Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test Final Report

.

WSRC-FW-97-17, Rev. 1

Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test Final Report.

by

D. J. Altman

Westinghouse Savannah River Company

Savannah River SiteAiken, South Carolina 29808

C. J. Berry

R. Brigmon

A. Bourquin

CDM

D. Moste[ler

CDM

M. M. Franck

T. C. Hazen

F. A. Washburn

DOE Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR18035

This paper was prepared in connection with work done under the above contract number with the U. S.Department of Energy. By acceptance of this paper, the publisher ancf/or recipient acknowledges the U. S.Government’s right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this paper, along

with the rightto reproduceandto authorizeothersto reproduceall or parl of the copyrightedpaper.

Sanitary LandfillSupplemental TestFinal Report

WSRC-RP-97-17Revision 1

April 1, 1998

SANITARYLANDFILL

SUPPLEMENTAL TEST

FINAL REPORT

Westinghouse Savannah River CompanySavannah River SiteAiken, SC 29808

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR1 8035

SanitaryLandfillSupplementalTestFinal Report


April 1,1998

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United StatesGovernmen~ Neither the United States Govew.ent nor any agency thereof, ncmany of their Iemployees, makes any warranty, express or unphed, or assumes any legal liability orresponsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any inhmation, apparatus,produc~ or process discIos@ orrqresents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.Reference herein to any specific commercial produc~ process, or service by trade name,tradem& manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endursemen~recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. Theviews and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of theUnited States Govemrnent or any agency thereof.

This report has been reproduced directly I!iomthe best availablecopy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the (Mice of Scientic and Technical Information,P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831;prices available finm (615) 576-8401.

Available to the public fkom the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of~mmerce, 5285 Port Royal Rod Springfiel& VA 22161.

Acknowledgments

This work was fimded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE), OffIce ofEnvironmentalManagementEM-40 and EM-30. We are especiallygrateful to the lateSteve Wright DOE-Savannah River who fi.mded this project through communityoutreach finds after a severe EM-40 budget shortfall caused all work to stop in themiddle of the initial well installation. We will sorely miss Steve who through the yearswas one of Savannah River Site’s best proponents of environmental research anddevelopmentactivitiesand technologytransfer. We are also grateful to the many peoplein the WestinghouseSavannah River Company EnvironmentalRestoration Departmentwho fostered this work and aided us in obtaining the information, documentation,andfinding necessaryto implementthis technologyat SRS. Wethankthetechnicians,clerksand staff of the EnvironmentalSciencesSection of SavannahRiver Technology Centerwho aided us in this project at various times. We are also very grateful to Tom Hayesand the Gas Research Institute who provided all the methane used in thk project, andmuch of the original research funding on methanotrophlc treatment technology thatallowedthis technologyto be applied.

SanitaryLandfillSupplementalTestFinal Report


April 1,1998

SANITARY LANDFILL

SUPPLEMENTAL TEST

FINAL REPORT

Preparedfor the U.S. Departmentof Energyunder ContractNo. DE-AC09-89SR18035

...111

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available originaldocument.

SanitaryLandfill WSRC-RP-97-17SupplementalTest Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

Forward

This work was performed as part of a corrective action plan for the Savannah River Site Sanitary

Landfill. Thisworkwasperformedfor the WestinghouseSavannahRiverCompanyEnvironmental Restoration Department as part of final implementation of a groundwaterremediation system for the SRS Sanitary Landfill. Primary regulatory surveillance was providedby the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the U. S.Environmental Protection Agency (Region IV). The characterization, monitoring andremediation systems in the program generally consisted of a combination of innovative andbaseline methods to allow comparison and evaluation. The results of these studies will be usedto provide input for the fill-scale groundwater remediation system for the SRS Sanitary Landfill.

This report summarizes the pefiormance of the Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test da@ anevaluation of applicability, conclusions, recommendations, and related information forimplementation of this remediation technology at the SRS %ni~ Landfill.

This test was performed in addition to and after the Sanitary Landfill In Situ BioremediationOptimization Test and provides supplemental information to that contained in the “SanitaryLandfill In Situ Bioremediation Optimization Final Report”, Reference 10.2.

iv

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RP-97- 17Supplemental Test Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

Executive Summary:

The Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test was performed afler the Sanitary Landfill In Situ

Bioremediation Optimization Test (Reference 10.1 and 10.2). The Optimization Test wasperformed to validate the remediation technology selected for use to remediate two contaminantplumes (a trichloroethylene [TCE] plume and a vinyl chloride WC] plume) at the SanitaryLandfill located in 13-Aea. The contaminant plumes emanate from the refhse placed in thelandfill and consist of a TCE plume located near the southern edge of the landfill and a VCplume located near the western edge of the landfill. An evaluation of the various remediationtechnologies was performed and an in situ bioremediation system was selected as the preferredremediation technology. The recommended full-scale system requires two horizontal wellsplaced along the southern and western edges of the landfill. The southern horizontal well isrequired to inject air, methane, nitrogen and phosphate into the unconfined aquifer to interceptthe contaminants and stimulate the indigenous microorganisms thus remediating the TCE plume.The western horizontal well is required to presently inject air alone into the unconfined aquifer tointercept the contaminants and remediate the VC plume. (The recommended remediation systemdesign contains the ability to inject all constituents into either well, thus providing the ability toaddress any possible Mmre changes in either of the plumes.

The Optimization Test validated the selected remediation technique of injecting air, methane andnutrients into the saturated zone within the TCE plume and air alone into the VC plume; andidentified that full time (24 hours a day) injection was not required. The Sanitary LandfillSupplemental Test was implemented in an effort to determine acceptable injection and non-injection periods necessary to efficiently and cost effectively remediate the contaminants ofconcern while providing assurances that the contaminants were properly eliminated. Asupplemental test plan was generated and carried out after completion of the Optimization Test.The supplemental test was performed on the TCE plume only because the remediation of thisplume would require injection of methane and nutrients in addition to air and thus drive thedesign and operational requirements of the entire system. (The injection of air alone, into the VC

plume, does not require the same design and operational considerations associated with theinjection of methane.) The results of the test were analyzed by Camp Dresser and McKee toensure an unbiased interpretation of the data. Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) has reviewed

the data collected at the Savannah River Site’s Sanitary Landfill (Westinghouse Savannah RiverCompany, Aiken, South Carolina) during the months of June through September, 1996 andassisted in producing this report.

The Savannah River Site contains a sanitary landfill that historically received paints, thinners,solvents, and disposable batteries over a period of 20-plus years. Leachates, in part consisting ofchlorinated solvents, were detected in groundwater samples during an evaluation that occurredfrom 1984 through 1993. Subsequently, a remedial test system (Figure 1) was designed andinstalled within each contaminate plume to validate the use of in situ biodegradation ofchlorinated solvents as the method of choice. The system consists of three sparge wells (AIW- 1,AIW-2 & AIW-3), a gas extraction well (ASW), and 14 nested monitoring locations within eachplume. Each nested monitoring location within the TCE plume has two mini-wells (VZP- 1S,

1

SanitaryLandfill WSRC-RP-97-I7SupplementalTest Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

VZP-2S, etc.,) in the unsaturated soils (shallow= 10 feet beIow ground surface [bgs]; deep = 16feet bgs) and two mini-wells (SZP-lS, SZP-lD, SZP-2S, etc.) in the saturated soils (shallow =30-40 feet bgs; deep= 45-55 feet bgs). In the sparge wells, a mixture of air, methane, andgaseous nutrients (nitrous oxide and triethyl phosphate) were injected to stimulate methanotrophsto biodegrade chlorinated solvents like TCE and cis-dichloroethylene (c-DCE) via cometabolism.

