EPA/540/R-02/500
September 2001
Technology Evaluation Report
HYDROTECHNICS
IN SITU FLOW SENSOR
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
nrrtci: nr
t^mf HrRrAPciH /; DrvnnPMFNT
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under Contract No. 68-C5-0037 to Tetra Tech EM Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air,
and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and
technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and
prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor
air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of
innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information
needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information
transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of NRMRL's strategic long-term research plan. It is published
and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to
link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program evaluated performance of HydroTechnics, Inc. flow sensors in measuring the three-dimensional
flow pattern created by operation of the Wasatch Environmental, Inc. (WEI) groundwater circulation well
(GCW). The GCW is a dual-screened, in-well air-stripping system designed to remove volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from groundwater. Operation of the GCW creates a groundwater flow pattern that
forms a three-dimensional regime known as a "circulation cell." EPA's evaluation of the GCW
circulation cell involved use of in situ groundwater velocity flow sensors that were developed at Sandia
National Laboratories and manufactured by HydroTechnics, Inc.
This Technology Evaluation Report (TER) documents and summarizes the findings of EPA's evaluation
of HydroTechnics' flow sensors. The flow sensors are in situ instruments that use a thermal perturbation
technique to directly measure the velocity of groundwater flow in unconsolidated, saturated, porous
media. The manufacturer claims that the flow meter can measure horizontal and vertical flow rates and
direction in the range is 0.01 to 2.0 feet per day (ft/day) (0.3 to 60.96 centimeter per second [cm/s]).
The GCW is a patented system manufactured by WEI and was demonstrated at Cape Canaveral Air
Station (CCAS) by the U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). AFCEE
conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the GCW, including contaminant mass removal rates,
groundwater dye tracer studies, and numerical modeling. Demonstration data collected by AFCEE are
documented separately in "Groundwater Circulation Well Technology Evaluation at Facility 1381, Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Florida Technology Summary Report" (Parsons 2001).
The primary conclusions of EPA's evaluation of the HydroTechnics flow sensors include:
• During GCW operation, the groundwater velocities measured by all seven sensors increased by
more than 0.1 ft/day, indicating that (1) the sensors were within the circulation cell established by
the GCW, and (2) the horizontal extent of groundwater circulation was greater than 15 feet. Flow
direction data further support the establishment of a circulation cell and that all the flow sensors
are within the horizontal extent of groundwater circulation cell.
• The demonstration data suggest that the flow sensors are responsive to changes in groundwater
flow conditions and can be used to help define and evaluate the three-dimensional flow patterns.
This report is available from www. epa.go/ORD/SITE/reports.html. Printed copies can be obtained from
National Service Center for Environmental Publications in Cincinnati, Ohio, at (800) 490-9198.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS xiii
CONVERSION FACTORS xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 6
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY 7
1.3 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM... 8
1.4 KEY CONTACTS 9
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION, OBJECTIVES, AND PROCEDURES 11
2.1 DEMONSTRATION SITE DESCRIPTION. 11
2.1.1 Site Location 11
2.1.2 Site History 11
2.1.3 Regional and Site Geology 12
2.1.3.1 Regional Geology 12
2.1.3.2 Site Geology 13
2.1.4 Regional and Site Hydrogeology 13
2.1.4.1 Regional Hydrogeology 14
2.1.4.2 Site Hydrogeology 15
2.1.5 Site Contamination 16
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION 17
2.3 METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION. 17
2.3.1 Placement and Installation of Groundwater Flow Sensors 18
2.3.1.1 Placement of Sensors 18
2.3.1.2 Installation of Flow Sensors 19
2.3.2 Methodology for Evaluation of Data from Flow Sensors 19
2.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM 20
2.4.1 Calibration Procedures for Flow Sensors 20
2.4.2 Installation Procedures for Flow Sensors 21
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
2.4.3 Data Processing Procedures 21
2.5 MODIFICATIONS TO THE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 22
3.0 GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL SYSTEM 24
3.1 DESIGN AND PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION 24
3.2 INSTALLATION OF GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL 24
3.3 HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS NEAR THE GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION
WELL 25
3.3.1 Definition of Screened Aquifer Zones 26
3.3.2 Natural Groundwater Flow Conditions 26
3.4 GCW OPERATIONS 27
3.4.1 GCW Circulation 27
3.4.2 Pump-and-Treat Testing 28
3.4.3 Aquifer Hydraulic Testing 28
3.4.4 Dipole Flow Testing 29
4.0 IN SITU GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS 30
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS 30
4.2 INSTALLATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS 31
4.3 OPERATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS 32
4.4 LIMITATIONS OF FLOW SENSOR DATA AND DATA MANIPULATION 33
4.4.1 Flow Velocity Simulation 33
4.4.2 Placement of Flow Sensors in Relation to Direction of Groundwater Flow .... 34
4.4.3 Depth of Shallow Flow Sensors with Respect to Water Table 34
4.4.4 Accuracy and Precision of Flow Sensor Data 34
4.4.5 Physical Reliability of Flow Sensors 35
5.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF FLOW SENSOR DATA COLLECTION 36
5.1 GCW CIRCULATION OPERATION (JULY 1 TO JULY 20, 2000) 36
5.1.1 Horizontal and Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocities 36
5.1.2 Horizontal Groundwater Flow Directions 38
5.1.3 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocities Projected in Cross-Section 39
5.2 FINAL PUMP -AND-TREAT TESTING (AUGUST 1 TO AUGUST 31, 2000 39
5.2.1 Horizontal and Vertical Darcy Groundwater Velocities 39
vi
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
5.2.2 Horizontal Directions of Groundwater Flow 42
5.2.3 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocities Projected in Cross-Section 42
5.3 AQUIFER HYDRAULIC TESTING (SEPTEMBER 13 TO
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000) 43
5.3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Darcy Groundwater Velocities 43
5.3.2 Horizontal Directions of Groundwater Flow 46
5.3.3 Resultant Velocities of Groundwater Flow Project in Cross-Section 49
5.4 POST-TESTING PERIOD (SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 TO APRIL 1,2001) 50
5.4.1 Horizontal and Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocities 50
5.4.2 Horizontal Groundwater Flow Directions 51
5.4.3 Resultant Groundwater Flow Directions Projected in Cross-Sections 51
6.0 RESULTS OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION 53
6.1 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE 53
6.2 SECONDARY OBJECTIVE 54
6.2.1 Secondary Objective SI 54
6.2.2 Secondary Objective S2 55
6.2.3 Secondary Objective S3 58
6.2.4 Secondary Objective S4 59
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 61
8.0 REFERENCES 64
Appendix
A Hydrogeological Investigation Report of the Aquifer Treated by the Wasatch Groundwater
Circulation Well System 150
FIGURES
Figure
1 Location of Facility 1381
2 Site Map
3 Hydrogeologic Cross-Section A-A'
4 Hydrostratigraphic Units of East-Central Florida
vii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Figure
5 Approximate Extent of the Surficial Aquifer
6 Locations of Groundwater Circulation Well, Piezometers, and Groundwater Flow
Sensors
7 Schematic Diagram of Groundwater Circulation Well and Piezometers
8 Schematic Diagram of Long Term GCW Test (Parsons) Set-Up
9 Schematic Diagram of Final Pump and Treat Test (Parsons) Set-Up
10 Schematic Diagram of Constant Rate Pumping Test Set-Up
11 Schematic Diagram of Dipole Flow Test Set-Up
12 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
13 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
14 Flow Sensor Inversion Errors Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00
15 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00
16 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by
Flow Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
17 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by
Flow Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
18 Flow Sensor Inversion Error Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00
19 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00
20 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
21 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
22 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
Mil
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Figure
23 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
24 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors Under
Recirculation Conditions (07/28/00)
25 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Recirculation Conditions (07/28/00)
26 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity Projected onto Cross-Section AOB Under Recirculation
Conditions (7/28/00)
27 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
28 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
29 Flow Sensor Inversion Error Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00
30 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00
31 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by
Flow Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
32 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by
Flow Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
33 Flow Sensor Inversion Error Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00
34 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00
35 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
36 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
37 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
38 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
39 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors Under
Pumping Conditions (08/25/00)
ix
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Figure
40 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Pumping Conditions (08/25/00)
41 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity Projected onto Cross-Section AOB Under Pumping
Conditions (08/25/00)
42 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Actual Data)
43 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Data with Background Removed)
44 Inversion Error Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period
45 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors During Aquifer
Testing Period
46 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by
Flow Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Actual Data)
47 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by
Flow Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Data with Background Removed)
48 Inversion Error Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors During Aquifer Testing
Period
49 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors During Aquifer
Testing Period
50 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Actual Data)
51 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Data with Background Removed)
52 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Actual Data)
53 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors During Aquifer Testing Period (Data with Background Removed)
54 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors Under
Natural Flow Conditions (09/18/00)
55 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Natural Flow Conditions (09/18/00)
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Figure
56 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors Under
Pumping Conditions (09/16/00)
57 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Pumping Conditions (09/16/00)
58 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 6 (09/18/00)
59 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 6 (09/18/00)
60 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 7 (09/18/00
61 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 7 (09/18/00)
62 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity Projected onto Cross-Section AOB Under Natural Flow
Conditions (9/18/00)
63 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity Projected onto Cross-Section AOB Under Pumping
Conditions (09/16/00)
64 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity Projected onto Cross-Section AOB During Dipole Test
6(09/18/00)
65 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity Projected onto Cross-Section AOB During Dipole Test 7
(09/18/00)
66 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01 (Actual Data)
67 Flow Sensor Inversion Error Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01
68 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01
69 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by
Flow Sensors, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01 (Actual Data)
70 Flow Sensor Inversion Error Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01
71 Thermistor Temperature Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01
72 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01 (Actual Data)
xi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
73 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow
Sensors, 9/20/00 - 4/1/01 (Actual Data)
74 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors Under
Natural Flow Conditions (02/02/01)
75 Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Natural Flow Conditions (02/02/01)
76 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity Projected onto Cross-Section AOB Under Natural Flow
Conditions (02/02/01)
TABLES
Table
1 Chronology of Groundwater Circulation Well Field Events
2 Groundwater Elevation Data
3 Direction of Groundwater Flow Under Natural Flow Conditions
4 Summary of Specifications for In Situ Groundwater Velocity Sensors
5 Specifications for Installation of Groundwater Flow Sensors
6 Groundwater Flow Velocities and Flow Directions Measured by Flow Sensors
7 Groundwater Circulation Well Operations in July and August 2000
8 Precision Sampling
xu
-------
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
AFCEE Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
bgs Below ground surface
°C Degrees Celsius
CCAS Cape Canaveral Air Station
cm/s Centimeters per second
DC Direct current
DCE Dichloroethene
DFT Dipole flow test
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ft/day Feet per day
GCW Groundwater circulation well
gpm Gallons per minute
HP Horsepower
KSC John F. Kennedy Space Center
msl Mean sea level
NAPL Nonaqueous phase liquids
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Parsons Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
psi Pounds per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
QA Quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality control
RPD Relative percent difference
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
TCE Trichloroethene
TEP Technology Evaluation Plan
TER Technology evaluation report
Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EM Inc.
VOC Volatile organic compound
WEI Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
ug/L Micrograms per liter
Xlll
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
To Convert From: To:
Multiply By:
Length:
Area:
Volume:
inch
foot
mile
square foot
acre
gallon
cubic foot
cubic foot
cubic foot
centimeter
meter
kilometer
square meter
square meter
liter
cubic meter
gallon
cubic centimeter
2.54
0.305
1.61
0.0929
4,047
3.78
0.0283
7.48
28,317
Mass:
pound
kilogram
0.454
Temperature:
(• Fahrenheit - 32) • Celsius
0.556
Time
days
minutes
1440
xiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program by Terra Tech EM
Inc. under the direction and coordination of Ms. Michelle Simon, work assignment
manager in the Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division of the National
Risk Management Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The groundwater circulation well demonstration was a cooperative effort that
involved the following personnel from the EPA Site Program and the U.S. Air Force
Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE)
Ms. Annette Gatchett
Ms. Michelle Simon
Ms. Ann Vega
Mr. James Gonzales
Mr. John Hicks
Ms. Martha Moses
Dr. Robert Knowlton
Mr. Tabor Dehart
Dr. Rick Johnson
Dr. Robert Hinchee
Roger Argus
Ben Hough
Tong Li
EPA, NRMRL, LRPCD, Assistant Director
for Technology
EPA, LRPCD, SITE Work Assignment
Manager
EPA, LRPCD, Quality Assurance Officer
AFCEE, Project Manager
Parsons Engineering, Project Manager
HydroTechnics, Owner
HydroTechnics, Project Manager
Wasatch Environmental Inc., Project Manager
Oregon Graduate Research, Consultant
Battelle Corporation, Consultant
Tetra Tech EM Inc., EPA Contractor
Tetra Tech EM Inc., EPA Contractor
Tetra Tech EM Inc., EPA Contractor
xv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program evaluated performance of HydroTechnics, Inc. flow sensors in measuring the three-dimensional
flow pattern created by operation of the Wasatch Environmental, Inc. (WEI) groundwater circulation well
(GCW). The GCW is a dual-screened, in-well air-stripping system designed to remove volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from groundwater. Operation of the GCW creates a groundwater flow pattern that
forms a three-dimensional regime known as a "circulation cell." EPA's evaluation of the GCW
circulation cell involved use of in situ groundwater velocity flow sensors that were developed at Sandia
National Laboratories and manufactured by HydroTechnics, Inc.
The HydroTechnics flow sensors are in situ instruments that use a thermal perturbation technique to
directly measure the velocity of groundwater flow in unconsolidated, saturated, porous media. The flow
sensors differ from other devices that measure groundwater velocity in that they are in direct contact with
the unconsolidated aquifer matrix where the flow is to be measured, thereby avoiding borehole effects.
The flow sensor is a thin, cylindrical device that is permanently buried at the depth where the velocity of
groundwater flow is to be measured. The manufacturer claims that the flow meter can measure
groundwater flow in the range is 0.01 to 2.0 feet per day (ft/day) (0.3 to 60.96 centimeter per second
[cm/s]) with an error of+/- 0.001 feet (0.03 centimeter). Data collected from the flow sensors include the
horizontal and vertical groundwater flow rate as well as groundwater flow direction.
The GCW is a patented system manufactured by WEI and was demonstrated at Cape Canaveral Air
Station (CCAS) by the U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). AFCEE
conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the GCW, including contaminant mass removal rates,
groundwater dye tracer studies, and numerical modeling. The results of the AFCEE study can be found in
the report entitled "Groundwater Circulation Well Technology Evaluation at Facility 1381, Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Florida- Final Report" (Parsons, 2001). The results of the EPA SITE Program
demonstration provided additional hydraulic data that are useful in characterizing the GCW circulation
cell.
AFCEE managed the overall GCW technology evaluation and was responsible for installation, operation,
and optimization of the GCW. EPA was responsible for aquifer hydraulic testing and the installation and
1
-------
acquisition of data from the HydroTechnics flow sensors. Additionally, the Oregon Graduate Institute
conducted dye tracer studies and modeling to evaluate the GCW circulation cell.
EPA's evaluation of the HydroTechnics flow sensors was designed with one primary and four secondary
objectives to assess the sensor's ability to detect the groundwater circulation cell established by the GCW.
The primary and secondary objectives were evaluated by collecting and interpreting data from seven flow
sensors, conducting a series of aquifer hydraulic tests, and collecting GCW operational data during four
modes of operation. The four modes of operation include: (1) natural flow conditions, (2) circulation
conditions, (3) pump-and-treat testing, and (4) aquifer hydraulic testing (step-drawdown, constant-rate
pump testing, and dipole flow testing). Data were collected and analyzed using the methods and
procedures presented in the Technology Evaluation Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan (TEP/QAPP) for
the project (Tetra Tech 2000). The data from the groundwater flow sensors yielded valuable information
regarding the circulation cell of the GCW. The conclusions of the technology evaluation, as they relate to
the demonstration project objectives, include:
Primary Conclusions
P1 Evaluate the flow sensor's ability to detect the horizontal extent of the GCW groundwater
circulation cell based on a change in the groundwater velocity criterion of 0.1 foot per day (0.03
meter per day)
• During the GCW circulation operation mode, the groundwater velocities measured by all seven
sensors increased by more than 0.1 ft/day, indicating that (1) the sensors were within the
circulation cell established by the GCW, and (2) the horizontal extent of groundwater circulation
was greater than 15 feet. Furthermore, the groundwater flow direction data suggest that
groundwater in the upper portion of the treatment zone generally flows radially away from the
GCW and that groundwater in the bottom of the treatment zone generally flows radially towards
the GCW. This flow direction data further support the establishment of a circulation cell and that
all the flow sensors are within the horizontal extent of groundwater circulation cell.
• The data from the four modes of GCW operation suggest that the flow sensors are responsive to
changes in groundwater flow conditions and can be used to help define and evaluate the three-
dimensional flow pattern created by the GCW. The immediate response of the sensors to changes
in GCW operation suggest that the groundwater circulation cell is established within hours
instead of days. Additionally, the velocity data from the flow sensors suggest that the GCW
circulation flow was generally constant during operation in the circulation mode.
Secondary Conclusions
SI Evaluate the reproducibility of the groundwater velocity sensor data
-------
The reproducibility of the sensors during steady state conditions ranged from 0.1 to 23 percent
with an average of 1.9 percent and a standard deviation of 3.8 percent.
S2 Evaluate the three-dimensional groundwater flow surrounding the GCW
• Groundwater flow patterns, as measured by the flow sensors, were documented for each of the
four GCW operational modes and are depicted graphically to illustrate general flow patterns in
the vicinity of the GCW during each mode of operation.
S3 Document the operating parameters of the GCW
• GCW pumping rate, duration of system operation, and GCW shutdowns were documented for
each of the four modes of operation:
GCW Operational Mode
Circulation
Pump and Treat
Aquifer Hydraulic Testing
Natural Conditions
Pumping
Rate
4 gpm
4gpm
Various
No pumping
Duration of Operation
July 10-28,2000
August 2 - 29, 2000
September 13 -19, 2000
GCW not operated
GCW Shutdowns
1 shutdown for
mechanical maintenance
7 shutdowns for
mechanical repairs
None
GCW not operated
S4 Document the hydrogeologic characteristics at the demonstration site
• Natural groundwater flow velocities at the CCAS Facility 1381 site are very low, ranging from
0.03 to 0.21 ft/day (0.009 to 0.064 meter/day).
• The conductivity of the aquifer at the Facility 1381 site decreased with depth. Based on aquifer
hydraulic test data, the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 43 to 53 ft/day (1.5 x 10"4 to 1.9 x 10"4
cm/s) for the shallow zone (upper 7 feet or 2.1 meters) and 5 to 10 ft/day (1.8 x 10"5 to 3.5 x 10"5
cm/s) for the deeper zone (7 to 25 feet deep or 2.1 to 7.6 meters). The Storativity of the lower
aquifer zone ranges from 0.006 to 0.007 and specific yield ranges from 0.06 to 0.09. The average
anisotropic ratio (that is, the ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity) is 2.4, based on
steady-state dipole flow test interpretation.
Additional findings and observations based on the EPA demonstration of the flow sensors include:
• According to the developer, the flow sensors measure flow in a 3.3 cubic feet [1 cubic meter] area
volume immediately surrounding the sensor,) and are subject to local heterogeneities. Complex
site hydrogeological conditions may require a large number of flow sensors to adequately define
the circulation cell and characterize flow patterns.
• To more fully evaluate the three-dimensional flow surrounding this GCW, additional sensors
should have been installed at varying distances and depths from the GCW. Flow sensors should
be installed at upgradient, downgradient, and cross-gradient locations at a minimum of three
different distances from the GCW. The flow sensors also should be installed at three different
depths corresponding to shallow and deep GCW screens as well as in the middle portion of the
monitored zone between the two screens. The shallow sensors should be installed a minimum of
5 feet (1.5 meters) below the water table, which would minimize the impact of temperature
3
-------
variations caused by the vadose zone. Only seven sensors were installed for this project because
preliminary modeling indicated that the circulation cell would be smaller than what was actually
observed in both the upgradient and cross gradient directions.
HydroTechnics recommends installing the flow sensors with five feet (1.5 meters) of
submergence because the shallow portion of the groundwater will heat up during the day, creating
a thermal gradient that the sensor measures as water flow. For the EPA demonstration, the
shallow sensors were installed with less than 5 feet of submergence because preliminary
modeling indicated that there would not be significant flow deeper than 3 feet (1 meter) into the
formation. Data from the shallow sensors were successfully corrected by subtracting the
background temperature gradient.
HydroTechnics recommends allowing at minimum of 7 days for the sensors to come to thermal
equilibrium. During the EPA demonstration, short-term aquifer tests resulted in large but short-
term changes in groundwater flow, that were successfully measured by the flow sensors.
The cost of a single flow sensor was $2,500. The total cost for the seven sensors, sensor data
analysis for a period of 1 year, and installation was $70,000 for this project. Costs at other sites
may vary depending on installation depth and subsurface conditions.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Technology Evaluation Report (TER) documents and summarizes the findings of an evaluation of
HydroTechnics, Inc. in situ flow sensors in measuring the groundwater flow patterns created by an
innovative groundwater circulating well (GCW) installed at Facility 1381 at the U.S. Air Force 45th
Space Wing, Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS), Florida (Figures 1 and 2). The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) evaluated the
using in situ groundwater flow sensors under the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program. The EPA's evaluation was a component of a comprehensive evaluation of the GCW conducted
by the U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). The flow sensors were evaluated
for the SITE Program by measuring the magnitude and direction of groundwater flow near the GCW and
by conducting aquifer hydraulic tests using the GCW.
The GCW selected is a patented system manufactured by Wasatch Environmental, Inc. (WEI). AFCEE's
support contractor, Parsons Engineering, managed the overall technology evaluation and was responsible
for installation, operation, and optimization of the GCW. The EPA SITE Program managed installation
and acquisition of data from in situ groundwater velocity sensors and the aquifer hydraulic testing.
This report documents the activities conducted during the demonstration and summarizes data collected
by EPA. Demonstration data collected by AFCEE are documented separately and are not included in this
report.
The TER is divided into eight sections. Section 1.0 presents the project background, information on the
SITE Program, a description of the technology, and key contacts. Section 2.0 describes the
environmental setting of the demonstration site and the objectives of the evaluation, methods and
procedures, and modifications to the Technology Evaluation Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan
(TEP/QAPP) (Tetra Tech 2000). Section 3.0 describes the groundwater circulation system, and Section
4.0 describes the groundwater flow sensors. Section 5.0 presents interpretation of data from the
groundwater flow sensors used during the evaluation. Section 6.0 presents the results of the technology
evaluation, while Section 7.0 presents the conclusions of the evaluation. References are included in
Section 8.0.
-------
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
As part of ongoing efforts to address impacts to groundwater from chlorinated solvents, CCAS is
conducting a series of pilot-scale treatability studies to obtain site-specific data on performance and cost
for potentially applicable remediation technologies. AFCEE identified the WEI GCW as a possible
solution for remediation of nonaqueous-phase liquids (NAPL) source areas such as Facility 1381.
Facility 1381 was selected as the demonstration site because it was thought to have a favorable site
hydrogeologic condition (relatively high hydraulic conductivity) and the presence of a NAPL source.
GCW technologies have been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to traditional pump-and-treat
technologies for remediation of groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOC).
AFCEE developed a comprehensive test plan to evaluate the GCW, which included installation of a 6-
inch GCW and 99 microwells that radiate from the GCW; collection of samples from the soil core,
groundwater, and air for subsequent geotechnical and chemical analysis; completion of a dye tracer test;
and development of a site groundwater flow model. AFCEE alternated operation of the GCW between
pump-and-treat mode and circulation mode to obtain reliable data on the relative capabilities of the GCW
technology. Samples of groundwater and air were collected during both modes of operation to obtain
performance data under various operating scenarios and to allow comparisons of results.
AFCEE invited EPA to participate in an evaluation of a GCW at CCAS Facility 1381. To evaluate the
circulation cell, EPA installed in situ groundwater flow sensors to measure the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow near the GCW, and conducted a series of aquifer hydraulic tests. Data from the
groundwater flow sensors were collected during (1) long-term pump-and-treat operation, (2) long-term
GCW operation, (3) final pump-and-treat operation, (4) aquifer hydraulic tests, and (5) post-GCW
operation.
A summary of the various operational periods is provided bebw.
Long-Term Pump-and-Treat Operation. The GCW was installed at the site in November 1999. After
a tidal influence study, tracer test, and a series of short-term aquifer hydraulic tests, the system began
operation in pump-and-treat mode in February 2000. The system remained in pump-and-treat mode
through April 2000. AFCEE monitored the system to calculate mass removal rates for comparison to
rates achieved during other modes of operation by the GCW.
-------
Long-Term GCW Operation. Long-term operation of the GCW was initiated in April and continued
until July 2000. The in situ groundwater flow sensors were installed in June 2000. Continuous collection
of data on groundwater flow from the sensors was initiated in July 2000.
Final Pump-and-Treat Operation. Final pump-and-treat operation of the GCW was conducted during
August 2000. Eight transducers were installed to evaluate changes in hydraulic head in the aquifer during
August 2000.
Aquifer Hydraulic Test Operation. A series of aquifer hydraulic tests were conducted in September
2000. Hydraulic head data were collected from the aquifer using eight pressure transducers, and data on
direction and magnitude of groundwater flow were collected from the seven in situ groundwater flow
sensors.
Post-GCW Operation. The GCW has not operated after aquifer hydraulic testing was completed in
September 2001. EPA collected data from the in situ groundwater flow sensors from September 2000
through September 2001 to document groundwater flow during non-operation of the GCW.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF FLOW SENSOR AND GCW TECHNOLOGIES
The groundwater flow sensors installed at CCAS were developed at Sandia National Laboratories and
manufactured by HydroTechnics, both of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The flow sensors are in situ
instruments that use a thermal perturbation technique to directly measure the velocity of groundwater
flow in unconsolidated, saturated, porous media. The flow sensors differ from other devices to measure
groundwater velocity in that they are in direct contact with the unconsolidated aquifer matrix where the
flow is to be measured, thereby avoiding borehole effects. The flow sensor is a thin, cylindrical device
that is permanently buried at the depth where the velocity of groundwater flow is to be measured.
The WEI GCW is an in situ groundwater remediation system designed to circulate groundwater in the
aquifer and strip VOCs. In the WEI system, airlift pumping lifts groundwater from a screen in the lower
section of the well. Air is pumped to the bottom of the well by a blower, reducing the weight of the water
column. Groundwater and air are then lifted to an upper screen, where the air strips VOCs and the
groundwater is allowed to discharge back into the aquifer. The air stream used to strip VOCs is extracted
from the wellhead and is treated before it is released to the atmosphere. Groundwater that reenters the
7
-------
aquifer through the top screen flows vertically downward and can be recaptured by the GCW, so that it
can be treated again. The three-dimensional groundwater flow regime developed by the GCW is termed a
"circulation cell," and its characteristics are critical to the effectiveness of the technology. Key
parameters of the circulation cell are its size, or radius, and its percent capture (Parsons 1999a).
1.3 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of Research and
Development (ORD) created the SITE Program in response to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE Program promotes the development, evaluation, and use
of new or innovative technologies to clean up Superfund sites across the country.
The primary purpose of the SITE Program is to maximize the use of alternatives in cleaning up hazardous
waste sites by encouraging development and evaluation of innovative treatment and monitoring
technologies. It consists of three major elements:
• The Technology Evaluation Program
• The Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program
• The Technology Transfer Program
The objective of the Technology Evaluation Program is to develop reliable data on performance and cost
for innovative technologies so that potential users may assess the technology's site-specific applicability.
Technologies evaluated are either currently available or are close to being available for remediation of
Superfund sites. SITE evaluations are conducted on hazardous waste sites under circumstances that
closely simulate full-scale remediation conditions, thus ensuring the usefulness and reliability of the
information collected.
Existing technologies that improve field monitoring and site characterizations are identified in the
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program. This program supports new technologies that
provide faster, more cost-effective contamination and site assessment data. The Monitoring and
Measurement Technologies Program also formulates protocols and standard operating procedures for
evaluation methods and equipment.
-------
The Technology Transfer Program disseminates technical information on innovative technologies in the
Evaluation and Monitoring and Measurements Technologies Programs through various activities. These
activities increase the awareness and promote the use of innovative technologies for assessment and
remediation at Superfund sites. The goal of the technology transfer is to develop communication among
individuals who require up-to-date technical information.
1.4 KEY CONTACTS
Additional information on the SITE Program and the evaluation can be obtained from the EPA Project
Manager:
Michelle Simon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7469, Facsimile: (513) 569-7676
E-mail: simon.michelle@epagov
Additional information on AFCEE's evaluation of the GCW technology can be obtained from the AFCEE
project manager:
James Gonzales
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
3207 North Road
Brooks AFB, Texas 78235-5363
Telephone: (210) 536-4324, Facsimile: (210) 536-4330
E-mail: j ames. gonzales@hqafcee. brooks. af. mil
Additional information on the WEI GCW technology or the evaluation can be obtained from the
technology vendor:
Tabor DeHart
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
2410 West California Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
Telephone: (801) 972-8400, Facsimile: (801) 972-8459
E-mail: wasatchenv@aol.com
Additional information on in situ flow sensors or this evaluation can be obtained from:
-------
Martha Moses
HydroTechnics
P.O. Box 92828
Albuquerque, NM 87199-2828
Telephone: (505) 797-2421, Facsimile: (505) 797-0838
E-Mail: info@hydrotechnics.com
In addition, information on the SITE Program is available through the following on-line information
clearinghouses:
SITE Program Home Page: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE. All recent SITE reports,
including this one can be downloaded from this web site.
The Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) Internet Access:
http ://www. epa. gov/attic
Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN)
Help Desk: (301)589-8368; Internet Access: http://www.clu-in.org
EPA Remediation and Characterization Innovative Technologies
Internet Access: http://www.epa.reachit.org
Groundwater Remediation Technology Center
Internet Access: http://www.gwrtac.org
Technical reports may be obtained by contacting the National Service Center for Environmental
Publications in Cincinnati, Ohio. To find out about newly published documents or to be included on the
SITE mailing list, call or write to:
U.S. EPA/NSCEP
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419
(800) 490-9198
10
-------
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION, OBJECTIVES, AND PROCEDURES
A description of the demonstration site, as well as objectives and procedures for the flow sensor
evaluation, are described in the following sections. Specifically, Section 2.1 provides a demonstration site
description; Section 2.2 describes the objectives of the evaluation; Section 2.3 describes the field and
analytical methods including placement and installation of groundwater velocity sensors, design of the
evaluation, data presentation, and data analysis; Section 2.4 presents the quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) procedures; and Section 2.5 presents the modifications to the Technology Evaluation
Plan that were implemented during the technology evaluation.
2.1 DEMONSTRATION SITE DESCRIPTION
This section provides information on site conditions, including the site location, history, geology,
hydrogeology, and soil and groundwater contamination at CCAS Facility 1381. This section also
provides a summary of the site hydrogeological conceptual model.
2.1.1 Site Location
CCAS is on Canaveral Peninsula, which is the easternmost portion of Merritt Island, a barrier island in
Brevard County on the Atlantic coast of Florida (Figure 1). The main complex of CCAS consists of
assembly and launch facilities for missiles and space vehicles and occupies 25 square miles. The property
is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Banana River to the west. The southern boundary is
an artificial shipping canal; the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) adjoins CCAS to the north. Facility
1381 is located in the east-central portion of CCAS. A site map is included as Figure 2.
2.1.2 Site History
Since it was established in 1950, CCAS has been a proving ground for research, development, and testing
of the country's military missile programs. Seventy-three miles of paved roads at CCAS connect the
various launch and support facilities with the centralized industrial area The primary industrial activities
at CCAS support missile launches from CCAS and spacecraft launches from KSC. CCAS also provides
support for submarine port activities (Parsons 1999b).
11
-------
Facility 1381 has been used for several operations since it was built in 1958. For the 10 years after
construction, Facility 1381 was used as the Guidance Azimuth Transfer Building. Aerial photographs
from that time indicate numerous drums and tanker trucks at the facility. Verbal reports indicate that the
tanker trucks were used for dumping waste solvents in the forest that surrounds the facility. In 1968, the
site became the In-Place Precision Cleaning Laboratory. Specific activities included cleaning metal
components in acid and solvent dip tanks, resulting in the generation of approximately 3,300 gallons of
waste trichloroethene (TCE) per year. In 1977, the facility became known as the Ordnance Support
Facility, and its name has remained unchanged to the present time (Parsons 1999b).
2.1.3 Regional and Site Geology
This section discusses the regional and site geology near CCAS and Facility 1381.
2.1.3.1 Regional Geology
Florida constitutes the southeast portion of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province of the
southeastern United States. The Coastal Plain is a thick sequence of unconsolidated to semi consolidated
sedimentary rocks that range from Jurassic to Holocene in age. The configuration of rocks in the Coastal
Plain is a tilted wedge that slopes and thickens seaward toward the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico.
In Florida, the sequence of sedimentary rocks that make up the Coastal Plain is referred to as the Florida
Platform. The Florida Platform rocks were deposited on top of an eroded surface of a crystalline rock
complex, which is known collectively as the Florida basement rocks. The Florida basement rocks,
consisting of low-grade metamorphics and igneous intrusives, occur several thousand feet below the land
surface and are Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic in age.
The base of the sedimentary rocks in the Florida Platform is made up of a thick, primarily carbonate
sequence deposited from the Jurassic through the Paleocene. Starting in the Miocene and continuing
through the Holocene, siliciclastic sedimentation became more dominant.
The east coast of Florida is bounded by a continental shelf that is moderately broad and slopes gently to
the north but becomes both narrower and steeper to the south, toward Cape Canaveral. Cape Canaveral is
a prominent feature, a large cuspate foreland or promontory that projects 13 miles seaward of the main
12
-------
coastal trend and strongly influences the orientation and sedimentation patterns along at least 80 miles of
Florida's east coast. Cape Canaveral itself may have been formed by converging littoral transport along
the coast (Davis 1997).
2.1.3.2 Site Geology
CCAS is situated on Canaveral Peninsula, which is on the east side of Merritt Island, a barrier island in
Brevard County on the Atlantic coast of Florida. Facility 1381 is located in the central portion of CCAS.
The topography at Facility 1381 is relatively flat, with ground elevations ranging from approximately 5 to
10 feet above mean sea level (msl) (Parsons 1999a). The topography consists of long, northeast-
southwest trending, low rises that are most likely depositional features associated with accretion of the
barrier island. Vertical relief in the area is limited to shoulders of drainage canals that slope from the
ground surface to the canal bed. Drainage canals are located 200 feet southwest (Landfill Canal) and
2,500 feet north (Northern Drainage Canal) of the GCW; both flow westward toward the Banana River.
The site geology is presented in cross-section A-A', which is shown as Figure 3. Based on previous work
at the site conducted by Parsons (2000), the geology at Facility 1381 consists of unconsolidated sediments
to a depth of at least 60 feet bgs. The upper 15 feet consists of poorly sorted, dominantly coarse shell
material and coarse to medium sand.
The average grain size of the sand fraction decreases and the silt and clay content increases from depths
of 35 feet to approximately 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). A 5-foot-thick unit of fine to very fine-
grained sand and silt occurs from 35 to 40 feet bgs. Shell fragments and coarse sand occur with varying
amounts of clay from approximately 40 to 50 feet bgs.
