vapor extraction technical memo remedial investigation… · 2020. 7. 3. · ttnus project no....

RI98159D

DRAFTVAPOR EXTRACTION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITEMEDDYBEMPS, MAINE

RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT (RAC), REGION I

ForU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ByTetra Tech NUS, Inc.

EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0045EPA Work Assignment No. 015-RICO-0189

TtNUS Project No. N7631

December 1998

TETRA TECH NUS, INC.

RI98159D

DRAFTVAPOR EXTRACTION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY


RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT (RAC), REGION I

ForU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ByTetra Tech NUS, Inc.

EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0045EPA Work Assignment No. 015-RICO-0189

TtNUS Project No. N7631

December 1998

Liyang (}mp ) George DCGardner, P.E.Project Martager Program Manager

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTSDRAFT VAPOR EXTRACTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDYEASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITE

MEDDYBEMPS, MAINE

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Site Description 21.2 Previous Field Investigations 41.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology 71.4 Test Area Geology and Hydrogeology 9

2.0 VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 122.1 VE Test Program Objective 122.2 VE Test Program Overview 13

2.2.1 Test Area Soils Characterization and VE Wells 132.2.2 VE Permeability Testing 132.2.3 Soils and Gas Chemical Analyses 142.2.4 VOCs Air Emission Controls 14

3.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES 153.1 Soil Sampling and Well/Piezometer Installation 1 53.2 Vapor Extraction Testing 193.3 VE Test VOCs Sampling 23

3.3.1 SUMMA Canister Sampling 243.3.2 Tedlar Bag Sampling 26

4.0 DATA EVALUATION 274.1 Vacuum Test Data Acceptability 284.2 Vadose Zone Permeability Evaluation 284.3 VE Well Radius of Influence Calculation 294.4 Test Area Geology and Hydrogeology Evaluation 294.5 Analytical Results 30

4.5.1 SUMMA Canister Results 304.5.2 Tedlar Bag Sampling Results 324.5.3 Soil Samples Onsite Screening and Laboratory Results 32

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35

6.0 REFERENCES 37

RI98159D Eastern Surplus, ME

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)DRAFT VAPOR EXTRACTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDYEASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITE

MEDDYBEMPS, MAINE

APPENDICES

A Air Permeability CalculationsB VOC Analytical ResultsC Chain of Custody FormsD Vapor Extraction Modeling Results

NUMBER

TABLES

PAGE

3-1 Summary of VE Testing Conditions4-1 VOC Summa Canister Results4-2 Tedlar Bag Sample Field Screening VOC Results

,213133

FIGURES

NUMBER

1-11-21-31-43-13-23-3

Site Location MapSite PlanGroundwater VOC Plumes...VE/AS Testing Well Layout..Vapor Extraction Well DetailAir Piezometer DetailSystem Schematic

PAGE

35

...10

...11

...22

...18

...20

RI98159D -II- Eastern Surplus, ME

DRAFT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A vapor extraction test program was completed by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (TtNUS), on

behalf of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the Eastern Surplus

Company Site located in Meddybemps, Maine. This technical memorandum was prepared

under Work Assignment No. 015-RICO-0189, Contract No. 68-W6-0045, and supports the

ongoing remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) for the site.

This technical memorandum presents the results of the vapor extraction (VE) permeability

test program conducted during November 12 and 13, 1997, at the Eastern Surplus

Company Site. The program was performed in accordance with the Treatability Study

Test Plan (B&RE, 1997a). This technical memorandum provides an overview of the

testing, fieldwork, and data evaluation. The objectives of the test were to determine the

feasibility of vapor extraction as a viable remedial alternative for a portion of the site

where soils, highly contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOCs), had been

identified; to estimate the air permeability of the vadose zone and the radius of influence

of the VE well; and to assess the effectiveness of activated carbon in capturing VOCs

from the extracted vapor stream. Based on the results provided from the data evaluation,

a conceptual design for a VE remediation system would then be developed and presented

in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Report to be submitted to EPA.

Based on the VOCs presence in site soils, EPA and TtNUS considered treatment methods

recommended in the EPA OSWER guidance Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization

and Technology Selection for CERCLA Sites with VOCs in Soils (EPA/540-F-93-048,

September 1993). The presumptive remedy guidance indicates that soil vapor extraction,

thermal desorption, and incineration have been specified in more than 90 percent of the

Records of Decision (RODs) written for 88 Superfund sites where VOCs were the principal

threats. Of these RODs, more than two-thirds specified VE as the selected remedy. For

the Eastern Surplus Company Site, it was determined that a field test program would be

performed to evaluate VE's viability because of uncertainties associated with the test

area's heterogeneous soil stratigraphy. A bench-scale thermal desorption treatability study

RI98159D -1- Eastern Surplus. ME

DRAFT

was performed by a specialty subcontractor to TtNUS, and the results will be presented in

a separate technical memorandum. Incineration does not warrant any treatability study

because its effectiveness for addressing VOCs has already been well documented in

technical literature.

1.1 Site Description

The Eastern Surplus Company Site (the site) is located in Meddybemps, Maine, in

Washington County, which is located in the northeastern coastal portion of the state

(Figure 1-1). The site is a 4- to 5-acre junkyard located at the junction of Meddybemps

Lake and the Dennys River. The site is bordered by Meddybemps Lake to the north, by

the Dennys River to the east, by Route 191 to the south, and by Stone Road (leading to

several residences) to the west (Figure 1-2).

From the 1940s to the 1970s, the site was an active commercial salvage operation that

stored a variety of salvage and junk materials for resale. Large quantities of military

surplus materials were purchased by the site owner (Harry Smith, Sr.) from the

Department of Defense (DOD). By 1980, hundreds of transformers and thousands of

drums, cans, and gas cylinders were stored on-site. An inspection by the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) noted chemical odors, leaking electrical

transformers, hundreds of deteriorating drums and containers, compressed gas cylinders,

16,000 pounds of calcium carbide, and numerous areas of stained soils. Between 1985

and 1990, the MEDEP and EPA conducted source sampling that identified the presence of

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated organic solvents, heavy metals, acids, oils,

asbestos, and pesticides. Sampling results indicated that many of the contaminants had

been released to soils, groundwater, and sediments.

From 1985 until 1990, the MEDEP, the EPA, and DOD removed the vast majority of

drums, cans, gas cylinders, and transformers and the site was subsequently fenced. In

June 1996, the Eastern Surplus Company Site was placed on the National Priorities List.

RI98159D -2- Eastern Surplus, ME

DRAFT

SURPLUSSUPERFUND

« --$>/ ness

Source: The Maine Atlasand Gazetteer, 19th edition.Delorme, 1996. 'A•V* ~.

LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1-1EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITE

MEDDYBEMPS, MEDRAWN BY: A. PUTNAM

CHECKED BY: L CHU

SCALE: NONE

REV.:

DATE: NOVEMBER 10. 1998

C:\DWG\EAST_SUR\nG_1-1.DWG

TETRA TECH NUS, INC.

55 Jonspin Road Wilmington. MA 01887(978)658-7899


DRAFT

1.2 Previous Field Investigations

Since August 1996, EPA has conducted a variety of field investigation activities to support

the ongoing RI/FS. For ease of addressing the numerous environmental data developed to

date, the site was divided into four quadrants (Quadrants I through IV) based on the

relative presence of contaminants detected on-site (Figure 1-2). The United States

Geological Survey (USGS), under an interagency agreement, investigated the site geology

and hydrogeology during September 1996 through June 1997 by performing geophysical

surveys, advancing soil borings, installing monitoring wells, and performing aquifer tests.

Preliminary interpretations of geophysical data, geologic samples, and water level

measurements provided by the USGS were incorporated with TtNUS's investigation results

to help develop the descriptions of site geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. The USGS

data identified VOC-contaminated groundwater plumes in Quadrants II and IV (Figure 1-3),

which may indicate the presence of residual sources of VOC-contamination in these two

quadrants.

The EPA START Team contractor, Roy F. Weston, performed field investigation activities

during October 1996 including: soil gas surveys; VOCs, metals, and PCBs screening

analyses; monitoring well installations; and sampling of soils, groundwater, surface water,

and sediment sampling for Target Compound List (TCL) organic compounds and Target

Analyte List (TAD metals, and dioxins. The START Team investigation identified an area

within Quadrant II that was contaminated with a variety of VOCs.

EPA's Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation (OEME) performed ambient

and soil gas sampling during June 1997. Ambient air samples were collected using pre-

cleaned SUMMA canisters and analyzed to assess which VOCs may have been volatilized

from a hot spot area in Quadrant II. SUMMA canisters attached to a hollow monitoring

probe were used to extract soil gases from the subsurface soils in the vicinity of the hot

spot. The SUMMA canisters were subsequently analyzed by OEME for VOCs in

accordance with EPA Method TO-14 - The Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds


668^-899(8^6)£881.0 VW 'uoj6u!UJ|!M pooy uidsuop gg

•ONI 'SON Hoax vuj.a±

8661 '01 M3BW3AON =aiva"A3d

.001 - .1 =TIV3S

flHO 1 U.B 03X33H3

_D.h.3

(A

31IS ANVdNOO Nd31SV3NVld 31IS

133d 001 = HONI I

,003

:aiu aovo 'se/c/z ;3j.va NOSIABM isvi'9661 -AON 031VQ '3NIVH VklNHOO N010NIHSVM "SdrGaACKQW '161 31008

'3is smduns Ntoisva 'A3A«ns oiHdvxaodoi QUVONVIS m3uu.N3•ONI 'N01S3M 'J AOa t»d NVld "ONI 'S3J.VDOSSV XS30 :dvn 3SV8 'C

•NOK3Q aOJ 03Sn 38 01 IOR NVld "2-31VHIXOaddV (BtQaSNOO 38 Qi SNOU.V001 TTV H

51LON

in

UtlViS NQ1S3MAS 03UliN3ai A-QMiViN3i) SONVU3*

30MU 31B 31VHIXOMddV , , ,9, ,i , i0, , , ,

31S BlVNIXOtlddV , 1 1 « i r > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >

0 N 3 3 3 1

QO>incoon

DRAFT

in Ambient Air using SUMMA Passivated Canister Sampling and Gas Chromatographic

Analysis. These results are summarized in the Ambient Air and Soil Gas Sampling Report

(EPA OEME, 1997).

Using the USGS data and the START contractor's analytical results, TtNUS planned and

implemented additional field investigations in November 1997 to develop data that would

supplement the available investigation results, refine the site geologic and hydrogeologic

conceptual model, and better characterize contaminant nature and extent. These activities

included: collecting additional soil borings to evaluate stratigraphy; acquiring soil

specimens at depth for VOCs, PCBs, and metals analyses; installing additional monitoring

wells to complement the existing well array and to provide more locations to observe the

VOC-contaminated groundwater plumes in Quadrants II and IV; and, evaluating the

potential bedrock and overburden groundwater interactions. The TtNUS field activities in

Quadrant II are further described in Section 3.1.

Quadrant II Soil VOCs

The field gas chromatograph (GO screening and Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)

analytical results developed by the START contractor indicated that portions of the

Quadrant II soils were contaminated by a variety of VOCs including chlorinated solvents,

ketones, and petroleum hydrocarbons (BTEX) (Weston, 1997). The VOCs detected

include: methylene chloride; acetone, 2-butanone or methyl ethyl ketone [MEK]); 4-methyl-

2 pentanone (or methyl isobutyl ketone [MIBK]); tricholoroethene (TCE); toluene (TOL);

tetrachloroethene (PCE); chlorobenzene; ethylbenzene; and meta-, para-, and ortho-xylene.

