EPA/540/R-08/004
August 2008
Demonstration of Resistive Heating Treatment of
DNAPL Source Zone at Launch Complex 34 in
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
Final Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
by
Battelle
forColumbus, OH 43201
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
February 19, 2003
-------
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. Mention of
corporation names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.
February 19,2003 ii Battelle
-------
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, Mark Hendershot, 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., who provided significant
logistical and field support.
• Laymon Gray from Florida State University who coordinated the site
preparations and technology vendors' field activities.
• Steve Antonioli from MSE Technology Applications, Inc. (MSE) for coordinating
vendor selection and subcontracting, Technical Advisory Group participation,
and tracking of technology application costs.
• Tom Early from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Jeff Douthitt from
GeoConsultants, LLC., for providing technical and administrative guidance.
• Paul DeVane from the Air Force Research Laboratory for resources and
guidance provided 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;
Robert Briggs at GeoTrans, Inc.; 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, Visitors Day, and other
demonstration-related events.
• The Interstate Technologies Regulatory Council (ITRC) for their review support.
• Dr. D.H. Luu, DHL Analytical Services, and John Reynolds and Nancy
Robertson, STL Environmental Services, Inc. (STL), for their laboratory
analysis support.
• William Heath and Christopher Thomas from Current Environmental Solutions
(CES) for their cooperation during the demonstration.
Battelle iii February 19,2003
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground
water; and prevention and control indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to
catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory
and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) to assist
the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
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
aquifer 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 is 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 Admini-
stration (NASA) as a vehicle for marshalling the resources required to test innovative
technologies that promise technical and economic advantages in DNAPL remedi-
ation. The IDC is advised by a Technical Advisory Group comprised of experts drawn
from academia, industry, and government. The IDC and other supporting organiza-
tions facilitate technology 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 Savan-
nah River Company indicated the presence of a sizable DNAPL source at Launch
Complex 34 in Cape Canaveral, Florida, the IDC selected this site for demonstrating
three DNAPL remediation technologies. The surficial aquifer at this site lies approx-
imately between 5 and 45 ft below ground surface (bgs). This aquifer can be sub-
divided 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 conspicu-
ous hydraulic barrier, a Lower Clay Unit underlying the surficial aquifer is considered
to be the aquitard that contains the DNAPL source. The Lower Clay Unit appears to
be pervasive throughout the demonstration area, although the effective thickness for
the unit is only up to 3 ft. The hydraulic gradient in the surficial aquifer is relatively
flat. The native aquifer contains relatively high levels of chloride and total dissolved
solids (TDS).
Battelle v February 19, 2003
-------
The source zone was divided into three test plots, each 75 ft x 50 ft 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/July 2000 in the two outer plots, separated by about 80 ft. Steam injection will
be tested in the middle plot, beginning June 2001. The IDC contracted MSE Tech-
nology Applications, Inc., to conduct the vendor selection and subcontracting for the
three technologies, as well as to track the costs of the demonstration. Current Envi-
ronmental Solutions (CES) was the vendor selected for implementing resistive
heating at Launch Complex 34. Resistive heating was selected because it has the
potential to heat the aquifer and remove DNAPL.
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 Assur-
ance Project Plan (QAPP) or test plan that was reviewed by all the project stake-
holders.
This report describes the results of the performance assessment of the resistive
heating technology. The objectives of the performance assessment were:
• Estimating change in TCE-DNAPL mass.
• Evaluating changes in aquifer quality.
• Evaluating the fate of the TCE-DNAPL removed from the resistive heating plot.
• Verifying resistive heating operating requirements and costs.
Estimating the TCE-DNAPL mass removal due to the resistive heating 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 (ESB). This
characterization 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
characterization of each test plot before the demonstration. In June 1999, a detailed
pre-demonstration characterization of the resistive heating plot was conducted to
initiate the performance assessment of the resistive heating technology. From
September 1999 to July 2000, when the resistive heating field application was con-
ducted, Battelle collected subsurface data to monitor the progress of the demon-
stration; the vendor collected additional aboveground data to aid in the operation of
the technology. In August-December 2000, the post-demonstration assessment of
the resistive heating plot was conducted after all parts of the aquifer had cooled to
90°C or less.
Change in TCE-DNAPL Mass
Detailed soil sampling was used as the main tool for determining changes in TCE-
DNAPL mass in the test plot. The spatial distribution data from the preliminary char-
acterization were used to determine a statistically significant number and location of
soil samples required to obtain good coverage of the resistive heating plot. A
February 19, 2003 vi Battelle
-------
systematic unaligned sampling scheme was used to conduct pre- and post-
demonstration 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 resistive heating 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 a certified
laboratory for analysis. In this manner, the entire soil column was analyzed from
ground surface to aquitard, at each coring location. Pre-demonstration evaluation of
this extraction method with Launch Complex 34 soil showed between 72 and 86%
decrease in TCE mass in the test plot. Steps were taken during the post-demonstra-
tion soil sampling to cool the retrieved cores and to minimize volatilization losses
from the hot soil.
The TCE concentrations (mg/kg of dry soil) obtained by this method were considered
"total TCE." The portion of the total TCE that exceeded a threshold concentration of
300 mg/kg was considered "DNAPL." This threshold was determined as the maxi-
mum TCE concentration in the dissolved and adsorbed phases in the Launch Com-
plex 34 soil; any TCE concentration exceeding this threshold would be DNAPL.
The results of the TCE-DNAPL mass estimation by soil sampling show the following:
• Contouring or linear interpolation of TCE concentrations between sampled
points indicated that there was 11,313 kg of total TCE in the resistive heating
plot before the demonstration; approximately 10,490 kg of this TCE mass was
DNAPL. The total TCE mass in the plot decreased by approximately 90% and
the DNAPL mass in the plot decreased by approximately 97% due to the resis-
tive heating application. This predicted decrease in DNAPL mass exceeds the
90% DNAPL removal target proposed at the beginning of the demonstration.
• A statistical evaluation of the pre- and post-demonstration TCE concentrations
confirmed these results. Kriging, a geostatistical tool that takes the spatial
variability of the TCE distribution into account, indicated that between 7,498 and
15,677 kg of total TCE was present in the test plot before the demonstration.
Kriging indicated that the total TCE mass in the test plot decreased between
80 and 93% following the technology application. These statistics are signifi-
cant at the 80% confidence level specified before the demonstration.
• Kriging confirmed that the pre- and post-demonstration TCE mass estimates
obtained by contouring were within the statistically acceptable range. The large
number of soil samples that were collected did capture the spatial variability of
the TCE distribution.
• The greatest change in TCE-DNAPL mass was observed in the Lower Sand
Unit, followed by the Middle Fine-Grained Unit. The Upper Sand Unit showed
the least removal. This shows that heating was most effective in the deeper
portions of the aquifer. Limitations due to the new electrode design used at
Launch Complex 34 and the loss of vadose zone encountered during high-
rainfall events may have contributed to lower heating/steam stripping efficiency
in the shallower regions of the aquifer. The temperature distribution in the test
plot determined in May 2000, towards the end of the resistive heating field appli-
cation, showed relatively good heating in all three aquifer units — Upper Sand
Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit.
• Most of the DNAPL present in regions that would be considered difficult to
access was removed from the test plot by resistive heating. Considerable
DNAPL was removed from the region immediately above the aquitard (Lower
Clay Unit) and from under the building.
Battelle vii February 19, 2003
-------
• The change in TCE-DNAPL mass was relatively high under the building, indi-
cating that these regions could be efficiently accessed by using angled elec-
trodes outside the building. Any remediation of DNAPL from further under the
building probably would require electrodes that are installed inside the building.
Changes in Aquifer Quality
Application of the resistive heating technology caused the following changes in the
treated aquifer:
• Dissolved TCE levels declined in several monitoring wells in the resistive heat-
ing plot, although none of the wells showed post-demonstration concentrations
of less than 5 ug/L, the federal drinking water standard, or 3 ug/L, the State of
Florida ground-water target cleanup level. C/s-1,2-DCE levels remained above
70 ug/L and increased considerably in some wells. Vinyl chloride (1 ug/L State
of Florida target) levels could not be accurately determined because higher TCE
and c/s-1,2-DCE levels elevated the detection limits of vinyl chloride. This indi-
cates that, in the short-term, removal of DNAPL mass from the targeted aquifer
caused ground-water TCE concentrations to decline. Dissolved-phase CVOCs
were not as efficiently removed, especially from the upper portions of the
aquifer, probably due to the lower heating/stripping efficiency in the shallower
regions.
• The TCE degradation product c/s-1,2-DCE appeared to be accumulating in the
ground water in the test plot. C/s-1,2-DCE itself is subject to drinking water
standards (70 ug/L) and its buildup in the plot could be a concern. Its accumu-
lation in the plot may indicate that the degradation rate of c/s-1,2-DCE is not as
fast as the degradation rate of TCE, under the conditions prevalent in the
aquifer.
• Ground-water pH and dissolved oxygen levels remained relatively constant, but
chloride, sodium, potassium, sulfate, alkalinity (carbonate), and TDS levels rose
sharply. TDS levels were above the secondary drinking water standard of
500 mg/L both before and after the demonstration, classifying the aquifer as
brackish. Sources of these dissolved solids could include evaporative residue,
saltwater intrusion, displacement of exchangeable sodium from aquifer
minerals, migration from the ISCO plot, and/or CVOC degradation.
• Biological oxidation demand and total organic carbon (TOC) levels in the
ground water generally increased. These increases could be due to dissolution
of humic and fulvic matter in the aquifer under the heat treatment.
• The ground-water levels of iron, chromium, and nickel remained relatively
constant. There does not appear to be any significant corrosion of the stainless
steel monitoring wells of the kind experienced in the ISCO plot.
• Slug tests conducted in the resistive heating plot before and after the demon-
stration did not indicate any noticeable changes in the hydraulic conductivity of
the aquifer.
• Although difficulties were encountered in operating the drill rig during post-
demonstration coring, the geochemical composition of the soil does not appear
to have changed much due to the heat treatment. Quartz and aragonite make
up the majority of the minerals identified in soil samples from heat-affected and
unaffected regions of the aquifer. Aragonite may be associated with the sea-
shell fragments found in fair abundance in the aquifer. Calcite and margarite
(mica) are less abundant in the aquifer.
February 19,2003 viii Battelle
-------
Fate of TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Test Plot
The decrease in TCE-DNAPL mass in the plot could have resulted from one or more
of the following pathways:
• Aboveground recovery. Vapor sampling conducted by the resistive heating
vendor indicates that 1,947 kg of total TCE was recovered in the vapor extrac-
tion system. The initial estimate of total TCE mass in the subsurface was
11,313kg.
• Degradation by biological or abiotic processes. There are indications that some
TCE may have been degraded due to the heating in the resistive heating plot.
o The sharp increase in c/s-1,2-DCE levels in several monitoring wells inside
the plot and perimeter indicate the possibility that some TCE may have
degraded by reductive dechlorination. Microbial counts in soil and ground-
water samples before and after the demonstration indicate that microbial
populations survived the heat treatment in most parts of the plot. If TCE
degradation to c/s-1,2-DCE has been hastened, it is unclear as to the time
frame over which c/s-1,2-DCE itself may degrade. Accumulation of c/s-
1,2-DCE shows that the rate of degradation of TCE may be much faster
than the rate of c/s-1,2-DCE degradation.
o The sharp increase in chloride, which would have been a strong indicator
of dechlorination of CVOCs, proved to be inconclusive. Sodium, potas-
sium, sulfate, alkalinity, and TDS increased sharply, concomitant with the
increase in chloride — these are all seawater constituents. The possibility
of the increase in chloride was caused by saltwater intrusion during the
resistive heating application. Also, potential vaporization of the water may
have resulted in the increased chloride concentrations.
o Abiotic processes that may have degraded TCE include reductive dechlori-
nation by the steel shot in the electrodes, hydrolysis, and/or oxidation.
Any of these processes could have been promoted by the heating in the
plot.
• Migration to surrounding regions. There are indications that some TCE, and
perhaps DNAPL, may have migrated to regions surrounding the resistive
heating plot.
o Monitoring wells (IW-17S and IW-171) outside the western perimeter of the
plot showed a sustained increase in TCE concentrations during and after
the demonstration. TCE was found in transient surface water that
appeared along a ditch on the western side of the plot, following the two
hurricane events. It is possible that when the water table rose to the
ground surface, the vapor extraction piping in the plot was submerged.
Hot water laden with TCE could have migrated westward along the topo-
graphic gradient. Another possible obstruction to the TCE vapors being
extracted through the extraction pipes and plenum in the vadose zone and
ground surface is the Middle Fine-Grained Unit. TCE vapors and steam
migrating upwards could preferentially migrate horizontally in the sandy
layer under the Middle Fine-Grained Unit rather than through the silty layer
above. A limited number of exploratory soil cores collected in the regions
surrounding the resistive heating plot after the demonstration did not show
any signs of fresh DNAPL deposits.
o DNAPL appeared in two of the wells (PA-2I and PA-2D) on the eastern
side of the plot. It is not clear which of the two technologies, ISCO or
resistive heating, caused DNAPL to migrate. ISCO in the neighboring test
plot (80 ft away) created a strong hydraulic gradient that could potentially
Battelle ix February 19, 2003
-------
displace any mobile DNAPL in the aquifer. Resistive heating generates
heat-induced convection gradients that could displace mobile DNAPL or
mobilize residual DNAPL. On the other hand, the PA-2 well cluster was
installed in a region that was showing dissolved TCE levels close to its
solubility before the demonstration. It is possible that DNAPL would have
eventually appeared in these wells regardless of the neighboring
remediation activities.
o Soil core samples from the vadose zone above the resistive heating-
treated aquifer did not show any noticeable increase in TCE
concentrations.
o Surface emission tests conducted inside and around the plot on several
occasions during and immediately following the resistive heating applica-
tion showed noticeably elevated levels of TCE, compared to background
levels. This indicated that the vapor capture system was not as efficient
as would be desired and some CVOC vapors were migrating to the
atmosphere. On some occasions, steam (and probably CVOC vapors)
shot out of the monitoring wells for several seconds during sampling. This
is another potential route for CVOC vapors.
o After the resistive heating and ISCO demonstrations, three wells were
installed into the confined aquifer- one in the parking lot to the north
(PA-20), one in the ISCO plot (PA-21) and one in the resistive heating plot
(PA-22). All three wells showed elevated levels of dissolved TCE, but the
levels were especially high in PA-22. Ground water in PA-22 also had
elevated temperature (44 to 49°C); it is not clear whether the elevation in
temperature was caused by conduction or convection. The soil cores
collected during the installation of these wells showed the presence of
DNAPL in the Lower Clay Unit and confined aquifer below the ISCO plot
and below the resistive heating plot, but not under the parking lot, which is
outside the suspected DNAPL source zone. TCE concentrations were
particularly high in soil and ground-water samples collected from under the
resistive heating plot. Because these wells were installed only after the
demonstration, it is unclear as to when the DNAPL migrated to the
confined aquifer. The resistive heating treatment heated the base of the
aquifer and probably the aquitard fairly well and the buoyancy of the water
would probably create vertically upward gradients. It is possible that the
DNAPL penetrated the aquitard gradually overtime, long before the
demonstration.
o The power outage and ground-water recharge resulting from two hurricane
events (Floyd, September 10, 1999; and Irene, October 17, 1999) during
the operation may have caused some loss of TCE.
• Losses during sampling of hot soil cores. It is possible that some CVOC losses
occurred during post-demonstration sampling of the hot (90°C or less) soil
cores. This would cause an underestimation of the TCE-DNAPL mass
remaining in the resistive heating plot after the demonstration. However, all
precautions had been taken to minimize any such losses. By the time the post-
demonstration soil sampling was done, the plot had cooled to 90°C or less,
indicating that steam generation had subsided. Each time the soil sample
barrel was retrieved from the ground, it was immediately capped at both ends
and submerged in an ice bath until the core temperature cooled to ambient.
• The monitoring indicates that some TCE may have degraded through one or
more of several heat-induced degradation (or accelerated biodegradation)
mechanisms. It is also possible that some TCE may have migrated from the
resistive heating plot through a variety of possible pathways. It also is possible
February 19, 2003 x Battelle
-------
that some of the migrating TCE was DNAPL. The resistive heating application
at Launch Complex 34 generated the desired heating in most parts of the plot,
even in difficult spots, such as immediately above the aquitard and under the
building. Heating in the shallower regions of the plot was somewhat hampered
by the deficiencies of the new electrode design and by the transient diminishing
of the vadose zone. Vapor capture is the biggest challenge that the technology
needs to engineer for in future applications.
In summary, the TCE in the plot probably was dissipated by the resistive heating
treatment through a number of possible pathways, including aboveground vapor
recovery and condensation, microbial degradation, and migration to the surrounding
regions. The possible buildup and persistence of c;s-1,2-DCE in the plot, as well as
dechlorination to ethenes, due to heat-accelerated biodegradation needs to be stud-
ied. Ways of maximizing any such biodegradation and minimizing migration outside
the plot need to be determined during future resistive heating applications.
At Launch Complex 34, a mechanism (such as a vertical pipe) for channeling
upward-migrating CVOC vapors past the Middle Fine-Grained Unit probably would
have improved capture. Better hydraulic and pneumatic control, as well as better
heating, near the water table, vadose zone, and ground surface would have
improved vapor capture. Better design could have increased observed recovery and
decreased potentially undesirable losses outside the plot.
Verifying Operating Requirements
The resistive heating heat application began on August 18, 1999 and continued until
July 12, 2000, with two major breaks in between. The SVE system was operated for
two more months until September 19, 2000 so that continuing vapors from the still-
hot aquifer could be recovered. Over the course of the demonstration, a total of
1,725,000 kW-hrs of energy was applied to the subsurface. The applied voltage
ranged from 100 to 500 V, which resulted in an electrical current of 10 to 400 amps.
At this site, the vendor used a novel electrode design consisting of an electrical cable
attached to a ground rod within a graphite backfill, instead of the traditional pipe elec-
trode. However, this new design, coupled with excessive rainfall and a rising water
table, resulted in insufficient heating of the upper part of the aquifer. Therefore,
between February 24 and March 2, 2000, the vendor installed ground rods near each
electrode to heat the 3- to 10-ft-bgs ground interval.
The first major interruption of the resistive heating operation occurred between
September 30 and December 12, 1999. On September 10 a major hurricane (Hurri-
cane Floyd) hit Cape Canaveral, followed by a second hurricane (Hurricane Irene) on
October 17, 1999. The power supply was damaged and the water table rose signifi-
cantly, from about 6 ft bgs before the demonstration to almost 1.5 ft bgs in monitoring
well PA-2. In low-lying areas of the test plot, the ground water was probably near the
ground surface. Elevated TCE levels discovered in ponded surface water in a ditch
along the west side of the resistive heating plot indicate that some TCE migrated
from the plot during this period. It is probable that infiltration of cooler rainwater from
the storms caused the rising TCE vapors to condense near the ground surface. In
addition, the rising water table submerged the SVE wells rendering them useless; it
is probable that some TCE volatilized to the atmosphere during this time.
In October 1999, the vendor installed six horizontal wells in the northern half of the
cell and seven shallow vertical wells in the southern half of the cell near the building.
In addition, a surface cover (plenum) was placed over the plot to improve vapor
capture. In October 1999, the vendor also installed a drainage diversion system
Battelle xi February 19, 2003
-------
consisting of a sandbag cutoff wall on the east side of the plot and a sump pump to
divert the water through a PVC pipe to the drainage collection area in the west. Also,
PVC risers on the six monitoring wells inside the plot were removed and replaced
with stainless steel risers. Due to these modifications and the repairs resulting from
the hurricanes, the resistive heating system was operated only for six weeks during
the first heating cycle. The second heating cycle started on December 12, 1999 and
continued for 13 weeks.
On March 24, 2000, operations were interrupted to replace the transformer, a major
piece of equipment, whose lease had run out. A replacement transformer was
obtained and installed in April, but the third heating cycle could begin only on
May 11, 2000 due to an unusually heavy space shuttle launch schedule that neces-
sitated work stoppages. The third heating cycle continued for eight weeks until
July 12, 2000, when the IDC determined that VOC extraction rates had declined
significantly. The SVE system remained operational until September 19, 2000, by
which time subsurface temperatures had fallen below 95°C, indicating that steaming
had stopped.
A major concern with the resistive heating technology was the high voltage (up to
500 V) required to be delivered to the subsurface. Despite all the difficulties involving
hurricanes and flooding of the plot, the vendor successfully controlled the transport
and distribution of the large amounts of electricity involved. At all times, the ground
surface was successfully insulated from the electric current running through the
aquifer. The ground surface above the resistive heating plot was available for other
activities during the voltage applications. This successful management of the high
voltage application is probably the most important safety achievement of the
demonstration.
The voltage application was turned off whenever monitoring wells were sampled
inside the test plot and all sampling events were conducted safely. Because the
monitoring well screens were completely submerged under the water table, there
was a tendency for steam pressure to build up in the monitoring wells. A pressure
gauge and pressure release valve were installed on each monitoring well inside the
plot and along the perimeter. System operators and sampling personnel wore
Level D personal protective equipment at the site. No injuries were encountered dur-
ing the demonstration.
Economics
The total cost of the resistive heating application was $613,000. The vendor incurred
a total cost of approximately $569,000 for resistive heating treatment of the 75-ft x
50-ft x 45-ft test plot at Launch Complex 34. This total includes the design, equip-
ment, mobilization/demobilization and operation costs. In addition, NASA incurred a
cost of $44,000 for off-site waste disposal. Aboveground wastes requiring disposal
included the condensate (shipped to the on-site wastewater treatment plant), spent
carbon (shipped to the supplier for regeneration), and the permanganate-impreg-
nated silica (shipped to a local landfill).
A comparison of the cost of resistive heating treatment of the DNAPL source the size
of the resistive heating plot and an equivalent (2 gallon per minute [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 present value (PV) of building and
operating a pump-and-treat system for 30 years was estimated as $1,406,000.
Assuming that the resistive heating application was effective and displacement did
not occur, the resistive heating application cost, therefore, is less than the present
value (PV) of a 30-year pump-and-treat application.
February 19, 2003 xii Battelle
-------
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.
Resistive heating treatment and natural attenuation require none of the aboveground
structures, recurring operational costs, and maintenance that pump-and-treat sys-
tems require. Anecdotal evidence indicates that, at many sites, pump-and-treat sys-
tems are operational only about 50% of the time. The impact of this downtime and
the associated maintenance costs should also be considered. In general, the eco-
nomics favor DNAPL source treatment over a pump-and-treat system at this site.
Site characterization costs were not included in the cost comparison because a good
design of either a source treatment (e.g., resistive heating) or plume control (e.g.,
pump and treat) remedial action would require approximately the same degree of
characterization. The site characterization conducted 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, data analysis, and report.
Regulatory and Administrative Considerations
DNAPL source remediation, in general, and resistive heating, in particular, is a treat-
ment option that results in risk reduction through removal of DNAPL from the sub-
surface. Contaminant volume reduction and, to some extent, toxicity reduction resulted
from the TCE extraction and its possible degradation due to the resistive heating treat-
ment. Better hydraulic and pneumatic control, as well as better heating, near the water
table, vadose zone, and ground surface would improve vapor capture at future sites.
Although the eventual target for the Launch Complex 34 aquifer is to meet Florida
state-mandated ground-water cleanup goals (3 ug/L of TCE, 70 ug/L of c/s-1,2-DCE,
and 1 ug/L of vinyl chloride), the Technical Advisory Group recommended a more
feasible and economically viable goal of 90% removal of DNAPL mass. From the
experience of the demonstration, it appears that, at least from the site owner's per-
spective, three types of cleanup goals may be envisioned for source remediation - a
short-term goal, an intermediate-term goal, and a long-term goal. At Launch Complex
34, the short-term goal of the cleanup was to remove at least 90% of the DNAPL
mass, and was the immediate goal given to the technology vendors. Although more
than 90% reduction of the DNAPL mass was observed in the resistive heating plot,
ground-water concentrations of TCE declined substantially, but not to 3 ug/L. On the
other hand, c/s-1,2-DCE levels increased, as some TCE probably degraded reduc-
tively. Although some rebound in TCE concentrations may be expected in the future,
it is possible that in the intermediate term (say, a year after the source treatment), a
weakened plume will result. Therefore, in the intermediate term, there is a possibility
that the source treatment, in conjunction with natural attenuation (or other plume
control measure, if necessary), would allow cleanup targets to be met at a down-
gradient compliance point (e.g., property boundary). With source treatment, meeting
ground-water cleanup targets is likely to be an intermediate-term goal.
The long-term goal of source treatment would be faster dismantling of any interim
plume control remedy (natural attenuation or other treatment) that may be implemented
to meet ground-water cleanup targets at the compliance point. Faster dismantling of
any interim remedy is likely to result from the fact that DNAPL mass removal would
hasten the eventual depletion of the TCE source. A possible long-term benefit could
also accrue from the fact that source treatment may result in a weakened plume that
would require a much lower magnitude of long-term treatment (and cost).
Battelle xiii February 19,2003
-------
-------
Contents
Executive Summary v
Figures xix
Tables xxii
Acronyms and Abbreviations xxv
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 Resistive Heating Technology 4
1.4 The Demonstration Site 4
1.5 Technology Evaluation Report Structure 7
2. Site Characterization 8
2.1 Hydrogeology of the Site 8
2.2 Surface Water Bodies at the Site 14
2.3 TCE-DNAPL Contamination in the Resistive Heating Plot and Vicinity 14
2.4 Aquifer Quality/Geochemistry 18
2.5 Aquifer Microbiology 21
3. Technology Operation 22
3.1 Resistive Heating Concept 22
3.2 Application of Resistive Heating at Launch Complex 34 22
3.2.1 Resistive Heating Equipment and Setup at Launch Complex
34 22
3.2.2 Resistive Heating Field Operation 23
3.2.3 Health and Safety Issues 27
4. Performance Assessment Methodology 28
4.1 Estimating the Change in TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Plot 28
4.1.1 Linear Interpolation 31
4.1.2 Kriging 32
4.1.3 Interpreting the Results of the Two Mass Estimation Methods 32
4.2 Evaluating Changes in Aquifer Quality 33
4.3 Evaluating the Fate of the TCE-DNAPL 33
4.3.1 Potential for Migration to the Semi-Confined Aquifer 34
4.3.1.1 Geologic Background at Launch Complex 34 35
4.3.1.2 Semi-Confined Aquifer Well Installation Method 35
4.4 Verifying Resistive Heating Operating Requirements and Costs 39
Battelle xv February 19, 2003
-------
5. Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions 40
5.1 Change in TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Plot 40
5.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Changes in TCE-DNAPL
Distribution 40
5.1.2 TCE-DNAPL Mass Estimation by Linear Interpolation 49
5.1.3 TCE Mass Estimation by Kriging 51
5.1.4 Summary of Changes in the TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Plot 51
5.2 Changes in Aquifer Characteristics 52
5.2.1 Changes in CVOC Levels in Ground Water 52
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer Geochemistry 52
5.2.2.1 Changes in Ground-Water Chemistry 52
5.2.2.2 Changes in Soil Geochemistry 58
5.2.3 Changes in the Hydraulic Properties of the Aquifer 61
5.2.4 Changes in the Microbiology of the Resistive Heating Plot 61
5.2.5 Summary of Changes in Aquifer Quality 61
5.3 Fate of the TCE-DNAPL in the Plot 62
5.3.1 TCE-DNAPL Degradation through Biological or Abiotic
Mechanisms 63
5.3.1.1 Evaporation as a Potential Source of Chloride 67
5.3.1.2 Microbial Degradation as a Source of Chloride 67
5.3.1.3 Saltwater Intrusion as a Source of Chloride 68
5.3.1.4 Migration from the ISCO Plot as a Source of
Chloride 68
5.3.1.5 Abiotic Degradation as a Source of Chloride 68
5.3.2 Potential for DNAPL Migration from the Resistive Heating
Plot 70
5.3.2.1 Potential for DNAPL Migration to the Surrounding
Aquifer 70
5.3.2.2 Potential for DNAPL Migration to the Lower Clay
Unit and Semi-Confined Aquifer 76
5.3.3 Potential TCE Losses during Hot Soil Core Sampling 88
5.3.4 Summary of Fate of TCE-DNAPL in the Plot 88
5.4 Operating Requirements and Cost 90
6. Quality Assurance 91
6.1 QA Measures 91
6.1.1 Representativeness 91
6.1.2 Completeness 92
6.1.3 Chain of Custody 92
6.2 Field QC Measures 92
6.2.1 Field QC for Soil Sampling 92
6.2.2 Field QC Checks for Ground-Water Sampling 93
6.3 Laboratory QC Checks 94
6.3.1 Analytical QC Checks for Soil 94
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for Ground Water 95
6.3.3 Analytical Detection Limits 95
6.4 QA/QC Summary 95
7. Economic Analysis 96
7.1 Resistive Heating Treatment Costs 96
7.2 Site Preparation and Waste Disposal Costs 96
7.3 Site Characterization and Performance Assessment Costs 97
7.4 Present Value Analysis of Resistive Heating and Pump-and-Treat
System Costs 98
February 19, 2003 xvi Battelle
-------
8. Technology Applications Analysis 100
8.1 Objectives 100
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 100
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 100
8.1.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 100
8.1.2.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 101
8.1.2.3 Clean Water Act (CWA) 101
8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 101
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act (CAA) 102
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) 102
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 102
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 102
8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 102
8.1.6 Implementability 103
8.1.7 Cost 103
8.1.8 State Acceptance 103
8.1.9 Community Acceptance 103
8.2 Operability 103
8.3 Applicable Wastes 104
8.4 Key Features 104
8.5 Availability/Transportability 104
8.6 Materials Handling Requirements 104
8.7 Ranges of Suitable Site Characteristics 104
8.8 Limitations 104
9. References 106
Battelle xvii February 19, 2003
-------
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 and Lithologic Logs
B.1 Data Analysis Methods and Results for Slug Tests
B.2 Site Assessment Well Completion Diagrams for Shallow, Intermediate,
and Deep Wells
B.3 Launch Complex 34 IDC Coring Logsheets for Site Assessment Wells
B.4 Launch Complex 34 IDC Coring Logsheets for Semi-Confined Aquifer
Wells
Appendix C. CVOC Measurements
C.1 TCE Results of Ground-Water Samples
C.2 Other CVOC Results of Ground-Water Samples
C.3 Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration Soil Sample Results
C.4 Resistive Heating Post-Demonstration Soil Sample Results
Appendix D. Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
Appendix E. Microbiological Assessment
E.1 Microbiological Evaluation Work Plan
E.2 Microbiological Evaluation Sampling Procedure
E.3 Microbiological Evaluation Results
Appendix F. Surface Emissions Testing Methods and Procedures
Appendix G. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
Appendix H. Economic Analysis Information
February 19,2003 xviii Battelle
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the IDC Demonstration at Launch
Complex 34 2
Figure 1-2. Formation of a DNAPL Source in an Aquifer 3
Figure 1-3. Illustration of the Resistive Heating Technology for Subsurface
Treatment 4
Figure 1-4. Demonstration Site Location 5
Figure 1-5. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station 6
Figure 1-6. Looking Southward towards Launch Complex 34, the Engineering
Support Building, and the Three Test Plots 6
Figure 2-1. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the Three Test Plots 9
Figure 2-2. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through Resistive Heating 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 forSurficial Aquifer from June 1998 13
Figure 2-7. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Shallow
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 14
Figure 2-8. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Intermediate
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 15
Figure 2-9. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Deep Wells
at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 15
Figure 2-10. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) in Shallow
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 16
Figure 2-11. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) in
Intermediate Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 16
Figure 2-12. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) in Deep
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999) 17
Figure 2-13. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Upper Sand
Unit [-15±2.5ft msl] Soil at Launch Complex34 (September 1999).... 18
Figure 2-14. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit [-20±2.5 ft msl] Soil at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999) 19
Figure 2-15. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Lower Sand
Unit [-35 ±2.5 ft msl] Soil at Launch Complex34 (September 1999)...19
Figure 2-16. Vertical Cross Section through Resistive Heating Plot Showing
TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Subsurface 20
Battelle
XIX
February 19, 2003
-------
Figure 3-1. Resistive Heating Plot and Monitoring Well Layout for Performance
Assessment 23
Figure 3-2. Resistive Heating System in Operation at Launch Complex 34 25
Figure 3-3. Resistive Heating System Layout at Launch Complex 34 26
Figure 4-1. Sampling for Performance Assessment at Launch Complex 34 28
Figure 4-2. Pre-Demonstration Soil Coring Locations (SB-1 to SB-12) in
Resistive Heating Plot (June 1999) 30
Figure 4-3. Post-Demonstration Soil Coring Locations (SB-201 to SB-212) in
Resisitve Heating Plot (December 2000); Additional Soil Coring
Locations Around Resistive Heating Plot (August-December 2000) ....31
Figure 4-4. Outdoor Cone Penetrometer Test Rig for Soil Coring at Launch
Complex 34 32
Figure 4-5. Indoor Vibra-Push Rig (LD Geoprobe® Series) Used in the
Engineering Support Building 32
Figure 4-6. Collecting and Processing Ground-Water Samples for
Microbiological Analysis 33
Figure 4-7. Surface Emissions Testing at Launch Complex 34 33
Figure 4-8. Location of Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells at Launch Complex 34 34
Figure 4-9. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space
Center Area (after Schmalzer and Hinkle, 1990) 35
Figure 4-10. Well Completion Detail for Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells 37
Figure 4-11. Pictures Showing (a) Installation of the Surface Casing and (b) the
Completed Dual-Casing Well 38
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Pre- and
Post-Demonstration in the Resistive Heating Plot Soil 41
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (June 1999) and
(b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000) Horizontal Cross
Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Upper Sand Unit Soil 44
Figure 5-3. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (June 1999) and
(b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000) Horizontal Cross
Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit 45
Figure 5-4. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (June 1999) and
(b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000) Horizontal Cross
Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Lower Sand Unit 46
Figure 5-5. Three-Dimensional Distribution of DNAPL in the Resistive Heating
Plot Based on (a) Pre-Demonstration (June 1999) and
(b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000) Soil Sampling Events 47
Figure 5-6. Distribution of Temperature in Shallow Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000) 48
Figure 5-7. Distribution of Temperature in Intermediate Wells near the
Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000) 49
Figure 5-8. Distribution of Temperature in Deep Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (May 2000) 50
Figure 5-9. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration
(August 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000)
Sampling of Shallow Wells 54
Figure 5-10. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration
(August 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000)
Sampling of Intermediate Wells 55
February 19, 2003
xx
Battelle
-------
Figure 5-11. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration
(August 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000)
Sampling of Deep Wells 56
Figure 5-12. Mineral Abundance in Control (CCB1) and Resistive Heating Plot
(CCB2) Soil Samples 59
Figure 5-13. Mineral Abundance in Resistive Heating Plot Soil Samples CCB3
andCCB4 60
Figure 5-14. Monitoring Wells and GeoProbe® Monitoring Points (CHL-#) for
Chloride Analysis (Sampled January to May 2001) 64
Figure 5-15. Increase in Chloride Levels in Shallow Wells (Sampled January to
May 2001) 65
Figure 5-16. Increase in Chloride Levels in Intermediate Wells (Sampled January
to May 2001) 66
Figure 5-17. Increase in Chloride Levels in Deep Wells (Sampled January to
May 2001) 66
Figure 5-18. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 10, 2000) 71
Figure 5-19. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 10, 2000) 71
Figure 5-20. Water Levels Measured in Deep Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 10, 2000) 72
Figure 5-21. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in
Shallow Wells near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex34 (April 2000) 73
Figure 5-22. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in
Intermediate Wells near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex34 (April 2000) 74
Figure 5-23. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in
Deep Wells near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex34 (April 2000) 74
Figure 5-24. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Perimeter Wells on the Eastern
(PA-2) and Northern (PA-7) Side of the Resistive Heating Plot 75
Figure 5-25. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Perimeter Wells on the Southern
and Western Sides of the Resistive Heating Plot 75
Figure 5-26. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Perimeter Well (PA-15) on the
Western Side of the ISCO Plot 76
Figure 5-27. Dissolved TCE Levels (ug/L) in Distant Wells (PA-1 and PA-8) on
the Northeastern Side of the ISCO Plot 76
Figure 5-28. Pre- and Post-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) for
Resistive Heating Perimeter Soil Samples 77
Figure 5-29. Location Map for Surface Emissions Test 81
Figure 5-30. Geologic Cross Section Showing Lower Clay Unit and
Semi-Confined Aquifer 83
Figure 5-31. TCE Concentrations in Soil with Depth from Semi-Confined Aquifer
Soil Borings 84
Figure 5-32. TCE Concentration Trend in Ground Water from Semi-Confined
Aquifer 85
Figure 5-33. Hydraulic Gradient in the Semi-Confined Aquifer (April 19, 2001) 86
Figure 5-34. Vertical Gradients from the Spatially Neighboring Paired Wells
between the Surficial Aquifer and the Semi-Confined Aquifer 87
Battelle xxi February 19, 2003
-------
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. Timeline for Resistive Heating Technology Demonstration 24
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated
Measurements 29
Table 4-2. Hydrostratigraphic Units of Brevard Country, Florida 36
Table 5-1. Estimated Total TCE and DNAPL Mass Removal by Linear
Interpolation of the TCE Distribution in Soil 50
Table 5-2. Estimated Total TCE Mass Removal by Kriging the TCE Distribution
in Soil 51
Table 5-3. Pre- and Post-Demonstration Levels of Ground-Water Parameters
Indicative of Aquifer Quality 53
Table 5-4. Results of XRD Analysis (Weight Percent Abundances of Identified
Minerals) 58
Table 5-5. Pre- and Post-Demonstration Hydraulic Conductivity in the
Resistive Heating Plot Aquifer 61
Table 5-6. Geometric Mean of Microbial Counts in the Resistive Heating Plot
(Full Range of Replicate Sample Analyses Given in Parentheses) 61
Table 5-7. Pre- and Post-Demonstration Inorganic and TOC/BOD
Measurements in Resistive Heating Plot Wells 65
Table 5-8. Chloride Mass Estimate for Various Regions of the Launch
Complex 34 Aquifer 67
Table 5-9. Contribution of Chloride from Evaporation in the Resistive Heating
Plot and Vicinity 67
Table 5-10. c;s-1,2-DCE Levels in Resistive Heating Plot and Perimeter Wells 68
Table 5-11. Seawater Composition 68
Table 5-12. Chloride and TDS Measurements in Monitoring Wells Surrounding
the Resistive Heating Plot 69
Table 5-13. Inorganic and TOC Measurements (mg/L) in Ground Water from the
Steam Injection Plot after Resistive Heating Demonstration 69
Table 5-14. Surface Emissions Results from Resistive Heating Treatment
Demonstration 80
Table 5-15. Confined Aquifer Well Screens and Aquitard Depth 82
Table 5-16. TCE Concentrations in Deep Soil Borings at Launch Complex 34 82
Table 5-17. TCE Concentrations in the Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells 84
Table 5-18. Key Field Parameter Measurements in Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells.. 85
February 19, 2003
XXII
Battelle
-------
Table 5-19. Geochemistry of the Confined Aquifer 85
Table 5-20. Results for Slug Tests in Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells at
Launch Complex 34 86
Table 5-21. Summary of Gradient Direction and Magnitude in the
Semi-Confined Aquifer 87
Table 6-1. Instruments and Calibration Acceptance Criteria Used for Field
Measurements 92
Table 6-2. List of Surrogate and Matrix Spike Compounds and Their Target
Recoveries for Ground-Water Analysis by the On-Site Laboratory 94
Table 6-3. Surrogate and Laboratory Control Sample Compounds and Their
Target Recoveries for Soil and Ground-Water Analysis by the
Off-Site Laboratory 94
Table 7-1. Resistive Heating Application Cost Summary Provided by Vendor 96
Table 7-2. Estimated Site Characterization Costs 97
Table 7-3. Estimated Performance Assessment Costs 97
Battelle
XXIII
February 19, 2003
-------
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACL alternative concentration limits
AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory
ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
bgs below ground surface
BOD biological oxygen demand
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CES Current Environmental Solutions
CVOC chlorinated volatile organic compound
CWA Clean Water Act
DCE c/s-1,2-dichloroethylene
DNAPL dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid
DO dissolved oxygen
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
EM50 Environmental Management 50 (Program)
ESB Engineering Support Building
FDEP (State of) Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FSU Florida State University
GAG granular activated carbon
gpm gallon(s) per minute
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IDC Interagency DNAPL Consortium
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
ITRC Interstate Technologies Regulatory Council
JCPDF Joint Commission on Powder Diffraction Files
LCS laboratory control spikes
LCSD laboratory control spike duplicates
LRPCD Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
MCL
MS
maximum contaminant level
matrix spikes
Battelle
xxv
February 19, 2003
-------
MSD matrix spike duplicates
msl mean sea level
MSE MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
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
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCE perchloroethylene
PID photoionization detector
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PV present value
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RIR relative intensity ratio
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 Plans
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (Program)
STL STL Environmental Services, Inc.
SVE soil vapor extraction
TCA trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOA volatile organic analysis
WSRC Westinghouse Savannah River Company
XRD x-ray diffraction
February 19, 2003
XXVI
Battelle
-------
1. Introduction
This section is an introduction to the demonstration of
the resistive heating technology for remediation of a
dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) source zone
at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Force Sta-
tion, 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 performance of the resistive heating technology for
remediation of DNAPL source zones. Resistive heating
was demonstrated at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canav-
eral Air Force Station, FL, where the chlorinated volatile
organic compound (CVOC) trichloroethylene (TCE) is
present in the aquifer as a DNAPL source. Smaller
amounts of dissolved c;s-1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE)
and vinyl chloride also are present in the ground water.
The field application of the technology started in August
1999 and ended in July 2000. Pre- and post-
demonstration performance assessment activities were
conducted before, during, and after the field demonstra-
tion.
1.1.1 The Interagency DNAPL Consortium
The resistive heating 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 government 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:
• Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental
Management 50 (EM50) Program
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program
• 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
technology transfer:
• Patrick Air Force Base
• U.S. EPA, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
Center (RSKERC)
• Interstate Technologies Regulatory Council (ITRC).
Key representatives of the various agencies constituting
the IDC have formed a Core Management Team, which
guides the progress of the demonstration. An independ-
ent Technical Advisory Group has been formed to advise
the Core Management Team on the technical aspects of
the site characterization and selection, remediation tech-
nology selection and demonstration, and the perform-
ance assessment of the technologies. The Technical
Advisory Group consists 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. Current Environmental Solutions (CES) was the
selected vendor for implementing the resistive heating
technology at Launch Complex 34. IT Corporation and
Integrated Water Resources, Inc., were the vendors for
the in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) and steam injection
technologies, respectively. In addition, the IDC also con-
tracted Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Battelle
February 19, 2003
-------
(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 demonstration.
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, QA, and data analysis
(Battelle, 1999d). Once the demonstration started, Battelle
prepared eight interim reports (Battelle 1999e, and f;
Battelle 2000a, b, and c; Battelle 2001 a, b, and c).
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. Luii, DHL Analytical
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the IDC Demonstration at Launch Complex 34
February 19, 2003
Battelle
-------
1.1.3 The SITE Program
The performance assessment planning, field implemen-
tation, and data analysis and reporting for the resistive
heating 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 (OSWER) and the
Office of Research and Development (ORD) in response
to the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act, which recognized a need for an "Alternative or
Innovative Treatment Technology Research and Demon-
stration 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 implementa-
tion of (1) innovative treatment technologies for hazard-
ous 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
during the field demonstration are used to assess the
performance 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 are also presented. This IDC report on the resistive
heating 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 encoun-
ters 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
chlorinated solvents are only sparingly soluble in water;
Spill
Source
Ground surttc*
DNAPL Pool
Residual DNAPL
DNAPL Poo
Figure 1-2. Formation of a DNAPL Source
in an Aquifer
therefore, they can persist as a separate phase for sev-
eral years (or decades). This free-phase solvent is called
DNAPL.
DNAPL in pools can often be mobilized towards extrac-
tion wells when a strong hydraulic gradient is imposed;
this solvent is called mobile DNAPL. Residual DNAPL is
DNAPL that is trapped in pores and cannot be mobilized
towards extraction wells, regardless of how strong the
applied gradient. DNAPL pools may dissolve in the
ground-water flow over time, leaving behind residual
DNAPL. At most sites, DNAPL pools are rare; DNAPL is
often present in residual form.
As long as there is DNAPL 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 above-
ground or buried drums, drain pipes, vadose zone soil,
etc.) has been removed. Because DNAPL persists for
many decades or centuries, the resulting plume also per-
sists for many years. As recently as five years ago,
DNAPL sources were difficult to find and most remedial
approaches 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 to development and validation of
techniques that have potential to affect 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
Battelle
February 19, 2003
-------
other compliance point. However, pump-and-treat sys-
tems may not be economical for residual DNAPL source
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 control, 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 ground-water flow. An innovative
approach is required to address the DNAPL problem.
1.3 The Resistive Heating
Technology
In the early 1990s, Pacific Northwest National Labora-
tory developed the resistive heating technology for heat
treatment of vadose and saturated zone soils, as well as
ground water. It splits conventional three-phase elec-
tricity into six electrical phases and delivers it to the sub-
surface through metal electrodes (see Figure 1-3). In the
subsurface, the electrical energy resistively heats the
soil and ground water to generate steam. A combination
of direct volatilization and steam stripping drives contam-
inants to the vadose zone, where a vapor extraction sys-
tem collects the steam and contaminant vapors and
treats them in an aboveground treatment system. Typi-
cally, a condenser and activated carbon have been used
as an aboveground treatment system for the extracted
vapors. Thermal processes, such as steam injection and
resistive heating, have also been reported as causing in
situ degradation of organic contaminants by a variety of
processes, such as hydrolysis, oxidation, and enhanced
microbial action. Over the years, the resistive heating
system has been developed to the point where the
ground surface is insulated from the subsurface elec-
trical energy and continued site access is possible to
personnel during the application.
1.4 The Demonstration Site
Launch Complex 34, the site selected for this demon-
stration, is located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
FL (see Figure 1-4). Launch Complex 34 was used as a
launch site for Saturn rockets from 1960 to 1968. His-
torical 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 Engineer-
ing Support Building and inside the building. Some of the
solvents ran off to the surface or discharged into drain-
age 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 depicting the
Engineering Support Building and vicinity, where the
demonstration was conducted. The DNAPL source zone
was large enough that the IDC and the Technical
Advisory Group could assign three separate test plots
v /-*,->
Electrically Heated Region
I I
Figure 1-3. Illustration of the Resistive Heating Technology for Subsurface Treatment
February 19, 2003
Battelle
-------
.
i
; :
Launch Com pi ex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station
InteragencyDNAPL Source Remediation Project
Figure 1-4. Demonstration Site Location
Battelle
February 19, 2003
-------
IW-15 v
Explanation
Existing Monitoring \Afell
Cluster
Figure 1-5. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
encompassing different parts of this source zone. Fig-
ure 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 resistive heating
plot is the westernmost (to the right in Figure 1-6) of
these plots. Figure 1-6 is a photograph looking south-
ward towards the three test plots and the Engineering
Support Building. All three test plots lie partly under the
Engineering Support Building so as to encompass the
portion of the DNAPL source under the building.
Engineering Support Building (ESB)
Figure 1-6. Looking Southward towards Launch Complex 34, the Engineering Support Building, and the
Three Test Plots
February 19, 2003
Battelle
-------
1.5 Technology Evaluation Report
Structure
This resistive heating technology evaluation report starts
with an introduction to the project organization, the
DNAPL problem, the technology demonstrated, and the
demonstration site (Section 1). The rest of the report is
organized as follows:
• 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 of the Technology (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).
Battelle
February 19, 2003
-------
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 pre-demonstration
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 mid-
dle of the resistive heating 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 15 ft. 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 in some areas, especially under the
resistive heating plot (3 ft thick in most areas, but only
1.5 ft thick 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 b).
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
Semiconfined
Thin low-permeability semi-confining unit
Semi-Confined Aquifer
>40
*""' **' ""
Semi-confined, brackish
February 19, 2003
Battelle
-------
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Technology
Demonstration
Figure 2-1. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the Three Test Plots
Figure 2-2. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through Resistive Heating Plot
Batteiie
February 19, 2003
-------
Top of Middle Fine-Grained Unit (ft amsl) /
'•»- -x *. f r y / /Ai'r- .
STEAM
INJECTION
OBatteae
. - Putting Technology To
/Coordinate Information:
Florida Slale Plane (East Zone 0901 -
-&,
_,
NAD27)
-A.
CM-HMD
Figure 2-3. Topography of Top of Middle Fine-Grained Unit
The semi-confined aquifer underlies the Lower Clay Unit.
During the investigation, the aquifer was found to consist
of gray fine to medium-sized sand, clay, and shell frag-
ments to the aquifer below the Lower Clay Unit (Battelle
2001 b). Water levels from wells in the aquifer were mea-
sured at approximately 4 to 5 ft bgs. Few cores were ad-
vanced 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.
Pre-demonstration 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
February 19, 2003
10
Battelle
-------
Bottom of Middle Fine-Grained Unit (ft amsl)
4 RESISTIVE
\O HEATING
»AS'
FiNJECTIO
FEET
Coordinate Information:
Florida Stat* Plan* (East Zon* 0901
0Baffe(fe
. . Putting Technology To VVorfr
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 infiltra-
tion of precipitation through surface soils to the aquifer.
In general, pre-demonstration 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 interme-
diate 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 averaged
1.59 g/cm3 (Battelle, 1999b). Ground-water temperatures
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 intermediate well screens include portions of
the Upper Sand Unit. The hydraulic conductivity of the
Battelle
11
February 19, 2003
-------
Top of Clay Unit (ft amsl)
TSf
I / RESISTIVE
HEATING
J&
N-/A /INJECT DN
~vVt
FEET
Coordinate Intormatlori:
FtoMdo State Plane (Host Zone 0901 - NA&27)
CSA-mll
*
.
llBaiteiie
. . . Putting Technology To \A/or1f
Figure 2-5. Topography of Top of Lower Clay Unit
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 averaged 1.59 g/cm3 (Battelle, 1999b).
Ground-water temperatures 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-level 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 are well above the semi-confining unit,
indicating that the aquifer is semi-confined. The gradient
in the semi-confined 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 confined aquifer 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 inter-
mediate 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.
