WQ0012203_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018

current per
e'ertd'��
Go OI ER EA V R OiVMEN TAIL
ENGINEEPS • GEOL STS • SCIENTISTS
2000
Dixi of Water Quality, Groundwater Section
Perrr,:s and Compliance Unit
163 Service Center
Rale...,: orth Carolina 27699-1636
R R.eouest for Renewal of the NPDES Permit and
Proposed Revisions to the Ground Water Monitoring Plan
Fire Station No. 9
-: 29 McKee Road.
Charlotte, North Carolina
r mit No. WQ0012203
I Project No. 98055
Dear ;sir or Madam:
N C' t)Ft,
ENVIRr ,—
NAT:.
ALTII
RCJ S
,NOV 2 9 2000
CMSION OF
COr a'iIl1 E.ECP, L iF E
ope'r Environmental, Inc. (CEI), on behalf of the City of Charlotte fl e City),
-le current NPDES permit: number WQ00012203 be renewed. The
xpires on April 30, 2001, This Letter constitutes The City's desire to
nt permit with proposed revisions to the existing permit.
accordance with the Mooresville Regional Office (MR0) Ground Water
the treatment system has been inoperative since April 2000 in order to
evaluate ground water chemical. conditions. Therefore, CEI has not sampled the
trey ment system since operations have been temporarily suspended, CEI has
reported the treatrnent.'system as no flow on a monthly basis. In addition, due to dry
conditions several monitoring wells have not been sampled on a quarterly basis. The
curre °:T_ permit requires MW-1, MW-5, MW-10 and MW-11 to be sampled on a
quarterly basis in February May, August and November of each year. CEI has
replaced MW-1 with MW-IA on October 25, 2000 and subsequently sampled the new
well on October 26, 2000 in accordance with MRO. The replacement well MW-1A is
35 fe! r deep.
,2EI,. on behalf of the City of Charlotte, wishes to revise the ground
and ground water remediation system -sampling program at Fire Station
rrent monitoring program includes monthly sampling of treatment system
2300 SA.. I OAs NORTH SUITE
CAROL!

NCDENR
November 27, 2000
Page 2
influent and effluent and quarterly sampling of manit°ring kvtidis. CEI proposes to
reduce the monitoring frequency of both the ground remediatio t yTn and water
monitoring tivells at the site.
Based on the past seven years worth of sampling events, which includes four
years of active remediation, the levels of ground water contamination has reduced.
significantly. CEI proposes to sample the remediation system on a quarterly basis in
February, May, August and November of each year. Ground water concentrations in
the influent sample have reduced to non -detect during several monthly sampling
events. Therefore, conducting system sampling on a quarterly basis should be
sufficient to monitor the influent and effluent water associated with the remedial
system. CEI recommends sampling MW-lA in lieu of MW-1. In addition, CEI.
recommends sampling the four monitoring wells (MW- IA, MW-5, MW-10 and MW-11)
on a semi-annual basis to coincide with MRO requirements. CEI recommends
sampling the treatment system and monitoring wells by EPA Methods 601 and 602 to
include MTBE, IPE and EDB by 601.
CEI will report treatment system sampling on a quarterly basis and monitoring
well sampling on a semi-annual basis. Should the treatment system be permanently
suspended, CEI will terminate the non -discharge permit at that time.
CEI appreciates your review and approval on this matter. Should you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact me at
Sincerely,
COOPER ENVIRONMENTAL INC,
Do otti, G.I.T.
Project Manager
\\DLP\c\My Documents\98055-Fire Station #9\NPDES :Permit Renewal doc
cc: David Wolfe - City of Charlotte Engineering
Allen Schiff- Mooresville Regional Office
704)-845-2000.

City of Charlotte
Engineering Department
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Attention: Michelle Gregor
RE
Dear Ms. Gregor:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
May 19, 1998
Acknowledgement of Receipt
Fire Station #9
Non -Discharge Permit. No. WQ0412203
Groundwater Remediation System
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
On April 22, 1998, this office received the requested information and your response
to the overdue notice of February 27, 1998. The information will remain on file with the
Groundwater Section.
Should you have any qu
cc: Joe Nester - Cooper Enviror
MAF/firesta9.ack
ions, please call me at 704/663-1699, ext. 238.
Sincerely,
Margaret A. Finley
Hydrogeological Technician
en al
919 NORTH MAIN STREET,, MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 281 15
PHONE 704-66,3.1699 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER. - SOq RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

JAMES a. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE NiCGEvirr
- SECRETARY ,
•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
February 27, 1998
City of Charlotte
Engineering Department
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Attention: Michelle Gregor
RE: Overdue Notice
Groundwater Compliance Monitoring
Fire Station #9, Mc Kee Rd„
Non -Discharge Permit No, WQ0012203
Groundwater Remediation System
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Dear Ms. Gregor:
A review of your permit and groundwater compliance monitoring reveals that
this office has not received the required reports for the May. August and -November
1997 sampling events at the subject site. Please submit the required information within.
10 days of receipt of this letter or an explanation of why you cannot do so.
Should you have any questions, please call me at 704/663-1699, ext. 238.
Sincerely,
kodney Hamm - PS
1AF/firesta9.1tr
AN EQUAL. OPPORT
RECY CLEO/ II 0% pOST.cONSUMER PAPER

to of North Carolina
epartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
MooresvPie Regional Office
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
February 19, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
City of Charlotte
Engineering Department.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Attention: Michelle Gregor
RE: Notice of Violation of Permit Conditions
Permit. No. WQ0012203 GW96055
Fire Station #9
4529 Mc Kee Road
Groundwater Remediation Systetn
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Dear Ms. Gregor:
A review of the referenced permit and your compliance monitoring indicates that you
are in violation of the following permit condition:
Permit Condition No. IV.8.:
MW-4, along with monitoring wells MW-1, MW-, and MW-10, shall be sampled
every February, May, August, and November.
Your reports indicate that MW-4 was not sampled in September and November 1996
due to insufficient quantities of water in the well. Therefore, prior to the May 1997
sampling event, you should properly abandon MW-4 and install a replacement well (MW-
11). You should submit a copy of both the well abandonment record (GW-30) for MW-4 and
the well construction record (GW-1) for MW-11 to this office.
It should be noted that the violations cited above and any additional documented
violations could result in the initiation of an enforcement action by this office in accordance
with General Statute 143.215.6A, which provides for a $10,000 assessment of civil penalties
919 North Main Street,
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Voice 704-663-1699
FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

City of Charl
February 19, 1997
Page Two
for each violation, ch day at theviolation continues may he considered a separate
violation.
Should you have any questquestions concc ng this Not
63e1699, ext, 238.
.
Sincerely,
cc: Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office
Bob Cheek, Permits and Compliance Unit
MAF
gregor.nov
ce
contact Peggy Finley a
eith Overcash, P.
tonal Supervisor

To:
Com
Phbne:
Fax:
02.01.2000 ee.ee
NC D
DWQ-�roi d*titer Section
P.Q. Box 9$leigh NC.27626-0,,578
2728 Cap tal Blvd.' Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: (9 9) 733-i221 or [phone]
Fax: [phone] or [phone]
From:
Phone:
Date:
Pages ie1u+
Aga
74
s cover page:

Eft V IR
ps rMENI.OF
ction and opts
wcoveuy w
5foot d
disCrge of wastes
with the; proj
approvedy the Depa .men
permit.
Thisperrn1
lawif g sped
cortto
Upon Ica
ceitifii ati
facilitt has
specif ,atiod
Perrmts °and.
The ?v goresv
least fwty-el
place inspec
duriniL the n+
exclu
This
my
which will P
water:,
8
NMENT
NOR°I"
.2000 00z00 P.
©RTH CAROLIN
MANAGEMENT CbMMISSION
ENT, HEALTH AN'L NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH
TER REMEDIATION PERMIT
cle 21 of Chapter 14 , G+ neral Statutes of North aroiin
applicable Laws, Runs, a<td Regulations
IS HEREBY GRAI4TEt' TO THE
y of Charlotte
klenburg County
FOR THE
iundwatcr reined odor faddy consisting of three (3) 6-inch
pers, granular a ivattd carbon, and a 125 foot long by 20'
to serve the City t Cho; lotto's Fire Station Number 9, with no
pursuant to the ap 1ic4ion received March 21, 1996, and in
*cations, and other su rting data subsequently filed and
t, Health and Natultal ources and considered a part of this
until .April 30, 2001, and shall be subject to
an of construction and prior #o o
st be r eived from a prolesi
ed in accordance
upporting materials.
lntt, P.O. Box 2953$, R
ion of this permitted
sneer certifying that the
permit, the approved p1
he Certification to the Water Qu
gh, NC 27626-0535.
le Re io al Office, telephone number [phone], shall be notified at
h$ (48) ho rs in advance of ope ion of the installed facilities so that an in-
c$n.be side. Such notification to theregional supervisor shall be made
office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday,
liday
voidable if the soils
e facilities are in
nod water quality
it to adequately assimilate the wastes and
ed, maintained, and operated in a manner
cards of the surface waters and ground

02.01.2000 00;00
1n t
nuisan
action
repl
The
to
p
OP Tl
U
e
grad
tree
cettif
of Tit
least
holid
facili
the
w
prey
ITO
Any
surf
repo
None
Th
nu.
nex
the
The
rent ' i t the fs
Con it ons, the
hat a be
eut trdedt 0
ance9tnis pea
ke or undwa
5A,
kiy
and
a� is
�r.d ea li t
Waistt pro
tart c©rbpl
s fail to perfo
ttee shall take
by this Divisio
facilities.
of relieve then}
g from the v
treatment faCil
a manner appro
of the untreated ground
NANCR REQU
ly main aired and o
facility by the Ccr
1�t facilitiea. cipe or
era to or greater than th el
Certification Com issi
of the a pproppr�iaate
.0202. The ORC o
ssII, 111,and IVfaclity
y manage and docu cn1
with all other conditions
e Permittee must so rbt
o razor in responsible char
e +complete.
s fa e e fectively maintained and
dharg of y wastewater resulting
RTING REQUIRM1
onito in deem
sand ound
g sch ple sh
thptiarnta Notit
t
ran
* (70
r1dr
A y cc
si 2fic1
th den
h, do
auto n
ip,g o 1
uhstan
: s unit
of adegl
P reps, t
0
on:
by the Div
on will b
ort by telephone to
as soon as possible,
g the occurrence o
ter treat
are
contents of a basin
thmugh the facility,
ure, due to known o
wastewater treatmeri
pressors, etc.;
2
ily, including the creation of
ctive action, including those
the construction of additional or
ee of the responsibility for damages
of this facility.
most be disposed in accordance with
d by the North Carolina Division of
er fro
S
all
c
Commission, the Permittee shall
be in responsible charge (ORC) of
hold a certificate of the type and
Cation assigned to the wastewater
The Permittee must also employ a
e to comply with the conditions
f visit each pass I facility at
deity, excluding weekends and
operation and maintenance of the
Title 15A, Chapter 8A, .0202. Once
er to the Certification Commission
thirty days after the wastewater
d as a non -discharge system to
operation of this facility.
vironmental Management to insure
bushed and an acceptable sampling
oresville Regional Office, telephone
o case more than 24 hours or on the
nowledge of the occurrence of any of
ity which results in the treatment of
in quantity or characteristic, such as
the known passage of a slug of
her unusual circumstances;
n reasons, that renders the facility
mechanical or electrical failures of

c. An fau
directly to
sucO istatio
d.
The bo porn o tlt,
Within_ 90 days a
and R-3 sh 1
well, t esig aid
monitgr well
below the Sc
location and
new rrpnitori
the Mooresv
propoSFd tee
Sectio. [telep
The 10+aresv
least forty-ei
that tnN ns
regio grou
a.m. u ti15:
Withicl sixty.
on ina1 cop/
sealed try El
foflouktlg. In
a. thi loca
b. thqloca
c. th loea
d. th'1ocati
e. the latitu
f, t�rel
as
g. the dept
esUblish
02.01.2000
ng station, sewer line o
aters without treatm
or
currences by telephv n e
following first know edg
proposed to be taken to e
suance, three (3
ed as specified in
10, shall be inst
trusted such that tl
) portion of the well
h well is marked on
be constructed in ac
Office. A well con
Please contact the
[phone]] fo
1 Office, telephone
rs prior to the cons
made of the mom
rvisor shall be m
onday through. Frida
60) days o completion of all mo
of a s ed topographic ma
fi *anal engineer or a state 1
Motion:
id
and ide
'and is
'0
d1'and
The serve lee co
Statutes Cho r 9C
The s• rveyta a l este
dispo a1 sys e n and d
man> 'neat t a horizont
through e. a' rive shall
positi anal ac uraccy of f
not tcrexcee an error o
fcatuses lac rod by' the
Horisontal o trod `rno
mateeals the to mono
of
ri ity of each monitoringfwel
drri 'ty of each recovery well,
to disposal system,
rty boundaries,
ude of the established
n of the top of the
ow the rneasurin
ucted using a proved
d the North approved
lish a horizontal control
etermine the latitude and
E positional accuracy of +
e surveyed relative o th
atures listed in a. ugh
closure of 1 foot per 0,
radial method wall be to
ument shall be inst fled
gent will not be destr yed
3
atment facility resulting in a by-pass
all or any portion of the influent to
the facility is not in compliance
so file a written report in letter
e occurrence. This report must
at the problem does not recur.
below land surface.
designated as RW-1, RW-2,
application. Also, one (1) monitor
ofttor groundwater quality. The
level in the well is never above or
y time during the year. The general
nt A. The recovery wells and the
with this permit, and approved by
rm1t will be required for the three
e Regional Office - Groundwater
very well permit applications.
704) 663-1699, shall be notified at
y recovery/monitoring well(s) so
ocation. Such notification to the
ng the normal office hours from 8:00
ding state holidays.
wells, the permittee shall submit two
no greater than 1 ":l OO') signed and
and surveyor that indicates all of the
trot monument,
which shall be known as the
e time the measuring point is
alined in North Carolina General
tive Code Title 21, Chapter 56,
onument on the property of the waste
longitude of this horizontal control.
14 feet. All other features listed in a.
s horizontal control monument. The
above shall have a ratio of precision
feet of perimeter of the survey. Any
ed from a minimum of two points.
n such a manner and made of such
ue to activities that may take place on

P.
the pr rty.
coordt to sy
be base on
(GpS),s, used
GPS rtreive
colleen d by tl
The trips an
N.C. Uivisio
0578.
Upon tomp
profesai©nal
accordance
certifi titian
each ' ell.
Comp ance
For tht initial;
submit a c
Monitoring
include copi
Failur, to su
enforc anent
All wells t.
in accat'dan
Water Supp1
constrkictivn. l
The n*»iitor w
— 3 W-4r -arid M
Augu$ii, and lj
Wa
EPA
EPA
EPA
ring sup
Of Env
ers.
ft
The Iseasur
provR e the
The sults o
and ompli
[Corm'ianc
The i$fluen
week *for t
bolo
EPA
EPA
EPA
also be surveyed sing the North American Datum of 1983
indicate the datum n the map. All bearings or azimuths shall
or NAD 83 grid ericlan. , If a Global Positioning System
latitude and long tulle of the horizontal control monument, a
bility to perform differential GPS shall be used and all data
ill be different) 1y crreccted.
Documentation hall,be sent to the Groundwater Section,
ntal Manageme t P.G. Box 29578 Raleigh, N.C. 27626-
ConstriiCti0n activ
ying that the mon
Construction Stan
bmitted with copies
ification and the
ter Section,. P.O.
well as specified;
1 Form (Well
9) for that well.
form will be return
forms as required by
uant to NC General
ed for purposes of
CAC 2C .0108 (St
other state and loc
ed as monitor
ted on Attachment
the following p
Purgeable Aromati
ethod 6 - Polynuclear Aroma » c H;
ethod 504.1- Ethylene Dibroti
of water levels must be rude
pth to waiter in each well
certification must be received from a
wells are located and constructed in
5A NCAC 2C) and this permit. This
Well Completion Form (GW-1) for
oci;rted ,OW-1 forms to the Permits and
ox ' 9578, Raleigh, NC, 27626-0578.
elsewhere in the permit, the permitter shall
om tetipn Form) with the Compliance
puree Monitoring Forms that do not
o the perrnittee without being processed.
his permit may result in the initiation of
taxu es 143.215.6.
oun4water monitoring shall be constructed
dairy of Construction for Wells Other than
lave s and regulations pertaining to well
fi, and
llbes
St
p
monitor wells MW-1,
every February, May,
nor to sampling for the remaining
measured from the surveyed point on
top of well casing) o onitoring wells shall be surveyed to
tion of the measuring ixit for each monitoring well.
the setup mg and analysis shall sent to the Groundwater Section, Permits
oe Unit, P.O. Box 29578 Ra sigh, N.C. 27626-0578 on Form OW-59
onitorin Report Form) every Merck, June, September, and December.
efflue
thre
t from the treatment yste'n shall be sampled once every two (2)
(3) months and mo y.thereafter for the parameters specified
Purgeable Aromati + MTBE
Polynucicar Aroma is Hydrocarbons
- Ethylene Dibromi'de
4

02.01.2000 00:00
R. 6
Th
andC
s
Is
dire
moni
also
groun
Flow
reco
moni
The
is de
poss
tclep
The g
ins
Stand
tre
14. All
pro
15. T
15A
for t
feet
close
bey
the
Inac
dis
wa
reme
Any
be p
PE
2. The
foci!'
may
nuis
date
actio
for a
Div
g and analysis shall be s
.0 Box 29578 Raie6
on (lines donnecting points o
11 be deJeloped for each c
feDow' ' each quarterly s'arnp
ri quarterly basis. The
ata (GW-59 forms) f
asur me
wel 7
ng d`ta
and
trine to
and
e nu ' bbe
AC
dispo
ces shall be instal
rmation shall be
erly basis.
©very, treatment and di
e system is malfunction
eti to:the Groundwater SO
7O4)!663-1699, within 48
system shall con
ed to the infiltrat'.
system fails to c
in operational rocs
groundwater recove
to prevent freezing
for the d'tf
f cations id
nstructed after Deoe
area, or (2) 50 f
al area. An ex
oipliricBoundary is subject
provisions applicable under Gent
ystem
ate dis
ste dis
ith 15A NCAC 2L, a
s nidway between the Co
a, Any exceedance of sta
on U part of the permittee.
oundwater quality monitori
intenance and cle
ubject facilities.
or Isis esignee shall insp
event in functions and deters
use o i+ea l for release of wastes to
ce. Tc Permittee shall maintain an i
ime Of inspec ion, observations mad
by the Pe tree. This log of i_
t three y from the date of t
r{vironrneftal Management or
o the Groundwater Section, Permits
C. 27626-0578 within 30 days of
oncentration) maps in the horizontal
detected, from the groundwater
t. A water level contour map must
( be submitted along with other
riod.
onitor the volumes pumped at each
d and submitted with the rest of the
tens shall be'inspected weekly. if it
pairs should be made as soon as
t the Mooresville Regional Office,
hieve a treatment efficiency which
is at or below Groundwater 2L
achieve this standard, additional
required.
nt, and disposal system shall be
ure of the system.
system is specified by regulations in
ndards. The Compliance Bound is
1,1983 is established at either (1) 250
n the property boundary, whichever is
roundwater QualityStandards at or
�e rernediation action in addition to
e 143-215.6A(a)(1).
R � t OUNDARY is established around the
e Boundary and the perimeter of the
at the Review Boundary shall require
ed necessary by the Division, shall
provided by the Perrnittee to insure
roundwater recovery and treatment
operator errors and discharges which
onment, a threat to human health, or a
n log or summary including at least the
y maintenance, repairs, or corrective
shall be maintained by the Permittee
ion and shall be made available to the
tting authority, upon request.

02.01.2000 00t00
P. 7
Any
Mate
Pree
pu
mus
of grow
E ERAL
Issuan
Petrole
This
the corgi
data.
This perm
the api
This permit i<
ownerarip, or;
submitted to
fee, doaume
approP; ate.
not be Opprov
A set cif app
Perini* for
Failure -to abi
Perrniree to
accordance
The anpuala
(30) dors a
the Division ti
(c)(4).
The is an
all statues,
agence.S (loc
The Pcrniitte
extenLon.
facilities des
and under su
zed officer, employee, or repre
y, upon presentation of ore
on or 'hued to the disposal
ning mpliance with this p
unde the terms and condrti
ale water, or leachate.
it deer n
d
constitute
Tank Cleanu
me voidable unless the
permmit, the approved pl
tiveoinly with respect to th
er supporting data.
able. In the even
ame change of the `P
of Environmental M
on from the parties involved
approved of this request wil
d specifications f
is project.
e'by the conditions and limit
enforce ent action by the
North Carolina General Statut
isttrih and compliance f
g;billed by the Division. 1
iate at:tion to revoke this p
s per t does not preclude
u1aons, or ordinances w
e, and federal) which have j
(6) months prior to
f the request. the
, and if warranted,
ditions and limitations as i
ssti ed this the; thirteetip day of 114ay,1996
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
A. resto
Division
By: Authori
t Number
ve of the Division of Environmental
enter and inspect any property,
lity at any reasonable time for the
inspect or copy any records that
permit, and may obtain samples
or reimbursement from the Leaking
SA NCAC 2P).
constructed in accordance with
fications, and other supporting
and volume of wastes described in
desire for the facilities to change
a formal permit request must be
ent accompanied by an application
her supporting materials as may be
sidered on its merits and may or may
bject project must be retained by the
ined in this permit may subject the
of Environmental Management in
5.6(a) to 143-215.6(c).
paid by the Permittee within thirty
o pay the fee accordingly may cause
specified by 15A NCAC 2H .0205
ittee from complying with any and
ay be imposed by other government
ction.
ration of this permit, shall request its
ion will review the adequacy of the
end the permit for such period of lime
eern appropriate.

No. WQ00 12
1996
pro
Permttee
of tha3 con
inten
Sign
Date
ez.ab.z®se
duly re stered Profess"+anal Engineer in the State of North
e Ctaeri��l,itne) the construction of the
a my abilities, d
fiction was observed
d specifications, an
7
for the
n
diligence was used in the observation
tit within substantial compliance and
upporting materials.
stration No.. w,

EXISTIN
02.01.2000 00:00
ATTAC EItIErn A
ERflT NO. WQ0012203
0., ROPOSEO M NITOI1 *ELL IT" 0# CHARLOTTE
LOCATION STATION NO. 9
RO4JNDWATER REMEUI
PROPOS RE°VERTY" "4 '"ELLS MECtLENBURG COUNTY
SCALE:
0'
P. 9
ESTIMATED EX
OF C IOUNDWATV
CONTAIMNATICar
©N' SYS'1'EM

c ycteM
N,/a

a
1T.. .,'.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
April 23, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Carolyn McCaskill
Through: Bob Cheek (-
From: Brian Wootton 62.A1,
Subject: City of Charlotte
Fire Station #9
Groundwater Remediation System
Mecklenburg County
WQ0012203/GW96055
(Michael Allen: DEM SERG Review Engineer
The Groundwater Section has reviewed the subject permit application for a groundwater
remediation system The proposed infiltration gallery is designed to accommodate 2800 GPD of
treated groundwater. The groundwater model, RESSQC, indicates that the system will operate in a
closed loop manner and the groundwater mounding model, CSUMOUND, indicates that potential
for groundwater mounding is minimal, We recommend that one (1) new monitor well be installed
near the infiltration gallery, in order to monitor any potential impacts to groundwater caused by
effluent from the infiltration gallery.
In conclusion, the Groundwater Section has no objection to issuance of the permit, provided
that the following conditions are included:
The bottorri of the infiltration bed galle shall not exceed five (5) feet below and
surface.
2 Within 90 days of permit issuance, three (3) recovery wells, designated as RW-1,
RW-2, and RW-3 shall be installed as specified in the permit application. Also, one
(1) monitor well , designated as MW-10, shall be installed to monitor groundwater
quality. The monitor well shall be constructed such that the water level in the well is
never above or below the screened (open) portion of the well at any time during the
year. The general location and name for each new well (recovery and monitor well)
is marked on Attachment A. The recovery wells and the new monitor well shall be

constructed in accordance with this permit, and approved by the Mooresville Regional
Office. A well construction permit will be required for the three proposed recovery
wells. Please contact the Mooresville Regional Office - Groundwater Section (phone
number 704-663-1699) for the recovery well permit applications.
The Mooresville Regional Office, telephone number [phone] shall be
notified at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the construction of any
monitoring/recovery well(s) so that an inspection can be made of the well(s)
location. Such notification to the regional groundwater, supervisor shall be
made during the normal office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday
through Friday, excluding state holidays.
4 Within sixty (60) days of completion of all recovery and monitoring wells, the
permittee shall submit two original copies of a scaled map (scale no greater than
1":100') signed and sealed by a state licensed land surveyor that indicates all of the
following information:
a. the location and identity of each monitoring well,
b, the location and identity of each recovery well,
c. the location of all components of the waste disposal system,
d. the location of all property boundaries,
e. the latitude and longitude of the established horizontal control monument,
the relative elevation of the top of the well casing (which shall known as the
"measuring point"), and
g. the depth of water below the measuring point at the time the measuring point
is established.
This survey shall be conducted using approved practices outlined in North Carolina
General Statutes Chapter 89C and the North Carolina Administrative Code Title 21,
Chapter 56 The surveyor shall establish a horizontal control monument on the
property of the waste disposal system and determine the latitude and longitude of this
horizontal control monument to a horizontal positional accuracy of +1-10 feet. All
other features listed in a. through e. above shall be surveyed relative to this horizontal
control monument. The positional accuracy of features listed in a. through e. above
shall have a ratio of precision not to exceed an error of closure of 1 foot per 10,000
feet of perimeter of the survey. Any features located by the radial method will be
located from a minimum of two points. Horizontal control monuments shall be
installed in such a manner and made of such materials that the monument will not be
destroyed due to activities that may take place on the property. The map shall also
be surveyed using the North American Datum of 1983 coordinate system and shall
indicate the datum on the map. All bearings or azimuths shall be based on either the
true or NAD 83 grid meridian. If a Global Positioning System (GPS) is used to
determine the latitude and longitude of the horizontal control monument, a GPS
receiver that has the capability to perform differential GPS shall be used and all data
2

collected by the GPS receiver will be differentially corrected.
The maps and any supporting documentation shall be sent to the Groundwater
Section, NC. Division of Environmental Management P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, N.C.
27626-0535.
5 Upon completion of all well construction activities, a certification must be received
from a professional engineer certifying that the monitoring well and recovery wells
are located and constructed in accordance with the Well Construction Standards (15A
NCAC 2C) and this permit. This certification should be submitted with copies of the
Well Completion Form (GW-1) for each well. Mail this certification and the
associated GW-1 forms to the Permits and Compliance Unit, Groundwater Section,
P,O. Box 29535, Raleigh, NC, 27626-0535_
6. For the initial sampling of the well as specified elsewhere in the permit, the permittee
shall submit a copy of the GW-1 Form (Well Completion Form) with the Compliance
Monitoring Form (GW-59) for that well. Compliance Monitoring Forms that do not
include copies of the GW-1 form will be returned to the permittee without being
processed. Failure to submit these forms as required by this permit may result in the
initiation of enforcement activities pursuant to NC General Statutes 143-215.6.
7 All wefls that are constructed for purposes of groundwater monitoring shall be
constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0108 (Standards of Construction for
Wells Other than Water Supply) and any other state and local laws and regulations
pertaining to well construction.
8 The new monitor well designated as monitor well MW-10, and existing monitor wells
MW-4, and MW-5 (depicted on attachment A), shall be sampled every
February, May, August, and November for the following parameters:
Water Level
EPA Method 602-Purgeable Aromatics + MTBE
EPA Method 601-Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
EPA Method 504.1-Ethylene Dibromide
9, The measurement of water levels must be made prior to sampling for the remaining
parameters. The depth to water in each well shall be measured from the surveyed
point on the top of the casing.
The measuring points (t p of well casing) of all monitoring wells shall be surveyed to
3

provide the relative elevation of the measuring point for each monitoring well,
10. The results of the sampling and analysis shall be sent to the Groundwater Section,
Permits and Compliance Unit, P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, NC, 27626-0578 on Form
GW-59 [Compliance Monitoring Report Form] every March, June, September, and
December.
11 The influent and effluent from the treatment system shall be sampled initially after
system start-up then once every 2 weeks for the first three (3) months, then monthly
thereafter for the parameters specified below:
EPA Method 602-Purgeable Aromatics + MTBE
EPA Method 601-Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
EPA Method 504.1-Ethylene Dibrornide
The results of the sampling and analysis shall be sent to the Groundwater Section,
Permits and Compliance Unit, P.O. Box 29578 Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0578 within 30
days of sample collection.
12. Isoconcentration (lines connecting points of equal concentration) maps in the
horizontal directions shall be developed for each constituent detected, from the
oundwater monitoring data following each quarterly sampling event, A water level
contour map must also be developed on a quarterly basis. These maps shall be
submitted along with other groundwater monitoring data (GW-59 forms) for that
period.
13. Flow measurement devices shall be installed to monitor the volumes pumped at each
recovery well. This information shall be tabulated and sent in with the rest of the
monitoring data on a quarterly basis.
14 The groundwater recovery, treatment and disposal system shall be inspected weekly.
If it is determined that the system is malfunctioning, all repairs should be made as
soon as possible and reported to the Groundwater Supervisor, at the Mooresville
Regional Office (telephone number 704-663-1699) within 48 hours.
15 The groundwater treatment system shall consistently achieve a treatment efficiency
which insures that waters dischar ed to the infiltration alle is at or below
Groundwater 2L standards. If the treatment system fails to consistently achieve this
standard additional treatment units o han e in o rational tnethods ma be
required.
16. All components of the groundwater recovery, treatment, and disposal system shall be
4

properly weather -proofed to prevent freezing and failure of the system.
17 The COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY for the disposal system is specified by regulations
in 15A NCAC 2L, Groundwater Classifications and Standards. The Compliance
Boundary is for the disposal system constructed after December 31, 1983 is
established at either (1) 250 feet from the waste disposal area, or (2) 50 feet within
the property boundary, whichever is closest to the waste disposal area. An
exceedance of Groundwater Quality Standards at or beyond the Compliance
Boundary is subject to immediate remediation action in addition to the penalty
provisions applicable under General Statute 143-215.6A(a)(1),
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2L, a REVIEW BOUNDARY is established around
the disposal systems midway between the Compliance Boundary and the perimeter of
the waste disposal area. Any exceedance of standards at the Review Boundary shall
require remediation action on the part of the permittee.
18. Any additional groundwater quality monitoring, as deemed necessary by the Division,
shall be provided.
cc: Barbara Christian
Permit Files