A layer of firm clay, which may be continuous across the site, has been encountered at a depth of 50 feet
bgs.
2.1.4 Regional and Site Hydrogeology
The regional and site hydrogeology are discussed in the following subsections.
13
-------
2.1.4.1 Regional Hydrogeology
Regional hydrostratigrapic units that occur near Cape Canaveral are presented in Figure 4 and are
described below.
Surficial Aquifer. The uppermost water-bearing unit near the site is the surficial aquifer, which is
unconfmed and consists primarily of unconsolidated materials. The surficial aquifer system is a shallow,
nonartesian aquifer, which occurs over much of eastern Florida but is not an important source of
groundwater because better supplies are generally available from other aquifers. The extent of the
surficial aquifer is shown in Figure 5.
The surficial aquifer system extends to a depth of approximately 50 to 60 feet bgs near CCAS. The
surficial aquifer is described as consisting of fine to medium quartz sand that contains varying amounts of
silt, clay, and loose shells that are post-Miocene in age. In coastal areas, such as at CCAS, the surficial
aquifer may also consist of partially cemented shell beds or coquina. The depth of the water table in the
surficial aquifer ranges from at or near the land surface in low-lying areas to tens of feet below the land
surface in areas of higher elevations.
The most important function of the surficial aquifer is to store water, some of which recharges the
underlying Floridan aquifer. The surficial aquifer is little used as a source of drinking water since its
permeability is low, resulting in relatively limited yield to wells, when compared with the Floridan
aquifer system. The surficial aquifer is used to supply potable drinking water only in coastal areas where
the underlying Floridan aquifer may be brackish (Miller 1986).
The sands of the surficial aquifer generally grade into less permeable clayey or silty sands or low-
permeability carbonate rocks at depths of usually less than 75 feet below the land surface. These rocks
act as a confining unit for limestones that compose the underlying Floridan aquifer system. This upper
confining unit of the Floridan aquifer system, as it is known, is generally composed of the middle
Miocene-aged Hawthorn Formation, low-permeability rocks that in most places separate the Floridan
aquifer from the surficial aquifer.
Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan aquifer system is a nearly vertically continuous, very thick sequence of
generally highly permeable carbonate rocks. The degree of hydraulic connection of units that make up
14
-------
the Floridan aquifer depends primarily on the texture and mineralogy of the rocks that constitute the
system (Miller 1986). The Floridan aquifer system is composed of sequences of limestone and dolomitic
limestone.
The top of the Floridan Aquifer is defined as the first occurrence of vertically persistent, permeable,
consolidated carbonate rocks. Rocks at the top of the Floridan aquifer at CCAS occur at an elevation of
approximately 150.0 feet below msl or at a depth of 160 feet bgs. The top unit of the Floridan aquifer at
CCAS is composed of the Ocala Limestone of late Eocene age, and the Floridan aquifer system ranges in
thickness from 2,600 to 2,700 feet. The base of the Floridan aquifer system is defined as the first
occurrence of anhydrite or presence of a gradational contact of generally permeable carbonate to much
less permeable gypsiferous and anhydritic rocks. These low-permeability rocks, known as the lower
confining unit of the Floridan aquifer system, everywhere underlie the Floridan. The transmissivity of the
Upper Floridan aquifer that underlies CCAS is estimated to be 50,000 to 100,000 square ft/day (Miller
1986).
Geologic formations that make up the Floridan aquifer in east-central Florida are, from top to bottom, the
Suwanee Limestone (where present), Eocene in age; the Ocala Limestone (where present); the Avon Park
Formation; and, in some areas, all or part of the Oldsmar Formation. Paleocene rocks of the Cedar Keys
Formation usually are recognized as forming the base of the Floridan aquifer system, except in areas
where the upper part of the Cedar Keys Formation is permeable (Tibbals 1990).
2.1.4.2 Site Hydrogeology
The shallow aquifer zone at Facility 1381 is part of the surficial aquifer, which, as described previously, is
a regionally unconfined water table aquifer. The water table at CCAS generally occurs at depths ranging
from 3 to 15 feet bgs. The water table occurred at approximately 8 feet bgs near the area where the
groundwater circulation well was installed.
Flow of shallow groundwater at CCAS is controlled by an engineered drainage system consisting of a
series of man-made canals, which were installed to reclaim land by lowering the water table. Surface
water at the site drains through the canals and discharges into the Banana River, which is located west of
CCAS. Closest to Facility 1381 is Landfill Canal, which is located 200 feet southwest; the Northern
Drainage Canal is located about 2,500 feet due north of Facility 1381.
15
-------
The canals strongly influence flow of shallow groundwater at the site. A groundwater divide is indicated
in the vicinity of the GCW, as evidenced by groundwater flow to the southwest toward Landfill Canal, as
well as to the northeast in the direction of the Northern Drainage Canal. Surface water elevations
measured in the canals are lower than adjacent shallow groundwater elevations, suggesting groundwater
discharge to the canals (Parsons 2000).
The upper part of the surficial aquifer at Facility 1381 has been delineated into shallow and deep aquifer
zones for this evaluation. The shallow aquifer zone is defined as the upper saturated portion of the
aquifer, from the water table to the contact of the coarse-grained shell and coarse to medium grained sand
unit that occurs approximately 15 feet bgs. The shallow aquifer zone is approximately 8 feet thick. The
deep aquifer zone is made up of medium to fine sand units, which occur at depths of 15 to 30 feet bgs.
The shallow and deep aquifer zones are depicted on Figure 3, cross-section A-A'.
The hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer at Facility 1381 was previously measured using rising
head slug tests at a monitoring well pair, 1381MWS09 (screened 7.5 to 12.5 feet bgs) and 1381MWI09
(screened 30 to 35 feet bgs), located 55 feet southeast of the GCW. The calculated hydraulic conductivity
values are 11.6 ft/day for the shallow well and 0.4 ft/day for the deep well.
Slug testing in piezometers near the GCW yielded hydraulic conductivity values of 17.8 to 24.2 ft/day in
piezometer 4PZS (screened 6.5 to 9.5 feet bgs) in the shallow aquifer zone and 0.1 to 0.2 ft/day in
piezometers 2PZD (screened 21.3 to 24.6 feet bgs) and 6PZD (screened 22.7 to 26 feet bgs) in the deep
aquifer zone. The groundwater velocity in the shallow aquifer zone under natural flow conditions is
estimated at 0.21 ft/day (Parsons 2000).
Values for hydraulic conductivity obtained from aquifer testing conducted in September 2000 are
presented in Appendix A, the Hydrogeological Investigation Report. Based on the pumping test data, the
hydraulic conductivity of the estimated saturated upper portion of the aquifer (42 feet thick) ranges from
43 to 53 ft/day.
2.1.5 Site Contamination
Contamination in soil and groundwater at Facility 1381 has been attributed to historical waste disposal
practices. A plume of contaminants in groundwater, consisting primarily of TCE and associated
16
-------
degradation products including cis-l,2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride, has been detected at the site.
The plume is 110 acres in areal extent and is 2,500 feet long. The axis of the plume is elongated to the
north-northeast.
The maximum concentration of TCE detected to date in the suspected source area is 342,000 micrograms
per liter (ug/L) (Parsons 1999b). Concentrations of TCE measured in samples from the source area have
been lower during more recent sampling rounds.
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION
The SITE evaluation was designed to address primary and secondary objectives selected for the GCW
technology. These objectives were selected to provide potential users of the GCW technology with
technical information on the groundwater circulation cell established by the treatment system. One
primary and four secondary objectives were selected for the SITE evaluation of the GCW technology and
are listed below:
Primary Objective:
P1 Evaluate the flow sensor's ability to detect the horizontal extent of the GCW groundwater
circulation cell based on a change in the groundwater velocity criterion of 0.1 foot per day (0.03
meter per day)
Secondary Objectives:
SI Evaluate the reproducibility of the groundwater velocity sensor data
S2 Evaluate the three-dimensional groundwater flow surrounding the GCW
S3 Document the operating parameters of the GCW.
S4 Document the hydrogeologic characteristics at the treatment site.
The objectives were evaluated by collecting in situ groundwater sensor data and conducting a series of
aquifer hydraulic tests. Data were collected and analyzed using the methods and procedures summarized
in Section 2.3 to meet the objectives of the evaluation.
2.3 METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION
This section describes the procedures used to collect and analyze data from the groundwater flow sensors.
17
-------
2.3.1 Placement and Installation of Groundwater Flow Sensors
The strategy for placement and installation procedures for the ground-water flow sensors is described in
the following subsections.
2.3.1.1 Placement of Sensors
Seven groundwater flow sensors manufactured by HydroTechnics were installed during the week of June
24, 2000. The flow sensors were installed in two separate clusters southeast of and in two separate
clusters southwest of the GCW.
Data collected from the flow sensors were used to evaluate both the horizontal extent of recirculation and
the overall three-dimensional groundwater flow pattern that surrounds the GCW. Modeling of the
circulation cell performed by the Oregon Graduate Research Institute was used to predict the horizontal
extent of the circulation cell and to select the locations of the flow sensors. The modeling predicted that
groundwater in the upper portion of the treatment zone would flow radially away from the GCW, and that
groundwater in the lower portion of the treatment zone would flow radially toward the GCW. The results
of modeling were also used to show that flow velocities surrounding the GCW would decrease with
distance from the GCW. The modeling results indicated that the extent of circulation at velocities that
exceeded 0.05 ft/day appeared to be limited to a radial distance of 10 feet from the GCW. In addition,
induced groundwater flow velocities near the GCW were predicted to exceed 2.0 ft/day at a distance of 5
feet from the GCW. Based on the modeling results, the most appropriate zone for installation of flow
sensors is between 5 feet and 10 feet from the GCW.
The velocity range of groundwater flow that can be accurately measured by the groundwater flow sensors
is between 0.01 and 2.0 ft/day, based on the manufacturer's specifications. Based on this criterion and the
results of modeling for the GCW, two of the flow sensor clusters were installed 7.5 feet from the GCW,
and two of the flow sensor clusters were installed 13 to 15 feet from the GCW. This strategy for
placement of the sensors took into account the measurement range of the sensors of 0.01 to 2.0 ft/day to
ensure that changes in the velocity of groundwater flow can be accurately measured.
18
-------
The sensors were installed in relation to the assumed hydraulic gradient, which was determined to be to
the southwest. Three flow sensors were placed to the southwest (assumed downgradient) of the GCW.
Another four flow sensors were placed to the southeast (assumed cross gradient) of the GCW (Figure 6).
2.3.1.2 Installation of Flow Sensors
The sensors were installed using a hollow-stem auger drilling rig equipped with 4.25-inch-inner-diameter
augers. The sensor was then lowered through the inner annulus of the drill pipe by attaching it to a 2-
inch-diameter schedule 40 PVC well casing. The well casing was used to house the sensor cables in
addition to providing a platform that enabled the field crew to lower the sensors into the borehole. After
the sensor was seated at the bottom of the boring, the auger flights were retracted, allowing the saturated
unconsolidated aquifer matrix to collapse around the flow sensor.
2.3.2 Methodology for Evaluation of Data from Flow Sensors
Evaluation of the flow sensors consists of using the data collected to assess the presence of a three-
dimensional groundwater flow regime or circulation cell. The circulation cell is induced when the GCW
is in recirculation mode. For this evaluation, evidence for the existence and the extent of the circulation
cell was as follows:
(1) Increases in horizontal groundwater Darcy velocities (hydraulic conductivity times hydraulic
gradient) in excess of 0.1 ft/day.
(2) Changes in vertical groundwater Darcy velocities and the vertical hydraulic gradient.
(3) Changes in direction of groundwater flow such that flow is away from the upper screen of the
GCW in the shallow aquifer zone and toward the lower screen of the GCW in the deep
aquifer zone.
The evaluation was designed to assess changes in the velocity of groundwater flow (magnitude and
direction) measured by the flow sensors.
Data from the flow sensors were presented in hydrographs as horizontal and vertical velocity versus time,
plotted in map view to show the horizontal component of velocity and direction, and plotted in cross-
section view showing resulting groundwater velocities and directions of groundwater flow. In addition,
the data on groundwater velocity that represent each operational period were tabulated.
19
-------
The groundwater flow sensors were installed in linear arrays at varying distances and depths from the
GCW in order to achieve the primary objectives defined in Section 2.2. Velocities and directions of
groundwater flow within the circulation cell of the GCW were measured using seven in situ groundwater
flow sensors in each cluster. The horizontal change in velocity was calculated by subtracting the
measured flow velocity. The changes in velocity of flow were calculated for each operational mode using
the data set that began when steady-state flow conditions had been established. Locations where changes
in the velocity of flow were equal to or greater than 0.1 ft/day were considered to be within the extent of
the circulation cell created by the GCW.
The three-dimensional groundwater flow that surrounds the GCW was evaluated to identify overall
changes in direction of groundwater flow and velocity attributed to the GCW. The three-dimensional
groundwater flow pattern was depicted qualitatively using hydrographs, horizontal flow vector maps, and
resulting flow velocity projected onto cross-sections. The three-dimensional groundwater flow was
depicted separately for each operating condition.
The following process control data collected by AFCEE during operation of the GCW evaluation were
used to document the operating parameters of the GCW: (1) water pumping rate, (2) duration of system
operation, and (3) description of any system shutdowns.
Hydrogeologic data collected during previous investigations at Facility 1381 were reviewed to develop a
site hydrogeologic conceptual model. A series of aquifer tests were also conducted to evaluate the
hydraulic parameters in the shallow aquifer zone such as hydraulic conductivity (K), transmissivity (T),
storativity (S), and specific yield (Sy). These data were used in combination with data from the flow
sensors to assess groundwater flow patterns within the treatment zones.
2.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
This section discusses QC measures that were used during installation and operation of the flow sensors.
2.4.1 Calibration Procedures for Flow Sensors
All flow sensors undergo a two-step calibration process. The first calibration step occurs at the factory
and involves certifying that all thermistors measure temperature differences as small as 0.01 C in a water
bath and creating a signal signature, or calibration file. The second calibration step occurs in the field,
20
-------
involving mathematically correcting for recorded lithology-induced thermal variations. The end result is a
probe that records the thermal distribution over its surface independent of lithology and as measured
against a known standard
2.4.2 Installation Procedures for Flow Sensors
QA/QC procedures implemented during installation of the sensors ensured that the exact location, depth,
and orientation of each sensor were recorded, and that the sensors were operating properly after they were
installed. The procedure for installation included recording the number designated by the factory from
each sensor and labeling each sensor with an appropriate EPA identification number. Each EPA
identification number included the project name, the work assignment number, the number designated by
the factory, the relationship to the GCW, and a two-digit consecutive number.
A reference line on each sensor was translated to the surface indicating its orientation. The sensors were
attached to the top of the PVC casing. The line was marked on the side of the PVC casing so that the
orientation of the sensor would be identified at the ground surface. When installation was complete, the
orientation of the sensor was verified using a compass that had been corrected for declination.
HydroTechnics requires the orientation of the sensor as an input to the data processing software. After
the sensors were installed and oriented, the electrical resistance of each flow sensor was checked to make
sure that it was working properly. The GCW and the locations of the flow sensors were surveyed and the
horizontal coordinates were used to calculate the exact distances of the flow sensors from the GCW.
2.4.3 Data Processing Procedures
The probes generate raw minivolt data that HTFLOW0 software interprets. QA/QC procedures used in
processing raw millivolt data used the two reference resisters built into each sensor. The two reference
resisters are fixed and read constant values regardless of the temperature or position of the sensor in the
subsurface. The data loggers collect and store readings from the reference resisters as part of the main
data file. The reference resisters serve as a check to ensure that data being collected are accurate and are
not subject to any electrical interferences.
21
-------
2.5 MODIFICATIONS TO THE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN
The TEP (Tetra Tech 2000) specified that the flow sensors would be installed near the GCW and in
relation to the natural flow gradient. Two groups of flow sensors, consisting of deep and shallow clusters,
were to be installed downgradient of the GCW, and two clusters were to be installed cross-gradient from
the GCW. The sensors were installed assuming a natural flow gradient to the southwest. Groundwater
elevation data collected in 2000, however, suggest that the horizontal hydraulic gradient is very low and
that the direction of groundwater flow near the GCW varies. Evidence also indicates that a groundwater
flow divide is present near the GCW. Because a constant hydraulic gradient is absent, the relationship of
the locations of the flow sensors to the natural direction of groundwater flow cannot be established.
The flow sensors were installed at depths that varied from the plan. The deep sensors were installed 1 to
2 feet shallower than was planned because of subsurface conditions encountered during their installation.
Soil samples collected from the deeper portion of the aquifer showed an increase in fine-grained
materials. The sensors were installed in the shallower, more permeable portion of the aquifer to ensure
flow around the sensor would be measurable.
To evaluate the flow in the upper screened interval, it was therefore decided in the field to install the
shallow sensors at a depth of approximately 1 foot (0.3 meters) below the existing groundwater surface.
The shallow sensors were installed at a lower depth because the groundwater level at the site was lower
than was anticipated. Florida was experiencing a drought and static water levels were several feet lower
than had been reported in previous site investigations. The shallow flow sensors were installed with less
than manufacturer recommended submergence because initial modeling results indicated that there would
not be measurable flow deeper than 6.6 feet (2 meters) into the aquifer 6.6 feet (2 meters) radial distance
from GCW. With effort the manufacturer was able to interpret shallow sensor data.
In most cases, the radial distances of the flow sensors from the GCW were within 0.25 feet of those
specified in the plan. The clusters of flow sensors were installed along a line such that the deep flow
sensors were farther away from the GCW than were the shallow flow sensors. As a result, the following
exceptions were noted with respect to installation distances of the flow sensors. Deep flow sensor C02
was installed 1.5 feet farther away from the GCW than was specified in the plan. Deep flow sensor D02
was installed approximately 1.75 feet farther from the GCW than was specified in the plan. Shallow flow
sensor COS was installed 0.5 feet closer to the GCW than was specified in the plan.
22
-------
While the technical data collection performed during the demonstration was generally consistent with the
requirements of the TEP, except as noted above, the wording of the primary objective and first secondary
objective were slightly revised for the purposes of clarity in reporting the results of the demonstration.
The TEP reports the primary objective as to evaluate the horizontal extent of the groundwater circulation
cell. This TER reports the primary objective more accurately as to evaluate the flow sensor's ability to
detect the horizontal extent of the groundwater circulation cell. The first secondary objective was
reworded to more accurately reflect the objective to evaluate the reproducibility of the groundwater
velocity data obtained from the flow sensors; rather than the original wording, which was to evaluate the
precision of the sensors.
23
-------
3.0 GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL SYSTEM
This section describes the GCW system, including the design and principle of operation, GCW
installation, hydraulic conditions near the GCW, and operational modes of the GCW. Table 1 is a
chronology of field events associated with installation and operation of the GCW.
3.1 DESIGN AND PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
The WEI GCW is an in situ groundwater remediation system designed to simultaneously circulate and
strip VOCs from groundwater in the aquifer. In the WEI system, airlift pumping moves groundwater
upward from a screen in the lower section of the well. Air is pumped to the bottom of the well using a
blower, reducing the weight of the water column. Groundwater and air are then lifted to an upper screen,
where the air strips VOCs and the groundwater is allowed to discharge back into the aquifer. The air
stream used to strip VOCs is extracted from the wellhead and is treated before it is released to the
atmosphere. Groundwater that re-enters the aquifer via the top screen flows vertically downward and can
be recaptured by the GCW, where it is treated again. The groundwater flow regime developed by the
GCW is termed a circulation cell, and its characteristics are critical to the effectiveness of the technology.
Key parameters of the circulation cell are its size, or radius, and its percent capture (Parsons 1999a).
For the demonstration at CCAS, the design of the GCW was modified to include an eductor pipe. The
eductor pipe was installed inside the GCW to prevent air bubbles from escaping from the lower screened
interval and into the surrounding aquifer. The addition of the eductor pipe allows air-lift pumping
operation of the GCW without exposing the GCW intake screen (lower screen) to air bubbles.
3.2 INSTALLATION OF GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL1
The GCW system at CCAS Facility 1381 was installed in November 1999. A schematic diagram of the
GCW is presented as Figure 7. The GCW system is a 6-inch-diameter PVC well casing with two
separate, wire-wrapped PVC well screens, installed to a total depth of 35 feet bgs. The upper screened
interval is 5 feet long and was installed from 5 to 10 feet bgs using a 20-slot (0.020-inch), wire-wrapped
PVC screen. The lower screened interval is 10 feet long and was installed from a depth of 20 to 30 feet
bgs using a 10-slot (0.010-inch), wire-wrapped PVC screen. A 5-foot long sump was installed at a depth
1 All pipe diameters and lengths are listed in American Standard Engineering units. Please see page xiv for
conversion factors for metric units.
24
-------
of 30 to 35 feet bgs, below the intake screen of the lower screened interval, to collect sediments. The
entire sub-surface system was installed in a 14-inch diameter boring.
A filter pack that consisted of 20/45 silica sand was installed in the annulus around the intake (lower)
screen from 18 to 35 feet bgs. Coarser-grained, 6/20 silica filter sand was installed in the annulus around
the outflow (upper) screen from 0 to 11 feet bgs. The filter sand was installed using a tremie pipe and
was surged every 5 feet to ensure that the filter pack settled. Alternating layers of bentonite clay and
silica sand were poured in the annulus around the middle blank casing section between 11 and 18 feet
bgs. The bentonite clay seals were installed to prevent downward flow of water through the annulus.
The eductor pipe was constructed of 4-inch-diameter PVC to simulate the airlift performance of a 4-inch-
diameter GCW. The eductor pipe is perforated from 3 to 5.5 feet bgs and from 29.5 to 31 feet bgs. The
perforations consist of 0.5-inch diameter holes in four lines spaced radially around the pipe,
approximately 4 inches apart vertically.
Two piezometers were installed within the sand pack of the 14-inch diameter GCW boring. The upper
piezometer, GCWS, was screened from 7 to 8 feet bgs, adjacent to the upper screened interval of the
GCW. The lower piezometer, GCWD, was screened from 24.5 to 25.5 feet bgs, adjacent to the lower
screened interval of the GCW. Figure 6 shows piezometers GCWS and GCWD in relation to the GCW.
Four piezometer pairs, each consisting of 1.5-inch-diameter shallow and deep piezometers (2PZS/2PZD,
3PZS/3PZD, 4PZS/4PZD, and 6PZS/6PZD) were installed within a 30-foot radius of the GCW. Except
for 6PZS, these piezometers were used as observation wells during aquifer hydraulic testing. The
piezometers were screened at intervals of approximately 6 to 9.5 feet (shallow) and 22 to 26 feet (deep)
bgs.
3.3 HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS NEAR THE GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION
WELL
This section discusses hydraulic conditions near the GCW by defining the aquifer zones screened by the
GCW and describing the natural patterns of groundwater flow near the GCW.
25
-------
3.3.1 Definition of Screened Aquifer Zones
The upper screen of the GCW was installed at a depth of 5 to 10 feet bgs and is completed in the shallow
aquifer zone. The shallow aquifer zone consists predominantly of coarse shell fragments and coarse to
medium sand with little or no silt and no clay.
The lower screen of the GCW was placed at a depth of 20 to 30 feet bgs in the deep aquifer zone. The
lithology of the deep aquifer zone is described as predominantly medium to very fine sand with little or
no silt or clay, possibly containing significant amounts of shell fragments. A lower part of the deep
aquifer zone consists of fine sand and silt.
Piezometer pairs near the GCW were installed in either the shallow (S-series) or the deep (D-series)
aquifer zones.
3.3.2 Natural Groundwater Flow Conditions
Site groundwater elevations measured in 1996 indicated that site groundwater appears to be affected by a
northwest-trending groundwater divide (Parsons 2000). The divide directs groundwater flow to the
southwest toward Landfill Canal, and to the northeast. The groundwater divide is present in both the
shallow and deep aquifer zones, although the location of the divide may differ in the two aquifer zones.
As a result of the divide, direction of groundwater flow beneath Facility 1381 may be temporally variable,
as the groundwater divide moves laterally in response to changes in water levels in the canal and
infiltration recharge rates.
Data on groundwater elevations were collected in the deep and shallow piezometers near the GCW during
natural flow conditions on separate dates in April, June, and July 2000 (Parsons 2000). Table 2
summarizes directions of groundwater flow. The data indicate that directions of flow in both the shallow
and deep zones reversed during the 4-month period. The direction of groundwater flow in the shallow
aquifer zone shifted between flow to the northwest and flow to the south and southeast. Similarly, the
direction of groundwater flow in the deep aquifer zone shifted between flow to the north/northwest and
flow to the southeast. However, the direction of flow in the deep and shallow aquifer zones were the
same in April and mid-June, but were different from each other in late June and early July. The
26
-------
combination of the low horizontal hydraulic gradient and recharge effects of the canals most likely cause
constant fluctuations in the direction of groundwater flow near the GCW.
The information presented in Table 2 indicates that the directions of groundwater flow in both the shallow
and deep aquifer zones are variable and can vary between the two aquifer zones at the same time. The
information confirms that a groundwater flow divide exists near the GCW. As a result, no dominant
direction of flow can be identified in either aquifer zone.
3.4 GCW OPERATIONS
During the demonstration the GCW was operated in four operational modes: GCW circulation, pump-
and-treat testing, aquifer testing, and dipole flow testing (DFT). This section describes GCW operation in
each mode.
3.4.1 GCW Circulation
AFCEE operated the GCW in circulation mode during the spring and summer of 2000. The setup of the
GCW in circulation mode is shown as a schematic diagram in Figure 8. An air supply pipe, constructed
of 0.75-inch PVC, was inserted in the GCW within the eductor pipe. Pressurized air was then supplied to
the well via piping fitted with a pressure gauge and a flow meter, which measured airflow to the GCW. A
section of 1.5-inch-diameter PVC pipe was attached to the end of the air supply pipe to direct airflow
upward within the eductor pipe. Air was injected into the GCW at a depth of approximately 29 feet bgs.
After several weeks of operation in this mode, evidence of scaling or accumulation of calcium carbonate
was noted in the GCW. The scaling occurs when carbon dioxide is stripped from the water as it flows
through a well, when the pH of the water increases to the point that calcium carbonate is oversaturated
and begins to precipitate. As a result, an acid drip system was installed, which began operating on May 5,
2000, to maintain the pH of the water and reduce scaling. The acid drip system consisted of a 5-gallon
acid container and a metered pump that discharged acid to the top of the air supply pipe. A hydrochloric
acid solution with a pH of slightly above 2.0 standard units was injected into the well at the air discharge
point, where the surging action of the airlift pumping would promote maximum mixing. The acid
injection rate was adjusted in an attempt to maintain the pH of the outflow water as near as possible to the
pH of the inflow water. The 5-gallon storage container was subsequently replaced with a 30-gallon
27
-------
container to permit increases in the rate of acid addition. The acid injection system is shown
schematically in Figure 8.
During the circulation mode of operation, AFCEE conducted three types of tracer tests to assess the
performance of the GCW. Flow rate testing using bromide was performed to provide a direct measure of
flow through the GCW. A second test using sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) assessed the extent of
recirculation for flow out of the upper GCW screen back to the lower well screen. A third test using
fluorescent dye evaluated movement of water away from the GCW and into the aquifer.
3.4.2 Pump-and-Treat Testing
AFCEE conducted groundwater pump-and-treat tests both before and after operation of the GCW in
circulation mode to allow a comparison of the circulation operation results with results obtained using a
more conventional technology (pump-and-treat). A schematic diagram of the pump-and-treat system is
shown in Figure 9. A '/^-horsepower (HP) electric submersible pump was installed in the 4-inch ID
eductor pipe in the lower screened interval of the GCW at a depth of approximately 28 feet bgs to conduct
the pump-and-treat operation.
Operation of the GCW during the pump-and-treat test consisted of pumping water from the lower
screened interval. The extracted water was pumped into a holding tank and then treated using an air-
stripping unit. The treated effluent was then piped to an infiltration zone for discharge by a sprinkler
system.
3.4.3 Aquifer Hydraulic Testing
EPA conducted aquifer hydraulic testing using the lower screened interval of the GCW as the pumping
well. An inflatable packer was used to isolate the two screened intervals to facilitate pumping from only
the lower screened interval. Figure 10 is a schematic diagram of the aquifer testing system at the GCW.
Aquifer hydraulic tests consisted of a step drawdown test, a DFT, and a constant-rate pumping test.
Objectives and results of the aquifer testing are presented in Appendix A, the Hydrogeological
Investigation Report.
28
-------
3.4.4 Dipole Flow Testing
EPA conducted multiple DFTs using the GCW on September 14 and 18, 2000. Figure 11 is a schematic
diagram of the setup for the DFTs. The DFTs were conducted by simultaneously pumping water from the
lower screened interval in the deep aquifer zone and injecting the discharged groundwater into the upper
screened interval in the shallow aquifer zone. The pumping rate was equal to the injection rate during
each of the DFTs. Water levels in piezometers GCWD, GCWS, 2PZD, 2PZS, 3PZD, 3PZS, 4PZD,
4PZS, and 6PZD were monitored using Insitu® mini-TROLL pressure transducers and data loggers.
Five separate tests were completed at different flow rates during the DFTs conducted on September 14,
2000. Groundwater was pumped and injected simultaneously at rates of 2.3, 3.7, 6.0, 8.8, and 4.8 gallons
per minute (gpm) in periods that lasted 30 minutes each, except for the final test, which lasted 90 minutes.
A recovery period of 30 minutes was allowed between each test. The 30-minute recovery period after
each DFT was considered adequate because relatively fast recovery in the water level was observed in the
lower and upper screened intervals of the GCW during the step-drawdown tests. Groundwater
hydrographs for piezometers GCWS and GCWD during Dipole Tests 1 through 5 (see Appendix A)
demonstrate that the 30-minute recovery period between tests was adequate.
An additional DFT (Dipole Test 6) was conducted on September 18, 2000 using a higher flow rate and a
longer test period, specifically pumping and injecting groundwater at a rate of 12.5 gpm for 142 minutes.
The DFT was stopped prior to its full duration because of a power failure and, as a result, logarithmic data
for the water level recovery could not be collected for the early portion of the test. A second high-
flow/long-duration DFT (Dipole Test 7) was conducted later on September 18, at a pumping and injection
rate of 12.5 gpm for 360 minutes.
29
-------
4.0 IN SITU GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS
This section describes the in situ groundwater flow sensors and discusses their operation, data collection,
and data evaluation.
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS1
The groundwater flow sensors installed at CCAS were developed at Sandia National Laboratories and
manufactured by HydroTechnics, both of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The flow sensors are in situ
instruments that use a thermal perturbation technique to directly measure the velocity of groundwater
flow in unconsolidated, saturated, porous media. The flow sensors differ from other devices to measure
groundwater velocity in that they are in direct contact with the unconsolidated aquifer matrix where the
flow is to be measured, thereby avoiding borehole effects. The flow sensor is a thin, cylindrical device
that is permanently buried at the depth where the velocity of groundwater flow is to be measured.
The flow sensors operate on the principle that if the heat flux out of the cylinder is uniform over its
surface, the temperature distribution on the surface of the cylinder will vary as a function of the direction
and magnitude of groundwater flow past the cylinder. Because heat introduced into the formation by the
heater is advected by flow of fluid around and past the instrument, relatively warm temperatures are
sensed on the downstream side of the probe and relatively cool temperatures are detected on the upstream
side (Ballard 1996). Thus, the direction and magnitude of groundwater flow are recorded as those
locations in the cylinder where the temperature gradients are the highest.
Each flow sensor consists of a cylindrical heater, 30 inches long by 2 3/8 inch in diameter with an array of
30 calibrated temperature sensors on its surface. When the instrument is installed directly in contact with
the unconsolidated aquifer matrix and activated, the heater warms the aquifer matrix and groundwater
around the instrument to 20 to 30 °C above background temperature. The distribution of temperature on
the surface of the sensor is independent of azimuth and symmetrical about the vertical midpoint of the
sensor in the absence of any flow. When there is flow past the sensor, the distribution of the surface
temperature is perturbed as the heat emanating from the sensor is advected by the moving fluid.
1 All pipe diameters and lengths are listed in American Standard Engineering units. Please see page xiv for
conversion factors for metric units.
30
-------
The flow sensors are designed to be installed into the subsurface through the center of a hollow-stem
auger flight, typically through a standard 4.25-inch-inner-diameter hollow-stem auger. Each sensor is
connected to the surface by electrical cables housed in 2-inch schedule 40 PVC well casing. One
electrical cable provides power for the 40-ohm electrical resistance heaters on each sensor. Seventy watts
of power input are required to operate a 57-volt direct current (DC) power supply at 1.4 amps. The
thermistors within the sensors have a normal resistance of 1 megaohm at 25 °C, about 2.5 megaohm at 10
°C, and about 125 killiohm at 70 °C. Table 4 provides a summary of the specifications for the flow
sensors.
Data loggers collect and store data as millivolt readings derived from the thermistors. The data logger can
be programmed to collect data as frequently as once every minute. Once data are collected, they can be
manually downloaded in the field using a laptop computer or they can be acquired remotely through a
modem. The data can be interpreted via HydroTechnics' proprietary software, HTFLOW0
(HydroTechnics 1997). The software accepts the raw millivolt data and converts them into temperature
data; temperature data can then be manipulated and simulated to calculate velocities of groundwater flow
using an inverse technique. The resulting output includes horizontal and vertical groundwater velocity
vectors and an azimuth for horizontal direction of flow.
4.2 INSTALLATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS
Seven flow sensors were installed in the deep and shallow aquifer zones in two separate clusters. The
flow sensors were installed from June 26 to June 28, 2000; data collection and data downloading began
by July 1, 2000. Specifications for installation of the flow sensors are provided in Table 5.
Locations of the sensors in the deep and shallow aquifer zones relative to the GCW are shown in Figure 6.
Four flow sensors (D-series) were installed southeast of the GCW, and three flow sensors (C-series) were
installed southwest of the GCW. The radial distances of the flow sensors from the GCW were selected
based on modeled predictions of the extent of the circulation cell created by the GCW. The modeling
results were also used to predict the velocity of groundwater flow in the area that surrounds the GCW.
A general criterion was established to define the area of the GCW circulation cell where changes in the
velocity of groundwater flow either horizontal, vertical, or both of more than 0.1 ft/day occur. Based on
this criterion and on the results of the GCW modeling, two of the flow sensor clusters (C01/C02 and
D01/D02) were installed within the predicted radius of the circulation cell, 7.5 feet from the GCW. The
other two flow sensor clusters (C03/C04 and DOS) were installed at 13 to 15 feet from the GCW.
31
-------
The depths of the flow sensors were selected in reference to the upper and lower screened intervals of the
GCW. The upper screen of the GCW was installed from 5 to 10 feet bgs, and the lower screen of the
GCW was installed from 20 to 30 feet bgs. When the flow sensors were installed, the water table was
approximately 8 feet bgs, based on a water level measurement in piezometer 3PZS made on July 7, 2000
(Parsons 2000). The shallow flow sensors were installed at depths so that the top of each sensor was
approximately 8.5 feet bgs, or about 0.5 foot below the static water table. The deep flow sensors were
installed at depths so that the top of the sensor was approximately 17 to 19 feet bgs. Based on
recommendations by HydroTechnics, the deep sensors were installed first, followed by the shallow
sensors. This method allowed the formation time to settle around the deep sensors before drilling was
resumed in their immediate vicinity.
