FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT - semspub.epa.gov · the Final Focused Feasibility Study...

Colder Associates Inc.305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200Mt. Laurel, NJ USA 08054Tel: (609) 273-1110Fax{609) 273-0778

FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE SOIL REMEDY

ENHANCED SVE WITH LIMITED EXCAVATIONCENTRE COUNTY KEPONE SITE

STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA

i :

Prepared for:

ROTGERS Organics Corporation201 Strublc Road

State College, Pennsylvania 16801

Prepared by:

Colder Associates Inc.305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054

DISTRIBUTION:

5 Copies - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency3 Copies - Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection4 Copies • ROTGERS Organics Corporation2 Copies - Colder Associates Inc.

February 1999 Project No.: 963-6333

OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES

Colder Associates Inc.305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200Mt. laurel, NJ USA 08054Tel: (609) 273-1110Fax (609) 273-0778

February 11,1999 Project No.: 963-6333

Mr. Frank Klanchar Mr. Randy FarmerieU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection1650 Arch Street (3HW22) 208 West Third Street, Suite 101Philadelphia, PA 19103 Williamsport, PA 17701-6448

RE: SUBMISSION OF FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT,CENTRE COUNTY KEPONE SITE, STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA

Gentlemen:

On behalf of RtTTGERS Organics Corporation (ROC), Colder Associates Inc. (ColderAssociates) is pleased to submit to the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) (collectively the Agencies)the Final Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) Report.for the Centre County Kepone Site (Site) inState College, Pennsylvania. The Final FFS addresses the Agencies* comments on the earlierdraft as described in Golder Associates letter dated November 10, 1998 and USEPA's letterdated December 22,1998.

In accordance with the USEPA letter dated December 22,1998, several issues pertaining to thedesign and Performance Standards will be the subject of further discussion following theAgency's decision regarding adoption of the Alternate Remedy.

The Final FFS also addresses PADEP's comments contained in the Department's letter datedDecember 9,1998. In this context, it should be noted that the FFS uses the previously approvedtoxicological data for the Site (as specified in the ROD) and PADEP's methodology forcalculation of the MSCs as presented in Act 2. PADEP's comment regarding the use of 170th thederived standard for saturated soil is noted. Section 250.308(aX2) of Act 2 requires thismodification for soils "in the zone of groundwater saturation". In the present case, the zone ofgroundwater saturation is within bedrock, as shown by multiple monitoring wells, and so thecalculated values for soil do not require adjustment.

As requested, Golder Associates has included a diskette containing the electronic version of theFFS text and tables in Word for Windows (version 5.x) and Lotus for Windows (WK4) format.This electronic deliverable is provided for your convenience and the hard copy remains theofficial submission on behalf of ROC.

OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY. ITALY, SWEDEN. UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES

USEPA/PADEPF. Klanchar/R. Farmcric -2-

February 11,1999963-6333

If you should have any questions regarding this FFS, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. RainerDomalski at ROC, or Steve Finn and Lori Hendel at Colder Associates,

Very truly yours,

COLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

\V^£ALori Anne HendelSenior Project Manager

LAH/PSF/bjb

g :\projccts\963-6333 \ffs\final99\epaltr.doc

cc: Rainer Domalski, ROC

P. Stephen Finn, C.Eng.Project Director and Principal

Qolder Associates A R 3 0 9 5 I 9

February 1999 - i - 963-6333

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover LetterTable of Contents ' iExecutive Summary ES-1

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1-1

2.0 BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SOIL REMEDY...............2-12.1 Section 121 of CERCLA.....................................................,......................;.......2-22.2 USEPA Remedy Update Directive.....................................................................2-22.3 USEPA SuperrundReforrns...............................................................................2-32.4 Promulgation of Pennsylvania Act 2,................,.,..............................................2-4

. 2.5 New Technical Information................................,....................................,..........2-62.5.1 SVE Performance Tests...........;............................................................ ^2.5.2 Subsurface Soil Investigation..............;............................................,... ^

2.6 , Technological Information........................,....................,...................................2-72.7 Refined OU-1 ROD Remediation Cost Estimate...............................................2-72.8 Summary,............................................................................................................2-9

3.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL......................................................................................3-13.1 Site Features and Operations.........,,......,......,.............................................,...,...3-l

3.1.1 Site Features ..........................................................................................3-1i , 3.1.2 Site Operations......................................................................................3-1v_-/ 3.1.3 Surrounding Area..................................................................................3-2

3.2 Regional and Site Geology and Hydrogeology..................................................3-23.3 Nature and Extent of Constituents in Subsurface Soil and Shallow Bedrock.... 3-3

3.3.1 Subsurface Soil Characterization.......................................................... 3-33.3.2 Constituent Mass in Subsurface Soil..,..................................................3-43.3.3 Constituents in Shallow Bedrock ........................................................3-4

3.4 Summary of Site Risks from Soi!..............................................................,,,....,,3-5

4.0 DESCRIPTION AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVESOIL REMEDY.............................................................................................................. -!4.1 Description of Alternative Soil Remedy ...........................................................4-14.2 Alternative Soil Remedy Performance Assessment............................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Summary of On-Site Performance Study and Results............................. 4-44.2.2 SVE as a USEPA Presumptive Remedy................................................... 4-74.2.3 Recently Published Literature................................................................... 4-84.2.4 Summary of Enhanced SVE Effectiveness............................................. 4-10

5.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOIL REMEDY............................. 5-15.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ...............................................5-15.2 Compliance withARARs........................................................................................ 5-25.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence............................................................ 5-35.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment......................... 5-45.5 Short-Term Effectiveness........................................................................................ 5-45.6 Implementability .....................................................................................................5-55.7 Cost.. .................................. ^

Colder A.so=,.tos flR 309520

February 1999 - ii. 963-6333

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

SECTION • PAGE

6.0 DETAILED COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOIL REMEDYTO THE OU-1 ROD EXCAVATION REMEDY............................................................... 6-16.1 Comparison of Potential Mass Removal ...............................................................6-1

6.1.1 VOC Mass Removal Potential - Enhanced SVE withLimited Excavation.................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 VOC Mass Removal Potential - Excavation .......................................6-26.2 Threshold Requirements ........................................................................................6-3

6.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .................... 6-36.2.2 Compliance with ARARs.......................................................................... 6-4

6.3 Balancing Criteria........,..i...........,....................,........,.»..........................,...............6.3.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ............................................. 6-46.3.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment......... 6-56.3.3 Short-Term Effectiveness...................................................................... 6-66.3.4 ImpIementabiHty ...................................................................................6-76.3.5 Cost.................................,,...................................,.................................6-7

6.4 Summary of Comparative Analysis................................................................. ..6-8

7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................7-1

LIST OF FIGURES ,

Figure 1-1 Site and Study Area Location MapFigure 1-2 On-Site Areas.Figure 2-1 Conceptual Soil Remediation Plan Former Drum Staging and Designated

Outdoor Storage AreasFigure 2-2 Conceptual Soil Remediation Plan Tank Farm/Building #1 AreasFigure 3-1 Interpreted Overburden ThicknessFigure 4-1 Tank Farm SVE System Zone of DepressurizationFigure 4-2 Potential Tank Farm Area Excavation

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A PDIDataAppendix B CalculationsAppendix C Short-Term Effectiveness Concerns Associated with ExcavationAppendix D Relevant Published LiteratureAppendix E Airflow Modeling

Colder Associate* A R 3 0 9 5 ? I

February 1999 ES-1 963-6333

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

^-^ Colder Associates Inc. (Colder Associates), on behalf of RttTGERS Organics Corporation(ROC), has prepared this Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) which presents an analysis of the.Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) soil remedy specified in the OU-1 ROD and an Alternative Soil Remedyfor the ROC manufacturing plant located in State College, Pennsylvania (Site). The OU-l RODexcavation remedy consists of, among other features, source control and migration managementof groundwater and excavation of soil from the operating manufacturing area. The AlternativeSoil Remedy includes the same components as the OU-1 ROD remedy, except that soils wouldbe remediated via enhanced soil vapor extraction (SVE) along with limited excavation.

USEPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-1 at the Site on April 21,1995 and a FinalConsent Decree (Civil Action No. 03-23) was signed on September 30, 1996. Both the OU-1ROD and Consent Decree provided ROC the opportunity to conduct an on-site SVE performancestudy and to prepare and submit a FFS pertaining to remediation of on-site soils. In particular,the FFS compares enhanced SVE with limited excavation to excavation and off-site disposal forremediating on-site soils. As part of this FFS, significant new and compelling information has

I , been developed, not available to USEPA when the OU-1 ROD remedy was selected, whichsubstantially supports enhanced SVE with limited excavation as an alternative to excavation andoff-site disposal. Specifically, the following new information has been developed.

First, the on-site SVE pilot study was completed in 1995-1996 and clearly demonstrated thatSVE enhanced with hydraulic fracturing and dual phase extraction of perched groundwater, is aneffective and reliable technology for. removing large quantities of VOC mass from bothsubsurface soil and shallow bedrock. The pilot study also showed that USEPA's concerns forthe use of SVE at the Site, as stated in the OU-1 ROD, were successfully addressed. Inparticular, enhanced SVE performed well in the low permeability soils with perchedgroundwater zones and hydraulic fracturing was completed in the operating manufacturing areain a safe and reliable manner. Hydraulic fracturing substantially increased airflow rates, VOCmass removal rates, and the radii of SVE well influence. The SVE performance test report wassubmitted to USEPA in November 1997.

\Second, USEPA recently published technical guidance that identifies Enhanced SVE as a

i , recommended technology (presumptive remedy) for the removal of VOCs in saturated low tomoderate permeability soils such as those at the ROC Site. Specifically, this guidance suggests

Colder Associates

February 1999 ES-2 963-6333

using a multi-phase process that removes groundwater from the treatment zone, thus improvingsoil vapor removal. The on-site performance study results concur with this guidance anddocument that extraction of the perched groundwater at the Site improved the performance of theSVE. The recent USEPA guidance also confirms that the VOCs of concern in site soil exhibitthe properties amenable for removal by SVE. This new USEPA technical guidance waspublished in April 1997 and was not available to USEPA when the OU-1 ROD remedy wasselected.

Third, the literature published since 1995 has consistently demonstrated that enhanced SVE is aneffective technology for removing VOCs front low permeability soils similar to those that existat the Site. The use of hydraulic fracturing has been shown in the published literature, as well asin the on-site performance test, to be particularly effective for increasing the air flow rates, massremoval rates, and radii of influence of SVE in low permeability soils.

Fourth, Pennsylvania enacted the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act(commonly known as "Act 2") in July 1995. Act 2 is relevant in this case for two reasons. Act 2replaces the former PADEP "cleanup to background" policy which was clearly identified as anARAR for groundwater cleanup and was an underlying factor for selection of the OU-1 RODsoil remedy to protect groundwater. Moreover, Act 2 provides a more scientifically validmethod for calculating site-specific soil concentrations (referred to as media specificconcentrations or MSCs) for the protection of groundwater. As a result, it is appropriate toreplace the values given in Table 9 of the OU-1 ROD with the soil-to-groundwater MSCscalculated based on new PADEP methodology. Importantly, from both a scientific andregulatory perspective, it should be noted that the use of the new Act 2 MSCs as To-Be-Considered requirements instead of the ROD Table 9 values is not an attempt to reduce arequirement or replace an ARAR, There was no previously promulgated standard identified asan ARAR in the OU-1 ROD. The MSCs were developed based upon a recently developed andmore scientifically valid method recommended by PADEP after the selection of the OU-1 RODremedy. Consequently, certain underlying regulatory requirements specified in the OU-1 RODremedy selection and performance criteria, can and should be supplemented.

Fifth, based on new information, the cost estimate for the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy hassubstantially changed. The OU-1 ROD estimated the present worth cost of the excavationremedy at $4.4 million. A large amount of additional subsurface soil chemistry data has been

AR309523

February 1999 ES-3 963-6333

collected since the OU-1 ROD as part of the pre-design investigation. Based on this new data, itwas determined that the cost of the excavation remedy, as specified in the OU-1 ROD, wouldsignificantly increase as a result of additional soil volume needing remediation and requirementsfor treatment prior to disposal. Pre-disposal treatment was not included in the cost estimate forthe OU-1 ROD excavation remedy. The revised cost for the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy,based on the recently collected soil data and pre-disposal treatment, is estimated to be over $13million (see Appendix B3, Table B3-1). This substantial change in the cost estimate,independent of any other technical or regulatory considerations, requires USEPA to re-evaluatewhether the OU-1 ROD soil remedy is cost-effective and to issue a ROD amendment orExplanation of Significant Difference to address the situation. As a result, there is no additionaladministrative burden to USEPA for including the Alternative Soil Remedy as part of the RODamendment process.

As a result of all of this significant new information, Colder Associates developed an AlternativeSoil Remedy consisting of enhanced SVE with limited excavation for subsurface soil. A detailedanalysis of the Alternative Soil Remedy was performed based upon the same NCP criteria whichwere used to evaluate alternatives in the OU-1 ROD.

As specified in the OU-1 ROD, the remedial action objective for soil remediation is theprotection of groundwater. However, it is important to note that future groundwater protectionwill ultimately be provided by the source control and migration management groundwaterremediation systems. Soil remediation is only the first line of defense for groundwaterprotection and, as a result, plays a less critical role for accomplishing this overall remedial goal.

A comparative analysis of the Alternative Soil Remedy to the OU-1 ROD excavation remedywas also performed in relation to the NCP criteria. In summary, the comparative analysisdemonstrated the following:

• The Alternative Soil Remedy will remove more VOC mass than the OU-1 RODexcavation remedy because enhanced SVE will treat a larger volume of soil in the TankFarm Area, will treat contaminated soils in process areas that are inaccessible toexcavation, and will treat VOC in shallow unsaturated bedrock which would nototherwise be removed by excavation (Section 6.1).

The Alternative Soil Remedy provides a low permeability cover and surface watercontrols which will reduce future percolation of storm water through subsurfacematerials containing any residual VOC contamination. Notably, more residual VOC

Colder Associates AR30952^

February 1999 ES-4 963-6333

mass will be left in the subsurface by the OIM ROD excavation remedy without futureinfiltration controls (Section 6.2).

^>• The Alternative Soil Remedy provides a higher degree of protection of human health and

the environment because it will remove more VOC mass and will provide surface watercontrols, resulting in greater protection of groundwater (Section 6.2.1).

• Both alternatives will comply with ARARs (Section 6.2.2).

• The Alternative Soil Remedy provides a higher degree of long-term effectivenessbecause it will permanently remove larger quantities of VOC mass that could potentiallyimpact groundwater. In addition, the Alternative Soil Remedy provides a higher degreeof permanence because it will destroy a larger amount of extracted VOC throughtreatment (Section 6.3.1).

• The Alternative Soil Remedy provides greater reduction of toxicity and volume of theVOC mass as a result of thermal treatment of the extracted soil vapor and the treatmentof VOCs removed in the perched groundwater. Conversely, according to the OU-1 RODcost estimate, the excavation remedy will simply place untreated VOC in a landfill, thusproviding little, if any, treatment and subsequent reduction of toxicity and volume. TheOU-1 ROD cost estimate would need to be increased by over $9 million in order toprovide destructive treatment prior to land disposal (Section 6.3.2).

• The Alternative Soil Remedy will result in less adverse short-term effects than the OU-1ROD excavation remedy. Adverse short-term effects to remedial workers, plantemployees and operations, and surrounding receptors are possible as a result of VOC , jemissions from the dynamic excavation and soil handling activities. Both alternatives ^**-Swill require one season to complete construction and the Alternative Soil Remedy willrequire about 2.5 years to complete the removal of VOCs (Section 6.3.3).

• The Alternative Soil Remedy will be much more easily implemented than the OU-1ROD excavation remedy. The services needed to implement enhanced SVE arebecoming more routine as evidenced by USEPA's acknowledging enhanced SVE as apreferred technology in similar circumstances. While the services and equipmentrequired to implement the excavation remedy are available, the safe and effectiveimplementation of the Alternative Soil Remedy can be accomplished with less risk and ahigher degree of confidence than the implementation of the ROD remedy (Section 6.3.4).

• The cost of the Alternative Soil Remedy is estimated to be about $2 million and the costof the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy was estimated to be $4.4 million (withouttreatment prior to soil disposal). Considering the additional amount of soil requiringremediation (as determined by the new subsurface data) and the requirement fortreatment prior to disposal (as specified in the OU-1 ROD), the cost of the excavationremedy would actually be over $13 million (Section 6.3.5).

Subsequent to the signing of the OU-1 ROD, USEPA has issued two key policy documents:Superfund Reforms (USEPA, 1995), and the Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy SelectionProcess (USEPA, 1996). These documents clarify the application of the NCP remedy selection , j

**»*«*» flR 3Q9525

February 1999 ES-5 963-6333

criteria of cost-effectiveness. Given that the Alternative Soil Remedy is more protective, willI j comply with ARARs, and is superior with respect to all of the NCP balancing criteria, based on

USEPA's recently clarified definition of cost-effectiveness, the Alternative Soil Remedy is muchmore cost-effective than the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy. Finally, Colder Associates stronglybelieves that if all of the above information had been available to USEPA at the time of remedyselection (i.e., at the time of the OU-1 ROD), an Alternative Soil Remedy of the typerecommended herein (enhanced SVE with limited soil excavation) would have been selected byUSEPA consistent with the NCP and statutory requirements of CERCLA.

g:\projects\963-6333\fTs\fiiMl99\execsurn.doc

Colder Associates A R 3 0 9 5 2 6

February 1999 1-1 963-6333

1.0 INTRODUCTION

R.OTGERS Organics Corporation (ROC) owns and operates a chemical manufacturing plant inState College, Pennsylvania (Site). The plant on this Site has operated since 1958 when it wasbuilt and opened by Nease Chemical Company, Inc. (Ncasc), then the owner of the property onwhich the plant is located. As a result of an acquisition in December 1977, ROC has operatedthe plant since then.

The Site was placed on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA) National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8, 1983. Pursuant toCERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),ROC and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) entered into anAdministrative Order of Consent (AOC, EPA Docket No. HI-88-22-DC) on November 7, 1988.The AOC stipulated that a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) be performedat the Site and specific off-site areas including Thornton Spring and a portion of Spring Creek.The Site Location Map (Figure 1-1) shows the areas where these studies were performed. TheRI was conducted from 1990 through 1992 and the RI Report, which included a Baseline Risk

t , Assessment, was conditionally approved by USEPA on March 26,1993. The FS was conductedin 1993 and the FS Report was conditionally approved by USEPA on September 27,1994.

-On April 24, 1997, the USEPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit No. I1

(OU-1) at the Site dated April 21, 1995. A Draft Consent Decree for OU-1 was issued onDecember 22,1995 and the Final Consent Decree (Civil Action No. 03-23) was signed by ROCon September 30, 1996. The OU-1 Consent Decree provides ROC the opportunity to conduct anon-site pilot soil vapor extraction (SVE) performance study and to prepare and submit a FocusedFeasibility Study (FFS) pertaining to remediation of on-site soils and comparing SVE to the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy.

This FFS was prepared to present me results of the SVE performance study along with othersignificant new information gathered since the time the OU-1 ROD was issued. A Draft FFSwas submitted to the Agencies in November 1997. This Final FFS addresses Agency comments

1 According to the OU-1 ROD, the remedial action for OU-1 will address contaminated groundwater, surface water,soils (in the operating manufacturing area), and sediments, source control measures for surface water discharges, and

i additional soil/sediment sampling of the former 15-acre sprayfield area and riparian areas of Spring Creek. OU-2 willV_ J address the soils from the riparian areas of Spring Creek and the 15-acre former sprayfield area, and sediments from

the lower portion of the freshwater drainage ditch and Thomton Spring.

Golder Associates AR309527

February 1999 1-2 963-6333

on the draft, as documented in the correspondence and meetings between the parties, andincludes an additional Appendix clarifying the role and use of airflow modeling in the FFS. ; JROC and Golder Associates believe that the significant new and compelling informationpresented in this FFS (both regulatory and technical) clearly warrants a second look at the soilremedy selected in the OU-1 ROD and consideration of an Alternative Soil Remedy.

A remedy was selected in the OU-1 ROD to address the remedial action objectives for on-sitesoil. In accordance with the OU-1 ROD, these remedial action objectives are:

1. Mitigate leaching of contaminants of concern from subsurface soil so as to be protectiveof groundwater, and

2. Protect environmental receptors.

There are two important aspects to consider regarding these remedial action objectives. First,groundwater protection will ultimately be accomplished as a result of extraction and treatment ofgroundwater from source control and migration management wells. The mitigation ofcontaminants leaching to groundwater in the operating manufacturing area is only the first line ofdefense for groundwater protection. The second line of defense is groundwater extraction from , ,source control wells that will be installed in the vicinity of the operating manufacturing area.Finally, migration management of groundwater will be accomplished through wells installedfurther downgradient. Overall, soil remediation is expected to play a less crucial role than sourcecontrol and migration management of groundwater for achieving the ultimate goal ofgroundwater protection.

Second, the protection of environmental receptors pertains primarily to the Spray Field Area andriparian areas of Spring Creek. These areas are the focus of OU-2 as described in the OU-1 ROD(USEPA, I995a).

USEPA selected excavation as the preferred soil remedy for the Site to help accomplish thefuture protection of groundwater. As per the OU-1 ROD, this remedy consists of excavation andoff-site disposal of an estimated 6,000 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil from three areas atthe Site. These three areas comprise the operating manufacturing area of concern2 as specified

3 The operating manufacturing area of concern is hereinafter referred to as die operating manufacturingarea, as shown on Figure 1-2.


February 1999 1-3 963-6333

on Figure 12 of the OU-1 ROD and specifically include the Tank Farm/Building #1 Area, theI ; Designated Outdoor Storage Area, and the Former Drum Staging Area.

The OU-1 ROD also acknowledges that the ROC plant must remain operational duringremediation and that the effectiveness of the OU-1 ROD remedy is limited because excavationcannot be implemented in all areas of the operating manufacturing area, thus leaving some VOCsin place. The ROC facility operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

Additional sampling of subsurface soil in the operating manufacturing area has been performedin April-May 1997 as part of the Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) for the Site. The results ofthese analyses form part of the significant new information that supports the Alternative SoilRemedy and was not available at the time of the OU-1 ROD. The PDI Report containing thisdata was submitted to the Agencies in January 1998 (Colder Associates, 1998).

The OU-1 ROD and the Consent Decree specifically provide for the consideration of anAlternative Soil Remedy. The OU-1 ROD allowed ROC to proceed with a SVE pilot test toassess the effectiveness and implementability of enhanced SVE. Additionally, the ConsentDecree allows ROC to submit this FFS report in order to present the Alternative Soil Remedy.The Consent Decree further states that the statutory requirements of CERCLA (Section 121) andthe remedy selection procedures and standards of the NCP will be used to evaluate whether touse enhanced SVE as the remedy.

The primary factor supporting consideration of an Alternative Soil Remedy is that such a remedy(enhanced SVE with limited excavation) is more protective and considerably more cost-effectivethan the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy. In addition, the Alternative Soil Remedy is superior tothe OU-l ROD remedy with respect to all of the NCP balancing criteria as well as the statutoryrequirements of CERCLA. Furthermore, while USEPA's selection of the OU-1 ROD remedymay have been considered consistent with the criteria, remedial action policies, availabletechnical data, and the understanding of the SVE technology at that time, significant regulatorychanges, new technical data, and new technological information affecting the basis of the remedyselection have become available since the execution of the OU-1 ROD in 1995. Details of thesenew and significant changes and information are discussed in Section 2.0.


February 1999 1-4 963-6333

This FFS demonstrates and provides supporting information that enhanced SVE is an effectiveand implementable technology at this Site. The effectiveness of SVE is supported by \înformation obtained during the on-site pilot study and documented in the report titled "SVEPerformance Test Report** (Golder Associates, 1997). The present report should therefore beread in conjunction with the SVE Performance Test Report.

This FFS report is organized in the following manner:

Section 1 - Introduction and report format;Section 2 - Basis for Consideration of an Alternative Soil Remedy;Section 3 - Conceptual Site Model;Section 4 - Description and Technical Evaluation of the Alternative Soil Remedy;Section 5 - Detailed Analysis of the Alternative Soil Remedy;Section 6 - Detailed Comparison of the Alternative Soil Remedy-to the OU-1 RODRemedy; and,

• Section 7 - References.

The FFS is supported by Appendices containing the soil data collected during the PDI (AppendixA), calculations of revised excavation volumes, and revised remedy costs (Appendix B), anevaluation of the short-term effectiveness concerns of excavation (Appendix C), and copies of . jpublished literature regarding SVE (Appendix D). Appendix E provides information to claritythe role and use of Airflow modeling for SVE evaluation.

Golder Associate.A R 3 0 9 5 3 0

February 1999 2-1 963-6333

2.0 BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SOIL REMEDY

^—^ There are a number of factors that provide a valid basis for consideration of an Alternative SoilRemedy at the Site. Most importantly, the Consent Decree, as well as the OU-1 ROD, provide amechanism for USEPA to consider an Alternative Soil Remedy consisting of enhanced SVE withlimited excavation. In addition, significant new USEPA policy, regulatory changes, technicaldata and technological information affecting the former basis of the remedy selection havebecome available since the execution of the OU-1 ROD;

• USEPA's remedy update directive (OSWER Directive 9200.0-22);

• . USEPA's Administrative Reforms to Superfund (Superfund Administrative ReformsOverview, October 1995);

• Promulgation of the State of Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Remediation StandardsAct (commonly referred to as Act 2) in 1995 that refined the state's cleanup objectives,and provide a refined method for calculating soil-to-groundwater pathway protectionvalues;

• Development of new site-specific technical information, including a comprehensivesubsurface soil investigation, an on-site SVE performance study and engineering

, analyses of the performance of enhanced SVE at the Site;

• New technological information supporting the effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing toenhance the performance of the SVE technology;

• USEPA's recent identification of enhanced SVE as a presumptive remedy and thuspreferred technology for removal of VOC from saturated, low permeability soils such asthe conditions that exist at the Site; and,

• A significant change in the cost estimate for implementing the OU-1 ROD excavationremedy and application of the remedy selection criteria for cost effectiveness as per therecent USEPA document 'The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy SelectionProcess" EPA 540/F-967018 September 1996.

This significant new information is consistent with the requirements for re-evaluation of theselected remedy in accordance with 40 CFR §300.825(c) and the Superfund AdministrativeReforms for Updating Remedies which has been adopted since the OU-1 ROD. This newinformation is not in the Administrative Record for the Site and was not available forconsideration in the public comment process on the Proposed Plan. Because this newinformation has materially altered the previous remedy selection basis, it in itself warrants re-

i consideration of the subsurface soil remedial component of the OU-1 ROD remedy. While theOU-1 ROD remedy might be considered ''protective," the Alternative Soil Remedy presented

Colder A.soc,ates A R 30 9 53 I

February 1999 2-2 963-6333

herein is more protective of human health and the environment, more implementable, and ismore cost effective. Consequently, Golder Associates strongly believes that if this information v Jhad been available at the time of remedy selection, an Alternative Soil Remedy of the typerecommended herein would have been selected by USEPA consistent with the NCP criteria andthe statutory requirements of CERCLA.

2.1 Section 121 of CERCLA

The Consent Decree identified Section 121 of CERCLA as part of the basis for evaluating anAlternative Soil Remedy consisting of enhanced SVE with limited excavation. Section 121 ofCERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9621) provides, in summary:

• "Remedial actions in which treatment which permanently and significantly reduces thevolume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants isa principal element, are to be preferred over remedial actions not involving treatment.";

• The Agency "shall select a remedial action that is protective of human health and theenvironment, that is cost effective, and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternativetreatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extentpracticable."; and,

• The Agency "may select an alternative remedial action meeting the objectives of this \**Ssubsection whether or not such action has been achieved in practice at any other facilityor site that has similar characteristics."

As required by the Consent Decree, these criteria will be used in the comparison between theOU-l ROD excavation remedy and the Alternative Soil Remedy.

2.2 USEPA Remedy Update Directive

An additional basis for considering a change to the subsurface soil remedy componentrequirements in the OU-l ROD is presented in Superfund Reforms: Updating Remedy Decisions(OSWER Directive 9200.0-22). This directive states that:

"The purpose of this Superfund Reform is to encourage appropriate changes toremedies selected in existing Superfund Records of Decision (RODs). Theseupdates are intended to bring past decisions into line with the current state ofknowledge with respect to remediation science and technology and by doing so,improve the cost effectiveness of site remediation while ensuring reliable shortand long term protection of human health and the environment'*

•—*-•— A R 30 9532

February 1999 2-3 963-6333

The directive goes on to say that "Modification of RODs generally is appropriate wheresignificant new information has become available (i.e., the information was not available at thetime the ROD was signed) that substantially supports the need to alter the remedy." Further, thedirective states that "Incases where a change in remedial technology or approach is proposed,remedy updates should be based on site-specific information gathered or developed after theROD was signed,"

The directive also indicates that updates are appropriate when new information indicates thatanother remediation technology would perform as well as the selected remedy for significantlylower cost. The significant new information presented in this report clearly meets the aboveUSEPA criteria for significant new information that has become available after the OU-l RODand has a direct bearing on the evaluation of a more cost-effective remedial technology forsubsurface soils at the Site. The project schedule related criteria of the directive are also metbecause the project is at the beginning of the design phase of the remedial process. USEPA'sselection of the Alternative Soil Remedy will not impact the design and construction schedule.

13 USEPA Superfund Reforms

^^^ In October 1995, the USEPA issued the Superfund Administrative Reforms (USEPA SuperfundAdministrative Reforms Overview, October 1995) which provide a basis for re-evaluating.remedy decisions, especially when new technical information becomes available or whenapplicable regulatory policy changes occur after remedy decisions have been made. The reformsallow for revising remedy decisions at specific sites where new technical information ortechnological advancements become available that can achieve the same level of protectivenessto human health and the environment and will comply with ARARs at a lower cost.

1 • " .- ' ' ' ;

The Superfund administrative reform initiatives embraced "...smarter cleanup choices thatprotect public health at less cost" and emphasized that "disproportionately costly remedies areto be avoided." One of the policy measures of this reform initiative is establishing a cost-effectiveness threshold for selection of protective, ARAR-compHant remedies. USEPA guidancecurrently requires review of remedies costing over $10 million where there is an equallyprotective and ARAR-compliant remedy that costs less than half of the proposed remedy. Aswill be demonstrated later in this report based on data collected since the OU-l ROD was issued,the cost of the subsurface soil remedial component specified in the OU-l ROD is over $13million. The cost for the more protective and ARAR-compliant Alternative Soil Remedy

Colder Associates A R 3 Q 9 5 3 3

February 1999 2-4 963-6333

presented herein is substantially less than one-half of that cost. In such cases, the guidanceexpresses the preference for the more cost-effective remedy. Clearly, the new information and janalyses presented in this report indicate that the Alternative Soil Remedy is in line with thesereform initiatives and is the appropriate remedy to address the RAO's for on-site soil.

2.4 Promulgation of Pennsylvania Act 2

Fundamental changes in applicable state remedial regulations occurred after execution of theOU-1 ROD. The OU-1 ROD clearly indicates that the former PADEP "Cleanup to Background"policy (restoring groundwatcr to pristine, pre-anthropogcnic "background" conditions) wasconsidered an ARAR for establishing remediation goals for groundwater and the soil remediationgoals which are intended to mitigate potential impacts to groundwater. The soil values listed inTable 9 of OU-1 ROD were identified in the ROD as groundwater protection goals, based uponthe 1993 PADEP document "Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Soils". These values weredeveloped using the Summers model. The OU-1 ROD identified this 1993 PADEP guidance as a"To-Be-Considered" (TBC) requirement.

Since the OU-1 ROD was issued, Pennsylvania promulgated Act 2. Act 2 established theCleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board (CSSAB) in order to develop a more refined and \*^/scientific method for calculating soil-to-groundwatcr medium-specific concentrations (MSCs).Specifically, the CSSAB was established under Section 105 of Act 2 "for the purpose ofassisting the Department and the Environmental Quality Board in developing statewide healthstandards, determining the appropriate statistically and scientifically valid procedures to beused, determining appropriate risk factors, and providing other technical and scientific adviceas needed to implement the provisions of [the] Act." The CSSAB held its first meeting onSeptember 28,1995 and provided its endorsement of the Act 2 proposed regulations on June 12,1996.

The CSSAB particularly endorsed the soil-to-groundwatcr pathway methodology which usesequilibrium partitioning model and partition coefficients developed by an "international expert".The first draft of the soil-to-groundwatcr generic values and methods for calculation of site-specific values was published on June 12, 1996. After subsequent refinements, PADEPpublished regulations pertaining to Administration of the Land Recycling Program (Title 25,Chapter 250). Chapter 250 was promulgated in the August 16, 1997 Pennsylvania Bulletin andcontains the methodology for calculating site-specific based MSCs under Act 2. As a result, the ^^

Qoldar Associates _ _ ^ ^ _AR309531*

February 1999 2-5 963-6333

latest Pennsylvania procedures for calculating site-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs should bei j identified as TBC in place of the former 1993 PADEP guidance for calculating the soil-to-

groundwater values presented in the OU-1 ROD (i.e., Table 9 values) for the following reasons:

• Most importantly, from both a scientific, as well as a regulatory perspective, the use ofthe new Act 2 methodology is not an attempt to reduce a requirement or replace anARAR because there was no previously promulgated standard identified as an ARAR inthe OU-1 ROD. Conversely, significant new technical and regulatory information hasbeen published and promulgated by PADEP which clearly supports the use of thedifferent, more scientifically valid method for developing site-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs;

• A new methodology has been developed for calculating MSCs based on scientificinformation developed by an independent qualified science advisory board after,the

. signing of the OU-1 ROD. This new technical information was not available in theAdministrative Public Record at the time the OU-1 ROD was signed and representsimprovements to the methodology identified in the OU-1 ROD;

• PADEP is currently implementing the use of the new Act 2 soil-to-groundwater MSCs atother sites within the Commonwealth;

• Using the PADEP "background** policy as a remediation goal is believed to be in partresponsible for the requirements of the subsurface soil remedy specified in the OU-1ROD. The recent promulgation of Act 2 allows replacement of the "background**standard and clearly declares that its intentions are not to require sites to be returned to apristine conditions. As a result of these regulatory changes, the restoration ofgroundwater to background conditions Is no longer valid and would not be used as abasis for remedy selection today; and,

• Act 2 allows replacement of the "background" standard with a risk-based remedialapproach that now focuses on estimated risk and available exposure pathways. The soiland sediment cleanup criteria presented in Table 9 of the OU-1 ROD are not ARAR andshould be reconsidered based on PADEP's updated approach.

PADEP has developed methodology for calculating site-specific MSCs specifically forprotection of groundwater using a site-specific risk-based approach for exposure to groundwater.Site-specific MSCs have been developed for the ROC Site and are presented in Appendix B-l.For consistency with the OU-1 ROD, MSCs have been calculated using the same Site-specificdata and toxicological information employed in developing the values presented in Table 9 of theROD. These MSCs should replace the OU-1 ROD Table 9 values and represent the TBC criteriaby which the need for remediation should be based. Colder Associates believes that if the newPADEP methodology had been available to USEPA prior to the OU-1 ROD, then it would havebeen used to assess soil-to-groundwater MSCs.

Colder Associates AR309535

February 1999 2-6 963-6333

2.5 New Technical Information

New technical data developed after the OU-1 ROD has allowed a more detailed and conclusiveassessment of the performance and effectiveness of an enhanced SVE remedy for subsurface soiland a refined cost estimate for the OU-1 ROD soil remedy.

2.5.1 SVE Performance Tests

In 1995 and 1996, ROC initiated performance testing of enhanced SVE system at the Site. TheSVE performance test demonstrated that the SVE technology is effective for removingsubstantial quantities of VOCs especially when enhanced by hydraulic fracturing and multi-phase extraction (removal of soil vapors along with perched groundwater). Moreover, theperformance tests demonstrate that the SVE technology can overcome the potential technicallimitations identified by USEPA in the OU-1 ROD. Section 4.2 presents a summary of theperformance test results.

2.5.2 Subsurface Soil Investigation

The PDI fieldwork at the Site was initiated in April 1997. Part of the PDI was a comprehensivesubsurface soil investigation conducted to gather additional information on the nature and extentof contamination at the Site. Sixty-six subsurface borings were advanced at the Site and depth-discrete samples were collected. Locations of the borings are shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2.The analytical data for these soil samples are presented in Appendix A.

The PDI subsurface soil data has provided a better estimate of the extent, concentration and massof contaminants in the subsurface which has allowed a better assessment of excavationrequirements and costs and a more valid comparison between the OU-1 ROD excavation remedyand the Alternative Soil Remedy (enhanced SVE with limited excavation). Figures 2-1 and 2-2show the conceptual remediation areas for the Site. Assumptions were made in order to estimateexcavation volumes and costs. The actual extent of excavation or alternate remediation would bedetermined during the remedial action. In the case of excavation, confirmatory soil sampleswould determine the final extent of excavation.

Based on the requirements of the OU-1 ROD and the data collected since April 1995, the volumeof soil which would need to be removed is estimated to be 10,434 cubic yards (1.7 times greaterthan that estimated in the OU-l ROD), which substantially increases the OU-1 ROD soil remedy

Go.docAs.oc.ato. flR

February 1999 2-7 963-6333

cost estimate. In addition, the cost estimate used in the OU-l ROD did not include costsV j associated with incineration of excavated materials due to kepone or VOC concentrations greater

than Land Disposal Restriction criteria in 40 CFR 258.40 which also substantially increases theOU-l ROD cost estimate. Further information regarding remedial costs is discussed in section2.7. Volume calculations are shown in Appendix B-2.

For the Alternative Soil Remedy, the new subsurface soil data are compared to the site-specificsoil-to-groundwater MSCs in order to define the areas requiring remediation (see Figures 2-1 and2-2). As shown, the Tank Farm area contains the bulk of the contamination with some isolatedlocations in the Former Drum Staging Area and the Designated Outdoor Storage Area.

2.6 Technological Information

New scientific and technological information has become available since the OU-l ROD wasissued concerning hydraulic fracturing as an effective enhancement mechanism for the SVEtechnology. New information developed by Colder Associates at other sites indicates thatpropagation of horizontal fractures can be monitored and controlled to maximize the zone ofinfluence around an SVE well. In addition, the on-site performance study evaluated hydraulic

^-^ fracturing and monitoring techniques and new technical literature published after April 1995 (seeSection 4.2.3 and Appendix D) has evaluated hydraulic fracturing. This new informationdemonstrates that hydraulic fracturing is an effective technology for increasing the netpermeability of soil.

In addition, significant new information has been published by USEPA concerning the enhancedSVE technology. In April 1997, the USEPA published OSWER Directive 9355.0-68FS:"Presumptive Remedy: Multi-Phase Extraction Technology for VOCs in Soil and Groundwater."This presumptive remedy guidance identifies multi-phase SVE as a preferred technology insaturated low to moderate permeability soils similar to the conditions in the operatingmanufacturing area.

All of the above information is not in the Administrative Record for the ROC State College Site,and was not available for consideration during the 1995 remedy selection or the public commentprocess. It is anticipated that if this new information had been available to USEPA at the time ofremedy selection, USEPA would have likely selected enhanced SVE for soil remediation. This

^—' new information addresses the main concern that the USEPA had in 1995 with regard to

Go.derA.soc.ates AR3Q9537

February 1999 2-8 963-6333

applying SVE to the Site which is the technology's effectiveness in partially saturated lowpermeability soil (USEPA, 1995c).

2.7 Refined OU-1 ROD Remediation Cost Estimate

A revised cost estimate for implementing the OU-1 ROD soil remedy has been developed byColder Associates based upon the following factors:

• The PDI data and data collected since the RI, together with the RI data, have been usedto assess areas requiring remediation. Those areas where concentrations exceed therequirements in the OU-1 ROD are assumed to be excavated using a 2:1 side slope,where feasible;

• Any soil where concentrations of kepone were greater than 320 ppb was assumed torequire treatment prior to disposal based upon the requirements in the OU-1 ROD;

• Any soil where VOC concentrations exceed the Land Disposal Restriction criteria in 40CFR 258.40, was assumed to require treatment prior to disposal based upon therequirements in the OU-1 ROD; and,

• The soil from the 8-12 ft lift was assumed to require off-Site treatment and disposal at aRCRA Subtitle C landfill, based upon the requirements of the ROD.

The revised cost estimate for the OU-1 ROD soil remedy is presented in Table 1 of AppendixB-3. The revised costs include an estimated 10,434 cu yd of material rather than the 6,000 cu ydestimated in the OU-1 ROD. In addition, 7,078 cu yd of excavated material would requiretreatment prior to disposal based upon kepone concentrations greater than 320 ppb orexce.edences of the LDR standards for VOC. Consequently, the revised cost estimate for theOU-1 ROD remedy is $13.5 million, which is 3.0 times greater than the cost estimate of $4.4million presented in the OU-1 ROD. Because USEPA has stated that cost-effectiveness is animportant criterion for remedy selection, this revised cost estimate has modified the basis for theprevious remedy selection. Given this change in cost, and independent of any other technical orregulatory considerations, 40 CFR 300.825[c] requires USEPA to now reconsider the remedyand issue a ROD amendment or Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) to address thissituation.

Colder Associates /1R309538

February 1999 2-9 963-6333

2.8 Summary

AH of the above factors provide a strong administrative and technical basis to allow USEPA toconsider the Alternative Soil Remedy presented herein and modify the OU-1 ROD accordingly.ROC believes that the OU-1 ROD should be modified through an ESD or ROD amendment per40 CFR Part 300.435(c)(2)(i) based upon the information contained within this document. SinceUSEPA is required to issue a ROD amendment or ESD based solely on the revised OU-1 RODcost estimate, there is no additional administrative burden to USEPA for including theAlternative Soil Remedy as part of the ROD amendment process.

Colder Associate. AR309539

February 1999 3-1 963-6333

3.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

I j 3.1 Site Features and Operations

The Site is located in College Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, approximately two andone-quarter miles northeast of the Borough of State College. The Site occupies an areaapproximately 32.2 acres and includes ROC's active manufacturing plant located on StrubleRoad about 3,000 feet north of the intersection of State Routes 322 and 26. The focus of thisFFS is subsurface materials within the Operating Manufacturing Area located southwest ofStruble Road and adjacent to the Conrail tracks, as shown on Figure 1-2.

3.1.1 Site Features

The topography of the Site is relatively gently sloping terrain located on the northwest flank ofNittany Mountain. Ground surface elevations in the area range from approximately 1,090 feetabove mean sea level (ft MSL) near the railroad tracks to 1,120 ft MSL in the southwest portionof the Site. Surface water runoff at the Site, primarily from building roof drains and pavement,flows to a retention basin before being discharged to the on-sitc Fresh Water Drainage Ditch(FWDD), which ultimately discharges to Spring Creek.

The regional climate is temperate and wet, with precipitation occurring throughout the year.Average monthly temperatures range from a minimum of 24.7 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) inJanuary to a maximum of 71.6° F in July, with a mean annual temperature of 48.8° F. In 1996,monthly precipitation for the area ranged from 2.0 inches in February to 11 inches in September,with a yearly total of 59.3 inches.

3.1.2 Site Operations

The Operating Manufacturing Area, especially the Tank Farm/Building #1 Area, containsmultiple underground utilities, tanks, equipment, overhead piping, various structures, andbuildings making accessibility to subsurface soil extremely difficult in this area. The ROCfacility is an active manufacturing facility and the main chemical production takes place inBuildings #1 and #2. Operations are conducted 24 hours per day, seven days per week. There isvirtually continuous worker and vehicular traffic through this area on a daily basis transferringsupplies, raw materials, and manufactured products. Major disruptions in this area would

. severely impact manufacturing operations and the OU-1 ROD recognized that the plant must^-^ remain operational during implementation of the remedy. The Former Drum Staging Area and

Colder Associates A R 3 0 9 5 U O

February 1999 3-2 963-6333

Designated Outdoor Staging Area include much less equipment and structures and are not as _.._^heavily used as the Tank Farm Building #1 area and, as a result, are more accessible.

3.1.3 Surrounding Area

In the immediate vicinity of the Site, the land use is industrial/commercial and residential.Residential dwellings are located along the southeast border of the Site. Commercialestablishments are located along State Route 26 which is heavily traveled and runs adjacent tothe Site. A restaurant, garden center, and lumber yard are located within 300 feet of theOperating Manufacturing Area.

According to the Centre County Regional Planning Commission, the 1990 population in College -Township was 7,620, with a projected population of 8,400 by 1995. A public water supply isprovided throughout the surrounding area by the Lemont Water Company (SMC, 1992).

3.2 Regional and Site Geology and Hydrogeology

The following provides a brief description of the subsurface soil, shallow bedrock and pertinenthydrogcology within the Operating Manufacturing Area. Additional details regarding theregional and local geologic and hydrogcologic setting are described in the RI Report (SMC, 1992and Colder Associates, 1993).

The Site and surrounding area are located in the Nittany Valley between Spring Creek andNittany Mountain. This area is directly underlain by rock formations of the Loysburg Group andBellefonte Group, both of which have been repeated as the result of a thrust fault which bisectsthe Site (Colder Associates, 1994). Overlying the bedrock is a layer of residual soils and man-made fill. The residual soils are typically gray to reddish brown silty clays (likely from theHagerstown-Opequam-Hublesburg Association) that are the result of in-place weathering of thebedrock. Sand lenses have been observed in the clays. Fill materials generally are variable soils(from clays to gravels) that have been placed at the Site for grading/construction and mayinclude reworked residual soil. The interpreted thickness of overburden in the OperatingManufacturing Area generally ranges between 10 and 20 feet as shown on Figure 3*1.

The man-made fills and in-situ residual soils are generally dry to an approximate depth of 5 feetbelow ground surface (bgs) where perched water zones can be encountered. The true ,groundwater table, or phreatic surface, in this area of the Site is about 25 feet bgs. Below the

Qotdar Associates Jj o "i n Q C L I

February 1999 3-3 963-6333

residual soil, bedrock is unsaturated and acts as a drain for precipitation, which percolates downI j from the ground surface to bedrock. Where the bedrock is fractured and broken or modified by

dissolution, drainage is relatively rapid; however, where intact and unweathered bedrock isencountered, some lateral movement of the groundwater may occur along the soil/rock interface.This lateral movement occurs until a discontinuity (fracture, bedding plane parting, or solutioncavity) in the bedrock is intercepted, and the interface zone is then drained. However, in someareas, the soil/rock permeability is too low for the soil to completely drain and infiltrationrecharge is sufficient to create local saturated (perched groundwater) zones in the soiloverburden. Based upon soil descriptions, the depth of partial saturation associated with perchedconditions is inferred to range from approximately 5 feet to 15 feet bgs.

A review of the borehole logs from borings drilled in the Tank Farm Area and vicinity indicatesthat the native soils beneath the Site arc predominantly yellow to orange-brown and gray incolor, silty clays and clays. In general, the lower horizons in these native soils are harder (SPTblow counts: N ranging from 10 to 30) than the upper horizons (N less than 15). In addition,fine-sand and silty-seams (horizontal lenses) are present and vertical fissures (fractures) wereintercepted in piezometer borings P-l, P-4, and P-5 installed as part of the SVE performance test.

^ . . - . - • • - . •33 Nature and Extent of Constituents In Subsurface Soil and Shallow Bedrock

Significant new technical data has been gathered since the OU-1 ROD was issued in April 1995which has refined the understanding of subsurface constituents as described in the followingsection. Data collected during the PDI are presented in Appendix A. The Sample identificationnumbering methodology used for PDI data is also described in Appendix A.

3 J.I Subsurface Soil Characterization

The RI data, post-RI data and the PDI data taken together provide an enhanced understanding ofthe nature of contamination in the operating manufacturing area. VOCs are the most significantcontaminants detected at the Site. While mirex and kepone have been detected at selectlocations throughout this area, the concentrations of these pesticides do not exceed the Site-specific MSCs. There are discrete areas of elevated VOC contamination in the Former DrumStaging and the Designated Outdoor Storage Areas, however, the majority of the contaminationis located in the Tank Farm Area. The area around Building #1 also shows some discrete areas

i of VOC contamination. Total VOCs in the Tank Farm/Building #1 Area range from 0.004 ppmin TF-11 to 20,600 ppm (over 2%) in TF-05. Of the VOCs detected, the most prevalent are

Colder Associates AR3095 l f2

February 1999 3-4 963-6333

toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.These compounds have vapor pressures and Henry's Law constants consistent with thoseamenable for removal by SVE (USEPA, 1997). Therefore, according to the USEPA guidance,enhanced SVE is suitable for removing VOC contaminants detected at the Site.

3.3.2 Constituent Mass In Subsurface Soil

Based on concentrations of VOCs, mircx, and kepone in soil from the RI data set, the SVE dataset and the PDI data set, the total mass of VOCs in the Tank Farm (exclusive of Building #1) isestimated to be about 13,600 Ib. (see Appendix B4).

There are discrete areas with elevated VOC concentrations in the area surrounding Building #1(SB-2, TF-10, TF-11, SB-3) which are inaccessible to ex-situ remediation techniques such asexcavation because of buildings, overhead piping and other structures (Figure 2-2). The totalmass of VOCs at these four locations is estimated to be approximately 200 Ib. Excavationimmediately adjacent to buildings is not feasible at this Site as the structural integrity of thebuildings would be undermined.

In the Former Drum Staging Area and the Designated Outdoor Storage Area there are isolatedpoints where the VOC concentrations exceed the soil-to-groundwater MSCs (Figure 2-1).Relatively speaking, the mass of contaminants in these areas is significantly less than the mass inthe Tank Farm/Building #1 Area. Concentrations of mirex and kepone did not exceed the Site-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs in these areas as well as the Tank Farm/Building #1 Area.

333 Constituents in Shallow Bedrock

Dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) has been observed in the bedrock underlying thisportion of the Site. Consequently, it is expected that sporadic DNAPL pools may exist in theshallow bedrock karst cavities. VOC constituents can be mobilized when infiltratingprecipitation drains through the unsaturated bedrock. These source areas cannot be removed byexcavation. Data obtained during the SVE pilot study confirmed the presence of elevated VOCin the unsaturated bedrock. Substantial quantities (over 200 Ib.) of VOCs were removed fromshallow bedrock SVE wells during the pilot test and elevated FDD readings were measured at thesoil/bedrock interface.

February 1999 3-5 963-6333

3.4 Summary of Site Risks from Soil

^-^ As summarized in the OU-1 ROD, the only unacceptable risk to human health from on-site soilis for a hypothetical future on-site resident. However, this exposure scenario is now not eventheoretically possible because the ROC facility is an active chemical manufacturing plant, iszoned as "Industrial," and deed restrictions have been placed upon the property such that theproperty will maintain its current zoning and cannot be developed for residential use. Aspreviously noted in Section 1 of this document, the remedial action objective driving soilremediation is that of groundwatcr protection.

Exposure to on-site soils for daily workers, episodic workers and trespassers does not present anunacceptable human health risk. However, this scenario did not address worker exposuresassociated with excavating and stockpiling and otherwise handling the contaminated soil in aremediation situation. Given the VOC concentrations detected in the soils from the Tank FarmArea, VOC emissions, and odors during excavation might disrupt plant operations and adverselyimpact surrounding receptors. A further discussion of potential adverse impacts from VOCemissions during soil handling activities is provided in Section 6.

Colder Associates A R 3 0 Q S L L

February 1999 4-1 963-6333

4.0 DESCRIPTION AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVESOIL REMEDY

This section provides a description of the Alternative Soil Remedy in addition to an in-depthtechnical evaluation of the effectiveness of enhanced SVE technology applied to the Site.

4.1 Description of Alternative Soil Remedy

The principal objective for the remediation of subsurface soil is the reduction of the mass ofVOC constituents for the purpose of mitigating potential future impacts to groundwater. AnAlternative Soil Remedy has been developed which will achieve this overall remedial actionobjective in a reliable and cost-effect manner.

The Alternative Soil Remedy pertains only to the subsurface soil component of the OU-1 remedydescribed in the 1995 ROD; the other components of the OU-1 remedy will not change. Theseother components include:

• Extraction of groundwater from source control and migration management extractionwells and treatment of groundwater with discharge to the Freshwater Drainage Ditch;

• Long-term groundwater monitoring;

• Surficial soil sampling in the 15-acre Former Spray Field Area (OU-2);

• Improvements to the surface water drainage system in the plant production area;

• Monitoring of surface water discharge from the Site;

• . Excavation and off-Site disposal of contaminated sediments;

• Fish tissue and stream channel monitoring;

• On-Site and off-Site fencing;

• Deed restrictions; and,

• Riparian area sampling (OU-2).

The objective for soil remediation remains unchanged: remove contaminants for the purpose ofprotecting groundwater. Based upon all available depth discrete soil chemistry data and theSite-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs, the concentrations of mirex and kepone present in soilsamples collected from the Site are at concentration levels which do not pose a threat to

Colder Associates H D O n n c I cAR3095H5

February 1999 4-2 963-6333

groundwater. Consequently, the only constituents which require remediation for groundwaterprotection are VOCs. X^X

The Alternative Soil Remedy has been developed to remediate those areas shown on Figures 2-1and 2-2 where soil data indicates that VOCs are present above levels that are protective ofgroundwater. The Alternative Soil Remedy involves installing overburden and bedrock SVEwells in the Tank Farm Area where most of the VOC mass is located. Additionally, SVEoverburden wells will be located around Building #1, adjacent to Building #9 and at selectlocations in the Former Drum Staging Area and Designated Outdoor Storage Area, as required.The number, depth, construction details, and configuration of the SVE well system will bedetermined during remedial design. Preliminarily, a system of twelve overburden and fivebedrock wells was shown to provide considerable depressurization (i.e., over 2 inches watercolumn) in the Tank Farm Area as shown on Figure 4-1.

A series of wellhead assemblies, piping (heat-traced as necessary), condensate/perchedgroundwater knock-out pot, blower system, and other appurtenances will be installed and theSVE effluent stream will flow to an Air Pollution Control (APQ device for destructivetreatment. The type of APC and details regarding its destructive capabilities would be addressed . ^*in the remedial design of the soil remedy.

In areas where bedrock is near the surface (locations DO-01, FD-02, FD-07, FD-06, and DO-06),limited excavation may be performed to remove VOCs instead of SVE. Excavated soils will bedisposed of off-site possibly following thermal treatment, if required. Based on the PDI data,approximately 120 cubic yards of material may be excavated.

The overburden SVE wells will be hydraulically fractured to enhance the performance of theSVE system, i.e., increase the airflow, radii of influence, and mass removal rates. Fractures willbe hydraulically induced and a sand propant injected to keep the fractures open. OverburdenSVE wells in close proximity to sensitive structures may not be fractured to the extent that wellsaway from these structures would be. The remedial design will develop an approach to ensurethat effective SVE will be implemented in a safe manner. The propagation of fractures will bemonitored and safely completed as demonstrated during the SVE performance study.

Colder Associates A R 3 Q 9 5 U 6

February 1999 4-3 963-6333

Additional enhancements to the SVE system over that used in the pilot study will include multi-i j phase extraction to remove perched groundwater from the area of treatment thereby increasing

the effectiveness of the SVE system. Multi-phase extraction, which simultaneously extracts bothsoil vapor and groundwater can be accomplished by a number of different methods including theuse of submersible pumps, suction tubes, low vacuum pressures, and/or high vacuum pressures.The details of the system would be determined during remedial design. The water removed fromthe wells and knock-out pot would be piped to the on-site groundwater treatment plant.

In order to minimize future percolation of storm water into and through subsurface soil in theoperating manufacturing area and the potential leaching of subsurface soil residual constituentsduring and after SVE operation, certain additional engineering controls, beyond those required bythe OU-1 ROD, would also be instituted. The areas where the SVE system would be installed willbe graded and covered with a low permeability cap consisting of asphalt or concrete pavementand/or a geomembrane/soil cover. This includes the entire Former Drum Staging and DesignatedOutdoor Storage Areas that are already partially paved as well as the Tank Farm/Building #1 area.Grading and paving will be performed such that stormwater will quickly drain away from the areathrough stormwater sewer lines or through discharge lines to the Freshwater Drainage Ditch

\^ without contacting the subsurface soil. The low permeability cap will also enhance the overallperformance of the SVE system by preventing the short-circuiting of atmospheric air to theextraction wells. The low permeability pavement cap will be regularly inspected and any cracks ordamaged areas would be repaired. Proper Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is necessary tominimize future infiltration of stormwater into the subsurface and prevent short-circuiting of theSVE system from the surface during its operation and will be documented in the O&M Plan.

In summary, the Alternative Soil Remedy includes all of the components of the 1995 OU-1 RODremedy except that the majority of the VOCs in soil will be removed via ennanced SVE ratherthan excavation; excavation will be completed in limited areas. Enhancements to the SVEsystem will include the use of hydraulic fracturing, multi-phase extraction, and the placement ofa low permeability pavement cap. The ennanced SVE system will not only effectively extractVOC from the subsurface soil, it will also remove considerable mass of VOC from areasinaccessible to excavation (in and adjacent to buildings and process areas and unsaturatedbedrock). On-going operation and maintenance and performance monitoring will be conductedto ensure the long-term effectiveness of the Alternative Soil Remedy. Details of the SVE wells,

V/ well spacing, wells to be fractured, number and position of fractures, multi-phase extraction and

Golder Associates AR3095l*7

February 1999 4-4 963-6333

degree of vacuum pressures, surface water controls and performance testing will be establishedduring remedial design.

4.2 Alternative Soil Remedy Performance Assessment

Since the signing of the April 1995 ROD, significant new technical and technological informationhas been developed that has allowed a more refined and conclusive evaluation of the performanceof the SVE technology applied to the Site. In particular the following has become available, 1) anon-site SVE performance test (Goldcr Associates, 1997); 2) published technical guidanceidentifying SVE as a preferred technology in saturated low to moderate permeability subsurfaceformations (USEPA, 1997); and, 3) published literature regarding SVE technologies in lowpermeability soils. The following discusses this new information providing an overall assessmentof the expected performance of enhanced SVE at the Site.

4.2.1 Summary of On-Stte Performance Study and Results

ROC conducted a program of full scale field testing to assess the potential performance of SVE inthe operating manufacturing area and to address potential limitations/concerns identified byUSEPA in the April 1995 ROD. USEPA's concerns with SVE included: 1) the technology'seffectiveness in a low permeability soil having perched water zones; and, 2) the safe application ofhydraulic fracturing in the operating manufacturing area. Insufficient information was available atthe time of remedy selection to adequately evaluate USEPA's concerns and the performance ofSVE including hydraulic fracturing as an SVE enhancement method. The following provides asummary of the on-site performance study results.

Overall Effectiveness of Enhanced SVEIn 1995 and 1996, ROC initiated pilot testing of SVE in the Tank Farm Area at the ROC Site.Two overburden extraction wells and two bedrock extraction wells were installed in the TankFarm area. One of the overburden wells, E-2, was hydraulically fractured. The other overburdenwell, E-3, was not fractured. By the end of the long-term portion of the performance test,approximately 660 Ib. of VOCs were removed from the fractured well and approximately 300 Ib.of VOCs were removed from the unfractured well. Additionally, over 200 Ib. of VOCs wereremoved from the two bedrock extraction wells.

