r T6RRRVRC
Approved by:
t
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION/AIR SPARGINGPILOT TEST REPORT
MILLSBORO, DELAWARENPL SITE
Terra Vac Project No. 40-4216
Prepared For:
Environmental Strategies Corporation11911 Freedom Drive
Reston, Virginia 22090
Prepared By:
Terra Vac806 Silvia Street
West Trenton, NJ 08628
February 9, 1995
E. N Imanis - Vice President
Robert Roth, P.E. - Project Manager
Carfa Palmer - Site Supervisor and Safety Officer
48310076
T6RRR VflC 1TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................ 1 i2.1 Site History.................................................................................. 12.2 Site Geology................................................................................. 1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................. 13.1 Project Objectives.......................:.................................................. 13.2 Process Description........................................................................ 2
3.2.1 Soil Vapor Extraction...................:........................................ 23.2.2 Air Sparging....................................................................... 3
3.3 Process Equipment......................................................................... 4 ^3.4 System Installation......................................................................... 4
3.4.1 Air Sparge Well................................................................... 43.4.2 Soil Vapor Extraction Wells.................................................... 53.4.3 Pressure Monitoring Probes ................................................... 53.4.4 Vacuum Monitoring Probes..................................................... 5
3.5 Pilot Test..................................................................................... 63.6 Sampling, Monitoring, and Analysis.................................................... 6
3.6.1 Soil Gas Survey................................................................... 63.6.2 Dissolved Oxygen and pH Measurements.................................... 73.6.3 Air Flow Measurements......................................................... 73.6.4 Air Pressure Measurements.......................................................73.6.5 Vapor Sampling....................................................................73.6.6 Water Sampling....................................................................8
4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................... 84.1 Soil Gas Survey............................................................................. 84.2 Radius of Vacuum Influence.............................................................. 84.3 Air Sparging................................................................................. 9
4.3.1 Pressure and Air Flow in the Saturated Zone................................ 94.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen Measurements............................................... 94.3.3 Groundwater Level Measurements.............................................10
4.4 Extracted Vapor Concentrations......................................................... 104.5 TCE Extraction Rate...................................................................... 104.6 Groundwater Analyses. ......................................................."............114.7 Extracted Air Flow........................................................................ 114.8 Air Permeability........................................................................... 114.9 Condensate Generation................................................................... 11
I
. T6RRRVRCLIST OF TABLES
1. Soil Gas Survey Report2. Vacuum/Flow Results at Vacuum Monitoring Probes3. Pressure/Flow at Pressure Monitoring Probes and Wells4. Dissolved Oxygen and pH at Pressure Monitoring Probes and Wells5. Groundwater Level Monitoring Data6. Vapor Extraction Report - SVE017. Vapor Extraction Report - SVE028. . Vapor Extraction Report - SVE03 .9. Vapor Extraction Report - Total/Stack10. Water Analysis Report11. Air Permeability SVE0112. 'Air Permeability SVE0213. Air Permeability SVE03
AR3!
I T€RRF)VfiCLIST OF FIGURES
I1. Site Plan2. . Pilot Test Process Flow Diagram3. " Pilot Test Layout4. Well Details5. Wellhead Detail6. Radius of Vacuum Influence7. Radius of Vacuum Influence8. Subsurface Pressure in the Saturated Zone on 1/20/959. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in the Groundwater on 1/17/95 before Air Sparging10. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in the Groundwater on 1/17/95 during Air Sparging11. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in the Groundwater on 1/18/95 during Air Sparging12. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in the Groundwater on 1/20/95 during Air Sparging13. Groundwater Profile before and during Air Sparging PMP 1A-3A14. Groundwater Profile before and during Air Sparging PMP 1B-3B15. Groundwater Profile before and during Air Sparging PMP 4A-6A16. Groundwater Profile before and during Air Sparging PMP 4B-6B17. Area of Concern to be Remediated by SVE/AS18. Area of Concern to be Remediated by SVE/AS
LIST OF APPENDICES
A AC Schultes well logsB Pine and Swallow Associates well logs
I T6RRR VRCEXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Terra Vac installed and conducted a soil vapor extraction and air sparging (SVE/AS) pilottest for Environmental Strategies Corporation at the Millsboro, Delaware NPL site. The soilvapor extraction and air sparging pilot test took place January 11, 1995 through January 20,1995.I
_ The following conclusions can be drawn from the data generated during the pilot test inI Millsboro, Delaware.
IThe total amount of TCE extracted during the pilot test was between 0.85 and 6.3grams. This relatively low mass is due to .the low initial TCE concentration in thegroundwater, and the apparent horizontal channelling of injected air away from thesparge well. The expected vertical airflows that normally occur during air spargingwere not apparent.
Comparing the TCE concentrations measured on January 20, 1995 with those ofJanuary 18, 1995 demonstrates the effectiveness of air sparging within the pilot studyarea. Although the groundwater concentration of TCE measured on January 18, 1995cannot be considered baseline concentrations, the reduction in TCE concentration overa period of two days was 61 and 64 percent for-pressure monitoring probes, PMP1Band PMP2B, respectively.
Comparing the water table level during the test to that of the baseline shows that therewas mounding of the groundwater table and that the sparge air was lifting thegroundwater around the AS well.
As a -result of finding high pressure in PMP6A and no pressure in the other PMPs, itappears that initially the sparge air was all channeling toward PMP6A. There isinsufficient data to explain why the air flow was preferentially channelled in onedirection. It is possible that the air followed a sedimentary structure, such as abedding plane, where grain sizes would differ within an area of six inches.
An .estimated radius of influence of 25 feet was achieved by each SVE well.
The estimated time for full-scale remediation of the site is 2 years.
95-0115 - • cFebruary 9, 1995
AB3I0080
T€RRfl1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the field activities, findings, and evaluation of results of the soilvapor extraction and air sparging (SVE/AS) pilot test conducted at the Millsboro, DelawareNPL site. The pilot test was conducted by Terra Vac for Environmental StrategiesCorporation. The soil vapor extraction and air sparging pilot test took place January 11,1995 through January 20, 1995.
IIIII
The site is located at 499 Mitchell Street in Millsboro, Delaware. Environmental Strategies• Corporation (ESC) is managing the investigation and remediation of trichloroethylene (TCE)| contaminated groundwater. The EPA is supervising the cleanup under the CERCLA
(Superfund) program. Phase I of the remediation is being implemented and consists of agroundwater pump and treat system on the western portion of the site. A site plan is shownin Figure 1.
The EPA has directed AT&T Global Information Solutions to implement a Phase II system to
I
2.0 BACKGROUND.
2.1 Site History
I in Figure 1.
I remediate TCE in groundwater down gradient of the source area, on the eastern side of thetracks. TCE is present in concentrations up to 1,700 ug/1 in groundwater samples collectedin the area of concern.
2.2 Site Geology
The site is underlain by a 10 to 12 foot layer of fine to medium grained sands followed by aninterval of medium to coarse grained sands with some fine sands and silts. The depth togroundwater is approximately 16 feet below grade.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION———————————————————————————
3.1 Project Objectives
The objectives of this pilot test were as follows:
• Demonstrate the effectiveness of the SVE/AS process to remediate the contaminatedgroundwater east of the railroad tracks at the site;
• Determine the design parameters for the full-scale application of SVE\AS;
• Identify the appropriate air emissions control system for treatment of the extractedvapors;
95-0115 d.0-43161 February 9, 1995
AB3I008I
T€RRfl VflC> Prepare a conceptual design for a SVE/AS system on the eastern portion of the site.
.2 Process Description
3.2.1 Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) induces a negative pressure gradient within the soil matrix, inthe vicinity of an extraction well. As the vacuum induces subsurface air flow, liquidcontaminants vaporize as air and contaminant vapors migrate to the extraction well wherethey are drawn to the surface for treatment. The process recovers the liquid and vaporphases of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), enhances the volatilization of VOCs in thesoil matrix, and desorbs contaminants from the soil matrix over time. Normally, a no-flowboundary to vapor flow exists at the groundwater surface, or the top of the capillary fringe.
The effectiveness of the SVE process to recover VOCs is controlled by several factors.Contaminant-specific conditions such as the physical and chemical properties of the TCE(vapor pressure, Henry's Law Constant (HJ and solubility), the subsurface characteristics(porosity, moisture content and permeability) and system operating parameters such as wellspacing and applied vacuum, make each site unique and the application of the process site-specific.
Wa
The optimal application of the technology is the recovery of. VOCs with a high vapor;essure and Hc, in homogeneous soils with high porosity and permeability. High vaporessures and Hc's allow VOCs to be quickly partitioned to the vapor phase by the induced.cuum and air flow, and readily extracted to the surface for treatment. Homogeneous soils
with high porosity and permeability maximizes the capabilities of system surface equipmentand reduces the number of VE wells required. A large subsurface volume available for airflow (porosity) allows the process to be driven by mass transfer rather than diffusion, greatlyreducing the time frame for soil remediation.
Typically, the equipment required for the implementation of a VES includes horizontal orvertical extraction wells, a vacuum extraction unit (VEU), a liquid/vapor separator, a vaportreatment system and system controls and instrumentation. The number of extraction wellsis controlled by subsurface conditions. As the porosity and permeability of the subsurface 'decreases, the number of extraction wells will generally increase. The VEU design is,dictated by the air flow rates and vacuum levels required. A variety of units are availablefor use, ranging from low vacuum, single state centrifugal-blowers to high vacuum rotaryvane or positive displacement blowers. Vapor can be discharged to the atmosphere, undersome instances, or treated by either adsorption of extracted vapors onto vapor phase granularactivated carbon (VPGAC), catalytic oxidation or thermal incineration.
95-0115 • . ' . . . . _ - - C2 February 9, 1995
W3IOQ82
I
IIII
' T6RRR VRC3.2.2 Air Sparging
Air sparging introduces contaminant-free air into the saturated zone through designedinjection wells. As the air leaves the well and moves outward and upward through theaquifer, it creates three zones with the aquifer.
The innermost zone, known as the pore-water-displacement zone, extends radially from thewell, a distance up to 1/3 the depth of the injection well below the water table. In the porewater displacement zone, almost all of the water in the soil pore spaces has been displacedby the air. VOC removal is primarily by volatization and mass transfer of the residualVOCs.
The next zone outward from the injection well is referred to as the micro-channel airflowzone. This zone extends from the end of the pore water displacement zone radially outwardto one to two times the depth of the sparging point below the water table, dependant on thesite geology. In this zone, the air travels through micro-fracture paths, displacing much lesswater than in the pore-water displacement zone. The primary removal mechanism is thepartitioning of the VOCs from the dissolved phase to the vapor phase, followed by the vapormass transfer. Some volatization of residual VOCs also occurs.