The highest concentrations of detected VOCs consisted of PCE and TCE. These VOCs

have also been detected in the underlying groundwater, which indicates that the soil VOCs

are being solubilized by infiltrating precipitation. The areal extent of contamination is

coincident to locations of piles, or former piles, of crushed or decayed containers. Labels

on some of the containers indicated that they once contained surface coatings (paints,

epoxies) and degreasers. In particular, an area encompassing approximately 60 feet by 60

feet in the central portion of Quadrant II was found to contain VOCs at elevated levels.


DRAFT

Ambient air analytical results presented in the Ambient Air and Soil Gas Sampling Report

(EPA OEME, 1997) indicate that a variety of VOCs were detected at low concentrations

(mostly in 1 - 10 ppb/v range) in the vicinity of the Quadrant II VOCs hot spot area while

field investigations were underway. The soil gas sampling results indicated the presence

of acetone; 1,1-dichloroethene; methylene chloride; chloroform; methyl ethyl ketone;

trichloroethene; toluene; tetrachloroethene; ethylbenzene; styrene; and m, p, and o-xylenes

at elevated concentrations.

The USGS data included detections of various VOCs using passive vapor collectors

installed along the western edge of the Dennys River and along Meddybemps Lake. These

data indicate that some of the VOCs in groundwater were discharging to the Dennys River.

The current site conceptual model for contaminant fate and transport in Quadrant II is that

soil VOC contaminants are being solubilized in response to seasonal and periodic

precipitation events. As precipitation infiltrates into the contaminated soils, some of the

VOCs partition into the aqueous phase and leach into the underlying groundwater. The

VOCs then migrate with groundwater through advection and discharge to the Dennys

River, or may be conveyed downgradient in the bedrock groundwater. The location where

bedrock groundwater is discharging is currently being evaluated by TtNUS.

1.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology

The preliminary interpretation of geologic and hydrogeologic conditions for the Eastern

Surplus Company Site is based on geophysical data, geologic samples, and water level

measurements developed by the USGS.

The regional geology is characterized by igneous bedrock overlain by glacial and glacio-

marine sediments that were deposited during the Pleistocene glaciation. The glacial

sediments include glacial till, which is relatively thin in this region, and is commonly

composed of a very dense, unsorted mixture of gravel in a fine-grained matrix of sand, silt,

and clay. The till deposits are often overlain by glacio-marine sediments that vary in


DRAFT

thickness, and are composed of stratified and non-stratified sands, gravels, silts, and

clays.

The glacio-marine deposits at the site fall into two major categories: coarse-grained

glaciomarine deposits, and fine-grained glaciomarine deposits. USGS estimated hydraulic

conductivity values range from 20 to 40 feet per day. Air permeability values estimated

from these hydraulic conductivity values range from 7.3 to 14.6 darcy. Calculations used

to estimate air permeability are provided in Appendix A.

The geology of the Eastern Surplus Company Site is similar to the regional geology. The

bedrock beneath the site consists of igneous rock (the gabbro-diorite) that appears to be

overlain by glacial and post-glacial deposits. Bedrock at the site is blanketed by relatively

thin deposits of glacial till, ranging in thickness from about 10 to 0 feet. The till apparently

is thicker on the eastern side of the Dennys River, across from the site, where till is

reported to be approximately 40 feet thick. Till underlies most of the site, but may be

absent along the Dennys River, and in an area in the southwestern part of the site (south-

central portion of Quadrant III). The till consists of a dense mixture of sand and gravel in a

fine-grained matrix containing as much as 25 percent silt and clay. Soils with these

density, texture, and grain size characteristics have low hydraulic conductivity and

therefore low air permeability.

Fine-grained deposits of very fine-grained sand, silt, and clay are present in the central and

southeastern portions of the site (southern portion of Quadrant II, and Quadrant IV). The

fine-grained deposits often occur in two sedimentary facies (layers that grade into each

other). The upper layer is a sandy facies consisting of fine sand and silt, and is generally

from 5 to 10 feet thick. The lower layer is a silt-clay facies that is massive to thinly

laminated silt, and clay with minor fine sand.

The hydraulic conductivity of the sandy facies is typically moderate, estimated by USGS

as approximately 3 feet per day. The hydraulic conductivity of the silt-clay facies is

typically low, with estimated values in the range of 2.7 X 10 5 to 1.0 X 10"3 feet per day.


DRAFT

Air permeability of the silt-clay facies is estimated to range from 9.8 X 10"6 to 3.6 X 10"4

darcy.

Preliminary interpretations indicate that the extent and thickness of saturated overburden

is expected to change throughout the year in response to groundwater recharge rates.

Groundwater within the overburden unit is interpreted to flow generally east toward and

discharge into the Dennys River.

-1.4 Test Area Geology and Hydrogeology

As part of the Treatability Study/Field Investigation between November 6, 1997 and

November 14, 1997, 14 soil borings (Figure 1-3) were advanced in the VE test area

(Quadrant II) by Northeast Drilling. The borings were drilled to acquire soil samples for

analyses to support implementing the VE treatability study and to obtain additional

information regarding overburden stratigraphy. Subsequent to the drilling, monitoring wells

were constructed in six of the borings (MW-3S, MW-20S, MW-23S, MW-23M, MW-23B,

and MW-24B) to supplement an existing network and to further characterize groundwater

contamination. Eight of the 14 borings were used to install a vapor extraction well, an air

sparging well, and six air piezometers (VE-01, ASW-01, and AP-01 through AP-06), as

part of the vapor extraction and air sparging testing program (Figure 1-4).

The geology of Quadrant II includes unconsolidated glacial and post-glacial deposits, e.g.

alluvium, composed of silt with fine sand; fine sand; coarse gravel with fine sand, and

boulders overlying an altered, fractured diorite bedrock. Based on geologic data obtained

from soil borings in Quadrant II, the thickness of natural surficial materials extends from

near surface to approximately 7.5 to 8.0 feet below grade across the test area.

Regionally, much of the till-draped bedrock surface is overlain by fine-grained and coarse-

grained glaciomarine deposits, as shown on published geologic maps (Ludman and Hill,

1990).


GCQ

669^-959(9^6)/9910 VN *uo}6uiui|yv\ pooy ujdsuop gg

-ONI 'SON H03A VUJ.3J.

3MO OOA~M3\V033\anS-lSV3\3*dV; ON 31U

9661 '01 U38N3AON •31VQ

"A3H

.001 - .1 =3TVOS

OHO "I VkH 03XD3W3

-A.G NWVtKI

31 IS ANVdNOO SniddHS Nd31SV3c-i OOA

001 = HONI I

.003

31VhlXOMddV 03iGaSN03 38 01 SNOaV3NH3a ONV SNOU.V301 TIV I'S310N

JO 11431X3 XOUddV

I MOTJ toivM sovjans

AHVONnOfl 316 aiVWKOMddV , , i 1 1 M 11 n 1 1 1 1 ,

NOUV001 TQKl

a N j a 3 Qo>inCO

£

DRAFT

i Ffjun

& AP - MR PIEZOMETER

llQll VE - VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL

(3 ASV - MR SPARGING WELL

<$)• OVERBURDEN WELL

BEDROCK WELL

MYV-20B

NOTES:

1. ALL LOCATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.

2. PLAN MOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN.

3. BASE MAP FROM A PLAN BY OEST ASSOCIATES, INC..DATED: NOVEMBER 1996. DRAWING f C-101. ENTITLED:STANDARD TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. EASTERN SURPLUSSUPERFUND SITE. ROUTE 191, MEDDYBEMPS. WASHINGTONCOUNTY. MAINE. CADD FILE: 25901W

GRAPHIC SCALE

0- 20'

1 INCH - 20 FEET

VE/AS TESTING WELL LAYOUT FIGURE 1-4


DRAWN BY: A. PUTNAM

CHECKED BY: D. CONAN

SCALE: 1" - 20'

REV.:

DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 1998

i \DWG\EAST_SUR\LAYOUT.DWG

TETRA TECH NU3, INC.

55 Jonspin Road Wilmington, MA 01887(978)658-7899


DRAFT

A dense, silty sand with coarse, angular gravel was encountered at approximately 4 feet

below grade in the soil borings for VE-01 and AP-04. Interpretation of this material as

potential till was based mostly on soil density and the mixture of materials observed. Till-

like layers were not encountered in any of the other soil borings in Quadrant II. At AP-06,

medium dense, silt and poorly graded, fine-grained sand were the primary materials

observed from 0 feet to approximately 8 feet below grade.

The majority of the Quadrant II borings exhibited fine-grained glacio-marine deposits,

overlaying coarse-grained glacio-marine deposits, overlaying bedrock. Interrupted layers of

glacial till were observed in two of the borings. Soil density, stratification, and amount of

fine-grained materials varied from boring to boring.

2.0 VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The VE field test program was designed to evaluate whether VE is viable for VOC-

contaminated soils in Quadrant II, identify which VOCs are removed by VE, and evaluate

the effectiveness of activated carbon in capturing the extracted VOCs. Each aspect of the

test program is presented in this section.

2.1 VE Test Program Objective

The objective of the VE test program was to determine the feasibility of vapor extraction

as a viable remedial technology for VOC-contaminated soils present in the "hot spot" area

of Quadrant II. The vapor extraction test was designed to provide sufficient data to

estimate the air permeability of the lithology, calculate a radius of influence for the vapor

extraction well, and collect analytical data to measure the effectiveness of the VE system

in extracting VOC vapors from the vadose zone. A decision could then be made whether

VE was a viable remedial technology based on the permeability, influent VOC

concentrations, and radius of influence. If VE were considered a viable remedial

technology for the site, the results provided from the data evaluation could be used to

develop a conceptual design for a VE remediation system.


DRAFT

2.2 VE Test Program Overview

The VE test program was designed to characterize test area soils, determine the presence

and extent of test area VOCs, and determine air emission controls effectiveness.

2.2.1 Test Area Soils Characterization and VE Wells

The soils in the test area were characterized and classified during the vapor extraction

well, air sparging well, and air piezometer installation phase. Soil boring advancement, soil

sample logging, and well and piezometer construction were conducted in accordance with

the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (B&RE, 1997b). Northeast Drilling Co., Inc. was

subcontracted by TtNUS to provide the drilling and well installation services.

During the installation of the wells and air piezometers, continuous split-barrel samples

were collected from each borehole to the top of rock. The soils were logged following the

SAP procedures. The depth to rock was confirmed at VE-01 and at AP-05 by coring at

least 5 feet into bedrock to confirm that the top of rock had indeed been reached. A more

detailed description of the field investigation activities is presented in Section 3.1.

2.2.2 VE Permeability Testing

The VE permeability test was originally structured to include three field pneumatic tests

including: vapor extraction, only; combined VE and air sparging; and air sparge, only

(B&RE, 1997a). VE would be employed to remove VOCs from the vadose zone while air

sparging would remove VOCs from the saturated zone. However, groundwater was not

encountered in the overburden soils during installation of the wells and piezometers for the

study. The lack of overburden groundwater prevented implementing the air sparging test.

As a result, the air sparge only, and the combined air sparge/VE portions of the test

program were deleted.


DRAFT

The air piezometers and the air sparging well were used to monitor vacuum levels in the

vadose zone. The piezometers and air sparging well were capped with sampling ports,

allowing connection to magnehelic pressure gauges. Well and piezometer locations in the

test area are depicted in Figure 1-4. The boring logs and well completion reports are

currently being produced.

