EPA/540/R-08/001
October 2002
Demonstration of ISCO Treatment of a
DNAPL Source Zone at Launch Complex 34
in Cape Canaveral Air Station
Final Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
Prepared for
The Interagency DNAPL Consortium:
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Defense
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Prepared by
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
October 17, 2002
-------
Notice
The U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Defense, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration have funded the
research described hereunder. In no event shall either the United States Government
or Battelle have any responsibility or liability for any consequences of any use,
misuse, inability to use, or reliance on the information contained herein, nor does
either warrant or otherwise represent in any way the adequacy or applicability of the
contents hereof. Mention of corporation names, trade names, or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.
-------
Acknowledgments
The Battelle staff who worked on this project include Arun Gavaskar (Project Mana-
ger), Woong-Sang Yoon, Eric Drescher, Joel Sminchak, Bruce Buxton, Steve Naber,
Jim Hicks, Neeraj Gupta, Bruce Sass, Chris Perry, Lydia Gumming, Sandy Anderson,
Sumedha de Silva, Thomas Wilk, and Loretta Bahn.
Battelle would like to acknowledge the resources and technical support provided by
several members of the Interagency DNAPL Consortium, the Technical Advisory
Group, and several other organizations and government contractors:
• Skip Chamberlain (DOE), Tom Holdsworth (U.S. EPA), Charles Reeter
(NFESC), and Jackie Quinn (NASA) for mobilizing the resources that made this
demonstration possible. These individuals participated actively in the
demonstration and provided guidance through weekly conference calls.
• Stan Lynn and others from TetraTech EM, Inc., for providing significant
logistical and field support.
• Laymon Gray from Florida State University for coordinating the site prepara-
tions and technology vendors' field activities.
• Steve Antonioli from MSE Technology Applications, Inc., for coordinating
vendor selection and subcontracting, Technical Advisory Group participation,
and tracking of technology application costs.
• Tom Early from ORNL and Jeff Douthitt from GeoConsultants, Inc., for
providing technical and administrative guidance.
• Paul DeVane from the Air Force Research Laboratory for providing resources
and guidance during the early stages of the demonstration.
• The members of the Technical Advisory Group for their technical guidance.
The members of this group were Dr. Robert Siegrist, Colorado School of Mines;
Kent Udell, University of California at Berkeley; Terry Hazen, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory; Lome Everett, IT Corporation; and A. Lynn
Wood, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center.
• Janice Imrich, Jennifer Kauffman, and Emily Charoglu from Envirolssues, Inc.,
for coordinating the weekly conference calls, Visitor's Day, and other
demonstration-related events.
• The Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) for their review support.
• Dr. D.H. Luu, DHL Analytical Services, Inc., and John Reynolds, STL
Environmental Services, Inc., for their laboratory analysis support.
• Wendy Leonard and others from IT Corporation for their cooperation during the
demonstration.
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) contaminants are a challenge to charac-
terize and remediate at many sites where such contaminants have entered the sub-
surface due to past use or disposal practices. Chlorinated solvents, comprised of
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs), such as trichloroethylene (TCE)
and perchloroethylene (PCE), are common DNAPL contaminants at sites where
operations, such as aircraft maintenance, dry cleaning, metal finishing, and electron-
ics manufacturing have historically occurred. In the past, because of the difficulty in
identifying the DNAPL source zone, most remediation efforts focused on controlling
the migration of the dissolved CVOC plume. In recent years, many site owners have
had success in locating DNAPL sources. DNAPL source remediation may be beneficial
because once the source has been significantly mitigated, the strength and duration of
the resulting plume can potentially be lowered in the long term, and sometimes in the
short term as well.
The Interagency DNAPL Consortium
The Interagency DNAPL Consortium (IDC) was formally established in 1999 by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
Department of Defense (DoD), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
as a vehicle for marshalling the resources required to test innovative technologies
that promise technical and economic advantages in DNAPL remediation. The IDC is
advised by a Technical Advisory Group comprised of experts drawn from academia,
industry, and government. The IDC and other supporting organizations facilitate tech-
nology transfer to site owners/managers though dissemination of the demonstration
plans and results, presentations at public forums, a website, and visitor days at the
site.
Demonstration Site and Technology
In 1998, after preliminary site characterization conducted by Westinghouse Savannah
River Company indicated the presence of a sizable DNAPL source at Launch Com-
plex 34 in Cape Canaveral, Florida, the IDC selected this site for demonstrating three
DNAPL remediation technologies. The surficial aquifer at this site lies approximately
between 5 to 45 ft bgs. This aquifer can be subdivided into three stratigraphic units —
the Upper Sand Unit, the Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and the Lower Sand Unit.
Although the Middle Fine-Grained Unit is a conspicuous hydraulic barrier, a Lower
Clay Unit underlying the surficial aquifer is considered to be the aquitard that pre-
vents downward migration of the DNAPL source. The Lower Clay Unit appears to be
pervasive throughout the demonstration area, although it is only 1.5 to 3 ft thick. The
hydraulic gradient in the surficial aquifer is relatively flat. The native aquifer is anaer-
obic and neutral in pH. Also the aquifer contains relatively high levels of chloride and
total dissolved solids (TDS).
-------
The source zone was divided into three test plots, 75 ft x 50 ft each in size, for testing
three technologies — in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO), resistive heating, and steam
injection. About 15 ft of each plot was under the Engineering Support Building. ISCO
and resistive heating were tested concurrently between September 1999 and
April/June 2000 in the two outer plots, separated by about 80 ft. Steam injection was
subsequently tested in the middle plot, beginning June 2001. The IDC contracted
MSE Technology Applications, Inc., to conduct vendor selection and subcontracting
for the three technology demonstrations, and to track costs for each demonstration.
IT Corporation was the vendor selected for implementing ISCO (using potassium per-
manganate) at Launch Complex 34. Potassium permanganate was selected due to
the fact that the oxidation reaction with permanganate is relatively pH insensitive and
proceeds acceptably under alkaline conditions. The reaction is not subject to inhibi-
tion by free-radical scavengers like carbonates, both of which (i.e., high pH and radi-
cal scavengers) are a challenge for other oxidants, such as Fenton's reagent. In
addition, it is a strong oxidant, relatively easy to handle, commonly available and
inexpensive, does not generate strong exothermic reactions in the aquifer, and per-
sists long enough in the environment to enable efficient distribution in the aquifer.
Performance Assessment
The IDC contracted Battelle in 1998 to plan and conduct the technical and economic
performance assessment of the three technologies. The EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program and its contractor TetraTech EM, Inc., pro-
vided Quality Assurance (QA) oversight and field support for the performance
assessment. Before the ISCO field application, Battelle prepared a Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) or test plan that was reviewed by all the project stakeholders.
This report describes the results of the performance assessment of the ISCO tech-
nology. The objectives of the performance assessment were to:
• Estimate the TCE/DNAPL mass removal
• Evaluate changes in aquifer quality
• Evaluate the fate of the TCE/DNAPL removed from the ISCO plot
• Verify ISCO operating requirements and costs.
Estimating the TCE/DNAPL mass removal due to the ISCO application was the primary
objective of the demonstration in terms of resources expended for planning, data
gathering, and interpretation; the other three were secondary, but important, objectives.
In February 1999, Battelle conducted the preliminary characterization of the DNAPL
source region on the north side of the Engineering Support Building. This characteri-
zation provided preliminary DNAPL mass estimates and aquifer data to support the
vendor's design of the technology application. It also provided data on the spatial
variability of the TCE/DNAPL that supported the design of a more detailed characteri-
zation of each test plot before the demonstration. In June 1999, a detailed predemon-
stration characterization of the ISCO plot was conducted to initiate the performance
assessment of the ISCO technology. From September 1999 to April 2000, when the
ISCO field application was conducted, Battelle collected subsurface data to monitor
the progress of the demonstration; the vendor collected additional data to aid in the
operation of the technology. In May 2000, the postdemonstration assessment of the
ISCO plot was conducted, followed by an extended monitoring event in February
2001.
TCE/DNAPL Mass Removal
Detailed soil sampling was used as the main tool for determining TCE/DNAPL mass
removal. The spatial distribution data from the preliminary characterization were used
VI
-------
to determine a statistically significant number and location of soil samples required to
obtain good coverage of the ISCO plot. A systematic unaligned sampling scheme
was used to conduct pre- and postdemonstration soil coring at 12 locations in a 4 x 3
grid in the test plot. Continuous soil samples were collected at every 2-ft vertical
interval in each core, resulting in nearly 300 soil samples in the ISCO plot during
each event. A vertical section (approximately 200 g of wet soil) from each 2-ft interval
was collected and extracted with methanol in the field; the methanol extract was sent
to an off-site laboratory for analysis. In this manner, the entire soil column was ana-
lyzed from ground surface to aquitard, at each coring location. Evaluation of this
extraction method with Launch Complex 34 soil showed between 84 and 113% recov-
ery (92% average) of the spiked surrogate compound (trichloroethane).
The TCE concentrations (mg/kg of dry soil) obtained by this method were considered
"total TCE." Total TCE includes TCE in the dissolved and adsorbed phases, as well
as in the free phase (DNAPL). The portion of the total TCE that exceeded a threshold
concentration of 300 mg/kg was considered "DNAPL." This threshold was calculated
based on properties of the TCE and the subsurface media at Launch Complex 34,
and is determined as the maximum TCE concentration in the dissolved and adsorbed
phases; any TCE concentration exceeding this threshold would be DNAPL.
The results of the TCE/DNAPL mass removal evaluation by soil sampling show the
following:
• Linear interpolation of TCE concentrations between sampled points indicated
that there was 6,122 kg of total TCE in the ISCO plot before the demonstration;
approximately 5,039 kg of this TCE mass was DNAPL. Approximately 77% of
the total TCE mass and 76% of the DNAPL mass was removed from the plot
due to the ISCO application. This predicted removal is less than the 90%
DNAPL removal target proposed at the beginning of the demonstration, but is
still a significant achievement for the technology.
• A statistical evaluation of the pre- and postdemonstration TCE concentrations
confirmed these results. Kriging, a geostatistical tool that takes the spatial
variability of the TCE distribution into account, indicated that between 6,217 and
9,182 kg of total TCE was present in the test plot before the demonstration.
Kriging of the pre- and postdemonstration TCE data indicated that between 62
and 84% of the total TCE was removed from the test plot by the technology
application. When the predemonstration and extended monitoring event TCE
mass estimates were compared, kriging indicated that between 49 and 68% of
the TCE was removed from the plot. The extended monitoring event was
conducted nine months after the end of the oxidant injections. The slightly lower
removal estimates during the extended monitoring event are due to an isolated
DNAPL pocket found on the north end of the test plot. These statistics are
significant at the 80% confidence level specified before the demonstration. In
summary, it can be said that at least half the initial TCE mass in the test plot
was removed by the ISCO treatment.
• The highest TCE/DNAPL mass removal was obtained in the Upper Sand Unit,
followed by the Lower Sand Unit. The Middle Fine-Grained Unit showed the
least removal. This shows that the oxidant distribution was most effective in the
coarser soils. The level of TCE/DNAPL removal was not as high under the
building as outside it, indicating that these regions could not be efficiently
accessed from outside the building. The general radius of influence of the
potassium permanganate appeared to be less than 15 ft around the injection
points, although preferential flowpaths sometimes transported the oxidant to
more distant locations.
VII
-------
Changes in Aquifer Quality
Application of the ISCO technology caused the following short-term changes in the
treated aquifer:
• Dissolved TCE levels declined sharply in several monitoring wells in the ISCO
plot, with some wells showing postdemonstration concentrations of less than
5 ug/L, the federal drinking water standard. Achievement of the State of Florida
groundwater target cleanup level of 3 ug/L could not be determined because
excessive permanganate in several of the postdemonstration groundwater sam-
ples caused analytical interference and required dilution. In some wells within
the ISCO plot, TCE levels declined, but stayed above 5 ug/L. In one of the
shallow wells, TCE levels rose through the demonstration, indicating that local
heterogeneities (limited oxidant distribution) or redistribution of groundwater flow
due to partial DNAPL removal may have affected dissolved TCE levels, c/s-1,2-
DCE levels in all monitoring wells declined to below 70 ug/L. Vinyl chloride
levels in some wells declined to less than 1 ug/L, the State of Florida target; in
some wells, higher TCE levels elevated the detection limits of vinyl chloride.
This indicated that ISCO considerably improved groundwater quality in the short
term. There are some signs of a rebound in TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE concentra-
tions in the test plot during the extended monitoring that was conducted nine
months after the end of the injections. Although TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE levels
rebounded to some extent in the nine months following the demonstration, they
were still considerably below the predemonstration levels in most wells. In any
case, DNAPL mass removal is expected to lead to eventual and earlier dis-
appearance of the plume over the long term. There is also the possibility that
even in the medium term, as normal groundwater flow is reestablished, a
weakened plume may be generated and the resulting CVOC levels may be
amenable to natural attenuation.
• Groundwater pH and dissolved oxygen levels remained stable, but oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), chloride, alkalinity, and TDS levels rose following the
demonstration. TDS levels were above the secondary drinking water standard
of 500 mg/L both before and after the demonstration, classifying the aquifer as
brackish. Dissolved manganese levels rose above the 50 ug/L secondary drink-
ing water standard; the dissolved manganese is expected to be mostly Mn7+,
while there still is excess permanganate in the plot. More manganese dioxide
solids and Mn2+, a reduced form of dissolved manganese, may be generated as
the oxidant is depleted and the aquifer reverts to reducing conditions. The
reduced manganese can cause discoloration of water when it exceeds 50 ug/L.
Downgradient concentrations of manganese may have to be monitored over the
next few years. However, manganese levels dropped considerably with
distance from the test plot.
• Biological oxidation demand and total organic carbon (TOC) levels in the
groundwater generally increased. TOC in soil remained relatively constant
through the demonstration. These parameters were expected to decrease fol-
lowing oxidation. Dissolved iron levels remained relatively constant, and sulfate
levels increased. The anomalous behavior of these parameters indicates that
the oxidant-contaminant-aquifer reactions are complex and may result in a wider
variety of byproducts.
• The postdemonstration groundwater levels of three trace metals—chromium,
nickel, and thallium—showed a short-term increase above State of Florida
standards. These metals are present in the aquifer at levels that are too high to
be explained solely by their presence in the industrial-grade permanganate
injected. Possible sources for some of these metals could be the native aquifer
solids or the stainless steel monitoring wells in the plot; although stainless steel
VIM
-------
is relatively resistant to oxidation, high levels of oxidant and chloride could have
caused corrosion. Nine months after the end of the oxidant injections, the levels
of these metals in the test plot were still elevated. The elevated levels of these
trace metals are expected to subside overtime, as flow is re-established. The
levels of these metals decline significantly as the water reaches the monitoring
wells surrounding the plot, probably due to adsorption on the aquifer solids and
on the newly generated manganese dioxide.
• Slug tests conducted in the ISCO plot before and after the demonstration did not
indicate any noticeable changes in the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer; any
manganese dioxide accumulation in the aquifer did not appear to have affected
its hydraulic properties. Also, it is possible that the porosity loss due to forma-
tion of manganese dioxide solids is offset by the dissolution of native calcium
carbonate solids in the aquifer.
Fate of TCE/DNAPL Removed
The TCE/DNAPL removed from the plot could have taken several pathways, includ-
ing destruction by oxidation, migration to surrounding aquifer, or migration to vadose
zone/atmosphere.
• The sharp rise in chloride levels in all three stratigraphic units is the strongest
indicator that destruction by oxidation contributed significantly to TCE/DNAPL
mass removal in the plot. The rise in chloride levels was conspicuous, despite
the relatively high level of native chloride in the groundwater and despite dilution
from the hydrant water used to make up the permanganate solution.
• The large increase in aquifer alkalinity, a sign of carbon dioxide generation, is a
strong indicator of oxidation in the aquifer, although not of TCE alone. Native
organic matter may also account for some of the oxidant consumption and
carbon dioxide generation. One research need for this technology is deter-
mining the possible generation and potential toxicity of any organic byproducts
of incomplete oxidation of TCE and native organic matter.
• Some DNAPL movement occurred in the saturated zone after the start of the
ISCO and resistive heating demonstrations. However, because the DNAPL
appeared in monitoring wells between the two test plots, it is difficult to attribute
the cause of the DNAPL movement to one of the two technologies. If the strong
hydraulic gradient created by the oxidant injection caused DNAPL to migrate,
the DNAPL would have to have been present in mobile, and not residual, form.
A limited number of additional soil cores collected around the ISCO plot did not
show any signs of DNAPL accumulation. Monitoring of the vadose zone soil
and surface atmosphere did not indicate any TCE/DNAPL migration in the
upward direction, as could have happened had exothermic reactions taken
place in the aquifer. Monitoring was conducted below the Lower Clay Unit only
after the demonstration because of NASA's initial concerns over breaching the
aquitard. The three semi-confined aquifer wells were installed after the demon-
stration. The one well below the aquitard in the ISCO plot did not show soil or
groundwater TCE levels reflective of DNAPL. None of the data indicate that
downward migration of DNAPL was a significant pathway for the TCE in the test
plot.
• Surface emission tests before, during, and after the demonstration did not show
any elevated levels of TCE emanating from the ISCO plot. Unlike other strong
oxidants, permanganate does not generate exothermic reactions that could
cause VOCs to vaporize and escape to the vadose zone and atmosphere. The
IX
-------
top portion of the soil cores in the vadose zone did not show any elevated TCE
concentrations either.
Verifying Operating Requirements
The vendor injected a total of 842,985 gal of permanganate solution (or 66,956 kg of
solid potassium permanganate) in three injection cycles over an 8-month period. In
the first injection cycle, the vendor injected the oxidant (1 to 2% solution of industrial-
grade potassium permanganate from Cams® Chemical Company, Inc.) through 11
more-or-less equally spaced locations. At each location, the vendor advanced a
specially designed injection tip in 2-ft intervals, using a Geoprobe®. The amount of
permanganate injected at each location and depth was based on prior knowledge of
the TCE/DNAPL distribution from the site characterization.
The injection pressure, flowrate, and period of injection were used to control the
radius of influence of the permanganate around the injection point. The vendor esti-
mates that 10 to 12 ft or less radius of influence was achieved at some injection
points. However, local heterogeneities, DNAPL content, and native organic matter
content limited oxidant distribution at some points, as indicated by the varying injec-
tion flowrates achieved. For example, whereas one injection point would permit 2 to
3 gpm of flow, another point only one horizontal foot away would permit less than
0.1 gpm of flow. Both groundwater and soil samples indicated (visually and ana-
lytically) that oxidant distribution varied in different parts of the plot. The portion of the
aquifer underneath the building also appeared to have received insufficient oxidant;
the plot extended 15 ft inside the building, whereas all injections were conducted
outside.
Both the vendor and Battelle conducted additional monitoring in the periods between
each injection cycle. During the second and third injection cycles, the vendor focused
on only those portions of the plot that the interim monitoring showed had not received
sufficient oxidant during the previous cycle.
Use of heavy equipment and handling of a strong oxidant were the primary hazards
during the operation. The operators donned Level D protection at most times, except
when a respirator had to be worn in order for the operator to protect against spray
and dust generated while handling the dry potassium permanganate oxidant. A
solution consisting of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide was kept on site to neutralize
any exposure to potassium permanganate solution due to spills or hose leaks. The
permanganate delivery system was automated so that it would shut off if any exces-
sive pressure (clogging) or loss of pressure (leaks) was experienced in the system.
Economics
The vendor incurred a total cost of approximately $1 million for the field application of
ISCO process. This includes the design, procurement, mobilization/demobilization,
oxidant injection, and process monitoring. The vendor estimated that approximately
15% of this cost was incurred due to the fact that this was a technology demonstra-
tion, not a full-scale clean-up treatment. In addition, NASA incurred site preparation
costs of $2,800. No aboveground wastes were generated from the injections. Waste
disposal costs were minimal and were limited to nonhazardous solid waste disposal
of materials generated during mobilization and operation.
A comparison of the cost of ISCO treatment of the DNAPL source the size of the
ISCO plot and an equivalent (2 gpm) pump-and-treat system for plume control over
the next 30 years was conducted to evaluate the long-term economic impact of the
-------
technology. The ISCO application cost was found to be less than the present value
(PV) of a 30-year pump-and-treat application. This comparison assumes that natural
attenuation would be sufficient to address any residual source. Also, in the absence
of source treatment, the plume emanating from this relatively large DNAPL source
may be expected to last much more than 30 years. ISCO and natural attenuation
require none of the aboveground structures, recurring operational costs, and mainte-
nance that pump-and-treat systems require. Anecdotal evidence indicates that, at
many sites, pump-and-treat systems are operational only about 50% of the time. The
impact of this downtime and the associated maintenance costs should also be con-
sidered. In general, the economics favor DNAPL source treatment, and ISCO (non-
extraction mode) in particular, over a pump-and-treat system at this site.
Site characterization costs were not included in the cost comparison because a good
design of a source treatment or plume control remedial action is assumed to require
approximately the same degree of characterization. The site characterization con-
ducted by Battelle in February 1999 is typical of the characterization effort that may
be required for delineating a 75-ft x 50-ft x 45-ft DNAPL source; the cost of this effort
was $255,000, which included a work plan, 12 continuous soil cores to 45 ft bgs,
installation of 36 monitoring wells, field sampling, laboratory analysis of samples, field
parameter measurements, hydraulic testing, and data analysis and report.
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
As described above, the following conclusions were drawn from the ISCO demon-
stration:
• At least half (49% to 84%) of the initial total TCE mass and possibly 76% of the
DNAPL mass in the source zone were removed by ISCO.
• Much of this removal can be attributed to destruction of TCE by oxidation, as
indicated by the chloride buildup in the plot. The sharp increase in carbon
dioxide and, consequently, alkalinity levels in the groundwater, is another sign
of considerable oxidation of TCE and natural organic matter occurring in the
aquifer.
• Dissolved TCE levels declined considerably in most parts of the test plot in the
short term, immediately following the demonstration. The federal drinking water
standard for TCE (5 ug/L) was met in several monitoring wells during postdem-
onstration monitoring. Achievement of the lower State of Florida standard
(3 ug/L) could not be determined due to analytical interference from the perman-
ganate. Postdemonstration sampling indicated that c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chlo-
ride levels in the many parts of the plot declined considerably as well. Some
rebound in concentrations is evident in the extended monitoring event
conducted nine months after the demonstration, after some re-equilibration
occurred between the remaining DNAPL and dissolved TCE concentrations.
However, the rebounded levels of these contaminants were still considerably
below the predemonstration levels.
• It is possible to achieve a relatively good distribution of permanganate oxidant
in sandy soils. Distribution of oxidant is more difficult in finer-grained soils.
A radius of influence of 10 to 12 ft around the injection point was achieved at
several locations. However, at some locations, resistance to oxidant flow was
considerable, and the radius of influence was much smaller. Local geologic
heterogeneities and native organic matter content of the aquifer may limit oxi-
dant distribution in some regions. These factors may have also limited the
reach of the oxidant under the building, from the injection points located outside.
XI
-------
• Elevated levels of some trace metals, such as chromium, nickel, and thallium,
may occur in the short term. The source of these trace metals is partly the
industrial-grade permanganate used and partly the native aquifer solids or stain-
less steel monitoring wells. Levels of dissolved manganese, a species subject
to secondary drinking water standards, may be elevated in the short term as
well. The concentrations of the trace metals and other dissolved species were
found to mitigate quickly with distance from the treatment area. Elevated levels
of even potassium ion, a relatively conservative species, subsided by the time
the groundwater moved about 80 to 100 ft from the plot. This indicates that per-
manganate oxidation, even in an injection-only mode, can be applied at many
sites at locations that are relatively close to receptors or property boundaries.
• Some DNAPL appeared in monitoring wells located between the two test plots,
where ISCO and resistive heating technologies were being applied concurrently.
It is difficult to attribute the DNAPL migration to one of the two technologies.
The strong hydraulic gradient generated by the oxidant injection is unlikely to
cause DNAPL migration, unless some DNAPL is already present in mobile form.
When permanganate is used as the oxidant, there are no strong exothermic
reactions involved and the potential for migration of DNAPL to the vadose zone
or atmosphere is minimal.
• The cost of the ISCO application was approximately $1 million, including the
design, oxidant purchase, equipment procurement and installation, operation,
and limited monitoring costs. The vendor estimated that approximately 15% of
these costs were for the demonstration specific rather than a full-scale. A com-
parison of the DNAPL source treatment with ISCO cost with the life cycle cost of
an equivalent pump-and-treat system at the site showed that the ISCO treat-
ment was more economical in the long term.
Based on the lessons learned during the demonstration, the following recommenda-
tions can be made for future applications:
• It is imperative to delineate the boundaries of the DNAPL source zone. A
treatment such as oxidation also requires knowledge of the distribution of the
DNAPL in the source region. The ISCO treatment can be better targeted and
injections can be arranged suitably to mitigate any potential for DNAPL migra-
tion. A combination of monitoring well clusters with discrete screened intervals
and strategically located continuous soil cores are a good way of delineating the
source, in preparation for remedial design and treatment.
• If the DNAPL source boundaries can be identified with a fair degree of confi-
dence, an injection-only scheme should be applied in such a way that the
oxidant is first injected around the perimeter of the source, and then applied
progressively to inner regions. This will minimize the potential for DNAPL
migration. Alternatively, extraction wells can be used for better hydraulic
control, but this will involve additional costs for aboveground treatment and
reinjection/disposal of extracted fluids.
• For the portion of a DNAPL source that is under a building, the oxidant can be
more effectively distributed by locating injection points inside the building (in this
demonstration, this was not performed). This may create administrative difficul-
ties if the building is in use, but will lead to more effective source removal. Alter-
natively, angled injection points or injection-extraction schemes with injection at
one end of the building and extraction at another end could be considered.
• The native hydraulic gradient at this site is relatively flat, but the high injection
pressures that were used here and that were required to achieve a reasonable
radius of influence indicate that the native groundwater flow is not likely to play a
significant role in oxidant distribution on the localized scale of most DNAPL
XII
-------
zones. For schemes that rely on lower injection pressures, injection points
would have to be much more closely spaced and injections would have to start
much further upgradient to take advantage of the natural gradient and obtain
good coverage of the plot.
• One way of lowering oxidant injection pressures, if desirable at a site, may be to
inject lower concentrations of oxidant for a longer period of time. This will miti-
gate the potential for elevated trace metal levels in the groundwater during the
application, but may lead to higher operational costs.
• Sodium permanganate, which is commercially available as a concentrated
solution, may be used to ease the difficulties associated with the handling of a
solid oxidant (potassium permanganate).
• Additional research is required to elucidate the geochemistry of the oxidant-
aquifer-contaminant interactions, particularly the effects of the oxidant on native
organic matter and the effects of excessive chloride generation on underground
structures, such as monitoring wells or buildings. Additional research also is
required to evaluate further rebound of dissolved CVOC concentrations in the
long term and to evaluate the survival and regrowth of microbial populations in
the plot. These factors are important for natural attenuation of any residual
contamination following ISCO treatment.
XIII
-------
-------
Contents
Executive Summary v
Appendices xvii
Figures xviii
Tables xxi
Acronyms and Abbreviations xxiii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Project Background 1
1.1.1 The Interagency DNAPL Consortium 1
1.1.2 Performance Assessment 2
1.1.3 The SITE Program 3
1.2 The DNAPL Problem 3
1.3 The ISCO Technology 4
1.4 The Demonstration Site 4
1.5 Technology Evaluation Report Structure 6
2. Site Characterization 8
2.1 Hydrogeology of the Site 8
2.2 Surface Water Bodies at the Site 12
2.3 TCE/DNAPL Contamination in the ISCO Plot and Vicinity 14
2.4 Aquifer Quality/Geochemistry 19
2.5 Aquifer Microbiology 20
3. Technology Operation 21
3.1 ISCO Concept 21
3.2 Regulatory Requirements 21
3.3 Application of ISCO Technology at Launch Complex 34 21
3.3.1 ISCO Equipment and Setup 22
3.3.2 ISCO Field Operation 26
3.4 Health and Safety Issues 28
4. Performance Assessment Methodology 29
4.1 Estimating TCE/DNAPL Mass Removal 29
4.1.1 Linear Interpolation 32
4.1.2 Kriging 34
4.1.3 Interpreting the Results of the Two Mass Removal
Estimation Methods 34
4.2 Evaluating Changes in Aquifer Quality 34
4.3 Evaluating the Fate of the TCE/DNAPL Mass Removed 34
4.3.1 Geologic Background at Launch Complex 34 37
4.3.2 Semi-Confined Aquifer Well Installation Method 37
4.4 Verifying Operating Requirements and Costs 41
xv
-------
5. Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions 42
5.1 Estimating TCE/DNAPL Mass Removal 42
5.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Changes in TCE/DNAPL Distribution 42
5.1.2 TCE/DNAPL Mass Removal Estimation by Linear Interpolation 46
5.1.3 TCE Mass Removal Estimation by Kriging 51
5.1.4 TCE/DNAPL Mass Removal Summary 54
5.2 Evaluating Changes in Aquifer Quality 55
5.2.1 Changes in CVOC Levels in Groundwater 55
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer Geochemistry 60
5.2.3 Changes in the Hydraulic Properties of the Aquifer 62
5.2.4 Changes in Microbiology of ISCO Plot 63
5.2.5 Summary of Changes in Aquifer Quality 64
5.3 Evaluating the Fate of the TCE/DNAPL Mass Removed 65
5.3.1 DNAPL Destruction through Oxidation of TCE 65
5.3.2 Potential for DNAPL Migration from the ISCO Plot 68
5.3.3 Summary Evaluation of the Fate of TCE/DNAPL 75
5.4 Verifying Operating Requirements and Cost 77
6. Quality Assurance 78
6.1 QA Measures 78
6.1.1 Representativeness 78
6.1.2 Completeness 79
6.1.3 Chain of Custody 79
6.2 Field QC Measures 79
6.2.1 Field QC for Soil Sampling 79
6.2.2 Field QC for Groundwater Sampling 80
6.3 Laboratory QC Measures 81
6.3.1 Analytical QC for Soil Sampling 81
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for Groundwater Sampling 82
6.3.3 Analytical Detection Limits 82
6.4 QA/QC Summary 82
7. Economic Analysis 83
7.1 ISCO Treatment Costs 83
7.2 Site Preparation Costs 83
7.3 Site Characterization and Performance Assessment Costs 84
7.4 Present Value Analysis of ISCO and Pump-and-Treat System Costs 85
8. Technology Applications Analysis 86
8.1 Objectives 86
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 86
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 86
8.1.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act 86
8.1.2.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 87
8.1.2.3 Clean Water Act 87
8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act 87
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act 88
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 88
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 89
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 89
8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 89
8.1.6 Implementability 89
8.1.7 Cost 89
8.1.8 State Acceptance 90
8.1.9 Community Acceptance 90
8.2 Operability 90
XVI
-------
8.3 Applicable Wastes 90
8.4 Key Features 90
8.5 Availability/Transportability 90
8.6 Materials Handling Requirements 91
8.7 Ranges of Suitable Site Characteristics 91
8.8 Limitations 91
9. References 92
Appendices
Appendix A. Performance Assessment Methods
A.1 Statistical Design and Data Analysis Methods
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
Appendix B. Hydrogeologic Measurements
Appendix C. CVOC Measurements
C.1 CVOC Measurements in Groundwater
C.2 TCE Analysis of Additional Soil Cores outside the ISCO Plot
Appendix D. Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
Appendix E. Microbiological Assessment
Appendix F. Surface Emissions Testing
F.1 Surface Emission Test Methodology
F.2 Surface Emission Test Results
Appendix G. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
Appendix H. Economic Analysis Information
Appendix I. Technical Information for KMnO4 Used for the ISCO Demonstration
XVII
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the IDC Demonstration at Launch
Complex 34 2
Figure 1-2. Simplified Depiction of the Formation of a DNAPL Source Zone in
the Subsurface 3
Figure 1-3. In Situ Chemical Oxidation of a DNAPL Source Zone 4
Figure 1-4. Demonstration Site Location 5
Figure 1-5. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site at Cape Canaveral Air
Station 6
Figure 1-6. View Looking South towards Launch Complex 34, the Engineering
Support Building, and the Three Test Plots 7
Figure 2-1. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the Three Test Plots 9
Figure 2-2. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through ISCO Plot 9
Figure 2-3. Topography of Top of Middle Fine-Grained Unit 10
Figure 2-4. Topography of Bottom of Middle Fine-Grained Unit 11
Figure 2-5. Topography of Top of Lower Clay Unit 12
Figure 2-6. Water Table Elevation Map for Surficial Aquifer from June 1998 13
Figure 2-7. Predemonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Shallow
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 14
Figure 2-8. Predemonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Intermediate
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 15
Figure 2-9. Predemonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Deep Wells
at Launch Complex34 (September 1999) 15
Figure 2-10. Predemonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) in Shallow
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 16
Figure 2-11. Predemonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) in
Intermediate Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 16
Figure 2-12. Predemonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) in Deep
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 17
Figure 2-13. Predemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Upper Sand
Unit [-15±2.5ft msl] Soil at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 18
Figure 2-14. Predemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit [-20±2.5 ft msl] Soil at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999) 18
Figure 2-15. Predemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Lower Sand
Unit Unit [-35 ±2.5 ft msl] Soil at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999) 19
Figure 2-16. Vertical Cross Section through ISCO Plot Showing TCE Soil
Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Subsurface 20
XVIII
-------
Figure 3-1. The ISCO Plot and Monitoring Well Layout for Performance
Assessment 22
Figure 3-2. Aboveground Oxidant Handling System Installed at Launch
Complex 34 24
Figure 3-3. ISCO Setup at Launch Complex 34 Showing Permanganate
Storage Hopper and Mixer 25
Figure 3-4. Oxidant Preinjection Manifold 25
Figure 3-5. Schematic of the ISCO Injection Tip Used by the Vendor 25
Figure 3-6. Phase 1 Injection Locations and Radii of Influence of the Injected
Oxidant 27
Figure 4-1. Sampling for Performance Assessment at Launch Complex 34 29
Figure 4-2. Predemonstration Soil Coring Locations (SB-13 to SB-24) in ISCO
Plot (June 1999) 31
Figure 4-3. Postdemonstration Soil Coring Locations SB-213 to SB-224 in the
Test Plot (May 2000) (the corresponding extended monitoring soil
coring locations are similarly numbered SB-313 to SB-324
[February 2001]) 32
Figure 4-4. Outdoor Cone Penetrometer Test Rig for Soil Coring at Launch
Complex 34 33
Figure 4-5. Indoor Vibra-Push Rig (LD Geoprobe® Series) Used in the
Engineering Support Building 33
Figure 4-6. Collecting and Processing Groundwater Samples for Microbiological
Analysis 35
Figure 4-7. Surface Emissions Testing at Launch Complex 34 35
Figure 4-8. Location Map of Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells at Launch
Complex 34 36
Figure 4-9. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space
Center Area 37
Figure 4-10. Well Completion Detail for Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells 39
Figure 4-11. Pictures Showing (a) Installation of the Surface Casing and (b) the
Completed Dual-Casing Well 40
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During
Predemonstration, Postdemonstration, and Nine Months after the
Demonstration in the ISCO Plot Soil 43
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Predemonstration (June 1999) and (b)
Postdemonstration (May 2000) Horizontal Cross Sections of TCE
(mg/kg) in the Upper Sand Unit Soil 47
Figure 5-3. Representative (a) Predemonstration (June 1999) and
(b) Postdemonstration (May 2000) Horizontal Cross Sections of
TCE (mg/kg) in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit Soil 48
Figure 5-4. Representative (a) Predemonstration (June 1999) and
(b) Postdemonstration (May 2000) Horizontal Cross Sections of
TCE (mg/kg) in the Lower Sand Unit Soil 49
Figure 5-5. Three-Dimensional Distribution of DNAPL in the ISCO Plot Based
on (a) Predemonstration (June 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration
(May 2000) (mg/kg) Soil Sampling Events 50
Figure 5-6. Distribution of Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) in Shallow Wells
near the Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34
(May 2000) 51
XIX
-------
Figure 5-7. Distribution of Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) in Intermediate
Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34
(May 2000) 52
Figure 5-8. Distribution of Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) in Deep Wells
near the Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34
(May 2000) 53
Figure 5-9. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) during (a) Predemonstration
(August 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000) Sampling of
Shallow Wells 57
Figure 5-10. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) during (a) Predemonstration
(August 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000) Sampling of
Intermediate Wells 58
Figure 5-11. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) during (a) Predemonstration
(August 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000) Sampling of
Deep Wells 59
Figure 5-12. Representative Live/Dead Stain Analysis of Microorganisms in Soil
(green indicating live, red indicating dead, and yellow indicating
injured microorganisms) 64
Figure 5-13. Distribution of Chloride Produced by ISCO Technology in Shallow
Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34
(May 2000) 66
Figure 5-14. Distribution of Chloride Produced by ISCO Technology in
Intermediate Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch
Complex 34 (May 2000) 67
Figure 5-15. Distribution of Chloride Produced by ISCO Technology in Deep
Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34
(May 2000) 68
Figure 5-16. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000) 69
Figure 5-17. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000) 70
Figure 5-18. Water Levels Measured in Deep Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000) 70
Figure 5-19. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in
Shallow Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch
Complex 34 (April 2000) 71
Figure 5-20. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in
Intermediate Wells near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex 34 (April 2000) 72
Figure 5-21. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in
Deep Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch
Complex 34 (April 2000) 72
Figure 5-22. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Perimeter Wells on the
Northeastern Side of the ISCO Plot 73
Figure 5-23. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Perimeter Wells on the Southern
Side of the ISCO Plot 73
Figure 5-24. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Perimeter Wells on the Western
Side of the ISCO Plot 74
Figure 5-25. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Distant Wells on the Northwestern
Side of the ISCO Plot 74
xx
-------
Tables
Table 2-1. Local Hydrostratigraphy at the Launch Complex 34 Site 8
Table 2-2. Hydraulic Gradients and Directions in the Surficial and Semi-
Confined Aquifers 14
Table 3-1. ISCO Technology Demonstration Schedule 23
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated
Measurements 30
Table 4-2. Hydrostratigraphic Units of Brevard Country, Florida 38
Table 5-1. Linear Interpolation Estimates for the ISCO Demonstration 53
Table 5-2. Kriging Estimates for the ISCO Demonstration 54
Table 5-3. CVOC Concentrations in Groundwater from the ISCO Plot 55
Table 5-4. Predemonstration, Postdemonstration, and Extended Monitoring
Levels of Groundwater Parameters Indicative of Aquifer Quality 56
Table 5-5. Postdemonstration Concentrations of Trace Metals in Groundwater
at Launch Complex 34 versus the State of Florida Standards
(issued May 26, 1999) 62
Table 5-6. Contribution from the Industrial-Grade KMnO4 to Elevated Levels of
Trace Metals in the ISCO Plot 62
Table 5-7. Pre- and Postdemonstration Hydraulic Conductivity at ISCO Plot
Aquifer 63
Table 5-8. Geometric Mean of Microbial Counts in the ISCO Plot (Full Range
of Replicate Sample Analyses Given in Parentheses) 63
Table 5-9. Results for Surface Emission Tests 75
Table 5-10. Results of TCE Concentrations of Soil Analysis at Launch
Complex 34 76
Table 5-11. Results of CVOC Analysis in Groundwater from the Semi-Confined
Aquifer 76
Table 6-1. Instruments and Calibration Acceptance Criteria Used for Field
Measurements 79
Table 6-2. List of Surrogate and Matrix Spike Compounds and Their Target
Recoveries for Groundwater Analysis by the On-Site Laboratory 81
Table 6-3. List of Surrogate and Laboratory Control Sample Compounds and
Their Target Recoveries for Soil and Groundwater Analysis by the
Off-Site Laboratory 81
Table 7-1. ISCO Cost Summary Provided by Vendor 83
Table 7-2. Estimated Site Characterization Costs 84
Table 7-3. Estimated Performance Assessment Costs 84
XXI
-------
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
3-D three-dimensional
ACL alternative concentration limits
AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
bgs below ground surface
BOD biological oxygen demand
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CES Current Environmental Solutions
CPU colony forming units
CMT Core Management Team
CVOC chlorinated volatile organic compound
CWA Clean Water Act
DCE dichloroethylene
DNAPL dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid
DO dissolved oxygen
DoD (U.S.) Department of Defense
DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy
EM50 Environmental Management 50 (Program)
FDEP (State of) Florida Department of Environmental Protection
foc fraction organic carbon
FSU Florida State University
gpm gallon(s) per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IDC Interagency DNAPL Consortium
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council
Koc organic carbon partitioning coefficient
LCS laboratory control spikes
LCSD laboratory control spike duplicates
LRPCD Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
XXIII
-------
MCL maximum contaminant level
MS matrix spikes
MSD matrix spike duplicates
msl mean sea level
MSE MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
MTBE methyl-te/f-butyl ether
mV millivolts
MYA million years ago
NA not applicable/not available
N/A not analyzed
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ND not detected
NFESC Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PID photoionization detector
POTW publicly owned treatment works
ppb parts per billion
psig pounds per square inch gage
PV present value
PVC polyvinyl chloride
PVDF polyvinylidene fluoride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RPD relative percent difference
RSKERC R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center (of the U.S. EPA)
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (Program)
STL STL Environmental Services, Inc.
TCA trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
DIG Underground Injection Control (permit)
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOA volatile organic analysis
WSRC Westinghouse Savannah River Company
XXIV
-------
1. Introduction
This section introduces the project demonstration of in situ
chemical oxidation (ISCO) technology for remediation of
a dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) source zone
at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station, FL.
The section also summarizes the structure of this report.
1.1 Project Background
The goal of the project is to evaluate the technical and
cost performances of ISCO technology for remediation
of DNAPL source zones. The chlorinated volatile organic
compound (CVOC) trichloroethylene (TCE) is present in
the aquifer as a DNAPL source at Launch Complex 34.
Smaller amounts of dissolved c;s-1,2-dichloroethylene
(c/s-1,2-DCE) and vinyl chloride also are present in the
groundwater. The field demonstration of ISCO technol-
ogy started at Launch Complex 34 in September 1999
and ended in April 2000. Performance assessment activi-
ties were conducted before, during, and after the field
demonstration.
1.1.1 The Interagency DNAPL
Consortium
The ISCO demonstration is part of a larger demonstration
of three different DNAPL remediation technologies being
conducted at Launch Complex 34 with the combined
resources of several U.S. government agencies. The gov-
ernment agencies participating in this effort have formed
the Interagency DNAPL Consortium (IDC). The IDC is
composed primarily of the following agencies, which are
providing most of the funding for the demonstration:
• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental
Management 50 (EM50) Program
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Naval Facilities
Engineering Service Center (NFESC)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA).
In the initial stages of the project, until January 2000, the
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) was the DoD
representative on this consortium and provided signifi-
cant funding. NFESC replaced AFRL in March 2000. In
addition, the following organizations are participating in
the demonstration by reviewing project plans and data
documents, funding specific tasks, and/or promoting tech-
nology transfer:
• Patrick Air Force Base
• U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office and U.S.
EPA R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
(RSKERC)
• Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC).
Key representatives of the various agencies constituting
the IDC formed a Core Management Team (CMT),
which guided the progress of the demonstration. An
independent Technical Advisory Group was formed to
advise the Core Management Team on the technical
aspects of the site characterization and selection, reme-
diation technology selection and demonstration, and
performance assessment of the technologies. The Tech-
nical Advisory Group consisted of experts drawn from
industry, academia, and government.
The IDC contracted MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
(MSE), to conduct technology vendor selection, procure
the services of the three selected technology vendors,
and conduct the cost evaluation of the three technolo-
gies. The IT Corporation is the selected vendor for imple-
menting the ISCO technology at Launch Complex 34.
Current Environmental Solutions and Integrated Water
Resources, Inc., are the vendors for the resistive heating
and steam injection technologies, respectively. In addi-
tion, the IDC also contracted Westinghouse Savannah
River Company (WSRC) to conduct the preliminary site
-------
characterization for site selection, and Florida State
University (FSU) to coordinate site preparation and other
field arrangements for the demonstration. Figure 1-1
summarizes the project organization for the IDC demon-
stration.
1.1.2 Performance Assessment
The IDC contracted Battelle to plan and conduct the
detailed site characterization and an independent per-
formance assessment for the demonstration of the three
technologies. U.S. EPA and its contractor, TetraTech
EM, Inc., provided quality assurance (QA) oversight and
field support for the performance assessment activities.
Before the field demonstration, Battelle prepared a Qual-
ity Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that was reviewed by
all the project stakeholders. This QAPP was based on
the general guidelines provided by the U.S. EPA's SITE
Program for test plan preparation, quality assurance, and
data analysis (Battelle, 1999d). Once the demonstration
started, Battelle prepared six interim reports (Battelle
1999e, and f; Battelle 2000a, b, c, and d) for the IDC.
Technical Advisory Group
Independent Academic,
Governmental, and
Industrial Representatives
Core Management Team (CMT)
Skip Chamberlain, DOE
Tom Holdsworth, U.S. EPA - SITE
Chuck Reeter, Navy-NFESC
Jackie Quinn, NASA
Administrative Coordinator
Tom Early, ORNL
Jeff Douthitt, GeoConsultants, Inc.
Field Coordinator
Laymon Gray, FSU
Project Facilitators
Janice Imrich, Envirolssues, Inc.
Demonstration Coordinator
and Cost Estimator
Steve Antonioli, MSE
Technology Vendors
Wendy Leonard, IT (ISCO)
Michael Dodson, CES (Resistive Heating)
David Parkinson, IWR (Steam Injection)
Performance Assessment
Arun Gavaskar, Battelle
Tom Holdsworth, U.S. EPA- SITE
Stan Lynn, TetraTech EMI
Performance Assessment Subcontractors
John Reynolds, STL
Randy Robinson, Precision Sampling
D.H.Luu, DHL Analytical
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the IDC Demonstration at Launch Complex 34
-------
1.1.3 The SITE Program
The performance assessment planning, field implemen-
tation, and data analysis and reporting for the ISCO
demonstration followed the general guidance provided
by the U.S. EPA's SITE Program. The SITE Program was
established by U.S. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) in response to the 1986 Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act, which recognized
a need for an "Alternative or Innovative Treatment
Technology Research and Demonstration Program."
ORD's National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in the Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
(LRPCD), headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, administers
the SITE Program. The SITE Program encourages the
development and implementation of (1) innovative treat-
ment technologies for hazardous waste site remediation,
and (2) innovative monitoring and measurement tools.
In the SITE Program, a field demonstration is used to
gather engineering and cost data on the innovative tech-
nology so that potential users can assess the technol-
ogy's applicability to a particular site. Data collected dur-
ing the field demonstration are used to assess the per-
formance of the technology, the potential need for pre-
and postprocessing of the waste, applicable types of
wastes and waste matrices, potential operating prob-
lems, and approximate capital and operating costs.
U.S. EPA provides guidelines on the preparation of an
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report at the end of
the field demonstration. These reports evaluate all avail-
able information on the technology and analyze its over-
all applicability to other site characteristics, waste types,
and waste matrices. Testing procedures, performance
and cost data, and quality assurance and quality stand-
ards also are presented. This IDC report on the ISCO
technology demonstration at Launch Complex 34 is
based on these general guidelines.
1.2 The DNAPL Problem
Figure 1-2 illustrates the formation of a DNAPL source at
a chlorinated solvent release site. When solvent is
released into the ground due to previous use or disposal
practices, it travels downward through the vadose zone
to the water table. Because many chlorinated solvents
are denser than water, the solvent continues its down-
ward migration through the saturated zone (assuming
sufficient volume of solvent is involved) until it encounters
a low-permeability layer or aquitard, on which it may form
a pool. During its downward migration, the solvent leaves
a trace of residual solvent in the soil pores. Many chlori-
nated solvents are only sparingly soluble in water; there-
fore, they can persist as a separate phase for several
Spill
—
^} source
3J
Plume
DNAPL Pool
Figure 1-2. Simplified Depiction of the Formation
of a DNAPL Source Zone in the
Subsurface
years (or decades). This free-phase solvent is called
DNAPL.
DNAPL in pools often can be mobilized towards extrac-
tion wells when a strong hydraulic gradient is imposed;
this solvent is called mobile DNAPL. Residual DNAPL
can be DNAPL that can be trapped in pores and cannot
be mobilized towards extraction wells, regardless of how
strong the applied gradient. DNAPL pools may dissolve
in the groundwater flow over time, leaving behind resid-
ual DNAPL. At most sites, DNAPL pools are rare, as
DNAPL is often present in residual form.
As long as DNAPL is present in the aquifer, a plume of
dissolved solvent is generated. DNAPL therefore consti-
tutes a secondary source that keeps replenishing the
plume long after the primary source (leaking aboveground
or buried drums, drain pipes, vadose zone soil, etc.) has
been removed. Because DNAPL persists for many dec-
ades or centuries, the resulting plume also persists for
many years. As recently as five years ago, DNAPL
sources were difficult to find and most remedial ap-
proaches focused on plume treatment or plume control.
In recent years, many chlorinated solvent-contaminated
sites have been successful in identifying DNAPL sources,
or at least identifying enough indicators of DNAPL. The
focus is now shifting from plume control to DNAPL
source removal or treatment.
Pump-and-treat systems have been the conventional
treatment approach at DNAPL sites and these systems
have proved useful as an interim remedy to control the
progress of the plume beyond a property boundary or
other compliance point. However, pump-and-treat sys-
tems are not economical for DNAPL remediation. Pools
-------
of DNAPL, which can be pumped and treated above
ground, are rare. Residual DNAPL is immobile and does
not migrate towards extraction wells. As with plume con-
trol, the effectiveness and cost of DNAPL remediation
with pump and treat is governed by the time (decades)
required for slow dissolution of the DNAPL source in the
groundwater flow. An innovative approach is required to
address the DNAPL problem.
1.3 The ISCO Technology
Figure 1-3 illustrates the in situ application of a chemical
oxidant for remediation of a DNAPL source zone. This
innovative technology is based on the ability of strong
oxidants to react with and destroy several types of
DNAPL contaminants. Common chemicals with high
oxidation potential that have been used to treat DNAPL
zones are Fenton's reagent and potassium permanga-
nate (Watts et al., 1990; Vella et al., 1990; Gates et al.,
1995; Siegrist et al., 2001). Notably, the DNAPL consti-
tuents most susceptible to oxidation by potassium per-
manganate are Cl-alkenes. Treatment of CVOCs with
oxidants has been used historically for drinking water
and wastewater treatment, but the in situ use of these
oxidants for DNAPL source treatment is relatively new.
Equation 1-1 illustrates how a common contaminant,
TCE, would react with (and be destroyed by) potassium
permanganate.
2KMnO4 + C2HCI3 ^
2C02 + 2Mn02 (s) + 2K+ + H+ + 3d
(1-1)
Mixer
Injection Well
DNAPL Pool
Figure 1-3. In Situ Chemical Oxidation of a DNAPL
Source Zone
TCE is oxidized to potentially nontoxic byproducts, such
as carbon dioxide, manganese dioxide (solid), and chlo-
ride. In the absence of other organic matter, the reaction
is second order and the rate is governed by the concen-
trations of both TCE and MnO4 ion.
In an aquifer setting, permanganate also reacts with
other reduced species, including native organic matter.
The natural organic matter in an aquifer competes with
the contaminant for consuming the oxidant. Therefore,
the amount of oxidant required to sweep an aquifer
depends on the characteristics of both the contaminants
and the aquifer. Also, geologic heterogeneities may limit
the degree of contact achievable between the oxidant
and the contaminant. In this respect, a longer-lived oxi-
dant, such as permanganate, has some advantage over
a short-lived oxidant, such as the hydroxyl free radical
created from Fenton's reagent. Because permanganate
does not degrade as quickly as the hydroxyl free radical,
it can potentially sweep longer distances around the
injection point and persist long enough to diffuse slowly
into more isolated pores. In addition, KMnO4 oxidation is
a redox reaction that is relatively effective over a wide
pH range, thus making it suitable for the alkaline sub-
surface conditions in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer.
Therefore, potassium permanganate was selected as
the oxidant in the IDC demonstration.
When permanganate is applied in an injection-only
mode, as was done in this demonstration, extraction of
the injected fluids and their subsequent treatment and
disposal/reinjection is not required. Therefore, ISCO has
a potential advantage over technologies that rely on
enhanced mobilization, capture, and aboveground treat-
ment of DNAPL contaminants. One concern with in situ
application of permanganate has been related to the
generation of manganese dioxide, a solid that could
build up in the aquifer and potentially cause plugging of
pores. Another concern has been the spread of dis-
solved manganese (Mn2+), a reduced species that is
generated from manganese (Mn4+) dioxide, if and when
the oxidative environment reverts to a reducing envi-
ronment. Dissolved manganese is subject to a second-
ary (nonhealth-based) drinking water standard. A third
concern relates to the potential for release of regulated
metals from the aquifer formation under strong oxidizing
conditions. These concerns were evaluated during the
demonstration.
1.4 The Demonstration Site
Launch Complex 34, the site selected for this demonstra-
tion, is located at Cape Canaveral Air Station, FL (see
Figure 1-4). Launch Complex 34 was used as a launch
site for Saturn rockets from 1960 to 1968. Historical
-------
Launch Complex34, CapeCanaveral Air Station
InteragencyDNAPL Source Remediation Project
G004D65-32 PM: WL PE: EMS 04/01
Figure 1-4. Demonstration Site Location
-------
records and worker accounts suggest that rocket engines
were cleaned on the launch pad with chlorinated organic
solvents such as TCE. Other rocket parts were cleaned
on racks at the western portion of the Engineering Sup-
port Building and inside the building. Some of the sol-
vents ran off to the surface or discharged into drainage
pits. The site was abandoned in 1968 and since that
time much of the site has been overgrown by vegetation,
although several on-site buildings remain operational.
Preliminary site characterization efforts suggested that
approximately 20,600 kg (Battelle, 1999a) to 40,000 kg
(Eddy-Dilek et al., 1998) of solvent could be present in
the subsurface near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex 34. Figure 1-5 is a map of the Launch
Complex 34 site at Cape Canaveral that shows the
target DNAPL source area, located in the northern vicin-
ity of the Engineering Support Building. The DNAPL
source zone was large enough that the IDC and the
Technical Advisory Group could assign three separate
test plots encompassing different parts of this source
zone. Figure 1-5 also shows the layout of the three test
plots along the northern edge of the Engineering Support
Building at Launch Complex 34. The ISCO plot is the
easternmost of these plots. Figure 1-6 is a photograph
looking southward towards the three test plots and the
Engineering Support Building. All three test plots lie
partly under the Engineering Support Building in order to
encompass the portion of the DNAPL source under the
building.
1.5 Technology Evaluation Report
Structure
The ISCO technology evaluation report starts with an
introduction to the project organization, the DNAPL prob-
lem, the technology demonstrated, and the demonstration
site (Section 1). The rest of the report is organized as
follows:
IW-15 „
Explanation
Existing Monitoring V\fell
Cluster
Wo Deaonatol
60
^
Scale inFeet
Figure 1-5. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site at Cape Canaveral Air Station
-------
Engineering Support Building (ESB)
Figure 1-6. View Looking South towards Launch Complex 34, the Engineering Support Building, and
the Three Test Plots
• Site Characterization (Section 2)
• Technology Operation (Section 3)
• Performance Assessment Methodology (Section 4)
• Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions
(Section 5)
• Quality Assurance (Section 6)
• Economic Analysis (Section 7)
• Technology Applications Analysis (Section 8)
• References (Section 9).
Supporting data and other information are presented in
the appendices to the report. The appendices are orga-
nized as follows:
Performance Assessment Methods (Appendix A)
Hydrogeologic Measurements (Appendix B)
CVOC Measurements (Appendix C)
Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
(Appendix D)
Microbiological Assessment (Appendix E)
Surface Emissions Testing (Appendix F)
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Information (Appendix G)
Economic Analysis Information (Appendix H)
Technical Information for KMnO4 Used for the ISCO
Demonstration (Appendix I).
-------
2. Site Characterization
This section provides a summary of the hydrogeology
and chemistry of the site based on the data compilation
report (Battelle, 1999a), the additional site characteriza-
tion report (Battelle, 1999b), and the predemonstration
characterization report (Battelle, 1999c).
2.1 Hydrogeology of the Site
A surficial aquifer and a semi-confined aquifer comprise
the major aquifers in the Launch Complex 34 area, as
described in Table 2-1. The surficial aquifer extends
from the water table to approximately 45 ft below ground
surface (bgs) in the Launch Complex 34 area. A clay
semi-confining unit separates the surficial aquifer from
the underlying confined aquifer.
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 are geologic cross sections, one
along the northwest-southeast (NW-SE) direction across
the middle of the three test plots and the other along the
southwest-northeast (SW-NE) direction across the
middle of the ISCO plot. As seen in these figures, the
surficial aquifer is subclassified as having an Upper
Sand Unit, a Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and a Lower
Sand Unit. The Upper Sand Unit extends from ground
surface to approximately 20 to 26 ft bgs and consists of
unconsolidated, gray fine sand and shell fragments. The
Middle Fine-Grained Unit is a layer of gray, fine-grained
silty/clayey sand that exists between about 26 and 36 ft
bgs. In general, this unit contains soil that is finer-
grained than the Upper Sand Unit and Lower Sand Unit,
and varies in thickness from about 10 to 15ft. The
Middle Fine-Grained Unit is thicker in the northern por-
tions of the test plots and appears to become thinner in
the southern and western portions of the test area
(under the Engineering Support Building and in the
resistive heating plot). Below the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit is the Lower Sand Unit, which consists of gray fine
to medium-sized sand and shell fragments. The unit con-
tains isolated fine-grained lenses of silt and/or clay. Fig-
ure 2-2 shows a stratigraphic cross section through the
demonstration area. The lithologies of thin, very coarse,
shell zones were encountered in several units. These
zones probably are important as reservoirs for DNAPL.
A 1.5- to 3-ft-thick semi-confining layer exists at approxi-
mately 45 ft bgs in the Launch Complex 34 area. The
layer consists of greenish-gray sandy clay. The semi-
confining unit (i.e., the Lower Clay Unit) was encoun-
tered in all borings across the Launch Complex 34 site,
and it appears to be a pervasive unit. However, the clay
unit is fairly thin (around 1.5 ft thick) in some areas,
especially under the resistive heating plot. Site charac-
terization data (Battelle, 1999a and b; Eddy-Dilek et al.,
1998) suggest that the surfaces of the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit and the Lower Clay Unit are somewhat
uneven (see Figures 2-3 to 2-5). The Lower Clay Unit
slopes downward toward the southern part of all three
test plots and toward the center plot and the building
(Battelle, 2001).
Table 2-1. Local Hydrostratigraphy at the Launch Complex 34 Site
Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Aquifer' Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Lower Sand Unit
Lower Clay Unit (Semi-Confining Unit)
Thickness
(ft)
20-26
10-15
15-20
1.5-3
Sediment Description
Gray fine sand and shell fragments
Gray, fine-grained silty/clayey sand
Gray fine to medium-sized sand and shell
fragments
Greenish-gray sandy clay
Aquifer Unit Description
Unconfined, direct recharge from surface
Low-permeability, semi-confining layer
Semi-confined
Thin low-permeability semi-confining unit
Semi-Confined Aquifer
>40
*""' """* "*
Semi-confined, brackish
-------
Location Map of Transect
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Technology
Demonstration
Plots
Figure 2-1. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the Three Test Plots
Location Map of Transect
Middle Fine-Grained
Unit
Technology
Demonstration
Plots
dBafleoe
- Putting Technology To
Figure 2-2. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through ISCO Plot
-------
Top of Middle Fine-Grained Unit (ft amsl)
' ( I /*
-J i _. ^i—^ jr / ,
-"5*1 \ «f4'3 X /
RESISTIVE ^|V\
* X /
S^ HEATING ^
TLI.I
Coordinole Information:
Florida Slale Plane (East Zone 0901 -
ft.
t Battelle
. Putting Technology To Work
Figure 2-3.
_ . TL i -^ ii, _j tKA-IWl
. ,. Putting Technology To Work - -\ ^
Topography of Top of Middle Fine-Grained Unit
The semi-confined aquifer underlies the Lower Clay Unit.
The aquifer consists of gray fine to medium-sized sand,
clay, and shell fragments during the investigation to the
aquifer below the Lower Clay Unit (Battelle 2001). Water
levels from wells in the aquifer were measured at approxi-
mately 4 to 5 ft bgs. Few cores were advanced below the
semi-confined aquifer. The thickness of the semi-confined
aquifer is between 40 ft and 120 ft.
Water-level surveys were performed in the surficial aqui-
fer in May 1997, December 1997, June 1998, October
1998, and March 1999. Water table elevations in the
surficial aquifer were between about 1 and 5 ft mean sea
level (msl). In general, the surveys suggest that water
levels form a radial pattern with highest elevations near
the Engineering Support Building. Figure 2-6 shows a
water-table map of June 1998. The gradient and flow
directions vary over time at the site. Table 2-2 summa-
rizes the hydraulic gradients and their directions near the
Engineering Support Building. The gradient ranged from
0.00009 to 0.0007 ft/ft. The flow direction varied from
north-northeast to south-southwest.
Predemonstration water-level measurements in all three
surficial aquifer zones — Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-
Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit — indicate a rela-
tively flat hydraulic gradient in the localized setting of the
three test plots, as seen in Figures 2-7 to 2-9 (Battelle,
1999c). On a regional scale, mounding of water levels
near the Engineering Support Building generates a radial
gradient; the regional gradient across the test plots is
weak and appears to be toward the northeast (see
Figure 2-6). Probable discharge points for the aquifer
include wetland areas, the Atlantic Ocean, and/or the
10
-------
Bottom of Middle Fine-Grained Unit (ft amsl)
'B?3l >\\^<
-2WJ ( \\-^.
\
\'B4 /INJECTION
CoordSnole Inforn-ialion:
Honda Slcrte Plane (Cosl Zone 0901 - NAD27)
Figure 2-4. Topography of Bottom of Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Banana River. Water levels from wells screened in the
Lower Sand Unit usually are slightly higher than the
water levels from the Upper Sand Unit and/or the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit. The flow system may be influenced
by local recharge events, resulting in the variation in the
gradients. Recharge to the surficial aquifer is from
infiltration of precipitation through surface soils to the
aquifer.
In general, predemonstration slug tests show that the
Upper Sand Unit is more permeable than the underlying
units, with hydraulic conductivity ranging from 4.0 to
5.1 ft/day in the shallow wells at the site (Battelle,
1999c). The hydraulic conductivity of the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit ranges from 1.4 to 6.4 ft/day in the inter-
mediate wells; measured conductivities probably are
higher than the actual conductivity of the unit because
the well screens include portions of the Upper Sand Unit.
The hydraulic conductivity of the Lower Sand Unit
ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 ft/day. Porosity averaged 0.26 in
the Upper Sand Unit, 0.34 in the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit, 0.29 in the Lower Sand Unit, and 0.44 in the Lower
Clay Unit. The bulk density of the aquifer materials aver-
aged 1.59 g/cm3 (Battelle, 1999b). Groundwater temper-
atures ranged from 22.4 to 25.7°C during a March 1999
survey.
Water level surveys in the semi-confined aquifer were
performed in December 1997, June 1998, and October
1998. Water table elevations were measured at approxi-
mately 1 to 5 ft msl, and formed a pattern similar to the
pattern formed by surficial aquifer water levels. Ground-
water elevations in the semi-confined aquifer are above
the semi-confining unit. The gradient in the semi-confined
11
-------
Top of Clay Unit (ft amsl)
/ / RESISTIVE
HEATING
•s/35.79 ,
V /7
W* /INJECTION
/*;>[> / "_/—<*-^-<5-0
-N
>•. . \ , t
H. \
rtti
Coordinole Irjforrnalion:
Florida Slole Plane (Cosl Zone 090'
Banelle
. . Putting Technology To Work
Figure 2-5. Topography of Top of Lower Clay Unit
aquifer is positioned in a similar direction to the surficial
aquifer. The flow direction varies from east to south-
southwest. In general, water levels in the aquifer below
the Lower Clay Unit are higher than those in the surficial
aquifer, suggesting an upward vertical gradient. Recharge
to the aquifer may occur by downward leakage from
overlying aquifers or from direct infiltration inland where
the aquifer is unconfined. Schmalzer and Hinkle (1990)
suggest that saltwater intrusion may occur in intermedi-
ate aquifers such as the semi-confined aquifer.
Other notable hydrologic influences at the site include
drainage and recharge. Paved areas, vegetation, and
topography affect drainage in the area. No streams exist
in the site area. Engineered drainage at the site consists
of ditches that lead to the Atlantic Ocean or swampy
areas. Permeable soils exist from the ground surface to
the water table and drainage is excellent. Water infil-
trates directly to the water table.
2.2 Surface Water Bodies at the Site
The major surface water body in the area is the Atlantic
Ocean, located to the east of Launch Complex 34. To
determine the effects of surface water bodies on the
groundwater system, water levels were monitored in
12 piezometers over 50 hours for a tidal influence study
during Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Facility Investigation (RFI) activities (G&E Engineering,
Inc., 1996). All the piezometers used in the study were
screened in the surficial aquifer. No detectable effects
from the tidal cycles were measured, suggesting that the
surficial aquifer and the Atlantic Ocean are not well
connected hydraulically. However, the Atlantic Ocean
12
-------
1522200
1522100
1522000
1521900
1521600
1521700
1521600
1521500
1521400
1521300
1521200
795600
795800
796000
796200
796600
796SOO
797000
ybouu /y/uuu i\
\\\ \v\\\\\\l
•J •J- u>u-^\rixV\lll
"%. c' '"2, '% '* v1 '•* t5 ^ T0 vi r° ^ ^
797200
Wl.hWa_OXY_FINALCPR
* Meosurement Location
PZ-13 ID
4.2 Waler Table Elevation (ft)
Contour Line (0.02 ft inlerval)
Contour Line (0,10 f1 interval)
Demonstration Plot Boundaries
0 100
Projection Information:
Florida State Plane Coordinate System (East Zone)
» Con-touring hos been ex-)ropolo)ed from naor»«t doto points surrounding the map area.
lleaireiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
Battelle, Columbus OH
Dafe: 11/09/98
Script: wlcoo1our_98.sh
Figure 2-6. Water Table Elevation Map for Surficial Aquifer from June 1998
-------
Table 2-2. Hydraulic Gradients and Directions in the
Surficial and Semi-Confined Aquifers
Hydrostratigraphic
Unit
Surficial Aquifer
Semi-Confined
Aquifer
Sampling Date
May 1997
December 1997
June 1998
October 1998
March 1999
December 1997
June 1998
October 1998
Hydraulic
Gradient
0.00009
0.0001
0.0006
0.0007
undefined
0.0008
0.0005
0.00005
Gradient
Direction
SW
ssw
WNW
NNE
undefined
S
E
SSW
and the Banana River seem to act as hydraulic barriers
or sinks, as groundwater likely flows toward these sur-
face water bodies and discharges into them.
2.3 TCE/DNAPL Contamination in the
ISCO Plot and Vicinity
Figures 2-10 to 2-12 show representative predemonstra-
tion distributions of TCE, the primary contaminant at
Launch Complex 34, in the shallow, intermediate, and
deep wells, installed during the site characterization, to
correspond with the hydrostratigraphic units: Upper Sand
Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit
(Battelle, 1999c), respectively. No free-phase solvent was
observed in any of the wells during the predemonstration
sampling; however, groundwater analysis in many wells
shows TCE at levels near or above its solubility, indicat-
ing the presence of DNAPL at the site. Lower levels of
c;s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride are also present in the
aquifer, indicating some historical natural attenuation of
TCE. Groundwater sampling indicates that the highest
levels of TCE are in the Lower Sand Unit (deep wells)
and closer to the Engineering Support Building.
Figures 2-13 to 2-15 show representative predemonstra-
tion horizontal distributions of TCE in soil from the Upper
Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and Lower Sand
Unit, respectively (Battelle, 1999c). TCE levels are high-
est in the Lower Sand Unit and concentrations indicative
of DNAPL extend under the building. As seen in the
vertical cross section in Figure 2-16, much of the DNAPL
is present in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and the Lower
Sand Unit.
SHALLOW
WELLS
.RESISTIVE.
/ HEATING
&
/ / >•
STEAM
', INJECTION/ /
/
* ^
•
.
. • ,
rrn
Fionas Sioif Plaft* (Eosi 2t>nt 0901 - NA027)
IIBaneiie
rigfi TfrhnJagf lii VitoA
Figure 2-7. Predemonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Shallow Wells at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999)
14
-------
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
RESISTIVE
N.HEATING/ /
/ /
•x ' '
• ^"X /
PA-111 X.*
2.n \
Figure 2-8. Predemonstration Water Levels (as Elevations
msl) in Intermediate Wells at Launch Complex
34 (September 1999)
Figure 2-9. Predemonstration Water Levels (as Elevations
msl) in Deep Wells at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999)
-------
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
SHALLOW
WELLS
10.000 -100.000
100,000-SOO .000
KU.OOO -1.100.000
1.100.000
Figure 2-10. Predemonstration Dissolved TCE
Concentrations (|jg/L) in Shallow Wells at
Launch Complex 34 (September 1999)
Figure 2-11. Predemonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations
(|jg/L) in Intermediate Wells at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999)
-------
DEEP
WELLS
| ] LOOP . 10,000
[ 1Q.OW -100.000
1100.000 -600.000
i.MO -1.100.000
1.100.000
i.oeo.opo BAT-10
BAT-2H, 130.000
1.160.000
PA-4D
Figure 2-12. Predemonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) in Deep Wells at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999)
The predemonstration soil sampling indicated that be-
tween 6,217 and 9,182 kg of TCE was present in the
ISCO plot before the demonstration (see Section 5.1.3).
Approximately 5,039 kg of this TCE may occur as
DNAPL, based on a threshold TCE concentration of
about 300 mg/kg in the soil (see Section 5.1.2). This
threshold is determined as the maximum TCE concen-
tration in the dissolved and adsorbed phases in the
Launch Complex 34 soil; it was calculated based on
properties of the TCE and the subsurface media (the
porosity, organic matter content of the soil, etc.) as
follows:
r Cyvater (^dPb
°sat
Pb
(2-1)
where C
sat
Pb
n
maximum TCE concentration in the
dissolved and adsorbed phases
(mg/kg)
TCE solubility (mg/L) = 1,100
bulk density of soil (g/cm3) = 1.59
porosity (unitless) = 0.3
Kd = partitioning coefficient of TCE in soil
[(mg/kg)/(mg/L)], equal to (foc • Koc)
foc = fraction organic carbon (unitless)
KOC = organic carbon partition coefficient
[(mg/kg)/(mg/L)].
TCE with concentrations below the threshold value of
300 mg/kg was considered dissolved phase; at or above
this threshold, the TCE was considered to be DNAPL.
The 300-mg/kg figure is a conservative estimate and
takes into account the minor variability in the aquifer char-
acteristics, such as porosity, bulk density, and organic
carbon content. The native organic carbon content of the
Launch Complex 34 soil is relatively low and the
threshold TCE concentration is driven by the solubility of
TCE in the porewater.
In Figures 2-13 to 2-16, the colors yellow to red indicate
presence of DNAPL. As described in Section 4.1.1, con-
touring software from Earth Vision™ was used to divide
the plot into isoconcentration shells. A total TCE mass
was obtained from multiplying the TCE concentration in
each shell by: (1) the volume of the shell; and (2) the
17
-------
MIDDLE FINE-GRAINED UNIT
Explanation:
concentration mig'-;g
I I 100 - 3M
I I ao -1.008
^B i »j • •:•-BO
^B •:. M - .5-y..
^B
UPPER SAND UNIT
FEE1
alf Informollcjfl:
(Eo»I 7or,» OSOl - Ndpi?)
:.• '. i'..'jt Kia,^!^^^!^!!!.!!™^.;!^!
Figure 2-13. Predemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg)
in the Upper Sand Unit [-15±2.5 ft msl] Soil at
Launch Complex 34 (September 1999)
Figure 2-14. Predemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg)
in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit [-20±2.5 ft msl]
Soil at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999)
-------
LOWER SAND UNIT
ctt
Infmmollori;
tole Wont (Eosl lor* 0901 - N«pS7)
iffigy To Uivt adt_d>efnj]«»dB«no_max'-COR
Figure 2-15. Predemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Lower Sand Unit Unit [-35 ±2.5 ft msl] Soil
at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999)
bulk density of the soil. To determine the DNAPL mass
in the plot, the TCE mass in the shells containing con-
centrations greater than 300 mg/kg was used. Section
5.1 contains a more detailed description of the TCE/
DNAPL mass estimation procedures for the ISCO plot.
2.4 Aquifer Quality/Geochemistry
Appendix A.3 lists the various aquifer parameters mea-
sured and the standard methods used to analyze them.
Appendix D contains the results of the predemonstration
groundwater analysis. Predemonstration groundwater
field parameters were measured in several wells in the
demonstration area in August 1999 (Battelle, 1999c).
The pH was relatively constant with depth, and ranged
from 7.0 to 7.6. Measured dissolved oxygen (DO) levels
were mostly less than 1 mg/L in deep wells, indicat-
ing that the aquifer was anaerobic. Oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP) from all the sampled wells ranged from
-165 to -22 millivolts (mV). Total organic carbon (TOC)
concentrations in soil samples ranged from 0.9 to 1.7%
dry weight basis; some of this TOC might be attributed to
DNAPL, as the samples were collected from the DNAPL
source region.
Inorganic groundwater parameters were tested in August
1999 in selected wells to determine the predemonstra-
tion quality of the groundwater in the target area (Battelle,
1999c). Inorganic parameters of the groundwater in the
surficial aquifer at Launch Complex 34 are summarized
as follows:
• Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations
increased sharply with depth, suggesting that the
water becomes more brackish with depth. The TDS
levels ranged from 387 to 1,550 mg/L. Chloride
concentrations ranged from 38 to 752 mg/L and
increased sharply with depth, indicating some salt-
water intrusion in the deeper layers. These high
levels of chloride made a chloride mass balance
difficult during the performance assessment.