The final zone is the dissolved oxygen zone, extending from the micro-channel air zoneoutward beyond three times the depth of the sparging point below the static water table. Noair flow occurs in this zone; however, elevated levels of dissolved oxygen can be detected.The dissolved oxygen spreads from the micro-channel air flow through diffusion, due to theconcentration gradient of dissolved oxygen produced by the sparging air flow. No significantmass transfer mechanisms exist in this zone. For certain biodegradable compounds, theincreased oxygen levels result in enhanced biodegradation.
The effectiveness of the air sparging process in the micro-channel air flow zone depends onthe natural equilibrium which occurs between contaminants within the saturated zone and thecontaminant-free air passed through it. The vapor dissolved phase equilibrium concentrationsare based on Henry's Law constants (H,.) for the contaminants of concern. Generally,contaminants with higher He values will partition to the vapor phase at a faster rate thanthose with lower values.
In addition, the equilibrium between the adsorbed and dissolved phase contaminants must beconsidered. This equilibrium is expressed by the octanol-water partition coefficient (K,,w).Typically, the lower the value, the higher the tendency of the contaminants to dissolve. Forthe purposes of air sparging, contaminants with high K<,w values, which tend to adsorb withinthe soil matrix, will be remediated at a faster rate by sparging when compared toconventional pump-and treat methods.
Terra Vac has successfully remediated groundwater using sparging techniques at sites withchlorinated compounds such as those found at the Millsboro, Delaware NPL site. TCE has aHc of 0.393 and a K^ of 2.4 X 102 which indicates that it will readily partition from thedissolved to vapor phase. The ability of the sparging process coupled with SVE to treat
95-°115 40-42163 February 9, 1995
T€RRR VRCcontaminated groundwater and soils in situ reduces costs and concerns regarding liquid-phasetreatment and the disposal of treated groundwater.
3.3 Process Equipment
The SVE/AS system installed for the pilot test included three SVE wells in the vadose zone• (unsaturated zone) and one AS well in the saturated zone. Vacuum monitoring probes
(VMP's) were installed in the vadose zone to determine the radius of influence of the SVEwells. Pressure monitoring probes (PMPs) were installed to measure the influence of the airsparging by monitoring subsurface pressure, air flow and dissolved oxygen levels in both thesaturated and unsaturated zones.i
iiiiiii
The SVE system consisted of a vacuum blower and a 30 horsepower motor referred to as avacuum extraction unit (VEU), an air/water separator, and extraction wells connected abovegrade to a manifold system consisting of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The process air outlet ofthe separator runs directly to the VEU. The air sparging system consisted of an aircompressor connected above grade-to the air sparging well by a 3/4 inch diameter highpressure air hose. A process flow diagram of the SVE/AS system is depicted in Figure 2.
The vacuum extraction unit is a positive displacement blower capable of generating 15 inchesof mercury and flow rates between 250 and 500 standard cubic feet minute (scfm). The unithas a number of safety devices, including an automatic high-temperature shutdown and avacuum relief valve. The portable unit is sound insulated to minimize the impact of noise onnearby workers or establishments.
The air compressor is capable of producing 100 scfm at 100 psi for short durations and 15scfm at 10 psi for extended durations. It has a coalescing filter at the discharge of thecompressor to capture oil droplets which may be in the compressed air stream.
The air/water separator is used to remove and collect the extracted water from the processair. It is equipped with a high level switch to shut down the blower if an overfill of theseparator occurs.
3.4 System Installation
3.4.1 Air Sparge Well
Drilling of the air sparge well, was performed by A.C. Schultes of New Jersey, aI subcontractor of Terra Vac. Well logs can be found in Appendix A. The air sparge well
was drilled with a 10 inch auger to a depth of 38 feet below grade. The air sparge well was. constructed with 2 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe and was screened from 36 to 38 feetI below grade with 0.02 inch slotted PVC pipe. After drilling to a depth of 38 feet below
i grade, the screen and riser were placed into the center of the auger and lowered into( p o s i t i o n . One bag of Grade 1 sand was. added to the annular spac,e and the auger was pulled
out of the borehole. At that time, a measurement was made to the top of the sand pack"""* which showed that the top of the sand pack was at a depdi of 25 feet below grade. One bag
•i• • " 40-4216
95-0115 4 • February 9, 1995
T6RRH VflC
95'0115 40-4216
of sand should have resulted in a rise in the sand pack of 2.3 feet in the annular spacebetween the well and the auger. However, a rise of 13 feet was measured. This was mostlikely due to heaving sands which rushed into the annular space between the well riser andauger. Consequently, the bentonite layer was installed from 22 feet to 25 feet below gradeinstead of 33-34 bgs. Cement was added up to 6 inches below grade so that the wells couldbe capped once the pilot test was finished. The pilot test layout, which shows the location ofthe wells and probes is depicted in Figure 3. A detail of the AS well is shown in Figure 4.
3.4.2 Soil Vapor Extraction Wells
The SVE wells were installed to a depth of 12.5 feet below grade by A.C. Schultes. Thewells were constructed with 4 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe and they were screenedfrom 7 to 12 feet below grade. Grade 1 sand was installed in the annular space up to 5 feetbelow grade. A bentonite layer was installed from 4 to 5 feet below grade and cement wasused to fill the annular space up to 6 inches below grade. One inch diameter entrainmenttube was installed in each of the wellheads to remove any groundwater which may have •accumulated in the SVE wells. A detail of the SVE wells is shown in Figures 4 and 5.
3.4.3 Pressure Monitoring Probes
Pressure monitoring probes (PMPs) were installed around the air sparging well to measurethe subsurface air flow and pressure in the saturated zone as a result of air sparging, and tofacilitate the collection of groundwater samples for analysis. PMPs were installed in 6clusters with three probes at each cluster. M^
Terra Vac installed six shallow probes to a depth of 10 feet. Pine and Swallow Associatesinstalled a probe to a depth of 25 feet (B probes) and one to a depth of 32 feet (A probes) ateach cluster. They were screened from 22 to 24 feet and from 29 to 31 feet respectively.The probes were constructed of 1/2 inch diameter steel and had two feet of screen a footfrom the bottom of the probe. Pine and Swallow well logs can be found in Appendix B.
3.4.4 Vacuum Monitoring Probes
Vacuum monitoring probes were installed around the SVE wells in the unsaturated soils in *order to determine the radius of vacuum influence of the SVE wells. Each probe wasconstructed of 1/2 inch diameter steel pipe with 1/8 inch holes evenly spaced at 90 degreesalong the bottom twelve inches of pipe. The probes were fitted with steel points and drivento a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade with an electric hammer.
\
Equipment for the SVE/AS system was mobilized to the site on Friday, January 13, 1995. «The manifold system was also constructed on Friday. Terra Vac's mobile lab was brought to 1the site on Monday, January 16, 1995. f
February 9, '995 I
I AA3I0085 1
III
IIIIII
T6RRR VflC3.5 Pilot Test
Startup of the vapor extraction system occurred on Monday, January 16, 1995 at 14:30hours. Initial testing before start up consisted of a baseline soil gas survey which involvedextracting air from the vacuum monitoring probes and baseline dissolved oxygen and pHmeasurements at the pressure monitoring probes.
After system startup, a step test was performed by measuring the subsurface vacuum in theVMP's while the blower was at 1/3, 2/3', and full vacuum for one hour at each increment.This data was used to determine the radius of influence of the soil vapor extraction wells atdifferent operating conditions.
Vapor samples of the extracted air were taken at the SVE wells and the stack from the VEU,5 times on Day 1 of the project and 4 times on Day 2 when the air sparging began. Onesample less was taken each day following initial start up. Vacuum and flow measurements.were taken at the SVE wells and the stack from the VEU within an hour of air sampling.Vacuum and flow readings were also taken at the VMP'.s once a day. Dissolved oxygenlevels and pH were taken once per day from the PMPs and existing monitoring wells, 32A,B and 33 A,B. Pressure and flow were also measured at the PMPs and existingmonitoring wells, 32 A,B and 33 A,B-
The air sparging began at 13:30 hours on Tuesday, January 17, 1995. On Wednesday,January 18, 1995, ESC requested groundwater samples be collected once during the test andonce at the end of the test. Groundwater samples were analyzed by a Schimadzu gaschromatograph (GC) using the headspace method. This GC uses a flame ionization detector(FID). Samples taken after Wednesday were analyzed with a Photovac GC Model. 10S50 asrequested by ESC. The Photovac GC uses a photo ionization detector (PID). The system ranuntil the test ended at 12:30 on Friday, January 20,1995.
3.6 Sampling, Monitoring and Analyses
Initial samples of air and water were analyzed using the Schimadzu GC and a C-R4AChromatopac integrator. The detection limit was 50 ppb. After three days of testing, noTCE was detected in the extracted vapors. ESC requested that Terra Vac use an analyticalunit with a lower detection limit. Samples taken Thursday and Friday, January 19 andJanuary 20, 1995. were analyzed with the Photovac GC, Model 10S50, which has a detectionlimit of 12.5 ppb for TCE.
3.6.1 Soil Gas Survey
Three soil gas surveys were conducted during the SVE/AS pilot study. An initial study wasconducted prior to start-up on January 16, 1995, to document any background levels of TCEin the vadose zone. On January 18, 1995, another survey was conducted using vaporsamples from VMP01 thru VMP06. A final soil gas survey was conducted on January 20.1995, using the Photovac GC.
95-0115 . 4Q-..2166 Feoruary 9, 1995
fti3l0086
T6RRfl VflCThe soil gas was sampled by extracting vapors from the vacuum monitoring probes with aGast vacuum pump. The air was pumped through a 500 mL glass bulb for a time period, ofone minute. Then the sample was taken from the bulb with a gas tight syringe to be used fordirect injection into a gas chromatograph. The bulb was cleaned by pulling clean air throughthe bulb for a period of at least 2 minutes before sampling the next probe.
3.6.2 Dissolved Oxygen And pH Measurements <rJTM
Dissolved oxygen measurements and pH measurements were taken on a daily basis during airsparging from all twelve pressure monitoring probes as well as MW 32 A,B and MW 33A,B. A baseline sample was taken before the start of air sparging.
Samples were taken from the PMPs using a peristaltic pump. The sample of the water wascollected in a 200 mL glass beaker, then tested for dissolved oxygen concentration using aCole Farmer dissolved oxygen probe. A water sample was collected to measure the pH witha HACK pH meter. ^
3.6.3 Air Flow Measurements
Air flow at the PMPs was measured once each day after the air sparging began. Air flowwas monitored at the PMPs and VMPs using a flow meter with a range of 0-30 standardcubic feet hour (scfh).
5Air flow to the air sparge well was measured using two in-line Rotometers, one with a rangeof 0-12 scfm and the second with a range of 0-80 scfm.
A 4-inch Dwyer DS-200 Series Flow Sensor was used to measure flow at the inlet to theblower and a 2 inch flow sensor was used at the SVE wells.
3.6.4 Air Pressure Measurements
Pressure was measured once each day at the PMPs with a water filled manometer. Vacuumwas also measured with a manometer at the VMPs.