PROPERTY
LINE
LEGEND
ATTACHMENT A
EXISTING MONITOR WELLS
A PROPOSED MONITOR WELL
LOCATION
CD PROPOSED RECOVERY WELLS
STIMATED EXTENT
F GROUNDW.T4
C©NTAMINATICN
MW-2
0A0 (5R 3445)
PERMIT NO. WQ0012203
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
FIRE STATION NO. 9
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION SYSTEM
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
CALE:

FACILITY NAME
LOCATION 0.j
GROUNDWATER SECTION GW #
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RECORD OF WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
TYPE OF DISPOSAL SYSTEM (LAGOON, ETC.
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
SIZE OF IMPOUNDMENT (FT SO.)
WASTE SOURCE: MUN. SLUDGE MUN. W. WATER:
IND, SLUDGE AND. WELL WATER
DISTANCE FROM WASTE SOURCE TO NEAREST: STREAM >
FOR WELL: TYPE OF USE fe'''''' , DEPTH ..23 PUMP RATE (EST.
WHAT DESIGN CONDITIONS WILLEDUCE ICREASE CHANCE OF GW CONTAMINATION:
WHAT ATURAL SITE CONDITIONS WILL REDUC I!ICREA HANCE OF GW CONTAMINATION: •Z.s.;
NVESTIGATION? (YIN)
DESIGN CAP. (GPD)
OF APPLICATIL ,4 , HEA
ARY SECONDA
THERS
FT., WELL
ARY
DEPTH TO: BEDROCK ' AFT., SEASONAL HIGH W.T. .
SURFICIAL AQUIFER
GEN, LCTHOLOGY
HVO, COND. `f 3
THICKNESS /
NO. OF MONITER WELLS: PROPOSED: UP
FROM WORKSHEET: SITE NUMERICAL DESCRIPTION=
SITE GRADE (HYDROGEOL)
PROPOSED SAMPLING SCHEDULE & PARAMETER(S):
EASURED
ESTIMATED
FT., ANNUAL W.T. FLUX
BEDROCKJARTEIAN AQUIFER
Fr/DAY
ASURED
STIMATED
DOWN ; EXISTING: UP DOWN
6A 613
23 4
SITUATION GRADE
S.
HAVE THERE BEEN ANY EXCEEDANCES OF THE GROUNDWATER STANDARDS? YES ✓' NO
HAS ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION BEEN TAKEN? YES NO ►! DATE OF ACTION:
BRIEF SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN:
REMARKS/ RE RECOMMENDATIONS (Continue on reverse, if necessary):
d
ILA-4-
HYD. REGIONAL SUPERVISOR

MEMORANDUM
TO:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
Regional Office
FROM: ' ✓ r,4 vt/ovi°
SUBJECT. Application for Permit Renewal
Facility Name:
County:
.�7
Type of Project:
APPLICABLE PERMIT NO . s : WQ 00 / 1 —O 3
DEH
Permit Amendment.
New Permit
UIC
EPA
GW ? 0,"s`
A to C
CUA
The Groundwater Section has received a copy of the referenced permit
application, a copy of which should have been sent to your Regional
Water Quality Supervisor - IF A COPY HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN THE
REGIONAL OFFICE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
1 The Groundwater Section has received a copy of the referenced permit
application. A copy of the application documents we received is
attached.
The Groundwater Section has received a subsurface disposal project
from the Div. Env. Health's On -Site Wastewater Section. A copy of
the application has been forwarded to DEH's Regional Soil
Specialist, . Please coordinate your review with
that Soil Speciaiist.
Please review the application materials for completeness. If you feel
ditional information is necessary, please let me know no later than
E- . A copy of any formal request for additional information
be forwarded to you.
If you do not need any additional
please provide your final comments by
receive additional information, your f
14 days after you receive the additions
or u�lat ion
o complete your review,
If you request and/or
are due no later than

"51 Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Environmental Management Group
March 18, 1996
PSI Project No, 511-24178
Ms. Carolyn McCaskill
NCDEHNR
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Non -Discharge Permit Application
City of Charlotte -Eire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms, McCaskill:
PSI, on the behalf of the City of Charlotte, is pleased to present this Non -Discharge Permit
Application for the construction/installation of an infiltration gallery prepared for the above
referenced project site, As a result of a petroleum product release and in response to a Notice
of Violation (NOV) issued by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) Mooresville Regional Office (MRO) dated March 22, 1994,
PSI prepared a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the project site,
The CAP was prepared to select and justify a method to remediate the petroleum -contaminated
soil and ground water in the surficiai aquifer at the project site. Accordingly, PSI proposed to
treat impacted ground water and dispose of the treated ground water via a drainage feature
located adjacent to the project site. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Application was submitted to the NCDEHNR in April 1995 regarding this
disposal alternative. The application was returned following the failure to achieve an
agreement for discharging treated ground -water effluent into the existing storm -water drainage
system from an adjacent property owner.
As a result, the Charlotte Mecklenburg County Utilities Department (CMUD) was approached
concerning the possible acceptance of treated ground -water effluent into the existing sanitary
sewer system. It was discussed during a meeting with CMUD that currently a "program" is
notin-place to permit or monitor the acceptance of treated ground water effluent to the
sanitary sewer system. Therefore, CMUD is extremely reluctant to approve the receipt of any
treated ground water into their system.
5035 A West W.T. Harris Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28269
Phone: [phone] + Fax [phone]

NCDEHNR-DEM
City of Charlotte -Fire Station No. 9
March 18, 1996
Page 2
Based on this information, PSI evaluated the alternative of disposing the treated ground water
on -site into an infiltration gallery. To this end, the completed Non -Discharge Permit
Application (Form: GWRS) is provided for your review. The remediation system which will
be installed at the project site will be a "pump and treat" system. The impacted ground water
will be removed from the subsurface via vertical recovery wells and treated using an air
stripper. PSI anticipates that the treated ground water will be discharged into the infiltration
gallery at a flow rate of. approximately 2 gallons per minute.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this project or need additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone]. PSI has forwarded one copy of the
permit application to the Mooresville Regional Office to the attention of Mr, Mike Parker.
Sincerely„
PSI
Rodney J. Hamm
Project Scientist
H.C. (Hughston) Cald
Project Engineer
Registered, North Carolina
Ms. Michelle M. Gregor, P.E., City of Charlotte Engineering Department
Mr. Mike Parker, NCDEHNR-MRO
Attachment:
Non -Discharge Permit Application

State of North Carolina •
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Non -Discharge Permit Application
(7111S FORM MAY BE PHOTOCOPIED FOR USE AS AN ORIGINAL)
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION SYSTEMS
This permit application form is for systems which use either infiltration galleries or injection wells to
discharge treated groundwater into the subsurface. Each section of this application must be completed
unless otherwise noted. Contact the Groundwater Section at 919/733-3221 to obtain Groundwater
Remediation System Permit Application Guidelines.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Applicant (corporation, individual, or other): City of Charlotte - Eree -ina Devartment
Print Owners or Signing Official's Name 8: Title (person legally
& disposal system & its compliance): Ms. `"icbelle M. Gregor
Mailing Address: 600 East, Fourth Street
City:
Charlotte
Telephone No.: (
4. Re ediation Site Owner: Feder; State;
704
State:
- 3654
Native American Lan
Other (specify)
List the principal products or services provided by faciii
a Fire Station for the City of Charlotte.
Project Name (facility or establishment name, should be consistent on all documents included
Station Dumber 9
in this application package): Fire
Groundwater Incident Number (if known): 1 1 9 1 4
nsible for the treatment.
al
arolina
2.820`_
Public;
.The facility is curre
9. Application Date: ma'
Location of Rerediation Activities (Street Address):
4529 McKee Road
City: Charlotte . County:M k burg State: N?r
10. Fee Submitted: $ 400.00
Name:
FORM: GWRS 12/92 Page 1 of 10
h 15, 1.996
11. Contact person wh a� answer questions about application:
Hughston
Rodney Hamm
Telephone number.
704 ) 59 2234

II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. Permit Number (will be completed by DEM):
2. Specify whether project is: x new; rtnewal*; modification; name changes;
°If renewal or name change without other tnodifications, complete only sections I, II, and
applicant signature (on pg. 9). Submit only pgs. 1, 2, and 9 (original and three copies of
each). Engineer's signature not required for renewal or name changes without bther
modifications.
If this application is being submitted as a result of a renewal or Modification to an existing
permit, list the existing permit number and issue date
III. INFORMAT1ON ON CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER:
1. Provide a brief description of the events or cause of the groundwater contamination:
Release of unleaded gasoline from anunderground storage tank (UST).
2. List contaminants detected: Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes,
naphthalene, methyl-tert butylether, isopropyl ether.
3. Volume of groundwater to be remediated per day: 2,800 gallons (per day)
. 4. Explanation of how volume was determined: Using calculated hydraulic conductivity
values,a flow rate of 2 gallons per minute was determined and converted to
gallons per day.
IV. GENERAL DESIGN INFORMATION:
1. Specify the type of system that is being installed:
x infiltration gallery; injection well; other (specify)
2. Provide a brief description of all components of the treatment and disposal system (i.e.,
treatment units, pumps, tanks, chemical feed system, injection and/or recovery wells, etc.):
See AttachmentsAttachrnents for compietestenidet
•
15A NCAC 2C .0213 (Well Construction Standards, Applicable to Injection Wells) requires
that contaminant levels in the fluid injected into any well be monitored; therefore, a sampling
port must be provided on the effluent lines (treated water prior to being injected into the wells
or infiltration gallery). The permit will specify the requirements for monitoring this effluent
Identify the location in the plans/specifications where the sampling port design is detailed:
The sample port locations are detailed in Figures No. 3 of 6.
FORM: GWRS 12/92
Page 2 of 10

•
V . DESIGN INFORMATION FOR INFILTRATION GALLERIES1:
. Specify the dimensions of each infiltration gallery: (a) L= 17 ft W= 20 D=5 ft.
ft. D=
b) L= ft W= ft. D= (c) L=
2. The static water level at the gallery location is 20-25 feet. The vertical separation
between the gallery trench bottom and the mean seasonal high water table is 15-20 feet.
ft.
A soil scientist must provide an evaluation of the soils where the infiltration gallery will be
located and must specify an acceptable loading rate (amount of water gallery can accept).
This evaluation should determine whether the loading rate shall be based upon only the
surface area of the infiltration gallery or whether it is appropriate to include some of the side
wall depth.
a. What is the area used to determine the loading rate? 2,500 square ft.
b. Does the area specified above include only the surface area or has some of the side
wall depth been used? No surface area only; or surface area plus
side wall depth.
c. If side wall depth has been used, specify how much depth or height above the
infiltration gallery bottom has been used. N/A inches.
d. The recommended loading rate is 1.1? GPD per square foot.
4. Briefly describe any mounding of groundwater, above the static groundwater levels, that may
result from infiltration (please attach calculations and/or diagrams): Please refer to
Appendix E.
VI. DESIGN INFORMATION FOR INJECTION WELLS: N/A
1. Identify the principal aquifer to which the injection wells will be discharging:
Is the aquifer identified in VI.1 above the same aquifer from which the contaminated
groundwater was extracted? yes no If no, describe how the aquifers are
hydraulically related:
Briefly describe any mounding of groundwater, above the static groundwater levels, that may
result from the injection (please attach calculations and/or diagrams):

teristics of
Injection Well
Characteristics
Diameter "(Inches)
Gravel pack
(if a licable)
Well contractor
a
}i additional sheets if n
C
Contractor registra. no.
VII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
FORM: GWRS 12/92 Page 4 of 10

Substances stay be added to enhance in situ treatment. Only those substances that can be
demonstrated to have advantages that outweigh disadvantages will be considered. Will any
substances be added to the effluent to enhance in situ treatment? yes; x no
If yes, provide a detailed description of these substances, including amounts to be added.
Attach studies which describe the instances in which these substances have been used:
Classification of the closest downslope surface waters: ' c (as established by the
Environmental Management Commission and specified on page 7 of this application).
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0219 (j) (3), describe which measure is being utilized to
prevent overflows into downslope surface waters or adjacent aquifers in the event of a power
failure or equipment malfunction.
hi h level co trot switch will be in w, c
water treatment system onceahha
and in the event of a power failure or equipment malfunction.
4. The :plicabic buffers must be met in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0200 and 1SA
NCAC 2H .0400. Some of those buffers are described below:
a. 100 feet between injection wells or infiltration galleries and any private or public water
supply source;
b. 50 feet between injection wells and waters classified as WS, B, or other streams, canals,
marshes, lakes, impoundments, or coastal waters;
c. 100 feet between infiltration galleries and waters classified as WS, B, or other streams,
cams, marshes, lakes, impoundments, or other coastal waters;
d. 100 feet between injection wells or infiltration galleries and the mean high water of waters
classified as. SA or SB;
c. 100 feet from injection well and infiltration gallery treatment and disposal systems and the
normal high water of Class I and Class II impounded reservoirs which are used as a
source of drinking water,
f. 50 feet from injection well and infiltration gallery treatment and disposal systems and
property lines;
If any of the applicable buffers cannot be
provide equal or better protection of the s
for nuisance conditions:
ound-
t, please explain how the proposed buffers will
ice or groundwaters with no increased potential
THIS APPLICATION PACKAGE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNLESS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS ARE INCLUDED
WITH THE SUBMITTAL
Regtcired Items
One original and three copies of the conirleted and appropriately execuapplication foam.
b. The appropriate permit proc erring fee (see page 10), in accordance
c, Submit four copies of the Corrective Action Plan if it contains any of the requested pertin
d. Four copies of the existing permit if a renewal or modification.
c. Four sets of detailed plans and specifications signed and sealed by a North Carolina Professional Engineer. The plans
must include a general location map; a topographic map which extends one mile beyond property boundaries and
FORM. GWRS 12/92 Page 5 of 10
5A.NCAC 2H .020,5(cX5).
t

depicts the facility and each of its intake and discharge structures (with the quadrangle name); a scaled site -specific map
which indicates where borings or hand auger samples were taken; and a map showing the groundwater
treatment/disposal facilities, buffers, structures and property lines. A map must also identify any hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; each well where fluids from the facility are injected underground; and those
wells, springs and other surface water bodies and drinking water wells listed in public records or otherwise known to
the applicant within a quarter mile of the facility property boundary. Each sheet of she plans, including any plan pages
that are incorporated into a bound document, and the first page of the specifications, must be signet! and sealed by an
NC P.E.
Four copies of a tabulation of data on all wells which are within the area of review and which penetrate the proposed
injection zone. Such data shall include an identification number (same number referenced on map required in "e" above)
for each well, a description of each well type, date installed, depth of well, and record of completion or abandonment (if
available).
A soil scientist report which includes texture, color, and structure of the soils down to a depth of seven feet; depth,
thickness and type of any restrictive horizons, hydraulic conductivity in the most restrictive horizon, cation exchange
capacity, depth of the mean seasonal high water table, soil pH, soil maps (if available, even if unpublished), and
recommended loading rates (when using an infiltration gallery). This report must be signed by the soil scientist,
A hydrogeologic description, soils description, and cross section of the subsurface to a depth that includes the known or
projected depth of contamination. The number of borings shall be sufficient to determine significant changes in
lithotogy, the vertical permeability of the unsaturated zone, the hydraulic conductivity of the saturated zone, the depth
to the mean seasonal high water table, and a determination of transrnissivity and specific yield of the unconfined aquifer
(show calculations used for transmissivity and specific yield). Report should also indicate whether the aquifer is
attributable to fracture porosity storage or stratigraphically controlled (bedding planes). include a generalized map and.
cross section illustrating the regional geologic setting.
Describe the proposed injection procedure and describe expected changes in pressure and direction of movement of
injected fluid (provide data from fracture studies where applicable). Applicant mutt demonstrate complete hydraulic
control over contaminant plume and injectate.
j. Proposal for groundwater monitoring (e.g., schedule, analytical methods, etc.).
k. Describe the method for determining mechanical integrity of injection well over a five year period.
1. A complete analysis of the contaminated groundwater to include, but not limited to BTEX, volatile and semivolatile
compounds, pH, nitrates, and phosphates or additional information the Director deems necessary to evaluate the
proposed treatment and disposal system.
m. Describe contaminant concentrations in the effluent given the proposed treatment. Include expected treatment
efficiency. Provide calculations or documentation to show how proposed degree of treatment was derived.
tr. Diagram of the contaminant plume both horizontally and vertically, including vadose zone contamination
(isoconcentration maps and plume cross sections). Include direction of groundwater flow for both surface aquifer and
deep aquifers.
o. Four copies of all reports, evaluations, agreements, supporting calculations, etc., must be submitted as a pan of the
supporting documents which are signed and sealed by the North Carolina Professional Engineer. Although certain
portions of this required submittal must be developed by other professionals, inclusion of these materials under the
signature and seal of a North Carolina Professional Engineer signifies that he or she has reviewed this material and has
judged it to be consistent with his or her proposed design.
p, An executed page 7, which has been completed by the appropriate Regional Wax r Quality personnel, and
reincorporated into the application form prior to submittal of the application package.
INSTRUCTIONS TO NC PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER:
rr otu, r_wmc Pape 6 of ID

The classification of the closest downslope surface waters (the surface waters that any overflow from.
the groundwater remediation facility would flow towards) must be determined by the appropriate
DEM regional office. Therefore, you are required, prior to submittal of the application
package, to submit this form, with items 1 through 8 completed, to the appropriate Division of
page Management Regional Water Quality Supervisor (see10). At a minimum, you
must include an 8.5'1 by 11" copy of the portion of a 7.5 minute USGS Topographic Map which
shows the subject surface waters. You must identify the location of the groundwater remediation
facility and the closest downslope surface waters on the submitted snap copy. Once the regional
office has completed the classification, reincorporate this completed page and the
topographic map into the complete application form and submit the applica]ion
package.
1. Applicant (corporation, individual, or other): City 0f
Charlotte,- Engineering Department
2. Name & complete address of engineering firm: PSI, Inc.
City:.
Charlotte State: North Carolina,
Telephone number.. [phone]
3. Project name: _Fire Stat°l.on No. 9
4. Facilitydesign flow: 2,880 (approximate)
5. Name of closest downslope surface waters: six-
e Creek
6. County(s) where project and surface waters are located:
Zip: 28269
GPD
Mecklenburg
7. Map name and date: Weddingtan, N.C.-S.C. Dated 1968 (Phot©r`evised 1988)
8. NC Professional. Engineer Seal and Signature [must be legible] (specify date):
TO: REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR
Please provide me with the classification of the surface waters identified in number 5
the attached map .segment:
Name of surface waters:
e Creek
Classification (as established by the Environm
Proposed classification, if applicable: N t A
Signature of regional office personnel:
agement Co 'on): C
Robert Sebeller
Name and Complete Address of Engineering Firm: n
FORM: GWRS 12/92 Page 7 of 10
d on
Date: January 24. 1996

5035A WestW.T. Harris Hl.vd.
City: Charlotte
Telephone No.: (704) 59 -? 34 ..
PROFES�.SI©NAL ENGIN
I,
G'cG
ER'S CERTIFICATION:
, attest that this application for
„r .,m;47-been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the
o� y knowledge. attest that to the best of my knowledge the proposed design has been
prepared in accordance with the applicable rregulations. Although certain portions of this submittal package
may have been developed by other professionals, inclusion of these materials under my signature and seal
signifies that I have reviewed this material and have judged it to be consistent with the proposed design.
NC Professional Engineer's Seal and Signature [must be leible) (specify date)
IINI ,,M
EAR© a
SSlO,, .
APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION:
s
this application for tUan
p
has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that if
all required parts of this application are not completed and that if all required supporting information and
attachments are not included, this application package will be returned as incomplete.
Signature: f .�Q Q..� Date: 11(4
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE, INCLUDING ALL SUPPORTING INFORMATION
AND MATERIALS, SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
Permits and Engineering Unit
P.Q. Box 29535
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone Number: 919/733.5083
PERMIT .APPLICATION PROCESSING FEES
FORM: GWRS 12/92 Page 8 of 10

A ON PLAN
�,GS ONLY)

COR1tECTIVE ACTION PLAN
FOR TIIE RESTORATION OF PETROLEUM
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUND WATER
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
PRE 'ARED FOR:
City of Charlotte Engineering Department
600 mast Fourth Street, 12th Floor
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844
IW
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Environmental Management Group
5035-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
I'SI I'roet No. 511-24178
December 16, 1994
Professional Service Indus ries, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
2.1 Statement of Goals and Expected Accorn lislunents
2.2 Target Clean-up Concentrations (Remediation End-
2
.3 Target Corrective Action Schedule
3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
4.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Evaluation Process
4.1.1 Approach ...
4. 1.2 Treatment Categories .
4.1.3 Initial Screening Criteria
4.2 Results of Initial. Screening
4.3 Soil. Remediation .
4.3.1 Soil Vapor Extraction
4.3.2 Bioremediation ..... ,
4.3.3 Soil Flushing .......
4.4 Ground Water Remediation
4.4.1 Institutional Controls
4.4.2 Pump and Treat
4.4.3 Air Sparging ......
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
4.4.4 Bioremediation .. , , , , ..... 8
4.5 Treated Water Disposal „ . 8
4.6 Economic and Technical Selection Factors ..... , .... w 9
5.0 GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION . , , „ ......... ........... , 10
5.1 Remediation System ..
5.2 Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance of the System
10
11
6.0 PERMITS 11
7.0 REFERENCES .............................................. 12

TABLES
Table 1 Proposed Clean -Up Concentrations
Table 2. historical Ground -Water Chemical Test. Results
Table 3 Soil Sample Analytical Summary
Table 4 Physical and Chemical Properties of Toxic BTEX Gas
Table 5 Summary of Exposure Assessment
Table 6 Screening of Soil Remedial Technologies
Table 7 Screening of Ground Water Remedial Technologies
Table 8 Screening of Recovered Ground Water Disposal Methods
Table 9 Maintenance Schedule and Procedures
Table 10 Reporting Schedule
Table 11 Designated Well and Monitoring Schedule
Table 12 Monitoring Well Construction Details
DRAWINGS
Drawing 1 LUGS Topographic Map
Drawing 2 Site Map
Drawing 3 Monitoring Well. Location Map
Drawing 4 Estimated Extent of Benzene in Ground Water
Drawing 5 Ground -Water Elevation Map
Drawing 6 60-Day Flushed Zone
Drawing 7 Soil Boring Location Map
Drawing 8 Isopach Map of Contaminated Soil
Drawing 9 Estimated Extent of "IPII in Soil
Drawing 10 Estimated Vertical Extent of Soil Contamination
Drawing 11 Cross -Section A -A' and B-W Locations
Drawing 12 Site Specific Geological Cross Section A -A'
Drawing 13 Site Specific Geological Cross Section B---B'
APPENDICES (Included Under Seperate Cover)
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix l{
Appendix 1
Appendix J
Appendix K
SVE Pilot Test and Site Vadose Zone Characteristics
Capital and Operating Cost Estimates
Recovery Well Design
Ground Water Treatment System Design
Infiltration Gallery Design
Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE) Design Data
Detailed Design Drawings
Cleanup Time Estimates
Completed Permit Applications
Slug Test Results and Site Hydrogeologic Characteristics
Ground Water Chemical Test Results
e Components