February 19, 2003
12
Battelle
-------
DO
0)
I
1522200
1522100
I52200Q
1521900
1521800
1521700
1521600
1521500
1521400
1521300
1521200
795600
795600
796000
796200
796400
796600
796SOO
797000
797200
;\ \\\.\\\ r
' ,-> «O t^'J tO V"1 *0 »O rO f^i h
ESISTIVE
HEATINGS
PLOT
vrt_map6_SPH_flnal.cdr
* Measurement Location
PZ-13 ID
4.2 Water Table Elevation (ft)
- Contour Line Ł0.02 fl intervoO
^^^^^^^^^~ Contour Line (0.10 ft inlerval)
Demonstration Plot Boundaries
a 100
Projection Information:
Florida State Plane Coordinate System (East Zone)
* Contouring has been extrapolated from nearest data points surrounding the map area.
lleaneiie
. .. Putting Technology To Work
Batfell*. Columbus OH
Dal*: 11/09/98
Script; wlcontour-98.ah
Figure 2-6. Water Table Elevation Map for Surficial Aquifer from June 1998
.5°
ro
-------
Table 2-2. Hydraulic Gradients and Directions in the
Surficial and Semi-Confined Aquifers
Hydrostratigraphic
Unit
Surficial Aquifer
Semi-Confined
Aquifer
Sampling Date
May 1 997
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
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
ground-water 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
and the Banana River seem to act as hydraulic barriers
or sinks, as ground water likely flows toward these sur-
face water bodies and discharges into them.
2.3 TCE-DNAPL Contamination in the
Resistive Heating Plot and Vicinity
Figures 2-10 to 2-12 show representative pre-
demonstration distributions of dissolved TCE, the pri-
mary contaminant at Launch Complex 34, in the shallow,
SHALLOW
WELLS
Battelle
. PuStittg TvfhfKuhgy JG W&ti.
Figure 2-7. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as Elevations msl) in Shallow Wells at Launch Complex
34 (September 1999)
February 19, 2003
14
Battelle
-------
DO
0>
I
CD"
cn
Cr
2
03
-5°
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
DEEP
WELLS
STEAM
P
•V
^
CHEATING/ /
P*% $""• Ł**• 1 17% T™1!! i*f™
INJECTION/
IIBaneue
aag Trthnatogr to Utoi
Figure 2-8. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as Elevations
msl) in Intermediate Wells at Launch Complex 3
(September 1999)
Figure 2-9. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as Elevations
msl) in Deep Wells at Launch Complex 34
(September 1999)
o
o
co
-------
21
I
-5°
o
8
SHALLOW
WELLS
Explanation:
Concentration [\iQl\-l
Q«»
.3-100
^^100-1,000
"~~| 1,000- 10,000
'10 .000 .100.000
L7ZJ 100.MO -50Q,OM
10904.000 -1.1M.QOO
100,000
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
Explanation;
Iwldo 51u1» °Ptont"{[*
-------
DEEP
WELLS
w-170
54.000
fl*.
.-TOO
i >
Deride Stait Plon* ([«( Zep.* 0901 - N*p77)
Figure 2-12. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) in Deep Wells at Launch
Complex 34 (September 1999)
intermediate, and deep wells (Battelle, 1999c). No free-
phase solvent was visible in any of the wells during the
pre-demonstration sampling; however, ground-water
analysis in many wells showed TCE at levels near or
above its solubility, indicating 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. Ground-water sampling indi-
cates 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 pre-
demonstration horizontal distributions of TCE in soil from
the Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and
Lower Sand Unit (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.
The pre-demonstration soil sampling indicated that ap-
proximately 11,313 kg of total TCE was present in the
resistive heating plot before the demonstration (Battelle,
1999c). Approximately 10,490 kg of this TCE may occur
as DNAPL, based on a threshold TCE concentration of
about 300 mg/kg in the soil. This threshold has been
determined as the maximum TCE concentration 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:
water
(KdPb
Pb
(2-1)
where Csat = maximum TCE concentration in the
dissolved and adsorbed phases
(mg/kg)
Cwater = TCE solubility (mg/L) = 1,100
: bulk density of soil (g/cm3) = 1.59
• porosity (unitless) = 0.3
• partitioning coefficient of TCE in soil
[(mg/kg)/(mg/L)], equal to (foc • Koc)
: fraction organic carbon (unitless)
: organic carbon partition coefficient
[(mg/kg)/(mg/L)].
Pb
n
Kd
oe
Koc
Battelle
17
February 19, 2003
-------
UPPER SAND UNIT
IF F"r"-/——
^^^^=^^^^^* BU
FErr /
Cao(d\fta\e IrtfafnnallfcA;
Florida Stole Plgn* (Eos! Zone OSQl - NAJX27)
llBaitene
Figure 2-13. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Upper Sand Unit [-15±2.5 ft msl]
Soil at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999)
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 threshold is a conservative estimate and
takes into account the minor variability in the aquifer
characteristics, such as porosity, bulk density, and
organic carbon content. The native organic carbon con-
tent of the Launch Complex 34 soil is relatively low and
the threshold TCE concentration is driven by the solu-
bility of TCE in the porewater.
In Figures 2-13 to 2-16, the colors yellow to red indicate
the least to greatest presence of DNAPL, respectively.
As described in Section 4.1.1, contouring software from
EarthVision™ was used to divide the plot into isoconcen-
tration 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 bulk density of the
soil. To determine the DNAPL mass in the plot, the TCE
mass in the shells containing concentrations greater than
300 mg/kg was used. Section 5.1.2 contains a more
detailed description of the TCE-DNAPL mass estimation
procedures for the resistive heating 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 pre-demonstration
ground-water analysis. Pre-demonstration ground-water
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 6.9 to 7.5. Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels were
measured with a flowthrough cell, and were mostly less
than 1 mg/L in the deep wells, indicating that the aquifer
was anaerobic, especially at greater depths. Oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP) from all the sampled wells
ranged from -142 to -74 millivolts (mV). Total organic
carbon (TOC) concentrations ranged from 6 to 40 mg/L
in water samples and from 0.9 to 1.7% in soil samples;
much of this TOC is probably TCE-DNAPL, as the
samples were collected from the DNAPL source region.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) ranged from <3 to
20 mg/L in ground water.
February 19, 2003
18
Battelle
-------
DO
0)
MIDDLE FINE-GRAINED UNIT
CD
Explanation:
Concentration mi
-
0|: j 100
t—1nio-ii«
I I arc-mm
LOWER SAND UNIT
Explanation:
Concentration img'Xg:
ao»_chein_pra{iefno_max*.CDR
Figure 2-14. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in
the Middle Fine-Grained Unit [-20±2.5 ft msl] Soil
at Launch Complex 34 (September 1999)
I
Figure 2-15. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in
the Lower Sand Unit [-35 ±2.5 ft msl] Soil at
Launch Complex 34 (September 1999)
-5°
co
-------
Location Map of Transect
-/,/ CV"''/. """:<
Units: ffigfky
Middle Fine-Grained Unif
Z exaggeration: 4.0
Azimuth: 50.5
Inclination: 0.57
-5
•In
-15
c
o
-»I
X Front Cut: 640310.0
Y Front Cut: IS2I280.0
Technology
Demonstration
Plots
OBaflefle
. - - Putting Technology To Work
Figure 2-16. Vertical Cross Section through Resistive Heating Plot Showing TCE Concentrations
(mg/kg) in the Subsurface
Inorganic ground-water parameters were tested in
August 1999 in select wells to determine the pre-
demonstration quality of the ground water in the target
area (Battelle, 1999c). Inorganic parameters in the
ground water 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 548 to 1,980 mg/L. Chloride
concentrations ranged from 11 to 774 mg/L and
increased sharply with depth, indicating some
saltwater intrusion in the deeper layers. These high
levels of native chloride made a chloride mass
balance (a possible indicator of TCE degradation)
difficult during the performance assessment.
Sodium, another major seawater constituent,
ranged from 17 to 369 mg/L and also increased
sharply with depth.
• Alkalinity levels ranged from 337 to 479 mg/L and
showed little trend with depth or distance.
• Iron concentrations ranged from <0.05 to 11 mg/L in
the ground water, and manganese concentrations
ranged from <0.015 to 1.1 mg/L with little vertical or
lateral trend.
February 19, 2003
20
Battelle
-------
• Calcium concentrations ranged from 60 to 143 mg/L 2.5 Aquifer Microbiology
and magnesium concentrations ranged from 23 to
113 mg/L. Both parameters appeared to increase A separate exploratory microbiological study was con-
slightly with depth. ducted in the pre-demonstration and post-demonstration
_ ,, . . .. . . „_ aquifer in the resistive heating plot under a Work Plan
. Su fate concentrations were between 39 and d b Bgtte||e gnd Lawrence Berke| Nationa|
104 mg/L and showed no discernable trends. Laboratory (Battelle, 2000d). The approach and prelimi-
Nitrate concentrations were below detection. resu|ts Qf thjs stud gre esented in Appendix E.
Battelle 21 February 19, 2003
-------
3. Technology Operation
This section describes how the resistive heating tech-
nology was implemented at Launch Complex 34.
3.1 Resistive Heating Concept
As described in Figure 1-3 and Section 1.3, the resistive
heating technology uses a strong voltage (of the order of
500 kW or more) to generate resistive heating of sub-
surface soils. Volatile and semivolatile contaminants are
removed from the subsurface by a combination of direct
volatilization and steam stripping. A surface plenum and/
or vadose zone piping are used to extract the vaporized
contaminants and steam to the ground surface, where
they are condensed and treated. Part of the vadose
zone is heated by the rising steam and this prevents
recondensation of the contaminant vapors.
The aboveground system typically consists of a water-
cooled condenser and activated carbon. The off-gas
from the carbon is discharged to the atmosphere. The
condensate may be treated on site or disposed off site.
The condensate and spent carbon typically are the
wastestreams generated by resistive heating treatment.
Recent reports have also claimed that organic con-
taminants degrade in situ due to heat-accelerated abiotic
and/or biotic processes. Abiotic processes may include
hydrolysis and/or oxidation.
3.2 Application of Resistive Heating
at Launch Complex 34
In the IDC demonstration, resistive heating was used for
heating a DNAPL source zone consisting primarily of
TCE. Lesser amounts of dissolved c;s-1,2-DCE were
also present in the aquifer at Launch Complex 34, the
site of the demonstration. For the purpose of the demon-
stration, the relatively large source zone was divided into
three test plots for three different technology applica-
tions. The 75-ft x 50-ft test plot assigned to the resistive
heating technology is shown in Figure 3-1 and is referred
to as the resistive heating plot. The ISCO and resistive
heating technology demonstrations were conducted con-
currently in the two outer plots, which are separated by
about 80 ft. The steam injection demonstration was con-
ducted after completing the resistive heating and ISCO
demonstrations.
In their draft-final report (CES, 2001) on the IDC demon-
stration, the vendor has provided a detailed description
of their resistive heating equipment, application meth-
odology, and process measurements. A summary de-
scription of the resistive heating process implemented by
the vendor at Launch Complex 34 follows in this section.
Table 3-1 includes a chronology of events constituting
the resistive heating demonstration. The field application
of the technology was conducted over a period of
11 months from August 1999 to July 2000. The vendor
experienced some periods of downtime. An unexpected
interruption occurred from September 30 to December
12 after two hurricanes damaged the power supply.
Also, changing the power supply caused an additional
interruption in early 2000.
3.2.1 Resistive Heating Equipment
and Setup at Launch Complex 34
Figure 3-2 is a photo of the resistive heating system
installed at Launch Complex 34. As shown in the equip-
ment layout in Figure 3-3, the resistive heating system at
Launch Complex 34 used 13 electrodes. Three of the
electrodes that were near the Engineering Support Build-
ing were installed at an angle of 18 degrees to provide
heat to the 15 ft of test plot that lies under the building.
To protect the thin aquitard, the electrodes were com-
pleted slightly above the Lower Clay Unit. Each elec-
trode consisted of two conductive intervals—one from 23
to 30 ft bgs (in the Upper Sand Unit) and the other from
38 to 45 ft bgs (in the Lower Sand Unit). The lower heat-
ing interval was configured to provide a "hot floor" for the
treated aquifer and to mitigate the potential for down-
ward migration of DNAPL. The upper conductive interval
was configured to provide heat to the Upper Sand Unit
and the Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
Twelve soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells were installed
with 2-ft screens to depths of 4 to 6 ft bgs to recover the
February 19, 2003
22
Battelle
-------
PA-5
I *
Explanation:
+ 2" Diameter - SS (1 '-6' below clay layer)
• Boring Location
• Well Location
S Shallow
I Intermediate 0
D Deep L_
_TtstiPI
-------
g
I
4!
^x
<0
o
8
Table 3-1. Timeline for Resistive Heating Technology Demonstration
ro
Start Date
7/29/99
6/3/99
4/1/00
6/21/00
8/1 8/00
9/30/99
12/12/99
3/24/00
5/11/00
7/1 2/00
8/1/00
End Date
6/18/98
7/1/99
8/17/99
6/25/00
7/17/00
9/30/00
12/12/99
3/24/00
5/11/00
7/12/00
9/19/00
12/31/00
Number
of Days
90
27
43
77
98
48
62
79
120
Events/Heat Application
Stage
Solicitation received from
IDC
Design/modeling/
treatability tests
IDC approval to proceed
Mobilization to site and
setup
Test Plan/Quality
Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP)
Pre-demonstration
characterization of
resistive heating plot
First heat application
Break
Second heat application
Break
Third heat application
Heating off, vapor
recovery system on
Post-demonstration
characterization
Energy Applied Temperature (°C) at Temperature (°C) at
during this Time Top/Bottom of Aquifer at Top/Bottom of Aquifer at
Period (kW-hrs) the start of time period the end of time period Comments
— — —
— — —
_
216,915 30/24 47/92
— — — Hurricane damaged step-
down transformer in power
supply/TCE concentration in
ditch adjacent to treatment
cell
821,100 39/75 100/124 2/28-3/2. Upgrade electrodes
to enhance power input.
— — — Heating near septic tank/
power supply replacement/
delay resulting from rocket
launches
687,800 60/82 100/124
To evacuate any TCE vapors
generated while the aquifer is
at elevated temperature
— — —
DO
0>
I
CD"
-------
Figure 3-2. Resistive Heating System in
Operation at Launch Complex 34
months until September 19, 2000 so that continuing
vapors from the still hot aquifer could be recovered. Over
the course of the demonstration, a total of 1,725,000
kW-hrs of energy was applied to the subsurface. The ap-
plied voltage ranged from 100 to 500 V, which resulted
in an electrical current of 10 to 400 amps.
At this site, the vendor used a novel electrode design
consisting of an electrical cable attached to a ground rod
within a graphite backfill, instead of the traditional pipe
electrode. However, this new design, coupled with
excessive rainfall and a rising water table, resulted in
insufficient heating in the shallow portion of the Upper
Sand Unit. Therefore, between February 24 and March
2, 2000, the vendor installed ground rods near each
electrode to heat the 3- to 10-ft-bgs ground interval.
The first major interruption of the resistive heating opera-
tion occurred between September 30 and December 12,
1999. On September 10 a major hurricane (Hurricane
Floyd) hit Cape Canaveral, followed by a second hurri-
cane (Hurricane Irene) on October 17, 1999. The power
supply was damaged and the water table rose signifi-
cantly, from about 6 ft bgs before the demonstration to
almost 1.5 ft bgs in monitoring well PA-2. In low-lying
areas of the test plot, the ground water was probably
near the ground surface. Elevated TCE levels discov-
ered in ponded surface water in a ditch along the west
side of the resistive heating plot indicate that some TCE
migrated from the plot during this period. It is probable
that infiltration of cooler rainwater from the storms
caused the rising TCE vapors to condense near the
ground surface. Typically, the buoyancy of the hot water
generated in the plot leads to a convection cycle, in
which hot water builds up near the water table and
migrates sideways out of the plot. This loss of water is
made up by cooler water entering from the bottom of the
test plot, near the aquitard. During the hurricanes and
the consequent high rainfall events, the hot ground water
laden with TCE near the water table possibly migrated
westward from the plot along the surface topographic
gradient. In addition, the rising water table submerged
the SVE wells, rendering them useless; it is possible that
some TCE volatilized to the atmosphere during this time.
In October 1999, the vendor modified the design during
the demonstration and installed six horizontal wells in
the northern half of the cell and seven shallow vertical
wells in the southern half of the cell near the building. In
addition, a surface cover (plenum) was placed over the
plot to improve vapor capture. In November 1999 the
plenum was expanded and two additional horizontal
wells were installed. The plenum was expanded again in
March 2000 on the west side of the plot, after surface
emission tests and dried vegetation indicated that hot
vapors were probably reaching the ground surface there.
In October 1999, the vendor also installed a drainage
diversion system consisting of a sandbag cutoff wall on
the east side of the plot and a sump pump to divert the
water through a PVC pipe to the drainage collection area
in the west. Also, PVC risers on the six monitoring wells
inside the plot were beginning to melt down because of
the heat conducted by the stainless steel wells below.
These risers were removed and replaced with stainless
steel risers. During the repair, surrounding aquifer materi-
als got into well casings of performance monitoring wells
(PA-13 and PA-14). The monitoring wells had to be
cleaned out later by surge-and-purge to pump out the
sediments inside the well casings. Due to these mod-
ifications and the repairs resulting from the hurricanes,
the resistive heating system was operated only for six
weeks during the first heating cycle. The second heating
cycle started on December 12, 1999, and continued for
13 weeks.
On March 24, 2000, operations were interrupted to
replace the transformer, a major piece of equipment, on
which the lease had run out. A replacement transformer
was obtained and installed in April, but the third heating
cycle could begin only on May 11, 2000 due to an unu-
sually heavy space shuttle launch schedule that necessi-
tated work stoppages. The third heating cycle continued
for eight weeks until July 12, 2000, when the IDC deter-
mined that VOC extraction rates had declined sig-
nificantly. The SVE system remained operational until
September 19, 2000, by which time subsurface tempera-
tures had fallen below 95°C, indicating that steaming
had stopped.
During the demonstration, the vendor monitored VOC
levels and flowrate of the extracted vapor stream. The
Battelle
25
February 19, 2003
-------
21
&
2
03
-5°
o
8
ro
en
Do
Q)
I
CD"
SPH Power Supply
Legend
Aj SPH Electrode
^\ Angled SPH Electrode
Vapor Recovery Well
Temp. Monitoring Well
Groundwater Monitoring Well
(Proposed Locaton)
Vac. Monitoring Point
ES^
Current
Environmental Solutions
25108-B Marguerite Parkway
Suite 400
Mission Viejo, CA 92692-2000
Ph. 949.756.4721
Fx. 949.488.8086
I
•4-
1,000-2,000 Ib 800 Ib
GAC Canister KMnO Canister
SPH
Condenser
1
VR
Blower
20,000 Ib GAC Canister
:"=fO
o
O
o:
--^o
o
TMP-3
O
>
^
'>
15
30
scale in feet
Figure 3-3.
Electrode and VR Well Configuration
Resistive Heating Demonstration
LC34 Cape Canaveral, Florida
I
Project No.
Date
Scale
Drawn By
Checked By
Revision
Figure 3-3. Resistive Heating System Layout at Launch Complex 34
Parking
MSE-99
6/1/1999
1" = 15'
MED
GB
1.2
-------
vendor also monitored temperatures in the plot through
the four thermocouple bundles (TMP-1 through TMP-4,
shown in Figure 3-3). This monitoring was separate from
the performance assessment conducted by Battelle and
was done primarily to make operational decisions.
3.2.3 Health and Safety Issues
A major initial concern with the resistive heating tech-
nology was the high voltage (up to 500 V) required to be
delivered to the subsurface. Despite all the difficulties
involving hurricanes and flooding of the plot, the vendor
successfully controlled the transport and distribution of
the large amounts of electricity involved. At all times, the
ground surface was insulated from the electric current
running through the aquifer. The ground surface above
the resistive heating plot was available for other activities
during the voltage applications. This successful manage-
ment of the high voltage application is probably the most
important safety achievement of the demonstration.
The voltage application was turned off whenever moni-
toring wells were sampled inside the test plot and all
sampling events were conducted safely. Because the
monitoring well screens were completely submerged
under the water table, there was steam pressure buildup
in the monitoring wells. It was agreed that the initial
procedure was to open the well caps slowly to release
any pressure. Sampling personnel wore heat-resistant
gloves and face shields when opening the wells.
However, on one occasion, a jet of steam rose from the
wellhead and continued for several seconds. Subse-
quently, a pressure gauge and pressure release valve
were installed on each monitoring well inside the plot
and along the perimeter. This seemed to help; but there
were times when, despite releasing the pressure in the
wells until the pressure gauge showed zero, steam still
came rushing out in a jet above the well during sampling.
There were no injuries, as sampling personnel were alert
to the sounds of steam welling up in the well; however,
monitoring the inside of the hot treated plot continued to
be a necessary, but difficult task.
System operators and sampling personnel wore Level D
personal protective equipment at the site. Heavy equip-
ment movement during mobilization and demobilization
and handling of hot fluids were hazards that were recog-
nized in the Health and Safety Plan prepared at the
beginning of the demonstration. No injuries were encoun-
tered during the demonstration.
Battelle
27
February 19, 2003
-------
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 resistive heating demon-
stration at Launch Complex 34 (see Figure 4-1). The
objectives and methodology for the performance assess-
ment were outlined in a QAPP prepared before the field
demonstration and reviewed by all stakeholders (Battelle,
1999d). The objectives of the performance assessment
were:
• Estimating the change in TCE-DNAPL mass
• Evaluating changes in aquifer quality due to the
treatment
• Evaluating the fate of TCE-DNAPL removed from
the resistive heating plot
• Verifying resistive heating 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 methodology used to achieve them.
4.1 Estimating the Change in
TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Plot
The primary objective of the performance assessment
was to estimate the change in mass 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. Soil sampling in the resistive heating plot
before and after the demonstration was the method used
for estimating TCE-DNAPL mass changes.
At the outset of the demonstration, the Technical Advi-
sory Group proposed 90% DNAPL mass removal as a
target for the three remediation technologies being dem-
onstrated. This target represented an aggressive treat-
ment goal for the technology vendors. Soil sampling was
the method selected in the QAPP for determining percent
change in TCE-DNAPL mass at this site. Previous soil
coring, sampling, and analysis at Launch Complex 34
(Battelle, 1999b; Eddy-Dilek et al., 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 resistive
heating 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 flowpaths in the aquifer.
The primary focus of the performance assessment was
on TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride in the soil sam-
ples. However, high TCE 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 resistive heating plot is described in
Appendix A.1. Based on the horizontal and vertical
February 19, 2003
28
Battelle
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated Measurements
Objective
Measurements
Sampling Locations
Estimating TCE-
DNAPL mass removal
Evaluating changes in
aquifer quality
Evaluating fate of TCE-
DNAPL
Verify operating
requirements and cost
CVOCs in soil; before and after treatment
CVOCs in ground water; before, during, and
after treatment
Field parameters in ground water; before,
during, and after treatment
Inorganic parameters in ground water
(cations, anions, including alkalinity);
before 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 ground water
Inorganics in ground water
Hydraulic gradients
CVOCs in soil surrounding the plot; before
and after treatment
CVOCs and inorganics in soil and ground
water in the confined aquifer
Surface emissions; primarily during oxidant
injection
Field observations; tracking materials
consumption and costs
12 spatial locations, every 2-ft depth interval
Primary well clusters PA-13 and PA-14
Primary well clusters PA-13 and PA-14; perimeter wells(b) for
verifying spread
Primary well clusters PA-13 and PA-14; perimeter wells(b) for
verifying spread
Two locations, three depths inside plot
Primary well clusters PA-13 and PA-14
Primary well clusters PA-13 and PA-14
Primarily well clusters PA-13 and PA-14 in the plot; perimeter wells(b)
Primary well clusters PA-13 and PA-14
All wells
Fourteen locations outside the resistive heating plot (See Figure 4-3)
Wells PA-20, PA-21, and PA-22
Three locations inside plot or around the plenum; 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 resistive heating plot are shown in Figure 3-1. Soil coring locations are shown in Figures 4-2
(pre-demonstration) and 4-3 (post-demonstration).
(b) Perimeter wells are PA-2, PA-10, IW-17, PA-15, and PA-7. 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.
variability observed in the TCE concentrations in soil
cores collected during preliminary site characterization in
February 1999, a systematic unaligned sampling ap-
proach 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-1 to SB-12 in Figure 4-2) as
described in the QAPP (Battelle, 1999d). The resulting
12 cores provided good spatial coverage of the 75-ft x
50-ft resistive heating plot and included two cores inside
the Engineering Support Building. For each soil core, the
entire soil column from ground surface to aquitard was
sampled and analyzed in 2-ft sections. Another set of
12 cores was similarly collected after the demonstration.
The soil boring locations are shown as SB-201 to SB-
212 in Figure 4-3. Each sampling event, therefore, con-
sisted of nearly 300 soil samples (12 cores, 23 2-ft
intervals per core, plus duplicates). The line of dashes in
Figures 4-2 and 4-3 represents the pre-demonstration
DNAPL source boundary. This boundary includes all the
soil coring locations where at least one of the pre-
demonstration soil samples (depth intervals) showed
TCE levels above 300 mg/kg.
An additional 12 soil cores were collected outside the plot,
towards the end of the resistive heating application,
before the post-demonstration monitoring. The objective
of these cores was to determine if there had been signifi-
cant migration of TCE and DNAPL outside the resistive
heating plot. These coring locations are also shown in
Figure 4-3.
Soil coring, sampling, and extraction methods are de-
scribed in Appendix A.2 and summarized in this section.
Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show the outdoor and indoor rigs
used for soil coring outside and inside the Engineering
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 trans-
ferred 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 heterogeneously distrib-
uted contaminant distribution as compared to the more
conventional method of collecting and analyzing small
soil samples at discrete depths, because the entire
vertical depth of the soil column at the coring location
could be analyzed. Preliminary site characterization had
showed that the vertical variability of the TCE distribution
Battelle
29
February 19, 2003
-------
LC34B14
PA-1
. D
•
LC34B17
LCVB.M ,8M • SMI
/
Jf ,'PA-H / *._ ^^
' .'SB-8 / / %NS^X, 0V.
0.fW' — — /,|/ -X.,/**
ft* »/ /PA^*/ ^"PA.17
// sw^.,3 y1^, fvHx\s
RESISTIVE ^ / LC34B10. / . N. PA-6
/>>, .VOTING v^4 / / / \\
- / / te. V;O^>"-
,B>^ r/ / ^ ^\ ^
SH STEAM • / / « /
\ INJECTION/ / ^ p- .„*. / /
i :^// '//
^ • \ 1SCO .-r/
* ^^ /x
LC34B39
"/ /
/
*+G
PA-181
..*.
^v
;//
PA-9
.1
^Baiteiie
. Pomnj; Tcchwto$v Ta I
Explanation:
• Boring Location
> Well Location:
I Intermediate (
D Deep j
^Test^Plot^Boun^arie^ ^
Pre-demonstratjon DNAPL
boundarv (300 mgfkg}
25 50
I I
FEET
Figure 4-2. Pre-Demonstration Soil Coring Locations (SB-1 to SB-12) in Resistive Heating Plot
(June 1999)
was greater than the horizontal variability, and this sam-
pling and extraction method allowed continuous vertical
coverage of the soil column.
One challenge during post-demonstration soil coring in
the resistive heating plot was handling hot cores. The
following steps were taken to minimize CVOC losses
due to volatilization:
• Post-demonstration coring was delayed until all
parts of the plot were below 90°C and steaming had
stopped.
• As soon as the soil core barrel was withdrawn, both
ends were capped and the barrel was dipped in an
ice bath until the core had cooled to ambient tem-
perature. The core barrel was kept in the ice bath
long enough to cool the cores without breaking the
seals at the capped ends (due to contraction of the
barrel metals).
The efficiency of TCE recovery by this soil core process-
ing method (modified EPA Method 5035; see Appendix
A.2) was evaluated through a series of surrogate spike
tests conducted for the demonstration (see Appendix G).
In these tests, a surrogate compound (trichloroethane
[TCA]) was spiked into soil cores from the Launch Com-
plex 34 aquifer, extracted, and analyzed. The surrogate
was spiked into separate soil cores both before and after
February 19, 2003
30
Battelle
-------
LCWB309
/.
* SB-210H / / **«»
*SB203 ,SB»/' ^PA-WZ «
/ 4* /
f -/
„• /PA^L,"
PA-3J ^
*PA-20B
PA-8
LC34BtT
S62M -P*-U / f
i RESISTIVE .sBioi /
..; 8B!2, HEAT.NG .!/ / ^^
*v^ MintR / .
PA4
LC34B217
!
Xb
•, *PA-2D6
*
PA-210
.% -sazai1" /
•f*10-*^ LC34BM/
"/ ' /
s
'
HVUJWtl
•
STEAM /
INJECTION/ /
'•• '
•
BAM A.
"
.
BAT-5
- " • ••-•w
«x,^ l*1lli" *8BMB
X^v PAS
** ' "*.*PA-Z05
/ }
WtP|
Explanation:
- Boring Location
4 Additional Boring Location
• w»!l Locilion:
F.-t- iltii: jlr.ll.l1ll.-il DnAPL
boundary poo mflf«.g)
50
I
FEET „,
Figure 4-3. Post-Demonstration Soil Coring Locations (SB-201 to SB-212) in Resisitve Heating Plot
(December 2000); Additional Soil Coring Locations Around Resistive Heating Plot (August-
December 2000)
cooling to determine both the level of any volatilization
losses from the core and the efficiency of extraction of
the surrogate from the soil. Replicate extractions and
analysis of a spiked surrogate (TCA) indicated a CVOC
recovery efficiency between 84 and 113% (with an aver-
age recovery of 92%), which was considered sufficiently
accurate for the demonstration (see Section 6 on Quality
Assurance).
Two data evaluation methods were used for estimating
TCE-DNAPL mass removal in the resistive heating plot:
linear interpolation (or contouring), and kriging. The
spatial variability or spread of the TCE distribution in a
DNAPL source zone typically is high, because small
pockets 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 resis-
tive heating plot and obtain a true TCE mass estimate
for the plot, both methods basically address the practical
difficulty of estimating the TCE concentrations at unsam-
pled points by interpolating (estimating) between sam-
pled points. The objective in both methods is to use the
information from a limited sample set to make an infer-
ence about the entire population (the entire plot or a
stratigraphic unit).
4.1.1 Linear Interpolation
Linear interpolation (or contouring) is the most straight-
forward and intuitive method for estimating TCE con-
centration or mass in the entire plot, based on a limited
number of sampled points. TCE concentrations are
Battelle
31
February 19, 2003
-------
Figure 4-4. Outdoor Cone Penetrometer Test Rig
for Soil Coring at Launch Complex 34
assumed to be linearly distributed between sampled
points. A software program, such as EarthVision™, has
an edge over manual calculations in that it is easier to
conduct the linear interpolation 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 interpo-
lated. Nearly 300 soil samples were collected from the
12 coring locations in the plot during each event (pre-
demonstration and post-demonstration), which was the
«,
Figure 4-5.
Indoor Vibra-Push Rig (LD Geoprobe
Series) Used in the Engineering
Support Building
highest number practical for this project. Appendix A.1
describes how the number and distribution of these
sampling points were determined to obtain good cover-
age of the plot. The contouring software EarthVision™
takes the same methodology that is used for plotting
water-level contour maps based on water-level measure-
ments at discrete locations in a region. The only differ-
ence with this software is that the TCE concentrations
are mapped in three dimensions to generate isoconcen-
tration shells. The TCE concentration in 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 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 pro-
vides 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
accounts for the uncertainty in each point estimate by
calculating 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 desirable at the beginning of the demonstration
(Battelle, 1999d).
4.1.3 Interpreting the Results of the
Two Mass Estimation Methods
The two 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 discusses the implication
of these differences.
February 19, 2003
32
Battelle
-------
In both linear interpolation and kriging, TCE mass removal
is accounted for on an absolute basis; higher mass re-
moval 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 prob-
ably provides a more informed inference of the TCE
mass removal because it takes into account the spatial
correlations in the TCE distribution and the uncertainties
(errors) 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
linear interpolation was able to overcome the spatial var-
iability to a considerable extent and provide mass esti-
mates that are close to 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. Resistive heating may affect
both the contaminant and the native aquifer character-
istics. Pre- and post-demonstration measurements con-
ducted to evaluate the short-term impacts of the technol-
ogy application on the aquifer included:
• CVOC measurements in the ground water inside
the resistive heating plot
• Field parameter measurements in the ground water
• Inorganic measurements (common cations and
anions) in the ground water
• Geochemical composition of the aquifer
• TDS, TOC, and 5-day BOD in the ground water
• 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 in the Test Plot
Another secondary objective was to evaluate the fate of
the TCE in the plot due to the resistive heating applica-
tion. Possible pathways (or processes) for the TCE re-
moved from the plot include degradation (destruction of
TCE) and migration from the resistive heating plot (to the
surrounding regions). These pathways were evaluated
by the following measurements:
Figure 4-6. Collecting and Processing Ground-Water
Samples for Microbiological Analysis
• Chloride (mineralization of CVOCs leads to forma-
tion of chloride) and other inorganic constituents in
ground water
• Hydraulic gradients (gradients indicative of ground-
water movement)
• Potassium ion in the resistive heating plot and
surrounding wells (potassium ion from potassium
permanganate addition in the ISCO plot acts as a
conservative tracer for tracking movement of
injected solution)
• 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 the testing setup, Figure 4-7, and the
map, Figure 5-29)
• CVOC concentrations in soil outside the resistive
heating plot (vadose and saturated zones)
Figure 4-7. Surface Emissions Testing at
Launch Complex 34
Battelle
33
February 19, 2003
-------
• CVOC concentrations in the Lower Clay Unit and
semi-confined aquifer below the resistive heating plot.
4.3.1 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, FL. 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 poten-
tial presence of CVOC contamination in the semi-
confined aquifer and to assess the effect of the DNAPL
remediation demonstration on the semi-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 thin aquitard
(Lower Clay Unit). However, by early 2001, nonintrusive
geophysical tests indicated the possibility of DNAPL in
the semi-confined aquifer. It was not clear whether any
DNAPL in the semi-confined aquifer would be related to
the demonstration activities or not. However, the IDC and
Battelle decided that there were enough questions about
the status of the confined aquifer that it would be worth-
while to characterize the deeper aquifer. Suitable precau-
tions would be taken to mitigate any risk of downward
migration of contamination during the well installation.
WSRC sent an observer to monitor the field installation
of the wells. The observer verified that the wells were
/
/ oe<
/ RESISTIVE
/ HEATING
/ i
mmmm/ / , pA.21 ,
Engineering
Support
Building
V-
"> /
C-Baitefle
Explanation:
4* 7" Diameter MW {Locations Approximate)
Test Pfol Boundaries
25
FEET
Figure 4-8. Location of Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells at Launch Complex 34
February 19, 2003
34
Battelle
-------
installed properly and that no drag-down of contaminants
was created during their installation.
4.3.1.1 Geologic Background at
Launch Complex 34
At the Launch Complex 34 area, there are several aqui-
fers, reflecting a barrier island complex overlying coastal
sediments (Figure 4-9). The surficial aquifer is com-
prised of layers of silty sand and shells, and includes the
Upper Sand Unit, the Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and the
Lower Sand Unit. 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 confined aquifer (Caloosa-
hatchee Marl equivalent) resides under the Lower Clay
Unit and is composed of silty to clayey sand and shells.
As shown in Figure 4-9, Launch Complex 34 is situated
just above the semi-confined aquifer in the Hawthorne
Formation, which is 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 (Schmalzerand Hinkle, 1990).
4.3.1.2 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 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 undertaken to prevent any
DNAPL from migrating to the semi-confined aquifer. Fig-
ure 4-11 shows the surface casing and inner (screened
well) casing for the dual-casing wells installed at Launch
Complex 34. The detailed well installation method is as
follows.
To verify the depth of the Lower Clay 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 Lower Clay Unit or
aquitard. Upon retrieval of a 2-ft split-spoon sample, the
borehole was then deepened to the bottom of the pre-
viously spooned interval. Once the previously spooned
interval was drilled, the drilling rods and bit were pulled
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
North South
15-
0-
-15-
-30-
-45-
1 -60-
Ł -75-
u.
-90 •
-105 -
-120 -
-135 -
-150 -
-165 -
-180 -
-195-
1
Se
LC34
Surficial
Aquifer
Se
ni-Confinec
(Hawthorn
Floridan
Aquifer
(bedrock)
ŁL
Ac
>)
•
Confining
uifer
r~^ - — i —
1 1
Layer
J
i
Figure 4-9. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space Center Area
(after Schmalzer and Hinkle, 1990)
Battelle
35
February 19, 2003
-------
g
I
4!
^x
<0
o
8
Table 4-2. Hydrostratigraphic Units of Brevard Country, Florida'3'
Geologic Age Stratigraphic Unit
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 (Calooshatchee Marl)
Hawthorne Formation
Q.
^
o
O
ra
s
o
Crystal River Formation
Williston Formation
Inglis Formation
Avon Park Limestone
0-110
20-90
10-300
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
ground water 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.
(a) Source: Schmalzerand Hinkle (1990).
MYA = million years ago.
Do
0>
I
CD"
-------
Project #:
G004065-31
Site:
LC34, Cape Canaveral
Well #:
PA-20/21/22
Drilling Contractor:
EDS (SBC)
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
Rotary
Date:
4/5/01
Reviewed By:
Driller:
S. Yoon
R. Hutchinson
Hydrologist:
C. J. Perry
Depth Below Ground Surface
0-ft. Ground Surface
Well Lid Elevation: ft amsl
TOC = ft amsl
llBaltelle
. . . Putting Technology To Work
Surface Completion:
Size 7" 2'x2' Concrete Pad
Water Tight Well Cover
Type_
Well Cap Locking Well Cap
Inside Well Casing:
Type 304SSSCH1Q
Diameter
Amount
2-in.
60-ft.-long section
Outer Well Casing:
Type 304SSSCH10
Diameter
Amount
6-in.
46-ft.-long section
46-ft. Bottom of Outer Casing
60-ft. Bottom of Inner Casing
Grout:
Type Type G + 30% Silica Sand
Well Screen:
Type_
304SSSCH10
Amount
Diameter
Slot Size
5-in.
2-in.
0.010
Filter Pack:
#20/30 Sand
NOT TO SCALE
61-ft. Bottom of Boring
Borehole
Diameter: 11-in. and 5 7/8-in.
Figure 4-10. Well Completion Detail for Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
Battelle
37
February 19, 2003
-------
Figure 4-11. Pictures Showing (a) Installation of the Surface Casing and (b) the Completed
Dual-Casing Well
logged during each split-spoon advance. The blow counts
were useful in identifying the soil types that are pene-
trated during spooning. They were also 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.
Once the top portion (approximately the first 1.5 ft) of the
Lower Clay Unit was retrieved by split spoons in each
borehole, 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
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) slipcap was placed on the bot-
tom of the casing to keep it free of drilling mud and soil.
Use of slipcaps was an added precaution to prevent any
possibility of downward contamination. As the casing
was lowered in the hole, it was filled with clean water to
prevent it from becoming 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 split cap was drilled through with a 5%-inch roller bit.
Then split-spoon sampling progressed through the re-
mainder of the Lower Clay Unit and into the semi-
confined aquifer. Split-spoon samples were collected
totaling 4 ft of lifts before the hole was reamed with the
5% 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)
was then tremied in around 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 ground water 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
February 19, 2003
38
Battelle
-------
cuttings 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
removed 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
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 was then
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.
Ground-water sampling was performed following well
development. Standard water quality parameters were
measured during sampling, and ground-water samples
were collected after these parameters became stable.
4.4 Verifying Resistive Heating
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 resistive heating application (CES, 2001).
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 resistive heating vendor. Site characteri-
zation costs were estimated by Battelle and TetraTech
EM, Inc.
Battelle
39
February 19, 2003
-------
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 Change in TCE-DNAPL Mass in the
Plot
Section 4.1 describes the methodology used to estimate
the masses of total TCE and DNAPL removed from the
plot due to the resistive heating application 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 sam-
ple that exceeds the threshold concentration of 300 mg/kg
(see Section 2.3). Pre- and post-demonstration concen-
trations of TCE at 12 soil coring locations (nearly 300
soil samples) inside the resistive heating plot were tabu-
lated and graphed to qualitatively identify changes in
TCE-DNAPL mass distribution and efficiency of the
resistive heating application in different parts of the plot
(Section 5.1.1). In addition, TCE-DNAPL mass removal
was quantified by two methods:
• Linear Interpolation (Section 5.1.2)
• Kriging (Section 5.1.3)
These quantitative techniques for estimating TCE-
DNAPL mass removal due to the resistive heating appli-
cation are described in Section 4.1; the results are
described in Sections 5.1.2 through 5.1.4.
5.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Changes
in TCE-DNAPL Distribution
Figure 5-1 charts the pre- and post-demonstration con-
centrations of TCE in the soil samples from the 12 coring
locations in the resistive heating plot as shown in
Figures 4-2 (pre-demonstration) and 4-3 (post-
demonstration). This chart allows a simple numerical
comparison of the pre- and post-demonstration TCE
concentrations at paired locations. Colors in the chart
indicate the represented soil color observed in each soil
sample of 2-ft intervals during the soil sample collection.
Gray and tan are natural colors observed above and
below the ground-water table from Launch Complex 34
soil samples. The chart in Figure 5-1 shows that at sev-
eral locations in the plot, TCE concentrations were con-
siderably lower in all three units. The thicker horizontal
lines in the chart indicate the depths at which the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit was encountered at each location. As
seen in Figure 5-1, the highest pre-demonstration con-
tamination detected was under the Engineering Support
Building in the deepest samples from soil cores SB-1
(37,537 mg/kg) and SB-2 (41,044 mg/kg).
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 in the resistive heating plot and surrounding aquifer.
A graphical representation of the TCE data illustrates the
areal and vertical extent of the initial contaminant distri-
bution and the subsequent changes in TCE concentra-
tions. The colors yellow to red indicate DNAPL (TCE
>300 mg/kg). In general, the portions of the aquifer
under or near the building (SB-201, SB-202, and SB-
204) and along the eastern half of the plot (SB-207 and
SB-208) had the highest pre-demonstration contamina-
tion generally occurring right on top of the Lower Clay
Unit. The post-demonstration coring showed that the
resistive heating process had caused a considerable
decline in TCE concentrations in several parts of the
resistive heating plot, especially in the Lower Sand Unit,
which showed the sharpest declines in TCE-DNAPL
concentrations. Access to the portion of the test plot
under the building by the application of the resistive
heating technology also appeared to be good, given that
angled electrodes were inserted into this region from
outside the building. Some portion of cores SB-201, SB-
202, and SB-203, collected under and near the building,
contained considerable post-demonstration concentra-
tions of both total TCE and DNAPL. Figure 5-5 depicts
three-dimensional (3-D) DNAPL distributions identified
(based on the 300 mg/kg threshold or greater) during the
pre- and post-demonstration sampling in the resistive
heating plot. Most of the remaining DNAPL in the plot
appears to be in and near the Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
February 19, 2003
40
Battelle
-------
DO
0>
I
CD"
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
Pre-
Demo
SB1
8
5
0.3
3
11
9
12
NA
4
122
315
1,935
820
526
941
19,091
349
624
1,025
5,874
5,677
368
33,100
37,537
Post-
Demo
SB201
0.8
1.8
2.9
1.4
18
13
ND
ND
NA
ND
28
60
3,927
401
467
385
211
254
265
318
186
146
364
270
Pre-
Demo
SB2
NA
NA
1.7
0.7
0.4 J
0.7
ND
1.1
0.7
2.5
2
50
108
292
458
295
174
176
440
558
5
249
251
41,044
Post-
Demo
SB202
ND
ND
2.9
6.7
40.2
29.2
9.4
1.9
53
111
4,295
1,248
102
353
5,561
390
465
102
429
474
250
335
8
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB3
9.2
0.9
0.1 J
0.3 J
0.3 J
0.3 J
0.3 J
0.6
1.3
1.0
8.9
NA
183
109
35
5
17
35.5 D
1.4 J
27
115
204
220
NA
Post-
Demo
SB203
1
ND
1
3
90
114
61
126
97
71
NA
NA
258
247
1,217
287
56
77
308
302
186
34
41
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB4
ND
4.6
5.1
48.7
0.2 J
4.6
NA
8.3
6.5
6.0
54.1
60
9,051
185
167
12,669
112
100
288
848
160
167
30,223
NA
Post-
Demo
SB204
1
3
ND
5
6
32
NA
NA
19
2
83
105
240
195
403
197
263
178
425
139
388
364
NA
NA
Cr
2
03
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Pre- and Post-Demonstration in the Resistive Heating Plot Soil
(page 1 of 3)
-5°
o
o
co
-------
21
&
2
03
-5°
o
8
IV)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
2Q
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Pre-
Demo
SB5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3 J
ND
ND
ND
5.2
27.7
1,835
260
5,880
542
902
5,345
23,362
8,062
28,168
6,534
37,104
NA
Post-
Demo
SB205
6
1
12
5
10
10
17
122
197
89
61
NA
177
177
102
150
140
64
146
236
97
129
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.9
ND
3.9
18.6
10.8
69.1
54.6
17.0
17.5
11.4
20.5
11.2
18.8
5.8
313.1
Post-
Demo
SB206
6
ND
6
3
55
69
71
76
164
119
224
135
213
235
105
86
63
35
99
89
149
126
NA
Post-
Demo
SB7
0.6
0.1
ND
ND
1.0
0.0
ND
0.2
0.0
10
31
NA
143
330
140
125
91
139
260
113
217
8,802
NA
Post-
Demo
SB207
ND
0
6
61
ND
ND
ND
1
1
ND
58
85
516
367
186
196
389
403
159
82
511
273
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB8
0.3 J
0.2 J
ND
1.1
0.5 J
0.8
1.2 J
342
0.5 J
1.7
217
329
330
184
182
157
294
113
141
NA
209
6,711
NA
Post-
Demo
SB208
2
1
5
72
ND
ND
24
6
27
NA
33
12
29
31
34
NA
52
63
2
11
4
52
160
Figure 5-1. Distribution of ICE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Pre- and Post-Demonstration in the Resistive Heating Plot Soil (page 2 of 3)
DO
03
I
CD"
-------
DO
0>
I
CD"
GO
Cr
2
03
-5°
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Pre-
Demo
SB9
ND
0.9
ND
ND
6.5
0.5
ND
0.8
0.4
5
14
29
26
84
30
2.5
ND
1.4
ND
3.4
51
67
NA
Post-
Demo
SB209
ND
ND
4
5
1
1
5
4
13
3
28
34
64
36
28
11
NA
5
74
54
77
52
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB10
ND
ND
ND
3.9
2.8
ND
1.9
ND
ND
0.7
30.9
92.4
106
98
40.3
4.8
ND
ND
ND
13.9
12.6
25.4
11.8
Post-
Demo
SB210
ND
ND
3
26
NA
NA
ND
6
NA
10
90
46
265
117
170
287
209
428
264
242
257
101
59
Post-
Demo
SB210B
3
2
23
20
NA
NA
ND
ND
1
6
16
49
569
310
77
27
344
315
124
219
236
297
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB11
4.1
2.8
2.1
2.7
0.7
1.1
ND
1.2
1.6
ND
9.2
NA
94
167
49
43.7
21.4
2.0
0.0
0.4
36.0
46.0
NA
Post-
Demo
SB211
6
2
3
49
1
NA
ND
NA
2
3
14
8
4
13
319
102
79
71
14
9
2
ND
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB12
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
2.4
0.4 J
ND
NA
ND
15.3
40.1
112.1
256.9
29.6
2.2
0.4
0.2 J
0.7
0.5 J
16.1
36.5
1.5
Post-
Demo
SB212
ND
3
10
12
16
ND
1
1
ND
5
4
6
20
10
7
3
23
1
3
ND
1
2
8
NA: Not available due to no recovery or no sample collection at the sample depth.
ND: Not detected.
Color in the chart represents the soil sample color observed during the soil sample collection.
Solid horizontal lines demarcate the Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Pre- and Post-Demonstration in the Resistive Heating Plot Soil (page 3 of 3)
o
o
Co
-------
Explanation:
Concentration 4mg/kg)
2-50
gg so-100
— 100 - 300
~] 300-1.000
_| 1.000 -5.000
M 5.000-10.000
• MO.OOO
UPPER SAND UNI1
UPPER SAND UNIT
Explandion:
Corvcentratlon img*gi
, ^%0
^50- 100
100-300
300 - t.OOO
1.000 - 5,000
5.000-10.000
M 0.000
PA-*2! 5
v^
FEP
iOlt InlfirmflSlon:
(tail 2on* D9Cn - M*p27)
0Baneiie
Pttvag J>TiH.'HrfLij,", rf-i'4W*! ri_rfi^njt^rnim_>»d_fHDe.eOH
(b)
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (June 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration (December
2000) Horizontal Cross Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Upper Sand Unit Soil
February 19, 2003
44
Battelle
-------
MIDDLE FINE-GRAINED UNIT
Explanation:
Cencenlrtfltcn (rngtogi
CJ<2
r—12-50
IB so-100
CJ100-300
1300-1.000
gH 1.000-5,000
(•5000-10000
(a)
MIDDLE FINE-GRAINED UNIT
ExplanatFon:
CorvceFMraElon tm
I \<2
-100
f "1100-300
—i 300- 1.000
•11.000 - 5,000
^5.000 -10.000
• 910,000
Figure 5-3. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (June 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration (December
2000) Horizontal Cross Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Battelle
45
February 19, 2003
-------
LOWER SAND UNIT
Explanation;
ConcirtlraWon (rngfagi
<2
I—12-50
BB50-100
| 1100-300
|—i300-1,000
^1,000-5.000
^5.000-10,000
•I--IODCO
PA-bO
rtci
dinoi* liyTg'meiloft
in« (toil !**>« 0901 - M*V/7.)
LOWER SAND UNIT
LCJ4 1214
Explanation:
Concen!ra!lcin
-------
Technology
Demonstration
Plots
cS .^ <^'C"" .<
"•<•:, ^t^/
*,.. ' «|Baitene
' -•: . . Putting Technology To IVtvfc
2 ••*.i.|i]<-i .iii". i .'•.
Azimuth: 2H.M
Indlnrton: 3?JOO
Technology
Demonstration
Z UEMMMtoB! 1-75
Azimuth: 795.30
OBaoeoe
. - Pudwtf rt'cyr.iHilo^x' To
Figure 5-5. Three-Dimensional Distribution of DNAPL in the Resistive Heating Plot Based on
(a) Pre-Demonstration (June 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration (December 2000) Soil
Sampling Events
(a)
(b)
Battelle
47
February 19, 2003
-------
This indicates that some TCE-DNAPL may have accum-
ulated in or immediately above the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit on its way up to the vadose zone and the vapor
extraction system.
