NCD095458527_19990319_FCX Inc. (Statesville)_FRBCERCLA RI_Pre-Design Investigation Report OU-3 Volume 1 - Text Tables Figures and Appendices A - E-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRE-DESIGN INVEST/GA TION REPORT
FOR OPERABLE UNIT THREE (OU3)
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUNO SITE,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
VOLUME 1
prepared for
El Paso Energy Corporation
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
March 1999
27-60:11 :1.008
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1999
SUPERFUND SECTION
I
I
I ECKENFELDER®
•. -AN INTEGRAL PART OF
BROWN AND
.CALDWELL
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
227 French Landing Drive
Nashville, Tennessee 37228-1605
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
March 19, 1999
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
North Site Management Branch
EPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
27-60313.008
RE: Pre-Design Investigation Report for Operable Unit Three (OU3)
FCX-Statesville Superfund Site, Statesville, North Carolina
Dear Ken:
Enclosed are four copies of the "Pre-Design Investigation Report for Operable Unit
Three (OU3), FCX-Statesville Superfund Site, Statesville, North Carolina". The
report is provided as a three-volume set with volumes 2 and 3 containing the
analytical laboratory reports. For your convenience, one of the sets has been
provided in three-ring binders.
If you have any questions regarding this document, please call Ms. Nancy Prince of
El Paso Energy Corporation at [phone] or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Brown and Caldwell
~/XiA ,Jr/-(2~
Kenton H. Oma, P.E.
Assistant Technical Director
Design and Solid Waste
cc: N. Testerman, NCDEHNR
N. Prince, El Paso
S. Miller, El Paso
J. Porter, The Porter Law Group
H. Mitchell, Jr., Beaunit
J. Wright, Burlington
G. House, BPMH&L
P:\l'roj\03 I 3.08\LOJ 1999.DOC
(! copy vol. 1, 2, & 3)
(2 copies vol. I; I copy vol. 2, & 3)
(! copy vol.!)
(! copy vol.!)
(I copy vol. I, 2 & 3)
(I copy vol.!, 2 & 3)
(I copy vol. I)
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
· List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Appendices
Executive Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Site Description
1.1.2 Site Conditions
1.2 OU3 Remediation Technologies and PD! Objectives
1.3 Organization of PD! Report
2.0 INSTALLATION OF MONITORING WELLS
3.0
2.1 Shallow Saprolite Monitoring Well
2.2 Intermediate Bedrock Monitoring Wells
2.2.1 Monitoring Well W-3 li
2.2.2 Monitoring Well W-32i
2.3 Deep Bedrock Monitoring Well
SAMPLING AND ANALYSES OF GROUNDWATER
3.1 Monitoring Well Sampling and Analyses
3.1. l Baseline Sampling of Groundwater
3.1.2 Groundwater Plume Definition Monitoring Wells
3.1.3 Second Groundwater Sampling Event
3 .1.4 Confirmation Groundwater Sampling
3.2 Residential Drinking Water Well Sampling and Analysis
3.3 Groundwater Quality
3.3.1 Metals Analyses
3.3.2 VOC Analyses
3.3.3 Pesticide Analyses
4.0 EVALUATION OF NATURAL ATTENUATION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Groundwater Sampling and Analyses
4.3 Evaluation Process for Natural Attenuation
4.3. l
4.3.2
P:\PROJ\OJ lJ.08\PDI-TOC.DOC
Evaluation of Groundwater Quality Data for Natural Attenuation
Significance of Bioparameter Data
Page No.
ll1
V
Vlll
ES-I
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-4
2-5
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-6
3-8
3-10
4-1
4-1
4-3
4-3
4-5
4-9
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.2.1
4.3.2.2
4.3.2.3
4.3.2.4
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Electron Acceptors
Products of Degradation
Nutrients
Geochemical Parameters
Summary of Bioparameter Data
Numerical Ranking Based on USEPA Protocol
Fate and Transport Modeling
4.4 Implications for the Remedy and AS/SVE Pilot Test
5.0 AS/SVE PILOT TEST
5.1 Description of Technologies
5.2 Objectives of Pilot Test
5.3 Installation of Wells, Monitoring Probes, and Equipment
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.3.1 Well and Monitoring Probe Installation
5.3.2 Pilot Test Equipment Installation
5.3.3 Measuring and Monitoring Equipment
Description of Pilot Test
5.4.1 Pilot Test Part I Description
5.4.2 Pilot Test Part 2A Description
5.4.3 Pilot Test Part 2B Description
5.4.4 Pilot Test Part 3 Description
5.4.5 Pilot Test Part 4 Description
5.4.6 Pneumatic Permeability Test Description
5.4.7 Pre-Test and Post-Test Groundwater Sampling Description
·,
Results of AS/SVE Pilot Test Program
5.5.1 Pilot Test Part I Results
5.5.2 Pilot Test Part 2A Results
5.5.3 Pilot Test Part 2B Results
5.5.4 Pilot Test Part 3 Results
5.5.5 Pilot Test Part 4 Results
5.5.6 Pneumatic Permeability Test Results
5.5.7 Pre-and Post-Test Groundwater Sampling Results
5.5.8 Groundwater Upwelling During Pilot Test
5.5.9 Radius oflnfluence of SVE During Pilot Test
Summary and Conclusions from the Pilot Test Program
5.6.1 Summary and Conclusions for SVE Only
5.6.2 Summary and Conclusions for Air Sparging with SVE
P:\PROJ\0313 08\PD!,TOC.DOC II
Page No.
4-9
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-18
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-3
5-3
5-5
5-6
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-10
5-11
5-11
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-16
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-21
5-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title
2-1 Interval Packer Test Results
3-1 Summary of Chemical Analyses and Analytical Method References
for Groundwater Samples from the Monitoring Wells
3-2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Selected for Baseline Sampling
During Pre-Design Investigation
3-3 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Selected for Second Round of
Sampling During Pre-Design Investigation
3-4 Groundwater Metals Results for Filtered, Unfiltered, and Slow
Purge Sampling
3-5 Groundwater Metals Results for Plume Definition Wells
3-6 Summary of Detected VOC Results in Groundwater From Pre-
Design Investigation Sampling
3-7 Groundwater Pesticide Results in Plume Definition Wells
4-1 Summary of Detected VOCs in Natural Attenuation Wells
4-2 Summary of PCE Concentration Data from Monitoring Wells Used
for Natural Attenuation Evaluation
4-3 Natural Attenuation Parameters
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
5-1
5-2
Qualitative Assessment of Bioparameters
Analytical Parameters and Weighting for Preliminary Screening of
Natural Attenuation
Applicqtion ofUSEPA/AFCEE Screening Method to Shallow
Aquifer Groundwater Sampling Results
Interpretation of Points Awarded During Screening Process of
Natural Attenuation
Attenuation Rates Based on the Method ofBuschcck and Bioscreen
Objectives of Pilot Test
Distance Between Monitoring Probe Clusters and the SVE and Air
Sparging Wells
5-3 Summary of Pilot Test Part I, SVE Using SVE-1 (8/18/98)
l':\proj\0J 13.08\LOT.DOC 111
I
I LIST OFT ABLES (Continued)
Follows
I Table No. Title Page No.
I 5-4 Summary of Pilot Test Part 2A, AS/SVE Using SVE-1 and AS-1
(8/20/98)
I 5-5 Summary of Pilot Test Part 2B, AS/SVE Using AS-1 and SVE-1
(8/21/98)
5-6 Summary of Pilot Test Part 3, AS/SVE Using AS-2 and SVE-1
I (8/24/98)
5-7 Summary of Pilot Test Part 4, AS/SVE Using AS-I and SVE-1
I (8/25/98)
5-8 Summary of Detected VOCs from Pre-and Post-Pilot Test
I Groundwater Sampling
5-9 Calculated SVE Radius oflnfluence During Pilot Test
I
I
I
I
I -,
I
I
I
I
I
P:\PROJ\OJ I J. 08\LOT.DOC IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
1-1 Site Location Map
2-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
Monitoring Well Location Map
Location of Pilot Test
Layout of Pilot Test Wells and Monitoring Probes
Configuration of Pilot Test Wells and Monitoring Probes
5-4 Flow Diagram of Pilot Test System
5-5 Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 1
5-6 SVE-1 Wellhead Vacuum for Pilot Test Part 1
5-7
5-8
5-9
Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-1, MP-2, and MP-3 for Pilot
Test Part 1
Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 for Pilot
Test Part I
Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 2A
5-10 Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead Vacuum for Pilot Test Part 2A
5-11
5-12
5-13
Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in Pilot
Test Part 2A
Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, MP-5 in Pilot Test
Part 2A
Helium Concentration in Extracted Air for Pilot Test Part 2A
5-14 Monitoring Probe A Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A
5-15 Monitoring Probe B Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A
5-16 Monitoring Probe C Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A
5-17 Monitoring Probe D Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A
5-18 Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 2B
5-19 Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead for Pilot Test Part 2B
l'.\proj\0313 08\lof.doc V
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No. Title
5-20 Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in Pilot
Test Part 2B
5-21 Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in Pilot
Test Part 2B
5-22 Extracted Air Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2B
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-29
5-30
5-31
5-32
5-33
5-34
5-35
5-36
5-37
Monitoring Probe A Helium Concentration for MP-1, MP-2, and
MP-3 in Pilot Test Part 2B
Monitoring Probe A Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and
MP-5 in Pilot Test Part 2B
Monitoring Probe B Helium Concentration for MP-I, MP-2, and
MP-3 in Pilot Test Part 2B
Monitoring Probe B Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and
MP-5 in Pilot Test Part 2B
Monitoring Probe C Helium Concentration for MP-I, MP-2, and
MP-3 in Pilot Test Part 2B
Monitoring Probe C Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and
MP-5 in Pilot Test Part 2B
Monitoring Probe D Helium Concentration for MP-I, MP-2, and
MP-3 in Pilot Test Part 2B
Monitoring Probe D Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and
MP-5 in Pilot Test Part 2B ,,
Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 3
Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead for Pilot Test Part 3
Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in Pilot
Test Part 3
Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in Pilot
Test Part 3
Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 4
Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead for Pilot Test Part 4
Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in Pilot
Test Part 4
\\BCNSH0J\PROJECTSIPROJ\OJ I 3 .08\lof.doc VI
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No. Title
5-38 Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in Pilot
Test Part 4
5-39 Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pneumatic Permeability Test
5-40 Vacuum at SVE-2 Wellhead for Pneumatic Permeability Test
5-41
5-42
VOC Concentration at SVE-2 Wellhead for Pneumatic
Permeability Test
Change in Groundwater Level During Pilot Test Part I
5-43 Change in Groundwater Level During Pilot Test Part 2A
5-44
5-45
5-46
Change in Groundwater Level During Pilot Test Part 2B
Change in Groundwater Level During Pilot Test Part 3
Change in Groundwater Level During Pilot Test Part 4
\\BCNSH0J\PROJECTS\PROJ\0J I J.08\!of doc Vll
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF APPENDICES
Volume 1
Appendix A Well Log Sheets
A-I -Monitoring Well Logs
A-2 -Pilot Test Well Logs
Appendix B Natural Attenuation Mechanisms
Appendix C -Cross-Sections Intercepting Monitoring Wells
Appendix D -Pilot Test Process and Monitoring Probe Data
0-1 -Pilot Test Part I
D-2 -Pilot Test Part 2A
0-3 -Pilot Test Part 2B
D-4 -Pilot Test Part 3
0-5 -Pilot Test Part 4
0-6 -Pilot Test Groundwater Depth Data
0-7 -Pneumatic Permeability Test with SVE-2
Appendix E -Supporting Calculations for Pilot Test
E-1 Pneumatic Permeability
E-2 -Radius of Influence
E-3 -Helium Mass Balance Calculations for Pilot Test Parts 2A and 2B
Volume 2
Appendix F -Analytical Laboratory Reports
Volume 3
F-1 -Report for Preliminary VOC Analysis of Packer Test Samples
F-2 -Reports for Natural Attenuation Parameters
F-3 Data Validation Report Dated August 24, 1998
F-4 -Data Validation Report Dated January 29, 1999
Appendix F Analytical Laboratory Reports ( continued)
F-5 -Data Validation Reports Dated March I, 1999
P:\PROJ\OJ I J.08\PDI-TOC.DOC VIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
n
u
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Pre-Design Investigation (PD!) report describes investigation work that was
performed in support of preparation of the Remedial Design (RD) for Operable Unit
Three (OU3) at the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site (Site) in Statesville, North Carolina.
The primary constituents of interest present within OU3 include perchloroethylene
(PCE), also called tetrachloroethene, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. The PD! work
included installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells, sampling and analysis
of groundwater from selected monitoring wells, an evaluation of natural attenuation at the
Site, and a pilot test of air sparging and soil vapor extraction (SVE). The PD! work was
performed in accordance with the "Remedial Design Work Plan for OU3 FCX-Statesville
Superfund Site, Statesville, North Carolina," dated July 1998 by ECKENFELDER INC.
(now Brown and Caldwell).
INSTALLATION OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
Groundwater within the saprolite and intermediate bedrock aquifers associated with the
Site generally flows both to the north and to the south creating two potential transport
mechanisms from the site. Additional shallow and intermediate (saprolite and bedrock)
groundwater monitoring wells were required to define the horizontal and vertical extent
of the constituents of concern in the OU3 groundwater.
Two new wells, W-3ls and W-3li, were installed as a couplet to further delineate the
down gradient extent of the groundwater plume to the north. The well couplet consists of
a shallow monitoring well screened within the saprolite and an intermediate monitoring
well screened within the underlying bedrock unit. A third new well, W-32i, screened
within the upper bedrock (intermediate zone), was installed to further delineate the
downgradient extent of the groundwater plume to the south. To further evaluate the
vertical extent of the groundwater plume to the north, a monitoring well, W-20d, was
installed in the plume to the north adjacent to the existing monitoring well couplet W-20s
and W-20i.
l'.\PRONJJ I 3.08\ES doc ES-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
Groundwater samples were collected from on-Site and off-Site wells. The sample
analyses provided data to further delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of
constituents of concern, to evaluate metals concentrations, and to measure biodegradation
parameters within the groundwater plume. As part of this sampling, potable water from
two residential groundwater drinking wells located downgradient of the Site was sampled
in order to establish a broader database of groundwater quality.
The groundwater samples were analyzed for the designated parameters, which sometimes
differed between wells and sampling events depending on the purpose of the sample.
The chemical tests and analytical parameters (including the basis for selecting those
parameters) are presented in the PDI report and include volatile organic compounds
(VOes), metals, pesticides, and a suite of natural attenuation parameters.
In general, the voe results from this PDI were consistent with the Remedial
Investigation (RI) results from 1994 and 1995 with some exceptions. A summary of the
groundwater results and observations is as follows.
• No voes or pesticides were reported that exceed the maximum concentration
limits (MeLs) specified in the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU3 in the three
new downgradient monitoring wells (W-3ls and W-31i to the north and W-32i
to the south). This indicates that the horizontal extent of the plume has been
defined in the downgradient directions to the north and south of OU3.
• At monitoring well W-20d, which was installed to assess the vertical extent of
the groundwater plume to the north of the Site, the concentrations of PeE and
1,2-dichloropropane were elevated. Interval packer testing during installation of
W-20d indicated that there are at least 40 feet of media with significantly lower
permeability that separate the upper fractured unit from the deeper groundwater
unit (the well was screened above the media with lower permeability). As a
r.\rROJ\0313.08\ES.doc ES-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
result, the groundwater quality data from W-20d are considered representative
of the vertical extent of the groundwater plume at this location.
• No VOCs were detected in the two residential water supply wells that were
sampled downgradient of the Site.
• The PDI sample results showed PCE concentrations at downgradient monitoring
wells W-20s and W-29i to be higher than the RI sample results. The higher
results in these wells may represent changes in groundwater elevations,
sampling techniques, laboratory procedures, or may represent processes
occurring within the aquifer. Similar variations in sampling results were
observed for W-30i, which was used as a control well. Alternatively, the PD!
sample results potentially may indicate a slight expansion of the groundwater
plume over the period of time between the RI sampling and the PDI sampling
events. Typically however, eight sampling events are required to identify
statistically significant trends in groundwater sampling data. Only one to four
sampling events have been conducted at the Site. Therefore it is premature to
conclude, before any more sampling events have been performed, that these
variations have any significance.
• Concentrations of aluminum, iron, and manganese in the slow purge and
unfiltered samples were elevated. Even though slow purge sampling was used,
fine mica flakes from the saprolite formation were observed in the samples.
The aluminum concentrations observed in the samples are considered to reflect
these fine suspended particles, rather than indicating impact to groundwater
from OU3. The iron and manganese concentrations may reflect natural
background conditions and/or suspended sediments. In some areas, iron and
manganese appear to result from natural attenuation mechanisms.
• Mercury was observed in excess of the ROD MCL in one monitoring well,
W-5s, and is considered an anomaly unrelated to the manufacturing process at
the facility and is not considered to be a Site-wide issue.
P.\PROJ\OJIJ,08\ESdoc ES-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EVALUATION OF NATURAL ATTENUATION
Monitored natural attenuation of the constituents of concern has become widely accepted
as a remedy or as a component of a remedy in conjunction with some form of source
control. The evaluation of natural attenuation performed during the PD! provided a
qualitative understanding of the biodegradation and physical processes, as well as an
attempt to quantify the contributions from the biodegradation and physical processes.
The evaluation process was applied to what might be considered four plume areas. These
consist of the shallow saprolite saturated-interval to the north and to the south of the
groundwater divide, and the intermediate bedrock saturated interval to the north and to
the south of the groundwater divide. Evidence that natural attenuation is occurring at the
Site is as follows.
• The groundwater quality data from the R1 and the PD! were evaluated to
identify the presence and relative concentrations of constituents of concern
(especially PCE) and reductive dechlorination products. Reductive
dechlorination products are present across the plume. In some areas the ratio of
the reductive dechlorination products relative to the parent compound, PCE, is
fairly high, suggesting extensive reductive dechlorination. Trends in
concentrations over time and along the groundwater flow path provide a
semi-quantitative understanding of the extent to which reductive dechlorination
is limiting the migration of groundwater constituents in the downgradient
direction.
Another indication of natural attenuation is whether the plume has reached a
dynamic equilibrium or steady state condition, i.e., are the mechanisms that
retard migration and destroy constituent mass in an approximate equilibrium
with the mechanisms of dissolution and advection that result in migration? The
site-wide water quality data (with a few exceptions that require additional
sampling to determine if variations have any significance) suggest a fairly
constant plume. This is based on a comparison of PCE concentrations reported
during the R1 sampling events (1994 through 1996) to those reported during the
P;\PROJ\03JJ.08\ES doc ES-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PDI sampling events (1998 and 1999). Some variation was observed and is
anticipated due to normal variability associated with groundwater
characterization. The relative stability of the plume is not surprising since
chlorinated solvent plumes where biodegradation is occurring typically reach
equilibrium over time.
• A USEP A protocol was used to rank the Site for natural attenuation of
chlorinated solvents. The ranking of those wells located midway in the plume
provides sufficient evidence of reductive dechlorination. The evaluation of
natural attenuation suggests that the natural processes will continue to limit the
migration ofVOCs.
Active remediation of the source area is apt to alter the site geochemistry. As a result,
natural attenuation mechanisms, especially biodegradation, may be impacted. For
exan1ple, air sparging introduces oxygen to the groundwater. To the extent oxygen is
dissolved, reductive dechlorination would be inhibited. This impact might be liinited to
the source area at least over the near future if air sparging were implemented. Air
sparging has the potential to slightly impact natural attenuation in directions away from
the source area.
PILOT TEST RESULTS
A pilot test was conducted in the apparent source area at OU3 to evaluate air sparging
and SVE. Air sparging was performed within the saprolite at two depths, 50 feet and 66
feet. Five monitoring probe clusters were installed around the air sparging wells and the
SVE well. The pilot test objectives were to investigate and measure the physical
characteristics of the soil and aquifer in the vadose and saturated zones, respectively, in
relationship to the operation of SVE only and air sparging with SVE. As part of the pilot
test, helium tracer testing was performed. In addition, a pneumatic permeability test of
the vadose zone beneath the textile plant was performed using a second SVE well located
inside the building.
P.\PROJ\OJ ll.08\ES.doc ES-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In general, the pilot test identified significant heterogeneity in both the saturated zone and
the vadose zone with respect to air sparging and SVE. The observed heterogeneity
indicates that an observational ( or phased) approach to the design and implementation of
air sparging and SVE at the Site would be required. A summary of the pilot test results
and observations is as follows:
• The vadose zone soil is highly heterogeneous, as shown by the wide range of
vacuum readings in the monitoring probes that were 20 feet or less from the
SVE well. Thus, SVE performance in the vicinity of any well (whether outside
of the building or inside the building) is expected to be asymmetrical, e.g., air
flow and the lateral distance of influence will not be the same in all directions
and will not be predictable.
• The pneumatic permeability range of the vadose zone soil in the SVE well is
almost identical to that of the well located inside the building. Therefore,
performance of SVE with wells underneath the building can be expected to
behave similarly with regard to achievable flow rates and wellhead vacuum for
similarly designed wells. Subsurface infrastructure at the Site is anticipated to
have at least some influence on the performance of an SVE system at the Site.
• Air injection was possible at relatively low flow rates at depths of 50 feet and
66 feet in the saprolite. However, SVE was not effective in completely
capturing the sparged air using a single SVE well in the study area. This is
evidenced by the pressurization of some of the vadose zone monitoring probes,
the limited helium capture by the extraction well, and the presence of helium in
some of the vadose zone monitoring probes. Air sparging reduced the radius of
influence of a single SVE well from the range of 22 to 59 feet to the range of 12
to 54 feet. This may be less important where an array of SVE wells is installed.
• The saturated zone is highly heterogeneous with regard to air flow patterns from
the inj~cted air from both the shallow depth and deep depth air sparging wells.
There appear to be horizontal confining layers within the saturated zone which
P.\PROJ\0313.0S\ES.doc ES-6
I
I -,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
D
u
D
D
I
I
inhibit injected air movement to the vadose zone, especially at the deeper
sparging depth of 66 feet. Further evidence of the heterogeneity of the saturated
zone is supplied by the variability of the VOC results from the pre-and post-test
groundwater sampling and by the variability of response of measured
groundwater upwelling at the monitoring probes during air sparging.
• Based on the heterogeneity of the saturated zone, it is difficult to predict where
sparged air and thus entrained VOCs may move, especially at the deeper sparge
depth of 66 feet. Consequently, careful placement of SVE wells using a phased
approach should be considered to maximize the capture of injected air.
• Air sparging has the potential to inhibit natural attenuation if the injected air
traverses long distances in the saturated zone or if dissolved oxygen traverses
downgradient.
• The VOC data indicate that VOCs were being removed during SVE only and
during air sparging with SVE. The variability of the data and the types of data
collected do not allow a quantitative calculation of the mass of VO Cs removed
from the vadose zone or the groundwater.
• Based upon the heterogeneity described above, an observational approach to
design and construction should be utilized. This type of phased approach
consists of partial installation of a system based upon anticipated Site conditions
rather than the more conservative conditions. The initial installation would then
be operated and monitored prior to additional installation. The operational
information from each phase of installation can be considered and incorporated
into subsequent phases as appropriate. This approach should be incorporated
into the RD.
P:\PROI\031 J.08\ES doc ES-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Pre-Design Investigation (PD!) report describes pre-design investigation work that
was performed in support of preparation of the remedial design for Operable Unit Three <
(OU3) at the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site (Site) in Statesville, North Carolina, The
PD! included installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater
sampling and analysis, the evaluation of monitored natural attenuation, and an air
sparging and soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test The PD! was performed in
accordance with the work plan entitled "Remedial Design Work Plan for OU3 FCX-
Statesville Superfund Site, Statesville, North Carolina" (RD Work Plan), dated July I 998
by ECKENFELDER INC. (now Brown and Caldwell).
1.1 BACKGROUND
A textile plant was constructed at the OU3 Site in 1927, From 1955 to 1977, the textile
plant was operated by Beaunit Mills, later known as Beaunit Corporation (Beaunit), In
1967, Beaunit became a subsidiary of El Paso, In April 1977, Beaunit sold substantially
all of its assets, including the plant, to Beaunit II, Inc, As a part of that transaction,
Beaunit changed its name to BEM Holding Corporation (BEM), and Beaunit II, Inc,
changed its name to the Beaunit Corporation, In July 1978, the textile plant was sold by
the Beaunit Corporation (formerly Beaunit II, Inc.) to Beaunit Fabrics Corporation
(Beaunit Fabrics). In 1981, Burlington purchased certain assets, including the textile
plant, from Beaunit Fabrics. Burlington presently operates the textile plant
In June 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV
signed an Administrative Order on Consent for OU3 with Burlington, as well as the
former property owner, El Paso. The Final Record of Decision (ROD) for OU3 was
issued by USEPA Region IV in September 1996, The Consent Decree (CD) for OU3
was lodged on December 18, I 997, and became final on April I, 1998, An Explanation
of Significant Difference (ESD) was issued on March 24, 1998 which incorporates
restrictive covenants as the institutional control for the OU3 remedy,
P.\proj\0313,08\501.doc 1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
D
R
I
m
I
I
1.1.1 Site Description
The OU3 Site is located in Iredell County approximately 1.5 miles west of downtown
Statesville, North Carolina near the intersection of Yadkin and Phoenix Streets (see
Figure 1-1 ).
The Site is situated in the Inner Piedmont Physiographic Province in western-central
North Carolina and is characterized as gently rolling slopes. The Site lies within the
geologic belt known as the Blue Ridge-Inner Piedmont Belt, which consists of
metamorphic rocks including gneisses and schists. These rocks have weathered to form a
relatively thin overburden of saprolite, which is observed throughout the Site.
Groundwater at the Site is observed within the saprolite and underlying bedrock.
Saprolite forms the uppermost hydrogeologic unit. Groundwater occurs within the pore
spaces of the saprolite under water table conditions. Groundwater within the fractured
bedrock unit occurs under unconfined or semi-confined conditions. Site information
indicates that the two units are in hydraulic communication. Groundwater gradients
observed on-Site indicate that groundwater in the saprolite and bedrock appears to be
flowing both to the north and to the south from the textile plant.
1.1.2 Site Conditions
Several media and constituents of concern are associated with OU3. The groundwater
contains primarily volatile organic compounds (VOCs). On-Site soil contains inorganics,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and most notably, VOCs.
1.2 OU3 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES AND PDI OBJECTIVES
The remediation technologies selected for OU3 by the ROD include air sparging, SVE,
and monitored natural attenuation. As stated previously, this POI focuses on those
P:\pmj\OJ I J.08\,01.doc 1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
remedial technologies selected in the ROD. The PD! activities relating to each of these
technologies are described herein.
The objectives of the PD! were to gain additional information for use in the Remedial
Design, including present conditions, heterogeneity of the Site, and the effect of natural
attenuation on the Site constituents of concern. The pilot test results will be used to
determine the design parameters and site-specific limitations of SVE alone and air
sparging with SVE (AS/SVE).
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF PDI REPORT
The tables and figures in this report are located at the end of the section where they are
first called out. The PD! report is organized into three volumes as follows:
Volume 1
• Section 1.0 Introduction
• Section 2.0 Installation of Monitoring Wells
• S,ection 3 .0 Sampling and Analyses of Groundwater
• Section 4.0 Evaluation of Natural Attenuation
• Section 5.0 AS/SVE Pilot Test.
• Appendix A Well Log Sheets
• Appendix B Natural Attenuation Mechanisms
• Appendix C Cross Sections Intercepting Monitoring Wells
• Appendix D Pilot Test Process and Monitoring Probe Data
• Appendix E Supporting Calculations for Pilot Test
Volume 2
• Appendix F Analytical Laboratory Reports
Volume 3
• Appendix F Analytical Laboratory Reports ( continued)
P.\PROJ\0l 13.08~01.doc 1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. •~""-"''v::.~ ~~~:,,..,1,:::v ~~ ~/ ~
I 1;), " 0 -i~f" N
0
I n
n 0 Cl.
ci z
"' z §'
~ 0
q,-
. .,_, 2-
\ ~~
Q ' . . •,. \i::, _ __//
' O , i ~ t fi,,, ,:• ,ii,,~
\
2000 0 2000 4000
SCALE FEET
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, STATESVlLLE WEST QUADRANGLE, NC
/I ~ _ Ii :
FIGURE 1-1
SITE LOCATION MAP
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUNO SITE
STATESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
60313.009 3/99 (:.. a
ECKENFELDER INC:
Nashville, Terinenee
~ohw<1h, New Jer.iey
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
g
0
0
0
I
2.0 INSTALLATION OF MONITORING WELLS
Groundwater within the saprolite and intermediate bedrock aquifers associated with the
Site general flows both to the north and to the south creating two potential transport
mechanisms from the site. Additional shallow and intermediate (saprolite and bedrock)
monitoring wells were required to characterize the horizontal and vertical extent of the
constituents of concern in the OU3 groundwater. One well couplet, W-31s and W-31i,
was installed to further delineate the downgradient extent of the groundwater plume to
the north (see Figure 2-1 ). The well couplet consists of a shallow monitoring well
screened within the saprolite and an intem1ediate monitoring well screened within the
underlying bedrock unit. Another well, W-32i, screened within the upper bedrock
(intermediate zone), was installed to further delineate the downgradient extent of the
groundwater plume to the south. To further evaluate the vertical extent of the
groundwater plume, a fourth monitoring well, W-20d, was added to the existing
monitoring well couplet W-20s and W-20i. These wells were installed with USEPA
oversight and in accordance with the procedures in the document previously approved by
USEPA for use during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS), "Field
Sampling Plan, FCX-Statesville Operable Unit 3, Iredell County, North Carolina," dated
February 1994 by Aquaterra, Inc. Where referenced herein, this document will be
referred to as the Aquaterra FSP. The following subsections describe the methods and
procedures followed for installation of the monitoring wells.
2.1 SHALLOW SAPROLITE MONITORING WELL
Monitoring well W-31 s was installed to evaluate the northern extent of the groundwater
plume in the saprolite. The monitoring well was located approximately 2,000 feet
downgradient of the textile plant along Wendover Road. The location of the monitoring
well was selected based on the groundwater flow direction, the available groundwater
data quality, and the available access (see Figure 2-1).
P.\projl03 lJ.0S\.s02.doo: 2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
g
0
0
D
u
m
Initially a soil boring was advanced to a depth of approximately 16.5 feet using 4¼-inch
inside diameter (ID) hollow stem augers. The depth of the boring, 16.5 feet, represents
auger refusal near the base of the saprolite unit. Continuous soil samples were collected
using a 2-inch diameter split spoon sampler, driven with a 140-pound hammer, following
the procedures of the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM Method D-1586). ·
Upon completion of the boring, the well was constructed through the augers with 2-inch
ID polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Schedule 40 well casing. Ten feet of machine slotted 2-inch
diameter 0.010-inch slot Schedule 40 PVC well screen were placed at the base of the
boring. Schedule 40 PVC riser pipe was installed from the screen to the ground surface.
Clean washed silica sand, appropriately sized for the screen, was placed in the annulus
from the base of the screen up to 2 feet above the top of the screen while retracting the
augers. A bentonite seal, 2 feet in thickness, was placed above the sand, followed by
cement/bentonite grout (Type I Portland with 2 percent to 4 percent bentonite by weight,
e.g., 14 to 15 pounds/gallon) to the surface. A flush-mount protective casing and a 2-foot
by 2-foot concrete pad were installed. Drill cuttings were placed in Department of
Transportation (DOT) approved containers for appropriate disposal. Upon completion,
the monitoring well was developed by over pumping with a submersible pump until the
discharge was visually clear and free of suspended material. A detailed construction and
boring log for W-31 s is presented in Appendix A.
2.2 INTERMEDIATE BEDROCK MONITORING WELLS
2.2.1 Monitoring Well W-31i
Monitoring well W-3 li was installed to evaluate the northern extent of the groundwater
plume in the intermediate depth bedrock. The monitoring well was located adjacent to
monitoring well W-31 s, approximately 2,000 feet downgradient of the textile plant along
Wendover Road. The location was selected based on the groundwater flow direction, the
available groundwater quality data, and the available access (see Figure 2-1).
P.\proj\OJ I J,011\102.doc 2-2
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
m
n
0
D
D
u
I
The boring for W-31 i was advanced to the top of competent bedrock at approximately
22 feet using a I 0-inch air-hammer. The boring was advanced an additional 2 feet into
the upper portion of the bedrock, for a total of 24 feet. A 6-inch steel surface casing was
placed from the base of the borehole to the surface, and the annular space was sealed with
a bentonite/cement grout. The surface casing acts to prevent the downward movement of
potential contamination from the saprolite into the upper bedrock unit.
The boring was then advanced into the upper bedrock using a 6-inch air-hammer. As the
boring was advanced, interval packer tests were conducted on approximately ten-foot
depth intervals to evaluate bedrock permeability in order to select an appropriate screen
depth interval. The interval packer tests were conducted by isolating a borehole interval
and applying a constant hydrostatic pressure for a period of ten minutes. At the end of a
ten-minute period a total formation inflow was measured. Interval packer tests were
conducted from a depth of 24 feet to 72 feet. Table 2-1 presents the results of the interval
packer tests. For W-31 i, no formation inflow was observed between 24 feet and 32 feet.
Small amounts of formation inflow, approximately 0.4 gallons and 0.5 gallons per
interval packer test, were observed from 32 feet to 62 feet. No formation inflow was
observed from a depth of 62 feet to 72 feet. Once the packer tests were completed, the
packer assembly was removed from the borehole and the borehole water was removed.
After removal of the borehole water, it was observed that formation water was cascading
into the boring from a fracture. It was determined that this fracture intersected the boring
between 36 feet and 40 feet in depth. The interval was retested with a total formation
inflow of 4.5 gallons for the ten-minute test period. Based on this packer test a screen
interval of 34 feet to 44 feet was selected for monitoring well W-31 i.
The well was constructed by backfilling the boring with bentonite to a depth of 44 feet.
Ten feet of machine slotted 2-inch diameter 0.010-inch slot Schedule 40 PVC well screen
was placed at the top of the bentonite backfill. Schedule 40 PVC riser pipe was installed
from the top of the screen to the ground surface. Clean washed silica sand, appropriately
sized for the screen, was placed in the annulus from the base of the screen up to 2 feet
above the top of the screen. A bentonite seal 3 feet in thickness was placed above the
r:\proj\OJ I 3.0JJ\1102.doc 2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sand, followed by cement/bentonite grout (Type I Portland with 2 percent to 4 percent
bentonite by weight, e.g., 14 to 15 pounds/gallon) to the surface. A flush-mount
protective casing and a 2-foot by 2-foot concrete pad was installed at grade level. Drill
cuttings were placed in DOT-approved containers for appropriate disposal. Upon
completion, the monitoring well was developed by overpumping with a submersible
pump until the discharge was visually clear and free of suspended material. A detailed
construction and boring log for W-3 li is presented in Appendix A.
2.2.2 Monitoring Well W-32i
Monitoring well W-32i was installed to evaluate the southern extent of the groundwater
plume in the intermediate bedrock. The monitoring well was located approximately
2,000 feet downgradient of the textile plant to the south along Garner Bagnal Boulevard.
The location of the monitoring well was selected based on the groundwater flow
direction, the available groundwater quality data, and available access. The well was
located approximately 1,000 feet south of monitoring well W-29i in the North Carolina
DOT right-of-way along Garner Bagnal Boulevard (see Figure 2-1 ).
The boring for W-32i was advanced to the top of competent bedrock at a depth of
approximately 91 feet using a 10-inch air-hammer. The boring was advanced an
additional 2 feet into the upper portion of the bedrock, for a total of 93 feet. A 6-inch
steel surface casing was place from the base of the borehole to the surface, and the
annular space was sealed with a bentonite/cement grout.
The boring was then advanced into the upper bedrock using a 6-inch air-hammer. As the
boring was advanced, interval packer tests were conducted on ten-foot intervals to
evaluate bedrock permeability in order to select an appropriate screen interval. Interval
packer tests were conducted from a depth of 93 feet to 132 feet. Table 2-1 presents the
results of the interval packer tests. For W-32i, approximately 3.4 gallons of formation
inflow was observed from 93 feet to 102 feet. However, the inflow for this interval was
attributed to a poor packer seal. Approximately 2.5 gallons and 3.8 gallons of inflow
P.\proj\Ol 13 08\102.doc 2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
were observed from test intervals 102 feet to 112 feet, and 122 feet to 132 feet,
respectively. No packer test results were obtained for 112 feet to 122 feet due to an
inability to seat the packers. Based on the packer test results a screen interval of 112 feet
to 132 feet was selected.
Ten feet of machine slotted 2-inch diameter 0.010-inch slot Schedule 40 PVC well screen
were placed at the base of the boring at 132 feet. Schedule 40 PVC riser pipe was
installed from the screen to the ground surface. Clean washed silica sand, appropriately
sized for the screen, was placed in the annulus from the base of the screen up to 2 feet
above the top of the screen. A bentonite seal 3 feet in thickness was placed above the
sand, followed by cement/bentonite grout (Type I Portland with 2 percent to 4 percent
bentonite by weight, e.g., 14 to 15 pounds/gallon) to the surface. A flush-mount
protective casing and a 2-foot by 2-foot concrete pad were installed at-grade level. Drill
cuttings were placed in DOT-approved containers for appropriate disposal. Upon
completion, the monitoring well was developed by pumping with a submersible pump
until the discharge was visually clear and free of suspended material. A detailed
construction and boring log for W-32i is presented in Appendix A.
2.3 DEEP BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
Monitoring well W-20d was installed within the underlying bedrock to evaluate the
vertical extent of the constituent migration. The monitoring well was located
downgradient of the textile plant to the· north, adjacent to monitoring wells W-20s and
W-20i. Initially, this boring was advanced to a depth of approximately 99 feet with a
10-inch air-hammer. This corresponds to approximately 5 feet below the depth of
adjacent monitoring well W-20i. A 6-inch steel surface casing was placed from the base
of the borehole to the surface and the annular space was sealed with bentonite/cement
grout.
The boring was then advanced into the bedrock using a 6-inch air-hammer. As the boring
was advanced, interval packer tests were conducted on ten-foot intervals to evaluate
P ,\proj\031 J .08\s02,doc 2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
bedrock permeability in order to select an appropriate screen depth interval. Interval
packer tests were conducted from a depth of 122 feet to 202 feet. Table 2-1 presents the
results of the interval packer tests. For W-20d, no packer tests were conducted from 99
to 122 feet due to the highly fractured nature of the bedrock. The packers would not seal
through this interval. Three interval packer tests were conducted from 122 feet to
152 feet. The formation inflows associated with these intervals were observed to be
0.1 gallons, 0.8 gallons, and 0.05 gallons per test period, respectively. The greatest
formation inflow was observed from 152 feet to 162 feet, which flowed at approximately
9.9 gallons for the test period. Two additional intervals, 162 feet to 182 feet and 182 feet
to 202 feet were tested. No formation inflow was observed in these intervals.
During the packer tests, two intervals were isolated using the packers, and groundwater
samples were collected for preliminary VOC analysis. The sampling intervals were
122 feet to 142 feet and 142 feet to 162 feet. The analytical results identified 23 µg/L
chloroform for interval 122 feet to 142 feet. The analytical results for interval 142 feet to
I 62 feet identified 13 ~tg/L chloroform and 5.5 µg/L tetrachloroethene, also called
perchloroethylene (PCE). Analytical results are contained in Appendix F-1. No samples
were collected from below 162 feet because no appreciable formation permeability was
observed.
The interval packer testing demonstrated that the base of the upper fractured zone
terminated at a depth of approximately I 62 feet below the ground surface at W-20d.
Below a depth of 162 feet, no permeability was observed, showing that 40 feet of
potential aquitard separates the upper fractured unit from the deeper groundwater units.
As a result of the interval packer testing and preliminary groundwater VOC results, a
screen interval from 152 feet to 162 feet was selected to characterize the vertical extent of
groundwater contamination. The selected screen interval represents the base of the upper
fractured zone at this location.
The boring was backfilled with bentonite to a depth of 162 feet. Ten feet of machine
slotted 2-inch diameter 0.010-inch slot Schedule 40 PVC well screen were placed at the
P:\proj\0313.0IJ\s02 doc 2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
base of the boring at a depth of 162 feet. Schedule 40 PVC riser pipe was installed from
the screen to the ground surface. Clean washed silica sand, appropriately sized for the
screen, was placed in the annulus from the base of the screen up to 2 feet above the top of
the screen. A bentonite seal 3 feet in thickness was placed above the sand, followed by
cement/bentonite grout (Type I Portland with 2 percent to 4 percent bentonite by weight,
e.g., 14 to 15 pounds/gallon) to the surface. A flush-mount protective casing and a 2-foot
by 2-foot concrete pad was installed at grade level. Drill cuttings were placed in
DOT-approved containers for appropriate disposal. Upon completion, the monitoring
well was developed by pumping with a submersible pump until the discharge was
visually clear and free of suspended material. A detailed construction and boring log for
W-20d is presented in Appendix A.
P.\proj\03 l 3,08\s02.doe 2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1 c.
INTERVAL PACKER TEST RES UL TS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Test Interval
Depth
(ft)
Monitoring Well W-3li
24 -32
32 -42
32 -42 Duplicate
42 -52
52 -62
62 -72
42 -72
Monitoring Well W-32i
93 -102
102-112
122 -132
Monitoring Well W-20d
122 -132
132 -142
142 -152
152 -162
162-182
182 -202
Hydrostatic
Pressure
(psi.)
38
30
40
36
43
50
45
67
78
95
85.4
92
99
106
115
115
Total
Formation Inflow'
(gal.)
0
0.5
4.5
0.4
0.4
0
0
3.4b
2.5
3.8
0.1
0.8
0.05
9.9
0
0
'Total flow in gallons for the 10 minute duration of the interval packer test.
bin flow attributed to poor packer seal.
q:\proj\OJI 3.0H\Tab\e 2• I Pagel of!
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
If.
I
I
I
I 0 0 ,..,
II -I w ..., ., u
(/) ,_
I 0 ...,
Q_
0,
0,
I. ' " ' ,..,
w ,_
I c§
0 N
I I ,.., ,..,
0 a.
ci
I z
'-' z ;.
r?
I 0
3o~o '!iiiiiiiii"""""'liiiiil"!!o ~~~35iiiiooaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisoo
SCALE FEET
FIGURE 2-1
MONITORING WELL
LOCATION MAP
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE, OU3
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
60313.009 • 3/99
BROWN AND
CALDWELL Nashville, Tennessee
I
.1
I,
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER
Both on-Site and off-Site sampling were performed to further delineate the horizontal and
vertical extent of constituents of concern, to evaluate metals concentrations, and to
measure biodegradation parameters within the groundwater plume, Additionally, potable
water from residential groundwater drinking wells located downgradient of the Site was
sampled in order to establish a broader database of groundwater quality samples,
'
Groundwater samples were collected during five individual sampling events, Initial
baseline sampling was conducted in May of 1998 by sampling 21 monitoring wells,
Following the installation of monitoring well W-20d, groundwater sampling of the well
was performed in August 1998, Access issues delayed the installation of monitoring
wells W-3ls, W-31i, and W-32i until November 1998 when they were installed and
sampled, The residential wells were sampled during the November 1998 sampling event
To enhance the natural attenuation evaluation, a second set of groundwater samples were
collected from 27 wells in December 1998, To confirm sampling results, grodndwater
samples were collected from three wells in January 1999, Analytical data reborts are
presented in Appendix F,
Groundwater sampling and analyses were conducted in accordance with the procedures
and methods in the Aquaterra FSP and Aquaterra Quality Assurance Project Planl (QAPP)
I dated February 25, 1994, except as amended by the RD Work Plan, all of which had been
I I
previously approved by the USEP A, The analytical methods are listed in Table 3-1,
I Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are also listed in Table 3-1. Metals, VOCs, and
pesticide analyses we;e performed using DQO level IV with independent.data Jalidation
since the parameters are a measure of groundwater quality at the Site. The· indbpendent
data validation was performed by Environmental Data Services, Ltd. (EDS) of rhdianola,
Pennsylvania. DQO level I was used for the natural attenuation field measureJents and
DQO level III was used for other natural attenuation parameters. The field kctivities I were performed under a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan as provided in the RD Work
Plan.
P.\PROJ\OJ IJ.08\I0J.doc 3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . ,·
I
I
'.-•'
I
I
I
3.1 MONITORING WELL SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
3.1.1 Baseline Sampling of Groundwater
The initial baseline sampling was conducted in May 1998. Twenty-one of the monitoring
wells were 'identified for baseline sampling and analyses and are listed in Tlble 3-2.
On-Site and off-Site sampling were performed to evaluate metals concentratioJs and to
evaluate natural attenuation. Table 3-2 also identifies the types of analyses perfo~med on
each monitoring well sampled. Since startup of the Operable Unit I (OU!) groJndwater
extraction system was scheduled for May 1998, it was necessary to collect and ahalyze a I
portion of the monitoring well samples prior to this startup and in parallel with
I
preparation of the RD Work Plan for OU3. This sampling effort was intended to take
advantage of the opportunity to obtain baseline data prior to the initiation of the o1peration
of the OU! groundwater extraction system. The baseline sampling plan (l~tters to
Mr. McKenzie Mallary of USEP A Region IV from Mr. Kenton H. Oma of Brlwn and
Caldwell (formerly ECKENFELDER INC.) dated April 17 and 28, 1998) was )pproved
by the USEP A.
Metals concentrations were observed at greater than twice the background concentratio.ns
in some of the groundwater analytical data collected during the Remedial Inve!tigation
(RI) entitled "Final Remedial Investigation Report, FCX-Statesville Superfuhd Site,
Operable Unit 3, Statesville, North Carolina," dated July 1996 by Aquateta, Inc.
Historical data and soils analyses indicated that significant sources of metals Jave not
been associated with operations at the Site. As a result, a select number of mdnitoring
wells were sampled and analyzed for total and filtered metals during the RI .
Because filtered groundwater results are generally not accepted by the USEP A, the
groundwater samples from selected wells that were previously analyzed as filtered
samples were re-sampled using a slow purge sampling technique. Slow purge techniques
have been recommended and accepted by the USEP A at other sites and alloJ for an I
unfiltered sample to be collected with significant reductions in suspended solids. The
P:\PROJ\OJ 13.08\JOJ .doc 3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
slow purge method involves purging the wells at rates of less than 1 liter pe~ minute.
Seven monitoring wells were sampled, including background well W-1 ls, to evaluate
metals concentrations in groundwater (Table 3-2). Table 3-1 presents the analytical
reference methods for analyses of these baseline samples.
Natural attenuation 1s being evaluated to address the constituents of concern in
groundwater in conjunction with source control remedies. The necessaryl natural
attenuation parameters that were used to evaluate the Site for the occurrence of reductive
dechlorination in Site groundwater are presented in Table 3-1. The groundwater samples
were evaluated using a combination of measurements performed by the field sampling I personnel and laboratory analyses performed by the Eckenfelder Laboratory, LLC.
Because of the samples' sensitivity to exposure to the atmosphere, carbon dioxide,
· iron (II), manganese (II), sulfide, and dissolved oxygen were measured in the field, as
were the traditional field parameters (conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential, pH, and
temperature). Analytical methods are listed in Table 3-1. During the baseline sampling, I
dissolved oxygen was measured using a Hach kit; alkalinity was measured in the I
laboratory. (Personal communication with John Wilson of USEPA, Ada, Oklahoma
I
indicates that the Ada group has seen little difference between field and laboratory
measurements of alkalinity.)
The list of natural attenuation parameters in Table 3-1 includes the parameters identified
in the ROD as "should be added to the current list" and the "additional parametdrs (that)
may be added" except for hydrogen. Hydrogen was excluded due to the fact [that the
method was not readily available at the time of the RD Work Plan submission. The list is
consistent with the preliminary "Technical Protocol for Natural Attenudtion of
Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater" published by the USEP A. In addition, tJe list is
consistent with the "Draft Region IV Approach to Natural Attenuation of Chl~rinated
Solvents", with the exception of alkalinity, which was measured in the laboratory.
P:\PROJ\OJ IJ.08\sOJ.doc 3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1.2 Groundwater Plume Definition Monitoring Wells
The four newly installed wells (W-20d, W-3 ls, W-3 li, and W-32i) were sampled to
assess the potential downgradient and vertical extent of the groundwater plume (see
Figure 2-1 ). As specified in the ROD and ESD, groundwater samples were analyzed for
VOCs, pesticides, and metals. The wells were also analyzed for natural attenuation
parameters as outlined on Table 3-1. The sampling was performed according to the RD
Work Plan.
3.1.3 Second Groundwater Sampling Event
As a supplement to the natural attenuation evaluation, a second set of groundwater
samples was collected in December 1998. Twenty-five wells were analyzed for natural
attenuation parameters, two wells were sampled for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs
only, and one well (W-Ss) was re-sampled for mercury. A listing of the wells sampled
and specified analyses are presented on Table 3-3. Table 3-1 presents the analytical
reference methods for analyses of these second event samples. A Chemetric kit was used
for dissolved oxygen measurements in place of the HACH kit that was used during the
baseline sampling. The Chemetric kit was deemed to be more effective and efficient than
the HACH kit.
3.1.4 Confirmation Groundwater Sampling
The December groundwater sampling results indicate that concentrations of VOCs in
three of the wells were not consistent with those observed in the prior sampling events.
These data indicated higher PCE and other VOC concentrations than had been detected
previously in W-19s, W-20i, and W-24s. Concentrations in other wells appeared to be
consistent with previous samples.
To evaluate these elevated VOC concentrations, two additional groundwater samples
were collected from each of the wells W-20i and W-24s. At the request of the USEPA
r:\pRQJ\OJ 13,08\aOJ.doc 3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) monitoring well W-30i was added as a control point. The groundwater
samples for each well were collected on two different days; representing two unique
sampling events. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs. Prior to collecting
each sample, the wells were slow purged consistent with methods previously used at the
site. The sampling was performed using methods in accordance with the RD Work Plan.
3.2 RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER WELL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The ROD indicates that in order to establish a broader database of groundwater quality
and protect private well users living downgradient from the Site, groundwater samples
from residential drinking water wells should be collected and analyzed prior to
implementation of the Remedial Action (RA). A survey of residential drinking water
wells was conducted during the RI. The survey identified no residential drinking water
wells within a radius of 0.5 mile from the Site, however; residential drinking water wells
were identified within 3 miles of the Site.
The closest downgradient residential drinking water wells that are within the same
drainage basin as the Site are located approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the textile
plant along Buffalo Shoals Road (see Figure 2 of the Final Remedial Investigation
Report, FCX-Statesville Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Statesville, North Carolina,
1996). The two wells (Wooten Residence and Hinson Residence) closest to the site from
this area were sampled. As specified in the ROD and ESD, the groundwater samples
from these wells were analyzed for VOCs, pesticides, and metals (plume definition
parameters). Sample collection and analysis were in accordance with the USEPA-
approved RD Work Plan.
P:\PROJ\OJ 13.08\sOJ.doc 3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
3.3.1 Metals Analyses
Metal concentrations were observed at greater than twice the background concentrations
in some groundwater monitoring well samples collected during the RI. Historical data
and soils analyses indicated that significant sources of metals have not been associated
with activities at the Site. As a result, a select group of monitoring wells was sampled for
total and filtered metals analyses. In all cases, metals concentrations were significantly
lower in the filtered samples. The RI metals data strongly support the conclusion that
metal concentrations in Site groundwater are a result of suspended solids and are not a
result of Site activities. Since filtered groundwater sample results are generally not
accepted by the USEPA, monitoring wells W-Ss, W-6s, W-9s, W-16s, W-16i, W-17s,
and W-11 s (background) were re-sampled and analyzed for metals using a slow purge
technique.
Comparisons of the unfiltered, filtered, and slow purge metals results are presented in
Table 3-4. As predicted, the slow purge sampling resulted in a general reduction in the
reported metals concentrations as compared to the unfiltered results. However,
concentrations of aluminum, iron, and manganese in the slow purge and unfiltered
samples were found to exceed the ROD-specified maximum concentration limits (MCLs)
as listed in Table 8-1 of the ROD. Aluminum exceeded the ROD MCLs of 50 µg/L to
200 µg/L for the seven wells that were sampled. Measured concentrations for aluminum
ranged from 87.6 µg/L to 7,380 µg/L, with an average concentration of2,650 µg/L. The
concentration of aluminum in background monitoring well W-11 s was 1,850 µg/L, which
is approximately nine times the ROD MCL. The observed aluminum concentrations are
believed to represent suspended solids within the samples. Even though slow purge
sampling was used, fine mica flakes from the saprolite formation were observed in the
samples. Therefore the aluminum concentrations observed in the samples are considered
to reflect these fine suspended particles, rather than indicating impact to groundwater.
P.\PROJ\OJ I J.08\103,doc 3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
Iron concentrations exceeded the ROD MCL of 300 µg/L in six of the seven wells
sampled. Iron concentrations ranged from 157 µg/L to 5,160 µg/L with an average
concentration of 2,030 µg/L. The concentration of iron in background monitoring well
W-lls was 2,170µg/L, which is approximately seven times the ROD MCL. Iron
concentrations in the County have been observed to range from 40 µg/L to 8,700 µg/L
("Feasibility Study Report, FCX-Statesville Superfund Site OU3, Statesville, North
Carolina", dated July 23, 1996 by Aquaterra, Inc.). Based on the observed
concentrations, comparisons to background well W-11 s, and the Iredell County
concentration range, the iron concentrations in the groundwater at the Site are considered
to reflect natural background conditions or suspended sediments.
Manganese concentrations exceeded the ROD MCL of 50 µg/L in five of the seven wells
sampled. Manganese concentrations in the shallow saprolite wells ranged from 1.0 µg/L
to 1,120 µg/L with an average concentration of 286 µg/L. The concentration of
manganese in background monitoring well W-1 ls was 83.9 µg/L, which exceeds the
ROD MCL of 50 µg/L. Therefore these manganese concentrations are considered to
reflect natural background conditions.
Mercury analyses were performed on groundwater samples from wells W-Ss, W-6s,
W-7s, W-9s, W-16s, W-16i, W-17s, and W-1 ls during the May 1998 baseline sampling
event. The mercury results from this sampling event were rejected during validation of
the analytical results due to a deviation in the required Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) analysis methodology. Though these results were rej~cted for DQO level IV, the
results can be considered valid for DQO level III screening data. These screening results
indicated that mercury was only detected in monitoring well W-5s at a concentration of
10 µg/L, the only exceedance of the ROD MCL of 2 µg/L. Monitoring well W-5s was
re-sampled for mercury in December 1998 and again measured at 10 µg/L. Historically
mercury has not been observed in concentrations above the MCL at the Site. Even
though concentrations of mercury have been observed in excess of the 2 µg/L MCL in
P:\PROJ\OJ 13.0l\sOl .doc 3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W-Ss, it is considered an anomaly unrelated to the manufacturing process at the facility
and is not considered to be a Site-wide issue.
Groundwater samples for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals were collected from the
newly installed plume definition wells (W-20d, W-3 Is, W-31 i, and W-32i) and from the
two downgradient residential wells that were sampled. The results of the T AL metals
analyses are presented in Table 3-5. Consistent with the aforementioned comparison,
aluminum, iron, and manganese were found to exceed the ROD MCLs. However, these
concentrations are considered to represent suspended solids in the sample and/or natural
background conditions (as described above). Noteworthy are the significant differences
I in metals concentrations associated with W-31s and the W-31s duplicate samples; there is
a four to five times increase in metals concentrations in the W-3 ls duplicate sample. A
review of the field notes indicated that W-31s pumped dry during sampling, resulting in
increased suspended solids in the duplicate sample. The elevated metals concentrations
in the duplicate sample are considered to be the result of increased suspended solids in
the sample.
3.3.2 VOC Analyses
The results of the VOC analyses are presented in Table 3-6. In general the VOC results
were consistent with the RI results with the following exceptions: PCE concentrations
increased since the RI sampling at downgradient monitoring wells W-20s and W-29i.
For a detailed discussion and presentation of the RI data refer to the "Final Remedial
Investigation Report, FCX-Statesville Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Statesville, North
Carolina," dated July 1996 by Aquaterra, Inc. The PCE concentration in well W-20s
increased from 3 µg/L in 1996 to 20 µg/L and 27 µg/L in 1998. The PCE concentration
in well W-29i increased from I 5 µg/L and 23 µg/L in 1996 to 32 µg/L and 42 µg/L in
1998. The increases in PCE concentrations in these wells could represent variations in
sampling and analysis or a slight expansion of the groundwater plume. since the RI
sampling. It is difficult to determine if these increases represent a significant trend using
P.\PROJ\OJ 13.08\IOJ.doc 3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the data to date since, typically, about eight sampling events over a period of several
years are needed to establish significant trends in groundwater data.
Analytical results from the December 1998 sampling event indicated that, in four of the
wells (W-19s, W-20i, W-24s and W-28i), PCE and other VOC concentrations were
higher than had been detected previously in these wells. Monitoring wells W-l 9s and W-
28i are located downgradient of, but closer to, the source area. PCE concentrations in
these wells increased from 26 µg/L in May 1998 to 250 µg/L in December 1998 for
W-19s and from 170µg/L in May 1998 to 640µg/L in December 1998 for, W-28i.
Monitoring well W-20i is off-site and located downgradient of the source area and is
considered to be a key monitoring point for the natural attenuation evaluation. The PCE
concentration in this well increased from 310 µg/L in May 1998 to I, I 00 µg/L in
December 1998. Concentrations in other wells appeared to be consistent with previous
samples.
To evaluate whether the December 1998 results in W-20i are anomalous or indicative of
significant changes, monitoring well W-20i was re-sampled in January 1999. At the
request of the USEPA, well W-30i was added to the sampling event. This monitoring
well has demonstrated consistent results historically and was added as a control point.
Two groundwater samples were collected from each well, and were collected on two
different days, representing two unique sampling events. The January 1999 PCE
concentrations for W-20i were 380 µg/L and 450 µg/L. These results are consistent with
historical (pre-December 1998) PCE concentrations from W-20i. The January 1999 PCE
concentrations for the control well W-30i were both 1,100 µg/L, a two-fold increase in
concentration since December 1998. Although these results may indicate an expansion
of the plume, it appears more likely that significant variations in concentrations, both up
and down, may occur between sampling events (refer to Section 4.3. 1 for additional
discussion of variations in concentration).
During the January sampling event it was discovered that monitoring wells W-24s was
mislabeled, resulting in the wrong well being sampled during the December 1998
P.\PRO1\0313,08\I0J.doc 3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sampling event. Monitoring well W-24s was re-sampled and the analytical results were
consistent with that observed during the RI and May 1998 sampling events.
The four newly installed wells (W-20d, W-3ls, W-3li, and W-32i) were sampled to
assess the potential downgradient and vertical extent of the groundwater plume (see
Figure 2-1). Though voes were detected at concentrations of less than 1.0 µg/L, no
voes were reported that exceed the MeLs in the downgradient monitoring wells W-31 s,
W-3 li, and W-32i. However, in well W-20d, which was installed to assess the vertical
extent of the groundwater plume, the PeE concentrations were observed at 34 µg/L and
12 µg/L. These PeE concentrations exceed the ROD MeL of 0.7 µg/L. Additionally,
1,2-dichloropropane was reported at 2.8 µg/L, which exceeds the ROD MeL of 0.5 µg/L.
As a result, groundwater quality data from W-20d are considered representative of the
vertical extent of the groundwater plume at this location. The interval packer test
demonstrated that the base of the upper fractured zone associated with W-20d terminated
at a depth of approximately 162 feet below grade level, which is equivalent to the base of
the well screen. Below a depth of 162 feet no permeability was observed in the
formation, indicating that there are at least 40 feet of media with significantly lower
permeability that separate the upper fractured unit from the deeper groundwater unit.
Additionally, W-28d, located on-Site, is screened at an elevation approximately 20 feet
below that of W-20d, but also above the media with significantly lower permeability.
Analytical results for samples collected during the RI from W-28d indicated that no
voes were present above the ROD MeLs.
No voes were detected in the two sampled downgradient residential water supply wells.
3.3.3 Pesticide Analyses
Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for pesticides from the newly installed
plume definition wells (W-20d, W-31s, W-3li, and W-32i) and from the two
downgradient residential wells, Wooten and Hinsen. The results of the pesticide analyses
are presented in Table 3-7. No pesticides were detected in the samples· collected from
P,\PROJ\031 J,08\s0J.doc 3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
monitoring well W-3 li or the two residential wells. Alpha-chlordane was detected once
at a concentration of 0.0024 µg/L in W-3ls. Low concentrations of delta-BHC
(0.0078 µg/L), gamma-BHC (0.0048 µg/L), and methoxychlor (0.025 µg/L) were
detected in the W-20d sample. The delta-BHC and methoxychlor detections were
flagged with a B, indicating the compound was also detected in a blank, an indication of
possible field or laboratory artifacts. Nine pesticides were detected at low concentrations
in W-32i, which is downgradient of the former FCX facility and along a major road. The
detected pesticide concentrations ranged from 0.002 µg/L to 0.079 µg/L. No detected
compounds associated with this sampling were found to exceed the USEP A drinking
water MCLs.
P.\PROJ\OJ l).08\!;0l.doc 3-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES AND ANALYTICAL METHOD REFERENCES
FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROM THE MONITORING WELLS
FCX-STA TESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Sample Parameter
Plume Definition
Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Natural Attenuation
Field Measurements:
Laboratory Analyses:
Chemical Test/Analyte Parameter
TCL voes
TCL pesticides
TAL metals
T AL metals only
Mercury
TCL voes
,
Carbon dioxide
Iron (II)
Manganese (II)
Sulfide
Conductivity
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
pH
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Temperature
Ammonium nitrogen
Chloride
Iron (total)
Manganese (total)
Nitrate/nitrite
Phosphate (total)
Sulfate
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Ethane, ethene, and methanee
TCL voes
Alkalinity (carbonate/bicarbonate)f
-Dissolved total organic carbon (TOC)
Volatile fatty acids
Analytical Reference Methoda
Aquaterra QAPP Table 2
Aquaterra QAPP Table 2
Aquaterra QAPP Table 3
Aquaterra QAPP Table 3
Aquaterra QAPP Table 3
Aquaterra QAPP Table 2
Hach Kite
Hach KitC
Hach KitC
Hach KitC
ASTM Method D-1125-82
ASTM Method D-1498-76
ASTM Method D-1293-84
Hach Kite or Chemtric KitC
NAd
USEPA Method 350.3
USEPA Method 325.2
Aquaterra QAPP Table 3
Aquaterra QAPP Table 3
USEPA Method 353.2
USEPA Method 365.2
USEPA Method 375.4/9038
USEPA Method 351.4
USEPA Method 8015-Modified
Aquaterra QAPP Table 2
Standard Methods 2320B
USEPA Method 415.1
Standard Methods 5560C
DQO Levcib
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
III
III
III
III
III
IV
III
III
III
3Sarnple preservatives, when required by the method, were added to sample containers at the analytical laboratory prior to sampling.
Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs) were according to the contract laboratory procedure (CLP) methods referenced in the
Aquaterra QAPP Tables 2 and 3.
boQOs and QA/QC frequencies per "Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual",
May 1996, USEPA Region 4. Level I = Field Screening; Level II = Field Analyses; Level III = Screening Data with Definitive
Confirmation; Level IV = Definitive Data.
CMethods were per manufacture's procedures.
dNot Applicable.
eAnalyses were subcontracted either to Specialized Assays, Nashville, Tennessee or Microsecps 1ncorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
fsarnplcs collected in zero headspace containers to prevent exchange of carbon dioxide between the samples and the atmosphere.
B \\BCNSH03\PROJECTS\PROJ\03l3.08\Table 3-1.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3-2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS SELECTED FOR
BASELINE SAMPLING DURING PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Monitoring Well
W-5s
W-6s
W-9s
W-!Jsb
W-16s
W-16i
W-17s
W-5i
W-lQiC
W-12iC
W-12sc
W-18sC
W-19s
W-20s
W-20i
W-22s
W-22i
W-24s
W-28i
W-29i
W-30i
•
MAY 1998
Groundwater Sampling Parameters'
Metals Natural Attenuation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'The analytical methods for the analyses of groundwater samples are given in Table 3-1.
bMetals evaluation background well.
'Natural attenuation background well.
\\BCNSH0J\PROJECTS\PROf\0313 ,08\T ABLE 3-2.doc Page I of\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE3-3
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS SELECTED FOR
SECOND ROUND OF SAMPLING DURING PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Monitoring Well
W-5s
W-9s
W-16s
W-16i
W-17s
W-ls
W-5i
W-8i
W-!0ib
W-12ib
W-12sb
W-18sb
W-19s
W-20s
W-20i
W-22s
W-22i
W-24s
W-26i
W-28i
W-29i
W-30i
W-20d
W-31s
W-3li
W-32i
voes
X
X
DECEMBER 1999
Groundwater Sampling Parameters'
Metals voes and Natural Attenuation
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"The analytical methods for the analyses of groundwater samples are given in Table 3-1.
~atural attenuation background well.
\\BCNSI !0l\J'ROffiCTS\PROJ\OJ I J .08\Tablc J.J .doc
----.. -
Monitoring
Well Unfiltered'
(µg/L)
RODMCLs
W-5s 10,700
W-6s 8,360
W-7s 3,150
W-9s/W-9s dupe 36,100
W-16s 1;220
W-16i 202
W-17s 52,600
W-11s' 1,340
P:\J'ROJ\0313.01\TABl.ES 3...f .t. 3-5As,TAB1£ 3..(
-lililil - - - -
TABLE3-4
GROUNDWATER METALS RESULTS FOR
FILTERED, UNFILTERED, AND SLOW PURGE SAMPLING
FCX-STATESVJLLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Aluminum Arsenic
Filtered' SlowPurgeb Unfiltered Filtered Slow Purge Unfiltered
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
50-200 50
104 2,510N' BQL BQL I.OU 210
BQL 5,870 NJ BQL BQL I.OU 108
1,650 NA 24.0 23.7 NA BQL
123 769 EJ/1,760 EJ BQL BQL I.OU/I.OU 162
BQL 999 EJ BQL BQL I.OU 136
BQL 87.6BEJ BQL BQL I.OU BQL
271 7,380 EJ 4.13 BQL I.OU 1,820
NA 1,850 NJ BQL NA I.OU
---iiiil
iiiill ..
Barium
Filtered Slow Purge
(µg/L) (µg/L)
2,000
164 265
BQL 62.9B
BQL NA
BQL 27.7 B/35.5 B
53.5. 44.2B
BQL 9.7 B
661 953
NA 48.6B
J>qc 1 ofl
liiiil liiiil --
Monitoring
Well
RODMCLs
W-5s
W-6s
W-7s
W-9s/W-9s dupe
W-16s
W-16i
W-17s
W-1 ls'
P:WROJ\O)U.03\TABu:s 3--4 .t. .3-S.xls.TABLE 3--4
------ - -
Unfiltered
(µg/L)
15,400
9,330
1,700
19,800
5,770
187
18,300
113
TABLEJ-4
GROUNDWATER METALS RESULTS FOR
FILTERED, UNFILTERED, AND SLOW PURGE SAMPLING
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OUJ
Iron Lead
Filtered Slow Purge Unfiltered Filtered Slow Purge
(µg/L) (µg;L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
300 15
BQL 2,930 16.6 BQL 6.9 N•J
BQL 5,160 5.98 BQL 4N•J
BQL NA BQL BQL NA
61.5 I ,080/2,430 24.7 BQL 1.3 B/1.9 B
BQL 721 6.17 BQL 1.1
BQL 157 BQL BQL 0.4 U
58.8 1,700 146 3.69 12
NA 2,170 5.4 3.8 N•J
Manganese
Unfiltered Filtered
(µg/L) (µg/L)
50
1,350 729
326 54.7
3,190 3,210
600 228
140 42.7
BQL BQL
1,280 369
248
liiiil
Slow Purge
(µg/L)
1,120
173
NA
36.5/52.9
41.3
I.OB
494
83.9
'Unfiltered and filtered metals results are from Rl sampling. (Final Remedial Investigation Report, FCX Statesville
Supcrfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Statesville, North Carolina~ July 23, 1996; Prepared by Aquatcrra, Inc.).
bSJow purge metals results are from pre-design investigation sampling which was performed in May 1998.
0Data qualifiers are as follows:
• indicates RPD or absolute difference for duplicate analysis was not within control limits.
B indicates the analyte was detected in a blank sample.
BQL indicates below quanitation limit.
E indicates the reported value is estimated due to the presence of matrix interference.
J indicates the result is estimated.
N indicates predigested spike recovery was not within control limits.
NA indicates not analyzed.
U indicates below reporting limits (the number which preceds the U is the reporting limit).
dBackground monitoring well.
liiiil
Page 2 of2
------------