When the soil borings were advanced for flow sensor installation, soil samples were collected at changes
in lithology or at 5-foot intervals using a 24-inch-long, split-spoon sampler. The soil samples were used
to assess subsurface conditions and for lithologic logging. Soil samples and cuttings were logged using
the Unified Soil Classification System. In addition, the bottom 4 feet of each boring was continuously
sampled to ensure that the 30-inch long sensors would be positioned in a relatively homogenous lithologic
section of the soil column. As such, the depths proposed for the sensors were adjusted based on the
subsurface conditions encountered during installation to ensure a homogenous lithologic section in the
vicinity of the flow sensor.
4.3 OPERATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSORS
The flow sensors were connected to a control panel to provide electrical power for their heaters and to
store outputs in a data logger. Two Campbell Scientific CR-10X data loggers were used to record sensor
data and were connected to a modem for remote data access. One data logger was dedicated to the four
cross-gradient sensors, and the other data logger was dedicated to the three downgradient sensors.
Starting on July 1, 2000, the data loggers recorded data from each sensor every 30 minutes for the 6-
month evaluation period. The data from the flow sensors were collected at 2-minute intervals during the
aquifer testing period from September 11 to September 20, 2000.
Data from the flow sensors were being collected and stored as millivolt readings, derived from the
thermistors that cover the sensors. Failure of a power strip at the beginning of September 2000
32
-------
(potentially the result of lightning strikes) caused all of the flow sensors to power down. The failure was
discovered and the power strip was replaced; the flow sensors were restarted on September 11, 2000.
Based on the memory capacity of the data loggers and the proposed frequency of data collection, each
data logger rewrites over old data about every 2 months. Each data logger was downloaded remotely
every 30 days using a modem to ensure that no data would be lost. This schedule allowed approximately
30 days to collect data manually in the event that remote access capabilities were lost. The raw sensor
data was processed using HTFLOW0 software. A copy of the HTFLOW0 software manual was included
as Appendix A in the TEP/QAPP (Tetra Tech 2000).
4.4 LIMITATIONS OF FLOW SENSOR DATA AND DATA MANIPULATION
The process of simulating and manipulating data from the flow sensors yields a three-dimensional vector
for velocity of groundwater flow, which is then converted to the horizontal Darcy flow rate, vertical
Darcy flow rate, and the azimuthal direction of groundwater flow. The limitations of data manipulation
are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Flow Velocity Simulation
Vectors for the velocity of groundwater flow were simulated using HTFLOW0, which employs an
inversion process to match theoretical curves with the observed temperature data. When the observed
temperature data are discontinuous or exceed the upper bounds of the recommended velocities, the
simulation becomes unstable and difficult to converge and could result in inversion errors. In general,
small, abrupt temperature changes can be simulated by varying the time-steps (averaging the data to
smooth the curve).
During the study period, some flow sensors recorded huge changes in temperature gradient as a result of
exposure to ground water flows in excess of the specified 2. Oft/day upper limit. These high ground water
flows induce large inversion errors and an unreliable calculated velocity. In such cases, velocity data
were omitted represented as corresponding data gaps in the hydrographs. For example, deep flow sensor
D01 showed several gaps in velocity data during the aquifer hydraulic testing period. However, the raw
millivolt data collected in these circumstances provided a useful, if qualitative, window into how quickly
flow vectors changed.
33
-------
4.4.2 Placement of Flow Sensors in Relation to Direction of Groundwater Flow
The flow sensors were installed based on distance from the GCW and relative to the expected natural
direction of groundwater flow toward the southwest. Based on this assumption, cross gradient (southeast)
and downgradient (southwest) clusters of flow sensors were installed. However, because of the probable
presence of a groundwater flow divide near the GCW, direction of groundwater flow is more variable. As
a result, the relationship of the flow sensors to the horizontal hydraulic gradient is most likely transient.
Therefore, the flow sensors and clusters are referred to as "southeast" and "southwest," rather than "cross
gradient" and "downgradient" for this evaluation.
4.4.3 Depth of Shallow Flow Sensors with Respect to Water Table
The manufacturer's recommended installation depth requires a minimum of 5 feet of saturated aquifer
material between the top of the flow sensor and the water table. If the flow sensor is too near the
unsaturated zone, which tends to be higher in temperature than the underlying groundwater, then the
existing temperature gradient will incorrectly be interpreted by the sensor as upward flow. These
superposed vectors can be accounted for and corrected using the programs' vector subtraction feature. To
evaluate the flow in the upper screened interval, it was decided in the field to install the shallow sensors at
a depth of approximately 1 foot below the existing groundwater surface (approximately 8 feet below
ground surface) to allow the sensor to be placed at a depth similar to the upper screened interval of the
GCW. The limited water column above the sensors may have impaired the sensor's performance.
However, it was suspected that deeper placement of the flow sensors would compromise the ability to
evaluate GCW performance in the shallow aquifer zone.
4.4.4 Accuracy and Precision of Flow Sensor Data
Past studies conducted by independent parties have shown that the flow sensors accurately record precise
flow velocity data when directly compared to piezometric analysis in fluctuating flow environments such
as occur in natural ground water/surface water interactions as well as pump test of many varieties.
Though the probes routinely and accurately record fluctuations in flow velocities, flow velocities higher
than 2 ft/day have higher interpretation errors. This upper limit is dictated by the sensor geometry and the
heat flow equation central to the algorithm. The algorithm used by the sensor to calculate a flow vector
requires the last collected data point; if that last data point is outside the upper specified limit, it will
34
-------
calculate the next data point but yield an incorrect velocity. In addition, rapid oscillations in flow
velocities, as might be experienced by turning a nearby pump on and off very quickly, may yield
ambiguous data. Some measure of equilibrium must be attained between changes in velocities for any one
velocity to be calculated faithfully.
4.4.5 Physical Reliability of Flow Sensors
Each flow sensor consists of a rod of low thermal conductivity surrounded by a thin flex circuit heater, an
array of 30 temperature thermistors, and a waterproof jacket constructed from high-density plastic and
PVC. The estimated life of the flow sensors is 1 to 2 years (Ballard 1996) though many have lasted much
longer.
The flow sensors are capable of measuring groundwater flow velocities in the range of approximately 5 X
10~6 to 1 X 10~3 centimeters per second (cm/s) (0.014 to 2.8 feet per day) (Ballard 1996). Higher flow
rates than were anticipated near the GCW exceeded the capability of the instruments. For this evaluation,
flow velocities greater than 3 feet per day were considered less reliable.
35
-------
5.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF FLOW SENSOR DATA COLLECTION
Ground-water velocity vectors were calculated from the temperature data collected from each flow sensor.
When the GCW was not in operation, the measured groundwater velocity vectors were assumed to be the
background velocity. These background velocity vectors for each of the shallow flow sensors were then
subtracted from all of the velocity vectors using vector subtraction. This process essentially reduced the
ambient groundwater flow vector to zero, primarily to observe the effects of pumping and GCW operation
on the groundwater flow regime.
5.1 GCW CIRCULATION OPERATION (JULY 1 TO JULY 30, 2000)
This section describes the groundwater velocity data collected during July 2000. Data from this period
are presented in Figures 12 through 26 and in Table 6. Table 7 provides a chronology of probable GCW
operational events during July and August 2000, as interpreted from the flow sensor data.
5.1.1 Horizontal and Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocities
Horizontal and vertical groundwater Darcy velocities are presented and discussed in this section.
Horizontal Darcy Velocities. Figures 12 and 13 present hydrographs of horizontal groundwater Darcy
velocity versus time in the deep aquifer zone, with Figure 12 showing the actual data and Figure 13
displaying data corrected for background. The background horizontal velocities are very low, on the
order of 0.01 ft/day; therefore, differences between the two sets of data are insignificant.
The flow sensor data indicate that the GCW was not operational until July 11, when the four flow sensors
in the deep aquifer zone recorded sharp increases in horizontal velocities. The increases in flow velocity
recorded on July 11 are caused by initiation of the long-term GCW circulation mode test; that is,
simultaneously pumping from the lower screen and injecting into the upper screen. The responses of the
flow sensors indicate that all of the deep sensors were in an area of the aquifer zone that was affected by
operation of the GCW. Southwest flow sensor D03, farther from the GCW, exhibited a greater response
to operation of the GCW than did flow sensor D02, which is closer to the well. Southeast flow sensor
C02, which is closer to the GCW, exhibited a greater response to operation of the GCW than did flow
sensor C04, farther from the pumping well. Different responses in southwest flow sensors D02 and D03
possibly indicate aquifer heterogeneity and anisotropy in this direction. According to the flow sensor
data, the long-term GCW test ended late on July 28, 2000, resulting in a test period of about 17 days. The
36
-------
velocity data from the flow sensors suggest that the GCW circulation flow was generally constant over
the testing period.
Flow inversion errors versus time, shown in Figure 14, indicate that inversion errors increased when the
flow velocity is higher during the operation period from July 11 to July 28, 2000. Thermistor temperature
data versus time shown in Figure 15 indicate that flow sensor C02 recorded substantial variations in
temperatures during the GCW testing period.
Horizontal groundwater Darcy velocities in the shallow aquifer zone are shown in Figures 16 and 17;
Figure 16 shows the actual measurement data, and Figure 17 displays data corrected for background. As
with the deep aquifer zone, the data collected before July 11 shows the natural flow velocities, which in
the shallow aquifer zone are approximately 0.3 to 0.5 ft/day. On July 11, 2000, similar to the deep flow
sensors, the shallow flow sensors recorded a sharp change in horizontal Darcy groundwater velocity.
Southeast flow sensor C01, which is closer to the GCW, showed lower horizontal velocities than were
measured at southeast flow sensor COS, which is farther from the GCW. Horizontal velocities recorded at
shallow southeast flow sensor COS were similar to southwest flow sensor D01, on the order of 1.5 to 2
ft/day.
Flow sensor inversion errors versus time, shown in Figure 18, indicate that inversion errors increased by
up to approximately 0.6 °C during the GCW testing period. The 0.6 °C inversion error is generally
considered the upper limit of the errors for reasonably reliable velocity simulations. Thermistor
temperatures versus time, shown in Figure 19, indicate that more variation in temperature at flow sensor
C01 occurred during the GCW testing period.
The net flow velocities for the deep flow sensors ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 ft/day during the GCW testing
period. The net flow velocities for the shallow flow sensors ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 ft/day during the
GCW testing period.
Vertical Darcy Velocities. The measured vertical Darcy groundwater velocities versus time in the deep
aquifer zone are shown in Figure 20. Figure 21 shows the vertical flow velocities with background flow
removed. There is very little difference between the two sets of hydrographs, indicating that the
background vertical velocities are low in comparison to the changes in flow velocity during the test
period. As with the horizontal velocities, a change in the vertical velocities occurred on July 11. This
37
-------
change is the start of pumping associated with the long-term GCW test. The most significant change in
the vertical velocity occurred in flow sensor C02, 8.9 feet southeast of the GCW, where the vertical
velocity reversed from upward to downward, to approximately minus 5.0 feet per day. The change in
vertical velocity was much less pronounced in the other deep southeast flow sensor, C04. At southwest
flow sensors D02 and DOS, the more significant change in vertical velocity occurred at DOS, farther from
the GCW than is flow sensor D02, which exhibited a much less pronounced response that was similar to
flow sensor C04. Vertical groundwater velocities in each of the deep flow sensors appear to have
stabilized quickly after the GCW test began and remained consistent until the apparent end of the test on
July 28, 2000.
Vertical velocities versus time measured in the shallow aquifer zone are shown in Figures 22 and 23. One
of the shallow flow sensors, southeast flow sensor D01, recorded a brief change in vertical velocity on
July 8, 2000, which was not registered by other shallow flow sensors C01 and COS or any of the deep
flow sensors. The reason for this brief change in vertical flow velocity in flow sensor D01 is unknown.
5.1.2 Horizontal Groundwater Flow Directions
Horizontal directions of groundwater flow under GCW circulation mode measured in the deep aquifer
zone are shown in Figure 24. The data shown were collected at 4 p.m. on July 28, 2000, near the end of
the pumping period associated with the GCW testing period. It is assumed that groundwater circulation
reached a steady state condition at the end of the GCW testing period.
The length of the arrows shown on Figure 24 represents the magnitude of horizontal flow velocity. It
appears that velocities of groundwater flow in three out of the four sensors are on the order of 1 foot per
day. Assuming natural flow velocities in the deep aquifer flow zone on the order of 0.01 ft/day, the
arrows that represent vectors of velocity and direction in Figure 24 indicate that all of the flow sensors are
in areas that were affected by pumping of the GCW. In general, except for flow sensor DOS, the
directions of groundwater flow shown are toward the lower screen of the GCW.
Figure 25 shows the horizontal Darcy velocity and direction of flow in the sensors for the shallow aquifer
zone. The flow velocities at sensors COS and D01 are an order of magnitude higher than the estimated
natural rate of flow in the shallow aquifer zone of about 0.3 ft/day, with little change recorded at flow
sensor COL The directions of flow are away from the GCW, indicating that the sensors in the shallow
aquifer zone were recording the effects of water recharged to the upper screen of the GCW.
38
-------
5.1.3 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocities Projected in Cross-Section
Resulting groundwater flow velocities and directions, measured by the flow sensors on July 28, 2000,
were projected onto cross-section AOB, shown in Figure 26. (The location of cross-section AOB is
shown in Figure 6.)
Figure 26 shows that under pumping and reinjection conditions, as represented at the end of the GCW
circulation test, velocities and directions of groundwater flow in the deep and shallow aquifer zone were
clearly altered by operation of the GCW. The highest velocities were recorded in sensors closest to the
GCW, C01, C02, and D01. The flow regime near the GCW, as defined by those sensors, appears to
contain a more pronounced component of vertical flow than of horizontal flow. This phenomenon is
consistent with the Oregon Graduate Institute's model predictions and observations during aquifer testing.
The magnitude of flow velocity reflected on Figure 26 may be less reliable than the directions of the
recorded flow because (1) flow velocities at sensors C01, C02, and D01 are out of the range that can be
measured, according to specifications for the flow sensors, and (2) the shallow flow sensors may be
significantly affected by ambient temperatures in the vadose zone. Nevertheless, flow at each of the
shallow flow sensors is directed away from the GCW, while flow recorded at each of the deep flow
sensors is toward the GCW, consistent with the direction expected in a circulation cell produced by
operation of the GCW.
5.2 FINAL PUMP-AND-TREAT TESTING (AUGUST 1 TO AUGUST 31, 2000)
This section describes the data on velocity and direction of groundwater flow collected during the August
2000 GCW final pump-and-treat test. Data from this period are presented in Figures 27 through 41 and in
Table 6. Table 7 provides a chronology of probable events during August 2000 as interpreted from the
flow sensor data.
5.2.1 Horizontal and Vertical Darcy Groundwater Velocities
Horizontal Darcy Velocities. Figures 27 and 28 show hydrographs that display horizontal groundwater
Darcy velocities versus time, as recorded in the deep aquifer zone during August 2000. The actual data
39
-------
are shown in Figure 27, while the data with background removed are shown on Figure 28. The
background flow velocities are low, so there is very little difference between the two figures. The
hydrographs indicate that the GCW pump-and-treat test started and stopped several times during the final
pump-and-treat tests, as indicated in Table 7. The changes in horizontal velocity measured by the flow
sensors are consistent between pumping events, suggesting that the pumping rate was similar during the
period. In general, the horizontal velocities at the same deep sensors were lower than were recorded
during the long-term GCW circulation test, suggesting that the pumping rate for the pump-and-treat test
was lower.
Southeast flow sensor C02, closer to the GCW, recorded higher velocities (0.5 ft/day) during the pumping
events than were recorded at southeast flow sensor C04 (0.3 ft/day), farther from the GCW. Southwest
flow sensors D02 and DOS recorded similar velocities during the pumping events, on the order of 0.6
ft/day.
Figure 29 shows flow sensor inversion error versus time. A higher inversion error is associated with flow
sensors C02 and D02. The large inversion error is probably caused by abrupt changes in flow velocity
associated with the beginning and end of pumping. However, the inversion error is within the acceptable
limit of 0.6 °C.
Figure 30 shows thermistor temperature versus time for each of the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone.
The data show that the largest variation in temperatures among different thermistors was associated with
flow sensor C04.
Hydrographs of horizontal Darcy groundwater velocities versus time in the shallow aquifer zone during
August 2000 are shown in Figures 31 and 32. Figure 31 shows the actual data, and Figure 32 shows the
data with background removed. Comparison of the hydrographs shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32
indicates that the background flow measured by flow sensors in the shallow aquifer zone is much higher
than in the deep aquifer zone.
The background velocity of flow indicated by the shallow flow sensors is likely artificial because the
shallow flow sensors were installed too near to the water table, and the measurements were altered by the
ambient temperature in the vadose zone. The hydrographs displayed in Figure 32 show that the sensors in
the shallow zone were recording events associated with the final pump-and-treat test. These events are
40
-------
the same as those recorded by the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone. Therefore, the data for the
shallow sensors can be used qualitatively to evaluate changes in flow pattern caused by pump-and-treat
operations, even though the absolute velocity values recorded by the shallow flow sensors remain
questionable.
Inversion errors associated with the shallow flow sensors are shown in Figure 33. In general, inversion
errors in the shallow flow sensors were on the order of 0.2 to 0.3 °C in August 2000, which is within the
acceptable range.
Thermistor temperature (in °C) versus time for the flow sensors in the shallow aquifer zone is shown in
Figure 34. Thermistor temperatures in all three of the shallow flow sensors show that the temperature
distribution of the thermistors is stable.
Vertical Darcy Velocities. Figures 35 and 36 show hydrographs of vertical Darcy groundwater velocities
versus time in the deep aquifer zone; Figure 35 shows the actual data, and Figure 36 shows the data with
background removed. The differences between the two sets of hydrographs are slight because the
background flow velocities in the deep aquifer zone are low. The vertical velocities in the deep aquifer
zone (Figure 36) indicate that vertical flow caused by pump-and-treat operation is clearly shown in
southeast sensor C02. However, the response to pumping is limited at other flow sensors, particularly
D02 and C04. These velocity data indicate that significant vertical recharge may occur near the GCW in
the southeast direction when the deep aquifer zone is pumped. The vertical recharge was not measured in
other directions.
Figure 37 shows measured velocity data, and Figure 38 shows data with background velocity removed.
The apparent background velocities are an artifact of the temperature gradient imparted from the warmer
unsaturated zone sediments slightly above the top of the shallow sensors. Subtracting out the background
vector essentially negates the unsaturated zone temperature differential that appears like an enhanced
vertical flow velocity. Nevertheless, data for the shallow flow sensors did respond to the events of the
pump-and-treat testing. The most significant response was recorded in southwest flow sensor D01. Of
the two southeast flow sensors, the more pronounced response was recorded at flow sensor C03, which is
farther from the pumping well. This phenomenon may reflect aquifer heterogeneity and anisotropy.
41
-------
5.2.2 Horizontal Directions of Groundwater Flow
Horizontal directions of groundwater flow recorded in the deep aquifer zone near the end of the pump-
and-treat test are shown in Figure 39. The data shown were collected at 6 p.m. on August 25, 2000, near
the end of a pumping period that began on the morning of August 21, 2000. It was one of several distinct
pumping events associated with the final pump-and-treat test.
This time was selected to represent a steady-state flow condition under the pump-and-treat operation.
Velocity of groundwater flow recorded by three of the four sensors is on the order of 0.5 to 1 foot per day.
Assuming natural velocities of flow in the deep aquifer flow zone on the order of 0.01 ft/day, the arrows
that show velocity and direction in Figure 39 indicate that all of the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone
are affected by pumping of the GCW. In general, the flow directions measured by the sensors are toward
the GCW. Deviations in the southwest direction may reflect aquifer anistotropy and preferential
groundwater flow paths.
Figure 40 shows the horizontal direction of flow in the shallow aquifer zone measured by the sensors.
The velocities at the three flow sensors are similar to the estimated natural rate of flow in the shallow
aquifer zone of about 0.3 ft/day, suggesting that pumping in the deep aquifer zone had limited impact on
the flow pattern in the shallow groundwater.
5.2.3 Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocities Projected in Cross-Section
Groundwater flow velocities and directions recorded on August 25, 2000, were projected onto cross-
section AOB, as shown in Figure 41. (The location of cross-section AOB is shown in Figure 6.) A vector
calculation and vector component projection approach was used to generate Figure 41.
Under conditions represented at the end of the final pump-and-treat test, velocities and directions of flow
measured by the sensors in the deep and shallow aquifer zones show a radial flow pattern toward the
pumping interval in both the deep and shallow aquifer zones. The flow regime as defined by all of the
sensors is consistent with the pattern expected by pumping the lower screened interval of the GCW.
Figure 41 shows that the flow sensors are capable of measuring and defining patterns of flow in
groundwater around the GCW or a pumping well.
42
-------
5.3 AQUIFER HYDRAULIC TESTING (SEPTEMBER 13 TO SEPTEMBER 19,2000)
Flow sensor data from the seven sensors were collected during aquifer hydraulic testing conducted from
September 13 through September 19, 2000. The following section describes and interprets the data
collected during this period.
Data collected during the aquifer hydraulic testing period are in 2-minute intervals instead of a 30-minute
interval. The purpose for the high frequency of data collection is two fold: (1) pumping or dipole
operation is better controlled in terms of discharge rate and pumping duration; therefore, flow sensor data
can be interpreted with more certainty on GCW operation, and (2) aquifer testing events can be short and
transient conditions recorded by flow sensors. This latter factor is important for data interpretation.
Multiple aquifer hydraulic tests were conducted to mimic GCW operations. The effect of the long-term
constant discharge test on groundwater flow patterns was equal to the pump-and-treat operation. DFTs
were conducted to mimic GCW operation in circulation mode. The frequent collection of data from the
flow sensors was intended to collect detailed measurements on the flow regime near the GCW.
5.3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Darcy Groundwater Velocities
Horizontal Darcy Velocities in Deep Aquifer Zone. Figures 42 and 43 are graphs of horizontal
groundwater Darcy velocity versus time as measured in the deep aquifer zone during the aquifer testing
period from September 13 through 19, 2000. Figure 42 shows original or uncorrected data, and Figure 43
shows data corrected for background and irregularities.
Irregularities in data from the flow sensors were observed during the aquifer hydraulic testing period,
which were probably caused by changing directions or velocities in flow within a short period (multiple
tests conducted in a few days) and more frequent data collection (2 minutes instead of 30 minutes). The
irregularities were corrected by the enlarged time-averaging window for simulation of flow velocity. This
technique allows for "smoothing" the velocity curves to eliminate abrupt irregularities.
The hydrographs in Figures 42 and 43 indicate that the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone recorded
increases in the horizontal flow velocity in response to each of the aquifer tests. Figures 42 and 43
suggest that each of the flow sensors was collecting data consistently during different aquifer testing
43
-------
events, as demonstrated by similarities in the shapes of the curves recorded, particularly at the beginning
of each event. Maximum velocities recorded in the sensors during the fourth phase of the step testing,
when the pumping rate was 15 gpm, were in all cases lower than the velocities recorded during a
comparable interval at the start of the constant rate pumping test, when the pumping rate was 10 gpm.
These lower velocities probably are the result of the short duration of the step test, so that a steady-state
flow regime was not developed.
During the constant rate pumping test, the horizontal velocities stabilized in all of the flow sensors in the
deep aquifer zone after approximately 10 hours of pumping. After that time, the horizontal velocities
measured in each of the flow sensors remained stable until the end of the test. Maximum, stabilized
velocities were similar to and in most cases slightly higher than the maximum horizontal velocities
recorded during the last step test.
Southeast flow sensors C02 and C04 responded predictably to pumping, with the sensor closest to the
GCW (C02) consistently showing a higher horizontal velocity than was recorded at sensor C04, the
sensor farther from the GCW. However, southwest flow sensors D02 and DOS showed responses to
pumping the GCW that are the reverse of the response expected. During the constant rate pumping test,
the greater horizontal velocity was recorded at sensor DOS, which is farther from the GCW than is sensor
D02. It is not known why the flow sensors in D02 and DOS did not respond to the pumping of the GCW
as expected. However, it is possible that the flow sensors recorded abnormal aquifer responses to GCW
pumping. Flow sensor DOS is located adjacent to piezometer 3PZD, where slow initial drawdown
responses, excessive maximum drawdown, and nonequilibrium conditions were noted in response to
pumping at the GCW during aquifer testing. These factors suggest that aquifer heterogeneity and
anisotropy are probably more pronounced in southwest of the GCW.
Figure 44 shows inversion error, expressed as °C versus time, in the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone.
Figure 44 indicates that higher inversion errors are associated with flow sensors closest to the GCW, C02
and D02. In addition, the inversion error seemed to increase with increases in magnitude of flow velocity
at each flow sensor. Figure 45 plots thermistor temperature versus time in flow sensors in the deep
aquifer zone.
Horizontal Darcy Velocities in Shallow Aquifer Zone. Figures 46 and 47 show horizontal flow
velocities measured in the shallow aquifer zone during aquifer testing. The hydrographs indicate that the
44
-------
changes in velocity in the shallow aquifer zone recorded are significantly less than were recorded in
sensors in the deep aquifer zone. The overall pumping events are identifiable. However, the magnitude
of the change in velocity recorded by the shallow flow sensors is not reliable.
The horizontal velocities measured at the shallow flow sensors during dipole testing, particularly during
Dipole Tests 6 and 7, are shown in Figures 46 and 47. The velocities shown in these figures would be
expected during dipole testing because the shallow aquifer zone was being recharged through the upper-
screened interval of the GCW. The velocity measured at southeast flow sensor COS, farther from the
GCW, was consistently higher than was indicated at sensor C01, which is closer to the GCW. Southwest
flow sensor D01 exhibited a response that was slightly more pronounced than at southeast flow sensor
C01; both are installed approximately the same distance from the GCW, at 7.6 feet and 7.7 feet. Graphs
shown in Figure 48 suggest that large inversion errors were observed during data manipulation for sensors
C01 and D01, which are closer to the GCW. During Dipole Tests 6 and 7, the errors exceeded 0.6 °C.
Therefore, the calculated change in flow velocity is not considered accurate. Figure 49 plots thermistor
temperature versus time in the flow sensors in the shallow aquifer zone. The figure shows that
temperature plots from different thermistors revealed a cross pattern during dipole tests instead of a
parallel pattern, which makes the simulation of inversion more difficult and unstable and may account for
the high inversion error.
Vertical Darcy Velocities in Deep Aquifer Zone. Figures 50 and 51 are hydrographs of the vertical
groundwater Darcy velocity versus time as measured by the deep flow sensors during aquifer testing.
Figure 50 shows the original or uncorrected data; Figure 51 shows data corrected for background and
irregularities. The hydrographs indicate that the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone recorded vertical
changes in flow velocity in response to each of the aquifer tests; however, the response was much less
significant in comparison to the horizontal flow velocity. Changes in vertical velocity were most
pronounced at flow sensor C02, 8.9 feet from the GCW, where negative vertical velocities indicate
induced, downward vertical flow. Negative, or downward, vertical velocities were also noted at flow
sensor DOS.
Similar to the horizontal velocity data, flow sensor D02, closest to the pumping well, recorded a lower
vertical velocity than was recorded at sensor DOS, farther from the GCW. Also similar to the horizontal
velocity data, flow sensors C02 and C04 indicate that the vertical component of velocity recorded is
consistently greater at sensor C02, which is closest to the pumping well.
45
-------
Vertical Darcy Velocities in Shallow Aquifer Zone. Figures 52 and 53 show vertical groundwater Darcy
velocities versus time in the shallow aquifer zone. The hydrographs shows that data from the shallow
sensors can be used to qualitatively identify Dipole Tests 6 and 7 events. The change in vertical flow
velocity in the shallow flow sensors are not clearly pronounced.
5.3.2 Horizontal Directions of Groundwater Flow
Natural Flow Conditions, September 18, 2000. Figures 54 and 55 show horizontal directions of
groundwater flow recorded by the sensors measured under natural flow conditions in the deep and
shallow aquifer zones. These figures display data collected on September 18, 2000, at the end of the
recovery period after the constant-rate pumping test. The results of the calculation of flow vectors are
also presented in Table 6.
In the deep aquifer zone (Figure 54), all four sensors indicate horizontal flow velocities are very low,
generally less than 0.05 ft/day. In general, flow sensors indicate groundwater flow to the northeast, while
data for western-most sensor DOS deviated slightly to the northwest. The northwestern direction of
groundwater flow measured by the flow sensors is generally supported by groundwater elevation data
collected using In Situ miniTROLL® transducers in piezometers completed in the deep aquifer zone for
the same period. The groundwater elevation data are also shown on Figure 54.
The flow sensors in the shallow aquifer zone indicate that the direction of groundwater flow in the
shallow aquifer zone is similar to the deep aquifer zone, measured in all three flow sensors. This
direction of flow is consistent with water levels measured in the shallow piezometers during the same
period. The magnitude of the Darcy velocity in the shallow groundwater is much higher than the
velocities in the deep aquifer zone (Figure 55). The velocities in the shallow aquifer zone at different
sensor locations are similar, approximately 0.5 ft/day.
The groundwater Darcy velocity measured by the shallow flow sensors, which was one order of
magnitude higher than for the deep aquifer, may not represent the actual, natural flow conditions in the
shallow aquifer zone. The data for the shallow sensors were considered unreliable for quantitatively
interpreting the magnitude of velocity because of the large temperature distribution of the thermistors,
possibly affected by ambient temperatures in the vadose zone. The data, however, are useful for
46
-------
qualitatively interpreting directions of groundwater flow, which can supplement water level data collected
from the piezometers.
Constant Rate Pumping Test, September 16, 2000. Data collected near the end of the constant rate
pumping test are considered to represent a steady-state flow regime around the GCW under pumping
conditions. The pumped interval was the lower screen of the GCW in the deep aquifer zone. Figures 56
and 57 show horizontal groundwater Darcy velocity vectors, collected on September 16, 2000, at the end
of the constant rate pumping test.
Flow vectors shown on Figure 56 were calculated based on data with background removed; therefore, the
vectors represent the "net effect" or changes caused by pumping the deep aquifer zone. Figure 56 shows
that flow velocities are most significant at southwest flow sensor DOS. In general, horizontal directions of
groundwater flow in the four deep flow sensors are toward the GCW, consistent with the flow pattern
expected during pumping. Deviations in directions of flow were observed at flow sensor DOS, which is
likely caused by aquifer anisotropy and preferential pathways that may exist near the GCW.
Figure 57 shows that the net effect of pumping on the flow velocity in the shallow aquifer zone is
generally less than in the deep aquifer zone. In the southeast direction, sensors C01 and COS both
measured horizontal flow that shifted in the direction of the GCW. According to Table 6, the vertical
velocities all changed from upward to downward, which suggests influence by pumping the lower
screened interval of the GCW. The change in horizontal flow velocities under pumping conditions is
much less pronounced in the shallow flow sensors than in the deep flow sensors. This response would be
expected because pumping occurred in the deep aquifer zone.
Dipole Flow Testing, September 18, 2000. Figures 58 through 61 show horizontal groundwater Darcy
velocities in the deep and shallow aquifer zones as measured during the two dipole tests. Figures 58 and
59 show horizontal vectors for groundwater flow (Darcy velocities) calculated at the end of Dipole Test 6.
Figures 60 and 61 show horizontal vectors for groundwater flow calculated at the end of Dipole Test 7,
which was also conducted on September 18, 2000.
As shown in Figure 58, the horizontal directions of flow recorded by each of the sensors in the deep
aquifer zone are similar to pumping conditions at the end of the constant rate pumping test (Figure 56).
Velocities of flow, however, were smaller at the end of Dipole Test 6, which could be due to the shorter
47
-------
duration of Dipole Test 6 or could suggest that velocities of ground-water flow in the deep aquifer zone
were affected by water injected into the upper screened portion of the GCW during dipole testing. The
directions of horizontal flow in the deep aquifer zone recorded during Dipole Test 6 are nearly identical to
the directions recorded during the pumping test. The similarities in velocities and directions of horizontal
flow between the pumping and dipole tests in the deep aquifer flow zone suggest that patterns of flow in
the deep aquifer zone are similar during pumping of the lower screened interval and circulation created by
the GCW.
As shown in Figure 59, velocities and directions of horizontal flow measured by the three sensors in the
shallow aquifer zone are to the southeast and southwest, away from the GCW. These data suggest that
the flow sensors are recording responses in the shallow aquifer zone to water injected into the GCW.
Directions and velocities of flow measured in the deep aquifer zones shown in Figure 60 at the end of
Dipole Test 7 are similar to the end of Dipole Test 6 (Figure 58), except that the magnitude of velocities
recorded during Dipole Test 7 are slightly higher than were recorded during Dipole Test 6. This
difference would be expected since Dipole Test 7, although conducted at the same pumping rate, was of
longer duration. Similarly, as shown in Figure 61, directions and velocities of flow measured by sensors
in the shallow aquifer zone at the end of Dipole Test 7 are similar to the end of Dipole Test 6 (Figure 59).
The horizontal flow vectors shown in Figure 58 through 61 clearly indicate that a radial flow pattern was
observed in both the shallow and deep aquifer zones. The flow converges toward the GCW in the deep
aquifer zone and diverges from the GCW in the shallow aquifer zone. Conclusions from the evaluation of
data collected from the flow sensors during the dipole tests can be summarized as follows:
The patterns in groundwater flow measured by the sensors is consistent with the flow pattern
defined by water levels in the piezometers and simulated by flow models.
Under pumping and reinjection conditions of Dipole Tests 6 and 7 (pumping and injection rate of
12.5 gpm), all of the flow sensors recorded identifiable changes in flow velocities (magnitude and
direction).
A circulation cell can be measured and defined by flow sensors that are appropriately placed
around the GCW.
Net flow velocity changes can be reasonably calculated by removing the "background," which
may represent the impact or "noise" of natural flow for the shallow flow sensors.
48
-------
5.3.3 Resultant Velocities of Groundwater Flow Projected in Cross-Section
Groundwater flow velocities were calculated and projected onto cross-section AOB. Figures 62 through
65 show the vertical patterns in groundwater flow under natural flow conditions, pumping conditions, and
two dipole test conditions. The location of cross-section AOB is shown in Figure 6.
Under natural flow conditions, as represented by the end of the recovery period of the constant-rate
pumping test (Figure 62 and Table 6), the deep flow sensors recorded very low vertical flow. Even
though three of the four deep flow sensors recorded an upward flow, the magnitude was so small that the
error could be large, yielding misleading calculated flow directions. A stronger upward flow component
appears in the shallow aquifer zone indicated by the shallow sensors. However, the upward flow recorded
by the shallow flow sensors are most likely caused by the impacts of temperature in the vadose zone
because the shallow flow sensors were installed too near to the water table; the temperature gradient is
interpreted by the software as an upward flow.
Figure 63 shows the flow vectors projected onto cross-section AOB. The vectors represent the net flow
changes under pumping conditions, that is, the background was subtracted from the actual flow
measurements. As shown in Figure 63, the directions of flow in both the deep and shallow aquifer zones
are toward the lower screen of the GCW, the pumping interval used during the test. This flow pattern is
consistent with the transducer measurements from the piezometers, and are expected because there is no
aquitard between the shallow and deep aquifer zones.