Figures 5-6 to 5-8 show the post-demonstration distribu-
tion of temperature of the aquifer in the shallow, interme-
diate, and deep wells in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer,
as measured by existing thermocouples installed in the
plot and by a downhole thermocouple in May 2000,
toward the end of the resistive heating application and
after electrode modifications had been made to improve
heating efficiency (see Section 3.2.2). The temperature
levels in the monitoring wells are a measure of the aqui-
fer, although the absolute temperatures in the aquifer
are probably slightly higher than in the wells. These fig-
ures show that all three layers—shallow, intermediate,
and deep—eventually were heated well and probably
achieved the desired boiling temperatures during the
demonstration. These temperature measurements (in
the monitoring wells) correspond well with the tempera-
ture measurements conducted by the vendor using ther-
mocouples embedded in the test plot soil (CES, 2001).
In summary, a qualitative examination of the TCE-
DNAPL and temperature data indicate that the resistive
heating treatment generally achieved the desired level of
heating in most parts of the plot, even in the relatively
low-permeability Middle Fine-Grained Unit. The resistive
heating treatment also was able to access and heat
those portions of the test plot (e.g., right above the aqui-
tard and under the building) that would be considered
difficult to remediate. Heating in the Upper Sand Unit
was not very efficient at the beginning of the demonstra-
tion, but modifications made by the vendor to the elec-
trodes subsequently improved heating.
SHALLOW
WELLS
Coordinole Irnorrnollort:
Florida Slate Plane (East Zone 0901 - NAD27)
Figure 5-6. Distribution of Temperature in Shallow Wells near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex 34 (May 2000)
February 19, 2003
48
Battelle
-------
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
PA'-B.
36.4
PA-171
STEAM
TION /
PA-*
NA
PA-11
26J
Explanation:
Temperature (C*)
Uun« 2000)
I l<30
30 -40
| |40-50
~"~ 50 -60
I 160-70
BAf-21
NA
NA
PA-6I
25.6
PA-51
25.6
PA-41
NA
ISCO
NA
PA-91
26.5
25
50
nn
Coordinote Information:
Florida State Plane (East Zone 0901 - NAD27")
Batteiie
Putting Technology To Wofif
Figure 5-7. Distribution of Temperature in Intermediate Wells near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex 34 (May 2000)
5.1.2 TCE-DNAPL Mass Estimation by
Linear Interpolation
Section 4.1.1 describes the use of contouring to estimate
pre- and post-demonstration TCE-DNAPL masses and
calculate TCE-DNAPL mass changes within the plot. In
this method, Earth Vision™, a three-dimensional contour-
ing software, is used to group the TCE concentration
distribution in the resistive heating plot into three-dimen-
sional shells (or bands) of equal concentration. The con-
centration 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
post-demonstration TCE distributions in the resistive
heating plot. The pre-demonstration TCE-DNAPL mass
in the entire plot then can be compared with the post-
demonstration mass in the entire plot to estimate the
change in TCE-DNAPL mass in the plot. The results of
this evaluation are described in this section.
Table 5-1 presents the estimated masses of total TCE
and DNAPL in the resistive heating plot and the three
individual stratigraphic units. Under pre-demonstration
conditions, soil sampling indicated the presence of
11,313 kg of total TCE (dissolved and free phase),
approximately 10,490 kg of which was DNAPL based on
the 300 mg/kg of DNAPL criterion. Following the demon-
stration, soil sampling indicated that 1,101 kg of total
TCE remained in the plot; approximately 338 kg of this
remnant TCE was DNAPL. Therefore, the overall mass
removal indicated by contouring was 90% of total TCE
and 97% of DNAPL.
Batteiie
49
February 19, 2003
-------
DEEP
WELLS
PA-10
25.3
Explanation:
Temperature (C°)
(Jura ,2000)
I 1<30
I |30-«0
| [40-80
[ ^150-60
^|70 -SO
PA-SO
25.5
/
\
/INJE/CTION
y
PA-16D
27.5 pA?4D
28.8
PA-30
PA-5D
26.1
BAT-2P
NA
PA-BO
25.9
BAT-5D
ISCO
8AT-8D
NA
N
PA-9D
26.2
25
50
FEET
Coordinole Inforrnollon:
Florida Slate Plane (Eas1 Zone 0901 - NAD27)
Bm|»_SPH_llnal_ip«g.COR
Putting Technology To Work
Figure 5-8. Distribution of Temperature in Deep Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch
Complex 34 (May 2000)
Table 5-1 indicates that the highest mass removal (94%
of total TCE and 98% of DNAPL) was achieved in the
Lower Sand Unit, followed by the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit. The removal efficiency appears to be substantially
lower in the Upper Sand Unit, where heating was not as
efficient (see Section 3.2.2) as in the deeper units. Be-
cause more than 90% of the pre-demonstration DNAPL
mass resided in the Lower Sand Unit, the greater effi-
ciency of removal in this unit was the driving factor
behind the high removal percentage in the entire plot.
Table 5-1. Estimated Total TCE and DNAPL Mass Removal by Linear Interpolation of the TCE Distribution in Soil
Pre-Demonstration Post-Demonstration Change in Mass (%)
Stratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Lower Sand Unit
Total (Entire Plot)
Total TCE Mass
(kg)
183
611
10,519
11,313
DNAPL Mass
(kg)
70
447
9,973
10,490
Total TCE Mass
(kg)
141
304
656
1,101
DNAPL Mass
(kg)
35
124
179
338
Total
TCE
-23
-50
-94
-90
DNAPL
-50
-72
-98
-97
February 19, 2003
50
Battelle
-------
5.1.3 TCE Mass Estimation by Kriging
Section 4.1.2 describes the use of kriging to estimate the
pre- and post-demonstration 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
is a good way of obtaining a global 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 resistive
heating plot. Table 5-2 summarizes the total TCE mass
estimates obtained from kriging. This table contains an
average and range for each global estimate (Upper
Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, Lower Sand Unit,
and the entire plot total). Limiting the evaluation 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 few data points
(especially for the post-demonstration DNAPL mass esti-
mates), kriging was conducted on total TCE values only.
The pre- and post-demonstration total TCE mass ranges
estimated from kriging match the total TCE obtained
from contouring relatively well, probably because the
high sampling density (almost 300 soil samples in the
plot per event) allows contouring to capture much of the
variability of the TCE distribution in the plot. Kriging
shows that the estimated decrease in TCE mass in the
plot due to the resistive heating application is between
80 and 93% (89% on average). The decrease in TCE
mass was highest in the Lower Sand Unit, followed by
the Middle Fine-Grained Unit. The positive mass change
numbers for the Upper Sand Unit indicate that the TCE
mass in this unit may have increased. The Upper Sand
Unit was not as efficiently heated as the other two units
(see Section 3.2.2) and this may have caused upward-
migrating TCE vapors to condense near the water table.
An interesting observation from Table 5-2 is that the
estimated ranges for the pre- and post-demonstration
TCE masses do not overlap at all, either for the entire
plot or for the Lower Sand or Middle Fine-Grained units;
this indicates that the mass removal by the resistive
heating application is significant at the 80% confidence
level. The estimated decrease in TCE mass in the plot
due to the resistive heating application is at least 80%.
The mass removal estimates obtained in the resistive
heating plot by the two methods (linear interpolation and
kriging) are consistent. Confidence intervals were not
calculated for DNAPL removal from the individual units
because an even smaller subset of samples (only those
samples with TCE greater than 300 mg/kg) would be
involved.
5.1.4 Summary of Changes in the
TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Plot
In summary, the evaluation of TCE concentrations in soil
indicates the following:
• In the horizontal plane, the highest pre-
demonstration DNAPL contamination was under the
Engineering Support Building and in the eastern
half of the resistive heating plot.
• In the vertical plane, the highest pre-demonstration
DNAPL contamination was immediately above the
Lower Clay Unit.
• Linear interpolation of the pre- and post-
demonstration TCE-DNAPL soil concentrations
shows that the estimated pre-demonstration
DNAPL mass in the resistive heating plot
decreased by approximately 97% due to the heat
application. Based on these estimates, the goal for
90% DNAPL mass removal was achieved.
Table 5-2. Estimated Total TCE Mass Removal by Kriging the TCE Distribution in Soil
Pre-Demonstration
Total TCE Mass(a|
Post-Demonstration
Total TCE Mass
Change in Mass
Stratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Lower Sand Unit
Total (Entire Plot)
Average
(kg)
168
2,087
9,332
11,588
Lower
Bound
(kg)
90
929
5,411
7,498
Upper
Bound
(kg)
247
3,245
13,253
15,677
Average
(kg)
310
536
437
1,283
Lower
Bound
(kg)
176
328
391
1,031
Upper
Bound
(kg)
443
745
483
1,545
Average
(%)
84
-74
-95
-89
Lower
Bound
(%)
393
-23
-91
-80
Upper
Bound
(%)
-29
-90
-97
-93
(a) Average and 80% confidence intervals (bounds).
Battelle
51
February 19, 2003
-------
• A statistical evaluation (kriging) of the pre- and
post-demonstration TCE concentrations in soil
shows that the estimated pre-demonstration total
TCE mass in the resistive heating plot decreased
between 80 and 93% due to the heat application.
Total TCE includes both dissolved-phase TCE and
DNAPL. The kriging results are generally consist-
ent with the contouring results and indicate a high
probability (80% confidence level) that the mass
removal estimates are accurate.
• The estimated decrease in TCE-DNAPL mass in the
plot was highest in the Lower Sand Unit, which con-
tained the highest pre-demonstration TCE-DNAPL
mass. Mass removal was especially good in
difficult spots, such as immediately above the aqui-
tard and under the Engineering Support Building.
• It is possible that some TCE-DNAPL accumulated
in the Upper Sand Unit, immediately above the
Middle Fine-Grained Unit, during the upward
migration of the volatilized TCE. This possibility is
discussed further in Section 5.3.2.
5.2 Changes in Aquifer Characteristics
This section describes the short-term changes in aquifer
characteristics created by the resistive heating applica-
tion at Launch Complex 34, as measured by monitoring
conducted before, during, and immediately 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 the pre- and post-demonstration levels of
various ground-water parameters that are indicative of
aquifer quality and the impact of the resistive heating
treatment. Other important organic and inorganic aquifer
parameters are discussed in the text. A separate micro-
biological evaluation of the aquifer is described in
Appendix E.
5.2.1 Changes in CVOC Levels
in Ground Water
Considerable DNAPL mass removed was expected to
reduce CVOC levels in ground water, at least in the short
term. Although influx from surrounding contamination is
possible, it was not expected to contribute significantly to
the post-demonstration sampling in the short term
because of the relatively flat natural hydraulic gradient at
the site. Therefore, CVOC levels were measured in the
resistive heating plot wells before, during, and after the
demonstration to evaluate short-term changes in CVOC
levels in the ground water.
Appendix C tabulates the levels of TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE,
frans-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride in the ground water in
the resistive heating plot wells. Figures 5-9 to 5-11 show
dissolved TCE concentrations in the shallow, intermedi-
ate, and deep wells in the resistive heating plot and
perimeter. Before the demonstration, several of the shal-
low, intermediate, and deep wells in the plot had concen-
trations close to the solubility of TCE (1,100mg/L).
Immediately after the demonstration, TCE concentra-
tions in several of these wells (e.g., PA-13S, PA-131, PA-
14S and PA-14D) declined considerably, indicating that
the treatment improved ground-water quality within the
plot in the short term, whereas TCE concentrations in
some of the monitoring wells (PA-7D and IW-17S) on the
perimeter of the plot increased sharply.
The concentration of c/s-1,2-DCE increased considerably
in several wells (e.g., PA-13S, PA-13D, and PA-14S)
within the plot. Although one well (PA-14D) showed a
decline in c/s-1,2-DCE levels, in general, there appears to
have been some accumulation of c/s-1,2-DCE in the plot.
An increase in c/s-1,2-DCE would indicate that some re-
ductive dechlorination of TCE was taking place (biotically
or abiotically). Recent research (Truex, 2003) has indi-
cated heat-accelerated biodegradation of TCE to ethenes
(acetylene, ethane, and ethene) at elevated temperatures.
However, these byproducts were not evaluated for this
demonstration of the resistive heating technology at
Launch Complex 34. The possibility of TCE degradation
is discussed further in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, but needs
to be further evaluated. Vinyl chloride was not detected
in several wells both before and after the demonstration,
primarily because of the analytical limitations associated
with samples containing higher levels of TCE.
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer Geochemistry
The geochemical composition of both ground water and
soil were examined to evaluate the effects of resistive
heating application.
5.2.2.1 Changes in Ground-Water Chemistry
Among the field parameter measurements (tabulated in
Appendix D) conducted in the affected aquifer before,
during, and after the demonstration, the following trends
were observed:
February 19, 2003
52
Battelle
-------
Table 5-3. Pre- and Post-Demonstration Levels of Ground-Water Parameters Indicative of Aquifer Quality
Ground-Water Parameter
(applicable ground-water
standard, if any)
(mg/L)
TCE (0.003)
c/s-1 ,2-DCE (0.070)
Vinyl chloride (0.001)
PH
ORP
DO
Calcium
Magnesium
Alkalinity
Chloride (250)
Manganese (0.050)
Iron (0.3)
Sodium
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
Pre-Demonst ration
(mg/L)(a)
935 to 1,100
960 to 1 ,070
730 tot 892
4 to 6
5 to 26
2 to 23
<5
<5
<5 to <83
6.9 to 7.1
7.4 to 7.5
7.2 to 7.5
-130to-108
-118to-74
-142to-106
0.28(00.31
0.27 to 0.40
0.10 to 0.62
97 to 1 43
60 to 70
93 to 113
23 to 37
54 to 74
90 to 1 1 3
337 to 479
351 to 465
343 to 41 0
37 to 38
66 to 123
1 1 to 774
0.022 to 0.963
0.023to 1.1
<0.015to0.02
0.78 to 3
0.33 to 1 1
<0.05to0.31
17 to 24
33 to 120
325 to 369
548 to 587
71 2 to 724
1 ,030 to 1 ,980
<3 to 20
<3to9
6 to 13
6 to 6
7 to 23
9 to 40
Post-Demonstration"1'
(mg/L)(a)
647 to 820
60 to 1 74
3 to 920
14 to 95
9 to 80
3 to 52
0.022 to <50
O.OIOto 1.7
0.032 to <50
6.3 to 7.6
7.1 to 7.4
6.5 to 6.8
-107to-44
-89 to -68
-250 to -97
0.60 to 0.63
0.99 to 1.11
0.71 to 0.81
7 to 233
1 4 to 1 53
81 9 to 1 ,060
<1 to 54
1 .2 to 77
30 to 51
588 to 898
243 to 434
231 to 421
141 to 383
156 to 233
3,520 to 4,800
<0.015to0.079
<0.015to0.11
0.021 to 0.16
<0.25to0.52
<0.05to0.45
<0.25
1 1 3 to 467
97 to 258
1,530to3,130
1 ,330 to 1 ,750
870 to 925
7,220(010,600
32 to 42
3 to 4
288 to 360
35 to 45
9 to 15
270 to 300
(a) All reported quantities are in mg/L, except for pH (unitless), conductivity (mS/cm), and ORP (mV).
(b) Post-demonstration monitoring was conducted twice (December 2000 and June 2001) because
some of the PA wells (PA-13 and PA-14) were plugged during the demonstration while their
casings were being repaired. The cleaning process was performed after the initial post-
demonstration monitoring in December 2000. Therefore, the results from the monitoring in June
2001 were incorporated in this table and the interpretation.
Battelle
53
February 19, 2003
-------
21
I
-5°
8
en
(a)
SHALLOW
WELLS
(b)
SHALLOW
WELLS
PA-15
30,000
&Q55
Explanation;
Concentration tpgfl_,i
100-1,000
1.000 -10,000
10,000-100,000
100,000 -500.000
500.no -l.t04.OH
M. wo.no
Coordlnoff li . _ _ .
Uat« Piar*e [East Zone 0901 - NAK27J
Figure 5-9. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration (August 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(December 2000) Sampling of Shallow Wells
DO
03
I
CD"
-------
DO
0)
(a)
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
(b)
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
Explanation:
// . _
YllBalteBe
CoftrdlFvotp Info'inollun:
iotlaa S1o1« tlant {Eoil lout 0901 - N«p27)
Figure 5-10. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration (August 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(December 2000) Sampling of Intermediate Wells
-5°
-------
21
I
-5°
8
en
(a)
DEEP
WELLS
*-17D
^1.000
Explanation:
•Conc*nlra1«orH|jg/U
PAŁID^O<>
/
Coordlr-ol* imarrnollom
>f.i*4o r,mt, n«nt {Ł(»* Zpn« OfrOi - NAQS?)
p^dw^.tar.fc^.rpCCDR
,OI,K;/;>; Trrhft--;,);^- To VMvi
(b)
DEEP
WELLS
Explanation:
1 100
[— 3 100. IBM
|~~}1.»0 -1Q,Wtt
ia.ow.HO.goo
f=S] 100,00(1 -GOO ,000
m MO.OOfl - 1.100 000
^Bj .1,100,000
Figure 5-11. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration (August 1999) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(December 2000) Sampling of Deep Wells
DO
03
I
CD"
-------
• Ground-water pH ranged from 6.9 to 7.5 before the
demonstration to 6.3 to 7.6 after the demonstration,
and relatively changed.
• ORP remained relatively unchanged, from -142 to
-74 mV before the demonstration to -250 to
-44 mV after the demonstration.
• DO ranged from 0.10 to 0.62 mg/L before the dem-
onstration to 0.60 to 1.11 mg/L after the demonstra-
tion. Due to the limitations of measuring DO with a
flowthrough cell, ground water with DO levels below
0.5 or even 1.0 is considered anaerobic. Except for
the shallower regions, the aquifer was mostly
anaerobic throughout the demonstration.
• Specific Conductivity increased from 0.776 to
3.384 mS/cm before the demonstration to 4.03 to
29.05 mS/cm after the demonstration. The
increase is likely attributed to a buildup of dissolved
ions due to the resistive heating treatment and also
sea water intrusion.
Other ground-water measurements indicative of aquifer
quality included inorganic ions, BOD, and TOC. The re-
sults of these measurements are as follows:
• Calcium levels increased sharply, from 60 to
143 mg/L before the demonstration to 7 to
1,060 mg/L after the demonstration. Magnesium
levels remained relatively unchanged from before to
after the demonstration. Ground-water alkalinity
increased from 337 to 479 mg/L before the demon-
stration to 231 to 898 mg/L after the demonstration.
The increases in calcium and alkalinity (carbonate)
may be due to contributions from additional salt-
water intrusion or from the effect of heat on the
seashell material (aragonite [see Section 5.2.2.2])
in the soil matrix.
• Chloride levels may have been relatively high in the
aquifer due to possible historical saltwater intrusion,
especially in the deeper units. Despite relatively
high native chloride levels in the aquifer, chloride
concentrations increased sharply in the three strati-
graphic units. In the shallow wells, chloride
increased from 37 to 38 mg/L before the demon-
stration to 141 to 383 mg/L after the demonstration.
In the intermediate wells, chloride increased from
66 to 123 mg/L before the demonstration to 156 to
233 mg/L after the demonstration. In the deep wells,
chloride levels increased from 11 to 774 mg/L before
the demonstration to 3,520 to 4,800 mg/L after the
demonstration. These increased chloride levels
normally would be a primary indicator of CVOC
destruction. However, in this case, there are other
possible sources of chloride (see Section 5.3.1).
The secondary drinking water limit for chloride is
250 mg/L.
Manganese levels in the plot decreased slightly
from <0.015 to 1.1 mg/L before the demonstration
to <0.015 to 0.16 mg/L afterthe demonstration;
manganese has a secondary drinking water limit of
0.05 mg/L, which was exceeded during and after
the demonstration. Perimeter wells also showed
relatively unchanged levels of manganese (0.03 to
0.11 mg/L). Dissolved manganese consists of the
species Mn7+ (from excess permanganate ion) and
Mn2+ (generated when MnO2 is reduced by native
organic matter).
Iron levels in the resistive heating plot remained
relatively unchanged or decreased slightly, from
<0.05 to 11 mg/L in the native ground water and
<0.05 to 0.52 mg/L in the post-demonstration water;
the secondary drinking water limit for iron is
0.3 mg/L, which was exceeded both before and
afterthe demonstration. There was a possibility
that chloride might corrode the stainless steel
monitoring wells and dissolve some iron. This does
not appear to have happened. In fact, it is possible
that some dissolved iron precipitated out in the
shallower regions of the aquifer.
Sodium levels increased sharply, from 17 to
369 mg/L before the demonstration to 97 to
3,130 mg/L afterthe demonstration. Because
sodium was not a concern as part of the resistive
heating treatment, it was not measured during the
demonstration.
Alkalinity levels increased from 337 to 479 mg/L
before the demonstration to 231 to 898 mg/L after
the demonstration.
Overall sulfate levels remained relatively constant,
from 39 to 104 mg/L before the demonstration to
30 to 169 mg/L afterthe demonstration. However,
sulfate levels did increase in the deep wells.
TDS levels increased considerably in all three units.
In the shallow wells, TDS levels rose from 548 to
587 mg/L before the demonstration to 1,330 to
1,750 mg/L afterthe demonstration; in the inter-
mediate wells, TDS rose from 712 to 724 mg/L
before to 870 to 925 mg/L after the demonstration;
in the deep wells, TDS rose from 1,030 to
1,980 mg/L before to 7,220 to 10,600 mg/L afterthe
demonstration. The secondary drinking water limit
for TDS is 500 mg/L, which was exceeded both
before and afterthe demonstration.
TOC and BOD data were difficult to interpret. TOC
in ground water increased from 6 to 40 mg/L before
the demonstration to 9 to 300 mg/L after the
Battelle
57
February 19, 2003
-------
demonstration. BOD increased sharply in PA-13D
and PA-14D, from <3 to 20 mg/L before the demon-
stration to 3 to 360 mg/L after the demonstration.
The increase in ground-waterTOC and BOD may
indicate greater dissolution of native organic spe-
cies (humic and fulvic materials) from the soil due to
heating. TOC levels measured in soil increased
sharply, ranging from <0.2 to 0.29 mg/kg before the
demonstration to <100 to 986 mg/kg after the
demonstration (see Table D-6 in Appendix D). The
increase in soil TOC levels is difficult to explain;
perhaps organic matter from surrounding regions
deposited in the plot due to the heat-related
convection.
Inorganic parameters were measured in the resistive
heating plot wells, but they also were measured in the
perimeter wells surrounding the plot and selected distant
wells to see how far the influence of the applied tech-
nologies would progress. Further discussion about these
inorganic parameters is presented in Section 5.3.1. The
effect of the resistive heating treatment on the aquifer
microbiology was evaluated in a separate study, as
described in Appendix E.
5.2.2.2 Changes in Soil Geochemistry
In addition to the ground-water monitoring of geochemi-
cal parameters, post-demonstration soil samples were
collected in the resistive heating plot and a control loca-
tion in an unaffected area outside the plot (see Appen-
dix D, Tables D-7 and D-8). These samples were initiated
after unexpected drilling difficulties were encountered
during post-demonstration soil coring by two different
direct-push rigs at depths of approximately 16 to 18ft
bgs; neither rig could advance beyond this depth. Pre-
liminary soil samples collected just above the obstruction
depth were analyzed and appeared to indicate an
increase in calcite deposits. An attempt was made later
to penetrate the obstruction and collect additional soil
samples for mineralogical analysis in order to evaluate
any mineralogical changes that may have occurred due
to the resistive heating application.
In May 2001, soil samples were successfully collected at
multiple depths using a direct-push and vibratory ham-
mer coring method. A visual inspection of the samples
showed that they consisted of unconsolidated sand and
contained whole shells and fragments of shell material
(shell hash). Under low-power microscope the grains
appeared coarse and ranged from light to dark in color,
indicating the presence of several mineral types. No
cementation of particles was observed.
Soil sample information is listed in Table 5-4. Cores
labeled CCB1 were collected outside the resistive heat-
ing plot, and are thus expected to represent background
Table 5-4. Results of XRD Analysis (Weight Percent Abundances of Identified Minerals)
Core
Location
Depth
(ft)
Quartz
(%)
Calcite
(%)
Aragonite
(%)
Margarite
(%)
Residue Error
(%)
Control
CCB1
CCB1
CCB1
CCB1
CCB1
CCB1
CCB2
CCB2
CCB2
CCB2(a)
CCB2
CCB2
CCB3
CCB3
CCB3
CCB3
CCB3
CCB3
CCB4
CCB4
CCB4
CCB4
CCB4
CCB4
Outside
the plot
Inside
the plot
Inside
the plot
Inside
the plot
16-18
20-22
22-24
28-30
32-34
38-40
16-18
18-20
22-24
28-30
30-33
34-36
18-20
20-22
22-26
26-30
30-32
38-40
16-18
20-22
24-26
26-30
34-36
36-38
85.0
89.2
95.7
77.5
54.1
45.5
Resistive
86.8
71.4
88.8
NA
70.8
48.1
66.7
66.0
83.1
67.8
44.4
46.6
52.6
87.7
64.8
88.2
69.5
47.0
5.3
2.5
0.5
3.4
5.5
9.8
Heating Plot
2.0
5.0
1.7
NA
6.5
10.0
4.3
2.3
3.9
6.0
10.8
11.4
11.5
1.3
5.2
3.2
3.4
16.4
7.6
7.1
3.5
9.1
37.8
43.2
9.9
21.0
7.1
NA
20.6
37.0
23.7
5.9
10.7
24.3
43.3
38.0
33.8
9.9
27.3
7.0
23.3
33.3
2.1
1.2
0.2
10.0
2.6
1.5
1.3
2.6
2.5
NA
2.2
4.9
5.3
25.9
2.3
1.9
1.5
4.0
2.1
1.0
2.7
1.6
3.8
3.3
69.0
53.6
68.4
66.6
65.2
66.4
70.5
84.1
67.6
NA
56.4
74.3
90.4
72.6
52.0
57.8
66.1
89.2
84.7
46.2
77.3
41.5
94.0
50.5
(a) In sample CCB2 (28-30 ft), a large unidentified peak occurred at 36.55° 26.
February 19, 2003
58
Battelle
-------
levels of minerals. Cores labeled CCB2, -3, and -4 were
collected inside the SPH plot. The samples (24) were
analyzed by x-ray diffraction (XRD) to determine relative
abundances of minerals and other crystalline matter.
XRD is a semiquantitative technique in which solid sam-
ples are analyzed nondestructively and without requiring
preprocessing. Samples were scanned from 5° to 90° 29
using a Rigaku powder diffractometer. Identification of
compounds was facilitated by commercial software (Jade
Software International) for matching observed peaks with
known patterns from the Joint Commission on Powder
Diffraction Files (JCPDF) database. Intensity measure-
ments were converted to relative mass using relative
Results of the XRD analysis are given in Table 5-4. Note
that the composition of sample CCB2 (28-30 ft) was not
determined due to the presence of a large unidentified
peak, which would have rendered such a calculation
uncertain.
Mineral Composition of CCB1
20 40 60 80
Mineral abundance (%)
100
Mineral Composition of CCB2
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Mineral abundance (%)
Figure 5-12. Mineral Abundance in Control (CCB1) and Resistive Heating Plot (CCB2) Soil Samples
Battelle
59
February 19, 2003
-------
Mineral Composition of CCB3
15
20
30
35
40
20 40 60
Mineral abundance (%)
80
100
Mineral Composition of CCB4
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
Mineral abundance (%)
100.0
Figure 5-13. Mineral Abundance in Resistive Heating Plot Soil Samples CCB3 and CCB4
Graphs based on the data in Table 5-4 help illustrate the
distribution of minerals in the subsurface in Figures 5-12
and 5-13. These data show that quartz and aragonite
make up the majority of minerals identified in the core
samples. The maximum amount of aragonite seems to
occur at 30 to 40 ft bgs. Aragonite may be associated
with shell material; if this is the case, then the increase in
aragonite at 30 to 40 ft could coincide with a native
sediment layer that is high in shell material. Calcite and
margarite (mica) are less abundant. There appears to be
a tendency for calcite to increase slightly with depth,
which also corresponds to the ground-water monitoring
of calcium.
In summary, the mineralogical composition of the post-
demonstration resistive heating plot soil does not appear
to be noticeably different from that of the soil in the
unaffected region (control). It is possible that the drilling
problem was a transient phenomenon or that it was
caused by a change in the texture of the soil rather than
by its composition.
February 19, 2003
60
Battelle
-------
5.2.3 Changes in the Hydraulic Properties
of the Aquifer
Table 5-5 shows the results of pre- and post-
demonstration slug tests conducted in the resistive heat-
ing plot wells. The hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer
remained relatively unchanged during the resistive heat-
ing application.
Table 5-5. Pre- and Post-Demonstration Hydraulic
Conductivity in the Resistive Heating
Plot Aquifer
Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day)
Well
PA-13S
PA-131
PA-1 3D
PA-14S
PA-141
PA-14D
Pre-Demonstration
14.1
2.4
1.1
10.3
4.1
1.9
Post-Demonstration
17.4
1.2
5.4
23.6
11.4
7.3
5.2.4 Changes in the Microbiology of
the Resistive Heating Plot
Microbiological analysis of soil and ground-water sam-
ples was conducted to evaluate the effect of resistive
heating treatment on the microbial community (see Ap-
pendix E.3 for details). Samples were collected before
and twice (eight months and eighteen months) after the
resistive heating demonstration. During pre- and post-
demonstration monitoring events, soil samples were
collected from five locations in the plot and five locations
in a control (unaffected) area. Eighteen (18) months after
the demonstration was complete, only three sets of
samples were collected at similar depths in the plot. The
results are presented in Appendix E.3.
Table 5-6 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. The eight
months of time that elapsed since the end of resistive
heating application and collection of the microbial sam-
ples may have given time for microbial populations to
reestablish. Only in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit does it
seem that the resistive heating application caused a
reduction in microbial populations that persisted until the
sampling. If microbial populations were reduced immedi-
ately after the demonstration, they seem to have re-
established in the following eight months. In the capillary
fringe and in the Upper Sand Unit, microbial populations
appeared to have increased by an order of magnitude.
The persistence of these microorganisms despite the
autoclave-like conditions in the resistive heating plot may
have positive implications for biodegradation of any TCE
residuals following the resistive heating treatment.
5.2.5 Summary of Changes
in Aquifer Quality
Application of the resistive heating technology caused
the following changes in the treated aquifer:
• Dissolved TCE levels declined in several monitoring
wells in the resistive heating plot, although none of
the wells showed post-demonstration concentra-
tions of less than 5 ug/L, the federal drinking water
standard, or 3 ug/L, the State of Florida ground-
water target cleanup level. C/s-1,2-DCE levels
remained above 70 ug/L and increased consider-
ably in some wells. Vinyl chloride (1 ug/L State of
Florida target) levels could not be accurately deter-
mined because higher TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE levels
elevated the detection limits of vinyl chloride. This
indicates that, in the short term, removal of DNAPL
mass from the targeted aquifer caused ground-water
TCE concentrations to decline. Dissolved-phase
Table 5-6. Geometric Mean of Microbial Counts in the Resistive Heating Plot (Full Range of Replicate
Sample Analyses Given in Parentheses)
Resistive Heating
Plot
Pre-Demonstration
Aerobic Plate Counts
(CFU/g)
Post-Demonstration
Aerobic Plate Counts
(8 months after)
(CFU/g)
Pre-Demonstration
Anaerobic Viable Counts
(Cells/g)
Post-Demonstration
Anaerobic Viable Counts
(8 months after)
(Cells/g)
Capillary Fringe
Upper Sand Unit
Middle Fine-Grained
Unit
Lower Sand Unit
32,680
(12,589to199,526)
575
(<316to6,310)
2,370
(200 to 1 ,584,893)
856
(<31 6 to 25,1 19)
3,285,993
(63,096 to 63,095,734)
5,410
(100(01,258,925)
<316.2(a)
758
(158to25,119)
32,680
(3,162(0 1,584,893)
1,050
(158(050,119)
10,000
(501 to 1 ,258,925)
1,711
(251 to 63,096)
2,818,383
(79,433to 15,848,932)
11,961
(126(015,848,932)
251 .2(a)
2,188
(251 (050,119)
(a) Only one sample was collected in this stratigraphic unit.
Battelle
61
February 19, 2003
-------
CVOCs were not as efficiently removed, especially
from the upper portions of the aquifer, probably due
to the lower heating/stripping efficiency in the
shallower regions.
Compared to short-term post-demonstration levels,
dissolved TCE levels in the plot in the intermediate
term could either increase (due to rebound from any
remaining DNAPL) or decrease (due to continued
degradation of CVOCs by any abiotic or biological
mechanisms). Because resistive heating treatment
has depleted the DNAPL source, any intermediate
term rebound in TCE concentrations is not likely to
restore dissolved TCE levels to pre-demonstration
levels. A weakened plume may be generated and
the resulting CVOC levels may be more amenable
to natural attenuation. The downgradient point at
which ground water meets federal or state cleanup
targets is likely to move closer to the DNAPL
source, resulting in a concomitant risk reduction.
In the long term, DNAPL mass removal is expected
to lead to eventual and earlier depletion of the
plume and earlier dismantling of any interim remedy
to control plume movement.
The TCE degradation product c/s-1,2-DCE, which
also is subject to drinking water standards
(70 ug/L), appeared to be accumulating in the
ground water in the test plot, and its buildup could
be a concern. Its accumulation may indicate that
the degradation rate of c/s-1,2-DCE is not as fast as
the degradation rate of TCE, under the conditions
prevalent in the aquifer.
Ground-water pH and dissolved oxygen levels
remained relatively constant, but chloride, sodium,
potassium, sulfate, alkalinity (carbonate), and TDS
levels rose sharply. TDS levels were above the
secondary drinking water standard of 500 mg/L
both before and after the demonstration, classifying
the aquifer as brackish. Sources of these dissolved
solids could include evaporative residue, saltwater
intrusion, displacement of exchangeable sodium
from aquifer minerals, and/or CVOC degradation.
Biological oxidation demand and TOC levels in the
ground water generally increased. These increases
could be due to dissolution of humic and fulvic
matter in the aquifer under the heat treatment.
The ground-water levels of iron, chromium, and
nickel remained relatively constant. There does not
appear to be any significant corrosion of the stain-
less steel monitoring wells of the kind experienced
in the ISCO plot.
Slug tests conducted in the resistive heating plot
before and after the demonstration did not indicate
any noticeable changes in the hydraulic conductivity
of the aquifer.
• Although difficulties were encountered in operating
the drill rig during post-demonstration coring, the
geochemical composition of the soil does not
appear to have changed much due to the heat
treatment. Quartz and aragonite make up the
majority of the minerals identified in soil samples
from heat-affected and unaffected regions of the
aquifer. Aragonite may be associated with the
seashell fragments found in fair abundance in the
aquifer. Calcite and margarite (mica) are less
abundant in the aquifer.
5.3 Fate of the TCE-DNAPL
Mass in the Plot
This part of the assessment was the most difficult be-
cause the DNAPL could have taken one or more of the
following pathways when subjected to the resistive heat-
ing treatment:
• TCE recovery in the resistive heating vapor
recovery system
• TCE-DNAPL degradation through biological or
abiotic mechanisms
• DNAPL migration to surrounding regions
• Potential TCE losses during post-demonstration
sampling of hot soil cores.
Vapor sampling conducted by the resistive heating ven-
dor indicates that 1,947 kg of total TCE was recovered in
the vapor extraction system. The initial estimate of total
TCE mass in the subsurface was 11,313 kg. Other path-
ways that the TCE in the plot may have taken are dis-
cussed in this section.
The chloride mass estimates, which are potential TCE
degradation indicators, are considered somewhat coarse
approximations for the following reasons:
• Relatively low sampling density compared to the
sampling density for TCE, which was the main
focus of the performance assessment
• Possible migration of chloride in directions where
there are no monitoring wells (e.g., east and south-
east side of ISCO plot and west and southwest side
of resistive heating plot). The samples labeled
CHL-# and collected with a Geoprobe® by FSU and
NASA do help to cover some of these data gaps.
• Timing of post-demonstration samples. Because
the ISCO and resistive heating demonstrations
February 19, 2003
62
Battelle
-------
ended at different times, the post-demonstration
sampling for the two plots and perimeter wells was
spread over several months. In the absence of an
artificial gradient (such as that created in the ISCO
plot during injection in April 2000), the ground water
is relatively stagnant; therefore, any changes in
chloride levels during the somewhat wide sampling
period are likely to be due to diffusion and therefore
relatively low.
Despite these limitations, a chloride evaluation does pro-
vide some insights into the occurrences in the two test
plots.
5.3.1 TCE-DNAPL Degradation
through Biological or Abiotic
Mechanisms
As reported in Appendix D, ground-water samples col-
lected from the Launch Complex 34 wells and Geo-
Probe® monitoring points were analyzed for chloride (see
Figure 5-14 for sampling locations). The chloride analy-
sis was evaluated because an increase in chloride levels
is a potential indicator of CVOC degradation, either by
abiotic or biologically mediated pathways. Table 5-7
shows the changes in concentrations of chloride and
other ground-water constituents in the resistive heating
plot. Figures 5-15 to 5-17 show the distribution of excess
chloride concentrations in the ground water at Launch
Complex 34—excess chloride plotted in these figures is
the difference in chloride concentrations between post-
demonstration and pre-demonstration (baseline) levels.
The excess chloride represents chloride accumulating in
the aquifer at Launch Complex 34 due to the imple-
mentation of the resistive heating and/or ISCO technolo-
gies. Chloride levels rose in both resistive heating and
ISCO plots by 7 to 10 times the pre-demonstration con-
centration in the resistive heating plot wells.
As shown in Table 5-8, the chloride concentrations were
converted to chloride masses in different target regions
of the aquifer. The mass estimates in Table 5-8 were
done using four target boundaries:
• Each individual test plot only
• Each test plot and its perimeter (extending up to the
nearest perimeter well outside the plot). This was
done on the assumption that the chloride generated
inside the plot spreads at least to the immediate
perimeter area around the plot.
• Each test plot and its perimeter, as well as the
areas covered by the GeoProbe® samples (labeled
"CHL" samples) collected by FSU, following the
resistive heating and ISCO demonstrations. The
GeoProbe® samples provide additional resolution to
the perimeter areas.
• All three plots ("entire site") and their perimeter
(with and without the CHL sample data).
The interpolation used to calculate the masses in Table
5-8 is linear and the contouring software (EarthVision™)
used for estimating TCE mass was also used to estimate
chloride mass. The volumetric package in this applica-
tion software calculates the volume of isoconcentration
shells that are contoured in three dimensions using the
spatial chloride data. A chloride mass is calculated in
each isoconcentration shell covering the region of inter-
est (e.g., test plot only, or test plot and perimeter, etc.).
For both plots, the total increase in chloride mass is
much larger when the chloride levels in the perimeter
wells are taken into account. This shows that the chlo-
ride formed in the plot spreads to surrounding regions.
At Launch Complex 34, there are a variety of factors that
make it important that the chloride data not be viewed in
isolation. Rather, due to the particular site characteristics
of Launch Complex 34, the changes in chloride need to
be viewed from the perspective of site location, aquifer
geochemistry, the type of treatments applied in the test
plots, and any crossover effects due to the simultaneous
implementation of the resistive heating and ISCO tech-
nologies. TDS levels rose in several monitoring wells
following the demonstration at Launch Complex 34, and
only a part of this increase is attributable to chloride.
Therefore, it also is important to identify potential sources
for the increased levels of dissolved constituents other
than chloride.
The elevated chloride concentrations (and masses) in
the resistive heating plot can be attributed to one or
more of the following causes:
• Evaporation of ground water from the resistive
heating plot
• Redistribution of ground water due to convection,
advection and displacement
• Dechlorination of TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and/or vinyl
chloride due to microbial interaction
• Saltwater intrusion into the resistive heating plot
• Migration from the ISCO plot
• Dechlorination of TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and/or vinyl
chloride by abiotic mechanisms.
Battelle
63
February 19, 2003
-------
21
I
-5°
8
0)
CHL-2
CHL-6
STEAM
INJECTION .- ,
PA-5
S*.
Explanation:
• Chloride Sample Location
+ 2" Diameter - SS |1 '-6' below clay layer)
(Locations Approximate)
• Well Location: _Test_PlotBoundaries_
S Shallow
Intermediate 0 25 50
D Deep | | |
, FEET ~ ,.,„„..„, a,™
Figure 5-14. Monitoring Wells and GeoProbe Monitoring Points (CHL-#) for Chloride Analysis (Sampled January to May 2001)
DO
03
I
CD"
-------
Table 5-7. Pre- and Post-Demonstration Inorganic and TOC/BOD Measurements in Resistive Heating Plot Wells
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Well ID
PA-13S
PA-1 31
PA-1 3D
PA-1 4S
PA-1 41
PA-1 4D
Pre-Demo
<1
70.1
113
97.4
60.3
93.1
Post-
Demo
233
NA
819
6.6
NA
1,060
July 2001
97.4
153
647
55.3
13.6
662
Pre-Demo
23.4
54
113
37.4
73.7
90.3
Post-
Demo
54.4
NA
51.4
<1
NA
30
July 2001
40
76.5
75
10.6
1.2
30.2
Pre-Demo
23.9
33.1
369
17.4
120
325
Post-
Demo
161
NA
2,070
467
NA
3,130
July 2001
113
96.7
1,530
138
258
2,490
Pre-Demo
<5
13
20
NA
NA
NA
Post-
Demo July 2001
126 174
NA 49
136 86
9.8 43
NA 14
143 94
Chloride
NO3-NO2
Sulfate
Alkalinity as CaCO3
Well ID
PA-1 3S
PA-1 31
PA-1 3D
PA-1 4S
PA-1 41
PA-1 4D
Pre- Demo
38
66
NA
37
123
774
Post-
Demo
383
NA
4800
141
NA
3520
July 2001
277
233
3610
101
156
4790
Post-
Pre- Demo Demo July 2001
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 NA <0.1
<0.1 <0.1 0.21
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 NA <0.1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Pre-Demo
74
64.8
78.3
39
104
68.3
Post-
Demo
169
NA
166
37.1
NA
117
July 2001
123
150
139
18.6
30
163
Pre-Demo
479
351
410
337
465
343
Post-
Demo
588
NA
231
898
NA
421
July 2001
424
243
268
388
434
394
IDS (mg/L)
BOD (mg/L)
TOG (mg/L)
Well ID
PA-1 3S
PA-1 31
PA-1 3D
PA-1 4S
PA-1 41
PA-1 4D
Pre- Demo
583
NA
NA
548
724
1,980
Post-
Demo
1,750
NA
10,600
1,330
NA
7,220
July 2001
1,190
925
8,360
772
870
10,700
Pre-Demo
20
<3
13.2
<3
8.9
6
Post-
Demo
32.4
NA
360
42
NA
288
July 2001
25.8
3.3
360
22.2
3.7
560
Pre-Demo
5.6
7.1
39.6
5.7
23.4
9
Post-
Demo
44.8
NA
300
34.7
NA
270
July 2001
39.6
14.9
273
18.7
8.9
326
Explanation:
Conctnlmtlon
Increase imgil.
•=10
10-100
— 100-200
" i 200-500
r_j 500-1.000
SHALLOW
WELLS
(Easl Ze-nt 0901 -
llBaitene
j' _ . f mufriq Itowtojy -So VMa
/
CL.ncMMstfOt.ccm
Figure 5-15. Increase in Chloride Levels in Shallow Wells (Sampled January to May 2001)
Battelle
65
February 19, 2003
-------
21
I
-5°
8
05
O)
Explanation:
Contenlralion
Inctease (mg/u
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
llBattede
. . . Pitting iKhnufugf to'
._. .. :.t..*..\< : ::•*
Figure 5-16. Increase in Chloride Levels in Intermediate
Wells (Sampled January to May 2001)
Figure 5-17. Increase in Chloride Levels in Deep Wells
(Sampled January to May 2001)
DO
03
I
CD"
-------
Table 5-8. Chloride Mass Estimate for Various Regions of the Launch Complex 34 Aquifer
Boundaries for Estimate
ISCO Plot Only
Resistive Heating Plot Only
ISCO Plot and Perimeter
Resistive Heating Plot and Perimeter
ISCO Plot and Perimeter/CHL Data
Resistive Heating Plot and
Perimeter/CHL Data
Entire Site
Entire Site with CHL Data
Pre-Demonstration
Chloride Mass
(kg)
828
524
2,438
1,606
3,219
1,722
4,264
4,900
Post-Demonstration
Chloride Mass
(kg)
1,822
2,160
4,934
4,241
5,524
4,491
9,188
9,118
Increase in Chloride
Mass
(kg)
994
1,636
2,495
2,635
2,304
2,770
4,923
4,219
% Increase
in Mass
(%)
120%
312%
102%
164%
72%
161%
115%
86%
Boldface in the table denotes the significant increase of chloride mass after the application of the resistive heating treatment.
5.3.1.1 Evaporation as a Potential Source
of Chloride
The thermal treatment in the resistive heating plot
causes some ground water to evaporate, leaving behind
dissolved solids (including chloride) as residue. Table 5-
9 provides a calculation of the amount of chloride that
may have been deposited in the resistive heating plot by
the water evaporating due to the heating. The 371,074 L
of condensate collected above ground would have left
behind 153 kg of chloride, if only the measurements in
the wells inside the plot are taken into account (that is,
the concentrations in PA-13 and PA-14 are assumed to
extend to the boundaries of the plot). If the measurements
in the perimeter wells are taken into account, 468 kg of
chloride would have been left behind by the condensate.
The chloride deposited by evaporation accounts for only 9
to 18% of the total increase in chloride in the resistive
heating plot.
5.3.1.2 Microbial Degradation as a Source
of Chloride
It is possible that some TCE was reductively dechlori-
nated due to microbial interactions. The biological sam-
pling (see Section 5.2.4) indicated that microbes did
survive after the heat treatment. Considerably elevated
levels of c/s-1,2-DCE, a degradation byproduct, are also
apparent in some monitoring wells in and around the
resistive heating plot (see the c/s-1,2-DCE analysis sum-
mary in Table 5-10), although in one of the wells (PA-
14D), c/s-1,2-DCE levels dropped sharply following the
demonstration. If microbial degradation is a viable mech-
anism, one concern would be the buildup of c/s-1,2-DCE,
which is subject to applicable ground-water cleanup
standards (typically 70 ug/L). Degradation of TCE by
reductive dechlorination may be a much faster process as
compared to degradation of c/s-1,2-DCE under the anaer-
obic conditions of the aquifer. Persistence of c/s-1,2-DCE
Table 5-9. Contribution of Chloride from Evaporation in the Resistive Heating Plot and Vicinity
Calculated Parameter
Chloride Mass Estimation Using
Resistive Heating Plot Well Data
Only(a)
Chloride Mass Estimation Using
Resistive Heating Plot and Perimeter
Well Data
Pre-Demonstration Chloride Mass
Volume of Water Condensate Recovered
Volume of Pore Water in Plot
(based on a porosity of 0.3)
524kg
371,0741(98,038 gal)
1,274,265 L
1,606 kg
371,0741(98,038 gal)
1,274,265 L
Estimated Chloride Mass Left Behind by
Condensate
Estimated Total Increase in Chloride Mass
in the Plot (from Table 5-1)
Amount of Total Increase in Chloride Mass
Accounted for by Evaporative Residue
153kg
1 ,636 kg
9%
468kg
2,635 kg
18%
(a) Based on chloride concentrations in monitoring well clusters PA-13 and PA-14.
Battelle
67
February 19, 2003
-------
Table 5-10. c/s-1,2-DCE Levels in Resistive Heating
Plot and Perimeter Wells
Well ID
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
June 2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-1 3S
PA-131
PA-1 3D
PA-14S
PA-141
PA-14D
4,400
4,900
2,200
5,880
26,000
21 ,900
21, 000 J
NA
1 8,000 J
95,000
NA
1,100
14,000
9,370
52,000
73,800
80,000
2,660
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-1 OS
PA-101
PA-10D
IW-17S
IW-171
IW-17D
PA- 15
3,020
5,480
2,700
22,100
160,000
21
8,880
4.700J
2.400J
593
123,000
39,200
NA
6,000
1 1 ,000 J
<33,000
130,000
170,000
30,000
19,000
1 2,000 J
23,000 J
Dry
30,000
16,0000
170,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
and probably vinyl chloride (which was not detected in
many ground-water samples due to the masking effect of
TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE) in the aquifer is a concern. The
limiting conditions obstructing c/s-1,2-DCE degradation
may need to be determined and addressed to control
c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride plume strengthening.
5.3.1.3 Saltwater Intrusion as a Source
of Chloride
It is possible that saltwater intrusion into the resistive
heating plot led to the sharp increases in sodium and
chloride. No other source is apparent that would contrib-
ute to such high levels of both sodium and chloride,
which are the two main constituents of seawater (see
Table 5-11). Sodium increased by up to 9 times in the
resistive heating plot wells, an increase similar in propor-
tion to the increase in chloride. Both sodium and chloride
are especially high in the deeper regions of the aquifer.
Heating of the plot and the resulting convection could
cause the highly saline water at the bottom of the aquifer
Table 5-11. Seawater Composition
Element
Chloride
Sodium
Magnesium
Sulfur
Calcium
Potassium
Concentration (mg/L)
18,980
10,561
1,272
884
400
380
to rise into the bulk of the aquifer. This water would then
be replaced with additional saline water from the bottom
of the surrounding aquifer regions. The elevated temper-
atures in the resistive heating plot could have caused an
increase in the solubility of sodium and chloride and
contributed to the retention of chloride in the plot.
Because of normally stagnant ground-water conditions in
the plot, the sodium and chloride could be retained in the
plot during the subsequent cooling of the ground water.
The noticeable increases in sulfate, potassium, and
calcium levels in the plot also are indicative of saltwater
intrusion, although, unlike sodium, they could have come
from other sources— the calcium from the seashell
material in the aquifer, and/or the calcium, potassium,
and sulfate from migration from the ISCO plot.
It is possible that some exchangeable sodium was re-
leased from clay minerals when the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit or Lower Clay Unit (aquitard) was heated. Alterna-
tively, some influx of potassium ion from the ISCO plot
(see Section 5.3.2.1) could have caused displacement of
sodium ions. But the relatively low proportion of the clay
(approximately 1.5 ft thick) versus the sandy/silty aquifer
(40 ft thick) makes it unlikely that so much sodium was
contributed to the aquifer by the clay.
5.3.1.4 Migration from the ISCO Plot as
a Source of Chloride
It is possible that some chloride migrated from the ISCO
plot, just as the potassium did. Increased levels of these
constituents in the wells between the oxidation and
resistive heating plots are indicative of this pathway. As
seen in Tables 5-12 and 5-13 and in Figures 5-15 to
5-17, many of the monitoring wells in the migration path,
such as PA-16, PA-17, PA-8, and PA-11 in the steam
plot and vicinity, showed increased levels of chloride and
TDS, especially in the shallow and intermediate levels.