The use of SVE in the unsaturated portion of the bedrock was also shown to be effective inremoving significant quantities of VOCs. Additionally, the bedrock wells were shown to act as

Colder Associate* AR3095l*8

February 1999 4-5 963-6333

effective "undcrdrains" for the overall SVE system broadening the zone of depressurization andincreasing the total system extraction airflow rates by as much as 33%, thereby increasing theoverall system effectiveness.

The performance test data and numerical airflow modeling also shows that capping (i.e., placing ofpavement over the area being treated) while slightly decreasing the overall airflow rate (reducesatmospheric air intrusion at the surface) increases the overall system efficiency for VOC removal.The zone of depressurization for the system described in Section 4.1 (Figure 4-1) will extend wellbeyond the limits of any possible excavation and below building foundations and other structures,such as tanks, and piping supports. Therefore, the performance study data and numerical modelingshow that VOC impacts in inaccessible areas of the Site can be addressed by SVE.

Based upon analysis of the SVE performance test data, it was estimated that cleanup of the VOCmass in the Tank Farm area at the Site could be achieved in as little as 2.5 years. As noted in theSVE report, actual duration will depend upon the distribution of contaminants and performance atthe later stages of SVE. For costing purposes, an operational period of 3.5 years has been used.Since the most significant concentrations and mass are located in the Tank Farm area, cleanupthroughout the operating manufacturing facility is expected to be completed in the same timeframe.

Overall, the on-site performance testing of SVE, enhanced by hydraulic fracturing of subsurfacesoils and removal of the perched water conditions demonstrated that enhanced SVE is an effectivemeans for removing large quantities of VOC mass from the subsurface soil at the Site in a relativelyshort period of time.

Effectiveness in Partially Saturated ConditionsThe performance test identified perched water zones, i.e., partially saturated conditions, within theoverburden as a factor which limited the effectiveness of SVE in the short-term. These conditionsare believed to be localized based on the results of the large number of boreholes in the Site area.Furthermore, the long-term performance test demonstrated that the perched water interferences(one of USEPA's concerns) could be overcome in a short period of time (about 30 days).Specifically the results showed that once perched water was extracted from the SVE well andinduced fractures, VOC mass removal rates increased considerably from about 1 Ib/day/SVE wellto about 4 Ib/day/SVE well at the same well head pressure, i.e., about 10 inches of mercury. These

Colder Associates AR3095«*9

February 1999 4-6 963-6333

results indicate that a successful SVE system will require multi-phase extraction for the removal ofboth soil vapor and perched ground-water during at least the initial stages of operation. Once theperched water is removed, and further infiltration is controlled via the pavement cover and surfacewater management system, mass removal efficiencies will dramatically increase as indicated by theSVE performance test.

Effectiveness of Hydraulic FracturingHydraulic fracturing of the overburden soils was successfully completed during the SVEperformance test Approximately 1 to 2 inch sand filled fractures were installed at depths of 12.5and 14 feet bgs and propagated approximately 10 to 12 feet laterally from the well. Theperformance test demonstrated that the fractured overburden welt provides substantialimprovements in the total mass removal and radii of influence when compared to the unfracturedwell. Specifically, the following were observed:

• Extraction air flow rates were increased by as much as 28% as measured in the field.Conservative numerical air flow modeling predicts an increase in air flow rate as high as48% is achievable.

• Based on monitoring point measurements of induced vacuum during the performance test,the hydraulically fractured SVE well exhibited a radius of influence of about 40 feet whilethe unfractured well exhibited a radius of influence of about 15 feet

• Hydraulic fractures facilitated the dewatering of the perched water (partial saturation)zones, thus enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of VOC removal.

Overall, hydraulic fracturing was demonstrated to be an effective SVE technology enhancement forincreasing the removal of VOCs from low permeability, partially saturated soils. Consequently,hydraulic fracturing is effective in reducing the number of wells and associated piping required andtherefore would further reduce potential impacts to plant operations.

One of the concerns identified by USEPA in the OU-1 ROD for the use of SVE in the operatingmanufacturing area is the potential disruption to plant operations that could result from thehydraulic fracturing of overburden soils. Two important conclusions regarding this concern werereached as a result of the performance test First, very little ground heave is anticipated due to theapparent compression of the softer overlying fill materials. Surface movements associated with thefractures were negligible and no disruption of plant operations occurred Second, fractureinstallation can be carefully monitored using two methods (tilt meters and active resistivity) to both

Colder Associate* AR309550

February 1999 4-7 963-6333

ensure the proper installation and to assess the amount of ground heaving. Consequently, hydraulici , fracturing within the operating plant area can be carefully controlled to ensure disruption to plant

operations is kept to a minimum.

4.2.2 SVE as a USEPA Presumptive Remedy

Traditional SVE technology has been identified by USEPA as a presumptive remedy for sites withsoils contaminated by VOCs in technical guidance entitled: "Presumptive Remedies: SiteCharacterization and Technology Selection for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compoundsin Soils" (EPA 540-F-93-048, September 1993). Most recently, USEPA published supplementaltechnical guidance that addresses and recommends SVE enhanced via a multi-phase extractionprocess for removal of VOCs in saturated low to moderate permeability soils, such as those at theoperating manufacturing area. Specifically, this guidance entitled: "Presumptive Remedy:Supplemental Bulletin Multi-Phase Extraction (MPE) Technology for VOC in Soil andGroundwater", (EPA 540-F-97-004, April 1997) recommends the simultaneous extraction of bothgroundwater (i.e., perched groundwatcr in the operating manufacturing area) and soil vapor as anenhancement of the traditional SVE technology.

V_x In particular, the conditions within the operating manufacturing area meet the requirementspresented in the newly published USEPA technical guidance as follows:

• The vast majority of the contaminants are halogcnated VOC and aromatic VOC withHenry's Low Constants XX01 @ 20°C and vapor pressures >1 .0 mm Hg @ 20°C.

• The permeability of the soils in the operating facility is <0.1 darcy and therefore consist ofmoderate to low permeability soil consistent with the guidelines.

Moreover, the new USEPA presumptive remedy guidance identifies ten case studies where multi-phase SVE has been successfully employed in low permeability unsaturated and saturated zonesoils contaminated with VOCs. The mass removal rates and vapor flow rates observed during theon-site SVE performance test are within the ranges observed in these case studies. In fact, theperformance test data and numerically modeled extraction system presented for the ROC Site ispredicted to perform very well in comparison to the case studies presented by USEPA as successfulapplications of the technology.

Golder Associates • p O fl Q C C

February 1999 4-8 963-6333

4.23 Recently Published Literature

Colder Associates has reviewed available literature published on the effectiveness of SVE in low X—/permeability soil and enhancements to this technology via dual phase extraction and the installationof hydraulic fractures. While not all of the literature was published after the OU-1 ROD, theliterature reviewed consistently demonstrated that enhanced SVE is an effective means for removalof VOCs from low permeability soils similar to those that exist in the operating manufacturing areaat the ROC Site. A summary of the literature reviewed and conclusions reached is presented below.Copies of the literature are provided in Appendix D. .

1. "Remediation of Low Permeability Subsurface Formations by Fracturing Enhancement of SoilVapor Extraction," V. Frank and N. Barkley, US Environmental Protection Agency, RiskReduction Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1994.

This study performed by USEPA as part of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation(SITE) Program evaluated the effectiveness of fracturing (both pneumatic and hydraulic) lowpermeability subsurface soil for the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of the SVE technology.The conclusions of the study regarding hydraulic fracturing are summarized below:

• Hydraulic fracturing process creates a more permanent sand propped fracture network; ^ J

• In general, hydraulic fracturing increased the vapor discharge by factors of 13 to more than20; and

• The radius of pressure influence was over 7 times greater in a fractured well than thatmeasured in an unfractured well.

In summary, USEPA demonstrated that fracturing low permeability formations can significantlyimprove soil remediation by SVE. Other advantages of SVE identified by USEPA in the articleincluded the following:

• SVE meets the provisions of SARA in that treatment is permanent and there is minimalexposure of the public and personnel; and,

• There is minimal disruption to surface activities once the installation work is complete sothat normal site operation can quickly resume.

Qo.de, As.oc.ate. f l R 3 0 9 5 5 2

February 1999 4-9 963-6333

2. "Use of Soil Fracturing to Enhance Soil Vapor Extraction," Frere, J. and Baker, J.E.,September 1995.

^This study evaluated the effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing of low permeability soils toenhance SVE. The conclusions of the study identified hydraulic fracturing as an effective SVEenhancement technology that can provide the following benefits:

• Substantially increase the permeability of soils for greater air and water recovery rates;

• Create a greater radius of influence per extraction well;

• Provide lower disruption of business activities then excavation;

• Reduce cleanup times; and,

• Reduce human and wildlife exposures.

3. "High Vacuum System Accelerates Remediation of Low Permeability Soils and Aquifers,"The Hazardous Waste Consultant, July/August 1995

This article reported on the advancements in remediation of VOC contamination in lowV j permeability soils and specifically addressed a two-phase extraction process. The results of several

successful applications in low permeability soils are presented.

4. "Use of High Vacuum Technology to Remediate Soils and Groundwatcr in Low-Permeability Formations," Sittler, S.P. and Slavin, M.D., Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,Indianapolis, IN, August 1994.

This article identified high vacuum SVE as an effective method for extracting VOC from lowpermeability formations such as silty clay. Air flow rates, mass removal rates and radius ofinfluence were increased.

5. "In-Situ Remediation Technology Status Report: Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing,"USEPA April 1995 (EPA542-K-94-005)

This USEPA technology report was prepared to describe research and development of in-situfracturing technologies for the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of remediation technologiesin low permeability soils such as clays. The report presents a number of demonstration projects andresults. The demonstration projects consistently showed that fracturing of low permeability soilswould increase air flows, the radius of influence and/or mass removal rates and as a result

^~^ effectively enhance the in-situ remediation processes most of which were SVE.


February 1999 4-10 963-6333

4.2.4 Summary of Enhanced SVE Effectiveness

Altogether, the performance test data on SVE and subsequent numerical modeling of a full-scalesystem in the operating manufacturing area have demonstrated that SVE, enhanced withhydraulically fractured wells and multi-phase extraction is a feasible and effective technology thatcan remove large quantities of VOC from partially saturated low permeability soils in a relativelyshort amount of time. Numerous recent studies have been published substantiating this conclusion.Additionally, multi-phase SVE enhancement has recently been identified by USEPA as apresumptive remedy (preferred technology) for low permeability, partially saturated soil conditionssuch as those that exist at the site.

Odder Associate. AR 309551*

February 1999 5-1 963-6333

5.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOIL REMEDY

^-^ This section provides a detailed analysis of the Alternative Soil Remedy in accordance with thesame NCP criteria that were used to evaluate the alternatives considered in the OU-1 ROD. Thisevaluation clearly demonstrates that the Alternative Soil Remedy meets the requirements of theNCP and the statutory criteria in Section 121 of CERCLA.

5.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The Alternative Soil Remedy provides a high degree of long-term protection of human health andthe environment as a result of the following: .

• There are currently no unacceptable public health or environmental risks associated withexposures to subsurface soils. Direct contact exposures for on-sitc workers and trespassersresult in estimated risks well belQw the acceptable risk range identified by USEPA. Thereare no significant or important ecological habitats within the operating manufacturing area.Currently, deed restrictions are in-place which prohibit any future residential use of theproperty and as a result, residential exposures are not even theoretically possible.Consequently, because there are no unacceptable risks, these potential exposures do notrequire further protection.

\. j^~~^

• SVE, with enhancements, has been well documented as a method which can effectivelyremove large quantities of VOC from subsurface soils, from perched groundwater and fromshallow bedrock which could not otherwise be removed by excavation. This substantialremoval of VOC mass will provide effective source control and treatment that will mitigatefuture impacts of VOC leaching from the unsaturated zone to groundwater. The limitedexcavation hi discrete shallow areas will also help mitigate future impacts to groundwater.

• The dual phase extraction of perched groundwater will address saturated conditions inthe overburden and thus further reduce potential leaching of constituents to groundwater.

• The pavement cover and surface water control systems perform two important protectivefunctions. First the cover and surface water management system will prevent direct contactand runoff erosion of soil which could potentially spread contaminants. Second, the coverand surface water management system will significantly reduce precipitation and run-onfrom infiltrating into the subsurface soil and possibly leaching any residual constituents togroundwater. Consequently, the cover and surface water management system willprotectively contain the subsurface soil and substantially reduce any further infiltration intothe soils.

• Long-term maintenance of these components will be provided to ensure continuedprotection in the future.

Altogether, the above factors demonstrate that the Alternative Soil Remedy will provide a highdegree of long-term protection of human health and the environment and groundwater at the Site.


February 1999 5-2 963-6333

In fact, the OU-1 ROD itself declares that the SVE alternative (as well as excavation) provides thehighest level of overall protectiveness because they will result in the "permanent removal of allVOC contaminants of concern from soils at the Site"3.

Moreover, as discussed previously in Section 1.0, the remediation of subsurface soil is only the firstline of defense for providing future protection of groundwater. The Alternative Soil Remedy alsoincludes both source control and migration management of groundwater, which provide the secondand final lines of defense for groundwater protection. These groundwater components are by farmore integral to the success of meeting the overall remedial action objective for protectinggroundwater.

5.2 Compliance with ARARs

The Alternative Soil Remedy will comply with ARARs as a result of the following:

• The OU-1 ROD determined that there are no ARARs that are pertinent as cleanup levelsfor contaminated soil at the Site;

• Pennsylvania Act 2 and associated regulations have been promulgated after the OU-1ROD. The soil-to-groundwater MSCs presented in the Act 2 regulations are not ARARsand should, at the most, be a To-Be-Considered requirement (TBC). This is consistentwith USEPA not identifying Act 2 as an ARAR on other CERCLA sites; and,

• Section 2.3 provides justification as to why the OU-1 ROD Table 9 criteria should bereplaced with the site-specific MSCs. These MSCs are based on PADEP's preferredmethod for calculating soil-to-groundwater cleanup levels, developed by the PennsylvaniaCleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board, in conjunction with the Site specific dataand lexicological information used to develop the OU-1 ROD Table 9 criteria.

Importantly, the use of the new PADEP site-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs is not an attempt toreduce a requirement or replace an ARAR because there was no previously promulgated standardidentified as an ARAR in the OU-1 ROD. Conversely, new scientific information has beendeveloped by PADEP which supports the use of the Site-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs overthe OU-1 ROD Table 9 values.

3 In addition. VOCs are also known to exist in the unsaturatcd portions of the bedrock which are clearly inaccessible toexcavation. Consequently, groundwater containment is needed regardless of the remedial alternative selected forsubsurface soils. While the Alternative Soil Remedy will remove substantially more mass of VOC than excavation,the ROD incorrectly states that these alternatives will remove all VOCi from soils at the Site. VOCs are known toexist in soils within the operating manufacturing area that are inaccessible to excavation.

Go.derA's.oc.a*. f lR3Q9556

February 1999 5-3 963-6333

In addition, handling and disposal of soil removed as a result of the limited excavation activitiesI ; associated with the Alternative Soil Remedy will be performed in accordance with the relevant and

appropriate Federal and Pennsylvania solid and hazardous waste regulations identified in the OU-1ROD.

Altogether, based on the above factors, the Alternative Soil Remedy will comply with ARARs.

53 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

As discussed in Section 4.2, enhanced SVE is a highly effective technology for removingsubstantial quantities of VOCs from partially saturated (i.e., perched water zones) low permeabilitysoil The high degree of effectiveness of enhanced SVE has been demonstrated via the long-termin-situ performance study and is well-documented in published literature. The potential limitationsto the effectiveness of SVE in low permeability and partially saturated soils, as stated in the OU-lROD, have been addressed. In fact, USEPA has identified enhanced SVE as a preferred technologyfor conditions such as those that exist at the Site.

Enhanced SVE will be particularly effective for removing VOC from inaccessible areas in and^—^ around the operating portions of the plant such as structures, tanks, piping and other equipment.

Moreover, enhanced SVE will remove VOCs from the unsaturated hbedrock and perchedgroundwater that would otherwise not be removed via excavation.

In addition, a low permeability cover (pavement) will be constructed over the OperatingManufacturing Area, and surface water controls will convey storm water runoff away from the areawhich will effectively minimize future storm water infiltration, prevent erosion, and provide a lowpermeability cap to further enhance SVE efficiency. Both the cover and surface water controls willbe regularly maintained by a program of inspection and repairs to ensure the long-termeffectiveness of the alternative in the future.

The extracted VOC vapors will be permanently destroyed via on-Site treatment The VOCs in theextracted perched groundwater will be treated at the on-sitc groundwater treatment plant.Consequently, the Alternative Soil Remedy provides a high degree of destructive treatment andmeets the CERCLA statutory goal of permanence, not only from the perspective of simplyremoving the VOC from the Site (which is all that excavation provides) but also, and more

^—/ importantly, because the VOCs will be permanently destroyed through treatment. The cost

A.,oc,atos A R 30 955 7

February 1999 5-4 963-6333

estimate for the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy does not include treatment of excavated soil prior todisposal. v J

Altogether, the Alternative Soil Remedy provides an effective, reliable, in-situ remediation methodfor meeting the overall remedial objective of protection of groundwater as well as providing a highdegree of permanence.

5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Enhanced SVE will provide a high level of reduction of toxiciry and volume of VOCs throughtreatment. As discussed in the preceding section, the extracted VOC will be destroyed via on-Sitetreatment and through groundwater treatment. Soils removed through limited excavation will betreated prior to disposal. Furthermore, the pavement and/or gcomcmbrane cover will reduce themobility of any residuals left in the subsurface soil. All of these factors demonstrate that theAlternative Soil Remedy will provide a high degree of reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volumeof constituents contributing to the principal threat at the Site primarily through destructivetreatment and, to a lesser extent, engineering controls.

5.5 Short-Term Effectiveness \^J

The Alternative Soil Remedy, which is predominantly an in-situ technology, is expected to havenegligible short-term impacts to remedial contractor employees, facility workers, and thesurrounding public. The installation of extraction wells and any subsurface piping may requireremedial contractor employees to use personnel protection equipment and monitoring which isstandard in the industry. Engineering controls can effectively reduce VOC emissions from thesmall amount of drill cuttings that will become exposed at the surface, if necessary. Because largequantities of contaminated soil will not be exposed and/or handled above ground (which would bethe case for excavation), possible severe short-term impacts associated with these activities will notbe realized. USEPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio has stated thatSVE is an in-situ process that minimizes exposure to the public, personnel, and the surroundingenvironment (Frank & BarUey, 1994).

The implementation of the Alternative Soil Remedy is not expected to significantly disruptmanufacturing operations. The on-site performance test demonstrated that hydraulic fracturing canbe safely implemented and would not cause significant surface deflections.


February 1999 5-5 963-6333

While some erosion of subsurface soils might occur during construction (grading of surfacematerial, construction of surface water controls, limited small scale excavations, etc.), this can be

v_x effectively controlled by standard engineering practices.

Altogether, the Alternative Soil Remedy is expected to result in only minimal short-term impactsthat can be controlled and would not significantly disrupt plant operations. The Alternative SoilRemedy can be easily constructed within one year. Subsurface soil remediation is expected to becompleted in about a 3.5-year time frame.

5.6 Implementabllity

The implementation of the Alternative Soil Remedy is considered to be easy to moderately •difficult. The installation of SVE wells and associated piping and appurtenances is relativelystraightforward and the limited VOC emissions from these activities can be easily controlled. Thevapor and liquid phase treatment systems have been or can easily be installed, however, operationsof the treatment systems are expected to be more difficult. Enhancements to the SVE system(hydraulic fracturing and dual phase extraction) are expected to be moderately difficult toimplement. Hydraulic fracturing will require careful monitoring of surface deflection and fracture

I J propagation. However, the performance study demonstrated that surface deflections are expectedto be minimal and that fracture propagation surface deflection can be effectively monitored usingreal-time measurements. The limited soil excavations are also expected to be moderately difficultto implement as a result of having to control VOC emissions resulting from the exposure andhandling of soils. However, given the small scale of excavation, these concerns are expected to bemanageable.

At the time of the OU-1 ROD, enhanced SVE might have been considered an innovativetechnology requiring highly specialized and innovative equipment and operation. However, thistechnology has been well studied and implemented at numerous locations subsequently making itsimplementation and operation more conventional.

The OU-1 ROD identified potential difficulties (low permeability soils, perched groundwaterconditions, and hydraulic fracturing in the operating manufacturing area) which might make theimplementation of the enhanced SVE infeasible. However, the data presented in this report,specifically in Section 4.2, have demonstrated that the enhanced SVE is both implementable and

I j effective. In fact, USEPA has identified enhanced SVE as a preferred technology for remediating


February 1999 5-6 963-6333

VOC in partially saturated, low permeability soils for the VOCs similar to the subsurfaceconditions that exist at the Site.

Overall, no technical problems are envisioned which would adversely affect the schedule forimplementation or operation of the Alternative Soil Remedy. Services to design, install, operateand maintain the Alternative Soil Remedy are widely available.

5.7 Cost

Table B3-2 in Appendix B-3 summarizes the costs associated with the Alternative Soil Remedy andincludes the present worth of annual O&M cost based on a 7% discount rate (for consistency withthe OU-I ROD costs) over a 3.5-year period as well as administrative design and contingency costs.The 3.5 year period is used solely for costing of the alternative remedy. The estimated capital costand annual O&M cost for the Alternative Soil Remedy is SI.65 million and $302,000, respectively.The total present worth cost for the Alternative Soil Remedy is $1.95 million.


February 1999 6-1 963-6333

6.0 DETAILED COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOIL REMEDY TO THEOU-1 ROD EXCAVATION REMEDY

The following provides a comparison of the proposed Alternative Soil Remedy to the OU-1 RODexcavation remedy using the NCP criteria as the basis for comparison. This comparisondemonstrates that not only is the Alternative Soil Remedy consistent with the NCP (as discussed inSection 5.0), the Alternative Soil Remedy is at least equal to and is potentially superior in severalinstances to the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy with respect to the NCP criteria.

6.1 Comparison of Potential Mass Removal

One of the most important factors which needs to be considered when comparing two remedialalternatives is the relative amount of contamination that the alternatives are capable of remediatingand/or controlling. This factor is a critical component of several of the NCP criteria and thereforeneeds to be considered for both the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy and the Alternative SoilRemedy prior to the detailed comparison to the NCP criteria.

The VOC mass removal potential for each alternative is essentially equal in the Former DrumStaging Area and the Designated Outdoor Storage Area because there are little to no limitations of

L . the alternatives in these areas. Consequently, VOC mass removal potentials were calculated onlyfor the Tank Farm Area, the Building #1 Area, and the SB-IS Area where the limitations of the twoalternatives vary. The following provides estimates of the relative VOC mass removal potential foreach alternative. Appendix B-4 provides the details and calculations for the mass estimates.

6.1.1 VOC Mass Removal Potential - Enhanced SVE with Limited Excavation

Soil vapor extraction will be applied in the Former Drum Staging Area, Designated OutdoorStorage Area and the Tank Farm Area, Building #1 Area, and the SB-15 Area (as shown on Figures2-1 and 2-2 Mass removal in the Former Drum Staging Area and Designated Outdoor Storage Areais expected to be essentially equal for each alternative. The following sections, therefore, focus onmass removal from the Tank Farm/Building #1 and SB-15 areas.. Based on the total VOC data inthese areas, the depth of VOCs and the estimated area of influence of SVE shown on the figures,the mass of total VOC contained in these areas that will be remediated by SVE is summarized asfollows:

• Tank Farm Area: 13,600 Ibs.• Building #1 Area: 200 Ibs.• SB-15 Area 11 Ibs.

Estimated Total: 13,81 libs.

Go.derA.soc.at.s AR 30956 I

February 1999 6-2 963-6333

It is important to note that a 15-foot radius of influence was used to estimate the mass in areasinfluenced by SVE in the Building #1 area. Given the results of the SVE performance study , j(Colder Associates, 1997) which showed that much larger radii of influence are achievable forfractured wells (i.e., up to 40 feet) the mass estimates in the Building #1 area are believed to beunderstated and that SVE may be able to extract more total VOC from these areas.

In addition, substantial quantities of VOC clearly exist within the unsaturatcd bedrock in the TankFarm Area. The performance study demonstrated that about 47 Ibs. of total VOC were extractedduring the short-term test (37 days) and about 132 Ibs. were extracted during the long-term testfrom a single extraction well. Using multiple bedrock SVE wells should increase this massremoval rate by several times. Furthermore, boring logs for the bedrock SVE wells BR-1 and BR-2show elevated volatile organic vapor readings at the top of bedrock. In the case of BR-1, thehighest volatile organic vapor reading in the borehole was detected at the top of the bedrock surface(organic vapors were not measured deeper into bedrock). In addition, some DNAPL hashistorically been detected at least one monitoring well in the Tank Farm area and as result, someresidual DNAPL is expected to reside in fractures and cavities within the shallow bedrock (seeSection 3.0). Altogether, these data indicate that significant quantities of VOC are present withinthe unsaturated portion of the bedrock and could be remediated by SVE. \.J

In summary, the estimated mass of VOC within the areas proposed to be remediated by SVE isapproximately 13,800 Ibs. of known quantities predominantly in the Tank Farm Area and additionalquantities in unsaturated bedrock and the Building #1 area which cannot be quantified.

6.1.2 VOC Mass Removal Potential - Excavation

The removal of soil from the subsurface within the operating manufacturing area causesgcotechnical concerns for the stability of structures such as buildings, equipment, tanks, piping,supports and utilities in the area. In order to assess the volume of soil that could be safelyexcavated within the Tank Farm Area without damaging adjacent structures, 1H:1V (first 5 feetbgs) and 2H:1V (at depth) excavation side slopes were used (the OU-1 ROD stated 2H:1Vsideslopes) along with a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of foundations.

Figure 4-2 shows the footprint of excavation for the maximum volume of soil that could be safelyexcavated. Given this geometry of .excavation, approximately 11,800 Ibs. of VOC could beremoved from this area as opposed to about 13,600 Ibs. that is potentially removable to SVE. With \_^


February 1999 6-3 963-6333

respect to location SB-15 and the Building #1 Area and given the limited accessibility forexcavation in these areas, only about 4 Ibs. of total VOCs could be removed by excavation from

{ J „ . • . • .^—' these areas (as opposed to over 200 Ibs which would potentially be removable by SVE). Excavation

in the Building #1 Area is not feasible. Therefore, based on the above analyses and detailspresented in Appendices B-2 and B-4, excavation can only remove about 11,800 Ibs. of total VOC.

6.2 Threshold Requirements

6.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

the Alternative Soil Remedy provides a higher degree of protection of human health and theenvironment because it has a greater potential for removing substantially more mass of VOC fromthe subsurface which could possibly impact groundwater. While both alternatives will providesignificant reduction of total VOC, enhanced SVE clearly has the potential to remove more massfrom the tank farm area in addition to areas where excavation cannot be implemented such as in theunsaturated bedrock zone and in the Building #1 Area. Consequently, the Alternative Soil Remedyis more protective of groundwater than the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy.

Both alternatives provide an equivalent degree of protection of human health and the environmentwith respect to direct exposures to site soils in the operating manufacturing area. The Baseline Risk, i ' •Assessment demonstrated that there are no unacceptable risks associated with trespassers or workerexposures to on-site soils. In addition, the recent placement of deed restrictions prohibits the futureresidential use of the property. Consequently, neither alternative is required to address directexposures and, as such, both are equally protective.

The comparison of the SVE and excavation alternatives in the OU-1 ROD incorrectly states that thealternatives "will result in the permanent removal of all contaminants of concern, for the soils at theSite." As a matter of fact, both technologies will leave some residual levels of contamination in-place as a result of the inaccessibility to certain areas of the Site. Importantly, the excavationalternative will leave far more residual VOC in Site soils, unsaturated bedrock, and perchedgroundwater than SVE, which would pose more of a potential threat to groundwater. TheAlternative Soil Remedy will leave less residual VOCs in-place and will also provide infiltrationcontrols (low permeability pavement cover and surface water management), which will mitigate theinfiltration of precipitation through the soil. These infiltration controls will be in addition to thosewhich have previously been specified in the OU-1 ROD. Thus, the Alternative Soil Remedyprovides an additional precautionary measure designed to be protective of groundwater.


February 1999 6-4 963-6333

For all of the reasons stated above, the Alternative Soil Remedy clearly provides a higher degree ofprotection of human health and the environment in that it will remove more VOC mass from the ,subsurface and as a result will be more protective of groundwater at the Site. However, as stated ^-^previously, the source control and migration management groundwater extraction systems (whichare provided by both the OU-1 ROD remedy and the Alternative Soil Remedy) are more integral toproviding overall protection of groundwater than either of the soil remedies.

6.2.2 Compliance with ARARs

As stated in the OU-1 ROD, there are no ARARs pertinent for the development of cleanup levelsfor the contaminated soil at the Site. In addition, both alternatives contain an excavationcomponent and both alternatives will comply with the Federal and Pennsylvania Solid andHazardous Waste Regulations cited in the OU-1 ROD. As such, both alternatives will comply withARARs.

63 Balancing Criteria

63.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Section 4.2 and 5.3 demonstrate that the Alternative Soil Remedy will provide a high level of long- /term effectiveness and permanence for remediating VOCs in site soils and for helping to meet theoverall remedial action objective for the protection of groundwater. The Alternative Soil Remedywill also provide long-term effectiveness for removing VOCs from perched groundwater in theTank Farm Area and from unsaturated bedrock. Furthermore, the Alternative Soil Remedyprovides a low permeability cover and surface water management which will mitigate futurepercolation of storm water through residuals in subsurface soil.

Where accessible, the excavation alternative will also be'effective for removing VOCs fromsubsurface soil. However, the excavation alternative effectiveness is limited given that it is notimplementable in certain areas of the Tank Farm and in production areas of the site that mustremain in operation. The excavation alternative is also not effective for removing VOCs from theunsaturated bedrock. Thus VOCs will be left in place. Consequently, the Alternative Soil Remedyprovides a higher degree of long-term effectiveness than the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy.

Both alternatives provide for the permanent removal of VOCs from the Site. However, theAlternative Soil Remedy provides a higher degree of permanence than the excavation alternativebecause 1) it provides greater VOC mass removal from soils and unsaturated bedrock and 2)

Colder Associate* AR30956I*

February 1999 6-5 963-6333

provides a permanent destructive treatment of the extracted VOCs. The OU-1 ROD excavationremedy cost estimate did not include any treatment of the VOCs prior to land disposal. A revised

^— ' cost estimate in this FFS has been prepared that provides for treatment prior to land disposal at anadditional cost of about $9,000,000.

Monitoring the effectiveness of the VOC removal (performance monitoring) as stated in the OU-1ROD, will be more difficult for the Alternative Soil Remedy than for an excavation remedy in caseswhere there are no accessibility restrictions. However, given the limitations of excavation,monitoring the performance Of excavation to meet the remedial action objective for groundwaterprotection will be similarly or even more difficult. Performance of SVE can be assessed through anumber of methods including direct subsurface soil sampling, calculations of mass removal via theSVE system and asymptotic performance monitoring, details of which would be provided in the 'Remedial Design.

Altogether, the Alternative Soil Remedy provides a higher degree of long-term effectiveness andpermanence than the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy.

63.2 Reduction of Toxiclty, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment

The Alternative Soil Remedy provides a higher degree of reduction of toxicity and volume throughtreatment primarily as a result of the destruction of extracted VOC vapors by on-Site treatment andtreatment of extracted VOCs in perched groundwater. Contrary to what is stated in the OU-1 ROD,the excavation remedy will provide little, if any, permanent reduction of toxicity and volume unlessthe excavated soil removed by the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy is treated using a destructiontechnology (such as incineration). According to the OU-1 ROD cost estimate, VOCs will besimply excavated from the ROC Site and then placed untreated into a landfill and as a result, willprovide little, if any, reduction of toxicity and volume. The cost estimate for the OU-1 RODexcavation remedy would need to be increased by about $9 million in order for the remedy toprovide any significant reduction of toxicity and volume.

Both alternatives are estimated to provide reduction of mobility. The Alternative Soil Remedyincludes the installation of a low permeability cover and surface water controls to limit infiltrationthrough subsurface soils. The excavation remedy will place soil into a landfill for containment.However, the excavation remedy does not address the future leaching potential of residual VOCsleft in the subsurface.

AR309565

February 1999 6-6 963-6333

Altogether, the Alternative Soil Remedy provides greater reduction of toxicity and volume as aresult of addressing a larger amount of VOC mass and providing the destructive treatment of the ^ Jextracted VOCs. -The excavation remedy addresses a smaller amount of VOC mass and does notprovide treatment as it is presently costed in the OU-1 ROD.

633 Short-Term Effectiveness

Section 5.5 discusses the short-term effectiveness associated with the Alternative Soil Remedy. Insummary, it was shown that the Alternative Soil Remedy has only limited short-term effectivenessconcerns even though it will take longer to implement. Published literature concurred with thisassessment. Conversely, there are serious potential short-term impacts associated with the OU-1ROD excavation remedy as a result of the anticipated need to control VOC/dust/odors duringexcavation, disruption of plant activities and health and safety concerns for remediation workers,plant employees, and potential off-site receptors. These concerns are discussed in detail inAppendix C.

As stated in the SVE performance study, a SVE system should be able to extract and treat themajority of the VOC mass in about 2.5 years (the data suggest cleanup times ranging from 1.5 to3.5 years and a duration of 3.5 years has been used for costing purposes). Most of the adverse \^Sshort-term impacts (even though limited in nature) would occur during system installation whichcould easily be completed in a single construction season. As stated by representatives from theUSEPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, SVE is a process that minimizes exposure to sitepersonnel, the public, and surrounding environment and, once installed, will result in minimaldisruptions. No significant issues are associated with the installation of the SVE wells and pipingsystem and hydraulic fracturing was shown to be implementable in the operating manufacturingarea without adverse effects.

In summary, contrary to what was stated in the OU-1 ROD, the Alternative Soil Remedy isexpected to result in considerably less short-term effects than excavation. Both the OU-1 RODexcavation remedy and the Alternative Soil Remedy can be constructed in one construction season.The Alternative Soil Remedy will require operation for about 2.5 years for removal of the majorityof VOCs. The significant adverse short-term effects that could result from the excavation remedyseverely questions the feasibility and appropriateness of its use.

Gold* Associate. AR309566

February 1999 6-7 963-6333

63.4 Implementabllity

The Alternative Soil Remedy Js expected to be more easily implemented than the OU-1 RODexcavation remedy. The performance study demonstrated that not only is enhanced SVE withlimited excavation an effective method for removing VOC in saturated low permeability soil, SVEwell installation, hydraulic fracturing and the removal of perched water are feasible in the operatingmanufacturing area. In addition, the equipment and services needed to implement the enhancedSVE system are becoming more routine and are widely available. Moreover, USEPA has identifiedenhanced SVE as a presumptive remedy and preferred technology for similar site conditions.Limited soil excavation in open areas is also easily implemented.

Conversely, the large scale excavation in close proximity to on-going plant operations is expectedto be extremely difficult to implement. While the equipment and services required to implementroutine excavation/disposal operations are conventional and widely available, controlling VOCemissions and controlling odors, if needed to prevent plant disruption and to protect remedialworkers, plant employees, and off-site receptors is expected to be extremely difficult to implement.

63.5 Cost

OU-1 ROD Excavation Remedy Cost EstimateNew and significant technical information and the requirements of the OU-1 ROD have causedthe cost estimate in the OU-1 ROD to be significantly increased from $4.4 million to $13.5million primarily as a result of excavating a larger volume and providing treatment of the soilprior to disposal (see in Section 2.6 and Appendix B-3).

Alternative Soil Remedy Cost EstimateThe estimated cost for the Alternative Soil Remedy is about $1.95 million (see Section 5.7 andAppendix B-3) assuming a 3.5 year period for cleanup.

Comparison of Remedial CostsAs discussed in the USEPA document "The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy SelectionProcess," (USEPA 1996b, pg. 4):

"Cost is a critical factor in the process of identifying a preferred remedy. Infact, CERCLA and the NCP require that every remedy selected must be cost

i effective."

Go.der Associate, A R 3 0 9 5 6 7

February 1999 6-8 963-6333

The document continues to define cost effectiveness as:

"A remedial alternative is cost-effective if its "costs are proportional to its ^—l*overall effectiveness "."

"Effectiveness" is further defined by the evaluation of three of the five balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness, reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment, and short-termeffectiveness.

The preamble to the NCP further provides that where two alternatives have similar levels ofeffectiveness and implementability but their costs vary significantly, cost can be used toeliminate the more costly alternative (55 Fed. Register §715, March 8,1990).

6.4 Summary of Comparative Analysis

As previously stated, the Alternative Soil Remedy provides a superior level of long-termprotection for reducing future VOC impacts to groundwater and performs better than the OU-1ROD remedy with respect to all of the NCP balancing criteria. The Alternative Soil Remedywill address more VOC mass, is more permanent, will provide more reduction of toxicity and ,volume of constituents through treatment, will result in less adverse short-term effects, and willbe easier to implement at a much lower cost Therefore, based on the above USEPA definitionof cost effectiveness, and the NCP, the Alternative Soil Remedy is a much more cost-effectivealternative than the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy. Consequently, the Alternative Soil Remedyis preferred in accordance with the NCP, the statutory requirements of CERCLA, and theSuperfund Reforms.

COLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

Lori Anne Hendel ' P. Stephen Finn, C.Eng.Senior Project Manager Principal

\\gai_

Gold* Associates A R 3 0 9 5 6 8

February 1999 7-1 963-6333

7.0 REFERENCES

^-^ Frank V., and N. Barkley, 1994. Remediation of Low Permeability Subsurface Formations byFracturing Enhancement of Soil Vapor Extraction, USEPA, Risk Reduction Laboratory,Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1994.

Frere, J., and J.E. Baker, 1995. Use of Soil Fracturing to Enhance Soil Vapor Extraction, September1995.

Colder Associates Inc., 1993, Revised Remedial Investigation Report, October 1993.

Colder Associates Inc., 1994. Feasibility Study Report, October 1993, revised June 1994.

Colder Associates Inc., 1997. SVE Performance Test Report, April 1996, revised November 1997.

Colder Associates Inc., 1998. Pre-Design Investigation Report, January 1998.

PADEP, 1995. Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Remediation Standards Act, July 1995.

PADEP 1997. Administration of the Land Recycling Program (Title 25, Chapter 250), August1997.

Sittler, S.P. and M.D. Slavin, 1994. Use of High Vacuum Technology to Remediate Soils andGroundwater in Low-Permeability Formations, AAPG Bulletin, Volume 78, No. 8, August1994.

SMC, 1992. Remedial Investigation Report, December 1992.

USEPA. 1988. AOC, Docket No. m-88-22-DC, November 7,1988.

"USEPA, 1992. Demonstration of a Trial Excavation at the McColl Superfund Site,EPA/540/Altemative Remedy-92/015, October 1992.

USEPA, 1993. Presumptive Remedy, Site Characterization and Technology Selection forCERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil, OSWER Directive 9355.0-48FS,September 1993.

USEPA, 1995a. Record of Decision for the Centre County Kepone Site, April 1995.

USEPA, 1995b. Administrative Reforms to Superfund, October 1995.

USEPA, 1995c. In-Situ Remediation Technology Status Report: Hydraulic and PneumaticFracturing, EPA 542-K-94-005, April 1995.

USEPA, 1996a. Final Consent Decree for the Centre County Kepone Site, Civil Action No. 03-23,Signed September 30,1996.

USEPA 1996b. The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process, EPA540/F-96/018,September 1996.

Go.derA«soc,.«e, A R 3 0 9 5 6 9

February 1999 7-2 963-6333

USEPA, Superfund Reforms: Updating Remedy Decisions, OSWER Directive 9200.0-22.

USEPA, 1997. Presumptive Remedy: Supplemental Bulletin Milti-Phase Extraction Technologyfor VOCs in Soil and Groundwater, OSWER Directive 9355.0-68FS, April 1997.

\\gai_

Colder Associate* A R 3 0 9 5 7 0

\

•^J •

:

7

•\•/

w

NOTE:THE SITE AND THE STUDY AREA (THORNTON SPRINQ ANDA PORTION OF SPRING CREEK) TOGETHER CONSTITUTETHE CENTRE COUNTY KEPONE SITE. '

THORNTONSPRING

REFERENCE: f——:———vTOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM THE SWE COLLEGE »*!*««» ?U.3.G.S.QUADRANGLE, PENNSYLVANIA - CENTRE CO, | J7.6 MINUTE SERIES. PHOTOREVISED IP87. w»xu IOC.TW

963-6333MRM

cmnt

AS SHOWN11/20/96PA17-313

on suamuEi 01

SITE AND STUDY AREALOCATION MAP

Golder Associates RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION

LEGEND

OPERATING MANUFACTURING AREA

——- DRAINAGE DITCH

CYCLONE FENCE

RAIROAD TRACKS

B-61 BWLDIMC

DESCWTIONMNN PROCESSING AREAWAREHOUSE * PROCESSMCWAREHOUSEOISTlUAnON BULOINCUAJHTENANCE BULDWCBOttER HOUSEPROCESSING AREAEQUIPMENT STORAGEGROUNMATER TREATMENT FAOUTYWAREHOUSEHAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE SHELTERDRUM STORAGE SHELTERMECHANICAL STORAGEOFFICE * STORAGELUNCHEON BLNLDMG

CSJP-»inenCDCO

NOTES1.) THE OUTUNEO AREA SHOWN WAS TAKEN FROM FIGURE 12

PRESENTED M THE APR*. 1995 OU-t ROD. FOR THEPURPOSES OF THIS FFS. THIS AREA IS REFERRED TO ASTHE OPERATMC MANUFACTURING AREA.

REFERENCE_____________________.t.) ORIGINAL DRAWING TAKEN FROM SMC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

ORMMNG No. 077 9723 90011 DATED 07/01/92.

200e?scale

200IS

feet

04

Golder Associates

ON-SITE AREAS

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION 1-2

CONCRETE LINED\ RETENTION

AREA

1090TANK FAflM AREA

ILOING

117

LEGENDSB-11_ Rl PHASE I AND • SOL BORMC LOCATION

9 (LOCATIONS APPROXMATE)19£ POI SOL BORMG LOCATION

-$- S>C PIEZOMETER UONITORMG WELL

V SVE OVERBUROCN CXTRACTKM KU.

A SVC BEDROCK CXTRACTON HELL

NO REMEDIATION REQUMED

D AREA OF SVE REMEWATWN

NOTES1.) SOL BORING EXCCEDENCES ARE BASED ON PARTIALLY

VALIDATED AND CALCULATED STE-SPEOFtC MSC'S.

2.) BOUNDARIES AND AREAS ARE APPROXMATE AMD WLLBC FURTHER DEHNCD DURMG THE REMEDIAL DE3GNAND REMEDIAL ACTKM.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES TAKEN FROM DIGITAL F1ES

TITLED "BASE* DATED OB/05/97 AND "13l0120r DATED06/09/97 SUPPLED BY MTTANY GCOSOENCES, INC.

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY UNE, UOMTDRMG WELLS ANDpot SOL BORMGS TAKEN FROM DWTAL FLE TITLED"SPC" DATED 06/02/97 SUPPLED BY SWEETlANOENGMEERING * ASSOCIATES, WC.

3.) LOCATION OF W PHASE I AND I SOL BORWG5 TAKENFROM DKSTAt FILE •PA17-169" DATED 10/14/93PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES MC.

40 40

AR309571*

xa i*.: 963-5333«R DTO««•* I-*A

*•" •* 'Si "*^

Colder A

*** AS SHOWN•** 10/16/97«"« PA1 7-355MHNU Q4

ssodates

scale feet

CONCEPTUAL SON. REMEDIATION PLANTANK FARM/BUUXNG >1 AREAS

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORAHON [** 2~2

TANK FARM / BUILDING «1 AREA

DESIGNATED —STORAGE AREA

FORMERSTAGING

DRUMAREA

rf*-^"""

LEGENDUW-llO

EXI5DNC MONITORING WELL

Rl PHASE I AND II

• sou. BORING ("SB") LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATIONA * SOL 80RHC LOCATION

SVE PILOT TEST_P-6 PCZOUCTCR/WMTORmC WELL

8R-2-ifr BEDROCK OORACnON HELL

,E-3OVER8UROCN EXTRACTKM KLL

— —10——- MTERPRETED OVER8UROEM THICKNESSCONTOUR

APPROXIMATE AREA OF BEDROCKOUTCROP

NOTES1.) OVCR8UROEN THKKNESS CALCULATED FROM GEOLOGIC

LOGS OF EXISTING SITE MONITORING WELLS. PDlBORMCS. OUTCROPS AT THC STE AND 1HE POIGEOUxaCAL INVCSTICATION.

2.) THICKNESS CONTOURS HAVE BEEN MTERPOLATEOBETWEEN BOREHOLES. ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS MAYVARY. CONTOUR MTERVAL IS S FEET.

1) OVERBURDEN AS DEFINED INCLUDES MAtt-MAOE FILLAND EXISTING RESIDUAL SOLS.

V

100ffscale

100

feet

AR309575

•^ 963-63330*0

AS SHOWN10/29/97PAt 7-364

O4

Gold£ir

INTERPRETED OVERBURDENTHICKNT

RUETGERS-NEASE Iname _

3-1

3MPUT PARAMETERS

EW-3(atan) (atm) (otm)

RESULTS

V(dm)

r-inCDnor

CONTOURS OF ABSOLUTE PRESSURE

'T ] AH MB (*• Eomwa«T mm MMDMM)

4&N «Mt (y COUWtEMT MMBI OMUOOM)

NOTE8I.) KM.1S WTMB HHM •MAMMt WORN 1-U

t) mw cnaura * 11 owMunei KUJ. » ««ocx «us.9 MCSSUK CanMM.TMON nm iA«ER 4.

REFERENCES

count MIOGUK& noie>Bi.tM7. ncuc «-•

24 0 24

approximate scale feet

963-6&UD«D

AS SHOWNIO/M/87PA17-3S5

04

TANK FARM SVF SYSTEM2OKE OF DEPRF ^M

RNC/STATE COOEGE/f'A 4-1

.00-09APPROXIMATE AREAOF EXCAVATION

PLAN VIEW

BUUMW 12

LEGENDSB-3

E-3.

BR-2.

Rl PHASE I AND H SOL BORING LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXUIATE)

POI SOL BORING LOCATION .

SVT PCZOUCTER UONITORMC NELL T

SVE OVERBURDEN EXTRACTION WELL

SVE BEDROCK EXTRACTION WELL

NOTES1.) BOUNDARCS OH PLAN MEW OF AREA OF POTENTIAL

EXCAVATION ARE APPROXIMATE,2.) CROSS-SECTION MEW SHOWN W1H 2H:W SLOPE AS

STIPULATED IN 1995 ROD. BOUNOARCS SET BACK FROMBLMJMNGS STRUCTURAL MTECRITY. IH:1V IS BELIEVEDADEQUATE FOR FRSI 5 FEET OF EXCAVATION.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOCRAPMC FEATURES TAKEN FROM aaTAL FILES

TITLED 'BASE" DATED 06/05/97 AND 'IStOIZOT* DATED06/09/B7 SUPPLJEO BY NITTANY CEOSCCNCES. INC

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY UNE. UOMTORWC WELLS ANDPOI SOIL BORMGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILE TITLED'SPC* DATED 06/02/97 SUPPUED BY SWEETLANOENGMEERING ft ASSOOATES. MC.

3.) LOCATION OF Ri PHASE I AND H SON. BOWKS TAKENFROM OOTAL FILE "PA17-169" DATED 10/14/93PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES MC.

40•Cscale

40E5

feet

SECTION A-A'NOT TO SCALE

a 963-6333MM 0«O

°""* * fc-^-j —————mn £$jJ~

"»^ AS SHOWN•** 10/17/97•"— PA17-35Bnmmui 04

Golder Associates

POTENTIAL TANK FARMAREA EXCAVATION

RUETGCRS-fCASE CORPORATION 4-2

ftf

CD

otocc

PDI SAMPLE NUMBERING METHODOLOGY

The following sample identification (ID) numbers were used during the PDI.

The first two characters indicate the sampling area as follows:

DO Designated Outdoor Storage AreaFA Freshwater Drainage Ditch Section AFD Former Drum Staging AreaTF Tank Farm/Building # 1 Area

The third and fourth characters indicate the borehole/sample number (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2).

The fifth through eighth characters indicate the depth at which the sample was collected:

e.g., 0304 indicates samples collection from 3 foot to 4 foot below ground surface.

If the sample was collected in duplicate, the field duplicate sample has a "D" as the ninth (final)character of the ID number.

g:\projects\963-6333\ns\nnaI99\appx-a-doc

AR309579

November 1997 963-6333

CHEMISTRY REPORTING AND QUALIFIER DEFINITIONS

Organlcs

CRQL - Contract Required Quantitation Limit.U - Analyte was not detected.UJ - Analyte was not detected. The reporting limited is estimated.E - The concentration detected In the sample exceeds the instrument calibration range. The concentration

should be considered as an estimated value.J - The analyte was detected and Is considered an estimated value.N - The analyte Is tentatively identified In the sample and should be considered present.B - The analyte was found to be present in the associated laboratory method blanks.0 - The sample was analyzed at a secondary dilution due to exceeded calibration range in the

primary analysis. Values reported below the CRQL may not be accurate.

z:\6333\ffs\dratt-1\Qualtab.xls Colder Associates M D O n O C O n Pa3e 1 of 1AR309580

CSeptembei

Matrix: SoH

c ct

ANALYTIC.... CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState Cofege, Pennsylvania

s»33-6333

29rroCOCD

enGO— — •

ParameterOteMorodMfcieroinettiane^•1 an rai ti— — -~cnofonnQieneVinylChlnUeBramomettuna

.CNoroetuneTrtcMorofluoromBBianeAOBtoMCarbon DfeaUt1.1-DfcNoroetanaMetiytane CMorideTram-I OfcNonettMie1.1-0fchtoroe«wne2>0fct*voprapm

BromochtororaetMneCMonton2-6utanone1.1,1-TricMoRMtianeCarbon TekacMoride1.1-OichtoropropeneBenzeneU-DichtororthaneTiUitaueaieiie1.2-OtaHoropraoaneDfcromomriheneBraniodkMorametMneA BA^BwJ 4 fi * «Bww*M4 MtMnyKZ-penianonatiB-1,3-DfcMoroprapeneToluenetrara-1>D)cNaropropene1.l>TrtcNoroetMne1.2-Dibniraeffiane2-HexanoneTetncMopoetfiene1.3-OicWoropJOpane

Sample PointD0010203

Lab ID: L1 4 599- 10Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Sofids 78.87 %SQL63636363636363323232323232323232633232323232323232

633232323232633232

Result63636363636332323241323232233232633232323232

2200323232633212032613263

160032

Qua!UUUuuuJOuuBOUUU

JOuuuuuuuuJuuuuuDu0uuDU

OF55555555555555555555555555555955555

Sample PointDO020304

Lab ID: LI 4556-8Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 84.9 %SQL ResuR

121212121212126

661266666666612666661266

12121212121236696666661266666396661263762612386

Qua! DFUUUUUUJuuBUuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuJuuu

111

11111f.1

111111


Lab ID: L14556-9Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 85.6 %SQL12121212121212666666

• 66612666

12

1

Result121212121212866666666612666666666

- 12676661266

QualUuUuuujuuJBuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuu

DF

11

11111

,1

11111111



12

Result121212121212IS66666666612

6126a6661236

Qua)Uuuuuu

uuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuJu

DF11

111111111111i11111111111111

Muntt mug/kg.DF Wtcates tw Mutton Factor.SQL Wteetei ttw Sample Quantitatton Urn*.The Qua! column indicates «w queBtor applet! to tte rest* by Ihe taboratocy er the date vafetotor. Reta to quafcfiwdefrirtwn sheet

GokferAstocKrtee Pag* 1oT 62

September i at*7

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAL. CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState CoUege, Pennsylvania

33a3DCOOUDcn

ParameterfttoromochlcromeftaneCNorobenzem1.1.1 ,2-TairachJQroathaneBhytoanzeneRM>-Xyleneo-XyteneS ranaBraraotonntooprepytMnzeneBromobenzene

1 >TricMorapnpanan-Prapyfeenzane2-ChtoretolMem4-CNQn**Nne1 ,3.5-Trtmethyfcenzenetort-Butyfeenzvne1.2.4-TrimetiytMnzene•ec-Butytjeraeneteopnpyltoluene1.3-DteMarabanEene1,4-O*cntorobenz»ne1,2-flichtofobenzenen-Butytjenzene1 3-JlHuiJLJiiii 1 IJjujuuimMi*l.lC'VMHWIW J MBUIV|HU|MI>

1 .4-TricMorabanzaneHexachlorobutodMneNaphthalene1.2,3-Trichtorobenzene


Lab ID: U 4599- 10Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 78.87 %SQL3232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323263636363

Result3248032IB1205332323272

37003232

aooo323232323232323243323263636363

QualuDuJDDOUUUD4UU

uuuuuuuu0uuuuuu

DFss5s5555555SS555S555555555555


Lab ID: L 14556-8Date Sampled: 4/25/97PercentSobds 84.9 %SQLv

66

666666

612121212

Result62373966666

770666666

66612221212

QualUJJ

uuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uu

DF

111111

Sample PointDQQ20706

Lab ia L14556-9Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 85.8 %SQL

6666.066600

0

600

60060

12121212

Result666O

020

00

69 SO*3V

006O

0600

1261212

QualUUUu

juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuu

DF

111111111111111


Lab ID: L14556-10Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 83.68 %SQL

ft66666666006

. 00

600

6666666012121212

Result6660

B26666

*V>A220000

0000666666612B1212

QualUuuu

Juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuu

DF111111

ooro

Al units am uofco.DF indicates the Dibbon Factor. *SQL indicates the Sample QuanMaton UnUL^ Ma*Mmiridfcatei the qualifier applied to the msutt by tie laboratory or the data vaUator. quarter definition sheet c

CSeptember i!»97

Matrix: Soil

c cANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Volatile Organic CompoundsCentre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design Investigation

State College. Pennsylvania

933-6333

2*=0COCD

01

CO

ParameterDicMarodMuaramelhim

Vinyl ChtondvBramomeOmeChtoroaVMna:Jri on^^^

Cartwn DtsuRMs1.1-OichtonMiShemMofiytoneChtorideTram-U-OkMomfliene1.1-WcMOfOetwW2,2-lMj.bnjnv ^

BramocMofDmMhaneCMoratonn • -.2-Bulanom1,1 ,1-TrfcMonMQunaCarbon Trtachtoridt1,1-OfcNoropnpaneDenzencl -ptcMofOnttMiK

1.2-OtaMomprapeMMnomometMMBromodtentoPormBun*4 Mefty)-2-PentTOn«O9*1 ,3-OMkhWufiflipMMToluenelnns-1 ,3-OlcMoroproperw1,1 -Trichtoraetww1,2-DftNomoetiana2-H0xanofwTetrechtorDttanft1.3-Otehtofopropan»

Sampte PointDO021112D

Lab ID: L14556-11DatoSampted: 4125197Percent Soids 83.9 %SQL

12121212121212

2

2

1

ResuR12121212121211

•; 2

2

1238

Qua!uuuuuuJuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuu

uuuuJu

DF

11

1111111 ,111

Sampte PointDO030304

Lab ID: L14545-1Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 82.87 %SQL Result

1212121212121280

2

1286

12

12121212121210003

0

120860688a0120

688a1288

Qua)uuuuuu

uuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF

'1111111111111111111



13131313131313

138

3

1

Result1313131313131300

IS" 00

• 60

001368

• 00

0

1060

0

13014.0761348

Qua!UUuuuu

uu

uuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuu

u

uuJu

DF1111111 '1111111

111111



121212121212128

0

81208

•80

0

60001200 '8881286

Result12121212121212

661200686686812688881266

Qua!uUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF1111111

-1 ';111111111111111111111111111

Al unto amDF Indicates (he Mutton Factor.SQL indicates He Sample Quanfitatton Urn*.The Qua! column Mfcates the quaMtor appfed to he result by ftetoftoratory or e data vaWato Refw to quafcfw definition sheet

ACCESSlKMblVvpornCri VOC ReportGoMer Associates

September .

Matrix: Soil

3DCOCDU>cnoo

ParameterDUmmocHoRMnetrianeChtambenzene1 ,1.1.2-TaO achlmuelhaneEtfiyttMnzenemj)-Xytanao-XyleneStyreneBfonufonnhopnpylbsnzeneBromobenzene1.1A2-Tefc»chloroe»hane1.2,3-Trichtoropropaoen-Pmpytoenzene2-CNontokwne4-CNorotohJ6M1 ,3,5-TrimeJhyfcenz«netert-Butyfeenzene1.2.4-Trtmetiytoeruenesec-6utyt»nzanebopfopvHokiena1,3-OicMorobennne1.4-DfcNOfobanzene1,2-OicMorabanzanan-Butyfeenzene1 -OibfOPio cHoropfOPane1,2,4-TrichtoroowzeneHexacNorebuMtenefcln.ilalfcf •-— —Napranawna1 .3-TrtcMoroDonzene

Sample PointDO021112D

Lab ID: L14556-1Date Sampled: 4/25/flPercent Solids 83.9SQL

ee66666aeeeaeaa12121212

Resultaee6a268ae

300aaaa66

12131212

Qua!UuuuJuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uu

ANALYTICAL. CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compound*

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oewgn InvestigationState College, Pennsylvania

B.J3-6333

%>F

1111111111111111



aaaeaea6666666666aaaaeaaa12121212

ResuJte88e5aaeae

. e6e86e6886aesa6S121231

dualuuuuJuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuJuuJuu

DF1



aeeeaeeeeeeeeeee6e6eeeaea13131313

Resultaea3194aeea

170aaaeaeaeeaeeae1313132

Qualuuuj

j.uuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJ

DF111111111

111

11111


Lab ID: L 14545-3Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 82.96 %SQL

6aaeaaeeeeeee66666ae

- aaaea12121212

Result6aeeeeeaeatoeee66666eaae6612121212

Qua!UUuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF1111111111

.