• Alkalinity levels ranged from 204 to 323 mg/L and
showed little trend with depth or distance.
19
-------
Upper Sand Unit
Location Map of Transect
Middle Find-Grained Unit
exaggeration: 4.0
tetmuth: 4i'.4
Inclination: 0.2
Lower Sand Unit
Lower Clay Unit
Technology
Demonstration
Plots
QBaneoe
. .. Putting Trrhntjlogy 7b \
Figure 2-16. Vertical Cross Section through ISCO Plot Showing TCE Soil Concentrations (mg/kg) in the
Subsurface
• Iron concentrations ranged from <0.05 to 2.5 mg/L
in the groundwater, and manganese concentrations
ranged from <0.015 to 1.1 mg/L with little vertical or
lateral trend.
• Calcium concentrations ranged from 41 to 88 mg/L
and magnesium concentrations ranged from 53 to
84 mg/L.
• Sulfate concentrations were between 29 and
138 mg/L and showed no discernable trends.
Nitrate concentrations were below detection.
2.5 Aquifer Microbiology
A separate exploratory microbiological study was con-
ducted in the predemonstration, postdemonstration, and
one-year after the demonstration in the ISCO plot under
a Work Plan prepared by Battelle and Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (Hazen et al., 2000). The approach
and results of this study are presented in Appendix E.
20
-------
3. Technology Operation
This section describes how ISCO technology was imple-
mented at Launch Complex 34.
3.1 ISCO Concept
In an in situ application (see Figure 1-3 and Section 1.3),
a chemical oxidant is injected in the subsurface, where it
contacts target contaminants and oxidizes them. The
main advantage of this technology is that, in many cases,
target contaminants can be oxidized to potentially non-
toxic products in the ground itself. The benefits of chem-
ical oxidation have been known in the drinking water and
wastewater treatment industry for many years. ISCO
technology has emerged as a promising option for in situ
treatment of contaminated aquifers, especially DNAPL
source zones. The oxidant used during the demonstra-
tion at Launch Complex 34 was industrial-grade potas-
sium permanganate. The stoichiometric reaction of per-
manganate with TCE, the primary contaminant at the
site, is shown in Equation 3-1.
2KMn04 + C2HCI3 ^ ^
2CO2 + 2MnO2 + 2K+ + H+ + 3Cr
3.2 Regulatory Requirements
Prior to the injection of chemical oxidants such as
KMnO4 into the subsurface, an Underground Injection
Control (UIC) permit is required, as the potassium per-
manganate injection may generate byproducts that tem-
porarily exceed drinking water standards. Elevated levels
of trace metals were expected in the treated aquifer,
given the fact that these metals were present as minor
components in the industrial-grade potassium perman-
ganate. For the permanganate demonstration at Launch
Complex 34, a variance was obtained from the State of
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
3.3 Application of ISCO Technology
at Launch Complex 34
In the IDC demonstration, potassium permanganate was
used for in situ oxidation of a DNAPL source zone con-
sisting primarily of TCE. Lesser amounts of c/s-1,2-DCE
are also present in the aquifer at Launch Complex 34.
For the purpose of the demonstration, the relatively large
source zone was divided into three test plots for three
different technology applications. The 75-ft x 50-ft test
plot assigned to the ISCO technology is shown in Figure
3-1 and is referred to as the ISCO plot. The ISCO and
resistive heating technology demonstrations were con-
ducted concurrently in the two outer plots, which are
separated by about 80 ft. The steam injection demon-
stration will be conducted later.
In their final report (IT Corporation, 2000) on the IDC
demonstration, the vendor provided a detailed descrip-
tion of their ISCO equipment, injection methodology, and
process measurements. A summary description of the
ISCO process implemented by the vendor at Launch
Complex 34 follows in this section. Table 3-1 includes a
chronology of events constituting the ISCO demonstra-
tion and an inventory of the volume of 1 to 2% potassium
permanganate solution injected and the mass of KMnO4
consumed. The industrial-grade KMnO4 contains less
than 1 % of minor impurities (see Appendix I).
The field application of the technology was conducted
over a period of 8 months from September 8, 1999 to
April 17, 2000. The vendor conducted the field appli-
cation relatively efficiently, without significant downtime.
Because the field system did not involve any complex
equipment, maintenance requirements were minimal.
This period includes an unexpected interruption from
September 13 to 20 due to hurricanes. Other than the
hurricanes, the main interruptions were the time intervals
between the three series of oxidant injections; these time
intervals were used by the vendor to monitor the effec-
tiveness of the oxidant distribution within the plot and by
Battelle and the vendor to monitor the degree of interim
TCE removal from the plot. The vendor used these breaks
to plan each successive series of oxidant injections.
21
-------
PA-5
'.
Explanation:
+ 2" Diameter - SS (1 '-6' below clay layer)
• Eoriiiy Location
• Well Location
S Shallow
I Intermediate 0
D Deep L_
Test Plot Boundaries
25
50
FEET
Figure 3-1. The ISCO Plot and Monitoring Well Layout for Performance Assessment
3.3.1 ISCO Equipment and Setup
Figure 3-2 shows a schematic of the aboveground oxi-
dant handling system installed in and around the ISCO
plot. Starting with solid potassium permanganate deliv-
ered to the site by Cams Chemical Company, Inc.
(Cams), the vendor prepared and injected a 1.4 to 2%
permanganate solution in the plot. The permanganate
injection concentration used was the highest that the
vendor projected they could use without causing trace
metal levels to increase significantly in the aquifer. Cams
also designed and supplied a continuous mix and auto-
mated feed system for the demonstration. The feed sys-
tem consisted of a portable dry bulk hopper to store and
feed solid permanganate to the mixer, where hydrant
water was added to make the desired injection solution.
A single delivery consisted of 45,000 Ib of free-flowing-
grade permanganate that was transferred to the hopper
by a solids blower (see Appendix I). (The permanganate
was manufactured in July 1998 by Cams, and delivered
from Cams' lot No. 20.) An auger screw conveyor trans-
ferred the permanganate from the hopper to the mixing
tank. This system was automated to provide the desired
flowrate and permanganate concentration, as well as to
shut down if a pressure loss (pipe leak) or pressure
spike (clogging) was detected in the injection lines.
Figure 3-3 is a photograph of the aboveground oxidant
handling system installed at Launch Complex 34.
The solution in the mixing tank was transferred to the
injection well manifold using a high-pressure dual chemi-
cal feed pump. To handle the strong oxidant, the pump
22
-------
Table 3-1. ISCO Technology Demonstration Schedule
Start Date
End Date
No. of
Days
Events/Injection Stage
Volume
of KMnO4
solution
injected
(gal)
Mass of
KMnO4
injected
(kg)(a|
Comments
June 18, 1998
August 20, 1998 Oct 20, 1998
March 11, 1999 Aprils, 1999
- Solicitation received from IDC
60 Design/modeling/treatability
tests
August 2, 1999
April 1, 1999
June 21, 1999
August 12,1999
SeptS, 1999
Sept 28, 1999
Oct 12, 1999
SeptS, 1999
June 25, 1999
July 17, 1999
August 14, 1999
Sept 27, 1999
Oct 12, 1999
Oct 29, 1999
34
90
27
3
8
9
15
28 IDC approval to proceed with
final design and installation
Mobilization to site and setup
Test Plan/QAPP
Predemonstration
characterization of plot
Tracer Test (KMnO4 with
Sodium Fluoride)
First injection (Phase 1) in
Upper Sand Unit
First injection (Phase 1) in
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
First injection (Phase 1) in
Lower Sand Unit
Break
Nov 17, 1999 Nov 24, 1999 8 Second injection (Phase 2) in
Upper Sand Unit
Nov 22, 1999 Nov 24, 1999 3 Second injection (Phase 2) in
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
- - - Second injection (Phase 2) in
Lower Sand Unit
Break
March 30,2000 April 7,2000 8 Third injection (Phase 3) in
Upper Sand Unit
April 6, 2000 April 17, 2000 8 Third injection (Phase 3) in
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
March 20, 2000 April 17, 2000 22 Third injection (Phase 3) in
Lower Sand Unit
May 8, 2000 May 30, 2000 22 Postdemonstration character-
ization of plot
Break
February 1, 2001 February 28, 2001 28 Extended monitoring of plot
8,980
85,793
93,228
125,742
65,892
21,591
43,665
59,421
347,653
Final cost proposal for design
submitted by IT on 7/13/98.
Design report submitted on
10/20/98. Cost proposal for
installation and operation
submitted on 3/10/99.
Final design/construction report
submitted on 6/24/99.
1,401
6,059 Standby for hurricane from
9/13/99 through 9/20/99.
8,484 Equipment downtime on 10/4-
5/99 and 10/8/99.
13,904
4,923
1,348
3,372
Evaluate results of first injection
No injection in Lower Sand Unit
Evaluate results of second
injection
4,589 Equipment downtime from
4/11/00(04/12/00.
24,277
Evaluate postdemonstration
characterization results
(a) This is the mass of the industrial-grade potassium permanganate (containing less than 1% minor impurities) that was used.
was made from 316 stainless steel with Teflon seals
and was rated for pumping 80 pounds per square inch
gage (psig) of water at 10 to 40 gallons per minute
(gpm). Before reaching the injection manifold, the per-
manganate solution was passed through a 1,500-lb high-
pressure sand filter to remove any particulates. Expected
particulate matter in the permanganate solution included
the 1% sand present in the technical-grade (free flow)
potassium permanganate (to improve its flow charac-
teristics), partially dissolved potassium permanganate,
and any MnO2 precipitates formed during the mixing of
permanganate solids with reduced species in the hydrant
water.
The vendor used polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pressure
hoses with dry-disconnect quick-connect fittings to trans-
port the oxidant solution. A grating box was placed under
the premanifold and manifold piping for secondary con-
tainment in case of leaks or spills. Oxidant flow was
metered to 11 individual drive stems through the injec-
tion manifold. The vendor avoided using rubber hoses,
galvanized steel piping, or other materials incompatible
with the strong oxidant. High-density polyethylene (HOPE)
tanks, PVC pipes and hoses, stainless steel appurte-
nances, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or Teflon®
gaskets were used. Figure 3-4 is a photograph of the
oxidant injection manifold.
23
-------
IV)
3900 - 8,300 Id/day
KMnO4
UU LT
Bulk Feed Trailer
Pre-lnjection
Manifold
Transfer
Blower
Flash
Mixer
KMnO4
Hopper
Feed
Pumps
Water,
12,600 - 42000 gpd
@ 2% KMnO4
(10-35 gpm)
Feed System Mix Tank
'VWV
1=
J
30 -65 psig
Secondary Containment
L-H3—*[
Sight
Tube
11-point
Manifold
'W
*
t
0.75 - 3.5 gpm
(1 .75 gpm avg.) .
L
Manifold Leg (Typical of 11)
I
ry Containment
<5
^V\/yv-l-
P—
30-65 psig
1 —
t
WatejJ^ead for
(Flowing Sands)
LEGEND
SPSamp,ePort
n n '
H
„„,.._
vaive
Check Va,ve
Shut off Valve
Pressure Transmitter
pressure Indicator
Temperature
Indicator
Z Flow Control Valve ** Relief Valve
I
10-35 gpm
@ 1% to 3% KMnO4
(-10-:
-H-
Injection Point
(Typical of 11)
C'Banene
Sand
Filter
03
IT CORPURATIOH
Phase I KMnO4 Feed System
Launch Complex 34, CapeCanaveral Air Station
Interagency DNAPL Source Remediation Project
G004065-32 PM: WL
PE: EMS
04/01
Figure 3-2. Aboveground Oxidant Handling System Installed at Launch Complex 34
-------
Figure 3-3. ISCO Setup at Launch Complex 34 Showing Permanganate Storage Hopper and Mixer
Figure 3-4. Oxidant Preinjection Manifold
The vendor designed a custom injection tip (see Figure
3-5) that was used at the end of a direct-push drive rod
for delivery of the oxidant to the aquifer. A separate
downhole drive rod and injection tip were used at each
of the 11 injection points used in the first injection
(Phase 1). A single direct-push rig was used to advance
all 11 injection points to the first injection interval at 15 ft
bgs. Oxidant was injected from all 11 points simultane-
ously. The rig then was used to advance each injection
tip and casing 2 ft at a time, stopping at each interval to
inject oxidant. The two wider-diameter sections above
and below the perforated drive stem and 10-slot wire-
wound screen served as packers during the injection and
12-inches
24-inches
1 25-inch Drive Stem
Upper Hollow Packer
3-inches
I
Perforated Drive
Stem
10-Slot Continuous
Wre Wfound Screen
Drive Point
Figure 3-5. Schematic of the ISCO Injection Tip
Used by the Vendor
(Source: IT Corporation, 2000)
prevented smearing across the borehole walls, thus min-
imizing fouling of the screen. A shorter screen allowed
the vendor to focus injections into the desired low- or
high-permeability strata encountered at different depths;
longer screens would have caused the injected oxidant
to preferentially enter the high-permeability strata.
25
-------
3.3.2 ISCO Field Operation
Before full deployment of their injection strategy, the ven-
dor conducted a tracer test at an injection point (IP-1, see
Figure 3-6) of the ISCO plot to evaluate the injection
flow/rate and radius of influence in the entire hydrostra-
tigraphic units and finalize the treatment design. The
tracer used was a combination of 1.4 to 2% potassium
permanganate solution and 2 mg/L of pharmaceutical-
grade sodium fluoride. The sodium fluoride concentra-
tion was targeted to stay below the primary drinking
water standard of 2 ug/L. The potassium permanganate
was used as a reactive tracer to determine permanga-
nate consumption and retardation characteristics of the
aquifer; the fluoride was used as a nonreactive, non-
adsorptive tracer to evaluate the radius of influence and
hydraulic flow characteristics in the aquifer. The vendor
gained the following important information from the
tracer test:
• The sustainable injection flowrate in this aquifer
ranges from 2.6 to 5.0 gpm.
• The aquifer is anisotropic with preferential flow to
the north and south. Fluoride tracer was detected
26 ft north and south, but only 18 ft east and west
from the injection point.
The vendor conducted the ISCO plot treatment in three
phases. The chronology of the oxidation field activities is
given in Table 3-1. As shown in Figure 3-6, Phase 1 (first
injection cycle) consisted of 11 more-or-less equally
spaced injection locations. At each location, the oxidant
was injected sequentially with every 2-ft depth interval.
The amount of permanganate injected at each location
and depth was based on prior knowledge of the TCE/
DNAPL distribution in the plot gained from the predem-
onstration characterization. The vendor injected higher
amounts of permanganate at depths known to contain
higher concentrations of DNAPL. The injection pressure
and flowrate were used to control the radius of influence,
which was also a determinant of the time period of injec-
tion at a given depth. Permanganate measurements in
various multilevel wells installed throughout the plot were
used to verify the radius of influence. For this purpose,
the vendor installed the multilevel wells (MP-#) shown in
Figure 3-6. In addition to the vendor's wells (such as
MP#), Battelle installed monitoring wells BAT-1 to BAT-6
and PA-4 cluster wells for an independent performance
assessment of the technology.
For approximately one month after Phase 1 injections,
the vendor monitored the plot with a combination of
groundwater and soil sampling to evaluate the effective-
ness of the oxidation at different points in the plot. Dur-
ing this time, the vendor identified regions of the plot that
appeared to have received less than the desired dose of
oxidant, as indicated either by persistently higher levels
of TCE or lower levels of permanganate. The distinctive
discoloration of groundwater and soil exposed to differ-
ent levels of permanganate was an obvious indicator of
the efficiency of oxidant distribution in a given region.
Phase 2 injections (second injection cycle) were directed
towards regions of residual contamination in the Upper
Sand Unit and Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
After another break, during which the vendor monitored
the plot to evaluate the effectiveness of Phase 2 injec-
tions, Phase 3 injections (third injection cycle) were con-
ducted to polish off the remaining CVOCs in all three
units (Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and
Lower Sand Unit). During the break after Phase 2, the
vendor modified the equipment and injection scheme as
follows, to improve the mass throughput of oxidant into
the aquifer:
• The 45,000-lb hopper was replaced by 3,300-lb
"Cycle Bin" skidded containers from Cams. A
forklift was rented to switch cycle bins as each bin
was emptied. This change eliminated the moisture
condensation and hardening of permanganate
solids experienced in the larger hopper.
• To eliminate the pressure drop and fouling in the
sand filter, this filter was replaced by a 21,000-gal
steel "frac" tank with an epoxy liner. This tank
provided flow equalization, storage, and sufficient
area for settling of solids from the solution.
• An injection pump was added to convey the oxidant
solution from the frac tank to the injection manifold.
These changes improved the overall flow from
23 gpm to 40 gpm and increased the mass through-
put of oxidant to the aquifer.
• Nine more injection tips were added to the 11 pre-
vious injection tips to obtain better coverage of the
plot.
• The maximum KMnO4 concentration was reduced
from 3% (the maximum allowed to fulfill regulatory
requirements on trace metals) to 2% to allow for
better dissolution in the volume available in the mix-
ing tank. This change eliminated fouling problems
due to persistence of undissolved permanganate
particles.
The vendor's measurements show that average injection
flow rates varied from 0 to 5.4 gpm at individual injection
locations, using average injection pressures from 20 to
41 psig (IT Corporation, 2000); the flow variation was
due to the variable resistance to flow in different parts of
the plot. For example, the southwest corner of the plot
(under the Engineering Support Building) permitted very
26
-------
Phase I
Injection Well
Location
Injection Point
Monitoring Well
Multi-Level Monitoring Well
Groundwater Recovery Well
EPA Monitoring Well
PA-3S
BAT-IS
Phase I ail ection Locations
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station
I ntera gen cy D NAP L Source Re mediation Project
Figure 3-6. Phase 1 Injection Locations and Radii of Influence of the Injected Oxidant
27
-------
little or no flow; this part of the plot also had the highest
DNAPL mass. On the other hand, other regions of high-
DNAPL mass in the plot were more conducive to flow.
The vendor estimates that hydraulic displacement from
several injection points exceeded 30 ft. However, the
radius of permanganate distribution around each injec-
tion point was probably less than 10 ft, and varied based
on the hydraulic conductivity and TCE/organic matter
content of the surrounding aquifer. Such variations were
unpredictable, with instances where an injection point
would permit only 0 to 0.1 gpm of flow within one hori-
zontal foot of a point that permitted 2 to 3 gpm. Perman-
ganate was injected for durations of up to 4 days at each
given injection point. Between 8 to 20 points were
injected simultaneously. Between oxidant injections, water
was kept flowing through the injection tips to maintain
sufficient static head to prevent fine sands and silt from
fouling the tips.
During the treatment, the vendor injected a total of
842,985 gal of permanganate solution into the ISCO plot
aquifer (see Table 3-1), which corresponds to 66,956 kg
(150,653 Ib) of KMnO4 mass. On average, the oxidant
loading equates to 2.5 kg of KMnO4 per kilogram of soil
in the test plot. Not all of the injected permanganate
stayed in the test plot; some may have migrated to the
surrounding aquifer. The vendor initially based the desired
oxidant loading on the results of treatability tests, and the
amount and distribution of TCE in the test plot. However,
as the treatment progressed, the vendor adjusted the
amount of oxidant injected at each location and at each
depth based on field indicators, such as visual observa-
tion and analysis of groundwater from neighboring moni-
toring wells.
The hydrant water used for preparing the solution con-
tained 3.8 mg/L of TOC, which adds up to 27 Ib of TOC
that could have consumed approximately 107 Ib of per-
manganate (assuming a 4:1 potassium permanganate-
to-TOC ratio). Approximately 22 drums or 9,300 Ib of
sludge was generated during the filtration of the injected
liquid. After accounting for the sand (about 1,500 Ib or 1 %
by weight of the potassium permanganate stock) that was
present in the delivered solid potassium permanganate
and some amount of MnO2 generated, the vendor esti-
mates that most of these solids were undissolved per-
manganate. This indicates that the mixing tank (50 gal)
may have been sized too small. The permanganate sup-
plier indicated that one option in the future to reduce the
level of undissolved solids would be to use sodium per-
manganate, which is available as a solution, instead of
solid potassium permanganate (Lowe et al., 2002).
3.4 Health and Safety Issues
Use of heavy equipment (hopper, GeoProbe®, mixer,
pumps, and forklift) and a strong oxidant (potassium per-
manganate) were the main hazards encountered during
the demonstration. The vendor's personnel wore Level D
personal protective equipment during the demonstration.
Steel-toed shoes and hard hats were worn when dealing
with heavy equipment. Safety glasses were worn when
dealing with the oxidant. Sometimes, operators wore
Tyvek suits when handling the oxidant injection appa-
ratus. A solution consisting of vinegar, hydrogen perox-
ide, and water was kept handy in a spray bottle and
used for neutralizing any oxidant spills on the ground or
on clothing. This solution was used whenever a hose
burst or oxidant surged up into a monitoring well vault
adjacent to an injection point.
The vendor reported an incidental airborne release of
KMnO4 while filling the silo with dry permanganate. The
release abated when the hatch was sealed tighter.
Fugitive dust from the cycle bin feeder in the equipment
enclosure had to be abated periodically by spraying the
enclosure with the neutralizing solution while wearing
respiratory protection. The only incident that caused a
slight concern occurred during demobilization, when the
hopper used for storage of potassium permanganate
solids toppled over as the permanganate supplier was
dismounting it and loading it on a truck. There were no
injuries during the demonstration.
28
-------
4. Performance Assessment Methodology
Battelle, in conjunction with the U.S. EPA SITE Program
and TetraTech EM, Inc., conducted an independent per-
formance assessment of the ISCO demonstration at
Launch Complex 34 (see Figure 4-1). The objectives
and methodology for the performance assessment were
outlined in a QAPP prepared before the field demonstra-
tion and reviewed by all stakeholders (Battelle, 1999d).
The objectives of the performance assessment were:
• Estimating the TCE/DNAPL mass removal
• Evaluating changes in aquifer quality due to the
treatment
• Evaluating the fate of TCE/DNAPL removed from
the ISCO plot
• Verifying ISCO operating requirements and costs.
The first objective, estimating the TCE/DNAPL mass
removal percentage, was the primary objective. The rest
were secondary objectives in terms of demonstration
focus and resources expended. Table 4-1 summarizes
Figure 4-1. Sampling for Performance Assessment
at Launch Complex 34
the four objectives of the performance assessment and
the methodologies used to achieve them.
4.1 Estimating TCE/DNAPL
Mass Removal
The primary objective of the performance assessment
was to estimate the mass removal of total TCE and
DNAPL. Total TCE includes both dissolved- and free-
phase TCE present in the aquifer soil matrix. DNAPL
refers to free-phase TCE only and is defined by the
threshold TCE concentration of 300 mg/kg described in
Section 2.3. The method used for estimating TCE/
DNAPL mass removal was soil sampling in the ISCO
plot before and after the demonstration.
At the outset of the demonstration, the Technical Advi-
sory Group, formed by a group of independent academic,
government, and industrial representatives, proposed
90% DNAPL mass removal as a target for the three
remedial technologies being demonstrated. This target
represented an aggressive treatment goal for the tech-
nology vendors. Soil sampling was the method selected
in the QAPP for determining percent TCE/DNAPL
removal at this site. Previous soil coring, sampling, and
analysis at Launch Complex 34 (Battelle, 1999b; Eddy-
Dilek, 1998) had shown that this was a viable technique
for identifying the boundaries of the DNAPL source zone
and estimating the DNAPL mass. The advantage of soil
sampling was that relatively intensive horizontal and
vertical coverage of the ISCO plot, as well as of the
dissolved-phase TCE and DNAPL distribution, could be
achieved with a reasonable number of soil samples and
without DNAPL access being limited to preferential flow-
paths in the aquifer. Soil sampling was conducted before
(predemonstration event), immediately after (postdem-
onstration event), and nine months after (extended moni-
toring event) the ISCO application.
Although the primary focus of the performance assess-
ment was on TCE, c;s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride, con-
taminants that could be oxidized by permanganate also
were measured in the soil samples; however, high TCE
29
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated Measurements
Objective
Measurements
Sampling Locations'
(a)
Estimating TCE/
DNAPL mass removal
Evaluating changes in
aquifer quality
Evaluating fate of
TCE/DNAPL
Verifying operating
requirements and cost
CVOCs in soil; once before and twice after
treatment
CVOCs in groundwater; before, during, and
after treatment
Field parameters in groundwater; before,
during, and after treatment
Inorganic parameters in groundwater
(cations, anions, including alkalinity);
before and after treatment
Trace metals in groundwater; before, during,
and after treatment
TOC in soil; before and after treatment
IDS and BOD; before and after treatment
Hydraulic conductivity; before and after
treatment
Chloride in groundwater
Alkalinity in groundwater
Hydraulic gradients
Potassium ion in groundwater
Potassium permanganate in groundwater
Surface emissions; primarily during oxidant
injection
Field observations; tracking materials
consumption and costs
12 horizontal locations, every 2-ft depth interval
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5; other plot wells (BAT-1,
BAT-3, BAT-6, and PA-4) sampled to guide oxidant injections
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5; perimeter wells(b) for
verifying spread
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5; perimeter wells(b) for
verifying spread
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5; perimeter wells(b) for
verifying spread
Two locations, three depths inside plot
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5
BAT-5S, BAT-6S, BAT-3I, BAT-5I, BAT-6I, BAT-3D, and BAT-6D
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5; perimeter wells(b)
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5
All wells
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5; perimeter wells(b)
Primarily well clusters BAT-2 and BAT-5; perimeter wells(b)
Three locations inside plot; 3 background locations
Field observations by vendor and Battelle; materials consumption
and costs reported by vendor to MSE
(a) Monitoring well locations inside and outside the ISCO plot are shown in Figure 3-1. Soil coring locations are shown in Figures 4-2
(predemonstration) and 4-3 (postdemonstration).
(b) Perimeter wells are PA-3, PA-5, PA-9, and PA-12. Distant wells PA-1, PA-8, and PA-11, as well as other wells in the vicinity, were sampled
for various parameters, based on ongoing data acquisition and interpretation during the demonstration.
levels often masked the other two compounds and made
their detection difficult.
The statistical basis for determining the number of soil
coring locations and number of soil samples required to
be collected in the ISCO plot is described in Appendix
A.1. Based on the horizontal and vertical variability
observed in the TCE concentrations in soil cores col-
lected during preliminary site characterization in Febru-
ary 1999, a systematic unaligned sampling approach
was used to divide the plot into a 4 x 3 grid and collect
one soil core in each grid cell for a total of 12 soil cores
(soil cores SB-13 to SB-24 shown in Figure 4-2). The
resulting 12 cores provided good spatial coverage of the
75-ft x 50-ft ISCO plot and included two cores inside the
Engineering Support Building. For each soil core, the
entire soil column from ground surface to aquitard
(approximately 45 ft bgs) was sampled and analyzed in
2-ft sections. Sets of 12 cores each were similarly col-
lected after the demonstration (SB-213 to SB-224) and
nine months after the demonstration (SB-313 to SB-324
in corresponding locations), as shown in Figure 4-3.
Each sampling event, therefore, consisted of nearly 300
soil samples (12 cores, 23 two-foot intervals per core,
plus duplicates). The thicker dashed lines in Figures 4-2
and 4-3 represent the predemonstration DNAPL source
boundary. This boundary includes all the soil coring loca-
tions where at least one of the soil samples (depth inter-
vals) showed TCE levels above 300 mg/kg.
Soil coring, sampling, and extraction methods are
described in Appendix A.2 and summarized in this sec-
tion. Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show the outdoor and indoor
rigs used for soil coring outside and inside the Engineer-
ing Support Building. A direct-push rig with a 2-inch
diameter, 4-ft-long sample barrel was used for coring. As
soon as the sample barrel was retrieved, the 2-ft section
of core was split vertically and approximately one-
quarter of the core (approximately 200 g of wet soil) was
deposited into a predetermined volume (250 ml) of
methanol for extraction in the field. The methanol extract
was transferred into 20-mL volatile organic analysis
(VOA) vials, which were shipped to a certified laboratory
for analysis. The sampling and extraction technique
used at this site provided better coverage of a hetero-
geneously distributed contaminant distribution as com-
pared to the more conventional method of collecting and
analyzing small soil samples at discrete depths, because
30
-------
RESISTIVE
HEATING
STEAM
INJECTION/
Explanation:
Boring Location
Pre-dem onstration DNAPL
boundary (300 mg/kg)
BaiTelle
Putting Trrhnnlagy ia
Figure 4-2. Predemonstration Soil Coring Locations (SB-13 to SB-24) in ISCO Plot (June 1999)
the entire vertical depth of the soil column at the coring
location could be analyzed. Preliminary site characteri-
zation had showed that the vertical variability of the TCE
distribution was greater than the horizontal variability,
and this sampling and extraction method allowed contin-
uous vertical coverage of the soil column. The efficiency
of TCE recovery by this method (modified EPA Method
5035; see Appendix A.2) was evaluated through a series
of tests conducted for the demonstration (see Appen-
dix G). In these tests, a surrogate compound (trichloro-
ethane [TCA]) was spiked into soil cores from the
Launch Complex 34 aquifer, extracted, and analyzed.
Replicate extractions and analysis of a spiked surrogate
(TCA) indicated a CVOC recovery efficiency between 84
and 113% (with an average recovery of 92%), which was
considered sufficiently accurate for the demonstration.
Two data evaluation methods were used for estimating
TCE/DNAPL mass removal in the ISCO plot: linear inter-
polation or contouring, and kriging. The spatial variability
or spread of the TCE distribution in a DNAPL source
zone typically is high, the reason being that small pock-
ets of residual solvent may be distributed unevenly
across the source region. The two methods address this
spatial variability in different ways, and therefore the
resulting mass removal estimates differ slightly. Because
it is impractical to sample every single point in the ISCO
plot and obtain a true TCE mass estimate for the plot,
both methods basically address the practical difficulty of
estimating the TCE concentrations at unsampled points
by interpolating (estimating) between sampled points.
The objective in both methods is to use the information
from a limited sample set to make an inference about the
entire population (the entire plot or a stratigraphic unit).
31
-------
SB221 - BAT-2
SB220' JT • PA-21
• Riwil SB219.+ /
/ * •SB318 BAT.5 • . /
SBZ1S SB319
• PA-206
PA-S
•t • PA-205
D
Explanation:
• Boring Location
+ 2" Diameter -Deep Wells
Well Location
S Shalto*
I Intermediate 0
D Deep I
Pre-demonstritlon
boundary (300
DNAPL
gfcfl)
25
50
Figure 4-3. Postdemonstration Soil Coring Locations SB-213 to SB-224 in the Test Plot (May 2000)
(the corresponding extended monitoring soil coring locations are similarly numbered SB-313
to SB-324 [February 2001])
4.1.1 Linear Interpolation
Linear interpolation is the more straightforward and intui-
tive method for estimating TCE concentration or mass in
the entire plot, based on a limited number of sampled
points. TCE concentrations are assumed to be linearly
distributed between sampled points. A software pro-
gram, such as EarthVision™, has an edge over manual
calculations in that it is easier to conduct the linear inter-
polation in three dimensions. In contouring, the only way
to address the spatial variability of the TCE distribution is
to collect as large a number of samples as is practical so
that good coverage of the plot is obtained; the higher the
sampling density, the smaller the distances over which
the data need to be interpolated.
For linear interpolation, input parameters must be ad-
justed to accommodate various references such as geol-
ogy and sample size. Nearly 300 soil samples were col-
lected from the 12 coring locations in the plot during each
event (predemonstration and postdemonstration), which
was the highest number practical within the resources of
this project. Appendix A (Section A.1.1) describes how
the number and distribution of these sampling points
were determined to obtain good coverage of the plot.
The contouring software EarthVision™ uses the same
methodology that is used for drawing water level contour
maps based on water level measurements at discrete
locations in a region. The only difference with this soft-
ware is that the TCE concentrations are mapped in three
32
-------
Figure 4-4. Outdoor Cone Penetrometer Test Rig for Soil Coring at Launch Complex 34
Figure 4-5. Indoor Vibra-Push Rig (LD Geoprobe Series) Used in the Engineering Support Building
33
-------
dimensions to generate iso-concentration shells (i.e.,
volumes of soil that fall within a specified concentration
range). The average TCE concentration of each shell is
multiplied by the volume of the shell (as estimated by the
volumetric package in the software) and the bulk density
of the soil (1.59 g/cm3, estimated during preliminary site
characterization) to estimate a TCE mass for each shell.
The TCE mass in each region of interest (Upper Sand
Unit, Middle-Fine-Grained Unit, Lower Sand Unit, and
the entire plot) is obtained by adding up the portion of
the shells contained in that region. The DNAPL mass is
obtained by adding up the masses in only those shells
that have TCE concentrations above 300 mg/kg. Con-
touring provides a single mass estimate for the region of
interest.
4.1.2 Kriging
Kriging is a geostatistical interpolation tool that takes into
consideration the spatial correlations among the TCE
data in making inferences about the TCE concentrations
at unsampled points. Spatial correlation analysis deter-
mines the extent to which TCE concentrations at various
points in the plot are similar or different. Generally, the
degree to which TCE concentrations are similar or differ-
ent is a function of distance and direction. Based on
these correlations, kriging determines how the TCE con-
centrations at sampled points can be optimally weighted
to infer the TCE concentrations/masses at unsampled
points in the plot or the TCE mass in an entire region of
interest (entire plot or stratigraphic unit). Kriging ac-
counts for the uncertainty in each point estimate by cal-
culating a standard error for the estimate. Therefore a
range of TCE mass estimates is obtained instead of a
single estimate; this range is defined by an average and
a standard error or by a confidence interval. The confi-
dence or level of significance required by the project
objectives determines the width of this range. A level of
significance of 0.2 (or 80% confidence) was determined
as necessary at the beginning of the demonstration
(Battelle, 1999d).
4.1.3 Interpreting the Results of
the Two Mass Removal
Estimation Methods
The two data evaluation methods address the spatial
variability of the TCE distribution in different ways and,
therefore, the resulting mass removal estimates differ
slightly between the two methods. This section discus-
ses the implication of these differences.
In both contouring and kriging, TCE mass removal is ac-
counted for on an absolute basis; higher mass removal
in a few high-TCE concentration portions of the plot can
offset low mass removal in other portions of the plot, to
infer a high level of mass removal. Kriging probably pro-
vides a more informed inference of the TCE mass re-
moval than contouring because it takes into account the
spatial correlations in the TCE distribution and the uncer-
tainties (error) associated with the estimates. At the
same time, because a large number of soil samples
were collected during each event, the results in Section
5.1 show that contouring was able to overcome the spa-
tial variability to a considerable extent and provide mass
estimates that were generally in agreement with the
ranges provided by kriging.
4.2 Evaluating Changes in
Aquifer Quality
A secondary objective of the performance assessment
was to evaluate any short-term changes in aquifer qual-
ity due to the treatment. ISCO affects both the contami-
nant and the native aquifer characteristics. Pre- and
postdemonstration measurements conducted to evaluate
the short-term impacts of the technology application on
the aquifer included:
• CVOC measurements in the groundwater inside the
ISCO plot
• Field parameter measurements (pH, Eh, DO, ORP,
temperature, and conductivity) in the groundwater
• Inorganic measurements (common cations and
anions) in the groundwater
• Selected trace metals
• TDS and 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD)
• TOC measurements in the soil
• Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer
• Microbial populations in the aquifer (see Figure 4-6
and Appendix E).
These measurements were conducted primarily in moni-
toring wells within the plot, but some measurements also
were made in the perimeter and distant wells.
4.3 Evaluating the Fate of the
TCE/DNAPL Mass Removed
Another secondary objective was to evaluate the fate of
the TCE removed from the plot by ISCO treatment. Pos-
sible pathways (or processes) for the TCE removed from
the plot include oxidation (destruction of TCE) and migra-
tion from the ISCO plot (to the surrounding regions).
These pathways were evaluated by the following mea-
surements:
34
-------
Figure 4-6. Collecting and Processing Groundwater Samples for Microbiological Analysis
• Chloride in groundwater (mineralization of CVOCs
leads to formation of chloride) and other inorganic
constituent in groundwater
• Alkalinity in groundwater (oxidation of CVOCs and
native organic matter leads to formation of CO2
which, in a closed system, forms carbonate)
• Hydraulic gradients (injection of oxidant solution
creates gradients indicative of groundwater
movement)
• Potassium ion in the ISCO plot and surrounding
wells (potassium ion from potassium permanganate
addition acts as a semi-conservative tracer for
tracking movement of injected solution)
• KMnO4 in groundwater (presence of excess KMnO4
indicates completeness of oxidation in the vicinity of
the sample)
• Surface emission tests were conducted as
described in Appendix F to evaluate the potential
for CVOC losses to the vadose zone and atmo-
sphere (see Figure 4-7)
• CVOC concentration in the semi-confined aquifer
below the test plot.
Figure 4-7. Surface Emissions Testing at Launch Complex 34
35
-------
Potential for Migration to the
Semi-Confined Aquifer
During the week of April 2, 2001, Battelle installed three
wells into the semi-confined aquifer with a two-stage
(dual-casing) drilling and completion process with a mud
rotary drill rig provided by Environmental Drilling Serv-
ices, Inc., from Ocala, Florida. Figure 4-8 shows the
location of these wells (PA-20, PA-21, and PA-22). The
objective of installing these deeper wells was to evaluate
the potential presence of CVOC contamination in the
confined aquifer and to assess any effect of the DNAPL
remediation demonstration on the confined aquifer.
These wells were first proposed in 1999, but the IDC and
Battelle decided to forgo their construction because of
NASA's concerns over breaching the relatively thin aqui-
tard (i.e., the Lower Clay Unit). Subsequently, nonintru-
sive geophysical tests indicated the possibility of DNAPL
in the semi-confined aquifer (Resolution Resources,
2000). It was not clear whether any DNAPL in the semi-
confined aquifer (approximately 50 to 120 ft bgs) would
be related to the demonstration activities. However, the
IDC and Battelle decided that there were enough ques-
tions about the status of this aquifer that it would be
worthwhile taking the risk to characterize the deeper
aquifer. Suitable precautions would be taken to mitigate
any risk of downward migration of contamination during
the well installation.
Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) sent
an observer to monitor the field installation of the wells.
The observer verified that the wells were installed prop-
erly and that no drag-down of contaminants was created
during their installation.
Engineering
Support
Building
Explanation:
+ 2" Diameter F«TW (Locations Approximate)
Test Plot Boundaries
FEET
Figure 4-8. Location Map of Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells at Launch Complex 34
36
-------
4.3.1 Geologic Background at
Launch Complex 34
Several aquifers are present at the Launch Complex 34
area, reflecting a barrier island complex overlying coast-
al sediments (Figure 4-9). The surficial aquifer is com-
prised of layers of silty sand and shells. It extends down
to about 45 ft bgs, where the Lower Clay Unit (aquitard)
is encountered. Previous logging suggested that the
Lower Clay Unit is 3 ft thick and consists of gray clay
with low to medium plasticity. A 40- to 50-ft-thick semi-
confined aquifer (Caloosahatchee Marl formation or
equivalent) resides under the Lower Clay Unit and is
composed of silty to clayey sand and shells. The semi-
confined aquifer is confined in the Launch Complex 34
area. Underlying the semi-confined aquifer is the
Hawthorne formation, a clayey sand-confining layer. The
limestone Floridan Aquifer underlies the Hawthorne for-
mation and is a major source of drinking water for much
of Florida. Table 4-2 summarizes the character and
water-bearing properties of the hydrostratigraphic units
in the area.
4.3.2 Semi-Confined Aquifer Well
Installation Method
Figure 4-10 shows the well completion diagram for the
three semi-confined aquifer wells. In the first stage of
well installation, a 10-inch borehole was advanced to
about 45 ft bgs and completed with 6-inch blank stain-
less steel casing. The surface casing was advanced until
it established a key between the "surface" casing and
the confining unit (Lower Clay Unit). The borehole was
grouted around the surface casing. Once the grout
around the 6-inch surface casing had set, in the second
stage, a 5%-inch borehole was drilled through the inside
of the surface casing to a depth of 61 ft bgs. A 2-inch
casing with screen was advanced through the deeper
borehole to set the well. This borehole also was grouted
around the 2-inch casing. These measures were under-
taken to prevent any DNAPL from migrating to the con-
fined aquifer. Figure 4-11 shows the surface casing and
inner (screened well) casing for the dual-casing wells
installed at Launch Complex 34. The detailed installation
method for these wells is described in the following
paragraphs.
To verify the depth of the confining unit at each well
location, a 3%-inch pilot hole first was installed to a
depth of 40 ft using a tricone roller bit. After this pilot
hole was drilled, split-spoon samples were collected in
2-ft (or 1-ft) intervals as soils were observed and logged
in search of the top interface of the clay confining unit or
aquitard. Upon retrieval of a 2-ft split-spoon sample, the
borehole then was deepened to the bottom of the pre-
viously spooned interval. Once the previously spooned
interval was drilled, the drilling rods and bit were pulled
North
South
LL
0
-15-
-30-
-45-
-60-
-75 •
-90
-105 -
-120 -
-13S -
-150-
-165-
-180 -
-195-
Se
LC34
Surficial
Aquifer
Se
ni-Confined
(Hawthorn
Floridan
Aquifer
(bedrock)
Figure 4-9. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space Center Area (after
Schmalzerand Hinkle, 1990)
37
-------
Table 4-2. Hydrostratigraphic Units of Brevard Country, Florida
Geologic Age Stratigraphic Unit
(a)
Approximate
Thickness (ft)
General Lithologic Character
Water-Bearing Properties
Recent
(0.1 MYA-present)
Pleistocene
(1.8-0.1 MYA)
Pliocene
(1 .8-5 MYA)
Miocene
(5-24 MYA)
Eocene
(37-58 MYA)
Pleistocene and Recent Deposits
Upper Miocene and Pliocene
Deposits (Caloosahatchee Marl)
Hawthorne Formation
Q.
^
o
O
JO
(3
O
O
Crystal River Formation
Williston Formation
Inglis Formation
Avon Park Limestone
0-110
20-90
1 0-300
0-100
10-50
70+
285+
Fine to medium sand, coquina and sandy
shell marl.
Gray to greenish gray sandy shell marl, green
clay, fine sand, and silty shell.
Light green to greenish gray sandy marl,
streaks of greenish clay, phosphatic
radiolarian clay, black and brown phosphorite,
thin beds of phosphatic sandy limestone.
White to cream, friable, porous coquina in a
soft, chalky, marine limestone.
Light cream, soft, granular marine limestone,
generally finer grained than the Inglis
Formation, highly fossiliferous.
Cream to creamy white, coarse granular
limestone, contains abundant echinoid
fragments.
White to cream, purple tinted, soft, dense
chalky limestone. Localized zones of altered
to light brown or ashen gray, hard, porous,
crystalline dolomite.
Permeability low due to small grain size, yields
small quantities of water to shallow wells, prin-
cipal source of water for domestic uses not
supplied by municipal water systems.
Permeability very low, acts as confining bed to
artesian aquifer, produces small amount of water
to wells tapping shell beds.
Permeability generally low, may yield small quan-
tities of fresh water in recharge areas, generally
permeated with water from the artesian zone.
Contains relatively impermeable beds that
prevent or retard upward movement of water from
the underlying artesian aquifer. Basal permeable
beds are considered part of the Floridan aquifer.
Floridan aquifer: Permeability generally very
high, yields large quantities of artesian water.
Chemical quality of the water varies from one
area to another and is the dominant factor con-
trolling utilization. A large percentage of the
groundwater used in Brevard County is from the
artesian aquifer. The Crystal River Formation will
produce large quantities of artesian water. The
Inglis Formation is expected to yield more than
the Williston Formation. Local dense, indurate
zones in the lower part of the Avon Park
Limestone restrict permeability but in general the
formation will yield large quantities of water.
oo
(a) Source: Schmalzerand Hinkle (1990).
MYA = million years ago.
-------
Project #:
G004065-31
Drilling Contractor:
EDS (SBC)
Reviewed By:
S. Yoon
Site:
LC34, Cape Canaveral
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
Rotary
Driller:
R. Hutchinson
Well #:
PA-20/21/22
Date:
4/5/01
Hydrologist:
C J Perry
Depth Below Ground Surface
0-fl. Ground Surface
Well Lid Elevation: flams!
TOC = ft amsl
llBatteiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
Surface Completion:
Size 7" 7x2' Concrete Pad
Type Water Tight Well Cover
Well Cap Locking Well Cap
Inside Well Casing:
Type 304SSSCH10
2-in
Diameter_
Amount
60-(t.-long section
Outer Well Casing:
Type 304SSSCH1Q
Diametef_
Amount
6-in
46-ft.-long section
Grout:
Type Type G + 30% Silica Sand
Well Screen:
Type_
304 SSSCH10
5-in.
Amount
Diametei 2-in.
Slot Size 0010
Filter Pack:
Type
#20/30 Sand
60-ft
60-ft
61-ft
NOT TO SCALE
Borehole
Diameter: 11-in. and 5 7/8-in.
,r: ._ M. .'.
Figure 4-10. Well Completion Detail for Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
out of the hole and replaced with a new split spoon that
was driven another 2 ft ahead of the borehole. Standard
penetration tests (i.e., blow counts) were conducted and
logged during each split-spoon advance. The blow counts
were useful in identifying the soil types that are pene-
trated during spooning. They also were useful in helping
to determine the exact interval of soil recovered from
spoons that lacked total recovery. The split-spoon soil
samples were logged. The soils were visually logged for
soil type and description, photoionization detector (PID)
scans were run, and at least one soil sample per 2-ft
spoon interval was collected for methanol extraction and
analysis.
39
-------
Figure 4-11. Pictures Showing (a) Installation of the Surface Casing and (b) the Completed
Dual-Casing Well
Once the top portion (approximately the first 1.5 ft) of the
confining unit was retrieved by split spoons in each bore-
hole, the spoon and rods were pulled out of the borehole
and the hole was reamed with a 10-inch tricone rotary
drill bit to the depth of the lowest spooned interval.
Before the 6-inch diameter casing was set in the hole, a
PVC slipcap was placed on the bottom of the casing to
keep it free of drilling mud and soil. Use of slip caps was
an added precaution to prevent any possibility of down-
ward contamination. As the casing was lowered in the
hole, it was filled with clean water to prevent it from be-
coming buoyant. When the casing was set to the drilled
depth of about 45 ft, it was grouted in place.
After the grout was allowed to set for at least 24 hours,
the slipcap was drilled through with a 5%-inch roller bit.
Then split-spoon sampling progressed through the re-
mainder of the confining unit and into the confined aqui-
fer. Split-spoon samples were collected totaling 4 ft of
lifts before the hole was reamed with the 5%-inch bit as
fresh drilling mud was circulated in the hole. Split-
spooning progressed to a depth of 60 ft. Each hole was
reamed an extra foot, to 61 ft, before the screen and
casing were set. A sand pack was tremied into place
from total depth to 2 ft above the top of the well screen
(about 53 ft bgs). A bentonite seal (placed as a slurry)
then was tremied in about the sand pack before the
remainder of the casing was tremie-grouted into place
with a Type G cement and silica flour slurry.
Once the split-spoon samples showed that the Lower
Clay Unit had been reached, the 6-inch-diameter surface
casing was set and grouted into place with a Type G
(heat-resistant) cement and silica flour grout slurry. The
drilling mud used for advancing the boreholes consisted
of a product called "Super Gel-X bentonite." This pow-
dered clay material was mixed with clean water in a mud
pit that was set and sealed to the borehole beneath the
drilling platform. The drilling mud was mixed to a density
and viscosity that is greater than both groundwater and
the bulk density of soil. This mud was pumped down
through the drill pipe, out through the drill bit, and then
pushed upward (circulated) through the borehole annu-
lus into the mud pit (open space between the drilling
rods and borehole wall). Use of the mud stabilizes the
borehole, even in sandy soils, enabling advancement of
the borehole in depths well below the water table without
heaving or caving. The mud seals the borehole walls,
preventing the borehole from being invaded by ground-
water and contaminants. The mud also lifts all of the cut-
tings created by the drill bit as the hole is advanced.
Once the drilling mud rose to the top of the annulus, it
was captured in the mud pit where cuttings were re-
moved by a series of baffles through which the mud was
circulated.
The mud pit was monitored with a PID throughout the
drilling process. At no time did the PID detect VOCs in
the drilling mud, indicating that no significant levels of
40
-------
contamination were entering the borehole and being car-
ried downward into cleaner aquifer intervals as the drill-
ing advanced.
After each well was installed, it was developed using a
3-ft-long stainless steel bailer and a small submersible
pump. Bailing was done to surge each well and lift the
coarsest sediments. The submersible pump then was
used to lift more fines that entered the well as develop-
ment progressed. A total of at least three well volumes
(approximately 27 gal) were lifted from each well.
Groundwater sampling was performed following well
development. Standard water quality parameters were
measured during sampling, and groundwater samples
were collected after these parameters became stable.
4.4 Verifying Operating Requirements
and Costs
Another secondary objective of the demonstration was to
verify the vendor's operating requirements and cost for
the technology application. The vendor prepared a de-
tailed report describing the operating requirements and
costs of the ISCO application (IT Corporation, 2000). An
operating summary based on this report is provided in
Section 3.2. Costs of the technology application also
were tracked by MSE, the DOE contractor who sub-
contracted the ISCO vendor. Site characterization costs
were estimated by Battelle and TetraTech EM, Inc.
41
-------
5. Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions
The results of the performance assessment methodol-
ogy outlined in Section 4 are described in this section.
5.1 Estimating TCE/DNAPL
Mass Removal
Sections 2.3 and 4.1 describe the methodology used to
estimate the masses of total TCE and DNAPL removed
from the plot due to the application of ISCO technology
at Launch Complex 34. Intensive soil sampling was the
primary tool for estimating total TCE and DNAPL mass
removal. Total TCE refers to both dissolved-phase and
DNAPL TCE. DNAPL refers to that portion of total TCE
in a soil sample that exceeds the threshold concentration
of 300 mg/kg (see Section 2.3). Pre- and postdemon-
stration concentrations of TCE at 12 soil coring locations
(nearly 300 soil samples) inside the ISCO plot were tab-
ulated and graphed to qualitatively identify changes in
TCE/DNAPL mass distribution and efficiency of the
ISCO application in different parts of the plot (Section
5.1.1). In addition, TCE/DNAPL mass removal was
quantified by two methods:
• Contouring (Section 5.1.2)
• Kriging (Section 5.1.3)
These quantitative techniques for estimating TCE/
DNAPL mass removal due to the ISCO application are
described in Section 4.1; the results are described in
Sections 5.1.2 through 5.1.3.
5.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Changes
in TCE/DNAPL Distribution
Figure 5-1 charts the concentrations of TCE in the soil
samples from the 12 coring locations in the ISCO plot,
as measured during the predemonstration, postdemon-
stration, and extended monitoring events (nine months
after end of demonstration). This chart allows a simple
comparison of the pre- and postdemonstration (or
extended monitoring) TCE concentrations at paired loca-
tions. The colors in the chart indicate the color observed
in each soil sample at 2-ft intervals. The gray and tan
colors are the natural colors of the Launch Complex 34
soil. The orange color indicates mildly oxidizing condi-
tions, when the first trace of oxidant reaches the soil and
native iron precipitates out as ferric compounds. The
brown color probably indicates moderately oxidizing con-
ditions where MnO2, a byproduct of TCE and native
organic matter oxidation, has formed. The purple color
indicates an excess of permanganate.
These visual indicators of KMnO4 were not always repre-
sentative of the level of TCE oxidation/removal observed
in the corresponding soil samples. However, the colors
(such as purple or brown) did provide preliminary guid-
ance on the extent of oxidant distribution at different
points in the plot. Based on the colors, oxidant distribu-
tion appeared to be best in the Upper Sand Unit, fol-
lowed by the Lower Sand Unit. The Middle Fine-Grained
Unit showed less penetration of the oxidant than the
other two stratigraphic units. Based on the pervasive-
ness of purple color, the soil core SB-220 in the center of
the plot showed the best oxidant distribution at all
depths. The predominance of native colors at soil core
SB-215, located under the Engineering Support Building,
indicated that the soil core sustained less penetration of
oxidant than other parts of the plot. In general, access
under the building and local geologic heterogeneities
appear to have played a considerable role in the effi-
ciency of oxidant distribution.
The chart in Figure 5-1 shows that TCE concentrations
were reduced considerably in all three units at several
locations in the plot. The thicker horizontal lines in the
chart indicate the depths at which the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit was encountered at each location. The col-
ors in this figure are indicative of the colors observed
visually during sampling. As seen in Figure 5-1, the
highest predemonstration contamination detected was
30,056 mg/kg of TCE in SB-14, the soil core located
under the Engineering Support Building along the south-
ern edge of the plot, where the contamination was the
highest. This hot spot was present at the interface
between the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and the Lower
42
-------
Figure 5-1. Distribution of ICE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Predemonstration, Postdemonstration, and Nine Months after the
Demonstration in the ISCO Plot Soil (page 1 of 3)
-------
1,201.7
97.5
832.0
330.3
15.5
211.4
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Predemonstration, Postdemonstration, and Nine Months after the Demonstration in
the ISCO Plot Soil (page 2 of 3)
-------
en
44.77
4,555.70
179.79
145.19
3,033.8
13,323.6
17,029.5
490.0
664.2
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
Solid horizontal lines demarcate MFGU.
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Predemonstration, Postdemonstration, and Nine Months after the Demonstration in
the ISCO Plot Soil (page 3 of 3)
-------
Sand Unit; concentrations in the vicinity of this hot spot
were reduced considerably by the ISCO application, as
seen in the postdemonstration core SB-214. The highest
postdemonstration TCE concentration was 9,727 mg/kg,
found in soil core SB-215. This high residual contamina-
tion was present in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit at a
location under the building, probably the region that
presented the most geologic and operational difficulty for
oxidation treatment through injection points outside the
building. The highest TCE concentration found during
the extended monitoring event was 39,905 mg/kg, found
in soil core SB-324 on the northern edge of the test plot,
at a depth right above the clay aquitard. The postdem-
onstration groundwater concentration in monitoring well
BAT-1D, the well closest to soil boring SB-324, shows
persistently high levels of TCE (see Appendix C); there-
fore, the soil and groundwater data are in agreement in
this region. During postdemonstration sampling of this
location (SB-224), the soil recovery in the sample at this
depth was poor and the sample could not be analyzed.
This high a level of TCE in SB-324 indicates a DNAPL
pocket remaining right above the aquitard after treat-
ment. The color of the soil at this depth in SB-324 is its
natural color and visually it does not appear that much
permanganate reached this spot. As apparent in Figure
5-1, the TCE concentration was relatively low (52 mg/kg)
2 ft above this DNAPL pocket, where the soil shows dis-
coloration due to permanganate. Except for this one soil
boring location (corresponding to the group SB-24, SB-
224, and SB-324), the TCE distribution in the rest of the
test plot during the three events (predemonstration, post-
demonstration, and extended monitoring) was consistent
with expectations.
Figures 5-2 to 5-4 show representative pre- and post-
demonstration distributions of TCE in soil from the Upper
Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and Lower Sand
Unit, respectively, in the ISCO plot and surrounding
aquifer. A graphical representation of the TCE data illus-
trates the horizontal and vertical extent of the oxidant
distribution and the changes in TCE concentrations. The
colors yellow to red indicate DNAPL (TCE >300 mg/kg).
In general, the portions of the aquifer under the building
(SB-14 and SB-15) and along the western boundary of
the ISCO plot (SB-18 and SB-21) had the highest pre-
demonstration contamination, especially in the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit and Lower Sand Unit. The postdem-
onstration coring showed that the ISCO process had
caused a considerable decline in TCE concentrations
throughout the ISCO plot. Postdemonstration soil cores
SB-218 and SB-221, along the western edge of the plot,
showed the sharpest declines in TCE/DNAPL concentra-
tions. On the other hand, cores SB-214 and SB-215, col-
lected under the building, contained considerable post-
demonstration concentrations of both total TCE and
DNAPL. These results indicate that distribution of oxidant
under the building was not as efficient as in the rest of
the plot.
Figure 5-5 depicts three-dimensional (3-D) DNAPL distri-
butions identified during the pre- and postdemonstration
sampling in the ISCO plot. This figure shows that
DNAPL was removed from large regions of the test plot.
A few pockets of DNAPL remain, primarily under the
building and near the northern edge of the test plot, at
locations where the permanganate probably experienced
difficulty penetrating.
Figures 5-6 to 5-8 show the distribution of potassium
permanganate in the shallow, intermediate, and deep
wells, respectively, in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer, as
measured by spectrophotometry in May 2000, soon after
the end of the oxidant injection process. The perman-
ganate levels in the monitoring wells are probably a
measure of the excess oxidant in the aquifer; that is, the
permanganate left over after the TCE and native organic
matter in the vicinity had been oxidized. These figures
show that some excess potassium permanganate was
present in most parts of the ISCO plot and surrounding
aquifer, although some regions seemed to have received
a higher oxidant dose than others. Monitoring wells BAT-
5S and BAT-5D seemed to have barely measurable
levels of permanganate, indicating that preferential path-
ways may have guided the oxidant flow away from this
region. In fact, BAT-5S was the only well inside the
ISCO plot that showed an increase in TCE concentration
throughout the demonstration (see Section 5.2.1). TCE
increased in some of the perimeter wells as described in
Section 5.3.2.
5.1.2 TCE/DNAPL Mass Removal
Estimation by Linear Interpolation
Section 4.1.1 describes the use of linear interpolation to
estimate pre- and postdemonstration TCE/DNAPL mass-
es and calculate TCE/DNAPL mass removal. In this
method, EarthVision™, a three-dimensional contouring
software, is used to group the TCE concentration distri-
bution in the ISCO plot into three-dimensional shells (or
bands) of equal concentration. The concentration in each
shell is multiplied by the volume of the shell and the bulk
density of the soil to arrive at the TCE mass in that shell.
The masses in the individual shells are added up to
arrive at a TCE mass for the entire plot; this process is
conducted separately for the pre- and postdemonstration
TCE distributions in the ISCO plot. The predemon-
stration TCE/DNAPL mass in the entire plot then can be
compared with the postdemonstration mass in the entire
plot to estimate TCE/DNAPL removal. The results of this
evaluation are described in this section.
46
-------
UPPER SAND UNII
!14 1?
,bO
Explanation:
Ccncenlrp-ian img.Vg..
^HH 100
!' '
[ 13ftD - ( WO
^B1 uoa - 5 -:u'j
|H*&tKI- '-1 *l';'1
idCQO
frying refhnotojgy- 7e imri: ri_d>im_(w^»Lifcirt_n«aetm /|jj
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Predemonstration (June 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000)
Horizontal Cross Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Upper Sand Unit Soil
47
-------
MIDDLE FINE-GRAINED UNIT
Explanation:
•" L-TV .-r,|i -i'i..in ,m- S
MIDDLE FINE-GRAINED UNIT
-'207
(a)
(b)
Figure 5-3. Representative (a) Predemonstration (June 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000)
Horizontal Cross Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit Soil
48
-------
LOWER SAND UNIT
(a)
/
LOWER SAND UNIT
.'V'
rk.ri^a Slot*- Pldnc- {€ort 2on* MOl - NA027J
(b)
Figure 5-4. Representative (a) Predemonstration (June 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000)
Horizontal Cross Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Lower Sand Unit Soil
49
-------
Pre-demo TCE concentrations in soil in Oxidation plot
Technology
Demonstration
.••'.!.|.[i-Ml .
Ailmulh: It m
Inclination: 29.49
(a)
Post-demo TCE concentrations in soil in Oxidation plot
(b)
Figure 5-5. Three-Dimensional Distribution of DNAPL in the ISCO Plot Based on (a) Predemonstration
(June 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000) (mg/kg) Soil Sampling Events
50
-------
SHALLOW
WELLS
INJECTION
Coordinolt IMorrnallon:
Flcrlda Slal* Plan* (tasl 2efi* 0901 - NAD27)
Battefle
PnltJni' rwiratojy To 'At»fc
Figure 5-6. Distribution of Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) in Shallow Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000)
Table 5-1 presents the estimated masses of total TCE
and DNAPL in the ISCO plot and the three individual
stratigraphic units. Under predemonstration conditions,
soil sampling indicated the presence of 6,122 kg of total
TCE (dissolved and free phase), approximately 5,039 kg
of which was DNAPL. Following the demonstration, soil
sampling indicated that 1,100 kg of total TCE remained
in the plot; approximately 810 kg of this remnant TCE
was DNAPL. Based on these estimates, 5,022 kg of total
TCE, including 4,229 kg of DNAPL, was removed from
the plot. Therefore, linear interpolation indicates that the
overall mass removal effected by the ISCO process was
82% of total TCE and 84% of DNAPL.
Table 5-1 indicates that the highest mass removal (97%
of total TCE and 98% of DNAPL) was achieved in the
Upper Sand Unit, followed by the Lower Sand Unit. Sub-
stantial TCE/DNAPL mass was removed in the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit as well, but the removal efficiency in
this finer-grained unit was not as high as in the two
sandy units.
When the predemonstration and extended monitoring
TCE concentrations are compared, the estimated mass
removal is 77% of total TCE and 76% of DNAPL. The
lower estimated mass removal during the extended mon-
itoring event is due to an isolated pocket of DNAPL
found in soil core SB-323.
5.1.3 TCE Mass Removal Estimation
by Kriging
Section 4.1.2 describes the use of kriging to estimate the
pre- and postdemonstration TCE masses in the aquifer.
Whereas the contouring method linearly interpolates the
TCE measurements at discrete sampling points to esti-
mate TCE concentrations at unsampled points in the
plot, kriging takes into account the spatial variability and
uncertainty of the TCE distribution when estimating TCE
concentrations (or masses) at unsampled points. Con-
sequently, kriging provides a range of probable values
rather than single TCE concentration estimates. Kriging
51
-------
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
/
PA-is
/ RESISTIVE / /
•Ss HEATING / / STEAM
INJECTION
Explanation:
Concentration
PA- 11 Increase (mg/L)
&a
cn«-»
50 -500
^^ KJC - UW
_ 1.000 -5.MO
™>5.0CKt
"&•
PA-91
0.7
Flortdo Stgt* Plane (Cast Zcri* O^Ol - NAD27)
Iftpllp
IlldlC
- (Siting r«r/inofaij;i' To Vttxt
IQMQ4JMAL..RFT2.CCB
Figure 5-7. Distribution of Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) in Intermediate Wells near the
Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000)
is a good way of obtaining a global estimate (estimate
for one of the three stratigraphic units or the entire plot)
for the parameters of interest (such as pre- and post-
demonstration TCE masses), when the parameter is
heterogeneously distributed.
Appendix A.1.2 contains a description of the application
and results of kriging the TCE distribution in the ISCO
plot. Table 5-2 summarizes the total TCE mass esti-
mates obtained from kriging. This table contains an aver-
age and range (80% confidence interval) for each global
estimate (Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit,
Lower Sand Unit, and the entire plot). Limiting the evalu-
ation to DNAPL instead of total TCE limits the number of
usable data points to those with TCE concentrations
greater than 300 mg/kg. To avoid using too small a num-
ber of data points (especially for the postdemonstration
DNAPL mass estimates), kriging was conducted on total
TCE values only.
The pre- and postdemonstration total TCE masses esti-
mated from kriging match the total TCE obtained from
linear interpolation relatively well, probably because the
high sampling density (almost 300 soil samples in the
plot per event) allows linear interpolation to capture
much of the variability of the TCE distribution in the plot.
Kriging shows that between 62 and 84% (75% on aver-
age) of the predemonstration TCE mass was removed
from the plot due to the application of ISCO technology.
TCE mass removal was highest in the Upper Sand Unit,
followed by the Lower Sand Unit. TCE mass removal
was lowest in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit. An interest-
ing observation from Table 5-2 is that the estimated
ranges for the pre- and postdemonstration TCE masses
do not overlap, either for the entire plot or for any of the
three stratigraphic units; this indicates that the mass
removal due to the ISCO application is significant at the
80% confidence level. The initial 90% DNAPL removal
goal set for the demonstration probably was not met due
52
-------
DEEP
WELLS "£'»
PA- 70
-^s«Ao
,.,-,, / / / ^%i
n?D / . ~\
Explanation:
Concentration
-------
Table 5-2. Kriging Estimates for the ISCO Demonstration
Predemonstration Total TCE
(a)
Postdemonstration Total TCE1
(a)
Total TCE Mass Removal'"1
Stratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
Lower Sand Unit
Entire Plot(b)
Average
(kg)
454
2,836
4,408
7,699
Lower
Bound
(kg)
250
1,668
3,519
6,217
Upper
Bound
(kg)
659
4,005
5,298
9,182
Average
(kg)
26
872
1,030
1,928
Lower
Bound
(kg)
18
532
788
1,511
Upper
Bound
(kg)
34
1,211
1,272
2,345
Average
(%)
94
69
77
75
Lower
Bound
(%)
87
27
64
62
Upper
Bound
(%)
97
87
85
84
Predemonstration Total TCE
(a)
Extended Monitoring Total TCE(e
Total TCE Mass Removal'"1
Stratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
Lower Sand Unit
Entire Plot(b)
Average
(kg)
454
2,836
4,408
7,699
Lower
Bound
(kg)
250
1,668
3,519
6,217
Upper
Bound
(kg)
659
4,005
5,298
9,182
Average
(kg)
246
152
2,683
3,081
Lower
Bound
(kg)
238
140
2,583
2,980
Upper
Bound
(kg)
254
164
2,782
3,182
Average
(%)
46
95
39
60
Lower
Bound
(%)
0
90
21
49
Upper
Bound
(%)
64
97
51
68
(a) Average and 80% confidence intervals (bounds).
(b) The standard error for the entire plot is different from the standard error for the individual Stratigraphic units. Therefore, the estimated range of
TCE levels in the entire plot are different from the sum total of the TCE estimates in the individual units.
to the limited access to the DNAPL under the building
and the limited distribution of oxidant in the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit.
When the predemonstration and extended monitoring
TCE mass estimates are compared, the total TCE mass
removal ranges from 49 to 68%, with an average re-
moval of 60%. The lower removal estimates during the
extended monitoring event are due to the isolated pocket
of DNAPL discovered in the northern part of the test plot.
5.1.4 TCE/DNAPL Mass Removal
Summary
In summary, the evaluation of TCE concentrations in soil
indicates the following:
• In the horizontal plane, the highest predemonstra-
tion DNAPL contamination was under the Engineer-
ing Support Building and along the western
boundary of the ISCO plot.
• In the vertical plane, the highest predemonstration
DNAPL contamination was associated with the
Lower Sand Unit.
• Kriging indicated that between 6,217 and 9,182 kg
of total TCE was present in the test plot before the
demonstration; and that between 62 and 84% of the
total TCE was removed from the test plot by the
technology application. When the predemonstra-
tion and extended monitoring event TCE mass esti-
mates were compared, kriging indicated that
between 49 and 68% of the TCE was removed from
the plot. The extended monitoring event was con-
ducted nine months after the end of the oxidant
injections. The slightly lower removal estimates
during the extended monitoring event are due to an
isolated pocket of DNAPL found on the north end of
the test plot during extended monitoring. These
statistics are significant at the 80% confidence level
specified before the demonstration. In summary, it
can be said that at about half (at least 49%) of the
initial TCE mass in the test plot was removed by the
ISCO treatment.
• Linear interpolation of the predemonstration,
postdemonstration, and extended monitoring TCE/
DNAPL soil concentrations shows that approxi-
mately 76% of the estimated predemonstration
DNAPL mass in the ISCO plot was removed due to
the ISCO application.
• Oxidant was injected at relatively high pressures at
several locations and depths within the ISCO plot
and this improved the overall TCE/DNAPL mass
removal. However, despite the high injection pres-
sures and spatially intensive injection scheme,
localized aquifer heterogeneities played a signifi-
cant role in the eventual oxidant distribution and
TCE/DNAPL removal.
54
-------
• TCE/DNAPL removal efficiency was highest in the
Upper Sand Unit, indicating that oxidant was
effectively distributed in the more permeable,
coarse-grained soil.
• TCE/DNAPL removal efficiency was lowest in the
Middle Fine-Grained Unit, indicating that oxidant
distribution was difficult in the tighter, fine-grained
soil.
• Accessing the 15 ft of plot underneath the Engi-
neering Support Building from oxidant injection
points located outside the building proved difficult
and resulted in low TCE/DNAPL removal efficiency
under the building. This indicates that the radius of
influence of the oxidant around the injection points
was less than 15 ft.
5.2 Evaluating Changes in
Aquifer Quality
This section describes the changes (between the pre-
demonstration and postdemonstration sampling events)
in aquifer characteristics created by the ISCO application
at Launch Complex 34, as measured by monitoring con-
ducted before, during, and after the demonstration. The
affected aquifer characteristics are grouped into four
subsections:
• Changes in CVOC levels (see Appendix C for
detailed results)
• Changes in aquifer geochemistry (see Appendix D
for detailed results)
• Changes in the hydraulic properties of the aquifer
(see Appendix B for detailed results)
• Changes in the aquifer microbiology (see
Appendix E for detailed results).
Table 5-3 lists selected CVOC concentrations in ground-
water at the ISCO plot, and Table 5-4 lists levels of vari-
ous groundwater parameters that indicate aquifer quality
and the impact of the ISCO treatment. The tables sum-
marize the levels from predemonstration, postdemon-
stration, and one year after the demonstration. Other
important organic and inorganic aquifer parameters are
discussed in this subsection. A separate microbiological
evaluation of the aquifer is described in Appendix E.
5.2.1 Changes in CVOC Levels
in Groundwater
The fact that considerable DNAPL mass was removed
was expected to reduce CVOC levels in groundwater, at
least in the short term. Although influx from surrounding
contamination is possible, it was not expected to contrib-
ute significantly to the postdemonstration sampling in the
short term because through most of the demonstration,
hydraulic gradients radiated outward from the plot due to
the injection pressures inside the plot. Also, the natural
gradient at the site is relatively flat, so any influx of con-
taminated groundwater into the plot between oxidant
injection and postdemonstration sampling was expected
to be minimal. Lastly, excess permanganate in many
parts of the plot would help control CVOC influx. There-
fore, CVOC levels were measured in the ISCO plot wells
before, during, and after the demonstration to evaluate
changes in CVOC levels in the groundwater.
Table 5-3 shows the changes of TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE in
the ISCO performance monitoring wells. Appendix C tab-
ulates the levels of TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride
in the groundwater in the ISCO plot wells. Figures 5-9 to
5-11 show dissolved TCE concentrations in the shallow,
intermediate, and deep wells, respectively, in the ISCO
plot and perimeter. Before the demonstration, several
of the shallow, intermediate, and deep wells in the
plot had concentrations close to the solubility of TCE
(1,100 mg/L). Immediately after the demonstration, TCE
concentrations in several of these wells (e.g., BAT-1S,
BAT-2S, BAT-2I, and BAT-6D) declined by 99% or more.
The only anomalous well was the Upper Sand Unit Well
BAT-5S. Both during and after the demonstration, BAT-
5S showed increased TCE concentrations, at times ap-
proaching saturation levels. SB-219, the soil core closest
to BAT-5S (the only monitoring well that showed an in-
crease in TCE concentrations throughout the demonstra-
tion) did not indicate any substantial amounts of DNAPL
(see Figure 5-1). These results suggest the following pos-
sibilities:
Table 5-3. CVOC Concentrations in Groundwater from the ISCO Plot
TCE (ug/L)
c/s-1,2-DCE (M9/L)
Well ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
Predemonstration
1,110,000
970,000
1,160,000
298,000
240,000
868,000
1,140,000
Postdemonstration
<5
880
220,000
410,000
NA
<10
52,000
Extended
Monitoring
19 J
937 D
388,000 D
13,300 D
11,1000
356,000 D
436,000 D
Predemonstration
4.900J
4.700J
NA
12,500
9.100J
5,220
NA
Postdemonstration
<5
<77
<1 0,000
<1 7,000
NA
<10
<1 ,700
Extended
Monitoring
<20
7
7,770
5,300 D
5,020 D
540 J
1,090
55
-------
Table 5-4. Predemonstration, Postdemonstration, and Extended Monitoring Levels of Groundwater Parameters
Indicative of Aquifer Quality
Groundwater Parameter
(applicable groundwater
standard, if any)
(mg/L)
TCE (0.003)
DCE (0.070)
Vinyl chloride (0.001)
PH
ORp(b)
DO
Calcium
Magnesium
Alkalinity as CaCO3
Chloride (250)
Manganese (0.05)
Iron (0.3)
Sulfate in mg SO4/L
IDS (500)
BOD
TOC
Aquifer Depth
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Predemonstration
(mg/L)(a|
298 to 1,140
868 to 1,190
752 to 1,160
3.9 to 12.5
4.1 to 21 .3
9. 18 to 44.5
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
7.0 to 7.4
7.3 to 7.6
7.4 to 7.5
-149 to -25 mV
-165 to -38 mV
-150 to -22 mV
<0.5to2.7
0.50to0.9
<0.5to0.9
70
41
84 to 88
53
59
82 to 84
269 to 31 6
291 to 323
204 to 208
38 to 53
57 to 181
722 to 752
0.016to 1.1
<0.015to0.018
0.015to0.025
0.3 to 2.5
O.05 to 0.5
0.1 to 0.3
29 to 46
49 to 138
67 to 103
387 to 499
51 7 to 760
1 ,490 to 1 ,550
<3
<3to16
13
4 to 6
6 to 16
10 to 11
Postdemonstration
(mg/L)(a|
<0.005 to 630
<0.005 to 360
<0.005 to 220
<0.005 to 52.0
<0.005to0.015
<0.005to<17.0
<0.010to <33.0
<0.010to <33.0
<0.010to <20.0
7.2
6.6
6.4
-2mV
-97 to 384 mV
-84 mV
<0.5
<0.5to3.1
0.7
4 to 70
4 to 49
210 to 349
2 to 1 1 1
3 to 19
53 to 203
1 ,060 to 1 ,500
1,280
1,300 to 2, 140
236 to 237
238 to 582
1 ,360 to 1 ,730
2 to 235
98 to 51 6
9 to 10
O.05
<0.1
<0.05to1.1
483
1,380
379 to 535
2,860 to 6,790
5,280(013,000
5,990(06,410
<3to 112
<3
16to108
1 57 to 422
86 to 2,1 10
10to131
Extended Monitoring
(mg/L)(a|
0.01 9J to 13.3
0.937 to 356
388 to 436
<0.02to5.3
0.007 to 0.54J
1 .09 to 7.77
<0.02
<0.001 to<0.1
<1
7.5
6.8 to 7.7
5.5 to 7.0
-40 to 469 mV
-103 to -29 mV
-171 to166mV
0.92
0.72
0.06 to 0.92
1 to 7
24 to 85
71 to 1 ,020
0.3 to 23
32 to 45
83 to 201
1,700 to 2,010
1 ,060 to 1 ,860
359 to 1,610
126 to 531
1 86 to 452
1,010 to 5,070
0.25 to 33
1 .46 to 7.41
3.47 to 488
<0.1 to 0.263
<0.1 to 4.06
2.84 to 35.6
778 to 1 ,330
618to 1,810
51 7 to 781
5, 170 to 5,980
3,640 to 4,750
5,250to8,280
<2 to 1 8
8.6 to >74
15 to >74
51 to 95
24 to 1 09
32 to 233
(a) All reported quantities are in mg/L, except for pH, which is in log units, and ORP, which is in mV.