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is submitted in response to a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), Mooresville
Regional Office, dated March 22, 1994. The NOV was issued to the City of Charlotte Engineering
Department. The contamination at the site is the result of a petroleum release. The contamination is
present in the unsaturated zone of site soils and in dissolved concentrations in site ground waters. The
unpermitted release into the subsurface is considered a violation of North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.1 (a)(6). Based on the ground -water chemical testing results, groundwater quality standards in class
GC ground waters, as defined in North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Title 15A, Subchapter
2L, were violated for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, MTBE, tert-butyl alcohol, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
di -isopropyl ether, phenol, 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, 2,4-dimenthylphenol, naphthalene and 2-
methylnaphthalene. As a result, the NCDEHNR issued the facility a ground -water incident number of
11914. In addition, concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPI1) were detected in site soils
exceeding "Action Levels" defined in the NCDEHNR "Groundwater Section Guidelines for the
Investigation and Remediation of Soils and Groundwater."
The project site is a City of Charlotte Fire Station facility located at 4529 McKee Road in Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, A United States Geological Survey (USGS) depicting the
approximate site location is provided as Drawing 1. The site currently has three 550-gallon capacity
USTs present on -site. A site map showing the location of the USTs is provided as Drawing 2. The
USTs were installed in March .1985. One of the USTs is utilized for storing and dispensing diesel fuel.
Another UST was used for storing and dispensing gasoline, but is currently inactive. The third UST was
used to store collected waste oil from an associated oil/water separator and is currently filled with water.
The NCDEHNR issued the facility a UST identification number of 0-023313,
In May 1993,.the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) encountered
petroleum. hydrocarbon vapors in the subsurface of the project site during the installation of vapor
monitoring wells around the USTs located at Fire Station No. 9. Based on these findings, a tightness test
was performed on the UST systems. The results of the tightness tests indicated a volume change of 0.008
gallons per hour (gals/hr) for the diesel UST system and a volume change of 0.016 gals/hr for the
unleaded gasoline UST system. These results revealed that the UST systems were in compliance with
NCAC 2N Section 0.0505 (volume change of less than 0.05 gals/hr).
As a result of the MCDEP findings, in May 1993,.Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) performed
six soil borings (SB-01 through SB-06) in the vicinity of the USTs to evaluate for the presence of
petroleum contamination in the subsurface. Soil samples were collected from each boring and analyzed
for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. (TPH) using EPA Method 8015 with Extraction Methods 3550 and
5030. The laboratory analysis revealed TPH concentrations ranging from 13.9 milligrams per kilogram
(ing/kg) to 9,100 mg/kg. The highest concentration of TP11 was detected in a soil sample collected frotn
soil boring SB-01 at a depth of 15 feet below land surface (BLS). Soil boring SB-01 was performed on
the east side of the unleaded gasoline UST in an apparent downgradient location. The NCDEHNR was
notified of the petroleum release in a letter dated July 7, 1993. In response to the confirmed release, the
contents of the unleaded gasoline UST were removed on December 21, 1993.
In addition to the soil borings, one ground -water monitoring well (MW-01) was installed at the location
of soil boring SB-01., to a depth of approximately 24 feet BLS, to evaluate the potential impact to site
ground waters. A ground -water sample collected from MW-01 confirmed the presence of dissolved -phase
petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations above regulatory standards. As a result of these findings and
in general accordance with 15A NCAC 2N, Section 0.0704, an initial Site Characterization (ISC) Report

dated February 25, 1994 was submitted to the NCDEHNR.
Assessment of the impacted area expanded to include a total of seven Type II and two Type III ground-
water monitoring wells (MW-01 through MW-09D). Monitoring well locations are depicted on Drawing
3. Ground -water sampling and chemical testing from these wells indicates that the horizontal and vertical
extent of dissolved hydrocarbons in site ground waters have been defined. The estimated extent of
dissolved benzene is illustrated on Drawing 4. These assessment activities are detailed in PSI's
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) dated May, 31, 1994,
2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE CORRECTIYE ACTION PLAN
2.1 Stateinent of Goals and Expected Accomplishments
The objective of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is to select and justify a method to remediate the
petroleum -contaminated vadose zone soil and ground water in the surficial aquifer at Fire Station No. 9
in Charlotte, North Carolina. Accordingly, a remediation system has been proposed/designed to extract
the petroleum contaminants present in the vadose zone soil by withdrawing soil gas -containing petroleum
vapors, and to remove the contamination from the aquifer by using a system of recovery wells to
withdraw petroleum -contaminated ground water, The system is also proposed/designed to capture and
contain the contamination in order to control further spreading of the contaminants from the source area.
The desired final result of the remedial activities will be to achieve soil clean-up levels specified by the
NCDEHNR's "Groundwater Section Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soils and
Groundwater", and levels of ground -water quality defined by North Carolina Ground Water Quality
Standards.
2.2 Target Clean-up Concentrations (Remediation End -Points)
The desired site cleanup levels for soils are based on the NCDEIINR's "Groundwater Section Guidelines
for the investigation and Rernediation of Soils and Groundwater", Section 6.0, and the desired site
cleanup levels for ground water are listed in the North Carolina Ground Water Quality Standards, Section
0.0200, Subchapter 2L, Title 15 of the NCAC. A review of the CSA indicates that ground -water
contamination has apparently been caused by the migration of the released petroleum contaminants
through the vadose zone to the ground water table. Therefore, a Site Sensitivity Evaluation (SSE) was
not performed and the target soil cleanup level for TRH is 10 mg/Kg, as defined by the "Guidelines".
Proposed target clean-up concentrations are listed in Table 1 for the contaminated soil and ground water
at the subject site.
A summary of the analytical chemical test results for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in ground-
water samples from the on -site monitoring wells is presented in Table 2. The table includes the test
results on ground water samples collected during CSA activities, as well as those collected for the
preparation of the CAP. Using the most recent analytical data, the approximate horizontal. extent of the
ground -water contaminant plume appears to be defined. The estimated extent of benzene in site ground
waters is illustrated on Drawing 4 and ground -water elevations depicting the ground -water flow direction
is provided for review as Drawing 5. Soil analytical chemical results were Obtained during the CSA, and
are summarized in Table 3.
The efficiency of remedial activities at the site will be monitored over the proposed clean-up period. If
the system operational data indicates that minor modifications to the CAP are needed, the modifications
will be made and the NCDEHNR will be informed. If it is determined that major modifications will be

required, an addendum to the CAP will be prepared and submitted to the NCDEHNR for review and.
approval prior to construction. It should be noted that conventional vapor extraction/pump-and--treat
remediation systems, as those proposed herein, may tend to approach a constant contaminant level higher
than the target clean-up levels. If evaluation indicates that further remedial operations are not cost
effective, the NCDIEENR will be contacted to discuss alternative final site clean up levels.
2.3 Target Corrective Actirrrtt Schedule
Appropriate permit applicPtions will begin after the NCDEHNR has approved the proposed corrective
action. Project specifications, bid package preparation, bidding and bid evaluation, will require
approximately one and a half months. System installation and startup will require approximately two
months. The City of Charlotte may require some time to arrange funding for the project, which could.
delay construction. The system is projected to operate for approximately 2 to 3 years, subject to the
results of the performance monitoring.
3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Based on the results presented in the CSA report, the subsurface at the project site has been impacted by
petroleum product constitu-nts similar to gasoline and diesel fuel. Gasoline and diesel fuel are composed
of many different compounfls consisting primarily of hydrocarbons and additives. Each of the compounds
exhibit individual physical and chemical properties in the environment and, therefore, it is difficult to
predict their behavior. Iiowever, the degree of biodegradability and toxicity of four petroleum
compounds, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (IITEX), are summarized in Table 4.
The concerns presented by the presence of petroleum constituents in site soil and ground water (Tables
2 and 3) may be viewed in terms of health and safety concerns, and environmental concerns, Potential
downgradient receptors of the ground -water contamination are surface water and potable water wells.
Contaminant vapors could potentially migrate to nearby structures, including the Fire Station.
Considering these factors, results of a preliminary exposure assessment performed for the projectsite are
summarized in Table 5.
Soil contamination was not detected away from the itrunediate tank area, indicating little, if any, vadose
zone migration. Vapors would tend to absorb on the soil as they travel, limiting their movement. Thus,.
exposure potential due to vapor migration is low. Exposure to vapors is thus limited to potential future
excavation in the contaminated area.
Health and safety issues also arise through use of potable water wells. PSI has identified. nine potable
water wells located within 50() feet of the site. Fire Station No. 9 is currently supplied with potable water
by Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department (ChM©). Potable water wells located within 500 feet
of the site were sampled can March 2, 1994 (two closest wells downgradient) and in June 1994. One
resident did not allow PS_i access to the private potable well located on their property. As previously
reported, the results did not. indicate the presence of any petroleum constituents above method detection
levels. Based on the hydrogeology of the project site, migration of the contaminant plume is likely to
be slow, however, exposure to petroleum -impacted ground water is a possibility in a long term scenario.
Exposure to contaminated ground water through inhalation of vapors or by absorption andexposure
through ingestion or absorption could also occur with future demolition or construction at the project site.
tirliarn

With respect to envirormicrital concerns, the plmne of dissolved -phase contamination will likely enlarge
under the influence of nat.' tral ground -water movement. until remediation is initiated, thus increasing the
area adversely impacted by the petroleum release. However, the rate of enlargement is anticipated to be
slow. Additionally„ the concentration levels of contamination will likely decrease due to the continued
dilution and natural degradation of the contaminants present at the project site. The presence of
unsaturated zone soil contamination in the vicinity of the LISTs is an environmental concern because the,
petroleum within the soil serves as a source for the continued degradation of ground water beneath the
project site. However, the surface covering the area of the soil contamination is concrete and may serve
to cap the impacted soil, thereby preventing further infiltration of precipitation through the soil
contamination to the ground -water table.
4.0 EVALUATION OF RE
4.1 Evaluation Process
4.1.1 Approach
IEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The CSA performed by PSI in May 1994 identified soil and ground -water petroleum -contamination at
the site. No free -phase petroleuin product is evident. The contaminants of concern, the extent of
contamination, and the applicable cleanup standards, which affect the selection of the appropriate remedial
technology, are described in the CSA and elsewhere in this Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
Alternatives for the remecliation of petroleum -contaminated soil and ground water at the Fire Station No,
9 site were evaluated and a wide range of remediation alternatives were considered, The evaluation
methodology was generally based on guidance provided in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Plan [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)300J for evaluating remedial action alternatives.
The evaluation methodolory consisted of selecting remediation technologies, screening the technologies
and combinations of technologies for suitability and applicability, and the comparison of those
technologies passing the screening to recommend remedial actions for the site. The screening evaluation
iteria were generally the technical feasibility, history of success or effectiveness, implementability, and
cost of each technology, as well as the City's desire to complete the remediation within a limited time
frame with assurance that future remedial actions would not be necessary. In addition, consideration to
maintaining the active operational status of the Fire Station was taken into account.
Because cleanup technologies applicable to mitigating petroleum hydrocarbon contamination are
continually being improved and developed, a thorough search to identify technologies was necessary.
However, many potential remedial technologies were obviously not suited to the contaminant
characteristics and site conditions, or were not practical economically, and were easily rejected by the
screening. The alternative :z remaining after the initial screening were evaluated more carefully, including
more detailed economic analysis.
4.1.2 Treatment Categories
In order to develop a list of potential remediation technologies, general response actions should first be
recognized. The general response actions and the associated potential remedial action technologies fall
into seven primary categories. These are: (I) "no action", in which the site is left in its existing state and
no funds are expended for monitoring, control, or cleanup of the contamination; (2) "institutional
4
sra:;.a121141116.11

controls", which involve Cesignating and implementing regulations to minimize public and environmental
contact with the contamivants; (3) "containment" technologies, which produce physical or hydrologic
restrictions on contaminart movement to reduce public and environmental contact with the contaminants;
(4) "in -situ treatment" ti chnologies, involving the application of biological,chemical, or physical
processes to the contaminated zone in -place to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contaminated materials; (5) "ex -situ treatment" technologies,. which involve the removal of the
contaminants and treatmer on site or the transportation of the contaminated material to an off -site facility
for treatment, (6) "off -sit c disposal" technologies, which involve measures to remove contaminants from
the site and locate them cif -site in such a way that their interaction with the public and environment is
contained; and (7) "on -sit, disposal" technologies, where the contaminated material is removed from its
location and stored in SUCi. a way as to control the exposure to the public- and environment.
4,1.3 Initial Screening f:.riteria
l'he potential technologic were. initially screened to identify viable alternatives to be combined .into
proposed corrective actioi alternatives. Reasons for not selecting a technology for detailed evaluation
included:
Not prowi in large, full scale application (demonstrated on pilot or bench scale
only).
Not penunnent treatment or containment.
Inappropriate for type of contamination or site characteristics,
Creates ric,v or secondary waste disposal problem (e.g., waste residues, increased
volume, u !acceptable exhaust gases).
Requires onreasonable amount of time to achieve remedial Objective,
Produces more harmful or unknown degradation product.
Difficult cr impractical to implement; obviously unreasonable cost.
Not connircially available.
4.2 Results of Initial Scirening
Potential technologies that 'vere considered to remediate contaminated soil and ground water, respectively,.
are presented in Tables 6 7 with a notation indicating the technology or process option was retained
or rejected, In the case ol a rejected technology, the reasons the technology did not pass the screening
are stated. Additional coloments regarding the feasibility of the retained technologies are .also included,
It should be noted that and ground -water reinediation technologies. are not necessarily operated
independently. For instarce, a soil vapor extraction system used to remediate soil contamination may
also he employed to collo t and remove air injected by an air sparging system that is used to remediate
the ground water.
5

4.3 Soil Itemediation
The technologies not rejected by the initial screeningprocess include soil vapor extraction (SVE), in -situ
bioremediation, and soil flushing,.
4.3.1 Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) can best be described as a pump -and -treat process for soil in the vadose zone,
where air is the transport medium instead of water. SVE uses a vacuum source to initiate air flow
through the subsurface to the extraction point, which can either be a horizontal or vertical well. Without
the induced air flow, the petroleum products come to an equilibrium between the contaminant adsorbed
to the soil, the contaminant in the gas phase in the soil pores, and any liquid phase contaminant (droplets
or free product) that may he present. The introduction of new air creates a non -equilibrium condition,
inducing volatilization of the contaminants adsorbed or trapped in the soil. Obviously, the more volatile
contaminants can be removed faster and more effectively by SVE. The soil boring locations and the
vertical and horizontal extent of the soil contamination are illustrated on Drawings 7,8,9 and 10. Other
factors in the effectiveness of SVE include the pneumatic conductivity of the soil and the affinity of the
soil to adsorb the contaminant.
The petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants present in the subsurface at the site are sufficiently volatile for
the process to be considered, and the soil at the site, while not ideal. for SVE, should permit adequate air
flow. Site specific soil geological cross -sections are provided for review as Drawings 11 through 13.
Accordingly., soil vapor extraction was considered a viable remedial alternative for the project site. To
substantiate this opinion, a SVE pilot test was performed (Appendix A). The air flow rate at the applied.
vacuum, the, apparent radius of influence, and petroleum. contaminant removal rates obtained during the
pilot test indicate that SVE is a reasonable alternative for soil remediation for the subject site. However,
the pilot test results indicate that the impacted. area exhibits low pneumatic conductivity, which limits the
area that can be treated by each SVE well, thus increasing the number of wells required. Because
biological action in the subsurface is often limited by a lack of oxygen, the use of SVE may also increase
degradation of the contaminants in -situ, Off -gas treatment may be needed, or the system may be cycled
to maintain contaminant releases below regulatory limits.
4.3.2 Bioremediation
Insitu bioremediation, involves the addition of nutrients, oxygen, and in some cases, special micro-
organisms into the subsurface. The organisms use the contaminant as a food source, or their byproduct
enzymes may break down the contaminant. The difficulty in distributing the required ingredients, and
possible toxic effects of concentrated areas of contaminants on the microorganisms, are possible limiting
factors of this technology at this site. Concentrated biological growth at the injection points may cause
fouling of the system..
4.3.3 Soil Flushing
In soil flushing, a fluid is distributed throughout the soil to mobilize the contaminant. Agricultural drip
irrigation systems are often usedfor this purpose. Because .petroleum constituents have a low solubility
in water, a surfactant may be used if permitted by regulatory officials. The process tnay be part of
bioremediation, if nutrients are added to the fluid. At this site, the existing pavement would have to be
removed and replaced to install an adequate fluid distribution system,
6

4.4 Ground Water Remediation
The technologies not r ejected by the initial screening process include institutional controls, pump and
treat, air sparging and in -situ biological remediation.
4.4.1 Institutional Controls
lnstitrttional controls are gove, runent action to prevent public use of contaminated ground water, such as
by providing connection to public water source. Based on previous studies, it appears that the
contaminated area is rather small and. not an imminent threat to public health, Furthermore, based on
the aquifer test information collected for both the CSA and the CAP, it appears that contaminant travel
via ground -water movement in the shallow aquifer is relatively slow. In addition, the potable wells
located in the area surrounditll the project site were installed to depths greater than 70 feet. Based on
this information and the continual semi-annual water testing of the potable wells, institutional controls
need not be considered for implementation at this time, Active remediation of the contaminated ground
water should still take place even if givernrnent controls are implemented.
4.4.2 Pump and Treat
Punrp-and-treat, despite some drawbacks, rental ns the most popular method of aquifer restoration. The
method uses horizontal and/or vertical recovery wells or trenches to capture and remove contaminated
ground water. The water serves as the transport medium for the contaminant. At the ground surface,
the contaminant is destroyed or removed from the water by physical, chemical and/or biological means,
as presented in Table 7. Finally, the extracted ground water roust be returned to the aquifer or
discharged off site. Extraction and treatment of the ground water are discussed herein. Options for
disposal of the treated water are discussed later.
'the ground water extraction process, when properly designed and implemented, is used both to remove
the contaminant and to control additional spreading of the dissolved phase plume by shaping the ground
water flow pattern. Ground water can be withdrawn using conventional vertical wells, horizontal wells
and/or recovery trenches. t 7ue to the depth of the ground water at the project site (averaging
approximately 20 feet below Iw tid surface), as well as economic considerations and drill rig accessibility,
conventional vertical recovery wells 9re considered the most practical means of ground water extraction
at the site.
A variety of methods are availalale to great ground water containing dissolved petroleum products, as
presented in Table 7. Most accepted and commonly employed techniques involve the removal of the
contaminant frorn the water rather than its actual destruction. Examples include the adsorption of the
contaminant on granular activated carbon and transfer of the contaminant from water to air, a process
known as air stripping, with subsequent discharge of the off gas to the atmosphere. Such mass transport
techniques are generally the most economical and proven, Air stripping is considered the most viable
technology for this project. Current/} the Mecklenburg County Air Quality Section requires registration
of air strippers and requires sutrmittal of an air quality permit application prior to discharging petroleum
vapors to the atmosphere.
7

4.4.3 Air Sparg ng
Air sparging consists of the injection of air into the saturated zone for remediation of volatile organics.
In principle, remediation occurs by direct removal of the volatile organics through mass transfer from
ground water to air (and from soil -adsorbed or trapped globules to air), as well as due to the enhanced
biodegradation caused by the availability of oxygen. Air sparging is a relatively new process and is not
an established or conventional approach, Air sparging may be most effective in treating adsorbed and
residual hydrocarbons in the zone of ground water fluctuation, and for sheens of free -product on the
ground -water table.
Air sparging is generally incorporated with soil vapor extraction and ground -water recovery wells to fortn.
a complete remediation system. Because air sparging creates a ground -water mound due to ground -water
displacement by the injected air, which can mobilize and spread dissolved contaminants, recovery wells
should be considered to contain the ground -water plume. The height of the mound and its effect on
ground -water movement varies, but the mound apparently dissipates over time at a rate controlled by the
site's hydraulic conductivity. Similarly, air pressure is created in the vadose zone, which can also act
to release and transport contaminants. Thus, a soil vapor extraction system is also needed. In effect
then, the sparging system becomes an "add -on" to a conventional pump and treat/soil vapor extraction
remediation process. The extra expense of the sparging system is justified through claims of faster and
more thorough remedial action, especially with regard to the effect at the water table/vadose zone
interface where contaminant mass may be concentrated.
The air sparging system itself consists of an air supply source (blower or continuous duty high volume
compressor), manifold distribution piping, and subsurface sparge points installed below the ground -water
table.
In summary, air sparging can potentially speed site cleanup. It works best on a permeable homogeneous
site where the contaminant is concentrated at the soil -water interface. However, it must still be
considered somewhat of an experimental process. Prudently, an appropriate containment system
consisting of soil vapor extraction and ground -water recovery wells should be incorporated with sparging
as part of the overall remediation design. As such, air sparging represents an "add -on" and extra expense
to conventional systems. In addition, several potential problems, such as "aquifer clogging" due to
chemical reactions, can occur. At this site, the remediation progress should be evaluated after a year,
and air sparging considered for remaining "hotspot" areas.
4.4.4 Biorernediation
For in -situ ground -water bioretnediation, nutrients, oxygen, and sometimes micro-organisms are added
to the contaminated ground water. Pumping and injection wells provide a means to distribute these
ingredients, as well as to contain the contaminant plume. The limited solubility of oxygen, high or toxic
levels of the contaminant, and fouling of the injection wells due to concentrated biological growth are
potential limitations of this method.
4.5 Treated Water Disposal
If pump and treat is selected as a remedial technology, disposal of the treated water will be necessary,
Three methods of disposal are generally considered at ground -water remediation projects. They include

(1) disposal to surface water under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit;
(2) discharge by land application or through infiltration galleries andior wells under a "non -discharge"
permit; and (3) discharge to the sanitary sewer under a permit granted by the receiving Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW). The available technologies are presented in Table 8. The evaluation of each
method is summarized, and if rejected, reasons are noted.
Because no POTW is accessible, PSI will seek to discharge the treated ground water into a storm -water
drainage easement located southwest of the project site. Prior to discharging treated ground water into
the easement, a NPDES permit application will be submitted to the NCDEHNR.
The surface water disposal point available at the southeast property corner, discharges into a culvert
which passes under Tilley Morris Road. From the culvert, a small ditch leads south to Six Mile Creek,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has been approached about accessing this
outfall, Although it is against their policy to allow treated effluent in their right-of-way, the NCDOT has
stated that PSI may discharge the effluent in the easement, if properly permitted, but cannot discharge
the effluent into this culvert. Receiving a NPDES permit may require over a year, delaying project
remed i at ion
If authorization is not granted for discharging the treated ground water into the adjacent easement, PSI
proposes to discharge the ground water into an infiltration gallery. The proposed gallery will consist of
a wide trench area lined with geotextile filter fabric and filled with gravel. The treated effluent will be
distributed into the gravel by a perforated pipe. In turn, the gravel will distribute the effluent across the
soil surface. The filter fabric will serve to filter sediments and fines which may enter the trench and
potentially fill the pore spaces in the gravel.
The site area for an infiltration gallery is limited because of the presence of the Fire Station structure and
two existing drainflelds. The low site soil conductivity indicates a fairly large area will be required for
adequate infiltration.
4.6 Economic and Technical Selection Factors
A very constructive way to achieve maximum cost effectiveness at the site is to combine the various
feasible remedial technologies within the same system. A significant synergistic effect can be obtained
by utilizing the same well for soil vapor extraction and ground -water recovery for surface treatment
(pump and treat). Each well is then utilized for two purposes. The vacuum enhances ground -water flow
to the well, increasing well yield, which is important at a low permeability site such as Fire Station
No. 9. In addition, the air flow provided by the SVE system increases the availability of oxygen in the
soil, which is often the limiting factor controlling natural bioremediation of the contaminant in the vadose
zone. This type of system, when properly designed, also provides effective containment and capture of
the vadose zone and ground -water contamination. It is readily adaptable to adjustment by the addition
or removal of wells, and can be supplemented by air sparging if justified in the future. Spare piping can
be provided in the utility trenches to facilitate future modifications, as needed.
Accordingly, PSI recommends a soil vapor extraction and pump and treat system for the site. The
technologies chosen are proven and pilot tests and analysis indicate they may be applied at this site. The
estimated costs associated with implementation, operation and maintenance of the proposed corrective
action alternative for the project site are provided in Appendix B.
9
!MI

5.0 GENERAL SYSTEM f E C.RIPTION
5.1 i Mediation System
Based on the information obtained during previous studies and information presented herein, PSI has
proposed/designed a soil/ground-water remediation system for the site. For the proposed system, three
new, six-inch diameter recovery wells will be installed to approximate depths of 42.5 feet BLS in 12-inch
diameter boreholes. The wells will be screened from 5 to 40 feet, and will serve as both soil vapor
extraction and ground -water recovery wells (Appendix C). These wells will be located within the ground
water and vadose zone contaminant plumes. Locations of the wells and the number of wells were selected
based on the ability of the extraction system to remove the pore water from the contaminated zone within
60 days, as well as the estimated radius of influence of the soil vapor extraction system. Multiple flushes
of the contaminated zone are required to achieve remediation because of soil adsorption/retardation. A
combined recovery rate of about 2 gallons per minute (gpm) is anticipated. A depiction of the 60-day
flush zone is illustrated on Drawing 6.
The recovery wells will be equipped with self -actuating pneumatic, submersible pumps. These pumps
will discharge automatically when full, and thus will adjust themselves to well recharge rates, achieving
maximum recovery possible. This type of pump is ideally suited for the anticipated low flow rates at the
site.
Ground water will be pumped through 1-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC piping in a subsurface trench
to the equipment area, where it will be manifolded and directed to an air stripping system. Soil vapors
will be transmitted in 4-inch Schedule 80 piping, Other piping in the utility trench will include 1-inch
diameter air supply piping for the pneumatic pumps and spare piping for possible future use. The
pneumatic pump air supply, when properly filtered, may be utilized for a future sparging system, if
sparging is determined to be needed to enhance system performance.
The recovered ground water will pass through an air stripping system for primary treatment. Low profile
strippers were selected based on maintenance considerations. Several types of low profile strippers are
available, including tray strippers, diffused aerators, venturi types, and cascading strippers. For this site,
most low profile strippers should be effective, and should accommodate the pulsed flow from the
pneumatic pumps. The operating costs for the low profile strippers are similar. Accordingly, a diffused
aerator was selected based on lowest capital costs.
The treated water will be collected in a sump and pumped through liquid -phase granular activated carbon
to remove any remaining contaminants (Appendix D). If project operating history indicates that air
stripping is sufficient, the granular activated carbon may be removed in the future. Treated water will
gravity flow to a nearby ditch leading to Six Mile Creek, The NCDOT has stated that treated ground
water may be discharged into the nearby drainage area. Otherwise, a large on -site recharge gallery may
be necessary (Appendix E).
Soil gas from the three, new recovery wells will be manifolded in the stockade, and will feed into a
moisture separator. Liquid removed from the system will be automatically pumped to the low profile
stripper using a transfer pump actuated by level switches in a knockout tank. The vacuum source for this
system will be a centrifugal pump, operating at 350 cubic feet per minute (cfm) and 54 inches of water.
The collected vapors will be released to the atmosphere. The SVE design data is provided in Appendix
F.
10
BIM

The equipment will be located under cover and within a fenced -in area for security and safety. The
fenced enclosure will be locked. The system will be designed for automatic operation, and will be
equipped with safety switches for shutdowns in case of clogged filters, equipment failure, etc.
Drawings of the proposed design are included in Appendix G for reference.
5.2 Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance
The system will be visited more frequently (weekly) during its initial operation, and monthly thereafter.
The system monitoring will include site water levels, vacuum levels at the monitor wells, recovery flow
rates for soil vapor and ground water, and system operating information such as pressures and vacuum.
In addition, sampling of the recovery wells, monitoring wells, ground -water influent, ground water
effluent, soil vapor from each well, and soil vapor discharge will be conducted, again more frequently
initially to verify design conditions and then decreasing with time. The proposed maintenance schedule
and procedures along with the reporting schedule are provided in Table 9 and 10, respectively.
Adjustments will be made to the system according to the indicated conditions. For instance, as each
recovery well "cleans up", it may be shut down, or additional wells may be added to better affect
contaminant. capture. Cleanup time estimates for soil and ground water at the project site are included
in Appendix The monitoring schedule and the monitoring well construction details are provided in
Tables 11 and 12, respectively.
6.0 PERMITS
Based on the evaluation of remedial alternatives, it appears that the most effective alternative is treatment
of the contaminated ground water following removal from the aquifer. This process proposes for the
treated ground water to be discharged into the public storm -water drainage easement. Prior to initiating
the remedial activities and upon receipt of authorization from the NCDE1INR, a NPDES permit
application will be submitted to the NCDEHNR. Also, an encroachment agreement will have to be
submitted to the NCDOT prior to discharging the treated ground water into the easement. In addition,
permit application will be submitted to the NCDEHNR prior to installation of the recovery wells.
As discussed in Section 4.6, the proposed soil remediation alternative will utilize a SVE system. The
activities involved in remediating the site soils will require obtaining a pennit from the Mecklenburg
County Departtnent of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) Air Quality Section based on the established
emission control standards for benzene of 8.1 pounds per day (lbs/day). Completed permit applications
are provided in Appendix I for review.
11

7.0 REFERENCES
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA), Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI),
May 31 , 1994.
Brown, R.A., "Integrating Technologies Enhances Remediation", Pollution Engineering, May
1991, 63-68 p.
Crane, "Flow of Fluid Through Valves", Crane Technical Paper 410, 18th Printing, Crane Co.,
Chicago, 1979.
Domenico, Patrick A. and Schwartz„ Franklin W., "Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology", John
Wiley & Sons, 824 p.
Driscoll, F. G., "Groundwater and Wells", Johnson Division, St Paul, Minnesota, 1986,
1089 p.
Fetter, C.W., "Applied Hydrogeology", Merrill Publishing Company, 592 p.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, "Getting It Right...the first time - A
Compliance Manual", Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1990.
Freeze, R,A., Cherry, J.A., "Groundwater", Prentice -Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, Ni, 1979,
604 p,
Harr, M.E. "Groundwater and Seepage", McGraw-Hill Book Co., 315 p.
Heath, Ralph C., "Basic Ground -Water Hydrology", U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper
2220, Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Distribution Branch, Text
Products Section, U.S. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA, Third
Printing, 1983, 84 p.
Hooper, William B., "The Two-K Method Predicts Head Loss in Pipe Fittings", Chemical
Engineering, August 24, 1981,, 96-100 p,
Jammal & Associates, Inc., "Stortnwater Retention Pond Analysis in Unconfined Aquifers",
Jamnial & Associates, Inc., Winter Park, Florida, March, 1989.
Javandel, I. and Chin Fu Tsang, 1986. Capture -zone type curves: A tool for aquifer cleanup.
Groundwater v. 24, No. 5, 616-625 p.
Johnson, P.C., Kemblowski, M.W. and Colthart, J.D. "Quantitative Analysis for the Clean-up
of Hydrocarbon -Contaminated Soils by In -situ Soil Venting", Ground Water, May -June, 1990.
Johnson, P.C., Stanley, CC,, Kemblowski, .M.W. Byers, D.L., and Colthart, J.D., "A Practical
Approach to the Design, Operation and Monitoring of In -Situ Soil Venting Systems", Ground
Water Monitoring Review, Spring Issue 1990. 159-177 p.
12

Keely, Joseph F. and Chin Fu Tsang, "Velocity Plots and Capture Zones of Pumping Center for
Ground -Water Investigations", No. 6 Groundwater November -December 1983, 701-714 p.
Krusenian, G.P. and de Ridder, N.A., "Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data",
International Institute for Land Reclamation and .Improvement, Publication 47, 2nd edition.
Metcalf and Eddy, "Wastewater Engineering", McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 920 p.
McCabe, Warren L., Smith, Julian C., "Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering", McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1976, p. 678-709.
McElwee, Carl D., "Capture Zones for Simple Aquifers", Kansas Geological Survey, Computer
Program Series #90-5, 1930 Constant Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66047.
Nonan. D.C. & Curtis, J.T., "Groundwater Remediation and Petroleum - A Guide for
Underground. Storage Tanks", Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 1990, 142 p,
Perry, Chilton, Kirkpatrick, "Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook", 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, 1963.
Todd, D.K. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, NY. 535 p.
Treybal, R.E., "Mass Transfer Operations", McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 784 p.
Walton, William C., "Groundwater Resource Evaluation, McGraw Hill Book Co., 664 p.