ACC£8S^>C<L

Notes:Al units era ug/kg.DF Micatn the Dilution Factor.SQL Mfca«M the Sample Quanttation Limit

cotomlrateale«lhequeKeerappiedtotwreM«bythelabcfatoryorthe matter definition sheet

/ortlCelVOC Report Gofbvr Associates c

Septembet

Matrix: Soi



State Cotfege, Pennsylvania

933^333

20COCDUDcnGOt/1

ParameterOicMoradMuofDmaihaneChtoremetfiane *Vinyl ChlorideBromomeftaneCMonethaneTricttaoNuorometfianeAcetoneCarbon DtauMe1.1-OichloroHhenBHetnytane ChlorideTnma-1,2-CNchfcMoethene1.1-Dichloioelhane2.2-Ofchtoiopiopane

BromochtoKMiefianeCMonwonn2-Butanons1.1.1-TricntorotfhaneCarixnTetraLhtoUde1.1-OtchtoreprapemBenzene1.2-DfchtaroetianeTrichtoroettwne1 -DtchtoropropeneOibromomelhaneBromodkMorometiane4-Mettiyl-2-PenUnonad*1>DicNcnpn)perwTohienetrant-l>O*critaopropene1 .1 -TrichtoreeOwna1 ,2-Oibrofnoethane2-HexanoneTetracNonwttwne1 .MMoMorapropane


Lab ID: L14545-4Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Softte 73.69 %SQL141414141414147777777771477777777714777771477

ResuR1414141414141477147773771477777

77714707771477

Qualuuuuuuuuu

uuuJuuuuuuuu

uuuuu

u

uuuu

DF*»11111111111111111


Lab ID: L1 4556-7Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Sofids 80.5 %SQL12121212121212

612

0120

6

12

ResuR121212121212420

0

900

0

00012000

00

0001202108612120

QualUUuuuu

uuBUuuJuuJuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

DF


Lab ID: L 14599- 16Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 82 %SQL1212121212121200

000000012000

00

12

1200

ResuR12121212121212

2

12000001000

0

120500

0

0

1200

6

Qual | DFuUuuuuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

111111


Lab ID: L1 4599-20Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Sofids 81.12 %SQL12121212121212

2

0

0

120

60

0

0

1200

ResuR1212121212121000

2

120130

6012O0

QualUUuuuuJuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuu

DF11111

DF tadkates tw Muton Factor.SQL Mkato Ha Sample Quantftatkm UnitThe Chial column ImNcalM Iw qualifier appHed to the resi« b^

ACCESStw.n*1tapaf«Ctf VOC fUport1QMO97 3:3*06 PU GoMer Associate* Pag»Sof«2

Septembef n*97

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigationState College. Pennsylvania

y33-6333

[ Parameter

Xla=0COous

DibromocMoiomelhanaCNorobanzam1.1,l>TamcMoroatrianaBhytoenzenem.p-Xyteneo-Xytan.StyrmBromolonntoopropybenzeneBromobenzenel.lA2-Taliachtoioelhane1,2,3-Trichtoropropanen-Pnpytoenzene2-CNoiotoliiene4-ChloroWuene1 ,3.5-TrimelriyKMnzanefert-Butyfeenzene1.2.4-Trimalhylbanzene•eo-BuiytienzanabopnpyHoajene1.3-OicMorabanzana1,4-UcUofObanzene1 -CkcMoiobefizanan-Butytbaraanal -Obnmo-3-chloropiopana1.2.4-TrichtorotoenzeneHexacMorobuladienaNaphthalene1 .2>TiicNoroberaane



777777777777777777777777714141414

Result77771237777

11077777777777777201414ft

QualUuuu

Juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuJ

OF*



666ft0ftft6989ft8Aftft9

12121212

Result947989182ftft228

3308ft6ft1069999664ftft12121212

QualU

u

uu

u

uuuu

uuuuuu

uuuuuu

OF1

11


Lab ID: L1 4599- 16Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent So Ws 82 %SQL

ft9999ft6ft0ftftft9Aftft

12121212

Result6991154106ftftft628990ft0

6ftftftft9BB12101212

Qualuuu

UUUU

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuu

OF

ff



9996ftft8ft6669ftftftftftft6

• f t

12121212

Resulteft661236ftft688ft6ft

ft8

912101212

QualUuuu

Juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuu

OF1111

1enGO

ACCESS*

Notes:Al units are pg/kg.OF Mfcates the Wuton Factor.SQL indfcates the Sample QuanMatkm Unit

-al column indicates tha qualifier applied to the rasuN by Vw laboratory or the data vaMator

dporftCMVOCftaport

^ quafcfier definition sheet

•f Associates c P^* 6 Of 62

Septembet .

Matrix: SoS

c cANALYTtUti. CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Volatile Organic CompoundsCenbe County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign Investigation

State College, Pennsylvania

=0COCDvo01GO"**""

ParameterDKMoraGMuofometfianeChtoromethaneVinyl ChlorideBromometianaCMoroethaneTrichtonfluofomafianaAcetoneCarbon Oiauffide1.1-INchtaKMttiene •>Maliylane CMorideTtana-1>2-OicMQfoett)enel,1-Dfchkrae*Mma2£-OtaNoroprapene

BramochtommthaneCMorafbim -;2-eutanone ,1.1.1-TrtchtoroetxnaCarbon Tetachtaride1,1-OichloropfDpeneBenzene

TricMoroetfwne1,2-Otahtoiaprapane -ObramomaWianeBronKNflcMoramettiane< Mettiyt-2-Pentanonads-1,34NchtonprepaneToluenetrans-1 >Ofchtonpropane1 ,1 -TricMonetianaI Ofcfomoetiane2-HexanoneTetrachtoroeawne1,3-DicblDfopropane


Lab ID: L1 4599- 15Date Sampled: 4/3QV97Percent Setts 77.11 %SQL13131313131313

3

13

,

13

ResuM13131313131313aa12

\

*

aa13aaa

a3aaa13a19Baa134a

Qua!UUUUUUJUUBUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUU

UUUUJU

DF1

111

1111


Lab ID: L14545-9Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent SoftJs 84.75 %SQL1500150015001500150015001500740740740740740740

,740740740

150074074074074074074074074074015007407407407407401500740740

Result1500150015001500150015001500740740100074074074074074074015007407407407407406400740740740

150074039074074074015002600740

QuatUUUUUUUUUBUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUUJUUUU

U

DF12512512512512544C12912512512512512512512544C129125125125125125125125•f%f12912512512512512512512512512512512512$125


Lab ID: U 4545-1 2Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 77.94 %SQL160016001600160016004AAATOW

16006008008008008008008008006001600600600600800800800600600600

1600800800800800600

1600800600

ResuR16001600160016001600

16006006001300600800800800800660016006006006008008006400600600600

1600600

140000800600600

1600430800

Qua!"yUUUUUUUU8UUUUUJUUUUUU

UUUUUJUUUUJU

OF1251251251251254 1CTZ512512512512549CTZ3

125125125125125125125125125125tftC12912512512512512512512512512512S125125125


Lab ID: L 14566-1Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 81.91 %SQL12121212121212

12

66612666ae1266

Result12121212 .1212

13

612

12

1266

QualUUUUJUULUJUBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUU .U

DF

11

1Notes:M units are pgAtg.DFfedfcates Ow Mutton Factor. .SQL Mfcatos M Sample QuenMafen Umft.The Qua! cotanm Mfcates t« quaHer applet) to to retuN by >w [Moratory or tw datt vafcWw. Refw to quaWta

Colder Associates

September (997

Matrix: So8



933-6333

=uCOCDU>C/1CDCO

ParameterCNbromocMoiamMhMwChtorobenzenelj.l.2-TetnchtoroethaMEthyfcenzenemi-Xyleneo-XyimaStyraneBremotomibopropytMnzeneBromobenzaM1 .1 -Tetracntoroettiana1,2.3-TrichtonpropMttn-Propyfceniene2-CMOfOtokMie4-CI*NDk*MM1.3,5-T(lmrthyt»nz««tort-Butylbenzane1.2.4-TrimaHiytwnzerN•aoeriyMMattnetioflfflpyHotuiMIXNcMorebmzene1.4-OicMQrobenzane1.2-Okntombenzenan-Butyfeenzm*1£-Oteomo-3-chtorapropene1,2,4-TrichtorobenxmHttttchtorabulatKaneNapMhatontlA3-TricNorobenzaiw


Lab IO: L1 4599- 15Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SoMs 77.11 %SQL

66

13131313

Result8ee3143686622a6e6666•6e8ee9134613 .13

DualUUuJ

JUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF



'"7407407407407407407407407407407407407401500150015001500

Result7407407407401900460740 .740740740

7400074074005007407407407407407407407406007407401500150015001500

Qua! OFUUUU

JUuuuuu

uuuuuuuuJuuuuuu

12512512512512512512512512512512512512S125125125125125125125125194I&9

92512512512S125125125


Lab ID: L 14545- 12Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 77.94 %SQL0000006000006006006006000000008006006006006006000000006000006000000000008001600160016001600

Result6006000000001100160600600600600

93000800800000600600600000000800600600000000annQW

1600160016001600

QualUUuu

Juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125

.12512544C1251251251251251251254<£C129

125125125125



666666600666666666666666612121212

Result666661666646666066000666612121212

QualUUUUJJuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuUJuuUJUJ

OF*111111111

ACC£&S\*^

AM units am ugftg-DF InacrtBi *m Mutoo Factor.SQL indicates ltt Sampte Quanblation Unit

« oHunwi indicates tie quaWUr appfMl to (he rasutt by the laboratory or the data vaUator.

«portC«VOC Report

qualifier definition sheet

wr Auodatee c

CSeptember

Matrix: Soi


Centre County Kepone Site - Pro-Design InvestigationState Cofege. Pennsylvania

c333-6333

COCD<X>cnCD

ParameterPehtonxfifluoromrttMnaCMofomethaneVinyl CWoride

CNoroethaneTricMorofluoromeBwntAcetoneCarbon DbuMde1,1-OfchtoroetwneMeltiylene Chloride

1.1-OiditofOMham2 -OfcMoropropenedt-1.2-OicMoroe«ieneBromocMoromeftineChtotoform2-autmneIJ^TricNoroethaneCarbon TekKhtorid*1.1-OicNorepnpeneBenzene1 -OfcNorotthineTricMoreeflNMI OfchtanprepaneDferomormtjsneBronuofeNorornMhana44taOiyl-2-Pentaraned»-1,3-0icrtoropropeneTohMnetranM,3-OkMomprepane1.1.2-Trtchtorocfiw1 -Dtjromoethane2-HounoneTetracMoroetjena1,3-Ofchtoropropane


Lab ID: L14566-2Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent SoSds 83.02 %SQL"

12121212121212a0e6eeee61266e6666601206ae6126C

Result~ 12

121212

.121266616

2

2

28

12

dualUUUUJUULUJU8UUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUU

UUUUJU

DF

1111111


LabtD: L14566-3Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 81.53 %SQL12121212121212e60606666126

12

12

ResuR121212121212126611666e6612666666ea61269a861230

Qua!UUUUJUULUJUBUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUU

UUUUJU

DF111111111i1iiiii1ii1111111111111111



126666666661269a061266

ResuR1212121212121266176Beeae126060

a16e66126236661246

Qua)UUUUUUU

• uU

uuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuu

1

uuuuJu

DF

11

Lab ID:Date SiPercenSQL

121212121212126666666661266666666612666661266


L14545-5pted: 4/24/97«fids 82.6ResuR

121212121212966146683661266666466612613aaa1266

QualUUuuuujuu

uuujuuuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuJu

DFf1111I.1111111111111111

M unto are pgftg.DF tmfcate* tie Mutton Factor.SQLinoTcalwtwSwnpieQuanBWtonUT*. ,The Qual colurm holcates •» ouaNAer eoplecl to M rest*

Gokfer Associate* PaQt9ef62

Septembei .-

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTIC.. CHEU1STRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState College. Pennsylvania

0J3-6333

^*=0COOu>eni r\

ParameterDibiomoGhlorametnaneChtorobenzene1 .1.1.2-TeMcntonNthaneEthytoanzentmjhXytoneo-XytoneStyrenaBromotonnIsopropyftwnzeneBromobenzeftt1 .1 A2-TetracWoroethane1Z3-TricNoroprapanen-Propytoenzene2-CHorotolusM4-Chlorotoiuem1.3,S-TrirnMhyt>enzenetert-Butytoeruena1£4-TrimeJhyfeenzenesec-8utytMfiz«nebopropyltolMna1.3-0ichlorao»nzene1.4-OkMorabanzene1,24)ichtorolwnzenen-Butytoenzene1.2-Drt»oino-3-chtofopropana1^4-TttoMoraoanzeneHexacMoraouUdieneNaphthatena1 .3-TricMorabenzene



8 ""ft88ft8ft0866868886686

12121212

Result8ftft7347888631688886ftftft

12121212

QualuuU

UUUu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuUJuuUJUJ

DF1111

111


Lab ID: L14566-3Date Sampled: 4/26/97Percent Solids 81.53 %SQL | Result

6668ftfte6666666ft66ftft

12121212

66868286667686ftft6686688ft812121212

QualUU

DFf1

U 1U I

JUUUu


1111111111111

111


Lab ID: L1 4545-7Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 85.13 %SQL

ft66666888ft6668886668688ft012121212

Result8ft87

Qual | DFUUu

3786ftft654666886ft8ft0668812

. 121212

uuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

**11

11

1



666666666688ftft6660ft06866812121212

Result66631548666226666666688868ft12121212

Qua)UUUJ

JuUuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF

11

11

O

Notes:M units are ugft().DF fndfcatos tie Dilution Factor.SQL Mteates the Sample Quantitatkm Lfntt.T "*cokmimllca«MtoQuaitiwapfiliedtotr*res^

ACCESSt pvflCatVOCMpat Âssociate. C 49*100162

c c cSeptember

Matrix: Soil



933-6333

[ Parameter

r»ZOC3OVDCJ1UD^ ™

DhJUuuJinuoromettianeChtorometianeVinyl ChlorideBromometieneChtoioetieneTriehtoroBuoromethaneAcetoneCarbon DfeuMe1.1-OMtoeetiene 'Metiytone ChtofUeTran*>1 *OicMoroetfieneIvMMdtonetiane2^4XchtonpfOpenedMÔicNoroetieneBnmochtoromehaneChtorafunn2-Butanone1.1.1-TricNoroeftaneCarbon Tetracntortde1.1-OkMomprapaneBenzene- _ — . _ _ —

TrichtonMewneU-DfchtoropropaneDlramometianeBfomooTUtoometMne4-Methy*-2-P»nt*nonede»1 ,3-OfcMofDpropeneToluenetrane-1 .3-DtcNoropropeoe1.1>TilU*Jiue8iana1£-CMbramoeatane2-HexanoneTeaaclitofOBtienel.UNehtamomoane


Lab ID: L1454&4Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Softh 80.06 %SQL12121212121212

2

2

2

ResuR121212121212110013008388128888n

88881281084812.70

QualUUUuuujuu

uu

. ujuuuuuuuuJuu0uu ,

uJuu

u

DF

11

Sample PointDO1 00304

Lab ID: L1 4 599-3Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 77.71 %SQL131313131313136ft

3

13

13

Result131313ft13137ftft11ft00000130

0000100

0

01303302ft134ft

QualUUUJBUUJUuBauuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uJuusu

DF11

1


Lab ID: L14S66-4Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 81.49 %SQL12121212121212

2

2

2

ResuR12121212121248ft -12

120

0

00

00000

- 120300ft12ft6

Qua)UUUUJUUL

UJu

UUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuu

OFfff1111111f11tff11111111t1111

Sample PontDO1 10708

Lab ID: L1 4566-5Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 82.64 %SQL12121212121212

2

2

12ftft

Result121212121212110013

120

- 00

2

1200

QualUUUUJuu ,L

UJ0B "

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuutfuuu

uuuuuu

DF1

11111111

11

AluninaraupAO-DF Mtoetos tie Mutton Factor.SQL Mfcates the Sample QuantfMon Untt.The Qual cnkmm MdteafeM tte quaHtor appled to tie fesuN by

ACCE8Stac.inb11rapamC«1 VOC Report Peg* 11 of 82

Septembet n*97

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compound*

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState College, Pennsylvania

933-6333

50C*>CDU>01SOro

ParameterDibnmochtoramalhaneCMorobanzana1.1,1.2-Trtracfttoroetian*EtiyKMnzanen^p-Xytaneo-XybneStyraneBromotofnrIsopiopyRMnzenaBramobanzena1.1 -TetacMoroethane1£3-Trichbraprapanen-Propybenzane2-CMoratokiene4-Cntontokjene1.3.S-TrimalhyttMnzanetert-Butyftwraant1 .4-Tiknatvtonzane*ec-6utytoenzanetoopropyttoajene1.3-OicMoraoanzena1.4-OicNofobanzana1,2-Ofchtorabenzenen-Butyfeanzsm1>DOiiHiU-3-dilQK>fMU(>an*1 l2,4*TiuauiwMi mjnHexacMorobuiaowneNapMhalanelA3-Tiichtoiuba»zene


Lab ID: L14545-6Date Sampled. 4^4/97Percent Solids 80.06 %SQL

12121212

Result

2

79

115122

QualUUUU

JuUUu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuJJuJ

DF11111111

11

1

Lab ID:DateS.PercenSQL

6888

13131313



6666

13131313

Resulte66S27S66e6666•60660a66636613463

QualUUUJ

JUUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUJUUUJJJ

DF

11


Lab ID: L1456&4Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 81.49 %SQL

6666ee6666

12121212

Result66686e68662

612121212

QualUUUuuuuuuuJNUuuuuuuuuuuuuUJuuUJUJ

OF

f11



66666688e686

12121212

Result86

66

812121212

Qua!UUUUJUUUuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuUJuuUJUJ

DF

Holes:Al unto am py/kg.DF indicates the Mutton Factor. 'SQL Indicates to Sampta Quanttation Limit

* column Mfcates the quaUMr applied to the fesuN by Vie laboratory or tie data vaidator.

ACCE: 4WflCa1vOCftapart

qualifier definition stwal

f Associates e

c c cSeptembei u*97

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigationState College, Pennsylvania

j*33-6333

soCOo .UDcniCO

ParameterDicMorodMuoroinelhanaCNomnelfianeVtayfCNorictoBromomeOianeChkvoethaneTriditorofluoromelhanttAcetoneCarbon DteuMcte1.1-OtcMorot0MmMetfiytone CMorUeTf*m-1,2-OicMoroetieneI.1-Olchtoro8(hane

î^n^^t^«mBronwcMoniiMttiMMChtorofonn2-Butanom1,1 .l-TrichtoroethaneCarbon Tcfracntoricto1.1-fMchtoroprapensBenzene1,2-DfchtorotthwTrichtoroetienel -OfchtoropropaneDfcromomrihaneBromodfcHonMnriharwI Mu<i»l-2-PeiiUiiu»d*-1,3-DfcMoroprap8n*Toluenetrant-I.S-DichkMoprepane1 ,1,2-Trichtoroetiant1.2-Dttronioetians2-HexanoneTeftwNonMtwm1.3-Otehtoropropsns

Sample PointD01 10910

Lab ID: U4566-6Date Sampled: 4/28/97PercentSolids 79.4 %SQL

13131313131313aeaeaaa

a13aae•aaaaa13aeeea13aa

Resul13131313131313

14

3

.3

13

QualuuuUJuuRUJUBUUUuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuu

OFff

11

1111

111111111


Lab ID: L14599-18Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SoWs 80.93 %SQL12121212121212

2

12

1

Result12121212121212

2

2

0

1

QualUUUUUUUUUBUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuu

DF1111

111111111111111111


Lab ID: L14599-22Date Sampled: 4/30/97PercentSolids 87.05 %SQL11111111111111aa

i

Result11111111111111ae

' 4aaeeaa11eaaeeeaae11e21.aaa112a

Qua)uuuuuuuUJujuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuJu

DF

111111111

' 1111111111

11


Lab ID: L 14599- 19Date Sampled: 4/30/97PercentSolids 84.19 %SQL

12121212121212

2

1

1

Result12121212121212

4

212aeaeeeaee12a32aae -12ae

QualUUUU—UU 'uuuBuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuu

u

DF11

11 .1111111111111111111

Al units are M9*g,DF Mfcsto* IM OMton Factor.

The Qual column Mfcatos ttw quaMtar appM to the msut by thatabOf»to»ywt«da(av»Wa*of.RBtetoqu»ltrw(WWtion«hwt

Gofder Associates Pip 13 of «2

September 1997

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compound*

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState Cottege, Pennsylvania

933-6333

XMZDCOCDUDcnUD

ParameterDibremocMoromalhanaCMonbenzene1.1.1.2-TeliacMoroethaneEthytMnzemm.p-Xytwieo-XytaneS raneBrafflofonntaopropyRienzeneBramobanzem1 .1A2-TetracMoroelhane1.2,3-TricNonpropanen-Prapybenzene2-CNofotolum4-CNMotokiene1 ,3.5-TrimetfiyttMnzeneM-Butyfcsnzene1.2.4-TrimMytbenzenesec-BulybenzenetsopropyttohMnt1.9-OfcNorobenzene1.4-DfcMorobmzeneI OicMonbenzenen-Butyfcsnzam1 1 riflm uhlil 1 1 lililiiiiilliilMlB1 »**• rmm\Mfmf*-**mM u|iiU|WIV

1,2.4-TifcMaraDsraeneHencMorabuladMneNaphttiriene1.2>Trichtorobonzene


Lab ID: L1 4 566-6Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 79.4 %SQL

e"

19191313

Result8

19191913

QualuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuUJuuUJUJ

OF11111111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: L 14599- 18Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 80.93 %SQL"

12121212

Result666662688e9

12121212

Qua)uUUUJJUUUUJUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11



68e666886686•6666

11111111

Resultee84224866625

11111111

Qua)UUuJ

J. u

uuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

"OF111111


Lab ID: L1 4599-1 9Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 84.19 %SQL

12121212

Result6

. 6852348686138888688868888612121212

QualUUUJ

JUuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF111111

111

1

AI unto are pg/kQ.OF jndicafe* tw Dilution Factor.SQL indicate* the Sample QwnWafcm tin*.

.npcrtCtfVOC Report

«o quaMer definition sheet

«r Associates \^

c cSeptember iw»7

Matrix: Soi


Centre County Kepone Site * Pre-Oesign InvestigationState CoHege. Pennsylvania

933-6333

150COoIrt

cncn

_.._._ ..._ ... . . .... .. __. — _• WJnicwi

DfcHonxHIuonmetiana

Vinyl ChlorideBromomethaneCMoraethaneTrichtoroauorometanaAcetoneCarbon OiwHkte1.1-DkMoreeVwnaMMhytone ChtorkteTrans-l -OcMoioethene1,1-OkMomeViane2 -OtaatoropropanadMÔkfttoioatianBBremochtafDmetMiaCMorafcm2-Butvwrw1.1.1-TricMoreetianeCarbon TebacNoride1.1-OichtoioprapanaBenzenei -OcMofoethanaTirlcMofoatfwne1.2-OfcNoiopiopanaDftromomafianaBromodtahtoiofnetiane< Mettiyt-2-Pantaooned»-1.34)i(MoraprapaneToluenefranMt3-DfcMoroprapane1.13-TiUfciorthana1,2-DferomMttivia2-HexanoneTetracNoroeViana1.3-OichtofQpropane


Lab ID: L14599-17Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percer*SQL13131319191919

3

13

13

tSoBdsResuR

1313131313137-ee7aaa-aa313aa

- aaaaaae13a13aaa134a

79.56/Vialuuai

UUUUUUJUUBU.UUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUU

* UJU

ncUr11111111t1t111111111111111111111111

Sample PointFA010304

Lab ID: L14611-4Date Sampled: 5/1/97PercencmOUL

12121212121212

12

aa12a

12

t SolidsResult

12121212121217aaaeaaaae12aeeaaeaee12a23aea123a

82.52Qua!

UUUUUU3

UJUJUU 'UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBUUUUJU

DF

11.11T1111


Lab ID: L14611-2Date Sampled: 5/1/97PercencmOUL

12121212121212aaaeeaaea12ae

12ee

12

t SoMsResult

121212

'12121212aa4aeeaee12a

12' a30aee1233a

83.46Qua!

UUUUUUUUJUJUUV*UUUUUUUUUJUUUUUBUUUU

U

%DF

1111

1111

1


Lab ID: L 146 11 -3Date Sampled: 5/1/97PerceflcmOUL

11111111111111

1

aea11eaa6a11aa

itSoMsResult

111111111111204a3aaa

ae11aeaaeaeea11e4aee116a

87.58Qua!

UUUUUUJ

JNUJUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUJBUUUUUU

DF11111111ff1111111111111111111111111

DFMfcatesttie (Mutton Factor.SQL Mfcatos IW Sample QuanttMon LMtTr» Qua) cdurm Mfcates tie quafiffer appfed to the rest* by flw tebo™*wyor»»datovafcJa»Dr.

ACCESSta.mb1lM|MfflCdVOC Rq>MKVUMT i-34 -14 PM GoMer Aasociates P«g*15of62

September i997

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigationState Cofege. Pennsylvania

933-6333

X*=0COO

cn• ^Bh

ParameterOibrainochlonnielhaneChtorobenzene1 .1 .1 -TetachhMoettianeEfcyfeenzenefnjxXyteneo-XytoneStyraoeBromofotn -toopropytoenzeneBromobenzene_ _ _ _ _ . . '..1 1 1 ,2Tiav*iMi ftLi m uuv wno1 .2,3-TMcMorepropanen-Prapybenzene2-Chtontokiene4-ChtoroWuen*1 .3.5-Trknethyftenzenetort-Butyfeenzene1,2,4-Trimettiyi>enz«ne•ec-BidylbeflxeneiMpnpyltoluenet.j-OfcMombenzene1,4-ttcMorobenEena1.2-OfcMonbenzeneivButylbenzene1>ObRNno4-cMon)propane1.2.4.TffcntarabanzeneHexachkrabutodnneNapMhatone1 .3-Trichtorobenzene

Sample PointD01307Q8

Lab ID: L14599-17Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SoW* 79.56 %SQL

000

19131313

'Resulte0001330000

22

13131313

Qua!UUuu

Juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF


Lab ID: U 46 11 -4Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent SoWs 82.52 %SQL

00

00

0

0

006000

12121212

Result0

o0

310

30000170000

000

00

12121212

Qua!UUUJBJUUuuJUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF111111111

1111


Lab ID: L 146 11 -2Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 83.46 %SQL

0

00

000

00000000

0000

0

12121212

Result0001720000e00060

0

0

60

003100

12122212

QualUUUJBJUUuuJuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuJu

DF1111111111111111

111



e0000

00000

00ft00000

0011111111

Result | Qual0

0

0

0

50

0

0

6e360

600600

0

11

11

311

UUUuJBUUUUUJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJu

OFf*f1111

111

ACCC

AlunMtarapg/kg.DF Mfcates ttw Muton Factor.SQL indicate* the Sample Quanttatton Unit

>al column JnAcate* tie qualMer «PP»** *> •» «•»* *V «• laboratoiyorthedatavaliditor.

«paflC*VOCR«pQrt

v» quaver definition sheet

n*r Associate* c

Septembe. .

Matrix: Sol

c eANALYTK. - CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Volatile Organic CompoundsCentre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign Investigation

State CoNege. Pennsylvania

aO-6333

roC4o(Oen^ .^***

ParameterDicNorodMiuuiuiiieflianeCMoromeftaneVtaylCMofUeBromometmieCNoroetiane

AcetoneCarton DitulMe1,1-OfcMoroetienepMviyHnv CHoncnTian»-l>OfcMonetiene1.1-DicMoiDetiem

ds-1 CNcNonetieneBromocNommetMneCMorafomt2-Butanone- *i - _ . -~ - _^

• • flfi|ij'ftl!ro*tti!ft8i CaHnn TevracraofideI.l-O&toropnpeneBennene1.2-OfchtoroetieneTricManetwne1 OicMorapPopsneMmmometianaBremodtohtoramettene< MBtiyM-Pentanoned*-1>0tchtoropropeneTotanffren»-i>{)icNorepropene1,1,2-Trichkmelriane1.2-Dtoromoetiene2*HexanoneTetacMoraetMne4 « »•----- — - —— -


Lab 10: L14556-1Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Sofids 86.56 %"SQL"

12121212121212

•

121 6t

\ «

12

12

Result1212124121215

21

i 6

12 ,

12

QualUUUJ8UU

UUBUUUuuu"0U-.

i U"! u"uuuuuuuu

uuuVuII

OFT111

-j

1 f

1

«



12K1212121212

121 04

I 8

12

12

Resut1212123121232

6128*

: «6' 06

00000

8126128B6128«

QualUUuIB•ID

uu

uuBUuuuuuuu,,UL

, WUuuuuuuu

uuuuuII

OF

11

11

1


Lab ID: * LI 4585- 10Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 85.29 %SQL

12121212121212

880

12i ADt 6fi

688008

128868fe_120ft

Result121212121212120050

12o

; 5"

120

70Of0.124 'a

QualUUuuuuuuuiuuuuuuuUuIL

u"I/'uuuuuuu

uuuuJII

OF*1111111111111111T ,1 4

t f:f'*ff111111,

1 11:

111


Lab ID: L1 4566-3Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 82.93 %SQL'121212121212120008800.0812

j 6g

I fl* 6ft

06000

12088B0-128•

Result1212121212123400100006e006,8-

• 6'; 08

0000

012e1106»•126ft

Qualuuuuuu

uuBUuuuuuJu.II '

1 ../

i uUuuuuuuu

uuuuuII

OF11111111111111111,

4

11

OF Mfcates tie Dilution Factor. . .SQL kidcatos tie Sample QoanWaCon Limit •- - -The Qual ookmn Mfcatn tie queMfar eppCed to tie met* by tie taboratonfortiedelavalidator.Relwtoqualif^delWlfonsrêt

ACCESSWc.n»1V«pOrftCal VOC ftapflrtGof<terA«*oclate* Pip 17 Of 62

September *

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigatkMIState College. Pennsylvania

933-6333

=0COoVDcn

ParameterDibromochtoromethineChtorobenzane1 .1 ,1 -TetrachtoioethaneEttiyfeenzenemj>-Xy*»neo-XytonsStyreneBromufufintsoprapytoenzeneBromotwnzene1 .1 A2-TetnKhloroethanel£3-TriGhtofOpmpanen-Prapyfeenzene2-CNorotohiene4-CMorotohiene1 ,3,5-Trime0iyft>eraenetert-Bu rfbenzene

sec-ButybenzeneIsoprapyHoluene1.3-DichtorobenxeM1.4-Oichtorabenzene1.2-Dfcntafobenzenen-Butylbenzentl -Ctaomo-3-cNorooropene1.2,4-TrichtorooenzeneHexachtorabuiadiensNapMhalene1,2.3-Trichkrabenzene

Sample PointFA0403Q4

Lab ID: L1 4556-1Date Sampled: 4125197Percent Sott* 86.56 %SQL

88886868866806080

012121212

Resulte666S8668648666666

12121212

QualUUUUJUuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11111111111111111111111111111



800088886668888888688686812121212

Result0

080133686688888688868886612121212

QualUuuu

juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF111

11


Lab ID: L 14585- 10Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 85.29 %SQL

080886688666886666800800012121212

Result86652336660480

0

0

000686846812121212

QualuuuJ

JuuuuJBUUuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuu

DF11

1111111111111111111



6888666660000

666

868868812121212

Result668682868646808666000006612121212

QualUuuu

juuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11111

1toGO

7^

Notes:Al units are po/kg.OF indicates the Muton Factor.SQL indicates the Sample QuanMatton Unit

••I cokimi indicates ttw quaWer applied to the result by the laboratory or the data vaWator.

ACCESS* 4M«CtfVOC Reportinnuea *-*j 17 MI

1 qualifier deflntion sheet

«f Associates C / a 18 of 62

c c cSeptombei

Matrix: Soi



933-6333

[ . '_ Parameter

*=0COCDU>cnu>uj

UIMMM WIMNMimi Hi IV

CNoromettianeVinyl CNoridaBfDmometonaCHoroetonaTricMoroBuoronietMneAcetonedftenDnuMtfe1.1-DfcMoroetieneMeBiytane CMorideTran*i£-DicNoio0lMneI.MJicNomettMne2£-DfcNoropropaned*-1.2-OtaNofoefteneBremocMoranMhaneCMorotonn2-Butanone1.1.1-TftcMonetianeCarbon Tetrachtoride1,1-DkMorapiopeneBenzenel -OicMoroattianeTricNoraefMneU-OWHoropropaneDibromometttneBnmodcMoromettiane4-MedyM-Pentanoneda-I.S-OtchloiopropeneToluenetran»-l.S-OtcNoropropenei,i>Tricntoroettiaml -Ofcromoeftane2-HexanoneTetnKttoroetwne1.34Nchtoropropene

Sample PointFA08Q304

Lab ID: L14556-4Date Sampled: 412*5191Percent Softds 83.03 %SQL

12121212121212

2

2

12

Result~ 12

12124121212

2

2

1

12

QualuuuJBUUUUUBUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF

11111111111


Lab ID: L14556-5RADate Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 78.31 %SQL

13131313131313

3

3

13

Result

1313131313236e1568e662136B

13

13

QualUuuuuuBUu

uuuuuJuuuuuuJuuuuuJuuuuu

DF111111111111111111111f1111111111111



Result65651865656565

16003333333333

32003333653333333333

43033333365335233333365

600033

Qua)UUJUuuu

uUUUUJUUUUUUUU

uuuuu

uuuuu

DF5555S595555SS555555555555SS55555555


Lab ID: L 14585-1 3Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 68.89 %SQL

15IS1515151515777777777IS77777777715777771577

Result15

. 151515151571127677777713777777777157117771577

QualUuuuuuB

UJUUUUuuJBUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11111111111

1111

• 1

AI unit* are M9*9.DF indicates ttw Mueon Factor.SQL ktdfcatos tit Sample QuenHatton UrriLThe Qual column todfcate* ttw ojuaMer appfed to the rasuK by to or tie data vaUator. Refer to qualifier deftnibon sheet

Gaidar Associates Pag* 19 of 62

SeptembCM .

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTIWtL CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organtc Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState CoBege, Pennsylvania

H33-6333

=0COo

CDO

ParameterDbonnctiloroniethaneChkxpbenzane1 .1.1 ,2-TetrachtoroetfaneQhyfeenzenemjhXytoneo-XytoneSereneBnmiofonnbopropytienzeneBcomobanzenel,1 -T«lrachloroethane1A3-Trichtofopropanen-Pfopytoenzena2-CWorotoluem4-ChtoroWuene1 ,3.5-TrimelhyftMnzanatert-Butylbenzane1,2,4-TrimeihyftMnzenesec-Butyfeenzen*IsopropyNoluene1.3-Dfchtofobenzane1.4-OfchtoroDanzene1,2-OicNoraDenzenen-ButyfeenzemIJ-CiUomo-a htonipropaoe1.2.4-TitaNofDbenzeneHexacNorooutadieneNaphthalene1.2>Trichtorotenzene


Lab ID: L14556-4Date Sampled: 4/25/97PercentSolids 83.03 SSQL

66

606a6666012121212

Result0

e661020000300

12121212

Qua!UUUU

JUUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

OF


Lab ID: L14556-5RADate Sampled: 4/25/97PercentSolids 78.31 %SQL

000

0

0

00000000

00

00000000

0013131313

Result0

0

0

544000

0

2500

0000

0

0013131313

QualUUUJJJUUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

OF

f1111111111111111111111

Sample PointFA1 10304

Lab ID: L 14585-9Date Sampled: 4/29/97PercentSolids 76.54 %SQL3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333305050505

Result33333325082042033332033

1300333333334433333333333323333305750505

QualUUU

UUJBUauUuu

uuuuuuJuuuBuu

DF5555SsS55555555555555S5S5S5S5



777777777777777777777777715151515

Result747523077774777777777777771310152

Qualu"Juj

juuuuJBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuJJuJB

OF111

1

Note*:Al units are ug/kB.Dfinrtirilnilhe Mutton Factor.SQL indicates Ow Sample QuanUaton UmitT ~*uala*jnm indicate* the quatter applied to the resuN by the laboratory or the data vattdator.

ACCESSV. jportCriVOCftapart10/16/97 3:3*iePM

• to quaMer definition sheet c ag» 20 0162

September i

Matrix: Sol



State Cotege. Pennsylvania

933-6333

^^^*^3OCOoU>CT*CD—

ParameterOicNmodMuonamdflianeCMoiomiBaiiaVinyl CNoridaBramonwthaneCNofoeViane '

AcetoneCarbon DteuNUt1.1-OtehbfoettieneMeYiytonaCMort*Tran».t.2-DtoMofa**wne1.1-OkMoroetfiane

cb-U-OcMaraethaneBrontocMoioimtMneCNofoform .2-ButamnaI.M-TnchtoroMhan*CartxmTekacMorida1.1-OtoMorapnpenaBenzene1,2-DfcNoneataneTricNoroeVienel -OfcntoraprapaneraramomMhaneBfOfitoftMoromeVtane4 Meiiyt-2-Pet*anonacte-1 ,3-OtchtoropropeneToluene•anM.3-DtaNoropfOpene1.1 -TrtcMoroattune1 -Ofenmoeowne2 **— - — -~ ^•fwxjnonBTekachtoroelhane1.3-DkHnfnamM


Lab ID: L 14585- 12Dale Sampled: 4/29/97Percent SoMs 84.42 %SQL12121212121212

2

2

2

Resul12121212121224

2

2

2

QualUUUUUUBUUJUU

. UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUJUUUUUU

OF

1

f11

11



137777777771377777777713777

' 771377

Result13

131313138247707777772377777577713751777,1387

QualUUUUUU

U

UUUUUU

UUUUUJUUUUU

UUUU

7 U

OF111111111111111f11111111t1111111111


Lab ID: L1 461 1-8Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 78.65 %SQL [ Result

13131313131313

3

813

13

13131313131313

3

418a81362888813528

QualUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJJUJUJttlJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJJUJUJUJUJUJJBUJUJUJUJJ

UJ

OF

11f1111

Sample PointFA20A0102

Lab ID: L 146 11 -12Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Sofids 79.72 %SQL

13131313131313

13866668688136

13

Result131313131313311288888386136868645668138338881348

Qua)UJUJUJUJ -UJUJJJNUJJUJUJUJJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJJUJUJUJUJUJJBUJUJUJUJJUJ

DFf1111

111111

AR unMt ai* upyhg.Of MfcHM the Mubon Factor.SQL Mfcate* ttw Sampto QuanWatton UnitThe Ouil ocriurm IrMftMM «w oâlHto ippled to tw result by

ACCESStatmblVifwflCtf VOC Report Pag* 21 of 62

Septembei <

Matrix: Soil



231=0COO

cnCD

ParameterOibromochtoromeBianeChtorabanzane1 .1 .U-Tertc«oroetharwEthyfcanzanenvp-Xytaneo-XytaneStyrerwBnmiofonnIsopropytMroarwBromobanzene1 .1 A2-Te8achton»tharw

n-Prapytonzena2-Chtofotoiuena4-ChtoroMuene1,3.5-Trimefliytoenzenetert-6utytjenzene1.2.4-Trimelr.ytoenzenetec-Butyfcenzenetaopropytoluene1.3-DtaMorabanzam1.4-OfcMorebanzene1,2-OfcMarebenzanen-Bu feenzanel -Oferaroo-3-cMoraprapane1.2,4-TrkttorobenzeneHexachlorobutadtaneNaphttalana1 .2,3-TricNorobenzena



12121212

Result8

68888886888a12121212

QualUUUUJUUUUUJBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DF11

11



777777777777777777777777713131313

Result712777277771177777777777837713135113

QualU

UU

JUUUUBUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUBU

DF11111111111111111111111111111

Sample PointFAI 80304


86

666886

13131313

Resulte688aiea6a228

13131313

Qua)UJUJUJUJJJUJUJUJUJJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ

DF

11


Lab ID: L1 4611 -12Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 79.72 %SQL

666e6688ae686

86a88613131313

Resulta6e41948aee126a88ae66a88188813131313

QualUJUJUJJJBJ

UJUJUJUJJBUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJJ

UJUJUJUJUJUJ

DF11111111111111111

ACCESS ..

Al uni(» are po/kg.Of indicate* the Wuton Factor. *SQL indicates the Sample QuanMatton Limit

* column Indicates «w qualifier applied to the ran* by the laboratory or the data vaWaWr

feportkCal VOC Report1W16W7 3:3*20 W

*o qualifier definition sheet

*r Associate* C /'•O* 22 Of 62

September it*97

Matrix: Soi


Volatile Organic CompoundsCentre County Kepone Site - Pie-Design Investigation


933-6333

*=0CJo10

OCJ

ParameterOttitoiDMuofomMnneChtonimttianeVinyl CNofMeBnmomeVianeCNoreeffianeTrtchtorofluoramevuneAcetoneCatton DisuMA1.1-ttehtoroeitene -Mehytane CMoiMeTrant-1 -OfdAm«tien«1.t-DfcMoroeffMne2 -OteMofopropaneci§-i ,2-nuwi uewieneBremocMoramaaieneCMofOfonn2-Butanone1.1,1-TrtcWoroetianeCarbon TrtracWoride1.1-OhMaraprapeneDenzene1.2-OfcMoraettieneTrtchtofoetfMna1.2-OtohtorapiepamDfenmomaVianeBroroodicMoroM*haoe4-Manyl-2 nemeiuiecaM>DichkNOpropeneToluenetan»-l.3 )iU*«epropene1.17-TitUHumetiBna1£-Mramoe0«ne2-HexenoneTetrachtoroethene1.3-Oichtoropropane


Lab ID: L14611-11Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Sofefc 78.76 %SQL1313

. 1313131313

3

13

13

ResuR13131313131322004

' 0000001300.60

0000

13070061300

QualUUUUUUJJUJUUUUUUUUUU0UUUUUUUBJUUUUUU

DF

f1

111

Sample PointFA210203D

Lab ID: L1 46 11 -10Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 76.32 %SQL131313131313137777777771377777777713777

• 771377

Resuf,13131313131334IS7677777713777777777 -137207771377

QualUUUUUUJ

JNUJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBJUUUUUU

DF

*11111111111

1

Sample PointFD010203


12121212121212

2

1

Resut121212121212466706

. 6000126000600

00126110601260

QualUUUUUUJUuBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUUU

DF

1111111111

11


Lab ID: L14500-17Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Sofids 77.88 %SQL16001600100016001600100016008008008008008000000090000001600000800800BOOBOO800800800000iew000600600BOO8001600800000

Result160016001600160010001600160080080032000080VBOOBOO0003601600BOO800800BOD6009000800800800

4AT1Alow600800BOO0008001600

810000BOO

QualUUUUUUUUUJBUUUUUJBUUUUUU

UUUUUUUUUU

U

DF12512512512512512512512512512512512544C125125125125125125125125125125125125

125125125125125125125125125125

M unto areDF Mfcetos tte Mutton Factor.SQL mdfcatos «tf Sampto Quanttaflon Un*.Tht Qua) column tndteatos tie ouafflar appfed to trw ten* by to laboratory or tfwo^ valuator. Refer to

lOHfiMT »34 31 PH GoMer Associate*.

September i997

Matrix: SoH



933-6333

«p.roCOoUDor*o

ParameterDferomochkramettwMCNorobanzent1.1.1.2-TattachlcfoathanaEftyfcanzeneNXp-Xytaneo-XytenaStymnaBnxnotormteopropyfcenzweBremobanzana. . _ _ • . ..i(i AZ-TWi at i Human tana1jZ.3-TikMorapmpanen*Piapytoanzana2-CMoratohiana4-CNorotoluena1 .S.S-Trimettiytoanzenalart-flytytoanzana1.2.4-Trimathyfeanzonasac-Butyt>anzanabopropyttohjana1,3-DtaNarobanzane1.44NcNorobMzamj _g-QljJlhjintmifi*nf

n-Butyfeanzana1 3 JlilUJUlULjl llfa H U KlUIBn*•^ w ww-**nufO(TO(nai t2t4*XI UOtl)lliWU0O0HwtacNorobutadieneHapNhatane1 .3-Trichkmbanzana


Lab ID: L1 461 1-11Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 78.76 %SQL

6

13131313

Result

13131313

Qua!UuuuJBUluuuuJuuUluuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF

11



777777777777777777777777713131313

Result777713377778774777777777 .7713131313

Qua)UUUUBJUUUu

uuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF

11111


Lab ID: L14599-21Date Sampled: 4730/97Percent Solids 80.01 %SQL

66666666666

a12121212

Result666672666

61261212

QualUuuu

JuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuu

OF11

11111111111


Lab ID: L14500-17Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 77.88 %SQL800600•W1OUU

6006006006006008008008008008006008008006008006006006006008006006001600160016001600

Result800800•WlOUU

800600600600800800800

79000800800800800800600600600600600600800800800

1600200000

18001600

Qua!UUuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uu

OF125125

125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125

Not**:AM unto am H9A0.OF Indicates lha Wufcn Factor.

indicates tie Sampto QuanUabon UmtTual column Mfc •Hiilia if mliiiir applied to ihatemK by IhalapiiiaiDryorthedalaMlidaiQf f, to qualifier definition sheaL

lMpoftCrf VOC Report ODKter Associates O

c c cSeptember 1997

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState Coiege. Pennsylvania

933-6333

&i5OCOO1C

o01

ParameterDJchtorodfflunorneBtaneChtoromefftaneVhytCNorUaBromomethaneChtoreettianeTridtoostMometianeAcetoneCarbon DistMdeI.I NcNoroetienaMsQiytane CMotidsTwn-l -DtchtorotfhBO*ij-OkMoresfiana

t^r^tT^^"BromochtoromatianeCHoiufwni2-Butanona1 ,1 ,1 -TrtchtofoeBunaCarbon Tebachtorida1.1-OfchtoropropeneBenzene1,2-OfcMonwtwieTffchtoroetMM1£-£fchtoroprapaneDajrornomeBaneDl UrnOoMilwv wllHIV IM Ml4 MODlJfl Z-FWLULJUUl*cls-1.3-DiGMoropropeneTokienatans-1.34NcMoropfopana1.1 -TrfeNomethana1,2-Ofcromoethane2-HaxanonaTetrachtoroettwne1.3-Dfchtoropropmt


Lab ID: L14500-13Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 79.56 %SQL'13131313131313

13

13

1

Result1313131313131388126o '0a6813600061366013038001390

Qualuuuuuuuuu

ouuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuJuuuu

u

DFf

11111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: LI 4500-4Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Sofids 79.02 %SQL13131313131313888668068136866680881368

13

Result1313131313131366786800

- 8136886818

13

1390 ,

Qua) DFUUUUUUuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuu

u



120ee86

12

12

ResuR12121212121212

10

12

6012088120e0661298

QualUuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuVuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

DF

ff11111

11


Lab ID: L1 4 500- 19Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 82.01 %SQL121212121212128

12

88888801200

0

681266

ResuR12121212121218

17

6128888886861262

2

QualUUuuuu

uuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuu

DF1111111111111111111i111111111111111

Notes: 'Al units are ugfkg.DF indicate* the Wutoon Factor.SQL Mcatosttie Sample QuanttMfon UnUt • .The Qual column Indicates to ousWIer applet! to the result by the taoorator/or the dalavaMalor. Rate to quaHôcfirtlton sheet

ACCESSWcobnmportlCriVOC ReportKVKW7 3-M-99 PU Gokfer Associate* Pag* 25 of 62

September i*97

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTIC*.. CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compound*

Centre County Kepone Site - Re-Design InvestigationState College. Pennsylvania

tr.33-6333

20COCDU>a\CD

ParameterDjbramacManmattianeChtorabenzene1.1.U-TetracNoraethaneQhytoeroenenMHXytaneoOCytaneStyreneBromofonntiopropytoenzen*Bromobenzena1,1,2,2-TelrachtofoethMe1 ,2.3-TricMonpropanen-Propylbenzena2-CMofotokiane4-CMontokMne1,3.STrimelhyfcenzMtttort-Butytoeraan*1.2,4-Trimatfiyfcanxanasec-fiutyftMnzanebopiQpytoluana1.3-OfcMorobanzane1,4-Ofcttorabanzene1.2-DkMarabenzenerteutytwnzanal -Oibramo-S-chtofoprapw*1,2,4-TricttorobanMnaHtxacMorebuMtoneNaphthalenel£3-Trichtorobanzane


tab ID: L 14500- 13Dale Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoWs 79.56 %SQL

66

66

13131313

Result

6666376ee66666

13131313

Qua)uuuuuuuuuu

u. u

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11111



666668666e6e66ee6e660666613131313

Result66e666666639666666e66ft666613131313

Qua! OFUUUUUUUUUU

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

1

111


Lab ID: 114500-10Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 83.33 %SQL

6fte88666660668866ftftftftft8ftft12121212

Resultftftft386666622,8866669ftftft9ftft912121212

QualUUUJ

Uuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11111111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: L 14500-1 9Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 82.01 %SQL~

66ft9999999999998686666.88812121212

Result99999999862666686668

. 6888812121212

QualUUUUUUuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

"OF11111111111111111111

1en

Notes:Al unto are pgfco-DF Mfcates tht Dilution Factor.SQL indicates tw Sample QuanMaten Urn*.

r.R^

Go*-

laboratoiy or the data valuator. ty>*- «o quatifler definition sheet

r Associates C an* 26 0(62

c c cSeptember 1997

Matrix: Sol


Centre County Kepone Site • Pre-Design InvestigationState CoOege, Pennsylvania

933-6333

^^30COOU>cnO

ParameterDfcrtorortfluonwnathaneCNonmetheneVbiylCMortdsBramometfianeCntoroettaneTiic*ilucu*uororoetianeAcetoneCaibon DteuHUe1,1-DtchtaortbweMatfiylsne CMorideHans-i i2vUHunw0iai is1.1-OicWoro«h«ne2 -DhJWUll MFw*OH (Z'tMJ NUiUMMI MBiDinocMoremsfMn*CMontonn2*Butonons1.1.1-TrtcftoreeeianeCarton Tetadtorhfe1.1-OfchtoropropeneBenzene1.2-OfchtoroeftaneIticNoroettisnel DkHanprapsnsDtMpmomstiansBraniodkMommsmans4-Mefiyt-2-Pentarwnecis-1 ,3-Ditlriuiufjiupei wToluenetrsns-1.34Nditoropropens1.1.2-Trkrtororthane1£-DbQfnoetwne2-HsKsnoneTelrschtoroetisns1>Otahtorocn)pane


Lab ID: L14565-2Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 85.64 %"SQL

121212121212126

2

1

1

Result121212121212120000000001200000300012014000

1220

QualUUUUUUUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUUJUUUUU

UUUUJU

DF11111111111111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: L14585-4Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent SoWs 84.98 %SQL

12121212121212

12

012

12

Result } Qual12121212121212001296001001200000

470000120930110121700

UUUUUUUUU

JUU

UUUUUUUU

UUUUU

U

UU

U

DF"111111*1111111



e00

3

1

1

Result13131313131313

13

079600130

22000

13100 •0

Qua)UUUUUUUUU

UUUJUUUUUUUU

UUUUU

UUUU

U

DF

11111111

11


Lab ID: L14585-1DLDate Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 79.07 %SQL0303630303030332323232323232323203323232323232323232033232323232033232

ResuR03030303030313032321132323232323203323232323229323232633223323232033232

QualUU•UUUU

DBUUDJUUUUUUUUUUUUDJUUUUUDJUUUUUU

OF5555S55SSSSS.55555555550555S55555S55

Notes:Al unto are ugfto.DF Meals* to (Mutton Factor. •SQL Meats* the Sample Quantftattn LimitThe Qua) column Mtaatn 9M quaWler eppied to the resuft by he bbontoiy a ttw data vaMator. Refer to quaWfer definition sheet

Qoktar A Paw 27 of 62

Sepiembei .

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pie-Design InvestigationState College, Pennsylvania

33-6333

ParameterDibrornocNoromalhanaCMorobenzena1.1.1 ,2-TafracntorowhaneEtiyfeenzanamji-Xylamo-XytenaStyraneBrornoformtsopropytMnzanaBramobanzana1.1.2>Tetrac«ofoethane_ — — • . . - . . . _

n-Propyfeenzan*2-CHorotoiuene4-CMoretomana1 .3,5-TrimethylMnzianetert-Butytbanzanal,2>Tftmaliiyt>enzanesac-BuiybanzanetopfopyHohiena1,3-Oiditorabanzana1,4-DfcMorobenzen*1.2-OfcMorabenzanan-8utytjanzana1.24)fbreino-3-chlofopropane1Z4-TricMorobanzanaHfmactilfjrohulafianafcliBBij>Mi t*tmnmNapnaiaianal£3-Trichtofobanzane


Lab ID: L 14585-2Date Sampled: 4/29/97PercentSolids 85.64 %SQL

ae6

12121212 I

Result6ae31336a667a66

12121*212

Qua!uuuJ

JuuuuBuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF111111111111111

11111111


Lab ID: L 14585-4Date Sampled: 4/29/97PercentSolids 84.98 %SQL

666aee66666668aee6ftft

. ft866a12121212

Result66622110206626

2500

866ae6666666612121212

Qua)UUU

UUJBU

UUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF1111111111


Lab ID: L1 4585-1Date Sampled: 4/29/97PercentSolids 79.07 %SQL

aeaeeeeae666666666aeaa -aae13131313

Resultaa0425ft8666

1900668aeeeaaaeee613131313

Qua)uUUJ

JUUUU

UUUUUuuuu

• uuuuuuuuu

DF1

11

1


Lab ID: L 14585-1 DCDate Sampled: 4/29/97Percent SoWs 79.07 %SQL3232323232323232323232"¥>*t

3232323232323232323232323263636363

Result32323232283232323232

1900*94£

3232323232323232323232323226636363

Qua)UUUuDJUUUUu

BOUUUuuuuuuuuuuuDJuuu

DFSSS55SSs55SS5S555555555555555

Al unite arauofko.DF indicate* Via Dilution Factor.SQL Indicates the Sampla Quanttafion Urn*.T iaicalijrnniMfcaie» Me viai appMed to the mulatto

ACCESS*. {MtfACtf we Report

to qualifier definition sheet c «gi 29 0162

c c cSeptembbi .997

Matrix: Soi

AMALYTiw%L CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone SHe - Pre-Design InvestigationState CoNege, Pennsylvania

933-6333

Jyi

3DCOo^^J

enovo

ParameterDkrriorodHluorofnetfwneChtoromettwneVInylCMorideBromomeftaneChtoroettianeTI UNumfluoromBftMWAcetoneCarbon DisulMe1,1-OfcNoraelMnejil^M^^— .^^ f**l.in-*-*—MMiyMiB vnonovTnm-i -OchtoneVwnt1.1-OichtooMhm

BrofnochtaramefwwCMoroforn2-Butonont

Carbon TefracNorUeI.l-OichtofoprepeneBenzene1 -OteNoroeffianeTrichhMoetieneI Ofcrtoropropene

BramoofcntomrneflMnt• •• M 1 1 n i

ds-1>OicNoroprepeneToluenelran».lt3-OicNoropropene1,1,2-Tricntoroeffiane1 -Ofcromoetiane2-HexanoneTetrachtoroeftene1.3-OicHoniprepene


Lab ID: L1 450( 6Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoMs 84.01 %SQL190019001500150015001900190074074074074074074074074074019007407407407407407407407407401WIIBWJ

7407407407407401900740740

Result~ 190035000150015001500190019007407403107407407403007402701900740740740740740

40000740740*^f

7401900740

2400007407407401900

160000740

Qua!U

UUUUUUUJBUUU

UJBUUUUUU

UUUUU

UUUU

u

DF125125125125ftf12512512512512512512512544C12512544C12512512512512512512512512512544C1251254<%C125125125125125125125125125



12121212121212

2

126

12

Result12121212121212

2

2

2

Qua!UUUUUUUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DF

111111111111



Result1500150019001900150015001500770770270770770770770770100

1900770770770770770890770770770itm13MU

7702907707707701900360770

Qua!UUUUUUU

' 0UJBUUUUUJBUUUUUU

UUUUUJUUUUJU

DF12512512512544%C12542912512512512512512544C125f 2944C72512S12549C129125125125125125125125125125125125125125

.125125125125


Lab ID: L14500-15Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoMs 81.28 %SQL12121212121212

2

12666061206

ResuR121212121212126619666606126666647066126806612366

QualUUUUUUUUUBUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUU

UUUU

U

DF11

1111

M unto are tigftg.DF MfcatesBw DMton Factor.SQL Mfcatn tit Sample QuanWatton Urn*.The Qud column Mfcatas to qurffler apftfed to *M fesuR by the taborrto^wtttdaUviWaiof-Re^ to quaHw definite »h«it

ACCESStocfflbllraporACtf VOC Report OofdM-AnocIato* Pag§29flf62

September u*97

Matrix: Sot)



933-6333

-r^

soCOCDt-f*

ParameterabromocMoronwtfianeChtorabanzana1 ,1.1 -TatnKhkmethanaEMiyfeenzenemjt-Xyieneo-XylenaStyraoeBfomofonnbopropylbenzeneBromobenzene1.1 jz^TakacNoroethane1^3-TrichtoropropaneA-PrapyttMnzena2-ChtorotoJuene4-Chtoratoluena1.3,5-Tnmelhytienzanetart-Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trinwtnyfeenzvttsac-eutytjanzanataopropyttoluent1.3-OfcNombenzene1,4-OtaHorobenzene1 -OicMofobanzenen-fiulytienzane1.2-Oibfoino-&«Norepnpane

_ ^ — . .. .^ ^f MfmnfSlMiUf t^Ûmttm

HexacHorobuladianaNaphthalana1 ,3-TrichlofQbenzene



Result740740740

1400009500001BOOOO

740740

67000740

45000074017007407409400740360074074074074077074074015001400015001500

QualUUU

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125

Sample PointFO070203


6666666666666666666ftftft66612121212

ResulteQe666666ft6666666ftftftft866612121212

QualUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11



Result770770

. 770770770770770770770770

5BOO770770770770770770770770770770770770770770150036015001500

QualUuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuu

DF12512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512S125125125125125125125


Lab ID: L 14500-1 5Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 81.28 %SQL

ft668ft6666ftft66ftftftft6e6ftftft6ft12121212

Resultftft66466ft66256ft0666ftft6ftft86012351212

QualuuuuJuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uu

OF1

11111

1111

CT*

O

Notoe:Al unit* are uoAQ.DF indicates the Mutton Factor.SOL indicates the Sample Quanttation Unit7" iiloolumiimiicalesiM qualifier applied to the resrt

ACCESS*.10/16/97 &M2BPM Gbw«<-Associate C ••g* 30 0162

Septertw.. .1*97

Matrix: Soil

rANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Keporie Site - Pro-Design InvestigationState College. Pennsylvania

c933-6333

[ Parameter

*a?^^^fCOoiOen•••»

DichtorodMuorornPtianeCMoramattianaVinyl CMortdeBromomeftanaCMororthane

AcatonaCarbon DiuMda1,1-DicMoroetianaMoViytons CMoridaTran*-t,2-Oic«oroeawne1.1-DfcMoroeBiene2 -OcMofopropanada-l -OfcMoroettianaBfomocNofomrihaneClriunfoni2-Butanona1.1.1-TrtcNonattianaCarbon Tefrachbridel.l-OtcMoropropenaBenzene1.2-OfcNoroethaneTrfcNoroaVwna1 -OfchtoroprapaneDftramometanaBfDmodfcrtonmefiane4-MeaiyU-Pantanonads-1.3-DkMmpmpanaToluena

1.1.2-Trichtororth**1.2-Dibromoethane2-HaxanoneTetracNoreettiane1 ,3-OicMoropropane



2

2

1

Result12121212121212

7

2

IN

12

2a12170a

Qua)UUUuUuuuu

tiuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuJuu

u

DF111111

1111111111111111111111



13131313131313aeeeeaeea13aeeeeeeee13

13ae

Result13131313131313aeaaee»aa13aaeee

240aee13eea32e1370a

Qua!UUUUUUUUUBJUU

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF1111 ;11111111111111111111

.11111111111



12121212121212aeeeeeaee12eeaaeeaae12aaeae12aa

Result12121212121212a7

12aaeea24aae12a13aea1216a

Qua)uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

u

"OF"1111

.11

11

11

111


Lab ID: L14500-7Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 81.84 %SQL12121212121212aeeaeaaee12aeeeeaaee12aeaaa12aa

Result12121212121212aa7aaaeae12a

12eeaee12aa

Qua!UU

,UUuuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu .u

DF1111111

11111111111

M units are pgftg.DFMfcatos ha Mutton Factor. .SQL tadfcatn tie Sample Quartitatton LMtTrie Qual column Mfcatos ttie quaWlar appftad to fta rasuR by the bbonMoryOTtheo tavaRo tor.Ra toquaMardalMtkmsheeL

1IV1RM7 T-U-77 Ml Colder Associates Pag* 31 of <8

September i s»97

Matrix: Soil



933-6333

^»5OCOCD10<J1— _

ParameterDibramochloioinethaneChtofobenzane

Ettiytienzmemj>-Xyteneo-XytoeStyrenaBromotonnisopropytMnzeneBfDmobanzena1.1 Z2-TetracNoraathane1 2.3-TftcMoraprapsnen-Prapybenzane2-CMorataluene4-CMofotoluena1 .3.5-Trimelhyt>enzenetert-Butybenzane1 T si T •••••" "" Bin T An at

sec-ButytoanzaneIsopropylloluana1.3-Oichlorobenzanel,4-OlcMorabanzana1 -Oichtonbanzanan-Butytttanzene•* ~ ~"~ T II

l_2.4-Tricrtoro6«iueneHexacMorobuMienellamliil — •—- ~—Neprananne1 £>Trichtorooonxene


Lab ID: L14500-3Date Sampled: 4/22/97PercentSoUds 84.65 %SQL

6

88ft668886

8a12121212

Result

6910

886686ftftft12921212

QualuuuujuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uu

OF1



66668866666886ft668688866613131313

Result8268666ft86

4800666888ft66868a61344413

Qua) 1 OFUJUUuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

JBu

111111111111111111

1



886666666688666668886888812121212

Result666e102688666886688888886612121212

QualuuUU

JUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11

11

1



e66a88a8ft688868668888666612121212

Result66686866866886888886868662312128

QualuUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuj

DF11

111111111

ro

Notes:Al units are pg/kg.DF indicates the Dilution Factor.