Data from flow sensors D03 and C02 show a stronger vertical component of flow than of horizontal
(Figure 63). This differential could be the result of strong vertical recharge from the shallow aquifer zone
to the pumped interval at these two locations. The horizontal component of flow measured by the two
flow sensors, however, is generally consistent with data for the other two flow sensors.
Figures 64 and 65 show groundwater flow vectors projected onto cross-section AOB during dipole testing
(Dipole Tests 6 and 7). In general, the velocities of flow in the deep aquifer zone during dipole testing,
shown as flow vectors, were similar to velocities during pumping conditions (Figure 63). The patterns in
the shallow aquifer zone, however, reflect dramatic outward flow components from the GCW. The
outward and downward flow regime is consistent with the effects of recharge to the upper screen.
49
-------
Velocities and directions of groundwater flow measured by the sensors during Dipole Test 6 and 7,
(Figures 64 and 65) appear to clearly define a three-dimensional circulation cell of the GCW. Water
injected in the upper screen of the GCW causes flow in the shallow aquifer zone to move away from the
GCW, while pumping the lower screen of the GCW induces flow toward the GCW.
5.4 POST-TESTING PERIOD (SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 TO APRIL 1, 2001)
This section discusses data collected from the flow sensors during the post-testing period, from
September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001, when the GCW was not in operation.
5.4.1 Horizontal and Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocities
Figures 66 through 76 and Table 6 provide velocities and directions of groundwater flow for data that
represent the natural regime during the post-test period from September 20, 2000, through April 1, 2001.
The GCW was not in operation during this time, and groundwater flow recorded by the sensors is likely
to represent natural conditions. Shallow flow sensor D01 malfunctioned during this period. Therefore,
no velocity data was calculated for sensor D01.
Horizontal Darcy Velocities. Figure 66 shows horizontal groundwater Darcy velocity versus time in the
deep aquifer zone measured by the flow sensors. All the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone recorded
very low horizontal velocities, between 0 and 0.1 ft/day, during the period. On February 1, 2001, the
horizontal flow velocity at sensor C04 in the deep aquifer zone shows a steady increase until the end of
the measurement period on April 1, 2001. None of the other deep flow sensors recorded a corresponding
increase. Inversion error calculated for the flow sensors (Figure 67) indicates that it also increased during
the same period. According to HydroTechnics, the increase in flow velocity recorded at flow sensor C04
during the beginning of February 2001 is caused by drift in the thermistor temperature for unknown
reasons. The data collected after early February 2001 from sensor C04 were deleted because
HydroTechnics considered them unreliable.
Data from flow sensor DOS (Figures 66 through 68) also show several gaps during this period. Data gaps
were caused temperature data that exhibited electrical "noise" were deleted. It is unknown how the
electrical noise was introduced.
50
-------
Horizontal Darcy velocity versus time in the shallow aquifer zone is shown in Figure 69. Data from flow
sensors C01 and C04 indicate fluctuations on the order of 0.1 to 0.4 ft/day in horizontal Darcy velocity
during this period. Inversion errors for flow sensor data from the shallow aquifer zone (Figure 70)
indicate stable error during the measurement period. Temperatures measured by the thermistors are
shown in Figure 71. The velocity measured by the shallow flow sensors were not considered reliable
because of impacts from temperature in the vadose zone.
Vertical Darcy Velocities. Vertical groundwater Darcy velocities measured in the deep aquifer flow zone
(Figure 72) shows a similar trend to the horizontal velocities in Figure 66. They are low and stable
throughout the period, with the exception of data measured at flow sensor C04, which show an increase
beginning on approximately February 1, 2001.
Darcy velocities measured in the shallow aquifer flow zone (Figure 73) show that the vertical velocity
recorded at flow sensor C01 was approximately 1.0 ft/day and decreased with time. However, the vertical
velocity at flow sensor COS fluctuated between 1.0 and 3.0 ft/day in later 2000 but stabilized in early 2001
at 1.5 ft/day.
5.4.2 Horizontal Groundwater Flow Directions
Figures 74 and 75 show the horizontal groundwater velocity vector for the deep and shallow aquifer
zones. The velocities and directions shown in Figure 74 for the deep aquifer zone flow generally to the
east in the southeast flow sensors (C02 and C04) and generally to the west in the southwest flow sensors
(D02 and DOS), indicating a possible groundwater flow divide. The directions of flow shown in Figure
75 for the shallow aquifer zone indicate generally eastward flow away from the GCW, consistent with
data for deep sensors C02 and C04. However, the direction of flow interpreted from data is not
considered highly reliable because the natural flow gradient is small at the site. The error caused by noise
could be added to the velocity data and alter the interpreted direction of flow.
5.4.3 Resultant Groundwater Flow Directions Projected in Cross-Section
Figure 76 shows groundwater flow vectors projected onto cross-section AOB during the post-testing
period when the GCW was not in operation. In this diagram, the vertical direction of groundwater flow in
five of the six sensors is upward. The high flow velocity in the shallow zone is believed to be the effects
51
-------
of ambient temperatures in the vadose zone. Because the magnitudes of the flow vectors are small, the
directions of flow indicated in Figure 76 can be considered a random distribution.
52
-------
6.0 RESULTS OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
This section presents the results of the SITE demonstration of the HydroTechnics flow sensors at the
CCAS site in Florida. The results are presented by and interpreted in relation to each project objective.
Each primary and secondary project objective is listed and followed by a discussion of the results in
relation to the objective.
6.1 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
This subsection discusses the results associated with the primary project objective. Primary objectives are
considered critical for the evaluation of the technology. For this evaluation, one primary objective was
established:
P1 Evaluate the flow sensor's ability to detect the horizontal extent of the GCW groundwater
circulation cell based on a change in the groundwater velocity criterion of 0.1 foot per day (0.03
meter per day)
This objective was achieved by measuring the changes in groundwater velocity and flow direction in
seven in situ groundwater flow sensors before and during operation of GCW in recirculation mode. To
analyze the data, plots of the groundwater velocity versus time were constructed for each sensor;
analytical methods were not used to evaluate the data because the data plots exhibited clear trends in the
change of groundwater flow velocity during operation of the GCW. For this evaluation, flow sensors that
exhibited a change in velocity of equal to or greater than 0.1 ft/day from background conditions were
considered to be within the horizontal extent of the groundwater circulation cell established by the GCW.
Results of the groundwater flow velocity and direction measurements collected from the seven in situ
groundwater flow sensors before and during GCW operation are presented in Figures 12 through 26.
These figures present both horizontal and vertical velocity measurements plotted versus time for the
shallow sensors (C01, COS, and D01) and deep sensors (C02, C04, D02, and DOS). Figures 12 through 23
include plots of both actual groundwater velocity data and normalized groundwater velocity data with
background conditions removed
Based on review of the horizontal and vertical velocity data with background velocities removed,
groundwater velocities in all seven sensors were greater than 0.1 ft/day, indicating that all seven sensors
were within the circulation cell established by the GCW, and that the horizontal extent of groundwater
53
-------
circulation is greater than 15 feet. Furthermore, the groundwater flow direction data suggest that
groundwater in the upper portion of the treatment zone flows radially away from the GCW and that
groundwater in the bottom of the treatment zone flows radially towards the GCW. This flow direction
data further supports the establishment of a circulation cell, and that all the flow sensors are within the
horizontal extent of groundwater circulation cell.
6.2 SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
Secondary objectives provide additional information that is useful, but not critical. Four secondary
objectives were selected for the evaluation of the technology. The results associated with each of the
secondary objective are presented in the following subsections.
6.2.1 Secondary Objective SI
SI Evaluate the reproducibility of the groundwater velocity sensor data
The reproducibility of the flow sensor measurements was evaluated to provide additional information on
the quality and usability of the sensor data. The reproducibility of velocity measurements was evaluated
by comparing sequential groundwater flow velocity measurements at steady state conditions. During the
evaluation, measurements were collected sequentially, 30 minutes apart. The periods that were selected
for evaluating data reproducibility were when the groundwater velocity appeared to be in steady-state
condition with minimal changes due to well operation, rain, barometric pressure, tidal influences. Since
the response time of the sensors is less than 1 minute, each groundwater flow velocity measurement is
independent; therefore, flow sensor reproducibility was estimated as the relative percent difference (RPD)
of two sequential measurements of groundwater flow at 30-minute intervals. For each sensor, an average
RPD was calculated for the horizontal and vertical velocities for each of the four operational modes. The
average RPD for each sensor was determined using all sequential measurements collected during steady
state conditions for each operational period.
A summary of the average RPDs for each flow sensor for each of the four GCW operational modes is
presented in Table 8. No QA objectives have been established for quantitative analysis of sensor data; for
this study; however, a QA objective of 30 percent for RPD was used.
54
-------
Each sensor's reproducibility during the four operational periods ranged from 0.1 to 23 percent with an
average of 1.9 percent and a standard deviation of 3.8. These results indicate that the reproducibility
of the sensors meets the QA objective and that the data are considered acceptable for qualitative analysis.
The accuracy of the sensors was not evaluated during the demonstration and the usability of the data for
quantitative analysis is unknown.
6.2.2 Secondary Objective S2
S2 Evaluate the three-dimensional groundwater flow surrounding the GCW
This objective was achieved by measuring groundwater velocity and flow direction in the seven in situ
groundwater flow sensors during each of the four operating periods. To analyze the data, plots of the
groundwater velocity versus time were constructed for each sensor to provide an understanding of the
overall changes in groundwater flow direction and velocity attributed to operation of the GCW.
Results of the groundwater flow velocity measurements collected during the four operating periods are
presented in Figures 12 through 76 and are discussed below. These figures present both horizontal and
vertical velocity measurements plotted versus time for all seven sensors as well as graphs of groundwater
flow direction.
Long-Term GCW Operation
Based on the flow direction data collected during GCW operation, groundwater in the upper portion of
the treatment zone flows radially away from the GCW, and groundwater in the bottom of the treatment
zone flows radially towards the GCW. Additionally, the sensors exhibited a strong vertical flow
component towards the lower screen interval (extraction zone). This flow regime suggests that
groundwater circulation was occurring around the GCW.
During operation of the GCW in circulation mode, the flow sensors recorded an immediate increase in
horizontal and vertical velocities when operation of the GCW was initiated. Likewise, the sensors
exhibited an immediate decrease in horizontal and vertical groundwater flow velocities when operation of
the GCW was terminated. The data suggest that the flow sensors are responsive to changes in
groundwater flow conditions and can be used to help define and evaluate the three-dimensional flow
55
-------
pattern created by and surrounding the GCW. The immediate response of the sensors to changes in GCW
operation suggest that the ground-water circulation cell is established almost immediately (within hours
instead of days). Additionally, the velocity data from the flow sensors suggest that the GCW circulation
flow was generally constant over the operating period. The magnitude and direction of groundwater flow
measured at each sensor varied, with velocities ranging from 0.5 to more than 2.0 ft/day.
Final Pump-and-Treat Operation. Under conditions represented at the end of the final pump-and-treat
test, velocities and directions of flow measured in the deep and shallow aquifer zones show a radial flow
pattern toward the pumping interval in both the deep and shallow aquifer zones. The flow regime as
defined by all of the sensors is consistent with the pattern expected by pumping the lower screened
interval of the GCW.
During the final pump-and-treat operation period, the flow sensors recorded changes in flow velocity of
0.1 to more than 2.0 ft/day. As during the long-term GCW operation, the flow sensors recorded
immediate increases and decreases in flow velocity, which coincided with changes in operational
activities (pumping starts and stops). The changes in horizontal velocity measured by the flow sensors
are consistent between pumping events, suggesting that the pumping rate was similar during the
operational period. Based on the sensor data, the flow sensors appear capable of measuring and defining
patterns of flow in groundwater around a pumping well.
Aquifer Hydraulic Test Operation. During the aquifer hydraulic test operation, sensor data were
collected to coincide with the two aquifer tests: constant-rate discharge test and DFT. Sensor data
collected during the constant-rate pumping test were consistent with the data from the final pump-and-
treat operation mode, indicating a strong inward flow in the deep aquifer zone and significant vertical
recharge from the upper aquifer zone. The data collected during the DFTs were consistent with data from
the long-term GCW operational mode, indicating the establishment of a circulation cell. In addition, the
pattern of groundwater flow is consistent with the flow pattern defined by water levels in the piezometers
and simulated by flow models.
Post-GCW Operation. Post operational data were collected from the sensors to evaluate natural
groundwater flow conditions near the GCW. Shallow flow sensor D01 malfunctioned during this period;
therefore, no velocity data were recorded for sensor D01. All the flow sensors in the deep aquifer zone
recorded very low horizontal velocities, between 0 and 0.1 ft/day, during the period. Horizontal velocities
56
-------
in the shallow aquifer zone indicate fluctuations on the order of 0.1 to 0.4 ft/day. However, the shallow
velocity measurements are not considered reliable because of impacts form temperature variations caused
by the vadose zone.
Groundwater in the deep aquifer zone flows generally to the east at the locations of the southeast flow
sensors (C02 and C04) and generally to the west at the locations of the southwest flow sensors (D02 and
DOS), indicating a possible groundwater flow divide. In the shallow aquifer zone, groundwater flows
generally toward the east, consistent with data for deep sensors C02 and C04. However, the directions of
flow interpreted from the data are not considered highly reliable because the natural flow gradient at the
site is small. The error caused by instrument noise could be added to the velocity data and alter the
interpreted direction of flow.
In summary, the evaluation indicates that the flow sensors can be used to define and evaluate the three-
dimensional flow pattern created by and surrounding the GCW. Flow velocity vector, including
horizontal and vertical flow components, can be derived from the thermister temperature data provided by
the flow sensors.
To more fully evaluate the three-dimensional flow surrounding a GCW, it would have been useful to
install additional sensors at varying distances and depths from the GCW. A more comprehensive
assessment of the groundwater flow regime could have been completed if flow sensors were installed at
upgradient, downgradient, and cross-gradient locations at a minimum of three different distances from the
GCW. Additionally, installing flow sensors at three different depths corresponding to shallow and deep
GCW screens, as well as midway between the two screens, would have provided useful data in
characterizing the groundwater flow pattern created by the GCW.
The manufacturer recommends installing the flow sensors with 5 feet (1.5 meters) of submergence
because the shallow groundwater will heat up during the day, creating a thermal gradient that the sensor
interprets as water flow. The shallow sensors at this site were installed with less than 5 feet of
submergence because preliminary modeling results indicated that there would not be significant flow
deeper than 3 feet (1 meter) into the formation. The data from the shallow sensors were successfully
corrected by subtracting the background temperature gradient.
57
-------
The manufacturer also recommends allowing the sensors to come to thermal equilibrium for at least 7
days before meaningful readings can be obtained. Short-term aquifer tests result in large but short-term
changes in groundwater flow that were successfully interpreted with significant effort in data
manipulation.
The manufacturer claims that the flow sensors measure the flow in the 3.3 cubic feet (1 cubic meter)
immediately surrounding the sensor and are subject to local heterogeneities. Therefore, complex site
hydrogeological conditions may require a large number of flow sensors to adequately define the
circulation cell and characterize flow patterns.
The number of flow sensors installed during this study was limited by budgetary constraints. The
purchase cost of a single flow sensor was $2,500. The total cost for the sensors, sensor analysis for a
period of 1 year, and drilling installation was $70,000 for this project. Costs at other sites may vary
depending on installation depth and subsurface conditions.
6.2.3 Secondary Objective S3
S3 Document the operating parameters of the GCW
The following operating parameters were documented for each of four system operational modes: well
pumping rate, duration of system operation, and well shutdowns. A summary of operating parameters is
presented below.
During the long-term operational mode, the GCW operated in circulation mode for a 17-day period from
July 10 through 28, 2001. During this period, the GCW was operated at an estimated 4 gpm. Pumping
stopped briefly for a 2-hour period on July 14 for mechanical repairs. A summary of the operational
record is provided as Table 7.
During the final pump-and-treat operational mode, the GCW operated in pumping mode for a 27-day
period from August 2 through 29, 2000. During this period, the GCW was operated at an estimated 4
gpm. Pumping stopped more than seven times during this operational mode for mechanical repairs on the
wastewater treatment system. A summary of the operational record is provided as Table 7.
58
-------
During the aquifer hydraulic test operational mode, the GCW was operated in both pumping and
circulation modes for selected intervals from September 13 through 19, 2000. A summary of the
operational record and pumping rates is presented in Appendix A, the Hydrogeologic Investigation
Report. After the aquifer tests in September 2000, the GCW was not operated and the flow sensors
monitored natural conditions.
6.2.4 Secondary Objective S4
S4 Document the hydrogeologic characteristics at the demonstration site
This objective was achieved by conducting a series of aquifer tests at the demonstration site from
September 13 through 19, 2000, to obtain information on hydraulic communication between various
zones of the aquifer beneath the site, as well as data for estimating values of aquifer hydraulic parameters
such as hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, specific yield, and anisotropy. Aquifer testing
was conducted using the GCW as the pumping and injection well. Eight observation wells were used to
monitor pressure changes in the aquifer. An inflatable packer was used to isolate the two screened
intervals within the GCW to allow pumping from each screened interval separately. Multiple step draw-
down tests, a constant rate pumping test, and seven DFTs were conducted. Appendix A, the
Hydrogeological Investigation Report, provides a description of the methods and procedures and
summarizes the interpretation of data from the aquifer tests and site hydrogeologic characteristics.
In summary, the conductivity of the aquifer at the Facility 1381 site decreased with depth. Based on
aquifer hydraulic test data evaluation, the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 43 to 53 ft/day (1.5 x 10"4 to
1.9 x 10"4 cm/s) for the shallow (upper 7 feet or 2.1 meters) and 5 to 10 ft/day (1.8 x 10"5 to 3.5 x 10"5
cm/s) for the lower zone (7 to 25 feet or 7.6 meters); storativity of the lower aquifer zone ranges from
0.006 to 0.007; specific yield ranges from 0.06 to 0.09. The average anisotropic ratio (that is, the ratio of
horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity) is 2.4, based on steady-state dipole flow test interpretation.
Natural groundwater flow velocities at Facility 1381 are very low, ranging from 0.03 to 0.21 ft/day (0.009
to 0.064 meters per day).
The upper portion of the aquifer zone tested (shallow aquifer zone) is at least one to two orders of
magnitude more permeable than the pumping interval for the deep aquifer zone. This difference
complicates interpretation of data for the aquifer tests because the pumped zone is less transmissive than
the unpumped zone (leaky aquifer). Significant vertical flow invalidates many two-dimensional
59
-------
analytical models for aquifer tests. It is believed that the hydraulic parameters calculated using the
aquifer test data may be overestimated. The best estimate of properties of the aquifer should be evaluated
using a combination of data from lithologic sample tests, aquifer tests, flow velocity measurements, and
groundwater flow modeling.
60
-------
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of the technology evaluation, as they relate to the demonstration project objectives,
include:
Primary Conclusions
P1 Evaluate the flow sensor's ability to detect the horizontal extent of the GCW ground-water
circulation cell based on a change in the groundwater velocity criterion of 0.1 foot per day (0.03
meter per day)
• During the GCW circulation operation mode, the groundwater velocities measured by all seven
sensors increased by more than 0.1 ft/day, indicating that (1) the sensors were within the
circulation cell established by the GCW, and (2) the horizontal extent of groundwater circulation
was greater than 15 feet. Furthermore, the groundwater flow direction data suggest that
groundwater in the upper portion of the treatment zone generally flows radially away from the
GCW and that groundwater in the bottom of the treatment zone generally flows radially towards
the GCW. This flow direction data further support the establishment of a circulation cell and that
all the flow sensors are within the horizontal extent of groundwater circulation cell.
• The data from the four modes of GCW operation suggest that the flow sensors are responsive to
changes in groundwater flow conditions and can be used to help define and evaluate the three-
dimensional flow pattern created by the GCW. The immediate response of the sensors to changes
in GCW operation suggest that the groundwater circulation cell is established within hours
instead of days. Additionally, the velocity data from the flow sensors suggest that the GCW
circulation flow was generally constant during operation in the circulation mode.
Secondary Conclusions
SI Evaluate the reproducibility of the groundwater velocity sensor data
• The reproducibility of the sensors during steady state conditions ranged from 0.1 to 23 percent
with an average of 1.9 percent and a standard deviation of 3.8 percent.
S2 Evaluate the three-dimensional groundwater flow surrounding the GCW
• Groundwater flow patterns, as measured by the flow sensors, were documented for each of the
four GCW operational modes and are depicted graphically to illustrate general flow patterns in
the vicinity of the GCW during each mode of operation.
S3 Document the operating parameters of the GCW
• GCW pumping rate, duration of system operation, and GCW shutdowns were documented for
each of the four modes of operation:
61
-------
GCW Operational Mode
Circulation
Pump and Treat
Aquifer Hydraulic Testing
Natural Conditions
Pumping
Rate
4 gpm
4 gpm
Various
No pumping
Duration of Operation
July 10-28,2000
August 2 - 29, 2000
September 13 -19, 2000
GCW not operated
GCW Shutdowns
1 shutdown for
mechanical maintenance
7 shutdowns for
mechanical repairs
None
GCW not operated
S4 Document the hydrogeologic characteristics at the demonstration site
• Natural groundwater flow velocities at the CCAS Facility 1381 site are very low, ranging from
0.03 to 0.21 ft/day (0.009 to 0.064 meter/day).
• The conductivity of the aquifer at the Facility 1381 site decreased with depth. Based on aquifer
hydraulic test data, the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 43 to 53 ft/day (1.5 x 10"4 to 1.9 x 10"4
cm/s) for the shallow zone (upper 7 feet or 2.1 meters) and 5 to 10 ft/day (1.8 x 10"5 to 3.5 x 10"5
cm/s) for the deeper zone (7 to 25 feet deep or 7.6 meters). Storativity of the lower aquifer zone
ranges from 0.006 to 0.007 and specific yield ranges from 0.06 to 0.09. The average anisotropic
ratio (that is, the ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity) is 2.4, based on steady-
state dipole flow test interpretation.
Additional findings and observations based on the EPA demonstration of the flow sensors include:
• According to the developer, the flow sensors measure flow in the a 3.3 cubic feet [1 cubic meter]
area volume immediately surrounding the sensor,) and are subject to local heterogeneities.
Complex site hydrogeological conditions may require a large number of flow sensors to
adequately define the circulation cell and characterize flow patterns.
• To more fully evaluate the three-dimensional flow surrounding this GCW, additional sensors
should have been installed at varying distances and depths from the GCW. Flow sensors should
be installed at upgradient, downgradient, and cross-gradient locations at a minimum of three
different distances from the GCW. The flow sensors also should be installed at three different
depths corresponding to shallow and deep GCW screens as well as in the middle portion of the
monitored zone between the two screens. The shallow sensors should be installed a minimum of
5 feet (1.5 meters) below the water table, which would minimize the impact of temperature
variations caused by the vadose zone. Only seven sensors were installed for this project because
preliminary modeling indicated that the circulation cell would be smaller than what was actually
observed.
• HydroTechnics recommends installing the flow sensors with five feet (1.5 meters) of
submergence because the shallow portion of the groundwater will heat up during the day, creating
a thermal gradient that the sensor measures as water flow. For the EPA demonstration, the
shallow sensors were installed with less than 5 feet of submergence because preliminary
modeling indicated that there would not be significant flow deeper than 3 feet (1 meter) into the
formation. Data from the shallow sensors were successfully corrected by subtracting the
background temperature gradient.
62
-------
HydroTechnics recommends allowing at minimum of 7 days for the sensors to come to thermal
equilibrium. During the EPA demonstration, short-term aquifer tests resulted in large but short-
term changes in groundwater flow, that were successfully measured by the flow sensors.
The cost of a single flow sensor was $2,500. The total cost for the seven sensors, sensor data
analysis for a period of 1 year, and installation was $70,000 for this project. Costs at other sites
may vary depending on installation depth and subsurface conditions.
63
-------
8.0 REFERENCES
Ballard, S. 1996. "The In Situ Permeable Flow Sensor: A Ground-Water Flow Velocity Meter." Ground
Water. Vol. 34, No. 2. Pages 231-240. March-April.
Davis, R. A.. 1997. "Geology of the Florida Coast." The Geology of Florida. Edited by A.F. Randazzo
and D.S. Jones. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Pages 155-168.
HydroTechnics. 1997. "Groundwater Velocity Sensors - HTFLOW0: A Computer Program for
Processing Data From In Situ Permeable Flow Sensors." November.
Miller, J.A., 1986. "Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and in
Parts of Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina", U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1403-B. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (Parsons). 1999a. "Quality Project Plan for Groundwater Circulation
Well Technology Evaluation and Optimization - Phase I. Volume I - Work Plan, and Volume 2
- Sampling and Analysis Plan. South Jordan, Utah." October.
Parsons. 1999b. Final Remediation by Natural Attenuation Treatability Study for Facility
1381 (SWMU 21), Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida." Prepared for the Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Technology Transfer Division, Brooks AFB, Texas. Denver
Colorado. December.
Parsons. 2000. "Draft Groundwater Circulation Well Technology Evaluation at Facility 1381, Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Florida; Technology Summary Report." Prepared for Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Technology Transfer Division (AFCEE/ERT). November.
Parsons. 2001. "Final Groundwater Circulation Well Technology Evaluation at Facility 1381, Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Florida; Technology Summary Report." Prepared for Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Technology Transfer Division (AFCEE/ERT). October.
Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Terra Tech). 2000. "Technology Evaluation Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan,
Evaluation of Groundwater Recirculation Well Technology: Installation of HydroTechnics In Situ
Groundwater Velocity Sensors." Ordnance Support Facility, Facility 1381, Cape Canaveral Air
Station, Cape Canaveral Florida. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
April.
Tibbals, C.H. 1990. "Hydrology of the Floridan Aquifer System in East-Central Florida."
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1403-E. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
64
-------
The following figures and tables are referred to in
the main body of text for "Technology Evaluation
Report: Hydrotechnics In Situ Flow Sensor."
64A
-------
CAPE CANAVERAL
AIR STATION,
FLORIDA
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
FACILITY
0 4000 8000
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Source: Persons 2000.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF
FACILITY 1381
TETRATECHEMINC.
65
-------
LEGEND
VEGETATION
FENCE
SURFACE WATER FEATURE
Equipment Shed
(20299)
(PRL-518)
100'
iricol
Substation
(20296)
POL/Hozordous
' lorogj Bo»
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 2
SITE MAP
TETRATECHEMINC.
66
-------
-35 fl US.—
-40 ft us.—
NOTES: 1) Location of GCW wai proJKted onto
2) Location of GCW It opproximati
14tf 0 140" 280*
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
*QJ. SCREEN
WELLOSWO
OROUNOtlAmi 1EW
[ I
| |
SHALLOW AOUFER 2CME
DEEP MUTCH ZONE
LJTHOLOGIES
DouNANTur cawsc SHOO, nvcuom AND COMBE TO
UEDUI SANO, WIH UTH£ OR NO 9U AND, NO CLAY.
OOHMANTLY UOUU TO VOW FME SAND, WTH LITTLE OR NO
SH-T OR OAT. MAY COKTAM 9GMFICANT SKU. nvCHEHTS.
OOMMANTLY FINE TO «RY FME SAND. WIH "SOUE SU* TO
•AND SU*. UTTLE OR NO CLAY. MAT COMTAK SHEU. FRAOHENTB.
OOHMANTLY FME TO WRY FME SANO. AND SLT. WTH "SOMt CUf
TO 'AND OAT.
OOUNANILY COARSE SHELL FRAOUENTS AND COARSE TO
MEOUU SANO. WTH "SOME CLAY* TO *ANO CLAY*. WTH OR
WTHOUT UNOR AMOUNTS OF SLT.
OOHMANTLY HRH CUV. MAY CONTAIN HMOR AMOUNTS OF
SLT AND/OR SHELL FTMOMENTS.
10 ft MSL DEPTH M RET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVfL
CWSS-SECHOH UXMXM
APPROMUHE SOLE 1' . 40tf
Source; Paraorn 2000
ftOUTf 1311. CCA8, CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
OCWTECHNOLOOY EVALUATION
FIGURE 3
HYDROGEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTION A-A'
TETRATECHEMINC
-------
00
GEOLOGICAL UNITS
(ADAPTED FROM FAULKNER. 1S73.FB. 2)
«nM Pot
Fo
(?)
HyDROGEOLOGIC UNITS
(CONCEPTUAL MODEL)
MWMIM lr»A^t«r nerf. pooU «Atf muds in sUMm ONrf Ui«
Uoul, owiao wortl MM.
t/OMt. Mo.
•M POM
.
IMoUoond loniMno oo5. do,' mori,
o( IM« '* pnowMiic. MM
nek OM tfcWM Cnoiwoo
pkoopMUc do/ <~4~.
bond, ond nono> Oaf.
o grojr ond onm
pgpy «« «a a »a»f port. IK-u coa:-v<*»t
Md 10
d. cnon. rfOt. ood g>o» BkoHhotic. olu.
. doyoy. ond
•MM bMMOM. tart. <•**. S poiTnMr ond pkMpholk/ Toodl
U M Mndr in mw POK ond cManWUc and 6m, b Innr port.
. lo Hilln. Mil. vonnv. ni»», p
conuinot OHM conoUo onUn* o( loM of lofoinMora:
Won, In wen.
in. IgM brox lo brow Knoy hogmonlol. poor lo
good porootgr. fcighy lannir.au. (maouy loronMlon): ond
•Hondo. bro*n to dork brono. pCghUy ponM 10 good POrortr.
eyriofM. Hrrturoiiili bott faioant ond oottniu on
carbonocooM or poMn gxpwn k pnMM m imol oirwiMi.
. IgM bron lo trono. IrogoioMol. Wgnk; tot*)il«i
nST* "rS? *"* "^ *" *°^o««!SSi
porous l
MOliM OonniM. SlurMo. and OrdMdon «uortlOM
QliollClo-or PWoonfe (T) gr HocoMtrion l Mlural Rotourcot,
'Cqntol Ifcor Fomolion of (koto Croup.
•hgt. FormoUon ond melon FormoUon (ouorto rounojr) " Oeo» &M.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 4
HYDROSTATIGRAPHIC UNITS
OF EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA
TETRA TECH EM INC.
-------
EXPLANATION
Approximate extent of
Sand-and-gravel aquifer
Surfkaal aquifer
Cape Canaveral
Air Station
Biscaync aquifer
FJoridan aquifer system outcrop
Upper confining unit outcrop
Approximate updip limit of Floridan aquifer system
Source: Millar 1986
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 5
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF THE
SURFICIAL AQUIFER
(SJ TETRATECHEMINC.
-------
N
A
LEGEND
Monitoring Locations
•0- GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
+ Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
A ° B
Cross-section Transect Line
5 Feet
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 6
Locations of Groundwater Circulation Well,
Piezometer and Groundwater Flow Sensors
fib Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
_Q
-t-*
QJ
-------
Metering Pump
5-
10-
CJ> 1 K
_Q 15-
-t->
^ 20-
25-
30-
35-
2—inch Exhaust Stack
Knockout
Drain Line
Deep Piezometer (GCWD)
3/4" PVC
Air Flow
— 1 1/2" PVC
-Slip Cap
Pressure Gauge
Flow Meter
CAST
2567
Rotary Vane
Blower
U.S. Pat. 5,425,598
14"
Air Supply Pipe Detail
Source: Parson* 2ODD,
NOT TO SCALE
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURES
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
LONG-TERM
GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL
TEST SET-UP (PARSONS)
TBTOATBCHEMINC.
-------
co
0)
a>
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
30-
35-
2—inch Exhaust Stack
Knockout
Drain Line
GCWD
Holding
Tank
4^->
Air
Stripper
Unit
Treated Effluent to
Infiltration Zone
Transfer Pump
.5-26'
Submersible Pump
(28' bgs)
Source: Porsons 2ODD.
NOT TO SCALE
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 9
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
FINAL PUMP-AND-TREAT
TEST SET-UP
TETRATECHEMINC.
-------
., , .-—Flow Meter
Valve-~^^ .x^
^T^
5-
10-
8> 15-
.0
*^
0)
U 20-
OR
3Q~
2 -Inch Exhaust Stack
k'ni-ir-l^ni i4 -
1
PI - i • \
^
y-si-^l/Pi
Approximate
Water Table
y
Broken Eductor
Pipe
Transducer (25' bgs)
(Intake at 27' bgs)
Soura: P«»« 2000. NOT TO SCALE
•A •, ;
. j> i
:•<
,, "j-
'"•) ,•'
• '''.''.
j. ; i
i >
w
1
m
i
K
n'T
: ^ ,''
,''\', —
-
^ —
I?
K
''...•
^
•'.' t'
f, •*
'/yy.
|
^
^
|r
I1!-*
':*v,
-•!'•>
.?>;':.V »•:*•;
'*• ''"'''." •'' •.'•!
,,^ ,.%- "A, .
••\ •••. " ';.; '.
it
^.;:'< ••"'•"
j-vV;.,'".;1'
•
!
—
*
•
f
1
1 —
1 =
• —
; *.• : =
f
' -. Storage Tank
("•/•Mllf-
•o 'i:;^,
' !•'* V
*" !' . lf .
,. ......
'.: ::•:•••<
:'«;:vi>
^t^i:
%%2%fa
W/////<
w////////
?ss
* ^" ' • v «' ^
^»>>;l>: ?"'..'
;?v-->.t\
•.*•:•..:•:••'.•?•:
.'•••' H" •;
; ,.r j.- ,"•; .
W^j*
:>-\:}i',:
•>v>l:.:i';,.
11"
MmiTROLL Pressure
^ Transducer (8' bgs)
^ Inflatable Packer (8-12' bgs)
— (11' bgs)
-^•Key Packers \ To and 1 D bgsj
—(19' bgs)
(on ^n' hnc\
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 10
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
CONSTANT RATE PUMPING
TEST SET-UP
(Ttj TCTRATECHEMINC.
-------
Valve
to
d>
J3
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
30-
35-
2-inch Exhaust Stack
Knockoul
Drain Line
GCWD
Broken Eductor
Pipe
MinfTROLL Pressure
Transducer (25' bgs)
(24.5-26' bgs)
Submersible Pump
(Intake at 27' bgs)
Flow Meter
Sampling Port
MiniTROLL Pressuro
Transducer (8' bgs)
Inflatable Packer (8-12' bgs)
Key Packers (13' and IB' bgs)
(19' bgs)
(20-30' bqs)
Source: Persons 2ODO.
NOT TO SCALE
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 11
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
DIPOLE FLOW TEST
SET-UP
(it] IETRATECHEMINC.
-------
_ | C02 8.9 ft from GCW |
1 15
>»
5 I
o n K. t
Long-Term GCW Test
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00 7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00
2 5 • •
— II C04 15.2ft from GCW I
ff *•" 1
g. 1.5 4
f;4: ;:; = -;;..;;;::;;.. ;
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
2.5 ;'
— „ „ )| D02 9.2 ft from GCW Sw|
B '-° i
£ 1.5 •] -
>» \
o 1-0 "i
° i
> °'51 : I
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
"" i I DOS 12.7 It from GCW |
i? 2.0-!
5 i
g. 1.5-f
5 i
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29K30 0:00
1
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 12
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
Q Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
„ | C02 6.9 ft from GCW |
>.