2.2.3 Soils and Gas Chemical Analyses

As part of the well and piezometer installation program, soil samples were collected so

that the presence and extent of VOCs in the test area could be characterized. Aliquots of

soils were obtained from each split-barrel sampler for on-site field gas chromatograph (GO

screening to identify potential VOCs presence and to provide a vertical profile for each

boring. Based on the GC screening results, soil samples from one 2-foot interval were

then selected and sent for off-site laboratory analyses of VOCs, PCBs, and metals.

During the VE test phase, vapor-phase samples extracted from the subsurface by the VE

test unit were collected as grab samples and as whole air samples. The grab samples

were obtained to provide real-time screening results and to assess whether breakthrough

may have occurred in the GAC unit used to control emissions from the VE test unit.

Whole air samples were collected to provide measurements of extracted soil gas VOC

constituents and concentrations over a prolonged period during which the soil stratum is

stressed by a vacuum.

2.2.4 VOCs Air Emission Controls

Granulated activated carbon (GAC) was used to treat all soil gases extracted by the VE

test unit prior to discharge to the ambient air (B&RE, 1997a). Although the test plan

indicated that twin vapor phase GAC units would be used, only one unit was actually

used. TtNUS reviewed the Ambient Air and Soil Gas Sampling Report prepared by EPA

Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation (OEME) only after the test plan was

developed. Based on the VOC concentrations detected in soil gases during June 1997, it


DRAFT

was estimated that one GAC unit would be adequate to reduce VOC levels to the state's

ambient air quality guidelines or standards.

3.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES

The VE test program was conducted to evaluate the test area soils responses and air

permeability when they were subjected to VE, and VE's ability to remove VOCs from the

subsurface soils. Details of the field activities conducted to address test program

objectives are provided in the following narrative.

3.1 Soil Sampling and Well/Piezometer Installations

As a preliminary step of the VE test program, a TtNUS drilling subcontractor (Northeast

Drilling) advanced borings in the test area and completed them as test wells and

piezometers. From November 6 through November 13, 1997, soil borings were advanced

in and adjacent to the Quadrant II test area and in Quadrant IV to provide a more accurate

characterization of the subsurface soils, to better delineate the lateral and vertical extent

of contamination in areas of concern, and to support implementing the on-site VE testing

program. Only Quadrant II soil borings will be discussed in this section.

Subsurface soil samples were acquired continuously (every 2-foot interval) using 3-inch

diameter split-barrel samplers from ground surface to either top of rock or to a pre-

determined depth (based on available data); standard penetration testing parameters were

applied, depending on the diameter of the split-barrel sampler used.

After retrieving and opening a split-barrel sampler, the soil sample was monitored for VOCs

with a portable photoionization detector (PID). A soil specimen was then collected

immediately for CLP VOC analysis using an Encore® sampler (in accordance with the

procedures presented in Appendix D of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (B&RE, 1997b)).

The soil sample was then split longitudinally with a decontaminated device and portions of

each longitudinal section were selected from the bottom of the sample and every 0.1 foot


DRAFT

interval above that point and placed directly into 4 oz. wide mouth VOA vial for on-site GC

VOCs screening. After logging the sample soils description, remaining soils were placed in

appropriate bottleware and stored temporarily for possible TCL and TAL, grain size, TOC,

or SPLP analyses. Field GC screening (in accordance with Appendix C of the Treatability

Study Test Plan, (B&RE, 1997a) of the soil specimens was performed. After the results

were reviewed, the soil samples from the interval of interest (usually highest VOCs

concentrations) were packaged and shipped for off-site laboratory analysis.

Field GC screening of continuous split-barrel samples conducted for each borehole allowed

a vertical profile of VOCs detections to be prepared for each borehole. The soil GC

screening results are presented in units of part per billion volume (ppb/v) in Appendix B of

this memorandum. These analytical results represent the relative response of the GC to

VOCs present in the headspace (vapor) of the soil specimen container. It should be noted

that the results from GC screening do not necessarily correlate to the soil VOCs content or

concentrations since not all of the VOCs present in the soil sample are likely to have

volatilized into the head space. Instead, the soil GC screening is meant to only provide

real-time, relative indicators of VOCs presence and abundance so that samples may be

selected for further laboratory analysis. Laboratory GC analysis of the same soil samples

would produce more accurate soil VOC concentrations because a greater percentage of

VOCs are purged from the soil samples prior to analysis.

As part of the VE/AS testing program, eight borings were advanced in the Quadrant II test

area, and completed as a vapor extraction well (VE-01), an air sparging well (ASW-01),

and six air piezometers (AP-01 to AP-06). Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show diagrams of a typical

vapor extraction well and an air piezometer, respectively. The vapor extraction well, air

sparging well, and air piezometer construction details are presented in Appendix A. Well

and piezometers installed included:

• One 2-inch inner diameter (I.D.) VE well installed to a total depth of 7.25 feet and

screened from 2 to 7 feet below ground surface (bgs)


DRAFT

BENTONITE SLURRY '

TOP OF SAND PACK6" A Rn\/F Tr\o nr ^POCTM

|1 SCREENSECTION

_LI

\

>>

^

II

12'

TICK-UP

2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC

^^- 4" BOREHOLE

BENTONITE PELLET LAYER-*- (T THICK)

2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC SCREEN^^ 0.01" HORIZONTAL SLOT

(20/30 SILICA SAND)

t6" MIN.

//J$ff i S/SSfS

BEDROCK

VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL DETAIL FIGURE 3-1

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITE• B

MEDDYBEMPS, MAINE ft TETRA TECH NU5* IHC-DRAWN BY: A. PUTNAM REV.: 0

CHECKED BY: D. CONAN DATE NOVEMBER 10. 1998 55 Jonspin Rood Wilmington. MA 01887

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE {£& C:\DWG\EAST_SUR\SPAR.DWG (978)658-7899


DRAFT

TOP OF SAND PACK6" ABOVE TOP OF SCREEN

2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC SCREEN __O.OT HORIZONTAL SLOT

CLEAN QUARTZ SAND PACK .(20/30 SILICA SAND)

\

~'"

T2'

TICK-UP

\

* 2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC

• TOP OF rRFFN

"*^ 4" BOREHOLE

t

6' MINIMUM

"**" 1 "^ BEDROCK (APPROX. T BGS)

TYPICAL AIR PIEZOMETER DETAIL FIGURE 3-2

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITE

MEDDYBEMPS, MAINE "|fc TETRA TECH NUS, INC.DRAWN BYi A. PUTNAM REV.: 0 **

CHECKED BY: D. CONAN DATE: NOVEMBER 10. 1998 55 Jonapin Rood WSmlnaton. MA 01887

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE ($& C: \DWG\EASTJSUR\PIEZDWG (978)658-7899


DRAFT

• One 2-inch I.D. air sparging well installed to a total depth of 7.3 feet and

screened from 5.8 to 6.8 feet bgs

• Six 2-inch diameter air piezometers installed to total depths ranging from 7.3 to 9.0

feet and screened from approximately 3 to 7 feet bgs.

Six borings were completed as monitoring wells (MW-20B, MW-24B, MW-3S, MW-23S,

MW-23M, and MW-23B) along the perimeter of the test area to support the Rl activities.

The depth to groundwater in Quadrant II (specifically the test area) appears to be highly

variable throughout the year.

3.2 Vapor Extraction Testing

The first phase of the work included installing one air sparging well, one VE well, and six

air piezometers within the study area for the permeability test program.

The second phase of the test program included mobilizing the air sparging/vapor extraction

equipment trailer and performing the VE testing. The VE blower was run by a 7'/i Hp motor

powered by a diesel generator. The vapor extraction system was connected to the VE

well via flexible hose with quick disconnect fittings. The process train included, in order, a

knock-out drum (moisture separator), influent sample port, carbon treatment unit, effluent

sample port, flow meter, particle filter, bleed valve (make-up air), VE blower, and silencer,

as shown in Figure 3-3. The vacuum extraction test phase was conducted over a 24-hour

period. The test program commenced at 9:20 am, Wednesday, November 12, 1997, and

concluded at 10:00 am, Thursday, November 13, 1997. The VE system operated almost

continuously throughout the 24-hour period with two exceptions. The high-level float

switch in the knock-out (K-0) drum shut the system off at 7:30 PM, Wednesday evening.

Approximately 40 gallons of water (soil moisture) were transferred from the K-0 drum to a

55-gallon storage drum. The system was restarted at 8:00 PM, and left to run overnight.


DRAFT

CO

LJ


DRAFT

The system was not operating upon arrival Thursday morning at 6:00 am. Inspection of

the system revealed the high-level switch shut the system off a second time. It was

estimated that the system ran until approximately 4:00 am, based on the length of

operation prior to filling the K-0 drum Wednesday evening. Approximately 40 gallons of

water were transferred from the K-0 drum to a second 55-gallon storage drum. The

system was restarted at 7:00 am Thursday morning and ran another three hours until the

end of the test program, 10:00 am.

VE flowrates were increased from 1 5 to 25 to 30 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)

and vacuum levels ranged from 78 to 125 inches of water column) at the extraction well.

A step test was conducted to develop a vacuum - flowrate response curve, that could be

used in a full-scale design.

Readings (vacuum levels) were recorded using magnehelic gauges at the monitoring points.

Monitoring points included the six air piezometers installed for the test, the air sparging

well (ASW-01), and the groundwater monitoring well MW-20S (which was dry during the

testing phase). Vacuum levels were recorded every 30 minutes. Vacuum levels at the

monitoring points ranged from "no influence" to 11 inches of water column.

The vapor extraction test was performed at the flow rates, vacuum levels, and durations

presented in Table 3-1.

The VE pilot test commenced with an extraction flowrate of 15 cfm and an applied

vacuum of 84 inches of water column. Vacuum levels in the vadose zone reached

equilibrium after approximately 1.5 hours. Vacuum levels ranged from 7 inches of water

at the ASW-01 (5 feet from VE-01) to 0.2 inches of water at MW-20S, which is 38 feet

from VE-01.

After 3.5 hours of operation, the flowrate was increased to 25 cfm at an applied vacuum

of 129 inches of water column. Vacuum levels monitored in the vadose zone reached


DRAFT

TABLE 3-1SUMMARY OF VE TESTING CONDITIONS

VAPOR EXTRACTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMEASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITE

MEDDYBEMPS, MAINE

Date and Time VE Flowrate

(cfm)

Vacuum at VE well

(Inches HZO)

November 12, 1997

9:20 a.m.

1:30 p.m.

4:05 p.m.

Commence Test

Step #1

Step #2

15

25

30

84

129

136

November 13, 1997

10:00 a.m. End Test 30 136


DRAFT

equilibrium in less than one hour. Vacuum levels ranged from 10 inches of water, at both

the ASW-01 and AP-01, to 0.4 inches of water at MW-20S.

Finally, the flowrate was increased to 30 cfm at an applied vacuum of 136 inches of

water column. At this point, the vacuum blower was at its vacuum capacity, 1 36 inches

of water, or 10 inches of mercury. Vacuum levels in the vadose zone reached 11 inches

of water at the ASW-01, and 0.4 inches of water at MW-20S.

Throughout the test, TtNUS did not observe any influence at AP-04 or AP-06, which are 6

and 15 feet from the VE-01 extraction well, respectively. Possible explanations for the

lack of response include: 1) the two piezometers were installed in a seam of tight (low

permeability) material; or 2) smearing occurred during installation, thus sealing the

piezometers from the vadose zone. Based on a review of the boring logs, the former case

is the more probable reason for the poor response.

