-------
   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. There is no
   information regarding the state of the semi-confined
   aquifer before the demonstration, so it is unclear
   whether the DNAPL had migrated to the confined
   aquifer before or during the demonstration. How-
   ever, 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.

As the semi-confined  aquifer extends down to approxi-
mately 120 ft  bgs, additional investigation of the deeper
geologic strata would be required to obtain  an under-
standing of the  CVOC distribution in the semi-confined
aquifer.

5.3.4  Potential TCE Losses during
       Hot Soil Core Sampling

Even  after waiting  for two  months following the end of
the SI/E application to the subsurface, the demonstration
plot had cooled  down to  90ฐC or less (from a maximum
of 120ฐC during heating). Therefore, post-demonstration
soil coring had to be conducted while  the plot was still
hot. To  minimize VOC losses due  to  volatilization, the
following  primary  steps  were  taken  (See Appendix
A.1.1):

•  Soil coring was started only after steam generation
   had subsided and the plot had cooled to 90ฐC 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.

   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, as confirmed by
   the  high percent recovery of an injected surrogate com-
   pound (Gaberell et al., 2002).  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 Appen-
   dix  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.

   5.3.5   Summary of Fate of
          TCE/DNAPL Removed

   The TCE/DNAPL  removed  from the plot  could  have
   taken one or more of the following pathways:

   •  TCE recovery in the vapor recovery system.  The
      vendor reported that between  5,200 and 9,700 kg
      (7,400 + 2,200 kg) of TCE was measured in the
      recovered vapor and groundwater. The estimated
      pre-demonstration TCE mass  in the SI/E plot before
      the demonstration was between 11,150 and
      14,150 kg of TCE. However, the source of the TCE
      recovered aboveground by the vendor is unclear. It
      is possible that some dissolved TCE was drawn  into
      the extracted water from the surrounding aquifer,
      parts of which are in untreated DNAPL source areas.
      The maximum amount of TCE that is possibly
      extracted from outside the cell is approximately
      1,000 Ib. This is all the TCE in the wastewater
      stream and therefore includes  condensate from the
      vapor stream as well as the groundwater and
      condensed steam from within the plot. The TCE
      should reasonably be reduced by approximately
      50%, resulting in a figure of about 500 Ib as the likely
      amount of TCE extracted in groundwater from
      outside the plot.

   •  TCE degradation by biotic or abiotic means.  It is
      possible that some of the TCE was degraded to
      other products due to the SI/E process. There is
      some evidence of heightened  microbial activity in
      the SI/E plot at the elevated temperatures. Also,
      HPO of the TCE at elevated temperatures is one of
      the claims of the SI/E technology vendor. There
      was no noticeable buildup of expected degradation
      products (such as chloride, alkalinity, or
Battelle
79
September 2003

-------
   c/s-1,2-DCE), possibly due to the masking effect of
   the 11 pore volumes of water drawn into the plot
   from the surrounding aquifer.

•  DNAPL migration to surrounding regions. The
   possibility of DNAPL migration from the SI/E plot to
   surrounding regions is minimal.  The hydraulic
   containment maintained by the vendor was rela-
   tively strong (an average of 22 gpm of water was
   extracted by the vendor along the boundaries of the
   plot). Therefore, it is unlikely that any DNAPL
   migrated to the surrounding aquifer, despite the
   expected reduction in surface tension of the DNAPL
   due to heating. No elevated TCE concentrations
   were found in the vadose zone soil samples
   collected during post-demonstration soil coring. No
   elevated TCE levels or elevated  temperatures were
   apparent in the confined aquifer  wells below the
   SI/E plot, once the demonstration began. Also, the
   continuous pumping (22 gpm) in the surficial aquifer
   might have exerted an upward gradient across the
   Lower Clay Unit.  TCE levels were slightly elevated
   (above background levels) in the surface emission
   tests conducted on the ground around the plenum,
   but were not particularly high.  Most of the vapor-
   ized TCE appears to have been  recovered  in the
   vapor recovery system.
   •  Potential TCE losses during post-demonstration
      sampling of hot soil cores.  The potential for TCE
      loss through this pathway is minimal. The hot soil
      cores were cooled to ambient temperature in the
      sleeves they were brought to  the ground surface in.
      Recoveries of 84 to 113% of a surrogate compound
      spiked into the hot and cold soil cores were
      achieved during tests conducted to verify the field
      sampling and extraction procedures.

   Therefore, despite some uncertainties due to the large
   influx of groundwater into the SI/E plot,  it is likely that
   much of the TCE removed from the plot  was recovered
   aboveground in the vapor recovery system. It is unclear
   how much of the TCE  in the plot was degraded in situ,
   due to  the SI/E application.  The TCE recovered above
   ground  was ultimately recovered  on the GAG or destroyed
   in the thermal oxidizer.

   5.4  Operating Requirements and Cost

   Section 3 contains a description of the SI/E field opera-
   tions at Launch  Complex 34.  Section 7 contains the
   costs and economic analysis of the technology.
Battelle
80
September 2003

-------
                                      6.  Quality Assurance
A QAPP (Battelle, 2001 c) was prepared before the dem-
onstration that  outlined the performance  assessment
methodology and the QA measures to be taken during
the demonstration. The results of the field and laboratory
QA activities for the critical soil and groundwater CVOC
(primary) measurements and groundwater  field param-
eter  (secondary)  measurements are described  in this
section. The  results of  the QA associated with other
groundwater  quality  (secondary)  measurements are
described in Appendix G. The QA efforts were focused
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 analyti-
cal 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:

•  The statistical design for determining the number
   and distribution of soil samples in the 75-ft x 50-ft
   SI/E plot was based on the horizontal and vertical
   variability observed during a preliminary characteri-
   zation 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. Contin-
   uous cores were collected from these 12 locations
   and sampled in 2-ft sections from the ground sur-
   face to the lower clay unit at each coring location.
   At the 80% confidence level, the pre- and post-
      demonstration TCE mass estimates in the plot (see
      Section 5.1) did not overlap, and were sufficiently
      separated to enable a good judgment of the mass
      removal achieved by the steam injection
      technology.

      — Sampling and analysis of duplicate post-
        demonstration soil cores were conducted to
        determine TCE concentration variability within
        each grid cell. Two complete cores (SB-239 and
        SB-339) were collected within about 2 ft of each
        other in the post-demonstration SI/E 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. These results indicated that dividing the
        plot into 12 grid  cells enabled a sampling design
        that was able to address the horizontal variability
        in TCE distribution.

      — Continuous sampling of the soil column at each
        coring location enabled the sampling design to
        address the vertical variability in the  TCE distri-
        bution. By sampling soil along the entire 2-ft
        section of core for extraction and analysis,
        essentially every vertical depth was sampled.

   •  Appropriate modifications were made to the stand-
      ard methods for sampling and analysis  of soil. To
      increase the representativeness of the soil sam-
      pling, the sampling and extraction procedures in
      U.S. EPA Method 5035 were modified so that a
      representative vertical section of each 2-ft core
      could be sampled and extracted, instead of the 5-g
      aliquots specified in the standard method (see Sec-
      tion 4.1). This was done to maximize the capture of
      TCE-DNAPL in the entire soil column at each  coring
      location.

   The following steps taken to achieve representativeness
   of the groundwater samples:
Battelle
81
September 2003

-------
•  Two well clusters were installed in the 75-ft x 50-ft
   SI/E plot and sampled.  Each cluster consisted of
   three wells screened in the three stratigraphic
   units—Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit,
   and Lower Sand Unit.

•  Standard methods were used for sampling and
   analysis. Disposable tubing was used to collect
   samples from all monitoring wells to avoid cross-
   contaminating the sample tubing after use in wells
   with high TCE-DNAPL levels.

6.1.2  Completeness

All regular samples specified  in the QAPP were collected
and analyzed. Additional samples were collected when
new requirements were identified as  the demonstration
progressed. Additional groundwater samples were  col-
lected from all SI/E plot and  surrounding wells  to better
evaluate  chloride  generation and migration, as well as
the presence of potassium ion and potassium  perman-
ganate from  the  nearby  chemical  oxidation plot. 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, including equipment
rinsate blanks during soil coring. Based on the prelimi-
nary 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%). Rinsate blanks were  collected
more frequently near the end  of the  pre-demonstration
sampling event, at a rate of 2 per day, as the number of
soil  samples  collected    increased.  During  post-
demonstration sampling, one rinsate blank was collected
per boring  location. None  of the blanks contained  any
elevated  levels of CVOCs. Detailed data on the rinsate
blanks  may be found in Appendix G.

6.1.3  Chain of Custody

Chain-of-custody forms were used to track each batch of
samples collected in the field and delivered 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 sam-
         ples while in transit. Upon  arrival at the laboratory, the
         laboratory verified that  the samples were received  in
         good condition, and  the temperature blank sample sent
         with each shipment was measured to ensure that the
         required  temperature was  maintained  during transit.
         Each sample  received  was then checked against the
         chain-of-custody  form,  and  any  discrepancies  were
         brought to the attention of field personnel.

         6.2  Field QC Measures

         The field  QC checks included  calibration of field instru-
         ments, field blanks (5% of  regular samples), field  dupli-
         cates  (5% of  regular samples), and trip blanks; the
         results of these checks are discussed in this section.

         Table  6-1 summarizes  the instruments  used for field
         groundwater  measurements (pH, ORP,  DO, tempera-
         ture, water levels, and conductivity) and the associated
         calibration criteria.  Instruments were calibrated  at the
         beginning and end of the sampling period on  each day.
         The field instruments were always within  the acceptance
         criteria  during the demonstration.  The  DO  membrane
         was the  most sensitive, especially  to  extremely  high
         (near saturation) levels of chlorinated solvent or perman-
         ganate in the groundwater, and this membrane had to be
         changed  more frequently as a result. Because of inter-
         ference with DO and other measurements, field param-
         eter measurements in deeply purple (high permanganate
         level) samples were avoided, as noted in  Appendix D.

         6.2.1   Field QCfor Soil Sampling

         During   post-demonstration  sampling,   one  primary
         change and one addition were  made to  the sampling
         protocol  outlined in the QAPP  (Battelle, 2001 c). The
         primary change to the QAPP involved the point at which
         methanol was added to the soil  sample. The  QAPP
         specified that the soil sample would be collected first into
         an  empty, preweighed  bottle, and  then approximately
         250 ml of methanol would be added to the soil in 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, ฑ20% difference
1 point, ฑ20% difference
1 point, ฑ20% difference
1 point, ฑ20% difference
1 point, ฑ20% difference
3 point, ฑ20% difference
      ฑ0.01 ft
Battelle
      82
                          September 2003

-------
bottle. Due to concerns about the amount of CVOC vola-
tilization that might be occurring during the time between
collecting  the sample and adding the  methanol,  the
decision  was made to  add  the appropriate  amount
(250 ml) of methanol to the bottle first, and then place
the soil sample directly  into the methanol-filled bottle.
Soil extractions then were conducted in  the field using
modified  U.S. EPA  Method 5035 as described in  the
QAPP, and the extract was sent to the off-site analytical
laboratory for CVOC analysis.

The addition to the QAPP  sampling and  analysis proto-
col involved the use  of a  surrogate compound to test the
recovery efficiency of the methanol extraction procedure
used on-site.  The surrogate compound,  1,1,1-TCA, was
chosen  by the analytical lab as having  properties and
characteristics very similar to TCE, but would not inter-
fere with the  analytical analysis of TCE. The surrogate
was  spiked  directly into one soil  sample from every
boring location collected during post-demonstration sam-
pling. The injection  volume of  1,1,1-TCA was approxi-
mately 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,
calculated as the relative percent difference  (RPD),
where RPD is less than 30%. The results indicate that
the methanol  extraction procedure used in the field was
suitable for recovering CVOCs.  The detailed results of
the 1,1,1-TCA spike  recoveries are presented in Appen-
dix G (Table G-1).

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#  and SB#-Depth#-DUP. Appen-
dix G (Tables G-3 and 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 col-
lected before  and  after the demonstration. The precision
of the field duplicate samples was generally within  the
acceptable range  (+30%) for the demonstration,  indicat-
ing that the sampling  procedure was representative of
the soil column at the coring location.

The  RPD  for  two  of the  thirteen duplicate soil samples
collected during the pre-demonstration  sampling  was
greater than  30%, but less than 60% (see Table G-3).
These exceedances of the RPD target are  attributed to
the low TCE concentrations found  in those samples,
which significantly affected the  RPD calculations.  One
sample-duplicate  pair  significantly exceeded the target
level of 30%  (RPD=115%) due to the presence of free-
phase TCE found in part of the sample. This result indi-
   cated the heterogeneous nature of the contaminant dis-
   tribution in the soil.  However, this large  a deviation
   occurred only for 2 of the 13 sets of duplicate soil sam-
   ples collected, and may  be  an  extreme  example of the
   nugget effect associate with  sampling free-phase or par-
   ticulate contaminants.

   The RPD for 4 of the 15 duplicate soil samples collected
   during  the post-demonstration sampling  was  greater
   than 30% but less than 40%  (see Table G-4). These four
   samples had RPD values slightly  above  the  targeted
   range  because of the low TCE concentrations found  in
   the samples, which significantly affected  the RPD calcu-
   lation. In general though,  the variability in the two vertical
   halves  that each soil  core section was split  into  before
   the extraction 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 day
   (approximately 20 soil samples) to evaluate  the decon-
   tamination  procedure for  soil  sampling  equipment.
   Decontamination  between samples consisted of a three-
   step process where the sampling equipment 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 over the sampling
   equipment  after  the  equipment  had been  processed
   through the routine decontamination procedure. As seen
   in Appendix G (Table G-5), TCE levels in the rinsate
   blanks  were always below detection (<1.0 u,g/L), indicat-
   ing that the decontamination procedure  was preventing
   CVOC  cross-contamination 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). All of the
   methanol blank samples were below the targeted detec-
   tion limit of 0.250 mg/kg of TCE in  dry soil.

   6.2.2   Field QC Checks for Groundwater
          Sampling

   QC  checks for  groundwater  sampling included  field
   duplicates (5%), field blanks (5%), and trip blanks. Field
   duplicate samples were collected once for every 20 wells
   sampled. Appendix G  (Tables G-7 and G-8) contains the
   analysis of the field duplicate groundwater samples that
   were collected before, during, and after  the demonstra-
   tion. The RPD (precision) calculated for these samples
   always met the QA/QC target criteria of ฑ30%.

   New disposable  Teflonฎ tubing  was  used to  collect
   groundwater from each  well during each  groundwater
Battelle
83
September 2003

-------
sampling event. The tubing was disposed of after sam-
pling each well. Therefore decontamination procedures
were not used on the groundwater sampling tubing. Rin-
sate blanks for the sample tubing consisted of passing
fresh deionized water through the  sample tubing  into
40-mL VOA vials. All rinsate sample results  for pre- and
post-demonstration sampling events were below the non-
detect level (<1.0 u,g/L). The field rinsate analytical results
are contained in Appendix G (Tables G-9 and G-10).

TCE levels in trip blank samples were always less than
1 u,g/L  (Appendix  G, Table G-11),  indicating that the
integrity of the samples was maintained during shipment.

6.3  Laboratory QC Checks

The  off-site analytical  laboratory  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 laboratory control spike
duplicates (LCSD).  The analytical laboratories generally
conducted MS  and MSD whenever  the  groundwater
samples were clear, in order to determine accuracy. MS
and  MSD or LCS  and LCSD  were used  to calculate
analytical  accuracy (percent  recovery) and precision
(RPD between MS and MSD or LCS  and LCSD).

6.3.1  Analytical QC Checks for Soil

Analytical accuracy for the soil samples (methanol ex-
tracts)  analyzed was within the acceptance limits (70-
130%)  for the pre-  and post-demonstration period (Ap-
pendix G, Tables G-12, G-13, G-14, and G-15).  Matrix
spike recoveries (MS/MSD)  were all less than the  QA/
QC  target RPD  of 30%  for both   pre-  and  post-
demonstration sampling  events. However,  7 of the 42
MS/MSD spike recoveries were outside the target  recov-
ery  range  of  70-130%  for  the  pre-  and  post-
demonstration sampling events (Appendix G, Tables G-
12 and G-13). Laboratory control spike recoveries (LCS/
LCSD) were all less than the QA/QC target RPD of 25%
for both pre- and  post-demonstration  sampling events.
There were no exceedances of the target recovery range
of 70-130% for LCS/LCSD samples (Appendix G, Tables
G-14 and G-15).

The  off-site analytical  laboratory  (DHL Analytical) con-
ducted surrogate spikes in  5%  of the total number of
methanol extracts prepared from the soil samples  for
CVOC analysis. Table 6-2 lists the surrogate and labora-
tory  control  sample compounds used  by  the  off-site
laboratory to perform the QA/QC checks. Surrogate and
laboratory control sample 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
   Table 6-2.  List of Surrogate and Laboratory Control
              Sample Compounds and Their Target
              Recoveries for Soil and Groundwater
              Analysis by the Off-Site Laboratory (DHL)
            Surrogate
 Laboratory Control Sample
   4-Bromofluorobenzene (75-125%)
   Toluene-d8(75-125%)
   Dibromofluoromethane (75-125%)
   1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (62-139%)
1,1,1-TCA(75-125%)
c/s-1,2-DCE (75-125%)
frans-1,2-DCE(75-125%)
TCE (75-125%)
Vinyl chloride (75-125%)
   periods (Appendix G, Tables G-16 and G-17). CVOC
   levels in the method blanks were always below detection
   (<0.250 mg/kg TCE).

   6.3.2  Laboratory QC for Groundwater

   MS and MSD results for groundwater sampling events
   during and after the demonstration are listed in Appen-
   dix G (Table G-18). The MS  and MSD recoveries (70 to
   130%) and their precision (RPD<25%) were  generally
   within acceptance criteria. The recoveries for two MS/
   MSD pairs of samples exceeded 130% recovery. Recov-
   eries and  RPDs  for  LCS and LCSD samples (Appen-
   dix G, Tables G-19 and  G-20) were always within the
   acceptance range.

   Method blanks (Appendix G, Tables G-21  and G-22) for
   the groundwater samples were always below the tar-
   geted 3 u,g/L detection limit.

   6.3.3  Analytical Detection Limits

   Detection limits for TCE  in soil (1  mg/kg) and ground-
   water (3 u,g/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 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 the analytical  instruments.  The pro-
   portionately higher detection limits are reported in the
   CVOC tables  in  Appendix C. The detection limits  most
   affected were those for c;s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride,
   due to the masking effect of high  levels of TCE. Addi-
   tionally, the laboratories verified and reported  that  ana-
   lytical instrumentation calibrations  were within accept-
   able ranges on the days of the analyses.

   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
Battelle
84
       September 2003

-------
before, during, and after the demonstration, for the fol-
lowing reasons:

•  A 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 results provided pre- and post-
   demonstration confidence intervals (range of TCE
   mass estimates) that did not overlap, and were
   sufficiently separated to enable a good judgment of
   the TCE and DNAPL mass removal achieved by the
   steam injection technology.

•  Standard sampling and analysis methods were
   used for all other measurements to ensure that data
   were comparable between sampling events.
   •  Accuracy and precision of the soil and groundwater
      measurements were generally in the acceptable
      range for the field sampling and laboratory analysis.
      In some cases, extremely low (near detection) or
      extremely high levels of TCE in the sample caused
      greater deviation in the precision (repeatability) of
      the data.

   •  In some cases, the masking effect of high TCE
      levels on other CVOCs and the need for sample
      dilution caused detection limits for TCE, to rise to
      5 u,g/L (instead of 3 u,g/L).  However, post-
      demonstration levels of dissolved TCE  in many of
      the monitoring wells in the SI/E plot were consider-
      ably higher than the 3-u.g/L detection and regulatory
      target.

   •  Field blanks associated with the soil samples and
      groundwater samples had  undetected levels of
      TCE.
Battelle
85
September 2003

-------

-------
                                     7.  Economic Analysis
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 steam injection technology cost with the cost of a
conventional pump-and-treat system.

The  cost estimation for the steam injection  technology
application  involves the  following  three major  compo-
nents:

•  Application cost of steam injection at the demon-
   stration site. Costs of the technology application at
   Launch Complex 34 were tracked by the steam
   injection 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.

7.1   Steam Injection Application
      Costs

The costs of the steam injection technology were tracked
and  reported by  both the  vendor  and MSE, the DOE
contractor who  subcontracted  the vendor.  Table 7-1
summarizes the major cost components for the applica-
tion. The total cost of the steam injection demonstration
was  approximately $1,201,000.  This total  includes the
design,  permitting  support, implementation,  process
monitoring, waste disposal, and reporting costs incurred
by the vendor. The total does not  include  the costs for
site  characterization, which  was  conducted by other
organizations (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
[RI/FS] by NASA, preliminary characterization by WSRC,
   Table 7-1.  Steam Injection Application Cost
              Summary Provided by Vendor
Cost Item
Design and plans
Surface plant set-up
Well installation
Air, water, and limited soil analyses
Operations
Waste disposal
Electricity used
Water
Fuel (propane and diesel)
Project management and reporting
Total Cost
Actual Cost
($)
120,000
168,000
132,000
72,070
420,41 1
55,100
13,902
941
82,210
132,129
1,201,175
Percentage
(%)
10
14
11
6
35
5
1
.1
7
11
100
   Source: MSE, 2002.


   detailed characterization by Battelle/TetraTech EM, Inc./
   U.S.  EPA); and the cost of the operating fuel (propane
   and  diesel),  waste disposal,  electricity, and  water,
   incurred  by NASA. Based on  the  average  total  TCE
   reduction  efficiency at  85% by  kriging analysis results,
   the treated TCE was estimated to be 19,556 Ib including
   16,383 Ib  from the liquid/vapor extraction system and
   3,173 Ib by in situ TCE reduction. Thus,  the unit cost is
   estimated to be at $61  per Ib treated TCE. The total cost
   for treatment is approximately $192 per yd3 treated TCE
   (MSE, 2002).

   7.2  Site Preparation and Waste
        Disposal Costs

   Soil cuttings from the hollow-stem auger used for instal-
   ling the steam injection and vapor extraction wells were
   disposed of offsite by the vendor. Soil (i.e., waste) dis-
   posal costs are shown  in Table 7-1. The wastes gener-
   ated  during the steam injection operation were disposed
   of off site by NASA at a cost of $55,100. Wastes shipped
   off site  included  the  spent  GAG, and steam  boiler
   blowdown.
Battelle
87
September 2003

-------
7.3   Site Characterization and
      Performance Assessment Costs

This section describes two categories of costs:

•  Site characterization costs (see Table 7-2).  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 remediation technology design.  This cost
   component is perhaps the most reflective of the
   type of costs incurred when a site of the size and
   geology of Launch Complex 34 undergoes site
   characterization in preparation for remediation.
   Assuming that groundwater monitoring and plume
   delineation at a site indicates the presence of
   DNAPL, these site characterization costs are
   incurred in an effort to define the  boundaries of the
   DNAPL source zone,  obtain an order-of-magnitude
   estimate of the DNAPL mass present, and define
   the local  hydrogeology and geochemistry of the
   DNAPL source zone.

•  Performance assessment costs (see Table 7-3).
   These are  primarily demonstration-related costs.
   Most of these costs were incurred in an effort to
   further delineate the portion of the DNAPL source
   contained in the steam injection plot  and determine
   the TCE/DNAPL mass removal achieved by the
   steam technology. 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. This event was
a suitable combination of soil coring and groundwater
sampling, organic and inorganic analysis, and hydraulic
testing (water levels and slug tests) that  may   be ex-
pected to bridge the gap  between the RI/FS  or RFI data
usually available at a site and the typical data needs for
DNAPL source delineation and remediation design.

Table  7-3 lists  the  performance  assessment costs in-
curred jointly by Battelle  and TetraTech EM, Inc.  in eval-
uating  the effectiveness of the steam injection technology.

7.4   Present Value Analysis of Steam
      Injection and Pump-and-Treat
      System  Costs

DNAPL, especially of the  magnitude present at Launch
Complex 34, is likely to persist in an  aquifer for several
   Table 7-2.  Estimated Site Characterization Costs
                     Activity
                                                 Cost
    Site Characterization Work Plan                   $ 25,000
      • Additional characterization to delineate DNAPL
        source
      • Collect hydrogeologic and geochemical data for
        technology design

    Site Characterization                           $ 165,000
      • Drilling - soil coring and well installation
        (12 continuous soil cores to 45 ft bgs;
        installation of 36 monitoring wells)
      • Soil and groundwater sampling (36 monitoring
        wells; 300 soil samples collection and field
        extraction)
      • Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
        analysis)
      • Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
        testing)

    Data Analysis and Site Characterization  Report        $ 65,000
    Total
                                $ 255,000
   Table 7-3.
Estimated Performance Assessment
Costs
                     Activity
                                                 Cost
    Pre-Demonstration Assessment                   $208,000
      • Drilling - 12 continuous soil cores, installation
        of 18 monitoring wells
      • Soil and groundwater sampling for TCE/DNAPL
        boundary and mass estimation (36 monitoring
        wells; 300 soil samples collection and field
        extraction)
      • Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
        analysis)
      • Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
        testing)

    Demonstration Assessment                      $100,000
      • Groundwater sampling (steam injection 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 groundwater 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
                                $ 523,000
   decades or centuries. The resulting groundwater 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
Battelle
88
                          September 2003

-------
and treat the groundwater 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. Steam injection is an innova-
tive in situ technology that seeks to replace the conven-
tional pump-and-treat approach. Therefore, the costs of
these two alternatives are compared in this section.

Because a pump-and-treat system would need to be
operated for the next several decades, the life-cycle cost
of this  long-term  treatment must be  calculated  and
compared  with the cost of steam injection, a short-term
treatment.  The present value (PV)  of a long-term pump-
and-treat application is calculated as described in Appen-
dix H. The PV analysis  is  conducted over a 30-year
period, as  is typical for long-term remediation programs
at Superfund sites. Site  characterization  and  perform-
ance (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 steam
injection plot.  Recent research (Pankow  and  Cherry,
1996) indicates that the  most  efficient pump-and-treat
system  for source  containment would  capture  all the
groundwater flowing through the DNAPL source  region.
For a 75-ft-long x 50-ft-wide x 40-ft-deep DNAPL  source
region  at Launch  Complex 34, a single  extraction well
pumping at 2 gpm is assumed to be sufficient to contain
the source in  an  aquifer where the hydraulic gradient
(and therefore, the groundwater  flow velocity)  is  ex-
tremely low. This type of minimal containment pumping
ensures that the source is contained without having  to
extract and treat groundwater from cleaner surrounding
regions, as would be the case in more aggressive  con-
ventional 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 steam injection technology would  be approximately
   $1,201,000.  This estimate is based on  a total  steam
   injection  treatment  including  waste  disposal  cost
   ($55,100) during the demonstration (from Table 7-1 and
   Section 7-2).

   Therefore, the steam injection technology is comparable
   in cost to an  equivalent pump-and-treat system. As seen
   in Table  H-3 in Appendix H, an investment in  steam
   injection  has a slightly  lower PV than  the  long-term
   investment in a pump-and-treat system, although  not by
   much. The capital invested in steam injection would be
   recovered in the 24th year, when the PV of the  pump-
   and-treat system exceeds the cost of steam injection.
   More importantly, there may be other tangible and intan-
   gible economic benefits to using a  source remediation
   technology that are not factored into  the analysis. For
   example, the economic analysis in Appendix H assumes
   that the  pump-and-treat system is  operational all the
   time over the next  30  or  more years, with most  of the
   annual expense associated with operation and routine
   (scheduled)  maintenance. Experience  with pump-and-
   treat systems at several sites has shown that downtime
   associated with pump-and-treat systems is fairly high  (as
   much  as 50% downtime reported from some sites). This
   may negatively impact both maintenance requirements
   (tangible  cost) and the integrity of  plume containment
   (intangible cost) with the pump-and-treat alternative.  In
   addition,  with steam injection or other source removal
   technology, there are no permanent aboveground struc-
   tures,  as there are with a  long-term  pump-and-treat
   system application,  so the site can be put to many more
   uses.

   Another factor to consider is that although the  economic
   analysis for long-term remediation programs typically is
   conducted for a 30-year period, the  DNAPL source and
   therefore the pump-and-treat requirement may persist
   for many more years  or  decades. This  would lead  to
   concomitantly higher remediation costs for the  pump-
   and-treat or  plume containment  option (without source
   removal). As seen in Appendix H, the PV of a pump-and-
   treat  system  operated  for 100   years would  be
   $2,188,000.
Battelle
89
September 2003

-------

-------
                           8.  Technology Applications Analysis
This section evaluates the general applicability of the
SI/E technology to sites with contaminated groundwater
and soil. The analysis is  based on the  results and les-
sons learned from  the IDC demonstration,  as well as
general information available about the  technology and
its application at other sites.

8.1  Objectives

This section evaluates the SI/E technology  against the
nine evaluation criteria used  for detailed  analysis  of
remedial  alternatives in  feasibility  studies  under the
Comprehensive Environmental  Response,  Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Much of the discussion
in  this  section  applies to DNAPL  source  removal  in
general, and SI/E in particular.

