budget
estimate contained in Table 9.
5.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNDWATER
Based on the known extent of the groundwater impacts, the following groundwater remediation
technologies were considered for the subject site: (1) pump & treat, (2) air sparging, and (3)
combined pump & treat plus air sparging. Natural attenuation was not considered as an alternative
because the extended treatment time would put nearby · receptors and property at risk of
contamination. The following subsections discuss each of the alternatives.
5.2.1 Pump and Treat
Pump and treat is a commonly used technology for the remediation of groundwater. This
technology consists of the extraction of contaminated groundwater from the subsurface, followed
by physical, chemical, and/or biological contaminant removal/reduction in an above ground unit.
The treated groundwater can be . discharged to surface waters, re-injected into the aquifer, or
discharged to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
Advantages Include: (a) Advances in well installation techniques have significantly increased
water withdrawal rates, thus reducing ultimate remediation duration time. (b) The implementation
of a pump and treat system can be used to mitigate further migration of the contaminants by
establishing hydraulic control over impacted portions of the aquifer.
Disadvantages Include: (a) Although well installation technique advances have increased
extraction rates, alternative technologies have generally been proven to remediate dissolved
hydrocarbon plumes faster than pump and treat systems. (b) The discharge of the treated water is a
15
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
major issue associated with pump and treat. The permit process and eventual discharge can prove
to be both expensive and time consuming, regardless of the discharge option. ( c) Capital cost,
installation costs, and operations and maintenance costs are typically higher than many other
methods.
Recommendations: S&ME does not recommend pump and treat for the following reasons:
• Remediation of the impacted groundwater to the 2L Groundwater Standards will likely take
longer than alternative in-situ technologies.
• Operation/maintenance costs will typically be higher than with other groundwater
remediation techniques.
• Pump and treat does not remediate vadose zone soils, while air sparging has the capability
to assist in the remediation of vadose zone soils.
Estimated Cost
A cost estimate was not developed based on the above recommendations.
5.2.2 Air-Sparging
Air sparging 1s an in-situ treatment technology used to reduce concentrations of volatile
constituents of petroleum products that are adsorbed to soils and dissolved in groundwater. Air
sparging involves the injection of compressed air into the saturated zone, enabling the transfer of
hydrocarbons from the dissolved phase in the groundwater to a vapor phase. The vapor phase
petroleum hydrocarbons rise into the unsaturated zone. Soil vapor extraction is commonly used
together with air sparging for the control and capture of the mobile vapors in the unsaturated zone.
16
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
According to current literature, air sparging is generally more applicable to lighter petroleum
hydrocarbons such as those found in gasolines (i.e. benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes)
and less applicable to heavier grade fuels.
Advantages Include: (a) Equipment is readily available and easy to install, (b) short treatment
times under favorable conditions, ( c) requires no removal, treatment, or storage of groundwater, ( d)
can create hydraulic control of the contaminant plume by oxidizing inorganics that fill pore spaces
within the soil matrix, and ( e) operation and maintenance typically cost less than pump and treat.
Disadvantages Include: (a) Can only be used in environments where air-sparging is suitable, (b)
some interactions among complex chemical, physical, and biological processes are not well
understood, ( c) lack of field and laboratory data to support all design considerations, and ( d)
potential for inducing migration of constituents.
Recommendations: Site remediation using air sparging is a remediation technology worth
considering since:
• The groundwater contaminants that exist at the site are effectively remediated by air
sparging.
• Air sparging can contribute to the remediation of the vadose zone
• Air sparging will have lower O&M costs compared to pump and treat.
• Groundwater can be treated in place and does not require disposal.
Estimated Cost
A budgetary cost estimate for air sparging is included as part of a combined budget estimate
contained in Table 9.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
5.2.3 Combined Pump & Treat and Air Sparging
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
These two technologies can be implemented contemporaneously, offering many of the benefits
offered by both technologies. Groundwater recovery wells are used to pump groundwater from the
aquifer and create a radius of influence necessary to hydraulically control the plume and prevent
further migration of contaminants. The extracted groundwater is then treated and disposed of
using conventional methods. Under this combined technology scenario, the Pump and Treat
technology is used primarily to mitigate groundwater plume migration, and secondarily to restore
the impacted groundwater. Mitigating further impacts to receptors is the primary focus.
Air sparging under this scenario is used primarily to reduce the groundwater contaminant
concentration in-situ over time as described in section 5.2.2. When applied correctly, air sparging
can more effectively reduce dissolved phase contaminant concentrations.
Advantages Include: (a) Readily available equipment, (b) combined benefits of the two
technologies, ( c) provides groundwater contaminant plume migration control not available when
using air sparging alone.
Disadvantages Include: (a) Can only be used in environments where air-sparging is suitable, (b)
some interactions among complex chemical, physical, and biological processes are not well
understood, ( c) lack of field and laboratory data to support all design considerations, ( d) much
higher equipment and system installation costs, (e) greater system complexity, and (f) increased
operating and maintenance costs as compared with the costs for each technology.
Recommendations: Even though pump and treat can provide additional hydraulic control of the
impacted shallow aquifer, site remediation using combined pump and treat with air sparging is a
remediation technology not worth considering since the additional hydraulic control will not likely
offset the higher costs of operations and maintenance costs associated with pump and treat.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
Estimated Cost:
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
A cost estimate was not developed based on the above recommendations.
5.3 JUSTIFICATION OF SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the information discussed in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.2, combined air sparging with soil
vapor extraction (SVE) was chosen as the appropriate remediation alternative for the subject site.
In support of this proposal, the contaminated soil and groundwater are considered to be amenable to
remediation using the selected technologies. Air sparging and SVE are considered to have a higher
potential to reduce the soil and groundwater contaminant concentrations within a shorter time than
the other available alternatives. The potentially shorter time frame for site remediation should
reduce the overall cost compared to other remediation methods. Continued groundwater
monitoring will be necessary to further validate and demonstrate the effectiveness of the combined
technologies.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
6.0 PILOT TESTING AND RESULTS
6.1 AIR SPARGING EVALUATION
An air sparge pilot was not conducted on site; however, S&ME has conducted numerous air sparge
pilot tests on sites throughout the Piedmont area. S&ME will use field data from these pilot tests
along with data from several existing air sparge systems to develop the air sparge system for the
subject site.
Site Characteristics Important to Air Sparging
• Historical data has not detected free product on the site.
• The impacted water table aquifer beneath the subject site is unconfined.
• The permeability of the soil affects its ability to introduce and distribute air within the saturated
zone along with the rate at which soil vapors can be extracted. Based on the geologic
description prepared during the development of the CSA, the site soils typically consist of silts,
sandy-silts, and silty-clays. Typical permeabilities for these soils are within the minimal to
moderate effectiveness range for air sparging (EPA Document 51 0-B-94-003).
• Based on the geologic information presented in the CSA, the site soils appear to be free of
impermeable layers that would disrupt airflow.
20
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
Product Characteristic Important to Air Sparging
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
• Vapor/dissolved phase partitioning of the constituents determines the equilibrium distribution
of a constituent between the dissolved phase and the vapor phase. Therefore, vapor/dissolved
phase partitioning is a significant factor in determining the rate at which dissolved constituents
can be transferred to the vapor phase (e.g. groundwater contaminant to soil vapors). fu general,
the vapor/dissolved phase partitioning for the site's contaminant (i.e. gasoline) is considered to
be within the effective range (EPA Document 51 0-B-94-003 ).
• Henry's Law constant quantifies the relative tendency of a dissolved constituent to transfer to
the vapor phase. For the majority of the site contaminants, the corresponding Henry's Law
constant is greater than 100 atmospheres (atm). Constituents with Henry's Law constants
greater than 100 atm are generally considered amenable to removal by sparging (EPA
Document 510-B-94-003).
Design Criteria
• Past air sparge pilot test data from sites in the Piedmont area suggests that radii of influence
ranging from 25 to 40 feet can be expected from sparge wells placed with the bottom of the
well screen (5 feet) approximately 20 feet below the water table. For the subject site, the sparge
well layout will be completed assuming a radius of influence of 25 feet for each sparge well.
• Calculations (see Appendix III) were completed to estimate the pressure needed at each well
head. Assuming a soil porosity of 0.30, a depth to groundwater of 25 feet and a depth to top of
screen of 40 feet, respectively, the required pressure was estimated to be approximately 50
pounds per square inch (psi).
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
6.2 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) EVALUATION
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
As an initial screening mechanism for determining whether SVE may be a viable remedy for the
subject site, the following site and product characteristics were evaluated.
Site Characteristics Important to Effective SVE
• The permeability of the vadose zone determines the rate at which soil vapors can be extracted
and oxygen can be pulled in. Based on the geologic description prepared for the site assessment
report, the site soils typically consist of silts, sandy-silts, and silty-clays. Typical permeability's
for these soils are within the minimal to moderate effectiveness range for SVE (ref. EPA
Document 51 0-B-94-003).
• Based on the geologic information presented in the site assessment report, the site soils appear
to be free of impermeable layers that would disrupt airflow.
• The depth to groundwater at the subject site ranges from 23 feet to 25 feet below grade. SVE
systems are considered effective in situations in which the groundwater is greater than 10 feet
below grade (EPA Document 510B94003). Seasonal fluctuation in the groundwater table and
groundwater upwelling during SVE operations should not effect SVE operations.
Product Characteristic Important to SVE
• The volatility of the petroleum constituents is an indicator of the capacity for the petroleum
constituents to be released as vapor from the soil. The major fraction of petroleum
hydrocarbons ranges from 40 to 225°C (EPA Document 510B94003). With boiling points in
this range, SVE can remove most of the petroleum hydrocarbon constituents.
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
• For the majority of the site contaminants, the corresponding Henry's Law constant is greater
than 100 atmospheres (atm). Constituents with Henry's Law constants greater than 100 atm are
generally considered to be amenable to removal by SVE.
Based on this initial evaluation of site and product characteristics, SVE has the potential to reduce
some of the site's contaminant levels and mitigate the migration of the released vapors.
Design Criteria
Previous SVE pilot testing in the Piedmont yields radii of influence similar to that of sparge
wells. For the subject site, the SVE well layout will be completed assuming a radius of influence of
25 feet for each SVE well and the layout will be concentrated around the area of soil contamination.
6.3 ADDITIONAL SITE DATA
6.3.1 Biodegradation/Attenuation Data
Due to the close proximity of a water supply wells, natural attenuation was not considered as a
viable remediation alternative; therefore, natural attenuation data was not collected from the site.
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
7.0 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The proposed corrective actions for the subject site include the use of air sparging and soil vapor
extraction to remediate the petroleum-impacted soil and groundwater. Based on the radius of
influence derived from previous pilot testing in the Piedmont area, the proposed well network
includes seven (7) vertical air sparging wells and five (5) vertical vapor extraction wells. The
proposed network of sparge wells and vapor recovery wells is designed to capture and recover the
dissolved and adsorbed hydrocarbons in the vapor phase.
The sparging points will be used to facilitate the transfer of dissolved phase volatile organic
compounds from the groundwater into vapor phase in the soil matrix. The introduction of air into
the saturated and unsaturated zones also provides additional oxygen, a key nutrient for in-situ
biological reduction (mineralization) of the volatile organic compounds. Biological contaminant
reductions are anticipated to be most significant along the margins of the groundwater contaminant
plume. The air sparging system will consist of a single compressor that will supply the necessary
air pressure and flowrate to each sparge well.
