Piper Aircraft Corporation Site Vero Beach, Florida
0SltciBreak:OthcrtRECORD OF DECISIONFOR THEPIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION SITETHE 3417SITE NAME AND LOCATIONPiper Aircraft Corporation SiteVero Beach, FloridaSTATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE - - - - — .This decision document presents the selected remedial action forthe Piper Aircraft Site, in Vero Beach, Florida, chosen inaccordance withthe ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponseCompensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by theSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SARA 42 U.S.C.Section 9601 et.seg. and, to the extent practicable, the NationalOil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Thisdecision is based on the administrative record for this site.The State of Florida, as represented by the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP), has been the support agency duringthe Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study process for thePiper Aircraft Corporation site.In accordance with 40 CFR300.430, as the support agency, FDEP has provided EPA with inputduring the process. Based upon comments received from FDEP, it isexpected that written concurrence will be forthcoming; however, aletter formally recommending concurrence of the remedy has not yetbeen received.ASSESSMENT OF THE SITEActual or threatened releases of hazardous substances fromthis site, if not addressed by implementing the response actionselected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantialendangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDYThis remedy addresses the contaminated ground water at thesite. This remedy addresses the principal threat remaining at thesite by extraction and treatment of groundwater contaminated withvolatile organic compounds (VOCs). Ground water remediation willcontinue until the aquifer meets the clean-up goals identified inthe ROD and monitoring up-gradient of the canal confirms thatground water discharge to the canal meets surface water-standardsfor site related contaminants. Residuals from the treatment thatmay have low levels of contaminants will be disposed of off-site,such that the site will not require any long-term management.
The major components of the selected remedy include:-Air stripping of VOCs to meet surface water dischargecriteria-Existing water line and extraction well used to theextent practicalInstallation ofadditionalextractioneffectively capture entire plumewellstoSurface discharge of treated ground water in accordancewith all applicable state and federal regulations andother required Performance StandardsModeling of air emissions and/or analysis of actual airemissions from the ground water treatment unit will beconducted during the Remedial Design and/or RemedialAction in order to determine the need for air emissioncontrol equipment to assure compliance with state andfederal air quality standards.STATUTORY DETERMINATIONSThe selected remedy is protective of human health and theenvironment, complies with Federal and State requirements that arelegally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedialaction, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanentsolutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies thestatutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reducetoxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remainingon-site, a review will be conducted within five years aftercommencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedycontinues to provide adequate protection of human health and theenvironment. These reviews will be conducted every five years oruntil remediation goals are achieved.PATRICK M. TOBIN,ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORDATE
OPERRY/PACROD WP./ PACROD DISK/DECEMBER 16, 19934WD-SSRBPERRY4Wp /5 SRBMCGUI RE40RCBUSSEY4WDGREEN4WDFRANZMATHES