8.1.1  Overall Protection of Human Health
       and the Environment

The SI/E  technology is protective  of human  health and
environment in both the short and  long term. At Launch
Complex  34, for example, the SI/E technique  removed
more than 8,000 kg of DNAPL contamination  from the
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  considerably reduces the
duration over which the source is active. Even if DNAPL
mass removal  is not 100%,  the resulting long-term
weakening of the plume and the reduced duration  over
which the  DNAPL  source  contributes  to  the  plume
reduces the threat to potential receptors.

8.1.2  Compliance with ARARs

This section describes the technology performance ver-
sus applicable or relevant  and appropriate requirements
(ARARs).  Compliance with chemical-,  location-,  and
action-specific ARARs should be determined on a  site-
specific basis.
   Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends on
   the  efficiency of the SI/E process  at the site and the
   cleanup  goals agreed  on by various stakeholders. In
   general,  reasonable short-term (DNAPL mass removal)
   goals are more achievable and should lead to eventual
   and earlier  compliance  with  long-term  groundwater
   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  groundwater concentrations is
   observed. However, removal of DNAPL,  even if most of
   the removal takes place from the more accessible  pores,
   probably would result in  a weakened plume that may
   lead to  significant risk reduction  in the downgradient
   aquifer. In the long term, source treatment should lead
   to earlier compliance with groundwater 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 SI/E are  described below.

   8.1.2.1  Comprehensive Environmental Response,
          Compensation, and Liability Act

   CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
   and Reauthorization Act  (SARA), provides  for federal
   authority to respond to  releases  or potential releases of
   any hazardous substance into the environment, as well
   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 also
   must be cost-effective  and protective of human  health
   and the environment. The SI/E technology meets several
   of these criteria relating to a preferred alternative. SI/E
Battelle
91
September 2003

-------
reduces the volume of contaminants by removing DNAPL
from the aquifer; it is possible that the  toxicity of con-
taminants is  reduced  depending on  how  much  the
degradation pathways contribute to contaminant mass
removal (see Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2). Although aquifer
heterogeneities 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 groundwater contamination. Sec-
tion 7.4 shows that SI/E is cost-effective compared with
the conventional alternative of long-term pump and treat.

8.1.2.2  Resource Conservation
        and Recovery Act

RCRA, as amended by  the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments  (HSWA) of 1984,  regulates management
and disposal  of municipal and  industrial solid wastes.
Both the U.S. EPA and RCRA-authorized states (listed
in 40  CFR Part 272)  implement and enforce  RCRA and
state  regulations.  Generally,  RCRA does  not  apply  to
in situ groundwater treatment because the contaminated
groundwater may  not be  considered  hazardous waste
while  it  is still in the aquifer.  The contaminated ground-
water becomes regulated  if it  is extracted from the
ground, as would happen with the conventional alterna-
tive of pump and treat.  Some aboveground wastes are
generated that may require off-site landfill disposal. Dur-
ing the Launch Complex 34 demonstration, soil cuttings
(from  drilling and installation  of SI/E wells) were kept in
drums and disposed  of by NASA. The spent GAG was
shipped back to the supplier for regeneration.

8.1.2.3  Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA)  is designed to restore and
maintain the chemical, 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. Discharge to a POTW, even if it is
through  an on-site   sewer,   is  considered  an off-site
activity.  At Launch Complex 34, surface water was dis-
charged  through  an infiltration trench. Approximately
4,013,588 gal of extracted groundwater and steam con-
densate was generated during the demonstration. This
water was run through an air stripper, liquid-phase GAG,
and permanganate-impregnated  silica, before being dis-
charged to the on-site infiltration trench.
   Sometimes, soil or groundwater monitoring may lead to
   small  amounts  of purge and  decontamination  water
   wastes that may be  subject to  CWA  requirements.
   Micropurging was one measure implemented at Launch
   Complex 34 to minimize such wastes during site charac-
   terization and technology performance assessment.

   8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act

   The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in
   1986,  requires U.S. EPA to establish regulations to pro-
   tect human health from contaminants in drinking water.
   The legislation authorizes national drinking water stand-
   ards and a joint federal-state system for ensuring com-
   pliance with these standards. 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 most criti-
   cal  standards  to meet  are the  health-based SDWA
   primary standards (e.g., for TCE); 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 standards for water that is, or potentially could
   be,  used for drinking water supply.  In some cases, such
   as when multiple contaminants are present,  alternative
   concentration limits (ACLs)  may be used. CERCLA and
   RCRA standards and guidance are used in establishing
   ACLs. In addition, some states may set more stringent
   standards  for specific  contaminants. For example,  the
   federally mandated  MCL for vinyl chloride  is 2 u,g/L,
   whereas the State of Florida drinking water standard is
   1  u,g/L. In such instances, the more stringent standard is
   usually the cleanup goal.

   Although  the  long-term  goal of  DNAPL source zone
   treatment is meeting applicable drinking water standards
   or other risk-based groundwater cleanup goals agreed
   on between site  owners and regulatory  authorities,  the
   short-term  objective of  the SI/E technology  is DNAPL
   mass  removal.  Because technology, site, and economic
   limitations  may limit  DNAPL mass  removal to less than
   100%, it may not always be possible to meet 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  groundwater cleanup targets have to be met) from
   the  source (as negotiated between the site owner and
   regulators), the degree of weakening of the plume due to
   DNAPL source  treatment,  and the degree  of natural
   attenuation in the aquifer,  it may  be possible to meet
   groundwater cleanup targets at the compliance point in
   the short term. DNAPL mass removal will always lead to
   faster  attainment of groundwater cleanup goals in  the
Battelle
92
September 2003

-------
long term,  as  compared  to the condition in  which no
source removal action is taken.

8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act

The Clean  Air Act (CAA) and the 1990  amendments
establish primary and  secondary ambient  air quality
standards for protection of public health, as well as emis-
sion limitations for certain hazardous pollutants. Permit-
ting requirements under CAA are administered by each
state as part of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) devel-
oped  to  bring  each state  in compliance with National
Ambient Air Quality 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., SI/E or resistive
heating)  also may have  the potential to  generate air
emissions,  unless adequate controls are implemented.
Surface emission tests conducted in the SI/E plot (on the
ground around the oversized plenum covering  the steam
injection  plot and perimeter areas) during and after the
demonstration showed TCE emissions that were notice-
ably above background   levels.   This  indicates  that,
although the strong vapor recovery system  was over
designed and succeeded in significantly capturing and
mitigating vapor emissions, a small fraction of TCE may
have been  discharged to the atmosphere. As the can-
ister samples  collected  at shoulder height  above the
ground showed, these emissions  were minor and  were
not a safety hazard. One precaution that could be taken
in  the  future,  if  relatively  high concentrations of TCE
remain in the  aquifer after treatment, is  to  leave the
plenum and vapor recovery system on for a longer time
after steam injection has ended. Surface emission tests
showed that the  TCE emissions remained above back-
ground levels while the aquifer was still hot (about 60ฐC
when the last measurement was taken).

The air effluent from the air stripper was treated with a
thermal  oxidizer  unit before being discharged to the
atmosphere.

8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health
       Administration

CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must  be carried  out  in  accordance  with  Occupational
Safety and  Health Administration  (OSHA)  requirements
detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926,  especially
Part 1910.120, which provides for the health and safety
of workers  at hazardous waste sites.  On-site construc-
tion activities at  Superfund or  RCRA corrective action
sites must be performed in accordance with Part 1926 of
RCRA, which provides safety and  health regulations for
construction sites. State OSHA requirements, which may
be significantly stricter than federal standards,  also must
be met.
   The health and safety aspects of SI/E are described in
   Section 3.2.3, which describes the operation of this tech-
   nology at Launch Complex 34. Level D personal protec-
   tive equipment generally is sufficient during implementa-
   tion.  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 sam-
   pling during and/or after the steam application. All oper-
   ating and sampling personnel are required to have com-
   pleted the 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations  and
   Emergency  Response  (HAZWOPER) training  course
   and 8-hour refresher courses.  There were  no  injuries
   during the SI/E demonstration at Launch Complex 34.

   8.1.3  Long-Term Effectiveness
          and Permanence

   SI/E  leads to removal of DNAPL mass  and therefore
   permanent removal of contamination from  the aquifer.
   Dissolved  solvent concentrations may rebound  in the
   short-term when groundwater flow redistributes through
   the treated source  zone containing DNAPL remnants;
   however, in  the long-term, depletion of the weakened
   source through  dissolution  will  continue  and lead to
   eventual and earlier compliance with groundwater clean-
   up goals.

   8.1.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
          Volume through Treatment

   SI/E  affects  treatment by reducing the  volume  of the
   contamination and possibly,  reducing its  toxicity as  well
   (depending on how  much the degradation pathway con-
   tributes to contaminant mass removal).

   8.1.5  Short-Term Effectiveness

   The short-term effectiveness of the SI/E  technology de-
   pends on a number of factors. If the short-term goal is to
   remove as much DNAPL mass as possible, this goal is
   likely to  be met. If the short-term goal is to reduce dis-
   solved contaminant levels in the source  zone, achieve-
   ment of this  goal will  depend on the hydrogeology  and
   DNAPL  distribution in the treated region.  TCE levels
   declined in some monitoring wells in the SI/E plot, but
   were  well above federal  MCLs or State  of  Florida
   groundwater cleanup  standards (5 ppb and  3  ppb,
   respectively). Geologic   heterogeneities,  preferential
   flowpaths taken by the steam, and localized permeability
   changes that determine flow in the treated region may
   lead  to  such variability in post-treatment groundwater
   levels of contamination. As discussed in Section 8.1.2.4,
   the chances of DNAPL mass  removal  resulting in
   reduced  contaminant  levels  at a  compliance point
Battelle
93
September 2003

-------
downgradient from the source is less likely in the short or
intermediate  term.  In  the  long term,  DNAPL  mass
removal will always  shorten the  time period required to
bring  the  entire  affected aquifer into  compliance with
applicable standards.

8.1.6  Implementability

As mentioned in Section 7.2, site preparation  and ac-
cess requirements for implementing the steam injection
technology are minimal.  Firm ground for equipment set-
up is  required. The  equipment involved is commercially
available. Setup and shakedown times are relatively high
compared  to  other technologies,  such  as  chemical
oxidation.  Overhead space available at open sites gen-
erally is sufficient for housing the SI/E equipment.

8.1.7  Cost

As described in Section  7.4, the cost of SI/E, as it was
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 necessitating continued costs
for  pump and  treat  into the  distant future  (perhaps
100 years or more).  Annual O&M costs also do not take
into account the nonroutine maintenance costs associ-
ated with the large amount of downtime typically experi-
enced by site owners with pump-and-treat systems.

A rise in fuel prices  (for  operating the steam generation
boiler) may increase the cost of the SI/E application.

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 mech-
anism to proactively  obtain regulatory input in the design
and  implementation  of  the  remediation/demonstration
   activities at Launch Complex 34. Because  of the tech-
   nical 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  SI/E technology's  low  noise  levels and ability to
   reduce short- and long-term  risks posed by DNAPL con-
   tamination 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 SI/E in
   the 75-ft x 50-ft plot at Launch Complex 34 took about 6
   months to complete. The remediation generally is done
   as a turnkey project  by multiple vendors, who design,
   build, and operate the steam injection system. Site char-
   acterization, site preparation (utilities, etc.),  monitoring,
   and  any  waste disposal often  are  done  by  the site
   owner. The SI/E process used at Launch Complex 34 is
   patented, but  is commercially  available from multiple
   licensed vendors.

   The  SI/E  process  is relatively  complex and  requires
   proficient operators trained in this particular technology.
   Handing of hot fluids may require additional precautions.

   8.3  Applicable Wastes

   SI/E has  been applied  to remediation  of aquifers con-
   taminated with chlorinated solvents,  PAHs,  and  petro-
   leum (nonchlorinated) hydrocarbons both in the vadose
   and saturated  zones. Source zones consisting of per-
   chloroethylene  (PCE) and TCE in  DNAPL or dissolved
   form, as well as dissolved c;s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chlo-
   ride, can be addressed by SI/E.

   8.4  Key Features

   The following are some of the key features of SI/E that
   make it attractive for DNAPL source zone treatment:

   • Applied in situ

   • Uses relatively complex, but commercially
     available, equipment

   • Relatively fast field application time possible, when
     applied properly
Battelle
94
September 2003

-------
•  The heat generated distributes reasonably well
   in the aquifer, thus achieving good 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
   needs to be applied for a shorter duration in the
   future.

8.5  Availability/Transportability

SI/E is commercially available from multiple vendors as
a service on a contract basis. All reusable  system com-
ponents  can  be trailer-mounted for transportation from
site to site.  Steam injection and extraction wells  and
other subsurface components usually are left in  the
ground after the application.

8.6   Materials Handling
      Requirements

SI/E requires hot fluids handling capabilities.  Heavy equip-
ment needs to be moved around with forklifts. Drilling
equipment is  required to install subsurface electrodes.
Design and operation of the steam injection and extrac-
tion 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 steam application:

•  Type of contaminants.  Contaminants should be
   amenable  to mobilization, volatilization, or
   degradation by heat.

•  Site geology. SI/E can heat sandy soils, and to
   some extent silty soils. However, aquifer hetero-
   geneities and preferential flowpaths can  make
   uniform heating more difficult, especially  in regions
   such as the base of the aquifer (near the aquitard).
   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
   groundwater flow velocity because of increased rate
   of heat loss from the treated zone.
   •  Soil characteristics. SI/E is more suitable for
      high-permeability soils. However, many low-
      permeability aquifers contain preferential flow zones
      through which steam can travel. Therefore, the
      application must be carefully evaluated.

   •  Regulatory acceptance.  Regulatory acceptance is
      important for this  application.  It is essential that the
      application achieve good  hydraulic control (i.e., to
      mitigate potential for outward or downward migra-
      tion) and adequate treatment of aboveground
      residuals, such as extracted water and condensate.

   •  Site accessibility. Sites that have no aboveground
      structures and fewer utilities are easier to remediate
      with SI/E. Presence of buildings or a network of
      utilities can  make the application more difficult.

   None of the factors  mentioned  above necessarily elimi-
   nates SI/E from consideration at any site. Rather, these
   are factors that may make the  application less or more
   economical.

   8.8  Limitations

   The SI/E technology has the following limitations:

   •  Not all types of contaminants are amenable to heat
      treatment.  In addition, some co-contaminants, 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 (steam),
      and/or longer application times.

   Some sites may require greater hydraulic control to mini-
   mize the spread  of contaminants. This may require the
   use of  appropriate  extraction  wells  and  associated
   aboveground treatment to treat the  extracted water  and
   condensate. Although the  geometrical constraints of this
   site (treating a small part of a larger DNAPL source) may
   have pressed  the vendor to inject inside the plot  and
   extract  along the boundary, the reverse may provide
   better hydraulic control at many sites. In  general,  the
   outside-in mode,  where the steam is injected along the
   perimeter of the DNAPL source and the contamination is
   "herded" to the center and extracted, may be the prefer-
   able mode of operation.
Battelle
95
September 2003

-------

-------
                                         9.  References
Battelle. 1999a. Hydrogeologic and Chemical Data Com-
   pilation, Interagency DNAPL Consortium  Remedi-
   ation Demonstration  Project, Launch  Complex 34,
   Cape Canaveral Air Force 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 Force Station, Florida.  Prepared for
   Interagency 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. 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.  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
   Force  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 Force Station. Prepared for the
   Interagency DNAPL Consortium,  February 12.

Battelle. 2001 b.  Seventh Interim Report on  the IDC
   Demonstration  at  Launch  Complex 34,  Cape
   Canaveral  Air  Force  Station.  Prepared  for  the
   Interagency DNAPL Consortium. August 15.

Battelle. 2001 c. Quality  Assurance  Project Plan: Per-
   formance Evaluation of In-Situ Thermal Remediation
   System for DNAPL Removal at Launch Complex 34,
   Cape  Canaveral,  Florida.  Prepared for the Naval
   Facilities Engineering  Service Center, Port Hueneme,
   CA. June 15.
   Battelle.  2001 d. Draft Final Technology Evaluation Re-
      port: Chemical Oxidation of a DNAPL Source Zone
      at Launch Complex 34 in Cape Canaveral Air Force
      Station. Prepared for Interagency DNAPL Consor-
      tium. June 7.

   Battelle.  2001 e.  Draft  Final  Technology  Evaluation
      Report: Six-Phase Heating™ (SPH™) Treatment of
      a  DNAPL Source Zone at Launch  Complex 34 in
      Cape  Canaveral Air Force Station. Prepared for
      Interagency DNAPL Consortium. September 28.

   Battelle.  2002. Final Innovative Technology Evaluation
      Report: Demonstration of /SCO Treatment  of a
      DNAPL Source Zone at Launch Complex 34 in Cape
      Canaveral Air Force  Station.  Prepared  for Inter-
      agency DNAPL Consortium. October 17.

   Battelle.  2003. Final Innovative Technology Evaluation
      Report: Demonstration of Resistive Heating Treat-
      ment of a DNAPL Source Zone at Launch Complex
      34 in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Prepared
      for Interagency DNAPL Consortium. February 19.

   Bouwer,  H., and R.C. Rice. 1976. "A Slug Test for Deter-
      mining Hydraulic Conductivity  of Unconfined Aqui-
      fers with  Complete or Partially Penetrating Wells."
      Water Resources Research, 12, 423-428.

   Bouwer,  H. 1989. "The Bouwer and Rice Slug Test-An
      Update."  Groundwater, 27(3): 304-309.

   Brown, D.W., W.E.  Denner, J.W.  Crooks,  and  J.B.
      Foster. 1962.  Water Resources of Brevard County,
      Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee. Rl
      No 28.

   Eddy-Dilek, C., B. Riha,  D.  Jackson, and  J.  Consort.
      1998.  DNAPL  Source Zone  Characterization of
      Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Force Sta-
      tion,  Florida. Prepared for Interagency DNAPL Con-
      sortium by Westinghouse Savannah  River Company
      and MSE Technology Applications, Inc.

   G&E  Engineering, Inc. 1996. RCRA RFI Work Plan for
      Launch Complex 34,  Cape  Canaveral Air Force
Battelle
97
September 2003

-------
    Station, Brevard County, Florida. Prepared for NASA
    Environmental Program Office.

Gaberell, M., A. Gavaskar, E. Drescher, J. Sminchak,
    L. Gumming, W.-S. Yoon, and S. DeSilva 2002. "Soil
    Core Characterization Strategy at DNAPL Sites Sub-
    jected to Strong Thermal or Chemical Remediation."
    In: A.R. Gavaskar and A.S.C. Chen (Eds.), Remedi-
    ation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds—
    2002. Proceedings of the Third International Confer-
    ence on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalci-
    trant Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.

Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time Lag and Soil Permeability in
    Groundwater Observations.  U.S.  Army  Corps of
    Engineers Waterways Experiment Station  Bulletin
    36. Vicksburg, MS.

MSE Technology Applications, Inc. 2002. Comparative
    Cost Analysis of Technologies Demonstrated for the
    Interagency DNAPL Consortium Launch Complex 34,
    Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. Prepared
    for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy
    Technology Laboratory. June.
   Pankow, J., and J. Cherry. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Sol-
      vents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History,
      Behavior, and  Remediation. Waterloo Press,  Port-
      land, OR.

   Parkinson, D. 2002. Personal communication from Dave
      Parkinson of IWR via  e-mail to A.  Gavaskar of
      Battelle. May 16.

   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.

   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."  Pro-
      ceedings of the Their  International  Conference  on
      Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Com-
      pounds Conference. May.
Battelle
98
September 2003

-------
   Appendix A: Performance Assessment Methods

   A. 1 Statistical Design and Data Analysis Methods
    A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
A.3 Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods

-------
                        A.I Statistical Design and Data Analysis Methods

Estimating TCE/DNAPL mass removal due to the steam injection technology application was a critical
objective of the IDC demonstration at Launch Complex 34. Analysis of TCE in soil samples collected in
the steam injection plot before and after the demonstration was the main tool used to determine TCE mass
distribution and removal. Two data evaluation methods were used for estimating TCE/DNAPL masses in
the steam injection plot before and after the demonstration:

    a  Linear interpolation (contouring)
    a  Kriging

Section 4.1 of the report  contains a general description of these methods. Section 5.1 of this report) sum-
marizes the results obtained from using contouring and kriging to estimate TCE/DNAPL masses. Both
methods are linear interpolation methods that predict the TCE concentration between two sampling points
whose actual TCE concentrations are known. Both methods assume that the TCE concentrations are
linearly distributed between sampling points. The contouring method estimates the TCE concentration
between the two sample points by averaging the known TCE concentrations.  Both the predicted and
actual concentration values then  are used to create a three-dimensional contour plot of the TCE concentra-
tions in the targeted stratigraphic unit. A software program, such as Earth Vision™, has an edge over
manual calculations in that it is easier to  conduct the linear interpolation in three dimensions.

The contour plot consists of iso-concentration shells for TCE. The TCE concentration of each shell is
multiplied by the volume of the shell (as estimated by the software) and the bulk density of the soil (esti-
mated as 1.59 g/cm3 during site characterization) to estimate a TCE mass for each shell.  The total  sum of
the mass estimates from the individual shells is quantified as the estimated total TCE mass in the targeted
unit. The DNAPL mass  is obtained by adding up the portion of the shells that have TCE concentrations
above 300 mg/kg. In contouring, the only way to address the spatial variability of the TCE distribution is
to collect as large a number of samples as is practical so that good coverage of the plot is obtained; the
higher the sampling density, the  smaller the distances over which the data need to be interpolated.  By
collecting approximately 300 samples in the plot during the pre- and postdemonstration sampling events,
sufficient coverage of the plot was obtained to make a reliable determination of the true TCE mass in the
region of interest. However, linear interpolation by contouring does not minimize the errors associated
with the predicted values of TCE concentrations. 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 also uses the known TCE concentrations from sampling points to predict the  TCE concentrations
between those points.  Kriging uses spatial correlations among the TCE data and makes inferences about
the TCE concentrations at unsampled points. Spatial correlation analysis determines 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 different is a function of distance and direction. Based on these  corre-
lations, kriging determines how the TCE concentrations at sampled points can be optimally weighted to
infer the TCE concentrations at unsampled points in an entire region of interest (i.e., the entire test plot or
a single stratigraphic unit).

Kriging accounts for the  uncertainty in each point estimate by calculating a standard error for the esti-
mate. Therefore, a range of TCE concentration 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 average  value and
standard error for the range of TCE concentrations is then used to calculate an average value  and standard
error for the TCE mass in the targeted region. The confidence 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)
                                              A-l

-------
was targeted for the data evaluation. The sampling design sought to ensure a level of significance of 80%
and a power of 75% for the statistical tests used to analyze TCE removal.  Section A. 1.2 of this appendix
describes the kriging method further.

The spatial variability or spread of the TCE distribution in a DNAPL source zone typically is high due to
small pockets of residual solvent that may be distributed unevenly across the source region.  The two
linear interpolation methods address this spatial variability in different ways, and therefore the resulting
mass removal estimates differ slightly.  Because it was impractical to sample every point in the steam
injection plot to obtain a true TCE mass estimate for the plot, both data evaluation methods addressed the
practical difficulty of estimating the TCE concentrations at unsampled points by interpolating between
sampled points. The objective of both methods was to use the information from a limited sample set to
make an inference about the entire population.

Both contouring and kriging were used to estimate the total TCE mass in the targeted unit before and after
the steam injection treatment. Kriging was the preferred method for handling spatially correlated data
because kriging minimized the errors associated with the predicted TCE concentration values.  The TCE
mass estimate from the kriging and contouring methods were compared to each other. The TCE mass
estimate from the contouring method fell within the range of the kriging TCE mass estimates.  The con-
touring method was used to estimate the DNAPL mass in the targeted unit before and after treatment by
examining the data for those regions of the plot that exceed the TCE saturation threshold.  Kriging was
not used for estimating the DNAPL mass in the targeted unit because the site characterization data
indicated that too few soil samples had TCE concentrations above the DNAPL threshold value.

The TCE mass removal percentage range was determined after the confidence intervals for the pre- and
posttreatment total TCE masses were calculated by kriging at the 80% confidence level. In general, the
statistical evaluation was adjusted as more information about the actual TCE distribution inside the test
plot before and after treatment was gathered.  The combined methods of contouring and kriging for total
TCE mass and contouring for DNAPL mass have been found the most suitable for evaluating the tech-
nology effectiveness during previous demonstrations at this site (Battelle, 2001b; Battelle, 2001c).  The
proposed methodology also has been found to be superior to the statistical paired comparison method
mentioned in previous QAPPs for this site (Battelle, 1999a, b).

Although the primary objective of this demonstration is to  evaluate  TCE destruction, the soil samples also
will be analyzed for DCE and VC concentrations. This data will be used to determine general trends in
the TCE degradation byproducts that may have formed during treatment. Kriging and contouring will not
be used to estimate the mass of the DCE and VC data.

A.1.1 Sampling Design to Obtain  Sufficient Coverage of the Steam Injection 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).
                                              A-2

-------
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. Systematic  sampling was chosen as the best approach for sampling soil in the
steam injection plot.  Each of the four plans, including the advantages and limitations, are 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
                                              A-3

-------
sampling methods, and that stratified sampling performs poorly when contaminant levels are spatially
correlated.

Systematic Sampling

The samples for the steam injection demonstration were collected using a systematic sampling plan. Syste-
matic 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 loca-
tions 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. 1-1 illustrates the locations generated using unaligned systematic sampling
with a 3 x 3 grid.
                                O
                                      O
                                   O
                                           O
                                                 O
                                              O
                                                      O
                                                            O
                                                         O
               Figure A.l-1. Unaligned Systematic Sampling Design for a 3 X 3 Grid
                                              A-4

-------
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.

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 was 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 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. 1.2.1  Spatial Correlation Analysis

The objective of the spatial correlation  analysis is to statistically determine the extent to which measure-
ments taken at different locations are similar or different.  Generally, the degree to which TCE measure-
ments 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):
                                               A-5

-------
                                      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:

    a  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 +22.5ฐ), 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.

    a  To help fully understand the spatial correlation structure, a variety of experimental semi-
        variogram 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.

    a  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 distri-
butions. 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-6

-------
A. 1.2.3 TCE Data Summary

Semivariogram and kriging analyses were conducted on data collected from the steam injection plot. The
plot was approximately 50 by 75 feet in size, and was sampled via 26 boreholes, 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.

Pre- and post-remediation TCE measurements were collected in order to analyze the effectiveness of the
contaminant removal methods.  The sampling borehole locations were predetermined spatially based on
the aforementioned unaligned systematic sampling design in a 12-grid of the steam injection plot for both
pre- and postdemonstration characterization. In addition, one duplicate borehole was drilled approxi-
mately 2 feet away from the corresponding primary borehole during each pre- and post-remediation sam-
pling event. Because the approach for the kriging analysis considered the pre- and post-remediation data
as independent data sets (see Section 1.0), the duplicate samples were included in the analyses, even
though the pre-remediation duplicate borehole did not correspond to the same location as the post-
remediation duplicate borehole.

The cores were drilled at least 44 feet deep; and the largest drill hole extends 46 feet. Except in instances
where  no core  was recovered, every 2 feet of the borehole soil samples were collected and analyzed for
TCE concentration levels.  Thus, approximately 20 to 25 2-foot core sections were analyzed from each
borehole.  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, all measurements were used when evaluating spatial correlation
with the semivariogram analysis, and when conducting the kriging analysis. However, to remain compat-
ible 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 samples and
duplicate samples collected from the soil  cores. The duplicate soil core that was collected during each
pre- and postdemonstration sampling event is counted in the "Total # of Duplicate Samples" column.
    Table A.l-1. Number of Field Duplicate Measurements Taken from the Steam Injection Plot
Plot
Steam
Injection
Event
Pre -demo
Post-demo
Number of 2-Foot
Sections from Which
1 Sample was Drawn
267
275
Total # of Duplicate
Samples
35
37
Total
302
312
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.
                                              A-7

-------
             Table A.l-2.  Number of Measurements (Including Duplicates) Below the
                                   Minimum Detection Limit
Plot
Steam
Injection
Event
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
Number of Samples
Below MDL
58
29
Above MDL
243
274
No Sample
Recovery
1
9
Total
302
312
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 docu-
mented. 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.

A. 1.2.4 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 semi-
variograms was GAMV3, which is used for three-dimensional irregularly spaced data.

The data were considered vertically and  separately by layer (i.e., USU, MFGU and LSU layers). Semi-
variogram and kriging analyses were not performed with the vadose data since the pre-remediation TCE
concentrations were already relatively low and insignificant. In all cases, the experimental semivario-
grams are relatively variable due to high data variability and modest sample sizes. As a result, the semi-
variogram 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.

A. 1.2.5 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 steam injection plot  was performed separately for the USU, MFGU and LSU layers.
        The thickness of the USU unit is set to be 28 ft., with a vertical midpoint of-3 ft (i.e., 3 ft below
        MSL). The thickness of the MFGU unit is 8 ft, with a vertical midpoint of-21 ft below MSL.
        The thickness of the LSU unit is to be 10 ft., with a vertical midpoint of-30 ft. (i.e., 30 ft below
        MSL).