The overall objective of this investigation was to distinguish the difference betweenbiodegradation and volatilization of chlorinated solvents in the designed system. In achievingthis goal, two separate tests were conducted. The purpose of each experiment was:

1.

2,

To establish baseline conditions in which organic contaminants within ~e TCE plume arepotentially stripped from the groundwater and transferred into the vadose zone during

sparging;andto decipherthe influenceof the spargesystemon the variousmonitoring

locations.To quanti~ chlorinatedsolventbiodegradationof the TCEplumeproducedby theinjectionsystem.

The first test involved injecting air at approximately 5 SCFM(StandardCubicFootper Minute)and heIium at approximately 1°/0to 4°/0 into each of the sparge wells for a period ofapproximately 24 hours and regularly monitoring oxygen, carbon dioxide, helium, and organiccontaminants in the soil gas and dissolved oxygen and organic contaminants in the groundwater.This test was the control experiment.

The second experiment lasted a week. During this test air, methane, nutrients, and helium wereinjected for approximately 8 hours a day followed by 16 hours of no injection (for sixconsecutive days). The injection consisted of a mixture of approximately 5 SCFM of air into

each injection well (-1 5 SCFM total into the test site), blended with 4% methane (CH4), 0.07%

Nitrous Oxide (N20), 0.007% to 0.01% Phosphate (in the form of Triethyl Phosphate, TEP(CZHSO)SPO)and 1.0% to 3.0% helium (He) as a tracer. Sampling for the second experimentfocused upon selected monitoring locations (aided by the results of the first experiment).

Results of these tests showed that the unconfked aquifer readily supports oxygen transfer, thesubsurface conditions are conducive for aerobic biodegradation mechanisms and air stripping ofthe groundwater contaminants into the vadose zone did not occur. Pulsed operation of theinjection system was successfid and can be utilized for the full-scale system operation. Ananalysis of the capabilities of the fill-scale remedlation system was performed and an initial startup operating range was selected which the fill-scale system could adequately support. Therecommended initial start up injection cycle for the remediation system should range between adaily (8 hr) injection period of air mixed with 4% methane, 0.07’%0nitrous Oxide, and 0.007’MoTEP once a week every other week for four (4) injection cycles; to a campaign of an 8 hrinjection period of 1°Amethane, 0.07’XOnitrous Oxide, and 0.007°ATEP every other day for 4injection periods followed by anon injection period of one week repeated for 4 cycles. . Thisrange is recommended to ensure that the information obtained via the vertical injection wells of

the test is appropriately applied to the horizontal wells proposed for the fill-scale remediation

system. Sampling during this introductory operational period will: ensure that the remediation

2


system is fimctioning properly; enable the firther refinement of the operating parameters; anddetermine the radius of influence for the injection wells. It is highly likely that fewer infectionsat lower nutrient concentrations will be the final operating mode for the groundwater remediationsystem.

3

SanitaryLandfill WSRC-RP-97-17

SupplementalTest Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test

Environmental conditions at the Savannah River Sanitary Landfill In Situ BioremediationOptimization Test Site are favorable for aerobic microorganisms, including methanotrophs. Thedissolved oxygen in the groundwater is above 1 mg/L, the Vadose zone oxygen concentration isat air saturation (210/0oxygen), and the pH of the groundwater is between 6 and 8. Previousexperiments enabled the Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test to be focused upon the sampling offour nested monitoring wells (2, 4,7, and 13) within the TCE plume. These wells were selectedbecause they were subject to consistent influences by the sparging system.

The Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test injected a mixture of gases into the test site (air,methane, nutrient, and helium) for a continuous seven (7) day period. The injections wereperformed for approximately 8 hours daily followed by a non-injection period of 16 hours.Extensive sampling was performed during the entire supplemental test campaign to determine theresponse time of the indigenous microbial community to the injection campaign.

1. Dissolved Oxygen, Redox Potential, andpHObjective(s):Measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction (redox) potential, and pH werecontinuously recorded at SZP-2S throughout the second experiment to record the influence of thepulsed sparging and ensure an environment that is conducive for aerobic, cometabolicdegradation of TCE and/or c-DCE. SZP-2S was selected for this continuous monitoring becauseit is further down gradient than all other monitoring locations (i.e. will unlikely impactgroundwater at other monitoring locations) and it is located at an equal radial distance from airinjection wells (AIW) 2 and 3. Figures 2 through 4 graphically depict the impact sparging hadon the dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, and pH, respectively, during the course ofthe experiment. Dissolved oxygen concentrations greater than 1 mg/L (aerobic environment) aredesirable because oxygen is required in the cometabolic process in which methane is consumedby microorganisms that also fortuitously degrade TCE and c-DCE (cometabolism). The redoxpotential is directly correlated to DO such that, as oxygen concentrations increase, the redoxpotential should also increase. Most microorganisms are generally in a more favorableenvironment and have greater activities when the pH is in the range of 6 to 8 standard tits.

Results:

A.

B,

c.

D.

E.F.

Background dissolved oxygen concentrations were initially about 1 mg/L.

During the injectionphases,DOconcentrationsconsistentlyincreasedto approximately11 mg/L.When the injection system was off, DO concentrations quickly decreased toconcentrations that were slightly greater than the DO level during the previous system offperiod.Over the length of the experiment, the DO concentration, as measured during “off’ times,asymptotically approached 5 mg/L.Background oxidation reduction potential is approximately 350 mV.Redox potential decreased during pulsed system operations which contradicts the generalrelationship with dissolved oxygen. Presently an explanation for these phenomena has

4

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RF’-97-17Supplemental Test Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

G.

H.L

not been determined. Investigation into this anomaly is continuing. However, thegeneral direction of the Redox Potential throughout the test did follow an upward trend,Redox potential, as measured during “off’ times gradually increased to approximately400 mV during the week of testing.Background pH was approximately 6, andpH increased approximately 1.3 standard units during pulse injections and then quicklyreturned to background levels during “off’ times.

Conclusions:

Air saturatedwaterat sea levelandat a temperaturerangebetween20 and25°C(thetemperaturerange of the groundwater) has a dissolved oxygen concentration of approximately 8 mg/L.During periods of pulse injection, the DO increased to approximately 11 mg/L. The sharpincrease in DO to concentrations greater than air saturation is a result of supersaturation of waterduring sparge pulses. The subsequent decrease in DO concentrations (immediately followinginjection system shut down) is caused by degassing and is not representative of oxygenutilization by microbial populations. The increase of DO observed during the down (injectionoff) times of system operation, over the test period, are abetter representation of air spargingeffects on the DO concentration in the groundwater. Since DO concenkations were consistentlyabove 1 mg/L, the groundwater in the test system would be conducive for aerobic biodegradationmechanisms.

The cause of decreased redox potential measurements and increased pH during injection phasesis uncertain. It is possible that the supersaturated groundwater may have caused misleading

results during these periods. However, the gradual increase of redox potential during the week oftesting was likely due to the increase DO concentrations that were observed.

