1 / 34

Sam Winer Motors

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

randall-stanton
Download Presentation

Sam Winer Motors

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sam Winer Motors Technical Outreach Support for Communities Michigan State University East Lansing, MI November 29, 2001

  2. 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

  3. Agenda • Introduction • Focus of investigations • Where is the contamination? • Is the contamination moving? • Residential well sampling • Conclusions & Recommendations

  4. 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

  5. Our Goals Tonight • Build greater sense of understanding and participation • Provide expert opinion • Gather comments to be provided to EPA

  6. Site cleanup process • Site characterization • Risk assessment, both human health and ecological • Options for site remediation

  7. Agenda • Introduction • Focus of investigations • Where is the contamination? • Is the contamination moving? • Residential well sampling • Conclusions & Recommendations

  8. Focus of the investigation

  9. Focus of the investigation

  10. Contaminants • Chemicals from petroleum (gasoline) • Toluene • Benzene • Metal Degreasers • Trichloroethane • Tetrachloroethane • Plasticizers • “phthalates” • Others

  11. Where is the contamination?

  12. Where is the contamination?

  13. Where is the contamination?

  14. Where is the contamination?

  15. Site Geology

  16. Where is the contamination?

  17. Where is the contamination?

  18. 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?

  19. 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.

  20. Is the contamination moving?

  21. Is the contamination moving?

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. Residential Well Sampling • EPA sampling focused on VOCs and “Base Neutral Compounds” • Gasoline • Plasticizers • Pesticides • Performed September 12 & 13, 2001

  25. 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

  26. Agenda • Introduction • Focus of investigations • Where is the contamination? • Is the contamination moving? • Residential well sampling • Conclusions & Recommendations

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

More Related