    (b)  For kriging of each 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
                                              A-8

-------
       experimental semivariograms. This assumption seems reasonable given the relatively short
       dimensions of the steam injection plot.

Results from the kriging analysis are presented in Tables A. 1-3 and A. 1-4 for the steam injection 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 Table A. 1-3 for the global layer estimates. 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. For
the steam injection technology demonstration, this case did not occur in any of each stratigraphic unit or
the entire plot. Following are the kriging summary of TCE in the three units.

USU Results. These vertical dimensions were kept constant for both the Pre-demo and Post-demo
calculations. The estimated (two-sided, 80% confidence interval) Pre-demo TCE concentration is 247.1
ฑ80.3 mg/kg. The estimated (two-sided, 80% confidence interval) Post-demo TCE concentration is 82.6
ฑ82.2 mg/kg.

MFGU Results. These vertical dimensions were kept constant for both the Pre-demo and Post-demo
calculations. The estimated (two-sided, 80% confidence interval) Pre-demo TCE concentration is 2967.8
ฑ582.0 mg/kg. The  estimated (two-sided, 80% confidence interval) Post-demo TCE concentration is
438.5 ฑ338.9 mg/kg.

LSU Results. These vertical dimensions were kept constant for both the Pre-demo and Post-demo
calculations. The estimated (two-sided, 80% confidence interval) Pre-demo TCE concentration is 3,993.2
ฑ632.2 mg/kg. The  estimated (two-sided, 80% confidence interval) Post-demo TCE concentration is
497.0 ฑ145.9 mg/kg.
                Table A.l-3.  Kriging Summary Statistics for TCE Concentrations
Stragraphy
USU
MFGU
LSU
Total
Thickness
(ft)
28
8
10
46
Volume
(ft3)
96,061.8
24,196.9
47,260.8
167,519.5
Pre-Demo (mg/kg)
Avg .
Cone,
247.1
2,967.8
3,993.2
1,696.9
Var.
3,922.6
2,06,079.3
24,3201 .8
24,946.4
Lower
Bound
166.8
2,385.8
3,360.9
1 ,494.5
Upper
Bound
327.4
3,549.8
4,625.4
1 ,899.4
Post-Demo (mg/kg)
Avg.
Cone.
82.6
438.5
497
250.9
Var.
4,115.7
69,865.9
12,952.1
3,841.9
Lower
Bound
0.35
99.6
351.1
171.5
Upper
Bound
164.8
777.4
642.9
330.4
The estimated total TCE mass and reductions (expressed on a percentage basis) are shown in Tables A. 1-
4 and A. 1-5.  The total TCE masses are calculated by multiplying the concentration estimates in the three
stratigraphic units by the soil bulk density (1.590 g/cm3) and the mass of dry soil in each stratigraphic
unit.
                                              A-9

-------
         Table A.l-4.  Kriging Estimates for Total TCE Mass in the Steam Demonstration
Stratigraphic
Unit
USU
MFGU
LSU
TOTAL
Pre-Demonstration TCE *
Avg
(kg)
1,069
3,234
8,349
12,652
Lower Bound
(kg)
722
2,600
7,028
11,145
Upper Bound
(kg)
1,416
3,868
9,671
14,159
Post-Demonstration TCE *
Avg
(kg)
357
478
1,099
1,934
Lower Bound
(kg)
2
109
776
1,328
Upper Bound
(kg)
713
847
1,422
2,540
TCE Mass Removal *
Average
67%
85%
88%
85%
Lower Bound
32%
73%
83%
80%
Upper Bound
100%
97%
92%
90%
USU Results. The reduction of TCE in the USU is estimated to be 67 ฑ35%. To test whether the TCE
reduction is significant, an 80% lower confidence bound was calculated on the difference of the pre-demo
minus post-demo TCE concentrations. If this lower concentration bound (LCB) is greater than 0 (zero),
then the reduction is significant at the 20% significance level. The estimated average TCE concentration
reduction is 712 kg (i.e., 67% of the TCE was removed), with an 80% LCB of 89.2 mg/kg, which is
significant at the 20% significance level. In fact, this reduction is significant up to about the 3% level of
significance.

MFGU Results. The reduction of TCE in the MFGU is estimated to be 85 ฑ12%. The estimated TCE
concentration reduction is 2,529.3 mg/kg (i.e., 85% of the TCE was removed), with an 80% LCB  of
2,088.0 mg/kg, which is significant at the 20% significance level. In fact, this  reduction is significant up
to the 1% level of significance and higher.

LSU Results. The reduction of TCE in the LSU is estimated to be 85ฑ5%.  The estimated (two-sided,
80% confidence interval) post-demo TCE concentration is 497.0 (ฑ) 145.9 mg/kg. The estimated TCE
concentration reduction is 3496.2 mg/kg (i.e., 88% of the TCE was removed), with an 80% LCB of
3071.1 mg/kg, which is significant at the 20% significance level. In fact, this reduction is significant up
to the 1% level of significance and higher.

In summary, the reduction in TCE for the entire plot is estimated to be 85.2% ฑ5% (i.e., an interval of
80.2-90.2%). The confidence bounds by recognizing that the % reduction is the ratio of two estimated
quantities, and using a Taylor Series expansion to estimate the uncertainty in the ratio.
                                             A-10

-------
                                            Table A. 1-5. Calculations of Total TCE Mass
Pre-demo

USU
MFGU
LSU
TOTAL
                            Cone     var(conc)  Lower    Upper
Depth    Area      Volume   mg/kg
       28      3750   96061.8 •   247.1
        8      3750  24196.95    2967.8
       10      3750  47260.761  3993.2
       46      3750  167519.5  1696.938
	  mg/kg    mg/kg
   3922.6  166.8075  327.3925
206079.3  2385.824  3549.776
243201.8  3360.975  4625.425
24946.41  1494.454  1899.423
Mass     Var(mass) BEB low  BEB upper
kg                 kg       kg
 37741.62 91510244  25477.89  50005.36
 114180.6 3.05E+08  91790.16  136571.1
 300067.5 1.37E+09  252559.2  347575.7
 451989.7 1.77E+09  398056.7  505922.7
                                      Soil density=1590 kg/mA3
Post-demo
Depth
USU
MFGU
LSU
TOTAL

Difference
Depth
USU
MFGU
LSU
TOTAL

USU
MFGU
LSU
TOTAL
% Reduction
Depth
USU
MFGU
LSU
TOTAL


28
8
10
46



28
8
10
46







28
8
10
46
Cone var(conc) Lower Upper
Area Volume mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
3750 96061.8 82.6 4115.7 0.354929 164.8451
3750 24196.95 438.5 69865.9 99.63973 777.3603
3750 47260.76 497 12952.1 351.0991 642.9009
3750 167519.5 250.918 3841.908 171.4557 330.3804
Soil density=1590 kg/mA3
Cone var(conc) Lower Upper
Area Volume mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
3750 96061.8 164.5 8038.3 49.56028 279.4397
3750 24196.95 2529.3 275945.2 1855.859 3202.741
3750 47260.76 3496.2 256153.9 2847.359 4145.041
3750 167519.5 1446.02 28788.31 1228.502 1663.539
% Reduction Test stat 80% LCB
66.57224 1.834779 89.18848
85.22475 4.814918 2088.044
87.55384 6.907896 3071.062
85.21348 8.522485 1303.496
Remain Var LCB UCB
Area Volume mg/kg
3750 96061.8 0.334278 0.074585 -0.015839 0.684394
3750 24196.95 0.147753 0.008443 0.029955 0.26555
3750 47260.76 0.124462 0.001049 0.082949 0.165974
3750 167519.5 0.147865 0.001524 0.097825 0.197906
                                                                                     Mass     Var(mass)  BEB low   BEB upper
                                                                                     kg                  kg        kg
                                                                                      12616.18  96015069   54.21122  25178.15
                                                                                      16870.48  1.03E+08   3833.454   29907.5
                                                                                      37346.87  73136781   26383.2  48310.54
                                                                                      66833.53  2.73E+08   45668.25  87998.81
                                                                                     Mass     Var(mass)  BEB low   BEB upper
                                                                                     kg                  kg        kg
                                                                                      25125.44  1.88E+08   7569.751  42681.14
                                                                                      97310.14  4.08E+08   71400.75  123219.5
                                                                                      262720.6  1.45E+09   213963.7  311477.5
                                                                                      385156.2  2.04E+09   327218.8  443093.5
                                                                                     Reduc

                                                                                      66.57224
                                                                                      85.22475
                                                                                      87.55384
                                                                                      85.21348
                                                                                     LCB

                                                                                      31.56058
                                                                                      73.44497
                                                                                       83.4026
                                                                                      80.20942
                                                        UCB

                                                         101.5839
                                                         97.00452
                                                         91.70508
                                                         90.21755

-------
                         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 deter-
mined number (12) of soil cores in the steam injection 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 D4547-98) (1997c)

A.2.1.1 Predemonstration Sampling Procedure

The soil samples collected before and after the demonstration were sampled using a stainless steel core
barrel driven into the subsurface by a Vibra-Pushฎ drilling rig. After the core barrel was 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 4ฐC 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 extraction procedure
was performed on all of the primary samples collected during drilling activities and on all of the field
duplicate samples collected for quality assurance (5% of the primary samples, or approximately one
duplicate sample per borehole).  Samples were stored at 4ฐC until extraction procedures were performed.
After the extraction procedure was finished, the soil samples were dried in an oven at 105ฐC 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.2.1.2 Postdemonstration Soil Sampling Procedure

Modifications were made to the soil sampling procedure during the postdemonstration sampling event in
an effort to minimize any VOC loss associated with the elevated soil temperatures.  The following
procedure was used during postdemonstration soil sampling:

    a  Soil samples were collected in a butyrate sleeve located inside the stainless steel core barrel
       of the Vibra-Pushฎ drilling rig. After the core barrel was driven the required distance, the
       barrel was brought to the surface and the butyrate sleeve containing the soil was removed
       from the stainless steel core barrel. The butyrate sleeve was immediately capped on both
       ends using flexible polymer sheets to minimize VOC losses. The temperature of the soil was
       monitored by placing a thermometer into one end of the sleeve.  The entire sleeve was placed
       in an ice bath for approximately 30 minutes to cool the soil below 20ฐC before collecting
       samples.
                                             A-12

-------
    a  After the soil had cooled, the sleeve was removed from the ice bath and opened. Multiple
       subsamples of soil were scooped from the two-foot section of core designated for sampling
       into a pre-weighed, 500-mL polyethylene bottle containing approximately 250 mL of
       reagent-grade methanol.  Approximately 125 g of soil were added to the bottle.  In contrast to
       the predemonstration sampling procedure, the soil was added directly to a methanol-filled
       bottle in the field in an attempt to minimize and capture any VOCs that might have collected
       in the headspace of the bottle. At depths were a duplicate soil sample was collected, the soil
       was collected into a second methanol-filled bottle.  One duplicate sample was collected per
       borehole (5%) for quality control.  The bottles were stored at 4ฐC until the methanol
       extraction could be performed in the on-site field lab.

    a  After the soil samples had been collected, the core was characterized for lithology and then
       discarded in an appropriate manner.  Lithological characterization was performed last
       because of the need to collect the soil samples as quickly as possible to minimize VOC
       losses.

    a  All field personnel exercised caution while  handling and sampling soil cores with elevated
       temperatures. The drilling crew and Battelle field personnel used special heat-resistant
       gloves in instances where the cores were too hot to handle with the standard nitrile gloves.

    a  After the extraction procedure was finished, the soil samples were dried in an oven at 105ฐC
       and the dry weight of each sample was determined. The samples were then disposed of as
       waste.

A.2.2 Soil Extraction Procedure (Modified EPA  SW846-Method 5035)

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 |lg/kg) or high concentrations (>200 |lg/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  After soil samples were brought in from the field, the bottles were reweighed and then stored in
       a refrigerator at 4ฐC until the extraction procedure was performed. Extractions were performed
       on all soil samples collected. During the postdemonstration sampling event, a surrogate spike
       of 1,1,1 trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) was added to the soil sample collected from 2 ft bgs. The
       purpose of the surrogate spike was to test the efficiency of the extraction procedure, and the 2-ft
       depth was chosen because the soil at that depth contained relatively little TCE that would
       interfere with the TCA analysis. The soil samples spiked with TCA were handled in the same
       manner as all other samples during the extraction procedure.

    a  The bottles containing methanol and soil were placed on an orbital shaker table and agitated
       for approximately 30 min.
                                             A-13

-------
    a  Containers were removed from the shaker table and reweighed to ensure that no methanol
       was lost during the agitation period.  The containers were 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 2,800-3,000 rpm and the samples were centrifuged for 10 min.

    a  Methanol extract was then pipetted into disposable 20-mL glass volatile organic analysis
       (VOA) vials using 10-mL disposable borosilicate pipettes. The 20-mL glass VOA vials
       containing the extract then were capped, labeled, and stored in a refrigerator at 4ฐC until they
       were shipped on ice to the  off-site analytical laboratory.

    a  Methanol samples in VOA vials were placed in coolers and maintained at approximately 4ฐC
       with ice.  Samples were shipped overnight via air to the subcontracted off-site laboratory with
       properly completed chain-of-custody forms and custody  seals.

    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 105ฐC. Final concentrations of VOCs
       were calculated per 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 quanti-
tation 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 5 5-gallon drum. The suitability of using the modified soil extraction procedure
was confirmed through experiments involving a surrogate compound spiked into soil samples. TCE
recoveries in samples ranged from  72 to 86% based on the results of the spiking experiments (Battelle
1999).

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 auto-
matically adds water, surrogates, and internal 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
analyzed the solvent extraction samples collected for the predemonstration, April 2001, and August 2001
sampling events.  DHL Analytical  Laboratory was contracted to  analyze all subsequent extraction sam-
ples.  Soil samples were analyzed for organic constituents according to the parameters summarized in
Table A.2-1. Laboratory instruments were calibrated for VOCs according to EPA Method 8260B.
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
Extraction Method
SW846-5035
Analytical Method
SW846-8260B
Sample Holding Time
14 days
Matrix |
Methanol |
                                             A-14

-------
                 A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods

Table A.3-1 contains a list of collection methods and equipment used during sampling activities con-
ducted as part of the steam injection technology demonstration. Table A.3-2 contains a list of the sample
handling procedures and analytical methods used for determining the parameter of interest. The refer-
ences to methods may be found in Section A.4 of this appendix.
                          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) ASTM D4448-01 (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) ASTM D4547-98 (1997c)
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTM D4448-01 (1997a)
Hydraulic conductivity/
ASTMD4044-96 (1997d)
Water levels
Vapor Sampling/Tedlar Bag, TO-14
Stainless steel sleeve
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Winsituฎ 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 cell will be
attached to the peristaltic pump when measuring field parameters.
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials.
                                            A-15

-------
                                                Table A.3-2. Sample Handling and Analytical Procedures
Os
Measurements
Matrix
Amount
Collected
Analytical
Method
Maximum
Holding
Time00
Sample
Preservation'1"'
Sample
Container
Sample
Type
Primary Measurements
CVOCs
CVOCs
Soil
Groundwater
250 g
40-mL x 3
Mod. EPA 8260B(C)
EPA 8260B
14 days
14 days
4ฐC
4ฐC, pH < 2 HC1
Plastic
Glass
Grab
Grab
Secondary Measurements
CVOCs
CVOCs
PH
PH
TOC
TOC
BOD
Hydraulic conductivity
Inorganics-cations(d)
Inorganics-anions
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
50mL
500 mL
200 mL
NA
EPA 8260B
EPA TO- 14
Mod. EPA 9040b
EPA 150.1
Based on SW 9060
EPA 415.1
EPA 405.1
ASTMD4044-96(1997d)
SW 6020
SW9056
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
4ฐC, pH < 2 HC1
NA
None
None
None
4ฐC, pH < 2 H2SO4
4ฐC
NA
4ฐC, pH<2, HNO3
4ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC
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.
                 (b)  Samples will be preserved immediately upon sample collection, if required.
                 (c)  Samples will be extracted using methanol on site. For the detailed extraction procedure see Appendix B.
                 (d)  Cations include Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Na, and K.
                 HC1 = Hydrochloric acid.
                 NA = Not applicable.
Anions include Cl, SO4, and NO3/ NO2.

-------
                                        A.4 References

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997'a. Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater
Monitoring Wells. Designation: D 4448-01.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997b. Standard Guide for the Decontamination of Field
Sampling Equipment. Designation: D 5088-90.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997c. Standard Practice for Waste and Soils for Volatile
Organics. Designation: D 4547-98.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997d. Standard Test Method (Field Procedure) for
Instantaneous Change in Head (Slug) Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers.
Designation: D 4044-96.

ASTM, see American Society for Testing and Materials.

Battelle. 1999.  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.
Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G. 1998. GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide, second
edition. Oxford University Press, New York.

Journel, A. G., and C. J. Huijbregts. 19^,1. Mining Geostatistics (with revisions). Academic Press, Inc.
                                             A-17

-------
Appendix B: Hydrogeologic Measurements

-------
                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
                                                              ป***••
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.

-------
                            WellPA-14D: Replicate B
 0.1

0.01
          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-
                                                = Illl = PrPH.nd Surface n = \\ = \\\\ = •

                                               m Illl = ini"= mi's ini"= ini"= mi' = mi = nil ^
                                               in ^- 1111 = mi = mi = 1111 = 1111 =- -
                                                    2-in.-diameter PVC Riser
                                                   .Stainless Steel Screened

                                                          Drive Point

NOT TO SCALE
            DSG™WCAPE_COI CDS
                                            >Baneiie
                                            . . . Put1,nt; Jech
                                              Figuit'3-4.

                          PASC Groundwatcr Monitoring Well Construction Diagram
                                 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR STATION - FLORIDA
                          PROJECT	G331505-11
I DATE   12/98
                       DESIGNED BY


                            JS
                         DRAWN BY


                           VS
                        CHECKED BY


                            TL
-------
                                                 usu
                                               MFGU
tqsClAISTE_R2CAPE:C01 COR
                                  Figure 3-5.
                      PASC Monitoring Well Cluster Diagram
                       CAPE CANAVERAL AIR STATION - FLORIDA
                PROJECT   G331505-11
I DATE    12/98
                        DRAWN BY
                          VS
                       CHECKED BY
                          TL
-------
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, trc silt, v. shelly, loose, rec 2.0 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. 1 TCE Results of Groundwater Samples
C.2 Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples
C.3 Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results
C.4 Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Results
-------
                   Table C-l. TCE Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
TCE (jig/L)
Pre-Demo1'
Results
AugOl
AugOl
%Change
in Cone.
NovOl
NovOl
%Change
in Cone.
Post-Demo3'
Post-Demo3'
%Change in
Cone.
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA-161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-171
PA-17D
PA-17D-DUP
<2
81
280,000
650,000
210,000
840,000
860,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6,130
1,750
210,000
145,000
13,800


306,400%
2,060%
25%
78%
93%
>99%
>99%
Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
PA-18S2'
PA-1812'
PA-18D2'
PA-19S2'
PA-1912'
PA-19D2'
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
PA-14S4'
PA-14S-DUP
PA-1414'
PA-14D"'
1,000,000
930,000
980,000
130,0000
483,000 D
306,000 D
33,000
NA
480,000
410,000
NA
647,000
601,000
174,000
2,730
1,200,000
720,000
480,000
120,000
290,000
24,000
270,000 D
NA
50,000

300,000
44,000
NA
37,000
4,100
20%
23%
51%
8%
40%
92%
718%
NA
90%
32%
27%
93%
NA
NA
50%
1,140,000
1,200,000
483,000
1,030
153,000
5,540
532
595
56,400
176,000
NA
4,280
4,410
<500
1,570
14%
29%
51%
>99%
68%
98%
98%
98%
88%
57%
NA
>99%
>99%
NA
42%
1,280,000
1,220,000
645,000
93
248,000
2,280
3,660
NA

155,000
NA
24,900
NA
1,570
7,070
28%
31%
34%
>99%
49%
>99%
89%
NA
>99%
62%
NA
96%
NA
NA
159%
Distant Wells
PA-1S
PA-11
PA-1D
8,000
<250
<4
<150
<290
<3
>99%
NA
NA
1,990
1,360
<20
75%
988%
NA
405
17
32 S
95%
86%
710%
NA: Not available.
D: Diluted.
Purple ortannish orange denotes water sample color observed during the sampling.
1) Pre-demo (November, 2000) is defined as the sample collection event prior to steam injection.
2) PA-18 and PA-19 samples for pre-demo were collected on January 12, 2001.
3) Post-demo samples were collected in February 2002.
4) PA-14 samples were collected  in June 2001.
                                   M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\lnterim Battelle Rpts\Eighth Interim Report\DraftFinal Steam
-------
                                    Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
c/s-l,2-DCE(jig/L)
Pre-Demo1'
AugOl
NovOl
Post-Demo3'
fraws-l,2-DCE Qig/L)
Pre-Demo1'
AugOl
NovOl
Post-Demo3'
Vinyl chloride (jig/L)
Pre-Demo1'
AugOl
NovOl
Post-Demo3'
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA-161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-171
PA-17D
PA-17D-DUP
<2
9.5
38,000
21, 000 J
260,000
36,000 J
35,000 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18,700
7,570
52,000
1,130
1,790
252
242
<2
<4
<17,000
<42,000
<10,000
<42,000
<42,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
140
73.8
302
<200
47.9
8.28
7.88
<4
<8
<33,000
<83,000
<20,000
<83,000
<83,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
98
170
150 J
<200
128
13.4
13
Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
PA-18S
PA-181
PA-18D
PA-19S2'
PA-1912'
PA-19D2'
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
PA-14S4'
PA-14S-DUP4'
PA-1414'
PA-14D"'
6,400 J
<50,000
<50,000
127,000 D
131,000
31,300
<17,000
NA
<10
<1,700
NA
73,800
73,200
80,000
2,660
13,000 J
12,000 J
12,000 J
87,000
61,000
51,000
4,500
NA
1,100
<5,900
<5,900
160,000
NA
230,000
3,100
33,100
11,900
19,800
2,030
24,900
39,400
3,180
3,400
97,200
5,400
NA
63,000
64,300
196,000
6,250
27,900
10,200
8,780
2,090
34,400
39,600
34,000
NA
2,250
9,560
NA
21,400
NA
17,800
4,150
<33,000
<50,000
<50,000
1440
440 J
<1,000
<17,000
NA
<10
<1,700
NA
<1,000
<1,000
1,150
33
<17,000
<17,000
<17,000
2,600 J
<10,000
550 J
<1,200
NA
<1,100
<5,900
<5,900
<6,200
NA
<8,300
<170
<100
<100
120J
65
240 J
493
58
66
753
86
NA
362
289
805
17
120J
100J
<500
55.4
615
712
407
NA
57
99J
NA
129
NA
138
16.4
<67,000
<100,000
<100,000
790
<1,000
<1,000
<33,000
NA
<20
<3,300
NA
6,280
6,110
1,710
49
<33,000
<33,000
<33,000
<8,300
<20,000
2,200 J
<2,500
NA
<2,200
<12,000
<12,000
16,000
NA
<17,000
120 J
220J
320J
230J
96
<50
1,560
705
732
137
<10
NA
25,400
25,500
48,700
1,320
210 J
160 J
<500
326
297
1,390
679
NA

68 J
NA
6,320
NA
30,600
1,480
Distant Wells
PA-1S
PA-11
PA-1D
22,000
2,400
<4
3,900
7,500
65
23,200
13,800
1,890
10,400
17,000
31 7S
570 J
300
2.8 J
110J
560
26
212
809
95
127
670
79 S
560 J
5,100
76
120 J
3,800
930 D
1,520
2,610
1,300
932
2,040
1,7603
NA: Not analyzed.
D: Diluted.
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit
S: Spike recovery was outside control limits.
              Yellow indicates that a measurable concentration was obtained for this sample.
              Organge indicates that concentration in this well increased compared to pre-treatment levels.
                                                                              M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\lnterim Battelle Rpts\Eighth Interim Report\DraftFinal Steam
-------
                                   Table C-2. Other CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples


              Blue indicates that concentration in this well decreased compared to pre-treatment levels.
1) Pre-demo (November, 2000) is defined as the sample collection event prior to steam injection.
2) PA-18 and -19 cluster wells were not installed and sampled until January 2001.
3) Post-demo sampling was conducted in February 2002.
4) PA-14 samples were collected in June 2001.
                                                                            M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\lnterim Battelle Rpts\Eighth Interim Report\DraftFinal Steam
-------
Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34

Sample ID
SB-31-2
SB-31-4
SB-31-6
SB-31-8
SB-31-10
SB-31-12
SB-31-14
SB-31-16
SB-31-18
SB-31-20
SB-31-22
SB-31-24
SB-31-26
SB-31-28
SB-31-30
SB-31-32
SB-31-32-DUP
SB-31-34
SB-31-36
SB-31-38
SB-31-40
SB-31-42
SB-31-44
SB-31-46
SB-31-73
SB-31-74
RINSATE-12
SB-32-2
SB-32-4
SB-32-6
SB-32-8
SB-32-10
SB-32-12
SB-32-14
SB-32-16
SB-32-18
SB-32-18-DUP
SB-32-20
SB-32-22
SB-32-24
SB-32-26
SB-32-28
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
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
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
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
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/8/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
MeOH
(g)
204
200
197
193
204
199
195
195
193
203
194
188
199
194
199
201
195
200
196
195
203
197
203
202
NA
NA
NA
200
195
192
192
200
194
193
200
198
191
196
189
201
192
198
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
101
154
165
159
180
175
158
170
215
228
202
219
230
174
229
279
207
210
233
270
220
222
197
230
NA
NA
NA
135
193
203
132
188
207
196
213
226
199
174
171
220
174
170
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
100
149
160
152
163
151
128
146
179
188
168
180
186
136
183
219
163
180
201
213
159
171
162
181
NA
NA
NA
134
184
196
125
168
176
158
182
187
167
148
137
183
141
135
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
15,000 D
2,400
5,300
<250
<250
500
2,400
360
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
520
10,000
74,000
54,000
49,000
39,000
98,000
110,000
54,000
40,000
190,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
340
<250
<250
5,600
<250
<250
<250
<250
3,100
42,000
4,900,000
860,000
780,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
38.9
4
8
ND
ND
1
5
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
16
106
96
77
54
140
220
95
72
320
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.43
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
84
7,803
1,684
1,650
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<2,500
<2,500
<2,500
<1 ,600
<4,500
<6,200
<2,500
<2,000
<8,300
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
300
<250
<250
<2,000
<250,000
<25,000
<25,000
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
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<2,500
<2,500
<2,500
<1 ,600
<4,500
<6,200
<2,500
<2,000
<8,300
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,000
<250,000
<25,000
<25,000
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
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
<3,100
<9,100
<1 2,000
<5,000
<4,000
<1 7,000
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<4,000
<500,000
<50,000
<50,000
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
                                                                                  M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34 (Continued)

Sample ID
SB-32-30
SB-32-32
SB-32-34
SB-32-36
SB-32-38
SB-32-40
SB-32-42
SB-32-44
SB-32-46
SB-32-69
SB-32-70
SB-33-2
SB-33-4
SB-33-6
SB-33-8
SB-33-10
SB-33-12
SB-33-14
SB-33-16
SB-33-18
SB-33-20
SB-33-22
SB-33-22-DUP
SB-33-24
SB-33-26
SB-33-28
SB-33-30
SB-33-32
SB-33-34
SB-33-36
SB-33-38
SB-33-40
SB-33-42
SB-33-44
SB-33-46
SB-33-71
SB-33-72
RINSATE-11
SB-34-2
SB-34-4
SB-34-6
SB-34-8
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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
2
4
6
8
Sample
Date
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
12/7/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
MeOH
(g)
194
200
191
201
193
200
199
195
199
NA
NA
198
192
198
193
201
191
194
199
198
199
192
195
194
191
191
192
189
190
195
199
199
194
189
193
NA
NA
NA
190
193
187
197
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
260
228
197
300
273
276
172
207
333
NA
NA
172
189
187
197
137
192
132
167
190
171
158
182
207
204
189
221
199
202
210
270
222
190
227
266
NA
NA
NA
181
114
131
127
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
199
188
159
245
214
216
128
175
267
NA
NA
167
184
183
189
124
163
107
143
163
144
134
155
174
166
157
172
170
167
181
219
172
160
191
216
NA
NA
NA
177
112
127
117
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
1 ,000,000 D
1 ,500,000
3,400,000
2,600,000
6,900,000
1 ,700,000
570,000
1 ,200,000
7,800,000
260
<250
3,200
290
2,500
1,900
<250
950
<500
<500
<250
6,500
23,000
22,000
91 ,000
91 ,000
96,000
280,000
1 ,800,000
280,000
160,000
6,400,000
2,100,000
180,000
1 ,600,000
14,000,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
19,000
3,200
610
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1,541
2,339
5,983
3,284
9,779
2,465
1,318
1,912
9,287