The pH of the groundwater environment is within the range in which microbial populationsgenerally flourish.

2. Gas Transport into the Vadose Zone (Experiment 1)Objective(s):In both the first and second experiments, helium was used as a conservative tracer gas. The firstexperiment primarily focused upon (1) identi~ing monitoring locations that were significantlyimpacted by the sparge system, and (2) quantifying potential background oxygen utilization ratesand potential organic contaminant mass transfer from the groundwater to the vadose zone.Organic contaminant mass transfer issues are addressed in Section 6,

In the first experiment, the sparge system (air and helium) was operated for a period of 28 hours.Gas samples were frequently collected during system operation and also once daily for the threedays following sparging. Helium concentration percentages in selected wells (2,4, 7, and 13) areshown in Figures 5 through 8, respectively. These vadose zone well points are graphicallydisplayed because they are also wells that were selected for analysis in the second methaneexperiment.

5

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RP-97-17Supplemental Test Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

Results:A.

B.c.

D.

In all vadose zone wells, the deep sample locations were influenced by the air spargingfaster than the shallow ones and have higher helium concentration percentages.The different well locations were impacted in varying degrees.Of the four selected monitoring wells (2,4,7, and 13), wells 4 and 7 were influenced thefastest and to the greatest extent.

Generally, after sparging terminated, the helium concentrations in the deep wellsdecreased and those in the shallow wells increased.

Conclusions:The rapid influence of sparging on wells 4 and 7, as compared to wells 2 and 13, indicates thatpreferential pathways for the sparged gas were likely created in the soils to the north of AIW-2 -(in the area of wells 4 and 7). The increase of helium concentration in the shallow wells andconcomitant decrease in the deep wells after system termination is a fimction of mass transfer.Which is drhen by the concentration gradients induced during the injection campaign andcontinues until the gradient is depleted. All four well locations were selected for sampling

analysis in the second experiment because they encompassed the range of influence generatedby the sparging system.

3. Gas Transport into the Vadose Zone (Experiment 2)Objective(s):Helium was similarly injected into the sparge wells in the second experiment to act as aconservative tracer to methane and oxygen and to further identi~ the wells that were moreinfluenced by the sparging. Methane was injected as part of the system operations. Figures 9and 10 depict concentration percentage ratios of methane to helium for each monitoring wellsampled in both the deep and shallow locations. Comparisons for each well can be madeagainst the baseline conditions established in the air injection well.

Results:A.

B.

c.

D.E.

F.

In the deep vadose zone wells, increased concentration percentages of helium andmethane were detected in VZP-4 and VZP-13 faster than at other wells.The order of influence by the sparge system in the shallow wells was VZP-4S, VZP-7S,VZP-2S, and then VZP-13S.Methane and helium did not appear at all shallow well locations until at least the thirdpulse.There is a general, initial increase of methane.

The methane/helium ratios in the shallow vadose zone points are consistently less than the

ratios in the deep locations, for each respective well.

Apparent methane consumption was detected in VZP-2D, 4D, 13D, 4S, and 13S whichfbrther supports the fact that the indigenous microbial community was stimulated.

Conclusions:Figures 9 and 10 conclusively indicate that all sampled monitoring locations in the vadose zonewere influenced by methane, helium, air and nutrient sparging. As anticipated, the deep vadoselocations were impacted before the shallow points because the deep vadose zone piezometers are

6


located closer to the injection wells than the shallow vadose zone piezometers. The timedifference between the deep and shallow zones is representative of the different travel lengthsfrom the injection point to the sample points and the concentration gradient driven gas transportwithin the unsaturated soils. The second experiment confkrned a preferential pathway to VZP-4D (4-deep) and VZP-7D (7-deep). The existence of preferential pathways for the fill-scalesystem is less likely because of the increased depth of the injection well.

4. Gas Analyses Normalized to Average AIW Concentrations (Experiment 2)Objective(s):Gas samples from each of the three air injection wells (AIWS) were analyzed frequently formethane, oxygen, and helium concentrations. Since each AIW has the same source, the major

gas analysis results were averaged to represent the sparge input into the test system overtime.These averaged results were also used to normalize the major gas analyses at each of the vadosezone monitoring well locations. Results for each sampled point are graphically represented inFigures 11 through 18 for wells VZP-2, 4,7, and 13; shallow and deep. The objective of thissection is to further demonstrate potential oxygen and/or methane utilization in addition toSection 5.

Results:A. The unsaturated soils within the vicinity of the sampled monitoring wells are not oxygen

limited. The soils are all at, or near, air saturation (21 to 22!40oxygen).B. The data show a later influence of the sparge system when compared to the results of

Section 3, although to a lesser degree than on the shallow well points. This can beexplained by the fact that the injection phase of Section 3 was continuous for 24 hoursthus providing a sustained driving force. Whereas the injection phase for this section was

pulsed for only eight hours a day which does not provide the same driving force.

C. The normalized methane data in the deep well points, although occasionally scattered,closely mimic the normalized helium data in the early stages (first three pulses) of the testexperiment. In the later days of the experiment (last three pulses) the normalized

methaneconcentrationsaregenerallylessthanthe normalizedheliumconcentrations, and

may suggest an increase in methane utilization.

D. In all shallow vadose zone well points, the shape of the normalized methane data curve is

similar to the normalized helium data curve, but the methane concentrations areconsistently lower than the helium concentrations.

Conclusions:Figures 11 through 18 again indicate that methane gas is being consumed. The deep well datawithin the first three days of testing show that methane and helium traveled at nearly the samerate. This would be expected since a large mass of methane and helium was injected, the twogases have water volubility limits that are similar (3.5 mL/100 ml H20 and 1.0mL/100 ml HZO,respectively) and it is assumed that the two gases have similar (minimal) sorptive properties.After the third pulse, the two normalized data sets begin to deviate. Furthermore, the normalizedhelium data are always lower than the normalized methane data in the shallow wells. The

7

—.,..., ..-’- ---- ~’- -’ ---- -- J-’ ‘J’ =~.=’= .. . .< —.

SanitaryLandfill WSRC-RP-97-17Supplemental Test Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

difference between the two is caused by a microbial utilization of the methane. During the firstthree pulses, a microbial population capable of utilizing methane was adapting to the methane-rich environment. After this lag time, the methanotrophs began to consume the methane formicrobial maintenance and possibly for growth.

5. Methanotrophs (Experiment 2)Objective(s):Bacterial counts for total (AODCS - Acridine Orange Direct Counts) and methanotrophicmicroorganism populations (DFAs - Direct Fluorescent Antibodies and MPNs Most ProbableNumbers) were conducted at three selected shallow weIls in the saturated zone (wells 2,9, and

14). The objective for performing microbial counts was to verify a methanotrophic populationincrease that would correlate with methane utilization. Figures 19 through 23 show the results ofthese counts.

Results:A. The total bacterial counts as indicated by AODCS (Figure 19) dld not indicate a change in

the total number of bacteria.B. Methanotrophic bacterial counts as indicated by DFAs (Figure 20) indicated a slight

increase in the number of methanotrophs.C. The methanotrophic bacterial counts as indicated by MPNs and FAs (Figures 21 through

23) were not significant~y different.D. As the methane injections progressed a shift in population densities was indicated by the

MPN results (Figures 21 through 23).