Vacuum at the SVE wells and the inlet to the blower was measured within an hour ofSampling each day. A vacuum gauge with a range of 0-30 inches of mercury was used tomeasure vacuum at the inlet to the blower and the SVE wells.
3.6.5 Vapor Sampling
Vapor samples were collected at the SVE wells and the inlet to the blower 5 times on dayone of the project and 4 times on day two when the air sparging began. Each day, thesampling frequency decreased by one sample. Vapor samples were obtained from the wellheads with a gas tight syringe and injected directly into the GC.
95-°115 40-42167 February 9, 1995
«*3liy)87
. T€RRflVnC3.6.6 Water Sampling
ESC requested that groundwater samples be taken from PMP1B and PMP2B during and atthe end of the pilot test. The initial water sample was analyzed with the Schimadzu gaschromatograph with an FID using the head-space technique. The final sample was analyzedusing the Photo vac GC.
4.0 RESULTS.
4.1 Soil Gas Survey
Three soil gas surveys were conducted during the SVE/AS pilot study. An initial study wasconducted prior to start-up on January 16, 1995, to establish any background levels of TCEin the vadose zone. The results indicated that TCE was not detected in soil gas samplesabove the 50 ppb detection limit of the FID unit as shown in Table 1. On January 18. 1995,another survey was conducted on vacuum monitoring probes VMP01 thru VMP06. Resultsagain indicated that levels of TCE in the vapor samples were below detectable limits. Afinal soil gas survey was conducted on January 20, 1995, using the Photovac GC (detectionlimit 12.5 ppb). Vacuum monitoring probes VMP10 thru VMP15 indicated concentrations ofTCE ranging from 7 to 26 parts per billion.
4.2 Radius of Vacuum Influence
On January 17, 1995, a step test at different blower vacuums was performed to determine theradius of influence at various operating conditions. At 9:15, vacuum measurements weretaken at the VMPs after one hour of running the system at 1/3 full vacuum (2.7 in Hg). At10:30, vacuum measurements were taken again after running the system at 2/3 full vacuum(5.7 in Hg). At 16:30, vacuum measurements were taken after running the system at fullvacuum (9.4 in Hg). The results are presented in Table 2.
To estimate the radius of vacuum influence of the SVE wells at different operatingconditions, vacuum data was used from SVE01 and plotted for each condition. The commonlogarithm of the values was used to linearize the data. A line of best fit was drawn throughthe points to estimate the radius of influence, using a criterion of 0.25 inches of water for theradial extent of vacuum influence (Figure 6). The radius of influence for each condition wasthe following; 18 feet at a blower vacuum of 2.7 in Hg, 17 feet at a blower vacuum of 5.7 inHg, and 27 feet at a blower vacuum of 9.4 in Hg.
The results of the subsurface vacuum measurements are presented in Table 2. Throughoutthe pilot test, subsurface vacuum ranging from 1 inch of water to 2 inches of water wasmeasured 10 feet from each SVE well. Twenty feet from each SVE well, approximately Q.5inches of water was measured.
The vacuum measurements for SVE01 from January 18 and 19. 1995 were used to determinethe radius of influence on day 3 and 4 of the pilot test. Using the above-mentioned graphical
95-0115 4Q.,216'8. ,: February 9, 1995
•y
IB3I0088
T6RRR VflCtechnique to estimate the radial extent of vacuum influence, the radius of influence isestimated to be approximately 25 feet (Figure 7). Air flow into the unsaturated zone wasonly detected in the VMPs 10 feet from the SVE wells.
4.3 Air Sparging
4.3.1 Pressure and Air Flow in the Saturated Zone §»M
Air injection began on Tuesday January 17, 1995 at 13:30 hours. The initial pressure was14 psi at the AS well with a flow rate of 10 scfm. At 14:00 hours, the air pressure wasincreased to 20 psi which increased the flow rate to 15 scfm.
Pressure readings were taken at 16:00 hours on January 17, 1995. When the cap was takenoff of PMP6A to take the pressure measurement, water was forced out of the probe. Thepressure at PMP6A was 18.2 inches of water. Pressure was not detected at the otherpressure monitoring probes. At 17:00 hours the air sparging pressure was reduced to 10 psi ^with a flow rate of 5.5 scfm, so that the water would not be forced out of the probe.
Air pressure in the saturated zone was not detected during the next two days of air spargingat 10 psi and 5.5 scfm. On Friday January 20, 1995 there was an increase in pressure atPMP4A and PMP6A (Table 3). Air pressure on Friday ranged from 0 to 4 1/8 inches ofwater as depicted in Figure 8. Air flow was non detectable at the PMPs throughout the test(Table 3). i
•<£
adirection towards PMi'bA. It is possible tnat tne air roilowed a sedimentary structure, suchas a bedding plane, where grain sizes would differ.
4.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen Measurements
Baseline dissolved oxygen measurements were taken at the PMPs on January 17, 1995,before the,air sparging began. The concentrations ranged from 0 to 1.4 mg/1. Data ispresented in Table 4 and Figures 9 through 12. On Tuesday, January 17, 1995 after the air <**sparging began, readings ranged from 5.2 to 10.5 mg/1. Wednesday, dissolved oxygenreadings ranged from 2.0 to 5.5 mg/1. Readings on Thursday ranged from 1.7 to 3.5 mg/1.On Friday, readings ranged from 1.5 to 4.7 mg/1.
In general, the data shows that the dissolved oxygen concentration increased with the onset ofair sparging at 20 psi and decreased to a steady-state concentration at an air spargingpressure of 10 psi.. The data also shows that for PMPs 1 to 5, the dissolved oxygenconcentration was'greater in the PMPs screened at 22 to 24 feet below grade as compared tothe PMPs screened at 29 to 31 feet below grade. However, for P'MP6, the dissolved oxygenconcentration was greater in the deeper probes which suggests lateral movement of spargingair at a depth of 29 to 31 feet below grade. It is possible that the air followed a sedimentarystructure, such as a bedding plane, where grain sizes would differ.
95-°115 . 40-.2169 • February 9, 1995
310089
I
Iii
\\i
I
i
T€RRF) VflC4.3.3 Groundwater Level Measurements
During the test, groundwater level readings were taken from the PMPs. A baseline readingwas taken when the PMPs were installed. Using the data on Table 5, a groundwater profilewas generated as seen in Figures 13 dirough 16. The figure compares the water table levelduring die test to that of the baseline. In general, mounding of the groundwater table, on theorder of 2 feet, was detected during the test. The largest increase was measured at PMP6A,which is screened at a depdi of 29 to 31 feet below grade. This probe was the same probefrom which water flow was detected.
4.4 Extracted Vapor Concentrations
The concentrations of TCE in vapor samples from the SVE wells and main header arepresented in Tables 6 dirough 9. The range of concentrations of TCE in each of the SVEwells and main header were as follows:
. SVE1 ' 13-50 ppbSVE2 18-50 ppbSVE3 13-50 ppbMain Header 19-50 ppb
It should be noted that when TCE was not detected using the GC with the FID, the methoddetection limit of 50 ppb was used as the concentration of TCE in the extracted vapor.
4.5 TCE Extraction Rate
I Vapor concentrations are used with air flow measurements to calculate TCE extraction ratesexpressed in terms of grams per day. Results for each well head and the main manifold arepresented in Tables 6 through 9.
Extraction rates were then integrated over the run time to provide a tune-weighted quantityof the mass of TCE removed from each well. The cumulative mass of TCE extracted fromeach well and the main manifold are presented in Tables 6 through-9. Results aresummarized below.
During die initial startup of the system, TCE extraction rates at each of the wellheads werebelow the detection limit of die FID, which was 50 ppb.
I Initially, it was diought diat the air sparging was having no effect on the extraction rates ateach of the wellheads. However, after die Shimazdu GC was replaced with the PhotovacGC, TCE was detected in die extracted vapors. The TCE extraction rates at each of the
I wellheads varied from 0.10 to 1.04 grams/day. The TCE extraction rates at the mainmanifold ranged from 0.45 to 2.21 grams/day.
95-0115 • ,0.,2,610 February 9, '995
HR3-MJO
I
1
T6RRHVRC4.6 Groundwater Analyses
On January 18, and 20, 1995, water samples were collected from PMP1B and PMP2B. Bothprobes are screened at a depth of 22 to 24 feet below grade. There were no groundwatersamples taken from the deep probes (A probes). Results are presented in Table 10.Comparison of the TCE concentrations measured on January 20, 1995 with those of January18, 1995 shows that TCE concentrations decreased over the study period. Although the glvalues obtained on January 18, 1995 cannot be considered baseline concentrations, reduction 5"of TCE concentration in the upper saturated zone over the 2-day test period was 61 and 64 **percent for PMP1B and PMP2B, respectively.
4.7 Extracted Air Flow
During each phase of the pilot study, extracted air flows were monitored. A Dwyer DS-200Series Flow Sensor was utilized in the manifold of each wellhead for flow measurementpurposes. Extracted air flow rates varied little throughout most of the pilot study. OnJanuary 19, 1995 the vacuum extraction unit (VEU) was throttled back, which reduced -*~extracted air flows at each of the well heads. This was done to reduce the dilution effect byfresh air into the extracted TCE vapor stream, increasing the relative concentration of TCE.The system was allowed to run at this capacity until the conclusion of the pilot study.
Extracted air flow rates for well SVE01 ranged from 52 to 95 scfm. Rates for well SVE02ranged from 26 to 44 scfm. Rates for SVE03 ranged from 52 to 83 scfm. At the mainmanifold where all three extraction wells connected, extracted air flow rates ranged from 108to 202 scfm.
4.8 Air Permeability
The air permeability of the soil was calculated using SVE design methods (Johnson et.al.,1990) and imputing steady-state values of well vacuum and radius of influence. Thecalculated air permeabilities of the soils are in Table 11 through Table 13. The airpermeability of the soils, based upon measurements from SVE-01 range from 2.4 X 10"6 to1.0 X 10"5 cm2. . The air permeability of the soils, based upon measurements from SVE02range from 7.2 X 10"7 to 4.8 X 10"6 cm2- The air permeability of the soils, based uponmeasurements from SVE03 range from 2.5 X 10"6 to 8.3 X 10"* cm2. The results show thatair permeability increased slightly during the air sparging test. The air permeability valuesare consistent with those for silty sand to medium sand. The values are 3 to 4 orders-of-magnitude greater .than the lower limit (10"'° cm2) recommended by the EPA forimplementing SVE at contamination sites (USEPA, 1991)
4.9 Condensate Generation
The SVE system had an accumulation of 40 gallons of water in the air/water separator. Themajority of this water was a result of removing excess water from the SVE wells. A minoramount was generated by condensation of water in the air phase.
11 - February 9, 1995
1
T6RRR VflC5.0 CONCLUSIONS———————————————————————————_____
The following conclusions can be drawn from the data generated during the pilot test inMillsboro, Delaware.