3.3 VE Test VOCs Sampling

During the VE test, TtNUS collected vapor-phase VOCs whole air samples from the influent

and effluent lines of the granulated activated carbon (GAC) vapor treatment unit connected to

the discharge of the VE test unit blower (see Figure 3-3). The untreated (inflow to the GAC

unit) and the treated (outflow from the GAC unit) gases were collected using passivated

SUMMA canisters for laboratory analysis and Tedlar bags for on-site field GC screening

analysis. The purpose of the sampling was to provide information to:

• Identify the VOCs removed from the subsurface soils during the testing phase

• Evaluate the effectiveness of VOCs removal from subsurface soils during the VE field

test over a sustained duration

• Document the effectiveness of the vapor control system (GAC unit) used during the

VE test phase


DRAFT

3.3.1 SUMMA Canister Sampling

The VOC SUMMA canister sampling was conducted in accordance with the EPA Method

TO-14, as presented in the Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic

Compounds in Ambient Air (EPA, 1988), with modifications for sampling from the VE test unit

as presented in the Draft Treatability Study Test Plan (B&RE, 1997a).

Two sets of SUMMA canister samples were collected (one set in the morning and one in the

afternoon) from the VE unit on November 12,1997 during the vapor extraction phase of the

field program. Each sample set consisted of one influent and one effluent sample collected

over a 4-hour period. The influent sample was collected from the VE unit intake line prior to

the vapor control system (activated carbon) and the effluent sample was collected from the VE

unit line after passing through the vapor control system. The air samples were collected using

certified cleaned, evacuated SUMMA polished stainless steel 6-liter canisters. The canisters

were connected to the VE units lines using stainless steel Swageloc" fittings and one-quarter

inch diameter Teflon™ tubing.

Sample collection was integrated over each 4-hour period using laboratory-supplied flow

controllers designed to regulate the specific flow of offgasses into each canister. After the

sampling was completed, the canisters were labeled and packaged for shipping under chain-of-

custody documentation, to the subcontracted analytical laboratory. Canister samples were

analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for the Method TO-14 VOC

target compound list.

In addition to the two sets of 4-hour samples collected on November 12, a single SUMMA

canister grab sample was collected from the VE unit influent line on November 13, 1997 at the

request of EPA. This sample was collected in a similar manner; however, the flow controller

was omitted from the sampling train, thereby shortening the time (7 minutes) for the grab

sample collection. A chain-of-custody (COC) form for each sample is provided in Appendix C.


DRAFT

3.3.1.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples

QA/QC samples included one trip blank canister, one Performance Evaluation (PE) sample, and

one laboratory control sample. A field duplicate was not collected during the sampling

program.

3.3.1.2 Trip Blank

The trip blank was prepared prior to sample collection by selecting one of the supplied SUMMA

canisters and filling the canister with high purity air (certified 99.999% total hydrocarbon free).

The trip blank canister accompanied the other sampling canisters into the field and was shipped

with the other canisters to the laboratory for analysis

3.3.1.3 Performance Evaluation Sample

The PE sample was prepared by the EPA OEME Laboratory in Lexington, Massachusetts, using

one of the analytical laboratory supplied SUMMA canisters. This canister was shipped to the

laboratory for analysis in a separate container with the other canisters to evaluate the accuracy

of the analytical laboratory.

3.3.1.4 Laboratory Control Sample

The laboratory control sample was a 200 ppm (parts per million) standard prepared by the

analytical laboratory. This canister was shipped to the field sampling crew with the cleaned

SUMMA canisters. The laboratory control canister was not opened or disturbed, and was

returned to the laboratory for analysis in its received condition for analysis as part of the

internal laboratory QA/QC.


DRAFT

3.3.2 Tedlar Bag Sampling

Field screening for VOCs was also performed during the vapor extraction test phase on

November 12 and 13, 1997. The objective of the sampling effort was to provide real-time

analytical screening results to evaluate VOC concentrations in the offgas from the VE unit (to

evaluate the effectiveness of the vapor control system) and to provide additional data to

supplement the SUMMA canister sampling described above.

3.3.2.1 Tedlar Bag Sample Collection

The Tedlar bag sample collection apparatus consisted of a "lung" sampler, a 1-liter Tedlar bag.

Teflon connecting tubing, and a hand-operated vacuum pump. The Tedlar bag was placed in

the lung sampler and connected to the VE unit sample port (Swageloc® fitting). As air in the

lung chamber was evacuated, differential pressure caused the sample to flow into and inflate

the Tedlar bag. Collection of the Tedlar bag grab samples took approximately 10 to 15 minutes

each. Once filled, the Tedlar bags were removed from the chamber and returned to the on-site

field screening laboratory for analysis.

3.3.2.2 VOC Screening Analysis

Analysis of the Tedlar bag samples was performed in conformance with the Region I EPA

OEME Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) V-16, Ambient Air Grab Sample

Analysis for Volatile Organic Compounds. This procedure establishes a uniform method for

screening ambient air samples for VOCs using a Photovac portable gas chromatograph (GO

with a photoionization detector. The method was used to screen for the following VOCs:

• Benzene

• Trichloroethene

• Toluene

• Tetrachloroethene

• Ethyl benzene


DRAFT

• m-xylene

• o-xylene

Therefore, only the above listed compounds can be identified and quantified when using this

method and the available VOC standard.

4.0 DATA EVALUATION

A five step process was used to evaluate the field data collected during the VE test

program:

1) The test program vacuum data were applied to pass/fail criteria established by

Chevron Research & Technology Company (CRTC). If the data "pass", they can be

used to calculate VE design parameters.

2) EPA's Hyperventilate, ver. 2.0, A Software Guidance System Created For Vapor

Extraction Applications, was employed to estimate the permeability of the vadose

zone.

3) The VE well radius of influence was estimated using an equation presented in A

Practical Approach to the Design, Operation & Maintenance, and Monitoring of In-

Situ Soil-Venting Systems, by P.C. Johnson et al.

4) The soil boring data and water level measurements were reviewed to determine the

geology and hydrogeology of the test area.

5) The analytical results from the SUMMA canister, Tedlar bag, and soil screening

samples were reviewed to determine distribution of VOC contaminants, influent

concentrations during VE testing, and effectiveness of air emission controls.


DRAFT

4.1 Vacuum Test Data Acceptability

High quality vacuum test data are important since VE design decisions are based on

vacuum data accuracy. CRTC has developed guidelines based on review of a database of

more than 80 single well pilot tests. Pass/fail criteria are based on soil vacuum

distribution. Vacuum levels at monitoring points are normalized as a percentage of the

extraction well vacuum and plotted versus radial distance from the well. The actual

vacuum distribution is compared with a predicted vacuum distribution from a two-

dimensional air flow model. A third curve showing a minimum vacuum level of 0.1-inches

water, normalized to the vapor extraction well vacuum, is also plotted. The test data set

is considered passing if its vacuum distribution curve falls above either of the other two

curves. The Eastern Surplus Company Site data set "passed" the CRTC criteria, and the

test results are presented in Appendix D.

4.2 Vadose Zone Permeability Evaluation

Once the vacuum data were deemed acceptable, EPA's Hyperventilate, ver. 2.0, was

employed to estimate the permeability of the vadose zone. Based on A Practical

Approach to the Design, Operation & Maintenance, and Monitoring of In-Situ Soil-Venting

Systems, by P.C. Johnson et al., Hyperventilate is a software guidance system for VE (soil

venting) applications. The program guides the user through a structured process to:

• Identify and characterize required site-specific data

• Assist in determining if VE is appropriate

• Evaluate air permeability results

• Calculate the minimum number of required VE wells

• Compare site-specific results with an ideal case

The vacuum data were entered into the program, which calculated an air permeability

range of 20 to 1,000 darcy. Large ranges of permeability are not unusual. Permeability

often varies by several orders of magnitude over small distances. Based on the lithology


DRAFT

of the site, the permeability is probably on the lower end of the range. Results are

presented in Appendix G-2.

4.3 VE Well Radius of Influence Calculation

A Practical Approach to the Design, Operation & Maintenance, and Monitoring of In-Situ

Soil-Venting Systems, by P.C. Johnson et al., presents an equation that can be used to

estimate the radius of influence of the VE well.

The working equation is:

Pr = Pw * [(1+(1-(Patm/P«)2) * ln(r/Rw)/ln(Rw/R,)]*

Where:Pr Absolute pressure measured at distance "r" from the

extraction well. (g/cm*sec2)

P« Absolute pressure measured at the extraction well. (g/cm*sec2)

Patm Absolute ambient pressure 1,013,000 (g/cm*sec2)r Distance from the piezometer (monitoring point) to the extraction well.

(cm)

Rw Radius of extraction well, (cm)

R! Effective radius of influence, (cm)

Ri is the only unknown. The equation is entered in an Excel® spreadsheet and solved for R.

via trial and error. R, is entered and changed accordingly until the calculated Pr coincides

with the measured Pr. The calculation is presented in Appendix D. The radius of influence

was estimated at 1 5 feet.

4.4 Test Area Geology and Hydrogeology Evaluation

The saturated overburden thickness and its seasonal variability are key to the viability of

VE as a remedial alternative. VE requires that a significant portion of the contaminated soil

be unsaturated. In March 1998, the saturated overburden thickness varied from 3.53 feet

in ASW-01 to 12.62 feet in MW-23S. In June 1998, the thicknesses varied from 1.43

feet in ASW-01 to 10.60 feet in MW-23S. The seasonal variability of thickness, from


DRAFT

March to June 1998, within a single well or piezometer varied from 1.10 feet in AP-04 to

5.00 feet in MW-3S. Although thicknesses could not be calculated for December 1997, it

is expected that the variability between December 1997 and March 1998 would be even

greater. Such large seasonal variability of saturated overburden thickness would limit the

effectiveness of a full-scale VE system.

4.5 Analytical Results

4.5.1 SUMMA Canister Results

A summary of the SUMMA canister VOC results is presented in Table 4-1. The full set of

laboratory analytical results is presented in Appendix B. Only the results greater than the

reported detection limit are shown. The data indicate that ten VOCs, at a wide range of

concentrations, were extracted during the VE test phase. VOC concentrations from the three

influent canister samples ranged from 14J ppb for cis-1,2-dichloroethene to 5,200 ppb/v of

methylene chloride. The effluent stream sample data also indicate that the vapor control

system efficiently removed 8 of 10 VOC compounds present in the offgas. The two VOCs

that were not removed by the vapor control system included acetone (260 ppb/v) and

tetrahydrofuran (370 to 420 ppb/v). As a result, the effluent stream "total hydrocarbons"

levels ranged from 1,745 to 1,856 ug/m3. A full-scale VE system would require a more

complex vapor control system in order to remove acetone and tetrahydrofuran, and to meet

state regulations.

Review of Table 4-1 indicates that, despite two unplanned temporary system shutdowns

resulting from the high water level switch triggering, VOC concentrations in the extracted

vapor (influent) stream generally increased over time for most of the extracted vapor VOC

constituents. These results suggest that the rate of VOCs desorption from the soils in the

vadose zone had not yet reached a steady state condition. Under prolonged test

conditions, it is anticipated that vapor extraction would eventually have resulted in static

or declining rate of VOCs extraction. These sampling results suggest that VE is effective

in extracting a variety of vapor-phase VOCs from subsurface soils in the test area.

RI98159D -30- Eastern Surplus. ME

DRAFT

(O

§t-(/)uj Uioc .ui 2 u jt < z5| <

5 ** 8 5- ~UI UJ CO ^

DO CO —i ui a.< = O. CO ~P- 5 tt >sag|i*iO "Jo

*^« •§

•C io ,-"5 "3 -5

illOJ

^ r*.

