2b Update on Country CleanCITYOF
CHAN EN
7ity Center Drive, PO Box 147
~nhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937. I900
eneral Fax 612.937.5739
inee~qng Fax 612.937.9152
'ic Safety Fax 612.934.2524
5 wwm ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager
April 7, 1999
Update on Country Clean
Bev Ricker will be present to disCuss the outside storage behind the Country
Clean building on Great Plains Boulevard.
Attached is a memo from Sharmin A1-Jaff regarding her conversation with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Bob Zydowsky has informed me that Mr.
McCarville 'is scheduled to appear in court on April 12th for his continued illegal
outside storage.
Sift of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schooh, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
Engineering Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524
Web www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
April 7, 1999
Country Clean Update
Staff was directed to give an update on the cleanup status of Country Clean
located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Chan View and Great Plains
Boulevard.
In March of 1997, the City Council approved a site plan to remodel the Country
Clean Building into an office space. The application was submitted by Mr. Joe
Scott. Prior to closing on the property, Mr. Scott requested the soils be tested:for
contamination. The results of the testing concluded that the soils were
contaminated with PCE, a chemical used in dry cleaning. The contamination is
concentrated at the surface and has traveled to the ground water. Based ut}on a
preliminary investi~,ative study; it at}t}ears that the contaminated ~,round
water is at a det}th of 41 feet. The city's municit}al wells are at the followim,
det}ths (refer to attached mat}):
Well 2 471 feet
Well 5 215 feet
Well 6 215 feet
Staff contacted Mr. Mike Connolly with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
- Ground Water and Solid Waste Division. The following is a summary of the
telephone conversation with Mr. 'Connolly:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is working with Mr. Don McCarville,
owner of Country Clean, to clean up the site. In 1995, legislation was passed to
create a "Dry Clean Up" fund. A tax was added to dry cleaning bills and the fund
had to build up to half a million dollars before it could be used. Approximately
six months ago, operation steps and procedures to use the funds were completed.
Mr. McCarville is enrolled in the program. The first $10,000 of expenses
associated with the investigation and clean up is paid by the owner of the
contaminated site. The remaining expenses are paid for through the Dry Clean
Fund. To date, studies have been conducted to investigate the level of
The G~y of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quaficy schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beaut!ful parks. A great place to flue, work, and
Country Clean
April 7, 1999
Page 2
contamination on the site. The PCA has been engaging in conversations with Mr. McCarville to
investigate clean up options. Mr. McCarville must show a good faith effort that clean up is in
progress. Staff asked Mr. Connolly to define progress. The PCA reviews projects once every 3
months and must see progress in the clean up of the site. If it appeared that there was no progress
made, the PCA has the authority to refer the site to the "Super Fund Program." (There is a
stigma associated with "Super Fund" sites, decreasing their resale value.) The process involves
ranking the site on the basis of risk to human health and environment. Depending on the rank of
the project, it could be delayed months to years.
Staff asked how long it would take to clean up the site. Mr. Connolly stated that it depends on
the type of technology used for the clean up. It is not possible to do a quick clean up.
Excavating the contaminated soils is quick, however, cleaning up of the ground water could take
1 to 3 years. The method of treating ground water is referred to as "Pump and Treat." The
pumped water is flushed into the sanitary sewer and treated. There are approximately 24 sites in
the program. It is a common problem and not an isolated incident. Mr. Connolly also stated
"PCA is on top of it, the reason it dragged on was the lack of funds. "
It appears that there are enough financial incentives for Mr. McCa~i'gi~lb to move forward with the
clean up of the site. Staff will stay in contact with the PCA to monitor the progress of the clean
up.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Location map.
2. Remedial Investigation Report.
\\cfs ! \vol2\plan\sa\country clean - pca.doc
T'aiI
~t
VI 79t',', St.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT AND
RESPONSE ACTION WORK PLAN
COUNTRY CLEAN & COIN LAUNDRY
7720 GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
1999
PREPARED FOR:
MR. DON MCCARVILLE
3349 WARNER ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
PREPARED BY:
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
13400 15TH AVENUE NORTH
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
(612) 559-1423
MARCH 1998
Project Number: 62063.00
This re, port was prepared by me
ir unt~' r~ ~H~ect supervision.
Matthew L. Ledvina; P.E.
Civil & Environmental Engineer
TABLE OFCONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background Information ................................................................................................................................ I
1.2 Limited Phase II Investigation ........................................................................................................................ 1
i.3 Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ................................................................................. 2
1.4 Remedial Investigation Work ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Project Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FIELD WORK ............................................................. 4
2.1 Monitoring Well Installation .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ............................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Ground Water Elevation Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Water Quality Sampling ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.5 Soil Borings and Geoprobe Operations .......................................................................................................... 6
2.6 Sewer Lateral Investigation .................................................................................................... ........................ 7
3.0 EVALUATION OF FIELD INVESTIGATION RESULTS ...................... , ...................... 8
3.1 Geology .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Hydrogeology .......................................................................... :. ..................................................................... 8
3.3 Soil Contamination ......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................... , .......... 9
3.5 Potential Contaminant Source Areas .......................... ~ ................................................................................. I0
3.6 Organic Vapor Survey ....................................... : ...................................................................................... · .... 10
4.0 GROUNDWATER RECEPTOR EVALUATION PLAN ........................................... 11
5.0 RESPONSE ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................ 11
5.1 Site Characterization and Proposed Property Use ........................................................................................ 1 I
5.2 Soil Response Action Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.4 Review of Remedial Technologies ............................................................................................................... 13
5.4.1 In-Sku Groundwater Remediation ...................................................................................................... 14
5.4.2 Groundwater Pump and Treatment ..................................................................................................... 15
5.4.3 Vacuum Extraction Technologies ....................................................................................................... 15
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 16
Appendix A Table 1 -
Table 2 -
Table 3 -
Table 4 -
Table 5 -
Table 6 -
Table 7 -
Appendix B Figure 1 -
Figure 2 -
APPENDICES
Monitoring Well Construction Details
Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results
Groundwater Elevations
Summary of Soil Analytic Data
Summary of Water Quality Data
Summary of Response Action Criteria
Physical Properties of Contaminants of Concern
Property Location Map
Property Plan
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Figure 3 -
Figure 4 -
Figure 5 -
Figure 6 -
Figure 7 -
Figure 8 -
Figure 9 -
Figure 10 -
Sampling and Monitoring Well Locations
Sanitary Sewer and Organic Vapor Survey Location Map
Geologic Cross-Section Location Map
Geologic Cross-SectionA-A'
Geologic Cross-Section B-B'
Chlorinated VOC Transformation Pathways
Groundwater Table Contour Map 11/23/97
Groundwater Table Contour Map 1/23/98
Monitoring Well Construction Records
Soil Boring and Geoprobe Logs
Hydraulic Conducting Testing Documentation
Geoprobe Standard Operating Procedures
Sanitary Sewer Lateral Documentation
Soil Sample Analytic Results
Groundwater Sample Analytic Results
Site Screening Evaluation
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
The Country Clean and Coin Laundry (the Property) is located on Lot 1, Block 4, Highland Park
Addition in Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 23 West. The Property is currently zoned R-
12, high density residential. The property is in the process of being rezoned to "office/institutional".
The lot contains approximately 0.31 acres (13,640 square feet) of land. Figure 1 in Appendix B
shows the location of the Property, Figure 2 illustrates the layout of the Property.
The Property is currently owned by Mr. Don McCarville and is comprised of a commerciaI
building known as the Country Clean and Coin Laundry. The front parking lot containing
approximately 8 spaces is located east of the building. A dry cleaning retail outlet and a coin
operated laundry are the current uses of the building. From evidence indicated in the historic aeriaI
photographs, the building was built between 1957 and 1963 and contains approximately 1,600
square feet of floor area on one level. The first use of the property was for automobile service. The
building construction consists of a slab-on-grade with anticipated wood stud framing. There are
reportedly no underground crawlspaces or basements associated with the building.
1.2 Limited Phase II InvestigatiOn ._._.~
The use of the Property for automobile service and dry cleaning operations represent recognized
environmental conditions for the Property. Based on these uses, a series of hand auger soil borings
(B-1 through B-5) were conducted on November 15, 1996 to evaluate the potential for
contaminationin shallow soil at the site at the locations indicated in Figure 3, Appendix B.
These results indicated that VOC contaminants were present at B-3 at a depth of at least 18 inches
below the surface. Field screening results for B-2, B-4 and B-5 may have been indicative of
background readings. Results for B-1 were elevated above other readings and may also have
indicated the presence of contamination. To confirm the results of the VOC field-screeningthe 18"
soil sample for B-3 was submitted for analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Method
MDH 465E, diesel range organic compounds (DRO) and gasoline range organic compounds
(GRO). The results indicated 78,000 ug/kg (78 mg/kg) 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene(PCE) and 33
mg/kg gasoline range organic compounds (GRO). There were no detects for DRO or other VOCs
above method detection limits.
The location of the soil sample which was collected for laboratory analysis was approximately 10
feet from the on-site water supply well. The occurrence of soil contaminants led to the sampling of
March 1998 - Page 1'
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
tlydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scienlisls
the well. The analytic results for the well sampling indicated the presence of PCE at 18 ug/l and
DRO at 0.32 mg/l as well as several other VOCs at levels near the detection limit.
The details of the limited Phase II Investigation were presented in the "Phase One EnvironmentaI
Site Assessment, Country Clean and Coin Laundry, 7720 Great Plains Boulevard, Chanhassen,
Minnesota", March 13, 1997.
