Sam winer motors
Download
1 / 34

Sam Winer Motors - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on

Sam Winer Motors. Technical Outreach Support for Communities Michigan State University East Lansing, MI. November 29, 2001. TOSC Program. Provides assistance to communities affected by polluted sites Enables citizens to participate in cleanup decisions Inform, educate and empower

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Sam Winer Motors' - randall-stanton


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Sam winer motors

Sam Winer Motors

Technical Outreach Support for Communities

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI

November 29, 2001


Tosc program
TOSC Program

  • Provides assistance to communities affected by polluted sites

  • Enables citizens to participate in cleanup decisions

  • Inform, educate and empower

  • Funded by U.S. EPA

  • Agreement with CCAIC


Agenda
Agenda

  • Introduction

  • Focus of investigations

  • Where is the contamination?

  • Is the contamination moving?

  • Residential well sampling

  • Conclusions & Recommendations


What has tosc done
What has TOSC done?

  • Reviewed documents produced by Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA

  • Produced reports, including recommendations for further actions

  • Published TOSC and AGENCY documents on the Web


Our goals tonight
Our Goals Tonight

  • Build greater sense of understanding and participation

  • Provide expert opinion

  • Gather comments to be provided to EPA


Site cleanup process
Site cleanup process

  • Site characterization

  • Risk assessment, both human health and ecological

  • Options for site remediation


Agenda1
Agenda

  • Introduction

  • Focus of investigations

  • Where is the contamination?

  • Is the contamination moving?

  • Residential well sampling

  • Conclusions & Recommendations




Contaminants
Contaminants

  • Chemicals from petroleum (gasoline)

    • Toluene

    • Benzene

  • Metal Degreasers

    • Trichloroethane

    • Tetrachloroethane

  • Plasticizers

    • “phthalates”

  • Others









Concentration (g/kg soil)

Contaminant

MW-1S

4 to 6 ft. bgs

MW-1S

12 to 14 ft bgs

N-nitrosodiphenylamine

460,000

1,600,000

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

550,000

1,500,000

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

7,400

39,000

Isophorone

4,300

3,600

Di-n-butylphthalate

<LOD

4,900

Phenol

4,300

5,700

Where is the contamination?


Is the contamination moving
Is the contamination moving?

  • On-site sampling from sandstone/shale aquifer has not revealed any contamination.

  • Once contaminants reach the groundwater, significant migration is possible.

  • Determining if these chemicals will reach the aquifer is difficult.




Is the contamination moving3
Is the contamination moving?

Difficult to answer due to potential problems associated with the U.S. EPA monitoring wells.

  • No screening at top of aquifer

  • Screening over different depths

  • Measurements made only on January 3, 2001.


Estimating how long until the groundwater is contaminated

Assume chemical is in non-native fill

Glacial till conductivity

Estimate range between

2.0x10-7 ft/min (silt)

2.0x10-9 ft/min (clay)

Vertical Gradient

Estimated from MW-1S & MW1D

0.733 ft/ft

Assume 10% porosity

Estimating how long until the groundwater is contaminated

Between 20 and 2,000 years


Residential well sampling
Residential Well Sampling

  • EPA sampling focused on VOCs and “Base Neutral Compounds”

    • Gasoline

    • Plasticizers

    • Pesticides

  • Performed September 12 & 13, 2001


Residential well sampling1
Residential Well Sampling

  • Chemicals not found

    • Acrolein

    • Cyclohexanone

    • BTEX

  • Chemicals found

    • Butyl benzyl phthalate: 0.20-0.26 ppb

    • Di-n-butylphthalate: 1.1-2.5 ppb

    • Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: 0.33-11 ppb


Agenda2
Agenda

  • Introduction

  • Focus of investigations

  • Where is the contamination?

  • Is the contamination moving?

  • Residential well sampling

  • Conclusions & Recommendations


Recommendations
Recommendations

  • Further sampling of residential wells is warranted.

    • Due to the presence of a number of phthalates in several residential wells

    • Due to the presence of DEHP in one well at concentrations greater than the recommended value provided by U.S. EPA for drinking water


Recommendations1
Recommendations

  • Determine the hydrogeology of the glacial till layer

    • Necessary to determine rate of vertical migration of water through this layer into the sandstone/shale aquifer

    • This will determine the migration of chemicals present from the non-native fill layer to the sandstone/shale aquifer

    • Will require measurements to be made during different seasons and after varying rainfall events


Recommendations2
Recommendations

  • Determine the hydrogeology of thesandstone/shale aquifer

    • Necessary to determine rate of horizontal movement of water and chemicals off-site

    • Will require measurements to be made during different seasons and after varying rainfall events


Recommendations3
Recommendations

  • Additional sampling is necessary to delineate contamination

    • The U.S. EPA report states that “concentrations decrease an order of magnitude from 4-6 ft bgs and … another order or two of magnitude [sic] from 12-14 bgs to 20-22 ft bgs”.

    • The data does not support this conclusion.


Recommendations4
Recommendations

  • The decision to close the site with no further action must be revisited.

    • The presence of several chemicals (n-nitrosodiphenylamine, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and total petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations in the g/kg level is cause for concern.

    • The lack of understanding of the groundwater hydrology further necessitates revisiting this decision.


ad