(b) ORP (469 mV) measured in the shallow well during the extended monitoring period may have been affected by interference from
KMn04.
56
-------
en
SHALLOW
WELLS
Explanation:
(a)
SHALLOW
WELLS
/ RESISTIVE
/ HEATING /
>
Explanation:
Concentration (pgA.)
|d]<»
D3-100
H| HO '1.000
to .000 • 100.000
[TZJl 100.000 - 900.000
^B 300,000 • 1.100 OM
^•>1, too. ooo
b)
Figure 5-9. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Predemonstration (August 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000)
Sampling of Shallow Wells
-------
cn
oo
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
Explanation:
Concentration (\igA-)
10-
[_ WO -1.000
1,000 -10,000
10.000 - 100,000
1 100.000 -500.000
500.000 • 1 100.000
> 1,100.000
(a)
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
RESISTIVE
HEATING
Figure 5-10. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Predemonstration (August 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000)
Sampling of Intermediate Wells
-------
cn
CD
DEEP
WELLS
FEET
dln<3<* ;nf oflTiollon:
Plorn (E«?1 ?frr,« 0901 -
Figure 5-11. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Predemonstration (August 1999) and (b) Postdemonstration (May 2000)
Sampling of Deep Wells
-------
• Local heterogeneities near BAT-5S may have pre-
vented sufficient oxidant from reaching this region,
as well as perhaps other regions in the plot. In
many wells inside the ISCO plot, the water turned
purple during the demonstration, indicating excess
permanganate and good oxidant distribution.
However, in some wells in the plot (such as BAT-5,
which is relatively close to one of the injection
points), the water never turned purple, indicating
that preferential pathways dominated flow and
oxidant distribution on the scale of the plot. Local
heterogeneities may limit the amount of oxidant
encountered through advective flow in certain
regions of the plot; some of these regions may be
relatively close to oxidant injection points. Another
possibility is that the injected oxidant encountered
so much DNAPL and natural organic matter that it
was depleted prior to reaching a neighboring moni-
toring well. Overtime, it is possible that permanga-
nate may persist in the vicinity long enough to pen-
etrate into such difficult spots by diffusion. In fact,
during the extended monitoring event (see
Table 5-3), there were signs that TCE levels in
BAT-55 were beginning to decline.
• Redistribution of residual DNAPL within the plot due
to hydraulic gradients is unlikely; residual DNAPL
does not move out of pores by hydraulic gradient
alone. On the other hand, some mobile DNAPL in
the plot may have migrated into the BAT-5S well
early during the injection and subsequently created
elevated TCE levels in the well.
• Another possibility is that the sharp increase in TCE
in BAT-5S and some perimeter wells (see Section
5.2.2) is due to the increased groundwater flow
through previously less permeable regions of the
DNAPL source zone. Partial removal of DNAPL by
oxidation increases the permeability of the DNAPL
source regions to groundwater flow (Pankow and
Cherry, 1996). Therefore, DNAPL mass removal, if
it is not 100%, can initially elevate dissolved TCE
concentrations, although reduced dissolved-TCE
levels will result over subsequent years.
The concentration of c/s-1,2-DCE declined considerably
in several wells (e.g., BAT-1S, BAT-2S, BAT-3D, BAT-
6D, PA-4S, and PA-4I) within the plot. Vinyl chloride was
not detected in several wells both before and after the
demonstration, primarily because of the analytical limita-
tions associated with samples containing higher levels of
TCE.
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer Geochemistry
Among the field parameter measurements (tabulated in
Table 5-4 and Appendix D) conducted in the affected
aquifer before, during, and after the demonstration, the
following trends were observed:
• Groundwater temperature ranged from 26 to 29°C
before the demonstration to 27 to 29°C after the
demonstration (relatively unchanged). This was
expected as there is no exothermic reaction
involved with permanganate, as with some other
oxidants.
• Groundwater pH ranged from 7.0 to 7.6 before the
demonstration to 6.4 to 7.7 after the demonstration,
with some fluctuation during the demonstration. A
pH drop would be expected in an unbuffered sys-
tem as the oxidation reaction produces hydrogen
ions and CO2. However, as discussed in Sec-
tion 5.3.1, the native groundwater alkalinity and car-
bonate shell materials provide a buffer, and limit
any change in pH.
• ORP increased from -22 to -165 mV before the
demonstration to -171 to 469 mV after the demon-
stration, with some fluctuation during the demon-
stration. The higher ORP is indicative of the
oxidizing conditions created in the plot.
• DO ranged from <0.5 to 2.7 mg/L before the dem-
onstration to <0.5 to 3.1 mg/L after the demonstra-
tion, with some fluctuation during the demonstra-
tion. Some DO may have been introduced into the
aquifer through the hydrant water used to make up
the permanganate solution. Due to the limitations
of measuring DO with a flowthrough cell, ground-
water with DO levels below 1.0 is considered anaer-
obic. Except for the shallower regions, the aquifer
was mostly anaerobic through the demonstration.
• Conductivity increased from 0.5 to 2.7 mS/cm
before the demonstration to 6.7 to 14.6 mS/cm after
the demonstration (see Appendix D-1). The
increase is attributed to a buildup of dissolved ions
formed from the mineralization of organic matter
and CVOCs. Also, this possibly resulted from
residual permanganate in solution.
Other groundwater measurements indicative of aquifer
quality included inorganic ions, BOD, and TOC. The
results of these measurements are as follows:
• Calcium and magnesium levels remained relatively
unchanged in the shallow and intermediate wells,
but increased in the deep wells. In the deep wells,
predemonstration levels of calcium (84 to 88 mg/L)
and magnesium (82 to 84 mg/L) rose to postdem-
onstration levels of 210 to 349 mg/L (calcium) and
53 to 203 mg/L (magnesium). Calcium levels fur-
ther increased to 1,020 mg/L during the extended
monitoring, nine months after the demonstration.
60
-------
Groundwater alkalinity increased from 204 to
323 mg/L before the demonstration to 1,060 to
2,140 mg/L after the demonstration. The sharp
changes in calcium, magnesium, and alkalinity can
be attributed to the oxidation of organic matter and
CVOCs that leads to CO2 generation in the aquifer,
and the interaction of this CO2with shell material
and groundwater in open (shallow aquifer) and
closed (deep aquifer) systems, as described in
Section 5.3.1.
• Chloride levels were already relatively high in the
aquifer due to saltwater intrusion, especially in the
deeper units. Despite relatively high native chloride
levels in the aquifer and despite the dilution effect of
hydrant water containing 94 mg/L that was used to
make up the permanganate injection solution,
chloride concentrations increased noticeably in the
three stratigraphic units. In the shallow wells,
chloride increased from 38 to 53 mg/L before the
demonstration to 126 to 531 mg/L after the dem-
onstration. In the deep wells, chloride levels
increased from 722 to 752 mg/L before the demon-
stration to 1,360 to 1,730 mg/L after the demonstra-
tion. Nine months after the demonstration, chloride
levels in the deep wells had increased to as high as
5,070 mg/L. These increased chloride levels are a
primary indicator of CVOC destruction due to ISCO.
The secondary drinking water limit for chloride is
250 mg/L.
• Manganese levels in the plot rose from <0.015 to
1.1 mg/L before the demonstration to as high as
516 mg/L in BAT-5I after the demonstration; man-
ganese has a secondary drinking water limit of
0.05 mg/L, which was exceeded during and after
the demonstration. Perimeter wells also showed
elevated levels of manganese. Dissolved manga-
nese consists of the species Mn7+ (from excess per-
manganate ion) and Mn2+ (generated when MnO2 is
reduced by native organic matter). Mn7+ levels are
expected to subside overtime, as excess perman-
ganate precipitates out as MnO2 and normal
groundwater flow re-establishes in the plot. Mn2+ is
generated when MnO2 enters a reducing environ-
ment. Mn2+ is not a health hazard, but it can cause
discoloration of the water above 0.05 mg/L. As the
water enters a more aerobic environment (as may
be present outside the CVOC plume), Mn2+ will
precipitate out as MnO2. Manganese levels
declined considerably with distance from the plot
(see Table D-2 in Appendix D).
• Iron levels in the ISCO plot remained relatively
unchanged at levels of <0.05 to 2.5 mg/L in the
native groundwater and <0.05 to 1.1 mg/L in the
postdemonstration water. In the extended moni-
toring, iron levels had increased to as high as
35.6 mg/L in one well. The secondary drinking
water limit for iron is 0.3 mg/L, which was exceeded
during and after the demonstration. Precipitation of
ferric iron on soil was visually noted (as orange
color) and the expectation was that dissolved iron
levels would decrease. Some dissolution of iron
from underground materials could have occurred
that replenished dissolved iron. The monitoring
wells are made of stainless steel and are fairly
resistant to the oxidant; however, chloride may cor-
rode stainless steel and dissolve some iron and,
perhaps, chromium and nickel.
• Sulfate levels increased sharply from 29 to
138 mg/L before the demonstration to 379 to
1,380 mg/L in postdemonstration water. In the
extended monitoring, sulfate levels increased to
1,810 mg/L in one well. This increase in sulfate
may be due to oxidation of reduced sulfur species
in the native soil.
• TDS levels increased considerably in all three units.
In the shallow wells, TDS levels rose from 387 to
499 mg/L before the demonstration to 2,860 to
6,790 mg/L after the demonstration; in the inter-
mediate wells, TDS rose from 517 to 760 mg/L
before to 3,640 to 13,000 mg/L after the demonstra-
tion; in the deep wells, TDS rose from 1,490 to
1,550 mg/L before to 5,250 to 8,280 mg/L after the
demonstration. During extended monitoring, TDS
levels remained high. The secondary drinking
water limit for TDS is 500 mg/L, which was
exceeded both before and after the demonstration.
• Table 5-5 shows the groundwater cleanup target
levels issued by the State of Florida for 12 trace
metals. The primary drinking water limits for chro-
mium, nickel, and thallium were exceeded in some
of the ISCO plot wells during and after the demon-
stration. Chromium (PA-3S, PA-5S, and PA-12D)
and nickel (PA-5S and PA-12 cluster) limits were
also exceeded in some of the perimeter wells. The
secondary drinking water standard for aluminum
was exceeded on one occasion during the demon-
stration, but subsided after the demonstration.
Metals of concern that are minor ingredients in the
industrial-grade KMnO4 batch used at Launch Com-
plex 34 are listed in Table 5-6 (see Appendix I for
the technical specification sheet from the manufac-
turer). This table also shows the expected concen-
trations in the groundwater, if the metals entering
the aquifer stay within the test plot (a worst case
scenario). When the expected concentrations are
compared with the actual concentrations in the
groundwater before and after ISCO treatment, the
increases in concentrations of chromium and nickel
are difficult to attribute to the injected permanganate
61
-------
Table 5-5. Postdemonstration Concentrations of Trace
Metals in Groundwaterat Launch Complex
34 versus the State of Florida Standards
(issued May 26, 1999)
Trace
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Maximum
Concentration
Measured in
Treated Aquifer
(ug/L)
<200
<6
21
<200
<10
193,000
<25
12
10,600
38
20
56
State of
Florida
Drinking Water
Limit
(ug/L)
200
6
50(a)
2,000
4
100
1,000
15
100
100
2
5,000
Standard
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
(a) The federal arsenic standard for drinking water standard was
recently lowered to 10 ug/L.
Shading denotes the metals that are exceeding the State of Florida
drinking water standard.
Table 5-6. Contribution from the Industrial-Grade
KMnO4 to Elevated Levels of Trace Metals
in the ISCO Plot
Metal
Concentra-
tion in the
Expected
Metal
Concentra-
Industrial- tion in
Grade KMnCX, Aquifer1"1
Metals Used (mg/kg) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
61.6
0.8
3.3
11.1
<0.8
10
25.3
24.7
1.4
4.2
<0.8
3.4
3.8
1.17
0.02
0.06
0.21
0.01
0.19
0.48
0.47
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.07
Maximum
Concentra-
tion in
Untreated
Aquifer
(mg/L)
<0.2
<0.006
1.11
<0.1
<0.005
<0.01
<0.025
1.1
<0.003
0.066
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
Maximum
Concentra-
tion
Measured in
Treated
Aquifer
(mg/L)
<0.2
<0.006
0.021
<0.2
O.01
193
<0.25
35.6
0.012
10.6
0.038
0.02
0.056
(a) The expected metal concentration due to KMnO4 was calculated
based on the volume (1,274,265 L) of porewater in the ISCO plot
(porosity of 0.3) and the mass (66,956 kg) of KMnO4 used for the
ISCO demonstration.
chemical. Other possible sources of chromium and
nickel could be the aquifer itself (metals extracted
from the soil particles by the action of the strong oxi-
dant) or the stainless steel (Fe-Ni-Cr alloy) monitor-
ing wells. Iron levels increased sharply in some
wells, too.
On the other hand, actual thallium levels in the
posttreatment aquifer are of the same approximate
order as the expected levels. Given the fact that
some injected thallium would migrate outside the
test plot, the elevated thallium concentrations in the
test plot could be attributed to the injected perman-
ganate. Elevated levels of trace metals in the
treated aquifer are expected to eventually subside
by advection and diffusion overtime. To a certain
extent, the manganese dioxide formed when per-
manganate reacts with organic matter, can itself
adsorb some of the trace metals released. Elevated
levels of trace metals are an issue that needs further
investigation in the context of industrial-grade potas-
sium permanganate application to the subsurface.
• TOO and BOD data were difficult to interpret. TOC
in groundwater ranged from 4 to 16 mg/L before the
demonstration and from 10 to 2,110 mg/L after the
demonstration. BOD declined in some wells,
increased in other wells, and remained unchanged
in some wells, indicating the variations in the effi-
ciency of oxidant distribution in different regions of
the plot. BOD increased sharply in BAT-5S and
BAT-5D, from <3 to 13 mg/L before the demonstra-
tion to <2 to 112 mg/L after the demonstration. The
increase in groundwater TOC and BOD may indi-
cate greater dissolution of native organic species in
the groundwater due to oxidation. TOC levels
measured in soil remained relatively unchanged,
ranging from 0.9 to 1.8% before the demonstration
and from 0.8 to 1.8% after the demonstration.
In addition to measuring inorganic parameters in the
ISCO plot wells, they also were measured in the perim-
eter wells surrounding the plot and selected distant wells
to see how far the influence of the ISCO would progress.
In addition to the geochemistry, the effect of the ISCO
treatment on the aquifer microbiology was evaluated in a
separate study as described in Appendix E.
5.2.3 Changes in the Hydraulic
Properties of the Aquifer
Table 5-7 summarizes the results (see Appendix B) of
slug tests conducted in the ISCO plot before and after
the demonstration. Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer
ranged from 1.3 to 6.4 ft/day before the demonstration to
1.4 to 5.0 ft/day after the demonstration. There was no
noticeable difference in the hydraulic conductivity due to
62
-------
Table 5-7. Pre- and Postdemonstration Hydraulic
Conductivity at ISCO Plot Aquifer
Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day)
Well
BAT-5S
BAT-6S
BAT-31
BAT-51
BAT-61
BAT-3D
BAT-6D
Predemonstration
4.0
5.1
1.6
6.4
1.4
1.3
2.3
Postdemonstration
5.0
Poor response
2.4
1.5
3.7
Poor response
1.4
the ISCO treatment. Any buildup of MnO2 or other solids
due to the chemical oxidation process does not seem to
have affected the hydraulic properties of the aquifer. It is
possible that the lack of change in hydraulic conductivity
is due to the fact that any porosity loss caused by
generation of MnO2 solids is offset by the porosity gain
from calcium carbonate solids that go into solution
because of the CO2 generated in the oxidation process.
Also, if the MnO2 solids are small enough, they could
have been transported out of the test plot with the
groundwater flow.
5.2.4 Changes in Microbiology of
ISCO Plot
Microbiological analysis of soil and groundwater samples
was conducted to evaluate the effect of the ISCO appli-
cation on the microbial community (see Appendix E for
details). Samples were collected before, six months after
(as postdemonstration monitoring), and nine months after
the ISCO technology demonstration. For each monitor-
ing event, soil samples were collected from five locations
in the plot and five locations in a control (unaffected)
area. At each location, four depths were sampled—
capillary fringe, Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained
Unit, and Lower Sand Unit. The results are presented in
Appendix E.
Table 5-8 summarizes the soil analysis results. The geo-
metric mean typically is the mean of the five samples
collected in each stratigraphic unit in the plot. Because
microbial counts can be highly variable, only order-of-
magnitude changes in counts were considered signifi-
cant. Figure 5-12 illustrates the live/dead stain analysis
of soil samples (see Appendix E for detailed data).
In the Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and
Lower Sand Unit, aerobic microbial populations decreased
immediately following the demonstration. In the capillary
fringe, aerobic counts increased. Anaerobic microbial
populations decreased in the Upper Sand Unit, but in-
creased in the Lower Sand Unit. In other stratigraphic
units, the populations appeared to be relatively constant.
The postdemonstration microbial counts indicate that
microbial populations may have declined during the ISCO
treatment. In some parts of the plot, both aerobic and
anaerobic counts declined to below detection, immedi-
ately after the oxidant injections. The live/dead stain
analysis (Appendix E) also appears to indicate a decline
in the percentage of live cells immediately after the dem-
onstration, although the variability in the results is quite
high. However, the microbial counts during the extended
monitoring event indicate that microbial populations
rebound quickly and re-establish in all parts of the plot.
Table 5-8.
Geometric Mean of Microbial Counts in the ISCO Plot (Full Range of Replicate Sample
Analyses Given in Parentheses)
ISCO Plot
Pre-
demonstration
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
(CFU/g)
Post-
demonstration
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
(6 months after)
(CFU/g)
Extended
Monitoring
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
(9 months after)
(CFU/g)
Pre-
demonstration
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
(cells/g)
Post-
demonstration
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
(6 months after)
(cells/g)
Extended
Monitoring
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
(9 months after)
(cells/g)
Capillary
Fringe
Upper Sand
Unit
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
Lower Sand
Unit
66,069
(3,981 to
1 ,584,893)
39,810.7
(1,259to 100,000)
14,125
(501 to 125,893)
6,309.6
(316to316,228)
11,220,184
(3,162,278(0
100,000,00)
420.9
(<31 6.2 to 7,943)
15,841
(<316.2to
1 ,584,893)
218,776
(7,943 to
7,943,282)
1 ,096,478
(19,952to
63,095.7)
478,630
(7,943 to
7,943,282)
316,227
(15,848.9to
1 ,258,925)
114,815
(19,952(0
316,227.8)
57,543
(5,012(0
1 ,584,893)
85,770
(2,512(0
316,228)
7,499
(794 to
79,432.8)
4,365
(251 to 63,096)
1 ,584,893
(1 ,584,893 to
>1, 584,893)
8
(<1. 78 to 6,310)
12,879
(< 1.78 to
1 ,584,893
239,883
(1 ,259 to
>1 ,584.9)
3,019,952
(251,188.6(0
>31 ,622,776.6)
1 ,737,800
(199,526(0
19,952,623)
457,088
(7,943(03,162,277)
416,869
(50,118.7(0
3,981,071)
CFU = colony-forming unit.
63
-------
Figure 5-12. Representative Live/Dead Stain Analysis
of Microorganisms in Soil (green indicat-
ing live, red indicating dead, and yellow
indicating injured microorganisms)
5.2.5 Summary of Changes in
Aquifer Quality
In summary, application of the ISCO technology created
the following changes in the aquifer:
• Dissolved TCE levels declined sharply in several
monitoring wells in the ISCO plot, with some wells
showing postdemonstration concentrations of less
than 5 ug/L, the federal drinking water standard.
Achievement of the State of Florida groundwater
target cleanup level of 3 ug/L could not be deter-
mined because excessive permanganate in several
of the postdemonstration groundwater samples
caused analytical interference and required dilution.
In some wells within the ISCO plot, TCE levels
declined, but stayed above 5 ug/L. In one of the
shallow wells, TCE levels rose through the demon-
stration, indicating that local heterogeneities (limited
oxidant distribution) or redistribution of groundwater
flow due to partial DNAPL removal may have
affected dissolved TCE levels, c/s-1,2-DCE levels
in all monitoring wells declined to below 70 ug/L.
Vinyl chloride levels in some wells declined to less
than 1 ug/L, the State of Florida target; in some
wells, higher TCE levels elevated the detection
limits of vinyl chloride. This indicated that ISCO
considerably improved groundwater quality in the
short term. There are some signs of a rebound in
TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE concentrations in the test plot
during the extended monitoring that was conducted
nine months after the end of the injections.
Although TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE levels rebounded to
some extent in the nine months following the dem-
onstration, they were still below the predemonstra-
tion levels in most wells. In any case, DNAPL mass
removal is expected to lead to eventual and earlier
disappearance of the plume over the long term.
There is also the possibility that even in the medium
term, as normal groundwater flow is reestablished,
a weakened plume may be generated and the
resulting CVOC levels may be amenable to natural
attenuation.
Temperature, pH, and DO remained relatively
stable through the demonstration. ORP and con-
ductivity of the groundwater increased, indicating
oxidizing conditions and accumulation of dissolved
ions.
Calcium and magnesium levels rose in the deeper
groundwater, indicating interactions with the shell
material in the lower stratigraphic units (see
Section 5.3.1).
Alkalinity, chloride, and total dissolved solids levels
rose sharply, indicating oxidation of TCE and native
organic matter with carbon dioxide generation (see
Section 5.3.1). High chloride and TDS levels both
before and after the demonstration cause the
groundwater to be classified as brackish.
Dissolved manganese levels in the plot rose above
secondary drinking water limits following the dem-
onstration.
Dissolved sulfate levels rose, indicating possible
interactions between the oxidant and soil matter.
Some trace metals, namely chromium, nickel, and
thallium, exceeded State of Florida drinking water
limits following the demonstration. The source of
these metals is unclear. They could have been
released from the soil matrix or the stainless steel
monitoring wells. Some contribution from the
industrial-grade permanganate is likely. Nine
months after the end of the oxidant injections, the
levels of these metals in the test plot were still ele-
vated. The elevated levels of these trace metals
are expected to subside overtime, as flow is re-
established. The levels of these metals decline
significantly as the water reaches the monitoring
wells surrounding the plot, probably due to adsorp-
tion on the aquifer solids and on the newly gener-
ated manganese dioxide.
The geochemical interactions between the oxidant
and the aquifer are relatively complex, and not all of
64
-------
the aquifer changes were easy to explain. The
persistence of dissolved iron, the variability of 5-day
BOD, the increase in sulfate, and the persistence of
TOC in the postdemonstration aquifer are difficult to
explain without further research.
5.3 Evaluating the Fate of the
TCE/DNAPL Mass Removed
This part of the performance assessment was the most
difficult because there are several pathways that the
DNAPL could take when subjected to the ISCO treat-
ment. These pathways were evaluated as follows:
5.3.1 DNAPL Destruction through
Oxidation of TCE
As described in Equations 5-1 and 5-2, oxidation of TCE
and other CVOCs by permanganate leads to the forma-
tion of chloride, carbon dioxide, hydrogen ion, and man-
ganese dioxide. Any manganese dioxide generated is
insoluble in water and is expected to deposit on the soil
surfaces — the brown discoloration of soil observed in
some soil samples indicates the formation of manganese
dioxide. The soluble or partially soluble species — chlo-
ride, carbon dioxide, carbonate (alkalinity), and hydrogen
ion (pH) — are more amenable to more direct measure-
ment.
C2HCI3 + 2Mn04~ ^
3CP + 2CO2 + H+ + 2MnO2 (s)
C2H2CI2 + 2MnCV ^
2Cr + 2C02 + 2H+ + 2Mn02 (s)
(5-1)
(5-2)
Chloride is the strongest indicator of TCE oxidation, be-
cause it is directly traceable to TCE; because of the high
injection pressures (and high water levels) in the ISCO
plot during ISCO treatment, not much chloride intrusion
is expected from tidal influence over the time period of
the demonstration. Chloride generation due to oxidation
would be expected to cause chloride levels to rise in the
aquifer. Appendix D shows the pre- and postdemonstra-
tion chloride levels in the ISCO plot and surrounding
aquifer. The increased chloride concentrations are
noticeable in all three units — Upper Sand Unit, Middle
Fine-Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit — even though
predemonstration chloride levels were high to begin with.
Chloride levels in the aquifer increased to levels that
were above the concentration level of water from the
hydrant (94 mg/L chloride content) used to make up the
oxidant solution.
Figures 5-13 to 5-15 show the distribution of excess
chloride in the shallow, intermediate, and deep wells,
respectively, as measured in May 2000, towards the end
of the ISCO treatment. The chloride concentrations in
these figures are the differences in chloride levels be-
tween the treated (postdemonstration) and native (pre-
demonstration) levels of chloride. The strongest increase
in chloride was observed in the deep wells (Lower Sand
Unit), where the predemonstration DNAPL mass was
highest. Most of the chloride increase in the test plot is
attributable to oxidation of TCE by the permanganate.
Because oxidation of TCE occurs in the aqueous phase,
the treatment kinetics may be driven by the rate of disso-
lution of DNAPL, rather than the oxidation of dissolved
TCE, which is a relatively fast process. There are reports
that addition of permanganate increases the rate of
dissolution of TCE by as much as a factor of 10 (Siegrist
et al., 2001). There is very little possibility of chloride
migrating into the ISCO plot from the resistive heating
plot, because strong hydraulic gradients have been
measured emanating radially outward from the ISCO
plot during most of the ISCO application period. Some of
the chloride formed probably migrated out of the ISCO
plot under the strong hydraulic gradients created by the
oxidant injection.
Carbon dioxide is an indicator of oxidation, although not
of TCE alone. Native organic matter that is oxidized also
releases carbon dioxide as indicated in Equation 5-3,
which is a simplified illustration. However, TOC levels in
the predemonstration groundwater and soil were relatively
unchanged, or increased slightly (see Section 5.2.2), pos-
sibly due to the formation of new organic species from
the complex native humic matter in the soil. Formation of
carbon dioxide is an encouraging sign that TCE and
native organic matter are being oxidized.
3Corganic + 4Mn04
4H+ -*
3C02 + 4Mn02 (s) + 2H2O
(5-3)
In an unbuffered system, the CO2 generated may be
expected to lower the pH of the aquifer. Dissolution of
gaseous CO2 in water can be expressed according to
the following mass action equation:
+ H2OoH2C03(aq)
(5-4)
where H2CO3* represents both dissolved CO2 (CO2(aq))
and carbonic acid (H2CO3). The predominant carbon
species are H2CO3 below pH 6.3; HCO3" between pH
6.3 and 10.3, and CO3 2 above pH 10.3. The presence
of carbonate species in the Launch Complex 34 ground-
water provides buffering capacity, which attenuates the
effects of the accumulating acidic species (CO2) in the
water due to the oxidation treatment.
The other major factor in the geochemical scenario at
Launch Complex 34 is the abundance of shell material in
the aquifer soil. Carbonate rocks and biological shell
65
-------
SHALLOW
WELLS /
/ PA?7S ,
PA-16S
152
Explanation:
Concentration
Increase (mg/L)
| Mo
| 110 -100
[ 1100-200
| | 200 - 500
| 1500 1,000
I IH.OOQ
/ RESISTIVE /
, HEATING/
STEAM
INJECTION
PA-16S
244.6
PA-4S
1983
8A/-3S
BAT-6S
rrn
Coordinole Inforrnolion:
Florida Slale Plane (East Zone 0901 - NAD27)
llBaitele
. - . Putting Technology To Work
CLJNCREASESVCDR
Figure 5-13. Distribution of Chloride Produced by ISCO Technology in Shallow Wells near the
Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000)
material are composed primarily of calcium carbonate,
and minor amounts of other metals, such as magnesium,
iron, and manganese. Equilibrium between calcium car-
bonate (typically calcite or aragonite mineral forms) and
water in the presence of CO2 can be expressed as
Equation 5-5 (Appelo and Postma, 1994).
CaC03(solid) + C02(g) + H20
Ca2+ + 2HCO3 (5-5)
If a source of CO2 is available, calcite will dissolve. Oxi-
dation of organic matter by permanganate causes gener-
ation of CO2. During the continuous oxidation, the partial
pressure of CO2 is probably high enough to cause a re-
lease of substantial amounts of calcium and bicarbonate
ions into solution from the shell material. This could
explain the sharp increase in alkalinity in all the ISCO
plot wells, as well as the increase in dissolved calcium in
some wells. Note that if calcite (shell material) were not
available in the soil, the reaction in Equation 5-4 would
apply, and the groundwater pH would have decreased
accordingly. Therefore, despite the persistence of neu-
tral pH and relatively low ORP in the posttreatment
groundwater, the geochemistry indicates that a large
amount of carbon dioxide was produced and a large
portion of the organic matter (probably including the
organic contaminants) was oxidized. The sharp increase
in alkalinity and the substantial increase in inorganic
chloride are encouraging signs that a significant propor-
tion of the DNAPL removal was due to oxidation.
From a long-term perspective, it is important to note that
after the CO2 is exhausted, the system may not return to
its original state, even though equilibrium is regained. In
general, the aquifer environment is an open system, so
66
-------
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
PA-11
Explanation:
Concentration
Increase (mg/L)
| I<10
| | 10 -100
I [100-200
| | 200 - 500
500 -1.000
>1.000
/
"V " O
HEATINvG /> S/'EATVT^ 'oo -\
\/ INJECTION XPA.,.\ \
'
PA-1CH
7
TEET
L'oordlnoie Iniormolton:
Florido Stole Plone (Eost Zone 0901 - NAD27)
llBaltelie
. - . Putting Technology To Work
CLJNCREASES-.CDR
Figure 5-14. Distribution of Chloride Produced by ISCO Technology in Intermediate Wells near the
Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000)
the partial pressure of CO2 does return to its normal
level after oxidation subsides. However, during the per-
iod when CO2 is being produced, the HCO3 content
increases logarithmically with pH, so that the final bicar-
bonate concentration at equilibrium is completely con-
trolled by the initial partial pressure of CO2 and the
solubility of the calcite in the shell material. Therefore,
the only way for the alkalinity and calcium levels in the
groundwater to return to pretreatment levels is through
dilution with the groundwater from the surrounding aqui-
fer. In the relatively stagnant aquifer at Launch Complex
34, this could take a long time. Rainfall and recharge
from the ground surface also could play a role in the
rebound.
One aspect of the ISCO application that was not
addressed during this demonstration is the formation of
byproducts from incomplete oxidation of CVOCs and
natural organic matter. This issue may best be addressed
on a bench scale.
In summary, all the geochemical indicators examined
point to oxidation as a pathway that contributed substan-
tially to the removal of TCE/DNAPL from the ISCO plot.
These geochemical indicators include:
• Considerable rise in chloride levels in the treated
aquifer
• Considerable increase in groundwater alkalinity (as
indicative of carbon dioxide generation)
• Rise in calcium levels in the deeper portions of the
aquifer.
67
-------
Explanation:
Concentration
Increase (mg/L)
| l
I 110 -100
| [100 -200
| | 200 - 500
| | 500 -1.000
I I > 1,000
DEEP
WELLS
STEAM
INJECTION ,
EATING:
rtn
Coordtnole In1ormo1ion;
Florida Slots- Plon* (Eos! Zone 0901 - NAD27)
IIBdltelle
. . . Putting Technology To Work
Figure 5-15. Distribution of Chloride Produced by ISCO Technology in Deep Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000)
5.3.2 Potential for DNAPL Migration
from the ISCO Plot
The six measurements conducted to evaluate the poten-
tial for migration of DNAPL, as well as dissolved vapor
and nonaqueous phase, to the surrounding aquifer
include:
• Hydraulic gradient in the aquifer
• Distribution of dissolved potassium in the aquifer
• TCE measurements in perimeter wells
• TCE concentrations in the surrounding aquifer soil
cores
• TCE concentrations in the vadose zone soil cores
• TCE concentrations in surface emissions to the
atmosphere.
As mentioned in Section 5.2, predemonstration hydraulic
gradients in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer are rela-
tively flat in all three stratigraphic units. During the dem-
onstration, hydraulic gradients (see Figures 5-16 to 5-18)
were measured in April 2000 in the shallow, intermedi-
ate, and deep wells, respectively, while the third and
final oxidant injection was underway in the Lower Sand
Unit. Water level measurements in the deep wells showed
a sharp hydraulic gradient emanating radially from the
ISCO plot because of the injection pressures. Inter-
estingly, the gradient was not as strong in the shallow
and intermediate wells while oxidant was being injected
in the deeper layers, indicating that the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit acts as a conspicuous hydraulic barrier.
68
-------
WEU. CLOGGED
So). HoXftart Zoo. OM1 -
KAM7)
Wafer Levels Measured
In Shallow Wells
near the ESB at LC34
(April 10, 2000)
Figure 5-16. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch
Complex 34 (April 2000)
Residual DNAPL cannot migrate due to hydraulic gradi-
ent alone, no matter how strong. However, if mobile
DNAPL was present in the aquifer, strong injection pres-
sures could have caused DNAPL movement from the
plot.
Migration of groundwater and dissolved groundwater
constituents from the ISCO plot are exemplified by the
movement of potassium ion in the aquifer, as shown in
Figures 5-19 to 5-21. Because there were no monitoring
wells at the time in the steam injection plot, this area is
blanked out in these figures to avoid interpolating over
relatively large distances. Potassium, originating from
the injected oxidant, acts as a semiconservative tracer
for tracking groundwater movement. Figures 5-19 to 5-
21 show the excess potassium (above predemonstration
levels) in the groundwater at Launch Complex 34. The
vapor extraction occurring in the resistive heating plot
could have exacerbated the effect of the westward hy-
draulic gradient and increased the migration of water
and ions from the ISCO plot. Also, vaporization of water
in the resistive heating plot could have caused dissolved
ion levels in the resistive heating plot and vicinity to
increase. Because more monitoring wells are present on
the western side of the ISCO plot, movement seems to
be occurring to the west; however, similar groundwater
transport probably occurred in all directions from the
plot. This migration of groundwater and dissolved spe-
cies from the ISCO plot is an important aspect of inject-
ing oxidant without concomitant extraction or hydraulic
control, and may need to be reviewed on a site-specific
basis.
69
-------
tst
Wtar Tobto OMIta (IQ
l - KAK7)
Water Levels Measured
In Intermediate Wells
near the ESB at LC34
(April 10. 2000)
Figure 5-17. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells
near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex 34 (April 2000)
'sV0
\
-------
SHALLOW
WELLS
- NADJ7)
llBatrelle
Pining Technology To Worie
Figure 5-19. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in Shallow Wells near the
Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000)
TCE and other CVOCs are among the dissolved species
that migrated from the ISCO plot as indicated by the
TCE measurements in perimeter and distant wells (see
Appendix C). Figures 5-22 to 5-24 show the TCE trends
observed in the perimeter wells. TCE levels in perimeter
wells PA-5S, PA-5I, and PA-6S (on the northeast side of
the ISCO plot) and in a somewhat distant well PA-8S
(northwest of the ISCO plot) rose sharply when the
oxidation treatment started and an increase of more than
an order of magnitude was sustained through the end of
the demonstration. In other perimeter wells, TCE levels
either declined sharply or showed a mild increase. A
sharp temporary increase in TCE concentrations in the
monitoring wells would signify that dissolved-phase TCE
has migrated. A sharp sustained increase may signify
that DNAPL has redistributed within the plot or outside it.
Another possibility, as mentioned in Section 5.2, is that
the sharp increase in TCE in some ISCO plot and
perimeter wells is due to the increased groundwater flow
through previously less permeable regions of the DNAPL
source zone; an increase in permeability can result in
regions of the aquifer that experience partial removal of
DNAPL.
Figure 5-25 shows the TCE trends observed in distant
well clusters PA-8 and PA-1. PA-8 is closer to the ISCO
plot on the northwest side. PA-1 is further away towards
the north-northwest side. The PA-8 cluster showed a
significant increase in TCE concentrations in the shallow
and deep wells. After the ISCO and resistive heating
demonstrations started, DNAPL was observed for the
first time in distant wells PA-11D, PA-2I, and PA-2D, all
of which are on the west side of the ISCO plot. DNAPL
had not been previously found in any of the monitoring
wells before the demonstration. This indicates that some
free-phase TCE movement occurred in the aquifer due
to the application of the two technologies. It is unclear
which of the two technologies contributed to the DNAPL
movement and whether or not this DNAPL was initially
in mobile or residual form. Mobile DNAPL could have
71
-------
IV)
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
/X
RESISTIVE^
/ HEATING
Explanation:
Concentration
p,£.|, Increase (rngrt.}
0 <5
| ifi-SO
[ ]M -EDO
j_ 3HO - 1.000
NADJ7)
K_SPM_F!NAL_RFTCOR
DEEP
WELLS
RESISTIVE
/ HEATING
f STEAM
INJECTION
FEET
(East Zone 0901 - NAD27)
llBaneiie
Figure 5-20. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO
Technology in Intermediate Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000)
Figure 5-21. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO
Technology in Deep Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000)
-------
ra 1,200,000
| 1,000,000 -
800,000 -
600,000 -
400,000 -
200,000 -
0
TCE solubility at 25 °C
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
Figure 5-22. Dissolved TCE Levels (|jg/L) in Perimeter Wells on the Northeastern Side of the ISCO Plot
o> 1,200,000
PA-9S
PA-9I
PA-9D
1,200,000
1 ,000,000 -
800,000 -
O
= 600,000 -
400,000 -
8 200,000 -
I
m
o
1 —
—
DPre-Demo
• Week 3-4
OWeek 7-8
DJan 2000
r2000
OX Post-Demo
PA-12S
PA-121
PA-12D
Figure 5-23. Dissolved TCE Levels (|jg/L) in Perimeter Wells on the Southern Side of the ISCO Plot
73
-------
TCE solubility at 25 °C
rt
DPre-Demo
-WWeeK13-4
D Week 7-8
D Jan 2000
D Apr 2000
• OX Post-Demo
PA-3S
PA-31
PA-3D
Figure 5-24. Dissolved TCE Levels (|jg/L) in Perimeter Wells on the Western Side of the ISCO Plot
|> 1,200,000
| 1,000,000 -
I 800,000 -
2
c 600,000 -
c
£ 400,000 -
g 200,000 -
c
o
o
LJJ
O
TCE solubility at 25 °C
DPre-Demo
• Week 3-4
DWeek 7-8
DJan 2000
DApr 2000
• OX Post-Demo
PA-1S
PA-11
PA-1D
>
1,200,000
~j 1,000,000
•D
= 800,000 -
c 600,000 -
c
I 400,000 -
§ 200,000
o
o
LJJ
o
TCE solubility at 25 °C
0 —
PA-8S
PA-8I
PA-8D
Figure 5-25. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Distant Wells on the Northwestern Side of the ISCO Plot
74
-------
moved under the influence of the sharp hydraulic gra-
dient induced by the oxidant injection pressures. Resid-
ual DNAPL, by nature, would not be expected to move.
PA-21 and PA-2D are closer to the resistive heating plot
than to the ISCO plot and it is possible that the DNAPL
migrated into these wells due to the resistive heating
operation.
When the groundwater data indicated that DNAPL move-
ment had occurred, additional postdemonstration so;7
cores were collected from areas surrounding the ISCO
plot — at locations PA-206, PA-205, PA-209, PA-212,
PA-211 and PA-208 (see Figure 4-3). These locations
were selected because these were the only locations in
the immediate vicinity of the ISCO plot where predemon-
stration soil core data were available for comparison. No
noticeable increase in TCE or DNAPL concentration was
found in any of these soil samples following the demon-
stration. The sampling density of the soil cores surround-
ing the plot is not as high as the sampling density inside
the plot; therefore, the effort was more exploratory than
definitive.
To evaluate the possibility of TCE/DNAPL migration to
the vadose zone, all pre- and postdemonstration soil
cores in the ISCO plot included soil samples collected at
2-ft intervals in the vadose zone. As seen in Figure 5-1,
no noticeable deposition of TCE was found in vadose
zone soils due to the ISCO treatment. Surface emission
tests were conducted as described in Appendix F to
evaluate the possibility of solvent losses to the atmo-
sphere. As seen in Table 5-9, there was no noticeable
difference in TCE concentrations between surface emis-
sion samples collected in the ISCO plot and at back-
ground locations at various times during and after the
demonstration. Unlike some technologies that involve
exothermic reactions or applied heating, permanganate
oxidation does not cause volatilization of the targeted
solvents and therefore there is very little probability of
TCE losses to the vadose zone or atmosphere.
Because of NASA's concerns about breaching the rela-
tively thin aquitard, no monitoring wells were installed
before the demonstration into the Lower Clay Unit or in
the aquifer below. After the resistive heating and ISCO
demonstrations, the possibility of the historical presence
of DNAPL under the Lower Clay Unit was revisited and
specially designed wells with telescopic casing were
designed and installed in the semi-confined aquifer
below. Section 4.3 describes the installation and moni-
toring of these deeper wells. Figure 3-1 in Section 3.3.1
shows the locations of these three deeper wells (PA-20,
PA-21, and PA-22) in the semi-confined aquifer. Tables
5-10 and 5-11 show the results of the analysis of soil
and water samples from these wells. The soil samples
were collected when these wells were being installed. At
least in the soil and water samples in PA-21, the well
Table 5-9. Results for Surface Emission Tests
Sample ID
OX-SE-1
OX-SE-2
OX-SE-3
OX-SE-4
OX-SE-5
OX-SE-6
OX-SE-7
OX-SE-8
OX-SE-9
OX-SE-1 0
OX-SE-1 1
OX-SE-1 2
DW-SE-1
DW-SE-2
DW-SE-3
DW-SE-4
DW-SE-5
DW-SE-6
DW-SE-7
DW-SE-8
SPH-SE-14
SPH-SE-15
SPH-SE-C27
DW-C1
DW-C2
DW-C3
Sample Date TCE (ppb [v/v])
ISCO Plot
9/30/1999
9/30/1999
10/1/1999
10/25/1999
10/25/1999
10/25/1999
1/17/2000
1/17/2000
1/17/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
Background
10/1/1999
10/8/1999
10/25/1999
10/22/1999
1/17/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
Ambient Air at Shoulder Levefb}
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
9/1/2000
4/11/2000
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
1.6
2.4
3.4
0.68
1.1
1.4
11
7.6
5.8
2.6
0.69
1.7
<0.42
<0.44
0.44
6,000(a)
<0.38
0.43
0.86
0.79
<0.39(c)
<0.39(c)
<0.88
2.1
O.39
O.39
(a) Background sample (10/22/99) was collected immediately after a
sample was collected at the resistive heating plot that had an unex-
pectedly high concentration of 13,000 ppbv. This may indicate
condensation of TCE in the emissions collection box at levels that
could not be removed by the standard decontamination procedure
of purging the box with air for two hours. In subsequent events
(1/17/2000 background), special additional decontamination steps
were taken to minimize carryover.
(b) A Summa canister was held at shoulder level to collect an ambient
air sample to evaluate local background air quality.
(c) SPH-SE-14/15 samples were collected at an ambient elevation at
the east and west edges of the resistive heating plot without using
an air collection box.
ppb (v/v): parts per billion by volume.
directly under the ISCO plot, TCE levels do not indicate
the presence of DNAPL. The absence of baseline (pre-
demonstration) data in these wells makes interpretation
difficult. However, most of the DNAPL-level TCE con-
centrations appear to be in the Lower Clay Unit and
have not penetrated to the semi-confined aquifer below.
Therefore, the data do not indicate that any migration of
DNAPL occurred into the semi-confined aquifer portion
below the ISCO plot, either before or during the ISCO
demonstration.
5.3.3 Summary Evaluation of the Fate
of TCE/DNAPL
In summary, the field measurements indicate that DNAPL
movement has occurred in the Launch Complex 34
75
-------
Table 5-10. Results of TCE Concentrations of Soil Analysis at Launch Complex 34
Approximate
Depth (ft bgs)
39-40
40-41
41-42
42-43
43-44
44-45
45-46
46-47
47-47.5
47.5-48
48-49
49-50
50-51
51-52
52-53
53-54
54-55
55-56
56-57
57-58
58-59
59-60
TCE (mg/kg)|a|
SB-50 (PA-20)
174
72
19
39
5
1
<1
<1
2
<1
SB-51 (PA-21)
66
6,578
3,831
699
2,857
46
49
3
<1
<1
<1
SB-52 (PA-22)
20
21
37
138
466
330
310
132
367
473
707
8,496; 10,700
40,498
122
(a) Shaded cells represent the Lower Clay Unit.
Table 5-11. Results of CVOC Analysis in Groundwater from the Semi-Confined Aquifer
Well ID
Feb 2001 Apr 2001
TCE
May 2002 Jun 2001
Aug 2001 Nov 2001 Feb 2002
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
Well ID
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
Well ID
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
Well ID
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
67.1
58.4
7,840
736,000
N/A
Feb 2001
21.7
18.5
1,190
8,130
N/A
Feb 2001
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<100
N/A
Feb 2001
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<100
N/A
447
N/A
15,700
980,000
N/A
Apr 2001
199
N/A
5,790
8,860
N/A
Apr 2001
1.45
N/A
51.7
< 1,000
N/A
Apr 2001
0.36J
N/A
4.22
< 1,000
N/A
111
N/A
6,400
877,000
939,000
c/s-1 ,
May 2002
37.4
N/A
1,490
1 1 ,000
10,700
350
N/A
5,030
801,000
N/A
2-DCE
Jun 2001
145
N/A
1,080
1 1 ,900
N/A
frans-1 ,2-DCE
May 2002 Jun 2001
0.24J
N/A
6J
<1,120
<1 ,090
0.38
N/A
5
<100
N/A
Vinyl Chloride
May 2002 Jun 2001
<1.08
N/A
<22.2
<1,120
<1 ,090
<0.1
N/A
<1
<100
N/A
19
N/A
790
1 ,000,000
1 ,000,000
Aug 2001
10
N/A
330
12,000 J
1 2,000 J
Aug 2001
<1.0
N/A
<33
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
Aug 2001
<2.0
N/A
<67
<33,000
<33,000
15
N/A
1,640
1,110,000
N/A
Nov 2001
52
N/A
5,140
1 4,900
N/A
Nov 2001
0.48J
N/A
<10
<100
N/A
Nov 2001
O.10
N/A
1,050
<100
N/A
181
N/A
416
1 ,240,000
N/A
Feb 2002
66
N/A
315
13,300
N/A
Feb 2002
0.3J
N/A
2
<1 ,000
N/A
Feb 2002
<1.0
N/A
<1.0
260J
N/A
N/A: Not analyzed.
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit.
76
-------
aquifer due to the demonstrations of resistive heating
and ISCO technologies. It is unclear as to which of these
two technologies caused this movement. It is also
unclear as to whether the migrating DNAPL was initially
present as mobile or residual form. If all the DNAPL was
initially present in residual form, the strong hydraulic
gradient created by the oxidant injection alone would not
be sufficient to cause DNAPL to migrate. If some DNAPL
was present in mobile form, the hydraulic gradient created
by the injection pressures would cause it to migrate. In
general, for future applications, the strong hydraulic gra-
dients generated by the oxidant injection would necessi-
tate that one of the following measures be implemented:
• The DNAPL source zone boundary should be delin-
eated as accurately as possible so that oxidant
injection can be applied without extraction or other
hydraulic control.
• The oxidant injection pressures should be reduced
in favor of higher injection point density and/or
longer injection times.
• The oxidant should be injected from the outside in
(injection in the perimeter of the DNAPL source
zone, followed by injection in the interior of the
source zone).
All of these measures pose their own challenges. In the
first measure, a definitive identification of the DNAPL
source boundary may be difficult or expensive to achieve.
In the second measure, increasing the spatial density of
injection points or using longer injection times may in-
crease the cost of the application. Extraction of injected
fluids may make the application more expensive due to
the increased cost of extracting, treating, and dispos-
ing/reinjecting the recovered fluids. In the third option,
some oxidant could be lost to surrounding regions. At
Launch Complex 34, the vendor was constrained to
some extent by the conditions of the demonstration, in
which only a portion of the DNAPL source was targeted
for treatment, as well as by regulatory/economic restraints
against extraction/reinjection.
5.4 Verifying Operating Requirements
and Cost
Section 3 contains a description of the ISCO field oper-
ations at Launch Complex 34. Section 7 contains the
costs and economic analysis of the technology.
77
-------
6. Quality Assurance
A QAPP (Battelle, 1999d) prepared before the demon-
stration outlined the performance assessment methodol-
ogy and the QA measures to be taken during the dem-
onstration. The results of the field and laboratory QA for
the critical soil and groundwater CVOC (primary) mea-
surements and groundwater field parameter (secondary)
measurements are described in this section. The results
of the QA associated with other groundwater quality (sec-
ondary) measurements are described in Appendix G. The
focus of the QA measures is on the critical TCE measure-
ment in soil and groundwater, for which, in some cases,
special sampling and analytical methods were used. For
other measurements (chloride, calcium, etc.), standard
sampling and analytical methods were used to ensure
data quality.
6.1 QA Measures
This section describes the data quality in terms of repre-
sentativeness and completeness of the sampling and
analysis conducted for technology performance assess-
ment. Chain-of-custody procedures also are described.
6.1.1 Representativeness
Representativeness is a measure that evaluates how
closely the sampling and analysis represents the true
value of the measured parameters in the target matrices.
The critical parameter in this demonstration is TCE con-
centration in soil. The following steps were taken to
achieve representativeness of the soil samples:
• Statistical design for determining the number and
distribution of soil samples in the 75-ft x 50-ft ISCO
plot, based on the horizontal and vertical variability
observed during a preliminary characterization
event (see Section 4.1). Twelve locations (one in
each cell of a 4 x 3 grid in the plot) were cored
before and after the demonstration and a continu-
ous core was collected and sampled in 2-ft sections
from ground surface to aquitard at each coring
location. At the 80% confidence level, the pre- and
postdemonstration TCE mass estimates in the plot
(see Section 5.1) were within relatively narrow
intervals that enabled a good judgment of the mass
removal achieved by the ISCO technology.
• Sampling and analysis of duplicate postdemon-
stration soil cores to determine TCE concentration
variability within each grid cell. Two complete cores
(SB-217 and SB-317) were collected within about
2 ft of each other in the postdemonstration ISCO
plot, with soil sampling at every 2-ft interval (see
Figure 5-1 for the TCE analysis of these cores).
The resulting TCE concentrations showed a rela-
tively close match (±30%) between the duplicate
core TCE levels. This indicated that dividing the
ISCO plot into 12 grid cells enabled a sampling
design that was able to address the horizontal
variability in TCE distribution.
• Continuous sampling of the soil column at each
coring location enabled the sampling design to
address the vertical variability in the TCE distribu-
tion. By extracting and analyzing the complete 2-ft
depth in each sampled interval, essentially every
vertical depth was sampled.
• Use of appropriate modifications to the standard
methods for sampling and analysis of soil. To
increase the representativeness of the soil sampling,
the sampling and extraction procedures in EPA
Method 5035 were modified so that an entire vertical
section of each 2-ft core could be sampled and
extracted, instead of the 5-g aliquots specified in the
standard method (see Section 4.1). This was done to
maximize the capture of TCE/DNAPL in the entire
soil column at each coring location.
Steps taken to achieve representativeness of the ground-
water samples included:
• Installation and sampling of six well clusters in
the 75-ft x 50-ft ISCO plot. Each cluster consisted
of three wells screened in the three stratigraphic
78
-------
units — Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit,
and Lower Sand Unit.
• Use of standard methods for sampling and analysis.
Disposable tubing was used to collect samples from
all monitoring wells to avoid persistence of TCE in
the sample tubing after sampling wells with high
TCE (DNAPL) levels.
6.1.2 Completeness
All the regular samples planned in the QAPP were col-
lected and analyzed, plus additional samples were col-
lected when new requirements were identified as the
demonstration progressed. Additional groundwater sam-
ples were collected from all ISCO plot and surrounding
wells to better evaluate the generation and migration of
chloride, potassium ion, and potassium permanganate.
One additional soil core was collected during postdem-
onstration sampling to evaluate the variability within the
same grid cell.
All the QC samples planned in the QAPP were collected
and analyzed, except for the equipment rinsate blanks
during soil coring. Equipment rinsate blanks were not
planned in the draft QAPP and were not collected during
the predemonstration soil coring event. These blanks
were later added to the QAPP and were prepared during
the postdemonstration soil coring event. Based on the
preliminary speed of the soil coring, one rinsate blank
per day was thought to be sufficient to obtain a ratio of
one blank per 20 samples (5%). However, as the speed
of the soil coring increased, this frequency was found to
have fallen slightly short of the desired ratio of blanks to
samples. The same rinsing procedure was maintained
for the soil core barrel through the pre- and postdemon-
stration sampling. None of the blanks contained any ele-
vated levels of CVOCs.
6.1.3 Chain of Custody
Chain-of-custody forms were used to track each batch of
samples collected in the field and delivered either to the
on-site mobile laboratory or to the off-site analytical
laboratory. Copies of the chain-of-custody records can
be found in Appendix G. Chain-of-custody seals were
affixed to each shipment of samples to ensure that only
laboratory personnel accessed the samples while in
transit. Upon arrival at the laboratory, the laboratory veri-
fied that the samples were received in good condition
and the temperature blank sample sent with each ship-
ment was measured to ensure that the required temper-
ature was maintained during transit. Each sample re-
ceived was then checked against the chain-of-custody
form, and any discrepancies were brought to the atten-
tion of field personnel.
6.2 Field QC Measures
The field QC checks included calibration of field instru-
ments, field blanks (5% of regular samples), field dupli-
cates (5% of regular samples), and trip blanks; the results
of these checks are discussed in this section.
Table 6-1 summarizes the instruments used for field
groundwater measurements (pH, ORP, DO, tempera-
ture, water levels, and conductivity) and the associated
calibration criteria. Instruments were calibrated at the
beginning and end of the sampling period on each day.
The field instruments were always within the acceptance
criteria during the demonstration. The DO membrane was
the most sensitive, especially to extremely high (near sat-
uration) levels of chlorinated solvent or permanganate in
the groundwater and this membrane had to be changed
more frequently. Because of interference with DO and
other measurements, field parameter measurements in
deeply purple (high permanganate level) samples were
avoided, as noted in Appendix G.
6.2.1 Field QC for Soil Sampling
Soil extractions were conducted in the field and the ex-
tracts were sent to the off-site laboratory for CVOC
analysis. A surrogate compound was initially planned on
being spiked directly into a fraction of the soil samples
collected, but the field surrogate addition was discon-
tinued at the request of the off-site laboratory because of
interference and overload of analytical instruments at the
Table 6-1. Instruments and Calibration Acceptance Criteria Used for Field Measurements
Instrument
Measurement
Acceptance Criteria
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
OHaus Weight Balance
Hermit Water Level Indicator
PH
ORP
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Soil - Dry/Wet Weight
Water Levels
3 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
3 point, ±20% difference
±0.01 ft
79
-------
detection limits required. Surrogate addition was instead
conducted by the analytical laboratory, which injected
the surrogate compound into 5% of the methanol extracts
prepared in the field. As an overall determination of the
extraction and analytical efficiency of the soil sampling,
the modified EPA Method 5035 methanol extraction
procedure was evaluated before the demonstration by
spiking a known amount of TCE into soil samples from
the Launch Complex 34 aquifer. A more detailed evalu-
ation of the soil extraction efficiency was conducted in
the field by spiking a surrogate compound (1,1,1-TCA)
directly into the intact soil cores retrieved in a sleeve.
The injection volume of 1,1,1-TCA was approximately
10uL. The spiked soil samples were handled in the
same manner as the remaining soil samples during the
extraction procedure. Of the 13 soil samples spiked with
1,1,1-TCA, 12 were within the acceptable range of preci-
sion for the postdemonstration soil sampling, calculated
as the relative percent difference (RPD), where RPD is
less than 30%. The results indicate that the methanol
extraction procedure used in the field was suitable for
recovering CVOCs. Extraction efficiencies ranged from
84 to 113% (92% average) (Tables G-1 and G-2 in
Appendix G). For this evaluation, soil samples from the
predemonstration soil core PA-4 were homogenized and
spiked with pure TCE. Replicate samples from the
spiked soil were extracted and analyzed; the results are
listed in Appendix G (Table G-3). For the five replicate
soil samples, the TCE spike recoveries were in the
range of 72 to 86%, which fell within the acceptable
range (70-130%) for quality assurance of the extraction
and analysis procedure.
Duplicate soil samples were collected in the field and
analyzed for TCE to evaluate sampling precision. Dupli-
cate soil samples were collected by splitting each 2-ft
soil core vertically in half and subsequently collecting
approximately 250 g of soil into two separate containers,
marked as SB#-Depth#-A and B. Appendix G (Table G-
4) shows the result of the field soil duplicate analysis and
the precision, calculated as the RPD for the duplicate
soil cores, which were collected before and after the
demonstration. The precision of the field duplicate sam-
ples was generally within the acceptable range (±30%)
for the demonstration, indicating that the sampling pro-
cedure was representative of the soil column at the
coring location. The RPD for three of the duplicate soil
samples from the predemonstration sampling was great-
er than 30%, but less than 60%. This indicated that the
repeatability of some of the predemonstration soil sam-
ples was outside targeted acceptance criteria, but within
a reasonable range, given the heterogeneous nature of
the contaminant distribution. The RPDs for six of the
duplicate soil samples from the postdemonstration sam-
pling were greater than 30%; five of the six samples had
an RPD above 60%. This indicates that the ISCO treat-
ment created greater variability in the contaminant distri-
bution. Part of the reason for the higher RPD calculated
in some postdemonstration soil samples is that TCE
concentrations tended to be low (often near or below the
detection limit). For example, the RPD between dupli-
cate samples, one of which is below detection and the
other is slightly above detection, tends to be high. In
general, though, the variability in the two vertical halves
of each 2-ft core was in a reasonable range, given the
typically heterogeneous nature of the DNAPL distribution.
Field blanks for the soil sampling consisted of rinsate
blank samples and methanol blank samples. The rinsate
blank samples were collected once per drilling borehole
(approximately 20 soil samples) to evaluate the decon-
tamination efficiency of the sample barrel used for each
soil boring. Decontamination between samples consisted
of a three-step process where the core barrel was emp-
tied, washed with soapy water, rinsed in distilled water to
remove soap and debris, and then rinsed a second time
with distilled water. The rinsate blank samples were col-
lected by pouring distilled water through the sample bar-
rel, after the barrel had been processed through the
routine decontamination procedure. As seen in Appen-
dix G (Table G-5), TCE levels in the rinsate blanks were
always below detection (<5.0 ug/L), indicating that the
decontamination procedure was helping control carry-
over of CVOCs between samples.
Methanol method blank samples (5%) were collected in
the field to evaluate the soil extraction process. The
results are listed in Appendix G (Table G-6). These sam-
ples were generally below the targeted detection limit of
1 mg/kg of TCE in dry soil. Detectable levels of TCE
were present in methanol blanks sampled on 6/23/99
(1.8 mg/kg), 6/29/99 (8.0 mg/kg), and 7/16/99 (1.2mg/
kg) during the predemonstration phase of the project,
but were still relatively low. The slightly elevated levels
may be due to the fact that many of the soil samples
extracted on these days were from high-DNAPL regions
and contained extremely high TCE concentrations. The
TCE concentrations in these blanks were below 10% of
the concentrations in the associated batch of soil sam-
ples. All the postdemonstration methanol blanks were
below detection.
6.2.2 Field QC for Groundwater
Sampling
QC checks for groundwater sampling included field
duplicates (5%), field blanks (5%), and trip blanks. Field
duplicate samples were collected once every 20 wells
sampled. Appendix G (Tables G-7 and G-8) contains the
analysis of the field duplicate groundwater samples that
were collected before, during, and after the demonstra-
tion. The RPD (precision) calculated for these samples
always met the QA/QC target criteria of ±30%.
80
-------
Decontamination of the sample tubing between ground-
water samples initially consisted of a detergent rinse and
two distilled water rinses. However, initial groundwater
sampling results revealed that, despite the most thor-
ough decontamination, rinsate blanks contained ele-
vated levels of TCE, especially following the sampling of
wells containing TCE levels near or greater than its sol-
ubility (1,100 mg/L); this indicated that some free-phase
solvent may have been drawn into the tubing. When
TCE levels in such rinsate blanks refused to go down,
even when a methanol rinse was added to the decon-
tamination procedure, a decision was made to switch to
disposable Teflon® tubing. Each new piece of tubing was
used only for sampling each well once and then dis-
carded, despite the associated costs. Once disposable
sample tubing was used, TCE levels in the rinsate
blanks (Appendix G, Tables G-9 and G-10) were below
the targeted detection limit (3.0 ug/L) throughout the
demonstration. The only exception was one rinsate
blank collected during the postdemonstration sampling
event on May 20, 2000; this rinsate blank contained
11 ug/L of TCE, which was less than 10% of the TCE
concentrations in the regular samples in this batch.
TCE levels in trip blank samples were always below
5 ug/L (Appendix G, Table G-11), indicating the integrity
of the samples was maintained during shipment. In
some batches of groundwater samples, especially when
excess permanganate was present in the sample, detec-
tion limits were raised from 3 to 5 ug/L to avoid instru-
ment interference.
6.3 Laboratory QC Measures
The on-site mobile and off-site analytical laboratories
performed QA/QC checks consisting of 5% matrix spikes
(MS) or laboratory control spikes (LCS), as well as the
same number of matrix spike duplicates (MSD) or labor-
atory control spike duplicates (LCSD). The analytical
laboratories generally conducted MS and MSD when-
ever the groundwater samples were clear, in order to
determine accuracy. However, when excess permanga-
nate was present in the samples, as with many postdem-
onstration samplers, LCS and LCSD were conducted.
MS and MSD or LCS and LCSD were used to calculate
analytical accuracy (percent recovery) and precision
(RPD between MS and MSD or LCS and LCSD).
6.3.1 Analytical QC lor Soil
Sampling
Analytical accuracy for the soil samples (methanol ex-
tracts) analyzed were generally within acceptance limits
(70-130%) for the predemonstration period (Appendix G,
Table G-12). Matrix spike recoveries were outside this
range for three of the MS/MSD samples conducted dur-
ing the postdemonstration sampling period (Appendix G,
Table G-13), but still within 50 to 150%; this indicates
that although there may have been some matrix effects,
the recoveries were still within a reasonable range, given
the matrix interference from the permanganate. Matrix
spike recovery was 179% for one of the matrix spike
repetitions on 06/01/00. The precision between MS and
MSD was always within acceptance limits (±25%).
Laboratory control spike recoveries and precision were
within the acceptance criteria (Appendix G, Tables G-14
andG-15).
The laboratories conducted surrogate spikes in 5% of
the total number of methanol extracts prepared from the
soil samples for CVOC analysis. Table 6-2 lists the sur-
rogate and matrix spike compounds used by the on-site
laboratory to perform the QA/QC checks. Table 6-3 lists
the surrogate and matrix spike compounds used by the
off-site laboratory to perform the QA/QC checks. Surro-
gate and matrix spike recoveries were always within the
specified acceptance limits. Method blank samples were
run at a frequency of at least one for every 20 samples
analyzed in the pre- and postdemonstration periods
Table 6-2. List of Surrogate and Matrix Spike
Compounds and Their Target Recoveries
for Groundwater Analysis by the On-Site
Laboratory
Surrogate Compound
DHL
Matrix Spike Compound
DHL
a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (75-125%)
c/s-1,2-DCE(70-130%)
frans-1,2-DCE(70-130%)
Vinyl chloride (65-135%)
TCE (70-130%)
Table 6-3. List of Surrogate and Laboratory Control
Sample Compounds and Their Target
Recoveries for Soil and Groundwater
Analysis by the Off-Site Laboratory
Surrogate Compound
STL
Matrix Spike Compound
STL
Dibromofluoromethane
(66-137%)
1,2-Dichloroethane - d4
(61-138%)
Toluene - d8 (69-132%)
Bromofluorobenzene
(59-145%)
Vinyl chloride (56-123%)
Carbon tetrachloride (60-136%)
Benzene (70-122%)
1,2-Dichloroethane (58-138%)
TCE (70-130%)
1,2-Dichloropropane (68-125%)
1-1,2-Trichloroethane (63-123%)
Tetrachloroethane (70-125%)
1,2-Dibromoethane (66-126%)
Bromoform (60-131%)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (70-120%)
c/s-1,3-Dichloropropane (65-132%)
81
-------
(Appendix G, Tables G-16 and G-17). CVOC levels in
the method blanks were always below detection.
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for
Groundwater Sampling
Pre- and postdemonstration MS and MSD results for
groundwater are listed in Appendix G (Table G-18). The
MS and MSD recoveries (70 to 130%) and their preci-
sion (±25%) were generally within acceptance criteria.
The only exceptions were the samples collected on
08/03/99 and 01/14/00 during the ongoing demonstration
phase which had MS and MSD recoveries that were
outside the range due to high initial TCE concentrations
in the samples. Recoveries and RPDs for LCS and
LCSD samples (Appendix G, Tables G-19 and G-20)
were always within the acceptance range.
Method blanks (Appendix G, Tables G-21 and G-22) for
the groundwater samples were always below the tar-
geted 3-ug/L detection limit.
6.3.3 Analytical Detection Limits
Detection limits for TCE in soil (1 mg/kg) and ground-
water (3 ug/L) generally were met. The only exceptions
were samples that had to be diluted for analysis, either
because one of the CVOC compounds (e.g., TCE) was
at a relatively high concentration as compared to another
VOC compound (e.g., c/s-1,2-DCE) or because exces-
sively high levels of permanganate in the sample neces-
sitated dilution to protect instruments. The proportion-
ately higher detection limits are reported in the CVOC
tables in Appendix C. The detection limits most affected
were those for c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride, due to the
masking effect of high levels of TCE. Additionally, the
laboratories verified and reported that analytical instru-
mentation calibrations were within acceptable range on
the days of the analyses.
6.4 QA/QC Summary
Given the challenges posed by the typically heterogene-
ous TCE distribution in a DNAPL source zone, the col-
lected data were an acceptable representation of the
TCE distribution in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer
before, during, and after the demonstration.
• Sufficient number of locations (12) were sampled
within the plot to adequately capture the horizontal
variability in the TCE distribution. The continuous
sampling of the soil at each coring location ensured
that the vertical variability of the TCE distribution
was captured. Sampling and analytical procedures
were appropriately modified to address the expected
variability. At the 80% confidence level, the soil
sampling provided pre- and postdemonstration
confidence intervals (range of TCE mass estimates)
that were narrow enough to enable an acceptable
judgment of the TCE and DNAPL mass removal
achieved by the ISCO technology.
• Standard sampling and analysis methods were
used for all other measurements to ensure that data
were comparable between sampling events.
• Accuracy and precision of the soil and groundwater
measurements were generally in the acceptable
range for the field sampling and laboratory analysis.
In the few instances that QC data were outside the
targeted range, the reason was generally interfer-
ence from excessive permanganate in the sample.
In some cases, extremely low (near detection) or
extremely high levels of TCE in the sample caused
higher deviation in the precision (repeatability) of
the data.
• The masking effect of high TCE levels on other
CVOCs and the need for sample dilution because
of the presence of excessive permanganate caused
detection limits for TCE, in some cases, to rise to
5 ug/L (instead of 3 ug/L). However, postdemonstra-
tion levels of dissolved TCE in many of the monitor-
ing wells in the ISCO plot were considerably higher
than the 3-ug/L detection and regulatory target.
• Field blanks associated with the soil samples
generally had acceptably low or undetected levels
of TCE. After suitable modifications to account for
the persistence of DNAPL in groundwater sampling
tubing, TCE levels in field blanks were acceptably
low or below detection.
82
-------
7. Economic Analysis
The cost estimation for the ISCO technology application
involves the following three major components:
• Treatment cost of ISCO at the demonstration site.
Costs of the technology application at Launch Com-
plex 34 were tracked by the ISCO vendor and by
MSE, the DOE contractor who subcontracted the
vendor.
• Site preparation costs incurred by the owner.
NASA and MSE tracked the site preparation costs;
that is, the costs incurred by the site owner.
• Site characterization and performance assessment
costs. Battelle and TetraTech EM, Inc. estimated
these costs based on the site characterization and
performance assessment that was generally based
on U.S. EPA's SITE Program guidelines.
An economic analysis for an innovative technology gen-
erally is based on a comparison of the cost of the inno-
vative technology with a conventional alternative. In this
section, the economic analysis involves a comparison of
the ISCO cost with the cost of a conventional pump-and-
treat system.
7.1 ISCO Treatment Costs
The costs of the ISCO technology were tracked and
reported by both the vendor and MSE, the DOE con-
tractor who subcontracted the vendor. Table 7-1 sum-
marizes the major cost components for the application
including the costs of chemicals at $274,000. The chem-
ical cost consists of the purchase of 66,956 kg (150,653
Ib) of potassium permanganate at an average price of
$4/kg ($2/lb). The total cost of the ISCO demonstration
was approximately $1 million. This total includes the
design, permitting support, implementation, process
monitoring, and reporting costs incurred by the vendor.
The total does not include the costs of site characteriza-
tion, which was conducted by other organizations (Re-
medial Investigation/Feasibility Study [RI/FS] study by
NASA, preliminary characterization by WSRC, and
detailed characterization by Battelle/TetraTech EM, Inc./
Table 7-1. ISCO Cost Summary Provided by Vendor
Item
Actual Cost
Final design and specifications
Plans and permits
Procurement
Mobilization*3'
Well installation
Precharacterization sampling
Tracer test
Phase 1 injection and monitoring
Phase 2 injection and monitoring
Phase 3 injection and monitoring
Process monitoring
Cost reporting
Design/cost modeling
Final technical report
Project management/proposal
$ 48,301
$ 23,367
$ 15,696
$ 410,412
$ 46,675
$ 3,292
$ 48,846
$ 124,883
$ 38,737
$ 104,566
$ 1,554
$ 24,270
$ 9,919
$ 49,161
$ 64,268
Total
$1,013,947
(a) Mobilization includes chemical costs for permanganate and major
project equipment rentals and purchases. The total chemical cost
is approximately $274,000.
Source: IT Corporation, 2000.
U.S. EPA). The vendor estimated that approximately 15
to 20% of the total cost was demonstration-related and
would not be incurred in an actual remediation applica-
tion. The vendor documented that the demonstration cost
was approximately $187/yd3 for the total treatment plot
soil volume (IT, 2000). A higher unit cost may be antici-
pated if greater DNAPL removal (percentage) is required.
A subsequent monitoring event indicated that some re-
bound in TCE concentrations occurred in the ISCO plot.
Based on the DNAPL masses estimated during the pre-
demonstration and extended monitoring events, the unit
cost for the treatment was estimated by the DOE con-
tractor at $109/lb of TCE removed (MSE, 2002).
7.2 Site Preparation Costs
Many of the site preparation costs were incurred by NASA
and are not included in the treatment costs listed by the
83
-------
vendor in Table 7-1. Site preparation costs for the ISCO
technology were relatively minor, compared to the other
two technologies demonstrated. For ISCO, site prepa-
ration involved the provision of power and water for the
demonstration. NASA estimated the site preparation costs
at $2,800. NASA did not incur any waste disposal costs
associated with this technology because injected fluids
did not have to be extracted. Except for the disposal of
some mobilization- and operation-related nonhazardous
solid wastes, there was no waste disposal requirement.
7.3 Site Characterization and
Performance Assessment Costs
This section describes two categories of costs:
• Site characterization costs. These are the costs
for the effort to bridge the gap between the general
site information in an RI/FS or RFI report and the
more detailed information required for DNAPL
source delineation and remediation technology
design. This cost component is perhaps the most
reflective of the type of costs incurred when a site of
the size and geology of Launch Complex 34 under-
goes site characterization in preparation for remedi-
ation. Presuming that groundwater monitoring and
plume delineation at a site indicates the presence of
DNAPL, these site characterization costs are
incurred in an effort to define the boundaries of the
DNAPL source zone, obtain an order-of-magnitude
estimate of the DNAPL mass present, and define
the local hydrogeology and geochemistry of the
DNAPL source zone.
• Performance assessment costs. These are pri-
marily demonstration-related costs. Most of these
costs were incurred in an effort to further delineate
the portion of the DNAPL source contained in the
ISCO plot and determine the TCE/DNAPL mass
removal achieved by ISCO. Only a fraction of these
costs would be incurred during full-scale deploy-
ment of this technology; depending on the site-
specific regulatory requirements, only the costs
related to determining compliance with cleanup
criteria would be incurred in a full-scale deployment.
Table 7-2 summarizes the costs incurred by Battelle for
the February 1999 site characterization. The February
1999 site characterization event was a suitable combina-
tion of soil coring and groundwater sampling, organic
and inorganic analysis, and hydraulic testing (water lev-
els and slug tests) that may be expected to bridge the
gap between the RI/FS or RFI data usually available at a
site and the typical data needs for DNAPL source delin-
eation and remediation design.