Methylene Chloride
TABLE 1
PROPOSED CLEAN-UP CONCENTRATIONS
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
Fire Station No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 511-24178
PARM4ETER
Benzene 1 ug/1
EthyIbenzene 29 ug/1
Toluene 1000 ug/I
Total Xylene 400 ug/1
MTBE 200 ug/1
Phenol 300 ug/1
Naphthalenes 21 ug/1
1,2-Dichluroethane 038 ug/1.
5 ug/1
0,0004 u r
SOLL
ARAM' F TER
TPH Volatile
TPH Sennivolatile
PROPOSED CLEAN -UP
CONCENTRATIONS
10 rng/kg
40 rng/kg
NOTE: 1lorth Carolina Ground Water Quality Standards listed in
15 NCA( : 2L ,0202 (g) and soil clean-up levels listed in the Guidelines.

MW-05
3/31/94
9/20/94
0/17/94
7/2/93
3/31/94
9/20194
0/17/94
7/
1 4
4
7 4
7/2/93
3/31/94
9/20/94
10/17194
7/2/93
3/31/94
9/20/94
10/17/94
MW-06D 8/11/93
3/31/94
9/20194
10/17/94
7 3/16/94
3/31/94
9/20/94
10/17/94
724.54
724.95
723.
724,19
24.10
725.18
20.82 702.89
21.19 702,52
2 L54 703,00
2.1.86. 702.68
22.10 702.85
22.44 702.51
20.92 702.90
21.21 702.61
21.34 702,85
21.69 702.50
20.97 703.13
21.26 702.84
22.20 702.98
21.26 703.92
TABLE 2
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS AND ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 511-24178
, ,1-Tri- fl. 12-dIbromo
24)utanone chloro- chloro ethane Methylene
nzene Toluene hen7rrle 1<ylenes m-r E Phenol Na hthalene (NIE1C) ethane ethane (ED 13)
22000* 41000' 3000* 14500' 41000* 2700' 660' BDL BDI. <500 <500 <500
24000' 49000' 3100' 15300' 41000* 1930' 540* NA BDL 530' 340' 210*
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 BDL <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 2.4
_ .
<1 1.7 <1 <1 <I NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <I
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1. <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <I <4 <4 <2 <I <1 <1 4.5
- .
<1 1 .L1 <1 <1 <1 <80 <80 NA <1 <1 <1 3.5
<I <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 BDL BDL <1 <4 <4 <2 3.1 <1 <1 2.9
. . '
63' 36 <1 7,7 <1 <4 <4 14 <1 <1 <1 4.3
_ .
170' 180 6.3 105 9 <80 <80 NA <1 <1 <1 1.8
340' 340 19 87 47 <4 <4 IN <1 <1 <1 IS'
. -
4,3* 9.3 1.6 11.5 47 <80 <80 NA <1 <I <1 1.5
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 2.1
. - .
8.5' 32 3.9 21.4 6 <80 <80 NA <1 <1 <1 1.9
<1 <1 <I <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1

Casing Depth to W,T,
Date Elev. Water Elev.
3/16/94 7
3/31/94
9/20/94
10/17/94
3/16/94 723.82
3/31 /94
9/20/94
10/17/94
TABLE 2 (Continued)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS AND ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PST Project No. S 11-24178
1,1,1-Trl- 1,2-d1- 1,2-dlbromo
Ethyl- Total 2-butanone chioro- cldoro ethane Methylene
ne Toluene benzene Xylenes 1 tTU E Phenol Naphthalene (MEK) ethane ethane (EDB) Chloride
u ut ti ugrl u. u d u a u /i u
NOTE: Other compounds were detected but have not been assigned MCLs, Therefore, these coinlaounds were not shown in the analytical summary.
NA = Not Analyzed for this constituent
*Exceeds MCL

TABLE 3
SOJL. ANALY I1CAL SLMMARY
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
le Depth
ethod 3550
hod 5030
SB-01
SB-02
SB-03
SB-04
SB-05
S13-0b
MW-02
MW-03
MW-04
State Repo
bie
8 to 10
13 to 15
13 to 15
13 to 15
13 to 15
13 to 15
13 to 15
13 to 15
13 to 15
*Exceeds State Reportable Level
910*
13.9
21.4
30.9
<3.0
<3,0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
7400*
55 *
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0,1
<0.1
<0.1.
40 ( 10

Parameter
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Na•hthalenes
Toxicity (1
0 (3)
1.4
14.3
6,000 (4)
TABLE 4
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF
SELECT PETROLEUM COMPONENTS
Haireation No. 9
Charlate, North Carolina
PSI Project N©. 511-24178
Degree of
Biodegradability
2
Liquid
y (2) Density
/cm^3
Vapor
Density
(./cm^3
0.39 (5)
0.009
0,12
0.11
<0,20
1780 mg/1
167
537
162
7
0.885
0,867
0,867
0.864
1.025
321
41.1
110
35.8
NA
Koc
l/k
2)
38
210
90
220
690
Viscosity (2)
(1) Maximum concentrations to protect human health permissible in water.
Reference: Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Materials and Carcinogens.
(2) Reference: Cleanup of Petroluem Contaminated Soils at Underground Storage Tanks, 1990.
All physical and chemical properties are identified at the reference temperature of 20 degrees C and Standard atmospheric pressure.
Properties are for pure compounds; the presence of other compounds may affect contaminant behavior.
(3) An additional lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 100,000 results from a concentration of 6.6 ug/l.
(4) No criteria has been set, but EPA suggests a permissible goal of 6,000 ug/1 based on health effects.
(5) Refractory index (ratio of BOD5 to COD) is a measure of the biodegradability of a compound.
Compounds are classified as relatively undegradable (0 < R < 0.01), moderately degradable (0.01 < R < 0
0.638
0,666
0.58
0.608
NA
and relatively degradable (R

dium
Free Product
(1)
S
ndwater
TABLE
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 511-24178
Engestion
(Eating)
N/A
Potential
Exposure (2)
N/A
Surftce Water N/A
apor N/A.
Ingestion
Drinking)
NIA
N/A
Unlikely
Exposure (3)
Unlikely
Exposure (4)
N/A
ha
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Unlikely
Exposure (5)
Absorption
NIA
Potential
Exposure (2)
Unlikely
Exposure (3)
Unlikely
Exposure (4)
N/A
(1) Free product has not been found at the site,
(2) Contaminated soil was identified in the unsaturated zone in tle area of the former UST; exposure
possible in the event of soil disturbance in this area.
(3) Pro ,,ct site is provided with potable water delivery. There are nearby wells, but the contamination
does not appear mobile,
(4) The nearest downgradient surface water (Six Mile Creek) to the project site is approximate➢y 4000
feet to (lie southeast of the subject site,.
(5) Val), ,r is not likely to travel. Exposure possible in the event of excavation in the contaminated area.

TECHNOLOGIES
No Action
Cap
Excavati©n
PROCESS OPTIO
Clay, Asphalt, Concrete
and/or Synthetic Cover
(Containment)
Would be used in con-
junction with treatment
or disposal technologies
(See Below)
On Site or Off"Site Biological Metabolism
Biological (Ex Situ Treatment)
Treatment of
Excavated. Soil
TA6
)3' r T REM ?�T2
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 51 '1-24178
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Site is 1eff in its existing state
Placement oflow permeability
material over the contami-
nated area to prevent leaching
via rainfall to ground water,
Removal and replacement of
contaminated soil by conventional
earth moving equipment.
Excavated Soils are seeded with
micro-organisms and nutrients to
allow biological degradation
to occur.
COMMENTS
REACTED. Level ofcontamir ation
justifies cleanup activities_
REJECTED. May not prevent travel
due to vapors or ground water
fluctuation.
REJECTED. Contamination too deep;
requires large or shored excavation.
Excavation could affect structure.
Disrupts site activities. Possible risk in
transport if moved off site. Too
expensive.
REJECTED. See "Excavation" above.
Otherwise, would be feasible. Tirne
required for treatment is difficult to
estimate.. Sufficient area needed.

TADLE 6 (Continued)
SCREENING OF SOIL REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fire Station No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 511-24178
TECHNOLOGIES
On Site or Off Site
Chemical
Treatment of
Excavated Soil
PROCESS OPT I{ i' S
Oxidation/
UV Radiation
(Ex Situ Treatment)
Solvent. Extraction
(Ex Situ Treatment)
PROCESS 'OgS RIPTIQN
Ultraviolet. light used with
peroxide or ozone to
break carbon -carbon and
carbon -halogen bonds.
A solvent is applied to the soil
to absorb contaminants and
water. Soil is then dewatered
and dried. Solvent and water
vapors are condensed and combined
with liquid from dewatering. This
liquid is heated to separate the
water from the solvent. The solvent
is then distilled to recover it for
reuse, Hydrocarbons are collected
from the bottom of the still for sub-
sequent treatment or disposal.
COMMENTS
REJECTED, See "Excavation" above.
Not proven in large scale application for
hydrocarbon contaminated soils.. Most
of the experimental work has been on
oil and wastewater. Hydrocarbons
must first be extracted from the soil
and degradation products must be con-
tinuously removed.
REJECTED. See "Excavation" above.
Problems have been encountered
with solvent leakage from seals and
during solids removal. Since the sol-
vent may be flammable in air and may
produce an unpleasant odor, this
technology is considered inappropriate
for use in a commercial or residential
area. Somewhat experimental.
Too complex and expensive.

TEC IOLOGIEs
On Site or Off Site
Thermal Treatment
of Excavated Soil
Physical/Chemical
Treatment, On Site
or Off Site
SCREENIN
TABLE 6 (Continued)
OF SOIL REMEDIAL TEC'IINDLOGIES
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 511-24178
tS
Rotary Kiln Incinerator,
Fluidized Bed Incinerator,
Infrared, Thermal Extrac-
tion (Ex Situ Treatment)
Solidification/Stabiii-
zation!Encapsulation.
(In Situ Containment or
Off Site Disposal/ Cont-
ainment)
Soil. Vapor
Extraction
( :-: (7. „':t nent)
PROCESS DESCR
'arious, I1`igh terr p. systems destroy
contaminant; elevated temp. systems
volatilize contaminant for release to
atm. or for additional treatment.
Includes matrix fixation,
adsorption, and chemical
immobilization of contaminants.
Contaminated soil vapors are drawn
through the soil by an induced
.bdls..11 0.11U u�i'l: �l [;:.YL4u 1Y� V.tl.udtion
or carbon filters. Stimulates biological
activity,
COMMENT
REJECTED. See ''Excavation" above,
but otherwise some methods feasible.
Some incinerator technologies still
experimental. Expensive.
REJECTED. In situ may not be
completely effective. Ex situ often
has increase in weight and volume
and still has to be disposed.
Experimental and expensive,
RETAINED. Lack of site cover and
low air perm. reduce effectiveness.
Relatively inexpensive. Contaminants
sufficiently volatile. Possible to use
same well for ground water and SVE.
Conventional tech. Off gas may
require treatment,

TABLE 6 (Continued)
SCREENING OF SOIL REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fire Station No. 9
y ��iiru
PSI Project No, 511-24178
TECHHNOLOGIES
Off Site Landfill
of Excavated Soil
On Site Landfill
of Excavated So
Biological Treatment
In situ
PROCESS OPTIONS PROCESS DESCRIPTIO
(Off Site Disposal)
(On Site Disposal)
Biological Metabolism
(In Situ Treatment)
Disposal of d waste
in an approved landfill.
Permanent storage facility on
site designed to contain the
contaminated materials.
Soils are seeded with micro-
nrcianismt �nrilnr nntriP��c �n
allow biological degradation
to occur.
CON tE;T
REJECTED, See "Excavation" above.
Too expensive. Landfill may not accept
material due to content and large
quantity. Risk during transport.
Potential 7..:urc '.ia.bility,
REJECTED. See "Excavation" above.
Does not directly reduce toxicity or
potential mobility of the contaminants
or volume of the contaminated material.
Add. remedial action may ultimately
be required. Large area required.
RETD. Access to contaminated
is largely unpaved, but soils are low
permeability. May be used in
conjunction with soil vapor extraction or
sparging to provide oxygen. Cleanup
time may be difficult to estimate.
Difficult to distribute micro-organisms
and nutrients, Bioactivity may clog soil
around injection points.

Soil Flushing
Physical/Chemical
Treatment in
Place
SCREENIN
TABLE 6 (Con
d
OF SOIL REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No, 5I 1-24178
PROCESS OPTIONS
"Wash" soil in place with
fluid transport to
a recovery system,
(Recovery for Ex Situ
Treatment)
Stabilization
(Containment)
Water is sprayed or distributed with
an irrigation system. A. surfactant may
be used. Contaminants are flushed
out and recovered for treatment.
Water may be heated to stimulate
contaminant release.
A chemical agent is mixed with
the soil. Contaminant adsorbs onto
agent, or reacts with it, or soil
mass is solidified, thereby
restricting migration of the
contaminant.
RETAINED, Somewhat experimental,
Horizontal spread can be controlled
by interception trenches or wells.
May aid water movement to
recovery wells. Can be combined
with biological treatment.
REJECTED. Not proven, especially
with regard to long term effectiveness.
Periodic reapplication of the agent may
be required and components of the
soil may limit its effectivness.
* In case where the description and screening were the same for on -site technologies or for insitu tec
and technologies applied at another location, only one entry is presented for the technology.
ologies

TECHNO
None
TABLE 7
SC EN NG OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fire Station. No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 511-24178
OGIES PROCESS OPTION
Groundwater Use
Restrictions
Individual User
Treatment.
Governmental Action
(Institutional
Controls)
Governmental Action
(Institutional
Controls)
PROCESS DESCRIPTIOt
Site is left in its existing state
Groundwater use restricted
by permits, laws, deed restric-
tions, etc,
Installation of a treatment unit
(usually carbon) on the main
incoming waterline to each
user to adsorb contaminants,.
CO
REJECTED, Level of ground water
contamination justifies cleanup.
RETAINED, Difficult to enforce
restrictions on groundwater use.
May be used in conjunction with
other technologies. Long term
surface and groundwater monitoring
required. Does not actively cleanup site.
RETAINED. Since only a small
number of property owners use
groundwater production wells, it
would be relatively easy to implement
and maintain user treatment units.
May be used in conjunction with
other technologies. Does not cleanup
site. Long term surface and ground-
water monitoring required.

TABLE 7 (Continued)
SCREENING OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fire Station No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 511-24178
TECHNOLOGIES
PROCESS OPTIO
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
COMMENTS
Water Supply
Modification
Vertical Barriers
Extraction
Governmental Action
(Institutional
Controls)
Soil-Bentonite or Ceme t-
Bentinite Slurry Wail,
Grout Curtain, or
Sheetpile
Extraction Wells -
would be used in
conjunction with ex situ
treatment or disposal
techniques.
Property owners now using
groundwater production wells
would use municipal water
supply.
A trench is excavated around
contaminant boundary and
simultaneously filled with a
bentonite water slurry. The
trench is later backfilled with
a soil-bentonite or cement- bentonite
mix For sheet piles, interlocking
panels are driven around the
contaminant.
Removal of groundwater by
pumping wells for treatment or
disposal. Most applicable when,
conductivity is moderate to high,
RETAINED, May be used in con-
junction with other technologies.
Does not cleanup site. Long term
surface and groundwater monitoring
required, Expensive.
REJECTED. Difficult to implement.
Underlying rock that would be used
as a base is partially weathered and
not impermeable. Sheet piles may leak
at joints.
RETAINED. Groundwater removal
rate and capture zone limited by
hydraulic conductivity and thickness
of aquifer. Nested wells may be needed
for different stratigraphic units.

TABLE 7 (Continued)
SCREENING OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fire Station No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No, 511-24178
TECHNOLOGIES
Extraction (Cont.)
Ex Situ
Biological. Treatment
On Site
ROCESS OPTIONS
Well Points -
would be used in
conjunction with ex situ
treatment or disposal
techniques.
Recovery Trenches -
would be used in
conjunction with ex situ
treatment or disposal.
techniques.
Horizontal Wells -
would be used in
conjunction with ex situ
treatment or disposal
techniques.
Activated Sludge,
Trickling Filter,
Rotating Biological
Contractors, Anaerobic
and Anaerobic Lagoon
(Ex Situ Treatment)
PROCESS DESCRIPTI©
A group of closely spaced wells
connected to a header pipe and
pumped by a vacuum suction pump.
Applicable to shallow aquifers.
Perforated pipe within a gravel
filled trench used to remove or
redirect the contaminated ground-
water. Drains are installed near
the bottom of the aquifer.
Directional drilling is used to install
horizontal well casing.
Microorganisms to degrade
organics in recovered ground water.
REJECTED. Too expensive compared
to extraction wells with vacuum assist.
REJECTED. Aquifer too deep
for practical installation methods.
REJECTED. Too Expensive.
Drilling fluid used in installation may
reduce well yeild. Usually used when
access is a problem
REJECTED. Treatment tunes are
expected to be too long, presenting
a storage problem. Sensitive to
environmental factors. Somewhat
experimental. Destroys contaminants.

TABLE 7 (Con t iued)
SCREENING OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fire Station No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No. 5 1 l -24178
S PROCESS OPTIONS
Physical Treatment.
of Extracted Ground -
Water On Site
Phase Separation
Coagulation and
Flocculation
(Ex Situ Treatment)
Air, Steam. or
Gas Stripping
(Ex Situ Treatment)
PROCESS DESCR PTI©N
Removal of oil or other physically
distinct phases from the waste
stream by flotation, skimming,
decanting, or other separation
method.
Introduction of a chemical coagulant
to stabilize colloidal particles,
followed by slow mixing of liquid
to cause the particles to agglome-
rate and settle by gravity. Conven-
tional treatment method.
Mixing of large volumes of air within
the waste stream to promote
transfer of volatile organics to the air.
CO Ma' TENTS
REJECTED. Not applicable
because no free product is
evident. Conventional treatment
method,
REJECTED, Not
applicable to site contaminants.
RETAINED. Contaminants are
sufficiently volatile. Conventional
treatment method.

TABLE 7 (Continued)
SCREENING OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGWS
Fire Station No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No, 511-24178
TECHNOLOGIES
Physical/Chemical
Treatment
PROCESS OPTION
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Carbon Adsorption
(Ex Situ Treatment)
Resin Adsorption
(Ex Situ Treatment)
Chemical Treatment Oxidation
On Site
(Ex Situ Treatment)
UV Radiation/
Oxidation
(Ex Situ Treatment)
Waste stream contacts carbon, which
adsorbs contaminants by surface attrac-
tion. Organic molecules are attracted
to the internal pores of the carbon
granules,
Process is similar to carbon adsorption,
with a resin replacing the carbon as
the adsorption agent.
An oxidizing agent such as ozone,
hydrogen peroxide, or permanganate
is introduced into a contactor *here
it is mixed with the waste stream and
oxidation occurs.
Ultraviolet radiation is used to
accelerate oxidation of contaminants
ozone or hydrogen peroxide,
CO MENTS
RETAINED, Effective in removing
low volatility organics. May be most
effective in combination with other
treatment methods. Conventional
method.
REJECTED. Costs generally higher
than conventional carbon adsorp-
tion for comparable treatment.
REJECTED. Most conventional
oxidants are incapable of com-
pletely oxidizing the site con-
taminants in a reasonable length
of time. Intermediate oxidation
REJECTED. Somewhat experimental.
Time to completely oxidize complex
organics is unknown. Good for low
flow situations. Produces no harmful
air emissions. Catalyst often
needed.

TABLE 7 (Conti n red)
SC I EEi ING OF GROUNDWATER R.EMEDIA
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PST Project No. 511-24178
TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNOLOGIES
In Situ Physical/
Chemical Treatment
In Situ Biological.
Treatment
PROCESS OPTIONS
Air Sparging
(In .Situ Treatment
Bioreclamation
(In Situ Treatment)
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
pumped into the aquifer
he purpose of stripping
volatile organics from the
groundwater. Generated soil
vapors and ground water mound
require containment.
Modification of environ-
mental conditions by the
addition of nutrients, oxygen,
micro-organisms, etc., to enhance
microbial degradation of
contaminants.
COMMENTS
RETIED, Technique may be
useful in assisting in situ biological
treatment by supplying oxygen. Good
for capillary zone treatment.
RETAINED. May not be completely
effective. May be used in combina-
tion with other methods.

TECHNOLOGTES
On Site Discharge
(Treated Water)
TABLE 8
SCREENING OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
Fire Station No, 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No 511-24178
PROCESS OPTIONS
Injection Wells
Recharge Trench
Evaporation/
Percolation
Spray Irrigation
PROCESS DEScRrpTroN
Discharge of treated ground-
water by injection using on
site wells.
Discharge of treated ground-
water by introduction into
gravet filled trenches on site.
Evaporation/percolation of treated
water using ponds on site.
Discharge of treated
groundwater via sprinklers.
COMMENTS
REJECTED. Injection rates may be
slow due to permeability of on site
soils. May be difficult to permit.
High maintenance requirements.
Difficult to operate.
RETAINED. Recharge would be slow
due to low permeability.
REJECTED. Impractical due to anti-
cipated volume of treated ground-
water and large area requirements.
REJECTED. Application rates are
not sufficient to dispose of entire
amount. May be combined with
nutrient application for biological
soil treatment in situ andior surfactants
to flush contaminants from soil.

TABLE 8 (Continued)
SCREENING OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
PSI Project No, 511-24178
TECHNOLOGIES PROCESS OPTXONS PROCESS C ON COMMENTS
Off Site Discharge POTW Discharge of treated waste
(Treated Water) stream to local publicly owned
treatment works (POTW),
Storm Sewer/
Surface Water
Discharge of groundwater to
surface water via ditch
REJECTED. Site does not have
access to POTW,
RETAINED, Requires National
Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) perrnit setting
maximum allowable effluent limits
for the discharge,

TAI'3'LE 9
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURE
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
2
element Syster t IVtaintenance:
ek
.FirstY
traly fusrterly
1. C heck the filters and clean if required.
P ecord all flowmeter totalizers, calculate the flow volume and determine if the recovery
wells need to be treated for fouling.
3. Record water levels in designated monitoring wells.
4. Manually check all electrical interlocks.
5w Check the submersible pumps for proper operation.
6. Check the air stripping unit blower and drain the blower casing.
7. Check the discharge pump for proper operation.
8. Check the pressure on the carbon canisters to see if they are fouled.
9. Check air inlet filter, oil level, air line filters and auto drain on the compressor.
10 Perform other maintenance as required by the equipment manufacturers.
Soil 'en!ing System h'tairatcnance: {
1 Velocity check on vacuum pump discharge.
2 T,Amperature check on vacuum purup discharge.
3 Pi essure readings on vacuum pump discharge.
4 V,rcuum check in designated monitoring wells and recovery wells.
5. Check knock out tank for water.
6. Check filter.
7. Perform other maintenance as required by the equipment manufacturers.
eft eft c Wing center once (as required)
1. Shut down the treatment system and lock out all starters.
2. Disconnect the submersible pump and piping and pull the pump.
3. Pour a very dilute Muriatic Acid or other acceptable cleaning agent solution into the we
4. Pump the water/cleaning solution from the well into the treatment system.
5. Pump out the water to a temporary vessel for neutralization step.
6. Collect the spent cleaning solution in a temporary vessel.
7. Add neutralization solution to vessel or dispose of offsite.
Note: Appropriate MSDS sheets to be provided. Personal Protective Equipment to be utilized.
Personnel to be OSHA safety trained.

Document
cord Set of Drawings
or "As-Builts"
TABLE 10
REPORTING SCHEDULE
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
First Succeeding P.E.
Year Years Each Year Signed &
Due date Monthly Monthly Annually Sealed
after
system
nstruct'on
NPDES Monthly Report Month
Yes
Notes
Annual Report Annual
Feasibility Study
With Costs & Schedule
Discontinuance of
Remedial Action
Dn-going
During
Remediation
Submit data from monthly sampling
on a quarterly basis. Monitor floe weekly.
Includes:
(1) Water Table Contours
(2) Free Product Data
(3) Dissolved Contaminants Data
(4) Data From Quarterly Sampliin
Yes Client can evaluate system modificatio
to enhance site cleanup.
Site Rehabilitation
Completion Report
When Contam.
"Level Off"
(Asymptotic
Behavior
Approx. 3.5
years after
startup
Client can propose alternative SRLs
based on site response to remediation.
Client can request "no further action"
after 4 quarters of data documenting
no contamination above NCAC ISA 2L
System can be off during monitoring period.

onrtoring
ocation
TABLE 1
DESIGNATED WELL AND MONITOG SCHEDULE
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
Designated
Monitoring
Wells
First Month
Week Number
#2 #3 #1
ourdwater Treatment System:
Influent
Effluent
RW-01
RW-02
RW-03
ItfW 01
MW-02
-03
MW-04
MW-05
MW-06D
MW-07
MW-08
MW-09D
o. of Sampl, s:
AIQC Sarni les:
Total:
D
1,3,4 1,3,4
1,3,4 1,3,4
1,3,4,L L
1,3,4,L L
1,3,4,L L
,3,4,L L
L L
L L
1_ L
D 1,3,4,E L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
7
2
First
Year
ontbl
Succeeding Verification
Years Period (1 yr) Completion
((warted j (quarterly) Report
1,3,4
4
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
1,3,4
1,3,4
4 1,3,4
1,3,4,L
L 1,3,4,L
L 1,3,4,L
1,3,4
4
1,3,4,L
,3,4,L
1,3,4,L
4,L
1,3,4,L
4
1,3,4,L
L
L
L
1,3,4,L
L
L
L
L
1,3,4,L
L
L
L
1,3,4,L
L
L
L
L
1,3,4,L
L
L
4,L
L
L
L
1,3,4,L
L
L
L L
7
7
5
2 2
2
Vapor E: tr
SVE-01
S VE-02
S VE-03
inf./Eff.
of Samples:
ion (S
System:
V,6 V,6
V,6 V,6
V,6 V,6
V,6 V,6
4 4
KEY: MW - Monitoring Well
RW - Recovery Weil
D - DesignatedMonitoring Well
L - Liquid Level Measurements
✓ - Vacuum Measurement
SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction Well
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
1 - EPA Method 602 - Purgeable Aromatics + MTSE
2 - EPA Method 610 - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
3 - EPA Method 601 - Purgeable Halocarbons
4 - EPA Method 504.1 - Ethylene Dibromide
5 - EPA Method 239.2 - Filtered Lead
6 - BTEX and Total Hydrocarbons in Air
NOTE,: Once SVE system offgas levels have decreased signifcantly (approximately 6-9 months from startup), soil sarrtples
will be collected and analyzed for TPH to evaluate the necessity of adding air sparging to the remediation system.