The total amount of TCE extracted during the pilot test is estimated to be between0.85 grams (assuming that the TCE was not detected by the FID) and 6.34 (if themethod detection limit of 50 ppb for the FID was used as the concentration). Thisrelatively low mass is due to the low initial TCE concentration in the groundwater,and the apparent horizontal channelling of injected air away from the sparge well.The expected vertical airflows normally seen during air sparging were not apparent.
Comparing the TCE concentrations measured on January 20, 1995 with those ofJanuary 18, 1995 demonstrates the effectiveness of air sparging within the pilot studyarea. Although the groundwater concentration of TCE obtained on January 18, 1995cannot be considered baseline concentrations, reduction in TCE concentration over aperiod of two days was 61 and 64 percent for PMP1B and PMP2B, respectively.
Comparing the water table level during the test to that of the baseline shows that therewas mounding of the groundwater table and that the sparge air was lifting thegroundwater around the AS well.
As a result of finding high pressure in PMP6A and no pressure in the other PMPs, itappears that initially the sparge air was all channeling toward PMP6A. There isinsufficient data to explain why the air flow was preferentially channelled in onedirection. It is possible that the air followed a sedimentary structure, such as abedding plane, where grain sizes would differ within an area of six inches.
An estimated radius of vacuum influence of 25 feet was achieved by each SVE well.
6.0 ESTIMATED TIME FOR FULL-SCALE REMEDIATION.
The time to remediate the groundwater to the remediation objective of 5 ug/1 of TCE wasestimated using a mathematical air sparging model (Roth and Land, 1994). The modelassumes an initial average TCE concentration of 1000 ug/1 in the groundwater and an airsparging flow rate of 15 cfm at each AS well at a screen interval of 36 to 38 feet belowgrade. The model estimates that the duration of the remediation will be 5 months.However, given that channelling of the sparge air occurred, a conservative estimate of theremediation time is 2 years. ,
The model's prediction of the remediation time was checked using Terra Vac's results fromair sparging at a Superfund site where TCE was a contaminant in the groundwater and the,hydrogeologic conditions were similar. The results showed a TCE reduction rate of 2.16ug/1 per day in the groundwater as a result of SVE/AS. Assuming an initial average-TCE
95-0115 • 4.--.-. 12 .. February 9, 1995
T€RRfl VRCconcentration of 1000 ug/1, calculations show that 460 days will be required for theremediation. Applying a safety factor of 1.5 to account for soil heterogeneities, 690 days, orapproximately two years may be necessary to attain the cleanup goal of 5 ug TCE/1 in the.groundwater. Therefore, based on modeling and previous experience at a site with similarhydrogeologic conditions, it is estimated that the remediation objective of 5 ug/1 will beachieved in about two years.
5*7.0 FULL-SCALE REMEDIATION—————————————————————————— f
M
7.1 Technical Basis for Conceptual Design
The number of AS and SVE wells needed for full-scale remediation is based on the area ofthe groundwater to be remediated (Figure 17 and Figure 18). This area is estimated to beapproximately 10 acres. The air sparging radius of influence was greater than 30 feet whenusing a pressure of 20 psi. Based upon pressure measurements in the saturated zone, it isestimated that the radius of air sparging influence could be up to 40 feet. Using the area tobe remediated and the zone of influence of each air sparging well, it is estimated that 70 AS *"wells will be required. Additionally, because the pilot test results suggest horizonalmovement of the sparging air at the deep PMPs, intermediate depth air sparge wells areincluded to ensure sparging of the saturated zone above a depth of 30 feet below grade.Therefore, 70 intermediate depth AS wells will be required.
The radius of influence for the SVE wells was estimated to be 25 feet. However, based ;upon experience at other sites in similar soils, the radius of influence could be 40 feet or _ ^greater. The increase in the radius of influence with time is primarily due to increase in soilporosity as the soil moisture content decreases. The soil moisture content decreases as aresult of evaporation of bound water as 'air flows through the subsurface. Using a radius ofinfluence of 40 feet, the number of SVE wells necessary for full-scale remediation isestimated to be 70. Therefore, the cost estimate for full-scale remediation is based on theinstallation of the following:
70 AS wells screened from 36 to 38 feet below grade70 AS wells screened from 24 to 26 feet below grade70 SVE wells screened from 7 to 12 feet below grade
Based on the number of SVE and AS wells to be used for the full-scale remediation, thefollowing equipment will be required:
2 SVE blowers (40 hp) rated at 900 cfm at vacuum of 12" Hg.2 AS blowers (40 hp) rated at 400 cfm at a pressure of 20 psi.2 1000 gal vapor/liquid separators.
Control panels.Associated level switches and interlocks.
13 ?eoruary 9, '995
U4
T€RRR VflCThe vapor treatment system requirements are based on the mass of TCE that will be spargedfrom the groundwater and include the following:
• Groundwater area to be remediated is approximately 10 acres• The depth of remediation in the saturated zone is 22 feet• The average soil porosity is 0.3• . The average TCE concentration in the groundwater is 1 mg/1
Based on these assumptions, only 18 pounds of TCE are in the area of concern. Therefore,air emission controls most likely will not be required for the proposed system.
95-0115 40-421614 February 9, 1995
AR 31-89914
T€RRfl VflC I
References
Roth, R.J. and Land, C., In situ Groundwater Remediation using Air Sparging and SoilVapor Extraction: Development and Calibration of VOC Extraction Rate Model. Proc. §Federal Environmental Restoration III Conference and Exhibition. HMCRI, New Orleans. «Louisiana, April 27-29, 1994.
Johnson, P.C. et. al. "A Practical Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of InSitu Venting Systems." Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook. Office ofResearch and Development, USEPA. US EPA Cincinnati, Ohio, 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatabilitv Studies *~Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction. U.S.E.P.A. Risk Reduction EngineeringLaboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Office of Solid Waste arid Emergency Response,Washington, DC. February 25, 1993.
15 ' February 9, 1995
VM3U0954
T€RRflIVRC
i oogsi
i
TABLE #1
Terra Vac Soil Gas Survey ReportJob # : 40-4216
SAMLELOCATIONPMP01CPMP02CPMP03CPMP04CPMP05CPMP06CPMP06CVMP07VMP08VMP09VMP10VMP11VMP12VMP13VMP14VMP15
SAMPLE DATE01/16/95 -
0000000000000000
01/18/95000000'
N/AN/AN/A,N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
01/20/95N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A20 •26BDLBDL24BDL
NOTES:1) Results represent the concentration of TCE expressed in ppb.2) N/A = NOT AVAILABLE.3) BDL = BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
UlmOcc0.
o
I .< •§S si
"ft*ao1O
Weather:
« s.5 cb1- O
inOl
o 5
5. £O uif S2-
VACUUM
(Inches
of H20)
o
-
o
CMd
1
o
od
o
in
o
d
oi
d
o
1
\0
in0
o
CMd
o>I
TCO
,-trt
H?O
Weathe
£>
I « S= «.5 COh- O
in21
$ J
a! 51 .^3 S o"111> =. o
•q-
'
0
COd
o
d
iintsl
01
,-a?fl0
sO
[Weather:
I"
Si
C§
» S.1 01- O
3 »19 ;-Q -
5£O QJ 'CL 52. '
VACUUM
(Inches
o« H20)
0ro
P
o
CO
o
od
k
inCM
o
ind
o
od
o
COCM
O
d
o
d
01
oi— '
o
d
o
od
!=qCO
o
9'J
o
d
Oli
COOl
T)
OO
Weather:
§ |i— r-
2
o §LL 52.
VACUUM
(Inches
of H2O)
|q
yo
d
o,
o
S(0o5o
{Weather:
« !£Isa
1 -
§ J
§ a
VACUUM
(Inches
of H2O)
o6
cod
o
d
ol
o
o1i.
CMCM
\
o
6
o
o
rld
\
|fi
o
kJo
o
o01
cT01
a,J\Oui
in
t
o
o
o
0
(
\
to
vl
o
Io
oOl
inO)c'•3
g |5 r-,———————————,————————————————^ 5LU < LUCC -J «?k m O
I °-£ IlS§S"""'" i-J O r \t cc <~ 11 S •si 221I- > Z 2 h-
7«aoa>O
a75m
c'3oc
Weather
» ">.1 6Sh- 0
in01a f^73 r.Q -
|r.1 2
8JJJ <O73 Q -
^ o u"M u. 52.5 « ~^ t~ C\)o •§ i$ £<3
5 £q oui 52.
1 M n« ffl W3 _r- o*jHi0 -S w 52 E =« o a553LUCD0cca
ccz
COd
/
oto
N.
o
N.Q.5>
ccz
d
jo
I'd
fe\
1i?
ocz
o
0
o
so>>Q.2
acz
o
1o9)
OCM
O
0
a.>
£TZ
COd
o
ind
oC4
|w.4-A5=f
XZ
od
0
d
8
CM*-Q.|
CZ
o
.<;(
O
inCM
o
CO
Q.2
ccz
COd
o
T0
OCJ
T
a.2
ccz
o
0
d
0CO
m—Q
2
0)
.cfCM
OlX-_cCMoS
ore^~foO
_gi• S^53"3>
W3I0098
UI
O<00UIm§
cc2o
IS SSSH- Q_
«f2
I'ao
in2
1SII
£«j2toS
eoVas£«V5
1E£zw_c
'Mao
<3
co273
I
cua_c
Overcast |
[Weather.
,*ul
2 5? S« iD 2
" n1 8
m3J.
13 w0 -
1u-
2 I3 S33 2
1 °•- 21- O
in„ «.£ o>0 S
i5LL
2 I13 «O <0
3 2
8 81 8
m91
'S CQ -
1a.o STJ 2
i i
Iiin
• r-&
UIa. O
S _« £e ftC —ll3 OCO CC
_> u.u! wUI1 M „w ** wI C 5Q. =. 'S
s~u ^*1 11 1s 33 OCD CC
3 u.LL 2.