-
-

-
--

-
-liiiil -
Well Sampling
Date
RODMCL
W-11s May-98
W-31s Nov-98
W-31s Dup. Nov-98
W-31i Nov-98
W-32s Nov-98
W-20d' Sep-98
Wooten WeUC Nov-98
Hinson WeW Nov-98
P:IJ'ROMl\J.CI\TABLES l-1 ~ l-5.m,TABLE l-S
TABLE3-5
GROUNDWATER METAL RESULTS FOR PLUME DEFINITION WELLS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadium Calcium Chromium
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
50-200 50 2,000
1,850 NJ' 2.5 B I.OU 48.6 B 0.1 B 0.1 U 68.2B 14.4
10,800 1.2 U 1.3 u 113B 0.32 B 0.10 U 11,700 22.2
49,800 1.8 U l.3U 397 2.0B 0.29B 17,600 118
74B 1.4 U 1.3 u 27.1 B 0.I0U 0.I0U 8,570 1.2 B
1,200 1.2 U 1.3 U 10.2 B 0.10 U 0.10 U 16,300 I I.I
188 B 1.2 U 1.3 U 543 0.10 U 0.19 B 105,000 5.6B
6.0 U 1.2 U 1.3 u 47.2 B 0.10 U 0.10 U 4,200 B 0.30U
3.5 U 1.6 U 1.3U 12.5 B 0.10 U 0.I0U 25,600 0.30U
Cobalt Copper Iron Lead
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
300 15
15.7 B 4.6B 2,170 3.8 N*J
7.1 B 10.6 B 12,800 4.0
25.5 B 48.6 64,100 13.9
0.58B 0.80U 39.9B 1.7 B
1.3 B 3.3 B 1,200 1.7 B
0.73 B 4.7B 40.6 B 2.0B
0.54 B 12.6 B 12.8 B 2.4 B
0.36 B 0.78 B I JO 0.80U
Pqc I of2
----
Well Sampling
Date
RODMCL
W-11s May-98
W-31s Nov-98
W-31s Dup. Nov-98
W-31i Nov-98
W-32s Nov-98
W-20d' Sep-98
Wooten Welf Nov-98
Hinson Welf Nov-98
P.IJ>ROJ'IIUl3.0S\TABLES 3-1 .t. 3-L<ls. TABLE J.,
liiliiil -lilll -- -- -
TABLE3-S
GROUNDWATER METAL RESULTS FOR PLUME DEFINITION WELLS
FCX-STA TESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium
(µg/L) (µg/L} (µg/L} (µg/L) (µg/L} (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
50
910 B 83.9 0.20V 12.4 B 1,090 B 0.9 BNJ 0.2B 3,990 B
6,010 975 0.I0U 11.8 B 3,390 BEJ 4.9BN 0.10 U 7,410 EJ
17,400 1,610 0.10 U 50.3 12,600 EJ 3.2BN 0.50U 8,330 EJ
2,800 B 4.5 B 0.10 U 1.8 B 2,610 BEJ 4.8BN 0.17 B 5,350 EJ
5,480 28.8 0.!OU 7.0B 1,730 BEJ 4.0BN 0.10 U 5,920 EJ
230B 0.88B 0.13 B 5.2B 212 B 1.7 B 0.l0U 109,000
2,400 B 3.4B 0.!0U 2.4 B 1,480 BEJ 2.0BN 0.17 B 4,440 BEJ
5,270 7.0B 0.10 U 0.79B 905 BEJ l.4UN 0.10 U 10,300 EJ
aData qualifiers are as follows:
• indicates RPO or absolute difference for duplicate analysis not within control limits.
B indicates the analyte was detected in a blank sample.
BQL indicates below quanitation limit.
E indicates the reported value is estimated due to the presence of matrix interference.
J indicates the result is estimated.
N indicates predigested spike recovery not within control limits.
NA indicates not analyzed.
U indicates below reporting limits (the number which preceds the U is the reporting limit).
'Data for W-20d from Sep-98 are DQO level Ill.
eResidential Well.
--iiiil
Thallium Vanadium Zinc
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L}
0.8UN 3.9 B 19.3 B
1.4 U 28.0 B 21.9
1.4 U 131 116
4.0U I.OB 37.5
1.5 B 7.1 B 244
1.4 U 4.8 B 18.4 B
1.4 U 0.20V 8.9B
1.4 U 0.20U 8.2 B
l'agclcfl
------
Monitoring Sampling
Well Date • Acetone
(µg/L)
W-1s Dec-98 NR'
W-5s May-98 61 UJ
W-5s Dec-98 NR
W-5s Dup. Dec-98 250UD
W-9s May-98 50UD
W-9s Dup. May-98 50UD
W-9s Dec-98 NR
W-12s May-98 5.0U
W-16s Dec-98 NR
W-17s May-98 1,200 UD
--- ------TABLE 3-6
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voe RESULTS IN GROUNDWATER FROM
PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
I, 1,2-I, 1, I-I, 1-
Carbon Chloro-Chloro-Trichloro-Trichloro-Dichiaro-
Benzene disulfide form methane ethane ethane ethane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
5.0 UD 5.0UD !.OJD 5.0U 5.0 UD 5.0UD 5.0UD
2.9 J 5.0UJ 2.2 J 5.0 UJ 131 140 DJ 340 DJ
200UJ 200UJ 200 UJ 200 UJ 200 UJ 85 J 270 J
_,
50UD 50UD 50UD 50UD 9.8 DJ I IO D 290D
IOUD IOUD 2.1 DJ IOUD IOUD IOUD IO UD
IOUD IOUD 2.2DJ IOUD IOUD IOUD IOUD
200 UD 200UD 200UD 200U 200UD 200UD 200UD
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U
200UD 200UD 25 DJ 200UD 200UD 200UD 200UD
250UD 250UD I IO DJ 250 UD 250UD 250UD 250 UD
I, 1-
Dichiaro-
ethene
(µg/L)
20U
83 J ,
76 J
IOOD
IOUD
IO UD
200UD
I.OU
200UD
250 UD
W-17s Dec-98 NR 10,000 UD 10,000 UD I0,000 UD 10,000 UD 10,000 UD 10,000 UD I0,000 UD 10,000 U
W-18s May-98 6.0U 1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
W-18s Dec-98 NR 1.0 U I.OU 1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U I.OU
W-19s May-98 12UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 0.56 DJ 2.5 UD. 2.5UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5UD
W-19s Dec-98 NR I.OU I.OU 1.0 J I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.3 J
W-20s May-98 5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.23 J I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
W-20s Dup. May-98 5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.21 J I.OU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U I.OU
W-20s Dec-98 NR I.OU I.OU 0.2 J I.OU I.OU IUD I.OU I.OU
W-22s May-98 5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.88 J I.I I.OU
W-22s Dec-98 NR I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.1 J I.OU 0.6 J 0.61 1.0 U
W-24s May-98 5.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U
W-24s Jan-99 · 5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.1 J I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.2 J 0.09 J
W-24s Dup. Jan-99 5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.06 J I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.2 J 0.08 J
P. I.PROJ\0313 .08\T ABLE 3-6.x.b
liiil -
1,2-1,2-
Dichiaro-Dichiaro-
ethane propane
(µg/L) (µg/L)
5.0UD 5.0UD
3.8 J 2.4 J
200UJ 200 UJ
50UD · 50UD
IOUD IOUD
IO UD IOUD
200UD 200UD
I.OU I.OU
200UD 200UD
250UD 57 DJ
10,000 UD 10,000 UD
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
2.5 UD 2.5 UD
I.OU
I.OU 0.28 J
I.OU 0.26 J
I.OU 0.4 J
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
Page I of6
--liliiiiiil
Monitoring
Well
W-3ls
W-3 ls Dup.
W-3ls
W-3 Is Dup.
W-5i
W-5i
W-8i
W-IOi
W-IOi
W-12i
W-12i
W-16i
W-20i
W-20i
W-20i
W-20i
W-22i
W-22i
W-26i
P:\PROJ\0313.08\T ABLE l~.xb
.. - -
Sampling
---iiiil ---.. TABLE3-6
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voe RESULTS IN GROUNDWATER FROM
PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
FCX-STA TESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
1, 1,2-1, I, I-I, I-
Carbon Chiaro-Chiaro-Trichloro-Trichloro-Dichiaro-
Date Acetone Benzene disulfide form methane ethane ethane ethane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
Nov-98 5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.25 J I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
Nov-98 5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.29 J I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
Dec-98 NR I.OU I.OU 0.05 J I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
Dec-98 NR I.OU I.OU 0.04 U I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
May-98 25UD 5.0UD 5.0UD 5.0UD 5.0UD 5.0UD 5.0UD 3.3 DJ
Dec-98 NR. I.OU I.OU 0.06 J 1.0UJ I.OU I.OU 5 J
Dec-98 44 J 0.08 J 0.5 J I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.2 J
May-98 5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
Dec-98 NR I.OUJ I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
May-98 310 DJ I.OU 0.39 J 0.141 I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
Dec-98 NR 0.04 J 0.05 J 0.3 J I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.5 J
Dec-98 NR 2.0UD 2.0UD 40 D 2.0U 2.0UD 2.0UD 2.0UD
May-98 IO UJ 2.0UJ 0.481 0.77 J 2.0UJ 2.0UJ 2.0UJ 2.0 UJ
Dec-98 NR 50UD 14 DJ 5 JD 50UD 50UD 50UD 50UD
Jan-99 5.0U 0.08 J I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.3 J
Jan-99 lOOUD 20UD 20UD 20UD 20U 20 U 20U 20UD
May-98 5.0U 0.281 I.OU 0.54 J I.OU 0.31 J 11 46D
Dec-98 NR IOU IOUD 0.8 J IO UJ IOUD 12D 58 J
Dec-98 3 J 0.1 J 0.4 J I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
-- -
liiil -
I, 1-1,2-1,2-
Dichloro-Dichloro-Dichloro-
ethene ethane propane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU
3.6DJ 5.0UD 5.0UD
4 I.OU I.OU
0.07 J I.OU 5
1.0 U I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU
0.2 J I.OU I.OU
0.4 DJ 0.9D1 20 D
0.4 J 2.0UJ 8.6 J
50UD 50UD 48 DJ
0.6 J I.OU 16
20 UD 20U 15JD
20 I.OU I.OU
20 D IOUD IOUD
I.OU I.OU I.OU
Page 2 of6
liiiiii -- - --
Monitoring Sampling
Well Date Acetone
(µg/L)
W-28i May-98 50UD
W-28i Dec-98 NR
W-29i May-98 12 UD
W-29i Dec-98 NR
W-29i Dup. Dec-98 NR
W-30i May-98 20UD
W-30i Dec-98 NR
W-30i Jan-99 5.0U
W-30i Jan-99 250UD
W-3li Nov-98 5.0U
W-3li Dec-98 · NR
W-32i Nav-98 5.0U
W-32i Dec-98 NR
W-20db Sep-98 22
W-20d Dec-98 12 J
P:\PROJ\0111.08\T ABLE l.6.x.b
---- - --TABLE3-6
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voe RESULTS IN GROUNDWATER FROM
PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
1,1,2-1, 1, 1-
---llill -iilil
l, 1-l, 1-1,2-1,2-
Carbon Chiaro-Chiaro-Trichloro-Trichloro-Dichiaro-Dichiaro-Dichiaro- Dichiaro-
Benzene disulfide form methane ethane ethane ethane ethene ethane propane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
I0UD IO UD I0UD I0UD I0UD I0UD I0UD 2.9 DJ I0UD I0UD
I0UD I0UD 2JD l00 U l0UD I0UD I0UD 14 D I0UD 0.8JD
2.5UD 2.5 UD I.I DJ 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5UD 5.4D 4.4 D 2.5 UD 2.5 UD
2.0UD 2.0UD I J 2.0 UJ 2.0UD 2.0UD 41 3D 2.0UD 2.0 UD
2.0UD 2.0UD I DJ 2.0 UDJ 2.0 UD 2.0UD 5 DJ 4D 2.0UD 2.0 UD
2.5 UD 2.5UD 2.5 UD 1.2 DJ 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD I.I DJ 2.5 UD 5.3 D
20UD 20UD 20UD 20U 20 UD 20UD 20UD 20U 20UD 5 DJ
0.2 J I.OU 0.4 J I.OU 0.2 J LOU 0.2 J 3 I.OU 5
50UD 50 UD 50UD 50UD 50UD 50UD 50 UD 50UD 50UD 50UD
I.OU LOU LOU I.OU LOU I.OU I.OU LOU LOU I.OU
I.OU LOU 0.09 J I.OU LOU LOU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU 0.14 J I.OU I.OU LOU 1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU
1.0 U I.OU I.OU LOU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU LOU o.sou I.OU 12.0 U LOU I.OU I.OU I.OU 2.8
0.07 J LOU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U LOU I.OU 0.03 J I.OU
Page 3 of6
-------- - - -- --
Monitoring Sampling
Well Date
W-1s Dec-98
W-5s .May-98
W-5s Dec-98
W-5s Dup. Dec-98
W-9s May-98
W-9s Dup. May-98
W-9s Dec-98
W-12s May-98
W-16s Dec-98
W-17s May-98
W-17s Dec-98
W-18s May-98
W-18s Dec-98
W-19s May-98
W-19s Dec-98
W-20s May-98
W-20s Dup. May-98
W-20s Dec-98
W-22s May-98
W-22s Dec-98
W-24s May-98
W-24s Jan-99
W-24s Dup. Jan-99
P:\PROJ\OJ 13.0S\TABLE 3-6.xh
TABLE 3-6
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voe RESULTS IN GROUNDWATER FROM
PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
cis-1,2-trans-I ,2·
Dichiaro-Methylene 4-Methyl-2-Tetrachloro-Dichiaro-
ethene chloride pentanone Toluene ethene ethene
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
1.0 U IOU 25 UD 5.0UD 140 DJ I.OU
1,300 DJ 3.4 J 25 UJ 5.0 UJ 200 DJ 3.1 J
1,600 J 400 UJ 1,000 UJ 200 UJ 200 UJ 200 UJ
1,600D IOOUD 250UD 50UD 200 D 50UD
1.9 DJ 20UD 50UD 10 UD 3,100 D !OUD
2DJ 20UD 50UD IOUD 3,200 D IOUD
200UD 400U 1,000 UD 200UD 6,000 D 200 UD
I.OU 0.61 J 5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU
200UD 400UD 1,000 UD 200 UD 2,300 D 200UD
720D 500UD l,200UD 250 UD 84,000 D 250UD
10,000 UJ 20,000 UJ 50,000 UJ 10,000 UD 72,000 D 10,000 UD
I.OU 3.4 5.0U I.OU 3.5 I.OU
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0U I.OU 41 I.OU
0.82 DJ 5.0UD 12 UD 2.5 UD 26 D 2.5 UD
4.0U 2.0U 5.0U I.OU 250 J 0.05 J
3.4 2.0U 5.0U I.OU 20 I.OU
3.1 2.0U 5.0U I.OU 17 1.0 U
41 2.0UJ 5.0 UJ I.OU 27 DJ I.OU
2.5 3.7 5.0U I.OU 3.6 I.OU
21 2.0UJ 5.0UJ I.OU 4 I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0U 1.0 U 0.35 J I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0U 0.05 J I.OU I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU
-- -
iiiiil ..
Trichloro-Vinyl
ethene chloride
(µg/L) (µg/L)
0.7 DJ 5.0UD
55 J 8.2 J
53 J 50 J
67 D 26DJ
14D !OUD
13D IOUD
24 DJ 200UD
I.OU I.OU
40 DJ 200 UD
410 D 250 UD
10,000 UD 10,000 UD
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
1.2 DJ 2.5 UD
5 I.OU
0.89 J I.OU
0.8 J I.OU
I.OU
0.12 J 0.451
I.OU 0.4 J
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
Page 4 of6
-