TABLE 12
MONITO NG WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
nttortng Well Total Screened Screen
Well Diameter Depth Interval Slot Size Installation
ignation (inches) (feet) (feet) {inches) Date Coeur en
MW-02
MW-03
MV4' -04
MW-05
MW-06D
MW-07
MW-08
MW-09D
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
24 14 - 24 0.010 5/26/93
23 13 - 23 0.010 6/29/93
23 13 23 0.010 1/7/93
23 13 .. 23 0.010 1/8/93
23 13 - 23 0.010 3/16/93
40 35 - 40 0.010 7/29/93 6" x 30' surface casing
28 18 - 28 0.010 3/11/94
27 17 - 27 0,010 3/11/94
60 5.5 - 60 0.010 3110/94 6" x 50" surtace casin
NOTES: Ali wells constructed of Schedule 40 PVC.
Surface casings for vertical extent wells constructed of Schedule 80 PVC.

DRA [CGS

STAI
OF THE INTERIOR
EOLOQICAL SURVEY
IEi OINOTON,N.0 S.C.- QUADRANQ1.
NORTH CAROLINA«MECK. CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
PROJECT NAME
City ref Charlotte
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North (:'1
No. 9
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NAAi. rE4 DETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1979
FIGURE I
11.S.G.S, `TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
A:..CT NO.
51 1-24I78
DATE
kir996

UST
(ACTIVE
DIESEL)
UST -
INACTIVE)
ASTE OIL)
SITE M AP
FIRE STATION N©. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
5€35 A NEST WO, HARRIS BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28269
DRAWN BY: KT
CHKD, BY:
SCALE:
[DATE,.
10/24/94
PROD. NO.:...
D
-2H178
2

PROPER TY
LINE
LEGEND
ITT MONITOR WELL LOCATION
MW-3
MW-2
UST
(ACTIVE
DIESEL)
4
Mw-7
UST
(INACTIVE)
(WASTE OIL)
t9
MW-B
AWN BY
MONITOR WELL LOCATION MAP
FIRE STATION No. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
KT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
5035 A WEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28269
CALE:
KLT, BY: I DA
PRO. N ,.
Q all--2H17
t7YG.:

LEGEND
09 MONITOR WELL LOCATION
MW-3
ug/tl BENZENE
UST
(INACTIVE)
WASTE OIL)
MW-8
E TI BATED EXTENT OF BENZENE 1N GROUNDWATER
FIRE STATION No. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN Y.
><D. BY:'
KT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
A WEST W,T HARRIS BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28269
ALE: 1 PROL Na:
ATE:
10
-2H17
4

TILLEY MORRIS AD
(sR 3445)
LEGEND
MONITOR WELL LOCATION
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
DIRECTION OE FLOW
UST
(INACTIVE)
k(WASTE OIL)
GROUND WATER ELEVATION MAP
FIRE STATION No. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUST
T, HARRIS BOULEVARD
AiTIDTTE.. NORTH CARDLINA 28268
NC.
DRAWN EIY
iKD.
KT
CALE:
ATE:
50
10/24/94
RR©J, NO.
512H'178
5

TILLEY M—-�
ORRIS ROAD (SR 3445)
LEGEND
L3 RECOVERY WELL LOCATION
Si MONITOR WELL LOCATION
ESTIMATED EXTENT
OF GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
W-7ee
9D
MW-8
UST
(INACTIVE)
(WASTE O L);
60 DAY FLUSHED ZONE.
FIRE STATION No. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLBNA
DRAWN BY:
KT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
A Y&ST w,6, HARRWS BOULEVARD
ARLOTWE, NORTH CAROLINA 28269
5`
PROJ. N
DWG,:
511--2Ht78
6

LEGEND
• SOIL BORING LOCATION
UST
tNACT VE)
ASTE OIL
SOIL BORING LOCATION I AP
FIRE STATION N©. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROUNA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
T IY,T, HARMS BOULEVARD
ORTH CAROLINA 26269
10/24/994
511-2H 1 7
7

-PROPERTY
LINE
LEGEND
• SOIL BORING LOCATPON
EQUAL THICKNESS CONTOUR
or SOIL CONTAMINATION
NOTE: CONTOURS BASE €3 ON THE OVA
AND ANALYTVCAL DATA.
MW-8
•
ST
ACTIVE)
ASTE OIL)
ISOPACH MAP OF CONTAMINATED SAIL
FIRE STATION No. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
A NEST W.T, HARRIS BOULEVARD
©TIE, NORTH CAROLINA 28269
PROJ. N
D
-2H178
8

M W- 2
BDL
PROPERTY
UNE
LLEYMORRIS ROAD (SR 3445)
LEGEND
09 MONITOR WELL LOCATION
• SOIL BORING LOCATION'
HOE
BDL
15
TPH CONCENTRATION (METHOD 3550)
TPH CONCENTRATION (METHOD 5030)
SAMPLE DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE
BDL BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
UNITS IN MILLIGRAMS PER
KILOGRAMS (MG/KG)
4 ,74©0
91©©I
> 10 MG/KG -
(METHOD 5030)
BULDING
UST
2 (ACTIVE
DIESEL)
4_
BDL
MW-7
MW-B
ESTIMATE© EXTENT OF TPH IN SOIL
FIRE STATION No. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
5035 A NEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 26269
2H17
9

SE)-4
< 1
< 0„1'.
0
10
SB-1
toawr_ � 1
20
LEGEND
MW-60
30
PID READING, ppm
TPH (METHOD 3550), mg/kg
TPH (METHOD 5030), mg/kg
40
SB-6
<1
< 0.1
50
60
70
ESTIMATED V`E:RT1CLE EXTENT OF SOIL Ci NTAINATI{ N
CROSS SECTION A -A"
FIRE STATION N©. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
4400 — 140th. AVENUE NORTH
i TE I00
CL AFt1NA TER, FLCAIDA 34622
NDUSTRIES. INC.
DRAWN BY: KT
SCALE:
CHKD. BY: DATE:
NO
NO„:
511-2H178

LEGEND
9 IMUNITOR WELL LOCATION
UST
(INACTIVE)
(WASTE OIL)
MW-8
CROSS SECTION B—B' AND C—C' LOCATIONS
FIRE STATION N©. 9
4529 McKEE ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROtNA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
5Ci35 A A 5T W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28269
A
T
A
5©'
PR©J. N©
511-21.417
E3Y:
DATE:
10/24/94
11

44
8- rn
t
-0-
z
r-
0
rTi
NOliVA3-13 631VM
31YOS 1VINOZIKH 3.1.VNIXO6ddV
LP Ln
P.) 0
APPROXIMATE VER rICAL SCALE (FEET)
+L. 1,..) M11 r"-, 1,9
0 CV 1.-4 0 CO 0 0IQ NI
I I TrTrr rri rI --1---I
f I
v i + I
÷ +
+ v + l'i 1- -4 i
1 1-
-I., + .41 1 + + Hi I
-f, 'f. 1
4 1- +
+ + 4 \ I 1111I. I
v '
+ -
F ++, 1
t + 4 + I I A I II
r + -1- -4
+ + -4 .A I 111
+
, -+ t t 1 I 1 I
i I 1
+ 4
+ + [1 + I '- I I I
+ + 4 9 + • 1 I
+ II + 1. + I 1 1 I 1
4 + 1 -I- - + I 1
+ + It + > + + I I 1 I1
4- i -t- + I
1- > +.1 I
t I I I 1
I
+ I I I
+ + 11
f I 1 I .
4-1 I
I I I
l' + 1 v I i
, I
0 1-
n I I-, ,
+ + x i I
+ + 1111
—4
1
+ + I I
+ 1- f + -+ 1 1I
1- 4- 4 + + .4-I i II II ,
+ + + + '
4 -+ + I
+ + "1- + 4 + I I I I
1- -I- 4 1 I 1I
+ f-
+ + -f M
+ 1 + i
4- I -+ + + I1 1 !1
i
-4-44- t 4 i I .
+ + + + + 11 V11
I II
1'_f_I + ++41 I 1
I i
+ + + 4
• -4 4 + I
+ 4.1 LIl
+ +
+ -4-• + + ' I
+ + -t. + .1 I I Li
I ,
-I-
I Lit,..1q
1(71- ,•-- -
+ + I + + + I .qU,
1 +
+ 4 + + -4 + 1,1 I I
I I I I
I J. i

APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL SCALE (FEET)
APPROXkA7 VORTICAL SCALE (FEET)
2/04DO- 0
SITE 1 T—T
+ + + !
+ + + . .
* ƒ�!`r
!�! !l�1
` ��,!« . -.
*: ! ( ! f ! !!II�`!
+ l�!,1�l�! P�n�l�!la�I�II!!!�
II II
* !1lil�`l��l!`!`iI����F
! w \ ! ! ! v I 1 ! !
!\\l,Fl��lI�I II I � /I�I�I
I
* ! ! ! ! I , ! rI I I
~
I I! I I § I!! fH I I
II ! ! i ! I I
I II
!I1I,!! !!!I` ` II`i e�!`I I
}�l II I `.II
II�`��l�l�`�I�lII �I�I1
l l �II �
II�l1P1l����'I�III 1 I I�l�I�
I I!!!:; I I i N! 1
!! ll�I�a!!�}!}!�ll,I IlI,1I ,1111 ,1

'!" P NS A S* .._ A ONS

APPENDIX C
WELL SURVEY DATA

Potable
id nti is
TABLE 1
ONE -QUARTER MILE
POTABLE WELL DATA
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
perty Owner
Addr
Lookadoo, James 4
McKee Road
Charlotte, 28270
(704) 8462247 NA
2
Dye, Forrest
4501 McKee Road
Charlotte 28270
[phone] NA.
Karras, George
4445 McKee Road
Charlotte, 28270
Hunt, Frank
10 4500 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, 28105
[phone]
[phone]
NA
NA
11
Ware, Destie
4444 Tilley Morris. Road
Matthews, 28105
Not Listed
Depth:65 et
Screen: 35 - 65 feet
Diameter: 6 inches
Age: unknown
lM: drilled
fe
Bothby, Monique
12 4436 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, 28105
Price, Carroll
13 4420 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, 28105
Grier, Violet
14 4427 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, 28105
Walsh, David
24 4710 Tilley Morris Road
Charlotte, 28270
NA = No information available
➢M — Well installation method
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
[phone]
NA
Note: Information obtained through personal interviews with residents, review of information at the
Mecklenburg County Mapping Department and through interviews with Charlotte -Mecklenburg County
Utilities Department personnel.

PROVIDENCE
ARBOURS
COMMUNITY
APPROXIMATE 500 FOOT RA
McKEE ROAD
FIRE STATION NO. 9
Prafe ion Service 1ndu tries, In
5035 A West W.T. Harris Blvd Charlotte, North Carolina
Ter [phone] Fax [phone]
POTA
d. ch rtok a. NC
LEGEND
POTABLE
OCATION
F67E STATION NO 9
STREET ADDRESS

APP
SOIL SCIENTIST T ;EPORT

SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION
FOR AN
ON -SITE WASTE DISPOSAL INFILTRATION GALLERY
FOR REMEDIATED GROUNDWATER
AT CHARLOTTE FIRE STATION #9
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
by
Toney C. Jacobs &. Associates, Inc,
Consulting Soil Scientists
168 Broadbill Drive
Mooresville, N. C. 28115
submitted to: Mr, Rodney J, Hamm
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
3053 A West W.T. Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, N. C. 29269

Soil and Site Evaluation for an On -site West e Disposal Infiltration Gallery
At Charlotte Fire Station #9, Mecklenburg County, N. C.
Introduction
This report summarizes the activities, observations, data collection, conclusions,
and recommendations for a proposed subsurface disposal system for 2800 gallons of
groundwater after on -site extraction and removal of hydrocarbons from a leaking on -
site buried storage tank. This proposal is for a deep trench system of 125' x 20'. This
is on a small intensely used parcel of less than one acre. Approximately one-half of this
area is covered with building or concrete parking. The recommendation for use of a
subsurface system comes only after the design group was denied disposal into CMUD
sewer or an N'PIJES permit to nearby surface waters. Design flow has been set at
2800 by the design group. Subsurface disposal through DEM permitting has been
considered the only option at this point.
The recommendation for an on -site infiltration system is based on a
combination of factors, including, but not limited to 1) topography, 2) soil/saprolite
characteristics, 3) wetness conditions, 4) depth to a confining or restrictive horizon, 5)
available space for the system, 6) impact on watertable; 7) soil and saprolite
conductivities, 8) transmissivity, and 9) a workable management plan. Generally, some
of these conditions, which may limit site use, can be compensated for by changing the
system design; however, some factors cannot be remediated. It is with this philosophy
that this report is prepared. On January 31, 1995 sufficient fieldwork was conducted
to address the factors above and generate this report.
This report is complimentary documentation for an engineered design by Mr.
Rodney Hamm, Staff Scientist with PSi, Charlotte. Most details which will be a part of
that report have been omitted from this work, although this work, as well es the
design, represent a holistic approach with on -going interaction.
Site
The fire station is located in southeastern Mecklenburg County at the
intersection of Tilley Morris and McKee Roads (Fig. 1) The area is served by CMUD
utilities; however, many private wells remain in the area. PSI's investigation or survey
will give accurate information an adjoining wells. Location Of wells within 500' are

2
referred to the design engineer. No surface waters were visible from the site, but
should be accurately located by the engineer and/or designer,
Because of the homogeneity of the receiver site, soils in the disposal area, and
the small size of the area investigated, the field is addressed as a complete unit.
During the soil investigation topo was checked by handheld clinometer and the area
found to be relatively flat. The gallery area is an interfluve landscape position [Fig. 2).
The proposed gallery is approximately 0.05 acre, There were no rock or rock
outcrops noted in the area. in the general area there are rock and rock outcrops, but
none observable from this site.
Soils
The Sod Survey of Mecklenburg County, N. C. (McCachren, 1988) has the area
mapped as Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes eroded Fig. 3). Published
information about this mapping unit is in Appendix I. The site specific investigation
placed 2 backhoe pits in the proposed area (Fig, 4). The pits were investigated to 9.1
and 11.2 feet. The saprolite was actually much easier to dig by both backhoe and soil
auger than soil above, When terminated, it was still possible to get a return in both
holes. Field descriptions for both pits are included in Appendix 2.
The two profile descriptions were very similar, except for slight variations in
horizon thickness. Generally, there was a red clay to clay loam subsoil to approximately
5 feet over saproite to 10 ft. +, The saprolite was red yellow mottled with colors of
red, yellow red, pink, and relic Tight grays and whites. Structure was massive and rock-
like that easily deformed to fine granular structure by picking pit sidewalls. Texture was
overall sandy loam and loam with a few pockets of sandy clay loam. Consistency was
friable moist and slightly sticky, slightly plastic to non -sticky, non -plastic wet. The
saprolite was micaceous toward the bottom of pit 2.
There was no evidence of redoximorphic characteristics or restrictive horizons
in the pits described,. There should be a low shrink -swell potential in the kaolin'itic
subsoil and coarse loamy saprolite. No hard rock or floating rock was encountered in
the pits. Also, no open fractures were observed that would allow preferential flow, The
colors and structures] are well represented on photos [Plate 1). There were relic low
chrome mottles of less than two chrome, but these were high values (top left of
Munsell Color Charts). No colors were believed to be redoximorphic features.

Both backhoe pits cut through an abandoned septic trench from the fire
station's old on -site septic system. The station is now served by CMUD sewer and no
flow is directed to this system. The lines appeared to be a repair to the septic system
and had received little wastewater. There was no clogging mat formation noted, This
old septic system should not affect the operation of the infiltration gallery as the gallery
should be installed below the depth of the septic system trench. These lines are also
shown on Plate 1.
There was no evidence of periodic saturated soil conditions in either pit. Six
saturated hydraulic measurements [Ksat] were measured in the proposed disposal
area using compact constant head Permeameters similar to those described by
Amoozegar (1989), Two measurements were made in the subsoil and four in the
saprolite. Two lab measurements were &so made of the saprolite by PSI, Inc. using
flexible wall Permeameters. These values are shown in Table 1. The mean of the
Ksats in the saprolite (using TCJ numbers and excluding the 25.9 in/d value) was 4.3
in/d, Ksats presented by PSI were much greater than this value. According to SGS,
the permeability of the saprolite is 0.6-2.0 in/hr. Ksat calculations for the compact
constant head permeameter measurements are on Calculation Sheet 1.
Table 1, SITE SPECIFIC SATURATED HYDRAULIC CON0UCT1VES
SVME
40 - 52
0.5
7
- 75
0.8
99 - 106.5
117 -129
5.9
23 134
25„9
PSI 144-168
,44 - 16
4 .4
51.0

4
Five composite soil samples have been collected and sent to the NCDA soil
testing laboratory for determination of pH, cation exchange capacity [GEC), and soil
fertility requirements. Results will be forwarded at a later date after testing. From field
observations, it is expected that pH from the acid rock parent material will be
approximately 4.5-5.5 and CEC approximately 2.5-4,5 meg/100 grams.
Using groundwater characteristics, concentration of total Nitrogen,
Phosphorous, and organic loading will be insignificant. With this dear water addition, it
would not be expected that any slime layer formation would occur on the gallery
bottom or sidewalls.
Summary of site recommendations
The proposed 20' x 125' area is to dispose of 2800 gpd of remediated
hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater. This amount to 1.12 gal/te/d of gallery
bottom. The disposal area is on en interfluve landscape position and receives no
surface water run-on, There is a road ditch on McKee Road which should be improved
to divert and expedite surface water from the disposal area. The soil has deep
saprolite with good hydraulic properties, The infiltration gallery should be installed in
the saprolite for best results, It is proposed that the disposal area be excavated to
approximately 10 feet deep and then be put in on grade. Eight runs of high capacity
Infiltrator chambers (Appendix 3) should follow the long axis of the disposal area.
These will be 2.5' on -center (Fig. 5). The area will then be hackfilled with 5 feet of
washed gravel and then backfilled to the surface with soil The disturbed area should
be shaped to promote runoff away from the site and seeded with Fescue grass, This
should be kept mowed short to promote runoff. The excess soil should be used to
build e mound for this purpose.
The loading rate on the 20x 125' disposal area is 0.12 ft (1 in/d) at the
2800 gpd proposed flow. This is 2.4 times less than the measured mean Ksat of the
saprolite of the site. Any control or restrictive layer below our investigation could affect
system performance. Deep borings by PSI to 25 ft. indicate no such contact, but the
wetertable was measured at 21 ft, two hours after boring. Other borings made by PSI
indicate bedrock is et 60ft. A two-dimensional groundwater mounding analysis made
by Hoopes (1981) indicated that the waterteble will rise 2 ft, above present depth at
the center of the disposal area due to the added water from the infiltration gallery.
This would be considered desirable to system performance,

5
General comments
1. Good landscape position; however, design uses a narrow aerial window.
2. The system has good uniform slope for surface drainage.
3. Kset's indicate a profile with sufficient conductivity for loading. This loading
rate should always give an unsaturated flow regime. Monitoring should be
placed to adjust flow if persistent saturation to the watertable conditions
occur.
4. Use of the Infiltrator units should reduce stone masking et the interface.
Until construction, the site should be maintained as is, Installation should be of
minimum disturbance of surface soils. There should also be special conditions imposed
on the contractor installing system. This includes prohibiting any work while the site is
wet. Attention should be given to avoid the disturbance of soil structure by entering
field while soil is too wet, Any field preparations should be stabilized as quickly as
possible with mulch to reduce erosion. Work should be planned to avoid inclement
weather during construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance with this project. If questions
arise about this report, please do not hesitate to contact me,

6
REFERENCES CITED
1. Amoozegar, Aziz. 1989. A Compact Constant -Head Permeameter for Measuring
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of the Vadosa Zone. Soil Sci. Soc, Am. J.
53:1356-1361.
2. Hoopes, J.A. et„al. 1981. Modeling pollutant movement in groundwater in high
rate soil absorption system HRSA Task Force final report, 1984. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, Minn.
3. McCachren, Clifford M. 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, NC. USDA Soil
Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Area Locator
Toney C Jacobs & Associates, Inc.
168 F3roadbiIl Dr.
Mooresville, NC 281 1 5
Figure 1

UNITE© STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOWOICAL SURVEY
EDDINUTON,N.C•S.C.• QUADRAN
NORTH CAR©LINA-MECK. CO.
7,5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHI
Topo
E
EINFEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 PEET
NAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF
Toney C Jacobs & Associates, Inc,
16B Broadbill Dr,
Mooresville, NC 28115
Figure 2

Soil Map
USDA-SCS
Toney C Jacobs & Associates, Inc.
168 F3raadbill Dr.
Mooresville, NC 2811 J
Figure 3

Chamber Diagram
Toney C Jacobs & Associates, Inc.
168 8roadbill Dr,
Mooresville, NC 28115
Figure 5

PLATE 1
Pitt
Ctoe-up ofsprote above
P'
2

APPEND
1. USDA general soils inferr t ir)rt
2. Bull profile field r es
. I fil r or In r

Al
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROL NA
crushes to sandy clay loam; rnassive; ; strongly
acid.
The thickness of the clayey B horizon ranges from 24
to 46 inches. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches.
The B horizon is strongly acid or very strongly acid,
The Ap horizon is yellowish brown, brown, or pale
brown. The A2 horizon, where present, is light yellowish
brown or brownish yellow.
The 131 horizon, where present, is brownish yellow or
very pale brown sandy loam or sandy clay loam, The B2t
horizon is yellowish brown, brownish yellow, strong
brown, or yellowish red clay or sandy clay. The 03 hori-
zon, where present, is mottled brownish yellow, strong
brown, reddish yellow, and red clay loam or sandy clay
loam,
The C horizon is commonly variegated yellowish red,
reddish yellow, red, brownish yellow, yellowish brown,
brown, white, and light gray saprolite that crushes to
sandy loam or sandy clay loam,
Cecil series
The Cecil series consists of well drained, moderately
permeable soils that formed in residuum from acid ig-
neous and metamorphic rock. These soils are on broad
ridges and side slopes. Slope ranges from 2 to 15 per-
cent.
Typical pedon of Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, eroded, 2.6 miles north of I-85 on U.S. 21, 0,4
mile west of junction of N.C. 115 on Sunset Road (Slate
Road 2108), 25 feet southeast at inlersection of State
Road 2100;
Ap-0 to 6 inches; yellowish red (5YR 4/6) sandy clay
loam; weak fine granular structure; friable; few to
common fine roots; common fine pores: medium
acid; clear smooth boundary.
021t-6 to 18 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) clay; moderate
fine subangular blocky structure; firm; few to
common fine roots: common fine pores; thin con-
tinuous clay films on faces of peds; strongly acid;
clear smooth boundary.
B221-18 to 35 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) clay; common
fine distinct brownish yellow mollies: moderate fine
subangular blocky structure; firm: few fine pores;
thin distinct continuous clay films on faces of peds;
few fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear smooth
boundary.
923t-35 to 46 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) clay; common
fine distinct brownish yellow mottles; weak fine su-
bangular blocky structure; firm; faint discontinuous
clay films on faces of peds; few fine flakes of mica;
few fine pockets of saprolite; strongly acid: clear
wavy boundary.
B3-46 to 53 inches: red (2 5YR 4/6) clay loam;
common fine distinct brownish yellow mottles; weak
fine subangular blocky structure: firm; few flakes of
37
rrica; common pockets of saprolite; strongly acid;
gradual wavy boundary.
C-53 to 65 inches; red and yellow saprolite that
crushes to loam; massive; friable; strongly acid.
Thickness of the clayey B horizon ranges from 24 to
44 inches. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. The
B horizon is strongly acid or very strongly acid.
The Ap horizon is yellowish brown, brown, yellowish
red, red, or reddish brown.
The 91 horizon, if present, is sandy clay loam or clay
10aM. ihe 021 horizon Is red clay, and In some places it
has brownish yellow, yellowish brown, reddish yellow, or
strong brown mottles in the lower part, The 03 horizon is
sandy clay loam or clay loam,
The C horizon is strong brown, red, or yellow saprolite
that crushes to loam or clay loam,
Davidson series
The Davidson series consists of well drained, moder-
ately permeable soils that formed in materials weathered
from dark colored rocks high in ferromagnesian minerals,
These soils occur on broad ridges and narrow side
slopes. Slope ranges from 2 to 25 percent.
Typical pedon of Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, 1 mile south of Shopton on N.C. 160, 3
miles southwest of State Road 1116, 1.3 miles west on
State Road 1115, 50 feet southwest of junction of State
Road 1378:
Ap-0 to 7 inches; dark reddish brown (2,5YR 3/4)
sandy clay loam, moderate fine granular structure;
friable; medium acid; gradual smooth boundary.
81-7 to 16 inches; dark red (2.5YR 3/6) clay loam;
weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable;
medium acid; gradual wavy boundary.
B21 t-16 to 43 inches; dark red (2.5YR 3/6) clay; weak
fine subangular blocky structure; firm, sticky, slightly
plastic; common fine quartz grains; strongly acid;
gradual wavy boundary.
B221-43 to 103 inches; dark red (2.5YR 3/6) clay; small
pockets of clay loam and loam throughout the hori-
zon; weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable,
slightly plastic; few to common fine quartz grains;
strongly acid.
The clayey textured horizons commonly extend 60 to
100 inches or more Depth to bedrock is more than 60
inches. The B horizon ranges from very strongly acid to
medium acid.
The Ap horizon is dusky red, very dusky red, dark
reddish brown, or dark red,
The Bl horizon, where present, is dark red or dark
reddish brown. The B2t horizon is dark red, dark reddish
brown, or dusky red. In some places the 6231 horizon
and the lower B2t horizons are red Structure ranges
Irom weak to moderate subangular blocky.

ICJ CONSULTING
SOIL EVALUATION
JOB:
tOCAnON:
PROPOSED FAC 1T" . ° WATER 5113' t t ' r 6 Ef[r„ �nau
WE.AT HERt'( CEDEI'11 MO S 1 RE; �� URFACE WA
It
PHONE:
COUNTY: -
DA
PROT
EV'AtJJAT1ON: Auup._ Pi f Cuf
T • Teases
P•Flood MAI
IFXytr.
1 ssotf
is • bossy owed
d • sandy farm
I'•kora
d•irk
st'1 • es Isms
sicf thy lone
A • *ter hors
swarthy
se• mrefr*ly
sk-s}krcbr
e•thy
WSSISTEKE
mr� Z
Ns mnssdeir
5s • frIftott sfi[lr
5 • Pithy
Vs • wry dicky
Sp •plseek
Sp . sflpsrt pkastl
P•Omsk
Vp.,*ry pbsl*
MOIST
.fr -wry !hist*
fr • Metric
fi • nran
+fi • very *so
elf - ran nre lr nil
StIttKIIME
e1 ' olive park
monk
er•entry*
fn ' gratmrrr
sob ` sWrsrerrlsr bl
■h • ay,. Mirk'
pr „ prisms*

EYS E
INC
THE
INFILTRATOR® Chamber
Leach Field System

GRAVEL AND PIPE
4" Perforated Pipe.
University studies prove
that It does not give
even distribution..
Infiltrative
surface with
biomat formation
Stone Masking
40% - 60% of
infiltrative surface
Compaction from
gravel emplacement -
reduced Infiltration rate
PROBLEMS WITH GRAVEL:
• Reduces infiltration rate 50% to 60%
according to experts
■ Handling and waste
• Site damage
■ Cost
Native Soil
Masked zone -
limited infiitrat
Biomes
Water disperses
beneath stones
THERE IS A BETTER WAY ... THE INFILTRATOR
DESIGNED TO SOLVE PROBLEMS
INFILTRATOR• Units
Available In Standard or High Capaci
Storage volume
more than 2 times
greater than a gravel
trench of equal size
Side wall designed
to minimize masking
effect
Entire bottorn of
trench provides
perfect unmasked
infiltrative surface
SIZE
STAUDARD
INFILTRATOR •
3'x6.25'x T'
WEIGHT
STORAGE
25 lbs.
1O.3ft.' (77 gal.)
HIGH CAPACITY
INFILTRATOR"
3' x 6.25' x 1.33'
30 lbs.
16,3 ft.' (122 gal.)
ckflll
Lock of cover
material on sidewall
may allow soil
Intrusion
Stone or gravel
supports soft and
provides limited
storage onty, Gravel
provides no treatment.
SION MASKING.
LIMIT$ INFILtl ltI CAPACITY
Unmasked effective
Infiltrative surface
Solids build up In
spaces between gravel,
limiting Infiltration
Infiltrativ
B€ ckfll
No soil Intrusion
Micro -Leaching Chambers
(No need for geotextiles)
Native 'Soil
Protective rib prevents
soil backfiil intrusion
and creates voids
for optimal biomat
formation,
'4" wide open slots
provide open area
equal to porosity of
sides of gravel trench,
Ribs - create additional
voids for bromat
formation.