Table 7-3 lists performance assessment costs incurred
jointly by Battelle and TetraTech EM, Inc.
Table 7-2. Estimated Site Characterization Costs
Activity
Cost
Site Characterization Work Plan $ 25,000
• Additional characterization to delineate DNAPL
source
• Collect hydrogeologic and geochemical data for
technology design
Site Characterization $165,000
• Drilling - soil coring and well installation
(12 continuous soil cores to 45 ft bgs;
installation of 36 monitoring wells)
• Soil and groundwater sampling (36 monitoring
wells; 300 soil samples collection and field
extraction)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Data Analysis and Site Characterization Report $ 65,000
Total
$ 255,000
Table 7-3. Estimated Performance Assessment Costs
Activity
Cost
Predemonstration Assessment $208,000
• Drilling - 12 continuous soil cores, installation
of 18 monitoring wells
• Soil and groundwater sampling for TCE/DNAPL
boundary and mass estimation (36 monitoring
wells; 300 soil samples collection and field
extraction)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Demonstration Assessment $240,000
• Groundwater sampling (ISCO plot and
perimeter wells)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing; ISCO plot and perimeter wells)
Postdemonstration Assessment $215,000
• Drilling - 12 continuous soil cores
• Soil and groundwater sampling (36 monitoring
wells; 300 soil samples collection and field
extraction)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Total
$ 663,000
84
-------
7.4 Present Value Analysis of ISCO and
Pump-and-Treat System Costs
DNAPL, especially of the magnitude present at Launch
Complex 34, is likely to persist in the aquifer for several
decades or centuries. The resulting groundwater con-
tamination and plume also will persist for several dec-
ades. The conventional approach to this type of contami-
nation has been the use of pump-and-treat systems that
extract and treat the groundwater above ground. This
conventional technology is basically a plume control
technology and would have to be implemented as long
as groundwater contamination exists. ISCO is an innova-
tive in situ technology that seeks to replace the conven-
tional pump-and-treat approach. The economic analysis
therefore compares the costs of these two alternatives.
Because a pump-and-treat system would have to be
operated for the next several decades, the life-cycle cost
of this long-term treatment has to be calculated and
compared with the cost of ISCO, a short-term treatment.
The present value (PV) of a long-term pump-and-treat
application is calculated as described in Appendix H.
The PV analysis is conducted over a 30-year period, as
is typical for long-term remediation programs at Super-
fund sites. Site characterization and performance (com-
pliance) assessment costs are assumed to be similar for
both alternatives and are not included in this analysis.
For the purpose of comparison, it is assumed that a
pump-and-treat system would have to treat the plume
emanating from a DNAPL source the size of the ISCO
plot. Recent research (Pankow and Cherry, 1996) indi-
cates that the most efficient pump-and-treat system for
source containment would capture all the groundwater
flowing through the DNAPL source region. For a 75-ft-
long x 50-ft-wide x 40-ft-deep DNAPL source region at
Launch Complex 34, a single well cluster (with two wells,
one screened in the Upper Sand Unit and the other
screened in the Lower Sand Unit) pumping at 2 gpm is
assumed to be sufficient to contain the source in an
aquifer where the hydraulic gradient (and therefore, the
groundwater flow velocity) is extremely low. This type of
minimal containment pumping ensures that the source is
contained without having to extract and treat ground-
water from cleaner surrounding regions, as would be the
case in more aggressive conventional pump-and-treat
systems. The extracted groundwater is treated with an
air stripper and polishing carbon. The air effluent from
the air stripper is treated with a catalytic oxidizer before
discharge to the atmosphere.
As shown in Appendix H, the total capital investment for
an equivalent pump-and-treat system would be approxi-
mately $167,000, and would be followed by an annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of $57,500
(including quarterly monitoring). Periodic maintenance
requirements (replacements of pumps, etc.) would raise
the O&M cost every five years to $70,000 and every
10 years to $99,000. A real discount rate of 2.9%, based
on the current recommendation for government projects,
was used to calculate the PV. The PV of the pump-and-
treat costs over 30 years is estimated to be $1,406,000.
Based on the vendor's assessment that 15% of the total
treatment cost for the ISCO plot was demonstration-
related, an equivalent treatment cost for full-scale
deployment of the ISCO technology would be approxi-
mately $850,000. This estimate is based on a total treat-
ment and site preparation cost during the demonstration
of approximately $1 million (from Table 7-1), less 15% of
demonstration-related monitoring costs. Therefore, if the
TCE remaining in the ISCO plot was allowed to attenu-
ate naturally, the total treatment cost of ISCO would be
around $850,000.
The economics of the ISCO technology compare favor-
ably with the economics of an equivalent pump-and-treat
system. As seen in Table H-3 in Appendix H, an invest-
ment in ISCO would be recovered in the 18th year, when
the PV of a pump-and-treat system exceeds the cost of
ISCO. In addition to lower PV or life-cycle costs, there
may be other tangible and intangible economic benefits
to using a source remediation technology that are not
factored into the analysis. For example, the economic
analysis in Appendix H assumes that the pump-and-treat
system is operational all the time over the next 30 or
more years, with most of the annual expense associated
with operation and routine (scheduled) maintenance.
Experience with pump-and-treat systems at several sites
has shown that downtime associated with pump-and-
treat systems is fairly high (as much as 50% downtime
reported from some sites). This may negatively impact
both maintenance requirements (tangible cost) and the
integrity of plume containment (intangible cost) with the
pump-and-treat alternative.
Another factor to consider is that, although the economic
analysis for long-term remediation programs typically is
conducted for a 30-year period, the DNAPL source (and
therefore the pump-and-treat requirement) may persist
for many more years or decades. This would lead to
concomitantly higher remediation costs for plume con-
tainment (without source removal). Even if the limitations
on the effectiveness of a source removal technology at
some sites necessitate the use of pump-and-treat for the
next few years, until the source (and plume) is further
depleted, the cost of the pump-and-treat system and the
time period over which it needs to be operated is likely to
be considerably reduced.
85
-------
8. Technology Applications Analysis
This section evaluates the general applicability of the
ISCO technology to sites with contaminated groundwater
and soil. The analysis is based on the results and
lessons learned from the IDC demonstration, as well as
general information available about the technology and
its application at other sites.
8.1 Objectives
This section evaluates the ISCO technology against the
nine evaluation criteria used for detailed analysis of
remedial alternatives in feasibility studies under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Much of the discussion
in this section applies to DNAPL source removal in
general, and ISCO technology in particular. (For this
section, "ISCO" refers to the mode in which this technol-
ogy was applied at Launch Complex 34 — namely, by
injection of industrial-grade potassium permanganate
solution without concomitant extraction.)
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
ISCO is protective of human health and environment in
both the short and long term. At Launch Complex 34 for
example, ISCO removed more than 4,000 kg of DNAPL
contamination from the ISCO plot, with significant TCE
mass destruction by oxidation. Because DNAPL acts as
a secondary source that can contaminate an aquifer for
decades or centuries, DNAPL source removal or mitiga-
tion considerably reduces the duration over which the
source is active. Even if DNAPL mass removal is not
100%, the resulting long-term weakening of the plume
and the reduced duration over which the DNAPL source
contributes to the plume reduces the threat to potential
receptors.
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs
This section describes the technology performance ver-
sus applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). Compliance with chemical-, location-, and
action-specific ARARs should be determined on a site-
specific basis. Generally, location- and action-specific
ARARs can be met with this technology, especially be-
cause of the following reasons:
• Injected oxidant solution is not reextracted or rein-
jected; therefore, there are no aboveground residu-
als that need treatment or disposal.
• When permanganate is used as the oxidant, there
are no exothermic reactions that generate heat,
and, therefore, no potential releases to the
atmosphere.
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends on
the efficiency of the ISCO process at the site and the
cleanup goals agreed on by various stakeholders. In
general, reasonable DNAPL mass removal goals are
more achievable and should lead to eventual and earlier
compliance with long-term groundwater cleanup goals.
Achieving short-term groundwater cleanup goals (e.g.,
federal or state maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]),
especially in the DNAPL source zone, is more difficult
because various studies (Pankow and Cherry, 1996)
have shown that almost 100% DNAPL mass removal
may be required before a significant change in ground-
water concentrations is observed. However, removal of
DNAPL, even if most of the removal takes place from the
more accessible pores, probably would result in a weak-
ened plume that may allow risk-based cleanup goals to
be met in the downgradient aquifer.
The specific federal environmental regulations that are
potentially impacted by remediation of a DNAPL source
with ISCO are described below.
8.1.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), provides for federal
authority to respond to releases or potential releases of
any hazardous substance into the environment, as well
86
-------
as to releases of pollutants or contaminants that may
present an imminent or significant danger to public
health and welfare or the environment. Remedial alter-
natives that significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous materials and that provide long-
term protection are preferred. Selected remedies must
also be cost-effective and protective of human health
and the environment. The ISCO technology meets sev-
eral of these criteria relating to a preferred alternative.
ISCO reduces the toxicity of oxidizable contaminants by
converting them into potentially nontoxic forms. For
example, at Launch Complex 34, as described in Sec-
tion 5.3.1, the hazardous chlorinated solvent TCE was
converted to carbon dioxide, chloride, and water, without
generating any aboveground residuals. This elimination
of solvent hazard is permanent and leads to a consider-
able reduction in the time it takes for the DNAPL source
to deplete fully. Although aquifer heterogeneities and
technology limitations often result in less than 100%
removal of the contaminant and elevated levels of dis-
solved solvent may persist in the groundwater over the
short term, there is faster and eventual elimination of
groundwater contamination in the long term. Section 7.4
shows that ISCO is cost-effective compared with the
conventional alternative of long-term pump and treat.
8.1.2.2 Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, regulates management
and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes.
The U.S. EPA and RCRA-authorized states (listed in 40
CFR Part 272) implement and enforce RCRA and state
regulations. Generally, RCRA does not apply to in situ
groundwater treatment because the contaminated
groundwater may not be considered hazardous waste
while it is still in the aquifer. The contaminated ground-
water becomes regulated if it is extracted from the
ground, as would happen with the conventional alter-
native of pump and treat. At least in the injection-only
(no extraction) mode implemented at Launch Complex
34, no aboveground waste streams that may be hazard-
ous, as defined by RCRA, are generated. At some sites,
where hydraulic control requirements necessitate extrac-
tion and reinjection or treatment/disposal of injected flu-
ids, RCRA may be invoked.
8.1.2.3 Clean Water Act
The CWA is designed to restore and maintain the chem-
ical, physical, and biological quality of navigable surface
waters by establishing federal, state, and local discharge
standards. In the injection-only mode adopted at Launch
Complex 34, there was no extraction of groundwater and
therefore no reinjection or treatment/disposal of water; in
this mode, the CWA may not be triggered. If, however,
groundwater extraction is conducted in conjunction with
injection, and the resulting water stream needs to be
treated and discharged to a surface water body or a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW), the CWA may
apply. On-site discharges to a surface water body must
meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements, but may not require an NPDES
permit. Off-site discharges to a surface water body must
meet NPDES limits and require an NPDES permit. Dis-
charge to a POTW, even if it is through an on-site sewer,
is considered an off-site activity. Sometimes, soil or
groundwater monitoring may lead to small amounts of
purge and decontamination water wastes that may be
subject to CWA requirements. Micropurging was one
measure implemented at Launch Complex 34 to mini-
mize such wastes during site characterization and tech-
nology performance assessment.
8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA, as amended in 1986, requires U.S. EPA to
establish regulations to protect human health from con-
taminants in drinking water. The legislation authorizes
national drinking water standards and a joint federal-
state system for ensuring compliance with these stand-
ards. The SDWA also regulates underground injection of
fluids through the UIC program and includes sole-source
aquifer and wellhead protection programs.
The National Primary Drinking Water Standards are
found at 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. The health-
based SDWA primary standards (e.g., for TCE) are more
critical to meet; SDWA secondary standards (e.g., for
dissolved manganese) are based on other factors, such
as aesthetics (discoloration) or odor. The MCLs based
on these standards generally apply as cleanup stand-
ards for water that is, or potentially could be, used for
drinking water supply. In some cases, such as when
multiple contaminants are present, alternative concentra-
tion limits (ACLs) may be used. CERCLA and RCRA
standards and guidance are used in establishing ACLs.
In addition, some states may set more stringent stand-
ards for specific contaminants. For example, the feder-
ally mandated MCL for vinyl chloride is 2 ug/L, whereas
the State of Florida drinking water standard is 1 ug/L. In
such instances, the more stringent standard is usually
the cleanup goal.
Although the long-term goal of DNAPL source zone
treatment is meeting applicable drinking water standards
or other risk-based groundwater cleanup goals agreed
on between site owners and regulatory authorities, the
short-term objective of ISCO and source remediation is
DNAPL mass removal. Because technology, site, and
economic limitations may limit DNAPL mass removal to
less than 100%, it may not always be possible to meet
groundwater cleanup targets in the source region in the
87
-------
short term. Depending on other factors, such as the
distance of the compliance point (e.g., property bound-
ary, at which groundwater cleanup targets have to be
met) from the source (as negotiated between the site
owner and regulators), the degree of weakening of the
plume due to DNAPL source treatment, and the degree
of natural attenuation in the aquifer, it may be possible to
meet groundwater cleanup targets at the compliance
point in the short term. DNAPL mass removal will always
lead to faster attainment of groundwater cleanup goals in
the long term, as compared to the condition in which no
source removal action is taken.
One aspect of using potassium permanganate solution
as an oxidant for DNAPL source remediation is the pres-
ence of regulated trace metals in industrial-grade per-
manganate, the grade that is most commonly and eco-
nomically available commercially. Depending on the con-
centration of permanganate used, levels of trace metals
in the injected solution and/or the treated aquifer may
temporarily exceed federal or state drinking water stand-
ards. At Launch Complex 34, injection of a 1 to 2%
solution of permanganate resulted in elevated levels of
some trace metals (chromium, nickel, and thallium) in
the aquifer during and immediately after the demonstra-
tion (see Section 5.2.2). There is also the possibility that
the strong oxidant may cause the release of other
regulated metals (e.g., iron) from the aquifer formation or
from other underground structures. Dissolved manga-
nese originating from the oxidant is also subject to
secondary drinking water standards. A DIG permit will be
required for permanganate injection in many cases. At
Launch Complex 34, a variance was obtained from the
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
to allow injection of the industrial-grade potassium per-
manganate for the ISCO demonstration.
Elevated levels of these metals of concern are expected
to subside over time; the time period required for the
metals to once again meet applicable drinking water
standards will depend on the groundwater flux through the
treated zone, once normal flow resumes. Many of the ele-
vated metals are subject to secondary drinking water
standards, which are somewhat less of a concern than
target contamination (DNAPL) and metals subject to pri-
mary standards. One option for mitigating these con-
cerns is to use the more expensive pharmaceutical-grade
permanganate. Another option is to reduce the concentra-
tion of industrial-grade permanganate in the injected
solution to a level where trace metal concentrations are
compatible with regulatory standards applicable to the
injected solution and/or the treated aquifer. The tradeoff
between higher injected permanganate concentration
(lower injection volumes and times) and lower injected
permanganate (higher injection volumes and times)
should be taken into consideration on a site-by-site basis.
One issue that has not been formally investigated in the
field is generation and potential toxicity of organic
byproducts from the incomplete oxidation of CVOCs and
natural organic matter by the permanganate. This is a
research need for the technology.
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act
The CAA and the 1990 amendments establish primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for protec-
tion of public health, as well as emission limitations for
certain hazardous pollutants. Permitting requirements
under CAA are administered by each state as part of
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) developed to bring
each state in compliance with National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standards (NAAQS).
Unlike pump-and-treat systems, which often generate air
emissions (when an air stripper is used), and unlike
other source removal technologies that use thermal
energy (e.g., steam injection or resistive heating) or
result in exothermic reactions (e.g., oxidation with Fen-
ton's reagent), the potential for atmospheric releases by
ISCO with potassium permanganate is absent. Surface
emission tests conducted in the ISCO plot during and
after the demonstration did not show any TCE emissions
above background levels.
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be carried out in accordance with OSHA require-
ments detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926,
especially Part 1910.120, which provide for the health
and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site
construction activities at Superfund or RCRA corrective
action sites must be performed in accordance with Part
1926 of RCRA, which provides safety and health regu-
lations for construction sites. State OSHA requirements,
which may be significantly stricter than federal stand-
ards, also must be met.
The health and safety aspects of ISCO are minimal, and
are described in Section 3.3, which describes the oper-
ation of this technology at Launch Complex 34. Level D
personal protective equipment generally is sufficient dur-
ing implementation. Operation of heavy equipment and
handling of a strong oxidant are the main working haz-
ards and are dealt with by using appropriate personal
protective equipment and trained workers. All operating
and sampling personnel are required to have completed
the 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations training course
and 8-hour refresher courses.
88
-------
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence
ISCO leads to destruction of DNAPL mass and therefore
permanent removal of contamination from the aquifer.
Although dissolved solvent concentrations may rebound
in the short term when groundwater flow redistributes
through the treated source zone containing DNAPL
remnants, depletion of the source through dissolution will
continue in the long term, and lead to eventual and
earlier compliance with groundwater cleanup goals.
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
ISCO effects treatment by reducing the toxicity of the
contamination. Hazardous chlorinated solvents or other
target contaminants are oxidized to potentially nontoxic
compounds, such as chloride, carbon dioxide, and
water.
8.1.5 Short- Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness of the ISCO technology
depends on a number of factors. If the short-term goal is
to remove as much DNAPL mass as possible, this goal
is likely to be met. If the short-term goal is to reduce dis-
solved contaminant levels in the source zone, achieve-
ment of this goal will depend on the hydrogeology and
DNAPL distribution in the treated region. As seen in Sec-
tion 5.2.1, TCE levels declined sharply in some monitor-
ing wells in the ISCO plot, but rose in one of the wells.
Geologic heterogeneities, preferential flowpaths taken by
the oxidant, and localized permeability changes that
determine flow in the treated region may lead to such
variability in posttreatment groundwater levels of con-
tamination. As discussed in Section 8.1.2.4, the chances
of DNAPL mass removal resulting in reduced contami-
nant levels at a compliance point downgradient from the
source is more likely in the short term. In the long term,
DNAPL mass removal will always shorten the time
period required to bring the entire affected aquifer in
compliance with applicable standards.
8.1.6 Implementability
As mentioned in Section 7.2, site preparation and ac-
cess requirements for implementing ISCO are minimal.
Firm ground for setup of the permanganate storage and
mixing equipment is required. The equipment and chem-
icals involved are commercially available. Setup and
shakedown times are relatively small. Overhead space
available at open sites is generally sufficient for housing
storage and GeoProbe® equipment, if required. Accessi-
bility to the portion of the contamination under the Engi-
neering Support Building at Launch Complex 34 was not
particularly efficient with normal injection from the out-
side. The use of angled injection wells/drive points or the
capability of conducting injection from inside the building
may be required to remediate more of the contamination
under the building.
Generally, 8 to 10 hours of operator attention each day
is sufficient to keep the oxidant flowing through the injec-
tion points and 24-hour presence is not required, as long
as the system is automated enough that it shuts off
when any backpressure is sensed in the injection lines.
Strong oxidant and byproduct colors make it easier to
track the progress of the oxidant in the aquifer, although
confirmatory groundwater and soil sampling is required.
The strong oxidant is a chemical hazard, but one that
can be handled through the use of basic personal pro-
tective equipment and a common neutralizing solution.
At least in the injection-only mode used at Launch Com-
plex 34, ISCO did not generate any significant above-
ground wastes that required treatment and reinfection/
disposal. If additional hydraulic control is to be achieved
through the use of strategic extraction wells, then the
complexity of the operation may increase to some
degree and waste generation and handling requirements
may become significant.
8.1.7 Cost
As described in Section 7.4, the cost of the ISCO treat-
ment is competitive with the life-cycle cost of pump and
treat (over a 30-year period of comparison). The cost
comparison becomes even more favorable for source
remediation in general and ISCO in particular when other
tangible and intangible factors are taken into account. For
example, a DNAPL source, such as the one at Launch
Complex 34, is likely to persist much longer than
30 years (the normal evaluation time for long-term rem-
edies), thus necessitating continued costs for pump and
treat into the distant future (perhaps 100 years or more).
Annual O&M costs also do not take into account the
nonroutine maintenance costs associated with the large
amount of downtime typically experienced by site own-
ers with pump-and-treat systems.
Factors that may increase the cost of the ISCO applica-
tion are:
• Operating requirements associated with any
contamination under a building
• Stringent regulatory requirements on elevated levels
of trace metals in the treated aquifer that necessitate
operating longer with lower permanganate concen-
trations or moving to a higher grade of oxidant.
89
-------
• Need for additional hydraulic control (e.g., with
extraction wells) and any associated need to treat
and dispose/reinject extracted fluids.
8.1.8 State Acceptance
The ITRC, a consortium of several states in the United
States, is participating in the IDC demonstration through
reports review and attendance at key meetings. The
ITRC plays a key role in innovative technology transfer
by helping disseminate performance information and
regulatory guidance to the states.
The IDC set up a partnering team consisting of repre-
sentatives from NASA and Patrick Air Force Base (site
owners), U.S. EPA, State of Florida Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (FDEP), and other stakeholders
early on when the demonstration was being planned. The
partnering team was and is being used as the mech-
anism to proactively obtain regulatory input in the design
and implementation of the remediation/demonstration
activities at Launch Complex 34. Because of the techni-
cal limitations and costs of conventional approaches to
DNAPL remediation, state environmental agencies have
shown growing acceptance of innovative technologies.
8.1.9 Community Acceptance
The ISCO technology's low profile, limited space require-
ments, absence of air emissions, absence of waste
storage, handling, and off-site transportation require-
ments, low noise levels, and ability to reduce short- and
long-term risks posed by DNAPL contamination are
expected to promote local community acceptance.
8.2 Operability
Unlike a pump-and-treat system that may involve contin-
uous long-term operation by trained operators for the
next 30 or 100 years, a source remediation technology is
a short-term application. The field application of ISCO in
the 75-ft x 50-ft plot at Launch Complex 34 took about
seven months to complete including two interim monitor-
ing events. The remediation generally is done as a turn-
key project by multiple vendors, who will design, build,
and operate the oxidant delivery system. Site characteri-
zation, site preparation (utilities, etc.), monitoring, and
any waste disposal often are done by the site owner.
Although various organization has patented some aspects
of the process, ISCO of dissolved contamination, in gen-
eral, has been known for a long time and is commercially
available through several vendors.
The chemical (permanganate) oxidation process is rela-
tively easy to set up and operate using off-the-shelf
equipment and generally proficient operators. Potassium
permanganate handling requires moderate health and
safety measures; however, other oxidants, such as Fen-
ton's reagent or ozone, may require additional precau-
tions.
8.3 Applicable Wastes
ISCO has primarily been applied to remediation of
aquifers contaminated with chlorinated solvents. Source
zones consisting of PCE and TCE in DNAPL form, as
well as dissolved c;s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride can be
addressed. However, oxidation has a range of other
potential applications. Permanganate, for example, is able
to oxidize source zones containing naphthalene, phen-
anthrene, pyrene, and phenols. ISCO can be imple-
mented in source zones present in saturated or vadose
zones. The technology also has been contemplated for
treating dissolved contaminant plumes of these com-
pounds. Oxidants, such as Fenton's reagent, have been
found to be capable of treating methyl-fe/f-butyl ether
(MTBE) hot spots. In general, any contaminant that exists
in a relatively reduced form that can be oxidized into
potentially nontoxic products is amenable for treatment
by ISCO.
8.4 Key Features
The following are some of the key features of chemical
(permanganate) oxidation that makes it attractive for
DNAPL source zone and groundwater treatment:
• In situ application
• Potential for injection-only mode at some sites that
prevents the generation of aboveground wastes,
which would need additional treatment or handling
• Potentially nontoxic products
• Uses relatively simple, commercially available
equipment
• Relatively fast field application time
• Longer-lived oxidant (potassium permanganate)
distributes in the aquifer through both advection and
diffusion, thus achieving better contact with contam-
inants
• At many sites, a one-time application has the poten-
tial to reduce a DNAPL source to the point where
either natural attenuation is sufficient to address a
weakened plume or pump and treat needs to be
applied for over a shorter duration in the future.
8.5 Availability/Transportability
ISCO is commercially available from multiple vendors or
consulting organizations as a service on a contract basis.
90
-------
In addition, potassium permanganate or sodium perman-
ganate suppliers are familiar enough with the application
that they can help design some of the front-end perman-
ganate storage and delivery equipment. No stand-alone
mobile ISCO plant has been built, but components are
readily available and oxidant delivery systems can be
assembled or disassembled on site relatively quickly.
8.6 Materials Handling Requirements
Potassium permanganate is typically available as a solid
and requires solids handling and mixing equipment;
however, sodium permanganate is available as a solu-
tion that can be diluted on site before the in situ
application.
8.7 Ranges of Suitable Site
Characteristics
The following factors should be considered when deter-
mining the suitability of a site for ISCO application:
• Type of contaminants. Contaminants should be
amenable to oxidation with commonly available
oxidants.
• Site geology. Oxidant can be distributed more
effectively in sandy soils. Silts or clays can make
the application more difficult. Aquifer heterogenei-
ties and preferential flowpaths can make contact
between the oxidant and the contaminants more
difficult. DNAPL source zones in fractured bedrock
also may pose a challenge.
• Soil characteristics. Soils with low organic carbon
content require less oxidant and application is rela-
tively quicker. Soils with higher organic content
consume more oxidant and slow down the spread
of the oxidation front.
• Regulatory acceptance. Although ISCO has long-
term benefits in terms of a diminished DNAPL
source, at least in the short term, use of industrial-
grade permanganate can elevate the levels of trace
metals in the treated aquifer. Regulatory accept-
ance is important for this application, and a DIG
permit or variance may be required. In addition,
hydraulic control requirements and economics at
some sites may necessitate extraction, treatment,
and reinjection of the oxidant solution. A reinjection
permit will be required.
• Site accessibility. Sites that have no aboveground
structures and fewer utilities are easier to remediate
with ISCO. Presence of buildings or a network of
utilities can make the application more difficult.
None of the factors mentioned above necessarily elimi-
nate ISCO from consideration. Rather, these are factors
that may make the application less or more economical.
8.8 Limitations
The ISCO technology has the following limitations:
• Not all types of contaminants are amenable to oxi-
dative transformation. In addition, some cocontami-
nants, such as heavy metals, could be mobilized by
oxidation.
• Byproducts of oxidation may make it unsuitable for
application in a region very close to a receptor,
even though some of these byproducts are subject
to secondary (nonhealth-based) drinking water
standards. Byproducts, such as manganese,
chloride, and trace metals, require sufficient time
and distance to dissipate (around 100 ft at Cape
Canaveral).
• Aquifer heterogeneities can make the application
more difficult, necessitating more complex applica-
tion schemes, greater amounts of oxidant, and/or
longer injection times.
• Some sites may require greater hydraulic control to
minimize the spread of contaminants. This may
necessitate the use of extraction, aboveground
treatment, and disposal/reinjection.
91
-------
9. References
Appelo, C.A.J and D. Postma. 1994. Geochemistry,
Groundwater, and Pollution. A.A. Balkema:
Rotterdam. 536 pp.
Battelle. 1999a. Hydrogeologic and Chemical Data Com-
pilation, Interagency DNAPL Consortium Remedi-
ation Demonstration Project, Launch Complex 34,
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida. Prepared for
Interagency DNAPL Consortium.
Battelle. 1999b. Interim Report: Performance Assess-
ment Site Characterization for the Interagency
DNAPL Consortium, Launch Complex 34, Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Florida. Prepared for Inter-
agency DNAPL Consortium.
Battelle. 1999c. Pre-Demonstration Assessment of the
Treatment Plots at Launch Complex 34, Cape
Canaveral, Florida. Prepared for Air Force Research
Laboratory and Interagency DNAPL Consortium.
September 13.
Battelle. 1999d. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Per-
formance Evaluation of In-Situ Oxidation for DNAPL
Destruction at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canav-
eral, Florida. Prepared for the Air Force Research
Laboratory, Tyndall AFB, FL. Septembers.
Battelle. 1999e. First Interim Report for Performance
Assessment of Six-Phase Heating™ and In-Situ
Oxidation Technologies at LC34. Prepared for the
Interagency DNAPL Consortium, November 2.
Battelle. 1999f. Second Interim Report for Performance
Assessment of Six-Phase Heating™ and In-Situ Oxi-
dation Technologies at LC34. Prepared for the Inter-
agency DNAPL Consortium, December 2.
Battelle. 2000a. Third Interim Report for Performance
Assessment of Six-Phase Heating™ and In-Situ Oxi-
dation Technologies at LC34. Prepared for the Inter-
agency DNAPL Consortium, May 11.
Battelle. 2000b. Fourth Interim Report for Performance
Assessment of Six-Phase Heating™ and In-Situ Oxi-
dation Technologies at LC34. Prepared for the Inter-
agency DNAPL Consortium, June 30.
Battelle. 2000c. Fifth Interim Report for Performance
Assessment of Six-Phase Heating™ and In-Situ Oxi-
dation Technologies at LC34. Prepared for the Inter-
agency DNAPL Consortium, November 2.
Battelle. 2000d. Sixth Interim Report: IDC's Demonstra-
tion of Three Remediation Technologies at LC34,
Cape Canaveral Air Station. Prepared for the Inter-
agency DNAPL Consortium, February 12.
Battelle. 2001. Seventh Interim Report on the IDC Dem-
onstration at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
Air Station. Prepared for the Interagency DNAPL
Consortium. August 15.
Eddy-Dilek, C., B. Riha, D. Jackson, and J. Consort.
1998. DNAPL Source Zone Characterization of
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station,
Florida. Prepared for Interagency DNAPL Consor-
tium by Westinghouse Savannah River Company
and MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
G&E Engineering, Inc. 1996. RCRA RFI Work Plan for
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station,
Brevard County, Florida. Prepared for NASA Envi-
ronmental Program Office.
Gates, D., R. Siegrist, and S. Cline. 1995. "ISCO of Con-
taminants in Clay or Sandy Soil." Proceedings of
ASCE National Conference on Environmental Engi-
neering. American Society of Civil Engineering,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Hazen, T.C., G. Sewell, and A. Gavaskar. 2000. Bio-
logical Sampling and Analysis Work Plan: The Effect
of Source Remediation Methods on the Presence
and Activity of Indigenous Subsurface Bacteria at
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station,
Florida. Letter Report to the IDC. May 17.
IT Corporation. 2000. In Situ Oxidation System Demon-
stration Test, Final Report: Treatment Cell C,
Launch Complex 34 DNAPL Source Zone Project,
Cape Canaveral, FL. Prepared for MSE Technology
Applications, Inc., Butte, MT. October 20.
92
-------
Lowe, K.S., F.G. Gardner, and R.L. Siegrist. 2002. Field
Pilot Test of In Situ Chemical Oxidation through
Recirculation using Vertical Wells. Ground Water
Monitoring and Remediation. Winter issue, pp. 106-
115.
MSE Technology Applications, Inc. 2002. Comparative
Cost Analysis of Technologies Demonstrated for the
Interagency DNAPL Consortium Launch Complex
34, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida. Prepared
for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory. June.
Pankow, J., and J. Cherry. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Sol-
vents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History,
Behavior, and Remediation. Waterloo Press,
Portland, OR.
Resolution Resources. 2000. Location of Well Below
Confining Unit on LC34 Seismic Data. Letter memo
to NASA. September 11.
Schmalzer, P.A., and G.A. Hinkle. 1990. Geology, Geo-
hydrology and Soils of the Kennedy Space Center: A
Review. NASA Kennedy Space Center, FL.
Siegrist, R.L., M.A. Urynowicz, O.R. West, M.L. Crimi,
and K.S. Lowe. 2001. Principles and Practices of In
Situ /SCO Using Permanganate. Battelle Press,
Columbus, Ohio. July.
Vella, P., G. Deshinsky, J. Boll, J. Munder, and
W.Joyce. 1990. Treatment of Low Level Phenols
with Potassium Permanganate. Research Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 62(7): 907-914.
Watts, R., P. Rausch, S, Leung, and M. Udell. 1990.
"Treatment of Pentachlorophenol Contaminated
Soils Using Fenton's Reagent." Hazardous Waste
and Hazardous Materials 7: 335-345.
93
-------
Appendix A
Performance Assessment Methods
A.1 Statistical Design and Data Analysis Methods
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
-------
A.I Statistical Design and Data Analysis Methods
Estimating TCE/DNAPL mass removal due to the in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) technology
application was a critical objective of the IDC demonstration at Launch Complex 34. Analysis of
TCE in soil samples collected in the ISCO plot before and after the demonstration was the main
tool used to make a determination of the mass removal. Soil sampling was used to obtain pre-
and postdemonstration data on the TCE distribution in the ISCO plot. Three data evaluation
methods were used for estimating TCE/DNAPL masses in the ISCO plot before and after the
demonstration:
• Linear interpolation by contouring
• Kriging
Section 4.1 (in Section 4.0 of the report) contains a general description of these two methods.
Section 5.1 (in Section 5.0 of this report) summarizes the results.
The contouring method is the most straightforward and involves determining TCE concentrations
at unsampled points in the plot by linear interpolation (estimation) of the TCE concentrations
between sampled points. The contouring software Earth Vision™ uses the same methodology
that is used for drawing water level contour maps based on water level measurements at discrete
locations in a region. The only difference with this software is that the TCE concentrations are
mapped in three dimensions to generate iso-concentration shells. The TCE concentration in each
shell is multiplied by the volume of the shell (as estimated by the software) and the bulk density
of the soil (1.59 g/cc, estimated during preliminary site characterization) to estimate a mass for
each shell. The TCE mass in each region of interest (Upper Sand Unit, Middle-Fine-Grained
Unit, Lower Sand Unit, and the entire plot) is obtained by adding up the portion of the shells
contained in that region. The DNAPL mass is obtained by adding up the masses in only those
shells that have TCE concentrations above 300 mg/kg. Contouring provides a single mass
estimate for the region of interest.
The contouring method relies on a high sampling density (collecting a large number of samples in
the test plot) to account for any spatial variability in the TCE concentration distribution. By
collecting around 300 samples in the plot during each event (before and after treatment) the
expectation is that sufficient coverage of the plot has been obtained to make a reliable
determination of the true TCE mass in the region of interest. Section A. 1.1 of this appendix
describes how the number of samples and appropriate sampling locations were determined to
obtain good coverage of the 75 ft x 50 ft plot.
Kriging is a statistical technique that goes beyond the contouring method described above and
addresses the spatial variability of the TCE distribution by taking into account the uncertainties
associated with interpolating between sampled points. Unlike contouring, which provides a
single mass estimate, Kriging provides a range of estimated values that take into account the
uncertainties (variability) in the region of interest. Section A. 1.2 describes the kriging approach
and results
-------
A.I.I Sampling Design to Obtain Sufficient Coverage of the ISCO plot
Selection of the sampling plan for this particular test plot was based, in part, on the objectives of
the study for which the samples were being collected. In this study, the objectives were:
a Primary objective: To determine the magnitude of the reduction in the levels of
TCE across the entire test plot.
a Secondary objectives:
• To determine whether remediation effectiveness differs by depth (or stratigraphic
unit such as the upper sand unit [USU], middle fine-grained unit [MFGU], or lower
sand unit [LSU]).
• To determine whether the three remediation technologies demonstrated differ in their
effectiveness at removing chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs).
Four alternative plans for selecting the number and location of sampling in the test plot were
examined. These four plans were designated as simple random sampling (SRS), paired sampling,
stratified sampling, and systematic sampling. Each plan is discussed in brief detail below.
Simple Random Sampling
The most basic statistical sampling plan is SRS, in which all locations within a given sampling
region are equally likely to be chosen for sampling. For this study, using SRS would require
developing separate SRS plans for each of the three test plots. In addition, because two sampling
events were planned for the test plot, using SRS would involve determining two sets of unrelated
sampling locations for the test plot.
The main benefit of using SRS is that the appropriate sample size can be determined easily based
on the required power to detect a specific decrease in contaminant levels. In addition, SRS
usually involves a reasonable number of samples. However, a key disadvantage of using SRS is
that it would not guarantee complete coverage of the test plot; also, if contaminant levels are
spatially correlated, SRS is not the most efficient sampling design available.
Paired Sampling
Paired sampling builds on SRS methods to generate one set of paired sampling locations for a
given test plot rather than two separate sets. Instead of sampling from each of two separate
random sample locations for pre- and post-remediation sampling, paired sampling involves the
positioning of post-remediation sample locations near the locations of pre-remediation sampling.
The number of samples required to meet specific power and difference requirements when using
this design would be similar to the number of locations involved using SRS; the exact sample size
cannot be determined because information is required about contaminant levels at collocated sites
before and after remediation.
Paired sampling offers three significant benefits to this particular study. First, the work of
determining the sampling locations is reduced in half. Second, the comparison of contaminant
-------
levels before and after remediation is based on the differences in levels at collocated sites. Third,
the variability of the difference should be less than the variability associated with the SRS, which
would result in a more accurate test. The disadvantages of this sampling procedure are the same
as with the SRS: there is no guarantee of complete coverage of the test plot, and the plan is
inefficient for spatially correlated data.
Stratified Sampling
Stratified sampling guarantees better coverage of the plot than either SRS or paired sampling: to
ensure complete coverage of a given test plot, it is divided into a regular grid of cells, and random
samples are drawn from each of the grid cells. Samples then are selected within each grid cell
either using SRS or paired sampling. The number of samples required to meet specific power and
difference requirements would be slightly greater than that for SRS, although the difference
would not be great. For this study, which involves test plots 50 x 75 ft in size, the most effective
grid size would be 25 x 25 ft, which results in six grid cells per test plot.
Again, the main benefit of stratified sampling is that it guarantees more complete coverage of the
test plot than SRS or paired sampling. Also, if any systematic differences in contaminant levels
exist across the site, stratified sampling allows for separate inferences by sub-plot (i.e., grid cell).
Disadvantages of stratified sampling are that the method requires a slightly larger number of
samples than SRS or paired sampling methods, and that stratified sampling performs poorly when
contaminant levels are spatially correlated.
Systematic Sampling
The samples for the ISCO techonology demonstration were collected using a systematic sampling
plan. Systematic sampling is the term applied to plans where samples are located in a regular
pattern. In geographic applications such as this study, the systematic sampling method involves the
positioning of sampling locations at the nodes of a regular grid. The grid need not be square or
rectangular; in fact, a grid of equilateral triangles is the most efficient grid design. (Regular
hexagonal grids also have been used regularly and are nearly as efficient as triangles and squares.)
The number of samples and the size of the area to be sampled determine the dimensions of the grid
to be used. With systematic sampling, the selection of initial (e.g., pre-remediation) set of sampling
locations requires the random location of only one grid node, because all other grid nodes will be
determined based on the required size of the grid and the position of that first node. A second (e.g.,
post-remediation) set of sampling locations can be either chosen using a different random
placement of the grid or collocated with the initial set of sampling locations.
One variation of the systematic sampling method worth consideration is unaligned sampling.
Under this method, a given test plot is divided into a grid with an equal number of rows and
columns. One sample per grid cell then is selected by:
a Assigning random horizontal coordinates for each row of the grid;
a Assigning random vertical coordinates for each column of the grid;
a Determining the sampling locations for a cell by using the horizontal and vertical
coordinates selected for the corresponding row and column.
-------
In other words, every cell in a row shares a horizontal coordinate, and every cell in a column
shares a vertical coordinate. Figure A-l illustrates the locations generated using unaligned
systematic sampling with a 3 x 3 grid.
The major benefit of systematic sampling was that it is the most efficient design for spatially
correlated data. In addition, coverage of the entire plot was guaranteed. One disadvantage of
systematic sampling was that determining the required sample size was more difficult than the
other three methods discussed in this appendix.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Figure A.l-1. Unaligned Systematic Sampling Design for a 3 x 3 Grid
A.1.2 Kriging Methods and Results
The geostatistical analysis approach was to utilize kriging, a statistical spatial interpolation
procedure, to estimate the overall average TCE concentration in soil before and after remediation,
and then determine if those concentrations were significantly different.
To meet the objectives of this study, it is sufficient to estimate the overall mean TCE
concentration across an entire test plot, rather than estimating TCE concentrations at various
spatial locations within a test plot. In geostatistical terms, this is known as global estimation.
One approach, and in fact the simplest approach, for calculating a global mean estimate is to
calculate the simple arithmetic average (i.e., the equally weighted average) across all available
TCE concentrations measured within the plot. However, this approach is appropriate only in
cases where no correlation is present in the measured data. Unfortunately, this is a rare situation
in the environmental sciences.
A second approach, and the approach taken in this analysis, is to use a spatial statistical procedure
called kriging to take account of spatial correlation when calculating the global average. Kriging
is a statistical interpolation method for analyzing spatially varying data. It is used to estimate
TCE concentrations (or any other important parameter) on a dense grid of spatial locations
covering the region of interest, or as a global average across the entire region. At each location,
two values are calculated with the kriging procedure: the estimate of TCE concentration (mg/kg),
and the standard error of the estimate (also in mg/kg). The standard error can be used to calculate
confidence intervals or confidence bounds for the estimates. It should be noted that this
-------
calculation of confidence intervals and bounds also requires a serious distributional assumption,
such as a normality assumption, which is typically more reasonable for global estimates than for
local estimates.
The kriging approach includes two primary analysis steps:
1. Estimate and model spatial correlations in the available monitoring data using a
semivariogram analysis.
2. Use the resulting semivariogram model and the available monitoring data to
interpolate (i.e., estimate) TCE values at unsampled locations; calculate the
statistical standard error associated with each estimated value.
A.l.2.1 Spatial Correlation Analysis
The objective of the spatial correlation analysis is to statistically determine the extent to which
measurements taken at different locations are similar or different. Generally, the degree to which
TCE measurements taken at two locations are different is a function of the distance and direction
between the two sampling locations. Also, for the same separation distance between two
sampling locations, the spatial correlation may vary as a function of the direction between the
sampling locations. For example, values measured at each of two locations, a certain distance
apart, are often more similar when the locations are at the same depth, than when they are at the
same distance apart but at very different depths.
Spatial correlation is statistically assessed with the semivariogram function, ((h), which is defined
as follows (Journel and Huijbregts, 1981):
2((h) = E{[Z(x)-Z(x_+h)]2}
where Z(x) is the TCE measured at location x, h is the vector of separation between locations x
and x_+ h, and E represents the expected value or average over the region of interest. Note that
the location x is typically defined by an easting, northing, and depth coordinate. The vector of
separation is typically defined as a three-dimensional shift in space. The semivariogram is a
measure of spatial differences, so that small semivariogram values correspond to high spatial
correlation, and large semivariogram values correspond to low correlation.
As an initial hypothesis, it is always wise to assume that the strength of spatial correlation is a
function of both distance and direction between the sampling locations. When the spatial
correlation is found to depend on both separation distance and direction, it is said to be
anisotropic. In contrast, when the spatial correlation is the same in all directions, and therefore
depends only on separation distance, it is said to be isotropic.
The spatial correlation analysis is conducted in the following steps using the available measured
TCE data:
• Experimental semivariogram curves are generated by organizing all pairs of data
locations into various separation distance and direction classes (e.g., all pairs separated
by 20-25 ft. in the east-west direction V 22.5°), and then calculating within each class the
average squared-difference between the TCE measurements taken at each pair of
locations. The results of these calculations are plotted against separation distance and by
separation direction.
-------
• To help fully understand the spatial correlation structure, a variety of experimental
semivariogram curves may be generated by subsetting the data into discrete zones, such
as different depth horizons. If significant differences are found in the semivariograms
they are modeled separately; if not, the data are pooled together into a single
semivariogram.
• After the data have been pooled or subsetted accordingly, and the associated
experimental semivariograms have been calculated and plotted, a positive-definite
analytical model is fitted to each experimental curve. The fitted semivariogram model is
then used to input the spatial correlation structure into the subsequent kriging
interpolation step.
A.l.2.2 Interpolation Using Ordinary Kriging
Ordinary kriging is a linear geostatistical estimation method which uses the semivariogram
function to determine the optimal weighting of the measured TCE values to be used for the
required estimates, and to calculate the estimation standard error associated with the estimates
(Journel and Huijbregts, 1981). In a sense, kriging is no different from other classical
interpolation and contouring algorithms. However, kriging is different in that it produces
statistically optimal estimates and associated precision measures. It should be noted that the
ordinary kriging variance, while easy to calculate and readily available from most standard
geostatistical software packages, may have limited usefulness in cases where local estimates are
to be calculated, and the data probability distribution is highly skewed or non-gaussian. The
ordinary kriging variance is more appropriately used for global estimates and symmetric or
gaussian data distributions. The ordinary kriging variance provides a standard error measure
associated with the data density and spatial data arrangement relative to the point or block being
kriged. However, the ordinary kriging variance is independent of the data values themselves, and
therefore may not provide an accurate measure of local estimation precision.
A.l.2.3 TCE Data Summary
Semivariogram and kriging analyses were conducted on data collected from two test plots; one
plot used ISCO technology, and the other used a standard Resistive Heating technology to
remove TCE. Each plot was approximately 50 by 75 feet in size, and was sampled via 25 drill
holes, half before and half after remediation. The location of each drill hole was recorded by
measuring the distance in the northing and easting directions from a designated point on the Cape
Canaveral Air Station. The documented coordinates for each drill hole on the ISCO and Resistive
Heating plots are defined within Figure A. 1-2. The same locations are also shown in Figure A.l-
3 after we rotated both plots by 30 degrees and shifted the coordinates in order to produce a
posting map that was compatible with the kriging computer software.
Each point within Figures A. 1-2 and A. 1-3 represents a single drill hole. Recall that pre- and
post-remediation TCE measurements were collected in order to analyze the effectiveness of the
contaminant removal methods. Thus, the drill holes were strategically placed so that pre and post
information could be gathered within a reasonable distance of one another (i.e., the holes were
approximately paired). In addition, for both the ISCO and the Resistive Heating plots, an extra or
twinned post-remediation hole was drilled (see pre/post pair # 10B and 17B on Figures A. 1-2 and
A. 1-3). Since our approach for the kriging analysis considered the pre- and post-remediation data
as independent data sets (see Section 1.0), we included the duplicate holes in our analyses, even
though a corresponding pre-remediation hole did not exist.
-------
The cores were drilled at least 44 feet deep; and the largest drill hole extends 48 feet. With few
exceptions, TCE measurements were collected every two feet. Thus, approximately 20 to 25
two-foot core sections were analyzed from each drill hole. The vertical location of each core
section was identified by the elevation of the midpoint of the section above sea level. At the time
of data collection, the surface elevation at the location of the drill hole, as well as the top and
bottom depths of each core section (rounded to the nearest half of a foot), were recorded. Hence,
the elevation of each sample was calculated by the subtracting the average of the top and bottom
depths from the surface elevation. For example, if a sample was collected from a core section
that started and ended at 20 and 22 feet below a ground surface elevation of 5.2 feet, then the
sample elevation equaled 5.2 - (20+22)72=15.8 feet above sea level.
In some cases, field duplicate samples were collected by splitting an individual two-foot core
section. In order to optimize the additional data, we used all measurements when evaluating
spatial correlation with the semivariogram analysis, and when conducting the kriging analysis.
However, to remain compatible with the kriging software, it was necessary to shift the location of
the duplicate data slightly, by adding one-tenth of a foot to the easting coordinate. Table A.1-1
summarizes the number of two-foot sections from which more than one sample was collected.
Table A.l-1. Number of Field Duplicate Measurements
Collected from the Resistive Heating and ISCO Plots
Plot
Resistive
Heating
ISCO
Pre/Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Number of Two-Foot Sections From Which
1 Sample was
Drawn
242
246
251
276
> 1 Sample was Drawn
20
28
16
12
Total
262
292
267
288
There were also cases where the observed TCE concentration for a particular sample occurred
below the analytical method detection limit (MDL). In such cases, the measurement that was
included in our analyses equaled one-half of the given MDL. Table A. 1-2 summarizes the
number of observations that were below the MDL.
Table A.l-2. Number of Measurements (including Duplicates) Below the
Minimum Detection Limit
Plot
Resistive
Heating
ISCO
Pre/Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Number of Samples
Below MDL
47
29
20
156
Above MDL
231
276
266
144
Total
278
305
286
300
When a two-foot section was removed from the core, the sample was identified by the easting,
northing, and elevation coordinates. In addition, the geologic stratum, or soil type of the sample,
was also documented. These strata and soil types included the vadose zone, upper sand unit
(USU), middle fine-grained unit (MFGU), and lower sand unit (LSU). Note that the stratum of
the sample was not solely determined by depth, but also by inspection by a geologist.
-------
Tables A. 1-3 and A. 1-4 provide summary statistics by layer and depth for pre- and post-
remediation measurements. The minimum and maximum values provide the overall range of the
data; the mean or average TCE measurement estimates (via simple arithmetic averaging) the
amount of TCE found within the given layer and depth; and the standard deviation provides a
sense of the overall spread of the data. Note that our analyses focus on the three deepest layers,
USU, MFGU and LSU.
-------
SPH
Oxidation
1521450-
1521440-
1521430-
1521420-
32
1521410-
1
§ 1521400-
0
TO
C 1521390-
1521380-
1521370-
1521360-
1521350-
/
• *
1521390
1521380
1521370
1521360
0)
1521350
§ 1521340
o
TO
C 1521330
1521320
1521310
1521300
1521290
_K#
8
/
^ ^ ,*'
tf
/
/
0* ^
Easting Coordinate (ft)
Easting Coordinate (ft)
Pre/Postpair# =Mokl AAA2 XXX3 4++4 5 ZZZe YYY7
AAAs EBB 9 •••10 OCOioB EUDn
Pre/PostPair# *M<13 •••^ OODl5 CUD 16 ***17
-l-H-19 020 ZZZ21 YYY23 AAA24 HBB25
Figure A.l-2. Original Posting Maps of Resistive Heating (SPH) and ISCO plots
(Note that pre/post pair #13 has two drill holes that are extremely close to one another)
-------
SPH
Oxidation
J>
Q)
15
C
O
o
O
TO
C
'F
•e
o
90;
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
-10-
-1
0 C
•
: - ° -
B
B Y
4.
Z 00
-| — u
z
X
X
iE^
^ A
10 20 30 40 5
0 60 70 80 9C
m
Coordinate
TO
c
r—
•e
o
z
90;
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
-10-
0 C
A A
YY B B
22 o
° 4 DD
*
-
* ^
10 20 30 40 5
0 60 70 80 9C
Easting Coordinate (ft)
Easting Coordinate (ft)
Pre/Post Pair# ***1 AAA2 XXXs +++4 5 ZZZe YYY7
AAAs EBB 9 •••10 OCOioB EUDn
Pre/Post Pair# *M<13 •••^ OODl5 D3D16 ***17
-m-19 20 ZZZ21 YYY23 AAA24 BBB25
Figure A.l-3. Rotated Posting Maps of Resistive Heating (SPH) and ISCO plots
(Note that pre/post pair #13 has two drill holes that are extremely close to one another)
-------
Table A.l-3. Summary Statistics for Data Collected From Resistive Heating Plot by Layer and Depth
Layer
VADOSE
usu
MFGU
LSU
Feet Above
Sea Level
(MSL)
10 to 12
8 to 10
6 to 8
4to6
2 to 4
Oto2
-2toO
Total
Oto2
-2toO
-4 to -2
-6 to -4
-8 to -6
-10 to -8
-12to-10
-14to-12
-16 to -14
-18to-16
-20 to -18
Total
-14to-12
-16 to -14
-1810-16
-20 to -18
-22 to -20
-24 to -22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
-32 to -30
Total
-20 to -18
-22 to -20
-24to-22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
-32 to -30
-34 to -32
-36 to -34
-38 to -36
-40 to -38
Total
Pre-Treatment
N
1
1
6
12
12
10
2
44
2
9
11
10
13
13
11
12
10
5
2
98
1
2
5
13
10
8
3
2
2
1
47
3
6
9
11
10
9
12
12
12
1
85
Minimum
(mg/kg)
7.78
5.29
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.17
0.20
0.10
0.71
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.20
0.19
0.20
9.20
10.77
26.27
0.17
820.43
292.17
183.22
26.37
54.64
17.00
2.24
0.39
0.20
0.68
0.20
34.76
4.79
0.18
0.28
0.23
0.21
0.43
5.75
11.76
1.46
0.18
Maximum
(mg/kg)
7.78
5.29
9.24
4.63
10.52
48.74
1.10
48.74
8.84
12.46
6.46
4.01
121.67
341.80
1935.01
107.82
1835.15
259.76
112.13
1935.01
820.43
526.14
9050.90
19090.91
541.79
11085.00
5345.08
0.39
1.40
0.68
19090.91
349.12
623.63
1024.58
23361.76
8061.67
28167.63
33099.93
41043.56
37104.00
1.46
41043.56
Mean
(mg/kg)
7.78
5.29
2.01
1.25
1.75
5.26
0.65
2.61
4.77
2.27
1.65
1.05
10.73
51.64
182.22
22.01
224.50
86.43
69.20
60.75
820.43
409.16
2192.46
3314.22
196.80
1533.59
1783.27
0.39
0.80
0.68
1601.61
186.05
176.84
213.91
4599.56
1430.78
3338.38
3357.69
7635.34
6980.34
1.46
3696.17
Std. Dev.
(mg/kg)
3.59
1.63
3.16
15.29
0.64
7.55
5.75
4.06
2.09
1.24
33.41
122.88
581.52
32.52
569.37
101.53
60.71
271.45
165.45
3844.52
6670.74
148.15
3871.12
3084.62
0.00
0.85
4152.73
157.51
231.51
332.94
8705.84
2922.44
9314.75
9549.49
15205.72
12891.67
9459.97
Post-Treatment
N
2
6
12
13
13
3
49
10
12
9
12
12
13
11
11
10
2
1
103
1
5
12
12
8
4
2
2
2
1
49
1
5
10
11
12
12
11
12
12
3
89
Minimum
(mg/kg)
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.21
3.00
10.00
0.21
5.00
0.22
0.22
0.16
0.26
1.00
0.17
5.00
4.00
6.00
20.00
0.16
3927.05
12.00
4.00
13.00
10.00
7.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1217.00
34.00
20.70
35.00
63.00
2.00
9.00
0.17
0.19
2.00
0.17
Maximum
(mg/kg)
0.77
6.00
6.00
12.00
40.22
72.00
72.00
90.00
114.00
71.00
126.00
197.00
4295.43
1248.08
135.00
213.00
64.00
20.00
4295.43
3927.05
401.30
5560.77
403.00
319.00
140.00
19.00
23.00
1.00
3.00
5560.77
1217.00
464.64
287.00
429.15
473.85
264.00
335.08
511.00
364.00
59.00
1217.00
Mean
(mg/kg)
0.51
2.67
1.84
2.61
9.32
47.67
6.88
30.31
20.85
18.84
36.26
50.52
358.08
154.42
62.56
96.89
35.00
20.00
95.78
3927.05
252.87
704.64
215.36
131.66
55.25
11.00
14.00
1.00
3.00
358.38
1217.00
233.38
139.97
192.80
279.32
143.55
123.18
167.27
144.99
23.00
181.46
Std. Dev.
(mg/kg)
0.36
2.62
1.77
3.53
11.22
33.08
14.23
27.06
35.55
27.65
47.60
72.10
1183.66
368.78
45.67
80.34
41.01
437.80
150.23
1539.34
159.67
102.29
61.99
11.31
12.73
0.00
942.46
158.60
101.17
145.10
148.04
86.98
107.14
179.23
126.21
31.32
176.47
-------
Table A.l-4. Summary Statistics for Data Collected From ISCO Plot by Layer and Depth
Layer
VADOSE
usu
MFGU
LSU
Feet Above
Sea Level
(MSL)
10 to 12
8 to 10
6 to 8
4 to 6
2 to 4
Oto2
Total
2 to 4
Oto2
-2toO
-4 to -2
-6 to -4
-8 to -6
-10 to -8
-12 to -10
-14to-12
-16 to -14
-18to-16
Total
-14to-12
-16 to -14
-1810-16
-20 to -18
-22 to -20
-24 to -22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
Total
-22 to -20
-24to-22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
-32 to -30
-34to-32
-36 to -34
-38 to -36
Total
Pre-Treatment
N
2
4
12
12
10
1
41
2
11
11
13
12
12
13
14
12
10
6
116
1
2
7
14
10
12
5
3
1
55
1
2
8
10
10
12
13
10
6
72
Minimum
(mg/kg)
0.16
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.38
0.13
0.30
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.74
1.33
11.63
57.93
59.30
0.15
3033.83
6898.91
65.10
191.64
137.28
56.54
23.41
7.31
13.15
7.31
664.18
19.52
62.29
95.48
117.45
19.92
6.75
40.98
48.87
6.75
Maximum
(mg/kg)
0.20
0.37
4.72
1.81
7.83
0.38
7.83
6.69
2.94
8.56
7.40
8.71
28.48
114.31
240.81
4412.37
3798.38
304.19
4412.37
3033.83
13323.58
17029.53
2261.17
30056.10
331.59
201.95
226.99
13.15
30056.10
664.18
8858.93
17686.46
11322.78
8374.13
7397.80
8911.22
10456.12
8349.02
17686.46
Mean
(mg/kg)
0.18
0.26
0.68
0.52
1.25
0.38
0.70
3.50
0.65
2.27
0.94
1.89
3.71
16.49
70.76
727.60
518.42
201.89
141.81
3033.83
10111.24
2798.69
488.48
3288.71
179.64
121.61
121.81
13.15
1558.46
664.18
4439.23
4421.24
2479.58
2024.60
1232.98
1883.02
2073.13
1521.04
2209.54
Std. Dev.
(mg/kg)
0.03
0.11
1.28
0.47
2.37
1.38
4.52
0.86
3.13
1.95
2.57
8.05
31.41
93.31
1563.26
1153.89
85.59
632.82
4542.92
6291.82
520.49
9406.06
102.19
76.42
110.13
4916.03
6250.41
7446.19
3951.42
3194.20
2289.02
3113.33
4030.31
3345.73
3943.33
Post-Treatment
N
2
13
13
13
3
44
10
12
13
13
13
13
14
13
12
7
120
1
5
13
15
10
8
4
1
57
3
6
10
13
14
13
11
9
79
Minimum
(mg/kg)
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
2261.90
3.60
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.15
Maximum
(mg/kg)
0.40
0.55
0.60
2.30
1.00
2.30
5.30
57.30
42.70
44.80
39.30
83.60
14.70
246.70
31.00
1.80
246.70
2261.90
9726.77
390.90
4200.90
288.32
8.50
36.50
0.20
9726.77
3887.58
3279.60
4132.90
8313.75
1256.50
583.10
211.40
857.60
8313.75
Mean
(mg/kg)
0.28
0.35
0.31
0.50
0.52
0.39
1.23
6.28
10.49
5.59
5.13
8.55
1.75
26.03
3.06
0.72
7.33
2261.90
1948.95
55.47
528.16
74.66
2.20
12.51
0.20
376.57
2537.03
798.48
551.82
976.92
212.43
63.21
53.79
189.68
464.74
Std. Dev.
(mg/kg)
0.18
0.14
0.16
0.57
0.43
0.35
1.65
16.24
15.72
13.39
12.34
23.19
4.05
70.59
8.82
0.76
26.46
4347.93
113.84
1335.90
113.85
2.82
17.10
1471.04
2198.15
1300.99
1301.99
2326.32
374.85
157.71
79.33
323.49
1260.41
-------
A.l.2.4 Semivariogram Results
In this study, the computer software used to perform the geostatistical calculations was Battelle's
BATGAM software, which is based on the GSLIB Software written by the Department of
Applied Earth Sciences at Stanford University, and documented and released by Prof. Andre
Journel and Dr. Clayton Deutsch (Deutsch and Journel, 1998). The primary subroutine used to
calculate experimental semivariograms was GAMV3, which is used for three-dimensional
irregularly spaced data.
For the three-dimensional spatial analyses, horizontal separation distance classes were defined in
increments of 5 ft. with a tolerance of 2.5 ft., while vertical distances were defined in increments
of 2 ft. with a tolerance of 1 ft. Horizontal separation directions were defined, after rotation 30°
west from North (see Figures A. 1-2 and A. 1-3), in the four primary directions of north, northeast,
east, and southeast with a tolerance of 22.5°.
Data were analyzed separately for the Resistive Heating and ISCO plots, and vertically the data
were considered separately by layer (i.e., USU, MFGU and LSU layers). Semivariogram and
kriging analyses were not performed with the vadose data since the pre-remediation TCE
concentrations were already relatively low and insignificant. Results from the Semivariogram
analyses are presented in Figures A.1-4 to A.1-15, as well as Table A.1-5. The key points
indicated in the Semivariogram analysis results are as follows:
(a) For all experimental semivariograms calculated with the TCE data, no
horizontal directional differences (i.e., anisotropies) were observed;
however, strong anisotropy for the horizontal versus vertical directions
was often observed. Therefore, in Figures 3 through 14 the omni-
directional horizontal Semivariogram (experimental and model) is shown
along with the vertical Semivariogram (experimental and model).
(b) In all cases, the experimental semivariograms are relatively variable due to high
data variability and modest sample sizes. As a result, the Semivariogram model
fitting is relatively uncertain, meaning that a relatively wide range of
Semivariogram models could adequately fit the experimental Semivariogram
points. This probably does not affect the TCE estimates (especially the global
estimates), but could significantly affect the associated confidence bounds.
(c) The models shown in Figures 3 through 14 are all gaussian Semivariogram
models, chosen to be consistent with the experimental Semivariogram shapes
found for all twelve TCE data sets at this Cape Canaveral site. The fitted
semivariograms model parameters are listed in Table 5.
-------
Table A.l-5. Fitted Semivariogram Model Parameters for TCE at Cape Canaveral
Figure
No.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Data Set
Plot
Resistive
Heating
Resistive
Heating
Resistive
Heating
Resistive
Heating
Resistive
Heating
Resistive
Heating
ISCO
ISCO
ISCO
ISCO
ISCO
ISCO
Layer
usu
usu
MFGU
MFGU
LSU
LSU
USU
USU
MFGU
MFGU
LSU
LSU
Pre- or
Post-
Remediati
on
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
Semivariogram
Gaussian
Type
Anisotropic
Anisotropic
Anisotropic
Anisotropic
Isotropic
Anisotropic
Anisotropic
Isotropic
Anisotropic
Anisotropic
Anisotropic
Anisotropic
Nugget
Var.
(mg/kg)2
6.0 xlO3
2.0 xlO4
1.0 xlO6
5.0 xlO4
2.5 xlO7
4.0 xlO3
5.0 xlO4
5.0 xlO1
2.5 x 106
2.0 xlO5
1.0 xlO6
7.0 xlO4
Total Sill
Var.
(mg/kg)2
6.4 xlO4
1.9 xlO5
2.0 xlO7
6.0 xlO5
8.5 xlO7
2.0 xlO4
3.0 xlO5
4.0 xlO2
2.0 xlO7
1.4 xlO6
1.0 xlO7
6.7 xlO5
Omni-
Horizontal
Range (ft.)
23
35
35
35
9
23
12
3
35
52
23
35
Vertical
Range
(ft.)
3
3
5
5
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
A.l.2.5 Kriging Results
The kriging analysis was performed using the BATGAM software and GSLIB subroutine KT3D.
To conduct this analysis, each plot was defined as a set of vertical layers and sub-layers.
Estimated mean TCE concentrations were then calculated via kriging for each sub-layer
separately, as well as across the sub-layers. The vertical layering for kriging was consistent with
the Semivariogram modeling:
(a) Kriging the Resistive Heating plot was performed separately for the USU,
MFGU and LSU layers. The USU layer was sub-divided into 11 two-foot sub-
layers extending across elevations from -20 to +2 ft. The MFGU layer was sub-
divided into 10 two-foot sub-layers extending across elevations from -32 to -12
ft. The LSU layer was sub-divided into 11 two-foot sub-layers from elevations
of-40 to-18 ft.
(b) Kriging of the ISCO plot was also done separately for the USU, MFGU and LSU
layers. The USU layer consisted of 11 two-foot sub-layers across elevations
from -18 to +4 ft. The MFGU layer consisted of 9 sub-layers across elevations
from -30 to -12 ft. The LSU layer consisted of 9 sub-layers across elevations
from-3 8 to-20 ft.
-------
(c) For kriging of the two-foot sub-layers, the data search was restricted to consider
only three sub-layers, the current sub-layer and that immediately above and
below. The data search was not restricted horizontally.
(d) For kriging of an entire layer (i.e., USU or MFGU or LSU separately), the data
search considered all available data at all elevations. Note that by extending the
data search radius to include all data within a plot, an implicit assumption is
made that the semivariogram model holds true for distances up to about 100 ft.,
which are distances beyond those observable with this dataset in the experimental
semivariograms. This assumption seems reasonable given the relatively short
dimensions of the Resistive Heating and ISCO plots.
Results from the kriging analysis are presented in Tables A. 1-6 and A. 1-7 for the Resistive
Heating and ISCO pre- and post-remediation data, and for each of USU, MFGU and LSU layers,
as well as by sub-layer within each layer. Because of the shortcomings of using the ordinary
kriging variance (discussed in Section 1.0) for local estimates, confidence bounds are only
presented in Tables 6 and 7 for the global layer estimates (shaded rows). In cases where the
upper confidence bound for the post-remediation average TCE concentration falls below the
lower confidence bound for the pre-remediation average TCE concentration, the post-remediation
TCE concentrations are statistically significantly lower than the pre-remediation TCE
concentrations (denoted with a * in the tables). The estimated TCE reductions, expressed on a
percentage basis, are also shown in Tables A. 1-6 and A. 1-7 and generally (with the exception of
the TCE increase in the Resistive Heating USU layer) vary between 70% and 96%, based on the
global estimates.
Table A. 1-8 shows how the TCE concentration estimates (average, lower bound, and upper bound
as determined in Table A. 1-7) for ISCO plot are weighted and converted into TCE masses. The
concentration estimates in the three stratigraphic units are multiplied by the number of grid cells
sampled (N) in each stratigraphic unit and the mass of dry soil in each cell (26,831.25 kg). The
mass of soil in each grid cell is the volume of each 18.75 ft x 16.67 ft x 2 ft grid cell (the area of
the plot divided into a 4 x 3 grid; the thickness of each grid cell is 2 ft).
-------
Table A.l-6. Kriging Results for TCE in the Resistive Heating Plot
Layer
usu
MFGU
LSU
Feet Above Sea Level
(MSL)
Oto2
-2toO
-4 to -2
-6 to -4
-8 to -6
-10 to -8
-12 to -10
-14 to -12
-16 to -14
-18 to -16
-20 to -18
Total
95% C.I.
90% C.I.
80% C.I.
-14 to -12
-16 to -14
-18 to -16
-20 to -18
-22 to -20
-24 to -22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
-32 to -30
Total
95% C.I.
90% C.I.
80% C.I.
-20 to -18
-22 to -20
-24 to -22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
-32 to -30
-34 to -32
-36 to -34
-38 to -36
-40 to -38
Total
95% C.I.
90% C.I.
80% C.I.
Pre-Remediation TCE (mg/kg)
3
2
2
1
14
31
124
118
182
245
88
64
(19,110)
(26, 103)
(34, 94)
412
1375
2125
1765
1419
2809
1705
1
1
1655
(251,3059)
(473, 2837)
(731,2579)
140
151
207
2394
2462
2246
3190
7241
8225
5615
4092
(1463,6721)
(1879,6305)
(2362, 5822)
Post-Remediation TCE (mg/kg) /
Percent Reduction
32
21
18
32
46
297
325
122
78
61
41
1127-75%
(38, 186)
(49, 174)
(63, 160)
1450
606
635
478
181
119
54
12
3
408 / 75%
(165,650)
(204, 612)
(248, 567)*
512
204
166
180
239
189
135
153
154
118
183/96%
(154,212)*
(159,208)*
(164,202)*
* TCE reduction is statistically significant.
-------
Table A.l-7. Kriging Results for TCE in the ISCO Plot
Layer
usu
MFGU
LSU
Feet Above Sea Level
(MSL)
2 to 4
Oto2
-2toO
-4 to -2
-6 to -4
-8 to -6
-10 to -8
-12 to -10
-14 to -12
-16 to -14
-18 to -16
Total
95% C.I.
90% C.I.
80% C.I.
-14 to -12
-16 to -14
-18 to -16
-20 to -18
-22 to -20
-24 to -22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
Total
95% C.I.
90% C.I.
80% C.I.
-22 to -20
-24 to -22
-26 to -24
-28 to -26
-30 to -28
-32 to -30
-34 to -32
-36 to -34
-38 to -36
Total
95% C.I.
90% C.I.
80% C.I.
Pre-Remediation TCE (mg/kg)
2
1
1
2
3
9
31
53
613
760
167
146
(45, 246)
(61,230)
(80,212)
7963
9414
2684
1508
2655
220
150
97
71
1922
(712,3133)
(903, 2942)
(1126,2719)
4665
10048
4796
2036
1876
1780
1453
1972
2491
2282
(1578,2986)
(1690,2875)
(1819,2746)
Post-Remediation TCE (mg/kg) /
Percent Reduction
1
5
6
7
9
5
12
16
6
4
8 / 95%
(4,11)*
(4,11)*
(5, 10)*
3593
1501
135
619
196
30
8
570 / 70%
(230, 909)
(284, 856)*
(346, 793)*
2021
954
846
823
245
102
73
183
486 / 79%
(311,660)*
(339, 632)*
(371, 600)*
* TCE reduction is statistically significant.
-------
Table A.l-8. Calculating Total TCE Masses based on TCE Average Concentrations and Upper and Lower Bounds
ISCO Plot
Geology Units
Upper Sand Unit
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
Lower Sand Unit
Total ISCO Plot
Pre-Demonstration
N
116
55
72
243
TCE Concentration
Average
(nig/kg)
146
1,922
2,282
-
Lower
Bound
(nig/kg)
80
1,126
1,819
-
Upper
Bound
(mg/kg)
212
2,719
2,746
-
TCE Mass *
Average
(kg)
454
2,836
4,408
7,699
Lower
Bound
(kg)
250
1,668
3,519
6,217
Upper
Bound
(kg)
659
4,005
5,298
9,182
Post-Demonstration
N
120
57
79
256
TCE Concentration
Average
(mg/kg)
8
570
486
-
Lower
Bound
(mg/kg)
5
346
371
-
Upper
Bound
(mg/kg)
10
793
600
-
TCE Mass *
Average
(kg)
26
872
1,030
1,928
Lower
Bound
(kg)
18
532
788
1,511
Upper
Bound
(kg)
34
1,211
1,272
2,345
-------
150000
135000
120000
3105000
? 90000
E
-------
30000000
Omni Horz
Vertical
Horz Model
Vert Model
27000000 --
24000000 --
N21000000 --
^8000000 --
|15000000 --
•I
ro
I
•j=12000000 +
co
9000000 --
6000000 --
3000000 --
0
3.5
7.0
28.0 31.5
10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-6. Pre-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for Resistive Heating Plot and
MFGU
35.0
1200000
[•1
Omni Horz
Vertical
Horz Model
Vert Model
1080000 --
960000 --
840000 --
I) 720000 --
| 600000 --
81
'E 480000 +
1
r
CO
360000 --
240000 --
120000 --
0
3.5
7.0
28.0 31.5
35.0
10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-7. Post-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for Resistive Heating Plot and
MFGU
-------
I^JUUUUUUU
135000000 -
120000000 -
N 105000000 -
j?
"3)90000000 -
| 75000000 -
81
•j= 60000000 -
a 45000000 -
CO
30000000 -
15000000 -
0 -
-
- ,Ax
: ,.-•' \ ,/
*^ IT
T/
-Jf
- /
_ i i i i i i i i i i
0.0
3.5
7.0
10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-8. Pre-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for Resistive Heating Plot and LSU
Omni Horz
Vertical
Horz Model
Vert Model
0.0
Figure A.I-
7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
9. Post-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for Resistive Heating Plot and LSU
-------
1000000 -,
900000 -
800000 -
700000 -
"5) 600000 -
£
j= 500000 -
D)
•j= 400000 -
a 300000 -
OT
200000 -
100000 -
0 -
Omni Horz Vertical Horz Model Vertical Model
-
- A
- A
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
1 f'^^ ^ ""v^
s i i i i i i i i i i
0.0
3.5
7.0
10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-10. Pre-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for ISCO Plot and USU
1000
900
800
700
B) 600
Omni Horz
Vertical
D)
XL
"
D)
O
•-
OT
300 --
200
100
0
Isotropic Model
m. 1
0.0 3.5 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-11. Post-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for ISCO Plot and USU
-------
40000000
Omni Horz
Vertical
Horz Model
Vert Model
36000000 --
32000000 --
28000000 --
"524000000 --
£
1=20000000 --
•j=16000000
o>12000000
co
8000000
4000000
3.5
7.0
10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-12. Pre-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for ISCO Plot and MFGU
3000000
2700000 --
2400000 --
Omni Horz
Vertical
Horz Model
Vert Model
2100000 --
O)
^
"3)1800000 --
|1500000 --
D)
'§1200000
CO
900000 --
600000 --
300000 - -,
0.0 3.5 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-13. Post-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for ISCO Plot and MFGU
-------
20000000
Omni Horz
Vertical
Horz Model
Vert Model
18000000 --
16000000 --
N14000000 --
Hi 2000000 --
|10000000 --
I
ro
I
•j= 8000000 +
OT
6000000 --
4000000 --
2000000 -k
0
3.5 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-14. Pre-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for ISCO Plot and LSU
1500000
Omni Horz
Vertical
Horz Model
Vert Model
1350000 --
1200000 --
N 1050000 --
I) 900000 --
| 750000 --
D)
'I 600000 +
OT
450000 --
300000 --
150000 --
0
3.5 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 31.5 35.0
Separation Distance (feet)
Figure A.l-15. Post-Remediation TCE Semivariograms for ISCO Plot and LSU
-------
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
This section describes the modification made to the EPA standard methods to address the
lithologic heterogeneities and extreme variability of the contaminant distribution expected in the
DNAPL source region at Launch Complex 34. Horizontal variability was addressed by collecting
a statistically determined number (12) of soil cores in the ISCO Plot. The vertical variability at
each soil coring location was addressed with this modified sampling and extraction procedure,
which involved extraction of much larger quantities of soil in each extracted sample, as well as
allowed collection and extraction of around 300 samples in the field per event. This extraction
allowed the extraction and analysis of the entire vertical column of soil at a given coring location.
