The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUNDERGROUND TANK (2) 1reale~ ~CRA® COMPA~ Environmental Technology & Remediation Systems -rQ;r~d, :fl::, fZbtJ 10 I'M. /""/.', './:) !' -'¡' /, ",' 6(-.., '¡"(j "~:i? REMEDIAL SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 1994 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION PROGRAM SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY BAKERSFIELD YARD, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA February 8, 1994 It T.reaJ~- CRAN COMPANY - February 8, 1994 Mr. Greg Shepherd Southern Pacific Environmental Systems Inc. 101 California Street 16th Floor, Room 42 San Francisco, California 95105 Dear Mr. Greg: Please find enclosed the Remedial Summary Report for the Vapor Extraction Program conducted at the Southern Pacific Transportation Company's Bakersfield Yard. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, I I I TreaTek-CRA Company é:/ ~ Erik A. Friedrich, REA, REP , Project Manager Enclosure I -I EAF/kc cc: A.C. Ving, TreaTek-CRA Company Thomas Paxson, KCAPCD :'mil6ai·~:i1G,'·':~'~~ìIM2.iKœíJE,·::5I .~,~~..¡"g!ilf!..~..._...._~ BAKOSUM.RPT Environmental Technology & Remediation Systems 2180 Garnet Avenue. Suite 2K San Diego. California 92109 619/490-6780 FAX 619/270-4404 2701 East Hammer Lane, Suite 103 Stockton, California 95210 209/472·2020 FAX 209/472-2027 - - REMEDIAL SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 1994 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION PROGRAM SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY BAKERSFIELD YARD, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................;...................... 1 2.0 SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND OVERALL OBSERVATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3.0 HIGHLIGHTED EVENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.0 CONFIRMATION SOIL SAMPLING/SITE CLOSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 APPENDIX A - REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETION CERTIFICATION. . . . . . . 13 TABLES Table 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 .................................................. 2 Figure 2 .................................................. 3 Figure 3 .................................................. 5 Figure 4 ................................................. 10 Figure 5 ................................................. 11 Figure 6 ................................................. 12 Figure 7 ................................................. 13 Figure 8 ................................................. 14 Figure 9 ................................................. 15 e . 1.0 INTRODUCTION TreaTek-CRA Company (TreaTek) initiated a soil vapor extraction· program for the Southern Pacific Transportation Company's (SPTC) Bakersfield Rail Yard (Figure 1) to remediate the total petroleum hydrocarbon presence within the soils beneath the location of a removed gasoline storage tank (Figure 2). This program consisted of conducting a feasibility pilot test at the site in order to determine the parameters for a full scale vapor extraction system (VES) design. This pilot test was conducted in late December 1990. Based on the results of the pilot test, as contained in TreaTek's March 5, 1991"Vapor Extraction Pilot Study Assessment and Full Scale Conceptual Design Report", a full scale VES system was designed for the site. Both the full scale VES design and the pilot test results were submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for authority to construct the full scale VES system. The authority to construct per Kern County Air Pollution Control District's (KCAPCD) Application #0188001 B - Project # 910402 - was granted on May 28, 1991. The VES system was installed in late June 1991. The KCAPCD permit to operate, #0188001 B, was granted on March 24, 1992. The KCAPCD issued a new permit to operate number, #S-0687-0001-02, on November 30, 1992. This report provides a discussion of the system operations during the twenty month remedial program duration which extended from June 1991 through January 1993. 1 :.~GARCØ~~_ ¡,A~~M~ ~'.tam.'7":, an, "~k§' [!!;J" ~t S!t~il~,:I"i" .~ i ~t· 1¡;¡1i >l~",-·--Ië -:m . , HI. SCH. . ~ ., At ';':::.1 ¥ :!: t: I 'a o¡¡ C ~ ~. _~,,,... I! ....è t~ ,qUit s; Ü )' ," Itylln - NobIé :! c! ~ :c ~' ~ .:; ~ \5 ~ -'.' . _DYOI'..15 ~ - ~ o'!!":; ~ ~ GI - bf~"'~~t;~ ü E I' I BoÌIiIa "" C\6 WL',U ¡ WASHIN~ ", -. .;¡ G if · ....\. ~ ~E~.~~O 71' ~~ ~~ :·:ö ~J~ If ~:.;:=~~. ~ _ W Ï' ~: ".9~ ~ cow - JeffrlySt¡P¡!~I~~¿,~ .. ! >.: ; u... St; I . L.,r..~ StnIet ~ ~ ".~~. a ~ Momrosa N · 0 > ,~-~ _A · Je~ StnIet" § .SCMJOL r;;: .. Jc 001 _.~ ~ Iii'" en enp ~.. .. .\ Thelma -:'IJ ^' ~ . ~ 'õ(jjJ en .¡j ì ~ t HeIQht~t.. . ~ "ÈW ~~~ ... I Z St. CD ~ - c: . ' -AL' LaMe~..... '_.,.J, rent ~ 2 . cñ¡"J¡ !!'il~1 'SCHOOL Mat .--xl ., Lama ~"'....-! I ~ St. &I ~.- I';:S Iii ~ ... IhIm SIn 11 ~--~ I: I ~~r K~ S.!Z:i . - '" -.. :l!1.:!¡"J. ~! ~'lIri1 oe' ~ Wv. ....A. ....::;....... ~RIAL :_J.~"'~' loII:....... ttI. 'I 'IÄ.~ ,'S:': RDc.; 0 - "tt~ ¡-:i~r ~ (, B NARD , ,2IC_~ :: . ~ _~n..... J. ~ Cunfta .. -~ .~ 'I. . I ",rv"IIç¡ !fP; 11 .~ D, 'ACUi.a.;, , ~~ ~ o ~1aIn.. t4 S ~ " '4'. ~.N ~'>~; .: ¡a:i.t.d:lf ~ I ~~I FJ~ !:i ~I:::'!/..:.}' ~ G~ ~ S, . ~ A "0· . !rci ~~ if! t/'~ I = Quincy Ii i M ~L.~ ~, ht,~ ,. G,. . ~ B .ilð . r. _ : Ji PIciflc: y~ orl St ;; St. II; ~- ,..; r..... I:t Rd. ':-!ltrIn "7~~ :J71 1-- - ~ ~ I.i ." S, ~~. ~ · ~veJ:. - - _AfIJI :. i_St UI1 gun JSr. --,......... , " r71~" Q1 TIORI 'r~' "1-r ~ ~_ ~ Nil . St.. . .-.~ . au r7I ..; ~'IBr Li~a' t Cono~ S, ~ ~'4 i; f.II. ~ ,¡; s St.-4 '/cERN Dr ~ :ilildl ~ ( ?t1i-- .,' '" . ø" ."" St., " œ·..· MEDICAL.. ~ 3' ~~. ~'L rs",,,./~· ~ 0, r:;,._'---- lI, c" -~.T1 Q ;¡ EAST 2 rJI~O~,- ~~. ~ ~ ~ I .... ~~.' '..:l ~ ~/CER.,/~ 'k-..~~ , Sf 7" ,. ~ 8t ~ ;;:!;. ~~j ...~~ '~_.;_~ .í SITE ~"':';,,·'11 E~;:;;',./~ .~J~: ié ~ ~~~.-. ~ r¡ !Æ ... C1. , ~tI~ .!-.1.!.;" ~ ~I, &. E. tiI. ~ ._ ~ R __. '21 . _ sr. - ~~ - _-...q...... Monanrv~ cø St. ·Ñ~~~ _ LMe:¡ AYE. h.... f. hl.~_. ~:; I; 1C8muckv.s ;; !l7J S, -; ~_iL. I!¿; oS Cenør'; d: , .. ... iIoò't.Jj( ;;:: ,. .... .. iii, . ~ I ~ ~ l ,....ii . . ' .. ¿; en: .! Steele A".. ~ 'i; t~ ~. I' :E ¡E!; I/; ~nMLCH~ I ......Uth th, ~ I r.,.., .... ..: ël ~I ~ ""eft !IV St.' .. ~ jnOttut. I f.~CIr: .,'" ~I 'I i A¥~ ! ..I.iIDaIIo'iAve. é C!mII~ , .. = I St~. ..~ .1: ø. I! . {:J! -. C - ài '3 c. :;; 1:' - ._-. ¡:: rtllhSt.ói.": .......' LUClvSt...I:.. g.~ 1JLucXv> .. ...' c '....en'" ;;.I:~,..__ . E. 9ttI ~ á 1.cD : en, st:H. 0 1i æ' ~_ - U :E ~T . rv-.-o ÞIre. E. 8th ~. ~ . . .. ": .' Gar ill St.Õ. W ~f 8St.á !' cii d I st:H. ~I"'. cii..: . VIrInriI ~ i.. E. 7th ~ .".... ... St . ": ~e ::>0.. .. ~II Ct.1 = ~ ..: ! Buddy c c en E. 6tt\ ~ U8iøa :; St. H u.r~ St. ! 1: ~t,¡ i ~ ~!'cË HoIl~ ~ ~ æ en C Palla = 18 .. . c::. en eo. a:a .. :r :: := : . c ..- .II J 'I AIL..,..... ~ ..' .;: Vlrvinia cii J,~' \~ A.... CD !-CD ,Vill)Ïr1ia ~ A... ü :!! ~~ !¡I>ß; 4th· .~ ~ cii üi ûi . i .¡ cìi en){~ :E üi " . ~ F'; ... èŠ 2 æ ~ - ~ lñ cii ~ i ~:I" .. 1 E. 3 rd St cii 0 c f1~ ':1 /I ~ ¡ ~ ; ~ Jftf Sa i i ~ - ~ è:í ';1'; .E .: ~ W .!! / r c .. e 1&1" ::I !I.o ~ :II ~ ! i ~ Texa · St. E c:.! I I ~ ! ~ :: j 21St. M~ IIFREMDNT I a.:C i: ~ I := T'_~ St·~o I -T._St. - > ~, ""Ikill! T søiJ St :2 =ó j ~ G .4 IA.J c 't. ~ ~ I~ ' ~ ~ uj ~ J I ! .. A E 11 :.u. êa... ~ c EAST BRUNDAGE_ ___ LAN a . Ð f.... ,J w~:9 .. P.O. --:g,-... j\" --~~ 2000~ . :to .u" """' --.--t_""--' '1!L~ AvJ.a7'" - . <; ;::!.., 1Looe St. -,...... ,.. .... .- . ... KJØ - m.. c +-~ ~ ..--= ~ . ' ~ ~ It'~ -~ 1ft e ;t~ -- ; . : ) f:1r~ ~ ~ IJ ~ .Çi r'. r¡¡:¡] "'~ "cii 'i E. 11...¡1 0 ; e E... 10th.:'" SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 * VP:- 4 Â VP-2 Â FORMER UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATION LEG END Â -+ e Â VP-l -+VW-D e POWER POLE SOIL BORING LOCATION Â VP-3 POWER POLE PROJECT No. 90184 DATE 2/4/94 SCALEl" = 10' PROJECT SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY BAKERSFIELD, CA SOIL VAPOR PROBE VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL DRAWN BY E.A.F. CHECKED BY FICURE No. 2 TITLE VAPOR PROBE. EXTRACTION WELL AND SOIL BORING LOCATIONS TreqT~ - CRA"'COMPANY ........""" e e 2.0 SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND OVERALL OBSERVATIONS The VES was off-line for approximately 109 days of the total system runtime of 596 days (18.3% downtime). Refer to Figure 3 for a graphic display of the VES downtime. Most of the downtime experienced by the VES was due to 1) system start-up difficulties experienced in July 1991 and 2) automatic system shutdowns which resulted from gradually decreasing influent concentrations. As the influent concentrations decreased, the CA TOX experienced lower differential temperatures which resulted in automatic system shutdowns. Consequently, extraction well valving adjustments were made throughout the duration of the project to increase the influent concentrations and to enhance the compound removal rate. Six vapor extraction wells 0f'ND-A, VWD-B, VWD-C, VWD-2, VWS-1 and VWS-2) were used for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbon residues in the site soils. During the VES Remedial Program duration, various vapor extraction well valving combinations were used to optimize the vapor extraction. Figures 4 through 9, contained at the end of this report, show the operational time and the compound reduction charts for each of the vapor extraction wells for the entire remedial program. Note that the operational time charts do not include the downtime shown on Figure 3. They merely represent the manual valving adjustments made on the individual extraction wells during the system operation. During the system's twenty month operation, no effluent discharges above 175 ppmv were observed. The Continuous Emission Monitoring (CEM) equipment functioned adequately with onsite downloading and the use of only one data logger. Using the CEM data, it was calculated that a total of 16,714.47 pounds of hydrocarbon vapor were removed with an average daily removal rate of 30.46 pounds. 