-
-

-

-
--

-
-------
Monitoring Sampling
Well Date
W-31s Nov-98
W-31s Dup. Nov-98
W-31s Dec-98
W-31s Dup. Dec-98
W-5i May-98
W-5i Dec-98
W-8i Dec-98
W-lOi May-98
W-lOi Dec-98
W-12i May-98
W-12i Dec-98
W-16i Dec-98
W-20i May-98
W-20i Dec-98
W-20i Jan-99
W-20i Jan-99
W-22i May-98
W-22i Dec-98
W-26i Dec-98
P:\PROJ\OJ 13.08\TABLE ).ti.xis
TABLE3-6
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voe RESULTS IN GROUNDWATER FROM
PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
cis-1,2-trans-1,2-
Dichiaro-Methylene 4-Methyl-2-Tetrachloro-Dichiaro-
ethene chloride pentanone Toluene ethene ethene
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
I.OU 2.0U 5.0U 0.068 J 1.0 U I.OU
0.06 J 2.0U 5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU
0.04 J 2.0U 5.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU
0.06 J 2.0U 5.0U I.OU I.OU 1.0 U
4DJ lOUD 25 UD 5.0UD 49D 5.0 UD
10 J 2.0 UJ 5.0 U 0.40J 28 D I.OU
3 2.0 U 5.0U 0.9JB 75 J 0. 1 J
I.OU 4. 1 5.0 U I.OU 0.66 J I.OU
!.OUJ 2.0UJ 5.0 UJ 1.0 UJ 2 I.OU
I.OU 2.0U I.I J 0.24 J 1.5 I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0 U I.OU 2J I.OU
18 D 4.0UJ !OUD 2.0 U 1,000 D 2.0UD
25 J 4 UJ 1.4 J 2.0UJ 310 DJ 2.0 UJ
120D lOOU 250UD 50 U 1,100 D 50UD
29D 2.0 U 5.0 U I.OU 450D 0.2 J
24 D 40 U lOOUD 20 U 380 D 20UD
100 D 2.0U 5.0 U I.OU 150 D 0.46 J
140 J 20UJ 50UD lOUD 110 J 0.4 JD
0.03 J 2.0U 0.5 J 0.6 J 0.3 J I.OU
Trichloro-Vinyl
ethene chloride
(µg/L) (µg/L)
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
4.9 DJ 5.0 UD
4 0.3 J
4 0.09 J
I.OU I.OU
1.0 U I.OU
I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU
26 D 2.0UD
18 J 2.0UJ
75 D 50UD
34 D I.OU
29 D 20UD
11 2. 1
!OD 3 DJ
0.09 J 0.2 J
-liliiilll ..
Page5of6
- - ---- -- - - -----
Monitoring Sampling
Well Date
W-28i May-98
W-28i Dec-98
W-29i May-98
W-29i Dec-98
W-29i Dup. Dec-98
W-30i May-98
W-30i Dec-98
W-30i Jan-99
W-30i Jan-99
W-3l i Nov-98
W-31i Dec-98
W-32i Nov-98
W-32i Dec-98
W-20db Sep-98
W-20d Dec-98
P:\l'ROJ\Ol 13.0S\TABLE 3-6 xis
TABLE 3-6
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voe RESULTS IN GROUNDWATER FROM
PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
cis-1,2-
Dichiaro-Methylene 4-Methyl-2-
ethene chloride pentanone Toluene
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L}
16 D 20UD 50UD 10 UD
9.0DJ 20U 50UD IOU
8D 5.0UD l2UD 2.5 UD
7 DJ 4.0 UJ I0UD 2.0 UD
7DJ 4.0 UJ I0UD 2.0UD
20D 12 D 12 UD 0.46 DJ
28JD 40 U I00UD 20U
43 JD 2.0 U 5.0 U 0.1 J
42 JD 100 U 250 UD 50UD
I.OU 2.0 J 5.0U I.OU
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0U I.OU
1.0 U 2.0 U 5.0 U 0.24 J
I.0UJ 2.0 UJ 5.0 UJ I.OU
9.4 0.58 J 5.0 U 0.88 J
0.02 J 2.0U 0.4 J 0.7 J
80ata qualifiers are as follows:
B indicates the analyte was detected in a blank sample.
D indicates that the result is from a diluted sample.
J indicates the result is estimated.
trans-1,2-
Tetrachloro-Dichiaro-
ethene ethene
(µg/L} (µg/L}
170D I0UD
640D I0UD
42 D 2.5 UD
32 J 2.0UD
34 DJ 2.0UD
500 D 0.38 DJ
560 DJ 20 UD
1,100 D 0.1 J
1,100 D 50 UD
I.OU I.OU
0.1 J I.OU
0.26 J I.OU
0.4 J I.OU
34D 1.0 U
12 J 3
Trichloro-
ethene
(µg/L)
42 D
24 D
1.4 DJ
2JD
2 DJ
34 D
46 D
82 D
85 D
I.OU
I.OU
0.11 J
0.2 J
4.9
2
NR indicates the result is not reportable because it was detennined as unusuable by the data validator.
Vinyl
chloride
(µg/L)
I0UD
I0UD
2.5 UD
0.2 DJ
0.2DJ
2.5 UD
20 UD
0.2 J
50UD
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
U indicates that the result was less than one-fifth of the CRQL (contract-required quantitation limit); the reporting
limit preceeds the "U" qualifier.
bData for W-20d from Sep-98 are DQO level III.
-liiiil
Page 6 of6
---- - - - ----.. -.. .. .. .. --
Q:\PROJ\0313.08\TABLE 3-7.xls
TABLE 3-7
GROUNDWATER PESTICIDE RES UL TS IN PLUME DEFINITION WELLS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Monitoring Well Sampling Date Aldrin
(µg/L)
Alpha-BHC
(µg/L)
Alpha-Chlordane
(µg/L)
Delta-BHC
(µg/L)
MCL
W-31s Nov-98 0.0I0U' 0.0I0UJ 0.010 U 0.010 U
W-31s Dup. Nov-98 0.0I0U 0.010 UJ 0.0024 J 0.0037 J
W-3 Ii Nov-98 0.010 U 0.0I0UJ 0.010 U 0.010 U
W-32i Nov-98 0.00551 0.00271 0.010 U 0.079 P
W-20d' Sep-98 0.0I0U 0.010 UJ 0.010 U 0.0078 JBP
Wooten Well' Nov-98 0.010 U 0.010 UJ 0.010 U 0.0I0U
Hinson Well' Nov-98 0.010 U 0.010 UJ 0.010 U 0.010 U
Gamma-BHC
(µg/L)
0.2
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.0048 JP
0.010 U
0.010 U
Page I of2
-- -
Monitoring Well Sampling Date
MCL
W-3Is Nov-98
W-3 Is Dup. Nov-98
W-3Ii Nov-98
W-32i Nov-98
W-20<l" Sep-98
Wooten Well' Nov-98
Hinson Well' Nov-98
O:\PROJ\0313.08\TABLE 3-7.xls
- -
liiil iiliil --.. liilili -
TABLE3-7
GROUNDWATER PESTICIDE RES UL TS IN PLUME DEFINITION WELLS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Methoxychlor
(µg/L)
40
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.025 JBP
0.10 U
0.10 U
4,4'-DDD
(µg/L)
0.020 U
0.020U
0.020 U
0.0096 J
0.020U
0.020U
0.020 U
'Data qualifiers are as follows:
Dieldrin
(µg/L)
0.020U
0.020 U
0.020 U
0.015 J
0.020U
0.020U
0.020 U
Endosulfan I
(µg/L)
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.0055 J
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.010 U
B indicates the analyte was detected in a blank sample.
J indicates the result is estimated.
Gamma-Chlordane
(µg/L)
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.0020 J
0.0IOU
0.010 U
0.010 U
P indicates the percent difference between columns was greater than 25percent.
Heptachlor
(µg/L)
0.4
0.0!0 U
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.014 P
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.0I0U
Heptachlor epoxide
(µg/L)
0.2
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.010 U
0.0060 JP
0.0014 JP
0.0IOU
0.0!0 U
U indicates that the result was less than one-fifth of the CRQL (contract-required quantification limit) the reporting limit
preceeds the "U" qualifier.
'Data for W-20d from Sep-98 are DQO level III.
'Residential well.
Page 2 of2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 EVALUATION OF NATURAL ATTENUATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary constituents of interest present in groundwater within OU3 include PCE and
its reductive dechlorination products. The reductive dechlorination intermediate
degradation constituents are trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene ( cis-1,2-DCE),
and vinyl chloride. Monitored Natural Attenuation of these constituents has become
widely accepted as a remedy or as a component of a remedy in conjunction with some
form of source control (e.g., active remedy). It is in conjunction with an active remedy,
namely air sparging and SVE, that monitored natural attenuation is being considered for
addressing groundwater in OU3. 1
•
Monitored natural attenuation relies on non-engineered or naturally occurring processes
to mitigate impacted groundwater and/or soil. As discussed in detail in the RD Work
Plan and in Appendix B, natural attenuation occurs as a result of several mechanisms.
There are two types of mechanisms: (I) physical mechanisms including advection,
dispersion, diffusion, and adsorption that either dilute or retard movement of dissolved
phase constituents but do not reduce the masses of constituents, and (2) degradation
mechanisms that result in lower dissolved phase concentrations and reduction in
migration as a result of reducing the total masses of organic constituents. Some or all of
these mechanisms occur in all cases and can be modeled based on hydrogeological
characteristics and the physical properties of the constituents. The USEP A has a strong
preference for being able to demonstrate the occurrence of degradation mechanisms,
typically biodegradation. While a common occurrence, biodegradation requires
microorganisms that are capable of carrying out the reductive dechlorination process and
appropriate geochemical conditions. Thus, biodegradation must be demonstrated on a
site-by-site basis.
Demonstration of the occurrence of biodegradation at a site is typically a necessary but
not sufficient criterion for acceptance of monitored natural attenuation as a remedy or as
P:\PROJ\03 13. 08\s04.doc 4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a component of a remedy. The USEPA and Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE) Protocol and the guidance document from USEP A Region IV
require support for natural attenuation consisting of a qualitative and quantitative
evaluation of geochemical data (bioparameters) in conjunction with either laboratory
microcosms or groundwater fate and transport modeling. Laboratory microcosm studies
are expensive, time consuming, and not as reliable as field evidence. Thus, the
commonly accepted practice is to conduct fate and transport modeling in conjunction
with the qualitative/quantitative evaluation of the geochemical (bioparameter) data. The
latter evaluation consists of analyzing groundwater within and outside the plume for
several parameters and interpreting the results with respect to evidence that
biodegradation has occurred, as well as for conditions supportive of ongoing
biodegradation.
•
For chlorinated solvent plumes the evaluation is based on the methodology described in
the "Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in
Ground Water" (USEPA, September 1998). This is accomplished by comparing some of
the parameter values to predetermined values based on experience at other sites and for
other parameters, comparing values obtained from within the plume to values obtained
from wells located outside of the plume. Each comparison results in the assignment of
points. The points are totaled to generate a score for the site. Based on the score the
plume can be considered to show from weak to strong evidence of reductive
dechlorination. The details of this scoring procedure are presented in Section 4.3.
Evaluation of the site data using the point system can only indicate whether reductive
dechlorination is occurring and whether geochemical conditions are supportive of
continued reductive dechlorination. It cannot be used to tell if natural attenuation is
maintaining or reducing the size of the plume. For sites with several years of
groundwater quality data, the VOC concentration trends provide an excellent (and the
most defensible) way to judge whether the plume is growing, remaining relatively
constant (quasi-steady state or dynamic equilibrium), or shrinking. Obviously, in order
P:\pROJ\OJ 13.08"04.doe 4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
~
~
for monitored natural attenuation to be applicable at a site as a remedy, either of the last
two conditions must exist.
In the following text the evaluation of monitored natural attenuation is discussed. In
Section 4.2, the sampling and analyses that were conducted in accordance with the RD
Work Plan are referenced. In Section 4.3 a qualitative/quantitative evaluation of
monitored natural attenuation is discussed according to the AFCEE protocol. Fate and
transport modeling of the plume is also discussed in Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 the
implications for the use of monitored natural attenuation in conjunction with AS/SVE is
discussed.
4.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
•
The on-Site and off-Site groundwater sampling was performed to further delineate the
horizontal and vertical extent of constituents of concern; evaluate whether the plume is
stable, growing, or shrinking; and to measure biodegradation parameters. The sampling
protocol, wells sampled, and parameters measured or analyzed were presented in
Section 2. Table 3-1 lists the parameters and methods. Table 3-2 lists the wells sampled.
Table 3-3 includes all of the May 1998 and December 1998 VOC groundwater
monitoring data for OU3.
4.3 EVALUATION PROCESS FOR NATURAL ATTENUATION
The evaluation of natural attenuation consisted of four components that provide a
qualitative understanding, as well as an attempt to quantify the contributions from
biodegradation and physical processes. The evaluation process was applied to what
might be considered four plume areas. These consist of the shallow saprolite saturated
interval to the north and to the south of the groundwater divide, and the intermediate
bedrock saturated interval to the north and to the south of the groundwater divide. The
four plume areas were each evaluated using the following four evaluation components:
P:\PROJ\Ol 13.08"04.doc 4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Groundwater Quality Data. These data include the concentrations and
distributions of the parent compound and its degradation products. The
presence of degradation products provides direct evidence of biodegradation.
The distributions of the parent compound and degradation products provide
additional insight regarding the degree to which biodegradation contributes to
limiting constituent migration. Groundwater quality data collected over time
may also demonstrate whether the plume has reached a quasi-steady state or
dynamic equilibrium condition.
• Bioparamcter Data. These data include results from measurements of
groundwater parameters that affect and are affected by biodegradation. These
I
data provide direct and indirect evidence of biodegradation of the constituents
of interest. A qualitative review of these data· may provide evidence of
conditions that are consistent with ongoing biodegradation.
• Numerical Ranking. The groundwater quality and bioparameter data are used
·•
to assign ranking points using the protocol developed by USEP A and AFCEE.
The ranking provides a numerical comparison to other sites where reductive
dechlorination has been evaluated. A high ranking means strong evidence for
biodegradation of chlorinated organics. A low ranking means insufficient
evidence for biodegradation of chlorinated organics. The interpretation of the
ranking point totals should not strictly be interpreted as meaning natural
attenuation is either sufficient or insufficient for a site.
• Fate and Transport Modeling. This is used to simulate past, current, and
future concentrations of the parent compound along the plume. The modeling
provides a general approximation of the contribution from natural attenuation
including biodegradation and provides an indication of how groundwater
constituent concentrations within the plume will change over time.
P,\PROJ\OJ l J.08\104,doc 4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The groundwater quality data from previous investigations and this pre-design
°Jnvestigation (May I 998 and December 1998 sampling events) were evaluated to identify
· the presence and relative concentrations of constituents of concern ( especially PCE) and
daughter products. Trends in concentrations over time and along the groundwater flow
path provide a semi-quantitative understanding of the extent to which reductive
dechlorination is limiting the migration of groundwater constituents in the downgradient
direction.
4.3.1 Evaluation of Groundwater Quality Data for Natural Attenuation
The physical attenuation mechanisms of dispersion, diffusion, and retardation can be
expected to occur in all plumes. These mechanisms will result in somewhat lower
concentrations of constituents in areas downgradient of sources than would be the case if
no attenuation occurred. Typically, but not in all cases, biodegradation of the
constituents of concern will also occur. This mechanism results in a decrease in
constituent masses as well as lower downgradient concentrations than would occur if
only physical (non-degradation) mechanisms were occurring. At the Site, intermediate
degradation products of PCE are observed in samples from several monitoring wells.
The presence of TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride is evidence of reductive
dechlorination. Since cis-1,2-DCE is not a product of commerce, other than, potentially,
impurities in some solvents, and since it is unlikely that vinyl chloride was ~sed at the
Site, the presence of these two compounds is strong evidence of reductive dechlorination.
Reductive dechlorination products are present across the plume. In some areas the ratio
of the reductive dechlorination products relative to the parent compound, PCE, is fairly
high. This ratio is shown below for each portion of the plume based on total molar
concentrations (concentration in µg/L divided by molecular weight of constituent).
P:\I'ROJ\03 l 3.08\s04.doc 4-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Portion of Plume
• Source Area
(W-17s)
• North Shallow Saprolite
(W-19s &W-20s)
• North Intermediate Bedrock
(W-28i, W-30i, & W-20i)
"\
• South Shallow Saprolite
(W-5s, W-22s, & W-24s)
• South Intermediate Bedrock
(W-5i, W22i, & W-29i)
Molar Ratio of Reductive Dichlorination Products
(TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride) to
Parent Compound (PCE) (May 1998 data)
0.025
0.82
0.48
11.4
0.98
This comparison clearly shows that degradation or daughter products are being generated
along the flow path. In most locations cis-1,2-DCE is the predominant daughter product.
It is not uncommon for cis-1,2-DCE to accumulate within a plume. However, as shown
in Table 4-1 (condensed from Table 3-3), cis-1,2-DCE is clearly attenuated within the
plume. The concentration of cis-1,2-DCE is between 1,000 µg/L and 1,600 µg/L in W-5s
but decreases to I to 2.5 µg/L in W-22s. This large decrease may be in part due to the
vertical gradient at the site rather than attenuation. A portion of the groundwater passing
through the interval sampled by W-5s may pass beneath the screened interval of W-22s.
In that case a comparison of cis-1,2-DCE concentrations in W-22i, 90 to 140 µg/L, and
W-29i, 3 to 8 µg/L, also demonstrates substantial attenuation. Attenuation of
cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride may be due to degradation by aerobic and iron reducing
microorganisms as well as by reductive dechlorination. Such processes would be
expected to become more important away from the source area.
Another indication of attenuation is whether the plume has reached a dynamic
equilibrium or steady state condition, i.e., are the mechanisms that retard migration and
P:\PROMJ I 3.08\s04,doe 4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
destroy constituent mass m an approximate equilibrium with the mechanisms of
dissolution and advection that result in migration? When this condition is achieved, the
plume no longer expands and thus receptors downgradient of the farthest extent of the
plume will not be impacted unless something happens to upset this balance in a negative
way.
The water quality data in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 suggest a fairly constant plume based on a
comparison of PeE concentrations reported during the 1994/1995 sampling events to
those reported during the May and December 1998 sampling events. Some variation is
anticipated due to normal variability associated with sampling and analysis. The relative
stability of the plume is not surprising since in our experience, chlorinated solvent plumes
where biodegradation is occurring typically reach equilibrium within several years based
on geological conditions. •
Typically, about eight sampling events are needed to establish statistically significant
trends in groundwater data. For the wells being evaluated, there are data from one to four
sampling events. While the data can be visually inspected for changes in voe
concentrations, it is necessary to take into account the normal variability encountered
with groundwater data. This variability may result from changes in groundwater
elevations, sampling techniques, and/or laboratory procedures or may represent processes
occurring within the aquifer.
Table 4-2 shows the historical .data for PeE within selected monitoring wells. It can be
seen, that over the three to four years of sampling, PeE concentrations are fairly constant
in wells W-l 7s, W-3 ls, W-30i, W-5s, W-22s, W-24s, W-5i, W-22i, and W-29i. For
some of these wells, the concentrations may have varied by a factor of two. For instance
W-5i ranged from 25 µg/L in October 1994, to 49 µg/L in May 1998, to 28 µg/L in
December 1998.
Other wells have shown greater variability, some of which cannot be explained by the
known mechanisms that effect voe concentrations. For instance W-20i was reported as
r.\l'ROJ\0313.08\104.doc 4-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
240 µg/L in March 1996 and as 310 µg/L in May 1998, but as I, I 00 µg/L in
· December 1998. It is not likely that such a large change could occur in the seven months
from May 1998 to December 1998 after only a minor change in a little over two years.
This was confirmed by the January 1999 sample, which was reported as 380 µg/L. Thus,
while the data from some wells might suggest that PCE concentrations are undergoing
change, additional data from future sampling events is needed to determine if variability
in the reported data represents real changes in PCE concentrations.
Recently installed well W-3 Ii has been sampled twice. The data (less than the detection
limit and 0.1 µg/L) indicate W-3 Ii is located close to or downgradient of the farthest
extent of the plume.
To the south, within the shallow saprolite, PCE concentrations have been nearly constant
in the samples collected from wells W-5s, W-22s, and W-24s. Concentrations in W-24s
were I µg/L, 0.35 µg/L, and 1.0 µg/L in December 1995, May 1998, and January 1999,
respectively. This suggests that well W-24s is in close proximity to the farthest extent of
the plume within the over burden or shallow zone. The December 1998 data had
indicated a PCE concentration of 40 µg/L for W-24s. This turned out to be a result of a
labeling error on the well, leading to the resampling in January 1999.
To the south, within the intermediate bedrock, PCE concentrations for wells W-5i,
W-22i, and W-29i remained relatively constant within the normal range of variability.
The PCE concentrations reported for the recently installed well W-32i were 0.26 µg/L
and 0.4 µg/L for November 1998 and December 1998, respectively. This indicates that
well W-32i is located in close proximity to or downgradient of the farthest extent of the
plume within the intermediate bedrock.
A comparison of recent and historical data for those wells located along the transverse
perimeter ( or approximate lateral extent) of the plume and which were used as
background wells for the bioparameter data also indicate dynamic steady state conditions
( e.g., concentrations may fluctuate but long term trends cannot be established). The PCE
P.\PROJ\0313.08\$04 doc 4-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
concentrations for W-18s, W-12s, W-12i, and W-!0i all remain in the low µg/L range or
below the detection limit.
4.3.2 Significance of Bio parameter Data
The bioparameter data obtained from the May 1998 and December 1998 sampling events
are presented in Table 4-3. The data are organized by area sampled and type of
parameter. The first column contains the well numbers which are organized m
descending order as northern shallow saprolite, northern intermediate bedrock, southern
shallow saprolite, southern intermediate bedrock, and background wells. Within each of
the aquifer areas the wells are organized in descending order from at or nearest to the
source area along the apparent flow direction of the groundwater. The columns are
organized into four groups. From left to right and from page to page, these groups are
electron acceptors, degradation byproducts, nutrients, and geochemical parameters. For
the electron acceptors, the individual electron acceptors or their reduced form are
organized from left to right according to the order in which microorganisms typically use
them when they are available, i.e. oxygen is used first, then as the aquifer becomes more
reduced nitrate is utilized, then manganese, etc.
The following section provides a summary of the information provided from each of the
bioparameters that were measured or analyzed.
4.3.2.1 Electron Acceptors.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Dissolved oxygen levels are a good indicator of whether
biodegradation has been occurring at the site and whether current microbial processes are
predominantly aerobic or anaerobic. Microorganisms typically utilize oxygen ahead of
other electron acceptors because the microorganisms are able to extract more energy from
this process than from processes using other electron acceptors. Reported DO levels are
frequently higher than actual DO levels because air is easily introduced to groundwater
during well purging, sampling, and sample handling. Where reductive dechlorination
P.\PROJ\OJ IJ.08\s04,doc 4-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
~
0
D
'I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
occurs, one expects to see low DO levels in source areas and within the plume compared
to levels upgradient, side gradient, and downgradient of the plume. Utilization of oxygen
and other electron donors results in lower redox potentials and converts many types of
organic compounds to intermediates which can undergo fermentation. Fermentation can
generate hydrogen for reductive dechlorination.
Nitrate. In general, once DO levels decrease to concentrations below about 0.5 mg/I to
1.0 mg/I, microorganisms that can utilize nitrate as the electron acceptor begin to use
nitrate, provided nitrate is present in the groundwater. High nitrate concentrations can be
competitive with reductive dechlorination. Decreased nitrate concentrations compared to
background levels or along the downgradient direction of the plume can indicate nitrate
utilization ( denitrification) by the microorganisms.
Manganese. As oxygen and nitrate are depleted, the redox potential of the aquifer
decreases. The next available electron acceptor may then be utilized provided that
electron acceptor is present. The next electron acceptor utilized after nitrate is ,
manganese (IV), which is frequently present in several common minerals. As a result of
the use of manganese as an electron acceptor, the more soluble form of manganese,
manganese (II), is formed. Thus, unlike oxygen and nitrate, where a depletion of the
parameter being measured is an indication of biodegradation, an increase in
manganese (II) indicates the role of manganese reducing bacteria. Elevated
manganese (II) concentrations are an indication of conditions favorable to reductive
dechlorination. As discussed below for iron (II), quantitative interpretation of the data is
complex.
The elevated manganese concentrations observed in some areas of the Site are most
probably a result ofbiodegradation processes that result in dissolution of native minerals.
Iron. The next electron acceptor to be utilized after manganese is iron (Ill). Ferric iron
[iron (III)] is commonly present in the mineral phase. Utilization of iron (III) as an
electron acceptor results in an increase in the more soluble form of iron, iron (II) or
P.\PROJ\03 IJ.08\104.doc 4-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
ferrous iron. Thus, as for manganese, an increase in dissolved iron (II) is an indication
that iron reducing bacteria are participating in biodegradation. Increased iron (II)
concentrations are an indication of conditions favorable for reductive dechlorination.
Additionally, cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride may be oxidatively degraded through iron
reduction.
The elevated iron concentrations observed in some areas of the Site are most probably a
result of biodegradation processes that result in dissolution of native minerals.
A quantitative interpretation of iron (II) data is complex. The solubility of iron (11) can
be enhanced by the presence of partially degraded organic compounds that can act as
complexing agents. Conversely, iron (11) formed during biodegradation can precipitate,
for instance as the sulfide salt, or adhere to the mineral surface. Recent studies indicate
that less than IO percent of iron (II) formed from biodegradation is in the aqueous phase.
Sulfate/Sulfide. Sulfate is also used as an electron acceptor. Sulfate is reduced to
sulfide or may be incorporated into organic sulfur compounds. Sulfide forms precipitates
with many metals including iron and is readily oxidized during sampling and handling of
samples. Sulfide reduction can be competitive with reductive dechlorination.
4.3.2.2 Products of Degradation.
Intermediate Ethen es. The presence of partially chlorinated ethenes, ethenes/and ethane
which are produced as a result of reductive dechlorination provides strong evidence of
reductive dechlorination as discussed earlier. The presence of ethene and/or ethane is a
strong indicator that reductive dechlorination has occurred and that vinyl chloride is
being further reduced. Generally, reduction of vinyl chloride is more difficult than
reduction of the more highly chlorinated ethenes, especially PCE and TCE.
Carbonate (Field) and Alkalinity (Bicarbonate/Carbonate). Carbonate measures
carbon dioxide (CO2), presumably present as a result of biodegradation. Alkalinity is a
P,\pRQJ\0313,08~{)4.do(. 4-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
measure of carbonate, carboxylic acid, and other buffers. Both carbon dioxide and
carboxylic acids, .,.which are biodegradation intermediates, contribute to alkalinity.
Carbon dioxide is utilized in methane formation. Furthermore, carbonate complexes with
cations such as calcium. The equilibrium between free carbonate and complexed
(precipitated) carbonate as well as the loss of carbonate as carbon dioxide is dependent
upon pH. Thus the interpretation of carbonate and alkalinity data is not straightforward.
However, higher levels of CO2 and alkalinity within the plume are considered evidence
ofbiodegradation.
Methane. Methane formation is an indication of highly reducing conditions. Thus the
presence of methane is an indicator of conditions favorable to reductive dechlorination.
However, methane formation competes for hydrogen which is necessary for reductive
dechlorination.
Chloride. Chloride is produced as a result of reductive dechlorination. Thus increased
chloride concentrations within the plume can serve as a measure of the reductive
dechlorination process and can be used to calculate materials balances along the flow
path. Chloride is present in road salts as well as other natural and manmade sources.
Interpretation of chloride data must consider these other sources.
Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA). This term applies broadly to several carboxylic acids that
are formed during the oxidation of many organic compounds. Furthermore, fermentation
of some carboxylic acids generates hydrogen which is necessary for reductive
dechlorination. The presence of VF As is an indicator of conditions supportive of
reductive dechlorination.
4.3.2.3 Nutrients. The nutrients ammonia nitrogen, nitrate, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN), and phosphorous are necessary for microbial growth. Values of these parameters
are not indicative of any one type of degradation reaction nor are they directly related to
degradation rates. Generally, the presence of aqueous phase nitrogen and phosphorus is
an indication of conditions supportive of biodegradation. Lower values of these
P:\J'ROJ\03 \3,08\s04.doc 4-12
parameters within the plume compared to outside the plume, or values that decrease
along the plume, might be interpreted as indications of ongoing biodegradation.
4.3.2.4 Geochemical Parameters.
Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP). The oxidation/reduction potential is an
indicator of conditions that are favorable to oxidation reactions or reducing reactions. As
electron donors [ anthropogenic and natural organics that sometimes are estimated by total
organic carbon (TOC) measurements] are consumed by the higher energy electron
acceptors, the oxidation/reduction potential decreases and reactions such as reductive
dechlorination become more favorable. The lower the ORP the greater the potential for
reductive dechlorination.
Specific Conductivity. The specific conductivity is an indication of the total
concentration of cations and anions in solution. It is generally useful to evaluate whether
samples from two or more wells are being collected from the same portion of the aquifer.
In some cases, the formation of chloride ions can result in a meaningful increase in
specific conductivity.
Temperature. Microorganisms are typically well adapted to the natural groundwater
temperatures. In general biodegradation rates increase with temperature over the normal
temperature range observed for groundwater.
pH. Microorganisms can participate m biodegradation over a range of naturally
occurring pH values. In general pHs within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 are considered to be
optimal. Values outside this pH range are of concern where they differ significantly from
background values.
P.\PROJ\OJ IJ.081.,04.doc 4-13
,.
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
4.3.3 Summary of Bioparameter Data
Table 4-4 provides a qualitative assessment of all of the bioparameter data. The table
briefly summarizes, for each of the four areas of the plume, differences in values between
samples of groundwater obtained from within the plume and samples collected outside
the plume, as well as the actual values of the parameters. The differences in the values
obtained from within and outside of the plume provide supportive evidence of whether
reductive dechlorination is occurring in the aquifer, which electron acceptors are playing
a significant part in the process, and whether conditions across the aquifer are favorable
for natural attenuation.
As presented in Table 4-4 under electron acceptors, DO levels are generally lower in each
area of the plume compared to background conditions. Such conditions are supportive of
reductive dechlorination. Nitrate levels are generally low indicating a lack of
competition with reductive dechlorination. Nitrate is elevated in W-l 7s: Denitrification
may be occurring near the source area. Thus competition for reductive dechlorination
may occur in this area. The data indicate some iron and manganese reduction,
particularly in the vicinity of W-19s. Sulfate appears to decrease along the flow path in
the northern portion of the shallow saprolite, but is typically low elsewhere. Sulfide was
observed at trace levels in one well. Sulfate reduction does not appear to be widespread
or generally significant. Where sulfate utilization occurs, it could result in competition
with reductive dechlorination, but also contribute to lower redox potentials. In general,
the electron acceptor data provide support for reductive dechlorination.
As present in Table 4-4 under degradation products, partially dechlorinated ethenes and
traces of ethene/ethane were found at several locations. These compounds are thought to
be present as a result of reductive dechlorination. Alkalinity and, to a lesser extent,
carbon dioxide, are generally elevated in the plume compared to background. This is
suggestive of biodegradation (mineralization) occurring. Chloride levels are generally
higher in the shallow saprolite zone, especially near the source area, compared to
background suggesting the release of chloride during reductive dechlorination. Within
P :\PROJ\OJ I 3 .08\s04.doe 4-14
I
I
I
I
I ,,'
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
i
-
t
I
the intermediate bedrock zone the chloride concentrations in the plume are variable and
generally lower than the intermediate background source area. However, the Site
hydrogeologic data suggest a substantial downward gradient. Based on the
hydrogeology, it may be more appropriate to compare intermediate plume data to data
obtained from the shallow saprolite background wells. Volatile fatty acids are generally
thought to be present as intermediate degradation products of electron donors. Their
presence across the site is an indication that biodegradation of electron donors, a process
which supports reductive dechlorination, occurs at the site. The analysis of the various
products of degradation provides support that biodegradation and reductive
dechlorination in particular occur within all four portions of the plume.
As presented in Table 4-4 under nutrients, there are low concentrations of phosphate and
nitrate across most of the plume while ammonium and TKN are reported as non-detect in
nearly all samples. This indicates some limited potential for microbial growth. Nutrient
availability may be limiting with respect to biodegradation rates.
As presented in Table 4-4 under geochemistry, pH values vary considerably across the
Site but are generally within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 which is within the optimal range for
reductive dechlorination. A few samples, including the background samples, had pH
values slightly below 5.0. Experience indicates that microorganisms can tolerate pH
values somewhat outside the optimal range if the values are close to natural levels for the
aquifer, The oxidation/reduction potential (Eh) data are not internally consistent and not
consistent with the other data. Groundwater temperatures ranged from about I 5°C to
23°C in the shallow saprolite water bearing zone and from l 5°C to l 9°C in the
intermediate bedrock water bearing zone. This is a quite acceptable range, especially
within portions of the shallower zone where temperatures exceed 20°C.
4.3.4 Numerical Ranking Based on USEPA Protocol
This qualitative evaluation was augmented by application of the ranking system
described in the protocol developed by the USEPA and AFCEE. Values for the
P:\PROJ\0313,08\s04.doc 4-15
.,
I ,,
I
I ,,
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
parameters listed in Table 4-5 were generated from field measurements and laboratory
analysis and were used to assign ranking points. The ranking points were totaled for each
well and the total score compared to the classification table in the protocol (Table 4-5).
As presented in Table 4-6, all individual "plume" wells were ranked according to the
protocol, resulting in rankings ranging from 11 to 18. The ranking point totals within
each area of the plumes tend to be higher in the middle of the plumes as compared to near
the source area or near or past the downgradient edges of the plumes. The lower point
totals at the downgradient ends of the plumes are not surprising as few constituents would
have reached the downgradient end of the plume and thus changes in the geochemistry
would be expected to be modest.
Based on Table 4-7 as reproduced from the USEPA protocol, the results are interpreted
as providing limited to adequate evidence of reductive dechlorination. In general, the
scores of those wells located midway in the plume provide adequate evidence of
reductive dechlorination.
4.3.5 Fate and Transport Modeling
The qualitative evidence of reductive dechlorination and the application of the protocol
ranking methodology require further support through some form of modeling or
microcosm studies. Two methods have been used to approximate biodegradation rates.
The met_hod of Buscheck, referenced in Appendix C of the USEP A protocol, and
BIOSCREEN were both used. Simulation of fate and transport in this aquifer by an
analytical model such as BIOSCREEN is problematic because of the downward gradient
observed within the plume. The resultant vertical transport of constituents can not be
accommodated using the BIOSCREEN model. As a result, simulations using
BIOSCREEN are considered rough estimates and serve only to provide a general
indication of degradation rates and relative degradation rates between the portions of the
aquifer. The method of Buscheck is an even greater simplification. The Buscheck
method does not allow for transverse dispersivity and thus will tend to overestimate
P:\PROJ\0313,0S\104.doc 4-16
I
' I
I ,,
I
I
I·
I
I
,I
I .,
I ,,
I
Ii
I
I
'-
degradation rates. The extent of overestimation 1s greatest for sites where the
biodegradation rates are slow. · In a sense this is not a problem if one only relies on the
method to indicate whether degradation rates are generally fast or generally slow.
The groundwater quality data, the established hydrogeological properties (hydraulic
conductivity, gradient, and estimated porosity), calculated retardation coefficients, plume
dimensions, and published biodegradation rates under natural attenuation conditions were
used in the fate and transport model, BIOSCREEN. The model was calibrated using the
existing data to provide a reasonable fit with the distribution of PCE along the flow path.
The Buscheck method requires input consisting of the concentrations and distances of
wells along the flow path, the seepage velocity, a retardation factor, and an estimate of
the longitudinal dispersivity. Because a steady state is assumed, the results are not
sensitive to the longitudinal dispersivity. The transverse dispersivity, which is important
for sites with low biodegradation rates, is not included in the equations.
The results of the BIOSCREEN simulations and the Buscheck method are shown m
Table 4-8.
As shown in the second column, BIOSCREEN simulations indicate reductive
dechlorination half-lives of 2.0 to 2.8 years for PCE in each of the four areas of the
plume. These rates are consistent with those reported in the literature although somewhat
slower than the average derived from a USEP A study (Wilson, et. al. 1996). Estimated
biodegradation rates similar to those presented in the literature is considered as one line
of evidence of natural attenuation.
The third column shows the estimated degradation half-lives due to biodegradation based
on the method of Buscheck. The fourth column shows the total attenuation (degradation
plus non-degradation mechanisms) based on Buscheck. The fifth column is the
percentage of attenuation due to degradation based on Buscheck. The biodegradation
rates based on Buscheck are more varied and somewhat slower than those indicated by
use of BIOSCREEN. The Buscheck method indicates that non-attenuation mechanisms
r.\PROJ\OJ 13.0SIJ04.doc 4-17
I .,
I
I ---
' I
I
I
I
j.
I
I
I
,I ,,
I
I
I
I
are important to the total attenuation process. The modeling effort supports natural
attenuation including reductive dechforination and indicates that significant attenuation is
likely to occur even in the ab_sence of reductive dechlorination. However, it is important
to remember the limits of these methods due to their simplifying assumptions and the
failure of either method to account for the downward gradient which significantly
impacts the constituent distribution at the site.
Because of the limits on BIOSeREEN due to the vertical transport component,
sensitivity analyses were not conducted nor was modeling conducted to determine the
expected future concentrations in groundwater following implementation of an active
remedy.
4.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REMEDY AND AS/SVE PILOT TEST
The evaluation of natural attenuation suggests that the natural processes will continue to
contribute to mitigating migration ofVOes. A reduction in voe mass in the source area
would reduce the burden on natural attenuation. Potentially, this could have the effect of
reducing voe concentrations within the plume and the length of the plume.
Active remediation in addition to removing constituent mass are apt to alter the site
geochemistry. As a result of these changes, natural attenuation mechanisms, especially
biodegradation, may be impacted. For example, air sparging introduces oxygen to
groundwater. To the extent oxygen is dissolved, reductive dechlorination would be
inhibited. This impact might be limited to the source area at least over the near future.
Limited impact might occur away from the source area. Determination of the long term
impact of active remediation will require long term monitoring as for any natural
attenuation project
P ,\PROJ\O) IJ.08\s04.doe 4-18
--
Q:\PR00l13.08\T!M01.zi.
-.. -.. -.. liill -
Tetra-
• chloro-
Monitoring Well Sampling Date ethene
(µg/L)
Northern Shallow Zone
W-17s Oct-94 42,000
W-17s Jan-95 57,000
W-17s May-98 84,000 D
W-17s Dec-98 72,000D
W-19s Dec-95 26
W-19s May-98 26D
W-19s Dec-98 250 J
W-20s Dec-95 3
W-20s May-98 20
W-20s Dup. May-98 17
W-20s Dec-98 27 DJ
W-3Is Nov-98 LOU
W-31s Dec-98 I.OU
W-31s Dup. Dec-98 I.OU
Northern Intermediate Zone
W-28i Dec-95 230
W-28i May-98 170 D
W-28i Dec-98 640D
W-30i Dec-95 530
W-30i May-98 500 D
W-30i Oec-98 560 DJ
W-30i Jan-99 1,100 D
W-30i Jan-99 1,IOOD
W-20i Mar-96 240
W-20i May-98 310 DJ
W-20i Dec-98 1,100D
W-20i Jan-99 450 D
W-20i Jan-99 380 D
W-31i Nov-98 LOU
W-3li Dec-98 0.1 J
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voes IN
NATURAL A TIENUATION WELLS
FCX STATESVILLE SUPERFUNU SITE OUJ
cis-1,2-
Trichloro-Dichiaro-Vinyl Chiaro-
ethene ethene chloride methane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
4,ooo u· 430 J 4,000 U 4,000 U
480 J 880 J 4,000 U 4,000 U
410D 720D 250 UD 250UD
10,000 UD 10,000 UJ I 0,000 UD I 0,000 UD
4 I J 2.0U 2.0 U
1.2 JD 0.82 DJ 2.5 UD 2.5 UD
5 4.0U I.OU I.OU
0.5 J 0.8 J I.OU I.OU
0.89 J 3.4 I.OU I.OU
0.8 J 3.1 I.OU I.OU
41 I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
LOU 0.04 J I.OU I.OU
I.OU 0.061 I.OU I.OU
32 12 IOU IOU
42 D 16D IOUD lOUD
24D 9.0 DJ lOUD IOU
28 J 28 J 50 U sou
34 D 20D 2.5 UD 1.2 DJ
46D 28 DJ 20 UD 20 U
82 D 43 JD 0.2 J I.OU
85 D 42 JD 50 UD sou
13 J 29 20 U 20U
18 DJ 25 J 2.0 UJ 2.0U
75 D 120D 50 UD 50 U
34 D 29D I.OU I.OU
29D 24 D 20UD 20UD
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
--lilll
Carbon Chiaro-
Acetone Benzene disulfide fonn
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
20,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U
20,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U
1,200 UD 250UD 250UD IIODJ
NR 10,000 UD 10,000 UD 10,000 UD
10 U 2.0 U 0.4 J 0.3 J
12 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 0.56 JD
NR I.OU I.OU I J
7U I.OU I.OU 0.2 J
5.0 U I.OU I.OU 0.231
5.0 U LOU I.OU 0.21 J
NR LOU I.OU 0.2 J
5.0 U I.OU I.OU 0.25 J
NR I.OU I.OU 0.05 J
NR 1.0 U I.OU 0.04 U
50 U IOU IOU 41
50 UD IOUD 10 UD IOUD
NR lOUD lOUD 2 DJ
250 U sou sou 61
20UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD
NR 20UD 20UD 20 UD
5.0U 0.2 J I.OU 0.4 J
250 UD 50 UD 50 UD 50 UD
100 U 20 U 20U 20 U
10 UJ 2.0 UJ 0.48 J 0.77 J
NR 50 UD 14 DJ 5 JD
5.0 U 0.08 J I.OU I
lOOUD 20UD 20UD 20UD
5.0 U I.OU I.OU 1.0 U
NR I.OU I.OU 0.09 J
Page I of6
iiii iiiiiil lliiii liiii
Monitoring Well Sampling Date
Southern Shallow Zone
W-5s Apr-94
W-5s Oct-94
W-5s May-98
W-Ss Dec-98
W-5s Dup. Dec-98
W-22s Dec-95
W-22s May-98
W-22s Dec-98
W-24s Dec-95
W-24s May-98
W-24s Jan-99
W-24s Dup. Jan-99
Southern Intermediate Zone
W-Si Oct-94
W-Si May-98
W-5i Dec-98
W-22i Mar-96
W-22i May-98
W-22i Dec-98
W-29i Dec-95
W-29i May-98
W-29i Dec-98
W-29i Dup. Dec-98
W-32i Nov-98
W-32i Dec-98
Q:\PROOlll.O4\T0<101.Jda
-.. --
Tetra-
chloro-
ethene
(µg/L)
200
190
200 DI
200 UJ
200 D
4
3.6
4
I
0.35 I
1.0 U
I.OU
25
49 D
28 D
170
150 D
110 I
15
42D
321
34 DI
0.26 I
0.4 I
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voes IN
NATURAL ATTENUATION WELLS
FCX STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
cis-1,2-
Trichloro-Dichloro-Vinyl Chloro-
ethene ethene chloride methane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
38 I 1,000 50 U sou
38 I 1,000 50 U sou
55 I 1,300 8.2 I 5.0 UJ
53 I 1,600 I 50 I 200 UJ
67 D 1,600 D 26 DJ 50 UD
3 11 0.3 I I.OU
0.12 I 2.5 0.451 I.OU
I.OU 21 0.4 I 0.11
2 0.3 I 1.0 U I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU 1.0 U I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
2.0J II IOU IOU
4.9 DJ 4 DI 5.0UD 5.0 UD
4 IO I 0.3 I I.OU!
16 90 IOU IOU
II IOOD 2.1 I.OU
IOD 140 I 3 DI IO UJ
0.8 I 3 I.OU I.OU
1.4 DJ 8D 2.5 UD 2.5 UD
2.0 ID 71 0.2 DI 2.0 UJ
2 DI 7 DI 0.2 DI 2.0 UDJ
0.1 I I 1.0 U 1.0 U I.OU
0.2 I I.OU! I.OU I.OU
Carbon Chiaro-
Acetone Benzene disulfide form
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
530 U 50 U 50 U sou
250 U 50 U 50 U 50 U
61 UJ 2.9 I 5.0 UJ 2.21
NR 200 Ul 200 UJ 200 UJ
250UD 50UD 50 UD 50UD
6U I.OU I.OU 0.31
5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU
NR I.OU I.OU I.OU
7U I.OU I.OU 0.2 I
5.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU
5.0 U I.OU I.OU 0.1 I
5.0 U I.OU I.OU 0.061
sou IOU IOU 2.0 I
25UD 5.0 UD 5.0 UD 5.0 UD
NR I.OJ I.OU 0.06 I
50 U IOU IOU IOU
5.0 U 0.28 I 1.0 U 0.54 I
NR IOU IOUD 0.8 I
5.0 U I.OU I.OU 0.8 I
12 UD 2.5UD 2.5 UD I.I DI
NR 2.0UD 2.0UD 11
NR 2.0 UD 2.0UD I DI
5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.14 I
NR I.OU I.OU 1.0 U
Page 2 of6
iiii liili iiiil iiiii -
Monitoring Well Sampling Date
Background Wells
W-18s Dec-95
W-18s May-98
W-18s Dec-98
W-12s Oct-94
W-12s Jan-95
W-12s May-98
W-12i Oct-94
W-l2i Jan-95
W-12i May-98
W-12i Dec-98
W-lOi Oct-94
W-!Oi Jan-95
W-IOi Dec-95
W-IOi May-98
W-lOi Dec-98
0:\PR0031l.O8\T0.01..rl1
---
Tetra-
chloro-
ethene
(µg/L)
6
3.5
4J
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
3.0
2.0
1.5
2.0 J
I.OU
0.9 J
0.9 J
0.66 J
2.0
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voes IN
NATURAL ATTENUATION WELLS
FCX STATESVILLE SUPERFUNO SITE OU3
cis-1,2-
Trichloro-Dichiaro-Vinyl Chiaro-
ethene ethene chloride methane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
6 0.8 J I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU 1.0 U I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
1.0 0.1 J I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU 1.0 UJ I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
0.2 J I.OU I.OU I.OU
2 0.2 J I.OU 0.2 J
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU
-lilil liiil liill
Carbon Chiaro-
Acetone Benzene disulfide form
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
SU I.OU I.OU 0.6 J
6U I.OU I.OU I.OU
NR I.OU I.OU I.OU
5.0U 1.0 U I.OU I.OU
5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.1 J
NR I.OU I.OU I.OU
5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU
6.0U I.OU 4.0 0.1 J
310 DJ 1.0 U 0.39J 0.14 J
NR 0.04 J 0.05 J 0.3 J
11.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU
6.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU
8U I.OU 0.2 J
5.0 U 1.0 U I.OU I.OU
NR 1.0 UJ I.OU I.OU
Pa!!e 3 of6
== -iiiil
1,2,4-
Trichloro-
Monitoring Well Sampling Date benzene
(µg/L)
Northern Shallow Zone
W-17s Oct-94 120
W-17s Jan-95 NA
W-17s May-98 250 UD
W-17s Dec-98 NA
W-19s Dec-95 NA
W-19s ~lay-98 2.5UD
W-19s Dec-98 NA
W-20s Dec-95 NA
W-20s May-98 I.OU
W-20s Dup. May-98 I.OU
W-20s Dec-98 NA
W-3ls Nov-98 I.OU
W-3ls Dec-98 NA
W-31s Dup. Dec-98 NA
Northern Intermediate Zone
W-28i Dec-95 NA
W-28i May-98 I0UD
W-28i Dec-98 NA
W-30i Dec-95 NA
W-30i May-98 2.5 UD
W-30i Dec-98 NA
W-30i Jan-99 NA
W-30i Jan-99 NA
W-20i Mar-96 NA
W-20i May-98 2.0 U
W-20i Dec-98 NA
W-20i Jan-99 NA
W-20i Jan-99 NA
W-3li Nov-98 I.OU
W-3li Dec-98 NA
Q:\PR00313.0S\To.101.tl•
iiiiil --
1,1,2·
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voes IN
NATURAL ATTENUATION WELLS
FCX STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OUJ
I, I, I-1,1-I, I-1,2-
Trichloro-Trich\oro-Dichiaro-Dichiaro-Dichiaro-
ethane ethane ethane ethene ethane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U
4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U
250 UD 250 UD 250UD 250UD 250UD
-
1,2-
Dichiaro-Methylene
propane chloride
(µg/L) (µg/L)
4,000 U 8,000 U
4,000 U 8,000 U
57 DJ 500UD
10,000 UD 10,000 UD 10,000 UD 10,000 U I0,000 UD I 0,000 UD 20,000 UJ
2.0U 2.0U 2.0U 2.0 U 2.0U 2.0 U 2U
2.5UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD 5.0UD
I.OU I.OU 1.0 U 0.3 J I.OU 1.0 2.0 U
I.OU I.OU IU I.OU I.OU I.OU 2.0 U
1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.28 J 2.0 U
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 0.26 J 2.0 U
I.OU I.OU I U I.OU I.OU 0.4 J 2.0 UJ
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 2.0 U
I.OU I.OU 1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU 2.0U
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 2.0 U
IOU IOU IOU 61 IOU IOU 20 U
I0UD IOUD I0UD 2.9 DJ I0UD I0UD 20UD
IOUD IOUD I0UD 14D I0UD 0.8 JD 20 U
50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50U 50 U 100 U
2.5 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD I.I DJ 2.5UD 5.3D 12 D
20UD 20UD 20UD 20 U 20UD 5 DJ 40U
0.2 J I.OU 0.2 J 3 I.OU 5 2.0U
50UD 50 UD 50 UD 50UD 50 UD 50 UD I00U
20U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20U 20 U 40U
2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 0.4 J 2.0 UJ 8.6 J 4 UJ
50UD 50 UD 50UD 50 UD 50UD 48 DJ IO0 U
I.OU I.OU 0.3 J 0.6 J I.OU 16 2.0 U
20UD 20UD 20UD 20 UD 20UD 15 JD 40 U
I.OU 1.0 U 1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU 2.0
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 2.0 U
.. lilil
4-Methyl-trans-1,2-
2-pent-Dichiaro-
anone Toluene ethene
(µg/L) (µg/L) :·_ (µg/L)
20,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U
20,000 U 4,000 U 4,000 U
1,200 UD 250 U D 250UD
50,000 UJ 10,000 UD 10,000 UD
IOU 2.0 U 2.0 U
12UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD
5.0U I.OU 0.05 J
5.0 U I.OU 1.0 U
5.0 U I.OU I.OU
5.0 U I.OU I.OU
5.0 UJ I.OU I.OU
5.0U 0.06 J I.OU
5.0U I.OU I.OU
5.0U I.OU I.OU
50 U IOU IOU
50 UD I0UD I0UD
50 UD IOU I0UD
250 U 50 U sou
12 UD 0.46 DJ 0.38 DJ
I00UD 20 U 20UD
5.0U 0.1 J 0.1 J
250 UD 50 UD 50UD
I00U 20 U 20U
1.4 J 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ
250 UD 50 U 50 UD
5.0 U I.OU 0.2 J
IO0UD 20UD 20UD
5.0 U I.OU I.OU
5.0 U I.OU I.OU
Page 4 of6
liiii liii1 liiil -
1,2,4-
Trichloro-
Monitoring Well Sampling Date benzene
(µg/L)
Southern Shallow Zone
W-5s Apr-94 NA
W-5s Oct-94 5.0 U
W-5s May-98 5.0 UJ
W-5s Dec-98 NA
\V-5s Dup. Dec-98 NA
W-22s Dec-95 NA
W-22s May-98 I.OU
W-22s Dec-98 NA
W-24s Dec-95 NA
W-24s May-98 I.OU
W-24s Jan-99 I.OU
W-24s Dup. Jan-99 I.OU
Southern Intermediate Zone
W-Si Oct-94 5.0 U
W-5i May-98 5.0UD
W-5i Dec-98 NA
W-22i Mar-96 NA
W-22i May-98 I.OU
W-22i Dec-98 NA
W-29i Dec-95 NA
W-29i May-98 2.5 UD
W-29i Dec-98 NA
W-29i Dup. Dec-98 NA
W-32i Nov-98 I.OU
W-32i Dec-98 NA
O:\PR00313.08\TCM01.>ls
--
1,1,2-
TABLE4-I
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voes IN
NATURAL ATTENUATION WELLS
FCX STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OUJ
1,1,1-1,1-I, I-1,2-
Trichloro-Trichloro-Dichiaro-Dichloro- Dichloro-
ethane ethane ethane ethene ethane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
13 J 150 430 81 50 U
II J 140 380 73 50 U
13 J 140 DJ 340 DJ 83 J 3.8 J
200 UJ 85 J 270 J 76 J 200 UJ
9.8 DJ IIOD 290 D 100 D 50UD
1.0 U I.OU 0.7 J I.OU 1.0 U
I.OU 0.88 J I.I 1.0 U 1.0 U
I.OU 0.6J 0.6 J I.OU 1.0 U
I.OU I.OU 0.3 J 0.2 J I.OU
I.OU I.OU 1.0 U 1.0 U I.OU
I.OU I.OU 0.2 J 0.09 J I.OU
I.OU I.OU 0.2 J 0.08 J I.OU
IOU 2J 5 J 3J IOU
5.0 VD 5.0 VD 3.3 DJ 3.6 DJ 5.0UD
I.OU I.OU 5 J 4 I.OU
IOU 12 47 IOU 10 U
0.31 J II 46 D 20 1.0 U
IOUD 12D 58 J 20 D IOUD
I.OU 0.5 J 2 3 1.0 U
2.5 UD 2.5 UD 5.4 D 4.4 D 2.5 UD
2.0UD 2.0UD 4 DJ 3D 2.0UD
2.0UD 2.0UD SJ 4D 2.0 UD
I.OU 1.0 U I.OU 1.0 U 1.0 U
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U
-iiiiJ
1,2-4-Methyl-trans-1,2-
Dichloro-Methylene 2-pent-Dichiaro-
propane chloride anone Toluene ethene
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
50U 50 U 250 U 50 U 50U
sou 32 J 250 U 50 U 50 U
2.4 J 3.4 J 25 UJ 5.0 UJ 3.1 J
200 UJ 400 UJ 1000 UJ 200 UJ 200 UJ
50 VD IOO UD 250UD 50 VD 50 VD
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0U 1.0 U I.OU
I.OU 5.0 U 5.0 U I.OU I.OU
I.OU 2.0 UJ 5.0 VJ I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU 5.0 U 0.1 J I.OU
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 U I.OU I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0 U 0.05 J I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0 U I.OU I.OU
IOU 4J 50 U IOU IOU
5.0UD IOUD IOUD 5.0UD 5.0UD
I.OU 2.0 UJ 5.0U 0.40 J I.OU
10 U 20 U 50 U IOU IOU
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 UD I.OU 0.46 J
IO UD 20 UJ 50 UD IOUD 0.4 JD
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 U I.OU 1.0 U
2.5 UD 5.0 UD 12 UD 2.5 UD 2.5 UD
2.0UD 4.0 UJ IOUD 2.0 UD 2.0UD
2.0UD 4.0UJ IOUD 2.0UD 2.0UD
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 U 0.24 J I.OU
I.OU 2.0 VJ 5.0 UJ I.OU I.OU
Page 5 of6
- ---
Monitoring Well Sampling Date
Background Wells
W-18s Dec-95
W-18s May-98
W-l8s Dec-98
W-12s Oct-94
W-12s Jan-95
W-12s May-98
W-!2i Oct-94
W-12i Jan-95
W-12i May-98
W-12i Dec-98
W-lOi Oct-94
W-!Oi Jan-95
W-lOi Dec-95
W-IOi May-98
W-lOi Dec-98
0:\PROOJ1 3.O8\TCl-'01.•la
-.. TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voes IN
NATURAL ATTENUATION WELLS
FCX STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OUJ
1,2,4- 1,1,2-I, I ,I-I, 1-I, I-1,2-
Trichloro-Trichloro-Trichloro-Dichiaro-Dichiaro-Dichloro-
benzene ethane ethane ethane ethene ethane
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
NA 1.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU I U
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
NA I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
5.0 U I.OU I.OU I.OU 1.0 U I.OU
NA I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
5.0U I.OU I.OU 0.3 J I.OU I.OU
NA 1.0 U I.OU 0.4 J 0.1 J I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
NA I.OU I.OU 0.5 J 0.2 J I.OU
5.0U I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
NA I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU iou
NA I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
NA I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU I.OU
•oata qualifiers are as follows:
B indicates the analyte was detected in a blank sample.
D indicates that the result is from a diluted sample.
J indicates the result is estimated.
NA indicates not applicable; there was not an analysis perfonned.
-
1,2-4-Methyl-
Dichiaro-Methylene 2-pent-
propane chloride anone Toluene
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0U 0.1 l
I.OU 3.4 5.0 U I.OU
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 U I.OU
I.OU I.OU 5.0 U I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5:ou I.OU
I.OU 0.61 J 5.0U I.OU
I.OU I.OU 5.0U I.OU
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 U I.OU
I.OU 2.0 U I.I J 0.24 J
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 U I.OU
I.OU 2.0 U 5.0 U I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0 U I.OU
I.OU 2.0U 5.0 U 0.1 J
I.OU 4.1 5.0U I.OU
I.OU 2.0 UJ 5.0 UJ I.OUJ
NR indicates the result is not reportable because it was detennined as unusuable by the data validator.
liiiilll
trans-1,2-
Dichiaro-
ethene
(µg/L)
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
I.OU
U indicates that the result was less than one-fifth of the CRQL (contract-required quantification limit); the reporting limit preceeds
the nu" qualifier.
iiiil liiil
Page 6 of6
I
I TABLE4-2
I SUMMARY OF PCE CONCENTRATION DATA FROM
MONITORING WELLS USED FOR NATURAL ATTENUATION EVALUATION
I FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
I PCE Concentration
I Monitoring Well Apr-94' Oct-94' Jan-95' Dec-95' Mar-96' May-98b Oec-98b Jan-99b
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
I W-17s 42,000 57,000 84,000 72,000
W-19s 26 26 250
I W-20s 3 20 27
W-31s u U·
I W-28i 230 170 640
W-30i 530 500 560 I, 100
W-20i 240 310 1,100 380
I W-31i 0.1
W-5s 200 190 200 200
W-22s 4 3.6 4
I W-24s 0.35 u
W-5i 25 49 28
I W-22i 170 150 110
W-29i 15 42 32 .
W-32i . 0.4
I W-18s 3.5 4
I 'Results are from RI sampling in Table 4-1.
•Results are from POI sampling; see Table 3-6 for data qualifiers.
I
I
I
I
I p:lproj\0313.08\t0402.xls Page I of I
liiiiil liliiii
Well Information
Well Screened
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type Depth
(ft)
W-17s Source Shallow 29.5-44.5
W-17s Source Shallow 29.5-44.5
W-1s Side Gradient Shallow 38-48
W-19s North Plume Shallow 17-27
W-19s North Plume Shallow 17-17
W-20s North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20s Dupe North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20s North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20d North Plume Deep 152-166
W-31s North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s Dupe North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s Dupe North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-28i North Plume Intermediate 73-88
W-28i North Plume Intermediate 73-88
W-30i North Plume Intermediate 37.5-47.5
W-30i North Plume Intermediate 37.5.47.5
W-20i Nonh Plume Intermediate 84-94
W-20i North Plume Intermediate 84-94
W-31i North Plume Intermediate 34.43
W-31i North Plume Intermediate 34-44
W-5s South Plume Shallow 32-42
W-5s South Plume Shallow 32-42
W-5s Dupe South Plume Shallow 32-43
W-22s South Plume Shallow 20-35
W-22s South Plume Shallow 20-35
W-24s South Plume Shallow 5-20
W-24s South Plume Shallow 5-20
W-5i South Plume Intermediate 56-66
W-5i South Plume Intermediate 56-66
W-22i South Plume Intermediate 57-67
W-22i South Plume Intermediate 57-67
W-29i South Plume Intermediate 88-98
W-29i South Plume Intermediate 88-98
Q:\PRQ.NJJ 13.08\NA T A TTEN-COM8INED.rls
.. .. liiil iiiil iiiil
TABLE4-3
NATURAL A TIENDA TION PARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Sampling Date DO Nitrate/Nitrite Manganese (total)
(ppm) (mg/L) (ppm)
May-98 5.0 24 0.494
Dec-98 4.0 27 0.699
Dec-98 4.5 0.58 0.749
May-98 5.0 0.45 0.0364
Dec-98 NA NA 0.0744
May-98 8.0 u 0.0004 B
May-98 NA u 0.0076 B
Dec-98 4.0 0.21 0.016 B
Dec-98 0.5 NA 0.00024 B
Nov-98 6.0 u 0.975
Nov-98 6.5 u 17.4
Dec-98 0.4 0,50 1.420
Dec-98 0.51 1.4
May-98 2.5 0.14 0.0086 B
Dec-98 2.5 0.52 0.0071 B
May-98 1.8 u 0.023
Dec-98 0.3 u 0.0784
May-98 2.0 0.32 0.0016 B
Dec-98 1.0 0.067 0.0013 B
Nov-98 1.6 0.50 0.0045
Dec-98 0.6 0.60 0.0048 B
May-98 0.2 1.2 1.12
Dec-98 • NA 1.9 1.430
Dec-98 2.0 1.6
May-98 7.0 9.5 0.523
Dec-98 4.5 9 0.645
May-98 NA 0.25 2.59
Jan-99 0.9 0.60 1.78 J
May-98 2.0 u 0.0467
Dec-98 NA u 0.011 B
May-98 2.0 4.2 0.0464
Dec-98 1.0 4 0.0222
May-98 5.0 8.5 0.0274
Dec-98 4.0 7.5 0.0256
----..
Electron Acceptors
Manganese (II) Iron (total) Iron (II) Sulfate Sulfide
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (mg/L) (mg/L)
U' 1.7 0.2 u u
0.3 5.1 0.8 u NA
u 1.810 0.5 NA u
u 1.67 0.2 47 u
NA 3.260 NA 31 NA
u 0.0l23U u u u
NA 0.357 NA u NA
u 0.844 0.2 NA u
u 0.012 B u 22 u
0.45 12.8 7 9.1 u
0.4 64.1 6 10 u
0.3 4.730 2.9 10 u
4.4 22
u 0.573 u 42 u
u 0.433 0.1 24 u
u 1.59 0.7 35 5
0.1 3.030 0.7 NA 0.3
u 0.0181 B u 6.8 u
u 0.0745 B u 13 u
u 0.0399 u II u
0.15 0.0208 B 0.1 6.6 u
u 2.93 u u u
NA 11.100 NA u u
13.0 u NA
0.3 1.82 1.2 1.3 u
0.2 5.340 2.2 NA u
NA 65.7 NA 18 NA
0.1 55.8 J 1.2 3.3 u
u 1.02 I.I 22 u
u 0.0706 B 0.2 NA u
u 1.26 0.95 u u
u 1.320 1.9 NA u
u 0.0123 U u u u
u 5.7 U u NA u
Page I of&
----
Well Information
Well Screened
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type Depth
(ft)
W-29i Dupe South Plume Intermediate 88-98
W-32i South Plume Intermediate 112-131
W-32i -South Plume Intermediate 112-132
W-18s Background Shallow 22.5-37.5
W-18s Background Shallow 22.5-37.5
W-12s Background Shallow 18-33
W-12s Background Shallow 18-33
W-12s~ Background Shallow 18-33
W-12i Background Intermediate 73-83
W-12i Background Intermediate 73-83
W-Si Side Gradient Intermediate 83-93
W-IOi Side Gradient lntennediate 59-69
W-!Oi Side Gradient Intermediate 59-69.
W-26i Side Gradient lntennediate 103-118
W-1 Is Side Gradient Shallow 25-40
W-6s Side Gradient Shallow 22-37
W-6s Dupe Side Gradient Shallow 22-37
W-9s Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-9s Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-9s Dupe Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-16i Treatment lntennediate 77-87
W-16s Treatment Shallow 35-50
W-16s Treatment Shallow 35-50
W-16i Treatment Intermediate 77-87
O:v:>ROJI03\3 0~~-'T -'TTEN•COM8!NEO.J<b
-TABLE 4-3
NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Sampling Date DO Nitrate/Nitrite Manganese (total)
(ppm) (mg/L) (ppm)
Dec-98 4.5 7.4 0.0001
Nov-98 10' 0.59 0.0288
Dec-98 1.0 0.74 0.0122 B
May-98 6.0 0.43 0.0332
Dec-98 NA u 0.285
May-98 7.0 1.7 0.0357
May-98 NA NA NA
Dec-98 NA NA NA
May-98 4.0 2.7 0.0056 B
Dec-98 3.5 3.1 0.0041 B
Dec-98 1.0 u 0.0331
May-98 0.6 u 0.0022 B
Dec-98 2.0 0.31 0.0044 B
Dec-98 3.5 2 0.0174
May-98 NA NA 0.0839
May-98 NA NA 0.173
May-98 NA NA 0.184
May-98 NA 1.3 0.0365
Dec-98 NA 1.8 0.535
May-98 NA 1.3 0.0529
Dec-98 NA NA NA
May-98 NA NA 0.0413
Dec-98 NA NA NA
May-98 NA NA 0.001 U
----
Electron Acceptors
Manganese (II) Iron (total} Iron (II) Sulfate Sulfide
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (mg/L) (mg/L)
u 0.026 u NA u
u 1.2 NA 14 u
0.1 0.344 u 10 u
u 1.12 0.2 u u
NA 14.300 NA u NA
U 2.37 0.25 5.8 u
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
u 0.042 B u 38 u
u 0.0213B 0.1 46 NA
U 4.380 0.2 63 u
U 0.0361 B u 4.3 0.1
u 0.111 0.2 NA u
u 0.0234 B u 11 u
NA 2.17 NA NA NA
NA 5.16 NA NA NA
NA 5.44 NA NA NA
NA 1.08 NA u NA
NA 35.6 NA u NA
NA 2.43 NA u NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA 0.721 NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA 0.157 NA NA. NA
Page 2 of8
Well Information
Well Screened
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type Depth
(ft)
W-17s Source Shallow 29.5-44.5
W-17s Source Shallow 29.5-44.5
W-ls Side Gradient Shallow 38-48
W-19s North Plume Shallow 17-27
W-19s North Plume Shallow 17-17
W-20s North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20s Dupe North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20s North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20d North Plume Deep 152-166
W-31s North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s Dupe North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s Dupe North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-28i North Plume Intermediate 73-88
W-28i North Plume Intermediate 73-88
W-30i North Plume Intermediate 37.5-47.5
W-30i North Plume Intermediate 37.5.47.5
W-20i North Plume Intermediate 84-94
W-20i North Plume Intermediate 84-94
W-3li North Plume Intermediate 34-43
W-31i North Plume Intermediate 34-44
W-5s South Plume Shallow 32-42
W-5s ~ South Plume Shallow 32-42
W-5s Dupe South Plume Shallow 32-43
W-22s South Plume Shallow 20-35
W-22s South Plume Shallow 20-35
W-24s South Plume Shallow 5-20
W-24s South Plume Shallow 5-20
W-5i South Plume Intermediate 56-66
W-5i South Plume Intermediate 56-66
W-22i South Plume Intermediate 57-67
W-22i South Plume Intermediate 57-67
W-29i South Plume Intermediate 88-98
W-29i South Plume Intermediate 88-98
Q,IPRDJ\0313 08\NAT ATTEN-COMBINEO.~t,;
11111 .. TABLE4-3
NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Sampling Date CO3 Alkalinity Methane
(mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L)
May-98 46 u u
Dec-98 32 3.9 1.9
Dec-98 16 13 0.14
May-98 100 26 u
Dec-98 NA 15 0.34
May-98 40 28 u
May-98 NA 29 u
Dec-98 14 33 0.097
Dec-98 NA' 610 4.1
Nov-98 45 61 I 1.6
Nov-98 50 55 11.5
Dec-98 26 64 3.8
Dec-98 NA 64 3.3
May-98 2 84 u
Dec-98 NA 120 1.5
May-98 18.75 170 u
Dec-98 18 140 1.4
May-98 14 56 u
Dec-98 16 64 14
Nov-98 12 34 0.18
Dec-98 10 31 0.80
May-98 112 u u
Dec-98 234 7.6 6.2
Dec-98 NA 9.8 6.48
May-98 55 u u
Dec-98 60 u 0.26
May-98 NA 15 0.408
Jan-99 90 14 0.051
May-98 40 39 u
Dec-98 38 52 0.56
May-98 105 49 u
Dec-98 100 45 1.1
May-98 50 8.1 u
Dec-98 60 8.7 0.26
-11111
Products or Degradation
Volatile
Ethene Ethane Fatty Acids Chloride
(µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
u u 5.1 27
0.06 0.12 3.0 29
0 007 0.011 u u
u u 18 31
0.012 0.083 3.0 34
u u 12 u
u u 2.9 u
<0.005 0.014 3.0 u
0.43 0.26 u 6.7
7.6 1.2 u 4.6
5.9 1.2 u 4.6
0.015 0.27 3.0 5.5
0.011 0.23 u 6.1
u u 40 5.2
0.43 0.24 3.0 3.2
u u 49 30
0.46 0.095 9.0 22
u u 26 14
0.55 0.22 u 36
1.8 0.022 u 1.1
0.019 021 u 1.5
u u 12 34
0.024 0.30 6.0 5.3
0.03 0.14 3.0 5.6
u u 14 9.9
0.01 I 0.013 3.0 8.4
u u 17 14
0.000041 u 3.0 29
u u 14 2.0
0.36 0.15 3.0 1.3
u u 34 16
0.011 0.013 3.0 14
u u 17 23
0.009 0.019 3.0 21
Pae:e 3 nfR
-.. -
Well Information
Well Screened
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type Depth
(ft)
W-29i Dupe South Plume Intermediate 88-98
W-32i South Plume Intermediate 112-131
W-32i South Plume Intermediate 112-132
W-I8s Background Shallow 22.5-37.5
W-18s Background Shallow 22.5-37.5
W-12s Background Shallow 18-33
W-12s Background Shallow 18-33
W-12sc Background Shallow 18-33
W-12i Background Intermediate 73-83
W-12i Background Intermediate 73-83
W-8i Side Gradient Intennediate 83-93
W-!Oi Side Gradient Intermediate 59-69
W-J0i Side Gradient Intermediate 59-69
W-26i Side Gradient Intermediate 103-118
W-1 ls Side Gradient Shallow 25-40
W-6s Side Gradient Shallow 22-37
W-6s Dupe Side Gradient Shallow 22-37
W-9s Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-9s Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-9s Dupe Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-J6i Treatment Intermediate 77-87
W-16s Treatment Shallow 35-50
W-16s Treatment Shallow 35-50
W-J6i Treatment Intermediate 77-87
O:IPROJ\1131 3,08\NAT ATTEN-CQMSINED.m
.. -.. TABLE 4-3
NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
FCX-STA TESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Sampling Date CO3 Alkalinity Methane
(mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L)
Dec-98 58 11 0.24
Nov-98 10 65 0.20
Dec-98 16 67 0.52
May-98 90 u u
Dec-98 NA 3.3 0.37
May-98 24 u u
May-98 NA NA NA
Dec-98 NA NA NA
May-98 60 25 u
Dec-98 55 31 2.2
Dec-98 2 110 0.77
May-98 15 38 u
Dec-98 10 39 1.6
Dec-98 14 86 1.3
May-98 NA NA NA
May-98 NA NA NA
May-98 NA NA NA
May-98 NA u u
Dec-98 NA 2.2 0.51
May-98 NA u u
Dec-98 NA NA NA
May-98 NA NA NA
Dec-98 NA NA NA
May-98 NA NA NA
----
Products of Degradation
Volatile
Ethene Ethane Fatty Acids Chloride
(µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
O.o! 0.◊2 3.0 21
1.4 0.023 3.0 1.7
0.061 0.097 3.0 1.9
u u 23 u
0.006 0.1 3.0 u
u u 5.7 1.9
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
u u 34 30
0.28 0.26 u 31
27 0.15 3.0 9.2
u u 12 u
0.010 0.016 u u
1.3 0.16 3.0 14
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
u u 5.7 4.9
0.009 0.12 u 3.1
u u 4.6 4.7
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
Page4of8
_, --.. -
Well Information
Well Screened
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type Depth
(ft)
W-17s Source Shallow 29.5-44.5
W-17s Source Shallow 29.5-44.5
W-1s Side Gradient Shallow 38-48
W-19s North Plume Shallow 17-27
W-19s North Plume Shallow 17-17
W-20s North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20s Dupe North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20s North Plume Shallow 4-14
W-20d North Plume Deep 152-166
W-31s North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-3ls Dupe North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s North Plume Shallow 5-15
W-31s Dupe Nonh Plume Shallow 5-15
W-28i North Plume Intermediate 73-88
W-28i North Plume Intermediate 73-88
W-30i North Plume lntennediate 37.5-47.5
W-30i North Plume lntennediate 37.5.47.5
W-20i North Plume Intermediate 84-94
W-20i North Plume Intermediate 84-94
W-3l i North Plume Intermediate 34-43
W-3li North Plume Intermediate 34-44
W-5s South Plume Shallow 32-42
W-5s South Plume Shallow 32-42
W-5s Dupe South Plume Shallow 32-43
W-22s South Plume Shallow 20-35
W-22s South Plume Shallow 20-35
W-24s South Plume Shallow 5-20
W-24s South Plume Shallow 5-20
W-5i South Plume Intennediate 56-66
W-5i South Plume Intermediate 56-66
W-22i South Plume Intermediate 57-67
W-22i South Plume Intermediate 57-67
W-29i South Plume Intermediate 88-98
W-29i South Plume lntennediate 88-98
O:IPROJVl313.03\NAT ATTEN•COM81NEO.xls
---TABLE 4-3
NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Sampling Date TOC Phosphate
(mg/L) (mg/L)
May-98 1.9 0.041
Dec-98 u NA
Dec-98 u NA
May-98 u 0.031
Dec-98 1.3 NA
May-98 u 0.045
May-98 u 0.069
Dec-98 u NA
Dec-98 4.6 NA
Nov-98 u 0.16
Nov-98 u 0.29
Dec-98 u NA
Dec-98 u u
May-98 6.0 0.13
Dec-98 2.5 NA
May-98 14 0.°078
Dec-98 5.4 NA
May-98 u u
Dec-98 u NA
Nov-98 u u
Dec-98 u NA
May-98 9.4 u
Dec-98 5.6 NA
Dec-98 5.6 NA
May-98 u u
Dec-98 u NA
May-98 1.3 0.12
Jan-99 1.2 NA
May-98 1.0 0.11
Dec-98 u NA
May-98 1.0 u
Dec-98 1.3 NA
May-98 u u
Dec-98 u NA
--.. -
Nutrients
TKN Ammonium Nitrate/Nitrite
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
u u 24
NA NA 27
NA NA 0.58
u u 0.45
NA NA NA
u u u
u u u
NA NA 0.21
NA NA NA
NA u u
NA u u
NA NA 0.50
NA NA 0.51
u u 0.14
NA NA 0.52
u 1.2 u
NA NA u
u u 0.32
NA NA 0.067
0.50
NA NA 0.60
u u 1.2
NA NA 1.9
NA NA 2.0
u u 9.5
NA NA 9
u u 0.25
NA NA u
u u u
NA NA u
u u 42
NA NA 4
u u 8.5
NA NA 7.5
Page5of8
-----
Well Information
Well Screened
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type Depth
(ft)
W-29i Dupe South Plume Intermediate 88-98
W-32i South Plume Intermediate 112-131
W-32i South Plume Intermediate 112-132
W-18s Background Shallow 22.5-37.5
W-18s Background Shallow 22.5-37.5
W-12s Background Shallow 18-33
W-12s Background Shallow 18-33
W-12sc Background Shallow 18-33
W-12i Background Intermediate 73-83
W-t2i Background Intermediate 73-83
W-Si Side Gradient Intermediate 83-93
W-!Oi Side Gradient Intermediate 59-69
W-IOi Side Gradient Intermediate 59-69
W-26i Side Gradient lntennediate 103-118
W-11s Side Gradient Shallow 25-40
W-6s Side Gradient Shallow 22-37
W-6s Dupe Side Gradient Shallow 22-37
W-9s Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-9s Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-9s Dupe Treatment Shallow 34-49
W-16i Treatment lntennediate 77-87
W-16s Treatment Shallow 35-50
W-16s Treatment Shallow 35-50
W-16i Treatment Intennediate 77-87
Q:IPROJ..cl313 08\NAT ATTEN-COMBINEO.><!,;
---TABLE4-3
NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
FCX-STA TES\'ILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Sampling Date TOC Phosphate
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Dec-98 1.7 NA
Nov-98 u u
Dec-98 1.3 NA
May-98 u 0.088
Dec-98 u NA
May-98 u u
May-98 NA NA
Dec-98 NA NA
May-98 1.3 0.027
Oec-98 u NA
Dec-98 3.6 NA
May-98 u 0.022
Dec-98 u NA
Dec-98 u NA
May-98 NA NA
May-98 NA NA
May-98 NA NA
May-98 u 0.050
Dec-98 u NA
May-98 1.0 0.050
Dec-98 NA NA
May-98 NA NA
Dec-98 NA NA
May-98 NA NA
--
Nutrients
TKN Ammonium Nitrate/Nitrite
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
NA NA 7.4
u u 0.59
NA NA 0.74
u u 0.43
NA NA u
u u 1.7
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
u u 2.7
NA NA 3.1
NA NA u
u u u
NA NA 0.31
NA NA 2
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
u u 1.3
NA NA 1.8
u u 1.3
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Page6of8
-----
Well Information
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type
W-17s Source Shallow
W-17s Source Shallow
W-ls Side Gradient Shallow
W-19s North Plume Shallow
W-19s North Plume Shallow
W-20s North Plume Shallow
W-20s Dupe North Plume Shallow
W-20s North Plume Shallow
W-20d North Plume Deep
W-31s North Plume Shallow
W-31s Dupe North Plume Shallow
W-31s North Plume Shallow
W-31s Dupe North Plume Shallow
W-28i North Plume Intennediate
W-28i North Plume Intennediate
W•30i North Plume Intennediate
W•30i North Plume Intermediate
w.2oi North Plume Intermediate
w.2oi North Plume Intermediate
W•31i North Plume Intermediate
w.3Ji North Plume Intermediate
W•5S South Plume Shallow
W•5S South Plume Shallow
W•5s Dupe South Plume Shallow
w.22s South Plume Shallow
W•22s South Plume Shallow
W•24s South Plume Shallow
W•24s South Plume Shallow
W-5i South Plume Intermediate
W-5i South Plume Intermediate
W-22i South Plume Intennediate
W-22i South Plume Intennediate
W-29i South Plume Intermediate
W•29i South Plume lntennediate
O:\PROJ\0313.08\NA T A TTEN·COMBINEO.xls
--.. TABLE4-3
NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Well Screened
Depth Sampling Date Conductivity
(ft) (µmhos)
29.5-44.5 May-98 320
29.5-44.5 Dec-98 300
38-48 Dec-98 15
17-27 May-98 269
17-17 Dec-98 NA
4-14 May-98 70.4
4-14 May-98 NA
4-14 Dec-98 55
152-166 Dec-98 NA
5-15 Nov-98 125
5-15 Nov-98 125
5-15 Dec-98 130
5-15 Dec-98 130
73-88 May-98 604
73-88 Dec•98 220
37.5-47.5 May·98 409
37.5.47.5 Dcc•98 295
84-94 May•98 172
84-94 Dec•98 190
'34.43 Nov•98 85
34.44 Dec•98 80
32.42 May.98 157
32-42 Dec•98 NA
32-43 Oec•98 NA
20-35 May•98 ·, 108
20-35 Dec-98 85
5-20 May·98 185
5-20 Jan-99 NA
56-66 May-98 161.1
56-66 Oec-98 120
57-67 May-98 176
57-67 Dec-98 140
88-98 May-98 166.5
88-98 Dec-98 120
--
Geochemical Parameters
Temperature pH Eh
('C) (unitless) (mv)
27 4.9 230
23 4.4 252
21 5.5 300
17.8 6.3 196
NA NA NA
14.8 7.4 131
NA NA NA
15 6.9 252
NA NA -237
18 6.9 -68
18 6.9 -63
18 6.7 142
18 6.7 NA
19.8 9.8 158
18 10 NA
18 9.3 ·230
16 8.4 162
15.2 8.6 -328
15 7.6 199
17 7 .J 18
16 7 142
21.3 4.7 216
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
18.9 4.7 332
18 4.7 230
20.5 5.7 230
NA NA 240
19.8 8.3 136
16 6.8 132
19.1 6.2 222
19 6 136
17.2 5.3 235
17 4.9 239
Page7of8
----
Well Information
Monitoring Well Zone Well Type
W-29i Dupe South Plume Intermediate
W-32i South Plume Intermediate
W-32i South Plume Intermediate
W-18s Background Shallow
W-18s Background Shallow
W-12s Background Shallow
W-12s Background Shallow
W-12sc Background Shallow
W-12i Background Intennediate
W-12i Background Intermediate
W-Si Side Gradient Intermediate
W-!0i Side Gradient Intermediate
W-lOi Side Gradient Intermediate
W-26i Side Gradient Intermediate
W-1 ls Side Gradient Shallow
W-6s Side Gradient Shallow
W-6s Dupe Side Gradient Shallow
W-9s Treatment Shallow
W-9s Treatment Shallow
W-9s Dupe Treatment Shallow
W-16i Treatment Intermediate
W-16s Treatment Shallow
W-16s Treatment Shallow
W-16i Treatment Intermediate
O:IPRQJ\0313.08\NAT ATTEN-COMBINEO ~Is
-.. TABLE 4-3
NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Geochemical Parameters
Well Screened
Depth Sampling Date Conductivity Temperature pH Eh
(ft) (µmhos) ('C) (unitless) (mv)
88-98 Dec-98 120 17 4.9 247
l 12-131 Nov-98 160 17 8.8 -102
112-132 Dec-98 120 16 8 250
22.5-37.5 May-98 20 18.4 5.2 498
22.5-37.5 Dec-98 NA NA NA NA
18-33 May-98 43.7 19.3 4.9 305
18-33 May-98 NA NA NA NA
18-33 Dec-98 NA NA NA NA
73-83 May-98 281 20 6 284
73-83 Dec-98 200 17 5 22
83-93 Dec-98 390 17 8.5 139
59-69 May-98 87.7 18.2 7.2 310
59-69 Dec-98 80 17 7.7 350
103-118 Dec-98 240 17 7.1 237
25-40 May-98 68 19.1 5.1 302
22-37 May-98 188 19.4 5.1 NA
22-37 May-98 188 19.4 5.1 NA
34-49 May-98 37 20.1 6.4 230
34-49 DJ_c-98 NA NA NA NA
34-49 May-98 37 20.1 6.4 230
77-87 Dec-98 NA NA NA NA
35-50 May-98 75 20 5.4 192
35-50 Dec-98 75 20 5.4 323
77-87 May-98 250 22 7.3 180
"Data qualifiers are as follows:
B indicates the analyte was detected in the blank sample.
J indicates the result is estimated.
NA indicates not applicable.
U indicates that the result \vas not detected above the detection
limit.
bElevated DOs may be due to pumping well dry then collecting water
that has been aerated.
'Monitoring well W-12s was dry during Decem~r 1998 sampling.
-
Page 8 of8
_,, llllt
Parameter
Electron Acceptors
DO
Nitrate
Manganese (II)
Iron (11)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Products of Degradation
Halogenated Ethenes
Ethene/Ethane
Methane
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
P:\proj\0313.08\T0404.doc
1111111!,. ------·-TABLE4-4
QUA LITA TIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIO PARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
North Plume Area
Shallow Saprolite Intermediate Bedrock
W-17s, W-19s, W-20s, W-31s
Some Support for Reductive
Dechlorination
Lower than background
W-17s & W-19s higher than expected
High in source area/low in plume.
Suggests denitrification near source.
May compete with reductive
dechlorination ·
Low levels but more than background
Maybe some manganese reducti.on
Some iron reduction but inconsistent
Absent at source -otherwise
decreases along flow path
Sulfate reduction indicated
Sulfide not detected
Maybe precipitated
Supports Biodegradation
Present. Supports reductive
dechlorination
Low levels in all wells. Some
reductive dechlorination of vinyl
chloride
Low levels in plume
Variable. High in first dov.rngradient
well
W-28i, W-30i, W-20i, W-31 i
Supports Reductive Dechlorination
Lower than background and generally
low.
Lower than background which was
fairly low.
Limited denitrification. Minimal
competition
Quite low levels of manganese
Insignificant amount of manganese
reduction
Elevated in one well; maybe some Fe
reduction occurs
Higher in plume vs. background;
sulfate reduction not supported
Trace in one plume sample; some
sulfate reduction occurs
Supports Reductive Dechlorination
Present. Supports reductive
dechlorination
Low levels in all wells. Some
reductive dechlorination of vinyl
chloride
Low levels everywhere
Increases along plume but lower than
background
South Plume Area
Shallow Saprolite Intermediate Bedrock
W-5s, W-22s, W-24s
Supports Reductive Dechlorination
DO lower than background . Quite
low except W-22s
Variable. Generally low
No denitrification
No competition
Some manganese vs none in
background
Some manganese reduction
Iron increases along flow path.
Iron reduction occurs
Variable but not enough to inhibit
reductive dechlorination
Sulfide not detected
Some support for Biodegradation
Present. Supports reductive
dechlorination
Low levels in all wells. Some
reductive dechlorination of vinyl
chloride
Low levels in plume
Higher than background, decreases
along plume
W-5i, W-22i, W-29i, W-32i
Modest Support for Reductive
Dechlorination
Lower than background
Increases at downgradient perimeter
of plume
Increases along plume. Maybe
denitrification near source. No
competition in plume
Manganese present in one well.
Localized manganese reduction.
Iron present in one well. Localized
iron reduction.
Lower along plume and lower than
background. Sulfate reduction occurs
Sulfide not present precipitates where
sulfate reduced.
\Veak Support for Biodegradation
Present. Supports reductive
dechlorination
Low levels in all wells. Some
reductive dechlorination of vinyl
chloride
Low levels everywhere
Decreases along plume
Page I of2
-.. ,_iillJ ..... -TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIOPARAMETERS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
North Plume Area South Plume Area
Shallow Saprolite Intennediate Bedrock
Parameter
W-17, W-19s, W-20s, W-3ls
Products of Degradation (continued)
Chloride
Alkalinity (VF As and
Bicarbonate)
Volatile Fatty Acids
Nutrients
Ammonium
Nitrate
TKN
Phosphorus
Other Parameters
pH
ORP
Temperature
Specific Conductivity
P:\proj\03 l 3.08\T0404.doc
Increased in Source area and
immediately downgradient.
Indicates reductive dechlorination
Higher in plume vs. background;
Increases along plume
Present
Present, but maybe limiting
All non-detect
Present, maybe some
consumption
All non-detect
Present. Low levels except W-31 s
Consistent with Biodegradation
Low in background and W-17s.
Others in acceptable range
Data inconclusive
In favorable range
Maybe higher in plume; result of
biodegradation, different
groundwater, or infiltration of
inorganics
W-281, W-301, W-201, W-3 li
Slightly elevated over background.
Some support for reductive
dechlorination
Higher than background. Decreases
along plume
Present
Nitrogen may be limiting
Low level one sample
Present, maybe some consumption
All non-detect
Some present
Consistent with Biodegradation
Qu_ite variable. Acceptable across
most of plume
Data inconclusive
In favorable range
About same as background.
Tendency to decrease along plume
Shallow Saprolite
W-Ss, W-22s, W-24s
Similar to background. Doesn't
support reductive dechlorination
Higher than background. Variable
Present
Present
All non-detect
Present, variable
All non-detect
All non-detect except W-24s
Adequate for Biodegradation
Generally low.
Data inconclusive
In favorable range
Higher than background
Intermediate Bedrock
W-Si, W-22i, W-29i, W-32i
Similar to or lower than background. Doesn't
support reductive dechlorination
A bit higher than background. Variable
Present
Nitrogen may be limiting
All non-detect
Present
Present in W-29i
Adequate for Biodegradation
Marginally low is W-29i. Others in
acceptable range.
Data inconclusive
In favorable range
Maybe lower than background
Page 2 of2
--1111!11 -------.. tllll'L> (_ ---
Analyte
Oxygen•
Oxygen'
Nitrate"
Iron (II)'
Sulfate•
Methane•
Methane._
Methane•
Oxidation reduction potential
(against Ag/AgCI)'
pH'
DOC
Temperature'
Carbon dioxide
Alkalinity
Chloride'
Hydrogen
Hydrogen
P:\proj\0313.08 \t0405.doc
TABLE4-5
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS AND WEIGHTING FOR
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF NATURAL ATTENUATION
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Concentration in Most
Contaminated Zone
< 0.5 mg/L
> I mg/L
< I mg/L
> I mg/L
< 20 mg/L
> I mg/L
> 0.1 mg/L
>I mg/L
< I mg/L
<50mV
<-100 mV
5 <pH< 9
> 20 mg/L
>20°C
> 2 x background
> 2 x background
> 2 x background
>InM
<lnM
Interpretation
Tolerated, suppresses reductive dechlorination at higher concentrations
Vinyl chloride may be oxidized aerobically, but reductive dechlorination will not occur
May compete with reductive pathway at higher concentrations
Reductive pathway possible
May compete with reductive pathway at higher concentrations
Reductive pathway possible
Ultimate reductive daughter product
Vinyl chloride accumulates
Vinyl chloride oxidizes
Reductive pathway possible
Reductive pathway possible
Tolerated range for reductive pathway
Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination; can be natural or anthropogenic
At T > 20°C, biochemical process is accelerated
Ultimate oxidative daughter product
Results from interaction of carbon dioxide with aquifer minerals
Daughter product of organic chlorine; compare chloride in plume to background conditions
Reductive pathway possible; vinyl chloride may accumulate
Vinyl chloride oxidized
Points
Awarded
3
-3
2
3
2
3
2
I
2
2
2
3
Page I of2
Analyte
Volatile fatty acids
BTEX'
Perchloroethene1
Trichloroethene'
Dichloroethene1
Vinyl chloride'
Ethene/Ethane
Chloroethane1
I, I, I-Trichloroethane
l, l-dichloroethene1
8Required analysis.
Jiai;t;;. \;a •.&iliiil ,_az, 4ii!!!iii ,., 9ilJ liiilii-·:•
TABLE 4-5 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS AND WEIGHTING FOR
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF NATURAL ATTENUATION
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Concentration in Most
Contaminated Zone Interpretation
> 0.1 mg/L
>0.1 mg/L
>0.01
>0.1
Intermediates resulting from biodegradation of aromatic compounds; carbon and energy source
Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination
Material released
Material released or daughter of product of perchloroethene
Material released or daughter product of trichloroethene; if amount of cis-1,2-dichloroethene is
greater than 80 percent of total dichloroethene, it is likely a daughter product of trichloroethene
Material released or daughter product of dichlrooethenes
Daughter product of vinyl chloride/ethene
Daughter product of vinyl chloride/ethene
Daughter product of vinyl chloride under reducing conditions
Material released
Daughter product of trichloroethene or chemical reaction of I, I, I-trichloroethane
bPoints awarded only if it can be shown that the compound is a daughter product (i.e., not a constituent of the source NAPL).
P:\proj\0313.08 \t0405.doc
Points
Awarded
2
2
2
Pagc2of2
iiiil -liiil iiiii -lfiii -.iiiiil ----;-----.-i -TABLE 4-6
APPLICATION OF USEPA/AFCEE SCREENING METHOD TO
SHALLOW AQUIFER GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation
Background Point Score Point Score Point Score Point Score Point Score Point Score Point Score
Parameter Units W-12s W-l7s W-19s W-20s W-31s W-5s W-22s W-24s
Oxygen mg/L 7.01 4.0 o' 5.0 0 0.5 0 0.4 0 0.2 0 4.5 0 NA' 0
Nitrate mg/L 1.7 24 0 0.45 2 0 2 0.5 2 1.2 0 9.5 0 0.25 '
Iron (II) mg/L 0.25 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 2.9 3 0 0 1.2 3 1.2 3
Manganese (II) mg/L o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.1 0
Sulfate mg/L 5.8 0 2 47 0 0 2 10 2 0 2 1.3 2 18 2
Sulfide mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0
Methane mg/L 0 0.0019 0 0.00034 0 0.000097 0 0.0038 0 0.00062 0 0.00026 0 0.000408 0
Eh (ORP) mv 305 230 0 196 0 131 0 0 216 0 332 0 230 0
TOC mg/L 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 9.4 0 0 0 1.3 0
Carbon Dioxide mg/L 24 32 0 100 14 0 26 0 112 60 NA 0
Alkalinity mg/L 0 0 0 26 28 64 0 0 0 0 15
Chloride mg/L 1.9 27 2 31 2 0 0 5.5 2 34 2 9.9 2 14 2
Phosphate mg/L 0 0.041 0 0.031 0 0.045 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0
TI<N mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ammonium mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conductivity µmhos 43.7 300 0 269 0 55 0 130 0 157 0 85 0 185 0
Temperature •c 19.3 23 0 17.8 0 • 15 0 18 0 21.3 0 18 0 20.5 0
pH 4.9 4.4 0 6.3 0 6.9 0 6.7 0 4.7 0 4.7 0 5.7 0
VOA Fatty Acids mg/L 5.7 5.7 2 18 2 12 2 2 12 2 14 2 17 '
PCE mg/L 0 84 0 0.026 0 0.0210 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.0036 0 0.00035 0
TCE mg/L 0 0.41 ' 0.0012 2 0.00089 2 0 0 0.055 2 0.00012 2 0 0
cis-DCE mg/L 0 0.72 2 0.00082 2 0.0034 2 0 0 1.3 2 0.0025 2 0 0
Vinyl Chloride mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0082 2 0.00045 2 0 0
Ethene/Ethane mg/L 0 0.0002 0 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.0003 0 0.0002 0 0.00001 0 0.0002 0
1,1,1-TCA mg/!. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.00088 0 0 0
1,1-DCA mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 ' 0.0011 ' 0 0
1,1-DCE mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.083 2 0 0 0 0
Sc:ore Total: 10 12 II 13 17 18 12
Q:\?ROJ\0313.09\T0405.xls Page I of2
liiiiil l!iill liiiiiil liii 'iiiiii
Attenuation
Background Point Score
Parameter W-l2i W-28i
Oxygen mg/L 3.5 2.5 0
Nitrate mg/L 2.7 0.14 2
Iron (II) mg/L 0.1 0 0