ND
5
0.39
3
3
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
13
46
39
146
153
167
475
2,840
462
244
8,852
3,686
310
2,306
19,075
ND
ND
ND
ND
42
6
1
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<36,000
<36,000
<250,000
<1 20,000
<500,000
<36,000
<25,000
<25,000
<500,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
6,200
8,200
2,800
<250
<1,000
<1,000
<3,800
<3,800
<3,800
<1 2,000
<62,000
<1 2,000
<1 0,000
<250,000
<62,000
<10,000
<50,000
<71 0,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
<620
<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
16
16
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<36,000
<36,000
<250,000
<1 20,000
<500,000
<36,000
<25,000
<25,000
<500,000
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<500
<250
<250
<1,000
<1,000
<3,800
<3,800
<3,800
<1 2,000
<62,000
<1 2,000
<1 0,000
<250,000
<62,000
<10,000
<50,000
<71 0,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
<620
<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
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)
<71,000
<71,000
<500,000
<250,000
<1 ,000,000
<71,000
<50,000
<50,000
<1, 000,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<2,000
<2,000
<7,700
<7,700
<7,700
<25,000
<1 20,000
<25,000
<20,000
<500,000
<1 20,000
<20,000
< 100, 000
<1, 400,000
<500
<500
<2
<500
<1,200
<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
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\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34 (Continued)

Sample ID
SB-34-10
SB-34-12
SB-34-14
SB-34-16
SB-34-18
SB-34-20
SB-34-22
SB-34-24
SB-34-26
SB-34-28
SB-34-30
SB-34-30-DUP
SB-34-32
SB-34-34
SB-34-36
SB-34-38
SB-34-40
SB-34-43
SB-34-45
SB-34-64
RINSATE-6
SB-35-2
SB-35-4
SB-35-6
SB-35-8
SB-35-10
SB-35-12
SB-35-14
SB-35-16
SB-35-18
SB-35-20
SB-35-22
SB-35-24
SB-35-24-DUP
SB-35-26
SB-35-28
SB-35-30
SB-35-32
SB-35-34
SB-35-36
SB-35-38
SB-35-40
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
Bottom
Depth
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Sample
Date
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
11/30/2000
12/1/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
MeOH
(g)
195
196
194
195
198
197
204
198
190
190
196
191
191
194
203
194
191
192
201
NA
NA
198
201
196
203
198
194
188
194
179
191
202
193
195
191
193
194
185
191
192
196
201
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
196
215
177
214
214
194
208
195
218
236
227
228
245
279
285
204
238
230
252
NA
NA
159
189
163
180
198
262
246
277
222
183
184
195
218
178
286
261
270
267
245
254
261
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
168
180
161
180
192
115
159
155
179
183
174
176
201
215
217
151
176
183
200
NA
NA
154
185
156
161
184
223
203
237
180
153
149
163
176
140
217
207
217
206
189
195
174
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
330
<250
<250
<250
910
1,400
4,900
1,500
4,600,000
43,000
120,000
130,000
86,000
32,000
150,000
67,000 D
47,000
17,000
390,000
<250
1
450
270
280
<250
5,900
1,200
530
4,800
4,200
18,000
24,000
6,200
18,000
58,000
180,000
3,400,000
3,300,000 D
3,000,000
190,000
250,000
220,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1
ND
ND
ND
1
4
9
3
7,183
69
208
217
122
46
225
132
81
27
598
ND

1
0.38
0.46
ND
8
2
1
6
6
32
47
11
30
116
260
4,920
4,367
4,409
301
394
432
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 00,000
<1,200
<5,000
<5,000
<3,800
20,000
9,700
2,200
2,700
<830
<1 7,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
2,200
<250
<250
<830
<1,200
<380
<1,000
<3,100
<6,200
<1 00,000
<1 0,000
<83,000
<8,300
<12,000
<8,300
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29
15
4
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1 00,000
<1,200
<5,000
<5,000
<3,800
<1,500
<8,300
<1,000
<2,500
<830
<1 7,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<830
<1,200
<380
<1,000
<3,100
<6,200
<1 00,000
<10,000
<83,000
<8,300
<12,000
<8,300
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
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<200,000
<2,500
<10,000
<10,000
<7,700
<2,900
<17,000
<2,000
<5,000
<1 ,700
<33,000
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1,700
<2,500
<770
<2,000
<6,200
<1 2,000
<200,000
<20,000
<1 70,000
<17,000
<25,000
<17,000
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
                                                                                M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34 (Continued)

Sample ID
SB-35-43
SB-35-45
SB-35-66
RINSATE-7
SB-36-2
SB-36-4
SB-36-6
SB-36-8
SB-36-10
SB-36-12
SB-36-14
SB-36-16
SB-36-16-DUP
SB-36-18
SB-36-20
SB-36-22
SB-36-24
SB-36-26
SB-36-28
SB-36-30
SB-36-32
SB-36-34
SB-36-36
SB-36-38
SB-36-40
SB-36-43
SB-36-45
SB-36-78
SB-36-79
SB-36-EB
SB-37-2
SB-37-4
SB-37-6
SB-37-8
SB-37-10
SB-37-12
SB-37-14
SB-37-16
SB-37-18
SB-37-20
SB-37-22
SB-37-24
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
41
43
Bottom
Depth
43
45
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Sample
Date
12/2/2000
12/2/2000
12/4/2000
12/1/2000
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
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
MeOH
(g)
194
198
NA
NA
193
206
202
196
196
196
190
192
193
202
203
197
203
204
201
202
200
209
197
198
203
198
198
NA
NA
NA
189
191
191
193
204
201
201
206
202
204
197
198
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
302
252
NA
NA
123
152
151
192
175
182
195
204
180
168
232
147
113
118
164
201
181
175
158
116
173
231
181
NA
NA
NA
138
149
125
166
195
214
169
203
212
204
157
163
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
240
205
NA
NA
121
151
144
173
143
150
163
174
154
141
189
121
98
96
130
159
145
138
124
97
135
182
146
NA
NA
NA
138
139
118
145
168
170
135
173
176
174
125
137
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
3,300,000
5,700,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
260
5,100
3,700
1,100
<250
250
4,400
6,900
4,400,000
420,000
150,000
89,000
2,300,000
4,700,000
14,000,000
6,500,000
1 ,500,000
730,000
13,000,000
13,000,000
1,200
570
<1
500
<250
<250
<250
490
2,000
15,000
16,000
640,000
39,000
20,000
41 ,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
4,229
8,276
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.40
10
7
2
ND
0.44
9
11
10,013
1,166
438
197
4,306
9,373
30,593
14,854
4,143
1,595
21,402
25,433


ND
1
ND
ND
ND
1
4
32
27
1,061
65
45
83
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<1 20,000
<250,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
780
350
860
3,400
2,600
2,400
610
<250,000
<2 1,000
12,000
14,000
<1 20,000
<380,000
<380,000
<500,000
<1 20,000
<38,000
<620,000
<620,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<500
<38,000
<10,000
<1,800
1,200
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
1
1
5
5
5
1
ND
ND
35
31
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<1 20,000
<250,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<380
<250,000
<2 1,000
<1 0,000
<4,200
<1 20,000
<380,000
<380,000
<500,000
<1 20,000
<38,000
<620,000
<620,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<500
<38,000
<10,000
<1,800
<1,200
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
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<250,000
<500,000
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<770
<500,000
<42,000
<20,000
<8,300
<250,000
<770,000
<770,000
<1 ,000,000
<250,000
<77,000
<1, 200,000
<1, 200,000
<500
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 ,000
<1,000
<7,700
<20,000
<3,600
<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
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\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34 (Continued)

Sample ID
SB-37-24-DUP
SB-37-26
SB-37-28
SB-37-30
SB-37-32
SB-37-34
SB-37-36
SB-37-38
SB-37-40
SB-37-43
SB-37-45
RINSATE-4
SB-38-2
SB-38-4
SB-38-6
SB-38-8
SB-38-10
SB-38-12
SB-38-14
SB-38-16
SB-38-18
SB-38-20
SB-38-22
SB-38-24
SB-38-26
SB-38-28
SB-38-30
SB-38-33
SB-38-35
SB-38-37
SB-38-39
SB-38-39-DUP
SB-38-41
SB-38-43
SB-38-45
SB-38-67
RINSATE-8
SB-39-2
SB-39-4
SB-39-6
SB-39-8
SB-39-10
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
Bottom
Depth
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
31
33
35
37
37
39
41
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
33
35
37
39
39
41
43
45
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
2
4
6
8
10
Sample
Date
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/30/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/4/2000
12/4/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
MeOH
(g)
193
191
192
181
196
195
192
200
188
192
192
NA
189
190
188
191
200
189
204
196
199
202
195
195
192
192
NA
194
197
200
195
197
192
204
197
NA
NA
200
199
200
191
203
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
195
222
243
260
226
206
213
230
251
229
164
NA
146
148
176
221
177
174
224
189
187
223
168
170
196
204
NR
238
253
264
256
259
305
347
222
NA
NA
189
176
157
202
211
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
156
171
190
199
186
159
161
164
205
177
125
NA
144
147
156
186
149
144
193
156
154
186
160
141
149
163
NR
180
216
188
204
223
230
295
186
NA
NA
184
160
139
177
183
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
32,000
230,000
220,000
2,700,000 D
390,000
3,600,000 D
5,600,000 D
430,000
310,000
7,700,000 D
5,400,000 D
1
380
370
570
<250
670
250
<250
4,000
7,700
42,000
100,000
2,400,000
240,000
3,000,000
NA
370,000
1 ,600,000
300,000
230,000
240,000
13,000,0000
6,700,000
16,000,000
<250
1
2,000
470
3,800
1,100
950
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
58
394
343
3,936
604
6,653
10,262
837
429
12,835
12,184

1
1
1
ND
1
0.47
ND
7
14
66
159
4,695
467
5,228
NA
624
2,121
525
337
307
17,976
7,046
24,548
ND

3
1
7
2
1
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
1,300
<8,300
<6,200
<62,000
<12,000
<62,000
<83,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<83,000
<62,000
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<380
<1,800
<3,600
<62,000
<10,000
<62,000
NA
<1 2,000
<50,000
<10,000
<8,300
<8,300
<250,000
<21 0,000
<500,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
2
ND
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
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<1,200
<8,300
<6,200
<62,000
<12,000
<62,000
<83,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<83,000
<62,000
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<380
<1,800
<3,600
<62,000
<10,000
<62,000
NA
<1 2,000
<50,000
<10,000
<8,300
<8,300
<250,000
<21 0,000
<500,000
<250
<1
<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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<2,500
<1 7,000
<12,000
<1 20,000
<25,000
<1 20,000
< 170, 000
<25,000
<25,000
<1 70,000
<1 20,000
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<770
<3,600
<7,100
<1 20,000
<20,000
<1 20,000
NA
<25,000
<1 00,000
<20,000
<17,000
<17,000
<500,000
<420,000
<1, 000,000
<500
<2
<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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                                M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34 (Continued)

Sample ID
SB-39-12
SB-39-14
SB-39-16
SB-39-18
SB-39-20
SB-39-20-DUP
SB-39-22
SB-39-24
SB-39-26
SB-39-28
SB-39-30
SB-39-32
SB-39-34
SB-39-36
SB-39-38
SB-39-40
SB-39-43
SB-39-45
SB-39-68
RINSATE-9
SB-40-2
SB-40-4
SB-40-6
SB-40-8
SB-40-10
SB-40-12
SB-40-14
SB-40-16
SB-40-18
SB-40-20
SB-40-22
SB-40-24
SB-40-26
SB-40-28
SB-40-30
SB-40-32
SB-40-34
SB-40-36
SB-40-36-DUP
SB-40-38
SB-40-40
SB-40-43
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
Bottom
Depth
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
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
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
41
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
43
Sample
Date
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/1/2000
12/4/2000
12/4/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
11/29/2000
MeOH
(g)
203
206
200
198
193
193
193
196
195
193
192
190
197
193
193
196
194
196
NA
NA
197
198
211
191
196
200
198
201
191
192
190
191
193
192
202
201
194
192
193
197
191
196
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
178
265
201
240
226
154
189
240
210
232
297
230
274
235
275
273
298
310
NA
NA
133
145
198
265
227
177
172
145
208
208
171
208
239
211
259
265
244
229
215
231
240
229
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
144
230
167
199
189
128
153
195
162
182
227
188
214
181
197
233
221
251
NA
NA
130
142
182
218
190
145
136
120
172
191
135
171
186
171
204
214
187
172
165
168
179
183
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
900
960
3,800
5,600
9,500
5,100
71 ,000
100,000
250,000
220,000
240,000
160,000
190,000
210,000
290,000
220,000
2,500,000
6,100,000
<250
<1
2,500
250
<250
<250
2,800
890
6,000
4,800
<500
13,000
25,000
52,000
160,000
130,000
120,000
78,000
<2,500
42,000
26,000
54,000
3,600
83,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
2
1
7
8
14
11
130
150
455
356
331
240
275
346
474
272
3,649
7,463
ND
ND
5
0.45
ND
ND
4
2
13
11
ND
18
51
85
256
215
183
111
ND
73
46
100
6
133
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<250
<250
710
870
320
<250
<2,500
<6,200
<1 0,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<8,300
<1 0,000
<1 0,000
<12,000
<10,000
<83,000
<1 20,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
490
<250
1,200
2,900
5,600
8,100
7,500
8,000
<5,000
<3,600
6,900
23,000
34,000
52,000
47,000
36,000
32,000
<2,500
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
1
1
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
3
7
9
11
15
13
ND
ND
11
33
55
91
84
67
54
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<2,500
<6,200
<1 0,000
<1 2,000
<1 2,000
<8,300
<1 0,000
<10,000
<12,000
<10,000
<83,000
<1 20,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<500
<830
<1,800
<1,800
<5,000
<3,600
<3,600
<2,500
<2,500
<3,600
<3,100
<2,500
<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
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
<500
<5,000
<1 2,000
<20,000
<25,000
<25,000
<1 7,000
<20,000
<20,000
<25,000
<20,000
<1 70,000
<250,000
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1,000
<1,700
<3,600
<3,600
<1 0,000
<7,100
<7,100
<5,000
<5,000
<7,100
<6,200
<5,000
<5,000
<5,000
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
                                                                                M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34 (Continued)

Sample ID
SB-40-45
RINSATE-5
SB-41-2
SB-41-4
SB-41-6
SB-41-8
SB-41-10
SB-41-12
SB-41-14
SB-41-16
SB-41-18
SB-41-20
SB-41-22
SB-41-24
SB-41-26
SB-41-28
SB-41-28-DUP
SB-41-30
SB-41-32
SB-41-34
SB-41-36
SB-41-38
SB-41-40
SB-41-43
SB-41-45
SB-41-65
RINSATE-3
SB-41B-2
SB-41B-4
SB-41B-6
SB-41B-8
SB-41B-10
SB-41B-12
SB-41B-14
SB-41B-16
SB-41B-18
SB-41B-20
SB-41B-22
SB-41B-24
SB-41B-26
SB-41B-28
SB-41B-30
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
43
Bottom
Depth
45
EQ
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
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Sample
Date
11/28/2000
11/30/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/30/2000
11/30/2000
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
MeOH
(g)
197
NA
197
191
197
183
198
196
200
192
199
206
200
198
199
190
196
203
200
191
194
196
191
196
199
NA
NA
200
199
193
204
199
199
196
199
202
192
194
194
193
201
197
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
221
NA
134
144
166
264
169
168
150
170
192
203
163
173
202
207
200
244
225
199
223
249
228
162
171
NA
NA
137
151
170
237
204
266
131
198
180
194
187
167
240
219
191
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
169
NA
135
135
150
222
142
138
126
142
154
159
132
140
154
165
157
190
186
148
176
181
177
128
127
NA
NA
135
149
157
198
110
154
113
168
155
161
155
136
186
172
154
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
160,000
1
340
400
320
<250
260
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
54,000
100,000
210,000
230,000
210,000
220,000
150,000
220,000
200,000
120,000
110,000
<2,000
3,700,000 D
<250
4
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
1,800
<250
150,000
1 ,500,000
190,000
140,000
140,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
285

1
1
1
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
116
203
409
394
389
360
236
435
332
210
182
ND
8,621
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
269
3,050
305
245
260
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<5,000
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
9,600
13,000
12,000
<8,300
<8,300
<8,300
<6,200
<8,300
15,000
36,000
28,000
<2,000
<1 0,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
350
<250
<250
<250
<250
<8,300
<50,000
15,000
<8,300
<8,300
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
21
26
23
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
25
63
46
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<5,000
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,800
<4,200
<6,200
<8,300
<8,300
<8,300
<6,200
<8,300
<10,000
<6,200
<5,000
<2,000
<1 0,000
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<8,300
<50,000
<12,000
<8,300
<8,300
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
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<1 0,000
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<3,600
<8,300
<12,000
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
<1 2,000
<17,000
<20,000
<12,000
<10,000
<4,000
<20,000
<500
<2
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<1 7,000
<1 00,000
<25,000
<17,000
<17,000
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
                                                                                M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
                                    Table C-3. Steam Injection Predemonstration Soil Results at Cape Canaveral LC34 (Continued)

Sample ID
SB-41B-32
SB-41B-34
SB-41B-36
SB-41B-38
SB-41B-40
SB-41B-40-DUP
SB-41 B-43
SB-41 B-45
SB-41 B-82
SB-41 B-83
SB-41 B-EB
SB-42-2
SB-42-4
SB-42-6
SB-42-8
SB-42-10
SB-42-12
SB-42-14
SB-42-16
SB-42-18
SB-42-20
SB-42-22
SB-42-24
SB-42-26
SB-42-28
SB-42-30
SB-42-32
SB-42-34
SB-42-34B
SB-42-36
SB-42-38
SB-42-40
SB-42-43
SB-42-45
SB-42-62
RINSATE-2
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
30
32
34
36
38
38
41
43
Bottom
Depth
32
34
36
38
40
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
32
34
36
38
41
42
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
43
44
Lab Blank
EQ
Sample
Date
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
11/28/2000
MeOH
(g)
201
189
201
199
202
200
197
197
NA
NA
NA
197
189
193
195
201
192
212
191
194
198
200
201
205
202
201
200
196
192
209
206
190
193
192
NA
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
215
202
223
242
202
202
330
137
NA
NA
NA
117
122
134
176
189
203
203
175
231
208
166
173
170
243
209
263
185
186
190
172
212
216
210
NA
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
171
147
158
189
144
147
264
102
NA
NA
NA
107
117
109
139
158
159
172
146
192
161
139
138
139
201
166
220
137
137
146
127
159
168
154
NA
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
180,000
230,000
270,000
170,000
180,000
170,000
1 1 ,000,000
8,600,000 D
<250
<250
<1
2,000
410
3,100
2,300
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
24,000
71,000
100,000
110,000
180,000
130,000
3,400,000
1 ,600,000
810,000
170,000
150,000
200,000
8,600,000 D
<250
1
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
314
460
546
274
392
356
13,140
23,976
ND
ND
ND
5
1
8
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
48
149
209
163
323
175
7,348
3,411
1,712
409
277
348
16,700
ND

cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<8,300
<1 7,000
<1 7,000
8,600
12,000
12,000
<620,000
<62,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
4,400
<3,600
<5,000
<5,600
<8,300
<6,200
<71,000
<62,000
<31 ,000
<8,300
17,000
<6,200
<83,000
<250
<1
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
14
26
25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
ND
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH (ug/L)
<8,300
<1 7,000
<17,000
<8,300
<8,300
<10,000
<620,000
<62,000
<250
<250
<1
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<250
<1,000
<3,600
<5,000
<5,600
<8,300
<6,200
<71,000
<62,000
<31 ,000
<8,300
<4,200
<6,200
<83,000
<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
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<1 7,000
<33,000
<33,000
<17,000
<17,000
<20,000
<1 ,200,000
<1 20,000
<500
<500
<1
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<2,000
<7,100
<10,000
<1 1,000
<1 7,000
<1 2,000
<1 40,000
<1 20,000
<62,000
<17,000
<8,300
<12,000
< 170, 000
<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
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.
                                                                                                                       M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-final\Steam lnjection\Appendiees\Appendix C\C-3
-------
Table C-4.  Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-231-2 (SS)
SB-231-4
SB-231-6
SB-231-8
SB-231-10
SB-231-12
SB-231-14
SB-231-16
SB-231-18
SB-231-20
SB-231-22
SB-231-24
SB-231-26
SB-231-28
SB-231-30
SB-231-32
SB-231-34
SB-231-36
SB-231-38
SB-231-40
SB-231-40DUP
SB-231-42
SB-231-44
SB-231-46
SB-231-MB(SS)
SB-231-RINSATE
SB-232-2 (SS)
SB-232-4
SB-232-6
SB-232-8
SB-232-10
SB-232-12
SB-232-14
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
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
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Sample Date
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
191
191
191
190
190
190
192
190
191
189
190
190
190
191
192
191
191
191
191
191
191
193
191
191
NA
191
191
191
193
191
192
192
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
90
141
138
85
144
138
133
134
129
139
125
122
124
150
134
167
154
161
127
155
124
145
157
169
NA
NA
124
131
127
79
130
117
130
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
90
136
133
84
123
123
117
112
110
114
104
100
102
125
109
138
124
147
105
114
94
116
133
135
NA
NA
120
126
120
80
120
107
112
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<100
<100
<100
106
422
3,470
4,020
549
469
873
472
1,520
2,710
5,180
7,630
5,570
5,400
31,400
115,000
154,000
150,000
162,000
136,000
392,000
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
3,260
5,200
2,640
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
0
1
7
9
1
1
2
1
4
7
11
19
11
12
55
289
382
434
378
274
801
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
12
6
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
16J
133
273
840
863
841
789
1,160
1,380
1,770
2,160
2,830
2,640
3,900
5,910
1,370
659
214
245
193
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
295
1,380
875
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
15
3
2
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
3
2
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
13J
<100
<100
<100
16J
22J
23J
26J
31J
30J
33J
31J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
22J
29J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                      M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4.  Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-232-16
SB-232-18
SB-232-20
SB-232-22
SB-232-24
SB-232-26
SB-232-28
SB-232-30
SB-232-32
SB-232-34
SB-232-34-DUP
SB-232-36
SB-232-38
SB-232-40
SB-232-42
SB-232-44
SB-232-46
SB-232-MB(SS)
SB-232-RINSATE
SB-233-2 (SS)
SB-233-4
SB-233-6
SB-233-8
SB-233-10
SB-233-12
SB-233-14
SB-233-16
SB-233-18
SB-233-20
SB-233-22
SB-233-24
SB-233-26
SB-233-26-DUP
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
Sample Date
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/29/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
192
191
193
192
192
192
193
192
193
193
192
192
193
191
192
192
192
NA
192
192
193
194
195
195
193
191
191
191
192
191
190
190
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
87
124
90
144
155
157
153
110
159
154
107
141
133
137
139
113
144
NA
NA
160
184
163
92
130
129
181
195
181
113
200
184
170
133
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
82
107
80
120
129
128
128
90
109
127
92
123
122
93
113
89
121
NA
NA
151
178
158
89
108
113
153
161
154
94
157
152
146
108
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
1,830
2,320
2,080
13,600
23,000
152,000
3,860,000
82,100
448,000
262,000
177,000
286,000
196,000
182,000
139,000
107,000
142,000
<100
7
107
<100
<100
124
5,1203
8,160
9,850
8,760
2,600
1,350
4,730
32,800
55,600
51,400
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
6
6
7
30
48
323
8,083
241
1,204
560
499
607
408
564
329
321
312
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
0
13
19
18
15
5
4
9
59
101
126
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
2,780
4,780
3,520
7,370
10,600
12,800
81,700
11,200
17,000
15,400
9,710
11,300
9,750
6,680
4,750
7,180
7,220
<100
<1.0
93J
<100
<100
<100
159
835
2,990
9,380
8,780
5,130
12,700
7,720
8,450
6,270
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
8
12
11
16
22
27
171
33
46
33
27
24
20
21
11
22
16
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
2
5
16
15
14
23
14
15
15
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
23J
36J
380J
30J
<1000
39J
23J
27J
19J
<100
11J
22J
23J
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
15J
<100
33J
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
<100
23J
<100
62J
161
145
810J
166
120J
83J
52J
56J
39J
28J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
16J
84J
114
79J
214
177
221
161
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                                                        M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4.  Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-233-28
SB-233-30
SB-233-32
SB-233-34
SB-233-36
SB-233-38
SB-233-40
SB-233-42
SB-233-44
SB-233-46
SB-233-MB(SS)
SB-233-RINSATE
SB-234-2 (SS)
SB-234-4
SB-234-6
SB-234-8
SB-234-10
SB-234-12
SB-234-14
SB-234-16
SB-234-18
SB-234-20
SB-234-22
SB-234-24
SB-234-24-DUP SY
SB-234-26
SB-234-26-DUP
SB-234-28
SB-234-30
SB-234-32
SB-234-34
SB-234-36
SB-234-38
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Sample Date
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
1/28/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/1 3/2002
MeOH
(g)
190
191
190
191
191
190
189
191
191
190
192
NA
192
192
192
196
195
193
194
194
192
193
194
192
194
191
194
191
191
192
193
192
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
146
115
142
201
248
147
240
275
136
114
NA
NA
203
167
210
84
66
84
95
144
193
162
138
126
150
157
95
141
185
195
101
159
91
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
123
92
114
166
210
123
181
183
112
98
NA
NA
193
151
204
71
60
75
81
121
163
139
116
105
119
127
76
108
145
136
92
142
80
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
158,000
162,000
3,920,000
804,000
810,000
755,000
41,800
193,000
376,000
822,000
<100
<1.0
<100
473
105
<100
262
<100
135
532
749
1,170
2,170
1,620
1,630
3,220
3,210
13,600
13,300
20,300
7,830
14,600
11,800
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
338
466
9,233
1,341
1,079
1,624
69
352
892
2,152
ND
ND
ND
1
0
ND
1
ND
0
1
1
2
5
4
4
7
11
35
26
45
22
27
38
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
7,340
6,230
29,900
11,500
5,080
2,100
3,820
4,240
5,420
5,280
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
153
161
149
151
148
217
217
281
309
601
289
439
296
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
16
18
70
19
7
5
6
8
13
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<200
<1000
<1000
<1000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
51J
<200
<1000
<1000
<1000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4. Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-234-40
SB-234-42
SB-234-44
SB-234-46
SB-234-MB(SS)
SB-234-RINSATE
SB-235-2 (SS)
SB-235-4
SB-235-6
SB-235-8
SB-235-10
SB-235-12
SB-235-14
SB-235-14C
SB-235-16
SB-235-18
SB-235-20
SB-235-22
SB-235-24
SB-235-26
SB-235-26-DUP
SB-235-28
SB-235-30
SB-235-32
SB-235-34
SB-235-36
SB-235-38
SB-235-40
SB-235-42
SB-235-44
SB-235-45
SB-235-45C
SB-235-MB(SS)
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
43
43
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
45
45
Lab Blank
Sample Date
2/13/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/13/2002
2/13/2002
2/1 3/2002
2/13/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
MeOH
(g)
193
192
192
191
193
NA
193
193
192
190
195
198
195
193
199
198
194
196
194
197
190
196
199
197
194
190
193
187
191
191
197
193
195
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
154
143
198
177
NA
NA
137
120
123
91
145
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
112
126
154
155
NA
NA
132
129
121
82
133
No Recovery
No Recovery
No Recovery
102
47
79
65
125
113
141
86
119
77
102
46
94
47
66
55
101
97
121
72
94
69
84
44
No Recovery
132
69
168
139
151
NA
114
71
149
124
119
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
94,900
30,900
89,100
65,600
<100
<1.0
115
159
139
7,700
8,280
NA
NA
NA
10,900
4,600
14,300
9,900
36,200
44,000
40,200
32,200
56,600
11,900
75,600
10,500
NA
14,800
13,900
28,000
18,800
19,700
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
243
64
166
112
ND
ND
0
0
0
23
16
NA
NA
NA
30
25
56
46
97
120
87
117
167
44
237
58
NA
33
47
49
40
46
ND
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
856
417
2,550
1,760
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
229
238
NA
NA
NA
207
134
214
170
2,900
218
239
148
238
57J
309
50J
NA
30J
15J
34J
23J
22J
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
2
1
5
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
0
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
NA
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
NA
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                       M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4. Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-235-RINSATE
SB-236-2 (SS)
SB-236-4
SB-236-6
SB-236-8
SB-236-10
SB-236-12
SB-236-14
SB-236-16
SB-236-18
SB-236-20
SB-236-20-DUP
SB-236-22
SB-236-24
SB-236-26
SB-236-28
SB-236-30
SB-236-32
SB-236-34
SB-236-36
SB-236-38
SB-236-40
SB-236-42
SB-236-44
SB-236-46
SB-236-MB (SS)
SB-236-RINSATE
SB-237-2 (SS)
SB-237-4
SB-237-6
SB-237-8
SB-237-10
SB-237-12
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
2
4
6
8
10
12
Sample Date
2/14/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
MeOH
(g)
NA
193
192
192
193
192
192
191
191
194
192
193
192
192
193
192
193
192
192
192
192
192
192
193
192
192
NA
193
193
192
192
192
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
185
134
217
51
82
160
176
80
142
112
151
189
125
165
183
167
145
104
132
161
179
147
175
209
NA
NA
76
107
105
108
90
158
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
186
130
216
50
70
136
151
70
120
103
126
158
103
113
146
149
125
76
116
140
148
119
144
169
NA
NA
77
84
90
95
82
139
TCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<1.0
274
129 S
315
324
528
4,190
1,530
690
3,480
1,450
1,470
3,390
2,240
2,310
6,820
5,350
12,400
9,720
32,500
48,200
58,500
77,300
77,000
93,400
<100
11
<100
<100
3,200
752
345
579
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
0
0
2
2
8
3
2
8
4
3
6
6
6
13
9
26
35
73
91
108
176
147
156
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
2
1
1
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<1.0
16J
<100
33J
142
178
2,520
2,410
1,060
1,950
1,990
2,020
2,700
2,440
3,190
2,770
2,340
2,290
1,850
4,350
6,000
10,500
10,800
14,700
18,100
<100
2
<100
<100
183
65J
77J
165
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
ND
0
1
1
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
6
8
5
4
5
7
10
11
19
25
28
30
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
0
0
0
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
19J
18J
<100
<100
<100
<100
20J
33J
32J
75J
99J
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
32J
47J
22J
22J
37J
38J
46J
59J
61J
76J
65J
<100
<100
42J
65J
87J
122
87J
97J
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                       M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4.  Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-237-14
SB-237-16
SB-237-16-DUP
SB-237-18
SB-237-20
SB-237-22
SB-237-24
SB-237-26
SB-237-28
SB-237-30
SB-237-32
SB-237-34
SB-237-36
SB-237-38
SB-237-40
SB-237-42
SB-237-44
SB-237-46
SB-237-MB(SS)
SB-237-RINSATE
SB-238-2 (SS)
SB-238-4
SB-238-6
SB-238-8
SB-238-10
SB-238-12
SB-238-14
SB-238-16
SB-238-18
SB-238-20
SB-238-20-DUP
SB-238-22
SB-238-24
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
12
14
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
Sample Date
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/15/2002
2/15/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/15/2002
2/15/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/15/2002
2/15/2002
2/1 5/2002
MeOH
(g)
193
192
193
193
191
192
192
193
193
193
192
193
192
191
192
192
192
193
192
NA
192
192
193
194
194
193
194
195
194
193
193
194
195
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
125
146
125
154
160
198
146
112
133
147
149
88
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
120
132
111
141
143
173
127
94
107
126
124
81
No Recovery
No Recovery
128
125
195
123
NA
NA
121
172
157
141
97
153
222
156
115
133
68
156
67
112
108
146
101
NA
NA
116
137
123
119
80
126
186
134
99
115
62
140
59
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
531
375
380
1,800
3,200
6,110
6,960
4,670
39,100
39,400
18,100
7,280
NA
NA
12,600
16,600
1,210,000
1,670,000
120
<1.0
162
344
7,560
172
111
13,400
16,700
15,600
12,900
8,930
8,280
16,200
2,610
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1
1
1
3
6
9
14
13
99
83
39
23
NA
NA
29
40
2,420
4,403
0
ND
0
1
17
0
0
29
25
31
34
20
33
30
11
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
118
178
180
458
618
859
294
285
1,700
1,860
3,810
1,440
NA
NA
1,360
1,230
2,370
1,580
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
415
<100
<100
1,780
2,640
4,380
3,490
2,360
2,560
3,600
936
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
8
4
NA
NA
3
3
5
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
4
4
9
9
5
10
7
4
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
25J
29J
45J
15J
NA
NA
<100
<100
<1000
<1000
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
26J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
<100
36J
36J
<100
<100
<100
46J
22J
68J
77J
33J
<100
NA
NA
77J
90J
<1000
<1000
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
ND
NA
NA
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                        M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4.  Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-238-26
SB-238-28
SB-238-30
SB-238-32
SB-238-34
SB-238-36
SB-238-38
SB-238-40
SB-238-42
SB-238-44
SB-238-45
SB-238-MB(SS)
SB-238-RINSATE
SB-239-2 (SS)
SB-239-4
SB-239-6
SB-239-8
SB-239-10
SB-239-12
SB-239-14
SB-239-16
SB-239-18
SB-239-20
SB-239-22
SB-239-24
SB-239-24-DUP
SB-239-26
SB-239-28
SB-239-30
SB-239-32
SB-239-34
SB-239-36
SB-239-38
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
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Sample Date
2/15/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/15/2002
2/15/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/15/2002
2/15/2002
2/15/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/15/2002
2/1 5/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
MeOH
(g)
194
193
193
193
193
198
193
194
193
194
192
196
NA
192
192
193
196
194
195
192
193
194
191
193
192
193
193
194
193
193
196
193
193
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
67
213
159
85
136
108
162
146
68
121
191
NA
NA
136
108
170
154
92
114
86
114
129
131
131
141
142
131
138
152
195
168
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
63
172
103
51
121