The increase in potassium can be similarly tracked from
the ISCO plot to the resistive heating plot, as reported in
the Fourth Interim Report (Battelle, 2000b). Similar migra-
tion trends can be seen for calcium, alkalinity, TOC, and
BOD, which increased in the steam injection plot wells
as well. Part of the increase in potassium levels in the
resistive heating plot could have been due to saltwater
intrusion rather than crossover from the ISCO plot.
5.3.1.5 Abiotic Degradation as a
Source of Chloride
It is possible that some TCE was degraded abiotically by
reductive dechlorination caused by exposure of the
ground water and TCE to the carbon steel shot used in
the electrodes. The steel shot are relatively fine and not
too different in size and composition from the granular
cast iron used in permeable barriers for ground-water
treatment. Other possible abiotic mechanisms are heat-
induced hydrolysis or oxidation.
February 19, 2003
68
Battelle
-------
Table 5-12. Chloride and IDS Measurements in Monitoring Wells Surrounding the Resistive Heating Plot
Chloride
(mg/L)
ISCO
Well ID Pre-Demo Post-Demo
IDS
(mg/L)
Resistive Heating
Post-Demo
Pre-Demo Post-Demo
Resistive Heating Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-7D-DUP
PA-10S
PA-101
PA-10I-DUP
PA-10D
IW-1 7S
IW-1 71
IW-1 7D
PA-15
34
55(a)
760(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
247
234
695
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
243
191
960
119
143
531
522
342
130
128
701
NA
73.7
640
190
520(a)
580(a)
1 ,700(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
915
1,050
2,720
657
752
1,260
1,270
1,040
789
777
1,580
NA
663
1,350
975
Resistive Heating Vicinity Wells
PA-1 6S
PA-1 61
PA-1 6D
PA-17S
PA-1 71
PA-1 7D
PA-17D-Dup
PA-8S
PA-8S-DUP
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-8D-DUP
PA-1 1 S
PA-1 1 1
PA-1 1 D
PA-11D-DUP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.2
NA
119
774
NA
36.7
49
819
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
273
NA
439
788
NA
397
1,230
756
NA
<1 ,000
42.8
415
297
448
305
318
101
NA
504
640
NA
357
635
737
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
445
NA
706
1,410
NA
531
549
1,540
NA
2,470
814
4,510
1,740
1,360
1,200
1,340
1,600
NA
2,200
1,910
NA
2,900
3,790
1,670
NA
(a) Pre-demonstration levels of chloride in PA-2 are based on concentrations in neighboring wells. PA-2 itself was
not one of the wells sampled for chloride during the pre-demonstration event.
Table 5-13. Inorganic and TOC Measurements (mg/L) in Ground Water from the Steam Injection Plot after
Resistive Heating Demonstration'3'
Well ID
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sulfate
Alkalinity
TOC
PA-1 6S
PA-1 61
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-171
PA-17D
45
42
72
189
213
147
1,560
511
1,600
330
33
103
28
31
111
108
93
91
<2
4
179
74
101
100
<1 ,000
104
681
293
120
202
661
380
2,500
1,430
422
479
1,680
31
134
74
2
20
(a) These wells were installed only after the resistive heating and ISCO treatment demonstrations were completed. The parameter levels before
the resistive heating and ISCO treatments began (see Table 5-3) can be compared to the values in the surrounding wells.
Battelle
69
February 19, 2003
-------
5.3.2 Potential for DNAPL Migration
from the Resistive Heating Plot
The seven measurements conducted to evaluate the
potential for DNAPL migration to the surrounding aquifer
include:
• Hydraulic gradient in the aquifer
• Temperature measurements in the resistive heating
plot and vicinity
• 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
• TCE concentrations in the confined aquifer.
5.3.2.1 Potential for DNAPL Migration
to the Surrounding Aquifer
Hydraulic gradients (water-level measurements). As
mentioned in Section 5.2, pre-demonstration hydraulic
gradients in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer are rela-
tively flat in all three stratigraphic units. There was no
noticeable change in hydraulic gradient in the resistive
heating plot and vicinity during the demonstration,
although the monitoring wells inside the resistive heating
plot were not available for monitoring at all times. On the
other hand, water-level measurements collected in April
2000 (see Figures 5-18 to 5-20) in the surrounding wells
showed a sharp hydraulic gradient emanating radially
from the ISCO plot, especially in the Lower Sand Unit.
These measurements were taken while the third and
final oxidant injection was under way in the Lower Sand
Unit of the ISCO plot. During the April 2000 event, the
gradient was not as strong in the shallow and inter-
mediate wells, indicating that the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit acts as a conspicuous hydraulic barrier. Residual
DNAPL cannot migrate due to hydraulic gradient alone,
no matter how strong. However, if there was mobile
DNAPL present in the aquifer, strong injection pressures
could have caused DNAPL movement from the ISCO or
steam injection plot. Also, the heating in the resistive
heating plot could have caused some of the residual
DNAPL in the plot to become more mobile (heating
reduces surface tension of the DNAPL causing it to
move more easily) and migrate under the influence of
these externally generated hydraulic gradients. In gen-
eral, the strong hydraulic gradients originating from the
ISCO plot makes evaluation of DNAPL migration in the
resistive heating plot difficult.
Temperature measurements conducted with a down-
hole thermocouple in May 2000 are shown in Figures
5-6 to 5-8 for the shallow, intermediate, and deep wells
in the resistive heating plot and vicinity. As expected, the
largest increase in temperature was in the middle of the
resistive heating plot (where the electrodes were
installed). Temperature increased noticeably in all five
perimeter well clusters (PA-10, IW-17, PA-15, PA-7, and
PA-2) but remained at baseline (pre-demonstration) lev-
els in the more distant wells. Post-demonstration soil
cores collected around the resistive heating plot and
inside the building also were warm, indicating that heat
generated in the resistive heating plot had spread to the
surrounding regions through conduction and/or convec-
tion. The temperature data indicate that DNAPL in the
resistive heating plot and vicinity had the potential to be
mobilized by hydraulic gradients. At ambient tempera-
tures, residual DNAPL cannot be mobilized, but heating
reduces surface tension of the DNAPL making it more
amenable to movement in the aquifer. This could be one
explanation for the DNAPL that appeared in PA-2I and
PA-2D wells, after the resistive heating demonstration
had commenced. Thermally induced convection could
assist such movement. Alternatively, heat-vaporized
TCE migrating upward in the Lower Sand Unit could
have encountered the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and
migrated sideways to the surrounding aquifer. It is diffi-
cult to interpret the true effect of a mix of thermal and
hydraulic gradients in the resistive heating plot resulting
from the demonstration.
Migration of ground water and dissolved ground-water
constituents from the ISCO plot are exemplified by the
movement of potassium ion in the aquifer, as shown in
Figures 5-21 to 5-23. Potassium, originating from the
injected oxidant, acts as a conservative tracer for track-
ing ground-water movement. Figures 5-21 to 5-23 show
the excess potassium (above pre-demonstration levels)
in the ground water at Launch Complex 34. Because
more monitoring wells are present on the western side of
the ISCO plot, movement seems to be occurring to the
west; however, similar ground-water transport probably
occurred in all directions from the plot. This migration of
ground water and dissolved species from the ISCO plot
is an important aspect of injecting oxidant without con-
comitant extraction or hydraulic control, and may need to
be reviewed on a site-specific basis. In summary, both
technologies, the resistive heating and ISCO treatments,
created conditions conducive to DNAPL migration.
TCE and other CVOCs are among the dissolved species
that migrated from the resistive heating plot as indicated
by the TCE measurements in perimeter and distant wells
(see Appendix C). Figures 5-24 to 5-26 show the TCE
trends observed in the perimeter wells. TCE levels in
the perimeter wells IW-17S and IW-171 (on the west side
of the resistive heating plot) rose sharply when the
February 19, 2003
70
Battelle
-------
DO
0>
I
CD"
C3-
2
cu
f*~m no
4Jfl Wotw TflM» CtooflMt (tt)
* Oonfa'g.UaM'JO
- ituaj)
Water Levels Measured
In Shallow Wells
near the ESB at LC34
(April 10. 2000)
Figure 5-18. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells near
the Engineering Support Building at Launch
Complex 34 (April 10, 2000)
-a
•*$—
\
•*
^rx
Water Levels Measured
In Intermediate Wells
near the CSB at LC34
(April 10. 2000)
Figure 5-19. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells
near the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex 34 (April 10, 2000)
-5°
o
o
co
-------
ilaiWm&flSffSSl - KAM7)
Water Levels Measured
In Deep Wells
near the ESS at LC34
(April 10, 2000)
Figure 5-20. Water Levels Measured in Deep Wells near the Engineering Support Building at Launch
Complex 34 (April 10, 2000)
resistive heating treatment started and the increase 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 sus-
tained increase may signify that DNAPL has redistrib-
uted within the plot or outside it.
Figure 5-27 shows the TCE trends observed in distant
well clusters PA-8 and PA-1. PA-8 is closer to the
resistive heating plot to the northeast of the plot. PA-1 is
further away towards the north-northeast side. The PA-8
cluster showed a significant increase in TCE concen-
trations in the shallow and deep wells. After the ISCO
and resistive heating treatments started, DNAPL was
observed for the first time in a distant well, PA-11D, as
well as perimeter wells PA-2I, and PA-2D, all of which
are on the east side of the resistive heating plot, near
remaining DNAPL after the treatment shown in Figure 5-
5, and 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 move-
ment and whether or not this DNAPL was initially in
mobile or residual form. Mobile DNAPL could have
moved under the influence of the sharp hydraulic gradi-
ent induced by the oxidant injection pressures alone.
Residual DNAPL, by nature, would not be expected to
move.
When the ground-water data indicated that DNAPL
movement had occurred, additional post-demonstration
soil cores were collected from areas surrounding the
resistive heating plot (see Figure 4-3 in Section 4). The
additional soil coring locations surrounding the resistive
February 19, 2003
72
Battelle
-------
SHALLOW
WELLS
/\ "^
RESISTIVE-^
f ^
/ HEATING
PA-*14S
7.4 ^^.
.-•u /"**
PA? is
a
Explanation:
Concentration
lncrease{m q ''_ i
- 6.90
1 ISO -800
B| 900 • 1.000
— 5oON • /
X \ PA-8S /
^° /
Figure 5-21. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO Technology in Shallow Wells near the
Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000)
heating plot were selected because these were the only
locations in the immediate vicinity of the resistive heating
plot where pre-demonstration soil core data were avail-
able for comparison. As shown in Figure 5-28, in none of
these perimeter soil samples was there a noticeable
increase in TCE or DNAPL concentration following the
demonstration. The sampling density of the soil cores
surrounding the plot is not as high as the sampling den-
sity inside the plot; therefore, the effort was more explor-
atory than definitive. None of these soil cores showed
any noticeable increase in DNAPL levels (TCE greater
than 300 mg/kg), although the DNAPL already present
under the Engineering Support Building and on the east
side of the plot would tend to mask the appearance of
fresh DNAPL and make it difficult to identify DNAPL
migration in these directions.
To evaluate the possibility of TCE-DNAPL migration to
the vadose zone, all pre- and post-demonstration soil
cores in the resistive heating plot included soil samples
collected at 2-ft intervals in the vadose zone. As seen in
Figure 5-25, there was no noticeable deposition of TCE
in the vadose zone soil due to the resistive heating treat-
ment.
Surface emission tests were conducted as described in
Appendix F to evaluate the possibility of solvent losses
to the atmosphere. As seen in Table 5-14, there was a
noticeable increase in TCE concentrations between sur-
face emission samples collected in the resistive heating
plot (or around the plenum) and at background locations
at various times during the demonstration (see Figure 5-
29 for the samples locations). This indicates that there
was some loss of TCE to the ambient air around the plot
during the heat treatment and that the vapor extraction
system was not as efficient at controlling vapor losses as
would be desirable. The relatively shallow vadose zone
could be one of the factors driving the difficulty in vapor
capture. In addition, the vadose zone completely dis-
appeared during hurricane events in September 1999,
as the water table rose to ground surface (the resistive
heating plot is at a topographic low point at Launch
Complex 34).
Battelle
73
February 19, 2003
-------
21
I
-5°
o
8
INTERMEDIATE
WELLS
RESISTIV^
/ HEATING V
Explanation:
Concentration
Increase (mgJL)
«
!-»
[HI SO -500
Ł^3 500 • 1,000
/
FI..I .J. '.!:«- I
flBatreiie
. iPiiJfwijj Trt-lirttil'Mir Tn Utiit
Figure 5-22. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO
Technology in Intermediate Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000)
DEEP
WELLS
RESISTIVE
HEATING
PA-*t40
ricrlcfo SJuk- Plan* (Ea*l Zone 09D1 -
Baneiie
Figure 5-23. Distribution of Potassium (K) Produced by ISCO
Technology in Deep Wells near the Engineering
Support Building at Launch Complex 34 (April 2000)
DO
03
I
CD"
-------
DO
0)
en
11,200,000
1,000,000
800.000
PA-21
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-71
PA-7D
Figure 5-24. Dissolved TCE Levels (|jg/L) in Perimeter Wells on
the Eastern (PA-2) and Northern (PA-7) Side of
the Resistive Heating Plot
I
-5°
1,000,000-
BPre-Demo
DOctH,1999
aJsntft-14,2000
DApnMO-14,MOO
• Post-Demo
TCE solubility at 25°C
PA-1 OS
PA-101
PfrlOD
'1,200,000
W-17S
IW-171
Figure 5-25. Dissolved TCE Levels (|jg/L) in Perimeter Wells on
the Southern and Western Sides of the Resistive
Heating Plot
co
-------
'1,200,000
Figure 5-26. Dissolved TCE Levels (|jg/L) in Perimeter Well (PA-15) on the Western Side of the
ISCOPIot
1,200,000
1,000,000 -
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
TCE solubility at 25 °C
DPre-Demo
• Week 3-4
DWeek 7-8
D Jan 2000
D Apr 2000
• OX Post-Demo
PA-1S
PA-11
PA-1D
PA-8S
PA-81
PA-8D
Figure 5-27. Dissolved TCE Levels (|jg/L) in Distant Wells (PA-1 and PA-8) on the Northeastern Side of
the ISCO Plot
During these hurricanes, it is probable that shallow
ground water (laden with TCE) from the plot migrated
into a ditch on the northwest side of the plot. Elevated
TCE levels were subsequently found in ponded surface
water samples collected along this ditch by FSU.
However, the additional post-demonstration soil cores
(LC34B309, LC34B214 and LC34B314) collected along
the ditch did not reveal any TCE at DNAPL levels.
Therefore, it is likely that the TCE that migrated during
the hurricanes was mostly in the dissolved phase and
not DNAPL. The ditch is dry during most times of the
year and no surface water was present during the post-
demonstration monitoring event.
5.3.2.2 Potential for DNAPL Migration to the
Lower Clay Unit and Semi-Confined
Aquifer
The geologic logs of the three confined aquifer wells are
provided in Appendix A. Their locations are shown in
February 19, 2003
76
Battelle
-------
DO
0>
I
CD"
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
PA-1
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
NA
NA
2.9
NA
NA
PA-201
(mg/kg)
8.6
ND
0.7
1.2
ND
ND
1.5
4.6
0.9
2.6
6.6
12.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PA-2
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,513
316
275
336
293
223
NA
2,570
814
218
271
2,792
1,096
NA
PA-202
(mg/kg)
2
1
ND
2
ND
2
1
0
694
21
156
598
798
346
3,858
13,100
2,039
4,886
681
416
NA
444
472
PA-5
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
1.0
5.4
2
91
193
125
15
73
1.8
NA
1.1
2.3
8.2
27
8.2
PA-205
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
ND
3.4
ND
136
127
41
27
65
58
39
31
ND
ND
6.3
19.8
48.8
5.1
NA
LC34B14
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
IND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LC34B214
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11
4
1
10
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
LC34B314
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
5
6
12
16
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
0
NA
Figure 5-28. Pre- and Post-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) for Resistive Heating Perimeter Soil Samples (page 1 of 3)
21
Cr
2
03
-5°
o
o
co
-------
21
&
2
03
-5°
o
8
oo
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
*(2
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
PA-6
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
1.9
21
83
NA
179
255
164
131
137
^^^
39
5
56
74
33
PA-206
(mg/kg)
NA
1.7
ND
ND
ND
2.3
1.6
0.5
35
124
86
144
202
237
233
81
45
189
170
214
71
0.7
0.3
PA-7
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
1.4
0.4
2.9
75
6.9
46
6.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
1.2
0.2
0.7
NA
0.1
PA-207
(mg/kg)
1.3
4.1
1.1
1.0
3.8
8.6
10
89
89
5
12
2.6
ND
1.6
1.1
29
18.4
ND
7.9
ND
ND
ND
0.8
PA-8
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
0.5
1.1
38
6.3
175
77
67
32
53
41
1
2
21
95
115
PA-208
(mg/kg)
3.5
1.2
0.9
ND
ND
0.3
ND
ND
ND
31
32
102
255
108
32
92
58
34
44
138
147
261
234
LC34B17
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.062
0.017
LC34B217
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
1
1
13
11
14
6
ND
ND
8
96
160
223
67
27
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
LC34B39
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
0.2
LC34B239
(mg/kg)
0.8
0.4
0.3
1.3
6
12
9
4
9
16
5
346
222
298
358
289
314
247
284
158
NA
267
265
Figure 5-28. Pre- and Post-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) for Resistive Heating Perimeter Soil Samples (page 2 of 3)
DO
0>
I
CD"
-------
DO
0>
I
CD"
CD
21
Cr
2
03
-5°
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
PA-9
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
92
156
188
205
9.1
58.4
14.7
0.6
0.2
3.0
0.1
1.6
NA
41.7
1.2
PA-209
(mg/kg)
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6
36
51
56
81
89
46
37
ND
ND
ND
2.9
1.3
7.1
61
61
NA
NA
PA-11
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.5
NA
207
250
228
236
185
483
363
142
NA
NA
NA
NA
PA-211
(mg/kg)
3.3
NA
2.5
3.5
0.5
••
32
3.2
3.4
3,332
123
958
186
468
300
208
206
961
2,357
241
NA
PA-12
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
24
30
31
154
126
201
NA
130
125
178
NA
73
98
196
PA-212
(mg/kg)
ND
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.4
2.2
ND
87
84
305
327
307
209
176
314
123
149
97
NA
LC34B09
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
0.001
0.004
0.069
0.1
0.025
0.009
0.007
ND
ND
ND
0.001
ND
ND
LC34B209
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
1
3
18
28
50
28
3
23
53
41
6
1
3
1
3
ND
4
ND
ND
2
NA
LC34B309
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LC34B2XXand PA-2XX: Post-demonstration characterization coring IDs.
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
Color in the chart represents the soil sample color observed during the soil sample collection.
Solid horizontal lines demarcate the Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
Figure 5-28. Pre- and Post-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) for Resistive Heating Perimeter Soil Samples (page 3 of 3)
o
o
Co
-------
Table 5-14. Surface Emissions Results from Resistive Heating Treatment Demonstration
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Pre-Demonstration (Baseline Data Sampled from Steam Injection Plot)
CP-SE-1
CP-SE-2
11/17/1999
11/17/1999
<0.39
<0.39
CP-SE-3
11/17/1999
<0.41
During Demonstration
SPH-SE-1
SPH-SE-2
SPH-SE-3
SPH-SE-4
SPH-SE-5
SPH-SE-6
SPH-SE-7
10/08/1999
10/08/1999
10/08/1999
10/22/1999
10/22/1999
10/22/1999
01/18/2000
2.1
3.6
2.0
13,000
12,000
13,000
23
SPH-SE-8
SPH-SE-9
SPH-SE-1 0
SPH-SE-1 1
SPH-SE-1 2
SPH-SE-1 3
01/18/2000
01/18/2000
04/11/2000
04/11/2000
04/11/2000
04/11/2000
78
35
0.93
0.67
<0.37
1,300
Post-Demonstration
SPH-SE-21
SPH-SE-22
SPH-SE-23
SPH-SE-24
SPH-SE-25
SPH-SE-26
08/30/2000
08/30/2000
08/30/2000
08/31/2000
09/01/2000
09/01/2000
<0.42
0.61
<870
500
59
17
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
DW-SE-36
DW-SE-37
DW-SE-38
10/01/1999
10/08/1999
10/25/1999
10/22/1999
01/17/2000
04/11/2000
04/11/2000
04/11/2000
12/06/2000
12/06/2000
12/07/2000
<0.42
<0.44
0.44
6,000(b)
<0.38
0.43
0.86
0.79
<0.40
0.49
<0.40
SPH-SE-27
SPH-SE-28
SPH-SE-29
SPH-SE-30
SPH-SE-31
SPH-SE-32
11/30/2000
11/30/2000
12/01/2000
12/02/2000
12/02/2000
12/04/2000
3,100
10,000
11,000
9.0
0.71
<0.40
Ambient Air at Shoulder Level
SPH-SE-1 4
SPH-SE-1 5
SPH-SE-C27
DW-C1
DW-C2
DW-C3
DW-11
DW-12
DW-C21
DW-C22
05/09/2000
05/09/2000
09/01/2000
04/11/2000
05/09/2000
05/09/2000
08/31/2000
09/01/2000
08/31/2000
09/01/2000
<0.39(a)
<0.39(a)
<0.88
21(0
<0.39
<0.39
13
<27
0.86(c)
<0.58(c)
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 (10/22/1999) was collected immediately after SPH-SE-6 sample (the last sample for the
sampling set in October 1999), 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 decontam-
ination procedure of purging the box with air for two hours. In subsequent events (1 /17/2000 background), special
additional decontamination steps of cleaning the box with methanol and air dry were adapted to minimize carryover.
(c) A Summa canister was held at shoulder level to collect an ambient air sample to evaluate local background air.
Figure 4-7 in Section 4.3.1. Table 5-15 shows the depths
and thicknesses of the Lower Clay Unit (aquitard) and
the screened intervals of the wells installed. Figure 5-30
is a geologic cross section across the three test plots
showing the varying thickness of the aquitard. The aqui-
tard is thinnest in the resistive heating plot, where it is
only around 1.5 ft thick. The thickness of the aquitard
increases in the eastward and northward directions.
Split-spoon samples of the Lower Clay Unit show it to be
a medium gray-colored clay with moderate to high plas-
ticity. The clay is overlain by a silt zone which in turn is
overlain by sand. The entire sand-silt-clay sequence
appears to be gradational and fining downward with
respect to grain size. In PA-21, the overlying sand and
silt intervals appeared to be more contaminated (PID
reading over 2,000 ppm). The clay itself was generally
less contaminated, but lower PID readings in the clay
may be due to the fact that volatilization of organic con-
taminants in clayey soils occurs more slowly. Sandier
soils were encountered directly below the confining unit.
Only at the PA-20 well did soils underlying the confining
unit appear to be clean.
Soil samples were collected for lab analysis from each
split spoon. Care was taken to collect soil samples of
each 2-ft interval from the retrieved soil core. Multiple
samples were collected in cases where both clays and
sand were recovered in a spoon. PID readings exceeded
1,000 ppm (or more) at both the PA-21 and PA-22
locations both above and below the confining unit. Visual
observations of clay samples indicated that the clay has
low permeability.
February 19, 2003
80
Battelle
-------
Figure 5-29. Location Map for Surface Emissions Test
Table 5-16 and Figure 5-31 show the vertical distribution
of the TCE analysis results of the soil samples collected
at depths of approximately 40 to 60 ft bgs; the lower clay
unit occurs at approximately 46 ft bgs in the resistive
heating plot. The soil borings SB-50, SB-51, and SB-52
are the borings done for wells PA-20, PA-21, and PA-22
(see Figure 4-7 in Section 4.3.1). Soil boring SB-50 was
conducted in the parking lot and did not show any
concentrations approaching the DNAPL threshold of
300 mg/kg at any depth. Soil boring SB-51 was con-
ducted in the ISCO plot; this boring indicated the pres-
ence of DNAPL in the Lower Sand Unit and Lower Clay
Unit, but relatively low levels of TCE in the confined
aquifer. Soil boring SB-52, in the resistive heating plot,
showed the presence of DNAPL in the Lower Clay Unit,
the semi-confining unit from the aquifer below; TCE levels
were as high as 40,498 mg/kg in the semi-confined
aquifer (56-58 ft bgs) at this location. Previously, no
monitoring was done in the semi-confining layer or in the
semi-confined aquifer before the demonstration because
of NASA's concern about breaching the relatively thin
aquitard. Subsequently, these three wells were drilled
because nonintrusive (seismic) monitoring indicated the
possibility of DNAPL being present in the semi-confined
aquifer (Resolution Resources, 2000). Because there is
no information regarding the state of the confined aquifer
before the demonstration, it is unclear whether the
DNAPL had migrated to the semi-confined aquifer before
Battelle
81
February 19, 2003
-------
Table 5-15. Confined Aquifer Well Screens and
Aquitard Depth
Well ID
PA-20
(North of steam
injection plot in
parking lot)
PA-21
(In ISCO plot)
PA-22
(In resistive heating
plot)
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
55-60
55-60
55-60
Depth where
Aquitard was
Encountered
(ft bgs)
45.5
44.8
45.8
Thickness of
Aquitard
(ft)
3
2.8
300
The confining unit clay contained thin sand lenses. Three
ft is the overall thickness, including the interspersed sand
lenses. The effective thickness of the aquitard is approxi-
mately 1.5 ft.
Table 5-16. TCE Concentrations in Deep Soil Borings
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
367
473
707
8,496; 10,700
40,498
122
(a) Shaded cells represent the Lower Clay Unit between the surficial
and confined aquifers.
or during the demonstration. Heating could have lowered
the surface tension of DNAPL, making it easier to pen-
etrate the Lower Clay Unit. However, given the strong
electrical heating achieved in the Lower Sand Unit (of
the surficial aquifer) that would tend to volatilize TCE
and move it upward, the greater probability is that the
DNAPL penetrated the Lower Clay Unit and entered
the semi-confined aquifer before the demonstration. Al-
though the Lower Clay Unit is approximately 3 ft thick in
other parts of Launch Complex 34, it appears to contain
sand lenses that reduce the effective thickness of the
aquitard to approximately 1.5 ft near PA-22, under the
resistive heating plot. Therefore, the barrier to gradual
downward migration over time is geologically weaker in
this region.
Table 5-17 summarizes the results of the CVOC analysis
of the ground water from the semi-confined aquifer.
CVOC measurements were taken on seven occasions
over a one-year period to evaluate natural fluctuation.
Ground-water samples from the semi-confined aquifer
wells reinforce the soil sampling results. High levels of
TCE approaching solubility (free-phase DNAPL) were
observed in PA-22 where high soil concentrations were
also observed (Yoon et al., 2002). In wells PA-20 and
PA-21, relatively lower CVOC concentrations were
measured, suggesting that the semi-confining clay layer
is more competent in these areas and free phase
contamination has not migrated into the semi-confined
aquifer in this area. Elevated levels of c;s-1,2-DCE (all
three wells) and vinyl chloride (PA-21) also were found
in the semi-confined aquifer wells. Overall, CVOC
concentrations appear to be relatively stable overtime in
all three wells, namely, PA-20, PA-21, and PA-22 (see
Figure 5-32).
Table 5-18 shows the field parameter measurements in
the confined aquifer wells. Based on the relatively low
DO and ORP levels, the semi-confined aquifer appears
to be anaerobic. The ground water has a neutral-to-
slightly-alkaline pH. The temperature was in the range of
26 to 28°C in PA-20 and PA-21, but in PA-22, which is
below the resistive heating plot, the temperature during
both events was elevated (44 to 49°C). The higher tem-
perature in this well may be due to heat conduction from
the resistive heating application in the surficial aquifer,
although migration of heated water from the surficial
aquifer through the thin Lower Clay Unit cannot be ruled
out.
Table 5-19 shows the inorganic measurements in the
semi-confined aquifer wells. The geochemical composi-
tion of the ground water appears to be relatively constant
throughout the semi-confined aquifer, and is similar to
that of the surficial aquifer.
Table 5-20 shows slug test results in the semi-confined
aquifer wells. Slug tests were performed in July 2001 on
the wells PA-20, PA-21, and PA-22. The recovery rates
of the water levels were analyzed with the Bouwer
(1989), Bouwer and Rice (1976), and Horslev (1951)
methods for slug tests. The Bouwer and Rice methods
may be used in confined aquifers where the top of the
screen is well below the bottom of the confining layer,
but are more suitable for unconfined aquifers. The
Horslev method is more applicable in confined aquifers,
February 19, 2003
82
Battelle
-------
30JECT G004065-31 I DATE 05J01
Figure 5-30. Geologic Cross Section Showing Lower Clay Unit and Semi-Confined Aquifer
but may fail to account for the effects of a sand pack.
Overall, the hydraulic conductivity (K) estimates range
from 0.4 to 29.9 ft/day. The Horslev method results are
about two to four times higher than estimates using the
Bouwer and Rice method. The replicate tests are similar,
except for PA-20, where the Horslev method differed. It
appears that the aquifer conductivity near well PA-20 is
greater than near PA-21 and PA-22. The conductivity of
wells PA-21 and PA-22 is lower and reflects the silty-
clayey sands that were observed during drilling. The
conductivities in the semi-confined aquifer are similar to
the conductivities measured in the surficial aquifer wells.
Figure 5-33 shows the potentiometric map for water lev-
els measured in April 2001 in the new semi-confined
aquifer wells near the demonstration test plots at Launch
Complex 34. Although very few wells are available to
make a positive determination, the water levels measured
Battelle
83
February 19, 2003
-------
60
0.01 0.1
10 100 1000 10000 100000
TCE (ug/kg)
Figure 5-31. TCE Concentrations in Soil with Depth from Semi-Confined Aquifer Soil Borings
Table 5-17. TCE Concentrations in the Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
Well ID
Feb 2001 Apr 2001 May 2002 Jun 2001 Aug 2001 Nov 2001 Feb 2002
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
67.1
58.4
7,840
736,000
N/A
447
N/A
15,700
980,000
N/A
111
N/A
6,400
877,000
939,000
350
N/A
5,030
801 ,000
N/A
19
N/A
790
1 ,000,000
1 ,000,000
15
N/A
1,640
1,110,000
N/A
181
N/A
416
1 ,240,000
N/A
Well ID
Feb 2001 Apr 2001
c/s-1,2-DCE
May 2002 Jun 2001 Aug 2001
Nov 2001 Feb 2002
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
21.7
18.5
1,190
8,130
N/A
199
N/A
5,790
8,860
N/A
37.4
N/A
1,490
1 1 ,000
10,700
145
N/A
1,080
1 1 ,900
N/A
10
N/A
330
12,000 J
1 2,000 J
52
N/A
5,140
14,900
N/A
66
N/A
315
13,300
N/A
Well ID
Feb 2001 Apr 2001
frans-1,2-DCE
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
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<100
N/A
Feb 2001
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<100
N/A
1.45
N/A
51.7
<1 ,000
N/A
Apr 2001
0.36J
N/A
4.22
<1 ,000
N/A
0.24J
N/A
6 J
<1,120
<1 ,090
Vinyl Chloride
0.38
N/A
5
<100
N/A
May 2002 Jun 2001
<1.08
N/A
<22.2
<1,120
<1 ,090
<0.1
N/A
<1
<100
N/A
<1.0
N/A
<33
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
Aug 2001
<2.0
N/A
<67
<33,000
<33,000
0.48J
N/A
<10
<100
N/A
Nov 2001
<0.10
N/A
1,050
<100
N/A
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.
February 19, 2003
84
Battelle
-------
10,000,000
o
3/10/01 5/9/01 7/8/01 9/6/01 11/5/01 1/4/02 3/5/02
Date
Figure 5-32. TCE Concentration Trend in Ground Water from Semi-Confined Aquifer
Table 5-18. Key Field Parameter Measurements in
Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
Well ID
PA-20
PA-21
PA-22
PA-20
PA-21
PA-22
Temperature
Date (°C)
04/06/2001
04/06/2001
04/06/2001
06/1 2/2001
06/1 2/2001
06/12/2001
27.2
28.4
48.9
26.2
26.1
44.4
DO
(mg/L)
0.65
0.05
0.36
0.42
0.47
0.78
PH
7.8
8.84
6.77
7.21
7.17
7.25
ORP
(mV)
67.4
30.2
39.1
-42.5
-36.5
-33.6
in four semi-confined aquifer wells (PA-20, PA-21, PA-
22, and previously existing well IW-2D1, southeast from
the test plots) indicate that there is an eastward or
northeastward gradient, similar to the regional gradient
observed in the surficial aquifer. The gradient and
magnitude are summarized in Table 5-21.
Figure 5-34 displays vertical gradients from paired wells
between nearby surficial aquifer wells and the newly
installed wells (PA-20 to PA-22). A positive vertical gra-
dient suggests upward flow from the deep aquifer to the
surficial aquifer, which would inhibit downward migration
of contamination. A negative gradient would promote
downward migration. As shown in Figure 5-34, it
appears that the vertical gradient fluctuates, beginning
as an upward gradient when the wells were installed,
changing to a downward gradient in the Fall of 2001, and
finally recovering to an upward gradient.
In summary, the following were the key results and con-
clusions from the installation of three semi-confined
aquifer wells at Launch Complex 34:
• Use of the two-stage (dual-casing) drilling and com-
pletion process led to the installation of three semi-
confined aquifer wells that appeared to be sealed
from the surficial aquifer above.
• At all three locations, the Lower Clay Unit occurs at
approximately 45 ft bgs and is approximately 3 ft
thick; at PA-22, located in the resistive heating plot,
the Lower Clay Unit was found to contain sand
lenses that appeared to reduce the effective thick-
ness of the aquitard.
Table 5-19. Geochemistry of the Confined Aquifer
Well ID
PA-20
PA-20-DUP
PA-21
PA-22
Ca
(mg/L)
71.8
69.4
74
120
Fe
(mg/L)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.109
Mg
(mg/L)
64
62.8
48
79.7
Mn
(mg/L)
0.0145
0.0128
O.01
0.0534
Alkalinity
(mg/L as
CaC03)
180
168
196
276
Cl
(mg/L)
664
680
553
802
SO4
(mg/L)
114
114
134
122
IDS
(mg/L)
1,400
1,410
1,310
1,840
Battelle
85
February 19, 2003
-------
Table 5-20. Results for Slug Tests in Semi-Confined
Aquifer Wells at Launch Complex 34
Well
Test
Method
K (ft/d)
Response
PA-20
PA-20
PA-20
PA-20
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22
PA-22
PA-22
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
Bouwerand Rice
Bouwerand Rice
Horslev
Horslev
Bouwerand Rice
Bouwerand Rice
Horslev
Horslev
Bouwerand Rice
Bouwerand Rice
Horslev
Horslev
4.1
6.9
8.6
29.9
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.1
0.4
0.5
1.5
1.1
Good
Good
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
• Ground-water sampling in the three semi-confined
aquifer wells confirmed that dissolved-phase
CVOCs were present in the semi-confined aquifer
at all three locations.
• At PA-20, in the parking lot north of the test plots,
there was no DNAPL in any of the soil samples.
• At PA-21, in the ISCO plot, soil analysis indicated
that DNAPL was present both in the Lower Clay
Unit and in the Lower Sand Unit, immediately above
the aquitard. No DNAPL was found in the semi-
confined aquifer at this location.
• At PA-22 in the resistive heating plot, PID screening
and field extraction/laboratory analysis of the soil
/ RESISTIVE ;
/ HEATIN
PA-20
2.9
\
\
\
\
'&11
Potonflomolrta Surtooo Oovollon (ft)
- Contour Uno (0.10 ft Moral)
• Contour Un» (0.50 fl I
_.. , .t Moral)
CwdlnoW Infermolloni
FlorMo Stot» Pton. (Ea«t Zono OM1 - HAD27)
Potentiometric Surface of
Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
near the ESB at LC34
(April 19, 2001)
Figure 5-33. Hydraulic Gradient in the Semi-Confined Aquifer (April 19, 2001)
February 19, 2003
86
Battelle
-------
Table 5-21. Summary of Gradient Direction and Magnitude in the Semi-Confined Aquifer
Date
Direction
Magnitude
(ft/ft)
4/19/01
ENE
-^
0.0046
5/24/01
E
-*
0.0056
7/2/01
ENE
-^
0.0052
S
0.0033
11/8/01
NE
X
0.0028
NW
*\
0.0013
1/21/02
ESE
~^
0.0014
1/25/02
ESE
-^
0.0013
2/20/02
ENE
-*
0.0026
(PA20-PA19D)
(PA21 -BAT3D)
(PA22-PA14D)
-0.6
6/3/2001
8/2/2001 10/1/2001 11/30/2001
Date
1/29/2002
3/30/2002
Figure 5-34. Vertical Gradients from the Spatially Neighboring Paired Wells between the Surficial
Aquifer and the Semi-Confined Aquifer
samples indicated that DNAPL was present in the
Lower Clay Unit and in the semi-confined aquifer,
although not in the Lower Sand Unit, immediately
above the aquitard. No monitoring was done in the
semi-confining layer (Lower Clay Unit) or in the
semi-confined aquifer before the demonstration
because of NASA's concern about breaching the
relatively thin aquitard. Subsequently, these three
wells were drilled because nonintrusive (seismic)
monitoring indicated the possibility of DNAPL being
present in the semi-confined aquifer. Because
there is no information regarding the state of the
semi-confined aquifer before the demonstration, it is
unclear whether the DNAPL had migrated to the
confined aquifer before or during the demonstration.
However, given the strong electrical heating
achieved in the Lower Sand Unit (in the surficial
aquifer) which would tend to volatilize TCE upward,
the greater probability is that the DNAPL penetrated
the Lower Clay Unit before the demonstration.
Whereas the Lower Clay Unit is 3 ft thick in other
parts of Launch Complex 34, near PA-22 it appears
to contain sand lenses that reduce the effective
thickness of the aquitard to approximately 1.5 ft.
Therefore, the barrier to downward migration is
geologically weaker in this region.
Hydraulic measurements in the semi-confined
aquifer indicate an eastward gradient similar to the
overlying surficial aquifer. Vertical gradients fluctu-
ate between the semi-confined aquifer and the
surficial aquifer.
Battelle
87
February 19, 2003
-------
• As the semi-confined aquifer extends down to
approximately 120 ft bgs, additional investigation of
the deeper geologic strata would be required to
obtain an understanding of the CVOC distribution in
the semi-confined aquifer.
5.3.3 Potential TCE Losses during
Hot Soil Core Sampling
Even after waiting for three months following the end of
resistive heating application to the subsurface, the test
plot had cooled down only to 90°C or less (from a maxi-
mum of 120°C during heating). Therefore, post-
demonstration soil coring had to be conducted while the
plot was still hot. To minimize CVOC losses due to vola-
tilization, the following steps were taken:
• Soil coring was started only after steam generation
had subsided and the plot had cooled to 90°C or
less in all parts.
• As the core barrel was retrieved from the ground,
each 2-inch-diameter, 4-ft-long acetate sleeve in
the core barrel was capped on both ends and
dipped in an ice bath until the core soil was cooled
to ambient temperature. The soil core was kept in
the ice bath long enough for cooling to occur
without breaking the seals at the capped ends.
• Upon reaching ambient temperature, the core
sleeve was then uncapped and cut open along its
length to collect the soil sample for CVOC analysis.
In order to determine volatilization losses due to the hot
soil care, surrogate of 1,1,1-TCA was spiked for a few
soil samples as described in Appendix G. Overall, the
results show that between 84 and 113% of the surrogate
spike was recovered from the soil cores. 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 (see Table G-1 in
Appendix G). Slightly less surrogate was recovered from
the soil cores spiked prior to cooling, which implies that
any losses of 1,1,1-TCA in the soil samples spiked prior
to cooling are minimal and acceptable, within the
limitations of the field sampling protocol.
5.3.4 Summary of Fate of TCE-DNA PL
in the Plot
The change in TCE-DNAPL mass in the plot can be ex-
plained by the following pathways:
• Aboveground recovery. Vapor sampling conducted
by the resistive heating vendor indicates that
1,947 kg of total TCE was recovered in the vapor
extraction system. The initial estimate of total TCE
mass in the subsurface was 11,313 kg.
• Degradation by biological or abiotic processes.
There are indications that some TCE may have
been degraded due to the heating in the resistive
heating plot.
o The sharp increase in c/s-1,2-DCE levels in
several monitoring wells inside the plot and
perimeter indicate the possibility that some
TCE may have degraded by reductive dechlo-
rination. Microbial counts in soil and ground-
water samples before and after the demonstra-
tion indicate that microbial populations survived
the heat treatment in most parts of the plot.
Recent research (Truex, 2003) indicates that
TCE biodegradation rates are accelerated sub-
stantially at higher temperatures. Therefore,
there is a strong possibility that some of the
TCE in the plot has biodegraded to c/s-1,2-
DCE, but that the dechlorination is not yet com-
plete. If TCE degradation to c/s-1,2-DCE has
been hastened, it is unclear as to the time
frame over which c/s-1,2-DCE itself may
degrade. Accumulation of c/s-1,2-DCE shows
that the rate of degradation of TCE may be
much faster than the rate of c/s-1,2-DCE
degradation.
o The sharp increase in chloride, which would
have been a strong indicator of dechlorination
of CVOCs, proved to be inconclusive. Sodium,
potassium, sulfate, alkalinity, and TDS
increased sharply, concomitant with the
increase in chloride—these are all seawater
constituents. The possibility that the increase
in chloride was caused by saltwater intrusion
during the resistive heating application cannot
be ruled out.
o Abiotic processes that may have degraded
TCE include reductive dechlorination by the
steel shot in the electrodes, hydrolysis, and/or
oxidation. Any of these processes could have
been promoted by the heating in the plot.
• Migration to surrounding regions. It is possible that
some TCE, and perhaps DNAPL, may have
migrated to regions surrounding the resistive
heating plot.
o Monitoring wells (IW-17S and IW-171) outside
the western perimeter of the plot showed a
sustained increase in TCE concentrations
during and after the demonstration. TCE was
found in transient surface water that appeared
along a ditch on the western side of the plot,
following the two hurricane events. It is
February 19, 2003
88
Battelle
-------
possible that when the water table rose to the
ground surface, the vapor extraction piping in
the plot was submerged. Hot water laden with
TCE could have migrated westward along the
topographic gradient. Another possible
obstruction to the TCE vapors being extracted
through the extraction pipes and plenum in the
vadose zone and ground surface is the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit. TCE vapors and steam
migrating upwards could preferentially migrate
horizontally in the sandy layer under the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit rather than through the silty
layer above. A limited number of exploratory
soil cores collected in the regions surrounding
the resistive heating plot after the demonstra-
tion did not show any signs of fresh DNAPL
deposits.
o DNAPL appeared in two of the wells (PA-21
and PA-2D) on the eastern side of the plot. It
is not clear which of the two technologies,
ISCO or resistive heating, caused DNAPL to
migrate. ISCO in the neighboring test plot
(80 ft away) created strong hydraulic gradient
that could potentially displace any mobile
DNAPL in the aquifer. Resistive heating gen-
erates heat-induced convection gradients that
could displace mobile DNAPL or mobilize
residual DNAPL. On the other hand, the PA-2
well cluster was installed in a region that was
showing dissolved TCE levels close to its solu-
bility before the demonstration. It is possible
that DNAPL would have eventually appeared in
these wells even if there were no remediation
activities at the site.
o Soil core samples from the vadose zone in the
resistive heating did not show any noticeable
increase in TCE concentrations.
o Surface emission tests conducted inside and
around the plot on several occasions during
and immediately following the resistive heating
treatment showed noticeably elevated levels of
TCE, compared to background levels. This
indicated that the vapor capture system was
not as efficient as would be desired and some
CVOC vapors were migrating to the atmo-
sphere. On some occasions, steam (and prob-
ably CVOC vapors) shot out of the monitoring
wells for several seconds during sampling.
This is another potential route for CVOC
vapors.
o After the resistive heating and ISCO treatment
demonstrations, three wells were installed into
the semi-confined aquifer—one in the parking
lot to the north (PA-20), one in the ISCO plot
(PA-21) and one in the resistive heating plot
(PA-22). All three wells showed elevated
levels of dissolved TCE, but the levels were
especially high in PA-22. Ground water in PA-
22 also had elevated temperature (44 to 49°C).
It is possible that heat conduction was respon-
sible for elevating the temperature in the semi-
confined aquifer below the resistive heating
plot, although penetration of heated water from
the surficial aquifer through the thin Lower Clay
Unit cannot be ruled out. The soil cores col-
lected during the installation of these wells
showed the presence of DNAPL in the Lower
Clay Unit and semi-confined aquifer below the
ISCO plot and below the resistive heating plot,
but not under the parking lot, which is outside
the suspected DNAPL source zone. DNAPL
concentrations were particularly high under the
resistive heating plot. Because these wells
were installed only after the demonstration, it is
unclear as to when the DNAPL migrated to the
semi-confined aquifer. The resistive heating
treatment heated the base of the aquifer and
probably the aquitard fairly well and the buoy-
ancy of the water would probably create verti-
cally upward gradients. On the other hand, the
Lower Clay Unit is thinnest in the resistive
heating plot (1.5 ft effective thickness versus
3 ft in other parts of Launch Complex 34). It is
possible that the DNAPL penetrated the aqui-
tard gradually overtime, long before the
demonstration.
• Losses during sampling of hot soil cores. It is pos-
sible that some CVOC losses occurred during post-
demonstration sampling of the hot (90°C or less)
soil cores. However, tests conducted to determine
volatilization losses by spiking hot soil samples with
1,1,1-TCA surrogate indicated that any such losses
were minimal. The spike test results show that
between 84 and 113% of the surrogate spike was
recovered from the soil cores. All precautions had
been taken to minimize any such losses. By the
time the post-demonstration soil sampling was
done, the plot had cooled to 90°C or less, indicating
that steam generation had subsided. Each time the
soil sample sleeve from the barrel was retrieved
from the ground, it was immediately capped at both
ends of the sleeve and submerged in an ice bath
until the core temperature cooled to ambient.
• In summary, the monitoring indicates that some
TCE may have degraded through one or more of
several heat-induced degradation mechanisms
and/or that some TCE may have migrated from the
resistive heating plot through a variety of possible
pathways. It also is possible that some of the
migrating TCE was DNAPL. The resistive heating
Battelle
89
February 19, 2003
-------
application at Launch Complex 34 generated the
desired heating in most parts of the plot, even in dif-
ficult spots, such as immediately above the aquitard
and under the building. Heating in the shallower
regions of the plot was somewhat hampered by the
deficiencies of the new electrode design and by the
transient diminishing of the vadose zone. Vapor
capture and hydraulic control are the biggest chal-
lenges that the technology needs to engineer for in
future applications, in order to ensure that all the
mobilized or volatilized TCE-DNAPL is captured. At
Launch Complex 34, a mechanism (such as a pipe)
for channeling upward-migrating CVOC vapors past
the Middle Fine-Grained Unit would have probably
improved vapor capture. Better hydraulic and
pneumatic control, as well as better heating, near
the water table, vadose zone, and ground surface
would have reduced TCE-DNAPL migration
potential.
In summary, the TCE in the plot probably was dissipated
by the resistive heating treatment through a number of
possible pathways, including aboveground vapor recov-
ery and condensation, microbial degradation, and migra-
tion to the surrounding regions. The possible buildup and
persistence of c/s-1,2-DCE in the plot, as well as dechlo-
rination to ethenes, due to heat-accelerated biodegrada-
tion needs to be studied. Ways of maximizing any such
biodegradation and minimizing migration outside the plot
need to be determined during future resistive heating
applications.
5.4 Operating Requirements and Cost
Section 3 contains a description of the resistive heating
treatment field operations at Launch Complex 34. Sec-
tion 7 contains the costs and economic analysis of the
technology.
February 19, 2003
90
Battelle
-------
6. Quality Assurance
A QAPP (Battelle, 1999d) prepared before the demon-
stration outlined the performance assessment meth-
odology and the QA measures to be taken during the
demonstration. The results of the field and laboratory QA
for the critical soil and ground-water CVOC (primary)
measurements and ground-water field parameter (sec-
ondary) measurements are described in this section.
The results of the QA associated with other ground-
water quality (secondary) measurements are described
in Appendix G. The focus of the QA is on the critical TCE
measurement in soil and ground water, 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
resistive heating 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 continuous 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 post-demonstration 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 resistive heating
technology.
o Sampling and analysis of duplicate post-
demonstration soil cores to determine TCE con-
centration variability within each grid cell. Two
complete cores (SB-204 and SB-304) were col-
lected within about 2 ft of each other in the post-
demonstration resistive heating 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 relatively good
match between the duplicate cores. This indi-
cated that dividing the resistive heating plot into
12 grid cells enabled a sampling design that was
able to address the horizontal variability in TCE
distribution.
o Continuous sampling of the soil column at each
coring location enabled the sampling design to
address the vertical variability in the TCE
distribution. 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 sam-
pling, 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 two well clusters in the
75-ft x 50-ft resistive heating plot. Each cluster
consisted of three wells screened in the three
Battelle
91
February 19, 2003
-------
stratigraphic 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 ground-water sam-
ples were collected from all resistive heating plot and
surrounding wells to better evaluate the generation and
migration of chloride, and the presence of potassium ion
and potassium permanganate from the ISCO demon-
stration. One additional soil core was collected during
post-demonstration sampling to evaluate the variability
within the same grid cell.
All the quality control (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 pre-demonstration soil coring event.
These blanks were later added to the QAPP and were
prepared during the post-demonstration 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 1 blank per 20 samples (5%). However,
as the speed of the soil coring increased, this frequency
was found to have fallen slightly short of this ratio. The
same rinsing procedure was maintained for the soil core
barrel through the pre- and post-demonstration sam-
pling. None of the blanks contained any elevated levels
ofCVOCs.
6.1.3 Chain of Custody
Chain-of-custody forms were used to track each batch of
samples collected in the field and were 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 tem-
perature was maintained during transit. Each sample
received 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
ground-water 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 saturation) levels of chlorinated solvent or perman-
ganate in the ground water and this membrane had to be
changed more frequently. Because of interference with
DO and other measurements, field parameter measure-
ments in deeply purple (high permanganate level) sam-
ples were avoided, as noted in Appendix G.