% 1.0- -- -
Long-Term GCW Test
^^•...i!-.!-. »"• •' -'-!••-' '••
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
2 5 , ,
-, :| C04 15. 2 ft from GCW I
i. 1.5
1 ",
• 0.5 ™s ••• "••
V- i
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00 7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00
2.5
•=?„«! D02 9.2 ft from GCW SW|
i 15 I
« 0.5 4 - "-
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
0.0 -8 1 : ' r r—
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
~" I D03 12. 7 ft from GCW I
i? 2.0 i
Z j
- 1 n J
IV • "
r1-
o 1 -° - r " -
^ ' I M-
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
-j
t: - !
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
T ' ( ' :
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 13
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
Q Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
u 1| C02 8.9 ft from GCW |
~ 0.8 |
2 i
c - . ^
1 !
c ^
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00
F H C04 15.2 ft from GCW I
— (J.B ->
s i
LU |
c 04^
E 02 '
> J ,
1 ' 0.0 •t~'™— •— ™— ' ' p™™~™~™- — , ; — -
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00
.— 1 .0 5
•1 „ „ || D02 9. 2 ft from GCW SW|
£ 06 I
£
« 0.2 4
c ;
Long-Term GCW Test
JV-T -
' ~~~ Jt
7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00 7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00 7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
I
!
v__^_^
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00 7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00 7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
-------
-si
CO
50 -:
30 4
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/000:00
Time
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 15
Thermistor Temperature Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
oo
o
1
2.5 .,--
„ ' C01 7.7ftfromGCW
% 2.0 - ' ' —
5 1.5 -
I" 1.0 4
0.5-
0.0
Long-Term GCW Test
7/1/000:00
2.5 T
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/00 0:00
7/21/000:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
7/1/00 0:00
2.5 -,
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/000:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
•£ 2.0-
a
-a
£ 1.5 •
>.
'3 1.0 •
_o
> 0.5 -
D01 7.6 ft from GCW
0.0
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/00 0:00
Time
7/21/000:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2} Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 16
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
oo
2.5 y-
2.0 -j
1.5 4-
01 7.7 ft from GCW
s
u
o
0-5
Long-Term GCW Test
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/00 0:00
7/21/000:00
7/25/000:00
7/29/000:00
2.5
1 2-°
£ 1-5
1 1-°
« 0.5-
C03 14 3 ft from GCW
o.o-F
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/000:00
7/9/000:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/000:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
D01 7.6 ft from GCW
t
|
a
>
0.5 •
0.0 -f
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/000:00
7/9/000:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/000:00
Time
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 17
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
^ 1.0y-p_= — ~ — : , - ' -- - ••
- o.tt-j
o I
c 04^
c >
Long-Term GCW Test j
: - t - -
I \
0.0 ' i i ' ' ' * '
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00 7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00 7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
" i I C03 14. 3 ft from GCW I
0 ;
i^ U.b •]
c
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00 7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00 7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
O | D01 7 6 ft from GCW I
— 0.8 •
o
c Q 4 i
"? i
>
u.O ^ i •-
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00
^ ^ ^
:
7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00 7/21/000:00 7/25/000:00 7/29/000:00
Time
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
NOTES: FIGURE 18
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by Flow Sensor Inversion Errors Versus Time
Parsons in July 2000. in Shallow Aquifer Zone
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events. 7/1/00 - 7/31/00
§ Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
oo
co
o
o
S
2
8.
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/000:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
S.
E
7/1/00 0:00
60 -T
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/000:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
30 -,
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/000:00
Time
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 19
Thermistor Temperature Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
7/1/00-7/31/00
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
CD
2 . 0 -!—-—-• — - • '- •— •— ™ -
4 u-u i ~ ~
£ !
™ i
o
1 -4.0 -1
> i
B n J] C02 8.9 ft from GCW
V- — ^
l-»> "—*
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00 7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00
2.0 y — " • •••-•
5 o.o i - - -----
£ !
•§ -4.0 I
> •
o „ j C04 15.2 ft from GCW I
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
-"T • • "-" '
i°-Di -
"o i
1 ,,-i
f „ i D02 9.2 ft from GCW SWL
- - - - - - - •
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
2,0 ";'
.g 0.0 -i --
£> -t.U "|"
"o |
| -,o-i
D03 12. 7 ft from GCW L
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation tf
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hyd
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aqi
i
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
\
7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
Time
jst conducted by
raulic gradient.
lifer testing events.
- |
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 20
Vertical Ground water Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
Q Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
„ 2'° 1 " ~ ' ~ " ~ ' 1 ~ ~ ' ~
f 2'° 1 n
1 .4.0 - • ^ r .-«•.
i, 1 L"-^
6 0 JJ C02 8.9 ft from GCW j
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
2.0 •;•"•••••"— -»"' - •
£ J
Si
o
| -4.0 -
>
6 0 i| C04 1 5 .2 ft from GCW |_ ... _ __
Term..GCWJTest i I
i
i
C j,
\
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
- - - -- -- -
7/1/000:00 7/5/000:00 7/9/000:00 7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
2.0 — ~ "
-S o.o 'i - - --
'o
_o
I D02 g 2 ft from GCW swl
j
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00 7/13/00 0:00 7/17/00 0:00
2.0 "r1 — ~ """ — " ' -—••-•<
« 00 ";
1 ' i
i -2.0 - -- — - -
u
1 "-"i
0 „ J DOS 12.7 ft from GCW I
7/1/00 0:00 7/5/00 0:00 7/9/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation te
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hyd
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aqi
V
, I
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
7/13/000:00 7/17/000:00
Time
jst conducted by
raulic gradient.
ifer testing events.
!
j
7/21/00 0:00 7/25/00 0:00 7/29/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 21
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
Q Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
7.0
-3.0
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/000:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
7.0
_ 5.0 -
t
1 3.0 -
1.0
-1.0 -f
"C03 14.3 ft from GCW |
7/1/00 0:00
7.0
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/00 0:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
-3.0
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/00 0:00
7/17/00 0:00
Time
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2} Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 22
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
4.0 -
£ 0.0 -*•
o -2.0 -j
3 I
> -4.0 4
C01 7.7 ft from GCW
Long-Term GCW Test
7/1/000:00
7/5/000:00
7/9/000:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/000:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
4.0 -;
* 2'°-
n
I 0.0 -
I -2.0 •
"m
> -4.0 •
-6.0 f==
7/1/00 0:00
m GCW I
^
7/5/000:00
7/9/000:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/000:00
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
> -4.0 4
] 001 7.6 ft from GCW
6.0 -I - ;
-6.0
7/1/00 0:00
7/5/00 0:00
7/9/00 0:00
7/13/000:00
7/17/000:00
Time
7/21/00 0:00
7/25/00 0:00
7/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from a long term GCW circulation test conducted by
Parsons in July 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 23
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
7/1/00 - 7/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
B
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Weir
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
-------
8
N
A
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Data evaluated was collected on July 28,2000
2) Flow sensor data shown is from long-term GCW circulation test conducted by Parsons in July 2000.
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Row
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
+ Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Plow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
5 Feet
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 25
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Recirculation Conditions
(07/28/00)
hft TetraTechEMInc.
-------
B
— 8
I
10
15
i-— 20
25
j
30
(Feet bgs)
LEGEND
Groundwater Flow Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents 1.0 ft/day)
fl Flow Sensor Interval and GCW Screened Interval
505 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Data evaluated was collected on July 28,2000.
2) Flow sensor shown is from long-term GCW circulation test conducted bu Parsons in July 2000.
3) Cross-section transect line location is shown on Figure 3.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 26
Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity
Projected onto Cross-Section AOB
Under Recirculation Conditions
(7/28/00)
l Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
CO
>; 2 o 4 ^~T
£ 1.5-j
* 1.0-1
0 i
.» 0.5 4
, n 1 ., k_
8/1/00 0:00
-C02 8.9 ft from GCW |
v , 1 V/^ M^
8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
=XIIIII3^
8/21/000:00 8/25/000:00
Aj"'
I
^ \
8/29/00 0:00
1 1 C04 1 5.2 ft from GCW
5 2-°'<
£, 1.5-
'C 1.0-
| 0.5-
U.U -i
8/1/00 0:00
f V- /~ vs/(^->r^_
8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
*f ' V/V_
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00
__/^,
, I
8/29/00 0:00
_ • | D02 9.2 ft from GCW |
S z.u -
« 1 .5 4
>. ;
1 0.6-j jr-
0.0 4===-—
8/1/00 0:00
f ' I (~ \ tf~~^\
v / vr v
8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
r ' v\
/v " V f.
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
_ i| DOS 12.7 ft from GCW |
1 iJ
£• i
O !
« 0.5 4 -
.i_^^^«Mi
0.0 -1
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
• ..a^ ^*- ••
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00
j
8/29/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 27
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
Q Tetra Tech
EM Inc.
-------
_ | C02 8.9 ft from GCW J
™ ^-u ] -^ — — • • • " — — — -- Filial Pump and Tieal Tests
£ 1.5' ----- -
'" 1 0 '
> ° '5 ! k j^^=-— ^ ^ T^r^f-^
8/1/000:00 8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
2 5 -, 1 -.-- -
C04 15.2 ft from GCW
| ''° '
£ 1.5
^ 1.0-
| 0.5 ••
^^_^ ^_^^^
8/1/000:00 8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
2 5 [
_ § D02 9.2 ft from GCW |
if 2 U •
1 1.6-
f 1.0
o
g 0.5 -{ .-
„ _ i— N-^
f— v- f~v*\
U.O -i i ! • i i • _,
8/1/000:00 8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
„ s DOS 12.7 ft from GCW
g. 1.5 -i -
= 1fli
0 '-u :
O ^
» 0.5 H
^:; ::: ' : : ::: :: :;:;;;::::r^
8/1/000:00 8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
,f~ VL,
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00
-- - -----
»f " "V\—
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00
f V\^
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00
f V^
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00
*
A-J*
L
8/29/00 0:00
/V_A
8/29/00 0:00
__
8/29/00 0:00
/bv
8/29/000:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 28
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
Q Tetra Tech
EM Inc.
-------
CO
0)
0.0 4
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/000:00
8/9/000:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/000:00
8/21/000:00
8/25/000:00
8/29/000:00
? il C04 15.2ft from GCW I
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381 , CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 29
Flow Sensor Inversion Errors Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone
8/1/00 - 8/31/00
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
30 4 *
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/000:00
Time
8/21/000:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 30
Thermistor Temperature Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
2.5
2.0
-C01 7.7 ft from GCW
0.5 •
0.0 -I
8/1/00 0:00
Final Pump and Treat Tests •
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
2.5^
If 2.0-1 L
•o
£ 1.5 j
'COS 14.3 ft from GCW
^ 1.0 f
° j
y 0.5 4
o.o 4
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0:00
8/17/000:00
8/21/00 0:00
B/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0:00
8/17/000:00
Time
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 31
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
| 1.5 J
t 1.0-!
2 ;
0.0 -i^^
8/1/00 0:00
£ 1.5-8
1" 1.0 -I
0
« 0.5 -}
0.0 -I
8/1/00 0:00
_ I
S 2.0 -
| 1.5-
| 1.0
O
o o.5 •^^__
0.0 -I
8/1/00 0:00
C01 7.7 ft from GCW |
, ^-
8/5/00 0:00
COS 14.3 ft from GCW
8/5/00 0:00
D01 7.6 ft from GCW I
**—*« ^
8/5/00 0:00
>
Final Pump and Tieal Tests •
8/9/00 0:00 8/13/00 0:00 8/17/00 0:00
8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
!_^ ^
i
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00 8/29/00 0:00
-.- ,_ru' >*">- __^V...~
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00 8/29/00 0:00
-
f^~ \/\ ' ~
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00 8/29/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 32
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
{H Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/000:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/000:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/00 0:00
Time
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 33
Flow Sensor Inversion Errors Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone
8/1/00 - 8/31/00
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
50
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
CD
00
50 -r
8/1/00 0:00
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0:00
8/17/000:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
50
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/000:00
Time
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 34
Thermistor Temperature Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
to
co
_6 0 _u O02 8.9 ft from GCW |
8/1/000:00 8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00 8/21/000:00 8/25/000:00 8/29/000:00
0.0
-6.0
8/1/00 0:00
2.0
"C04 15.2 ft from GCW L
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
0.0
£
>. -2.0
"3
-4.0
"D02 9.2 » from GCW
8/1/00 0:00
2.0 r -
•S 0-0
* -2.0-
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
_6 Q I D03 12.7 ft from GCW L
8/1/00 0:00 8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/000:00
Time
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 35
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
-60 II C02 8.9 ft from GCW
8/1/00 0:00
2.0
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
0.0 f
-2.0 •
_6 0
8/1/00 0:00
C04 15.2 ft from GCW
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/00 0.00
8/17/000:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
5 0.0-
£ -2.0
£• -4.0 , ;_
| -6.0 CZ
g 8/1/000:00
D03 12.7 ft from GCW |
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/00 0:00
Timp
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 36
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
-1.0 -
-3.0
8/1/00 0:00
| C01 7.7 ft from GCW |
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
7.0 -
— 5.0-
*S
re
1 3.0
2-
| 1.0
2
-1.0
-3.0
I C03 14.3 ft from GCW I
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/000:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
-3.0
8/1/00 0:00
j| 001 7.6 ft from GCW |
8/5/00 0:00
8/9/00 0:00
8/13/000:00
8/17/00 0:00
8/21/00 0:00
8/25/00 0:00
8/29/00 0:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
Parsons in August 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 37
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
S
f .0 :
5.0-|
">; i
n i
1 3.0 -j
o '•" i
1
,
!| C01 7.7 ft from GCW |
8/1/000:00 8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
(0
1 3.0-
| 1.0-
-1.0 -
y^_, _f v ^
II COS 14.3 ft from GCW I
8/1/00 0:00 8/5/00 0:00 8/9/00 0:00 8/13/00 0:00 8/17/00 0:00
£ 30 j^f^
f 1.0 4
O *
4 -1.0 -i
I (_ ;; "._.."' ."im^.rr.-rrrL
~ i: ~ ~ • ~ " ~ ~
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00 B/29/00 0:00
I
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00 8/29/00 0:00
3 0 l| D01 7.6 ft from GCW I
8/1/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown
Parsons in Aug
2) Positive verti
3) Vertical lines
8/5/000:00 8/9/000:00 8/13/000:00 8/17/000:00
s from final pumping-and-treat testing conducted by
ust 2000.
cal velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
j
8/21/00 0:00 8/25/00 0:00 8/29/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 38
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
8/1/00 - 8/31/00 (Data with Background Removed)
Q Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
8
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Weir
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
•§• Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
5 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Data evaluated was collected on August 25.2000.
2) Row sensor data shown is from pump-and-treat testing conducted by Parsons in August 2000,
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 39
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Pumping Conditions
(08/25/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
B
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
+ Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
5 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Data evaluated was collected on August 25,2000.
2) Row sensor data shown is from pump-and-treat testing conducted by Parsons in August 2000.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 40
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Pumping Conditions
(08/25/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
o
B
o
D
O
i
o
o
o
O ii
7
10
15
\
o
s
o
i
I
i
o
8
o
20
25
30
LEGEND
Groundwater Flow Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents 1.0 ft/day)
f] Flow Sensor Interval and GCW Screened Interval
0
5 Feet
NOTES:
1) Data evaluated was collected on August 25, 2000.
2) Flow sensor data shown is from pump-and-treat testing conducted by Parsons in August 2000.
3) Cross-section transect line location is shown on Figure 3.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 41
Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity
Projected onto Cross-Section AOB
Under Pumping Conditions
(08/25/00)
ht Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
2.5 T
Constant Rate Pumping
TestRecovery
5
9/13/00 0:00
2.5
1.5 4-
1.0
0.5 -
0.0
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
'I C04 15.2 ft from GCW I
1 - - -
-j
k^
r~
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
9/13/000:00
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
9/19/000:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 42
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
(Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
™ 2.0 -
| 1.5-
•f 1.0-
°
.« 0.5 -
0.0 -
9/13/0
2.5 -
? 2.0-
^3
g. 1.5 -
>,
| 1.0-
.« 0.5 -
| C02 8.9 ft from GCW |
— - t"
Step
Tests
EEE
" "" T
v^ :::;
Dipole
ssts 1-5
s~
v^_
Constant Rate Pumping Test
_
r
- —- — D
T
Constant Rate Pumping
po
!St
/
r^ r
00:00 9/14/000:00 9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00 9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00
s
from GCW I
^
_p^"
s^
T
^_
f
Dipole !
•-Te..7— ---j
^' j Vs^^i
9/19/00 0:00
,
-G 1 .0 -
0
« 0.5-
0.0 -
9/13/0
NOTES:
1) Aquife
2) Vertic
\ 002 9.2 ft from GCW SWJ
- dr
v_
/"
^_
r-~~~^
^ -
^
^c-^J
00:00 9/14/000:00 9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00 9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00 9/19/000:00
I DOS 12.7ft from GCW I
f
.- /..
I- — -.-.-
\~
i
00:00 9/14/000:00 9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00
Time
:r testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
al lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
5zzzr:~z:::;.
9/17/00 0:00 9/18/00 0:00
i
I
9/19/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 43
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
(Data with Background Removed)
Jig Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
O
oo
~ 1.0 -;
9/13/000:00
1.0 -r~
0.8 -;-
0.6 -j
0.4 4
0.2 4-
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
O f\
U . U
9/13/00 CM»
I C04
^MMM
~|
15.2 ft from GCW I
JU -•
„._„.,„_ ,__™™m „„...,
f~ ~^^««i^^^_
9/1*00000
9/15/000:00
9/161000:00
Ul
9/13/000:00
1.0 T
0.8 4
0.6 4
0.4 \
0.2 4
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
I DOS 12.7 ft from GCW I
. ::;;;:;;:=
,
X""
\^/\
/wy<
A^J
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/00 0:00
9/16/00 0:00
Time
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 44
Inversion Error Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
O
-------
2.5
1.04
a
o.o
9/13/000:00
2.5
¥ 2.0
| 1.5
>v
13 1.0
2
0.0 H
9/13/00 0:00
j | C01 7.7 ft from GCW |. | [
4-. - Step
! Tests
' -"- i I
Tests 1-5
--
I I !
Constant Rate Pumping Test Test Recovery I '
i Dipole
! Test 6
! Ul
— ! ._^^*_^
I j I
Dipole
Test?
:
- , — - i
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/00 0:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/000:00
I | COS 14.3 ft from GCW
.^^~t
/
5
^
i
^:!
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/00 0:00
9/17/00 0:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/00 0:00
0.0
9/13/000:00
9/14/000:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 46
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
(Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
2.5
? 2.0 4
1.0 H
i | C01 7.7 ft from GCW | i
| ]
| T
Step
ests
/*•"
T(
^ ,
Dipole
ssts 1-5
_^*~
F- ::::
Constant Rate Pumping Test
Constant- Rate-Pumping
Test Recovery
t>
T
ipo
est
r
e -
6
k
Dipole
Test 7
/**-
^^
0.0
9/13/00 0:00
2.5
2.0-
1.5-
1.0
0.5 -j
0.0
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/00 0:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/000:00
-
C03 14.3 ft from GCW
V
^— *
^^
/-
N_ _
/
s
/•
^_
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/00 0:00
9/16/00 0:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/000:00
0.0 -i
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/00 0:00
9/16/000:00
Time
9/17/000:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/000:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 47
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
(Data with Background Removed)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0" . „ ! 1 C01 7.7 ft from GCW I
o 1.0 | '
| 0.4-
| 0.2-= —
I
Step
'ests
V
| I
D
Te
ipole
sts 1-5
f.
CI
Constant Rate Pumping Test
Di
"" " " ' Te
„ „ _. Constanl Rate Pumoino
Test Recovery
x>le Dipole \
s(6 Test 7 j
9/13/000:00 9/14/000:00 9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00 9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00 9/19/000:00
JT 4 „ i I C03 14.3 ft from GCW
o 1-0 1"H
5 0.8 —
1 0.4
5 -V
1 0-2-
i I
I
9/13/00 0:00 9/14/00 0:00 9/15/00 0:00 9/16/00 0:00 9/17/00 0:00 9/18/00 0:00 9/19/00 0:00
rr i I D01 7.6 ft from GCW
o i-u f- -
"i 0.6 4 -
| 0.4
S 02- -«.
--
9/13/000:00 9/14/000:00 9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
i
9/17/00 0:00 9/18/00 0:00 9/19/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 48
Inversion Error Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
frfi Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
55 -i
Constant Rate Pumping
Test Recovery
30 -f
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/00 0:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/000:00
9/13/000:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/00 0:00
9/16/00 0:00
9/17/00 0:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/00 0:00
o
a
9/13/000:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/00 0:00
9/16/00 0:00
Time
9/17/00 0:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 49
Thermistor Temperature Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
g. -1.0 -
I -3^ £
V
s
f^ »
^^~~^
Dipole
sts 1-5
I
\ I Constant Rate Pumping
\ / Test Recovery
| C02 8.9 ft from GCW | T
9/13/000:00 9/14/000:00
I -1.0-j
•5 -2.0 4
o I
« -3.0 -j
^ 0 I C04 15.2 ft from GCW I
. — —
9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00 9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00
\
pt
es
\/
>le
16
Dipole 1
Test 7 " ~~^i\
^\_|P:]
9/19/00 0:00
9/13/000:00 9/14/000:00 9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00 9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00
51 o.o -
£ -1.0 -' - —
1 Q j D02 9.2 ft from GCW SW|
9/19/000:00
9/13/000:00 9/14/000:00 9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00 9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00
1.0 T "
g- o.o -j -
o i
§ -3.0 -i
^
A „ i DOS 12. 7 ft from GCW I
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/00 0:00
^^^ r~r
"~ • -/
9/16/000:00 9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00
Time
1 j
j |
9/19/000:00
i
9/19/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
NOTES:
1 ) Aquifer testing per
2) Positive vertical ve
3) Vertical lines indies
od was from Septe
locity is indicative <
ate the beginning a
mber 13 to 19, 200(
3f upward hydraulic
nd end of aquifer te
FIGURE 50
1 Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
gradient. in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
sting events. During Aquifer Testing Period
(Actual Data)
(rt Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
-4.0 •
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/00 0:00
0.0
-4.0
9/13/00 0:00
1.0
1? 0.0 -i
13
£ -i.o
•f -2.0
_o
£ -3.0
-4.0
9/13/00 0:00
! |
-!--
f
|
j C04 15.2 ft from GCW I
i
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/00 0:00
-^•~
| D02 9.2 ft from GCW SW|
\,_^~-
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/00 0:00
9/13/000:00
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/000:00
Time
9/17/000:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/000:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 51
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
(Data with Background Removed)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
— I Step
| 2'° 1 - Tests
£ 1 o - [
* o.o -;
2 \
S -1.0 -s
- o : C01 7
9/13/00 0:00
3.0 y |
£ 2.0 -
| ,.0-
5 o.o -
| -1.0 -
Oipole
' " ~ "~~ " Tests 1-5
7 ft from GCW
^
^
Constant Rate Pumping Test
Constant Rate Pumping \
Test Recovery
— ^
9/14/00 0:00 9/15/00 0:00 9/16/00 0:00
— >^,
,, „ COS 14.3 ft from GCW I
9/13/00 0:00
"3 o n •"* ---
1 1 n - — **
•5 0.0 -
o
5 -1.0 4
9/14/00 0:00 9/15/00 0:00 9/16/00 0:00
^
„ „ | 001 7.6 ft from GCW |
9/13/000:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing per
2) Positive vertical ve
3) Vertical lines indies
9/14/00 0:00
od was from Septe
locity is indicative <
ate the beginning s
^V
1™,
— •
9/15/000:00 9/16/000:00
Time
jmber 13 to 19,2000.
Df upward hydraulic gradient.
nd end of aquifer testing events.
- Dipo
Test
9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00
^-^.
.T^^
i i
Dipole _ _
Test?
3 - - 1
6 | I
9/19/00 0:00
|
9/17/000:00 9/18/000:00 9/19/000:00
— — • —: >
|
I
9/17/00 0:00 9/18/00 0:00 9/19/00 0:00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 52
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
(Actual Data)
{H Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
1.0
>; o.o
to
I -1.0
1 "2'°
£ -3.0 t
-4.0
9/13/00 0:00
Step
T
\ C01 7.7 ft from GCW \
Xs-*,
Dipole
ests 1-
5
Constant Rate Pumping Test
—~~~~
Test Recovery -
^
ipo
est
. —
Dipole
Test?
N
e
6
" "
9/14/000:00
9/15/000:00
9/16/00 0:00
9/17/00 0:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/000:00
1.0 T-
£ -1.0
I
I
"I
•4
t C03 14.3 ft from GCW I
>— t
n
—
^ [
i
-4.0 4
9/13/000:00
9/14/00 0:00
9/15/00 0:00
9/16/00 0:00
9/17/00 0:00
9/18/000:00
9/19/00 0:00
-4.0
9/13/00 0:00
9/14/000:00
9/15/00 0:00
9/16/00 0:00
Time
9/17/00 0:00
9/18/00 0:00
9/19/00 0:00
NOTES:
1) Aquifer testing period was from September 13 to 19, 2000.
2) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
3) Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of aquifer testing events.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 53
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Aquifer Testing Period
(Data with Background Removed)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
1.66
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
«§• Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Row Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
1.74 Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)
505 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Recovery period of the constant rate pumping test was from September 16 to 18,2000
and lasted 43 hours.
2) Row sensor data shown is from later stage of the recovery period of constant rate
pumping test and considered to be representative of static conditions.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 54
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Natural Flow Conditions
(09/18/00)
I Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
1.66
-------
6PZD
1.45
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
+ Row Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
1.74 Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)
505 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Constant rate pumping test was conducted for 29 hours on September 15 and 16,2000,
using pumping rate of 10 gpm.
2) Flow sensor data shown is from later stage of the constant rate
pumping test and considered to be representative of steady-state conditions.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 56
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Pumping Conditions
(09/16/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
1.45
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Row
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Weir
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
Hh Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
1.74 Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)
5 0 5 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Constant rate pumping test was conducted for 29 hours on September 15 and 16,2000,
using pumping rate of 10 gpm.
2) Flow sensor data shown is from later stage of the constant rate
pumping test and considered to be representative of steady-state conditions.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURES?
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Pumping Conditions
(09/16/00)
it] Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
1.06
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Dipole testing consisted of pumping groundwater from the lower screened interval of the GCW
and injecting it into the upper screened interval of the GCW.
2) Dipole test 6 was conducted from 8:00 am to 10:22 am on 9/18/00, using a pumping and
injection rate of 12.5 gpm.
3) No groundwater elevation data was collected from 2PZS because the pressure transducer was
not functioning.
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well;
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
Hh Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
1.74 Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)
5 0 5 Feet
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 58
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 6 (09/18/00)
it Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
W
O>
6PZD
1.06
B
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well;
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
+ Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
1.74 Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)
505 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Dipole testing consisted of pumping groundwater from the lower screened interval of the GCW
and injecting it into the upper screened interval of the GCW.
2) Dipole test 6 was conducted from 8:00 am to 10:22 am on 9/18/00, using a pumping and
injection rate of 12.5 gpm.
3) No groundwater elevation data was collected from 2PZS because the pressure transducer was
not functioning.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 59
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 6 (09/18/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
1.70
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Dipole testing consisted of pumping groundwater from the lower screened interval of the GCW
and injecting it into the upper screened interval of the GCW.
2) Dipole test 7 was conducted from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm on 9/18/00, using a pumping and
injection rate of 12.5 gpm.
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Weir
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
4> Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Row Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
1.74 Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)
5 0 5 Feet
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 60
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 7 (09/18/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
1.70
ro
01
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•$ GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
+ Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
• Row Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
1.74 Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)
505 Feet
Resultant Data
NOTES:
1) Dipole testing consisted of pumping groundwater from the lower screened interval of the GCW
and injecting it into the upper screened interval of the GCW.
2) Dipole test 7 was conducted from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm on 9/18/00, using a pumping and
injection rate of 12.5 gpm.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 61
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
During Dipole Test 7 (09/18/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
8
co
O
B
O
s
CD
o
o
§•
CD
O
T5
(D
rjT
5T
io
10
15
20
25
1 30
(Feet bgs)
0
5 Feet
LEGEND
Groundwater Flow Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents 1.0 ft/day )
[ Flow Sensor Interval and GCW Screened Interval
NOTE:
1) Cross-section transect line location is shown on Figure 3.
2) Recovery period of the constant rate pumping test was from
September 16 to 18, 2000 and lasted 43 hours.
3) Flow sensor data shown is from later stage of the recovery period of constant rate
pumping test and considered to be representative of static conditions.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 62
Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity
Projected onto Cross-Section AOB
Under Natural Flow Conditions
(09/18/00)
it Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
N)
-J
O
O
O
o
o ;
O
i
CD
9L
o
o
w
03
B
10
15
o
2
- 25
I
I
I 30
(Feet bgs)
0
5 Feet
LEGEND
Groundwater Flow Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents 1.0 ft/day)
[] Flow Sensor Interval and GCW Screened Interval
NOTE:
1) Cross-section transect line location is shown on Figure 3.
2) Constant rate pumping test was conducted for 29 hours on
September 15 and 16, 2000 using a pumping rate of 10 gpm.
3) Flow sensor data shown is from later stage of the recovery period of constant rate
pumping test and considered to be representative of static conditions.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 63
Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity
Projected onto Cross-Section AOB
Under Pumping Conditions
(09/16/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
a
o
NJ
oo
o
o
o
CD
c
T3
-
CD
£D
O
o
oo
B
10
15
o
2
I
01
25
30
(Feet bgs)
0
5 Feet
LEGEND
Groundwater Flow Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents 1.0 ft/day)
R Flow Sensor Interval and GCW Screened Interval
NOTES:
1) Cross-section transect line location is shown on Figure 3.
2) Data evaluated is from Dipole Test 6 conducted from 8:00 am to 10:22 am on 9/18/00, using a
pumping and injection rate of 12.5 gpm.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 64
Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity
Projected onto Cross-Section AOB
During Dipole 6 (09/18/00)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
O
NJ
CO
O
CD
i
O
O
CO
B
\
O
g
10
15
20
!
I 25
I 30
(Feet bgs)
0
5 Feet
LEGEND
Groundwater Flow Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents 1.0 ft/day)
[; Flow Sensor Interval and GCW Screened Interval
NOTES:
1) Cross-section transect line location is shown on Figure 3.
2) Data evaluated is from Dipole Test 7 conducted from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm on 9/18/00, using a
pumping and injection rate of 12.5 gpm.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 65
Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity
Projected onto Cross-Section AOB
During Dipole 7 (09/18/00)
it Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.5 TJ:
0.4 -I
>,
E 0.3
2
C02 8.9 ft from GCW
0.2 -1
0.1 -
o.o T-' - —^ '7~ ' .".,.-
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.5
I 0.4 -
•a
-C04 15.2 flfrom GCW I
I 0.2 -i
0.1
o.o -
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
CO
o
D02 9.2 ft from GCW SV
0.5 •
0.4 •
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
I D03 12.7 flfrom GCW I"
0.5 T
0.4 4
0.3 4
0.2 4
0.1 4
0.0
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data at flow sensor C04 after February 2, 2001 were deleted. For unknown reasons,
the original data contains a gradually temperature shift.
3) Data at flow sensor D03 from September 20 to November 30, 2000 and from
December 20, 2000 to January 24, 2001 were deleted. The original data were affected
by electrical noise.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 66
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
9/20/00-4/1/01 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
_ 0.5-
o
~ 0.4.
0.2 4
0.1 4
0.0 4-
-C02 8.9 ft from GCW
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.5-
0.4 4
0.34
0.2 -i
H
0.0 -i
9/20/00 0:00
-C04 15.2 ft from GCW I
10/10/000:00
10/30/00 0:00
11/19/000:00
12/9/00 0:00
12/29/000:00
1/18/01 0:00
2/7/01 0:00
2/27/01 0:00
3/19/01 0:00
0.5
U
— 0.4
D02 9.2 ft from GCW SV
0.1
0.0-
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.5 •
003 12.7 flfram GCW |
0.4 -{ —
0.3 i
0.2 4
0.1 -j
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 272/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data at flow sensor C04 after February 2, 2001 were deleted. For unknown reasons,
the original data contains a gradually temperature shift.
3) Data at flow sensor DOS from September 20 to November 30, 2000 and from
December 20, 2000 to January 24, 2001 were deleted. The original data were affected
by electrical noise.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 67
Flow Sensor Inversion Errors Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone
9/20/00-4/1/01
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
50
C04 15 2 ft from GCW SE
45 4
40 ~L
35 - - - - -
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2>17/01 0:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
50 yT
D03 12.f fl fiuiu QCW OW
45 -i-
40 f
35 4
30 -i
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data at flow sensor C04 after February 2, 2001 were deleted. For unknown reasons,
the original data contains a gradually temperature shift.
3) Data at flow sensor DOS from September 20 to November 30, 2000 and from
December 20, 2000 to January 24, 2001 were deleted. The original data were affected
by electrical noise.
FACILITY 1381, OCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 68
Thermistor Temperature Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
9/20/00 - 4/1/01
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.5 —
i | ——C01 7.7 ft from GCW
0.4 4-'- •-
0.3 i
0.2 4
0.1 I
0.0 "? } 1 '. ~T IJ ! 3 ! I ! t
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.5 -j-p:
0.4 |-L
I
0.3 -)•
?
0.1 -I
"C03 14.3 ft from GCW
0.0 -i 1 1
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00
Time
1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data from flow sensor DOIwas not used for the period shown for the period shown
due to malfunction of the sensor.
3) Data at flow sensor COS from September 20 to October 21, 2000. The original data
were affected by electrical noise. The original data were affected by eletrical noise.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 69
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
9/20/00-4/1/01 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.5-
£ 0.4-
2 0.3-
UJ
o 0.2
1
| 0.1
0.0 •
C01 7.7 ft from GCW
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.5 T-
.« 0.4 f
S. 0.3 -L
ui
| 0.2 f
o i
| o.i 4•
0.0 -$-
"C03 14.3tHromGCW~|
--i
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data from flow sensor DOIwas not used for the period shown for the period shown
due to malfunction of the sensor.
3) Data at flow sensor C03 from September 20 to October 21, 2000. The original data
were affected by electrical noise. The original data were affected by eletrical noise.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 70
Flow Sensor Inversion Errors Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone
9/20/00-4/1/01
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
I
D.
E
30 4
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
00
01
s
1
50 T
45 4
40 4
35 -I
I C03 14.3 ft from GCW SE
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data from flow sensor DOIwas not used for the period shown for the period shown
due to malfunction of the sensor.
3) Data at flow sensor COS from September 20 to October 21, 2000. The original data
were affected by electrical noise. The original data were affected by eletrical noise.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 71
Thermistor Temperature Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
9/20/00 - 4/1/01
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
to
o>
0.3-
I O.D 1
5 -0.1 *
-0.2 -it
C02 8.9 ft from GCw
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.3 •
& 0.2 4
I 0.1 j-
>» :
^ o.o r
S !
« .0.1 +..
_0 2 | C04 15.2 fl from GCW I | ] ( | |_ ,____, .
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
-0.2
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.3
g- 0.2 4-
I o.4-
o.o -
a
-0.1
-0.2 i-
D03 12.7 ft from GCW
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
Time
NOTES:
1} Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data at flow sensor C04 after February 2, 2001 were deleted. For unknown reasons,
the original data contains a gradually temperature shift.
3) Data at flow sensor DOS from September 20 to November 30, 2000 and from December
20, 2000 to January 24, 2001 were deleted. The original data were affected by electrical
noise.
4) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 72
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
9/20/00-4/1/01 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
GO
2.5 T
! 2.0 {
i- 1-5
o
•5 1.0
0.5
-C01 7.7 ft from GCW
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
0.54
9/20/000:00 10/5/000:00 10/20/000:00 11/4/000:00 11/19/000:00 12/4/000:00 12/19/000:00 1/3/010:00 1/18/010:00 2/2/010:00 2/17/010:00 3/4/010:00 3/19/010:00
Time
NOTES:
1) Data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001
2) Data from flow sensor DOIwas not used for the period shown for the period shown
due to malfunction of the sensor.
3) Data at flow sensor COS from September 20 to October 21, 2000. The original data
were affected by electrical noise. The original data were affected by eletrical noise.
4) Positive vertical velocity is indicative of upward hydraulic gradient.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 73
Vertical Groundwater Darcy Velocity Versus Time
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
9/20/00-4/1/01 (Actual Data)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
oo
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
-0- GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
•§• Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
m Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
5 Feet
NOTES:
1) Data evaluated was collected on Feburary 2, 2001.
Flow sensor data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 74
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Deep Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Natural Flow Conditions
(02/02/01)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
6PZD
CO
CO
B
N
A
LEGEND
Horizontal Groundwater Flow
Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents
1.0 ft/day)
Monitoring Locations
•0- GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Piezometer (Shallow Zone)
•!• Flow Sensor (Deep Zone)
m Flow Sensor (Shallow Zone)
Cross-section Transect Line
5 Feet
NOTES:
1) Data evaluated was collected on Feburary 2, 2001.
Flow sensor data shown is from the post-test period from September 20, 2000 to April 1, 2001.
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 75
Horizontal Groundwater Darcy Velocity
in Shallow Aquifer Zone Measured by Flow Sensors
Under Natural Flow Conditions
(02/02/01)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
B
o
o
CO
O
O
"S
o
o
}
0
o
o
CO
• v •*
'2
— 10
15
20
25
CD
i
- 30
(Feet bgs)
LEGEND
Groundwater Flow Direction and Velocity
(Length of the symbol represents 1.0 ft/day)
fl Flow Sensor Interval and GCW Screened Interval
NOTE:
Cross-section transect line location is shown on Figure 3.
0
5 Feet
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE 76
Resultant Groundwater Flow Velocity
Projected onto Cross-Section AOB
Under Natural Flow Conditions
(2/2/01)
it Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
TABLE 1. CHRONOLOGY OF GCW FIELD ACTIVITIES
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
DATE
November 22-24,1999
January 28-February 25, 2000
February 29, 2000
April 3,2000
April 11-12,2000
April 20, 2000
/
r
June 26-28, 2000.
July 1, 2000
July 28,2000
August 1,2000
August 2, 2000
August 29,2000
September 12,2000
September 13,2000
September 14,2000
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD EVENT
GCW drilled, installed and developed
Series of short term pumping tests performed in GCW to
determine pumping and treatment system performance and
operating parameters for long-term test
Begin long-term pump and treat test
End long-term pump and treat test
GCW run in circulation mode to test system operation
Begin long-term GCW test
Groundwater flow sensors installed •
Groundwater flow sensor data collection begins
"\
End long-term GCW test
Minitroll pressure transducers installed in 8 piezometers
Begin final pump-and-treat test
End final pump-and-treat test
Pre-Test Activities 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Step drawdown tests performed in GCW:
Step 1 - 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Step 2 -11:30 AM to 12:30 PM
Step 3 -12:30 PM to 3:00 PM
Step4-3:OOPMto3:30PM
Recovery started at 3:30 PM
Dipole Flow Tests 1 through 5 conducted in GCW:
Dipole Test 1 -11:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Dipole Test 2 -12:00 PM to 12:30 PM
Dipole Test 3 -1:00 PM to 1:30 PM
Dipole Test 4 - 2:00 PM to 2:30 PM
Dipole Test 5 - 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM
141
-------
TABLE 1. CHRONOLOGY OF GCW FIELD ACTIVITIES (continued)
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
DATE
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITY
September 15,2000
September 16,2000
September 18,2000
September 18,2000
Begin constant rate pumping test at 8:00 AM
End constant rate pumping test at 1:00 PM
End constant rate pumping test recovery period at 7:59 AM
Dipole Flow Tests 6 and 7 conducted in GCW:
Dipole Test 6 - 8:00 AM to 10:22 AM
Dipole Test 7 - 2:00 PM to 8:00 PM
September 19,2000 to present Continuous groundwater flow sensor data collection
142
-------
TABLE 2. GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS UNDER NATURAL FLOW
CONDITIONS
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
DATE (1)
April 6-7, 2000
June 15, 2000
June 27, 2000
July 7, 2000
September 13, 2000
September 14, 2000
September 15, 20.00
September 18, 2000
SHALLOW AQUIFER ZONE
WEST/NORTH
SOUTH/SOUTHEAST
WEST
SOUTH/EAST
NORTHWEST
NORTHWEST
'/
NORTHWEST
NORTHWEST
DEEP AQUD7ER ZONE
WEST/NORTH
SOUTH/EAST
SOUTHEAST
NORTH/NORTHWEST
NORTHEAST/SOUTHWEST (2)
SOUTH/SOUTHEAST
SOUTH/SOUTHEAST
NORTHEAST/SOUTHWEST (2)
Notes:
1) Groundwater flow directions determined using water level elevations measured by hand.
2) Possible groundwater flow divide in the vicinity of the GCW indicated by the data.
143
-------
TABLES. GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Well ID
GCWD
GCWS
2PZD
2PZS
3PZD
3PZS
4PZD
4PZS
6PZD
Ground
Elevation
(feet
NGVD)
9.37
9.57
9.78
9.73
9.39
9.35
9.40
9.40
8.63
TOC
Elevation
(feet
NGVD)
10.40
12.40
10.19
9.98
9.88
9.73
9.77
9.75
8.99
Depth to Water
(9/13/00,8:50
AM)
8.87
10.87
8.67
8.51
8.45
8.21
5.25
8.23
7.51
Groundwater
Elevation
(9/13/00,8:50
AM)
1.53
1.53
1.52
1.47
1.43
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.48
Depth to Water
(9/14/00,8:40
AM)
8.85
10.85
8.63
8.47
8.38
8.19
8.21
8.20 ...
7.48
Groundwater
Elevation
(9/14/00, 8:40
AM)
1.55
1.55
1.56
1.51 o
1.50
1.54
1.56
1.55
1.51
Depth to Water
(9/15/00, 7:30
AM)
8.84
10.84
8.64
8.48
8.35
8.18
8.21
8.20
7.17
Groundwater
Elevation
(9/15/00, 7:30
AM)
1.56
1.56
1.55
1.50
1.53
1.55
1.56
1.55
1.82
Depth to Water
(9/18/00, 7:30
AM)
8.67
10.66
8.48
8.32
8.24
8.01
8.05
8.04
7.33
Groundwater
Elevation
(9/18/00, 7:30
AM)
1.73
1.74
1.71
1.66
1.64
1.72
1.72
1.71
;
1.66
Notes:
1) Piezometer 6PZS was not used to obtain water level elevation data during the aquifer testing period.
2) Groundwater elevation data measurements presented in the table were collected assuming static conditions.
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF IN-SITU GROUNDWATER VELOCITY SENSOR
SPECIFICATIONS
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Flow Sensor Parameter Description
Operating Range
Accuracy
Resolution
Sensor Length
Sensor Outside Diameter
Power Required
Data Output
Data Collection Equipment
Data Processing
Life Span
Maximum Installation Depth
Specification
0.01 to 2.0 feet/day
0.01 feet/day
0.001 feet/day
30 inches
2 3/8 inches
57 Volts at 1.4 amps
0-2500 mV
CR10 data logger
HTFLOWQ software
1 1
1-2 'years
>400 feet below ground surface
145
-------
TABLE 5. GROUNDWATER FLOW SENSOR INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Flow Sensor ID
C01
C02
C03
C04
D01
D02
DOS
Flow Sensor Location
(distance from GCW)
7.67 feet to southeast
8.90 foot to southeast
14.30 feet to southeast
15.22 feet to southeast
7.59 feet to southwest
9.24 feet to southwest
12.73 feet to southwest
Flow Sensor Installation
Depth (feet bgs)
8.8 to 11.0
19.3 to 21.5
8.3 to 10.5
19.3 to 21. 5
8.8 to 11.0
16.8 to 19.0
17.3 to 19.5
Aquifer Zone
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Deep
Deep
TOC Elevation
(feet above NGVD)
9.46
9.46
9.31
9.39
9.66
9.61
9.73
Ground Elevation (1)
(feet above NGVD)
9.20
9.23
9.15
9.14
9.39
9.43
9.38
O)
Notes:
(1)
GCW
bgs
TOC
NGVD
Ground elevation at flow sensor location
Groundwater circulation well
Below ground surface
Top of casing
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
-------
TABLE 6. GROUNDWATER FLOW VELCITIES AND FLOW DIRECTION MEASURED BY FLOW SENSORS
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Flow Sensor ID and
Measured Parameters
-
Shallow Flow Sensors
C01 horizontal velocity (2)
July 2000
(7/1-7/31/00)
Long Term GCW
Circulation Test
7/28/00,16:00(1)
Corrected Data (5)
0.35
C01 vertical velocity (2,1) 1 -2.49
C01 horizontal flow dir. (4)
COS horizontal velocity (2)
COS vertical velocity (2,3)
COS horizontal flow dir. (4)
121
1.62
-0.27
106
D01 horizontal velocity (2) 2.08
D01 vertical velocity (2,3)
D01 horizontal flow dir. (4)
Deep Flow Sensors
C02 horizontal velocity (2)
C02 vertical velocity (2,3)
C02 horizontal flow dir. (4)
C04 horizontal velocity (2)
C04 vertical velocity (2,3)
C04 horizontal flow dir. (4)
D02 horizontal velocity (2)
D02 vertical velocity (2,3)
D02 horizontal flow dir. (4)
D03 horizontal velocity (2)
D03 vertical velocity (2,3)
D03 horizontal flow dir. (4)
-5.55
196
1.22
-4.85
298
0.47
-0.29
August 2000
(8/1-8/31/00)
Final Pump and
Treat Test
V2S/00. 0:00(1)
Corrected Data (5)
0.22
-038
338
0.22
-1.47
280
0.43
-0.09
333
0.57
-1.65
303
0.32
-0.2
327 326
0.87 0.8
-0.13 -0.26
69 70
1.69 0.78
-1.76 -0.79
334 337
Aquifer Testing
(9/13-9/19/00)
End of Constant
Rate Pumping
Test
9/1&VO, 12:30 (1)
Corrected Data (5)
0.26
-0.55
341
0.36
-0.3
309
0.76
-0.68
334
0.94
-2.81
302
0.59
-OJ3
328
0.89
-0.03
68
1.74
-1.66
333
End of Pumping
Test Recovery
9/1WO, 7:30(1)
Actual Data (6)
0.35
0.71
81
0.47
1.21
43
0.64
1.48
46
0.05
0.02
31
0.01
0.09
71
0.08
-0.07
66
0.06
0.05
329
End of Dipole
Test 6
9/18/00, 10:30 (1)
Corrected Data (5)
0.37
-0.96
125
0.36
-0.72
96
2.19
-0.83
206
End of Dipole
Test 7
9/18/00, 20:00 (1)
Corrected Data (5)
0.43
-139
126
0.78
-0.73
90
2.17
-3.15
206
Post-Test Period
(9/20/00-4/01/01)
Representative Flow,
Post Test Period
2/02/01,0:00(1)
Actual Data (6)
0.088
0.664
122
0.213
1.51
27
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
0.49 0.85 0.029
-1.52 -2.82 0.039
300 302 102
0.54 0.64 0.057
-0.09 -0.32 0.268
330 328 50
0.56 0.83 0.056
0.07
67
1.32
-0.53
331
-0.2 -0.032
67 238
1.51 0.042
-0.81 0.08
332 339
Notes:
( 1 ) Actual data selection times may vary slightly due to different data collection time intervals.
(2) Horizontal and vertical velocity values are in feet per day.
(3) Positive values indicate upward vertical velocities, and negative values (in bold) indicate downward velocities.
(4) Horizontal flow directions are presented as azimuths, reading in degrees clockwise from north.
(5) Corrected data is flow sensor data with background removed using a small simulation window.
(6) Actual data is the original flow sensor data with a small simulation window that has not been corrected for background.
-------
TABLE 7. GCW OPERATIONAL EVENTS IN JULY-AUGUST 2000 DETERMINED
FROM FLOW SENSOR DATA
DATE
TIME
PROBABLE GCW OPERATION AS RECORDED BY
FLOW SENSORS
Long-Term GCW Circulation Test
July 10, 2000
July 10, 2000
July 14, 2000
July 14, 2000
July 28, 2000
9:00 to 10:01 AM
4:30 PM
8:48 AM
10:46 AM
4:30 PM
Pump turned on for 61 minutes
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Final Pump-and-Treat Test
August 1, 2000
August 2, 2000
August 4, 2000
August 15, 2000
August 16, 2000
August 17, 2000
August 18, 2000
August 18, 2000
August 19, 2000
August 2 1,2000
August 25, 2000
August 25, 2000
August 25, 2000
August 28, 2000
August 28, 2000
August 29, 2000
August 29, 2000
2:48 to 3:45 PM
9:45 AM
4:46 PM ''
8:48 AM
11:48PM
8:48 AM
9:45 PM
1:46 PM
12:45 AM
7:46 AM
8:48 AM
2:48 PM
10:46 PM
8:48 AM
3:45 PM
7:46 AM
3:45 PM
Pump turned on for 57 minutes.
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Pumping started
Pumping stopped ' !
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
Pumping started
Pumping stopped
148
-------
TABLE 8. REPRODUCIBILITY SUMMARY
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Sensor
Deep Ac
C02
C04
D02
D03
Long-Term GCW
Operation
Average
Horizontal
Velocity
RPD (%)
Average
Vertical
Velocity
RPD (%)
Final Pump-and-Treat
Operation
Average
Horizontal
Velocity
RPD(%)
uifer Zone Flow Sensors
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.1
Average
Vertical 1
Velocity V
RPD (%)
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
Shallow Aquifer Zone Flow Sensors
C01
C03
D01
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.5
1.5
14
5.1
2.2
0.3
10.0
0.5
Aquifer Hydraulic Test
Operation
Average Average Aver
lorizontal Vertical Vek
slocityRPD Velocity RPD
0.9 0.1
0.6 1.0
0.3 0.9
6.7 23.2
0.4 1.3
0.8 0.1
2.4 3.9
Post Operation
age Horizontal A
city RPD (%) V
1.6
2.3
1.5
2.6
0.8
1.0
NA
iverage Vertical
elocityRPD(%)
0.8
0.4
3.8
0.6
0.2
0.3
NA
Notes:
GCW Groundwater Circulation Well
RPD Relative percent difference = [VI - V2/{Q.5 * (VI + V2)}] * 100
V | Initial velocity measurement
V2 Subsequent velocity measurement
NA Reproducibility data not available
% Percent
-b.
CO
-------
APPENDIX A
HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
of the
AQUIFER TREATED BY THE WASATCH GROUNDWATER
CIRCULATION WELL SYSTEM
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR STATION
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
Cincinnati, Ohio
Prepared by
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
San Diego, California
September 26,2001
-------
APPENDIX A
HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section - Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS 151
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 157
1.0 INTRODUCTION 159
1.1 SITE PROGRAM 159
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT 162
2.0 BACKGROUND 163
2.1 THE GCW SYSTEM 163
2.1.1 General Description 163
2.1.2 GCW System at CCAS 163
2.2 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY 166
2.3 SITE TOPOGRAPHY 169
2.4 REGIONAL AND SITE GEOLOGY 169
2.4.1 Regional Geology 169
2.4.2 Site Geology 170
2.5 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY 172
2.5.1 Regional Hydrogeology 172
2.5.2 Site Hydrogeology 173
2.6 CONTAMINATION IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER 175
2.7 SITE HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL MODEL 175
3.0 AQUIFER TESTING 177
3.1 AQUIFER TESTING EQUIPMENT 177
3.1.1 Installation and Configuration of Aquifer Test Equipment 177
3.1.1.1 Pump and Packer Equipment 178
3.1.1.2 Pressure Transducer and Data Loggers 178
3.1.1.3 Other Equipment 181
3.1.1.4 Data Logger Programming 181
' 3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR AQUIFER TESTING 182
3.2.1 Step Drawdown Test 182
3.2.2 Constant Discharge Pumping Test 184
3.2.3 Dipole Flow Testing 189
4.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF AQUIFER TESTING 193
151
-------
4.1 CALCULATION OF SPECIFIC CAPACITY AND WELL EFFICIENCY 193
4.1.1 Specific Capacity 193
4.1.2 Well Loss and Well Efficiency 195
4.2 CONSTANT RATE PUMPING TEST ;=, 201
4.2.1 Configuration of Constant Discharge Pumping Test 201
4.2.2 Drawdown Response Characteristics 202
4.2.3 Selection of Analytical Model 208
4.2.4 Results 209
4.3 DIPOLE FLOW TESTS 213
4.3.1 Configuration of Dipole Flow Tests 213
4.3.2 Results of Hydraulic Monitoring During Dipole Testing 214
4.3.3 Dipole Flow Test Data Interpretation and Aquifer Anisotropy Estimation 219
5.0 CONCLUSIONS.... 224
6.0 REFERENCES 225
152
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
Al LOCATION OF FACILITY 1381 ......... ............... ::.: [[[ 160
A2 CCAS FACILITY SITE MAP [[[ 161
A3 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL ................... 167
A4 LOCATIONS OF THE GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL AND PIEZOMETERS ..168
A5 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A - A' [[[ 171
A6 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CONSTANT RATE PUMPING TEST SET-UP ....................... 179
A7 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF DIPOLE FLOW TEST SET-UP ................................................ 180
A8 HYDROGRAPH OF GCWS AND GCWD DURING AQUIFER HYDRAULIC TESTING ... 1 85
A9 HYDROGRAPH OF GCWS AND GCWD DURING STEP DRAWDOWN TESTS ............... 1 86
A10 HYDROGRAPH OF GCWS AND GCWD UNDER PUMPING CONDITIONS ..................... 188
Al 1 HYDROGRAPH OF GCWS AND GCWD DURING DIPOLE TESTS 1 THROUGH 5 ......... 190
A12 HYDROGRAPH OF GCWS AND GCWD DURING DIPOLE TESTS 6 AND 7 .................... 191
Al 3 STEP TEST DRAWDOWN VERSUS PUMPING RATE AND THE BEST FIT EQUATION (4-
POINT) [[[ 196
Al 4 STEP TEST DRAWDOWN VERSUS PUMPING RATE AND THE BEST-FIT EQUATION (3-
POINT) [[[ 197
A15 DIPOLE TEST DRAWDOWN VERSUS PUMPING RATE AND BEST-FIT EQUATION ... 198
Al 6 DIPOLE TEST WATER LEVEL RISE VERSUS INJECTION RATE AND THE BEST-FIT
EQUATION [[[ 199
A17 DRAWDOWN VERSUS TIME DURING PUMPING CONDITIONS (LOG-LOG PLOT) ..... 203
Al 8 DRAWDOWN VERSUS TIME DURING PUMPING CONDITIONS (SEMI-LOG PLOT) ... 204
-------
A22 DRAWDOWN VERSUS TIME IN DEEP AQUIFER ZONE DURING DIPOLE TEST 7 (LOG-
LOG PLOT) 216
A23 DRAWDOWN VERSUS TIME AT PIEZOMETER 4PZD DURING DIPOLE TEST 6 AND 7
(LOG-LOG PLOT) 217
A24 DRAWDOWN VERSUS TIME AT PIEZOMETER 6PZD DURING DIPOLE TEST 6 AND 7
(LOG-LOG PLOT) 218
TABLES
Table
Al CHRONOLOGY OF GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL FIELD EVENTS 164
A2 SUMMARY OF TEST EXECUTION, STEP DRAWDOWN TEST 183
A3 SUMMARY OF TEST EXECUTION, CONSTANT DISCHARGE PUMPING TEST 187
A4 SUMMARY OF TEST EXECUTION, DIPOLE FLOW TEST 192
A5 AQUIFER TEST DATA AND GCW WELL SPECIFIC CAPACITY 194
A6 AQUIFER TEST DATA AND GCW SAND PACK EFFICIENCIES 200
A7 INFORMATION ON CONSTANT RATE DISCHARGE PUMPING TEST 207
A8 AQUIFER HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS 212
A9 DIPOLE FLOW TEST STEADY STATE SOLUTIONS USING KABALA (1993 AND 1997)
METHODOLOGY 222
154
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
bgs Below ground surface
cm/sec Centimeters per second
CCAS Cape Canaveral Air Station
DCA Dichloroethane
DCE Dichloroethene
DFT Dipole flow test
DNAPL Dense nonaqueous phase liquid
Eh Reduction/oxidation potential
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ft/day Feet per day
ft/ft Feet per foot
ft2/day Square feet per day
GCW Groundwater circulation well
gpm Gallons per minute
gpm/ft Gallons per minute per foot
g/cm3 Grams per cubic centimeter
IR Installation Restoration
KSC John F. Kennedy Space Center
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MLLW Mean lower low water
msl Mean sea level
mv Millivolts
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NTU Nephelometric turbidity units
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCE Tetrachloroethene
psi Pounds per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
scfm Standard cubic feet per minute
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
TCE Trichloroethene
155
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EM Inc.
VOC Volatile organic compound
WEI Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
Hg/L Micrograms per liter
yumhos/cm Micromhos per centimeter
156
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program, Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech), evaluated the circulation cell generated by
the groundwater circulation well (GCW) technology designed by Wasatch Environmental, Inc. (WEI) of
Salt Lake City, Utah. The GCW is a dual-screened, in-well air stripping system designed to remove
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from groundwater and is being operated by Parsons Engineering
Science at Facility 1381 at the Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) in Cape Canaveral, Florida on behalf
of the Air Force Center of Environmental Excellance (AFCEE).
A series of aquifer hydraulic tests were conducted to assess the hydrogeological characteristics of the
aquifer where the GCW was installed to assist in evaluating the radius of influence created by the GCW.
The aquifer hydraulic tests included (1) a step drawdown test in the lower screened interval of the GCW,
(2) a dipole flow test with pumping from the lower screened interval of the GCW and reinjection in the
upper screened interval of the GCW, and (3) a long-term constant rate discharge pumping test in the
lower screened interval of the GCW.
The aquifer hydraulic tests were conducted to obtain information to assess hydraulic communication
among various portions of the aquifer beneath the site, as well as to estimate hydraulic parameters of the
aquifer, such as hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, and anisotropy. In addition, the aquifer
tests provided information on efficiencies of the two-screened intervals of the GCW.
The aquifer hydraulic testing was conducted using the GCW as the pumping well. The GCW consists of
a 6-inch diameter outer casing; the upper portion of the GCW is screened from 5 to 10 feet below ground
surface (bgs), and the lower portion of the GCW is screened from 20 to 30 feet bgs. Inflatable packers
were used to isolate and facilitate pumping from each screened interval separately. A network of
piezometers installed in the shallow and deep portions of the aquifer was used as observation wells during
the aquifer tests.
A series of aquifer hydraulic tests was conducted to assess the hydrogeological characteristics of the
surficial aquifer where the GCW is installed. Data collected during the aquifer tests from groundwater
flow sensors installed adjacent to the GCW were used to evaluate the extraction and recirculating flow
patterns and capacity of the GCW. The aquifer hydraulic tests included (1) a step drawdown test in the
lower screened interval, (2) dipole flow tests with pumping from the lower screened interval and injecting
157
-------
into the upper screened interval, and (3) a constant rate discharge pumping test using the lower screened
interval as the pumping well.
The dipole flow test (DFT), a new single-well hydraulic test for aquifer characterization, was first
proposed by Kabala (1993) and was designed to characterize the vertical distribution of local
horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities near the test well. The purpose of dipole testing is to
determine the aquifer anisotropic ratio. Data from the dipole flow tests performed using the GCW were
used to calculate an aquifer anisotropy ratio. The average anisotropic ratio at CCAS was approximately
10 but is subject to local aquifer heterogeneities
Aquifer hydraulic testing and data analysis yielded the following results:
• The calculated aquifer transmissivity ranges from approximately 1,790 to 2,190 square feet per
day (ft2/day) (166 m2/day to 203.3 m2/day) based on analysis using the Hantush-Jacob (1955)
model. This result is considered higher than the average transmissivity of the deep aquifer zones
because of significant recharge (that is, more than normal leakage) from the shallow aquifer zone.
• The aquifer hydraulic conductivity, calculated using the transmissivities obtained previously and
based on an estimated saturated aquifer thickness of 41.7 feet (12.7m), ranges from 42.9 to 52.5
feet (1.5 x 10"4 to 1.9 x 10"4 cm/s) per day.
• The transmissivity of the deep aquifer zone, as calculated from dipole test data using the Neuman
(1974) delayed yield model, ranges from 196 to 337 ft2/day (18 to 31 mfVday).
• The estimated aquifer storativity ranges from 0.03 to 0.07, a typical range for average specific
yield and storativity of an unconfined aquifer.
• The specific yield of the aquifer tested ranges from 0.06 to 0.09 based on the Neuman model for
calculation of delayed yield. The storativity values from Neuman's model range from 0.006 to
0.007.
• The average anisotropic ratio at CCAS was approximately 2.4 but is subject to localized aquifer
heterogeneities
158
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program, Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech), is evaluating the performance of the
groundwater circulation well (GCW), a dual-screened, in-well air-stripping system designed to remove
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from groundwater. The GCW is installed at Facility 1381 at the
Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) in Cape Canaveral, Florida (Figures Al and A2). The GCW was
designed by Wasatch Environmental, Inc. (WEI) of Salt Lake City, Utah, and is being operated by
Parsons Engineering Science Inc. (Parsons).
A series of aquifer hydraulic tests were conducted to assess the hydrogeological characteristics of the
surficial aquifer where the GCW is installed to assist in evaluating the radius of influence created by the
GCW. In addition, data collected during the aquifer tests from groundwater flow sensors installed near
the GCW were used to evaluate the radius of influence of the GCW.
1.1 SITE PROGRAM
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of Research and
Development (ORD) created the SITE Program in response to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE Program promotes the development, evaluation, and use
of new or innovative technologies to clean up Superfund sites across the country.
The primary purpose of the SITE Program is to maximize the use of alternatives in cleaning up hazardous
waste sites by encouraging development and evaluation of innovative treatment and monitoring
technologies. It consists of three major elements:
• The Technology Evaluation Program
• The Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program
• The Technology Transfer Program
The objective of the Technology Evaluation Program is to develop reliable data on performance and cost
for innovative technologies so that potential users may assess the technology's site-specific applicability.
Technologies evaluated are either currently available or are about to become available for remediation of
159
-------
CAPE CANAVERAL
AIR STATION,
FLORIDA
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
FACILITY
CAPE CANAVERAL
AIR STATION
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A1
LOCATION OF
FACILITY 1381
Source: Parsons 2000.
(Tb) TETRATECHEMINC.
-------
LEGEND
VEGETATION
FENCE
SURFACE WATER FEATURE
100'
Former
Pit With
Grata
-------
Superfund sites. SITE evaluations are conducted at hazardous waste sites under circumstances that
closely simulate full-scale remediation conditions, thus ensuring the usefulness and reliability of
information collected. Data collected are used to assess: (1) the performance of the technology, (2) the
potential need for pre- and post-treatment processing of wastes, (3) potential operating problems, and (4)
approximate costs. The evaluations also allow for assessment of long-term risks.
Existing technologies that improve field monitoring and site characterization are identified in the
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program. This program supports new technologies that
provide faster, more cost-effective contamination and site assessment data. The Monitoring and
Measurement Technologies Program also formulates protocols and standard operating procedures for
evaluation methods and equipment.
The Technology Transfer Program disseminates technical information on innovative technologies in the
Evaluation and Monitoring and Measurements Technologies Programs through various activities. These
activities increase the awareness and promote the use of innovative technologies for assessment and
remediation at Superfund sites. The goal of technology transfer is to develop communication among
environmental professionals who require up-to-date technical information.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT
Tetra Tech's primary objective in conducting the technology evaluation was as follows:
• Evaluate the extent of the circulation cell of the GCW
Tetra Tech's secondary objectives hi conducting the technology evaluation are as follows:
• Evaluate the precision of the groundwater flow sensors
• Evaluate the three-dimensional groundwater flow that surrounds the GCW
• Document the operating parameters of the GCW
• Document the hydrogeologic characteristics at Facility 1381
162
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
This section describes the GCW and the associated groundwater monitoring system at CCAS. This
section also provides information on site conditions, including site history, topography, geology,
hydrogeology, and contamination in soil and groundwater. In addition, this section identifies the
locations and describes the construction of wells installed to investigate the hydrogeology of the site.
2.1 THE GCW SYSTEM
This section provides a general description of the GCW at CCAS and describes the groundwater
monitoring system for evaluating the performance of the GCW system. Table Al provides a chronology
of field activities associated with the GCW.
2.1.1 General Description
The WEI GCW system is an in situ groundwater remediation technology designed to circulate
groundwater in the aquifer and strip VOCs from groundwater in place. In the WEI system, groundwater
is pumped from a screen in the lower section of the well by airlift pumping. The airlift pump also
introduces air into the bottom of the well using a blower. Groundwater is lifted along with the air to an
upper screen, where the groundwater is then discharged back into the aquifer. As this process occurs,
VOCs are stripped out of the groundwater and into the air stream. The air stream is extracted from the
wellhead and is treated before it is released to the atmosphere. Groundwater that reenters the aquifer via
the top screen can flow vertically downward and be recaptured by the GCW, where it is then treated
again. The groundwater flow regime that develops is termed a circulation cell, and its characteristics are
critical to the technology's effectiveness. Key components of the circulation cell are its size, or radius of
influence, and its percent capture or recirculation efficiency (Parsons 1999).
2.1.2 GCW System at CCAS
The GCW system installed at CCAS Facility 1381 is a 6-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well
with two separate, wire-wrapped PVC well screens. The upper screened interval is 5 feet long and is
installed from 5 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). The upper screened interval is a 20-slot (0.020-
inch), wire-wrapped PVC screen. The lower screened interval is 10 feet long and was installed from a
163
-------
TABLE Al. CHRONOLOGY OF GCW FIELD ACTIVITIES
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
DATE
November 22-24,1999
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD EVENT
GCW drilled, installed and developed
January 28-February 25,2000 Series of short term pumping tests performed in GCW to
determine pumping and treatment system performance and
operating parameters for long-term test
February 29, 2000
April 3,2000
April 11-12,2000
April 20, 2000
June 26-28,2000
July 1, 2000
July 28,2000
August 1, 2000
August 2, 2000
August 29,2000
September 12,2000
September 13,2000
September 14,2000
Begin long-term pump and treat test
End long-term pump and treat test
GCW run in circulation mode to test system operation
Begin long-term GCW test
Groundwater flow sensors installed
Groundwater flow sensor data collection begins
l
End long-term GCW test
Minitroll pressure transducers installed in 8 piezometers
Begin final pump-and-treat test
End final pump-and-treat test
Pre-Test Activities 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Step drawdown tests performed in GCW:
Step 1 - 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Step 2 - 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM
Step 3 - 12:30 PM to 3:00 PM
Step 4 - 3:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Recovery started at 3:30 PM
Dipole Flow Tests 1 through 5 conducted in GCW:
Dipole Test 1 -11:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Dipole Test 2 - 12:00 PM to 12:30 PM
Dipole Test 3 - 1:00 PM to 1:30 PM
Dipole Test 4 - 2:00 PM to 2:30 PM
Dipole Test 5 - 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM
164
-------
TABLE 1. CHRONOLOGY OF GCW FIELD ACTIVITIES (continued)
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
DATE
September 15,2000
September 16,'2000
September 18,2000
September 18,2000
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITY
Begin constant rate pumping test at 8:00 AM
End constant rate pumping test at 1:00 PM
End constant rate pumping test recovery period at 7:59 AM
Dipole Flow Tests 6 and 7 conducted in GCW:
Dipole Test 6 - 8:00 AM to 10:22 AM
Dipole Test 7 - 2:00 PM to 8:00 PM
September 19,2000 to present Continuous groundwater flow sensor data collection
165
-------
depth of 20 to 30 feet below the ground surface. The lower screened interval is a 10-slot (0.010-inch),
wire-wrapped PVC screen. A 5-foot sump was installed below the intake screen in the lower screened
interval to act as a collection sump for sediments. Figure A3 is a schematic diagram of the GCW
installation.
The boring drilled for installation of the GCW was 14 inches in diameter. Two piezometers were
installed within the sand pack of the GCW boring, with the upper piezometer, GCWS, screened from 7 to
8 feet bgs, adjacent to the upper screened interval of the GCW. The lower piezometer, GCWD, was
screened from 24.5 to 25.5 feet bgs, adjacent to the lower screened interval of the GCW.
Four piezometer pairs, each consisting of 1.5-inch diameter shallow and deep piezometers (2pzs/2pzd,
3pzs/3pzd, 4pzs/4pzd and 6pzs/6pzd), were installed within a 60-foot radius of the GCW. These
piezometers, used as observation wells during the aquifer hydraulic testing, are screened from
approximately 6 to 9.5 feet (shallow) and 22 to 26 feet (deep) bgs. Figure A4 shows the location of the
GCW relative to the piezometers.
2.2 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY
CCAS is situated on Canaveral Peninsula, a barrier island on the central Atlantic coast of Florida (Figure
Al). Cape Canaveral is a headland, the easternmost point on Canaveral Peninsula. The city of Cape
Canaveral lies just south of CCAS.
The main complex of CCAS consists of assembly and launch facilities for missiles and space vehicles and
occupies approximately 25 square miles. The property is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and
the Banana River to the west. The southern boundary is a manmade shipping canal, and the John F.
Kennedy Space Center (KSC) adjoins CCAS to the north. Since its inception in 1950, CCAS has been a
proving ground for research, development, and testing of the country's military missile programs.
Seventy-three miles of paved roads at CCAS connect the various launch and support facilities with the
centralized industrial area. The primary industrial activities at CCAS support missile launches from
CCAS and spacecraft launches from KSC. Support for submarine port activities is also provided at
CCAS (Parsons 1999).
166
-------
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
30-
35-,
2-inch Exhaust Stack-
Knockout-
Drain Line-
Deep Piezometer (GCWD)-
n
Poorly Graded Sand,
Medium-Grained,
Shell Fragments
Approximate
Water Table
Poorly Graded Sand,
Very Rne-Gralned •
Interbedded Layers of Clayey
Sand 21'-23'
fc.—3/4" PVC
Air Row
—1 1/2" PVC
-Slip Cap
Air Supply Pipe Detail
T'.T|
•s/
>r.
>
^
••.!.••"»
2?>J/«
"ifiw:
•«^» «. M. • ••
• -* A . *~* '
T.r«*--c::i
,.v>.*^f
*%.
•.»'. T-
^.;'-J
•.'.%
«r
Q^
ss "• •j*3"Cr^3
= ^..^;>.'^r
. . . %
iv :»••:•- "
i »^*vi • . -
S^^:
•'li*V <
»?«••."*
•v *•>•..
Nil ••*•?•«
?»^*?'
-..;. JSi--:-.
^.^/^
U.S.. Pat. 5.425,598
-141!