4 VES DOWNTIME FIGURE 3 e 'e 110 aoo 00 10 0 ~UL AUQ aE" OCT NOV DEC ~AN fEa MAR A"R MAY ~UN ~UL AUQ aE" OCT NOV DEC ~AN 81 8a aa alo 410 400 alo aoo 10 100 D o W N T I .. E h , . e e Throughout the system's operational duration, quarterly sampling was conducted to evaluate the remedial effort's effectiveness. These data are plotted on the compound reduction charts enclosed as Figures 4 through 9. The quarterly sampling data is contained on Table 1. TABLE 1 QUARTERLY SAMPLING DATA SPTC BAKERSFIELD VES BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I· I I JULY 1991 OCTOBER 1991 FEBRUARY 1992 MAY 1992 SEPTEMBER 1992 JANUARY 1993 WELL # Total Total Total Total Total Total BTXE TPH BTXE TPH BTXE TPH BTXE TPH BTXE TPH BTXE TPH (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) w-ID-A 6,000 31,000 1,662 8,200 4,395 4,300 1,228 1,800 490 2,000 275 380 w-ID-B 4,660 18,000 186 590 103 I 310 200 440 199 1,100 666 790 w-ID-C 1,285 3,100 114 230 13 54 42 62 49 350 43 96 w-ID-2 1,552 5,000 1,004 3,300 83 270 44 84 47 190 0.5 3 w-IS-1 211 1,700 270 720 154 580 204 330 203 1,100 38 88 w-IS-2 5,700 14,000 423 1,600 379 1,100 288 450 175 900 452 550 3.0 HIGHLIGHTED EVENTS This section of the Remedial Summary Report provides a synopsis of unusual or out of the ordinary events which occurred during the course of the remedial program. During the initial months of the remedial program, suspected vapor phase lead resulted in the poisoning of the YES CATOX unit's catalyst. As a result, a significant decrease in the CA TOX unit's destruction efficiency occurred in early July 1991. The YES catalyst was replaced and, upon replacement of the catalyst, 6 e e the system operated unaffected for the duration of the remedial program. On October 30, 1991, on-site stockpilèd soil cuttings from the installation of the VES vapor extraction wells were dispersed immediately around the VES enclosure. Additionally, six drums containing soil cuttings from the follow up vapor extraction well installations were also dispersed. These soils were surface applied for aeration in conjunction with the Kern County Environmental Health Department's protocols. In November 1991, the regenerative blower was rewired from 220 volts to 460 volts. This increased voltage capacity was needed to accommodate the decreases in the influent concentrations and the increased extraction vacuum. In conjunction with this blower modification, the heat transfer helixes were reinstalled within the exhaust chamber of the CA TOX unit. The addition of the heat transfer helixes provide greater heat recovery within the CA TOX unit as the influent hydrocarbon concentrations decreased. Efficient heat recovery within the CATOX unit inlet facilitated by the reinstallation of the helixes reduced the operational time of the electric heater and subsequently the units energy demand. On November 8, 1992, the VES had an automatic shutdown due to a blower malfunction. The regenerative blower impellers were destroyed due to the intrusion of soil particles into the blower's impeller chamber. The regenerative blower was replaced on November 24, 1992. 7 - - 4.0 CONFIRMATION SOIL SAMPLING/SITE CLOSURE As was discussed in the March 5, 1991 report entitled, "Vapor Extraction Pilot Study Assessment and Full Scale Conceptual Design Reporf" the initial, total volatile hydrocarbon plume was calculated to be 14,900 pounds. In the December 1992 VES monthly report, it was mentioned that the residual compound presence in the project area appeared to be less than the 100 mg/kg TPH remedial goal based on the overall percentile reduction in the soil vapors. To confirm this, an exploratory borehole was installed to collect confirmation soil samples. On February 18, 1993, a single borehole was installed in the vicinity of the former underground storage tank location for the collection of confirmation soil samples (Figure 2). Four soil samples, at depths of 30 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet and 70 feet, were collected and sent to an analytical laboratory for TPH-G and BJX&E analysis. The analytical results showed an overall average TPH concentration of less than 100 mg/kg with reductions in the compound concentrations of 95.27% and 99.51 % for TPH-G and BTX&E respectively when compared to the soil sample results obtained on May 17, 1987. The analytical results were forwarded to the Kem County Environmental Health Services Department (KCEHSD) on April 27, 1993, for site closure approval. On May 13, 1993, notice from the KCEHSD was received that the soil boring sample analytical results confirmed the remediation of the site and site closure certification would be issued pending proper vapor extraction well abandonment. 8 e e On June 23, 1993, the vapor extraction wells were cut below grade and grout-sealed along with the soil vapor probes. TheVES mechanical components were disassembled and removed from the site. On November 9, 1993, two carbon drums containing vapor phase carbon remaining onsite from the pilot study conducted during December 1990 were removed from the site. The two drums were removed from the site with proper hazardous waste shipping documentation (Appendix A). On January 27, 1994, TreaTek received the Remedial Action Completion Certification from KCEHSD confirming the completion of the remedial action at the SPTC's Bakersfield Railyard (Appendix A). 9 - e ........-......---...----...---.---- ............._-------_...__....._~_._._. .......................................... "" ...................-....-........ ....................................... .-........-.................... ......... ................... ..................... ............-................-............................................. ............................................. ................................. . ......-.................... .................................... ............................- ...................................................................... .......... ..-....................................................... .............................-.- .......................................................... .......... ..-..... ............................................. ......-........................................ ............ ................................................-. C o N C I N T A T I o N a ........................-..... ..... ..... ............................................. ......-...........................-........ .. .. ......................................................- .-......... ..............................................- .............................. .. ....... ... ....-........................................................................................ .....................-......-_.....-..... '0 JUL AUO alP OCT NOV DEC JAN Fla WAR APR WAY JUN JUL AUO aEP OCT NOY DEC JAN I II I II I ,13 DATI I +TP"-O Ðnxu , o JUL AUO aEP OCT NOY DIC JAN fEa WAR APR WAY JUN JUL AUO alP OCT NOY DIC JAN I II 1 II Inl FIGURE 5 VWD-B COMPOUND REDUCTION VS OPERATIONAL TIME VWD-B COMPOUND REDUCTION .............................................................- ......................................- .............................._..... ......... ......................................................- '0000 ........................................................................................--......................... .. ................-.............. ........................................... ..........-.........-...-.. '000 .---......................................................................-..-.............. P P II Y '00 VWD-B OPERATIONAL TIME '00 11 o N L I N E .. 10 21 - e VWD-C COMPOUND REDUCTION ...............-...............--....--........--.-....-.---. n. . ......... ......................... m. ............... ................... ..........._....._.......__..__........_....._.__..._ C o II C E II T A T I o II 8 ........................................... .... ....... ......-........................ ........-"."...........".............-..-...---..--- ... .. . .--. .-..................... ......... ......... ..........-...............................--....-.----.. ... .... . ...... ....__.... ................. m ............................. .............. ..···...·..···..__n......___..... ........._.._..__._.___ ....--.....--....-......... ..-....-.-....".-..--. ............................_- .......-----.....- ...·n........._....................__. .... ..................................................................... ..................... ..............................-.. .........-..--........-.........-.. .-.. ... .................... ....... ............---.-....- .-.... ....... ..............................-... ... .................................................... ..-.....-.................................. .. ................-....-..- ........... .......-........... . ......- ....... .........................................................-..-................... . ........................................................... ......................-....... ...-.................. ..........-.....--...... .'-.-.-. ............................ ................-............---..................._- ................................................ . ........................................- . ........................................... ................................- P P W V 100 ....---... ........................................ 10 JUL AUG 8EP OCT IIOV DEC JAil FE8 WAR APR WAY JUII JUL AUG 81P OCT IIOV DEC JAil I 11 I II lela DATE I +TPH-G Bn.1I ~ VWD-C OPERATIONAL TIME 100 71 o II L ~ 10 E to 21 o JUL AUG 8EP OCT IIOV DEC JAil FE8 WAR APR WAY JUII JUL AUG 8EP OCT IIOV DIC JAil I 11 I II Inl FIGURE 6 VWD-C COMPOUND REDUCTION VS OPERATIONAL TIME e e VWD-2 COMPOUND REDUCTION ............._....~._._...__...... ..... .....................--. .........-....--............-... ..........................................--- ....................-.--.-..--..........-..-....-----...... ................... ............................--........ ..............---.....-.......... .................................................................. ..--.........--...............---- C o N C I N T A T I o N 8 10000 ................................................- ................-................ .....................-.--............................ ....... ....... .... on.......... ............................. ......._..... ....................................................... ...... .................._.._..... ........._................_......._......__. ..........................................................--....................... .................-..---.-.. .......-...-........-.........................--....-.....-....-..----. ..... . . .... ...........,............ ....... ................_............... ..N...................._............. ..............._........................_.._ .........................._....._..._._.... .............. ..... ...................- ................................-.......-....................-.................-...... .................---..----.-...-.-.- ...........................-...... ...... ........ ...-....-- .......... ........... ......................... ......................--....-..-.......-.-...--. ....... ............. ..... ................................... ..-................................................................._............. ...............-...............................-.--.....----...-....... . .. ........... ... ..... ........ ...................__._,...._ .........m................. ..............._....._......._...... ... ....._.... .............. ....---.-..-........-....---... 1000 ..................................... ...................................--...-...................... ........................................ .......................-..--..........-............... .............................................-.-.....-....---.... .... -......--...... ........... .............-....-.--.-..-..-.........-..... .....-..... .....................................-......