1.3 SupplementalPhase II Environmental Site Assessment
Nine geoprobes (PB-1 through PB-9) were completed in April 1997 in the locations identified in
Figure 3. Soils obtained in the geoprobe samplers were collected and analyzed with an on-site
mobile lab or they were preserved for later fixed laboratory analysis. Select soil samples collected
from the soil/groundwater interface, the highest OVM detection interval and/or the terminus of the
probe were analyzed for VOCs on-site by Northeast Technical Services (NTS). Due to time
constraints, select soil samples collected from each probe which were not able to be analyzed by the
mobile lab were submitted to NTS in Virginia, Minnesota for analysis of VOCs using MDH
Method 465E and gasoline range organics (GRO). A series of duplicate confirmatory samples were
also analyzed by the fixed lab.
Select groundwater samples were collected fi'om the geoprobe,~boreholes to provide spatial
coverage of the site. Groundwater samples were analyzed by the fixed lab. Groundwater was
uniformly encountered at a depth of two to five feet bgs for the nine geoprobes conducted at the
site.
Most probes were extended to a depth of 12 feet below ground surface (bgs). In general the near
surface soils were dark gray, organic silty clay overlying a denser tan-gray silty clay. Both units
contained random lenses of silty sands. The silty sand lenses were light gray to tan and were
generally fractions of an inch in thickness. The majority of the soils encountered contained organic
remnants which were indicative of lowland type deposits. Many of the samples had organic odors
associated with them.
Soil and groundwater impacts from PCE are primarily exhibited in the north and west portions of
the Property. This correlated with the historic locations of the PCE aboveground storage tank used
for dry cleaning operations at the Property. The occurrence of PCE beneath the south portion of the
site was sporadic and at relatively low levels in the soil and ground water. The geoprobes
conducted on the south side of the Property did not encounter evidence of a septic system in this
area.
The results of the MPCA site screening evaluation indicated that the observed chlorinated VOC soil
February 1998 - Page
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
tlydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
concentrations were below concentrations which would exceed cancer risk levels considering
human health residential land use. Details of the work conducted are contained in the
"Supplemental Phase II Environmental Assessment", 7720 Great Plains Blvd., Chanhassen,
Minnesota", April, 1997.
1.4 Remedial Investigation Work
The objective of the Remedial Investigation (RI) Work Plan was to further define the areal and
vertical extent of contaminants at the site for soil and ground water. The previous work conducted
at the site identified the presence of soil and groundwater contamination. Mr. McCarville entered
the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) to address the issues associated with property transfer, comments on the
Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment included the following items:
The full extent and magnitude of the contaminationneeds to be identified, both horizontally and
vertically. This would include a better analysis of the site geology. This would likely require the
installation of permanent monitoring wells, the use of push-probe borings, or both.
· Potential vapor issues should also be addressed through a soil vapor survey, as well as an
analysis for vapor migration inside the building. Utilities in the area need to be carefully located
to assess them for potential vapor migration.
· A ground water receptor survey should be conducted.
Information necessary for the design of any proposed response actions should be gathered
during the additional investigation.
A RI Work Plan was developed to address the issues and was submitted to the MPCA in August,
1997. The MPCA approved the Remedial Investigation Work Plan in correspondence dated
November 17, 1997 with a number of comments. MPCA staffrequested that during the installation
of monitoring wells and geoprobes, soil samples be obtained at five foot intervals for soil
classification purposes and for VOC field screening. MPCA additionally requested that soil
samples be analyzed for 465E MDH parameters if the vapor screening indicated field values of
greater than 10 units above background levels.
1.5 Project Approach
The nature of site conditions and the observed contaminants indicated that the primary concem is
the contamination of the groundwater. The groundwater is observed within ten feet bgs throughout
the site. The highest PCE concentration previously observed for groundwater samples was
approximately 6 ppm while the corresponding solubility is 200 ppm. Therefore, PCE groundwater
concentrations observed to date do not suggest that non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) are present.
February 1998 · Page
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
As part of the work plan, the two likely sources of PCE contamination were determined to be the
locations for the aboveground storage tank and/or the sanitary sewer piping at the site. Efforts
undertaken as part of the work plan focused on gathering additional data to define the sources and
mechanisms for the contamination which exists at the site.
2.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FIELD WORK
2.1 Monitoring Well Installation
Four water table (shallow) monitoring wells are were installed at the site in the locations shown on
Figure 3. The monitoring well locations were selected to assist in defining the areal extent of
groundwater contamination and the hydraulic characteristic of the shallow aquifer.
The monitoring wells were constructed on November 17 and 18, 1997. The wells were constructed
such that the screened interval intercepts the water table. The wells ranged in depth from 15 to 17
feet. The well construction details and MDA unique well records are included as Appendix C. A
summary of monitoring well construction details is presented as Table 1.
MW-1 serves as an upgradient and background monitoring well to determine the ambient
conditions. The upgradient well also provides additional geologic and hydraulic reference points for
assessing the groundwater flow regime. MW-2 is a sidegradient well and MW-3 and MW-4 are
downgradient wells. MW-4 is located within a traffic area and is constructed as a flush mounted
monitoring well.
The drilling method for completing the soil borings and monitoring well installations was standard
hollow stem auger (HSA) procedures. During the drilling of boreholes, soil samples were collected
on five foot intervals. Soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System using visual-manualprocedures. Soil boring logs are presented in Appendix D.
A 6-1/4 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) was used to drill to a point ten feet below the apparent
water table. A 2-inch PVC.well was installed inside the HSA. The screen placement was such that
the screen staddles the apparent water table. The screen was sand-packed to one feet above the
screen. A bentonite seal was placed above the filter pack. A protective casing with a locking cap
was placed around the well and the annular space sealed with concrete and finished with a sloping
concrete apron.
Each well was developed until representative formation water, free of the effects of welI
construction, was obtained. All equipment used for development was new or steam cleaned prior to
use. Representative formation water was assumed to have been obtained when pH, temperature and
February 1998 ' Page 4-
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hyd rogeologists · Engineers · Environmenlal Scientisls
conductivity readings were stable.
The drill rig and all down-hole tools were steam cleaned prior to beginning work at the site and
between drilling locations. The augers, and drilling rods were steam cleaned with clean water. The
well casing, well screen, and couplings were new, steam-cleaned and wrapped in aluminum foil or
other clean wrapping for transportation to the site. The pipe and screen were wrapped until used at
the site. During drilling procedures, no grease or oils were used to thread the screen or casings
together. Chemically inert gaskets were used to provide a watertight seal between the pipe and
couplings.
2.2 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
Plug tests were conducted for MW-I, MW-2 and MW-4 to estimate localized hydraulic
conductivity following development of the new wells. The plug tests were rising head tests
performed as follows:
1. The pretest static water level in the well was measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.
A pressure transducer was inserted below the static water level, sufficiently deep to avoid
contact with the plug upon insertion.
A plug (calibrated cylinder of known volume) was inserted into the well below the static
water level to begin the rising head test.
Water levels were calculated from pressure transducer output, and were recorded at
intervals based on the well response time.
Once water levels stabilized, the plug was removed to begin the rising head test.
Measurements from the pressure transducer were recorded in similar time increments.
o
Results were plotted in the field to determine if the data was sufficient and reliable to enable
computation of hydraulic conductivity.
7. Field data was analyzed following the methods of Bouwer and Rice, 1976.
Between wells, all downhole equipment (plug, pressure transducer, and cable) was washed
with a nonphosphate soap solution, rinsed with clean water, and rinsed with deionized
water·
February 1998
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Itydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
· Page 5-
A bail down test was conducted for MW-3 to estimate localized hydraulic conductivity because of
the relatively slow recharge exhibited. The recovery test performed was as follows:
1. The pretest static water level in the well was measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.
2. A dedicated polyethylene bailer was used to evacuate the well casing.
3. Water levels were monitored with a solinst water level monitor.
4. Results were plotted in the field to determine if the data is sufficient and reliable to enable
computation of hydraulic conductivity. Insufficient or unreliable data resulted in the tests
being rerun.
The results of the hydraulic conductivity testing are summarized in Table 2 and the data analysis is
presented in Appendix E.
2.3 Ground Water Elevation Monitoring
The top of casing for monitoring wells were surveyed to the nearest 0.01 feet to determine water
level elevations. MW-1 was established as an on-site benchmark and assigned an elevation of
100.00. Groundwater levels for the monitoring wells were measured using an electronic tape on
November 26, 1997, December 3, 1997 and January 23, 1998.
2.4 Water Quality Sampling
Following completion of well installation, development and hydraulic testing, a set of water quality
samples was collected on December 3, 1997 for laboratory analysis. The monitoring wells were
stabilized prior to sample collection using standardized techniques. Samples were analyzed for field
parameters of pH, conductivity and temperature. Samples were analyzed in the laboratory for VOC
parameters in conformance with MDH 465E methods.
2.5 Soil Borings and Geoprobe Operations
A series of soil borings and geoprobes were conducted on November 17 and 18, 1997 to determine
the vertical extent of the soil and groundwater impacts at the site. A Water sample was collected at
the 16 foot interval for PB-12. The soil boring and geoprobe logs are contained in Appendix E.
The standard operating procedures for. Geoprobe mobile rig are contained in Appendix F.
Geoprobes were conducted at three locations in the north and west areas of the site to depths of up
to 41 feet in the locations indicated on Figure 3. Unsuccessful attempts to collect discrete
February 1998 - Page 6-
B.A. L1ESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scienllsts
groundwater samples were made at the 32 foot and 41 foot intervals for PB-10 and 32 foot intervaI
for PB-11. A water sample was collected for PB-12.