Source: Parson* 2000.
NOT TO SCALE
-Air Supply Pipe
-6-inch Casing
-Shallow Piezometer (GCWS)
-4-inch Eductor Pipe
-Eductor Perforations (3' to 5.5')
-Rlter Pack (0* to 11')
-2-inch Well Screen (7' to 8')
-6-inch Well Screen (5* to 10')
-4 by 6-inch Packer
Jentonite _§eals_(2i1_l'_to_18')
-4 by 6-inch Packer
-Rlter Pack (18* to 35')
-2-inch Well Screen (24.5' to 25.5')
-6-inch Well Screen (20* to 30')
-Eductor Perforations (29.5' to 31')
-Sediment Sump (31' to 35')
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
OCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A3
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION
WELL AND PIEZOMETERS
TETRATECHEMINC
-------
N
A
LEGEND
Monitoring Locations
•$• GCW (Groundwater Circulation Well
A Piezometer (Deep Zone)
A Rezometer (Shallow Zone)
Crass-section Transect Line
5 Feet
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A4
Locations of Groundwater Circulation Well
and Piezometers
it Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
Facility 1381 is located in the central portion of CCAS (Figure A2) and has been used for several
purposes since it was constructed in 1958. The building was used as the Guidance Azimuth Transfer
Building for the 10 years that followed construction. Aerial photographs from the time indicate that
numerous drums and tanker trucks were present at the facility. Verbal reports indicate that the tanker
trucks were used to dump used waste solvents in the woods that surround the facility. In 1968, activity at
the site was changed to an In-Place Precision Cleaning Laboratory. Specific activities included cleaning
metal components in acid and solvent dip tanks, resulting in the generation of 3,300 gallons of waste
trichloroethylene (TCE) per year. In 1977, the facility became the Ordnance Support Facility, and it has
remained unchanged to the present (Parsons 1999).
2.3 SITE TOPOGRAPHY
CCAS is situated on Canaveral Peninsula, which is on the east side of Merritt Island, a barrier island in
Brevard County on the Atlantic coast of Florida. Facility 1381 is located in the central portion of CCAS.
The topography at Facility 1381 is relatively flat, with ground elevations ranging from approximately 5 to
8 feet above mean sea level (msl) (Parsons 1999). Vertical relief in the area is limited to drainage
shoulders of canals that slope from the ground surface to the bed of the canal. Drainage canals are located
200 feet southwest (Landfill Canal) and 2,500 feet north (Northern Drainage Canal) of the GCW; both
canals flow westward toward the Banana River. The system of drainage canals exerts a major influence
on flow of shallow groundwater at Facility 1381.
2.4 REGIONAL AND SITE GEOLOGY
This section discusses the regional and site geology in the vicinity of CCAS and Facility 1381.
2.4.1 Regional Geology
Florida constitutes the southeast portion of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province of the
southeastern United States. The Coastal Plain is a thick sequence of unconsolidated to semiconsolidated
sedimentary rocks that range from Jurassic to Holocene in age. The configuration of rocks in the Coastal
Plain is a tilted wedge that slopes and thickens seaward toward the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico.
169
-------
In Florida, the sequence of sedimentary rocks that makes up the Coastal Plain is referred to as the Florida
Platform. Rocks in the Florida Platform were deposited on top of an eroded surface of a crystalline rock
complex, which is known collectively as the Florida basement rocks. The Florida basement rocks,
consisting of low-grade metamorphics and igneous intrusives, occur several thousand feet below the land
surface and are Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic in age.
The base of the sedimentary rocks in the Florida Platform is made up of a thick, primarily carbonate
sequence deposited from the Jurassic through the Paleocene. Starting hi the Miocene and continuing
through the Holocene, siliciclastic sedimentation became more dominant.
The east coast of Florida is bounded by a continental shelf that is moderately broad and slopes gently to
the north but becomes both narrower and steeper to the south, toward Cape Canaveral. Cape Canaveral is
a prominent feature, a large cuspate foreland or promontory that projects 13 miles seaward of the main
coastal trend and strongly influences the orientation and sedimentation patterns along at least 80 miles of
Florida's east coast. Cape Canaveral itself may have been formed by converging littoral transport along
the coast (Davis 1997).
2.4.2 Site Geology
CCAS is situated on Canaveral Peninsula, which is on the east side of Merritt Island, a barrier island in
Brevard County on the Atlantic coast of Florida. Facility 1381 is located in the central portion of CCAS.
The topography at Facility 1381 is relatively flat, with ground elevations ranging from approximately 5 to
10 feet above msl (Parsons 2000). The topography consists of long, northeast-southwest trending low
rises that are most likely depositional features associated with accretion of the barrier island. Vertical
relief hi the area is limited to shoulders of drainage canals that slope from the ground surface to the canal
bed. Drainage canals are located 200 feet southwest (Landfill Canal) and 2,500 feet north (Northern
Drainage Canal) of the GCW; both flow westward toward the Banana River.
The site geology is presented hi cross-section A-A', which is shown as Figure A5. Based on previous
work at the site conducted by Parsons (2000), the geology at Facility 1381 consists of unconsolidated
sediments to a depth of at least 60 feet below ground surface. The upper 15 feet consists of poorly sorted,
predominantly coarse shell material and coarse to medium sand.
170
-------
CCMOE 9CU. nuOCRB MB (XWHE TO
"BUM HMD. M1H UmC 01 NO M.T AM. NO OAT.
KUNMdiir ueoMi m vair RNE UNO, MM umc o« w
Sit OH CLW. U»Y COMNN KHWMIr
IOININII.Y RIC TO VOW FWC MB, «TH 1O* 9KT TO
•MM str. uru at HP cur. iw CONIMH sum. moans.
UUNANILY HC ID VDV RW SWO. MB «LT, WIH "SOUE OAT
n 'AW CLAY*.
IEOUH wo. vm "SOME cur TO -AND cur. win on
•nuur IMOR Ainum OF six
DOUMMTLY fnnaxr.ua COHUH mm AUOUMI OF
aa HO/OH 9HEU.
*•' V^NvT v/r''1'"'
HOTCS: 1) Uartlai o( CCW «o. projKtod ontg
S) Loartta, of GCW to gprrodnoU
-------
The average grain size of the sand fraction decreases and the silt and clay content increases from depths
of 35 feet to approximately 50 feet below ground surface. A 5-foot thick unit of fine to very fine-grained
sand and silt occurs from 35 to 40 feet bgs. Shell fragments and coarse sand occur with varying amounts
of clay from approximately 40 to 50 feet bgs. A layer of firm clay, which may be continuous across the
site, has been encountered at a depth of 50 feet below the ground surface.
2.5 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
The regional and site hydrogeology are discussed in the following two subsections.
2.5.1 Regional Hydrogeology
Regional hydrostratigrapic units that occur near Cape Canaveral are described below.
Surficial Aquifer. The uppermost water-bearing unit near the site is the surficial aquifer, which is
unconfined and consists primarily of unconsolidated materials. The surficial aquifer system is a shallow,
nonartesian aquifer, which occurs over much of eastern Florida but is not an important source of
groundwater because better supplies are generally available from other aquifers.
The surficial aquifer system extends to a depth of approximately 50 to 60 feet bgs near CCAS. The
surficial aquifer is described as consisting of fine to medium quartz sand that contains varying amounts of
silt, clay, and loose shell fragments that are post-Miocene in age. In coastal areas, such as at CCAS, the
surficial aquifer may also consist of partially cemented shell beds or coquina. The depth of the water
table in the surficial aquifer ranges from at or near the land surface in low-lying areas to tens of feet
below the land surface in areas of higher elevations.
The most important function of the surficial aquifer is to store water, some of which recharges the
underlying Floridan aquifer. The surficial aquifer is little used as a source of drinking water because its
permeability is low, resulting in relatively limited yield to wells, when compared with the Floridan
aquifer system. The surficial aquifer is used for potable drinking water supplies only in coastal areas
where the underlying Floridan aquifer may be brackish (Miller 1986).
The sands of the surficial aquifer generally grade into less permeable clayey or silty sands or low-
permeability carbonate rocks at depths of usually less than 75 feet bgs. These rocks act as a confining
172
-------
unit for limestones that compose the underlying Floridan aquifer system. This upper confining unit of the
Floridan aquifer system, as it is known, is generally composed of the middle Miocene-aged Hawthorn
Formation, low-permeability rocks that in most places separate the Floridan aquifer from the surficial
aquifer.
Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan aquifer system is a nearly vertically continuous, very thick sequence of
generally highly permeable carbonate rocks. The degree of hydraulic connection of units that make up
the Floridan aquifer depends primarily on the texture and mineralogy of the rocks that constitute the
system (Miller 1986). The Floridan aquifer system is composed of sequences of limestone and dolomitic
limestone.
The top of the Floridan Aquifer is defined as the first occurrence of vertically persistent, permeable,
consolidated carbonate rocks. Rocks at the top of the Floridan aquifer at CCAS occur at an elevation of
approximately 150.0 feet below mean sea level or at a depth of 160 feet bgs. The top unit of the Floridan
aquifer at CCAS is composed of the Ocala Limestone of late Eocene age; the Floridan aquifer system
ranges in thickness from 2,600 to 2,700 feet. The base of the Floridan aquifer system is defined as the
first occurrence of anhydrite or presence of a gradational contact of generally permeable carbonate to
much less permeable gypsiferous and anhydritic rocks. These low-permeability rocks, known as the
lower confining unit of the Floridan aquifer system, everywhere underlie the Floridan. The transmissivity
of the Upper Floridan aquifer that underlies CCAS is estimated to be 50,000 to 100,000 square feet per
day (Miller 1986).
Geologic formations that make up the Floridan aquifer in east-central Florida are, from top to bottom, the
Suwanee Limestone (where present), Eocene in age; the Ocala Limestone (where present); the Avon Park
Formation; and, in some areas, all or part of the Oldsmar Formation. Paleocene rocks of the Cedar Keys
Formation usually are recognized as forming the base of the Floridan aquifer system, except in areas
where the upper part of the Cedar Keys Formation is permeable (Tibbals 1990).
2.5.2 Site Hydrogeology
The shallow aquifer zone at Facility 1381 is part of the surficial aquifer, which, as described previously, is
a regionally unconfined water table aquifer. The water table at CCAS generally occurs at a depths
ranging from 3 to 15 feet bgs. The water table occurred at approximately 8 feet bgs near the area where
the groundwater circulation well was installed.
173
-------
Flow of shallow groundwater at CCAS is controlled by an engineered drainage system consisting of a
series of manmade canals, which were installed to reclaim land by lowering the water table. Surface
water at the site drains through the canals and discharges into the Banana River, which is located west of
CCAS. Closest to Facility 1381 is Landfill Canal, which is located 200 feet southwest; the Northern
Drainage Canal is located about 2,500 feet due north of Facility 1381.
The canals strongly influence flow of shallow groundwater at the site. A groundwater divide is indicated
near the GCW, as evidenced by groundwater flow to the southwest toward Landfill Canal, as well as to
the northeast in the direction of the Northern Drainage Canal. Surface water elevations measured in the
canals are lower than elevations of adjacent shallow groundwater, suggesting groundwater discharge to
the canals (Parsons 2000).
The upper part of the surficial aquifer at Facility 1381 has been delineated into a shallow and a deep
aquifer zone for this evaluation. The shallow aquifer zone is defined as the upper saturated portion of the
aquifer, from the water table to the contact of the unit of coarse-grained shell and coarse to medium
grained sand that occurs approximately 15 feet bgs. The shallow aquifer zone is approximately 8 feet
thick. The deep aquifer zone is made up of medium to fine sand units, which occur at depths of 15 to 30
feet bgs. The shallow and deep aquifer zones are depicted on Figure A5, cross-section A-A'.
The hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer at Facility 1381 was previously measured using rising
head slug tests at a monitoring well pair, 1381MWS09 (screened 7.5 to 12.5 feet bgs) and 1381MWI09
(screened 30 to 35 feet bgs), located 55 feet southeast of the GCW. The calculated hydraulic conductivity
values are 11.6 feet per day for the shallow well and 0.4 feet per day for the deep well.
Slug testing by Parsons in piezometers near the GCW yielded hydraulic conductivity values of 17.8 to
24.2 feet per day in piezometer 4PZS (screened 6.5 to 9.5 feet bgs) in the shallow aquifer zone and 0.1 to
0.2 feet per day in piezometers 2PZD (screened 21.3 to 24.6 feet bgs) and 6PZD (screened 22.7 to 26 feet
bgs) in the deep aquifer zone. The groundwater velocity in the shallow aquifer zone under natural flow
conditions is estimated at 0.21 feet per day (Parsons 2000).
Based on the pumping test data, the hydraulic conductivity of the estimated saturated portion of the
aquifer (42 feet thick) ranges from 43 to 53 feet per day.
174
-------
2.6 CONTAMINATION IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
Contamination in soil and groundwater at Facility 1381 is attributable to historical waste disposal
practices. A plume of contaminants in groundwater, consisting primarily of TCE and associated
degradation products including cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE) and vinyl chloride, has been
detected at the site. The plume is 110 acres in areal extent and is 2,500 feet long. The axis of the plume
is elongated to the north-northeast.
The maximum concentration of TCE detected to date in the suspected source area is 342,000 micrograms
per liter (ug/L) (Parsons 2000). Concentrations of TCE measured in samples from the source area have
been lower during more recent sampling rounds.
2.7 SITE HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The site hydrogeological conceptual model for the tested aquifer that underlies CCAS Facility 1381,
where the GCW is installed, is described below.
• The uppermost hydrostratigraphic unit that underlies Facility 1381 is part of the surficial
aquifer system of Florida, a water table aquifer that consists of Quaternary-aged
sediments.
• The aquifer tested at Facility 1381 is approximately 42 feet thick.
• The upper 10 feet of the aquifer tested (to a depth of approximately 15 bgs), designated at
the shallow aquifer zone, consists of poorly sorted, coarse to medium sand with little or
no silt and no clay; coarse-grained shell fragments occur mostly as lenses in the sand.
• The lower portion of the aquifer tested (15 to 40 feet bgs), designated as the deep aquifer
zone, consists of medium to fine sand with shell fragments; the grain size of the sand
decreases further to very fine, with percentages of silt and clay increasing from 35 to 40
feet bgs.
• At a depth of about 50 feet bgs, a 10-foot thick layer of firm clay that contains minor
amounts of silt is interpreted as continuous across the site.
• In general, the aquifer tested is heterogeneous and anisotropic. Horizontal hydraulic
conductivities of the various aquifer zones change with depth. Horizontal hydraulic
conductivities decrease with depth near the GCW.
• The shallow aquifer zone is more permeable than the deep aquifer zone. The hydraulic
conductivity of the shallow aquifer zone is estimated to be approximately 20 feet per day;
the hydraulic conductivity of the deep aquifer zone is estimated to be approximately 0.2
feet per day.
175
-------
• The static water table occurs at a depth of 8 feet bgs in the area where the groundwater
circulation well was installed.
• Groundwater in the aquifer tested is likely influenced by the manmade drainage canals.
The canals discharge into the Banana River west of CCAS.
• Measurements of groundwater elevation indicate that a groundwater divide may exist at
Facility 1381 as a result of effects of the two canals; groundwater southwest of the divide
flows toward the Landfill Canal, and groundwater northeast of the divide flows toward
the Northern Drainage Canal.
• The canals can behave as either lateral sources of recharge to the aquifer or may receive
lateral discharge from the aquifer when recharge by vertical infiltration is significant.
• The static water table at the site is very flat, possibly because of the low topographic
relief at or near the groundwater divide. A dominant direction of groundwater flow under
natural conditions cannot be identified.
176
-------
3.0 AQUIFER TESTING
Aquifer hydraulic testing was conducted to obtain information that could be used to assess the degree of
hydraulic communication among various portions of the aquifer beneath the site, as well as to estimate
hydraulic parameters of the aquifer, such as hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, and
anisotropy. In addition, the aquifer tests provided data that could be used to calculate well efficiencies of
the two screened intervals of the GCW.
The aquifer hydraulic testing was conducted using the lower screened interval of the GCW as the
pumping well. An inflatable packer was used to isolate the two screened intervals of the GCW to
facilitate pumping from only the lower screened interval. Piezometer pairs installed in both the upper and
lower portions of the aquifer were used as observation wells during the aquifer tests.
Aquifer hydraulic tests using the GCW were conducted to estimate or assess the following:
• Hydraulic parameters of the upper and lower portions of the aquifer, including estimation of
hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, and anisotropy.
• The radius of influence established during pumping.
• Evidence of barriers that may affect hydraulic communication between the upper and lower
zones of the aquifer.
Aquifer hydraulic testing consisted of step tests, a constant rate pumping test, and dipole tests, which are
discussed later in this appendix.
The next section describes the aquifer testing equipment and the aquifer testing methodologies.
3.1 AQUIFER TESTING EQUIPMENT
This section discusses the equipment used during the aquifer testing.
3.1.1 Installation and Configuration of Aquifer Test Equipment
Aquifer tests were conducted using the lower screened interval of the GCW and consisted of a step
drawdown test, a constant discharge pumping test, and dipole flow tests. This section describes
installation and configuration of aquifer testing equipment.
177
-------
3.1.1.1 Pump and Packer Equipment
The configuration of the pump and packer equipment was identical for the step drawdown test and
constant discharge pumping test conducted in the lower screened interval of the GCW, shown
schematically in Figure A6. The two screened intervals were hydraulically separated using a 5-inch-
diameter, 5-foot-long inflatable multiple key packer to pump only from the lower screened interval of the
GCW well. The inflatable key packer was inserted between the two screened intervals at a depth of
approximately 13 to 18 feet bgs. The pump used for the aquifer testing was a 4-inch stainless steel
Grundfos submersible pump with a maximum capacity of 100 gallons per minute. The pump was
installed below the packer with the intake at approximately 27 feet bgs. The assembly for the pump and
packer was set in the GCW using a 2-inch diameter, steel drop pipe (Figure A6). The drop pipe was
secured at the wellhead and connected to a 2-inch diameter PVC discharge line. After the pump was set,
the packer was inflated using a pressurized nitrogen cylinder. The packer's pressure was monitored
throughout the pumping tests at the wellhead using a pressure gauge.
The same equipment was used for the dipole flow tests. The setup for the dipole flow test is shown
schematically in Figure A7. The packer was installed at approximately 13 to 18 feet bgs, and the
submersible pump was set immediately below the packer at approximately 27 feet bgs.
3.1.1.2 Pressure Transducers and Data Loggers
Mim'TROLL pressure transducers manufactured by InSitu of Laramie, Wyoming, were installed in the
piezometers. The miniTROLL is an integrated silicon strain-gauge pressure sensor. The instrument is
0.72 inches in diameter and contains internal pressure and temperature sensors. Pressure readings are
automatically adjusted for fluctuations in barometric pressure and temperature.
During installation of the transducer, the depth to groundwater was measured with an electronic water
level sounder before the transducer was lowered into the well. The miniTROLL transducer was set at a
depth so that it would remain submerged during the pumping test at a depth below water that would not
exceed the pressure rating of the transducer. The cable for the pressure transducer was secured to the
178
-------
VO
5-
10-
15-
20-1
25-
30-
35-
Volve
Flow Meter
2-inch Exhaust Stack-
Knockout•
Drain Line-
GCWD-
Sampling Port
Approximate
Water Table
Broken Eductor
Pipe
MiniTROLL Pressure
Transducer (25' bgs)
(24.5-261 bgs)
Submersible Pump
(Intake at 27' bgs)
Storage Tank
MiniTROLL Pressure
Transducer (8* bgs)
Inflatable Packer (8-12* bgs)
Key Packers (13' and 18' bgs)
(20-30' bgs)
Source: Parsons 2000.
NOT TO SCALE
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A6
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
CONSTANT RATE PUMPING
TEST SET-UP
TETRA TECH EM INC.
-------
00
o
CO
s
I
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
30-
35-
Volve
2-inch Exhaust Stack
Knockout
Drain Line
GCWD
Broken Eductor
Pipe
MiniTROLL Pressure
Transducer (25* bgs)
(24.5-26' bgs)
Submersible Pump
(Intake at 27' bgs)
Approximate
Water Table
Flow Meter
Sampling Port
MiniTROLL Pressure
Transducer (8' bgs)
Inflatable Packer (8-12' bgs)
Key Packers (131 and 18' bgs)
(19' bgs)
(20-30' bgs)
Source: Parsons 2000.
NOT TO SCALE
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A7
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
DIPOLE FLOW TEST
SET-UP
TETRA TECH EM INC.
-------
wellhead at the surface using duct tape, so that no movement occurred during aquifer testing. A reading
of the length of the column of water above the transducer was recorded after the transducer was secured.
Data from the miniTROLL installed in each of the piezometers were periodically downloaded to a laptop
computer during aquifer testing to view data recorded. In addition, data from the transducers were
periodically checked by collecting water level measurements using an electronic water level sounder.
3.1.1.3 Other Equipment
The pumping and injection rates were regulated during the aquifer tests using a variable rate controller, a
flow control valve, and two inline flow meters. The flow meters used were a McCrometer electronic flow
meter with totalizer and a Precision flow meter with totalizer. The meters were installed on the discharge
pipe at the wellhead. The flow meters were calibrated in the field by measuring the time required to fill a
5-gallon bucket with water pumped through the discharge line.
All water generated during the pumping tests was piped to on-site storage tanks to await chemical
characterization and subsequent disposal. A 21,000-gallon tank was staged on site for storage of the
extracted groundwater to accommodate the volume of water generated during the pumping test. Water
quality parameters including pH, oxidation and reduction potential, specific conductance, temperature,
and dissolved oxygen were measured during development and removal of the well water. Horiba U10
and YSI2000 water quality meters were used to measure the water quality parameters in the field. The
instruments were calibrated daily in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
3.1.1.4 Data Logger Programming
The miniTROLLtroll data loggers were programmed using the length of the column of water above the
transducer, depth of water below the top of well casing, and the survey elevation on the top of the casing
so that subsequent readings were relative to the groundwater elevation. The data loggers were
programmed for each aquifer test to collect data at specific times and frequencies. Because of significant
responses in water level to changes in pumping rate (including starting and stopping pumping), the data
loggers for the GCW piezometers and the other observation wells were programmed to collect data at a
higher frequency immediately after any change hi pumping rate.
181
-------
The programmed data collection schedule was as follows: every half-second for 20 readings, every
second for 50 readings, every 2 seconds for 60 readings, every 5 seconds for 60 readings, every 10
seconds for 30 readings, every minute for 20 readings, every 2 minutes for 20 readings, every 5 minutes
for 12 readings, every 10 minutes for 18 readings, and every 20 minutes for 500 readings. (This schedule
was reinitiated after any change in pumping rate and was generally terminated before the last step was
complete.) Collecting water level measurements hi this manner provided data at higher frequencies when
the rate of change in water level was greater. Data loggers for the observation wells were programmed to
collect data at lower frequencies, typically once per minute. All data were downloaded from the data
logger to a computer, and the data logger was reset between each aquifer test.
3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR AQUIFER TESTING
This section describes the methodologies used for each of the aquifer testing events.
3.2.1 Step Drawdown Test
Tetra Tech conducted a step drawdown test in the lower screened interval of the GCW to estimate the
optimal pumping rate for a constant discharge pumping test, and to estimate the specific capacity and the
well efficiency of the lower screened interval of the GCW. Test procedures and results are discussed
below.
A step drawdown test was conducted on September 13, 2000, using the lower screened section of the
GCW. The objectives of the step drawdown test were to assess the optimal pumping rate for the constant
rate pumping test and to evaluate the specific capacity and well efficiency of the lower screened interval
of the GCW. Table A2 summarizes events recorded during the step tests
The step drawdown test was conducted by isolating the upper and lower screened sections of the GCW
using a packer system and pumping from the lower screened section of the well. The step drawdown test
was conducted by pumping at successive rates of 1.9, 5.9, 12.5, and 15 gallons per minute (gpm). The
first (1.9 gpm) and second (5.9 gpm) pumping steps were operated for 1 hour each. The third step (12.5
gpm) was conducted for about 2.5 hours. During the fourth step (15 gpm), the drawdown in the well
reached the pump intake level after about 30 minutes of pumping. At that time, the pump began to
produce a mixture of air and water and pumping was terminated.
182
-------
TABLE A2
TEST EXECUTION SUMMARY, STEP DRAWDOWN TEST
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Step
1
2
3
4
Recovery.
Pumping
Rate
1.9gpm
5.9 gpm
12.5 gpm
about 15
gpm
Ogpm
Date/Time
(Duration)
(9/13/00)
1030 to 11 30
(9/13/00)
11 30 to 1230
(9/13/00)
1230 to 1500
,(9/13/00)
1500 to 1530
(9/13/00)
Started 1530
Comments
No flow meter was available. Difficult to control
flow rate with a large ball valve. Pumping rate
was calculated from totalizer reading. Flow rate
was adjusted at the beginning of the step.
Increase flow rate at 1 130. Difficult to control
flow rate. The flow rate was as high as 15 gpm
during^the two-minute period at beginning.
Pumping rate was well adjusted without
fluctuation. Pumping step was conducted longer
because water level in GCWD did not appear to be
stabilized during the step.
Test the maximum yield capacity of the lower
screen of the GCW. Pump started pumping air
several minute after the pumping step started.
Pump shut off; monitor aquifer recovery
183
-------
Groundwater levels were monitored during the step tests at piezometers GCWD, GCWS, 2pzd, 2pzs,
3pzd, 3pzs, 4pzd, and 4pzs during the step drawdown test. Piezometers GCWD and GCWS are installed
within the sand pack of the GCW. Figure A8 is a hydrograph of water levels recorded in piezometers
GCWS and GCWD during the aquifer testing events. Figure A9 is a hydrograph of water levels recorded
in piezometers GCWS and GCWD during the step tests. It is possible that due to the placement of the
screened interval with relation to the water table, piezometer GCWS went dry during a portion of the
aquifer testing events.
3.2.2 Constant Discharge Pumping Test
A constant rate pumping test was conducted on September 15, 2000, using the lower screened portion of
the GCW. The objective of the constant rate pumping test was to quantify the hydraulic characteristics of
the aquifer, specifically hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, and anisotropy of the deep
aquifer zone.
The constant rate pumping test was conducted by first isolating the upper and lower screened sections of
the GCW using inflatable multiple key packers. Water was pumped from the lower screened interval of
the GCW at a constant rate of approximately 10 gpm for 29 hours. Water levels in piezometers GCWD,
GCWS, 2pzs, 2pzd, 3pzs, 3pzd, 4pzs, 4pzd and 6pzd were monitored during the test using pressure
transducers and data loggers. Figure A10 is a hydrograph of water levels recorded in piezometers GCWS
and GCWD during the constant rate pumping test. Table A3 is a summary of the constant discharge
pumping test.
Water level recovery data were collected hi the piezometers after the pumping was stopped. The recovery
period lasted approximately 43 hours.
A constant discharge pumping test in the upper screened interval was conducted after the step drawdown
test in the upper screened interval of the GCW well and after the water level in the pumping well, the
observation piezometer, and the observation wells had recovered complete. Procedures and results for the
constant discharge pumping test are discussed ha Section 4.0.
184
-------
oo
tn
! '
'l-
2 •
5 o
GCWS OroundiMter Elevation
DipoleTeslBand?
StepDrawdonvn Dipola
Tart
PraTestPoriod . R*cav*ry
Rccovwy Constant Rate Pumping
Racovxy
Recovery
09/12/00 (WM
4-
08/13/000:00
09/14/00 030
09AMXXWO
•* *
-12
-18
-20
PreTest
Recovery Recovery
^Recovery
Recovery
Packer and
Pump
\r
Dlpote Tests
1to5
. Constant Rale Pumping Test
Step Drawdown
Test
DlpoleTcst6and7
CCWD OrounchMtar Elevation
OB/13ffiOO.-00
09/14/00 OdO
09/15/000:00
oanaxno^o
TbM
09/17/00 0^0
09A1OOOO:00
OUW00030
NOTE: Aquifer test period was September 12 to 19.2000.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A8
Hydrograph of GCWS and GCWD
During Aquifer Hydraulic Testing
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
f
a
o
o
a
a
e
£ -5
§
H-l -*°
30
o\
-15
Step Test Recovery
Until 9/14/0011:00
Stepl
Q=1.8gpm
o
o
o
-off
o
Step 2
Q=5.9 gpm
Slap 3
Q=12.5 gpm
Step 4
Q-15 gpm
-r
Time
-sr
-sr
-r
NOTE- Data shown is from step testa conducted on 9/13/00.
FACIUTY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
QCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A9
Hydrograph of 6CWS and GCWD
During Step Drawdown Tests
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
TABLE A3
TEST EXECUTION SUMMARY, CONSTANT DISCHARGE PUMPING TEST
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Step
0
1
Recovery
Pumping
Rate
Ogpm
lOgpm
Ogpm
Date/Time
(9/15/00)
0732
(9/15/00)
0800 (9/15) to
1300(9/16)
(9/15/00)
1300 (9/1 6) to
0800(9/18)
Comments
Static groundwater level at 10.84 feet below top of
casing in GCWS.
Begin constant rate pumping test.
Pump shut off; monitor aquifer recovery
187
-------
5 -
•
1
£ c
s. -5 •
e
1 -10
H->3
oog
oog
-15
-20
a/1
0
NOTE: D«
9/1 5/00 to
o I Constant Rate Pumping Test
o . I Recovery until 9/1 8/00 8:00
o • • .
o
o
o o
0 I '
• 1
«^r^ ^ liu^Uoooooooooooooooooo°eoooooooooooaoooOoooOooooo *
ft>
* . Constant Rate Pumping Test
o QS-JO gpm
1
.
xGCWS
oGCWD
r •=• •=• •=• -sr -sr •= "» ~ •=• •=• "=" •= s? -r sr -sr m™ -r -r -sr
Time
FACIUTY 1381, CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
ita shown is from constant rate test conducted from GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
9/16/00.
FIGURE A10
Hydrograph of GCWS and GCWD
Under Pumping Conditions
@ Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
3.2.3 Dipole Flow Testing
Tetra Tech conducted multiple dipole tests using the GCW on September 14 and 18, 2000. The dipole
tests were conducted by simultaneously pumping from the lower interval screened in the deep aquifer
zone and injecting the pumped groundwater into the upper interval screened in the shallow aquifer
zone. The pumping rate was equal to the injection rate in each of the dipole tests. Water levels in
piezometers GCWD and GCWS, 2pzd, 2pzs, 3pzd, 3pzs, 4pzd, 4pzs and 6pzd were monitored using
pressure transducers and data loggers in each of the dipole tests.
Five separate tests were conducted with different pumping and injection rates during the dipole flow tests
conducted on September 14. These tests were designated Dipole Tests 1 through 5.
Groundwater was pumped and injected simultaneously at rates of 2.3, 3.7, 6.0, 8.8, and 4.8 gpm; each test
lasted 30 minutes, except for the final test, which lasted 90 minutes. A recovery period of 30 minutes
occurred between each test. Since relatively fast recoveries in water level were observed in the lower and
upper screened intervals of the GCW during the step drawdown tests, a 30-minute recovery period after
each dipole test was considered adequate. The adequacy of the recovery period is verified by Figure Al 1,
which is a hydrograph of water levels in piezometers GCWS and GCWD recorded during Dipole Tests 1
through 5.
An additional dipole flow test was conducted on September 18 using a higher flow rate and a longer test
period, specifically pumping and injecting groundwater at a rate of 12.5 gpm for 8 to 10 hours.
However, 82 minutes into the test, pumping was inadvertently stopped because of a power failure and
early logarithmic data for the water level recovery could not be collected. This test was designated
Dipole Test 6. Later on September 18, a second dipole flow test (designated Dipole Test 7) was
conducted, also with a pumping and injection rate of 12.5 gpm, for 360 minutes. Figure A12 is a
hydrograph of water levels recorded in piezometers GCWS and GCWD during Dipole Tests 6 and 7.
Table A4 is a summary of the dipole flow test.
189
-------
co
o
Test 5 Recovery
unta QMS/DO a:oo
103M
a/i*oo anvoo
10-JO 11*0
1130
a/i«o an«x> e/i«oo «rt*oo »i*oo
1£00 1230 1*00 1*30 1*00
Time
tw/oo
1430 1S«0
1630
IftOO
1830
anvoo
17*0
1730
18:00
NOTE: Data shown Is from Dipole tests 1 through 5 conducted
from 9/14/00 to 9/15/00.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
QCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE All
Hydrograph of GCWS and GCWD
During Dlpola Tests 1 through 5
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
Time
NOTE Data shown is from Dipola tests 6 and 7 conducted on
9/18/00.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A12 .
Hydrograph of GCWS and GCWD
During Dtpote Tests 6 and 7
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
TABLE A4
TEST EXECUTION SUMMARY, DIPOLE FLOW TESTS
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Test
Number
DFT on Se
0
1
Testl
Recovery
£,
Test 2
Recovery
3
Test3
Recovery
4
Test 4
Recovery
5
Tests
Recovery
Pumping/Inject! on
Rate (gpm)
ptember 14, 2000
0
2.3
0
3.7
0
6
0
8.8
0
4.8
0
Time
(9/14) 08:46
11:00 to
11:30
11:30 to
12:00
12:00 to
12:30
12:30 to
13:00
,13:00 to
13:30
13:30 to
14:00
14:00 to
14:30
14:30 to
15:00
15:00 to
16:30
16:30 to
07:00
(9/15/00)
Comments
Static groundwater level below top of casing at 10.85 feet in GCWS and
8.85 feet in GCWD.
Water level increased about 0.498 feet from static water level in GCWS.
Water level decreased about 2.33 feet from static water level in GCWD
Test 1 recovery period. Water levels in GCWD and GCWS were fully
recovered. Recovered static water level was 0.025 feet higher in GCWS
and 0.005 feet lower in GCWD in comparison with the original static
water levels.
Water level increased about 0.733 feet from recovered static water level
in GCWS. Water level decreased about 3.79 feet from recovered static
water level in GCWD.
Test 2 recovery period. Water levels in GCWD and GCWS were fully
recovered. Recovered static water was 0.004 feet higher in GCWS and
identical to static in GCWD in comparison with the original static water
levels.
Water level increased about 1.28 feet in GCWS. Water level decreased
about 6.59 feet in GCWD.
Test 3 recovery period. Water levels in GCWD and GCWS were fully
recovered. Recovered static water was 0.002 feet higher in GCWS and
GCWS and 0.007 feet lower in GCWD in comparison with the original
static water levels.
Water level increased about 1.8 feet in GCWS. Water level decreased
about 9.4 feet in GCWD.
Test 4 recovery period. Water levels in GCWD and GCWS were fully
recovered. Recovered static water levels were 0.004 feet higher in
GCWS and 0.002 feet higher in GCWD in comparison with the original
static water levels.
Water level increased about 1.07 feet from the static water level in
GCWS. Water level decreased about 5.28 feet from the static water
level in GCWD.
Test 5 recovery period. Water levels in GCWD and GCWS were fully
recovered. Static water levels were 0.016 feet higher in GCW S and
0.023 feet higher in GCWD at the end of the recovery Deriod.
DFT on September 18, 2000
6
Test 6
Recovery
7
Test?
Recovery
0
12.5
0
12.5
0
9/18 07:30
8:00 to
10:22
10:22 to
14:00
14:00 to
20:00
20:00 to
08:24 (9/19)
Static groundwater level below top of casing at 10.66 feet in GCW S and
8.67 feet in GCWD.