= ' §

.£ o «- j= •-

s| g

|j | KB ^ ^BUJ T^ ^^ ^^

O

3 r.^ V S>So <^

lili

(N

V P>1 T g

E o e UJ t- £ .-

CM

° r>.c *7 9?

llli

s «.2 Q

|l

iif -s.1to co

CMCOCO

8CMin

in

CO

in*~

8

•o

1 M

ethy

lene

Chl

ori

2CO

in

en

in*"

3

81

1 c

is-1

,2-D

ichl

oroe

r_

CO

COCO

—>

in

in

COCO

in*~

CO

1 T

richl

oroe

then

e

enCO

oCM

in

8

CM

"*

COCO

1

odenin

8CM

in

Q

CM

in*~

1

o

| T

etra

chlo

roet

hen

*!•dCOCM

O

*-

in

CMCO

in•~

CO

1 E

thyl

benz

ene

**CM

enCO

0

CO

m

8CO

-Jin

0

1 m

&p-

Xyl

ene

**CM

enCO

oinCM

in

Oin

— jen*~

o

«

6

o^tiv

CO

8r\iV T|

oin

8CM

§in

1 A

ceto

ne

p^

CMCOCO

8CM

OCM^*>j

§

O

CO

1

1 T

etra

hydr

ofur

an

p>-i a,? <8 -«- CO

,3.P^ nco ECM at•«*• 3

CO "

*l^~ 3

CO "•>

CO CM 3

in «

^.0«-~ 3

CO00 "

CO CTCM 3

nE

I

(A

Tot

al H

ydro

carb

c

a>'5)2a><o


DRAFT

However, this assessment did not consider the soil matrix and distribution of contaminants

in the test area.

4.5.2 Tedlar Bag Sampling Results

Tedlar bag samples were collected periodically during the SUMMA canister sampling effort

described above. A summary of the influent and effluent levels of VOCs is presented in

Table 4-2. Results from the sampling are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B. VOC

compounds identified in the Tedlar bag samples included trichloroethene, toluene,

tetrachloroethene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Generally, these same compounds were

detected in the SUMMA canister samples. For both sampling methods, contaminant levels in

the samples were similarly higher in the influent samples than in effluent samples. However,

the correlation between the Tedlar bag and canister sample concentrations is poor. The reason

for this poor correlation is not clear, but may be a result of an analytical error (VOC standard

degradation) or the shorter sample time used for Tedlar bag grab samples compared with longer

sampling time of canister sampling (results averaged over sample period).

Acetone and tetrahydrofuran (water-soluble solvents) have poor response to the Photovac GC

screening procedures. The field screening chromatograms from the effluent samples indicated

relatively low levels of VOCs present in the effluent offgas since acetone and tetrahydrofuran

were not detected. The field screening effort was successful in providing real-time data

results, indicating that the VOCs were continuously extracted throughout the VE test.

4.5.3 Soil Samples Onsite Screening and Laboratory Results

Many VOCs and unknown compounds detected during on-site field gas chromatography

screening were present at relatively high levels (large, offscale chromatogram peaks).

High levels of benzene were detected, mostly in air piezometer samples AP-02, AP-04, and

AP-06 and soil boring sample location BII-04. The compound o-xylene was detected at

nearly all sample locations. Moderate levels of toluene and ethylbenzene were detected,

mostly in the grab samples, and in sample MW-20B. Minor levels of dichloroethene,


DRAFT

UJ

$to

m o Eco O m

CO01 LU

CMLU

iiaiiH CC u- £:

-i o°CC

OQ.

3m (O

RE

MA

RK

S

>Xo

-j

XE

iV

LU

*

gK-

IU

*~

2GO

UJ

< LUo S

P

oLUs!</>

Q.

afte

r sy

stem

sta

rtu

2 u

nkno

wns

00

00

r> to5? .c^ m^ 0

l-LU

LL

9J £

*~ Si- CN

H

UJDLLLLLU

poor

res

pons

e

9J .cf^ en~^ o«- CM

1-LUID

LLz

larg

e un

know

ns,

vacu

um in

crea

se

,_"

LOCM

OCOCO

P» co5 JC

*~ 8~ 8

H-

LJJ

Z

9J i o

^ 5

LUZDLLLLLU

seve

ral un

know

nco

mpo

unds

CNCO

rv to9J £

»~ St- CO

h-LU

1 1Z

fv to9? £CM LO

i- CD

1-

LU

LLLLLU

COC

o

c

CU

JO

10)CO

OCOCN

O

2 m

«- 00

h-LU

LLZ

l*» co9J £2 LO

1-

JJZ3

LLLLLU

to•o

unkn

own

com

poun

COCO

COCM

9? .cCM

1-

LU

1 1

seve

ral u

nkno

wns

,re

star

t V

E u

nit

CO

CO

o*~

.CO

CO*~

i*» to9J £f2 Q«- 0)

l-LU

11

larg

e un

know

n,pr

ior

to s

hutd

own

^jin*~

OCOCO

CO

LO

!"•» co9J £J2 LO

^

1-JJ

II

z

<oV

COQ.

0CO

cuEJj>X

1Q.

o9

E<6C

•

"55

0

Q.V

fc

cutoto

«—

SI

N

OJ

cu

ta

ou

«u a§ 5-Q , i

3~

CO O"

W O

"CU

CO =

l ^ c i o§ B i .-— .•C to c"

e I &icu -v t; cu+-* v+ V (~^ *- .=1 CN <0 —

111 p ^

°- ? o D

s^ii2 M ^ a

S|^z•"iisj ??«u!

UW iT — I

-Q E § Zi CO S LU

M ?|g

m i § i=

MCU


DRAFT

trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene were detected in the samples. Most of the

contamination present was detected within the top 2 feet of soil, except at the sample

locations AP-04 and AP-06, where trichloroethane and benzene were detected at greater

depths (2-8 feet); BII-04, where minor benzene contamination was detected from 0-6 feet

and 0-14 feet, respectively; MW-20B, where minor toluene contamination was detected

from 4-6 feet; and MW-3S, where o-xylene was detected from 0-8 feet. The highest

relative levels of the identified and unknown VOCs were detected in air sparging well

sample ASW-01, and air piezometer samples AP-04 and AP-06. The identities and

concentrations of VOCs reported by the on-site field screening method are subject to

limitations inherent in the screening method. Therefore, compounds should be considered

as tentatively identified. The on-site field gas chromatograph screening results are

presented in Table B-1 of Appendix B.

The samples of the test area were also analyzed by a laboratory. Analytical laboratory

results by mass spectroscopy are more reliable than the on-site field screening results in

terms of compound identification and quantitation. Most samples analyzed by the

laboratory were taken within 0-2 feet. Samples from locations that yielded non-detected

results or very minor contamination during on-site field screening were collected from

greater depths for laboratory analysis, except for sample location AP06-0002, where

benzene was detected at greater depths during on-site field screening. Laboratory analysis

of the samples detected methylene chloride, acetone, 2-butanone, tetrachloroethene,

toluene, trichloroethene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes at a wide range of concentrations

(acetone and 2-butanone concentrations may be biased high due to field blank

contamination identified during data validation). The most prevalent VOCs detected during

laboratory analysis were tetrachloroethene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes -- the

heavier VOCs. These compounds were present at high concentrations, the highest being

total xylenes at 180,000 ppb at sample location AP-04. Sample location AP-04 had the

highest concentrations of VOCs. It was noted in Section 1.3 that the geology at this

sample location includes a composition unique to the test site. There is a transition from

fine-grained and coarse-grained glaciomarine deposits from 0-2 feet, to dense, silty sand


DRAFT

with coarse, angular gravel at approximately 4 feet. The laboratory results for detected

VOCs are presented in Table B-2 of Appendix B.

While the on-site field screening data may be less reliable than the laboratory data in terms

of compound identification and quantitation, the field screening data were useful in

determining the extent and relative level of contamination. Information obtained from both

sources indicates that the area is contaminated with the heavier volatile organic

compounds and that most of the contamination is present within 0-2 feet of the ground

surface. Exceptions to this were identified at sample locations AP-04, AP-06, BII-04, MW-

3S, and MW-20B, where contamination was detected at greater depths.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the VE field data evaluation are as follows:

• The test program vacuum data passed the CRTC test.

• The air permeability of the lithology in the test area of Quadrant II ranges widely

from 20 to 1,000 darcy.

• The radius of influence of the VE well was estimated at 1 5 feet; however, during

the actual testing, no influence was detected in piezometers AP-04 and AP-06, 6

and 1 5 feet away from VE-01, respectively.

• The SUMMA canister and Tedlar bag air sampling indicated that the VE system

was effective in extracting a variety of vapor-phase VOCs from subsurface soils

in the test area; however, this assessment does not consider the soil matrix and

distribution of contaminants in the test area.

• The highest relative levels of the identified and unknown VOCs from soil

screening results were detected in air sparging well sample ASW-01, and air

piezometer samples AP-04 and AP-06.

• Most of the VOC contamination is present within 0-2 feet; however, VOC

contamination at greater depths was identified at sample locations AP-04, AP-06,

BII-04, MW-3S, and MW-20B.


DRAFT

• The test area geology consists of a mixture of glacio-marine deposits, with

interrupted layers of low-permeability glacial till.

• The saturated overburden thickness varies greatly from season to season.

The VE test results indicate that VE effectiveness is limited because of heterogeneous soil

stratigraphy. This conclusion is supported by the soil boring data and the large range of

calculated air permeability values for the test area soils. VE influence was observed in

soils having higher air permeability values. VOC concentrations were highest in the finer-

grained materials such as the sandy silt materials located at AP-04 and AP-06. There was

no response at AP-04 and AP-06 (as demonstrated by zero vacuum measurements) to

vapor extraction, which was likely due to low air permeability of the soils at these two

locations. Therefore, VE was unsuccessful at removing VOCs from the soils containing

the highest concentrations of VOCs.

The shallow depth to bedrock and great seasonal variability in saturated overburden

thickness would generally limit the use of VE to times of low groundwater levels.

Employing air sparging techniques to remediate VOCs from the saturated overburden

during periods of high groundwater levels would involve the same limitations as those

encountered during the VE test. Sparged air would flow primarily through soils having

relatively high air permeability values. Therefore, air sparging would not likely be

successful in remediating VOCs from soils displaying low air permeability.

In conclusion, VE is not recommended as a viable remedial technology for Quadrant II of

the site, or portions of the site with similar stratigraphic conditions.


DRAFT

6.0 REFERENCES

Brown & Root Environmental (B&RE), 1997a. Draft Treatability Study Test Plan, Eastern

Surplus Company Site. Contract No. 68-W6-0045, W.A. No. 01 5-RICO-01 89. September.

Brown & Root Environmental (B&RE), 1997b. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Eastern Surplus

Company Site. Contract No. 68-W6-0045, W.A. No. 01 5-RICO-0189. October.

Johnson P., Kemblowski M., Colthart J., Byers D., Stanley C., "A Practical Approach to

the Design, Operation & Maintenance, and Monitoring of In-Situ Soil-Venting Systems",

presented at the Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Workshop, Edison, NJ, June 28-29,

1989.

Ludman and Hill, 1990. Geologic maps.

Peargin, Tom (Chevron Research and Technology Company), "Field Criteria For Estimating

SVE and Bioventing Feasibility", presented at Designing Air-Based In-Situ Soil and

Groundwater Remediation Systems Workshop, University of Wisconsin,

December 12-14, 1994.

Shan, C., R. W. Falta, and I. Javandel. "Analytical Solutions for Steady State Gas Flow to

a Soil Vapor Extraction Well", Water Resource Research v. 28, No. 4. pages 1105 - 1120,

April 1992

Roy F. Weston, 1998. Comprehensive Soil Sampling and Field Analyses Summary Report,

Eastern Surplus Site, Meddybemps, Maine. Contract No. 68-W5-0009. March.