Field screening, logging and sample collection were conducted by Liesch personnel. Select soil
samples were retained and analyzed by a fixed laboratory for VOC parameters based on the results
of field screening. As required by the work plan, a number of soil samples were evaluated when
positive soil headspace readings were observed. Soil samples were collected from the MW-1
borehole (13-15'), PB-10 (29-31 ') and PB-12 (25-27') to develop analytic data despite the lack of
positive soil headspace readings. The 8-10 feet soil sample for MW-4, which had a headspace
reading of 205 ppm, was unable to be analyzed because the container was broken during shipment
to the laboratory.
2.6 Sewer Lateral Investigation
The sanitary sewer lateral represents a potential source for groundwater contamination considering
the likely disposal of dry cleaning wastewater through the sewers. In many cases, sewer laterals
which are cracked can allow NAPL PCE to escape from the pipe. Because PCE is denser than
water, the NAPL will collect in the low spots in pipe runs. PCE which is covered by water will tend
to be hydraulically forced through cracks in p!pes.
Liesch worked with the owner in an attempt to identify the location of the sewer piping and laterals.
From additional interviews conducted with the City of Chanhassen there is apparently no direct as-
built information on the sewer connection to the Property although it is likely that the lateral was
installed at the time the sewer utilities were constructed. The City was able to supply as-built
records for the 1966 sanitary sewer construction for Chanview and Great Plains Blvd. AdditionaI
records were available from the 1987 extension of the sewer along the south property boundary.
The available City of Chanhassen sewer construction records are contained in Appendix G. A map
which integrates the City records and the site conditions is presented as Figure 4. The likely
location of the sewer lateral from the site has been presumed from the position of the "Wye
Station" within the Chanview right-of-way and the position of the floor drain located on the north
side of the building. It is possible that the lateral piping runs parallel or perpendicular to the
building lines.
In response to MPCA concerns regarding vapor migration, Liesch conducted PID survey
measurements of vapor concentrations at the cleanouts and other sewer access points. PCE sPecific
Draeger tubes were also utilized to document vapor concentrations in addition to PID readings. The
sample locations are indicated on Figure 4.
February 1998 - Page 7-
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologlsts · Engineem · Environmental Scientists
3.0 EVALUATION OF FIELD INVESTIGATION RESULTS
3.1 Geology
The available information from the geoprobes and soil borings indicate that the near surface
stratigraphy is quite variable for the site. The historic USGS quadrangle maps which were
presented with the ESA indicate that the west area of the site was a lowland area which was filled
as part of the site development. This is confirmed by conversations with the owner Mr. Don
McCarville. The logs for several geoprobe borings also indicate the occurrence of fill soils located
above organic deposits. The fill soils consist primarily of clays.
The deep geoprobes and several of the soil borings which were conducted as part of the RI indicate
the occurrence of a gray sandy (lean) clay starting at a depth of 9 to 15 feet 'and continuing to a
depth of at least 41 feet. The gray clay unit did not contain free moisture at depth. Based on the
anticipated geologic sequence for the area, the clay unit would be classified as Grantsburg glacial
till. A cross-section location map is presented as Figure 5. Geologic cross sections are presented as
Figure 6 and 7.
3.2 Hydrogeology ha,
The groundwater elevations which were measured on three o~L'~ions indicate an approximate
depth to water bgs ranging between four and seven feet. The groundwater elevations presented in
Table 3 also include calculqtions of the difference in water level elevations between measuring
dates. This data indicates that groundwater levels fluctuated in the same direction (i.e., upward or
downward) and within the same relative magnitude. This tends to validate the groundWater level
data collected.
The flow interpretations for November 26, 1997 and January 23, 1998 presented as Figures 8 and
9, respectively, identify a consistent groundwater flow direction to the northeast. The flow direction
observed at the site may be indicative of the local lateral groundwater flow pattern which may be
northeasterly to Lotus Lake located approximately 2,000 feet away.
The calculated groundwater flow gradient averages 0.016 ft/ft across the site. The average hydraulic
conductivity value determined from monitoring well testing is approximately 3 x 10.5 ft/sec (the
wells with the highest hydraulic conductivity). The estimated average effective porosity for the near
surface geology is 0.3. From this information, the groundwater flow velocity is calculated to be
approximately 50 feet per year.
February1998
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists- Engineers · Environmental Scientists
· Page 8-
3.3 Soil Contamination
The soil sample analytic results from the RI are contained in Appendix H. Table 4 presents a
summary of the soil analytic data from the RI and previous investigations at the site. The soil
sample for the 13-15 foot interval for MW-4 was the only soil sample from the RI field work which
indicated VOC concentrations above the detection limit. PCE was observed at a concentration of
2600 ug/l while TCE and cis-l,2-DCE were observed at concentrations of 120 and 81 ug/1,
respectively. The occurrence of contaminants within the soils at MW-4 may be the result of the
migration of contaminated groundwater and may not represent direct contamination of the soil from
a PCE source. The lack of contaminants at MW-3 represents an anomaly because previous soil
sampling has indicated the occurrence of PCE in this area. Various low conductivity soil layers
may have prevented vertical the migration of contaminants to specific discrete intervals.
The near surface soil sampling which was conducted for the RI confirmed the results of previous
work at the site. Soil samples which were analyzed for the deeper clay till did not indicate any VOC
parameters above detection limits. These results confirm that the extent of contamination is limited
to the near surface soils. Furthermore, the lack of VOC detections within the clay till indicate that
the till may be an effective barrier to the deeper migration of contaminants.
3.4 Water Quality
The analytic results from monitoring well and geoprobe water sampling during the RI are
contained in Appendix I. A. summary of water quality data for the RI and previous investigations
is presented on Table 5. The water quality results indicate the occurrence of contamination for
MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 and PB-12 which are located on the north and east sides of the property.
The results at the upgradient well MW-1 did not indicate the occurrence of groundwater
contamination above detection limits. The highest level of contaminants were observed at MW-3
which is located near the former aboveground PCE storage tank and in proximity to the potential
location of the sewer lateral.
The relative concentrations of various chlorinated species indicate that oxidation and/or
biodegradation of PCE is occurring. A general dehalogenation process to the daughter species as
presented in Figure 8 is exhibited for nearly all of the sampling locations. This is particularly the
case for water samples collected at PB-12 where the PCE concentration is 2.2 ug/1 and third
generation species concentration for cis-l,2-dichloroethylene is 9800 ug/1. These results suggest
that the VOC groundwater plume is old and is migrating slowly. The water sample for PB-12
indicated the highest level of contaminants observed at the site with a total VOC concentration of
approximately 14,400 ug/l.
February 1998 · Page
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
3.5 Potential Contaminant Source Areas
The field results of the RI are unable to directly confirm the precise source for groundwater
contaminants at the site and may point to multiple sources and/or mechanisms for contamination.
The likely sources of contamination include the two previous locations of the former aboveground
PCE storage tank on the west and north sides of the building and the below ground sanitary sewer
piping.
The information from the sanitary sewer as-built records indicated that the depth to invert for the
manhole at the intersection of Great Plains Blvd and Chanview is approximately 16 feet. The ten-
inch sewer pipe located in Chanview likely has a one percent slope. This indicated by the elevation
at the lateral "wye station" is approximately 15.5 feet bgs. From the site building, the sewer lateral
Would be located at a depth between 6 and 15.5 feet bgs. If the sewer lateral has leaked, the depth of
the pipe would be consistent with the overall pattern of contamination observed in the northeast
area of the site and particularly the analytic results for the water sample collected at PB- 12.
3.6 Organic Vapor Survey
A PID and PCE Draeger tubes were used to conduct a vapor survey for the building and the sewer
piping within the building. The PCE Draeger tubes had a sensitivity of 0.2 ppm as a detection limit.
Measurements were taken at the floor drain in the north portion of the building and within the main
sanitary drain line to the clean-out on the south side of the building. These results indicated no
positive readings for the PID and 0.0 ppm for the PCE Draeger tube analysis. The general survey
readings which were taken in the breathing zone for the center of the building indicated no positive
readings for the PID and 0.0 ppm for the PCE Draeger tube analysis.
The organic survey results indicate that detectable concentrations within the sewer piping and the
building interior are not occurring at this time. Considering the OSHA time weighted exposure
limit for workers is 25 ppm for PCE, the survey results do not indicate specific concern for
significant occupant exposure to PCE.
An attempt was made to access the manhole at the intersection of Chanview and Great Plains
Boulevard for the purpose of measuring organic vapors. The cover of the manhole was sealed
tightly to the frame and access was not readily available. The value of the organic vapor survey
readings at the manhole were considered minimal due to the lack of detections for the sewer piping
within the site building.
February 1998 B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. -Page
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
4.0 GROUNDWATER RECEPTOR EVALUATION PLAN
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) was contacted to determine the status of the seven
wells which were identified within one-half mile of the site. The only well sealing records which
were able to be identified were those for the St. Huberts Church. The six-inch well (unique
#223336) with a depth of 420 feet was sealed in July of 1996.
The well sealing record also indicated that three other wells which were not previously identified
were sealed in July of 1996. The other wells were a 115 feet deep 2-inch well, a 142 feet deep 3-
inch well and a 114 feet deep 2-inch well. It should be noted that sealing records for wells are not
always able to be matched by the MDH with the original unique well number. This implies that
other wells identified by the water well survey could have been sealed with the records being
unavailable.
Liesch researched the City of Chanhassen ordinances regarding requirements for abandoning water
wells when city water is provided. At the time of utility installation for the site, no such ordinance
was in effect.
The groundwater contamination which has been found to exist in the deep on-site supply well is
potentially caused by migration of contaminated water through or along the well casing. This
conclusion is based on the occurrence of the gray clay till confining unit which has been observed
throughout the site. Alternatively the contamination which exists could be the result of an
unknown off-site source or in, troduction of low levels of PCE directly into the well.