The SVE system will consists of a single blower that will supply the necessary vacuum to vapor
extraction wells installed with screened casings that extend through the vadose zone above the air
sparging zones of influence. The vacuum applied to the extraction well will induce a pressure
differential across the soil. The induced pressure gradient will cause the migration of in-situ vapors
toward the extraction point. The SVE system performs dual functions. It captures and controls the
potential migration of petroleum hydrocarbon vapors generated during air sparging. It also
stimulates reduction of soil contamination through volatilization and enhanced natural
biodegradation.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
The vacuum well network will be operated continuously, whereas the sparge wells will be operated
on a cyclic basis controlled by pneumatic solenoid valves. Manual ball or gate valves will be
installed at each vacuum point, so that individual wells can be controlled. The ''pulsing'' of sparge
wells has been shown to increase the mixing of groundwater; therefore, effectively transporting
oxygenated groundwater to support in-situ bioremediation.
7.1 REMEDIAL WELL DETAILS
7.1.1. Air Sparge Well Network
A network of seven (7) approximately 45 feet deep air-sparging wells will be installed at the subject
site. As discussed in section 6.0, a minimum 25 foot radius of influence for each sparge well is
anticipated. The location of the proposed air sparge wells and the predicted radii of influences are
depicted in Figure 8.
The sparge wells will consist of 2-inch diameter schedule 40, flush-thread, PVC pipe inserted into
8-inch diameter bore holes. The lower 5 feet of each well will consist of manufactured well screen
with 0.010-inch slots. Medium-to fine-grained, washed sand will be placed in the annular space of
the recovery well to a level approximately 1 foot above the top of the screen, with a 2-foot thick
bentonite seal positioned on top of the sand pack. The annular space above the bentonite seal will
be grouted with portland cement to the ground surface. A flush-mount steel vault with a bolt-down
cover will be cemented over the top of each well head. The vault is designed to protect the well
head and ancillary compressed air hoses. Figure 9 illustrates the above-mentioned well
construction details.
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective-Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
7.1.2 Soil Vapor Extraction Well Network
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
A network of five ( 5) approximately 25 feet deep vapor extraction wells will be installed at the
subject site. As discussed in section 6.0, a minimum 25 foot radius of influence for each vapor
extraction well is anticipated. The location of the proposed vapor extraction wells and the predicted
radii of influences are depicted in Figure 10.
A vapor extraction network was designed to remediate the petroleum impacted soil and to capture
and contain migrating sparge vapors. The proposed SVE well network will require the installation
of five ( 5) vapor extraction wells. Each well will be about 25 feet deep and constructed of 2-inch
diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe. The lower most portion of each well will consist of 15 feet 0.010-
inch slot manufactured well screen, topped with 10 feet of casing. These wells are designed to
capture the vapor phase hydrocarbons released as a result of the air-sparging operations and to
remediate impacted vadose zone soils.
Each SVE well will be equipped with a vacuum gage and ball valve to control air flow. The air
flow rates should be adjusted to equalize air flow from each well to assure maximum coverage
from the SVE system. A flush-mount steel vault with a bolt-down cover will be cemented over the
top of each SVE well. The vault is designed to protect the well head and ancillary equipment.
Figure 11 illustrates the well construction details.
7.1.3 Utility Trench Details
The necessary SVE and air-sparge hose will be installed in utility trenches and connected with the
associated equipment located in the remediation equipment building. Figure 12 shows the
proposed trench lines relative to the proposed air sparge and SVE wells.
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
7.2 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
7.2.1 Air Sparging Unit
The compressor will be sized asswning each well will require 10 CFM air flow at 50 psi. Based on
an expected maximum operation of 3 sparge points (3 operating zones, 1 zone operating), an air
compressor capable of producing 30 CFM is required. A Sullair air compressor (Model ES 1 OH),
capable of producing 36 CFM at 125 psi has been tentatively selected for use at the subject site. The
air compressor will be equipped with a main oil coalescing filter, hour meter, discharge and
receiver air pressure gauges, line pressure gauge, operating temperature gauge, and service
indicators for oil and filters. The 10 horsepower compressor will operate on a three phase power
supply.
7.2.2 Vacuum Extraction Unit
Based on typical results for SVE pilot tests and proposed air sparge injection rates, the vacuum
unit sizing and capacity requirements were calculated. Design parameters for the proposed SVE
network were based on removing 3 times the amount of injected air at any given time with a
radius of influence of 25 feet. A maximum of 3 sparge wells operating at 10 CFM will produce
30 CFM of injected air. The SVE blower should be capable of removing three times the
maximum injected air and allow for system expansion. The vacuum blower required for the SVE
system will be capable of supplying 8 inches of mercury vacuum or less at each well plus an
additional 2 inches of mercury vacuum to account for pipe head losses. A Roots model 36URAI
(7.5 hp, 3-phase, XP blower) positive displacement blower (or comparable) capable of producing
10 inches Hg and 131 SCFM has been tentatively selected for the SVE system. An in-line
moisture separator and particulate filter is planned for the influent side of the blower. Direct
discharge to the atmosphere is planned through a 3-inch diameter, 12-foot high stack.
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
The vacuum extraction unit is most effective while operating at full flow. Therefore, a significant
amount of ambient air may have to be bled into the vacuum line to maintain full flow at optimum
vacuum and possibly to reduce air emissions below the state acceptable levels. Actual vapor
concentrations will be measured in the field utilizing an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) and
compared with the analytical results for the air sample(s) collected during start-up, to monitor the
air emissions. If reasonable, the duration of system operations will be regulated to assure that air
emissions do not exceed state air toxic emission limits. If necessary, vapor phase activated carbon
will be added to treat the off-gas vapors. It should be noted that air emission concentrations are
expected to be initially high. However, volatilization and bioremediation should result in a steady
decrease in the toxic air emission with increasing operation time.
7.3 SYSTEM SECURITY AND SAFETY
The air-sparging unit and the SVE blower will be located inside a fenced equipment compound to
limit access. The SVE and sparging systems are designed to operate unattended, 24-hours per day,
7 days per week, 365 days per year.
Safety controls for the air-compressor include: (1) thermal overload protection due to high voltage
or current draw, (2) safety valve on the receiver line for releasing excess air pressure, and (3) high
temperature switch for low oil or malfunctioning cooling systems.
7.4 AIR EMISSION CONSIDERATIONS
Since pilot testing was not conducted, VE exhaust air emissions were not analyzed. Therefore,
during system start-up and during the first and second quarter of system operations, SVE exhaust
air samples will be collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbon constituents.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
7.5 SYSTEM LIMITATIONS
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
The limitations of the proposed SVE and sparging system include the possibility of unexpected
subsurface conditions causing airflow channeling or otherwise preventing relatively uniform
distribution. Not all site conditions can be anticipated during the consideration of a proposed
remediation system. If unforeseen conditions are encountered while performing future scopes of
work, the proposed remediation system may have to be modified, altered, or expanded.
7.6 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Because S&ME proposes to cleanup groundwater to the groundwater standard or the interim
standard established in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and to cleanup soil to the level established by the soil-
to-groundwater maximum soil contaminant concentrations, public notice is not required.
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
8.0 FOLLOW-UP MONITORING AND EVALUATIONS
The following subsections outline the monitoring program that will be implemented to monitor the
progress and effectiveness of the proposed corrective actions. If the monitoring data suggests that
continued operation of the remediation system will not result in a significant decrease in the
dissolved contaminant concentrations, the responsible party may request approval to terminate
active remediation prior to achieving the groundwater standards in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(m). The soil and groundwater remediation system will be shut-down following the DENR's
approval for termination of the corrective action.
8.1 EVALUATION OF THE GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL ACTION SYSTEM
Following activation of the groundwater air-sparging and SVE systems, a monitoring program will
be initiated in order to assess the effectiveness of the remediation system. The monitoring program
will include the following activities:
1. For the first 6 months, monthly field measurement of groundwater in the site's monitoring
wells will be collected to evaluate the potential for groundwater mounding, and to assess
changes in the water table surface and any associated changes in the groundwater flow
direction(s) and gradient(s). After the first 6 months, field measurements will collected
every quarter. -
2. Sparge point air flow rates, pressures, and equipment cycle times will be recorded (and
adjusted as necessary) monthly to document equipment operation and duration.
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
3. For the first 6 months, groundwater field analyses of dissolved oxygen will be collected
monthly to monitor the effective radius of influence for each sparge point, and to indirectly
monitor biological contaminant reduction activity. After the first 6 months, dissolved
oxygen readings will be collected every quarter.
5. During the first year of active remediation, groundwater samples will be collected quarterly
from the site's monitoring wells and analyzed according to EPA Method 602 + MTBE, IPE,
and naphthalene. Monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, and
DW-1 are tentatively scheduled to be sampled during the first year of quarterly sampling.
Quarterly sampling results will be used to assess the effectiveness of the air sparging
operations, and monitor potential migration of contaminants. All positive identifications of
analyzed parameters will be reported. The analytical data in conjunction with the field data
will be used to determine the need to modify/adjust any of the individual sparge well
settings (pressure, flow rates, cycle times etc.). Following the completion of the first year of
active remediation, the monitoring well sampling :frequency may be reduced to semi-annual.
6. The Lopp water supply well will be sampled on semi-annual basis. The water sample will
be analyzed according to EPA Method 602 + MTBE, IPE, and naphthalene.
Treatment system monitoring activities will be implemented during system start up, weekly during
the first month of system operation, and monthly thereafter. The effectiveness of groundwater air
sparging will be re-evaluated after each sampling and testing episode. Adjustments to the air-
sparging cycle times, sparge point air flow rates, sparge point air pressures, and other system
parameters may be required to optimize contaminant remediation, media-transfer, and removal
efficiencies.
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
8.2 EVALUATION OF IN-SITU SOIL REMEDIATION
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
Following remediation of the site's groundwater, soil borings will be completed within the zone of
soil contamination to collect samples for laboratory analyses. Based on OVA field screening
results, one soil sample per boring will be submitted for laboratory analyses according to Risk
Based Methods.
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
9.0 CERTIFICATION
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
This CAP has been prepared under the responsible charge of the undersigned and is intended to
provide one alternative for remediation of the site soil and groundwater. This CAP is based on field
data compiled during previous site assessment activities and additional data collected by S&ME.
Revision of this CAP may be necessary to adequately remediate the site if future monitoring data
identifies the presence of petroleum constituents beyond the limits of the groundwater monitoring
network.
David R. Loftis, P.
N.C. Registration No. 028345
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corrective Action Plan
Eskimo Joe's, High Falls, North Carolina
10.0 REFERENCES
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
July 2, 2003
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters of North Carolina,
Title 15, Subchapter 2L, Sections .0100, .0200, .0300. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Environmental Management Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina,
November, 1993.
Criteria and Standards Applicable to Underground Storage Tanks, NCAC Title 15A, Subchapter
2N. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Environmental
Management Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Emergency Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM document ES 38-94.
Groundwater Section Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soils and Groundwater,
Volume II, Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, January 2, 1998.
In Situ Aeration: Air Sparging, Bioventing, and Related Bioremediation Processes. Robert E.
Hinchee, Ross N. Miller, and Paul C. Johnson, 1995, pp. 83-84.
The Merck Index. Martha Windholz, 9th Ed., 1976.
Mobility and Degradation of Organic Contaminants in Subsurface Environments. Warren J.
Lyman, et. al., 1992, pp. 118 and 224.