^Kfcatetlha Sample Quanlitatton Limit .tf column intfcateBte«iaiitoapplM to M result by 1M iquUtter definition sheet

Cottier ASM clatoi C ta* 320162

September 1997

Matrix: Soil


Volatile Organic CompoundsCentre County Kepone Site - Re-Design Investigation

State Cofege. Pennsylvania

933-6333

•»•«.*•"=0COoo*—CO

ParameterDicMoiodMuonmeVianeChtoroiMttiaMVinyl ChtofkfoBromometMneChtoRMnafleTfchtoroOuoramettanaAcetoneCarbon OfcutM*1.1-OhJJuuefneneMetiytana CMcffdeTiane-l -OcHometwne1.1-OlcMon»thane2>OWiwiio(HOpeiw

BrofnocNorametianeCNorafonn2-fiutanorw1,1.1-TrichtororthwwCarbon Tetachtoride1.1-CMchtoropropeneBenzene_ .* — . . . • — • i

TMcNoroethena1.2-O(chloropropan»DferomometianaBfDnwJkMoromettaha< Mutiyi-2-Pentanonac*»-l.3-Dte«oropropen«Toluenelran»-l ,3-Oiohtonprepene

^^l^ta^^"*2-HexanoneTetracMoroeOwne1.S-Oichtoropropane

Sample PointFD100304D

Lab ID: L 14500-9Date Sampled: 4/22/97PefcentSoKds 82.29 %SQL12121212121212

12

12

12

Resul12121212121212

12aaaa-i

eeae12aaaaa12 .ae

Qua!UUUUUUUUUJUuuuuuuuuuuuuouuuuuuuuuuu

OF

fffIf111


Lab ID: L14500-5Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 82.99- %SQL

121212121212126

a12

12

1

Result12121212121212ae5aea

2

12

12ae

Qua)UuuuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF111111

Sample PointFD1 01011

Lab ID: L1 4500-1 2Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoMs 80.72 %SQL12121212121212a-aaa

12a

12

a12ae

Result12121212121212

2

34

1

1

QualUUUUUU

. UUUJUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

u

DF11111111

11


Lab ID: L14500-8Data Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 88.59 %SQL

111111111111118

.

11aeee811ae

Result | Qual11111111ii1111ae11

118aaeeeeaa11eeaee .1194a

uuuuuuuuu

uuuJuuuuuuuu

uuuuuJuuuu

u

DF11111t11111

11111111111111

Al unto are WK0.DF MkalM ttw CMufion Factor.SQt fndfcates me Sampte Quen«8tton UrttThe Dual column Mfcates 9w quaMer appftad to tie msul by the laboratory or »w data vaKdator.Re^ to quaMarOBfinittan sheet

P«» 334162

Septembei i997

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState Cottege. Pennsylvania

933-6333

=oCOou>en

ParameterDtoomochtoromattianeChtorabanzan*1.1.1 -TebachtoreeViamEViytwnzanemjhXytoneo-XyteiMStyran*BnxnoformhwpropytbanzenaBnNnobenzene1.1 2-TelracMonwlrwneI VTrichtoropioparttn-Propytwnzene2-CMoratohMM4-CWoroWuena1 ,3.5-Trimetiytoenzenetert-Bufybenzane1£4-Trima*iyijenzeneaec-ButyftMnzanttoopropyNoliwneLMNchtorabanzww1,4-Otohtorobenzanal Dfchtofobanzanan-autylMnzamIJ-DibfDrnQ-S^Noropropana1 ,4-TricMonbanzantHaxactriorobutadienaNapntiatanalAS-Trichtorobenzana


Lab ID: L 14500-9Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoWs 82.29 %SQL

12121212

Result

e6

12121212

QualUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

OF111

111111


Lab ID: L14500-5Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoW* 62.99 %SQL

6e

866606

000

12121212

ResuK0

0000

00000

12121212

QualUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DF1

1111


Lab ID: LI 4500- 12Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 60.72 %SQL

000880

0

888

12121212

Result6

86

1100088006

012121212

Qua)UUUUJUUUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DF

1111



800080•08800668O6060000

0811111111

ResuK

612888660

O

00088663311119

QualUUUUJUUUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUJB

DF1

11111111111111

Al unto are ugfto.DF indicate* the Notion Factor.S» indtoatas «w Sample QuanUalion Unit( * column todfcatos tie OjuaWierappfed to the result by the laboratory or the data valuator. P'" ^quatter definition ifteet

1IW1W07 •» •**-'*1 MJ Goiuer Assort C

September i997

Matrix: Sol




933^333

I*^ ^

cx>CDtocnen

ParameterDfcNorodMuoramelhmChtommethmVinyl ChlorideBremomathaneCNoroettianeTricMofoHuoramatianaAcetoneCarbon OtouMMt1.1<OicMoroettwn»MetiyiemCMDride

1.1-DU*we*Mm2 -Dfchtonfvepaneda-1j-DlcMome»ieneBromochhmnwtantCMorofonn2-Butnom1 , 1 ,1-Trichloroethane;Carbon Tetrachtorkto1.1-OtohtoroprapaneBenzene_ — _. . . _TiJcMoroaPianB1 -CNchtonprapmeMvomometiarwBronmScMorameViane

ds-1 ,3-OicMoroprepeneTotueneIrans-I.S-Otchtoropropene1 .1 >TfthtoioMhant1£-Dftmmodrtant2-HexanoneTetracMoroethane1,3-DicMoropropant


Lab ID: L14500-21DateSampted: 4/22/97Percent Solids 65.62 %SQL12121212121212

-

2

12

12

Result12121212121220

S

12

12

12

Qua!UuUuuuuuBuu

. uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuu

OFf

*f111111111111111

111


Lab ID: L14500-18Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Sofids 81.68 %SQL121212121212120

12

12

12

Result12121212121212

20

012000004060

120400012106

QualUUuuuuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuJuuuuu

OFf

111111111.11

11


Lab ID: L 14500-1 6Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 78.75 %SQL1313131313131300

3

130

13

Result13131313131315

3

' 3

13430

Qualuuuuuu

uuBUUUJuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuu

OFf1111111111111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: L14500-14Date Sampled: 4/22/97PercentSoWs 85.3 %SQL12121212121212000

2

1200060

1206

Result12121212121212

2

12000001260

Qua)UUUUUUUuuJBUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF

Al untts are uglka.OF Mfcate* Vw Mutton Factor.SQL Mfcato* t» Sample QuanWatkm UnitThe Qua) column Motes tw queWtar appiad to the result by tie laboratory or MoatavalUalor.Ratar to quafiflaro llnitionihaal

September .097

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTIC/*!. CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds


3DCOO

fr\w»

ParameterDfaomocNoremalhanaCNcfODanzane1 .1 ,1 -TetracMonalhanaEttiyttenzenam -Xylaneo-XytaneSlyreneBromotormboprapybenzanaBromobanzene1.1 -TelracMoroethane1,2.3-TrJGhtorapropanen-Propylbenzena2-Chtorotoluena4-Chtorotoluana1 ,3,5-TrimrthyfcanzanetBrt-Butytoanzene1 ,4-Tnmathylianzanasac-Butytianzanahopropjrttoluena1.3-OJGntorobanzene1.4-Ochtorobanzana

n-Bubtoenzane1 -Dibramo-9-chtoroprepane1.2,4-TrichtorabenzanaHaxaoMorabutadi0naNapMhalana1 .s-Tnchtoiobanzaoa


Lab 10: L1 4500-21Dale Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 85.62 %soV

ft86

12121212

Result

«8a6eaeee6

12121212

QualuUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF1

11


Lab ID: L1 4500- 18Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 81.68 %SQL

66aeae688aeeeea66Baeeaa

812121212

Result6eee36688a4aee6B6Baeee68B12121212

QualUuuuJuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF*



a66866B668e68aee68B6aaa6813131313

Resultae

. ee8a6Baa20eB8BBaeea66aea13

- 181313

QualUUUUUuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uu

OF

11

11

1

Sample PointFO1 30304

Lab ID: L 14500-1 4Date Sampled: 4722/97Percent Solids 85.3 %SQL

6ae66aaa«6B8B6866ae66a

e612121212

Resultaee

e2888866ae8e66BB12121212

QualUuuuuuuUUuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF

Notes:Al unto are ugfto.OF Indicates tw IMuKon Factor.SQL indicates tha Sample QuanbWton Limit

* column indicates to quaMnr applied to the rest* by the laboratory or the data vaWator.

% Jt_.. J

qualifier deMfion sheet

10/16W7 3:3*31 PM GoWr Associates c ag* 36 of 62

September ia97

Matrix: Sofl




933-6333

*rm3D

CDU3G\•D*

^ .

ParameterOcMonxMuoramethaneCMoromethane --,Vinyl CMorioj*DromomettianeChtaroelhBneTrtcMorolluommaBMmAcetoneCartxmDisu)MeI.t-DfchtoroetheneMnbyMne CMonoeTram-1,24NcMoroefiene1.1-OicMororthane2,2-OicMoropiooanecÛ-Dtcrtororthene

CMofofOffli2-Bulanona1.1,1-TrtcNoroetfanaCarbon TelracMorUe1 ,1-OicMofopropeneBenzene1 -OfchtoroethaneTrlchtonetNnel -OichtorapfopaneDttmmomattane

< Mrthyt-2-Pentononeci»-1>OicMofopn)peneToluene

_ _. » .VBRt'l ,iMJ*v]ikU0pfQp6nt)1.1.2-TrtcMoroeBiane1.2-Ofcromoethane2-HexanoneTetrachtoroefiene1.34)kMoroprapane


Lab ID: L1 4500-2Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Sofefs 84.86 %SQL«121212121212

--

12

12

12

ResuR~ 12

121212121212

12

12

«

Qua!UUUUUUUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu

DF

11

1111111



11111111111111aaee•eaa11aeeeaaaa8110ftaae116B

.Result11111111111111a

i

1

Qua!uuuuuuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF

11

11



12121212121212

2

1

1

Result12121212121212ae1*aae6

2128ft0Ba3a8

12a388a123a

Qua!UUUUUuuuuBUuuuuJuuuuuuJuuuuuJuuuuJu

OF


Lab ID: L1 4 524- 10Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 79.67 %SQL

13131313131313aaaaaeeaa13aaaaaBaaa13eeaaa13ae

Result13131313131317

24

313aeaaae6ae1385aea13aa

dualUUU

uu .

uuBUUuuuJuuuuuU -uuuuuuJuuuuuu

DF111111

11111

At unto are ugrttg.DF Indicates tw Mutton Factor.SQLWtcatett»Sampl«Qu8rtttattooLmLThe Qua! column Mfcato* Via qutffltar appBed to He muR by ttte or he data vaMator. Refer to quaWfar fetation sheet

GoMer Associate* Pag* 37 of 62

Septembei i997

Matrix: Sod

ANALYTK-ML CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds


SI33-6333

=0COotoenoo

ParameterDibfomochtonmeaianeChioiobenzeneI.I.U-TetracfttofoettwneEtttytbaroenemjhXyleneo-XytoneStyreneBnxnobrnIscpropytoenzMMBroinobenzene

1 3-TricMoroprapanen-Pnpyftjenzane2-CMoratolueM4-ChtamtoJuene1 ,3.5-Trimelhyttjenxenetert8uK«eraeM

eee4uh4benzeneboprapyitoluane1.3-DichtofQbencem1.4-DicMonbanzanai -Dicnlombaraenen-BulytMnzianei Nbcomo-Mtorapropane1£4-TricMomoenzeneHexachlorotMitadieMNaphthalene1 Z3-Trichlorebenzene


Lab ID: L14SOO-2Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Sotate 84.86 %SQL

6

12121212

Result6ee•e

12121212

Qualuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF

f111

Lab ID:Date SiPercentSQL

6666666666

6888868866866611111111



666e666666«8666666e66e66611111111

ResuR6666e66686666666688866e6e11111111

Qua!UUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF1111111111111111111

1

Sample PointFCM 40708


86e6668688886«8668888686812121212

Result866e36888888866e666a8866812121212

QualUUUUJUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF*

111111


Lab ID: L 14524- 10Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent SoWs 79.67 %SQL

686886686666666666ee8668813131313

Result6686668

6e6888666e13131313

QualUU4JUJUUuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF1

11

ACCE

Alunitearaugftg.OF indicates the Dilution Factor. *SCH- Indicate* the Sample Quanttatton Until

al column indicates the qualifier appied to to result by the bbOfaloryorthedatavaMator.P^ > quarter definrtwn sheet

Goner Associates c

September 1997

Matrix: Soil



State CoRege, Pennsylvania

933-6333

2*ZDCOCDtOcn—ô

ParameterDk toraWuororneVwteCMonmetttaneVinyl CMortteBromomeBianeCNoroattianeTrichkNoauofomethaneAcetoneCarbon DisuMe1.1-OfcNoroeBieneMntiyiane Claw ioeTian*-l£-Otahtonefiene1.1-Ofchtocoetiane2£-OfcNoropiopanecta-l -OicMocoeBMneBromochtorometianeCMorotam2-Bulanone1.1.1-TricMoreettianeCartwnTemcNoride1.1-OfcMorcpropeneBenzene1.2-0ichton)effianeTricHoreetMfieU-DfcNoroprepaneMmomometoaneBrornootc«oromrthane4 Mettiyl2-Penlanoned»-1 .34MchtoraprapeneToluenelrans-1 ,3-DioMorepropene1,1.2-TricMoroethane1,2-Otorornoetfiane2-HexanoneTetracMoroetherw1>OfcMoroprepane


Lab ID: LI 4524-1 2Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 81.32 %SQL12121212121212

12

1

Result1212128121212

2

12

12

Qua)UUUin•IBUuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

f ,uuuu

DF11

1



. 886881288886888612888881286

Resul1212121212121286476888831268888308661281888612588

QualUuuuuuuuuBUUUUUJuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

DF



13131313131313

3

86813886881368

Result1313

813131368ft-6686681386886688813

" 8

13

QualUUuJBUUuuuBUuuuuouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11111111111111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: L1 4524-1 7Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 82.41 %SQL12121212121212

1208888886612688 -661288

Result1212127121212861186866812888686686 '1288

12

QualuuuJBUUu

. uuBUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11

111111111111111111111

Ai unfts are ugfkg.DF mac MB i tie Dilution Factor.SQL todfcam tw Sample QuanHabon Urn*The Qual column Mfcatot tie quaffffer appBed to Pw resut by ttw

ACCCSStatn*1V«portC* VOC ftaport

or the data vaktator. Refer to quaMtar definition sheet

GoMer Associate*

September .

Matrix: Soil

ANALYDCML CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Destgn InvestigationState College, Pennsylvania

2>^3DCOCDUD

ParameterDtoorrmchJoronwlhaneCMorobenzene1,1.1,2-TetrachtoroethaneEttiyfeenzeneaxp-Xyteneo-XyteneStyranaBromofonnbopropytMnzeneBromobenzerie1 .l -Tetrachkmelhane143-Trichtorapropanan-Propyttwnzena2-Chtorototuene •4-ChtoratolMne1,3>Trimtthyto*uenetenVBulytMnzena1 ,4-Tiimetiybenzene*efr6utytwnzembopropyHoluene1.3-OichtorDOenzena1,4-OicHorobenzene1 .2-OfeMorabanzenen-Butyfeanzanel -Oibramo-3-chtoroprepana1^4-TncMorotmnzeneHexacMOfODutadMnaNaphthalene1 ,3-TricMorobanzane


Lab ID: L14524-12Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 81.32 %"SQL"

888aa6686a

12121212

Resutt

aa6e686

aee68a12121212

QualUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF111

11



aeea886eeea6686aaea88886a12121212

Resulta8842146ae610e6eeeae86e886812121212

QualuuuJ

Juuuu

uuu

. uuuUUuUUUUUUuuu

DF11/11111111111111



aeeeee6666eaeeeee8886ae6a13131313

Resulte68aeeee66886aeeaa686888813131313

QualuuUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11

11111111111111111111


Lab ID: L 14524-1 7Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 82.41 %SQL] Result

8686eeaa8a8866aeeaeaea6a612121212

aae6ee6ae68866aeee6aeeeee12121212

Qua)UUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11

1111111

roo

Note*:AH unto are MgftQ.DF indteatet (he Dilution Factor.SQL indicates ttw Sample QoanWabon Urn*.

H ooturrn Indicates ttw qualifier appfed to tte result by the laboratory or the datavaMator

ACCESS* J1<V1«JB7 3-34-14 Ml

,Rr^ "i

GOtavT

-> qualifier definition (beet

Associate* c •g* 40 of 62

September i 7

Matrix: Soi

c cANALYTIC*!. CHEMISTRY RESULTS



SJ3-6333

s*roCOOUDCÎV5rvj

ParameterDkMonxMuorameVianeCHoromethaneVinyl ChtorktaBfocnomeBnneChtoroefanaTricMototuommrthaneAcetoneCarbon OJsuMde1.1-DkMoroelnamHeviylene GMorknTrarMvl -CNchtoroeViene1.1-CMcMoroettHne2 -OtcMofDpropanati»-1.2-OicMaroett»nePromochtoromeftane

2-Butanone1.1.1-TrichtoroeJhaneCarbon Tatrachlortilt1.1-OichloropiopanaBenzene1.2-Dichlorodhane

1.2-OfchtoropropaneDfcromomrthaneBromoolcNaromethanaA • j • iii I «* ffl • nlaam«»4-M6myh2-f*enuMion0ds-1 .3-OtchtoroprepeneToluenetrara-l,3-DicMoroproperw1.1 -TifcMofoetriane1£-Otmmoetiana2-HexanoneTeavchtoroetwna,1.3-Dichloropropane



3

13

1

ResuH1313130131313

3

13

13

QualUUUJBUUUuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF111111

1i



0

0000

0

12000

000000120 "000

01200

Result1212120121212001000

000012000006000

12000

0

01200

QualUUUJBUUUUuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF

11

11


Lab ID: ' L14585-5Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 84.71 %SQL

12121212121212 -0

0000

0

00012

1

1

Result12121212121250050

0

000O1200

000300012011

12

H

QualUUUUUUJBUUJ

.uuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuu

OF*111

11

11

11

11



12121212121212

01200

0000

00012000

001200

Result121212121212120

0220000

03120

0000ft0001200

0

00

12170

Qua)UUUuuuuuuBUuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuu

DF11111111111111111111

11

AN units are pg/kg.DF indtertM the Mutton Factor.SQL todfcates tie Sample Quanttation UrrttTM Qual column tadkaleB to qiiaNtoappled to Ihemut

ACCESStembnrapcvflCil VOC Rflportinflow a a* as MI Colder Associate* P«Bt41ef«2

September .

Matrix: Soil



H33-6333

39vSOCOCD

OP*

ParameterDibrornochkwomethaneChtorobenzene1t1.1>TetracNoroethaneEtiybenzenemj)-Xy)eneo-XyteneStyreneBromofonnhopropybenzflneBromobenzene1.1^2-TrtrachtororthanelAS-Trichtoropropanen-Propytwnzene2-Chtorotoluene4-CNorotoluene1.3,5-Trknethyfcanzanetort-Butylbenzene1.2.4-Trwwttiyitoenzane•ec-Butyfeenzeneteopropyaolijene1,3-Oichlorobenzene1.4-Otohtorobenzene1,2-Dichtorobanzenen-BulylMnzene_ _ _ „ _ _ .l -fjiiMQniQ'w-uJiWt iflQpviv1,2,4*Tricttorob«nzeneHexacMorobuladtoneHiaÛti mlmiimNapnviMene1.2,3-TricMorobenzene


Lab ID: L 14524- 15Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solid* 78.61 %SQL

eft

13131313

Result

86

1371313

QualUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuu

OF



ftftft80ft09ft66666ft66ft6666ftftft12121212

Result6ftfte06ae8888666666606ft6ft612121212

QualuuuuuuuuUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

•u

DF11111111111111111111111111111

Sample PokrtFD160304


6666666668888666688

12121212

Resultftftftft102ft66615ftft6666

12121212

QualUUuu

JUUUUBUuuuuuuuuuuu •uuuuuu

OF



666888888668ftft88866666ft6612121212

Result68885ft66ft62666866688666ft612121212

QualuUUUJUUUUuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11111111

IVJIX)

rAM unite are wfcQ.OF indicates the Mutton Factor.SUindicalfts to Sample Quwittatnn Unit

4 column Indicates KM quitter applied to the rest* by the

4xrtC4VOCR*Mft10/16/97 3:3*36 PM

r.Rf*-"*

GO**-.

or the data vaMator. ty*~ *•* quitter detrition aheaL

Associate* C *p 42 of 62

c c cSeptember id97

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigatkmState College, Pennsylvania

933-6333

| Parameter

J*roCOou>roCO

DfcJitoiuoHluoromelhaneChtorometianeVlnytCNori*BromomethaneCMoraetianeTrichtotqfluorometMneAcetoneCarbon Dimlfkto1.1-DtentoroetMneMofliylonB CNwUeTww-1.2-Dfc«oroetwnel.t-OiUtooeliane24E-Ochtofoprapamds-l -nehtoraeVieneBromocMoraraetianaChtofotonn .2-ButMOne1.1>TriJHu<ueBiaiieCarbon TO-acHorioeM*OkMorepropaneBenzenej n. r* " * - - ~*i ,2-DiijiJoiMroMTrtcMonefNMIJ-OfctttoropropaneDrbromomethaneBfomocftchtoromMhane4 M0tt)jrl-2-Pefltanoned»-1 ,3-rXchtoropropmToluenelrans-1>Dichtoropropane1.1 ,2-Trichtorodhane1 -Ofcromoettwne24texanoneTetrachtoroethm1,3-Ofchtoropropene



128

12

12

Result1212124121212

2

. -

1

Qua)UUuinJoUUUUUBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11

1111



12121212121212

8012068

2

12

Resuft121212121212

12a006800ae12

1240

Qua)UUUUuuJuu

uuuuuuuuVuuuuuuuuu

uuuuJu

OF111f11111111111f1111111111111111111


Lab ID: U 4585-6Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 77.56 %SQL

131313131313130a66

13808

138

13

Result1313131341313800

0

0

0

0081368668668813a108801300

Qua!UUUUJUU

'uU

UUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF11111111tf1111111111111111

1111


Lab ID: L1 4585-7Date Sampled: .4/29/97Percent Solids 81.89 %SQL

12121212121212

68128a86

12

1

Result1212121212121200700008a12aa8886 -8861261086a123a

Qua!UuuuuuJuu' •uuVuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuJu

DF1111111111111111f11111111

Al unto art W*0-DF MfcaMtM MUton Factor.SQL Mfcatot IM Sampto Quanttrton Un*.The Qua! column fctfcatet tie quriiffer appfod to ffw rewt by He taboratoryortfieo^tivaMaW R«f«toqua«wdeftn«ton»heet

Colder Associate* pK»43ofB2

September .997

Matrix; Soil



933-6333

1

_

3DCOaUDor*ro*r

ParameterDibramocMororrathaneCMorobenzene1.1.1£-T«bachtaroetfianeEttiyKwnzenenxp-Xytonao-XyleneStyraneBromofORnleopropylbenzeneBromobenzene1.1 A2-Tefachtoroethan<1A3-Trichtoropropanen-Propytbenzene2-CNQrotohiene4-CWoroWuene1,3>Trimetiylbenz0netert-Bulyfcenzertt1 ,2.4-TrimathytMnzwwsac-ButytienzanetoopropyHoluena1,3-DWitorobwuane1<44fcMorabanzene1,2-DicMarobenzenen-Butytjenzane1.24)ibrom»44Moropropane1£4-TrtaMorooenzenaHexachkNObutedleneNapMhatana1 .3-TrtcMorobanzena


Lab ID: Li 4524-2Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 83.44 %SQL"

e6666e6e

12121212

Result

ee6666666

12121212

Qua!UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DF111

1



666ft8ft666686666ftft0

12121212

Resultee6672666ftftftft66666e

12121212

Qua!UUUU

JUUUUJBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DF•j

111


Lab ID: L 14585-6Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent SoWs 77.56 %SQL

ftftftft6ft66666ftft8686

13131313

Resultft666826686 •116666666

2713138

Qua!UuUu

JuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuBuuJB

DF11111111111111111



686868666688686668688888812121212

Result66668268667668666686686688121212

Qua!Uuuu

JuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuJBuuu

DF1111111

1

Not**:Al units are pg/kg.DF MicalM the Dilution Factor.SQL todfcales Ha Sample Quanbtatoon urrtt

<ala)lurni indicates tie quaWar applied to the result by the laboratory or tw data vaKdator

4WrtCtfVOCftap«ttanuar i %«ia PU Gow

*<» quafefer definition sheet

* Associates C •gt 44 ol62

nberi;*97September

Matrix: Sol


Volatile Organic CompoundsCentre County Kepone SHe - Pie-Design Investigation

State Cottege, Pennsylvania

&I33-6333

1 "

^*IDGOCD

cnroen

ParameterHcMomdmuoranelnanaCMoromethane :VkiylCNofidaBromomeftanaChkraetianaTrictaorofluotomrthanaAcatonaCarbon DiiaMde1.1-OicNoroettane• J. MI. J» u • fljijn -* -•— -mwiywfw cmonoaTram-l CMcMofDatiane1.1-OicMoro*hane2£-OicMoropnpana .ds-1>Dicr*Draetwna

CMorofofnt2-Butanone1,1,1-TrichkKoathaneCarbon TatracNoridaIJ-DkttoropfopanaBenzeneU-Ohrtororth«naTifcJJmuatiaiial>DtchtoropnpanaabromomrthanaBronudKNonxTMtiane1 HaBiiil T ririMMMMi^ * pfiW if ptv'raniMMvTOdt-1,3-DfcNoropropaneToluenetrant-l,3-DtaMoroprepanei.1>Trichloroetiana1 -ttbromoetiana2-HaxanonaTefcacMofostwna1.3-Olchtoroprapana

Sample PointTF010304

Lab ID: L14599-8Date Sampled: 4/30V97Percent SoSds 80.42 %SQL

12121212121212

2

12

12

Resutt12 ~121212121249

12

19

12

QualUUUuuu

JuBUUU

" UUUJuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuu

DF11

111

3



131313

131313

3

13

1

Result131313

1313-8869800006136600O0

666136ft666 .1360

Qual | DFuUuuuuJuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuu

11

1111

1111



30303030303030

3061303030303030303030813030303030613030

Result616101

01616123030303030303030303061303030303015303030

•6130110303030613030

QualUUUuu

"U

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJOuuuuuDuuuuuu

DF55 ..S5555555S55S5S5555S5555555555555S


Lab ID: L1 4545- 11Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 83.48 %SQL1500150015001500150015001500750750750750750750750741row

750150075075075075075075075075075015007507507507507501500750750

ResuN1500150015001500150015001500750750120075075075075075031015007507507507507503207507507501500750

2100075075075015002900750

QualUUuuUUUUUBUUUUUJUuuuuuJuuuuu

uuuuu

DF12512512512512512512512512512512512512512544CIZ5125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125

Al units am uDftg.DF indicates Ihe (Mutton Factor.SQL ftftcatos tha Sampto QuanBiaiion LbritTha Qual column Mtaatas «w quaMer appBad to the nsuHbythe or flia data vaidntor. Rater to Qualffiar daflnibon shaat

GoMor Associates Pig* 45462

September ia*7

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAI. CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pro-Design InvestigationState College, Pennsylvania

933-6333

s*=0COCDto0%noo^

ParameterDibromocNorafnetfiantChtofobnzens1.1,1 j-TmacNoroalhaneEtjyttMnzenenxp-Xytaneo-XytentStywneBfomofuiiiilaoprapyttMnnntBrocnobenzene1 .1 2-TetracMoroelhane1.2.3-Trichtoropropenen-PmpylMnz*ne2-CWoroWuene4-CMorotoluene1 ,3,5-TrimethyRMnzeiwtoftV6utyt)enzeM

sec-ButytMnzaoeIsopropytoliiene1,3-OichlorobenEen*1.4-Oicbtorotoenzene1.2-Ofcbtarotoennntn-Butytoenzene1 T l"Vli T liliiin iiini in ••)•1 •ZHMBHOTVit'U BHI J* U|MI 10

1,2.4-TricntorubenztneHexacNorobuladieMNaphthalinelt2.3*TiichloH)beozen>



066000600066866868006600012121212

Result0008413400004000O

0O

3000

0

0

0

0

12121512

Qua)UUU

JUUuuJuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuBu

DF

111

111

11



000080

0000000

13131313

Result000

602666621668680

O

006666613131313

QualUuuu

juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF111

11

11


Lab ID: L 14545- 13Date Sampled: 424/97Percent Solids 82.57 %SQL

3030303030303030303030303030303030

3030303030303061818161

Result301730140780180303030303030303030303030303030IS870303061418101

QualuJOuo0DuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJODuuuuuu

DF5555555S5555555S5555S5555555S



1500150015001500

Result750

1400750

4400015000032000750750280750520750750750750280750750750750750750

10000750750

1500150011001500

QualU

U

uuJuJuuuuJuuuuuu

uuuuJBu

DF12512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512512519*9£9

125125125125125125125125125125125

Al units ara ugAto.OF ndtoaMs Bw Driubon Factor.SQL todtaatss the San** Quanttation Lin*TK ' cohmninoicrtes the quafcfier i«^ to the result by to tab^

ACCESSbok \

-"MaSSer definition sheet C

c c cSeptember i £>97

Matrix: Son


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState Cotfege. Pennsylvania

933-6333

XV30

CJOUD

rO•

ParameterDichtoroditjcjroinrthMM " "

Vinyl ChloridePromuiiieliaiB

TrichtoroftuoroniirthaneAcetoneCarbon OisuMdaf .l-DfcNoroetieneftMhytane Chloride

1.1-DlchtoroatieneW-Oichloropropaneda-l flklduHMOuiM

. IbUiUUAJilumiMVMie !

CMorotorm2-Butanone1.1.1-TrtchtoroethanBCarbon Trtracrtortd*1.1-Dtchtoroprepene :Benzene_ -> _. , _ î vKJeUIMVWTrichtoHieaiem \1 -DtehtorapmpanePteomomathaneBromodtahtoromrthane ,4 Mrthyt 2-Pentanonecfe-l.3-Oich)oropropemToluenetrans-l.34Ncreoroprapene. . _ . _. .i »i ,Z*TI NJ mmu kwW1.2-Dtoromoetiane2-HexanoneTetfadiluioalnene . :

1>Otchtoropropane


Lab ID: L14545-14Dale Sampled: 4/24/97Percent SoWs 76.84 %SQL6565656565656533

: 333333333333333365333333333333333333653333333333653333

Result6565656565

190033333333333333333365333333333320333333653322333333653333

QualUUuuuuOuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJDuuuuu

JOuuuuuu

DF5ss5555555

-55555 i55555555555555555555

Sample PointTF03Q304

Lab ID: L14S66-7Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 82.48 %SQL

121212121212126

612

12

12

Result12121212121256766136666661066666666612666661266

QualUuuUJuuLJUBUUUUUUJUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11

11


Lab ID: L14566-6Date Sampled: 4/2897PercentSoHds 62.26 %SQL6161616161616130303030303030303061303030303030303030613030303030613030

Result616161616161270133039

3030303030303030303030373030306130

12000303030615030

QualUUuUJuuLJUBJUUUUUUJUUUUUJUuuuuJuuuu

u

OF555555 '!

5S55S55555

' 55555555.5555S5SS5S5

Sample PointTF030708D

Lab ID: L14566-16Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent SoMs 62.77 %SQL6060606060

60303030

303030303060303030303030303030603030303030603030

Result606060606060120303019303030303030603030303030303030306030

2400303030604230

QualU

: UUuuuL

UJuJBUuuuuuuuuu0uUJuuuuuJuuuu

u

DFs5s5Sss5S55555S5SSS55S555S55555SS55

NotedAl unto are ugftg.OF Mfcatos «M Mutton Factor.SQL Mfcatoa He Sample QuanWaeon UrrttTrw <Xrt coh«m Indkasn tw oueMler apptotf to trw resul

A(XESStoe.mMV ftnCal VOC RiportQoldar A

September.

Matrix: Soil



3,13-6333

3DiZOCOCDVOcnroGO

ParameterDibromocMoromaVwwCNorobsnzans1 ,1,1 -TeMchtoraeBiantEftytoensmnxp-Xytonso-XytansStymwBromoionQlaopropyRMnaneBramobenzem1 .1 2-TMCKMonwttUM1.2.3-TffcNampn)|»Mn-PropyttMnzsne2-CNon**im4-CNorotalume1 ,3,9-TnfnMnyDMizenetort-Butytwnzsm1.2.4-TrinisftyftMnzenssac-Butylbwuww(•opmpytokjsne1.3-DicMonb»flE*ae1,4-Dfchkxobenzam1.2-Dfchtaratannmn-Butytoenzans1 -O*romo4<«oropropaoe1.2,4-TrichtanbsnzsmHexachtorobuiadtamNapMhatant1.2,3-Trtcttorotwru**


Lab ID: Ll 4545-1 4Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 76.64 %SQL3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333365656565

Result33333332200633333333319333333333333333333333314333350656565

Qua!UUUJODOUUUUJOUUUUUUUUUUUJOUUJOUUU

OF55555555555

• 555555555555555555


Lab ID: U 4566-7Date Sampled: 4/26/97Percent Solids 82.48 %.SQL

666666ft6666666666666666«ft12121212

Result666482666666666666666666612121212

dualuuuj

juuuu


DF

11111111111



Result303030

130006500014000

30306530130302230302630333030303030303061616161

Qua)UuujJjuu

uJuJuuJu

uuuuuuuuuUJUJ

DFs5555555555555555555555555555



Result303030

2500150002900303046306630163030IS30233030303030303060606060

Qua)UUUJJJuu

uJuJuuJuJuuuuuuuuuuu

DF55555555S5S5S555555555555555S

Notes:Al unto am po/kg.DFMfcates tie Dilution Factor. •SQL Mfcatn the Sampto Quanttation Unit1> -HcakjmncftcatotthequaUer applied to 0* result by the laboratory or Ihe data vahdator. Ref -quahfierdefinrtion sheet

orflCMVOCftapartiaiOS73:M:41PU C 4* 48 Of 62

c c cSeptembe* .997

Matrix: Sou


Centra County Kepom Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigationState Cotege. Pennsylvania

93*6333

23"=0COf iIDcr\roID

Parameterni 1 1 r> —-ntJHMwmuwununam

VtnylCNoriOeBromometoneChtotaethaneTiMtoraOuorometoneAcetoneCarbon DtouBde1,1-OfchbroeeieneMethytenaCWorWe

1.1-OicMoroeBiane

ca>1 0lcntoroaflMnaBromochtorometianeChtarofonn2-Butanonet.l.l-TiUtouelhaneCarbon TetracNorMa1.1-DlcMoropropaneBenzene1£4XcMoroettianeTrtcrferoetane1.2-OUtonpropeneOammomattaneBrotnodkMoroinaViane44fletiyt3-Pentanoneca>1,3-OicNoropnpenaToluenetrant-l.3-OtoNoropropgna1.1.2-TrkWoroethane1,2-OJbromoeOiane2-HaxanoneTetrad iknoelrtene1 .3-Ottttmciopene


Lab 10: L14566-9Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 82.01 %SQL6161616161616130303030303030303061303030303030303030613030303030613030

Result6161616161611501330373030303030306130303030301603030306130

30003030306112030

Qua!UUuUJuuLJU8UUUUUUUU0Uuu

uuuuuJuuuu

u

DF5SS5555S5S5555S5565555555S5SS555555


Lab ID: L14566-10Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solkts 77.64 %SQL64

64

64646432323232323232323264323232323232323232643232323232643232

Result

64

6464120323221\94£

32323232326432323232329603232326432

060032323264

45032

Qua!UUUuuuLUJUJBUUUUUUUUUUUU

UUUUUJuuuu

u

DF5555555555555555555555555«555555555


Ub ID: L 14599-2Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 83.34 %SQL150015001500

15001500150075075075074A/9U

750750750750750150075075075075075075075075075015007507507507507501500750750

Result15001500150015001500150016007507507507507507507507507501500750750750750750

17000750750750

.1500750

85000007507507501500

590000750

Qua!UUUUUU

UUUUUuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

DF12512512512512512512512512512512S12544C129125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125


Lab ID: L 14599-5Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SQBds 84.04 %SQL1500150015001500150015001500740740740740740740740740740150074074074074074074074074074015007407407407407401500740740

Resuft1500

1500150015001500150074074074074074074074074074015007407407407407409907407407401500740

4700007407407401500

41000740

Qua!uuuuuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUU

UUuuu

uuuu

u

DF12512512544C125725125125125125125^tf. '29

1254*C125

125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125

Al units are (jgftg.OF Indicates tw Mutton Factor.SQL m*ca*M tie SwnpteQuantHation UnitThe Qua! column todfcates (he quaffier appRed to Bie re** by ttw laboratory or to data valuator. Refar to

ACCESSWc-mbttiparfiCriVOC toport Pm « or 62

September .

Matrix: Soil



,,53-6333

[ Parameter

j^

=DCOOUD

COO

OibioinochtoromethaneCNofobanzene1 ,1 .1 -TetrachtoioMhaneEttiyttwnzanenUp-Xytonao-XytaneStyianeBramofcrnitsopropyttMnzMWBromobanzene1.t;U-Tatrachloroelhanel >Tiichlaraprapamn-PrapytMnzene2-GMorakilueM4-ChtoraUuane1.3,5-TfimelhytMnzenetert-Butyfienzene1.2.4-TrimettiylMnzen*sec-BuiytMnzana

1,3-OicNoiobeiizene1.4-Oichtombanzane1.2-Ofchtorobanzenen-Butytoenzene^ÔiHoaiO'^SHiHOîo^fM1,2.4-TricNofODanzeneHexaditorebutodianaNapMhatone1A3-TricMoJObanzene



30303030303030303061616161

Resutt303030

20004400260030305130

270030303030

3020303030303030

61616161

Qual [ OFUUUJJJuu

uJuuuuJuJuuuuuuUJuuUJUJ

55555S5S555555555555555555S55


Lab 10: L14566-10Date Sampled: 4728/97Percent Solids 77.64 %SQL323232323232323232323232323232

32323232

3232323264646464

Result323232

180012000240032328032

160032323232

32233232323232323264646464

Qualuuu

uu

u

uuuuJuJuuuuuuuuuuu

OF55555555555555555555555555555


Lab ID: L 14599-2Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Sohto 83.34 %SQL750750750750750750750750750750750750750750750

7507507507507507507507507501500150015001500

Resutt750750750

5100002600000350000

750750700075037007501500750750

•3AAAzoou7501200750750

750750750741f ov

1500150015001500

Qualuuu

u"uu

u

uu

u

uuuuuuuuuuu

OF"125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125

125125125*«1f9

125125125125



Resutt740740740

160000640000170000

7407405000740

39000740110074074041AA12007407407407407407407407407401500150015001500

QualUUU

uu

u

u

uu

uuuuuuuuuuuuu

~DF12512512512512512512512512512512512512512512544C129125125125125

12512512549C129

120125125125

Notes:AM unto are M/ty.OF indeatos the [Mutton Factor.SQL ndfcato* tie Sample QuanUatoo Limit

'+ column indicates the quaWer applied to the rmuK by the labwatoiy or the data valuator

ACCESSM^10H6IB7 3:3*42 PU

• -> guaMier definition iheet

Associates C <• 50 Of 62

c c cSeptember i»97

Matrix: Sofl



933-6333

j3»rot^^^*fOUk9

^ ^CO—

ParameterDichlorodmuoromathaneCNoremethanaVbiytCMorideBremoraetiane

TricNoroBuorafnsVianeAcetoneCartKmasuMde1.14NchtoreetheneMeViytane CntorideTnvis-l OfcMoioetiene1.1-OkJftjiuetBBue2£-Ofchtoraf>opene

BiwnoohtonmrihaneCMorafonn2-Buamone .1.1>TrtcMoreettianeCartJonTetrachtoride1,1-OichlonpropeneBenzene1.24NcMoroeBianeTrichkNMttMne1,2-Dfchtoroprepene— _ —

Bromodfchtoromrthane4- Metfiyf 2-Penlanoneds-1.3-DicNoiopiopeneTolueneoans-l>Dichtoropropene- - — * - • • • ~1i i i i1 (1 jZ" 1 1 ILlUm UV U 6*1 l»

1.2-MromMftttne2 1 lai ••• n n ••nexanoneTeVechtoioslhene1.3-Dfchioroprepane


Lab ID: L1 4599- 13Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SoMs 78.07 %SQL

13131313131313

13

3

3

Result131313131313aaa10a

.aa

aa13aaaaa5aaa13a54aea133a

QualUUuuuujuuBUUuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuJu

DF

11



12121212121212

2

126

12

Result121212121212

0

2

2

12aa

QualUuuuuuJuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuu

OF1111111

Sample PointTFQ50203

Lab ID: L14566-11Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 76.51 %SQL1600160016001600160016001600BOO800BOOBOO8008008008008001600800BOOBOO8008008008008008001600BOOBOO6006008001600800800

ResuH1600160016001600160016002100BOO8008008008008008008008001600800BOOBOO890BOO1600BOO8008001600BOO

1700000BOOBOO8001600600800

Qua)UUUUUUJuuUUUuuuuuuUJUJJ

UJJ

UJUJUJUJUJ

UJUJUJuuu

DF~1 25125125125

1251251251251251251251254<ftC1 2344K7291251251251251251251251251254<U729125125125125125125125125125125


Lab ID: L 14566- 12Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Sofids 79.43 %SQL6363636363636331313131313131313163313131313131313131633131313131633131

Result636363636363

1700313120313131313131523131313131

13003131316331

83003131316341031

QualUUUu -uuL

UJuJBUUUUUUJUuuuuuuuuuJuuuu

u

DF555555555555555555555555555555S5555

Al units am ugftg.DF indicates t» Mutton Factor. .SOL Mteatos tie Sample QusrtKatton UntTneQuatcoMnnlnitolMthequellllerap

**-'-*— *——-*-*—

Septembe. .-97

Matrix: SoH

CHEMISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState Cottege, Pennsylvania

/J3-6333

=0COo

GOfS>

ParameterDferofnochtofomettianeChtorobenzene1.1.U-Tetr»cMoroethaneEthyfeenzenenvpOCytanao-XytanaStyreneBramdormItopropyfcenzenaBromobenzeneI.I TfancNoroethane1 ,3-TricWoraprepanen-Pfopyfeenzeiie2-CWorottuene .4-Chlorototuene1 .3.5-TriroatnytienzenBlert-Bulylbenzene1 .4-Trimethylbenzene•ec-Bulyfeenzene

1 .S-Otehtorobenzena1 ,4-OkMorabanzana1 -Oichlofobanzcnen-Butyfeenzene

1A4-TrichtorabanzenaHexacMorobutadianeNaphthalene1,2.3-Thchlorobenzene


Lab ID: L 14599-1Date Sampled: 4/30/9Percent Solids 78.07SQL

6aaa

13131313

Result66

6130

6613131313

dualuuuJu

uUUU

u. u

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

%OF

111



ae6eee66666Bae«68ft6668aea12121212

Result66eeeeeeee92aaee66aeeae6ae12121212

Qua!UUUuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF

11


Lab ID: L 14566- 11Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 78.51 %SQL | Result800800800800800800800800800BOO8008008008008008008008008008008008008008008001800160016001600

600600800

3000000120000003700000

BOO600

76000600600800

23000WOBOO

75000800

15000600800800BOO800600BOO1600160016001600

Qua!uuu

uuuuU

UJu

uuuuuuuuuuu

OF125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125125



3131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313163636383

Result313131

17000770

170003131

34031

230031110313114031823131313131313183836363

Qua!UUUJJJUuu

u

uu

u

uuuuuuuuuuu

OF55555555555555555555555555555

NotM:Al units are pgAtg.OF indicate* the Dilution Factor.SQL tadfeates tie Sample QuanMabon LimitY * column indfcaawiw qualifier appW to the i*su»^

pomCtfVOCItaport1<yiW7 3:34:44 PM Gdh~

•tquatter definition sheet

Associates c

CSeptember

Matrix: Soil

c cANALYTIC!. CHEMISTRY RESULTS



_ •

X*30GOCDID

cr>caCJ

ParameterrjjchtoroonluofonieBianeChtoranwttianeVinyl CNondeBromomeftan*CNoreetfianeTrichtorceuoromrthaneAcetoneCarbon DbuffidtIJ-DJchtoreetieneRMhylene CMoriitoTrant-l -DichtaraettMfie1.1-OieWororthme2_2-Oc«orcproo«tiMjMXcrtonetieneBramocMorameffMneCMorotomi2-6ubmona1,1.1-TrichtoreetianeCarbon Telrachtoride1.14NcNoropfopaneBenzene'1,2-0ichtoffoet>aneTrichtoroeMne1.2-DKhtoroprepaneDibromomeffianeBranKxfichtoromMhane4 Mettiyl-2-Pantanomcfe-1,3-DfcNorapropeneToluenetran«-1.3-OichloropraDene1.l>Trichtoraethane1.2-CMbromoeViane2-HexanoneTefrachtoroetiene1,3-DKMoroproparM



383877383838383838383838773836383838773838

Result7777777777771003938213838

38383877383838383898383638

.7738130383836772038

Qua!U

• UUuuui.juJBUUUUUUUUuuuu

uuuuu

uuuuJu

DF5555555555555555555555555555555555S


Lab ID: L14566-14Date Sampled: 4/28/97PercentSofids 54.53 %SQL18181818181818

8

1

1

ResuR16161818101634409148991399B99999149991892194918S9

QualUUUUJUuLJUBJUU

UuJuuuuuuuuuu

uJuuJu

DF111111


Lab ID: L14599-12Date Sampled: 4/30/97PercentSofids 76.81 %SQL

131313131313130008a880

813ft80ft6ft

3

13

ResuM13131313131348ft80.0ft226013ft00

0ft

1200ftft13611ftft613738

Qua!UUuuuuJ

• uuBuuu.

uuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

OF

111111111111:1111111111111111


Lab ID: L1459»4Date Sampled: 4/30/97PercentSofids 78.52 %SQL13131313131313ft

13

88ft0

0f t -e13

13

Resuft1313135131376012880

3' B

613ft069010ftft813020ftft013206

QualUUuJBUUJUUBUUu

uuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

DF111111.11111111111111111111111

Of Mtoatn 9m Mutton Factor.SQL indicate* he Sample Quantitation UmH

1W18/97 3:34:45 PM

laboratory or t» data vaMattr. Retar to quaMtar definition «**

Gofder Associates Pagt53o(62

Septembei )997

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTH-AL CHEIUSTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compound*

Centra County Kepone Site - Pre-Design investigationState College. Pennsylvania

933-6333

33*30CJCDtp

a\f _*

ParameterObrarnocMoromathaneCNorobonienei.i.l TetrecMoioethamEtiybanzenenvp-Xytanao-XytenaStyreneBfonufonnteopfopytoenzanaBmnwbanzene1.1A2-T«tracWO(DaJhane1A3-TricMoroprapaneftppopyfeenzam2-CWorotoiuano4XMorotokjenel.3,VTrimethylMnzenetert-Butytt>enzene1,2.4-Trifnafrytoanxane•ec-ButyNMroenetooprepyitoluone1>OicMofabenzene1.4-OicMorobenz*m1,2-OtaMorobanzantn-8uiyK)enzeneI 3.1111 _3-ldAMtMMIMMM

l£4-TricNorobMizeneHexachtorabuladientNapMhatanel£3-TricNorotenzene


Lab ID: LI 4566-1 3Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent SoWs 65.12 %SQL383636363636363638383838363636363636363630383838

77777777

Result" 38

38368202600BOO36366038

130036363636843641363636383838

777777 .77

QualUUU

Uuu

uuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuu

OFs55555A5555555655555666S6SSS5


Lab ID: LI 4566- 14Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 54.53 %SQL

18181818

Result93934140379999

190

18181818

QualUJU

UUUU

uuJuuuuuuuuuuUJuuUJUJ

OF

11111111111111111111


Lab ID: L1 4599- 12Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 76.81 %SQL

60600000000

000

0060000000013131313

Result0066S00006

2900

000660666666013131313

QualUuuujuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF


Lab ID: L1459&4Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 78.52 %SQL

8 "6660000060

0

86668613131313

Result600

01226666

180686060

00

0

60

00

613131313

QualUuUU

JUuuu

uuuuuuuuuu .uuuuuuuu

DF11111111111111111111111

ACCESS*

Notes:Al units am uaftQ.DF nicatos VwMuton Factor.SQL taaciHi 11» Sample Quanttaton Limit

«l column Mkatts the qualifier appKed to the rasdt by (he laboratory or vie data vatttator.

•pofftCKVOC Report

*o qualifier definition sheet

•f Associate* c / p £4 <rf 62

CSeptember

Matrix: Soil

c cANALYTIC*!. CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Volatile Organic Compound*Centre County Kepone Site - Pfe-Design Investigation

Stale College. Pennsylvania

SI33-6333

x»SOCOCDiOcnCOen

PiBYaVYaflffll*

DJcMorodNhioromelhaneCMorometftaneVinyl CMoride ' •Bromomethane "CMoroelhaneTricNorofluorometfianeAcetoneCarbon Dbuffidel.l-DfcMoroetfteneMeMiyfane ChlorideTrent'l -OicMonetiene1,1-OlcMoioefnne2 -OfcMorepropenedt-i -OhJiMuegieneBfomochtonmetMneChloroform2-Butanone1 ,1.1-TrfcMoroettianeCarbon TetracMoride1.1-DfcNoroprepaneBenzene1.2-OfcNoroetttaneTrtcMoroetwne1 -DichtoraprapaneMmmomftianeBremodtdtonmefiane4-Mrthyt-2-Pent«noned»-1 .J-DtchtoropropeneToluenetran*-1.3-0tchloraprapene. . » * . • —i , i f£~tt w wjiueu HI le1,2-OtoremoeViane2*HexanoneTeBachtoroethene1>Ofchtorepropane


Lab ID: L14599-9DateSampted: 4/30/97Percent Sofeh 76.58 %SQL13131313131313

13

13

13

Result13131313131310ee146a63 •a613a

a6a•aea13

. a20aea137a

Qua)UuuuuuJuuBUu

. u

uuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

DF



131313131313137777777771377777777713777771377

Result1313131313131377217777771377777777713

. 747771377

Qual DFUUUUuuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuuu

11

11111111


Lab ID: L1 4599-6DateSampted: 4/30/97PercentSoHds 80.36 %SQL12121212121212

2

1

Result12121212121241

•

1

QualUUUUUU

UuBUuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuu

OF11111111111111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: LI 4599- 14DateSampted: 4/30/97Percent Solids 72.96 %SQL

141414141414147777777771477777777714777771477

• Result14141414141429•71577777714777777777147157771477

QualuUUu0u

uBUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuu

OF111111111111111111111

11

AM units are |igA<g.OF fndfcatoB tie Mutton Factor.SQL Mfcates DM Sample QuentlWton LMtThe Dual column tadttaMe to qwrtHtor appHed to the rest* by the laboratory or tw date vÛator. Refer to quaK^

ACCESS*cjflto1ta*pMft&l VOC mport

September i

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAL CHEUISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compound*

Centre County Kepone Stte - Pro-Design InvestigationState Cottege, Pennsylvania

S33-6333

^"~I\J

COCD

cn

ParameterDtoromocNofomMhaneCNorobenzene1.1.1J-T«rachtoroe(haneEttiytwnzenemjtXytaneo-XytonaStyreneBromufoMtteopropytoergeneBromobenzena1,1 ,2.2-TrtrachtofoettMne1.2.3-TricNoropigpanen-PropyfceraefW2-ChtoroWuone4-Ctitofotaluaoa1 .3.5»Trimetnyl)enzenetert-Butytoanzane» _ . _ . — — . .

sec-ButylbanzanaIsopropyttohiena1>OicMorabancane1,4-Ofchtoroba(ttaneU-Dtahtorobeiwenan-Butytiaraane1 -Mmmo-S-cNofopropane1.2.4-TrkMorobanzaneHexachtorobutadianaNaphthalene1 ,2,3-Trichtorobanzene


Lab ID: L14599-9Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 76.58 %J5QL_

13131313

Result~6 -6681028888

3M

13131313

Qua!UUUU

Juuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11

11



777777777777777777777777713131313

Result777747777757777777777777713131313

Qua)UUuuJuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuUUuuuuuuu

DF11

11



668866866686866866

12121212

Result88

. 6

666888688812121212

Qua!UUuujuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF

111

11



777777777777777777777777714141414

Result77778777775777 .7777777777714141414

dualUuuuJuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11

11

CO

ACCESSM*

Notes:Al units are ra/kg.OF Indicates the Dauton Factor.SQL indicates the Sampto Quantrtatoon Und

* column kxfccates to qualifier applied to the msutt by (he laboratory or the data vakdator.

.jparNCalVOC Report

qualifier definition sheet

Associate* c

c c cSeptember uf97

Matrix: Soi


Centre County Kepone Site - Pie-Design InvestigationState Cofege, Pennsylvania

W33-6333

&i=oCOo10cr*CO^j

ParameterDfchtonxMuofometaneChtoromethaneVfnyl CNoridaBlUIIIUHMl IWieChtoreatfianeThcMoMtuuiuiiiettiaiteAoetonaCarbon DiauiMe1.1-DtoMoneVMnaMetfiytena ChtorMeTnmt-l OicMofoeViene1,1-OkMoroaViana2 -4NcMdropnpanads-U-CNcMofoatfianaBromocMonmathanaCMorofonn2-ButwwneI.IJ-TrichtoroethanaCaftmTataKMorida1.1-OicMorapropanaBanzana1,2-OtehtororthanaTrtchtoroeVwne1,2-OichlompropantDfcromometunaBromodehtoromeVume4 Uattiyt-2-Pontanooadi-1>Dfct*vopropanaToluene1ran*-1,34McMorepropana1.1,2-Trichtoreethane1.2-Ofcromoefliane

• 2-HaxanoneTatrachtoroetfiane1.3-Dtantoropropana


Lab ID: L14524-5Date Sampled: 4123197Percent SoBds 83.5 %SQL12121212121212

-

2

2

12

Result1212

121212944-o146

• 66

.66a236e.660aaaa1262afte12a6

Qua!UUUUUU

JUBUUUUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUJUUUUUU

DF

111111111111111111111111111



131313131313137777777771377777777713777771377

Result13

1313131340a720777777137777777771373777 -1377

QualUUUUUU

JUBUUUUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUJUUUUUU

DFf111111111f1111111



141414141414147777777771477777777714777771477

ResuR141414141414427777777771097777777 "714777771477

QualUUUUUUB

•UUJBUUUUUUJBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DFf1111

111

'111111111


Lab ID: L1 4524-1 8Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 75.07 %SQL131313131313137777777771377777777713777771377

ResuR1313131313134777a7777771077777777713777771377

QualUUUUuUBUtlJBUUUUUUJUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11111111111111111111111111111111111

Notes:M unto are ug/kg.DFtadtetasfteDaution Factor. -SQL Mfcato* ttt Sampto QuanHafcm UrrAThe Qual column fadfcate* He quaMfar appRed to tie re** by ttw tabors^ or tfw date vafcJrtDf.

September is*97

Matrix: Soil


Centfe County Kepone Site - Pie-Design InvestigabonState College, Pennsylvania

933-6333

^^

=0COCDtocnCO

ParameterMromocMocomthiMCMoratNfizm1 .1 J TebachtanMlhaiwBhyfemzantnxp-Xyton*o-XytamStynneBfomofonn(sopropyfetraen*Bromobmzonai.i TetacMareethane1 3-TricHoropiofMn*n-PropyMMnzent2-ChtafotoJuene4-Chtorok*Mm1.3>Ttime0iy1benzen0tort-6utytMnmw1.2,4*TiinMlhytt)ennM•M-autyfeeazewIsopropyNokiam1.3-OicMarabMziam1,4-DicMofolMnz*ne1.2-OfcNanbMzeneft-ButyfeMXMMl£-OJbramo-3-cNorepropin01.2.4-TrichtorobeiuantHtxacntorobutadNMNaphttMtom1.2,3-TrichtorobanxeM


Lab ID: L14524-5Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent SoW» 83.5 %SQL

6

6666

12121212

Result666412386

12121212

Qua!UUUJ

JUUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

OF

11



777777777777777777777777713131313

Result | Qua!77712377777117777777777777713131313

UUU

JUUUUU

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

OF

111111

1111

Sample PointTFQ91112


777777777777777777777777714141414

Result777747777777777777777777714141414

Qua)UUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

OF

*11



777777777777777777777777713131313

Result~ 7

773213777777777777777777713131313

dual [ OFUUUJ

JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

111

11

GO

Notes:

OF MfcaiMVw Mutton Factor. -SQL tadfcalM ttw Sample QuanWafion UnitV

Soita..