UI
w » S1CO ^ rgCC g 5Q. — .O
£"T £?« =•1 1jQ Q
'S OCO CC
11LU
3> » —CO _g S
Q. =. 'o
oT'""' 5 —
i 1 13 0CD CC
i!i aUI
PRESSUR
(Inches
ol H20)
cc ec cc
o o oo o d
000o d d
cc cc cc
0 O 0d o d
o o oo d d
cc ce cc
o o oo d d
o o oo d d
co co co
o o oo d d
o o oo d d
cc cc cc
0 O Oo o o
o o od o d
cc cc cc
o o oo d d
o o oo d d
ce cc cc
o o oo d d
o o oo o o
CO CO CD
o o oo d d
o o oo d d
CC CC E
O O Oo d d
O 0 0O 0 O
cc cc cc
o o oo d d
o o od o d
ce cc cc
0 0 Oo d d
o o oo o o
co co co
o o od o o
a o oo d d
cc cc cc
o o eo d d
, o £iT* O
ce ec cc
o o oo d d
o o od o d
cc cc ccZ Z Z
o o od d d
CO CO £0
O O Oo d d
o o oo d d
CC CE CC
O O Od o o
o o o<•> 0 0
cc cc ce
o o oo d d
o o od o d
cc cc ccZ Z Z
o o od d d
CD CO CO
O O Od d o
o o oo d d
cc cc cc
o o oo o d
^ o ~-<— o *~
^
cc ce ce
o o od d o
o o oo d d
ce cc ccZ Z Z
O O 0o d d
CD CO CO
o o od o o
O O 04d d <b
cc cc
0 0d o
0 Oo o
c cc
o od d
a od d
cc ccZ Z
0 0d a
ii
ii
cc cc
o oo d
0 Oo d
cc ce
o od d
o od d
cc ccZ Z
o od d
ii
i i
o__ auiccCO
S £ -.™- «v * t. ff v
E< € M S . « i « ~ ~ ' ~ " T ~ ~ " iaO U i U J - o v t - a s S
Iccz
Q CD </3 i.
o c o < o m < u a 3 < o c o < o c o < o a a < < c D < c a_j — N n «r in <o-J a. a. a. a. a. a. r g r o n nS • 2 2 2 2 2 2 22223 a. a. CL . a. a. a. s 5 3 S
#*3IOQ|9
VI
O5
°
E
1 81 gm
£ cTB £iQ
S =j
I si5 o £
TT CM3 » CO
CO CO
— N in"^ — CM
,'O *f3 in mto to
-j co in
to i«.3 in toCO CO
_ in *-CM CM
CO f3 - «to to
CM tr
N. 013 co nto co
3 « CO CM
3 T f^co to
_, to •»CM V
r- coto co
in CMCO CO
CO COCO COto in
in N.CO CM 2 «.
in
.2
Weather
« 8£S
in
1 S
s 3-* C/5
•o
1 If5 o S
o in3 » «
CO CO
3 T «^ CM CM
0 —3 in CMCO to
_ 01 0CM CM
01 CO3 co coto to
_ N ; CM— CM
O CM3 tO 10
co to
— m inCO CM
CO 00
to to
-3 ^ *CM •-
!•• in3 co 0)to 10
— O CMCO CM
01 to00 Vin to
in toCO CM
r*» CM<0 •»in to
CM m*r r
._ e2 *
.2 1a g
T3L 0
BV3
« 12H S
ins>o ct7Q -
„
* 1
1 s 0.2 x ?Q O &
3 co inco to
p- in• co CM
— CM3 CM CMto to
_ co in3 CO CO
CO O3 co vto to
_ in a-1 CN CM
» O)3 - ~to co
_ o o>J W CM
CO 03 CM CO
to to
^ CM CM
O CO3 co coto to
3 •» «.-" co in
— e»N. COin in
n toin »
0 t».in 01in in
to coin in
._ SS- g0 in
X •O. CMQ TZ 111 O< cc •»1 II8 3.1Q> m
9 o£ <
Overcast
13
11in
Q -
x 5"a a
•g
1115 o JL
oo in3 » inCO CO
in OD3 to m'
CO CM3 co inCO CO
^ in in
CM at3 in inco to
_ •» CO3 in in
CO O)3 m «co to
_ co in• in in
to CM3 *r inCO CO
_ in CM3 iriiri
0 CO3 TT CM
c6 to
3 S 2
cc ccz z
cc ccz z
<r ccZ Z
e cz z•B £a uCM in
y j Q T j T i * i t f W^ X J ' ^ r t t n - s u ^ ^ p - ^ ^ r ^ ™ ^ p S t / S — s * r « " " i O J N . m < n * — (O ?
125!*.Q Z
M £•0 .£
O
1a3
S §1 S
inJg rQ -
X 3
•D
1 S-W S "3Q 0 S
0 O3 co coto to
•» 0-J — co
— CO3 in »co to
3 I o
to vCO CO
= : s
» CO3 co into to
3 -
CO CO3 -T coco to
_ o> to-1 o o
00 to3 CM r.CO CO
3 -
CO —in coin in
01 in^ CM
I- toin in
in CMin •«•
cc ccz z
ONT3
ccZ
UJ o t r t c a o t n c y O m c j O t n w o m w o i n e M(j T - c / r > — ego — c s » r j * - c y n * - c a n ^ c g n
| Q fc £"s a 5 &
C L . a . Q- U. Q. C M C M ' c o nS 2. 5 2 2 3 3 5 3a. - Q. .• a- a. .Q. 5 5 5 s
0
moCM
"ToQ
Grade
£
"5fflIT
CUJUJ
1
PUJUJu..
1
gin
fflCLZ
o«rm
<CL
CL
s
COCM
O
m
1
2m
fflnCL
O
o
VCdINd |
O
ffl«rCL
Onm
[PMP4A
o
minCL
On
| PMP5A
Om
ffl
0nri
V9dWd |
in
S'
oS
•ooVJ
£1)
tua
UJUJ
UJUJ
eS
3in
fflCL5a.oCMin
<J2CL
Oa>in
COec!01C
,fCMa.Sa.
omin
ffln0.5a.0
«fo2CL
O
in
ffla.5a.00)
tfCL
E
o!Oin
fflm^Q.
ooin
<£i!
O
in
CO<on.5CL
0r*.CM
<f
CL5CL
1
s&
ow Grad<
cCOS&
fnUJLL,
iPUJ
=5
s
1§m
<CL
CL
O0)in
fflCMiQ.
Otoin
CMCL
CL
o0)tn
PMP3B
oCD
1CL
sin
PMP4B
oinin
<2CL
8in
CO
1CL
Oinm
<tn
CL
om
ffl
CL
Oinin
1CL
w
^
1Q
in^"
0)I
ow Grade
Depth Bel
ow Grade
cS£Q
UJu..
1
UJUJ
I
UJUJU-.
Ti
PUJUJu..
1
§in
aia.CC
<CL
CL
ina><e
COCL
CL
in0)
<CL
CL
<O
O
1CL
CC
CMCLa.
or*'
mCMa.a.o
<CMQ.
CL
Oin<o
CO£S!CC
ia.oCM
m£IoCM
Ea.
Sm
CO|CL
CC
<VCL
Q.
in00<c
aCL
CL
s<2CL
Om
COina.1
CC
1CL
8<b
fflmCL
a.omto
inCLCL
Onin
mCOCL
Q.
i<IDa.a.
Sin
m<oa.CL
in
1
Reading
o
CC
IIIIII
I1IIII
E 2
III!3 3< a* 2:x 2
1 3> 3 i< £ y £ss 2 * -1
1= 25?
LTIVUMASS |
HtMOVi:i>
""")
1
CUMUL/
OF TO- (8
ti
A —
« §lU .- 2
1liXTHAC
(|i«n
Ub
^jJ S-8 -=
a 2 :- g S
a T— >-!=,
-1 3 «J 5 •
d*f
^ s 2.
TOTAL
KUKIIMU
(I>AYS)
< Uo aaIs<UJ .
r"
S
"
3 S S
= = =O 0 O
O 0 0
o o o
r4 n n
S S 8o o —
3 S S* * *>
3 s's
II!o o o
O O O O O » » « > S r < i « i r 4 S
= = = = = = = =
O 3 O 3 3 3 O O ^ 2 ) Q ) Q ] Q
O . O O O O O O O W — J2^-P-
d d c d d d d d o d o d o
r * l « * ' 9 « « r — • O « ) t O O 3 A * r3 O O S « i o o o q — — r-o.
-
O O 3 3 p O O p p O p S O
« , « « « « « . « « « « « « «
3r-. S n S - J S S S S S ^ S
§§§§111111111o = o = > o o a o o o o o c
O
3iinZ
3
>
UJ
0«
=
|iii 1152Hiis 215 i7,
j- ' •* 2 a:> s I >!=: z v -J
/I- MASS 1
MOVUI) 1
')
1
- a S"• aC *•S)IOJLJO
vinwnn
Vir"
* >Z <
/stutii)i IDVH LX'J~>l.
-3
2"j C.
'-Z5"-a*... 0 'T3 5 "5• u ~
-i = 3^
_• > ir
s sid
<ifX
< u0 0
u.'—i 3
=• r-
I
8 8 n S
0 0 O C
= = = =s a a s
O O r* r-r*« r» »C >s
O O O O
S S S 2
a
a o o o
O ~ *•» O"f! T: 71 ?l
!o o c o
0 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0
= = = = = = = = = = =s s s g g g s g s s g . 2 2 2 3 3
0 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6
S S o o p S p S q o q o S — £ S
_ — 2
o o o o s e e o c o a c o o s s
S; 5; ?. S; & £ £ & £ £ S 3; &= 2 = S 5 « - 0 5 g = 5 5 = = 2
S o S o o c o s o o o o c o-o 3
Z
5
Z
3
y.Z
A, ' ^"
fttllO
iti•iiiiiiiiiii
i- 5?[£ £i- 2
in ^is 3i— _ :;x 2i- -is s
!?, S • « ii? i; £
Sri!-1 — 9 5 ?
IVEMASS 1
.EMOVED 1
.m>)
1
CUMULA
OFTCEH
(l»
Lll ION RATC
t/day)
1EXTRACI
($t«ir
O
5 €s £
S. z €-d*
., a -T5p
3§** < £
3 of?££
?l>2=2
< u0 O
s S5Sr»
<
8o
e
*S
o
80
o
3
3</)
Ofi
Ss
f^ ^ ^ ^ ^ w ^ * ^ l f ^ r * r ^ r t i B " i * " i vc i o o c > o o ' O " * " i " " » " » r 4 p 4 H ( N
6 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
o o o o o o o o o o o ^ J Q ^ ^.- - - -
O O O O O O Q O O O O < - t r ^ » «
d b d d e c d d a d d d o ' d d
'
r* O S ^ » T ^ Q O < T " ™ * O O O ' d C O » * *« s S 5 o c o o S o o o = — r-c-
c
o o o o o e o ' o o c o o c o a> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
S S S 8 S 3 8 S 3 8 2 S 3 8 8
Sis:s:s;SiSSiSi2;2:s:s:s:2:s:o o o o o o o o o o o o c o o
o
InZ
O
u:3
Z'•X IIb =z -
-I? z
z <
5 55 5if ^
C = 2 i< •£ y '-< < | •]]i l f i
1 IVU MASS 1
ItMOVCD
ims) |
CUMULA
OFTCE* (V
z <
1C1
EXTKACTK
(gums/I
Z
a S
? z *-«*=
S z c? p ?u •—
-i 3 .?S <; —
-: | s5 t £
x 5 <r | a
< u0 0
u:_jc_
CO
f-
u;
"•
sa
(S
3
3
0
(N0
§
V)
8
=
( M n N f M ( S f S O p o o o c r < S o t ~ ; i o ' r > « *
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3' 3333
o o o e o o e o o 9 e o o o o | 3 J 3 J 3 ! 3 ) 3
O O O O O O O O O O C C Q C O ^ n O t ^ v
c i d c s c d d o ' d d d o ' d e c o d e ' c o o
v j r ^ ^ — r » O C ' ^ * * r » C « C T - * > C a e ' C O ^ ' ' ^ . 'yC O O - 5 C * S O O ! S S « 3 0 = S — « « »
-
C<1 V) V) t/1(/lV?(rttflV^!/)(/!l/J(/1 t/1 C/l l/l t/1 (/ (/ {/I
PPP^^^^-PPr-?????????^
•~» •*-. ** •-« » . * » " ~ * ~ » *«•. * » •*, -». " . - . - . -- » •*» * ,ve *e « sa r» r- r * r * r * r - r i ' a o f l C 9 C a c ^ & S 3 o
O S O 3 O 0 0 3 C 3 « O C C C S O S G O
.5
zCO
3
>
Z -
ftf310
I
1IIII1I
ITABLE #10
Terra Vac Water Analysis ReportJob #: 40-4216
"" AMPLELOCATIONPMP01BPMP02B
SAMPLE DATE01/18/95401614
01/20/95158220
NOTES:1) Results represent the concentration of TCE expressed in ppb.2) Analysis w.as carried out using the headspace screening technique.3) Analysis performed on 01/18/95 used a GC with an FID,analysis performed on 01/20/95 used a GC with a PID.