"How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites," EPA
Document 510-B-94-003, October 1994,
Practical Screening Models for Soil Venting Applications, Shell Development Corporation,
Johnson et al, June 1990.
34
I
ii
TABLES
JI
·I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
ii
I
I
i i
i i
I
I
-------------------
Radial Distance From Map#
The Source (feet)
300 2B
700 2B
750 2B
800 2B
900 2B
600 2B
575 2B
775 2
800 3A
1400 2C
950 2C
975 2C
1000 2C
750 3A
TABLE 1
PROPERTIES WITH POTENTIAL WATER WELLS WITHIN A 1500' RADIUS
ESKIMO JOE'S
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
Lot# Well# Owner's Name Owners Address Phone#
(well site address)
l0B W-14 Mr. Bruce Lopp P.O. Box284 [phone]
1710 Cotton Grove Lexington, NC 27293
65 W-1 Sam & Hazel Davis Box 100 Mayfair Rd.Lexington NC [phone]
Box 100 Mayfair Rd.Lexin!!ton NC (Kings Lane Drive)
61 W-2 David Lee Brewer 4646 Nelms Lane NE [phone]
102 Mayfair Rd. Roanoke, Va.24019
56 W-3 John T. Tetter 104 Mayfair Rd. Lexington NC [phone]
104 Mayfair Rd. Lexington NC (Kings Lane Drive)
25 W-4 Thomas Latham Estate I 07 Mayfair Rd. Lexington, NC
107 Mayfair Rd. Lexington, NC (Kings Lane Drive)
69 W-5 Abe Cassidy Box 8 Mayfair Rd. [phone]
Box 8 Mayfair Rd. Lexington, NC 27292
73 W-6 Efird Wilson 500 Maegeo Dr. [phone]
Box 6 Mayfair Rd. Lexington, NC 27292
7 W-7 Paul Baker 104 Fuller Rd. [phone]
104 Fuller Rd. Lexington, NC 27292
165 W-8 Joe B. Hooker P.O. Box 336 unlisted
Hedrick Ave. Kershaw, SC. 29067-0336
14 W-9 George & Margaret Beeker 8 Glendale Rd. [phone]
8 Glendale Rd. Lexington, NC 27292
15 W-10 Efird Wilson 500 Maegeo Dr. [phone]
8 Avondale Road Lexington, NC 27292
15 W-11 Efird Wilson 500 Maegeo Dr. [phone]
8 Avondale Road Lexington, NC 27292
l W-12 Ray & Irene Musgrave 1724 South View Drive unlisted
1724 South View Drive Lexington, NC 27292
147 W-13 Mrs. Hoyle Smith 115 Cedar Lane unlisted
115 Cedar Lane Lexington, NC 27292
Notes: Well numbers are keyed to Figure 4.
* Access to MWS = property has access to the local municipal water supply
Wells Use
Yes, Potable Water
* access to MSW
No Response
* access to MSW
No, Uses City Water
Yes, Potable Water
* access to MSW
No Response
* access to MSW
No, Uses City Water
Does not use at all
No, Uses City Water
Does not use at all
Uses City Water
Well for Irrigation
No Response
*access to MSW
Uses City Water
Well for Irrigation
Uses City Water
Uses City Water
No Response
*access to MSW
No Response
*access to MSW
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample
Location
Tl-1
Tl-2
Tl-3
T2-1
T2-2
T3-1
T3-2
D1
D2
TABLE2
UST CLOSURE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
ESKIMOJOES
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO.1584-02-045
Date Depth Analytical Results
Collected THP by Method 5030
(feet) (mg/kg)
12/9/2000 11 BQL
12/9/2000 11 BQL
12/9/2000 11 BQL
12/9/2000 11 530
12/9/2000 11 BQL
12/9/2000 11 400
12/9/2000 11 BQL
12/9/2000 3 BQL
12/9/2000 3 BQL
Notes: mg/kg= millgrams per liter
BQL = Below quantitation limits
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE3
PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT SOIL TPH SAMPLE RESULTS
ESKIMOJOES
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
Sample Date Depth Analytical Results
Location Collected
(feet)
DPl-1 2/10/1999 3.5
DPl-2 2/10/1999 9.5
DPl-3 2/10/1999 15
DPl-4 2/10/1999 21
DP2-1 2/10/1999 3.5
DP2-2 2/10/1999 10
DP3-1 2/10/1999 3.5
DP3-2 2/10/1999 9.5
DP3-3 2/10/1999 15
DP4-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DP4-2 2/11/1999 9.5
DP4-3 2/11/1999 15
DP5-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DP5-2 2/11/1999 9.5
DP5-3 2/11/1999 15
DP6-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DP7-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DP8-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DP9-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DPl0-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DPl 1-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DP12-1 2/11/1999 3.5
DP13-1 2/11/1999 3.5
Notes: mg/kg= milligrams per liter
ND = not detected
THP by Method 5030
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
64
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
THP by Method 3550
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.6
ND
ND
19
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Data collected by Ogden Environmental and Engineering Co., Inc.
-------------
Sample Date 1lltv1999 1110/1999 1/10/1999 1110/1999 1110/1999
Sample Location DP1-1 DPI-2 DPI-3 DP1-4 DP2-1
Phase Of Investigation PSA PSA PSA PSA PSA
Depth (feet below grade) 3.5 9.5 15 11 3.5
(m1tl"1l) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mglkR) (m,A,l
METHOD8260
Mcthvlene Chloride 0.049 0.088 0.016 0.047 0.084
Benzene <0.0064 <0.0063 0.038 0.130 <0.0061
Toluene <0.0064 <0.0063 <0.0078 <0.040 <0.0061
Chloroform <0.0064 <0.0063 <0.0078 0.044 <0.0061
Ethvlbenzene <0.0064 <0.0063 0.042 0.160 <0.0061
xvlenes <0.013 <0.0130 0.060 0.400 <0.0061
Bromomethane <0.0064 <0.0063 <0.0078 <0.040 <0.0061
iso=nvJbenzene <0.0064 <0.0063 <0.0078 <0.040 <0.0061
n-oroovlbenzene <0.0064 <0.0063 0.0083 <0.040 <0.0061
I 3 5-Trimethvlbenzene <0.0064 <0.0063 0.033 0.120 <0.0061
I 2 4-Trimcthvlbenzene <0.0064 <0.0063 0.340 0.340 <0.0061
n-butvlbenzene <0.0064 <0.0063 <0.0078 <0.040 <0.0061
sec-Butvl Benzene <0.0064 <0.0063 <0.0078 <0.040 <0.0061
naohthalene <0.0064 0.020 0.093 0.160 <0.0061
Total VOC < calculated 0.000 0.020 0.614 1.354 0.000
METH0D8270
Diethvl Phthalate <0.430 <0.420 <0.520 0.560 0.530
Naohthalene <0.430 <0.420 <0.520 <0.530 <0.400
2-Methvlnaohthalene <0.430 <0.420 <0.520 <0.530 <0.400
MADEP VPH/EPH
C5-C8 Alinh•tics NA NA NA 120 NA
C9-C I 8 Aliohatics NA NA NA <0.081 NA
Cl 9-C36 Aliohatics NA NA NA <0.081 NA
C9-C22 Aromatics NA NA NA <0.081 NA
Notes: mg/kg= Milligrams per liter
1110/1999
DP2-2
PSA
10
(,ng/lcJt)
0.077
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0.007
<0,007
<0.007
<0.007
0.000
0.520
<0.460
<0.460
NA
NA
NA
NA
TABLE4
RISK-BASED SOIL ANALYSES SUMMARY
ESKIMOJOES
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-04S
1110/1999 111tv1999 1110/1999 1111/1999 1/11/1999
DPJ-1 DP3-1 DP3-3 DP4-1 DP4-1
PSA PSA PSA PSA PSA
3.5 9.5 15 3.5 9.5
,,,,g/kg) (m,A,l (ml!llc1t) (m1tllc1t) (m,llcJtJ
0.039 0.140 <0.950 <0.0065 0.0031
<0.0064 <0.0073 <0.950 <0.0065 0.200
<0.0064 <0.0073 <0.950 <0.0065 0.640
<0.0064 <0.0073 <0.950 <0.0065 0.0064
<0.0064 <0.0073 0.820 <0.0065 0.086
<0.0064 0.037 6.700 <0.0065 0.580
<0.0064 <0.0073 0.480 <0.0065 <0.0073
<0.0064 <0.0073 0.320 <0.0065 0.0036
<0.0064 <0.0073 1.600 <0.0065 0.013
<0.0064 <0.0073 4.200 <0.0065 0.032
<0.0064 0.0075 9.300 <0.0065 0.110
<0.0064 <0.0073 1.400 <0.0065 0.0058
<0.0064 <0.0073 0.230 <0.0065 <0.0073
<0.0064 <0.0073 0.950 <0.0065 0.066
0.000 0.045 26.000 0.000 1.743
<0.420 <0.480 <0.500 <0.430 <0.480
<0.420 <0.480 <0.500 <0.430 <0.480
<0.420 <0.480 <0.500 <0.430 <0.480
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
All of the PSA Phase data was gcoerated by Ogdco Environmental and Engineering Co., Inc., all remaining data generated by S&ME Inc.
HBL > I 00¾ • Health Based Level is greater than I 00¾
NA = Not Anslyzcd
NS = no standard
MSCC's = Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentrations for Soil to Groundwater/ High Risk Sites.
Concentrations in bold print exceed the MSCC's for "Soil To Groundwater" High Risk sites.
MSCC's = Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentrations for Industrial/Commercial Sites. Would likely apply if site could be ranked as low risk.