118
121
56
96
145
NA
NA
135
104
145
132
90
94
78
106
119
113
110
117
117
103
115
136
164
143
No Recovery
No Recovery
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
3,540
10,900
10,600
8,690
6,490
11,400
22,700
13,600
1,680
2,480
2,610
<100
<1.0
133
128
951
3,370
2,240
2,820
1,100
1,160
707
2,270
3,100
4,520
5,520
6,220
6,380
4,520
72,100
99,800
NA
NA
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
14
18
31
47
14
#DIV/0!
55
30
8
7
5
ND
ND
0
0
2
7
6
8
4
3
2
5
7
10
13
16
15
9
121
191
NA
NA
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
1,190
3,740
4,640
1,960
1,570
2,370
9,790
6,070
295
456
548
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
130
655
573
591
406
791
467
992
1,290
1,260
1,600
1,520
1,470
2,200
3,610
2,640
NA
NA
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
5
6
14
11
3
#DIV/0!
24
14
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
4
3
4
6
5
NA
NA
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
30J
20J
<100
<100
<100
47J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
18J
<100
NA
NA
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
NA
NA
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
30J
30J
NA
NA
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
0
0
NA
NA
                                                                        M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4.  Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-239-40
SB-239-42
SB-239-44
SB-239-46
SB-239-MB(SS)
SB-239-RINSATE
SB-240-2 (SS)
SB-240-4
SB-240-6
SB-240-8
SB-240-10
SB-240-12
SB-240-14
SB-240-16
SB-240-18
SB-240-20
SB-240-22
SB-240-24
SB-240-26
SB-240-28
SB-240-30
SB-240-32
SB-240-34
SB-240-36
SB-240-38
SB-240-38-DUP
SB-240-40
SB-240-42
SB-240-44
SB-240-45
SB-240-MB(SS)
SB-240-RINSATE
SB-241-2(SS)
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
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
45
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
Sample Date
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/6/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002
2/4/2002

2/1/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
193
192
192
194
NA
194
192
192
197
195
194
193
191
194
195
194
194
194
193
195
194
194
191
194
193
194
194
194
195
194
NA
195
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
170
170
165
118
NA
NA
91
80
162
128
136
168
130
126
125
171
231
162
131
135
112
103
148
129
114
117
190
153
165
116
NA
NA
87
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
148
141
132
94
NA
NA
89
80
128
118
127
149
119
105
108
150
189
129
111
108
91
85
113
99
96
94
128
125
122
76
NA
NA
85
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
42,800
89,000
175,000
1,420,000
<100

<100
<100S
7,430
6,680
2,030
5,000
2,810
194
332
5,120
9,000
954
12,100
22,000
27,400
13,300
42,000
80,000
45,200
38,400
138,000
127,000
186,000
175,000
<100
<1.0
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
77
173
366
4,034
ND

ND
ND
16
15
4
9
6
0
1
9
14
2
29
55
81
41
104
220
124
109
332
278
440
660
ND
ND
ND
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
24,300
29,100
4,710
1,830
<100

<100
<100
2,600
2,700
722
2,140
673
467
585
1,230
2,900
2,190
4,790
3,830
2,570
2,580
15,000
18,300
10,800
10,000
4,710
1,820
2,390
3,190
<100
<1.0
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
44
56
10
5
ND

ND
ND
6
6
1
4
1
1
1
2
4
5
11
10
8
8
37
50
30
28
11
4
6
12
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
32J
55J
<200
<1000
<100

<100
<100
60J
37J
<100
31J
21J
<100
<100
<100
26J
30J
81J
50J
29J
45J
231
167
71J
65J
24J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
0
0
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
632
902
130J
<1000
<100

<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
60J
75J
48J
29J
<100
58J
96J
68J
59J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1
2
0
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                        M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4. Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-241-4
SB-241-6
SB-241-8
SB-241-10
SB-241-12
SB-241-14
SB-241-16
SB-241-18
SB-241-20
SB-241-20-DUP
SB-241-22
SB-241-24
SB-241-26
SB-241-28
SB-241-30
SB-241-32
SB-241-34
SB-241-36
SB-241-38
SB-241-40
SB-241-42
SB-241-44
SB-241-46
SB-241-MB(SS)
SB-241-RINSATE
SB-242-2 (SS)
SB-242-4
SB-242-6
SB-242-8
SB-242-10
SB-242-12
SB-242-14
SB-242-16
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Sample Date
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002

1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
MeOH
(g)
196
193
193
194
192
190
192
193
196
193
194
193
191
192
194
194
193
194
194
193
196
194
194
193
NA
192
191
191
190
191
191
192
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
121
158
134
176
102
131
121
176
124
97
124
122
128
134
153
171
160
157
132
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
122
131
129
156
88
116
103
149
113
81
103
106
109
106
126
143
133
114
105
No Recovery
No Recovery
127
130
0
NA
72
110
112
112
118
134
128
136
97
97
0
NA
71
114
89
103
102
120
114
114
TCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
7,300
5,610
7,050
779
1,050
277
1,570
1,960
1,280
2,240
616
<100
1,700
4,070
16,000
7,380
64,500
67,800 S
NA
NA
1,890,000
687,000
<100

<100
<100
2,180
3,940
999
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
15
11
12
2
2
1
3
4
4
6
2
ND
4
9
31
15
163
176
NA
NA
5,369
1,973
ND

ND
ND
6
10
3
ND
ND
ND
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
538
472
1,910
1,190
3,530
3,430
1,960
1,700
1,270
1,480
1,850
1,770
3,400
3,210
3,660
3,080
17,500
9,830 S
NA
NA
7,010
1,600
<100

<100
<100
984
791
1,140
<100
477
594
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
1
1
3
3
8
9
4
4
4
4
5
4
9
7
7
6
44
26
NA
NA
20
5
ND

ND
ND
3
2
3
ND
1
1
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
31J
29J
22J
69J
67J
49J
54J
142
99J
NA
NA
29J
<100
<100

<100
<100
<100
<100
20J
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
50J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
63J
<100
NA
NA
<100
<100
<100

<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
49J
97J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
                                                                       M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4.  Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-242-18
SB-242-20
SB-242-22
SB-242-24
SB-242-26
SB-242-28
SB-242-30
SB-242-32
SB-242-34
SB-242-36
SB-242-38
SB-242-38-DUP
SB-242-40
SB-242-42
SB-242-44
SB-242-46
SB-242-MB (SS)
SB-242-RINSATE
SB-334-PR-14A
SB-334-PR-14B
SB-334-PR-14C
SB-334-PR-14D
SB-334-PO-16A
SB-334-PO-16B
SB-334-PO-16C
SB-334-PO-16D
SB-334-PR-18A
SB-334-PR-18B
SB-334-PR-18C
SB-334-PR-18D
SB-334-PO-20A
SB-334-PO-20B
SB-334-PO-20C
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
12
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
16
18
18
18
14
14
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
18
20
20
20
Sample Date
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
1/30/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
MeOH
(g)
191
191
192
192
193
192
192
192
191
191
191
192
190
190
190
191
191
NA
193
194
194
192
193
193
194
193
192
192
193
192
193
193
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
128
110
141
126
119
116
126
127
110
110
88
83
142
123
173
160
NA
NA
252
213
147
238
267
121
87
154
334
308
274
174
335
352
136
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
108
93
118
108
102
101
113
103
87
83
68
65
114
77
129
133
NA
NA
217
177
102
203
226
105
73
133
276
266
234
152
277
304
109
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<100
<100
1,660
2,130
17,300
18,800
11,800
638,000
439,000
220,000
377,000
478,000
30,900
2,440
5,190,000
3,210,000
<100
1.38
775
818
438
658
381
242
282
281
1,380
1,010
742
560
1,330
1,390
578
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
4
5
44
48
27
1,654
1,336
712
1,451
1,920
73
9
1 1 ,446
6,487
ND
ND
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
864
380
481
639
546
771
443
9,250
10,300
10,000
11,500
9,990
15,600
3,320
2,840
1,760
<100
<1.0
58J
56J
31J
52J
17J
<100
<100
12J
84J
64J
49J
35J
85J
91J
39J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
24
31
32
44
40
37
12
6
4
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
315
264
69J
76J
60J
85J
19J
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
59J
137
145
187
154
191
117
30J
29J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
Table C-4. Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (mg/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-334-PO-20D
SB-334-PR-22A
SB-334-PR-22B
SB-334-PR-22C
SB-334-PR-22D
SB-334-PO-24A
SB-334-PO-24B
SB-334-PO-24C
SB-334-PO-24D
SB-334-RINSATE
SB-339-2 (SS)
SB-339-4
SB-339-6
SB-339-8
SB-339-10
SB-339-12
SB-339-14
SB-339-16
SB-339-18
SB-339-20
SB-339-22
SB-339-24
SB-339-26
SB-339-28
SB-339-30
SB-339-32
SB-339-34
SB-339-36
SB-339-38
SB-339-40
SB-339-40-DUP
SB-339-42
SB-339-44
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
18
20
20
20
20
22
22
22
22
Bottom
Depth
20
22
22
22
22
24
24
24
24
EQ
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
Sample Date
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/14/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
193
194
192
193
192
193
193
193
NA
195
192
193
191
191
193
194
193
193
193
193
194
195
193
193
193
193
194
194
193
193
193
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
147
74
101
312
407
281
262
247
327
NA
180
174
122
151
123
116
175
103
153
82
98
149
154
122
177
162
100
172
136
174
148
159
184
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
125
64
85
251
333
239
208
197
257
NA
179
174

130
111

155
91

73
84
131
129
98
153
132
90
139
115
148
131
139
139
TCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
626
1,140
1,980
6,400
7,600
5,810
5,360
4,260
5,720

<100
<100
<100
4,5903
3,340
3,820
3,040
1,360
4,900
1,800
3,660
5,760
6,440
8,790
8,060 S
53,900
47,100
60,600
38,700
40,200
39,100
49,500
397,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1
5
6
8
7
7
8
6
7
#VALUE!
ND
ND
ND
9
8
#DIV/0!
5
4
#DIV/0!
6
11
12
14
24
14
112
133
121
90
73
78
94
830
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
41J
37J
62J
207
239
175
200
169
203

<100
<100
<100
880
649
672
1,070
732
1,020
544
782
1,550
1,240
1,390
1,330
2,820
1,220
4,850
3,540
16,400
16,100
18,100
6,510
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
1
#DIV/0!
2
2
#DIV/0!
2
2
3
3
4
2
6
3
10
8
30
32
34
14
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100

<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
28J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
("g/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100

<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
122
97J
717
698
671
140J
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
0
0
1
1
1
0
                                                                       M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
                            Table C-4. Steam Injection Postdemonstration Soil Sample Results (nig/Kg) (Continued)
Steam Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-339-46
SB-339-MB(SS)
SB-339-RINSATE
Sample Depth (ft)
Top
Depth
44
Bottom
Depth
46
Lab Blank
EQ
Sample Date
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
2/8/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
193
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
108
NA
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
80
NA
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
3,580,000
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
12,129
ND
ND
cJs-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
7,900
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
27
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
fag/L)
<5000
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
Oig/L)
<5000
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
MB: Method Blank.
SS: Spiked sample
DUP: Duplicate sample.
EQ: Equipment rinsate.
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit
                                                                                                    M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\DFinal Steam\Appendices\Appendix C\C-4
-------
               Top Depth
                (ft bgs)
Bottom
 Depth
(ft bgs)
Pre-Demo
  SB-31
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-231
  (mg/kg)
Pre-Demo
  SB-32
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-232
  (mg/kg)
Pre-Demo
  SB-33
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-233
 (mg/kg)
Pre-Demo
  SB-34
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-234
  (mg/kg)
                   0
                39
                ND
                ND
                ND
                           0
                         ND
                          ND
                                                    ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  0.39
                                  ND
                                   42
Figure C-l. Distribution of Pre- and Postdemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Steam Injection Plot Soil
-------
               Top Depth
                (ftbgs)
Bottom
 Depth
(ft bgs)
Pre-Demo
  SB-35
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-235
  (mg/kg)
Pre-Demo
  SB-36
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-236
  (mg/kg)
Pre-Demo
  SB-37
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-237
 (mg/kg)
Pre-Demo
  SB-38
 (mg/kg)
Post-Demo
  SB-238
  (mg/kg)
                   0
                0.7
                 0
                ND
                 0
                0.9
                ND
                0.6
Figure C-l.  Distribution of Pre- and Postdemonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Steam Injection Plot Soil (Continued)
-------
Top Depth
(ft bgs)
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 (ft bgs)
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
SB-39
(mg/kg)
3
1
7
2
1
2
1
7
8
14
130
150
455
356
331
240
275
346
474
272
3,649
7,463

NA
Pre-Demo
SB-239
(mg/kg)
0
0
2
7
6
8
4
3
2
5
7
13
16
15
9
121
191
NA
NA
77
173
366

2,997
Post-Demo
SB-339
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
9
8
10
5
4
10
6
11
12
14
24
14
112
133
121
90
78
94
830

12,129
Pre-Demo
SB-40
(mg/kg)
5
0.45
ND






18
51
85
256
215
183
111
ND
73
100
6
133
285

NA
Post-Demo
SB-240
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
16
15

^^•7


1
9
14
2
29
55
81
41
104
220
124
332
278
440

660
Pre-Demo
SB-41
(mg/kg)
1
1
1
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
116
203
409
394
360
236
435
332
210
182
0
8,621

NA
Pre-Demo
SB-41B
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.3
ND
269
3,050
305
245
260
314
460
546
274
392
13,140
23,976

NA
Post-Demo
SB-241
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
15
11
12
2
2
1
3
4
6
2
ND
4
9
31
15
163
176
NA
NA
5,369

1,973
Pre-Demo
SB-42
(mg/kg)
5
1
8
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
48
149
209
163
323
175
7,348
1,712
409
277
348
16,700

NA
Post-Demo
SB-242
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
6
10
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
L
c
44
48
27
1,654
1,336
712
1,920
73
g
11,446

6,487
      NA: Not available due to poor recovery.
      ND: Not detect.
      Solid Horizontal Lines demarcate the Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
Figure C-l. Distribution of Pre- and Post-demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Steam Injection Plot Soil (Continued)
-------
Appendix D: Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters
Well ID
pH
Pre-Demo
Aug 2001
Nov 2001
Post-Demo
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA-161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-IT]
PA-17D
8.153'
9.12(?)
6.74
6.96
7.06
7.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.02
6.59
6.74
8.72
6.93

Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
PA-14S
PA-141
PA-14D
PA-18S
PA-181
PA-18D
PA-19S
PA-191
PA-19D
9.11 (?)
7.67
7.32
7.59
NA
6.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.72
7.59

7.03
7.18
7.07
6.71
7.38
6.92
7.05
7.61
8.17
8.00
8.13
7.90
8.30
8.23
9.26
8.41
8.09
8.45
8.07
8.16
8.84
7.39

7.04
6.64
6.72
6.84
6.38
6.66
6.76
6.60
6.64
5.81
Distant Wells
PA-1S
PA-11
PA-1D
7.35
7.32
6.94
7.74
7.72

8.44
8.71
8.38
6.81
6.60

ORP(mV)
Pre-Demo
Aug 2001
Nov 2001
Post-Demo
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Pre-Demo
Aug 2001
Nov 2001
Post-Demo

533.8
-163.0
-159.7
-104.8
-151.9
-105.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-95
49
113
102
89

1.208
1.395
12.01
0.459
4.236
3.925
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.21
0.19


-177.3
-19.7
-108.7
-43.8
NA
-249.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-62
10

-44
-136
-213
8
-32
18
34
-86
-155
12.2
18.4
11.5
-57
-43
-316
-128
-29
-100
-44
44
-98
143

111
191
185
72
175
125
151
34
62
151
14.7
12.47
14.55
4.03
NA
18.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.43
0.5

0.014
0.02
0.11
0.018
0.011
0.013
0.12
-0.84
0.2
0.61
0.21
0.7
1.43
2.25
4.96
2.31
1.12
1.41
0.475
0.649
1.62
0.14

0.63
0.14
0.12
0.42
0.21
0.15
0.13
33
52
0.12

-128.2
-234.9
-213.0
-65
-136
-182
-65
-148
-96
49
35
120
1.57
1.296
2.321
0.42
0.43
0.15
0.555
0.596
0.415
0.64
0.5

                                   M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\lnterim Battelle Rpts\Eighth Interim ReporftDraftFinal Steam GW
-------
                                     Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters (Conitnued)
Well ID
Temperature (ฐC)
1
Pre-Demo!Aug20011)
1
Aug 20012)| Nov 20011'
Nov 20012)
Post-Demo
DO (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Aug 2001
Nov 2001
Post-Demo
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA-161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-171
PA-17D
27.46| NA
27.34| NA
26.601 NA
26.631 NA
26.74' NA
26.15J NA
NA| NA
NA| NA
NAl NA
NAl NA
NA' NA
NAJ NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.4
38.6
39.6
44.8
53.5

4.6 (?) 3)
0.36
2.73
0.43
0.52
0.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.74
0.41
0.59
0.54
0.45
U. / 4
Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
BAT-5S
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
PA-14S
PA-141
PA-14D
PA-18S
PA-181
PA-18D
PA-19S
PA-191
PA-19D
27.67J 28.9
26.90| 29.1
27.04| 29.1
41.19| 36.2
NAl 38
31.591 39.5
NA' 27.2
NAJ 27
NA 26.3
NA 27.6
NA| 28.5
NA| 28.5
NAJ NA
NA| NA
NA| NA
38.1| 29.6
42.11 31.7
38.21 32.9
26. l' 26.5
26. 1J 26.2
26.2 25.8
26.0 26.5
26.2| 26.5
26.2| 26.5
25.5
25.1
25.6
33.9
36.9
34.0
26.3
26.0
24.9
26.3
26.1
26.0
26.5

25.1
27.0
29.7
31.1
25.4
25.3
25.1
24.9
24.8
24.6
1.06
1.86
1.73
0.60
NA
0.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.50
0.60

0.90
0.50
0.40
0.50
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.40
0.97
0.72
0.42
0.65
0.77
0.90
0.63
0.63
0.60
0.79
0.74
0.93
0.50

0.51
0.87
0.78
0.52
0.32
0.55
0.77
0.69
0.76
0.76
Distant Wells
PA-1S
PA-11
PA-1D
25.91| 28
25.921 27.8
25.641
25.6| 26.4
25.71 26.3
25.51 26.4
26.1
26.4
26.2
25.0
24.7