I1IIIIII
LU
• LUQo"O.Q(ft
1Q.OOC/5CDan
I
o r~ iTi"** l» C\]S *" ^i 1 ?0) O asQ_ •—
5 £ 1
CO
< n Qcc 9 !=£S|< o s1 LU
0.
CM-J <
LU 5 5§ Z 0
> cc 2< O ccX LU
Q.
RADIUS OF
INFLUENCE
(FT)
Q
5p
SCREEN
LENGTH
(ft)
'
IIj
LU 9
COCO1
CD9LUO
inCM
CM
in
ino
oLU
CO
^
LON.CM
CO9LUr*.CM
inCM
CMCO
in
COo
oLU
CO
CO
enCM
CO9LUenCM
inCM
CO
m
coo
oLU
CO
CO
enCM
8LUenCM
inCM
CO
in
COo
oLUCO
h-
CO
9LUOCO
inCM
CO
m
ino
oLUCO
f-
8
CD9LUOCO
mCM
CO
m
8
oLUCO
r-.
§
8LUOCO
inCM
CO
m
§
oLUCO
COCM
CO
9LU
CO
inCM
enCM
in
§
oLUCO
r*.enCOCM
9LUr-.CM
inCM
CMCO
in
r"O
oCO
CO
COinCM
CO9LUinCM
inCM
COCO
in
o
oLUCO
CO
COinCM
9LUinCM
inCM
COCO
in
o
oLUCO
enCMCO
9LUCM
inCM
CO
in
o
oLUCO
COCOCOo
in9LUo
inCM
CO
in
COin
0LUCO
cqCOCOo
in9LUo
inCM
CO
m
COin
oLUCO
COCM
r-cn
8LUCDen
inCM,
CO
m
in
0LUCO
COCM
en
CO9LUCOen
inCM
CO
m
m
oLUCO
* ftl3IOI07
CM
5LUCD
LUQ
2O.Q
if(.£<§MCOO)CU+-*CO
>, ft1 ^ '
'•5 t- CMCO CD «•CD c i§ | §
CL '*j —*"" C "o'< LU -3
CO
LU < 9uj L_ CL
< O Q£ N Z> cc _-< O gl1 LU
Q.
CMd <
LU 2 59 z occ 0 ZLU £J —> cc 2< O CC
00 H,« 2 LU5 LU LU=2 D U.Q — I •»< U- Z§ z -
Q2 S £|||< > £-> , ~^
z xLU 1— cr §U LU ~CO _l
^
o a!_j OII ^
_J1LU Q>
OT
•5-
9LU
inCM
COCM
in
0
CMo,CO
CO
T" •
{rt
LU
T—
inCM
COCM-
in
o
CMoLUCO
SCM
^^
LLJ^
f
inCM
CDCO
in
inCO
CMoLU>CO
COCM
N.qLUCMN.
inCM
CDCO
in
inCO
CMoLUCO
CN£
o1LUCDN.
inCM
inCO
in
inCO
SLU>CO
CMs^
£LUCO
mCM
inCO
in
inCO
CMoLU>CO
qo
COqLU0
mCM
COCO
in
o>
CMoLU>CO
q6
COqLU0
inCM
CDCO
in
en
CMoLU>CO
qo
CDqLLJo
inCM
CDCO
in
O5r
CM0LU>CO
qo
CDO
I
LU0
inCM
coCO
in
en
CMoLU>CO
qo
9LUO
inCM
CDCO
in
en
SLU>CO
N.o
COqLU
inCM
T_
CO
in
enV
CMOLU>CO
CO
ino
CDqLUo
inCM
^CO
in
mT
CMoLU>CO
•q-CMCMCO
qLLJ
CO
mCM
CDCO
m
0
SLU>CO
CMCMCO
qLUCO
inCM
CDCO
in
0
SLU>CO
COinc\ien
0iLU
inCM
.CO
in
o
CMoLU>CO
inN.inCDCO
CDqLUCDCO
inCM
int-
m
^CM
CMOLU>CO
mr-.inCOCO
COqLUCOCO
inCM
mi—
m
^CM
CMoLU>CO
COCDCOCO^
COqLUCO
inCM
COT-
m
PCM
SLU>CO
COCD
§<<T
CDqLUCO
inCM
CO1-
m•
^CM
CMOLU>CO
W3J.OI08
IIIIIIIIIII1IIIII
CO
*fcLU_1CO
LUQ0OnjtniicLu.0OCOCO0)Q)
200
S* 75 cofi f~ ' ."75 w. r\jCo o> 1*.0 c iP- O
® 1 *> o
.i= C o< LU -^
CO-•J
0 *< n Q£ § z>• cc ~< ° 1
-*- LUQ.
CMd <
m H 52 z oC ° ZLU bi ~> CC 2< O CC
LL LU0 0 H<n Z LU52 LU LU=i D LLQ — i -^< LL ZDC Z
Q< 0)
i S -> IJ JB**• 5 c> |_ •"<
Z ILU h-LU O C-
0 Lu "CO _1
_1 ^>
o LL_j OLL [
_j[LU 9^
^CT>CO
COCDLUOCO
inCM
0CM
in
COCO
COoLU>CO
CM
OCOCM
9LUCOCM
inCM
0CO
in
inCO
8LU>CO
inmo>CM
cooLUinCM
inCM
CO
in
_CO
COoLU>CO
inino>TCM
COOLUinCM
inCM
CO
m
^00
8LU>CO
inm05CM
COoLUinCM
inCM
CO
in
fCO
CO0LU>CO
inin
CM
9LUinCM
inCM
CO
in
r-.00
COOLU>CO
mCOCMCOCM
9LUCOCM
inCM
CO
m
CM
8LU>co
inCOCMCOCM
9LUcoCM
inCM
CO
m
CMo
COoLU>CO
£inmCO
9LU
CO
inCM
ooCM
in
COCO
8LU>co
COCD
gCM
9LU00CM
inCM
oCO
in
_o>
CO0LU>CO
7—
O)
CO
81LUOCO
inCM
O)CM
in
T_O)
8LU>CO
I™en8CO
cooLUOCO
mCM
0)CM
in
_CD
8LU>CO
mininCOCM
0
£CM
mCM
r~co
m
COO)
8LU>CO
incoCMen
cooLUCOIs-
mCM
^T-
in
T_in
COoLU>CO
CO
CO
COoLUCO00
inCM
^T-
t
in
mm
CO0LU>CO
CO
00
0LUCOCO
inCM
fT-
m
min
COoLU>co
!*.
W3IOIO-9- I
TOWIVflC
(Tt
s
•9aI
, •• -j.-.-, iiifiii .-»
§a
PROPERTY LK
LEGEND: ° *»• QSTMC yOMTCNNC WU. SOU (II)o KWKMTC-C.OI
o
x-in
icu T6RRRVflC
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARE
SITE PLANOCSCJ4GT3T:
ouwk,G 3LLY
CHECKED BY:C PALMER
OWG. NO:
PROJECT UANACEfeR ROTH
40-4216 i F1GUREDATE:
10/7/94SOU:AS SHOWN
I I
EXTRACTED• VAPORS
<p
DISCHARGE TOATMOSPHERE
,©-
V
SOILVAPOR
Qd
aa:a.8
TRANSFERSEPARATOR
.. PROCESSCONTROL
AIRpuup VACUUM
' . ' EXTRACTIONUNIT
CONDENSATETO STORAGE
LEGEND:<p ___u-1 9 TEMPERATURE INDICATOR
^ TEMPERATURE SWITCH-HIGH SHUTDOWN
AIR ©. LEVEL SWITCH-HIGH HIGH SHUTDOWNCOMPRESSOR SWITCH-HIGH START PUMP
LEVEL'SWITCH-LOW STOP PUMPPRESSURE INDICATOR
EXTRACTION _ ^- . ? FLOW INDICATOR
VACUUM'INDICATORSAMPLE PORT/
VAIR
SPARGINGWELL
T6RRRVflC
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARE
PILOT TESTPROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
OCSKNCO IT:R1 ROTH
OMWNCONHfiKX
owe.40-4216
MIE:-.12722/94
FIGURE 2SOU:NTS
r 13,112
1IIIIII1
oca
S -
L fe
»•-»•-35--
mm--
1 —— 1 «•«
AIR SPARGE WELLILL
v
n-i-
PH
LECT=p'//,V< (DOB
• owcnta gggj nomows0
SVE WELLHi1
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILI1MILLSBORO, DELAWARE
WELL DETAILSOCSICNCO BY:C PALMER
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:R ROTH
DWQ, NO:40-4216
.PROJECT MANAGEfc., DATE:
c\r\ iDC"FIGURE
SCAU:AS SHO
10! 13
VUP-15
J.ECEN.P- VUP-U•*• S*«Llef MR SPARS: WELL• WCUUU UOMTORNC PROBEA NESTED PRESSURE UOMTORMG PROSE
CROSS SECTION UNE 'VUP-U
0 15i . i i. SCALE (ft) l"(APPROXIMATE)
VUP-08
•0- • « •SVE-01 VUP-10 VUP-11 VUP-12
PUP- 1C PMP-2C PMP-3C
.—— *•! PUP-1 B\ PUP-28 \ PUP-M\I PUP-1A PMP-2A PMP-3A
PU-4
P-4A— P*|'*--PUP-4C
I PUP-58VPWP-SA-^PUP-SC
SVE-02 j p.-, ,„ SVE-034- v •*•PUP-6A-—* f *•—PUP-6C
VUP-07 B'
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWAREPILOT TEST LAYOUT
DESIGNED BY:C PALMER
DRAWN BY:C PQRNOLLY
CHECKED BY:R ROTH
DWG. NO:40-4216
PROJECT MANAGER:R ROTH - 1/26/95
FIGUSCALE:AS
^fc • ' '-.- . ,-?«*». '*•-- i>
in
1 PYC worm PIPESOCUKII
ENTOKIIC CHIPS
T6RRR
=1VflC
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARE
WELLHEAD DETAILDESIGNED BT:C PALMER
DRAWN BY:C CONNOUY
CHECKED BT:R ROTHPROJECT UANACCR:R ROTH
OWO. NO:40-4216
DATE:FIGURE 5
SCALDMOWN
sfc fc, 1 n i ic101 ID
£ Figure 6
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
RADIUS OF VACUUM INFLUENCESVE01
RADIUS OF INFLUENCE
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50DISTANCE FROM SVE WELL (FT)
2.7 'HG AT BLOWER X 6 "HG AT BLOWER D 9.4 'HG AT BLOWER
AS 31 01 it"
Figure 7
RADIUS OF VACUUM INFLUENCESVE01
CJI
1*
2
I ° MRADIUS OF INFLUENCE
DISTANCE FROM SVE WELL (FT)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
IIII
SVE 01, 1-18-95 X SVE 01, 1-19-95
"•'?•. !'