RECORD OF DECISIONFOR THEPIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATIONSUPERFUND SITEVERO BEACH, FLORIDAREGION IVU.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE OF CONTENTSSection1.0 Site Location and Description2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities3.0 History of Community Participation4.0 Scope and Role of Response Action5.0 Summary of Site Characteristics5.1 Geology5.2 Hydrology5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination5.3.1 Soil Contamination5.3.2 Ground Water Contamination5.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment Investigation5.3.4 Air Investigation6.0 Summary of Site Risks6.1 Contaminants of Concern6.2 Exposure Assessment6.3 Toxicity Assessment6.4 Risk nt Risk296.6 UncertaintiesDescription of Alternatives29297.130Alternative GW 1 No Action7.2 Alternative GW 2 Ground Water Use Restrictions7.3 Alternative GW 3 Ex-Situ Treatment7.3.1 Alternative GW 3a Ex-Situ Treatment;Surface Discharge7.3.2 Alternative GW 3b Ex-Situ Treatment;Gradient Control; Injection Well Disposal7.4 Alternative GW 4 In-Situ Treatment (Bioremedial)7.4.1 Alternative GW 4a In-Situ Treatment;Injection Well7.4.2 Alternative GW 4b In-Situ Treatment;Gradient Control; Ex-Situ Treatment;Injection Well DisposalComparative Analysis of Alternatives8.1Comparative Analysis of Human Health and theEnvironment8.2 Synopsis of Comparative Analysis of Alternative9.0 Selected RemedyA.Ground Water RemediationA.I Components of Ground Water Remediation forImplementationA.2 Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge ofContaminated Ground WaterA.3 Performance Standardsa. Extraction Standardsb. Treatment/Discharge Standardsc. Design StandardsB.Compliance Testing30303131313131323236363637373737383939
TABLE OF CONTENT (continued)Section10.0 Statutory Determinations10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment10.2 Compliance with ARARs10.3 Cost-Effectiveness10.4 Use of Permanent Solutions and TreatmentTechnologies10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element11.0 Documentation of Significant Changesi-2
FIGURESFiguresFigure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4i-3
TABLESTablesTable 1Table 2Page912Table 315TableTableTableTable161720214a4b56Table 7Table 82527Table 928i-4
RECORD OF DECISIONThe Decision SummaryPiper Aircraft Corporation SiteVero Beach, Florida1.0Site Location and DescriptionPiper Aircraft Corporation (PAC or Piper) is an activefacility located at 2926 Piper Drive, and occupies approximatelyeight acres at the Vero Beach Municipal Airport. The facility islocated at the intersection of Aviation .Boulevard and PiperDrive.(See Figure 1)The site and surrounding area is relatively flat with surfacewater removal capabilities which include natural and man-madeconveyances. The soil is not conductive to ponding. The man-madeconveyances (i.e., ditch/channel/canal system) are designed suchthat no water remains standing in any of the areas for very longafter a rain event. The PAC facility is bordered to the north andeast by the municipal airport, to the west by undeveloped property,and to the south by the Main Relief Canal (Canal). A residentialarea is located less than a half mile south of the Canal. Thegeneral area surrounding the site is agricultural, commercial, andresidential.The facility has large buildings with concrete floors, pavedparking and driving areas, and storm drain systems. There is verylittle topographic relief across the site. Overland flow for stormwater runoff on the west side of the facility is towards a ditch(west ditch) located approximately 75 feet west of thedewatering/extraction well (site). The ditch services a network ofdrains from the parking lots and the loading/receiving area. Waterfrom the ditch flows south to the Canal, east to the Indian River,and continues east to empty into the Atlantic Ocean. (See Figure 1)The main facility is fenced with access gates locatedthroughout. The ground surface in the immediate vicinity of thedewatering well is covered with asphalt and/or concrete, with theexception of the drainage ditch, a grassy area to the north, and asmall grassy area located along the western fence.2.0 Site History and Enforcement ActivitiesThe PAC facility used trichloroethylene (TCE), which wasstored in an underground storage tank, in the assembly process ofairplanes and component parts. In October 1978, testing of theVero Beach City water supply (well head #15), revealed TCEcontamination. The samples of shallow ground water adjacent to thestorage tank revealed a TCE concentration of 39,000 parts perbillion (ppb). The City iromediatley secured the well and followingan investigation, the TCE was tracked to an underground storage
FIGURE 1SITE LOCATION MAPPIPER AIRCRAFTVERO BEACH, FLORIDAN9APPROXIMATE SCALEizEPA( IN FEET )1 inch 1800 ft.