5.0 RESPONSE ACTION PLAN
5.1 Site Characterization and Proposed Property Use
The characterization of the site in relation to the impacted media, potential human health exposure
pathways and potential receptors is necessary to assess the need for response actions. The types of
current and foreseeable property use and activities for the site are important in defining the
receptors and the potential for exposure. The site is located in an area which is currently zoned
"office/institutional"by the City of Chanhassen. The site is currently being used commercially as a
coin laundry and a dry cleaning retail outlet. The future use of the site will be an office. The VIC
guidance documents which discuss the incorporation of planned property uses into site response
action decisions will be utilized at this site.
· Page ll-
February 1998 B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
5.2 Soil Response Action Criteria
The soil contamination at the site is generally located near the ground surface (i.e. within four feet)
and therefore the direct human exposure from a terrestrial and ecological perspective will be
evaluated. Specificallythese routes of exposure are listed as follows:
· Ingestion ofcontaminatedsoil,
· Dermal contact with contaminated soil,
· Inhalation of hazardous vapors emanating from contaminated soil,
· Inhalation of particulates (airborne soil containing adsorbed contaminants from the site, also
known as fugitive dust),
Risk to human health from exposure routes listed above are defined by numerical values referred to
as soil risk values (SRVs). Should contaminants in soils exceed the SRVs, there is a potential risk
to humans through the above discussed pathways. A copy of the model run for this Property is
included in Appendix J. Based on residential (unrestricted land use) SRVs calculated by MPCA
Site Response Section, Site Screening Evaluation Criteria (June 1996 version) for the chlorinated
VOCs detected at the site, the levels of impacts in the soils at the Property are not a direct threat to
human health for the exposure pathways.
Since multiple contaminants were identified in soil at the site, cumulative risk was also evaluated
using the MPCA model. Based on values calculated by the model, the levels of impacts to soils at
the Property are not a threat to human health since the individual chemical specific Hazard
Quotients (HQs) did not exceed 0.2 and the cumulative HQ's did not exceed 1 for each target
endpoint. Cumulative cancer risk totaled below the 1.5 x 10.5 Risk Level which is not to be
exceeded.
It has been determined that levels of chlorinated VOCs in the soils do not pose a threat to human
health through the inhalation, ingestion or skin contact exposure pathways. However, as indicated
by the concentrations of chlorinated VOCs in the groundwater, impacted soils may be a continuing
source of impacts to the groundwater. Therefore, cleanup of soils to a level to mitigate this
potential continual source of impacts to the groundwater must be evaluated.
A conservative tier 1 groundwater riSk assessment where VOCs are the contaminant of concern
enables development of response action criteria which are protective of groundwater resources. The
soil screen values (SSV) are much lower than the SRVs and are the controlling factor in
February 1998 - Page 12-
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists - Engineers - Environmental Scientists
establishing response action criteria. SSVs are listed in Table 6 with the corresponding highest
concentrations observed. For this site, soils which exceeded the criteria are targeted for
remediation. It is important to emphasize that a site-specific risk assessment could be conducted to
potentially lower the specific response action levels for the subject property.
5.3 Groundwater
The groundwater exhibits contaminants which exceed the drinking water standards for the site.
Exceedances are observed at MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 monitoring wells. There does not appear
to be a connection between the surficial groundwater and the deeper potable groundwater due to
the occurrence of the gray lean clay till which occurs beneath the site. The RI has documented the
occurrence of the clay till confining unit beneath the site. The till unit likely provides a barrier to
the migration of contamination to the lower drinking water aquifer at the site. At this point, the
effectiveness of the clay till unit in preventing off-site contamination of the deeper horizon
groundwater cannot be documented due to the lack of data beyond site boundaries.
The potential receptors for contaminated groundwater from the site are water supply wells and
surface water bodies. The regional surface water body, which is approximately 2000 feet
downgradient of the site, is Lotus Lake. Because the groundwater at the site is shallow, there may
be other localized discharge points such as ponds or small streams which aft~resent between the
site and Lotus Lake. The ecological receptor impacts for surface waters are, in most cases, less
significant than drinking water impacts for chlorinated volatile organics. Potential impacts to
groundwater users therefore becomes the primary concern.
The VIC guidance (Guidance Document #14 - Approach to Groundwater Cleanup) relating to
establishing response action criteria for contaminated sites identifies that the standards must be
protective of public health and the environment in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 115B.,
sub.3(c). The migration of contaminated groundwater offsite and the unknown conditions of the till
unit offsite dictate that the near surface aquifer be evaluated in relation to the drinking water
standards. In consideration of the site conditions and the nature of contaminants, the response
action criteria for the property boundary are the relevant drinking water standards. The response
action standards and the corresponding highest observed groundwater concentrations for the
contaminants of concern are listed in Table 6. For the site, areas which exceed the groundwater
response action criteria are targeted for remediation.
5.4 Review of Remedial Technologies
Response action technologies which may be applied to the site have been reviewed based on the
listed objectives:
February 1998 B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. · Page 13-
HydrogeoIogists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
· Match the contaminant types and specific characterization of the site to the response action
technology.
· Focus on evaluating treatment technologies which have been shown to remove and treat the
contaminants of concern.
· Cost-effectivenessof implementing the response actions.
· Protection of the potential receptors of human health and environmental impacts.
The chlorinated volatile organics which represent the contaminants of concern are relatively similar
in dissolved phase properties and generally can be treated as a group in terms of evaluation of
remediation technologies. The parameters which are critical to the response action selection are
Henry's constant, organic carbon partion coefficient, (koc), molecular weight and octanol water
partition coefficient (kow). For the contaminants of concern, the koc and kow are all relatively Iow
which implies that the species have a low tendency to absorb onto organic and clay type soils
thereby increasing their mobility in subsurface environments. The values for Henry's constants are
all medium to high which implies that the species are capable of being stripped from aqueous
media. Table 7 presents a summary of the relevant physical properties for the contaminants of
concern at the site.
The basis for potentially using natural attenuation is to allow natural processes at the site to
reduce contaminant concentrations in the groundwater and soil. A gradual contaminant
concentration decrease occurs in the groundwater from biodegradation, chemical transformation,
sorpti°n, volatilization, and advective transport. Long-term groundwater monitoring is often
conducted to confirm that remedial objectives are met and that off-site contaminant migration
exceeding relevant standards does not occur. Considering the nature of the site and the
contamination, natural attenuation will not meet the response action criteria.
The basic question for selecting potential response action technologies is determining if the
contaminants must be contained or removed from the contaminated media. For the site conditions,
removal represents the most effective long-term solution. The removal technologies which are
potentially compatible with response action objectives are in-situ groundwater remediation
technologies, groundwater pump and treat, and vacuum extraction technologies.
5.4.1 In-Situ GroundwaterRemediation
In-situ techniques which could be applied to this site are air-sparging or biological treatment
through organic release compounds (ORC). These efforts may not be effective due to the
heterogeneous nature of the near surface deposits and the predominantly fine-grained soil deposits.
February 1998 - Page 14'
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
The proximity of the existing building raises the possibility of vapor impacts to occupants in the
event of uncontrolled migration of off-gases. The effectiveness of bioremediation of chlorinated
volatile organics has also been limited.
5.4.2 GroundwaterPump and Treatment
A groundwater extraction and treatment system is feasible however the anticipated flow rates
would be low from a well system due to limited vertical extent of the near surface groundwater
and the presence of fine-grained soils. Installation of a dewatering trench with groundwater
removal from a sump is a capture technology that may be effective at this site owing to the lower
permeability and shallow water table. Conceptually the design would include installation of a
trench below the water table with draintile installed along the northern and eastern sides of the
site. Groundwater would be pumped from a single sump which would be connected to the
draintile. Water would be treated and/or discharged as appropriate.
5.4.3 Vacuum Extraction Technologies
Vacuum extraction (VE) technologies are typically use~t for vadose zone remediation. If the
conditions are suitable, VE can be used to remove contaminated groundwater from the formation
and create an artificial vadose zone for the aeration of contaminants which are contained in the
soil.
VE involves installing one or more wells connected to below-grade pipes leading to a blower.
Blower operation creates a vacuum at the wells, establishing a driving force for stripping VOCs
from the soil and/or groundwater. In addition, the induced vacuum results in increased aeration
of the soils, potentially stimulating contaminant oxidation. Contaminated blower off-gas may
need to be treated prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Pilot tests will be necessary to determine
the zone of influence of each well, enabling the design of a system to remediate the site.
A conceptual design would involve the installation of two to five extraction wells aIong the north
side of the site. The wells would be screened below the water table at a typical interval of 10 to
15 feet bgs. The wells would be piped underground to a manifold which could be connected to a
blower. At the extraction well head, high vacuum (approximately 18 to 26 inches of mercury) is
applied to the extraction piping and contaminated vapor from the surrounding soil is drawn at
high velocity into the pipe. Groundwater will be entrained with the soil vapor as the vacuum
creates a cone of groundwater depression. Vapor and entrained groundwater would be conveyed
to a knockout pot immediately upstream of the blower. Upon entering the knockout pot, the
velocity of the stream abruptly decreases, separating the entrained groundwater from the vapor.
The liquid and vapor streams are then treated individually to remove contaminants. High VE is
February 1998 · Page 15.
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Sclentisls
particularly effective in situations where low permeability in the impacted soil and the aquifer
restricts the movement or transport of VOCs. In addition to direct removal of VOCs and by
volatilization, high VE aerates the soils, thereby stimulating aerobic bioremediation.