A 3 1 0 1 II
III flI
Q-
7<-a.2m
iQ-
. 2 nH I I I I M i l l
-m -m*
-m' "" g=>to00UJQCa.
g S ° o_l_______L__————— z
> S
(U) 3QVyO M0138 Hld3Q
A R 3 I O I I 8
*•1111111111111«*•Ji; TW-
?<
7<
Q.
*? 1
Q.
C.
*?<=C_
0
o1
(iJ):
———— lili —— m<^Ol
———— im —— ^
IIM <a———— m ""°
•oi 'i iniiiiiii — "
ii V-t„
MII *"• 7~rt I iJ C3————— fTTi ——— — ' • x
Mil °°———— m °Olo
———— m "" " zoiUJ0
UJ OO O O I —— OCsl ro T £~~s
1 ! 1 ^ _3QW3 M0138 Hld3Q
iuii8SiIs^ili^§ ° "S !*!2§Og?S BCJ Ql J 1 ifi i
"3r CO SS * fiu •«
I5 |£- «£ °s PI!criji"
A R 3 I O I 19
0.= 00-
T<.
0.
u-J
-HHCO
inin
in<ri
CO
£ (LI) 30WO M0138 Hid3Q
C3 O OCS rO XT
1 I I
Si£ S
oo
8!
•
I OltO
*1*1
1I
52
CO
<
\
•<CD
m
CO
0
o1
(III °———— m ™rsi
———————— M ""'
———— — —— m£
*
H i i i i i i i ii
———— iiii —— m%o*r
———— m "llpgCOOsj
—————————— ; ————————— ffH ———— m ^
O O CCNI ^1 ^
1 1
•o
o(S)
SiLJ1 ——O
°I-%&
ENTRAIION
MEASURED ON
AIR SPARGING
o%2it
' » /..
a1 — «_ f
i|D"
(lj) 30VyD M0138 Hid3Q
______•___________IM4IO!
IIIIIII
III
III
IQ.
-H-H _:
oq
OCN
(JJ) 3QVyO M0139 Hid3Q
L1 ——O
§1
<->
c <iSIs
00
ji"
***J;iii*i1.__ 0I I
COa_ a
J*V*
TV\40-4ei6\a-9-95\
AS
Af \
5-
10-
15-
UJUJ
£ 20-UJQ
25-
-
30-
35-•»
.
40
. _ i
PMP-1A PMP-2A
_ _ .-. — -"""""""_ _ _ _ .
PMP-3A
:— -j- -. _
SECTION A-A'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1HORIZONTAL SCALE:
J ^ ^ ^
IT6RRFIb=i•« I
A'r\
......... 1/12/95 BASEL
^
INE ^
- - - 1/18/95 AIRSPARGING
- - - - 1/19/95 AIRSPARGING
— --— 1/20/95 AIRSPARGING
' = 6'r = 10-
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARE
GROUNDWATER PROFILE BEFOREAND DURING AIR SPARGIN^
DESIGNED 9T: CHECXED 9T: OWG. MO-.C PALMER R ROTH iQ-4216
08AWX 3Y: PfiOJECT UMUCU: IOATC:C CONNOLLY R ROTH 1 1/26/95
FlGUl ^ nSOU; IAS SHOWN 1
f*W310J23
mfc****'•«miP*i««• 2
fUCO
aHH x
*• 1-4216X2-9-95
^ ?•L >P*
AS
Ar\
'
5-
-
10-
15-
UJUJ
!• 20-UJa
25--
.
30-
-
35-
-
^ n
s.
PMP-1B PMP-28 PMP-3B
- «- — -. _ .
•
A -———————— r\
•
• = ,
......... 1/12/95 BASELINE— -— 1/17/95 AIRSPARGING
- - - 1/18/95 AIRSPARGING
- - - - 1/19/95 AIRSPARGING
— --— 1/20/95 AIRSPARGING
40 J
_ -" ———— -" • ' ._at--
SECTION A-A1
VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 6'HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10'
P FORMER NCR CORPORATION
nJVF
FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARE
^ GROUNDWATER PROFILE BEFOREK AND DURING AIR SPARGING
• OCSGXCD 9T: CHECKED 8T: DWG. NO:• C PALMER R ROTH 40-4216B 08AWN BY: PftOJECT UANACER: DATE:
L -^^ • C CONNOLL1L..JI ROTH 1/27/95
FIGURE 14SCAI_£'AS SHOWff
*
11
••
• • AS
DD
5-
10-
15-
UJUJ
1 20-Q
25-
-
30-
35-
40-
^
PMP-4A PMP-5A
' z *--*-r:"r : '- _
SECTION B-8'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1HORIZONTAL SCALE:
^ ^
IT6RRRIBJVRC
PMP-6A ^J
n P- 1
~—~—'
1
~~,
.
- - - 1/18/95 AIRSPARGING
- - - - 1/19/95 AIRSPARGING
— --— 1/20/95 AIRSPARGING
" = 6'\" = 10'
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARE
GROUNDWATER PROFILE BEFOREAND DURING AIR SPARGINJ^
OCSGNCO 9T: CHECXED SI: OWG. NO: nr BC PALMER R ROTH 40-4216 HG p
OSAWH 8T: PTOJOT MAMACER: DATE: SCALE: ^C CONNOLLY R ROTH 1/27/95 AS SHOWN
11310125
• AS ' PMP-48 PMP-5B PMP-6B
B'
Q-UJ
o5 40^
5 _
0-
5--
3-
5-
0-
>5-
n-
—
^
.--•"•"*""""
. SECTION
VERTICAL SCAHORIZONTAL
1 B-B1
LE: 1" = 6'SCALE: 1" = 1
•» _»
— .. —
0'
1/12/95 BASELINE1/17/95 AIRSPARGING
1/18/95 AIRSPARGING
1/19/95 AIRSPARGING
1/20/95 AIRSPARGING
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARE
GROUNDWATER PROFILE BEFOREAND DURING AIR SPARGING
DCSOO 8T:C PALMER
DRAWN ST:fcCONNOLLY
CHECKED BY:R ROTH
OWG. Mft40-4216
PROJECT UANACER:R ROTH
DATE:1/27/95
FIGURE 16SCALE:AS SHOWN
41310{26
TCE socoofliwiON tc (otsco »osICPKSCHTS NAIUUL \X Of TC£ COOOTW10NS
OHZWRMBW .X us/1
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWARET6RRR
VflC AREA OF CONCERN TOBE REMEDIATED BY SVE
&I3|QI27
IIIIIIIIIII
i
W28B-W28A/V j
W5 W28C A
• asuc yoMiooc IEU. •0 200TC£ SOCOKBdWini UC (0*90 «CK MFOKB) o^.ir
-?-- or MUJCS iwesfxis HMWH. UK of nzcocomuafi bLALt
E2 (APPROXIMATE)
T6RRRVflC
FORMER NCR CORPORATION FACILITYMILLSBORO, DELAWAREAREA OF CONCERN TO
BE REMEDIATED BY SVE/ASOCSGNCO 8Y:R ROTH
DRAWM 8T:C CONNOLLY
CHECKED BY:C PALMER
am. NO:40-4216
R ROTHUAKACOt:
MTEf/25/95
nGURE 18SCALE:AS SHOWN
AR3IOI28 • i
T6RRflVflC
•DO
nA
- — *_ m*4110129
. £>CHULTES,
02.0'
• GROUND 4>
1
1
1
1
1
1 :
n\ io1 I
1I\Ik
36.0
1
>
t
2.C)'
f
-
-" -• •" '
— — ~
— — —
— — —
— — —
— ~ ~
1 *
LEVEL
oirtduc v /\ocu vvci-u
W6LL LOG
Topsoil
Tan, mod. to coarse
sand
GROUND SURF AC
o (o ^in - n *
0.0'-2.0f
2.0'-40.0
NAME OF OWNERTerra Vac (NCR Facility)
Loejtwn . Millsboro, DE
Well NO. AS-1
Sl«.Pcrma 1Q2625
JOONO. 24478
Test Pufnped (Hrj j MA
Capacity (GPM) j
*-—— ' 16.0'Pumping Level MA
°"um GrotindSpecif<cCapacity NA
Oiameter nof Casing 2
Oeptn of Weu(Ground) 38.0'
Oeptn to Graxl •-> •
Gravel Size „SI MorieLengin o<Casing 4 Screen 0.0'
Screen Material PVC
Sat n Ml« BedrockScreen Oia -jn
Lengin oi Screen _ _ ,
lop oi Screen
Bonom orScreen Fimng p»
Sioi S.ie
Seal uaierui Cement
ouan,,.y 10 Bags
Ocpin oi 770'Seal Maier.n iL-.\J
n-i?Drilling Macn.ne u - t
Date wen -•- .,([ll/95jf|LCompieiea K fn)"''.-
o,,iie, -Eli. Gonzaiez 6 fe
•R-IK31U I 3U «
A.C bcHULTES, INC
2.0'
GROUND
12.
ic.c
c
1
k
7.0'-
0'
^
>
5.
>
h
0'
.!
I
— — —
~ zz ~
• — —— —
— — —
- _ __ _
'i
LEVEL
•i- .
OII1VJIl.l_ V^/-VOCL^ VVCL.I-
WtLL LOG
Topsoil
Tan, med. sand
•
i
FEET FROMGROUND SURFAC
0.0'-2.0'
2.0'-12.0'
-
' .