Manganese (II) mg/L 0.004 0 0
Sulfate mg/L 38 42 0
Sulfide mg/L 0 0 0
Methane mg/L 0.0022 0,0015 0
Eh (ORP) mv 284 158 0
TOC mg/L 1.3 6.0 0
Carbon Dioxide mg/L 55 2 0
Alkalinity mg/L 25 84
Phosphate mg/L 0.027 0.13 0
TKN mg/L 0 0 0
Ammonium mg/L 0 0 0
Conductivity umhos 200 180 0
Temperature C 17 18 0
pH 5 10 0
Chloride mg/L 30 5.2 0
VOA Fatty Acids mg/L 34 40 2
PCE mg/L 0.0015 0.17 0
TCE mg/L 0 42 2
cis-DCE mg/L 0 16 2
Vinyl Chloride mg/L 0 0 0
Ethene/Ethane mg/L 0,0003 0.0007 0
1,1,1-TCA mg/L 0 0 0
1,1-DCA mg/L 0 0 0
1,1-DCE mg/L 0 0.0029 2
Score Total: II
·Jiiiil -TABLE 4-6
APPLICATION OF USEP,VAFCEE SCREENING METHOD TO
SHALLOW AQUIFER GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation
Point Score Point Score Point Score
W-30i W-20i W-3li
03 0 0 0.6 0
0 2 0.32 2 0.6 2
0.7 0 0 0 0.1 0
0 0 0 0 0.15 0
35 0 6.8 2 6.6 2
0.3 0 0 0 0 0
0.0014 0 0.0014 0 0,0008 0
-230 2 -328 2 0 I
14 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 16 0 10 0
170 56 31 0
0,078 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1.2 0 0 0 0 0
295 0 190 0 80 0
16 0 15 0 16 0
8.4 0 7,6 0 7 0
30 0 14 0 1.5 0
49 2 26 2 0 0
0.50 0 0.31 0 0 0
0.034 2° 0.18 2 0 0
0.020 2 0.025 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0006 0 0.0008 0 0.0002 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.001 I 2 0,0004 2 0 0
13 15 7
•Analytical data used in this table were derived from data presented in Sections 3 and 4.
bRefer to Table 4-5 for attenuation point assignment for parameters.
~A indicates not applicable.
d"O" was entered for results which were not detected above the reporting limit.
Q:\PROJ\0313.09\T0405.xls
- -..
Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation
Point Score Point Score Point Score
W-5i W-22i W-29i
2 0 0 4.5 0
0 2 4.2 0 8,5 0
0.2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1.9 3 0 0
22 0 0 2 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00056 0 0.001 I 0 0.00026 0
136 0 222 0 166 0
1.0 0 1.0 0 0 0
38 0 100 0 58 0
39 0 49 0 8.1 0
0.11 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
120 0 140 0 120 0
16 0 19 0 17 0
6.8 0 6 0 4.9 0
2.0 0 16 0 23 0
14 2 34 2 17 2
0.049 0 0.15 0 0.042 0
0.0049 2 0.01 I 2 0.0014 2
0.004 2 0.10 2 0.008 2
0 0 0.0021 2 0 0
0.0005 0 0.001 0 0.00003 0
0 0 0.0011 0 0 0
0.0033 2 0.046 2 0.0054 2
0.0036 2 0.02 2 0.0044 2
12 17 12
Page 2 of 2
I
I
I
·,,
I
.1;
I
I ,,,
11
I·
I'
I
I
Score
0 to 5
6 to 14
15 to 20
>20
TABLE 4-7
.,.,
INTERPRETATION OF POINTS AW ARD ED DURING
SCREENING PROCESS OF NATURAL ATTENUATION'
Interpretation
Inadequate evidence for biodegradation of chlorinated organics
Limited evidence for biodegradation of chlorinated organics
Adequate evidence for biodegradation of chlorinated organics
Strong evidence for biodegradation of chlorinated organics
'Taken from "Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground
Water", EPA/600/R-98/128, September 1998.
P:\proj\0313.08 \ T0407 .doc Pngc 1 of I
I
1
I
·1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
1·
I:
I'
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4-8
ATTENUATION RATES BASED ON THE METHOD
OF BUSCHECK' AND BIOSCREEN
Buscheck
BIOSCREEN Total
Plume Area Half-Life Half-Life Attenuation
(yrs) (yrs)
South Shallow Saprolite 2.0 8.5 2.2
South Intermediate Bedrock 2.8 2.1 0.72
North Shallow Saprolite 2.0 4.7 1.37
North Intermediate Bedrock 2.5 3.7 1.7
%
Biodegradation
26
35
29
45
'Appendix B (3-47) "Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Groundwater" EP N600/R-98/128, September 1998.
P:\proj\03 IJ.09\T0408.doc Page I of I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
y-
1
'I
I ,,
I\
I ,,
I
I ~:'
f·
-1
I
5.0 AS/SVE PILOT TEST
An AS/SVE pilot test (pilot test) was conducted at the FeX-Statesville Superfund Site
OU3 in August 1998 to evaluate air sparging and SVE. The location of the pilot test was
adjacent to the western side of the textile plant in the apparent source area, as shown in
Figure 5-1. The pilot test was performed in accordance with the RD Work Plan approved
by USEPA using two SVE wells, two air sparging wells, and five monitoring probe
clusters that were installed in July 1998.
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES
The technologies that were evaluated during the pilot test are air sparging and SVE.
Monitored natural attenuation may be used in conjunction with these technologies as part
of the remedial action. The RD Work Plan contains more detailed descriptions of air
sparging and SVE. These two technologies can be summarized as follows:
• Air Sparging: Pressurized air is injected into the aquifer through wells screened
over narrow intervals located at depth in the aquifer. The air transfers voes
from the saturated zone to the unsaturated ( or vadose zone).
• SVE: Air is extracted under reduced pressure from wells screened across a
portion of the vadose zone. The voes originally present in the unsaturated
zone and the voes introduced to the unsaturated zone from the saturated zone
by air sparging are extracted with the SVE air flow. Off-gas treatment is
dependent on site-specific emissions and regulatory requirements.
5.2 OBJECTIVES OF PILOT TEST
The pilot test objectives were to investigate and measure the physical characteristics of
the soil and aquifer in the vadose and saturated zones, respectively, in relationship to the
operation of air sparging and SVE. Information obtained from the pilot test included the
P:\PROJ\OJ 13.08\s0S,doc 5-1
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
-
I
I
I
approximate dimensions of the zone of influence of the air sparging and SVE wells,
whether SVE can effectively capture the air injected through air spaiging, and other
engineering design data for use in designing a full-scale system. As part of the pilot test,
a pneumatic permeability test of the vadose zone beneath the textile plant was performed
using an SVE well located inside the building.
The majority of the pilot test was conducted using an SVE well, two air sparging wells,
and five monitoring probe clusters. The pilot test was organized into five parts in the RD
Work Plan; Table 5-1 lists the intended objectives to be addressed by each part. The
purpose of each part of the pilot test is summarized as follows:
• Part I was conducted to obtain SVE data without air sparging. The objectives
were,to evaluate the pneumatic permeability of the soil, radius of influence of
SVE, homogeneity as related to SVE, and other SVE design parameters.
• Part 2 was conducted to obtain combined AS/SVE data from the shallower air
sparging depth of approximately 50 feet. The objectives of Part 2 (and Part 3)
were to evaluate the radius of influence of air sparging, groundwater upwelling,
homogeneity as related to air sparging, and other air sparging parameters.
• Part 3 was conducted to obtain combined AS/SVE data from the deeper air
sparging depth of approximately 66 feet.
• Part 4 was conducted using operating conditions selected based on the previous
testing. The shallower sparging depth of 50 feet was selected for the Part 4
testing. Vapor samples were collected for laboratory analysis to provide data on
mass removal ofVOCs from the subsurface.
• Part 5, as originally planned, was to have been a repeat of Part 4 after allowing
the subsurface a time to recqver from the previous testing. However, Part 5 was
not conducted. The field conditions encountered during the pilot testing
r .\proj\03 I 3 .08\505 .doc 5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I "-.)
I
I
indicated that the test data should be reviewed and interpreted before the Part 5
testing was performed, if warranted. Upon review of the test data from Parts l
through 4, it was determined that Part 5 of the test was not warranted because of
the heterogeneity of the formation. The heterogeneity of the response of the
formation to AS/SVE indicates that if the test location were moved to another
place in the target source area, there would be a different response. Therefore
getting repeat/redundant data for one location was irrelevant to future design
parameters.
The pneumatic permeability test of an SVE well inside the building was performed
separately from the pilot test. One objective of the pneumatic permeability test was to
collect physical data on the relationship between air flow rates and vacua in the vadose
zone underneath the building. Another objective was to compare the pneumatic
permeability underneath the building with the pneumatic permeability outside the
building.
5.3 INSTALLATION OF WELLS, MONITORING PROBES, AND EQUIPMENT
Installation of two SVE wells, two air sparging wells, and five monitoring probe clusters
was performed prior to conducting the pilot test. The equipment for the test was also
installed and tested. A description of these installations follows.
5.3.1 Well and Monitoring Probe Installation
Figure 5-2 shows the approximate layout of the air sparging wells, SVE wells, and
monitoring probe clusters (refer to Figure 5-1 for the location of the pilot test within
OU3). Table 5-2 lists the distances between the monitoring probe cluster and the SVE
well (SVE-1) and air sparging wells (AS-I and AS-2). The location of the pilot test was
determined based on accessibility, presence of VOCs in groundwater, depth to
groundwater, and depth to bedrock. Monitoring wells W-9s and W-9i are in the
r;\proj\03\J.0l!\J0~ doc 5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
imme.diate area of the pilot test. As a point of reference, geologic cross-sections
intercepting wells W-9s and W-9i and other wells are included in Appendix C. , ..
The installed configurations for the air sparging wells, SVE wells, and monitoring probe
clusters are shown in Figure 5-3. The screen depth intervals for the shallow and deep air
sparging wells were selected based on the geological interpretations of heterogeneity in
the shallow aquifer. Two intervals of slightly higher permeability were identified based
on soil samples retrieved during installation of the "deep" air sparging well. As a result,
the "shallow" air sparging injection well (AS-I) was installed to a depth of 50 feet with a
two-foot screened interval located in the saprolite formation; the "deep" air sparging
injection well (AS-2) was installed to a depth of 66 feet with a two-foot screened interval
located in the saprolite formation above the bedrock surface.
The SVE extraction well for the pilot test (SVE-1) was installed to a depth of 32 feet with
the base of the 20-foot screen at the water table and placed in close proximity to the air
sparging wells (within approximately three to four feet horizontally). The screened depth
interval was selected based on the geologist's interpretation of the strata encountered.
The interval selected represents the apparent most permeable zone and extends to the
water table in order to maximize potential for capturing air injected through the air
· sparging wells.
A second SVE well (SVE-2) was installed inside the textile plant. This well has a 15 foot
screened section whose lower end is at approximately 20 feet below ground surface and
is approximately 15 feet above the water table. The SVE-2 well was used to test the
pneumatic permeability of the vadose zone underneath the building.
Monitoring probes were installed in both the vadose and saturated zones and were placed
in clusters of four at varying distances and directions from the air sparging wells
(Figure 5-2). As illustrated in Figure 5-3, each monitoring probe cluster consists of a
multi-screen completion with one probe screened in the vaclose zone at a depth of 28 feet
(Probe A), a second probe screened just below the groundwater level at a depth of 39 feet
P:\pmj\0313.08\s0S.doc 5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Probe B), a third probe at a depth of 48 feet (Probe C), and a fourth probe at a depth of
64 feet (Probe D).
The wells and monitoring probes were installed according to the protocols in the RD
Work Plan. Log sheets for the wells and monitoring probes are included in Appendix A.
5.3.2 Pilot Test Equipment Installation
Figure 5-4 is a flow diagram of the pilot test system. The AS/SVE system was operated
by injecting air into the groundwater through one of the air sparging wells (AS-I or
AS-2) and simultaneously extracting vapors from the vadose zone via the SVE well
(SVE-1 ). Air was supplied from the plant air system. The plant air supply had an
estimated capacity of30 cubic feet per minute (cfm) at 100 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) at the point it was obtained. The air supply was fitted with a pressure regulator to
control the pressure to the sparging wells and a coalescing filter to remove oil. The air
was routed to the pilot test system using compressed air hose and Schedule 80 PVC
p1pmg. A helium cylinder with regulator and flowmeter was connected to the
compressed air piping hS show in Figure 5-4. The helium was for conducting tracer tests.
The well head assemblies and monitoring probes were fitted with the instrumentation
shown in Figure 5-4.
For the independent SVE (only) tests, the air sparging equipment was not operated.
During the pilot test, vapors were extracted from the vadose zone using an
explosion-proof regenerative blower (Rotron model number EN707F72 XL) with a
maximum flow capacity of 295 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) at zero vacuum.
The maximum rated blower vacuum was 87 inches water column (W.C.) capacity at an
air flow rate of 85 scfm. The extracted vapors passed through a liquid separator and an
air filter prior to the blower. During performance of the pilot test, the extracted vapors
were passed from the blower through two air purification canisters of activated carbon
arranged in series prior to discharge. A third carbon canister was staged near the system
as a backup in case of breakthrough. A flow indicator was located between the SVE-1
P.\proj\O) lJ.08\s05.doc 5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
extraction well and the liquid separator. The piping from the SVE well to the pilot test
system was 3-inch Schedule 40 PVC. n
The carbon canisters (Carbtrol Model G-2) each contained 170 pounds of virgin granular
activated carbon, which is a strong absorber for PCE and TCE (the VOCs anticipated at
the test location). The canisters have a maximum rated flow of 300 cfm. Sample ports
were located after each carbon canister so that measurements could be made with an
organic vapor analyzer (OVA) during operations to monitor for VOC breakthrough of the
first carbon canister. If VOC breakthrough had occurred, the blower would have been
shut down, the second canister would have been relocated to the first position, and the
third, new canister would have been installed at the second position.
The pilot system was checked for correct operations and air leaks after the equipment was
in place, the piping was connected, and instrumentation was installed, but prior to final
connection of the piping to the two air sparging wells and SVE well. Any deficiencies
that were identified were corrected prior to beginning the pilot test.
5.3.3 Measurement and Monitoring Equipment
During the pilot test, the data collection work was performed using measurement and
monitoring equipment. The physical (or process) data that were collected and the
measurement devices that were used included:
• Pressure and vacuum (gauges and manometers),
• Temperature (thermocouples),
• Flow rate (rotometers and venturi flow meter), and
• Liquid level ( continuity probe).
These data were directly read from the measurement devices and were recorded on data
sheets by the field personnel at the times and frequencies appropriate for each pilot test
part. Throughout the description of the pilot test and the results for the pilot test, pressure
P.\proj\OJ 13.08\10~.doc 5-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
is used to refer to pressures greater than one atmosphere and vacuum is used to refer to
pressures less than one atmosphere. Also, as a matter of reference for the pressure and
vacuum readings:
1 atmosphere= 33.90 feet of Water Column= 406.8 inches
So, a pressure reading of one inch W.C. is equal to 0.0025 atmospheres of pressure
greater than the actual atmospheric pressure, and a vacuum reading of one inch W.C. is
equal to 0.0025 atmospheres less than the actual atmospheric pressure.
Vapor monitoring and sampling from SVE-1 and the monitoring probes was performed
using peristaltic pumps with thermoplastic tubing through the pump heads. The
peristaltic pumps were set at the same flow rate for each well/monitoring probe sampled.
For the monitoring probe sampling, equal lengths of polypropylene tubing were placed in
each probe to a depth of 25 feet, or approximately 7 feet above the water table. This was
done to standardize the residence time of the vapor in the tubing from each sampling
point. The pumps were operated continuously during the testing. A portable OVA was
used to monitor VOC concentrations at the sampling pump locations and to inspect the
general area around the pilot test for worker safety during the pilot test. The helium
concentrations during the helium tracer tests were measured using a portable helium
detector (Mark Model 9822 Helium Detector with a detection range of 0.01 percent to
100 percent Helium). Field personnel used the manufacturers' procedures for operation
of the OVA and the helium detector.
A small quantity of personal protective equipment (PPE) waste was generated during the
vapor sampling activities. This PPE waste was managed with the Investigation Derived
Waste (IDW) from installation of the new wells and monitoring probes. Installation of
the wells and monitoring probes was performed in accordance with the RD Work Plan.
Handling of the IDW was performed in accordance with the Aquaterra FSP.
P .\proj\03 IJ.08\s05.doc 5-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF PILOT TEST
The pilot test was performed in five consecutive parts at the Site. A summary of the
procedures that were implemented during the pilot test follows. Parts 1, 2A, 28, and 3
were intended to provide physical performance data for SVE and air sparging. Part 2 was
originally planned to be conducted during a one-day event; however, due to test
constraints, Part 2 was performed on two consecutive days as Parts 2A and 28. Part 4
was intended to provide data related to voe removal by air sparging and SVE (refer to
Table 5-1 for test objectives). Tables 5-3 through 5-7 present a summary of the operating
conditions, data collection, and significant events for each part of the pilot test. Pilot test
process and monitoring probe data are presented in Appendix D for each test part.
5.4.1 Pilot Test Part 1 Description
Table 5-3 presents a summary of Part 1 of the pilot test; Appendix D-1 presents the
process and monitoring probe data that were collected during Part 1. The SVE extraction
well SVE-1 was operated at three different extraction flow rates. The extraction flow
rate, vapor temperature, and vacuum (i.e., pressure less than one atmosphere) were
recorded and vapors were monitored for voes with an OVA. · Air sparging was not
performed during the Part I testing. The maximum average flow rate attainable from the
SVE well with the pilot test equipment was 26 scfm. Vacuum readings were measured at
each of the vadose zone monitoring probes as a function of time. Water levels were
measured at the two air sparging wells and at the five upper groundwater-monitoring
probes (8). Data were also collected from the SVE unit instrumentation. The data
collected, including the frequency of data collection, are presented in Appendix D-1. The
groundwater depth data are presented in Appendix D-6.
5.4.2 Pilot Test Part 2A Description
Table 5-4 presents a summary of Part 2A. Appendix D-2 contains the process and
monitoring probe data collected during the test. Air sparging was initiated with SVE in
r ,\proj\031 J .08\s0S .doc 5-8
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
Pilot Test Part 2A using the "shallow" air sparging well AS-I. The SVE system was
started and operated at 25 scfm based on the Pilot Test Part I data. The injection flow
rate, extraction flow rate, vapor temperature, and vacuum were recorded and vapors were
monitored -for VOCs with an OVA. Vacuum readings were measured at each of the
lower vadose zone monitoring probes (A) as a function of time. Data were also collected
from the SVE unit instrumentation. Water levels were measured and the data are
included in Appendix D-6.
After 2.2 hours of operation of SVE, air sparging was initiated with AS-I at an average
flow of 6.9 scfm (5 cfm) at an injection pressure of I 6 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig). Helium tracer gas was injected into the sparge air at the concentrations and
intervals shown in Table 5-4. The helium tracer test was accomplished by injecting
pulses of helium into the air sparging stream at each of the two air injection flow rates
and then measuring the response times and helium concentrations at the SVE well
(SVE-1) and at the monitoring probes. The helium tracer test provided data on the degree
of subsurface homogeneity and radius of influence of the pilot test air sparging system.
Helium concentrations were measured in monitoring probes located in both the vadose
and saturated zones.
At the end of Part 2A, air sparging well AS-I was briefly operated at two additional
injection flow rates, 15 scfm (IO cfm) and 25 scfm to determine the measured sparge
pressure as a function of the air sparge injection flow rate.
5.4.3 Pilot Test Part 2B Description
Table 5-5 presents a summary of Part 2B which was a repeat of Part 2A with a higher air
sparge flow rate that averaged 15 scfm (IO cfm) at an injection pressure averaging
23 psig. A helium tracer test was performed. Appendix D-3 contains the process and
monitoring probe data collected during the Part 2B test; Appendix D-6 contains the
groundwater depth data collected during the test.
P.\prnj\OJ 13.08\.,05.doc 5-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
5.4.4 Pilot Test Part 3 Description
'-Pilot Test Part 3 (refer to Table 5-6) was a repeat of the Part 2A test using the deep air
sparging well AS-2. The air sparging flow rate was about 9 scfm (5 cfm) at an injection
pressure of 38 psig. Appendix D-4 contains the process and monitoring probe data
collected during the test; Appendix D-6 contains the groundwater depth data collected
during the test. Once Part 3 was completed, the data from Parts 2A, 2B, and 3 were
compared and the shallow air sparging well AS-I was chosen for use in test Part 4.
5.4.5 Pilot Test Part 4 Description
After review of the data from Pilot Test Part 2A, Part 2B, and Part 3, the test conditions
for Part 4 were selected. A flow rate of 27 scfm for the SVE extraction well, and an
average flow rate of 15 scfm (10 cfm) at an average injection pressure of 23 psig using
the shallow air sparge well AS-I, were selected for the Part 4 test. The SVE system was
started and operated until vacuum readings at the extraction well and monitoring probes
reached an apparent steady state. Next, airflow to the air sparging well was initiated
(refer to Table 5-7). Appendix D-5 contains the process and monitoring probe data
collected during the test. Vapor samples were collected four times from the SVE well
and once from the air injection well and were analyzed for voes. The vapor samples
from the SVE well were collected within the first hour of SVE operation, immediately
prior to startup of the air sparging, after the air sparging had been running for
approximately four hours, and just prior to shutdown of the air sparging and SVE system.
One field blank sample was also collected from a vendor-supplied cylinder of zero air
calibration gas. The voe analytical data were intended to provide a measure of the mass
removal of PeE and other voes that were present during SVE and air sparging. The
vapor samples were collected according to the Addendum to the FSP and were analyzed
for voes according to the Addendum to the QAPP (both addenda are part of the RD
Work Plan).
P:\pmj\03 IJ.08\s05,doc 5-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
g
I
m
g
5.4.6 Pneumatic Permeability Test Description
A pneumatic permeability test was conducted using the SVE well located inside the
building, SVE-2. This test was conducted using the pilot system. Three air flow rates
were used to develop performance curves of flow rate versus vacuum. The data collected
during Pilot Test Part 1 were used to develop performance curves of flow rate versus
vacuum for extraction well SVE-1.
5.4.7 Pre-Test and Post-Test Groundwater Sampling Description
Before the pilot test began, pre-test groundwater samples were collected and analyzed
from the two air sparging wells and from the monitoring probes that are in the saturated
zone, with the exception of MP-3B which produced insufficient volume for sampling.
Sample collection was on August 14 and 19, 1998. The groundwater samples were
collected according to the procedure in the Aquaterra FSP. The groundwater samples
were analyzed in the field for the natural attenuation field parameters and in the
laboratory for voes and other parameters according to the Addendum to the QAPP,
which is Attachment 3 of the RD Work Plan.
After the decision was made to end the pilot test upon completion of Part 4, post-test
groundwater samples were collected and analyzed from the two air sparging wells and
from 9 of the monitoring probes that are in the saturated zone. Sample collection was
conducted on August 27 and 28, 1998. The groundwater samples were collected
according to the Aquaterra FSP. The groundwater samples were analyzed in the field for
the natural attenuation field parameters and in the laboratory for voes according to the
Addendum to the QAPP.
5.5 RESULTS OF AS/SVE PILOT TEST PROGRAM
The results of the pilot test program and the pneumatic permeability test are described in
this section.
r.\pmj\OJ IJ.OS\J05.doc 5-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Different units of pressure, vacuum, and groundwater level are used in this section and
they require some explanation. The wellhead and monitoring probe vacuum data and the
monitoring probe pressure data are reported in the units of inches W.C. The reported
units of inches W.C. are relative to the actual atmospheric pressure. The air sparging
pressure data are reported as psig and these data are relative to the actual atmospheric
pressure. The groundwater level data are reported in feet of water change from the water
level prior to a test or at a previous test condition. The units of psig, feet of water, and
inches W.C. are related as follows:
I psig = 2.307 feet of water= 27.68 inches W.C.
5.5.1 Pilot Test Part 1 Results
Data for the pilot test Part I are shown in graphical form in Figures 5-5 through 5-8 .. The
data are plotted with the SVE run time on the x-axis, with zero hours being the time that
SVE was begun. Figures 5-5 and 5-6 show that each increase in the extracted air flow
rate (Figure 5-5) resulted in a step-wise increase in the measured SVE wellhead vacuum
(Figure 5-6). Generally, the system operating parameters of extracted air flow rate and
SVE wellhead vacuum held steady until the operating conditions were manually changed.
The maximum extracted air flow rate and SVE wellhead vacuum were 27 scfm and
74 inches W.C., respectively. (Note that 72 inches W.C. is equal to approximately
2.6 psig.)
Figures 5-7 and 5-8 show the vacuum measured at the "A" monitoring probes, i.e.
MP-IA, MP-2A, MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-SA. The vacuum data for the three probes
nearest the extraction well (MP-1, MP-2, and MP-3) are plotted in Figure 5-7 to show the
degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity of the soil adjacent to the well in three
directions. The vacuum data for the probes located to the north of the extraction well are
plotted in Figure 5-8 to show the effect of SVE in a single direction based on distance
from the extraction well. Both figures show that there were varied responses at the
P.\proj\O) 13.011\i0S.doe 5-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
probes to the vacuum that was effected by the extraction well. The vacuum measured in
MP-lA was the highest of the five probes at 10.9 inches W.C. The vacua measured in
MP-2A and MP-3A were similar to one another, with maximums at 2.2 and 2.0 inches
W.C., respectively. The vacuum readings are plotted relative to actual atmospheric
pressure. Positive numbers are pressure less than atmospheric pressure (hence the use of
the term vacuum) and negative numbers are pressure greater than atmospheric pressure.
Atmospheric pressure is represented by zero on the plots. No negative vacua were
recorded during Pilot Test Part l, but negative vacua were recorded and plotted for
subsequent test parts. The vacuum readings are plotted relative to actual atmospheric
pressure of I atmosphere. A positive number indicates a vacuum less than atmospheric
pressure and a negative number indicates a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure.
The vacua measured in MP-4A and MP-SA were similar with maxima at 0.2 and 0.1
inches W.C., respectively. The vacuum data for each probe reflect the response of the
probe to increases in extracted air flow rate and SVE wellhead vacuum, i.e., each time the
flow rate was increased which lead to an increase in the wellhead vacuum, an increase in
vacuum was measured in each of the monitoring probes. These data show significant
local variability in the vadose zone response to SVE over distance. The data from Part I
were sufficient to calculate a pneumatic permeability range at SVE-1, which is presented
in Subsection 5.5.6.
5.5.2 Pilot Test Part 2A Results
Data for pilot test Part 2A are shov•m in graphical form in Figures 5-9 through 5-17. The
data for Figures 5-9 through 5-12 are plotted with the SVE run time on the x-axis, with
zero hours being the time that SVE was begun. Air sparging at approximately 7.0 scfm
(5 cfm) and at an injection pressure of 17 psig using AS-I began at 2.15 hours SVE run
time; the helium tracer test began at 7.10 hours SVE run time. The data for Figures 5-13
through 5-17 are plotted with the helium run time on the x-axis, with zero hours being the
time that helium was first introduced into the air for air sparging well AS-I. The helium
was injected for approximately five minutes, so the helium run time is the time at which a
measurement was taken relative to the start time for helium injection.
P.\proj'\03 ll.0ll\s05.doc 5-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
Figures 5-9 and 5-10 show that both the extracted air flow rate and the SVE wellhead
vacuum remained relatively steady throughout the test with little to no influence from the
air sparging at AS-!. The vacua measured in MP-IA through MP-SA show the influence
that air sparging had at these locations (see Figures 5-11 and 5-12). The measured partial
vacuum decreased (pressure increased) at each location after the air sparging began (at
2.15 hours SVE run time). Negative vacua, i.e. pressures greater than atmospheric
pressure, were measured in MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-SA, to the north of the extraction
well.
The helium concentration data from the helium tracer test are presented in Figures 5-13
through 5-17. Only the helium data that were non-zero are shown on the figures. As
shown iri Figure 5-13, helium was detected in the extracted air from SVE-1 after
approximately only 0.08 hours after it was injected through AS-!; helium was no longer
detected in the extracted air after 0.27 hours. The quantity of helium injected was
approximately 7.9 standard cubic feet (scf). The quantity of helium recovered by the
SVE-1 was approximately 0.88 scf or 11 percent of the total amount of helium injected.
Helium was detected in low concentrations (0.04 percent helium) in MP-3A, but not
detected in any of the other A probes or in the B probes. In the C monitoring probes, low
concentrations (0.04 percent) of helium were detected at MP-!, MP-2, and MP-5
(Figure 5-16). Relatively high concentrations (up to 0.79 percent helium) were detected
at MP-3, and no helium was detected at MP-4. Helium was detected in MP-2D but in
none of the other D probes (Figure 5-17).
5.5.3 Pilot Test Part 2B Results
Data for pilot test Part 2B are shown in graphical form in Figures 5-18 through 5-30. The
data for Figures 5-18 through 5-21 are plotted with the SVE run time on the x-axis, with
zero hours being the time that SVE was begun. Air sparging at approximately 15 scfm
(IO cfm) and 24 psig using AS-! began at 2.02 hours SVE run time; the helium tracer test
P.\proj\OJ 13.0S\sOS.doe 5-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
began at 3.62 hours SVE run time. The data for Figures 5-22 through 5-30 are plotted
with the helium run time on the x-axis, with zero hours being the time that helium was
first introduced into the air for the air sparging well, AS-1. The helium was only injected
' for approximately five minutes, so the helium run time is the time that a measurement
was taken relative to the start time for helium injection.
Figures 5-18 and 5-19 show that both the extracted air flow rate and the SVE wellhead
vacuum remained relatively steady throughout the test with little to no influence from the
air sparging at 15 scfm with AS-I. The vacua measured in MP-IA through MP-SA show
the influence that air sparging had at these locations (see Figures 5-20 and 5-21 ). The
measured vacuum decreased at each location after the air sparging began (at 2.02 hours
SVE run time). As with test Part 2A, negative vacua, i.e. pressures greater than
atmospheric pressure, were measured in MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-SA, to the north of the
extraction well. The highest pressure was measured at MP-3A and was greater than
25 inches W.C. (the pressure gauge at that location had a maximum range of 25 inches
W.C. and was "pegged" at its maximum reading for the last two data points shown in
Figures 5-20 and 5-21). A pressure reading of25 inches W.C. is equivalent to 0.90 psig.
The vacuum/pressure at MP-2A was at zero inches W.C. toward the end of the test.
The helium data from the helium tracer test are presented in Figures 5-22 through 5-30.
Only the helium concentrations that were non-zero are shown on the figures. As shown
in Figure 5-22, helium was detected in the extracted air from SVE-1 after approximately
only 0.05 hours after it was injected through AS-I; helium was not detected in the
extracted air after 0.38 hours. The quantity of helium injected was approximately 18 scf.
The quantity of helium recovered by the SVE-1 was approximately 5.0 scf, or 28 percent
of the total amount of helium injected.
Helium was detected in MP-2A, MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-4B but not detected in any of
the other A or B probes. In the C monitoring probes, helium was detected at
approximately the same concentrations at MP-I, MP-2, and MP-4; at a relatively high
P:\proj\0313.08~05.doc 5-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
concentration (5.63 percent helium) at MP-3; and not detected at MP-5. Helium was
detected in MP-1D, MP-2D, MP-3D, and in MP-4D but not in MP-5D.
5.5.4 Pilot Test Part 3 Results
Data for pilot test Part 3 are shown in graphical form in Figures 5-31 through 5-34. The
data for these figures are plotted with the SVE run time on the x-axis, with zero hours
being the time that SVE was begun. Air sparging at approximately 5.4 scfm (3 cfm) and
36 psig using AS-2 began at 1.03 hours SVE run time; no helium tracer test was
performed. The air sparging flow rate was increased to approximately 9 scfm (5 cfm)
and 38 psig at 1.95 hours SVE run time.
Figures 5-31 and 5-32 show that both the extracted air flow rate and the SVE wellhead
vacuum remained relatively steady throughout the test with little to no influence from the
air sparging at AS-2. The vacua measured in MP-I A through MP-SA show the influence
that air sparging had at these locations (see Figures 5-33 and 5-34). The measured
vacuum decreased at each location after the air sparging began (at 1.03 hours SVE run
time). As with test Parts 2A and 2B, negative vacua, i.e. pressures greater than
atmospheric pressure were measured in MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-SA, to the north of the
extraction well. The highest pressure was measured at MP-SA, approximately 5 inches
W.C. pressure (i.e., a pressure of 0.18 psig). The vacuum/pressure at MP-3A and MP-4A
was near zero inches W.C. toward the end of the test. The vacua for MP-IA and MP-2A
remained fairly constant throughout the test at approximately IO inches W.C. and 5
inches W.C., respectively.
5.5.5 Pilot Test Part 4 Results
Results for the pilot test Part 4 are shown in Figures 5-35 through 5-38. The data for
these figures are plotted with the SVE run time on the x-axis, with zero hours being the
time that SVE was begun. Air sparging at approximately I 5 scfm (IO cfm) and 25 psig
using AS-1 began at 1.78 hours SVE run time; no helium tracer test was performed.
l'.\proj\0113.011\s0S doc 5-I 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures 5-35 and 5-36 show that as in the other parts of the test program, both the
extracted air flow rate and the SVE wellhead vacuum remained relatively steady
throughout the test with little to no influence from the air sparging at AS-I. The vacua
measured in MP-IA through MP-5A show the influence that air sparging had at these
locations (see Figures 5-37 and 5-38). The measured vacuum decreased at each location
after the air sparging began (at 1.78 hours SVE run time). Negative vacua, i.e. positive
pressures, were measured in MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-5A, to the north of the extraction
well. The highest pressure was measured at MP-3A and was greater than 25 inches W.e.
(the pressure gauge at that location had a maximum end range of 25 inches W.e. and was
pegged for the last two data points shown in Figures 5-37 and 5-38). At 4.65 hours SVE
run time, the readings at MP-2A changed from vacuum to a slight pressure and remained
as pressure readings to the end of the test. Vacuum readings were maintained at MP-I A.
Analytical reports of the results for the voe analyses of the vapor samples collected
during test Part 4 are included in Appendix F. These reports were validated by the
independent validator, EDS. PeE was the only voe detected above the detection limit.
The PeE con_centrations reported for the two vapor samples collected from the SVE well
prior to initiation of air sparging were 150 and 170 µg/L. The three samples collected
after initiation of air sparging had PeE concentrations of 140, 120, and 1 IO µg/L. Given
the inherent difficulties in collection and analysis of vapor samples, these five results are
not considered to be significantly different. The sample collected from injected air into
AS-I had a PeE result of 1.2 µg/L. This PeE result was flagged with an analytical
qualifier as estimated.
5.5.6 Pneumatic Permeability Test Results
Results of extracted air flow rate and the measured wellhead vacuum are plotted in
Figures 5-39 and 5-40, respectively, as a function of SVE run time for the pneumatic
permeability test that was conducted using extraction well SVE-2, located inside the
textile plant. Each time the extracted air flow rate was manually changed, a
P:lproj\0313.0~05.doc 5-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
corresponding change occurred in the extraction well vacuum. The maximum extracted
air flow rates and vacuum achieved were 22 scfm and 75 inches W.e. An OVA was used
to monitor the voe concentration at the SVE-2 wellhead during the test. Figure 5-41
shows the results of the monitoring plotted as a function of SVE run time. The OVA was
calibrated against methane, so the data should be viewed as semi-quantitative. The OVA
reads total voes, does not distinguish between different voes, and does not adjust the
readout based on response to different voes (i.e., the response is as if all were methane).
A summary of the data collected during the pneumatic permeability test at SVE-2 is
presented in Appendix D-7. The voe data can be used as an indicator of the
concentration ofVOes that may be removed from the vadose zone. These voe data are
considered semi-quantitative since an OVA measures total voes only.
The flow rate and vacuum data were used to calculate the pneumatic permeability of the
vadose zone soil surrounding SVE-2. The pneumatic permeability for the vadose zone
soil near SVE-2 is estimated at approximately 1.2 x 10·8 to 1.7 x 10·8 square centimeters.
The calculation for pneumatic permeability is contained in Appendix E-1.
The pneumatic permeability of the vadose zone soil near extraction well SVE-1 was
calculated using data collected during pilot test Part 1. The pneumatic permeability of
the vadose zone soil near SVE-1 is estimated at approximately 1.0 x 10·8 to 1. 7 x
1 o·8 square centimeters. The calculation for pneumatic permeability is contained in
Appendix E-1.
5.5.7 Pre-and Post-Test Groundwater Sampling Results
Table 5-8 presents a summary of the pre-and post-test groundwater sampling results for
voes. The analytical laboratory reports are presented in Appendix F. These reports
were validated by the independent validator, EDS. Only voes which were detected in
one or more of the samples are presented in Table 5-8; voes which were not detected in
any samples are not included in the table. Each sample had a detectable concentration of
r:\proj\0313.0B\s05 doc 5-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PCE. A comparison of the pre-and post-test groundwater sampling results shows that
the PCE concentration:
• decreased in the shallow air sparging well, AS-I, from 1300 µg/L to 40 µg/L;
• decreased in the deep air sparging well, AS-2, from 120 µg/L to 19 µg/L;
• increased in monitoring probes MP-IB and MP-IC by a factor of two to three;
• decreased in MP-2C, MP-3C, and MP-3D by a factor of two to four; and
• remained essentially the same in MP-2B, MP-4C, and MP-SC.
Monitoring probes B, C, and D were at depths of 39 feet , 48 feet, and 64 feet,
respectively (refer to Figure 5-3). Air sparging wells AS-I and AS-2 were at depths of
50 feet and 66 feet, respectively. As with the results of the helium tracer tests, the
response of VOC concentration to the overall pilot test varies between probe locations
and probe depths. This variability further emphasizes the heterogeneity of the response
of the site to air sparging with SVE.
5.5.8 Groundwater Upwelling During Pilot Test
One of the objectives of the pilot test was to evaluate groundwater upwelling caused by
SVE and air sparging. As noted in Section 5.4, groundwater depths were measured
during the performance of each pilot test part. A summary of these depths is presented in
Appendix D-6. The change in groundwater depth in the wells and probes during each test
was calculated using the difference between the measured depth before the test part
began and the measured depth at the end of the test part. Although the groundwater
depth changed substantially at certain probes during a test, the depths relaxed to "normal"
depths overnight before a subsequent test was started. These depth changes are shown
for the monitoring probes in Figures 5-42 through 5-46 for pilot test parts I, 2A, 2B, 3,
and 4, respectively.
During test Part I, performance of SVE only, the measured groundwater level changed
only slightly, less than 0.2 feet, in MP-IB, MP-2B, MP-4B, and MP-SB (refer to
P:\PROJ\Ol lJ .08\JOS.doc 5-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5-42). Figure 5-43 presents the measured changes in groundwater levels during
test Part 2A in which air was sparged at an average flow rate of 6.9 scfm (5 cfm) and
16 psig. The groundwater level increased by approximately 13 feet in MP-2B and 19 feet
in MP-3B. Figure 5-44 presents the measured changes in groundwater levels during test
Part 2B in which air was sparged at an average flow rate of 15 scfm (IO cfm) and 23 psig
using the shallow air sparge well, AS-I. The groundwater level reached the ground
surface in MP-2B and MP-3B. As shown in Figure 5-44, measurable increases in
groundwater levels were also recorded for the other probes, with increases between 17
and 19 feet for MP-IC and MP-3C. Figure 5-45 presents the measured changes in
groundwater levels during test Part 3 in which air was sparged at an average flow rate of
9 scfm (5 cfm) and 38 psig using the deep air sparge well, AS-2. As shown in
Figure 5-45, measurable increases in groundwater levels were recorded for the probes,
with the highest increases (approximately 5 feet) recorded for MP-3C and MP-4C.
Figure 5-46 presents the measured changes recorded during test Part 4 which was
operated under the same conditions as Part 2B, air sparging at an average flow rate of
15 scfm (IO cfm) and 23 psig with well AS-I. The resulting changes in groundwater
levels were similar to test Part 2B (see Figure 5-42) with the exception that the
groundwater level in MP-3C also reached the ground surface.
5.5.9 Radius of Influence of SVE During Pilot Test
One of the objectives of the pilot test was to evaluate the radius of influence of SVE. The
SVE radius of influence was calculated in three directions from the SVE-1 well (towards
MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3) using vacuum data, and in some cases, pressure data from
SVE -1 and the vadose zone monitoring probes. Table 5-9 presents a summary of the
calculated radius of influence for each pilot test part. The calculations for radius of
influence of SVE are presented in Appendix E-2. For test Part I with SVE only, the
calculated SVE radius of influence was 57 feet in the MP-I direction, 22 feet in the MP-2
direction, and 59 feet in the MP-3 direction. For test Parts 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 with both air
sparging and SVE, the SVE radius of influence ranged from 37 to 54 feet in the MP-I
P.\rROJ\031 J.0B~0S,doc 5-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
direction, from 12 to 29 feet in the MP-2 direction, and from 15 to 19 feet in the MP-3
direction.
A comparison of the radius of influence range with SVE only and then with each
AS/SVE test (without regard to a particular direction from the SVE well) can also be
made. The radius of influence of SVE only (test Part I) ranged from 22 to 59 feet. In
test Part 2A when air sparging was applied to the shallower well (AS-I) at the lower flow
rate, the SVE radius of influence ranged from 18 to 51 feet. When the air sparging flow
rate was increased to the shallower well (test Parts 2B and 4), the SVE radius ofinfluenc,e
ranged from 12 to 40 feet Air sparging with the deeper well (AS-2) in test Part 3 had a
SVE radius of influence which ranged from 19 to 54 feet.
5.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PILOT TEST PROGRAM
5.6.1 Summary and Conclusions for SVE Only
The results from SVE testing are summarized as follows:
• The maximum extracted air flow rate and wellhead vacuum achieved under the
conditions of the pilot test system at SVE-1 were 27 scfm and 74 inches W.C.
• The calculated pneumatic permeability range of the vadose zone soil near
SVE-1 was 1.0 x 10·8 to 1.7 x 10·8 cm2•
• The maximum extracted air flow rate and wellhead vacuum achieved under the
conditions of the pilot test system at SVE-2 were 22 scfm and 75 inches W.C.
• The calculated pneumatic permeability range of the vadosc zone soil near
SVE-2 was 1.2 x 10·8 to 1.7 x 10·8 cm2.
P:\proj\OJ IJ.08\105.doc 5-2 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Vacua were measured at each of the vadose zone monitoring probes during pilot
test Part I. The vacuum at MP-IA was five times the vacua at MP-2A and
MP-3A, and 50 to 100 times the vacua at MP-4A and MP-SA, respectively.
Conclusions, which can be drawn from these results, are:
• The vadose zone soil is highly heterogeneous, as shown by the wide range of
vacuum readings in the monitoring probes 20 feet or less from the extraction
well obtained during testing of SVE-1. Thus, performance in the vicinity of any
well will be asymmetrical, e.g., air flow and the lateral distance of influence
will not be the same in all directions, and not predictable.
• The pneumatic permeability range of the vadose zone soil near SVE-1 is almost
identical to that of SVE-2. Therefore, performance of SVE with wells
underneath the building can be expected, for preliminary design purposes, to
behave similarly with regard to achievable flow rates and wellhead vacuum for
similarly-designed wells. Subsurface infrastructure is expected to have at least
some influence on the performance of an SVE system at the Site.
5.6.2 Summary and Conclusions for Air Sparging with SVE
The results from air sparging with SVE pilot testing are summarized as follows:
• AS/SVE with the shallow well, AS-I, at a flow rate of 6.9 scfm with an
injection pressure of 16 psig, and at a flow rate of 15 scfm with an injection
pressure of 23 psig, resulted in measured positive pressures in the vadose zone
probes at MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-SA. The highest pressure was greater than
25 inches W.C. at MP-3A in pilot test Part 2A.
• AS/SVE with the deep well, AS-2, at an injection flow rate of 9 scfm with an
injection pressure of 38 psig resulted in measured positive pressures in the
P .\proj\Ol I J. 08\s05. doc 5-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vadose zone probes at MP-2A, MP-3A, MP-4A, and MP-SA. The highest
pressure was 5 inches W.C. above atmospheric pressure at MP-SA.
• A vacuum (i.e., a pressure less than atmospheric pressure) was maintained at
MP-I A and MP-2A during air sparging through the shallow well and at MP-I A
during air sparging through the deep well.
• Approximately 11 percent of the helium injected was recovered in the
extraction well, SVE-1, during Test Part 2A. Approximately 28 percent of the
helium injected was recovered in the extraction well, SVE-1, during Test
Part 2B.
• During the helium tracer test conducted using the shallow air sparging well at
the lower injection flow rate (6.9 scfm), helium was detected at relatively high
concentrations in MP-3C and at very low concentrations in MP-IC, MP-2C,
MP-SC, and MP-3A. Helium was not detected in any of the other probes.
During the helium tracer test conducted while injecting air into the shallow air
sparging well at the higher injection flow rate (15 scfm), helium was detected at
the higher relative concentrations in MP-3C. Helium was also detected at the
vadose zone probes (A probes) at MP-2, MP-3, and MP-4; at the "B" probes at
MP-4; at the "C" probes at MP-I, MP-2, and MP-4; and at the "D" probes at
MP-I, MP-2, MP-3, and MP-4. Helium was not detected at any MP-5 probe.
In general, helium was detected in the A, B, and C probes at MP-4 before it was
detected in the A probe of MP-2.
• Analytical reports of the results for the VOC analyses of the vapor samples
collected during test Part 4 indicated that PCE was the only VOC detected
above the detection limit. The PCE concentrations ranged from 110 to
170 g/L in the samples from the extraction well, SVE-1. Given the inherent
P:\proj\O) 13.08\s0S.doc 5-23
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
g
D
I
I
difficulties in collection 'and analysis of vapor samples, these results are not
considered to be significantly different.
,.
• A comparison of pre-and post-test groundwater sampling results showed that
VOC concentration decreased during the pilot test in both air sparging wells and
in monitoring probes MP-2C, MP-3C, and MP-3O. The VOC concentration in
the groundwater increased at monitoring probes MP-I B and MP-IC and stated
essentially the same at monitoring probes MP-2B, MP-4C, and MP-SC.
• Groundwater upwelling was recorded during the pilot test. In Pilot Test Part I
with SVE only, measured groundwater upwelling was minimal. Groundwater
upwelling caused by air sparging with SVE was greater than with SVE only.
The change in water level in individual monitoring proves varied greatly,
especially for air sparging at the shallow well, AS-I. Air sparging at the deeper
well, AS-2, also caused greater groundwater upwelling as compared to SVE
only; however, the change in water levels at the individual probes was more
uniform than that measured during sparging with AS-I.
• The SVE radius of influence was calculated in three directions from the SVE-1
well for each pilot test part. With SVE only, the calculated radius of influence
was 57 feet in the MP-I direction, 22 feet in the MP-2 direction, and 59 feet in
the MP-3 direction. With both air sparging and SVE, the SVE radius of
influence ranged from 37 to 54 feet'in the MP-I direction, from 12 to 29 feet in
the MP-2 direction, and from 15 to 19 feet in the MP-3 direction. A comparison
was made of the SVE radius of influence range with SVE only and then with
both air sparging and SVE, without regard to direction from the SVE well. This
comparison shows that the radius of influence of SVE only ranged from 22 to
59 feet and that the SVE radius of influence with both air sparging and SVE
ranged from I 8 to 51 feet using the shallower well (AS-I) at the lower sparge
flow rate, from 12 to 40 feet using the shallower well at an increased sparge
flow rate, and from 19 to 54 feet using the deeper well (AS-2).
P :\proj\031 J. 08\s0S .doc 5-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I'
m
Conclusions, which can be drawn from these results, are:
• Air injection was possible at relatively low flow rates at depths of 50 feet and
66 feet in the saprolite. However, SVE was not effective in completely
. capturing the sparged air using a single SVE well in the study area. This is
evidenced by the pressurization of some of the vadose zone monitoring probes,
the limited helium capture by the extraction well, and the presence of helium in
some of the vadose zone monitoring probes.
• The SVE radius of influence varies greatly in the three directions for which it
was calculated. This variability indicates a heterogeneic response by the Site to
SVE and AS/SVE. Although the SVE radius of influence in a given direction
generally decreased with air sparging as compared to SVE only, the difference
in the SVE radius of influence in the three directions is more significant to the
overall design considerations, i.e., the radius of influence of a single SVE well
could be similar to that calculated for SVE-1 and could range from 22 to 59 feet
depending upon the inherent heterogeneity of the Site in a given direction even
without influence from air sparging.
• The saturated zone is highly heterogeneous with regard to air flow patterns from
the injected air from both the shallow depth and deep depth air sparging wells.
The helium tracer test data from two flow rates at the shallow well show that the
air tends to move laterally from the air sparge well rather than up towards the
vadose zone (as desired) at the lower flow rates and tends to move laterally or
down when the flow rate is increased, and to a lesser extent, upwards.
Therefore, there appear to be horizontal confining layers within the saturated
zone which inhibit injected air movement to the vadose zone. This is consistent
with the geologist's visual observations made during well installation (refer to
the boring log for well AS-2 in Appendix A-2). Further evidence of the
heterogeneity of the saturated zone is supplied by the variability of the VOC
P:\proj\OJ IJ.08\sO.S.doc 5-25
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
,u
I
I -,
I'
I
results from the pre-and post-test groundwater sampling and by the variability
of response of measured groundwater upwelling at the mo1i.itoring probes during
air sparging.
• Based on the heterogeneity of the saturated zone, it is difficult to predict where
sparged air and thus entrained VOCs may move, especially at the deeper sparge
depth of 66 feet. Consequently, careful placement of several closely-spaced
SVE wells and/or wells located over a wider area would need to be considered
to maximize the possibility of capture of injected air.
• Air sparging may have the potential to inhibit natural attenuation if the injected
air transverses long distances in the saturated zone.
• Data on VOC removal include the results from air samples collected from the
extraction well in Test Part 4, the pre-and post-test groundwater samples results
from water samples collected from the saturated zone monitoring probes and air
sparging wells, and the qualitative air sampling results from samples analyzed
using the OVA during each test past. These three sources of VOC data indicate
that VOCs were being removed during SVE only and during air sparging with
SVE. The variability of the data and the types of data collected do not allow a
quantitative calculation of the mass of VOCs removed from the groundwater or
of the mass ofVOCs removed in any one test.
P:\proj\OJ 13 .0S\s05.doe 5-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
TABLE 5-1
OBJECTIVES OF PILOT TEST
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Pilot Test Objectives
Physical Characteristics
SVE Data Objectives
Flow/Pressure Relationship
Pneumatic Permeability ofVadose Zone
Radius of Influence Versus Flow
Groundwater Upwelling versus Flow
Homogeneity of Response to SVE
Air Sparging Data Objectives
Flow/Pressure Relationship
Radius of Influence versus Flow
Groundwater Upwelling versus Flow
Homogeneity of Response to Air Sparging
VOC Characteristics
Vadose Zone
VOC Concentration versus Time for SVE
VOC Mass Removal versus Time
Rebound
Groundwater
VOC Concentration versus Time for AS/SVE
VOC Mass Removal versus Time
X
X
X
X
X
Pilot Test Part Number
2' 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
'Part 2 was conducted with a shallow air sparging well; Part 3 was conducted with a deeper air sparging well.
F: \ DATA \proJ\0313.08\ TOSO I POI.DOC Page I of l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f: ,.
I
Ir
1·
I
I ,,
' I
1·
f -
TABLE 5-2
DISTANCE BETWEEN MONITORING PROBE CLUSTERS AND THE SVE AND AIR SPARGING WELLS
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Distance Monitoring Probe From SVE-1 From AS-I From AS-2
MP-I
MP-2
MP-3
MP-4
MP-5
P. \proj\OJ l J .0B\T0S02PDI. DOC
(ft)
16.3
11.8
19.8
35.7
68.5
(ft) (ft)
18.0 I 6.1
12.9 15.6
16.6 15.6
32.6 31.5
65.2 64.3
Page I ofl
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I _,
I
I
SVE Run Time'
Prior to Start-up
t = 0.0 hours
t = 2.0 hours
t = 3.6 hours
t = 5.1 hours
TABLE 5-3
SUMMARY OF PILOT TEST PART 1
SVE USING SVE-1 (8/18/98)
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Process Changes and Other Relevant Events
Collected pre-test data.h
Started SVE unit. Set extraction flow rate at an average of 8.6 scfm.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Increased extraction flow rate to an average of 17 sctin.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Increased extraction flow rate to an average of26 scfm.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Shut down SVE unit, Part I completed.
'SVE run time is relative to 0.0 hours being the start-up time of the vapor extraction.
hRefer to the data table in Appendix D-1 for the data collected.
P:\PROJ\O) 1 l .08\T0S0JPDI. DOC Page I of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5-4
SUMMARY OF PILOT TEST PART 2A
AS/SVE USING AS-1 AND SVE-1 (8/20/98)
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
SVE Run Time' Process Changes and Other Relevant Events
Prior to Start-up Collected pre-test data."
t = 0.0 hours Started SVE unit. Set extraction flow rate at an average of25 scfm.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
t = 2.2 hours Started AS-I air sparging flow rate at an average of 6.9 scfm; measured
air sparge pressure was 16 psig.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
t = 2.7 hours Injected 6.5% helium for 6 minutes. Monitored for helium in SVE-1 and
probes.
. Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
t = 5.4 hours Injected 5.1 % helium for 5 minutes. Monitored for helium in SVE-1 and
probes.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
t = 7.1 hours Injected 19% helium for 5 minutes. Monitored for helium in SVE-1 and
probes.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
t = 9.20 hours Increased air sparge flow rate to 15 scfm; measured air sparge pressure
was19 psig.
t = 9.23 hours Increased air sparge flow rate to 25 scfm for few seconds to measure air
sparge pressure; measured air sparge pressure was 25 psig.
Shut off air sparge.
t = 9.6 hours Shut down SVE unit, Part 2A completed.
'SVE run time is relative to 0.0 hours being the start-up time of the vapor extraction.
bRefer to the data table in Appendix D-2 for the data collected.
P. \proj\O) J ).08\T0S04PDI.DOC Page 1 of I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
SVE Run Time'
Prior to Start-up
t = 0.0 hours
t = 2.0 hours
t= 3.2 hours
t = 3.6 hours
t = 7.5 hours
t = 9.4 hours
t = 9.5 hours
t = 10.1 hours
TABLE 5-5
SUMMARY OF PILOT TEST PART 2B
AS/SVE USING AS-1 AND SVE-1 (8/21/98)
FCX-ST A TESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Process Changes and Other Relevant Events
Collected pre-test data.b
Started SVE unit. Set extraction flow rate at an average of26 scfm.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Started AS-I air sparging flow rate at an average of 15 scfm; measured
air sparge pressure was 23 psig.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Closed off monitoring probe MP-3B due to water coming out of probe.
Injected 19% helium for 5 minutes. Monitored for helium in SVE-1 and
probes.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Measured pressure in monitoring probe MP-2A was greater than 25
in.W.C. (the upper limit of pressure gauge).
Shut off air sparge.
Monitoring probe MP-2B noted to contain no water during water level
measurement.
Shut down SVE unit, Part 2B completed.
'SVE run time is relative to 0.0 hours being the start-up time of the vapor extraction.
bRefer to the data table in Appendix D-3 for the data collected.
P :\proj\0313. 08\ TOSOSPDI. DOC Page 1 of I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SVE Run Time'
Prior to Start-up
t = 0.0 hours
t = 1.0 hours
t = 1.4 hours
t = 1.95 hours
t = 3.8 hours
t = 4.6 hours
t = 6.2 hours
t = 6.5 hours
TABLE 5-6
SUMMARY OF PILOT TEST PART 3
AS/SVE USING AS-2 AND SVE-1 (8/24/98)
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Process Changes and ,Other Relevant Events
Collected pre-test data.b
Started SVE unit. Set extraction flow rate at an average of25 scfm.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Started AS-2 air sparging at flow rate of 5 scfm; measured air sparge
pressure was 36 psig.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Increased AS-2 air sparging flow rate to 7 scfm; measured air sparge
pressure was 3 7 psig.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Increased AS-2 air sparging flow rate to 9 scfm; measured air sparge
pressure was 38 psig.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Water began spouting out of monitoring probe MP-3O; immediately shut
off air sparge flow to AS-2. Water spouting decreased steadily until it
ceased approximately 20 minutes after it began.
Pressure measured at AS-2 was 17 .5 psig. NCDEHNR and EPA were
notified of spouting; approximately 10 gallons groundwater spouted out
ofMP-3D with 5 gallons recovered.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Pressure measured at AS-2 was 6 psig.
Shut down SVE unit, Part 3 completed.
'SVE run time is relative to 0.0 hours being the start-up time of the vapor extraction.
bRefer to the data table in Appendix D-4 for the data collected.
P;\proj\OJ lJ.0I\T0S06PDI.DOC Page 1 of l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SVE Run Time•
Prior to Start-up
t = 0.0 hours
t = 0.4 hours
t = 0.8 hours
t = 1.6 hours
t = 1.8 hours
t = 2.5 hours
t = 3.6 hours
t = 3.8 hours
t = 6.4 hours
t = 6.8 hours
t = 7.2 hours
t = 8.1 hours
t = 8.4 hours
t = 8. 7 hours
TABLE 5-7
SUMMARY OF PILOT TEST PART 4
AS/SVE USING AS-I AND SVE-1 (8/25/98)
FCX-STATESVJLLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Process Changes and Other Relevant Events
Collected pre-test datab
Started SVE unit. Set extraction flow rate at an average of27 scfm.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Collected pre-sparge vapor sample I A from SVE-1.
Collected pre-sparge vapor sample I B from SVE-1.
Collected pre-sparge vapor samples 2A and 2B from SVE-1.
Started AS-I air sparging at flow rate of 15 scfm; measured air sparge
pressure was 23 psig.
Collected routine process and monitoring probe data.
Water began spouting out of monitoring probe MP-3B; immediately
capped probe.
Water began spouting out of monitoring probe MP-2B; immediately
capped probe.
Water began spouting out of monitoring probe MP-3C; immediately
capped probe.
Collected vapor samples 3A and 3B from SVE-1.
Collected vapor samples 4A and 4B from SVE-1; collected vapor
samples SA and SB from AS-I.
Collected air blank samples 7 A and 7B from zero air calibration gas.
Collected vapor samples 6A and 7B from SVE-1.
Shut off air sparge at AS-I.
Shut down SVE unit, Part 4 completed.
'SVE run time is relative to 0.0 hours being the start-up time of the vapor extraction.
bRefcr to the data table in Appendix D-5 for the data collected.
P:\proj\0313.0B\T0507J>Dl.D0C Page 1 of\
-l!!l!!!!l!
Sampling
Well ID Date• Acetone 2-Butanone
(ug/L) (ug/L)
AS-I 8/19/98 120 UD' l20UD
AS-I 8(27/98 IOU IOUD
AS-2 8/19/98 SOUD 50 UD
AS-2 D UP 8/19/98 50 J 50 UD
AS-2 8(27/98 SU 5.0 U
MP-1B 8/14/98 IOOUD 50 DJ
MP-1B 8/28/98 120 UD 120UD
MP-lC 8/14/98 sou 50 UD
MP-IC 8(27/98 10 U IOUD
MP-ID 8/14/98 5.0 U 2.2 J
MP-2B 8/14/98 l20UD liOVD
MP-2B 8(28/98 l20UD 120 UD
MP-2C 8/14/98 1,200 D 250UD
MP-2C 8/27/98 250UD 250UD
MP-2 D 8/14/98 25 U 25 UD
MP-3B 8(28/98 250UD 250UD
MP-3C 8/14/98 25 UD 25 UD
MP-JC 8/27/98 25 UD 25 UD
MP-3 D 8/14/98 12 U 12 UD
MP-3 D 8f28/98 l20UD I20UD
MP-4B 8/14/98 5.0 U 5.0 U
MP-4C 8/14/98 25 UD 25 UD
MP-4C 8/27/98 500 VD 500 UD
MP-4D 8/14/98 120 U 120UD
MP-5B 8/14/98 120 U l20UD
MP-SC 8/14/98 l20UD 120 UD
MP-SC 8(27/98 1,200 UD 1,200 UD
MP-5 D 8/14/98 120 UD !20UD
trip blank 8/14/98 2.0JB 5.0 U
trip blank 8/19/98 2.3 J 5.0 U
trip blank 8(27/98 3.41 5.0 U
-, iliiil .. .. , -TABLE 5-8
SUMMARY OF DETECTED voes ~-ROM
PRE-AND POST-PILOT TEST GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
FCX-STA TESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Carbon 1, 1,1-I, 1-1,2-cis-1,2-
Carbon tetra-Chiaro-Trichloro-Dichiaro-Dichiaro-Dichiaro-
disulfide chloride fonn ethane ethene ethane ethene
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
25 U J 25UD 4.5 DJ 25UD 25UD 25 UD 25 UD
0.22 DJ 2.0UD 2.0 UD 2.0 UD 2.0UD 2.0UD 2.0UD
IOU J 17 D 3.5 DJ IOUD IOUD lOUD IOUD
10 U J 15 D 3.2 DJ IOUD lOUD IOUD IOUD
LOU 4.5 L8 LOU 0.12 J LOU LOU
20UD 20 UD 20 UD 20UD 20UD 20UD 20 UD
25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 VD
IOUD L6 DJ 2.0 DJ IOUD IOUD IOUD IOUD
2.0UD 2.8 D 4.5 D 2.0UD 1.4 DJ 2.0UD 0.84 DJ
LOU 3.5 LS LOU LOU LOU LOU
25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD
25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD
SOUD SOUD SOUD 50 VD SOUD 50 VD 50 UD
SOUD SOUD SOUD 50 UD SOUD SOUD 50 UD
5.0UD 5.0UD 3.0 DJ 5.0UD 5.0UD 5.0 UD 5.0 UD
50 UD 50 UD SOUD SOUD SOUD 50 UD SOUD
5.0 U J 2.0 DJ 3.1 DJ 0.78 DJ 1.7 DJ 5.0 UD 5.0UD
5.0 UD 5.0 UD 3.7 DJ 5.0UD 1.4 DJ 5.0 UD 5.0 VD
2.5 U J 6.7 D 3.2 D 0.88 DJ 2.1 DJ 2.5 UD 2.5 UD
25 UD 8.3 DJ 3.1 DJ 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD
LOU J 0.22 J LI 0.19 J 0.19 J 1.4 0.33 J
5.0 U J 3.2 DJ 2.6 DJ 1.3 DJ 2.8 DJ 5.0 UD 5.0 VD
l00 UD lOOUD IOOUD IOOUD IOOUD 100 UD 100 VD
25 U J 20J D 7.9 DJ · 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD
25UD 25 UD 25UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 VD 25 UD
25 U J 25 UD 25 VD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD 25 UD
250UD 250 UD 250UD 250 UD 250 UD 250UD 250UD
25 U J 25 VD 3.5 DJ 25 UD 3.9 DJ 25 UD 25 UD
LOU J LOU LOU LOU LOU LOU LOU
LOUJ LOU LOU LOU LOU LOU LOU
LOU LOU I.OU LOU LOU LOU LOU
Methylene
chloride Toluene
(ug/L) (ug/L)
SOUD 25 VD
4.0U 2.0UD
20 UD IOUD
24 J lOUD
2.0 U LOU
40UD 20UD
SOUD 25UD
20UD IOUD
4U 2.0UD
2.0U 0.46 J
SOUD 25 UD
50 UD 25 UD
l00 U SOUD
100 UD 50 VD
IOUD 5.0UD
IOOUD SOUD
IOUD 5.0 UD
IOUD 5.0UD
SU 2.5 UD
50 U 25 UD
2.0 U 0.60 J
IOUD 5.0 UD
200UD IOOUD
SOD 25 UD
50 U 25 UD
50 VD 25 UD
500 UD 250 UD
50 UD 25 UD
2.1 0.12 J
2.2 0.13 J
LO J LOU
'Pre-Pilot Test groundwater sampling was performed on 8/14/98 and 8/19/98. Post-Pilot Test groundwater sampling was performed on sn7/98 and 8/28/98.
bData qualifiers are as follows:
U indicates result was less than one-fifth of the CRQL (contract-required quantitation limit); reporting limit preceeds the "U" qualifier.
J indicates result is estimated.
D indicates result is from a diluted sample.
<
O:\PRO.NJ313.08\T0508.xls
iiiill --
Tetra-
chloro-Trichloro-
ethene ethene
(ug/L) (ug/L)
1,300D 7.3 DJ
40 D 2.0UD
120 D 3.2 DJ
IOOD 3.0 DJ
19 L2
250 D 20UD
530 D 25 UD
170 D IOUD
530 D 6.0 D
5.8 0.65 J
350 D 25 UD
330 D 25 UD
l,OOOD 6.3 DJ
280 D 50 UD
43 D 2.1 DJ
820D SOUD
840 D 6.9D
650 D 5.8 D
520 D 4.8 D
290 D 3.1 DJ
64 D LI
1,300 D 8.9D
1,200D IOOUD
340 D 8.1 DJ
540 D 25 UD
2,800 D 17 DJ
3,100 D 250UD
2,400 D 16 DJ
LOU LOU
LOU LOU
LOU LOU
1 of1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pilot Test
Part
2A
2B
3
4
TABLE 5-9
CALCULATED SVE RADIUS OF INFLUENCE
DURING PILOT TEST
FCX-STATESYILLE SUPERFUND SITE OU3
Calculated SVE Radius of Influence in
Direction of Monitoring Probe'
Test
Description MP-I MP-2
(ft) (ft)
SVE Only 57 22
AS/SVE with AS-l 51 23
AS/SVE with AS-l 40 12
AS/SVE with AS-2 54 29
AS/SVE with AS-l 37 12
'SVE radius of influence calculations for are provided in Appendix E-2.
P ,\PROJ\031 J.08\t0509.doc
MP-3
(ft)
59
18
15
19
15
Page l of I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w __,
"' u (/1
I-0 __,
Q_
a, a, '--I'-
'--"' w I;,
0
I "' I "' "' 0
0 z
c:, z
3' "' 0:
0
' '-
D
□
D
D
200 0
SCALE
legend
ill
Note:
200 400
FEET
Location for Pilot Test
Shallow Monitoring Well Location
Intermediate Monitoring
Well Location
Deep Monitoring Well Location
Extraction Well Location
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Shallow
Groundwater lsoconcentration (ppb)
(Dashed where Inferred)
Contours
lsoconcentration contour information taken
from "Final Remedial Investigation Report,
FCX-Statesville Superfund Site Operable
Unit 3, Statesville, North Carolina"
Aquaterra, Inc., 1996
60313
FIGURE 5-1
LOCATION OF PILOT TEST
FCX-STATESVlLLE SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
10/98
BROWN AND
CALDWELL Ncshvlh, TtnnlHN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II -
I w _J
c'i Ul ,_
0 _J
I a_
"' "'
<()
I N
N
w ,_
<[
0 I N I <()
I
I <() ,..,
0
0 z
I 0 z ~ iii 0
I
10
N
A
MP-5
A
MP-4
A
MP-3
AS-1 (9 (9 AS-2
~
A SVE-1
MP-2 A
LEGEND:
(9 Air Sparging Well
" SVEWell
& Monitoring Probe Cluster
MP-1
0 Groundwater Monttoring Well
0 10 20 30 ·----------
scale
0 W-9s
0 W-9i
NOTE:
"6" Storm Drain
W-16i 0 0 W-16s
SVE-2
(location inside building)
Burlington
Textile Plant
See Figure 5-1 for location for pilot test.
Pilot test well and monttoring probe locations are approximate
(not surveyed).
40
feet
FIGURE 5-2
LAYOUT OF PILOT
TEST WELLS AND
MONITORING PROBES
STATESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE
60313 10/98
BROWN AND
CALDWELL No11hville, Tenncnee
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II
I w _, ., u If)
I-0
I
_,
Q_
"' 0,
I "' N
N
w f-.,
I 0
"' I
"' I
I "' "' 0
ci z
I '-' z
§, .,
O'. 0
I
Typical
Monttoring Probe Cluster
0, '"",...,,...,.,,.,A,,...,,.B:nCr-iDT"TS'"""°'"
'
Grout
Bentonite ti
Sand
32' (typ)--"---1
A 28'
B 39'
C48'
D 64'
AS-2 AS-1
66'
SVE-1 SVE-2
50'
NOTE:
The relative positions and distances between
wells and probes are shown in Figure 5-2.
FIGURE 5-3
CONFIGURATION OF PILOT TEST
WELLS AND MONITORING PROBES
60313
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
10/98
BROWN AND
CALDWELL Nashville. Tennessee
-------------------
w _,
i3 Ill
l-g
Q_
O> O> '--"' N '--N
w ';;c
0
v
I "' I n
n 0
0 z
c., z
r-----------7
I I
I ~~ I
I Plant Air _ __.._----<1>-1 Air
I Pressure Filter
I Regulator I L ___________ _j
Air Supply
F
p
Helium
Monitoring Probe
(Typical) AS-2
Well
~--------------------------, I Bleed Valve/
I Vacuum Relief Discharge I
I I
I I
I ---I I .------, ,_,.......~ l...J.-J I
.--.... -;.➔~ Liquid 1---l Air 1-...1...-+-~► I
SVE-1
Well
AS-1
Well
Separator Filter I
I ~;;;;;a~ £~ I I -Blower Activated Carbon I
I I
1--------------------------~
O'
32'
50'
66'
SVE Unit
LEGEND:
--➔• Extracted gas flow
)I,
0
Injected air flow
Elow element, .E.ressure element, Iemperature element,
and Sample port
Valve
60313
FIGURE 5-4
FLOW DIAGRAM OF
PILOT TEST SYSTEM
FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
10/98
! BROWN AND
O CALDWELL Ncstwille, Tennessee L------------------------------------...L.----------------1
-------------------
30
♦
♦ ♦
25 -
'
..§ 20 " u • "' ~· •
.3 ♦ ♦
""' ♦ .... 15 ~ " 'O • "' -u • "" .... ->< U-l 10 • • ♦ ♦ ♦ •
5
• • •
. ' . ' . . ' . . .
0 . . .
-1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-5. Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part I (8/18/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\Part I Data (SVE-1 ).xls2/9/99
fig•Aow
-------------------
80 •
• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
70 ,.
•
u 60
~ •
. 5 • ,. ♦ ~ 50 ,. ♦ • ♦ ♦
;:, • 0 "' • > 40 ,.
"i:l "' OJ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ::5
0) 30 ~ --. ♦
' "1l > 20 -(/)
' "
10 • •
• .
0 .
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-6. SVE-1 Wellhead Vacuum for Pilot Test Part 1 (8/18/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part I Data (SVE-1 ).xlsl 2/8/98 fig-Vac-SV~-1
-------------------
12
• • •
10 • •MP-1
.s • ■MP-2
• • • • .t.MP-3
• •• •
• ■ I I ,'I. ...
I I I I • • ' I JI
0 l..-l.--'--..J..t~--'---'-..L......l'-L-'-..L......IL..-L-'-..L-L......1.....L.-..l-.L.....L--'----'-.L.....L--'---'-......... ._.__,_...._ ......... _._...._.L.....L_._....L.-.L.....L__.
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-7. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-1, MP-2, and MP-3 for Pilot Test Part 1 (8/18/98)
q:\proJ\03 I 3.08\Part I Data (SVE-1 ).xis lfl2/99 fig.Vac-MP-123
-------------------
2.5
•MP-3
cj
~ 2.0 ... ...
. 5 ... oMP-4
§. ...
::I 1.5 ... u "' □MP-5 > ... ... <
0) ...
..0 ... 0 1.0 .... ~
bO ::: ... ... ... ·;::
0 -·a
0 0.5 ::'2
0 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 0 o □ □ □ □
0.0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-8. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 for Pilot Test Part 1 (8/18/98)
q:\proJ\0313.0S\part I Data (SVE-l).x1s1/22/99
-------------------
35
• ;~
30 ..
•
♦ ♦
,.§ 25 .. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
u "' • oi • -" ~ 20 ..
~ • 0 ~ • .... • :.;: 15 ..
"c:l • OJ • -u " !:J >< 10 .. "1-1
5
0 L__.__,.'-"'4·>-''---''---''--'-..,_ ._,__,_.__L-.___,__.__,__.__.__,__,__,__,_~-.___,-__.__..__.._.,_ ._,_ ..,__ ..__ 'L-''-"'---'--'---'-'--'--'--'--'--'-...J
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-9. Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\Fart 2A Data (AS-I @ 5 cfm).xls12/8/98 fig-Flow-SVE-1
-------------------
80
" • • • • • • • • • • • • 70
>
>
u 60 • ~ -.s " -o' 50 ,. "' " ' ::S
0 >
:3: 40 • -' "' • > >
r/J 30, .;
§ >
:, > u 20 • "' " > >
>
10 '
'
' . . . . . . . . ..
0 . . .
-1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-10. Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead Vacuum for Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 2A Data (AS-I @5 cfm).xlst:vs.,,JB
tig-Vac-SVE-1
-------------------
15
"
u JO ~
• •MP-I ~ • ' • • • . s
!f ;::s 5 t.)
" ■MP-2 • -~
"' >
<i:
"' .D
■ ■ •MP-3 ... ■ ■ ' ■ ...
0 0 .. 0...
co .
.: ·.::
0 ·2 ... .
0 -5 ~ ... ...
" ...
'
-10 . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-11. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 2A Data (AS-I @ 5 cfin).xlstn2/99 fig-Vac-MP-123
-------------------
15
• 4 MP-3
u 10 --
~ .s oMP-4
Ef ::, 5 ::, u "'
•
□MP-5 >
<!'. .,
.,:,
0 0 "" ""' Oil
4 • • 4
□ " --t:i u u
C: ·c:
0 -·a 0 -5 ::;s
• 0 0 0 • 4 • .
• 4 4 • 4
• • -10 . . ' . . . ' . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-12. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 2A Data (AS-I @ 5 cfm).xlstn2/99 fig-Vac-MP-345
-------------------
10.00 • •
• •
~ 1.00 c .9 -"' .... " ♦ -i::
QJ u ♦ ♦
i:: 0 u
♦
' ♦
.§
0.10 .,
::r: ' ♦ •
•
0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-13. Helium Concentration in Extracted Air for Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:\proJ"\0313.08\Pal"I 2A Data (AS·l @5 cfm).xls!Z/8/98 fig-He-SVE-1
-------------------
10.00 • • • • •MP-I
■MP-2
~ 0 1.00
"'MP-3
~
d' 0 -~ oMP-4
.... -C: "' u □MP-5
C: 0 u
E .:! ., 0.10 :i::: •
' ' ' ' ... ... ...
•
0.01 . . . . .
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-14. Monitoring Probe A Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 2A Data (AS-I @ 5 cfm).xlsll/8/98 fig-He-MP-A
-------------------
10.00 r
• r •MP-1
• 0
•
•
■MP-2
~ 1.00 i::·
0
•MP-3
• -~
!:l
• oMP-4
i:: <l)
CJ i:: 0
□MP-5
u a ·= 0.10 -<l) ::r::
•
0.01 . . . ' . ' . '
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-15. Monitoring Probe B Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:l.proj\0313.08\Part 2A Data (AS-I @ S cfm).xlsl2/8/98
fig-He-MP-B
-------------------
10.00
•MP-I
' ■MP-2
~ 1.00 cf
. 9 -"' -0
.a.MP-3
~ -' oMP-4 ...
' ... ... ... ...
' t:: "' u □MP-5 ......
t:: 0 u ...
E ... . 2
" 0.10 ::i::
...
' ... ...
' --■ □ •
0.01 .
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-16. Monitoring Probe C Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 2A Data (AS·l @ 5 cfm).xls12JE/98 fig-He-MP-C
-------------------
10.00 •
•MP-I
11 MP-2
-
::R 1.00 0
C:
~MP-3 -
-_g
~ cd
--oMP-4
I-< ~ c:: -" u c:: • □MP-5
0 u
-~ " 0.10 ::r:
■
. . . ' . . . . . . . 0.01
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-17. Monitoring Probe D Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2A (8/20/98)
q:lproJ°\0313.08\Pan 2A Data (AS-I @ 5 cfm).xlsl2/8/98 fig-He-MP-D
-------------------
35 -
" 30 " " ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Jj 25
t.) ♦
"' '' -"' p:: 20 -;;::
0 ~ " .... ~ 15 " -0 " " " -t.)
"' .... ->< 10 -i:il
5
0 ' . . . . ' . . • I • ' 0 , , I , , , I .
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-18. Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 28 (8/21/98)
•
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I @ 10 cfm).:dsl2/8/98 fig-Flow-SVE-1
-------------------
80 • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
• ♦ ♦ 70
u 60 ~ .s
--d' 50 a '" " :5 v >
~ 40 a -' \:.t.l > > Cl) >
"' 30 -> § > ;:l
<.J 20'" '" > >
> 10
0 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-19. Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead for Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I@ 10 cfm).xlsl2/8/98
- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - -
15
10 • • -. •• • • • •
u 5
;:i
. s 0 a ;::l ;::l
• ■ • • ---• ■ • "' • •• ■ ■ • ■ -----• • • u -5 "' > • ~ ~
•MP-I
-<
'-' -10 .D 0 ... p..
Oil
I--..
. "'• ■MP-2
c:: -15 ·.::
0
. ~ -. -·a . • MP-3
0 -20 ~
. " ~
"' . .
-25 . . .
• •
-30 • . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' . ' . . . . ' . . . '
-1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-20. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in Pilot Test Part 28 (8/21/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 28 Data (AS-I@ 10 cfm).xlsl/22/99
--· -· - - - - - - - - - - - --· - - -
15
.
10 .
u 5 .
~ • " A
.5 0 Ef :, :,
• 0 0 80-o = ->---..tIJ -u □ □ □ " 0 0
0
u -5 "' >
•
• ...
-ct:
(I)
-10 .0 0
0
AMP-3 0 ,., ,., -0 .... p..
oil ......
<:: -15 ·c oMP-4
0 -• ·a " 0 -20 :::B A
" □MP-5 ...
"
-25 ... ... • • • . . ' . . -30 ' . ' ' . . . ' . . ' ' ' ' ' . . . '
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-21. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
q:\proJl03l3.08\Part 28 Data (AS-I @ 10 cfm).xlsl/22199 fig-Vac-MP-A345
•
--~----------~-----
~
d" .s -"' .... -= " <.) = 0 u
E -~ " ::r:
10.00
1.00
-
-
0.10
"
"
0.01
0.0
. .
♦
♦ ♦
♦
♦
. . ' '
0.1 0.2
♦
. ' . . ' . . ' . . . . . .
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-22. Extracted Air Helium Concentration for Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
q:\proJ"\0313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I@ 10 cfm).xlsl2/8/98
. . ' . .
0.9 1.0
fig-Hc-SVE-1
--·----------~------
10.00 • • •
•
::§?. 1.00 0
,::· • .s • -"' .... • -,:: • " <.) ,::
0 u • a .::: .; 0.10 ::r:
0.01 . . .
-1 0
•
• • •
' ■
•
. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-23. Monitoring Probe A Helium Concentration for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
•MP-I
■MP-2
I-
•MP-3
.
9 10
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 28 Data (AS-I@ JO cfm).xlsln2/99 fig-He-MP-Al23
- - - - - - -_, ... -·-- - - -----
10.00 •
• •
•
~ 1.00 cf .s -"' ... -c:: " CJ c:: 0 u • e ·= " 0.10 ::r: • • • •
•
0.01 . . . .
-1 0
A
0
A Ao
CD A
A
. ' . ' . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-24. Monitoring Probe A Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
AMP-3
oMP-4
~
□MP-5
. '
9 10
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I @ IO cfm).xls!nl/99 fig-He-MP-A345
- - - - -~-,-· --·-,1111111 -··-·-··-' -·-·--
10.00
';l. 1.00
cf ..
0 .. •p
"' .... .. .. -c:: .. "' u c:: ..
0 u
.§
" 0.10 ::r:
.
.
..
0.01 . ' . .
-1 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-25. Monitoring Probe B Helium Concentration for MP-1, MP-2, and MP-3 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 28 Data (AS-I@ IO cfm).x.1s1/22/99
•MP-1
11 MP-2
~
~MP-3
.
9 10
fig-He-MP-B123
10.00 • • •
~ 1.00
i::· • 0 ·.;::: • " .... • -i:: • Q) u i:: • 0 u • a ·= " 0.10 ::r::
• • •
0.01 . . . . . .
-1 0 I
Figure 5-26.
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I@ 10 cfm).xlstn2/99
J..MP-3
oMP-4
□MP-5
0
0
<D
~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Helium Run Time, hr
Monitoring Probe B Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
9
~
10
fig-He-MP-B345
10.00 • • • • • • •
•
~ 1.00 ,::" • -~ • -"' .... -C: <U <.)
C: 0 u .
a ~ 0.10 ::1: .
. ■ •
•
0.01 . . . . .
-1 0
•
' ■ •
• • ■ •
■ • •
■ •
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-27. Monitoring Probe C Helium Concentration for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I@ IO cfm).xlsln2/99
•MP-I
■MP-2
~
•MP-3
. . . . .
9 10
fig-Hc-MP-Cl23
--
10.00 • • • • • •
•
~ 1.00
d' • _g -"' .... -::: <l.)
0 ::: 0 u • s . 2 a, 0.10 :r: • • • •
0.01 . . .
-1 0
...
0
6' 0
...
...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -. -- -
. - --.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-28. Monitoring Probe C Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
•MP-3
oMP-4
~
□MP-5
. - -
.
9 10
q:\proj"'10313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I@ 10 cfm}.xlsl/22199 fig-Hc-MP-C345
-
---------------------
10.00 • • • •
~ 1.00
d' .s -• "' ;:l c:: " u c:: •
0 u a .::!
" 0.10 :r:: • • • •
•
0.01 . . . .
-1 0
■ e • • ■ • ■ ■
A
■
. . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Heliwn Run Time, hr
Figure 5-29. Monitoring Probe D Heliwn Concentration for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
•MP-I
■MP-2
~
AMP-3
. . --
9
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 2B Data (AS-I@ IO cfm).xlsl/22/99 fig-Hc-MP-D123
-------------------
10.00 ' ' ' ' ' '
'
~ 1.00 cl' ' .9 ' -"' .... -i:: " u i:: 0 u ' s .::!
" ::r: 0.10 ' '
0.01 . . . ' .
-1 0
•MP-3
oMP-4
□MP-5
0 •
. . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . ' . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Helium Run Time, hr
Figure 5-30. Monitoring Probe D Helium Concentration for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in
Pilot Test Part 2B (8/21/98)
'------
10 •
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 28 Data (AS-I @ JO cfm).xlsl/22/99 fig-Hc-MP-0345
-------------------
35
r
30 r
r
r
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 25 r ♦ ♦ ♦
r
20 r
15 r
r
IO r
r
5 r
r
r
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-31. Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 3 (8/24/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Pail 3 Data (AS•2@ S cfm).xlsl218/98
fig-Flow-SVE-1
-------------------
80
.. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
70 .. ..
u 60 .. ::i " .5
"O. 50 "' <I) ..
:5 ..
0) ;::: .. 40 ~ -.. ' ~ > VJ 30 'id -
8 ::, ::, u 20 "' >
-
10 ..
..
..
0 • • • -I . . -. . . . . . . . . ' .
-1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-32. Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead for Pilot Test Part 3 (8/24/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 3 Data (AS-2@ 5 cfm).xlsl2!8/98
-------------------
15
•
• u ~ 10 .s a ;:, ;:, u "' > •
<i: 5
OJ .D 0 .... a..
OJ) • ,:: ·.:: • 0 0 -·a
0 2 • •
-5 . . . ' . . .
-1 0
q:\proJ\0313.08\Part 3 Data (AS-2@ 5 cfm).xlsl/22/99
• • • • -• • •
• ■ ■ -- --
J.
J. . -J. J. J.
J.
' . . . . . . ' . . .
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-33. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in
Pilot Test Part 3 (8/24/98)
•MP-1
11 MP-2 ~
•MP-3
. . - -
8 9 10
fig-Vac-MP-A123
-------------------
5
u ~
·= ' a· 0
::, ::, u " "' > ' -<
OJ .D 0 .... p... '
Oil -5 i:: ·c:
0 -' ·a
~ '
-10 . . .
-1 0
Ji,.
0 6
□ □ 0 -Ji,. ... -0 6 0 □ Ji,. JD Ji,.
□
□ □ -n -
. . . . . . . ' . . ' ' . ' . . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-34. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in
Pilot Test Part 3 (8/24/98)
Ji.MP-3
oMP-4
~
□MP-5
. . .
8 9 10
q:\proJ"\0313.08\Part 3 Data (AS-2@ 5 cfm).xlsl/22/99 fig-Vac-MP-A345
-------------------
35
30 • •
• • • • • • • • • ~ 25 • <Ei u "' • " • -"" ~ 20 • ;!:: • 0 r:;:: • .... ~ 15
"d ., -u "" .... ->< 10 -~
5
0 L__.__._ ..... J_ ._.__._ ._._ ·J_ ._._ ._._ ._._ •J_ ._._ ._._ ._._ ·J_.,__.,__.,__.L,_.,___.__._-'--'--'--'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'--'-._,__.__.__.__.__._...L......I
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-35. Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pilot Test Part 4 (8/25/98)
q:\prof10313.081Part 4 Data (AS-I @ 10 cfm).xlsl2/8/98 fig-Flow-SVE-1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -·-- - - -
80 • ♦ • • • • ·♦ ♦ • ♦
70 "
• u 60" :Ji • . 5 .,,,· •
"' 50
<I) • = • " ~ • 40 ~ -• ' w > r:r,
30" -"' a ::, ::, u 20 "' >
10 "
0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-36. Vacuum at SVE-1 Wellhead for Pilot Test Part 4 (8/25/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\Pan 4 Data (AS-I @ IO cfm).xls12/8198 fig-Vac-SVE-1
-------------------
15 • •
10 • • • c.5 5 ~
.5
~ 0
::,
• -
■ • A
' ' u "' -5 > '
--=i: • • "' -10 .r,
0 ' .... ~ • bl) -15 c:: •
·;:::
0 -• • ·a -20 0 ~
-25
•
-30 . . . . .
-1 0
-•• • • • • • ii Ill II 0
■ • • A A A A ■ ■ • ■ ■
A
A
A
A A
-
. . ' . -' ' ' . -. . . ' .
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-37. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-I, MP-2, and MP-3 in
Pilot Test Part 4 (8/25/98)
•MP-I ~
'-• ■MP-2
■ ~
•MP-3
-
. -
-. .
8 9 10
q:\proj\0313.08\Part 4 Data (AS-I @ IO cfm).xlsl/22/99 fig-Vac-MP-A123
-------------------
15
-
10 -
-c..i 5 ~
-
•
.5
~ 0
• ::_AO--fl • ::, u "' -5 > -<
(IJ -10 . .D 0 -I.; -p..
00 -15 i:: -
·.:: 0 -.--::: -
i:: -20 0
-
~ --
-25 •
• •
-30 . . .
-1 0
A A A A
fl ~ B~0-o----~ □ 0 □ □
A
0
~
0 0
A
A
A A
~
. . . . . . . . . . . -. -.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SVE Run Time~ hr
Figure 5-38. Monitoring Probe A Vacuum for MP-3, MP-4, and MP-5 in
Pilot Test Part 4 (8/25/98)
AMP-3 -
'-
oMP-4
~
□ □MP-5-
-
0
. -
. ---. -
8 9 10
q:\proJ"\0313.08\Part 4 Data {AS-I @ to cfm).xlsl/22/99 fig-Vac-MP-A345 .,
-------------------
30
.. ..
25
..
..§ ♦
♦ (.) 20 "' ~
'' .. "' .. ♦ ♦ 0,:
;3:
0 15 r::;:: r .... ..
~ ..
--0 " -(.) 10 " r .... -.. ♦ ♦ )<
[.Ll ..
5 r ..
0 L_,__'--'.'--''--'----'--'----'-_.__,___.___,.'--'__,_----'----'---'-_.__,___,__.___,___.__.__._.,_..__,__'--''--''---'--'----'-----'---'--'-'---'--'--'.,__,_.__,_-~~
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-39. Extracted Air Flow Rate for Pneumatic Permeability Test (8/26/98)
q:\proJ\0313.08\SVE-2 Pncum Pcrm.xls2/9/99
figFLOW
-------------------
80 •
• ♦♦ ♦
• 70 ~ • • ♦♦ ♦
u 60 • ~ ..
. 5
·cf 50 "' OJ ::5 • "ii
:$ 40 .. ....
N • ' w > • if) 30 •
~ .. ♦
"' E • :, • :, • u 20 ~ "' > • •
10 .. ♦ •
•
0 • a " • • • • • • I • • • • • ' • • • I
.. I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5--40. Vacuum at SVE--2 Wellhead for Pneumatic Permeability Test (8/26/98)
q:\proj\0313.08\SVE-2 Pneum Penn.x]s2/24/99 figVACUUM:
-------------------
1000
8 0. 0.
-o· 100 " OJ ::S
" ;:::
♦ ..
N •• ' \:l.l > ♦
{/) 10 -" ♦
C: -♦
.9 -" .... -
♦
♦ ' ••• C: OJ ...
u
C: 0 u u ~
0 -
>
•
0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SVE Run Time, hr
Figure 5-41. VOC Concentration at SVE-2 Wellhead for Pneumatic Permeability Test (8/26/98)
q:lproj\0313.08\SVE-2 Pneum Penn.xls2/9/99 figOVA
-------------------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
t;
~ 0.6
" > " ..J 0.5 ~ " '" ~ 0.4 'O " :,
0 ~
Q 0.3 .5
" en " 0.2 " .c: u
0.1
0.0
• -0. I ~~
-0.2
$ ,,; ~
Monitoring Probe
Figure 5-42 Change in Groundwater Level during Pilot Test Part I
q:\proj\0313.08\Parts 1234 GW Data.xis
--·--