. R»*""" ~- qualifier definition sheet

Associates C

cSeptember i

Matrix: Sol

COoUDO*CO


Volatile Organic CompoundsCentre County Kepone Site - Pro-Design Investigation


93W333

Parameter

ChtoramettianeVkiytCNorideBfontomeViane •CNoreethaneTricMofofluonmetttaneAcetoneCarbon DisulMe1,1-OfchtoraettianeRMViywflft CfNQnoVTrara-I OkMomtiene1.14NcMonMtiene

BnxnochtanmaMneCMorafcmi '2-Sutanone1.t.1-TricNoroe(hen«CartKmTetachtoride1.1-OkMoropropeneBenzeneU-OfchtonettianeTMcMareottuneiJ-Otchtoropmpene =- • . •OftromometianeBromodkitoKimetiane* "^ [^ • ertaiwntctt-i,3-Oicnlon)fHopanaToluene*am-1>Dichtoropropene1.13-Trichtoroethene1.2-Ofcfomoetiane2-Hexanone

1 ,3-DichtoFoprepene

Lab ID:Date SiPercentSQL141414141414147777777

"771477777777714777771477


Lab ID: 114524-16Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 71.14 %SQL141414141414147777777

"771477777777714777771477

Result14141414141416776777777147777777771477

- 777 •,1477

Qua)uU0UUUBUUJBUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

. uuuu

OF

11


Lab ID: L1 461 1-5Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent SoMs 78.32 %SQL6464648464646432323232323232323264323232323232323232643232323232643232

Result6464646464644901532223232321232326432323232321503232326$325303232326517032

QualUuuUJuuDJHUBJUUUJJouuuuuuu

uUJuuu

uuuu

u

OF55555555555555555555555555555555555


Lab ID: L1 461 1-6Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent SoSds 75.24 %SQL33003300330033003300330033001700170017001700170017001700170017003300170017001700170017001700170017001700330017001700170017001700330017001700

ResuR3300330033003300330033009000170017001700170017001700170017001700330017001700170017001700890017001700170033001700

790001700170017003300140001700

QualuuuuuuJuuuUUUUUuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

OF250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250


Lab ID: L1 461 1-9Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 74.75 %~SQL33003300330033003300330033001700170017001700170017001700170017003300170017001700170017001700170017001700330017001700170017001700330017001700

ResuH33003300330033003300330012000170017001700170017001700170017001700'330017001700170017001700500017001700170033001700

2400001700170017003300210001700

QualUuuuuuJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuu

uuuu

u

OF250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250

Noon:Al unto are tig/kg.OF indicatet the Mutton Factor.SQL todtoatn the Sample QuantiMlon LMtThe Qual column fndtaatos Ihe quarter apffted to tie result by the tetwratory or the data vafcdawr-Refer to

ACCESStetraMbvportCalVOC ftaport

September n*97

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationStale College. Pennsylvania

&=0COCD

cn

ParameterDferonNxMoremelhaneCMorobenzane1 .1 ,1.2-TatracNoroethana

nxp-Xytoneo-XylanaStyrenaBfomofonnbworopybanzaneBrornobanzene1.1.2 -TetrachtoroelhaneiA3-Trichtoropropanan-Pfopytwnzene2-Chtoratohiana •4-Cntoratoluene1 .3.5-TrimettiyfeenzenetervButybanzane

_ ^ _ — .

•ec-Butytoonzanetoapropyitoluene1,3-OicMorobanzana1.4-OichtorobanzanaI DtaNorobanzamA-Butytjenzane1 4Mbrorno-3<Moropfopan01£4-TricttorabenzeneHexacNorabutodienefcj-.iihiaiîaai^napnaiaiens1.2.3-Trichlorabenzena


Lab 10: L 14524-1 6Dale Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 71.14 %SQL

777777777777777777777777714141414

Result"l7777777779777777777777771461414

QualUuuuuuuuuuBUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuJBuu

DF



3232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323264646464

Result.323232270150033032321732

170003232ISO323232323232323232323264356464

QualUUu

uuJu

u .u

uuuuuuuuuuUJUJJUJUJ

OF5555555555555S55555S555555555


Lab ID: L 146 11 -6Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 75.24 %SQL17001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017003300330033003300

Result170017001700

40000140000240001700170017001700

730000170017006600170017001700170017001700170017001700170017003300330033003300

QualUUu

u* u

uu

uu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250

Sample PointTF10070SD

Lab ID: L 146 11 -9Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 74.75 %SQL17001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017001700170017003300330033003300

Result170017001700

57000100000330001700170017001700

560000170017008300170017001700170017001700170017001700170017003300330033003300

QualUUU

UuJu

uu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

OF250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250250

o

Al utt» are

SQL taoTcitattoa Sample Quanaaoon UnitF '-«lcotuf»iln*cate» the quahftar applied to the result by the laboratory or the data vaSdaior.R^ ^qualifier definition sheet.

ACCESS ,iO/W973:M:50ni Associates C r^ 60462

CSeptembei iJ97

Matrix: Soil

c cANALYTlCaL CHEMISTRY RESULTS



s*33-6333

~ „ ,

J_=oCOoU3O*-P-

ParameterDkJtoredMuorornethaneCMoromeVianeVmylChtorideDtomomettianeChtororthane

AcetoneCarbon DisuMdo1.1-DfcNorortwrwpffQwiywiQ wivonoQTrans-1.2-OteMore«*iene1.1-OlcMofoeJiane2 -OkMorepropaneds-1.2-Oiditoio«4heneSromoeMorometieneCMontamn2*Butanone1 .1 ,1-TricMometianeCarbon Telrachtoride1 ,14Nchtoropropane

<86nzene1,2-ttcntoroethaneTrtcntoroetiena12-DlcNofopropeneObfomomB6>aneBromodfcNoreniethaneA fc^^hJ 1 ffâ^Min«»4-MBoiyi-z iwanonecfcM>OfcNoropropeneToluenetrans-1,3-OlcMomprapene

12-Dferomoetfwne2-HexanoneTe*acMofoetiene1,3-Ofchtoiopropane


Lab ID: L14611-7Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 72 64 %SQL6969690969

8934343434343434943489343434343434343434

343434

34693434

ResuR~™69

69696909

63003434349434342034341103434343434190343434

3419034934693434

QualuuuuuuJ

UJuuuuuJuuJuuuuir

uuuuuBuuuuu

DF5555S5SS55555555S6885S558SSSSSs5555

Sample PointTF1 10203

Lab ID: L1 4545-10Date Sampled: 4/24197Percent Sofids 85.98 %SQL

12121212121212666

2

2

12

ResuR121212121212126666

126

612

12

QualUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF

1111

11111



. 666666601360666606613

. 666601366

ResuR1317013131313336620

3

1900

1361004613656

QualU

UUUU

Uu

uuuuuuuuuuuuJuuuuu

uJuuu

DF1111111111111i111111111111111111111

Sample Pont

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent Solids %SQL ResuR Qual

--

DF

Al units are poAS-DFMfcatet tie Mutton Factor. .SQt Mfcatei 6» Sample QuantlMton UnitThe Qua) cobnwi Mfcetos BM ouaMtar applied to the resuR by the taboratoiy or tw data vaNdator.Rete to quaWtadeMtkin sheet

ACCESSteJHblVMportlC* VOC ftapart Pip 61 OT 62

September

Matrix: Soil

COCDVOcnro

ANALYTICAL CHEUISTRY RESULTSVolatile Organic Compounds


933-6333

ParameterMMomocMofomethaneCMombenzene1 .1 ,1.2-TrtracrtorotthaneEttiyibanzmem,p-XytoaefrXytoneStyraneBroraotonnIsopropyttMnzeneBromobenzene

1^3-Trkttoropropafien-Propytwnzene2-CMorotohwne4-Chton**ier»1 ,3.S-Triraettiytienzenetort-Butylbenzane

MC-ButytMraenebopropytokMne1 ,3-OicMorebanzen*1,4-CNchtorobenzeiwl CNcMombanzenen-BulyttMraentI MbJwno-3-cNoropropane1 fZ^* i 1 HJ llUIOUOfti ajnS•" 1 In nfri riri -*' ~ - ~

NaphVwiene1 ,3-TricNorobenzane


Lab ID: LI 46 11 -7Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 72.64 %SQL3434343434343434

3434343434343434343434343434343460A&

6060

Result3434346560022034341534

120003434160343434343434343416343426

6060

Qua!uuu

uuJMJH

u

u. u

uuuuuuuu

JNuuJuuu

DFs5555555555555555555555&S5S55


Lab ID: L 14545- 10Date Sampled: 4/24/97PercentSolids 85.96 %SQL

666666

6666666

12121212

Result666666666646666666666666612121212

Qua!UuuuUUUUuuIBJO

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF11111111111111111111111111111


Lab ID: L 14545-8Date Sampled: 4/24/97PercentSolids 76.2 %SQL666666666666666666666666613131313

Result66631246666

250066

1106666666666613

' 11u1313

Qua)UUuJ

JUUUUJuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

DF1111111

11111111111111

Sample Point

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL Result Qua! DF

ACCESS*

Not**:Al units am ugfto.DF Indicates the Mutton Factor.SCH-todfcatettwSampttQuwWatonLimiL

•al column Indicates the quarter applied to tr«i«sul *ie laboratory

,«par«CMVOCR*port

K' ôjuaiOar definition sheet

GOKMTAMOCtat** c

c c cSeptembei

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSMirex and Kepone

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState CoBege, Pennsylvania

^63-6333

ParameterMirexKepone

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL2S6914

Al units are M9*0DF indicates tw tNMton Factor.SQL todfcates ttw Sample QuanttaHon Urn*.

ResuR875914

F>oint20314599-10

4/30/9779 %

Qua!D

UD

DF2020

Lab ID:


L14556-8Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 85 %SQL11

39.4

ResuH | Qua! , DF45.9 i i 181.6 | ' 1

Lab ID


L14556-9Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 86 %SQL11.440.6

ResuR | Qua!7.91 | J14.8 | J

DF11

Lab ID-



Result11.37.32

Qua)UJ

DF

:

SOCOo

CO

ACCESStaJnblVcpofri* raport Gokfer Associates Papt 10(31

September 1997

Matrix: Soil



963-6333

Sample PointDO021112D

Lab ID: L14556-11Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Sohds 84 %SQL11.842

Result2.746.53

QualJJ

DF11


Lab ID: L 14545-1Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 83 %SQL j Result ' Qual , DF11.8 i 65.6 I • 142.2 | 2.33 | J f

Lab ID


L14545-2Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent SoWs 79 %SQL12.544.6

Result i Qual60.3 |44.6 1 U

DF11


Lab ID: L 1454 5-3Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 83 9SQL11.139.6

Result35.939.6

Qual

U

DF11

| Parameter| Mirexj Kepone

Note*:AN units are (jg/kQ.DF indicates Bw Dilution Factor.SQL indicate* (he Sample QuanMaton Un*.The Qual column indicate* the qualifier applied to tie result by (he bboratoiyw^ data vakdator.Rete to qualifier definition sheeL

=0CO

ACCE rttakraGbta Associates C

September 1997

Matrix: Soil


Sampto PointDO031920

Lab ID: L14545-4Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent SolidsSQL I Result12.745.2

1.5645.2

74 %Qual | DF

J 1U : 1

Al units are tig/kg.DF Indicates to Mutton Factor.SQL indicates the Sample Quanttatton LimitTrw Qual column toJntos tie quaNHer appied to ttw fesuN by trw

c cANALY1KAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

MIrex and KeponeCentre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign Investigation


963-6333


Lab ID: L14556-7Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 81 %SQL ResuR Qua! j DF595 ! 5830 | D j 5042.3 • 75.1 ! j 1


Lab ID: L14599-16Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SoWs 82SQL Result i Qual |238 | 238 UD848 I 2800 D

DF2020


Lab ID: L14599-20Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 81SQL11.440.6

Result Qual11.426.2

DF11

GOCD10en4Tcn

September 1997

Matrix: Soil



963-6333


Lab ID: L14599-15Date Sampled: 4/30/97PercentSoWs 77 %SQL12.444.2

Result12.427.9

QualUJ

DF11


Lab ID: L 1454 5-9Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 85SQL218778

Result | Qual27.4 j JD2720 | D

%OF2020


Lab ID: L 14545- 12Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 78 %SQL11.741.7

Result3.6241.7

QualJU

DF11


Lab ID: 11 4566-1Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL11.641.5

Result20.83.2

4/28/9782

Qual

J

*DF11

| Parameter| Mirex| Kepone

Notes:Al units are ug/kg.Of tadfcatetlhe Nutkm Factor.SQL Indicates (he Sample Quantrta&on Lmft.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result by the laboratory or lh« data vafeJator Reler to quaU^ definôn sheet

=0COCDto

cn

ACCESS^ /•porAmkraport»1W74:1»40PM Ow^rf- Associates C

C c cSeptember 1997

Matrix: Soil



963-6333



Lab ID: L 14566-2Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Sofids 83SQL24.687.6

Resul19.2312

QualJDD

%DF22


Lab ID: L14566-3Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL12.243.5

Result12.259.5

4/28/9782 %

Qualu

DF11


Lab ID: L 14545-7Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Result45.6 | 335162 | 202

4/24/9785 %

QualDD

DF44

_ Sample PointDO090708


Result1.0987.6

QualJ

<*DF11

AlunbiaraugAa.DF indicates Da Mutton Factor.SQL Mfcatos tw Sample QuanttaBon Dm*.The Clual column indfcate* tit qwMer appfed to the resul by the laboratory or the data vaKdator. Refer to quaMer definition sheet

CJo

ACCESSAMmbHnporflmh rapMOHOIta *-*&ft\ Ml GoMer Associates

September 1997

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pro-Design InvestigationState Coflege, Pennsylvania

963-6333



Lab ID: L14545-6Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 80 %SQL | Result Qual OF12.2 12.2 U | 143.5 3.42 ! J ! 1


Lab ID: L14599-3Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SolidsSQL | Result12.7 12.745.4 6.35

78Qual | DF

U ; 1J ! 1

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Result12.5 31.444.5 ! 44.5

Point304.14566-4

4/28/9781 %

Qual

U

DF11


Lab ID: L 14566-5Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent Solids 83 }SQL11.139.7

Result2.7339.7

Qual | DFJ | fU | 1

AN unto are port*DF indicates Ihe Dilution Factor.SQL indicate* the Sample Quanttabon UnitTne Owl column Indicate* the quabâfylied to the mrt

=0COCD

CD

Access*. *wflnknpanO*^, Associates C

. cSeptembei i997

Matrix: Soi

c cANALYltvAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Mirex and KeponeCentre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design Investigation


963-6333



Lab ID: L14566-6Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent SolidsSQL I Result12

42.68.2442.6

79 %Qua! | OF

J fU i 1


Lab ID: LI 4599-18Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 81 %SQL j Result ! Qua! ! DF11.3 | 1.27 i J j f40.4 ! 10.6 j J i f

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL Result11.6 ! 18.341.2 41.2

Point70814599-22

4/30/9767 %

Qua!

U

OF11

Lab ID


L14599-19Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 84 }SQL226806

Result I Qual3010 | D

I

2200 j D

OF2020

Al unNs are uglkg.OF indicates the Muton Factor.SQL indKatu flie Sample Quantitatton LMLThe Qua) column indicates ttw (juaMer appied to Iw nsuR by Vie laboratory or the data vaKdator. Refer to qujiftcr definition sheet

=0COOUDcnVO

ACCESSItcmblVvpartlR* report PM*7of31

September 1997

Matrix: Sol

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSUirex and Kepone


963-6333


Lab ID: L 14599- 17Date Sampled: 4/30/97PercentSoJids 80 %SQL12.2435

Result i Qual ; DF148 j 1 f

1147 | D I 10


Lab ID: L14611-4Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 83 %SQL 1 Result i Qual • DF12.1 1.99 ; J *43.2 30.2 j J | 1


Lab ID: L 146 11 -2Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 83 %SQL I Result | Qual11.9 j 119 ! U42.6 ! 76.9 ;

DF11


Lab ID: L14611-3Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent SoWs 88 %SQL11.540.9

Result11.515.9

Qual | DFU | 1J ; 1

ParameterMirex

[ Kepone

Notee:AM unite are pp/kg.DF indicates the Dilution Factor.SQL indicates the Sample Ouantttatton UnitThe Qual column indicates the quatter applied to the result by the laboratoiyortrwo^tavalidator.Refertoquaiifô^finitxmshe^.

30COCD10CHcno

ACCESS*. fvpofftmk raport Associates C Page 6 o*31

c c cSeptembta 1997

Matrix: Soil



963-6333



Lab ID: L 14556-1Date Sampled: 4125197Percent SoWs 87 %SQL11.641.2

Result | Qual DF3.15 i J9.36 Ji

11

Lab ID


. L14556-2Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL12.143.1

ResuR1.291.87

4C5/9782 %

Qual ; OFJ | 1J | f

Lab ID:DateSjPercertSQL11

39.1


L14585-10ipted: 4/29/97Solids 85 %Result ; Qual [ DF2.02 J I 166.3


Lab ID: L1 4556-3Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 83SQL12.444.2

Result12.415

QualUJ

%DF11

Al unto are pgftg.OF Mtoate* the DNuNon Factor.SQL indicates tw Sample QuanMattm Un*The Qual column frfcate* tit quaMar appftad to the muR by the bboratoiy or the data valdator-Refar to qualifier defMfion sheet

=0COo03CTfc01

ACCE$$bc.m»1V«porfH* raportGotdmr Associates Pag* 9 of 31

September 1997

Matrix: Soil



963-6333



Lab ID- L14556-4Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL11.8169

Notes:Al unto art PBÔDF indicates the Dilution Factor.SQL indicates Bw Sample QuanUaton Urn*.

Result11.8352

t*» 4*. «». Jft b

4/2519783

QualuD

.* U» iMfcb

%

DF14


Lab ID: L1 4556-5Date Sampled: 4/25/97Percent Solids 78 %SQL | Result \ Qual : DF125 j 575 ; D j 1044.7 j 174 | ; 1

Sample PointFA1 10304

Lab ID: L1 4585-9Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Result26 | 183

92.8 j 137

4/29/9777

QualDD

%DF22

Lab ID

SampFA1i

Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL6652370

Result665991

L14585-134/29/9769 %

| Qual j DFI UD | 50! JD ! 50

=0COovoenonro

Accessv^ ••poiflmk nportGbMrtfT Associates C ag. 10 0(31

c c cSeptembb. .997

Matrix: Sol

ANALYTi^rtL CHEMISTRY RESULTSMirex and Kepone

Centre County Kepone Site • Pro-Design InvestigatkMIState Coflege. Pennsylvania

963-6333




Result4.11286

Qua)JDJD

DF2020


Lab ID: L 14585- 11Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL12.143

Result2.4414.4

4/29/9775 %

Qua! | DFJ | 1J ! 1

Lab ID:DateSPercentSQL12.645


L14611-8ipted: 5/1/97>oKds 79Result | Qua!33.4 I7.79 ! J

DF11


Lab ID: L14611-12Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 80SQL i Result ! Qua! !12.444.3

23.77.1

DF11

AN units are ugfltg.DF indicate 8 the Mutton Factor.SQL fndtaates the Sample Quanttation UmiThe Qual column MkaMfteojofffiarappfed to ttores^

=0CO

toenCJ

ACCESStac.mb11rapQrtMi rap«t fSnMw AH*wta«M

September i997

Matrix: Soil



963-6333


Lab ID:


L14611-11Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL I Result12.444.1

22.110.9

5/1/9779

Qual !%

DF


Lab ID: L1 461 1-10Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 76 %SQL | Result 1 Qual ; DF13.1 ; 16.5 | | 146.6 | 14.3 ; J | 1

Lab ID


L14599-2Date Sampled: 4/30/SPercent Solids 80SQL2360844

Result Qual19900 D644 UD

DF20020


Lab ID: L14500-17Date Sampled: 4/22/97

SQL610004360

t Solids 78 %Result371000

QualD

4360 j UD

DF5000100

Notes:AN unto are ug/kg.OF Micates the Dilution Factor.SQL indicates the Sampto Chiantttetion UrnN.The Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result by the laboratory cirtrn date vatto tor. Refer to quabtoo finilkin sheet

COoUDCT»cn

ACCC /•pofhnkOVMtff Associates C

cSeptember 1997

Matrix: Soil



Lab ID: LI 4500-13Date Sampled: 4/22197Percent SolidsSQL12.444.1

ResuK6.1222

80Qua!

JJ

%DFf1

Molts:Al units are ugftg.DF indicate* lha HuGon Factor.SQL Mkates ttw Sample Quanttatton Umtt,The QuaroolunwtndK»<e« lha quaMerappiedtofte result by fte




963-6333


Lab ID: L14500-4Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 79SQL130464

Result46690.2

Qua!DJD

OF1010



ResuM16.3333

Qua)JDD

DF22



Result13.69.12

Qual DF11

or^

=0COOtoui01

Pag* 13 of 31

Septembei 1997

Matrix: Son

ANALYlioAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSUirex and Kepone


Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Result12.6 | 12.644.8 I 44.8

Al unto an ug/kg.OF Indicates the Dilution Factor.SQL indicate* Ihe Sample Quanttation UnitThe Ouri column indicates tie quaver applied to he result by Ihe labofatofy or the data vaWator Rete to quaWter definiton iheel

963-6333



Lab ID: L1 4585-2Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL11.641.5

Result37.25.99

4/29/9786 X

Qual

j

OF11


Lab ID L14585-4Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL234832

Result44452

4/29/9785 %

Qual j DFJD I 20JD | 20

Point311.14585-

4/29/9779

QualUU

%DF11


Lab ID: L 14500-6Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 84 %SQL

580004120

Result4680004120

Qua!D

UD

DF5000100

30CJCD\£>cnen

ACCCtttt/97 4:19:43 «l c,«tr Associates c Pag* M o( 31

c c cSeptember 1997

Matrix: Soft

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSMlrax and Kepone


963-6333



Lab ID: L14500-11Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoMs 84SQL111396

ResuR229396

QualD

UD

%OF1010


Lab ID: L14500-20Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 82 %SQL Result | Qual j OF1270 | 11000 j D I 1004520 909 ! JD ' 100

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Result1210 ' 8610432 ! 374

Point30414500-15

4/22/9781 %

QualDJD

OF10010


Lab ID: L1 4500-3Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 85SQL560798

Resutt7290798

QualD

UD

9OF5020

Notes:M unite are M0*9OF Indicates the Multon Factor.SQL Mfcates Iht Sample Quanlitalton UnitThe Qua! column imScMn the quaWw appied to the result by the taboratoiy or tw data vafidator. Refer to qualifier definition sheet

COotoCJ*en

ACCESStoc.mbt1raporfln* report

September 1997

Matrix: Soilt

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSUirex and Kapona

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvesttgationState CoMege. Pennsylvania

963-6333



Lab ID:Dale Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL Result13 49.7

46.5 51.7

L145OO-224/22/9778 %

] Qua! j DF

I ! 1

| . 1


Lab ID: L14565-3Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent SolidsSQL ; Result12.1 [ 4.1943.3 ! 43.3

80Qua!

JU

%DF11


Lab ID L14500-7Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL12.343.7

Result25

43.7

4/22/9762

Qua!

U

%DF11

Lab ID:DateSPercenlSQL12.343.9


L14500-9pled: 4/22/97

Result6.9143.9

62Qua! |

J iU !

%DF11

Notes:Al units are parted-DF indicates 0w Dilution Factor.SQL indicates the Sample Quantittboo Urn*.The Qual coJumn indicates the qualifier applied to the result by the laboratory or the data vaUottor. Refer to qualifier definition sheet

=0COoenenCD

ACCE:W1WS741fr43PU ObM Associates C

cSeptembe* ii»97

Matrix: Soil


c cANALYTK^L CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Mirex and KeponeCentre County Kepone SHe - Pre-Oesign Investigation


963-6333


Lab ID: L14500-5Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 83 %SQL12.343.7

Result29.543.7

Qual

U

DF11

Lab ID:DateSPercenSQL49.6177

Result170614

PointOil14500-12

4/22/9781 %

QualD

DF4

D 4


Lab ID: L 14500-8Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 89SQL218780

Result634854

QualDD

%DF2020


Lab ID: L1 4500-21Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 86SQL11.942.4

Result23.842.4

Qual

U

9DF11

Motet:AlunHsamugftg.Df indicates (he Dilution Factor.SQL inolcato* tie Sampb QuantiMion UnitThe Qual column Mtaatos tie quaMw apptad to tw mwN by *w laboratory tirlto data vaidator.

=DCOO

01

ACCESSbtmbiinpofflmfc raport Colder Associates

September 1997

Matrix: Soil


Sample PomtFD1 20708

Lab ID: L1 4500-1 8Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent SoWs 62SQL23204150

Result13700477

Qual |D |

JO |

%DF200700

ANALYlhJU. CHEMISTRY RESULTSMirex and Kepone


FD121112Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Result130 ! 401

963-6333

464 464

oint124500-164/22/9779

QualD

UD

%DF1010


Lab ID: L 14500- 14Date Sampled: 4/22/97Percent Solids 85 %SQL11.540.9

Result6.3640.9

QualJU

DF1

J


Lab ID: L 14500-2Date Sampled: 4/22/97PercentSoiids 65 %SQL12.143

Result5.3943

QualJU

DF11

AB units are MO/kgOF mrtcates the CWutoo Factor.SOL indicates the Sample Quartrtation UnitThe Qual column Indicates the qualifier applied to the result by the laboratory or the dattvalio tor. Refer to oualAerdefiniiwnsrteei

=0COO

cnCTiO

ACCEsk^ .traporflmk report OtoK»er Associates c PagettoOt

c c cSeptember i997

Matrix: Sol


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigationState Cofege, Pennsylvania

963-6333



Lab ID: L1 4524-6Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 88 %SQL115411

Result301411

QualD

UD

OF1010


Lab ID: L 14524-9Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 84SQL | Result11.9 ! 38.242.5 | 2.78

Qual

J

%DF11

Lab ID:Date SiPercentSQL11.6165

Result2.671130

Point91014524-10

4/23/9760 %

QualJD

DF14


Lab ID: L14524-12Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 81SQL25

69.2

Result16489.2

QualD

UD

%DF22

Al unto are pgftg.OF tfricaht*** Mutton Factor.SQL indtoetBS tfw SmfM OuvrtitalkM UnritThe <Xial column WlCTta tie qui(Meii<ipi

3DCOoinen

ACCESStembUrapartn* raporton MOT 4-10-44 DU Colder Associate* P»0»t9of31

SeptembtN i997

Matrix: Soil

ANALY1 iwAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSUirex and Kepone


963-6333


Lab ID: L 14524-8Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL2549060

Result239

60800

4/23/9781

Qua!JDD

%DF20200


Lab ID: L 14524- 13Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Result49.2 | 29.5175 ; 733

1

4/23/9780 %

Qual ; DFJD ; 4D 4

Sample PointFD 160304

Lab ID: L 14524-1 7Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 82 %SQL | Result j Qual293 | 2261 ; D1040 | 1681 I D

DF2525



Result21.34.83

Qual

J

%DF11

ParameterMirex

j KeponeNot**:Al units are uoAB-DF indicates (he (Mutton Factor.SQL inolcatei ttw Sample QuantiMion UnitThe Qual column indicates the quaHer applied to the result by to laboratory or toe data vaMator. Refer to qu^

COCD

cnenro

ACCESS^ .•pnflnkrapoftGb*«fr Associates C <*a0« 200(31

C c cSeptembei .s*97

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSMirex and Keporw


963-6333

I Parameterj Mirex| KeponeMntmmiNOMK

Al units are ugftg.DF Indicates Ow Diution Factor.SQL Indicates ttw Sampto QuartThe Qual column tadteatei ttie q


Lab ID: L1 4524- 14Date Sampled: 4/23/97PercentSolkfc 82SQL2881020

Result24401020

QualD

UD

%DF2525


Lab ID: L1 4 585-5Date Sampled:Percent SoBdsSQL i Result11.4 | 2.8340.7 j 17.4

4/29/9785 %

Qual ! DFj i 1J | 1


Lab ID: L1 4524-7Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 80 %SQL14.150.4

Resuft j Qual ; DF31-2 i j 171.7 j ! f


Lab ID: L14524-2Date Sampled: 4723/97Percent Solids 83 %SQL Result Qual DF292 51 JD 201040 1040 ! UD 20i

actor.Quanttalton Umtt.

The (kial column iridtoaln tfw quaMer appied to te resut by tw

COo<JD

CO

ACCESStM.mb1v«portlmk report Colder Associates Pap 21 o«31

September 1997

Matrix: Soil

I

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSUirox and Kepone


963-6333



Lab ID: L1 4585-8DateS,PercentSQL11.741.7

impted: 4/29/97tSoWs 84 %

Result | Qual I DF1.77 1 J 141.7 j U 1 /


Lab ID: LI 4585-6Date Sampled: 4/29/97Percent Solids 78 %SQL I Result \ Qual ; DF12.6 i 12.6 | U f44.8 44.8 . U 1

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL | Resuti11.1 ! 11.139.5

Al unite am ug/kg.OF indicate* the Mutton Factor.SOL totkcale* the Sample Quanttation UmiLThe Qua! column mdfcalM the qualifier applied to the result by the Wwratofyortheo^tavaWato. Retetooâlffieroefin*onsheet.

39.5

Point112.14585-7

4/29/9782 %

QualUU

DF11


Lab ID: L1 4599-8Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL242864

Result242864

4/30/9780

QualUDUD

}DF2020

3DCOo

a*

ACCE traporflink (apart«16/9741ft'ISPM Ov—«lr Associates C Pap 22 d31

c c cSeptember 1997

Matrix: Soil


ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSMir*x and Kepone

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Oesign InvestigationState Cotege. Pennsylvania

TF021112

npted:iolklsResult7.3240.7

963-6333


Lab ID: L 14599- 11Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent SoSds 79 %SQL23.6M.2

Result7.359.59

Qua)JDJD

DF22


Lab ID L14545-13Date Sampled:Percent SoRdsSQL11.641.4

Result11.41.47

4/24/9783

QuatJJ

%DF11

Lab ID:Date SiPercentSQL11.440.7

oint124545-114/24/9783 %

Qua!JU

DF11



46.3

Result13

6.53

QualUJ

DF11

Al unto are ygflcg.DF tofeates •» Mutton Factor.SQL indicate* Vtt Sampte QuanWadon UntilThe Owl column Mfcates tie quaMer applied to tie result by 9» laUjra»ory or data valkWor.ReWr to qu fierdefiration sheet

COCDtoenenen

ACCES$tac.mb1V«portmk report

September 1997

Matrix: Soil



963-6333



Lab ID: L14566-7Date Sampled: 4/28/97Percent SolidsSQL44.8160

Result4.25633

02Qua!JDD

DF44

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL j Result11.741.6

5.83136

Pointros.14566-8

4/26/9782 %

QualJ

OF11


Lab ID: L1 4566-1 6Date Sampled: 4/26/97Percent Solids 83 %SQL j Result j Qual11.4 | 3.72 I J40.7 ! 228 i

OF11

Lab ID:DateSPercenSQL11.2160


L14566-9ipted: 4/28/97iobdsResult3.65420

62Qual

JD

OF14

Notes:Al unit* an UQ/kg.DF indicales ttw Dilution Factor.SQL indkatnttw Sample CHttnttatfenUmtThe Qual column indicate* the quarter applied to the result by the lalxxatoy or the o^tavafctetor. Refer to qualifier definition sheet

=0COO

at

Access^Gbn~r Associates c •0124 Of 31

c c cSeptember 1997

Matrix: Soil

ANALYltcAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSMirex and Kepone


963-6333




ResuR1.931669

4/28/9778

Qual |

°. l

%DF1

10

Lab ID:DateSPercentSQL115410


LH599-2ipted: 4/30/97JoMs 83 *Result | Qual I DF7.45 ; JD 102290 10


Lab ID: L14599-5Date Sampled: 4/30Percent Solids 84SQL ! ResuR Qual240 ' 240 UD854 5970 D

5»7

%DF2020

Sampte PointTF041112


Result11.71358

4/30/9778 %

QualUD

DF110

Al units are pgftg.OF imfcates the DiuKon Factor.SQL inclcales Bw Sample Quanttabon Umk.The Qual column indicate* the quainter applied to the mutt by the laboratonrcv the (late vaWator. Refer to quaM deliriition sheet

X*roCDenen

ACCESSte.mb1V«portM[ rapartftnlfhw Associates Pag* 25 of 31

September i997

Matrix: Soil


Lab ID:


L14599-7Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL12

42.7

Result3.3579.5

4/30/9783 %

Qual DFi 1

1


Lab ID: L14566-11Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL121430

Result24.5122

4/2679779 %

Qual OFJD 10JD i 10


Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Destgn InvestigationState College, Pennsylvania

TF050708Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL i Result49.2 49.2175 ! 450

963-6333

ointW4566-124/2679779 %

Qual , DFUD j 4

D l 4


Lab ID: L14566-13Date Sampled: 4/26797Percent Solids 65 %SQL16

57.1

Result j Qual | DF16 | U | 1

43.5 | J | 1

Al unit* are up/kg.DF indicates the Mutton Factor.SQL indicates the Sampto Qoanttatoon UnitThe Qua! column indicates to qualifier applied to the result by the \abofôôrt^dâ

COCD

CO

ACCHSSWw .«porfln* reportAssociate* c <••()• 28 of 31

CSeptembei i997

Matrix: Soil

CANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS



c963-6333


Lab ID: L14566-14Date Sampled:Percent SoMsSQL17.662.9

ResuR17.662.9

4/28/9755 %

ClualU

DF1

U 1

Lab ID


L14599-12Date Sampled: 413087Percent Solids 77 %SQL25

44.6

Result228

Qua) DFD 2

4.88 J | 1


Lab ID: L14599-4Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL12845.6

ResuK91445.6

4/30/9779 %

QualDU

DF101


Lab ID: L1 4599-9Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL122

43.4

ResuK128143.4

4/30/9777 %

QualDU

DF101


Notes:Al units are pg/kg.DF indicates Vie OiuDon Factor.SQL Mfcates to Sample QuanMation UmtThe Qual column bvHcates 0w quaMer appftad to ttw rest* toy tw laboratory or IhedaUvaMator. Refer to qualrtodrfrrtion sheet

=DCOOUDcnen

Colder Associates Pa0t27o(31

September u*97

Matrix: Soil


Centre County Kepone Site - Pro-Design InvestigationState College. Pennsylvania

963-6333



Lab ID: L14524-4Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent SolidsSQL ! Result252696

252696

76QualUDUD

%OF2020


Lab ID: L1 4599-6Date Sampled: 4/30/97Percent Solids 80 %SQL | Result ' Qual ! DF11.9 | 11.9 : U i 1

42.5 j 4.87 | J | 1

Lab ID



Result11.244.8

QualJU

DF11


Lab ID: L1 4524-5Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL11.541.1

Result7.0241.1

4/23/9784

QualJu

%DF11

Note*:Al units are ugAg.DF indicates tie Dilution Factor.SQL indicates Vie Sample Quanttatfon UmiLThe Qual column indicates the qualifier applied to the result by the tatoratory or the date vatatator. Refer to qualifier definitoonsheel

=0COou>

O

ACCESS* .•porflmknporl»16W 41*46 PM GbtattT Associates c 'ag» 20o<31

SeptefflDei 1997

Matrix: Soil


c cANALY i iCAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

NHrex and KeponeCentre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design Investigation


963-6333


Lab ID: L14524-3Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent SotidsSQL13.247

Result13.247

75 %Qual i DF

U ! 1U


Lab ID: L14524-11Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Soltds 73SQL ! Result • Qual14.2 i50.6 !

6.1150.6

%DF

J i 1U 1


Lab ID: ' L14524-18Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 75 *SQL i Result I Qual I DF12.544.7

7.7144.7

Sample PomtTF091415

Lab ID L14524-16Date Sampled: 4/23/97Percent Solids 71 >SQL I Result | Qual I DF14

49.811.34.39

Al unto are pgftg.DF Mtoatestie Wubon Factor.SQL indteatQt tfM Sampte QuanHalton UmLHie Qual coturnn ndtoatos Vie quaiAw apptad to Vw result by Vw laboratory or 0w data wafcdatot. Refer to qualifier definition

=0COOto

ACCESStoc.mb1V*portlmk report Colder Associates Pag«29«f31

Septemb*. .s)97

Matrix: Soil

ANALYTi ML CHEMISTRY RESULTSMirex and Kepone

Centre County Kepone Site - Pre-Design InvestigationState Cottage. Pennsylvania

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL ; Result266 j 745952 952

Al units are ugftfl.OF indicate* tie Wutwn Factor.SQL indicates ttie Sample Quanttation LimitTht Qual cokmn indicate* (he qualifier apptted to tfw result by the laboratory or the o tavaba lor. Refer to qualifier o finibOT sheet

963-6333



Lab ID: L14611-5Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 78 %SQL256910

Result1140910

QualD

UD

DF2020


Lab ID: L 146 11 -6Date Sampled: 5/1/97Percent Solids 75 %SQL266946

Result | Qual ' DF680 ! D 20

- \

946 I UD > 20

Point06D.14611-9

5/1/9775 %

QuaJD

UD

DF2020


Lab ID L14611-7Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL13.649.1

Result31.549.1

5/1/9773

Qual |Ii

U |

9DF11

=0CO

toen

ACCESS*Gbn. »r Axociatos c

JLCriinlA ..CWUWI l»-p^Jl 1997

Matrix: Sol

C cANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS



963-6333


Lab ID: L1 4545-10Date Sampled: 4724/97Percent Solids 86 %SQL11.842.2

Result j Qua! | DF11.8 | u ; *42.2 j U ; 1


Lab ID: L14545-3Date Sampled: 4/24/97Percent Solids 76 %SQL ' Result ; Qual { DF12.7 5.34 | J | J45.3 ; 45.3 j U : 1

Sample I

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SoHdsSQL { Result

!

i

I Parameterj MirexI Kepone

Notes:Al units are pgAtg.DF indicates the Oaueon Factor.SQL indfcales he Sample QuanttaBon UmHTrw Qua) colinw iniinles he quafito appfed to ttw msutt by the labo^

Qual ! DF

Sample Point

Lab ID:Date Sampled:Percent SolidsSQL Result Qual

%DF

yoCOotoenCO

W16/974:1fr47PMColder Associates Pag»31of31

cn*«^*r 4-

c

Appendix B-1;

Derivation of Revised Soll-to-GroandwaterMediam Specific Concentrations (NJSCs)

AR309675

February 1999 Bl-1 963-6333

APPENDIX Bl

DERIVATION OF REVISED SOIL-TO-GROUNDWATERMEDIUM SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS (MSCs)

An integral part of the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) is determining the extent of soilremediation necessary to meet the Remedial Action Objective (RAO) for soil. The RAO for soilis to "mitigate leaching of contaminants of concern from subsurface soil so as to be protective ofgroundwater". With the promulgation of Act 2, the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalProtection (PADEP) has developed a new methodology for determining soil-to-groundwaterprotection levels. Given that the Table 9 soil clean-up criteria were derived using amethodology which is no longer endorsed by PaDEP, Colder Associates developed site-specificsoil-to-groundwater MSCs in accordance with the PADEP Land Recycling Program (Title 25,Chapter 250, Section 308(a)(2)and (3)).

The equation specified in 250.308 (a)(3) follows:

MSC. = MSCCW [ (Koc* foe) + ew/ pb ] x DF

^—^ where:

MSC, = the calculated value for a regulated substance in soil for the protection ofgroundwater

MSCGw = MSC in groundwater of regulated substance (values from Appendix A, Table 1of the Land Recycling Program)

K oc = the organic carbon partition coefficient for a regulated substance (values fromAppendix A, Table 5 the Land Recycling Program or published literature forcompounds not included in Table 5)

fM •« fraction of organic carbon in soil (value ~ 0.04, as used for Table 9 of the ROD)0W » water-filled porosity of soil (default value « 0.2, per the Land Recycling

Program)pb "dry bulk density of soil (default value » 1.8 kg/L, per the Land Recycling

Program) , .. , .DF - dilution factor (default value - 100, per the Land Recycling Program)

A sample of this calculation is provided on the attached sheet. A spreadsheet showing MSCs foreach constituent identified in Table 9 of the ROD is also attached. It should be noted that Site-specific characteristics, fate and transport and risk assessment have previously been performedas part of the approved Remedial Investigation and have been used in development of theseMSCs. It should also be noted that the MSCs are calculated only for the soil to groundwater


February 1999 Bl-2 963-6333

pathway as the ROD defines that the soil remedy is for the purpose of groundwater protectionand ingestion risks do not exceed acceptable levels.

Several assumptions were made in calculating the site-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs. Ingeneral, the groundwater MSCs were taken from Appendix A, Table 1 of the Land RecyclingProgram (Used Aquifer, IDS less than or equal to 2500 mg/1, non-residential scenario). Theexceptions to this were mircx, kepone, and tetrahydrofuran (THF). Mirex is not listed in Table 1but is a site-related compound of interest. A groundwater MSC for mircx has been calculatedusing the methodology cited in the Land Recycling Program (Section 250.304 and the equationsin 250.306). Section 6.2.2 of the ROD for this Site (page 23) cites an oral cancer slope factor(CSF0) of 0.34 kg-d/mg for mirex1. This value was used in the calculation of the groundwaterMSC, Since a K^ for mirex is not provided in Table 5 of the Land Recycling Program, a K^ of19,000,000 I/kg was used based on the published literature. This K^ value is calculated fromUSEPA Document EPA-600/7-78-074 (Environmental Pathways of Selected Chemicals inFreshwater Systems Part II: Laboratory Studies) using a K value and organic carbon contentmeasured in an experimental study. The groundwater MSC, soil to groundwater MSC and K^values for mirex are shown in Table Bl-1.

The groundwater MSC for kepone presented in Table 1 of the Land Recycling Program is basedupon the assumption that kepone is a carcinogen, which is inconsistent with the ROD. The RODstates that none of the available studies provide adequate data for determination of a slope factorand so kepone was not evaluated for carcinogenic potential. No new studies have'becomeavailable for kepone since the date of the ROD and so it is not appropriate to base MSCs for thisSite on carcinogeniety. Section 6.2.2 of the ROD provides an oral Reference Dose (RFD0) of6.5E-04 for kepone and so this value was used in the calculation of the site-specific groundwaterMSC. The K,* value for kepone from Table 5 was then used to calculate the site-specific soil togroundwater pathway MSC. The groundwater MSC, soil to groundwater MSC and K^ values forkepone are shown in Table Bl-1.

1 The 1995 ROD noted that a body weight scaling factor of % was implicit in this slope factor and statedthis value had not yet been formally adopted by USEPA. Subsequent publications by USEPA (forexample, Exposure Factors Handbook, 1997) confirmed the appropriateness of this scaling factor.

Goldar Associates A R 3 0 9 6 7 7

February 1999 Bl-3 963-6333

Tetrahydrofuran (THF) is not listed in Table 1 of the Land Recycling Program and there are nosuitable toxicity data available for this compound in USEPA's IRIS or HEAST lexicologicaldatabases No other source of verifiable toxicity data has been identified. Furthermore, THF isonly reported as a "tentatively identified compound** in one Soil sample. Consequently, a soil togroundwater MSC has not been calculated and is not necessary for the site.

The soil-to-groundwater MSCs that are presented in this Appendix were used to determine theapproximate areas of the Operating Manufacturing Area which would require remediation. TheMSCs were compared with the data collected during the Remedial Investigation, during studiesconducted after the Record of Decision was issued, and during the Prc-dcsign Investigation asdiscussed in the FFS.

The MSCs calculated in this section are being used to assess areas that require soil remediationfor the protection of groundwater. Actual performance standards for the Alternate Remedy willbe the subject of further discussion during design and would include consideration offorthcoming USEPA publications.

g:\projec ti\963-6333\fls\fitial99\app)i-b\b I \appx-b1 .doc

Colder Associates

c c • 333

Table d1-1Calculated Medium Specific Concentrations for the Soil-to-Groundwater Pathway

Centre County Kepone SiteState College, Pennsylvania

CompoundName

AcetoneBenzeneButanone 2 (Methyl Ethyl Ketone)Carbon DisulfideChlorobenzeneChlorofomiDichloroethene 1,2(cfs-1,2-Dichloroethytene)Dichloroethene 1 ,2 (trans-1,2-Dichloroethy1ene)Dichloropropane 1,2EthytbenzeneKeponeMethytene Chloride (Dichloromethane)MirexTetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)TolueneTridiloroethane 1 .1 ,2Trictiloroethene (Trichtoroethytene)Vinyl ChlorideXylenes

MediumSpecific

Cone, forGW(1)(mg/l)

100.0055.84.10.120.10.070.1

0.0050.7

0.06640.0050.00750.00320.005

10.0050.0050.002

10

Fractionof OrganicContentin Soil m

0.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.040.04

WaterFilled SoilPorosity m

0.2020.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.2

Dry .Bulk SoilDensity w

(Kg/i)1.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.81.8

DilutionFactor CT

100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100

OrganicCarbonPartition

Coefficient m0.31583230020056494747220

55,00016

19,000,00079300130769310

350

Site-SpecificMedium-SpecificConcentration

(mg/kg)1241.22807

4.96697241420

1.00624

14,6090.38

570,0001.056.065311.58

. 1.920.10

14.111

Notes;1. Medium Specific Concentration for GfoundwateV (GW) values are from Appendix A, Table 1 of PADEP document titled "Land Recycling Program", dated August 1997 except

for Mirex and Kepone (see text).2. Fraction of Organic Content in Soils 4% to be consistent with that used in Table 9 of the ROD.3. Water Fitted Soil Porosity value Is the PADEP default value.4. Bulk Soil Density is the PADEP default value.5. Dilution Factor is the PADEP default value.6. Organic Carbon Coefficient obtained from Appendix A, Table 5 of PADEP document titled land Recycling Program", except for mirex which is taken from

published literature (see text).7. Revised soH-to-groundwater medium-specific concentration obtained from the formula MSC, = MSCg/UKocfgcH Ow/pw)]*DF (equation provided under Paragraph

250.308 (a) (3) from PADEP document referenced in Note 1.) *""

AR309679 Golder Associates Pagel of 1

GolderAssociates

SUBJECT f-noC C-AcO^L/Vn^)rJS

Ref.Made by LP.-LUChecked 4-f-KReviewed f>t

Date C^ \iiljQSheet { of A

.Objec-W • CALCULATE

"PA Coda.

TO

f^crz.7.5(D.SO8).

"THt^250.30^ FViLE

H OUT

A:

ruM i^nt ^s /AT 25 / co/i E:T 3£>/t- C

25 Pfl COtJC 250.3^

AR309680

I8960CH?

? ^T^v • ';'[. •• ..- »•/

-.I \

c

(')

I

'Z-(&/« fc

P»|MIJO sejeioossv

ColderAssociates

SUEUECTMade byChecked ^c £Reviewed

Sêt a 4

G-At-cuUvnoO or THE. -ro

(<K«c'$UV«P'C Ctfrôv\A-rec4\of\wisoil i

231.3*6,

A:(2-c

(fa 23)

~Koc -lor

lOCTT..r r-. / v/

'VCW.INTC'^ ^(. "\ I • • ;."(

A .t ' S,

AR309682

ColderAssociates

SUBJECTMade byCheckedReviewed

Dat*Sheet 4 "4

"TO

sSooo

' J

0. 0 1t

- 2O.4

/ •' /?/ 0

COCO

enoenor

t '1

AR30968lf

November 1997 B2-I 963-6333

APPENDIX B2

\ J EXCAVATION VOLUME CALCULATIONS

Two detailed alternatives were evaluated during the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS). Thesealternatives are: • ' . - " • '

1. OU-1 ROD Excavation Remedy: Excavation of all locations where constituent levelsexceeded the ROD Table 9 values; and,

2. Alternative Soil Remedy: Enhanced soil vapor extraction (SVE) with limited excavationwhere constituent levels exceeded the Site-specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs(Appendix Bl). • • ' • • • •

This appendix discusses the methodology used to calculate the amount of soil that would need tobe excavated for each of these alternatives.

OU-1 ROD Excavation RemedyFor this remedial alternative, the soil chemistry data set were reviewed to identify whichsampling locations and depths exceeded the values identified in Table 9 of the OU-1 ROD. After

V_y developing the list of excecdanccs, these locations and depths were mapped to determine whereclusters vs. isolated locations were present. A cluster is defined as a location where all adjacentsampling locations also showed exceedances. An isolated location is defined as a location wherethe standard was exceeded at a shallow depth, and/or no neighboring sample locations had datawith exceedances. '

For the Former Drum Staging Area and the Designated Outdoor Storage Area, the minimumlimit of the excavation at each location requiring remediation was estimated as a circle centeredon the sampling location with a radius twice the depth plus 1 foot. This formula was derivedfrom the ROD requirement that a minimum side slope inclination of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical(2H:1V) and the bottom of the excavation being a 2-foot by 2-foot square. For stability of sitestructures/buildings adjacent to the excavations, ft minimum distance of 5 feet from the structurewill be maintained. The volumes required for excavation in these areas is estimated as 6565cubic yards (cy); this is 5557 cy for large excavations and an additional 1,008 cy for additionalareas with slight exceedances. See attached calculation sheets.


November 1997 B2-2 963-6333

Within the Tank Farm/Building #1 Areas, excavation was not feasible at all locations due to -proximity to buildings, overhead piping, and other permanent structures and interference with , Jdaily plant operations (specifically, locations near Building #1). Therefore, no excavationvolumes were developed for the locations next to Building #1. In the Tank Farm Area, theexcavation starting point was assumed to have a 5-ft offset from Building #2 and the existingtanks in this area. Figure B4-1 in Appendix B-4 shows the estimated extent of the excavationfootprint. It was assumed that for the first 5 feet of excavation, a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical(1H: IV) inclination would be performed and a 2H: IV inclination would be maintained from 5 ftbelow ground surface (bgs) to 20 ft bgs. The formula used to calculate the excavation volumefor this area is the truncated pyramid equation as shown on the attached calculation sheets(Method (3)). The Tank Farm Area excavation calculations were performed for 4 layers (0-ft -.6-ft bgs; 6-ft - 10-ft bgs; 10-ft - 14-ft bgs; and, 14-ft - 20-ft bgs) based on the verticaldistribution of VOCs in the subsurface. The volume calculations were performed in this mannerto support the mass calculations that were performed as part of the FFS and, as a result, arepresented in Appendix B4.

For the excavation alternative, Colder Associates also calculated soil volumes that would requiretreatment prior to disposal and volumes that could potentially be used as backfill material. These \^*Svolumes are presented in the attached calculations. Treatment is required under the followingscenarios:

• Kepone concentrations in soil, as a result of a spill of the commercial chemical productkepone, exceeds 320 ppb; and,

• Kepone or individual Volatile Organic Compound concentrations exceed the LandDisposal Restriction Universal Treatment Standards as defined in 40 CFR 258.48.

For this exercise, we have assumed any soil excavated from locations where the chemistry datashows concentrations that exceed these standards would need to be treated. The volumecalculated (7,078 cy) is an approximation of the volume based upon the data known at this time.Actual volumes that would require treatment would be determined during the excavation fromwaste characterization sample analysis data.

Colder Associates A R 3 Q 9 6 8 6

November 1997 B2-3 963-6333

Alternative Soil Remedy. For this alternative (enhanced SVE with limited excavation), the analytical data set was

•" compared to the site:specific soil-to-groundwater MSCs (refer to Appendix Bl). Thelocations/areas where remediation is required are shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. Since SVE isthe primary form of remediation for this alternative, the locations proposed for excavation arethose where SVE might not be feasible due to the shallow nature of the overburden thickness(Figure 2-1). The volume calculations for the areas to be excavated were performed in the samemanner as for the excavation alternative above. An estimated 121 cy of material would resultfrom this limited excavation.

It should be noted that, for both alternatives, the excavation volumes are estimated and arepresented in this FFS to provide a relative comparison between the two alternatives considered.Additional soil characterization would be required to define the actual limits of excavation.

G:\PROJECTS\963-4333\ITS\DRAFT-1\APPX-B2.DOC

f lR309687

UULUfcK Subject EXCAVATION VOLUMEASSOCIATES Job No: 963-6333

Ref: RNCMade by: VEFCheck by: LAHReview by: RSW

Date: 11/3/97Sheet Iof2

OBJECTIVE:

METHOD:

To estimate the volume for material to be excavated as part of each remedialalternative. These alternatives include total excavation to ROD Table 9 valuesand enhanced SVE with limited excavation to revised site-specific MSCs perPADEP documents.

1) For each alternative, delineate the locations and depths to be excavated,based upon VOCs exceeding the defined levels for that alternative.

2) Estimate the volume at each location based upon the depth of excavation.The formula used is derived from the truncated pyramid equation whereVasH/3*(Al+A2+ SQRT(A1*A2)) in general, the volume of excavation ofan individual isolated location is

V - deplh/3 * (n*(2*depCh+tf + 4 + [n*(2*depth+l)2 * 4]«}

3) ' In other locations where exceedences are clustered together the excavationwas treated as a mass excavation. In that instance, the area will becontoured and the area of each contour line will found using a digitalplanimeter. Then, use the truncated pyramid equation whereV~H/3x(Al+A2+ SQRT(A1+A2» to find the total volume to be excavatedin that location.

4) Based upon the exceedences for kepone and Land Disposal Regulations(LDRs), determine the volume of material to be treated prior to disposal.

5) Based upon the extent on the exceedences, determine whether and howmuch of the excavated material can be returned to the excavation.

REFERENCES: I) Analytical data from Centre Analytical dated September 1997; the Revised. Remedial Investigation Report, October 1993, and the Revised SVE

Performance Test Report, November 1997.

2) 40 CFR 268.40 "Land Disposal Regulations"

3) PaDEP, "Land Recycling Program," May 1997.

4) USEPA Record of Decision, Table 9, April 1995.

ASSUMPTIONS: 1) Excavation slope inclination shall be 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.

2) Excavation shall maintain a minimum of five feet from buildings or otherpermanent structures.

3) For the ROD alternative, Area A is a cluster that includes FD-02, FD-06,FD-07, SB-16, FD-08, SB-1, and SB-13; AND Area B is a cluster thatincludes FD-10, FD-05, DO-03, and DO-06.

AR309688

GULUfcK Subiect EXCAVATION VOLUMEASSOCIATES Job No: 963-6333

Ref: RNCMade by: VEFCheck by: LAHReview by: RSW

Date: 11/3/97Sheet 2of2

CALCULATION: First, given the locations and depth where the VOCs and other constituentsexceed the ROD Table 9 values, calculate the volume to be excavated. Basedupon the LDRs and maximum kepone limits, calculate the volume to undergotreatment prior to disposal.

Second, given the locations and depth where the VOCs and other constituentsexceed the revised PaDEP MSC values, calculate the volume of soil to beexcavated which may not be treated through enhanced SVE. Based upon theLDRs and maximum kepone limits, also calculate the volume to undergotreatment prior to disposal.

The result of each analysis is presented on the attached Excel spreadsheets.

CONCLUSION: For the ROD -excavation alternative,

total volume of soil excavated «¥ 10434 cytotal volume of soil to be treated * 7078 cytotal volume soil to go back in hole m 993 cy

For the enhanced SVE with limited excavation alternative,

total volume of soil excavatedtotal volume of soil to be treated

121 cy121 cy

A R 3 0 9 6 8 9

November 1997

Excavation Volumes

Estimated Excavation VolumeSoil Remedial Alternative 1 * Excavation


963-6333

Former Drum Staging and Designated Outdoor Storage Excavation Areaswith exceedences greater than a order of magnitude above ROD Table 9 values

SampleLocation

Cluster Area a:FD-02.FD-06FD-07.SB-16FD-08.SB-1SB-13

Cluster Area b:FO-10.FD-05DO-03.DO-06

Isolated Areas:DO-01DO-04SB-15SB-08SB-11FD-18SB-6

Depth(ft)

046

12

06

1120

32

177945

CUMULATIVE VOLUMECUMULATIVE VOLUME

A2(s.f.)

01329693774359

01019649701637

4444444

(cf) =(cy) =

A1(s.f.)

1329693774359262

1019649701637

4

15479

3847707

1134254380

VOLUME(C.f)

0451181342011379

04456915766

5166

183 .67

7883 (2)17823615387705

1500395557

NOTES:

(1) 75% new excavation area.(2) 35% capable of being excavated due to proximity of buildings.(3) 15% capable of being excavated.

Low Level Concentration AreasAdditional Isolated Areas with Slight Exceedences

less that an order of magnitude of ROD Table 9 values

SampleLocation

Depth A2<tt) (s.f.)

A1 VOLUME(s.f.) (c.f.)

Isolated Areas:SS-1SS-9FD-18FD-12SB-12DO-05

114

122

12

444444

2828

2541963

791963

142(3)

3876165 (D

638220

i:\Octvolt.xls\RODLeveH Colder Associates Page 1 of4

A R 3 0 9 6 9 0

November 1997 Estimated Excavation VolumeSoil Remedial Alternative 1 - Excavation


963-6333

Low Level Concentration Areas (continued)Additional Isolated Areas with Slight Exceedences

less that an order of magnitude of ROD Table 9 values

SampleLocation

Depth A2(ft) (S.f.)

A1 VOLUME(s.f.) (c.f.)

Isolated Areas:DO-08DO-09DO-12DO-13FD-04

411884

44444

2541661907907254

387640425912591

387

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) =CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy) =

272131008

Excavation Volumes (continued)

Tank Farm Area Locations(see Manual Calculation Work Sheets, Appendix B4)

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) = 104468CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy)= 3869

Total Estimated Excavation Volume (cy) 10434

z:\Octvol* xl*\RODLevel» -1 Colder Associates Page 2 of4

A R 3 0 9 6 9 I

November 1997 Estimated Excavation Volume 963-6333Soli Remedial Alternative 1 - Excavation


Volume Requiring Treatment Prior to Disposal

\_ J Former Drum Staging and Designated Outdoor Storage AreasVolume Requiring Treatment Prior to Disposal Due to ROD Requirements (kepone and LDR exceedences) <s>

NOTES:

SampleLocation

Cluster Area a:FD-06.FD-02FD-07.SB-16FD-08

Depth(ft)

0468

8-12

A2 A1 VOLUME(s.f.) (s.f.) (c.f.)

0920366501240

N/A N/A

920366501240

80

031568717410907586

(1) 75% new excavation area.(2) 35% capable of being excavated due to proximity of buildings.(3) 15% capable of being excavated.(4) 15% tails within exacavatfon limits(5) Subsurface chemistry data compared to LOR & kepone values.

Isolated Are^s-SB-08FD-10FD-05DO-05DO-09SB-15DO-06

7118

8-128-118-12

6

4444444

7071661907

196316611963531

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) =CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy) =

1782640425918157634128551161

767102841

Volume Requiring Treatment Prior to Disposal Due to LDRs (VOC exceedences only) (B)

Sample Depth A2 A1 VOLUMELocation (ft) (s.f.) (s.f.) (c.f.)

SB-13 4 4CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) *CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy) »

254 387387

14

Low Level Concentration AreasVolume Requiring Treatment Prior to Disposal Due to ROD Requirements (kepone and VOC exceedences) (S)

Sample Depth A2 A1 VOLUMELocation (ft) (s.f.) (s.f.) (c.f.)

SS-1SS-9FD-12DO-05DO-13FD-04

11

12484

444444

2828

1963254907254

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) =CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy) *

22<4>

6165 (1)387

2591387

9535353

z:\Octvofs.xls\RODLevels • 1 Colder Associates Page 3 of4

A R 3 0 9 6 9 2

November 1997 Estimated Excavation Volume 963-6333Soil Remedial Alternative 1 • Excavation


Volume Requiring Treatment Prior to Disposal (continued) . j

Tank Farm Area Locations NOTES:_____________________(see Manual Calculation Work Sheets, Appendix B4) (e> Assumed everything excavated from the Tank Farm Area

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) = 104468 would require treatment prior to disposal due to elevatedCUMULATIVE VOLUME (Cy) = 3869 (6) concentrations detected In these samples.