NAME OF OWNER j^Terra Vac (NCR Facility
Location Miiisboro, DE
Well No. SVE-1
Slate Permit 1Q2626
joo NO. 24478
Test Pumpefl (Mrt.) MA
Capacity (GPW)
Static Level
Pumping Level
Datum
SpecificCapacity ' \
Diameterol Casing 4 n
Oeptn ol W«u(Ground) -,2 QI ^
VOepm to Gravel 5.0'
Gravel Size ^ MQrie
Len'gtn o<Casing £ Screen 1_d _ Q '
Screen Material PVC
Screen Mtg. BedXOCk
Screen Dia 4 "
Lengm ol Screen c Q i
lop ol ScreenFui.ng pj
8onom o'Screen Filling , pj QQQ
3101 S'" .020Seal Material
CementOuanniy 2 bags
Ocptr, 01 ^ n ,Seal Material - « U
Drilling Macnme D-17 ^^
SompT Hl - -l/ii/85- - "
M rr* *S 4 f^t 1 *^ — 1- —— 3HHB K
A.C. SCHULTES, INCSINGLE CASED WELL
BOUNDi
7.0'
•<5
5.0'
• LEVEL
W€LL LOG
Topsoil
Tan, rred. sand
GROUND SUAf AC
0.0'-2.0'
2.0'-12.0'
N*«e OF OWNER
f Terra Vac (NCR Facility)
Location MillSborO, DE
Well No. SVE- 2
State Perm* 102627
JOONO. 24478
Test Pumpea (Hfi.) fv
Capac GPM,
Static Level
Pumping Level
Datum
Soeoltc
Of Casing 4
IA
fn
Oeotn o( W«ll(Ground) -j 2 Q »
Oeotn to Gravel 5.0'
Gravel Size g •] f Qj-j_e
Caung I Screen 14.0'
Screan Material PVC
Screen Mlo. BedTOCk
Screen On 4"
Lengtn o< Screen 5 .0'Too 01 Screene """9 FJ
Bonom o>Screen Pni4A pj Q Q
5101 S<" .020Seal Uaiertal CementOuaniuy 2 bags
Ocptn 01 • 40'Seal Material - . U
0'iiliog Macnme D~17
.-."-/ y ' 4 ..^ t i. ** -r*
Oate well --.awvi /OSConioieted -,:?4..~ ' "
or,««. F.I i, rJIB {14 .• 0 4?! ; 2 .
.., ... "••».-". ,
A.C. ScHULTES/lNC.
I<IIIII
IIIIII
•T2.0'
GflOUNO
112.
iH"&.Wa<3*•
11
«
7.0'
>0'
>
4
5.
I,... ^
k
0'
r
•
—— —— ——
—— —— ——
zz zz zz—— . __ ——
— — —
| *"***>. /-.-Water
LEVEL
L" ~ -d
OII1UIL-1— ^^r-v»Jl_t_> »» (_L.1_
W€LL LOG
Topsoil
Tan, med. sand
^ — .
iLlJdfulfcA&CM- ij^*
peer FROMGROUND SUflf AC
O.c.J O
O.O'-Z.O1
2.0'-12.0'
!i
NA*ie OP OWNERE
Terra Vac (NCR Facility)
Locator. Millsboro, DE
Well No. SVE-3
St«eP«rmrt 1Q2628
JOONO. 24478
T«K Pump«<j (Mn.) NA
Capacny (GPv«|
Suiie Le««<
Pumpmq Lew*
Datum
So«ci<«:Cipjciiy N^
OUm«ler0) Casing 4 »
Oepm o( W*J(Ground) 120" '
O«ptn to Ct *»«i 5.0'
Cra S e #1 r±e
Lengtn olC«»ng 4 Screen 14.0'
Screen Uauriil PVC
Screen W(g. BedXOCk
Screen On 4 "
Uengm o< Screen 5.0'
Top ol Screenfilling FJ
Sortom olScreen Fitiirvq pj (2SQ
SIO, Sue ^02Q
Seal Material CementOuinmy 2 bags
Ocptn 01 AD1Seal Mjieoai - . u
Ociiimg Macnme D— 17 ~
Date wen ft .Be <J, L ,ft .tTJi «b "TTCon.pie.eO . . §'11 | W 13 ,4 -
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-1A f
'-- Terra Vac/Delaware Date: 1/12/9594164________ Equipment: Vfacility, MHlsboro PSA Personnel: MA/DP
Slot Width: 0.015"
Schematic
W.L.: 16.95'BGS, 18,5'TOG(may not be stabilized)
(not to scale)
Locking Top2.01
GroundSurface °
29.0' BGS
31.0' BGS
32.0' BGS
' Refusal: NO__________Materials
Cornments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
Unscreened Pipe: 32 feetScreen Length: 2 feet
Points: 1 ' Bailers: 0
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Finish: Locking Top______
it _•_.. AL~ — ~1 f*4*sie* T'fi/*0
1 1t11
•
m
Micro Well® Installation LogPMP-1B
Project Name: Terra Vac/ DelawarePSA Project Number: 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking Top** n*
StickUp
RiserPipe
Screen
_____Sump
7
GroundSurface °
——— 24.0' BGS
Point T
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment VibraDriU H641PSA Personnel: MA/DP•W.L.: 16.95' BGS, 18.95' TOC(may not be stabilized)
Comments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 25 feet
Screen Length: 2 feetPoints:* 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0&nf
:,hlC. * '•JR3IOI35<* K» *
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-2A .
Project Name: Terra Vac/ DelawarePSA Project Number: 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking Top<•» m
StickUp
RiserPipe
———
Screen
Sump
Point
•*
^mm
r
GroundSurface 0
——— 29.0' BGS
——— 31.0' BGS
——— 32.0' BGS
Refusal: NO
MateUnscreened Pipe: 32 feet
Screen Length: 2 feetPoints: 1
. _____ "_ Finish; Locking Top
Date: 1/12/95Equipment: VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel- MA/DPW.L.: 17.10' BGS, 19.10' TOG(may not be stabilized)
Comments w*]\ ey-loppr! byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
rialsAdditional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Micro Well® Installation LogPMP-2B
Project Name: Terra Vac/ DelawarePSA Project Number: 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic ,(not to scale)
Locking Top0 Al
LStickUp
RiserPipe
Screen
Sump
Point
"»
T
f
GroundS'urface u
———— 22.0' BGS
———— 24.0' BGS
———— 25.0' BGS
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA/DPW.L.: 17.10' BGS, 19.10' TOC(may not be stabilized)
Comments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 25 feetScreen Length: 2 feet
Points: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
Inc.
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-3A .
Project Name: Terra Vac/DelawarePSA Project Number. 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
WelLSchematic(not to scale)
Locking Top? nf
LStickUp
RiserPipe
Screen
«»_»
Sump
Point
-n•M
V
r
GroundSurface u
t
—— — 29.0' BGS
———— 31.0' BGS
———— 32.0' BGS
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment: VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA/DPW.L.: 17.20' BGS, 19.20' TOG(may not be stabilized)
Comments Well developed, byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 32 feet
Screen Length: 2 feetPoints: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
Pine & Sw d ac lAs aciates/ Inc&kaio
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-3B
Project Name: Terra Vac/DelawarePSA Project Number 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking Top-> m
StickUp
Riser.Pipe
Screen
Sump
Point
7
T
GroundSurface u
——— 22.0' BGS
—— r- 24.0' BGS
1 ——— 25.0' BGS
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA/DPW.L.: 17.20' BGS, 19.20' TOC(may not be stabilized)
Comments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
•
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 25 feet
Screen Length: 2 feetPoints: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
ii 101*9
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-4A.
Proiect Name: Terra Vac/DelawarePSA Project Number 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking Topt rv
LStick.Up
RiserPipe
Screen
- — _.— ...-
Sump
Point
-i•••M
T
Ground'"Surface u
———— 29.0' BGS
———— 31.0' BGS
———— 32.0' BGS
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA/DPW.L.: 16.85' BGS, 18.85' TOG(may not be stabilized)
Comments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 32 feet
Screen Length: 2 feetPoints: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
-Associates, Inc.
Micro Well® Installation LogPMP-4B
Project Name: Terra Vac/ DelawarePSA Project Number: 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking Top<> m
LStickUp
RiserPipe
. Screen
Sump
"i
Point V
Refusal:
-
GroundSurface u
——— 22.0' BGS
*
———— 24.0' BGS
NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment: VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA/DPW.L.: 16.85' BGS, 18.85' TOC(may not be stabilized)
"
Continents Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 25 feetScreen Length: 2 feet
' Points: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
'•rfAssociates, Inc. .
IOWI
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-5A
Project Name: Terra Vac/DelawarePSA Project Number: 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking TopT <V
LStickUp
RiserPipe
— , —
Screen
-
, Sump
"*J
%•
GroundSurface u
——— 29.0' BGS
——— 31.0' BGS
———— 32.0' BGSPoint T
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment: VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA/DPW.L.: 16.50' BGS, 18.50' TOG(may not be stabilized)
Comments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 32 feetScreen Length: 2 feet
Points: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
cj£ Pine & 3d l Dt $ ciatesfJnc.
1I
MicrQWell® InstaiffiTLogPMP-5B
Ptoject^Namc^g"" - ——•———— Equipment: Vibraunu **»•»_PSA rojec T H ^ ——Si S* ^
): 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82 ^ stabilized!.... ,.. 0_015'' L^±L_———————
(not to scale)
Locking Top
StickP Ground
Surface
RiserPipe
22.0'BGS
Unscreened Pipe: 25 feetScreen Length: 2 feet
Points: 1: K™*** Locking Top_
I I / Ill 1 SampleScreen i • t
24.0' BGS
^11.___. 25.0'BGSPoint
1: NO ____r: 0 feet
WeU developed byPSA personnel; no
'
QQlUU. .Additional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
Swallow Associates, Inc.
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-6A.
Project Name: Terra Vac/ DelawarePSA Project Number: 94164 ,Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0-62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking Top? n*
LStickUp
RiserPipe
Screen
Sump
Point
••J
i ^
T
_
GroundSurface "
———— 29.0' BGS
———— 31.0' BGS
———— 32.0' BGS
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment: VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA /DPW.L.: 15.60' BGS, 17.60' TOG(may not be stabilized) _ • ,
Comments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
Materials ,Unscreened Pipe: 32 feet
Screen Length: 2 feetPoints: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0
^ Associates, Iftt.
I
MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-6B
Project Name: Terra Vac/ DelawarePS A Project Number: 94164Location: Former NCR facility, MillsboroPipe ID: 0.62", Pipe OD: 0.82"Screen Slot Width: 0.015"
Well Schematic(not to scale)
Locking Top* nt
LStickUp
RiserPipe
Screen
• _____Sump
Point
-I•M
T
3
GroundSurface °
——— 22.0' BGS
——— - 24.0' BGS
——— 25.0' BGS
Refusal: NO
Date: 1/12/95Equipment VibraDrill H641PSA Personnel: MA/DPW.L.: 15.60' BGS, 17.60' TOG(may not be stabilized)
Comments Well developed byPSA personnel; nosample collected.
MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 25 feetScreen Length: 2 feet
Points: 1Finish: Locking Top
Additional Tubing: 0 feetAdditional Vials: 0
Bailers: 0