A.2.1 Soil Sample Collection (Modified ASTM D4547-91) (1997b)
The soil samples collected before and after the demonstration were sampled using a stainless steel
sleeve driven into the subsurface by a cone penetrometer test (CPT) rig. After the sleeve had
been driven the required distance, it was brought to the surface and the soil sample was examined
and characterized for lithology. One quarter of the sample was sliced from the core and placed
into a pre-weighed 500-mL polyethylene container. At locations where a field duplicate sample
was collected, a second one-quarter sample was split from the core and placed into another pre-
weighed 500-mL polyethylene container. The remaining portion of the core was placed into a 55-
gallon drum and disposed of as waste. The samples were labeled with the date, time, and sample
identification code, and stored on ice at 4°C until they were brought inside to the on-site
laboratory for the extraction procedure.
After receiving the samples from the drilling activities, personnel staffing the field laboratory
performed the methanol extraction procedure as outlined in Section A.2.2 of this appendix. The
amount of methanol used to perform the extraction technique was 250 mL. The extraction
procedure was performed on all of the primary samples collected during drilling activities and on
5% of the field duplicate samples collected for quality assurance. Samples were stored at 4°C
until extraction procedures were performed. After the extraction procedure was finished, the soil
samples were dried in an oven at 105°C and the dry weight of each sample was determined. The
samples were then disposed of as waste. The remaining three-quarter section of each core
previously stored in a separate 500-mL polyethylene bottle were archived until the off-site
laboratory had completed the analysis of the methanol extract. The samples were then disposed
of in an appropriate manner.
A.2.2 Soil Extraction Procedure (Modified EPA SW846-Method 5035)
After the soil samples were collected from the drilling operations, samples were placed in pre-
labeled and pre-weighed 500-mL polyethylene containers with methanol and then stored in a
refrigerator at 4°C until the extraction procedure was performed. Extraction procedures were
performed on all of the "A" samples from the outdoor and indoor soil sampling. Extraction
procedures also were performed on 5% of the duplicate (or "B") samples to provide adequate
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) on the extraction technique.
Extreme care was taken to minimize the disturbance of the soil sample so that loss of volatile
components was minimal. Nitrile gloves were worn by field personnel whenever handling sample
cores or pre-weighed sample containers. A modification of EPA SW846-Method 5035 was used to
procure the cored samples in the field. Method 5035 lists different procedures for processing
samples that are expected to contain low concentrations (0.5 to 200 ng/kg) or high concentrations
-------
(>200 ng/kg) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Procedures for high levels of VOCs were
used in the field because those procedures facilitated the processing of large-volume sample cores
collected during soil sampling activities.
Two sample collection options and corresponding sample purging procedures are described in
Method 5035; however, the procedure chosen for this study was based on collecting
approximately 150 to 200 g of wet soil sample in a pre-weighed bottle that contains 250 mL of
methanol. A modification of this method was used in the study, as described by the following
procedure:
a The 150 to 200 g wet soil sample was collected and placed in a pre-weighed 500 mL
polypropylene bottle. After capping, the bottle was reweighed to determine the wet
weight of the soil. The container was then filled with 250 ml of reagent grade
methanol. The bottle was weighed a third time to determine the weight of the methanol
added. The bottle was marked with the location and the depth at which the sample was
collected.
a After the containers were filled with methanol and the soil sample they were placed
on an orbital shaker table and agitated for approximately 30 min.
a Containers were removed from the shaker table and reweighed to ensure that no
methanol was lost during the agitation period. The containers were then placed
upright and suspended soil matter was allowed to settle for approximately 15 min.
a The 500 mL containers were then placed in a floor-mounted centrifuge. The
centrifuge speed was set at 3,000 rpm and the samples were centrifuged for 10 min.
a Methanol extract was then decanted into disposable 20-mL glass volatile organic
analysis (VOA) vials using 10-mL disposable pipettes. The 20-mL glass VOA vials
containing the extract then were capped, labeled, and stored in a refrigerator at 4°C
until they were shipped on ice to the analytical laboratory.
a Methanol samples in VOA vials were placed in ice chests and maintained at
approximately 4°C with ice. Samples were then shipped with properly completed
chain-of-custody forms and custody seals to the subcontracted off-site laboratory.
a The dry weight of each of the soil samples was determined gravimetrically after
decanting the remaining solvent and drying the soil in an oven at 105°C. Final
concentrations of VOCs were calculated per the dry weight of soil.
Three potential concerns existed with the modified solvent extraction method. The first concern
was that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) had not formally
evaluated the use of methanol as a preservative for VOCs. However, methanol extraction often is
used in site characterization studies, so the uncertainty in using this approach was reasonable.
The second concern was that the extraction procedure itself would introduce a significant dilution
factor that could raise the method quantitation limit beyond that of a direct purge-and-trap
procedure. The third concern was that excess methanol used in the extractions would likely fail
the ignitability characteristic, thereby making the unused sample volume a hazardous waste.
During characterization activities, the used methanol extract was disposed of as hazardous waste
into a 55-gallon drum. This methanol extraction method was tested during preliminary site
characterization activities at this site (see Appendix G, Table G-l) and, after a few refinements,
-------
was found to perform acceptably in terms of matrix spike recoveries. Spiked TCE recoveries in
replicate samples ranged from 72 to 86%.
The analytical portion of Method 5035 describes a closed-system purge-and-trap process for use
on solid media such as soils, sediments, and solid waste. The purge-and-trap system consists of a
unit that automatically adds water, surrogates, and internals standards to a vial containing the
sample. Then the process purges the VOCs using an inert gas stream while agitating the contents
of the vial, and finally traps the released VOCs for subsequent desorption into a gas
chromatograph (GC). STL Environmental Services performed the analysis of the solvent
extraction samples. Soil samples were analyzed for organic constituents according to the param-
eters summarized in Table A.2-1. Laboratory instruments were calibrated for VOCs listed under
U.S. EPA Method 601 and 602. Samples were analyzed as soon as was practical and within the
designated holding time from collection (14 days). No samples were analyzed outside of the
designated 14-day holding time.
Table A.2-1. Soil Sampling and Analytical Parameters
Analytes
VOCs(a)
Extraction Method
SW846-5035
Analytical Method
SW846-8260
Sample Holding
Time
14 days
Matrix
Methanol
(a) EPA 601/602 list.
-------
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
Table A.3-1. Sample Collection Procedures
Measurements
Task/Sample
Collection Method
Equipment Used
Primary Measurements
CVOCs
CVOCs
Soil sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTM D4547-98 (1997c)
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTMD4448-01 (1997a)
Stainless steel sleeve
500-mL plastic bottle
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Secondary Measurements
TOC
Field parameters03'
TOC
BOD
Inorganics-cations
Inorganics-anions
TDS
Alkalinity
Hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater level
CVOCs
Soil sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTMD4547-91 (1997c)
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTMD4448-01 (1997a)
Hydraulic conductivity/
ASTM D4044-96 (1997d)
Water levels
Vapor Sampling/Tedlar Bag, TO- 14
Stainless steel sleeve
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Winsitu® troll
Laptop computer
Water level indicator
Vacuum Pump
(a) Modifications to ASTM are detailed in Appendix B.
(b) Field parameters include pH, ORP, temperature, DO, and conductivity. A flowthrough
well will be attached to the peristaltic pump when measuring field parameters.
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials.
-------
Table A.3-2. Sample Handling and Analytical Procedures
Measurements
Matrix
Amount
Collected
Analytical
Method
Maximum
Holding
Time(a)
Sample
Preservation'1"'
Sample
Container
Sample
Type
Primary Measurements
CVOCs
CVOCs
Soil
Groundwater
250 g
40-mL x 3
Mod. EPA 8260(c)
EPA 8260(d)
14 days
14 days
4°C
4°C, pH < 2 HC1
Plastic
Glass
Grab
Grab
Secondary Measurements
CVOCs
CVOCs
pH
pH
TOC
TOC
BOD
Hydraulic conductivity
Inorganics-cations(e)
Inorganics-anions(e)
TDS
Alkalinity
Water levels
Groundwater
Vapor
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Aquifer
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Aquifer
40-mL x 3
1L
50 g
50mL
20 g
125 mL
1,000 mL
NA
100 mL
50 mL
500 mL
200 mL
NA
EPA 8021/8260(d)
TO-14
Mod. EPA 9045c
EPA 150.1
SW 9060
EPA 415.1
EPA 405.1
ASTMD4044-96(1997d)
SW6010
EPA 300.0
EPA 160.1
EPA 3 10.1
Water level from the top
of well casing
14 days
14 days
7 days
1 hour
28 days
28 days
48 hours
NA
28 days
28 days
7 days
14 days
NA
4°C, pH < 2 HC1
NA
None
None
None
4°C, pH < 2 H2SO4
4°C
NA
4°C, pH<2, HNO3
4°C
4°C
4°C
NA
Glass
Tedlar™
Bag
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
NA
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
NA
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
NA
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
NA
(a)
Samples will be analyzed as soon as possible after collection. The times listed are the
maximum holding times which samples will be held before analysis and still be
considered valid. All data obtained beyond the maximum holding times will be
flagged.
Samples will be preserved immediately upon sample collection, if required.
Samples will be extracted using methanol on site. For the detailed extraction
procedure see Appendix B.
The off-site laboratory will use EPA 8260.
Cations include Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Na, and K. Anions include Cl, SO4, and NO3/ NO2.
HC1 = Hydrochloric acid.
NA = Not applicable.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
-------
Appendix B
Hydrogeologic Measurements
-------
B.I Performance Monitoring Slug Tests
Slug tests were performed on well clusters BAT-3, BAT-5, and BAT-6 within the in-situ ISCO
plot for pre-demonstration, post-demonstration, and the extended monitoring activities. Pre-
demonstration tests were completed in August 1999, post-demonstration tests were completed in
August 2000, and extended monitoring tests were completed in February 2001. Bat-5 was
included because BAT-3S was unavailable during pre-demonstration activities due to the
installation of the oxidation system equipment. The tests consisted of placing a pressure
transducer and 1.5-inch-diameter by 5-ft-long solid PVC slug within the well. After the water
level reached an equilibrium, the slug was removed rapidly. Removal of the slug created
approximately 2 ft of change in water level within the well. Water level recovery was then
monitored for 5-10 minutes using a TROLL pressure transducer/data logger. The data was then
downloaded to a notebook computer.
The recovery rates of the water levels were analyzed with the Bouwer (1989) and Bouwer and
Rice (1976) methods for slug tests in unconfmed aquifers. Graphs were made showing the
changes in water level versus time and curve fitted on a semi-logarithmic graph. The slope of the
fitted line then was used in conjunction with the well parameters to provide a value of the
permeability of the materials surrounding the well. The results show a good agreement between
the replicate tests.
The tests are subject to minor variations. As such, a change of more than a magnitude of order
would be required to indicate a change in the permeability of the sediments. Keeping this in
mind, the tests showed a negligible change in permeability in most wells as shown on Table 1.
The tests in wells BAT-3D and BAT6S may have increased substantially in permeability;
although, the response to the slug was poor in these wells.
Table B-l. Slug Test Results in ISCO plot.
Well
BAT-3D
BAT-3I
BAT-5I
BAT-5 S
BAT-6D
BAT-6I
BAT-6S
Predemo
1.3
1.6
6.4
4.0
2.3
1.4
5.1
Postdemo
(26.4)
2.4
1.5
5.0
1.4
3.7
(97.3)
Ext. Mon.
(65.8)
1.4
6.2
1.5
0.4
1.2
(57.2)
Change
(increase?)
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
(increase?)
Response
poor
excellent
fair
good
good
fair
poor
Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice, 1976, A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of
unconfmed aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells, Water Resources Research,
v. 12, n.3, pp. 423-428.
Bouwer, H., 1989, The Bouwer and Rice slug test- an update, Ground Water, v. 27, n.3., pp. 304-
309.
-------
10
Well BAT-3I: Replicate A
•*••*..».
•*•.*.
•*-*..
••*•*.*.,
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -0.214764 * X + 0.606069
Number of data points used = 55
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.994546
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-3I.
-------
10
Well BAT-3D: Replicate A
0.1
•*•*_,
'•*-».«
•"*>•*-»
0.01
log(Y) = -0.172438 *X +0.167778
Number of data points used = 55
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.998434
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-3D.
-------
10
>
0.1
0.01
Well BAT-5S: Replicate A
"V
X.
•»,..
log(Y) = -0.541876 *X + 0.862379
Number of data points used = 73
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.99982
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-5S.
-------
10
Well BAT-5I: Replicate A
0.1
\
\
\
••*
\»
0.01
log(Y) = -0.875461 *X + 0.723329
Number of data points used = 46
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.99696
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-SI.
-------
10
>
0.1
0.01
Well BAT-6S: Replicate A
V
log(Y) = -0.695396 * X + 0.802571
Number of data points used = 61
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.99872
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6S.
-------
10
Well BAT-6I: Replicate A
"•*••»••<
•»••»•*...
0.1
0.01
- Injection Well Influence
log(Y) = -0.186029 *X +0.643336
Number of data points used = 61
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999833
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6I.
-------
10
Well BAT-6D: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
0.0
2.0
log(Y) = -0.310116 * X + 0.728389
Number of data points used = 73
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.998936
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6D.
-------
Well BAT-3I
0.1 —
0.01
*****
****-*_
1E-3
log(Y) =-0.100736 *X +-1.08755
Number of data points used = 111
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.994521
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-3I.
-------
10
Well BAT-3D
» »»».
• »
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -3.69003 * X + 0.0618203
Number of data points used = 38
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.287936
1E-3
0.0
0.1
0.2 0.3
Time (min)
0.4
0.5
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-3D.
-------
10
Well BAT-5S
•
•
0.1
>
0.01
log(Y) = -0.774264 * X + -0.330572
Number of data points used = 40
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999098
1E-3
0.0
0.5
1.0 1.5
Time (min)
2.0
2.5
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-5S.
-------
0.1
>
0.01
1E-3
0.0
Well BAT-51
»---*--_
» « » »~* •*- » -*
log(Y) =-0.210203 *X +-3.1509
Number of data points used = 40
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.790959
1.0
2.0
3.0
Time (min)
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-51.
-------
10
Well BAT-6S
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -13.1608*X +-0.0186695
Number of data points used = 32
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.754183
1E-3
0.0
0.2 0.4
Time (min)
0.6
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6S.
-------
Well BAT-61
0.1
0.01
1E-3
0.0
2.0
log(Y) =-0.293129 *X +-1.60995
Number of data points used = 94
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.946395
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-61.
-------
Well BAT-6D
0.1
0.01
1E-3
log(Y) =-0.195218 *X +-0.809721
Number of data points used = 95
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.874592
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6D.
-------
Well BAT-31
10
0.1
0.01
1E-3
»•*-»..
•*••*..*...
Y = exp(-0.195417 * X) * 1.82602
Number of data points used = 79
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.992362
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Extended Monitoring Slug Test Results: Well BAT-31.
-------
Well BAT-3D
0.1
>
0.01
1E-3
0.0
\
log(Y) = -9.00034 * X + -2.12558
Number of data points used = 22
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.89864S
0.2
0.4 0.6
Time (min)
0.8
1.0
Extended Monitoring Slug Test Results: Well BAT-3D.
-------
10
Well BAT-5S
*•*•*•»
0.1
0.01
1E-3
log(Y) =-0.223501 *X + 1.00998
Number of data points used = 53
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.987634
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Extended Monitoring Slug Test Results: Well BAT-5S.
-------
10
Well BAT-51
0.1
0.01
\.
X
1E-3
log(Y) = -0.842625 *X + 1.001
Number of data points used = 90
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.997997
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Extended Monitoring Slug Test Results: Well BAT-51.
-------
0.1
4|
-4
4
0.01
Well BAT-6S
i «»«•»»«»»
1E-3
log(Y) = -7.79371 * X + -2.7749
Number of data points used = 27
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.835299
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Extended Monitoring Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6S.
-------
10
Well BAT-6I
•«••*-«,..
0.1
0.01
1E-3
log(Y) =-0.161272 *X +0.385926
Number of data points used = 76
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.998458
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Extended Monitoring Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6I.
-------
10
Well BAT-6D
0.1
0.01
1E-3
log(Y) = -0.0487595 * X + 1.02418
Number of data points used = 84
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.973073
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Extended Monitoring Slug Test Results: Well BAT-6D.
-------
10.0
8.0 —
0.0
PA-1S
PA-11
PA-1D
PA-8I
Precipitation
7.0
— 6.0
0.0
8/11/99 10/10/99 12/9/99 2/7/00 4/7/00 6/6/00 8/5/00 10/4/00 12/3/00
"based on measurements at field mill 30 at Cape Canaveral Air Station
-------
Appendix C
CVOC Measurements
C.1 CVOC Measurements in Groundwater
C.2 TCE Analysis of Additional Soil Cores outside the ISCO Plot
-------
Figure C-l. TCE Concentrations in Soil and Observed Soil Color Results at ISCO Plot (mg/kg)
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Figure C-l. TCE Concentrations in Soil and Observed Soil Color Results at ISCO Plot (mg/kg) (Continued)
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Figure C-l. TCE Concentrations in Soil and Observed Soil Color Results at ISCO Plot (mg/kg) (Continued)
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
Solid horizontal lines demarcate MFGU.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-l. TCE Results of Groundwater Samples
Sampling
Event1'
Well ID
TCE (ug/L)
Pre-Demo
Results
Week 3-4
Results
% Change
in Cone.
WeekS
Results
% Change
in Cone.
Week 7-8
Results
% Change
in Cone.
Jan 10-14, 2000
Results
% Change
in Cone.
Apr 10-14, 20002)
Results
% Change
in Cone.
ISCO Post-Demo
Results
% Change
in Cone.
Extended Monitoring
Results
% Change
in Cone.
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT- IS
BAT- 11
BAT- ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2S-DUP
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-3S
BAT-3S-DUP
BAT-3I
BAT-3D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5I-DUP
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
BAT-6S
BAT-6I
BAT-6D
PA-4S
PA-4S-DUP
PA-4I
PA-4D
MP-1A
MP-1B
MP-1C
MP-1D
MP-1E
ML-2
ML-3
ML-4
ML-5
ML-6
ML-7
MP-2A
MP-2A-2
MP-2B
MP-2B-DUP
1,140,000
1,060,000
1,130,000
1,110,000
1,160,000
970,000
NA
1,160,000
1,100,000
NA
990,000
962,000
298,000
868,000
898,000
1,140,000
NA
1,090,000
998,000
752,000
690,000
NA
1,190,000
1,160,000
778,000
878,000
812,000
608,000
628,000
NA
61,800
982,000
750,000
595,000
435,000
428,000
NA
760,000
NA
940,000
NA
NA
14,100
NA
NA
NA
NA
229,000
NA
NA
NA
47,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
122
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
6,490
NA
NA
NA
NA
92,500
203,000
1,010,000
NA
NA
NA
5,050
<2
NA
NA
-18%
NA
NA
-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
-79%
NA
NA
NA
-84%
NA
NA
NA
NA
>-99%
NA
NA
>-99%
NA
NA
NA
-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
228%
3%
NA
NA
NA
>-99%
>-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,010,000
360,000
610,000
457
NA
68,800
60,700
835,000
262,000
NA
1,060,000
94,200
1,240,000
985,000
NA
730,000
725,000
1,990
42,500
164,000
<2
NA
274
1,050,000
630,000
965,000
590,000
603,000
965,000
<2
Dry
545,000
595,000
610,000
775,000
<2
NA
290
265
-11%
-66%
-46%
>-99%
NA
-93%
-94%
-28%
-76%
NA
7%
-90%
316%
13%
NA
-36%
-36%
>-99%
-96%
-78%
>-99%
NA
>-99%
-9%
-19%
10%
-27%
-1%
54%
>-99%
NA
-45%
-21%
3%
78%
>-99%
NA
>-99%
>-99%
260,000
830,000
675,000
84,600
NA
50,000
48,200
675,000
79,400
NA
293,000
223,000
47,800
555
NA
915,000
NA
432,000
44,600
61,800
7,070
NA
42,500
1,120,000
5,420
775,000
540,000
484,000
372,000
58.2
Dry
9,850
240,000
273,000
350,000
180
NA
Dry
NA
-77%
-22%
-40%
-92%
NA
-95%
-95%
-42%
-93%
NA
-70%
-77%
-94%
>-99%
NA
-20%
NA
-60%
-96%
-92%
>-99%
NA
-96%
-3%
>-99%
-12%
-33%
-20%
-41%
>-99%
NA
-99%
-68%
-54%
-20%
>-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5
NA
<5
NA
NS2
NA
NA
NA
NA
620,000
<5
NA
870,000
910,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>-99%
NA
>-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
108%
>-99%
NA
-24%
-20%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5
360,000
130,000
<5
NA
880
NA
220,000
630,000
600,000
46,OOOD
<5
410,000
<10
NA
52,000
49,000
23,000
340
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
NA
120,000
120,000
520,OOOD
<5
Dry
28,000
270,000
340,000
160,000
<5
NA
<5
NA
>-99%
-66%
-88%
>-99%
NA
>-99%
NA
-81%
-43%
-45%
-95%
>-99%
38%
>-99%
NA
-95%
-96%
-98%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
NA
-85%
-80%
-17%
>-99%
NA
-97%
-64%
-43%
-63%
>-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19 J
NA
937 D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13,3000
356,000 D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>-99%
NA
>-99%
NA
-67%
NA
NA
NA
NA
-96%
-59%
NA
-62%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-l. TCE Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Sampling
Event1'
Well ID
MP-2C
MP-2D
MP-2E
MP-3A
MP-3B
MP-3C
MP-3D
MP-3E
MP-4A
MP-4C
MP-4E
MP-4E-2
TCE (ug/L)
Pre-Demo
Results
695,000
635,000
622,000
515,000
800,000
768,000
528,000
558,000
745,000
810,000
830,000
NA
Week 3-4
Results
NA
NA
NA
36.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
NA
NA
>-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
>99%
NA
NA
NA
WeekS
Results
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Week 7-8
Results
1.2J
1,300
2,640
<2
60,000
8.55
127,000
420,000
<2
2,980
338,000
NA
% Change
in Cone.
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
-93%
>-99%
-76%
-25%
>-99%
>-99%
-59%
NA
Jan 10-14, 2000
Results
16.5
190,000
29,700
191,000
49,700
247,000
432,000
341,000
176
92,200
710,000
NA
% Change
in Cone.
>-99%
-70%
-95%
-63%
-94%
-68%
-18%
-39%
>-99%
-89%
-14%
NA
Apr 10-14, 20002)
Results
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ISCO Post-Demo
Results
<5
<5
2,300D
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
91,000
26,000
% Change
in Cone.
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
-89%
-97%
Extended Monitoring
Results
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
/SCO Perimeter Plot Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
652,000
NA
1,100,000
NA
1,080,000
NA
197
17,200
183,000
290
1,010,000
988,000
790,000
NA
968,000
288,000
482,000
1,040,000
565,000
950,000
NA
1,150,000
1,160,000
1,130,000
NA
84,500
71,000
170,000
993
1,050,000
406,000
1,100,000
NA
1,040,000
295,000
870,000
1,210,000
685,000
46%
NA
5%
5%
5%
NA
42,793%
313%
-7%
242%
4%
-59%
39%
NA
7%
2%
80%
16%
21%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
580,000
NA
600,000
NA
585,000
NA
9,600
114,000
258,000
10,800
1,280,000
665,000
1,200,000
NA
900,000
400,000
1,240,000
1,320,000
945,000
-11%
NA
-45%
NA
-46%
NA
4,773%
563%
41%
3,624%
27%
-33%
52%
NA
-7%
39%
157%
27%
67%
85,800
NA
39,300
NA
650,000
680,000
750,000
670,000
570,000
68,400
955,000
860,000
1,060,000
NA
790,000
580,000
1,100,000
1,160,000
965,000
-87%
NA
-96%
NA
-40%
-37%
380,611%
3,795%
211%
23,486%
-5%
-13%
34%
NA
-18%
101%
128%
12%
71%
<5
NA
5,500
NA
<5
NA
170,000
970,000
91,000
33,000
880,000
800,000
220,000
230,000
530,000
770,000
990,000
1,300,OOOD
840,000
>-99%
NA
>-99%
NA
>-99%
NA
86,194%
5,540%
-50%
11,279%
-13%
-19%
-72%
-71%
-45%
167%
105%
25%
49%
<5
<5
330J
NA
<10
NA
94,000
920,OOOD
66,000
24,000
930,OOOD
610,000
640,000
NA
530,000
790,OOOD
760,000
1,100,000
930,000
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
NA
>-99%
NA
47,616%
5,249%
-64%
8,176%
-8%
-38%
-19%
NA
-45%
174%
58%
6%
65%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13S-DUP
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-13D-DUP
PA-14S
PA- 141
1,030,000
1,100,000
1,070,000
892,000
730,000
935,000
960,000
1,220,000
1,240,000
1,250,000
1,160,000
NA
106,000
75,500
18%
13%
17%
30%
NA
-89%
-92%
476,000
NA
268,000
380,000
NA
556
NA
-54%
NA
-75%
-57%
NA
>-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
180,000 *
170,000 *
1,300,000 D*
3,300 *
NA
9,400 *
46,000 *
-83%
-85%
21%
>-99%
NA
>-99%
-95%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
714,000 D
NA
NA
626,000
NA
3,450 D
NA
-31%
NA
NA
-30%
NA
>-99%
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-l. TCE Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Sampling
Event1'
Well ID
PA-14D
TCE Qig/L)
Pre-Demo
Results
868,000
Week 3-4
Results
482,000
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2I-DUP
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10I-DUP
PA-10D
PA-10D-DUP
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
22,900
1,140,000
NA
1,150,000
118,000
365,000
309
162,000
1,100,000
NA
1,120,000
NA
397
15,000
154,000
NA
1,110
720,000
NA
1,080,000
92,000
486,000
19,000
299,000
860,000
NA
180,000
NA
468,000
17,400
7,410
NA
% Change
in Cone.
-44%
-95%
-37%
NA
-6%
-22%
33%
6,049%
85%
-22%
NA
-84%
NA
117,784%
16%
-95%
NA
WeekS
Results
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
Week 7-8
Results
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
Jan 10-14, 2000
Results
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
Apr 10-14, 20002)
Results
68,000 *
% Change
in Cone.
-92%
ISCO Post-Demo
Results
NA
% Change
in Cone.
NA
Extended Monitoring
Results
562,000 D
% Change
in Cone.
-35%
82.6
425,000
475,000
1,120,000
55,000
438,000
23,100
182,000
458,000
451,000
825,000
NA
494,000
31,000
1,180
NA
>-99%
-63%
-58%
-3%
-53%
20%
7,376%
12%
-58%
-59%
-26%
NA
124,333%
107%
-99%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17,400
1,100,000
NA
1,250,000
39,600
112,000
160,000
182,000
280,000
NA
1,060,000
1,120,000
77,500
152,000
630J
180,000
-24%
-4%
NA
9%
-66%
-69%
51,680%
12%
-75%
NA
-5%
0%
19,421%
913%
>-99%
NA
6,400
1,800,OOOD
1,400,OOOD
1,300,OOOD
64,000
36,000
33,000
760,OOOD
740,OOOD
NA
1,000,OOOD
NA
Dry
680,000
1,600J
270,OOOD
-72%
58%
23%
13%
-46%
-90%
10,580%
369%
-33%
NA
-11%
NA
NA
4,433%
>-99%
NA
19,000
980,000
NA
990,OOOD
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-17%
-14%
NA
-14%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA-1I-DUP
PA- ID
PA-8S
PA-8S-DUP
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-8D-DUP
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
984
2,920
NA
172
5,730
NA
988,000
478,000
NA
865,000
1,060,000
1,010,000
2,550
4,420
NA
845
15,300
NA
1,040,000
625,000
555,000
800,000
1,280,000
1,240,000
159%
51%
NA
391%
167%
NA
5%
31%
16%
-8%
21%
23%
9,690
2,310
NA
24.1
25,800
NA
1,390,000
635,000
NA
790,000
1,200,000
1,030,000
885%
-21%
NA
-86%
350%
NA
41%
33%
NA
-9%
13%
2%
19,400
288
NA
24.6
115,000
113,000
1,000,000
900,000
NA
810,000
1,190,000
1,250,000
1,872%
-90%
NA
-86%
1,907%
1,872%
1%
88%
NA
-6%
12%
24%
16,200
140J
NA
2.58
79,300
84,400
805,000
960,000
NA
1,090,000
1,200,000
1,180,000
1,546%
-95%
NA
>-99%
1,284%
1,373%
-19%
101%
NA
26%
13%
17%
3,700
510J
NA
0.67J
740,000
NA
190,000
1,300,OOOD
NA
970,000
1,200,OOOD
1,300,OOOD
276%
-83%
NA
>-99%
12,814%
NA
-81%
172%
NA
12%
13%
29%
4,500
<2000
<2000
2.80
630,000
NA
330,000
1,800,OOOD
NA
<5
1,200,OOOD
1,400,OOOD
357%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
10,895%
NA
-67%
277%
NA
>-99%
13%
39%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
All units are in ug/L.
NA: Not available. NS: Not sampled.
<: The compound was analyzed but not detected at or above the specified reporting limit.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
D: Result was quantified after dilution.
1) Sampling Event Period:
Pre-demo: 8/3/99 to 8/9/99
Week 3-4: 9/24/99 to 9/30/99
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-l. TCE Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Week 5: 10/6/99 to 10/8/99
Week 7-8: 10/19/99 to 10/28/99
Post-Demo: 5/8/00 to 5/14/00
Extended Monitoring: February 2001.
2) Some deeply colored samples which may have some sediments had higher reporting limits because only limited volume could be purged in the purge and trap GC instrument.
*: Resisitve Heating Plot wells sampled in Apr 2000 may not be representative because most of well screens were appeared to be submerged under sediments.
Red indicates that TCE concentration has increased compared to Pre-demo conditions.
Blue indicates that TCE concentration has decreased compared to Pre-demo conditions.
Purple bold face indicates that water sample was purple when collected.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
cis-l,2-DCE(fig/L)
Pre-
Demo
Week3
4
WeekS
Week?
8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Extended
Monitoring
trans -1,2-VCV (ng/L)
Pre-
Demo
Week3
4
WeekS
Week?
8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Extended
Monitoring
ISCO Plot Wells
BAT- IS
BAT-1I
BAT-ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2S-DUP
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-3S
BAT-3S-DUP
BAT-3I
BAT-3D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5I-DUP
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
BAT-6S
BAT-6I
BAT-6D
PA-4S
PA-4S-DUP
PA-4I
PA-4D
MP-1A
MP-1B
MP-1C
MP-1D
MP-1E
ML -2
ML-3
ML -4
5,020
5,520
<5,000
4,900J
4,800J
4,700J
NA
NA
4,900J
NA
7,020
9,180
12,500
5,220
4,100J
NA
NA
3,900J
21,300
44,500
5,750
NA
4,200J
NA
7,180
5,OOOJ
3,200J
2,400J
2,200J
NA
12,800
4,200J
4,OOOJ
NA
NA
42.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
NA
NA
NA
<500
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.11
NA
NA
3.46
NA
NA
NA
1.5J
NA
NA
NA
NA
380J
<10,000
4,800J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<20
NA
152
150
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<20
<10,000
20,200
<2
NA
7.54
<20,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<20,000
<10,000
<2
Dry
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<2,000
360
8,330
NA
14,000
<2,000
<100
<2,000
NA
<10,000
NA
1,400J
11,300
6,830
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<10,000
<200
1,OOOJ
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
Dry
494
NA
NA
NA
<5
NA
<5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5
<17,000
NA
<25,000
<25,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5
<17,000
<7,100
<5
NA
<77
NA
<10,000
3,500J
5,OOOJ
52,000
<5
<17,000
<10
NA
<1,700
<1,700
<1,000
15J
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
NA
NA <8,300
NA 3,800J
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5,000
<5
Dry
9,100
NA
NA
NA
<20
NA
7
NA
7,770
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,300 D
540 J
NA
1,090
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
NA
NA
NA
<500
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<20
NA
<20
<20
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<20
<10,000
<10,000
<2
NA
<2
<20,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<20,000
<10,000
<2
Dry
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<2,000
6
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<2,000
<100
<2,000
NA
<10,000
NA
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<10,000
<200
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
Dry
<200
NA
NA
NA
<5
NA
<5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5
<17,000
NA
<25,000
<25,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5
<17,000
<7,100
<5
NA
<77
NA
<10,000
<17,000
<17,000
<620
<5
<17,000
<10
NA
< 1,700
< 1,700
< 1,000
<20
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
NA
<8,300
<6,200
<5,000
<5
Dry
<2,500
NA
NA
NA
<20
NA
<1
NA
<1000
NA
NA
NA
NA
<20
< 1,000
NA
< 1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
ML-5
ML -6
ML -7
MP-2A
MP-2B
MP-2C
MP-2D
MP-2E
MP-3A
MP-3B
MP-3C
MP-3D
MP-3E
MP-4A
MP-4C
MP-4E
MP-4E-2
cis-l,2-DCE(fig/L)
Pre-
Demo
4,600J
3,100J
3,OOOJ
7,100
3,100J
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
3,600J
5,780
2,OOOJ
<5,000
<5,000
3,900J
<5,000
3,200J
NA
Week3
4
NA
NA
NA
55J
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7J
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.34
NA
NA
NA
WeekS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Week?
8
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
14J
2.39
<40
<40
<2
84
4.87
<2,000
<10,000
<2
<20
<10,000
NA
Jan
2000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
NA
<2
95.5
< 1,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<2,000
<2
<2,000
<10,000
NA
Apr
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ISCO
Post-
Demo
3,800J
<25,000
8,400J
<5
<5
<5
<5
<20
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
< 1,200
<5,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
trans -1,2-VCV (ng/L)
Pre-
Demo
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
Week3
4
NA
NA
NA
<100
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
WeekS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Week?
8
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
<20
<2
<40
<40
<2
<20
<2
<2,000
<10,000
<2
<20
<10,000
NA
Jan
2000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
NA
<2
<50
< 1,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<2,000
<2
<2,000
<10,000
NA
Apr
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ISCO
Post-
Demo
<10,000
<25,000
<10,000
<5
<5
<5
<5
<20
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
< 1,200
<5,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ISCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9I
PA-9D
5,250
NA
8,750
NA
<5,000
NA
2,020
33,500
68,200
774
102,000
8,920
24,300
5,420
40,200
9,100J
NA
12,300
12,200
11,500
NA
9,800J
38,200
65,500
2,830
12,400
90,000
7,800J
41,200
39,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
6,750
54,900
59,900
14,600
24,600
50,500
5,750
64,200
38,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
8,330
11,300
13,000
<2,000
5,570
14,000
37,900
75,000
20,400
<5
NA
2,100
NA
<5
NA
15,OOOJ
30,000
17,000
1,200J
<33,000
<33,000
<25,000
200,000
14,OOOJ
<5
<5
6,800
NA
<10
NA
13,OOOJ
32,000
21,000
1,800
<25,000
9,600J
160,000
180,000
10,OOOJ
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5,000
NA
<5,000
NA
<5,000
NA
22.6
<5,000
<5,000
14.7
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
47.2
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
118
<2,000
<2,000
299
<10,000
<10,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
<5
NA
<150
NA
<5
NA
<33,000
<10,000
<4,500
<2,000
<33,000
<33,000
<25,000
<25,000
<25,000
<5
<5
<500
NA
<10
NA
<20,000
<4,200
<3,100
<1,000
<25,000
<17,000
<17,000
<17,000
<17,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
cis-l,2-DCE(fig/L)
Pre-
Demo
9,380
5,070
102,000
Week3
4
23,800
6,300J
61,000
WeekS
NA
NA
NA
Week?
8
4,760
4,160
45,000
Jan
2000
<10,000
<10,000
9,800J
Apr
2000
<25,000
<25,000
<25,000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
<50,000
<50,000
<25000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
trans -1,2-VCV (ng/L)
Pre-
Demo
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
Week3
4
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
WeekS
NA
NA
NA
Week?
8
72J
<100
< 1,000
Jan
2000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Apr
2000
<25,000
<25,000
<25,000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
<50,000
<50,000
<25,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13S-DUP
PA-13I
PA-13D
PA-13D-DUP
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14I-DUP
PA-14D
PA-14D-DUP
4,400
4,900
4,900
2,200
<62,000
5,880
26,000
25,500
21,900
23,200
17,400
16,000
<10,000
5,900J
NA
2,090
349
NA
11,600
NA
350,000
NA
3,900J
3,OOOJ
NA
19J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8,900
8,200
17,OOOJ
230
NA
140J
1,700J
NA
1,300J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2I-DUP
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10I-DUP
PA-10D
PA-10D-DUP
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
3,020
5,480
NA
2,700
22,100
160,000
21
8,880
4,700J
NA
2,400J
NA
593
123,000
39,200
NA
3,520
33,600
NA
7,400J
19,200
109,000
38,000
5,300J
6,900J
NA
<10,000
NA
15,700
7,150
18,100
NA
2,170
2,900J
3,600J
3,600J
7,430
73,200
41,800
1,900J
4,900J
<10,000
<10,000
NA
4,640
7,950
18,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32,800
<10,000
NA
8,500J
8,900
21,400
54,500
81,000
<10,000
NA
9,800J
12,300
4,180
14,600
70,000
39,300
28,000
7,200J
12,OOOJ
<25,000
100,000
21,000
96,000
42,000
50,000
NA
1 4,000 J
NA
Dry
50,000
65,000
39,000
19,000
20,OOOJ
NA
<25,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12,200
NA
NA
13,900
NA
1,920
NA
NA
44,900
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<42,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<200
<200
NA
<10,000
NA
3,OOOJ
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<5,000
<5,000
6,200J
26J
NA
<560
<5,000
NA
<4,200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1,000
NA
16
< 1,000
NA
< 1,000
1,150
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<500
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
2.78
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
NA
<20
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<20
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
633
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
225
< 1,000
150J
NA
<20
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
140J
<5,000
251
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<400
< 1,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
< 1,000
<1,000
2,060
<10,000
<2,500
<25,000
<25,000
<25,000
<3,300
290J
<5,000
<20,000
<20,000
NA
<25,000
NA
Dry
<20,000
1,800J
<5,600
<620
<25,000
NA
<25,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA-1I-DUP
PA-ID
PA-8S
PA-8S-DUP
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-8D-DUP
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
cis-l,2-DCE(fig/L)
Pre-
Demo
1,190
32,800
NA
299
10,000
NA
36,800
36,500
NA
4,900J
4,900J
6,180
Week3
4
945
22,100
NA
1,100
9,930
NA
51,000
38,600
32,600
8,OOOJ
6,900J
<10,000
WeekS
5,030
10,800
NA
689
12,000
NA
64,000
31,100
NA
5,400J
5,200J
6,700J
Week?
8
12,800
8,400
NA
589
18,200
18,000
104,000
20,800
NA
5,600J
5,400J
<10,000
Jan
2000
20,000
43,900
NA
1.4J
<2,000
<2,000
128,000
6,600J
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Apr
2000
29,000
53,000
NA
6.2J
23,000
NA
220,000
11,OOOJ
NA
<25,000
5,700J
<17,000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
27,000
48,000
47,000
2.9
32,000
NA
210,000
10,OOOJ
NA
<5
<25,000
<25,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
trans -1,2-VCV (ng/L)
Pre-
Demo
38.4
1,540
NA
22.9
140J
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
Week3
4
50J
1,220
NA
64J
220
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
WeekS
220
530J
NA
32.4
220
NA
<1,000
<2,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Week?
8
484
431
NA
21.9
352
368
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Jan
2000
714
1,670
NA
1.2J
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Apr
2000
1,400J
1,500J
NA
0.46J
<20,000
NA
<17,000
<20,000
NA
<25,000
<25,000
<17,000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
1,100J
1,400J
1,400J
0.46J
<17,000
NA
<10,000
<25,000
NA
<5
<25,000
<25,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
Vinyl chloride (jig/L)
Pre-
Demo
Week3
4
WeekS
Week?
8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Extended
Monitoring
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT- IS
BAT- 11
BAT- ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2S-DUP
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-3S
BAT-3S-DUP
BAT-3I
BAT-3D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5I-DUP
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
BAT-6S
BAT-6I
BAT-6D
PA-4S
PA-4S-DUP
PA-4I
PA-4D
MP-1A
MP-1B
MP-1C
MP-1D
MP-1E
ML-2
ML-3
ML -4
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
NA
NA
1.4J
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
NA
NA
NA
<500
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9,200J
<10,000
<10,000
<20
NA
20.7
20J
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
5,100J
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<20
<10,000
<10,000
<2
NA
<2
<20,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<20,000
<10,000
<2
Dry
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<2,000
9.79
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<2,000
<100
<2,000
NA
<10,000
NA
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
<10,000
<200
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
Dry
<200
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
<33,000
NA
<50,000
<50,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
<33,000
<14,000
<10
NA
<150
NA
<20,000
<33,000
<33,000
<1,200
<10
<33,000
<20
NA
<3,300
<3,300
<2,000
<40
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
NA
<17,000
<12,000
<10,000
<10
Dry
<5,000
NA
NA
NA
<20
NA
<1
NA
<1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
<20
<1,000
NA
< 1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
ML-5
ML-6
ML-7
MP-2A
MP-2B
MP-2C
MP-2D
MP-2E
MP-3A
MP-3B
MP-3C
MP-3D
MP-3E
MP-4A
MP-4C
MP-4E
MP-4E-2
Vinyl chloride (jig/L)
Pre-
Demo
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
NA
Week3
4
NA
NA
NA
<100
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
WeekS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Week?
8
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
<20
<2
<40
<40
<2
<20
<2
<2,000
<10,000
<2
<20
<10,000
NA
Jan
2000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<2
NA
<2
<50
< 1,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<2,000
<2
<2,000
<10,000
NA
Apr
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ISCO
Post-
Demo
<20,000
<50,000
<20,000
<10
<10
<10
<10
<40
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<2,500
<10,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
/SCO Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9I
PA-9D
<5,000
NA
<5,000
NA
<5,000
NA
25.8
<5,000
<5,000
<2
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<20
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
<100
<2,000
<2,000
<20
<10,000
<10,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<2,000
NA
<2,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10
NA
<300
NA
<10
NA
<67,000
<20,000
<9,100
<4,000
<67,000
<67,000
<50,000
<50,000
<50,000
<10
<10
<1,000
NA
<20
NA
<40,000
<8,300
<6,200
<2,000
<50,000
<33,000
<33,000
<33,000
<33,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
Vinyl chloride (jig/L)
Pre-
Demo
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
Week3
4
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
WeekS
NA
NA
NA
Week 7
8
<100
<100
< 1,000
Jan
2000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Apr
2000
<50,000
<50,000
<50,000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
<100,000
<100,000
<50,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13S-DUP
PA-13I
PA-13D
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14I-DUP
PA-14D
PA-14D-DUP
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<83,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
170J
100J
NA
<10,000
NA
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<50,000
21J
NA
<1,100
<10,000
NA
<8,300
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1,000
NA
NA
<1,000
NA
22
NA
NA
3,190
NA
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2I-DUP
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10I-DUP
PA-10D
PA-10D-DUP
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
<500
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
3.3
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
NA
<20
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<20
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
764
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
NA
292
< 1,000
428
NA
<20
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<10,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<200
<5,000
<200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<400
< 1,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<10,000
2,800J
<50,000
<50,000
<50,000
1,200J
<3,300
6,400J
2,500J
<40,000
NA
<50,000
NA
Dry
<40,000
3,800J
590J
4,100
<50,000
NA
<50,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA-1I-DUP
PA-ID
PA-8S
PA-8S-DUP
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-8D-DUP
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
Vinyl chloride (jig/L)
Pre-
Demo
<20
1,910
NA
171
<200
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
Week3
4
<100
1,700
NA
338
<200
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
WeekS
30.3
1,260
NA
332
<20
NA
<1,000
<2,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Week?
8
152
1,250
NA
195
<200
<200
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Jan
2000
<200
6,260
NA
12.1
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
Apr
2000
2,400J
7,200
NA
5.1
<40,000
NA
<33,000
<40,000
NA
<50,000
<50,000
<33,000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
2,300J
6,500
6,300
4.5
<33,000
NA
<20,000
<50,000
NA
<10
<50,000
<50,000
Extended
Monitoring
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
NA: Not available.
<: The compound was analyzed but not detected at or above the specified reporting limit.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
D: Result was quanitified after dilution.
Yellow indicates that a measurable concentration was obtained for this sample.
| Red indicates that concentration in this well increased compared to pre-treatment levels.
Blue indicates that concentration in this well decreased comnpared to pre-treatment levels.
Pre-demo: 8/3/99 to 8/9/99
Week 3 -4: 9/24/99 to 9/30/99
WeekS: 10/6/99 to 10/8/99
Week 7-8: 10/19/99 to 10/28/99
Post-Demo: 5/8/00 to 5/14/00
Extended Monitoring: February 2001.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-1 3-439
SB-1 3-440
SB-1 3-441
SB-1 3-442
SB-1 3-443
SB-1 3-444
SB-1 3-445
SB-1 3-446
SB-1 3-447
SB-1 3-448
SB-1 3-449
SB-1 3-450
SB-1 3-451
SB-1 3-452
SB-1 3-452
SB-1 3-453
SB-1 3-453
SB-1 3-454
SB-1 3-454
SB-1 3-455
SB-1 3-455
SB-1 3-456
SB-1 3-457
SB-1 3-458
SB-1 3-459
SB-1 3-460
SB-1 3-461
SB-1 3-462
SB-1 4-535
SB-1 4-536
SB-1 4-537
SB-1 4-538
SB-1 4-539
SB-1 4-540
SB-1 4-541
SB-1 4-542
SB-1 4-543
SB-1 4-544
SB-1 4-545
SB-1 4-546
SB-1 4-547
SB-1 4-548
SB-1 4-549
SB-1 4-550
SB-1 4-551
SB-1 4-552
Sample ID
SB-1 3-2
SB-1 3-4
SB-1 3-6
SB-1 3-8
SB-1 3-10
SB-1 3-1 2
SB-1 3-1 4
SB-1 3-1 6
SB-1 3-1 8
SB-1 3-20
SB-1 3-22
SB-1 3-24
SB-1 3-26
SB-1 3-28
SB-1 3-28
SB-1 3-32
SB-1 3-32
SB-13-32B
SB-13-32B
SB-1 3-34
SB-1 3-34
SB-1 3-36
SB-1 3-38
SB-1 3-40
SB-1 3-42
SB-1 3-44
SB-1 3-46
SB-13-BLANK
SB-1 4-2
SB- 14-4
SB-1 4-6
SB- 14-8
SB-1 4-10
SB-1 4-1 2
SB-1 4-1 6
SB-1 4-1 8
SB-1 4-20
SB-1 4-22
SB-1 4-24
SB-1 4-26
SB-1 4-28
SB-1 4-30
SB-1 4-32
SB-1 4-34
SB-1 4-36
SB-1 4-38
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
30
30
30
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
32
32
32
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
2
4
6
8
10
12
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
MeOH
(g)
195
190
189
189
195
199
191
189
189
191
189
190
192
191
191
190
190
197
197
190
190
191
196
195
186
192
191
NA
190
191
191
191
191
191
191
190
190
189
191
192
191
191
189
191
190
190
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
142
201
215
141
198
224
241
221
192
167
228
231
248
243
243
300
300
302
302
193
193
245
198
195
215
275
209
0
148
241
180
140
201
185
204
153
111
233
202
221
221
186
221
198
203
186
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
129
187
194
123
170
173
202
179
160
134
179
177
178
198
198
235
235
238
238
151
151
197
144
154
163
203
160
0
138
231
174
126
171
151
158
124
175
183
158
172
174
133
157
154
155
146
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
330
200
160
300
410
280
300
550
4,600
15,000
66,000
140,000
160,000
210,000
190,000
39,000
33,000
39,000
36,000
18,000
15,000
4,700
7,500
13,000
4,000
22,000
110,000
140
140
310
150
220
210
380
220
2,700
18,000
71,000
150,000
140,000
2,400,000
250,000
1,200,000
19,000,000
5,400,000
9,800,000
Qual
J
J
J
J
E
D
J,1
J
J
J
J
J
J
Reporting
Limit
430
250
280
420
310
250
250
250
310
720
2,500
6,200
6,200
10,000
10,000
2,500
2,500
4,200
1,800
250
1,200
2,100
2,600
630
250
1,000
2,500
250
440
260
350
480
290
400
320
480
630
3,200
4,600
4,600
64,000
9,100
35,000
460,000
220,000
270,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
6.5
21.9
105.9
234.6
304.2
318.4
288.1
66.8
56.5
65.6
60.5
28.1
23.4
7.3
13.2
19.9
6.8
41.0
180.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
3.8
28.5
114.3
236.0
225.8
3,798.4
446.6
2,261.2
30,056.1
8,858.9
15,113.3
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
400
880
5,300
33,000
28,000
32,000
29,000
38,000
30,000
30,000
41,000
19,000
7,400
11,000
4,000
180
470
670
Qual
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
E
D
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
j
j
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Reporting
Limit
430
250
280
420
310
250
250
250
310
720
2,500
6,200
6,200
10,000
10,000
2,500
2,500
4,200
1,800
250
1,200
2,100
2,600
630
250
1,000
2,500
250
440
260
350
480
290
400
320
480
630
3,200
4,600
4,600
64,000
9,100
35,000
460,000
220,000
270,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
1.3
ND
ND
ND
8.0
ND
56.5
48.0
53.8
48.8
59.3
46.8
46.7
71.9
29.1
12.5
20.5
6.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.7
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-1 4-553
SB-1 4-554
SB-1 4-555
SB-1 4-556
SB-1 4-557
SB-1 4-558
SB-1 5-569
SB-1 5-570
SB-1 5-571
SB-1 5-572
SB-1 5-573
SB-1 5-574
SB-1 5-575
SB-1 5-576
SB-1 5-577
SB-1 5-578
SB-1 5-579
SB-1 5-580
SB-1 5-581
SB-1 5-582
SB-1 5-583
SB-1 5-584
SB-1 5-585
SB-1 5-586
SB-1 5-587
SB-1 5-588
SB-1 5-589
SB-1 5-590
SB-1 5-591
SB-1 5-592
SB-1 6-390
SB-1 6-391
SB-1 6-392
SB-1 6-393
SB-1 6-394
SB-1 6-395
SB-1 6-396
SB-1 6-397
SB-1 6-397
SB-1 6-398
SB-1 6-399
SB-1 6-400
SB-1 6-401
SB-1 6-401
SB-1 6-402
Sample ID
SB-1 4-40
SB-14-40B
SB-1 4-1 4
SB- 14-44
SB-1 4-46
SB-14-BLANK
SB-1 5-2
SB-1 5-4
SB-1 5-6
SB-1 5-8
SB-1 5-10
SB-1 5-1 2
SB-1 5-1 4
SB-1 5-1 6
SB-1 5-1 8
SB-1 5-20
SB-1 5-22
SB-1 5-24
SB-15-24B
SB-1 5-26
SB-1 5-28
SB-1 5-30
SB-1 5-32
SB-1 5-34
SB-1 5-38
SB-1 5-40
SB-1 5-42
SB-1 5-44
SB-1 5-46
SB-15-BLANK
SB-1 6-2
SB-1 6-4
SB-1 6-6
SB-1 6-8
SB-1 6-10
SB-1 6-1 2
SB-1 6-1 2B
SB-1 6-1 4
SB-1 6-1 4
SB-1 6-1 6
SB-1 6-1 8
SB-1 6-20
SB-1 6-22
SB-1 6-22
SB-1 6-26
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
38
38
12
42
44
Bottom
Depth
40
40
14
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
32
36
38
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
10
12
12
14
16
18
20
20
24
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
22
26
MeOH
(g)
191
190
191
191
189
184
191
190
192
190
191
190
193
191
191
190
190
191
190
191
193
192
193
193
193
190
192
193
192
192
190
192
190
193
192
191
191
190
190
188
192
192
191
191
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
122
156
199
258
219
0
174
107
82
125
154
210
214
208
251
188
170
210
240
203
231
175
190
293
259
286
216
235
253
0
150
175
217
56
124
185
166
224
224
162
162
207
119
119
210
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
84
112
160
184
164
0
167
102
80
120
131
174
177
170
206
151
140
163
189
167
176
136
141
216
195
226
173
168
194
0
138
161
206
44
100
157
140
177
177
135
131
160
102
102
163
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
490,000
440,000
1,100
650,000
1,100,000
180
430
410
580
1,100
3,300
340
1,400
860
20,000
150,000
140,000
2,100,000
7,900,000
11,000,000
290,000
350,000
10,000,000
6,800,000
1,800,000
2,300,000
3,900,000
780
200
130
220
210
130
140
1,800
9,000
15,000
16,000
170,000
Qual
<
<
J
J
J
R
R
R
R
R
R
1
<
<
<
J
J
J
J
J
J
<
Reporting
Limit
14,000
11,000
310
18,000
48,000
250
360
590
760
500
460
300
300
310
300
400
1,400
6,400
6,400
100,000
220,000
890,000
14,000
23,000
660,000
210,000
62,000
58,000
81,000
250
400
350
250
1,100
490
330
360
250
250
370
370
500
1,000
510
8,300
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
853.3
754.8
1.6
1,264.5
1,896.4
ND
ND
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.6
4.8
0.5
2.1
1.3
28.1
240.8
225.5
3,033.8
13,323.6
17,029.5
490.0
664.2
17,686.5
11,322.8
2,750.7
4,334.1
6,649.0
1.2
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
ND
2.6
14.5
19.1
20.3
272.4
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
280
390
860
250
Qual
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
<
Reporting
Limit
14,000
11,000
310
18,000
48,000
250
360
590
760
500
460
300
300
310
300
400
1,400
6,400
6,400
100,000
220,000
890,000
14,000
23,000
660,000
210,000
62,000
58,000
81,000
250
400
350
250
1,100
490
330
360
250
250
370
370
500
1,000
510
8,300
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
1.4
0.3
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prqjects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-1 6-403
SB-1 6-404
SB-1 6-405
SB-1 6-406
SB-1 6-407
SB-1 6-408
SB-1 6-409
SB-1 6-410
SB-1 6-411
SB-1 6-411
SB-1 6-41 2
SB-1 6-41 3
SB-1 6-41 4
SB-1 7-365
SB-1 7-366
SB-1 7-367
SB-1 7-368
SB-1 7-369
SB-1 7-370
SB-1 7-371
SB-1 7-372
SB-1 7-373
SB-1 7-374
SB-1 7-375
SB-1 7-376
SB-1 7-377
SB-1 7-378
SB-1 7-379
SB-1 7-380
SB-1 7-381
SB-1 7-382
SB-1 7-383
SB-1 7-384
SB-1 7-385
SB-1 7-386
SB-1 7-387
SB-1 7-388
SB-1 7-389
SB-1 8-293
SB-1 8-294
SB-1 8-295
SB-1 8-296
SB-1 8-297
SB-1 8-298
SB-1 8-299
Sample ID
SB-1 6-28
SB-1 6-30
SB-1 6-32
SB-1 6-34
SB-1 6-36
SB-1 6-38
SB-1 6-40
SB-1 6-42
SB-1 6-44
SB-1 6-44
SB-1 6-46
SB-1 6-24
SB-16-BLANK
SB-1 7-2
SB-1 7-4
SB-1 7-6
SB-1 7-8
SB-1 7-10
SB-1 7-1 2
SB-1 7-1 4
SB-1 7-1 6
SB-1 7-1 8
SB-1 7-20
SB-1 7-22
SB-1 7-24
SB-1 7-26
SB-1 7-28
SB-1 7-30
SB-1 7-32
SB-1 7-34
SB-17-34B
SB-1 7-36
SB-1 7-38
SB-1 7-40
SB-1 7-42
SB-1 7-44
SB-1 7-46
SB-17-BLANK
SB-1 8-2
SB-1 8-4
SB-1 8-6
SB-1 8-8
SB-1 8-10
SB-1 8-1 2
SB-1 8-1 4
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
42
44
22
Bottom
Depth
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
44
46
24
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
MeOH
(g)
188
189
189
190
191
189
194
192
192
192
195
189
NA
187
188
186
186
193
189
188
193
188
189
188
188
192
190
191
192
192
192
193
188
190
186
193
185
NA
192
189
188
190
188
194
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
227
227
197
167
196
240
145
208
189
189
203
197
0
101
153
180
127
176
139
220
190
164
192
182
221
195
137
208
171
119
125
238
145
191
218
202
168
0
131
178
187
71
147
186
182
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
166
166
149
129
150
147
109
161
145
145
170
152
0
94
143
167
107
148
115
183
149
145
150
140
185
154
106
151
124
97
98
184
112
141
173
157
126
0
125
168
175
63
121
154
146
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
170,000
220,000
200,000
130,000
140,000
120,000
54,000
140,000
170,000
180,000
35,000
110,000
120
350
250
760
330
9,000
29,000
3,100,000
140,000
140,000
190,000
210,000
140,000
140,000
130,000
170,000
110,000
100,000
87,000
150,000
130
340
190
270
5,700
210
360
290
Qual
E
D
<
J
<
<
<
<
J
J, 1
J
J
J
R
J
R
J
Reporting
Limit
5,000
6,200
5,000
3,600
5,000
5,000
1,400
6,200
3,200
6,400
2,500
6,200
250
580
390
330
460
350
430
250
320
360
500
1,300
170,000
5,000
5,500
6,200
7,100
5,100
4,900
5,000
5,900
4,500
3,600
2,500
5,800
250
460
340
320
850
400
330
330
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
307.9
397.9
331.6
202.0
227.0
292.3
85.2
225.1
272.4
288.4
48.9
176.5
ND
0.1
ND
0.4
ND
ND
ND
0.4
1.2
0.4
14.1
46.1
4,412.4
215.1
210.5
339.8
360.5
191.4
203.7
215.2
258.7
188.2
156.5
138.0
245.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
6.7
0.3
0.5
0.4
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
1,600
4,500
29,000
29,000
3,700
1,600
730
2,400
1,400
230
220
Qual
<
<
<
J
J
J
<
<
J
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
J
<
<
<
J
J
<
<
<
<
Reporting
Limit
5,000
6,200
5,000
3,600
5,000
5,000
1,400
6,200
3,200
3,200
2,500
6,200
250
580
390
330
460
350
430
250
320
360
500
1,300
170,000
5,000
5,500
6,200
7,100
5,100
4,900
5,000
5,900
4,500
3,600
2,500
5,800
250
460
340
320
850
400
330
330
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
2.5
7.3
70.6
45.7
6.0
ND
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.1
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prqjects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-1 8-300
SB-1 8-301
SB-1 8-302
SB-1 8-303
SB-1 8-304
SB-1 8-305
SB-1 8-306
SB-1 8-307
SB-1 8-307
SB-1 8-308
SB-1 8-309
SB-1 8-310
SB-1 8-311
SB-1 8-31 2
SB-1 8-31 3
SB-1 8-31 4
SB-1 8-31 5
SB-1 8-31 6
SB-1 8-31 7
SB-1 9-268
SB-1 9-269
SB-1 9-270
SB-1 9-271
SB-1 9-272
SB-1 9-273
SB-1 9-274
SB-1 9-275
SB-1 9-276
SB-1 9-277
SB-1 9-278
SB-1 9-279
SB-1 9-280
SB-1 9-281
SB-1 9-282
SB-1 9-283
SB-1 9-284
SB-1 9-285
SB-1 9-286
SB-1 9-287
SB-1 9-288
SB-1 9-289
SB-1 9-290
SB-1 9-291
SB-1 9-292
SB-20-318
Sample ID
SB-1 8-1 6
SB-1 8-1 8
SB-1 8-20
SB-1 8-22
SB-18-22B
SB-1 8-24
SB-1 8-26
SB-1 8-28
SB-1 8-28
SB-1 8-30
SB-1 8-32
SB-1 8-34
SB-1 8-36
SB-1 8-38
SB-1 8-40
SB-1 8-42
SB-1 8-44
SB-1 8-46
SB-18-BLANK
SB-1 9-2
SB-1 9-4
SB-1 9-6
SB-1 9-8
SB-1 9-10
SB-1 9-1 2
SB-1 9-1 4
SB-1 9-1 6
SB-1 9-1 8
SB-1 9-20
SB-1 9-22
SB-1 9-24
SB-1 9-26
SB-1 9-28
SB-1 9-30
SB-19-30B
SB-1 9-32
SB-1 9-34
SB-1 9-36
SB-1 9-38
SB-1 9-40
SB-1 9-42
SB-1 9-44
SB-1 9-46
SB-19-BLANK
SB-20-2
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0 2
MeOH
(g)
189
189
190
189
190
185
186
187
187
191
191
190
189
190
189
190
190
187
NA
189
190
190
190
191
189
190
190
190
191
190
190
190
192
191
188
191
190
189
189
191
190
192
190
NA
189
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
145
183
176
107
105
213
198
174
174
171
155
123
206
175
149
143
142
254
0
138.1
106.8
93.7
112.6
141.2
223.3
174
180.8
167.3
208.7
210.9
205.5
192.2
160.6
228.8
261.2
157.2
140.4
196.5
144.2
244
151
160
213.8
0
106.8
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
113
149
142
80
87
178
151
136
136
128
115
96
168
129
99
110
106
199
0
135
99
88
93
119
187
145
147
135
170
176
158
94
109
163
200
123
114
153
113
167
120
123
166
0
99
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
140
4,100
24,000
72,000
45,000
2,600,000
4,200,000
700,000
920,000
270,000
360,000
220,000
1,200,000
1,900,000
4,400,000
510,000
210,000
5,400,000
5,100
410
470
630
2,200
5,600
420
6,300
300
730
1,700
8,200
71,000
68,000
150,000
98,000
100,000
83,000
63,000
83,000
79,000
97,000
49,000
75,000
95,000
130
4,200
Qual
J
R
R
R
R
E
D
1
J
J
J
J
J,1
Reporting
Limit
410
250
1,400
4,000
2,900
72,000
100,000
6,800
34,000
10,000
19,000
9,800
29,000
57,000
130,000
17,000
11,000
170,000
250
430
560
640
530
430
250
340
330
360
250
250
2,500
1,800
5,400
3,600
3,800
2,700
3,600
3,100
4,100
4,200
2,300
3,800
3,600
250
560
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
0.2
5.9
35.1
110.1
59.5
3,699.8
6,898.9
1,077.6
1,416.2
441.9
586.8
321.9
1,767.3
3,201.6
8,374.1
778.2
334.6
8,919.7
8.0
0.4
0.5
0.7
2.9
7.4
0.6
8.7
0.4
1.1
2.5
11.6
115.4
210.9
280.4
185.0
173.1
125.1
88.4
131.1
117.5
198.9
71.7
116.4
153.1
0.2
4.7
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
160
460
560
160
190
220
430
1,000
3,500
2,500
Qual
J
J
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
J
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
<
<
<
Reporting
Limit
410
250
1,400
4,000
2,900
72,000
100,000
6,800
6,800
10,000
19,000
9,800
29,000
57,000
130,000
17,000
11,000
170,000
250
430
560
640
530
430
250
340
330
360
250
250
2,500
1,800
5,400
3,600
3,800
2,700
3,600
3,100
4,100
4,200
2,300
3,800
3,600
250
560
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
0.2
0.7
0.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
0.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.6
1.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.2
3.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prqjects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-20-319
SB-20-320
SB-20-321
SB-20-322
SB-20-323
SB-20-324
SB-20-325
SB-20-326
SB-20-327
SB-20-328
SB-20-329
SB-20-330
SB-20-331
SB-20-332
SB-20-332
SB-20-333
SB-20-334
SB-20-335
SB-20-335
SB-20-336
SB-20-337
SB-20-338
SB-20-339
SB-20-340
SB-20-341
SB-21-245
SB-21-246
SB-21-247
SB-21-248
SB-21-249
SB-21-250
SB-21-251
SB-21-252
SB-21-253
SB-21-254
SB-21-255
SB-21-256
SB-21-257
SB-21-258
SB-21-259
SB-21-260
SB-21-261
SB-21-261
SB-21-262
SB-21-263
SB-21-264
Sample ID
SB-20-4
SB-20-6
SB-20-8
SB-20-10
SB-20-12
SB-20-14
SB-20-16
SB-20-18
SB-20-20
SB-20-22
SB-20-24
SB-20-26
SB-20-26B
SB-20-28
SB-20-28
SB-20-30
SB-20-32
SB-20-34
SB-20-34
SB-20-36
SB-20-38
SB-20-40
SB-20-44
SB-20-46
SB-20-BLANK
SB-21-2
SB-21-4
SB-21-6
SB-21-8
SB-21-10
SB-21-12
SB-21-14
SB-21-16
SB-21-18
SB-21-20
SB-21-22
SB-21-24
SB-21-26
SB-21-28
SB-21-32
SB-21-34
SB-21-36
SB-21-36
SB-21-38
SB-21-40
SB-21-42
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
42
44
Bottom
Depth
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
MeOH
(g)
193
186
189
192
192
190
193
194
189
190
190
189
191
191
191
187
187
186
186
191
186
190
189
189
NA
192
187
191
189
190
193
190
191
189
193
190
188
189
190
189
187
192
192
194
193
188
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
83
142.2
104
94
173
164
156
145
94
150
231
253
179
243
243
114
139
147
147
194
174
233
219
122
0
86
58
75
129
123
146
101
154
136
157.3
159.1
170.4
146.1
192.8
160
222.2
260.8
260.8
184.3
264.3
120.6
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
77
131
87
81
147
137
128
120
74
121
180
199
140
140
140
82
103
120
120
152
135
179
169
167
0
80
52
64
95.2
109
116
85
131
120
125
129
134
115
141
122
182
205
205
148
NA
95
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
880
6,800
120
190
1,300
8,100
53,000
99,000
110,000
120,000
200,000
170,000
160,000
130,000
140,000
120,000
110,000
120,000
92,000
150,000
15,000,000
600
310
600
200
220
290
580
350
900
2,300
36,000
48,000
44,000
130,000
120,000
66,000
7,100,000
4,800,000
5,000,000
4,700,000
4,100,000
Qual
R
J
<
<
<
J
R
1
J
J
J
<
J
J
J
J
E
D
1
Reporting
Limit
730
410
570
640
350
370
390
420
640
2,000
3,600
5,000
4,800
8,300
6,200
5,200
4,200
5,700
5,000
3,600
3,400
4,200
5,000
490,000
250
710
1,000
800
460
490
420
590
390
440
390
1,900
2,500
2,000
2,500
6,200
2,500
120,000
250,000
170,000
500,000
98,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
1.0
7.8
0.2
ND
ND
ND
0.3
1.8
11.4
75.7
161.2
179.8
184.8
534.3
454.2
260.5
209.2
196.4
168.3
171.3
187.1
153.8
245.8
8,349.0
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.2
ND
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.5
1.1
3.4
51.4
72.9
65.1
226.2
189.0
97.9
11,657.7
7,881.2
7,391.4
7,397.8
5,913.6
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
520
170
730
440
610
200
180
360
260
230
300
170
Qual
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
J
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
J
J
J
<
J
J
J
J
J
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Reporting
Limit
730
410
570
640
350
370
390
420
640
2,000
3,600
5,000
4,800
8,300
6,200
5,200
4,200
5,700
5,000
3,600
3,400
4,200
5,000
490,000
250
710
1,000
800
460
490
420
590
390
440
390
1,900
2,500
2,000
2,500
6,200
2,500
120,000
250,000
170,000
500,000
98,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.7
0.2
1.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.3
ND
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prqjects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-21-265
SB-21-266
SB-21-267
SB-22-011
SB-22-012
SB-22-013
SB-22-014
SB-22-015
SB-22-016
SB-22-017
SB-22-018
SB-22-019
SB-22-020
SB-22-021
SB-22-022
SB-22-023
SB-22-024
SB-22-025
SB-22-026
SB-22-027
SB-22-028
SB-22-029
SB-22-029
SB-22-030
SB-22-031
SB-22-031
SB-22-032
SB-22-032
SB-22-033
SB-22-033
SB-22-035
SB-22-055
SB-23-001
SB-23-002
SB-23-003
SB-23-056
SB-23-057
SB-23-058
SB-23-059
SB-23-060
SB-23-061
SB-23-062
SB-23-063
SB-23-064
SB-23-065
Sample ID
SB-21-42B
SB-21-44
SB-21 -BLANK
SB-22-2
SB-22-4
SB-22-6
SB-22-8
SB-22-10
SB-22-12
SB-22-14
SB-22-16
SB-22-16B
SB-22-18
SB-22-20
SB-22-22
SB-22-24
SB-22-26
SB-22-28
SB-22-30
SB-22-32
SB-22-34
SB-22-36
SB-22-36
SB-22-38
SB-22-40
SB-22-40
SB-22-42
SB-22-42
SB-22-44
SB-22-44
SB-22-46
SB-22-BLANK
SB-23-2
SB-23-4
SB-23-6
SB-23-8
SB-23-10
SB-23-12
SB-23-14
SB-23-16
SB-23-18
SB-23-20
SB-23-22
SB-23-24
SB-23-26
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
40
42
Bottom
Depth
42
44
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
38
40
40
42
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
40
42
42
44
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
MeOH
(g)
190
192
NA
191
193
191
192
193
191
190
193
192
191
193
192
189
193
190
190
192
188
191
191
191
188
188
190
190
190
190
188
NA
191
191
191
193
191
193
192
190
192
192
190
186
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
178.7
210.7
0
168.2
284.2
252.2
162.2
130.2
184.2
184.2
224.2
292.2
184.2
176.2
162.2
144.2
186.2
186.6
233.5
239.1
193.2
254.2
254.2
266.2
252.2
252.2
154.2
154.2
279.2
279.2
211.2
0
256.2
270.2
250.2
136
126
196
156
163
123
214
199
162
147
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
140
154
0
161.2
275.3
229.8
142.2
100.4
151.6
151.6
186.9
236.9
155
138.9
131.9
120.2
155.5
143.1
177.1
197.2
168.5
193.6
193.6
203
202
202
130
130
227
227
161
0
243.7
263
233
114.8
101
161.8
125.8
136.8
100
179.2
160.2
123.9
111
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
5,800,000
5,900,000
2,700
1,600
1,800
1,300
420
4,400
8,800
37,000
40,000
97,000
84,000
39,000
39,000
49,000
52,000
95,000
85,000
73,000
69,000
78,000
37,000
36,000
13,000
1,700
1,600
210
540
940
40,000
100,000
110,000
Qual
<
<
<
<
<
<
E
D
E
D
E
D
E
D
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
Reporting
Limit
220,000
170,000
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
12,000
12,000
5,000
2,500
3,100
5,000
12,000
5,000
10,000
2,500
5,000
2,500
5,000
1,000
250
250
250
250
450
480
250
390
370
490
250
1,200
3,600
4,100
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
8,911.2
10,456.1
ND
2.9
ND
2.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.6
2.1
0.6
6.7
12.5
50.0
55.5
155.4
143.6
57.6
50.6
84.8
89.9
165.8
134.5
115.5
92.3
104.3
58.0
56.4
21.6
ND
ND
1.8
1.9
ND
ND
ND
0.3
ND
0.7
1.3
59.8
157.5
172.8
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
11,000
2,900
2,100
190
560
1,200
Qual
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
J
<
<
Reporting
Limit
220,000
170,000
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
3,100
250
250
250
250
250
250
2,500
250
1,000
250
250
250
250
450
480
250
390
370
490
250
1,200
3,600
4,100
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
19.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.5
ND
3.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.8
1.8
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prqjects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-23-066
SB-23-067
SB-23-068
SB-23-069
SB-23-070
SB-23-071
SB-23-072
SB-23-073
SB-23-074
SB-23-075
SB-23-075
SB-23-076
SB-24-149
SB-24-150
SB-24-151
SB-24-152
SB-24-153
SB-24-154
SB-24-155
SB-24-156
SB-24-157
SB-24-158
SB-24-159
SB-24-160
SB-24-161
SB-24-162
SB-24-163
SB-24-164
SB-24-165
SB-24-166
SB-24-167
SB-24-168
SB-24-169
SB-24-170
SB-24-171
SB-24-172
SB-24-173
SB-25-463
SB-25-464
SB-25-465
SB-25-466
SB-25-467
SB-25-468
SB-25-469
SB-25-470
Sample ID
SB-23-28
SB-23-30
SB-23-32
SB-23-34
SB-23-34B
SB-23-36
SB-23-38
SB-23-40
SB-23-42
SB-23-45
SB-23-45
SB-23-BLANK
SB-24-2
SB-24-4
SB-24-6
SB-24-8
SB-24-10
SB-24-12
SB-24-14
SB-24-16
SB-24-18
SB-24-20
SB-24-22
SB-24-24
SB-24-26
SB-24-28
SB-24-30
SB-24-32
SB-24-34
SB-24-36
SB-24-38
SB-24-40
SB-24-42
SB-24-42B
SB-24-44
SB-24-46
SB-24-BLANK
SB-25-2
SB-25-4
SB-25-6
SB-25-8
SB-25-12
SB-25-14
SB-25-16
SB-25-18
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
43
43
Bottom
Depth
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
45
45
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
10
12
14
16
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
MeOH
(g)
193
193
192
192
193
188
192
193
188
192
192
NA
192
191
191
189
190
190
190
193
191
191
190
192
191
190
190
191
190
190
191
190
191
189
191
190
NA
189
190
192
193
191
192
191
189
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
143
215
177
185
124
167
142
131
174
189
189
0
120
120
195
59
143
97
187
123
135
113
205
137
250
159
216
171
132
194
114
261
166
146
151
165
0
179
147
187
216
193
192
168
172
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
102
153.9
123.9
146.6
97.9
132
NA
92
132.4
NA
NA
0
112
113
175
47
115
80
142
100
110
86
161
103
204
120
163
136
106
138
84
184
129
115
115
126
0
157
131
165
176
163
154
141
133
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
160,000
180,000
170,000
97,000
87,000
68,000
170,000
130,000
90,000
84,000
95,000
750
440
250
6,000
5,600
2,600
3,900
3,700
6,700
22,000
37,000
39,000
120,000
81,000
57,000
44,000
85,000
280,000
51,000
28,000
24,000
73,000
88,000
250
140
220
240
470
350
400
1,000
Qual
1
E,1
D,1
1
<
<
<
J
J
J
J
Reporting
Limit
5,700
5,000
6,800
3,300
3,300
2,000
5,700
6,200
3,400
320
6,400
250
250
250
250
250
500
250
250
250
250
500
2,500
2,500
5,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
12,000
10,000
2,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
250
330
410
320
250
310
320
360
350
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
272.0
331.1
310.0
146.9
125.1
102.0
267.6
222.5
144.5
132.2
149.5
1.8
0.5
0.3
ND
ND
8.6
7.4
4.2
5.4
5.1
10.0
34.5
57.9
59.3
191.6
137.3
84.8
62.3
154.7
439.7
101.7
43.0
35.5
113.9
138.9
ND
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.6
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
260
10,000
8,500
690
Qual
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Reporting
Limit
5,700
5,000
6,800
3,300
3,300
2,000
5,700
6,200
3,400
320
320
250
250
250
250
250
500
250
250
250
250
500
2,500
2,500
5,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
12,000
10,000
2,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
250
330
410
320
250
310
320
360
350
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15.4
12.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prqjects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-3. Pre-Demo Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-25-471
SB-25-472
SB-25-473
SB-25-474
SB-25-475
SB-25-476
SB-25-477
SB-25-478
SB-25-479
SB-25-480
SB-25-481
SB-25-482
SB-25-483
SB-25-484
SB-25-485
SB-25-486
Sample ID
SB-25-18B
SB-25-20
SB-25-22
SB-25-24
SB-25-26
SB-25-28
SB-25-30
SB-25-32
SB-25-34
SB-25-36
SB-25-38
SB-25-40
SB-25-42
SB-25-44
SB-25-46
SB-25-BLANK
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
MeOH
(g)
189
189
192
188
192
192
190
193
190
192
191
192
191
190
192
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
173
148
205
161
289
157
231
185
198
201
259
204
224
232
241
0
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
127
112
156
127
220
112
169
154
154
165
183
149
162
179
166
0
TCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
1,400
4,900
9,000
130,000
140,000
250,000
220,000
14,000
160,000
66,000
120,000
47,000
60,000
100,000
130,000
Qual
<
Reporting
Limit
340
400
500
6,100
8,300
7,700
8,300
660
5,000
2,100
5,000
1,800
2,500
4,200
6,200
250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
2.4
7.7
14.8
194.6
250.0
432.6
398.8
19.5
253.4
95.5
237.4
82.8
109.9
165.8
262.5
ND
c/s-l,2-DCE
Result in
Wet Soil
(ug/kg)
790
1,200
1,600
4,200
3,300
1,100
4,500
21,000
27,000
10,000
Qual
<
<
J
<
<
J
J
<
<
Reporting
Limit
340
400
500
6,100
8,300
7,700
8,300
660
5,000
2,100
5,000
1,800
2,500
4,200
6,200
250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
1.3
1.9
2.6
ND
ND
7.3
ND
4.6
ND
1.6
8.9
37.0
49.5
16.6
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in Wet
Soil (ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Notes:
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
<: Result was not detected at or above the stated reporting limit.
