soil vapor extraction/air sparging pilot test report … · 2020-07-20 · .2 process description...

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


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


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-


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




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

~~,

.




" = 6'\" = 10'


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


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


Bailers: 0&nf

:,hlC. * '•JR3IOI35<* K» *

MicroWell® Installation LogPMP-2A .



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



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)


MaterialsUnscreened Pipe: 25 feetScreen Length: 2 feet

Points: 1Finish: Locking Top


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.


Screen Length: 2 feetPoints: 1Finish: Locking Top


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"


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)


•




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"


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)





Bailers: 0

-Associates, Inc.




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.


' Points: 1Finish: Locking Top


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"


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)





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"


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) _ • ,


Materials ,Unscreened Pipe: 32 feet



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"


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)





Bailers: 0

soil vapor extraction/air sparging pilot test report … · 2020-07-20 · .2 process description...

Documents