Conclusions:The MPN and FA methanotroph data from the Sanitary Landfill groundwater samples werefound to be not significantly different. Data for each of three select wells sampled daily during

an 8 day testing period is plotted in Figures 19 through 23. In Figure 19 the AODC countsindicated no change in the microbial population during the test period. Figure 20 indicated aslight change in methanotrophs over the test period when using the Direct FluorescentAntibodies cultured for methanotrophs. In Figure 21 the initial counts from the FA’s show no

methanotrophs whereas the MPN’s have substantial counts. Halfivay through the sampling

period though, the populations seem to coincide, indicating a possible population shift. Itappears that the methanotrophs indicated by the MPN’s are of a type for which we currently

have no antibody, thus no FA counts were possible. However, as the injection of methaneprogressed, the FA targeted methanotrophs increased in population. The assumption is that themethanotrophs that corresponded with the FA’s were selected in the environment and overtimeincreased in number. In Figure 22 the variation in the results does not seem to have affected thestatistical correlation of the two methods as they are still not significantly different. In Figure23 the differences are proportional beween the two methods. This difference is not unusual,and was even expected, when comparing an indirect method (MPNs) to a direct one (DFAs).

8

SanitaryLandfill

SupplementalTestFinalReport

WSRC-RP-97-17

Revision1April1,1998

6. Organic Contaminants in the Vadose Zone (Experiment 2)Objective(s):Gas samples from both shallow and deep monitoring locations in the vadose zone for wells 2,4,7, and 13 were regularly collected in Tedlar@ bags and analyzed for organic contaminants. Theobjective of the analyses for PCE, TCE, and DCE was to detect potential degradation ardor toaccount for concentration changes. The detection limits for PCE, TCE, and DCE were 10.pg/L,10 pg/L, and 80 pg/L, respectively. The results of the analyses are in Figures 24 through31.

Results:

A. PCE and TCE concentrations in 4S, 7S, 7D, 13S, and 13D increased during the testperiod. However, the apparent increases are due to increased concentrations in one dataset (9/10/96), which may be due to sampling or analytical error.

B. With the exception of the 9/7/96 data point for VZP-13D, cis-DCE concentrations are

below or near the detection limit.

Conclusions:Statistically, it is difficult to suggest that the increased TCE and PCE concentrations, as indicatedby the analytical data, is caused by mass transfers from the groundwater to the vadose zone. Ifthe data are representative of gas sparging effects, then it is likely that TCE and PCE werevolatilized.

7. Organic Contaminants in the SaturatedZone (Experiment 1)Objective(s):During the initial experiment in which only air and helium were injected into the sparging wells,chlorinated contaminant analyses were completed on a number of wells. For simplicity, only

graphs of wells 2,4,7, and 13 (shallow and deep) are presented in Figures 32 through 39. Theprimary objective was to investigate potential PCE, TCE, and/or DCE volatilization. In addition,potential microbial utilization of TCE and DCE under these controlled conditions wasinvestigated. Results for PCE can be used for comparison because the aerobic environment isnot favorable for dechlorination and PCE cannot be aerobically biodegraded.

Results:A. In wells 4,7, and 13, DCE and TCE concentration trends closely resemble the PCE

concentration trends.B. In well 2, PCE concentrations are below the detection limit, therefore, a correlation can

not be made. DCE concentrations vary in well 2, but within a relatively small range.

Conclusions:The purpose of Experiment 1 was to establish the extent to which PCE, TCE, and DCE werestripped from the groundwater into the vadose zone. Although TCE and DCE concentrationsvaried within the saturated zone, they did so in a manner that was consistent with PCE levels.PCE cannot be aerobically biodegraded and is more volatile than TCE and DCE. Therefore, it is

9


likely that the fluctuating concentrations are caused by analytical error and that the amount of

TCE and DCE stripped into the vadose zone was insignificant.

8. Organic Contaminants in the Saturated Zone (Experiment 2)Objective(s):The first experiment established that TCE and DCE were probably not stripped from the

groundwater into the vadose zone. The objective of the second experiment, with sparging of air,methane, nitrous oxide, and triethyl phosphate, was to detect/evaluate/demonstrate TCE and/orDCE microbial degradation through methanotrophic cometabolism. Again, TCE and DCEconcentrations can be compared to PCE concentrations because PCE is not aerobicallybiodegraded by cometabolism. Results for wells 2,4,7, and 13 (shallow and deep) aregraphically displayed in Figures 40 through 48.

Results:A. For the most part, PCE and TCE concentrations were constant at all sample locations.B. In all wells, DCE concentrations on the third day of operations increased over the

background sampling analyses. Following the third pulse, DCE concentrations decreasedover the remainder of the test in all wells.

Conclusions:The cause for the initial increased DCE concentrations on the third day of the experiment isunknown. However, following these initial increased concentrations, DCE concentrationsconsistently decreased over the remainder of the experiment. Constant PCE and TCEconcentrations over the length of the experiment suggest that DCE was cometabolically degraded

by methanotrophic bacteri~ not stripped. In Section 7, it was established that the sparge systemhad little to no effect upon DCE concentrations within the saturated zone and that DCE was notstripped into the vadose zone.

9. DCE Concentration Profiles (Experiment 2)Objective(s):Although previous analyses (Sections 7 and S) indicated that no DCE was volatilized from thegroundwater to the vadose zone, DCE concentrations from both vadose zone and saturated zonesampling locations were graphed together (Figures 49 through 52). If DCE was stripped fromthe groundwater to the vadose zone, then decreased DCE concentrations in the groundwaterwould correspond to increased DCE concentrations in the vadose zone. If this correlation does

not exist, then decreased DCE concentrations can be attributed to cometabolic biodegradation.

10

.

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RP-97-17

Supplemental Test Revision 1Final Report April 1,1998

Results:A.

B.

In wells 2,4, and 7, DCE concentrations in the vadose zone either remained constant ordecreased during the time when DCE concentrations in the saturated zone were

decreasing.The DCE concentration datum point in VZP-13D on 9/9/96 suggests that DCEconcentrations in the vadose zone increased. However, this point is suspect because itdoes not follow the pattern of the other monitoring wells and it is dKficult to concludethat one datum point represents a trend.

Conclusions:The cis-DCE concentration profiles in wells 2,4, and 7 suggest that DCE did not have a masstransfer from the groundwater into the vadose zone. Therefore, it is likely that the decreasedDCE concentrations in the groundwater are due to cometabolic biodegradation bymethanotrophic microorganisms. Results in well 13 are less conclusive. DCE concentrations inthe shallow vadose zone sampling location remained below detection limits. The single datumpoint in VZP-13D after the third methane/air/nutrientielim pulse shows an increased DCE

concentration. This would suggest amass transfer, but the statistical reliability of this singledatum point must be questioned.


WSRC-RP-97- 17Revision 1

April 1,1998

Overall ConclusionsA preliminary experiment in which only air and helium were sparged into injection wells

indicated that PCE, TCE, andDCEwerenot strippedfromthe groundwaterintothe vadosezone.Analytical data collected during this test confirmed the influence upon the selected wells and wasused to define the Supplemental Test parameters and data collection points.