-.. .......................................................... ...........................-.........-..--........ ......................-............-....--..... ................................. ................................-....... . ...........-..............._..........._-. 100 ........--...-... P P M Y .. . .. .--................ ............-.-.....-....-. 10 I JUL AUG 81P OCT NOV DIC JAN FIB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 81P OCT NOY DIC JAN I 81 I II I 8i1 DATI I +TPH-G e.TXIE ~ VWD-2 OPERATIONAL TIME 100 71 o N L I N I .. 80 u o JUL AUG 81P OCT NOY DIC JAN fl. MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AU. 81P OCT NOV DIC JAN I 81 I II I II I FIGURE 7 VWD-2 COMPOUND REDUCTION VS OPERATIONAL TIME e e VWS-1 COMPOUND REDUCTION ·...____.__.h...................... m......................._............ ...........____.....__...._.___..__.______.__.__.__ ..................................... .................................... ......-.-.---.....-----....--...-..-..-.----...-----.--. C o M C I M T A T I o M a .............--............. ..............-.....-.......... ........-.....................-.....-.--........-.-... ..............-...--.....-.-.-.-.--.. nom ......._..........___........._______.... .................. ............................................. ...............-....---.---...---- ............-.....-....-......-. ......-------.-- .....................--.-......--... .............................................. .................-...............--....--.-- ...-................................... ............-.--.--.......... ...~.......... .................-.....-....- ............................-....-.--....-..........-.......- ...........................,.-..............................- ....... ...... ............ ............................... ............................................- ......-.....-.--.....-.......-....-..-...... . ........ ...... ........... .........................- ............ .... ...................... ............. ......~ .........-.-.--.-..--.......- . .... .... ......... .......................... ........................................- ........ ........-..........--.-..-......-.......- .............-........-............- .. ....................................... P P W V .. .. ............ ..............~ .........,...... ........ .......... .............. ......................... ........... .........._...._..._~..._.._. ....~... 100 .................................................................... ..........................--..-..... .....................................................-........,........................................................-...-.... .................................................................................................................--.- ....--.----...........................................................................................................- ,.. -.. ............................................... 10 JUL AUG alP OCT MOV OEC JAM FE I WAR APR WAY JUN JUL AUG alP OCT NOV DIC JAM I ., I II 1 III DATI I +TPH-8 -a-nxu I VWS-1 OPERATIONAL TIME 100 71 o M L ~ 10 I .. ae o JUL AUCI a.p OCT MOV DIC JAM Fl. WAR APR WAY JUN JUL AUG '.P OCT NOW 010 JAil I II I II 1181 FIGURE 8 VWS-1 COMPOUND REDUCTION VS OPERATIONAL TIME ¡. . e e VWS-2 COMPOUND REDUCTION .........-.-.-..........- ................_........_...~_.._..- ....---.-.....-........-...........-.-......-- ....-..--.--....-- .....................-......-.-..... .........-....-.-...-.............-... ........----.--..-....----.---. 10000 ...........-.-...-..........-.-..--...-........-- ................................................................... .............~.................... ............................... ..-.... .................... ...................... ............... .................. ....~..... .............~........_...- .......-...................................-..-......-.. ..-................-. .............. ........................................-...-............. ........... ....................................-... .......- ........................................................... ..................................-...................................... .............................-.- ...................-.......... C o M C I M T A T I o M a .. ..............................-........ 1000 ................... ..............-....................................................-..--.......--...-..... .........................................-......-..-........-..-.-.-.-..........-..... . .................................. ..... ........-....................-....-.-.--............-. .......--................-...-... ..... ....................................................................................................................--.......-..... .....--......-....................--... P P II Y .......................................................................................- ...........................-..... 100 10 JUL AUG alP OCT MOY OIC JAM PII IIAII APII IIAY JUM JUL AUG alP OCT MOY OIC JAM I .1 I .. I .. DATI I +TPH-G ean..' VWS-2 OPERATIONAL TIME 100 70 o M L ~ 10 E .. 21 o JUL AUG alP OCT MOY OEC JAM Pia IIAII API! 11M JUM JUL AUG .IP OCT MOY DIC JAM I .1 I .. I II I FIGURE 9 VWS-2 COMPOUND REDUCTION VS OPERATIONAL TIME e e __,,,,': ~ - " "."": 'ø~ . ..... ,-...., I - APPENDIX A SPENT ACTIVATED CARBON DRUM DISPOSAL MANIFEST KCEHSD REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETION CERTIFICATION I - . .. ........-._ --.. I'llVa .~ [: 11. US DOT Description (InclUding Pruper St.1pping Name. Hazard Class, and ID Number) TCIIdQ,Ø -q¡ IIW'- COIIIraI DIvI8Ic :""->"'-' eeœ.IfTnID. CaIIfomi g D .... ~ 10 II) ~ ~ ~ 4( 0 ( ---i 06 :)~ t ( ~ ,. ~ G . - -~ e -,i N - e r; ; R ~ A 10 T ... 0 N R ., , ) ) a:: ~ . j w () z ., j ! - ~ ~ i ¡¡¿ w X d ~- ... 0 > a:: w ~ T R A N '11- S 0 P III 0 R T e æ F A C , L I T y Âlln. f¡l.Rf} #t$~lfí'r~(,.I.s IVIJ.Jf{.J .so b. c. d. ¿ --;:-;--¡;t~~?"iÆ!t~;;H~:F~?Øt~¥¡:lY;' .,." ,.,--... . GRG¡.,) S~ ~ 1()()I.ì~'-~JfÞ7 í§) :, GENERATOR'S CERTlFICA nON: I hereby declare that the contents of thla consignment are fully }nd accurately deacribed above by p~ shipping name and are classified. packed, marked. and labeled. and are in all respects in proper condition for traneport by highway according to applicable Internationai and national government regulations. , If 1 am a large quantity generator, I certify that I have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated to the degree I have detemlned to be economlcaØy prsctlcable snd thet I haye selected the practlcsble method of treatment, storage. or dlapoaa currently available to me which minimizes the present and future threat to human health and the environment; OR, If I am a amall quantity generator. I hava made e good faith effort to minimize my _ste generation and select the best waste management method that is ayailable to me and that I can ord. ' Monti! Day Year .,...- Month Day Year Month Day Year t9. Discrepancy Indication Space 20. Facility Owner or Operator Certification of receipt of hazardous materiala covered ~y thla manifest except as noted in Item 19. Printed, Typed Name i ,:- F.-, , '7. t oj;; ! '/';; Month Day Ve.r 1:'11"8 8022 A ~." 8700-22 ¡IV. 6-89) Previous editions are obsolete. Do Not . - - - ENVI RO'N MifJT AL. HEALTH SERVIj=S" D'EPÄRTNI1'ENT I ' I STEVE McCALLEY. R.E.H.S. DIRECTOR ~l~~<~:'('t~;;;~",,- ~¡Y"'r:'~)\'~/\ ,'v,." ~7 ': Ri \ :. "9J' ....-, , \: _ \:. ~, · :/.... t~'·~--;.~:~!: ~ 1\~:J.'~,~!Xf.\ ::.:/:2 '.'-\ ..-"I .\ .~ ,,__."'\ ". /...,. \~~I/;~.~~;:-/.~~,- ~;;;\'~:~\,-,<~<~,.\\111 ~~l-¡ 2700 -M- StrMt. Suite 300 Bekerafl8ld. CA 93301 (80&U81-3838', (805)881-3428 FAX January 18, 1994 REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETION CERTIFICATION Greg Shepherd Southern Pacific Lines Environmental Affairs Group One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 SUBJEcr: Location: Known As: Site No.: Kentucky and Haley Street, Bakersfield, CA Bakersfield Avenue Shop 120010 " Dear Mr. Shepherd: This letter confirms the completion of site investigation and remedial action for the underground storage tank( s) at the above site. Thank you for your cooperation throughout this investigation. With the provision that the information provided to this agency was accurate and representative of site conditions, no further action related to the underground tank release is required based on the available information as set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, Article 11, Section 2721( e) (Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Regulations). If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dolores Gough at (805) 861-3636. .' Sincerely, ~W Steve McCalley, Director Environmental Health Services SMc:ch cc: Treatek - CRA Company gough\120010.a 1reaJ.e~ln~ e e HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION REMEDIATION SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY SITE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: TreaTek, Inc. 2701 E. Hammer Lane, suite 103 stockton, California 95210 Environmental Service Subsidiary of OxyChem 2701 East Hammer Lane, Suite 103, Stockton, Caliíorn,å 95~: 10· Phone: 209/472-2020· Fax: 209/472-2027 e A /;~-:.;:i:;00~:207:?;~~¿f .. ., .~ V J' ./ rV(":_.~'\, í.l::) --:-, ';~ NO'I199O ~0. \ \;0 fIiiih¡ !~; \~~~} ~,~--:/ "'..... .,;;..')! ',<~~-~~-: ___i L t 0 V~~~~ ~ November 20, 1990 -- T.reaJ.e~ Inc. ".. , ~r w . _" :. < ~:' w Ms. Dolores Gough Department of Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Program 2700 "M" street, Suite 300 Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Ms. Gough, Per your request, please find enclosed a copy of the site Health and Safety Plan for the vapor extraction remediation of the former underground storage tank area at the Southern Pacific Transportation Company's Bakersfield, California site. TreaTek, Inc.'s schedule is to initiate the site activities on November 27, 1990. The onsite activities should last no longer than seven days. Should you have any questions regarding the site Health and Safety Plan, please feel free to call me at TreaTek's Stockton office. Sincerely, TreaTek, Inc. Ú /~-~/ Erik A. riedrich, REA, REP Project Manager EAF:kc Enclosure Environmental Service Subsïdiary I)t OxyChem 2701 Easi Hammer Lane, SUlie 103, ~3tocKt0í1. Cê!!ltorni;-:¡ ;1:52104 ¡.";hone: 209/472-2020· Fax: 209/472-2027 - e HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN,;', SOZL VAPOR EXTRACTZON REMEDZATZON SOUTHERN PACZFZC TRANSPORTATZON COMPANY SZTB BAKERSFZELD, CALZFORNZA section 1.0 Overview TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . 1 . . . . · . 1 2.0 Emergency Telephone Numbers. . . . . .2-3 3.0 Health and Safety Plan Administration. 3.1 purpose and Objectives. ...... 3.2 Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . · 2 2-3 4.0 site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . 3 4.1 Known site contamination. . . . .. .. 3 4.2 Hazardous Substance Migration Pathways. . . 3 5.0 Hazardous Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 Chemical Exposure. . Fire and Explosion . Oxygen Deficiency. . . . . . 