system at Piper. Piper promptly removed the TCE from the tank. Thetank was tested, found to be tight, and an additionalinvestigations revealed a leak in the underground piping system atthe top of the tank connection. Piper installed well points in thetank area with test results yielding confirmation of TCEcontamination. The tank had been in place approximately threeyears, but the volume of the spill was undetermined since theduration and leak rate was unknown.In March 1979, the City of Vero Beach along with PiperAircraft hired a contactor who recommended a better discharge ratefor dewatering the area, stop withdrawal from well #15 completely,and the installation of a new well and a discharge header atspillway in the main relief canal. Based on these recommendationsthe City of Vero Beach and PAC applied for a National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from EPA to authorizethe discharge of effluent into surface waters/main relief canal.EPA deferred the permit pending collection of a baseline survey ofTCE levels in the water, sediment and aquatic life in the mainrelief canal and the adjacent portion of the Indian River.In late 1980 a six inch dewatering well was installed adjacentto the area where the underground storage tank had been removed toa depth of approximately 50 .feet below land surface (bis) .In 1981, Piper signed a consent agreement with the FloridaDepartment Environmental Protection (FDEP), formerly FloridaDepartment Environmental Regulation (FDER), which authorized themto remediate the site. Piper began pumping ground water to thespray headers located above the main relief canal to reducecontaminant levels of TCE.Piper, with oversight provided by FDER, began pumping at arate of approximately 225 gallons per minute from the dewateringwell. This system is still in operation today. Water is pipedthrough a buried polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe to a discharge pointlocated approximately one mile east of the site.The contaminatedground water is sprayed into the air to enhance the removal ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs).In 1985 EPA began to evaluate the site for the NationalPriorities List (NPL). Piper received a score of 31.13, which washigh enough for EPA to propose the site for inclusion on the NPL.In June 1989, Piper continued the remediation process, whichwas over-seen by FDER, by removing the underground storage tank andthe soil to a level of 14' feet deep by 40' wide by 100' long,aerated the soil to remove the TCE, tested and returned the treatedsoil to the site.The PAC facility was added to the NPL on February 16, 1990,due to the presence of ground water contamination. In October of
1991. EPA mailed a special notice letter to Piper AircraftCorporation notifing them of the potential liability and necessary-investigative activities at the site. Piper expressed an interestin conducting the Remedial Investigation (RI) with EPA's oversight,however, Piper later informed EPA that they would not be able topay for the RI due to bankruptcy proceedings. Following Piper'sannoucment of inability to fund the RI, EPA began procedures toaquire Superfund monies to pay for the investigation. On August 3,1992. EPA began field work at the PAC site, to investigate thenature and extent of contamination. The Final RI report indicatesthat ground water beneath the site is contaminated withtrichloroethene [trichloroethylene] (TCE) and it's degradationproducts and air quality in the immediate vicinity of the existingground water treatment system may also have been impacted. Thedegradation products of TCE include 1,1-dichloroethene [1,1dichloroethlene], cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene,and vinyl chloride.3.0 History of Community ParticipationIn June of 1991, EPA started its community relation efforts byconducting community interviews and holding a public meeting at theVero Beach City Hall. The meeting was held to address concernsexpressed by the citizens and inform them of EPA's planned RemedialInvestigation activities. This meeting was attended by thirty-fivecitizens of Vero Beach and representatives from FDEP.A public comment period for the proposed remedial action washeld from September 29, 1993 through October 30, 1993. During thistime a Proposed Plan fact sheet was released to the public in orderto inform the public of EPA's findings and notifing the public thatthey could review details of the RI/FS reports at the Indian RiverCounty Main Library. In addition, a public meeting was held onOctober 20, 1993. In the course of this meeting, EPA and the FDEPanswered questions about problems at the site and the remedialalternatives under consideration.A response to the commentsreceived during this period is included in the ResponsivenessSummary, which is part of this Record of Decision (ROD) . Thisdecision document presents the selected remedial action for the PACSite, in Vero Beach, Florida, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, asamended by SARA, and to the extent practicable, the NationalContingency Plan.The decision for this site is based on theAdministrative Record.4.0SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIONThis ROD discloses the planned remedial activities at thesite.The cleanup remedy will address the ground watercontaminants which remain at the site. The function of this remedyis to reduce the risks associated with exposure to contaminatedground water and to protect the surficial aquifer system presentbeneath the site. The ROD is the only ROD anticipated for this
site since the contamination present at this site will be addressedas a single operable unit.5.0 Summary of Site CharacteristicsThe ground surface in the immediate vicinity of the dewateringwell is covered with concrete, with the exception of the drainageditch, a grassy area to the north, and a small grassy area locatedalong the western fence. The facility uses storm drains to removewater from the parking and receiving areas. These drains emptyinto the drainage ditch which flows south into the Canal.Thecanal flows east into the Indian River and eventually to theAtlantic Ocean.5.1GeologyIndian River County is underlain by a thick sequence of marinelimestone, dolomite, shale, sand, and anhydrite, ranging in totalthickness from about 5,500 to 12,000 feet.These formationscollectively dip slightly southeastward. In order of increasingage, the main formations of interest underlying the area aredescribed below.Formation.The youngest formation present is the AnastasiaIt is present along the coast and grades inland intothe Fort Thompson Formation.The Anastasia Formation isPleistocene in age. It consists primarily of tan to buffconsolidated beds of calcium carbonate-cemented sandstone (cementedsand) and coquina (cemented shell fragments).It varies inthickness from 100 to 150 feet.Below the Anastasia Formation are the undifferentiateddeposits of the upper Miocene. These deposits are comprised ofshell, sandy clay, some zones being more cemented than others, andis generally 50 to 125 feet in thickness.Below these deposits arethe Miocene-age Hawthorn Formation, a major regional depositcharacterized primarily by a predominance of clay.Itcharacteristically contains a distinctive green and brown clay -andis up to 200 feet thick.Beneath the Miocene deposits is a sequence of Oligocene andEocene Limestones.The combined thickness of these formations mayapproach 1000 feet.The site is underlain by approximately 100 feet of mixed sandsand shell beds, followed by another 25 feet of mixed sands, shelland clay, followed by at least 25 feet of predominantly clay of adark olive green color.The stratigraphy for the area of investigation can be bestdescribed based on an evaluation of boring logs completed duringdrilling at the three temporary well locations. Within the uppereighty feet, five distinct stratigraphic zones were identified.