Helium, methane, nitrous oxide, and TEP injected in the vadose zone during the SupplementalTest suggested that the indigenous methanotrophic microbial population required three days toadapt to the amended surroundings. After this period, methane was utilized by the microbialpopulation as a food and energy source. Correspondingly, cis-DCE concentrations after the thirdday began to decrease, a trend that lasted the length of the experiment. Since monitoring wellprofile data (contaminant concentrations at each depth interval for a nested well) did not indicatea contaminant mass transfer from the groundwater to the vadose zone, it is likely that cis-DCEwas biodegraded through methanotrophic cometabolism. Cis-DCE would probably havecontinued to be degraded preferentially over TCE, due to steric effects, until concentrationsbecame non-detectable, had the test period lasted longer.

Although the duration of the Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test was not long enough toindicate definite injection and non-injection periods for the operation of the full-scale

remediation system, the data does suggest a starting point. Given the results discussed above, ananalysis (Ref. 10.4) of the fill scale groundwater remediation system capabilities was performed

to determine the range of operating conditions the fill scale system could support during start-up

and initialoperations Thisanalysisindicatedthat the 560SCFM(standardcubicfootperminute) compressor, in concert with the 12,000 cubic foot capacity natural gas trailer (both

specified for the fill-scale system) could adequately support the recommended start up range.

This recommended range is between: a daily (8 hr) injection period of air mixed with 4%methane, 0.07% nitrous Oxide, and 0.007% TEP once a week every other week for four (4)injection cycles; to an 8 hr injection period of 10/0methane, 0.07°/0 nitrous Oxide, and 0.007°/0TEP every other day for 4 injection periods followed by a non injection period of one weekrepeated for 4 cycles. This range of operation supports the generation of data needed to ensureefficient and effective fill-scale system operation and can be maintained by the specified full-scale system components. This range of operations will permit the collection of data such as theradius of influence, groundwater flow measurements, and contaminant monitoring, which willassist in determining the length of the non-injection period and will further refine the pulsedinjection period, thus providing for the most cost effective system operation.

.- . -. .,..,,, -Cus- .. ,.aL.f. - ..s--4 - -, ..- .,+-.Z.E———. -. -. . . . . . . - - -—


10. References

10.1 Sanitary Landfill In-Situ Bioremediation Optimization Test Plan (U), Westinghouse

Savannah River Company, SWE-ERG-94-0514; Rev. O, 9/28/94.

10.2 Sanitary Landfill In Situ Bioremediation Optimization Test Final Report (U),Westinghouse Savannah River Company, WSRC-TR-96-O065, Rev. 1, 4/1/96.

10.3 Fluorescent Antibody Application in the Bioremediation of TCE at the Savannah RiverSite, WSRC-MS-96-0686 Brigmon, R.L. 1996.

10.4 Sanitary Landfill Groundwater Remediation System, Initial Operational Range for DataCollection, Westinghouse Savannah River Site, Calculation No. SRT-EST-97204, Revision O,Denis J. Altrnan, 3/20/97.

13


WSRC-RP-97-17Revision I

April 1, 1998

FIGURE 1TEST SYSTEM LAYOUT

“’’-TX I’ICE- SZP- 1 I S

IKE- SZP- I ID

I’ICE-YZP-l IS

17CE-VZP- IID

- I?CE- SZP- 8S

I ‘TCE- SZP-

1‘ICE. SZP-

1‘ICE- WZP-

1ICE- WP-

U

x ITCE- SZP- SD

I ‘ICE- VZP- 8S/-lTCE-AIW-l 17CE-VZP- SD

/

Plant

North

17CE-VZP-12D

0s

OD

0s

ODITCE- SZP- 7S

IKE- SZP- 7D

17CE- SZP- 9SI’ICE- VZP- 7S

ITCE- SZP- 9D17CE- WP- 7D

I ‘ICE- VZP- 9S

1‘ICE- VZP- 9D ITCE-SZP-4S

llcE-szP.4D

llCE-VZP-4S

ITCE- SZP- 5S I ?CE- VZP- 4D

I’ICE-SZP-5D

ITCE- VZP- 5S

1‘XE- VZP- SD

I ICE- SZP. 14S

I ‘ICE- SZP- 14DITCE- SZP -

ITCE-VZP- 14Sl?CE-SZP-

ITCE-VZP-14DI ‘ICE. VZP-

1lCE- VZP-

lTCE- SZP- 13S

IKE- SZP- 13D

ITCE-VZP-13S

\ \ITCE-WP-13D

L

I’ICE- SZP- 3S-/

17CE. SZP- 3S

I?CE- WP- 3S

I’ICE- VZP- 3D

lCE- SZP- 2S ~ ITCE-SZP-6S

lCE- SZP- 2D IKE- SZP- 6D

TCE- WP- 2S I’ICE- WP- 6S

TCE. KZP.2D lTCE-VZP.6D

Is

ID

1s

ID

14

.& ..- . . . ,.— — .—.. —- ..-— — .—

3

G.+

440

------- ------- -

Uo------ ------ ------ ------ .---- ------ ------ ----

#o

---------------- ------- ---------------

Up

.------ - - ---- - - - - ------------- --------- ------

#o

..--.. - ---- . .- . . . -. . . . - . - - -. . ----- . . -- . . -- . . .

Uo

------ --------- ------ ------ ---- --------- -----

#o

----------- .

u(’)- - -- - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - ------- -----

#o

: 440.-$al

E ------------------ --

g !!0

440

--------------Up)

------ --- ------ --------- -----

440

Uo

#o

--------- --------- - --------

Uo

Jo

Uo

4!0

Uo

J40

Uo------ --------- --.---- -----

440

------- ---,

.- -------- -

------- ---

----------

-. ,--- .-----

------- . - - .

.----- - ----

------- ----

------ ----

----- ------

0 0 0% m o

-a- W’

r

a0

0u-l

0C-J 04

0m

Sanitmy LandfillSupplemental TestFinal Report

WSRC-RJ?-97- 17Revision 1

April 1, 1998

Figure 4Fluctuations in pH with System Operations

(SZP-2S)10

9

8

7

6

5

4

System Operations

Y=o

11It

tt=o

I1tt1

t

t

11111

111111

11

t

11,

6II1

11tI

I

1

1

II1

I

1

t111I

III1

a=o I

1

1

t

t

11

I1

1

11

t

I11

1

1

I

1

t1

ItI111111I11

1 II1 11I 11

I I It I It 1 11 11I 1 11 :11 11

tt1

III

11

II

iI1

I

I

1

11

1III

1

1

1

I

I I IIII

8III

iI1

II1

I I It 1111

t

I

I 1i I 1 I II t I t 11 1 I 1 II 1 t 11 1 11 1 1

1’ 1 1 1 : I

1

1

t

I II I1 1

1f I *

I III 1 111 1 I

I 1 I

1 1

1 II I1 II 11 11 t1 1I 1I I1 tI II I

I II 11 1I 1I 1I 11 1I 11 I1 11 I1 1

11I1I1tt1II1

1 1I I1 1111 t

1 111

I I1 I1118

t I

t1

1

1II1

1

1

11I1

I I 11 1 1I I II 1 1I I 11 1 tI t 1I 1 1I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 II

t I1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1

I1

1I

I t 1 I 1 1 1t

1 I.1 I # t I I 1 I I t

914196 914196 9/5/96 915196 9/6/96 916/96 9/7/96 917196 9/6/96 918196 9/9/96 9/9/96 9/10/96 9/1 0/96