6.2.1 Field QCfor Soil Sampling
Soil extractions were conducted in the field and the
extract was sent to the off-site laboratory for CVOC
analysis. A surrogate compound was initially selected to
be spiked directly into a fraction of the soil samples col-
lected, but the field surrogate addition was discontinued
at the request of the off-site laboratory because of inter-
ference 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
February 19, 2003
92
Battelle
-------
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 determina-
tion of the extraction and analytical efficiency of the soil
sampling, the modified EPA Method 5035 methanol
extraction procedure was evaluated before the demon-
stration by spiking a known amount of TCE into soil
samples from the Launch Complex 34 aquifer. A more
detailed evaluation 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 approx-
imately 10 uL. 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
precision for the post-demonstration soil sampling, cal-
culated 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 suit-
able 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
pre-demonstration 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 QA 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 cor-
ing location. The RPD for three of the duplicate soil sam-
ples from the pre-demonstration sampling was greater
than 30%, but less than 60%. This indicated that the
repeatability of some of the pre-demonstration 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 post-demonstration 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 post-demonstration 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 slightly above detection, tends to be high. In gener-
al, though, the variability in the two vertical halves of
each 2-ft core was in a reasonable range, given the typ-
ically 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
collected by pouring distilled water through the sample
barrel, 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 June 23,
1999 (1.8 mg/kg), June 29, 1999 (8.0 mg/kg), and July 16,
1999 (1.2 mg/kg) during the pre-demonstration phase of
the project, but were still relatively low. The slightly ele-
vated 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 concentra-
tions. The TCE concentrations in these blanks were
below 10% of the concentrations in the associated batch
of soil samples. All the post-demonstration methanol
blanks were below detection.
6.2.2 Field QC Checks for Ground-Water
Sampling
QC checks for ground-water sampling included field dup-
licates (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 ground-water 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%.
Battelle
93
February 19, 2003
-------
Decontamination of the sample tubing between ground-
water samples initially consisted of a detergent rinse and
two distilled water rinses. However, initial ground-water
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 post-demonstration 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 ground-water 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 Checks
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 lab-
oratory control spike duplicates (LCSD). The analytical
laboratories generally conducted MS and MSD when-
ever the ground-water samples were clear, in order to
determine accuracy. However, when excess permanga-
nate was present in the samples, as with many post-
demonstration samplers, LCS and LCSD were con-
ducted. MS and MSD or LCS and LCSD were used to
calculate analytical accuracy (percent recovery) and pre-
cision (RPD between MS and MSD or LCS and LCSD).
6.3.1 Analytical QC Checks for Soil
Analytical accuracy for the soil samples (methanol ex-
tracts) analyzed were generally within acceptance limits
(70-130%) for the pre-demonstration period (Appendix
G, Table G-12). The batch of regular samples on August
22, 1999 had very high levels of TCE (near saturation),
which tended to mask the spiked TCE. Matrix spike
recoveries were outside this range for three of the MS/
MSD samples conducted during the post-demonstration
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.
Matrix spike recovery was 208% for one of the matrix
spike repetitions on June 1, 2000. The precision
between MS and MSD was always within acceptance
limits (±25%). Laboratory control spike recoveries and
precision were within the acceptance criteria (Appen-
dix G, Tables G-14 and G-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 post-demonstration periods
Table 6-2. List of Surrogate and Matrix Spike
Compounds and Their Target Recoveries
for Ground-Water 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. Surrogate and Laboratory Control Sample
Compounds and Their Target Recoveries
for Soil and Ground-Water 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%)
February 19, 2003
94
Battelle
-------
(Appendix G, Tables G-16 and G-17). CVOC levels in
the method blanks were always below detection.
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for Ground Water
Pre- and post-demonstration MS and MSD results for
ground water 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
August 3, 1999 and January 14, 2000 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 ground-water 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 organics in the sample necessitated
dilution to protect instruments. The proportionately high-
er detection limits are reported in the CVOC tables in
Appendix C. The detection limits most affected were the
ones 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 analysis.
6.4 QA/QC Summary
Given the challenges posed by the typically hetero-
geneous TCE distribution in a DNAPL source zone, the
collected data were a relatively good representation of
the TCE distribution in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer
before, during, and after the demonstration, for the fol-
lowing reasons:
• 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 post-
demonstration confidence intervals (range of TCE
mass estimates) that were narrow enough to enable
a good judgment of the TCE and DNAPL mass
removal achieved by the resistive heating
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 ground-water
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, 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 caused
detection limits for TCE, in some cases, to rise to
5 ug/L (instead of 3 ug/L). However, post-
demonstration levels of dissolved TCE in many of
the monitoring wells in the resistive heating 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 ground-water sampling
tubing, TCE levels in field blanks were acceptably
low or below detection.
Battelle
95
February 19, 2003
-------
7. Economic Analysis
The cost estimation for the resistive heating technology
application involves the following three major compo-
nents:
• Application cost of resistive heating at the demon-
stration site. Costs of the technology application at
Launch Complex 34 were tracked by the resistive
heating vendor and by MSE, the DOE contractor
who subcontracted the vendor.
• Site preparation and waste disposal costs incurred
by the owner. NASA and MSE tracked 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 resistive heating cost with the cost of a conventional
pump-and-treat system.
7.1 Resistive Heating Treatment
Costs
The costs of the resistive heating treatment technology
were tracked and reported by both the vendor and MSE,
the DOE contractor who subcontracted the vendor.
Table 7-1 summarizes the cost breakdown for the treat-
ment. The total cost of the resistive heating demonstra-
tion incurred by the vendor was approximately $569,000.
This total includes the design, permitting support, imple-
mentation, process monitoring, and reporting costs in-
curred by the vendor. The total does not include the
costs of site characterization, which was conducted by
other organizations (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study [RI/FS] by NASA, preliminary characterization by
WSRC, detailed characterization by Battelle/TetraTech
Table 7-1. Resistive Heating Application Cost
Summary Provided by Vendor
Cost Item
Design and submittals
Mobilization of equipment
Temporary utilities setup
Air, water, and limited soil analyses
Condensate collection and storage
Gas/vapor collection system
Waste containment
Transport/disposal of drill cuttings
Resistive heating operations
Electricity used
Site restoration
Demobilization of equipment
Final report
Total Cost
Actual Cost
($)
45,808
63,230
7,007
17,806
5,175
38,952
4,620
39,713
196,194
72,484
5,380
58,837
13,536
568,742
Percentage
(%)
8.0
11.0
1.2
3.1
1.0
6.8
0.8
7.0
34.5
12.8
1.0
10.3
2.5
100
Source: CES, 2001.
EM, Inc./U.S. EPA) and the cost of the operating waste
disposal (incurred by NASA).
MSE separately estimated the unit treatment cost for the
resistive heating treatment demonstration to be approxi-
mately $29/lb of TCE removed, which translates to the
treatment cost of approximately $104/yd3 (MSE, 2002).
The estimated unit cost takes consideration of the
treated/removed TCE in the plot, not accounting for the
remainder of total TCE present in the resistive heating
plot.
7.2 Site Preparation and Waste
Disposal Costs
Soil cuttings from the hollow-stem auger used for instal-
ling the resistive heating electrodes were disposed of off
site by the vendor and the costs are shown in Table 7-1.
The wastes generated during resistive heating operation
were disposed of off site by NASA at a cost of $44,000.
February 19, 2003
96
Battelle
-------
Wastes shipped off site included the spent GAG (sent to
Arizona for regeneration), permanganate-impregnated
silica (shipped to a nearby landfill), and steam conden-
sate (transported to the on-site wastewater treatment
facility).
7.3 Site Characterization and
Performance Assessment Costs
This section describes two categories of costs:
• Site characterization costs. These are the costs
that a site would incur in an 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 remedi-
ation 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 undergoes site characteriza-
tion in preparation for remediation. Presuming that
ground-water 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 hydro-
geology and geochemistry of the DNAPL source
zone.
• Performance assessment costs. These are primar-
ily demonstration-related costs. Most of these costs
were incurred in an effort to further delineate the
portion of the DNAPL source contained in the resis-
tive heating plot and determine the TCE-DNAPL
mass removal achieved by resistive heating. Only
a fraction of these costs would be incurred during
full-scale deployment 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 ground-water 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.
Performance assessment costs incurred jointly by
Battelle and TetraTech EM, Inc., are listed in Table 7-3.
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 ground-water 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
Pre-Demonstration Assessment $208,000
• Drilling - 12 continuous soil cores, installation
of 18 monitoring wells
• Soil and ground-water 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
• Ground-water sampling (ISCO plot and
perimeter wells)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing; ISCO plot and perimeter wells)
Post-Demonstration Assessment $215,000
• Drilling - 12 continuous soil cores
• Soil and ground-water sampling (36 monitoring
wells; collection and field extraction of 300 soil
samples)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Total
$ 663,000
Battelle
97
February 19, 2003
-------
7.4 Present Value Analysis of Resistive
Heating 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 ground-water contam-
ination and plume also will persist for several decades.
The conventional approach to this type of contamination
has been the use of pump-and-treat systems that extract
and treat the ground water above ground. This conven-
tional technology is basically a plume control technology
and would have to be implemented as long as ground-
water contamination exists. Resistive heating technology
is an innovative in situ technology that may be compar-
able to the conventional 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 the resistive heating tech-
nology, 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 con-
ducted over a 30-year period, as is typical for long-term
remediation programs at Superfund sites. Site character-
ization and performance (compliance) assessment costs
are assumed to be the same 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 resistive
heating plot. Recent research (Pankow and Cherry,
1996) indicates that the most efficient pump-and-treat
system for source containment would capture all the
ground water 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 extraction well
pumping at 2 gallons per minute (gpm) is assumed to be
sufficient to contain the source in an aquifer where the
hydraulic gradient (and therefore, the ground-water flow
velocity) is extremely low. This type of minimal contain-
ment pumping ensures that the source is contained with-
out 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 ground water is treated with an air stripper,
polishing carbon (liquid phase), and a catalytic oxidation
unit (for air effluent).
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 $57,000
(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 discount rate (real rate of return)
of 2.9%, based on the current recommendation for gov-
ernment 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.
An equivalent treatment cost for full-scale deployment of
the resistive heating technology would be approximately
$613,000. This estimate is based on a total resistive
heating treatment ($569,000) and waste disposal cost
($44,000) during the demonstration (from Table 7-1 and
Section 7-2). Therefore, if the TCE remaining in the
resistive heating plot was allowed to attenuate naturally,
the total treatment cost with the resistive heating tech-
nology would be around $613,000. One assumption here
is that the full-scale deployment of the resistive heating
treatment system would entail design, equipment, and
deployment similar to the kind done during the demon-
stration. If additional equipment or labor is required to
install and operate additional/modified vapor capture
and/or hydraulic control devices, there may be additional
costs involved. Vapor capture and hydraulic control were
the two main limitations identified during the demonstra-
tion that may require improvements at future implemen-
tation sites.
The economics of the resistive heating treatment tech-
nology compare favorably with the economics of an
equivalent pump-and-treat system. As seen in Table H-3
in Appendix H, an investment in resistive heating would
be recovered in the ninth year, when the PV of the
pump-and-treat system exceeds the cost of resistive
heating. In addition to a lower PV or life-cycle cost, 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 years
or more, 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
February 19, 2003
98
Battelle
-------
concomitantly higher remediation costs for the pump- tate the use of pump-and-treat for the next few years,
and-treat or plume containment option (without source until the source (and plume) is further depleted, the size
removal). As seen in Appendix H, the PV of a pump- of the pump-and-treat system and the time period over
and-treat system operated for 100 years would be which it needs to be operated is likely to be considerably
$2,188,000. Even if the limitations on the effectiveness reduced.
of a source removal technology at some sites necessi-
Battelle 99 February 19, 2003
-------
8. Technology Applications Analysis
This section evaluates the general applicability of the
resistive heating treatment technology to sites with con-
taminated ground water and soil. The analysis is based
on the results and lessons learned from the IDC demon-
stration, as well as general information available about
the technology and its application at other sites.
8.1 Objectives
This section evaluates the resistive heating technology
against the nine evaluation criteria used for detailed
analysis of remedial alternatives in feasibility studies
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Much of the
discussion in this section applies to DNAPL source
removal in general, and resistive heating in particular.
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
Resistive heating is protective of human health and envi-
ronment in both the short and long term. At Launch
Complex 34 for example, resistive heating removed
more than 10,000 kg of DNAPL contamination from the
resistive heating plot, with the possibility of some TCE
mass destruction. Because DNAPL acts as a secondary
source that can contaminate an aquifer for decades or
centuries, DNAPL source removal or mitigation con-
siderably 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 contrib-
utes to the plume reduces the threat to potential recep-
tors. Vapor extraction and hydraulic control need to be
improved to mitigate the potential for TCE-DNAPL
migration to the regions surrounding the resistive heating
treatment zone.
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.
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends on
the efficiency of the resistive heating process at the site
and the cleanup goals agreed on by various stake-
holders. In general, reasonable short-term (DNAPL
mass removal) goals are more achievable and should
lead to eventual and earlier compliance with long-term
ground-water cleanup goals. Achieving intermediate-
term ground-water 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 concentra-
tions is observed. However, removal of DNAPL, even if
most of the removal takes place from the more accessi-
ble pores, would probably result in a weakened plume
that may lead to significant risk reduction in the down-
gradient aquifer. In the long term, source treatment
should lead to earlier compliance with ground-water
cleanup goals at the compliance boundary and earlier
dismantling of any interim remedies (e.g., pump-and-
treat).
The specific federal environmental regulations that are
potentially impacted by remediation of a DNAPL source
with resistive heating are described below.
8.1.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
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
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
February 19, 2003
100
Battelle
-------
also be cost-effective and protective of human health
and the environment. The resistive heating technology
meets several of these criteria relating to a preferred
alternative. Resistive heating reduces the volume of con-
taminants by removing DNAPL from the aquifer; it is
possible that the toxicity of contaminants is reduced
depending on how much the degradation pathways con-
tribute to contaminant mass removal (see Sections 5.3.1
and 5.3.2). For example, at Launch Complex 34, as
described in Section 5.3.1, there was a large increase in
chloride in the ground water; some part of the chloride
may have been generated by TCE degradation by micro-
bial or abiotic mechanisms. This removal of solvent
leads to a considerable reduction in the time it takes for
the DNAPL source to fully deplete. Although aquifer het-
erogeneities and technology limitations often result in
less than 100% removal of the contaminant and elevated
levels of dissolved solvent may persist in the ground
water over the short term, in the long term, there is faster
eventual elimination of ground-water contamination.
Section 7.4 shows that resistive heating is cost-effective
compared with the conventional alternative of long-term
pump and treat.
8.1.2.2 Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)
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
ground-water treatment because the contaminated
ground water 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. Some aboveground wastes are
generated that may require off-site landfill disposal.
During the Launch Complex 34 demonstration, soil cut-
tings (from drilling and installation of resistive heating
electrodes) and the permanganate-impregnated silica
were shipped to a landfill. The spent GAG was shipped
back to the supplier for regeneration.
8.1.2.3 Clean Water Act (CWA)
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. When steam or ground-water extraction is
conducted, 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. At Launch Complex 34,
no surface water discharge was involved at the demon-
stration site. Approximately 98,038 gal of condensate was
generated during the demonstration. The condensate
was run through a liquid-phase GAG, stored, analyzed,
and transported to the on-site wastewater treatment
plant.
Sometimes, soil or ground-water 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 minimize such wastes during site charac-
terization and technology performance assessment.
8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
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 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 (ACL) 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 usually
becomes the cleanup goal.
Although the long-term goal of DNAPL source zone
treatment is meeting applicable drinking water standards
or other risk-based ground-water cleanup goals agreed
on between site owners and regulatory authorities, the
short-term objective of resistive heating and source
remediation is DNAPL mass removal. Because technol-
ogy, site, and economic limitations may limit DNAPL
mass removal to less than 100%, it may not always be
Battelle
101
February 19, 2003
-------
possible to meet ground-water cleanup targets in the
source region in the short term. Depending on other
factors, such as the distance of the compliance point
(e.g., property boundary, at which ground-water 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 treat-
ment, and the degree of natural attenuation in the aqui-
fer, it may be possible to meet ground-water cleanup
targets at the compliance point in the short term. DNAPL
mass removal will always lead to faster attainment of
ground-water cleanup goals in the long term, as com-
pared to the condition in which no source removal action
is taken.
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act (CAA)
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 (SIP) developed to bring
each state in compliance with National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standards (NAAQS).
Pump-and-treat systems often generate air emissions
(when an air stripper is used). Source removal technol-
ogies that use thermal energy (e.g., steam injection or
resistive heating) also may have the potential to gener-
ate air emissions, unless adequate controls are imple-
mented. Surface emission tests conducted in the resistive
heating plot during and after the demonstration showed
TCE emissions that were noticeably above background
levels. This indicates that the vapor recovery system
needs to be designed for better capture. This is an issue
of concern for this technology.
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)
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 resistive heating are
addressed in Section 3.2.3, which describes the opera-
tion of this technology at Launch Complex 34. Level D
personal protective equipment generally is sufficient
during implementation. Operation of heavy equipment,
handling of hot fluids, and high voltage are the main
working hazards and are dealt with by using appropriate
PPE and trained workers. Monitoring wells should be
fitted with pressure gauges and pressure release valves
to facilitate sampling during and/or after the resistive
heating application. All operating and sampling per-
sonnel are required to have completed the 40-hour
HAZWOPER training course and 8-hour refresher
courses. There were no injuries during the resistive heat-
ing demonstration at Launch Complex 34.
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence
The resistive heating treatment leads to removal of
DNAPL mass and therefore permanent removal of con-
tamination from the aquifer. Although dissolved solvent
concentrations may rebound in the short term when
ground-water flow redistributes through the treated source
zone containing DNAPL remnants, in the long term,
depletion of the weakened source through dissolution will
continue and lead to eventual and earlier compliance
with ground-water cleanup goals.
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
Resistive heating affects treatment by reducing the vol-
ume of the contamination and possibly, reducing its tox-
icity as well (depending on how much the degradation
pathway contributes to contaminant mass removal).
8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness of the resistive heating technol-
ogy 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 dissolved contaminant levels in the source zone,
achievement of this goal will depend on the hydrogeol-
ogy and DNAPL distribution in the treated region. As
seen in Section 5.2.1, TCE levels declined sharply in the
monitoring wells in the resistive heating plot, but were
well above federal or state MCLs. Geologic heterogenei-
ties, preferential flowpaths taken by the oxidant, and
localized permeability changes that determine flow in the
treated region may lead to such variability in post-
treatment ground-water levels of contamination. As dis-
cussed in Section 8.1.2.4, the chances of DNAPL mass
removal resulting in reduced contaminant levels at a
compliance point downgradient from the source is more
likely in the short or intermediate term. In the long term,
DNAPL mass removal will always shorten the time re-
quired to bring the entire affected aquifer in compliance
with applicable standards.
February 19, 2003
102
Battelle
-------
8.1.6 Implementability
As mentioned in Section 7.2, site preparation and ac-
cess requirements for implementing the resistive heating
technology are minimal. Firm ground for setup of the
heating equipment (such as electrodes, transformer,
cables, etc.) is required. The equipment involved are
commercially available, although the electrical trans-
former and power supply required are relatively large,
and may require time to acquire. Setup and shakedown
times are relatively high compared to other technologies,
such as chemical oxidation. Overhead space available at
open sites generally is sufficient for housing the resistive
heating equipment. Accessibility to the targeted portion
of the contamination under the Engineering Support
Building at Launch Complex 34 was relatively good with
electrodes inserted from the outside. However, elec-
trodes installed from inside the building may be required
to remediate more of the contamination under the build-
ing. This may disrupt the use of the building for the
period of the treatment. The vendor suggests that elec-
trodes inside the building can be flush-mounted, allowing
continued use of the building. In this case, the installa-
tion cost would be higher.
8.1.7 Cost
As described in Section 7.4, the cost of the resistive
heating treatment technology, implemented at Launch
Complex 34, 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 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 remedies), thus necessi-
tating 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 mainte-
nance costs associated with the large amount of
downtime typically experienced by site owners with
pump-and-treat systems.
Factors that may increase the cost of the resistive heat-
ing technology are:
• Operating requirements associated with any con-
tamination further under a building, where angled
electrodes are not sufficient and the aquifer has to
be accessed from inside the building.
• Need for additional vapor or hydraulic control (e.g.,
with extraction wells) and any associated need to
treat and dispose/reinject extracted fluids. This
may be required to ensure that TCE vapors reach
the vadose zone, where they can be captured, and
are not obstructed by aquifer heterogeneities (such
as the Middle Fine-Grained Unit).
• Regions with high unit cost of power.
8.1.8 State Acceptance
The ITRC, a consortium of several states in the United
States, is participating in the IDC demonstration through
review of reports 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
mechanism to proactively obtain regulatory input in the
design and implementation of the remediation/dem-
onstration activities at Launch Complex 34. Because of
the technical 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 resistive heating technology's low noise levels and
ability to reduce short- and long-term risks posed by
DNAPL contamination are expected to promote local
community acceptance. Supply of sufficient power and
control of air emissions may be issues of concern for
communities.
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 the
resistive heating treatment demonstration in the 75-ft x
50-ft plot at Launch Complex 34 took about 11 months to
complete. The remediation generally is done as a turn-
key project by multiple vendors, who will design, build,
and operate the resistive heating system. Site character-
ization, site preparation (utilities, etc.), monitoring, and
any waste disposal often are done by the site owner.
The resistive heating process is patented, but is com-
mercially available from multiple licensed vendors.
The resistive heating treatment is relatively complex and
requires proficient operators trained in this particular
technology. Handing of hot fluids and high-voltage elec-
trical equipment may require additional precautions.
Battelle
103
February 19, 2003
-------
8.3 Applicable Wastes
Resistive heating has been applied to remediation of
aquifers contaminated with chlorinated solvents, poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and petroleum
hydrocarbons both in the vadose and saturated zones.
Source zones consisting of perchloroethylene (PCE) and
TCE in DNAPL or dissolved form, as well as dissolved
c;s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride can be addressed by
resistive heating.
8.4 Key Features
The following are some of the key features of resistive
heating that make it attractive for DNAPL source zone
treatment:
• In situ application
• Aboveground use of the site can continue during
application
• Uses relatively complex, but commercially
available, equipment
• Relatively fast field application time possible, when
applied properly
• The heat generated distributes well in the aquifer in
both high-permeability and low-permeability zones,
thus achieving better contact with contaminants
• At many sites, a one-time application has the
potential to reduce a DNAPL source to the point
where either natural attenuation is sufficient to
address a weakened plume, or pump and treat
could be applied for a shorter duration in the future.
8.5 Availability/Transportability
Resistive heating is commercially available from multiple
vendors as a service on a contract basis. All reusable
system components can be trailer-mounted for trans-
portation from site to site. Electrodes and other sub-
surface components usually are left in the ground after
resistive heating application.
8.6 Materials Handling
Requirements
Resistive heating technology requires hot fluids handling
capabilities. Heavy equipment needs to be moved
around with forklifts. Drilling equipment is required to
install subsurface electrodes. Design and operation of
the high-voltage electrical equipment requires specially
trained operators.
8.7 Ranges of Suitable Site
Characteristics
The following factors should be considered when deter-
mining the suitability of a site for the resistive heating
treament:
• Type of contaminants. Contaminants should be
amenable to mobilization, volatilization, or degrada-
tion by heat.
• Site geology. Resistive heating treatment can heat
sandy soils, as well as silts or clays. However,
aquifer heterogeneities and preferential flowpaths
can make capturing the contaminants in the extrac-
tion system more difficult. DNAPL source zones in
fractured bedrock also may pose a challenge.
Longer application times and higher cost may be
involved at sites with a high ground-water flow
velocity because of increased rate of heat loss from
the treated zone.
• Soil characteristics. Both low- and high-
permeability soils can be heated by resistive
heating treatment.
• Regulatory acceptance. Regulatory acceptance is
important for this application. Improvements in
vapor transport and recovery are necessary to
increase acceptance.
• Site accessibility. Sites that have no aboveground
structures and fewer utilities are easier to remediate
with this technology. Presence of buildings or a
network of utilities can make the application more
difficult.
None of the factors mentioned above necessarily elimi-
nates the resistive heating technology from consideration.
Rather, these are factors that may make the application
less or more economical.
8.8 Limitations
The resistive heating technology has the following limi-
tations:
• Not all types of contaminants are amenable to heat
treatment. In addition, some cocontaminants, such
as certain heavy metals, if present, could be
mobilized by heating.
• Aquifer heterogeneities can make the application
more difficult, necessitating more complex applica-
tion schemes, greater amounts of heat (or electric-
ity), and/or longer application times. The limitation
February 19, 2003
104
Battelle
-------
lies not so much with the ability of the resistive • Some sites may require greater hydraulic control to
heating technology to heat the subsurface, but with minimize the spread of contaminants. This may
its ability to transport and capture the contaminant necessitate the use of extraction wells and any
vapors in an efficient manner. associated aboveground treatment.
Battelle 105 February 19, 2003
-------
9. References
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 Six-Phase Heating™ for
DNAPL Removal at Launch Complex 34, Cape
Canaveral, Florida. Prepared for the Air Force Re-
search Laboratory, Tyndall AFB, FL. Septembers.
Battelle. 1999e. First 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. 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. Biological 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. Prepared by Battelle and Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. May 17.
Battelle. 2001 a. 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 b. Seventh Interim Report on the IDC
Demonstration at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canav-
eral Air Station. Prepared for the Interagency
DNAPL Consortium. August 15.
Battelle. 2001 c. Eighth Interim Report on the IDC Dem-
onstration at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
Air Station. Prepared for the Interagency DNAPL
Consortium. December 13.
Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1976. "A Slug Test for
Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined
Aquifers with Completely or Partially Penetrating
Wells." Water Resources Research, 12(3): 423-428.
Bouwer, H. 1989. "The Bouwer and Rice Slug Test—An
Update." Ground Water, 27(3): 304-309.
CES, see Current Environmental Solutions.
Current Environmental Solutions. 2001. Demonstration
of the Six-Phase Heating™ Technology for DNAPL
Remediation at Launch Complex 34 in Cape Canav-
eral, Florida. Prepared by Current Environmental
Solutions, Richland, WA, for MSE Technology Appli-
cations, Butte, MT.
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.
February 19, 2003
106
Battelle
-------
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.
Horslev, M.J. 1951. Time Lag and Soil Permeability in
Groundwater Observations. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Bulletin
36. Vicksburg, MS.
Pankow, J., and J. Cherry. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Sol-
vents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History,
Behavior, and Remediation. Waterloo Press, Port-
land, OR.
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.
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.
Truex, M.J. 2003. Personal communication from Michael
J. Truex of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to
Arun Gavaskar of Battelle, February 18.
Yoon, W.-S., A.R. Gavaskar, J. Sminchak, C. Perry,
E. Drescher, J.W. Quinn, and T. Holdsworth. 2002.
"Evaluating Presence of TCE below a Semi-Confining
Layer in a DNAPL Source Zone." In: A.R. Gavaskar
and A.S.C. Chen (Eds.), Remediation of Chlorinated
and Recalcitrant Compounds—2002. Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Remediation
of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle
Press, Columbus, OH.
Battelle
107
February 19, 2003
-------
Appendix A. Performance Assessment Methods
A.I 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-
0)
C 1521410-
1
§ 1521400-
0
TO
C 1521390-
!c
t
Ł 1521380-
1521370-
1521360-
1521350-
/
/\
/ * \
' A \
/y ° u \
/ •>
/ a/
/ « * TT /
/ • * • /
/ - /
^ AA X
\ /
^\ * /
^^/
? K* K1^ & K* K^ K* K«? K^° K# K*
_^ -^ .^'' -^ -^ -^ -^ ,.^ -^ -^
1521390
1521380
1521370
^ 1521360
0)
C 1521350
1
§ 1521340
o
TO
,C 1521330
t
Ł 1521320
1521310
1521300
1521290
/
A\
/ A ^\
/ ^NS.
/ ^\^
/ x. o "**" /
/ * n /
/ n'
4^8 /
^^^"w ^ f
^\ /
? n# n1^ n'P n"* n^ n5 ZZZe YYY?
AAAs EBB 9 •••10 OCOioB EUDn
Pre/Post Pair# ***13 •••^ OODl5 D3D16 ***17 AAA17B XXXis
-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 oo
-| — u
z
X
X
iE^
^ A
10 20 30 40 5
0 60 70 80 9C
90;
80-
70-
g 60-
Q>
Coordinal
4^ O1
O O
TO
.E 30-
r—
•e
° 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
-2 toO
Total
Oto2
-2toO
-4 to -2
-6 to -4
-8 to -6
-10 to -8
-12to-10
-14 to -12
-16 to -14
-18to-16
-20 to -18
Total
-14to-12
-16 to -14
-18to-16
-20 to -18
-22to-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
-38to-36
-40 to -3 8
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
-1810-16
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 x 107
4.0 xlO3
5.0 xlO4
5.0 xlO1
2.5 xlO6
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 -
Ł
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 --
Ł
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'11'
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 and Lithologic Logs
B.I Data Analysis Methods and Results for Slug Tests
B.2 Site Assessment Well Completion Diagrams for Shallow, Intermediate, and Deep Wells
B.3 LC34 IDC Coring Logsheets for Site Assessment Wells
B.4 LC34 IDC Coring Logsheets for Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
-------
B.I Data Analysis Methods and Results for the Slug Tests
Slug tests were performed on well clusters PA-13 and PA-14 within the resistive heating
plot for pre-demonstration and post-demonstration to determine if the remediation system
affected the permeability of the aquifer. 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 1.6 ft of
change in water level within the well. Water level recovery was then monitored for 10 minutes
using a TROLL pressure transducer/data logger. The data was then downloaded to a notebook
computer. Replicate tests were performed for each well.
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. Tests showed very high coefficient of
determinations (R2), with all R2s above 0.95. The results also showed a very good agreement
between the replicate tests. However, in wells PA-14S and PA-14I some unclear response was
observed, where the water levels never returned to the original levels or started decreasing again
after reaching equilibrium. It should be noted that during the demonstration, the wells became
pressurized, and some residual effects of the pressurization may still be present within the
resistive heating plot wells.
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, no tests showed a substantial change in permeability as shown on Table 1. However, five
of the six tests indicated a net increase in permeability. Overall, this would suggest that the
resistive heating plot technology had a small effect on the sediments in the test plot, increasing
the overall permeability of the plot, but not significantly.
Table 1. Slug Test Results in Resistive Heating Plot
1 Well
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
Predemo
14.1
2.4
1.1
10.3
4.1
1.9
Postdemo
17.4
1.2
5.4
23.6
11.4
7.3
Change
negligible
(slight decrease)
(slight increase)
(slight increase)
(slight increase)
(slight increase)
Response
excellent
good
excellent
excellent
good
good
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.!2,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
0.1
0.01
1E-3
0.0
Well PA-13S: Replicate A
log(Y)=-1.98293 *X +0.964174
Number of data points used = 43
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.997411
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13S.
-------
10
Well PA-13S: Replicate B
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -1.94256 *X +0.741316
Number of data points used = 43
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.997351
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13S.
-------
10
Well PA-131: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -0.353858 *X + 0.83842
Number of data points used = 55
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999033
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-131.
-------
10
Well PA-131: Replicate B
0.1
0.01
log(Y)= -0.307657 *X +0.691372
Number of data points used = 55
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999987
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-131.
-------
10
Well PA-13D: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
0.0
2.0
log(Y) = -0.171006*X +0.118157
Number of data points used = 55
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.993517
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13D.
-------
10
Well PA-13D: Replicate B
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -0.143322 *X +0.275568
Number of data points used = 55
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.997495
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13D.
-------
10
WellPA-14S: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -1.41233 *X +0.252361
Number of data points used = 49
^ ^ Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.998784
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14S.
-------
0.01
1E-3
0.0
WellPA-14S: Replicate B
2.0
log(Y) = -1.39995 * X + 0.886811
Number of data points used = 49
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.998231
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14S.
-------
0.01
1E-3
0.0
WellPA-141: Replicate A
log(Y) =-0.559539 *X +0.915691
Number of data points used = 61
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999942
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14I.
-------
10
0.1
0.01
WellPA-141: Replicate B
1E-3
log(Y) = -0.548488 *X +0.912599
Number of data points used = 61
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999959
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14I.
-------
10
0.1
0.01
Well PA-14D: Replicate A
1E-3
log(Y) = -0.254923 *X + 0.735583
Number of data points used = 61
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999628
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Pre-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14D.
-------
10
0.1
Well PA-13S: Replicate A
0.01
log(Y) = -2.02697 * X + 0.545215
Number of data points used = 41
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.985149
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13S.
-------
10
WellPA-13S: Replicate B
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -2.78622 * X + 0.505926
Number of data points used = 41
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.997655
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13S.
-------
10
Well PA-131: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -0.169602 *X +-1.6652
Number of data points used = 81
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.9952
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-131.
-------
10
Well PA-13D: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
»***••
1E-3
log(Y) =-0.71048 *X +0.0831976
Number of data points used = 81
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.99875
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13D.
-------
Well PA-13D: Replicate B
10
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -0.769935 *X + 0.217578
Number of data points used = 81
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.99874
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-13D.
-------
10
Well PA-14S: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
1E-3
log(Y) = -3.51805 *X +0.599648
Number of data points used = 52
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.996507
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14S.
-------
10
Well PA-14S: Replicate B
0.1
0.01
1E-3
log(Y) = -2.9333 * X + 0.441391
Number of data points used = 53
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.996215
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14S.
-------
10
Well PA-141: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -1.3265*X +0.445737
Number of data points used = 53
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.988288
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-141.
-------
10
Well PA-141: Replicate B
0.1
>
0.01
log(Y) = -1.79761 * X + 0.602004
Number of data points used = 60
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.99645
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-141.
-------
10
WellPA-14D: Replicate A
0.1
0.01
log(Y) = -1.05534 * X + 0.245772
Number of data points used = 60
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.998873
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14D.
-------
0.1
0.01
WellPA-14D: Replicate B
log(Y) = -0.932522 *X +-0.100715
Number of data points used = 63
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.999193
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Post-demonstration Slug Test Results: Well PA-14D.
-------
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
-------
B.2 Site Assessment Well Completion Diagrams for Shallow, Intermediate, and Deep Wells
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
. ,. Putting Technology To Work
Project # G004065
Drilling Contractor-
Site LC34, CCAS
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
Direct Push
Reviewed by JRS
Depth Eeln.i Giouiiri j
Ground Surface
Driller.
24 ft
tz,
Well #: Shallow
Date: 1998^2001
Hydrogeologist:
JRS
Northing (NAD 83):
Easting (NAD 83):
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
Surface Completion:
Size: 7" 2'x2' Concrete Pad
Type: Water Tight Well Cover
Well Cap: Locking Well Plug
Well Casing:
Type: Stainless Steel
Diameter: 2"
Grout:
Type: Bentonite
I Well Screen:
| Type: Slotted Stainless Steel
I Amount: 3'
! Diameter: 2"
' SlotSize:0.010
NOT TO SCALE
-------
Jl
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
. .. Putting Technology To Weak
Project #: G004065
Drilling Contractor:
Reviewed by: JRS
Depth Below Ground Surface
Site: LC34, CCAS
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
Direct Push
Driller:
1
Well #: Intermediate
Hydrogeologist:
JRS
Northing
-------
Jl
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
. .. Putting Technology To Weak
Project #: G004065
Drilling Contractor:
Reviewed by: JRS
Depth Below Ground Surface
Site: LC34, CCAS
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
Direct Push
Driller:
45 ft E (turn t
[
Well #: Deep
Date: 1998-2001
Hydrogeologist:
JRS
Northing
-------
Surface Vault
Watertight Locking Well Cap
Concrete Apron, Finish at Grade
__
Bentonite Seal-
2-in.-diameter PVC Riser
.Stainless Steel Screened
Drive Point
A/07 TO SCALE
Figure 3-4.
PASC Grounihvater Monitoring Well Construction Diagram
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR STATION - FLORIDA
PROJECT G331505-11
1 DATE 12/98
DESIGNED BY
JS
DRAWN BY
VS
CHECKED BY
TL
-------
=Tfiii=rTfiii=FGround Surface ^pi^fin^
Figure 3-5,
PASC Monitoring Well Cluster Diagram
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR STATION - FLORIDA
-------
B.3 LC34 IDC Coring Logsheets for Site Assessment Wells
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/17/99
Boring Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casing Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Length 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 21.7 to 24.4 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-1S
Dcation LC34 E. of ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/19/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 26.6 to 29.3 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-11
Dcation LC34 E. of ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
Q
0-4
4-31
31 ft
...
to
ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush vault w/ concrete pad
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
CRT
John Hoqqatt
(0
o
V)
—
—
1
V
0)
6
PVC
riser
2 2/3 ft
screen
1 ft
sump
67/8
in. tip
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 2/19/99
Construction Notes: Completion depths based on previous
borings in the area (LC34-B13).
llBattelle
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/18/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 43.3 to 45.9 ft Grille
Lithologic Description
post hole to 4 ft bgs soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
gray fine sand, some silt <30%
direct push, no sampling
gray fine sand, some silt <30%
gray med to fine sand, shells 40%, some silts
gray fine to medium sand, 40-50%, some silts
gray med to fine sand, shells < 10%, some silts
gray med to fine sand, shells 40-50%, some silts
gray med to fine sand grading into more shell content >50% w/
some silts
B
L(
orina ID PA-1D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
f
0)
a
0-4
4-25
25-26.5
26.5-35
35-36
36-36.5
37-38.5
39.5-
39.8
39.8-
40.5
41-42.5
46.5 ft
...
to — ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to
3 ft
ion flush vault w/ concrete pad
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
PA-1D-
26.5
—
PA-1D-
36.5
PA-1D-
36.5
PA-1D-
38.5
PA-1D-
40.5
PA-1D-
40.5
PA-1D-
42.5
CPT
John Hoqqatt
(0
0
V)
D
—
—
SM
—
SM
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
0)
k.
0)
+J
o
PVC
riser
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 2/19/99
Construction Notes: soil sampling 2/18, left tip in hole overnight
and completed 2/19/99
tlBaffelle
. . . Putting Technology Jo Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/18/99
Lithologic Description
gray fine sands, some silts, shell frags finer sands + silts at
bottom of sample
fine silt and sands, gray, very little shell frags
silty gray clay, med. plasticity
Boring
Locatio
Q
43-44.5
44.5-
45.5
45.5-46
0)
Q.
re
V)
PA-1D-
44.5
PA-1D-
46
PA-1D-
46
D PA-1 D
n LC34 ESB
(0
o
V)
SM
ML
CL
1
V
II
0}
5
2 2/3 ft
screen
6 7/8 in.
tip
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/22/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 17.7 to 20.3 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-2S
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
Q
0-4
4-21
21 ft
...
to
ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush vault w/ concrete pad
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
CRT
John Hoqqatt
(0
o
V)
—
—
1
V
0)
I
PVC
riser
2 2/3 ft
screen
67/8
in. tip
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 2/22/99
Construction Notes:
llBaltelle
. . . Putting Technology Jo Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/22/99
Borina Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.7 to 26.3 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
B
L(
orina ID PA-21
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/19/99
Borina Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casing Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casing Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Length 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 41.7 to 44.3 ft Drille
Lithologic Description
post hole to 4 ft bgs soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
medium to fine sand, gray, trace of shell material, wet
gray fine sand and silt, trace of shell material
no recovery
gray fine sand and silt, trace shell material
gray fine to medium sand, 20-30% shells, 10-20% silts
no recovery
gray silty fine sand, trace of shells
gray med to fine to med sand, 50-70% shells, some silts
B
L(
orina ID PA-2D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/20/99
Lithologic Description
gray medium to fine sands with abundant shell material
>70%
gray silty fine sand, little shell material
gray silty fine sand, little shell material 10-20%
graly clayey fine sand
gray clayey fine sand, shells <10%
gray fine to medium sand, shells <20%
gray fine silty sand, little % of shells
gray fine to medium sand, some silts
mostly shells and gray fine sand with trace of silt <10%
no recovery (piston on sampler jammed)
fine to med. gray sands, 30-40% shells
silty fine sand to med. sand, some shells
silty fine sand, little shells
clay, medium plasticity
medium to fine sand, mostly >75% gravel sized shell
material
gray silty fine sand, trace of shell material
gray fine silty sand, trace of shell material
fine sand, mostly shell frags, trace of silt
Boring
Locatio
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/20/99
Lithologic Description
fine silty gray sand, with 10-20% shells
clay, med plasticity
fine silty sand with abundant shell fragments
fine sand and silts, wet and loose, some shells 20%
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
0)
a
41-41.5
41.5-
41.6
41.6-
42.5
43-44.5
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/24/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casing Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 19.6 to 22.3 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-3S
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
+-
Q.
0)
Q
0-4
4-24
24 ft
...
to — ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush mount vault
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/24/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 26.1 to 28.7 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
B
L(
orina ID PA-31
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
Q
0-4
4-30.3
30.3 ft
...
to
ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush mounted vault
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
CRT
John Hoqqatt
(0
o
V)
—
—
1
V
0)
6
PVC
riser
2 2/3 ft
screen
1 ft
sump
67/8
in. tip
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 2/24/99
Construction Notes:
llBattelle
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/23/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 42.2 to 44.8 ft Drille
Lithologic Description
post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
fine silty sand, gray, 10% shells
abundant shells and medium to fine gray sands
fine gray silty sand, trace shells
fine to medium gray sand, 20% shell fragments
fine gray sand, some silts <10% and shells <10%
fine gray sand, some silts 10-20% and shell material <10%
fine gray sand, some silts and shell and shell material
fine gray sand, little silt, 20-30% shell (wet)
B
L(
orina ID PA-3D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/23/99
Lithologic Description
shelly layer, mostly shells and fine sand and silts (wet)
shelly layer, mostly shells and fine sand and silts (wet)
fine silty/clayey sand, trace of shells
abundant shells and fine gray sands and silts 20-30%
fine silty sand and 20-30% shells
fine silty sand and 20-30% shells
mostly shells and gray fine sand (20%)
mostly shells and gray fine sand (20%)
clayey fine sand, med-low plasticity
abundant shells, fine sands and silts 20-30%, loose wet
abundant shells, fine sands and silts 20-30%, loose wet
abundant shells, fine sands and silts 20-30%, loose wet
fine silty sand and small amount of shells 10%
fine sand and shell frag 20% wet and loose
gray clay with some silt and fine sand, med-low plasticity
Boring
Locatio
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/26/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 17.7 to 20.4 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole soil and loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-4S
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
Q
0-4
4-22
22 ft
...
to
ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush mount vault
0)
Q.
re
V)
—
—
CRT
John Hoqqatt
(0
o
V)
—
—
1
V
0}
5
PVC
riser
2 2/3 ft
screen
1 ft
sump
67/8
in. tip
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 2/26/99
Construction Notes:
llBattelle
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/26/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.7 to 26.4 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
post hole soil and loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
B
L(
orina ID PA-41
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
Q
0-4
4-28
28 ft
...
to
ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush mount vault
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
CRT
John Hoqqatt
(0
o
V)
—
—
1
V
0)
6
PVC
riser
2 2/3 ft
screen
1 ft
sump
67/8
in. tip
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 2/26/99
Construction Notes:
llBaffelle
. . . Putting Technology Jo Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/25/99
Boring Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casing Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Length 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 43.2 to 45.9 ft Grille
Lithologic Description
post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
silty fine gray sand with 10-20% shells
abundant shell frags, some silty fine sand
silty fine to medium gray sand, 20-30% shells
fine gray sand, with little silt and shells <5%
fine gray sand with more silt 10-20%
fine gray sand, with silt 10% and some shell material (well
sorted)
fine gray sand, with silt 10% and some shell material (well
sorted)
fine gray sand with 5% silt and shells, well sorted
B
L(
orina ID PA-4D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/23/99
Lithologic Description
fine gray sand and 40% shells with some silts
silty fine gray sand, some clay
fine to med sand with abundant shell material
gray silty sand
wet silty fine sand with 20% shells
wet silty fine sand with 10-20% shells
abundant shells with gray fine silty sand (10%)
abundant shells with gray fine silty sand (10%), wet
abundant shells with gray fine silty sand (10%), wet
silty gray sand, some shells
no recovery
abundant shells with gray silty sand
fine silty gray sand with 40-50% shells
sandy clay with some shells med-low plasticity
abundant shells with fine gray silty sand 30-40%
abundant shells with fine gray silty sand 30%
silty gray fine sand
clayey sand and silt, some shells
sandy clay, some shell material
Boring
Locatio
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/1/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 13.7 to 16.3 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
Location
orina ID PA-5S
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/1/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 17.8 to 20.4 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
post hole soil and loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
B
Location
orina ID PA-51
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
Q
0-4
4-22
22 ft
...
to
ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush mount vault
0)
Q.
re
V)
—
—
CRT
John Hoqqatt
(0
o
V)
—
—
1
V
0}
5
PVC
riser
2 2/3 ft
screen
1 ft
sump
67/8
in. tip
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 3/1/99
Construction Notes:
llBaireiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/26/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casing Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 42.2 to 44.9 ft Grille
Lithologic Description
post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
fine gray sand with 20-30% shell material
mostly shell frags with 20-30% fine gray sand
well graded yellowish-orange fine sand with dark brown
mottling (no shells gray plug)
gray silty fine sand, well sorted, trace of shell frags
well graded yellowish-orange fine sand with dark brown
mottling
gray silty fine sand in plug of sampler
gray silty fine sand, trace of shell fragments
gray silty fine sand, trace of shell fragments
B
L(
orina ID PA-5D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
.c
fc
0)
a
0-5
5-15
15-15.7
15.7-
16.5
17-18.5
19-20. 5
21-22.3
22.3-
22.5
23-24.5
25-26.5
45.6 ft
...
to — ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush mount vault
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/27/99
Lithologic Description
silty fine gray sand, trace of shell fragments
silty fine gray sand, 10% shells
yellowish-orange fine to medium sand w/ abundant shells
(sluff?)
silty fine gray sand, trace of shell fragments
abundant shell fragments and fine gray sand, trace silt
yellowish orange fine to med. sand w/ abundant shells
silty fine gray sand, trace shell frags
abundant shells frags, and gray fine sand, trace silt
silty fine gray sand, trace of clay and shell frags
silty gray clay low plasticity, trace sand
abundant shells, trace of fine silty sand (10%)
silty gray clay, trace shells med-low plasticity, (1-2" stiff gray
plug)
clayey gray silt, shells 10-20%
silty gray clay, trace shells med-low plasticity
silty-clayey fine sand and shell frags
silty gray clay, trace shells med-low plasticity
silty fine sand, mostly shells 60-80%
sandy silty gray clay with trace of shell ftags. (some
stiffness)
silty sandy gray shell frags and shells (75% shells)
gray fine sand, trace of silt and shells but overall well sorted
gray sandy clay, trace of shells
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 7/12/99
Borina Diameter 21/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23 to 26 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Direct push- no sampling
B
L(
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
k.
0)
I
PVC
Riser
3ft
screen
0.5ft
tip
Logged by: L. Gumming
Completion Date: 7/12/99
Construction Notes:
llBaltelle
. . . Putting Technology Jo Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/2/99
Borina Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.5 to 26.2 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
post hole soil and loose tan sands (tar/rock layer at 2 1/4 ft)
direct push, no sampling
B
Location
orina ID PA-61
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/1/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 42 to 44.6 ft Drille
Lithologic Description
post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
fine gray sand, well sorted, trace of shell material and silts
fine gray sand, well sorted, trace of shell material and silts
fine gray sand, (30-40%) shell fragments
fine gray sand with some silt (<10%) and trace shell frag
fine gray sand with some shell frag (10-15%) and trace silt
gray silt with fine sand
no recovery
fine gray silty fine sand, trace of shell fragments
B
Location
orina ID PA-6D
LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/2/99
Lithologic Description
silty fine gray sand, trace of shell fragments
gray fine sand with 30-40% shell fragments
gray sandy silt, trace of shell fragments
gray sandy silt, trace of shell fragments
fine gray sand with 30-40% shell frags, trace silt
gray sandy silt, trace of shell fragments
gray sandy silt, trace of shell fragments
abundant shells frags, and gray fine silty sand
abundant shells frags, and gray fine silty sand
silty fine gray sand, trace shell frags
silty sandy clay, low plast.
clayey, silty sand w/ shell material 20%
abundant shells w/ silty-fine sands
silty clayey fine sand w/ 10-20% shell frags
abundant large shells + frags in a silty clayey matirix
clayey silt and fine sand with 20-30% shell frags
silty fine gray sand with 10-20% shell frags
sandy clay with trace of shell ftags.
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/3/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 19 to 21.6 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
fine gray sand, some shell fragments + silts
fine gray sand, well sorted, trace shells
shell fragments and fine to medium gray sands
abundant shell fragments and fine to coarse gray sands
Loqqed bv: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 3/3/99
f^nnctri iH-inn Mntoc-
Bori
Location
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth
Material
Depth
e Completior
I Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/8/99
Borina Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.6 to 26.2 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
saw 2" asphalt, post hole loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
B
Location
orina ID PA-71
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/5/99
Boring Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casing Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Length 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 41.3 to 43.9 ft Grille
Lithologic Description
saw 2 " asphalt, post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling, continue from PA-7S
fine gray sand, w/ some silts and trace of shell material
fine gray silty sand 10% shell material
shelly fine gray sand
fine gray sand, trace shell frags, well sorted
sandy gray silt, trace shell frags
silty fine gray sand, trace shell frags
fine gray sand, 5% shells, well sorted
silty fine gray sand, trace of shell fragments
B
Location
orina ID PA-7D
LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/5/99
Lithologic Description
silty fine gray sand, trace of shell fragments
abundant shells + fragments with silty gray fine sand
abundant coarse shells + frag with fine sand, some silts
silty fine gray sand, trace shell frags
shell frags in silty clay matrix (very slight to no stiffness)
shell fragments in clayey matirx, low plasticity
light gray fine sand, trace shells
abundant shells (70%) in silty fine gray sand matrix
gray silty fine sand, trace shells (10-15%)
yellowish brown tan fine sand, trace shells
gray fine to med sand, trace shells
clayey sand, some stiffness, silty
sandy gray clay, med plasticity
Boring
Locatio
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/3/99
Borina Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 15.8 to 18.4ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
Location
orina ID PA-8S
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/8/99
Borina Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.6 to 26.2 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
saw 2" asphalt, post hole loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
B
Location
orina ID PA-81
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/4/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 42.3 to 44.9 ft Drille
Lithologic Description
saw 2 " asphalt, post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
fine gray sand, well sorted, trace of shell frags
coarse shell fragments (90%) and fine gray sand trace silt
fine gray sand, well sorted, 5-10% shell frags.
silty fine gray sand, 5-10% shell frags
yellowish brown fine sand and shell fragments
clayey gray silt with some fine sand
silty fine gray sand with 5% shells
silty fine gray sand with 5% shells
B
Location
orina ID PA-8D
LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/4/99
Lithologic Description
sandy silty gray clay
sandy silty gray clay
clayey-silty fine sand with some shell frags (5%)
silty fine gray sand
abundant shells w/ silty fine gray sand
mostly shells/fragments with in silty fine gray sands (30-
40%)
silty fine gray sand with 20% coarse shell frag
mostly shells with silty fine gray sand
gray silty fine sand with trace shell frags
silty-clayey fine sand, trace shells
silty clayey fine sand wi 10-20% shells +fragments
shells, shell frags in silty clayey matirx
fine gray to brown sand, trace of shell fragments
silty clayey fine sand w/ 10-20% shells
sandy-silty clay
silty clayey fine sand w/ 30% shells + shell frags
gray silty sand with 20-30% shell frags
clayey sitl and fine sand
sandy gray clay, med-low plasticity
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
0)
a
28.3-
28.5
29-29.3
29.3-
30.5
31-31.1
31.1-
31.3
31.3-
32.5
33-33.4
33.4-
33.8
33.8-
34.5
35-35.6
35.6-
36.5
37-38.5
39-39.7
39.7-
40.3
40.3-
40.5
41-42.5
43-44
44-44.5
44.7-
45.7
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/8/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casing Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 18.5 to 21.1 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post hole soil, loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
Location
orina ID PA-9S
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
+-
Q.