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions are generated based on the results of the RI field work in conjunction
with previous investigations.
o
The primary contaminants of concem are PCE and corresponding breakdown products.
Contaminants are present in the near surface soil and groundwater in the east, west and
north portions of the site.
The geology consists of a mixture of heterogeneous deposits which are primarily clay for
the near surface stratigraphy to (15 feet bgs). A gray lean clay till is located continuously
beneath the near surface deposits.
Groundwater is encountered approximately five feet below ground surface and flows
toward the northeast.
A specific source of contamination has not beeri identified. Based' on the pattern of
contamination in the soil and groundwater, it is likely that contaminants result form the
two historic locations of the above ground PCE storage tank and the below grade sewer
piping.
The age of the likely release(s), the shallow depth to groundwater and the more prevalent
distribution of contaminants in the groundwater indicates that remedial efforts should be
focused on groundwater.
The evidence of significant quantities of NAPL in the subsurface was not encountered
during the RI or previous investigations. This does not preclude the existence of NAPL
but it does indicate that specific efforts targeting potential NAPL removal are not
warranted.
The level of contaminants in the groundwater in comparison to response action standards
dictate the need for active remediation of contamination which exists at the site. The
evaluation of feasible response actions indicates that either groundwater capture and
treatment/discharge through a trench and sump system or high VE technologies represent
the best alternatives for remediating the site. The following recommendations are made
as a course of action for future site activities.
The evaluation at feasible response actions indicates that groundwater removaI and
treatment/discharge or high VE represents the best alternative for remediating the site. The
following recommendations are made as a course of action for future site activities.
February 1998 · Page 16-
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
1. The most cost-effective remediation technologies appear to be either groundwater removal
through trench and sump collection or high VE of contaminated groundwater and residual
soil contamination.
2. Pilot testing is recommended for implementing the remedial action. The results will be
documented in a Response Action Design.
\\granite\prj $\sa\62063h'pt0198.doc
February 1998 · Page 17.
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists
'IVA~d.TI.LNI
.LFIO~I9
['~;8-['I~6 I 0'0 .i5 DAd
I~Tg-P't~6 010'0 ,,~ DA4
~;' 18-~;'~;6 010'0 ,,g DAd
~'t8-£'£6
'IVAU ,'JJ..NI
NDVd GNVS
010'0 ,,~; DAd
~718 ($1HONI)
£078 ~ITLLStH¥IG
01 C[8-['£6 0'gI-0'g DAd 8'1~ ~;'0- 0'gl 01'86
01 ~'T8-t~'£6 0'gl-0'g OAcI t~'L 1~'~ fig! 18'001
0I ~;'I 8-~;'16 0'LI-0'L DAcI 9'6 9'~; 0'LI 58'00I
£'86
t,'86
~;'86
£'L6
(aAO~
~ADVA'dflS
SlX'Sl]ulop~am/£90~;9/VS:ta*m
smm2*la llOM SnlcI-unbv :oouoaojo~I
L6/6III I ~'-MBI I'g9809
L616 I/I I £'Mltt £59809
L6/g Ill [ g-MBI gg9809
L6/8 I/I I I'MIAI 159809
CIEITIV£SNI 'ON ~t~d[tlahqN
· l. va T'I~SM 'dFIOINFI
Ham
S'IIV£2IO NOIIDflIt&BNOD q"I~M Dlql~OIINOBI
AI:IIINIIVq hlIOD ONV NV~I"ID J~lt&NFIOD
I ~qttV£
TABLE 2
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTGIVITY TESTING RESULTS
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
WELL CONSTRUCTION
Casing radius (in)
Borehole radius (in)
Screen length (fi)
HYDROGEOLOGY
Depth (ft below TOC):
(!) water table
(2) top of screen
(3) confining layer
Porosity
PLUG TEST PLOT DATA
T (sec)
Y ~ t=0 fit)
Y ~ t=T (ft)
Gravel pack effects (Y/N)
INITIALCALCULATIONS
L (ft)
I-I (~)
D (fl)
Rs (fl)
Rw fit)
BOUWER & RICE COEFFICIENTS
A
B
C
FINALCALCULATIONS
In(Re/Rw)
K fit/sec)
K (cm/sec)
SA/62063/HHC.xls
MW-I MW-2 MW-3 MW-4
I 1 I 1
4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25
10 10 10 10
6.36 8,39 8.80 6.09
7.7 9.6 7.4 4,8
30 30 30 30
25% 25% 25% 25%
200 8{)0 4000
0.465 0.446 8.00
0.099 0.264 5.58
Y Y ,~.,,~ -. N
3OO
0.575
0.057
Y
10 10 8.6 8.71
11.34 11.21 8.6 8.71
23.64 21.61 21.2 23.91
0.1912 0.1912 0.0833 0.1912
0.3542 0.3542 0.0833 0.3542
2.4 2.4 4.5 2.3
0.34 0.34 0.71 0.33
!.9 1.9 4.3 1.8
2.777 2.785 3.680 2.539
3.9E-05 3.3E-06 1.3 E-07 4.1 E-05
1.2E-03 1.0E-04 4.1 E-06 1.3E-03
Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc.
TABLE 3
GROUND WATER ELEVATIONS
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
11/26/97 12/3/97
Monitoring TOC Groundwater Groundwater
Well Elevation Elevation Elevation
MW-1 100.00 93.43 93.64
MW-2 100.85 92.46 92.66
MW-3 100.81 91.90 92.01
MW-4 98.10 91.92 92.01
11/26/97- 1/23/98 12/3/97 to
12/3/97 Water Ground 1/23/98 Water
Level Water Level
Difference Elevation Difference
+0.21 92.55 - 1.09
+0.20 91.59 -1.07
+0.11 91.19 -0.82
+0.09 91.16 -0.85
maw:SA/62063/elevations
MW-1
13-15'
MW-3
8-10'
13-15'
MW-4
13-15'
PB-10
29-31'
PB-12
25-27'
Headspace
Reading
ppm
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTIC RESULTS
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
0.0
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
1,1,2,2- 1,1,2-Trichlor- Cis-l,2-
Tetrachloro- ethylene Dichloro-
ethylene ethylene
ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg
<25
40.0
150
Trans- 1,2-
Dichloro-
ethylene
ug/kg
<25
<25
95
2600
PB-1
0-2' 7600 50
4-6' 890 270
10-12' 27,000 2,300
PB-2
I ,ooo 1 ,6oo
PB-3
0-2' 5,700 170
4-6~ (ML)~ <150 <150
6-8' 170 <50
PB-4
7-8' I 1,2oo
PB-5
2-4' 11,500 1<50
I<80 I <50
PB-6
6-8' I 6-8, 1<80
<20 [<20 {<20
<25 <20 <20
<25 <20 <20
120 181 [<2O
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
GRO
mg/kg
IND
ND
<70 <70 <4.0
<70 <70 <4.0
380 <70 5.7
I® I® I
<70 <70 <4.0
<150 <150 ND2
<70 <70 <4.0
117o 1<7o 1<4.o
{<70 1<70 1<4.0
Page I OF 2
TABLE4
SUMMARY OF SDILANALYTIC RESULTS
COUNTRY CLEANAND COIN LAUNDRY
PB-7
PB-8
4-6' (lvlL)
8-10'
PB-9
8-10'
10-12'
~ML - mobile lab results
2ND - not determined
w:\sa\62063\tb14.do¢
Headspace 1,1,2,2- 1,1,2-Trichlor- Cis- 1,2- Trans- 1,2- GRO
Reading Tetrachloro- ethylene Dichloro- Dichloro-
ethylene ethylene ethylene
ppm ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg mg/kg
8-10' <80 <50 <70 <70 <4.0
<150 <150 <150 <150 ND
<80 <50 <70 <70 <4.0
19,000 820 130 <70 T7
57,000 5,800 170 <70 <4.0
Page 2 OF 2
Parameter (mg/l)
Cis- 1,2-dichlorocthylene
Trans- 1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloroethylcne
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
1,1-dichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Toluene
Parameter
Cis- 1,2-dichloroethylene
Trans- 1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloroethylene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene
w:\sa\62063\tb15.doc
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY DATA
COUNTRY CLEAN & COIN LAUNDRY
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Health Risk MW- 1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 PB- 12
Limit
70 <0.2 250 170 8.8 9800
100 <0.3 2.0 <0.3 <0.3 62
30 <0.3 7.6 2600 <0.3 3900
7 <0.3 1.9 240 <0.3 2.2
-- <0.5 5.3 <0.5 1.2 (JR) <0.5
6 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 15
0.2 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 620
1000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 2.8
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Health Risk PB- 1 PB-3 PB-5 PB-6 PB-7
Limit
70 730 250 <1.0 21 4.3
100 11 6.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
30 1700 3.7 <1.0 5.0 <1.0
7 5900 5.5 1.8 2.8 <I.0
PAGE 1
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE ACTION CRITERIA
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
PARAMETER
Cis-l,2-
dichloroethylene
Trans- 1,2-
dichloroethylene
1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethylene
l,l,2-
trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
SOIL-HIGHEST SOIL RESPONSE
CONCENTRATION ACTION
OBSERVED (mg/kg) STANDARD
(1) (mg/kg) (2)
170 0.5
<70 0.8 62
57 0.2 5,900
5.8 0.3 3,900
<70 0.001 620
WATER HIGHEST
CONCENTRATION
OBSERVED
(ug/l) (3)
9,800
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Highest observed soil concentration was for PB-9, at 10-12 feet.
Soil screening values.
Highest observed groundwater concentration was for PB-12, MW-3 and PB-1.