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00

Date and Time(0:00 = Midnight)

17


2,5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0


April 1, 1998

Figure 5

Gas Transport

VZP-2

20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (hr)

18


WSRC-RF-97- 17Revision 1

April 1, 1998

2.5

2

1.5

“1

0,5

0

0

Figure 6Gas Transport

VZP-4

20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (hr)

19



April 1, 1998

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Figure 7

Gas Transport

VZP-7

o 20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (hr)


2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

WSRC-RP-97-I 7Revision 1

April 1, 1998

Figure 8GasTransport

VZP-13

~ Shallow Sample Point

-H- Deep Sample Point

20 40 60

Time (hr)

80 100 120

21

-1

111 [111 I 1111111 I 1[11 [11 I11[1 [[1 I 1111111 I 1111 [11 I11[ 1111 1 1111111 [ 1111111 I1111111 I Illllil [ 1111111 lJJo- -1111111 i 1111111 I 1[1 [111 I

1111111Iii-1-i

111111

I1-11-1-t 1111111111111111111

1111111LIJl 1.J111111111111

-l-l+-l-l--l111111111111111111111111

i-ii -l-i-i11111[

.l-l_i-l_! J111111111111111111111111

JJJJ- LJ111111111111

‘1-11-1-r I1111111[1111111111111111

-Hi-l- t i-1-1-1-1-1--111111111[ 111111[11111111111111

JJJJ-LJ111111

111-1-tl

-4 /---; -!-

11 /I II I

-{ +

.1-1 I-.

I II II II 1“

--l I-.I II I-- --I II II

I

-+--1-

1IIII

-1.I

-1-

‘-L;-----4:414-4111111-kL--- 1111-1-1

II 111111II 111111II 111111II [11111

++_- Jl~_ll.I111111

‘-Ll ----- lIH-III 111111II 11111[II 111111II 111111

-1--- 1-- --- -l+++-i-+II 111111

t

++_- 1!!!4-!111111

II 111111

\\\iI [111 [11 I 111111

1111111 I 111111

Ia-tti-b-t--t----liri j-ri

T---ttttrl-r--r--r----titttl-t

“1-H---

I Iuo-l--t ----

IIII, ,J40

II+_+___

[Iuo-+--k ----

IIII, ,J40

II-+--} ----

1 lu~++--

11[ lJ40- -

++--- .

Iluo

i ~ ‘ /11 [11 I 1[1 [11

[111111 I 111111

-- -1-1.1-1--1.I ‘1 l-’t ----111111 I 111 [1!Ill Ill 111111

I 11111 I 1111111111 I I 1111111 I

,-; --- 1.1- J--L-J----- JlllJ-l-l--l-----1111-; yo----- -I

-l--t----III I#oII

-4--L-----l--lY!2-

11II

/ po I[[11111 I [111111 I 1111111 I1111111 I [111 [11 I 1111111 Igo

i io0

0

00

0

0

o0

0co0)

653

00.

0u)Q

coz

o00u)In

go-l

00

0(0m35

.. _,_ ——-.. - —- ,- . —.. .. -..,-...... ... _.=. s___. . .. . . L

111111111111111111111111111111111111j;~j-[~

I

I-H-I- t 111111111111111[ 11111[11[

ILIJJ-LJ111111111111+4-I-I-4

111111111111

II

//IIII

-4--4 ‘--

/

-H ‘--IIII

4 LIIII 7

-i--4 ----IIII

1111111111

H1111 [11 i-I-I-I-I-4-4- 4----

[111[1[ II-I-I-I- !J--I- J----1111111 I

1111111

11111111111111

1[11111 I11111111[111111111111

1111111111111111111111111111 I1111111 I

yjj-;-; -- + ---

llll-rl-l--lf ---w00.r

1111111 I1[11111 I1[11 [11 I1111111 I1111111 I1111111 I

ttttl-r-i---i-----1111111 I1111111 I1111111 I1111111 Itttl-l-t-l---t----J1.l.l..l-l--l. --l-----1111111 I1111111 I1111111 I11111[1 I11111[1 ILI-I-L1-I--I---I----.11111[1 Irm-t-r-r--r----1111111 I1111111 I

o0

>1111111 I1111111 I1[1111[ I1111111 l~o1111111 [1111111 Ilttti-t-t--l-----1111111 I“ollll-l-l-l--t----111[111 I111[111 I1111[[1 I go’1111111 IHIJLJ-J--l----1111111 1[[11111 I“o1+++-1-+-+--1----1[11111 I1111111 I1111111 P1111111 Il+’+t-l-t-+--t----1111111 IIJo1111111 Iilli-~i-i--T ----1111111 I1111111 IJJO”