-

-

-
------

-

-
-

-
t
40
35
30
" ~
,; 25 > " ..J
~ " " " 20 -0 C: :,
0 ~ 0
.!=
" 15
ell C: "' .c: u
IO
~ 11~~1
J-.--------------t'$-~--------l·¾'i~'~·->,·~,>C;i''~i1---________________________ ,
5
0
q:\proj\0313.08\Parts 1234 GW Data.xis
~ ~'
~~
•
Monitoring Probe
Figure 5-43. Change in Groundwater Level during Pilot Test Part 2A
--
-------------------
40 ·.-------------------------------------,
35 l----------r-1---------
30
" ~
,; 25 > " .J
~ ~ " 20 -0 C :,
0 ~
0
.S 15 " oil
C "' .0: u
IO
, _________ IE:§! Measured change in level 7L---I□ Level reached top of probe [
1----1~~., ___ __,
•---~:~;l'f·-----1
\lll I
5 •-"'-\,-. _,!li~•I--~-~--1 --1•1--~--"-. ----j
o !,.£~ill> ....,....1:2:;,);1;; ...,....l~ilil.~--L~~w-....,....~~il...,....J._.J....,.....J$llL..~--.-.l:fill.-,--J
-i,·1-------------------1
im-.
_6§:1.• .. ___________________ ,
~ ~ ~ 1%1
~ I:? f f' f ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ f ~ ~
Monitoring Probe
Figure 5-44. Change in Groundwater Level during Pilot Test Part 2B
q:\proj\0313.08\Parts 1234 GW Data.xls.vir
-------------------
40
35
30 -"' ~
u 25 > "' ..J
~ "' ci ;< 20 -0 " :,
2
0
.S 15 "' 00 " " ..c: u
10
5
0
"-~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § rn ·~ ~ ~ ~ fS1 -~~ § .:~x .,
--
$ ~ $ /}I ,-$' $ ~ ~ $ y} §:' f ~ c., ,5? -:-;
,,_; !'..' !'..' ,,_; "'-' "'-' "'-' "'-' "'-' $ $ $ "'-' $ ,,_;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~
Monitoring Probe
Figure 5-45. Change in Groundwater Level during Pilot Test Part 3
q:\proj\0313.08\Parts 1234 GW Data.xis
-------------------
40
-35 ---
30 --" ~
.; 25 ;, -
" ..J
~ ~ ;l: 20 -0 C: :,
0 ~ 0 .s 15 " "" C: "' .<: u
10
5
0
~ I~ Measured change in level I
" -ID Level reached top of probe I ~ ~ 0
~ -
'"' ~
-~ -
I~ ,_ ~ ~ ~ -....,..,.._ ~ W:: ~ 4:t ~ ft~ ~ ~ ;~;~t }~} ~ 00 ~ =
~ -Si $ ~ ,&, ,$ ~ ~ ,9 ~ f:' f ~ ~ ,5?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ $ $ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Monitoring Probe
Figure 5-46. Change in Groundwater Level during Pilot Test Part 4
q:\proj\0313.08\Parts 1234 OW Data.xls.vir
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
WELL LOG SHEETS
A-1 Monitoring Well Logs
A-2 Pilot Test Well Logs
\ \ TN\.SYS\DAT A \l'ROJ\0313.08\PDI-CYR.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A-1
MONITORING WELL LOGS
\ \ TN'\SYS'-DAT A '\PROJ'-0313.08\J'DI-CVR.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECK.Ei':FELDER
INC.
-1.o
-
-
-
----
TEST BORING LOG NO. L-0-Z.0<!
!SHEET NO. I al /.f
lo' v,.~;"1 -/'l" {.,-c.., c.. "'' ~D~My
<.'' c...,;-, -10" DH/I
Z." i,,,e.l I -'-" l:::,Hll
b,:11.-~ c., ... ~c.{ ..... -~-/o<JiC.. E,(>{o~.._.{; ... x • ._ 1~=====::r~o.c~ ...... S, Lu:11:.....__,/E..l,;~~-'f ... ..,.,, _ .. J, c..,.\J..,JI k
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
PRO JECT, FC.X.
CLlt. N 1: ~{ _t"'"o.."'(..,,
WELL 1= >-:I 11"'.jlntJ °ci: W . SA>J.PLE
I~ ~l NO. I I &LOWS ... C-'1 TY p ( '1HCH(S
' ,.. " ~
r" ,.. I' s-z. i, >' I' ,.. ; r--
~
,,_.. ; r--·~ ~ .... ; ,, ,,.. ~
; r vr ; r--
J " ; ~r-:.I-' ~
ti. • i, r-,.. I' ' -"i, r-!l L,-4-1 r • "~ • .. . I-' I.~ .... i -lo() .. . ~ 1--.. ... • J; ,.. • " \J ",, ~ 11.r-r-' eo---
"i--
;.. r: j .... v I' r
r ~1 " ... ;
"i--
"..-" \J ,., r--J ,'10
~ ... ,.. r--
r
• I' >' I' ,.. '
I-' ....... "i--",, ; r--
"v ; .... -
... ; I'
,, I'
>-I' ... ,.. I'
~
; ' &o .... ;
1--....
;
1--I >-I' r ... ,_. ,_. I'
~ r-r
i, ... .... ;
I" ; ....
1--
f 1--; I'
•• r I' r'ic,
' I' V ,..
I' I' v • ,.. ; ....
~ I-"
t
,..
I-" I' • ... .. I-"
' . r' r--
" ... ,--I' • I' I g: V
>-C: I l v .... -, .. I .... I
; ; n ; ,-I
TEST BORING LOG NO. IA) • "Z. D .,Q
.:it=T g-r<-'<'i I SHEET NO. Z of ~ ,,_.,.. f3•/'i'-, ' I ~ROJECT N0_(Q_O~i!I o.,
CLASS1F1CAT10N I REMARKS
[ArTC!!. llUl'II-IIST[II., 1,~,J
'
I ~
I
I
I
I
·1
I,
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECKEi\FELDER
INC.
PROJECT• FC.X.
CLltNI: ~( ro..."'~ e:.~-
.. WELL 1= "":j ' 11rTJON 'a: ~ SAMPLE
I~ ~l NO. lnPE e.LOWS 1"(11.
'-1HCt1(S
:--,...
,... ; ' , .. ,... ; ,... ; ,... ; ... I ,... ;
1--1--
1--... " . 1--... " 1--... ' ... ;.-\IC ...
1--... ,... -; ,...
; ,...
; f-1--
; .., ... " 2
1--... ... ... >-110 ...
1--
1--... • --... ; > ,... ; ... ; f-.... ...
1--... ~ 1--... ... ,... ... 13'> ...
" -
-
4
,-{40 -
...
:·, .. ':i •.• 'I , .. -::
·.':.::I ' -. .:;; :. ;-. "
··-z·· "-· :· 1--'5'0' r~ ;1 . ~ .. .. ,, t
: .. ., • :; ..,i i:
TEST BORING LOG NO.
Jf=T 0-1-z..,~ I SHEET NO. 3 ol 4
"."' Kl-17-IOROJECT NQ.,-011'3 Ou
CLASSIFICATION REMARKS p, r1c11. !U,.MISl(I\, 1,),J
1,i--------
' 1-Z."Z. -------

-
!>..de._, "T uf r--4•r'-'<>-\ 1u:-1n.'
T;""' ~ IO ... ,",
l"\o.,_fi-·-&or:
T..XL • o.l 1 .. l
u.o s .. .._., le. T..l.,.,.\ ,u'-11 I,' ~
r~i-t,,.,.Ju , c. I.. lo.o\'.o.-... z3. -lo --------~~ s 30,-.L : ... IZ. ....:...Ju P-..ke.-Te.•+ :r. l.. ....,_1 13?.' -I'll.' p•-f• dry
T,•-._ > 10 ..,.,'-1\
11 .. ~ \' ... ,,_ ~ '1 '( .,. : \
TL.:,,_ ' 0.% 'l,"-
T .. 'tce,. ou, .... r.-l. c~l'f :~ t"-. ,,.,½ z-,·-.iJu.
1<1i--------
f'..,)<;&r Tu!: r.w...J. l<it'• IS-Z.'
T;""-. 2 10 ""~I'\
11,.. ~ " "lb~•
To.Ke. : O.O'S" , .. \
-1Sl'-----------
I EC KEN FELDER
INC.
II PROJECT• FC)(,
CLlt.N I' 1:./ •o..•<> /&-·
I
I 1:
I
I
I
I.
I
I
,n.-
-
-
.
.
-no
-
-
G,
1-
-,___
-
,___
-
-1QO
,___
TEST BORING LOG NO.
8•/Z•'f'I I SKEET NO. '{ ol '-f
A•/'1•'1"r IDROJECT No.·t.:.o:=ll:, on
eLOWS F"[fl.
(, tNCH(S
CLASSIFICATION
(.lf'"T[R BURMISTEF!., 19~9)
1---~-1si'---- -- - ---
Fl..<l,:~,. T~.,,t T,.l,.,ru._\
T.'lll4. 1 IO-!n
11.""--~ ... n. = 10'$ p,:
r ... 1ce. • 'l.'1$ s-l
ISZ' ·IC.l.1
----
Po.J; .. .-To-,t-:r..~ •• vo-1 l~i-llll.'
Tes{ c.ou.\A ~o{ be. ~o.,.leU J...,._ i..
j t& 11: .. , ... o.~--t i,k._ '3 1 .. ..,.G
llll<--1'+ 2.~ f> .. ~ ..... ~ T .. s-i ..,;{I-. .i.:(I ,I.-
"~'-\.o"&i....lc. full o't WG..,{·~ -ta i...,l:c...ta.
f.-0u..4~c. \eo.1,,:,-..,._ -.-u.f'\L -C.\o.e. t;,C--'2.,
F~, w..>«.rc. ~.-e,.t.....b ... ~ \ «-.'-=-t".,
/Jc T~II<'~ ~ .. -1,i-1Gt,'
,
f-----1--1Bt------------
1----+-1'\t'.-- - --- -----
/
REMARKS
H-. o -s~'""(llc r~-l.,.\ 1~1:,~
,as.J4, , d, 1 ... 1-: 1 J ,,oi: 2...
11£1:. ' 1z._.., :e.
fl:_E • ~ f"l /. lz. r~.-, ._ : </o ,-1 ~-J.•y it1 'l -,•IA-. ,, _ ...... ""°..,...,, s-,., \o ~1
I~ ,_; ~ _.c.(,•tJla .. y
C•I 1-...+ S'""""fl«-
I
,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
PROJECT' FC.'J(.
CLlf..N I: ec t"'a.,_-E,..
rf'lt--•<;:'i~h~T•'"H' 2: ;:--, SAMPLE
a. w
Fl~ (..o)er ~ ~1 NO. I &LOWS ,.[II.
~--~ -TYPE & INCH(S
~ ,,
; ,, ..
; l,o ' ~ C I\ ~ L..
r-,. ' ~ L,
I\ L,
L, .., -j
' L,
C
0 -• C \!) I\ L, ~
J! ... HO -\"' ·;; -~ .e ~ ... < ; ~ • ... s ~ ; ... -~ $ ~ . , ' ... ~ ;
L, L, , .. • L,
L,
I\ ; I, ~--1.o
I\ .,, " -,,. l
I\ ,,. N; -,~.,,
; I\ ,,. --fl .,, ·; ',,. -\ u i~ • ' ,,. " .,, ;,; I\ ' '-~ "' I\ L, ' " I C \I L, -. " C
1 ~ L, " C .... l,o
M 'L,
~
Ir I, -
\ i.., ...
I-' -, ... -i..,
\ I-' ---VO '.,, -.,, ..
[\ C, ~
,,
I\ I., C "~ I., ~
~
I\ '"' "~
L.,
' ... "~ C
'.,, "
\ _, " -5o
~ , ... ~
TEST BORING LOG NO. W-32i
-,,...,."!" /1-/G,•~fllSKEET NO. I ol ::,
--.lJ ,,_,2:;cia l DROJECT NO. /..Q'.'11", o~
CLASSIFICATION REMARKS
(.1.rT(II. BUPHollST[JI., l'J~!J
~o s ... """le.-s (., U.e., .. :teJ F,.,...
Th;-~ Ber;"l Et<-<¥t :\,, .. O,.;\ \
c.,.,H:.o.:,-s
b,: Ile! o:: •• 'H..J,..r Tl.i5 w ... n
Te.~~ t::),.J ..... ... ....t "ro~O.: tr
&_......_\;t~ n ..... :-l,.,-,..., o .. l't'
~ .. P'f' .. ., 1:-l:e.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
ECKEi':FELDER
INC.
-.:: ~ SAMPLE
PROJECT I FCX.
CUtNI :_i;,(_ro.,,t-
WELL
,•STRU':T!ON 0. W!--,-----:-:c-;:::;-;;:--;-\ w w I "'LOWS "(II. 0 u. NO. TYPE '1/<ICH(S f:--TSR::r,~....,...T
~ .. ' .. ,.
I"~ ,...
I r ,-"'r
"'r
I-' ,.-1'
,.. r
' ' ;N .-N
.. ! ,-l .-N ,... I ..,r
r i--,-
,--
1-IOO
TEST BORING LOG
CLASSIFICATION
(,IJT(ill. !IURl-tlST(", 11'~,J
10-;..._, c..z. p•;
3,4 5.,_I
NO. W-32;
I SHEET NO. 2. ol .,
REMARKS
r--:----1--,ot..·-- - - ----~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECKEi':fELDER
INC.
PROJECT• FC.X.
CUt.N : r--(Po...<o £,,. ---
-"'•.,c"+~~-~T1n"' :,: -= ~ r SAMPLE
0. w __ _l~ ;J NO. I &Lows rr.-:
--TYPE 'INCH(S
' '--, ....
-
-
;2_
' '
-:, ~,,o·
., Lt ;j -•. '--c;;. ~-· -· ti C:rJ.
:,~ I=~') -, ,. :: D ii ,_
_r-•, -.. ..; -" n ' 3 <· < .-. ~ :: " ,, -~ :-: .... : . '· ' i: 111 ,· ,·, ~ 14_ ---1 io
.II • .!~; J ,,
:,.• .... C '--oi:-;
i ;-~ L~ ~ ➔i.' ·., ~ ;j ,.;: L
I r " o:. lf -,. ff. ' ,ii !,; ~ (: ;; L•• ~ ,, E ::. • -· ;_: :; -' L' "no • •,• t:=:;;
d t-L.__ •-1
) t: ,:, ' ,! -.:,. '--
c..
L'
'
~
c..
r
r i I I
TEST BORING LOG NO. 1,0 -52~
""-=-t-I SHEET NO. ~ ol 3
c.---:ir 1°ROJECT NQ./.'.Q'.'!1-,_ on
CLASSIFICATION REMARKS
I ,IJT CI\ BUIIIMIST[II, 1'1!>!1)
1oz.'_ -