Based on drinking water standards.
w:\sa\62063\tb16.doc
GROUNDWATER
RESPONSE ACTION
STANDARD
(ug/l) (4)
70
100
7
30
0.2
Page 1 of 1
950'0
96'£
00I I
16'0
::)oSZ:~))
099~
~'Z9
~I~II}tO'IHD
'IXNIA
9'P9
6600'0
9~9
OoSZ~
00Il
9~'!
DoO'~
OZ
g'IgI
~N~TXH~30~OTHD~
-Z'l'I
~tN~I~iXH£~I O~IOqHDV'&L~LL -Z'Z'I'l
65
g500'O
Z'Og
;::)o0~'~
0O9
~6'96
.qN~tq_XI-LL~IO~tO'IHDICI
-Z' I-SNV'&L
6~,
HT00'0
Z0'g
3o0~
009
~6'96
~tN~I"I XI-LL~tOx(IO'-IHD ICI
"Z' I-SID
oOp'Llql\£90Z9\eSVM
..LIq~IDI~'rSOD
NOI.LI.I.~IVd
NOS~IVD
DINVD}tO
,.LNVISNOD
$,X~IN~tH
£NalDIA~{OD
NOLL}IYd ~Et.I.¥AX
~IYNO£DO
(~m)
A. LI~II~tfYIOS
A~LIAV'ttD
DI:IID~MS
(~H~m)
~IflSS~dd
,LHDI~IAX
XH(INIfIV"I NIIOD (IlqV N-V~I~ID XH£MflOD
N}I~IDMOD ~IO S.LIqVMIIAIV.I.MOD HOwl S~IIJ, H~IdO~Id ~IVDISAHd
596995
,- ~ :..;' .,," ".-:;i · ./:-" SCALE: 1"=2,000'
. , -.. ~ ~ / . ~, · , ; ,. ... .. ~ ~ ~ '---,. , /
. '. .--;' ~' j .~ ' [ ~-.._~; ...'~. ~-:~--c' -,. -.~r "- -- ~-' ~ ~- ',
· ' .... '".. ' ...... :--..~ ,.3 ' "' .~ =1- - ..- -'~ -,
.-" ' : ' ' , ~ ~ ~" ~ -'-- -~ -- ..... ~ .'- e76 - c-~ -" :-"
..:
-.'.&"':' . .... .~:..'. ,~.' .',:--, ". J .. '._ I
.-- /' z ) ' - ~' "
- ' ' . t~ .... -'~'5: · C" 'a
USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOI~Oi~IAPHiCAL O~6RANGL~''~/~
9.15
B. A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
HYDROLOGISIS. SEOLOGIST$, I!NVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
13400 15th Ave No. Minneapolis. MN. 55441 (612) 559-1423
Minneapolis. MN Madison, WI
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
MAR 98
FIG.
1
.,~-.12 ZONING
/
/
/
£XISTING
/
'L~:B?) Z~_~N N~
OI ZONiNC
,4
I
B. A, LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
HYOROLOGISTS. 6EOLOGISTS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
13400 15th Ave No, MlMeapolis, M~ 55441 (612) 558-1423
Minneapolis. MN Madison, W1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SiTE PI..A~ I~EP~ED BY ~ VF. RJ~ATION C~ A~ACF..~T
SI,~V~'Y$ I~O'Vl~ BY C~f'Y. F1Et. D
COMp~rTE~ V3197 W~TH ~,VY ,~"40W COVE~
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY,
PROPERTY PLAN
SCOTT &
ASSOCIATES, lINC
SITE
PLAN
MAR 98
FIG.
2
PB-6
BOILER ---7
PB-4A SHED /
-- ~ B-4 CONCRETE
~ --- .. (~ FLOOR , (~B-1
A
(~B-5 \ PB-3 ~B-3
\
DRYER
ACCESS
I I
PB-2
A
PB-9
~ ./WATER
'~ o~ L"- METER CLOSET
PB-7 ,',"z
PIPE~ ,,,
CLEANOUT" ~ ~ ~
~ o
PB-5 CAPPED FLOOR--'~ B-2
DRAIN PB- 1 M~,/-3
o
PB-8 -- FLOOR
DRAIN
PB-IO
FLOOR
DRAIN
ASPHALT
PARKING
M~/-4
LEGEND
~.EOPROBE (4/21/97 ond 11/18/97)
-~AND AUGER BORING (11/15/96)
~ONITORING WELL (l l/lB/9? and 11/19/97)
GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
10 5 0 10
SCALE, 1 INCH=lO FEET
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
MONITORING FELL AND
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
MAR 98
FIGURE
3
PB-B
-
PB-6 ~ '
_._ ~B-4 cONcR~rE / A
'~"" '" ~' - '"'\
B-5 \ - ~ i I Z~
DRYER ~ PB-9
pB~_5 CAPPED FLOOR.~°~ X 5-2
DRAIN
~B-1 H~-3 ~
FLOOR ~
DRAIN ~
FLOOR
DRAIN
I
ASPHALT
PARKING
LEGEND
z~ GEOPROBE (,l-/21/97 and 11/18/97)
(~ HAND AUGER BORING (11/15/96)
· ~' MONITORING WELL (11/18/97 ond 11/19/97)
M~/-4
GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
10 5 0 10
SCALE~ 1 INCH=lO FEET
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
MONITORING WELL AND
SAMPLING T,OCATTOW,q
MAR 98
FIGURE
BLACK
SANDY
CLAY'
BLACK SILT
w/ CLAY
CRAY
SANDY
CLAY
GRAY LEAN CLAY
GRAY LEAN
CLAY
SCALE
10'
VEETICAL EX.
5' = 2X
'-'~,EO B (TYP)
NOTES:
1) NO DATA FOR PB-10 TO 15.5 FT.
2} NO DATA FOR PB-12 TO 14.5 FT.
TOP%OI~
~ ~ 1__?_97_P SURFACE
T;d~m SIL3Y CLAY
w/ SAND ond
SAND SEa, MS
TAN SlL'r'r
CLAY w/ BROWN
SAND SANDY
CLAY
DARK GRAY
SI[Cf CLAY BLACK
w/ SAND DARK GRAY SANDY
SILTY CLAY CLAY
w/ SAND
B
ROWN
SANDY
PEAT
BROWN SILTY SAND
GRAY LEAN CLAY
w/ SOME GRAVEL BROWN SANDY CLAY
GRAY LEAN CLAY
w/ SOME GRAVEL
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
A - A'
~ g8
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
!
I
I
-~00- B
-95 -.
-90-
-85-
-80 -
--75-
-70 -
-65 -
-60-
..~.~ CLAY
DK BROWN ~'--"-
GRAY SILTY CLAY
SCALE
10'
VERTICAL EX.
5' = 2X
NOTES:
1) NO DATA FOR PB-IO TO 15.5 FT.
GRAY/TAN SILTY GRAY/TAN SILTY
CLAY w/ SAND CLAY w/ SAND
SEAMS
(TYP~
LEAN CLAY
v
PROdECTED
GROUND SURFACE
'--BROWN SANDY CLAY
BLACK SANDY SILT
BROWN SILTY SAND
GRAY SANDY CLAY
GRAY SANDY CLAY
w/ SAND SEAMS
GRAY LEAN
CLAY w/ SOME
GRAVEL (TILL)
LIE.~ .......
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
R -- B'
MAI{ 98
FIGUEE
7
t..m,c~t R. Sm~, ~ncl J~mcs IDtilun
C~R80N
TETRAC.HLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
1.2 DCE ~
PCE ~ TCE
T VINYL
. CHLORIDE
I.I.I.TCA ~r t'I.2.DCE ~
· 1.1-DCE ~
~, 1.1.DCA, . · ~ CHLOROETHANE
~ B. A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
13400 lSth Ave Ne. Idlnneapolli. MN. 55441 (812) 55B-1423
Mlnnaapolil, MN Madison, WI
COUNTRY CLEAN AND COIN LAUNDRY
CHLORINATED VOC TRANSFORMATION PATHWAYS"
MAR 98
FIG. 8'
MW-1
~L:9~.4~ FT.
PIP E-----....~
CLEANOUTTM
PB-5
PB-7
PB-8
LEGEND
WL=92.46 FT.
MW-~
· /
BOILER-~7 /' PB-11
SHED ~
IDRYER / PB-9
ACC% Lr- / WATER
|'"- METER CLOSET
hi
FLOOR
DRAIN
WL=91.92 FT.
G£OPROBE (4./21/97 ond 11/18/97)
HAND AUGER BORING (11/15/96)
MONITORING WELL (11/18/97 and 11/19/97)
z
GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
10 5 0 10
SCALEI ~. INCH=10 FEET
COUNTRY CL~,AN AND COIN LAUNDRY
GROUNDWATER TABLE CONTOUR
MAP FOR 11/28/97
MAR 9§
FIGURE
9
MW-1
WL=92.55 FI'.
,,,-( WL=91.59 FT.
M~/-2
PR-4- ~
/ B-4 CONCRETE
-----~.. / -e FLOOR , eB-1 / PB-2
"--.. c~q,~
-5 ',/ , ,
/ DRYER / ~PB-9
~ IAccEss ~--WATER
P~-7 ~ ~ ~ /
PIPE~ ~ ~ ~ / ~
c.~ou~ ~ ~ ~ /
FLOOR~
B-2
~ / /~ DRAIN
PB-8 ~ FLOOR . / ~
~"/ ~ ~ ~ ~ PB-12
~.-/ ~/ ' .. _. ~
-- -- ~ ~ '~ ~~/ ~ASPHALT
PARKING
LEGEND
Ax GEOPROBE (4/21/97 ond 11/18/97)
~ HAND AUGER BORING (11/15/96)
{~ MONITORING WELL (11/18/97 end 11/19/97)
Mb/-4
WL=91.16 Fr.