0.51
0.41
0.50
0.60
0.80

0.73
0.70
0.49
1.20
0.49

1) Temperature was read from a flow-thru cell when the groundwater was being purged.
2) Temperature was read from a thermocouple directly dropped to the screen depth.
3) DO and pH values for the samples are suspect because of interference from high levels of permanganate in the water.
                                                                          M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\lnterim Battelle Rpts\Eighth Interim ReporftDraftFinal Steam GW
-------
                    Table D-2.  Iron and Manganese Results
Compound
SMCL
Well ID
Iron (mg/L)
0.3 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Manganese (mg/L)
0.05 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA-16I
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-17I
PA-17D
PA-17D-DUP
<0.1
<0.1
0.28
3.9
3.4
0.63
0.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.47
0.296
0.813
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
667
5.3
1.3
0.46
0.64
0.18
0.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.85ฃ
0.10C
0.826
0.0134
1.03 S
0.0813
0.0821
Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
PA-14S
PA-14I
PA-14D
PA-18S
PA- 181
PA-18D
PA-19S
PA- 191
PA-19D
0.055
NA
0.058
O.05
NA
O.05
O.05
O.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.25
NA
0.22
0.97
1.00
0.1
0.021
0.058
0.077
0.036
0.064
2.9
0.93
0.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.148
0.141
0.185
2.48
0.438
0.509
O.100S
O.100S
0.100S
O.I
NA
O.I
2.24
NA
O.I
O.I
O.I
1.29
0.554
0.194
O.I
O.I
0.18
0.38
NA
1.2
4
NA
O.015
O.015
0.021
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.98
NA
1.9
2.1
2.10
0.024
0.021
0.019
0.077
0.036
0.064
0.11
0.084
0.012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0239
0.0325
0.016
0.409
0.0218
0.0243
0.012 S
0.0159 S
0.0105 S
0.253
NA
0.374
1.59
NA
0.0291
0.026
0.0184
0.0485
0.034
0.0203
<010
0.0332
0.0319
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA-1I
PA- ID
0.86
0.7
0.48
0.36
0.42
1.7
0.199 S
0.54 S
O.100S
0.1
0.296
0.58
0.052
0.13
0.12
0.02
0.058
0.046
0.0281 S
0.0684 S
0.104 S
0.0223
0.0529
0.0887
Confined Aquifer Wells
PA-20
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.12
0.16
0.13
0.13
O.100
O.100
O.100
NA
O.I
O.I
O.I
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.031
0.078
0.038
0.038
0.022
0.0476
0.030
NA
O.010
0.0443
0.024
NA
NA: Not available.
<: The compound was analyzed but not detected at or above the specified reporting limit.
SMCL: Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
Shading denotes that the concentration exceeds or equals to the SMCL.
S: Spike recovery outside control limits
                               M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-Final Steam\Appendices\Appendix D\DraftFinal Steam GW
-------
           Table D-3.  Results of Chloride and Total Dissolved Solids
SMCL
Well ID
Chloride (mg/L)
250 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov 2001
Post-
Demo
TDS (mg/L)
500 mg/L
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA-16I
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA-17I
PA-17D
PA-17D-DUP
< 1,000
42.8
415
297
448
305
318
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
89
86
313
160
93
144
155
2,470
814
4,510
1,740
1,360
1,200
1,340
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
728
886
1,07C
1,25C
1,20C
4,65C
4,55C
Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5I-DUP
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
PA-14S
PA-14I
PA-14D
PA-18S
PA- 181
PA-18D
PA-19S
PA- 191
PA-19D
436
NA
566
NA
752 J
NA
101
156
4,790
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
330
NA
220
NA
570
550
130
3,500
330
170
70
72
79
130
430
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
131
267
1,360
239
95.3
167
27.7
42.6
383
125
NA
23.6
NA
340
NA
175
120
2,020
221
181
165
175
NA
237
6,840
NA
5,380
NA
6,140
NA
772
870
10,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,700
NA
1,500
NA
3,900
3,800
680
6,900
960
950
590
710
660
590
1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
736
1,310
2,840
1,310
829
697
242
257
933
925
NA
355
NA
5,000
NA
870
669
3,620
1,290
933
817
354
NA
665
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA-1I
PA- ID
56.8
66.6
327
19
44
26
42.7
36.8
521
63.3
NA
553
583
496
1,200
240
260
110
359
187
1,310
390
NA
1,210
Confined Aquifer Wells
PA-20
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
NA
NA
NA
NA
680
580
670
680
698
668
683
NA
209
687
800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,300
1,300
1,500
1,400
1,470
1,450
1,590
NA
758
1,350
1,520
NA
NA: Not available.
SMCL: Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
J: Estimated but below the detection limit.
Shading denotes that the concentration exceeds the SMCL Level.
                                 M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Reports\lnterim Battelle Rpts\Eighth Interim Report\DraftFinal Steam GW
-------
Table D-4. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater Samples
Well ID
Cations (mg/L)
Calcium
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Magnesium
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Iron (0.3 mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Manganese (0.05mg/L)
Pre- Aug
Demo | 2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Potassium
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Sodium
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA- 161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA- 171
PA-17D
PA-17D-DUP
27.7
30.5
111
108
92.6
90.7
89.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
88
63.4
86.8S
5.3
93. 5S
47.6
46.9
<2
3.7
179
73.6
101
100
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17
20.1
37.9S
1.51
15.7S
19.9
19.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.28
3.9
3.4
0.63
0.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.47
0.296
0.813
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
667
5.3
1.3
0.46
0.64
0.18
0.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.858
0.1
0.826
0.013
1.03
0.081
0.082
1,560
511
1,600
330
32.6
103
109
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
134
242
92.4
335
217
1,860
1,770
45.3
42.4
72.4
189
213
147
144
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.1
31.3
184
159
67.8
76
72.8
Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
PA-18S
PA- 181
PA-18D
PA-19S
PA- 191
PA-19D
4.5
NA
27.3
66.1
NA
55.3
13.6
662
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
67
71
73
96
73
420
220
86
120
150
68
48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
124
171
161
160
112
133
48.5 S
41.0 S
42.7 S
17.6
NA
15.2
53.9
NA
154
92.2
182
130
138
94.9
48.2
57
53.9
18.9
NA
30.6
140.0
NA
10.6
1.2
30.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
98
NA
130
100
100
26
8
30
13
44
15
16
53
49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29
31.1
21
14.1
52.2
30.9
4.56 S
19.1 S
46.3 S
18.8
NA
11.9
69.7
NA
22.3
19.1
33.9
14.2
62.2
32.7
4.13
43
27.8
0.055
NA
0.058
<0.05
NA
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.25
NA
0.22
0.97
1
0.1
0.086
0.058
4.4
0.89
0.77
2.9
0.93
0.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.148
0.185
<0.10
2.48
0.438
0.509
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
2.24
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.29
0.554
0.194
<0.1
<0.1
0.18
0.38
NA
1.2
4
NA
O.015
O.015
0.021
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.98
NA
1.9
2.1
2.1
0.024
0.021
0.019
0.077
0.036
0.064
0.11
0.084
0.012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.024
0.033
0.016
0.041
0.022
0.024
0.012
0.016
0.011
0.253
NA
0.374
1.59
NA
0.029
0.026
0.018
0.049
0.034
0.02
<0.01
0.033
0.032
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.6
14.2
93.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
920
NA
220
1,300
1,300
49
28
71
92
11
140
68
27
44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.2
63.8
27
329
14.7
70.2
13.2
13.2
19.3
272
NA
115
1,680
NA
12.1
31.4
36.2
357
12.7
59.6
12.1
13.9
18.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
138
258
2,490
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81.2
NA
15
85.2
NA
58
69.4
1,110
43.9
36.3
100
19.1
42.5
145
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA- ID
128
83.2
119
65
50
32
85. 8 S
32.2 S
88.5 S
110
58.3
83
8.8
19.8
29.9
3
9.6
4
4.7 S
4.15 S
40.3 S
5.21
18.1
48
0.86
0.7
0.48
0.36
0.42
1.7
0.199
0.54
0.842
<0.1
0.296
0.58
0.052
0.13
0.12
0.02
0.058
0.046
0.028
0.068
0.104
0.022
0.053
0.089
NA
NA
NA
2.4
13
3.5
2.43
22
12.3
3.03
18.5
135
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.4
29.6
215
Confined Aquifer Wells
PA-20
PA-21
PA-22
PA-22-DUP
NA
NA
NA
NA
75
71
90
91
68.9
68.7
86.3
NA
5.23
61.6
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
64
59
69
69
69.1
65.9
77.5
NA
1.27
55.4
67.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.12
0.16
0.13
0.13
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.031
0.078
0.038
0.038
0.022
0.048
0.03
NA
<0.01
0.044
0.024
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
14
19
19
14.3
13.2
16.4
NA
122
12
12.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
185
329
329
NA
                                                           M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-Final Steam\Appendices\Appendix D\DraftFinal Steam GW
-------
                                               Table D-4.  Other Parameter Results of Groundwater Samples (Continued)
Well ID
Anions (mg/L)
Sulfate
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Feb
2002
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Feb
2002
Alkalinity
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Others
BOD
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
TOC
Pre-
Demo
Aug
2001
Nov
2001
Post-
Demo
Steam Injection Wells
PA-16S
PA- 161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA- 171
PA-17D
PA-17D-DUP
<1,000
104
681
293
120
202
208
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
95.6
90.9
121
360
466
1,960
1,940
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
661
380
2,500
1,430
422
479
459
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
361
468
329
248
193
441
445
<3.0
13.8
84
70
7.4
24.6
22.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
6.8
4.2
13.8
16.6
1,680
30.5
134
74.2
2.1
19.6
19.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61.5
56
73.5
26.8
29.2
69.2
79.5
Steam Injection Perimeter Wells
BAT-5S
BAT-5S-DUP
BAT-5I
BAT-5D
BAT-5D-DUP
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
PA-18S
PA- 181
PA-18D
PA-19S
PA- 191
PA-19D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.6
30
163
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
680
NA
460
1,200
1,200
8.3
11
94
99
89
97
82
61
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
143
97.8
99.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,320
NA
1,720
1,700
NA
388
434
394
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
860
NA
490
810
810
420
350
190
450
320
420
390
300
210
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
464
664
205
508
336
346
123
126
172
408
NA
220
361
NA
344
410
238
566
449
366
12.7
NA
208
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.2
3.7
560
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.7
8.9
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
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Distant Wells
PA- IS
PA- 11
PA- ID
NA
NA
NA
16
15
2.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
310
255
230
150
150
44
197
70
176
222
NA
189
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not available.
Shading denotes that the concentration exceeds the MCL level listed.
                                                                                                                M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-Final Steam\Appendices\Appendix D\DraftFinal Steam GW
-------
                            D-5. Surface Emission Results
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Steam Injection Plot
SI-SE-33
SI-SE-34
SI-SE-35
SI-SE-1
SI-SE-2
SI-SE-3
SI-SE-4
SI-SE-5
SI-SE-6
SI-SE-7
SI-SE-8
SI-SE-9
SI-SE-10
SI-SE-11
SI-SE-12
SI-SE-1 3
SI-SE-14
SI-SE-1 5
SI-SE-16
SI-SE-17
SI-SE-1 8
SI-SE-1 9
12/4/2000
12/5/2000
12/5/2000
8/27/2001
8/27/2001
8/27/2001
8/27/2001
8/28/2001
8/28/2001
11/6/2001
11/6/2001
11/6/2001
11/7/2001
11/7/2001
11/7/2001
11/8/2001
11/8/2001
11/8/2001
2/18/2002
2/20/2002
2/18/2002
2/20/2002
1.2
1.1
0.40
<37
0.45
0.34
0.34
51
<49
O.060
0.060
O.060
O.060
0.060
O.060
40
45
21
33
15
280
180
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Background
DW-SE-36
DW-SE-37
DW-SE-38
DW-SE-40
DW-SE-41
DW-SE-42
DW-SE-43
DW-SE-44
DW-SE-45
DW-SE-47
DW-SE-48
12/6/2000
12/6/2000
12/7/2000
11/5/2001
11/5/2001
11/5/2001
11/6/2001
11/6/2001
11/6/2001
2/18/2002
2/20/2002
0.40
0.49
0.40
O.060
O.060
0.060
0.26
0.26
0.17
O.03
0.03
Ambient Air at Shoulder Level
DW-SE-39
DW-SE-46
11/6/2001
2/18/2002
O.060
0.03
Wear Drainage Ditch Area
SI-SE-7
SI-SE-8
8/28/2001
8/28/2001
110
74

ppb (v/v): parts per billion by volume.
                                        M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral\Reports\Draf-Final Steam\Appendices\Appendix D\DraftReport9
-------
Table D-6. TOC Results of Soil Samples
Pre-Demo
Sample ID
SB-32-20
SB-32-30
SB-32-46
SB-38-20
SB-38-26
SB-38-39
SW9060
(mg/kg)
5,390
9,450
17,700
16,000
15,400
47,800
Post-Demo
Sample ID
SB-236-10
SB-236-30
SB-236-38
SB-234-18
SB-234-30
SB-234-38
TOC by
LECO
(wt%-dry)
0.036
0.065
0.068
0.024
0.216
0.066
TOC by
LECO
(mg/kg)
360
650
680
240
2160
660
               M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral\Reports\Draft-Final\Steam\Appendices\Appendix D\DraftFinal Steam
-------
 STORK
SOUTHWESTERN
  LABORATORIES
                                Total Organic Carbon By
                                    LECO Instrument
  Doc No.:  160-30.18
    Date:  January 14, 2002
  Revision:  1
Supercedes:  January 31, 2000
 PREPARED BY:
 APPROVED BY:
 APPROVED BY:
 DATE:
                    Mark Tipton, Quality Manager

                               hitl. Depart menrManager
 DATE:    f)l/qMSL
 DATE:
                    Mark Tipton, Quality Manager
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.   OBJECTIVE	2
2.   SCOPE	2
3.   REFERENCE	2
4.   SAFETY	2
5.   APPARATUS & EQUIPMENT	2
6.   REAGENTS & STANDARDS	3
1.   SAMPLE HANDLING & PRESERVATION	3
8.   PROCEDURE	3
9.   CALCULATIONS	4
10.    QUALITY CONTROL	5
11.    RECORDS	5
12.    REVIEW/REVISION	6
Page 1 of 1      This document is the confidential property of Stork Southwestern Laboratories (SwL), is subject to return on demand and will not be disclosed or
             reproduced without prior written consent from a duly authorized agent of SwL.
-------
 STORK
SOUTHWESTERN
   LABORATORIES
                                      Total  Organic  Carbon By
                                           LECO Instrument
  Doc No.:   160-30.18

     Date:   January 14, 2002

  Revision:   1

Supercedes:   January 31, 2000
1.      OBJECTIVE

        1.1      This procedure is for the determination of organic carbon in soil samples for analysis of soil, solids, or metal alloys using
                the LECO TOC instrument method.



2.      SCOPE

        2.1      In the LECO method, total organic carbon in soil samples is measured  by detection of total carbon by reaction with
                oxygen and detection using IR analysis.  Soils are first acid washed to remove inorganic carbon before being analyzed in
                the LECO instrument. In steel alloys, total carbon is the only portion analyzed.

        2.2      For the LECO method the detection limit for is 10 mg/kg for soil samples  and 0.001% for metal alloy samples

        2.3      Metal alloy samples will give biased TOC results by the LECO method if oil or grease is present on the metal turnings
                or shavings. This is prevented by washing the turnings in acetone and drying prior to analysis.



3.      REFERENCE

        3.1      U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Soils and Sludges.  EPA-600/2-78-054,
                Method 3.2.13, page 78.

        3.2      U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.  EPA-600/4-79-020,
                Method 415.1.

        3.3      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes. EPA-SW-846, Method 9060.
4.      SAFETY

        4.1      The use of eye protection and other personal protective laboratory attire is required.


5.      APPARATUS & EQUIPMENT

        5.1      LECO Total Organic Carbon Analysis System

                5.1.1 Analytical balance unit interfaced with microprocessor

                5.1.2 High-temperature reaction furnace

                5.1.3 IR Detector
Page 2 of 7      This document is the confidential property of Stork Southwestern Laboratories (SwL), is subject to return on demand and will not be disclosed or
                reproduced without prior written consent from a duly authorized agent of SwL.
-------
 STORK
SOUTHWESTERN
   LABORATORIES
                                      Total Organic Carbon By
                                           LECO Instrument
  Doc No.:   160-30.18
     Date:   January 14, 2002
  Revision:   1
Supercedes:   January 31, 2000
                5.1.4 Microprocessor
6.      REAGENTS & STANDARDS

        6.1      Copper Accelerator Reagent - LECO or equivalent

        6.2      TOC in Soil Standard and TOC in Steel Standard - LECO or equivalent. A second source standard is required for the
                LECO method.

        6.3      6N HC1 - Carefully add 100 ml of concentrated HC1 to 100 ml of DI water.
7.      SAMPLE HANDLING & PRESERVATION

        7.1      Soil samples for TOC analysis must be refrigerated prior to analysis. There is no established holding time and a 28 days
                internal holding time is recommended.

        7.2      Metal samples for carbon content analysis are held at room temperature until analysis. There is no established holding
                time.



8.      PROCEDURE

        8.1      Analysis of Soil Samples

                8.1.1 For each soil sample, place about 5 grams of sample into a numbered planchet and dry at 103-105ฐ C overnight.

                8.1.2 Go through the maintenance checklist and perform  all  the instrument maintenance items and system checks.
                        Record the completion of the checks by dating and initialling the checklist and placing a tic mark on the
                        checklist for all items performed.  Place a LECO crucible  on the weighing pan and tare the balance.  To
                        prepare the blank (ICB), add approximately 0.25 gram of Ottawa sand to the crucible and store the weight in
                        the data  system.  Add one scoop of copper accelerator to the ICB and carefully homogenize. Place the crucible
                        on the sample holding tray in the first position.

                8.1.3 Place a LECO crucible on the weighing pan and tare the balance. Add approximately 0.25 gram of LECO carbon
                        standard (1CV) to the crucible and store  the  weight in the data system.  Add one scoop of copper accelerator to
                        the standard and carefully homogenize.  Place the crucible on the sample holding tray in the second position.
                        Likewise, prepare a lab control standard (LCS) from a different standard.

                8.1.4 In a similar fashion weigh 0.25 grams of sample into a crucible, add accelerator, and place onto the holding tray.
                        Complete this for every  sample to be analyzed and for the spike sample and spike duplicate.  The spike and
                        spike duplicate must  be prepared for each set of 10 samples or less.  After the last sample is weighed, weigh
                        another portion of standard in a crucible and a portion of Ottawa sand to use as the end of run calibration check
                        and end  of run blank.

                8.1.5 Bring all the crucibles to the vacuum filtration  apparatus.  Place the crucibles in order into the crucible holder and
                        apply  the vacuum, rinse each  sample and QC check with a portion of 6N hydrochloric acid to remove the
Page 3 of 7      This document is the confidential property of Stork Southwestern Laboratories (SwL), is subject to return on demand and will not be disclosed or
                reproduced without prior written consent from a duly authorized agent of SwL.
-------
 STORK
SOUTHWESTERN
   LABORATORIES
                                        Total Organic Carbon  By
                                             LECO  Instrument
                                      Doc No.:   160-30.18
                                         Date:   January 14, 2002
                                      Revision:   1
                                    Supercedes:   January 31, 2000
                         carbonates. After the liquid is removed, add another portion of HC1, and leave on the vacuum until the liquid
                         is removed. Place the sample back into the holding tray. Dry for at least 4 hours at 103-105ฐ C.

                 8.1.6 Analyze the standards and samples.  Open the induction furnace and put the crucible on the pedestal. Close the
                         furnace and wait for the instrument green ready light to illuminate.  Press the "ANALYZE" button.  The
                         analytical results will be stored in the data system and printed in the strip chart.  Remove the crucible and
                         discard after it has cooled.
                 8.1.7 Select a sample weight according to the following table:

                         mg/kg TOG                      Sample Weight
                         10 - 5000
                         2000 - 50,000
                         20,000 - 100,000

        8.2      Analysis of Metal Samples
      l.OOi
0.50 g
0.20 g
                 8.2.1 Go through the maintenance checklist and perform all the  instrument maintenance items and system checks.
                         Record the completion of the checks by dating and initialling the checklist and placing a tic mark on the
                         checklist for all items performed.  If samples are received in ingot or other solid form, the sample must be
                         prepared in the lab.  Clean the surface with acetone to remove any oil or grease and lock into place on the
                         drilling surface.  Using a sharp drill bit designed for drilling metals, drill into the surface and collect the
                         shavings.  If needed, move the sample to different position and collect more shavings.  Keep the sample free
                         from contamination during the preparation.  If sample shavings are received from the client, the shavings must
                         be washed with acetone and dried prior to analysis to remove residual grease and oil.

                 8.2.2 Place a LECO crucible on the weighing pan and tare the balance. Add approximately 0.5 gram of LECO carbon
                         standard (1CV) to the crucible and store the weight in the data system.  Add one scoop of copper accelerator to
                         the standard and carefully homogenize.

                 8.2.3 Open the  induction furnace and put the crucible on the pedestal. Close the furnace and wait for the instrument
                         green ready light to illuminate. Press the "ANALYZE" button. The analytical results will be stored in the data
                         system and printed in the strip chart. Remove the crucible  and discard after it has cooled.

                 8.2.4 Repeat steps 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 for the  second source standard (LCS), for the samples, for at least one  sample
                         duplicate for each 10 samples and  analyze a standard at the end of run.  See Section 10 - Quality Control for
                         the control limits for the standards and duplicates.

                 8.2.5 Select a sample weight according to the following table:

                         Percent Carbon                   Sample Weight
                         0.001 - 1.00
                         1.00-5.00
                         5.00 - 10.00
      l.OOg
      0.50 g
      0.20 g
9.     CALCULATIONS

        The LECO instrument will report results directly in either mg/kg or percent depending on the computer set up.  Because the
        sample is dried prior to analysis, the results will be on a dry weight basis for soil samples.
Page 4 of 7       This document is the confidential property of Stork Southwestern Laboratories (SwL), is subject to return on demand and will not be disclosed or
                 reproduced without prior written consent from a duly authorized agent of SwL.
-------
 STORK
SOUTHWESTERN
   LABORATORIES
                                        Total Organic Carbon  By
                                             LECO  Instrument
  Doc No.:  160-30.18
      Date:  January 14, 2002
  Revision:  1
Supercedes:  January 31, 2000
10.    QUALITY CONTROL
         10.1     Initial Calibration Blank (ICB)

                 10.1.1   Frequency  - Perform an ICB with each batch.  The ICB is used to verify that no system contaminants are
                         present.

                 10.1.2   Criteria - The results of the blank must be below the reporting level for TOC.  If it is above this level, it
                         indicates unusual contamination in the system and corrective actions must be taken to resolve the problem.

         10.2     Initial Calibration Verification (ICV)

                 10.2.1   Frequency  - The ICV is a standard reference material in soil or steel.  The ICV is analyzed at the beginning of
                         the run.

                 10.2.2   Criteria - The acceptance range for the ICV is either the limit posted on the standard, or if no limits are given,
                         90 - 110 percent recovery.  If outside the range, perform corrective action to solve the source of the error, and
                         then re-analyze the ICV.

         10.3     Laboratory Control Standard (LCS)

                 10.3.1   Frequency  - The LCS is prepared from a second source standard of TOC in soil or carbon in steel.  It must be
                         analyzed with each batch of samples, after the ICV standard for the LECO methods

                 10.3.2   Criteria - The acceptance range for the LCS is either the limit posted on the standard, or if no limits are given,
                         80 - 120 percent recovery.  If outside this range, stop the analysis and perform corrective action to solve the
                         source of the error, and then re-analyze all samples.

         10.4     Matrix Spike Sample

                 10.4.1   Frequency:  Matrix spikes are analyzed for the LECO method at a frequency of one spike for each 10 or fewer
                         samples

                 10.4.2   Criteria - The acceptance range for the matrix spike is either the limit calculated from historical results, or if no
                          limits have been calculated, 80 - 120 percent recovery.  If outside this range, it is  an  indication of matrix
                          interference and this must be reported with the results.

         10.5     Duplicate Sample or Spike Duplicate

                 10.5.1   Frequency:  Duplicates or spike duplicates will be  analyzed on a frequency of one duplicate for each 10
                         samples analyzed.  If fewer than 10 samples are in a batch, one duplicate will be analyzed.

                 10.5.2   Criteria: Acceptance limits are ฑ25% RPD.  If the duplicate results are  outside the acceptance limits for
                         relative percent difference,  first determine if the cause is a system error; if so, correct the problem and repeat
                         the duplicate. If still outside acceptance limits, the sample results should be flagged for matrix interference.
11.    RECORDS
Page 5 of 7       This document is the confidential property of Stork Southwestern Laboratories (SwL), is subject to return on demand and will not be disclosed or
                 reproduced without prior written consent from a duly authorized agent of SwL.
-------
STORK
t*ffm/ SOUTHWESTERN
^) **J{i LABORATORIES
Total Organic Carbon By
LECO Instrument
Doc No.: 160-30.18
Date: January 14, 2002
Revision: 1
Supercedes: January 3 1 , 2000
        11.1    The original instrument printout is kept on file. The printout is labeled with the date, analyst's name and sample labels.
12.    REVIEW/REVISION

        This procedure will be reviewed approximately once per year from the date of the last review or revision.  Suggestions or
        comments regarding this SOP are welcome. Please direct them to:

                                Materials Engineering and Testing Quality Coordinator
                                         Stork Southwestern Laboratories, Inc.
                                                     222 Cavalcade
                                                 Houston, Texas 77009
                                                 Phone: 713-692-9151
                                                  Fax:  713-696-6307
                                               Revision History
Revision
0
1
Date
01/31/00
01/14/02
Initials
CMT
CMT
Description
Initial version
Removed references to Walkley-Black method.
ATTACHMENT
Example Analytical Sequence
Page 6 of 7      This document is the confidential property of Stork Southwestern Laboratories (SwL), is subject to return on demand and will not be disclosed or
               reproduced without prior written consent from a duly authorized agent of SwL.
-------
 STORK
SOUTHWESTERN
   LABORATORIES
                                    Total Organic Carbon By
                                         LECO Instrument
  Doc No.:  160-30.18
     Date:  January 14, 2002
  Revision:  1
Supercedes:  January 31, 2000
                               Attachment - EXAMPLE: 11 SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS
Sample Preparation Sequence
Note: Sample preparation may include air drying
samples, drilling steel samples, or weighing
samples prior to analysis.




















Analysis Sequence
The LECO instrument is calibrated according to
manufacturer's specifications and the calibration is
saved in the data system memory.
KB
Acceptance Limit [ less than reporting limit ]
KV Acceptance Limit
[ Specified or *10% of true value ]
LCS Acceptance Limit
I Specified or *20% of true value ]
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 5
Sample 6
Sample 7
Sample 8
Sample 9
Sample 10
Spike Sample 1
Acceptance Limit [ 80-120% Recovery ]
Duplicate Sample 1
Acceptance Limit [ 20% RPD ]
Sample 11
Spike Sample 2
Acceptance Limit f 80-120% Recovery ]
Duplicate Sample 2
Acceptance Limit [ 20% RPD ]
CCV Acceptance Limit
I Specified or '10% of true value ]
CCB Acceptance Limit [ less than reporting limit ]
Page 7 of 7      This document is the confidential property of Stork Southwestern Laboratories (SwL), is subject to return on demand and will not be disclosed or
               reproduced without prior written consent from a duly authorized agent of SwL.
-------
Appendix E: Microbiological Assessment
-------
                           E.I  Microbiological Evaluation Work Plan

                           Biological Sampling & Analysis Work Plan

    The Effect of Source Remediation Methods on the Presence and Activity of Indigenous
      Subsurface Bacteria at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida

                                         Prepared by
                                           Battelle
                                       Columbus, Ohio
                                         June 28,1999

                       (Modified by T. C. Hazen, LBNL; G. Sewell, EPA;
                           and  Arun Gavaskar, Battelle May 17,2000)
                                  1.0 Purpose and Objectives

Overall purpose is to evaluate effects of three DNAPL source remediation treatments on the indigenous
bacterial population. The three treatments in three different plots at LC34 are six-phase heating (SPH),
chemical oxidation (OX), 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 all   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 dechlori-
nation 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 com-
monly 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 dechlorina-
tion 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 accum-
ulation of cis-l,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 dechlo-
rination 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,
                                                                                   AppE all  2
-------
and some other anaerobic bacteria, reductive dechlorination is believed to be mediated by metallo-
coenzymes 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 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 micro-
bial 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 5/>.(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.
                                                                                   AppE all  3
-------
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 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 tech-
nology evaluation study.  Separate testing plots will be established for each of the following three
remediation technologies:

       1.  Six-Phase Heating™ (SPH)
       2.  In-Situ Oxidation (OX)
       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 characteri-
zation 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
                                                                                   AppE all   4
-------
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
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 deter-
mined using a fluorescence-based assay (Molecular Probes, LIVE/DEADฎ 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
                                                                                   AppE all   5
-------
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
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, respec-
tively.  Together, these probes will be used to monitor shifts in methanotroph population numbers that
may result from the application of the 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 dehalogena-
tion 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


Universal

Bacteria domain

Archeae domain


Desulfovibrio spp.


Type II Methanotrophs


Type I Methanotrophs
Legionella spp.


Legionella spp.


Legionella spp.
a Escherichia coli
numbering
Probe/Primer Name


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


Target site"

1407-1390

338-355

915-934


687-702


987-1008


988-1007

649-630

225-244


880-859



Probe/Primer Sequence 5'~3'


GACGGGCGGTGTGTACAA

GCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT

GTGCTCCCCCGCCAATTCCT


TACGGATTTCACTCCT


CCATACCGGACATGTCAAAAGC


GATTCTCTGGATGTCAAGGG
CAACCAGTATTATCTGACCG


AAGATTAGCCTGCGTCCGAT


GTCAACTTATCGCGTTTGCT


Reference
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 etal., 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 all   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, ground-
water 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'OO)
       T<0 month (pretreatment for SPH and OX)
       T= 0 months (post treatment; SPH and OX)
       T<0 month (pretreatment; SI)

       Phase2(Sep'00-Sep'OD
       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 micro-
bial 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 <-60ฐC 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 all  7
-------
Table 1. Overall Soil Sample Collection Requirement
Plot
(Remediation
Treatment)
SPHa
oxb
SI
Control
Baseline (TO
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)
SPHa
oxb
SI
None (control)
Sewage Outfall
"Event" or
Time
Points
(<0,0,6,
12 mo.
3
3
4
3
o
J

Depths
(5, 30, 45
ft.)
o
J
o
J
3
3
o
J

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 all  8
-------
Table 3.  Summary of Soil and Groundwater Sampling Requirements

Medium
Soil3
Ground
-water4

Plot
SPH
Oxidation
Steam Injection
Control
Baseline
Sewage Outfall
SPH
Oxidation
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 andPA-lS/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.
Fathepure, B. Z., J. P. Nengu,  and S. A. Boyd. 1987. Anaerobic bacteria that degrade perchloroethene.
    Appl. Environ. Microbiol.  53:2671-2674.


                                                                                            10
-------
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/70-chlorinated phenols. Arch. Microbiol. 165:132-140.
Gibson, S. A., and G. W. Sewell. 1992. Stimulation of reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene in
    anaerobic aquifer microcosms by addition of short-chain organic acids or alcohols. Appl. Environ.
    Microbiol. 58(4): 1392-1393.
Hartmans, S. and J. A. M. De Bont. 1992. Aerobic vinyl chloride metabolism inMycobacterium-aurum
    LI.  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.
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.
                                                                                             11
-------
Miyamoto, H., H. Yamamoto, K. Arima, J. Fujii, K. Maruta, K. Izu, T. Shiomori, and S. Yoshida. 1997.
    Development of a new seminested PCR method for detection of Legionella species and its application
    to surveillance of Legionellae in hospital cooling tower water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63:2489-
    2494.
Murrell, J.C., I.R. McDonald, D.G. Bourne.  1998. Molecular methods for the study of methanotroph
    ecology.  FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 27:103-114.
Muyzer, G.,  S. Hottentrager, A. Teske and C. Wawer. 1996.  Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of
    PCR-amplified 16S rDNA- A new molecular approach to analyse the genetic diversity of mixed
    microbial communities.  Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. 3.4.4:1-23.
Neuman, L. M., and L. P. Wackett. 1991. Fate of 2,2,2-trichloroacetaldehyde (chlora hydrate) produced
    during trichloroethylene oxidation by methanotrophs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:2399-2402.
Neumann, A., G. Wohlfarth and G. Diekert, 1995. Properties of tetrachlorethene and trichloroethene
    dehalgenase of Dehalospirillum multivorans. Arch. Microbiol. 163:276-281.
Odem, J. M., J. Tabinowaski, M. D. Lee, and B. Z. Fathepure. 1995. Anaerobic biodegradation of
    chlorinated solvents: comparative laboratory study of aquifer microcosms. In eds., Hinchee, R. E., A.
    Leeson, and L. Semprini, Bioremediation of chlorinated solvents,  Third International In Situ andOn-
    Site Bioreclamation Symp., Batelle Press, Columbus, OH,  pp. 17-24.
Oldenhuis, R., J. Y. Oedzes, J. J. van der Waarde, and D. B. Janssen.  1991. Kinetics of chlorinated
    hydrocarbon degradation by Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b and toxicity of trichloroethylene.
    Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57: 7-14.
Phelps, T. J., K. Malachowsky, R. M. Schram, and D. C. White. 1991. Aerobic mineralization of vinyl
    chloride by a bacterium of the order Actinomycetales. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57: 1252-1254.
Rasmussen, G., S. J. Komisar, J. F. Ferguson. 1994. Transfomation of tetrachloroethene to ethene in
    mixed methanogenic cultures: effect of electron donor, biomass levels, and inhibitors. In eds.,
    Hinchee, R. E., A. Leeson, and L. Semprini, Bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, Third
    International In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation Symp., Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp309-313.
Scholtz-Muramatsu, H., A. Neumann, M. MeBmer, E. Moore,  and G. Diekert. 1995.  Isolation and
    characterization of Dehalospirillum multivorans gen. nov. sp. nov., a tetrachloroethene-utilizing,
    strictly anaerobic bacterium. Arch. Microbiol. 163:48-56.
Sharma, P. K. and P. L. McCarty. 1996.  Isolation and characterization of a facultatively aerobic
    bacterium that reductively dehalogenates tetrachloroethene to cis-l,2-dichloroethene. Appl. Environ.
    Microbiol. 62: 761-765.
Smatlak, C. R., J. M.  Gossett, and S. H. Zinder. 1996. Comparative kinetics of hydrogen utilization for
    reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene and methanogenesis in an anaerobic enrichment culture.
    Environ. Sci. Tech.. 30:2850-2858.
Strandberg, G. W., T. L. Donaldson, and L. L. Farr. 1989. Degradation of trichloroethylene and trans-\,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.
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.
                                                                                            12
-------
                      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 ฐC
    •  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.