-
-------
'P~L',:;.-.r ,-.,, of T,.,{,..-1.1A.\ IO"L'-111,'
T,•'1'11.A,. ~ \o -;"" c.-~sf... I : ... --e-..J..Jc:. ,,,.,. p...,,,_ : 20 p,i ~
T-.ka. = ?..'S' ,-l
_,..-~i.., ~A. <2 I ..;.....t,.. _:±.
~--~t-e '?.. s-, .. , ;-,,v """ .. " ~
-h..\.::<1t. 11,1e .... t-t-• 0 "-•r ,. • .,fa~ '-..-f
.
Ill..----------
't=>a.c..\--.,c-"'~ I,.~\ ·• • /Jt.-11:.1..
Ti· ......... , ,. -·-he..\-Q"'"'· ~ "I I r~;
T~kc.. o.o"i-1 .,_
11..t.'----------
-P ..... k;'...-Ta.~t :r~{: .. .-..,.._, Jt\'.-1,t '
T.·--, {O ,.....:""-
M...i'r= = 'I'S r~;
Ta."'-"-: 13.S ~ .. u ... ,
. l~t
E....,Q .t l3o .. ;~ ~ . 13 Z:.' 15"1.
tiT:\\;~ Mc.tW
+..-c.-.-.;~ 10•· bJ-1/.J ,., tiH 1-/ ~., .. We.!
b,:ll; "'l C,,.,...{...._'-.(.~ · C,.eo/.,~it-I: -,._'i?(.,.,,_J.;.,.__ ~nc...
I., ,. r' o.d..-~ "'5. Lu: I I: ... .....-i:.~ l&er/e,......w<1,-C&..I.L..,J r .. '-
I
I
I,
I.
I
I
:
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
SAMPLE
' lD
h
h
'-
'-
'-'IO
TEST BORING LOG NO .. ll.J-31s
-......,.'T" /I -11-"18 ISHEET NO. / cl I
E-.tJ 7/-11-90: I PROJECT NO. ,...O:.'11'3 on
REMARKS
,-
I ECKEi\fELDER
INC. TEST BORING LOG
11 PROJECT, f"(.X. ~ .... ,
CLIE.N I, f:.( t'o..•o &~-. E-..U
!SHEET NO. I of Z.
I PROJECT NO.,. O'.'ll:, on
-
2.
-
3 .
REMARKS
1-----+-l<,.'-------------......
T.· ....... : ID ...;.,
ko... p,...,s, : '3 r I'':
T..,~ : 0.-;;-,.._\
1-----+--'fz' - - - --- -
l=> ...... -.,_ ... r Tes(. :C... ~
T:-e... · -:. JO.._;..,.
~ f>..tss : 38 r•:
,-r-:e.. = 0.4~-\
f------j,_S,.'-- -----
T.•lfl'I,._ :: Jo lkr-i""
11 .. , p,.,, • 3Sv•;
T .. lo:.e. ' 'l,'S' ~o..\
---1---------~
- -.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I I
I
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
PROJECT• FC.K
CLltN1 • ,:/ ,.._,., &,,....,,.,
WELL X -SAMPLE rnNc;;T RI Jl"'Tlt"'\t.J ... ...
Q. w • .. w WI TYPE 8LOWS PER o !=, NO. r, INCH(S .... __ . ,
• r •• • ,, .. .,,
fi"J.' .. . -..
r, -·"-, -; -) ~ ... ., , ! .
,"-l • •, ·.:
• • I ; " ...
-~. I ' J . ' ' , .. 4 :-~ · ::·: .. I::: , ,,
µ' •• '1 .~ (
~ ~ ,: ,,. I-~ ..
"t l ,.., II'; f-'o' ' • I s' jjJ I ,✓ 11 . '·' ; .
9 ~-/-.:·:-~\ ~
.::4, .. {, l't' ~ .,. ' . .,, ' '
1 t ✓ I
1 -,;_-t-) -F o • • > I I 5 ~ , : ~~ I; .. •; • .' • -:, ,1;
3 .. .,,• _,,'/ .. ,,.' ¥1.(;
',/"' I , ,, t-'Jo '~--t '! . ,,·
I ,' I• . .. ·,'._ .... _, ..... :.··
.
..
,-
..
~-.. ..
...
....
...
.. ..
i-.•·
TEST BORING LOG NO. l,0-31;
.::it-.,,,:t II· ll.-~8 I SHEET NO. :) oi oZ.
E· ..u 11-nr-<tB I PROJECT NO. r-Q~l'3, OrJ
CLASSIFICATION REMARKS
( .l. f"T [ R BURMJSTER, 19)9}
,;-z.'_ -1:,.{,-,.J ---'Fk~ To.,-1: S"Z-G.2. •
T:""-£-: 10 aoi.:,t\
k .. .._ i>,._.._,,. 'IZ. p,;
T ... .._.._ ' O.'t"lo.\. 0. 4 ';lc.l T"-KQ..
• ,z _ -------
'F> ... .,J,q.-Te.rt r~~., .. l (..Z.~"il I ... ___ • (0 -:"\
N..,_ ~-°'\ • 'S'Z. "' .. 10 o Tc. lc;.Q_ T.1<:.._ o.o-:,..._I •
'!-2' E11c:I.. .,;: '3., r ;"':I ,it rZ' 13G.L,
b, :11 :-, ko.{\.J. :
c,.5;"'.l -10" ti H H
/,.)e.l l -,:. .. I:) 1.//1
c..,_{ ....... {,,~ -(.,..,le,,\. E-Kr( ..... ~: • .._ J:.-c.. .
J:.,_5f ...._,f-. -S. W ; (I;.,....._, f:c..1<::u.l ~Jer/a.-,""'-t' c.-LJ...>.,.((
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A-2
PILOT TEST WELL LOGS
\ \ TN\SYS\DAT A \PROJ\0313.08\.PDI-CVR.DOC
I ECK.EN FELDER
INC.
I PROJECT• FC.l<
CL!ENl • I::( l"a..•<:> lu,
I
r-f"\h/c;'i'.~h~TlON ~ ~I .. SAMPLE
' rl ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·,
I
I
I
I
Ii
i
I!
I
r--
...._
' r--
r--
I
I
II
w w I BLOWS PER O LJ... NO. TYPE & INCHES ,t--+ V' ,.Ll
r--...._
' ---.._
r---..
r
r
r
r
-'IO
TEST BORING LOG
CLASSIFICATION
(.&.F"T(R. BURMlSTER., 19:09)
/\)o S...--f le:s G,, ( l=te~
re..... Th,s Bo.-:.,_,
Se..._ ½ ~ A S-2. +.> ...
L:-1:1...ol "9 .'c.. be...{.._: l
NO. SVE-1
REMARKS
I ECK.EN FELDER
INC. TEST BORING LOG NO. -SVE-2.
I I PROJECT, FCX.
CLltNl'I:( ,-.._,., E,, •··
~...-T f!-(1-'i~ !SHEET NO. I of l
WELL :r :I -,
I rf"'l"-'<::TRI ,r-TinN ~ t:il SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION
Fl ii. ,,, f" W WI 8LOWS PER (.\,-T(R BURMIST[R, 1'1!19)
u.")"1. 1..ove O ~"-,~N~O::_·JT~Y'..:P~Et'.~•;••£!CH!fei:s +---~------------{-------------:,--
REMARKS
I
I ' i
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
-
-
c-Zo
rl/0
r
' '
...
'
!00 "S~le.:s Cc.l/t..J.e.c9..
FrcM-Thi S '3e.r i<\j
S'ee. L~ o+ fu-
L; .fJ,.,, I <>j i c. 't:id...; ls
1--L' _l__l_b~--------'-------'--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECK.Ei\FELDER
INC.
PROJECT, FC.X.
t--.._
t--.._
t--.._
t---
" -10·
-)a
-
-
--
1 If---1
l_~---
1
TEST BORING LOG NO. AS-I
.;i.,...+ 7-/S--'li"'ISHEET NO. / ol I
CLASSIFICATION
(A,f"T(R BURMIST["I, 1'3~9}
/\.l.,, s,,,-pk.s Ccl \('-t,Q.
~..-c,,,~ 7"\_~:; E.or;,:I
:Se.e. lo'> olr AS-J. For
L-lk:,\0:1;(.. b.2..+.,,..; Is
REMARKS
I EC KEN FELDER
I PROJECT' l:'c_x
CLJEN1 :l:1 ,=ta_ o £--r-··
INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-.
" "'
" I'-..,
t-.. t-.... ~~o 1 0• ~0
i-.. t-.... I. I =i,::
TEST BORING LOG NO. AS-2
if•/°?.•'ls<. ISHEET NO. J ol.:t.
:1., ... 9g !PROJECT NO. a.o-.•~,-
CLASSIFICATION
(.lf'TtR 8UFIMIST(R, 19~'3} REMARKS
s.,; I
$., f' ro li i.,_
(,n&s~~c.)
I L..J_t,.....J____.t,>,.L _ _.L_j!__.!_ __ lc_ __ .!.__ ____________ ____! ________ .!.__ __
I
I
I
I
I I
I !
!
!
I I I
i
I I I
EC KEN FELDER
INC. TEST BORING LOG
CLASSIFICATION
(ArT(R BURMISTER, 19:>9)
s:i· 1---+--+---,~:S-&. ao ·ZJ:J .i.~ .... " to :i•~ -c..... ... ..,.,,.,;l~ r I .l 33. ,'\' "ScJ.,,-€, -ir~<c) , .. 1.•c. ,....--.,·h
lO • 2.l
Ifs',~" >-
1.-Z
o:s -c.o 1---+--.1--=za,--•= ...,...,.-1
0.1-
-
i_
>-
$'0/5" o.z.
REMARKS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I---" I---I---
----" h-" I'--• ~I'--
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
I---,.
' I---.. ' I---' ..
' I---
~ I'--
... ,.
~ ,.
" .. ..
" 1--1.o ,. ,.
TEST BORING LOG
:Se.e.. L...a~ -~
L; f\..olo•Ji c:.
NO. !1P-I
I SHEET NO. ( ol ;2_
J PROJECT NO. GO:l I:, 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ' , ,
I
I
I
I
I
\
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
PROJECT ' F"C.X.
CLlt.N I : ,-Pa .. :<:o r..,.,, .... ,.,,
TEST BORING LOG
CLASSIFICATION
(ArT(R BURMIST[R, 19!,9)
•
NO. MP-I
1 SHEET NO. -, of .;z.
RE MARKS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
PROJECT' FC.K cu~ NT: E.( Po.."' -&,,,___·.
~ 1-:I ,, SAMPLE
Q wL-~-----,--:::-=~ w wl I &Lows r[,,: t,i,.,,_..-,,--,..-,~,io 1..L. NO. TY P £ , 1MCHCs
B. ~ 7 t,,
,~ I-.
t---t---,._
"-" ,,
"
,._
t---,._ ,,
"
' ,._
' h ... ,._
' ,._
"
,._ "
t---I,
t---
t--' t---"
f-.
,, " >-Zo
t--.
,.
... ,, , :~
" I
~l ~ ~'IO
'
. ...
,:-:i .. t". ,,<\ r.': .,
i.r-:1..: ...... ~; ,. -f .::? '(.:J~\ .:, r ' -
I
TEST BORING LOG
CLASSIFICATION
(J,.rT(J\ 8U.ll;MIST[JII., 19~!1)
fJo So."'f/e.5 (ol(=ie£2
h-oM ,h; S Eor(~.
'Se.c. L "!J oi A-S-2. For
L;-t\..olo,;c. De:!:o.il ~.
'
NO. MP-2
REMARKS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EC KEN FELDER
INC.
PROJECT• f-<V
CUI-Ni: c, ...,_ -o E.,1---...,
n.'
-
-
....
TEST BORING LOG
-I .i-'1•/1'"•'i'I
~ I 2.,,.r.,g-
CLASSIFICATION
1,1,l'T[l'I. IIURl.ttST[~. 19~9}
NO. f1 P~;)__
!SHEET NO . ..._ ol "Z..
!PROJECT NO. r..o~ OD
REMARKS
.__ ___ L_l__!__...h====:! _______ __.!__. ___ ___:'------'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECKEi\fELDER
INC.
PROJECT' FCX.
CLi"fN'l: E( Po......._o
rn .... ,c~~~~T,nL' ... Q.
t-SAMPLE w L~-.:...-~C::...---1
~ ~ ;:: !?
~ I;: " .... 1-.. ~-"-1-... ~ r-... ....
~
~
~
~
~
'-
1-..
>-.
1-..
>-.
.
,,
~
w 0 ~
L
L
L..
L
L
L
L
~ 1 NO.
'-lo
'
L
-
L
~:so
L..
I bLOWS r'(/1. TY p E '11-/CHCS
TEST BORING LOG
"w-e,.r+ ~-f~-QQ
E. /J :l u .~
CLASSIFICATION
p.rT(l\ bUA;MIST(l\, 1!!1,l
AJo s ... _,__,ile.-:, c..,,U=l~
fro.,.,__ Tk.,'5 &.-i~ ·
:Se.e. L...0:3 • ~
L:·H,olo,ic..
AS-2 Fe.-
De.:\: ... : Is.
NO. t1P-3
I SHEET NO. ( ol .;2.
1.c:>R0JECT NO. ~0:,13 0,-.,
REMARKS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EC KEN FELDER
[NC.
PROJECT' Felt
CLIENT: Fl Pa...~o Frie-· '
rr\>-IC:~~~l~T''"'"' ;c: ~:1 SAMPLE
a. w
w ~I NO. I 11Lows rrR D TYPE {, II-ICHts
""'; ."J,1 ,r:,''C\ ~L) <
\.13 ..... '1 .·• " "I' <J
tfti'.fJl n.'
"
'-1S' ·:?~.;.\ •;~ \ ..
I ••• •• • • •••·• Q
:-i " ,.
' "
. . " .. , .. i ' ~'"'
·~·l:·._,.,,.,.\·,1:.l-
t}t~)}?~§ --"~
~
-"
~
~
"
'
>-
"
"
-
~
"
' ~
'
~
TEST BORING LOG NO. MP-3
S--'--+ i• l(o• i8 I SKEET NO. .;I.. ol ;;i_
• :Z. /t,~a.o 1 PROJECT NO. ✓..-,T/3 00
CLASSIFICATION REMARKS
I J. r TC II 8UAM1Sl[R, r,!>,)
•
b . 1 I· l1e.tl..oi-«>~ ~ ft5A
'"· '"'' 'or-d:ol\.. Il\c.. t)..;(/:"j &,~n:u-.tor--G,ec/og,c.. E~
Ke.r1.~J....-r .. c.. -:i:--see.<-to...--5.tJ:((;<>.IIA,,s/&.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECKEi"\fELDER
INC. TEST BORING LOG
-,,.~.-t '1 • '" -'!8 PROJECT' FC.X £--" '1-ic.-D~ CUENl: I.:/ r'o...<-. £,..
NO. t1P-4-
I SHEET NO. f ol .;i_
I PROJECT NO. l,:,Q:11'1 on
rn"•c:;~~h~T,rH-' ~· ~\ SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION REMARKS
w ~w~~IL-;~-~-s~--;~-~-~'L~'~L{_o~w;~,~~'t'r'~~----:-~l•~'-T~(~,~•~u~•="='~'=T~(='~·="~'~'='--:----+-----------t--,
t-... ' t-... 1--
~
~
" " "
C
'
_o ~ NO. TYPE , 1t-1CH(S
-10
>
> ....
e
~z.o
e
-
-
,1.,ic $,,_ ...... p le.~ c...,/ {ec.+.J
f..,,.,,_ Tl,,.,5 'Bo.-i~ ·
:Se.e. !...o~ -~
L:f\..olo,ic..
AS-2 Fc.-
De.t ... : Is.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l e': ..
I
I
I
I
I
ECKEi\FELDER
INC.
PROJECT' Fe.I(
CLlcN•' 1-Pa..-so F"~ --···
WELL ~I SAMPLE ,..f"'l.._,~TDI '-:".Tlr'l1'1 ~
0. w w ~I NO. I CLOWS ,"("R 0 TYPE GI .... CH[S
I-'; --~.,-.1.--•·l\· ~~~' < ' \.\.i ..... .., ·' ~ . w j\ I.,. 1· •,• t l•:.: '• ,,' ,J n.' t~/~ . .-~;/_~;:~) ., 'v"· - . . • .J ~
:--.:.~z.-:~)·_.:·:~i:'·\i, ~ >-~S' .-:·.,. t: \ '·''. ~ ,..:.~ :.·"': .. ,! .. Q
;.
~
'
. . .. ·, .. ~}
. ,... ...,
tli:ISf~i .... q
~
..
" .. .,_
"
"
~
"
' ~
" .. ..
~
'-
-
'-
..
TEST BORING LOG NO. MP-4
s~ 1-161\q I SHEET NO. (J._ ol ;;z
e • .i. •-·~ ..,..,u !PROJECT NO .. ,..-__ _,,,, 3 00 .
CLASSIFICATION REMARKS
[ A fl [ II. 8URMIST[II., 1,:,9)
..
' ' .. --D ·II•'· f1._-tkocil.-c;,%' HSA .... . "'' ord:.,~ I"c... f:><..; I I:~ CD..-i re..<.-&,,-_ G, e cl °S ,· c.. E:<fl ~e.,t~J ..... r,.c... T £,.--$,!,.);/(;=~/& _,.. St'"-"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECKEi\'FELDER
INC.
PROJECT• FC.X.
CLlt.N I: I=( ?o..-<o &~
" r--.. .r--.. r--..
r--. r--.
r--.. "
1' ~r--!1, '"' " ~r--
1, ~"
" I.! t--" .... Q ....
-... :r----...
K
" I'-
I'-
"
" "
' ' ' '
' '
~] .,
'•
" •
" ,-.
"
-10
' ,-.
' r
' r ' r
" >--1.o
" " " >-
-
.
r ..
:--~J<> .
, ' '• i1
{ r
;l
} -YO r. ~-
,-. .
(' r ~
I
I r
). 1-So ..
~j
TEST BORING LOG
No '5o."'fl le.-s
Fr-<!> .... tt...;,s
See.. loj ot
L: ll...ol o9,·c...
--...=T .<-1<;•'"'
E JJ '2..,'S'-~--
(.,{{ecki
,:;,,,. : ".3.
11 S-.;2. Fc.-
t)e2,{.,..; Is
NO. 11//P-5
[SKEET NO. I ol I
I PROJECT NO. &,Q:_;j I" on
REMARKS
I r-------EC_KE_·· -N-'F_E_L_D_E_R ___ T_E_s_T--s-oR-1 N_G_L_o_G_· _1 _N_o ___ fVl_p ___ 5~-7
INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I SKEET NO. 2-cl 7-
I PROJECT NO. ~OSI I~ OC
i': ~ SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION
0. w...,__~-----c[c:-\R (HTER BURMIS1[R, 19~9} w ~wl~1.:'..:.f2~r•L~O;W~S~Pq ___ ___:....:__....:....~ ......... ....:........:....:_ ____ +---------r---o t:, NO. TYPE 6 ,,.,.CHES
REMARKS
r
-
r
r
r
r
r
,~~·~·· L_j___L__J=::::!......_ ____ __!,__ __ _c__
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXB .
NATURAL ATTENUATION MECHANISMS
\ \ TN\SYS\DATA \PROJ\0313.08\PDI-CVR.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 1 of 2E
ft EA~ United S131•• ~ En'll'ironmental V' Protection Agency
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at
Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action and
Underground Storage Tank Sites
November 1997
(HYPERLINKED HTML VERSION)
------aJice of Chderground S:cr~e TiXJl<s -------
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION
AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION,
AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Directive 9200.4-17
,
November, 1997
NOTE: The document you are viewing is an HTML facsimile ofOSWER
Directive 9200.4-17 that has been reformatted for the Internet. This version
maintains as much as possible of the original document integrity. Only a
couple of non-essential elements are missing, namely facsimiles of the
OSWER Directive cover page, and EPA Form 1315-17 (the Directive
Initiation Request). The original typed document had the directive number as
a header on each page--in this version the directive number appears at the
beginning of each new section. Footnotes were originally at the bottom of the
page bearing the footnote reference--in this document they appear at the end
of the file, but are hyper linked for convenience. Other hyper links have been
coded into the document where appropriate.
NOTICE
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION
AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION,
AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES
Contents
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
Transformation Products
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/9'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 2 of28
Petroleum-Related Contaminants
Chlorinated Solvents
Jnorganics
Advantages and Disadvantages of Monitored Natural Attenuation
IMPLEMENTATION
Role of Monitored Natu·ra1 Attenuation in OS WER Remediation
Programs
Demonstrating the Efficacy of Natural Attenuation through Site
Characterization
Sites Where Monitored Natural Attenuation May Be Appropriate
Reasonableness of Remediation Time Frame
Remediation of Contamination Sources and Highly Contaminated
Areas
Performance Monitoring
Contingency Remedies
SUMMARY
REFERENCES CITED
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
FOOTNOTES
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17 .
NOTICE: This document provides guidance to EPA staff. It also provides
guidance to the public and to the regulated community on how EPA intends
to exercise its discretion in implementing its regulations. The guidance is
designed to implement national policy on these issues. The document does
not, however, substitute for EPA's statutes or regulations, nor is it a regulation
itself. Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States,
or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based
upon the circumstances. EPA may change this guidance in the future, as
appropriate.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
The purpose of this Directive is to clarify EP A's policy regarding the
use of monitorednatural attenuation for the remediation of contaminated soil
and groundwater at sites regulated under Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) programs. These include programs
administered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Office of Underground Storage
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 3 of28
Tanks (OUST), and the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(FFRRO).
EPA remains fully committed to its goals of protecting human health
and the environment, remediating contaminated soils and groundwater, and
protecting uncontaminated groundwaters and other environmental resources
(FOOTNOTE!) at all sites being remediated under OSWER programs. EPA
does not consider monitored natural attenuation to be a "presumptive" or
"default" remedy it is merely one option that should be evaluated with other
applicab_le remedies. EPA advocates using the most appropriate technology
for a given site. EPA does not view monitored natural attenuation to be a "no
action" or "walk-away" approach, but rather considers it to be an alternative
means of achieving remediation objectives that may be appropriate for a
limited set of site circumstances where its use meets the applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements. As there is often a variety of methods available
for achieving a given site's remediation objectives(FOOTNOTE 2) ,
monitored natural attenuation may be evaluated and compared to other viable
remediation methods (including innovative technologies) during the study
phases leading to the selection of a remedy. As with any other remedial
alternative, monitored natural attenuation should be selected only where it
meets all relevant remedy selection criteria, where it will be fully protective
of human health and the environment, and where it will meet site remediation
objectives, within a time frame that is reasonable compared to that offered by
other methods. In the majority of cases where monitored natural attenuation is
proposed as a remedy, its use may be appropriate as one component of the
total remedy, that is, either in conjunction with active remediation or as a
follow-up measure. Monitored natural attenuation should be used very
cautiously as the sole remedy at contaminated sites. Furthermore, the
availability of monitored natural attenuation as a potential remediation tool
does not imply any lessening of EP A's longstanding commitment to pollution
prevention. Waste minimization, pollution prevention programs, and minimal
technical requirements to prevent and detect releases remain fundamental
parts of EPA waste management and. remediation programs.
Use of monitored natural attenuation does not signify a change in
OSWER's remediation objectives, including the control of source materials
and restoration of contaminated groundwaters, where appropriate (see Section
I, under "Implementation"). Thus, EPA expects that source control measures
will be evaluated for all sites under consideration for any proposed remedy.
As with other remediation methods, selection of monitored natural
attenuation as a remediation method should be supported by detailed-site-
specific information that demonstrates the efficacy of this remediation
approach. In addition, the progress of monitored natural attenuation toward a
site's remediation objectives should be carefully monitored and compared.
with expectations. Where monitored natural attenuation's ability to meet these
expectations is uncertain and based predominantly on predictive analyses,
decision makers should incorporate contingency measures into the remedy.
The scientific understanding of natural attenuation processes continues
to evolve rapidly. EPA recognizes that significant advances have been made
in recent years, but there is still a great deal to be learned regarding the
mechanisms governing natural attenuation processes and their ability to
address different types of contamination problems. Therefore, while EPA
believes monitored natural attenuation may be used where circumstances are
appropriate, it should be used with caution commensurate with the
uncertainties associated with the particular application. Furthermore, largely
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 4 of28
due to the uncertainty associated with the potential effectiveness of monitored
natural attenuation to meet remedial objectives that are protective of human
health and the environment, source control and performance monitoring
are fundamental components of any monitored natural attenuation
remedy.
This Directive is not intended to provide detailed technical guidance on
evaluating monitored natural attenuation remedies. At present, there is a
relative lack of EPA guidance concerning appropriate implementation of
monitored natural attenuation remedies. With the exception of Chapter IX in
OUST's guidance manual (USEP A, 1995a), EPA has not yet completed and
published specific technical guidance to support the evaluation of monitored
natural attenuation for OSWER sites. However, technical resource documents
for evaluating monitored natural attenuation in groundwater, soils, and
sediments are currently being developed by EP A's Office of Research and
Development (ORD). In addition, technical information regarding the
evaluation of monitored natural attenuation as a remediation alternative is
available from a variety of sources, including those listed at the end of this
Directive. "References Cited" lists those EPA documents that were
specifically cited within this Directive. The list of "Additional References"
includes documents produced by EPA as well as non-EPA entities. Finally,
"Other Sources of Information" lists sites on the World Wide Web (Internet)
where information can be obtained. Although non-EPA documents may
provide regional and state site managers, as well as the regulated community,
with useful technical information, these non-EPA guidances are not officially
endorsed by EPA, and all parties involved should clearly understand that such
guidances do not in any way replace current EPA or OSWER guidances or
policies addressing the remedy selection process in the Superfund, RCRA, or
UST programs.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
BACKGROUND
The term "monitored natural attenuation", as used in this Directive,
refers to the reliance on natural attenuation processes (within the context of a
carefully controlled and monitored site cleanup approach) to achieve site-
specific remedial objectives within a time frame that is reasonable compared
to that offered by other more active methods. The "natural attenuation
processes" that are at work in such a remediation approach include a variety
of physical, chemical, or biological processes that, under favorable
conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity,
mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater.
These in-situ processes include biodegradation; dispersion; dilution;
sorption; volatilization; and chemical or biological stabilization,
transformation, or destruction of contaminants. When relying on natural
attenuation processes for site remediation, EPA prefers those processes that
degrade contaminants, and for this reason, EPA expects that monitored
natural attenuation will be most appropriate at sites that have a low potential
for plume generation and migration (see Section 3 under "Implementation").
Other terms associated with natural attenuation in the literature include
"intrinsic remediation", "intrinsic bioremediation", "passive bioremediation",
"natural recovery", and "natural assimilation". While some of these terms are
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 5 of28
synonymous with "natural attenuation," others refer strictly to biological
processes, excluding chemical and physical processes. Therefore, it is
recommended that for clarity and consistency, the term "monitored natural
attenuation" be used throughout OSWER remediation programs unless a
specific process (e.g. , reductive dehalogenation) is being referenced.
Natural attenuation processes are typically occurring at all sites, but to
varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the types and concentrations of
contaminants present and the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the soil and groundwater. Natural attenuation processes may
reduce the potential risk posed by site contaminants in three ways:
I. The contaminant may be converted to a less toxic form through
destructive processes such as biodegradation or abiotic transformations;
2. Potential exposure levels may be reduced by lowering of concentration
levels (through destructive processes, or by dilution or dispersion); and
3. Contaminant mobility and bioavailability may be reduced by sorption
to the soil or rock matrix.
Where conditions are favorable, natural attenuation processes may
reduce contaminant mass or concentration at sufficiently rapid rates to be
integrated into a site's soil or groundwater remedy (see Section 3 under
"Implementation" for a discussion of favorable site conditions). Following
source control measures, natural attenuation may be sufficiently effective to
achieve remediation objectives at some sites without the aid of other (active)
remedial measures. Typically, however, monitored natural attenuation will be
used in conjunction with active remediation measures. For example,
monitored natural attenuation could be employed in lower concentration areas
of the dissolved plume and as a follow-up to active remediation in areas of
higher concentration. EPA also encourages the consideration of innovative
approaches which may offer greater confidence and reduced remediation time
frames at a modest additional cost.
While monitored natural attenuation is often dubbed "passive"
remediation because it occurs without human intervention, its use at a site
does not preclude the use of"active" remediation or the application of
enhancers of biological activity (e.g. , electron acceptors, nutrients, and
electron donors). However, by definition, a remedy that includes the
introduction of an enhancer of any type is no longer considered to be
"natural" attenuation. Use of monitored natural attenuation does not imply
that activities (and costs) associated with investigating the site or selecting the
remedy (e.g. , site characterization, risk assessment, comparison of remedial
alternatives, performance monitoring, and contingency measures) have been
eliminated. These elements of the investigation and cleanup must still be
addressed as required under the particular OSWER program, regardless of the
remedial approach selected.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Transformation Products
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I' '·'
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTE1'.'UATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR,, Page 6 of28
It also should be noted that some natural attenuation processes may
result in the creation of transformation products(FOOTNOTE 3) that are
more toxic than the parent contaminant (e,g, ·, degradation of
trichloroethylene to vinyl chloride), The potential for creation of toxic
transformation products is more likely to occur at non-petroleum release sites
(e,g, , chlorinated solvents or other volatile organic spill sites) and should
be evaluated to determine if implementat,ion of a monitored natural
attenuation remedy is appropriate and protective in the long term,
Additionally, some natural attenuation processes may result in transfer of
some contaminants from one medium to another (e,g, , from soil to
groundwater, from soil to air or surface water, and from groundwater to
surface water), Such cross-media transfer is not desirable, and generally not
acceptable except under certain site-specific circumstances, and would likely
require an evaluation of the potential risk posed by the contaminant(s) once
transferred to that medium,
gJ
OSWER Directive 9200A-l 7
Petroleum-Related Contaminants
,,
Natural attenuation processes, particularly biological degradation, are
currently best documented at petroleum fuel spill sites, Under appropriate
field conditions, the regulated compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene,
and xylene (BTEX) may naturally degrade through microbial activity and
ultimately produce non-toxic end products (e,g, , carbon dioxide and water),
Where microbial activity is sufficiently rapid, the dissolved BTEX
contaminant plume may stabilize (i, e, , stop expanding), and contaminant
concentrations may eventually decrease to levels below regulatory standards,
Following degradation of a dissolved BTEX plume, a residue consisting of
heavier petroleum hydrocarbons of relatively low solubility and volatility will
typically be left behind in the original source (spill) area, Although this
residual contamination may have relatively low potential for further
migration, it still may pose a threat to human health or the environment either
from direct contact with soils in the source area or by continuing to slowly
leach contaminants to groundwater, For these reasons, monitored natural
attenuation alone is generally not sufficient to remediate even a petroleum
release site, Implementation of source control measures in conjunction with
monitored natural attenuation is almost always necessary, Other controls
(e,g, , institutional controls(FOOTNOTE 4) ), in accordance with applicable
state and federal requirements, may also be necessary to ensure protection of
human health and the environment, Furthermore, while BTEX contaminants
tend to biodegrade with relative ease, other chemicals (e,g, , methyl tertiary-
butyl ether [MTBE)) that are more resistant to biological or other degradation
processes may also be present in petroleum fuels, In general, monitored
natural attenuation is not appropriate as a sole remediation option at sites
where non-degradable and nonattenuated contaminants are present at levels
that pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, Where
non-degradable contaminants are present, all processes (listed on page 4)
which contribute to natural attenuation should be evaluated to ensure
protection of human health and the environment,,
http://www,epa,gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417,htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 7 of 28
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Chlorinated Solvents
Chlorinated solventJ, such as trichloroethylene, represent another class
of common contaminants that may also biodegrade under certain
environmental conditions. Recent research has identified some of the
mechanisms potentially re;ponsible for degrading these solvents, furthering
the development of methods for estimating biodegradation rates of these
chlorinated compounds. However, the hydrologic and geochemical conditions
favoring significant biodegradation of chlorinated solvents may not often
occur. Because of the nature and the distribution of these compounds, natural
attenuation may not be effective as a remedial option. If they are not
adquately addressed through removal or contai_nment measures, source
materials can continue to c9ntaminate groundwater for decades or even
centuries. Cleanup of solvent spills is also complicated by the fact that a
typical spill includes multiple contaminants, including some that are
essentially non-degradable(FOOTNOTE 5) . Extremely long dissolved
solvent plumes have been documented that may be due to the existence of
subsurface conditions that are not conducive to natural attenuation.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Monitored ·natural attenuation may, under certain conditions (e.g. ,
through sorption or oxidation-reduction reactions), effectively reduce the
dissolved concentrations add/or toxic forms of inorganic contaminants in
groundwater and soil. Bothlmetals and non-metals (including radionuclides)
may be attenuated by sorption(FOOTNOTE 6) reactions such as
precipitation, adsorption on1 the surfaces of soil minerals, absorption into the
matrix of soil minerals, or ciartitioning into organic matter. Oxidation-
reduction (redox) reactions 1can transform the valence states of some inorganic
contaminants to less solubl~ and thus less mobile forms (e.g. , hexavalent
uranium to tetravalent uranium) and/or to less toxic forms (e.g. , hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium). Sorption and redox reactions are the
dominant mechanisms responsible for the reduction of mobility, toxicity, or
bioavailability of inorganic :contaminants. It is necessary to know what
specific mechanism (type of sorption or redox reaction) is responsible for the
attenuation of inorganics be'.cause some mechanisms are more desirable than
others. For example, precipitation reactions and absorption into a soil's solid
structure (e.g. , cesium into: specific clay minerals) are generally stable,
whereas surface adsorption (e.g. , uranium on iron-oxide minerals) and
organic partitioning (complexation reactions) are more reversible.
Complexation of metals or tadionuclides with carrier ( chelating) agents
(e.g. , trivalent chromium \~·ith EDT A) may increase their concentrations in
water and thus enhance theil-mobility. Changes in a contaminant's
concentration, pl-I, redox potential, and chemical speciation may reduce a
I
I
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 4 li7.htm 2/19/99
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 8 of28
I
contaminant's stability at a site and release it into the environment.
Determining the existence and demonstrating the irreversibility of these
mechanisms are key components of a sufficiently protective monitored
natural attenuation remedy.
In addition to sorption and redox reactions, radionuclides exhibit
radioactive decay and, for some, a parent-daughter radioactive decay series.
For example, the dominant attenuating mechanism of tritium (a radioactive
isotopic form of hydrogen with a short half-life) is radioactive decay rather
than sorption. Although tritium does not generate radioactive daughter
products, those generated by some radionulides (e.g. , Am-241 and Np-237
from Pu-241) may be more toxic, have longer half-lives, and/or be more
mobile than the parent in the decay series. It is critical that the near surface or
surface soil pathways be carefully evaluated and eliminated as potential
sources of radiation exposure.
Inorganic contaminants persist in the subsurface because, except for
radioactive decay, they are not degraded by the other natural attenuation
processes. Often, however, they may exist in forms that are less mobile, not
bioavailable, and/or non-toxic. Therefore, natural attenuation of inorganic
contaminants is most applicable to sites where immobilization or radioactive
decay is demonstrated to be in effect and the process/mechanism is
irreversible. •
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Advantages and Disadvantages of Monitored Natural Attenuation
Monitored natural attenuation has several potential advantages and
disadvantages, and its use should be carefully considered during site
characterization and evaluation of remediation alternatives. Potential
advantages of monitored natural attenuation include:
• As with any in situ process, generation of lesser volume of
remediation wastes, reduced potential for cross-media transfer of
contaminants commonly associated with ex situ treatment, and
reduced risk of human exposure to contaminated media;
• Less intrusion as few surface structures are required;
• Potential for application to all or part of a given site, depending on site
conditions and cleanup objectives;
• Use in conjunction with, or as a follow-up to, other (active) remedial
measures; and
• Lower overall remediation costs than those associated with active
remediation.
The potential disadvantages of monitored natural attenuation include:
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 9 of 28
• Longer time frames may be required to achieve remediation objectives,
compared to active remediation;
• Site characterization may be more complex and costly;
• Toxicity of transformation products may exceed that of the parent
compound;
• Long term monitoring will generally be necessary;
• Institutional controls may be necessary to ensure long term
protectiveness;
• Potential exists for continued contamination migration, and/or cross-
media transfer of contaminants;
• Hydrologic and geochemical conditions amenable to natural
attenuation are likely to change over time and could result in renewed
mobility of previously stabilized contaminants, adversely impacting
remedial effectiveness; and
• More extensive education and outreach efforts may be required in order
to gain public acceptance of monitored natural attenuation.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
IMPLEMENTATION
The use of monitored natural attenuation is not new in OSWER
programs. For example, in the Superfund program, selection of natural
attenuation as an element in a site's groundwater remedy goes as far back as
1985. Use of monitored natural attenuation in OSWER programs has
continued since that time, slowly increasing with greater program experience
and scientific understanding of the processes involved. Recent advances in
the scientific understanding of the processes contributing to natural
attenuation have resulted in a heightened interest in this approach as a
potential means of achieving soil and groundwater cleanup objectives.
However, complete reliance on monitored natural attenuation is appropriate
only in a limited set of circumstances at contaminated sites. The sections
which follow seek to clarify OSWER program policies regarding the use of
monitored natural attenuation. Topics addressed include site characterization;
the types of sites where monitored natural attenuation may be appropriate;
reasonable remediation time frames; the importance of source control;
performance monitoring; and contingency remedies where monitored natural
attenuation will be employed.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
11
I
I
I .,
I
I)
I
I
I
t
-~ 1.
I
I
I USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 10 of 28
Role of Monitored Natural Attenuation in OSWER Remediation Programs
Under OSWER programs, remedies selected for contaminated media
(such as contaminated soil and groundwater) must protect human health and
the environment. Remedies may achieve this level of protection using a
variety of methods, including treatment, containment, engineering controls,
and other means identified during the remedy selection process.
The regulatory and policy frameworks for corrective actions under the
UST, RCRA, and Superfund programs have been established to implement
their respective statutory mandates and to promote the selection of technically
defensible, nationally consistent, and cost effective solutions for the cleanup
of contaminated media. EPA recognizes that monitored natural attenuation
may be an appropriate remediation option for contaminated soil and
groundwater under certain circumstances. However, determining the
appropriate mix of remediation methods at a given site, including when and
how to use monitored natural attenuation, can be a complex process.
Therefore, monitored natural attenuation should be carefully evaluated along
with other viable remedial approaches or technologies (including innovative
technologies) within the applicable remedy selection framework. Monitored
natural attenuation should not be considered a default or presumptive
remedy at any contaminated site. •
Each OSWER program has developed regulations and policies to
address the particular types of contaminants and facilities within its purview
(FOOTNOTE 7) . Although there are differences among these programs, they
share several key principles that should generally be considered during
selection of remedial measures, including:
• Source control actions should use treatment to address "principal
threat" wastes (or products) wherever practicable, and engineering
controls such as containment for waste (or products) that pose a
relatively low long-term threat, or where treatment is
impracticable.(FOOTNOTE 8)
• Contaminated groundwaters should be returned to "their beneficial uses
(FOOTNOTE 9) wherever practicable, within a time frame that is
reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site." When
restoration of groundwater is not practicable, EPA "expects to prevent
further migration of the plume, prevent exposure to the contaminated
groundwater, and evaluate further risk reduction" (which may be
appropriate).(FOOTNOTE 10)
• Contaminated soil should be remediated to achieve an acceptable level
of risk to human and environ-mental receptors, and to prevent any
transfer of contaminants to other media (e.g. , surface or groundwater,
air, sediments) that would result in an unacceptable risk or exceed
required cleanup levels.
Consideration or selection of monitored natural attenuation as a remedy
or remedy component does not in any way change or displace these (or other)
remedy selection principles. Nor does use of monitored natural attenuation
diminish EPA's or the regulated party's responsibility to achieve ·
protectiveness or to satisfy long-term site cleanup objectives. Monitored
http://l.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r.
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 11 of28
natural attenuation is an appropriate remediation method only where its
use will be protective of human health and the environment and it will be
capable of achieving site-specific remediation objectives within a time
frame that is reasonable compared to other alternatives. The effectiveness
of monitored natural attenuation in both near-term and long-term time frames
should be demonstrated to EPA (or other regulatory authority) through: I)
sound technical analysis which provides confidence in natural attenuation's
ability to achieve remediation objectives; 2) perfommnce monitoring; and 3)
backup or contingency remedies where appropriate. In summary, use of
monitored natural attenuation does not imply that EPA or the
responsible parties arc "walking away" from the cleanup or financial
responsibility obligations at a site.
It also should be emphasized that the selection of monitored natural
attenuation as a remedy does not imply that active remediation measures are
infeasible, or are "technically impracticable." Technical impracticability (Tl)
determinations, which EPA makes based on the inability to achieve required
cleanup levels using available remedial technologies and approaches, are used
to justify a change in the remediation objectives at Superfund and RCRA sites
(USEPA, I 993a). A TI determination does not imply that there will be no
active remediation al the site, nor that monitored natural attenuation will be
used at the site. Rather, a TI determination simply indicates that the cleanup
levels and objectives which would otherwise be required cannot practicably
be attained within a reasonable time frame using available remediation
technologies. In such cases, an alternative cleanup strategy that is fully
protective of human health and the environment must be identified. Such an
alternative strategy may still include engineered remediation components,
such as containment for an area contaminated with dense non-aqueous phase
liquids (DNAPL), in addition to approaches intended to restore to beneficial
uses the portion of the plume with dissolved contaminants. Several remedial
approaches could be appropriate to address the dissolved plume, one of which
could be monitored natural attenuation under suitable conditions. However,
the evaluation of natural attenuation processes and the decision to rely upon
monitored natural attenuation for the dissolved plume should be distinct from
the recognition that restoration ofa portion of the plume is technically
impracticable (i.e. , monitored natural attenuation should not be viewed as a
direct or presumptive outcome of a technical impracticability determination.)
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Demonstrating the Efficacy of Natural Attenuation through Site
Characterization
Decisions to employ monitored natural attenuation as a remedy or
remedy component should be thoroughly and adequately supported with
site-specific characterization data and analysis. In general, the level of site
characterization necessary to support a comprehensive evaluation of natural
attenuation is more detailed than that needed to support active remediation.
Site characterizations for natural attenuation generally warrant a quantitative
understanding of source mass; groundwater flow; contaminant phase
distribution and partitioning between soil, groundwater, and soil gas; rates of
biological and non-biological transformation; and an understanding of how
all of these factors are likely to vary with time. This information is generally
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
u
I
I
-I -
I ,·
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 12 of 28
necessary since contaminant behavior is governed by dynamic processes
which must be well understood before natural attenuation can be
appropriately applied at a site. Demonstrating the efficacy of this remediation
approach likely will require analytical or numerical simulation of complex
attenuation processes. Such analyses, which are critical to demonstrate natural
attenuation's ability to meet remedial action objectives, generally require a
detailed conceptual site model as a foundation(FOOTNOTE 11).
Site characterization should include collecting data to define (in three
spatial dimensions over time) the nature and distribution of contamination
sources as well as the extent of the groundwater plume and its potential
impacts on receptors. However, where monitored natural attenuation will be
considered as a remedial approach, certain aspects of site characterization
may require more detail or additional elements. For example, to assess the
contributions of sorption, dilution, and dispersion to natural attenuation of
contaminated.groundwater, a very detailed understanding of aquifer
hydraulics, recharge and discharge areas and volumes, and chemical
properties is required. Where biodegradation will be assessed,
characterization also should include evaluation of the nutrients and electron
donors and acceptors present in the groundwater, the concentrations of co-
metabolites and metabolic by-products, and perhaps specific analyses to
identify the microbial populations present. The findings of these, and any
other analyses pertinent to characterizing natural attenuation processes,
should be incorporated into the conceptual model of contaminant fate and
transport developed for the site.
Monitored natural attenuation may not be appropriate as a remedial
option at many sites for technological or economic reasons. For example, in
some complex geologic systems, technological limitations may preclude
adequate monitoring of a natural attenuation remedy to ensure with a high
degree of certainty that potential receptors will not be impacted. This
situation typically occurs in many karstic, structured, and/or fractured rock
aquifers where groundwater moves preferentially through discrete channels
(e.g. , solution channels, foliations, fractures, joints). The direction of
groundwater flow through such heterogeneous (and often anisotropic)
materials can not be predicted directly from the hydraulic gradient, and
existing techniques may not be capable of identifying the channels that carry
contaminated groundwater through the subsurface. Monitored natural
attenuation will not generally be appropriate where site complexities preclude
adequate monitoring. Although in some situations it may be technically
feasible to monitor the progress of natural attenuation, the cost of site
characterization and .Jong-term monitoring required for the implementation of
monitored natural attenuation is high compared to the cost of other remedial
alternatives. Under such circumstances, natural attenuation would not
necessarily be the low-cost alternative.
A related consideration for site characterization is how other remedial
activities at the site could affect natural attenuation. For example, the capping
of contaminated soil could alter both the type of contaminants leached to
groundwater, as well as their rate of transport and degradation. Therefore, the
impacts of any ongoing or proposed remedial actions should be factored into
the analysis of natural attenuation's effectiveness. When considering source
containment/treatment together with natural attenuation of chlorinated
solvents, the potential for cutting off sources of organic carbon (which are
critical to biodegradation of the solvents) should be carefully evaluated.
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200 _ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR..Page 13 of28
Once the site characterization data have been collected and a
conceptual model developed, the next step is to evaluate the efficacy of
monitored natural attenuation as a remedial approach. Three types of site-
specific information or "evidence" should be used in such an evaluation:
I. Historical groundwater and/or soil chemistry data that demonstrate a
clear and meaningful trend(FOOTNOTE 12) of decreasing contaminant
mass and/or concentration over time at appropriate monitoring or
sampling points. (In the case of a groundwater plume, decreasing
concentrations should not be solely the result of plume migration. In
the case of inorganic contaminants, the primary attenuating mechanism
should also be understood.);
2. Hydrogeologic and geochemical data that can be used to demonstrate
indirectly the type(s) of natural attenuation processes active at the site,
and the rate at which such processes will reduce contaminant
concentrations to required levels. For example, characterization data
may be used to quantify the rates of contaminant sorption, dilution, or
volatilization, or to demonstrate and quantify the rates of biological
degradation processes occurring at the site;
· 3. Data from field or microcosm studies ( conducted in or with actual
contaminated site media) which directly demonstrate the occurrence of
a particular natural attenuation process at the site and its ability to
degrade the contaminants of concern (typically used to demonstrate
biological degradation processes only).
Unless EPA or the implementing state agency determines that
historical data (Number 1 above) arc of sufficient quality and duration to
support a decision to use monitored natural attenuation, EPA expects
that data characterizing the nature and rates of natural attenuation
processes at the site (Number 2 above) should be provided. Where the
latter arc also inadequate or inconclusive, data from microcosm studies
(Number 3 above) may also be necessary. In general, more supporting
information may be required to demonstrate the efficacy of monitored natural
attenuation at those sites with contaminants which do not readily degrade
through biological processes (e.g. , most non-petroleum compounds,
inorganics), at sites with contaminants that transform into more toxic and/or
mobile forms than the parent contaminant, or at sites where monitoring has
been performed for a relatively short period of time. The amount and type of
information needed for such a demonstration will depend upon a number of
site-specific factors, such as the size and nature of the contamination problem,
the proximity of receptors and the potential risk to those receptors, and other
physical characteristics of the environmental setting (e.g. , hydrogeology,
ground cover, or climatic conditions).
Note that those parties responsible for site characterization and
remediation should ensure that all data and analyses needed to demonstrate
the efficacy of monitored natural attenuation are collected and evaluated by
capable technical specialists with expertise in the relevant sciences. Further,
EPA expects that the results will be provided in a timely manner to EPA or to
the state implementing agency for evaluation and approval.
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200 _ 417.htm 2/19/99
g
D
D
D
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 14 of28
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Sites Where Monitored Natural Attenuation May Be Appropriate
Monitored natural attenuation is appropriate as a remedial approach
only where it can be demonstrated capable of achieving a site's remedial
objectives within a time frame that is reasonable compared to that offered by
other methods and where it meets the applicable remedy selection criteria for
the particular OSWER program. EPA expects that monitored natural
attenuation will be most appropriate when used in conjunction with active
remediation measures (e.g. , source control), or as a follow-up to active
remediation measures that have already been implemented.
In determining whether monitored natural attenuation is an appropriate
remedy for soil or groundwater at given site, EPA or other regulatory
authorities should consider the following:
• Whether the contaminants present in soil or groundwater can be
effectively remediated by natural attenuation processes;
• Whether the resulting transformation products present a greater risk
than do the parent contaminants;
• The nature and distribution of sources of contamination and whether
these sources have been or can be adequately controlled;
• Whether the plume is relatively stable or is still migrating and the
potential for environmental conditions to change over time;
• The impact of existing and proposed active remediation measures upon
the monitored natural attenuation component of the remedy;
• Whether drinking water supplies, other groundwaters, surface waters,
ecosystems, sediments, air, or other environmental resources could be
adversely impacted as a consequence of selecting monitored natural
attenuation as the remediation option;
• Whether the estimated time frame of remediation is reasonable (see
below) compared to time frames required for other more active
methods (including the anticipated effectiveness of various remedial
approaches on different portions of the contaminated soil and/or
groundwater);
• Current and projected demand for the affected aquifer over the time
period that the remedy will remain in effect (including the availability
of other water supplies and the loss of availability of other groundwater
resources due to contamination from other sources); and
• Whether reliable site-specific vehicles for implementing institutional
controls (i.e. , zoning ordinances) are available, and if an institution
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200 _ 417 .htm 2/19/99
g
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR..Page 15 of28
responsible for their monitoring and enforcement can be identified.
For example, evaluation of a given site may detem1ine that, once the
source area and higher concentration portions of the plume are effectively
contained or remediated, lower concentration portions of the plume could
achieve cleanup standards within a few decades through monitored natural
attenuation, if this time frame is comparable to those of the more aggressive
methods evaluated for this site. Also, monitored natural attenuation would
more likely be appropriate if the plume is not expanding, nor threatening
downgradient wells or surface water bodies, and where ample potable water
supplies are available. The remedy for this site could include source control, a
pump-and-treat system to mitigate only the highly-contaminated plume
areas, and monitored natural attenuation in the lower concentration portions
of the plume. In combination, these methods would maximize groundwater
restored to beneficial use in a time frame consistent with future demand on
the aquifer, while utilizing natural attenuation processes to reduce the reliance
on active remediation methods (and reduce cost).
Of the above factors, the most important considerations regarding the
suitability of monitored natural attenuation as a remedy include whether the
groundwater contaminant plume is growing, stable, or shrinking, and any
risks posed to human and environmental receptors by the contamination.
Monitored natural attenuation should not be used where such an
approach would result in significant contaminant migration or
unacceptable impacts to receptors. Therefore, sites where the contaminant
plumes are no longer increasing in size, or are shrinking in size, would be the
most appropriate candidates for monitored natural attenuation remedies.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Reasonableness of Remediation Time Frame
The longer remediation time frames typically associated with
monitored natural attenuation should be compatible with site-specific land
and groundwater use scenarios. Remediation time frames generally should be
estimated for all remedy alternatives undergoing detailed analysis, including
monitored natural attenuation(FOOTNOTE 13) . Decisions regarding the
"reasonableness" of the remediation time frame for any given remedy
alternative should then be evaluated on a site-specific basis. While it is
expected that monitored natural attenuation may require somewhat longer to
achieve remediation objectives than would active remediation, the overall
remediation time frame for a remedy which relies in whole or in part on
monitored natural attenuation should not be excessive compared to the other
remedies considered. Furthermore, subsurface conditions and plume stability
can change over the extended timeframes that are necessary for monitored
natural attenuation.
Defining a reasonable time frame is a complex and site-specific
decision. Factors that should be considered when evaluating the length of
time appropriate for remediation include:
• Classification of the affected resource (e.g. , drinking water source,
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
D
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 16 of28
(
agricultural water source) and value of the resource(FOOTNOTE 14);
• Relative time frame in which the affected portions of the aquifer might
be needed for future water supply (including the availability of
alternate supplies);
• Uncertainties regarding the mass of contaminants in the subsurface
arid predictive analyses (e.g. , remediation time frame, timing of
future demand, and travel time for contaminants to reach points of
exposure appropriate for the site);
• Reliability of monitoring and of institutional controls over long time
periods;
• Public acceptance of the extended time for remediation; and
• Provisions by the responsible party for adequate funding of monitoring
and performance evaluation over the period required for remediation.
Finally, individual states may provide information and guidance
relevant to many of the factors discussed above as part ofa Comprehensive
State Groundwater Protection Program (CSGWPP). (See USEPA, 1992a)
Where a CSGWPP has been developed, it should be consulted for
groundwater resource classification and other information relevant to
determining required cleanup levels and the urgency of the need for the
groundwater. Also, EPA remediation programs generally should defer to state
determinations of current and future groundwater uses, when based on an
EPA-endorsed CSG WPP that has provisions for site-specific decisions
(USEP A, 1997b ).
Thus, EPA or other regulatory authorities should consider a number of
factors when evaluating reasonable time frames for monitored natural
attenuation at a given site. These factors, on the whole, should allow the
regulatory agency to determine whether a natural attenuation remedy
(including institutional controls where applicable) will fully protect potential
human and environmental receptors, and whether the site remediation
objectives and the time needed to meet them are consistent with the
regulatory expectation that contaminated groundwaters will be returned to
beneficial uses within a reasonable time frame. When these conditions cannot
be met using monitored natural attenuation, a remedial alternative that does
meet these expectations should be selected instead.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Remediation of Contamination Sources and High!)' Contaminated Areas
The need for control measures for contamination sources and other
highly contaminated areas should be evaluated as part of the remedy decision
process at all sites, particularly where monitored natural attenuation is under
consideration as the remedy or as a remedy component. Source control
measures include removal, treatment, or containment measures (e.g. ,
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 17 of28
physical or hydraulic control of areas of the plume in which NAP Ls are
present in the suosurface ). EPA prefers remedial options which remove or
treat contaminant sources when such options are technically feasible.
Contaminant sources which are not adequately addressed complicate
the long-term cleanup effort. For example, following free product recovery,
residual contamination from a petroleum fuel spill may continue to leach
significant quantities of contaminants into the groundwater. Such a lingering
source can unacceptably extend the time necessary to reach remedial
objectives. This leaching can occur even while contaminants are being
naturally attenuated in other parts of the plume. If the rate of attenuation is
lower than the rate of replenishment of contaminants to the groundwater, the
plume can continue to expand and threaten downgradient receptors.
Control of source materials is the most effective means of ensuring the
timely attainment of remediation objectives. EPA, therefore, expects that
source control measures will be evaluated for all contaminated sites and that
source control measures will be taken at most sites where practicable.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Performance Monitoring
Performance monitoring to evaluate remedy effectiveness and to ensure
protection of human health and the environment is a critical element of all
response actions. Performance monitoring is of even greater importance for
monitored natural attenuation than for other types of remedies due to the
longer remediation time frames, potential for ongoing contaminant migration,
and other uncertainties associated with using monitored natural attenuation.
This emphasis is underscored by EP A's reference to "monitored natural
attenuation".
The monitoring program developed for each site should specify the
location, frequency, and type of samples and measurements necessary to
evaluate remedy performance as well as define the anticipated performance.
objectives of the remedy. In addition, all monitoring programs should be
designed to accomplish the following:
• Demonstrate that natural attenuation is occurring according to
expectations;
• Identify any potentially toxic transformation products resulting from
biodegradation;
• Determine if a plume is expanding (either downgradient, laterally or
vertically);
• Ensure no impact to downgradient receptors;
• Detect new releases of contaminants to the environment that could
impact the effectiveness of the natural attenuation remedy;
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 18 of28
• Demonstrate the efficacy of institutional controls that were put in place
to protect potential receptors;
• Detect changes in environmental conditions (e.g. , hydrogeologic,
geochemical, microbiological, or other changes) that may reduce the
efficacy of any of the natural attenuation processes(FOOTNOTE 15);
and
• Verify attainment of cleanup objectives.
Performance monitoring should continue as long as contamination
remains above required cleanup levels. Typically, monitoring is continued
for a specified period (e.g. , one to three years) after cleanup levels have
been achieved to ensure that concentration levels are stable and remain below
target levels. The institutional and financial mechanisms for maintaining the
monitoring program should be clearly established in the remedy decision or
other site documents, as appropriate.
Details of the monitoring program should be provided to EPA or the
State implementing agency as part of any proposed monitored natural
attenuation remedy. Further information on the types of data useful for
monitoring natural attenuation performance can be found in the ORD
publications (e.g. , USEPA, 1997a, USEPA, 1994a) listed in the "References
Cited" section of this Directive. Also, USEPA (1994b) published a detailed
document on collection and evaluation of perfomrnnce monitoring data for
pump-and-treat remediation systems.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
Contingency Remedies
A contingency remedy is a cleanup technology or approach specified in
the site remedy decision document that functions as a "backup" remedy in the
event that the "selected" remedy fails to perform as anticipated. A
contingency remedy may specify a technology (or technologies) that is (are)
different from the selected remedy, or·it may simply call for modification and
enhancement of the selected technology, if needed. Contingency remedies
should generally be flexible allowing for the incorporation of new
information about site risks and technologies.
Contingency remedies are not new to OSWER programs. Contingency
remedies should be employed where the selected technology is not proven for
the specific site application, where there is significant uncertainty regarding
the nature and extent of contamination at the time the remedy is selected, or
where there is uncertainty regarding whether a proven technology will
perform as anticipated under the particular circumstances of the site.
It is also recommended that one or more criteria ("triggers") be
established, as appropriate, in the remedy decision document that will signal
unacceptable performance of the selected remedy and indicate when to
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITO,RED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 19 of 28
implement contingency measures. Such criteria might include the following:
• Contaminant concentrations in soil or groundwater at specified
locations exhibit an increasing trend;"
• Near-source wells exhibit large concentration increases indicative of a
new or renewed release;
• Contaminants are identified in sentry/sentinel wells located outside of
the original plume boundary, indicating renewed contaminant
migration;
• Contaminant concentrations are not decreasing at a sufficiently rapid
rate to meet the remediation objectives; and
• Changes in land and/or groundwater use will adversely affect the
protectiveness of the monitored natural attenuation remedy.
In establishing triggers or contingency remedies, however, care is
needed to ensure that sampling variability or seasonal fluctuations do not set
off a trigger inappropriately. For example, an anomalous spike in dissolved
concentration(s) at a well(s), which may set off a trigger, might not be a true
indication of a change in trend.
EPA recommends that remedies employing monitored natural
attenuation be evaluated to determine the need for including one or more
contingency measures that would be capable of achieving remediation
objectives. EPA believes that a contingency measure may be particularly
appropriate for a monitored natural attenuation remedy which has been
selected based primarily on predictive analysis (second and third lines of
evidence discussed previously) as compared to natural attenuation remedies
based on historical trends of actual monitoring data (first line of evidence).
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
SUMMARY
The use of monitored natural attenuation does not signify a change in
OSWER's remediation objectives; monitored natural attenuation should be
selected only where it will be fully protective of human health and the
environment. EPA does not view monitored natural attenuation to be a "no
action" remedy, but rather considers it to be a means of addressing
contamination under a limited set of site circumstances where its use meets
the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Monitored_natural
attenuation is not a "presumptive" or "default" remediation alternative, but
rather should be evaluated and compared to other viable remediation methods
(including innovative technologies) during the study phases leading to the
selection of a remedy. The decision to implement monitored natural
attenuation should include a comprehensive site characterization, risk
assessment where appropriate, and measures to control sources. Also,
monitored natural attenuation should not be used where such an approach
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 20 of28
would result in significant contaminant migration or unacceptable impacts to
receptors and other environmental resources. In addition, the progress of
natural attenuation towards a site's remediation objectives should be carefully
monitored and compared with expectations to ensure that it will meet site
remediation objectives within a time frame that is reasonable compared to
time frames associated with other methods. Where monitored natural
attenuation's ability to meet these expectations is uncertain and based
predominantly on predictive analyses, decision-makers should incorporate
contingency measures into the remedy.
EPA is confident that monitored natural attenuation will be, at many
sites, a reasonable and protective component of a broader remedial strategy.
However, EPA believes that there will be many other sites where
uncertainties too great or a need for a more rapid remediation will preclude
the use of monitored natural attenuation as a stand-alone remedy. This
Directive should help promote consistency in how monitored natural
attenuation remedies are proposed, evaluated, and approved.
Iii
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
REFERENCES CITED
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988a. Section
5.3.3.1. Natural attenuation with monitoring. Guidance on remedial actions
for contaminated groundwater at Supe1fund sites , OSWER Directive
9283.1-2, EP A/540/G-88/003, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, D.C.
'
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Methods for
evaluation allainment of cleanup standards, Vol. I: Soils and solid media ,
EP A/230/02-89-042, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. National oil and
hazardous substances pollution contingency plan (NCP); final rule, Federal
Register 55, no. 46:8706 and 8733-34. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Corrective action for
releases from solid waste management units at hazardous waste management
facilities; proposed rule, Federal Register 55, no. 145:30825 and 30829.
Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. A guide to principal
threat and low level threat wastes , Superfund Publication 9380.3-06FS
(Fact Sheet), Office of Emergency Remedial Response. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992a. Final comprehensive
stale ground water protection program guidance , EPA I 00-R-93-00 I,
Office of the Administrator. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. Methods/or
evaluating atlainment of cleanup standards, Vol. 2: Ground water ,
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 21 of28
EPA/230-R-92-014, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a. Guidance for
evaluating the technical impracticability of ground-water restoration ,
OSWER Directive 9234.2-25, EPN540-R-93-080, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Proceedings of
Symposium on natural a//enuation of groundwater , EP N600/R-94/162,
Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994b. Methods for
monitoring pump-and-treat performance , EP N600/R-94/l23, Office of
Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. Chapter IX: Natural
attenuation. How to evaluate alternative cleanup technologies for
underground storage tank sites: A guide for corrective action plan
reviewers , EPA 5 l 0-B-95-007, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Presumptive
response strategy and ex-situ treatment technologies for contaminated
ground water at CERCLA sites , Final Guidance, OSWER Directive
9283.1-12, EPA 540-R-96-023, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Corrective action for
releases from solid waste management units at hazardous waste management
facilities; advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Federal Register 6 I, no.
85:19451-52.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a. Proceedings of the
symposium on natural a/lenuation of chlorinated organics in groundwater ;
Dallas, Texas, September 11-13, EP N540/R-97/504, Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997b. The role of
CSGWPPs in EPA remediation programs , OSWER Directive 9283.1-09,
EPA F-95-084, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington,
D.C.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
American Academy of Environmental Engineers. 1995. Innovative site
remediation technology, Vol. I: Bioremediation , ed. W.C. Anderson.
Annapolis, Maryland.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (Forthcoming). Provisional
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR..Page 22 of28
standard guide for accelerated site characterization for confirmed or
suspected petroleum releases , ASTM PS 3-95. Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (Forthcoming). Standard guide
for remediation of groundwater by natural allenuation at petroleum release
sites. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Black, H. 1995. Wisconsin gathers evidence to support intrinsic
bioremediation. The bioremediation report , August:6-7.
Borden, R.C., C.A. Gomez, and M.T. Becker. 1995. Geochemical indicators
of intrinsic bioremediation. Ground Water 33, no.2:180-89.
Hinchee, R.E., J.T. Wilson, and D.C. Downey. 1995. Intrinsic
bioremediation. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press.
Klecka, G.M., J.T. Wilson, E. Lutz, N. Klier, R. West, J. Davis, J. Weaver, D.
Kampbell, and B. Wilson. 1996. Intrinsic remediation of chlorinated solvents
in groundwater. Proceedings of intrinsic bioremediation conference ,
London Wl, United Kingdom, March 18-19.
McAllister, P.M., and C.Y. Chiang. 1993. A practical approach to evaluating
natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater. Groundwater A1onitoring
& Remediation 14, no.2:161-73.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1996. Site remediation
program, technical requirements for site remediation , proposed readoption
with amendments: N.J.A.C. 7:26E, authorized by Robert J. Shinn, Jr.,
Commissioner.
Norris, R.D., R.E. Hinchee, R.A. Brown, P.L. McCarty, L. Semprini, J.T.
Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, M. Reinhard, E.J. Bouwer, R.C. Borden, T.M.
Vogel, J.M. Thomas, and C.H. Ward. I 994. Handbook of bioremediation
Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers.
Salanitro, J.P. 1993. The role ofbioattenuation in the management of
aromatic hydrocarbon plumes in aquifers. Groundwater Monitoring &
Remediation 13, no. 4: 150-61.
United States Department of the Army. 1995. Interim Army policy on natural
attenuation for environmental restoration, (12 September) Memorandum from
the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. Washington, D.C.:
the Pentagon.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Radionuclide
interactions with soil and rock media, Vol. 1: Element chemistry and
geochemistry , EPA 520/6-78-007, Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Groundwater
modeling: an overview and status report , EP A/600/2-89/028, Office of
Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 23 of28
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992c. Quality assurance
and control in the development and application of ground-water models ,
EP A/600/R-93/011, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. I 993b. Compilation of
ground-water models , EP A/600/R-93/l I 8, Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994c. The hydrocarbon
spill screening model (HSSM), Vol. 1: User's guide , EPA/600/R-94-039a,
Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994d. Assessment·
framework for ground-waler model applications , OSWER Directive
9029.00, EPA 500-B-94-003, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. I 994e. Ground-water
modeling compendium , EPA 500-B-94-004, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
I
United States Environmental Protection Agency. I 994f. A technical guide lo
ground-water model selection at sites contaminated with radioactive
substances , EPA 402-R-94-012, Office of Air and Radiation. Washington,
D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994g. Guidance for
conducting external peer review of environmental models , EPA I 00-B-94-
001, Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. I 994h. Report of the agency
task force on environmental regulatory modeling , EPA 500-R-94-001,
Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency . .1995a. The hydrocarbon
spill screening model (HSSM), Vol. 2: Theoretical background and source
codes , EPA/600/R-94-039b, Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996c. Documenting
ground-water modeling al sites contaminated with radioactive substances ,
EPA 540-R-96-003, Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996d. Three multimedia
models used at hazardous and radioactive waste sites , EPA 540-R-96-004,
Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. I 996e. Notes of Seminar--
Bioremediation of hazardous waste sites: Practiced approaches to
implementation , EPA 51 0-B-95-007, Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997c. (Draft) Geochemical
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR.Page 24 of28
processes affecting sorption of selected contaminants , Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997d. (Draft) The Kd
model and its use in contaminant transport modeling , Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air Force, Army, Navy, and
Coast Guard. 1996a. Commonly asked questions regarding the use of natural
attenuation for chlorinated solvent spills at federal facilities , Fact Sheet,
Federal Facilities Restoration and Re-Use Office. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air Force, Army, Navy, and
Coast Guard. 1996b. Commonly asked questions regarding the use of natural
attenuation for petroleum contaminated sites at federal facilities , Fact
Sheet, Federal Facilities Restoration and Re-Use Office. Washington, D.C.
Wiedemeier, T.H., J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, R.N. Miller, and J.E. ,
Hansen. 1995. Technical protocol for implementing intrinsic remediation
with long-term monitoring/or natural attenuation of fuel contamination
dissolved in groundwater. United States Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Technology Transfer Division, Brooks Air Force
Base, San Antonio, Texas.
Wiedemeier, T.H., J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, J.E. Hansen, and P. Haas.
1996. Technical protocol for evaluating the natural attenuation of chlorinated
ethenes in groundwater. Proceedings of the petroleum hydrocarbons and
organic chemicals in groundwater: Prevention, detection, and remediation
conference , Houston, Texas, November 13-15.
Wilson, J.T., D.H. Kampbell, and J. Armstrong. 1993. Natural bioreclamation
of alkylbenzenes (BTEX) from a gasoline spill in methanogenic groundwater.
Proceedings of the second international symposium on in situ and on site
bioremedialion, San Diego, California, April 5-8.
Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources. 1993. ERRP issues guidance on
natural biodegradation. Release News , Emergency and Remedial Response
Section, February, vol. 3, no. 1.
OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
USEPA Internet Web Sites
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/biorem/
Office of Research and Development, information on passive and active
bioremediation
http://www.epa.gov/ada/kerrlab.html
Office of Research and Development, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 4 I 7.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 25 of 28
Laboratory
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/natatt.htm
Office of Underground Storage Tanks, information on natural attenuation
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/chlorine.htm
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, fact sheet on natural
attenuation of chlorinated solvents
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/petrol.htm
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, Fact sheet on natural
attenuation of petroleum contaminated sites ·
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/sub 122-1.txt
Office of Solid .Waste, information on RCRA Subpart S
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/
Office of Outreach Programs, Special Projects, and Initiatives, information on
Brownfields
Other Internet Web Sites
:;,xrr-.,ii+j http://clu-in.com
Technology Innovation Office, information on hazardous site cleanups
OSWER Directive 9200.4-17
FOOTNOTES
1 Environmental resources to be protected include groundwater, drinking
water supplies, surface waters, ecosystems and other media ( air, soil and
sediments) that could be impacted from site contamination. (Return to text)
2 In this Directive, remediation objectives are the overall objectives that
remedial actions are intended to accomplish and are not the same as
chemical-specific cleanup levels. Remediation objectives could include
preventing exposure to contaminants, minimizing further migration of
contaminants from source areas, minimizing further migration of the
groundwater contaminant plume, reducing contamination in soil or
groundwater to specified cleanup levels appropriate for current or potential
future uses, or other objectives. (Return to text)
3 The term "transformation products" in the Directive includes biotically and
abiotically formed products described above (e.g. , TCE, DCE, vinyl
chloride), decay chain daughter products from radioactive decay, and
inorganic elements that become methylated compounds (e.g. , methyl
mercury) in soil and sediment. (Return to text)
4 The term "institutional controls" refers to non-engineering measures
http://www.cpa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 26 of 28
usually, but not always, legal controls intended to affect human activities in
such a way as to prevent or reduce exposure to hazardous substances.
Examples of institutional controls cited in the National Contingency Plan
(USEPA, 1990a, p.8706) include land and resource (e.g. , water) use and
deed restrictions, well-drilling prohibitions, building permits, well use
advisories, and deed notices. (Return to text)
5 For example, 1,4-dioxane, which is used as a stabilizer for some chlorinated
solvents, is more highly toxic, less likely to sorb to aquifer solids, and less
biodegradable than are other solvents under the same environmental
conditions. (Return to text)
6when a contaminant is associated with a solid phase, it is usually not known
if the contaminant is precipitated as a three-dimensional molecular coating on
the surface of the solid, adsorbed onto the surface of the solid, absorbed into
the structure of the solid, or partitioned into organic matter. "Sorption" will be
used in this Directive to describe, in a generic sense (i.e. , without regard to
the precise mechanism) the partitioning of aqueous phase constituents to a
solid phase. (Return to text)
7Existing program guidance and policy regarding monitored natural
attenuation can be obtained from the following sources: For Superfund, see
"Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Groundwater at Superfund
Sites," (USEPA, 1988a; pp. 5-7 and 5-8); the Preamble to the 1990 National
Contingency Plan (USEPA, 1990a, pp.8733-34); and "Presumptive Response
Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground
Water at CERCLA Sites, Final Guidance" (USEPA, 1996a; p. 18). For the
RCRA program, see the Subpart S Proposed Rule (USEPA, 1990b, pp.30825
and 30829), and the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (US EPA,
199Gb, pp. l 9451-52). For the UST program, refer to Chapter IX in "How to
Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank
Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers;" (USEPA, 1995a).
(Return to text)
8Principal threat wastes are those source materials (e.g. ,non-aqueous phase
liquids [NAPL], saturated soils) that are highly toxic or highly mobile that
generally cannot be reliably contained (USEPA, 1991). Low level threat
wastes are source materials that can be reliably contained or that would pose
only a low risk in the event of exposure. Contaminated groundwater is neither
a principal nor a low-level threat waste. (Return to text)
9Beneficial uses of groundwater could include uses for which water quality
standards have been promulgated, such as a drinking water supply, or as a
source of recharge to surface water, or other uses. These or other types of
beneficial uses may be identified as part of a Comprehensive State
Groundwater Protection Program (CSGWPP). For more information on
CSGWPPs, see USEPA, 1992a and US EPA, 1997b, or contact your state
implementing agency. (Return to text)
10This is a general expectation for remedy selection in the Superfund
program, as stated in the National Contingency Plan (USEP A, 1990a,
§300.430 (a)(l)(iii)(F)). The NCP Preamble also specifics that cleanup levels
appropriate for the expected beneficial use (e.g. , MCLs for drinking water)
"should generally be attained throughout the contaminated plume, or at and
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR .. Page 27 of 28
beyond the edge of the waste management area when waste is left in place."
(Return to text)
11 A conceptual site model is a three-dimensional representation that conveys
what is known or suspected about contamination sources, release
mechanisms, and the transport and fate of those contaminants. The conceptual
model provides the basis for assessing potential remedial technologies at the
site. "Conceptual site model" is not synonymous with "computer model;"
however, a computer model may be helpful for understanding and visualizing
current site conditions or for predictive simulations of potential future
conditions. Computer models, which simulate site processes mathematically,
should in turn be based upon.sound conceptual site models to provide
meaningful information. Computer models typically require a lot of data, and
the quality of the output from computer models is directly related to the
quality of the input data. Because of the complexity of natural systems,
models necessarily rely on simplifying assumptions that may or may not
accurately represent the dynamics of the natural system. Calibration and
sensitivity analyses are important steps in appropriate use of models. Even so,
the results of computer models should be carefully interpreted and
continuously verified with adequate field data. Numerous EPA references on
models are listed in the "Additional References" section at the end of this
Directive. (Return to text)
12For guidance on the statistical analysis of environmental data, please see
USEPA, 1989 and USEPA, 1992b, listed in the "References Cited" section at
the end of this Directive. (Return to text)
13 EPA recognizes that predictions of remediation time frames may involve
significant uncertainty; however, such predictions are very useful when
comparing two or more remedy alternatives. (Return to text)
14Jn determining whether an extended remediation time frame may be
appropriate for the site, EPA and other regulatory authorities should consider
state groundwater resource classifications, priorities and/or valuations where
available, in addition to relevant federal guidelines. (Return to text)
15Detection of changes will depend on the proper siting and construction of
monitoring wells/points. Although the siting of monitoring wells is a concern
for any remediation technology, it is of even greater concern with monitored
natural attenuation because of the lack of engineering controls to control
contaminant migration. (Return to text)
I Information on OSWER Directive 9200.4-f?]
URL: http://www.epa.gov/0 UST /directiv /9200 _ 4 I 7 .h tm
Last Updated: June 25, 1998
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USE OF MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION AT SUPERFUND, RCRA CORR..Page 28 of28
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/directiv/9200_ 417.htm 2/19/99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P: \proj\0313.08 \POI-CVR.DOC
APPENDIXC
CROSS-SECTIONS INTERCEPTING
MONITORING WELLS
--
f I I /
/
Author
EVC
Job No.
3107709
Title
Project
-Iii) 111!!!!1 -- -- --
/
!
' ' " ' ,ii '' .,:'
··;, ..
/ ' ,
/ /
/
,.
;
' / ' /
'
' ' '
/ /
' '
' ;
' '
I
/ / /. ,/ !
/ ,:··
;__
Drawing
31077-tA
Revision
7-15-96,\h
layers
0,3,4
Figure
6
Well Location Map
FCX-Stateavllle Superfund Site, OU 3
Statesville: Nor1h Cerollno
Revision Nq.,:_l_
j
/
Textile Plant
Warehouse
Dau,
11-17-93
ale
1 • .. 200'
0
11!
®--®
Date:__,7'""'{2 ... 3u...l9'""6'--
i ......... i \
"···:· ......•.. , ...
\J-19s
Tex lie Plant
,.,.
Cross-Section Liiie
Approximate Location of Stream
Approved By: 6VT')'><
- -
liilll --
fWilii---H--~~@
'W-19&
.............. _., __
_._,_·•"•·="""".'A· '.J!~-.::Y:!.i.'fi)i!i\ J
.,
/
.......
Scale
Ml I ¥SM
O Feet 200 Feat 400 Feet
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
950-
900-
850-
BOO-
Wast.
0
L-- .
----
Top of
FraciUred Rock
----
W-15i
W-15s
Bentonita
~ Fill
Core #1
84-94' 60% RQD
Core #2
94-99' 95% RQD
Core 113
99-109' 95% RQD
Fractured Rock (Gneiss)
w/ Steeply to Slightly
Dipping (10-80 degrees) Frsci1Jres
Sandy
w/Mlca and
Revision No.:_L_ Date: 70,3/96
W-2s
W-21
to
SILT
Clayey
W-51
W-Ss
East
0
W-4s W-131
·------
Quartz
Fragments
W-2J
Cura #1
80-63' 0% ROD
Core #2
89-99' 16% RQD
Core #3
99-1 u9' 35% RQD
Core #4
109-119' 55% RQD
Core #5
119-129' 20% RQD
Core #6
129-139' 51% RQD
Core 117
Bentonite
-Fill
FraciUred Rock (Gneiss)
w/ Steeply
Dipping (70-90 degrees) Fractures
139-148.5' 71% RQD
Approved By: C>PTC?)n
W-13i
Core #1
65-70' 39% RQD
Core #2
70-73'. 69% RQD
Core #3
73-75' 6% RQD
Core #4
75-60' 69% RQD
Core #5
80-64' 99% RQD
Core #6
84-90' 99% ROD
-950
-900
i ' _,
- I
-1
-eJO
~aauaTerra
A GREAT LAKES CIIEMICAL CORPORATION COMPANY
Author
EVC
Job No.
3107709
'l'!tte
Project
Drawing Layers
31077.C1 0, 1, 11
Revision Figure
7-16-96,lh 7
Cross-Section A· A'
FCX Sta!Bsville
Staissville, North CaroUna
Scale
0 feet 200 feet
Horizontal. Sea.le Is f' = 200'
VeTticle Sea.le Is f' = 20'
__ __y_ Shallow Waler Level December 29, 1995.
Da.te
1-6-95
ls
As Shown
400 feet
__ __y_ lnisrmedlais Water Level December 29, 1995.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
1000-_
=
950 c-
900:--
-
850 =--
,
Silt, Clayey and Sandy
SILT, Silty Clay
and SIity SAND
W-9s
= : : '!I--: : : = : : : = : : : = : : : = : : : = : : : = : : : = : : :¥:: : : :
Top of
• Fractured Bedrock
W-9i
SIi~ Clayey and Sondy
SILT, Silty cu,Y
and Silty SAND
W-17s
-------- . -=:::==:=:=, ··-··--__________ .._ ______ ---
Frac11Jred Rod<
(Gn<riss)
.A.nnroveci Rv: f?DTC\--.
-_ 1000
East
®
-: 950
=
--= 900
'8!:aauaTerra
A GREAT l,\l(ES CHEMICAL CORPORATION C:OIIPANY
Author Dra.wing Layers Da.te
EVC 31077-C2 0, 1, 12 3-16-95
Job No. Revision Figure
3107709 7-16-96/lh 8 As Shown
Title Cross-Section B -B'
Project FCX Statesville
Statesville, North Carolina
Ber Scale
0 100 200
Horizontal Sea.le is r• = t)()'
Verticcu Scale is r• = 20'
Legend
----Y. -December 29, 1995
Shallow Water Lsvel
----Y -December 29, 1995
Intermediate WatSK Lavel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
950
940
930
920
910
900
890
880
870
860
850
830
820
810
800
West
@
W-26I
-
"
Ground Surface
Top of
Froc11Jred Rock l
· Revision No.:_L_
W-30I
------
Fractured Rock (Gneiss)
· Date: 7/23/96
Sandy to Clayey
SILTw/ Mica
and Quartz Fragments
---------
------
Approved By: ~ DT'\.,
W-10s
East
@
W-10i W-18s
---____ _: _ --------------
Scale
0 fael 100 feel 200 feel
Horizontal Scale ls f' = txJ' Verlicle &ale Is As 9wwn
. ....J. Shallow Water Level December 29, 1995 .
. ....J. lntarmediale Water Lewi December 29, 1995.
Ti.tie
Cross Section C -C'
Project FCX Statesville
Statesville, North Carolina
Author Drawing Layers Date
EVC 31077-C3 0, 1 3-28-95
Job No. evision Figure Scale
3107709 7-16-96/th 9 As Shown
~ aQuaTerra
• GREAT 1-'JQS CHEMICAL CORPORATION COMPANY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
980
970
960
950
940
930
920
910
900
890
880
870
860
850
840
830
820
810
800
North
@
W-261
Top of
Frac11Jred Rock
W-<ls
Bentooite
Fill--•
W-<JI
W-<ll
Core #1
82-92' 94% RQD
Core #2
92-102' 94% RQD
Revision No.:_l_
Ground Surface
Sandy and Oayay
SILTw/ Mica
and Quartz Fragments
Date: 7(23/96
Frectured Flock
(Gneiss)
W-9s
Approved By:
W-21
--------__:__· _· -~ -
W-'li
Core #1
80-<l9' 0% RQD
Core #2
89-99' 16% RQD
Core #3
99-109' 35% RQD
Core #4
109-119' 55% RQD
Core 115
119-129' 20% RQD
Core #6
129-139' 51% RQD
Core lf7
139-148.5' 71% RQD
W-2s MW-4
Benlcnila
Fill
South
®
MW-<l
Scale
O feet 100 feet 200 feel
Horizanta.l 5ca..le Is r• = VO'
· VeTticle &ale ls As 91.own -
. _y_
. _y_
Shallow WatrM l.svel Decembet 29, 1995 .
intermediate Waler l.svel December 29, 1995 •
Title
Cross Section D • D'
Project FCX Statesville
Statesville, North Carolina
A-u./Jwr Dra.wing Layers Date
EVC 31077-C4 0, 1 3-28-95
Job No. evision Figure Scale
3107709 7-16-96/th 10 As Shown
~ a0uaTerra
A GREAT l,\J(ES CHDIICAL CORPORATION COMPANY
I
I
I
I
I 970
I 960
950
940 I 930
920
I 910
900
•• 890
880
I 870
860
-1-850
840 -
830
1· 820
810
I 800
~
I
I
I
I
m
North
0
W-21s
W-10s W-lOI
-

-
---

-
-.T. __: -

-

.