6REAT PLAINS BLVD.
10 5 0 10
SCALE, 1 INCH=lO FEET
COUNTRY CLEAN AND cOIN LAUNDRY AL~R 98
GROUNDWATER TABLE CONTOUR FmUR~.
MA~ FOR 1/23/98 ~n
C
E
A B F
D G
AQUA-PLUS,INC
SINGLE CASED MONITORING WELL
PROJECT LOCAT~ON:Chanhassen, Mn
MONITORING WELL #: MW-1
MDH UNIQUE #: 608651
INSTALLATION DATE: 11-18-97
STATIC WATER LEVEL: 5 feet
PROTOP: 6-inch Steel Protop
CASING: 2-inch TFJ PVC Sch 40
GROUT: Bentonite Chips
SEAL: Bentonite Chips
SCREEN:2" TFJ PVC .010 slot
SANDPACK: Red Flint # 30
BOREHOLE: 8-inch
A: WELL DEPTH: 15 feet
B: HOLE DEPTH: 15 feet
C: DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN:
D: LENGTH OF SCREEN:
E: DEPTH TO TOP OF SEAL:
F:
G:
5 feet
10 feet
3 feet
LENGTH OF SEAL: 1 foot
LENGTH OF SANDPACK: 11 feet
COMMENTS:
C
E
A B F
D
G
AQUA-PLUS,INC
SINGLE CASED MONITORING WELL
PROJECT LOCATION:Chanhassen,
MONITORING WELL #: MW-2
MDH UNIQUE #: 608652
INSTALLATION DATE: 11-18-97
STATIC WATER LEVEL: 7 feet
PROTOP: 6-inch Steel Protop
CASING: 2-inch TFJ PVC Sch 40
GROUT: Bentonite Chips
SEAL: Bentonite Chips
SCREEN:2" TFJ PVC .010 slot
SANDPACK: Red Flint # 30
BOREHOLE: 8-inch
A: WELL DEPTH: 17 feet
B: HOLE DEPTH: 17 feet
C: DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN:
D: LENGTH OF SCREEN:
E: DEPTH TO TOP OF SEAL:
F: LENGTH OF SEAL:
G:
10 feet
3 feet
2 foot
7 feet
LENGTH OF SANDPACK: 12 feet
COMMENTS:
C
E
A B F
AQUA-PLUS,INC
SINGLE CASED MONITORING WELL
PROJECT LOCATION:Chanhassen, Mn
G
D
MONITORING WELL #: MW-3
MDH UNIQUE #: 608653
INSTALLATION DATE: 11-19-97
STATIC WATER LEVEL: 5 feet
PROTOP: 6-inch Steel Protop
CASING: 2-inch TFJ PVC Sch 40
A: WELL DEPTH: 15 feet
B: HOLE DEPTH: 15 feet
C: DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN:
D:
E:
F:
G:
.5 feet
LENGTH OF SCREEN: 10 feet
DEPTH TO TOP OF SEAL: 3 feet
LENGTH OF SEAL: 1 foot
LENGTH OF SANDPACK: 11 feet
GROUT: Bentonite Chips
SEAL: Bentonite Chips
SCREEN:2" TFJ PVC .010 slot
SANDPACK: Red Flint # 30
BOREHOLE: 8-inch
COMMENTS:
C
E
AQUA-PLUS,INC
SINGLE CASED MONITORING WELL
PROJECT LOCATION: Chanhassen
A B F
D
G
f I
MONITORING WELL #: MW-4
MDH UNIQUE #:608654
INSTALLATION DATE: 4-8-97
STATIC WATER LEVEL: 38 feet
FLUSHMOUNT: 8"x 12" Morrison
CASING: 2-inch PVC Sch 40 TFJ
GROUT: Bentonite Chips
SEAL: Rentonite Chips
SCREEl~-inch PVC sch 40.010 si
SANDPACK: Red Flint # 30
BOREHOLE: 8-inch
A: WELL DEPTH: 15 feet
· B: HOLE DEPTH: 15 feet
C: DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN:
D: LENGTH OF SCREEN:
E: DEPTH TO TOP OF SEAL:
F: LENGTH OF SEAL: 1 foot
G:
5 feet
10 feet
3 feet
LENGTH OF SANDPACK: 11 feet
COMMENTS:
WELL LOCATION
County Name
Township Name I Township No.
House Number. Street Name, City, and Zip Code of Weft Location
Show ~xact I~tion el welt in seclioh grid with
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
WELL AND BORING RECORD
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031
Range No. I Section No. Fraction
or Fire Number
Sketch map of well location.
Showing property lines.
roads and buildings.
N
- %- - - 'l - - - F - - -,- '
_ _~_ _ _ J _ - _ L _ _ -~- _
S
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME
Property owner's mailing address if different than well location address indicated above.
WELL OWNER'S NAME
Well owrler'a maifing address if different than propo~ owner's address indicated above.
GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS
COLOR
HARDNESS OF FROM TO
MATERIAL
Use a second sheet, if needed...
::rEMARKS. ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA e{c.
IMPORTANT - FILE WiTH PROPERTY PAPERS
WELL OWNER COPY
MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL NO.
WELL DEPTH (completed) ~. I Date Work Completed
//- 77
DRILLING METHOD
[] Cable Tool [] Driven [] Dug
~ Auger [] Rotary [] Jelted
DRILLING FLUID WELL HYDROFRACTURED?
)('*~O~-- FROM fi. to
~ Monitoring
USE 0 Domestic [] Community PWS
[] Irrigation [] Noncommunity PWS
[] Test Well [] Dewatering
CASING Drive Shoe? [] Yes 0 No
[] Steel i-1 Threaded CI Welded
XP lastic []
[] YES ,~NO
fi.
[] Heating/Cooling
[] Industry/CommerclaJ
O Remedial
[]
HOLE DIAM.
Ibs,/ft. ~1 in. to ~"'ft'
Ibs,/ft. ,., in. to fi,
lbs./% in. to ft.
CASING DIAMETER WEIGHT
~ in, to ._~ ft.
-;: in. to __ ff.
~: in. to __ ft.
SCI~EEN .,k"
Slot/Gauze ,*
Set I~etween "~ ft, and
STATIC WATE.tEVE~
fl. after
WELL H~D COMPL~ION
Pifle~
adapter
manuf~u~r ~_ ~ ~
~ Casing Pmt~ti~ ~ '~
~ At~mde (E~ironmental Wells and ~dngs ONLY)
GRO~ING INFORMATION
gm,ed? ~Yes ~ No
Well
Grout Mate~l ~ Neat cem~t ~ BentoN~e
from ~ to,~
from~ to ~
from~ to
NEAREST KNOWN SOURCE OF CONTAMINA~ON
feet
Well disinf~t~ upon completion? ~ Yes ~ No
PUMP
~Not installed Date installed
Manu[acturefs name
M~el number HP
Length of drop pi~ fi. Capaci~
Type: ~ Submemible 0 L.S. Tu~ine ~ Recip~ting ~ Jet
I OPEN HOLE
,~' from
Diam. ~
Length
/-,~' ft. FITTINGS:
[] above land surface Date measured
hrs. pumping
Model
[3 12 in. above grade
fi.to ft.
g,p,m,
[] Concrete J~'-_High Solids Bentonite
. f~ / [] yds,~ bags
~ [] yds. [] bags
ft. [] yds. [] bags
Signature
Name of Driller
direction type
Volts
(Lp,rn.
ABANDONED WELLS
Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? [] Yes -'~No
VARIANCE
Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? 0 Yes yNo ,.
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
This well was ddlled under my supervision and in accordance with Minnesota Rules. Chapte¢ 4725.
The inform~ion contained in this report is true to the best of my knowledge.
or Reg, No.
WELL LOCATION
Coun~ Name
Township Name Township No. Range No.
House Number, Street Name, City, and Zip Code ot Well Location
Show exact Iocalion of [veil in section grid with 'X".
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
WELL AND BORING RECORD
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103!
Section No. Fraction WELL DEPTH (compteted)
or Fire Number DRILLING METHOD
[3 Cable Toot
~Auger
DRILLING FLUID
USE
[] Domestic
[3 Irrigation
[] Test Weft
CASING
'~ Steel
Sketch map et weJl Jocafion.
Showing proper~ fines.
roads and buddings.
N
s
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME
Property owner's mailing address if different than well location address indicated above.
WELL OWNER'S NAME
Well owner's mailing address if different than property owner's address indicated above.
GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS COLOR HARDNESS OF
MATERIAL FROM TO
Use a second sheet, If needed
REMARKS. ELEVATION. SOURCE OF DATA, etc.
IMPORTANT- FILE WITH PROPERTY PAPERS
MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL
6086
Date Work Completed
Driven [] Dug
Rotary [] Jetted
WELL HYDROFRACTURED?
FROM ~. to
,,J~,Monitodng
D Community PWS
[] Noncommunity PWS
[] Dewatering
Drive Shoe? [] Yes [-1 No
[~ Threaded /'-) Welded
~l~"Plastic
CASING:~IAMETER WEIGHT
~ i'{" in. to .,~ ff. ~S~-~ ~in. to~
'*~. t0' fi, ~S~
SCREEN ~ OPEN HOLE
Make ~~ from fi,to
T~e ~ Diam. ~ ~
SIoFGauze /~/~ Len~h /~
Set be~een ~ ~. and /~ t ~. FI~INGS:
STATIC WATER LEVEL
~ ~. ~low ~ aboveland sudace Date measured
PUMPING ~EL (below land sudace)
~ ~ a~er h~. pumping
g.p.