These are described below:Zone 1 - Generally thin zone (maximum 5 feet thickness) ofinterbedded light to dark colored fine to medium grained sandscontaining some orange brown streaks.Zone 2 - Fairly uniform fine grained sand with dark brownorganic material and some clay encountered at one boring.Zone 2 also has a maximum thickness of about 5 feet.Zone 3 - Generally light tan to medium gray colored finegrained sand. Occasional white streaks and some clay present.Thickness averages about 15 feet. Ground water encountered inthis zone at all borings, ranging in depth from 10 feet bis,at borings TW-01 and TW-03, to about 18 feet in boring ,TW-02.Zone 4 - Very uniform dark gray/dark brown fine to mediumgrained sand. Extremely variable in thickness, ranging from3 feet to 20 feet in thickness.Zone 5 - Medium to dark gray/brown fine to medium grained sandwith varying amounts of shell fragments. Locally the amountof shell fragments may be so great as to approach a coquinalike texture. Color within this unit may also vary, withoccasional minor light colored (tan, golden brown) units.Zone 5 was not completely penetrated during boring, butappears to be at least 40 feet thick in the vicinity.5.2HydrologyThe formations and deposits found within the AnastasiaFormation form the framework for the uppermost aquifer in theregion.This aquifer is referred to as the surficial aquifersystem. Well yields in the eastern part of the county may approach250 to 1,000 gallons per minute. Ground water movement in theshallow aquifer system is generally to the southeast with localizedinfluences created by pumping of the aquifer.Located beneath the surficial aquifer system in Indian RiverCountyisa majorregionalconfiningunitcomprisedofthepreviously described Miocene deposits. Due to its thickness (onthe order of several hundred feet) and its lithology (primarilyclays) it is considered to be generally impermeable with poor wateryield. It is generally found at a depth of approximately 125 feetin the eastern part of the county.The major regional aquifer, the Floridan aquifer, is locatedbeneath the regional confining unit. It is made up of all of theOligocene and Eocene limestones beneath the Hawthorn and althoughwater yields may vary from one formation to the next, the Floridanis generally considered to be, in total, a prolific aquifer and is
capable of supplying millions of gallons of water per day to wellfields.5.3Nature and Extent of ContaminationSampling conducted during the remedial investigation at thesite indicates the primary contaminated media is ground water whichcontains trichloroethene (trichloroethylene) , as well as, itsassociated degradation compounds including: ichloroethene,trans-1,2dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride.Migration appears to be limited to the south and southeast ofthe Piper Aircraft facility. No contamination was detected southof the main relief canal. Monitor well 15.2, located approximately1,000 feet due east of the water tank, appears to be at or near theeastern edge of the plume. The estimated aerial extent of thecontaminant plume extends from the drainage ditch to the west, themain relief canal to the south, and a line 50 feet north of theextraction well which runs east from the drainage ditch until itintersects the main relief canal.5.3.1Soil ContaminationSurface soil (SS) samples were collected during Phase I toconfirm the success of the 1989 soil treatment by PAC. Abackground grab sample was collected northwest of the site toestablish a control. A composite sample was collected from thearea where the excavated soil was aerated (see Figure 2).As shown on Table 1, on-site levels of inorganics arecomparable to the background; however, chlordane and itsdegradation products were detected in the composite sample. Thechlordane and heptachlor compounds share a common association.Chlordane was once combined with heptachlor to produce a productthat was sold under the name Termide .Because of their wide-spread use, the presence of the parent compounds (chlordane andheptachlor) and their associated degradation product ane,andtrans-nonachlor along with heptachlor epoxide, respectively) are believedto be are attributable to application of and subsequent degradationof insecticides applied for termite control and not leakage fromthe underground tank.