5 · 5 · . 5 · . . . . . . . · . . . . . . · . . . 6.0 Health and Safety Training. . . . . . . . . 4-6 6.1 General Training Requirements. . .. .. 4 6.2 site Health & Safety Information & Procedures 4-6 7.0 Personnel Protective Equipment. . . . · . . . · . 6-7 7.1 7.2 7.3 General. . . . . . . Level D operations . Level C Operations . · 6 · . 7 . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . · 7 8.0 Medical Monitoring Program. . · 7-8 9.0 Air Monitoring and Sampling. . 9.1 9.2 9.3 . . . . . . . . . . . Equipment . . . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . Corrective Action. . . . . . · 7 · 8 · 8 . . . . . · . . . . . . · . . . . . . - e 10.0 site Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 site security . . . . . . site Work Zones . . . . . . Decontamination Procedures. . . Emergency Evacuation Procedures . . . . . 8 . . . . 8 . . . 9-10 . 10 . . . . . . 11.0 site Health and Safety Plan Approval/Sign Off Format. 11 Appendix A - Area Emergency Medical Center Location Map e e HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION REMEDIATION SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY SITE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA TreaTek management is committed to ensuring that an effective site safety and health/injury prevention program is implemented and maintained during the coarse of this project. 1.0 OVERVIEW TreaTek has established this Health & Safety Plan (HASP) for all employees engaged in field activities at the Bakersfield yard. Prior to performing any work on-site, a copy of the HASP shall be reviewed and signed by all employees and subcontractors. All site work shall be conducted in a safe manner and comply with OSHA, Cal OSHA, and local requirements. Employees, supervisors, and subcontractor personnel shall be observant of safety and health hazards and immediately evaluate safety and health hazards and apply the controls necessary to mitigate their risks. The site Safety Officer or his designated appointee shall be notified immediately of deficiencies that need additional attention. 2.0 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS Emergency telephone numbers shall be posted on site and made immediately available at all times. These numbers shall include the following: Emerqencv Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ambulance. . .. ....... Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kernview Medical Center. . . . . . Non-Emerqencv TreaTek, Inc. Stockton. . . . . . . . Grand Island . . . . . . Bakersfield station; Mr. Frances Liest. SPRR Environmental Department . . . . . SPRR Haz. Incident Response. . . . . . 1 911 911 911 (805) 327-7621 (209) 472-2020 (716) 773-8660 (805) 321-4660 (415) 541-2545 (415) 541-1964 e e 3.0, HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ADMINISTRATION 3.1 Purpose and Ob;ectives The purpose of this site-specific HASP is to provide guidelines and procedures to ensure the health and physical safety of those persons working at the Bakersfield yard. While it is impossible to eliminate all risks associated with site work, the goal is to provide precautionary and responsive measures for the protection of on-si te personnel and the environment. 3.2 Responsibilities Site SafelY Officer (SSO): Erik A.Friedrich TheSSO is responsible for directing and implementing the HASP and ensuring that all TreaTek and subcontractor personnel have been trained in HASP procedures. The SSO will assure that: 1) Proper protective equipment is available and used in the correct manner. 2) Decontamination activities, carried out correctly. as required, are 3) specific site hazards are noted and accounted for in the Work Plan. 4) Employees have knowledge of the local emergency medical system. 5) Identified hazards and corrective actions taken are noted on project data sheets or log book. 6) periodic surveys and sampling are accomplished. 7) Accident prevention measures are taken, such as weekly tool box site awareness meetings. 8) cal/OSHA 200 log and summary of occupational injuries and illness is completed as required. 2 _ e Pro;ect Manaaer: Erik Friedrich The Project Manager is responsible for: 1) Directing all on-site hazardous waste operations, including the overall implementation of the Health and safety program. 2) Selecting subcontractors corporations Heal th and experience guidelines. that Safety meet TreaTek training and 3) Ensuring that adequate resources and personnel protective equipment are allocated for the health and safety of site personnel. 4) Ensuring that the SSO is given free access to all relevant site information that could impact health and safety. 5) Correcting conditions or work practices that could lead to employee exposure to hazardous materials. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4.1 Known site contamination This project has been designed specifically for the treatment of gasoline contaminated soil from a recently removed underground storage tank. Gasoline is composed of various compounds. The specific compounds of concern are benzene, xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total volatile petroleum hydrocarbons. 4.2 Pathways for contaminant Dispersion This section assesses the pathways along which the gasoline compounds of concern could escape site boundaries during field operations in the solid, liquid, or vapor state. Both the solid and liquid states do not pose a significant health risk as the compounds of concern are extremely volatile. During the process of the vapor extraction well installation and during the collection of the lithological samples, an OVA will be used to monitor the volatile emissions . Additionally, prior to the commencement of daily, site activities, the area of concern will be lightly misted wi th potable water to control dust. site misting will be repeated as needed based on field observations. 3 e e All soil cuttings returned to the surface during the well installation shall be drummed for disposal at' a later"date. 5.0 HAZARD ASSESSMENT The hazard assessment is based on information concerning the petroleum hydrocarbons present at the Bakersfield yard. 5.1 Chemical Excosure site workers may be exposed to petroleum hydrocarbons during field activities. The major contaminant is gasoline which is known to exist at concentrations as high as 5,300 ppm in the soils. The routes for exposure include ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption and eye or skin contact. Personnel protection equipment at appropriate levels is required to eliminate personnel exposure. 5.2 Fire and Exclosion The risk of fire or explosion during site activities is low due to the medium-to-high, flash point of the petroleum hydrocarbon soil mixture at the concentrations detected. 5.3 Oxvqen Deficiencv The potential for exposure to oxygen-depleted atmosphere during the remedial activities is unlikely since no work will be conducted within a confined space. 6.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING This section describes the health and safety training requirements for participating in field operations at the Bakersfield yard. 6.1 General Traininq Requirements TreaTek employees and subcontractors who enter the site shall be able to recognize and evaluate the potential hazards to health and safety associated with the site operations and apply appropriate controls. 6.2 Bakersfield site Health and Safetv Information and Procedures TreaTek employees and subcontractors will familiarize themselves with the following information and procedures prior to starting work at the Bakersfield yard. 4 e e communication Procedures Grip partners wrist or both hands around waist . . . . Leave area immediately Hands on top of head . . . . . . Need assistance Thumbs up. . . . . . . . Ok, I am all right, I understand Thumbs down. . . . . . . . . . . No, negative Emerqencv Medical Care The local medical facility is: Kernview Medical Center 3737 San Dimas Street Bakersfield, California Directions: Take Kentucky Street west (left turn) to Stockton Street north (turn right) to Bernard Street west (turn left) to San Dimas Street north (turn right). See Appendix A map. First-aid equipment available on-site: Eye wash bottles, first aid kit and fire extinguisher. Emerqencv Medical Information for Substance Present: Gasoline ,is a complex liquid petroleum hydrocarbon-based mixture with a low order of acute toxiéity. Exposure Route General Effects First Aid Ingestion Stomach/Intestinal tract irritation Give milk or water to conscious victim. Seek medical assistance. Eye Contact Irritation Flush with water. Seek medical assistance. Skin Contact Irritation/Redness Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Inhalation Irritation of upper respiratory tract Move to fresh air. Seek medical assistance if symptoms persist. 5 e e Emeraencv Procedures The following standard emergency procedures will be used by on- site personnel. The site Safety Office (SSO) shall be notified of anyon-site emergencies and be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate procedures are followed. Personal injury at the remedial area: upon notification of an injury at the remedial area, the designated emergency signal of an automobile horn shall be sounded. All site personnel shall assemble for decontamination (as required) and situation briefing. The rescue team will remove the injured person out of the remedial area. The Site Safety Officer (SSO) shall evaluate the nature of the injury and the affected person shall be decontaminated (as required) to the extent possible prior to movement. On-site first aid will be provided until medical help is obtained. Contact will be made for ambulance and with the designated medical facility (if required). No persons shall re-enter the Work Zone until the cause of the injury or symptoms are determined. In all situations, when an on-site emergency results in evacuation of the remedial area, personnel shall not return on- site until: 1) The conditions resulting in the emergency have been corrected. 2) The hazards have been reassessed. 3) The site Health and Safety Plan has been reviewed. 4) Site personnel have been briefed on any changes in the site Safety Plan. 7.0 PERSONNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT This section details the level of personnel protection to be used during field operations at the Bakersfield yard. Appropriate levels of protection will be determined for specific areas of the site based on established information and air monitoring (see section 9). 7.1 General During all field operations involving drilling, equipment operations, etc. that present physical hazards, personnel shall wear hardhats, safely glasses, and steel-toe safety boots. 6 - e 7.2 Level D o~erations Level D operations will include equipment operators;: and all site personnel working in the area of, concern. LeveJ; D personnel will wear work overalls or appropriate clothing, safety shoes, glasses, hardhat, and gloves; as required. 