    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.
                                                                                            13
-------
    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 Alconoxฎ 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 Teflonฎ 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  140ฐC
       •  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 Anodiscฎ 0.2 \am pore size supported filters, filtration
       equipment, a low-flow pump, Teflon tubing and Vitonฎ tubing and a vacuum (or pressure)
       pump.

The dimensions of the Anodiscฎ 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 Anodiscฎ 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 Teflonฎ
       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-Pakฎ. 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 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-Pakฎ bag. This water sample is kept at ambient temperature.
                                                                                             14
-------
    6.  Labeling includes sample ID, same date and time, and site ID on the Whirl-Pakฎ 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 ฐC. 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
Oxidation
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 Oxidation plot.
Groundwater Sampling

Biological groundwater samples will be collected from wells within the Steam Injection plot, the
Oxidation plot, and the Six-Phase Heating plot in January 2001 in conjunction with the biological soil
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.
                                                                                            15
-------
Table 2. Biological Groundwater Sampling in January-February 2001
Plot
Steam Injection
Oxidation
SPH
Control
QA
Event
Pre-Demo (TO)
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
                                                                        16
-------








MB

\s_
PA-15
/S PA>
/ A-JWB-WS
/ WB-S A *ป,.
/ •ป.*
/ MB-103 ""•,.
/ A ""
MB-/ , MS^M A /
/ปA Mfl-*A,' PA-14 MB-3/ /
MB-102 t /
* . s / P*:22 / • /
•*"•/ **jBwl"wrZjV •
/ of" MB-Wป/ ?'TI*-21
/
/
c
y

mi 'Ik. ' f *
WB-1 / /
/ /
/ 1
SSPH™ f * MB-m
~*"**-^ / /M •' A *
X' w / / **B"f9 ซ
x" / STEAM ป
ซ.x INJECTION
>112ฐ&MB0012
\, AMBC4M3
%, ^
XX^X VBC-M2
^V A
X^C, ซBC-fซ PA-V AiHMM
^cq Jx>
^^n "-PA-19
ซป-• %/!
PA-20

> PA^
%,
ซซ.ซ>-, H
J* "*.ซ.PA-17
ffl-*r '^^
^
MB-ซBA ^
ปfB-ป8C " .^ PM.._
^MB-IOB/ / *^,
rS-M*- , / MB.ซ>9 jl? /
/ / AVB-OOB .T' PA-21 /
' .* '(UR.njfi -^ j
           X^^^X       /  /"^ TMP*   ^ P WB-1
               X>^ / /   /            ปปซ7*$
      /_            ^ '    *                 t
              *      '   /                 /



"         5.       ^ky/^
                                             Explanation:

                                             x Baiellne Biological Sampling
                                             A Biological Control Sampling Location
                                             A. Biological Sampling Location
                                               [MB-Otfx fpre-damoj, MB-1xx (post-demo)]
                                             + I" Diameter - Deep Wells
                                               Well Location        TMI Plot Boundal,
                                             S Shnltow
                                             I Intermediate  0       25
                                             D Deep      I
                                                              FEET
     Figure 2.  Map of Biological Sampling Location at LC34
                                                                                     11
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples
Sample ID
Top
Depth
ftbgs
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
CFU/g* or MPN/g
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
BacLight
Counts/ Live
dead stain
%live/%dead
Soil Core Samples
Baseline Samples (August 2000)
BB1-A
BB1-A
BB2-A
BB3-A
BB3-A
BB-1-7.0
BB-1-14.0
BB-1-24.0
BB-1-44.0
BB-2'-7.0
BB-2-7.0
BB-2-16.5
BB-2-23.0
BB-2-24.0
BB-2-44.0
BB-3-7.0
BB-3-14.0
BB-3-24.0
BB-3-44.0
7
15.5
7
9
15
6.5
13.5
23.5
43.5
6.5
6.5
16.0
22.5
23.5
43.5
6.5
13.5
23.5
43.5
9
17
9
11
17
7.0
14.0
24.0
44.0
7.0
7.0
16.5
23.0
24.0
44.0
7.0
14.0
24.0
44.0
15,849
<3 16.23
19,953
12,589
<3 16.23
79,432.8
<316.2
199.5
<316.2
19,952.6
31,622.8
2,511.9
1,584,893.2
<316.2
<316.2
199,526.2
6,309.6
631.0
25,118.9
7,943
158
31,623
3,162
<1.78
1,584,893.2
631.0
1,584.9
316.2
19,952.6
10,000.0
3,162.3
1,258,925.4
No Growth
251.2
158,489.3
50,118.7
501.2
63,095.7
59/41
25/75
70/30
39/61
28/72
40/60
32/68
28/72
82/18
43/57
27/73
15/85
24/76
10/90
92/08
99/01
84/16
100/0
56/44

Control Samples, Untreated (June 2000 except MBC014 in January 2001)
MBC011-A-1
MBC011-A-2
MBC011-A-3
MBC011-A-4
MBC012-A-1
MBC012-A-3
MBC012-A-4
MBC013-A-1
MBC013-A-2
MBC013-A-3
MBC013-A-4
MBC014
MBC014
MBC014
MBC014
MBC015-A-1
MBC015-A-3
6
15
30
40
6
30
40
6
15
30
40
7
16
31
41
6
35
7.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
16.5
31.5
41.5
7.5
36.5
1,584,893
501,187
15,849
316,228
25,119
125,893
1,585
125,893
1,259
501
7,943
63,095.73
100,000.00
39,810.72
7,943.28
3,981
316
1,584,893
794,328
7,943
63,096
50,119
6,310
794
19,953
2,512
794
5,012
79,432.82
316,227.77
79,432.82
25,118.86
5,012
251

77/23
79/26
75/25
26/74
43/57
48/52
59/41
50/50
61/39
44/56
18/82
47/53
43/57
55/45
50/50
53/47
41/59

Control Samples, Untreated (April 2001)
MBC-011
MBC-011
MBC-011
7
20
24.5
7.5
20.5
25
15,848,932
25,119
3,981
7,943,282
10,000
2,512
94/06
86/14
88/12
                                                  M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Draft Final SPHVTables SPH\E-1
-------
Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples (continued)
Sample ID
MBC-011
MBC-011
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
41.5
41.75
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
41.75
42
21
25
41.5
7
10.5
21
24.5
42
32.5
40.5
7
21
24.5
42
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
CFU/g* or MPN/g
25,119
25,119
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
Heterotrophic
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
79,433
10,000
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 stain
%live/%dead
89/11
80/20
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

Control Samples, Untreated (June 2002) (MPN/g)
MBC111
MBC111
MBC111
MBC111
MBC112
MBC112
MBC112
MBC112
MBC-113
MBC-113
MBC-113
MBC-113
6
15.5
30
40
6
15
30
40
6
15
30
40
6.5
16
30.5
40.5
6.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
6.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
85,000
5
150
5
48,000
8,500
29
19
480,000
48
85,000
8,500
19,000
42,000
5,700
1,500
30,000
550
4,800,000
220,000
85,000
190
480,000
4,800,000
40/60
48/52
18/82
50/50
28/72
37/63
30/70
37/63
58/42
65/35
50/50
49/51

Steam Plot, Untreated T<0 (January 2001)
MB16-A
MB16-B
MB16-C
MB16-D
MB17-B
MB17-C
MB17-D
MB ISA
MB18B
MB-18
MB-18
MB-19A
MB-19B
15
31
32
41
16
31
33
7
21.5
31
41
7
16
15.5
31.5
33.5
41.5
16.5
31.5
33.5
7.5
22
31.5
41.5
7.5
16.5
15,848.93
794.33
<3 16.23
1,258.93
2,511.89
<3 16.23
158.49
19,952.62
<3 16.23
10,000.00
158,489.32
398,107.17
<3 16.23
100,000.00
251.19
100.00
501.19
2,511.89
316.23
501.19
501,187.23
251.19
1,995.26
501,187.23
100,000.00
39.81
17/83
55/45
30/70
34/66
95/05
33/67
28/72
42/58
48/52
60/40
73/27
53/47
36/64
                                                M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Draft Final SPHVTables SPH\E-1
-------
           Table E-l. Results of Microbial Counts of Soil Samples (continued)
Sample ID
MB-19C
MB-19D
MB-20A
MB-20B
MB-20C
MB-20D
Top
Depth
ftbgs
31
41
7
21.5
31
41
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
31.5
41.5
7.5
22
31.5
41.5
Aerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
CFU/g* or MPN/g
<3 16.23
<3 16.23
50,118.72
<3 16.23
12,589.25
158,489.32
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic
Counts
Cells/g or MPN/g
<1.78
251.19
158,489.32
158.49
31,622.78
158,489.32
BacLight
Counts/ Live
dead stain
%live/%dead
76/24
71/29
82/18
47/53
80/20
22/78

Steam Plot, Treated T=0 (June 2002) (MPN/g)
MB16-A
MB16-B
MB16-C
MB16-D
MB17-A
MB17-B
MB17-C
MB17-D
MB-20A
MB-20B
MB-20C
MB-20D
7
15
30
40
6
15
31.5
40
6
15
30
40
7.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
6.5
15.5
32
40.5
6.5
15.5
30.5
40.5
85,000.0
1.8
85.0
150.0
41,000.0
57.0
85.0
8.5
220,000.0
300,000.0
4.6
85.0
1,500.0
<0.6
4.6
48.0
850.0
8.5
4.6
8.5
410,000.0
550,000.0
4,800,000.0
410,000.0

69/31
23/77
46/54
66/34
66/34
81/19
44/56
44/56
45/56
60/40
33/67
17/83
bgs: Below ground surface.
*CFU: Colony-forming units (roughly, number of culturable cells).
                                                            M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Draft Final SPHVTables SPH\E-1
-------
          Table E-2. Results of Microbial Counts Groundwater Samples
Sample ID
Top
Depth
ftbgs
Bottom
Depth
ftbgs
Aerobic
Heterotrophic Counts
CFU/mL or MPN/mL
Anaerobic
Heterotrophic Counts
Cells/mL or MPN/mL
Groundwater Samples
Control Samples, Untreated, Distant Wells
IW-1I
IW-1D
PA-IS
PA-1I
PA-ID
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
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
Control Samples, Untreated, Distant Wells, T=0 (June 2002) (in MPN/L)
PA-IS
PA-1S-DUP
PA-1I
PA-ID
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,200
2,200
48,000
92,000
4
300
48
67

Steam Injection Plot Wells, Untreated, T<0 (February 2001)
PA-16S
PA- 161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA- 171
PA- 171 -Dup
PA-17D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
158,489
1,000
16
<31.7
501
398
159
602
12
7
6.31
5,011.87
10,000.00
1,000.00

Steam Injection Plot Wells, Treated, T=0 (June 2002) (in MPN/L)
PA-16S
PA- 161
PA-16D
PA-17S
PA- 171
PA-17D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
92,000
48,000
92,000
48,000
920,000
48,000
920
4,800
48
9
48
430

Steam Injection Perimeter Wells, Untreated, T<0 (February 2001)
PA-18S
PA-18I
PA-18D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<31.7
<31.7
13
2
<1.3
5

Steam Injection Perimeter Wells, Untreated, T=0 (June 2002) (in MPN/L)
PA-13S
PA- 131
PA-13D
PA-14S
PA- 141
PA-14D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
220,000
48,000
3,000
48,000
48,000
48
8.5
92
0.61
4.6
2.9
48
bgs: Below ground surface.
*CFU for Colony-forming units (roughly, number of culturable cells).
                                                          M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral\Reports\Draft Final SPH\E-1
-------
Appendix F: Surface Emissions Testing and Temperature Monitoring
-------
                     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 possi-
bility of transferring chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) to the atmosphere through the
ground surface, injection wells, and monitoring wells. Emissions testing was performed to obtain a
qualitative picture of VOC losses to the atmosphere.  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 enclos-
ing 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.  Emissions samples also were collected in the same
manner near the drainage ditch in order to monitor organic concentrations in the infiltration gallery (see
Figure F-l). Additionally, ambient air samples were collected using Summa canisters held at shoulder
height for use as a reference of the existing air quality. The Summa canisters were then shipped to the off-
site laboratory with a completed chain-of-custody form. The off-site laboratory quantified the organic
concentrations in the Summa canisters according to EPA method TO-14 (EPA, 1989) or TO-14A (EPA,
1999).

A schematic diagram of the surface emissions sampling system is shown as Figure F-2.  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. The box was cleaned between each sample by rinsing with methanol  and
deionized water prior to purging with high-purity air  for two hours.

F.1.2 Sampling Schedule

Multiple  surface emissions sampling locations were selected in and around the steam injection plot for the
technology demonstration (see Figure F-l). During the predemonstration phase sampling event, emissions
samples were collected from inside the plot boundaries (samples SI-SE-33 through -35). After plenum
was installed over the plot to minimize surface emissions during the demonstration, emissions sampling
was limited to the perimeter of the steam injection plot.  Two emissions sampling events were held dur-
ing the active technology demonstration phase (samples SI-SE-1 through -15). After the demonstration,
the plenum was removed and one emissions sampling event was held during the postdemonstration per-
iod, where emissions samples were collected inside the plot boundaries (samples SI-SE-16 through -19).
-------
                                                     Infiltration
                                                      Gallery
                                                     (itiA to scale)
Figure F-l.  Location map of surface emissions tests during steam injection demonstration at
Launch Complex 34

In addition to these monitoring activities, emissions samples were collected in areas outside the DNAPL
boundary during the predemonstration phase (samples DW-SE-36 through -38), the active technology
demonstration phase (samples DW-SE-40 through -45), and the postdemonstration phase (samples DW-
SE-47 and -48). During the first sampling event of the active technology demonstration phase, emissions
samples were collected near the infiltration gallery to monitor the organic  vapor concentration of the
discharge water (samples SI-SE-7 and -8).  Ambient air samples were collected as reference samples
during the pre- and postdemonstration sampling events (samples DW-SE-39 and -46). Table F-l contains
a summary of the sample identifications and sampling dates of the surface emissions samples taken
during the steam injection demonstration.
-------
                                                          Flow Meter
                                           High-Grade
                                          Compressed
                                               Air
                                                          Tubing-
l-LSummaฎ
 Canister
                            Box
                          Exhaust
Stainless
Steel Box-
                                                                               Air
                                                                          SURFACE EMISSIONSSAMPLING01.CDR
            Figure F-2. Schematic Diagram of the Surface Emissions Sampling System
F.1.3 Analytical Results

The analytical results from the surface emissions sampling at LC34 are presented in Table F-l. Samples
were analyzed for TCE concentrations in vapor. The data is represented temporally, reflecting the four
sampling events at the site. The data indicates that TCE surface emissions were relatively low prior to
beginning the technology demonstration. The samples taken in August 2001 during steam injection
showed a general increase in TCE emissions, in particular on the west and east sides of the plot (samples
SI-SE-1 through -6). The samples taken in November 2001  during the steam injection demonstration
exhibited a significant decrease in TCE emissions  on the north and east sides of the plot (samples SI-SE-7
through -12), and were relatively consistent with TCE concentrations in the ambient air sample taken at
the same time (sample DW-SE-39). The data from the western edge of the plot during the November
2001 sampling event showed only minor decreases in TCE emissions (samples SI-SE-13 through -15),
suggesting that TCE vapors were escaping around the edges of the plenum.
-------
Table F-l. Surface Emissions Results from the Steam Injection Demonstration
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Sample ID
Sample
Date
TCE
ppb (v/v)
Steam Plot
Pre-Demonstmtion
SI-SE-33
SI-SE-34
12/04/2000
12/05/2000
1.2
1.1
SI-SE-3 5
12/05/2000
O.40

During Demonstration
SI-SE-1
SI-SE-2
SI-SE-3
SI-SE-4
SI-SE-5
SI-SE-6
SI-SE-7
SI-SE-8
08/27/2001
08/27/2001
08/27/2001
08/27/2001
08/28/2001
08/28/2001
11/06/2001
11/06/2001
<37
0.45
0.34
0.34
51
<49
O.060
O.060
SI-SE-9
SI-SE-10
SI-SE-11
SI-SE-12
SI-SE-1 3
SI-SE-14
SI-SE-1 5
11/06/2001
11/07/2001
11/07/2001
11/07/2001
11/08/2001
11/08/2001
11/08/2001
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060
40
45
21

Post-Demonstration
SI-SE-16
SI-SE-17
02/18/2002
02/20/2002
33
15

Outside the Extent of TCE Plume
DW-SE-36
DW-SE-37
DW-SE-38
DW-SE-40
DW-SE-41
DW-SE-42
DW-SE-43
DW-SE-44
DW-SE-45
DW-SE-47
DW-SE-48
12/06/2000
12/06/2000
12/07/2000
11/05/2001
11/05/2001
11/05/2001
11/06/2001
11/06/2001
11/06/2001
02/18/2002
02/20/2002
O.40
0.49
O.40
O.060
O.060
O.060
0.26
0.26
0.17
O.03
0.03
SI-SE-1 8
SI-SE-1 9
02/18/2002
02/20/2002
280
180

Ambient Air at Shoulder Levefa)
DW-SE-39
DW-SE-46
11/06/2000
02/18/2002
Near the Infiltration Gallerv

SI-SE-7
SI-SE-8





8/28/2001
8/28/2001





O.060
O.03

110
74






     ppb (v/v): parts per billion by volume.
     (a) A Summa canister was held at shoulder level to collect an ambient air sample representative of the
        local air quality.
Surface emission samples collected in the plot during the postdemonstration period (samples SI-SE-16
through -19) after the plenum was removed exhibited a strong increase in TCE vapor concentrations.
Figure F-3 displays the temperature of ground-water in the shallow wells and the locations of the post-
demonstration surface emissions samples. The increase in vapor TCE concentrations suggests that the
residual hot temperatures of the subsurface continued to enhance TCE volatilization to the atmosphere
after the technology demonstration ended.
-------
       SHALLOW
       WELLS
Explanation:
 Temperature (Cฐ)
  (January 19,2002)
 I  l<30
 |  130-40
 |[40-50
 |  ]SO-60
 |  | 60 - 70
 ^f 70-80

                                                                Coordinate Information:
                                                         Florida State Plane (East Zone 0901 - NAD27)
                                                        llBaltelle
                                                          . . . Putting Technology To Work
   Figure F-3.  Postdemonstration shallow well groundwater temperatures and surface emission
                                      sampling locations
F.1.4 References

Dupont, R.R. 1987. "A Sampling System for the Detection of Specific Hazardous Constituent Emissions
from Soil Systems." In Hazardous Waste: Detection, Control, Treatment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. pp. 581-592.

EPA, 1989. "Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient
Air," EPA/600/4-89/017, June 1988.

EPA, 1999. "Compendium Method TO-14A: Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in
Ambient Air Using Specially Prepared Canisters with Subsequent Analysis by Gas Chromatography," In
Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, Second
Edition. EPA/625/R-96/01 Ob, January 1999.
-------
                Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration TM-1 Temperature vs. Depth
50
                                                                                                         •12/14/0 lam
                                                                                                         •12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                         •12/18/01 am
                                                                                                         •12/19/01 am
                                                                                                          12/20/01 am
                                                                                                          12/21/01 am
                                                                                                          12/28/01 am
                                                                                                          12/31/0 lam
                                                                                                          1/2/02 am
                                                                                                          1/3/02 am
                                                                                                          1/4/02 am
                                                                                                          1/7/02 am
                                                                                                         • 1/8/02 am
                                                                                                          1/9/02 am
                                                                                                          1/10/02 am
                                                                                                          1/11/02 am
                                                                                                          1/14/02 am
                                                                                                         • 1/17/02 am
                                                                                                         •1/18/02 am
                                                                                                         •1/22/02 am
70       90       110      130      150       170      190
                                  Temperature (F)
210      230      250      270

                            Data through 1/22/02
-------
Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration TM-2 Temperature vs. Depth
20
                                                                                            '12/14/01 am
                                                                                            12/17/01 am
                                                                                            12/18/01 am
                                                                                            12/19/01 am
                                                                                            12/20/01 am
                                                                                            12/21/01 am
                                                                                            12/28/01 am
                                                                                            12/31/01 am
                                                                                            1/2/01 am
                                                                                            1/3/02 am
                                                                                            1/4/02 am
                                                                                            1/7/02 am
                                                                                            1/8/02 am
                                                                                            1/9/02 am
                                                                                            1/10/02 am
                                                                                            1/11/02 am
                                                                                            1/14/02 am
                                                                                            1/17/02 am
                                                                                            1/18/02 am
                                                                                            1/22/02 am
40      60      80     100     120     140     160     180
                                    Temperature (F)
                                                     200     220     240     260     280
                                                                                      Data through 1/22/02
-------
                Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration TM-3 Temperature vs. Depth
50
                                                                                                             •12/14/01 am
                                                                                                             •12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                             •12/18/0 lam
                                                                                                             •12/19/0 lam
                                                                                                              12/20/01 am
                                                                                                              12/21/01 am
                                                                                                              12/28/01 am
                                                                                                              12/31/01 am
                                                                                                              1/2/02 am
                                                                                                              1/3/02 am
                                                                                                              1/4/02 am
                                                                                                              1/7/02 am
                                                                                                             •1/8/02 am
                                                                                                             •1/9/02 am
                                                                                                              1/10/02 am
                                                                                                              1/11/02 am
                                                                                                              1/14/02 am
                                                                                                             •1/17/02 am
                                                                                                             •1/18/02 am
                                                                                                             •1/22/02 am
70       90      110      130      150      170      190
                                   Temperature (F)
210
230      250
270
                                                                                                      Data through 1/22/02
-------
                Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration TM-4 Temperature vs. Depth
50
                                                                                                             12/14/01 am
                                                                                                             12/17/01 am
                                                                                                             12/18/01 am
                                                                                                             12/19/01 am
                                                                                                             12/20/01 am
                                                                                                             12/21/01 am
                                                                                                             12/28/01 am
                                                                                                             12/31/01 am
                                                                                                             1/2/02 am
                                                                                                             1/3/02 am
                                                                                                             1/4/02 am
                                                                                                             1/7/02 am
                                                                                                             1/8/02 am
                                                                                                             1/9/02 am
                                                                                                             1/10/02 am
                                                                                                             1/11/02 am
                                                                                                             1/14/02 am
                                                                                                             1/17/02 am
                                                                                                             1/18/02 am
                                                                                                             1/22/02 am
70       90      110      130      150       170      190
                                  Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                     Data through 1/22/02
-------
                    Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration TM-5 Temperature vs. Depth
-45
   50
70       90       110      130       150       170      190
                                     Temperature (F)
210      230      250       270
                                                                                                                     •12/14/01 am
                                                                                                                     •12/17/01 am
                                                                                                                     •12/18/01 am
                                                                                                                     •12/19/01 am
                                                                                                                      12/20/01 am
                                                                                                                      12/21/01 am
                                                                                                                      12/28/01 am
                                                                                                                      12/31/01 am
                                                                                                                      1/2/02 am
                                                                                                                      1/3/02 am
                                                                                                                      1/4/02 am
                                                                                                                      1/7/02 am
                                                                                                                     •1/8/02 am
                                                                                                                      1/9/02 am
                                                                                                                      1/10/02 am
                                                                                                                      1/11/02 am
                                                                                                                      1/14/02 am
                                                                                                                     •1/17/02 am
                                                                                                                     •1/18/02 am
                                                                                                                     •1/22/02 am
                                                                                                          Data through 1/22/02
-------
                       Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-1 Temperature vs. Depth
    -5
   -10
   -15
g -20
+j
a
Q -25
   -30
   -35
   -40
   -45
      50
70
90
110
130      150       170      190
         Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                     12/14/01 am
                                                                                                     12/17/01 am
                                                                                                     12/18/01 am
                                                                                                     12/19/01 am
                                                                                                     12/20/01 am
                                                                                                     12/21/01 am
                                                                                                     12/28/01 am
                                                                                                     12/31/01 am
                                                                                                     1/2/02 am
                                                                                                     1/3/02 am
                                                                                                     1/4/02 am
                                                                                                     1/7/02 am
                                                                                                     1/8/02 am
                                                                                                     1/9/02 am
                                                                                                     1/10/02 am
                                                                                                     1/11/02 am
                                                                                                     1/14/02 am
                                                                                                     1/17/02 am
                                                                                                     1/18/02 am
                                                                                                     1/22/02 am
                                                                                                             Data through 1/22/02
-------
             Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-2 S,D Temperature vs. Depth
50
70       90       110      130      150      170       190
                                  Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                       —•—12/14/01 am
                                                                                                       -•—12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                       -•—12/18/0 lam
                                                                                                       	12/19/0 lam
                                                                                                       	12/20/0 lam
                                                                                                           12/21/01 am
                                                                                                       —•—12/28/01 am
                                                                                                       -•—12/31/01 am
                                                                                                           1/2/02 am
                                                                                                       -*- 1/3/02 am
                                                                                                       -•- 1/4/02 am
                                                                                                          -1/7/02 am
                                                                                                       	1/8/02 am
                                                                                                       -•—1/9/02 am
                                                                                                       —•—1/10/02 am
                                                                                                          — 1/11/02 am
                                                                                                       -•—1/14/02 am
                                                                                                       -•—1/17/02 am
                                                                                                       -•—1/18/02 am
                                                                                                       —•—1/22/02 am
                                                                                                    Data through 1/22/02
-------
                Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-3 S,D Temperature vs. Depth
-45
   50
70       90       110      130      150      170      190
                                  Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                              •12/14/01 am
                                                                                                              -12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                              -12/18/0 lam
                                                                                                              -12/19/0 lam
                                                                                                              -12/20/0 lam
                                                                                                               12/21/01 am
                                                                                                               12/28/01 am
                                                                                                               12/31/01 am
                                                                                                               1/2/02 am
                                                                                                               1/3/02 am
                                                                                                               1/4/02 pm
                                                                                                               1/7/02 am
                                                                                                               1/8/02 am
                                                                                                              -1/9/02 am
                                                                                                               1/10/02 am
                                                                                                               1/11/02 am
                                                                                                               1/14/02 am
                                                                                                              -1/17/02 am
                                                                                                              •1/22/02 am
                                                                                                       Data through 1/22/02
-------
                Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-6 Temperature vs. Depth
50
70       90       110      130      150       170      190
                                  Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                          •12/14/01 am
                                                                                                          •12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                          •12/18/0 lam
                                                                                                          •12/19/0 lam
                                                                                                          •12/20/0 lam
                                                                                                           12/21/01 am
                                                                                                           12/28/01 am
                                                                                                           12/31/01 am
                                                                                                           1/2/02 am
                                                                                                           1/3/02 am
                                                                                                           1/4/02 pm
                                                                                                           1/7/02 am
                                                                                                           1/8/02 am
                                                                                                          •1/9/02 am
                                                                                                           1/10/02 am
                                                                                                           1/11/02 am
                                                                                                           1/14/02 am
                                                                                                          •1/17/02 am
                                                                                                          •1/22/02 am
                                                                                                     Data through 1/22/02
-------
                        Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-7 Temperature vs. Depth
     -45
        50
T\A?D
70      90      110      130      150     170      190
                                 Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                            —•—12/14/01 am
                                                                                                            -•—12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                            -•-12/18/01 am
                                                                                                            —I—12/19/0 lam
                                                                                                            	12/20/0 lam
                                                                                                            	12/21/01 am
                                                                                                            -•—12/28/01 am
                                                                                                            -•—12/31/01 am
                                                                                                                1/2/02 am
                                                                                                                1/3/02 am
                                                                                                            —•- 1/4/02 pm
                                                                                                            -•- 1/7/02 am
                                                                                                                1/8/02 am
                                                                                                            -•—1/9/02 am
                                                                                                              -1/10/02 am
                                                                                                            -•-1/11/02 am
                                                                                                            -•- 1/14/02 am
                                                                                                            -•—1/17/02 am
                                                                                                            -•—1/22/02 am
                                                                                                      Data through 1/22/02
-------
                   Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-8 Temperature vs. Depth
-40
-45
   50
70      90      110     130      150      170      190
                                Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                     •12/14/0 lam
                                     -12/17/0 lam
                                     -12/18/01 am
                                     -12/19/01 am
                                     -12/20/0 lam
                                      12/21/01 am
                                      12/28/01 am
                                      12/31/0 lam
                                      1/2/02 am
                                      1/3/02 am
                                      1/4/02 pm
                                      1/7/02 am
                                      1/8/02 am
                                     -1/9/02 am
                                      1/10/02 am
                                      1/11/02 am
                                      1/14/02 am
                                     -1/17/02 am
                                     •1/22/02 am
                                                                                                    Data through 1/22/02
-------
                Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-9 Temperature vs. Depth
50      70      90      110     130
150      170      190
Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                      •12/14/0 lam
                                                                                                      -12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                      -12/18/01 am
                                                                                                      -12/19/01 am
                                                                                                      -12/20/0 lam
                                                                                                       12/21/01 am
                                                                                                       12/28/01 am
                                                                                                       12/31/0 lam
                                                                                                       1/2/02 am
                                                                                                       1/3/02 am
                                                                                                       1/4/02 pm
                                                                                                       1/7/02 am
                                                                                                       1/8/02 am
                                                                                                      -1/9/02 am
                                                                                                       1/10/02 am
                                                                                                       1/11/02 am
                                                                                                       1/14/02 am
                                                                                                      -1/17/02 am
                                                                                                      •1/22/02 am
                                                                                                 Data through 1/22/02
-------
             Cape Canaveral Steam Demonstration VE-13 S,D Temperature vs. Depth
50
70      90      110     130      150      170      190
                                Temperature (F)
210
230
250
270
                                                                                                      •12/14/0 lam
                                                                                                      •12/17/0 lam
                                                                                                      •12/18/0 lam
                                                                                                      •12/19/0 lam
                                                                                                      •12/20/0 lam
                                                                                                       12/21/01 am
                                                                                                      •12/28/0 lam
                                                                                                       12/31/0 lam
                                                                                                       1/2/02 am
                                                                                                       1/3/02 am
                                                                                                       1/4/02 pm
                                                                                                       1/7/02 am
                                                                                                       1/8/02 am
                                                                                                      • 1/9/02 am
                                                                                                       1/10/02 am
                                                                                                       1/11/02 am
                                                                                                       1/14/02 am
                                                                                                      •1/17/02 am
                                                                                                      •1/22/02 am
                                                                                                 Data through 1/22/02
-------
Appendix G: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
-------
      Appendix G.I Investigating VOC Losses During Postdemonstration Soil Core Recovery
                                       and Soil Sampling


Field procedures for collecting soil cores and soil samples from the steam injection plot were modified in
an effort to minimize VOC losses that can occur when sampling soil at elevated temperatures (Battelle,
2001). The primary modifications included: (1) additional personnel safety equipment, such as thermal-
insulated gloves for core handling; (2) the addition of a cooling period to bring the soil cores to approx-
imately 20ฐC 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 devel-
oped 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 20ฐC). 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 50-95ฐC
to below 20ฐC (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).
                                                           Determining the Approximate Cooling
                                                         Time Required for Soil Cores at Bevated
                                                                    Temperatures
                                                              0   10  20   30   40  50
                                                                     Time (minutes)
                                   60
    FIGURE G-l. A soil core capped and
    cooling in an ice bath. The ther-
    mometer is visible in the end cap.
FIGURE G-2  Determining the length of
time required to cool a soil core.
                                              G-l
-------
         FIGURE G-3. A soil sample being collected from along the length of the core into a bottle
                                      containing 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
Gavaskaretal. (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-trichloro-
ethane (1,1,1-TCA). The surrogate was added to the intact soil core  by using a 6" needle to inject 25 |iL
of surrogate into each end of the core for a total of 50 |iL 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 20ฐC. 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 20ฐC. After cooling, the caps on the core barrel were removed and the surrogate com-
pound was injected in the same manner, 25 |iL 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
                                              G-2
-------
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 better
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
Core 1
CoreS
Core 5
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 recov-
eries. 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  of In-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.
                                              G-3
-------
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
(Ug)
,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
(Ug)
,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 and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Predemonstration Soil Sampling
Steam Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Soil Samples
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 302 (Predemonstration)
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 13 (Predemonstration)
Predemonstration
Sample
ID
SB-42-34
SB-42-34 DUP
SB-41-28
SB-41-28DUP
SB-37-24
SB-37-24 DUP
SB-40-36
SB-40-36 DUP
SB-39-20
SB-39-20 DUP
SB-38-39
SB-38-39 DUP
SB-35-24
SB-35-24 DUP
Sample
Date
11/28/00
11/28/00
11/29/00
11/29/00
12/01/00
12/01/00
12/02/00
Result
(mg/kg)
7,348
3,411
394
389
83
58
73
46
14
11
337
307
11
30
RPD
(%)
115.1(a)
1.3
43.1(b)
58.7(b)
27.3(b)
9.8
63.3(a)
Sample
ID
SB-34-30
SB-34-30 DUP
SB-32-18
SB-32-18 DUP
SB-33-22
SB-33-22 DUP
SB-31-32
SB-3 1-32 DUP
SB-36-16
SB-36-16 DUP
SB-41B-40
SB-41B-40DUP
Sample
Date
12/02/00
12/06/00
12/07/00
12/08/00
12/11/00
12/11/00
Result
(mg/kg)
208
217
ND
ND
46
39
106
96
ND
0.44
392
356
RPD
(%)
4.1
0.0
17.9
10.4
0.0
10.1

(a) Samples had high RPD values due to the presence of free-phase TCE, which significantly affected the RPD calculation.
(b) Samples had high RPD values due to the effect of low (or below detect) concentrations of TCE, which significantly affected the RPD calculation.