0)
Q
0-6
6-22.7
22.7 ft
...
to — ft
bentonite chips
from 2
to 3 ft
ion flush mount vault
CRT
John Hoqqatt
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/8/99
Borina Diameter 2 3/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.6 to 26.2 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
saw 2" asphalt, post hole loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
B
Location
orina ID PA-91
LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/6/99
Borinq Diameter 2 3/8 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Lenqth 2 2/3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 41.8 to 44.4 ft Drille
Lithologic Description
post hole soil, loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
coarse shell fragments and coarse gray sand
fine gray sand, trace shell frags, well sorted
fine gray sand, well sorted, trace shell frags.
fine gray sand, well sorted, trace shell frags.
fine gray sand, well sorted, trace shell frags.
light gray fine to med sand and 5-10% shell frags
light gray fine to med. sand w/ abundant shells + frags (30-
50%)
light gray fine silty sand, trace shell frags
B
Location
orina ID PA-9D
LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/6/99
Lithologic Description
silty gray fine sand, trace of shells
silty gray fine sand, trace of shells
silty clayey fine sand w/ 30% shells
mostly shells in a silty fine sand matrix
silty fine sand, trace shells
abundant shells in silty fine gray sand matrix
silty clayey fine gray sand with 20-30% shells
abundant shells (75%) in a silty matrix w/ fine sand
gray clay, trace sands
gray sandy silt with 10-20% shells
silty fine sand well sorted
silty fine sand well sorted
gray silt with shells 30-40%
sandy clay with 10% shells
silty fine sand, trace shells
abundant shells + shell frags (70%) w/ silty fine sand
sandy clay, trace shells
shells in silty fine sand matrix
sandy gray clay, low plasticity
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/18/99
Borinq Diameter 3 1/2 in Total [
Casing Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 18 to 21 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
cement saw 8" concrete, hand-auger loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-10S
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
+-
Q.
0)
Q
0-6
6-22.5
22.5 ft
...
to — ft
bentonite
from to
ft
ion flush mount vault
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/18/99
Borina Diameter 3 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.5 to 26.5 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
cement drill 8" concrete, hand-auger loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-101
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/18/99
Boring Diameter 3 1/2 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casing Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Length 3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 40.5 to 43.5 ft Grille
Lithologic Description
cement drill 8", hand auger loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
no recovery
no recovery
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
skip two ft to prevent sluff from entering sampler
coarse shell frags (70%) in silty fine gray sand matrix
B
L(
orina ID PA-10D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/18/99
Lithologic Description
abundant whole shells (70%) in silty fine sand matrix
abundant whole shells (70%) in silty fine sand matrix
abundant whole shells (70%) in silty fine sand matrix
—
skip two ft
coarse shell frags (75%) in gray silty sand matrix
silty-clayey fine gray sand with 30% shells (slight stiffness)
abundant shells in gray fine sand
sampler jammed, no further recovery
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
0)
a
31-32.5
32.5-34
34-36
—
—
38-39
39-40
40-42.5
—
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/19/99
Boring Diameter 3 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casing Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casing Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Length 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 18 to 21 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
cement drill 8" cement, hand-auger loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-11S
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
0)
a
0-6
6-22.5
22.5 ft
...
to — ft
bentonite
from to
ft
ion flush mount vault
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
pneumatic hammer
Rob Hancock (PSD
(0
0
V)
D
—
—
0)
V
k.
0)
+J
o
PVC
riser
3ft
screen
1.5ft
sump
and tip
Logged by: J Sminchak
Completion Date: 3/19/99
Construction Notes:
llBaiteiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/19/99
Borina Diameter 3 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 23.5 to 26.5 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
cement saw 8" concrete, hand-auger loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-111
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/20/99
Boring Diameter 3 1/2 in Total
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casing Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Length 3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 41.0 to 43.5 ft Grille
Lithologic Description
cement drill 8", hand auger loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
no recovery
no recovery
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
silty fine gray sand, trace (5-10%) shell frags.
skip two ft to prevent sluff from entering sampler
coarse shell frags (70%) in silty fine gray sand matrix
B
L(
orina ID PA-11D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/20/99
Lithologic Description
coarse grained shell frags (90%) w/ fine gray sand
silty fine gray sand, some clay and shell frags
abundant shells in silty fine gray sand matrix
silty fine gray sand, some clay 5% ans 10-30% shells
abundant shells in silty fine gray sand matrix
silty fine gray sand w/ 30-50% shell frags (coarse)
silty fine gray sand, wet, trace shells
shell hach (5% silty fine gray sand)
sampler jammed, no further recovery
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/21/99
Borinq Diameter 3 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 18 to 21 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
cement drill 8" concrete, hand auger loose tan to brown sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-12S
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/21/99
Borina Diameter 3 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 24 to 27 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
cement drill 8" concrete, hand-auger loose tan sands
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-121
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/22/99
Borinq Diameter 3 1/2 in Total
Casing Outer Diameter 2 3/8 in Sand
Casinq Inner Diameter 1 7/8 in Sand
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfa
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillin
Screen Depth from 40.5 to 43.5 ft Grille
Lithologic Description
cement drill 8", hand auger loose tan sands
direct push, no sampling
tan to yellowish brown fine sand well sorted, some gray fine
sands
fine gray fine sand, 10-15% shells
fine to med. gray sand, 10-25% shell frags
fine gray sand well sorted, trace silt and shell frags
fine to med. gray sand, 10-25% shell frags
fine to med. gray sand, 10-25% shell frags
fine gray sand, wet, well sorted, trace shells
fine gray silty sand w/ trace of shell frags (<10% silt)
B
L(
orina ID PA-12D
Dcation LC34, ESB
Depth
Pack
Pack Depth from
Material
Depth
ce Complel
g Method
.c
fc
0)
a
0-6
6-15
15.5-17
17.5-
18.2
18.2-19
19.5-
20.5
20.5-21
21.5-23
23.5-25
25.5-27
45 ft
...
to — ft
bentonite chips
from
to
ft
ion flush mount vault
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 3/22/99
Lithologic Description
silty fine gray sand, trace shells (10-20% silt)
silty fine gray sand, 30-50% shell frags
silty fine gray sand, some shell frags <10%
abundant shells w/ silty fine sand (10-20%)
silty gray fine sand, w/some clay + shells
overpush no sample
silty fine gray sand, trace shells
ssilty fine gray sand with 20-40% shells
abundant shells in silty fine gray sand (30-40%)
Boring
Locatio
.c
fc
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 7/13/99
Borina Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 21 to 24 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-13S
Dcation LC34
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 7/13/99
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 25 to 28 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-131
Dcation LC34
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 7/12/99
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 41 to 44 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-13D
Dcation LC34
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 7/13/99
Borina Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 21 to 24 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-14S
Dcation LC34
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 7/13/99
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 25 to 28 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-141
Dcation LC34
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 7/13/99
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 41 to 44 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-14D
Dcation LC34
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
fc
0)
a
0-44.5
44.5 ft
...
to
bentonite
from 0
to
ft
2 ft
ion flush mount vault
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 8/15/99
Borina Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/3 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 10 to 15 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
No sampling, direct push.
B
L(
orina ID PA-15S
Dcation LC34
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 5/26/00
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 21 to 24 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Topsoil, loose sand
Direct push
B
L(
orina ID PA-16S
Dcation Steam Plot
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 5/26/00
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 25 to 28 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Topsoil, loose sand
Direct push
B
L(
orina ID PA-161
Dcation Steam Plot
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
fc
0)
a
0-5
5-28.75
28 75 ft
...
to
bentonite
from 0
ft
to 2 ft
ion flush mount pad
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 5/26/00
Borina Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 41.25 to 44.25 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Topsoil, loose sand
Direct push
B
L(
orina ID PA-16D
Dcation Steam Plot
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 5/26/00
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 18 to 21 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Topsoil, loose sand
Direct push
B
L(
orina ID PA-17S
Dcation Steam Plot
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 6/2/00
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 25 to 28 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Topsoil, loose sand
Direct push
B
L<
orina ID PA-171
Dcation Steam Plot
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 6/2/00
Borinq Diameter 2 1/2 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 41.25 to 44.25 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Topsoil, loose sand
Direct push
B
L<
orina ID PA-17D
Dcation Steam Plot
Depth
Dack
Dack Depth from
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
fc
0)
a
0-5
5-45
45 ft
...
to
bentonite
from 0
ft
to 2 ft
ion flush mount pad
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 12/11/00
Borinq Diameter 4 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/4 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 21 to 24 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post-hole, loose tan sand
Direct push
(pvc riser)
B
L(
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
.c
S.
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 12/12/00
Borinq Diameter 4 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/4 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 25 to 28 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post-hole, loose tan sand
Direct push
B
L(
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
Q
0-6
6-28
orina ID PA-181
Dcation ESB
n from
from
ion
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
28 ft
...
to — ft
cement
0
to 2 ft
flush mount
Vibra-Core
Precision
(0
o
V)
SP
—
1
=
0)
I
PVC
Riser
3ft
screen
Logged by: J. Sminchak
Completion Date: 12/12/00
Construction Notes:
llBaireiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 12/12/00
Borinq Diameter 4 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/4 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 41 to 44 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Post-hole, loose tan sand
Direct push
B
L(
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
Q
0-6
6-44
orina ID PA-18D
Dcation ESB
n from
from
ion
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
—
—
44 ft
...
to — ft
cement
0
to 2 ft
flush mount
Vibra-Core
Precision
(0
o
V)
SP
—
1
=
0)
I
PVC
Riser
3ft
screen
Logged by: J. Sminchak
Completion Date: 12/12/00
Construction Notes:
llealtelle
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/28/01
Borina Diameter 4 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 20 to 23 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
loose tan sand
Direct push
B
L(
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/28/01
Borina Diameter 4 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 25 to 28 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
loose tan sand
Direct push
B
L(
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet
Date 2/28/01
Borina Diameter 4 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 1/2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter 2 in Sand F
Casinq Material stainless steel Grout
Screen Type stainless steel, slotted Grout
Screen Slot 0.010 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 3 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 42 to 45 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
loose tan sand
Direct push
B
L(
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
-------
B.4 LC34 IDC Coring Logsheets for Semi-Confined Aquifer Wells
LC34 IDC Corinq Loq sheet Boring ID PA-20
Date 4/9/01 Location Roadway
Borinq Diameter 10 & 5 7/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 6 & 2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter in Sand F
Casinq Material 304 SCH 10 Stainless Grout
Screen Type wi rewound 304 Sch 10 Grout
Screen Slot 0.10 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 5 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 55 to 60 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
sand, med gray, silty, rec 1.1 ft, PID 0.0, 12/14/12/13
silt, clayey, med gray, rec 1.0 ft, PID 0.0, 3/2/2/3
clay, med plasticity, med. gray, rec. 6", PID 0.0, 3/3
clay, plastic, med. gray, wet, rec. 1', PID 15, 8/9/5/5
sand, some silt and clay, fine grained, rec. 1.5', PID 2.0,
10/12/11/12
sand, med grained with some shells, PID 0.0
sand, fine-med grained with shell frags, rec 2.0, PID 0.0,
10/13/13/15
clay, soft, wet, plastic, med. gray , PID 0.0
sand, fine-med grained, shelly zones, med. gray, PID 0.0
sand, w coarse shell fragments, PID 0.0, rec 1 .7 or 2.0
abrupt contact w med grained sand, no shells, silty
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
f
Q
41-43
43-45
45-46
47.5-48
48.5-
48.9
48.9-50
50-50.5
50.5-51
51-52
52-52.3
52.3-53
53-54
n from
HlBafleiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
61 ft
20/30
53 to 61 ft
type G & silica flour
from GS to 51 ft
ion flush mount vault
mud rotary
R. Hutchinson
0)
Q.
re
V)
SB50-
43
SB50-
45
SB50-
46
SB50-
48
SB50-
50
SB50-
52
SB50-
52 B
SB50-
54
(0
o
V)
SP
ML
CL
CH
SM
SP
SW
CH
SP
Sp
SM
SM
1
ai
6
Flush
Mount
46'
51'
bent.
seal
(2')
53
sand
pack
(20/30)
Logged by: C.J. Perry
Construction Notes: 6-in surface
Completion Date: 4/5/01
casing set to 46', 2-in casing screen
set at 60'
-------
LC34 IDC Corinq Loq sheet Borina ID PA-20
Date 4/9/01 Location Roadway
Lithologic Description
sand, shelly cs fragments, med gray, rec 1.4 or 2.0, PID 0.0,
6/7/7/4
clay, shelly, some silt, soft, wet, med. gray
sand, very shelly, med. gray, trace silt and clay, Rec 1.9 of 2.0,
PID 0.0, 6/7/7/7
sand, shelly, no fines, med gray, rec. 2.0 of 2.0, PID 0.0,
13/13/15/17
Total Depth (sampled): 60'
Total Dept (drilled): 61'
5' x 2" diameter well screen 55-60'
.c
S.
0)
a
54.6-
55.2
55.2-56
56-58
58-60
-------
LC34 IDC Corinq Loq sheet Borinq ID PA-21
Date 4/9/01 Location ISCO Plot
Boring Diameter 10 & 5 7/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 6 & 2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter in Sand F
Casing Material 304 SCH 10 Stainless Grout
Screen Type wi rewound 304 Sch 10 Grout
Screen Slot 0.10 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 5 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 55 to 60 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
sand, brn-gray, some silt, med grnd, rec 1.15 of 2, PID 0.0,
11/13/15/20
sand, brn-gray, silty.fine grnd., rec 1.3 of 2', PID 2.0, 6/7/8/6
sand, brn, med grnd, grading to silty clay/clay, rec. 2 of 2', PID
2000+ , 8/7/4/3
silty clay, med. brn gray, wet
clay, med gray, wet, soft
clay, med gray, wet, soft, rec. 1.1 of 2.0, PID 29, 6/7/9/5
sand, med grained, med gray, massive, shells, PID 2000+
sand, clayey, mucky, w/ cs shell frags, rec. 2.0 of 2.0, PID 46,
7/8/8/12
clay, soft, plastic, wet, med gray, PID 323
sand, fine-med grnd, massive, med. gray, PID 96
sand, med-cs grnd, some silt, rec 1.9 of 2.0, PID 2.0, 7/7/6/6
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
t
0)
a
40-42
42-44
44-44.5
44.5-
44.75
44.75-
46
47-47.5
47.5-48
48-48.2
48.2-49
49-50
50-50.3
n from
llBaiteiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
61 ft
20/30
53 to 61 ft
type G & silica flour
from GS to 51 ft
ion flush mount vault
mud rotarv
R. Hutchinson
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
SB51-
41
SB51
.44
SB51-
44B
SB51-
45
SB51-
46
SB-51-
48.8
SB51-
48B
SB51-
50
(0
0
V)
D
SM
SM
SM
ML
CH
CH
SP
SC
CH
SP
SM
0)
^
0)
+J
O
Flush
Mount
46'
Logged by: C.J. Perry
Completion Date: 4/4/01
Construction Notes: 6-in surface
casing set to 46', 2-in casing screen
set at 60'
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet Borina ID PA-21
Date 4/9/01 Location ISCO Plot
Lithologic Description
sand, silty and clayey, shell frags, med gray
sand, fine grnd, massive, med. gray, PID 2.0
sand, silty and clayey, med. gray, shelly, Rec2.0 of 2.0', PID 34,
7/8/9/10
sand, med grnd, fining downward, some shells
sand, w silt and clay, shelly, med gray, rec 2.0 of 2.0', PID 8.0,
5/5/4/6
sand, fn-med grnd, massive, med gray, rec 2.0 of 2.0, PID =0.0,
4/4/3/5
sand, w silt and clay, mucky, shelly
sand, fn grnd, tr. silt and clay
sand, med grnd, slightly silty, shells, rec 2.0 of 2.0', PID 0.0,
6/8/12/16
clayey interval from 59.1-59.5, PID 0.0
Total Dept (Sampled): 60'
Total Depth (reamed): 61'
5' x 2" diameter well screen 55-60'
+-
Q.
0)
Q
50.3-
50.6
50.6-52
52-52.8
52.8-54
54-56
56-56.6
56.6-
57.6
57.6-58
59-60
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet Borina ID PA-22
Date 4/9/01 Location Resistive Heatinq Plo
Boring Diameter 10 & 5 7/8 in Total [
Casinq Outer Diameter 6 & 2 in Sand F
Casinq Inner Diameter in Sand F
Casing Material 304 SCH 10 Stainless Grout
Screen Type wi rewound 304 Sch 10 Grout
Screen Slot 0.10 Surfac
Screen Lenqth 5 ft Drillinc
Screen Depth from 55 to 60 ft Driller
Lithologic Description
sand, med grnd, shell frags, gray, rec 1.3 of 2, PID 155,
8/10/13/16
sand, med-grnd, med. gray, rec 0.75 of 2', PID 44, 6/7/7/8
silt, massive, med gray, grading to clay, rec. 1.4 of 2', PID 102,
8/7/6/5
clay, plastic, med. gray, 3" thick, PID 234
clay, med gray, plastic, 3/3, PID 381
sand, fine-grnd, med gray, PID 725
sand, fine grained, silty, shelly, med gray
clay, stiff, wet, med gray
sand, med-grnd, massive, few shells, med gray
clay, stiff, mod. wet, shell frags, Rec. 2.0 of 2.0, 6/6/7/8
sand, fn-med grnd, massive, few shells 1.9 of 2.0
Depth
Dack
Dack Dept
Material
Depth
e Complel
1 Method
t
0)
a
40-42
42-44
44.6-
45.7
45.7-46
46-46.9
46.9-
47.2
4J.2-.5
47.5-
47.7
47.7-48
48-48.9
48.9-50
n from
llBatteile
t. . . Putting Technology To Work
61 ft
20/30
53 to 61 ft
type G & silica flour
from GS to 51 ft
ion flush mount vault
mud rotarv
R. Hutchinson
0)
Q.
E
re
V)
SB52-
42
SB52
44
SB52-
45
SB52-
45
SB52-
47
SB52-
47B
SB52-
47.5
SB52-
48
SB52-
49/49B
SB52-
50
(0
0
V)
D
SP
SP
ML
CH
CH
SP
SM
CL
SP
CL
SP
0)
k.
0)
+J
o
Flush
Mount
46'
Logged by: C.J. Perry
Completion Date: 4/5/01
Construction Notes: 6-in surface
casing set to 46', 2-in casing screen
set at 60'
-------
LC34 IDC Coring Logsheet Borina ID PA-22
Date 4/9/01 Location Resistive Heatinq Plo
Lithologic Description
sand, med. grnd, med. gray, some shells, Rec 0.75 of 2.0, PID
20, 7/8/8/9
sand, med grnd, very shelly, Rec 2.0 of 2.0, PID 20, 6/7/5/8
sand, fn-med grnd, silty
sand, med grnd, very shelly, loose, wet, PID 80, 7/5/9/9
sand, med. grnd, v. shelly but sandier, PID 1530
sand, med grnd, w/clay and silt, muckey, shells, 1.7 of 2.0, PID
1200+, 7/7/4/3
sand, cs grnd, trcsilt, v. shelly, loose, rec2.0 of 2.0, PID 50+,
11/12/14/17
sand, med grnd, mucky, wet
sand, med grnd, massive, decreasing shell fragments wit depth
Total Dept (Sampled): 60'
Total Depth (reamed): 61'
5' x 2" diameter well screen 55-60'
+-
Q.
0)
Q
50-
50.75
52-52.9
52.9-54
54-54.2
54.2-56
56.3-58
558-
58.5
58.5-59
59-60
-------
Appendix C. CVOC Measurements
C.I TCE Results of Ground-Water Samples
C.2 Other CVOC Results of Ground-Water Samples
C.3 Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration Soil Sample Results
C.4 Resistive Heating Post-Demonstration Soil Sample Results
Figure C-l. TCE Concentrations and Observed Soil Color Results at the Resistive Heating Plot
-------
Table C-l. TCE Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
TCE Oig/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.
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13S-DUP
PA-13I
PA-13D
PA-13D-DUP
PA-14S
PA-14I
PA-14D
1,030,000
1,100,000
1,070,000
892,000
730,000
935,000
960,000
868,000
1,220,000
1,240,000
1,250,000
1,160,000
NA
106,000
75,500
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
18%
13%
17%
30%
NA
-89%
-92%
-44%
-95%
-37%
NA
-6%
-22%
33%
6,049%
85%
-22%
NA
-84%
NA
117,784%
16%
-95%
NA
476,000
NA
268,000
380,000
NA
556
NA
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
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
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
1 12,000
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
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°/
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-l. TCE Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
TCE (ug/L)
Apr 10-14, 2000
Results
% Change
in Cone.
ISCO Post-Demo
Results
% Change
in Cone.
Resistive Heating Post
Demo
Results
% Change
in Cone.
June 12, 2001
Results
% Change
in Cone.
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13S-DUP
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-13D-DUP
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
180,000 *
170,000 *
1,300,000 D*
3,300 *
NA
9,400 *
46,000 *
68,000 *
-83%
-85%
21%
>-99%
NA
>-99%
-95%
-92%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
820,000 0
NA
NA
920,000
910,000
710,000
NA
4,200
-20%
NA
NA
3%
25%
-24%
NA
>-99%
758,000
NA
60,200
794,000
647,000
601,000
174,000
2,730
-20%
NA
-94%
-11%
-11%
-36%
-82%
>-99%
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
6,400
1,800,0000
1,400,OOOD
1,300,OOOD
64,000
36,000
33,000
760,OOOD
740,0000
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
990,0000
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
330 J
970,000
NA
1,300,000
150,000
62,000
<2,500
24,000
750,000
870,000
1,100,000
NA
NA
190,000
1,500
30,000
-99%
-15%
NA
13%
27%
-83%
NA
-85%
-32%
-21%
-2%
NA
NA
1,167%
-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
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
3,700
510J
NA
0.67J
740,000
NA
190,000
1,300,0000
NA
970,000
1,200,0000
1,300,0000
276%
-83%
NA
>-99%
12,814%
NA
-81%
172%
NA
12%
13%
29%
4,500
<2000
<2000
2.80
630,000
NA
330,000
1,800,0000
NA
<5
1,200,0000
1,400,0000
357%
>-99%
>-99%
>-99%
10,895%
NA
-67%
277%
NA
>-99%
13%
39%
8,000
<250
NA
<4
7,600
NA
870,000
1,100,000
NA
390,000
790,000
1,300,000
713%
-96%
NA
-98%
33%
NA
-12%
130%
NA
-55%
-25%
29%
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:
Pre-Demo: Sep 3 to 10, 1999.
Week 3-4: Sep 24 to 20, 1999.
Week5:Oct6to8, 1999.
Week 7-8: Oct 19 to 28, 1999.
ISCO Post-Demo: May 8 to 14, 2000.
Resistive Heating Post-Demo: Nov 27 to Dec 2, 2000.
All units are in ug/L.
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.
*: 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 Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
c/s-l,2-DCE(ug/L)
Pre-
Demo
Week 3
4
Week 5
Week 7
8
Jan 2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Res
Heating
Post-
Demo
June
2001
trans -1,2-DCE (ug/L)
Pre-
Demo
Week 3
4
Week
5
Week 7
8
Jan
2000
Apr 2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Res
Heating
Post-
Demo
June
2001
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
21,000 J
NA
NA
18,000 J
18,000 J
95,000
NA
NA
1,100
NA
14,000
NA
9,370
52,000
NA
73,800
80,000
NA
2,660
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
<25,000
NA
NA
<25,000
<33,000
<20,000
NA
NA
<200
NA
<100
NA
16
<1,000
NA
<1,000
1,150
NA
33
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
14,OOOJ
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
6,000
11,000 J
NA
<33,000
130,000
170,000
30,000
19,000
12,000 J
15,000 J
23,000 J
NA
Dry
30,000
16,000 D
170,000
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
<500
<25,000
NA
<33,000
<12,000
<17,000
<2,500
<1,900
<42,000
<42,000
<42,000
NA
Dry
<8,300
390
<17,000
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
1,190
32,800
NA
299
10,000
NA
36,800
36,500
NA
4,900J
4,900J
6,180
945
22,100
NA
1,100
9,930
NA
51,000
38,600
32,600
8,OOOJ
6,900J
<10,000
5,030
10,800
NA
689
12,000
NA
64,000
31,100
NA
5,400J
5,200J
6,700J
12,800
8,400
NA
589
18,200
18,000
104,000
20,800
NA
5,600J
5,400J
<10,000
20,000
43,900
NA
1.4J
<2,000
<2,000
128,000
6,600J
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
29,000
53,000
NA
6.2J
23,000
NA
220,000
11,OOOJ
NA
<25,000
5,700J
<17,000
27,000
48,000
47,000
2.9
32,000
NA
210,000
10,OOOJ
NA
<5
<25,000
<25,000
22,000
2,400
NA
<4
36,000
NA
100,000
19,000 J
NA
8,500 J
<42,000
<42,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38.4
1,540
NA
22 9
140J
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
50J
1,220
NA
64J
220
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
220
530J
NA
32.4
220
NA
<1,000
<2,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
484
431
NA
21.9
352
368
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
714
1,670
NA
1.2J
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
1,400J
1,500J
NA
0.46J
<20,000
NA
<17,000
<20,000
NA
<25,000
<25,000
<17,000
1,100J
1,400J
1,400J
0.46J
<17,000
NA
<10,000
<25,000
NA
<5
<25,000
<25,000
570 J
300
NA
2.8 J
<2,900
NA
<33,000
<42,000
NA
<25,000
<42,000
<42,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Prqjects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
Vinyl chloride (ng/L)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
WeekS
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Res
Heating
Post-
Demo
June
2001
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
<50,000
NA
NA
<50,000
<67,000
10,000 J
NA
NA
32 J
NA
700
NA
<100
<1,000
NA
6,280
1,710
NA
48.7
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
650 J
<50,000
NA
<67,000
13,000 J
12,000 J
15,000
4,300
<83,000
<83,000
<83,000
NA
Dry
<17,000
330
2,800 J
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
<20
1,910
NA
171
<200
NA
<5,000
<5,000
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<100
1,700
NA
338
<200
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
30.3
1,260
NA
332
<20
NA
<1,000
<2,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
152
1,250
NA
195
<200
<200
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
<200
6,260
NA
12.1
<2,000
<2,000
<10,000
<10,000
NA
<10,000
<10,000
<10,000
2,400J
7,200
NA
5.1
<40,000
NA
<33,000
<40,000
NA
<50,000
<50,000
<33,000
2,300J
6,500
6,300
4.5
<33,000
NA
<20,000
<50,000
NA
<10
<50,000
<50,000
560 J
5,100
NA
76
670 J
NA
<67,000
<83,000
NA
<50,000
<83,000
<83,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Prqjects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Notes:
Pre-Demo: Sep 3 to 10, 1999.
Week 3-4: Sep 24 to 20, 1999.
Week 5: Got 6 to 8, 1999.
Week 7-8: Get 19 to 28, 1999.
ISCO Post-Demo: May 8 to 14, 2000.
Res Heating Post-Demo: Nov 27 to Deo 2, 2000.
June 2001: June 12, 2001
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 quantified after dilution.
Yellow indicates that a measurable concentration was obtained for this sample.
Orange 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.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table C-3. Resistive Heating Predemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-1-593
SB-1-594
SB-1-595
SB-1-596
SB-1-597
SB-1-598
SB-1-599
SB-1-600
SB-1-601
SB-1-602
SB-1-603
SB-1-604
SB-1-605
SB-1-606
SB-1-607
SB-1-608
SB-1-609
SB-1-610
SB-1-611
SB-1-612
SB-1-613
SB-1-614
SB-1-615
SB-1-616
SB-1-617
SB-2-510
SB-2-51 1
SB-2-512
SB-2-51 3
SB-2-51 4
SB-2-51 5
SB-2-51 6
SB-2-51 7
SB-2-51 8
SB-2-51 9
SB-2-520
SB-2-521
SB-2-522
SB-2-523
SB-2-524
SB-2-525
SB-2-526
SB-2-527
SB-2-528
SB-2-529
Sample ID
SB-1-2
SB-1-4
SB-1-6
SB-1-8
SB-1-10
SB-1-12
SB-1-14
SB-1-18
SB-1-20
SB-1-22
SB-1-24
SB-1-26
SB-1-28
SB-1-30
SB-1-32
SB-1-32B
SB-1-34
SB-1-36
SB-1-38
SB-1-40
SB-1-42
SB-1-44
SB-1-46
SB-1-48
SB-1-BLANK
SB-2-6
SB-2-8
SB-2-10
SB-2-12
SB-2-14
SB-2-16
SB-2-18
SB-2-20
SB-2-20B
SB-2-22
SB-2-24
SB-2-26
SB-2-28
SB-2-30
SB-2-32
SB-2-34
SB-2-36
SB-2-38
SB-2-40
SB-2-42
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
MeOH Blank Sample
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
MeOH
(g)
213
214
213
214
193
214
192
193
193
213
192
214
193
213
192
192
213
214
193
213
214
214
193
214
154
192
189
212
192
187
192
189
188
213
192
189
190
192
189
191
190
189
186
191
192
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
182
192
244
192
152
189
215
266
209
229
254
254
239
162
160
198
233
334
220
229
216
241
232
203
0
141
221
203
216
335
191
214
195
238
281
295
296
277
286
332
221
277
263
176
264
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
163
180
225
169
123
151
169
212
157
174
201
187
164
111
121
158
177
235
155
160
162
183
168
140
0
134
199
168
183
279
157
269
150
188
226
229
213
207
205
254
174
223
186
116
224
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
6,400
4,700
270
2,200
7,400
6,000
7,900
2,500
72,000
190,000
1 ,200,000
460,000
260,000
520,000
12,000,000
1 1 ,000,000
210,000
300,000
540,000
3,100,000
3,400,000
220,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
<250
1,600
580
300 J
510
<300
770
1,300
1,200
1,600
1,000
29,000
54,000
160,000
230,000
160,000
110,000
110,000
220,000
280,000
3,500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
7.8
5.3
0.3
2.8
10.5
8.8
12.5
4.0
121.7
314.6
1 ,935.0
820.4
526.1
940.6
19,090.9
16,656.6
349.1
623.6
1 ,024.6
5,874.2
5,677.3
368.3
33,099.9
37,537.4
ND
1.7
0.7
0.4
0.7
ND
1.1
0.7
1.9
2.5
1.6
50.4
107.8
292.2
458.4
294.5
174.3
175.7
439.9
558.3
5.0
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<410
<380
<270
<400
<500
<450
<320
<310
<3,300
<1 1 ,000
<79,000
<1 7,000
<12,000
<20,000
<1 ,000,000
<630,000
<8,200
<1 8,000
<24,000
<180,000
<140,000
<1 1 ,000
<1, 700,000
<800,000
<250
660
310
300 J
<300
<300
290 J
380
260 J
250 J
560
< 1,600
<3,500
<8,400
<12,000
<1 1 ,000
<4,500
<4,400
<8,800
<1 0,000
<290
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
0.7
0.4
0.4
ND
ND
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH (ug/L)
<410
<380
<270
<400
<500
<450
<320
<310
<3,300
<1 1 ,000
<79,000
<1 7,000
<12,000
<20,000
<1 ,000,000
<630,000
<8,200
<1 8,000
<24,000
<180,000
<140,000
<1 1 ,000
<1, 700,000
<800,000
<250
<450
<280
<400
<300
<300
<390
<310
<330
<320
<310
< 1,600
<3,500
<8,400
<12,000
<1 1 ,000
<4,500
<4,400
<8,800
<1 0,000
<290
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-3. Resistive Heating Predemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-2-530
SB-2-531
SB-2-532
SB-2-533
SB-2-534
SB-3-487
SB-3-488
SB-3-489
SB-3-490
SB-3-491
SB-3-492
SB-3-493
SB-3-494
SB-3-495
SB-3-496
SB-3-497
SB-3-498
SB-3-499
SB-3-500
SB-3-501
SB-3-502
SB-3-503
SB-3-504
SB-3-504
SB-3-505
SB-3-506
SB-3-507
SB-3-508
SB-3-508
SB-3-509
SB-4-124
SB-4-125
SB-4-126
SB-4-127
SB-4-128
SB-4-129
SB-4-130
SB-4-131
SB-4-132
SB-4-133
SB-4-134
SB-4-135
SB-4-136
SB-4-137
Sample ID
SB-2-44
SB-2-46
SB-2-47
SB-2-47B
SB-2-BLANK
SB-3-2
SB-3-4
SB-3-6
SB-3-8
SB-3-10
SB-3-12
SB-3-14
SB-3-16
SB-3-18
SB-3-20
SB-3-22
SB-3-26
SB-3-28
SB-3-28B
SB-3-30
SB-3-32
SB-3-34
SB-3-36
SB-3-36
SB-3-38
SB-3-42
SB-3-44
SB-3-46
SB-3-46
SB-3-BLANK
SB-4-2
SB-4-4
SB-4-6
SB-4-8
SB-4-10
SB-4-12
SB-4-14
SB-4-16
SB-4-18
SB-4-20
SB-4-22
SB-4-22B
SB-4-24
SB-4-26
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
42
44
45.5
45.5
Bottom
Depth
44
46
47
47
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
40
42
44
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
42
44
46
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
MeOH
(g)
190
190
190
190
190
189
186
189
190
194
192
190
188
192
188
191
190
186
188
188
192
191
188
188
193
190
190
191
191
188
193
192
189
190
192
190
190
192
197
195
187
191
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
297
312
294
352
0
190
193
160
133
174
224
207
238
188
186
203
243
205
239
243
207
209
185
185
213
186
204
228
228
0
131
126
153
110
176
135
190
114
133
108
203
145
178
165
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
236
240
202
239
0
174
175
145
115
142
176
164
197
149
150
158
178
150
176
189
164
166
133
133
152
147
150
181
181
0
116
115
140
95
146
108
156
NA
109
89
166
119
141
131
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
150,000
140,000
19,000,000
5,200,000
<250
7,800
720
120 J
200 J
240 J
210J
210J
410
870
670
5,600
100,000
57,000
60,000
21 ,000
3,100
11,000
1 6,000 E
20,000 D
760 J
18,000
66,000
130,000
140,000
<250
<450
4,000
4,400
39,000
170 J
3,200
NA
5,300 1
4,700
4,500
30,000
39,000
40,000
6,100,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
249.4
251.0
41 ,043.6
12,213.4
ND
9.2
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
1.3
1.0
8.9
183.2
100.9
108.8
34.8
4.8
17.0
28.4
35.5
1.4
27.5
115.3
204.1
219.7
ND
ND
4.6
5.1
48.7
0.2
4.6
NA
8.3
6.5
6.0
43.6
54.1
60.3
9,050.9
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<4,500
<6,500
<730,000
<250,000
<250
720
270
<370
<450
<350
<250
<250
180 J
270 J
160 J
410
9,200
27,000
27,000
27,000
21 ,000
22,000
45,000 E
51,0000
32,000
22,000
22,000
6,200
5,400
<250
<450
960
<400
< 1,600
<340
140 J
NA
360 J,1
1,100
320 J
< 1,000
< 1,600
<1,700
<1 8,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.9
0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.7
16.9
47.8
49.0
44.7
32.4
33.9
79.9
90.6
59.0
33.6
38.4
9.7
8.5
ND
ND
1.1
ND
ND
ND
0.2
NA
0.6
1.5
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH (ug/L)
<4,500
<6,500
<730,000
<250,000
<250
<310
<250
<370
<450
<350
<250
<250
<250
<320
<320
<250
<5,000
<3,100
<3,100
< 1,800
< 1,000
< 1,000
240 J
<320
< 1,000
< 1,300
<2,500
<6,200
<5,000
<250
<450
<480
<400
< 1,600
<340
<450
NA
<530
<460
<580
< 1,000
< 1,600
<1,700
<1 8,000
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
0.42 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
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
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-3. Resistive Heating Predemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-4-138
SB-4-139
SB-4-140
SB-4-140
SB-4-141
SB-4-142
SB-4-143
SB-4-144
SB-4-145
SB-4-146
SB-4-147
SB-4-148
SB-5-415
SB-5-416
SB-5-417
SB-5-418
SB-5-419
SB-5-420
SB-5-421
SB-5-422
SB-5-423
SB-5-424
SB-5-425
SB-5-426
SB-5-427
SB-5-428
SB-5-429
SB-5-429
SB-5-430
SB-5-431
SB-5-432
SB-5-433
SB-5-433
SB-5-434
SB-5-435
SB-5-436
SB-5-437
SB-5-437
SB-5-438
SB-6-197
SB-6-198
SB-6-199
SB-6-200
SB-6-201
Sample ID
SB-4-28
SB-4-30
SB-4-32
SB-4-32
SB-4-34
SB-4-36
SB-4-38
SB-4-40
SB-4-42
SB-4-44
SB-4-46
SB-4-BLANK
SB-5-2
SB-5-4
SB-5-6
SB-5-8
SB-5-10
SB-5-12
SB-5-14
SB-5-16
SB-5-18
SB-5-20
SB-5-20B
SB-5-22
SB-5-24
SB-5-26
SB-5-28
SB-5-28
SB-5-30
SB-5-32
SB-5-34
SB-5-36
SB-5-36
SB-5-38
SB-5-40
SB-5-42
SB-5-45
SB-5-45
SB-5-BLANK
SB-6-2
SB-6-4
SB-6-6
SB-6-8
SB-6-10
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
43
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
45
45
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
2
4
6
8
10
MeOH
(g)
194
187
189
189
195
190
190
195
193
195
188
196
187
190
187
187
190
193
190
194
192
189
189
188
192
191
191
191
193
192
189
189
193
188
192
190
190
189
189
190
190
189
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
169
109
283
283
151
141
168
197
238
291
210
0
113
146
222
131
170
158
175
197
135
189
151
178
168
227
228
228
169
246
196
173
173
189
207
209
222
222
0
136
118
115
113
132
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
124
82
217
217
120
113
118
150
179
229
159
0
101
127
195
110
138
128
145
163
108
143
120
144
138
170
165
165
121
186
150
134
134
127
146
145
164
164
0
128
106
102
95
107
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
110,000
110,000
7,200,000 E
6,300,000 D
77,000
70,000
160,000
520,000
92,000
100,000
18,000,000
<250
<550
<400
<250
<450
<350
210J
<350
<250
<450
3,200 R
2,700 R
1 9,000 R
1,300,000
150,000
1 5,000,000 E
3,200,000 D
310,000
520,000
3,300,000
15,000,000
13,000,000
4,100,000
15,000,000
3,400,000
24,000,000 E
21 ,000,000 D
4,400 1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
184.7
167.3
12,668.9
11,085.3
112.3
100.2
287.7
847.5
159.7
167.5
30,222.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
ND
ND
ND
5.2
4.0
27.7
1 ,835.2
259.8
27,564.0
5,880.3
541.8
901.5
5,345.1
23,361.8
20,246.9
8,061.7
28,167.6
6,534.3
42,405.1
37,104.5
6.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<5,200
<3,900
<120,000
<120,000
<2,000
<2,100
<7,100
<1 6,000
<31,000
<4,200
<1, 200,000
<250
<550
<400
<250
<450
<350
<380
<350
<250
<450
910
650
360 J
<44,000
<1 2,000
<120,000
<120,000
<12,000
<1 7,000
<100,000
<340,000
<340,000
<130,000
<360,000
<100,000
<250,000
<250,000
<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
1.5
1.0
0.5
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 (ug/L)
<5,200
<3,900
<120,000
<120,000
<2,000
<2,100
<7,100
<1 6,000
<31 ,000
<4,200
<1, 200,000
<250
<550
<400
<250
<450
<350
<380
<350
<250
<450
<320
<400
<670
<44,000
<12,000
<120,000
<120,000
<12,000
<1 7,000
<100,000
<340,000
<340,000
<130,000
<360,000
<100,000
<250,000
<250,000
<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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-3. Resistive Heating Predemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-6-202
SB-6-203
SB-6-204
SB-6-205
SB-6-206
SB-6-207
SB-6-208
SB-6-209
SB-6-210
SB-6-211
SB-6-212
SB-6-213
SB-6-214
SB-6-215
SB-6-216
SB-6-217
SB-6-218
SB-6-219
SB-6-220
SB-7-100
SB-7-101
SB-7-102
SB-7-103
SB-7-104
SB-7-105
SB-7-106
SB-7-107
SB-7-108
SB-7-109
SB-7-110
SB-7-111
SB-7-112
SB-7-113
SB-7-114
SB-7-115
SB-7-116
SB-7-117
SB-7-118
SB-7-119
SB-7-120
SB-7-121
SB-7-122
SB-8-342
SB-8-343
Sample ID
SB-6-12
SB-6-14
SB-6-16
SB-6-18
SB-6-20
SB-6-22
SB-6-24
SB-6-26
SB-6-28
SB-6-30
SB-6-32
SB-6-32B
SB-6-36
SB-6-38
SB-6-40
SB-6-42
SB-6-44
SB-6-46
SB-6-BLANK
SB-7-2
SB-7-4
SB-7-6
SB-7-8
SB-7-10
SB-7-12
SB-7-14
SB-7-16
SB-7-18
SB-7-20
SB-7-22
SB-7-26
SB-7-28
SB-7-30
SB-7-32
SB-7-34
SB-7-36
SB-7-38
SB-7-40
SB-7-40B
SB-7-43
SB-7-45
SB-7-BLANK
SB-8-2
SB-8-4
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
36
38
40
42
44
46
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
41
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
43
45
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
2
4
MeOH
(g)
189
191
192
187
191
190
188
192
189
189
189
188
185
189
188
191
186
188
192
190
189
191
189
190
189
190
190
191
188
190
192
190
190
189
189
187
183
189
189
189
193
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
196
128
151
176
155
170
228
181
218
188
150
163
207
228
176
215
123
135
0
149
164
162
195
146
198
135
151
116
131
152
127
159
140
134
140
148
75
68
325
115
187
0
84
81
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
161
103
127
148
120
140
230
149
163
136
115
124
169
164
112
161
99
105
0
132
149
134
150.2
117
106.4
106.2
124
95
46.8
120
93.8
96
98
97
108.1
111.6
40.9
50.9
251.8
81.3
138.7
0
78
73
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
1,400
<250
2,800
19,000
7,600
40,000
31 ,000
11,000
11,000
7,700
11,000
5,300
11,000
4,100
210,000
<250
500
120 J
<370
<250
690
0
<440
150 J
0
2,400
21 ,000
90,000
150,000
80,000
76,000
60,000
88,000
120,000
48,000
63,000
130,000
5,200,000
<250
290 J
170 J
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
1.9
ND
3.9
18.6
10.8
69.1
54.6
17.0
17.5
11.4
20.5
11.2
18.8
5.8
313.1
ND
0.6
0.1
ND
ND
1.0
0.0
ND
0.2
0.0
9.7
31.1
143.1
330.0
139.5
125.4
90.8
139.2
260.2
70.1
112.8
216.7
8,802.5
ND
0.3
0.2
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,000
<620
<5,000
6,900
9,500
8,700
7,800
17,000
19,000
21 ,000
11,000
<12,000
<250
<410
<370
<370
<250
<410
<250
<440
<400
<520
520
560 J
1 ,500 J
2.000J
18,000
5,400
11,000
10,000
11,000
2,200
2.800J
<5,200
<1 10,000
<250
<730
<740
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.2
14.7
13.8
11.5
31.6
40.0
36.0
15.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.1
0.8
2.4
4.4
31.4
8.9
16.7
15.8
23.8
3.2
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,000
<620
<5,000
<2,500
<620
<620
<620
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
<620
<12,000
<250
<410
<370
<370
<250
<410
<250
<440
<400
<520
<460
<780
<2,400
<3,800
<2,100
<2,200
<2,100
<3,400
<5,300
<1,700
<3,600
<5,200
<1 10,000
<250
<730
<740
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-3. Resistive Heating Predemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-8-344
SB-8-345
SB-8-346
SB-8-347
SB-8-348
SB-8-349
SB-8-350
SB-8-350
SB-8-351
SB-8-352
SB-8-353
SB-8-354
SB-8-355
SB-8-356
SB-8-357
SB-8-358
SB-8-359
SB-8-360
SB-8-361
SB-8-362
SB-8-363
SB-8-364
SB-9-221
SB-9-222
SB-9-223
SB-9-224
SB-9-225
SB-9-226
SB-9-227
SB-9-228
SB-9-229
SB-9-230
SB-9-231
SB-9-232
SB-9-233
SB-9-234
SB-9-235
SB-9-236
SB-9-237
SB-9-238
SB-9-239
SB-9-240
SB-9-241
SB-9-242
SB-9-243
Sample ID
SB-8-6
SB-8-8
SB-8-10
SB-8-12
SB-8-14
SB-8-16
SB-8-16B
SB-8-16B
SB-8-18
SB-8-20
SB-8-22
SB-8-24
SB-8-26
SB-8-28
SB-8-30
SB-8-32
SB-8-34
SB-8-36
SB-8-38
SB-8-42
SB-8-44
SB-8-BLANK
SB-9-2
SB-9-4
SB-9-6
SB-9-8
SB-9-9.5
SB-9-11.5
SB-9-13.5
SB-9-15.5
SB-9-17.5
SB-9-19.5
SB-9-21 .5
SB-9-21 .56
SB-9-23.5
SB-9-25.5
SB-9-27.5
SB-9-29.5
SB-9-31 .5
SB-9-33.5
SB-9-35.5
SB-9-37.5
SB-9-39.5
SB-9-42
SB-9-44
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
40
42
Bottom
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
42
44
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
7.5
9.5
11.5
13.5
15.5
17.5
19.5
19.5
21.5
23.5
25.5
27.5
29.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
40
42
2
4
6
8
9.5
11.5
13.5
15.5
17.5
19.5
21.5
21.5
23.5
25.5
27.5
29.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
39.5
42
44
MeOH
(g)
190
196
191
194
191
189
189
189
188
191
189
192
191
190
188
190
191
188
189
189
190
189
189
188
187
188
189
191
191
189
188
190
190
187
189
188
188
188
190
185
188
189
188
187
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
186
128
139
134
53
119
105
105
122
133
175
167
201
80
148
173
159
176
164
227
183
0
94
111
173
220.7
212.9
126.6
126.3
133.3
170.7
221.1
204.6
232.2
198
188.4
186.3
233.8
199.4
207
116
166.2
134.2
170.1
195
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
169
104
106
111
45
91
80
80
90
111
136
120
143
62
115
133
109
121
125
170
154
0
86
98
143
187
170
104
102
98
140
171
165
165
147
148
135
181
157
163
83
119
99
132
135
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<320
830 R
330 J
600 R
940 J
430 J
1 30,000 E
230,000 D
310J
1.300R
140,000
190,000
180,000
130,000
120,000
100,000
160,000
60,000
89,000
120,000
4,900,000
2801
<250
710
<250
<250
4,200
370
<250
490
270
3,200
8,500
7,500
17,000
17,000
48,000
18,000
1,600
<500
850
<250
2,100
33,000
35,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.2
0.6
193.2
341.8
0.5
1.7
217.3
329.1
329.8
183.6
181.5
157.5
294.5
112.8
140.9
208.6
6,711.5
0.4
ND
0.9
ND
ND
6.5
0.5
ND
0.8
0.4
5.2
12.7
14.3
29.1
26.3
84.3
29.8
2.5
ND
1.4
ND
3.4
51.1
66.8
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<320
<480
<430
<460
<1,100
190 J
650
650
<490
190 J
<5,700
<9,100
<5,000
1 ,900 J
2.600J
5,200
19,000
36,000
15,000
5,500 J
<220,000
<250
<250
1,900
440
610
<500
<250
<250
2,000
390
<500
< 1,000
< 1,000
2,000
5,200
14,000
12,000
7,700
4,500
250
670
2,200
<3,100
<3,800
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
1.0
1.0
ND
0.3
ND
ND
ND
2.7
3.9
8.2
35.0
67.7
23.7
9.6
ND
ND
ND
2.3
0.6
0.8
ND
ND
ND
3.2
0.6
ND
ND
ND
3.4
8.0
24.6
19.9
12.0
7.0
0.4
1.2
3.5
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH (ug/L)
<320
<480
<430
<460
<1,100
<500
<570
<570
<490
<450
<5,700
<9,100
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<7,600
<3,400
<3,600
<6,200
<220,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
< 1,000
< 1,000
<2,000
<2,000
<3,100
<2,000
< 1,000
<500
<250
<250
<250
<3,100
<3,800
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<9,900
<1 5,000
<6,800
<7,300
<12,000
<440,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
< 1,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
< 1,000
<2,000
<2,000
<4,000
<4,000
<6,200
<7,500
<2,000
< 1,000
<500
<500
<500
<6,200
<7,500
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-3. Resistive Heating Predemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-9-244
SB-1 0-004
SB-1 0-005
SB-1 0-006
SB-1 0-007
SB-1 0-008
SB-1 0-009
SB-1 0-010
SB-1 0-036
SB-1 0-037
SB-1 0-038
SB-1 0-039
SB-1 0-039
SB-1 0-040
SB-1 0-040
SB-1 0-041
SB-1 0-041
SB-1 0-042
SB-1 0-043
SB-1 0-044
SB-1 0-045
SB-1 0-045
SB-1 0-046
SB-1 0-047
SB-1 0-049
SB-1 0-050
SB-1 0-051
SB-1 0-052
SB-1 0-053
SB-1 0-053
SB-1 0-054
SB-1 1-1 74
SB-1 1-1 75
SB-1 1-1 76
SB-1 1-177
SB-1 1-1 78
SB-1 1-1 79
SB-1 1-1 80
SB-1 1-181
SB-1 1-1 82
SB-1 1-1 83
SB-1 1-1 84
SB-1 1-1 85
SB-1 1-1 86
Sample ID
SB-9-BLANK
SB-1 0-2
SB-1 0-4
SB-1 0-6
SB-1 0-7.5
SB-1 0-9.5
SB-1 0-1 1.5
SB-1 0-1 3.5
SB-1 0-1 5.5
SB-1 0-1 7.5
SB-1 0-1 9.5
SB-10-21.5
SB-10-21.5
SB-1 0-23.5
SB-1 0-23.5
SB-1 0-25.5
SB-1 0-25.5
SB-1 0-27.5
SB-1 0-29.5
SB-10-29.5B
SB-1 0-31 .5
SB-1 0-31 .5
SB-1 0-33.5
SB-1 0-35.5
SB-1 0-37.5
SB-1 0-39.5
SB-1 0-41 .5
SB-1 0-43.75
SB-1 0-44.75
SB-1 0-44.75
SB-10-BLANK
SB-1 1-2
SB-1 1-4
SB-1 1-6
SB-1 1-8
SB-1 1-9.5
SB-1 1-1 1.5
SB-11-13.5
SB-11-15.5
SB-1 1-1 7.5
SB-11-19.5
SB-1 1-21. 5
SB-1 1-25.5
SB-11-25.5B
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
7.5
9.5
11.5
13.5
15.5
17.5
19.5
19.5
21.5
21.5
23.5
23.5
25.5
27.5
27.5
29.5
29.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
39.5
41.75
42.75
42.75
2
4
6
7.5
9.5
11.5
13.5
15.5
17.5
19.5
21.5
21.5
23.5
23.5
25.5
25.5
27.5
29.5
29.5
31.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
39.5
41.5
43.75
44.75
44.75
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
6
7.5
9.5
11.5
13.5
15.5
17.5
19.5
23.5
23.5
2
4
6
8
9.5
11.5
13.5
15.5
17.5
19.5
21.5
25.5
25.5
MeOH
(g)
191
190
191
191
191
190
186
189
188
188
188
188
189
189
188
188
188
189
189
192
192
195
191
189
194
192
192
192
192
188
191
192
189
185
188
196
194
194
188
191
189
188
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
0
244.2
204.2
330.2
134.2
174.2
154.2
341.2
256.2
313.1
227.2
278.2
278.2
222.2
222.2
179.2
179.2
204.2
182.2
239.2
157.2
157.2
316
236
190.2
249
208.2
221
201
201
0
111
150
161
145
93
166
197
139
229
150
281
161
126
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
0
225.9