1111/1999 1111/1999
DP4-3 DP5-1
PSA PSA
15 3.5
(111011-o) (mg/kg)
<0.970 0.0026
0.880 <0.0066
8.000 <0.0066
<0.970 <0.0066
5.100 <0.0066
35.000 0.0024
<0.970 <0.0066
0.880 <0.0066
3,700 <0.0066
7.800 <0.0066
22.000 0.0043
<0.970 <0.0066
0.390 <0.0066
3.500 0.0075
87.250 0.014
<0.520 <0.430
<0.520 <0.430
<0.520 <0.430
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
------
2111/1999 1/11/1999 3/23/2001 3/23/2001 MSCC'S MSCC's
DP5-1 DP5-3 L-11 L-17 Soil-to Industrial-
PSA PSA. LSA. LSA Groundwater Commercial
9.5 15 11 17
(m1tllcJt) (mg/kit) (m.,llcJt) (m1tlkRJ (rrudla!l (me./k2)
0.0032 0.0035 <0.036 <3.900 NS NS
<0.0068 <0.007 <0.036 <3.900 0.0056 200
<0.0068 <0.007 0.300 35.0 7 82000
<0.0068 <0.007 <0.036 <3.900 0.00000197 0.067
<0.0068 <0.007 0.280 15.00 0.24 40000
<0.0068 <0.007 0.730 72.00 5 200 000
<0.0068 <0.007 <0.036 <3.900 NS NS
<0.0068 <0.007 0.055 <3.900 2 40 880
<0.0068 <0.007 0.260 7.1 2 4088
<0.0068 <0.007 0.660 15.0 7 20440
<0.0068 <0.007 2.800 51.IMI 8 20440
<0.0068 <0.007 0.110 <3.900 4 4088
<0.0068 <0.007 <0.036 <3.900 NS NS
<0.0068 <0.007 0.780 8.5 0.58 1635
0.000 0.000 5.975 203.600
<0.450 <0.460 <0.480 <2.500 NS NS
<0.450 <0.460 0.600 7.3 0.58 1636
<0.450 <0.460 <0.480 6.9 3 I 635
NA NA 140 620 72 24528
NA NA <IS <IS 3255 245280
NA NA 390 I 000 immobile HBL> 100'¼
NA NA 71 130 34 12264
-------------------
TABLES
MONITOR WELL/ GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
ESKIMO JOE'S
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
Well I.D. MW-1 MW-2 MW-3
Installation Date 6/25/2002 6/25/2002 6/26/2002
Total Depth1 27.1 28.8 30.2
Top of Casing Elevation 100.61 100.75 100.62
Casing Diameter 2-inch 2-inch 2-inch
Consultant S&ME S&ME S&ME
Screen Interval Depth 1 12.6 -27.1 14.3 -28.8 15.8 -30.2
Date DTW GWE DTW GWE DTW GWE
06/25/02 23.35 77.26 23.68 77.07 23.43 77.19
09/27/02 25.11 75.50 25.17 75.58 24.96 75.66
Notes: All measurements are in feet
DTW = Depth to groundwater measured from the top of casing
GWE = Groundwater elevation
NI = Monitor well had not been installed at the time of data collection
-=No data
1 Depth below ground surface in feet
MW-4
6/26/2002
29.8
99.50
2-inch
S&ME
15.3 -29.8
DTW GWE
22.91 76.59
23.43 76.07
MW-5
9/10/2002
30.0
101.61
2-inch
S&ME
15 -30
DTW GWE
NI -
25.55 76.06
MW-6 DW-1
9/10/2002 7/3/2002
30.0 70.0
99.49 99.78
2-inch 2-inch
S&ME S&ME
· 15 -30 65 -70
DTW GWE DTW GWE
NI -NI -
23.08 76.41 24.86 74.92
-------------------
GP-l(L-W)
(3/23/01)
Parameter (µg/L)
Method 601/602
Bromodichloromethane no data
1,2-dichloroethane no data
1,2-Dichloropropane no data
Chloroform no data
MTBE 3,400.0
Diisoproply Ether <l
Benzene 14,000
Ethylbenzene 2,600
Toluene 23,000
Xylenes (total) 12,400
Total VOCs 55,400
Method 625
Naphthalene 57
MADEP VPH/EPH
C5-C8 Aliphatics 1,700
C9-C 18 Aliphatics 28,000
C19-C36 Aliphatics <100
C9-C22 Aromatics 2,300
Method 504.1
EDB no data
Method 3030C
Lead no data
Notes: µg/L = micrograms per liter
NS = no standard
NA = not applicable
MW-1
(6/27/02)
(µg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
8,800
<1200
9,500
2,500
23,000
15,700
59,500
no data
46,000
15,000
no data
<5000
99
7.2
TABLE6
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
ESKIMO JOE'S
MW-2
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
MW-3 MW-4 MW-5
(6/27/02) (6/27/02) (6/27/02) (9/12/02)
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
<200 <l <1 <l
200 <l <l <l
<200 <l 1.2 <l
<200 3 <l <l
2,200 <5 <5 <l
<1000 <5 <5 <l
12,000 16 2.9 7.7
3,000 5.7 44 <1
23,000 49 8.5 <l
17,300 28.8 340 2.9
57,700 103 397 11
no data no data no data no data
38,000 170 <500 120
15,000 <100 1,700 <100
no data no data no data no data
<5000 <100 1,800 <100
100 0.14 0.077 <0.02
5.1 <5 <5 14
MW-6
(9/12/02)
(µg/L)
<1
<1
<l
<l
<1
<l
<1
<l
<l
<1
0
no data
<100
<100
no data
<100
<0.02
<5
NCAC 2L = NCAC 2L Groundwater Quality Standards for Class GA groundwater
GCL's = Gross Contamination Levels
Concentrations in bold print exceed the NCAC 2L groundwater standards for Class GA groundwater
DW-1 Ul NCAC GCL'S
(7/03/02) (7/2/02) 2L Std.
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
3.9 <l 0.60 NS
<1 <l 0.38 380
<2 <1 0.56 560
34 <1 0.19 190
<10 <l 200 200,000
<10 <1 70 70,000
8.1 <l 1 5,000
17 <1 29 29,000
49 <1 1,000 100,000
141 <l 540 87,500
253 <l NS NS
no data no data 21 15,500
<2000 <100 420 NS
15,500 <100 4,200 NS
no data no data 42,000 NS
9,030 <100 210 NS
0.71 <0.01 0.004 50
22.0 30.0 15 15000
--------
TASKS
----
TABLE7
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
ESKIMO JOE'S
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
-
PROJECT SCHEDULE
-----
July August September October November December January February-04 February-OS
CAP Pre-Approval
Preperation of System Specs.
Bidding
System Fabrication
Equipment Delivery
Install RAS Wells
Installtion/Trenching
1st Year Monitoring
---
Notes: The proposed project schedule talces into consideration inherent and normal project delays associated with subcontractor availability, subcontractor schedules, and adverse
weather conditions ( e.g. conditions beyond our control). Reasonable attempts will be made to complete the project in a shorter time frame than proposed.
-
------------------TABLES
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND TOXIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON CONT AMIN ANTS
ESKIMO JOE'S
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
Compund Formula Molecular Boiling Melting Density Solubility in Water Toxicity Weight Point (°C) Point ("C)
0.188% in water at Acutely toxic to humans, a known carcinogen Benzene C6H6 78.12 80.1 5.5 0.8765 25.3°C
0.0206 g/100 mL Exposure to ethylbenzene can irritate the eyes,
nose, mucous membranes, and throat and cause
Ethylbenzene C8H10 106 136
decreased movement, dizziness, headache,
-95 0.867 dermatitis, narcosis, and coma. Exposure can
adversely affect the central nervous system.
0.067% in water at Narcotic in high concentrations
Toluene C6H5CH3 -95 110.6 -95 0.8669 23.5°C
Practically insoluble May be narcotic in high concentrations.
Xylene CsH10 106.16 140 -20 0.86 in water Chronic toxicity not well-defined, but is less
toxic than benzene
Soluble in alcohol and Exposure may irritate eyes, skin, throat, and
ether lungs. Higher concentrations can cause
Methyl-tert-butyl (MTBE) (CH3)JCOCH3 88.15 55.2 -109 0.7405 headaches, weakness, nausea, lightheaded-
ness, and passing out.
30 mg/L in water at Exposure to a large amount of naphthalene can
25°C cause red blood cells to be damaged or
Naphthalene C10Hs 128.19 218 80.5 0.9625
destroyed, a condition called hemolytic anemia,
which leads to fatigue, lack of appetite,
restlessness, and a pale appearance.
-
-------------------TABLE9
BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE
CAP IMPLEMENTATION AND 6 MONTHS MONITORING
ESKIMO JOE'S
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1584-02-045
Trust Fund Task Description Number of Proposed Rate Total Task Code Events Units/Events
Utility Clearance
3.060 Cost for a Utility Clearance (Cost+ $200) I I estimate $400.00 total $400.00
Remedial Well Installation
3.101 Supervision of Field Work (Well Installation) 6 10.5 hours $95.00 /hour $5,985.00
3.113 Install 2" Air Sparge Well with 8" Borehole (7 @45 ft) I 315 feet $45.00 /foot $14,175.00
3.113 Install 2" Vapor Extraction Well with 8" Borehole (5 @25 ft) 1 125 feet $45.00 /foot $5,625.00
3.398 Mobilization 1 I mob $350.00 /mob $350.00
3.500 Drill Crew Per Diem I 5 days $142.00 /day $710.00
Bid Specification Preparation
7.030 Design/Specify Multi-Technology Remediation System 1 1 spec $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Remediation System Fabrication and Installation
7.065 Cost for AS/SVE System (estimate) 1 I system $45,000.00 estimate $45,000.00
7.100 Cost for Installing Remedial System (estimate) 1 1 system $32,000.00 estimate $32,000.00
7.081 Field Supervision of System Installation 6 10 hours $97.00 /hour $5,820.00
7.081 Field Supervision of System Startup I 10 hours $97.00 /hour $970.00
6 Months O&M and Monitoring
4.031 Cost for Sampling Any Diameter or Depth Well (Start-up) l 7 wells $155.00 /well $1 ,085.00
4.031 Cost for Sampling Any Diameter or Depth Well (Quarterly) l 7 wells $155.00 /well $1,085.00
4.031 Cost for Sampling Any Diameter or Depth Well (Semi-annual) l 7 wells $155.00 /well $1,085.00
4.041 Cost for Sampling Supply Well (Lopp) 1 1 wells $102.00 /well $102.00
4.070 Cost for Sampling Air Effluent from VE system (Start-up) I l sample $145.00 /sample $145.00
4.070 Cost for Sampling Air Effluent from VE system (Quarterly) l 1 sample $145.00 /sample $145.00
4.070 Cost for Sampling Air Effluent from VE system (Semi-Annual) l I sample $145.00 /sample $145.00
4.090 Cost for Analytical and Shipping
Method 602+MTBE, IPE, naphthalene l 22 samples $70.00 /sample $1,540.00
Method 18/BTEX l 3 samples $225.00 /sample $675.00
6.100 Active Remediation Report (Initial Report) I I reports $1,551.00 /report $1,551.00
6.101 Active Remediation Report (Subsequent Reports) I 2 reports $889.00 /report $1,778.00
7.201 Cost for Scheduled Maintenance
8 hours Weekly for the First Month of Operation 3 8 hours $93.00 /hour $2,232.00
8 hours Monthly After the First Month 5 8 hours $93.00 /hour $3,720.00
7.250 Cost for Remediation Supplies and Equipment 1 6 months $250.00 /month $1,500.00
7.260 Cost of Operating Expenses for System 1 6 months $750.00 /month $4,500.00
Total Estimated Cost = $135,323.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-DTopo(lnl$ O>pyrigbl01999 Dtl.mmt YIDlll~Ml!Be96 llolm< Dab: 1J10S t---f 1'0 ft Selie: 1: 6.-,o lltuilu,) Dohm -
NTS ♦s&ME U.S.G.S.TOPOGRAPIDCMAP FIGURENO.
~------~-=-:~~~:----1 . ~-----L_EXIN __ o_~-~-~_:_o_~-~-~-8AA_o_L_rn_A _____ ---t 1
6/10/2002 EN\.1RONMENiAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING • iESilNG JOB NO. }584-02-045
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
-rr --~--.-,l I I
_--ll_ __JL 1,-
11 ~31
I I
I I
I I I
I I t
I I
II web,
I I e~
I I I
I I
------------
KEY
® -OBSERVED WATER SUPPLY WELL
sc LE: AS SHOWN
CHECKED BY: BW
DRAWN BY: RDM
DA TE: OCI'OBER, 2002
♦S&ME
ENVIRONt.4ENTAL SERVICES ENGINEERING TESTING
I
I
I ,'
--il I ,--__.____-Ll---r
I
I
-=1 I
I
r ,
I
I
I fl~
~' ~l I
I
i----
I I
GRAPHJC SCALE
400 200 0
SCALE: 1" = 400'
400
FIGURE NO.
WATER WELL WCATION MAP
ESKIMO JOE'S
LEXINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
JOB NO. 1584-02-045
3
~ MW-5
i
I-z Lu ~ Lu ll, ~ Q.