Total Volume Requiring Treatment (cy) * 7078

i:\Dctvoi..xis\ROOL.veii.i Colder Associate* Page 4 of 4

A R 3 0 9 6 9 3

November 1997 Estimated Excavation VolumeSoil Remedial Alternative 1 - Excavation


Excavation Volumes when Soil can be Used as Backfill

Former Drum Staging and Designated Outdoor Storage Areas **

963-6333

SampleLocation

DO-03DO-05DO-09DO-10DO-12 'DO-13FD-05FD-07FD-08FD-10FD-12FD-18SB-01SB-15SB-16

Depth A2(ft) (s.f.)

73

10377753

101137

107

A1 VOLUME

444444444444444

(s.f.)

707154

1385154707707707380154

13851661

154707

1385707

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) «CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy) «

(c.f.)1782'1831707183

178217821782705183

48776404

183178217071782

26822093

Volume of clean soil at depths abovethe soil exceeding Table 9 values.Volume calculated as isolated areas.

r:\Octvols.xli\ROO • back to hot* Colder Associates Page 1 of 1

AR309691*

November 1997 Estimated Excavation Volume 963-6333Soil Remedial Alternative 2 - Enhanced SVE with Limited Excavation


Excavation Volumes

Former Drum Staging and Designated Outdoor Storage Areas(Isolated Locations)

SampleLocation

DO-01DO-06FD-02FD-06FD-07

Depth A2, (ft) <s:f.)

36446

44444

A1(s.f.)

154531254254531

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) -CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy) «

VOLUME(c.f.)

1831161387387

1161

3280121

Volume Requiring Treatment Prior to Disposal

Former Drum Staging and Designated Outdoor Storage Areas

( All excavated volume is assumed to require treatment)

CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cf) • 3280CUMULATIVE VOLUME (cy) « 121

z \octvou xi«\PaDEP SVE Colder Associates Pa9e 1 of 1

AR309695

:'. Appendix I 3;;;£;:;;,3;gig

Remedial Alternative Cost Calculations

AR309696

February 1999 B3-1 963-6333

i APPENDIXES

REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST CALCULATIONS

The estimated costs for the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy and the Alternative Soil Remedy havebeen calculated and are presented on Table B3-1 and B3-2, respectively. The updated costestimate for the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy is based upon the new -technical data gatheredsince the ROD was issued in April 1995 and the additional requirements specified in the ROD,which were not accounted for in the ROD cost estimate. In particular, the cost of $4.4 millionpresented in The ROD for the soil remedy did not include treatment prior to disposal.

For the OU-1 ROD excavation remedy, the following assumptions were used:

• A total of 10,434 cubic yards (cy) of soil would be excavated from the OperatingManufacturing Area;

• Of the 10,434 cy excavated, 7,078 cy of soil would require treatment prior to disposal at aRCRAC Landfill;

^_^ • Of the 10,434 cy excavated, 2,363 cy of soil could be disposed at a RCRA C Landfillwithout prior treatment;

• 993 cy of excavated soil could potentially be used as backfill material for the excavation;

• Post excavation sampling would be performed at the base and along the sidewalls of eachexcavated area;

• Waste characterization sampling and analysis would be performed to evaluate disposaloptions; and,

• Pavement will be repaired in areas where excavation 'occurs.

For the Alternative Soil Remedy (enhanced SVE with limited excavation), the followingassumptions were used:

• Twenty-eight SVE wells would be installed to treat the overburden soil and bedrock;Where feasible, the overburden wells would be hydraulically fractured to enhancetreatment of VOCs;

• Trenching would be performed for placement of the pipes and associated SVEL appurtenances. A portion of the soil removed by trenching would require treatment prior^-^ to disposal at a RCRA C Landfill;


February 1999 B3-2 963-6333

• The SVE wells would be designed in such a manner as to remove perched water in theoverburden. The water removed by this system will be .treated at the on-Site treatmentplant;

• 121 cy of soil would be excavated from the shallow overburden areas shown on Figure2-1. This entire soil volume would require treatment prior to disposal at a RCRA CLandfill;

• Post excavation sampling would be performed at the base and along the sidewalls of eachexcavated area;

• Waste characterization sampling and analysis would be performed to evaluate disposaloptions;

• Low permeability pavement would be placed to enhance the performance of the SVEsystem and to control storm water infiltration;

• For costing purposes the SVE system is assumed to operate for 3 '/i years; and,

• Annual O&M includes maintenance of the system, analytical testing, emission testing,pavement inspection and repairs, and utilities.

Further assumptions regarding these cost estimates are noted on Tables B3-1 and B3-2. Forconsistency with the cost estimates presented in the ROD, a 7% discount rate has been assumedin the Present Worth calculation. An inflation rate was not used in this calculation. It should benoted that these costs are estimated and are intended to be used for relative comparisons of theTwo alternative remedies. More refined costs would be prepared as part of the remedial design.


ctobi.Octobi. J97 C C .63-6333

Table 83-1Cost Estfensts

For Sol BsmsdM Ahamatfva Ba»ad on BOD RsmsdyExcavation

Activity

ESTIMATED DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS

ExcwMton/DIipoMlMob/Demob

Off -site dbposal and thermal treatmentOfMttadtepoMlImported dean backfW

Rna oratingPavanant RoplacaDMfit

Laboratory Ararytical Service*:VOCs. TOP, MPK

TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTESTIMATED INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS

Can. Entfnaafrm Service* (5% of TDCQ

hnptamam Haafth * Safaty ftaii (8%o* TDCQContinooncy (10% d TOCO

Unit Costs

140,000434

fl.3001250

*7*13

»0.70•22

Units

Lump turnC.Y.C.Y.C.V.c.r.C.Y.S.V.S.Y.

Lumpaum

Quantity

11O434707823639441

1043448004800

1

EstimatedCost

*4O,OOO»3S0.582

49,201.400*590,750$08,067

1135,642*3.360

*1 05,600

256.000

*10.709,421

LumpatmLumpaumlump sumLump sum

(540,000$320,0001880.000

•1. 070.000

TOTAL MMRECT CAPTTAL COSTS . *2, 790,000

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS » 13.499.421

OftMCOSTS

TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COST

PRESENT WORTH TUB ALTERNATIVE

Capital Cost0 ft M COM (PraMnt WortN

•0

• 13,499,421»0

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR THIS ALTERNATIVE 413,499.421

Bas* ofEsfJmats

Project experienceMeans 96 + 20 % for HAS constteration and confined apacepar C. WWama $ FMCpar C. VWMara 9 RNCMaMConlractor) + HaufingCH Meant 022-2664550)Contractor0251221020(Maant96|025 104 1000 Oman* 96)

-

=0COCD

VO

(1) Of me tout volume eiumsiad for Mcivetlon. onty §93 cy urn assumed to bo returned to the hols. We hove assumed that approxfmstefy 70% «rii wndsrao uaaimamarler wdlepoealduaiekopane and LOH axoeadsnDN to meet UTS standaids: for the rainato^ eoe\ aisume dispoast at KfIA "C" Lendnl without treatment.

Ot for me Tarn; Faim *«ee. «e hove sssumiJ met sH of me volume eMcaveied •* be treated prior to dlepoeal based upon tnt concanireUons dsisctad in tfte esmplss coiectsdfrom this arae. Actual »olBmssandtlMneedlo»t»aatmat<i bedeisrmtoailo iir iam

131 Voajmes ware net cafculeied tor ersee nmsnt aacavailen is not fssatlo due to mo pnudmHy of meas ernes » buMnaa and production areas.HI There Is a 2O% surcharge added *a me excevetto* unH ma ID account for hoaM and safety monhorina in Laval C101 Cauiia dilUcunisi BMHCloMif rrhti IfTTT imanlnn rnrntnft ami Trmtnrffrtsnt imtilnyii Hftt trr T-f rtntl tfirtTp nrrifim Thssameted

Indirect capital cceta am anBclpsaid 10 eccount for coate aoeoclsied «»Mh thsee Issuse.

FFaFFS99\EKccst.xbAaxcavaia rod Colder Associate* Pagalof 1

Fatocl 3 c c 9634333

Table B3-2Cost Estimate

For So> Remedial Alternative based on PADEP MSCsSol Vapor Extraction (SVE) whh United Excavation

Activity

ESTIMATED DIRECT CAPITAL COSTSSoN Vapor Extraction (SVE)Mob/DemobSVE wells (with hydrofracturing)Installation of Header Pipe for SVE WellsProvision and Installation of aN Fittings/Valves/WellHead AssembliesExcavation/Backfill Header TrenchImport Clean Backfill (Header Trench)Provision and. Installation of Blowers and HousingEmission Treatment (RTO units)Performance Test (start-up of RTO Unit) •

Umhed Excavation/Disposal - .

Mob/DemobConventional ExcavationOff -site disposal and treatment (excavation)Off-stte disposal and treatment (header)Imported dean backfillPlace/compact backfillFine gracingPavement Placement over SVE trenchPavement Placement over large paved areas

Laboratory Analytical Services:VOCs, TCLP. MPK

Unit Costs

$40,000$6,000

$15

$4,000$1.83

$7$200,000$100.000$100.000

$20.000$34

$1.300$1.300

$7$13

$0.70$23$16

Units

Lump sumper weltperLF

per wellperLFC.Y.per unitLump sumLump sum

Lump sumC.Y.C.Y.C.Y.C.Y.C.Y.S.Y.S.Y.S.Y.

Lump sum

Quantity

128

2500

282500

931O1

1121121101121121

10000500

9500

1

EstimatedCost

$40,000$168.000$37.500

$112.000$4,575

$651$200.000

$0$100,000

$20,000$4.066

$157.300$131.300

$847$1.573$7.000

$11, BOO$152.000

$61,000

TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COST $1.209.312ESTIMATED INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS

Gen. Engineering Services (1 5% of TDCC)Permitting/Regulatory Coordination (3% of TDCC)Implement Health & Safety Plan (8% of TDCC)Contingency (10% of TDCO

Lump sumLump sumLump sumLump sum

$180,000$40.000

$100.000$120,000

TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS $440.000

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1.649.312

Baste ofEstimate

Project experienceProject experience026 678 2180 (Means 96) plus experience

Project experience022 258 2850 (Means 96 times 2.5 for confined space)per R. Domalski @ RNCProject experience(RTOs in place)Project experience

Project experience

per C. William* @ RNCper C. Williams @ RNCper R. Domalski 9 RNCper R. Domalski @ RNC025 122 1020 (Means 96)025 100 1000 (Means 96)Means 96: 022 300 0010. 022 300 0050. 025 100 0120. 025 100 0

[post ex and Waste characterization)

Hte i:Ut333\fMFFS99\SvM»t.)di

A R 3 0 9 7 0 0Goktar AnodMM Pag* lot 2

903-6333Table B3-2

Cost EstimateFor Soil Remedial Alternative based on PADEP MSCsSON Vapor Extraction (SVE) with Limited Excavation

Activity

O&MCOSTSSoil Vapor Extraction:0 & M cost for 3.5 yean (5%)Analytical TestingEmission TestingPavement Inspection/RepairsUtility Services (Gas/Electric)

Unit Costs

$33,136$4,800

$15.000$5.000

$42.500

Units

YearYearYearYearYear

Quantity

11111

EstimatedCost

$33.136$4.800

$15,000$5.000

$42.500

TOTAL ANNUAL SVE O & M COST $100.436

PRESENT WORTH (3.5 YEARS 0 7%) $301.886.41

TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS $100,436PRESENT WORTH THIS ALTERNATIVECapital CostO & M Co»t (Present Worth)

$1,649,312$301.886

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR THIS ALTERNATIVE $1,951,198

Basis ofEstimate

Laboratory + ReportLaboratory + ReportEstimated; project experience

fdftta^ MVJ Assumptions:(1) Costs assume SVE Condensate Treated at Existing On-Site Wastewater Treatment Plant.(2) Assume average depth of 15 ft/SVE well in TFA. 10 ft/SVE well in DOSA. end 8 ft/SVE well in FDSA.(3) Assume 2500 ft of header trench (1 ft wide and 3 ft deep) Costs have been adjusted to account for limited access in Tank Farm Area.(4) Assume paving will occur in the Former Drum Staging, Designated Outdoor Storage and Tank Farm/Building * 1 Areas.(5) Of the 121 cy excavated, we have assumed that aft of ft wiH undergo treatment due to kepone and LOR

exceedences to meet UTS standards.(6) Volumes were not calculated for areas where excavation is not feasible due to the proximity of these areas to buildings and production areas.(7) Of the 280 cy excavated from the header trench, we have assumed that 2/3 of it wiH be used as backfill end the other 1/3 will be treated and disposed.(8) There is a 20% surcharge added to the excavation unit rate to account.for health and safety monitoring in Level C.

CO

fife ffs\FFS99\Sv«cst.xli c P*Ba2of2

'..' -•:; Appendix .IjWj^Jji

Calculation of VOG Mass

AR309702

November 1997 B4-1 963-6333

APPENDIX B4

CALCULATION OF VOC MASS

AREAS TO BE TREATED BY SVEFigures 2-1 and 2-2 show the areas where remediation by SVE can be performed. The VOC massassociated with SVE in the Tank Farm Area was determined in a slightly different manner thanfor the VOC mass calculated for locations in the Building #1 Area and the area of soil boring SB-15 (adjacent to Building #9). The mass of VOC constituents in the Former Drum Staging andDesignated Outdoor Storage Areas were not computed because the same relative mass could beaddressee! by either soil remedial alternative, albeit at vastly different costs.

Tank Farm AreaFigure 4-1 provides the area of depressurization of a conceptual enhanced SVE system installedin the Tank Farm Area. Four horizontal slices were made through this area at depth intervals 0-ftto 6-ft below ground surface (bgs), 6-ft to 10-ft bgs, 10-ft to 14-ft bgs, and 14-ft to 20-ft bgs.Based on the subsurface soil chemistry, including the PDI data (see Table B4-1), total VOCisoconcentration areas were approximated in each slice. The volume of each slice (rectangularbox) was calculated and used to calculate the mass of constituents in that slice as shown in TableB4-2. Figures B4-5 through B4-8 support these calculations. The resulting mass of total VOCwithin the area of SVE depressurization was estimated to be 6,174 kg or about 13,600 flx Itshould be noted that these mass calculations are estimates and were used to provide a basis forcomparison of relative mass removal potential by the two alternative soil remedies.

Building #l/BuUdlng #9 AreasThe locations of interest included in this exercise were SB-15 (near Building #9) and locationsSB-2, SB-3, TF-10, and TF-11 (near Building #1).

In order to detennine the estimated VOC mass that is available within the soil, we calculated thevolume of a cylinder centered on the sample location having a 15-foot radius and a heightequivalent to the maximum depth sampled. At SB-15, the maximum sampled depth was 17 feet,yielding an estimated volume 12,011 cubic feet (cf) and a corresponding estimated VOC mass of10.6 Ibs. Near Building #1, there are four sampling locations where remediation would berequired. Since the VOC values at these locations varied by three orders of magnitude, the depth


November 1997 B4-2 963-6333

and total VOC concentrations were calculated using the geometric mean. These mean valueswere then used to calculate a representative estimated volume of 8,251 cf and an estimated VOCmass of 200 Ib. Table B4-4 presents a summary of the mass calculations in these areas.

AREAS TO BE TREATED BY EXCAVATIONThe VOC mass associated with excavation in the Tank Farm Area was determined in a slightlydifferent manner than the manner in which VOC mass was calculated for locations in theBuilding #1 Area and the area of soil boring SB-15 (adjacent to Building #9). The mass of VOCconstituent in the Former Drum Staging and Designated Outdoor Storage Areas were notcomputed because the same relative mass could be removed by either soil remedial alternative,albeit at vastly different costs.

Tank Farm AreaFor consistency in comparing relative mass removed by SVE with relative mass removed byexcavation, the VOC mass in the Tank Farm Area was determined in a manner similar to thatdescribed above. The geometry of a safely constructed excavation within the Tank Farm Areawas determined and is based on the following:

• 5-foot off-set from structures;• 1H: IV excavation side slope for first 5 feet; and• 2H:1V excavation side slope for 5 to 20 feetbgs as specified in the 1995 ROD.

Figure 4-2 of the FFS shows the excavation footprint in plan view and cross-section view. Thesame depth intervals and total VOC concentrations used in calculating VOC mass for the SVEtreated area were used for calculating mass removal via excavation. However, given thegeotechnical restrictions of excavation, the amount of soil excavated necessarily decreased withdepth. As a result, not all VOCs could be excavated for a given depth interval. Figures B4-1through B4-4 show the plan view extent of excavation that has been estimated for each slice andthe associated isoconccntration areas within that slice. For each slice, the excavation volume ofeach isoconcentration area was calculated using the truncated pyramid equation (refer to attachedcalculations).

Table B4-3 summarizes the excavation volumes and VOC isoconcentrations within each slice aswell as the calculated mass of total VOCs which could be removed via excavation. The estimatedmass that can be removed by excavation in the Tank Farm Area is 5,345 kg or 11,785 Ib. It

Colder Associates A R 3 0 9 7 0 U

November 1997 B4-3 963-6333

should be noted that excavation from 10 ft to 20 ft (bottom two slices) would result in removal ofan estimated 23,700 cy of soil but only an estimated 23 kg (51 Ib.) of total VOC mass would beremoved by this volume.

Building Î/Building #9 AreasFollowing determination of the estimated VOC mass in these areas, Colder Associatesdetermined the mass of VOC constituents available for excavation. Near Building #1, permanentstructures and daily operations prevent excavation of any of this material, resulting in 0 Ib. ofVOCs that can be removed from this area. At SB-15, the building and other site structures allowthe removal of approximately 35% of the VOC mass (3.7 Ib). However, in order to maintainstable side slopes, a much larger volume of soil would be required for removal than 35% of theestimated volume of the cylinder (4,200 cf). This estimated excavation volume is 7,883 cf aspresented in Appendix B2.

0:\PROJECTS\963-6333\FFS\DRAFT-1\APPX-B4.DOC


November 1997TabteB4-1

Data Set used for VOC Mass Calculation

963-6333

Sample ID

TF010304TF010607TF020708TF021112TF021415TF030304TF030708TF031011TF031920TF040304TF040708TF041112TF041516TF050203TF050708TF051112TF052021SB-3ASB-3bSB-3cSB-4aSB-4bSB-4cSB-5aSB-5bP-1P-2P-3P-4P-5P-6E-1BR-16R-2

EASTING

195211119521111952096195209619520961952071195207119520711952071195209419520941952094

• 1952094195211619521161952116195211619522021952202195220219521621952162195216219520881952088195212119521191952103195209719520841952141195210919520861952136

NORTHING

239791.7239791.7239813.6239813.6239813.6239829.2239829.2239829.2239829.2239857.7239857.7239857.7239857.7239890.7239890.7239890.7239890.7239983.5239983.5239983.5239888.5239888.5239888.5239813.8239813.8239881.5239854.6239852.3239843.1239821.4239845.1239860.9239801.5239883.2

Depth of Sample[ft. bgs]3.56.57.511.514.53.57.510.519.53.57.511.515.52.57.511.520.512.35161912.168

2.2516.65.484.54.99.55.27.257.157.35

Total VOCConcentration

[ug/kg]2215823672665902320175

1040001527728085128460001727000220110

2066103711210062935742594065290239229071911288374928322

3456741164803109401178402841100177928086015824936

z:\projects\963-6333\ffs\B4-1 .xls Colder Associates

AR309706Page 1 of 1

November 1997 Table B4-2Total VOC Mass Within SVE Capture Zone

963-6333

Total VOC Mass Calculation • Depth Interval: 0 ft to 6 ft Below Ground Surface (bgs)Isoconcentration

AreaIA6IA5IA4(A3IA2IA1

Sub-Total

AlIft2!

4,7656,9183.0275,043

655488

h[ft]

666666

VI[ftl

28,59041,50816,16230.2583,9302,928

(ml810

1,17551485711163

P[kg/m3]

1,9001.9001,9001.9001,9001,900

Msoil[kg]1,538,2082,233,226

977,1571,627.950

211,443157,533

Cl[Kg/kg]5.0E-075.0E-0660E-055.0E-045.0E-031.8E-02

Me[kg]7.69E-011.12E+014.89E+018.14E+021.06E+032.84E+03

20,896 125,376 3,550 6,745,517 4,768

Total VOC Mass Calculation - Depth Interval: 6 ft to 10 ft bgs


Total VOC Mass Calculation • Depth Interval: Lower than 14 ft bgs.

IsoconcentrationArea

IA6IA5IA4IA3IA2IA1

Sub-Total

Al[ft2]

7,8342,7292,2977,068

468500

h[ft]

444444

VI[ftl

31,33610,9169,188

28,2721,8722,000

[ml8873092606015357

P[kg/m3]

1,9001,9001,9001,9001,9001,900

Msoil[kg]1,685.949

587,306494,336

1,521.099100,718.107,605

Cl[kg/kg]5.0E-075.0E-065.0E-055.0E-041.7E-032.8E-03

Me[kg]

6.43E-012.94E+002.47E+017.61 E+021.74E+023.06E+02

20,896 83,584 2,367 4,497,011 1,269


IA6IA5IA5IA4IA3Bedrock 1Bedrock 2

Sub-Total

Ai(ft2]

1.2376,9151,8562,755

6161.580

l 5.737

h[ft]

44444

.00

VI[ftl

4,94827,6607.424

11,0203.264

00

(ml1407832103129200

P[kg/m3]

1,9001,9001,9001,9001,9001,9001,900

Msoil(kg)

266.2141,488,172

399,428592.901175,611

--

Cl[kg*g]5.0E-075.0E-065.0E-065.0E-052.7E-04

O.OE+00O.OE+00

Me[kg]1.33E-017.44E+002.00E+002.96E+014.68E+01O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

20,896 54,316 1,538 2,922,326 86


IA6IA5IA4Bedrock 1Bedrock 2

Sub-Total

Ai[ft2]

6.4401,7782,3182.6197,741

h[ft]

42800

VI

[ftl25,7603,556

18,54400

M729101525

00

P[kg/m3)

1,9001,9001,9001,9001,900

Msoil[kg]1.385,947

191,321997,710

•-

Cf[kg/kg]5.0E-075.0E-065.0E-05O.OE+00O.OE+00

Me[kg]6. 93 E -019.57E-014.99E+01O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

20,896 47,660 1,355 2,574,978 52

Total 311,136 8,610 16,739,832 6,174

g:\projects\96 3-6333\ffs\B4-2r.xls Colder Associates

AR309707

November 1997 Table B4-3Total VOC Mass Within Excavation Zone

963-6333

Total VOC Mass Calculation • Depth Interval: 0 ft to 0 ft Below Ground Surface (bgs)

Sub-Total

Isoconcentration Area

IA6IA5IA4IA3IA2IA1

Vi[ftl

1534066649883

17154,39302928

[ml434.38188.70279.86485.75111.2982.91

PIkg/m3)

190019001900190019001900

Msoil(kfll

825,327358,539531,728922,925211,443157,533

Ci[kg/kg]5.0E-075.0E-065.0E-05S.OE-045.0E-G31.8E-02

Me[kg]4.13E-011.79E+002.66E+014.61 E+021.06E+032.84E+03

55,699 1.583 3,007.495 4,383


Sub-Total


Sub-Total

Total VOC Mass Calculation - Depth Interval: 14 ft to 20 ft bgs.

Sub-Total


IA6IA5IA4IA3IA2IA1

Vi[ftl

016443553

1674218722000

Iml0.00

46.55100.61474.08

53.0156.63

P[kg/m3]

190019001900190019001900

Msoil[kg]

•88,451

191,160900,758100,718107,605

Ci[kg/kg]5.0E-075.0E-065.0E-055.0E-041.7E-032.8E-03

Me[kg]

O.OOE+004.42E-019.56E4004.50E+021.74E+023.06E+02

25,811 731 1.388,691 940


IA6IA5IA4IA3IA2IA1 I

VIn

222067396208

000

M62.86

190.83175.79

0.000.00o.oo

P[kg/m3]

190019001900190019001900

Msoil[kg)

119,441362,574334,005

••-

cifkfl*g]5.0E-075.0E-065.0E-052.7E-04O.OE+00O.OE+00

Me

[kg]5.97E-021.81E+001.67E+01O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

15,167 429 816.019 19


IA6IA5IA4IA3IA2IA1 J _____

Vi(ftl

494315251123

000

M139.9743.1831.600.000.000.00

P[kg/m3]

190019001900190019001900

Msoil[kg]

265,94582,04960,420

•.

•

Ci[kg/kg]5.0E-075.0E-065.0E-055.0E-045.0E-031.8E-02

Metkg]1.33E-014.10E-013.02E+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

0 7591 214.95 406.413 4

Total 104,468 2,958 5,620,619 6,345

g:\projects\963-6333\ffs\B4-3.xls Gotder AssociatesA R 3 0 9 7 0 8

Page 1 of 1

ColderAssociates

SUBJECT VOLUMES fvriwAT^x fefi. MA^-Y"ATJob No. «, .. f ~ -> ->Ref; lto^-ki^3

Madeby ,jChecked S(/)Reviewed

Da*6 f7/p2CSheet , of / \

1 ^

-L

f1 l ' ;\- i

'},'. i,-;-,

/ ,- j » 5 Z

vVc

A,

A , ' ^

4T-O

RR309709

ColderAssociates

.K

SUBJECT

CheckedReviewed

TO

Or?

'500 * 5OO V \ 5oo» 500\J

- 500

» 4831

V-

V

VV

h-4/A, = V- 7.5 S

\Jo

2OCO

i

AR3097I

GolderAssociates

SUBJECTJob No.Rat.

Made byCheckadReviewed

DateSheet "of L.

. \

- (non

TEA,

J-*fe

A,== I0?5

hf \ ,

1101+05

h=A

V=l/= 6.208

V - % (1171+ ny, +

* 2.-Z.-ZO

\J C.U"?

"2-ZZO

A R 3 0 9 7 I I

ColderAssociates

ei ID ie^*T \ I _ ' *OUE3JCWI V/O 1 t-J M ES

Job No. 1fc)^)-t' >"*>3Ret.

Madaby \_ FNV.Checked 0ft)Reviewed ^

Dat» q^\o^Sheet LV °* u.

£QLAT\ON) TO

- .o c-o

A. =

—/Û

//23

V ^

'- fr/

"

A R 3 0 9 7 I 2

UULUfcKASSOCIATES

OBJECTIVE:

Subject: MASS OF TOTAL VOCS AT DISCRETE LOCATIONS'Job No: 963-6333 Made by: VEF Date: 11/3/97Ref : RNC Check by: RSW Sheet: 1 of 1

________ Review by: LAH _____ __

To determine the mass of VOCs available and removed and two discretelocations: SB-15 and Building #1.

METHOD:

REFERENCES:

1) Based upon the total VOCs, use the geometric mean to get a weightedvalue of total VOCs and excavation depth.

2) To determine the total VOCs present in the soil at these locations, use acylinder of the defined depth and a IS foot radius as the approximateextent of required remediation.

3) Multiply the volume of the cylinder, defined under (2) above, by anestimated soil density (1.9 gm/cc) to obtain the weight of soil containedin the defined cylinder.

4) Multiply the soil weight in the cylinder by the total VOC concentrationto determine the mass of total VOCs available.

5) The mass removed through excavation is based upon access to thelocations. It was assumed that excavation would not occur at thelocations near Building #1 and that only 33% of the mass could beremoved from SB-IS due to the proximity of Building #9 and otherstructures on Site.

1) Analytical data from Centre Analytical Laboratories dated September1997, and the Revised Remedial Investigation Report, October 1993.

2) 40 CFR 268.40 "Land Disposal Regulations"

3) PaDEP, "Land Recycling Program," May 1997.

4) USEPA Record of Decision, Table 9, April 1995.

ASSUMPTIONS: 1) Excavation slope inclination shall be 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.

2) Estimated density of site soils is 1.9 gm/cc.

3) Limit of VOC concentration, which exceed site-specific soil MSCs, isdefined by a 15-foot radius cylinder of the depth of the last sample takenat the location.

CALCULATION:

CONCLUSION:

The result of each analysis is presented on the attached Excel spreadsheet.

The estimated mass of total VOCs available to remediation by enhanced SVE is210.2 Ib. The estimated mass of total VOCs that could be removed throughexcavation is 3.7 Ib.

A R 3 0 9 7 I 3

November 1997 963-6333

Table B4-4

Mass Calculation for Building #1/BuIldIng #9 AreasCentre County Kepone Site

, State College, Pennsylvania

Estimated VOC Mass

that can be treated by SVEBoringSB-15

Bldg #1 AreaTOTAL

VOC[ug/kgj| Avg. Depth [ft]7454

203906.88—

1711.7—

Volume (cf)12010.5

6251.420261.91436

Mass (Ib)10.6

199.6210.2

TOTAL Estimated VOC Mass 210.2 tbs

Estimated VOC Mass

available to excavationBoringSB-15

Bldg #1 AreaTOTAL

VOC[ug/kg]| Avg. Depth [ft]7454

203906.88_

1711.7_

Volume (cf)7883

0.07883

Mass (Ib)3.70.03.7

Total Estimated VOC Mass 3.7 Ibs

To be conservative, the sample results from the depth interval with the highesttotal VOC concentration was used in the calculation of mass. For the fourlocations arround Building f 1, the geometric mean of the concentrations andthe depth of the borehole were used in the calculation of the mass in that area.

For evaluation of the mass that could be removed by excavtion, it has been assumed35% of the mass at SB-15 can be removed by excavation due to the locationsproximity to Building #9 and other site structures. It has been assumed that nomass can be removed from the locations around Building #1 because excavationin this area is not feasible due to active plant operations.

963-6333\ffs\Bsmasr2.xls Colder Associates

A R 3 0 9 7 I UPage 1 of 1

LEGEND

IF- II

••-VBR-2.

Rt PHASE I AND II SOL BORING LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

POI SON. BORING LOCATION

SVC PCZOMETER UOWTORMC WELL

5VE OVERBURDEN EXTRACTION MELL


;AREA OF SVE REMEDIATION

NOTESt.) THE SAMPLE LOCATIONS NEAR BULGING fl WTH

EXCEEDENCCS WU. NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOWE PROXMTY OF THE BUILDINGS. TANKS. OVERHEADEOLNPUENT AND ONDOMG OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

2.) BOUNDARIES AND AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND WLLBE FURTHER DEFINED DURING THE REMEDIAL DESIGN ANDREMEDIAL ACTION.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILES

TITLED •BASE' DATED oe/os/s? AND 'isioi2or DATED06/09/97 SUPPLIED BY MTTANY GEOSOENCES. MC.

Z) LOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE. MONITORING WELLS ANDPOt SOL BORMGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILE TITLED"SPC" DATED 06/02/97 SUPPUEO BY SUEETLANOENCINEERINC ft ASSOCIATES. MC

3.) LOCATION OF Rl PHASE I AND fl SOIL BORINGS TAKEN. FROM DIGITAL FILE "PA17-I69" DATED 10/14/93

, PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES MC.

20escale

FtB20a

feet

f lR3097IS

963-6333DWD

AS SHOWN

10/28/97PAI7-360

Galder Associates

ISOCONCENTRATION MASS AREASEXCAVATION LAYER O TO 6 FTTANK FARM/BULDm^ «1 AREAS

>QNpB4-1RUETGERS-NEASE COf

\

BUtLDING

12

LEGEND

Rl PHASE I AND II SOIL BORtNQ LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

POI SON. BORING LOCATION

E-S

BB-2

SVE PCZOMETER MONITORING WELL

SVE OVERBURDEN EXTRACTION «ELL


AREA OF SVE REMEDIATION

NOTES1.) THE SAMPLE LOCATIONS NEAR BUILOMG fl WTH

EXCEEDENCES WLL NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOTHE PROXMTY OF THE BUILDINGS. TANKS. OVERHEADEQUIPMENT AND ONGOING OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES. THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

2.) BOUNOARCS AND AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND WLLBE FURTHER DEFINED DURING THE REMEDIAL DESIGN ANDREMEDIAL ACTION.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOCRAPHK: FEATURES TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILES

TITLED "BASE" DATED 06/05/97 AND "15101207" OATEO06/09/97 SUPPLIED BY MTTANY CEOSCIENCES. INC.

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY LME, MONITORING WELLS ANDPOI SOR. BORINGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL me TITLED"SPC" DATED 06/02/97 SUPPLIED BY SWEEJIANOENGMEERWC * ASSOCIATES. INC.

3.) LOCATION OF Rl PHASE I AND H SOL BORINGS TAKENFROM DIGITAL FILE "PA17-169" DATED tO/14/ttPREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

20escale

20!5

feet

AR3097 I6

•«»«~ 963-6333OWO

AS SHOWN

10/28/97PA17-361

Golder Associates

ISOCONCENTRATION MASS AREASEXCAVATION LAYER 6 TO K> FTTANK FARM/BULDING *1 AREAS

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION B4-2

rLEGEND

BR-2,

Rf PHASE I AND II SOIL BORING LOCAIKM(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

POI SOL BORING LOCATION

SVE PCZOMETER MONITORING WELL

S* OVERBURDEN EXTRACTION WELL

SVE BEDROCK EXTRACTION HELL

AREA OF SVE REMEDIATION

NOTESJ.) THE SAMPLE LOCATIONS NEAR BULDMG ft MTH

EXCEEDCNCES <HLL NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOTHE PROMMTY OF THE BUILDINGS. TANKS. OWRHCAOEQUIPMENT AND ONGOING OPERATIONS ACTMTCS. THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

2.) BOUNDARIES AND AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND MLLBE FURTHER DEFINED DURING THE REMEDIAL DESIGN ANDREMEDIAL ACTON,

REFERENCES1.) TOPOCRAPHK: FEATURES TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FLES

TITLED "BASE" DA1ED 06/05/97 AND "15101207* DATED06/09/97 SUPPLIED BY MTTANY GEOSOENCES. MC.

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY UNC. MONITORING WELLS ANDPOI SOL 00RMGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILE TITLED*SPC" DATED 06/02/97 SUPPUEO BY SWEETLANDENCMEERING ft ASSOCIATES. MC.

X) LOCATION OF Rl PHASE I AND • SOIL 80RMCS TAKENFROM DIGITAL FIE f A17-169" DATED 10/14/93

, PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOOATES MC

20escale

20_ afeet

A R 3 0 9 7 I 7

M K 963-6333 AS SHOWN10/28/97PA17-362

Associates RUETGERS-NEASE COR.

LEGEND

E-3,

Rl PHASE I AND II SOIL BORING LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

IPa SOL BORING LOCATION

SVE PKZOUETER MONITORWG WELLI

51* OVCR9UROEN EXTRACTION KU

SVE SOWOCK EXTRACTION DELL

AREA OF SVC REMEDIATION

NOTES1.) THE SU4PLE LOCATIONS NEAR BULMllG fl WTH

EXCEEDENCES HULL NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOTHE PROXIMITY OF THE BUILDINGS, TANKS. OVERHEADEQUIPMENT AND ONGOING OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES. THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

2.) BOUNDARIES AND AREAS ARE APPROXMATE AND miBE FURTHER DEFINED DURING THC REMEDIAL OESKM ANDREMEDIAL ACTION.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILES

TITLED "BAST DATED 06/09/97 AND 'ISIOtMr DATED06/09/97 SUPPLIED BY MTTANY CEOSOENCES. INC.

:t.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY UNC, MONITORING NCLLS ANDPOI SO*. BORMGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILE TITLED•SPC' DATED 06/02/97 SUPPLIED BY SWEETLANDENGINEERING ft ASSOCIATES, MC.

1) LOCATION OF Rl PHASE I AND H SOL BORINGS TAKENFROM DIGITAL FIE "PA^7-169' DATED 10/14/93PREPARED SY COLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

scale feet

AR3097I8 .

*• «« 963-6333 AS SHOWN

TO/28/97•w •»; PA17-363

04

Golder Associates

ISOCONCENTRATION MASS AREASEXCAVATION AT LAYER 14 TO 20 FT

TANK FARM/BUILDING »1 AREA

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION B4-4

LEGEND

BUILDING12

SB-3

TF-llA-

Rl PHASE I ANO « SOIL BORINC LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

P0I SOIL BORINC LOCATION

SVE PIEZOMETER MONITORING WELL

SVC OVERBURDEN EXTRACTION WELL

SUE BEDROCK EXTRACTION NELL

APPROXUATC AREA OF SVE REUCOtATKM

NOTES1.) THE SAMPLE LOCATIONS HEAR BUUMNC *1 WITH

EXCEEDENCES MU NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOTHE PROXIMTY OF THE BLHLDMGS. TANKS. OVERHEADEQUIPMENT ANO ONGOWG OPERATIONS ACTIVJTCS. THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

Z) BOUNDARIES ANO AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE ANO WU.BE FURTHER DEFINED OURUtC THE REMEDIAL OESWN ANDREMEDIAL ACTION.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOGRAPHC FEATURES TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILES

TITLED "BASE" DATED 06/05/97 AND '15101 »r DATED06/09/97 SUPPUEO BY MTTANY GEOSQENCES. INC.

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY UNE. MONITORING WEU.S ANDPM SOL BORWCS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL RLE TITLED"SPC" DATED 06/02/97 SUPPUEO BY SWEETLANDENQNECRWC* ASSOCIATES. MC.

1) LOCATION OF Rl PHASE I ANO II SOIL BORWCS TAKENFROM (HQTAL Fl£ "PA17-169* DATED 10/14/93PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES INC. e

oCOorfeel

3 :>•"••*= 963-6333MM DWO

""" iJMr-""" fi vU

«*«= AS SHOIIW••* 1I/06/B7

« •»= PA17-366• »•««£: Q4

Colder Associates

AREA OF SVE INFLUENCEISOCONCENTRATION MASS

AREAS M 0 TO 6 FT LAYERTANK FARM/BUN r***4Q »1 AREAS

RUETGERS-NEASE CO JnONp"|34-5

LEGENDSB-3,

A

ft PHASE I AND n SON. BOftlNC LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

PCX SOIL BORMG LOCATION

SVE PCZOMETER UOWTORMC WELL


SVE BEDROCK EXTRACTION DELL

APPROXMATE AREA OF SVE REMEDIATION

NOTES1.) THE SAMPLE LOCATIONS NEAR 8UUMG ft WITH

EXCEEOCNCES WU NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOTHE PROXWITY OF THE BUILDINGS. TANKS. OVERHEADEQUIPMENT AND ONGOING OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES. THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

2.) BOUNDARIES AND AREAS ARE APPROXMATE AND WLLBE FURTHER DEFINED DURING THE REMEDIAL DESKM ANDREMEDIAL ACTON.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOGRAPtK FEATURES TAKEN FROM (MQTAL FILES

TITLED 'BASE" DATED 08/05/97 AND "15101207- DATED06/09/97 SUPPLIED BY MTTANY CEOSOENCES. WC.

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE. MOMTORMC WELLS ANDPOI SOD. BORINGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILE TITLED"SPC" DATED 06/02/97 SUPPLIED BY SHEETLANOENCMEERINC ft ASSOCIATES. MC.

1) LOCATION OF HI PHASE I AND M SON. BORINGS TAKENFROM OK3TAL FU 'PA17-169' DATED 10/14/93PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES INC

OCM

20Cscole

203

feet

tnCDCOCC

K 96J-63J3DWO

AS SHOWN11/06/97PA17-369

04

AREA OF SVE INFLUENCEISOCONCENTRATtON MASS

AREAS W 6 TO 10 FT LAYERTANK FARM/BLM.DINQ »1 AREAS

GoWer Associates 1mm________________B4-6

LEGEND

C-5

BR-2.

Rl PHASE I AND II SOU. BORING LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

P» SOL BORING LOCATION

SVE PCZOUE1ER WMTORMC «LL



APPROXIMATE AREA OF SVE REMEDIATION

NOTES1.) THE SAMPLE LOCATIONS NEAR BUILDING fl WITH

EXCEEDENCES WLL NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOTHE PROXMTY OF THE BULDMGS. TANKS, OVERHEADEQUPMENT AND ONCOMC OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES. THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

Z) BOUNDARIES AND AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND WILLBE FURTHER OEFMED OLMNG THE REMEDUL DESIGN ANDREMEDIAL ACTION.

REFERENCES1.) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES TAKEN FROM OWTAL FLES

TITLED "BASE" DATED 06/09/97 AND "151O1207" DATED06/09/97 SUPPUEO BY MTTANY GEOSQENCES. MC

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY UNC. UOMTORMG WELLS ANOPOI SOIL BORMGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILE TITLED"SPC" DATED 06/02/97 SUPPUEO BY SWEETLANDENGHEERWG ft ASSOCIATES. INC.

3.) LOCATION OF Rl PHASE I ANO H SON. BORINGS TAKEN: FROM DIGITAL FILE "PA17-169" DATED 10/14/93

PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES INC ~~CM

20ffscale

203

feet

oCO

963-63330*0

PSuJ

AS SHOWN11/06/97PA17-370

Golder

AREA OF SVE INFLUENCEISOCONCENTRATION MASS

AREAS M 10 TO * FT LAYERTANK FARM/Bm Vl AREAS

RUETGCRS-NEASE COR. B4-7

LEGEND

m PHASE I AND H SOIL SORING LOCATION(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)

.A POI SOL BORING LOCATION

SVE PCZOMETCR MONITORING WELL


SVE BEDROCK EXTRACHON WELL

APPROXIMATE AREA OF SVE REMEDIATION

NOTES1.) THE SAMPLE LOCATIONS HEAR BUILDING fl WITH

EXCEEOENCeS WU. NOT UNDERGO EXCAVATION DUE TOTHE PROXUNTY OF THE BULOINCS. TANKS. O^CRHCADEQUIPMENT AND ONGOING OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES. THESEAREAS CAN BE TREATED BY SVE.

2.) BOUNDARIES AM AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND WU.BE FURTHER DEFINED DURING THE REMEDIAL DESIGN ANDREMEDIAL ACTION.

REFERENCES __________________1.) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES TAKEN FROM DIQTAL FILES

TITLED "BASE" DATED 06/05/97 AND "t51012O7" DATEDOS/09/97 SUPPLIED 8V NITTANY GEDSCIENCES. MC.

2.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY UNE, MOMTORMG WELLS ANDPOI SOH. BORINGS TAKEN FROM DIGITAL FILE TITLED"SPC* DATED O6/D2/97 SUPPUED BY SWEETLANOENGWEERINC ft ASSOCIATES. MC.

i) LOCATION OF Rl PHASE I AND H SON. BORINGS TAKENFROM DIGITAL FIE "PA17-169" DATED 10/14/93PREPARED BY COLDER ASSOCIATES INC

20

scote

20

feet

cnO

Q=

963-63330*0

AS SHOWN

11/06/97PA17-371

Gdder Associates

AREA OF SVE MFLUENCEISOCONCENTRATtON MASS

AREAS M 14 TO 20 FT LAYERTANK FARM/BULCHNQ m\ AREAS

RUETGERS-NEASE CORPORATION ™*B4-8

AR309723

November 1997 C-1 963-6333

APPENDIX C

SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION

Material Handling Processes and ConcernsExcavation not only involves the removal, transportation, and disposal of contaminated soils, italso involves a number of other material handling steps which must be considered with respect topotential adverse short-term impacts. Some of these material handling steps include the.following:

1. Numerous excavated material stockpiles would have to be created for the contaminatedsoil removed from various depths as stipulated in the ROD. These separate stockpileswill need to be maintained (covers, surface water and erosion controls, etc.).

2. Several types of heavy equipment would be needed for excavation, stockpiling,loading/unloading and other soils handling, including backhocs, hydraulic excavators,front-end loaders, dump trucks, fiat beds, support vehicles, etc. Equipment staging,decontamination, and refueling stations would be required.

• " ' .' • . f . •3. Dewatering will likely be required during excavation activities as a result of the perched

'ground-water conditions. In addition, non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) might also beencountered. Water and any NAPL will need to be removed from excavations, separated,stored, treated, and/or disposed of off-site. Saturated soils will need to be drained of freeliquid and any NAPL prior to further material stockpiling/handling/transport; a processwhich may take days to weeks. These conditions are expected to slow and complicate theexcavation process, prolong the duration of VOC emissions and accompanying potentialrisks, and present additional safety hazards for workers.

4. Numerous physical hazards to workers would exist because of the handling of theexcavated soils, slippery conditions (saturated soils and possibly NAPL), and working incumbersome personnel protection equipment. The net effect of these conditions wouldbe to slow excavation progress and put workers and off-Site receptors at additionalpotential health and safety risks.

5. Very limited space is available within the Tank Farm area to conduct the requiredactivities further complicating the process. Soil stockpiles, decontamination areas,loading/unloading areas and equipment staging areas would need to be located at adjacentparts of the Site, thus enlarging the area of potential adverse impact from erosional losses,VOC emissions, etc., and the spread of contaminants. -

6. Extensive decontamination (both personnel and equipment) would be required tominimize the spread of contaminants on-site and off-site. Implementing these activitieswill further complicate and slow the excavation and material handling progress and causeadditional potential health and safety risks.

Colder Associates A R 3 0 9 7 2 U

November 1997 C-2 963-6333

7. Control of VOC vapors, dust, and odors and extensive air monitoring might be needed toprotect tlreceptorsprotect the health and safety of remediation workers, plant personnel, and nearby j

8. Control of precipitation run-on into excavation/material handling areas and precipitationrun-off from these areas will need to be provided to protect against the spread ofcontaminants.

While these material handling and associated activities are routine in traditional construction,applying these procedures to contaminated soil within a small operating facility area is not onlyexpected to be extremely difficult to implement, but also poses a threat to the health and safety ofworkers, plant employees, and adjacent receptors and the spread of contaminants both on-sitc andoff-site.

Disruptions to Facility OperationsThe area to be excavated essentially covers the entire Tank Farm area (see Figure 4-1). Asdiscussed above, the excavation, material handling areas, truck travel routes, stockpiles,loading/unloading areas, decontamination areas, material separation areas, and equipment stagingareas will take up all of the available space within the Tank Farm in addition to other areas of theSite. The Tank Farm Area is an important area to be maintained open because facility workersand equipment traverse the area frequently, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Existing planttraffic (both equipment and personnel) would be precluded during the excavation activities. Inaddition, several utilities and material handling pipelines would need to be rerouted. Overall, theexcavation remedy would cause a considerable disruption to the operation of the plant.

VOC/Dust/Odor ControlOne of the most significant concerns with the excavation remedy is the release of VOC to theatmosphere from the excavation, stockpiles, and other material handling processes. VOCemissions and odors from the open excavations, excavation activities* loading/unloading areasand stockpiles will be a concern. Of the eight soil samples collected from the Tank Farm area inJuly/August 1995, five of the nine samples had total VOC concentrations in the hundreds of ppmand two of the nine had total VOCs in the thousands of ppm. Upgrades to remedial contractorworkers* personnel protection (Level C and/or Level B) might be required. Furthermore, giventhe close proximity of the operating plant and employees, it is possible that VOCemissions/dust/odors would disrupt plant operations. In addition, air quality impacts wouldresult.

Colder Associate. SR309725

November 1997 C-3 963-6333

Methods for Controlling VOCs, Odors and Dusti , VOCs, dust and odors are emitted directly to the atmosphere from excavation and material

handling activities. Unless these emissions are controlled, they will impact air quality as well aspose a threat to the health and safety of workers, employees, and neighboring receptors.Enhanced SVE will not release uncontrolled VOC to the atmosphere.

There are a number of methods that can be used to control VOC, dust and odors, if necessary,during excavation and material handling. These methods include the following:

• Reducing the rate of excavation;• Pretreatment with SVE; •• Engineering controls such as VOC/dust/odor suppression by water sprays, foam and

sprayed-on temporary membranes, and temporary geosynthetic covers; and,• Conducting the work in an enclosure^).

Reducing the rate of excavation to reduce the VOC emission rate is generally not consideredfeasible due to the extended duration of plant disruption, worker health and safety risks, and theoverall excavation process. SVE is being evaluated as a full-scale treatment remedy for

, subsurface soil. Therefore, these two methods are not considered further.^ . . . • .. .

The activities which present the most difficulties with respect to VOC/dust/odor controls havebeen termed by USEPA as dynamic activities (USEPA, 1992). These activities have thecharacteristics of continuous exposed contaminated surfaces as a result of machinery operationand nearly continuous material movement. Dynamic activities would include:

• Excavation;• Loading/unloading;• Separation; and,• Preconditioning prior to transport (such as homogenization and/or absorbent/amendment

addition).

USEPA concluded (USEPA, 1992) that the use of foams is not an effective method forcontrolling VOC emissions from dynamic material handling processes. In fact, this studydemonstrated that the use of foams may even hamper excavation/material handling activities bycausing slippery conditions for both machinery and workers, increasing the concern for workerhealth and safety and reducing productivity. Water sprays, sprayed on temporary membranes and

, temporary covers are also not expected to be effective for controlling VOC/odor emissions fromthe dynamic material handling activities. Water and foam sprays would have a higher degree of


November 1997 C-4 963-6333

effectiveness for controlling dust during the dynamic material handling activities as a result ofmaintaining a higher moisture content. However, water and foam sprays will cause saturated soiland slippery conditions which are additional concerns.

The use of the engineering controls for the suppression of VOC/dust/odors from the staticexcavation/material handling activities is considered to be effective.

Any work required to be conducted within an enclosure will be extremely difficult to implementand poses an even higher potential risk to workers. The difficulties and potential risks associatedwith conducting the excavation and material handling activities within an enclosure are numerous(USEPA, 1992).

Contaminant Loss During TransportAs discussed in the FFS, it is estimated that about 7,078 cu yd of soil will be excavated anddisposed of off-site. This amount of soil will require a large number of truck and rail car trips toas far away as Texas (for incineration). Even if the trucks and rail cars are covered, some losseswill occur from the transport of contaminated soil via volatilization, wind-blown material andspillage. The VOCs lost during transport, and during off-site storage prior to treatment and/ordisposal, will be emitted directly to the atmosphere.

In summary, there are serious adverse short-term impact concerns associated with the OU-1 RODexcavation remedy as a result of VOC losses to the atmosphere, disruption of plant activities,health and safety concerns for remediation workers, plant employees, and potential off-sitereceptors and contaminant losses during transport While some of these concerns exist for theAlternative Soil Remedy, these concerns are not nearly as severe.

G:\PROJECTS\963-W33\FFS\DRAFT-1\APPX-CDOC

Colder Associate* A R 3 0 9 7 2 7

* "

CDtxl•**%-en

"

ELSEVIER Journal of Hazardous Materials 40(1995) 191-201

JOURNALOFHBZPRDOUSmRTERIHLS

Remediation of low permeability subsurface formationsby fracturing enhancement of soil vapor extraction

U. Frank*. N. Barkley/ S Ewinmmtntal Prattciion Agency. Risk Rtductum Engineering Laboratory. Cincinnati. OH 4S26S. L'SA

Received 22 November 1993: accepted in revised form 22 April 1994

Abstract .

This paper describes the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) of pneumaticand hydraulic fracturing to augment and improve the extraction of volatile contaminants fromsoil. The fracturing procedures involve a physical pressurization process that creates fissuresand channels in soils to enhance fluid or vapor flow in the subsurface. Fractures are placed atspecific locations and depths inside the boreholes of wells to increase the effectiveness of in situremedial technologies, especially soil vapor extraction (SVE). The fracturing technology isprimarily beneficial in tightly packed geologic formations having low permeabilities. Resultsfrom several demonstrations indicated orders of magnitude increases in subsurface vapor flowand contaminated vapor extraction rates after soil fracturing.

1. Introduction

In 1980, the United States Congress enacted the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, the first com-prehensive federal law addressing releases of hazardous substances into the environ-ment. The primary goal of the Superfund legislation was to establish an organizedcost-effective mechanism for responding to releases of hazardous substances or toabandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that posed a serious threat tohuman health and the environment. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthori-/ution Act of 1986 (SARA) added several important, new dimensions to CERCLA,such as increased emphasis on health assessments and consideration of air releases.One of the most important provisions stipulates rules for the selection of remedialactions, provides for a review of those actions, describes requirements for the degree ofcleanup, and mandates conformance with the National Contingency Plan wheneverpracticable. It strongly recommends that remedial actions use onsite treatment that

' t orresponding author. Fax: (908j 906-6990.

.1.M-3H44 93 $09.50 C W5 Elsevier Science 8.V. AH right! reserved.'»/ ' > J04 .3 t t 94 t94 |00069-S

AR309729

192 U. Frank. N. Berkley I Journal of Hazardous Materials 40 (IWSl 191-201

"... permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of haz-ardous substances ..." and requires selection of a remedial action that is "... pro-tective of human health and the environment, that is cost-effective, and that utilizespermanent solutions and alternative-treatment technologies or resource recoverytechnologies to the maximum extent practicable*1.

Several in situ remedial technologies for onsitc treatment exist that could meet theserequirements. Of these, the most popular is soil vapor extraction (SVE), which is aneffective method for the remediation of soil contaminated with volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) and petroleum hydrocarbons. SVE has gained popularity be-cause it can treat large amounts of soil at relatively low cost, with some estimates aslow as S10 per cubic yard. This compares favorably with virtually every otherremediation treatment technology, with cost estimates ranging from S80 for someforms of bioremediation to well over SI200 per cubic yard for hazardous wasteincineration [1].

Other advantages of SVE that meet the SARA provisions are that the treatment ispermanent and that there is minimal exposure of the public and personnel to theaffected contamination zone. SVE is an in situ process that minimizes exposure toboth the public and the surrounding environment There is also minimal disruption tosurface activities once the installation is complete, so that normal site functions, e.g.,work at loading docks, plant floors, airport runways, may be returned to use quicklyand used while the remediation is in progress.

Critical to the application of SVE, however, is the ability to achieve adequate vaporflow through the contaminated soil. SVE is only applicable to sites with soil types thatpermit the flow of contaminant vapors through subsurface formations for extractionand eventual remediation. It is necessary that air can flow through all of thecontaminated soil at a site. Such vapor flow in the vadose zone depends in part uponsoil characteristics such as air permeability, water content, porosity and soil homo-geneity. Relative to SVE, air permeability is the measure of a soil's ability to transmitfluids based on laboratory or field airflow tests. The density and viscosity of vaporscombined with the permeability of soil significantly influence the ability of the vaporto flow through subsurface strata. Permeability of soil is usually the single mostimportant soil parameter to be considered in the successful application of SVE. It isa key parameter not only in deciding if SVE is a feasible remedial option, but also forestablishing SVE system design criteria. SVE is typically more applicable to soil typeswith permeability values greater than lO~Tcm/s. This includes subsurface strata ofgravel, sand, silty sand and some limestone, basalt and mctamorphic rock formations.Sites consisting of igneous rock, shale, clay, dense silt, and glacial till usually are notamenable to SVE Impermeable soil types exist at many Superfund sites. To addressthis problem, EPA*s Office of Research and Development (ORDK through theSuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program has evaluated pneu-matic and hydraulic fracturing techniques for increasing soil permeability. The goal ofsuch evaluations is to promote and accelerate the development of innovative tech-nologies for consideration in the clean-up of Superfund sites across the country. Aspan of this SITE program, demonstrations are performed to provide reliable engi-neering and cost data based on field tests of selected technologies. This paper addresses

AR309730

f. Frank. N. Bartcley. Journal of Hazardous Materials 40 {IWS) 191-201 193

3b" of haz-... pro-

i it utilizes\**f recovery

uld meet these•), which is anilatile organicsopularity be-te estimates asy every other$80 for some

tardous waste

ic treatment isrsonnel to the:s exposure to.1 disruption tofunctions, e.g..to use quickly

.dcquate vaporsoil types thatfor extraction

igh all of theIs in -*art upon

homo-

W transmitDf vapors

ty of the vaporic single mostn of SVE. It is)n. but also for>le to soil typesirface strata of>ck formations,usually are nottes. To addressK through thevaluated pneu-ity. The goal ofmovative tech-he country. As: reliable engi-aaper addresses

r -Vs.

the evaluation of two such technologies, pneumatic and hydraulic fracturing. Al-though they are not independent remedial technologies, they are designed primarily tooperate with and improve the effectiveness of SVE for potential application tosites that currently can only be remediated by more complex and costly ex situtreatment.

Both pneumatic and hydraulic fracturing were evaluated because of the advantagesand disadvantages inherent to each procedure. Pneumatic fracturing involves inject-ing air into a geologic formation at a pressure which exceeds the natural in situstresses, and at a flow rate which exceeds the permeability of the formation. Thiscauses failure of the subsurface medium and creates a fracture network radiating fromthe injection point. Once established, the fractures increase the flow rate of air andvapors through the formation, and make contaminants more accessible. Similarly,hydraulic fractures are created when a fluid is injected into a borehole until a criticalpressure is reached and the enveloping soil fractures. Sand, injected as a slurry, acts asa propping agent and holds the fractures open.

The pneumatic process is relatively simple, and can be easily deployed. However,the fractures are not propped open and can sometimes close, requiring re-fracturing.On the other hand, the hydraulic procedure is more complex but provides a morepermanent sand propped fracture network. Also, the hydraulic process injects waterinto the ground which must subsequently be extracted before SVE remediation can beinitiated.

2. Method

J./. Pneumatic fracturing

The SITE program demonstration for pneumatic fracturing was performed incooperation with Accutech Remedial Systems (ARS), Inc. and the Hazardous Sub-stance Management Research Center (HSMRC) located at the New Jersey Institute ofTechnology (NJIT) under a Cooperative Agreement (No. CS820795) with EPA.Detailed descriptions and evaluation results are available in EPA reports [2,3] andSchuring et al. [4]. Pneumatic fracturing was developed by HSMRC as a patentedprocess and is currently marketed by ARS under a service mark as PneumaticFracturing Extraction (PFE)5*. Specifically the fracturing is performed by injectingbursts of compressed air at pressures up to 500 psig and in duration of 10 to 20 s. intonarrow 0.7 m intervals of one or more wellbores. The air injection is performed usinga proprietary injector unit equipped with packers. The packers are inflatable rubberseals that isolate the appropriate interval within the well. Air is then released withinthe seated interval through the injector as shown schematically in Fig. 1. The processis repeated for each interval. The fracturing extends and enlarges existing fissures andintroduces new fractures, primarily in the horizontal direction. When fracturing hasbeen completed, the formation is then subjected to extraction of contaminant vapors.cither by applying a vacuum to all wells or by extracting from selected wells whileothers are capped or used for passive air inlet or forced air injection.

A R 3 0 9 7 3 I

194 I'. Frank. ,V. Barklvy, Journal of Hazardous Materials 40 t IWSt IVI-MI

\ - - - Pntumatle Prasiura Souret

2-ft.FracturaInterval

3 in. Fractura WtH

Fig. 1. Schematic of pneumatic fracturing process inside a well borehole.