----
Sandy
SILT
and
Top of Fracrured Rock
Revision No. :_L..:.
W-1s W-1I
Clayey
W/ Mica
Quartz
Fragments
Fractured Rod<
(Gneiss)
Date:_ 7 /23/96
W-131
W-13s
MW-<ls
MW-<ld
MW-7
--------t-R-
Ban'.onita FIii
Aooroved By: ();i]2_T_:\.._.
970
South
960
0 950
940
930
---------920
910
900
890 Bentontt:e Fill
880
870
860
850
840
830
820
810
800
. _v_ Shallow Watsr Level December 29, 1995.
. _v_ lntsrmedlats Wat»r Level December 29, 1995.
Sa,Je
0feet 200 feet 400 feet
1'i.tle
Project
Author
EVC
Job Na.
3107709
Horizon ta.I Scale is r• = 200' Vertical Scale is As Shown
Cross Section F • P
FCX Statesville
Statesville, North Caroline
Drawing Layers
31077-CS 0,1
evision Figure
7-16-96/th 12
Date
3-28-95
Scale
As Shown
~ aQu a Terr a
A GREAT W<ES CHEMICAL CORPORATION COMPANY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXD
PILOT TEST PROCESS AND
MONITORING PROBE DATA
D-1 Pilot Test Part 1
D-2 Pilot Test Part 2A
D-3 Pilot Test Part 2B
D-4 Pilot Test Part 3
D-5 Pilot Test Part 4
D-6 Pilot Test Groundwater Depth Data
D-7 Pneumatic Permeability Test with SVE-2
\ \ TN\SYS\DAT A \PROJ'\0313.08\PDI-CVR.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXD
i
PILOT TEST PROCESS AND ' MONITORING PROBE DATA
I
' The pilot test process and monitoring pr?be data are presented in this appendix. Where
blanks exist in the tables, no data were collected.' Some "corrected" or "reduced" data are
I
also included, such as extracted air flow, which was measured in cfm and then corrected
to scfm using field conditions. Data were recorded in the field during the test according
to the best judgement of the field personnel with regard to the number of significant
i figures. Corrected or reduced data which are presented in the table. should be considered
'
to have no more than two signifi~ant figures eve1 though more may be shown.
\\TN\SYS\DA. TA \PROJ\03 13.011\APPB.DOC D-1 February 1999
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ \ TN\SYS\DAT A \PROJ\.0313 .08\PDI-CVR.DOC
APPENDIX D-1
PILOT TEST PART 1
I Part I Data (SVE-1).,ls
I Run Time SVE-1 Well Liquid Separator Inlet · B1....,-In. GAC lnl~ GAC Outlet Ambient Corrected Corrected
Time SVE AS Helium Vacuum Temp. OVA Helium Flow Vacuum Temp. V== Pre"wc Temp. /HOYA #20VA Pressure Temp. SVE-1 OVA SVE Flow
(hr:min) (hr) (hr) (hr) (in.W.C.) ('C) (ppm) (%) (sfm) (in.W.C.) ('C) (in.W.C.) (in.W.C.) ('C) (ppm) (ppm) (in.Hg) ('C) (ppm) (scfm)
9:45 -4.50 I
I 9:50 -4.42 I
9:58 -4.28 '
10:00 -4.25
10:05 -4.17
10:24 -3.85
I 10:25 -3.83 '
13:27 --0.80
13:50 -0,42 0 37 0 0 40 0 0 37 29.38 36 0.0
14:11 -0,07
I
14:11 -0,07
14:12 ..0.05
14:12 -0.05
14:13 -0.03
14:15 0,00 112 ' 1176
I 14:17 0.03 27 19 I07 7 28 37 31 4 55 0 0 1123.S
14:19 0.07 I
14:20 0,08 I
14:21 0.10 I
I
14:21 0.10 I
14:23 0.13 I
14:25 0.17
14:26 0.18
14:26 0.18
I 14:27 0.20
14:28 0.22
14:30 0.25 JS 21 9 38 JS 40 3.7 60 0 0
14:44 0.48
14:44 0.48
I 14:45 0,50
14:45 0,50
14:46 0,52
15:00 0.1S 3S 21 0.4 9 38 34 41 3.8 61 0 0 28.72 3S 4.2 8.6
I 15:25 1.17
15:26 1.18
15:26 1.18
15:27 1.20
15:28 1.22
I 15:30 1.25 3S 20 0.3 9 38 3S 40 3.8 63 0 0 28.71 33 3.15 8.6
15:56 1.68
15:57 1.70
15:58 1.72
I 15:59 1.73
16:01 1.77
16:05 1.83 3S 20 0.3 9 37 33 ' 40 3.8 62 0 0 28.71 3S 3.15 8.6
16:13 1.97
16:15 2.00 48 19 0.3 17 so 32 ll 3 68 0 0 28.72 34 3.1S 15.8
I 16:15 2.00
16:15 2.00 I
16:17 2.03 '
16:17 2.03
I 16:27 2.20 ' 16:28 2.22
16:28 2.22
16:29 2.23
16:30 2.25 49 19 0.3 18 l2 31 l7 2.9 71 0 0 28,71 32 3.15 16.7
I 16:30 2.25
16:47 2.53 I
16:47 2.53 '
16:48 2.SS
I 16:49 2.57 ' 16:49 2.57 I
17:00 2.75 so 19 0.2 18 S3 30 l7 2.8 69 0 0 28.72 31 2.1 16,6
17:15 3.00
17:16 3.02
I 17:16 3.02
17:18 3.05
17: 18 3.05
17:33 3.30
17:34 3.32
I q:lp,t>j\Olll.01\Pan 1 Data (SVE-1).ili 'ZJ'JM Pagelof4
I
I Part I Data (SVE:-1).xb
I Run Time SVE•I Wc11 Liquid Separator Inlet I Blwr ln. GAC Inlet GAC Ou1lct Ambicnl Corrected Corrected
Time SVE AS Helium Vacuum Temp. OVA Helium Flow Vacuum Temp. V== Pres.sure Temp. #!OVA #20VA Pressure Temp. SVE-1 OVA SVE Flow
(hr:min) (h,) (hr) (hr) (in.W.C.) (OC) (ppm) (%) (sfm) (in.W.C.) c·cil (in.W.C.) (in.W.C.) ("CJ (ppm) (ppm) (in.Hg) ("CJ (ppm) (scfm)
17:35 3.33 I
I 17:36 3.35
17:37 3.37
' 17:42 3.45 " 19 0.2 J8 " 28 " 2.8 68 JO 2.1
17:SO 3.58 74 18 0.2 JO 77 26 84 I 88 28.73 JO 2.1 26.6
17:50 3.58
I 17:51 3.60 ' 17:51 3.60
17:52 3.62 ' 17:53 3.63
I 18:00 3.75 I
18:00 3.75
18:01 3.77
18:02 3.78 I
18:04 3.82
I 18:15 4.00 74 18 0.2 29 76 " 84 I 97 0 0 29 2.1
18:15 ,too
18:15 4.00
18:17 4.03
I
18:17 4.03
18:18 4.05
18:45 4.50 74 18 29 76 24 84 I 96 28.76 JO 25.6
18:45 4.50
18:46 4.52
I 18:46 4.52
18:47 4.53
18:48 4.55
19:05 4.83
19:07 4.87
I 19:07 4.87
19:08 4,88 '
19:09 4.90 '
19:15 5.00 74 18 29 76 23 I 84 I 96 28.76 29 25.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I q:~j',Olll.OIJ\Pan I Data(SVE-1).W 'ZJ'lf'J9 Page 2 of 4
I
I Part I Data (SVE-1).xls
' Run Time Monitorim Probe Vacuum (in.W.C.)
I Tuno SVE AS Helium MP•! MP.-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
(hr.min) (hr) (hr) (hr) A B A 1B A B A B A B
9:45 -4.SO I
9:50 -4.42 I
I 9:58 -4.28
10:00 -4.25
10:05 -4.17 ' I0:24 -3.85 i
10:25 -3.83 I
I 13:27 -0.80 ' 13:50 -0,42 ' 14:11 -0.07 0 '
14:11 -0.07 0
I 14:12 -0.05 0
14:12 -0.05 0
14:13 -0.03 I 0
14:15 0.00
I 14:17 O.DJ
14:19 0.07 I ' 14:20 0,08 0.2
14:21 0.10 0
14:21 0.10 0
I 14:23 0.13 0
14:25 0.17 2.6 ' 14:26 0.18 0.4
14:26 0.18 ! 0.2
I 14:27 0.20 0
14:28 022 0
14:30 0.25
14:44 0.48 4.8 I
14:44 0.48 0.8
I 14:45 0.50 0.6
14:45 0.50 ' 0
14:46 0.52 0
15:00 0.75
I 15:25 1.17 5.2 '
15:26 1.18 0.9 '
15:26 1.18 0.8
15:27 1.20 0.1
I
15:28 1.22 '
0
I 5:30 1.25 I
15:56 1.68 i 0
15:57 1.70 ' 0
15:58 1.72 ' 0.8
I 15;59 1.73 0.9
16:01 1.77 5.2
16:05 1.83 ' 16:13 1.97 5.4 '
I 16:15 2.00 I
16:15 2.00 I
16:15 2.00 ' 0.8
16:17 2.03 0.1
16:17 2.03 0
I 16:27 2.20 7
16:28 2.22 1.4
16:28 2.22 ! I.I
16:29 2.23 0.1
I 16:30 2.25
16:30 2.25 ' 0
16:47 2.53 7.5
16:47 2.53 1.4
16:48 2.55 1.2
I 16:49 2.57 0.1
16:49 2.57 0
17:00 2.75
17;15 3.00 7.6 I
I 17:16 3.02 1.4 I
17:16 3.02 1.3
17:18 3.05 I ' 0.1
17:18 3.05 0
I 17:33 3.30 I 0
17:34 3.32 I 0.1
q.""°J\011101\J'ar\ I Data (SW-IJ ds 1/9/99 Page 3 of 4
I
I
Run Time
I Time SVE AS
(hr.min) (Ju-) (Ju-)
17:35 3.33
17:36 3.35
17:37 3.37
I 17:42 3.45
17:50 3.58
17:50 3.58
17:51 3.60
I 17:51 3.60
17:52 3.62
17:53 3.63
18:00 3.75
I 18;00 3.75
18:01 3.77
18:02 3.78
18:04 3.82
18:15 4.00
I 18:15 4.00
18:15 4.00
18:17 4.03
18:17 4.03
I 18:18 4.05
18:45 . 4.50
18:45 4.50
18:46 4.52
I 18:46 4.52
18:47 4.53
18:48 4.55
19:05 4,83
19:07 4.87
I 19:07 4.87
19:08 4.88
19:09 4.90
19:l 5 5.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
q,:lproj\11111 UK\Put l Oita (SVE-l).dl 119199
I
' ' I Part I Data (SVE-1).xls
I
Monitorin~ Probe Vacuum (in.W.C.)
Helium MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-4
(Ju-) A B A B A B A B
1.3
1.4
7.6
8.4
1.6
1.5
0.1
10.3
2
1.7
0.2
I'
10.8 '
2.2 I
I 1.8
0.2
I
'
10.9 2.2
! 2
I 0.2
2
0.2
2.2 I
10.9 I
'
MP-5
A B
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Page 4 of 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\\TN\SYS'\DATA\PROJ\0313.08\PDJ.CVR.DOC
APPENDIX D-2
PILOT TEST PART 2A
I
I Run Time SVE•l Well AS-I Well
T,me SVE AS Helium Vacuum Temp OVA Helium Flow ""•= Tc"'p Helium
(l\r:mUI) l•l ""' ""' (in.W.C.) ("C) (ppm) (1/o) (cfm) (psi) ("CJ (o/,)
I ,,. "" -l.0 -J.00
901 .0.30 -2.◄5 -2.91
"" -021 -1.◄3 -2.97
'"' ~" -l.40 -1.93
9;10 .0.22 -2.37 -2.90
I 9:Jl .O.ll -2.21 -2.12 ' 23 ,,
9.23 0.00 -2.ll -2.61
9,JU 0.12 -2.0l -2.57 " " 2.1
9:47 '" -l.75 -2.ll " " 9.50 ().45 -1.70 -2.23
9:50 "' -1.70 -2.23
I 9:51 O.H -1.61 -2.22
9..ll 0.47 -1.61 -2.22
9,51 0.47 -l.61 •2.22
10.10 0.71 -1.37 -1.90
10.11 '" -l.35 -1.U
10:ll O.Bl -1.33 -l.17
I ICU) 0.83 -1.32 -1.1,
10.25 l.O) •1.12 -1.6, ,. 17 ,_,
11:(M) l.62 -0.5) •l,07 74 " '·' 11:IO 1.71 -0.)7 U>
ll:J0 2.12 -0.0J -0.,1 74 " '-'
11:32 2.1, 0,00 -0.3) ' ' I 11:Jl 2.]7 0.Cll -0.,2 " " " 11:37 2,23 0.01 -0.,, ,., " 11:31 2.2' 0.IO -OAJ ' 17
11:39 2.27 0,12 -0.◄ 2 7.l 21
ll:42 2.32 0.17 -0.)7 " " 11:,, 2.37 0.22 -0.Jl ' " I 11:45 2.37 0,22 "" JUI 2.47 0.Jl -0.22
ll:52 HI 0.JJ -0.20
11:52 2.41 0.JJ -0.20
IUJ 2.,0 0.J, -0.11
I
11:'4 2.,2 0.)7 -0.17
!U4 2.,2 0.37 -0.17
12:00 2.62 0,47 -0.07 " " '·' 12:00 2.62 0,47 -0.D7 ' 17
12·~ 2.61 o.,J 000 " 12:IO 2.71 0.63 0.10 '
I
l2:2U 2.95 0.B0 0.27
12:30 3.12 0.97 0.0 7) " ,.,
12:35 3.20 1.05 o.n
12:37 )2) 1.01 0 .. H
12:31 3.25 1.10 0.'7
12:40 3.21 I.I] ''"
I
12:41 J.J0 1.1, "' 12:4, 3.37 1.22 0,61 ' " 12:45 3.37 1.22 0,61
13:J0 4.12 1.117 1.4) 7) " 0.7
13:4' 4.37 2.22 l.6R ' " 14:23 '·'" 2.11 rn n " 0.1
14:23 ,.oJ 2.U 2.35
I 14:2' ,.oJ 2.U 2.33
14:26 5.o, '·" 2.37
l◄:27 5,07 2.92 2.31
14:ll ,.01 2.9) 2.40
14:]0 ,.12 2.97 2.43 ' "
I 14:40 5.2B 3.13 '·" [4:42 U2 3.17 HJ
14:42 ,.n 3.17 2.63
[4:42 3.32 3.17 2.6)
14:43 5.33 3.11 2.6'
14:H 3.40 l.2' ,., l.l
I
14:32 HI J_J) 0.01 ' 14:'4 ,.,2 3.37 0.12 0.01
14·'5 3.53 l.31 0.1)
14:,, '·" 3.0 0.11
1,.1m 5.62 J.47 0,22 " " 15:<12 3.63 BO 0"
I 15:06 5.72 ),'7 O,Jl
13:ll UJ 3.61 0,4)
1,:16 HI )7) 0.0
15:ll 5.92 J.77 0.,2
i,;19 5.93 3.71 0.53
15:20 5.95 HO o.,,
I 15:12 '-98 ).SJ 0.5!
1':J9 6.27 4.ll 0.17
15:40 6.28 4.13 o.n
15.41 6.30 u, '"' 15:49 6,4) 4.21 I.OJ
15:51 6A7 4.32 1.07
I IBJ 6,30 u, 1.10
IUJ 6,30 4.35 1.10
15:55 6.53 4.31 I.I)
16:02 6.M 4,50 i.n
16.05 6.70 4,55 l.J0
16·07 ,.n 4,31 l.))
I
I
PartlA Dala (AS-1'@5 cfm).s.b
I
u id Scn.oraior lnlct I OlWT la GACJnk:I
Flow v.,uwa T=, VK-~ I Temp
(cfm) (ia.W.C.) ("CJ (in.W.C.J (m.W.C.) l"CJ
I
'
' ' ' " I ' ' " I
" " 23 .. )7
" n 22 I " 1., "' '
'
' '
" " " " 1., " " 74 " " l.l "
" 74 " ' " 1., .,
I
' '
' ' I
I
I
" ,. " " 1., " '
I
' " " " I " 1., .,
'
'
'
" ,. " " 1., " ' " ,. " .. u " ' '
I
'
'
I
'
I
" ,. " ' .. u "
' I
'
'
' I
'
'
GACOu<ki Ambient CorTCCted Corrected CorACtcd ""'"""' Ml OVA t20VA -Temp. SVl!-l OVA SVl!•l Hdium SVEFlow AS Flow
(ppm) 1,,., (in H1J ("CJ (ppm) ('/,) (1dm) (scfm)
29.12 22 rn ''
' ' 22 22.0,
"
'"" " u, 25,0
21,96 " ,., 24.9
21,97 " ]3,65 2,.0
" 15,4
" 1.,
11.J
I"
7.1
2UI " 0 2'-0
1.0
'' ' 2111 " . 2.1 2'.9
'·'
21.11 27 7.33 26.0
" ' ' JI 7.J,
"
"
I
I Run Ti111c SVE-1 Well AS-I Wdl Li,n id Sc1>11ator !nLel Blwr la GAClnlct GAC Outlcl Ambinit Com><:lcd ,_ ... C.=«d <>="" Time SVE AS Helium Vacuum T=o OVA Hcli""' """ ~ .. un, T=o Helium Flow Va.:u11t11 T=o v~ --. T=o UOVA llQVA ..,_ T=o SVl!•l OVA SVE-1 Helium SVl!flow ~
(hr min) {h,) (h,) "'' (UI.W.C.) re, (ppm) (%) (cfm) (p,i) ("C) ('/,) (cfm) (in.W.C.) ("C) (inW.C.) fu,.W_C,) ("C) (ppm) ,_, (in.Hg) ("C) (ppm) (%) (,cfm) (scfm)
I 16:10 6.71 "' 1.38
16·2' 7.0l ... 1.6] ' 1626 1.0, "" 1.6' 1.6 ' , ..
]6·21 7.01 '·" 1.61 ' 16:29 7.10 4.9, """ " 16:30 7.12 4.97 O.o2 n 11 " " 27 ., u " " ' " I 16-34 7.18 ,.oJ 0.01 "·" I 022,
\6;3' 7.20 ,.o, 0.10 "·' ().37'
16.37 rn ,.ul 0.IJ 0,]4 ' " " on, " 16·39 7.27 ,.12 0.17 "·"' ' 0.337'
11,:40 7.21 HJ 0.11 0.07 0,262'
16 41 7.30 ,.1, 0.20 '
I 16 42 7.32 H7 O.ll
16:43 7.33 UI 0.2.> ' 16.43 7.)J HI "·" 16:44 7.J, ,.20 ,,., 0.02 007'
I(, 4j 7.37 ,.22 O.l7 " I ' 16:46 7.JI ,,., 0.21
I 16:◄ 7 HO n, 0.30
16:0 7.42 5.27 0.32 ' 16.4? 7.43 ,.21 0,)) I
16:jO 7.45 uo OJj
16:j\ 7.47 ,.n "" " " 16:H 7.41 ,.JJ O.JB
I l6·S3 7.SO D> 0,40
]6·54 7,52 . S.37 0.42 '
]6·55 7.53 HI "" ' 1656 1.,, 5.40 "' l6,.S7 7.S7 5,42 0.47
16:59 '"' 5.45 o.so
I 17,00 7.62 H1 0.,2
17:02 7,65 ,.so o.,,
17.03 7.67 ,.,2 0.57 n 11 J.J " " " " u w " "·' 21.9 26 34.6' 25,0
17,06 7.72 .S.57 0.62
17,01 1.n '·'° 0.65
17:10 7.7~ .s.63 0.61
I 17:10 7.71 "' 0.61
17:12 7.12 ,.67 ,.n ' 17:12 7.ll 5.67 0.72 ' 17:13 7,!3 .S.61 o.n
17:14 7.U uo "" 17:l.S 7.17 ,n "·" I 17:16 7.U ,.,, 0,71 ' 17:.Sl 1.41 6.32 u, I
17:52 1.41 6.33 I.JI
17;.S3 1.50 63' 1.40 " " 17:57 1.57 .. , 1.47
17:59 ,., "' 1.50 ' /
I Jl:IO 1.78 6" 1,61
11:20 1.9.S "" u, ' 11:22 1.98 "' UI n " " " " " ... " 21.92 " 24.1
11:22 1.91 6.13 I.II
11:32 9,1, 7.!Kl 2.0, , " " " 11:35 "" 1.0, 2.10 '" 19 " "" I 11:37 ,n 7.01 2.13 " " " 24 . .S
11:JI "' 7.10 2.1, '
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2 of JO
I
I
Part lA Data (AS.I@, 5 dm}.:r.ls
I ' Run Time Monitorin• Pn:,bc, Vacuum lin.W.C. Ori•inal data
r~, SVE AS Helium MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP, MP-S MP-I OVA MP-lOVA MP-30VA MP-4 OVA MM OVA
(hr:min) (h,) (h,) (h,) A B A B A B A B A B A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
MP-I MP-l MP-3 MP, MP-5 ' 9:0<I -0.32 -2.47 .).00 0 0 :
I 9:0S -0.30 •2.4S -2.91 0 0
9:06 -0.21 -2.0 -2.97 0 0 I
9:01 .()_?5 -2.40 -2.93 0 0 I
9:10 -0.22 -2.37 •2.90 0 0
9:\S -0.13 -l.21 -2.12 '
I
9:2J 0.00 •2.IS -2.61
9:30 0.12 -2.03 -2.H I
9:47 0.40 -1.7S -2.21
'1:50 0.4S -1.70 -2.23 62
!U0 0.4S -1.70 .w J I
9:Sl 0.47 -1.6! •2.22 u I
I 9:Sl 0.47 -1.61 -2.22 0.1 ' 9:Sl 0.47 -1.61 -2.22 0.02 I
10:10 0.71 -1.37 -1.90 ,., V
10:ll 0,10 -1.lS -1.U ,., 0
10:12 0.12 -1.33 -1.17 o., o., ' 10:lJ 0,13 -1.32 -I.IS 0
I 10:lS I.OJ ·l.ll .l.(,S ' ll:(~l l.62 -0.SJ -1.07 I
11:10 l.71 ~,, ~" 10,6 0 I
11:30 2.12 -0,QJ -O.S7 I
11:32 2.IS 0.00 -0,53
ll:33 2.17 0.02 .-0.!12
I 11:37 2.23 0.01 -0.45
11:31 w O.IO -0.43
11:39 2.27 0,12 -(Ul
11:42 v, 0.17 ~,,
11:4, 2.37 0.22 -0.32 I
11:45 2.37 0,22 -0,32 I
I IUl 2.47 0.32 <.22
lU2 2.0 0.33 -0.20
11:52 2.0 0.33 -0,20 ' 11:53 uo 0.35 -0.11
J 1:54 2.52 0.37 -0.17 '
I 11:54 U2 0.37 .0.17 ' 12:00 2.62 0.47 -0.07 ' 12:00 2.62 0.47 -0.07
12.CM 2.61 0,53 ,.oo ' 12:10 2,7! 0.'3 0.10 I
12:20 2.9, 0" 0,27
I I
11:30 3.12 0.97 0.H
12:35 3.20 1.05 0.52 " ' 12:37 '·" 1.01 0.55 ,.,
12:31 "-' l.10 o.57 .J.4 ' 12-40 3.28 J.l) '·" ~, I
12:41 3.30 I.IS 0,62 ~.,
I 12:45 3.37 1.22 0,61
12:0 3.37 1.22 "' '
13:30 ◄.12 1.97 l.◄ 3
I
13:45 4.37 2.22 1.61 I
u:n 5.03 2.11 2.35
l◄:25 5.03 · 2.U 2.35 '' I 14:25 5.03 l.U rn LO
14:26 5.05 2.90 2.37 .,_.
14:27 5.o7 2.92 w .2.2
14:l! 5.01 2.91 2.40 ~.,
14:30 ,.12 2.97 2.◄ 3
14:◄0 ,.21 3.13 '·" I U:42 5,32 3.17 2.63
14·42 5.32 3.17 2.63
14.42 5,32 3.17 '·" l◄.43 5.33 3.11 2.6'
l◄:47 5,40 J2j '00
14:52 5.0 3.33 0,01
I l4:S4 5.52 3.37 CU2
14:,s 5.53 3.3! 0.13
14:58 5.58 3.◄3 o.u
15:00 5.62 3.47 0.22
15:02 5.65 3.50 0.2'
!5:06 5.72 3.57 0.32
I 15:13 5.ll 3.6B 0,4] Oj o., • 2
15:16 5.U '·" 0.0 1., 0 u o.,
15:!& 5.92 3.77 0.52 II ,, ,..
U:19 5.93 3.71 0.53
15:20 5,95 3.&0 0.55 12 o., ()(, o.•
15:22 5,91 3.13 0.51 ' '·' " 0.1
I 15:)9 "' 4.12 0,17
15:40 6,28 4,1) o.n '·' 15:41 6.30 4.U 0.90 '·' 15:49 6.◄ 3 4.21 1.03 .,
15:51 6.47 4.32 1.07 ·2.2
I 15:53 6,50 4.35 1.10 .. ,
15:53 6.50 4.3, 1.10
IU5 6.53 OI 1.13
16:02 6.65 4.50 1.2' ' 16:05 6,70 4.55 1.30
16·07 6.73 ,_,. 1.33
I
P11c 3 af 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Time
(hr:min)
16:10
16:ll
Run Ttmc
SVE AS Helium
(hr) (hr) (hr)
6.71 4,6) I.JI
7.0J ◄.U 1.63
16:26 7.os 4.90 1.65
16:21 7.01 4.93 1.61
16:29 7,10 4.9S 0.00
16:30 7.12 4.97 002
16:34 7.11 '-03 0.01
16:JS 7.20 !I.OS 0.10
16:37 7.23 !i.01 0.13
16:39 7.27 Ul 0.17
16:40 7.21 5.IJ 0.11
16:41 uo ,.1, 0,20
16:42 7.32 H7 0.22
16:43 7.33 HS 0.23
16:4] 7.33 HI 0.23
16:« 7.JS S.20 0.25
16:0 7.37 S.22 0.27
16:46 7,31 S.23 0.21
16:47 7.40 S.lS 0.30
16:0 7.0 5.27 l'.32
16:0 7.43 3.21 0.33
16:SO 7.45 5.30 0.35
16:SI 7.47 Ul 0.37
16:52 7.41 DJ 0.31
16:SJ 7.SO BS 0.40
16:S◄ 7.H S.37 0 0
16:SS 7,53 S.JI 0.0
16:57 7,S7 S.U 0.47
16:S9 7.60 5.45 0.50
17:00 7.62 S.47 0.52
17:02 7.63 DO 0.5,
11.03 7.67 ,.n o,n
17:06 7,72 D7 0.62
11,01 1.n ,.60 o.6'
MP-l
A B
17;10 7.71 HJ 061 U
17:10 7.71 Hl 0.61
17:12 7.12 H7 0.72
17:12 7.12 S.67 0.72 ,
17:13 7.13 HI o.n
11:1s 1.11 5.72 o.n
11:16 1.11 s,n o.71
17:51 1,47 6.32 1.37
17:H 1.41 6 33 I.JI
I ?;SJ I.SO 6.n 1.40
17:57 1.37 642 1.47
17:39 160 6.45 uo
11:10 1.71 6.63 1.61
U:20 1.93 6.SO I.IS
11:22 l.?I 6.13 I.II
11:22 1.91 6 13 I.II
IUl 9,IS 7.00 2.0S
11:J.:l 9.20 7.0S 2.IO
11:37 9.2J 7,01 2,13
11·31 9 23 7.10 2.1,
Monitorin• Probe: Vacuum in.W.C.
MP-2 MP-3 MP-4
A B A B A B
)l
•2.4
Part lA D■ta (AS-I @_5 crm).Kb
MM
A B
,,
MP-I OVA
A B C D
0.2 O.J 4 .9
MP-2 OVA I, ml
A B C D
2.2 o 2.1 u,
Original dlta
MP-3 OVA h m)
A B C D
' " 7.7 2
' '
MP-4 OVA /1 ml
A B C 0
16 06 0.3 0.4
MP-5 OVA 1~ m
A B C D
9.7 0.S 0.3 0.4
Pase 4 of to
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Par1 2A Data (AS-I @5 dm).ds
' ' Run Time Original data
Time SVE AS Hcliwn MP-1 Helium % MP-2 Helium IMP-l Helium MP-4 Helium % MP-S Helium
(br:mia) (ht) (hr) (ht) A B C D A 8 C D A B C D A B C D A B C 0
9.IM -0.32 -2.47 .3 00
9:0S -0.30 -2.0 •2.98
9:06 -0.21 -2.0 -2.97
9:01 -0.2!1 -2.◄0 •l.93
9;10 -0.22 -2.37 -2.90
9:15 -0.13 -2.21 -2.12
9:lJ 0,00 -2,IS -2.6S
9:30 0.12 -2.03 -2.H
9.47 0.40 -1.7' •2.21
9::m O.◄ S -1.70 -2.23
9:SO o,,s -1.70 -l.2J
9:Sl 0.47 -1.61 -l.22
9:SI 0.47 -l.61 -2.21
9:SI 047 -1.61 -2.22
10:10 0,71 -1.37 -1.90
IO:ll 0,B0 -1.n -US
10:12 012 .1.JJ -1.17
10:13 0.13 -1.32 -1.15
10:25 1.03 -1.12 -1.65
11:00 1.62 -0.Sl -l.07
11:]0 1.71 -0.37 -090
11:30 l.12 -0.03 .{J_H
I 1:32 2.13 0.00 -0.SJ
11:ll 2.17 0.02 -0.52
11:37 2.23 0.01 -0.◄ S
11;31 2.2!1 0.10 -0.43
11:39 2.27 0.12 -042
11:42 2.32 0,17 -O.J7
11:◄ S 2.37 0.22 -0.32
11:45 2.37 0.22 -0.)2 I
ll;SJ 2.47 0.32 -0.22 0,00 000 L
11:52 2.41 0.33 -0.20 0.00 000 i
11:Sl 2.41 0.33 -0.20 000 0.00 o.oo 0.00
l UJ 2.50 0.35 -0.11 o.oo 0.00 o 00 o.oo
ll:54 2.52 0.37 .0.17 OIK) 000 O!Ml (l(Kl
IU<t 2.52 0.37 ..0.17
12:00 2.62 O<f7 -0.07
12:00 2 62 0 <t7 -0.07
12:04 2.61 0,53 0.00
12:10 2.71 0.63 0,10
12:20 2.95 0 10 0.27
12:30 3.12 0.97 0.4J
12:JS 3.20 I.OS 0.52
12:37 J,2J 1.01 o . .s,
12:38 3.25 L.IO 0.57
12:40 3.21 1.13 060
12.41 3.30 1.1, 0.62
12:45 3.37 1.22 0.61
12:45 3.37 1.22 0.61
13:30 4.12 1.97 l.<t)
13:45 07 2.22 U>I
14:25 ,.oJ 2.11 2.3,
I
I
I
l<t:25 5.03 2.11 2.H !
2.35 I 1
l<t:26 5.05 2.90 2.37 I
l<t:27 5.07 2.92 2.31 I
14:21 ,.01 2.93 2.,0 I
14:30 ,.12 2.97 2.43 I
14:40 S.21 3.13 2,60 I 0.00
14:42 5.32 3.17 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 oou ! I
14.42 5.32 3.17 2.63 o.oot o.oo o.oo o.oo 1
l<t:42 5.32 3.17
14:43 5.33 3.11
l<t:47 5.40 J.2S 0.00 I
l<t:52 S.U 3.33 0.01
14:54 s.,2 3.37 0.12
14:SR UI 3.0 0.11
IS 00 H,2 3.47 0.22 I
IH>6 5.TI U7 0.32 ' is:u ,.n J 61 o.◄3
15:16 ,... J,73 0.41
15:11 '-92 J.n O 52
15:19 S.93 3.71 O.SJ
15:20 S.95 3.10 0.55
IU9 6.27 4.12 o 17
IS:40 6.21 4.13 ll.11
IS:◄\ 6.30 <t,IS 0.90
15:0 6 43 4,21 1.03
I
15:53 6.50 4.35 I.ID I
15:53 6.50 4.35 1.10
15:55 6 SJ 01 1.13
16·02 665 4 SO I.H
16'05 6.10 ◄.n uo
1(,-07 6 73 Ol 1.33
0 (N) 0,00
0 IXJ ll,00 0.00 0 00
"' 0.01
001
"'
004
O,OJ
'"
0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
0,1)() Ill)() ono ooo
P•1d of 10
- - - - - - --· - - - --· ·-- - - - -
?~ ~§;g;;~~;g~~;~~i5~~~~iiiiim;~~~;~;,;;;i;i;;~;i§;;~~;;;;~t~
~~~~---~-----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~ ~b~~~~~~~~k~~=~~~~b~~~~ttt~~~h~~~=~~~~~~~bb~~~~~~~~~~~~~-m
~i;~;~;;;;~;b;~~itt~;i~b~~;~if~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~ee;;;i;;5~
NN~N~--------ppopooopopoooocooooooopoooooooooooooooo-~--ilJ ~b~a:~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~b~~~~~b~iS~~et~-a
0
~ 8 r,-
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0 8
0
8
C -e -
0 8
0
8_
0
8
0
8
0
0
0 8
0 8
0 0
0 8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
8
0 8
0
0 8
0
8
0
8
0
0
0
8
.o
8
0
8
0 8
0
8
~
0
8
co gs
0
0
O O C
► • ' .-nf
C
► < ' •" nf
C
-► • -----1-'1++=!++-f't:.J-=!=-l=FR=i-:-+'-+=f++ .. +"8+-.. +-.rnH·· "-18 ++_+_+_++_+-. .J.-+0.81-_H_ H_ H--+--+-'=t--!++++-1-1-HH =lJ it f" ~s ,o o _c
i:SS
0 nj-j:: s • ~ C
0 0 0
8 8 8 ► • 0 0
8 8 8 •• ;f
0
8
0 0 0
8 8 8 n ~-
C
8
0 0 8 8 8 C
0
8
0
8
8 i
8 8
►•
' •" ~
0
8
0 0 0
8 0 8 n!
8 0 8 8 C
~ ,
> 0
5: > :t
® -~
i ¥
I
I Time
(hr.niin)
9:04
I 9:05
9:06
9·01
9:10
9:15
9:23
I 9;30
9:47
9:50
9:!I0
9:!11
I
9:!11
9:!ll
10:10
10:11
10:12
10:13
I 10:2!1
11:00
11:10
ll:30
11:32
11:33
I I 1:37
11:31
11:39
11:42
11:0
11:4!1
I lUJ
11:!12
IU2
ll:'3
11:!14
11:S◄
I 12:00
12:00
12:IM
12:10
12:20
12:)0
I 12:3'
12:)7
12:31
12:411
12:41
12:45
I 12:45
13:30
13:◄5
14:25
14:25
14:25
I 14:26
14:27
14:21
14:30
14:40
I 14:42
14:42
l◄ :42
14:43
14:47
14:52
I 14:5◄
l◄:jS
14:SI
15,00
15:02
15:06
I 15:13
15:16
1':11
15:19
15:20
15:22
I 15:39
15:40
15:41
15:◄ 9
15:51
15:53
I 15:53
15:'5
\6,02
16:05
16·07
I
I
Ru11 Time sv, AS Helium
'"' (hr) {hr)
-0.32 .2.47 -3.00
-0,30 -2.4' -2.91
-0.21 .2.43 -2.97
-0.25 -2.40 -2.93
-0.22 -2.37 -2.90
-0.13 •2.21 -2.12
0.00 -2.15 -2,61
0.12 -2.03 -2.!17
0.40 .1,75 -2.21
o_.45 -1.70 -2.23
0.4!1 -J.70 -2.23
0.47 -1.61 -2.22
0,47 -1.61 -2.22
0,47 -1.61 -2.22
0,71 .1.37 -1.90
0,10 -1.3' •I.II
0,2 -1.Jl -U7
O.BJ •1.32 -1.15
1,03 -1.12 -1.6!1
1.62 -0.D -l.07
1.71 -0.37 ~.90
2.12 -0.03 -0.!17
2.1!1 0.00 -0.!13
2.1?' 0,02 -0.!12
2.2J 0,01 -0.4!1
2.2!1 0.10 -0.43
2.27 0.12 -tU2
2.32 0.17 -0.37
2.37 0.22 -0.32
2.37 0.22 ..0,32
2.47 0.32 -0,22
2.41 0.33 -0.20
2.0 0.33 -0,20
2,!10 0.35 -0.ll
2.!12 0.37 -0.17
2.,2 0.37 -0.17
2.62 0.47 -0.07
2.62 0,◄7 -007
2.61 0.Sl 0.00
2.71 0,6) 0.10
2.95 11!0 0.27
3.12 0,97 O.◄J
3,20 1.05 0.52
)2J 1.01 0,55
3,25 1.10 11,57
3.21 1.13 '"' 3.)0 1.15 0.62
3.37 1.22 0.61
).37 1.22 0.61
4.12 1.97 1.0
4,37 2.22 1.61
$.03 2.U 2.35
5.oJ 2,U 2.35
5.03 2.18 2.35
5.05 2.90 2.37
5.07 2.92 rn
5,01 2.93 2.40
s.12 2.97 HJ
,.21 3.13 2.60 ,.n 3.17 2.63
,.n 3.17 2,6)
,.32 3.17 2.6)
,.33 3.11 2.65
5.40 J,H 0.00
5.41 3.33 001
U2 3.37 0.12
S.,J 3.31 O.\J
5.51 3.43 0,11
5.62 3.47 0,22
HS 3.50 02' ,.n 3.57 0.32
HJ "' 0.0 ,.n ) " "' 5,92 rn 0.52
5,9) 3.71 0.53
5.95 3.10 o.55
5,91 3.13 0.51
"' ◄.11 0.17
"' 4.13 0.U
6.311 4.15 '., "' 4.21 I.OJ
"' 4.32 1,07
6,511 4.35 1.10
6.50 4.35 I.Jo
6.53 ◄,31 1.13
"' 4.50 1.25
6.70 ◄,55 1.)0
(, 1) "' 13)
Part 2A Data (AS-I @5 dm).:lis
Co=tcddata
MP-1 OVA (m ml MP-2 OVA MP-3 OVA-(~ ~ MP-4 OVA {ppm) MP-5 OVA
ABC D AIB CD A 8 CD A 8 CjO AU CD
MP•l MP-I MP-I MP-1 MP-2iMP-l MP-2 MP-2 MP-3 Ml'-3 MP-3 MP-3 MP-4 Ml'-4 MP-41MP-4 Ml'-5 Ml'-5 Ml'-5 MP-5
'
(
' I
'
3.15 5.25 ◄ 2 21
"' 61.Jl 25.2
12(, (,,J 6.J 1,4
S4 ◄.l 6.J I.◄
Pace 7 pf 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Run Time
T1mc SVE AS Helium MP-I OVA {
(hr.min) (hr) (hr) (hr) A B C
16:10 6.71 4,63 1.31
J6:2S 7,03 4 II 1.63
16:26 7.0S ◄.90 1,6S
16:21 7.01 ◄.93 1.61
16:29 7.10 ◄.95 0.IIO
16:30 7.12 4,97 0.02
16:J◄ 7.U S.03 001
16:Js 1.20 s.n, 0.10
16:37 7.2J S.01 0.13
16:39 7.27 ,.12 0.17
16:40 7.28 S.13 0.11
16·◄] 7.30 ,.u 0,20
16:42 7.32 5,17 0.22
16:0 7.33 S.11 0.23
16:43 7.33 ,.11 0.23
16:44 7.35 ,.20 0.2,
16:4S 7.37 !1.22 0.27
' Par1 2A Data (AS-I @5 cfm).ili
I Corm:ted dai.
MP-20VA MP-30VA MP-40VA MP-SOVA
D A B C O A B C D A B C D A B C D
I
16:46 7.38 U3 0.2R 2.1 3.IS 42 94.S
16:47 7.40 !1.:U 0.30
16:41 H2 S.27 0.32
16:49 7.43 S,21 0.33
16:SO 7.45 5.30 O,JS
16:SI 7.47 S.32 0.37
16:52 HI S.33 0.31
16:SJ 1.So S,JS 0.40
16:54 7.52 S.37 042
16:n 1.n s.42 o ◄ 7
ICd? 7.60 HS o.S0
17:00 7,62 S,47 0.52
17:02 7.65 5.50 o.ss
17:0J 7.67 5.12 o.57
17.06 7.72 S,S1 0.62
17:08 7.75 H,O 0,6S
17:10 7.71 S.63 0.61
17:10 7,71 !1.63 0.61
17:12 7.12 H,7 0.72
17:12 7,12 !1.67 0.72
17:13 7.13 5.61 o.n
11:14 us uo o.n
17:l!I 7.17 !1.72 0.77
17:16 7.n !l.n 0.11
1n1 u1 6.J2 u1
17:12 l.4R 6.33 l.JB
17:13 I.SO 6.JS 1.40
17:57 U7 6.42 1.47
17:!19 1.60 6 45 I.SO
]1,10 1,71 6,61 1.61
11:20 1.9!1 610 l.H
U:22 1.91 6 U l.U
1"22 1.98 6.BJ l.U
11:32 9.U 7,00 2.0!I
11:JS 9.20 7.05 2.IO
11:37 9.23 1.01 2.lJI
11:31 9.25 7.10 2.IS
i
I
I
I
2J.I 0 22.1 16.1 I
i
"' 10.9 21
Page W of lO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Time SVE
(hr:min) (hr)
Run Time
AS Helium
(hr) (hr)
MP•! Helium /¾l
A B C D
' Par1 lA Data (AS-1@ 5 dm).ds
I
I Corrc,;ud data
MP-2 Helium o/, MP-3 Hcliwn o/,'
A B C D A B C D
MP_. Helium
A B C D
MP-5 Helium ¾l
A B C D
MP-I MP•I MP-I MP-I MP-2iMP-2 MP-2 MP-2 MP-J MP-3 MP-3 MP-3 MP-4 MP.ol MP-4 MP.( MM MP-5 MP•.!I MP-.!1
9:04 -0,32 -2.47 -3,00
9:06 -0,21 -2,43 -2.97
9:01 ..0.2, -2.40 -2.93
9:10 ..0.22 -2.37 -2.90
9:l.!I -0.13 -2.21 -2.12
9:23 0.00 -2. L!! -2.68
9:30 0.12 -2.03 -2.$7
9:47 o.◄o -1.n -2.21
9:!!0 0,4!! -l.70 -2,2J
9:.!10 0,4!! -1.70 -2.lJ
9:!!l 047 -1.61 -2.22
9:!!l 0.47 -1.61 -2.22
9;!!1 0.47 -1.61 -2.22
I0:10 0.71 .1.37 -1.90
I0:11 O.BO -1.3' •I.Ill
10:12 0.12 -1.3) -1.17
10:13 0,13 .\,32 -US
10.2.!I I.OJ ·l.12 -J.6.!I
11:00 1.62 -0 . .!13 -1.07
11:10 1,71 -0.37 -0.90
11:30 2.12 -O.o) .0 . .!17
11:32 2.U o.oo -0 . .!IJ
11:33 2.17 0.02 -0 . .!12
11:37 2.23 001 ,-0_4.!I
I U1 2.lj 0.10 -0.◄ 3
11:39 2.27 0,12 .0.◄ 2
11:42 2,32 0.17 -0.37
11:0 2.37 022 -0.32
11:0 2.37 0.22 -0,32
11:51 2.47 0.32 -0,22
I U2 2.0 0.33 -0 20
11 :52 2.0 O.JJ -0.20
IU3 2.50 0.35 -0.11
11:54 2.52 0,]7 -0.17
11:54 2,52 0.37 -0,17
12:00 262 0,47 -0.07
12:00 2.62 0,47 -007
12:04 2.6B O 53 o 00
12:10 2.71 0.63 0,10
12:20 2.95 0,10 O 27
12:30 3.12 0.97 U,4)
12:31 l,20 IM 0.52
12:37 3.23 1.01 0.55
12:38 3.25 1.10 0.57
12:40 3.21 1.13 0.60
12:◄I J.30 l.15 062
12:45 ),37 1.22 0,68
12:45 ),)7 1.22 O 61
1):30 4.12 1.97 l.0
1):45 ◄,37 2.22 l.68
l◄:25 5.03 2.U 2.35
14:25 5.03 2.11 2.35
14:25 5.03 UR 2.35
14:26 5.05 2.90 2.37
14:27 5.07 2.92 2.31
J◄:28 5.01 2.93 2.40
14:30 5.12 2.97 2.0
1◄ :40 5,21 3,13 2.60
14:42 Bl 3.17 2.Gl
1◄ :42 5.32 3.17 2.63
l◄:O 5.32 J.17 2,63
1◄:43 5,33 3.11 2.65
14:47 5.40 3.25 000
14:52 5,41 3.33 0,01
14:54 5.52 J,37 0.12
1◄:55 ,.n J,11 0.11
108 DI 3.43 o.11
15:00 Hl 3.47 0.22
15:02 5.65 3.50 0.2!1
15:06 5.TI 3.57 OJ2
15:13 5.13 3.61 0,0
15:16 5.11 1.n oo
15:19 5.93 J,71 0.53
15:20 "95 3,10 0,l5
J!l:22 5.91 3.13 0,51
15:39 6 27 4.12 o 17
15.40 621 Ul OU
15:49 60 4.21 I.OJ
15:H 6◄7 ◄.32 1.07
15:53 6.50 ◄,35 I.JO
15:53 6.!10 ◄,3' 1,10
](, 02 6 65 ◄,50 l.25
16'07 6 73 4.11 1.33
I
I
I
' I
I
'
' '
I
I•
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Part lA Data (AS-1 @_5 dm).ds
Run Time I Corrected data
Time
(hr;min)
16:10
SVE
(h,)
6.71
AS Helium
(hr) (hr)
MP-I Helium ¼'
A B C D
MP,2 Helium
A B C D
,MP-3 Helium
A B C D
◄.63 1.38
16:H 7.03 ◄.U 1.63
16:26 7.o, ◄ .90 1.65
1(,:21 7.01 ◄.93 1.61
16:29 7.10 4.9S 0.00
16:30 7.12 4,97 o 02
16:34 7.11 S.03 0 08
J6:3S 7.20 s.os 0.10
16:37 7.23 S,OS 0.13
16:39 7.27 Hl 0.17
16:40 7.21 S,IJ O.ll
16:41 7.30 5.IS 0.20
16:42 7.32 .1.17
16:0 7.33 S.11 "' O.ll
16:0 7,JJ S.11
16:•◄ 7.JS S.20
16:◄ S 7.37 S.22
16:-46 7.31 S.23
0.23 0,00 0 00 0 00
0.25
0.27
0.21
16,47 7.40 us 0.30
16.41 7.42 !1.27 0.32
16:49 HJ UI 0,33
16:SO 7.4S BO o.JS
16:SI H7 H2 0.37
16:Sl 7.48 DJ o.JR
16:SJ 7.So BS 0.40 '., lldS 7,Sl S.38 0.43 U,(Kl U,00 0.04 0.00
16:H 7},7 H2
16:59 7.60 ~.◄ 5
17,00 7.62 5.◄7
17:02 7,65 5.50
11.03 7.67 ,.n
11:06 1.11 5.n
,.,
0,47
""
"" OJM
OJKI 0.00 0.00 0.00
0,00
0 (KJ 0.00 0 04 0.00
0.00
17:01 7.7' 5.60 O 65 0.00
17:10 7.71 5.63
17:10 7.71 5.63
17:12 H2 H7
17:12 7.82 ).67
17;13 7.13 HS
17:l◄ 7.U 5.70
17:15 H7 5.72
17;16 7.11 DJ
061 I
061 0,00 000 000 0.04
0.72 I
072 '
0.73 I
o.n
0.77 0,00 000 004 O!KJ
o.7l I
lJ7 004
17:'2 1.0 6.33
17:jJ •. ,o 6.35
1.38 0 00 0.00 0.00 0 00
l.◄ O
17:H a.,7 6.◄ 2 l.◄ 7 0.00 0 00 o 00 0.00
17:59 B.l'.,O 6.◄ 5
11:JO 8.7« 6 63 UiR
OJIO 0.1)0 0 00 0.00
11:22 1.91 6.13 I.II
lR:22 1.91 6.13 1.U
U:32 9.15 7.00 2.0S
1u, 9.20 1_0,i 2.10
11:37 9,23 7.011 2.13
0,114
0,08
0.11
0.01 0,00
0.23 0,00
0.3◄ 0.00
0.31
060 0.00
'·" 0,64 0 00
064 OCH)
"'
MP--4 Helium ¼ MP-, Helium ¼
A B C 0 A B C D
lHKll U (Ml O ll0 0 00 0 00 0,00 0,00 0,00
0,IK) 0,IK) 0 00 OJKI
'"' I
U.lKl CUKI U,00 O,IK> 0,00 0,CKl 11,00 0,00
U,(KJ 0,00 0,00 0 00 0.00 Cl OU 0,00 0 00
Page I0ofl0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1•
\ \ TN\SYS\DAT A \PROJ\0313.08\J'DI •CVR.OOC
APPENDIX D-3
PILOT TEST PART 2B
I
01 JO\ ~I'd -IP't .... 0101'9'l'IOIOOIIZ~""'80Cl~I
' S6'C '" LH L{:9[
LH '" lt"L lP)I
{11"[ '" Lt"L r,:91
' [If( [H ffL !)\';:<JI I
' tin '" i:n 6t 91
()II'( UH tn It 91
n1 nt " 1111'¥? M fl "' " " " .. "' " " " '" tu·, (0 L ff?l
ff( [6't '6"9 OZ-91
'
()('( Oli't t6'9 11:<JI
ff( U't 11·9 ?1:<JI I
H'( on Lt"9 u:91
'
ff[ [M"t "' u:91
' tn n·t "' (PJI
lll"f 1n ,., 11:91
' ff( ,n LL'? 6091
' ff{ (n ,c? 10:91 I
0 ' " tr[ tn ff? L0-91
' on IJL't ff'} ?0-91
" ' 110'( .,. on ,0,1
ll!l'l ~n 1/S"'? u:H
£H rn "' Of:$[
tH ". ff? liHI
(9"t rn ff? 11n1 I
11n an Ot"? ,n, ,,·t fft Lf? £HI
6"9[ ,nr " 60t .. fl n , " " " n " " o,·t on ff? 0['51
O't {O't {0'9 ?t:n
'"' 119'( ot·, ,o:n
' '" L'J'( '" 11HI I ,o-z S?'( t,·, (0-'1
" ' " ()(fl t1H '" CXJ-51
(li'I ff( ,n ,x:,, ,.., tn rn ":,1
,1·1 n·r o·, ,,:u
(11"1 (t'[ '"' CK:u
tll"I tH En H:tl I
'
Olrl on '" n:,1
6'9? " 6"11? " " " ; ' n, " " " " " tn tO"( rn·, H:t1
' "' llfl ,n (HI
' ' "o '" 11n tnl
' [ll'O O't ,n on,
' u·o '" O't lit:[J I
'
IIL'O an on u:n
" ' • uo Lt't ll("t 9t:(I
' ff() fft sn tt.£1
[<J'O U't ,z·, 11(:(1
[9"0 fft sn u:r1
B'lt " nat " "' " " " " " " t<.ro tt"t [['J u:£1
u·u lll't ,n ff[I I
u·u fft ,n tC:CI
"'' on tn 0['£1
' "o "'' 110·• 1t:u
H'U "' LO't u:o
' Ut'0 IMI t to't n:£1
' 0 11("0 16'1 oo, [l:[I
H"O L6"\ 116'[ u:£1
I
'
5£"0 ff\ L6'£ lt:£1
Hl"l ,o [CO [6"\ S6't 0t:£1
0£"0 ""' t6'£ 111:u
' LZ"U Lfl IIH 111:[1
ffO [11"1 SH tl:[1 I
oz·o Ofl tH z1:n
Hlt"O 11"0 11"0 11£"1 "'" 11:[1
Sl"O ' ,o ffO ,n u·, 60'{1
'
0 zrn Zl"I ff[ L0:£1
Hl'0 " tt"O Ol"O on lL"( 90=[1
sr,·o ti"O '" ., ' OL"( ,0:£1
H9"t ' '" ;oo S9'1 WT (0:{1
" rn·o t9'1 [9"( 10:n
I
0 000 ,.., t9'( OIHI
' 110·0-ffl (S"[ ,,:n
n·o-Lfl !It'[ zs:n
Ll'O-[fl 0'£ ~:z1
u·,1 ' " " "' H"O-ff\ L['( ,n1
nt nz "' tt'llt 0 0 " ., n ' " " " ., " " u·o-"' ff[ n:z1
on>· on zn or:z1
I
' as·o-ti)"[ [0"( sr:u
n1 " " " L9'0-(6"0 S6"t oz:t1
'
5L'O-"" u·z ,i:z1
' t6'0-"" on "Ht I ff!· "' fft 0:11
' IIZ"I· Z['O (["t [t:11
"' " " Sfl• ,ro Ll"t ((;II
Hl " " " o•n· 000 ZIJ"t tt:11
nz " 6'8t ;o .., " " " " " " Z9'1· tO"O-oo, rz:11
0 ' ' S9'1· ,o·o-... , 1z:11
u·1-Ll"O-,11·1 t1:11 I
IIL"I• ll"O· [11'1 [1:11
9'11[1 ' n, Ofl· oz·o-Zll'I u:11
()(\"1• om--u·1 90=11
S6"\· H'O-L9'1 (0:11
' OIH· ... t9'1 00:11
nz " t1'6t .. fl .. " " " " " [9"t• (I)"\-116'0 zz:01
nz " ff6t " ' " ' " " " " " Oil"(· 0t"I· z9·0 00:0I
L"9t " ff6t " .., "' ' " " " " u 11,·r--U>I· [O"O n:,
'
t9'(· lO t· ocro tt=6
" " " ' " ' 0 " " on-on-... 111:, ,n-ffl· ffO-,i:,
L6'£• L£"t· H"O-t0:6 I tO't-rn-"" 6{:1
LU"t-Lt'l· st·o-~=11
' [l"t-rn· ts"'O-ls-:11
Ll't-H"t· ffO-os::1
' I ' (wps) (w;~s) (%) (wdd) (.:,.) (SffU!) (wM) (w~~) {>J ".)"M""!) e:rM'lll) C,J "J'M""l) (wp) '"' C,J ,-(wp) "" (wM) bJ ".)"/t\""1) '"" ,.,, ,.,, ""' ""1.~SV "°ldAAS ""'!PH 1·3AS V/\O 1·3AS ... , """"" /\OU /\Or• ... , --· .... , -· """ ""'!PH 1 """"' """ mnJPH VhO ·dm:1£1~" ""'!l'H "' "'' =uc
P:,l»UO::) P:,Po.l>O::) P:,l»JJO::) p;:u:,:i..uo::, lll>!qW)' i:iI1no.:,vo i=iMJYD ""1'"'18 i:i111I.roI SP! U>M 1-'SV ll~M 1·3AS ""'I.L"""ll
I
' 'P·(wp',01@ I-SY) •1•a el l-Hd I
" Ht
"' (urp,) ~l•,,•~I +~cl%,)~-(. (woo)
M0l,ISV M0l.¾311S wnn,Ht·aAS V,\O1-llAS
p:1)3.1.UO:) p:,=J P:,J:IWO.) p:ll»lJO;)
"
" 9H IIZ 0
" LUZ
" n
" "
' " "
" " "
"
" " " "
" "
" " " "
1111; on.
tH U"L
tL'> H"L
IIH lll'L
>9> ffl
t9·s tn
ffS SO'L
'KS 110
(n [6"9
rn (11"9
tn a·9
oz·• mr9
LH LL"9
SH SL"9 (I.. £L"9
LOS L99 to·s L\19 so-S s11·-,
OCH m·9
fft to·11
11n 116"S
fft sn·
fft £6"S u·, u·s sn sn
H't [U
zn zn
111·, sn
n·t rn
110·, 11•,rs
n oot on
, .. U-111
(("6 0:111
H'6 1:t:111
on; ,,:111
Lt'6 6FU
H'6 u:111
L0'6 a:·u oo, u:11
ffll Ot:111
(6'11 61:111
l6"11 11i:11 , ... Ll'III
Lll"B >FIii sn tt:111
(11"11 £I'll
tll'II Zl'III
11n Oi:11
Ll"I W:111
SL.II 110:11
119'11 to=111 .,, ....
L9"8 £0,111
l9"11 00-81
(0'11 ,i=u oo, U:LI
l6'L rz:u
'6'L oz:L1
11rL !11:ll
lH ,1:L1
"n ffLI
(i'l ffLI
Oll"L ffLI
H'L IIO'LI
OL"L ,o:LI zn DIHI
(;),) ( H1l!)
dw~.1 amn:IJd
Ju:>!CIWY
(w:;, l'';;,;-=•=M;,.,_,;,,,0,,-;.1-+-;._•ocMc"o?,,'";"~!=~~="·'"·~•••',->;,;:~',1! (W_p) =" 1
w:,~~H .;;;.L c.,,,_="'='c'' 7f0':::,:::"c~""=="c1;"Hclc~c·;-coc''-1c~1"!0',~t;,,,.,e0:cM'c,"c~,,c. .=.'":'=,,,t.-'~~) -l-2c-f'ec:?'I ,~, UJW:J\i)
3"S -Pl\llO JV!) J;l(tll :)'I'!) -I 'UJ i"l8 PIUI JO
r1r(wp 01@ !'"SY) •1•a ez J.1•d
I
IP,'t\ 1-SV ttJM t-3,\S =uurrii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Part 2B Dau (AS-I@ 10 tfm).1ls R1111 Timc Monitori,, Probe Vacuum ln.W.C. Orfairu,l daL~ TI~ SVE AS Helium MN MN "'·' ,~. "'·' 1'1P-I OVAt. m) MP-lOVA(.-.m) MP-l OVA m) MP-40VAf ml MP-SOVAt., m I [hr:mln M ""' M A ' A ' A ' A o S A ' A ' C D A ' C D A ' C D A ' C D A ' C D "'·' "'·' MP-l '"'" MM K:~ -0.H -2,57 -4,17 0 ' l:Sl -0.!ll -2.!ll --1.U 0 ' 1:56 -0.0 -1.0 -4.07 ' ' 1;59 ,., -Ul "'·02 ' " I 9·01 -0.H •l.37 .J.97 ' " 9:IS -0.\l •1.IS .J.7S ' ~:II -0,01 -uo .J.70 ' 9:lJ 000 -2.02 .J.62 ' 9:25 O.OJ -1.91 -UB ' 10:00 0.62 •1.W •l.00 ' 10:U 0 ... ·I.OJ -2.6] ' I 11:()() 1.62 .(140 •l.00 10.1 I " " ' '' 11:0J '" -11.35 -1.95 " ' ,., 0 o, 0,6 11:06 1.72 -0.30 -1.90 ,., ' " '' u 11:12 1.12 -0.20 -I.SO ' ll;IJ ],83 -0.18 •l.71 ' "' " '' ' u 11:1• us -0.17 •J.77 I '·' u u u I 11:21 '" -0.0S -1.65 ' ll:2J ,.oo -0.0l -1.62 ' 11:2• 2.02 000 -1.60 ' 11:ll 2.17 0.15 •L.H ' 11:4) 2.ll 0.32 -1.21 11:45 2.37 O.JS •l.25 ,, H -S.6 , .. o, I 12:0S 2.70 0.61 •11,92 ' '' -IU.4 '" 11.l 12:15 2.17 "' -0.75 .. ' -IU 1-U o., 12:JO 1.95 0.91 ,., 12:25 l.0l l.02 •ll.31 -lU ' 12:lO J.12 1.10 ""' '' J.<, •U ..(1,1 " 12,,1 l.ll U2 ,,, ' ll:H l.37 us ..(1_25 ,., ,., -ISO -2.6 0 I 12::W l.H UJ . .o.n 11:Sl ].41 l.H ..().ll IUS UJ 1.Sl ... l]·OO 3.61 ,.w 0.00 1]:01 3,6] 1.62 '"' ll'OJ 3.67 1.6S '"' I ll:OS l.70 , ... 0.01 ll:06 l.72 1.70 0.10 ll:07 ],73 1.72 0.12 13:09 l,77 1.7!1 0.IS ' ll:11 HO 1.71 0.IS ' Ll:12 3.12 , ... 0.20 ' I 13:14 J,85 I.BJ 0.ll ll:16 l.H 1.87 0.27 ' ll:11 l.92 ,~ '"' ' Ll:lO 3.9S 1.93 0,ll I L.l:21 3.97 1,95 0,33 I ' IJ:12 l.98 1.97 0.37 13:lJ ,.oo 1.9! o.JS ' I Ll:24 4,02 '00 'ro ' ll:17 4,07 2.f)S 0,4S I ' ll:28 4,01 1.07 0,47 I IJ:J0 4.11 2.10 0"' o., ' ' '·' ' IJ:32 4.1$ 2.ll "' '' I 0) '' '' " ' 13:lS 4,20 2.1& 0.,1 -19.S I " '' I 13:37 4,23 1.12 oo, ' ' 13:ll us Ul o" I ., ,, ' " • ' o., ll:11 4.25 2.21 0,6) ' ' " u "" " 1):44 4.JS 2.ll 0.7] I ' u:,6 01 2.37 0.TI 1):47 HO 2.31 0.75 ' IH9 4.43 2.4l o" ' I 13:SO HS 2.43 O,U ll:Sl ,.o 2.H o" ll:SJ '·"' l.41 "' ' 14:lS S.0J '"' l.4l ' ' H:O S.42 l.40 ].BO , .. ' ' 14:49 HJ "' Ul -0) ' ' I 14:50 S.'5 3,0 1.11 -20.S " 14:Sl S,41 l.'5 us -0.5 14:SS Bl l.Sl l.92 ' ' 14:56 BS l,SJ 1.91 ' ' 0,00 '" ,w ,.oo ' ' ·---rrlli "' J.65 l.M I "' "' 2,07 ' ' I ts:os S.70 "' ,m ' 15:2<► 6.05 4.0) 2,41 ' 0 ' '' " IMO <,.12 4.IO 2.50 ' ' . " 1..1 IS:lJ 6.17 us l.~15 ' ' "' ' lUS 6.20 4.11 2.SB ' " " " '' JS:JS 6.H 4,13 2.6] ' ' " ,, '' " I JS.49 6.41 rn 2.11 ' IS:~l 6.45 w l.lJ I .9 & ·" IS:SJ '·"' 4.41 ,.u ' .. 16ilS 6.70 "' J,01 ' ' 1<,:0(, 6,72 4.70 l.10 ' 16:07 6.73 4.72 3.12 ' I 16.01 6.75 4.73 1.11 ' 16:09 6.77 v, l.lS I 16:ll 6.&0 4.7B J,lk I 16:IJ 6.83 4.12 1.22 ' ' 16:14 6.8S 4.11 l.ll I ' 16:IS 6.17 .., 1.25 16:16 6.k8 U7 "3.27 I I 16:lK 6.92 4,90 3.30 ' 16:20 6.9S 4,93 l.ll ' ' 16:H 7.0J "' l.H ' ' ' 16:48 7.42 S,40 rn ' ' ' 0 16 49 7.41 Hl 1.12 0' ' ,., ' ' 16~1 7.H "' "' _,, ' ' " I 16 SI 7.47 '·" "' I -9,11 If, Sl 7.48 H7 "' ' ' -0., 16 S7 1,S1 "' J,95 ' ' ' '" " ' q'Pq'ClllOIN".rtl'BDffl(A.S-1010_)_..,_ Page .1 of 10 I
I Put 2B Dita. (AS-I@ 10 cfm).1b
I
RWITime Moni1orin Probe V•i;uurn in W,C. Ori Rina! da!a
Time m AS Helium MP-l MN MP-l MP-4 MP-5 MP-I OVAtm m ' MP-20VA m MP-J OVA r, m MP-IOVA!n,01 MP-5 OVA rn .,
I [hr:nilii '"' ,., ""' A ' A ' A ' I A " A " A ' C D A ' C D A " C D A ' C D A ' C D
17:1IO ,.61 "" (_()() I , .• " 11:05 7.70 5.61 4.01 ' " " " " 11.oa 1.H 5.73 ,.ll " " " " 17:11 ,.., 5.71 ,.ia ' 17:1) ,.n H2 ,.12
I 11:l( 7.KS HJ UJ
17:lS 7.17 5,85 ,.n ' 17:16 7.BS 5.81 4.27 ' 17:10 1.95 Ul 01
17:11 7.97 5.95 4.35 ' 17:ZJ ,.oo 5.91 4.31 ' 17:2!1 "'' 6.02 4.42
I IB:00 1.62 ,.w '00 u " JB·OJ "' "' ,.o, _,, ' ISO-I "' "' "' .(( ' ]H-04 8,68 6,67 5.07 '·' JB·OB 1.7' 6,73 ,.n " ' " " 18:09 B.77 6,75 s.u "' " " "' I 18:lO 1.71 6,77 5.17 I ' 11:11 Ul "" S.10 " " ,., '·' 11:ll I.BJ 6.U .Ul ' ta:1' a.u 6,8) Hl ' 11:15 1.81 6.U HS ' '·' '' 11:17 ,., 6.&B HI '
I IK:ll B.91 6,90 5,.lo
11:19 1.93 6.112 .S,Jl " ,., " 11:ltl 1.95 6.93 5.ll
11:lJ ,.oo 6.91 HI I
11:27 9,07 7.0$ ,.,,
11:17 9.ll 7.21 "' I
11:}9 9,21 7.15 !1.65 ' I 11:41 9.10 7.ll '" 11:0 9JJ 7.Jl ,.n ' IB:41 9,ll 7,31 ,.n ' IN« '" HO '"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- -- -- ----- ---- - -- -
~;;;~;;;;;;;;~;;G;~;;;;;;;;i;;i;;;;~;;~;;;~~;;~~;~;;iiiii5i55i~~~iii~i5SESS~i~E;;~;;t;tt=~~=~~~~~t~~t~~
;;;;;;f;;;;;~;;;5;;i;~;~~~1;i;;;5~5;iiS~;;;~;~;;;~~;;;;;;;~;;~;;;~;;;;;t~~~t~~~~~ ~~~tt~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---i------_,_ -1--1-+-f--
0 •
C s
0
1-~[__ -
0
8
0 • 0
8
8
0 •
0 8
0 0
8 8
0 e
0
8
0 0
8 8
C
8
e
8
0 ---~----------3-
0 8
0 0
-~t--§
0 8 8
0 0 8 8
8 ~
0 0
8 8
0 C
8 8
0
8
0 8
0
8
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
~-.-•-8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
C 0
I ii •• -~ • g~;
' " •• -§
>~
t=i nr ;;
0 • ,. ;
" ·" •
;f ~
n[ • > , ! 0 ® . ►?.: . . -
i=!J ! ~ ~
n~ i ~ ,' 0 ,.
_,. ;
n§ ,
oP
>
•
n
0
I
Run Time
me SVE ,., Helium MP-I Helium
I (hnnin ""' ""' M A ' C
17.{IO 7.62 '"' "" ]7;05 1.10 '" ,m
17.0ll 1.15 5.11 Ul
11:11 ,..,, '" Ul ,.oo ,.oo '" 17:ll 7.BJ 5.ll Ul
I 17:U 7.Sj 5.U '" 17:i, H7 5.85 u,
l7:16 7.88 5.17 4.27
17:20 1.95 5,91 4.JJ
17:21 7.97 H5 U5
17:ll ,.oo Bl ,.11
17:1' 1,0l 6,02 "' I 11:00 "' '" ,.oo
11-01 1.67 6.65 !1.05
II:™ ... 6,67 "' tn~ ... '" "' 11-os 8,75 6.71 5.ll 0,00 0,00 0.07
IR:1>9 1,77 (,.15 ,.u
I 11:IO 1.78 ,.n :u1
11:12 "' ,w ,.w
11:ll UJ 6,82 !Ul
11:14 U5 '" w
11:1:J 1,17 "' w
11:17 ,w ,u 5.21
I 11:]I l.'2 ,.w '" 11:19 1.91 6.92 5.12
11:20 1,95 6,9) UJ
18:2J '00 '" UI
11:27 '"' '" U5
11:]7 "' 7.21 5.62
11:19 "' 1.15 5.65
I 11·41 9.10 7.21 '" IB:41 9.ll 7.12 5,11
18:4] 9.Jl 7.32 5.12
IH·4K "' 7.ffi SM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
q~UOl'l'Oll'l90ota(A,$.IQ10dm)<lo:i..w
I
Part 28 Data (AS-I@ 10 ~fm).ds
I
Ori inal dau
MP•l Helium MP-l Helium
D A ' C D A ' C
0.11> ,.oo '·"' ,m
'" "'
0.\7
'" OM 0.IO
0,08 '™
D
,.oo
0.0)
MP-I Helium% MP-5 llellnm %)
A " C D A " C D
0,11 D.Jl 0.12 '™ 0,00 0,00 ,.oo o.on
0119 II Ill 0.07 ,oo
o.m 000 Cl OU 0.00
PaJe 6 or 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Run TTme
Pu1 2B Data {AS.I@ 10 rfm).1ls
i
Com:ctcd data
Time :,VE AS Hchmn MP•l OVA In m MP-lOVA ml MP•l OVA /r, m
(hr:min (hr) ('hr) (br) Al B C D
MP• IMP· MP• MP•
Al B C
MP-IMP· MP-
D A B C D
MP-MP-MP-MP-MP-
I:~ ..O.H -2.57 4.17
9:02 -0.)5 -2.]1 -J.97
9:18 -o.oa 01.IO -l.70
'1:ll o oo -2.02 •l.62
9:H 001 °1.98 •l.51
1000 062 -1 . .W -JOO
IO:ll 0.911 -1.0l -2.61
11:00 1.61 -0.-10 -2.00 o o J0.5 65.L
ll:0l L.67 ..0.15 -1.'H 11.9 0 U 6.J
11:06 I.TI ..0.30 -l.90 126
ll:ll 1.12 ..0.10 -1.IO
ll:tl I.U ..0.11 -1.71
ll:l~ 1.15 ..0.17 -1.n
ll:ll 1.97 .0.05 -1.65
ll:l.l 2.00 ..0.02 -1.62
ll:H l.Ol 0.00 ·l.60
11:ll 2.17 D.15 -1.H
11:0 l.ll D.ll -1.21
11:H l..17 0.35 -1.ll
12:05 1.70 0 61 ..0.92
12:15 2.17 0,U -0.7' I
12:20 2.95 0,9) -067
12:2' l OJ I Ol -0.$1
11:JO J.11 1.10 ..()_j()
INl l.Jl 1.32 -0.!I
IU5 l.J7 1.35 -0 2J
12::!<l u, UJ ·<l.17
ll:Sl ),U 1.47 -0.1)
12:H l,Sl 1.52 •IIOI
IJ:()(l l.62 1.60 1100
ll:111 l.61 1.62 1101
1):03 ) 67 1.65 0 OS n:o, J,70 1.61 ooa
ll:06 J,72 1.70 0.10
ll.07 3.73 1.71 0.12
ll:09 l.77 1.7' o.U
13:11 l.1111 1.7B 0.ll
ll:12 l.12 I.BO 0.10
ll:U l.U UJ 0.23
ll:16 l.U 1.11 o.n
ll:lB l.92 1.90 O.)O
ll:20 l.9S l.9) 0,l)
ll:ll l.'17 \.93 o.H
IJ:21 3.91 1.97 D l7
ll:ll H•> l.91 0 JI
ll:24 4 01 l.OU O Ul
ll:17 4 07 203 OH I
ll:21 4.0B 207 047
ll:J0 4.12 2.10 0.50 I JUI
IJ:32 u, 2.ll 0.31 l.ll 1.1 16.ll 137 I
IJ:33 4.10 2.11 o.sa I
ll:37 4.lJ 2.21 062 I
IJ:JB 4.2' l.ll 061
ll:JB 4.23 213 061
ll:44 4.JS l.Jl 0.71
B:H 4.H l.'2 0 12
IJ:Sl 4.0 2.47 o 17
13:'3 4.50 2.41 OU
U:H S OJ J.02 1.41
lUO S,4' UJ 1.13
U:Sl S.47 US I.IS
14:.'l.'I ,.,1 J.'12 l.92
14:.S<, 5.5' l.SJ 1.93
IS.on 5 62 l.60 loo
1!1-!M 56& 367 207 I
15:0S S.70 J 6!1 l 01 I
IS:U, 605 4.03 l.4l 01 D ll,1 II(, l
lS:JO 6.12 4.LO l.loO I 421
17.9 61 ,,.
24.2 H.2 I
S-1.6 11.'J
"
'"
MP-.lOVAln1m MP•50VAfn ml
AIBCDABCD
MP-MP-MP-MP• MP-MP-MP-MP-
151 12.6 J0.5 12,6
19.l 11.6 12.6 12.6
IK9 41 <,J K4
JOS 12.6 14 84
" '
],:JK 6,2' 4.21 2.63 I
15:49 6 4) 4.42 2.12 !
15:loO 6 4' 4.43 l.U !
15:.'11 6.50 4.0 2.U I
1r,:11s 6.70 4 <,B l.1111 I