1 I -Ugh -Coped
INFILTRATOR*
Chambe
Standard
INFILTRATOR*
Chambe
Pipe
and
Gravel
BOTTQMAREAQNLY
001101v1 & SIDE AREA
BOTIOM & SIDES
00170
BOTIOM & SIDE
i 0.2 2 11.2 3 fLa 4 fl.a
UNMASKED INFILTRATIVE AREA ft.2/1inear ft.
Documented research has clearly dem-
onstrated that the INFILTRATOR° chamber
provides an optimum infiltrative surface for
leaching systems. Many states have already
recognized this and granted system size re-
ductions accordingly.
The graph shows that INFILTRATOR° cham-
bers have twice the effective Infiltrative
surface area per linear foot. This is based on
a 36wide trench with 6' of gravel below the
pipe assumhg 50% gravel masking, com-
pared to Standard and High Capacity
INFILTRATOR' chambers with arx, masking for
INFILTRATOR skiewall, and no bottom
1. Excavate 3' wide trenches and prepare Infiltra lye surface.
2. Screw the end plates In place and slip INFILTRATOR° units
together to form desired trench length.
3. Run inlet pipe thru Inlet end plate (pipe does not extend the
entire length of the system), and backfill with native material
(18" depth for H-20 and 12" for H-10).
(Detailed instructions available.)
ALTERNATIVE
IN
TALLATIONS
INFILTRATOR CHAMBERS ARE GREAT
FOR MOUNDS AND PRESSURE
DISTRIBUTION TOO!
MOUNDS
INFILTRATORS °can easily
replace the gravel in mound
or fill systems, In either a trench
or bed configuration
Installation Is much easier with no damage
to the infiltrative surface, The site preparation,
design and construction of the mound system is
prescribed by state code, and Infiltrator
Systems' Installation Instructions,
Pressure
Distribution Pipe
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
INFILTRATOR * chambers are easily adapted to pressure distribution. Simply suspend a
predrilled pressure pipe in the top of the units with simple, foolproof plastic pipe hangers.
Supplemental installation instructions are available for complete details.
rigInal Grade

INFILTRATORVARE ENGINEERED AND
TESTED FOR INCREDIBLE STRENGTH
INFILTRATOR° chambers are molded from a high density poly-
ethelene and are Impervious to all components of wastewater,
They have been structurally tested by a Registered Professional
Engineer and are available with an AASHTO rating of 11-10 (16,000
Ibs/axle with 12" of compacted cover) or 11-20 (32,000 lbs,/axle
with 18" of cover).
THE INFILTRATORSYSTEM
HAS ADVANTAGES FOR EVERYONE
A high performance, state-of-the-art system,
Double the unmasked soil interface area compared to
gravel systems.
Complete system delivered In one pickup truck,
Fast & easy Installation.
Reduced labor & machine costs.
Eliminates compaction, shadow effect and mess caused
from gravel.
Easy inspection,
Structurally strong, H-10 and H-20 load ratings.
Approved by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development — Federal Housing Authority.
Complete technical back-up Information is available.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT -
THE INFILTRATOR® ADVANTAGE
The INFILTRATOR® Is a complete systems approach to stormwater
management that gives the engineer tremendous design free-
dom to meet the needs of the individual site, The engineer can use
units combined with stone for shallow or deep systems that meet
any requirement for storage and treatment, require no heavy
equipment except a backhoe for installation, and are highly cost
?ffective, A detailed stormwater brochure is available upon
equest. For more information, call INFILTRATOR Systems or
your Racal distributor.
INFILTRATOR
SYSTEMS INC
Leading the way in septic and stormwater chamber systems
4 Business Park Drive • Old Saybrook, CT 06475 • 203.388.6639 • 800.221.4436 • FAX 203•388•6810
LIMITED WARRANTY
(a) Pie struck...ILA Inllegnty01 ETOCh ITITILTRATOIY* (ENE when Instaiiect 0OC-
COETTonce MurktifTictureYS Instnycllorts, is warranted to the, urkjino(
pachoser. rxIatrist defeCtive rriatcfliats and WOfkrnonshipfar one 'eaf
trans dale ol rnonLifaciure Should a defect appear within the warronhi
period, purchaser most inform Infiltrator Systems Inc. of the defect within
Eileen (.1.5) cloys Syslenns wd suppity o repiocemont unit Intlreor sysiernnobility specifically erciories trse cost of remoYol and io‘
install:701ra r.:rf iryx, units
(h) THE WM-MATTE'? IN SUBPARAGRAPH (a) 5 1 (r:1.0SM. THERE ARE N() OTHER
wARp.ANTIES WITH RESPECT TO TILE TINTS INCTLLTDING No WARRANTIES OF
METICHANt ABILITY ()POE FITNESS KKR A PAROCLAAP PURPOSE PIE WAR-
RANTY iTiOLES NOT EXTEND to KADourfrAt,C.ONSEQ,.CNTIAL,. SPECIAL 01?
INDIRECT f TAMAGES TilE COMPANY SHALL NOL BE. LIABLE POO PENALRES
OR LTQL.XDALED DAMAGES, INCLUDING TOSS ()F PRODUCTION AND Pfi0-
f I ts. LABOR AND MATERIALS, ovERHEAD cesrs, OP OTHER LOSS or: EX-
PENSE 'INCURRED BY MYER SPECW.LCALLY EXCLUDED FROM SVARRATITY
COVE.RAGE iARE D.AMAGE TO TT -LE TINOS. FATE TO ORDANAPY WEAR AND
WAR: ALTERATION. ACCIDENT MISUSE, ABUSE CV NEGLECT Of PIE UNITS'.
THE UNITS BEING SUBJECTED B.) 51015515 GREATER THAN THOSE PRES-
CRIi3ED IN THE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS, THE PLACEMENT BY BUYER OE
IMPRC)PER P4LAITPIALS INTO KKR'S sYstEm, (Na ANY OTHER EVENT NOT
CAUSED BY TVIE COAVANY
FURITIERT.IORE. IN NO EVENT SHALE THE COMPANY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE BLAIR, RiE UNITS OR ANV THIRD PARTY
RESTATING FROM ITS INSTALLATION 0117 sttiPmfm BUYER SHALL BE SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR .ENSURINCT, THAT INSTATLAIITY4 01 rt 1E SYSTEM IS COM-
LIx. FEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAM. CODES. raJtEs
AND REGuLATioNs
(c) NO REPRESENTATIVE OE THE' COMPANY HAS THE ALTISTORITY TC) CHANGE
PITS WARRANTY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVTP„ OP TO EXTEND. PAIS WAR-
QANTY No WLARRANEY APPLIES TO ANY PARTY OTHER' THAN TO THE
ORIGINAL KAP.
Distributed by
PAL NOS. 475986L 5011041 and S156465 Conodleh and other patents ponding•
INFILTRATORand MICRO -LEACHING CHAMBERS are trademarks of Intiltrotal Systems Inc,
©1994 infiltrator Systems, Inc. A01/1294

rAPPV'S
ln1

APPENDIX E
REC ARGE GALLERY DESIGN

RECHARGE GALLERY DESIGN EVALUATION
In order to provide data from which to assess the recharge gallery design, additional subsurface
exploration and soil testing was conducted in the proposed recharge gallery location. PSI
performed two (2) soil borings to a. depth of .25 feet to obtain information on the soil stratigraphy at
the recharge gallery location and to provide samples for laboratory soil testing. Soil boring logs
describing the materials encountered at the boring locations are attached. The final logs were
developed from field notes and review of the soil samples by an Engineer. The transition between
strata may be gradual and the indicated boundaries approximate. Variations characteristic of the
region may occur between boring locations. The water table was not measured in the borings.
The laboratory soil testing included hydraulic conductivity of samples from the deeper portion of
the unsaturated soil zone and gradation tests. A constant head hydraulic conductivity test was
performed on a Shelby tube sample -firom the 12 to 14 foot depth interval from each boring, for a
total of two tests. The hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted in a flexible wall permeameter
with the sample consolidate to represent the in situ soil pressure and back pressure used to saturate
the sample. Gradation tests were performed on four samples from each borings, for a total of eight
tests. The gradation tests help indicate variation in .soil characteristics with depth; the soil
hydraulic conductivity will vary with the percentage of silt and clay, or the percentage passing -the,
U.S. No. 200 sieve. The grain size distribution curves and laboratory hydraulic conductivity
results are attached.
Toney C. Jacobs & Associates, Inc., consulting soil scientists, was retained by PSI for evaluation
of the upper portion of the soil profile. The soil scientist observed the soil profile exposed in two
test pits excavated with a backhoe to a depth of 9 and 1 I feet at the soil boring locations, and.
conducted field constant head permeability borehole test at several closely -spaced intervals within
the top 11 feet.
Significant data and observations from the studies are as follows:
The soil scientist's report describes red clay to clay loam subsoil to approximately 5
feet below the surface, where saprolite is encountered.
The hydraulic conductivity increases with depth. The soil scientist's report indicated
values less than 1 inch per day within the upper 6 feet. The measured hydraulic
conductivity was 3.5 to 5.9 inches per day between about 6 and .10 feet, and 25.9
inches per day from 10 to 1 I feet. PSI's laboratory tests were about 50 inches per day
for samples from 12 to 14 feet deep. The original design value, which had a factor of
safety of .2 for infiltration in the unsaturated or vadose zone, was 9,4 inches per day
(0.78 feet per day).
The grainsize data indicates that the percentage passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve is 67%
to 68% within the upper 5 feet, and 36% to 55% in the lower portions of the borings
(with the exception of one value of 90% for a sample from 8.5 to 10 feet in boring B-
2, which is interpreted as an isolated condition).

The conclusions from the data gathered and the impact on the design are as follows:
There is a surficial soil layer 5 to 6 feet thick with restrictive permeability
characteristics (lower hydraulicconductivity, higher percentage passing no, 200 sieve,
different texture or description), The recharge gallery should be installed so that
infiltration takes place into the saprolite layer.
The saprolite layer has a hydraulic conductivity about 40% of the original. design value
for unsaturated infiltration. However, the unsaturated infiltration design included a
safety factor of two, which roughly equalizes this reduction, Further, the recharge
gallery design utilized 5 gpm, whereas the actual flow is expected to be 1:5 gpm, so
that there is still a factor of safety for the unsaturated infiltration design: The original
design was intentionally more conservative due to the lack of data for the shallow soils
and lack of specific information at the recharge gallery site.
The deeper unsaturated soil has a higher hydraulic nductivity value than employed
in the original design.
No testing of the saturated zone was performed at the recharge gallery site, However,
the data trend indicates that the saturated hydraulic conductivity value used in the
original design is conservative.
In summary, the data gathered indicates that the recharge gallery base needs to extend below the
surficial IOW permeability soil layer. The restrictive or limiting element in the design is the
unsaturated infiltration into the top of the saprolite layer. The original design in the CAP is
sufficient to permit the needed infiltration, and no changes are necessary.
The design in the CAP also predicted ground water mounding based on a hydraulic conductivity of
0.78 feet per day and a ground -water table 20 feet deep. The mound continues to increase
throughout the life of the system. After 3.4 years, the approximate: estimated remediatio.n period,
the mound is about 6 feet below grade.
As noted in the soil scientist's report, appropriate caution should be used during recharge gallery
construction to avoid damaging the infiltration characteristics of the saprolite. There should be no
equipment traffic across or directly upon the bottom of the excavation until a sufficient thickness of
rock is in place 'minimum 1 foot), and work should be planned to avoid inclement weather.

RECHARGE GALLERY DESIGN
IP ERE STATION NO. 9
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
FA .Dnsign Method
The initial element considered in design was sufficient area for infiltration of the effluent water
to takt place. Initial discharge will take place as vertical flow in the unsaturated zone under
the inf Iuence of gravity. Once the infiltrating water reaches the water table, a mound will
develoii. Unsaturated vertical flow will continue unless the mound builds to the bottom of the
recharee gallery.
To sip iulate the ground -water mound that is expected to result from the proposed recharge
gaiter). a three dimensional transient ground -water flow model, "MODRET", was used. The
model uses the USGS MODFLOW computer program to calculate the position of the mound at
specified times. The MODRET program takes user supplied data and formats it to the
MODFLOW input requirements. This data includes the pond bottom or trench geometry, the
horizontal hydraulic conductivity, the soil's effective storage coefficient, the aquifer's saturated
thickness, the pond or trench elevation relative to the water table, and the storage coefficient of
the pond or trench media. The analysis assumes that the recharge gallery is placed in an
unconfined aquifer with a horizontal, impermeable base. El fluent is applied continuously to the
recharge gallery in the model at the design discharge rate I or a period of 29,676 hours. This
simulation is divided into. nine unequal stress periods. Each stress period covers a selected time
increment and corresponding discharge volume. The mound position is given for the end of
each period, indicating whether or not it has stabilized or is continuing to rise. The model takes
into consideration the trench geometry, the depth to ground water, aquifer thickness, and.
.hydratilic conductivity.
F.2 Mr )'DIZET Output
By adj"sting the input data, MODRET can be used to simulate flow into or out of a trench, and
to predict the resulting ground -water flow. Since MODRET was primarily written for the.
analysi.- of ground -water mounding resulting from infiltration from a storm -water retention pond
or below grade storm -water exfiltration trench, the printout is tailored for that situation and
therefole contains information that is irrelevant to other situations. The MODRET output is
discussed below,
The output begins with a reiteration of the input data. For non -
circular ponds or trenches, the geometry is given as an average
length and width which represents the same bottom area as the
actual pond or trench for vertical side walls.

2. The relative elevations of the bottom of the aquifer, the design
ground -water table, and the pond or trench bottom are then given.
The design pond overflow elevation is then given. If no overflow
exists, this value will be "-i ". No overflow structure will
normally be present for an infiltration gallery, but a recovery
trench will require an overflow to provide a means of removing
the recovered ground water. The overflow elevation for a
recovery trench will normally be the invert of the discharge into
the sump or pumping station. Obviously, this invert will be below
the water table.
4. The hydraulic conductivity and soil storage coefficient are then
given.
5. The average storage coefficient of the pond area is given last. For
open ponds, this will be "I". For trenches, this will be the storage
coefficient of the media which surrounds the distribution or
collection piping, typically between 0.4 and 0,5
6. Following the input data is a table which summarizes the influent
rate to the pond or trench. The modeled time duration is broken
down into "stress periods". Each stress period represents some
specified length of time during which the influent to the pond or
trench is constant. l'or each stress period, the table gives the
length of time, recharge, rate to the pond or trench, and the
recharge rate to areas outside the pond or trench (this was
provided so that rainfall around a stormwater retention pond could
be considered in evaluating the pond's performance). Stress
periods can be created to define changing input conditions as
described above, or to provide output at specified time intervals in
order to see the incremental changes which may have occurred or
to establish that the ground -water table has stabilized. For a
recovery trench, the influent would be zero, as water is removed
and not added.
7. A summary of the MODRET results is then given which includes
the ,ground -water table elevation at the end of each siress period.
The infiltration rate is also given. For recovery lemches, this
value will be negative since water is being .remov, d from the
aquifer, and equals the trench withdrawal rate. The water
withdrawn in the recovery trench situation is totaled in the last
column. For an infiltration trench with no overflow, the last
colutnn will be zero.

8. Profile data for the ground -water mound (or depression in the case
of recovery trenches) is then given for the end of each stress
period. A diagram is shown indicating that the profile data refers
to a coordinate system with it's origin at the geometric center of
the pond or trench, with the long dimension being the "y"
direction and the short dimension being the "x" direction. In both
recharge galleries and recovery trenches, the "x" direction is
considered representative of the mound or depression influence.
Changes in the mound or depression over time can be seen in this
profile data from stress period to stress period. The value at the
center of the affected area is given in the summary table, and is
the maximum value.
F. Pecharge Gallery Cost
The proposed recharge gallery system design is detailed on the drawings. The proposed trench
will be lined with Mirafi 140N filter fabric (100% overlap on trip) and backfilled with gradation
No. 4 or No. 57 gravel meeting DOT Specifications (or approved equivalent). The stone will
surround the distribution pipe. Estimates of the quantities rewired to construct the recharge
gallery are made, and representative costs applied to the quanlities.
F.4 I' charge Gallery Feasibility
A recharge gallery is the only option at this site unless the NC DOT permits discharge through
their culvert at the southeast property corner. Because of the low soil hydraulic conductivity,
a large, expensive gallery is necessary. Accordingly, the NCI }CST outfall is more attractive if
available.
If a recharge gallery is necessary, the design hydraulic conductivity should be confirmed by
shallow soil testing in the field or laboratory, because the der:ign value is based on slug test
conducted in the saturated zone about 20 feet deep.

"MODRET" input Parameters
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
AOUIFEIi PARAMETERS
Land Surface Elevation
Boti 'in of Aquifer Average Relative Elevation
Gra• ndwater Depth
erage Depth to Water Table
h 'nimum Depth to Water Table
D 'sign Groundwater Table Relative Elevation
Hyd;ulicConductivity
F°°i.ld Test Results
Double Ring lnfiltrotneter (DRI)
Infiltration Rate;
Slug Tests
Average Hydraulic Conductivity
Pump Test
Hydraulic Conductivity
Design Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
Assrnied Effective Storage Coef. of Soil
Gallery Length
Wei'ed Gallery Width
Tre' eh Bottom Depth
Tre' ch Bottom Average' Relative Elevation
Des ;n Overflow Trench Elevation (-I = None)
Ass 'med Effective Storage Coef. of Trench
THE rCII INFLOW
Nu' nber of Stress Periods
Dui ition of Stress Period
lnfl''w Into Trench
I`ate
time Period (to which rate applies)
Average Inflow Into Trench
Average Inflow into Trench Per Stress Period
Recharge Rate Outside the Trench for Stress Period
(J
UN I J
OC.0 feet
55 0 feet
2'
2't
8'1
feet
feet
feet
N')
N 1 in/hr
YI.S
0."8 ft/day
N') --
N ft/day
0, 4 ft/day
12 ;.a feet
0 feet
2 0 feet
9f ,0 feet
0. t0
3 to 540
50
1
50
days
gpm
hours/day
gpm
cu. f t,
ft/day
lr�

MODRET OUTPUT
UNSATURATED INFILTRATION ANALYSIS
USING 'MODRET ' PROGRAM
Written By Nicolas E. Andreyev,P.E.
( March, 1989 )
SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS
_==========_===============
POND NAME / NUMBER : FS # 9 GALLERY DESIGN
AVERAGE POND BOTTOM LENGTH =====_=============> 125.000 ft
AVERAGE POND BOTTOM WIDTH ===========_==== =_-> 20.000 ft
AVERAGE SEPARATION BETWEEN BOTTOM & HGWT =_=_=> 18.000 ft
VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY ==============> 0.780 ft/d.
FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR Kvu ======================> 2.000
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE STORAGE COEFFICIENT =====_==_> 0.250
RESULTS OF UNSATURATED INFILTRATION
===================================
INFILTRATION VOLUME, Vu = 0.25826 ac-ft
M3NIMUM TIME TO INFILTRATE Vu, Tsat = 276.92 hrs
(.25826 ac-ft/276.92 hrs) = 5 gpnn

SATURATED
USING
FILTRATION ANALYSIS
ODRET ' PROGRAiM.
Written By Nicolas E. Andreyev,P.E.
(March, 1989 )
SUMMARY O►F INPUT PARAMETERS
POND NAME / NUMBER : FS #9 @125X20FT
AVERAGE WETTED POND LENGTH ======================
AVERAGE WETTED POND WIDTH--__-__-_�----
AVERAGE ELEVATION OF BOTTOM OF AQUIFER =___
AVERAGE ELEVATION OF DESIGN GROUNDWATER TABLE
AVERAGE ELEVATION OF POND BOTTOM =_-______===___=>
ELEVATION OF DESIGN OVERFLOW FROM POND =-______=_>
AVERAGE HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY = __===>
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE STORAGE COEFF. OF SOIL =
AVERAGE STORAGE COEFFICIENT OF POND AREA =_--_=_=
STRESS
PERIOD
No.
125 ft
20 ft
55.000 ft
80.000 ft
98.000 ft
-1.000 ft
0.780 ft/d
0.2.50
0.400
TIME RECHARGE TO RECHARGE OUTSIDE
INCREMENT POND AREA POND AREA
( HOURS ) ( ft/day ) ( ft/day )
1.00000 24.00000
2.00000 72.00000
3.00000 168.00000
4.00000 336.00000
5.00000 720.00000
6.00000 2160.00000
7.00000 4320.00000
8.00000 8640.00000
9.00000 12960.00000
0.38500
0.38507
0.38503
0.38503
0.38503
0.38503
0.38503
0.38503
0.38503
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000

THE TOTAL DIRECT STORAGE AND INFILTRATION VOLUME
OF RETENTION POND DURING SATURATED INFILTRATION IS:
Vs =
27.06944 ac-ft
THE TOTAL STORAGE AND INFILTRATION CAPACITY OF RETENTION
POND DURING 'UNSATURATED AND SATURATED' INFILTRATION IS:
VT = Vu + Vs = 27.32770 ac-ft
STRESS PERIOD
NUMBER
STRESS
PERIOD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ELEVATION OF WATER
LEVEL IF NO
INFILTRATION OCCURED
ft )
98.96
101.85
108.59
122.06
150.94
237.57
410.83
757.36
1277.14
SUMMARY OF tMODRET'
POND NAME ' No.: FS #9 @1.25X2OFT
CUMMULATIVE
TIME
(hrs.)
WATER
ELEVATION
(feet)
0.000
300.923
372.923
540.923
876.923
1596.923
3756.923
8076.923
16716.924
29676.924
(29676.924
80.000
92.330
89.650
88.590
88.470
88.610
89.500
91.010
92.680
93.940
hrs = 3.4
SULTS
INFILTRATION'
RATE
(cfs)
yrs)
0•000
0.017
0.021
0.013
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
WEIR
OVERFLOW
(cubic ft.)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

n
0
0
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MOUND
END OF STRESS PER
No.
X - COOR. ELEVATION Y - COOR.
(ft.) (ft.) (ft.)
2.50
7.50
12.50
1.7.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1615.00
2255.00
2895.00
92.33
92.33
88.66
84.96
83.05
81.34
80.26
80.02
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
10.42
31.25
52.08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
1083.33
1750.00
2416.67
3083.33
3750.00
VATION
ft.)
92.33
92.33
92.32
81.92
80.19
80.02
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00

X - COOR.
(ft.)
2.50
7.50
12.50
17.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1615.00
2255.00
2895.00
END OF STRESS PERIOD No. 2
ELEVATION
(ft.)
89.65
89.65
88.62
86.87
85.56
83.82
81.58
80.25
80.01
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
Y - COOR. ELEVATION
(ft.) (ft.)
10.42
31.25
52.08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
1083.33
1750.00
2416.67
3083.33
3750.00
END OF STRESS PERIOD No.
X - COOR. ELEVATION
(ft.) (ft.)
2.50
7.50
12.50
17.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1615.00
2255.00
2895.00
88.59
88.59
88.05
87.12
86.36
85.24
83.28
81.03
80.10
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
Y - COOR.
(ft.)
10.42
31.25
52.08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
1083.33
1750.00
2416.67
3083.33
3750.00
89.65
89.64
89.64
83.62
80.86
80.24
80.03
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
ELEVATION
(ft.)
88.59
88.59
88.59
84.60
81.85
80.81
80.20
80.02
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00

X - COOR.
(ft,)
2.50
7.50
12.50
1.7.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1615.00
2255.00
2895.00
OF STRISS PERIOD No. 4
LEVATI( e1
(ft.)
88.47
88.47
88.06
87.39
86.85
86.(a5
84.` 3
82.20
80.42
80.02
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
COOR. ELEVATION
ft.) (ft.)
10.42
31.25
52.08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
1083.33
1750.00
2416.67
3083.33
3750.00
END OF STRESS PERIOD No. 5
88.47
88.47
88.46
85.30
82.85
81.65
80.64
80.10
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
X - COOR. ELEVATION X - COOR. ELEVATION
(ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.)
2.50
7.50
12.50
17.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1615.00
2255.00
2895.00
88.61
88.61
88.29
87.76
87.33
86.70
85.49
83.44
81.'2
80. 2
80.')0
80. )0
80. )0
80.90
80.010
10.42
31.25
52.08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
1083.33
1750.00
2416.67
3083.33
3750.00
88.61
88.61
88.61
85.97
83.82
82.63
81.42
80.38
80.03
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00

END OF :STRES PERIOD No.
X - C00R. ELE"71TIQ0
(ft.) (ri . )
2.50
7.50
12.50
17.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1.635.00
?255.00
?895.00
89. 5'.)
89.4)
89.2)
88.75
88.39
87.81
86.80
84.9'
82.50
80.57
80.04
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
10.42
31.25
52.08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
1083.33
1750.00
2416.67
3083.33
3750.00
END OF STRJ" SS PERIOD No. 7
ELEVATION
(ft.)
WWWwWWWWW
89,50
89.49
89.49
87.15
85.20
84.05
82.75
81.24
80.25
80.02
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
X - COOR. ET..,R `111TI1`N Y - ('00R . ELEVATI01(
(ft.) (tt.) (ft.) (ft.)
2.50
7.50
12.50
17.50
22.50
20.00
05.00
' 5.00
1:' 5. 00
2!�5.00
405.00
9"5.00
16.5.00
22 5.00
28 '5. 00
90.' 4
90.70
89.05
89.43
88.A3
86.68
84.14
81.r1
80.21
80.01
80.00
80.00
80.00
10.42
3?.25
5." . 08
7;' . 92
92.75
114.58
14°.83
208.33
332.33
581.33
1081.33
1750.00
241(.67
3081.33
375().00
91.01
91.01.
91.01
88.71
86.8'.
85.6'
84.31_
82.5'
80.81
80.11
80.0')
80.0)
80.0o)
80.00
80.0')

END OF ST'REPER OD 11o. 8
X - COOR. ELEVATION
(ft.) (ft.)
2.50
7.50
12.50
17.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1615.00
,255.00
7895.00
X COOR.
(f t. )
*NW dbl. 100, IOIMio
2.50
7.50
32.50
17.50
22.50
30.00
45.00
75.00
135.00
255.00
495.00
975.00
1615.00
2255.00
2895.00
92.68
92.68
92.4a
91.99
91.66
91.15
90.19
88.49
85.94
82.94
80.70
80.05
80.00
80.00'
80.00
Y - COOR. ELEVATION
( ft..) (ft.)
10.42
31.25
52.08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
3 083 .33
3750.00
2416.67
3083.33
3750.00
END OF STRFSS PEF COD No. 9
WWWWWWWWwWWwwwwWWwwWWwwWWWWWW
ELEV.7.TION
(ft.)
93.94
93.94
93.69
93.29
92.96
92.48
91.55
89.91
87.43
84.33
81.46
80.37
80.01
80.00
80.00
Y - COOR.
(ft.)
10.42.
31.25
52,08
72.92
93.75
114.58
145.83
208.33
333.33
583.33
083."'3
750. 4,0
416.47
*083. "3
3750. 1,0
WWWWWWwWW
92.68
92.68
92.67
90.46
88.59
87.44
86.06
84.13
81.94
80.43
80.03
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
ELEVATION
(ft.)
wwWWwwwwW
93.94
93.94
93.94
91.8?.
89.99
88.88
87.51
85.58
83.17
81.00
80.11
80.01
80.00
80.00
80.00