1. Dry soil concentration is calculated as 1.57 times of wet soil concentration to account for average moisture content.
D: Result was obtained from the analysis of a dilution.
E: Estimated result. Result concentration exceeds the calibration range.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
R: Corresponding rinsate blank contained more than 10 % of this sample result.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OXVAppendicesVAppendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
DC-1-1
DC-1-2
DC-1-3
DC-2-4
DC-2-5
DC-2-6
DC-3-7
DC-3-8
DC-3-9
SB-213-213
SB-213-214
SB-213-215
SB-213-216
SB-213-217
SB-21 3-239
SB-21 3-240
SB-21 3-241
SB-21 3-242
SB-21 3-243
SB-21 3-244
SB-21 3-245
SB-21 3-246
SB-21 3-247
SB-21 3-248
SB-21 3-249
SB-21 3-250
SB-21 3-251
SB-21 3-252
SB-21 3-253
SB-21 3-254
SB-21 3-255
SB-21 3-256
SB-21 3-257
SB-21 3-258
SB-21 4-306
Sample ID
DC-1-2
DC-1-4
DC-1-6
DC-2-2
DC-2-4
DC-2-6
DC-3-2
DC-3-4
DC-3-6
SB213-2
SB213-4
SB213-6
SB213-8
SB213-10
SB213-12
SB213-14
SB213-16
SB213-18
SB213-20
SB213-22
SB213-24
SB213-26
SB213-28
SB213-30
SB213-30B
SB213-32
SB213-34
SB213-36
SB213-38
SB213-40
SB213-42
SB213-44
SB213-46
SB213-46*S*
SB214-2
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
0
2
4
0
2
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
44
0
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
46
2
Sample
Date
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/31/2000
MeOH
(g)
193
196
193
193
192
165
193
193
193
202
196
196
200
196
195
196
198
198
193
199
201
199
202
199
196
195
195
199
199
203
197
199
201
191
192
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
124
153
123
123
135
105
148
186
108
153
145
141
179
148
187
184
237
288
217
240
297
257
242
254
340
267
232
270
253
212
219
272
203
271
225
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
121
146
112
118
134
99
99
108
107
151
141
134
168
119
159
152
185
227
167
192
228
200
180
185
189
99
186
209
197
154
178
194
157
111
211
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
330
330
1,500
1,500
3,100
530
650
700
<250
<250
1,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<830
<330
<250
<250
1,700
1,800
<250
<250
1,100
3,500
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
0.6
0.8
3.2
2.7
6.7
1.6
1.9
1.6
ND
ND
2.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.1
2.8
ND
ND
2.2
5.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
260.0
420.0
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
15,000
5,900
2,700
3,900
1,700
2,000
<250
1,400
1,800
1,700
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
23.2
10.4
4.7
8.2
7.1
3.1
ND
2.2
3.7
2.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<830
<330
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1,700
<660
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-21 4-307
SB-21 4-308
SB-21 4-309
SB-21 4-310
SB-21 4-311
SB-21 4-31 2
SB-21 4-31 3
SB-21 4-31 4
SB-21 4-31 5
SB-21 4-31 6
SB-21 4-31 7
SB-21 4-31 8
SB-21 4-31 9
SB-21 4-320
SB-21 4-321
SB-21 4-322
SB-21 4-323
SB-21 4-324
SB-21 4-325
SB-21 4-326
SB-21 4-327
SB-21 5-328
SB-21 5-329
SB-21 5-330
SB-21 5-331
SB-21 5-332
SB-21 5-333
SB-21 5-334
SB-21 5-335
SB-21 5-336
SB-21 5-337
SB-21 5-338
SB-21 5-339
SB-21 5-340
SB-21 5-341
Sample ID
SB214-4
SB214-6
SB214-8
SB214-10
SB214-12
SB214-14
SB214-16
SB214-18
SB214-20
SB214-22
SB214-24
SB214-26
SB214-28
SB214-32
SB214-34
SB214-36
SB214-38
SB214-40
SB214-42
SB214-44
SB214-46
SB215-2
SB215-4
SB215-6
SB215-8
SB215-10
SB215-12
SB215-14
SB215-16
SB215-18
SB215-20
SB215-22
SB215-24
SB215-26
SB215-28
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Bottom
Depth
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Sample
Date
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
5/31/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
MeOH
(g)
195
192
195
200
197
203
192
192
192
194
198
189
190
193
193
185
196
194
194
193
191
189
196
194
200
197
192
192
196
192
195
196
200
190
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
190
257
101
118
218
188
185
200
232
292
277
230
265
295
273
246
280
260
322
303
317
214
249
240
158
177
244
233
295
324
194
307
321
212
216
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
185
253
104
103
189
160
158
173
199
231
133
183
215
217
218
189
238
180
250
239
257
208
240
146
153
169
207
198
257
267
167
240
264
173
171
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
21,000
210,0000
780,000
80,000
460,000
260,000
12,000
180,000
330
350
250
<250
670
340
<250
<250
35,000
51 ,000
4,700
210,000
1,400,000
5,800,000 D
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31.2
288.3
1,201.7
97.5
832.0
330.3
15.5
211.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
ND
1.0
0.5
ND
ND
39.3
83.6
6.2
246.7
2,261.9
9,726.8
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
790
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,000
<2,500
<25,000
<1 ,700
<1 2,000
<8,300
<250
<3,600
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
700.0
<250
<250
<1 ,200
<1 ,800
<250
<1 0,000
<50,000
<83,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
2.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,000
<2,500
<25,000
<1 ,700
<1 2,000
<8,300
<250
<3,600
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,200
<1 ,800
<250
<1 0,000
<50,000
<83,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,000
<5,000
<50,000
<3,300
<25,000
<1 7,000
<500
<7,200
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,500
<3,600
<500
<20,000
<1 00,000
<1 70,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-21 5-342
SB-21 5-343
SB-21 5-344
SB-21 5-349
SB-21 5-345
SB-21 5-346
SB-21 5-347
SB-21 5-348
SB-21 6-1 30
SB-21 6-1 31
SB-21 6-1 32
SB-21 6-21 8
SB-21 6-21 9
SB-21 6-220
SB-21 6-221
SB-21 6-222
SB-21 6-223
SB-21 6-224
SB-21 6-225
SB-21 6-227
SB-21 6-228
SB-21 6-229
SB-21 6-226
SB-21 6-230
SB-21 6-231
SB-21 6-232
SB-21 6-233
SB-21 6-234
SB-21 6-235
SB-21 6-236
SB-21 6-237
SB-21 6-238
SB-21 7-1 27
SB-21 7-1 28
SB-21 7-1 29
Sample ID
SB215-30
SB215-32
SB215-34
SB215-34B
SB215-36
SB215-38
SB215-40
SB215-42
SB216-2
SB216-4
SB216-6
SB216-8
SB216-10
SB216-12
SB216-14
SB216-16
SB216-18
SB216-20
SB216-22
SB216-24
SB216-26
SB216-28
SB216-28B
SB216-30
SB216-32
SB216-34
SB216-36
SB216-38
SB216-40
SB216-42
SB216-44
SB216-46
SB217-2
SB217-4
SB217-6
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
Bottom
Depth
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
Sample
Date
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
6/1/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
MeOH
(g)
196
194
193
193
198
193
200
195
195
202
199
200
192
193
197
202
198
192
196
199
203
199
195
198
195
198
203
197
198
199
192
204
194
189
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
198
267
380
367
270
262
269
245
130
138
134
254
147
182
194
234
254
223
183
290
241
150
250
338
259
267
171
265
339
314
282
273
123
133
130
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
151
196
298
276
220
217
186
191
75
93
112
211
125
153
157
178
193
175
146
216
112
115
107
273
191
209
135
210
253
247
230
209
94
71
50
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(MS/L)
200,000
2,100,000
3,400,000
3,200,000 D
2,400,000
3,100,000
4,600,000 D
530,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
530
4,000
6,500
1,200
3,000
390
<250
<830
3,100
2,800
1,300
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
390.9
3,391.8
3,722.9
3,887.6
3,279.6
4,132.9
8,313.7
834.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.8
10.0
23.7
1.4
4.9
0.6
ND
ND
4.1
3.6
1.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<8,300
<50,000
<83,000
<50,000
<83,000
<62,000
<83,000
<25,000
<250
<250
<250
2,100
460
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
960
17,000
6,700
1,300
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.9
1.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.1
24.6
8.9
1.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<8,300
<50,000
<83,000
<50,000
<83,000
<62,000
<83,000
<25,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<830
<330
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1 7,000
<1 00,000
<1 70,000
<1 00,000
<1 70,000
<1 20,000
<1 70,000
<50,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,700
<660
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-217-170
SB-217-171
SB-217-172
SB-217-173
SB-217-174
SB-217-175
SB-217-176
SB-217-177
SB-217-178
SB-217-179
SB-217-180
SB-217-181
SB-217-182
SB-217-183
SB-217-184
SB-217-185
SB-217-186
SB-217-187
SB-217-188
SB-217-189
SB-217-190
SB-217-191
SB-317-167
SB-317-166
SB-317-168
SB-317-192
SB-317-193
SB-317-194
SB-317-195
SB-317-196
SB-317-197
SB-317-198
SB-317-199
SB-31 7-200
SB-31 7-201
Sample ID
SB217-8
SB217-10
SB217-12
SB217-14
SB217-16
SB217-18
SB217-20
SB217-22
SB217-24
SB217-26
SB217-28
SB217-30
SB217-30B
SB217-32
SB217-34
SB217-36
SB217-38
SB217-40
SB217-42
SB217-42*S*
SB217-44
SB217-46
SB317-2
SB317-4
SB317-6
SB317-8
SB317-10
SB317-12
SB317-14
SB317-16
SB317-18
SB317-20
SB317-22
SB317-24
SB317-26
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Bottom
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Sample
Date
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
MeOH
(g)
197
194
200
194
199
201
195
192
193
195
199
207
199
199
194
196
199
194
196
201
196
197
196
196
194
197
195
198
200
189
196
192
196
198
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
185
208
200
192
196
202
184
257
272
213
194
194
310
310
208
240
196
230
209
205
317
237
151
99
126
150
235
179
101
198
168
247
240
223
214
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
154
169
161
149
152
166
143
196
197
164
143
140
171
159
160
184
128
176
157
177
228
169
80
102
76
122
192
142
82
157
132
190
191
167
167
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
7,100
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
350
1,000
8,300
16,000
34,000
2,700
610
310
8,300
79,000 D
17,000
15,000
4,400
<250
<250
<250
<250
330
2,900
7,300
310
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
12.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
1.8
17.6
36.1
77.7
6.8
1.1
0.5
20.7
134.5
32.5
23.9
6.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.8
4.4
14.8
1.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
3,300
1,600
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<330
<830
<1 ,700
<250
<250
<250
<500
1,300
1,300
1,300
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
1 ,900.0
840.0
<500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
6.0
2.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.2
2.5
2.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.3
1.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<330
<830
<1 ,700
<250
<250
<250
<500
<250
<500
<830
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<660
<1 ,700
<3,300
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,700
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-31 7-202
SB-31 7-203
SB-31 7-204
SB-31 7-205
SB-31 7-206
SB-31 7-207
SB-31 7-208
SB-31 7-209
SB-31 7-210
SB-31 7-211
SB-31 7-21 2
SB-218-118
SB-218-120
SB-218-119
SB-218-148
SB-218-150
SB-218-149
SB-218-151
SB-218-152
SB-218-153
SB-218-154
SB-218-155
SB-218-156
SB-218-157
SB-218-158
SB-218-159
SB-218-160
SB-218-161
SB-218-162
SB-218-163
SB-218-164
SB-218-165
SB-218-169
SB-219-11
SB-219-12
Sample ID
SB317-28
SB317-30
SB317-32
SB317-34
SB317-36
SB317-36B
SB317-38
SB317-40
SB317-42
SB317-44
SB317-46
SB218-2
SB218-4
SB218-6
SB218-8
SB218-10
SB218-12
SB218-14
SB218-16
SB218-18
SB218-20
SB218-20B
SB218-22
SB218-24
SB218-26
SB218-28
SB218-30
SB218-34
SB218-38
SB218-40
SB218-42
SB218-44
SB218-46
SB219-2
SB219-4
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
32
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
Bottom
Depth
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
30
34
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
Sample
Date
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/23/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
MeOH
(g)
200
194
203
194
195
193
195
192
198
201
197
203
193
197
200
198
198
193
193
195
199
195
193
197
193
190
192
193
200
196
195
204
196
194
195
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
265
173
236
295
297
343
297
249
128
156
242
127
160
136
136
191
164
149
187
165
208
165
180
183
211
201
195
175
225
168
168
198
151
100
153
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
202
129
184
230
220
167
149
178
95
121
192
69
103
74
127
162
137
123
153
140
164
97
142
146
162
158
154
109
187
107
124
156
78
96
151
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
2,800
20,000
1,100
6,300
20,000
23,000
15,000
110,000
4,000
3,500
550,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
4.4
44.9
1.8
8.5
29.4
57.9
39.7
194.1
11.9
8.4
857.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<1 ,000
<250
<420
<1 ,200
<1 ,800
<1 ,200
<8,300
480.0
<250
<50,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<1 ,000
<250
<420
<1 ,200
<1,800
<1 ,200
<8,300
<250
<250
<50,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<2,000
<500
<840
<2,500
<3,600
<2,500
<1 7,000
<500
<500
<1 00,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-219-13
SB-219-73
SB-219-74
SB-219-75
SB-219-76
SB-219-77
SB-219-78
SB-219-79
SB-219-80
SB-219-81
SB-219-82
SB-219-83
SB-219-84
SB-219-85
SB-219-86
SB-219-87
SB-219-88
SB-219-89
SB-219-90
SB-219-91
SB-220-14
SB-220-15
SB-220-16
SB-220-92
SB-220-93
SB-220-94
SB-220-95
SB-220-96
SB-220-97
SB-220-98
SB-220-99
SB-220-100
SB-220-101
SB-220-102
SB-220-104
Sample ID
SB219-6
SB219-8
SB219-10
SB219-12
SB219-14
SB219-16
SB219-18
SB219-20
SB219-22
SB219-24
SB219-28
SB219-30
SB219-32
SB219-36
SB219-36B
SB219-38
SB219-40
SB219-42
SB219-44
SB219-46
SB220-2
SB220-4
SB220-6
SB220-8
SB220-10
SB220-12
SB220-14
SB220-16
SB220-18
SB220-20
SB220-22
SB220-24
SB220-26
SB220-28
SB220-30
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
26
28
30
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Bottom
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
28
30
32
36
36
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Sample
Date
5/18/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
MeOH
(g)
189
188
200
193
192
195
193
192
202
191
200
201
190
198
196
195
192
194
199
193
194
189
193
200
194
192
198
205
190
192
194
193
195
193
190
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
159
206
232
193
190
204
264
251
250
187
254
170
224
214
165
178
195
177
219
219
163
170
189
262
242
267
203
211
217
223
211
203
246
240
186
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
152
165
184
153
147
169
214
199
207
137
186
86
172
172
64
113
141
143
159
134
163
163
179
129
195
219
172
180
153
175
167
161
186
183
134
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
1,400
35,000
23,000
12,000
15,000
14,000
9,900
1,000
460
4,800
1 1 ,000
7,600
7,700
6,700
1 1 ,000
17,000
19,000
43,000
250,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
350
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
2.4
57.3
42.7
23.4
25.0
19.3
14.7
1.4
1.0
8.3
43.3
12.9
13.1
36.5
30.4
35.8
37.1
84.3
614.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
1,000
<2,100
<750
<500
510
620
850
1,300
500
940
470
380
260
<250
270
800
<500
<1 ,200
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
1.7
ND
ND
ND
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.9
1.1
1.6
1.8
0.6
0.4
ND
0.7
1.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<2,100
<750
<500
<500
<500
<330
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<500
<1 ,200
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<4,200
<1 ,500
<1 ,000
<1,000
<1,000
<660
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<2,500
<1 2,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-220-103
SB-220-105
SB-220-106
SB-220-107
SB-220-108
SB-220-109
SB-220-110
SB-220-111
SB-220-112
SB-221-17
SB-221-18
SB-221-19
SB-221-113
SB-221-114
SB-221-115
SB-221-116
SB-221-117
SB-221-133
SB-221-134
SB-221-135
SB-221-136
SB-221-137
SB-221-138
SB-221-139
SB-221-140
SB-221-141
SB-221-142
SB-221-143
SB-221-144
SB-221-145
SB-221-146
SB-221-147
SB-223-121
SB-223-126
SB-223-122
Sample ID
SB220-32
SB220-34
SB220-34B
SB220-36
SB220-38
SB220-40
SB220-42
SB220-44
SB220-46
SB221-2
SB221-4
SB221-6
SB221-8
SB221-10
SB221-12
SB221-14
SB221-16
SB221-18
SB221-20
SB221-22
SB221-24
SB221-26
SB221-28
SB221-30
SB221-32
SB221-34
SB221-36
SB221-38
SB221-40
SB221-42
SB221-42B
SB221-45
SB223-2
SB223-4
SB223-6
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
43
0
2
4
Bottom
Depth
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
42
45
2
4
6
Sample
Date
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/20/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/21/2000
5/21/2000
5/21/2000
5/21/2000
5/21/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/22/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
MeOH
(g)
194
194
194
193
193
201
193
193
196
190
194
195
196
194
192
189
249
193
193
191
195
191
201
201
193
195
199
192
194
194
194
195
192
194
195
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
241
232
242
212
212
242
225
289
245
171
259
213
153
160
198
269
179
270
297
261
231
180
232
186
214
173
247
128
193
159
138
172
136
134
167
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
191
187
93
168
183
142
187
230
176
166
253
209
133
129
156
209
151
210
244
203
182
139
170
139
147
137
186
36
154
102
96
147
76
102
88
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
6,000
<250
<250
<250
1,100
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
1,800
24,000
32,000
95,000
1,700
650,000
44,000
680,000
22,000
19,000
2,300
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.8
ND
ND
ND
2.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7
44.7
69.4
201.2
3.5
1 ,093.5
409.5
1 ,256.5
65.3
56.9
4.3
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,200
<2,100
<5,000
<250
<42,000
<2,500
<42,000
<1 ,200
<1 ,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,200
<2,100
<5,000
<250
<42,000
<2,500
<42,000
<1 ,200
<1 ,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,500
<4,200
<1 0,000
<500
<84,000
<5,000
<84,000
<2,500
<2,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-223-53
SB-223-54
SB-223-55
SB-223-56
SB-223-57
SB-223-58
SB-223-59
SB-223-60
SB-223-61
SB-223-62
SB-223-63
SB-223-64
SB-223-65
SB-223-66
SB-223-67
SB-223-68
SB-223-69
SB-223-70
SB-223-71
SB-223-72
SB-224-20
SB-224-21
SB-224-22
SB-224-32
SB-224-33
SB-224-34
SB-224-36
SB-224-37
SB-224-38
SB-224-39
SB-224-40
SB-224-41
SB-224-42
SB-224-43
SB-224-44
Sample ID
SB223-8
SB223-10
SB223-12
SB223-14
SB223-16
SB223-18
SB223-20
SB223-22
SB223-24
SB223-26
SB223-28
SB223-30
SB223-32
SB223-34
SB223-34B
SB223-36
SB223-38
SB223-40
SB223-42
SB223-45
SB224-2
SB224-4
SB224-6
SB224-8
SB224-10
SB224-12
SB224-14
SB224-16
SB224-18
SB224-20
SB224-22
SB224-24
SB224-26
SB224-28
SB224-30
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Bottom
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
45
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Sample
Date
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
MeOH
(g)
198
192
196
194
194
191
192
191
194
198
193
192
196
198
194
195
195
196
193
194
194
193
193
193
197
189
195
193
195
193
193
194
193
194
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
153
86
187
156
216
194
217
201
189
192
216
261
215
239
185
183
248
240
203
204
130
117
209
127
198
198
255
256
217
217
181
233
202
248
297
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
122
71
150
124
184
145
173
152
148
143
151
187
161
193
110
139
177
174
152
151
130
115
204
103
163
161
183
211
166
165
119
169
150
186
217
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
2,300
2,100
21 ,000
20,000
<250
3,100
<250
46,000
16,000
1,900
3,500
6,900
1,700
<250
4,100
<250
40,000
12,000
2,900
47,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
120,000
2,800,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
5.3
7.6
39.9
44.8
ND
6.2
ND
88.0
31.0
4.0
7.2
11.7
3.2
ND
11.9
ND
71.8
21.7
5.6
92.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
198.4
4,200.9
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
260
<250
<500
<500
<250
<250
<250
<2,500
<750
<250
350
890
<250
<250
330
<250
<2,100
1,400
410
<2,500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<3,600
<62,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
0.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.7
1.5
ND
ND
1.0
ND
ND
2.5
0.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<500
<500
<250
<250
<250
<2,500
<750
<250
<250
<330
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,100
<500
<250
<2,500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<3,600
<62,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<500
<5,000
<1 ,500
<500
<500
<660
<500
<500
<500
<500
<4,200
<1 ,000
<500
<5,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<7,200
<1 20,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-224-45
SB-224-46
SB-224-47
SB-224-48
SB-224-50
SB-224-51
SB-224-52
SB-224-49
SB-225-123
SB-225-124
SB-225-125
SB-225-1
SB-225-2
SB-225-3
SB-225-4
SB-225-5
SB-225-6
SB-225-7
SB-225-8
SB-225-9
SB-225-1 0
SB-225-23
SB-225-24
SB-225-25
SB-225-26
SB-225-27
SB-225-28
SB-225-29
SB-225-30
SB-225-31
SB-225-35
SB-26-259
SB-26-260
SB-26-261
SB-26-262
Sample ID
SB224-32
SB224-34
SB224-36
SB224-38
SB224-38B
SB224-40
SB224-42
SB224-45
SB225-2
SB225-4
SB225-6
SB225-8
SB225-12
SB225-14
SB225-16
SB225-18
SB225-20
SB225-22
SB225-24
SB225-26
SB225-28
SB225-30
SB225-32
SB225-34
SB225-36
SB225-38
SB225-40
SB225-40B
SB225-42
SB225-44
SB225-46
SB26-2
SB26-4
SB26-6
SB26-8
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
0
2
4
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
Bottom
Depth
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
45
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
Sample
Date
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/19/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/18/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/24/2000
5/25/2000
MeOH
(g)
197
194
196
190
382
193
190
189
193
194
194
193
192
195
197
197
194
185
187
190
193
192
191
194
191
191
196
193
197
192
197
193
193
193
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
242
294
174
127
186
143
187
214
132
139
134
235
188
163
191
299
244
201
266
270
299
192
225
255
284
210
218
179
187
177
205
127
181
164
127
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
191
217
126
86
141
114
142
169
92
82
90
196
157
135
164
258
202
163
211
208
214
136
170
194
207
135
169
86
136
133
152
124
179
157
73
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
140,000
200,000
45,000
85,000
720,000
52,000
290,000
110,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
14,000
760
<250
<250
840
<250
1,700
4,600
9,900
5,900
320
<250
<250
1,700
9,300
4,700
1,800
430
110,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
220.2
297.3
105.8
278.2
2,698.9
124.7
583.1
185.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
24.4
1.5
ND
ND
1.2
ND
2.4
6.7
15.2
13.0
0.6
ND
ND
4.0
16.3
18.4
4.0
0.9
218.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<5,000
<8,300
<1 ,200
<2,500
<25,000
<1 ,200
<1 0,000
<2,500
<250
<250
<250
750
<500
<250
<250
<250
370.0
<250
1,400
1,200
2,000
910
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,700
1,500
700
<250
<3,600
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
ND
1.9
1.7
3.1
2.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.7
5.9
1.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<5,000
<8,300
<1 ,200
<2,500
<25,000
<1,200
<1 0,000
<2,500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<3,600
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1 0,000
<1 7,000
<2,500
<5,000
<50,000
<2,500
<20,000
<5,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<7,200
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-26-263
SB-26-264
SB-26-265
SB-26-266
SB-26-267
SB-26-268
SB-26-269
SB-26-270
SB-26-276
SB-26-277
SB-26-278
SB-26-279
SB-26-280
SB-26-281
SB-26-282
SB-26-283
SB-26-284
SB-26-285
SB-26-286
SB-26-287
SB-27-271
SB-27-272
SB-27-273
SB-27-274
SB-27-275
SB-27-288
SB-27-289
SB-27-290
SB-27-291
SB-27-292
SB-27-293
SB-27-294
SB-27-295
SB-27-296
SB-27-297
Sample ID
SB26-10
SB26-12
SB26-14
SB26-16
SB26-18
SB26-20
SB26-22
SB26-24
SB26-26
SB26-28
SB26-30
SB26-32
SB26-34
SB26-34B
SB26-36
SB26-38
SB26-40
SB26-42
SB26-44
SB26-46
SB27-2
SB27-4
SB27-6
SB27-8
SB27-10
SB27-12
SB27-14
SB27-14B
SB27-16
SB27-18
SB27-20
SB27-22
SB27-24
SB27-24 *S*
SB27-26
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
Bottom
Depth
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
Sample
Date
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
MeOH
(g)
193
193
193
193
196
199
194
193
193
194
194
192
193
195
195
192
194
195
200
197
195
195
196
192
202
196
199
199
200
202
195
197
197
193
192
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
194
219
197
241
222
249
185
241
244
285
246
199
165
235
235
217
370
411
247
199
110
158
101
227
278
179
208
282
208
187
257
223
206
238
263
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
110
181
168
199
174
203
147
184
191
210
140
160
129
103
132
157
271
294
199
150
113
158
96
182
224
143
170
99
118
163
207
175
160
128
136
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
5,200
19,000
<250
40,000
90,000
180,0000
520,000
290,000
270,000
160,000
120,000
160,000
160,000
190,000
320,000
5,000,000
2,900,000 D
2,000,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
6,400
420
3,000
860
3,000
54,000
110,000
130,000
140,000
160,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
8.5
27.3
ND
58.7
173.6
294.8
809.4
442.7
678.0
282.0
260.7
588.5
424.0
366.7
406.9
6,187.7
4,388.8
3,978.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.7
0.7
13.2
2.5
5.1
77.4
186.9
240.0
387.5
435.3
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<830
<250
<1 ,000
<3,100
<3,600
<25,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<5,000
<5,000
<8,300
<5,000
<8,300
<1 2,000
<1 00,000
<62,000
<62,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,500
<5,000
6,700
8,500
<6,200
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.4
23.5
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<830
<250
<1,000
<3,100
<3,600
<25,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<5,000
<5,000
<8,300
<5,000
<8,300
<1 2,000
<1 00,000
<62,000
<62,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<330
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,500
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<6,200
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Mg/L)
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,700
<500
<2,000
<6,200
<7,200
<50,000
<25,000
<25,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<1 7,000
<1 0,000
<1 7,000
<25,000
<200,000
<1 20,000
<1 20,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<660
<500
<500
<500
<500
<5,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<1 2,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-4. Post-Demo VOC Results of Soil Samples (Continued)
Preliminary Draft
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-27-298
SB-27-299
SB-27-300
SB-27-301
SB-27-302
SB-27-303
SB-27-304
SB-27-305
SB-28-350
SB-28-351
SB-28-352
SB-28-353
SB-28-354
SB-28-355
SB-28-356
SB-28-357
Sample ID
SB27-28
SB27-32
SB27-34
SB27-36
SB27-38
SB27-40
SB27-42
SB27-45
SB-28-2
SB-28-4
SB-28-6
SB-28-8
SB-28-10
SB-28-12
SB-28-14
SB-28-14B
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
26
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
Bottom
Depth
28
32
34
36
38
40
42
45
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
Sample
Date
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/25/2000
5/26/2000
6/2/2000
6/2/2000
6/2/2000
6/2/2000
6/2/2000
6/2/2000
6/2/2000
6/2/2000
MeOH
(g)
194
204
193
193
189
193
194
190
195
191
192
191
194
197
197
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
226
323
216
329
317
321
384
246
234
233
131
205
192
226
169
193
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
171
247
115
173
145
151
154
160
82
73
87
110
124
116
79
69
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
210,0000
120,000
29,000
48,000
48,000
130,0000
220,000
820,000
1,500
4,600
7,100
<250
<250
2,900
6,600
4,700
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
369.1
162.4
87.1
111.1
136.1
356.7
679.4
1 ,673.3
7.3
25.3
23.4
NO
NO
9.0
28.4
25.2
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
3,500
29,000
34,000
64,000
34,000
16,000
<8,300
<30,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
800
1,600
1,700
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
6.2
39.2
102.1
148.1
96.4
43.9
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2.5
6.9
9.1
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<3,100
<2,500
<2,500
<2,500
<1,200
<8,300
<30,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Vinyl chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Mg/L)
<500
<6,200
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<2,500
<1 7,000
<60,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Notes:
NA: Not available.
NO: Not detected.
<: Result was not detected at or above the stated reporting limit.
0: Result was obtained from the analysis of a dilution.
DC: Ditch Core.
*S*: Spiked sample
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Report\Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg)
Sample ID
SB-313-2
SB-313-4
SB-313-6
SB-313-8
SB-313-10
SB-313-12
SB-313-14
SB-313-16
SB-313-18
SB-313-20
SB-313-22
SB-313-24
SB-313-26
SB-313-28
SB-313-30
SB-313-32
SB-313-34
SB-313-34B
SB-313-36
SB-313-38
SB-313-40
SB-313-43
SB-313-45
SB-313-MB1
SB-313-MB13
SB-313-MB14
SB-314-2
SB-314-4
SB-314-6
SB-314-8
SB-314-10
SB-314-10B
SB-314-12
SB-314-14
SB-314-16
SB-314-18
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
43
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
8
10
12
14
16
2
4
6
8
10
10
12
14
16
18
Sample
Date
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
MeOH (g)
189
198
194
204
193
194
195
194
193
193
193
193
188
193
193
200
192
197
193
195
191
190
192
NA
NA
NA
191
195
194
195
193
193
193
193
194
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
97
111
153
92
72
158
109
294
189
91
194
165
175
100
216
223
173
146
125
175
142
82
156
NA
NA
NA
91
109
88
112
71
62
143
113
124
78
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
96
109
150
91
64
138
94
241
158
77
160
135
134
76
165
194
127
110
101
120
105
64
143
NA
NA
NA
89
109
88
112
69
62
126
99
103
67
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
85 J
1,020
<100
58 J
457
3,410
11,400
25,200
272
128
<100
86 J
<100
<100
111
101
90 J
95 J
<100
135
210
375
614
<170
<170
55
86 J
66 J
<100
135
109
190
<100
1,940
985
140
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
0.11 J
1.33
ND
0.07 J
0.71
5.44
18.55
44.46
0.47
0.21
ND
0.15 J
ND
ND
0.22
0.16
0.19 J
0.19 J
ND
0.31
0.43
0.71
0.90
ND
ND
0.10 J
0.11 J
0.08 J
ND
0.17
0.15
0.24
ND
3.08
1.70
0.23
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
245
<100
48 J
152
1,130
839
5,120
280
46 J
<100
<100
<100
27 J
385
56 J
51 J
41 J
40 J
726
581
115
61 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
53 J
606
101
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
0.32
ND
0.06 J
0.24
1.80
1.37
9.03
0.48
0.08 J
ND
ND
ND
0.05 J
0.76
0.09 J
0.11 J
0.08 J
0.07 J
1.67
1.20
0.22
0.09 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.08 J
0.96
0.17
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
45 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
28 J
34 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.08 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.06 J
0.07 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-314-20
SB-314-22
SB-314-24
SB-314-26
SB-314-28
SB-314-30
SB-314-32
SB-314-34
SB-314-36
SB-314-38
SB-314-40
SB-314-43
SB-314-45
SB-314-MB9
SB-315-2
SB-315-4
SB-315-6
SB-315-8
SB-315-10
SB-315-12
SB-315-14
SB-315-16
SB-315-18
SB-315-20
SB-315-22
SB-315-24
SB-315-26
SB-315-28
SB-315-30
SB-315-32
SB-315-34
SB-315-36
SB-315-38
SB-315-40
SB-315-40B
SB-315-42
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
Bottom
Depth
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
Sample
Date
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
MeOH (g)
195
192
193
194
194
193
193
193
194
195
193
193
194
NA
187
195
194
193
193
193
194
196
193
192
195
193
191
194
193
193
195
193
193
193
194
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
132
96
130
120
128
193
135
109
82
116
60
123
69
NA
55
107
100
86
70
100
98
138
100
111
59
118
112
148
50
73
111
122
60
52
46
65
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
105
80
107
96
99
110
93
75
58
98
53
97
59
NA
55
107
98
86
68
94
84
112
87
92
52
102
93
117
40
56
66
86
49
43
41
55
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
92 J
225
6,370
346
19,000
19,100
9,050
3,060
750,000
29,600
44,100
3,000
<170
<100
<100
590
116
<100
<100
<100
<100
612,000
181,000
28,500
2,810,000
104,000
77,800
505,000
1 ,220,000
1 ,280,000
565,000
788,000
277,000
162,000
435,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
0.16 J
0.39
11.67
0.67
56.53
43.72 D
20.75
6.74
1,261.500
46.33 D
82.61 D
4.95
ND
ND
ND
0.77
0.15
ND
ND
ND
ND
981 .890
313.81 D
44.77 D
4,555.70
179.79
145.19 D
925.30 D
2,383.47 D
3,597.70 D
1,251.080
1 ,398.29 D
482.00 D
249.83 D
729.84 D
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
101
<100
<100
<100
<100
<2,000
<100
62 J
<400
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.17
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.12 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<2,000
<100
<100
<400
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<2,000
<100
<100
<400
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-315-MB7
SB-316-2
SB-316-4
SB-316-6
SB-316-8
SB-316-10
SB-316-12
SB-316-14
SB-316-16
SB-316-18
SB-316-20
SB-316-22
SB-316-24
SB-316-24B
SB-316-26
SB-316-26B
SB-316-28
SB-316-30
SB-316-32
SB-316-34
SB-316-36
SB-316-38
SB-316-40
SB-316-43
SB-316-45
SB-317-2
SB-317-4
SB-317-6
SB-317-8
SB-317-10
SB-317-12
SB-317-14
SB-317-16
SB-317-18
SB-317-20
SB-317-22
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
Bottom
Depth
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
Check COC
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Sample
Date
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/24/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
MeOH (g)
NA
192
195
192
195
193
193
193
192
191
194
191
193
191
195
NA
193
193
195
193
194
194
193
193
194
197
192
193
190
192
195
195
194
193
193
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
147
122
140
76
156
186
185
101
155
172
102
93
88
114
NA
117
79
124
91
90
107
110
167
194
126
97
108
67
97
79
102
137
81
68
79
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
142
118
136
73
132
156
156
87
127
138
74
76
66
90
NA
93
61
99
74
74
74
88
134
76
122
94
99
66
82
65
82
112
69
57
66
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<170
<100
<100
61 J
170
660
173
151
<100
88 J
<100
548
434
346
96 J
85 J
472
5,670
5,910
1,820
556
158
<100
20,400
22,700
2,220
202
55 J
<100
84 J
265
3,370
49,300
56,500
43,300
8,070
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
0.08 J
0.23
1.11
0.29
0.25
ND
0.16J
ND
1.16
0.77
0.70
0.18J
0.15 J
0.87
10.97
10.86
3.25
0.98
0.36
ND
37.21
1 08.59 D
2.98
0.27
0.08 J
ND
0.14J
0.46
6.13
87.34 D
93.78 D
73.74 D
13.82
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
118
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
22 J
<100
<100
<100
117
461
1,200
549
1,070
2,950
1,970
<100
<100
<100
213
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
22 J
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.04 J
ND
ND
ND
0.22
0.89
2.21
0.98
1.88
6.71
3.61
ND
ND
ND
0.29
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.04 J
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
48 J
12 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.11 J
0.02 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-317-24
SB-317-26
SB-317-26B
SB-317-28
SB-317-30
SB-317-32
SB-317-34
SB-317-36
SB-317-38
SB-317-40
SB-317-43
SB-317-45
SB-317-MB8
SB-318-2
SB-318-4
SB-318-6
SB-318-8
SB-318-10
SB-318-12
SB-318-14
SB-318-16
SB-318-18
SB-318-20
SB-318-22
SB-318-24
SB-318-26
SB-318-26B
SB-318-28
SB-318-30
SB-318-32
SB-318-34
SB-318-36
SB-318-38
SB-318-40
SB-318-43
SB-318-45
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
Bottom
Depth
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Sample
Date
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
2/23/2001
MeOH (g)
193
194
193
193
193
194
193
194
193
194
194
193
NA
192
192
192
192
194
193
193
192
193
194
193
193
193
194
194
193
194
193
192
194
195
194
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
110
93
63
120
137
134
103
68
126
204
173
195
NA
134
206
182
109
108
53
84
100
117
148
88
105
165
173
125
123
67
149
138
90
131
139
149
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
82
74
49
91
106
106
91
55
83
148
136
155
NA
134
201
179
107
95
51
72
87
98
122
74
88
134
128
99
95
55
121
111
66
102
114
122
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
854
426
448
6,600
68,900
55,100
17,900
35,400
1,790
14,400
12,300
409,000
<170
<100
<100
<100
<100
73 J
118
5,400
17,700
3,070
1,900
77 J
<100
57 J
221
<100
97 J
<100
167
5,220
1,140
1,620
2,980
5,050
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
1.74
0.79
0.86
13.12
1 32.87 D
1 02.73 D
28.01 D
63.77 D
4.37
30.57
23.15
756.88
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.12 J
0.16
8.87
28.40
5.23
3.32
0.13J
ND
0.10 J
0.46
ND
0.19 J
ND
0.30
9.48
2.38
3.09
5.25
8.92
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
51 J
550
51 J
75 J
488
<100
<100
75 J
<100
142
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
23 J
30 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
0.10 J
1.09
0.10 J
0.14 J
0.76
ND
ND
0.16J
ND
0.26
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.04 J
0.05 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-318-MB10
SB-318-MB11
SB-318-MB12
SB-319-2
SB-319-4
SB-319-6
SB-319-8
SB-319-10
SB-319-10B
SB-319-12
SB-319-14
SB-319-16
SB-319-18
SB-319-20
SB-319-22
SB-319-24
SB-319-30
SB-319-32
SB-319-34
SB-319-36
SB-319-38
SB-319-40
SB-319-43
SB-319-45
SB-319-MB6
SB-320-2
SB-320-4
SB-320-6
SB-320-8
SB-320-10
SB-320-12
SB-320-14
SB-320-16
SB-320-18
SB-320-20
SB-320-22
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
Bottom
Depth
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
2
4
6
8
10
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Sample
Date
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
MeOH (g)
NA
NA
NA
193
193
192
192
193
193
193
193
194
192
193
194
192
193
193
193
192
193
192
192
192
NA
193
193
192
192
194
194
192
193
194
194
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
NA
142
127
104
78
96
112
119
119
149
131
105
150
124
140
133
158
138
94
155
126
90
NA
139
107
139
67
173
102
139
160
137
160
134
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
NA
136
126
99
75
80
96
100
101
123
109
92
122
101
111
111
124
105
72
119
99
72
NA
139
107
134
67
147
89
124
135
115
132
110
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<170
<170
<170
<100
<100
<100
<100
133
120
518
729
3,260
1 1 ,800
87 J
112
<100
3,120
1,720
4,380
1,340
2,570
1,150
21,600
54,900
<170
<100
<100
<100
<100
1,330
1,740
2,270
139
12,100
194
1,010
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.23
0.20
0.88
1.22
5.69
20.33
0.14J
0.20
ND
5.80
2.95
8.27
2.65
5.03
2.24
40.69 D
1 00.59 D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.22
2.78
3.50
0.23
20.56
0.34
1.78
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
21 J
<100
<100
<100
5,200
1,940
112
46 J
4,040
10,200
<100
121
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
15J
103
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.04 J
ND
ND
ND
9.66
3.33
0.21
0.09 J
7.91
19.90
ND
0.22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02 J
0.16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
55 J
51 J
<100
<100
71 J
96 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.10J
0.09 J
ND
ND
0.14J
0.19J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-320-24
SB-320-26
SB-320-28
SB-320-30
SB-320-32
SB-320-34
SB-320-36
SB-320-38
SB-320-40
SB-320-43
SB-320-43B
SB-320-45
SB-310-MB5
SB-321-2
SB-321-4
SB-321-6
SB-321-8
SB-321-10
SB-321-12
SB-321-14
SB-321-14B
SB-321-16
SB-321-18
SB-321-20
SB-321-22
SB-321-24
SB-321-26
SB-321-28
SB-321-30
SB-321-32
SB-321-34
SB-321-36
SB-321-38
SB-321-40
SB-321-43
SB-321-45
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
43
Bottom
Depth
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
43
45
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Sample
Date
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/22/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
MeOH (g)
193
195
193
196
195
194
196
195
194
191
192
NA
NA
193
191
194
193
194
191
191
196
194
192
193
193
189
194
190
193
183
193
193
194
192
193
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
112
131
117
112
125
135
94
95
100
102
88
193
NA
80
117
157
109
86
118
47
64
83
167
105
143
140
139
182
166
210
157
151
156
191
137
173
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
91
102
92
90
100
109
75
69
75
83
72
77
NA
80
117
152
102
74
99
42
57
73
138
88
118
114
107
142
135
163
125
116
118
148
106
133
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
213
299
4,070
3,050
2,500
2,270
39,000
36,800
1,610,000
<170
<100
<100
<100
<100
791
562
233
213
789
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
789
443
17
74
458
126
132
187
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
0.39
0.55
7.35
5.61
5.30
4.59
69.60 D
65.11
7,533.62 D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.29
0.96
0.36
0.33
1.24
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.41
0.85
0.03
0.14
0.91
0.24
0.25 D
0.36 D
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
104
110
56 J
119
<100
<100
175
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
152
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
869
172
23 J
145
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.19
0.20
0.12 J
0.24
ND
ND
0.82
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.26
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.73
0.33
0.04 J
0.28
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-321-MB2
SB-321-MB4
SB-323-2
SB-323-4
SB-323-6
SB-323-8
SB-323-10
SB-323-12
SB-323-14
SB-323-14B
SB-323-16
SB-323-18
SB-323-20
SB-323-22
SB-323-24
SB-323-26
SB-323-28
SB-323-30
SB-323-32
SB-323-34
SB-323-36
SB-323-38
SB-323-40
SB-323-42
SB-323-42B
SB-323-44
SB-323-46
SB-324-2
SB-324-4
SB-324-6
SB-324-8
SB-324-10
SB-324-12
SB-324-14
SB-324-16
SB-324-18
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
Bottom
Depth
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Sample
Date
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
MeOH (g)
NA
NA
190
191
191
192
183
195
176
192
191
193
193
193
194
191
191
191
194
192
194
195
188
193
NA
185
189
194
184
191
192
191
191
191
193
192
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
95
100
120
111
146
166
135
97
179
182
216
154
147
164
176
132
206
116
143
212
205
194
194
145
186
78
91
167
122
152
147
68
111
119
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
93
100
118
100
125
138
116
84
150
149
184
129
120
136
131
105
149
95
102
155
139
144
144
116
135
77
91
162
104
128
123
61
93
94
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<170
<170
<100
<100
<100
<100
970
1,470
681
434
1,840
1,650
185
648
<100
<100
140
117
3,580
1,810
302,000
44,400
178,000
50,300
36,800
542,000
12,400,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
509
3,470
5,440
10,300
1,440
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.60
2.54
1.11
0.70
3.14
2.92
0.31
1.10
ND
ND
0.29
0.22
7.63
3.20
657.33 D
93.20 D
416.82 D
1 03.24 D
75.53 D
993.09 D
26,310.32 D
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.86
5.93
8.30
17.56
2.69
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
1,000
1,670
1,210
1,130
715
40 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
923
180
248
<100
<100
<1,000
4,640
<100
<100
<100
176
355
76 J
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.73
2.73
1.96
1.93
1.26
0.07 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.01
0.38
0.58
ND
ND
ND
9.85
ND
ND
ND
0.29
0.60
0.13 J
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
11 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1,000
<2,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1,000
<2,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-324-20
SB-324-22
SB-324-24
SB-324-26
SB-324-28
SB-324-30
SB-324-30B
SB-324-32
SB-324-34
SB-324-36
SB-324-38
SB-324-40
SB-324-42
SB-324-44
SB-324-46
SB-325-2
SB-325-4
SB-325-6
SB-325-8
SB-325-10
SB-325-12
SB-325-14
SB-325-16
SB-325-18
SB-325-20
SB-325-22
SB-325-24
SB-325-26
SB-325-28
SB-325-30
SB-325-32
SB-325-34
SB-325-36
SB-325-36B
SB-325-38
SB-325-40
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
Bottom
Depth
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
Sample
Date
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/20/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
MeOH (g)
191
192
193
191
192
195
190
187
188
189
188
183
185
182
191
186
194
193
190
194
194
194
195
195
195
195
194
190
189
195
195
193
193
194
194
190
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
135
96
150
147
156
120
156
196
203
106
135
194
148
185
226
89
145
121
73
84
132
74
104
134
117
159
134
91
166
212
166
180
136
103
147
123
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
108
79
120
115
118
98
124
156
162
100
83
141
109
130
161
85
144
117
72
73
112
63
90
105
98
125
105
71
124
167
140
140
101
79
111
93
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
56 J
25,600
24,600
32,000
57,500
33,200
6,380
5,510
14,400
25,400
1 ,090,000
18,300,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
763
979
1,310
1,490
293
158
97 J
188
2,940
6,280
8,880
1,310
406
3,260
83 J
1,150
133
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
0.11 J
51 .080
43.65 D
59.22 D
106.19 D
61 .060
8.94
14.80
30.49 D
52.74 D
2,424.64 D
39,904.91 D
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.23
1.64
2.18
2.41
0.55
0.27
0.18 J
0.36
5.60
12.77
16.66
2.21
0.78
6.69
0.16 J
2.30
0.27
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
23 J
33 J
<100
28 J
62 J
68 J
226
102
272
3,060
<100
<100
<100
<100
209
1,430
486
23 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
510
3,800
2,240
33 J
<100
517
15,000
10,500
6,440
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.04 J
0.06 J
ND
0.05 J
0.09 J
0.18J
0.48
0.21
0.61
6.67
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.34
2.39
0.81
0.04 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.97
7.73
4.20
0.06 J
ND
1.06
29.31
21.01
12.86
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
16J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
20 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
29 J
24 J
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.03 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.03 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.06 J
0.05 J
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
16J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
296
262
266
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.03 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.58
0.52
0.53
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\IFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-5. Extended Monitoring VOC Results of Soil Samples (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-325-43
SB-325-45
SB-325-MB3
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
40
43
Bottom
Depth
43
45
Lab Blank
Sample
Date
2/21/2001
2/21/2001
MeOH (g)
196
194
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
137
176
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
107
134
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
192
10,900
<170
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
0.37
21.54
ND
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
556
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
1.10
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(ug/L)
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
D: Diluted.
J: Estimated value.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\lFinal OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-6. VOC Results of Soil Samples from Semi-confined Aquifer (mg/Kg)
Sample ID
SB-50-43
SB-50-45
SB-50-46
SB-50-48
SB-50-50
SB-50-52
SB-50-52B
SB-50-54
SB-50-56
SB-50-58
SB-50-60
SB-50-MB1
SB-51-41
SB-51-44
SB-51-44B
SB-51-45
SB-51-46
SB-51-48
SB-51-48B
SB-51-50
SB-51-52
SB-51-54
SB-51-56
SB-51-58
SB-51-60
SB-51-MB2
SB-52-42
SB-52-44
SB-52-45
SB-52-46
SB-52-47
SB-52-47B
SB-52-47.5
SB-52-48
SB-52-49
SB-52-49B
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
41
43
45
46
48
50
50
52
54
56
58
Bottom
Depth
43
45
46
48
50
52
52
54
56
58
60
Lab Blanks
39
41
41
44
45
46
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
41
44
44
45
46
48
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
Lab Blanks
40
42
44
45
46
46
47
47.5
48
48
42
44
45
46
47
47
47.5
48
49
49
Sample
Date
4/2/2001
4/2/2001
4/2/2001
4/2/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/4/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
MeOH (g)
190
193
188
190
188
189
191
189
192
191
192
NA
192
193
192
192
192
192
193
190
192
193
192
192
192
NA
190
189
190
191
191
192
193
193
194
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
313
292
168
289
235
283
293
325
289
384
187
NA
301
323
297
222
282
241
238
222
372
258
257
253
266
NA
276
334
251
205
210
168
240
228
191
269
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
257
217
135
209
190
240
249
257
217
308
156
NA
254
244
252
162
204
188
184
182
279
218
196
201
216
NA
235
284
203
158
163
140
179
185
160
220
TCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
98,700
35,200
10,500
18,400
2,530
738
1,000
156
358
1,110
55 J
86 J
39,000
3,290,000
231 ,000
1 ,820,000
328,000
1 ,500,000
1 ,850,000
25,800
24,100
1,840
207
266
65 J
62 J
1 1 ,900
12,600
20,800
71,300
243,000
106,000
162,000
173,000
77,500
90,800
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
173.67
72.12
19.11
39.25
4.56
1.23
1.67
0.29
0.72
2.03
0.09 J
0.16J
65.72
6,578.12
385.87
3,831.13
699.35
2,856.89
3,571.97
45.51
48.71
3.09
0.41
0.49
0.12 J
0.12 J
19.77
20.98
37.47
138.31
466.36
182.21
330.15
310.10
132.12
160.76
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
2,150
7,060
2,490
5,300
1,400
480
612
33 J
<100
<100
<100
<100
66 J
<4,000
290 J
1 ,500 J
2,870
9,160
14,800
3,140
4,190
866
246
34 J
<100
<100
1,810
1,760
2,490
4,520
2,900
1,200
5,740
1,550
1,190
2,020
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
3.78
14.47
4.53
11.31
2.52
0.80
1.02
0.06 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.11 J
ND
0.48 J
3.16J
6.12
17.45
28.58
5.54
8.47
1.46
0.48
0.06 J
ND
ND
3.01
2.93
4.49
8.77
5.57
2.06
11.70
2.78
2.03
3.58
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
17J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<4,000
<400
<4,000
<400
<4,000
<2,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
57 J
<400
<100
110J
<200
<100
41 J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
0.03 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.11 J
ND
ND
0.22 J
ND
ND
0.07 J
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<4,000
<400
<4,000
<400
<4,000
<2,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<400
<100
<200
<200
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-6. VOC Results of Soil Samples from Semi-confined Aquifer (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-52-50
SB-52-51
SB-52-54
SB-52-56
SB-52-56B
SB-52-58
SB-52-60
SB-52-MB3
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
49
50
51
54
54
56
58
Bottom
Depth
50
51
54
56
56
58
60
Lab Blanks
Sample
Date
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
4/5/2001
MeOH (g)
192
192
192
192
192
190
193
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
211
314
265
321
335
346
242
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
173
258
204
250
262
244
204
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
208,000
269,000
364,000
4,450,000
5,640,000
18,300,000
72,000
64 J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
366.81
472.80
707.38
8,496.46
10,699.87
40,498.10
121.53
0.12 J
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
1,560
2,060
1,840
5,340
5,660
43,600
760
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
2.75
3.62
3.58
10.20
10.74
96.49
1.28
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<200
<200
<400
130
121
<20,000
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
0.25
0.23
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl chloride
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<200
<200
<400
<100
<100
<20,000
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
D: Diluted.
J: Estimated value.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix C\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table C-7. VOC Results of Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
Well ID
TCE
Feb 2001
Apr 2001
May 2002
Jun 2001
Aug 2001
Nov 2001
Feb 2002
Confined Aquifer Wells
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
67.1
58.4
7,840
736,000
NA
447
NA
15,700
980,000
NA
111
NA
6,400
877,000
939,000
350
NA
5,030
801,000
NA
19
NA
790
1,000,000
1,000,000
15
NA
1,640
1,110,000
NA
181
NA
416
1,240,000
NA
Well ID
c/s-l,2-DCE
Feb 2001
Apr 2001
May 2002
Jun 2001
Aug 2001
Nov 2001
Feb 2002
Confined Aquifer Wells
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
21.7
18.5
1,190
8,130
NA
199
NA
5,790
8,860
NA
37.4
NA
1,490
11,000
10,700
145
NA
1,080
11,900
NA
10
NA
330
12,000 J
12,000 J
52
NA
5,140
14,900
NA
66
NA
315
13,300
NA
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
trans -1,2-DCE
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<100
NA
1.45
NA
51.7
<1,000
NA
0.24J
NA
6J
<1,120
<1,090
0.38
NA
5
<100
NA
<1.0
NA
<33
<17,000
<17,000
0.48J
NA
<10
<100
NA
0.3J
NA
2
<1,000
NA
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
Vinyl Chloride
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<100
NA
0.36J
NA
4.22
<1,000
NA
<1.08
NA
<22.2
<1,120
<1,090
<0.1
NA
<1
<100
NA
<2.0
NA
<67
<33,000
<33,000
<0.10
NA
1,050
<100
NA
<1.0
NA
<1.0
260J
NA
NA: Not analyzed.
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Appendix D
Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters
Well ID
pH
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan.
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
ORP(mV)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan.
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
ISCO Plot Wells
BAT- IS
BAT- 11
BAT-ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-3S
BAT-3I
BAT-3D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-6S
BAT-6I
BAT-6D
PA-4S
PA-4I
PA-4D
7.29
7.60
7.53
7.33
7.50
7.47
7.38
7.60
7.52
7.01
7.50
7.50
7.36
7.60
7.52
7.10
7.26
7.41
NA
NA
NA
8.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.95
7.08
6.57
NA
NA
NA
6.97
7.64
7.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.65
8.40
6.63
NA
NA
NA
8.34
8.42
7.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
7.21
NM
6.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
6.56
NA
7.16
NM
6.41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.76
5.46
NA
NA
NA
7.49
7.68
6.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-116.7
-142.4
-138.3
-115.3
-149.1
-143.6
-138.2
-153.1
-150.1
-148.7
-164.5
-130.9
-137.3
-160.6
-146.3
-25.2
-37.6
-22.2
NA
NA
NA
579.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
172.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
471.8
396.1
211.8
NA
NA
NA
334.9
250.5
108.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.4
71.1
129.9
NA
NA
NA
91.3
145.2
172.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
-93.5
NM
39.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
384.2
NM
NA
-96.7
NA
-2.0
NM
-83.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
469.3
-102.9
166.4
NA
NA
NA
-40.0
-28.6
-170.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ISCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3I
PA-3D
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA-12I
7.08
7.57
7.19
7.18
7.10
7.47
7.17
7.45
7.41
7.47
7.43
7.42
7.03
7.42
7.02
7.62
7.47
7.20
7.26
7.66
7.26
7.50
7.52
7.51
7.65
7.65
7.18
7.54
6.87
7.11
7.03
7.13
7.08
7.45
7.14
7.44
7.46
7.39
7.49
7.53
7.04
7.41
8.25
7.72
9.57
7.28
7.42
7.73
7.90
7.87
7.61
7.82
7.88
7.89
6.44
7.89
NM
7.09
NM
6.86
7.11
7.53
7.84
7.53
7.49
8.64
7.39
7.33
7.02
7.27
NM
6.09
NM
NM
6.88
7.39
7.91
7.38
7.46
7.29
7.42
7.37
6.82
7.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-34.9
-27.7
-90.3
-47.9
-79.7
-62.7
-75.2
-26.0
-73.0
-32.3
-31.4
-73.4
-135.4
-138.8
-87.9
-51.0
-53.7
-30.5
-123.6
-86.9
-155.8
-77.4
-128.4
-93.4
-120.9
-83.5
-128.2
-126.2
149.5
41.4
-36.9
-5.2
-100.8
-71.8
-137.1
-76.8
-57.9
-14.0
-98.4
-50.4
-133.2
-126.2
100.2
153.0
156.9
-115.9
-98.9
-113.9
136.0
55.6
61.7
-100.7
-157.8
-121.0
-123.0
-174.4
NM
-331.9
NM
-78.2
-85.0
-223.2
-149.8
-150.2
-174.5
9.1
-94.0
-215.9
-124.3
-140.3
NM
-95.0
NM
NM
-82.1
-153.3
-52.8
-30.1
-143.5
-89.6
-70.6
-107.5
-97.9
-109.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters (Continued)
Well ID
PA-12D
pH
Pre-
Demo
7.49
Week
3-4
7.50
Week
7-8
7.33
Jan.
2000
7.76
Apr
2000
6.91
ISCO
Post-
Demo
6.87
Ext.
Mon.
NA
ORP(mV)
Pre-
Demo
-151.0
Week
3-4
-120.7
Week
7-8
-125.9
Jan.
2000
-187.1
Apr
2000
-169.4
ISCO
Post-
Demo
-136.1
Ext.
Mon.
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
6.87
7.38
7.24
7.13
7.51
7.45
6.29
7.81
7.98
9.15
8.89
7.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.04
8.41
8.50
6.72
6.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-107.9
-73.9
-105.8
-129.6
-118.3
-141.7
-83.7
-146.8
-71.4
-196.3
-151.9
-58.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-286.1
-82.5
-111.6
-208.0
-260.1
-231.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-10S
PA-10I
PA-10D
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
6.94
7.30
7.27
6.86
7.31
7.49
6.78
6.86
7.37
6.79
7.41
7.39
NA
7.37
6.50
6.99
6.59
7.26
7.00
6.72
6.72
6.48
5.93
6.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.50
7.50
7.46
7.14
7.51
7.14
6.98
6.81
6.87
7.85
6.83
8.43
6.86
6.90
6.77
4.10?
6.60
6.85
7.81
6.63
6.63
7.04
Dry
6.20
7.56
6.37
6.62
6.75
7.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-58.3
-31.9
-89.8
-82.5
-33.9
-56.1
-119.5
-129.7
-131.1
-12.4
-12.3
-115.8
NA
-138.5
-68.9
-163.6
-111.2
-80.3
-144.0
-99.2
-99.8
46.2
-29.5
-96.6
-242.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-97.6
-127.0
-132.0
-121.6
-120.4
-127.9
-142.8
-132.4
-125.4
-122.3
-132.5
-144.5
-154.1
-277.7
-102.6
-75.7
-157.0
-89.4
-58.3
-121.9
-125.2
-89.4
Dry
-76.9
-85.7
-190.4
-153.1
-134.7
-112.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA-ID
PA-8S
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
7.58
7.72
7.57
6.93
7.27
7.45
7.02
7.11
7.55
7.79
8.39
7.88
7.08
7.41
7.66
6.95
7.25
7.69
7.65
NM
7.90
7.22
7.52
7.73
6.75
7.07
7.41
8.15
8.27
7.97
6.87
7.43
7.85
7.45
7.24
7.71
7.54
7.64
7.52
6.66
7.21
6.86
6.37
7.01
7.45
7.29
7.60
7.50
6.54
7.16
6.78
NM
6.22
7.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-57.4
-13.3
-112.2
-96.2
-6.6
-19.0
-124.8
-136.4
-136.3
1.6
-19.5
-13.4
-61.8
4.3
9.0
-77.8
-93.9
-73.2
148.2
54.8
-762.4
-115.9
-31.8
-50.7
-76.0
-133.5
-96.7
43.4
-94.6
-124.8
209.6
109.5
87.0
-152.1
-127.2
-156.4
-55.0
3.1
-66.8
-33.4
-99.2
-123.8
-71.3
-86.0
-143.9
-117.1
-65.3
-90.1
-58.4
-114.8
-52.8
NM
-75.9
-133.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters (Continued)
Well ID
DO (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan.
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
Tern
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
nerature (°C)
Jan.
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
ISCO Plot Wells
BAT- IS
BAT- 11
BAT-ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-3S
BAT-3I
BAT-3D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-6S
BAT-6I
BAT-6D
PA-4S
PA-4I
PA-4D
2.73
0.61
NA
0.38
0.87
0.87
0.91
0.70
0.76
0.43
0.52
0.64
0.50
0.50
0.41
0.49
0.59
0.30
NA
NA
NA
NM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.91
0.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.73
2.03
0.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
0.53
NM
0.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
3.06
NM
NA
0.28
NA
0.33
NM
0.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.72
0.92
NA
NA
NA
1.38
NA
0.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.84
26.51
26.77
26.85
27.88
26.82
26.44
26.56
26.29
28.51
27.40
27.62
26.72
27.30
26.49
26.30
26.64
26.09
NA
NA
NA
29.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.75
29.51
27.92
NA
NA
NA
28.08
27.93
26.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.48
23.93
25.84
NA
NA
NA
26.28
23.00
24.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
24.52
NM
25.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
28.29
NM
NA
26.69
NA
27.04
NM
28.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.58
28.09
28.14
NA
NA
NA
26.10
26.54
26.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3I
PA-3D
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
0.51
0.63
1.07
0.11
1.85
0.46
0.87
0.66
0.70
0.47
1.01
1.03
0.65
0.59
0.71
0.64
0.77
0.35
0.43
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.54
0.39
0.73
0.77
0.70
0.76
1.73
2.49
3.52
0.64
0.72
1.57
0.70
0.76
1.57
2.15
2.65
2.06
1.47
1.96
1.50
1.07
0.16
NA
NA
NA
0.22
0.16
NA
1.15
2.19
2.88
NA
NA
NM
0.54
NM
0.37
0.35
0.57
0.22
0.25
0.34
2.20
0.32
0.31
0.28
0.34
NM
0.26
NM
NM
0.83
0.82
0.73
1.09
0.65
0.38
0.31
0.43
0.50
0.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.07
26.44
26.81
28.25
28.87
27.02
28.22
28.45
27.81
26.79
26.52
26.25
25.67
26.01
28.11
27.93
27.80
27.34
27.22
26.86
27.49
27.27
26.59
27.36
28.20
27.04
26.26
26.65
28.94
28.62
29.29
27.28
27.10
26.89
27.24
26.60
26.42
26.12
26.15
25.87
26.48
26.41
23.46
23.44
24.24
25.84
26.01
25.76
25.08
25.62
25.47
25.63
25.71
25.43
27.13
26.49
NM
26.12
NM
24.28
24.91
25.70
23.01
23.95
24.54
25.68
26.15
25.88
25.35
25.46
NM
28.42
NM
NM
25.23
25.89
25.05
25.58
26.45
26.25
26.10
26.01
26.34
26.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters (Continued)
Well ID
PA-12D
DO (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
0.43
Week
3-4
0.90
Week
7-8
2.13
Jan.
2000
NA
Apr
2000
0.41
ISCO
Post-
Demo
0.57
Ext.
Mon.
NA
Tern
Pre-
Demo
25.99
Week
3-4
25.97
Week
7-8
26.19
nerature (°C)
Jan.
2000
25.79
Apr
2000
25.31
ISCO
Post-
Demo
26.23
Ext.
Mon.
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13I
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
0.28
0.27
0.62
0.31
0.40
0.10
0.86
0.91
2.21
0.10
0.77
1.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.22
0.07
0.02
0.34
0.15
0.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.12
27.36
27.26
26.94
27.70
27.29
43.74
30.93
44.51
30.29
39.99
43.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.71
31.12
40.86
53.97
38.29
37.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10D
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
0.84
0.48
0.80
0.52
0.43
0.43
0.54
0.54
0.89
0.46
0.47
0.34
NA
0.42
0.79
0.29
0.41
0.58
0.73
0.96
0.76
0.46
2.46
0.79
0.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.46
0.39
0.36
1.02
1.46
NA
1.24
0.85
1.47
Dry
0.73
0.34
0.27
0.34
0.45
0.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.00
27.03
26.36
28.84
28.53
28.08
23.67
23.71
23.76
28.39
27.01
26.85
NA
27.45
27.43
27.80
28.60
28.74
28.33
36.77
30.73
29.88
40.76
29.37
28.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.57
24.66
23.15
29.42
26.77
28.29
29.95
32.16
32.10
44.32
37.25
30.45
36.75
42.07
26.68
30.91
49.21
36.14
39.63
45.76
32.95
33.60
Dry
39.02
40.30
32.57
34.61
32.22
33.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA-ID
PA-8S
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
0.43
0.49
0.23
0.69
0.68
0.73
0.47
0.21
0.54
0.58
0.41
0.51
0.40
0.87
0.56
0.54
0.66
1.09
1.11
0.33
0.39
0.30
0.51
0.84
0.67
1.20
2.38
0.18
1.23
1.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.42
0.64
0.48
0.47
0.48
0.55
0.50
0.52
0.60
0.37
0.41
0.48
0.38
0.36
0.68
NM
0.56
0.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.96
27.60
27.09
28.91
28.65
27.67
24.82
25.29
24.64
27.25
30.42
27.43
28.74
28.51
27.78
25.58
25.87
25.43
27.62
27.49
27.38
27.97
27.58
27.43
26.15
26.01
25.51
26.03
26.10
25.94
25.55
25.28
25.15
25.45
25.14
24.83
24.46
25.27
25.64
24.96
25.60
25.76
24.83
24.75
24.53
24.96
25.73
26.39
26.32
26.40
26.13
NM
25.80
25.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters (Continued)
Well ID
Eh(mV)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
ISCO Plot Wells
BAT- IS
BAT- 11
BAT-ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-3S
BAT-3I
BAT-3D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-6S
BAT-6I
BAT-6D
PA-4S
PA-4I
PA-4D
80.3
54.6
58.7
81.7
47.9
53.4
58.8
43.9
46.9
48.3
32.5
66.1
59.7
36.4
50.7
171.8
159.4
174.8
NA
NA
NA
776.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
369.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
668.8
593.1
408.8
NA
NA
NA
531.9
447.5
305.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
367.4
368.1
426.9
NA
NA
NA
388.3
442.2
469.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
203.5
NA
336.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
681.2
NA
NA
200.3
NA
295.0
NA
213.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
666.3
94.10
363.4
NA
NA
NA
157.00
168.4
26.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.790
1.383
2.519
0.760
1.343
2.552
0.673
1.360
2.626
0.520
0.679
2.584
0.910
1.356
2.684
0.620
0.756
2.664
NA
NA
NA
6.049
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.759
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.260
14.340
3.852
NA
NA
NA
2.869
3.145
3.609
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.836
5.012
12.170
NA
NA
NA
1.034
1.117
3.720
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Apr
2000
NA
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
6.60
NM
11.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
NA
NA
NA
NM
9.47
NM
NA
10.03
NA
6.65
NM
14.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.96
10.69
20.97
NA
NA
NA
10.77
9.27
13.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3I
PA-3D
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
162.1
169.3
106.7
149.1
117.3
134.3
121.8
171.0
124.0
164.7
165.6
123.6
61.6
58.2
109.1
146.0
143.3
166.5
73.4
110.1
41.2
119.6
68.6
103.6
76.1
113.5
68.8
70.8
346.5
238.4
160.1
191.8
96.2
125.2
59.9
120.2
139.1
183.0
98.6
146.6
63.8
70.8
397.2
450.0
453.9
181.1
198.1
183.1
433.0
352.6
358.7
196.3
139.2
176.0
174.0
122.6
NA
-34.9
NA
218.8
212.0
73.8
147.2
146.8
122.5
306.1
203.0
81.1
172.7
156.7
NA
202.0
NA
NA
214.9
143.7
244.2
266.9
153.5
207.4
226.4
189.5
199.1
187.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.655
1.097
2.827
0.512
0.668
2.492
0.545
0.874
2.626
1.444
1.051
2.521
0.711
0.957
1.264
1.047
2.493
0.448
0.611
2.364
0.489
0.836
2.544
0.927
1.444
2.341
0.644
0.964
5.043
6.186
12.570
1.079
1.334
5.308
1.225
2.078
5.318
2.275
3.532
5.096
1.520
2.390
1.823
2.219
3.709
1.883
1.787
5.543
4.167
2.616
5.746
2.754
4.129
5.654
10.590
3.415
NM
10.57
NM
144.60
59.80
56.52
42.46
75.62
97.40
27.23
96.81
107.10
162.40
110.50
NM
8.64
NM
NM
2.81
2.42
1.74
3.27
3.64
4.13
4.21
4.07
7.94
5.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters (Continued)
Well ID
PA-12D
Eh(mV)
Pre-
Demo
46.0
Week
3-4
76.3
Week
7-8
71.1
Jan
2000
109.9
Apr
2000
127.6
ISCO
Post-
Demo
160.9
Ext.
Mon.
NA
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Pre-
Demo
2.663
Week
3-4
2.587
Week
7-8
5.725
Jan
2000
6.247
Apr
2000
140.00
ISCO
Post-
Demo
6.20
Ext.
Mon.
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13I
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
89.1
123.1
91.2
67.4
78.7
55.3
113.3
50.2
125.6
0.7
45.1
138.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.9
214.5
185.4
89.0
36.9
66.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.884
0.926
3.384
0.776
1.171
2.836
1.013
0.991
2.663
1.187
4.457
2.771
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
125.90
146.40
377.80
251.60
272.50
224.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10D
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
138.7
165.1
107.2
114.5
163.1
140.9
77.5
67.3
65.9
184.6
184.7
81.2
NA
58.5
128.1
33.4
85.8
116.7
53.0
97.8
97.2
243.2
167.5
100.4
-45.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
199.4
170.0
165.0
175.4
176.6
169.1
154.2
164.6
171.6
174.7
164.5
152.5
142.9
19.3
194.4
221.3
140.0
207.6
238.7
175.1
171.8
207.6
NA
220.1
211.3
106.6
143.9
162.3
184.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.669
0.900
3.108
0.854
1.704
2.562
0.804
0.953
3.125
0.783
2.202
2.607
NA
0.579
1.439
0.663
0.932
1.335
1.840
0.817
0.893
1.414
1.333
0.835
2.197
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.762
1.723
4.294
1.678
1.887
3.060
3.245
1.980
6.474
2.475
2.160
5.720
4.041
84.69
93.10
146.60
48.07
60.81
39.63
66.59
48.10
121.90
Dry
111.90
116.30
76.05
3.33
3.09
5.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA- ID
PA-8S
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
139.6
183.7
84.8
100.8
190.4
178
72.2
60.6
60.7
198.6
177.5
183.6
135.2
201.3
206.0
119.2
103.1
123.8
345.2
251.8
-565.4
81.1
165.2
146.3
121.0
63.5
100.3
340.4
202.4
172.2
506.6
406.5
384.0
144.9
169.8
140.6
242.0
300.1
230.2
263.6
197.8
173.2
225.7
211.0
153.1
NA
231.7
206.9
238.6
182.2
244.2
NA
221.1
163.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.355
0.676
2.225
0.746
1.043
2.600
0.829
0.878
2.881
0.389
0.450
1.347
0.666
1.029
2.328
0.737
0.750
2.474
1.221
0.860
4.449
1.373
2.688
5.216
1.534
1.773
5.635
1.375
1.861
5.392
5.615
3.572
5.752
1.517
1.848
6.103
1.26
1.93
4.76
4.92
3.92
7.53
187.20
67.76
121.60
1.39
1.73
4.79
5.11
3.81
7.22
NM
11.92
5.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters (Continued)
NA: Not available.