193
279.8
117
151.8
111.8
271.8
205
241
190
222
222
178
178
142
142
147
152
203
126
126
216
174
142
198.3
155.5
167.1
146.8
146.8
0
98
143
142
120
74
136
146
107
177
112
223
109
122
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
3,100
2,200
<250
1,100
<250
<250
480
1 9,000 E
19,0000
62,000 E
60,000 D
69,000 E
70,000 D
54,000
29,000
25,000
3,300
<250
<250
<250
<250
8,800
7,400
15,000
5,600 E
6,700 E
<250
3,400
2,600
1,700
2,000
540
790
<250
770
1,000
<250
5,600
50,000
25,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.9
2.8
ND
1.9
ND
ND
0.7
30.9
30.9
95.5
92.4
104.3
105.8
97.8
40.3
35.1
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
13.9
12.6
25.4
9.8
11.8
ND
4.1
2.8
2.1
2.7
0.7
1.1
ND
1.2
1.6
ND
9.2
94.2
26.4
cis -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
1 1 ,000
16,000
15,000
9,1 00 E
9,500
2,600
250
1,800
14,000
3,200
<250
1,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
< 1,000
3,300
<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
19.9
22.2
21.1
13.2
13.8
5.8
0.4
3.0
22.2
5.5
ND
2.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.2
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
< 1,000
<3,100
<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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,000
<6,200
<4,000
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-3. Resistive Heating Predemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Analytical
Sample ID
SB-1 1-187
SB-11-188
SB-1 1-1 89
SB-1 1-1 90
SB-1 1-191
SB-1 1-1 92
SB-1 1-1 93
SB-1 1-1 94
SB-1 1-1 95
SB-1 1-1 96
SB-1 2-077
SB-1 2-078
SB-1 2-079
SB-1 2-080
SB-1 2-081
SB-1 2-082
SB-1 2-083
SB-1 2-084
SB-1 2-085
SB-1 2-086
SB-1 2-087
SB-1 2-088
SB-1 2-089
SB-1 2-090
SB-1 2-090
SB-1 2-091
SB-1 2-092
SB-1 2-093
SB-1 2-094
SB-1 2-095
SB-1 2-096
SB-1 2-098
SB-1 2-099
SB-1 2-1 23
Sample ID
SB-1 1-27.5
SB-1 1-29.5
SB-1 1-31 .5
SB-1 1-33.5
SB-1 1-35.5
SB-1 1-37.5
SB-1 1-39.5
SB-1 1-42.5
SB-1 1-44.5
SB-11-BLANK
SB-1 2-2
SB-1 2-4
SB-1 2-6
SB-1 2-9.5
SB-12-11.5
SB-12-13.5
SB-12-15.5
SB-12-19.5
SB-12-21.5
SB-1 2-23.5
SB-1 2-25.5
SB-1 2-27.5
SB-12-27.5B
SB-1 2-29.5
SB-1 2-29.5
SB-1 2-31 .5
SB-1 2-33.5
SB-1 2-35.5
SB-1 2-37.5
SB-1 2-39.5
SB-1 2-41 .5
SB-1 2-43.5
SB-1 2-45.5
SB-12-BLANK
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
25.5
27.5
29.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
40.5
42.5
Bottom
Depth
27.5
29.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
39.5
42.5
44.5
MeOH Blank Sample
0
2
4
7.5
9.5
11.5
13.5
17.5
19.5
21.5
23.5
25.5
25.5
27.5
27.5
29.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
39.5
41.5
43.5
2
4
6
9.5
11.5
13.5
15.5
19.5
21.5
23.5
25.5
27.5
27.5
29.5
29.5
31.5
33.5
35.5
37.5
39.5
41.5
43.5
45.5
MeOH Blank Sample
MeOH
(g)
189
188
188
191
190
189
189
179
187
193
191
189
192
194
193
190
195
193
195
192
195
192
192
192
191
189
193
190
193
187
194
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
255
127
224
223
164
150
216
152
129
0
166
118
206
266
196
133
163
91
181
107
160
214
127
182
182
146
216
130
230
150
223
184
185
0
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
100
NA
171
172
113
109
161
113
81
0
148
92
157
211
157
NA
127.2
69.2
141
77
109.8
155
80
136.9
136.9
114
179.9
91
158.6
119.5
165.9
124.9
119.4
0
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
36,000
31,0001
26,000
13,000
1,100
0
250
22,000
23,000
<250
<370
<510
<250
<250
1,600
230 J, 1
<370
<680
9,900
25,000
61 ,000
47,000
130,000
18,0000
1 7,000 E
1,500
270
120 J
340
360 J
9,200
19,000
700
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
167.1
48.8
43.7
21.4
2.0
0.0
0.4
36.0
46.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4
0.4
ND
ND
15.3
40.1
112.1
84.5
256.9
29.6
27.9
2.2
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.5
16.1
36.5
1.5
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
8,900
13,0001
22,000
19,000
15,000
2,800
3,600
2,300
1,800
<250
<370
<510
<250
<250
<310
<460
160 J
510J
1,600
4,200
13,000
20,000
10,000
23,000 D
22,000 E
12,000
7,200
910
460
280 J
3,000
3,700
360
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
41.3
20.5
36.9
31.2
27.6
4.7
6.2
3.8
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
0.7
2.5
6.7
23.9
36.0
19.8
37.8
36.1
17.9
10.3
1.6
0.9
0.4
5.3
7.1
0.7
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH (ug/L)
<5,000
<2,000
<2,000
<2,000
< 1,000
<250
<250
<2,000
< 1,200
<250
<370
<510
<250
<250
<310
<460
<370
<680
<340
< 1,200
< 1,900
<1,700
<4,800
470
<330
170 J
<250
<470
<250
<410
<330
<670
<320
<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
0.8
ND
0.3 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<1 0,000
<4,000
<4,000
<4,000
<2,000
<500
<500
<4,000
<2,500
<500
<730
< 1,000
<500
<500
<630
<920
<740
< 1,400
<670
<2,300
<3,800
<3,300
<9,600
<670
<670
<830
<500
<940
<500
<810
<660
< 1,300
<650
<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
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^eports\Final SPHV\ppendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg)
Sample ID
SB-201-2
SB-201-4
SB-201-6
SB-201-8
SB-201-10
SB-201-12
SB-201-14
SB-201-16
SB-201-18
SB-201-20
SB-201-22
SB-201-24
SB-201-26
SB-201-28
SB-201-30
SB-201-32
SB-201-32-DUP
SB-201-34
SB-201-36
SB-201-38
SB-201-40
SB-201-42
SB-201-44
SB-201-46
SB-201-48
SB-201-76
SB-201-80
SB-201-81
SB-202-2
SB-202-4
SB-202-6
SB-202-8
SB-202-10
SB-202-12
SB-202-14
SB-202-16
SB-202-18
SB-202-18-DUP
SB-202-20
SB-202-22
SB-202-24
SB-202-26
SB-202-28
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
Sample
Date
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/9/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
MeOH
(g)
198
197
194
208
190
199
196
196
NA
199
195
198
201
198
201
203
203
202
198
195
204
193
190
194
199
NA
NA
NA
196
196
188
191
202
205
185
189
201
205
202
199
196
202
198
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
153
198
151
168
204
266
151
165
NR
281
238
216
195
205
218
179
179
197
199
169
187
142
141
235
197
NA
NA
NA
122
122
178
155
234
257
206
206
235
249
190
191
221
268
213
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
131
196
148
165
177
218
128
141
NR
234
204
183
166
166
169
166
144
164
167
137
155
119
125
186
167
NA
NA
NA
122
123
170
146
201
222
173
173
195
206
160
167
186
230
178
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
370
1,400
1,700
880
12,000
9,500
<830
<830
NA
<500
20,000
39,000
2,300,000
230,000
260,000
200,000
190,000
120,000
150,000
130,000
170,000
83,000
71,000
230,000
160,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,000
3,900
28,000
22,000 D
6,100
1,200
35,000
19,000
62,000
2,600,000
820,000
80,000
220,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1
2
3
1
18
13
ND
ND
NA
ND
28
60
3,927
401
467
325
385
211
254
265
318
186
146
364
270
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
7
40
29
9
2
53
28
111
4,295
1,248
102
353
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
730
15,000
12,000
1 1 ,000
NA
7,400
1,600
<1 ,800
<1 00,000
<1 2,000
<1 7,000
<1 0,000
<8,300
<8,300
<8,300
<1 0,000
<3,300
<3,600
<3,600
<8,300
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,000
5,800
5,600
5,500
4,900
3,600
3,700
<2 10,000
<50,000
<5,000
<1 2,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
21
25
21
NA
9
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
9
9
7
5
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<1 ,000
<830
<830
NA
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,800
<1 00,000
<1 2,000
<1 7,000
<1 0,000
<8,300
<8,300
<8,300
<1 0,000
<3,300
<3,600
<3,600
<8,300
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,000
<250
<250
<500
<1 ,000
<720
<2,000
<2 10,000
<50,000
<5,000
<1 2,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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
("g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<2,000
<1 ,700
<1 ,700
NA
<1 ,000
<2,000
<3,600
<200,000
<25,000
<33,000
<20,000
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
<20,000
<6,700
<7,100
<7,100
17,000
<1 2,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<4,000
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<2,000
<1 ,400
<4,000
<420,000
<1 00,000
<1 0,000
<25,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
27
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 SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-202-30
SB-202-32
SB-202-34
SB-202-36
SB-202-38
SB-202-40
SB-202-42
SB-202-44
SB-202-46
SB-202-75
SB-202-77
RINSATE-13
SB-203-2
SB-203-4
SB-203-6
SB-203-8
SB-203-10
SB-203-12
SB-203-14
SB-203-16
SB-203-18
SB-203-20
SB-203-22
SB-203-24
SB-203-26
SB-203-28
SB-203-30
SB-203-32
SB-203-34
SB-203-36
SB-203-38
SB-203-38-DUP
SB-203-40
SB-203-44
SB-203-46
SB-203-056
SB-203-EB
SB-204-2
SB-204-4
SB-204-6
SB-204-8
SB-204-10
SB-204-12
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
2
4
6
8
10
12
Sample
Date
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/9/2000
12/11/2000
12/9/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
MeOH
(g)
197
194
186
192
189
187
195
204
201
NA
NA
NA
203
204
194
196
197
204
187
187
195
195
NA
NA
193
193
192
192
200
196
199
194
201
201
191
NA
NA
194
193
194
194
193
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
227
214
214
264
284
212
227
195
216
NA
NA
NA
95
127
143
139
189
205
145
165
183
175
NR
NR
226
212
206
206
171
179
188
170
187
276
227
NA
NA
117
145
148
120
220
224
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
174
175
169
233
211
181
192
164
189
NA
NA
NA
91
120
131
125
157
178
142
116
148
142
NR
NR
180
165
164
140
145
155
144
125
134
225
191
NA
NA
100
143
144
113
184
185
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
3,200,000
240,000
280,000
87,000
290,000
320,000
170,000
190,000
5,300
<250
<250
<1
430
<250
390
1,300
50,000
71,000
36,000
51,000
51,000
36,000
NA
NA
160,000
140,000
700,000
130,000
29,000
44,000
150,000
130,000
81,000
25,000
28,000 D
<250
1
510
1,500
<250
2,100
3,800
21,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
5,561
390
465
102
429
474
250
335
8
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
1
3
90
114
61
126
97
71
NA
NA
258
247
1,217
287
56
77
308
302
186
34
41
ND
1
3
ND
5
6
32
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<2 10,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<5,000
<1 6,000
< 17,000
12,000
<1 0,000
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,300
<3,000
5,300
1 1 ,000
16,000
17,000
NA
NA
22,000
27,000
25,000
19,000
5,900
3,300
18,000
17,000
14,000
1,000
<500
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,700
1,200
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
9
27
30
34
NA
NA
35
48
43
42
11
6
37
40
32
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
2
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<2 10,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<5,000
<1 6,000
< 17,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,000
<3,000
<1 ,500
<2,000
<2,500
<1,200
NA
NA
<8,300
<5,000
<25,000
<5,000
<1 ,000
<1 ,800
<6,200
<4,200
<3,600
<1 ,000
<500
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<720
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
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<420,000
<25,000
<25,000
<1 0,000
<31,000
<33,000
<20,000
<20,000
<500
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<4,000
<5,900
<3,000
<4,000
<5,000
<2,500
NA
NA
<1 7,000
<1 0,000
<50,000
<1 0,000
<2,000
<3,600
<1 2,000
<8,300
<7,100
<2,000
<1 ,000
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,400
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
NA
NA
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 SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-204-14
SB-204-16
SB-204-18
SB-204-20
SB-204-22
SB-204-24
SB-204-24-DUP
SB-204-26
SB-204-28
SB-204-30
SB-204-32
SB-204-34
SB-204-36
SB-204-38
SB-204-40
SB-204-43
SB-204-45
SB-204-055
SB-204-EB
SB-205-2
SB-205-4
SB-205-6
SB-205-8
SB-205-10
SB-205-12
SB-205-14
SB-205-16
SB-205-18
SB-205-20
SB-205-22
SB-205-24
SB-205-26
SB-205-26B
SB-205-28
SB-205-30
SB-205-32
SB-205-34
SB-205-36
SB-205-38
SB-205-40
SB-205-42
SB-205-45
SB-205-057
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
Bottom
Depth
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
EQ
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
42
45
Lab Blank
Sample
Date
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
MeOH
(g)
NA
NA
193
194
194
201
202
197
192
201
199
194
192
193
193
195
194
NA
NA
193
195
192
192
193
193
192
193
198
203
194
NA
194
194
193
199
202
200
207
205
195
194
193
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NR
NR
212
234
247
164
149
218
216
252
288
237
231
231
192
264
304
NA
NA
81
168
137
93
106
113
164
143
165
129
149
NR
149
169
270
270
195
198
184
185
174
210
214
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NR
NR
174
194
208
135
128
172
175
194
242
196
181
176
162
214
229
NA
NA
79
161
135
88
88
97
140
119
138
100
121
NR
143
127
181
233
159
165
160
148
142
176
181
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
NA
NA
12,000
1,500
61,000
50,000
47,000
140,000
120,000
250,000
160,000
180,000
110,000
250,000
82,000
280,000
260,000
<250
1
1,900
820
6,400
1,600
3,300
3,800
9,000
54,000
98,000
31,000
27,000
NA
100,000
78,000
96,000
82,000
82,000
81,000
36,000
73,000
120,000
61,000
84,000
<250
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
NA
NA
19
2
83
105
102
240
195
403
197
263
178
425
139
388
364
ND
6
1
12
5
10
10
17
122
197
89
61
NA
176
177
177
102
150
140
64
146
236
97
129
ND
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
380
760
<2,000
<1 ,500
<1 ,500
5,500
4,900
<1 0,000
<6,200
<6,200
<4,600
<1 0,000
<3,300
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
1,700
550
2,400
<1,200
<2,000
<830
<830
NA
2,800
<2,500
3,000
2,500
2,500
2,100
1,000
<2,500
2,700
2,100
<2,000
<250
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
NA
NA
1
1
ND
ND
ND
9
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
1
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
5
ND
6
3
5
4
2
ND
5
3
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
NA
NA
<250
<250
<2,000
<1 ,500
<1 ,500
<5,000
<4,600
<1 0,000
<6,200
<6,200
<4,600
<1 0,000
<3,300
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,200
<2,000
<830
<830
NA
<2,500
<2,500
<2,000
<2,500
<2,000
<1 ,800
<1 ,000
<2,500
<2,500
<1,200
<2,000
<250
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
NA
NA
<500
<500
<4,000
<2,900
<3,000
<1 0,000
<9,100
<20,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<9,100
<20,000
<6,600
<20,000
<20,000
<1 2,000
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,500
<4,000
<1 ,700
<1 ,700
NA
<5,000
<5,000
<4,000
<5,000
<4,000
<3,600
<2,000
<5,000
<5,000
<2,500
<4,000
<500
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-205-058
SB-205-EB
SB-206-2
SB-206-4
SB-206-6
SB-206-8
SB-206-10
SB-206-12
SB-206-14
SB-206-16
SB-206-18
SB-206-20
SB-206-22
SB-206-24
SB-206-26
SB-206-26-DUP
SB-206-28
SB-206-30
SB-206-32
SB-206-34
SB-206-36
SB-206-38
SB-206-40
SB-206-43
SB-206-45
SB-206-059
SB-206-060
SB-206-EB
SB-207-2
SB-207-4
SB-207-6
SB-207-8
SB-207-10
SB-207-10-DUP
SB-207-12
SB-207-14
SB-207-16
SB-207-18
SB-207-20
SB-207-22
SB-207-24
SB-207-26
SB-207-28
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
2
4
6
8
10
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Sample
Date
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
MeOH
(g)
NA
NA
193
196
204
202
193
194
207
204
199
199
203
194
195
195
195
195
201
207
195
197
193
203
202
NA
NA
NA
204
200
192
203
206
202
204
194
199
193
195
193
193
192
210
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
56
133
142
149
158
164
162
215
165
213
333
177
124
121
170
177
153
193
210
222
171
179
246
NA
NA
NA
97
160
146
253
202
143
194
202
136
232
246
188
207
246
283
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
57
129
135
137
139
140
135
181
133
190
278
167
102
99
141
147
134
163
182
182
145
150
210
NA
NA
NA
94
155
130
213
173
122
154
168
119
195
208
156
173
172
217
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
1
1,300
<250
2,900
1,700
29,000
36,000
33,000
47,000
77,000
82,000
200,000
88,000
81,000
65,000
120,000
56,000
42,000
35,000
23,000
62,000
48,000
78,000
91,000
<250
<250
1
<250
290
2,900
44,000
<500
<250
<720
<250
660
570
<250
33,000
53,000
280,000
240,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
6
ND
6
3
55
69
71
76
164
119
224
135
213
177
235
105
86
63
35
99
89
149
126
ND
ND
ND
0.48
6
61
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
1
ND
58
85
516
367
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,200
<1 ,800
2,000
2,900
5,300
5,700
17,000
8,500
5,600
4,700
7,100
<3,600
<2,500
9,100
5,800
6,100
7,400
3,700
4,900
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,800
7,900
3,400
16,000
710
650
530
1,600
<1,200
<1 ,800
<1 2,000
<1 0,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
5
11
8
19
13
15
13
14
ND
ND
16
9
10
14
7
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13
8
31
1
1
1
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,200
<1 ,800
<1 ,800
<2,000
<3,600
<4,200
<8,300
<3,100
<4,200
<3,600
<6,200
<3,600
<2,500
<1 ,800
<1 ,500
<2,500
<1 ,800
<3,600
<4,200
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,800
<500
<250
<720
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,200
<1 ,800
<1 2,000
<1 0,000
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,500
<3,600
<3,600
<4,000
<7,100
<8,300
<1 7,000
<6,200
<8,300
<7,100
<1 2,000
<7,100
<5,000
<3,600
<2,900
<5,000
<3,600
<7,100
<8,300
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<3,600
<1 ,000
<500
<1 ,400
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,500
<3,600
<25,000
<20,000
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-207-30
SB-207-32
SB-207-34
SB-207-36
SB-207-38
SB-207-40
SB-207-42
SB-207-44
SB-207-054
SB-207-EB
SB-208-2
SB-208-4
SB-208-6
SB-208-8
SB-208-10
SB-208-12
SB-208-14
SB-208-16
SB-208-18
SB-208-20
SB-208-22
SB-208-24
SB-208-26
SB-208-28
SB-208-30
SB-208-32
SB-208-34
SB-208-36
SB-208-38
SB-208-40
SB-208-40-DUP
SB-208-42
SB-208-44
SB-208-45
SB-208-052
SB-208-EB
SB-209-2
SB-209-4
SB-209-6
SB-209-8
SB-209-10
SB-209-12
SB-209-14
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
Bottom
Depth
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
45
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Sample
Date
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/15/2000
11/16/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
MeOH
(g)
193
202
156
240
193
193
199
204
NA
NA
192
196
194
187
191
206
193
197
196
NA
198
197
196
191
192
NA
197
196
203
204
195
199
204
191
NA
NA
202
194
203
190
203
194
195
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
196
205
223
185
222
213
293
275
NA
NA
134
181
170
156
176
188
154
188
252
NR
240
227
289
212
150
NR
228
199
310
235
247
265
277
254
NA
NA
115
75
171
191
223
166
188
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
152
175
152
145
177
183
193
219
NA
NA
130
177
156
133
154
164
125
163
215
NR
192
186
204
153
74
NR
179
151
248
201
214
220
232
202
NA
NA
110
71
147
173
193
145
154
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
98,000
120,000
220,000
170,000
97,000
55,000
280,000
190,000
<250
1
820
1,000
2,900
37,000
<250
<250
1 1 ,000
3,700
20,000
NA
21,000
7,700
18,000
16,000
8,000
NA
31,000
32,000
1,400
7,600
8,600
3,100
40,000
110,000
<250
1
<250
<250
2,000
3,600
550
540
2,500
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
186
196
389
403
159
82
511
273
ND
2
1
5
72
ND
ND
24
6
27
NA
33
12
29
31
34
NA
52
63
2
11
11
4
52
160
ND
ND
ND
4
5
1
1
5
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<4,600
<4,600
<1 0,000
<6,200
<4,200
<2,500
<1 2,000
<6,200
<250
<1
370
<250
530
<2,500
1,100
470
830
380
1,700
NA
3,500
1,500
4,100
3,800
1,500
NA
4,000
4,000
490
770
890
420
2,800
6,000
<250
<1
290
<250
600
1,600
2,400
1,300
9,600
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
1
ND
2
1
2
1
2
NA
5
2
7
7
6
NA
7
8
1
1
1
1
4
9
ND
ND
1
ND
1
2
4
2
18
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<4,600
<4,600
<1 0,000
<6,200
<4,200
<2,500
<1 2,000
<6,200
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<2,500
<250
<250
<500
<250
<720
NA
<1 ,000
<380
<720
<720
<250
NA
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,800
<4,600
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
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
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<9,100
<9,100
<20,000
<1 2,000
<8,400
<5,000
<25,000
<1 2,000
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<5,000
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<500
<1 ,400
NA
<2,000
<770
<1 ,400
<1 ,400
<500
NA
<2,000
<2,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<3,600
<9,100
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
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
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
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 SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-209-16
SB-209-18
SB-209-18B
SB-209-20
SB-209-22
SB-209-24
SB-209-26
SB-209-28
SB-209-30
SB-209-32
SB-209-34
SB-209-36
SB-209-38
SB-209-40
SB-209-42
SB-209-44
SB-209-EB
SB-210-2
SB-210-4
SB-210-6
SB-210-8
SB-210-10
SB-210-12
SB-210-14
SB-210-16
SB-210-18
SB-2 10-20
SB-2 10-22
SB-2 10-24
SB-2 10-26
SB-210-26B
SB-2 10-28
SB-2 10-30
SB-2 10-32
SB-2 10-34
SB-2 10-36
SB-2 10-38
SB-2 10-40
SB-2 10-42
SB-2 10-44
SB-2 10-46
SB-210-EB
SB-210B-2
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
Bottom
Depth
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
EQ
0 2
Sample
Date
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/13/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/27/2000
MeOH
(g)
200
199
189
199
195
193
201
193
193
192
193
193
193
193
192
200
NA
192
198
191
193
NA
NA
199
191
190
198
194
194
191
198
200
195
190
202
199
194
198
200
182
194
NA
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
172
232
163
178
172
222
249
230
240
263
236
224
224
236
272
295
NA
113
127
107
135
NR
NR
287
117
131
314
201
253
243
224
357
317
215
281
240
187
287
264
192
163
NA
144
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
139
191
138
149
133
182
191
190
197
233
197
171
194
172
206
232
NA
109
125
95
114
NR
NR
241
101
111
263
164
202
196
183
281
255
163
224
167
150
222
206
140
129
NA
139
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
1,800
8,600
3,000
1,700
13,000
22,000
39,000
24,000
19,000
9,400
13,000
3,100
52,000
30,000
51,000
38,000
1
<250
<250
1,200
1 1 ,000
NA
NA
<250
2,200
NA
8,700
52,000
31,000
180,000
120,000
100,000
140,000
160,000
150,000
220,000
140,000
170,000
170,000
50,000
27,000
1
1,600
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
4
13
6
3
28
34
64
36
28
11
19
5
74
54
77
52
ND
ND
3
26
NA
NA
ND
6
NA
10
90
46
265
191
117
170
287
209
428
264
242
257
101
59
3
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
5,800
16,000
5,900
12,000
7,400
9,500
36,000
20,000
19,000
9,700
5,300
10,000
2,300
<1,200
<1 ,800
<1,200
<1
<250
<250
<250
910
NA
NA
420
<250
NA
340
<1 ,800
1,000
<6,200
<5,000
3,400
13,000
5,000
<6,200
<1 0,000
<5,000
<7,200
<7,200
4,600
2,100
<1
<250
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
12
25
11
23
16
15
59
30
28
11
8
17
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
NA
NA
1
ND
NA
0
ND
1
ND
ND
4
16
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
5
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<500
<1,200
<500
<1 ,000
<500
<720
<1,200
<1,200
<1 ,000
<720
<500
<720
<1 ,800
<1,200
<1 ,800
<1,200
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
NA
NA
<250
<250
NA
<250
<1 ,800
<1 ,000
<6,200
<5,000
<2,500
<3,600
<5,000
<6,200
<1 0,000
<5,000
<7,200
<7,200
<2,500
<1,200
<1
<250
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
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<1 ,000
<2,500
<1 ,000
<2,000
<1 ,000
<1 ,400
<2,500
<2,500
<2,000
<1 ,400
<1 ,000
<1 ,400
<3,600
<2,500
<3,600
<2,500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
NA
NA
<500
<500
NA
<500
<3,600
<2,000
<1 2,000
<1 0,000
<5,000
<7,200
<1 0,000
<1 2,000
<20,000
<1 0,000
<1 4,000
<1 4,000
<5,000
<2,500
<2
<500
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
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
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 SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-210B-4
SB-210B-6
SB-210B-8
SB-210B-10
SB-210B-12
SB-210B-14
SB-210B-16
SB-210B-18
SB-210B-20
SB-210B-22
SB-210B-24
SB-210B-26
SB-210B-28
SB-210B-30
SB-210B-32
SB-210B-32B
SB-210B-34
SB-210B-36
SB-210B-38
SB-210B-40
SB-210B-42
SB-210B-44
SB-061-A
RINSATE-1
SB-211-2
SB-211-4
SB-211-6
SB-211-8
SB-211-10
SB-211-12
SB-211-14
SB-211-16
SB-211-18
SB-211-20
SB-211-22
SB-211-24
SB-211-26
SB-211-28
SB-211-30
SB-211-32
SB-211-32B
SB-211-34
SB-211-36
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
Bottom
Depth
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
Sample
Date
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/28/2000
11/27/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
MeOH
(g)
198
199
200
NA
NA
203
208
193
208
192
205
194
192
191
190
190
187
192
194
194
191
191
NA
NA
192
195
194
194
194
NA
197
NA
199
202
200
200
197
197
205
195
195
195
207
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
122
160
193
NR
NR
174
165
208
184
161
216
224
237
195
192
171
200
169
205
195
193
190
NA
NA
66
67
119
233
233
NR
210
NR
249
193
226
181
207
219
190
201
163
163
196
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
114
134
159
NR
NR
149
139
176
153
137
177
169
194
163
168
151
150
133
177
164
162
145
NA
NA
66
60
107
94
197
NR
177
NR
209
169
190
151
177
186
137
178
144
161
163
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
1,000
1 1 ,000
1 1 ,000
NA
NA
<250
<250
700
2,900
8,200
29,000
320,000
210,000
46,000
17,000
12,000
180,000
150,000
80,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
<250
1
1,600
410
1,300
12,000
470
NA
<830
NA
1,600
1,800
9,000
4,400
2,300
8,300
140,000
67,000
50,000
51,000
39,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
2
23
20
NA
NA
ND
ND
1
6
16
49
569
310
77
27
21
344
315
124
219
236
297
ND
6
2
3
49
1
NA
ND
NA
2
3
14
8
4
13
319
102
92
79
71
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
1,600
3,700
NA
NA
<250
<250
<250
310
250
<1,200
<1 2,000
<8,300
4,600
3,200
2,400
<8,300
<8,300
<4,200
<8,300
<6,200
<8,300
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
1,300
3,700
NA
9,500
NA
4,500
1,400
8,800
5,700
2,400
8,700
9,500
3,200
<2,500
10,000
6,700
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
3
7
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
1
0
ND
ND
ND
8
5
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
5
NA
15
NA
6
2
13
11
4
13
22
5
ND
15
12
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<460
<500
NA
NA
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,200
<1 2,000
<8,300
<1 ,800
<830
<500
<8,300
<8,300
<4,200
<8,300
<6,200
<8,300
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<500
<250
NA
<830
NA
<250
<250
<830
<500
<250
<250
<5,000
<2,500
<2,500
<1 ,800
<1,200
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<500
<910
<1 ,000
NA
NA
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,500
<25,000
<1 7,000
<3,600
<1 ,700
<1 ,000
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
<8,300
<1 7,000
<1 2,000
<1 7,000
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<500
NA
<1 ,700
NA
<500
<500
<1 ,700
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<1 0,000
<5,000
<5,000
<3,600
<2,500
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table C-4. Resistive Heating Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Sample ID
SB-211-38
SB-211-40
SB-211-42
SB-211-44
SB-211-50
SB-211-EB
SB-212-2
SB-212-4
SB-212-6
SB-212-8
SB-212-10
SB-212-12
SB-212-14
SB-212-16
SB-212-18
SB-212-20
SB-212-22
SB-212-24
SB-212-26
SB-212-28
SB-2 12-30
SB-2 12-32
SB-2 12-34
SB-2 12-36
SB-212-36-DUP
SB-2 12-38
SB-2 12-40
SB-2 12-42
SB-2 12-44
SB-2 12-45
SB-21 2-051
SB-212-EB
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
36
38
40
42
Bottom
Depth
38
40
42
44
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
44
45
Lab Blank
EQ
Sample
Date
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
1/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
MeOH
(g)
199
202
202
196
NA
NA
163
191
197
194
198
191
197
196
200
193
195
191
193
191
193
192
193
199
194
193
199
190
195
199
NA
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
265
197
317
218
NA
NA
131
142
140
161
138
257
150
178
195
193
199
237
211
325
244
188
224
159
164
201
263
300
216
216
NA
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
238
182
255
189
NA
NA
126
121
135
132
117
220
129
152
164
153
169
182
163
263
206
157
190
132
134
165
223
221
162
159
NA
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
12,000
5,800
1,300
<250
<250
1
<250
1,600
5,300
5,600
7,100
<250
660
790
<380
2,600
2,200
3,400
1 1 ,000
8,600
5,400
1,900
16,000
290
630
1,600
<250
520
1,000
4,300
<250
1
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
14
9
2
ND
ND
ND
3
10
12
16
ND
1
1
ND
5
4
6
20
10
7
3
23
1
1
3
ND
1
2
8
ND
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
4,200
1,400
3,000
530
<250
<1
<250
<250
640
2,300
2,500
3,900
1,400
8,000
5,100
22,000
14,000
45,000
44,000
54,000
33,000
22,000
25,000
950
1,500
5,200
<250
260
390
670
<250
<1
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
5
2
4
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
5
6
5
3
14
9
41
23
73
79
62
45
38
37
2
3
9
ND
0
1
1
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<380
<1 ,800
<1 ,000
<3,100
<3,100
<3,600
<2,500
<1 ,800
<1 ,800
<250
<250
<380
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
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
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<770
<3,600
<2,000
<6,200
<6,200
<7,200
<5,000
<3,600
<3,600
<500
<500
<770
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2
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
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
NR: No recovery.
EQ: Equipment rinsate blank.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
D: Result was quanitified after dilution.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Figure C-l. TCE Concentrations in Soil and Observed Soil Color Results at Resistive Heating Plot (mg/kg)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
Pre-
Demo
SB1
8
5
0.3
3
11
9
12
NA
4
122
315
1,935
820
526
941
19,091
349
624
1,025
5,874
5,677
368
33,100
37,537
Post-
Demo
SB201
0.8
1.8
2.9
1.4
18
13
ND
ND
NA
ND
28
60
3,927
401
467
385
211
254
265
318
186
146
364
270
Pre-
Demo
SB2
NA
NA
1.7
0.7
0.4 J
0.7
ND
1.1
0.7
2.5
2
50
108
292
458
295
174
176
440
558
5
249
251
41,044
Post-
Demo
SB202
ND
ND
2.9
6.7
40.2
29.2
9.4
1.9
53
111
4,295
1,248
102
353
5,561
390
465
102
429
474
250
335
8
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB3
9.2
0.9
0.1 J
0.3 J
0.3 J
0.3 J
0.3 J
0.6
1.3
1.0
8.9
NA
183
109
35
5
17
35.5 D
1.4 J
27
115
204
220
NA
Post-
Demo
SB203
1
ND
1
3
90
114
61
126
97
71
NA
NA
258
247
1,217
287
56
77
308
302
186
34
41
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB4
ND
4.6
5.1
48.7
0.2 J
4.6
NA
8.3
6.5
6.0
54.1
60
9,051
185
167
12,669
112
100
288
848
160
167
30,223
NA
Post-
Demo
SB204
1
3
ND
5
6
32
NA
NA
19
2
83
105
240
195
403
197
263
178
425
139
388
364
NA
NA
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Pre-
Demo
SB5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3 J
ND
ND
ND
5.2
27.7
1,835
260
5,880
542
902
5,345
23,362
8,062
28,168
6,534
37,104
NA
Post-
Demo
SB205
6
1
12
5
10
10
17
122
197
89
61
NA
177
177
102
150
140
64
146
236
97
129
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.9
ND
3.9
18.6
10.8
69.1
54.6
17.0
17.5
11.4
20.5
11.2
18.8
5.8
313.1
Post-
Demo
SB206
6
ND
6
3
55
69
71
76
164
119
224
135
213
235
105
86
63
35
99
89
149
126
NA
Post-
Demo
SB 7
0.6
0.1
ND
ND
1.0
0.0
ND
0.2
0.0
10
31
NA
143
330
140
125
91
139
260
113
217
8,802
NA
Post-
Demo
SB207
ND
0
6
61
ND
ND
ND
1
1
ND
58
85
516
367
186
196
389
403
159
82
511
273
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB8
0.3 J
0.2 J
ND
1.1
0.5 J
0.8
1.2 J
342
0.5 J
1.7
217
329
330
184
182
157
294
113
141
NA
209
6,711
NA
Post-
Demo
SB208
2
1
5
72
ND
ND
24
6
27
NA
33
12
29
31
34
NA
52
63
2
11
4
52
160
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Figure C-l. TCE Concentrations in Soil and Observed Soil Color Results at Resistive Heating Plot (mg/kg)
(Continued)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Pre-
Demo
SB9
ND
0.9
ND
ND
6.5
0.5
ND
0.8
0.4
5
14
29
26
84
30
2.5
ND
1.4
ND
3.4
51
67
NA
Post-
Demo
SB209
ND
ND
4
5
1
1
5
4
13
3
28
34
64
36
28
11
NA
5
74
54
77
52
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB10
ND
ND
ND
3.9
2.8
ND
1.9
ND
ND
0.7
30.9
92.4
106
98
40.3
4.8
ND
ND
ND
13.9
12.6
25.4
11.8
Post-
Demo
SB210
ND
ND
3
26
NA
NA
ND
6
NA
10
90
46
265
117
170
287
209
428
264
242
257
101
59
Pre-
Demo
SB10B
SB10B
Duplicate
Post-
Demo
SB210B
3
2
23
20
NA
NA
ND
ND
1
6
16
49
569
310
77
27
344
315
124
219
236
297
NA
Pre-
Demo
SB11
4.1
2.8
2.1
2.7
0.7
1.1
ND
1.2
1.6
ND
9.2
NA
94
167
49
43.7
21.4
2.0
0.0
0.4
36.0
46.0
NA
Post-
Demo
SB211
6
2
3
49
1
NA
ND
NA
2
3
14
8
4
13
319
102
79
71
14
9
2
ND
NA
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Pre-
Demo
SB12
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
2.4
0.4 J
ND
NA
ND
15.3
40.1
112.1
256.9
29.6
2.2
0.4
0.2 J
0.7
0.5 J
16.1
36.5
1.5
Post-
Demo
SB212
ND
3
10
12
16
ND
1
1
ND
5
4
6
20
10
7
3
23
1
3
ND
1
2
8
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
Solid horizontal lines demarcate MFGU. Tan and gray colors are the observed colors from soil samples.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Appendix D. Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
Tables D-l to D-7
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters
Well ID
pH
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan.
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Rest
Heat
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
ORP(mV)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan.
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Rest
Heat
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13I
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA-14I
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
6.31
NA
6.54
7.59
NA
6.76
6.77
7.44
6.29
6.73
7.06
6.31
-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
-106.80
NA
-97.00
-43.80
NA
-249.90
-17.10
-68.40
-237.50
-17.70
-88.50
-221.30
Resistive Heating Plot 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
6.98
6.85
6.80
6.59
6.77
6.78
7.16
7.05
7.74
Dry
6.61
7.41
6.30
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
-114.20
-102.50
-77.10
-110.00
-73.60
-163.20
-149.00
-122.40
-104.50
Dry
-106.90
-156.60
-76.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA-IS
PA-1I
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
7.35
7.32
6.94
6.95
6.53
6.80
8.14
7.23
7.77
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
-128.20
-234.90
-213.00
-134.90
-76.20
-110.90
14.20
-145.00
-123.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.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
Rest
Heat
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Temperature (°C)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan.
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Rest
Heat
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA-14I
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
0.63
NA
0.81
0.60
NA
NA
0.84
1.11
0.30
0.55
0.99
0.35
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
36.35
NA
51.66
41.19
NA
31.59
36.06
35.51
41.34
36.23
37.25
41.36
Resistive Heating Plot 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
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
0.41
0.55
0.96
0.84
0.64
0.41
1.57
2.57
NA
Dry
0.47
0.42
0.52
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
35.19
36.42
36.88
33.10
31.35
32.42
39.87
42.08
39.80
Dry
28.87
47.62
35.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA-1I
PA- ID
PA-8S
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-US
PA- 111
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
0.51
0.41
0.50
1.03
0.94
0.68
2.15
NA
NA
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
25.91
25.92
25.64
27.53
27.54
26.46
27.66
27.26
26.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.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
Kest
Heating
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Pre-
Demo
Week
3-4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Kest
Heating
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA- 131
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
190.2
NA
200.0
253.2
NA
47.1
255.9
204.6
35.5
255.3
184.5
51.7
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
4.78
NA
29.05
4.03
NA
18.18
1.51
1.50
0.47
1.35
1.49
0.75
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10D
[W-17S
[W-17I
[W-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
182.8
194.5
219.9
187.0
223.4
133.8
148.0
174.6
192.5
Dry
190.1
140.4
220.6
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
2.93
3.10
7.67
2.14
2.21
3.93
3.24
2.26
5.19
NA
2.01
4.81
3.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA-IS
PA-1I
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
168.8
62.10
84.00
162.10
220.80
186.10
311.2
152.00
173.60
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
1.57
1.30
2.32
4.42
6.29
5.61
7.12
10.73
5.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pre-Demo: Sep 3 to 10,1999.
Week 3-4: Sep 24 to 20, 1999.
Week 7-8: Oct 19 to 28, 1999.
ISCO Post-Demo: May 8 to 14,2000.
Resistive Heating Post-Demo: Nov 27 to Dec 2, 2000.
NA: Not available.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final OX\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table D-2. Iron, Manganese, and Postassium 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
Kestv
Heating
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
2.6
0.33
<0.05
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
0.4
0.49
0.43
8.9
0.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.52
NA
<0.25
<0.25
NA
<0.25
0.15
0.45
0.13
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2I-DUP
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-VD-Dup
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10I-Dup
PA-10D
PA-10D-DUP
[W-17S
[W-17I
[W-17D
PA- 15
1.4
0.28
NA
9.72
1.2
<0.05
<0.05
NA
4.8
12.6
NA
1.2
NA
0.16
<0.05
0.24
NA
7.00
0.62
NA
4.20
2.40
<0.05
1.70
NA
3.50
9.50
NA
0.69
NA
3.20
1.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
3.6
NA
0.96
4.2
0.26
1.6
NA
4.5
8.3
NA
0.69
0.68
0.099
3.2
<0.050
<0.050
0.82
2 2
2.5
4.6
9.8
0.52
0.24
NA
4.5
3.8
NA
0.3
NA
NS2
18.7
<0.05
2.5
2.7
1.6
NA
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.96
1.4
NA
0.27
7.2
0.73
0.53
0.64
1.3
3.5
3.7
<0.05
NA
NS2
2.5
0.39
5.1
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-lD-Dup
PA-8S
PA-8S-DUP
PA-8I
0.12
<0.05
NA
0.11
NA
1.9
NA
0.23
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.12
NA
1.60
NA
0.14
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.16
NA
2.1
2
<0.05
3.3
0.082
NA
0.15
NA
0.16
0.46
0.57
0.2
<0.05
NA
<0.05
NA
2.7
NA
0.7
0.45
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
4.1
NA
4
0.86
0.7
NA
0.48
0.54
5.6
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganese (mg/L)
0.05 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Week 3
4
Week
7-8
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Kestv
Heating
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Potassium (mg/L)
NA
Pre-
Demo
Apr
2000
0.963
0.023
<0.015
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
<0.015
0.015
0.17
0.028
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.079
NA
0.13
<0.015
NA
<0.075
0.071
0.11
0.16
<0.015
<0.015
0.021
<5.0
12.5
20.2
NA
NA
NA
29.1
29.7
46.4
18.6
34.1
34.4
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Kestv
Heating
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
126
NA
136
9.8
NA
143
174
48.5
85.5
42.6
14.2
93.9
0.067
0.03
NA
1
0.037
0.03
0.028
NA
0.11
0.13
NA
0.029
NA
0.035
0.068
0.053
NA
0.072
0.066
NA
0.093
0.068
0.026
0.039
NA
0.039
0.120
NA
0.063
NA
0.088
0.068
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
0.12
NA
0.033
0.068
0.02
0.03
NA
0.044
0.12
NA
0.044
0.044
<0.015
0.066
<0.015
<0.015
0.072
0.098
0.096
0.098
0.15
0.043
0.054
NA
0.047
0.059
NA
0.021
NA
NS2
0.16
0.024
0.084
0.071
0.048
NA
0.036
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.054
0.1
NA
0.039
0.074
0.077
0.11
0.11
0.029
0.062
0.063
<0.015
NA
NS2
0.047
0.025
0.11
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
99.3
19.4
19.3
69
6.5
13.6
29.4
NA
61.6
<5
NA
19.2
NA
NS2
8.9
24.7
22.9
145
79.5
NA
40.6
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
<0.015
<0.015
NA
0.037
NA
0.092
NA
0.028
<0.015
<0.015
NA
0.040
NA
0.099
NA
0.027
<0.015
<0.015
NA
0.037
NA
0.095
0.095
0.028
0.039
<0.015
NA
0.026
NA
77.6
80.7
0.19
0.015
0.018
NA
0.021
NA
4
NA
0.13
0.019
0.017
0.019
0.021
NA
3.8
NA
0.43
0.052
0.13
NA
0.12
0.12
1.2
NA
0.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.3
20.7
NA
12.8
NA
253
NA
16.3
24.4
22.4
24
13.2
NA
277
NA
17.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-2. Iron, Manganese, and Postassium Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Compound
SMCL
Well ID
PA-8D
PA-8D-DUP
PA-US
PA- 111
PA-11D
Iron (mg/L)
0.3 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
<0.05
NA
4.8
0.9
2.4
Week
3-4
<0.05
<0.05
3.70
3.10
0.60
Week
7-8
<0.05
NA
3.3
1.9
0.92
Jan
2000
0.46
NA
3.1
2.2
0.57
Apr
2000
0.31
NA
22.6
1.3
0.9
ISCO
Post-
Demo
0.46
NA
<0.1
38.8
0.46
Kestv
Heating
Post-
Demo
2.1
NA
<0.05
7.4
0.45
Jul
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganese (mg/L)
0.05 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
0.029
NA
0.075
0.028
0.026
Week 3
4
0.022
0.026
0.061
0.034
0.019
Week
7-8
<0.015
NA
0.053
0.043
0.023
Jan
2000
0.045
NA
0.046
0.028
0.019
Apr
2000
0.054
NA
0.22
0.062
0.022
ISCO
Post-
Demo
0.11
NA
342
0.27
0.019
Kestv
Heating
Post-
Demo
0.36
NA
0.81
0.048
O.015
Jul
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Potassium (mg/L)
NA
Pre-
Demo
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Apr
2000
21.4
NA
524
10.4
19.7
ISCO
Post-
Demo
24.5
NA
1,590
511
22.6
Kestv
Heating
Post-
Demo
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Jul
2001
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 has increased by more than 25 % and exceeded the SMCL.
Shading denotes that the concentration has increased at least doubled over pre-demonstration range in LC34 wells.
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.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-3. Chloride and Total Dissolved Solids Results of Groundwater Samples
SMCL
Well ID
Chloride (mg/L)
250 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Rest
Heat
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
TDS (mg/L)
500 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Jan
2000
Apr
2000
ISCO
Post-
Demo
Rest
Heat
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA-13S-DUP
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14I-DUP
PA-14D
PA-14DDUP
38
NA
66.2
10.6
37.4
123
NA
774
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
383
NA
NA
4,800
141
NA
NA
3,520
NA
277
291
233
3,610
101
156
NA
4,790
NA
583
587
NA
NA
548
724
712
1,980
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
1,750
NA
NA
10,600
1,330
NA
NA
7,220
NA
1,190
1,180
925
8,360
772
870
NA
10,700
NA
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-7D-DUP
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10I-DUP
PA-10D
[W-17S
[W-17I
[W-17D
PA- 15
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
247
234
695
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
243
191
960
119
143
531
522
342
130
128
701
NA
73.7
640
190
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
915
1,050
2,720
657
752
1,260
1,270
1,040
789
111
1,580
NA
663
1,350
975
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-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
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
56.8
66.6
NA
327
313
101
NA
504
640
NA
357
635
737
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
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
583
496
NA
1,200
1,180
1,600
NA
2,200
1,910
NA
2,900
3,790
1,670
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pre-Demo: Sep 3 to 10, 1999.
Week 3-4: Sep 24 to 20, 1999.
Week 7-8: Oct 19 to 28, 1999.
ISCO Post-Demo: May 8 to 14,2000.
Resistive Heating Post-Demo: Nov 27 to Dec 2, 2000.
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.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-4. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
Cations (mg/L)
Calcium
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Magnesium
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
July
2001
Sodium
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
143
70.1
113
97.4
60.3
93.1
233
NA
819
6.6
NA
1,060
97.4
153
647
55.3
13.6
662
23.4
54
113
37.4
73.7
90.3
54.4
NA
51.4
<1
NA
30
40
76.5
75
10.6
1.2
30.2
23.9
33.1
369
17.4
120
325
161
NA
2,070
467
NA
3,130
113
96.7
1,530
138
258
2,490
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-7D-DUP
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10I-DUP
PA-10D
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
NA
NA
113
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.1
205
186
184
166
104
103
138
186
193
71.7
NA
144
72.2
202
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
2.6
18.8
229
5.9
26.7
38.1
31.7
11
11.8
12.2
71.6
NA
17.6
64.2
10.7
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
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA- ID
PA-1D-DUP
PA-8S
PA-8I
PA-8D
PA-US
PA-11I
PA-11D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
128
83.2
119
117
51
202
151
38
126
92.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
19.8
29.9
28.5
11.4
190
152
32.4
40.4
100
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
Anions (mg/L)
N03-N02
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
July
2001
Sulfate
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
July
2001
Alk as CaCO3
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
O.I
O.I
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
<0.1
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.21
0.1
O.I
0.1
74
64.8
78.3
39
104
68.3
169
NA
166
37.1
NA
117
123
150
139
18.6
30
163
479
351
410
337
465
343
588
NA
231
898
NA
421
424
243
268
388
434
394
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.I
0.11
0.75
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.1
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.1
NA
O.I
O.I
O.I
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
57.7
149
146
<5
<10
36.7
36.6
<10
85.4
86.2
68.4
NA
33.7
57.3
62.4
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
323
467
663
420
439
272
273
335
356
355
293
NA
475
212
520
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
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
310
255
230
234
840
933
632
811
923
306
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table D-4. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
Chromium (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Nickel (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
BOD (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
TOC (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Jul
2001
Resistive Heating Plot Wells
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.010
O.010
0.010
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.040
O.040
0.040
20
<3
13.2
<3
8.9
6
32.4
NA
360
42
NA
288
25.8
3.3
360
22.2
3.7
560
5.6
7.1
39.6
5.7
23.4
9
44.8
NA
300
34.7
NA
270
39.6
14.9
273
18.7
8.9
326
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-2S
PA-2I
PA-2D
PA-7S
PA-7I
PA-7D
PA-7D-DUP
PA-10S
PA- 101
PA-10I-DUP
PA-10D
IW-17S
IW-17I
IW-17D
PA- 15
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
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
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
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.010
0.010
O.010
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.040
0.040
O.040
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
Notes:
Pre-Demo: Sep 3 to 10, 1999.