~ 0
Lu CD 0
I I ~"" ~ ~
I o~~
'I! o,,
0 ?~
% ~ o"< ~
O1y(
~ 0 Lu II
O1y(
~
:0:
II
:0:
i
01y(
~
O1y(
~
0,,,( ~ o,, ~ ~ ~ ""~ § II o ~ ~ DP-12
----l --OH[ it -OHL-0HL-
,,~.. ~ ~ .
DP-~o -$-MW-2 .~ ~ II
'-6
IC SCALE
~
0HL-OHL-OH I ~0£M~TE PROPER1'!,_B'2IJNDARY l --= 0:_-OHL_ 0L~
0 ~ DP-3.
~ ...LI
tJ
DP-4 oo, ~ ""7-OH[ -OHL -tl1y, ~I~
TANK 11 ,:p-• ""',
Tl-1 r-----I
w= n21t T~K i~F~----------=,~ r:.11
==----L'cF r ~~ " :
I~ Hj J""cp·r 11 :
G~~::-;: IGP-1 I -$-I J ~ i ~-~ i : l jMW-l l4i" i
I
i
I
DP-2. Tl-3
* -$-Tl-2
~ ~
MW-4 DW-1
DP-1 •
~ : IL _______ -.i :•
~-~--~ i CANOPDP-5 -----------------}f J DP-lO ■-~• ~ ;,< : PUMP !11 ~ '0 ■ >< : ISIANDS o " G"\: 0 ' (APPROXIMA I = • ~ ~~ i DM. lE) a~ DP-9
--~-~-I i MW-l-$-~1 ~ ~ '1 i I~ ~ '0.'0~ ~ ; : ASP a ~ .....,;;;;;;;;;~~~~~~~~I I : HALT I •
°"' : z II DP-8
--+~ 0" % I =
a---:: lHO -~NOH( ~ L lM -... DP-7 • , II
~O-lHO-'.ll:)Hl-'.)N -lM -W o" ---lHO ~::--~N -'.)N _-lM -lM -l<D II -lHO '.lN lM-~HO -JHO ~N~ ~N _;N 7M 7 -~ -1J -~ '.lN -~ lM -lM 0 . ---
20 NOTE
~
c:-=
~ 0 ~
~ ~
8
QC
~ ~ ~ ~
~
• t
~ ~
0-
KEY
-OGDEN GEOPROBE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (COLLECfED 2/99)
-SOILSAMPLELOCATION
-MONITORING WELL LOCATION
-WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
-GEOPROBE LOCATION
-LIGHTPOLE
-OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
-VENTLINE
-CATHODIC PROTECTION
-CONDUITS
-WATERLINE
-NG --NATIJRAL GAS LINE
(XXX) -TOTAL voe CONCENTRATIONS
~°'
.., "" 0 o,,.,
l ""°"' "" ~ ~
'¼~
q.,,,
~ o,,.,
""
i
I ~ MW-!
~
I
~
I I
o,,.,
~ 0,,.
z~ ~
~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~
q.,,( ~
"" $ 0,,.( V
I
~
I
~
I
~
i
II
i
II
i
II i
II
~
KDP-U ~ .
z w , w ~ 0..
u.. 0
w (.!)
0 w
"" -i-o,,,,~ 0:::
----OHL-DP•13·°"l
01-iL-OHL MWl ND ~
-OHL -OHL -H ,---........ .Jti5.'.. • NO DATA 0,,.
II ~g DATA
i
l!
1 ~0~1E PROPERTr_ BQ._UNDARY
0
l-= r= OHL -0~ '--...,,.------i ~ J. ·~Olill..-g ND yr-J • ~-OHL -... OHL -OHL z ~ I :16" TA I( 1 ' Ot1l~ ~ ~rl. TI!l:!-1 »:;_; _______ ~~-----------~!, »!11
I ALL COMPOUNDS • r , I ~ , ND
NONE DETECT ND ND I•! =13-I II : NO DAT, ~ \ TI-.2 TANK 12 TI•l \ -1
o ,\ ND I f 530 01f ~ i :
-$-~ DP-1 ~---,--.,....., I ND ,..m... ~ I
MW-4 1'.., .. -1 • ND ~ '""' ''! ~TJ-1 y ~ !I I a ,·· 1.354* N~ ~ '-_ 400 I J ....u :
rt== ~ GP-1 ~ ' 02 1[♦1 "11 !
I " : l ; MW-1 / ND :z : •
/ ' : " i : DP-10
: ~----~------____ JlJ~gOATA
: CANOPY • ~ i
1 DP-5 1
11 I ~ P~
1 0.014 ISIANDS ~ .......
: (APPRO TE) I als • : II DP-9 t :z ND
I DP-6 "i i NO DATA >, I • ND ~ : NODATA II z l -$-~:&
\ < I MW-3 I a,
u ! I! ~ I 5....u
\ : I aE •
i : II DP-8
\
\ li ....u NO
I ASPHALT , ~ NODATA ~ : II
\ ! DP-7. ~ &;
I t ND I 11 I < OH( t ---+-' No DATA I
OHL L i:& ---~-~-~-~-~-~~~-~-~--~r--~-
--DN°'1~~-~-N -ON -ON ~ON -ON -ON -ON -ON ON __J II
:G::=:::1HO -lHO -lHO -lHO 11-10 -lHO,.;;--...)IO -JHQ ~o-10~0-+-__,,~~~ ~------------
i
·6
I SCALE
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
8
QC
~
i ij
~
P:
KEY
xxx -CALCULATED TOTAL VOC's ACCORDING TO METI-1OD 8260 IN m
xXt.• -INDICAIBS A SAMPLE LOCATION Wini ONE OR MORE COMPO1
EXCEEDING IBE CORRESPONDING" SOIL TO GROUNDWA TER1
xxx -TPH CONCEN1RATIONS ACCORDING TO MEIBOD 5030 IN mg/kg
N□ -NOT DE'IECTED
-'--APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL EXTENT OF SOILS WITH ONE OR
' COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING TIIE CORRESPONDING
"SOIL TO GROUNDWATER" MSCC e -OGDEN GEOPROBE SOIL SAMPIE LOCATION (COLLECTED 2/99) -ffi--SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION -$--MONIIDRINGWELLLOCATION
~ -WA1ERSAMPIELOCATION
~ -GEOPROBELOCATION
◊ -LIGHTPOIE
-OHL --OVERHEAD UTIU1Y UNE .
-v--VENTLINE
-C --CA rnornc PROTECTION
-CONDUITS
-Wl --WATERLINE
-NO --NATURAL GAS UNE
-TOTAL voe CONCENTRATIONS
~ ...
i§ ~ 01yl ~
01yl
~
0~ ,~
I I
• • ", MW-5 ~ ~ (7.7) .· "' .,,,...----' , "' / --..
I / "'"' ,,,,,
.J / o,,,, / 6 y .,,,...----.
a5 I-z w ~ ~ a5 ~
• • II La. 0 tl ••• La.I ·2 II W•
' I/ / "'"' ,/ r I X ;., -~-
1I ] / / "'"' .,.,---J il; •• ••
I O
x "' . II •
--I I I / '"' 9 • • . <ii DP-12
, --¥--◊HL --OHL -, 10 I I ~-.J ··1i •
I
J ~OXIMATE p/---OHL ---OHL_, 100 1 000 10,Doo "'"'-~ •• ilJ. • ~ --OPERTYBOUNDAR,◊HL----'= ' L DP-13.o.<t, • II
0 ------OHL-I MW2 (""'
I I
-_ OHL ---O ~(12,000) " •
0
, DP-3 , w...--_ o J a,,,, • i!i5
I
T OHL --....:.iJl
\ ,\ DP-2 • Tl-3 , .. K 1 -OHL ---OHL_ ~,,,, ~ l I -$-I -$-DP-4 °"' °"~
\
6
Tl-l ---------------! II •
\
I \ :----7W7 DP-11'
' MW-4~ T2-1 :I 0011 : ;
(2.9) 2[:~~~~~~; I ( bi1 _LJ : : ~~~~~~~~~;: ,j~l~i .-110: • \ > -J I •
\
', ·~ l--·i MW.1 l'-11 1i1 F I .... (9,500) . ! • : •
/I ' "-_LJ I
\
CANOP,....,.,,... L-----~----------••• "l a5 : DP-10 I .. " • -.;• -----l -' ..
\. .._ DP-5 a~ •
' PUMP I ~ll ...
' ...... ISLANDS z • •
;,. ' --~AP~XI• • Jli)" •r00
i!tll •
i5 i ' DP-6 z DP-9
> ~ : ' • oil; ~1\ u : ....._ ':,-3~ I I
• ·1 i ------+r
< I z
\ l ASP I 00
,'!;!JI •
"' < 1 HALT , DP-8 \ l 01 i
""c L --+J DP-7 II
01;( L • ~_LJ -----Iii
Yl..c -'.Ji/./(:::.=__ 7M -lM -lM I II \t:: lHO -lHO _ -'.J~H( ?fZJ.N _ -lM -7M _ 7M --lHO-lHO -lHO___:,:_~'.JN -'.)N -'.)N -lM -lM-lM-7 ~_LJ -_ _.......'---= -,______...~___,,_,-'.JN '.J-:-=_:..r:-lM -
~ ~
~
~-
~
' SCALE
20 NOTE
. .
~-
0 ~
~ . 0
. =-= ~
~ g:
0 u .
I •
QC • ~-~-
---~ . 5=
~
• i
~
'--0
(XXX)
10--
KEY
Pl
(<1
-OGDEN GEOPROBE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (COLLEC
-SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
-MONITORING WELL LOCATION
-WATERSAMPLELOCATION
-GEOPROBE LOCATION
-LIGHTPOLE
-OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
-VENTLINE
-CA THO DIC PROTECTION
-CONDUITS
-WATER LINE
-NATURAL GAS LINE
-BENZENE CONCENTRATIONS
-BENZENE ISOCONCENfRATION CONTOUR LINE
~~
i "" O 01y(
"" Cly(
""q,,,, ------,--········ z"" ---0,,. ----MW-S z "" / _,,,,,-(11) A
/ 0,,.("" ------------/ 0,,.( ,,,,,,,,,-
/ ""~ / z"" >c / ~ ~ <
, "" ---------~ II / / > ----iL·. ~ 10 / / "" o~ ~ • • • • i DP-1~
I / / "" ~ -~ ~ I 100 / __... ~~ ~ ,:·. 4-I ,,-z~
----OHL /__ I l,OOO 10 000 DP-13 •°"'
OHL-OHL-0 I ' MW-2 ""'--
I APP,UXIMATEPROPERr-~ARY0
HLr OHL-OHLr/ -$-(57,7oo) :-±1<:D ·.
--__ _,_ ----, -___ _,__ 0L-o~~~ -----~ I I DP-3. OHL_ OHL-OHL-OHL ",e~ l ' / DN. / Tl-3 TANK 1 -$-DP-4 ~, I 11 • ·:
6 ' , -$-t Tl-1 r-~---------------------+-irlf7 DP-11 : ~ I \ \ \ ~21-~ ,-,=13:ln-1 /--;I~ . .
1 , , ~-4 ~ , ~ ow-• ~I'{ ';i-,_ .,
1
:·m ':~1 ~
111... ~ » i+ L "-' : 11t:.:i, J:. / 1-$-i II , • • i i((¾(4" "'" "'"""" ~" ;:;:wJ\.\I I : " , : (59,500} / li i : DP-t~
! ''-.,~ft ___,,,/C:::_-::-:-: ___ -~-------____ Jl . .