USEPA Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in

Ambient Air, 1988.


DRAFT

USEPA OSWER Guidance: Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology

Selection for CERCLA Sites with VOCs in Soils (EPA/540-F-93-048), September 1993.

USEPA OEME Ambient Air and Soil Gas Sampling Report, 1997.

USEPA "Hyperventilate Users Manual (v2.0), A Software Guidance System Created For

Vapor Extraction Applications", EPA 510-R-93-001, January 1993.


APPENDIX AAIR PERMEABILITY CALCULATIONS

CALCULATION WORKSHEET o^r*. i9ii«<oi.»i> PAGE / OF

CLIENT

FPAJOB NUMBER

7631-0840SUBJECT

Tech M&noBASED ON DRAWING NUMBER

BY CHECKED BY

A

APPROVED BY DATE

hyd.

= 1,83 *

20

0. ObSfr (20AJ/

CALCULATION WORKSHEET PAGE Z OF

CLIENT JOB NUMBER

7631- OB40SUBJECT

ES-BASED ON DRAWING NUMBER

BY C.CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DATE

il/13/48

f'J

. ^ i

- 7. iff /9.

- tfenductivik;

X

. .cm?*-

rf

APPENDIX BVOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS

RE

MA

RK

S

A

m-X

YL

MZUJmUJ

UJ

2

UJOt-

NZUlCD

g

UJ86

UJ

8K

UJ

W

|Z

JJ

UJ

S °«

00

CM

CM

ID

<O10

9

gVoiij

mCO

CM

COIN

09

ofin

£9

°V

|SB-

VEO

I

rM

ain

S9

0

|SB-

VEO

I

(N

O<D

9

g

min

inO

0)

in0

inO

"s.

g"

<D

9

§

SB

- AD

O

»

CM"r<»

i9

N

<obin

z

in0

n

in

"

£o

§

SB

AD

O

OS

UN

K

COO

COo

COo

n

o>

3

gSinO

COO

p

goo09

9

CM

0

O

SB

-AS

W

inO

CM

Oin

CMo

no>

£

g9o

SB

-AS

W

rM

at

m

S0

o

|SB

ASW

OF

FS

CA

LE U

NK

0100

01

9

3

O

ISB-

ASW

SE

VE

RA

L U

NK

§

S9

00o0

o

|SB

ASW

SE

VE

RA

L U

NK

0co

o

oo

in09

9

oo

<min

090

09a>

*9

oCM

£

ffiin

2

OO

a

9

o

|SB

APO

:

a

2

cv

in

0

mtog

o

|SB

AP

O

it

2

CMin

at

a0

§

V

ISB-

APO

•»

O)

io

OCM

ISB-

APO

in

1

O

ISB-

APO

CM

ID

O)B

OCD

|SB

APO

oCM

a3

oo

00in

N

o

oCM

V

SB-A

PO;

CMCM

B

0

<min

V

inoCO0

*~

N

a019

oV

|SB

-AP

O(

it

ino

§CO

00IN

OJ>

n

oCM

ffiin

u

inoCO

ino

M

2

o

V

SB

AP

O!

it

it

m

8CM

COCO

a>ao

o<D

<ffiin

CO

i>mo

^

CM

OOCO

ffiin

6

02

RE

MA

RK

S

£

X

E-B

EN

Z

Ul

_j

UJ

sUJo

ot—

111

u

i111

m

AN

ALY

S

NO

%

UJ

S —m

10CO

«

1

«23

0204

2m10

CO

09

1

0

N

2m10

n

9909S

80

90

-EZ

V

5ffiin

SE

VE

RA

L U

NK

S

IOCM

09

0

0>

o

CO

5ino

2

cs

CO

5

09O

s0310a

SE

VE

RA

L U

NK

CMCO

00

O9

O

a

•aa

o»

09

o

ooDino

V

o10

O9

o

^

Dina

2

CM

CM10

09

0

09O

0<no

•*

03IO

09

0

o

03

D

10

OS

O

zooo-aozw

2mm

COIO

«0

tozo-aozM

smin

COIO

s

*

W20B

0406

smin

CM

05<o

0)

^

03n

COr»

e»

^

mina

£

0)

CO

90310O

0

09

*~

3

03ina

2

r*.

o>*~

903n

O9CM

09CM

CM0

03

ina

CM

inCM

09CM

W2

4B

-00

02

2D

N

09CM

frozo-atzMs01in

00CM

01CM

ID3

3mN

2oin

2

00

5

mCO

I0303

2

CO

09

09CO

04-0

204

m03

o<D

OIO

CACO

3

O

0

01

m

0

09

CO

04-0

608

03m

COIDMIO

CACO

04-0

809

03m

IO10

O9CO

05-0

002

oamin

£

a

IO

<oIO

09n

VO

ZO

-90

2a

(0

UL

'S.UJcc

rj

X0

VX

E

UJCDUJ

Ul

«

o

Ulo1—

N

UJm

5

UJ

Ui

KUJ

1«2to^j O

1 *

UJt-

SA

MP

LE

ID

"

r*ID

<OO

ossCDin

7

inID

COto

n

B405-0

608

CO<n

in

enID

S

8405-0

810

CDin

*

o10

5

CM

O

imin

5CM00

CO

CM

S

tCM

IDO*rmCOCO

7-1

CC

1-

5UJncc0.(/>0

*-*~

<D

O)r)

GOON5

COV)

n(D

«

N

§O(O

smCDCO

s

COCO

B306-0

406

CD10

ID

COs

8090-9

0E

8

m10

COID

5m

oCOoID

8COCDCO

CO

—

enID

CO

CM

O

IDammCO

0

CDCO

CMOO9inCOS

COCO

oCM

CO

—

ID

CO

O

MW

35-0

406

CDCO

OCO

S

en

MW

35 0

204

mV)

CM

^

CMCO

O)5

MW

35 0

608

mCO

vz

<tf

ftin

^*

*~

CM

CO00

1

MW

25B

-0002

mto

*~

09

5

MW

25B

0204

mCO

CM

IDCO

5•9

MW

25B

-0406

CDCO

CO

"~

toCO

5

U

00oCDIDCM

mCO

in

*~

in

$

MW

25B

1012

0CO

CO

5

MW

25B

1213

CDto

CO

0

rv

1

CM

§OCDen

iCOin

CO

s

8oCDn

iCOin

en

o>

MW

19B

-0406

CDin

Z3

*~

O

S

00o«)oCOO)

sCOin

zD

2

1

MW

19B

-1012

COin

cc>orCO

z

a

OTTu_

^

S

-

r

1

z<

0.

tnUl

<CO

cc0(1s_J

1U

tf)Ul

EX

TR

AC

TIO

N

5

UJ

i

ME

DD

YB

EM

PS

, M

PA

GE

4 O

F 4

RE

MA

RK

S

%

X

E

z

9UJ

UJ

8

LUU

UJCO

o1-

LU

a6

LU

h-

U

AN

ALY

SIS

NO

u

S

UJ

i —a

U)DC

uc

i-IA

in(Aa

00

8)CM

^

[INF

LOW

|

1

C0

CM

^

|OU

TF

LOW

cr

CO

CM

a>5

S

INFLO

W

)W I

NC

RE

AS

E1400

FLC

^

inCM

OCOCO

0

aCM

^

3_i

1

1430

HR

CM

S

3L

O

1 6

00

HR

CMr

w

COCM

ACM

S

INFLO

W

a

CMCM

5

?

OU

TF

LOW

cc3u

0

c

c-

0

oCO

ACM

~

INFLO

W

;

<AO

i10

0CM

SCM

?

OU

TF

LOW

CCXu

CN

«

00N

8

0>n

o>N

^

D_jL

U

2

S

to(T

LOCO

aCM

^

jKN

OC

KO

UT

DR

U

5, U

NK

S, R

ES

TA

RT

0o<D

1

O

V

CO

a

S

INFLO

W

S.

PR

IOR

TO

SH

UTD

OW

XID

^fU

O(DC*)

10

to

10

D

r>

P

\\

I

i

£m

iffer

O

O

O

Ir*.o

cV

f06•gn

£

II

U1C.

°-

0)c

10

oS.aK

II

UJUl-

o

\ -

Tric

hlo

roeth

ani

ut-

DC

E

~

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

.

1aO

Q)

IOen(0aotoo

u<Q

O

O

&cE

"5uS

I«

I

form

ed

The

analy

ses

were

per

0

gSi.

•§

01

9a

§o-c

«o>

1o * "a Iaj "H

S C«

Q. T3

||

^ S£ cS ~•a -S S

ions

of

VO

Cs

repo

rton

ly b

e c

onsi

dere

d

52s iS £

The

identit

ies

and

com

There

fore

, co

mpouns

i

.0>."co23

S(A

1>

•o

oaa

CC

2en£o

^~

n

-c(B

nin

g tech

niq

ue

doe

e sc

ree

UN

ITS

T

he h

eadsp

ac

tf)

Occ

o oUJ Z

•* ^ ^t <" Q

*z ^ i-51°£o S Pi^~ T ^ L^

§ 0 K Z

< < it CO

2 t- o 5< i cc cc

sgSt2 Q o <Hi ^^ W ^

S S ^ z

1 1P1s 'III-J iu ^" ^-i -i Z I- oJ < 4U IU °uj o Q S3 in 5 5 £

GS

=

G

RA

B S

AM

PLE

MW

=

M

ON

ITO

RIN

G '

SB =

SO

IL B

OR

ING

OS

=

PE

AK

WA

S O

FF

UN

K =

U

NK

NO

WN

, U

lIN

FLO

W -

V

E S

YT

EM

OU

TF

LOW

-

VE

SY

ST

^Ou«5

0U)p

1!£

£

13"ouQ

-J5Ul

I

E

sam

ple

is p

rovi

ded

o•

I

The d

epth

inte

rval of t

CO

'o

s

</) sis

(M

UJ

«" § S 111rf S tt I-2 £ o 5;5 z 2 £

o £ z u |O Z < 2w < s ^

z I § i 2.£ O Z O (A</> o

(A

T; *" ieill ilZ. h < z « >"gs l sg

S S G g ^

ol|S

^£2°sg> < o.5 2 << IU >

s(A a. S •=• o <o

.s .& .E

c n•Bo:a s *Q g CD» '5 .S-

« M ^

1 -i

z o m i u.