Post-Demo: Nov 27 to Dec 2, 2000.
NA: Not available.
<: The compound was analyzed but not detected at or above the specified reporting
limit.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table D-5. 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
OX-SE-2 1
OX-SE-22
OX-SE-23
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
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/30/2000
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
Steam Injection Plot
CP-SE-1
CP-SE-2
CP-SE-3
SI-SE-4
SI-SE-5
SI-SE-6
SI-SE-7
SI-SE-8
SI-SE-9
SI-SE-33
SI-SE-34
SI-SE-35
11/17/1999
11/17/1999
11/17/1999
1/18/2000
1/18/2000
1/18/2000
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
12/4/2000
12/5/2000
12/5/2000
<0.39
<0.39
<0.41
12
13
13
2.2
11
2.7
1.2
1.1
O.40
Ambient Air at Shoulder Level
SPH-SE-14
SPH-SE-15
SPH-SE-C27
DW-C1
DW-C2
DW-C3
DW-C21
DW-C22
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
9/1/2000
4/1 1/2000
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
8/31/2000
9/1/2000
<0.39a
<0.39a
O.88
2.1C
O.39
O.39
0.86C
<0.58C
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-11
SPH-SE-1 2
SPH-SE-1 3
SPH-SE-2 1
SPH-SE-22
SPH-SE-23
SPH-SE-24
SPH-SE-25
SPH-SE-26
SPH-SE-27
SPH-SE-28
SPH-SE-29
SPH-SE-30
SPH-SE-3 1
SPH-SE-32
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
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/31/2000
9/1/2000
9/1/2000
1 1/30/2000
1 1/30/2000
12/1/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/4/2000
2.1
3.6
2
13,000
12,000
13,000
23
78
35
0.93
0.67
O.37
1,300
O.42
1
<870
500
59.00
17
3,100
10,000
11,000
9
1
O.40
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
DW-SE-36
DW-SE-37
DW-SE-3 8
10/1/1999
10/8/1999
10/25/1999
10/22/1999
1/17/2000
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
4/1 1/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/7/2000
<0.42
<0.44
0.44
6,000b
<0.38
0.43
0.86
0.79
O.40
0.49
O.40
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 w/o using an air collection box.
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\Final SPH\Analysis\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table D-6. TOC Results of Soil Samples
Pre-Demo
Sample ID
SW9060
(mg/kg)
Walkley-
Black
(mg/kg)
Post-Demo
Sample ID
SW9060
(mg/kg)
Walkley-
Black
(mg/kg)
Resisitve Heating Plot
SB-5-28TOC
SB-5-38TOC
SB-5-45TOC
SB-5-45TOCB
SB-8-24TOC
SB-8-32TOC
SB-8-38TOC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
0.20
<0.20
0.29
SB-204-18TOC
SB-204-30TOC
SB-204-40TOC
SB-211-22TOC
SB-211-30TOC
SB-211-40TOC
NA
10,500
16,800
12,200
7,740
11,100
18,000
NA
<100
686
202
<167
603
986
NA
<: Result was not detected at or above the stated reporting limit.
NA: Not available.
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores
Analytical Sample
ID
DB-1-266
DB-1-267
DB-1-268
DB-1-269
DB-1-270
DB-1-271
DB-1-272
DB-1-273
DB-1-274
DB-1-275
DB-1-276
DB-1-277
DB-1-278
DB-1-279
DB-1-280
DB-1-281
DB-1-282
DB-1-283
DB-1-284
DB-1-285
DB-1-286
DB-1-287
DB-1-288
PA-201-1
PA-201-2
PA-201-3
PA-201-1 03
PA-201-1 04
PA-201-1 05
PA-201-1 06
PA-201-1 07
PA-201-1 08
PA-201-1 09
PA-201-1 10
PA-201-1 11
PA-201-1 12
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
0
2
4
6
10
12
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Blank
Blank
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
Sample
Date
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/14/2000
8/14/2000
8/14/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
MeOH
(g)
193
192
192
193
192
192
193
194
192
193
190
193
191
191
192
191
189
192
194
193
NA
NA
NA
198
185
184
194
193
195
193
187
192
193
195
194
196
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
165
139
181
285
225
309
160
140
150
216
216
311
256
296
231
315
249
236
255
294
NA
NA
NA
184
195
220
230
334
257
239
260
301
251
213
243
293
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
153
121
150
236
186
260
137
119
128
174
168
232
196
233
186
230
174
178
204
239
NA
NA
NA
185
189
209
205
285
222
205
218
254
205
177
199
237
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
930
460
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
1,200
460
<250
<250
<250
<250
6,400
<250
560
920
<250
<250
1,100
3,600
820
1,800
1,300
4,500
10,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.41
0.52
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.03
0.67
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.6
ND
0.7
1.2
ND
ND
1.5
4.6
0.9
2.5
2.1
6.5
12.8
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
1,600
1,200
430
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
290
1,900
1,300
2,500
2,300
3,800
7,800
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
2.36
1.77
0.63
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.42
2.77
1.89
3.73
3.38
5.65
11.72
tram- 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
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
520
1,600
1,200
1,500
750
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.81
2.57
1.89
2.30
1.13
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\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
PA-201-113
PA-201-114
PA-201-115
PA-201-116
PA-201-117
PA-201-118
PA-201-119
PA-201-120
PA-201-121
PA-201-122
PA-201-123
PA-201-320
PA-202-2
PA-202-4
PA-202-6
PA-202-8
PA-202-10
PA-202-12
PA-202-14
PA-202-16
PA-202-18
PA-202-20
PA-202-22
PA-202-24
PA-202-26
PA-202-28
PA-202-28-DUP
PA-202-30
PA-202-32
PA-202-34
PA-202-36
PA-202-38
PA-202-40
PA-202-43
PA-202-45
PA-202-EB
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
EQ
Sample
Date
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
9/1/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
MeOH
(g)
192
194
194
195
195
193
194
193
190
192
192
NA
199
195
197
193
203
199
193
203
195
199
197
202
189
198
200
194
198
197
192
192
195
197
198
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
358
334
351
363
347
264
284
290
313
381
248
NA
121
163
125
126
141
173
177
184
188
191
163
141
186
185
192
230
210
258
185
223
222
254
198
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
280
258
291
301
271
196
200
214
246
293
184
NA
121
160
112
110
121
148
154
152
159
161
136
117
142
149
156
187
176
188
141
164
176
207
147
NA
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1 ,000
<1 ,200
<500
<250
<360
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
990
480
<250
660
<250
880
520
250
400,000
12,000
77,000
250,000
400,000
180,000
170,000
2,500,000 D
8,100,0000
1 ,200,000
2,400,000 D
370,000
250,000
310,000
230,000
20
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
1
ND
2
ND
2
1
0
694
21
156
598
798
346
315
3,858
13,100
2,039
4,886
681
416
444
472
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
16,000
20,000
16,000
7,600
5,600
1,500
550
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
420
<25,000
<500
<5,000
<1 2,000
<25,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<25,000
<1 20,000
<62,000
<1 7,000
<21 ,000
<1 2,000
<1 7,000
<1 2,000
<1
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
24.71
31.21
23.55
11.19
8.66
2.42
0.93
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1 ,000
<1 ,200
<500
<250
<360
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<25,000
<500
<5,000
<1 2,000
<25,000
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<25,000
<1 20,000
<62,000
<1 7,000
<21 ,000
<1 2,000
<1 7,000
<1 2,000
<1
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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<2,000
<2,500
1,400
1,000
760
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<50,000
<1 ,000
<1 0,000
<25,000
<50,000
<20,000
<20,000
<50,000
<250,000
<1 20,000
<33,000
<42,000
<25,000
<33,000
<25,000
<2
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
2.06
1.47
1.18
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
PA-202-1 1
PA-202-12
PA-202-1 3
PA-202-1 80
PA-202-1 81
PA-202-1 82
PA-202-1 83
PA-202-1 84
PA-202-1 85
PA-202-1 86
PA-202-325
PA-207-94
PA-207-95
PA-207-96
PA-207-145
PA-207-146
PA-207-147
PA-207-148
PA-207-149
PA-207-150
PA-207-151
PA-207-152
PA-207-153
PA-207-154
PA-207-155
PA-207-156
PA-207-157
PA-207-158
PA-207-159
PA-207-160
PA-207-161
PA-207-162
PA-207-163
PA-207-164
PA-207-165
PA-207-318
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
0
2
4
6
8
12
16
18
20
22
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
14
18
20
22
24
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
41.5
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
43.5
45
Blank
Sample
Date
8/14/2000
8/14/2000
8/14/2000
8/24/2000
8/24/2000
8/24/2000
8/24/2000
8/24/2000
8/24/2000
8/24/2000
9/1/2000
8/19/2000
8/19/2000
8/19/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
8/22/2000
9/1/2000
MeOH
(g)
193
191
186
193
193
194
192
192
193
193
NA
193
193
193
196
196
199
193
192
193
193
195
194
195
193
195
193
194
194
193
194
192
192
192
193
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
240
173
200
230
347
276
292
197
338
357
NA
185
174
183
176
229
261
172
210
253
272
271
251
306
219
245
240
249
178
162
199
303
245
256
214
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
223
169
191
195
295
228
240
72
295
238
NA
181
147
168
153
199
223
152
179
214
235
230
197
239
169
198
203
222
133
121
157
242
197
194
157
NA
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
620
<250
<250
2,600
640
6,600
9,400
150,000
74,000
<250
980
2,200
710
540
2,700
6,600
5,800
58,000
67,000
4,100
9,900
1,700
<620
900
760
21 ,000
15,0000
<1 ,000
<830
4,300
<250
<250
<250
410
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
0.90
ND
ND
2.6
0.8
8.1
48.0
146.1
113.0
ND
1.3
4.1
1.1
1.0
3.8
8.6
10.1
88.8
88.7
4.9
12.4
2.6
ND
1.6
1.1
29.1
18.4
ND
ND
7.9
ND
ND
ND
0.8
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
870
540
2,000
940
<4,200
<2,500
<250
600
<250
<250
<250
590
1,200
2,400
8,400
7,800
15,000
16,000
8,700
8,200
3,700
2,200
6,100
3,200
15,000
13,000
7,800
570
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.25
0.80
2.96
2.82
ND
ND
ND
0.77
ND
ND
ND
0.84
1.72
3.35
12.09
11.29
21.35
23.11
13.40
12.68
5.78
3.31
8.83
4.44
24.06
20.86
11.96
0.87
ND
ND
ND
ND
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<4,200
<2,500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,100
<3,600
<1 ,000
<1 ,200
<620
<620
<250
<250
<1 ,000
<250
<1 ,000
<830
<500
<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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<8,400
<5,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<4,200
<7,200
<2,000
<2,500
1,700
2,700
<500
<500
<2,000
<500
<2,000
<1 ,700
<1 ,000
<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
2.62
4.17
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
PA-208-97
PA-208-98
PA-208-99
PA-208-124
PA-208-125
PA-208-126
PA-208-127
PA-208-128
PA-208-129
PA-208-130
PA-208-131
PA-208-132
PA-208-133
PA-208-134
PA-208-135
PA-208-136
PA-208-137
PA-208-138
PA-208-139
PA-208-140
PA-208-141
PA-208-142
PA-208-143
PA-208-144
PA-208-319
PA-21 1-207
PA-21 1-208
PA-21 1-209
PA-21 1-210
PA-21 1-211
PA-21 1-21 2
PA-21 1-21 3
PA-21 1-21 4
PA-21 1-21 5
PA-21 1-21 6
PA-21 1-21 7
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
41.5
43
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
43.5
45
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
8/19/2000
8/19/2000
8/19/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
8/21/2000
9/1/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
MeOH
(g)
194
194
194
195
193
197
196
192
193
193
195
193
193
191
191
192
192
194
194
195
193
194
192
194
NA
194
194
194
195
190
195
195
194
192
193
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
211
214
187
313
312
326
297
248
195
302
232
301
301
267
293
383
239
338
337
276
260
275
305
239
NA
232
257
241
217
171
166
253
226
188
221
268
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
203
210
180
274
265
253
271
207
169
255
200
243
233
205
221
298
196
285
245
190
191
203
216
173
NA
228
248
233
205
152
143
217
190
155
178
231
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
2,800
970
630
<250
<250
270
<250
<380
<250
27,000
23,000
82,000
190,000
110,000
76,000
29,000
63,000
55,000
25,000
25,000
84,000
94,000
170,000
130,000
<250
3,000
NA
2,300
2,800
290
530
1 1 ,000
18,000
18,000
2,000
2,800
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
3.5
1.2
0.9
ND
ND
0.3
ND
ND
ND
30.8
32.1
102.0
254.7
163.0
107.9
31.9
91.9
57.6
34.4
43.8
137.8
147.1
261.3
234.1
ND
3.3
0.0
2.5
3.5
0.5
1.0
14.3
26.7
32.1
3.2
3.4
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
350
<250
6,000
1,900
4,900
4,200
14,000
29,000
19,000
56,000
55,000
12,000
13,000
39,000
23,000
16,000
7,600
<8,300
<6,200
<250
<250
NA
<250
<250
<250
340
2,300
1,400
770
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.54
ND
8.78
2.70
7.11
5.99
21.06
45.17
29.80
89.13
85.31
17.82
18.87
64.01
39.52
26.03
12.32
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
0.49
3.29
2.04
1.14
ND
ND
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<380
<250
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<4,200
<6,200
<4,200
<3,100
<4,200
<2,100
<2,500
<2,500
<1 ,200
<2,500
<4,200
<8,300
<6,200
<250
<250
NA
<250
<250
<250
<250
<420
<620
<620
<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
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<770
<500
<2,000
<2,000
<8,300
<1 2,000
<8,300
<6,200
<8,300
<4,200
<5,000
<5,000
<2,500
<5,000
<8,300
<1 7,000
<1 2,000
<500
<500
NA
<500
<500
<500
<500
<850
<1 ,200
<1 ,200
<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
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
PA-211-218
PA-211-219
PA-21 1-220
PA-21 1-221
PA-21 1-222
PA-21 1-223
PA-21 1-224
PA-21 1-225
PA-21 1-226
PA-21 1-227
PA-21 1-228
PA-21 1-229
PA-21 1-31 4
LC34B214-2
LC34B214-4
LC34B214-6
LC34B214-8
LC34B214-10
LC34B214-12
LC34B214-14
LC34B214-16
LC34B214-18
LC34B214-20
LC34B214-20-DUP
LC34B214-22
LC34B214-24
LC34B214-26
LC34B214-28
LC34B214-30
LC34B214-32
LC34B214-34
LC34B214-36
LC34B214-39
LC34B214-41
LC34B214-87
LC34B214-88
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
Bottom
Depth
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
37
39
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
39
41
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
Sample
Date
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/25/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
9/1/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
MeOH
(g)
197
191
191
193
193
251
195
196
192
194
195
193
NA
191
198
191
196
201
198
202
200
192
198
200
195
194
194
203
198
193
191
194
197
189
NA
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
264
218
219
148
201
261
209
201
317
401
270
300
NA
106
156
135
162
122
111
190
190
245
109
120
166
209
219
191
247
147
151
231
199
270
NA
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
225
180
188
127
163
251
167
174
252
318
209
240
NA
104
145
121
141
108
92
161
160
205
96
103
133
160
171
153
209
121
120
175
155
216
NA
NA
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
2,600,000
79,000
660,000
89,000
270,000
230,000
120,000
130,000
750,000
930,000
1 ,600,000
190,000
370
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
6,200
2,600
540
560
4,700
1,500
<500
<380
<380
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
3,332.2
122.8
957.6
185.9
467.6
300.3
207.5
205.5
916.8
960.9
2,356.6
240.9
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11
4
1
1
10
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1 20,000
<4,200
<25,000
<3,100
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<5,000
<6,200
<42,000
<50,000
<72,000
<1 0,000
<250
<250
<250
260
1,100
12,000
1 1 ,000 D
17,0000
15,0000
150,0000
6,500
7,300
12,000
3,800
6,600
7,000
6,600
3,500
1,400
1,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
2
30
32
30
27
207
18
19
25
7
11
13
9
8
3
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1 20,000
<4,200
<25,000
<3,100
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<5,000
<6,200
<42,000
<50,000
<72,000
<1 0,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<380
<380
<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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250,000
<8,400
<50,000
<6,200
<25,000
<25,000
<1 0,000
<1 2,000
<83,000
<1 00,000
<1 40,000
<20,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<770
<770
<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
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
LC34B214-EB
LC34B314-2
LC34B314-4
LC34B314-6
LC34B314-8
LC34B314-10
LC34B314-12
LC34B314-12-DUP
LC34B314-14
LC34B314-16
LC34B314-18
LC34B314-20
LC34B314-22
LC34B314-24
LC34B314-26
LC34B314-28
LC34B314-30
LC34B314-32
LC34B314-34
LC34B314-36
LC34B314-38
LC34B314-40
LC34B314-42
LC34B314-44
LC34B314-911'
LC34B314-92
LC34B314-EB
LC34B214-14
LC34B214-15
LC34B214-16
LC34B214-170
LC34B214-171
LC34B214-172
LC34B214-173
LC34B214-174
LC34B214-175
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
Bottom
Depth
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
14
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
Sample
Date
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
8/14/2000
8/14/2000
8/14/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
MeOH
(g)
NA
194
199
199
197
189
195
204
199
198
199
193
192
190
197
197
196
183
195
201
200
203
199
207
NA
NA
NA
192
190
188
193
195
195
193
196
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
124
147
112
183
194
149
172
170
217
227
150
137
220
281
282
200
216
222
132
234
230
252
205
NA
NA
NA
194
172
202
198
215
260
237
223
189
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
122
138
104
169
166
126
145
141
182
186
126
110
178
226
155
152
171
145
107
165
183
196
164
NA
NA
NA
187
163
189
171
185
221
203
191
149
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
3,100
1,900
2,500
2,900
7,500
10,000
1,300
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
380
<250
<250
4,400
<250
<250
0.82 J
<250
<250
<250
7,300
13,000
16,000
12,000
9,800
<1 ,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
4
5
6
12
16
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
8
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
11.6
19.5
20.7
16.5
14.4
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1
<250
820
<250
350
12,000
7,200
9,200
14,0000
20,000 D
15,000
3,800
2,700
4,300
6,700
7,300
2,900
1,300
1,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
1,700
1,400
4,400
3,300
2,500
12,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
2
ND
1
19
15
18
28
31
24
8
7
7
9
18
6
2
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.42
2.00
6.35
4.73
3.58
18.41
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<830
<250
<250
<250
<250
<380
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<830
<500
<360
<1 ,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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,700
<500
<500
<500
<500
<770
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,700
<1 ,000
<720
<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
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
LC34B214-176
LC34B21 4-324
LC34B217-2
LC34B217-4
LC34B217-6
LC34B217-8
LC34B217-10
LC34B217-12
LC34B217-14
LC34B217-16
LC34B217-18
LC34B21 7-201)
LC34B217-22
LC34B217-24
LC34B217-26
LC34B217-28
LC34B217-30
LC34B217-32
LC34B217-32-DUP
LC34B217-34
LC34B217-36
LC34B217-38
LC34B217-40
LC34B217-42
LC34B217-44
LC34B217-90
LC34B217-93
LC34B217-EB
LC34B217-100
LC34B217-101
LC34B217-102
LC34B217-166
LC34B217-167
LC34B217-168
LC34B217-169
LC34B217-316
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
16
Bottom
Depth
18
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Blank
Sample
Date
8/23/2000
9/1/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
8/19/2000
8/19/2000
8/19/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
8/23/2000
9/1/2000
MeOH
(g)
193
NA
199
195
193
194
196
193
195
202
193
195
193
193
198
188
192
191
198
NA
187
189
NA
194
190
NA
NA
NA
194
195
193
196
193
194
192
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
239
NA
192
176
192
142
142
129
160
118
184
154
207
188
198
208
197
129
163
NR
275
246
NR
196
191
NA
NA
NA
175
203
221
193
241
255
236
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
206
NA
187
171
189
137
121
110
135
99
156
125
171
146
157
156
154
104
135
NR
203
146
NR
156
156
NA
NA
NA
173
201
211
165
201
223
202
NA
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
590
<250
<250
<250
910
670
5,700
4,700
7,000
2,300
<500
<250
4,700
49,000
86,000
120,000
36,000
10,000
13,000
NA
<250
<250
NA
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
3,400
<250
<250
250
620
12,000
9,500
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
0.8
ND
ND
ND
1
1
13
11
14
6
ND
ND
8
96
160
223
67
26
27
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
0.4
1
15
13
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
9,300
<250
<250
<250
270
250
3,300
3,800
4,300
5,100
19,000
17,0000
31 ,000
8,600
<3,600
7,100
18,000
12,000
16,000
NA
3,900
650
NA
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
340
1,400
760
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
13.26
ND
ND
ND
0
0
7
9
9
14
33
38
51
17
ND
13
33
31
33
NA
6
2
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.50
1.97
1.09
ND
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<380
<500
<500
<250
<1 ,800
<1 ,800
<3,600
<4,200
<1 ,200
<830
<830
NA
<250
<250
NA
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<360
<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
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<770
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<500
<3,600
<3,600
<7,100
<8,300
<2,500
<1 ,700
<1 ,700
NA
<500
<500
NA
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<720
<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
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
LC34B239-230
LC34B239-231
LC34B239-232
LC34B239-233
LC34B239-234
LC34B239-235
LC34B239-236
LC34B239-237
LC34B239-238
LC34B239-239
LC34B239-240
LC34B239-241
LC34B239-242
LC34B239-243
LC34B239-244
LC34B239-245
LC34B239-246
LC34B239-247
LC34B239-248
LC34B239-249
LC34B239-250
LC34B239-251
LC34B239-252
LC34B239-253
SB-28-254
SB-28-255
SB-28-256
SB-28-257
SB-28-258
SB-28-259
SB-28-260
SB-28-261
SB-28-262
SB-28-263
SB-28-264
SB-28-265
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
42
44
Bottom
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
44
46
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2
4
6
8
10
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Sample
Date
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/28/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/29/2000
MeOH
(g)
196
192
191
193
194
194
193
191
193
192
196
239
193
192
193
193
193
193
192
197
195
192
195
NA
194
192
195
194
193
194
193
191
193
193
192
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
158
201
288
159
206
256
197
234
176
261
232
187
202
184
285
323
325
332
240
312
272
363
290
NA
188
201
307
190
169
160
217
269
248
176
229
243
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
157
198
281
154
177
219
171
200
147
206
197
185
161
150
225
249
264
261
197
245
234
287
231
NA
185
196
300
179
164
147
183
229
170
149
190
204
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
480
320
330
800
4,000
9,200
5,400
2,900
4,900
1 1 ,000
3,300
210,000
150,000
120,000
220,000
280,000
250,000
260,000
170,000
220,000
130,000
240,000
200,000
<250
930
710
640
<250
<250
<250
<250
290
630
<250
4,500
47,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
1
0.4
0.3
1
6
12
9
4
9
16
5
346
266
222
298
358
289
314
247
284
158
267
265
ND
1
0.9
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
1
ND
7
65
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,500
10,000
1 1 ,000
5,900
7,300
880
880
<6,200
<5,000
<3,600
<6,200
<8,300
<8,300
<1 0,000
<5,000
6,600
<4,200
<6,200
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
410
900
270
270
3,600
3,000
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.57
14.35
15.60
8.47
10.68
1.35
1.27
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.60
1.30
0.47
0.39
5.30
4.37
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<500
<500
<250
<500
<250
<6,200
<5,000
<3,600
<6,200
<8,300
<8,300
<1 0,000
<5,000
<6,200
<4,200
<6,200
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<500
<1 ,000
<500
<1 2,000
<1 0,000
<7,100
<1 2,000
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
<20,000
<1 0,000
<1 2,000
<8,300
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,500
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
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
SB-28-317
SB-28B-289
SB-28B-290
SB-28B-291
SB-28B-292
SB-28B-293
SB-28B-294
SB-28B-295
SB-28B-296
SB-28B-297
SB-28B-298
SB-28B-299
SB-28B-300
SB-28B-301
SB-28B-302
SB-28B-303
SB-28B-304
SB-28B-305
SB-28B-306
SB-28B-307
SB-28B-308
SB-28B-309
SB-28B-310
SB-28B-31 1
SB-28B-312
SB-28B-313
LC34B209-2
LC34B209-4
LC34B209-6
LC34B209-8
LC34B209-10
LC34B209-12
LC34B209-14
LC34B209-16
LC34B209-18
LC34B209-20
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
Bottom
Depth
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
44
46
Blank
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Sample
Date
9/1/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
8/31/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
MeOH
(g)
NA
195
192
193
196
197
196
195
192
192
193
191
195
196
196
196
195
190
194
195
192
199
91
191
195
NA
196
195
200
192
195
195
205
196
200
204
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
99
125
128
126
167
191
113
200
298
100
261
197
305
189
216
197
188
120
107
163
256
429
208
174
NA
117
101
151
158
211
183
142
166
134
136
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
101
121
127
121
146
163
104
167
252
86
220
159
236
149
167
155
155
105
92
129
196
276
167
142
NA
114
93
126
129
176
151
115
137
115
110
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
17,000
15,000
36,000
3,900,000
240,000
3,400,000
130,000
180,000
150,000
230,000
370,000
140,000
1 ,300,000
500,000
580,000
190,000
210,000
110,000
93,000
440
<250
<250
550
1,200
1 1 ,000
15,000
20,000
14,000
1,300
8,800
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29
37
60
4,473
721
4,370
233
242
290
409
689
247
3,226
1,423
1,246
302
204
186
183
0.8
ND
ND
1
3
18
28
50
28
3
23
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
1,800
<1 ,000
<1 ,700
<1 00,000
<1 2,000
<1 00,000
<6,200
<6,200
<6,200
<1 2,000
<25,000
<5,000
<42,000
<1 7,000
<25,000
<6,200
<8,300
<5,000
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
300
18,000
12,000
13,000
13,000
1,4000
13,0000
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.59
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
29
22
32
26
3
34
trans- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<1 ,700
<1 00,000
<1 2,000
<1 00,000
<6,200
<6,200
<6,200
<1 2,000
<25,000
<5,000
<42,000
<1 7,000
<25,000
<6,200
<8,300
<5,000
<6,200
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<1 ,000
<1,000
<830
<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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,000
<2,000
<3,400
<200,000
<25,000
<200,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<25,000
<50,000
<1 0,000
<84,000
<33,000
<50,000
<1 2,000
<1 7,000
<1 0,000
<1 2,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<2,000
<2,000
<1 ,700
<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
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
LC34B209-22
LC34B209-24
LC34B209-26
LC34B209-28
LC34B209-30
LC34B209-32
LC34B209-34
LC34B209-36
LC34B209-38
LC34B209-38B
LC34B209-40
LC34B209-43
LC34B209-45
LC34B209-85
LC34B209-86
LC34B209-EB
LC34B309-2
LC34B309-4
LC34B309-6
LC34B309-8
LC34B309-10
LC34B309-12
LC34B309-14
LC34B309-16
LC34B309-18
LC34B309-20
LC34B309-22
LC34B309-24
LC34B309-26
LC34B309-28
LC34B309-30
LC34B309-32
LC34B309-34
LC34B309-36
LC34B309-36-DUP
LC34B309-38
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
41
43
Bottom
Depth
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
Sample
Date
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
MeOH
(g)
190
198
197
199
199
198
199
199
198
192
190
194
202
NA
NA
NA
197
200
191
188
201
196
192
199
196
205
194
206
203
198
183
180
215
201
191
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
258
269
233
137
284
241
159
179
235
246
232
244
165
NA
NA
NA
127
134
157
142
165
139
137
161
138
125
183
204
295
220
246
160
214
180
119
155
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
202
211
182
118
226
202
121
120
187
192
189
180
120
NA
NA
NA
123
129
147
119
133
113
111
133
117
100
153
168
230
176
193
137
163
139
96
108
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
36,000
28,000
3,400
350
2,300
1,000
1,200
<250
2,500
1,900
<250
<250
920
<250
870
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<830
1,100
<500
<830
<830
<250
<250
<500
<500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
53
41
6
1
3
1
3
ND
4
3
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
14,000
9,900
3,600
1,300
12,000
8,200
5,600
8,600
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
2,900
8,700
12,000
13,000
9,800
15,000
12,000
2,700
3,700
7,900
8,500
6,300
1,100
350
<250
<250
<250
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
21
14
6
3
16
12
13
22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
19
29
32
21
35
34
5
7
11
14
9
2
1
ND
ND
ND
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<2,000
<1 ,500
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<830
<830
<500
<830
<830
<250
<250
<500
<500
<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
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<4,000
<2,900
<500
<500
710
720
<500
1,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,700
<1 ,700
<1 ,000
<1 ,700
<1 ,700
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
1.0
ND
2.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
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\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Table D-7. CVOC Results of Perimeter Soil Cores (Continued)
Analytical Sample
ID
LC34B309-40
LC34B309-42
LC34B309-44
LC34B309-89
LC34B309-90
LC34B309-EB
Sample Depth (ft)
Top Depth
38
40
42
Bottom
Depth
40
42
44
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
Sample
Date
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
MeOH
(g)
199
190
193
NA
NA
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
198
243
232
NA
NA
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
147
189
181
NA
NA
NA
TCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
cis -1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
Result in
Dry Soil
(nig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
tram- 1,2-DCE
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Result in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2
Result in
Dry Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
NR: No recovery.
EQ: Equipment rinsate blank.
1) Sample LC34B217-20 was originally analyzed within holding time criteria but the results were not withing 20% of the calibration range, els -1,2-DCE was reanalyzed and the result was
from the new analysis.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
D: Result was quanitified after dilution.
<: Result was not detected at or above the stated reporting limit.
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1 .xls
-------
Appendix E. Microbiological Assessment
E. 1 Microbiological Evaluation Work Plan
E.2 Microbiological Evaluation Sampling Procedure
E.3 Microbiological Evaluation Results
-------
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 Injection (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. Legionella pneumophila 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 site3 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
Q87 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 -Sep7 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 in Mycobacterium-
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 and On-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., atetrachloroethene-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
-------
PA-15
/ "H
/ MB-S *
~~A *>H
MB-104» MB-103* /
MB:i . .- A " / » «
/"A »«•*,,< MB-004 HB.3 t •**,
'"•* *-" PA-14 / - / >
>
PA -I"
A MBC-OI4
PA-13
/ .•/
'PA t''
MB-Wf/
* / /
KSTIVE / /
HEATING / /
/ /
•v/s^ -•
ffrlf^
I / • BAT-1/ *S PA^
/ / PA* . XN
PA 16, f ,' X%
. y i BAT-a si *
/,'
BAT^ ^,
/&/
Explanation:
^ Basetine Biological Sampling
A Biological Control Sampling
Post-Demonstration Biological sampling
Sampling Location 1-Year after
Resistive Heating Treatment •
Well Location
T+irPiC'i Boundjfifli
DhlAPL
ry (300 n
FEET
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 and resistive
heating plots. The predemonstration baseline results were taken from the sampling conducted in
the Steam 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.
Microbiological analysis of soil and groundwater samples was conducted to evaluate the effect of
resistive heating treatment on the microbial community. Samples were collected before and after
(8 months after) the resistive heating treatment demonstration. For each monitoring 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 Tables E-l and E-2.
Table 5-20 (see Section 5) summarizes the soil analysis results. The geometric mean typically is
the mean of the five samples collected in each stratigraphic unit in the plot. The 8 months of time
that elapsed since the end of resistive heating treatment application and collection of the
microbial samples may have given time for microbial populations to re-establish. The Middle
Fine-Grained Unit experienced some reduction in microbial populations that persisted until the
sampling after the of resistive heating treatment application. It could be that microbial
populations were reduced immediately after the demonstration, however, if this phenomenon did
occur the populations were re-established in the following 8 months. In the capillary fringe and
in the Upper Sand Unit, microbial populations appeared to have increased by an order of
magnitude. The persistence of these microorganisms despite the autoclave-like conditions in the
of resistive heating plot may have positive implications for biodegradation of any TCE residuals
following the of resistive heating treatment.
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples
Sample ID
Top
Depth
ftbgs
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
Aerobic
Plate Counts
CFU/gorMPN/g
Anaerobic Viable
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
BacLight
Counts
%live/%dead
Baseline Samples (August 2000)
BB1-A
BB1-A
BB2-A
BBS -A
BBS -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
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
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
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
Control Samples, Untreated (April 2001)
MBC-011
MBC-011
MBC-011
MBC-011
MBC-011
7
20
24.5
41.5
41.75
7.5
20.5
25
41.75
42
15,848,932
25,119
3,981
25,119
25,119
7,943,282
10,000
2,512
79,433
10,000
94/06
86/14
88/12
89/11
80/20
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples (Continued)
Sample ID
MBC-012
MBC-012
MBC-012
MBC-013
MBC-013
MBC-013
MBC-013
MBC-013
MBC-214
MBC-214
MBC-015
MBC-015
MBC-015
MBC-015
Top
Depth
ftbgs
20.5
24.5
41
6.5
10
20.5
24
41.5
32
40
6.5
20.5
24
41.5
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
21
25
41.5
7
10.5
21
24.5
42
32.5
40.5
7
21
24.5
42
Aerobic
Plate Counts
CFU/gorMPN/g
1,995
19,953
126
1,000,000
15,849
6,310
631
2,512
501,187
79,433
316,228
39,811
794
6,310
Anaerobic Viable
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
794
31,623
158
316,228
25,119
1,585
1,259
2,512
316,228
10,000
1,584,893
5,012
1,585
12,589
BacLight
Counts
%live/%dead
95/05
91/09
98/02
47/53
80/20
100/0
76/24
73/27
90/10
96/04
100/0
82/18
85/15
94/06
Resistive Heating Plot, Treated T=8 months after (April 2001)
MB -001
MB -001
MB -001
MB -001
MB -002
MB -002
MB -002
MB -002
MB -003
MB -003
MB -003
MB -003
MB -003
MB -004
MB -004
MB -004
MB -004
MB -005
MB -005
MB -005
MB -005
7.5
20.5
29.5
39
7.5
19.5
25
41.5
5.5
6
21.5
24
41
6
21.5
25
41
6.5
20.5
24.5
41.5
8
21
30
39.5
8
20
25.5
42
6
6.5
22
24.5
41.5
6.5
22
25.5
41.5
7
21
25
42
6,309,573
1,258,925
<316.2
25,119
63,096
100
<316.2
2,512
7,943,282
10,000,000
1,258,925
125,893
158
630,957
100
10,000
158
63,095,734
794
1,585
<316.2
12,589,254
15,848,932
251
50,119
79,433
126
251
501
6,309,573
15,848,932
794,328
1,995,262
251
501,187
1,259
5,012
31,623
10,000,000
316
3,162
251
52/48
68/32
72/28
76/24
27/73
30/70
57/43
29/71
44/56
25/75
32/68
49/51
95/05
27/73
09/91
44/56
46/54
43/57
56/44
95/05
100/0
Resistive Heating Plot, Treated, T=l 8 months after (June 2002)
MB-102
MB-102
MB-102
MB-102
MB-103
MB-103
MB-103
MB-103
6
15
32
40
6.5
15
30
40
6.5
15.5
32.5
40.5
7
15.5
30.5
40.5
8,500
4,800
480
85
480
19
150
190
480
4,800
48,000
48
420
48
4,800
480
54/46
72/28
57/43
54/46
62/37
52/48
35/65
22/78
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples (Continued)
Sample ID
MB-104
MB-104
MB-104
MB-104
Top
Depth
ftbgs
9
15
30
40
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
9.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
Aerobic
Plate Counts
CFU/gorMPN/g
850
48
4.6
190
Anaerobic Viable
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
850
5
4.6
19
BacLight
Counts
%live/%dead
50/50
67/33
45/55
45/55
bgs: Below ground surface.
CFU: Colony-forming units (roughly, number of culturable cells).
MPN: Most probable number.
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Table E-2. Results of Microbial Counts Groundwater Samples
Sample ID
Aerobic
Plate Counts
CFU/mL or
MPN/mL
Anaerobic
Viable Counts
Cells/mL or
MPN/mL
BacLight
Counts
%live/%dead
Control Samples, Untreated, Distant Wells
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
Resistive Heating Plot Wells, Treated, T=0 (January 2001)
PA-13S
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA-14D
<31.62
<31.62
<31.62
<31.62
31.62
<1.78
158.49
<1.78
Resistive Heating Plot Perimeter Wells, T=0 (June 2000)
PA- 15
PA-15-DUP
IW-17I
IW-17D
<31.62
<31.62
<31.62
<31.62
25
<1.78
316
2
48/52
66/34
38/62
97/03
18/82
09/91
46/54
59/41
Resistive Heating Plot Wells, Treated, T=18 months after (June 2002)
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA-14I
PA-14D
220,000
48,000
3,000
48,000
48,000
48
9
92
1
5
3
48
64/36
33/67
73/27
70/30
59/41
35/64
NA: Not available.
CFU: Colony-forming units (roughly, number of culturable cells).
MPN: most probable number.
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Reports\Final SPH\Appendices\FinalResHeatingv1.xls
-------
Appendix F. Surface Emissions Testing Methods and Procedures
-------
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 steam 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.I.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 (|o,g 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. Suface Emissions Results from the Resisitve Heating Plot
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Resistive Heating Plot
Pre-Demonstration (Baseline Data)
CP-SE-1
CP-SE-2
CP-SE-3
11/17/1999
11/17/1999
11/17/1999
O.39
O.39
0.41
During Demonstration
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-11
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
0.37
1,300
Post-Demonstration
SPH-SE-2 1
SPH-SE-22
SPH-SE-23
SPH-SE-24
SPH-SE-25
SPH-SE-26
SPH-SE-27
SPH-SE-28
SPH-SE-29
SPH-SE-30
SPH-SE-3 1
SPH-SE-32
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/30/2000
8/31/2000
9/1/2000
9/1/2000
11/30/2000
11/30/2000
12/1/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/4/2000
O.42
1
<870
500
59.00
17
3,100
10,000
11,000
9
1
0.40
Ambient Air at Shoulder Level
SPH-SE-14
SPH-SE-15
SPH-SE-C27
DW-C1
DW-C2
DW-C3
DW-11
DW-12
DW-C21
DW-C22
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
9/1/2000
4/11/2000
5/9/2000
5/9/2000
8/31/2000
9/1/2000
8/31/2000
9/1/2000
<0.39a
<0.39a
0.88
2.1b
O.39
O.39
13
<27
0.86b
0.58b
-------
Table F-l. Suface Emissions Results from the Resisitve Heating Plot (Continued)
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
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
DW-SE-36
DW-SE-37
DW-SE-38
10/1/1999
10/8/1999
10/25/1999
10/22/1999
1/17/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
4/11/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/7/2000
<0.42
<0.44
0.44
6,000C
<0.38
0.43
0.86
0.79
0.40
0.49
0.40
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 w/o using an air collection box.
b This sample was collected by holding a Summa canister at shoulder level collecting an ambient
air sample to evaluate local background air.
0 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.
-------
Appendix G. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Information
Tables G-l to G-22
-------
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 Elevated
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)
,575
,509
,337
,286
,308
,504
,220
,153
,244
,182
,324
,300
,148
,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
Resistive Heating Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Soil Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
ID
SB-10-29.5
SB-10-29.5 DUP
SB-1 1-25.5
SB-11-25.5DUP
SB-7-40
SB-7-40 DUP
SB-4-22
SB-4-22 DUP
SB-9-21.5
SB-9-21.5DUP
SB-6-32
SB-6-32 DUP
SB-5-20
SB-5-20 DUP
SB-3-28
SB-3-28 DUP
SB-2-20
SB-2-20 DUP
SB-1-32
SB-1-32 DUP
Sample
Date
06/23/1999
06/25/1999
06/25/1999
06/26/1999
06/27/1999
06/27/1999
06/29/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
07/01/1999
Result
(mg/kg)
40.3
35.1
94.2
26.4
70.1
112.8
43.6
54.1
12.7
14.3
17.0
17.5
5.2
4.0
100.9
108.8
1.9
2.5
19,090.9
16,656.6
RPD
(%)
12.90
7L97(b)
60.91(b)
24.08
12.60
2.94
23.08
7.83
31.58(a)
12.75
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 291 (Pre-) 309 (Post-)
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 10 (Pre-) 13 (Post-)
Post-Demonstration
Sample
ID
SB-2 10-26
SB-2 10-26 DUP
SB-211-32
SB-21 1-32 DUP
SB-209-18
SB-209-18 DUP
SB-212-36
SB-2 12-36 DUP
SB-208-40
SB-208-40 DUP
SB-207-10
SB-207-10 DUP
SB-203-38
SB-203-38 DUP
SB-204-24
SB-204-24 DUP
SB-205-26
SB-205-26 DUP
SB-206-26
SB-206-26 DUP
SB-210B-32
SB-2 10B-32 DUP
SB-202-18
SB-202-18 DUP
SB-201-32
SB-201-32DUP
Sample
Date
11/13/2000
11/14/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/17/2000
11/17/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
11/27/2000
12/09/2000
12/11/2000
Result
(mg/kg)
265
191
102
92
13
6
1.0
1.0
11
11
0.0
0.0
308
302
105
102
176
177
15
13
27
21
53
28
325
385
RPD
(%)
27.92
9.80
53.85(a)
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.95
2.86
0.57
13.33
22.22
47.17(c)
18.46
(a) Samples
(b) Samples
(c) Samples
had high RPD values
had high RPD values
had high RPD values
due to the effect of low (or below detect) concentrations of TCE drastically affected the RPD calculation.
due to this duplicate being used as a surrogate sample.
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 = 309
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 12
Post-Demonstration Rinsate Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-210-EB
SB-211-EB
SB-212-EB
SB-209-EB
SB-207-EB
SB-208-EB
SB-204-EB
SB-210B-EB
SB-203-EB
SB-205-EB
SB-206-EB
SB-202-EB
Sample
Date
11/14/2000
11/14/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/16/2000
11/16/2000
11/17/2000
11/27/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
12/09/2000
Result
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<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
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
Resistive Heating Methanol Blank Soil Extraction QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Pre-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-10-Blank
SB-12-Blank
SB-11-Blank
SB-7-Blank
SB-4-Blank
SB-6-Blank
SB-9-Blank
SB-8-Blank
SB-5-Blank
SB-2-Blank
SB-3-Blank
SB-1-Blank
Sample
Date
06/23/1999
06/24/1999
06/25/1999
06/25/1999
06/26/1999
06/27/1999
06/27/1999
06/28/1999
06/29/1999
06/30/1999
06/30/1999
07/01/1999
Result
(mg/kg)
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
6.9(a)
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
See footnote.
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 291 (Pre-) 309 (Post-)
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 26
Post-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-211-Blank
SB-212-Blank
SB-208-Blank
SB-207-Blank
SB-204-Blank
SB-203 -Blank
SB-205-Blank
SB-205-Blank
SB-206-Blank
SB-206-Blank
SB-201 -Blank
SB-202-Blank
SB-202-Blank
SB-201-Blank
SB-201-Blank
Sample
Date
11/14/2000
11/15/2000
11/15/2000
11/16/2000
11/17/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
12/09/2000
12/09/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
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
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
(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-5-2 through SB-5-45
-------
Table G-7. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Resistive Heating Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Groundwater
Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
ID
PA-13S
PA-13SDUP
PA-13D
PA-13D DUP
Sample
Date
09/03/1999
09/05/1999
Result
(ug/L)
1,030,000
1,100,000
892,000
730,000
RPD
(%)
6.80
18.16
Total Number of Groundwater Samples Collected = 46 (Pre-) 42 (Post-)
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 4
Post-Demonstration
Sample
ID
PA-13D
PA-13D DUP
PA- 101
PA- 101 DUP
Sample
Date
11/27/2000
11/29/2000
Result
(ug/L)
920,000
910,000
750,000
870,000
RPD
(%)
1.09
16.00
Table G-8. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During Resistive Heating Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Resistive Heating 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-8D
PA-8D DUP
PA-2I
PA-2I DUP
PA-10I
PA-10IDUP
PA-8S
PA-8S DUP
Sample
Date
09/29/1999
10/06/1999
10/08/1999
10/20/1999
Result
(ug/L)
625,000
555,000
425,000
475,000
458,000
451,000
115,000
113,000
RPD
(%)
11.86
11.76
1.53
1.75
Sample
ID
PA-10D
PA-10D DUP
PA-13S
PA-13SDUP
PA-2I
PA-2I DUP
Sample
Date
01/10/2000
04/10/2000
04/12/2000
Result
(ug/L)
1,060,000
1,120,000
180,000
170,000
1,800,000
1,400,000
RPD
(%)
5.66
5.56
22.22
-------
Table G-9. Rinsate Blank Results for Groundwater Samples Collected for the Resistive Heating Pre-and Post-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Resistive Heating 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 = 46 (Pre-) 42 (Post-)
Total Number of Rinsate Blank Samples Analyzed = 3
Post-Demonstration Rinsate Blanks
Analysis
Date
11/29/2000
11/30/2000
12/01/2000
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
8.5(a)
<1.0
0.46
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
a) Samples in this set included PA-13D and PA-13D DUP were collected prior to the field blank, PA-7S, PA-7I and PA-7D 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 Resistive Heating Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Resistive Heating 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 Resistive Heating Demonstration Soil and Groundwater Sampling
Total Number of Samples Collected = 600 (Soil) 242 (Groundwater)
-------
Table G-12. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Resistive Heating Treatment Plot MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 291
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 Resistive Heating Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Resistive Heating Treatment Plot MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 309
Total Number of MS/MSD Samples Analyzed = 25
Post-Demonstration
Sample
Date
11/18/2000
11/19/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/22/2000
11/24/2000
11/24/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/28/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
95
108
100
83
108
105
105
101
82
122
102
74
109
108
107
101
96
126
110
102
122
121
107
102
93
101
RPD
(%)
3.2
5.3
2.0
0.92
12.0
9.6
0.20
1.5
8.8
2.1
0.28
0.93
2.4
Sample
Date
11/30/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/16/2000
12/17/2000
12/18/2000
12/20/2000
12/21/2000
12/21/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
85
87
111
109
93
93
86
95
80
91
121
101
109
105
91
89
103
96
110
102
100
105
91
93
RPD
(%)
0.64
0.68
0.34
2.9
4.2
7.3
1.3
0.99
2.6
7.0
5.3
3.0
-------
Table G-14. Spike Recovery Values for Soil Laboratory Control Spike Samples Collected for Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration
Resistive Heating Treatment Plot LCS/LCSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 291
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 Resistive Heating Post-Demonstration
Resistive Heating Treatment Plot LCS/LCSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 309
Total Number of LCS/LCSD Samples Analyzed = 15
Post-Demonstration
Sample
Date
11/18/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
11/24/2000
11/27/2000
11/28/2000
11/29/2000
12/12/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
111
107
109
110
106
113
117
117
106
112
105
105
113
100
102
93
RPD
(%)
3.60
0.92
6.60
0.23
5.66
0.34
11.50
8.82
Sample
Date
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/16/2000
12/17/2000
12/18/2000
12/20/2000
12/21/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
91
89
93
93
94
103
105
94
94
93
104
90
88
90
RPD
(%)
2.20
0.34
9.57
10.48
1.06
13.46
2.27
-------
Table G-16. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Total Number of Samples Collected = 291
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 Resistive Heating Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Total Number of Samples Collected = 309
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 29
Post-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
11/18/2000
11/18/2000
11/20/2000
11/20/2000
11/21/2000
11/21/2000
11/23/2000
11/24/2000
11/27/2000
11/27/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/29/2000
11/30/2000
12/12/2000
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
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
Analysis
Date
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
12/15/2000
12/16/2000
12/16/2000
12/17/2000
12/18/2000
12/20/2000
12/20/2000
12/21/2000
12/21/2000
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
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
-------
Table G-18. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During Resistive Heating Demonstration Groundwater
Sampling
Resistive Heating Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Resistive Heating 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
Resistive Heating 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 = 46 (Pre-) 42 (Post-)
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 12
Post-Demonstration LCS/LCSD Samples
Sample
ID
DQWR31AC-LCS
DQWR31AD-LCSD
DQTDH1AC-LCS
DQTDH1AD -LCSD
DQMKE1AC-LCS
DQMKE1AD -LCSD
DQQ031AC-LCS
DQQ031ACD-LCSD
Sample
Date
12/06/2000
12/05/2000
12/01/2000
12/04/2000
TCE Recovery
(%)
96
93
93
95
98
97
91
92
RPD
(%)
2.8
1.7
1.8
1.2
-------
Table G-20. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Laboratory Control Spike Samples Analyzed During Resistive Heating Demonstration
Groundwater Sampling
Resistive Heating 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 Resistive Heating Pre-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Resistive Heating 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 = 46 (Pre-) 42 (Post-)
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 13
Post-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
12/01/2000
12/04/2000
12/06/2000
12/05/2000
TCE
Concentration
(ug/L)
<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
Table G-22. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During Resistive Heating Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Resistive Heating Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 ug/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 154
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
-------
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 resistive heating plot. Because the groundwater flow in this area is generally to the
northeast, the DNAPL source could be contained by installing one or more extraction wells on the
northeast side of the resistive heating 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 the resistive heating 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 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. The
air effluent is treated with a catalytic oxidation unit before discharge.
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.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.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.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
(1+r)1 (l+r)n
Equation (H-2)
-------
Table H-3 shows the PV calculation for P&T based on Equation H-l. In Equation H-l, 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 H-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 $2,188,000.
-------
Table H-l. Pump & Treat (P&T) System Design Basis
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 Investment 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
Stack
Catalytic Oxidizer
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
10
1
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
ft
ea
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
$2
$65,000
$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
$20
$65,000
$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 (catalytic oxidizer
Sewer disposal fee
Carbon disposal
Waste disposal
TOTAL
Annual Monitorinc
Air stripper influen'
Air stripper effluent
Monitoring wells
Sampling materials
Technician
Engineer
TOTAL
TOTAL ANN UAL 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
10E6Btu
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
$6.00
$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-Year 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
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000 -
PH
O
O
o
$1,000,000
$500,000 -
0 10 20 30
40 50 60
Years of Operation
70 80 90 100
------- |