FIGURE 2SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONSPIPER AIRCRAFTVERO. BEACH, FLORIDAAPPRDXIMATE SCALEiEPA( IN FEET 1 inch 1200 ft.
TABLE 1SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARYPIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATIONVERO BEACH, FLORIDAAUGUST 1992PA-01-SSBCKGRNDAig/kgPESTICIDE/PCB ORDANETRANS-NONACHLOR/2/2NANANANAtotal ChlordaneHEPTACHLORHEPTACHLOR NORGANIC .82. 40210.06160066054—10821.33.9FOOTNOTES:NA - NOT ANALYZED - The composite surface soil sample was selected and submitted for PesticideAnalysisJ - ESTIMATED VALUEN - PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL-- - MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED12 CONSTITUENTS OR METABOLITES OF TECHNICAL CHLORDANE
5.3.2Ground Water ContaminationGround water flow was determined to be southeast and locallyinfluenced by the pumping of the on-site dewatering/extraction welland city well #15.Thirty-four ground water samples were collected during thethree phases of the RI (see Figure 3 - Ground Water SamplingLocation). During all phases of the RI, the greatest concentrationof VOCs were detected in the on-site extraction well. Samplingresults are provided in Table 2. r"Four VOCs typically asspciated with aviation fuels weredetected in the sample collected from the extraction well. Ethylbenzene, o-xylene, (m- and/or p-) xylene, and toluene were detectedat low concentrations that were estimated to range from 4.1 /ug/1 to8.8 //g/1. All these values are less than the maximum contaminantlevels (MCLs).TCE and two of its degradation products, trans 1,2dichloroethene and cis-l,2-dichloroethene, were detected on-site inthe extraction well and MW-02. Higher concentrations of TCE (300fjq/1 decreasing to 50 / g/1) and cis-l,2-dichloroethene weredetected in shallow monitoring well, MW-02 during Phase II and III,respectively. These levels exceeded Federal MCLs of 5.0 //g/1 TCEand 70 jjg/1 (cis-l,2-dichloroethene) .Cis-l,2-dichloroethene was also detected south, southeast, andwest of the site in municipal wells MW #15, municipal monitorwells, MW #15.4 and MW #15.2 (at approximately 100 ft bis), and intwo temporary monitor wells, TW-06 and TW-02 (at approximately 80ft bis). The highest levels of cis-l,2-DCE were detected in MW#15. The levels were above (76 A*g/l - Phase I) and below (68A /zg/1-Phase II) the MCL of 70 fjg/1. Note that MW #15 has been returnedto pumping status by the Vero Beach Water and Sewer Department andis continuously pumped and the contaminants are removed via an airstripper as part of the municipal water system for Vero Beach. Thewell is located south/southeast of the site.As for theconcentrations detected in temporary wells TW-06 and TW-02, theywere very low, less than 3 /zg/1. Furthermore, considering groundwater flow direction is to the southeast, the source for the cis1,2-DCE detected in TW-02 is more likely from an unrelated plumelocated west of the site. (The forementioned plume is located atthe Stump Dump site, which is northwest of the PAC site and isunrelated because of the southeastern ground water flow.)Trans-l,2-DCE exhibited similar characteristics to cis-l,2-DCEin that it was detected in both on-site wells, EXT-WELL and MW-02,and to the south, MW #15, and southeast, TW-06 (80 ft bis).10
FIGURE 3GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONSAND RESULTSPIPER AIRCRAFTVE'.RO BEACH, FLORIDAaS-I.Z-OtCHLOtfOCTHlHEIRAHS- 1,2-DICHLOROCTHtH TPKHLOFOCTHCHC(TPlCHiOROCTHYLIKC)VIMiL CHLOtlDCMW-02iKi/ocwAirn «u- M-02-C*(M- ANO/OT P-)KVU«LlHYl rLCfC)1 . 1 -OtCHLOWOt IHCNt(l.)-(BCHLOflOCItft LCMt)CrS-1,2-»CHLOBOtTHtHE/MYL CHLOfflOIPHASE 1og/lB.BJ4.iJ4.IJl.OJ12170UPHASL ug/l8.CJ*.fljI.7J .2J40PH4SC BlUJ/Ill*J5.6JS.BJfl.OJ17AJI.BJ2/0JOfM27rr —»JU Iiyj\EXTWELLItUP WTLL -PA-004-TWB5Jt.l-aCHLOBOCIHLNCBO' BIS1.7 ug/1TWTW-04I J— . ,20.3APPROXIMATE SCALE&EPA