%

1111 [1”[I LJ-J--l ----111[111i?-l-wlllluollll-l-l-l--t----[111111 I[111[11 I go.1111[11 I1111[11 1lili-l-i-i--t----IJ.ld-[-.l-.l-- l.-w-[111111 i[[1 [[11 I

~~~~~~~ po.

1[11111 IllllJ-l-l--L----[111[11 Iuoltttl-t-t--r----[111[[1 I11111[1 l~o

—-

00

0

o0.

0(s30)

@(n

o0

0

amzal

o00

0

.-

,-

.-

.-

.-

.-

.-

‘1..

-.-.

Uo

.------ ------- -

U(J

Uo

Uo

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ----

Ir-------------------------------------Uo

. - - . . . - - - . - - - - - --------- ------ - - ---- ---

/

------ ------ ------ -------- ------ -------

L!Q------------------------- .----------

440

I I #1

1 I cooqo

o co (Qd-o

~ q o~Y o 0 0 0 0

%-fm

Sanitary LandfillSupplemental TestFinal Repoll


April 1, 1998

1.0

0.8

0.6

0!4

0.2

0.0

Figure 12Unsaturated Soil Gas Analysis @ VZP-2D ~ NormalizedCH4 ~ Normalize(jOZ -A-- Normalized He

(Normalized to Average AIW Concentrations)1 I

,1 11 I : 1 t I t 11

It II I t 1 1 1 1 t 1

t

ii II 1 1 I I t 1

11 11 I 1 1 1 1 I

18 11 I 1 1 1 1 I

II II 1 I 1

11

I

II t 1 1

II It I t 1

ItItIt

IIIt

111

t1t1I

1111

tI I1 I1 II Y=

I1

0,C

1 ,01 1t I1 I

a=o

t1t111

1

11III

11

1

1IIII1I1

III!t

e1

0111II

I1 I I t 1

I1

t1

tt

II

I

I

11

I

I

1 :I 1I t

t:I

* System

0 Operation

9/4/96 914196 9/5196 915196 916/96 9/6/96 917196 9/7196 918196 9/8/96 9/9/96 9/9/96 9/1 0/96 9/1 0/96

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00


25



April 1, 1998

Figure 13 rUnsaturated Soil Gas Analysis @ VZP-4S

(Normalized to Average AIW Concentrations)~ Normalized CH4 ~ Normalized 02 ~ Normalized He

. .II ii 1 I I I I 1 I 1

II I 1mI 411 11 1 I I 1 I I I1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

~ System

0 Operation1 11 I1 II 1I t1 II I1 I1 I1 11 11 t1 1

1 1

I I

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 I

1 1

1 1

1 I

1 I

I 1

I I

I :I 1

1 8t I

1 I

I I

I :1 :1 I1 8

i11

iII /

1 It

I 1

i

\

I1 I1 1

I 1I 11 t

1 III11

1

t

Itt /

II11IIIII1

111

I1ItI1

1

1

III1

\

I II

1 11 I1 t1 t1 t1 1

Id 1

t11

111

8

I

8

*I

i11t

tt11t111

111I

11I1*

tI

I

1t1tIttI

:

t

I Jt1

t

1t

1 18 1I

I

1

n.

/, :

i i 1

1 t 1

II 1 \Aw:h[[1.A 1 1 1

1~:m 1 t

I tI 1

1 t

I 1

1 1I 1

1 1

I 1

1

y“:1111

111 r’=1111

:I

:

1111t 8II11II at

II 11 11

9/4196 914196 915/96 915/96 916196 9/6/96 9/7196 9i7196 9/8196 9/8/96 919/96 919196 9/1 0/96 9/1 0/96

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00


.

26

1-1o

40

0

440

Uo

---- - --------- - ----- - ------- -

440

Uo

4!0

u

440

1-1o-- ------- -------- --------- ------ --

440

0 co0

q0

00



April 1, 1998i:

Figure 15Unsaturated Soil Gas Analysis @ VZP-7S + NormalizedCH4 ~ Normalized02 ~ Normalized He

(Normalized to Average AIW Concentrations)1

11 11 t I 1 t11

1 1 I 1

111 111

1-

~11 It 1

1=1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0,2

0.0

1 I 1 1 1 1

11 11 1 t 1 1 1 1

~ System

O Operation11

11

1

1

IIIIIIt1II1tI11IttIII

I

I11

tIItI

111

1

1

11tt1

1

1

1

I

1111tt1II111I1II

I1

1

1

I1

t

:It 1

II

1I1

iI

I:

1 I1 I

1ItI11

11I11

1 tII1II I

I1

iI

It

I1I

11I

tIIt1

11II1II

II11III

I 11. I

i iI t

i1

/

1 1 I I 1I I

I1

*1

1 1 I 1 I J’?t 1I 1 i

/

I 1I I 1 I 1 :V:i1 I 1 I I

1 /1: 1 \, =Ii

&i_, !/i’, !,! ,(’! , (i ,1 I 1 1 1 [ 1 t 1 I

914196 9/4/96 9/5/96 915196 916/96 9/6/96 9/7196 917/96 918196 9/8/96 919196 919/96 9/1 0/96 9/1 0/960:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00


I

28

MO----- ---- --------------

1-1o------ ------ ----

#o

--------- ------ ------- --

U()

------- ------- ------- ----

#o

------ ------ ---

------ ----- ----

!?-----------------------------------

Uo

----- ----------- - ------ ------ ------- -----

J-Jo

/

--- ----- - ---- ---- - -- - ------ ------- ------ -Uo

--- -------- ---------------

Ii440

-- 4P----------------------------------------Uo

-- ------ --------- ------ ------ ------ ---- -

440

coo

yo

CDoqow-o

OS

o

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RP-97- 17Revision 1

April 1, 1998Supplemental TestFinal Report

Figure 17Unsaturated Soil Gas Analysis @ VZP-13S ~ NormalizedCH4

(Normalized to Average AIR? Concentrations)~ NormalizedOZ ~ Normalized He

1, 18 t t 1 t1,

1 1 1 1

d 1 1 1 1 11, - 1m

I1

1 1t, II 1

11 t 1 1 I

11:

it Y=; I t 1a ,s, I t

o ,6! 8 :6: 8 :6:g

tot ot

I 1 1 I 1 1

1,0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1

aI1I1

IIt11I1111tt11

* System

0 Operation

Y=o

t11III1ItIII11111I111III1

1 tII1

1IItI

I 1 I t 1 t 1

1I

11

t

I1

I1

It1

II1

1

II1111

11I

III1t1

I1t1

I11 i t

1 1 1

t 1 II 1 I

1II1

1I

I1

1ItI

1 1 1

I 1 t

I1I11 /

II

tt111tI!111II

1I1I1I1I

I1 J!-11

t1

I1!t11

I

111111 1

111

1t 1

1 11

1 1

t I

t I1 1

I 1

II1

hi’t,1, X11

t I

1, 11 I 111

1 t

1 1

914/96 9/4/96 915/96 915196 9/6/96 9/6/96 917196 917/96 9/8196 918/96 919/96 919/96 9/1 0/96 9/1 0/96

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00


30

m

440

~~?

Alo

--------- ------- ------ ----- ------ ------ --

Uo

----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --

~

.-------

I.Q

.-------~-~ ------ ------ -----

‘--T-------T--7------------------

:iz#o

I 1 I # I

o Cn w. w- Cy 0. 0 0 0 0 0-

II000



April 1, 1998

32

1.00E+07

1.00E+06

1.00E+05

1.00E+04

1.00E+03

1.00E+02

Figure 19Total Bacterial Counts by

ACIUDINE ORANGE DIRECT COUNTS

4)

4)

1-

9/3/96 9/4/96 915196 9/6196 9/7/96 918/96 9/9/96 9/10/96

+ SZP-2S

+ SZP-9S

~ SZP-14S

t I1 I I t


1.00E+07

1.00E+06

1.00E+05

1.00E+04

1.00E+03

1.00E+02


April 1, 1998

Figure 20Total Methanotropic Bacterial Counts by

METHANOTROPH FA COUNTS

El+SZP-2S

+ SZP-9S

~ szp-14s

/

I

9/3196 914/96 915/96 916/96 9/7/96 918/96 919/96 9/10196

DATE

33

wywo0.

coal

553

ccl0)az

-3m


1,00E+07

1.00E+06

1.00E+05

1.00E+04

1,00E+03

1.00E+02


April 1, 1998

Figure 22

FA VSMPIN

SZP-9S

0-+--FA

~MPN

I

913/96 9/4196 9/5196 9/6/96 9/7/96 918196 9/9/96 9/1 0/96

DATE

Sanitary LandfillSupplemental TestFinal RepoR

1.00E+07

1.00E+06

1.00E+05

1.00E+04

1.00E+03

1.00E+02


April 1, 1998

Figure 23FA VS MPN

SZP-14S

.

1 I I