' I ~~y • ~:a! •
: , »P-5
1
'u • •
' ....____ PUMP •II . ' ........... ISLANDS • ~ ....u DP-9
' --~ .> I~ •
', DP-6 lii I•
' MW-3 • I II • • •
........... ........... (103} -$-ti ti!.• , ~ -----····q " I' ti....u
\ : ', Ill, •
j : .......... II DP-8 I •
\
: ........... ____ ti:E! ••
l ASPHALT ....... ---·I·""•.
I --------• • II
DP-7 ti ....u
--+-' • I ll,11·
Ol-!tL L z
ONt "' ....u .....____ ll,\-7M-7M-lM-7M-1M-7M-7M-lM-7 -lM~lM-
-'J(:H~'Jt;,_,-'.lN -':)N -'.>N -'JN -'.>N -'.)N -':)N -'.>N 'JN ____} II
O:==:lHO -lHO -lHO -lHO ~lHO -lHO_--_J,HO -JHO -~o-o~.-""""""" ...... ~ ------------
I I
5
I
~
I
1-'3
i ~
11 • • . ~ i • P.
II § ..
li,
• • It • • •
li,
3'
\
C SCALE
0 20 NOTE
l" = 20' ALT. T.Or.ATIONS SHOWN ARP. APPROXTMATF.
·-~
~ ~
ft£ O· ~: ~= O· ~ 0 ~ .. . ae -~ /i
/ ~ . 5=
~
• i ~ ~
¢-
-OHL -
--c--
(XXX)
10--
KEY
I
(<
-OGDEN GEOPROBE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (COLLE
-SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
-MONITORING WELL LOCATION
-WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
-GEOPROBE LOCATION
-LIGHTPOLE
-OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
-VENTLINE
-CATIIODICPROTECTION
-CONDUITS
-WA'IERLINE
-NATURAL GAS LINE
-TOTAL voe CONCENIRATIONS
-TOTAL voe ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR LINE
~"" I I ~ ~ ~~~==~~~~;;;;;;==~ / '
l "" / II ~ "' ...ih_ / ...u q.,,, MW-S --qi,-eii ~ ~ (76.06) / II ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~
l """ / II ~ 0,,. I i I r"'-
5 q.,,,"'-I ~ n
~ ~ ~
I Y~ ~ II .., ~ 0 _.,DP-U ~, I °"' ~ 5 ~II • I °", c:,
~ w ~ Lu ~ a.
l$
w ~ Cl w
~ I r-... I ~°" ; i / -----J OHL-, ' D:~~ y y-OHL -OHL -OHL_ /I I MW-l (75.58) ~ / i I ~O~TEPROPER1!.,BQ...~ARY
0
HL -=
0
~ OHL -~ -$-(77.~ --......... -~ ~
/
cL2!!!.0HL / i i D -DHL-oH_ ~
ONL ONL-n l DP-2 • ~,,___ ____________ '\t p. / I II •
a r-------------/----L-------~T7 DP-11 l / n--fj3-1AN<12 1J-1 / _I II i 0
MW 4 -$-/ -$-DP 1 ,.,...._
1 -~w. / f _£1 i :
(76.01i / 0 .. J.1 • · n..r TANK fll n-/ IV 11 II ! (76.59) , 11-R+-I -I J I
I D~ i :
• ' l J I . ~;1 l-lf J II : • I ! I I ! \ (77.2G) ~ j ! DP-10
\ ! \ J.L _________ t-,-------_____ Li~J l CANOPY~ • \ ~ i
I \ DP-S \n.,n I ll \i \ i~s ~-DP-9 ~ \ \ \ (APf'\OXl TE) I ii! •
I \ \ \ ~ II l \ DP-6. "1 i ~ ! MW-3 \ II ~ : \ (75.66)'$-~ i
\ u ! (77.19) I II
~ I 5~ \ : I~ • _. : II DP.8 ~ I z ~ ! ASPHALT I~
\ ! • DP-7 ~ i
I">)))))))'))')'>)>>>)) JI -+J I II
<ON([(¼ L ~...u
--0.,l 1M-lhl-1M-7M--W.-lM-lM-7M-lM--lM~lM-
-ON ~~?fJ,N -ON -ON -DN -ON -ON -ON -ON ON __J II ft= 71-10 -~-~ lHO -11-0 -l~O -1HO_;;;--JO -]HQ ~0-10--.....0,-+i-~.........-
HIC SCALE
~
20 NOTE
~ ~
~ Q ~
~ ~ 8
QC
~ I ij
~
• t t ~
◊
-OHL-
--v--
--c--
--WL --
KEY
-OGDEN GEOPROBE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (COL
-SOILSAMPLELOCATION
-MONITORING WELL LOCATION
-WATERSAMPLELOCATION
-GEOPROBE LOCATION
-LIGHTPOLE
-OVERHEAD UTIU1Y LINE
-VENTLINE
-CA 1lIODIC PROIBCTION
-CONDUITS
-WATERLINE
-NATURAL GAS LINE
(XXX) -GROUNDWATER ELEVATION 09(27/02
(XXX) -GROUNDWATER ELEVATION 6/27/02
-GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR LINES FOF
-GROUNDWATER EIEVATION CONTOUR LINES FOF
~ .. " I I ~ q.,,~
I q.,{~ ~ '-? ~-. I g
I
~
I
1d __ J_
AS-3 •
/
/ AS-2 • o,.,.{~
A
• ~ --~-c, I •
.•• JI i ...
II
i
··t1 ..
i •
II
I O -~ =-:H~ -OHl -I ~£!:!0~1!.82!: ~-,-.
'-6 I
\
I
~
I
\ 0
\ l
C SCALE
= 9n'
MW-4-$--
(2.9}
t ~ \ u
\
'
CANO~-
' •
' AS-6
' ' '
z
-------------.... " l i ! -7--r-----z i~_J lit...-ts-7 I _-t,• .... ••• I ~
DS
ROXIMAIB)
-$-MW-3
{16}
z II
"i ! II Cl~
~ ----__ , ___
i ~ ------i~
j z ~ ASPHALT I ij
\ 5 i
--+ 1 11 01-11..L L z ~ C)-'J --.., ◊HL lM--W.--lM--1'11--lM---W.--1M--W.--1M---1Mr--#r 7,11--
--ON :..::::::,,,._Ol)i-il..--::::::;:;i..;N--ON --ON --ON --ON --ON --ON --ON ON ___J II fr= 7HO --~HO;;;;;;;-7HO --1HO ~ 1HO --1H0----JO ~-]HQ ---w•m-IO_O....,_"""'_ljllllll!'
20 NOIB
ATTTAr'A'T'lf""\~~ c;:!Uf""\U.11'1..T ADC ADDDf""\VHt.A'A'T'C
!z L,J ~ ¾ Q.
I.&. 0
~-
0 ~
~ . C . ~ ~
~ ~
8
I •
ao . ~-~· .. § . · s
~
.
KEY
i -PROPOSEDAIRSPARGEWEl.L
-SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
-MONITORING WELL LOCATION
~ -WAIBR SAMPLE LOCATION
'i, -GEOPROBE LOCATION
◊ -LIGHTPOLE
-OHL --OVERHEAD UTILI1Y LINE
-v --VENTLINE
-c --CA1HODICPR01ECTION
-CONDUITS
-WL -• WAIBR LINE
-NC --NA1URAL GAS LINE
(XXX) -BENZENE CONCENTRATIONS
10 -_ -BENZENEISOCONCENTRATIONCONTOURLINE 0-AIRSPARGEWELLRADIUSOFINFLUENCE
I COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. AS-1 Sheet 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"' I li2 a, ;a
I-C (!)
ui
I ::;; "1S tn ... 0.. (!) ::
C I z <(
a,
(!) u:
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe's
PROJECT NO: 1584-02-045
PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Carolina
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:
STRATA WELL ::r:: 0
-I 1--z 0 ::r:: DETAILS fhs w
DESCRIPTION Ill 1--(!)
::i: fhs 0 w >--I
Cl) 0
1--------1-----1---0 0.00 GS
0.50 CG
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 36.00 BS
38.00 FP
..
40
·. 40.00 TSC
45
•l ♦H~ I ::;; ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, NC 27410
z 0 i=-~s w -I w
WATER LEVEL: Not Observed
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY:
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-inch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0.5 • 40.0
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement
Interval: 0.5 -36.0
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
Interval: 36.0 -38.0
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 38.0 -45.0
SCREEN
Diameter: ·2-inch
Type: PVC
Interval: 40.0 -45.0
LEGEND
□ FILTER PACK
■ BENTONITE
~ CEMENT GROUT
~ CUTTINGS/ BACKFILL
_y_ STATIC WATER LEVEL
TOC TOP OF CASING
GS GROUND SURFACE
BS BENTONITE SEAL
FP FILTER PACK
TSC TOP OF SCREEN
BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. AS-1
Figure 9
~ .. " ~ Q,,,( "--
! Q,,,( "--
..., ~ "--~ .. I
,.,._I
~ MW-S
~
I
~
I
~
°'" (\ 0,,,( "--% • "--Q,,,( SVE-1
I
~
I
~
i
II " ' II
II l i
I ii
i
n»P-U
ali •
~ LLJ ,
LLJ ~ Q.
\.i.. 0
Lu (.!) 0 LLJ
----l 0Ht -OHL ~ -OHt
II ~g DATA
i
ll
,6
SCALE
~-
I .£!:!O~TB PRO
~
I
~
I
i
i
~ ·)fl •
--~-=-7 DP-11
l als I NO II ! NO DAT;
1 [ii i
J II :
I 1 ~ l ~~~~~~~~~~~~,---3-,,;;;;;::.::::.t::~;-<-;;;-~---7' ______ ..,.._ ND2r$-z ll ! •
: 1 ° i l DP-10 l I -----~lJ~gDATA
! I~
I ~~
: IB) , .a5 • : ~-~-~ ~ I z 00
I DP-6 "'i i NODATA ~ I • ND ~ : NODATA II ~ I -$-z
I ~ ! MW-3 I ii
i I ~....,
\ : l ~ • _, : II DP-8 ~ : ~ E' ND
\ I ASPHALT I ClO NO DATA ~ 1 II \ ! DP-7. 5 ,
__ ..,J ~g DATA ! II
OH!.----L~-ll,\~1M-Wl-7M-l',\-1M-'w.-1NI--~~~ w.-.,. __ <'Ht
--ON ~Ot;,.,,L~N-ON -ON -ON -ON -ON -!)N -ON !>N fr=: 1HO -_!O ;;;:-lHO -7HO ~ 1HO -1HO~o -JW ----.,;ii.to 10~, .... -"""" .... ""I!"