TABLE 2 (VOC)GROUND-WATER SAMPLESANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARYPIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATIONVERO BEACH, FLORIDAPHASE I - AUGUST 1992PA-01-GWMW-S15DRINKINGPURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSPA-03-GW PA-02-GWPRIVATEON-SITEIRRIGAT'N EXT-WELLfig/1700 .10,00010,000100ETHYL BENZENEO-XYLENE(M- AND/OR ETHENECIS-1,2-D1CHLOROETHENEVINYL CHLORIDE321.1J761217028TEMPORARY MONITOR WELLSPHASE II - SEPTEMBER 1992001-TWA40' BLS(ig/1PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS001-TWB80' BLS002-TWA40' BLS002-TWB80' BLS003-TWA40' BLS003-TWB80' INYL CHLORIDE1.2JMUNICIPAL WELLS AND EXTRACTION WELLPHASE II - SEPTEMBER NKING015-PWMCLPURGEABLE ORGANIC W-»15.2 MW-K15.3 MW-015.4 ON-SITEMONITORMONITORMONITOR002-MWON-SITEEXT-WELL MONITOR lg/l H9/14.8JETHYL BENZENE700O-XYLENE10,000--(M- AND/OR OETHYLENE)VINYL CHLORIDE5.01007036197.02.05.9J4.4JFOOTNOTES:I - ESTIMATED VALUE-- - MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED126.7402.0,327030015J7302.6J3018J
TABLE 2 (Continued)GROUND-WATER SAMPLESANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARYPIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATIONVERO BEACH, FLORIDAPHASE III- JUNE 1993TEMPORARY WELLSMCLPURGEABLE ORGANIC ,2-DICHLOROETHENECIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE1, 1-DICHLOROETHANEVINYL 40' BLSMONITOR80' BLSMONITOR40' BLSMONITOR80' BLSMONITOR40' BLSMONITOR80' BLSMONITOR(lg/15.0100705.02.0(lg/1--3. 7 J(lg/1---(ig/1------ ig/l (ig/1---fig/11. 1J2.8JPERMANENT WELLSMCLPURGEABLE ORGANIC 54-MWMW-815.4203 RMONITOREXT-WELLMONITORng/1 (ig/1 ng/1ng/1 \ig/1 ng/1(M- AND/OR P-1XYLENEETHYL ---------------------ng/l n g / 1 ng/1------------------ ENEVINYL CHLORIDE702.068A20------7.82.9 J---5.7-----------160A27FOOTNOTES:AJ--- AVERAGE VALUE (SAMPLE ANALYZED TWICE AND AVERAGED)- ESTIMATED VALUE- MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED13ng/112.AJ5.6J50.120ng/
However, the concentrations detected, 1 jig/1 to 15 p.g/1, are muchless than the current MCL of 100 flg/1.East of the site 1,1-dichloroethane was detected in theshallow temporary well PA-004-TWA less than the MCL of 5 fig/1.1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-dichloroethylene) was detected onceon-site in the extraction well during the Phase III sampling eventat a concentration less than Florida standard of 1 (ig/1.Vinyl chloride is a chemical degradation product of TCE. TheFederal MCL for vinyl chloride is 2.0 \ig/l. Vinyl chloride wasdetected in both on-site wells, EXT-WELL and MW-02, at 18 (ig/1 and30 [J.g/1, respectively. Vinyl chloride has migrated off-site to themunicipal drinking water well, MW #15. The levels detected duringthree sampling events range from 5 Jig/1 to 20 fxg/l, which aregreater than the MCL. These levels indicate that the municipalwell has a potential overriding affect in ground-water movement atthe site.Vinyl chloride has migrated to the east to a deepmonitor well MW #15.2 and the concentrations demonstrate a markeddecrease from Phase II and Phase III sampling events (Table 2 and3) .The Canal is acting as ' a hydraulic barrier preventing thecontaminants from migrating to the south side of the Canal (e.g.,no VOCs detected south of the canal).5.