/ /

913196 9/4196 915196 9/6196 9/7196 918196 919196 9/1 0/96

DATE

36



April 1, 1998

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 24

Organic Contaminants

VZP-2S

EEEl El+ cis-DCE

-H- TCE

- PCE

1 1 1 1 8 19/3/96 9/4196 9/5/96 916/96 917196 9/8196 919196 9/10/96

Sample Date

37


300

250

200

150

100

50

0

9/3196


April 1, 1998

Figure 25Organic Contaminants

VZP-2D

Detection limits

PCE & TCE = 10ug/L

cis-DCE = 80 ug/L l==

9/4196 915/96 9/6/96 9/7196 9/8196 919196 9/10/96

38

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RP-97-I 7

Supplemental Test Revision 1

Final Report April 1, 1998

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

913196


VZP-4S

I Detection limits 1 I + cis-DCE

PCE & TCE = 10ug/L Icis-DCE = 80 ug/L

+ TCE

+ PCE

/

* A

A

914t96 9/5196 9/6/96 917/96 9/8196 9/9/96 9110196

Sample Date

.

39 ‘

●

.

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RP-97-17Supplemental Test Revision 1Final Report April 1, 1998

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 27


VZP-4D

E

913196 9/4/96 9/5/96 9/6196 9i7196 918t96 919196 9/10/96

Sample Date

40

.


250

200

150

100

50

0


April 1, 1998

Figure 28


VZP-7S

I Detection limits

PCE & TCE = 10ug/L

cis-DCE = 80 ug/L

L

~ cis-DCE

-H- TCE

~ PCE

I

9/3/96 914f96 915/96 916196 917/96 918f96 9/9/96 9110/96

41 ‘

:



April 1, 1998

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

913/96

Figure 29


VZP-7D/ /

/

ls22E-TCE Value for 9/10/96= 349.41

PCE Value for 9/10/96= 577.91

EEEl

A

1 I I I 1 1

914196 915196 9/6/96 917/96 918196 9/9/96 9/1 0/96

: .-,-;

L ,...

‘,: .,. .k,,., ,..

.

42



April 1, 1998

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


VZP-13 s

913/96 9/4196 9/5196 9/6/96 9/7/96 918196 9/9/96 9/1 0/96

Sample Date

43

Sanitary Lan&311Supplemental TestFinal Report


April 1, 1998


VZP-13D

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

E E+ cis-DCE

--R- TCE

+ PCE

9/3/96 9/4/96 9/5196 916/96 917196 918196 9/9/96 9110/96

Sample Date

44



April 1, 1998

.-., -.

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 31


VZP- 13DM

m

4 cis-DCE

-R-TCE

+ PCE

4)

A

9/3196 9/4/96 9/5/96 9/6/96 917196 9/8/96 9/9/96 9/1 0/96

Sample Date

45



April 1, 1998

40.

35.

30.

25.

20.

15.

10,

5.

0.

46


SZP-2D

..- ?. .,..”-”

,#------ $

./”” ----#---”-----

,,,//’”

.. -“- /,-..

.,x - ““,,,-, .“

‘i. -

,. ...-.”

/----- --’./ ‘i,

~ .#.”’”- ,.,..’ 1

~. ,

-+-- PCE

+ TCE

‘-”””- cis-DCE

4

f I ,I

r t !

5130196 614196 6/9196 6114J96 6119196 6/24/96 6/29/96 7/4196


70.

60.

50.

40.

30.

20.

10.

0.


April 1, 1998


SZP-4S

614196 6/9/96 6/14/96 6/19/96 6/24/96 6/29/96 714196

Date

47

,:.,.. ?

0“r%

0u)

0“ 0“Lo

0“w

0m 04

0“ 0



SZP-7S

80.

70.

60.

50.

40.

30.

20.

10.

0.


April 1, 1998

,.

1 1 I t

6/9/96 6/14/96 6/1 9/96 6124/96 6/29196 714196

Date


WSRC-R.P-97-17Revision 1

April 1, 1998


SZP-7D

60.

50.

40.

30.

20.

10,

0.

6/9/96 6/14/96 6119/96Date

6124196 6/29/96 7/4196

50


100.

90.

80.

70.

60.

50.

40.

30.

20.

10.

0.

614/96


April 1, 1998


SZP-13s

6/9196 6/14/96 6/19/96 6124196 6129196 7/4/96

51


80.

70.

60.

50.

40.

30.

20.

10.

0.


April 1, 1998


SZP-13D

614196 6/9/96 6/1 4196 6119/96 6/24/96 6/29/96 7/4196

52

.


WSRC-R-P-97- 17Revision 1

April 1, 1998

Figure 40

Organic ContaminantsSZP-2S

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

El-+-PCE

+TCE\+ cis-DCE

+ Vc

-m.. . E-

9/3196 914196 9/5/96 9/6/96 9R196 9/8/96 9/9/96 9/10/96

Date

53


400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

WSRC-RP-97-I 7Revision 1

April 1, 1998


SZP-2D

0’

913196 9/4/96 9/5/96 9/6/96 9/7196 9/8196 9/9/96

~ PCE

+ TCE

~ cis-DCE

-x— UC

9/1 0196

54



April 1, 1998


SZP-4S

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

El+PCE

---9--TCE

~ cis-DCE

++ Vc

9/3196 914/96 9/5/96 9/6/96 917196 9/8/96 9/9/96 9/1 0/96Date

55 “



April 1, 1998


SZP-4D

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

El~PCE

+ TCE

~ cis-DCE

* Vc

I

913196

56

914196 9/5/96 9/6/96 917196

Date “

918196 919196 9/1 0/96r


400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


April 1, 1998


SZP-7S

u~PCE

~ TCE

~ cis-DCE

* Vc

w.

913/96 9/4/96 9/5/96 916/96 917196 918196 9/9/96 9/1 0/96

Date

57 ‘


400

350

300

200

150

100

50

0


April 1, 1998

Figure 45

Organic ContaminantsSZP-7D

1.

❑❞PCE

--S-- TCE

~ cis-DCE

+ Vc

913196 914196 9/5/96 9/6/96 917196 918196 9/9/96 9110/96

58


400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


April 1, 1998


SZP-9S

t

9/3/96 9/4/96 915196 9/6196 917196 9/8/96 9/9196 9/1 0/96

Date

59


400.0

350.0

300.0

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0


April 1, 1998

Figure 47

Organic ContaminantsSZP-13S

* , v w .8 i 8. I 1. i

913196 9/4/96 915196 916196 917196 918196 9/9196 9110196

Date

60



April 1, 1998

400.0

350.0

300.0

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0!0


SZP-13D

❑+ PCE+TCE~ cis-DCE

+ Vc

913196 914196 915196 916196 917196 9/8196 9/9/96 9/10/96

Date


Figure 49cis-DCEConcentrations

Well2

62

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


April 1, 1998

El~ SZP-2D

-9- SZP-2S

b VZP-2D

* VZP-2S

913196 9/4/96 9/5/96 9/6/96 9t7196 9/8/96 919/96 9110/96

Sanitary Landfill WSRC-RP-97-17Supplemental Test Revision 1Final Report April 1, 1998

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50


Well4

❑❞SZP-4D

- SZP-4S

““-’ “’”-VZP-4D

++ VZP-4S

..

-. ., ...,,..,

.

I t t t 1 10

913196 914/96 915/96 9/6/96 9/7/96 918/96 9/9196 9110196

Date

1

63

f


400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


April 1, 199S

Figure 51cis-DCE Concentrations

Well7

~ SZP-7D

~ .szp-7s

b VZP-7D

~ VZP-7S

913196

,L

IL1.L!!

I

914196 915196 916196 917196 918196 9/9/96 9/1 0/96

64


400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


April 1, 1998


Well 13

-4- SZP-13D

-=- SZP-13S

+VZP-13D

+VZP-13S

913196 9/4196 915196 916196 917196 918196 9/9/96

,\

!

9/1 0196

65 t

Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Sanitary Landfill Supplemental Test Final Report