16.11(, 6.72 4.70 J.ID
16:07 6.73 4,7l J,\l l
lr,:01 6.7' 4,71 l.ll I
16:09 6.71 4,7' 1.1, 1
16:11 6IO 4,71 l.11 I
16:ll 6 BJ 4,U 3.22 I
16:14 6U 41l l,23 I
1<,:IS 6U
16:U, 6U
l(,:]K 6 92
1<,:10 69.'I
1(,25 7.0)
16 .'10 74S
](, ,1 7.47
Jt, 52 7.41
4,17 l.!7
4,911 ).JO
4.91 l.ll
SO! Hl
.'I 41 J.ll
.'I 4.'I l IS ,n ll7
!IH l9S
" ! 294
! II IR 9 67.l
lll I 1<,K 116 23.1
I ll7 l'H 26 .. 1 17.J
,.
"
lO.S 10,S
126 I
l'lge7ofl0
I Parl 2B Dala (AS-I@ 10 dm).ds
Rw,nme Con=tod Wit.a
nmc SVE AS Helium MP-1 OVA • MP,20VAtr . MP-JOYA ., MP-4 OVA (-m MP-SOVA'· m
I (h:'.mlll ,.,, ""' (hr) A, • C D A ' C D A ' C D A • C D A ' C D
17.0CJ 7.62 '"' 4.00 I lH ' 17:0S '" '" ·~ ' 119 "' '" ' 17.0! 1.n S.7J 4.ll ' '" " ' ' 17:11 ,.w ,,. 4.11
17:Ll 7.13 Hl Ul
I 17:U us HJ 4.ll
17:IS 1.11 S.U 4.lS
17:16 ,... H7 4.27
17:20 7.\IS 5.93 OJ
11:21 "' HS 4.JS
17:ll ,oo ,.ff 4.U
17:H I.OJ 6.02 Hl I
I 11.00 1,61 '"' ,.oo
IB:OJ 8.67 '" '" 11:04 '·" 6,67 '" 18:04 '·" 6,67 S.07
IK·OK K.7S "' !I.I] '" " 0 " u-m ,.n 6,7S S.IS 2111 ,,. '" ,.,
I 11:10 K,7B ,.n !1.17
11:12 I.Bl ,w !1.10 ' ' '" "' IR:ll UJ "' S.2l
11:U B.U "' rn
IB:IS "' 6.U S.lS '" JU
18:17 ,., 6,KB S.28
I 11:18 "' ,,.90 SJ0
11:19 R.93 6.91 S.Jl '" ". " IK:20 1.9' 6.91 S.ll
IB:23 ,.oo ,.ff S.ll
18:17 '·" 7.0S HS
ll:37 9.ll 7.22 Hl
11:39 9.27 7.H HS
I 11:41 9,)0 7.21 '" 11:4) 9.)J 7.Jl S.72
IB:43 9.JJ 7.12 S.72
IH·4K "' 7,40 ,.w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
;I;; ; ; ;; ;f~ [I~ ;f;:I; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ~ ;; ; ; ~ ;f:J; •• r ~ ~;; ~ ; ; ; ; G;;; ; i; ;;f; s ~ s ~1~; f; ~ ~ ~ ; ;; 1 s 2 ~ ~ ~; e ; • ~;;;Is;;; ~ ~ g ~ ~; ti~ ~ ~ ~ ; ; ~ § ~ § ~;; 1 ; ; ; ;; ; ~ Ii
s;s;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;GG;;;;;5l;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;;s;i;;s;;ss;E;;=~==t=~ !~
" ;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;i;;;;;;;;;;;;;s;s;~;;;;;~~;;;;;;s;5si~~~iiiSi;s;;;;i;;~;;;~~~~:====~tt~~~~t~t~ Rti
X ;;;;E;;;;;;~;;;s~;i;;;~~~;;;;;;s~E55is;;;E~~§;~;;~;;;;;;;;;~~;;;~;~;;~~g~~~:=~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~ !f
-1--- - -
C
8 -j_ --8
0
8
0
L -0
8
0 •
0 0 C 0 ~ ►,. 8 g 8 g ,_
0 0 0 -----+-• 0 ; Cl i 8 8 g 8 e 0 0 C 0 ~nf 8 8 8 8 ; 0
8 8 0 0 " ~c 8 8
0
8
0
8
0 •
0 0 0 ~>~ 8 8 8
0 ;ci:~ 8
0 0 0 ~ ~ • 8 8 . o,
• 8 ~ 0~
0 < 0 • 0 8 _; . ~ ► 8 ; ~-!
0 ~; ~o • g • C
8
0
8 ~c '
0 C ' 8 • ;>
C ~-8
0 ~o 8
8 ' ,c
8 ~>
0 ' g ,.
0 ' 8 ,o
0 ;o 8
• ;.
" • ~ • > :c
® -:;
! ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P■rt 28 Oat■ (AS.I@ 10 cfm).11,
Time
"" 17:00
17·0S
17:0B
17;11
17:ll
Run Time
SVE AS Hcliwn MP-1 Helium
(hr) (hr) (hr) A B C D
7.62 5,60 4 W
7.70 5.68 4 (II
7.IO 5.71 UI 0.00 000 OjO 060
7.U !1.U 4.ll
17:U 7,U UJ 4.21
17:16 7.U 5.87 U7
17:21 7,97 5.95 4.H
17:ll
17:H
11-00
la.OJ
11:01
11:09
1.00 S.98
I.OJ 6.02
1.62 6.60
167 6.65
S(,K 6 67
I 6B 6.67
1.75 6.7l
1.77 6.n
""' "' '" '" S. \l 0,00 o DO 0,26 o 6--1
MP-1 Helium %
A B C D
,.oo o.n 0.1,
I
Correc1cd dat.o
MP-l Hellwn
A B C D
0,26 0 04 ow
11:JO
IH:ll
1.71 6.77 au 6.KO
S.17 0 II 0,19 (UR I
,.ro
IB:ll I.I) 6.12 H2 0.30 ' 0.15 0.11
18:14 1.U 6.BJ 5.2]
IB:IS 1.H 6.U S.H
11:17 1.90 6,U 5.21
11:1! 1.92 6.IIO 5.:W
U:19 1.91 6.92 s.n
lB:20 1.95 6.91 .UJ
18:ll 9.00 6.91 SJ&
11:27 9.07 7.05 SH
11:17 9.ll 7.21 562
JB:19 9.27 7.H 56'
IB:41 9.10 7.21 H,B
IB:U 9,JJ 7.J2 5.72
11.0 9.ll 7.32 5.72
MP.4 Helium
A B C D
0 .. 14 II.JR 0.26 0 00
MP-,Hd!um %
A B C D
0.00 0 00 0.00 0,00
OIX) OOIJ O!~l 0.CXl
Page Jn of 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\\TN\SYS\DATA\PROJ\0313.08\PDl•CVR.DOC
APPENDIX D-4
PILOT TEST PART 3
I
Part 3 Data (AS-2@ 5 cfm).lls
I Run Time SVll-1 Well AS-2 Well Li01Jid Smar.ior Inlet Blwrln. GAC Inlet GAC Outlet Ambia11 Corrc,;tcd Co""'°'
TI= SVE AS lldium Vacuum Temp OVA Helium Flow Pressure Temp !lclium Fl= Vacuum Temp Va.cuum P1essu1c Tm,p. #IO~~ •?OVA Prenure Temp SVE Flow AS Flow
(hr:min) (hr) ~•l ~., (in.W.C.) ("C) {ppm) (¾) (cfm) (psi) ("CJ (¾) (cfm) (in.W.C.J ("C) (in.W.C.) (in.W.C.) ("Cl (ppm) /ppm) (in.1111) ('C) (scfm) (scfm)
Ul -0.10 -1.13 0 26 0 0 " 0 OI " I 2BK2 " " us 000 •I.OJ I I
I 9:29 O.S2 -0.52 74 II 2B 7) " 1.2 IOI IJ 21.B 27 24,9
9:SO 0.87 -0.17 I
9:33 092 -0.12 ' I
9:S4 0,93 -0.10 2.S I
9:SS 0.95 -0.0S . I
9:57 0,9& -0,05 I
I "I)() I.OJ 01)() I
lO·OO l.03 000 I
"I)() l.03 0.00 3 36 I I S4
LD.03 1.08 0.05 I
10.03 1.08 0,05 I
I 10,04 I.JO 0,07 74 II 29 ' 77 26 1.2 "' 99 I lR.79 30 25,7
10,04 1.10 0,07 I I
10,05 1.12 "' ' I
10:05 1.12 "' 3 JS JS ' I S.3
10:06 I.\J 0.10 I
I 10:08 1.17 O.lJ I
10:12 l.2] 0.20 '
.,
10:14 1.27 0.23 0 I I
10:15 1.28 0.25 I
10:17 1.32 0.28 I
10:18 1.33 0.30 I
I 10:20 1.37 0.33 4 34 I 7.0
10:25 1.45 0.42 4 37 ' I 7.2
10 45 1.78 o.n 4 36 I 7.1
10:50 1.S7 0,83 I
10:50 l.87 0,83 '
I 10,50 l.87 "' ' I
10:50 1.87 O.KJ I
10.50 l.87 OBJ I
10:55 l.95 0,92 S.2 0 I
!0,55 l.95 0 92 ' I
10:55 l.95 o.n I
I 10:55 1.95 0.92 I
10:55 1.95 0.92 ' I
10:55 1.95 0.92 ' I
10:55 l.95 0.92 s 38 ' I 9.1
11:08 2.17 l.13 74 19 S.2 0 29 76 30 1.4 8'1 100 0 0 28,6 32 25,8
I
11:28 2.50 l.47 I
11:21 2,50 1.47 I
l 1:28 2.50 1.47 I
l 1:29 2.52 1.48 I
l 1:29 2.52 ].48 I
1 l:JO 2.53 l.50 6B 0 I
I 11:30 2.53 l.50 I
11:30 2.53 uo I
I ]:JO 2.53 1.50
I l:30 2.53 1.50
12:00 3.03 21)() 7.2 0
I 12:00 3.03 2.00
12:00 3.03 2.00 I
12:00 3.03 2.00 I
12:00 3.03 2.00 ' I
12:00 3.03 2.00 ' I
12:16 J.30 2.27 74 19 7.2 0 2B 76 32 1.4 8'1 103 21.7] JS n.1
I 12:SO 3.87 2.83
12:SO 3.87 2.83
!2:50 3.87 2.83
12:50 3.87 2.83
12:50 3.87 2.B3 '
I
12:54 l.93 2.90 0 2S 00
13:15 4.28 3.25 74 19 2B ' 7S 33 1.4 841 102 0 0 28.68 36 25.l
13:15 4.28 3.25 7.S 0 I
13:20 4.37 3.33 ' IJ:20 4.37 3.13 I
13:25 4,45 3.42
I ll:30 4.53 3.50
13:31 4.55 3.52 0 17.5 1 " 13:33 4.58 3,55
14:IO S20 4,17 74 1B 7.8 0 28 7S 3J 1.4 841 103 28.6 38 n.1
. 14:30 5.53 4.50 7.B 0 I
I 14:JO 5.53 4.50
~ 5.53 4.50
14:JO 5.53 4.50 I
14:30 5.53 4.50
14:JO 5.53 4.50
lS:lO 6.20 5.17 74 20 '·' 28 ' 7S 33 1.4 841 "" 0 0 28.62 " 25.l
I 15:12 6.23 HO 0 6 00
lS:15 6.28 5,25 I
15:15 6.28 5.25 I
15:15 6.28 5.25 I
15:15 6.28 5,25 i
15:15 6.28 5.25 I I 15:JO 6.53 DO ' I
P13e I orl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I P■rt J Data (AS-2 @:5 dm),lls
Run Time Monitorim Probe Vacuum lin.W.C.
Time SVE AS lldium ._0M_P_-_, ,....~_M,P_•2~+-"M---.-P-_l,.__,;...,_M,P_S~+--M~P-_>,,...,
(hr:min) (hr) (hr) (hr) A B A B A B A B A B
U2 -0.IO -l.!J
8:58 0.00 •l.0l
9:S0 087 -0.17
9:5) 0.92 -0.12
9:54 0.9) -0.10
9:55 0.95 -0.08
9:57 0.98 -0.05
10:00 I.OJ 0.00
10.00 1.03 0,00
10.00 I.OJ 0,00
10:03 1.08 0.05
ID.OJ 1.08 0.05
1.10 0,07
]0,04 1.10 0,07
10 05
10:05
l.12 0 08
l.12 0 08
10·06 l.13 0.10
10.08 1.17 0.IJ
10:12 UJ 020
10:14
10:15
1.27 0 2J
1.28 025
10:17 1.32 0,28
10:18 1.33 OJO
10:20 LJ7 0.3)
10:25 1.45 0-42
1.78 0.75
10:50 1.87 0.83
10:50 l.87 0.8)
10:50 1.87 0.83
10.50 1.87 0.U
10:50 1.87 0.aJ
10:55 1.95 0.92
I0:55 . 1.95 0.92
10·55 1.95 0.92
1.95
10:SS 1.95
10:55 1.95
I0:55 1.95
ll :08 2.17
I 1:28 2.50
11:28 2.50
11:28 2.50
11:29 2.52
11:29 2.52
I \:JO 2.53
11:30 2.53
11:J0 2.53
11:30 2.53
· 11:J0 2.53
12:00 l.03
12:00 3.03
12.00 3.03
12:00 l.0l
12:00 3.03
12:00 3.03
0.92
092
0.92
0.92
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.48
1.48
I.SO
1.50
I.SO
1.50
1.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12:16 l.J0 2.27
12:50 J,87 2,83
12:50 J,87 2.83
12:50 J.87 2.83
12:50 1.87 2.83
12:50 J,87 2.83
12:54 J.93 2.90
11:15 4.28 3.25
13:15 4.28 3.25
13:20 4.37 3.33
13:20 4.37 3.33
13:25 4.45 3.42
ll:31 4.55 3.52
13:33 4.n J.SS
14:10 uo 4.17
14:30 5.53 4.50
]4:)0 5.53 4.50
14:30 5.53 4.50
14:J0 5.53 4.50
14:30 5,53 4.50
14:10 5.53 00
15:10 6.20 5.17
15:12 6.23 5.20
15:15 6.28 5.25
15:15 6.28 S,25
15:15 6.28 5,25
15:15 6.28 5.25
15:15 6.28
15:30 653 5.50
10-4
10,6
10.6
10.4
JO 2
10.4
10.4
10.4
6
2.6 o.,
0.2
62
08
06
"
''
0.4
-0.6
,.2
-1.6
'' -l.2
-0,4
,.2
-0.,
-06
,.2
-0.4
MP-10VA(n m) MP-20VA(n m)
A 8 C ID A B C D
I
I I
2.16.2561B9
I 47.8'4.854
1.2 2.5 2.6 ' ]J
H 2.2 1.4 0.2
0.02 1.8 2.4 , 21
6 4 1.3 1.2 1.6
l.9 1.3 1.4 14
63 4.1 2.2
12 I 1.6 IJ8
2.5 8.2 LS 1.9
1.2 l.2 LI '21
2.2 2.3 1.6 1.3
I I.I 15
'' 2 1.4 l.2
MP-JOYAi )
A 8 C 0
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
251 U 7.51 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24 041 II o
MP-40VA( m
A B C D
10 l2
I 26 28 14
32 0 4 2 21 1.3
32 28 10 0 2
)6 I 15 13
42 36
I
I
JS o 8 12
40 28 25 1.6
36 o.s 11 I
39 28 lR
34 0.4 85
42 29 18
I
A U C D
12 I 4.6
22 4,8 1.6 3.2
3 l.2 2.6
33 24 1.2 2.2
28 24 5.5 2.8
36 36 JO 1.4
38 38 2.4 1.2
Page 2 of3
I Part J Data (AS-2 @5 cfm),i:ls
Run Time MP-I Helium %\ 1'lP-2 Helium ¾l ' MP-3 llc!ium ¼ MP-4 Helium 4%1 MP-5 Helium ¼\
I Time SVE AS Helium A B C D A B C D •A B C D A B C D A B C D
(hr.min) (h,) (h,) (h,)
1:52 -0.10 .J.1) :
B:5B 0.00 -I.OJ I
9:29 0.52 -0.52
9:50 0.87 -0.17 ' I 9:53 0.92 -0.12 I
9;54 0.93 -0.10
9:SS 0.95 -0.08
9:57 0.98 -0.05
10:00 I.OJ 0.00
I I0:00 I.OJ 000
10:00 I.OJ 0.00
10:0) 1.08 0.05
10:0l I.OS 0.05
10:04 1.10 0,07
I 10:04 1.10 0.07 I
10:05 1.12 oo,
10:05 1.12 0.0&
10:06 1.13 0.10
I0:08 1.17 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.00
10:12 1.23 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.04 000
I 10:14 1.27 O.lJ
10:IS 1.28 0.25 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00
10:17 Ul 0.28 0.09 0,11 004 0.00
10:18 1.31 0.30 000 0.20 0.00 0.00
10:20 1.37 o.n
I 10:25 1.45 0,42 '
10:45 1.78 0.1S
10.50 1.87 0,83 /
10:50 1.87 0.83
10:50 1.87 0.83 '
I 10:50 U7 0.8] I
10:50 1.87 0.13 I
10:55 1.95 0.92
10:55 1.95 0,92 0 00 0.20 0.00 000
10:55 1.95 0.92 004 000 0.00 0.00
JO,SS 1.95 0,92 o.oa 0 00 0.00 0.00
I 10.55 1.95 0.92 0.07 0.0) 0.04 0.00
10.55 1.95 0.92 000 000 0 00 0.00
10:55 1.95 0.92
11:08 2.17 1.13 I
I 1:28 2.50 1.47 '
I 11:28 uo 1.47
11:28 2.50 1.47 0.09 0 00 000 0.00
11:29 2.52 1.48 I
11:29 2.52 1.48
11:30 2.53 uo '
I 11:30 2.53 I.SO 0 00 0 001 0,00 0.00
11:30 2,53 uo 0,05 0.00 0.00 0.00
11:30 2.53 uo 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.00
11:30 2.53 uo 000 000 000 0.00
12:00 3.03 2.00
12:00 3.03 2.00 000 0.001 0,00 0.00
I 12:00 3.03 2.00 000 000 0.00 0.00 I
12:00 3.03 2.00 0.06 000 0.00 0 00
12:00 3.03 2.00 / 0 06 0.00 0.00 0.00
12:00 3.03 2.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12:16 3.30 2.27
I 12:S0 3.87 2,83
12:50 3.87 2.83 '
12:50 3.87 2.83 /
12:50 3.87 2.83
12:S0 3.87 2.83
12:54 3.93 2.90 I
I 13:15 4.28 3.25 I I
13:15 4.28 3.25 I ' 13:20 4.37 3.33 0 00 0.001 0,00 0.00 I
IJ:20 4.37 3.33 I 0 00 0 04 0.00 000 /
13:25 4,45 3.42 004 0.00 0.00 000
I 13:J0 4.53 3.50 0.06 0.00 000 0.00
13:31 4.SS 1.n I
13:33 4.58 J.55 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
14:10 5.20 4.17 I
14:30 5.53 4.50
I 14:30 5.53 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 00 000
14:30 5.53 4,50 0.00 000 000 000 ' 14:30 5.53 4.50 0,03 0.00 0.00
14:30 5.53 4.50 I 0.04 0.00 0.00 000
14:J0 S.Sl 4.50 000 000 0.00 0.00
15:10 6.20 5.17
I 15:12 6.23 S.20
15:15 6.28 S.25
15:15 6.21 5.25
15:IS 6,28 5.25
15:15 "' S.25 I
I 15:15 6.28 5.25 I
IS:J0 6.53 5.50 I I
Pagc3 of3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ \ TN'-.'iYS\DAT A \PROJ\0313.08\.PDI-CVR.DOC
APPENDIX D-5
PILOT TEST PART 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nmc
(hr.min)
9:25
9:25
9:"
9:27
9:30
9:30
9:55
10:03
10.0S
10:10
10:10
I0:10
10:12
10:12
10:20
10:20
10:22
10:23
10:24
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
I0:51
I0:51
J0:51
ll:00
J l:00
11:02
11:03
11:05
11:06
11:10
II: 15
11:15
11:11
11:22
11:41
11:43
11:44
I J:45
11:46
L 1:47
1 l:47
11:4!
11:48
I 1:49
Jl:50
12:00
12:07
12:0S
12:01
12:09
12:IO
12: II
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:55
Jl:00
JJ:02
13:25
11:n
13:30
13:32
13:34
13:36
13:44
14:00
14:14
14:42
14"43
14:45
15·00
15:07
Run Tune
SVE AS
M (h,)
-0,63 -2.42
-0.63 -2.42
-0.63 -2.42
~.60 -2.38 ~,, -2.33 ~,, -2.33
-0.13 -1.92
000 -1.71
0.03 -1.75
0.12 ·l.67
0.12 -1.67
0.12 -1.67
O.IS •1.63
O.IS •1.6)
0,21 -I.SO
0.21 -1.50
0.32 -1.47
0.33 -1.45
0.35 -1.-43
0.50 -1.21
0.50 -1.21
0.50 -1.21
0.52 -1.27
O.S2 -1.27
0.92 -0.17
0.92 -0,87
0.92 -0.87
0.95 -0.83
0.95 -0.U
0.91 -0.10
LOO -0.71
I.OJ -0.75
LO, -0.73
1.12 -0,67
1.20 -0.U
1.20 -0.5K
u, -0.53
1.32 -0.47
1.63 -0.15
1.67 -0.12
1.61 -0.10
1.70 -0.oa
1.721 -0,07
1.73 -0,05
1.73 -0.05
1.75 -0.03
1.15 -0.03
1.77 -0.02
1.71 0.00
1.95 0.17
2.07 "' 2.0K 0.30
2.01 0.30
2.10 0,32
2.12 0.33
2.IJ 0.35
2.17 O.JI
2.11 "' 2.11 0.40
2.20 0.42
2.77 0.98
2.71 LOO
2.n LOO uo 1.02
2.12 1.03
U2 '03
2.IJ J.05
2.11 I.OS
2.15 1.07
2.17 I.OK
2.95 1.17
2.91 1.20
J,17 UI
3.42 1,63
lO 1.67
3.0 1.70
3.52 J.73
3.55 1.77
"" l,9()
J,95 2.17
02 2.73
4,65 2,17
4,67 HI
4.70 2.92
4.95 3.17
5.07 3.2K
SVE-1 Well
Helium Va,;uuml Temp. OVA Helium Fl-~,, (in.W.C.) (00
_,
(%) (dm)
23
0 3)
" "
74 "
" 74 LO
,..
"
l.2
74 " "
'
" "
74 "
Part 4 Data (AS-I@ IO cfm).ds
AS-I Well U"'•id r lnlct Bl,.Tln, GAC Inlet GACOutlct Ambient """""" Co"""'
Pn:ssun: Tanp. Helium Flow Vacuum] Temp. V~urn P11:ssun: Temp. #l OY 1120V Pn:ssun: Temp. SVE Flow AS Flow
(po) CCJ (o/o) (cfm) (Ql.W.C.) (°CJ (in.W.C.) (in.W.C.) ('C) (ppm) (ppm) (tn.Hg) ("C) (scfm) (scfm)
' '
0 0 30 ' 0 29 28.75 JI 0.0
3) 79 " .. 12 " 0 0 28.75 JI 29.3
'
'
'
' ' '
29 " 30 "' L' " 0 0 28,74 JI 2H
'
'
'
15.2
JO ' " " " L' "' 28,7 " 26.H
'
' '
'
' ' 2l .. 15.2
' I
'
JO ' " 32 " 12 "' 0 0 28.68 " 26,8
" " 15.0
I
'
' JO ' " l) " 12 "' 0 0 21.66 " 26.9
'
30 " ll " 12 "' 0 0 28.62 " 26.S
'
Page I o(4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lime
(hr:min)
15:10
lS:12
15:14
lS:45
15:45
15:47
IS:49
IS:51
IS:53
16:00
16:02
16:48
16:SO
16:SS
17:00
17:02
17:J0
18:00
18:06
18:08
18:09
11:IO
lH:12
lH:14
U:17
18:19
18:20
18:24
18:27
SVE
(hr)
Run Time
S.12 3.33
S.IS J,37
5.U 3.40
S,70 3.92
S.70 3.92
5.73 3.95
S.77 3.98
HO -4.02
S.BJ 4.05
S.9S 4.17
6,75 4,97
6.71 S.00
6.17 S.08
6.95 S.17
6.98 no
7.12 S.JJ
7.95 6.17 x.os 6.27
I.OS 6.30
1.10 6.32
B,12 6.33
k.15 6.37
I.II 6.40
1.23 6 4S
8.27 6 4&
B.2& 6.50
05 6.S7
& 40 6,62
SVE•I Well
Helium Va,;uum Temp. OVA
(hr) (in.W.C.) ("C) (ppm)
,. II
,. II ,. II
~'P"l••1• .. -•._1..,._, ....... ) ... l'"O
Helium
(o/.)
Flow
(cfin)
IO
Part 4 Data (AS-1@ 10 cfm).:ds
AS-I Well
P=surc Temp. Helium
(psi) {"C) {'!.)
22 "
20
Linuid r Inlet
Flov,· Vacuum Temp
(cfm) (in.W.c.) (0C)
30 76 "
76 30
30 76 27
Blwr ln, lhccGeAeC"rl,.lo=,+.,,',G,iA,'C'i°"~";,",ri~=Ac•,;blc;~:,''=.; ,cv,~, ,""'1-,· °",,~,1-,,· Vacuum.I Pressure Temp. #I OV N20V Pressure Temp u u
(in.W.C.) (in.W.C.) ("C) {ppm) (ppm) {in.Hg) (0C) (scfm) (stfm)
1.2 10, 0 28.6 34 26.7
IS.4
" 1.2 10, O 28.SS " 26,7
" I03 0 28.52
14.2
Pll6c2of4
I Part 4 Data (AS-I@ 10 crm).lls
I Run Time Monitorin Probe Vacuum in.W.C.1 MP-I OVA ( MP-20VA(11 m\ MP-30VA(n m\ MP-40VA(n1ml MP-5 OVA (nm\
lime SVE AS Helium MP-L MP-2 MP-3 MP4 MP-S A B C D A B C D A B C D A D C D A B C D
(hr.min) (h,) ~·· ~·• A B A B A B A B A B I
9:25 -0.63 •2,42 0) , .. 2.1 2.2 ,.2
9:25 -0.63 -2.42 ' 6.3 2.S 3.S 2
I 9:2$ -0.63 -2.42 0.2 " 0.2 12 o.,
9:27 -0.60 -2.38
9:30 -0.55 -2.33 o• 40 24 13 0.3
9:30 -0.SS -2.33 0.2 " " 3.6 L6
9:55 -0.13 -1.92
I 10:03 0.00 -1.78
10:0S 0,03 -1.15
10:10 0.12 -1.67 SA
I0:10 0.12 -1.67 3.2
10:10 0.12 •1.67 I
10:12 0.lS -1.63 o.,
I 10:12 0.15 -1.63 0.2
J0:20 0.2K -I.SO ., 13 II 0
10.20 0.21 -I.SO '" 16 " ,.
10,22 0.32 -1.47 I 1.3 L2 ,.
10,23 0.33 -1.45 6 ,., ,., 1.2
I 10,24 O.JS -1.43 34 0.7 3.3 ,.,
\0,33 O.SO -1.21 IO
10:33 o.so -1.21 ,,
10:33 O,SO -UK 2.6 ' 10:J.( O.S2 -l.27 " 10:34 0.52 -1.27 M
I 10:SS 0.92 -0,&7 ]0_4
10:SB 0.92 -0,17 6
10:58 0.92 -o.n 2.1 I
11:00 0,95 -0.83 ' 11:00 0.9S -0.Bl 1.3 L< I.S '7
11:02 0.91 -o.ao • LS ,., -,
I 11:03 1.00 -0,78 ., OA 2.B ,.,
I ]:OS I.OJ -0.75 3B 7.6 • 0
11:06 I.OS -0.73 36 16 ,.. ,,
11:10 1.12 -0,67 10.4 '
11:l!i 1.20 -0.!iS 6.2
I ll :l!i 1.20 -0.58 2.,
11:IK 1.25 -0,53 OI
11:22 1.32 -0,47 0.2 ' 11:41 1.63 -0.15 0 06 0.9 ' 11:43 1.67 -0.12 I.I LS I 0.7
11:44 1.68 -0.10 " 04 2.2 ,..
I 11:45 L70 -0,0H .. 7.B s., 0
11:46 1.72 -0.07 I 32 ,0 1.3 LS
11:47 l.73 -0.05 10,6 ' I
11:47 1.73 -005 0.2
11:48 i.n -0.03 I , ..
11:48 1.75 -0.03 I o., I
I 11:49 1.77 -0.02 6.2 I
11:!i0 1.7K 0.00 i
12:00 1.95 0,17 I I I
12:07 2.07 0.2S i 0.1 o., u 3 .•
12:08 2.0H 0.30 I 2.3 2.6 ,. o.,
I 12:08 2.0H 0.30 I
12:09 2.J0 0.32 I 27 0 3 1.4
12:JO 2.12 0.33 0_41 34 • 3.B '·' 12:11 2.13 0.35 I 0.2 ' JO ' 2 ,.,
12:13 2.17 0,38 4.2 ' 12:14 2.18 0,4(} , .. I
I 12:14 2.IK 0.40 • I
12: 15 2.20 0,42 I
12:49 2,77 0.98 i I 0.6 •• 3
!2:50 2,78 1.00 I i .. , 3.3 3.S 0.6
12:50 2,78 LOO I
12:51 2.80 1.02 I ' 32 I 0
I 12:52 2.S2 1.03 '·' I
1n2 2.&2 1.03 2 I I
12:53 2.!3 1.05 -13 I I
12:53 2.n 1.05 I -1.91
12:54 2.15 1.07 I 32 ' 6.6 0
I 12:55 2.17 I.OS I I 0 ,. •. 6 o., o.,
13:0(J 2.95 1.17 I I
!3:02 2.9M 1.20 I
13:25 3.37 J.5« 1., I ' " 0.3 01 2.2
13:2~ 3.42 1.6) I I I 6 .• ,., 3.41 o.,
]3;3(1 3.45 1.67 _,. I ' I 42 12 ,.
I 13:32 3.48 1.70 I I I
13:34 J.!i2 1.73 I -6,21 I 33 ,. S.6 0
13:36 u, 1.77 I 0.1 ' 22 .. , I 1.2
13:44 ),68 1.,0 -9.61 ' 14,00 3,95 2.17 I
14:)4 4.S2 2.73 6 I 0.1 II 3.3 3.S
I J◄:42 4,65 2.K7 -0 6 I
J◄:◄ 3 ◄,67 2.KK -21 I I I
14:◄S 4.70 2,92 I I -0 ., I
13:00 4.')5 3.17 I I I I
15:07 5.07 3.21 I I I I II UI I.I
I
Page 3 of 4
I
I Part 4 Data (AS-t@ 10 dm).d.1
I
I Run lime Moniwrin Prob: V;,ruum (in.W.C. MP-J OVA(n ml MP-2 OVA (01 ml MP-3 OVA( MP-40VA MP-SOVA(
T= SVE AS Helium MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-< MP-5 A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
(hr.min) "'' "'' "" A B A B A B A B A B i
IS:IO 5.12 3.3) 22 I
I 15:12 S.IS 3.37 " ,. 1.9 0
U:14 5.11 3.40 34 '' 08 I
15:45 5.70 3.92 4.6 0' II J.l 4.5 •
15:45 S.70 3,92 -0.6 '' J.S 0.6
IS:47 S.7l 3.95
15:49 S.77 3.98 -22 " 1.3
I IS:Sl HO 4.02 -11.4 ' JS
IS:SJ 5.13 4.DS -U ' 20 " 0.l 0.4
16:00 HS 4,17
16:02 5.91 4.20
16:48 6.75 4,97 • " 12 J.S s.,
16:50 6,78 l.00 .. -0.2 ' lO 3.4 0.2
I 16:55 6.17 5.08 .25 28 0.l
17:00 6.95 5.17 .\ 1.7 ., 26 12 0
17:02 6,98 S.20 -2.& ' 36 34 0.4 0.2
]7;]0 7.12 5.33
Jl:(l() 7.95 6.17
I 11:06 8,0S 6.27 J.S 0.l " . ' 6.4
lK:OS &,08 6.30 -0.2 12 4.2 " 11:09 a.JO 6.32 .25 , JO 0.1
11:10 1.12 ·6.33 -12 2l ' 0
18:12 8.15 6.37 -3,2 ' 36 JS I 0.7
11:14 I.I& 6.40
I U:17 1.23 6,45
U:19 8.27 6.48
U:20 8.21 6.50
U:24 1.35 6.n '
18:27 K.40 6.62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pagc 4 or 4
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' APPENDIX D-6
PILOT TEST GROUNDWATER
DEPTH DATA
\\TN\SYS\DATA'\PROJ\0313.08\J'DI-CVR.DOC
- - -- - -- - - --------- -
GROUNDWATER DEPTH DA TA
Run Time MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
Time SVE AS Helium B C D B C D B C D B C D B C D AS-I AS-2
(hr:min) (hr) (hr) (hr) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Part I Pilot Test (8/18/98)
10:25 -3.83 34.32 ..
l0:29 -3.77 32.83
10:32 -3.72 33.83 -
10:34 -3.68 34.47
l0:37 -3.63 34.91
l0:40 -3.58 33.67
l0:42 -3.55 35.01
14:15 0.00 Started SVE unit; target extraction flow rate 9 cfm (indicated)
15:56 1.68 34.84
15:57 1.70 34.39
15:58 1.72 33.83
15:59 I. 73 32.78
16:01 1.77 34.32
16:13 1.97 Increased target extraction flow rate to 18 cfm (indicated)
--. -------. ----33.57 ---
. . 16:52 .2.62 ----------. --------
16:53 2.63 34.99
17:33 3.30 34.84
17:34 3.32 34.38
17:35 3.33 33.83
17:36 3.35 32.78
17:37 3.37 34.36
17:38 3.38 33.57
17:39 3.40 34.92
17:45 3.50 Increased to maximum extraction flow rate of -29 cfm (indicated)
19:05 4.83 34.84
19:07 4.87 33.83
19:07 4.87 34.40
19:08 4.88 32.84
19:09 4.90 34.47
19:11 4.93 33.58 34.92
19:20 5.08 Shut down SVE unit; Part I testing completed
I
q:fproj/0313.08/Perts 1234 GW Data.xis Page I of5
---------- - - -- --- ----GROUNDWATER DEPTH DATA
Run Time MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
Time SVE AS Helium B C D B C D B C D B C D B C D AS-I AS-2
(hr:min) (hr) (hr) (hr) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fl) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fl) (ft) (fl) (fl) (ft) (fl) (ft)
Part 2A Pilot Test (8/20/98)
9:02 -0.35 -2.50 -5.75 33.87 35.25
9:04 -0.32 -2.47 -5.72 34.52
9:05 -0.30 -2.45 -5.70 33.06
9:06 -0.28 -2.43 -5.68 33.91 .
9:08 -0.25 -2.40 -5.65 34.72
9:10 -0.22 -2.37 -5.62 35.10
9:23 0.00 -2.15 -5.40 Stilrted SVE unit; target extraction flow rate 30 cfm (indicated)
11:32 2.15 0.00 -3.25 Started AS-1 sparging; target injection flow rate 5 cfm (indicated)
12:04 2.68 0.53 -2.72 6.5% He injected for 6 min.
14:47 5.40 3.25 0.00 5.1%He injected for 5 min.
15:40 6.28 4.13 0.88 32.79
15:41 6.30 4.15 0.90 a[9.'71R1
15:49 6.43 4.28 1.03 ,<1-,i,19)/J
15:51 6.47 4.32 1.07 34.01
15:53 6.50 4.35 I.IO 35.00 -·-
15:55 6.53 4.38 _1.13 _ 30.99 .. 34.51 ---. -----------
--------· ---
16:00 6.62 4.47 1.22 ,.20:0li!.t 26.87 31.87
16:05 6.70 4.55 1.30 "'i-4169-sil 25.11 34.63
16:07 6.73 4.58 1.33 33.97 34.56 34.94
16:10 6.78 4.63 1.38 34.99 35.38 35.82
16:19 6.93 4.78 1.53 34.35
16:29 7.10 4.95 1.70 19% He injected for 5 min.
18:38 9.25 7.10 3.85 Shut off air sparging to AS-2
19:00 9.62 7.47 4.22 Shut off SVE unit; Part 2A testing completed
I
q:/pro;!0313.08/Parts 1234 GW Data.xis Page 2 of5
- - -- - -- - - - - --------GROUNDWATER DEPTH DA TA
Run Time MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
Time SVE AS Helium B C D B C D B C D B C D B C D AS-I AS-2
(hr:min) (hr) (hr) (hr) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Part 2B Pilot Test (8121/98)
8:50 -0.55 -2.57 -4.18 34.43 34.98 35.81
8:52 -0.52 -2.53 -4.15 33.46 33.39 33.54
8:56 -0.45 -2.47 -4.08 34.49 34.73 35.23
8:59 -0.40 -2.42 -4.03 34.51 34.95 35.30
9:02 -0.35 -2.37 -3.98 34.99 35.29 35.81
9:15 -0.13 -2.15 -3.77 34.50 35. l l
9:23 0.00 -2.02 -3.63 Started SVE unit; target extraction flow rate 30 cfm (indicated)
11:00 l.62 -0.40 -2.02 34.55 34.99 35.85
11:03 l.67 -0.35 -l.97 33.41 33.33 33.57
11:06 l.72 -0.30 -l.92 34.42 34.69 35.25
11:13 l.83 -0.18 -l.80 34.52 34.99 35.36
11 :14 l.85 -0.17 -l.78 34.99 35.33 35.83
11:24 2.02 0.00 -l.62 Started AS· 1 sparging; target injection flow rate IO cfm (indicated)
12:35 3.20 1.18 -0.43 MP-3B capped; water and air at top of probe.
13:01 3.63 l.62 0.00 19% He injected for 5 min.
13:08 3.75 l.73 0.12 ~1~-}!l c~ppeQ;_~a!~_ari_d .'!_ir_at top_ofprobe. --------· ----------. -
18'48 -9:42-. --- -Shut off air sparging to AS-2 7.40 5.78
18:52 9.48 7.47 5.85 30.81 fiil-7~79~ 32.33
18:55 9.53 7.52 5.90 capped 23.11 29.15
19:00 9.62 7.60 5.98 capped lf/!5!9.li1 33.63
19:03 9.67 7.65 6.03 31.55 33.11 34.06
19:07 9.73 7.72 6.10 34.75 35.01 35.39
19:29 10.10 8.08 6.47 Shut off SVE unit; Part 2BI testing completed
q:/prCj,0313.08/Parts 1234 GW Data.xis Page3of5
- - -- - - - -- - - --------GROUNDWATER DEPTH DA TA
Run Time MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
Time SVE AS Helium B C D B C D B C D B C D B C D AS-I AS-2
(hr:min) (hr) (hr) (hr) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fl) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fl) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Part 3 Pilot Test (8124/98)
8:30 -0.47 -1.50 33.73 34.93
8:45 -0.22 -1.25 34.22 34.63 35.64
8:50 -0.13 -1.17 32.87 32.89 33.47
8:55 -0.05 -1.08 34.07 34.32 35.09
8:58 0.00 -1.03 Started SVE unit; target extraction flow rate 30 cfm (indicated)
9:05 0.12 -0.92 I I 34.52 34.86 35.18
9:08 0.17 -0.87 34.81 35.20 35.67
10:00 1.03 0.00 Started AS-2 sparging; target injection flow rate 5 cfm (indicated)
12:45 3.78 2.75 Water and air ejected from MP-3D
12:46 3.80 2.77 Shut ofT air sparging to AS-3
15: 15 6.28 5.25 33.74 32.85 33.11 I 31.19 30.67 31.67 31.85 28.91 33.79 30.87 29.73 33.28 33.51 32.57 33.57
15:30 6.53 5.50 Shut off SVE unit; Part 3 testing completed
I
q·lproy0313.08/Parts 1234 GWOata.xls Page4of5
-------- - - - ---- ----GROUNDWATER DEPTH DATA
Run Time MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
Time SVE AS Helium B C D B C D B C D B C D B C D AS-I AS-2
(hr:min) (hr) (hr) (hr) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Part 4 Pilot Test (8125198)
9:25 -0.63 -2.42 34.06 34.43 35.31
9:25 -0.63 -2.42 32.63 32.63 33.05
9:25 -0.63 -2.42 33.75 34.05 34.87
9:30 -0.55 -2.33 34.14 34.45 34.92
9:30 -0.55 -2.33 34.51 34.79 35.39
9:45 -0.30 -2.08 33.41 34.62
I0:03 0.00 -1.78 Started SVE unit; target extraction flow rate 30 cfm (indicated)
11:10 1.12 -0.67 34.24 34.47 35.36
11:15 1.20 -0.58 32.67 . 32:69 33.08
11:15 1.20 -0.58 33.77 34.05 34.91
11:18 1.25 -0.53 34.15 34.53 35.00
11:22 1.32 -0.47 34.59 34.85 35.45
11:27 1.40 -0.38 33.43 34.63
11:50 1.78 0.00 Started AS-1 sparging; target injection flow rate 10 cfm (indicated) .
12:42 2.65 0.87 MP-3B capped; water and air at top of probe.
--- ----. ---
-MP-2B capped;-water and·air at top of probe. ---· --------13:40 -3.62 1.83---
13:56 3.88 2.10 MP-3C capped; water and air at top of probe.
18:14 8.18 6.40 30.52 1!!11!?9.ll 31.71
18:17 8.23 6.45 capped t\13'.8 !Ej 28.67
18:19 8.27 6.48 capped capped 33.35
18:20 8.28 6.50 30.11 31.99 33.56
18:24 8.35 6.57 33.65 34.58 35.17
18:28 8.42 6.63 Shut off air sparging to AS-2
18:45 8.70 6.92 Shut ofTSVE unit; Part 4 testing completed
I
ffl:iW Shaded cell indicates that air bubbles were present in water at indicated depth during water level measurement.
q:/proy0013.08/Parts 1234 GWOata.xls Page5 of 5
--------- --- - -- - - - -
Change in Groundwater Depth during Pilot Test
MP-I MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
AS-I AS-2 B C D B C D B C D B C D B C D
(ft) (fl) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Part I Pilot Test (8/18/98) AS-I AS-2 MP-IB MP-IC MP-ID MP-2B MP-2C MP-2D MP-3B MP-3C MP-3D MP-4B MP-4C MP-4D MP-5B MP-5C MP-5D
0.09 0.09 -0.15 -0.01 0.00 0.07 0.07
Part 2A Pilot Test (8/20/98) AS-I AS-2 MP-IB MP-IC MP-ID MP-28 MP-2C MP-2D MP-3B MP-3C MP-3D MP-4B MP-4C MP-4D MP-58 MP-5C MP-5D
0.90 1.73 13.05 19.22 0.75 0.11
Part 28 Pilot Test (8/21/98) AS-I AS-2 MP-IB MP-IC MP-ID MP-28 MP-2C MP-2D MP-38 MP-3C MP-3D MP-48 MP-4C MP-4D MP-58 MP-5C MP-5D
3.62 17.19 3.48 35.25 10.28 4.39 36.30 18.82 1.60 2.96 1.84 1.24 0.24 0.28_ 0.42
Part 3 Pilot Test (8/24/98) AS-I AS-2 MP-18 MP-IC MP-ID MP-2B MP-2C MP-20 MP-3B MP-3C MP-3D MP-48 MP-4C MP-4D MP-58 MP-5C MP-5D
0.48 1.78 1.93 1.08 2.22 1.80 2.22 5.41 1.30 3.65 5.13 1.90 1.30 2.63 2.10
_Part_4 Pilot.Test (8/25/98) - ----.AS-I -AS-2-MP-18-MP-IC MP-ID MP-28-MP-2C MP-20 MP-38 ·MP-3C MP-3D MP-4B MP-4C MP04D MP-58" MP=5C""MP-5D
3.54 21.64 3.60 34.42 18.82 4.38 35.56 35.84 1.52 4.03 2.46 1.36 0.86 0.21 0.22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D-7
PNEUMATIC PERMEABILITY TEST
WITHSVE-2
\\TN\SYS\DATA,PROJ\0313.08\PDI-CVR.DOC
I
SVE-2 Pneum Penn.xis
I SVE Run SVE-2Well Liauid Seoarator Inlet Blwr In. GAC Inlet GAG Outlet Ambient Corrected
Time Time Vacuum Temp. OVA Helium Flow Vacuum Temp. Vacuum Pressure ,:-emp. #1 OVA #20VA Pressure Temp. SVE Flow
(hr.min) (hr) (in.W.C.) ("C) (nnm) (%) (cfm) (in.W.C. ("C) {in.W.C.) (in.W.C.) ("C) (ppm) (opm) (in.Hg) <"C) <scfm)
I 11 :05 -0.22 0 0 0 28.68 33
11:07 -0.18
11:12 -0.10 32 9 33
11 :18 0.00 0 30 26
11:18 0.00
I 11:19 0.02 10 28 40
11:21 0.05 3.5 11
11:22 0.07 32 25 52
11:22 0.07 9 44 48 3.2
I 11:24 0.10 42 24 39
11:27 0.15 42 24 25
11 :28 0.17 9 44 34 48 3.2 59 28.66 31 9,0
11 :32 0.23 42.5 24 16
I 11:42 0.40 43 24 8
11:52 0.57 43 24 6.5
11 :53 0.58 9 44 36 48 3.2 61
11:55 0.62 18 68 35 74 1.8 68 28.66 34 17.9
12:00 0.70 65 24 5
I 12:10 0.87 65 23.5 4
12:11 0.88 18 68 36 75 1.8 79 28.65 32 17.9
12:25 1.12 65 23 3,3
12:27 1.15 18 68 36 75 1.8 79
I 12:28 1.17
12:29 1.18 22 79 36 87 1 85 0.8 0,3 28.64 33 21.9
12:34 1.27 75 23 3
12:43 1.42 75 23 2.9
I 12:45 1.45 21 77 37 85 1 95 28.61 34 20.9
12:58 1.67 75 23 2.3
13:00 1.70 21 78 37 97 0.8 100
13:01 1.72
13:03 1.75 9 47 36 52 3 82 0,2 0.2 28.6 34 9,0
I 13:08 1.80 46,5 23 2.2
13:12 1.90 46 23 2.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
q 'f,roj'OlJ1 01!\SVE-l PncumJ>am.•lil/91'19 PaiClor)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E-1
E-2
E-3
APPENDIXE
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
FOR PILOT TEST
Pneumatic Permeability
Radius of Influence
Helium Mass Balance Calculations for Pilot Test
Parts 2A and 2B
\\TN\SYS'1>ATA'\PRO.J'\031J.08\PDI-CVR.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q: \PROJ\0313.08 \POI-CVR.DOC
APPENDIX E-1
PNEUMATIC PERMEABILITY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r::-cy c,/"'"'7•"7/~vE. (!) 5VF -I
/2 _; 2 2 -;It-;. 6, 7 l'1 I jf !)--:JCJ 1/r>/fl)
,, tj -=-3 J•, _;;:::=. J 19 76 2.. r ),-"' ""J,t> fti -:::: r, 1 ,.,
<ff,; ~c_f;r. , <f-1 JIJ ~ 4-¾c:
f,o : ,~t,tl 2-~-
P{r;) c.f-n
I
,'flli
• I 2 17, "71 : , ~'B'i
I
1 / "i
I
S-.2, z, <{, Lt ; ,tJJ t 3 t/
kv (Pr7'rtrt1 J"&.e) ::::-'f /;,~e ! {r-z.-1 ri )
I "zl "p
7T h ( ?:(, .. ) -rYr,) ')
/<Pfe (h-/4) =:; /dJ_fe {91/.~7£2) . ~' -,r )i. ' ' .:::. , 22-7 Z 11t
tt ){ t, i .
Xv ~ , 2.. 2 7-2 '1'-, ~& t1-z:,-
I j.,. -I 'Tl i./ z
_. t 2."). rz. ;j. I t:6'61
J 'Z. -' ~'5 'Z.--
:::: I Z-2-7 2 y. ' 0 I 3 if
;~ -i 'E,2 i.
-' ~ /, 77 £ ~/ ~ ~ ~ kp (,., 1/,. -f-~ •: .,.,) { 7ee a "if =,I, ""'' '!)
( C ..,"'-) ~ "if . '2-.):,_ ::: j,t) '1,)t? C Mt
/,, ,, /'9-15 ))
11 7 9-/~-~ "
I r
,,
I
(I (l(½ "'Z '/:
9:,-7/Vl.,.'/ ,, ),-
({ ~/}(. ~ ') I _g-.
,...,;;, &/x ,;_ '/ , -
<. .,2.~ I
' i ---;-,..s;} ~0 : -
II
.::, ss u_.;D J IP _c; /1. ~ol
1
'::::::. /-.:. '
: z l.,, '/1 ? _.(I ~ fl
Q, b) f., :=. (/,64 ~ '//rb) ;;;£6'/ ::: ~ 'J/~ a f~)
\ 6''6 ), t? C II' _c;,Zf<'l ~ 0( p
c;sJ ~" I:, 'r5)'2 ""i! s' $ I'
.sr9(9~, .b 'l.l rii.' 'ft'
flP~~' ~b (yh I {}II
(;;>!/4.J..P~ilJJ<( rJ-ft1~ t,l-fb (\ r-A}d "'.j.-,,S -oj\
wJ-i,, /==cJ
'
i_.1 / '.b ~ :ef of ~ --t:J
Lt1 f,649' : "f;'J;,.. :f-= ~
u ~ ·;, ---l-r1 ,r/ ==-V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Y;-, I -;?
C c!J_ ~v -er?!~ n t?-f f::v (.,,, 1/ ~ f-.,..._ 76'~) ~ A Cc"' "2.)
'
tr{ o/s6'c) :::: -kP v P ' :.L ,/ V ? A~ f u. rt I f ~ a t M
l J,Y)
5r ""1 , i"! = I) vi ,'f3 ~f; Fp,
'?e:?? af-rl1 , U'/ ~ f-e: d iA r k_;; 1 ~ w JJ. T rh -e k c f ;:::,~~'2; l!E ~ .,, d
' C~err-'/1 I• 2-'1; eif, Z,Zh, '/--/i~ k ha.j 1,1-11/~~J'
I e ~ J rh/ r! ~ e. ---',,'-1/:5.:C C: r,-CY,,()>~~ w' t, I le d tL I j
I .l-~; ' 0
'-< I ' I I /\ a_ :5 e,,(.. ~ I I ) m > e ~. <:t T,., • '__!.. f-~ I ',f F . i.:::) •_j_ ',"/ ~ v ('. d,):::.
}11 ~ k a v-, d cJ '.i. r ,<p )'{ I ; e ,:::,e :,1 r, J
I
// 0 w F-y" 0 VVJ F q C-5 err, ~ I L-,7-wle h a Ve fl,. e
I
rf,:, '/' {3 ? ,? •,(.:I' e. _:f r"4..d '. ~ ,(+ l V n: f :) d t, // :Jl '/1 :{_1 !1 ! ~ ~
. ;7.,t /
We 7Ge. f~ «-r 0'.,1.[ k:v= GJ-z_ ;'n F +-CI .:S .
I. • A '
;,i ,pf ~.:,, a " 1 !,,(,,' ,\ e r e. _/! 1 5 ~~ h e d y ;,( a. :,'( 1 <
1
' ~ de.c;', x ;d . / a.:::s
~< ? I '2-? ), _':?C) 0 ~ {'
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECKENFELDER II ::~~;;;_~-------------INC.//
BY ___ DATE---PAGE ;2_ OF __ _
--------------------------------
I u ;11t > c & yf_ v e r 5 1 ~ .,, ..J @,; ;fd r-e tYe c. <::t n U-1'c
'
C '-'Y' I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q:\PROJ\0313.08 \POI-CVR.DOC
APPENDIX E-2
RADIUS OF INFLUENCE
I f PROJECT [if ~fesv:lle Ou.J 003/),dor
I ECKENFELDER SUBJECT P./.+ 1ts± -C<; 1, .. (o.1-i'0 o/ Rad,t,(:s 1
INC. -;::-.,,-fJ~e,,.te ot51/i£
av /J]l'.!1w1 D~TE )l/)0r PAGE· 1 OF-~'---•·---------------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
i5eC4 .... se_ ,I)/' ,t,,e>i,-.1.,,, he/er, e.,,:~ sttJwYl "77 J~~"'"',,.,,_/;o,~"'r(!...
/11 e~ s;,.,~c,{ J.._.,,'d> -fl,._,_ ?, /4+ ~,s ~ & h //rw '? At /f_dc/
.I,; c11/cvl;..t~ ~-017,,ori,r,·,.,,afc :IZoI tJI Sf/~-/ /., fie..
J :re,J,';i,..~ / MP-// tf,f;J-2-1 ,q,,,';/ /YI f-3 0/so /Al"-'/ """'.l1t1/)_ 5),
/).5, Y-4 l~e I~·/ -lk l)c,c~,.,,.__: /'-1~t1s ... ,;d af 5Vti-l c ... c/
tis tf..,. t" valiv-< ,
pl 0. !YIP;, a,';/ do /tti'i,,fsr,,y;.-_s. /,'--7~,,, I:+·./. 11...e -1,,J.
I
I
po;h+:s t{,5,·,..,} a.$ /4.l val,,u:, cJjf-Asvt:-/,u.,,/
'
tflv._ !MP J,.,h .... c.e... /;,,.,., SY£.~/:-Then,. t)11ce ~-t!f""i>n
k, ~ /,),,e, J~ 3~t-i4hd) /,\,5e r4 urM,/.,':,.., -1-.,, c,-,lc1,._/Afc
--/1Ji.,,:y11./.,,_e, ~r ( i,,Jk~ve.. ILt1acu.~/;1,'j :s ()./ ~.w.c.
(pb"' t. tl/2Q'h 4,..' 1-l:t'v(ee ) s.;1 B;ivt...k~,,) f· 'J'S-/ -lk-
111:1111..Mi',M. tuce;l,.tlt Jae,..-....--. f'df e.ftte-i'./~ Sv'[ i':. t). I.;., w.c.)_
I
---------------------------------~
I
I ECKENFELDER // INC.//
PROJECT EC f • Sb. t !' > ti,'//~ Ot,/ s
SUBJECT ?,'/of :'lt,5/ R..oT c,,./cs
BY /iJ~~ D~TE 3]Jt.. /97 PAGE_.,.,2 __ OF ;? I. 1· r I
.. '.---------------
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ttst ~. t
~,,+ I <;v~ o.,i
J =-¥. >-k 5 () fi-. r ,,,.,._+ :,.,.e,.
Y-= J::;.J,,_ce f::,...__5-1t-I
RoT {f)
{Ylt'. 3 J ,.,,,(,,,.
t<;.i.., JI,(?· 3 J~
~ l'i'·3,v,Sck.fc..
I
1e s+ D(!l +c.__
h!tlVfNtl? .· r(fi); V/>ti, ,,_ .... ( b/11\ W.l, ') ~~ e. (Vu .. ~"') /
t;,;.;. -I 0 72 '/.3
fr,.f-I 16,} /(}, q 2-'/
fV',P-z... //. 7 ' ?., z.,. ~-7-9
MP·J, /7, '6 '2.() 0-~1 flir~ '{ 3 5". '+ /), Z--I, IP
( .... P-5 ,i.s: o. I -2. 3
'?t l'.v~?) :::. m v-
~ _k.
+b ,r:"fn. 1,a e {o. I .;...w c.) ( /.I)
S7 -O./Z-q,3
2-z_
-o.,s-'-f,3
-IJ,013 ~-z
'-------------------,---------------'
I
I ECKENFELDER II INC.//
PROJECT Fa ,,51z,.k5'1,'/le /Jt-,?
SUBJECT P:/,,1 & sf /?tJJ:c,,.lc.J
BY M(t1;4( o~TE J/i~,/41 PAGE 3 oi= 0
'--------------,
I
'I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I ,,
_,
I
I
I
(?Sf /J,{{y f z.-A ~fl D,?,+t;.,,
vJu 1 !,? alz t-( (ft)
~V[, vJ/ A58 I
>"vi-1 (J '
' A.5-I @5,_fw._ f',AiJ,, I I?,}
~-=-t,;Jl->V'€, r1/I-~ //' 1
~ -1-,,.,. e. /l,t/J, 3 /;,"/
.. ~I'-'/ 3 J, -:i--
f',1 f,-·) 6 'A,S-
'
pip -3 d,.•-rukl>-v /J A--iJ t,-
L~ u,i,(f c/., /rJ~~ L -)')
h ~ ()-s ~
ldl r, = -V~v~ ( V,:,p 3 -'511.:)
( v,..,3 -¼vE,)
= -l1zJ(M.'"(-o)
{-".:, -?-7..)
+ {),
?<z½ /ltP-'( ,I~
r, = -12.(~s.1-o) 1-o
(-2.z-12,)
:; 3!if
~ p11!5J.t,,
l"o "'-]ZJ,(t,'IS-o) JO.
{-o. z. -?-2)
::: C, 8 tr
23
/)~c. (,:,. ,\iJ,C,) 41 ~. (11,c_ )
1;. . 0 3
'?,!/ 2, z.
7,f (!), '3 8
-~. 5 f},4
-z,z,. t,//;
-CJ, :z_... -VA-
LI ss11..-, t> I. ),,u1,,, Jy,,.
ol Va('. over J,j/,.,. ce.
{:,,,r,,..,,.. S ✓ c·..: I lu ftA I'-3 •
>, \.. a /11 P -3 /, ,;: p,e-ss '-':,I
-f(e,,, H.... l~o .,J..u.../j he..
s r,,,v. e,. vJ/..,,v <-} " h t. Ma I'\ ,
So
llac0 -V,,~., = 1V,.p 3 -~.,i::) (r: -r (._~I:,___.:;.,,;_ • it:I J,
( r-"'13 -G"S.
,;;e-4-i/11 c,, ::: 0 a..~ d 5d ,~
.P..,-. V" 0 +o j d· -H.c._
12, ,-4.t\,.... ._ ~eJ
I J PROJEc£t:.t-5/.,l-es «:fl-e l} I,{ 3
I ECK.ENFELDER SUBJECT P.'/af U£1 {\()'£ {g/c.;
' INC. ;
1, ___________ s_v_M_&1_M __ o_~r_.E_~_f_1"'_/_9_7_P_A_GE ___ fl:==-o-F_6_--,
t:tJ3/3. 0011
.I·
/I
I
I .,
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
u5f /¾irl 28 lj,Jf i)"" f,:..,
~'/J,rol,t.-_c Yµ) · _V,c (.;, we) I~~ {v~,_) .
--l SVi f>J/ A'::@ . ~I/{ -) . ,0 1-'f </, 3
A:5-/@1oc.fi-.. "MP-/ /6,3 s /. f_;
_;;I .:: '1.o l-? ";;, f{lf'-2 ;/, 7 t.l -2.~
~"""-1.,.,.__,_, yi'IP-.3 I 9, 3 -2-5 Al .4-
'If',() -'{ 35,7--q,1 ,J/J,
/YtP-5 1/f.5 . -0• 1-;<I ,4-
/VI f -Z, J;, tel; 1h. /2
(t,fl-~ J:recl-;t\,. NA-,✓/,-it//}
/ Qfpll ~<?i'>t~ ~OLA ,i; .NI. ,05 a-,,, P· "3 L f//J-t:'1fr1P-3~
::;, r;. = -r'f{/1.?/-f)) + 0 l-.is--7 'f/-J
lo ~ /5" f
~ /ltfl-'{~
f"o : -'M /1,5, 7 -o) +D
{-'i/l-7-'I)
r,, -::: 3Zfr
I~ /J1P-7,/4;t;;
: r-f) : -+'f ( (p ~. S -o) _. O
{,-o,1--7<t)
y;::; b'! F
--------------------------
I f PROJECT ECL-S Iv, l.r511,'//c, l)(J J
I ECKENFELDER suBJECT f?,¼I <✓<f P.o-;: Clu
I INC. I
BY ,Mll1A1 D~TE .J /;,;h z: PAGE S OF 6 I: ________________ · _1 _, ----------
I·
rl
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
,,·
I
' I
I
I
'
usf Pa, f :3 li5 f !),,) a_,-
W d / II roht.. r-(fl;)
-5 v tz-v-Jj A-se I
Sft-J CJ
A-S -2 e! /Ot-+P>. fVIP-J /6,3 .
,;f =-3. 3 k Svc.-/Vlf-1.,. //, t I
/4-.T~ 1>4.p-3 ,q, 1 ~
W,.()-'f 3 s:1:
)1A.f-~ b'!,S-:
Mr-3 Ji'r u. i 'r,.._,, tJ 11;-tJ 1+-
a/JI 11 Sa"'" ~" I, r,,, e. s rfV\_ r , 3
/ tf~,Y/?= ,4( fJ.-?, ,l(L,1--v
t:-> Yo ,,,_ -t'f 0,. ?-o) to
(-, /, 7-. -7-•t)
• ro =--It/ fr
v~l.,&,w,c)
1-f
/I?, 2-
"f• ?f
-/,2-
-o.'f
-,.5'
-zq
;J A-
Jca~ ( v~(:)
7'.J
Z.3
/, (,,
//4-
N,4
N,4--
ti ~ , ':), r-1, -1 c1,. r(l., .· ·~ )>1/J-~-lot;:
·-r~-::. -1-¥(35.7--o) -1--o
(-o.'f -1-4)
r, = 3Glf
Y-0 =--7-<I ( t,Y,5-o) +()
(-3.'r-1fl/-)
== &~tr
...__ ________________________ __.
I PROJECT F1:,,,r;-,)/4. -4~ r,'llc tJ I,( 5
SUBJECT P,' /a~ 71,,c;{ !!_ore lc.s I, ECKENFELDER // INC.//
.. BY M.>4)1 DAT~ 3(!~/9? PAGE ?, OF---"'~"---
lr ---------------------w
I
ii
I ,,
I ,,
1,
I
' I
,I' ,,·· ,, ,,
' I
1
'f-?5f (JM,-1-L/ le:t.f 1)../-.c.. 6411/4()~ .. V' (ft) v,cl.:...~.J /"3 e (voe)
~ljf_ vJ/ A-5@ I 7-1 (J 'I, 3 ~(£,-/ 0,
A.5-1 @-. liJc.?w,, JVit-/ /(,,1 lf.0 /. '-f
.A:= s.11 k s11v-,/;1_'/J-z._. ti·';/ -0,2 t./A
'
/( IV'-r, ',,,.._ e.--;t,./J-3 ,<i,?/ -z5' 1-14
.. y,.P-'f 35". J -//, 7-~A-
iV< P-5 ~1.5 --z, <j /.,/ ,4
\ '
R. tJf: ~ I c . /tJJt-{lkc) ""' "'1.Y' th ~ _'2_ t: ,I,, J<-/ 0, 1 ~ W, c.) !/1-)
M'P-I d ,' reel-,· M --0, l'<J '-/, 3 . 1-
M (), Z, d,.'rtctlk tJ A-ti I+ ,..; A
/Mt, 1ka+,"1 r;fwl /'• 3
r0 :: -7-,; /11.'t-ol +o
(-o, z.. · t<f)
~ 1/.17-....,_ l'Z/f
/VIP, 3 J.'r~ckJy\ flJf,c tJ!,-;.JP,
~ s_f._,J~ Cr.,,,_ p, 3
, .
Yo z ~1!/(11. r-o) +o
(·l?-1-t4) -· ,~-f
i)
v0 = -1<1j3'-'-· 1 -o) +o
(-11,.1 ~7-'I-)
~ 3/r
1,),6 MP-5 ~
'('t> -::: -1'1(0'6,'S·O) +
(·2,?.·74)
= h~fr
~-----------------------------
I
I ,,
.,
~' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '.•
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E-3
HELIUM MASS BALANCE
CALCULATIONS FOR PILOT TEST
PARTS 2A AND 2B
\ \TN'5YS\.DAT A \PROJ\.0313.08\PDI-CVR.DOC
If 11 1'ec -1--3) 1-Je f"a,r ,<_, H
.§:Z_,.::::. 'l>,~'{?J 1¥ I
I'
/ "o} ;-I e c.o"c "· .:::.-11'% 1 '
fie J:-/>A-X :::-?>,-,><-,If; //)'tf Jc;Ti't
&~t,rr
deJJ 7µ,>1/Jf
z/1/17
I -:f ujt:!tt-f->~;A.. '
''
f,je~fe..f Z i£f 7, it ,sffffe ,-u.f-1 5 v.£-) :f}P,,s r._-/e;; zq,'1;,c;h
. f:; Jt t 111-;,,., ,7v.£·t II~~ Hr f}"'1'ef/t
I' ,oz. / i. o,eP
/" "o I/, t I z_z) I )0 6,0 }7r
. J) 7,'v ,;,~-
,, ,/ 7 ;~.-z, ;'7'3'75
1/ 1 /~, 1 -z.1,;zf •
1,,_2.s-17-:~ :l!J"7r
,,
' ,1'1 /J, z_
··-
I I~ ti'l
0 ?,ii" , •
. I &6,,./.
(9)~/ ,
l1
1 ,,,
te-f I f"L ~ I • • i ,
I
I
I
I:
-t . . -t-,., t/ ff ij,/f " f!-,-r-.'J(~ 'ff.) +-t { {;-,-t) (%_. 1,)
p +11I "-=t_{&11 -f,.~/)("1~-)
)
f Program calculates helium recovery for an SVE well .
• Number of data points (counting one with z~ro flux at each end} =
t( 0} = 1.2 min
I, He flux( 0 } = 0 scfm
t( 1} = 4.8 min
· He flux ( 1 } = . 056 scfm
-t( 2} = 6 min 11 He flux( 2 } = . 0934 scfm
t( 3} = 7.8 min
He flux( 3 } = .1307 scfm
It(_ 4 } = 10. 2 min
He flux( 4 } = .084 scfm
·· t ( 5 } = 10. 8 min
He flux( 5} = .0654 scfm ·f.t ( 6 } = 15 min
He flux( 6} = .0187 scfm
7} = 16.2 min t ( ,, He flux( 7} 0 scfm
Total helium recovered=
,I,
I
1,
I
I·
1
' I
I
I:
.88242 scf
8
I:
I
I cc
I
·1
I ,,
I
I
t9,0
b, ,'l-S°
c>, <(;2,7
o,75'o
~. '{J zf
/, I z.'
tJ 'tJ·
·•·"
rr-e e., v erel '1, 'f7 ,-cf=
i. "f f1 e
(P) 'li/i;
~, l.2-77
z, cg~ re~1 ,J ery
6>, z.i,7(J
0,/t.J'r
I
(9,JI~~
IP,'°
01,.ecl: J_ ? J,( ;/,( 11
' -z-/%/ ;17
I
' I
I
I
I
'I
I!
I
I
I'
1,
I
I
I
'I
I
' I
Program calculates helium recovery for an SVE well.
I
Number of data points (counting one with zero flux at each end) = 8
t ( 0 ) = 1.2 min
He flux ( 0 ) = 0 scfm
t ( 1 ) = 3 min
He flux ( 1 ) = .7245 scfm
t ( 2 ) = 4.8 min
He flux ( 2 ) = .1449 scfm
t ( 3 ) = 6 min
He flux( 3 ) = .2277 scfm
t ( 4 ) = 9 min
He flux( 4 ) = .207 scfm
t ( 5 ) = 10.8 min
He flux( 5 ) = .1139 scfm
t( 6 ) = 19.8 min
He flux( 6 ) = .3105 scfm
t ( 7 ) = 22.8 min -He flux ( 7 ) ; 0 scfm ·.,
Total helium recovered= 4.97448 scf
I
I I
l'rogram calculates helium recovery for an S~E well.
Number of data points {counting one with zero flux at each end) =
I: {
It {
t (
'It<
t {
It {
0 ) = 1. 2 min
He flux( o) = o scfm
1 ) = 3 min
He flux{ 1) = .7245 scfm
2 ) = 4. 8 min
He f.lux( 2 ) = .1449 scfm
3 ) = 6 min
He flux( 3 ) = .2277 scfm
4 ) = 9 min
He flux( 4) = .207 scfm
5) = 10.8 min
He flux( 5) = .1139 scfm
6) = 19.8 min
He flux( 6) = 0 scfm It {
Total helium recovered= 3.11148 scf ,,
I
I
I
I
" I
I
I
I
I
7