Recha ,e Gallen Dc°,ign Summary at
Flr" Str tion No. 9
Charlotte . No th Carolina
d Cost Estimate
The following summarizes the design of the rechari�e gallery
was selected in the only available site (Ten arra, coosiderinl
recharge gallery should nut affect the proundv'ater recover)
The volume of materials in the trench. and the arnc itnt of ey
:ire assigned to each item to de 'elop att overall cost estimate
GNV
imum Water Moend Relative Ele+Ilion
Gallery Length
Modret '.)utput
Design Value'*
Gallery Trench Botte t Width
Gallery Depth
Gallery Bottom Rela+ ve Elevation
Depth of Stone
Depth of Soil Cover
Side Slope (i nn/d.rop)
Slotted Pipe Diamete'
Effective Be tom Area of Gallery
Surface Areri of i,-ciery
Volume h of F+(caw, 'n
Volume of S+cane.
Volume of S,'il
Minimum Width f,t t `abrie (w/ 1 foot r+ rlap)
Minimum L_rngth of Fabric (wi overh+t it ends)
Vi lume of Excess Soil for Disposal
Assumed G" nund Elevation at Treatm: t Unit
Relative inv"'rt'Elevation at Treatrneni snit
Length of Discharge Piping
Invert at Res harge Gallery
Slope of Di.:hatge Line
OST ESTIM,"'TE
Level Senso
Piezometer + 7')
Trench to C cllern+
Excavation
Stone (Installed)
Fabric
Piing
St i1 ver
F.w cess Soil F )ispc+gal
T. tell Estimated (`Qtst
•
*T1 M©DRET d' °:ign is fear 5 Fprrt, wi'
go, for variations oo+ soil conditions, we' rc'`overy • 'es,
ovi
The lo,:ation of the recharge gallery
the size of the gallery. The
system,
:ovation is calculated, and unit costs
for the recharge gallery.
VJ LE
93.94
125,0
125.0
20.0
98.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
4.0
2500
3096
5591
5386
205
48
131
5386
102
100
200
98.5
0.008
UNIT
COST
515.00
041.Ot
150
0.75
1.25
0.25
020
on
4) 50
UN
s
inches
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
cu. ft.
cu. ft.
cu. ft.
feet
feet
cu. ft.
feet
feet
feet
feet
fL/ft.
UNIT
each
lin. ft.
cu. ft
cu. ft
sq. ft.
In. ft
cu. ft.
cu. ft,
fr ty of 'cbout r?n the d
u!ing, tc.
ign
C' )ST
S` )0.00
105.00
1500.00
4193.25
6732.50
1582.87
40.00
51.25
2693.00
7,397.87

usfries, Inc.
TTAL
PROJECT: Laborato
Test Results
PSI PROJECT NO.: 460.6L001
( ) ORIGINAL DRAWINGS
( ) ROOF PLANS/SEPIAS
( ) SAMPLES
( ) INSPECTION REPORT
( ) WRITTEN REPORT
DATE:
TO:
Professional
ice I
LETTER OF TRANSM
9, 1996
PSI Environmental Mgmt Group
5035-C West W.T. Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
Mr. Rodney Hamm.
WE TRANSMIT TILE FOLLOWING:
( ) PAY REQUEST
( ) CHANGE ORDER
( ) COPY OF LETTERS
( ) SURVEY REPORT
( ) SPECIFICATIONS
COPIES DATE NO.
ACTION CODE: ; A. NO ACTION REQUIRED
B. FOR YOUR APPROVAL
C. FOR YOUR USE
D. AT YOUR REQUEST
REMARKS:
( ) SHOP DRAWINGS
() PRODUCT LITERATURE
(X) MISC. Laboratory
Results
DESCRIPTION OR TITLE
ACTION CODE
E. REVIEW AND COMMENT
F. COST ESTIMATE
G. RESUBMIT _ COPIES FOR APPROVAL
II. SUBMIT — COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION
1.
COPIES TO:
SUBMITTED BY: Rick Blot, P.E.
Department Manager
5035 A West W,T. Harris ':Ivd. Charlotte, NC 28269
Phone. [phone] + Fax:[phone]

Professional Serice Industries, Inc.
Hydraulic Conductivity Using A
Flexible Wall Permeameter (ASTM 1) 5084-90)
Sample Identification:
Job No.:
Soil Classification:
Sample Type:
Before Test:
Initial Dimensions of Specimen:
Water Content:
Dry Unit Weight:
Permit Liquid:
Total Back Pressure:
Maximum Effective Consolidation:
Minimum Effective Consolidation:
Hydraulic Gradient:
After Test:
Final Dimension of the Specimen:
Total % Passing Sieve #200:
Average Hydraulic Conductivity (K):
B-1, Sample 6 (12.0' to 14.0')
460-6L001
Brown and Tan, Silty SAND
Undisturbed
Length = 3.080"
Diameter = 2. 821
22.9%
85.0 pcf
water
100.0 psi
2.1 psi
2.0 psi
L 6
Length = 3.076"
Diameter = 2.825"
39.0%
5.6 x 10 cm/sec
5035 A West W T Harris Blvd • Charlotte, NC 28 69 • Phone [phone] • Fax' 704/598-2236

iffffill Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Hydraulic Conductivity Using A
Flexible Walt Permeameter (ASTM D 5084-90)
Sample Identification:
Job No.:
Soil Classification:
Sample Type:
Before Test:
Initial Dimensions of Specimen:
Water Content:
Dry Unit Weight:
Permeant Liquid:
Total Back Pressure:
Maximum Effective Consolidation:
Minimum Effective Consolidation:
Hydraulic Gradient:
After Test:
Final Dimension of the Specimen:
Total % Passing Sieve #200:
Average Hydraulic Conductivity (K):
B-2, Sample 6 (12.0' to 14.0')
460-6L001
Tan and Brown, Sandy SILT
Undisturbed
Length = 3.00.
Diameter = 2.846"
26.7%
66.5 pcf
water
100.0 psi
2.5 psi
2.4 psi
1.7
Length = 2.972"
Diameter = 2.853
55.0%
5.9 x l0 cm/sec
5035 A West W,T, Harris Blvd. « Charlotte, NC 28269
Phone: 704f598-2234 • Fax:[phone]

PSI - Environmental Management Group - Charlotte, NC
PSI File No.: 460-65001
Report of Grain Size Analysis of Soils and
Washed Sieve #200 (ASTM D 422)
Sample Identification
Total % Passing Sieve 2
B-1 3.5'-5.0'
67%
B-1 8.5'-1O.O'
43%
B-1 @ 18.5-20.0'
50%
B = i. 12.0-14.0'
39%
B-2 3.5'-5.0'
68%
B-2 8.5'-10.O'
90%
B-2 12.0-14.0'
55%
B-2 18.5'-20.0'
36%

TANRO SIEVE I]PENIN IN IN IIES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
4 0 2 l 1 tx % 4 6 e 10 14 15 20 30 40 50 70 100 140
500 100 50 10
G AIH SIZE IN MILLIMETER
3iw VE1 AN
COBBLES
5,0 , Red BI oYVtn and Tan, Sand
Silty, CLAY
REPORT OF SOIL ANALYSIS
005 001 0:O05 0001
SILT OR CLAY
Envonmental MGanat emnt Ga oup
460-6L001
PSI 4100-7

U.S. STANOM
4 3
COBBLES
SIEVE QPENING tN INCHES U.S. STANDAli 1 SIEVE NUMBERS HYDRO'
2 1'4 1 '. % 3 4 8 8 10 14 18 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
F t r 1 1
GRAI i SIZI
OA1-iSE 1' MELkIU N FiNE
OO Brown and Tan, m caceou
Silty, SAND
0.05 0 01
0.005 0 001
SILT OR CLAY
,PS 1-Env rtr©nmental 4anae e lent Graup
460-6LO01
PSI A-100-7

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U,S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMEERS
6 A 3 2 1, 1 � sR % 3 4 6 6 1p 14 15 20 30 4 S0 TO 100 140 2
COBBLES
GRAIN SIZE IN IETERS
COARSE [ IEOIUM FINE
Brown and Tan, Silty, SAND
005 001
SILT OR CLAY
PS I Envi r ©nmental Nana«e s nt Grau
REPORT OF SOIL ANALYSIS F _ 46O-6L001
PSI A-100.7

500
-111i!!I11■111�1�1��
1E11111111 1Ii11
■emu !!ul111 1111
1111111111111111111111111111
COBBLES
GRAVEL
COARSE
FINE
ClassUIciU©n
COARSE
Red and i~own, micaceous,
Sandy,
T
REPORT OF SOIL ANALYSIS
MEDIUM
IL
FINE
Pt
P1
SILT OR CLAY
PSI -Environmental Management Group

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE t3PENINCi IN INCHES
8 4 3 2 1% Y °r % 3
U»S. STANDARD SIEVE I UM
4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50
100
90rrrrrfrlii�ii�iii 10
ERS
70 100 140 200
HY IR0t tETER
80.rrlrrrairili'�#120
500
COBBLES
100
50
A
10
SIZE
0, 5
LLIMETERS
0.1
COARSE_ � FNE
COARSE 1 RAE©I
F
0 05 0 01 0.005 0.001
SILT OR CLAY
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
C
P
PI
P
2
Red and Brown, Sandy, Clayey S L"
P Env' nmenta1 Management r1 Up
REPORT OF SOIL ANALYSIS
46O-6L©C1
PSI A-100-7

100
60
50
40
20
10
0
500
B-2 =.
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
6 4 3 2 1 y 1
100 50
COBBLES
8.5-10.0
GRAVEL
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
% 3 4 6 T1 10 14 16 20 3i7 40 550 70 100 140 200
3 .^:*'1F-°1t-- 1._._ <..._m_.t_1''1
10
COARSE I FINE
C4ssHlcrll©n
COARS
GRA
Red and Brown, Sandy, Clayey, SILT
REPORT OF SOIL ANALYSIS
05
SAND
PL
01
PI
TER
0.005
SILT OR CLAY
PSI -Environmental
.
FIe No.
460-6L001
0.00
anagement Group
10
20
30
40
50
70
60
90
100
PSI A-100-7

100
80
70
80
40
30
10
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
Ei 4 3 2 1 " 1 tG 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
100
50
10
1 05
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETER
0.1
0 05
HYDRt1MET
0.01
0.005
0 001
COBBLES
FIN
Clrssific.t o n
QA
SANE)
Nat w 76
F
PL Pi
SILT OR CLAY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CENT CHARS
B-2
4.0 Gre and Tan micaceous, Sand
SILT
REPORT OF SOIL ANALYSIS
'S1 Environmental Management Group
Fite No.
460-6L001
P01 A ; 00-7

Boring No. Simple
B-2
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
C
FINE
Moo or Depth Classification
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
COARSE
18.5-20.0 Grey and Tan, Si 1 ty, SAND
REPORT OF SOIL ANALYSIS
4E0IUM
Not w
SAND
LL
FINE
PL
Pt
HYDROM
0 01 0 005 0 001
SILT OR CLAY
Protect
PS -Env ronmentaT Management Group
File No,
460-6L001
PSI A•100-7

SITE LOCATION : Fire Station No 9 PAGE 1. OF 1
PROJECT NO: 511-Z1178
DATE BEGAN 1-16-96
DRILLER: -
AND SURFACE ELEV.:
DRILLING METHOD: -
CCNTRACTOR : PSI
WAT
TABLE
SRIfDLE
TYPE ASTM
AND N8. (NI
GORING NO:B-E
LJATE FINISHED: 1-16- 6 GEOLOGIST
SECTION - CHECKED BY:
TOWNSHIP: GWL DEPTH: NA
RANGE DRILL EQUIP: -
DESCRIPTION
�Y SILT: Red -brown,
alh Fi1I debris.
T Ye((ow ish red,
LTY SAND: bray Ioose, Fine ¢gr©ined.
ERRIN iTIRN BORINi
GWL-DATE/TIME: NA
ELL �T�T

SITE LOCATION : Fire Station Na
I PROJECT NO: 511-21178
DATE BEGAN: 1-116-98
DRILLER: -
1 GROUND SURFACE ELEV.
DRILLING METHOD: -
CONTRACTOR: PSI
!WATER
TABLE
DEPT
SAMPLE
T 0 EP
P
R
0
F
L
FATE FINISHED: 1-1b-96
SECTION:
TOWNSHIP:
RANGE:
DESCRIPTION
A I SILT° Red-brooun;.
CLAD S..T Tel loh red, o
TYetloun b red
LY SANDY SILT: L€ t brown
o Firm.
TER11'INATIC OF BORIN
PAGE I OF
BORING NO B-1
GEOLOGIST:
CHECKED BY:
GInJL DEPTH: NR
LL EOUIP: -
ATE/TIME: NR
T

GROD

DESIGNATED
Designated
l►ronitoring Monitoring
V,el
deter Treatment System:
Influent
Effluent
RW-01
RW-02
RW-03
MW-01
MW-02.
MW-03
MW-04
MW-05
MW-06D
MW-07
M V-08
L1 W-('9D
of Sacnpl s:
A!QC Sam] les:
Total:
TABLE 11
ELL AND MONITORING SCHEDULE
Fire Station No, 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
First Month
Week Number
112 #3
First
Year
oath
Succeeding Verification
Years Period (1 yr) Completion
(quarterly) (quarterl R art_
1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4
1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 -
1,3,4,L L L L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L
1,3,4,L L L L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L
1,3,4,L L L L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L
D 1,3,4,L L L L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,1.
L L L L L L L L
L L L L L L L L
L L L L L L L L
D 1,3,4,L L L L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L 1,3,4,L
L L 1, L L L L L
L L L L L L L L
L 1. L L L L L L
L L L L L L L L
it Vapor Extraction (S
SVE-01
SVE-02
S VE-03
of Samples:
Is
e
7 2 2 2 7 7 5 5
2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2
2 2 9 9 7 7
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
KEY: MW - Monitoring Well
RW - Recovery Well
D - Designated Monitoring Well
L - Liquid Level Measurements
✓ - Vacuurn Measurement
SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction Well
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
V,6
V,6
V,6
V,6
4
V,6
V,6
V,6
1 - EPA Method 602 - Purgeable Aromatics + MTBE
2 - EPA Method 610 - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
3 - EPA Method 601 - Purgeable Haiocarbons
4 - EPA Method 504.1 - Ethylene Dibrornide
5 - EPA Method 239.2 - Filtered Lead
6 - BTEX and Total Hydrocarbons in Air
NOTE: Once SVE system offgas levels have decreased signifcantly (approximately 6-9 months from startup), soil samples
will be collected and analyzed for TP11 to evaluate the necessity of adding air sparging to the remediation system.

OCT 21 '94 04:48PM LAWRENCE CHEMISTR'
P.
110.,arg
Professional Service lndustries, Inc.
Lawrence Analytical Division
ANALYTICAL. REPORT
TESTED FOR: Professional Service Industries, Inc.
5035-A W. WT Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28269
ATTENTION: Rodney Hamm
DATE: October 20, 1994
PROJECT: Fire Station
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-24178
PAGE: 1
OUR REPORT NUMBER: 5940P511-37086
Attached., please find our analytical report for samples described on the Chain -of -Custody Record. Please
reference our report number and direct any questions regarding this report to the individual designated below
or to one of our Customer Service Representatives.
Rctfully Submitted,
P ssiional Service Industries, Inc.
Environmental
Chemistry Manager
4820 West 15th Street •
nce, KS 66049 . Phone:[phone]
65-9587
OCT 21 '94 17:52
9138559587 PAGE.02

OCT 21 '94 B L ACE ICE C.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Analytical Services
4820 West 15th St.
Lawrerce, KS 68049
Client Sample SS: MW-1
Our Sample #: 841716
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Total Manganese
Dissolved Manganese
PROJECT: Fire Station #9
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-24178
PAGE: 2
0.28 mg/L 200.7 10/17/94 CB 0.01
0.02 mg/L 200.7 10/17/94 CB 0.01
0.430 mg/L 200.7 10/1.7/94 CB 0.001
0.397 mg/L 200.7 10/17/94 CB 0.001
pH 9.13 'UNITS 150.1 10/17/94 CB .01
Specific Conductance 38.5 umhosfcm 120.1 10/07/94 JLH 1.©
TDS 51 mg/L 160.1 10/17/94 LB 4.0
Alkalinity 10 mg/L 310,1 10/13/94 LB 2.0
Chiorkle 2.6 mg/L 325.2 10/17/04 LB
Langelier Saturation Index 1.4 UNITS JM2330 10/14/94 LB NA
0
TOC 281 mg/L 415.1 10/11/94 JR
Calcium Carbonate as Calciunn 2.08 mg/L 200.7 10/17/94 CB 0.12
Quality Con trol Data S i
Analyse
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Total Manganese
Dissolved Manganese
Specific Conductance
TDS
Alkalinity
Chloride
TOC
Dupli
Units
<0,01 0.01 m9fL 51.4% 108% 200.7 Watet
<0 901 0.01 mg/L 0% 108 200.7 Water
<0f001 0.001 mg../L. 2.5% 104" 200.7 Water
<0 J001 0.001 mg/L 3.1% 104% 200.7 Water
1.0 umhos/cm 1.8% 103.2% 120.1 Water
4.0 m98-
117.7% 160.1 Water
NA 5.0 mg/L 4.1% 104.546 310.1 Water
<20 2.0 mg/L 0% 100% 325.2 Water
<1‘0 1.0 mg/L 0% 114% 415.1 Water
OCT 21 '94 17:53
9139659567 PAGE.03

PRO4ECT NAME
I-1 1,E Siocriao
P�1*T Nt 1MBE'W
`frrP
PO. NUMBER
ADDITION
EMA
REPORT TO
'S.IT
a�CT MANAGER
ACCEPTS[) BY
PATE/TIME
C
C� USTOOY RE ORD
INv0ICE TO
YA
ATTEEC fTON
'E__//
TELEPHONE
70 .I._
SAMPLER'S SIGNAT
P
Y Su +l1TTED TO
Hwy. 225
Pack, TX 7T536
479-87
5, U1rerton Road
Ream,. FL 34620
531-1446
PARAMETER LIST
4820W. 159; Street
L4wrefC3, KS 66049
(B©O) 548-7901
© 850 P(3ptar Street
Pinsburgh, PA 15220
[phone]
p8 or 13ydr€Kea lon ConctnT»con
2. Conductivity
Total Dissolved Solids
4. TCrelptntute •" ,' `
S. Total and Dissolved Iron
6. Total and Dissolved Manganese
7, C.dcion Hastiness, expressed as CaCC, equivakcft
crprc-?YCaCOr 1 '.4)c
-11
eu) Aikai::uty _.... .---"".�-
10. Chiandet
1 1 ' 34,1! Cwgzru: Carbon cOCy
c tgri::{'s Satuuaece ;tides
1U

DEL �'r ' yt 14 : .34 1 tNLt LHB
`11J I b5 JStfl IU b Db t'. elf
ANALYTICAL REPORT
TESTED FOR: PSI PROJECT: FS SM
5035-A West W.T. Harris Blvd. PROJECT NUMBER: 511-24178
Charlotte, NC 28269 PAGE;
ATTENTION: Rodney Hamm
DATE; December 27, 1995
OUR REPORT NUMBER: 511-24178-42068
Attached, please find our analytical report for samples described on the Chain -of -Custody Record. Please reference
our report number and direct any questions regarding this report to the individual designated below or to one of our
Customer Service Representatives.
Respectfully Subrnitted,
Professional Service Industries, Inc,
Lawrence Env}ronrnental Date
Chemistry Manage
PS1. 4820 Wset 1
KS 66o 1 t r rlan f 9935 • Fax [phone]

DEC 27 '95 14 :. 4 PR E'S 1 L'ENLL LH8 tib5 '�5ii7 1 U b..)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St, Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
Client Sample ID: MW-1
Lab Sample ID: 879622
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene 276 ug/L
Acenaphthylene 349 ug/L
Anthracene <0.120 ug/L
Benzo (a) anthracene <0.094 ug/L
Benz© (a) pyrene <0.588 ug/L
Benzo (b) fiuoranthene <0.170 ug/L
Benzo (k) fiuoranthene <0.103 ug/L
Benzo (ghi) perylene <0.200 ug/L
Chrysene <0.090 ug/L
D benzo (a,h) anthracene <0.233 ug/L.
Flu©ranthene 0.568 ug/L
Fluorene 0.828 ug/L
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene <0,183 ug/L
Naphthalene 902 ug/L
Phenanthrene <0.105 ug/L
Pyrene 2.0 ug/L
Surrogate Recovery = 126%
BTEX
Benzene 17,000 ug/L
Toluene 42,000 ug/L
Ethylbenzene 3,000 ug/L
Xylenes 16,000 ug/L
MTOE 22,000 ug/L
IPE <1,000 ug/L
Surrogate Recovery = 77%
E©B 300 ug/L
DBCP <0.03 ug/L
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
510
610
610
510
PROJECT: FS #g
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-2417
PAGE: 2
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
12-22-95
0,
0.
0.200
0 0
0.2
0.2 8
0.3
0.1
1.189
0.1 5
0.2 2
602 12-14-95 MV 1,00
602 12-14-95 MV 1,000
602 12-14-95 MV 1,000
502 12-14-95 MV 3,000
602 12-14-95 MV 1,000
602 12-14-95 MV 1,000
I
504 12-15-95 MJ 4.08
504 12-15-95 MJ 0.0

I V Li,dJV F . aaw
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St., Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42088
Matrix: Water
Client Sample
Lab Sample ID: 879623
PROJECT: FS #
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-241
PAGE: 3
Polynuclear Aromat c Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene <3.541 uglL 810 12-22-95
Acenaphthylene <1.736 ug/L 810 12-22-95
Anthracene <0.120 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (a) anthracene <0,094 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (a) pyrene <0.588 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.170 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (k) fluoranthene <0.103 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (ghi) perylene <0.200 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Chrysene 0.251 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene <0.233 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluoranthene <0.228 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluorene <0.398 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Indeno (1,2,3-ccd) pyrene <0.183 ug/L 810 12-22-95
Naphthalene <1.189 uglL 610 12-22-95
Phenanthrene 0.234 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Pyrene 6.21 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Surrogate Recovery 123%
BTEX
Benzene <1.0 ug/L 602 12-14-95
Toluene <1,0 ug/L 602 12-14-95
Ethylbenzene <1.0 ug/L 602 12-14-95
Xylenes <3.0 ug/L 602 12-14-95
MTBE <1.0 ug/L 602 12-14-95
IPE <1.0 ug/L 602 12-14-95
Surrogate Recovery = 87%
EDB <0.4 ug/L 504 12-14-95
DBCP <0.03 ug/L 504 12-14-95
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
3.41
1.336
0.120
0.994
0.588
0. 70
0. 03
0, 00
o.g90
0.233
0,228
0.398
0.183
1.1 9
0.1 5
0,2 2
MV 1.01
MV 1.0.
MV 1,0
MV 3.0
MV 1.01
MV 1.01
0.4
0.0

34 rr< r" l LHuJtw J'&.0 LHb Iu a �v
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St., La rence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
An
Client Sample ID: MW-3
Lab Sample ID: 879624
PROJECT: FS #
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-2417
PAGE:
ults Units Method Analysis Date Analyst
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene <3.541 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Acenaphthylene <1.736 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Anthracene <0.120 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benz© (a) anthracene <0.094 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (a) pyrene <0.588 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.180 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (k) fluoranthene <0.103 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (ghi) perylene <0,200 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Chrysene 0.344 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene <0.233 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluaranthene 1.53 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluorene 1.71 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene <0.183 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Naphthalene <1.189 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Phenanthrene <0.105 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Pyrene <0.272 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Surrogate Recovery = 115�i ,
BTEX
Benzene <1.0 ug/L
Toluene <1.0 ug/L
Ethylbenzene <1.0 ug/L
Xylenes <3.0 ug/L
MTBE <1.0 ug/L
!PE <1.0 ug/L
Surrogate Recovery = 87%
EDB <0.4 ug/L
DBCP <0.03 ug/L
602 12-14-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV
3. 41'
1.38
0. 20
0.94
0. 88
0.170
0.103
0.00
0.090
0. 3
0..8
0.`48
0.1'° 3
1.1»9
0.115
0.2 2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
504 12-14-95 MJ 0.4
504 12-14-95 MJ
0.0

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES NC.
4820 West 15th St., Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
Analyte
Client Sample ID: MW-5
Lab Sample ID: 879625
Results Units
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (ghi) perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2,3-cid) pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Surrogate Recovery = 85%
PROJECT: FS #
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-241 8
PAGE:
AnalysisDate Ana
6.88 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 1 41
10.4 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 1. 36
<0.120 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.120
<0.094 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.094
<0,588 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.588
<0.170 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ C) 70
<0.103 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0,1103
<0.200 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.200
<0,090 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0' 090
<0.233 ugil. 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.233
0.624 ug/L 810 12-22-95 MJ 0.2128
0.916 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0. 6
<0.183 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.1 3
20.5 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 1.189
<0.105 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.1 5
<0.272 ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0.2172
BTEX
Benzene 2,000 ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
Toluene 1,700 ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
Ethylbenzene <100 ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
Xylenes 570 ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
MTBE <100 ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
IPE <100 ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
Surrogate Recovery = 85%
EDB <0.4
DBCP <0.03 ug/L
ioq
100
100
30d
io100
d,
504 12-14-95 MJ 0,41
504 12-14-95 MJ 0.03

VtL LHW,KtN1.-t LHb 00:.) ',D0( W o-IJO
r
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St,, Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
Analyle
Client Sample ID: MW-6
Lab Sample 1D: 879628
PROJECT: FS #9
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-2417
PAGE:
Results Units
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene 19.0
Acenaphthylene 9.83
Anthracene <0.120
Benzo (a) anthracene <0.094
Benzo (a) pyrene <0.588
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0,170
Benzo (k) fluoranthene <0.103
Benzo (ghi) perylene <0.200
Chrysene <0.090
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene <0.233
Fluoranthene <0.228
Fiuorene 1,79
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene <0.183
Naphthalene 24.1
Phenanthrene <0.105
Pyrene 0.892
Surrogate Recovery 88%
Method Anal
yst L
ug/L 810 12-22-95 MJ 3.541
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 1.7i 6
ug/L 510 12-22-95 MJ 0.1 0
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0. 94
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ 0. 88
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 810 12-22-95 MJ
ug/L 610 12-22-95 MJ
BTEX
Benzene 3,100 ug/L
Toluene 2,800 ug/L
Ethylbenzene 200 ug/L
Xylenes 1,100 ug/L
MTBE 400 ug/L
IPE <100 ug/L
Surrogate Recovery = 85%
EDB 1.02 ug/L
DBCP <0.03 ug/L
602 12-14-95 MV
802 12-14-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV
802 12-14-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV 1 OC
602 12-14-95 MV 10d
0.1170
0.1 3
0.2 0
0.' 0
0.2
0.2
0,
0.
1.
0.1 5
0.2 2
10
504 12-14-95 MJ 0.4
504 12-14-95 W 0.0?