■
<JH(
:ao
N01E SHQWN ARB AP PBQXIMA1E &I r r AC 4UDNS
~ ~
~ 0 ~
~ ~ 8
QC
~
i I
~
KEY
e · PROPOSED SOIL VAPOR EX'IRACTION (SVE) WELL
JOO( • CALCULATED TOT AL VOC's ACCORDING TO ME1HOD 8260 IN 1
-ax• • INDICAIBS A SAMPIE LOCATION Willi ONE OR MORE COMPC
EXCEEDINGTIIE CORRESPONDING II SOIL TO GROUNDWATEJ
JOO( • TPH COMCEN1RATIONS ACCORDING TO METIIOD 5030 IN mg/]
ND • NOT DEIBCIED
-, -APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL EXTENT OF SOILS WITII ONE OF
' COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING THE CORRESPONDING
11 SOIL TO GROUNDWATER" MSCC
• • OGDEN GEOPROBE SOIL SAMPIB LOCATION (COLIECTED 2/9S -E8--SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION -$--MONITORINGWELLLOCATION
t · WAIBR SAMPlE LOCATION
~ · GEOPROBELOCATION
¢-• LIGHT POLE
-OHL --OVERHEAD UTIU1Y LINE
-v--VENTLINE
-c --CA1HODIC PR01ECTION
-CONDUITS
-m -~ WA1ERIJNE
-NC -• NA TIJRAL GAS LINE 0 · SVEWEILRADIUSOFINFLUENCE
I COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. SVE-1 Sheet 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I "' ~
la
I-C <!)
ui
I :::. ,a ,,,
~ ~
I 0 z < a,
<!) ii:
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe's
PROJECT NO: 1584-02-045
PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Carolina
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:
STRATA WELL :r 0 ..., I-...... z 0 :J: DETAILS fbs w
DESCRIPTION ro I-...... (!)
::E fu s 0 w >-...,
(/) 0
0 0.00 GS
0.50 CG
5
6.00 BS
8.00 FP
·. ,•,
10 10.00 TSC
15
20
·. •·,
25 I--'---"=="-·.'-·.~·. 25.00 BSC
•I ♦~ I :::. ENVIRONMENrAL SERVICES
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, NC 27410
z 0 i= ..-~s w ...,
w
WATER LEVEL: Not Observed
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY:
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-inch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0.5 -10.0
GROUT
Type: Neat
Interval: 0.5 • 6.0
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
Interval: 6.0 • 8.0
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 8.0 • 20.0
SCREEN
Diameter: 2-inch
Type: PVC
Interval: 10.0 • 25.0
LEGEND
□ FILTER PACK
■ BENTONITE
~ CEMENT GROUT
~ CUTTINGS/ BACKFILL
~ STATIC WATER LEVEL
TOC TOP OF CASING
GS GROUND SURFACE
BS BENTONITE SEAL
FP FILTER PACK
TSC TOP OF SCREEN
BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
COMPLETION REPORJ ·O.F
WELL No. SVE-1 Figure 11 1
ID
ATION
JND
~ ..
-' "'-~ Q,,,{
I "'-Q,,,{
I I
i ~o,.,
l "'-l ., '-----~ 0,., ~~
o,.,{
"'-. q., AS-2 AS-1
i~ --•------•----• _,,_,._,,p,,,-~ SVE-1 ____ ,.. °"i
AS-3 --_,. ,,,_ \ "'-.
,--• °"i"'-
1 ~M ¾~
I ¾
~ MW-5
I
~
I
~
I
~
I
~
~ ~ 0 ~ §
i
II
i
II
i
II
i
II
i
II
i
II I ~
----i "'-I "''-----., ~ OHL-OHL-ol MW-2 ~
i
II
lZ
l l -OHL -OH £(57 700) ~ i I ~o~m PROPBRTLB<l_.UNDARY l-=. ~-OHi.. -~
0
-:,,-• __ _, I t-OHl_DHl __ _ ... ___ i5 -OHL-Or!L 7---I ~ ~~
OH~ -__ ~ ""'W!_-3_.......,.__._..._ __ -ii SVE-4 AS-5
_, -------------•----• ~ ' SVE-3 • r----------------------~ ',, nt~ , .... :'-4r]n-1
-$-' ~ MW,-DW-1
{397) '
r.6
~
I II
-----~=-7
_I ii!
[4ii i
I } II :
,, ~ ' ' ' } ' ' r J J I ... < < c, <, < < c < < < < < < "1 ', _,,t SVE-5 l1:>:>,4W' MW-1 rtli' !
z II :
Cl i : ____ JlJ
~~
I II
5i
PUMP '11 ISLANDS ~
' / I -,...-(59,500) ' / : ', ,/' ;L-------------------~--~:~:
AS-6
(APPRO:XIMA: ) I i ~ ! A z II ~ : MW-3 -:Jr Cl' i \ u ! (103) II
~ I 5~
\ i I ii Ja I z ~ i ASPHALT I ~
\ : 5 _.,
I') ' ) ) ) ) ) ' > > '2: '~ 't' ) > > > ) ::, I --+LJ l ii
OH,______ W.-1M-1M-lM-lM-lM-lM-lM-W.--lM~lM-
-ONOH~~L~N-ON -ON -ON -ON -ON -ON -ON ON __J II _..n:= __ ,Ho~.;::,,o ___ ,HO_-_,r10 ~ lHO -1HO.,;;-;.l10 -)HQ _-...>-io-10~,...,_~~
~IC SCALE
~
?.O 1\Ir)Ti:1
!z w :,
Lu ~ 0.
LL.. 0
w l.!)
0 w
~ ~
~ Q ~
~ ~
8
QC
~
i i ~
• • □ --t
t ..
-0-
-OHL -
-We-
-NG-
(XXX)
KEY
-PROPOSED AIR SPAR GE WEU.
-PROPOSED SOIL VAPOR EX1RACTION (SVE) WEIL
-18" WIDE x 18" LONGx 18" DEEP WAIBRTIGHT, BOLTDOWN JUNCTI1
-PROPOSED REMEDIATION SYSIBM UTILITY 'IRENCHING
-SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
-MONITORING WELL LOCATION
-WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
-GEOPROBELOCATION
-LIGHTPOLE
-OVERHEAD UTILI1Y UNE
-VENTLINE
-CA IBODIC PROIBCTION
-CONDUITS
-WAIBRLINE
-NATIJRAL GAS LINE
-TOTAL voe CONCEN1RATIONS
I
I
APPENDIX I
I WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
C~MPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. DW-1 Sheet 1 of1
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe's
PROJECT NO: 1684-02.()46
_PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Carolina
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: K. MacDonald
DRILLING METHOD: 10 -1/4" H.S.A./Mud Rotary
DATE DRILLED: 7/3/02
STRATA
DESCRIPTION
WELL i I il: DETAILS
tr:'.-=::--.::::--...;.._-~~ o L.....,-------, =t-...;:.O.=OO=-+..::G:.::.S-1--~
0.50 TOC
5
Medium Sandy SILT
10
11=---=---=----l.-t-.,.l...l.15 Tan rown Fine
srightly Sandy SILT
20
25
... 30
35
40
...
45
· · · 50
5.00
47.QO
WATER LEVEL:
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: LButler
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter: 8"
Type: Steel
Interval: 6.M7 .0
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-lnch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0.01-65.3
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 0.5-68
SEAL
Type: Bentonlte
Interval: 58-63
FILTERPACK
Type:· #2Sand
Interval: 63-71
SCREEN
Diameter: 2"
Type: 0.010
. Interval: 66.3-69.8
55
i . ,• BS LEGEND I 60 □ FILTER PACK TOC TOP OF CASING
i. ! · · · FP ■ BENTONITE GS GROUND SURFACE
i · · ' 65 :::: / :; 65•30 TSC ~ CEMENT GROUT . ~~ ~[~~~~EAL
· ·. · ~ TSC TOP OF SCREEN
i
I ·. . ·. 70 _::-,:,::-_: as.so esc ClJTTINGS /_BACKFILL ~c ~g:m>~e~cREEN
f!r· -----~__,_ _ _r.::,:_:_-_;....,__·:-:_··.~·...1.: _7_1.00....:...J._TD:...:._L___....__~_s_T_'AT_IC.....;.·W_ATE_R_LEVE __ L_...:C::.::G::__:C~E:!!M~E!!.NT~G::!R~O~UT'.!..... __ _.
i f •. SIME.. . 3718 Old Battleground Road
. Greensboro, NC i --~ .
COMPL'=TION REPORT OF
WELL No. DW-1 .
Sheet 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. MW-6
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe's
PROJECT NO: 1584-02.()45
PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Carolina
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: T. MIiier
DRILLING METHOD: 4¼" H.S.A.
DATE DRILLED: 9/10/02
STRATA WELL 0 z
z 0
WATER LEVEL:
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: B. Ware
Sheet 1 of 1
~--6 · I=--~~ DETAILS ft;~ w ~~ DESCRIPTION m C, WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Dark Brown Organic
Laden Topsoil -2'
Fill?
Red Silty Fine CLAY
(No Sand) Dry
Red Fine Silty CLAY
some Mica /No Sand
Red Orange Dammp
1 % Sand Silty CLAY
~ w~
V) Q
0
10
15
1-:1,....,_5=%,...,S::-a-nd-:-s=1::-1ty--++--++2o
CLAY/Mica (Moist)
Orange
25
Q w ...I
0.00 GS
0.01 TOC
1.00 CG
12.00 BS
13.50 FP
TSC
w
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-lnch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0-1.0
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 1.0-12.0
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
Interval: 12.0-13.5
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand ·
Interval: 13.5-30.0
SCREEN
Diameter: 2"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 15.0-30.0
Moist ~ Orange/Brown 10-15 LEGEND
~ Sand, Fine Silty CLA
... ._w_lM_ica _____ ~:1.-4-30 ....,_;..;........,.'-'"'·:..;.·•:-'-I·: 30.00 BSC □ FILTER PACK TOC TOP OF CASING
I 8 30.01 TD ■ BENTONITE GS GROUND SURFACE
I . BS BENTONITE SEAL ~ CEMENT GROUT FP FILTER PACK ~ TSC TOP OF SCREEN ~ ~ CUTTINGS I BACKFILL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
· TD TOTALDEPTH I ;,~ _____ ....____..__._ ___ ~ _ _._ _ __._ _ _._~ __ sr_A_n_c_w_A_TE_R_LEVE_L __ c_G __ c_E_M_ENT_G_R_o_~ ___ ~
I ~ ♦SUE COMPLETION REPORT OF I 3718 Old Battleground Road WELL No. MW-6
Greensboro, NC I '---~ • =~=------------------------------s_h_ee_t_1_m_1_.
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. MW-5 Sheet 1 of 1
I
15 (!) Ill
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe's
PROJECT NO: 1584-02-045
PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Carolina
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: T. Miller
DRILLING METHOD: 4¼" H.S.A.
DATE DRILLED: 9/10/02
STRATA WELL ..J 0 :c IXI I----DESCRIPTION :E ~~ >-Cl) C
1-:As,-p'h-a::--:lt/G=-ra-v_e...,I M:..i'""'xt-ur-e TTT"ll"T'T'f-O
8"
Dark Red SILT (Dry)
·No Odor/No Sand
..,,R,,_..e..,.d =5;=1ty...,C=LA~Y"""(D.,...ry...,.}--+-+-t,,-+-5
Little to No Sand
Red/Orange Damp
Silty CLAY (Little to No
and
Damp Fine Silty CLAY
(Red/Orangge) Some
MICA
Damp (Red/Brown)
Fine Silty CLAY/Some
Mica
Moist and Damp (1 %
Sand) Brown Fine Silty
CLAY with some Mica
Moist Brown 1 % Sand,
Fine Silty CLAY with
10
15
t:'M'¾"ica~=.,...,..,..,=~,-Jf"".r7T20 Moist Almost Wet 1 %
Sand Fine Silty CLAY
DETAILS
.. ...... _;_:
f~ C z w w!::. (!)