The ARS/HSMRC equipment used in the SITE demonstration consisted of a 3 mlong, open bed SVE trailer fitted with two compressor/blowers, piping, a waterknock-out trap, and all associated gauges, valves, and electrical interlocks. The airsupply consisted or a bank of 8-12 compressed air cylinders attached to a manifoldwhich was connected to the pneumatic injector and packer system. The injectorincluded an electrically actuated solenoid valve that controlled the actual start andduration of air injection and subsequent fracturing event. Overall, an area of about15 x IS m is needed to support the SVE trailer, compressed air supply, monitoringtrailer, and auxiliary facilities.

The PFE demonstration was performed at a site in an industrial park in centralNew Jersey. This site was previously used for small manufacturing and office servicesfor several decades. After a fire, samples taken of surface water indicated the presenceof chlorinated organics and petroleum hydrocarbons. Further soil and groundwatertesting confirmed the presence of trichloroethene (TCE), and to a lesser extenddichloroethene and perchloroethene. in the groundwater. Benzene, toluene andxylenes (BTX) were more infrequently found. Studies at the site conducted as part ofa state cleanup plan helped to define the geological character of the area. Specifically.

A R 3 0 9 7 3 2

(J. Frank, N. Barkteyi Journal of Hazardous Materials 40 (1995) I9I-2QI 195

le.

of a 3miping, a water•locks. The airto a manifold. The injector:tual start andarea of about

!y. monitoring

lark in centraloffice^servicesd the presence1 groundwater

lesser extend. toluene and.-ted as part ofa. Specifically,

the site consisted of a glacial till about 1-2 m in thickness underlain by the Brunswickshale formation which is found widely in northern New Jersey and which extends towell below the water table. In spite of the fractured nature of the shale bedrock, pilottesting showed that the permeability of the formation was too low for conventionalSVE. Costly excavation and removal of the source area, or encapsulation, were theoptions under consideration prior to the decision to apply the PFE process.

The well placement and design were based on prior data obtained for the site, bestengineering judgement, and practical limitations. The earlier data on groundwaterand soil gas analyses at different locations and different depths, as well as the nature ofthe geology at the site, were taken into consideration. The air injector unit availablefor performing the fracturing required a 7.6 cm diameter well. To accommodate thisrequirement, the fracture well was first drilled out 2.4 m deep with an air rotary bitand cased with a 15 cm casing. Next, the well was drilled to a depth of about 6 m witha 7.6 cm hollow bit to provide the 7.6 cm diameter and, simultaneously, a 5 cm corefor later geological evaluation by HSMRC

Combination fracture/monitoring wells were installed at increasing distancesradially out from the fracture well. ..Locations were selected so that data could begenerated for the strike and dip directions of the Brunswick formation and for onelocation for both off strike and off dip. This pattern was selected to evaluate whetherfracturing occurred preferentially in a particular direction and how far from thefracture well the effect was detectable. Each monitoring well was 15cm in diameterand was cased with iron casing down to about 2.4 m 'below land surface* (BLS),leaving about 0.6 m of casing above ground for capping and access. Well depthsvaried slightly in the range of 5.4-6.6 m.

The first test performed was a 1 h passive air inlet predemonstration test to assessthe general behavior of the well field. A 4 h pre-fracture SVE test was performed, afterthe 1 h test, by extracting from the fracture well and keeping all monitoring wellscapped. Pressure, air flow rate, temperature, and TCE contaminant concentrationdata were determined and recorded for background information. This was followedwith a 'restart' test, which was essentially a repetitive pre-fracture test, carried out aftera nominal 24 h period to determine the extent and rate at which TCE concentrationlevels equilibrate and return Jo pre-test levels. A post-fracture 4 h SVE test, identical inprocedure, was carried out after the fracturing tests were completed. A series of 10 min

. vacuum extraction tests were also carried out immediately before and after each 0.6 minterval had been fractured to further study the extent of vertical fracture formation

.and. consequently, cross connections between fracture channels. For each test, vaporextraction was carried out at the fracture, well through the injector assembly, usuallyat about 11 psia (8 in of mercury Vacuum). Pressure, air flow rate, and TCE concentra-tion data were then obtained and stored.

2.2. Hydraulic fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing is a technology widely used in the petroleum industry toincrease the recovery of crude petroleum from reservoirs with low permeabilities.Consequently, Murdock et al. [5,6] adopted it to enhance remediation by SVE,

A R 3 0 9 7 3 3

196 I', frank. .\. Barkteyi Journal nf Ha:arifau.i Materials 41) (IV9SI IW-201

Rod

Lone* tip

j x-ExttniionC.WIll

rod R«movOiof lonce

4

s-Stt«t tubing

P

"11

|I \2)=—— WoterII -^ ————i''.::.

'• fm--All ,V

«i

••— Sand slurry

•Fr-oeturt

Fig. 2. Schematic of hydraulic fracturing process inside * well borehole.

bioremediation and pump and treat methods. Instead of using air, as in the pneumaticprocess, hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of water into a sealed boreholeuntil the pressure of the water exceeds a critical value and a fracture is nucleated.A slurry composed of a coarse-grained sand and guar gum gel is then injected as thefracture grows away from the well. After pumping, the sand grains hold the fractureopen while an enzyme additive breaks down the viscous guar gum fluid. The thinnedfluid is pumped from the fracture, forming a permeable subsurface channel that can beused in conjunction with SVE to enhance the recovery of soil contaminants. Thehydraulic fracturing process is shown schematically- in Fig. 2. It involves the use ofa lance-like device composed of a steel casing and an inner rod that are tipped at oneend. with hardened cutting surfaces that form a conical point. A drive head on theother end of the lance secures the casing and rod together. Individual segments of therod and casing are 1.5 m long and are threaded together as required by boreholedepth. After the lance is driven to the desired depth in a well, the rod and conical pointare pulled out. leaving soil exposed at the bottom of the casing. A high-pressure(24 MPa) water jet is then inserted to the bottom of the casing and rotated, cutting

AR30973I+

V. Frank, .V. Barkley'Jaurnal of Hazardous Material* 40 f 19951 191-201 197

of

f:

——Sand slurry

from MH

in the pneumaticsealed borehole

ure is nucleated.:n injected as thehold the fractureuid. The thinnedannel that can bentaminants. Thevolves the use ofare tipped at onerive head on thetl segments of theired by boreholeand conical pointA high-pressure

f rotated, cutting

~ I

a disc-shaped notch 10-20 cm in diameter. This notch forms the nucleus of thefracture. A simple measuring device, built from a steel tape extending the length ofa tube and making a right-angle bend at the end of the tube, is inserted to the bottomof the casing to verify and measure the radius of the slot.

Subsequent to cutting the notch, an injection head outfitted with a pressuretransducer is secured to the upper end of the casing to monitor the pressure during thefracturing operation. The onset of pumping is marked by a sharp increase in pressureof the injection fluid followed by a marked decrease as the fracture propagates. Sand isadded to the guar gel after the pressure record indicates the onset of propagation. Thesand concentration is gradually increased until the ratio of the sand to gel (by volume)is 0.44-0.53. After a fracture is created, the rod and point are reinserted into the lanceand driven to a greater depth, where another fracture is created.

The major components of above-ground equipment are a slurry mixer, an injectionpump, and gel mixing/storage tanks. The slurry mixer is designed to continuouslyblend guar gum gel, enzyme additive, and sand. It consists of a sand hopper,reservoirs, a screw auger to introduce the sand to the gel, metering devices, anda mixing tube. The gel is hydrated in 19901 tanks and pumped to the mixer. The slurryexits the mixing tube and falls into the throat of a positive displacement pump, whichinjects it into the fracture wells.

The effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing for improving SVE, was evaluated throughdemonstrations at two sites contaminated with VOCs. An EPA developed technol-ogy, these demonstrations were performed through a Contract (No. 68-C9-0031) withthe University of Cincinnati. Tests were conducted during 1991 and 1992 at a facilityof the Xerox Corporation in Oak Brook, Illinois and at a Mobil retail gasoline stationin Addison, Illinois.

The Xerox site was used in past decades for machine conditioning operations usinglarge volumes of organic solvents. Contamination was subsequently discovered in the\icinity of storage tanks under the floor of a building. Soil sampling found con-taminants including TCE and other chlorinated VOCs ranging up to 150,000 ug/kg oftotal halogen content and extending to a depth of 6 m BLS. The site consisted ofapproximately 4 acres of clayey glacial drift interbedded with lenticular sand deposits.The drift is approximately 12 m thick and can be divided into an upper weatheredzone that extends to a depth of 3.7-4.3 m, and a lower unweathered zone. The glacialdrift is underlain by dolomite bedrock of Silurian age. The depth to the water tablewas roughly 9 m, although perched water occurred locally in sand lenses at shallowerJepihs. The permeabilties of the silly-clay ranged from 4 x 10"* to 7 x 10~" cm.s.These tow permeability values ind a treatability study indicated that conventionalSVE was not economically feasible. It was estimated that it would require over 300recovery wells, as well as numerous air inlet wells, to treat the site effectively. Thepilot-scale SITE demonstration, utilizing hydraulic fracturing, was therefore initiated.Consequently, a total of six hydraulic fractures were created in two separate boreholesin the contaminated section of the site. Essential details of these fractures aresummarized in Table 1.

The gasoline station demonstration site was contaminated by petroleum hydrocar-bons from leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). Subsurface samples indicated

mf lR309735

198 V. Frank. N. Barlctiy I Journal of Hazardous Materials 40 (1995)

Table IDetails of hydraulic fractures formed at the Xerox and Mobil demonstration sites

Boreholeno.

Xerox site111222Mobil site111222

Fractureno.

I23123

123123

Depth(mf

1.83.04.6193.04.6

2.02.73.62.02.73.6

Sand (m V

-0.340.370.170.340.40

0.140.180.280.170.180.31

Gel (1)*

76492568379530568

379416492322397454

Max.pressure(MPaf

0.150.260.380.170.310.50

0.240.760.380.340.520.41

Lastpressure(MPaC

0.140.060.230.060.070.24

0.03-0.100.05-0.100.17-0.280.05-0.080.07-0.100.12-0.21

Max.rise(mm)'

32024261930

10.5111520.514.521

Radius (mf

-4.04.93.54.04.7

5.36.14.64.65.36.1

* Depth below ground surface at point where fracture was initiated.b Bulk volume of sand pumped into fracture. •* Volume of guar gum gel pumped into fracture.* Maximum pressure at the point of injection.* Pressure at the end of pumping.' Maximum uplift of ground surface above fracture.1 Approximate radius of the uplifted surface area over the fracture.

VOCs to a depth of 3.6 m. Total benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX)concentrations exceeded 16,025 ug/kg on 4 out of 11 borings. The site consisted of aninactive service station, including two pump islands, and a gravel backfill area wherethe USTs were removed. This was underlain by approximately 40 m of gray clayeyand silty clay till of the Wadsworth Member of the Wedron Formation. The tilluncomformably overlies Silurian age limestone and dolomite. Due to the till's lowpermeability hydraulic fractures were formed in the contaminated area using two boreholes that were subsequently completed as SVE wells. The fractures were at depths of2« 2.75 and 3.6 m (Table 1). Two conventional wells were also installed to allowcomparisons between the performance of fractured and conventional wells. Param-eters measured included well discharge and subsurface pressure distributions.

3. Results

3.1. Pneumatic fracturing

A comparison of the postfracture data with the prefracture data demonstrated anair flow rate increase ranging from 400-700%, and averaging about 600% (Table 2).

AR309736

Cadi us (m|<

1.0t.91.51.01.7

U. Frank. N. Bark ley / Journal of Hazardous Materials 40 (1995; 191-201

Table 2Extracted air flow, before and after pneumatic fracturing

(99

Test

PrefectureRestartPostfracture

Pressure (psia)

11.011. 111.4

Air flow (scftn)

<0.6*<0.6'

4.2

Percentageincrease

600*

TCEIIO'Mbmini

< 10.8 r 1.0< 10.8 ±1.6

83.9 + 30.8

Percentageincrease

675*

* Developer's test data.k Percent increase - tOO(poitfracture-prefracture); prefecture.

v3>.lt.61.6U --.1

•ea whereiy clayey. The tilltill's lowtwo boredepths ofto allow. Param-ns.

a

s

:rated anTable 2).

190170ISOISO140130130100

9090ntoK40»K10

Fig. 3. Comparison of pre* and post-pneumatic fracturing TCE mast removal rates from 4 h extractiontests. ' :

Although TCE concentrations after fracturing were only slightly higher than beforefracturing, 58 versus 50 ppmv on average, when coupled with increased air flow rates,the mass removal rate was increased by about 675% as shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3.Also, a more complex gas mixture was extracted after fracturing, with higher concen-trations of benzene, chloroform, and tetrachloroethanc. Fracturing may have im-proved connections With pockets of these compounds, making them more accessiblefor SVE. Extraction at each peripheral monitoring well individually before and afterfracturing confirmed that connections were significantly improved even at wells 6 mfrom the fracture well. Attempts made to-determine whether vertical connections

0 K 40 90 90 100 1X 140 190 190 3OO OO 240

HR309737

200 U. Frank. .V. Barkley Journal o( Hazardous Matrriaix 40 H99Sj 191-201 •

existed, or were created by fracturing between adjacent 0.6 m intervals, were incon- |elusive, probably because of perched water in the vadose rone and the weUbore. Tests

j carried out by extracting from the fracture well with open monitoring wells indicatedthat even larger increases in air flow rates and TCE mass removal rates up to 2.270% jcould be obtained •

i *3.2. Hydraulic fracturing i

At the Xerox site the performance of one conventional unfractured well wascompared to the performance of two fractured wells, each containing hydraulic -^ |fractures nucleated at depths of 1.8, 3.0, and 4.6m. Most fractures were shallowlydipping and were confined to the subsurface, except a 1.8 m deep fracture in one of thefracture wells was steeply dipping and reached the ground surface. All three wells were .placed in areas of equivalent concentrations of contaminants, according to data .obtained from soil samples prior to the test The wells were evaluated with tri-weekly ,^ jmeasurements during 160 days of vapor extraction. The results indicated that vapor ** jdischarge from the conventional well averaged 31.11/min, whereas it averaged ."' j404.71/min and 967.91/min from the fracture wells. Some of the difference in discharge 4, jbetween the two fracture wells appeared to be from air that was drawn in from the |ground surface through the 1.3m fracture that reached the surface. However, ingeneral the hydraulic fractures increased the vapor discharge by factors of 13 to morethan 20. ;

The concentration of volatile contaminants was approximately 2 times greater from "one of the fracture wells than from the conventional well. The concentration from theother fracture well, was roughly an order of magnitude less. Much of that difference, 'however, was probably due to dilution of the recovered vapors by air that flowed inthrough the upper surface fracture and never contacted contaminated soil. The concen-tration from all of the wells decreases with time as a negative exponential. The decayconstants from the three wells were roughly similar, although the decay in concentra-tion from the conventional well was slightly more rapid than from the fractured wells.The mass recovery rate from the fractured wells was 7 to 14 times greater than from theconventional well on average throughout the 160-day-long test. Mass recovery ratesalso decreased according to'a negative exponential. The decay constant for the conven-tional well was approximately 70% shorter than for the fractured well.

Vacuum was essentially undetectable within a meter of the conventional well,whereas vapor flow was commonly detected 7.6 m from one of the fracture wells.Vacuum measured at piezometers was greatest soon after the piezometers wereinstalled, and decreased markedly over the few months between installation and theperiod of study. However, vacuum generally increased throughout the duration of thedemonstration.

At the Addison site the fractures formed in the silty clay till dipped 20 to 30°towards their parent borehole and ranged in diameter from 7.6 to 10.7 m. During SVEtesting, contaminant vapor recovery was prevented by the presence of water in the soilpore space. The fracture wells produced water throughout the study period whereaswater recovery diminished after several days at the conventional well, suggesting that

AR309738

t'. Frank. .V. Barkh-y Journal af Ha:anlnu.t Mati-rialx 4tt '{9tSi 191- 20]

neon-.. Tests

I fldicatedSp-t6 2.270%

•ed well wasng hydraulic:rc shallowty: in one of the•ee wells wereding to dataith tri-weeklyid that vapor

it averagede in dischargen in from theHowever, in

oM3 to more

i greater fromlion from thelat difference,ha' ""*wed in

1 jncen-i ye decay

nrConccntra-actured wells,than from the•ecovery rates>r the conven-

tional well,'racture wells,ometers wereation and theu ration of the

icd 20 to 30°i. During SVEater in the soiljriod whereasjggesting that

the fractured wells influenced a greater area and improved liquid flow through thetight soils.

Vapor recovery from moist silty clay will occur in two stages independent of thepresence of hydraulic fractures. During the initial stage, water from the pore space ofthe soil will be the primary fluid recovered. Air permeability during this period is lowand vapor phase recovery will be negligible. During the second stage, the moisturecontent of the soil in the vicinity of the well diminishes significantly and vaporrecovery increases. The results of this SITE demonstration indicated that system

. operation was confined to the initial stage. The expectation was that if dewatering atthe site had continued, vapor recovery from the subsurface would also have increased.

4. Conclusions

Through EPA's SITE program it has been demonstrated that fracturing of imper-meable subsurface formations can significantly improve soil remediation by SVE.Pneumatic fracturing increased the extracted air flow rates by 400-700% and TCEmass removal rates by 675% when operating with a single fracture/extraction welland no air inlet sources. Hydraulic fracturing similarly increased the performance ofSVE. Volumetric discharge and mass recovery rates from fractured wells were roughlyan order of magnitude greater than from conventional wells. In addition, the areas ofinfluence affected increased from less than 1.5 m from a conventional well to morethan 6.1 m from a fractured well.

References

[1] EPA. Reference Handbook. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology. EPA 540 2-41 003. Washington. DC.1991.

[2] EPA. Technology Evaluation Report Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hoi GasInjection. Phase 1. EPA,MO/R-93/509. Washington. DC, 1993.

f V) EPA. Applications Analysis Report. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injec-tion, Phase I. EPA.540 AR-9J509, Washington. DC. 1993.

[4] J.R. Schilling. p.C. Chan. JJ. Liskowilz. CD. Fitzgerald and U. Frank. Pneumatic fracturing of lowpermeability formations. Proc. 19th Ann. RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symp.. EPA.600/R-93 040. Washington. DC. 1993. p. 32.

[f] L.C. Murdoch. M. Kemper. A. Wolf. E. Spencer and P. Out ton. Hydraulic and impulse fracturing toenhance remediation, Proc. 19th Ann. RREL Hazardous Waste Research Svmp.. EPA 600 R-93 040.Washington. DC. 1993. p. 197.

[6] EPA. Applications Analysis and Technology Evaluation Report. Hydraulic Fracturing Technology.EPA 540.R-93/505, Washington. DC. 1993.

A R 3 0 9 7 3 9

Presented at EMERG/NG TECHNOLOGIES IN HAZARDOUSWASTE MANAGEMENT VII, American Chemical Society, Atlanta. Georgia,

September 17 <• 20, 1995

USE OF SOIL FRACTURING TO ENHANCE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTIONA CASE STUDY

By James M. Frere, P,C. and J, Edmund Baker/ P.EiColder Applied Technologies, Inc.

Atlanta, GeorgiaAbstract

Many environmental remediation activities can be cost effectively implementedthrough the use of soil vapor extraction. While this approach has been shown towork well In relatively high permeability soils, it Is much less effective In lowpermeability silts and clays. The 7ow pemieabfl/ty nature of these so?/s mates theflow of air required to remove volatile organic vapors difficult, lf<not Impossible.Hydraulic soil fracturing, a modification of petroleum engineering (ecfijno/ogi> to theenvironmental fle/d, is a viable technique for overcoming thfc cflpfioifty* Theprocess Involves injecting, underpressure, a high viscosityffu/dwfc/dflserveVas thecarrier for a sand proppant Enzymes which are mixed with they'd cause thefracturing fluid to revert to low viscosity, allowing it to be pumped put, leaving aseries of high permeability sand lenses. Several such lenses are Inifcted jtthe siteof each well, allowing efficient extraction of vapors from the soil fria&j -ml paperpresents an abbreviated history of environmental soil fracturing} jtfscjjsseS ji ie twopredominant types of so// fracturing In use today and p/esents lpcas^ tudles.lastly, a general discussion on app/fcatfons of so/I fracturing Is pre^/fijil j :j

History of Hydraulic Soil Fracturing .Hydraulic fracturing technology was developed by the petroleum industry for increasingthe recovery of oil from tight formations. Since the late 1980's tills technology hasreceived a lot of attention In the environmental Industry with considerable researchapplied to fracturing soil to enhance contaminant recovery. The table below presents ansummary of the chronology of environmental soil fracturing. < (

HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL FRACTURIN '1940'sLate 1980's19901993199319931994

Oil Industry developed fracturing to enhance oil RecoveryUniv, of Cincinnati till fracturing research ,»,.,.;:;* ; .fColder Associates oil sands fracturing research . <., . i .EPA SITE Report on hydraulic soil fracturing * * * JEPA SITE Report on pneumatic soil fracturing** Ji]Colder fracturlng-SVE proiect performed Tn W*! *

1

Piedmont soil fracturing demonstration . ; - t . f

The University of Cincinnati developed hydraulic soil fracturing, as • part pf the EPASuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program in 1991 arid'1992, and theSITE Report was published in 1993 (EPA, 1993). Hydraulic soil fracturing tests wereconducted at the Center Hill facility fn Cincinnati, Ohio and the.Xerpx Site in Oak Brook,Illinois. A third demonstration site in Dayton, Ohio was hydraulrcairy {factored to" testInjection of water and nutrients for bioremediatlon of an underground storage.tank (USDcleanup.

-1-

The New Jersey Institute of Technology began work on pneumatic fracturing forenvironmental applications in the 1980's and the ERA published a SITE Report in 1993<EPA, 1993) and the initial demonstration tests were performed in weak sedimentary rockformations.

in the early 1990's, the Hydraulic Fracturing Croup of Colder Associate* linked performedextensive laboratory research in a large diameter (1 meter) triaxlal chamber to assess thefeasibility of fracturing unconsolidated sands to enhance the recove^ô|(jfrom near

" ' \W.surface deposits In northern Canada. This work led to field trials ofli Qliclllffracturingof low permeability soils for environmental remediation purposes. Following she initialfield trials, Colder Associates applied for, and was subsequently granted a patent on aspecially design tool for the initiation and implementation of hydraulic soJrfraauWs in lowpermeability days. This device has since been successfully used to install over 250fractures in a variety of soil types. The case studies presented in this napefwere performedusing the equipment developed by Colder Associates companies, ftT 3-*. • • j

Types of Soil Fracturing ' ' . 'There are two methods of soil fracturing in common use In the ertvfronrnental Industry;pneumatic fracturing and hydraulic fracturing. Pneumatic fracturing consists of pumpingcompressed gas (usually air) into a sealed borehole at sufficient pressur #overcome theoverburden weight and the shear strength of the rock or soil. Once mnpisurelb reached,the compressed gas moves quickly outward through the subsurface/amTtfien'tne pressuregradually subsides. The resulting fracture is then used as a pathway-&f thejtemoval ofcontaminated vapors or liquid. However, since proppants to hold theâouVbpen are notnormally used in pneumatic fracturing, the fractures tend to close-in tirna, especially Inclayey soils. . i :

Hydraulic fracturing involves the use of a liquid material Injected at sufficient pressure toinitiate fracture of the soil or rock. The fracturing fluid is typically of high Viscosity to allowit to carry a proppant (usually sand) which holds the fractures open aftfejI lUfipn. Whilehydraulic fracturing requires more extensive equipment than pnefir ra^cttjring, it ismuch easier to control and has a much longer effectiveness due tt( (fiejjusft of'proppants.The table below summarizes the characteristics of each type of fractqffng. ' ,J

TYPES OF SOIL FRACTURING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL APHydraulic Soil Fracturing!

• Developed at Univ. of Cincinnati• Pressurized fluid pumping• Major equipment requirements• Possible to control fracture• Sand or other proppant used• Long term impact• Effective in unconsolidated

materials

Pneumatic Soilj « - « *• Developed at Kl.ln3titute<Qf

Technology î-tjv '• Uses compressed air- i §• Less equipment r&tyiretj '|• Difficult to contrq) pctyra,• Difficult to onipfty poppants• Effective in sedlrherftary rflcks• Short term impact? in soil •

The case studies presented in this paper both utilized hydraulic soil fracti ring'techniques

I ? I

-2-

ii -

\ i(:

Fracture Fluid ComponentsThe hydraulic fracturing fluid used in these case studies functions as the carrier for the sandproppant which holds the fractures open after the pumping pressure Is related. In order forthe sand to remain in suspension and not Jam the pumping equipment and piping, itsviscosity is Increased prior to pumping. After the fracture fs installed, thCvlscosity of thefluid reverts to approximately that of water, allowing the sand to function rctxlraln.

'• ' ' ' ' ' •' 4* $..*>*.

The key component of the fracturing fluid is a guar starch which Is Kfi'nmTrtrjj the guarbean and is similar to that used to thicken foods. By adjusting the pttfof Jhejtipld in thepresence of minute amounts of inorganic ions, the long chain starch polymers are 'cross-linked*, greatly increasing the viscosity of the fluid, An enzyme addedjto fluid prior tocross-Unking breaks the polymer bonds after 18 to 24 hours, allowing the fluid to drainfrom the sand proppant The components of the high viscosity fracturing fluid are:

• Potable water;• Hydroxypropyl guar;• Ion cross-linker;• Enzyme breaker; and

sand proppant (6 Ibs to 1 0 Ibs per gallon )

, •*;. • •! • /.

;: f. 4.

':a t;-4 ' • - * . - •I . !»-*

r**• i

T,taUyit-.lfct

ly benign.The fracturing fluid components are either chemically Inert or are en>The fluid has been subjected to chemical analysis for the PrlorityiMljS&t.jfct and allorganic compounds were at 'non-detected* levels. A few metals weredetected but allwere below the EPA allowable Maximum Concentration Levels. ', ii $ >« I.; >

UNCONTAMINATED SITE CASE STUDY 1 •Site Description j

In order to assess the effectiveness of fracturing on low permeability cdjll$fa pilot programwas performed In an uncontaminated area. Since the area was Is nbl Contaminated, soilvapors and groundwater could be extracted without treatment, and jit}excavated. The area selected was a solid waste landfill borrow area near]located about 30 miles east of Atlanta, The site Is located geologically w]Physiographic Province, which generally consists of low permeabiloverlying weathered and granitic gneiss bedrock. ' r i -fi ; \ ••'"••• •. j i M i i jThe soil profile at the site generally consists Of 5 to 10 feet of i§9dx l residual soilsoverlying 10 to 15 feet of silty sand granitic gneiss saprollte. The fesfduai soils would beclassified as MH, ML, or SC under the Unified Soil Classification Systejnrcr, the structure inthe upper residual soils is not clearly evident due to the extensive vfe Ehermg, however,some texture is Illustrated by the feldspathic quartz •sweatouf veipsj thla'-ft ar verticalorientation. ' "

•*"-*could be

der, Georgia,In jto piedmont

Ety^res dual soilsh"''

Field Testing Program illThe primary objectives of this demonstration test was the following: *i * H '' i *: I

• Install lateral sand-filled fractures in the piedmont resId'uXl,st3rapci'fnstaH wellsin the fracture boreholes; l"'!TiL-'!l

r ^ " ™ i * * V

:iWi •7i»2

• Conduct air permeability tests (similar to a soil vapor extraction) on fracturedand unfractured wells to provide comparisons of the air flow rates and radius ofinfluence; -

• Conduct constant head and falling head permeability tests on the/fractured wellsand the unfractured well for comparison purposes;, and .. * I j£ . |.

• Excavate the area for visual mapping of the fracture's shape* thickness andorientation. »*,(,•«•• ' 'I

The soil fracturing process was performed In four steps - advancement VaseA Borehole,notching the soil to provide the fracture initiation point, mixing the fracturing fluid andpumping the fluid to install the fracture. Two fractures were installed In each of. the twofractured wells at successive depths ranging from 5 to 11 feet The shallowest fracture wasinstalled first with additional fractures installed below. A.third unfractured well wasinstalled to compare performance testing with the fractured wells. All three wells were

completed with fiveFRACTURE @ 7.5 FEET -WELL FW-1 . - . • • * .

100WCL

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0TIME (WIN)

10.0 12.0 14.0

FRACTURE @ 7.3 FEET - WELL FW-2

feet Jbf /two-Inchdiameter PVC screen,

;] [diameterer, ! fine silica

and ben*end grout to

remainder ofreholp. In

J72 small(6,25 inch)

air stress monitoringpoints,- were i installedaround both, fracturedan. unfractured wellsusing j. slotted endpj c,,tuft$g, sandpack and a bentonitesurface seal '< * < '

0,00 5,00 10.00 15.00 20.00

TIME (WIN)

hydraulically.5 feet

ground surface_„ jnd'tt feet bgsanoVwas screened from

6.5 feet.The second boring,

TYPICAL FRACTURING TIME-PRESSURE CURVES FWty - i wasFIGURE 1 hydraulicalbj fractured

at, 5,0 feet bgs and 7.5feet bgs and was screened from 8.0 feet to 3.0 feet Unfractured well,W-f was screened ata depth of 10 feet to 5 feet bgs. A quadrant of the well FW-2 fractureêaj e*cavated toexpose both fractures. The fractures were teardrop shaped with a maxm1 5 feet and a minimum radius of about 7 feet

of about

The fractures were Installed by pumping the hydraulic fracturing fluid at 10 gpm to 15 gpmand 120 gallons to 200 gallons of fluid were pumped for each fracture. Figure 1 illustratestypical time versus pressure curves measured at ground surface during fracturing. Thesecurves show that a pressure frbm 95 pounds per square inch (psi) to 65 fjsi is required toinitiate and propagate the fracture at shallow depth, and that the presstir&quiddy falls toresidual pressures of about 20 psi after pumping ceases. Head losses between the pressuregauge and the downhole fracture initiation tool was measured at less

Soil Vapor Extraction TestingSoil vapor extraction testing was conducted on all three wells using a multi-stage air venturlvacuum pump powered by a 100 cubic feet per minute (dm) dlesel airi compressor. Aminimum of 16 vacuum stress monitoring points were installed around each well tomeasure in-situ vacuum stress at these points. Static stress values at each .monitoring pointwere recorded before testing began in order to calibrate each test .I , ^ • -

A vacuum stress of 136 inches of water (10 inches of Mercury (Hg)) wa&applied to eachfractured well and the unfractured well. The vacuum stress was ap[5l|£dTor several hourson each well until the stress stabilized. Air flow rates were measured using pftot tubes Inthe effluent PVC piping. The flow rate for FW-1 was about 52 actual cubic feet feer minute(acfm), and for FW-2 about 15 acfm. The air flow rate for unfractured Avell W-3 wasapproximately 4.2 acfm. • '•**• '»

' ' •"•& * ilFigure 2 is an arithmetic plot of induced vacuum stress versus radial djstancejny alt threewells. The maximum vacuum stress for well W-3 of only 0.7 inches of iv t was observed10 feet from the well with a measured a radius of influence of about 65 feet For well FW-1a maximum stress of over five inches of water was observed 10 feet frprfe the fyell, and aradius of Influence was estimated of over 110 feet. The maximum vaemnp stress observedfor well FW-2 was over 1.2 inches of water 10 feet from the well, and a radius of Influencewas estimated of over 120 feet M'-'i * '"* ••» i i|. ? ; il

The differences in size of vacuum pressure cones between the fractured wells and theunfractured well is significant. The higher induced vacuum stressjH^tdt 5 inches water)measured 10 feet from FW-1 compared to FW-2 (2 to 3 inches wafieji, are,due to theperched water encountered in FW-2 during the air permeability ;t|stsi .The waterencountered in FW-2 hindered further Increases In air flow, and thiis, a difference In thevacuum stress was observed between FW-1 and FW-2. Comparison of rfie fractured wellsinduced vacuum stress and the unfractured well's Induced vacuum* $tr|ssflraicates' anincrease in vacuum stress ranges from 3 fold to as much as 10 fold. Rgur£ I Jljystrates theplan view of the vacuum drawdown cones for wells FW-1, FW-2, M$V43> AA differencein the areas of the fractured wells with a stress over 0.5 Inches to theifirtfijjctijrcg^vell (W-3)isoverlOfoId. ',*. t * *t

Hydraulic TestingThe three welts were hydrauHcally tested using a constant head methcfcl nd a Ailing headmethod. The constant head method Included saturating the wdltlsSfeeni Interval andallowing the fractures to become fully saturated. The constant flowMft'Rita eich well wasmeasured with a totalizing flow meter. Under these conditions, • steady'ttate flow analysis

< method is applicable (Logan, 1964). '":*",' -:V_y - • ••' '; 'i^/- 1;

--1 ^ * it.: V

- -5-

Falling head tests were also performed on die fractured wells and the unfractured well.Potable water was. poured Into the well and the decrease in water level In the well wasmeasured using an electric water level meter until the recovery of the water table hadsufficiently stabilized. The Hvorlsev method was used to calculate the K value (Hvorslev,1951). The results for each well are presented below.

VACUUM STRESS - UNFRACTURED

§10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 -iOOf

RADIAL DISTANCE (FT)i>.

VACUUM STRESS - FRACTURED WELL fW*1

pfcpii(A

II

10.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100RADIAL DISTANCE (FT)

VACUUM STRESS

110 120

20 40 60 80RADIAL DISTANCE (FT)

VACUUM STRESS VERSUS RADIAt DISTANCEFIGURE 2 , : 5 T •{"» *~* f

'* i .t. t,

Comparison of the results from the constant head tests indicate anlncJeas^Â hydraulicconductivity of the fractured wells over the unfractured well from about3D<frperosnt to .approximately one order of magnitude (10 times). The falling head'fi esut indicate anincrease in the hydraulic conductivity of the fractured wells of about 33 ween t to over one

-6-

order of magnitude. Generally, falling head test results Indicate lower K values comparedto other hydraulic testing methods, as was observed here.

FRACTURED UELU FW-1 INDUCED VACUUM STRESS

DISTANCE I FEET) DISTANCE

*i»* •UEU. W-3 INDUCED VACUW1 STRESS

*£

B- . V V .

•*•«'

* •<*H f..»- i ; :

' •

DISTANCE < PECT)

VACUUM STRESS DISTRIBUTIONHQURE3All four of the fractures were exposed In test pits, and clearly showed that the fracturelocation, orientation and geometry are important in relation to tlje^na rally^ occurring,higher permeability discontinuities, The connection of the hydrau)ijcmctures to thesediscontinuities creates a network of Increased zones of permeability.: Tnls networkenhances the effectiveness of many soil and groundwater remediation <c fcifques typicallyused in low permeability soils.

HYDRAUUCCONDUOiyiTY TESTING RESUI ^ ^J

Well NameFW-1FW-2W-3*

* Well W-3 Is tl

Rising Head Test Results Falling H3.3x10** cm/sec 3.3 x1.5 xlO*" cm/sec 4.2 x1.1x10""* cm/sec 2.6 x

ic unfractured control well

A summary of the results of the uncontamfnated site soil fracturin

-7-

eadafe&Restftl.10^:cnVsed'!}lO^t^m/sec* i.10r rfn/filc1 -i*

t M -•' i ;l: < j , • ' ? -

5 t9»Hs| in owivpel* \

> i . «' . t *

' ,-Cri*..." r .•«*•£•

t• •' Ji Jl * ' ' -j |'

A S? yf-tfiMtf I /•IfipJN

•*+•

SUMMARY OF RESULTSUNCONTAMINATED SITE TEST

Fractured at depths of 5 to n feetFracture diameter - 25 to 40 feetIncreased air flow 12 fold (4.2 cfm to 52 cfm)Increased pneumatic radius of influence 5 fold (20 feet toIncreased hydraulic conductivity - 1.1x10"* cm/$to I.Sxld"3 cW$

CONTAMINATED SITE CASE STUDYSite DescriptionHydraulic soil fracturing was used to assist In the remediation of petroleum contaminatedglacial till at an abandoned gasoline service station in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, Thesite is underlain by a very low permeability glacial clay containing natural verticalfractures. Gasoline was present within these fractures and the adjacent clay matrix.Previous experience at sites underlain by similar low permeability clays hasindicated that remediation technologies using conventional vectjcaf wells-, are notparticularly effective. The use of hydraulically fractured weljs sigf iflcantlyenhanced hydrocarbon removal by vapor extraction. * fci ; :

'«££• liField ProgramM-fc ..it

The project involved the installation of three unfractured test-#$&, 3"$ elevenhydraulically fractured production wells In which an Initial;upper .horizontalfracture was formed at a depth of 3.0 meters, and then subsequentjfractures wereformed at 0.5 meter incremental depths to a final depth of 8.5|meters. Eachfractured production well contained seven to ten hydraulically formed'Horizontalfractures. Typically, two fractured production wells (20 fractures); Were completedduring an eight hour working day. t _ ',- :

During the fracturing process, the fractures are initiated and propagated using anenvironmentally friendly fluid that contains a sand proppant A fotaôf eleven tonsof sand was injected into an area of hydrocarbon contaminated .cfery; measuringapproximately 20 meters by 30 meters at the surface and extending tp$epths oftypically 8.0 meters. The sand filled fractures immediately adjM^T&Q ;L4ell weretypically 12 millimeters thick and 5 millimeters thick at radial rfiKSêswS metersfrom a well, the design fracture radius. The hydraulically ImAqjkf fractures werepredominantly horizontal and provided an effective intercc^nectiqri>'betweencontaminated naturally occurring vertical fractures In the day. •tmftlsiffecfcand *»phase hydrocarbon was observed in the recovered fracturing,AIM and in theproduction wells. Elevated levels of hydrocarbon vapors werealsoldetected in theproduction wells after fracturing, • » * * * -

* * ' J : 'The eleven fractured production wells were connected to t^separjte vaporextraction systems. Under an applied vacuum of typically 5.4 prices Hf the twosystems have consistently yielded air flows of 24.0 to 68.7 cfm- over-a 60 daymonitoring program. Initial liquid equivalent hydrocarbon reraovaHrates-were well

in excess of 100 liters/day. After 60 days of operation, removal rates were holdingsteady at 5 liters/day. During the first 60 days that the system was In operation,over 600 liters of liquid equivalent hydrocarbon was extracted from the clay, asshown in Figure 4. The performance of the system greatly exceeded the ownersexpectations. • «• • IJ- ':

100 900 600Itneôura)

TOTAL HYDROCARBON REMOVALF1GURE4

A summary of the results of the contaminated site remediation activSUMMARY OF RESULTS

CONTAMINATED SITE REMEDIATION

1100

'esented below,. -:f. 1

6,000 cu. yds. contaminated soil remediated '' j11 fractured SVE wells with over 100 fractures installed'Fracture depths ranged from 10 to 28 feetFracture diameters up to 50 feet *2 SVE systems operated for 6 months ' »Vapor flow - 25 to 70 cfm © S.4 In. HgInitial removal rates - 100 UdayOver 800 liters hydrocarbon removedSystem removed with regulators approval

t i f f - UHThe cost to remediate the contaminated soil at this site was greatly retJqc^thfoVgh the useof hydraulic soil fracturing. The cost of the 11 fractured wells, tf)| ia^SVEj systems andoperation and maintenance for about 6 months was approximately $|0;000. This figuredoes not Include vapor treatment since none was required. The estirjjai^lvcp?tHb excavateand dispose of 6,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil range frorpiapoirt $160,000 to$360,000, depending upon disposal prices, backfill requirements- and watef handlingrequirements. M i. if> |

* * ' ? ' *REMEDIATION APPLICATIONS i

J %Croundwater Recovery Systems • -. j. .Croundwater recovery and remediation systems operated in lowf ttrroeablllty soils arecharacteristically inefficient and expensive. Low permeability solls;resrict high flow ratesfor groundwater recovery and thus limit the radius of influence to or5y ifM-Wt from thewell. Hydraulic soil fracturing creates an in-situ sand drain lens up to 30ifeet from the well

bore, The radius of influence after fracturing is at least the radius of the fracture from thewell bore, which generally would be several times the radius of Influence of theunfractured well. The result of hydraulic soil fracture is that less wells are needed to createa capture zone for the contaminated groundwater.

A second important point is that the mass permeability will be increased from a minimumof three times to possibly over 100 times. A well screened within a s&l layer with apermeability of 1 x 10"4 cm/sec and an aquifer thickness of 20 feet can generally pump lessthan 5 gpm. Typically increasing the permeability of the soil by an order otmagnjtude to 1x 10*3 cm/sec, the pumping rate can be doubled. The hydraullcally Induced sand filledfractures cut across the natural fractures, discontinuities, and more permeable rock veins orstringers that usually contain the majority of the contaminant The connection'of thesemore permeable features additionally enhances the remediation system to make it moreeffective.

Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioremediatlon :

The primary purpose of a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system is to extract volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) in vapor form from unsaturated soils using a vacuum system. Theenhancement of SVE by hydraulic soil fracturing is based on increasing the masspermeability of the contaminated soil layer and increased radius of influence whichprovides a larger surface area for collecting VOCs from soil vapor. u y . fc

In-situ bioremediation of petroleum contaminated soils Is fast becoming a cost-effectivemethod of remediation, In-situ bioremediation Is dependent upon several parameterswhich include, oxygen content of contaminated soil, nutrient concentration, and naturaloccurrence of contaminant consuming bacteria. Typically In low permeability sofls, one ormore of these parameters is at insufficient levels to maintain effective bioremediation.However, Introducing sand filled fractures into the contaminated soil enables thebioremediation contractor to efficiently supply air, nutrients, and bacteria^ Into the zone ofcontamination. The sand filled fractures allow critical materials to be .Introduced andmaintained throughout the in-situ bioremediation process. f \

• tLandfill ApplicationsSanitary landfill remediation of soil, groundwater, and landfill gas In. low permeability soilsis difficult and time consuming due to the difficulty In transmitting these'fluids'or gases tothe remediation systems. Hundreds of unlined sanitary landfills continue to contaminatethe soil and groundwater down gradient of these landfills creating envtrorfnental hazards toboth human and wildlife. • v

: • i-Hydraulic soil fracturing can significantly enhance groundwater recovery systems, landfillgas collection systems, and leachate collection systems. Hydraulic soil fracturing willincrease the mass permeability of soils enabling the groundwater or gas extraction systemsto operate more efficiently and be more cost effective. . . * *~ -ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ' * ? '/A typical soil and groundwater remediation project where soil fracttjrijig woujd be usedinvolves the clean-up of chlorinated solvents or petroleum hydrocarbons. The mostcommonly utilized method of remediation Is an SVE system or a . TQufldwater extractionsystem. Generally the SVE system includes several wells screened above the water table,

-10- i ; ; - >

• i !

manifolded together and piped to activated carbon cells. A groundwater extraction systemtypically utilizes a manifold system with the extraction wells closely spaced to maintain acapture zone. The contaminated groundwater is typically pumped to an air stripper toremove VQCs or an activated carbon cell or both. An example project fs provided to detailthe costs of hydraulically induced sand filled fractures and illustrate thejignlficant costsavings with the utilization of this technology.

• . ., ' !»•

Estimation of soil and groundwater clean-up costs involves two component! (1) the abilityto recover product and remove contaminated water from the *$$£, art$ (2) thecapabilities of various treatment technologies to remove the contaminants from therecovered groundwater. The first aspect Is dependent upon the size of the spill and thehydrogeologic properties of the aquifer. Assuming the area of the spill Is 400 feet wide by100 feet long; and 25 feet thick (plume) and contains 50 parts per million total Benzene,Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (BTEX), a groundwater extraction system is then installed onthe down gradient edge of the site. The hydrogeologic characteristics of the clayey siltaquifer Include a hydraulic conductivity of S x 10"°s cm/sec (O.T4 ftfda^j and an In-sltuporosity of 0.20. The maximum pumping rate achievable with 15 feet of drawdown is onlyabout 0.2 gpm. Applying Darcy's Law and providing the aquifer behaves under the Dupuitassumption of horizontal flow, the radius of Influence from one extraction well with onefoot of drawdown between the wells is only about 40 to 45 feet However, If the masspermeability was Increased to 5 x 10"04 cm/sec due to hydraulic Induced soil fracturing, theradius of influence would be increased to about 400 feet Also, the pumpfhg rate; could beincreased to over 1 gprn, * . - . .

t-The groundwater extraction system for the lower permeability aquifer (OiV4 ft/day) wouldrequire 6 wells for capture of the plume at a .total pumping rate of 1.2 gpm for the system.Assuming that 15 pore volumes would be required to clean the groundwater to drinkingwater standards of 100 parts per billion BTEX, the total O&M time would be about 35years. A groundwater extraction system for the higher permeability aquifer after fracturingwould only require 3 wells and would pump a total of 3.6 gpm for the system. The O&Mtime required for clean-up would be one-third or about 1 2 years.

An American Petroleum Institute (API) document 'Cost Model for Selected Technologies forRemoval of Gasoline Components From Groundwater, February 1.986* was used as areference for costs discussed below. The cost for the installation of six wells, pumps andcontrols would be about $60,000 and for the soil fractured extraction system, with onlythree wells would only be about $30,000. The total cost savings would: be $30,000. Theremediation system, which Includes the air stripper, sensors and controls, bag.fiker, anddischarge pump would cost approximately $50,000. Based on art fcfirfual OfiM cost of$25,000, the total present word) cost at an Interest rate of 10 percenter 3$ years* would be$24 1 ,000. However, for the 1 2 year O&M the present worth cost would fee $1 70,350 for atotal savings of $70,650. The total cost for an unfractured wells, remediation system, and apresent worth value O&M for 35 years would be $351,000. The cost for only three requiredhydraulically fractured wells, an identical remediation system as the unfractured {sy stem, ana present worth value O&M for only 12 required years Is about $240,350. The total projectcost savings would amount to $110,650, which is savings of approximately 30 percent

iFaster site remediation enable the client to close or sell the property, thereby reducing theirliability. Hydraulic soil fracturing can achieve site remediation where otherwise notpossible, and significantly reduce the time required for remediation up to*67 percent

0

CONCLUSIONSHydraulic fracturing of low permeability soils is an enabling technology that can providethe following benefits:

,• Substantially increased permeability of the soils for greater air a id groundwaterrecovery rates;

'* '• Greater radius of Influence per extraction well, allowing ; essittfrnber of

wells in the remedial design; "n"*r >• The intersection of naturally occurring vertical fractures and discontinuities that

directly control the flow in the low permeability soils' ThaV'would not beintersected using standard extraction processes;

• The ability to deliver nutrients and contaminant consuming bacteria andoxygen producing chemical agents directly Into the contaminated zone; and

• No soli excavation and disposal requiring heavy equipment, additionalpermitting, and the disruption of business activities at the facility; '

\ i -:

The cost benefits of hydraulic fracturing of low permeability soils Include: i

• Reduced capital costs of wells, piping, and pumps realized from greater radiusof influence decreasing the number of wells needed for hydrauffc capture;

• Significantly reduced long term costs of operation and maintenance ue to thereduced time of clean-up; and !

• Real estate values and property transactions resolved within treasonable timelimits. r

*The ability to achieve clean-up of the contamination within a reasonable time frame,reduces the risk of: ' . "

• human and wildlife exposure; I -• class action law suits; and Mi« classifying the site as a CERCLA site. £

* .i* .- i i• *<& Mi-1Applications performed to date show that hydraulic soil fracturing is compnerdally feasibleand, if properly designed and implemented, highly effective. Hydraulic soil fracturing oflow permeability soils has 'come of age*, and the second generation" df applications hasmoved the technology out of the research laboratories and into the field, 4* • *i

i . i

i. ;'•* \

.12-

REFERENCES

US Environmental Protection Agency, 'Hydraulic Fracturing. TecKAnalysis and Technology Evaluation Report*, EPA/54Q/R-93/505, Septe

US Environmental Protection Agency, 'ACCUTECH PneumaticHot Gas Injection, Phase 1: Application Analysis Report*, EPA/540/AR

.American Petroleum Institute, API Publication No. 4422, Grou&dvjForce, 1986. 'Cost Model for Selected Technologies for Removal of'from Groundwater*, Engineering Science, Inc.

Hvorslev, M. J. 1951, as referenced in Cedergren, Harry R., 'Seep;Nets', F. Wlley-lnterScience Publication, New York, 1989

Logan,)., 1964. 'Estimating Transmissibility from Routine Production;Groundwater, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp, 35-37.

:iW'«!&*

;«*|fc«tt*Mi'j''W

•13-•M»»**>?5tt?-' ?•»]!J*lvi>i

" " MiAR309752

. *

1,000-

I 800-

Pg 600-

S0.

tt 400-

I200-

EASY DRILLING

1,000-

__ -~

" > • ! • ' '^*. y

* '"& *i

\y/tfy\ 800-

P

g 600-<rinCL

^ 400-w.-. 8

200-

DIFFICULT DRILLING

,— .

" ' -n :* :^ ^ !^ x s

?iisIISw

1^

i0- —— - ——————————————————— u ———————————————————————

J J , „ B . in « •„. DRILLING METHOD:Source: Adapted from "ResonantSomc Drilling: ____ _ - ___ ___Innovative Technology Summary Report." April 1995. B RESONANTSONIC* £3 CABLE-TOOL 03 MUD-ROTARY

FIGURE 2Operating Cost Comparison of ResonantSonic® Drilling With

Cable-Tool and Mud-Rotary Drilling Under Two Different Soil Conditions

Technical Contact: Jeffrey Barrow,Water Development Corporation, 1202 Ken-tucky Avenue, Woodland. CA 95776, <916)662-2829.

Reference: "ResonantSonicSM Drilling:Innovative Technology Summary Report,"April 1995. Prepared for DOE by the Colo-rado Center for Environmental Management,

999 18th Street, Suite 2750, Denver, CO80202, (303) 297-0180; contact DawnKaback for availability.

High-Vacuum System Accelerates Remediationof Low-Permeability Soils and AquifersAlthough conventional pump-and-

treat and soil vapor extraction sys-tems have met with some success in

remediating contaminated, high-permeabil-ity soils and aquifers, these technologies havegenerally performed poorly at sites with low-permeability strata. The low permeability ofthe vadose and/or saturated zones does notallow adequate migration of contaminants toremediate such sites in a reasonable timeframe—if remediation to targeted cleanuplevels is possible at all. Instead of turning tomostly and complex ex situ techniques, reme-diators may now have another option. Xerox

Corporation has developed and patented ahigh-vacuum technique that draws both soilvapor and ground water from low-permeabil-ity sites. Hie technique is applicable primar-ily at sites where both soil and ground waterare contaminated with volatile organic com-pounds.

The technique, called 2-phase extraction,is described along with several case historiesin two recent papers: -• "2-Phase Groundwater and Soil Vapor

Extraction Site Test it McClellan AFB,"by Chris Koemer et al. of Radian Corpo-

ration (Sacramento, California) and KevinWong of McClellan Air Force Base (Sac-ramento. California). This paper was pre-sented it the Twelfth Annual HazardousMaterials Management Conference andExhibition (Hazmacon* '95), held onApril 4-6,1995 in San Jose, California.

"Remediating Low Permeability SitesWith 2-Phase Extraction—Case Studies,"presented by Paul M. Tomatore of Haley& Aldrich Inc. at the Superfund XV con-ference, held November 29-December I,1994 in Washington, D.C.

The Hazardous Waste Consultant: July/August 1995©Elsevier Science Inc. 0738-0232/95/$0+$9.50

1.3

f iR309753

The 2-Phase ExtractionProcess

The modular, portable 2-phase extractionsystem is shown schematically in Figure 1.The liquid-ring vacuum pump establishes ahigh vacuum (usually 18-29 inches of mer-cury at the source) to draw contaminatedground water, soil vapor, and nonaqueous-phase liquid (NAPL) free products from thesubsurface through an extraction well. Theliquid-phase components tend to be entrainedwithin the soil vapor stream. As vapor andliquid are withdrawn from the extractionwell, the vapor velocity and vapoMo-liquidratio are optimized so that ground water as-cends to the surface with minimal pressure

drop in the well. This low pressure dropresults in maximum applied vacuum at thewell's screened interval, which is positionedboth above and below the water table.

•In addition to rapid withdrawal of con-taminants from the subsurface, the 2-phaseextraction system also acts as a pretreatmentsystem. During recovery, soil vapors stripcontaminants from the ground water, typi-cally with about 90% efficiency. Once at thesurface, the vapor and entrained groundwater, as well as any NAPLs, enter a liquid-vapor separator. In the separator, the velocityof the two-phase flow stream abruptly drops,and the ground water and NAPLs separatefrom the vapor. The vapor phase can be sentto treatment. Free-phase NAPLs are sepa-

rated from the water and collected. Contami-nants remaining in the ground waterare often*at low enough concentrations that the waterrequires only polishing with activated carbonbefore release to the environment.

As ground-water withdrawal through thsystem continues, the water table around theextraction well drops. This depression in-creases the zone through which soil vaporscan travel and strip contaminants from thesoil.

For contaminants that are more difficult toremove from the subsurface, the high vac-uum of the process can also enhance in situaerobic biodegradation by increasing subsur-face oxygen levels. However, the 2-phase

VAPOR

LIQUID-RINGVACUUM PUMP

TO VAPOR-*• PHASE

LIQUID-VAPORSEPARATOR

WATER/NAPLSTO LIQUID-PHASE

TREATMENTATMOSPHERICAIR-BLEED VALVE

WATERTABLE

Source: Adapted froraC Koemeretal.

FIGURE 1Schematic of the 2-Phase Extraction System

1.4 The Hazardous Waste Consultant: July/August©Elsevier Science Inc. 0738-0232/95/SO+S9.50

A R 3 0 9 7 5 U

process removes the majority of contami-nants from the subsurface.

When the 2-phase extraction technique isiing pilot tested or used as an interim meas-

ure, existing 2-inch-diameter monitoringwells typically can be utilized, minimizing \the need to install additional extraction wells.Due to the high-vacuum conditions estab-lished, the radius of influence of each 2-phaseextraction well is significantly larger thanconventional pump-and-treat or soil vaporextraction wells. Use of the monitoring wellsand a minimum of additional extractionpoints often suffices for full-scale implemen-tation. The high vacuum also helps minimizecontaminant migration.

Comment: Although patented by Xerox,this 2-phase extraction process seems verysimilar to Terra Vac's dual-vacuum extrac-tion process (reference page 4.4 of the Sep-tember/October 1992 issue of The Hazard-ous Waste Consultant). Terra Vac has beenusing their combined vapor and ground-water extraction process since the late 1980s.

Case StudiesThe 2-phase extraction system has been

'emonstrated at a number of sites. Both Ra-dian and Haley & Aldrich have employed thetechnique under license from Xerox; resultsof several applications are described below.

McClellan Air Force BaseAs part of the EPA Superfund Innovative

Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, the2-phase extraction technique was pilot-testedat McClellan Air Force Base. The test areais contaminated primarily with tricnloro-ethylene (TCE) and perchloroethy tene (PCE)in combined concentrations of up to 7,000ppm. The water table is 100-110 feet belowground surface.

A three-day pilot test of the 2-phase ex-traction system was conducted using two ex-traction wells that are part of an existingpump-and-treat system at the site. Followingthe three-day test, a six-month test was con-ducted using one of the wells. Results of thesix-month test include the following:

• The 2-phase extraction system createdground-water flow rates two times greaterthan those created by the pump-and-treatsystem.

.Contaminant removal was extrapolated to5,000-8,000 Ib/year with the 2-phase ex-traction system, compared to 60-160Ib/year with the pump-and-treat system.

Up to 95% of the contaminants extractedby 2-phase extraction were in the var&irphase.

Scale buildup on the welt screen had ham-pered pump-and-treat extraction and re-quired periodic cleaning. Fine paniculateand scale were observed in the recoveredliquid phase during the first two weeks of2-phase extraction operation, followed byrelatively clear water. This phenomenonsuggests that the flow rate of 2-phase ex-traction recovery is adequate to flush scalefrom the well screen.

• Downtime over the six-month operationwas less than 2%.

Table 1 summarizes results from theMcClellan Air Force Base six-month demon-stration test, as compared to typical data fromithe existing pump-and-treat project

Low-Permeability ApplicationsThe 2-phase extraction process has been

applied at a number of low-permeabilitysites. Four sites—three full-scale projectsand one pilot-scale project—are described inthis section. Compared to pump-and-treatsystems, ground-water recovery rates using2-phase extraction reportedly are 2 to 10times higher, and contaminant recovery ratesare up to two orders of magnitude higher.

TABLE 1Test Results of the 2-Phase Extraction Demonstration

at McClellan Air Force Base

ResultsParameter

Pumpand treat

2-phaseextraction

Recovered vapor phaseTCE(ppmv)PCE (ppmv)Freon® 113 (ppmv)Flow (scfm)Contaminant extraction

(Ib/year)

Recovered liquid phaseTCE(ug/L)PCE(ug/L)Freon®! 13 (ug/L)Flow (gpm)Contaminant extraction

(Ib/year)

Total extraction (Ib/year)

3.00&-5.000600-1,200

20-304-6

60-160

60-160

160-20050-11020-50

105-1105,000-8,000

1,600-1,800300-4002(MO5-9

40-50

5,000-8.000

PCE = perchloroethytene; TCE « trichloroethylene.

Source: Adapted from C. Koemer

The Hazardous Waste Consultant: July/August 1995©Elsevier Science Inc. 0738-0232/95/SO+S9.50

1.5

A R 3 0 9 7 5 5

Webster, New York SiteA site at an active manufacturing complex

is contaminated with chlorinated solventsand mineral spirits. The site consists of 10 to5 feet ofelacial tills, with permeability asjw as l(T*cm/sec, overlying vertically frac-

tured sedimentary bedrock. The soils andupper rock zone contain a thin NAPL layer.

Over the course of 17 months. 2-phaseextraction was applied at this site. After 6months of extraction, limited soil analysesshowed a reduction in contaminant concen-trations from 5,000 ppm to 5 ppm in areas upto 15 ft from an extraction point The soilanalysis results suggested that biodegrada-tion partially contributed to remediation ofthe contaminants. Average contaminant con-centration in ground water from 19 monitor-ing wells at the site was reduced by more than85% from initial levels in the first 9 monthsof extraction.

Blauvelt, New York Slt8A former solvent storage area is the site of

chlorinated solvent and mineral spirit con-tamination. The site consists of about 25 ft ofglacial tills, with permeability ranging from10 to 10 cm/sec, overlying vertically frac-

tured sedimentary bedrock. A NAPL layer inthe ground-water capillary fringe and dis-solved-phase contaminants in the groundwater have been identified.

Like the Webster site, this site has showna significant decrease in contaminant levelsduring the 9 months of 2-phase extractionoperation.

Clinton, Illinois SiteChlorinated and Stoddard solvents have

contaminated a site at an active manufactur-ing plant Low-permeability clays and siltsmake up the site geology, with weatheredsurface soils (to about IS ft below grade)exhibiting KT6 to 1(T7 cm/sec permeabil-ity; underlying unweathered soil exhibits10~* cm/sec permeability.

Two months of extraction have resulted ina consistent downward trend in contaminantconcentration.

Lee, New Hampshire SiteAn active fuel dispensing facility is the site

of gasoline/petroleum product contamina-tion. Free product thicknesses of up to 3 fthave been found at the site, which consists of

TABLE 2Estimated Costs for 2-Phase Extraction

Cost parameter Cost

Capital (peryr)Operation (per yr)Maintenance (peryr)

Total (peryr)

Costs per pound of contaminants removed

$100,00040,00010,000

Costs do not include site chancterizfttion, pilot testing, engineering, construction management, orpermit work.