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St., Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
Ana
Client Sample ID: MW-7
Lab Sample ID: 879627
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene <3.541 ug/L
Acenaphthylene <1.736 ug/L
Anthracene <0.120 uglL
Benzo (a) anthracene <0.094 ug/L
Benzo (a) pyrene <0.588 ug/L
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.170 uglL
Benzo (IQ fluoranthene <0.103 ug/L
Benzo (ghi) perylene <0.200 ug/L
Chrysene <0.090 ug/L
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene <0,233 ug/L
Fluoranthene <0.228 ugiL
Fluorene <0.398 ug/L
Men° (1,2,3-cd) pyrene <0.183 ugh.
Naphthalene <1,189 ug/L
Phenanthrene <0.105 ug/L
Pyrene 0.289 ug/L
Surrogate Recovery --.-- 86%
BTEX
Benzene 1.8 ug/L
Toluene 2.0 ug/L
Ethylbenzene <1.0 ugh_
Xylenes <3.0 ug/L
MTBE <1.0 ug/L
IPE <1.0 ug/L
Surrogate Recovery = 92%
EDB <0,4 ug/L
DBCP <0.03 ug/L
PROJECT: FS
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-24178
PAGE: 7
610 12-22-95 MJ
610 12-22-95 MJ
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.10
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.144
610 12-22-95 W 0.
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.1 0
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.1
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.2 0
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.0 0
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.2 3
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.2 8
610 12-22-95 MJ 0,08
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.1 3
610 12-22-95 MJ 1.19
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.1 5
610 12-22-95 MJ 0.2V2
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0
802 12-14-95 MV 1.0
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0
602 12-14-95 MV 3.0
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0
802 12-14-95 MV 1.0
504 12-14-95 MJ 0,4
504 12-14-95 MJ 0.0

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St.; Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
Client Sample ID: MW-8
Lab Sample ID: 879628
PROJECT: FS #9
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-24178
PAGE:
Pofynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene <3,541 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Acenaphthylene <1.736 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Anthracene <0.120 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benz© (a) anthracene <0.094 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (a) pyrene <0.588 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.170 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (k) fluoranthene <0.103 ug/L 810 12-22-95
Benzo (ghi) peryiene <0.200 ug/L 810 12-22-95
Chrysene <0.090 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Dlbenzo (a,h) anthracene <0.233 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluoranthene <0,228 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluorene 0.844 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene <0.183 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Naphthalene <1.189 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Phenanthrene <0.105 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Pyrene <0.272 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Surrogate Recovery = 89%
BTEX
Benzene <1.0 ug/L
Toluene <1.0 ug/L
Ethylbenzene <1.0 ug/L
Xylenes <3.0 ug/L
MTBE <1.0 ug/L
IPE <1.0 ug/L
Surrogate Recovery = 100%©
EDB <0.4 ug/L
DBCP <0.03 ug/L
MJ
TVIJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
602 12-t4-95 MV
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0'
602 12-14-95 MV 3.0
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0d
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0l
3,541
1.36
0, 20
0.094
0.588
0.170
0.1
0
0
0,2
0.
0.
1
0.1 5
0.2 2
504 12-14-95 MJ 0.41
504 12-14-95 MJ 0.03

11t1 d r
7Y,.) %),..)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC
4820 West 15th St,, Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
Analyte
Client Sample ID: MW-9
Lab Sample ID: 879629
Results
PROJECT: FS #
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-241"i
PAGE:
Units Method Analysis ©ate Analyst MDL
Polynucltear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene <3.541 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Acenaphthylene <1.736 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Anthracene <0.120 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (a) anthracene <0.094 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (a) pyrene <0.588 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.170 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (k) fluoranthene <0,103 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (ghi) perylene <0.200 ug/L 810 12-22-95
Chrysene <0.090 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene <0.233 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluoranthene <0.228 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluorene <0.398 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Indeno (1,,2,3-cd) pyrene <0.183 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Naphthalene <1.189 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Phenanthrene 0,129 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Pyrene 0.989 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Surrogate Surrogate Recovery = 67%
1B7EX
Benzene <1.0
Toluene <1,0
Ethylbenzene <1.0
Xylenes <3.0
MTBE <1.0
IPE <1,0
Surrogate Recovery = 90%
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
MJ
MJ
MJ
3.541
1.736
0. 20
0, 94
0. 88
0, 70
0, 03
0. 00
0.90
0. 33
0.28
0
0
602 12-14-95 MV 1,0
602 12-14-95 MV 1.01
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0
602 12-14-95 MV 3.0
602 12-14-95 MV 1.0
602 12-14-95 MV 1,0
EDB <0.4 ug/L 504 12-14-95 MJ 0.4
DBCP <0.03 ug/L 504 12-14-95 MJ 0.0

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St, Lawrence, KS 66049
42068
rix: Water
Analyte
Client Sample ID: MW-10
Lab Sample ID: 879830
PROJECT: FS t_
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-241 8
PAGE:
Results Units Method Analysis Date Analyst
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene 9.26 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Acenaphihylene 8.91 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Anthracene <0.120 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (a) anthracene <0.094 ug/L 810 12-22-95
Benzo (a) pyrene <0.588 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.170 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Benzo (k) fluoranthene <0.103 uglL 610 12-22-95
Benzo (ghi) perylene <0.200 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Chrysene <0.090 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene <0,233 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Fluoranthene <0.228 ug/L 810 12-22-95
Fluorene 2.51 uglL 810 12-22-95
Indenv (1,2,3-cd) pyrene <0.183 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Naphthalene 15.9 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Phenanthrene <0.105 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Pyrene 1.02 ug/L 610 12-22-95
Surrogate Recovery „ 67%
BTEX
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
MTBE
IPE
Surrogate Recovery = 84%
3,100 ug/L
2,800 ug/L
190 ug/L
1,200 ug/L
420 ug/L
<100 ug/L
EDB 1.0 ug/L
DBCP <0.03 ug/L
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
3.541
1.36
0. 20
0. 94
0. 88
0.170
0.103
0. 00
0.090
0,233
0. 8
0. 8
0.i 3
1.19
0.1p5
0,272
602 12-14-95 MV 10
602 12-14-95 MV 10
802 12-14-95 MV 100
602 12-14-95 MV 300
802 12-14-95 MV 100
602 12-14-95 MV 10d
504 12-14-95
504 12-14-95
0.4
0.03

DES; 27 ' 5 14: ;fib FIR HS I L
Hb l 5 57 IL) blob r.a
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
4820 West 15th St., Lawrence, KS 66049
Batch #: 42068
Matrix: Water
Analyte
Client Sample ID: Trip Blan
Lab Sample ID: 879831
PROJECT: FS
PROJECT NUMBER: 511-241 a
PAGE: 1
Results Units Method Analysis Date Analyst M©L
BTEX
Benzene 3.4
Toluene 3.8
Ethylbenzene <1.0
Xylenes <3,0
MTBE <1.0
IPE <1.0
Surrogate Recovery = 96%
ugiL 602 12-14-95 MV
ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
ugiL 602 12-14-95 MV
ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
ug/L 602 12-14-95 MV
ug/L 802 12-14-95 MV
1.
EDB <0.4 ug/L 504 12-14-95 MJ 0.
DBCP <0.03 ug/L 504 12-14-95 MJ 0.

3
Y
J
1
D
D DUE DATE (duttDDY
#NC1JISHED BY
DATE / TIME
ADDITIONAL REMARK
a tia
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
REPORT TO
TELEP(fi'NE `17 zf sd' Lr3
)O
P#E CART vIA VERt3A
ACCEPTED BY
DATE/TIME
U.S. ftA ► 'E1 IGHT
SEAL,
NUMBER
LABORATORY SUBMVTrED TO:
1/4:10A IA 3 J
' 225
SAMPLER'S SIGNATURE
fl 6913 Hwy. 225
Deer Park, TX 77536
[phone]
1170 Commerce Ave,. North
SL Petersburg, FL 33716
(813} 579-4464
PARAMETER FIST
%4820 W. 151h Street
Lawrence, KS 66049
(BOO) 548-7901
I:7 850 Poplar Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
(412) 92.2-4000
*

PROPOSED CON

Predicted Concentration at Recovery Wells
The initial influent concentration at the recovery wells, which should be the highest
experienced by the system, was predicted by the inverse distance weighted average technique.
To perform these calculations, data points (concentrations at the rnonitor wells) within a
selected distance of the proposed recovery well are utilized, and the distance from each
monitor well to the recovery well is measured. The inverse of the distance is taken, so that
larger distances are smaller numbers, and, therefore data points that are further away from
the recovery well will carry less influence in the calculation. The inverse distances are added
together, and each individual inverse distance is divided by the sum of the inverse distances.
This provides a weighting factor, the sum of which is one. The concentration at each data
point is multiplied by the weighting factor, and the resulting products are summed to predict
the concentration at the recovery well. The predicted concentration should be compared to
the plume configuration, to verify that it fits with the expected contaminant pattern.
The resulting well concentrations are then weighted by the flow rate. For instance, for equal
flow rates, the concentrations are simply averaged. in a two well recovery system with one
well expected to yield twice as much as the other, the final concentration would be 2/3 of
the concentration at the higher yielding well plus one third the concentration at the lower
yielding well. A safety factor is applied to the final predicted concentration to account for
uncertainties in the procedure.

Weighted Average Cat
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
a
io ns
The weighted average calculations are based on the following data:
DESCRIPTION
UNITS VALUE
No, Recovery Wells
How per Well, RW-1
Flow per Well, RW-2
Flow per Well, RW-3
Total Flowrate
Upgradient Capture Distance
Downgradient Capture Distance
Lateral Capture Distance
Safety Factor
S.F. Applied to Concentration?
Latest Sampling Event Date
gpm
gpm
gpm
gpm
feet
feet
feet
3
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
18
18
18
1.25
Yes
9/20/94 &
10/17/94
Contaminant concentrations obtained during ground -water sampling events may be elevated in
comparison to contaminant levels present over the entire area of influence. Therefore, by
calculating a weighted average of area monitoring well contaminant concentrations obtained under
static conditions, an estimate of the contaminant concentrations entering the treatment system under
dynamic conditions can be determined. 'The following conditions to use this technique must be
considered:
(1) The recovery well must be located near the zone of highest concentration.
(2) The monitoring well selected must be within the cone of influence of the recovery well.
(3) Only monitoring wells with data from the same relative depth should be used..
(4) Site conditions that might affect the :recovery well design must be considered.
The monitoring wells inside the capture zone of the respective recovery well contribute to the
influent concentration to the treatment system. Monitoring wells outside of the capture zone
do not contributeto the weighted averages. The procedure followed is:
(1) Wells outside of the capture zone are excluded from the ca.lculation.
(2) Wellsnot sampled are assigned a concentration value of zero which excludes this well
from the calculation
(3) Laboratory analyses below the limit of detection are assigned the detection limit
concentration.

The following data is obtained from scaling the site maps for the approximate distanc • from the monitoring wells to the respective
recovery well. All distances are approximate, and are recorded in feet.
RECOVERY WELL #1 RECOVERY WELL #2 RECOVERY WELL #3
LOCATION di 1/di di 1/di di 1/di
MW-1 5 0.2000 28 0.0357 26 0.0385
MW-2 66 0.0152 97 0,0103 93 0.0108
.MW-3 28 0.0357 48. 0.0208 60 0.0167
MW-4 52 0.0192 65 0.0154 40 0.0250
MW-5 29 0.0345 9 0.1111 17 0.0588
MW-6D 16. 0.0625 23 0.0435 15 0.0667
MW-7 67 0.0149 36 0.0278 49 0.0204
MW-8 77 0.0130 55 0.0182 46 0,0217
MW-9D 20 17 14
Benzene
MW NO.
cl 1/di 1/di CI 1/di di C2 1/di 1/di C3
(ugll) (ft) ''s -I SUM (1/di) (ugll) (ft) - -1 SUM(1/di) (u2/1) (ft) ^ -I SUM (1/di) (ug/I)
MW-1 24,000 0.2000 0.7619 18,285.71 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MW-2 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MW-3 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000
MW-4 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MW-5 170 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.1111 0.6538 111.15 0.0588 0.2987 50.7824
MW-6D 4 0.0625 0.2381 1.02 0.0000 0,0000 0.00 0.0667 0.3385 1.4558
MW-7 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MW-8 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0,0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MW-9D 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0588 0.3462 0.35 0.0714 0.3627 0.3627
TOTAL 0.2625 1.0000 1828674 0.1699 1.0000 111.50 0.1969 1.0000 52.60
el = concentration at monitor well, 9/20/94 or 10/17/94
di = distance from monitor well to recovery well
CI, C2, C3 = total predicted concentration at recovery well RW-01, RW-02, RW-03, respectively

6L 00001 69610 0000-1 6691'0 6Z Z9 CZ 0000' T SZ9Z0 TIVLOJ.
9£'0 LZ9C0 t 1 LO0 S0 Z9t CO 88 c0 0 00'0 00000 0000'0 1 (16-AVIN
00'0 00000 0000'0 000 0000'0 0000'0 000 00000 00000 I 8'M IN
000 00000 00000 000 00000 0000'0 000 00000 00000 I L-M, IN
VS-0 SRECO L9900 000 00000 00000 ?CO I REZ0 gZ90' 0 Z C19-AhA
88' I L86Z 0 88S00 Z 1 f 8Eg90 TUFO 000 0000'0 0000'0 9 5-M1AI
000 00000 00000 000 00000 00000 000 00000 00000 I
000 00000 00000 000 0000'0 00000 000 0000'0 00000 1 E-MIAI
000 00000 0000'0 00.0 0000'0 00000 00'0 00000 0000'0 1 Z-MTAI
00'0 00000 00000 00'0 0000'0 00000 06.19E7 619C0 000Z '0 001,
1 -Nk IAI
(I/N11) (1P/1)1,11f1 1- „ OP (i/in) (!P/1) 1- , (1J) (Iiiiii) (13/1)1\111S 1- — (11)(uiY
n
000
000
S'T.£
LLTS
00'0
00'0
00'0
000
(1cn)
ED
!WI 11P/1 ZD !WI !PiI ID !Pil 1 a 'ON MCAT
aunuaqi gla
'0
'0
0000'0
53£ CO
L867-0
00000
00000
00000
00000
OprOwns
IL00
00000
00000
L9900
8800
0000'0
00000
!P/I !PIT
000
000
000
69'Ll T
00'0
00'0
'0 000
000
cZ9Z0 1VLO
Z9t0 8800 000 00000 00000
00000 0000'0 000 00000 00000 T
00000 0000'0 000 00000 00000 T
00000 0000'0 IZ-Z 18£Z'0 S7900 6
8£590 TITI'0 000 00000 00000 081
00000 0000.0 000 00000 00000 1
0000'0 00000 000 00000 00000 I
0000'0 00000 00'0 00000 00000 I
00000 000(10 EC EECLE 619C0 000Z0 0006t
(On) 93/Owns (iMn) (P/1) INIIS 1- (1.1) On)
436-A\ IN
L-AMAI
U9MVsJ
g-MIAI
t
A\ IN
£-Nt,
Z-M1A1
-MK
ZD !Pt! 1D !Pi1 !P/T 1Z ON MIN
auanioi,

Total Xylenes
MW NO. cl 1/di 1/di CI 1/di 1/di C2 1/di 1/di C3
(ug/i) (ft)"-i SUM(I/di) Vi1) (ft) ^
-1 SUM(1/di) (ug/i) (ft)"-1 SUM(1/d1) (gin
15,300 0.2000 0.7619 11,657.14 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0,0000 0.0000 0.00
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
105 0.0000 0.0000 0,00 0.1111 0,6538 68.65 0.0588 0.2987 31.37
12 0.0625 0.2381 2.74 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0667 0.3385 3.89
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0,00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0,0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0,00
.0000 0,0000 0.00 0.0588 0.3462 0.35 0.0714 0.3627 0.36
0.2625 1.0000 11,659.88 0,1699 1.0000 69.00 0.1969 1.0000- 35,62
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6D
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9D
TOTAL
M'" E
0, cI lid
(uh/1) (
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6D
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9D
TOTAL
C1
I/di
C2 1/di 1/di C3
I;II) (ft) -1 SUM(1ddi) (ugin (ft) ^ -1 SUNt(1/di)
41,000 0.2000 0.761.9 31,2 8.10 0.00+ 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0,00
I 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
I 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0,0000 0.00
9 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.1111 0.6538 5.88 0.0588 0.2987 2.69
47 0.0625 0.2381 11.19 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0667 0.3385 15.91
1 0,0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
I 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0588 0.3462 0.35 0.0714 0.3627 0,36
- 0,2625 1.0000 31,249,29 0.1699 1.0000 6.23 0.1969 1.0 000 1.8,96

1,2-dichloroethane
MW NO.
cl 1/di 1/di C1 1/di
(ug/l) (ft) ^ SUM(1/di) (up11) (ft) " 4
MW-1 530 0.2000 0.7619 403.81 0.0000
MW-2 1 0,0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000
M W-3 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000
MW-4 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000
MW-5 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.1111
MW-6D 1 0.0625 0.2381 0.24 0.0000
MW-7 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000
MW-8 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000
MW-9D 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0588
TOTAL 0,2625 1.0000 404.05 0.1699
1,2-dibromoethane (EDB)
MW NO. cl 1/di
1.1/ ......
MWI 340 0.2000 0.7619
-2 1 0.0000 0.0000
_ -, 1 0.0000 0.0000
MW-4 1 0.0000 0.0000
MW-5 1 0.0000 0.0000
MW-6D 1 0.0625 0.2381
MW-7 1 0.0000 0.0000
MW-8 1 0.0000 0.0000
MW-9D 1 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL 0,2625 1.0000
Cl 1/di
(ft) ^ .1
259.05 0.0000
0.00 0.0000
0.00 0.0000
0.00 0,0000
0.00 0.111,1
0.24 0.0000
0.00 0.0000
0.00 0.0000
0.00 0.0588
259.29 0.1699
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0,0000
0.6538
0,0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3462
1.0000
C2
0,00
0.00
0.00.
0,00
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
1,00
1/di C2
SUM(1/di) (ug/1)
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.6538 0.65
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.3462 0.35
1/di
t) " -1
0,0000
0.0000
0,0000
0.0000
0.0588
0.0667
O.
0.0714
0,1969
1/di C3
SUM (1/di) (ITA)
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.2987 0.30
0.3385 0.34
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0,00
0.3627 0.36
1.0000 1.00
1/di 1/di C3
(ft)" -1 SUM(1/di) (1.10)
0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0588 0.2987 0.30
0.0667 0.3385 0.34
0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0,0714 0.3627 0.36
0.1969 1.0000 1.00

Methylene Chloride
MW NO. el 1/di 1/di CI
(ug/1) (ft) ^ -1 SUM(1/di) (u0)
MW-1 210 0.2000 0.7619 160.00
MW-2 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
MW-3 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
MW-4 3 0.0000 0,0000 0.00
MW-5 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
MW-6D 2 0.0625 0.2381 0.36
MW-7 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
MW-8 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0,
MW-9D 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
TOTAL 0.2625 1.0000 16036
1/di
(ft)"-[
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1111
0.0000
0.0000
0.0588
0.1699
di C2 1/di 1/di C3
SUM(1/cli) (ug/I) (ft) "" -1 SUrv1(1/d1) (ugii)
0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0,0000 0.00 0,0000 0.0000 0.00
0.6538 1.18 0.0588 0.2987 0.54
0.0000 0.00 0.0667 0.3385 0.51
0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
0.3462 0.35 0.0714 0.3627 0.36
1.0000 1.52 0.1969 1.0000 1.41
The estimated maximum contaminant concentrations of ground water entering the treatment system are as follows:
CONSTITUENT
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
MTBE
Phenol
Naphthalenes
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dibromoethane (EDB)
Methylene Chloride
RW-1 RW-2 RW-3 Ct (CO
(tig/1) (ugjl) (ngll) (ugil) (iig/1)
18,286.74 111.50 52.60 6,150.28 7,687.85
37,335.55 118.04 57.28 12,503.62 15,629.53
2,362.29 4.47 2.79 789.85 987.31
11,659.88 69.00 35.62 3,921.50 4,901.88
31,249.29 6.23 18.96 10,424.83 13,031.03
1,489.52 80.00 80.00 549.84 687.30
430.48 80.00 80.00 196.83 246.03
404.05 1.00 1.00 135.35 169.19
259.29 1.00 1.00 87.10 108.87
160.36 1.52 1.41 54.43 68.04
where: RW-1,2,3 = Constituent concentration estimated for each recovery well
Ct = Averaged concentration of recovery wells
[Ct1 = Averaged concentration of recovery wells times safety factor

Air Stripper Design Basis
Fire Station No. 9
4529 McKee Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
The information required to design the air stripping system is as follows:
1'
Treatment System
Groundwater Temperature
Air Temperature
R DESCRIPTION
UNITS VALUE
undater Flowrate to expected flea v rate gpm 1.5
gpm
gpm
maximum
degrees F
degrees F
Expected influent concentrations and effluent requirements:
CONSTITUENT
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenz.ene
Total Xylenes
MTBE
Phenol
Total Naphthalenes
1,'2-Dich'lowet bane
Methylene Chloride
Ethylenedibromide (EDB)
1
10
60
DESIGN TAR ET
INFLUENT CONCEN,
CONC. ltr'1)
7,688
15,630
987
4,902
13,031
687
246
169
109
68
29
530
200
300
21
0.33
5
0.0004
As a conservative etirrtate, a flow rate in the rniddle of the expected no range was used to size
the treatment unit.
Flow Rate = 5 gpm
CONSTITUENT
DESIGN
INFLUENT TARGET I) SIGN
CONCEN, CONCEN. EFFLUENT
(ng l) {ugli)
Benzene 7,688
Toluene 15,630
Ethylbenzene 98'7
Total Xylenes 4,902
MTI3E 13,031
Phenol 687
Total Naphthalenes 246
1,2-Dichloroethane 169
Methylene Chloride 109
Ethylenedibromide (EDIT) 68
1000
29
530
200
300
21
0.38
5
0.0004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
687
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
0
0
0
.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.4

A !ow profile air stripper was chosen as the primary treatment unit for the site, based upon capital
costs and its ability to handle low and intermittent flow rates. Other units considered included
diffused aerators and jet aspirating strippers.
The unit selected for this site was:
cttire
Remedial Systenc.
tet No.:
RTS-25-4
Mr Flow Rate:
400 c
DESIGN COMMENT:
In order to achieve the target concentrations in the effluent for all of the constituents present
(i.e. phenol and EDB), it will be necessary to polish the effluent stream using granular activated
carbon (GAC). Using the effluent concentrations from the air stripper modeling, the carbon
usage estimate was completed.

Remedial Systems. Inc.
Low Profile Air Stripper
Design Calculation
Project: Fire Station No. 9
Customer: PSI
Model
Water Temp
Air Temp
AIRY Ratio
Air Flow
Fiowrate
er Motor
o and Street
Foxboro, MA 02035
[phone]
[phone]
RTS-25-4
60
60
609
400
CFM
GPM
5 HP 230/1/60
7, 68.0 J 97.71 j 176.1 _ — 4._0

Ground -Water Cleanup Time Evaluation
Fire Station No. 9
Charlotte, North Carolina
The pump -and -treat remediation technique involves the movement of uncontaminated ground
water into the contaminated zone, to flush the contaminants to the extraction wells. The
movement of the contaminant is typically at a rate less than the ground -water flow rate,
because the contaminants physically adsorb to organic constituents (and to a lesser extent,
to minerals) within the soil matrix. This process is diffusion controlled, and is related to the
equilibrium established between the contaminant concentration in the ground water and the
adsorbed phase. As more highly contaminated ground water enters a less contaminated zone
(front of the plume), the contaminants tend to adsorb to the soil. Conversely, as less
contaminated ground water enters a more contaminated zone (back of the plume), the
contaminants desorb. Under the assumption of linear adsorption, the behavior is expressed
mathematically in the form:
where: vs = contaminant transport rate or velocity
v = ground -water flow rate or velocity
where:
X Kd
n
R = Retardation Factor
= dry soil bulk density
Kd = distribution or partition factor
n = aquifer porosity
The factor, Kd, can be estimated based on the contarninant's chemical characteristics and soil
organic fraction, and other parameters can be estimated or measured. Nonetheless, the
retardation factor, like most remediation information, is only a reasonable projection, and
is subject to wide variation. Different petroleum chemical constituents have different
retardation factors, and may travelat somewhat different rates.
Experience indicates a flushing of three to five pore volumes can significantly reduce
contarni„nant levels Thus, a retardation factor of 3 to 5 for petroleum constituents appears
reasonable.
Dispersion and diffusion effects can spread the plume, but are minor factors compared to
velocityrelated or advective transport factors. However, if the contaminant has migrated.
into a low permeabilitylens, diffusion back into a higher permeability zone where advective
transport is occurring may extend cleanup time. This phenomenon results in the leveling off
of contaminant concentrations in pump and treat systems.

lit the case of radial flow to a typical recovery well, the grouud-water [low velocity will vary
with distance from the well, and flow paths, if a natural gradient is present, may be non-
linear. Flow paths and travel time can be examined using particle tracking ground -water
pn Trams. Simple analytical methods, such as RESSQ, can be used for most small sites,
considering the limited data available. The model can be used to predict the movement of
a ground -water particle from a particular location to the recovery well in a given time.
Wi, h the introduction of less contaminated ground water at a given location, the contaminant
:oncentration there will drop. This decrease will be controlled by desorption of
contaminants from the soil to the ground water as uncontaminated (or less contaminated)
ground water enters the contaminated zone. The desorption will cause ground -water
eontarnination until sufficient flushing occurs.
ft nninber of pore volumes required to reduce contaminant levels to cleanup targets can
.)e predicted by a "batch flush" model (Cushman and Ball, 1993). In this model, the number
if pore volumes of water needed to reduce contaminant levels is given by:
where:
PV -R In
C.
PV = the number of pore volumes to reduce contaminant
concentration from C, to C,
= initial contaminant concentration
final contaminant concentration (cleanupstandard)
\.s its name implies, this approach assumes a thoroughly mixed situation with equilibrium
et-,ee,n the contaminated soils and ground water. In other words, desorption is fast
()filmed to ground -water flow. Fast flow rates may not permit establishment of this
quilibrium. The equation gives an exponential or asymptotic decay of the contaminant
orvientration, such as is often seen at sites undergoing re:mediation.
).nce the number of pore volumes to achieve cleanup levels is established, cleanup time, can
e. estimated from the pumping rate, or the area flushed by the recovery wells in a given
ntr. Using the average contaminant concentrations between contour lines and the time to
ousli the volume between the contour lines should provide a reasonable cleanup time
Titipiatc. The recovery wells are positioned according to soil flushing criteria.
should be noted that this approach assumes no free product or leaching from contaminated
)ils at the site to act as a source of recontamination. Even droplets bound up in the soil
ay result in a significant source of ongoing contamination, prolonging cleanup times.

Groundwater Cleanup Time Calculation
Cflarlotte, North Ca o ina
RW4 RW-2 RW-3
Pumping rate at wfql, Q 0.5 0.5 0.5 gprn
Pumping rate at w,11, Q 96 96 96 ft ^ 3/day
Equivalent Aquifer Thickness at Well, bp 22 22 22 feet
Full Aquifer Thie' Fless, b 25 25 25 feet
Effective Porosity a 0,25 0.25 0.25
Benzene
Retardation Factor,R:
Pore
Volume Cleanup # Pore Cleanup Cleanup
Concentration Contour Dist 'ince to Well Travel Time Flush Time Criteria Volumes Time Time
Interval (ppb) (feet) (days) (days) (ppb) for Cleanup (days) (yrs)
(CO
Low High ... ;\vg, Max,. Min. Max. Min. Cs PV t t
Recovery Well RW-1
2500 25000 13750 7 0 9.1 0.0 9.1 ' 1 47.6 432.3 1.2
250 2500 1375 12 7 27.0 9,1 17.9 1 36.1 647„1 1.8
25 250 137„5 18 12 61.6 27.0 34.6 1 24.6 851,4 2.3
1 25 13 25 18 120.7 61.6 59.1 1 12,8 758.2 2.1
Recovery Well RW.2
20 200. 110 .18 10 61.6 18..6 42..9 1 23.5 1008.6 2.8
1 20 10.5 10 0 18.6 0.0 18.6 1 11.8 219.3 0.6
Recovery Well RW-3
20 200 110
1 20 10.5
Toluene
18 10 61.0 18.4 42.6 1 23.5 1001.1 2.7
10 0 18.4 0.0 18.4 1 11,8 216.9 0.6
Retardation Factor, R:
Pore
Volume Cleanup # Pore Cleanup Cleanup
Concentration Contour Distance to Well Travel Tirne Flush Time Criteria Volumes Time Time
rva1(ppb) (feet) (days) (days) (ppb) for Cleanup (days) (yrs)
(Ci)
Low High Avg. May. Min. Max. Min. Cs PV t
Recovery Well RW-1
5000 50000 27500 7
500 5000 2750 12
9.1 0.0
27.0
9.1
9.1 1000 23.2 210.5 0.6
17.9 1000 7,1 126.8 0.3
Areas of the plume away from RW-1 are below maximum contaminant levels for toluene. Most other
contanimants are also only above MCLs at RW-01, and are expected to cleanup in a similar time to
that estimated fo, toluene.
Comments/Disct. sion:
Based on the esti states obUiined above, it appears reasonable to predict a cleanup time of approximately
Z-2.5 years.