NM: Not measureable.
Pre-demo: 8/3/99 to 8/9/99
Week 3 -4: 9/24/99 to 9/30/99
Week 7-8: 10/19/99 to 10/28/99
Post-Demo: 5/8/00 to 5/14/00
Ext. mon.: February 2001.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-2. Iron and Manganese Results of Groundwater Samples
Compound
SMCL
Well ID
Iron (mg/L)
0.3 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
Manganese (mg/L)
0.05 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
ISCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
0.26
NA
0.12
2.5
O.05
0.30
NA
0.05
NA
NA
NA
0.74
NA
NA
NA
<1.2
O.05
O.05
0.11
2.3
0.32
0.79
0.80
0.050
O.050
O.050
0.16
O.050
O.050
0.14
NA
0.05
O.05
NA
NS1
0.15
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.1
O.I
NA
0.05
O.05
O.I
1
1.10
0.1
4.06
NA
35.6
0.245
O.I
2.84
NA
0.016
0.018
NA
0.015
1.11
O.015
0.025
NA
473
NA
NA
NA
0.052
NA
NA
NA
17.7
0.27
0.34
0.64
0.11
1.8
0.071
0.074
2
0.44
0.56
15.6
O.015
0.47
0.17
NA
431
473
NA
NS1
3.1
468
2.8
2.90
235
97.9
NA
10
2.3
516
8.5
8.70
33.2
7.41
NA
488
0.253
1.46
3.47
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA-12I
PA-12D
0.53
NA
0.1
NA
0.2
NA
0.42
1.1
O.05
0.94
0.05
0.13
O.05
NA
0.092
0.24
8.7
2.1
1.7
2.90
NA
0.97
0.23
0.18
NA
0.45
3.10
0.18
1.90
0.31
0.27
0.68
NA
0.40
0.097
6.60
1.40
2.10
0.05
NA
0.8
NA
0.9
NA
0.56
2.5
O.05
2.3
0.18
0.13
0.51
NA
0.41
0.051
5.5
1
2.4
0.050
NA
0.45
NA
O.050
0.050
1.5
0.68
0.09
0.5
0.14
0.13
0.42
NA
0.29
O.050
38.4
0.79
5.1
0.05
NA
0.24
NA
O.05
NA
1.5
0.5
O.05
0.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
0.05
O.05
3.2
1.4
6
0.1
0.1
1.6
NA
O.25
NA
0.18
0.73
O.05
0.05
0.05
1.2
0.15
NA
0.05
O.05
4.1
0.57
88.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.055
NA
0.018
NA
0.11
NA
0.026
0.05
0.024
0.027
0.022
0.076
0.026
NA
0.031
0.034
0.14
0.047
0.053
0.047
NA
0.022
0.015
0.120
NA
0.022
0.043
0.023
0.030
0.019
0.024
0.031
NA
0.027
0.022
0.061
0.027
0.048
33
NA
0.16
NA
0.059
NA
0.03
0.04
O.015
0.036
0.015
0.015
0.025
NA
0.027
0.015
0.044
0.02
0.03
0.47
NA
3.8
NA
1.1
1.1
0.047
0.028
0.017
0.019
0.015
0.015
0.023
NA
0.024
0.016
0.19
0.015
0.059
359
NA
0.98
NA
474
NA
5.5
0.091
0.016
0.015
0.015
O.015
0.023
0.022
0.015
O.015
0.12
0.073
0.093
534
497
6.2
NA
410
NA
37.7
0.2
0.032
0.015
0.024
0.063
0.054
NA
0.098
0.015
0.72
0.17
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13I
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA-14I
PA-14D
2.6
0.33
O.05
0.78
11.4
0.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.24
0.49
0.43
8.9
0.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.963
0.023
O.015
0.022
1.1
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.038
0.065
O.015
0.015
0.17
0.028
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2I-DUP
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
1.4
0.28
NA
9.72
1.2
O.05
0.05
7.00
0.62
NA
4.20
2.40
O.05
1.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
3.6
NA
0.96
4.2
0.26
1.6
0.82
2.2
2.5
4.6
9.8
0.52
0.24
2.7
1.6
NA
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.067
0.03
NA
1.00
0.037
0.03
0.028
0.072
0.066
NA
0.093
0.068
0.026
0.039
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
0.12
NA
0.033
0.068
0.02
0.03
0.072
0.098
0.096
0.098
0.15
0.043
0.054
0.071
0.048
NA
0.036
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-2. Iron and Manganese Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Compound
SMCL
Well ID
PA-7D-Dup
PA-10S
PA-10I
PA-101-Dup
PA-10D
PA-10D-DUP
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
Iron (mg/L)
0.3 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
NA
4.8
12.6
NA
1.2
NA
0.16
<0.05
0.24
NA
Week
3-4
NA
3.50
9.50
NA
0.69
NA
3.20
1.30
NA
NA
Week
7-8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Jan
2000
NA
4.5
8.3
NA
0.69
0.68
0.099
3.2
O.050
O.050
Apr
2000
NA
4.5
3.8
NA
0.3
NA
NS2
18.7
O.05
2.5
ISCO
Post-
Demo
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ext.
Mon.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganese (mg/L)
0.05 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
NA
0.11
0.13
NA
0.029
NA
0.035
0.068
0.053
NA
Week
3-4
NA
0.039
0.120
NA
0.063
NA
0.088
0.068
NA
NA
Week
7-8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Jan
2000
NA
0.044
0.12
NA
0.044
0.044
O.015
0.066
O.015
O.015
Apr
2000
NA
0.047
0.059
NA
0.021
NA
NS2
0.16
0.024
0.084
ISCO
Post-
Demo
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ext.
Mon.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA-IS
PA-1I
PA-1I-DUP
PA- ID
PA-lD-Dup
PA-8S
PA-8S-DUP
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-8D-DUP
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
0.12
O.05
NA
0.11
NA
1.9
NA
0.23
0.05
NA
4.8
0.9
2.4
0.05
O.05
NA
0.12
NA
1.60
NA
0.14
0.05
0.05
3.70
3.10
0.60
0.05
O.05
NA
0.16
NA
2.1
2
O.05
0.05
NA
3.3
1.9
0.92
3.3
0.082
NA
0.15
NA
0.16
0.46
0.57
0.46
NA
3.1
2.2
0.57
0.2
O.05
NA
O.05
NA
2.7
NA
0.7
0.31
NA
22.6
1.3
0.9
0.45
O.05
O.05
O.05
NA
4.1
NA
4
0.46
NA
O.I
38.8
0.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.015
O.015
NA
0.037
NA
0.092
NA
0.028
0.029
NA
0.075
0.028
0.026
0.015
O.015
NA
0.040
NA
0.099
NA
0.027
0.022
0.026
0.061
0.034
0.019
0.015
O.015
NA
0.037
NA
0.095
0.095
0.028
0.015
NA
0.053
0.043
0.023
0.039
O.015
NA
0.026
NA
77.6
80.7
0.19
0.045
NA
0.046
0.028
0.019
0.015
0.018
NA
0.021
NA
4
NA
0.13
0.054
NA
0.22
0.062
0.022
0.019
0.017
0.019
0.021
NA
3.8
NA
0.43
0.11
NA
342
0.27
0.019
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not available.
NS: Not sampled.
<: The compound was analyzed but not detected at or above the specified reporting limit.
SMCL: Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
Shading denotes that the concentration exceeds or equals to the SMCL.
1. Sample was not collected due to excess amount of KMnO4 in the flush mount.
2. Sample was not collected because the well was dry.
Pre-demo: 8/3/99 to 8/9/99
Week 3-4: 9/24/99 to 9/30/99
Week 5: 10/6/99 to 10/8/99
Week 7-8: 10/19/99 to 10/28/99
Post-Demo: 5/8/00 to 5/14/00
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-3. Chloride and Total Dissolved Solids Results of Groundwater Samples
SMCL
Well ID
Chloride (mg/L)
250mg/L
Pre-
Deino
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
TDS (mg/L)
500 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr 2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Ext.
Mon.
ISCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5I-DUP
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
52.5
181
NA
722
37.5
NA
57
NA
752
NA
<1,000
NA
NA
NA
101
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1,000
610
678
109
141
NA
253
NA
266
280
250
105
125
2,690
77.8
NA
77
NA
533
NA
228 J
254 J
NA
NS
234 J
NA
255
NA
813
813
237 J
238
NA
1,730
236
NA
582 J
NA
1,360
1,380
126
186
NA
5,070
531
521
452
NA
1,010
NA
499
760
NA
1,490
387
402
517
503
1,550
NA
8,770
NA
NA
NA
1,160
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8,520
7,290
7,720
522
1,100
NA
895
NA
919
920
2,030
2,100
2,030
2,990
361
NA
329
NA
1,160
NA
10,200
6,640
NA
NS
6,270
NA
2,320
NA
4,180
4,030
6,790
5,280
NA
5,990
2,860
NA
13,000
NA
6,410
6,320
5,980
4,750
NA
8,280
5,170
5,250
3,640
NA
5,250
NA
ISCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
30.2
NA
114
NA
744
NA
119
NA
121
121
786
NA
260
NA
317
NA
1,630
NA
88.4
NA
86.4
NA
123
355
146 J
NA
110
NA
412 J
NA
298 J
153 J
156
NA
1,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
398
NA
664
NA
1,790
NA
1,220
NA
743
659
1,640
NA
1,840
NA
2,040
NA
4,100
NA
475
NA
4,560
NA
1,130
1,040
18,600
NA
4,200
NA
12,100
NA
10,100
10,800
4,480
NA
9,540
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA-1I-DUP
PA- ID
PA-lD-Dup
PA-8S
PA-8S-DUP
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-8D-DUP
PA-US
PA- 111
PA-11D
PA-11D-DUP
9.8
66.2
NA
627
NA
24.2
NA
119
774
NA
36.7
49
819
NA
13.9
44.3
NA
393
NA
23.8
NA
130
734
723
28.3
44.2
778
NA
23
32.5
NA
526
NA
26.3
26.9
182
638
NA
28.9
46.7
720
NA
33.9
92.6
NA
588
NA
265
279
284
822
NA
34.1
48.5
749
NA
51.6
122
NA
639
NA
266
NA
418
819
NA
678
248
771
NA
60.3
105
111
639
NA
273
NA
439
788
NA
397
1230
756
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
205
424
NA
1,380
NA
445
NA
706
1,410
NA
531
549
1,540
NA
293
313
NA
928
NA
458
NA
749
1,670
1,630
538
643
1,820
NA
319
277
NA
1,280
NA
415
405
719
1,510
NA
463
519
1,670
NA
326
442
NA
1,400
NA
1,960
2,050
977
1,490
NA
403
557
1,510
NA
413
550
NA
1,410
NA
1,710
NA
1,210
2,550
NA
2,760
1,140
1,820
NA
470
513
542
1,490
NA
1,800
NA
1,240
2,520
NA
4,710
4,500
1,750
1,760
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not available.
NS: Not sampled.
SMCL: Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
J: Estimated but below the detection limit.
Shading denotes that the concentration exceeds the SMCL Level.
Pre-demo:
Week 3-4:
Week 5:
Week 7-8:
Post-Demo:
Ext. Mon.:
8/3/99 to 8/9/99
9/24/99 to 9/30/99
10/6/99 to 10/8/99
10/19/99 to 10/28/99
5/8/00 to 5/14/00
February 2001.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-4. Potassium Results of Groundwater Samples
Units (mg/L)
Well ID
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
4/12 - 4/16/00
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
4/26 - 4/27/00
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
5/11 - 5/12/00
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
8/22 - 8/23/00
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
11/29 - 11/30/00
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT- IS
BAT-1I
BAT- ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-3S
BAT-3I
BAT-3D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-6S
BAT-6I
BAT-6D
PA-4S
PA-4I
PA-4D
NA
NA
NA
>6,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
>6,000
o
J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>2,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
>2,000
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>6,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
>6,000
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
8
265
1,150
1,260
5
448
4
5,050
9.0
3,660
30
280
470
195
2780
670
>6,000
o
J
o
J
92
400
440
2
156
1
1,760
3.0
1,270
10
100
160
65
970
230
>2,000
6
6
200
870
950
4
337
o
J
3,800
7.0
2,750
22
210
350
145
2090
510
>6,000
>6,000
27
117
1,100
250
10
159
19
2,490
1.3
>6,000
3
200
77
650
1,420
1,940
5,490
>2,000
10
41
380
90
4
55
7
870
0.5
>2,000
1
70
27
230
490
670
1,910
>6,000
20
88
830
190
8
120
14
1,880
1.0
>6,000
2
150
58
490
1,070
1,460
4,130
NA
NA
NA
1,500
340
8
NA
NA
NA
0.8
>6,000
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
490
120
2
NA
NA
NA
0.3
>2,000
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,020
220
6
NA
NA
NA
0.6
>6,000
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,020
8.8
19.3
NA
NA
NA
6.5
>6,000
2.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
690
3.8
8.2
NA
NA
NA
2.8
>2,000
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,510
6.7
14.6
NA
NA
NA
5.5
>6,000
1.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3I
PA-3D
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9I
PA-9D
>6,000
>60
>6,000
35.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
>2,000
>20
>2,000
12.3
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0.1
0
0.1
>6,000
>60
>6,000
26.7
0.3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.2
>6,000
9.0
>6,000
42.6
1.0
1.4
0.6
0.2
1.3
0.6
1.8
1.2
>2,000
3.0
>2,000
14.8
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
>6,000
7.0
>6,000
32.1
0.8
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.4
1.3
0.9
>6,000
90
6,450
5
20.0
1.0
0.5
0.3
1.6
0.3
0.7
1.5
>2,000
31
2,240
2
7.0
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.5
>6,000
68
4,860
4
15.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.3
0.5
1.1
>6,000
75
>6,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>2,000
22
>2,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>6,000
54
>6,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Draft Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table D-4. Potassium Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Units (mg/L)
Well ID
PA-12S
PA-12I
PA-12D
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
4/12 - 4/16/00
1.1
0.7
3.8
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.9
0.5
2.9
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
4/26 - 4/27/00
1.3
1.3
>60
0.4
0.4
>20
1.0
1.0
>60
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
5/11 - 5/12/00
2.0
0.5
44.0
0.7
0.2
15.0
1.5
0.4
33.0
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
8/22 - 8/23/00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
KMnO4
Mn
MnO4
11/29 - 11/30/00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2I-DUP
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA-1I
PA- ID
PA-8S
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
PA-16S
PA-16I
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-17I
PA-17D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
1.2
8.9
0.2
0.4
3.1
0.4
0.9
6.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.5
1.2
6.8
1.9
1.3
1,280
17
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.4
2.4
0.7
0.5
450
6
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.4
0.9
5.1
1.5
1
970
12
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.5
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.4
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
NA: Not available.
Purple bold face indicates that water sample was purple when collected.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Draft Final OX\FinalOX3.xls
-------
Table D-5. Trace Metal Results of Groundwater Samples
Compound
MCL
Well ID
Aluminum (mg/L)
0.2 (Florida Secondary Standard)
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000 | Apr 2000 | Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Antimony (mg/L)
0.006
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
NA
NA
0.25
NA
NA
NA
<5
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
NA
NS
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.4
<0.4
<0.2
<0.2
<0.4
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
NA
NA
<0.006
NA
NA
NA
<0.15
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
NA
NS
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.012
<0.012
<0.006
<0.006
<0.012
<0.006
<0.006
NA
O.0012
<0.0012
NA
<0.0012
<0.0012
O.0012
<0.0012
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.4
<0.4
<0.2
NA
<0.4
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.012
<0.012
<0.006
NA
<0.03
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA-US
PA- 111
PA-11D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.4
<0.2
<0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.012
<0.006
<0.006
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canavereal\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-5. Trace Metal Results of Groundwater Samples
Compound
MCL
Well ID
Arsenic (mg/L)
0.05
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Barium (mg/L)
2
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
1.11
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
0.014
NA
NA
NA
<0.12
0.0084
0.0075
<0.005
0.0061
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.0068
0.0058
0.0062
<0.005
0.0063
0.0058
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
NA
NS
<0.005
0.013
0.0055
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
0.021
<0.01
0.0078
0.0056
NA
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
0.0171
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
<2.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NS
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
NA
Ext. Mon.
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
0.0058
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
0.0053
0.0092
<0.005
0.0066
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
0.0072
<0.005
<0.005
0.0074
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
0.0052
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
0.0074
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
0.0072
NA
0.028
NA
0.0078
0.0085
<0.005
0.0054
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
0.011
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
0.0062
NA
0.0055
<0.005
0.016
0.0087
<0.005
0.0079
0.0068
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
0.018
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
0.018
NA
<0.005
NA
0.0055
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
0.018
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.005
0.0078
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
0.017
<0.005
0.0069
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Distant Wells
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.01
0.019
0.0059
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canavereal\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-5. Trace Metal Results of Groundwater Samples
Compound
MCL
Well ID
Beryllium (mg/L)
0.004
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Chromium (mg/L)
0.1
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.1
NA
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
<0.12
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
NA
NS
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.0008
<0.0008
NA
<0.0008
<0.0008
<0.0008
<0.0008
NA
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
NA
0.45
NA
NA
NA
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
0.17
0.15
0.13
4.8
0.011
0.019
<0.005
<0.005
0.032
0.027
0.026
2.3
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
5.5
4.9
NA
NS
3.1
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
8.5
11.4
12.9
<0.005
3.4
0.012
0.013
NA
3.48
0.0698
NA
2.59
0.0485
<0.01
<0.01
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
0.013
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
NA
0.041
0.01
0.0067
NA
0.0054
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.0093
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.17
NA
<0.005
NA
0.033
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.0063
NA
<0.005
<0.005
0.0057
<0.005
<0.005
0.09
NA
0.011
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.43
NA
0.026
NA
2
NA
0.0058
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.012
0.01
0.043
4.2
3.4
0.055
NA
193
NA
0.14
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
<0.005
0.022
<0.005
0.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.92
<0.01
<0.005
NA
NA
NA
M:\Prpjects\Envir RestorACape Canavereal\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-5. Trace Metal Results of Groundwater Samples
Compound
MCL
Well ID
Copper (mg/L)
1 (Florida Secondary Standard)
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4 Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Lead (mg/L)
TT
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
O.025
<0.025
NA
O.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
NA
NA
O.025
NA
NA
NA
<0.62
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
O.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
0.05
<0.025
NA
NS
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.05
<0.05
<0.025
<0.025
<0.05
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.01
<0.01
NA
0.0504
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
O.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.15
NA
NA
NA
<0.003
NA
NA
NA
<0.075
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
O.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.09
<0.09
NA
NS
<0.09
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.06
<0.015
0.0046
<0.003
<0.09
<0.003
0.0034
NA
O.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
O.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
O.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
O.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
O.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.05
<0.05
<0.025
NA
<0.05
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
NA
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
O.025
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.003
NA
<0.003
NA
<0.003
NA
<0.003
O.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
O.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.006
NA
<0.003
NA
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
0.003
O.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
0.011
<0.003
<0.003
<0.06
NA
<0.003
NA
<0.09
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.09
<0.09
<0.003
NA
<0.09
NA
<0.009
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA-US
PA- 111
PA-11D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.025
<0.025
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.06
0.012
<0.003
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canavereal\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-5. Trace Metal Results of Groundwater Samples
Compound
MCL
Well ID
Nickel (mg/L)
0.1
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Silver (mg/L)
1 (Florida Secondary Standard)
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT- 51
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
<0.04
<0.04
NA
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.066
NA
0.047
NA
NA
NA
<0.04
NA
NA
NA
<1
1.3
1.9
0.47
0.18
0.072
0.25
0.27
0.7
0.15
0.18
3.5
0.045
0.11
0.51
NA
<0.04
<0.04
NA
NS
<0.04
0.63
0.14
0.14
<0.08
0.11
10.6
0.3
0.11
1.2
1.3
NA
<0.0l| <0.01
4.52 <0.01
NA
206
NA
<0.01
0.02081 <0.01
0.225 <0.01
0.622 <0.01
NA
NA
0.035
NA
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
NA
<0.25
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
0.044
0.039
NA
NS
0.042
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
<0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.038
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.002
<0.002
NA
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
<0.04
NA
<0.04
NA
0.32
NA
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.083
<0.04
NA
<0.04
<0.04
0.044
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
NA
<0.04
<0.04
0.24
NA
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
NA
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
NA
0.13
NA
0.2
NA
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
NA
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.15
NA
<0.04
NA
0.19
0.2
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
NA
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
NA
<0.04
NA
0.078
NA
0.32
0.26
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.21
0.23
0.24
<0.08
<0.08
<0.04
NA
<0.08
NA
0.11
0.58
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.14
0.073
NA
<0.04
<0.04
3
0.22
8.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.035
NA
<0.01
NA
0.032
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.036
0.033
<0.01
NA
0.03
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA-US
PA- 111
PA-11D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.08
<0.04
<0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.028
<0.01
<0.01
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canavereal\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-5. Trace Metal Results of Groundwater Samples
Compound
MCL
Well ID
Thallium (mg/L)
0.002
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Zinc (mg/L)
5 (Florida Secondary Standard)
Pre-Demo
Week 3-4
Week 7-8
Jan 2000
Apr 2000
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
/SCO Plot Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2I-DUP
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.5
NA
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
NA
<0.25
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
0.016
0.012
0.016
0.022
0.015
0.016
0.016
NA
<0.3
<0.3
NA
NS
<0.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.2
<0.05
0.015
<0.01
<0.3
0.011
<0.01
NA
O.001
<0.001
NA
<0.001
<0.001
O.001
<0.001
NA
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
NA
NA
<0.02
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
0.081
<0.02
NA
NS
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.04
<0.04
<0.02
<0.02
<0.04
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
/SCO Perimeter Wells
PA-3S
PA-3S-DUP
PA-3I
PA-3I-DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D-DUP
PA-5S
PA-5I
PA-5D
PA-6S
PA-6I
PA-6D
PA-9S
PA-9S-DUP
PA-9I
PA-9D
PA-12S
PA- 121
PA-12D
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.014
NA
0.013
NA
0.017
0.018
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.016
0.014
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.2
NA
<0.01
NA
<0.3
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.3
<0.3
<0.01
NA
<0.3
NA
<0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.04
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.04
<0.04
<0.02
NA
<0.04
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distiant Wells
PA-US
PA- 111
PA-11D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2
0.02
<0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.056
<0.04
0.025
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
All units are in mg/L.
MCL: Maximum contaminant limit.
NA: Not available.
Shading denotes that the concentration exceeds the MCL level listed.
<: The compound was analyzed but not detected at or above the specified reporting limit.
Pre-demo:
Week 3-4:
Week 5:
Week 7-8:
Post-Demo:
Ext. Mon.:
8/3/99 to 8/9/99
9/24/99 to 9/30/99
10/6/99 to 10/8/99
10/19/99 to 10/28/99
5/8/00 to 5/14/00
February 2001.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Cana\
3l\Reports\FinalOX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-6. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
Ca(mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Mg (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Na (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
Ext. Mon.
/SCO Plot Wells Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
70.3
41.2
87.5
NA
NA
NA
84.0
NA
3.5
3.8
349.0
70.1
NA
48.5
210.0
214.0
1.09
63.0
1,760
6.87
7.78
32.6
86.0
NA
53.3
58.5
84.4
NA
NA
NA
81.5
NA
2.1
3.0
52.5
111.0
NA
19.4
203.0
203.0
0.321
31.7
82.8
22.5
23.3
45.1
201
NA
28.2
164.0
305.0
NA
NA
NA
311.0
NA
68.2
74.2
90.8
125.0
NA
73.0
125.0
124.0
64.0
58
64
65
75
187
115
NA
316
323
208
269
NA
291
204
NA
1,500
1,280
1,300
1,060
NA
1,280
2,140
2,070
1,700
1,060
359
2,010
1,980
1,860
1,610
NA
Well ID
N03-N02 rmg/
Pre-Demo
OX Post-
Demo
L)
Ext. Mon.
S04(mg/L)
Pre-Demo
OX Post-
Demo
Ext. Mon.
BOD (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
OX Post-
Demo
Ext. Mon.
TOC (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
OX Post-
Demo
Ext. Mon.
/SCO Plot Wells Wells
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA1
NA1
1
0.1
NA
NA1
1
1
16.6
8.17
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
NA
46.0
138
103
28.7
NA
49.7
67.9
NA
<1,000
NA
379
483.0
NA
1,380.0
535.0
529
1,330
1,810
517
790
778
618
781
NA
<3.0
16
13
<3.0
NA
<3.0
13
NA
<3.0
<3.0
16
112
NA
<3.0
108
98
<2
8.6
15
8.1
18
>74
>74
NA
6.1
15.5
10.2
4.2
NA
5.8
10.5
NA
422.0
86.2
9.7
157.0
NA
2,110
131.0
129
95
23.9
31.5
50.5
51.5
109
233
NA
NA: Not available.
BOD: Biological oxygen demand.
TOC: Total organic carbon.
1. NO3-NO2 as nitrogen for BAT-2S/I and BAT-5I could not be analyzed due to abundant KMnO4. Also, BOD showed
no depletion because of the oxidized nature of the matrix.
Pre-Demo: 8/3/99 to 8/9/99
Post-Demo: 5/8/00 to 5/14/00
Ext. Mon: February 2001.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Table D-7. Surface Emission Test Results
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
/SCO Plot
OX-SE-1
OX-SE-2
OX-SE-3
OX-SE-4
OX-SE-5
OX-SE-6
OX-SE-7
OX-SE-8
OX-SE-9
OX-SE-10
OX-SE-11
OX-SE-12
9/30/1999
9/30/1999
10/1/1999
10/25/1999
10/25/1999
10/25/1999
1/17/2000
1/17/2000
1/17/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
1.6
2.4
3.4
0.68
1.1
1.4
11
7.6
5.8
2.6
0.69
1.7
Background
DW-SE-1
DW-SE-2
DW-SE-3
DW-SE-4
DW-SE-5
DW-SE-6
DW-SE-7
DW-SE-8
10/1/1999
10/8/1999
10/25/1999
10/22/1999
1/17/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
<0.42
<0.44
0.44
6,000b
<0.38
0.43
0.86
0.79
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Resistive Heating Plot
SPH-SE-1
SPH-SE-2
SPH-SE-3
SPH-SE-4
SPH-SE-5
SPH-SE-6
SPH-SE-7
SPH-SE-8
SPH-SE-9
SPH-SE-10
SPH-SE-1 1
SPH-SE-12
SPH-SE-13
10/8/1999
10/8/1999
10/8/1999
10/22/1999
10/22/1999
10/22/1999
1/18/2000
1/18/2000
1/18/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
2.1
3.6
2
13,000
12,000
13,000
23
78
35
0.93
0.67
O.37
1,300
Ambient Air at Shoulder Level
SPH-SE-14
SPH-SE-15
SPH-SE-C27
DW-C1
DW-C2
DW-C3
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
9/1/2000
4/11/2000
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
<0.39a
<0.39a
O.88
2.1C
0.39
O.39
ppb (v/v): parts per billion by volume.
a. SPH-SE-14/15 samples were collected at an ambient elevation east and west edge of the Resistive Heating plot
without using an air collection box.
b Background sample (10/22/99) was collected immediately after SPH-SE-6 sample (the last sample for this event),
which had an unexpectedly high concentration of 13,000 ppbv. This may indicate condensation of TCE
in the emissions collection box at levels that could not be removed by the standard decontamination procedure
of purging the box with air for two hours. In subsequent events (1/17/2000 background), special additional
decontamination steps were taken to minimize carryover.
0 This sample was collected by holding a Summa canister at shoulder level collecting an ambient
air sample to evaluate local background air.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\FinalOX3b.xls
-------
Appendix E
Microbiological Assessment
-------
E.I Microbiological Evaluation Work Plan
Biological Sampling & Analysis Work Plan
The Effect of Source Remediation Methods on the Presence and Activity of Indigenous
Subsurface Bacteria at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida
Prepared by
Battelle
Columbus, Ohio
June 28,1999
(Modified by T. C. Hazen, LBNL; G. Sewell, EPA;
and Arun Gavaskar, Battelle May 17, 2000)
1.0 Purpose and Objectives
Overall purpose is to evaluate effects of three DNAPL source remediation treatments on the indigenous
bacterial population. The three treatments in three different plots at LC34 are resistive heating, in-situ
chemical oxidation (ISCO), and steam injection (SI). The objectives of the biological sampling and
analysis are:
1. To determine the immediate effect that each remediation technology has on the microbial community
structure and specifically on TCE biodegraders.
2. To establish how quickly the microbial communities at the site recover and if any of the effects could
be long-term.
3. To determine at what point that biodegradation could be used to complete remediation of the plume.
4. To establish if any of the technologies could cause and short-term effect on significant
biogeochemical processes and the distribution and abundance of potential pathogens in the
environment.
2.0 Background
Launch Pad 34 at Cape Canaveral Air Station has dense non-aqueous phase (DNAPL) concentrations of
TCE over a wide aerial extent in relatively sandy soils with a shallow groundwater table (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Work Plan for Launch Complex 34, Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Brevard County, Florida, 1996, Kennedy Space Center Report KSC-JJ-4277.).
These conditions have made it an ideal site for side-by-side comparison of various DNAPL remediation
technologies currently being conducted by the DNAPL Remediation Multi-agency Consortium. Initial
sampling at the site revealed that there are also high concentrations of vinyl chloride and dichloroethylene
indicating natural attenuation via biodegradation of the TCE plume has been occurring. Since these
compounds are daughter products of the anaerobic reductive dechlorination of TCE by microbes (see
discussion below) it is probable that these conditions could be greatly effected by the source remediation
processes being tested. Since most of these processes will introduce air into the subsurface and are
potentially toxic to many microbes they could have a variety of effects on the biological activity and
biodegradation rates of contaminants in the source area and the surrounding plume. The effects could
range from long-term disruption of the microbial community structure and biological activity at the site,
appe.doc 1
-------
to a significant stimulation of biodegradation of TCE. Whatever the effect, it needs to be monitored
carefully since the long-term remediation of this or any similar site will be significantly effected not only
by the technologies ability to remove the DNAPL source but also by the rate of biodegradation both
natural and stimulated that can occur in the aquifer after the source is removed. The rate and extent of
biodegradation will effect how low the technology must lower the source concentration before natural or
stimulated bioremediation can complete the remediation to the ppb levels normally used as cleanup goals.
It could also have a major effect on the life-cycle costs of remediation of these sites.
Secondarily, unlikely as this is, it is also important to verify that these source remediation
technologies do not cause any gross changes biogeochemistry, and distribution and abundance of
potential pathogens. The pathogens are a possibility at this site since there was long-term sewage
discharge at the edge of test plots. Studies at other sites have suggested that stimulation of pathogens
especially by thermal increases could be a possibility and thus should be considered in the overall risk
scenario for these remediation technologies.
Reductive Dechlorination of Chlorinated Solvents
Microbial degradation of chlorinated solvents has been shown to occur under both anaerobic and
aerobic conditions. Highly chlorinated solvents are in a relatively oxidized state and are hence more
readily degraded under anaerobic conditions than under aerobic conditions (Vogel et al., 1987). In
subsurface environments where oxygen is not always available, reductive dechlorination is one of most
important naturally occurring biotransformation reactions for chlorinated solvents. Microbial reductive
dechlorination is a redox reaction that requires the presence of a suitable electron donor to provide
electrons for dechlorination of chlorinated organic (Freedman and Gossett, 1989).
Highly chlorinated solvents, such as tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE), are
commonly detected in the subsurface. Under anaerobic conditions, PCE is reductively dechlorinated to
TCE, which in turn may be dechlorinated to 1,2-dichloroethylene (cis-l,2-DCE, or trans-1,2-DCE),
followed sequentially by vinyl chloride (VC) and finally ethylene (Freedman and Gossett, 1989) or ethane
(Debruin et al. 1992). Further reductive dechlorination of DCE and VC to CO2 and complete
dechlorination of PCE to CO2 are possible under anaerobic conditions (Bradley and Chapelle, 1996;
Bradley and Chapelle, 1997; Bradley et al., 1998; Cabirol et al., 1998). However, complete
dechlorination of PCE is often not achieved due to slow dechlorination process of its reduced
intermediates, cis-1,2-DCE and VC, resulting the accumulation of these unfavorable intermediates in
anaerobic environments. The accumulation of cis-1,2-DCE and VC is of great concern because they are
known carcinogens. Such incomplete dechlorination is commonly observed in fields where reductive
dechlorination of PCE and TCE is taking place (McCarty, 1996).
Reductive dechlorination reactions can be carried out by anaerobic microorganisms via either
energy yielding or cometabolic processes. The energy-yielding process involves the use of chlorinated
solvents as terminal electron acceptors (sometimes referred to as dehalorespiration). Anaerobic cultures
that are capable of using PCE or TCE as terminal electron acceptors include the obligate anaerobes
Dehalospirillum multivorans (Scholz-Muramatsu et al., 1995), Dehalococcoides ethenogenes (Maymo-
Gattel et al., 1997), Desulfitobacterium sp. strain PCE1 (Gerritse et al ., 1996), Desulfitobacterium sp.
strain PCE-S (Miller et al., 1997; Miller et al., 1998), Desulfomonile tiedjei (Fathepure et al., 1987;
DeWeerd et al., 1990), Dehalobacter restrictus (Holliger and Schumacher, 1994; Holliger et al., 1998),
strain TT4B (Krumholz et al., 1996), and the facultative organism strain MS-1 (Sharma and McCarty,
1996). With the exception of Dehalococcoides ethenogenes which dechlorinates PCE to ethene, and
Desulfitobacterium sp. strain PCE1 which dechlorinates PCE to TCE, the end product of PCE
dechlorination for all described pure cultures is cis-1,2, DCE. The end products of reductive
dechlorination reactions vary depending on the physiological groups of bacteria involved. In acetogens,
methanogens, and some other anaerobic bacteria, reductive dechlorination is believed to be mediated by
metallocoenzymes like the cobalt containing vitamin B12 and related corrinoids, and by the nickel
containing cofactor F430. These metallocoenzymes are present as components of enzymes that catalyze
normal physiological pathways in several anaerobic bacteria, and fortuitously are able to reductively
appe.doc 2
-------
dechlorinate several chlorinated compounds. Acetogenic and methanogenic bacteria contain high levels
of these metallocoenzymes, the concentrations of which can be strongly dependent on growth substrates
(Deikert et al., 1981; Krzycki and Zeikus, 1980).
The presence of a suitable electron donor, such as hydrogen or reduced organic compounds
including hydrocarbons, natural organic matter, glucose, sucrose, propionate, benzoate, lactate, butyrate,
ethanol, methanol, and acetate have been reported serve as electron donors for reductive dechlorination
(Bouwer and McCarty, 1983; Carr and Hughes, 1998; DiStefano et al., 1992; Fennell and Gossett, 1997;
Freedman and Gossett, 1989; Gibson and Sewell, 1992; Holliger et al., 1993; Lee et al., 1997; Tandoi et
al., 1994). However, since the microbial populations differ from site to site and their responses to
substrates vary greatly, the addition of certain types of electron donors may or may not effectively
enhance reductive dechlorination processes. Both laboratory studies and field observations suggest that
the addition of electron donors for the enhancement of dechlorination can induce complex scenarios that
are a function of the subsurface conditions (Carr and Hughes, 1998; Fennell and Gossett, 1997) and the
indigenous microbial population (Gibson and Sewell, 1992). Although it is known that hydrogen serves
as the specific electron donor for reductive dechlorination (Holliger et al., 1993; Holliger and
Schumacher, 1994; Maymo-Gatell et al., 1995), different concentrations of hydrogen stimulate different
groups of anaerobic microbial populations which may or may not be responsible for dechlorination, and
may out compete the halorespirers, making the direct addition of hydrogen problematic. In fact, recent
research has indicated that dechlorinating bacteria possess lower half-velocity coefficients for H2
utilization than methanogens, suggesting that dechlorinating bacteria should out compete methanogens at
low H2 concentrations (Ballapragada et al., 1997; Smatlak et al., 1996). In short-term microcosm studies,
the addition of slow-release H2 donors butyrate and propionate was found to support complete
dechlorination as well as to enrich PCE-degrading bacteria (Fennell and Gossett, 1997). In contrast, the
addition of fast-release H2 donors ethanol, lactate, and acetate did not result in complete dechlorination.
However, both ethanol and lactate did support sustained dechlorination during long-term tests. In some
cases, the addition of acetate and methanol to laboratory microcosms with PCE contaminated soil did not
enhance dechlorination (Gibson and Sewell, 1992). Complex substrates such as molasses and yeast
extract have been shown to result in higher dechlorination levels than simple substrates (Lee et al, 1997;
Odem et al., 1995; Rasmussen et al., 1994). Apparently, the fate of amended electron donors and the
dynamic changes of microbial populations responsible for reductive dechlorination within soils are still
not well understood.
Aerobic Degradation of Chlorinated Solvents
Under aerobic conditions, microbial degradation of chlorinated solvents to non-toxic products can
occur by metabolic or cometabolic transformation reactions. DCE and VC have both been shown to be
aerobically degraded in energy-yielding reactions. Recently, several aerobic strains that are capable of
using VC as primary carbon and energy source have been isolated. These aerobic microorganisms
include Mycobacterium sp.(Hartmans and De Bont, 1992), Rhodococcus s/>.(Malachowsky et al., 1994),
Actinomycetales s/>.(Phelps et al., 1991), and Nitrosomonas sp. (Vanelli et al., 1990). It is suggested that
these VC-utilizers may not play significant roles in contaminated site remediation due to their long
doubling time.
While there have been no reports of aerobic cultures that can oxidize TCE for growth,
methanotrophs are one group of bacteria that can cometabolically oxidize chlorinated solvents such as
TCE, DCE, and VC to carbon dioxide and chloride ions. These organisms utilize methane as their
primary carbon and energy source and produce methane monooxygenase, a key enzyme that is involved
in the oxidation of methane. The same enzyme can also cometabolically oxidize chlorinated solvents.
Typically, the chloroethenes are initially oxidized to chloroethene epoxides, which in turn decompose into
various readily degradable chlorinated and non-chlorinated acids, alcohols or aldehydes, and carbon
monoxide (Oldenhuis et al., 1989; Strandberg et al., 1989; Tsien et al., 1989; Little et al., 1988; Alvarez-
Cohen and McCarty, 1991; Neuman and Wackett, 1991; Fox et al., 1990; Chang and Alvarez-Cohen,
1996). Anaerobic reductive dechlorination has also been shown to occur under bulk aerobic conditions
appe.doc 3
-------
dominated by aerobic co-metabolic biodegradation both in the field and in soil columns (Enzien et al.,
1994)
3.0 Scope
Launch Complex 34 at Cape Canaveral Air Station in Florida is the test site for the remediation
technology evaluation study. Separate testing plots will be established for each of the following three
remediation technologies:
1. Resistive Heating by Six-Phase Heating™
2. In-Situ Oxidation (ISCO)
3. Steam Inj ection (SI)
Soil core samples and groundwater samples at different depths (subsurface layers) from each plot will be
collected and analyzed by microbiology and molecular biology methods before and after remediation
treatment in order to determine the effect of the treatments on the indigenous microbial population.
4.0 Analytical Approach and Justification
Several different microbiology and molecular analysis will be conducted to evaluate the effect of the
remediation technologies used on the microbial community. The following analyses will be conducted:
• Total Heterotrophic Counts
• Viability Analysis
• Coliform and Legionella Analysis
• PLFA Analysis
• DNA Analysis
At this time, there are no fool-proof, broadly applicable methods for functionally characterizing
microbial communities. The combination of assays we propose will provide a broadly based
characterization of the microbial community by utilizing a crude phylogenetic characterization (PLFA),
DNA-based characterization of community components, and microscopic counts of viable (aerobic and
anaerobic) bacteria and total bacteria. We anticipate that this array of methods that we will help avoid
some of the common pitfalls of environmental microbiology studies generally (Madsen, 1998).
Heterotrophic Counts Analysis. The concentration of culturable bacteria in a subset of samples collected
from each plot at each event will be done using very low carbon availability media such as 0.1% PTYG or
dilute soil-extract media amended with citrate and formate. This has been found to give the best overall
recovery of subsurface bacteria (Balkwill, 1989). These viable counts can be done using either MPN or
plating techniques for both soil and water. These analyses can be done both under aerobic or anaerobic
conditions (Gas-Pak) to provide an estimate of changes in culturable bacteria. This analysis should be
used more as a check to verify changes in viable biomass changes, community shifts from anaerobic to
aerobic, and direct effects that these remediation technologies may have on the culturability of indigenous
appe.doc 4
-------
bacteria. These data will help determine if these more conventional microbiological analyses can be used
to monitor the effects of the remediation technologies in future applications.
Viability Analysis. In addition, the proportion of live and dead bacteria in these samples will be
determined using a fluorescence-based assay (Molecular Probes, LIVE/DEAD® 5acLight™ Viability
Kit). Since these technologies, especially the thermal ones, may kill bacteria it is important to determine
the proportion of the total bacteria observed are dead and how this proportion is changed by the
remediation technology being tested. Note: dead bacteria will still be visible by direct count, and thus
you could have a total count of 10 billion cells/ml and yet no biological activity because they are all dead.
Coliform andLegionella Analysis. Water samples, collected near the sewage outfall and a few, will be
analyzed for total coliforms. One-two liter samples will be collected specifically for this analysis.
Samples will be shipped to BMI on ice for inventory and sample management. Coliforms are the primary
indicator of human fecal contamination and thus the potential for presence of human pathogens. Since
the site has a long-term sewage outfall at the edge of the test beds and since this environment is generally
warm and contains high levels of nutrients it is possible that human pathogens may have survived and
may be stimulated by the remediation technologies being tested. The coliform analyses of groundwater
samples will verify it pathogens could be present. If initial screening indicates no coliforms than this
sampling can be dropped; however, if coliforms are present it may be necessary to expand this analysis to
determine the extent of their influence and the effect of that the remediation technology is having on
them. Legionellapneumophila is a frank human pathogen that causes legionnaires disease (an often fatal
pneumonia) that is found widely in the environment. It can become a problem in areas that are thermally
altered, eg. nuclear reactor cooling reservoirs, pools, cooling towers, air conditioners, etc. A preliminary
study done at SRS during a demonstration of radio frequency heating suggested that thermal alteration of
the vadose zone could increase the density of legionella in the sediment. Since there is a sewage outfall
nearby, since two of the remediation technologies are thermal, and since the remediation technologies are
extracting VOC from the subsurface it would be prudent to test the subsurface for changes in Legionella
pneumophila. This can be done by using commercially available DNA probes for Legionella
pneumophila and testing both the soil and groundwater samples being analyzed for nucleic acid probes.
This adds very little expense and can be done as part of that analyses, see below.
PLFA/FAME Analysis. Phospholipid ester-linked fatty acids (PLFA) and Fatty Acid Methyl Ester
(FAME) analysis can measure viable biomass, characterize the types of organisms, and determine the
physiological status of the microbial community. Aliquots of each sample (100 g soil and 1-2 L water)
will be shipped to frozen to EPA for analysis. The PLFA method is based on extraction and GC/MS
analysis of "signature" lipid biomarkers from the cell membranes and walls of microorganisms. A profile
of the fatty acids and other lipids is used to determine the characteristics of the microbial community.
Water will be filtered with organic free filters in the field and shipped to EPA frozen. The filter can be
used to extract both nucleic acids for probe analyses and lipids for PLFA/FAME analyses. Depending on
the biomass in the water 1-10 liters will need to be filtered for each sample.
DNA Analysis. DNA probe analysis allow examination of sediment and water samples directly for
community structure, and functional components by determining the frequency and abundance to certain
enzyme systems critical to biogeochemistry and biodegradation potential of that environment. Sediment
samples will be collected aseptically in sleeves and shipped frozen to EPA. These sediment samples will
than be extracted and the DNA analyzed for presence of certain probes for specific genetically elements.
Water samples will be filtered in the field to remove the microbiota and shipped frozen to EPA for
subsequent extraction and probing. The Universal probe 1390 and Bacterial domain probe 338 will help
quantify the DNA extracted from the samples. This information will be useful to determine the portion of
DNA that is of bacterial origin and the amount of DNA to be used in the analysis of specific bacterial
groups. Transformation of chlorinated ethenes by aerobic methylotrophic bacteria that use the methane
appe.doc 5
-------
monooxygenase enzyme has been reported (Little et al., 1988). Methanotrophs can be separated into
coherent phylogenetic clusters that share common physiological characteristics (Murrell, 1998) making
the use of 16S rRNA probe technology useful for studying their ecology. Therefore, this study will use
16S rRNA-targeted probes, Ser-987 and RuMP-998, to detect Type II and Type I methanotrophs,
respectively. Together, these probes will be used to monitor shifts in methanotroph population numbers
that may result from the application of the chemical oxidation technology. Reductive dechlorination of
chlorinated ethenes has also been reported under anaerobic conditions. Therefore, we propose the use of
archaea domain (Arch-915) and sulfate-reducing specific probes (Dsv-689) to assess microbial
communities involved in reductive dechlorination. The characterization of enzymes capable of reductive
dehalogenation such as the dehalogenase of Dehalospirillum multivorans (Neumann et al., 1995) or the
PCE reductive-dehalogenase of Dehalococcoides ethenogenes (Maymo-Gatell et al., 1999) provides
promise for future gene probe design. As these gene probes become available, they will be utilized for
this study. The detection ofLegionella has been improved using a combined approach of PCR primers
and oligonucleotide probe that target the 16S rRNA gene has been reported (Miyamoto et al., 1997;
Maiwald et al., 1998). These PCR primers and probes will be used in this study to assess the effects of
steam injection on members of this species. The following table provides the list of 16S rRNA-targeted
probes that we propose to use in this study.
Target
Probe/Primer
Name
Target site" Probe/Primer Sequence 5'-3'
Reference
Universal
Bacteria domain
Archeae domain
Desulfovibrio spp.
Type II Methanotrophs
Type I Methanotrophs
Legionella spp.
Legionella spp.
Legionella spp.
a Escherichia coli
numbering
S-*-Univ-1390-a-A-
18
S-D-Bact-0338-a-A-
18
S-D-Arch-0915-a-A-
20
S-F-Dsv-0687-a-A-
16
S-*-M.Ser-0987-a-
A-22
S-*-M.RuMP-0998-
a-A-20
Legionella CP2
Probe
Primer LEG 225
Primer LEG 858
1407-1390 GACGGGCGGTGTGTACAA
ooo 055
GCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT
915-934
GTGCTCCCCCGCCAATTCCT
687 70?
TACGGATTTCACTCCT
987-1008 CCATACCGGACATGTCAAAAGC
988-1007 GATTCTCTGGATGTCAAGGG
649-630 CAACCAGTATTATCTGACCG
225-244 AAGATTAGCCTGCGTCCGAT
oon 050
GTCAACTTATCGCGTTTGCT
Zheng et al.,
1996
Amann et al.,
1990a
Amann et al.,
1990b
Devereux et al.,
1992
Brusseau et al.,
1994
Brusseau et al.,
1994
Jonas et al.,
1995
Miyamoto et
al., 1997
Miyamoto et
al., 1997
In addition to hybridization of 16S rRNA gene probes hybridization to DNA extracted by a direct method,
we will also utilize the denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) described in Muyzer et al., 1996.
The DGGE method has been used to detect overall shifts in reductively dechlorinating microbial
communities (Flynn et al., 2000). If significant shifts are observed, the DNA bands will be sequenced to
analyzed the genetic diversity of the communities.
appe.doc 6
-------
5.0 Sample Collection, Transport, and Storage
In each test plot, soil samples of approximately 500-g each (250 g frozen for DNA/PLFA analysis; 250 g
ambient for microbial counts) will be collected using sterile brass core cylinders. Each clinder holds
approximately 250 g of soil. Sterilization of soil sample containers will involve detergent wash, water
wash, heating (100 C), and alcohol wash. Polyethylene caps will not be heated, just sterilized with
alcohol. Sterilization of drilling equipment will involve steam cleaning between samples.
Five borings per test plot will be used to collect aquifer samples at four depths (capillary fringe, upper
sand unit [USU], middle fine grained unit [MFGU], and lower sand unit [LSU]). In addition,
groundwater samples will be collected from two well clusters at three depths per plot (USU, MFGU, and
LSU). Control samples from an unaffected control area will be collected under the same sampling
regime. Soil controls will be collected from five locations, four depths each for consistency with
treatment plot samples. Similarly, groundwater controls will be collected from 2 well clusters, at 3 depths
each, if available.
Samples will be collected at four events for each technology/plot within two phases:
Phase 1 (June '99 - Sep '00)
T<0 month (pretreatment for SPH and OX)
T= 0 months (post treatment; SPH and OX)
T<0 month (pretreatment; SI)
Phase 2 (Sep '00-Sep '01)
T= 6 months (post-treatment; SPH, OX, and SI)
T= 12 months (post-treatment; SPH )
Tables 1 and 2 show the number of soil and groundwater samples involved. Table 3 shows the sampling
requirements for this evaluation. Immediately after soil samples are retrieved from the borings, the
collection cylinders will be tightly capped and sealed to minimize changes in environmental conditions,
primarily oxygen content, of the samples. This will subsequently minimize adverse effects to the
microbial population during sample transport. Samples for DNA/PLFA analysis will be frozen under
nitrogen and shipped via express mail. Samples for microbial counts will be shipped at ambient
temperature to an off-site lab designated by the IDC. Microbiology analysis will be conducted within 24
hours of sample collection. Approximately 5-10 g aliquots from each sample will be stored at <-60°C for
molecular analysis. The study will be conducted over the course of 1.5 years in which two of the three
remediation treatment methods will be demonstrated simultaneously.
Soil and groundwater sample from the region near the historical sewage outfall will be collected and
analyzed as shown in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, groundwater samples will include unfiltered groundwater (for microbial counts) and
filters (for DNA/PLFA analysis) from filtration of 1 to 4 L of groundwater. Anodisc™ filters will be
used and filtration apparatus will be autoclaved for 20 minutes between samples.
appe.doc 7
-------
Table 1. Overall Soil Sample Collection Requirement
Plot
(Remediation
Treatment)
Resistive
Heating3
ISCOb
Steam
Injection
Control
Baseline (T<0
for SPH and
OX)
Sewage
Outfall
"Event" or
Time
Points
(<0, 0, 6,
12 mo.)
3
3
4
4
1
1
Depths
(5, 15,
30,45
ft.)
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sampling
Locations
per Plot
5
5
5
5
3C
3
Total # Soil
Samples
Collected Per
Plot
80
80
80
80
12
12
Total # of Soil
Samples
Collected
344
a Fresh samples to be collected as baseline or T<0; shown in last row
b Fresh samples to be collected as baseline or T<0; shown in last row
c From undisturbed DNAPL area inside ESB
Table 2. Overall Groundwater Sample Collection Requirement
Plot
(Remediation
Treatment)
Resistive
Heating3
ISCOb
Steam
Injection
None (control)
Sewage
Outfall
"Event" or
Time
Points
(<0, 0, 6,
12 mo.
3
3
4
3
3
Depths
(5,30,45
ft.)
3
3
3
3
3
Sampling
Well
Clusters
per Plot
2
2
2
2
1
Total # of
groundwater
Samples
Collected Per
Plot
18
18
24
18
9
Total # of
Groundwater
Samples
Collected
87
appe.doc 8
-------
Table 3. Summary of Soil and Groundwater Sampling Requirements
Medium
Soil3
ISCC
Cont
Ground
-water4
Plot
Resisitive
Heating
Steam Injection
Baseline
•ol
Sewage Outfall
Resistive
Heating
ISCO
Steam Injection
Control
Sewage Outfall
Native Microbes Analysis
PLFA/DNA1
Freeze, store
Freeze, store
Freeze, store
Freeze, store
Freeze, store
Microbiaf
Ambient, 24 hrs
Ambient, 24 hrs
Ambient, 24 hrs
Ambient, 24 hrs
Ambient, 24 hrs
Locations
5 cores per plot, 4
depths
Inside ESB; 3
cores 4 depths
NA
Filters from 1-4 L
filtering, Freeze
Filters from 1-4 L
filtering, Freeze
Filters from 1-4 L
filtering, Freeze
Filters from 1-4 L
filtering, Freeze
NA
500 mL unfiltered in
Whirl-Pak, ambient
500 mL unfiltered in
Whirl-Pak, ambient
500 mL unfiltered in
Whirl-Pak, ambient
500 mL unfiltered in
Whirl-Pak, ambient
NA
Sample
2x250 g
2x250 g
2x250 g
2x250 g
2x250 g
PA-13S/D andPA-14S/D
BAT-2S/I/D and BAT-5S/I/D
PA-1 6S/I/D and PA-1 7S/I/D
IW-1I/D and PA-1 S/I/D
NA
Pathogens Analysis
Coliform/
Legionella
Locations
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3 cores near sewage outfall
at 4 depths each
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 L unfiltered
in Whirl-Pak
Sample
2x250 g
IW-17I/DandPA-15
Shaded and italicized text indicates new sampling and analysis scope that needs to be funded. Bold and italics indicates that the sampling is funded but the
analysis is not funded.
NA: Not applicable
1 DNA/PLFA: DNA/PLFA Analysis. Sleeves are frozen in Nitrogen before shipping.
2 Microbial: Total Heterotrophic Counts/Viability Analysis. Sleeves are shipped at ambient temperature for analysis within 24 hrs.
3 Soil samples will be collected in 6"-long 1.5"-dia brass sleeves, then capped. Brass sleeves need to be autoclaved and wiped with ethanol just before use. Caps
need to be wiped with ethanol prior to use.
4 3 to 4 liters of groundwater will be filtered and filters will be shipped for analysis. Filters for DNA analysis will be frozen under N2 before shipping.
Groundwater for microbial analysis will be shipped at ambient temperature for analysis within 24 hrs. Between samples, filtration apparatus needs to be autoclaved
for 20 minutes.
-------
References
Alvarez-Cohen, L., and P. L. McCarty. 1991. Effects of toxicity, aeration, and reductant supply on
trichloroethylene transformation by a mixed methanotrophic culture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
57:228-235.
Amann, R.I., B.J. Binder, R.J. Olson, S.W. Chisholm, R. Devereux, and D.A. Stahl. 1990a.
Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing
mixed microbial populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56:1919-1925.
Amann, R.I., L. Krumholz, and D.A. Stahl. 1990b. Fluorescent-oligonucleotide probing of whole
cells for determinative, phylogentic, and environmental studies in microbiology. J. Bacteriol.
172:762-770.
Ballapragada, B. S., H. D. Stensel, J. A. Puhakka, and J. F. Ferguson. 1997. Effect of hydrogen on
reductive dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes. Environ. Sci. Tech. 31:1728-1734.
Bouwer, E. J., and P. L. McCarty. 1983. Transformations of 1- and 2-carbon halogenated aliphatic
organic compounds under methanogenic conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 45:1286-1294.
Bradley, P. M., and F. H. Chapelle. 1996. Anaerobic mineralization of vinyl chloride in Fe(III)-
reducing, aquifer sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30:2084-2086.
Bradley, P. M., and F. H. Chapelle. 1997. Kinetics of DCE and VC mineralization under
methanogenic and Fe(III)-reducing conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31:2692-2696.
Bradley, P. M., F. H. Chapelle, and D. R. Lovley. 1998. Humic acids as electron acceptors for
anaerobic microbial oxidation of vinyl chloride and dichloroethene. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
64:3102-3105.
Brusseau, G.A., E.S. Bulygina, and R.S. Hanson. 1994. Phylogenetic analysis of methylotrophic
bacteria revealed distinct groups based upon metabolic pathways usage. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 60:626-636.
Cabirol, N., F. Jacob, J. Perrier, B. Gouillet, and P. Chambon. 1998. Complete degradation of high
concentrations of tetrachloroethylene by a methanogenic consortium in a fixed-bed reactor. J.
Biotech. 62: 133-141.
Carr, C. S., and J. B. Hughes. 1998. Enrichment of high-rate PCE dechlorination and comparative
study of lactate, methanol, and hydrogen as electron donors to sustain activity. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 32: 1817-1824.
Chang, H-L., and L. Alvarez-Cohen. 1996. The Biodegradation of Individual and Multiple
Chlorinated Aliphatics by Mixed and Pure Methane Oxidizing Cultures. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 62:3371-3377.
Debruin, W. P., M. J. Kotterman, M. A. Posthumus, D. Schraa and A. J. Zehnder. 1992. Complete
biological reductive transformation of tetrachloroethene to ethane. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58:
1996-2000.
Devereux, R., Kane, M. D., Winfrey, J., Stahl, D.A. 1992. Genus- and group-specific hybridization
probes for determinative and environmental studies of sulfate-reducing bacteria. System. Appl.
Microbiol. 15:601-609.
DeWeerd, K. A., L. Mandelco, S. Tanner, C. R. Woese, and J. M. Sulfita. 1990. Desulfomonile
tiedjei gen. nov. and sp. nov., a novel anaerobic, dehalogenating, sulfate-reducing bacterium.
Arch. Microbiol. 154:23-30.
Diekert, G., U. Konheiser, K. Piechulla, and R. K. Thauer. 1981. Nickel requirement and factor F43Q
content of methanogenic bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 148:459-464.
DiStefano, T. D., J. M. Gosset, and S. H. Zinder. 1991. Reductive dechlorination of high
concentrations of tetrachloroethene by an anaerobic enrichment culture in the absence of
methanogenesis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:2287-2292.
Enzien, M. V., F. Picardal, T. C. Hazen, R. G. Arnold, and C. B. Fliermans. 1994. Reductive
Dechlorination of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene under aerobic conditions in a
sediment c olumn. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60:2200-2205.
10
-------
Fathepure, B. Z., J. P. Nengu, and S. A. Boyd. 1987. Anaerobic bacteria that degrade
perchloroethene. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53:2671-2674.
Fennell, D. E., J. M. Gossett, and S. H. Zinder. 1997. Comparison of butyric acid, ethanol, lactic acid,
and propionic acid as hydrogen donors for the reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene.
Environ. Sci. Tech.. 31:918-926.
Flynn, S.J., F.E. Loffler, and J.M. Tiedje. 2000. Microbial community changes associated with a shift
from reductive dechlorination of PCE to reductive dechlorination of cis-DCE and VC
Trichloroethylene biodegradation by a methane-oxidizing bacterium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
54:951-956.
Fox, B. G., J. G. Borneman, L. P. Wackett, and J. D. Lipscomb. 1990. Haloalkane oxidation by
soluble methane monooxygenase from Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b-mechanistic and
environmental implications. Biochem. 29:6419-6427.
Freedman, D. L., and J. M. Gosset. 1989. Biological reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethylene
and trichloroethylene to ethylene under methanogenic conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
55:2144-2151.
Gerritse, J., V. Renard, T. M. Pedro Gomes, P. A. Lawson, M. D. Collins, and J. C. Gottschal. 1996.
Desulfitobacterium sp. strain PCE1, an anaerobic bacterium that that can grow by reductive
dechlorination of tetrachloroethane or ort/7o-chlorinated phenols. Arch. Microbiol. 165:132-140.
Gibson, S. A., and G. W. Sewell. 1992. Stimulation of reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene
in anaerobic aquifer microcosms by addition of short-chain organic acids or alcohols. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 58(4): 1392-1393.
Hartmans, S. and J. A. M. De Bont. 1992. Aerobic vinyl chloride metabolism inMycobacterium-
aurumLl. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 1220-1226.
Holliger, C., and W. Schumacher. 1994. Reductive dehalogenation as a respiratory process. Antonie
van Leeuwenhoek 66:239-246.
Holliger, C., D. Hahn, H. Harmsen, W. Ludwig, W. Schumacher, B. Tindal, F. Vasquez, N. Weiss,
and A. J. B. Zehnder. 1998. Dehalobacter restrictus gen. nov. and sp. nov., a strictly anaerobic
bacterium that reductively dechlorinates tetra- and trichloroethene in an anaerobic respiration.
Arch. Microbiol. 169:313-321.
Holliger, C., G. Schraa, A. J. M. Stams, and A. J. B. Zehnder. 1993. A highly purified enrichment
culture couples the reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethane to growth. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 59:2991-2997.
Krumholz, L. R., R. Sharp, and S. S. Fishbain. 1996. A freshwater anaerobe coupling acetate
oxidation to tetrachloroethylene dehalogenation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:4108-4113.
Krzycki, J., and J. G. Zeikus. 1980. Quantification of corrinoids in methanogenic bacteria. Curr.
Microbiol. 3:243-245.
Lee, M. D., G. E. Quinton, R. E. Beeman, A. A. Biehle, R. L. Liddle, et al. 1997. Scale-up issues for
in situ anaerobic tetrachloroethene bioremediation. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 18:106-115.
Little, C. D., A. V. Palumbo, S. E. Herbes, M. E. Lidstrom, R. L. Tyndall, and P. J. Gilmer. 1988.
Maiwald, M., J.H. Helbig, P.C. Luck. 1998. Laboratory methods for the diagnosis of Legionella
infections. J. Microbiol. Meth. 33:59-79.
Malachowsky, K. J., T. J. Phelps, A.B.Tebolic, D. E. Minnikin, and D.C. White. 1994. Aerobic
mineralization of trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and aromatic compounds by Rhodococcus
species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60: 542-548.
Maymo-Gatell, X., Y. Chien, J. M. Gossett, and S. H. Zinder. 1997. Isolation of a bacterium that
reductively dechlorinates tetrachloroethene to ethene. Science 276:1568-1571.
McCarty, P.L. 1996. Biotic and abiotic transformation of chlorinated solvents in ground water.
EPA/540/R-96/509. p5-9.
Miller, E., G. Wohlfarth, and G. Diekert. 1997. Comparative studies on tetrachloroethene reductive
dechlorination mediated by Desulfitobacterium sp. strain PCE-S. Arch. Microbiol. 168:513-519.
11
-------
Miller, E., G. Wohlfarth, and G. Diekert. 1998. Purification and characterization of the
tetrachloroethene reductive dehalogenase of strain PCE-S.Arch. Microbiol. 169:497-502.
Miyamoto, H., H. Yamamoto, K. Arima, J. Fujii, K. Maruta, K. Izu, T. Shiomori, and S. Yoshida.
1997. Development of a new seminested PCR method for detection of Legionella species and its
application to surveillance of Legionellae in hospital cooling tower water. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 63:2489-2494.
Murrell, J.C., I.R. McDonald, D.G. Bourne. 1998. Molecular methods for the study of methanotroph
ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 27:103-114.
Muyzer, G., S. Hottentrager, A. Teske and C. Wawer. 1996. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis
of PCR-amplified 16S rDNA- A new molecular approach to analyse the genetic diversity of
mixed microbial communities. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. 3.4.4:1-23.
Neuman, L. M., and L. P. Wackett. 1991. Fate of 2,2,2-trichloroacetaldehyde (chlora hydrate)
produced during trichloroethylene oxidation by methanotrophs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
57:2399-2402.
Neumann, A., G. Wohlfarth and G. Diekert, 1995. Properties of tetrachlorethene and trichloroethene
dehalgenase of Dehalospirillum multivorans. Arch. Microbiol. 163:276-281.
Odem, J. M., J. Tabinowaski, M. D. Lee, and B. Z. Fathepure. 1995. Anaerobic biodegradation of
chlorinated solvents: comparative laboratory study of aquifer microcosms. In eds., Hinchee, R.
E., A. Leeson, and L. Semprini, Bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, Third International In
Situ andOn-Site Bioreclamation Symp., Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 17-24.
Oldenhuis, R., J. Y. Oedzes, J. J. van der Waarde, and D. B. Janssen. 1991. Kinetics of chlorinated
hydrocarbon degradation by Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b and toxicity of trichloroethylene.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57: 7-14.
Phelps, T. J., K. Malachowsky, R. M. Schram, and D. C. White. 1991. Aerobic mineralization of
vinyl chloride by a bacterium of the order Actinomycetales. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57: 1252-
1254.
Rasmussen, G., S. J. Komisar, J. F. Ferguson. 1994. Transfomation of tetrachloroethene to ethene in
mixed methanogenic cultures: effect of electron donor, biomass levels, and inhibitors. In eds.,
Hinchee, R. E., A. Leeson, and L. Semprini, Bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, Third
International In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation Symp., Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp309-
313.
Scholtz-Muramatsu, H., A. Neumann, M. MeBmer, E. Moore, and G. Diekert. 1995. Isolation and
characterization of Dehalospirillum multivorans gen. nov. sp. nov., a tetrachloroethene-utilizing,
strictly anaerobic bacterium. Arch. Microbiol. 163:48-56.
Sharma, P. K. and P. L. McCarty. 1996. Isolation and characterization of a facultatively aerobic
bacterium that reductively dehalogenates tetrachloroethene to cis-l,2-dichloroethene. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 62: 761-765.
Smatlak, C. R., J. M. Gossett, and S. H. Zinder. 1996. Comparative kinetics of hydrogen utilization
for reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene and methanogenesis in an anaerobic enrichment
culture. Environ. Sci. Tech.. 30:2850-2858.
Strandberg, G. W., T. L. Donaldson, and L. L. Farr. 1989. Degradation of trichloroethylene and trans-
1,2-dichloroethylene by a methanotrophic consortium in a fixed-film, packed-bed bioreactor.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 28:973-979.
Tandoi, V., T. D. DiStefano, P. A. Bower, J. M. Gossett. and S. H. Zinder. 1994. Reductive
dechlorination of chlorianted ethenes and halogenated ethanes by a high-rate anaerobic
enrichment culture. Environ. Sci. Tech.. 28:973-979.
Tsien, H-,C., G. A. Brusseau, R. S. Hanson, and L. P. Wackett. 1989. Biodegradation of
trichloroethylene by Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b.Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:3155-3161.
Vanelli, T., M. Logan, D. M. Arciero, and A. B. Hooper. 1990. Degradation of halogenated
alophatic compounds by the ammonia-oxidizing bacterium Nitrosomonas euriopaea. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 56:1169-1171.
12
-------
Vogel, T. M., C. S. Criddle, and P. L. McCarty. 1987. Transformation of halogenated compounds.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:722-736.
Zheng, D., L. Raskin, E.W. Aim, and D.A. Stahl. 1996. Characterization of universal small-subunit
rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide hybridization probes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:4504-4513.
13
-------
E.2 Microbiological Evaluation Sampling Procedures
Work Plan for Biological Soil and Groundwater Sampling and Procedure
Battelle
January 4, 2001
Soil Sampling
Soil samples are collected at four discrete depths in the subsurface with a 2-inch diameter sample
barrel containing sample sleeves. Once the sample is retrieved, the sleeves are removed from the
sample barrel, capped at both ends, and preserved accordingly. The sleeves are then transported to
off-site analytical laboratories for analyses. Field personnel should change their gloves after each
sample to prevent cross-contamination. The details of the sampling are provided below:
Samplers The Mostap™ is 20-inch long with a 1.5-inch diameter and the Macro-core™ sampler is
about 33-inch long with a 2-inch diameter. Sleeves (brass or stainless steel) are placed in a sample
sampler (Macro-core™ or Mostap™). Brass sleeves with 1.5-inch diameter and 6-inch long are used
for a Cone-Penetrometer (CPT) rig from U.S. EPA. Stainless steel sleeves with 2-inch diameter and
6-inch long are used with a rig from a contracted drilling company rig.
For Mostap™, three of these brass sleeves and one spacer will be placed in the
sampler. For the Macro- Core™ sampler, five 6-inch long stainless sleeves and one
spacer are required. All sleeves and spacers need to be sterilized and the
procedure is as follows.
Procedures: sampling preparation procedures are as follows:
1. Preparation for sterilization:
• Dip sleeves in an isopropyl alcohol bath to clean surface inside and outside
• Air-dry the sleeves at ambient temperature until they are dried
• Wrap up the sleeves with aluminum foil
• Place the aluminum foil-wrapped sleeves in an autoclavable bag and keep the bag in a
heat-resistant plastic container
• Place the container in an autoclave for 30 minutes at about 140 °C
• Once the autoclaving is completed, let the sleeves sit until the materials are cool, and then
pack and ship to the field site.
2. In the field, drive the sample barrel down to four different depths: approximately 8 (capillary
fringe), 15 (USU below water table), 23 (MFGU), and 45 (LSU) ft below ground surface (bgs).
Once the sample barrel is withdrawn, the sleeves are extruded from the sample barrel. Each
sleeve immediately capped with plastic end caps that have been previously wiped with isopropyl
alcohol. After capping, clear labeling of the sleeve is required including sample site, sample ID,
actual depth of the sample, collection date and time, percentage of recovery in each sleeve, and
markings for top and bottom of the sample sleeves.
14
-------
Sample Preservation: one of the sleeves is kept at ambient temperature. At least, two of the
sleeves need to be frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately then stored in a freezer at temperature
below freezing point.
Off-site Laboratories: The sample sleeve at ambient temperature is to be shipped off to Florida
State University for analyses of live/dead stain test and aerobic and anaerobic heterotrophic
counting. The frozen samples are shipped off to EPA Ada Laboratory, an off-site laboratory for
DNA and Phospholipids Fatty Acid Analyses (PLFA).
3. Decontamination Procedure: after the samples are extruded, the sample barrel used to collect the
soil samples needs to be disassembled and cleaned in Alconox® detergent mixed water. The
sample barrel is then rinsed with tap water, followed by de-ionized (DI) water. The sample barrel
is air-dried and rinsed with isopropyl alcohol before the next sampling.
Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater sampling involves collection of groundwater from performance monitoring wells using
a peristaltic pump and Teflon® tubing. During the groundwater sampling, unfiltered water samples
will be collected. Large volume of groundwater will be filtered through in-line filtration unit and the
filter will be retrieved and this filter will be preserved necessarily.
1. Preparation for Sterlization
• Dip in-line filter holders in an alcohol bath and air-dry
• Wrap each filter unit up in aluminum foil
• Place them in an autoclavable bag and keep the bag in a heat resistant container
• Autoclave the container with filters for 30 minutes at 140°C
• Once the autoclaving is completed, let the sleeves sit until the materials are cool, and then
pack and ship to the field site.
2. Materials and Equipments: Non-carbon Anodisc® 0.2 (im pore size supported filters,
filtration equipment, a low-flow pump, Teflon tubing and Viton® tubing and a vacuum (or
pressure) pump.
The dimensions of the Anodisc® filters are 0.2 micron pore size and 47-mm diameter. The
filters are pre-sterilized by the manufacturer. Each filter is carefully placed inside a filter
holder case. A forcep is used to place a filter in either an in-line polycarbon filter holder
or in an off-line filter holder. The filter is very brittle and should be handled delicately.
3. Filter samples by using an in-line filter holder: An Anodisc® filter is wetted with D.I. water
and placed on the influent end of the filter holder. A rubber o-ring is gently placed on the
filter holder. The filter holder is connected to the effluent end of the peristaltic pump with
Teflon® tubing and approximately one liter of groundwater is filtered through it. The filter is
retrieved from the filter holder carefully with forceps and placed in a Whirl-Pak®. The
filter, along with the bag, is deep frozen under liquid nitrogen and stored in a freezer until
shipping.
4. Filter Samples by using an filtration unit: To use this filtration device, a vacuum or pressure
pump is required to pull or push the water through. Influent water from a low-flow peristaltic
pump goes into a funnel-shaped water container. The filter will be retrieved after water
15
-------
filtration and the filtrated water can be disposed. The filter is frozen immediately in liquid
nitrogen and stored then kept in a freezer.
5. Unfiltered Groundwater Samples: unfiltered groundwater samples are collected into each
500-mLWhirl-Pak® bag. This water sample is kept at ambient temperature.
6. Labeling includes sample ID, same date and time, and site ID on the Whirl-Pak® after the
sample is placed with a permanent marker.
7. Sterilization of the filter holders may be done as follows:
• Clean forceps and filter holder in warm detergent mixed water, then rinse with isopropyl
alcohol and air-dry at room temperature.
• The cleaned forceps and filter holders are wrapped in aluminum foil and taped with a piece of
autoclave tape that indicates when the autoclaving is completed.
• These items are then placed in an autoclavable bag and the bag is placed in an autoclave for
about 30 minutes at 140 °C. After taking them out of the autoclave, the items sit until cool.
8. Off-site laboratories: The unfiltered water samples are shipped off to Florida State
University for aerobic and anaerobic heterotrophic count tests and viability analysis
at ambient temperature within 24 hours. The filter samples are shipped off in dry-ice
condition to EPA Ada Lab for DNA, PLFA, and Legionella analyses.
Sample Locations
Soil Sampling
Five biological sampling locations will be located in each of three plots in January 2001. One
duplicate samples will be collected from one of the five boring locations in each plot (Figure 1). At
each location, soil samples will be collected at four depths (Capillary fringe, USU, MFGU and LSU).
Soil sampling procedures are described in previous sections. Summary of the biological soil
sampling is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Biological Soil Sampling in January-February 2001
Plot
Steam Injection
ISCO
Control
SPH*
Event
Pre-Demo (T<0)
6 Months After (T=6)
-
Post-Demo (T=0)
Number of Coring
5
5
5
5
Total Number of
Samples
20 + 1 (Dup)
20 + 1 (Dup)
20
20 + 1 (Dup)
* In February along with chemical coring in ISCO plot.
Groundwater Sampling
Biological groundwater samples will be collected from wells within the Steam Injection plot, the
ISCO plot, and the resistive heating plot in January 2001 in conjunction with the biological soil
16
-------
sampling. Groundwater sampling will be completed as described previously. One QA groundwater
sample will be completed at a random well location. Table 2 summarizes the performance
monitoring wells (Figure 1) to be sampled.