7.3 Level C ODerations Level C protection shall be used in areas where the action level is reached and in any areas contaminated with high levels of benzene. Level C protective clothing will consist of general equipment plus full-face air purifying respirators with organic vapors cartridges and chemical resistant clothing. NIOSH approved cartridges will be used. As it is not anticipated that Level C operations will be required, any excedence of the benzene action level will require demobilization and remobilization upon obtaining required personnel protection equipment. 8.0 MEDICAL MONITORING PROGRAM A medical monitoring program has been instituted by TreaTek for all employees with potential exposure to hazardous substances. An initial medical examination i.s given upon initiation of employment, annually thereafter and upon termination. Medical examinations will verify that he/she is physically able to use protective equipment (including respirators), work in hot or cold environments and have no predispositions to occupationally- induced disease. 9.0 AIR MONITORING AND SAMPLING Air monitoring of specific volatile organics will be conducted during operations. During well construction and the pilot test activity, the area of concern will be monitored two times per day. Background samples will also be collected. The monitoring will be conducted at respirable height feet above the ground) utilizing an OVA (Reference: 9.1) . The data obtained will be used to determine average exposure exceeds applicable guidelines. ( 4 to 6 Section whether 9.1 EauiDment Monitoring of specific volatile organics will be conducted utilizing a Foxboro Century Model 108 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA-18) calibrated to measure total ionizable hydrocarbons in parts per million by volume (ppm - v/v) as benzene. 7 - e 9.2 Analysis The OVA used for perimeter and work area monitoring provides benzene concentrations instantaneously. 9.3 Corrective Action If the time weighted average (TWA) concentration of specific volatile organic compound exceeds the appropriate guidelines , then the site Safety Officer (550) shall review the results of the monitoring program to confirm the appropriateness of the monitoring, including the frequency and duration of such monitoring and the type of sampling devices used in light of the nature of the work activities occurring. In addition, the Safety Officer shall review such· results in evaluating the appropriateness of personal safety equipment and the protective clothing required by the Safety Plan. 10.0 SITE CONTROL 10.1 site Securitv No one will be allowed to enter the site Exclusion Zones (see below) unless they have been given permission to do so by the proj ect Manager and/ or 550, and otherwise follow applicable portions of this HASP. 10.2 site Work Zones Work zones will be established at the Bakersfield yard. Each one will be clearly delineated. The work zones will be as follows: Exclusion Zones The immediate remedial area shall be considered the exclusion zone. Only persons authorized by this HASP may enter the exclusion zone. contamination Reduction Zone (CRZ) This zone will be established to act as a transition zone for decontamination of equipment and personnel just outside the area of suspected contamination. Support Zone The area which is not contaminated. This area will be used to stage clean equipment and other support facilities. 8 e e 10.3 Decontamination Procedures . . ': '". ~1· " ..' In order to assure that contamination is controlledi'and not spread from the site, decontamination proceduresw w~11 be employed for both equipment and personnel. All decontamination activity will be monitored to assure compliance with the procedures described below. Personnel All personnel known to be or suspected will decontaminate fully before re-entry Decontamination will consist of the applicable: 1) Leave equipment at border of contamination reduction zone. of being contaminated into the support zone. following steps as 2) Wash and rinse outer booties and gloves (if worn) with cleaning solution and brush. 3) Remove outer gloves and booties (if worn) and deposit in marked container with plastic liner. 4) Remove protective suit (if worn) and discard into marked container with plastic liner. 5) Remove respirator (if worn) and deposit into container with plastic liner. 6) Wash hands and face. 7) Shower as soon after work shift as possible. EauiDment All equipment must be decontaminated before leaving the contamination reduction zone. The methods generally used are to wash them with high pressure water or steam clean and/or to scrub accessible parts with a detergent/water solution under pressure. Particular care must be given to equipment, scoops, and other components in possible direct contact with contaminants. Sampling instruments and other non-disposable equipment should be kept clean in disposable protective covers. 9 e e DisDosal of 'Waste. All unused samples will be returned to the site, and,dr,ummed. Disposable contaminated supplies will be securely drummed on- site for disposal according to applicable regulations. 10.4 Emeraencv Evacuation Procedures In the event of a site emergency, all workers at the site will be notified by the SSO to stop work immediately and offer assistance. Those not needed for immediate assistance will decontaminate per normal procedures and leave the site. 10 e e 11.0 SZ'l'B' HEAL'l'B ARD SAI'B'l'Y PLAN APPROVAL/SZ<Dr 01'1'- 1'0RD'll- "'.: -.t"I~:: , . ~' , ¡' '!-'" o· SITE NAME 5' P 7"t: ß/9-~£-,e.sh~Lð. t:'19: y~£, , ,....." o WORK LOCATION ADDRESS /Ý/9~¿}";' "e¿",vJ1,lCdi::.,y S~~"3 (Street'Address) gAlA! II!' ;L-.s ,¿ ~ ¿ ¿,LJ (City) e.ð1 (State) - (Zip) I have read, understood, and agreed with the information set forth in this Health and Safety Plan (and attachments). ~,,;k. ",¢. /~~¿)æ~c.þI site Safety Coordinator Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name .c-//~ Signature signature Signature signature Signature Signature Signature signature Signature ~ ¿~ þ:; I ,.Z"'..v£ Company Representing Company Representing Company Representing Company Representing Company Representing Company Representing Company Representing Company Representing Company Representing 11 // //.) /-.0 Da1:e ' Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date e e . , APPENDIX A EMERGENCY MEDICAL CENTER LOCATION MAP . Y1 ~.. D !¡,1ft :!IUJ' ,~1: \.:. .,,/" (Fl,' ;. I'.ë ':"" õP~ ~I .;)nélUUCK .Ave... ;'-- ,,.....o<·~ i,~~t' 8·;." h.~, ~~;:'"",~,,'~,, ,"~ O~ g .:~ c;; ¡':: :, ',f,E ~~,::~~ ,.2, ~~",',fJ!IT~,Iegr,i,:,",:';:a,P, h {'vue. . ME~ ",-' u.. . ' ..,....... f"'\" (,J-; ~ Acacia .-1. " ~. '51 :.Qjk ~P'i"'~~ . nlverSI1 - ,. ,,. v'· - - -- .. ".. (;)il£)" ~Denise ~ve"'.~ð .~\'Ci~ F\ores' .'~ .~ ~,I) D.tmd;CI.O" ".V . Duke ~' ~ ' ..' .... ~ 0 1&' l4J ,,~ .s:: .." .0 ., " :' ..:-~ -. ,'Q , '~ ~ ~~\(,.._.;' " _: ,~~ ,.: . . _.-::'~\J.~~ç,? r ~ ~ ~ 'P\-;r~~-. tnl;t'~1' 1I"'..'~.û), ;¡; c."~ ~~~::"/~~ SoqJ...:J ~~/ . ~~ ~ 1~W!.fI';"-~"'," i' ':'~..' ¿,~'" !Ii';" ··'~,<"lJ\lt.;;; ~ ~c \ ~~~ ,~'b4" r\ ;l'Z_,~ -~., U4.. ,: " -- Ii. ~.r.',' - ~' \ ~~ :~: <c> M nte "i~ta Dr C~~ o~~_' .' -. . fORcii: .;) ";P~;ntJr.¡'~ g ~ ~;~h~!r."~~L' ~ GARCES~]~~'~~~~' ~~4~e.'/.~ c;f :I 'Yale~t5 e t~'~ .~~ ~~ ;;--est Ln.'·'~ . . ' HI. SCH....I V Q ~o, . Ch .J... ~ 'ÍlJÌ V .!! -:: ." ëi c.; ,,~ .. ~ ?nt Dr, ,,*1 ce êtö ( " LAOUR Ë La Ii ,-:1 £: ~~ò:)kYhn, ,'Nob~ ~. Õ A: õ :J: ". , ·onWy.·~ DYOF ~ T-\ /Jo lár ~~<2 IL ~.. Di.:·~~ ~~ ~RPr=, ~ _C~O:..~~~ .~_ _C~::f\:J~!:::ASC'tf./!JN s'". 4...th St. "1,_ ..: (I) ~ CD:! 0 rJj · qW or L, CD . I.,; rawloru ~nl t ) JeffreYSt 2. [! ¿,~ , "E ~ c: ~ Wiater' St ~er·v. Street · ... W .Jekë;ëÿ M ;:, Q CD .... tV . ,: . ontrose 1'tT ~ > ~_ -"3 Jeffrey i Street"; · 3_th St. ... \ Thelm.~a r:J/~~()r -.J :?.:J1_ '<!Z ~ ~; ¡j en ~r ! ~ c: \Î5 ~ KERNvrÈ a Me~ . 0 Irene St. c:a2 .... 0 I; ..... ~... ;:2 HPS~AL" ~ ""oJ t _... ~ II en c: c: & 0 " · Loma~fj ~ ~ St. ~ g'...~ CD ~:ë t t, c: - I t-'fì .~'\. ~~ K _I" ...:: ~ -5 g ã:j 0 a2 1:ã I ~>c: .-.;' 'renec$~e~ :"'~j nO,tts St. Zz Zj 't! ~ .; ~ " Z a: "7 ~ ¡:r. NARD "'~ I Òl _ S,. . --... ... ~ 8l1. ¡~ ~ ~ aranJ,t~ ·Street!; Ü;!/i.LP. 1;9' Jeff~t'n ci-ra~~~ ,,~!J.~ ')- '...- Cunha I··e. ë· rz tA. cmt:oln~ ~ - r Sr i ,'; ", ~ p. ' · ~ c~e~- treet Õ g/o FII......, ë ftI:£ 'Sr. J ~~ -.' .~' ,:I' ' G earl S, ~~ ~ Q . c:. 9J - ..."..r Q)' 'ë; _ ~ QJ j J9. 111<';' " raCe' "IQI!§ ftI 'i7 Z t:c: :$ , -.~iC~ r, J St. 9 ' St. en" f ::» aultcv as ~ . ~ '- ~ ,-;:- effersot) _. Grace ==-t""( ~ ",' I'· Pdic 2:E ~ S ' , St. ~ ~ .J'St 1"Ø¡o"o.. ,8th Street , ,.On U) n t." ~.. L.i,-"¡" ... 1..; V) S, CQ _Hnmal<erPI..iNifes St go St ~~j ~ ~... f)ÇoI,. '. , ~ ~.J.Z~ Nile... St., ~ 9$ ~,,; ~ QCI't)~ ~ ~ ðI.o_,. ~ oS ~J ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ;;:f.~ ..~o iI . ~ -:: ..~ ~i ~ r;f ~ ~ . . ~ \ ~ . -$, .. - C' St.' ~ ~ , ... "~ ~'"2 _..... ~ ~. c: ... ~ ' R P OJ:F, fll'c5 ' ·s Pa!:if;c i .¡; Cake' , ti .!, OregOf) , - OJ! "~ tJ('" et)flJ 'JI ~ i j ,22nd I ~. J!lck. '~~ '~'"fI' ~ " .J í --.,- lot) I,,""---our ,~ ,~...... 1 ! 21st Street I ·r;}:.,.a. ~;-...~ ..., ~I , ~. .-#-,a..v.:l J. ,-.:1 r~ ~~I ~r. .p:~ t:/'J, &;1 .:... --=: ; '--~~"'!;.1 Street 'G ....1 f;;aft ~"11~;0JI ' r ¡~ ¡ .. ~ " ~ ,,:tI .....een-rotra--::.'Park "o"es 7st. ' .....--~ : .:! I r~ ¡ I Ean ~ St.. B i . ~ ~.: L I: ',Street c::>, East18th 0 :- E 19th E.' _~ Jr~,I.~--:'" ~ Q) I#i"'...~~ Sf ¡ _ EDERALg .ot=: 'c, .);. ~ . 'S, ¥,J, ~ .." S. I IlLoG. . treet ... ~ - 8r.· .' '-s SIT~ ~ ,yWdJœ. ø : BI'i~IUXTUN .' ~E.~A_;'J'¡=J..-... .. ''', .·16th !i5fû5I.>Jhad .JUJ t'-!'" 1Je/~ rï7iL~~6'(¡f¡ffì9., ¡ihA,VE:. 7!Jr1, 81. - 0180 , ' f ....... =?- Ln. vB Sfs Chico S .£o:çf~ ~Na ' Ii ~ ¡ . N co"rr: Clffe' ~ ~ ~ & I 101 Ë .E!!: ¡ ~ G!;m ) S, ~ .~~CIJ4 ~ 'St.S I ' ~ ~.~ Cötton Wv SI:I"'4 '.'~ ~ c'l!1v - ~ I dr _ ;::: -I. . . c . cr . ' Ou. , fJ 1i0t CD . ~c~ .S~, .~.-L G/ § I .= . ~ éñ : \I iñ EYII~ ~Dj: f4Dpg: ~,i! ~ ~IJ. :tÊ/ì ~J .¡ . FQRNI. .c! cñ g - .s -' - - E 111-- - 0 ; too . _-.~..~. ~1th StFg .~ lt1arP.8rAVe]ii' ,«'- dl ~ .] treet en: en. I....· CD CD = ' !!T... ED· -; I., n.Y ':1 . :!C. , ' CI) .. < .. en ~ ~ CD E . 1Ot1.;~ 'i- iC:.-~ .g.1uUI St. :, i AdelintS Cir.. I Larcus _ , ,.. c: tV.... - II, _ -t ".e.i rJ, a: .....!!' , . I " "t'rDD9' _ ~ ..... _ __·n:.. Co' .. ~"t.............. ~., '. - Height S ..;;;. " Q .~ ~ t: g ..... ~ St. ~ .~ St. ?a c e e T.reale~,n~ ) _ ~ ~/,' -I'::!"("_O:-'.J"',~,:.~',,, -:'~ .' 