2Based on using a skid-mounted vacuum system rated at 120 scfm and 20 inHg of vacuum. Also basedon 10-year amortization of capital

'Based on operator attention for 10 hours/week, 52 weeks/year and labor costs of S7S/hour.4Basedon 10% of capital costs per year.

*Based on 6,500 pounds of contaminants removed per year.

Source: Adapted from C Koemer et al.

fill material with I0~5 cm/sec permeability,overlying clay and till with permeabilities'two orders of magnitude lower.

A three-day pilot test of 2-phase extractionwas conducted at this site using one 2-inch-diameter recovery well. The area affected bythis pilot test showed a 60% decrease incontaminant concentration.

CostsSeveral factors are expected to facilitate

tower overall remediation costs when apply-ing the 2-phase extraction system at appro-priate sites, including 1) the system's modu-lar, portable design; 2) the ability to useexisting monitoring wells and a minimumnumber of additional extraction wells; 3) thecontaminant extraction rate, which is esti-mated to be as much as two orders of magni-tude greater than conventional extractionrates; 4) the reduced duration of remediation;and 5) the pretreatment effect of the extrac-tion system.

System installation and operation costsreported by Haley & Aldrich have run as lowas $20 per pound of contaminant removed,including aboveground treatment The capi-tal, operation, and maintenance costs for im-plementation of the system at McClellan AirForce Base are given in Table 2; these costsresult in an estimate of $23 per pound ofcontaminant removed. Site investigation, pi*lot testing, engineering, construction man*agement, and permit costs are not included.

References: C. Koemer et al., "2-PhaseGroundwater and Soil Vapor Extraction SiteTest at McClellan AFB." Published in Pro-ceedings of Hazmacon* '95. Available fromthe Association of Bay Area Governments,P.O. Box 2050, Oakland, CA 94604-2050,(510) 464-7900, at a cost of $55.

P.M. Tomatore, "Remediating Low Per-meability Sites With 2-Phase Extraction-Case Studies." Published in Superfitnd XVConference Proceedings. Available fromHazardous Materials Control Resources In-stitute, One Church Street, Suite 200,Rockville.MD20850-4l29,(301)251-1900,at a cost of $115.

1.6 The Hazardous Waste Consultant: July/August 1995©Elsevier Science Inc. 0738-0232/95/$0+$9.50

A R 3 0 9 7 5 6

..p. ir

.. J. 12!

...p. i:

....P.

uUetim

AAPG Bulletin Volume 78, No. 8 (August 1994)

p r e v i e w s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n s i d e front coverTo the Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liBulletin B o a r d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi

Recognition of Faults, Unconformities, and Sequence Boundaries UsingCumulative Dip Plots, Nell F. Hurley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173Thermogenic and Secondary Blogenlc Gases, San Juan Basin,Colorado and New Mexico-—Implications for CoalbedGas Produclbility, Andrew R. Scon, W. R. Kaiser, and Walter B. Aycrs, Jr. ............ 1186Late Dlagenetlc Dolomltlzation of Lower Ordovician,Upper Knox Carbonates: A Record of the Hydrodynamlc Evolution ofthe Southern Appalachian Basin, Isabel P. Montanez.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1210Canterbury Plains, New Zealand—Implications forSequence Stratigraphlc Models, Dale A. Leckle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1240Systematic Variations In Stress State In the SouthernSan Joaquin Valley: Inferences Based on Well-Bore Data andContemporary Seismlclty, David A. Castillo and Mark D. Zoback . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257Stratigraphlc Framework of a Late Pleistocene Shelf-Edge Delta,Northeast Gulf of Mexico, J. Sydow and H. H. Roberts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1276Geologic NoteUpper Cretaceous Organic-Rich Laminated Limestones of theAdriatic Carbonate Platform, Island of Hvar, Croatia,Georg Jerinic, Vladimir Jelaska, and Andja Alajbeg.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313Memorial.. ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1322

Data Source 1323Association Round TaSteEastern Section Meeting, September 18-20,1994East Lanslng, Michigan. Abstracts.......... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1327

Instructions to Bulletin A u t h o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x l i

AAPQ grants permission for a single photocopy of an Item from the AAPQ Bulletin tor personal use. Authorization loradditional photocopies of items from the AAPQ Bulletin (or personal or internal use is granted by AAPQ provided thatthe base fee of $3.00 per copy is paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center. 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvent.Massachusetts 01923. Fees are subject to change. Any form of electronic/digital scanning or other digitaltransformation of AAPQ Bulletin articles Into computer-readable and/or transmittabie form for personal or corporateuse requires special permission from, and Is subject to fee charges by. the AAPO._________________The AAPO Bulletin (ISSN 0149-1423) la published monthly by the American Association of Petroleum Qeologtsts.Offices are located at 1444 South Boulder Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119-3604. Second-class postage paid atTulsa, Oklahoma, and at additional mailing offices. Copyright C 1994 by the American Association of PetroleumGeologists. All rights reserved.The AAPQ Bulletin is also available on CO-ROM through Masera-AAPG Data Systems, P.O. Box 702708. Tulsa.Oklahoma 74170. Phone (916) 496-7777. fax (918) 496-3756.SUBSCRIPTIONSSubscriptions for AAPQ members (US $30) are Included In the dues. Nonmember subscriptions: $135 U.S., $160 non-US.Airmail service is $30 extra. First-class service (US only) is $30, Single copies, $8 member, $12 nonmembar. Prices subjectto change without notice. Claims for nonreceipt of any Issue. K reported within three months of the date of publication, wW befilled gratis. Back issues. If available, may be ordered from the Association. Price fist on request. POSTMASTER: sendchange of address to AAPQ Bulletin, P.O. Box 979. Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 -0979.

ON COVER—Relationamong thepotenttometric surface,composition of coalbedgases, and average dallyproduction In UpperCretaceous Fruitlandcoal beds of the San Juanbasin. Closely spacedcontours In diepotcntlometric surfaceand abrupt changes Ingas composition andaverage dally productionare due to pinch-outand/or effect of coalbeds by faulting along astructural hlngeline.Maps were madeIndependently by W. R,Kaiser and A. R. Scott(Bureau of EconomicGeology) and R. H. Meek(Conoco, Inc.); wellcontrol increases fromtop to bottom. Figure byAndrew K. Scott Seerelated paper by A. R.Scott, W. R. Kaiser, andW. B. Ayers.Jr.,beginning on page 1186of this Issue.

LOr-»enCDCO

Printed in the USA

1334 Association Round Table

east of the reef, and (3) determine if seismic data can tie used to•untify reservoir parameters to maximize the productive capaci-

f infill wells.Interpretation of the 3-D seismic data resulted in a detailedge of the reef, using several interpretive techniques. A seismic

flection within the reef was correlated with a known porosityzone, and a possible relationship between porosity and seismicamplitude was Investigated. A potential connection between themain reef and the low-relief gas well was identified. This projectillustrates the economic value of investigating an existing storagereef with 3-D seismic data, and underscores the necessity of sucha survey prior to developing a new storage reservoir.

SITTLER, STEVEN P., and MARK D. FLAVIN. Geraghty & Miller,Inc., Indianapolis, IN

Use of High-Vacuum Technology to Remediate Soils and Ground*water In Low-Permeability Formations /

The combination of groundwater pump-and-treat with vaporextraction has been successfully practiced as an integrated reme-dial strategy in high-permeability geologic formations. However,the effectiveness of such systems can be severely restricted as for-mation permeability decreases. In silty clay, glacial till materialscommon throughout the upper midwest, conventional pump-and-treat/vapor extraction systems typically cannot produce suffi-cient groundwater recovery nor create adequate subsurface airflow to expedite site remediation. Remedial efforts are furtherhindered by the high adsorptlve capacity of silts and clays, mak-ing removal of adsorbed organics more difficult.

"he application of high vacuums, using liquid-ring pumps, hasjled successful remediation at sites that are not amenable toventional groundwater pump-and-treat/vapor extraction tech-

niques. High vacuums (25 in. of mercury vs. 1 to 5 in. for a con-ventional system) can be applied to a network of extraction wellsto increase groundwater recovery rates and maximize subsurfaceair flow in these low-permeability formations, resulting InIncreased volatilization of organic compounds and increased massremoval rates. In addition, subsurface oxygen levels are alsoIncreased, enhancing naturally occurring biodegradation.Increased groundwater recovery rates under the influence of avacuum also can create a larger capture zone for each Individualextraction well, substantially increasing site dewatering and aid-ing vapor extraction from previously saturated sediments. Sincevapor extraction is much more efficient at mass removal ofvolatile organics than groundwater extraction, the added dewa-tering because of theîgh vacuum will increase overall contami-nant removal and decrease remedial time.

SMOSNA, RICHARD, and KATHY R. BRUNER, West Virginia Uni-versity, Morgantown, WV

Porosity Type is Related to Sandstone Composition Is Related to'Deposition^ Setting

Reservoir and nonreservoir sandstones of the Devonian LockHaven Formation in central Pennsylvania are classified as sub-litharenites and Iltharenites. Rock fragments of shale and phylliter ' -inally constituted from 4 to 4.V.V. of the total rock volume

>rc diagenetic leaching), and the mean quartz/feldspar/rockI jment was 76/4/20. The amount of rock fragments was largelyNcdntrolled by deposit ion a I processes: fluvial sands had a high lith-

ic content (average of 22%); distributary-mouth bar and offshore-shelf sands, an intermediate content (17%); and beach sands, alow content (7%).

Primary porosity is indirectly related to compaction of the due-

sandstones with an intermediate lilhic content. Vt'ith a lower volumeof rock fragments, there were not many unstable grains to removeby leaching. With a higher volume of rock fragments, compactionwas extreme, leaching fluids could not enter the rtx-k to dissolve theunstable grains, and secondary porosity dropped to zero.

Because of these Interrelationships between depositions! pro-cesses, mineral content, and porosity, sandstones of different sed-imentary environments now exhibit characteristic porosity typesand amounts. Fluvial and distributary-bar sandstones of reservoirquality (6% or more total porosity) have predominantly fithmoldicporosity. Beach-barrier island sandstones have mostly primaryporosity, and shelf sandstones have subequal amounts of primaryand secondary porosities. The best reservoirs are those with anintermediate content of rock fragments, say 5%<RF<21%, whichdisplay a favorable combination of both pore types.

/STARK, T.JOSHUA, Equitable Resources Exploration, Kingsport,TN, RICHARD SMOSNA and KATHY BRUNER, West Virginia Uni-versity, Morgantown, WV, ROBERT DAVIS, Schlumberger, NewOrleans, LA, andjON MUSSELMAN. Schlumberger. Charleston,WV

Tidal Flats and Tempestites: An Integrated Approach to an Atypi-cal Fades of the Cypress Sandstone

The Cypress Sandstone (Mississipplan Chesterian series) is amajor hydrocarbon-producing formation in the Illinois basin.Depositlonal settings consisting of fluvial and deltaic environ-ments are recognized throughout the basin. Upon the southernflank of the Moorman syncllne in the Stringtown field, a distalfacies of the Cypress deposittonal system is recognized as a storm-swept tidal flat.

Developed above marine shales, a lower shorefacc/plat formfacies is interbedded with carbonate-rich tempestite stormdeposits. High clay concentrations within the sands create non-reservoir conditions, characterized by low permeabilities andhigh irreducible water content. As proximal tidal environmentsbuilt seaward, a scour channel downcut into the lowershoreface/plat form facies. Continuing tidal flat progradationdeposited lower and middle tidal-flat pay sands on the scour sur-face. Overlying upper tidal flat strata provide the seal for thisreservoir. Regional transgression destroyed the balance of theprograded tidal flat, preserving the sequence only within thedeep scour features.

Llthologically, the pay sands are classified as quartzarenitesand sublltharcnites, the latter containing appreciable concentra-tions of shale rock fragments and feldspars. The development ofsecondary moldic porosity is the primary determinant of reservoirquality, derived from the dissolution of rock fragment fabrics.Geophysical well logs and Formation MicroScanner data analysiswere correlated to core tithologies, and were successfully used toIdentify various facies within the Cypress Sandstone section. Earlydevelopment wells flowed oil. due to overprcssurcd reservoirconditions.

TEBO, JERRY, T. JOSH STARK, and CHARLES YOL'GH. EquitableResources Exploration, Kingsport, TN

Exploration Considerations for Newman "Big Lime" Oil Reservesin Southeastern Kentucky

The Newman "Big Lime" (Middle to Upper Mississippian) In theAppalachian basin portion of southeastern Kentucky contains tec-tonically influenced oil reserves. With the currently known primaryproduction potential totaling a combined 30 million bbl of oil,these Big Lime traps are economically attractive targets. Drilling

W-MOTY o?

•' * -"^^ f r>v. - ,...: i.;-,.v*.U•; M *:. N.E,WA 90052 EPA542-K-94-005

April 1995

In Situ Remediation Technology Status Report:

Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing

^ U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation OfficeWashington, DC 20460

AR309759

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the researchers and technology developers described in this reportfor their assistance in its preparation. We especially would like to thank Uwe Frank and VincentGallardo of the U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory for reviewing the draftdocument and making valuable suggestions for improvement.

For more information about this project, contact:

Rich SteimleU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (5I02W)Technology Innovation Office401 M Street, SWWashington, DC 20460703-308-8846

NoticeThis material has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under contractnumber 68-W2-OOQ4. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsementor recommendation for use.

A R 3 0 9 7 6 0

ForewordV_X The purpose of this document is to describe recent field demonstrations, commercial applications, and

research on technologies that either treat soil and ground water in place or increase the solubility andmobility of contaminants to improve their removal by pump-and-treat remediation. It is hoped that thisinformation will allow more regular consideration of new, less costly, and more effective technologiesto address the problems associated with hazardous waste sites and petroleum contamination.

This document is one in a series of reports on demonstrations and applications of in situ treatmenttechnologies. To order other documents in the series, contact the National Center for EnvironmentalPublications and Information at (513) 489-8190 or fax your request to NCEPI at (513) 489-8695.Refer to the document numbers below when ordering.

EPA542-K-94-003 Surfactant EnhancementsEPA542-K-94-004 Treatment WallsEPA542-K-94-005 Hydraulic/Pneumatic FracturingEPA542-K-94-006 CosolventsEPA542-K-94-007 ElectrokineticsEPA542-K-94-009 Thermal Enhancements

Walter W. Kovalick. Jr., Ph.IKDirector, Technology Innovation Office

AR30976 I

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lPurpose and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITechnology Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Technology Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i ... 1

Technology Demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Accutech Remedial Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Accutech Remedial Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Accutech Remedial Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Accutech Remedial Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Terra Vac, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7New Jersey Institute of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8National Risk Management Research Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9University of Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIUniversity of Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12University of Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

General References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Abbreviations

BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, XyleneCERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability ActDNAPL « Dense Non-Aqueous Phase LiquidDOE = Department of EnergyPAH m Poly-Aromatic HydrocarbonPCE = Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)RCRA e Resource Conservation and Recovery ActSITE = Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation ProgramSVE = Soil Vapor ExtractionSVOC » Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundTCA m 1,1,1-Trichloroc thaneTCE • TrichloroethyleneTPH « Total Petroleum HydrocarbonVOC « Volatile Organic Compound

in A R 3 0 9 7 6 2

Introduction

Purpose and Process

The purpose of this document is to describe the research and development of hydraulic and pneumaticfracturing technologies to remove contaminants from soil and ground water at waste disposal and spillsites. The research and development activities include research, demonstrations, and field applicationof these technologies.

Information in this report was found in computerized databases such as the Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) andAlternative Treatment Technologies Information Center (ATTIC) and the Dialog Information Services;and in publications such as the Hazardous Substance Research Center Annual Reports, the SuperfundInnovative Technology Evaluation Technology Profiles and the Department of Energy Office ofTechnology Development Program Summary. The review also included conference summaries,proceedings and compendium*. It was supplemented with personal interviews and discussions withrepresentatives of other federal agencies, academic research centers, and hazardous waste remediationconsulting firms.

Technology Needs

Numerous hazardous waste sites have significant concentrations of organic contaminants in saturatedand unsaturated soils. In a permeable matrix, soil vapor extraction in the unsaturated zone and airsparging in the saturated zone appear to be successful in removing some of the volatile phase of thecontaminant. However, the low permeability of clays, organic soils, and other tight subsurfaceformations is a limiting factor to the success of these two techniques. With this limitation, substantialremoval of contaminants by soil vacuum extraction may be long and costly. Hydraulic and pneumaticfracturing are enhancement technologies designed primarily to increase the efficiency of soil vaporextraction and other technologies in soil conditions that would otherwise be difficult to treat. Withhydraulic fracturing, pressurized water is injected and with pneumatic fracturing, pressurized air isinjected through wells to develop cracks in low permeability and over-consolidated sediments. Thenew passageways increase the effectiveness of many in situ processes and enhance extractionefficiencies by increasing contact between contaminants adsorbed onto soil panicles and the extractionmedium.

Technology Descriptions

The pneumatic fracturing process involves injection of highly pressurized air into consolidatedsediments that are contaminated to extend existing fractures and create a secondary network of fissuresand channels. This enhanced fracture network increases the permeability of the soil to liquids andvapors and accelerates the removal of contaminants, particularly by vapor extraction, biodegradation,and thermal treatment.

Hydraulic fracturing creates distinct sand-filled fractures in low permeability and over-consolidatedclays or sediments. High pressure water is first injected into the bottom of a borehole to cut a diskshaped notch that serves as the starting point for the fracture. A slurry of water, sand, and a thick gelis pumped at high pressure into the borehole to propagate the fracture. The residual gel biodegrades

i A R 3 0 9 7 6 3

and the resultant fracture is a highly permeable sand-filled lens that may be as large as 60 feet indiameter. The fractures serve as avenues for bioremediation, steam or hot air injection or contaminantrecovery and can also improve pumping efficiency and the delivery for other in situ processes. Precisemeasurement of ground elevation before and after fracturing allows for a determination of the fracturethickness and lateral location. Other granular materials such as graphite can be used instead of sand tocreate fractures with different properties.

AR30976U

Technology Demonstrations

Industrial Site, Hillsborough, New JerseyPneumatic Fracturing Extraction (PFE)

Accutech Remedial Systems

Description of Demonstration: Fracture wells were drilled in the contaminated vadose zone of asiltstone formation and left as open boreholes. The pneumatic fracturing process was applied toisolated two foot intervals of the formation. Short bursts (less than 20 seconds) of air were injectedinto the formation at successive depth intervals of the fracture well to create an intensely fracturedunsaturated zone. Bach injection extended and enlarged existing fissures in the formation and creatednew fissures, primarily in the horizontal direction. Following fracturing, contaminated vapors wereextracted from the fracture well utilizing a vacuum.

Wastes Treated: VOCs and SVOCs including TCE, PCE, and benzene

Status: A demonstration was conducted under the SITE Demonstration Program in the summer of1992.

Demonstration Results: The PFE process was observed to increase extracted air flow by more than600% relative to that achieved in the site formation prior to the application of pneumatic fracturing.Even higher air flow rate increases (19,000%) were observed when one or more of the monitoringwells were opened to serve as a passive air Inlet to enter the formation. The effective radius ofinfluence was observed to increase from 380 square feet to at least 1254 square feet, an increase ofover threefold. Pressure data, collected at perimeter monitoring wells, and surface heave measurementsindicate that fracture propagation extended well past the farthest monitoring wells (at 20 feet) to atleast 35 feet.

Whtle TCE concentrations in the air stream remained approximately constant at roughly SO parts permillion, the increased air flow rate resulted in an increase in TCE mass removal of 675%. When wellswere opened to passive air inlet, the increase in TCE mass removal was 2300% following theapplication of pneumatic fracturing. Additional, chemical analysis of the extracted air during post-fracture testing showed high concentrations of organic compounds that had only been detected in traceamounts prior to application of pneumatic fracturing. This confirmed that the pneumatic fracturingprocess had effectively accessed pockets of previously trapped VOCs. The cost for full-scaleremediation was estimated at $307/kg ($140/lb) of TCE removed based on the demonstration andinformation provided by the developer.

Contacts:John UskowitzAccutech Remedial Systems, Inc. ;

Cass Street and Highway 35 ;Keyport, NJ 07735908-739-6444 .Fax:908-739-0451

AR309765

John Schuring, Ph.D.Hazardous Substance Management Research CenterNew Jersey Institute of Technology138 Warren StreetNewark, NJ 07102201-596-5849

Uwe FrankNational Risk Management Research Laboratory2890 Woodbridge AvenueEdison, NJ 08837908-321-6626Fax: 908-906-6990

References:Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection, Phase 1. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA/540/AR-93/509

Frank, Uwe, "Pneumatic Fracturing Increased VOC Extraction Rate." Tech Trends. December 1993.EPA/542/N-93/010.

Frank, Uwe. "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluationof Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 44,October 1994, p 1219-1223.

Liskowitz, John J.; Schuring, John; and Mack, James. "Application of Pneumatic Fracturing Extractionfor the Effective Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds in Low Permeable Formations." National ^ ,VGround Water Association Eastern Regional Ground Water Focus Conference Proceedings, September1993.

Schuring, John R. et al. "Pneumatic Fracturing of Low Permeability Formations." EPA Region IITechnology Conference, 1993.

Technology Evaluation Report: Site Program Demonstration Test. Accutech Pneumatic FracturingExtraction and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/540/R-93/509

Closed UST, Military Facility, Oklahoma City, OklahomaPneumatic Fracturing Extraction (PFE)


Description of Demonstration: Pneumatic Fracturing was used to enhance the rate of #2 fuel oilrecovery in a sandstone/shale formation. The free product was trapped in porous layers beneath finetextured confining zones and beneath a decommissioned tank. Several recovery wells had beeninstalled in the vicinity of the closed tank, but the recovery rates were very low. A single pneumaticinjection was applied adjacent to the tank at a depth between 26 and 28 feet to increase the yield ofthe free product from the formation.

Wastes Treated: #2 fuel oil existing as free product

4 A R 3 0 9 7 6 6

Status: The project was conducted under DOE & DOD grant in conjunction with the HazardousSubstance Management Research Center. Further application of the technology occurred at the site in1995.

Demonstration Results: Pneumatic fracturing provided direct access to the trapped oil, as wasobserved during static conditions. Prior to fracturing, oil in a recovery well eight feet from the fracturewell would reach static conditions after approximately 300 hours with 1.5 feet of free product floatingon the water table. Following application of pneumatic fracturing, equilibrium was attained in only 80hours when the well contained 20.2 feet of free product.

Pump system operations, including additional recovery wells on site, further showed the increased rateof product recovery. During the 17 months prior to pneumatic fracturing, the system averaged 155gallons of free product recovered per month. Following application of pneumatic fracturing this rateincreased to 435 gallons per month. The total amount of free product recovered in seven monthsfollowing pneumatic fracturing application surpassed the total recovered over the life of the system inthe previous 17 months.

Pneumatic fracturing also was demonstrated to increase the ratio of oil to water recovered from theformation. During pre-fracture pumping, the product represented only an average of 12 percent of thetotal fluid recovered. Following pneumatic fracturing application oil was 74 percent of the total fluidsrecovered. This reduced water treatment costs tremendously.

Contacts:John Liskowitz and Conan FitzgeraldAccutech Remedial Systems, Inc.Cass Street and Highway 35Keyport, NJ 07735 .908-739-6444Fax: 908-739-0451

Industrial Facility, Santa Clara, CaliforniaPneumatic Fracturing Extraction (PFE)


Description of Demonstration: A pneumatic fracturing well was installed in the vadose zonecontaminated by TCE. The site geology featured a semi-permeable layer of sandy silts and sandy claysoverlaying a "fat" silty clay with very little permeability. During standard vapor extraction operations,the majority of the soil vapor extracted was from the high permeability zones, leaving the lowerpermeability clay unaffected. Pneumatic fracturing was applied in successive two foot intervalsparticularly to create permeability uniformity across the various zones of the formation.

Wastes Treated: VOCs, primarily TCE

Status: The project was conducted as a pilot test in July 1993.

Demonstration Results: The rate of air flow increased 3.5 times during extraction tests utilizing theentire fracture well. More dramatic was the increase in permeability in the clay zones, where thepermeability rose up to 510 times.

5 AR309767

The rate of TCE mass removal increased six times during extraction tests from the fracture well. Thegreatest increases in TCE mass removal were observed in the clay zones, where the contaminants wereremoved at a rate of up to 46,000 times greater than the natural un-fractured condition.

Pneumatic fracturing was effective for making the permeability of the formation more uniform, therebyallowing extraction air to flow through and remediate the formerly low permeability clay zones of theformation.

Contacts:John Liskowitz or Conan FitzgeraldAccutech Remedial Systems, Inc.Cass Street and Highway 35Keyport, NJ 07735908-739-6444Fax: 908-739-0451

Former Manufacturing Facility, Highland Park, New JerseyPneumatic Fracturing Extraction (PFE)


Description of Demonstration: Pneumatic fracturing was used to increase formation transmissivityand vadose zone permeability in a fractured shale formation contaminated with trichloroethylene.Previous attempts to remediate the site utilizing standard Dual Vapor Extraction (DVE) combined withair injection had been ineffective due to low air flow rates, small and sporadic vacuum influence, andan inability to effectively control the ground water. Two foot pneumatic injections were applied atsuccessive intervals to a depth of 25 feet in two 4" open rock wells. Following application ofpneumatic fracturing, the ground water in the test area was effectively controlled via pumping, andeach of the fracture wells was placed under a vacuum.

Wastes Treated: VOCs, primarily TCE

Status: This project was conducted as first step to final Remedial Action in July of 1994. Fullremediation system featuring Pneumatic Fracturing is being constructed in the Spring/Summer of 1995under the EPA SITE Demonstration Program.

Preliminary Results: Pneumatic Fracturing was demonstrated to effectively improve the hydraulicconnection between the wells in the test area. Prior to application of pneumatic fracturing, onlyminimal (less than 0.2') ground water drawdown influence was observed at wells on site. Followingpneumatic fracturing, the formation was effectively dewatered to expose the vadose zone to effectivevacuum influence.

Extraction of TCE vapors following pneumatic fracturing also showed a much higher rate of massremoval. The average rate of mass removal after pneumatic fracturing was over three times the peakrate of mass removal during the DVE pilot test before pneumatic fracturing. The greater rate of TCEmass removal reduced the design for the full-scale remediation system duration from ten years to twoyears.

A R 3 0 9 7 6 8

The vacuum radius of influence increased from ! 1 feet prior to application of pneumatic fracturing tobetween 15 and 40 feet (influence varied between strike and dip). Vacuum influence became apredictable function of strike and dip rather than an unpredictable product of formation heterogeneities.The much greater radius of influence substantially reduced the number of wells required andtremendously reduced remediation system installation costs.

Contacts:John Liskowitz or Conan FitzgeraldAccutech Remedial Systems, Inc.Cass Street and Highway 35Keyport, NJ 07735908-739-6444Fax:908-739-0451

Manufacturing Facility In New York; Service Station in LouisianaInjection Vac Pneumatic Fracturing

Terra Vac, Inc.Description of Demonstration: Pneumatic fracturing is used to supplement soil vapor extraction inlow permeability formations where diffusive flow of soil vapor is poor. Air at high pressure is injectedinto the zone of low permeability via fracturing probes. The high pressure air fractures lowpermeability soils, enhancing advective flow by creating microfractures which act as new flow pathsthrough the soil matrix. The additional flow paths enhance the advective mass transfer of volatilecontaminants to increase contaminant extraction rates and shorten cleanup time. Injection Vac™ isTerra Vac's term for the combination of pneumatic fracturing with soil vapor extraction in lowpermeability soils.

Wastes Treated: TCE, PCE, BTEX. and other VOCs

Status: The technology was demonstrated and commercialized beginning in 1990.

Demonstration Results: At the New York manufacturing site in July 1990, pneumatic fracturing wasused to enhance recovery of TCE and other VOCs from low permeability clays. Dual vacuumextraction (simultaneous recovery of soil vapors and ground water) had proven only slightly effectivein removing VOCs from the site. During the initial application of pneumatic fracturing, theconcentration of VOCs in the extracted air stream increased one order of magnitude from 20mg/L to200mg/L. Extracted air flows did not increase appreciably. Pneumatic fracturing is thought to haveredistributed subsurface flow. The Injection Vac™ phase of operations doubled the recovery of VOCscompared to dual vacuum extraction without pneumatic fracturing over similar operating times. Thisoperation was a pilot test to demonstrate the in situ remediation process. The system removed 340 kg(750 Ib) of VOCs in 200 days.

At the Louisiana service station in November 1991, pneumatic fracturing was used to enhancerecovery of gasoline-range VOCs from firm, plastic clays. Permeability testing of the soil indicatedhydraulic conductivities of 10"' cm/sec. The clay layer was 23-26 feet thick. Initial air flow rates froma dual vacuum extraction system were 10-15 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). Injection Vac™operations yielded 16-23 scfm. VOC extraction rates more than doubled following pneumatic

A R 3 0 9 7 6 9

fracturing. The pilot operations removed over 650 kg (1400 Ib) of VOCs over 6 days. Full scaleoperations remediated the site in just over a year.

Capital and operating costs of Injection Vac™ are slightly higher than vacuum extraction withoutenhancement. The added costs of a suitably sized air compressor and, possibly, a high vacuum pumpwith additional energy and maintenance costs for soil vapor recovery must be factored into the overallcost. The major benefits are shorter remediation time and more effective subsurface remediation thanstandard, unenhanced extraction with low flow.

Contacts:James MalotTerra Vac, Inc.356 Fortaleza StreetPOBox 1592San Juan, PR 00902-1592809-723-9171

Ed MalmanisTerra Vac, Inc.806 Sylvia StreetWest Trenton, NJ 08628-3239609-530-0003

Gasoline Refinery in Marcus Hook, PAPneumatic Fracturing/BloremediatlonNew Jersey Institute of Technology

Description of Demonstration: The technology uses pneumatic fracturing to enhance microbialprocesses. Aerobic processes dominate at the fracture interfaces and, to a limited distance, into the soilaway from the fracture. Depletion of oxygen during aerobic biodegradation allows methanogenic anddenitrifying populations to form at greater distances from the fractures. Contaminants diffuse towardthe fracture, serving as a substrate for various microbial populations. This enhances the growth ofaerobic microbial populations by reducing substrate concentrations in the denitrifying andmethanogenic zones.

The site was pneumatically fractured and periodic injections were performed over a period of 12months. Subsurface injections introduced nitrate and ammonium salt in the form of calciumammonium nitrate to facilitate the development of aerobic, denitrifying, and methanogenicbiodegradation zones. Off-gases from the monitoring wells were analyzed for benzene, toluene, andxylenes (BTX), oxygen, methane, and carbon dioxide to evaluate process effectiveness. Additional soilborings were carried out and samples analyzed to measure the change in extent of site contaminationas a result of the process. Carbon mass balances considering contaminant reduction, carbon dioxideevolution, methane evolution, and contaminant recovery through vapor extraction were used toevaluate process performance.

Wastes Treated: BTEX

A R 3 0 9 7 7 0

Status: Field scale pilot testing was completed in March 1995 under the SITE Emerging TechnologyProgram. . • •

Demonstration Results: Initial site characterization indicated low subsurface permeability and thepresence of BTX at concentrations of up to 1500 ppm in the soil phase. Results show that fracturingincreased subsurface permeability by up to 40 times within an effective radius of approximately 20feet.

After one year of sampling and monitoring, soil samples at the end of the demonstration show a 79%reduction in soil-phase BTX concentrations. Results from the analysis of soil samples obtained fromthree distinct depths of the soil bed in the pre-demonstration stage were compared with those in thepost-demonstration stage. From these results, the total mass of BTX removed was computed to be 22kg. Based on periodic soil-gas sampling, the mass of BTX removed through vapor extraction wascomputed to be 3.1 kg or 11%. Vapor extraction was the predominant abiotic mode of BTX removal.The other abiotic pathways—BTX losses through fracture and amendment injections, perched waterremoval, and passive volatilization—accounted for a total of 0.8 kg or 4% based on mean BTXconcentrations. The mass of BTX removed by biodegradation was calculated to be over 82%.

Contacts:John Schuring and Peter LedermanHazardous Substance Management Research CenterNew Jersey Institute of Technology138 Warren StreetNewark, NJ 07102201-596-5849

Uwe FrankNational Risk Management Research Laboratory2890 Woodbridge AvenueEdison, NJ 08837-3679908*321-6626Fax: 908-906-6990

LUST site near Dayton, OhioHydraulic Fracturing

National Risk Management Research LaboratoryUniversity of Cincinnati

Description of Demonstration: The fracturing is created when fluid is pumped down a borehole untila critical pressure is reached to fracture the soil. Sand-laden slurry is then pumped into the fracture tocreate a highly permeable pathway that enhances delivery of the bioremediation organisms. At thissite, there were two wells. One well was fractured at 4, 6, 8, and 10 feet below the ground surface.Hydrogen peroxide and nutrients were added to both wells.

Wastes Treated: BTEX and TPH ,

Status; The demonstration was completed in September 1992.

AR30977I

Demonstration Results: Fluid flow rates into the fractured welt were 25 to 40 times greater than intothe unfractured well. After one month, soil moisture content 5 feet from the fractured well was 1.4 to4 times greater than the unfractured well. Moisture content generally was greater near the fracture,with the largest increase near the uppermost fracture. The same trends in moisture content were alsoobserved at 10 and 15 feet from the wells. Effectiveness of the biorcmediation was measured byreduction in BTEX and TPH concentrations in soil samples. Biore medial ion at 5 feet from thefractured well after I month was 97% for ethyl benzene and 77% for total petroleum hydrocarbonscompared with 8% and 0% respectively near the unfractured well. After six months, benzene,ethylbcnzene, and TPH continued to have a higher degradation percentage near the fractured well thanthe unfractured well. However, considerable variation among the degradation data is evident and maybe due to local variations in contaminant concentration that was unresolved by sampling.

Contacts:Larry MurdochCenter for Geo-Environmental Science

& TechnologyUniversity of CincinnatiEngineering Research Division, ML 03841275 Section Rd.Cincinnati. OH 45237-2615513-556-2472Fax:513-556-2522

Bill SlackFRX, Inc.PO Box 37945Cincinnati, OH 45222513-556-2526

References:Murdoch, L.C. "Hydraulic Fracturing of Soil During Laboratory Experiments. Part 1: Methods andObservations." Geotechnique, 43 (2), p 255-287.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Evaluation and Applications Analysis Reports:University of Cincinnati/Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory: Hydraulic Fracturing Technology.EPA/540/R-93/505, September 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hydraulic Fracturing Technology: Technology DemonstrationSummary, EPA/540/SR-93/505. 1993.

Site In Bristol, TennesseeHydraulic Fracturing

Remediation Technologies, Inc.

Description of Demonstration: Naturally propped fractures were created at depths of 100 to 200 feetin rock to enhance the recovery of free-phase TCE and other DNAPLs. The fractures were created byinjecting water into sections of the well isolated by straddle packers. Three wells were drilled to

10 A R 3 0 9 7 7 2

approximately 200 feet. Pumping tests and vapor extraction tests were conducted to evaluate theeffects of the fractures.

Wastes Treated: TCE

Status: The process was demonstrated with vapor extraction in July 1991.

Demonstration Results: The specific discharge of the three wells increased by factors ranging from2.8 to 6.2. Pumping test results indicate that hydraulic conductivity increased by factors of 20 or more.Vapor extraction appeared to be a feasible remedial technique after fractures were induced. Vapordischarges were on the order of 285 to 700 L/min and suction could be detected 33 feet from therecovery well after fracturing. Both discharge and suction had been negligible prior to fracturing.During a two-day test of vapor extraction, DNAPLs weie recovered at a rate of approximately 82 kg/day.

Contact:Don LundyRemediation Technologies, Inc.23 Old Town Square, Suite 250Fort Collins, CO 80524303-493-3700

Reference:Lundy, D.A.; Carleo, C.J.; Westerheim, M.M. "Hydrofracturing Bedrock to Enhance DNAPLRecovery." Proceedings of the 8th Annual NGWA National Outdoor Action Conference, May 1994.

Site in Oak Brook, IllinoisHydraulic Fracturing

University of Cincinnati

Description of Demonstration: The site contains solvents that were spilled during the filling of astorage tank. The site is underlain by silty clay till contaminated with TCE, TCA, DCA, PCE, andother solvents to depths of 20 feet. Since the low conductivity of the site hindered vapor extraction,hydraulic fractures were created at depths of 6, 10, and 15 feet below-ground at two locations. Multi-level recovery wells were installed to connect each fracture individually to a two-phase vaporextraction system. The vapor flow rates and contaminant concentration were measured using variablearea flow meters and gas chromatography.

Wastes Treated: TCE, TCA, DCA, PCE

Status: The demonstration took place over 21 weeks beginning in July 1992.

Demonstration Results: The average discharge rates from the fractured wells were 15 to 20 timesgreater than the unfractured well. Discharge from the fractured wells tended to fluctuate, possibly dueto changes in the ground-water recharge caused by rainfall. Total recoveries for ten compounds werecomputed for each well from concentration and discharge rates. Recovery performances from thefractured wells were approximately one order of magnitude greater than that from the unfractured well.Recovery rates from all wells decreased through time.

11 A R 3 0 9 7 7 3

Contact:Larry MurdochCenter for Geo-Environmental Science

& TechnologyUniversity of CincinnatiEngineering Research Division, ML 03841275 Section Rd.Cincinnati, OH 45237-2615513-556-2472Fax:513-556-2522


EPA Center Hill Testing Facility, Cincinnati, OhioHydraulic Fracturing


Description of Demonstration: The EPA Center Hill Facility is an uncontaminated testing facility inCincinnati underlain by silty clay with soil and gravel. Five wells were installed to compare thedifferences in performance of fractured and unfractured wells. Three wells were hydraulically fracturedand the performance of these wells was compared to two unfractured wells. The wells were connectedto a vacuum blower. Pneumatic piezometers were installed around the wells to measure suction headin the soil.

Wastes Treated: None

Status: The demonstration took place in January 1992.

Demonstration Results: Well discharge, as both vapor and liquid, was an order of magnitude greaterfor the fractured wells than the unfractured wells. For the fractured wells, the rate correspondedstrongly with precipitation. The vented fracture was more responsive to rainfall than the unventedfractures. The conventional wells were unaffected by rain. Suction head was detectable at a greaterdistance from the wells with fractures than from the wells without fractures. Around the conventionalwells, suction was 1.18 inches of water at a distance of 3.3 feet. The same suction head could beobserved 25 feet from the fractured wells.


& TechnologyUniversity of CincinnatiEngineering Research Division, ML 03841275 Section Rd,Cincinnati, OH 45237-2615

" AR309771*

513-556-2472Fax:513-556-2522


Reference:Wolf. A. and Murdoch, L. "Field test of the Effect of Sand-Filled Hydraulic Fractures on Air Flow inSilty Clay Till." Proceedings of the 7th National Outdoor Action Conference. May 1993.

Storage Tank Site in Beaumont, TexasHydraulic Fracturing


Description of Demonstration: Sand-filled hydraulic fractures were created in swelling clay toenhance the recovery of free-phase LNAPLs. The area contained gasoline and cyclohexaneapproximately 5 to 10 feet from the surface spill. The pilot test compared the performance of twodesigns of fractured wells to a control well. One of the fractured wells consisted of two casings thataccess fractures at different depths, one in the LNAPL and the other in the water bearing zone below.The other well contained one fracture near the bottom of the NAPL zone. The test was designed torecover NAPL from the upper fracture and water from the lower one.

Wastes Treated: Gasoline and cyclohexane

Status: Fractures were created in July 1993 and a pilot test was conducted in February 1994.

Demonstration Results: Both wells containing fractures produced LNAPL at rates an order ofmagnitude or greater than the conventional well.


& TechnologyUniversity of CincinnatiEngineering Research Division. ML 03841275 Section Rd.Cincinnati, OH 45237-2615513-556-2472Fax: 513-556-2522


13 f l R 3 0 9 7 7 5

General References

Alternative Methods for Fluid Delivery and Recovery. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof Research and Development, EPA/625/R-94/003, September 1994.

Cicalese, M.E. and Mack, J.P. "Application of Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction for Removal of VOCContamination in Low Permeable Formations." I&EC Special Symposium, American ChemicalSociety. Atlanta, Georgia, September 27-29, 1994.

Davis-Hoover, W.J.; Roulier, M.; Bryndzia, T.; Hermann, J.; Vane. L.; Murdoch, L.C.; Vesper, S.J.Hydraulic Fractures as Anaerobic and Aerobic Biological Treatment Zones. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA/600/R-95/012, April 1995.

Frank, U. and Barkley, N. "Remediation of Low Permeability Subsurface Formations by FracturingEnhancement of Soil Vapor Extraction." Journal of Hazardous Materials, 40 (2), February 1995.

Frank, U,; Skovronek, H.S.; Liskowitz, J.J.; Schuring, J.R. Site Demonstration of PneumaticFracturing and Hot Gas Injection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-94/011, March1994.

Murdoch, L.C.; Chen. J.; Cluxton, P.; Kemper, M.; Anno, J.; Smith, D. Hydraulic Fractures asSubsurface Electrodes: Early Work on the Lasagna Process. EPA/600/R-95/012, April 1995.

Murdoch, L.C.; Kemper, M.; Wolf, A. "Hydraulic Fracturing to Improve In Situ Remediation ofContaminated Soil." Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Cincinnati, OH, October26-29, 1992,24(7), PA72.

Murdoch, L.C.; Kemper, M.; Wolf, A.; Spencer, E.; Cluxton, P. Hydraulic and Impulse Fracturing toEnhance Remediation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-93/040, April 1993.

Murdoch, L.C.; Losonsky, G.; Cluxton, P.; Patterson, B.; Klich, I. Feasibility of Hydraulic Fracturingof Soil to Improve Remedial Actions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/2-92/012, April1991.

"New Technique Cracks Hard-to-Treat Soils." Centerpoint (A Publication of the Hazardous SubstanceResearch Centers), 1 (2). 1993, p 1.

"PFE Process Increases VOC Extraction Rate." E&P Environment, 5 (5), March 1994.

"Pneumatic Fracturing Unlocks Trapped Soil Contaminated Soil and Rock." Chemical EngineeringProgress, October 1992.

"Recent Results from the SITE Program." Hazardous Waste Consultant, 12 (1), January-February1994.

Schuring, J.R. and Chan, P.C. Removal of Contaminants from the Vadose Zone by PneumaticFracturing. U.S. Geological Survey, January 1992. 184p.

Schuring, J.R.; Chan, P.C.; Boland, T.M. "Using Pneumatic Fracturing for In-Situ Remediation ofContaminated Sites." Remediation, Spring 1995, p 77-90.

14 A R 3 0 9 7 7 6

Schunng, J.R ; Chan. P.C.; Liskowitz. J.J.; Fitzgerald. C.D.; and Frank. U. Pneumatic Fracturing ofLow Permeability Formations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/60Q/R-93/040. 1993.

A R 3 0 9 7 7 7

APPENDIX E

AIRFLOW MODELING

A R 3 0 9 7 7 8

February 1999 E-l 963-6333

APPENDIX E

^-^ AIR FLOW MODELING

This appendix provides clarification on the role and use of airflow modeling in this FFS. It hasbeen included to document agreements between the Agencies and ROC regarding the modelingas discussed in Colder Associates letter dated November 10, 1998 and USEPA's response datedDecember 22, 1998.

Modeling ObjectivesAs a primary objective, airflow modeling was performed to investigate the conceptual feasibilityof using SVE for remediating volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil at the Site. The modelresults showed that enhanced SVE could be a viable technology for removing VOCs from Sitesoils. Future design evaluations may require refinement of the model which will only occur afterUSEPA's remedy selection process is completed, and will be subject to further Agency reviewand approval.

i i Model CalibrationModel calibration was achieved using a series of test data starting with the results of a singleborehole extraction test (Colder Associates, 1995) and including subsequent multiple boreholetest data (Colder Associates, 1997). Included in this appendix is the distance-pressurerelationship from field measurements obtained during the August 1995 pneumatic pumping testconducted at well E-l and the associated model calibrations. This test was monitored using sixpiezometers (PI through P6) for vacuum response at various radial distances. As shown in TableE-l, response to the vacuum extraction at well E-l was observed at wells P3, P2, P4, and PI atdistances from the extraction well of 7.2 feet, 11.7 feet, 20.0 feet, and 25.2 feet, respectively.Using these pressure-distance relationships, an estimate of the air permeability was calculated tobe 2.3xlO'9 cm2 (see Table E-2). Subsequently, a three-dimensional model was set up using theAIR3D code, and initialized with an unfractured soil air permeability of 1.0x10"* cm2. As shownby the "Error" columns of Table E-l, the simulated pressure responses at the monitoring wellswere extremely close to measured data confirming adequate model calibration.

Following the August 1995 test, additional testing was performed at the site using newly installedi L extraction wells E-3 (in unfractured soil) and E-2 (a well with sand-filled hydrofractures). The

calibration of the three-dimensional air flow model was then updated to better match the vacuum-

Colder Aisociates A R 3 0 9 7 7 9

February 1999 E-2 963-6333

flow characteristics at the extraction wells E-2 and E-3, as provided in Table 4-2 of the SVEPerformance Test Report (Golder Associates, 1997). This recalibration to the E-2/E-3 testing v Jresulted in an air permeability for the unfractured soils of 3.9xlO"9 cm2 and a fractured soil airpermeability of 1.2xlO"8 cm2.

In summary, the AIR3D model was originally calibrated using pressure-distance relationshipsfrom the E-l pneumatic test of August 1995, and the calibration was then refined using thevacuum-flow relationships obtained from E-2/E-3 testing while maintaining the approximate radiiof influences observed in the field.

Modeling ResultsAs requested, a complete set of pressure contours for all six permeable layers of the model areprovided as Figures E-l through E-6.

UncertaintyVarious Agency comments on the Draft FFS addressed the heterogeneous nature of the site, theuse of different vertical and horizontal air permeabilties in the model, and the intrinsic differencesin air permeability between different areas of the site. A sensitivity analyses on the vertical- ^V^xhorizontal permeability issue has been conducted and the results indicate little effect on aconceptual SVE design of the type proposed (see Figure E-7). Regarding the naturalhomogeneity likely to be encountered at different locations, it is expected that the RemedialDesign will provide flexible construction techniques that can account for the stratigraphicdifferences within the overburden.

References:Golder Associates Inc., 1995, Initial Performance SVE Test, submitted to the Agencies October1995.

Golder Associates Inc., 1997 Revised SVE Performance Test Report, State College,Pennsylvania, submitted to the Agencies November 1997.

g:\projccts\963-6333\ffs\finaI99\appd-3.doc


January 1999 963-6333

TABLE E-1

PNEUMATIC PUMP TEST - CALIBRATION SUMMARYRNC STATE COLLEGE FACILITY SVE TEST

:: :;Well:;::

E1P3P2P4P1P6P5

Distance from :Extraction: Well•mzwmm•

0.07.2

11.720.025.235.745.5

:;>:::latiri]x;x;

0.6320.9970.9970.9990.9971.0001.000

Measured-

iîflriHBJx1:

11.0110.0900.0900.0300.0900.0000.000

xflJvHiQfcx

149.7021.2201.2200.4071.2200.0000.000

:i:x'1aim]:;x;:

0.6320.9800.9950.9980.9991.0001.000

/Simulated:

x^pjrHgJxs

11.0110.5980.1500.0600.0300.0000.000

ixpttHiGIx

149.7028.1362.0340.8140.4070.0000.000

::'xEirdr':-x:•:•: Ratlin]: /x

0.0000.0170.0020.001

-0.0020.0000.000

: %'Errdr:

:>::x'#3:^x

0.001.710.200.10

•0.200.000.00

G: 863-6 333 :FFS 99: TABe-1 .XLS Qolder Aisociates A R 3 0 9 7 8 I

Pneumatic Pump Test - Calibration Run (Row 17)Pressure and Flow Representation

O.OO-t

-500.00-,

i—t—r

>. \-• N

V \

; i

V \ * V ^^ > * •. ^\ \ \ \ \\ \ V \ 1i\ ^ \ \ s^^ 1^ •« S. X>

'i Si1 ••

* •*

: :

-*———4-J I I; i t

i iJ i

4 i i« * /

C •• ^«- V rf S J

*•* if «"

ii

Ji

i

•I.'

r

4t*

Ii,

i

t

f*

r-

i

i

t

I

I

i

J

J

/

.'

«-

J

^

/

4^ —— kj JJ ti tt Jj <if f.- .-I ii* f

* * fTS •. *> V

500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 350

flR309782

Pneumatic Pump Test - Calibration Run (Layer 2)Pressure and Flow Representation

3500.00-:

3000.00-

2500.00-

J

2000.00-

1500.00-

1000.00-

500.00

y o.oo0

I . • I 1 1 i ' i l i iilli

UH 4 i i i 44 * < * * *

/ 'i

i

-•""

. -# ^, -# -» -» *» *» N \ •* \ ^ Vj,C

\ ^ 5 -4 _ » - » -* -« »* - » - * • - » "»'STR

, _ * _ _ » - » - * ^ - * - * - * - j - i jldHwi r t i » * » - * * * ^ - « ^ ^ ^ / //TT!

1-4* 4 * < <f * * if r •* *- i- *-iVi-V ^ I C ^ « ' 1 « ' ^ « ' < « ' * - * -5st^ *• v v f f r- f *- •- *- *-•Lte { * * tf ^ «* •* i" •* •" *- *•ZS&'V' * <t * * r *• *- tr *" *• «•Tw:*' « * * • * - « - * - * - » - ^ * - ^ * -^fct< * . * » * - f - * . * . * . fc . *^ H^^^ '\ ^^^ ^ »„ *. »» *~ *. * - , « ~5 ' H^ • v * . « . " k * . * . * . - ~ « ^ * - * -£$•1 ^ ^ ^ ^ . K ^ . ^ • - • w * . * .

t t^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ \ K K K v * . • > * -

* + s * t > s r f ' f m ? "Mt^M s \ r % ^ ^ * • « , ' - * .

. . * ; » < » • * * / • * ' • . • . • ? v r t t ^ ^ - « . r • • \ - s ^ • • ' . , . . « .

-1. ,. ^ ^ ^ j- / ? r • • - * "Mm • s ^ * \ •. \ ' ' *•

:. ,. .. / / ? ; f • ' • • • • " M 1 U * ^ 1 1 ^

:. .- f f f f f ,- f ' ' • "M tl*. • * t 1

i. . t t. -t i t . T t ' * ' ' ' ' M t T t • » t f T f t ? r ' ' 'T

.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 30C:.00 3500.

A R 3 0 9 7 8 3

January 1999 963-6333TABLE E-2

AIR PERMEABILITY CALCULATIONRNC STATE COLLEGE FACILITY SVE TEST

Ki

1-

Where: Q = Volumetric flow ratePw

= pressure at extraction wellP«tm = atmospheric pressure

RW = radius of extraction wellRI = estimated radius of influenceH = length of extraction welt screened through vadose zoneH • vapor viscosity

RESULTS

R -

13.6 cfm12.5 inches Hg

29.992 inches Hg0.385 feet

30 feet11.5 feet

0.018 centipoises

6418.48 cm3/s4.23E+05 gm/cm-s*1.02E+06 gm/cm-s*

11.73cm914.40 cm350.52 cm

1.80E-04 gm/cm-s

k = 2.27E-09 cm'

Note: Vapor viscosity assumed to be viscosity of air (1.8x10-4 gm/cm-s or 0.018 centipoises)

G:963-6333;FFS99:TABe-2.XLS Colder AssociatesA R 3 0 9 7 8 U

Page 1 of 1

LEOENPx — x — x— FENCE

- - UOMTORMC ttEU.

-fy- SVE »ELL IN OVERBURDEN

i- SVE toi. IN BEDROCK


a?0 - 175 atm

a?s - an atm.

an - 0.85 atm

O8S — 0.90 atm

0.90 - a95 atm

NOTES

1.) RESULTS OBTAINED FROM A«30®EMULATIONS: VERSION 1.13. APRL 1905.

2.) SCENARIO 4:

a) 25 OVERBURDEN HELLS. 2 BEDROCK KLLS (SCENAfQD 1).b.) • ADOmONAL eEDROCK HELLS (SCENARIO 2).c.) AOOnwNAL AVHALT CAPPMC (SCENARIO 3).<L) AUmONAL 33OO FT,2 SAHO-FltED FRACTURES.

3.) PRESSURE CONTOURS TAKEN FROM LATER 2.

Colder Associates

TANK FARM SVE SYSTEMSCENARIO 4

(CONTOURS TAKEN FRQM LAYER 21

* E-1RUTGERS ORGAhtCS COftf

AR30S76b

LEGEND

FENCE

MONITORING WELL

SVE WDJ. IN OVERBURDEN

SVE WEU. IN BEDROCK


0.70 - 0.75 fltm

0-75 - aSO atm

aW - 0.85 atm

a85 - 0.90 atm

aa

UDGOr-CT*CD<r>or

0.90 * 0.95 atm

NOTES

1.) RESULTS OQTAWED FROMSIMULATIONS: VERSION 1.13. APRJL 1995.

2.) SCENARIO 4:

a.) 25 OVERBURDEN VEILS, 2 BEDROCK NELLS (SCENARIO 1).b.) 9 AOOmONAL eCDROOK VEILS (SCENARIO 2).e.) ADNTKMAL ASPHALT CAPPMC (SCENAftIO 3).d.) AOOITKMAL 3300 FT.1 SAW-FILED HtACIMES.

3.) PRESSURE CONTOURS TAKEN FROM LATER 3,

24c•col*

245

fMt

Colder Associates


(CONTOURS TAKEN FROM LAYER 3)

RtiTGERS ORGAMCS CORPORATION E-2

Golfer Associates

LEGEND

-*——*——K— FENCE

- - MONITORING WELL

- - SVE MELL W OVERBURDEN

-f(j- SVE MEU. IN BEDROCK


0.70 - 0.75 aim

0.75 - aW otm

aao - ass otm

ass ~ 0.90 atm

O.90 - 0.85 otm

aa

r-oo

COcc

NOTES

1.) RESULTS OBTAMED FROM A«3D®SUUtATlOHS; VERSION 1.13, APRIL 1995.

Z) SCENARIO 4:

a) 25 OVERBURDEN KLL& 2 BEDROCK VEILS (SCENARIO 1).M 9 ADOmOHAL BEDROCK WELLS (SCCMAMO 2).c-) ADOOWNAL ASPHALT CAPPHG (SCENARIO 3).4) ADDTHONAL 3300 FT.2 SAND-FUED FRACTURES.

3.) PRESSURE CONTOURS TAKEN FROM LAYER 4.

•cole

TANK FARM SVE SYSTEMSCENARIO

(CONTOURS TAKEN

RUTGERS ORGAMCS CORPO. E-3

LEGEND

-K——X——*— FENCE

-<£»- UOMTQRWG WELL

- S« WELL IN OVERBURDEN

-{{]- SVE DELL IN BEDROCK


0,70 - 0.75 otm

0.73 - aao otm

0,80 - O85 aim

0.85 - 0.90 otm

0,90 - a9S otm

a00CO

CDncc

NOTES

t.) RESULTS OBTAINED FROMSIMUUTKMS; WRSKM 1.13, APRIL 1995.

2.) SCENARIO *

a.) 25 OVERBUROEM WELLS. 2 BEDROCK «ELLS (SCENARIO 1).fc.) • ADOmOMAL BEDROCK WELLS (SCENARIO 2Ve.) ADOnWNAL ASPHALT CAPPMG (SCOMflH) 3).d.) ADOtTWNAL 3300 FT.2 SANO-RLUD FRACTURES.

3.) PRESSURE CONTOURS TAKEN FROM LAYER S.

04

Golfer Assodztfes


(CONTOURS TAKEN FROM LAYER 6)

RUTGERS ORGANKS CORPORATION E-4

Goldcr Associates

LEGEND_______________

-X——X——X— FENCE

-fy- UOMTORMC «U.

- SVE *Ea W OVERBURDEN

-- SVE «ELLW BEDROCK


0.70 - 0.75 obn

0.75 — 0-80 atan

040 - O85 atm

a85 - 0.90 atm

aflO - 0.95 atm

na

COr*.o>CDoe•x

NOTES

1.) RESULTS OBTAMED FROM MRS&SMUtAnONS: VERSION 1.13, APRIL 1995.

2.) SCENARIO 4:

a) 23 OWH8UROEH 1EUS, 2 BEDROCK ICLLS (SCEMMC IX> ADOraONAL BEDROCK HELLS (SCENARIO 2X

e.) ADnnGNM. ASPHALT CAPPMC (SCENARIO 3).4.) ADOmOMAL WOO FT.2 SAND-F&LEO FRACTURES.


24e•col*

243

fMt

TANK FARM SVE SYSTEMSCENART ^x

(CONTOURS TAKEN I LAYER 6)

RUTGER5 GRGAMCS CORPQRXflGN £-5

Golder Assodafes

LEGEND-X——*——K— FENCE

-$- MONITORING WELL

-$- SVC HELL IN O^RBURDEN

-Kl- SVC WELL IN BEDROCK


0.70 - 0.75 otm

0.75 - 0^0 gtm

0.80 - 0.85 otm

0.85 - 0.90 otm

0.90 - 0.95 otm

aa

oenr-

COor

NOTES

1.) RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AK3D®SUMJLATUNS: WRSKJN 1.13. APfHL 1995.

2.) SCENARIO 4:

a.) 25 OVERBURDEN WEUS. 2 BEDROCK «OLS (SCENARK) I).fc.) 9 AHNTIONAL BEDROCK WLLS (SCENARU 2).c.) ADDITIONAL ASPHALT CAPPMC (SCENARIO 3).4) AKNTHNAL 3300 FT.3 SANO-FtLED FRACnjRES.



(CONTOURS TAKEN FROM LAYER 7>

RUTGERS ORGAMCS CORPORATION E-6

LEGEND

-K——*——it— FENCE

•$• UOMTDRMG WELL

• SVE HELL IN OVER8UROEN

•Pb- SVE HELL IN BEDROCK


a?0 - 0.75 atm

a?5 - aao otm

a*) - O85 abn

0.83 - a90 abn

aw - 0.95 atm

na

r--<T>O<**cc

NOTES

1.) RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AJR3D®SMULATIONS: WRSWN 1.1% APWL 1995.

2.) SCENARIO 5:

a.) 29 OVCRSUROEN «LLS. 2 BEDROCK «LLS (SCENARIO t>.bj • AtniMMAL BEDROCK VEUS (SCENARIO 2Xt) ADOUIOMAL ASPHALT CAPPM6 (SCENARIO 3>.d.) AOOnUNAL J300 FT.2 SAMO-nU£D FRACTURES.•.) HOMZOMTAL PERMEABUTY : VERTICAL PERMEABUTV

RATIO - 1:1


24eseal*

FLB I243

fMt

TANK FARM SVE SYSTEMSCENARJ*

(CONTOURS TAKEN JLAYER 4)

RUTGERS ORGANKS E-7

Date post:	25-Oct-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT - semspub.epa.gov · the Final Focused Feasibility Study...

Documents