Table 2. Biological Groundwater Sampling in January-February 2001
Plot
Steam Injection
ISCO
Resistive Heating
Control
QA
Event
Pre-Demo (T<0)
6 Months After (T=6)
Post-Demo (T=0)
-
-
Well ID
PA-16S/I/D
PA-17S/I/D
BAT-2S/I/D
BAT-5S/I/D
PA-13S/D
PA-14S/D
PA-18S/I/D
random
Total Number of
Samples
6
6
4
3
1
17
-------
AMBC-014
PA-5
*A MS- (06
MB-006
MB-206
A; X\/
PA-12
PA-9
%
'«
Explanation:
Baseline Biological Sampling
A Biological Control Sampling Location
A Biological Sampling Location
[MB-Oxx (pre-dcmo). MB-1 xx (post-demo).
MB-2xx (extended monitoring)]
+ 2" Diameter - Deep Wells
• Wdl Location Testplot
S StltttOW —m
I Intermediate Q 25
D Deep I
Boundaries
SO
FEET -M»
Figure 2. Map of Biological Sampling Location at LC34
18
-------
E.3 Microbiological Evaluation Results
Some results of the microbiological evaluation described in Appendix E.I are contained in Tables
E-l and E-2. Only the soil and groundwater samples collected for microbial counts analysis have
been analyzed. The samples collected for DNA probes analysis were frozen under nitrogen and
shipped to the U.S. EPA's R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center and are awaiting analysis.
Table E-l describes the microbial counts analysis of soil samples that represent predemonstration
(baseline or T<0) and postdemonstration (Treated, T=0) conditions in the ISCO plot. The results
of an extended monitoring event (Treated, T=6) conducted 6 months after the end of oxidation
treatment in the plot are also listed. The control samples (control, untreated) are samples collected
from an unaffected (TCE contaminated, but not in the oxidation zone) portion of the Launch
Complex 34 aquifer; these control samples were collected at the same time as the
postdemonstration (T=0) sampling event. Table E-2 lists similar results for groundwater samples.
Because of the large variability in the data, only a few general trends were identified. As seen in
Table E-l, both aerobic and anaerobic plate counts in the soil were lower in the treated soil (T=0)
compared to the untreated (baseline) soil or control samples. In some regions, microbial
populations appear to have been eliminated completely. This indicates that oxidation diminishes
the microbial populations in the short term. The differences in surviving population numbers in
different parts of the plot are probably indicative of the differential distribution of the oxidant.
However, six months later, the microbial populations reappeared strongly in both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
As seen in Table E-2, the groundwater analysis shows similar trends. Aerobic and anaerobic
counts in the groundwater were diminished by the oxidation treatment, but rebounded within six
months.
This indicates that the chemical oxidation application reduces microbial populations in the short-
term, but the populations rebound within a six-month period. Rebound in microbial populations
is important because of the reliance on natural attenuation to address any residual contamination
in the aquifer, following chemical oxidation treatment.
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples
Sample ID
Top
Depth
ftbgs
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
CFU/g* or MPN/g
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
BacLight
Counts/ Live
dead stain
%live/%dead
Soil Core Samples
Baseline Samples (August 2000)
BB1-A
BB1-A
BB2-A
BB3-A
BB3-A
BB-1-7.0
BB-1-14.0
BB-1-24.0
BB-1-44.0
BB-2'-7.0
BB-2-7.0
BB-2-16.5
BB-2-23.0
BB-2-24.0
BB-2-44.0
BB-3-7.0
BB-3-14.0
BB-3-24.0
BB-3-44.0
7
15.5
7
9
15
6.5
13.5
23.5
43.5
6.5
6.5
16.0
22.5
23.5
43.5
6.5
13.5
23.5
43.5
9
17
9
11
17
7.0
14.0
24.0
44.0
7.0
7.0
16.5
23.0
24.0
44.0
7.0
14.0
24.0
44.0
15,849
<3 16.23
19,953
12,589
<3 16.23
79,432.8
<316.2
199.5
<316.2
19,952.6
31,622.8
2,511.9
1,584,893.2
<316.2
<316.2
199,526.2
6,309.6
631.0
25,118.9
7,943
158
31,623
3,162
<1.78
1,584,893.2
631.0
1,584.9
316.2
19,952.6
10,000.0
3,162.3
1,258,925.4
No Growth
251.2
158,489.3
50,118.7
501.2
63,095.7
59/41
25/75
70/30
39/61
28/72
40/60
32/68
28/72
82/18
43/57
27/73
15/85
24/76
10/90
92/08
99/01
84/16
100/0
56/44
Control Samples, Untreated (June 2000 except MBC014 in January 2001)
MBC011-A-1
MBC011-A-2
MBC011-A-3
MBC011-A-4
MBC012-A-1
MBC012-A-3
MBC012-A-4
MBC013-A-1
MBC013-A-2
MBC013-A-3
MBC013-A-4
MBC014
MBC014
MBC014
MBC014
MBC015-A-1
MBC015-A-3
6
15
30
40
6
30
40
6
15
30
40
7
16
31
41
6
35
7.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
36.5
1,584,893
501,187
15,849
316,228
25,119
125,893
1,585
125,893
1,259
501
7,943
63,095.73
100,000.00
39,810.72
7,943.28
3,981
316
1,584,893
794,328
7,943
63,096
50,119
6,310
794
19,953
2,512
794
5,012
79,432.82
316,227.77
79,432.82
25,118.86
5,012
251
77/23
79/26
75/25
26/74
43/57
48/52
59/41
50/50
61/39
44/56
18/82
47/53
43/57
55/45
50/50
53/47
41/59
ISCO Plot, Treated T=l month (June 2000)
MB06-A-1
MB06-A-2
MB06-A-3
6
15
30
7.5
16.5
31.5
6,309,573
7,943
7,943
1,584,893
6,310
31,623
40/60
60/40
43/57
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Final SPH\Appendices\Tables E-1S2.xls
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples (Continued)
Sample ID
MB06-A-4
MB07-A-1
MB07-A-3
MB07-A-4
MB07-A-5
MB08-A-1
MB08-A-2
MB08-A-3
MB08-A-4
MB09-A-2
MB09-A-3
MB09-A-4
MB10-A-1
MB10-A-3
MB10-A-4
Top
Depth
ftbgs
40
6
17
30
40
6
26
30
40
15
30
40
6
30
40
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
41.5
7.5
18.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
31.5
41.5
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
CFU/g* or MPN/g
199,526
7,943,282
<3 16.23
1,584,893
7,943,282
100,000,000
<316.23
<316.23
7,943
<316.23
398,107
199,526
3,162,278
1,259
199,526
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
501,187
>1,584,893.19
<1.78
1,584,893
>1,584,893.19
1,584,893
<1.78
<1.78
1,259
<1.78
1,584,893
501,187
1,584,893
5,012
1,584,893
BacLight
Counts/ Live
dead stain
%live/%dead
33/67
66/34
10/90
37/63
24/76
61/39
51/49
42/58
56/44
49/51
34/66
80/20
46/54
45/55
55/45
ISCOPlot, Treated T=9 months (January 2001)
MB-106A
MB-106B
MB-106C
MB-106D
MB-107A
MB-107B
MB-107C
MB-107D
MB-108A
MB-108B
MB-108C
MB-108D
MB-109A
MB-109B
MB-109C
MB-109D
MB-109E
MB-110A
MB-110B
MB-110C
MB-110D
10
16
31
41
7
17.5
31
41
6
15
30
40
8
16
31
33
41
10
16
30
41
10.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
18
31.5
41.5
6.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
8.5
16.5
31.5
33.5
41.5
10.5
16.5
30.5
41.5
3,162,277.66
1,995,262.31
1,258,925.41
316,227.77
6,309,573.44
7,943,282.35
630,957.34
794,328.23
63,095.73
501,187.23
398,107.17
19,952.62
63,095,734.45
398,107.17
125,892.54
630,957.34
25,118.86
19,952.62
7,943.28
15,848.93
158,489.32
12,589,254.12
5,011,872.34
3,162,277.66
1,000,000.00
7,943,282.35
19,952,623.15
316,227.77
3,981,071.71
316,227.77
1,584,893.19
1,584,893.19
50,118.72
>3 1,622,776.60
501,187.23
251,188.64
1,584,893.19
501,187.23
251,188.64
199,526.23
7,943.28
125,892.54
75/25
100/0
97/03
100/0
80/20
39/61
92/08
76/24
74/26
96/04
100/0
100/0
86/14
91/09
84/16
88/12
96/04
79/21
74/26
82/18
84/16
ISCOPlot, Treated T= 13 months (May 2001)
MB-206
MB-206
MB-206
MB-206
MB-207
7
15
30
40
6
7.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
6.5
100,000
1,584,893
316,228
63,096
3,981,072
316,228
1,584,893
501,187
501,187
12,589,254
86/14
100/0
89/11
76/24
96/04
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Final SPH\Appendices\Tables E-1S2.xls
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples (Continued)
Sample ID
MB-207
MB-207
MB-207
MB-207
MB-208
MB-208
MB-208
MB-208
MB-209
MB-209
MB-209
MB-209
MB-210
MB-210
MB-210
MB-210
MB-210
Top
Depth
ftbgs
15
30
40
43
6
17
30
40
9
15
30
40
6
8
15
30
40.5
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
15.5
30.5
40.5
43.5
6.5
17.5
30.5
40.5
9.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
6.5
8.5
15.5
30.5
41
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
CFU/g* or MPN/g
39,811
1,000,000
50,119
19,953
3,162,278
794,328
63,096
125,893
15,849
3,162,278
251,189
630,957
1,995,262
630,957
199,526
3,162
19,953
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
251,189
1,995,262
100,000
1,584,893
7,943,282
1,000,000
251,189
31,623
10,000
3,981,072
1,584,893
316,228
6,309,573
1,995,262
1,000,000
2,512
25,119
BacLight
Counts/ Live
dead stain
%live/%dead
98/02
88/12
100/0
100/0
29/71
91/09
97/03
98/02
97/03
95/05
93/07
89/11
100/0
98/02
100/0
95/05
88/12
bgs: Below ground surface.
*CFU: Colony-forming units (roughly, number of culturable cells).
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Final SPH\Appendices\Tables E-1S2.xls
-------
Table E-2. Results of Microbial Counts Groundwater Samples
Sample ID
Aerobic
Plate Counts
CFU/mL*
Anaerobic
Viable Counts
Cells/mL
BacLight
Counts
%live/%dead
Groundwater Samples
Control Samples, Untreated, Distant Wells (June 2000)
IW-1I
IW-1D
PA- IS
PA-1I
PA- ID
79,433
5,012
15,849
501,187
39,811
>1,584,893.19
15,849
158,489
>1,584,893.19
1,584,893
31/69
35/65
50/50
31/69
31/69
ISCOPlot Wells, Treated, T= 1 month (January 2001)
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
<31.62
39,811
630,957
12,589
32
39,811
25
100,000
1,584,893
1,584,893
25
31,623
50/50
13/87
60/40
25/75
75/25
24/76
ISCOPlot Wells, Treated, T=9 months (January 2001)
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
<31.7
125,893
6,310
125,893
158,489
2,512
<1.78
1,584,893.19
50,118.72
1,995,262.31
3,981,071.71
12,589.25
48/52
51/49
35/65
25/75
36/64
43/57
ISCOPlot Wells, Treated, T=13 months (April 2001)
BAT-2S
BAT-2I
BAT-2D
BAT-2D-Dup
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
<31.7
125,893
63,096
19,953
39,811
12,589
251
<1.78
79,433
158,489
25,119
25,119
50,119
126
83/17
44/56
44/56
45/55
81/19
90/10
96/04
*CFU: Colony-forming units (roughly, number of culturable cells).
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Final OX\Appendices\Appendix EYTables E-1S2.xls
-------
Appendix F
Surface Emissions Testing
F.1 Surface Emission Test Methodology
F.2 Surface Emission Test Results
-------
F.I Surface Emissions Testing Methods and Procedures
One of the concerns about the technology as a means of soil and groundwater remediation was
the possibility of transferring chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) to the atmosphere
through the ground surface or injection and monitoring wells. Emissions testing was performed
to obtain a qualitative picture of VOC losses to the atmosphere from a mass balance perspective.
Trying to quantify these discharges to the atmosphere went well beyond the resources of this
study. The sampling and analytical methodologies for the emissions tests are presented in the
following subsections.
F.I.I Dynamic Surface Emissions Sampling Methodology
A dynamic surface emissions sampling method was used at the LC34 site. This method involves
enclosing an area of soil under an inert box designed to allow the purging of the enclosure with
high-purity air (Dupont, 1987). The box was purged with high-purity air for two hours to remove
any ambient air from the region above the soil and to allow equilibrium to be established between
the VOCs emitted from the soil and the organic-free air. The airstream was then sampled by
drawing a known volume of the VOC/pure air mixture through a 1-L Summa canister. The
Summa canister captured any organics associated with surface emissions from the test plot. The
Summa canisters were then shipped to the off-site laboratory with a completed chain-of—custody
form. The Summa canisters were then connected to an air sampler that was attached to a GC,
which is where the concentrations of organics were quantified. These measured concentrations
were used to calculate emission rates for the VOCs from the soil to the atmosphere.
A schematic diagram of the surface emissions sampling system is shown as Figure F-l. The
system consists of a stainless steel box that covers a surface area of approximately 0.5 m2. The
box was fitted with inlet and outlet ports for the entry and exit of high-purity air, which is
supplied via a gas cylinder. Inside the box was a manifold that delivered the air supply uniformly
across the soil surface. The same type of manifold was also fitted to the exit port of the box. The
configuration was designed to deliver an even flow of air across the entire soil surface under the
box so that a representative sample was generated. To collect the sample, the air exiting the box
was pulled by vacuum into the Summa canister.
In all testing cases, a totally inert system was employed. Teflon™ tubing and stainless steel
fittings were used to ensure that there was no contribution to or removal of organics from the air
stream. The Summa canister was located on the backside of the emissions box so that it would
not be in a position to reverse the flow of air inside the box.
F.1.2 Sampling Schedule
Three surface emissions sampling locations were selected around the resistive heating plot during
the technology demonstration. The emissions box was placed strategically between two soil
vapor extraction wells. The locations of the emissions sampling were chosen because this area
had the highest probability of surface emissions during operations. The proposed testing occurred
in the third, sixth, and ninth week of operations; these weeks were chosen because by then any
vapor generated by the injection technology would be formed.
-------
Flow Meter
High-Grade
Compressed
Air
Tubing-
l-LSumma®
Canister
Box
Exhaust
Stainless
Steel Box-
Air
SURFACE EMISSIONSSAMPLING01.CDR
Figure F-l. Schematic Diagram of the Surface Emissions Sampling System
F.1.3 Analytical Calculations
The complete analytical results from the surface emissions sampling at LC34 are presented in this
final report. The data is represented temporally, reflecting the three sampling events at the site.
Flux values in |o,g of compound emitted into the atmosphere per unit of time were calculated. The
results from the analysis of the Summa canisters and ambient air samples are presented in the
final report. The ambient air samples were collected as reference concentrations of the emission
levels to the existing air quality. GC calibration data is presented to verify the precision and
accuracy of the sampling/analytical method.
To calculate actual emission rates of organic compounds from the soil surface into the
atmosphere, the following equation for dynamic enclosure techniques was used (McVeety, 1991):
F = CVr/S
where: F = flux in mass-area/time (jog m2/min)
C = the concentration of gas in units of mass/volume (|o,g/m3)
Vr = volumetric flowrate of sweep gas (mVmin)
S = soil surface covered by the enclosure (m2).
(F-l)
-------
Table F-l. Surface Emission Test Results
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Oxidation Plot
OX-SE-1
OX-SE-2
OX-SE-3
OX-SE-4
OX-SE-5
OX-SE-6
OX-SE-7
OX-SE-8
OX-SE-9
OX-SE-10
OX-SE-1 1
OX-SE-12
OX-SE-2 1
OX-SE-22
OX-SE-23
9/30/99
9/30/99
10/1/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
1/17/00
1/17/00
1/17/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
8/29/00
8/29/00
8/30/00
1.6
2.4
3.4
0.68
1.1
1.4
11
7.6
5.8
2.6
0.69
1.7
16
130
180
Background
DW-SE-1
DW-SE-2
DW-SE-3
DW-SE-4
DW-SE-5
DW-SE-6
DW-SE-7
DW-SE-8
10/1/99
10/8/99
10/25/99
10/22/99
1/17/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
<0.42
<0.44
0.44
6,000b
<0.38
0.43
0.86
0.79
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
SPH Plot
SPH-SE-1
SPH-SE-2
SPH-SE-3
SPH-SE-4
SPH-SE-5
SPH-SE-6
SPH-SE-7
SPH-SE-8
SPH-SE-9
SPH-SE-10
SPH-SE-1 1
SPH-SE-12
SPH-SE-13
NA
NA
10/8/99
10/8/99
10/8/99
10/22/99
10/22/99
10/22/99
1/18/00
1/18/00
1/18/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
NA
NA
2.1
3.6
2
13,000
12,000
13,000
23
78
35
0.93
0.67
O.37
1,300
NA
NA
Ambient Air at Shoulder Level
SPH-SE-14
SPH-SE-15
SPH-SE-C27
DW-C1
DW-C2
DW-C3
NA
NA
5/9/00
5/9/00
9/1/00
4/11/00
5/9/00
5/9/00
NA
NA
O.393
<0.39a
0.88
2.1C
O.39
0.39
NA
NA
ppb (v/v): parts per billion by volume.
a. SPH-SE-14/15 samples were collected at an ambient elevation east and west edge of the SPH plot w/o
using an air collection box.
b Background sample (10/22/99) was taken immediately after SPH-SE-6 sample (the last sample for this event),
which had an unexpectedly high concentration of 13,000 ppbv. This may indicate condensation of TCE
in the emissions collection box at levels that could not be removed by the standard decontamination procedure
of purging the box with air for two hours. In subsequent events (1/17/2000 background), special additional
decontamination steps were taken to minimize carryover.
0 This sample was collected by holding a Summa canister at shoulder level collecting an ambient
air sample to evaluate local background air.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Draft Final OX\DraftFinalOX3.xls
-------
Appendix G
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
-------
Appendix G.I Investigating VOC Losses During Postdemonstration Soil Core Recovery
and Soil Sampling
Field procedures for collecting soil cores and soil samples from the steam injection plot
were modified in an effort to minimize VOC losses that can occur when sampling soil at elevated
temperatures (Battelle, 2001). The primary modifications included: (1) additional personnel
safety equipment, such as thermal-insulated gloves for core handling; (2) the addition of a cooling
period to bring the soil cores to approximately 20°C before collecting samples; and (3) capping
the core ends while the cores were cooling. Concerns were raised about the possibility that
increased handling times during soil coring, soil cooling, and sample collection may result in an
increase in VOC losses. An experiment was conducted using soil samples spiked with a surrogate
compound to investigate the effectiveness of the field procedures developed for LC34 in
minimizing VOC losses.
Materials and Methods
Soil cores were collected in a 2-inch diameter, 4-foot long acetate sleeve that was placed
tightly inside a 2-inch diameter stainless steel core barrel. The acetate sleeve was immediately
capped on both ends with a protective polymer covering. The sleeve was placed in an ice bath to
cool the heated core to below ambient groundwater temperatures (approximately 20°C). The
temperature of the soil core was monitored during the cooling process with a meat thermometer
that was pushed into one end cap (see Figure G-l). Approximately 30 minutes was required to
cool each 4-foot long, 2-inch diameter soil core from 50-95°C to below 20°C (see Figure G-2).
Upon reaching ambient temperature, the core sleeve was then uncapped and cut open along its
length to collect the soil sample for contaminant analysis (see Figure G-3).
FIGURE G-l. A soil core capped and
cooling in an ice bath. The
thermometer is visible in the end cap.
Determining the Approximate Cooling
Time Required for Soil Cores at Bevated
Temperatures
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (minutes)
FIGURE G-2 Determining the length of
time required to cool a soil core.
-------
FIGURE G-3. A soil sample being collected from along the length of the core
into a bottle Tcontaining methanol.
Soil samples were collected in relatively large quantities (approximately 200 g) along the entire
length of the core rather than sampling small aliquots of the soil within the core, as required by
the conventional method (EPA SW5035). This modification is advantageous because the resultant
data provide an understanding of the continuous VOC distribution with depth. VOC losses
during sampling were further minimized by placing the recovered soil samples directly into
bottles containing methanol (approximately 250 mL) and extracting them on site. The extracted
methanol was centrifuged and sent to an off-site laboratory for VOC analysis. The soil sampling
and extraction strategy is described in more detail in Gavaskar et al. (2000).
To evaluate the efficiency of the sampling method in recovering VOCs, hot soil cores were
extracted from 14 through 24 feet below ground surface and spiked with a surrogate compound,
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA). The surrogate was added to the intact soil core by using a 6"
needle to inject 25 joL of surrogate into each end of the core for atotal of 50 |o,L of 1,1,1-TCA. In
order to evaluate the effect of the cooling period on VOC loss, three soil cores were spiked with
TCA prior to cooling in the ice bath and three cores were spiked with TCA after cooling in the ice
bath. In the pre-cooling test, the surrogate was injected as described above and the core barrels
were subsequently capped and placed in the ice bath for the 30 minutes of cooling time required
to bring the soil core to below 20°C. A thermometer was inserted through the cap to monitor the
temperature of the soil core.
In the post-cooling test, the soil cores were injected with TCA after the soil core had been cooled
in the ice bath to below 20°C. After cooling, the caps on the core barrel were removed and the
surrogate compound was injected in the same manner, 25 |oL per each end of the core barrel using
a 6" syringe. The core was recapped and allowed to equilibrate for a few minutes before it was
opened and samples were collected. Only for the purpose of the surrogate recovery tests, the
entire contents of the sampling sleeve were collected and extracted on site with methanol. The
soil:methanol ratio was kept approximately the same as during the regular soil sample collection
and extraction. Several (four) aliquots of soil and several (four) bottles of methanol were required
to extract the entire contents of the sample sleeve.
-------
Two different capping methods were used during this experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of
each cap type. Two of the soil cores were capped using flexible polymer sheets attached to the
sleeve with rubber bands. The remaining four soil cores were capped with tight-fitting rigid
polymer end caps. One reason that the polymer sheets were preferred over the rigid caps was that
the flexible sheets were belter positioned to handle any contraction of the sleeve during cooling.
Results
The results from the surrogate spiking experiment are shown in Table G-l. Soil cores 1, 3, and 5
received the surrogate spike prior to cooling in the ice bath. Soil cores 2, 4, and 6 received the
surrogate spike after cooling in the ice bath. The results show that between 84 and 113% of the
surrogate spike was recovered from the soil cores. Recovery comparison is not expected to be
influenced significantly by soil type because all samples were collected from a fine grained to
medium fine-grained sand unit. The results also indicate that the timing of the surrogate spike
(i.e., pre- or post-cooling) appeared to have only a slight effect on the amount of surrogate
recovered. Slightly less surrogate was recovered from the soil cores spiked prior to cooling. This
implies that any losses of TCA in the soil samples spiked prior to cooling are minimal and
acceptable, within the limitations of the field sampling protocol. The field sampling protocol was
designed to process up to 300 soil samples that were collected over a 3-week period, during each
monitoring event.
Table G-l. Recovery in Soil Cores Spiked with 1,1,1-TCA Surrogate
Soil Cores
Spiked Prior
to Cooling
Corel
CoreS
Core5
Capping Method
Flexible polymer
sheet with rubber
bands
Rigid End Cap
Rigid End Cap
1,1,1-TCA
Recovery (%)
96.3
101.0
84.3
Soil Cores
Spiked After
Cooling
Core 2
Core 4
Core 6
Capping Method
Flexible polymer
sheet with rubber
bands
Rigid End Cap
Rigid End Cap
1,1,1-TCA
Recovery (%)
98.7
112.6
109.6
The capping method (flexible versus rigid cap) did not show any clear differences in the surrogate
recoveries. The flexible sheets are easier to use and appear to be sufficient to ensure good target
compound recovery.
This experiment demonstrates that the soil core handling procedures developed for use at LC34
were successful in minimizing volatility losses associated with the extreme temperatures of the
soil cores. It also shows that collecting and extracting larger aliquots of soil in the field is a good
way of characterizing DNAPL source zones.
References
Battelle, 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Performance Evaluation ofln-Situ Thermal
Remediation System for DNAPL Removal at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Prepared by Battelle for Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, June.
Gavaskar, A., S. Rosansky, S. Naber, N. Gupta, B. Sass, J. Sminchak, P. DeVane, and T.
Holdsworth. 2000. "DNAPL Delineation with Soil and Groundwater Sampling." Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant
Compounds, Monterey, California, May 22-25. Battelle Press. 2(2): 49-58.
-------
Table G-2. 1,1,1-TCA Surrogate Spike Recovery Values for Soil Samples Collected During the Steam Postdemonstration Sampling
Steam Treatment Plot: Extraction Efficiency Test
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 312
Total Number of Spiked Soil Samples Analyzed = 13
Total Number of Spiked Methanol Blanks Analyzed = 13
Steam Demonstration: 1,1,1-TCA Spiked Samples
Sample
ID
SB-231-2(SS)
SB-231-MB(SS)(a)
SB-232-2(SS)
SB-232-MB(SS)
SB-233-2(SS)
SB-233-MB(SS)
SB-234-2(SS)
SB-234-MB(SS)
SB-235-2(SS)
SB-235-MB(SS)
SB-236-2(SS)
SB-236-MB(SS)
SB-237-2(SS)
SB-237-MB(SS)
Sample
Date
1/30/02
1/29/02
1/28/02
2/13/02
2/14/02
2/12/02
2/7/02
1,1,1-TCA
Recovery
(HE)
1,575
1,509
1,337
1,286
1,308
1,504
1,220
1,153
1,244
1,182
1,324
1,300
1,148
1,103
1,1,1-TCA
Recovery
(%)
118
113
100
96
98
112
91
86
93
88
99
97
86
82
RPD
(%)
4.4
4.0
13.1
5.8
5.2
1.8
4.1
Sample
ID
SB-238-2(SS)
SB-238-MB(SS)
SB-239-2(SS)
SB-239-MB(SS)
SB-240-2(SS)
SB-240-MB(SS)
SB-241-2(SS)
SB-241-MB(SS)
SB-242-2(SS)
SB-242-MB(SS)
SB-339-2(SS)
SB-339-MB(SS)
Sample
Date
2/14/02
2/06/02
2/04/02
2/01/02
1/30/02
2/08/02
1,1,1-TCA
Recovery
(Hg)
,254
,315
,300
,518
,073
,112
780
,261
,082
,182
,382
,173
1,1,1-
TCA
Recovery
(%)
94
98
97
113
80
83
58
94
81
88
103
88
RPD
(%)
4.6
14.3
3.5
38.1
8.5
17.9
Range of Recovery in Soil
Samples: 58-118%
Average: 92%
(a) Samples listed as-MB are methanol blanks spiked with 1,1,1-TCA for the purpose of comparing to the amount of 1,1,1-TCA recovered from the soil
samples.
-------
Table G-3. Results of the Extraction Procedure Performed on PA-4 Soil Samples
Extraction Procedure Conditions
Total Weight of Wet Soil (g) = 2,124.2
Concentration (mg TCE/g soil) = 3.3
Moisture Content of Soil (%) = 24.9
Combined
1,587.8 g dry soil from PA-4 boring
529.3 g deionized water
5mLTCE
Laboratory
Extraction
Sample ID
TCE Concentration
in MeOH
(mg/L)
TCE Mass
in MeOH
(mg)
TCE Concentration in
Spiked Soil
(mg/kg)
Theoretical TCE Mass
Expected in MeOH
(mg)
Percentage Recovery
of Spiked TCE
(%)
1s* Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP- -1
SEP- -2
SEP- -3
SEP- -4
SEP- -5
SEP-1-6 (Control)
1800.0
1650.0
1950.0
1840.0
1860.0
78.3
547.1
501.8
592.2
558.1
564.0
19.4
3252.5
3164.9
3782.3
3340.2
3533.9
-
744.11
701.26
692.62
739.13
705.91
25.00
Average % Recovery =
73.53
71.55
85.51
75.51
79.89
77.65
77.20
2nd Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP-2-1
SEP-2-2
SEP-2-3
SEP-2-4
SEP-2-5
SEP-2-6 (Control)
568.0
315.0
170.0
329.0
312.0
82.6
172.7
95.5
51.3
99.8
94.8
20.4
861.1
500.5
268.2
498.4
476.3
-
887.28
843.77
846.42
885.29
880.31
25.00
Average % Recovery =
19.47
11.31
6.06
11.27
10.77
81.79
11.78
3rd Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP-3-1
SEP-3-2
SEP-3-3
SEP-3-4
SEP-3-5
SEP-3-6 (Control)
55.8
59.0
56.8
63.0
52.2
84.3
17.0
17.9
17.2
19.1
15.8
20.9
84.6
94.2
90.1
95.2
80.0
-
885.96
841.77
846.42
888.61
875.99
25.00
Average % Recovery =
1.91
2.13
2.04
2.15
1.81
83.55
2.01
-------
Table G-4. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Soil Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
ID
SB-22-16
SB-22-16B
SB-23-34
SB-23-34B
SB-24-42
SB-24-42B
SB-21-42
SB-21-42B
SB-19-30
SB-19-30B
SB-18-22
SB-18-22B
SB-20-26
SB-20-26B
SB-17-34
SB-17-34B
SB-16-12
SB-16-12B
SB-13-32
SB-13-32B
SB-25-18
SB-25-18B
SB-14-40
SB-14-40B
SB-15-24
SB-15-24B
Sample
Date
06/22/1999
06/23/1999
06/25/1999
06/28/1999
06/28/1999
06/29/1999
06/29/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
07/01/1999
07/01/1999
07/15/1999
07/16/1999
Result
(mg/kg)
2.58
2.07
146.89
125.10
43.01
35.47
5,913.59
8,911.22
184.95
173.11
110.06
59.46
179.81
184.76
191.43
203.68
0.30
0.28
56.54
65.56
1.56
2.37
853.25
754.78
240.81
225.50
RPD
(%)
22.03
16.03
19.22
40.44*)
6.61
59.70(a)
2.72
6.20
4.94
14.78
41.27(a)
12.25
6.57
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 665
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 26
Post-Demonstration
Sample
ID
SB-225-40
SB-225-40B
SB-219-36
SB-219-36B
SB-223-34
SB-223-34B
SB-224-38
SB-224-38B
SB-220-34
SB-220-34B
SB-2 18-20
SB-218-20B
SB-221-42
SB-221-42B
SB-217-30
SB-217-30B
SB-3 17-36
SB-317-36B
SB-213-30
SB-213-30B
SB-2 16-28
SB-216-28B
SB-215-34
SB-215-34B
SB-28-14
SB-28-14B
Sample
Date
05/18/2000
05/19/2000
05/19/2000
05/19/2000
05/20/2000
05/22/2000
05/22/2000
05/23/2000
05/23/2000
05/24/2000
05/24/2000
06/01/2000
06/02/2000
Result
(mg/kg)
16.35
18.43
13.10
36.55
ND
11.95
278.20
185.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
65.26
56.91
36.12
77.72
29.44
57.89
ND
ND
9.98
23.68
3,722.93
3,887.58
28.35
25.17
RPD
(%)
11.99
94.45(a)
169.11(a)
40.24(a)
0.00
0.00
13.66
73.09(a)
65.15(a)
0.00
81.42(a)
4.33
11.88
(a) Samples had high RPD values due to the effect of low (or below detect) concentrations of TCE drastically affected the RPD calculation.
(b) Samples had high RPD values probably due to high levels of DNAPL distributed heterogeneously through the soil core sample.
-------
Table G-5. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Total Number of Samples Collected = 357
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 7
Post-Demonstration Rinsate Blank Samples
Sample
ID
RB-24-1
RB-23-2
RB-220-3
RB-216-4
RB-317-5
RB-213-6
RB-26-7
Sample
Date
05/18/2000
05/19/2000
05/20/2000
05/22/2000
05/23/2000
05/25/2000
05/25/2000
Result
(ug/L)
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
(a) Pre-demonstration equipment blanks were not collected.
-------
Table G-6. Results of the Methanol Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Oxidation Methanol Blank Soil Extraction QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Pre-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-22-Blank
SB-23-Blank
SB-24-Blank
SB-21-Blank
SB-19-Blank
SB-18-Blank
SB-20-Blank
SB-17-Blank
SB-16-Blank
SB-13-Blank
SB-25-Blank
SB-14-Blank
SB-15-Blank
Sample
Date
06/23/1999
06/23/1999
06/25/1999
06/28/1999
06/28/1999
06/29/1999
06/29/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
07/01/1999
07/01/1999
07/15/1999
07/16/1999
Result
(mg/kg)
0.250
1.800(a)
0.250
0.250
0.205
8.027(b)
0.944
0.205
0.250
0.220
0.250
0.250
1.228(c)
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
See footnote.
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
See footnote.
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
See footnote.
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 665
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 26
Post-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-225-Blank
SB-223-Blank
SB-219-Blank
SB-224-Blank
SB-220-Blank
SB-221-Blank
SB-218-Blank
SB-217-Blank
SB-317-Blank
SB-216-Blank
SB-213-Blank
SB-214-Blank
SB-215-Blank
Sample
Date
05/18/2000
05/19/2000
05/19/2000
05/20/2000
05/20/2000
05/21/2000
05/22/2000
05/23/2000
05/23/2000
05/24/2000
05/24/2000
05/31/2000
06/01/2000
Result
(mg/kg)
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
(a)
Methanol Blank sample concentrations were below 10% of the TCE results for the samples in these batches. This batch included the following set of
samples: SB-23-055 through SB-23-075
(b) Methanol Blank sample concentrations were below 10% of the TCE results ]
samples: SB-18-293 through SB-18-317
Methanol Blank sample concentrations were below 10% of the TCE results ]
samples: SB-15-569 through SB-15-592
(c)
i for the
i for the
samples in these batches. This batch included the following set of
samples in these batches. This batch included the following set of
-------
Table G-7. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Groundwater Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
ID
BAT-2S
BAT-2S DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5I DUP
BAT-2S
BAT-2S DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5I DUP
Sample
Date
08/05/1999
08/05/1999
08/09/1999
08/09/1999
Result
(ug/L)
1,112,500
1,165,000
867,500
897,500
1,100,000
1,100,000
960,000
760,000
RPD
(%)
4.61
3.40
0.00
23.26
Total Number of Groundwater Samples Collected = 107 (Pre-) 80 (Post-)
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 9
Post-Demonstration
Sample
ID
PA-4S
PA-4S DUP
BAT-3S
BAT-3SDUP
BAT-5D
BAT-5D DUP
PA-3S
PA-3SDUP
PA-1I
PA-1I DUP
Sample
Date
05/15/2000
05/15/2000
05/18/2000
05/18/2000
05/19/2000
Result
(ug/L)
<5.0
<5.0
630,000
600,000
52,000
49,000
<5.0
<5.0
<2,000
<2,000
RPD
(%)
0.00
4.88
5.94
0.00
0.00
Table G-8. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Oxidation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Groundwater Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Groundwater Samples Collected = 154
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 10
Demonstration
Sample
ID
PA-3I
PA-3I DUP
PA-8D
PA-8D DUP
PA-8S
PA-8S DUP
BAT-2I
BAT-2I DUP
MP-2B
MP-2B DUP
Sample
Date
09/28/1999
09/29/1999
10/20/1999
10/25/1999
10/26/1999
Result
(ug/L)
1,150,000
1,160,000
625,000
555,000
115,000
113,000
68,800
60,700
290
265
RPD
(%)
0.87
11.86
1.75
12.51
9.01
Sample
ID
BAT-5D
BAT-5D DUP
BAT-2I
BAT-2I DUP
PA-3D
PA-3D DUP
BAT-5D
BAT-5D DUP
PA-9S
PA-9S DUP
Sample
Date
11/16/1999
01/12/2000
01/12/2000
04/12/2000
04/13/2000
Result
(ug/L)
730,000
725,000
50,000
48,200
650,000
680,000
870,000
910,000
220,000
230,000
RPD
(%)
0.69
3.67
4.51
4.49
4.44
-------
Table G-9. Rinsate Blank Results for Groundwater Samples Collected for the Oxidation Pre-and Post-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Pre-Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 ug/L
Pre-Demonstration Rinsate Blanks
Analysis
Date
08/05/1999
08/05/1999
08/07/1999
08/10/1999
08/12/1999
08/12/1999
08/12/1999
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
3,236.0
227.0
58.3
2,980.0
140.0
31.3
339.0
Comments
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Total Number of Samples Collected = 107 (Pre-) 80 (Post-)
Total Number of Rinsate Blank Samples Analyzed = 11
Post-Demonstration Rinsate Blanks
Analysis
Date
05/16/2000
05/17/2000
05/19/2000
05/20/2000
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
0.25
0.33
1.1
11.0a)
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Sampling procedure for this set repeated.
a) Samples in this set included PA-12D, PA-1 IS, I, D. PA-1 IS was collected prior to the field blank, PA-1II and PA-1 ID were collected after, but the field
blank sample was less than 10% of the concentration results in these two samples.
Table G-10. Rinsate Blank Results for Groundwater Samples Collected for the Oxidation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 ug/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 154
Total Number of Rinsate Blank Samples Analyzed = 22
Demonstration
Analysis
Date
09/27/1999
09/27/1999
09/27/1999
09/28/1999
09/28/1999
09/28/1999
09/30/1999
09/28/1999
09/28/1999
10/06/1999
10/07/1999
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
174.0
170.0
233.0
79.5
2,740.0
2,430.0
46.3
43.8
29.2
<2.0
<2.0
Comments
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Before switching to disposal tubing.
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Analysis
Date
10/22/1999
10/26/1999
10/26/1999
11/16/1999
01/11/2000
01/12/2000
01/13/2000
01/14/2000
04/11/2000
04/12/2000
04/13/2000
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<3.0
<2.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
-------
Table G-ll. Results of the Trip Blank Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Demonstration Soil and Groundwater Sampling
Total Number of Samples Collected = 665 (Soil) 496 (Groundwater)
-------
Table G-12. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 308
Total Number of MS/MSD Samples Analyzed = 12
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
Date
06/28/1999
06/30/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/05/1999
07/06/1999
TCE Recovery
(%)
113
115
123
123
91
92
118
114
100
82
104
110
RPD
(%)
1.5
0.03
0.26
3.6
14.0
5.2
Sample
Date
07/07/1999
07/09/1999
07/09/1999
07/13/1999
07/16/1999
07/22/1999
TCE Recovery
(%)
118
116
112
112
106
106
119
119
117
114
111
111
RPD
(%)
1.5
0.4
0.19
0.02
2.8
0.32
-------
Table G-13. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 357
Total Number of MS/MSD Samples Analyzed = 21
Post-Demonstration
Sample
Date
05/18/2000
05/18/2000
05/18/2000
05/19/2000
05/20/2000
05/20/2000
05/22/2000
05/22/2000
05/22/2000
05/23/2000
05/23/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
96
97
96
98
102
91
87
94
91
93
100
100
88
90
107
105
107
108
88
82
77
76
RPD
(%)
0.27
1.80
11.00
4.40
1.80
0.56
1.80
1.80
0.33
2.60
0.18
Sample
Date
05/24/2000
05/24/2000
05/25/2000
05/25/2000
05/26/2000
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
06/01/2000
06/01/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
93
99
100
100
134(a)
106
101
94
100
88
104
104
144(a)
127
81
111
53(a)
73
179(a)
129
RPD
(%)
6.80
0.12
5.40
3.00
3.80
0.23
2.60
5.00
6.10
12.00
(a) Samples had high RPD values due to the effect of low (or below detect) concentrations of TCE drastically affected the RPD calculation.
-------
Table G-14. Spike Recovery Values for Soil Laboratory Control Spike Samples Collected for the Oxidation Pre-Demonstration
Oxidation Treatment Plot LCS/LCSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 308
Total Number of LCS/LCSD Samples Analyzed = 22
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
Date
06/28/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
07/01/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/04/1999
07/05/1999
07/06/1999
TCE Recovery
(%)
110
105
121
124
109
108
122
120
94
95
92
93
107
110
118
114
92
96
110
109
117
118
RPD
(%)
4.6
2.4
0.46
1.9
1.6
0.91
2.5
3.6
3.9
0.88
0.76
Sample
Date
07/06/1999
07/06/1999
07/07/1999
07/08/1999
07/09/1999
07/09/1999
07/12/1999
07/13/1999
07/14/1999
07/21/1999
07/24/1999
TCE Recovery
(%)
91
93
118
117
112
113
104
104
89
94
110
111
116
111
116
116
110
110
110
112
117
117
RPD
(%)
2.0
0.48
0.73
0.36
5.0
1.5
4.9
0.25
0.6
2.4
0.6
-------
Table G-15. Spike Recovery Values for Soil Laboratory Control Spike Samples Collected for the Oxidation Post-Demonstration
Oxidation Treatment Plot LCS/LCSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 357
Total Number of LCS/LCSD Samples Analyzed = 30
Post-Demonstration
Sample
Date
05/25/2000
05/25/2000
05/25/2000
05/26/2000
05/26/2000
05/28/2000
05/28/2000
05/28/2000
05/29/2000
05/29/2000
05/29/2000
05/30/2000
05/30/2000
05/31/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
96
97
96
98
102
91
100
100
87
94
88
90
106
101
100
101
91
93
88
90
85
90
107
105
112
111
107
108
RPD
(%)
0.27
1.8
11.0
0.56
4.4
1.8
4.9
1.4
1.8
1.8
6.1
1.8
0.17
0.33
Sample
Date
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
06/01/2000
06/02/2000
06/03/2000
06/05/2000
06/06/2000
06/06/2000
06/07/2000
06/07/2000
06/09/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
76
118
88
82
77
76
123
132(a)
93
99
93
99
134(a)
106
100
100
100
88
104
104
101
94
81
111
144(a)
127
96
97
RPD
(%)
18.0
2.6
0.18
2.7
6.8
6.8
5.4
0.12
3.8
0.23
3.0
5.0
2.6
1.2
(a) Outside the targeted range, but at measurable levels, given the possible matrix interference from the potassium permanganate injection.
-------
Table G-16. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Oxidation Pre-Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Total Number of Samples Collected = 308
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 38
Pre-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
06/28/1999
06/28/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
07/01/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/02/1999
07/03/1999
07/04/1999
07/05/1999
07/06/1999
07/06/1999
07/06/1999
07/01/1999
07/01/1999
07/15/1999
07/15/1999
TCE
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Analysis
Date
07/06/1999
07/06/1999
07/06/1999
07/06/1999
07/07/1999
07/07/1999
07/08/1999
07/09/1999
07/09/1999
07/09/1999
07/09/1999
07/12/1999
07/13/1999
07/13/1999
07/14/1999
07/21/1999
07/22/1999
07/23/1999
07/24/1999
07/09/1999
07/09/1999
07/09/1999
07/12/1999
TCE
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
-------
Table G-17. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Oxidation Pre-Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Total Number of Samples Collected = 357
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 36
Post-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
05/25/2000
05/25/2000
05/25/2000
05/26/2000
05/27/2000
05/27/2000
05/28/2000
05/28/2000
05/28/2000
05/29/2000
05/29/2000
05/30/2000
05/30/2000
05/30/2000
05/30/2000
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
05/31/2000
TCE
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Analysis
Date
05/31/2000
06/01/2000
05/19/2000
06/01/2000
06/01/2000
06/02/2000
06/02/2000
06/03/2000
06/05/2000
06/06/2000
06/07/2000
06/07/2000
06/07/2000
06/07/2000
06/07/2000
06/08/2000
06/09/2000
06/01/2000
TCE
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
-------
Table G-18. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Oxidation Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
Sample
ID
BAT-2S MS
BAT-2S MSD
BAT-5I MS
BAT-5I MSD
PA-7D MS
PA-7D MSD
MP-3A MS
MP-3A MSD
ML-2MS
ML-2 MSD
Sample
Date
08/03/1999
08/03/1999
08/07/1999
09/30/1999
10/25/1999
TCE Recovery
(%)
104
103
51(a)
27(a)
92.0
96.0
89
82
116
115
RPD
(%)
0.11
5.6
0.6
4.3
0.9
Sample
ID
MP-2C MS
MP-2C MSD
ML-2 MS
ML-2 MSD
PA-3D DUP MS
PA-3D DUP MSD
PA- ID MS
PA-ID MSD
PA-8S MS
PA-8S MSD
Sample
Date
10/26/1999
01/14/2000
01/15/2000
01/16/2000
06/15/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
109
109
181(a)
202(a)
130
126
94
98
78
88
RPD
(%)
0.4
6.63
0.874
3.56
12.0
(a) TCE recovery was affected by interference from excess potassium permanganate in these groundwater samples.
-------
Table G-19. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Laboratory Control Spike Samples Analyzed During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration
Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Pre-Demonstration LCS/LCSD Samples
Sample
ID
LCS-990805
LCSD-990805
LCS-990806
LCSD-990806
LCS-990807
LCSD-990807
LCS-990809
LCSD-990809
LCS-990810
LCSD-990810
LCS-990811
LCSD-990811
LCS-990812
LCSD-990812
LCS-990813
LCSD-990813
Sample
Date
08/05/1999
08/06/1999
08/07/1999
08/09/1999
08/10/1999
08/11/1999
08/12/1999
08/13/1999
TCE Recovery
(%)
115
122
107
111
113
113
109
106
111
109
112
108
106
105
98
102
RPD
(%)
5.9
3.1
0.4
2.0
2.5
3.8
0.6
4.0
Total Number of Samples Collected = 107 (Pre-) 80 (Post-)
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 18
Post-Demonstration LCS/LCSD Sam
Sample
ID
DD6K8102-LCS
DD6K8103-LCSD
DD7JQ102-LCS
DD7JQ103-LCSD
DDC22102-LCS
DDC22103-LCSD
DDDEQ102-LCS
DDDEQ103-LCSD
DDF78102-LCS
DDF78103-LCSD
DDG8R102-LCS
DDG8R103-LCSD
DDH5F102-LCS
DDH5F103-LCSD
DDH76102-LCS
DDH76103-LCSD
DF2FM102-LCS
DF2FM103-LCSD
DF4F5102-LCS
DF4F5103-LCSD
Sample
Date
05/15/2000
05/16/2000
05/18/2000
05/18/2000
05/19/2000
05/20/2000
05/21/2000
05/22/2000
06/20/2000
06/21/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
91
93
93
97
94
93
96
97
84
87
100
95
97
92
90
91
84
94
89
88
pies
RPD
(%)
2.6
3.6
1.9
1.2
2.9
4.2
4.9
1.1
11.0
0.88
-------
Table G-20. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Laboratory Control Spike Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Demonstration Groundwater
Sampling
Oxidation Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 309
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 15
Demonstration LCS/LCSD Spike Samples
Sample
ID
LCS-990927
LCSD-990927
LCS-990928
LCSD-990928
LCS-990929
LCSD-990929
LCS-991018
LCSD-991018
LCS-991019
LCSD-991019
LCS-991020
LCSD-991020
LCS-991021
LCSD-991021
LCS-991022
LCSD-991022
Sample
Date
09/27/1999
09/28/1999
09/29/1999
10/18/1999
10/19/1999
10/20/1999
10/21/1999
10/22/1999
TCE Recovery
(%)
95
107
113
107
107
111
114
115
119
112
109
99
111
117
108
112
RPD
(%)
12.1
5.1
4.2
1.4
6.2
9.8
5.3
3.3
Sample
ID
LCS-991025
LCSD-991025
LCS-991026
LCSD-991026
LCS-991118
LCSD-991118
LCS-00113
LCSD-00113
LCS-00114
LCSD-00114
LCS-00115
LCSD-00115
LCS-00116
LCSD-00116
Sample
Date
10/25/1999
10/26/1999
11/18/1999
01/13/2000
01/14/2000
01/15/2000
01/16/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
113
112
112
107
109
91
101
-
106
-
113
103
104
102
RPD
(%)
0.9
4.6
17.6
-
-
1.16
1.94
-------
Table G-21. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Pre-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Pre- and Post-Demo Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 ug/L
Pre-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
08/05/1999
08/06/1999
08/07/1999
08/08/1999
08/09/1999
08/10/1999
08/11/1999
08/12/1999
08/09/1999
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Total Number of Samples Collected = 107 (Pre-) 80 (Post-)
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 18
Post-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
08/09/1999
05/15/2000
05/16/2000
05/18/2000
05/18/2000
05/19/2000
05/20/2000
05/21/2000
05/22/2000
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Table G-22. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Oxidation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Oxidation Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 ug/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 309
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 21
Demonstration
Analysis
Date
09/27/1999
09/28/1999
09/29/1999
09/30/1999
10/06/1999
10/07/1999
10/20/1999
10/21/1999
10/22/1999
10/25/1999
10/26/1999
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Analysis
Date
11/16/1999
01/13/2000
01/14/2000
01/15/2000
01/16/2000
01/17/2000
04/11/2000
04/13/2000
04/18/2000
04/21/2000
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
-------
DHL
ALYTICAL
2300 Double Creek Drive • Round Rock, TX 78664
Phone (512} 388-6222 * FAX (512} 388-8229
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
x-
DHL WORK ORDER
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
PROJECT LOCATION OR NAME:
CLIENT PROJECT
DATA REPORTED TO:
COLLECTOR:
ADDITIONAL REPORT COPIES TO:
AiuDiorize 5%
surcharge (01
TRHP report?
P=PAIMT
SL=SLUDGE
OT=OTHER
RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature)
DATE/TIME
RECEIVED BY: (Signahiie}
1
RELINQUISED BY: (Slgnaiure)
DATEiTIME
RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature)
DATE/TIME
RECEIVED BYi, (
t^W-~^l
HMtEIVEtfBY"
: (Signature)^
,-7 DHi. D/SPOS^L 8 $5.00 each
Return
Pickup
TAT
RUSH O CALL FIRST
1 DAY O CALL FIRST
2 DAY 0
NORMAL*^.
OTHER O
I.
LABORATORY USE i
RECEIVING TEMP: / - / >
CUSTODY SEALS- a BROKEN nJNJACTjB>WT USED
C^PARRIFR HILL $
D PICKED UP BY DHL ANALYTICAL STAFF
a HAND DELIVERED
-------
Appendix H
Economic Analysis Information
-------
Appendix H
Economic Analysis Information
This appendix details the cost assessment for the application of the pump and treat (P&T) system
for containment of a DNAPL source at Launch Complex 34, for a source zone that is the same
size as the ISCO plot. Because the groundwater flow in this area is generally to the northeast, the
DNAPL source could be contained by installing one cluster (of 3 in each lithologic unit) or more
extraction wells on the northeast side of the ISCO plot. The life cycle cost of a pump-and-treat
system can be compared to the cost of DNAPL source removal using chemical oxidation, as
described in Section 7 of the main report.
Experience at previous sites indicates that the most efficient long-term P&T system is one that is
operated at the minimum rate necessary to contain a plume or source zone (Cherry et al., 1996).
Table H-l shows a preliminary size determination for the P&T system. The P&T system should
be capable of capturing the groundwater flowing through a cross-section that is approximately 50
ft wide (width of ISCO plot) and 40 ft deep (thickness of surficial aquifer). Because capture with
P&T systems is somewhat inefficient in that cleaner water from surrounding parts of the aquifer
may also be drawn in, an additional safety factor of 100% was applied to ensure that any
uncertainties in aquifer capture zone or DNAPL source characterization are accounted for. An
extraction rate of 2 gallon per minute (gpm) is found to be sufficient to contain the source.
One advantage of low groundwater extraction rates is that the air effluent from stripping often
does not have to be treated, as the rate of volatile organic compound (VOC) discharge to the
ambient air is often within regulatory limits. The longer period of operation required (at a low
withdrawal rate) is more than offset by higher efficiency (lower influx of clean water from
outside the plume), lower initial capital investment (smaller treatment system), and lower annual
operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements. Another advantage of a containment type P&T
system is that, unlike source removal technologies, it does not require very extensive DNAPL
zone characterization.
H.I.I Capital Investment for the P&T System
The P&T system designed for this application consists of the components shown in Table H-2.
Pneumatically driven pulse pumps, which are used in each well, are safer than electrical pumps in
the presence of trichloroethylene (TCE) vapors in the wells. This type of pump can sustain low
flowrates during continuous operation. Stainless steel and Teflon™ construction ensure
compatibility with the high concentrations (up to 1,100 mg/L TCE) of dissolved solvent and any
free-phase DNAPL that may be expected. Extraction wells are assumed to be 40 ft deep, 2 inches
in diameter, and have stainless steel screens with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) risers.
The aboveground treatment system consists of a DNAPL separator and air stripper. Very little
free-phase solvent is expected and the separator may be disconnected after the first year of
operation, if desired. The air stripper used is a low-profile tray-type air stripper. As opposed to
conventional packed towers, low-profile strippers have a smaller footprint, much smaller height,
and can handle large airwater ratios (higher mass transfer rate of contaminants) without
generating significant pressure losses. Because of their small size and easy installation, they are
more often used in groundwater remediation. The capacity of the air stripper selected is much
higher than 2 gpm, so that additional flow (or additional extraction wells) can be handled if
required.
-------
The high airwater ratio ensures that TCE (and other minor volatile components) are removed to
the desired levels. The treated water effluent from the air stripper is discharged to the sewer. At
the low groundwater extraction rate required, the resulting contaminant mass in the air effluent
from the stripper is less than 2 Ibs/day, and below a typical regulatory limit of 6 Ibs/day. The air
effluent can be discharged without further treatment.
The piping from the wells to the air stripper is run through a 1-ft-deep covered trench. The air
stripper and other associated equipment are housed on a 20-ft-x-20-ft concrete pad, covered by a
basic shelter. The base will provide a power drop (through a pole transformer) and a licensed
electrician will be used for the power hookups. Meters and control valves are strategically placed
to control water and air flow through the system.
The existing monitoring system at the site will have to be supplemented with seven long-screen
(10-foot screen) monitoring wells. The objective of these wells is to ensure that the desired
containment is being achieved.
H.1.2 Annual Cost of the P&T System
The annual costs of P&T are shown in Table H-3 and include annual operation and maintenance
(O&M) and monitoring. Annual O&M costs include the labor, materials, energy, and waste
disposal cost of operating the system and routine maintenance (including scheduled replacement
of seals, gaskets, and O-rings). Routine monitoring of the stripper influent and effluent is done
through ports on the feed and effluent lines on a monthly basis. Groundwater monitoring is
conducted on a quarterly basis through seven monitoring wells. All water samples are analyzed
for PCE and other chlorinated volatile organic compound (CVOC) by-products.
H.1.3 Periodic Maintenance Cost
In addition to the routine maintenance described above, periodic maintenance will be required, as
shown in Table H-3, to replace worn-out equipment. Based on manufacturers' recommendations
for the respective equipment, replacement is done once in 5 or 10 years. In general, all equipment
involving moving parts is assumed will be replaced once every 5 years, whereas other equipment
is changed every 10 years.
H.1.4 Present Value (PV) Cost of P&T
Because a P&T system is operated for the long term, a 30-year period of operation is assumed for
estimating cost. Because capital investment, annual costs, and periodic maintenance costs occur
at different points in time, a life cycle analysis or present value analysis is conducted to estimate
the long-term cost of P&T in today's dollars. This life cycle analysis approach is recommended
for long-term remediation applications by the guidance provided in the Federal Technologies
Roundtable's Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects (United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 1998). The
PV cost can then be compared with the cost of faster (DNAPL source reduction) remedies.
PV P&T costs = E Annual Cost in Year t Equation (H-l)
(1+r)1
-------
P V P&T costs = Capital Investment + Annual cost in Year 1 + . . . + Annual cost in Year n
Equation (H-2)
Table 4 shows the PV calculation for P&T based on Equation 1. In Equation 1, each year's cost
is divided by a discount factor that reflects the rate of return that is foregone by incurring the cost.
As seen in Equation 2, at time t = 0, which is in the present, the cost incurred is the initial capital
investment in equipment and labor to design, procure, and build the P&T system. Every year
after that, a cost is incurred to operate and maintain the P&T system. A real rate of return (or
discount rate), r, of 2.9% is used in the analysis as per recent U.S. EPA guidance on discount
rates (U.S. EPA, 1999). The total PV cost of purchasing, installing, and operating a 1-gpm P&T
source containment system for 30 years is estimated to be $1,406,000 (rounded to the nearest
thousand).
Long-term remediation costs are typically estimated for 30-year periods as mentioned above.
Although the DNAPL source may persist for a much longer time, the contribution of costs
incurred in later years to the PV cost of the P&T system is not very significant and the total 30-
year cost is indicative of the total cost incurred for this application. This can be seen from the
fact that in Years 28, 29, and 30, the differences in cumulative PV cost are not as significant as
the difference in, say, Years 2, 3, and 4. The implication is that, due to the effect of discounting,
costs that can be postponed to later years have a lower impact than costs that are incurred in the
present.
As an illustration of a DNAPL source that may last much longer than the 30-year period of
calculation, Figure H-l shows a graphic representation of PV costs assuming that the same P&T
system is operated for 100 years instead of 30 years. The PV cost curve flattens with each
passing year. The total PV cost after 100 years is estimated at $2,195,000.
-------
Table H-1. Pump & Treat (P&T) System Design Basis for Site 88 DNAPL Zone at Camp
Item
Width of DNAPL zone, w
Depth of DNAPL zone, d
Crossectional area of
DNAPL zone, a
Capture zone required
Safety factor, 100%
Required capture zone
Design pumping rate
Pumping rate per well
TCE cone, in water near
DNAPL zone
Air stripper removal
efficiency required
TCE in air effluent from
stripper
Value
50
40
2000
187
2
373
2
2
100
99.00%
2.4
Units
ft
ft
sqft
cuft/d
cuft/d
gpm
gpm
mg/L
Ibs/day
Item
Hyd. conductivity, K
Hyd. gradient, I
Porosity, n
Gw velocity, v
GPM =
Number of wells to achieve
capture
TCE allowed in discharge
water
TCE allowed in air effluent
Value
40
0.0007
0.3
0.093333
1.9
1
1
6
Units
ft/d
ft/ft
ft/d
gpm
mg/L
Ibs/day
-------
Table H-2. Capital In vestment for a P&T System at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
Item
Design/Procurement
Engineer
Drafter
Hydrologist
Contingency
TOTAL
Pumping system
Extraction wells
Pulse pumps
Controllers
Air compressor
Miscellaneous fittings
Tubing
TOTAL
Treatment System
Piping
Trench
DNAPL separarator tank
Air stripper feed pump
Piping
Water flow meter
Low-profile air stripper with
control panel
Pressure gauge
Blower
Air flow meter
Catalytic Oxidizer
Stack
Carbon
Stripper sump pump
Misc. fittings, switches
TOTAL
Site Preparation
Conctrete pad
Berm
Power drop
Monitoring wells
Sewer connection fee
Sewer pipe
Housing
TOTAL
# units Unit Price Cost
160
80
160
1
1
1
1
1
1
150
150
1
1
1
50
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
2
1
1
400
80
1
5
1
300
1
hrs
hrs
hrs
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ft
ft
day
ea
ea
ft
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ft
ea
ea
ea
sq ft
ft
ea
wells
ea
ft
ea
$85
$40
$85
$10,000
$5,000
$595
$1,115
$645
$5,000
$3
$3
$320
$120
$460
$3
$160
$9,400
50
$1 ,650
$175
$65,000
$2
$1 ,000
$130
$5,000
$3
$7
$5,838
$2,149
$2,150
$10
$2,280
$13,600
$3,200
$13,600
$10,000
$30,400
$5,000
$595
$1,115
$645
$5,000
$509
$12,864
$509
$320
$120
$460
$170
$160
$9,400
$50
$1 ,650
$175
$65,000
$20
$2,000
$130
$5,000
$85,163
$1 ,200
$539
$5,838
$10,745
$2,150
$3,102
$2,280
$25,854
Installation/Start Up of Treatment System
Engineer
Technician
TOTAL
60
200
hrs
hrs
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
$85
$40
$5,100
$8,000
$13,100
$167,381
Basis
10% of total capital
2-inch, 40 ft deep, 30-foot SS screen; PVC;
includes installation
2.1 gpm max., 1 .66"OD for 2-inch wells;
handles solvent contact; pneumatic; with chec
valves
Solar powered or 1 10 V; with pilot valve
100 psi (125 psi max), 4.3 cfm continuous
duty, oil-less; 1 hp
Estimate
1/2-inch OD, chemical resistant; well to
surface manifold
chemical resistant
ground surface
125 gal; high grade steel with epoxy lining;
conical bottom with discharge
0.5 hp; up to 15 gpm
0.5 inch, chemical resistant; feed pump to
stripper
Low flow; with read out
1 -25 gpm, 4 tray; SS shell and trays
SS; 0-30 psi
5hp
Orifice type; 0-50 cfm
2 inch, PVC, lead out of housing
To sewer
Estimate (sample ports, valves, etc.)
20 ft x 20 ft with berm; for air stripper and
associated equipment
230 V, 50 Amps; pole transformer and
licensed electrician
Verify source containment; 2-inch PVC with
SS screens
20 ft x 20 ft; shelter for air stripper and
associated equipment
Labor
Labor
-------
Table H-2. Capital Investment for a P&T System at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral (continued)
O&M Cost for P&T Sytem
Annual Operation &
Maintenance
Engineer
Technician
Replacement materials
Electricity
Fuel (catlytic oxidizer
Sewer disposal fee
Carbon disposal
Waste disposal
TOTAL
Annual Monitoring
Air stripper influen'
Air stripper effluent
Monitoring wells
Sampling materials
Technician
Engineer
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Periodic Maintenance,
Every 5 years
Pulse pumps
Air compressor
Air stripper feed pump
Blower
Catalyst replacement
Stripper sump pump
Miscellaneous materials
Technician
TOTAL
Periodic Maintenance,
Every 10 years
Air stripper
catalytic oxidize:
Water flow meters
Air flow meter
Technician
Miscellaneous materials
TOTAL
TOTAL PERIODIC
MAINTENANCE COSTS
80
500
1
52,560
2,200
525,600
2
1
12
14
34
1
64
40
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
40
1
1
1
1
40
1
hrs
hrs
ea
kW-hrs
10IM BTU
gal/yr
drum
smpls
smpls
smpls
ea
hrs
hrs
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
hrs
ea
ea
ea
ea
hrs
ea
$85
$40
$2,000
$0.10
$6
$0.00152
$1,000
$80
$120
$120
$120
$500
40
85
$595
$645
$460
$1,650
$5,000
$130
$1,000
$40
$9,400
$16,000
160
175
$40
$1,000
$6,800
$20,000
$2,000
$5,256
$13,200
$799
$2,000
$200
$50,255
$1,440
$1,680
$4,080
$500
$2,560
$3,400
$7,200
$57,455
$2,380
$645
$460
$1,650
$5,000
$130
$1,000
$1,600
$12,865
$70,320
$9,400
$16,000
$160
$175
$1,600
$1,000
$28,335
$98,655
Oversight
Routine operation; annual cleaning of air
stripper trays, routine replacement of parts;
any waste disposal
Seals, o-rings, tubing, etc.
8 hp (~6 kW) over 1 year of operation
30 gal drum; DNAPL, if any; haul to
incinerator
Verify air stripper loading; monthly
Discharge quality confirmation; monthly;
CVOC analysis; MS, IMSD
Swells; quarterly; MS, MSC
Miscellaneous
Quarterly monitoring labor (from wells) only;
weekly monitoring (from sample ports)
included in O&M cost
Oversight; quarterly reporl
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
Estimate
Labor
As above
Major overhaul
As above
As above
Labor
Estimate
-------
Table H-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30 years of operation
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
P&T
Annual Cost *
$167,381
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$98,655
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$98,655
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$98,655
PV of Annual Cost
$167,381
$55,836
$54,262
$52,733
$51,247
$60,954
$48,399
$47,035
$45,709
$44,421
$74,125
$41,953
$40,770
$39,621
$38,505
$45,798
$36,365
$35,340
$34,344
$33,376
$55,694
$31,521
$30,633
$29,770
$28,931
$34,411
$27,323
$26,553
$25,805
$25,077
$41,846
Cumulative PV of
Annual Cost
$167,381
$223,217
$277,479
$330,212
$381,459
$442,413
$490,811
$537,846
$583,556
$627,977
$702,102
$744,054
$784,825
$824,446
$862,951
$908,749
$945,114
$980,454
$1,014,798
$1,048,174
$1,103,868
$1,135,389
$1,166,022
$1,195,792
$1,224,723
$1,259,134
$1,286,457
$1,313,010
$1,338,814
$1,363,892
$1,405,738
* Annual cost in Year zero is equal to the capital investment.
Annual cost in other years is annual O&M cost plus annual monitoring cost
Annual costs in Years 10, 20, and 30 include annual
O&M, annual monitoring, and periodic maintenance
-------
Figure H-l. P&T System Costs - 100 years
$1,800,000
o
•£
o
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
10
20
30
40 50 60
Years of Operation
70
80
90
100
-------
Appendix I
Technical Information for KMnO4 Used for the
ISCO Demonstration
-------
CAIROX®
Potassium Permanganate
CAS Registry No. 7722-64-7
Free-Flowing Grade is recommended where potassium permanganate is subjected to high humidity conditions and where the
material is to be dry fed through a chemical feeder or stored in a bin or hopper.
Free-Flowing Grade
Shipping Containers
Assay
Guaranteed 97% KMnO4
Particle Size
20% maximum retained on#425 U.S. Standard Sieve
(formerly #40)
7% maximumthrough#75 U.S. Standard Sieve
(formerly #200)
Standards and Specifications
CAIROX® Potassium Permanganate is certified by the National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF) to ANSI/NSF Standard 60: Drinking
Water Treatment Chemicals - Health Effects.
Technical Grade meets:
AWWA Standard B603
Military Specifications MIL-P-11970-C dated 14 October 1983
Water Chemical Codex RMIC values
25 kg pailm (55.125 Ib) net, with handle, made of HOPE, weighs3.1
Ib. It is tapered to allow nested storage of empty drums, stands
approximately 151/2 inches high and has a maximum diameter of
12 inches.
150 kg drum111 (330.750 Ib) net, made of 22-gauge steel, weighs
22.41bs. It stands approximately 291/2 inches high and is approximately
19% inches in diameter.
1500 kg Cycle-Bin™21 (3307 Ib) net.
Bulk, up to 48,000 Ibs.
Special Packages will be considered on request.
(1) Meets UN performance oriented packaging requirements.
(2) The Cycle-Bin™ meets DOT 56 Specifications.
Chemical/Physical Data
Formula
Formula Weight
Form
Specific Gravity
Solid
3% Solution
Bulk Density
KMnO4
158.0g/mol
GranularCrystalline
2.703 g/cm3
1.020 g/mL by weight, 20°C/4°C
Approximately 100 Ib/ft3
Decomposition may start at 150 °C / 302 °F
Solubility in Distilled Water
Temperature
Solubility
°c
0
20
40
60
70
75
°F
32
68
104
140
158
167
9/L
27.8
65.0
125.2
230.0
286.4
323.5
oz/gal
3.7
8.6
16.7
30.7
38.3
43.2
Description
Crystals or granules a re dark purple with a metal lie sheen, sometimes
with a dark bronze-like appearance. Free-Flowing Grade is gray due
to an additive. Potassium permanganate has a sweetish, astringent
taste and is odorless.
Handling, Storage, and Incompatibility
For more information, refer to the Solubility Fact Sheet.
Protect containers against physical damage. When handling
potassium permanganate, respirators should be worn to avoid irritation
of or damage to mucous membranes. Eye protection should also be
worn when handling potassium permanganate as a solid or in solution.
Potassium permanganate is stable and will keep indefinitely if stored
in a cool, dry area in closed containers. Concrete floors are preferred
to wooden decks. To clean up spills and leaks, follow the steps
recommended in the MSDS. Be sure to use goggles, rubber gloves,
and respirator when cleaning up a spill or leak.
Avoid contact with acids, peroxides, and all combustible organic or
readily oxidizable materials including inorganic oxidizable materials
and metal powders. With hydrochloric acid, chlorine gas is liberated.
Potassium permanganate is not combustible, but will support
combustion. It may decompose if exposed to intense heat. Fires may
be controlled and extinguished by using large quantities of water.
Refertothe MSDSior more information.
CARUS CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
Cor
Corrosive Properties
Repacking
Potassium permanganate is compatible with many metals and
synthetic materials. Natural rubbers and fibers are often incompat-
ible. Solution pH and temperature are also important factors. The
material must be compatible with either the acid or alkali also being
used.
In neutral and alkaline solutions, potassium permanganate is not
corrosive to iron, mild steel, or stainless steel; however, chloride
corrosion of metals may be accelerated when an oxidant such as
permanganate is present in solution. Plastics such as polypropy-
lene, polyvinyl chloride Type I (PVC I), epoxy resins, fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP), Penton, Lucite, Viton A, and Hypalon are
suitable. Teflon FEP and TFE, and Tefzel ETFE are best. Refer to
Material Compatibility Chart.
Aluminum, zinc, copper, lead, and alloys containing these metals
may be (slightly) affected by potassium permanganate solutions.
Actual studies should be made under the conditions in which
permanganate will be used.
Shipping
Potassium permanganate is classified by the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Board (HMTB) as an oxidizer. It is shipped under
Interstate Commerce Comission's (ICC) Tariff 19.
Proper Shipping Name:
Hazard Class:
Identification Number:
Label Requirements:
Packaging Requirements:
Potassium Permanganate (RQ-100/45.4)
Oxidizer
UN 1490
Oxidizer
49 CFR Parts 100 to 199,
Sections: 173.152, 173.153, 173.194
Shipping Limitations:
Minimum quantities:
Rail car: See Tariff for destination
Truck: No minimum
Postal regulations:
Information applicable to packaging of oxidizers for shipment by
the U.S. Postal Service to domestic and foreign destinations is
readily available from the local postmaster.
United Parcel Service accepts 25 Ibs as largest unit quantity
properly packaged; consult United Parcel Service.
Regulations concerning shipping and packing should be con-
sulted regularly due to frequent changes.
When potassium permanganate is repacked, the packing, markings,
labels, and shipping conditions must meet applicable Federal
regulations. See Code of Federal Regulations-49, Transportation
(parts 100-199) and Federal Hazardous Materials Substances Act, 15
U.S.C. 1261.
Applications
Listed below are some of the many applications of potassium
permanganate. Permanganate is a powerful oxidizing agent. The
optimum condition under which it is to be used can be easily
established through technical service evaluations or laboratory
testing.
Oxidation and Synthesis - Organic chemicals and intermediates
manufacture. Oxidizes impurities in organic and inorganic chemicals.
Water Treatment - Oxidizes iron, manganese, and hydrogen
sulfide; controls taste and odor; and is an alternate pre-oxidant for
Disinfection By-Product (THMs and HAAs) control.
Municipal Wastewater Treatment - Destroys hydrogen sulfide in
wastewater and sludge. Improves sludge dewatering.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment - Oxidizes hydrogen sulfide,
phenols, iron, manganese, and many other organic and inorganic
contaminants; resultant manganese dioxide aids in removing heavy
metals.
Metal Surface Treatment - Conditions mill scale and smut to
facilitate subsequent removal by acid pickling in wrought metals
manufacturing and jet engine cleaning.
Equipment Cleaning - Assists in cleaning organic and inorganic
residues from refining and cooling towers and other processing
equipment. Decontaminates hydrogen sulfides, pyrophoric iron
sulfides, phenols, and others.
Purification of Gases - Removes trace impurities of sulfur, arsine,
phosphine, silane, borane, and sulfides from carbon dioxide and
other industrial gases.
Mining and Metallurgical - Aids in separation of molybdenum
from copper; removes impurities from zinc and cadmium; oxidizes
flotation compounds. Removes iron and manganese from acid mine
drainage.
Hazardous Waste Treatment or Remediation - Treats phenols,
chlorinated solvents (TCE, PCE), tetraethyl lead, chelated metals,
cyanides, and sulfides.
Slag Quenching - Controls hydrogen sulfide and acetylene emissions
during quenching of hot slag.
Food Processing - Controls sulfides, soluble animal oil, grease,
organic acids, ketones, nitrogen compounds, mercaptans, and BOD.
C A KU S
Responsible Care'
Good Chemistry at Wort
Carus Chemical Company
315 Fifth Street
P. O. Box 599
Peru, IL 61354
Tel. (815) 223-1500
Fax (815) 224-6697
Web: www.caruschem.com
E-Mail: salesmkt@caruschem.com
The information contained is accurate to the best of our knowledge. However, data, safety standards and government regulations are subject to change; and the
conditions of handling, use or misuse of the product are beyond our control. Cams Chemical Company makes no warranty, either express or implied, including
any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Carus also disclaims all liability for reliance on the completeness or confirming accuracy of any
information included herein. Users should satisfy themselves that they are aware of all current data relevant to their particular uses.
Responsible Care® is a service mark of the American Chemistry Council. Form #CX 1020 Copyright® 2000
CAIROX® potassium permanganate is a registered trademark of Carus Corporation.
-------
SEP-19-02 18:21 From:SHAW E & I, INC.
6136261663
T-239 P.02/02 Job-210
CAIROX* POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
GRADE: FREE FLOW
COMPOSITE ANALYSIS ,
(ftwwf onJuly 1**fl w tot composite) I
PARAMETER
COMPOSITE
ANALYSIS
Metals (moft
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
iron
Lead
Insolubles, %
wt Loss (105° C). %
pH, 5% Solution
Chloride, %
Sutfate, %
Nitrogen, %
Sieve Analysis, % on:
U.S. Std- NO. 40 (420pm)
U.S. Std. No. 60 (250nm)
U.S. Std NO. 80 (177nni}
U.S. Std No. 10Q(l49p/n)
U.S. Std. No.140(iQ5pm)
U.S.StaNo.200(74wrO
U.S.$tdNo.-200(74nm)
61.6
0.8
3.3
111
<0.8
0.8
4.6
0.4
43,3
10.0
1,2
25.3
24.7
14
0.44
0.16
9.59
0,0070
0.0200
0,0020
0.2
28.9
27.3
22.9
15.6
3.1
2.0
Lithium
Magnesium
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
10.6
2.2
0.05
73
4.2
3-2
0,1
2800.0
<0.8
304.0
<0.4
3.4
11.6
3.8
Note: Material conforms to ANSI/NSF Stancfcn* 60.
Page 2
------- |