1- VAPOR EXTRACTION PILOT STUDY ASSESSMENT AND FULL SCALE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY BAKERSFIELD YARD BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Southern Pacific Transportation Company Environmental Department One Market Plaza San Francisco, California 94105 Prepared by: TreaTek, Inc. 2701 E. Hammer Lane, suite #103 Stockton, California 95210 March 5, 1991 Environmental Service Subsidiary fJ1 OxyChem 2701 Eas! Hammer Lane, Suite 103, Stockton. Caliiürn:," ~J:)c:\:; · ?hone: 209/472-2020· Fax: 209/472-2027 - - TABLE OJ' CONTENTS' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Background 3.0 preliminary Design 4.0 Vacuum Well and Soil Vapor Probe Installation 5.0 Field pilot Test Description 6.0 Field pilot Test Results 6.1 Vacuum Measurement Results 6.1.1 VWD-1 Tests 6.1.2 VWS-2 Test 6.1.3 VWS-1 Test 6.1.4 VWD-2 Test 6.2 Discharge Sampling Results 7.0 Transport Modelling 7.1 Modelling Approach 7.1.1 Air Flow Modelling 7.1.2 Chemical Transport Modelling 7.2 Air Flow Modelling 7.3 Chemical Transport Modelling Results' 8.0 Conclusions 9.0 Full 9.1 9.2 9.3 Scale SVES conceptual Design Criteria SVES configuration SVES Performance Design Alternatives 10.0 SVES Configuration Recommendations 10.1 SVES Discharge Monitoring APPENDIX A - Emission Rate Calculations e e VAPOR EXTRACTION PILOT STUDY ASSESSMENT AND ,FULL SCALE CONCEPTUAL DESIGB~REPORT' SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY BAKERSFIELD YARD BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1.0 Introduction The following report summarizes work performed at the Southern Pacific Transportation company's (SPTC) Bakersfield, California site by TreaTek Inc. (TreaTek). The work was conducted in accordance with TreaTek's proposal to SPTC dated July 6, 1990. The objective of this work was to design and install a soil vapor extraction system (SVES) in order to remove volatile organic compounds that exist in unsaturated zone soils at the referenced site. As proposed, the project is proceeding in two separate phases. The first phase (Phase I) consisted of initial well installation, short term pilot testing and SVES conceptual design. The second phase (Phase II) will consist of full scale system installation, startup and operation activities Included in this report is a summary of Phase I field activities, which includes vacuum well and vapor probe installation; the results derived from the short term field pilot testing; conclusions derived from physical and chemical transport modeling for the site and a conceptual design for a full-scale SVES. 2.0 Background The site is located at a Southern Pacific Transportation Company Facility at the corner of Kentucky and Haley Streets in Bakersfield, California. A site plan is provided in Figure 1. A site investigation report prepared by Groundwater Resource Industries in May, 1987, (GRI Report) indicated that subsurface soil samples were collected adjacent to an underground gasoline storage tank (UST) at the site in September, 1986. Laboratory analyses via EPA Method 5020/8020 (headspace extraction/gas chromatography) showed total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) concentrations ranging from 2056 ppm to 5303 ppm in soil samples collected directly beneath the UST (from 10 feet to 50 feet BGS). One exception was a sample collected at 30 feet BGS in a stiff soil layer which exhibited a concentration of 380 ppm TVH. These laboratory analyses results indicate that the samples contained /_¡ total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline in concentrations above -.t.þ_~_ action l~:v:el set by the Kern County Environmental Health Departmeiit-~-m- TheGRT Report delineated the gasoline presence in vadose zone soils beneath the UST in an area approximately 30 foot in radius and 60 foot deep. The UST was subsequently removed in 1 · VP-4 Â VP-2 Â FORMER UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATION LEGEND e Â VP-1 -+V'w'-D Â VP-3 Â -+ SOIL VAPOR PROBE V APOR EXTRACTION 'WELL e '," ;.-" ',t(" PRII..E:CT No. 90184 DAT!: 12/10/90 SCALE: 1 '=10' DRAWN BY E.A.F. D!£CICED BY nxnR£ No. 1 PO'w'ER POLE PO'w'ER POLE TI11.£ VAPOR PROBE AND EXTRACTION 'w'ELL LOCA TIONS ~CT SOUTHERN PACIrIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY BAKERSFIELD. CA. lreqT~ Inc. e e March, 1988, by Canonie Environmental Services, Inc. Approximately 200 cubic yards of soil containing petroleum hydrocarbon residues were removed from the tank excavation which extended to a maximum depth of 14 feet below ground surface (BGS). The background information provided to TreaTek indicated that subsurface soils within the area to be remediated (indicated in Figure 1) are primarily a relatively homogeneous alluvial deposit material consisting of sand (fine to coarse) with layers that contain small amounts of silt and clay. In 1985, depth to unconfined ground water at the site was reported to be 250 feet BGS. 3.0 preliminary Design Following a review of the historical data available for the site and the existing site conditions, TreaTek developed a preliminary full scale SVES design. The design included the installation and field pilot testing of four nested vapor extraction wells situated at the center of the remediation area. Additionally, in order to evaluate the air flow characteristics and air flow boundaries of the affected soil strata and to monitor the progress of the remediation, TreaTek installed a network of 16 soil vapor probes in and around the remediation area. The vacuum wells were installed in close proximity to the location of the former UST¡ which was also the area which had exhibited the highest VOC concentration levels as determined from the historical data. The site plan presented as Figure 1 shows the locations of vapor probes and vacuum wells. 4.0 Vacuum Well and Soil Vapor Probe Installation Nested soil vapor probes (VP-1 through VP-4) and nested vacuum wells (VW-S and VW-D) were installed at the site from November 27, 1990 to November 30, 1990. Vapor probe VP-1 contains five nested probes and VP-2 through VP-4 each contain three nested probes. Vacuum wells VW-S and VW-D each contain two nested wells. Vacuum well location VW-D also contains two nested probes (VWP-1 and VWP- 2). Physical installation parameters describing well screen set points, lengths and radial distances to test wells are presented in Table 1. A schematic depiction of well and probe installation depths is presented in Figure 2. Borings for the installation of the vacuum extraction wells and vapor probes were advanced using standard hollow stem auger drilling techniques. As the borings were advanced, standard split spoon sampling procedures were used to collect subsurface soil samples. Split spoon sampling depth intervals were five feet for VP-1 (from 5 feet to 50 feet) and for VW-D (from 50 feet to 70 feet) . 3 T.reaJ.e~ In~ - e TABLE 1 Vacuum Well and Soil Vapor Probe Installation Details Bakersfield, CA January, 1991 Vapor Probel Vacuum Well Effective Length Installation Depth (ft) (ft) Radial Distance to: VWS-1 VWS-2 VWD VWS-1 VWS-2 VWD-1 VWD-2 10 5 20 10 7.5 -17.5 19.0 - 24.0 32.0 - 52.0 55.0 - 65.0 - - - ~lftI?1III1~~11~lltt~111ælæg ¡~I~tIlt¡~[~~U~~*ll[~~l~~~~~~[Uml~~l~~tt i~~~~~~~lmlillii@1Jif~lm~~11~iU~~L~l~~llf.i*tll~~llfmUI!~mili¥m&_?:~:~~~~::::~¿:::::f.:~~ VP1-1 2 3.0 VP1-2 2 12.5 VP1-3 2 21.5 10.0 9.0 5.0 VP1-4 2 27.0 VP1-5 2 37.5 VP2-1 2 1~5 VP2-2 2 21.5 11.0 13.0 10.0 VP2-3 2 42.0 VP3-1 VP3-2 VP3-3 2 2 2 12.5 21.5 42.0 15.0 14.0 20.0 VP4-1 2 1~5 VP4-2 2 21.5 30.5 31.5 26.5 VP4-3 2 42.0 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::V:Wþ::;::r:m::::r::rr: :1:rr::::rr::r::r::::~I:::rII::::::r::::r::t :1:lmrrr::r:::~:~:~gmr:::::::l:1II):m::l::l:g::Bl:tr::::111:1::::I:g:ðmIlmmrmt::ð:~ð::¡dm1: VWP-2 2 21.5 152-T1-A - All distances in feet. - Effective length includes filter sand pack above and below probe or well. - Wells and probes installed November 27-30, 1990. DEPTH o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65, 70 75 V'JD ......... .......... ......... DEPTH VP-2 VP-3 VP-4 V'WS-2 V'JS-l VP-l ......... .......... ........ .. ...... .... ... ...... ...... .... ..... .... ........ .. ,.. ...... ...... .... ......... ...... .... ..-.... .. . . . . . . . . . . ....... .. ........ .. ......... ........ " ....... .. ........ .. ......... .... .... ,. o 5 10 15 ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... 20 25 ......... .......... 30 ......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... 35 ......... .......... ......... ...~.. .......... ::... ':. _5 :::::::::. .. " ......... 40 .......... .......... .. ~.. .:: ~. :: _3 ... .. .......... .......... .......... .......... 45 .......... ......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 50 KEY 0 FILTER SAND .... ¡QJ CEMENT .. ....... ~ .......... BENTONITE ......... .. ........ " ....... .... ...... .. ....... SOIL VAPOR PROBE/ ~ --- 'WELL SCREEN PROJECT No. mLE 90184 VACUUM \JELL AND VAPOR DA PROBE INSTALLATION 2/15/91 CROSS SECTION SCALE PRO.J£CT SOUTHERN PACIFIC N.T.S. !RAW IY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EAi=". BAKERSF"IELD CA. OIŒICEDBY l:reqT1:.l\ Inc. FlGLR£ No. 2 e e The samples were utilized for visual classification and to screen for VOC content using the jar headspace method. A Foxboro Model 128 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA-128), equipped with a flame ionization detector and calibrated to benzene, was used to screen the samples on site. The detection limit of the OVA-128 is 0.5 parts per million by volume (ppm-v/v) and when equipped with a special valve is capable of reading up to 10,000 ppm-v/v. Results of the soil jar headspace analysis ,are presented in Table 2. site lithology, determined by visual classification of split spoon samples by the project geologist, consists of distinct sediment layers of varying gradation and air permeability. The majority of soils consisted of fine to medium sands with 10% to 20% silt which are of relatively low permeability. Four distinct layers of highly permeable coarse sands, approximately 4 feet to 8 feet thick, were observed in the vicinities of 13' to 17' BGS, 25.5' to 30' BGS, 61' to 65' BGS and 66' to 72' BGS. Traces of clay (less than 10%) were observed in samples at 50' BGS and 65' BGS. The site lithological description, as collected during the vacuum well installation, is generally in agreement with that of Groundwater Resource Industries as presented in the GRI Report, with the exception of an additional sand lens which was observed by GRI at 35' to 40' BGS, but was not encountered during the pilot study. From an analysis of jar headspace results, it was determined that the areal extent of VOC presence within the vadose zone soils encompasses a 25 to 30 foot radius from the vacuum well cluster. The jar headspace data also demonstrates that the vertical extent of the VOC presence within the soils ranges from 20 feet to 65 feet BGS, with the highest VOC concentrations being located between 30 feet and 50 feet BGS (as reflected by headspace concentrations of 8,000 ppm-v/v or greater). Soils located between 30 feet and 50 feet BGS consist of fairly homogeneous layers of densely packed medium to fine sands with 10% to 20% silt. The data developed from the soils analysis confirmed the areal extent of the VOC presence determined from the initial site investigation (GRI Report). 5.0 Field Pilot Test Description On December 2 and 3, 1990, a series of short term pilot tests were performed to obtain the data necessary to design a full scale SVES to remediate site soils. Prior to initiating the pilot tests, five minute duration pump tests were performed at each well in order to evaluate the general vacuum and flow characteristics and to allow prioritization of the longer pilot tests. pilot tests were performed at each of the vacuum wells using a 20 cfm (maximum capacity), 1.5 hp rotary vane vacuum pump. The pump was manifolded to the wells using 1.5 and 2.0 inch Schedule 40 PVC fittings and pipe. A valve installed between the test wellhead and the blower intake provided a control 6 e e T.reqT.e~ Inc. TABLE 2 Soil Jar Headspace Sample Results Bakersfield, CA January, 1991 Depth Location: (ft) VP-1 VW-D VP-2 VP-3 VP-4 5.0 - 6.5 3 - - - - 10.