C w ..J
0.00 GS
0.01 TOC
1.00 CG
12.00 BS
14.00 FP
15.00 TSC
z 0 i=.--
~£
w
WATER LEVEL:
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: B.Ware
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-inch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0-1.0
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 1.0-12.0
SEAL
Type: Bentonlte
Interval: 12.0-14.0
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 14.0-30.0
SCREEN
Diameter: 2"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 15.0-30.0
LEGEND
□ FILTER PACK TOC TOP OF CASING
■ BENTONITE GS GROUND SURFACE BS . BENTONITE SEAL
tQ'}I CEMENT GROUT FP FILTER PACK ! ~ TSC TOP OF SCREEN ~ ~ CUTTINGS/ BACKFILL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
· TD TOTAL DEPTH I l---,-------~-----~-----~---%_s_r_~_1c_w_A_TE_R_L_E_v_EL __ c_G __ c_e_M_E_NT_G_R_o_ur ___ ~
1 l ♦s&ME
'-------=-. I
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, NC
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. MW-5
Sheet 1 of 1
• •
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. MW-4 Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe's
PROJECT NO: 1684-02-046
PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Carolina
• I
DRIUING CONTRACTOR: T. MIiier
DRILLING METHOD: 4¼" H.S.A.
DATE DRILLED: 6/26/02
STRATA WELL
DESCRIPTION I
I
I
I
h-:::-:=:-_-;;6";;-----+u,rn+ 0 1-----tc----;-:a--:-µO~.o~o ~G:!::S4--l
d Gravel 0.10 . TOC
m: Tan to 0.30 CG
Mlcaceous Fine
Slightly Sandy SILT
I . Tan and Red Fine to Medium Sandy SILT . . .
with Manganese . . ,
Oxidation Stains
I
I
I Tan and Red SILT
with Manganese
Oxidation Stains
I
•
5
10
11.30 BS
13.30 FP
15 TSC
20
25
WA~R LEVEL: Water level 22.91 feet below
top of casing
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: L. Butler
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-lnch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0.1-15.3
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 0.3-11.3 ·
SEAL
Type: Bentonlte
Interval: 11.3-13.3
FIL TERPACK .
Type: ' #2 Sand
Interval: 1 :t3-30.6
SCREEN
Diameter: 2"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 15.3-29.8
TOC TOP OF CASING
os· GROUND SURFACE
BS BENTONITE SEAL I ~ CEMENT GROUT ~:c ~~ro'}~i1feeN
· ij ~ CUTTINGS I BACKFIU BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN l ~ TD TOTAL DEPTH I 1--------...._-L----'------'-----'-----'----.._~_s~_A_n_c_w_A_TE_R_LEVE __ L __ CG __ c_EM_E_NT_G_Ro_ur ___ --t
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, NC
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. MW-4 .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• • I
I
• • •
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. MW-3 Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe's
PROJECT NO: 1684-02-045 .
PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Carolina
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: T. MIiier
DRILLING METHOD: 4¼" H.S.A.
DATE DRILLED: 6/26/02
STRATA WELL
DESCRIPTION ~ ~ · DETAILS ~ ~~
-==~:----"ITnl'T'l"t" 0
Slightly Sandy SILT
Gray an Orange .
Brown Medium to
Fine Sandy SIL T·with
Oxidation stains
y Orange SILT
5
· · · 10
15
20
25
o.oo GS
0.60 TOC ·o.90 CG
11.30 BS
13.30 FP
TSC
WATER LEVEL: Ory @ TOB; water level 23.43
feet below top of casing
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: L. Butler
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-lnch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0.6-15.8
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 0.9-11.3
SEAL
Type: Bentonlte
Interval: 11.3-13.3
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 13.3-30.9
SCREEN
Diameter: 2"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 16.8-30.2
• I 30 . {{ 3020 esc ~~::.ACX roe TOPOFCAmNG
•
8 i-------·.-. __ · . .--1.· 30.9o ro ■ BENTONITE ~: ~:~~~~u;~fE I ~ CEMENT GROUT ~c r6PTEcfi:~'c~EN i ~ CUTTINGS/ BACKFILL · BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
L· 111:1--~-------'---------------•-S_T-AT-IC-W-ATE_R_LEVE __ L __ TDC~--T-O-TAL_O_E-PTH------1
I : ~ CEMENT GROUT
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, NC
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. MW-3
Sheet 1 of 1
• I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
' I
• •
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. MW-2 Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT: Eskimo Joe"s
PROJECT NO: 1684-02..()46
PROJECT LOCATION: Lexington, North Caronna
DRIWNG CONTRACTOR: T. MIiier
DRILLING METHOD: 4¼" H.S.A.
DA TE DRILLED: 6/26/02
STRATA
DESCRIPTION
h-°'."'.=a1t~--=7n:------trril'TTI-0
and-5"
uum:Brown
Red Sllghtly Clayey
SILT
-----=--......,,,......,..--5 Orange Brown to Red
Tan Fine Slightly
Sandy SILT
Tan Gray and Orange
Brown SILT with
Manganese Oxidation
stains
...
10
...
. . . 15
20
...
...
25
WELL
DETAILS
0 ffi ~
0.00 GS
0.50 TOC
0.80 CG
10.30 es
12.30 FP
TSC
WATER LEVEL: Dry@ TOB; water level 23.68
feet below top of casing
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: L. Butler
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Diameter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-lnch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0.6-14.3
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 0.8-10.3
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
Interval: 10.3-12.3
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 12.3-29.5
SCREEN
Diameter: 2"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 14.3-28.8
• •----------,1-&--1"-I 1-'---'-'-';_:_'--:::,--t, :: ~ ~!~~~PACK
•
ij ■ BENTONITE
TOC
GS
BS
FP
TSC
BSC
TD
CG
TOP OF CASING
GROUND SURFACE
BENTONITE SEAL
FILTER PACK I ~ CEMENT GROUT
i ~ CUTTINGS I BACKFILL
TOP OF SCREEN
BOTTOM OF SCREEN
TOTAL DEPTH
CEMENT GROUT l I ~ STATICWATERLEVEL .
I ;;11--e------------'1
I COMPLETION REPORT OF
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, NC WELL No. MW-2
Sheet 1 of1
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING MIITHOD:
DATE DRILLED:
STRATA
g
DESCRIPTION ~-
CJ)
and Green Brown Fine
Sandy Slit with Gravel
-Fuel Odor
lduum: Gray and
Tan Brown Clayey Slit
transitioning to Light
..
Red and Tan Fine
stlghtly Sandy. Slit with
Manganese Oxidation
· stains
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. MW-1 Sheet 1 of 1
Eskimo Joe's
1684-02.()46
Lexington, North Carolin.a
T. MIiier
4¼" H.S.A.
6/26/02 .
WELL ~ f--Q
DETAILS ifi t=--t--wE ~ ~E wE Q
Q w
0 0.00 GS
0.30 TOC
0.50 CG
5
8.30 BS
10 10.30 FP
TSC
15
20
25 ::·:/:
WATER LEVEL: Dry @ TOB; water level 23.36
feet below top of casing ·
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: L. Butler
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
PROTECTIVE CASING
Dlam,ter:
Type:
Interval:
RISER CASING
Diameter: 2-inch
Type: PVC
Interval: 0.3-12.6
GROUT
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 0.6-8.3
SEAL
Type: Bentonlte
Interval: 8.3-10.3
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 10.3-28.3
SCREEN
· Diameter: 2"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 12.6-27.1
(?:, 27.10 BSC
§! ·.:-.:. -::-:-:-. 28.~0 TD LEGEND
SI □ FILTER PACK TOC TOP OF CASING
8 ■ BENTONITE
m ~ CEMENT GROUT
i ~ CUTTINGS/ BACKFILL
GS GROUNDSURFACE
BS t:IENTONITE SEAL
FP FILTER PACK
TSC TOP OF SCREEN
BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT i ~ STATICWATERLEVEL l'l-----....l.--J......-L---,-_,___............,..,___........_ ________ -----1
3718 Old Battleground Road
Green1boro, NC
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. MW-1
Sheet 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
i i
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX II
AIR EMISSION REGISTRATION LETTER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
June 20, 2003
NCDENR
E
Air Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107
Attention:
Reference:
To Whom It May Concern
AIR EMISSIONS SOURCE REGISTRATION
1705 Cotton Grove Road (NC Highway 8)
Lexington, Davidson County, North Carolina
Incident # 20918
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
To Whom It May Concern:
Since 1973
Three Decades ••. Three Reasons
We listen. We respond. Jfe solve.
S&ME Inc. (S&ME), is submitting a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the remediation of
petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil and groundwater at the subject site by using groundwater Air-
Sparging (AS) and Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). A copy of the CAP will be on file at the
NCDENR-DWQ, Winston-Salem Regional Office.
It is our understanding that an estimate of the total potential Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
emissions from this source must be calculated ( estimated total emissions for the site restoration
process) and submitted to your department for review. Reportedly, if the estimated total potential
· VOCs emissions are less than 5 tons/year, the project should be considered under the "insignificant
activity exemption" provided in 15A NCAC 2Q .0102(b)(2)(EXi); and therefore not require an air
permit.
No pilot testing has been conducted at the site; therefore, no SVE emissions data has been
collected. Meanwhile, emissions data from similar remediation systems in the Piedmont area has
been considered, and S&ME anticipates that VOC emissions will be below the 5-tons/year limit.
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27 410
(3361 288-7180
[phone] fax
(8001 849-2985 www.smeinc.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Air Emissions Source Registration
Eskimo Joe's, Lexington, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1584-02-045
June 20, 2003
The potential air emissions are anticipated to be highest during the first year of active remediation,
and decrease over time. Therefore, during the start-up of this remediation system and, if warranted,
on a semi-annual basis, air quality samples will be collected to document actual air emissions.
Samples will be collected and submitted for laboratory analyses for BTEX using EPA Method 18.
In addition, total organic vapors will be field measured weekly for the initial month of operation
and monthly thereafter with a Toxic Vapor Analyzer (TV A). The results of the air emissions
monitoring will be reported and provided to the NCDENR-DWQ UST Section in the required
Active Remediation Monitoring Reports. If requested, the emissions data can also be provided to
the Air Quality Section. If the analytical data suggest a permit would be required, operational
parameters for this system will be modified to keep the emission below levels requiring a permit.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call David Loftis with S&ME if
you have any questions, comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
S&ME,Inc.
tj,~(2~
David R. Loftis, P .E.
Staff Engineer
DRUEQHB/drl
cc: High Falls Oil
P.O.Box29
High Falls, North Carolina 27259
Attention: Mr. Steve Majors
2
Edmund Q.B. Henriques, L.G.
Environmental Department Manager
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX III
AIR SPARGE WELL PRESSURE CALCULATION
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AIR SPARGE WELL PRESSURE CALCULATION
Assumptions:
• Depth to groundwater = 25 feet
• Depth to the top of screen = 40 feet
• Porosity of soil (assumption)= 0.30
Calculations:
KN Pr essuresoilcolumn = (depth,opofwellscreen )(s.g.soi/ )(1-0)(9.8--3) m
KN Pr essurewatercolumn = (depthtopofwel/screen -depthwatertable)(s.g.water )(0)(9.8-3) m
where: s.g. = specific gravity
0 = soil porosity
KN/m3 = Kilonewton per cubic meter
(
lm J KN KN . Pressuresoilcolumn =(40.ft) --(2.7)(1-0.30)(9.8-3 )=199.2-3 =47.6psl
3.281.ft m m
(
lm J KN KN . Pressurewatercolumn =(40.ft-25.ft) --(1)(0.30)(9.8-3 )=13.4-3 =2.8psz 3.281ft m m
Tota/Pressure= 47.6psi + 2.8psi = 50.4psi
Note: psi = Pounds per square inch