• • s < :3 -, ui zU M en •* uJ

oCM

CM

C

1

DA

HB

OO

DA

HA

98D

AH

A96

96VH

VC

J

i

0

g

!oinUl

»-

SwoinUl

oSinoinUl

n

CM

2inUl

CM

ES

-SB

-AP

06-<

S

ES

-SB

-AP

06-O

4(

M

1

r^

5

11/1

0/9

7

5

O)00

h.

i

1i

au

QC Identifie

r[C

omm

ent

8

_jCM

_j

CM

3

3

N

_,

—

i Bro

mom

etha

na

-,

8

-,IO

-J

3

3

8ro

-3

O

1

1

1i

8

oCM

S

3

8

CDUl

O

1 Ace

tone

8

3IO

3

3

3

8CM

3O

[Car

bon D

wulfide

8

3IO

3

3

3

8

3O

[Chlo

roto

rm

8

SCO

3

3

3

8

3O

,2-B

utan

one

8

310

-jCO

3

3

8

3O

| Tric

hlo

roath

ana

8

_,CO

3

3

3

8

DO

|4-M

eth

yl-2

-Penta

none

8

3IO

_,CO

-,CM

-,

8CM

30

|X

CM

§

_j

o

_,

-,

CO

-1

§

IO

i

Ua

§

_jCO

-,CM

-J

80)

_,CM

[Tol

uene

it

_^

_,

0

3

*~

_,

8

3O

£UJ

8CM

_,

CM

3

3*-

3

8CM

3O

CO

§

_

o

IO

-,*

_,

8

_,10

[Tota

l Xyl

enea

S~ •§ .9- S 'a ? C 3« ." §• < I•S « ui ». ^

g II UL

O2 — CM CO

om

0

Q

Q

00O00

io

S00X

O

nSiQ

•|

i

00o9toCO

52COIU

SssCM£>

^toUJ

gg10o5COOtoIU

is5to

COIU

11

CDCO

*~*~

CDS

^

CDO

t^

^

CD

O

5

[Date

Sam

ple

d|Q

C Identifie

r1 C

om

ment

3CD

-5

—

3CD

->

"

[Bro

mom

eth

ane

->3CD

3

£

3CD

CO

•2_oU

e

-io

->

8CM

->

8^

-i

1

[Ace

ton

e

-iCM

3

^

3CD

3CO

irt

[Carb

on D

isulfidt

3CD

3

^

3

CD

3m

1 Chlo

rofo

rm

->3CD

CD

nCD

CD1-

CM

00h-

O)CO

iiCM

-)

CM

3

~

3

CD

2

ITric

hlo

roeth

ene

3CD

3

^

3CD

-)CM

IOcaC

CM

a

3CD

->

CO

3CD

3CO

|2-M

exa

none

55

-»CD

toCO

•

LO

oc

1 Tetr

ach

loro

eth

e

— >•*

-i

*

0

^m

8

1 T

olue

ne

3CD

3

~

5

CO

lEth

y (b

enze

ne

3cn

3

^

3O)

->O

jSty

ren

e

-5

—

3£

§*~

*

8CO

I£X

£o

•J Q. J5 -O CTJ " S S *•— o t - r oo **~ Q g -=

2 « = 5 =o .e o- < =10 € "• s '

2 3 -, ao . . .Z •- CM co

APPENDIX CCHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS

I

ro

«o

U

in c

*1§13?< 2

o£

O

J

1^7. 3Pr

ojec

t N

o.

Vil

I

w r* 3

OO

cora8

•5.i

s

Sam

ple

Num

ber

00

i«/01

f=>

inor.c-

(O

CD

^

§J3•

By:

quis

atur

Rel

in(S

ign ai

K

Oo

•M

U

O 3

II00

Eluo.

I ir

sj

^2o

iv

tli

^l

•o01Q.

M

UO

mbe

r

w

V

Wi

'J-

ro

M

Ok

u

w

to.

X'

a

-aNiN

r •

O

VT

I

X

-aJ

<u

i

v/"i

>

VN1

<s

o.

oO

0

1U) '.UJ I

x;

>•

_g> X,

1

*«

"•Jffi

VJ

Si12UJ ?t0 C

31F*£.23i2 C< .K

us.

£

1

oO

1z

&

1^

00

i

Ioo

iofi1CO

HI

*I£

Ii«(T

ffi

1?IIJg.5"

o

io

ss!> VK ioj 9

Niiu

<00.

4'

£o

o -i

<

VT-

1

482i55

"5.

S>

v

Oo

23

E<n

a

1

<£•

i

vSI

s

Ui

1OT^c^cr

-- ^ 3 - ?

•fit

ioO

S

^

YE

S

<o— aj

•SJfiI

-1!

i0

-Io 3

(O C

si< o

?li

V

SL O?• «y-i 6

o S-^~

«?LP

tj>

82

ico

CO

OO

wI

r7.-7.iS7

ie L

ocat

CO

i

Sam

ple

UJ

COCO

cO

OJ

crCP

ro

Of

1

4

sAOJ

is*O

OC

niO"

or

fel

~r» ^

-ii

S

YES

11

j .o .

11

CD

«

I

Rel

inqu

ishe

d B

(Sig

natu

re)

•aCD

-1•8

!

•o

1o

•ilO

o

1

u

»CO

"a.

eo.3

ta

IiiCO

•-S""c

5

rO

5

rt-

GC.

ioOo

coLU

CO 2

5

II1! K

O

w

^H!

0

T3

SI

ua

*

li

4->

"2

-»«

Shi

l No

.A

irbi

Dat

£ -

Uo75157

!

<auo_i

"I.

Sam

ple

Num

ber

iCD

-i

s§

rv

v/1IU

O

l

ocC.

1

W]

0

i

J

cfM

05)

CC

8

0*

8^L

cD•i.ct

•<

2E•oOO

_SJ

C

co

(0

elin

quis

hed

igna

ture

) .

Rel

inqu

ishe

d B

(Sig

natu

re)

m

HS

15

UJ^o 5

M

uQ.

5*£*

Labo

rato

ry1

o

n-c*«•—.

•***.

i&w«

to

s

77/W72VAS

atio

n

w

i1!

Sa

Ln

O<bI-Io

<sr

C6

Si

a.C-

?f

vi)I

UJ

^

IooIo°

CO

COUl

(2

w1i

^

o

s"zZ

Sa

.3

Oa

I3

Sam

ple

Nu

0-

3cbk

ui

rrrr

CO

Qns

1

£3

S

OP

•Jj

toUJ

I>>o

IIo

ir?^KCD

II UJKs

H

f

I5

.1u 3>9ee. itu Y(0 C

il< oiz e< 5

U-1

*

uo

I

atio

n

co

.H

w

<-<&>\

\

N^

1

I•5.o§uo

'*)

UJ

I>>m

of

ll

C5

uiK

H

!

8

UJu

UJ

§3II

1

o

£•

|

£

fo

4s

1

w

CO

co

"5.

w

ii

iCO

r0

,

bO

to

i

i

tRui

OS

a

iN/Oi

od

d70

oQ

s

ifl

\X

ooc

^ i

o ^J

-^ l»

I

T^

.K"

m

B3?s!i

K

S

UJO

ii

I

\

\

v5 S

f !O

€C

|

Iz

i*-L/>V»

l/H 8?

I

N

-

(0

CO

tn \ \ l

I

CO

UlK2

APPENDIX DVAPOR EXTRACTION MODELING RESULTS

£zou<CC

X111CCO

O <V) O-

O a.H Z

u. o

3 sO

CO

O

•oto

_>"56o'4vmo4V

re

(A —.£ ^e 503 V)a a)S 2a «)— a.To oo ac i_^ 0>V J=Q S

WE

LL P

RO

PE

RTI

ES

(O

?

t_o>

0)tuu

VJ

_J

en

"4v"«4-

Dep

th t

o s

creen b

ottom

(

<

CMCOTt

r-CM

?

Depth

to s

creen b

ottom

(

<

end

Eo£0

maliz

ed d

epth

to

scr

een b

02

•o<

CO

"4V"*4-

Q.O4v

CtUtUwo10

o

4-»Q.CU

0

00

5end

1Q.O4^

01

£utoo4-*

J=4-1ao>Q

m

cod

ao4->

orm

aliz

ed d

epth

to

scr

ee

n

z

S

o

4V*4»

0)JOre4^

tu4Vre52

ftu0

j=

CO*frqCO

E<ojore4VWtu4vre

o

fCUQ

j=

inCM

§u.UC/3

0)4V

Sg

_o**-toto

tomO

Z

CO

.01370

o

"to"coJ£0)4Vrew

_oH-

10tore

V)reO

2

*t

.00228

o

"to*Ecoy

U)£Fl

ow r

ate

/length

of w

ell

sc

ininre

COre

e?

E

to

OP

ER

TIE

AS

PH

YS

ICA

L P

R

O

inCMco

5

1V

1A

mbie

nt

gas

pre

s

reCL

•<t5

^

a— fc

CO(

E^>.x>4-'to0)•oISco4-*

01'£

<

Q.

m

UJ\t)00

U?*S4^

Gas

pha

se v

isco

si

r-

V)0>

*4^

erm

eabi

li

a0)toreQ.MRCO

*-

C

^reCC.

N

5£^

oLJ

•*

N

'g

V)0)'4^

•

perm

eab

0)(0re

Q.(OreCD

"re4^

0r^'wo

"5T3n

QC

^

^

SO

LUTIO

N P

AR

AM

ETE

RS

****

•~ •••C

adia

l dis

tance

fro

m w

ell

cen

t*QC

w

****

£

Tra

nsf

orm

ed r

adia

l dis

tance

<

cc

in*~~o

o>uc2ie\

maliz

ed tra

nsf

orm

ed

rad

ial

di:

0

TJQC

»

***

4-«*4-

0)uretCO

1ocoEo

»4-

f03Q

N

^-LOCMd

(Uuret

|

1CO

EoH-

f0>

T3

T30>N

~mb.oZ

•oN

****

C

Pre

ssur

e d

raw

do

wn funct

io

U)

CO*t

d

4^CO

0>

V,^'Zj*

COm0

u/1

****

Pre

ssur

e s

quare

d te

rmCD

+

***

Gas

pre

ssure

(P

a)

D_

00

CNCN

COir>COOCO

inCM

-J

(Al_ 01</> ccUJ uji- o

Ou_OCaia.

v>COXo

JO

•a9•an

3MOJ

MCO

cUJ

oCN aa. UL

OCO

Uto

o10

01-00ocCOo53D0

i0.

Eoz

"5Q.

<DCL

CL

oCNX

.c

ED

oID

£

oo

00It00

COoCO

1

CNCN

o

016393443

|

en

CM

CO

CM

£

inCM

COCO

8enO

CM

CM

CN00

CO

CO

endir—

69

67

21

31

1 |

d

in

CM

in00d

CO

.377

0491

8

|

CM

COCOCO

CM

05

CN

327868852

|

d

COCOinenen

I

d

CO

COCN

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

HI

Zg§cc

cc.. o-I O.Ill <

o <

CO<a

a<HI

(0

ia.

o

— *a.rei

—£a.

CD

CO

•aCC

£CC

£

•oN

~

N

30.4

6258106

rvCMCO

8o

COenCO

;*CO

O

^cnrvenencno(VrvCMCOCO

—

o

-

mCM0

inCM

15.8

1876834

CMOrvCOCOoinm

COen

enCO

o

^cnCOencneno

£

CMCOrvo

COo

CO

CO

9.1

53

56

68

55

inrv

CO00

CO

^*CO

CMCO

0

rvCOcneneneno

CM

CM

^O

ino

in

in

5.6

48

33

15

19

COoCMCOCOen,-

.COoCOCNCO

0

^COcnencncn0

COinCMCMrvCMo

rvo

rv

3.6

33287008

COCOCOrvCOCMr-

mCO

COCMCO

o

inrvencncneno

CO

r* .u

enO

en

en

2.9

45999107

inCOininCMO«-1

fs»cnCOCNCO

O

en

0

CMOOCN

^

O

0

0

COCO

enCMO

.^COcnCO00COo

1

CO

CO

CMCO

o

CMcneneneneno

CMCO

COinoo

in

in

in

0.4

38443405

inCOCMCOCMinT-o

1

rv«<*00

CMCO

O

rvcnenenenenO

CO^CMOO

0CM

OCM

0.1

7976789

inCO

o

rCOcn

CMCO

o

mcneneneneno

inCOCO00Ooo

inCM

inCM

inCM

0.0

75

07

92

27

00inCO

COCMoo

1

J.rven

CMCO

o

cnenencncncno

cnCDCOooo

0CO

oCO

CMCOinCMCO(V

COooTfrCO

o

0o

1

en00cn

CNCO

0

*•—

CO

o0

inCO

inCO

inCO

CO

orv0inCO

o6cnorv3oo'

incncnCMCO

O

—

inCO

o

0

o

0.0

0575841

CO

ooCMOoo

1

COcnen

CNCO

o

>-

00

CMO0OO

in*

in

in

0.0

02436445

CM00

00o0oo'

cncnen

CMCO

o

*-

rv

—oooo

om

oin

ia.Eo

—

_

a.a.