Ò-11.5 6.5 - - - - 15.0-16.5 ND - 0.5 <0.5 0.8 20.0 - 21.5 82 - - - - 25.0 - 26.5 2,800 - 30.0 34.0 0.4 30.0 - 31.5 8,000 - - - - 35.0 - 36.5 >10,000 - - - - 40.0 - 41.5 >10,000 - - - - 45.0 - 46.5 >10,000 - 870 >10,000 75 50.0 - 51.5 >10,000 >10,000 - - - 55.0 - 56.5 - 1,100 - - - 60.0 - 61.5 - 4,000 - - - 65.0 - 65.5 - 680 - - - 66.0 - 66.5 - 200 - - - 70.0 - 71.5 - 100 - - - 152-T2-A - OVA 128 Calibrated to benzene. - Readings in parts-per-million by volume. - Readings made during well/probe installation November 27-30.1990. e - mechanism to vary the well air flow rate (and vacuum pressure) during each test. A minimum of two, 200 pound, vapor phase activated carbon canisters were plumbed to the pump discharge at all times to control hydrocarbon emissions. A schematic diagram depicting the pilot test system is presented in Figure 3. The duration of each test varied from approximately 232 to 80 minutes. The "primary" (calibration) tests are typically conducted a duration of 120 to 240 minutes and "secondary" (verification) tests are typically conducted for a duration of 60 to 120 minutes. During each test, two to four soil vapor discharge samples were collected periodically and analyzed for total hydrocarbon concentration using the OVA-128. Pump inlet and vacuum well operating pressures were monitored and recorded approximately two to three times during each test using a set of Magnehelic differential pressure gauges. Vacuum pressure at the vapor probes were monitored using the set of Magnehelic differential pressure gauges until readings remained constant; signifying the completion of that particular test. Air flow rates were measured periodically during each test using a direct reading ERDCO air flow meter. 6.0 Field pilot Test Results The screened interval of vacuum well VWD-1 is the longest of the four vacuum wells installed at the site and, therefore, lower operating vacuums and higher achievable flows may be expected in this well. Field pilot test results for VWD-1 indicate, however, that it operates at the lowest unit flow rate per unit vacuum relationship (indicative of lower permeability of the soils in this screened interval). Additionally, the screened interval of VWD-1 extends through soils wi th the highest concentration of VOCs detected on site based on jar headspace screening results. The results suggest that VWD-1 may require a significantly longer period of time to remediate soils located at depths wi thin the screened interval of this well and, thereby, dictate full scale system design criteria. Two tests were performed at VWD-1 (Test-A, at a flow rate of 10 cfm and Test-B, at a flow rate of 19 cfm) in order to gather data for use in air flow and chemical transport modeling. Initial tests at VWD-2, VWS-1 and VWS-2 indicated relatively moderate to high permeability soils. Single flow rate tests were performed at these wells to gather discharge concentration data and to confirm adequate radial vacuum influence. The data derived from each pilot test are presented below. The data are presented in two sections; section one presents the vacuum pressure and air flow measurements and section two presents the results of the analysis of soil vapor samples collected from the SVES discharge. 8 ! I - I POST CARBON SAMPLING PORTS ACTIVATED CARBON CANNISTERS DISCHARGE SAMPLING PORT -, 20 CFM (MAX) ROTARY V ANE VACUUM PUMP ORIFICE FLOW' METER THROTTLE VALVE INLET V ACUUM 'JELL SAMPLING PORT e fIELD PILDT TEST TYPICAL SCHEMATIC TITLE SOUTHERN PACIf"lC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY BAKERSFIELD, CA: I'RDJIX:T lreqT~~Þ. VACUUM 'JELL AIR 1 F. Ÿ - GROUNDW'ATER e e 6.1 Vacuum Measurement Results The vacuum pressure and air flow measurements obtained during each test are presented in Table 3. Vacuum pressures are reported in inches of water and air flow measurements are presented in cubic feet per minute (cfm). 6.1.1 VWD-1 Tests The primary test at VWD-1 (Test-A) was conducted for a duration of approximately 232 minutes at a well air flow rate of 10 cfm. The vacuum pressure at the wellhead was 39 inches of water and vacuum was detected at a distance of up to 26.5 feet. Vacuum pressures at vapor probes ranged from 1.75 inches of water at VPl-5 at a distance of 5 feet from VWD-1 to 0.40 inches of water at VP4-3 at a distance of 26.5 feet from the well. The secondary test at VWD-1 (Test-B) was conducted for a duration of approximately 128 minutes at an air flow rate of 19 cfm and a wellhead vacuum of 87 inches of water. Vacuum pressures at the vapor probes ranged from 3.85 inches of water at VPl-5 at a distance of 5 feet from VWD-1 to 0.82 inches of water at VP4-3 at a distance of 26.5 feet from VWD-1. 6.1.2 VWS-2 Test The test at VWS-2 was conducted for a duration of approximately 120 minutes at a well air flow rate of 10 cfm. The vacuum pressure at the wellhead was 8.0 inches of water and vacuum was detected at a distance of up to 31.5 feet. Vacuum pressures at the vapor probes ranged from 0.40 inches of water at VPl-4 at a distance of 9 feet from VWS-2 to 0.05 inches of water at VP4-2 at a distance of 31.5 feet from the well. 6.1.3 VWS-1 Test The test at VWD-2 was conducted for a duration of approximately 80 minutes at a well air flow rate of 20 cfm. The vacuum pressure at the wellhead was 3.8 inches of water and vacuum was detected at a distance of up to 31.5 feet. Vacuum pressures at the vapor probes ranged from 0.58 inches of water at VWP-1 at a distance of 5 feet from VWS-1 to 0.11 inches of water at VP4-1 at a distance of 30.5 feet from the well. 6.1.4 VWD-2 Test The test at VWD-2 was conducted for a duration of approximately 80 minutes at a well air flow rate of 20 cfm and a well head vacuum pressure of 6.4 inches of water. Vacuum pressure was measured at VPl-5 at 0.03 inches of water and at VP3-3 at 0.04 inches of water. 10 e e T.reaJ.e~ Inc. TABLE 3 Field Pilot Test Vacuum and Flow Results Bakersfield, CA January, 1991 WelllTest: Flow (cfm): Duration (min): Date: VWD-1 (A) 10 232 1213/90 VWD-1 (8) 19 128 1213/90 VWS-2 10 120 1214/90 VWS-1 20 130 12/4/90 VWD-2 20 80 12/4/90 ::::::~:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::;~:::::;:::::::::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:: :;:::::::::;:;:::::::::;:::::;::=::::;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:; :::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::;::::::::~:::::;:;::::;:. ::;::~:::::::it:;>:".:;:;*:)$$.::~~ ~""""""""':"';"':'w'X:'~'::'; ···c..·······w·....··:·..~:·(w·r!(....··:·:··~···)(¡"," Vacuum Levels :~~;:t:~:;~:l~~::::~::~mm:;mm::::::~::::::::::m :m:::~~:::;m:t:~m::~:::::t:: ;::~::m:~:;:~:m~~~m:m~m ~t;?i~;;:;:;x;;:;>;W,,;>....w:l>;;··,· :'. : ". ·····:«->Mmk=i; ~:;:ik?ii;.;~;.i:<:i······· '. VP1-1 ND 0.03 VP1-2 0.095 0.38 VP1-3 0.08 0.16 0.13 0.35 VP1-4 0.325 0.72 0.40 0.06 VP1-5 1.75 3.85 0.25 ND 0.03 VP2-1 0.105 VP2-2 0.24 0.56 0.35 VP2-3 0.65 1.38 0.30 I::~Æt:m¡¡¡:::¡::¡¡:¡¡¡¡::I¡I~¡::¡:¡¡¡I~¡:¡:::¡:¡¡:¡¡¡¡¡~¡¡¡¡¡¡:I:*~¡· :¡:¡¡~¡:~¡¡¡:¡¡¡*¡m¡¡:~:¡*¡mt:: ¡¡¡::m¡¡¡::¡¡:¡mmmlMi¡ î1~'à~fËI ~~.gftlt1~ 11:... V~1 Q~ Q~ VP3-2 0.16 0.40 0.30 0.12 VP3-3 0.60 1.25 0.25 0.04 :I::¡:¡:~¡:¡m~¡¡~¡¡~:I¡:¡¡~:¡¡~::¡~::::::¡¡::¡:¡¡:::¡¡¡:¡:¡::::¡:::¡¡~¡¡~¡I::::::::::¡¡I~: ¡:I¡:¡:¡:::¡¡:¡m:¡:¡:~:II¡¡¡~:¡M¡¡:~~~:¡: ::I¡¡¡:¡:~:¡:¡¡¡¡:¡¡:¡M¡¡¡m¡~:I:¡¡¡ Ñ¡I~:I¡¡¡â~¡llil·l~i~!tlít1I.tlí· fl:~:]~~illi¡i VP4-1 VP4-2 VP4-3 0.11 0.005 0.40 0.125 0.82 0.05 ND ::¡¡:::¡¡¡::::¡¡:::¡¡¡::::¡¡¡::¡:::¡¡:¡¡:I::¡¡:¡~~~::¡:~ ::¡¡¡¡::¡¡¡:¡¡¡:¡¡::::¡:¡::::::¡¡¡¡¡:I:::::::¡:¡:¡¡:¡¡¡:: ~¡¡¡:::::¡::¡¡:~¡:¡¡:¡¡::~:II¡lli¡:¡:j:~:j:1 :¡~~jilIf]:j~¡¡~1j:im~¡¡~I ~~1¡:i¡I¡~rll~m~l1¡ 0.045 0.11 0.155 0.25 0.72 0.575 :::¡::::::::¡::¡::::::::::III]¡:::¡¡:¡¡::::::¡: ::III:::¡::¡¡¡::::I:¡::I¡:m¡::¡¡:::¡:::~ ¡:::¡¡:I:I::¡:::::¡¡:¡:::¡::;;¡¡::¡¡:¡:::::::::::: ~¡¡1I¡lli¡:ili¡r~liilir~:¡I¡¡:iI¡, i¡¡¡¡~Jlli¡ili¡¡I¡m¡¡]:¡l 39.0 87.0 8.0 3.8 6.4 152-T3-A - Vacuum readings in inches of water, measured using magnehelic gages. - Flowrate measured using in-line orfice flow meter. - Readings represent actual or near steady state conditions. e e Vapor probe VPl-5 is five feet from VWD-2 and is set 17.5 feet above the top of the well screen. Vapor probe VP3-3 is 20 feet from VWD-2 and is set 10 feet above the well screen. These vacuum readings indicate vacuum influence at a radius of at least 20 feet, but are not indicative of the vacuum levels at the center line depth of VWD-2. 6.2 Discharae SamDlina Results I ' soil vapor samples were collected from the SVES discharge in Tedlar bags and analyzed with the OVA-128. Results are presented as total hydrocarbon concentrations in parts-per-million by volume (ppm-v Iv) as benzene in Table 4. The OVA-128 results have been corrected to represent actual wellhead concentrations. Table 5 presents the results of post-carbon sampling for total hydrocarbon discharge. Ambient air was added to all the samples via a small diaphragm pump in order to prevent flame-out of the OVA-128 (caused by a lack of oxygen in the undiluted soil gas sample). The measured Tedlar bag sample concentration was multiplied by a dilution factor equal to the total Tedlar bag volume divided by the volume soil gas added to the bag. Typical dilution factor values were two and three. For samples having total hydrocarbon concentrations greater than 10,000 ppm-v/v, the sample required dilution to within the operating range of the OVA-128. This was accomplished by opening an air inlet valve (located on the pump inlet manifold) prior to sampling. The actual wellhead concentration was determined by multiplying the Tedlar bag concentration by a dilution factor which was equal to the total system flow rate divided by vacuum well air flow rate. Samples containing the highest VOC concentration were collected during testing VWD-1 and VWS-2. SVES discharge sample analyses conducted at the start and finish of the tests at VWD-1 resulted in consistent total hydrocarbon concentrations of 22,000 ppm-v/v as benzene. A sample taken at the completion of the test showed total hydrocarbon concentration of 20,000 ppm-v/v as benzene. Relatively lower VOC concentration SVES discharge samples were collected during testing at VWD-2 and VWS-1. The results of SVES discharge sample analyses from VWD-2 showed total hydrocarbon concentrations of 13,000 ppm-v/v as benzene after an elapsed test time of 50 minutes and 10,400 ppm-v/v as benzene after 80 minutes. Analyses of samples collected during testing of VWS-1 showed total hydrocarbon concentration fluctuations between 2,000 ppm-v/v and 2,600 ppm-v/v as benzene. 