Water level increased about 2.51 feet from static water level in GCWS.
Water level decreased about 16.25 feet from static water level in
GCWD.
Test 6 recovery period. Water levels in GCWD and GCWS were fully
recovered. Recovered static water levels were 0.072 feet higher in
GCWS and 0.044 feet higher in GCWD in comparison with the original
static water levels.
Water level increased about 2.96 feet from recovered static water level
in GCWS. Water level decreased about 16.27 feet from recovered static
water level in GCWD.
Test 7 recovery period water levels in GCWD and GCWS were fully
recovered. Recovered water levels were 0.133 feet higher in GCWS
and 0. 122 feet higher in GCWD.
192
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF AQUIFER TESTING
This section interprets and discusses the data collected during the aquifer hydraulic tests, and provides
calculations of well-specific yield and efficiency and of hydraulic parameters in the aquifer.
4.1 CALCULATION OF SPECIFIC CAPACITY AND WELL EFFICIENCY
This section presents the calculations of specific capacity and well efficiency for the GCW. The
calculations are based on water level data collected from the step-drawdown test conducted in the upper
screened portion of the well (screened in the upper aquifer zone), the step-drawdown conducted in the
lower screened portion (screened in the deep aquifer zone), and the water injection test conducted in the
upper screened portion of the GCW.
4.1.1 Specific Capacity
The specific capacity of a pumping well is calculated based on (1) the pumping rate and measured
maximum drawdown during various steps of the step drawdown test, or (2) the injection rate and
maximum rise in water level for injection tests (assuming the drawdown arid rise in water level have
stabilized) during an injection (dipole) test. The step drawdown test in the lower screened interval (deep
aquifer zone) was conducted in four steps. The upper screened interval (shallow aquifer zone) injection
(dipole) testing was conducted in seven steps.
Figures A8 and A9 show water levels hi piezometers GCWS and GCWD recorded during the step
drawdown test. Table A5 shows the data for the step and dipole tests and the specific capacities
calculated from each of the tests. Based on the response in the lower screened interval during the aquifer
step drawdown test, the specific capacity of the GCW calculated for various steps ranges from 0.83 to
1.03 gpm per foot, with an average of 0.89 gpm per foot. Based on the results of the dipole tests, the
specific capacity of the lower screened interval ranges from 0.77 to 1.03 gallons per minute per foot
(gpm/ft), with an average of 0.90 gpm/ft, virtually the same as the average obtained from the step
drawdown test results. The aquifer injection (dipole) test resulted in calculated specific capacities for the
shallow aquifer zone ranging from 4.18 to 5.09 gpm/ft, with an average of 4.50 gpm/ft. The higher
specific capacity of the shallow aquifer zone indicates that it is more permeable or transmissive than the
deep aquifer zone.
193
-------
TABLE A5. AQUIFER TEST DATA AND GROUNDWATER CIRCULATION WELL SPECIFIC CAPACITY
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Test
Lower Screen Step
Drawdown Test
Lower Screen Dipole
Test (Pumping)
BS^^Sl^BSBfiBBSSHBSE^^^^M^^M
Upper Screen Dipole
Test (Injection)
==•— ^=
Test Step
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
====
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pumping or Recharge
Rate (Q) (gpm)
1.9
5.9
12.5
15.0
2.3
3.9
6.0
8.8
4.8
12.5
12.5
=„„_====—=
23
3.9
6.0
8.8
4.8
12.5
12.5
Measured Maximum Drawdown
or Water Level Rise (s)
(feet)
2.24
5.75
15.10
17.11
2.39
3.78
6.60
9.34
5.24
16.19
16.21
0.55
0.83
1.34
1.73
1.13
2.75
2.95
Specific Capacity*
(gpm/foot)
0.85
1.03
0.83
0.88
0.96
1.03
0.91
0.94
0.92
0.77
0.77
4.18
4.70
4.48
5.09
4.25
4.55
4.24
Average Specific
Capacity (gpm/foot)
0.89
....
0.90
4.50
===—===
Notes:
a
gpm
Specific capacity was calculated by dividing pumping or recharge rate (Q) by maximum drawdown or water level rise (s).
gallons per minute
-------
4.1.2 Well Loss and Well Efficiency
The observed total drawdown versus pumping rate (Q) was plotted and a best-fit second order polynomial
function generated using the least-squares method (Figures A13, A14, A15, and A16). Based on the
equation published by Rorabaugh (1953), parameters B and C are determined by the second order best-fit
curves. Figures A13 and A14 show that the correlation coefficients (R2) of the best-fit (4- and 3-point)
equations based on the step test data from the lower screened interval are 0.992 (4-point) and 0.996 (3-
point). The 4-point best-fit curve (Figure A13) includes all four steps of the step drawdown test, and the
3-point best-fit curve (Figure A14) only includes only data from the first three steps of the step drawdown
tests. The last step of the step drawdown test may not be representative of conditions in the well and
aquifer at the maximum pumping rate because drawdown reached the pump intake. The 4-point best-fit
curve is included for comparison.
Figure A15 shows that the correlation coefficient (R2) of the best-fit equation based on the dipole flow
test data from the lower screened interval is 0.995. The rise in water level was used instead of drawdown
for the upper screened interval injection (dipole) test (Figure A16); the correlation coefficient (R2) of the
best-fit equation based on the data from the dipole flow test from the upper screened interval is 0.984.
Water levels inside the pumping and injection well screens were not measured during hydraulic testing
because of difficulties involved with isolating the two screened intervals and also because of the
configuration of the pump. As a result, water levels or drawdowns were measured in piezometers GCWD
and GCWS, installed within the sand packs of the lower and upper screened intervals of the GCW.
Therefore, the calculated well losses and well efficiencies (Table A6) do not represent the GCW pumping
or injection well screens. Instead, the values presented in Table A6 represent well losses or efficiencies
between the well bore and sand packs of the GCW. Portions of the well losses could also be caused by
the short (1-foot) screened intervals of piezometers GCWS and GCWD.
Results for the well efficiency calculations are presented hi Table A6. As shown in the table, the
calculated well efficiencies for both the lower and upper portions of the GCW are high, ranging from 78
to 96 percent. These efficiencies indicate that well losses through the sand pack are relatively low for the
pumping and injection rates used in the step and dipole tests. Table A6 also indicates that the well
195
-------
20
18 -
16
14
12
•o
I 10
E 8
x
a
6
o
= 0.0106Q2+1.0117Q-
R2=0.9918
8 10
Pumping Rate Q (gpm)
12
14
16
18
NOTE:
1) Data shown is from the lower screened interval of GCW.
2) Graph shown is 4 data point fit.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Figure A13
Step Test Drawdown versus Pumping Rate
and the Best Fit Equation
(4-Point)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
18
16
14
g 12
10
o
I 8
•3
6
l/J
8
Pumping Rate Q (gpm)
10
Z
• 0.0279Q2 + 0.8548Q
R2 = 0.9961
12
14
16
NOTE:
1) Data shown is from the lower screened interval of 6CW.
2) Graph shown is 3 data point fit.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Figure A14
Step Test Drawdown versus Pumping Rate
and the Best Fit Equation
(3-Point)
ptj Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
CO
oo
20-
4O
18 •
i 12
lie
Q
i B
I
6
4
2
0
NOTE:
Data shown
.
•
^X
X
; S
^
^T , . 8 = 00348Q2 + OB4fl6Q
./r • R2 = 0.9949
^^
0*^°
^^
D 2 4 8 B
Pumping Rate Q (gpm)
Is from the lower screened Interval of GCW.
10 12 14 16
FACILITY 1381, CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Figure A1S
DIpole Test Drawdown versus Pumping Rate
and the Best Fit Equation
@ Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
3.5
3.0
2.5
± 2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
R2 = 0.9842
8
Injection Rate Q (gptn)
10
12
14
16
NOTE:
Data shown is from the lower screened Interval of GCW.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A16
Dipole Test Water Level Rise versus Pumping Rate
and the Best Fit Equation
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
TABLE A6. AQUIFER TEST DATA AND GCW SAND PACK EFFICIENCIES1
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Test
Lower Screen Step
Drawdown Test
(4 point fit)
Lower Screen Step
Drawdown Test
(3 point fit)
Lower Screen Dipole
Test (Pumping)
Upper Screen Dipole
Test (Injection)
Test Step
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2 .
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pumping or
Recharge Rate (Q)
(gpm)
1.9
5.9
12.5
15.0
1.9
5.9
12.5
2.3
3.9
6.0
8.8
4.8
12.5
12.5
2.3
3.9
6.0
8.8
4.8
12.5
12.5
Measured Maximum
Drawdown or Water
Level Rise (s)
(feet)
2.24
5.75
15.10
17.11
2.24
5.75
15.10
2.39
3.78
6.60
9.34
5.24
16.19
16.21 -
0.55
0.83
1.34
1.73
1.13
2.75
2.95
Sand Pack Loss
Coefficient
(C)
0.0106
0.0279
0.0348
0.0013
Sand Pack
Loss (CQ2)
(feet)
0.04
0.37
1.66
2.39
0.10
0.97
4.36
0.18
0.53
1.25
2.69
0.80
5.44
5.44
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.20
0.20
Sand Pack
Efficiency1 (%)
98
94
89
86 '
96
83
71
92
86
81
71
85
66
66
99
98
97
94
97
93
93
Average Sand
Pack Efficiency
(%)
92
83
78
96
Notes:
1) Since water levels were measured in piezometers GCWS and GCWD, installed within the sand pack of the GCW, values shown in the table
represent calculated well losses or efficiencies between the well bore and the sand packs of the GCW.
2) Calculated using: s-CQ
gpm = gallons per minute
-------
efficiency for the upper screened interval (injection) averages 96 percent, which is higher than the
efficiency of the lower screened interval (pumping) well, which averages 78 percent.
4.2 CONSTANT RATE PUMPING TEST
This section analyzes the data from the constant discharge pumping test conducted in the lower screened
portion of the GCW and presents calculations of values for various aquifer hydraulic parameters. A
number of analytical models are available to analyze data from pumping tests and calculate hydraulic
parameters for the aquifer. Different models were developed to simulate a variety of conditions in the
aquifer. The first and most critical step in an analysis of data from a pumping test is to select an
appropriate model (or models) for the specific aquifer conditions, construction of the pumping and
observation wells, and configurations of the pumping test.
The analytical model for the evaluation of data from the GCW pumping test was selected based on the
site hydrogeologic conceptual model, the configuration of the pumping test (including pumping and
observation well construction), and the characteristics of the response to drawdown during the pumping
test. Section 4.2.1 summarizes the site hydrogeology and presents the site hydrogeological conceptual
model. Section 4.2.2 describes the configuration of the pumping test. Section 4.2.3 discusses the
characteristics of the response to drawdown during the pumping test. Section 4.2.4 discusses selection of
the analytical model, and describes the selected model and its applicability. The results of calculation for
the aquifer parameters are discussed in Section 4.2.5.
4.2.1 Configuration of Constant Discharge Pumping Test
Configuration of the pumping test is important in selecting analytical models. Construction details of the
pumping and observation wells, the pumping rate and duration, and the spatial orientation of the
observation wells for this pumping test study are discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.3. The configuration of
the constant discharge pumping test was as follows:
*
• Groundwater was pumped from the isolated, lower screened interval of the GCW, which
was installed at a depth of 20 to 30 feet bgs.
• The pumping well diameter is 6 inches, and the diameter of the well bore is 14 inches
(including the sand pack).
• The pumping rate was kept constant at 10 gpm.
201
-------
• The duration of the pumping test was 29 hours.
• The duration of the recovery period was 43 hours.
• The initial groundwater level was approximately 8 feet bgs.
• The saturated thickness of the tested aquifer is estimated at 42 feet.
• Drawdown was monitored hi nine piezometers (four pairs of shallow and deep
piezometers and a single deep piezometer) used as observation wells around the pumping
well.
• Distances between the observation wells and the pumping well range from less than 1
foot to 30 feet
• Screens in the observation wells range from approximately 1 to 4 feet in length.
• The pumping well and the observation wells are all partially penetrating. The shallow
observation wells were screened from 6 to 10 feet bgs; the deep observation wells were
screened from 22 to 26 feet bgs.
4.2.2 Drawdown Response Characteristics
Drawdown data collected from the observation wells during the pumping test are plotted versus time in
logarithmic and semilogarithmic scales in Figures A17 through A20. The analysis of the drawdown
response in this section is intended to identify important features of the aquifer conditions or pumping test
configurations such as heterogeneity and anisotropy, variations hi pumping rate, leaky aquifers, positive
(recharge) or negative (impermeable) boundaries, and delayed yield effects.
Table A7 summarizes the drawdown responses for the observation wells during the constant rate
discharge pumping test. The initial response tune is the time at which drawdown hi an observation well is
first positively identified.
Figures A17 and Al 8 indicate that observation wells constructed at different depths in the aquifer all
responded to pumping hi the lower aquifer zone, with later and less significant responses observed hi the
shallow observation wells. The pattern of the response observed hi the shallow aquifer zone is consistent
in all of the shallow piezometers, especially hi the later-time data, with little variation occurring with
distance from the pumping well. This pattern suggests that the shallow aquifer zone is laterally
202
-------
0.001
0.01
NOTE: Data shown Is from constant rate pumping test
conducted from 8/15/00 to 9/16/00.
10
Time (min)
1000
10000
FACILITY 1381, CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A17
Drawdown versus Time
Under Pumping Conditions
(Log-Log Plot)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.4S
0.40
0.35
0.30
§ 0.25
3
•O
j 0.20
Q
0.15
0.10
0.05
• 2pzd
»3pzd
A4pzd
x6pzd
o2pzs
nSpzs
*4pzs
0.00
0.01
NOTE: Data shown Is from constant rate pumping test
conducted from 9/15/00 to 9/16/00.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A18
Drawdown versus Time
Under Pumping Conditions
(Semi-Log Plot)
TetraTech EM Inc.
-------
§
0.45
0.40-
0.35
0.30
§ 0.25
0.20
0.1S
0.10
0.05
0.00
• 2pzd
• 3pzd
A4pzd
x6pzd
0.01
NOTE: Data shown is from constant rate pumping test
conducted from 9/1 SAM) to 9/16/00.
10
TUn»(mln)
1000
10000
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A20
Drawdown versus Time
In Deep Aquifer Zone Under Pumping Conditions
(Semi-Log Plot)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
10
O
O)
TABLE A7. CONSTANT RATE DISCHARGE PUMPING TEST INFORMATION
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Observation
Well ID
aa^^^K9_m=»aMi
DEEP AQUIFER
GCWD
2PZD
3PZD
4PZD
6PZD
Distance from GCW (1)
(in feet)
Depth of Screened
Interval (in feet)
Measured Maximum
• Drawdown (in feet)
Initial Response Time (2)
(in minutes)
ZONE (PUMPED INTERVAL) PIEZOMETERS
0.5
10.55
14.56
21.04
30.14
24.5-26.0
21.3-24.6
22.7-26.0
22.6-25.9
22.7-26.0
15.33
0.42
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.023
0.23
13.88
0.64
1.12
SHALLOW AQUIFER ZONE PIEZOMETERS
GCWS
2PZS
3PZS
4PZS
0.5
11.77
14.13
20.51
6.5 - 8.0
6.5-9.8
69 OS
6.2-9.5
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.74
9.76
2.02
3.54
1) The GCW was the pumping well.
2) The initial response time is the elapsed time at which a 0.01 foot change in drawdown first occurred.
3) Piezometer GCWS went dry during the constant rate pumping test
-------
homogeneous and that a vertical hydraulic connection exists between the shallow and deep aquifer zones.
Drawdown in the shallow observation wells display a typical delayed response in the water table at
approximately 20 minutes into the test.
At approximately 50 minutes into the pumping test, drawdown begins to stabilize in the observation wells
in the deep aquifer zone, while drawdown in the shallow observation wells starts to increase. At 900
minutes into the test, drawdowns in both the deep and shallow aquifer zones decreased dramatically,
suggesting that the influence of the pumping well may have intersected a recharge boundary, or indicating
significant delayed yield from the upper aquifer zone.
Responses in the observation wells in the deep aquifer zone showed more variation with distance. The
most significant response was observed hi piezometer 2PZD, which is closest to the pumping well. Later-
tune data hi piezometer 6PZD indicated a larger response than was observed at piezometer 4PZD, which
is closer to the pumping well. Early water level data for piezometer 3PZD indicate a delayed response to
pumping hi the lower screened interval, with drawdown increasing significantly at 100 minutes into the
test and following a linear increase pattern. Because the pressure transducer in 3PZD was replaced before
the pumping test began, the observed response is not expected to be a result of equipment malfunction.
The following summarizes the drawdown responses of the piezometers during the constant rate pumping
test:
• Drawdown responses were identified in all of the observation wells, which are within a
radius of 30 feet from the pumping well; positive identification of drawdown response is
defined as drawdown that exceeds 0.01 feet (any data recorded below 0.01 feet would be
expected to include significant error attributable to the transducer or data logger).
• Early drawdown responses in the observation wells show that the data plots do not
closely follow a type curve; the intermediate and later data indicate possible delayed
responses hi the shallow aquifer zone and vertical leakage from the shallow to the deep
aquifer zones.
4.2.3 Selection of Analytical Model
Based on the site hydrogeological conceptual model, the configuration of the pumping test, and
drawdown response analysis discussed above, the tested aquifer is considered a thick unconfined aquifer
with significant heterogeneity at different depths. In general, the shallow aquifer zone is significantly (by
an order of magnitude) more transmissive than the deep aquifer zone. The deep aquifer zone tested
received primarily vertical recharge from the shallow aquifer zone during the test. The vertical recharge
207
-------
is probably more significant than the horizontal flow toward the pumping well because of the lower
tiansmissivity of the deep aquifer zone. In addition, both the pumping well and the observation wells
partially penetrate the aquifer zones. The upper portion of the pumping well screen may intersect zones
of higher permability than the lower portion of the pumping well screen. These factors make it more
difficult to select and apply appropriate analytical methods to interpret the pumping test data.
Based on the evaluation of the observation well drawdown patterns and aquifer hydrogeological
conceptual model, the Hantush-Jacob (Hantush and Jacob 1955) and Hantush (1960) models for leaky
aquifers were selected as appropriate for the analysis of data from the pumping test. Neuman's delayed
yield model (1974) was also used to analyze the pumping data portion (the deep aquifer zone) of the data
from the dipole flow test, assuming insignificant impacts of injection to the shallow aquifer zone.
Aquifer hydraulic parameters from the analysis of data from the pumping test using the leaky aquifer
models are considered overestimated for the deep aquifer zone because the vertical leakage is more
significant during the test than the model assumes. In addition, vertical recharge from the shallow aquifer
zone may have been dominant at later stages of the test so that the lateral flow in the pumped aquifer zone
became less significant. The hydraulic conductivity values calculated may therefore represent an average
of the vertical hydraulic conductivities of the shallow aquifer zone and horizontal hydraulic conductivities
of the deep aquifer zone. Results using Neuman's delayed yield model may be more representative of the
hydraulic parameters for the deep aquifer zone.
4.2.4 Results
Based on the site hydrogeological conceptual model, the configuration of the pumping test, and the
analysis of drawdown responses discussed previously, the aquifer tested is considered a 40 feet thick and
unconfined with significant heterogeneity at various depths. In general, the shallow aquifer zone is
significantly (by an order of magnitude) more transmissive than the deep aquifer zone. The deep aquifer
zone tested received primarily vertical recharge from the shallow aquifer zone during the test. The
vertical recharge is probably more significant than the horizontal flow toward the pumping well because
of the lower transmissivity of the deep aquifer zone. In addition, both the pumping well and the
observation wells partially penetrate the various zones of the aquifer. The upper portion of the pumping
well screen may intersect zones of higher permeability than the lower portion of the pumping well screen.
These factors make it more difficult to select and apply appropriate analytical methods to interpret the
data from the pumping test.
208
-------
Based on the evaluation of the observation well drawdown patterns and aquifer hydrogeological
conceptual model, the Hantush-Jacob (1955) and Hantush"(1960) models for leaky aquifers were selected
as appropriate for the analysis of the data from the pumping test. The Neuman delayed yield model
(1974) was also used to analyze the pumping portion (deep aquifer zone) of the data for the dipole flow
test, assuming insignificant or negligible impacts of injection to the shallow aquifer zone.
Hydraulic parameters of the aquifer inferred from the analysis of the data for the pumping test using the
leaky aquifer models are considered overestimated for the deep aquifer zone because the vertical leakage
is more significant during the test than the model assumes. In addition, vertical recharge from the shallow
aquifer zone may have been dominant at later stages of the test so that the lateral flow in the aquifer zone
pumped became less significant. The calculated hydraulic conductivity values may represent an average
of the vertical hydraulic conductivities of the shallow aquifer zone and horizontal hydraulic conductivities
of the deep aquifer zone. Results using the Neuman delayed yield model may therefore be more
representative of the hydraulic parameters of the deep aquifer zone.
Aquifer hydraulic parameters were calculated using the groundwater pumping test data analysis software
package AQTESOLV™ (Duffield and Rumbaugh 1991; HydroSOLVE, Inc. 1996). Log-log plots of
drawdown versus time were prepared, and the plots were matched visually with the Hantush-Jacob,
Hantush, and Neuman type curves. The automatic matching option (using the least-square computational
approach) offered by AQTESOLV™ was not used because the computational method is insensitive to the
early data match and is biased toward the data in the late stages of the test.
Attachment A includes log-log drawdown plots and the curve matching of data from the observation
wells generated using AQTESOLV, which are presented in this report.
Table A8 presents the results of the calculations'of the hydraulic parameters of the aquifer. The
calculated hydraulic parameters for the aquifer based on analysis of the pumping test data are summarized
as follows:
• The calculated aquifer transmissivity ranges from approximately 1,790 to 2,190 square
feet per day (ft2/day) based on analysis using the Hantush-Jacob model. This result is
considered higher than the average transmissivity of the deep aquifer zones because of
significant recharge (that is, more than normal leakages) from the shallow aquifer zone.
209
-------
• The hydraulic conductivity of the shallow aquifer zone, calculated using the
transmissivities provided previously and based on the estimated saturated aquifer
thickness of 41.7 feet, ranges from 42.9 to 52.5 feet per day. This range of hydraulic
conductivity values is typical for clean sand (Freeze and Cherry 1979), which is
consistent with the lithology of the shallow aquifer zone at the site.
• The transmissivity of the deep aquifer zone, as calculated from dipole flow test data using
the Neuman delayed yield model, ranges from 196 to 337 ft2/day.
• The hydraulic conductivity of the deep aquifer zone, calculated using the transmissivities
provided above and based on an estimated saturated aquifer thickness of 42 feet, ranges
from 4.6 to 10.5 feet per day.
• Using the results for the Hantush-Jacob model, the estimated aquifer storativity ranges
from 0.03 to 0.07, a typical value range for the average of specific yield and storativity of
an unconfined aquifer.
• The specific yield of the aquifer tested ranges from 0.06 to 0.09, based on the Neuman
delayed yield model calculation. The storativity values using Neuman's model range
from 0.006 to 0.007.
Generally, the estimated values for hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer may represent the average
horizontal properties of the aquifer tested. The hydraulic conductivity values calculated from data for the
observation wells near the pumping well may be more representative of the vertical hydraulic properties
of the shallow aquifer zone because of vertical recharge near the pumping well.
210
-------
TABLE A8
AQUIFER HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
CONSTANT RATE PUMPING TEST RESULTS
Neuman (1977)
Hantush (1960
Hantush-Jacob (1955)
S
0.07
Observation
Well
2PZD
T (ftf/day)
1.789.2
nipni.» TFST M RESULTS (ANALYZED AS CONSTANT RATE PUMPING
'«lPni.T. TEST #7 RESULTS (ANALYZED AS CONSTANT RATE PUMPING TEST)
Notes:
1) Results shown are from deep aquifer zone.
-------
4.3 DIPOLE FLOW TESTS
The dipole flow test (DFT), a new single-well hydraulic test for aquifer characterization, was first
proposed by Kabala (1993). The test was designed to characterize the vertical distribution of local
horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities near the test well. Measures of the aquifer's anisotropy
ratio and storativity can also be obtained through analysis of data from the DFT. DFT is a cost-effective
method for to characterize the hydraulic properties of an aquifer because (1) the duration of the test is
short; the test generally lasts no more than a few hours, and (2) no investigation-derived waste is
generated because the water from the pumping chamber is injected to the aquifer through a recharge
chamber.
4.3.1 Configuration of Dipole Flow Tests
The dipole flow test configurations for Dipole Tests 6 and 7 are summarized as follows:
• Groundwater was pumped from the isolated, lower screened interval of the GCW, which
was installed at a depth of 20 to 30 feet bgs.
• Groundwater was reinjectcd into the upper screened interval of the GCW, which was
installed at depth of 5 to 10 feet bgs.
• The diameter of pumping well is 6 inches, and the diameter of the well bore is 14 inches
(including the sand pack).
• The pumping and injection rate was held constant at approximately 12.5 gpm.
• The duration of Dipole Test 6 was 21A hours.
• The duration of Dipole Test 7 was 6 hours.
• The initial groundwater level was 8 feet below ground surface, and was flat.
• The saturated thickness of the tested aquifer is estimated to be 42 feet.
• Drawdown was monitored in nine piezometers (four pairs of shallow and deep
piezometers and a single deep piezometer) using pressure transducers and data loggers
• Distances between the piezometers and the GCW range from less than 1 foot to 30 feet
• The screens in the piezometers range from 1 to 4 feet in length.
212
-------
• The pumping well and the observation wells are all partially penetrating. The shallow
piezometers were screened from 6 to 9 feet below ground surface; the deep piezometers
were screened from 22 to 26 feet below ground surface.
4.3.2 Results of Hydraulic Monitoring During Dipole Testing
Drawdown data collected from the observation wells during the dipole testing are plotted versus time in a
logarithmic scale in Figures A21 through A24.
The drawdown plot from deep aquifer zone piezometers during Dipole Test 6 (Figure A21) indicate that
the response time varied proportionally with distance from the GCW in each of the piezometers except for
3PZD. Piezometer 3PZD shows a delayed response as well as lower drawdown than observed in the
other piezometers. The behavior observed hi piezometer 3PZD during the dipole flow testing is similar to
the constant rate pumping test. This behavior suggests that the piezometer is screened hi a less permeable
or less well-connected zone than the pumping well or was inappropriately constructed.
Drawdowns observed in piezometers 2PZD, 4PZD, and 6PZD were similar and increased at similar rates
until about 20 minutes into the test, when the drawdown hi piezometer 2PZD began to stabilize or even
decrease slightly while drawdowns in 4PZD and 6PZD began to increase at a faster rate. The drawdown
curves cross at approximately 110 minutes into the test, indicating that the drawdown hi piezometer 2PZD
was then less than was observed farther from the GCW. The intersection of the curves suggests that
injection in the upper portion of the GCW may have been affecting the deep aquifer zone as much as 10
feet away from the GCW.
After Dipole Test 6 ended and a recovery period lasting 3.5 hours was allowed, Dipole Test 7 was started
at the same pumping rate as Dipole Test 6 (12.5 gpm). Drawdown curves for piezometers 2PZD, 4PZD
and 6PZD, shown in Figure A22, are less steep than were plotted for the same piezometers during Dipole
Test 6. As with Dipole Test 7, however, drawdowns in the 3 piezometers are proportional to distance
from the GCW. The three drawdown curves begin to stabilize at about 30 to 40 minutes into Dipole Test
7 and then start to decrease at about 350 minutes, just before the test was terminated. Piezometer 6PZD,
which is farthest from the GCW, shows the earliest and most dramatic decrease hi drawdown. The
difference hi the responses of the piezometers between Dipole Test 6 and Dipole Test 7 is shown hi
Figures A23 and A24, which are comparisons between the two tests, as measured hi piezometers 4PZD
213
-------
NJ
0.01
.0.001
0.0001
0.01
100-
1000
Time (mfn)
NOTE Data shown is from Dlpoto Test 6 conducted on 9/18/00
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
QCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A21
Drawdown versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone During Dlpola Test 6
(Log-Log Plot)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
Ni
«x
Ol
0.0001 4 1*
0.01
1000
Time (mln)
NOTE: Data shown Is from Dlpole Test 7 conducted on flM8/00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A22
Drawdown versus Time
In Deep Aquifer Zone During Dipole Test 7
(Log-Log Plot)
Tatra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.001
0.01
NOTE: Data shown Is from constant rate pumping test
conducted from 8/15/00 to 9/16/00.
10
Time (min)
1000
10000
FACILITY 1381, CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A17
Drawdown versus Time
Under Pumping Conditions
(Log-Log Plot)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.4S
0.40
0.35
0.30
§ 0.25
3
•O
j 0.20
Q
0.15
0.10
0.05
• 2pzd
»3pzd
A4pzd
x6pzd
o2pzs
nSpzs
*4pzs
0.00
0.01
NOTE: Data shown Is from constant rate pumping test
conducted from 9/15/00 to 9/16/00.
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A18
Drawdown versus Time
Under Pumping Conditions
(Semi-Log Plot)
TetraTech EM Inc.
-------
§
0.45
0.40-
0.35
0.30
§ 0.25
0.20
0.1S
0.10
0.05
0.00
• 2pzd
• 3pzd
A4pzd
x6pzd
0.01
NOTE: Data shown is from constant rate pumping test
conducted from 9/1 SAM) to 9/16/00.
10
TUn»(mln)
1000
10000
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A20
Drawdown versus Time
In Deep Aquifer Zone Under Pumping Conditions
(Semi-Log Plot)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
10
O
O)
TABLE A7. CONSTANT RATE DISCHARGE PUMPING TEST INFORMATION
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Observation
Well ID
aa^^^K9_m=»aMi
DEEP AQUIFER
GCWD
2PZD
3PZD
4PZD
6PZD
Distance from GCW (1)
(in feet)
Depth of Screened
Interval (in feet)
Measured Maximum
• Drawdown (in feet)
Initial Response Time (2)
(in minutes)
ZONE (PUMPED INTERVAL) PIEZOMETERS
0.5
10.55
14.56
21.04
30.14
24.5-26.0
21.3-24.6
22.7-26.0
22.6-25.9
22.7-26.0
15.33
0.42
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.023
0.23
13.88
0.64
1.12
SHALLOW AQUIFER ZONE PIEZOMETERS
GCWS
2PZS
3PZS
4PZS
0.5
11.77
14.13
20.51
6.5 - 8.0
6.5-9.8
69 OS
6.2-9.5
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.74
9.76
2.02
3.54
1) The GCW was the pumping well.
2) The initial response time is the elapsed time at which a 0.01 foot change in drawdown first occurred.
3) Piezometer GCWS went dry during the constant rate pumping test
-------
TABLE A8
AQUIFER HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape Canaveral, Florida
CONSTANT RATE PUMPING TEST RESULTS
Neuman (1977)
Hantush (1960
Hantush-Jacob (1955)
S
0.07
Observation
Well
2PZD
T (ftf/day)
1.789.2
nipni.» TFST M RESULTS (ANALYZED AS CONSTANT RATE PUMPING
'«lPni.T. TEST #7 RESULTS (ANALYZED AS CONSTANT RATE PUMPING TEST)
Notes:
1) Results shown are from deep aquifer zone.
-------
NJ
0.01
.0.001
0.0001
0.01
100-
1000
Time (mfn)
NOTE Data shown is from Dlpoto Test 6 conducted on 9/18/00
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
QCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A21
Drawdown versus Time
in Deep Aquifer Zone During Dlpola Test 6
(Log-Log Plot)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
Ni
«x
Ol
0.0001 4 1*
0.01
1000
Time (mln)
NOTE: Data shown Is from Dlpole Test 7 conducted on flM8/00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A22
Drawdown versus Time
In Deep Aquifer Zone During Dipole Test 7
(Log-Log Plot)
Tatra Tech EM Inc.
-------
ro
O)
\
t
1
N(
1T
0.1
I
0.01
i
I
0.001
0.0001
0
DTE Data
»4pzdDipoleTest6
o4pzd Dlpole Test 7
. ....
t*
mo MM **•
01 0.1
M^fjfft^
i
-
iggj^flrtlHlHnilHtltUAUU
-
x
•(••••••MkA^.
•^^^^^^^^^•^^•^•jejl^
•
1 10 106 1000
Tim (min)
shown Is *om Dlpole Testa 6 and 7 conducted on 8/18/00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A23
Drawdown versus Time
at Piezometer 4pzd During Dlpole Test 6 and 7
(Log-Log Plot)
fiji Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
ro
O)
\
t
1
N(
1T
0.1
I
0.01
i
I
0.001
0.0001
0
DTE Data
»4pzdDipoleTest6
o4pzd Dlpole Test 7
. ....
t*
mo MM **•
01 0.1
M^fjfft^
i
-
iggj^flrtlHlHnilHtltUAUU
-
x
•(••••••MkA^.
•^^^^^^^^^•^^•^•jejl^
•
1 10 106 1000
Tim (min)
shown Is *om Dlpole Testa 6 and 7 conducted on 8/18/00
FACILITY 1381, CCAS. CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
GCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A23
Drawdown versus Time
at Piezometer 4pzd During Dlpole Test 6 and 7
(Log-Log Plot)
fiji Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
0.1
r 0.01
0.001
0.0001
A6pzdDipoleTftst6
o6pzd Dlpole Test 7
A AAA
1
n< 0
AA AAA A A A
000
AHA a,,00
AiA .
«>•
ooe
ooooo
—
' S
Mf .JWa*W>f
_JVo5^*^ -
ff
/
""">
o
< 1 10 10Q- 1000
Drawdown (ft)
NOTE Data shown Is from Dlpole Tests 6 and .7 conducted on 9A1 a/00
FACILITY 1381. CCAS, CAPE CANAVERAL. FLORIDA
QCW TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
FIGURE A24
Drawdown versus Tlmd
at Piezometer 6pzd During Dlpole Test 6 and 7
(Log-Log Plot)
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
-------
TABLE A9
DIPOLE FLOW TEST STEADY STATE SOLUTIONS
USING KABALA (1993 AND 1997) METHODOLOGY
WELL
GCWS
GCWD
2PZS
2PZD
3PZS
3PZD
4PZS
4PZD
6PZD
Average
DISTANCE
(FEET)
0.5
0.5
10
10
15
15
20
20
30
MAXIMUM
DRAWDOWN (1)
(FEET H2O)
-2.948
16.259
-0.046
0.475
-0.046
0.014(3)
-0.193
0.099
0.027
GENERAL SOLUTION
BEST MATCH
ANISOTROPIC VALUE
(K./K; ) (KABALA 1993)
0.64
could not match
0.35
7.29
0.80
0.31
5.06
2.76
1.93
239
LARGE WELLBORE SOLUTION
BEST MATCH ANISOTROPIC
VALUE (2) (K./KJ
(XIANG AND KABALA 1997)
0.64
could not match
0.35
7.29
0.80
0.31
5.06
2.76
1.93
239
KJ
00
(1) Negative value denotes increase in water level
(2) The Large Borehole Correction did not significantly change the value Of the anisotropic ratio.
n PZ3D*d not reach steady state during the 1700 minute long term extraction test and may not have reached steady state cdnd,tions dunng the
(3) PZ3D did not reach steady state during thi
360 minute Dipole Test 7.
------- |