O

to

•occ

£

CC

£

•aN

£N

932215

Vaj

rvCMcn

cnCOCOCM

1

cnoCO

oCO

o1

COCOinenmeno

COCO

00COCMCO

o

-

ino

in

0120662

COrriCM

,_

OOoCNOr-

1

CO

CO

O5cnp**encneno

CMOCOCN

^*-

COo

CO

CO

5410519

inr-

COCO

COCMCOrvin

1

rvCOCMOJ

CO

o

COCO00encneno

CO

—encn

0

ino

in

in

4926283

CMO

_OCO

COinCO1

CMCO

CMCO

O

en

0

mCMoen

0

rvo

rv

rv

eC

0609(

CDOJ

enCO00

8COCM

1

enCOCMCNCO

O

inencneneno00CO00cnCOO

enO

en

cn

5310434

cnCOin_~CO

COrv00

r-

CMCM

t'JCMCO

O

COCOcncncncn0

CNCD

{CDCN

O

0

o

CNCOrv

00COCOoCM

cncnrvorv'

CMenCM

CMCO

0

CO00cneneneno

COCOo00cno0

m

in

in

9773915

oCO0

COocnCO

COCMO

CO

fv

CMCO

0

cnencncncno

COCOoenCO00

oCM

oCM

2121833

COCOoen

-CDin

o

CO00

CMCO

o

00enencnmcno

cnooCO

oo

inCM

inCM

inCM

8709528

CO

oCMCO00CM00

0o

CMincn

CMCO

O

encncnencnenO

CO00COCO0oo

oCO

oCO

86

17

76

5

inOo

inooCMoo

1

COenTf

CO

o

«-

inCM00CMooo

inCO

inco

inCO

49

41

65

2

CMOoJ.CN00CO00ooo

cncnCMCO

o

«-

CMOCM

OOo

0

o0624239

oo

00enCOCOooo

i

COenen

CMCO

0

*-

CMv—inoooo

in*

in

in4486183

8oIV

T—COin

8o

00enen

CNCO

O

T—

CD

—CMOO0O

0in

0in

•

iQ.

O

«••*

a.ID°rCL

^ „

£a.

CD

CO

•occ

gcc

§

•orsi

-IM

2.12

7641

88Is-

00

CO00oIOCM1

CMen00enenCM

o*

oinenenen0

r*inCMCO

CO

o

-

mIs-d

inIs-

4.41

4290

06CO

COinenenen,_1

q

o

COIs-05enen0

mCOIs-00inCO

-

CO0

CO

CO

CO

CO

inen

dCM

.CMininCO

Is-i

inCO00Is-CO

o

enLO00eneneno

COCOCOIs-00eno

ino

in

in

3.02

7975

5

COIs-coinCOinj-1

inCO

OCMCO

o

en

o

eninenIs-CMCOo

Is-o

^

Is-

.547

6169

02

CO

COoininr-cnCM1

.CMOCMCMCO

O

,_

feneneneno

inOoCM

o

enO

en

en

.976

9370

21

CO

1

Is-CM

CM

,_

r-inCMCMCO

0

CMineneneneno

Is-cnCMCOCOCOo

o

O

.651

8353

47

CM

CMOCO

COCMenoi

Is-r-0

CMCO

O

CMCOeneneneno

COCNCOIs-CN

o

in

m

in

.057

5221

34

*~enCOCO

00COCOO

CMCOCO

CMCO

o

COenenenenen0

Is.en0inoo

oCM

oCM

.433

8578

63

o

CMOCO0

in

oien

CMCO

o

Is-cnenenenenO

CO

enoCMoo

inCM

inCM

inCM

r-00CO

00

0

COIs-oCOCOoo1Is-coen

CMCO

o

eneneneneneno.COIs-CO

8o

oCO

oCO

.076

5464

82

o

COCO

COCOCMoo1COIs-en

CMCO

o

enenenenenenO

Oq<J

mCO

inCO

inCO

).03254706

COCO»—

qo

en00en

CMCO

0

•-

enCOinoOo

o

0

.013

8407

88

o,_00

00

ooo1menen

CMCO

O

—

iCOenoooo

in^

in

in

.005

8213

71

o

inCOCMoCM

8o1COenen

CMCO

O

«-

,_COCM

8oo

oin

0in

3CT*^

a.g

0

— »a.

Q.i

£a.

o

CO

•acc

g

cc

h.

•DN

£

N

inoCMinenCO

in

*•"00inCO0en

COeninoCO

o^

CMCOeneneno

639745

CM

d

-

o

COenCO

^X

—•<*•qTf

CO

enfCMOin00^V

in

CO

O

COCO

eneneno

640782

—

COd

CO

CO

enoCOCO00Is-m

CM,_

COenCOenCO

^

^COin

CO

o

COmCOenenenO

034271

•-

ind

in

in

enCO

^—ooenro

^T—00oenCOCO

t

CO

oCMCO

O

.oenenenenO

670039o

d

-

,_^COo5oenen

^f

^enen*—CO

8

CMCO

O

(COeneneneno

.44

29

7

i_>

end

en

en

COen00f(O

t—in

CO

^COinCO

COCMi

CO00COCMCMCO

O

00

eneneneno

3623

04

0

-

o

o

COIs-CMOr-cnCO00CM

en00COCO00enenO

CM

8••*CMCO

o

en

d

1382

41

o

in

in

in

COenenCOCOCO

r—

—ininCOCOCOenCOo

CM

8CMCO

O

CMenenenenenO

05

51

61

o

CM

OCM

OCM

CMCOCMCOOinenCO

o

00enCO

COCD«—O

CO00

CMCO

o

fenenenenenO

02

26

31

o

inCM

inCM

inCM

Is-00Is-COoCOen

or—CMCOCOo0

CMCOen

CMCO

o

enenenenenenO

009449

o

CO

oCO

oCO

COCOenCOIs-Is-CMCOoo

CM

COCOCMO9

Is-O)

CMCO

O

eneneneneneno

.00399

<_>

inCO

inCO

inCO

,_inenen^mCOoo

COinCOCMCM

O

90000en

CMCO

o

—

0016

94

o

'

o

o

COCO

CMO<n

oo

Is-00

inOo9inen

CMCO

o

«-

CO

oooo

in

in

in

enCOenCMCMCMCD

8o

COCDCD

CMOO900enen

CMCO

O

•-

CO

8qd

in

oin

Oin

trai

UJOzUJuiccO

—i OUI =•

Z N

F<o S<

X

31O<

Oui

|

COUJ

I CD

I CD I

oIT)6

N

f38 2S CL

0,I1

s

M

(Oc<5M(D

LU

t

t

JLN

T ^

.. o

CO —

UJO

O

o oc

.. o

-- <f>

oo o

0°

lia/WV JO %) WnOOVA 1IOS

CALCULATION OF RADIUS OF INFLUENCE FORVAPOR EXTRACTION WELL

Site Name:Site Location:

EASTERN SURPLUSMEDDYBEMPS, ME

WORKING EQUATIONFrom Johnson, et al. 1990 "Groundwater Monitor Review"

Pr* Pw * [ (1+(1-(Patm/Pw)A2) * ln(r/Rw)/ln(Rw/Ri)]A0.5

Where: Pr = Absolute pressure measured at distance V from the extraction well (g/cm*secA2)Pw = Absolute pressure measured at the extraction well (glcm*sec*2)Patm= Absolute ambient pressure 1,013,000 (g/cm*secA2)r = Distance from the monitor well to the vapor extraction well (cm)Rw = Radius of extraction well (cm)Ri = Effective radius of the applied vacuum (cm)

VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST DATA

Radius of Extraction well [Rw]

Vacuum at Extraction well [Pw]

(inches)](cm)

122 (inches of water)709,220 |(g/cm*secA2)

VAPOR MONITOR WELL DATA

INPUT

MonitorWell

AP-1AP-2AP-3AP-4AP-5AP-6

MW-20SASW

Distance FromExtraction Well

r(feet)

7,310.916.06.017.0

> 18.328.3S.O

MeasuredVacuum

Pr(inches H2O)

10.003.300.850.002.800.000.4011.00

METRIC CONVERSIONS

MonitorWell


MW-20SASW


r(cm)

223332488183518466863152

MeasuredVacuum

Pr(g/cm'secA2)

988,1001.004,7831,010,8841,013,0001 ,006,0281,013,0001,012,004985,610

Geometric Mean:! 347 | 1,004,122 |

Ri(cm)

Pr(g/cm*secA2)

Ri(ft)

399 1,004,675 13

CALCULATION OF RADIUS OF INFLUENCE FORVAPOR EXTRACTION WELL

Site Name:Site Location:

EASTERN SURPLUSMEDDYBEMPS, ME

WORKING EQUATIONFrom Johnson, et al. 1990 "Groundwater Monitor Review"

Pr = Pw * I (1+(1-(Patm/Pw)A2) * ln(r/Rw)/ln(Rw/Ri)]A0.5

Where: Pr = Absolute pressure measured at distance "r" from the extraction well (g/cm*secA2)Pw * Absolute pressure measured at the extraction well (g/cm*secA2)Patm = Absolute ambient pressure 1,013,000 (g/cm*secA2)r = Distance from the monitor well to the vapor extraction well (cm)Rw = Radius of extraction well (cm)Ri = Effective radius of the applied vacuum (cm)

VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST DATA

Radius of Extraction well [Rw]

Vacuum at Extraction well [Pw]

(inches)](cm)

122 (inches of water)709.220 |(g/cm*secA2)

VAPOR MONITOR WELL DATA

INPUT

MonitorWell


MW-20SASW


r(feet)

, 7.3x 10.9

-?" ^te.««r*s^s> 8»o

\$tr^-&1T&*A -"1S,3 ' - "-

• > - 28.9 -? 8.0

MeasuredVacuum

Pr(inches H2O)

10.003.300.»50.002.800.000.4011.00

METRIC CONVERSIONS

MonitorWell


MW-20SASW


r(cm)

223332488183518466863152

MeasuredVacuum

Pr(g/cm*sec*2)

988,1001 ,004,7831,010,8841,013,0001,006,0281,013,0001.012,004985.610

Calculated Averages:! 403 | 1,004.176 |

Ri(cm)

Pr(g/cm*secA2)

Ri(ft)

470.2S 1.004,174 15

£I.sP-

X

^w*es*3<013QiIAH

|-

cs»1fe.

•fi1i

•?•a

^

£

T»%

|

i-»

S,

a

r— a."V|

1n*,\^a.

I I I2 5-1

i . 1!I i 11<• •£ 9 S

« - O 5

I

0)

I-9>e.

« * s S -! E * § 25> 3 3 o. 5I I 1 1 I

C0j<+

CM

I O

« 9 S _T f <? T f 1 T8 8 8 8 8 S 8

n f t n t f p - w v W P ! !9 S 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 SI I I I I 1 I I I I

» 9 8 aI I I I

S _I I

—|3flBJ9—

-PUBS UB3|3-

-PUBS fijIIS-

~fi3RB|3~

00

S

£ f —

11

£ S

2 IS

vapor extraction technical memo remedial investigation… · 2020. 7. 3. · ttnus project no....

Documents