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment InvestigationsSix sets of surface water and sediment samples were collectedfrom the Canal during Phase I. Two additional surface water andsediment samples were collected during Phase II. These sampleswere used to establish the extent of VOC migration in surfacewater. The sample locations were selected based on accessibility,depositional characteristics in the canal, location of thepipelines,andconfluence ofthe ditch andcanal.Abackground/control sample was collected west of the confluence ofthe west ditch and main canal.Trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and vinylchloride were detected in the first sample located downstream ofthe spray nozzle system, PA-06-SW. As a result of these findings,two more surface water samples, PA-007-SW and PA-008-SW, werecollected farther downstream during Phase II (September, 1992).Cis-1,2-dichloroethene was the only compound detected in these twosamples (Table 4a).No purgeable organic compounds were detected in any sedimentsamples (Table 4b). No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the onesur
300.430, as the support agency, FDEP has provided EPA with input . 6.0 Summary of Site Risks 18 6.1 Contaminants of Concern 18 6.2 Exposure Assessment 22 . Piper Aircraft Corporation (PAC or Piper) is an active facility located at 2926 Piper Drive, and occupies approximately
Type Certificate Holder Piper Aircraft, Inc. 2926 Piper Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Type Certificate Holder Record The New Piper Aircraft, Inc transferred TC 2A13 to Piper Aircraft, Inc on August 7, 2006. I - Model PA-28-160 (Cherokee), 4 PCLM (Normal Category), Approved October 31,
In addition, each aircraft has a checklist that satisfies FAR 141.75. Cessna 152 Cessna 172 Cessna 172 RG Piper PA28-161 Piper PA28-181 Piper Arrow Piper Seminole 8. Each Flight Instructor used to give instruction in this course must hold a at least valid commercial airplane pilot certificate. Except in the case of multi-engine aircraft, each
Millbrooke Elementary ll Prairie Center Elementary ll Paola* Paola High l Piper Piper High t t l l Piper Middle t m Piper Creek Elementary t m Piper Prairie Elementary t m Shawnee Mission Shawnee Mission East High t t l Shawnee Mission North High t t l Shawnee Mission Northwest High t t l Shawnee Mission South High t t l Shawnee Mission West .
principles and skills of biblical exegesis, and it looks into the major influence on Piper's biblical exegesis. It also describes Piper's philosophy of preaching: Piper's motivation and purpose of preaching, and it investigate great preachers who impacted Piper's preaching. It then discuses Piper's skills of expository preaching .
Victorian Opera 2016 - The Pied Piper Education Resource /4 Background information of the Pied Piper story The Pied Piper of Hamelin is a story that has existed for over 700 years. There are historical records that suggest the story was based on true events from the town of Hamelin in Lower Saxony in Germany. There a piper lured the rats away .
- B734 aircraft model added - B735 aircraft model added - E145 aircraft model added - B737 aircraft model added - AT45 aircraft model added - B762 aircraft model added - B743 aircraft model added - Removal of several existing OPF and APF files due to the change of ICAO aircraft designators according to RD3: A330, A340, BA46, DC9, MD80
SERVICE BULLETIN NO. 1366 PAGE 7 of 7 MATERIAL REQUIRED: As required per aircraft: Washer (Radius)P/N 96352-002 and/or , Piper P/N 96352-003 (according to the applicable Piper Airplane Parts Catalog) AVAILABILITY OF PARTS: Your Piper Approved Service Center EFFECTIVITY DATE: This service bulletin is effective upon receipt. SUMMARY: Applicable factory participation is limited to new
Precedence between members of the Army and members of foreign military services serving with the Army † 1–8, page 5 Chapter 2 Command Policies, page 6 Chain of command † 2–1, page 6 Open door policies † 2–2, page 6 Performance counseling † 2–3, page 6 Staff or technical channels † 2–4, page 6 Command of installations, activities , and units † 2–5, page 6 Specialty .