-------
Table G-4. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Postdemonstration Soil Sampling
Steam Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Soil Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 312 (Postdemonstration)
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 15 (Postdemonstration)
Postdemonstration
Sample
ID
SB-233-26
SB-233-26 DUP
SB-232-34
SB-232-34 DUP
SB-231-40
SB-23 1-40 DUP
SB-242-38
SB-242-38 DUP
SB-241-20
SB-241-20 DUP
SB-240-38
SB-240-38 DUP
SB-233-26
SB-233-26 DUP
SB-239-24
SB-239-24 DUP
Sample
Date
01/28/02
01/29/02
01/30/02
01/30/02
02/01/02
02/04/02
01/28/02
02/06/02
Result
(mg/kg)
101
126
560
499
382
434
1,451
1,920
4
4
124
109
101
126
10
13
RPD
(%)
19.8
12.2
12.0
24.4
0.0
13.7
19.8
23.1
Sample
ID
SB-237-16
SB-237-16 DUP
SB-339-40
SB-339-40 DUP
SB-236-20
SB-236-20 DUP
SB-234-24
SB-234-24 DUP
SB-234-26
SB-234-26 DUP
SB-235-26
SB-235-26 DUP
SB-238-20
SB-23 8-20 DUP
Sample
Date
02/07/02
02/08/02
02/12/02
02/13/02
02/13/02
02/14/02
02/15/02
Result
(mg/kg)
1
1
73
78
4
3
4
4
7
11
120
87
20
33
RPD
(%)
0.0
6.4
33.3(a)
0.0
36.4(a)
37.9(a)
39.4(a)


    (a)  Samples had high RPD values due to the effect of low (or below detect) concentrations of TCE, which significantly affected the RPD calculation.
-------
Table G-5. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 302 (Pre-) 312 (Post-)
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 27
Pre-Demonstration Rinsate Blank Samples
Sample
ID
RINSATE-1
RINSATE-2
RINSATE-3
RINSATE-4
RINSATE-5
RINSATE-6
RINSATE-7
RINSATE-8
RINSATE-9
RINSATE-10
RINSATE- 11
RINSATE-12
RINSATE- 13
Sample
Date
11/27/00
11/28/00
11/30/00
11/30/00
11/30/00
12/01/00
12/01/00
12/04/00
12/04/00
12/07/00
12/07/00
12/08/00
12/09/00
Result
(HS/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
<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
Met QA/QC Target Criteria

Post-Demonstration Rinsate Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-23 3 -RINSATE
SB-232-RINSATE
SB-23 1-RINSATE
SB-242-RINSATE
SB-241-RINSATE
SB-240-RINSATE
SB-239-RINSATE
SB-237-RINSATE
SB-339-RINSATE
SB-236-RINSATE
SB-234-RINSATE
SB-235-RINSATE
SB-334-RINSATE
SB-238-RINSATE
Sample
Date
01/28/02
01/29/02
01/30/02
01/30/02
02/01/02
02/04/02
02/06/02
02/07/02
02/08/02
02/12/02
02/13/02
02/14/02
02/14/02
02/15/02
Result
(HS/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
<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
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria

-------
       Table G-6. Results of the Methanol Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Steam Methanol Blank Soil Extraction QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Pre-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-42-62
SB-41-65
SB-34-64
SB-39-68
SB-38-67
SB-35-66
SB-32-69
SB-32-70
SB-33-71
SB-33-72
SB-31-73
SB-31-74
SB-36-78
SB-36-79
SB-41B-82
SB-41B-83
Sample
Date
11/28/00
11/30/00
11/30/00
12/04/00
12/04/00
12/04/00
12/06/00
12/06/00
12/07/00
12/07/00
12/08/00
12/08/00
12/11/00
12/11/00
12/12/00
12/12/00
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
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
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 302 (Pre-) 312 (Post-)
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 30
Post-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
Sample
ID
SB-233-MB
SB-232-MB
SB-231-MB
SB-242-MB
SB-241-MB
SB-240-MB
SB-239-MB
SB-237-MB
SB-339-MB
SB-236-MB
SB-234-MB
SB-235-MB
SB-238-MB
Sample
Date
01/28/02
01/29/02
01/30/02
01/30/02
02/01/02
02/04/02
02/06/02
02/07/02
02/08/02
02/12/02
02/13/02
02/14/02
02/15/02
Result
(mg/kg)
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria

9
oo
           (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
Steam Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Groundwater Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
ID
PA-17D
PA-17D DUP
PA- 13
PA-13D DUP
Sample
Date
11/29/00
11/28/00
Result
(Hg/L)
840,000
860,000
920,000
910,000
RPD
(%)
2.3
1.1
Total Number of Groundwater Samples Collected = 23 (Pre-) 21 (Post-)
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 3
Post-Demonstration
Sample
ID
PA-17D
PA-17D DUP
Sample
Date
03/25/02
Result
(Hg/L)
2,770
2,680
RPD
(%)
3.6

Table G-8. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Steam Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Steam Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Groundwater Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 30.0 %
Total Number of Groundwater Samples Collected = 33
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 4
Demonstration
Sample
ID
BAT-5D
BAT-5D DUP
PA-22
PA-22 DUP
Sample
Date
08/27/01
08/28/01
Result
(Hg/L)
280,000
300,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
RPD
(%)
6.67
0.0
Sample
ID
BAT-5S
BAT-5S DUP
PA-14S
PA-14S DUP
Sample
Date
11/22/01
11/23/01
Result
(Hg/L)
532
595
4,280
4,410
RPD
(%)
10.6
2.9

-------
       Table G-9. Rinsate Blank Results for Groundwater Samples Collected for the Steam Pre-and Post-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Steam Pre-Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 jig/L
Pre-Demonstration Rinsate Blanks
Analysis
Date
11/28/00
11/29/00
TCE
Concentration
(HS/L)
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Total Number of Samples Collected = 23 (Pre-) 21 (Post-)
Total Number of Rinsate Blank Samples Analyzed = 4
Post-Demonstration Rinsate Blanks
Analysis
Date
2/20/02
2/21/02
TCE
Concentration
(HS/L)
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
       Table G-10. Rinsate Blank Results for Groundwater Samples Collected for the Steam Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Steam Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 jig/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 33
Total Number of Rinsate Blank Samples Analyzed = 4
Demonstration
Analysis
Date
08/27/01
08/28/01
TCE
Concentration
(Hg/L)
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Analysis
Date
11/20/01
11/21/01
TCE
Concentration
(Hg/L)
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
9
H-*
o
-------
Table G-ll. Results of the Trip Blank Samples Analyzed During the Steam Demonstration Soil and Groundwater Sampling
Total Number of Samples Collected = 614 (Soil) 77 (Groundwater)
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 20
Steam Demonstration Trip Blanks
Sample
ID
Trip Blank- 1
Trip Blank-2
Trip Blank-3
Trip Blank-4
Trip Blank-5
Trip Blank-6
Trip Blank-7
Trip Blank-8
Trip Blank-9
Trip Blank-10
Sample
Date
11/30/00
12/01/00
12/04/00
12/06/00
12/08/00
12/11/00
12/12/00
12/14/00
08/27/01
08/28/01
Result
(HS/L)
<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.
Sample
ID
Trip Blank- 11
TripBlank-12
Trip Blank- 13
Trip Blank-14
Trip Blank- 15
Trip Blank-16
Trip Blank- 17
Trip Blank- 18
Trip Blank- 19
Trip Blank-20
Sample
Date
11/06/01
11/08/01
01/30/02
12/01/02
12/04/02
12/08/02
12/11/02
12/15/02
02/22/02
02/23/02
Result
(ng/L)
<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.
-------
Table G-12. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During the Steam Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling

Steam Treatment Plot MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 25.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 302
Total Number of MS/MSD Samples Analyzed = 16
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
Date
12/09/00
12/11/00
12/11/00
12/11/00
12/11/00
12/12/00
12/12/00
12/12/00
TCE Recovery
(%)
83
88
112
113
83
96
97
94
121
101
89
47
66
113
80
91
RPD
(%)
1.5
0.20
4.4
1.3
7.3
11.0
13.0
4.2
Sample
Date
12/13/00
12/13/00
12/14/00
12/14/00
12/15/00
12/15/00
12/16/00
12/16/00
TCE Recovery
(%)
109
105
91
89
104
113
103
96
110
102
100
105
93
93
91
93
RPD
(%)
1.3
0.99
3.2
2.6
7.0
5.3
0.34
3.0
-------
Table G-13. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During the Steam Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling

Steam Treatment Plot MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 25.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 312
Total Number of MS/MSD Samples Analyzed = 26
Post-Demonstration
Sample
Date
02/02/02
02/02/02
02/03/02
02/03/02
02/04/02
02/04/02
02/04/02
02/05/02
02/06/02
02/07/02
02/08/02
02/09/02
02/09/02
TCE Recovery
(%)
102
102
99.6
88.6
104
102
100
100
108
105
115
113
202
166
118
119
116
119
127
111
108
105
110
110
107
105
RPD
(%)
0.0
11.0
1.9
0.0
2.8
1.7
17.8
0.8
2.6
12.6
2.8
0.0
1.9
Sample
Date
02/10/02
02/12/02
02/14/02
02/14/02
02/15/02
02/15/02
02/16/02
02/16/02
02/19/02
02/21/02
02/25/02
02/26/02
02/26/02
TCE Recovery
(%)
101
100
115
110
100
98.4
129
129
99.8
104
132
124
110
111
117
117
120
121
139
139
98.8
98.8
159
159
99.9
100
RPD
(%)
1.0
4.3
1.6
0.0
4.2
6.1
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
-------
Table G-14. Spike Recovery Values for Soil Laboratory Control Spike Samples Collected for the Steam Pre-Demonstration
Steam Treatment Plot LCS/LCSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 25.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 302
Total Number of LCS/LCSD Samples Analyzed = 16
Pre-Demonstration
Sample
Date
12/01/00
12/04/00
12/05/00
12/06/00
12/09/00
12/09/00
12/11/00
12/11/00
TCE Recovery
(%)
98
97
91
92
93
95
96
93
107
104
101
103
112
113
94
92
RPD
(%)
1.8
1.2
1.7
2.8
2.8
2.0
0.20
2.1
Sample
Date
12/13/00
12/14/00
12/15/00
12/16/00
12/16/00
12/17/00
12/18/00
12/20/00
TCE Recovery
(%)
95
96
93
102
103
89
105
105
105
102
94
94
113
113
104
90
RPD
(%)
1.1
9.7
13.6
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
13.5

-------
Table G-15. Spike Recovery Values for Soil Laboratory Control Spike Samples Collected for the Steam Post-Demonstration
Steam Treatment Plot LCS/LCSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level < 25.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 312
Total Number of LCS/LCSD Samples Analyzed = 18
Post-Demonstration
Sample
Date
01/31/02
02/02/02
02/03/02
02/04/02
02/04/02
02/06/02
02/06/02
02/08/02
02/10/02
TCE Recovery
(%)
97.6
98.3
99.8
105
100
110
107
110
113
113
118
101
118
117
106
97.1
106
107
RPD
(%)
0.7
5.2
10.0
2.8
0.0
14.4
0.8
8.4
0.9
Sample
Date
02/12/02
02/13/02
02/14/02
02/15/02
02/15/02
02/19/02
02/21/02
0/22/02
02/25/02
TCE Recovery
(%)
130
101
119
109
102
105
105
100
103
114
114
114
102
105
103
105
99.5
99.6
RPD
(%)
22.3
8.4
2.9
4.8
10.6
0.0
2.9
1.9
0.1

-------
       Table G-16. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Steam Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Steam Pre-Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Total Number of Samples Collected = 302
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 30
Pre-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
12/01/00
12/01/00
12/03/00
12/03/00
12/04/00
12/04/00
12/05/00
12/05/00
12/06/00
12/07/00
12/08/00
12/08/00
12/09/00
12/11/00
12/11/00
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
12/12/00
12/12/00
12/13/00
12/14/00
12/15/00
12/15/00
12/15/00
12/16/00
12/16/00
12/17/00
12/18/00
12/18/00
12/20/00
12/20/00
12/21/00
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
9
H-*
Os
-------
Table G-17. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Steam Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Steam Pre-Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 1.0 mg/kg
Total Number of Samples Collected = 312
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 28
Post-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
01/28/02
01/28/02
01/29/02
01/29/02
01/30/02
01/30/02
02/01/02
02/04/02
02/04/02
02/05/02
02/06/02
02/06/02
02/07/02
02/07/02
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
Analysis
Date
02/08/02
02/08/02
02/11/02
02/11/02
02/12/02
02/12/02
02/13/02
02/13/02
02/13/02
02/14/02
02/14/02
02/15/02
02/15/02
02/08/02
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

-------
9
^^
oo
       Table G-18. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed During the Steam Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Steam Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC (MS/MSD)
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 25.0 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 38
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 7
Steam Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
Sample
ID
01 11027-03 A MS
01 11027-03 A MSD
0111048-02AMS
0111048-02AMSD
0111041-04AMS
0111041-04AMSD
0111046-01BMS
0111046-01BMSD
Sample
Date
11/09/01
11/12/01
11/13/01
11/14/01
TCE Recovery
(%)
98.8
95.3
101
96.3
97.2
91.9
106
97
RPD
(%)
3.5
4.7
5.5
8.5
Sample
ID
020213 1-03A MS
020213 1-03A MSD
0202131-08AMS
0202131-08AMSD
0203129-04AMS
0203 129-04A MSD
Sample
Date
02/26/02
02/27/02
03/28/02
TCE Recovery
(%)
148
146
132
131
90.7
88.4
RPD
(%)
1.6
0.8
2.5

-------

Table G-19. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Laboratory Control Spike Samples Analyzed During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration
Groundwater Sampling
Steam Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 25.0 %
Pre-Demonstration LCS/LCSD Samples
Sample
ID
DQMKE1AC-LCS
DQMKE1AC-LCSD
DQQ031AC-LCS
DQQ031AC-LCSD
DQWR31AC-LCS
DQWR31AC-LCSD
Sample
Date
12/01/00
12/04/00
12/06/00
TCE Recovery
(%)
98
97
91
92
96
93
RPD
(%)
1.8
1.2
2.8
Total Number of Samples Collected = 23 (Pre-) 21 (Post-)
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 5
Post-Demonstration LCS/LCSD Samples
Sample
ID
LCS-9924
LCS-9928
LCS-9939
LCS-10179
Sample
Date
02/26/02
02/28/02
TCE Recovery
(%)
99.5
96.5
101
102
RPD
(%)
3.1
0.98

Table G-20. Spike Recovery and Precision Values for Laboratory Control Spike Samples Analyzed During the Steam Demonstration Groundwater
Sampling
Steam Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 25.0 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 33
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 5
Demonstration LCS/LCSD Spike Samples
Sample
ID
EJ1DK1AC-LCS
EJ1DK1AC-LCSD
EJ1M61AC-LCS
EJ1M61AC-LCSD
EJ30H1AC-LCS
EJ30H1AC-LCSD
Sample
Date
09/04/01
09/04/01
09/06/01
TCE Recovery
(%)
99
107
106
106
95
107
RPD
(%)
7.4
0.14
12.0
Sample
ID
LCS-9164
LCS-9168
LCS-9178
LCS-9187
Sample
Date
11/09/01
11/13/01
TCE Recovery
(%)
104
108
107
110
RPD
(%)
3.8
2.8

-------
       Table G-21. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Steam Pre-Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Steam Pre- and Post-Demo Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 jig/L
Pre-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
12/14/00
12/15/00
12/16/00
TCE
Concentration
(Hg/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Total Number of Samples Collected = 23 (Pre-) 21 (Post-)
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 6
Post-Demonstration Method Blanks
Analysis
Date
03/28/02
03/30/02
04/01/02
TCE
Concentration
(HS/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Comments
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
Met QA/QC Target Criteria
       Table G-22. Method Blank Samples Analyzed During the Steam Demonstration Groundwater Sampling
Steam Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 3.0 jig/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 33
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 8
Demonstration
Analysis
Date
09/04/01
09/04/01
09/06/01
09/06/01
TCE
Concentration
(HS/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
Analysis
Date
11/09/01
11/12/01
11/13/01
11/14/01
TCE
Concentration
(HS/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
9
to
o
-------
       DHL
             ALYTICAL
       2300 Double Creek Drive • Round Rock, TX 78664
       Phone (512} 388-6222 * FAX (512} 388-8229
                                 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
                                                          x-
                                                                                              DHL WORK ORDER
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
PROJECT LOCATION OR NAME:
CLIENT PROJECT
DATA REPORTED TO:
                                                                            COLLECTOR:
ADDITIONAL REPORT COPIES TO:
    AiuDiorize 5%
    surcharge (01
    TRHP report?
P=PAIMT
SL=SLUDGE
OT=OTHER
  RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature)
                                  DATE/TIME
                   RECEIVED BY: (Signahiie}
                                   1
  RELINQUISED BY: (Slgnaiure)
                                  DATEiTIME
  RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature)
      DATE/TIME
                   RECEIVED BYi, (
                  t^W-~^l
                   HMtEIVEtfBY"
                                                        :  (Signature)^
                 ,-7 DHi. D/SPOS^L 8 $5.00 each
                                             Return
                             Pickup
              TAT
        RUSH O CALL FIRST
        1 DAY O CALL FIRST
        2 DAY 0
        NORMAL*^.
        OTHER O
                                                                                                                    I.
LABORATORY USE i
RECEIVING TEMP: 	/	- /            >
CUSTODY SEALS- a BROKEN nJNJACTjB>WT USED
C^PARRIFR HILL $
D PICKED UP BY DHL ANALYTICAL STAFF
a HAND DELIVERED
-------
Appendix H: Economic Analysis Information
-------
                                          Appendix H

                                Economic Analysis Information

This appendix details the cost assessment for the application of the pump and treat (P&T) system for
containment of a DNAPL source at Launch Complex 34, for a source zone that is the same size as the
Steam 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 Steam 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 Steam 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 character-
ization 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) require-
ments. Another advantage of a containment type P&T system is that, unlike source removal technologies,
it does not require very extensive DNAPL zone characterization.

H.I.I  Capital Investment for the P&T System

The P&T system designed for this application consists of the components shown in Table H-2.  Pneu-
matically 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 con-
tinuous operation. Stainless steel and Teflon™ construction ensure compatibility with the high concen-
trations (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
poly vinyl 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.
                                              H-l
-------
The piping from the wells to the air stripper is run through a 1-ft-deep covered trench.  The air stripper
and other associated equipment are housed on a 20-ft x 20-ft concrete pad, covered by  a basic shelter.
The base will provide a power drop (through a pole transformer) and a licensed electrician will be used
for the power hookups. Meters and control valves  are strategically placed to control water and air flow
through the system.

The existing monitoring system at the site will have to be supplemented with seven long-screen (10-foot
screen) monitoring wells.  The objective of these wells is to ensure that the desired containment is being
achieved.

H.1.2 Annual Cost of the P&T System

The annual costs of P&T are shown in Table H-3 and include annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
and monitoring. Annual O&M costs  include the labor, materials, energy, and waste disposal cost of
operating the system and routine maintenance (including scheduled replacement of seals, gaskets,  and
O-rings).  Routine monitoring of the  stripper influent and effluent is done through ports on the feed and
effluent lines on a monthly basis.  Groundwater monitoring is conducted on a quarterly basis through
seven monitoring wells. All water samples are analyzed for PCE and other chlorinated volatile organic
compound (CVOC) by-products.

H.1.3 Periodic Maintenance Cost

In addition to the routine maintenance described above, periodic maintenance will be required, as shown
in Table H-3, to replace worn-out equipment.  Based on manufacturers' recommendations for the respec-
tive equipment, replacement is done once in 5 or 10 years. In general, all equipment involving moving
parts is assumed will be replaced once every 5 years, whereas other equipment is changed every 10 years.

H.1.4 Present Value (PV) Cost of P&T

Because a P&T system is operated for the long term, a 30-year period of operation is assumed for  estimat-
ing 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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 1998). The PV cost can then be compared with the  cost of faster
(DNAPL source reduction) remedies.
                                          -^ Annual Cost in Year t
                              PVp&x costs = 2^ - 77 — a -                 (Equation H-l)


    „,.,          „  .  1T            Annual Cost in Year 1   Annual Cost in Year n           .
    P VP&T costs = Capital Investment H --- 1 --     (Equation H-2)
                                              1                (l + r)n
Table 4 shows the PV calculation for P&T based on Equation 1. In Equation 1, each year's cost is
divided by a discount factor that reflects the rate of return that is foregone by incurring the cost. As seen
in Equation 2, at time t = 0, which is in the present, the cost incurred is the initial capital investment in
equipment and labor to design, procure, and build the P&T system. Every year after that, a cost is
incurred to operate and maintain the P&T system.  A real rate of return (or discount rate), r, of 2.9% is
used in the analysis as per recent U.S. EPA guidance on discount rates (U.S. EPA, 1999).  The total PV
                                              H-2
-------
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.
                                              H-3
-------
                                          Figure H-l. P&T System Costs - 100 years
$2,500,000
                     10
20
30
40          50          60
    Years of Operation
70
80
90
100
-------
Table H-1. 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 (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-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-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30 years of operation
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
P&T
Annual Cost *
$167,381
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$98,655
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$98,655
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$98,655
PV of Annual Cost
$167,381
$55,836
$54,262
$52,733
$51,247
$60,954
$48,399
$47,035
$45,709
$44,421
$74,125
$41,953
$40,770
$39,621
$38,505
$45,798
$36,365
$35,340
$34,344
$33,376
$55,694
$31,521
$30,633
$29,770
$28,931
$34,411
$27,323
$26,553
$25,805
$25,077
$41,846
Cumulative PV of
Annual Cost
$167,381
$223,217
$277,479
$330,212
$381,459
$442,413
$490,811
$537,846
$583,556
$627,977
$702,102
$744,054
$784,825
$824,446
$862,951
$908,749
$945,114
$980,454
$1,014,798
$1,048,174
$1,103,868
$1,135,389
$1,166,022
$1,195,792
$1,224,723
$1,259,134
$1,286,457
$1,313,010
$1,338,814
$1,363,892
$1,405,738
* Annual cost in Year zero is equal to the capital investment.
 Annual cost in other years is annual O&M cost plus annual monitoring cost
 Annual costs in Years 10, 20, and 30 include annual
 O&M, annual monitoring, and periodic maintenance
-------
Table H-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 years of operation
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
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
$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
PVof
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
$23,684
$23,016
$22,368
$21,737
$25,855
$20,529
$19,951
$19,388
$18,842
$31 ,442
$17,795
$17,293
$16,806
$16,332
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
$1,429,422
$1,452,438
$1,474,806
$1,496,543
$1,522,398
$1,542,927
$1,562,878
$1,582,266
$1,601,108
$1,632,550
$1,650,345
$1,667,638
$1,684,444
$1,700,777
-------
Table H-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 years of operation (Continued)
Year
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
P&T
Annual
Cost*
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$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
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
PVof
Annual
Cost
$19,426
$15,425
$14,990
$14,568
$14,157
$16,839
$13,370
$12,994
$12,627
$12,271
$14,596
$11,590
$11,263
$10,946
$10,637
$17,750
$10,046
$9,763
$9,488
$9,220
$10,967
$8,708
$8,462
$8,224
$7,992
$13,337
$7,548
$7,335
$7,129
$6,928
$8,240
$6,543
$6,358
$6,179
$6,005
$10,020
$5,671
$5,511
$5,356
$5,205
$6,191
$4,916
$4,777
$4,643
$4,512
Cumulative PV
of Annual Cost
$1,720,203
$1,735,628
$1,750,618
$1,765,186
$1,779,343
$1,796,182
$1,809,552
$1,822,545
$1,835,173
$1,847,444
$1,862,040
$1,873,630
$1,884,893
$1,895,838
$1,906,475
$1,924,225
$1,934,271
$1,944,034
$1,953,522
$1,962,742
$1,973,709
$1,982,417
$1,990,879
$1,999,103
$2,007,095
$2,020,432
$2,027,980
$2,035,315
$2,042,444
$2,049,372
$2,057,612
$2,064,154
$2,070,513
$2,076,692
$2,082,697
$2,092,717
$2,098,389
$2,103,900
$2,109,256
$2,114,461
$2,120,653
$2,125,568
$2,130,346
$2,134,989
$2,139,501
-------
Table H-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 years of operation (Continued)
Year
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
P&T
Annual
Cost*
$98,655
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$70,320
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$57,455
$98,655
PVof
Annual
Cost
$7,529
$4,261
$4,141
$4,024
$3,911
$4,652
$3,694
$3,590
$3,488
$3,390
$5,657
Cumulative PV
of Annual Cost
$2,147,029
$2,151,291
$2,155,432
$2,159,456
$2,163,367
$2,168,019
$2,171,712
$2,175,302
$2,178,790
$2,182,180
$2,187,837
-------