WELL HEAD COMPL~ION
~ Pitless adapter manufac~rpr M~
~ Casing Prote~l~/~ ~ [~/~ ~ 12 in. above grade
~ At-grade (Environmental Wells and ~rings ONLY)
GROUTING INFORMA~ON
Well grouted? ~Yes ~ No
Gm~ Matedat ~ Neat cement ~ Bentonffe ~ C~rete ~H~ So~s
from 0 tO ~ ". ( 0 yds.~ b
from to E ~ y~. O b
from~to ff. D ~s. D b
NEAREST KNOWN SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
leer dire~ion
Well disinleCt~ u~n completion? D Yes ~ No
PUMP
Not Ins~lled Date Install~
Manufacturers name
M~el number HP Volts
Length of dr~ pipe fl. CapacJ~
Ty~: ~ Submemible ~ LS. Tu~ine ~ Recipr~ting ~ Jet
ABANDONED WELLS
~.YES
fi.
[] Heating/Coofing
[] Induatry/CommerciaJ
[] Remedial
[]
HOLE DIAM.
/~'~ ~.~A~ro~-eo?ep, pn~ive. Slgnatore
Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? 0 YeS ,~No
VARIANCE
Was a variance granted fmm the MDH for this well? I-1 Yes ~/No
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
This well was drilled under my supervision and in accordance with Minnesota RuJes, Chapter 472
The informatk)n contained Jn this report is true to the best of my knowledge.
WELL LOCATION
County Name
Township Name J Township No. Range No. Section No.
House Number, Street Name, Cily, and Zip Code of Well Location
S o e ~'ct ocat'o of well in section grid wilh "X'.
N
/
s
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME
Property owner's mailing address if different than well location address indicated above.
Mff,~NE~CTA DEPARTk~,ENT OF HEALTH
WELL AND BORING RECORD
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031
Fraction WELL DEPTH (completed)
or Fire Number DRILLING METHOD
[] Cable Tool
Sketch map of well location. ~'~Auger
Showing property lines,
roads and buildings. DRILLIN(~ FLUID
USE
[] Domesfi¢
[] Irrigation
[] Test Well
CASING
FI Steel
Plastic
CASING DIAMETER "
"-- in. to .-. ft.
~" - in. to ~ ft.
SCREEN
ype
WELL OWNER'S NAME
Welt owner's mailing address if different than property owner's address indicated above.
GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS COLOR HARDNESS OF
MATERIAL FROM
Use a second sheet, if needed
:IEMARKS, ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA, etc.
TO
MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL NO.
608653 '
ft. Date Work Completed
[3 Driven [] Dug
[] Rotary [] Jetted
I WELL HYDROFRACTURED? [] YES ~"NO
FROM fl. to ft.
,~Monitodng C] Heating/Cooling
Community PWS t-] Industry/Commercial
[] Noncommunity PWS [] Remedial
[] Dewatering D
Drive Shoe? [] Yes O No HOLE DIAM.
[] Threaded [3 Welded
WEIGHT
tbsP. .~'in. to ~/~'' ff.
lbs J fL __ in. to --. fl.
lbs./fL __ in. to __ lt.
OPEN HOLE
from
ft.to ft.
Diam. ~ ~
IMPORTANT-FILE WITH PROPERTY PAPERS CO.
Slot/Gauze 7~/~ Length
Set between ~ ~ ft. and ~r ft. FITTINGS:
STATIC WATER'LEVEL
fL l~below ~ r-I above land surface Date measured
PUMPING.LEVEL (below land sur/ace)
/~,t'/.~,.---- ft. after hrs. pumping g.p.m.
WELL HEAD COMPLETION
[] Pitless adapter manufac~Ju~ ~,' Model
J,~C:asing Protection ('~,~f--.~~ [] 12 in. above
grade
[] At-grade (Environmental Wells and BorinOs ONLY)
GROUTING INFORMATION
Wellgrouted? ~'Yes r-1 No
Grout Material''[] Neat cement [] Bentonite I-I Concrete ~°High ,Solids Bentonite
from ~ to ~ fL "~f Cl yds. _~oags
from to~fL C] yds. [] bags
from to__ft. [] yds. [3 bags
NEAREST KNOWN SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
feet direction type
Well disinfected upon completion? [] Yes ~r'No
PUMP
,~ot installed Date installed
Manufacturer's name
Model number HP Volts
Length of drop pipe ft. Capacity g.p.m.
Type: [] Submersible [] LS. Turbine [3 Reciprocating [] Jet []
ABANDONED WELLS
Does property have any not in use and not sealed ~ell(s)? [] Yes ,,~o
VARIANCE
Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? [] Yes
-\
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
This well was drilled under my supervision and in accordance with, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725.
The information contained in this report is true to the best of my knowledge.
/~c~nsee Busin'~
HE-01205-06 (Rev. 9/96)
WELL LOCATION
County Name
Township Name I Township No. I Range No. Section No.
I Iff,, '1 t z
House Number, Street Name, City, and Zip Code of Well Location
Show exact location of well in s~tion grid with 'X'.
Sketch map of well location.
Showing properly lines,
roads and buddings.
N
--i---i---T---I-'
_~___J_ _L__,I__ ~
$
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME
Property owner's mailing address if different then well location address indicated above.
WELL OWNER'S NAME
Well owner'e mailing addrese if difteront than prope~ owner's address indicated above.
GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS COLOR
HARDNESS OF
MATERIAL FROM TO
Use a second sheet, If needed
REMARKS, ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA, etc,
IMPORTANT- FILE WiTH PROPERTY PAPERS
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL NO.
WELL AND BORING RECORD I 608654
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103/
Fraction WELL DEPTH (completed} ~, I Date Work Completed
/ I
or Fire Number DRILLING METHOD
[] Cable Tool [] Driven [] Dug
[~Auger [] Rotary [] Jeffed
[]
DRILLING FLUID I WELL HYOROFRACTURED?
~Jo ~. FROM ff. tO
USE ~onitodng
[] Domestic [] Community PW$
[] Irrigation [] Noncommunity PWS
~] Test Well [] Dewatedng
CASING Ddve Shoe? [] Yes [] No
r3 Steel [] 'Threaded E~ Welded
[~lastic []
:tlc2 ,n.,o 5" fi.
in. to ~ fi.
in. to ~ fi.
SCREEN ¥ J OPEN HOLE
Make ~--""~,.."~-~.,..,. '~u ,,'"t I from fi.to fi,
Type O~'~ Diem. ~,~ ! /
SIoVGauze / O/~) Length ,/,"'"'~
Set between ~ ff. and ') ,~ ff. FI'f-rINGS:
STATIC WATER 'LEVEL
~)"- fl. ,~ below F1 above land sudace Date measured
PUMPING I..~E, VEL, (below land sudace)
t..~''~ ff. after hm.
pumping
g.p.m
WELL HEAD COMPLETION
[] Pltless adapter manufacturer Model
FI Casing Protection D 12 in. above grade
J~ At-grads (Environmental Wells and Bodngs ONLY)
GROUTING INFORMATION
Well grouted? ,~Ye$ r'l No
Grout Matedal [] Neat cement n Bentonite [] Concrete ~[;i/High Solids Bentonite
from ~ to ~ ft. ~' r3 yds..,,~"ba~
from__to fl. [] yds. O
from~ to fl. [] yds. [] ba
NEAREST KNOWN SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
feet direction
Well disinfected upon completion? [] Yes ~ No
PUMP
~..,.Not Installed Date installed
Manufacturer's name
Model number · HP Volts
Length of drop pipe fl. Capacity g.p.~
Type: [] Submersible [] LS. Turblne [] Reciprocating [] Jet
ABANDONED WELLS
~YES
ft.
[] Heating/Cooling
[] Industry/Commercial
[] Remedial
[]
HOLE DIAM.
Ibs./ff. .~) ,n to I.~'. .
lbs J/t. ~ in. fo
lbs./ff. . in. to
Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? [3 Yes
VARIANCE
Was a vadance granted from the MDH for this well? [] Yes ,~ No
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
This well was al.filled under my supervision and in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4-7'Z.~
The Information contained in this raped is true to the best of my knowledge.
Dc. or Rc~g. No.
November 22, 1997
AQ A-p.us,
Groundwater Development - Environmental Controls
Mr. Matt Ledvina
B. A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
13400 15th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Report of subsurface exploration and well installation at County Clean
and Coin Laundry in Chanhassen, MN
RE:
Dear Mr. Ledvina:
In accordance with our proposal dated October 29, 1997, we have completed the drilling of
four (4) soil borings, for the installation of four (4) 2-inch monitoring wells, at the above
referenced site. The field work was begun on November 18, 1997 and completed on
November 19, 1997.
Each of the borings.was advanced using a CME-55 drill rig, ~4-inch ID hollowstem augers.
Soil samples were collected using a 2-inch split barrel sampler, advanced in accordance with
ASTM: D-1586. The borings receiving the monitoring wells were constructed with a 2-inch
PVC screen with PVC riser to.the surface, three of the wells were completed above grade with
a 6-inch locking protop, and the remaining well was completed at-grade. All of the field work
was completed in compliance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations, under the
supervision of a licensed well contractor.
Enclosed with this report please find copies of the field boring logs, as-built monitoring well
diagrams and Minesota Department of Health Well Records. A copy of our invoice for our
services is appended to this report for your records. This report only applies to the conditons
found on the above dates.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this project, please feel free to contact
US.
Sincerely,
AQUA-PLJS, INC.
Thomas N. Well
Vice President
v: r97-266.doc
17931 Fillmore Street, NW. Elk River, Minnesota 55330
Phone: 612-441-7257 E-Mail: wjc2@aol.com Fax: 612-441-6131