12 I - e e T.reaJ.e~ Inc. TABLE 4 Results of Field Pilot Test Discharge Sample Analysis Bakersfield, CA January, 1991 Elapsed Test Time Vacuum Well (min) VWD-1* VWS-2 VWS-1 VWD-2 5 22,000 26,200 - - 40 - - 2,200 - 50 - - - 13,000 70 - - 2,600 - 80 - - - 10,400 110 - - 2,300 - 120 - 20,000 2,000 - 360 22,000 - - - DATE 12/3/90 12/4/90 12/4/90 12/4/90 152-T4-A · Initial reading taken at the beginning of the 10 cfm test, final reading taken at the end of the 19 cfm test. - OVA-128 used. readings in ppm-vlv. - Samples of over 10.000 ppm-v/v were diluted in a tedlar bag by a known volume of ambient air to allow quantification within the OV A-128 range and to prevent instrument flame out due to lack of oxygen in the sample. T.reqT.e~ Inc. t:~:: e e Ime (hr) 1130 1230 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700 Ime (hr) 900 930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 TABLE 5 Post Carbon Sampling Results NTC ... No Test Conducted NC .. No Canister Bakersfield, CA January, 1991 December 3, 1990 amster #1 NTC NTC NTC 6.0 2.8 3.6 4.2 >2,000 8200 >20,000 oncentratlons In #2 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.2 2.3 2.9 3.2 6.0 10.0 17.0 December 4, 1990 oncentratlons In #2 NC NC 2.0 2.4 3.0 4.8 38.0 5.6 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.6 152-TS-A e e - Results of the SVES discharge sample analyses indicate- that the highest total hydrocarbon concentrations" exist in. ,soils~rat,·depths between 19 feet and 52 feet; which corresponds to resu'l:ts" of" soil jar headspace sampling. The total hydrocarbon concentrations detected in the samples from VWD-1 and VWS-2 are indicative of the presence of slightly weathered gasoline residually saturated on the soils within these screened intervals. The total hydrocarbon concentrations detected in the soil vapor discharged from VWD-2 were indicative of soils which contain moderate amounts of gasoline range hydrocarbons. Total hydrocarbon concentrations encountered at VWS-1 are indicative of soils containing slight amounts of gasoline range hydrocarbons and/or migrating volatile hydrocarbon vapors originating from soils situated below the well's screened interval. 7.0 Transport Modelling 7.1 Modellinq Approach TreaTek utilizes air flow and chemical transport models to evaluate vadose zone soil/air flow parameters and to simulate vapor extraction system performance. Modelling allows TreaTek to determine overall system feasibility, to establish optimal vapor extraction system configurations and air flow rates and to estimate the time required to remediate the vadose zone soils to speqified closure criteria. 7.1.1 Air Flow Modellinq Physical characteristics of the site such as soil type(s), soil heterogeneity and anisotropy, surface cover, underground trenches, etc., dictate which air model is appropriate in the analysis and evaluation of a specific site. Typically, the physical characteristics of each vapor extraction well/vapor probe system, the vacuum pressure data and the air flow rates obtained during field pilot testing are used as input to determine the relative intrinsic air permeability tensor of the soil strata through which the air flow occurs. The intrinsic air permeability tensor is the matrix of soil air permeability values along specified axes (e.g., in the x, y, and z directions in a cartesian coordinate system). Depending on the model application, values for the relative horizontal intrinsic permeability (~) and the relative vertical intrinsic permeability (K,J of the soil strata and the equivalent vertical intrinsic permeability of confining lenses/boundaries (Ke) can be evaluated. Once the air permeability tensor is determined, the model is used in the simulation mode to obtain the pressure distribution associated with given vapor extraction system configurations. This allows a determination of the expected air flow paths, air flow rates and the achievable effective radius of vacuum influence of a vapor extraction system. 15 e -- ~ 7.1.2 Chemical TransDort Modelling A semi-empirical compound transport code was utilized to aid in the prediction of vapor extraction system performance with respect to achievable compound removal rates and the time required to achieve target clean-up levels. The model is based on equilibrium partitioning concepts in conjunction with empirical equations derived from the data collected during the conduct of the pilot test and from historical data bases. 7.2 Air Flow Mode11inQ Results Based on the boring log data and the vacuum pressure measurements at the vapor probes during the pilot test at VWD-1, TreaTek determined that the air flow pathways in the subsurface were predominantly in the radial direction in soils affected by this well. This configuration of the physical system warranted the use of both the analytical solution to the three dimensional and the one-dimensional, radially symmetric forms of the air flow equation, in the data analyses. The air flow and vacuum distribution data recorded from the pilot tests on VWD-1 were used as input to the air flow models. The data obtained from the primary test were used to "calibrate" the model and the data obtained from the secondary test were utilized to verify the model's predictability. The horizontal and vertical intrinsic air permeabi1ities (1<.-, l<z) for the vadose zone soil strata situated between approximately 30 feet and 55 feet (identified as a stiff fine sand with trace silt (5-10%)) were calculated to be approximately 4.24 X 10.9 cm2 and 7.8 X 10.9 cm2, respectively. Soils displaying intrinsic air permeability values in this range are considered to be of low permeability. Because field pilot test data confirmed an adequate radius of vacuum influence for VWD-1, the model was used primarily to simulate full scale SVES configurations and flow rates. Air flow rates of 30 cfm and 40 cfm were simulated, resulting in pressures of 140 inches of water (10.4 inches of mercury) and 205 inches of water (15 inches of mercury) , respectively. Figure 4 presents predicted flow vs. vacuum relationship at VWD-l. 7.3 Chemical TransDort Modellinq Results In general, remediation of a si te can be represented by an exponentially decaying plot of extraction system off-gas compound concentration versus time. The length of the asymptotic portion of this decay curve is the major element which dictates the length of time until site closure criteria are met. Another factor influencing the duration of SVE activities is the proximity of the vacuum we11(s} to the center of the compound plume. 16 &l - ·e TreqT~ Inc. - 400.Ø0 0 N I - - . .s 300. 00 - jiJ I "',~,~.... FIELD DATA / . W CCJI:J[J[J MODEL DATA / æ / :J - / (j) / (j) 200. 00- }J W / æ / 0.. " " L .....[3' :J ..... ,,- 0100000-// ,,- ..- ~ ' > 0.00 I I I I I I I 1,1 I TTTO I I I' 1'1 I I I I I I I I I I 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 S0.Ø0 60.00 VACUUM WELL FLOW RATE, cfm FIGURE 4. VACUUM - FLOW RELATIONSHIP AT VWD-1 - - .,.- The compound transport model was utilized to predict a curve of discharge concentration versus time for a number of SVES flow-rates at VWD-l. The vapor extraction discharge data from the pilot test at VWD-l was used along with an estimate of the total mass of compounds present within the influence of VWD-l as input to the model. other factors included the degree of gasoline weathering, compound distribution around the vacuum well and designated cleanup levels for the site. Modelling results indicate that at a flow rate of 20 cfm, a time frame of approximately 3 to 4 years may be required to reach closure criteria for soils affected by VWD-l. At a flow rate of 30 cfm, a time frame of approximately 2 to 3 years may be required. A second scenario was analyzed where two additional vacuum wells, constructed to the same specifications as VWD-1, are installed in near proximity to VWD and VWs. This would essentially increase the extraction flow rate from soils in the vicinity of VWD-l without significantly increasing operating vacuum pressures. A flow rate of approximately 50 cfm would be achievable from the three VWD-1 wells combined, allowing closure criteria to be met after approximately 1 to 2 years. It should be noted that the flow rate utilized through the course of computer modeling were conservative values which are approximately 20% below the expected optimal remedial flow rates. These' conservative values were utilized to provide a remedial schedule which takes into consideration all possible contingencies. 8.0 Conclusions A series of field pilot tests were conducted to evaluate design criteria for a full scale SVES to remediate vadose zone soils containing gasoline range hydrocarbons at the subject site. One vacuum well, namely VWD-1, is situated in low permeability soils containing a large portion of the total mass of VOC's at the site. For these reasons, VWD-1 was subjected to an extended two flow rate pilot test. The results of the pilot testing and subsequent air flow modelling indicate that the physical characteristics of soils (i.e., the permeabilities of the soil strata and air flow potential) in the vicinity of VWD-1 are within the range considered acceptable for the application of soil vapor extraction technology. Field pilot test data indicate an effective radius of vacuum influence of at least 26.5 feet for vapor extraction well VWD-l at an air flow rate of 10 cfm. Total hydrocarbon concentrations detected in the OVA-128 analyses of soil vapor discharge samples obtained during the pilot testing indicate that the vadose zone soils in the vicinity of VWD-1 and VWS-2 are residually saturated with or are in close proximity to gasoline product. Total hydrocarbon concentrations in the OVA-128 18 I --" - e I , I I __._ analyses of soil vapor discharge samples obtained while testing VWD-2 are indicati ve of moderate gasoline - presence,.", ' Total hydrocarbon concentrations in the OVA-128 analyses of'" soll vapor discharge samples obtained while testing VWS-1 are indicative, of the partitioning and transport of gasoline range hydrocarbon vapor from the compound laden soil strata that lie below VWS-1., The levels of gasoline hydrocarbons detected in the discharge from pilot testing indicate the requirement for an off-gas treatment system in the full scale SVES design. If only VWD-1 is utilized to remediate vadose zone soils extending from 30 feet to 50 feet below grade, a full scale SVES operation time of 2 to 3 years will be required to remediate site soils to the closure criteria of 100 mg/Kg TVH. Installation of two additional wells similar to VWD-1 will allow higher extraction flow rates from these soils; which would reduce the cleanup time frame to 1 to 2 years. 9.0 Full Scale SVES conceptual Design Alternatives Two separate full scale system configurations are described in this section. A high vacuum/low flow configuration would employ the four existing vacuum extraction wells and require full scale system operation over a 2 to 3 year period. A low vacuum/high flow configuration would operate over a 1 to 2 year period, but will require installation of two additional vacuum wells. 9.1 Desian criteria The estimated volume of soil to be remediated, assuming that the majority of the compound presence exists in a conical shaped plume extending from the surface to a depth of 55 feet having a radius of 28 feet at the base, is approximately 45,000 cubic feet (1667 cubic yards). Assuming an average concentration of 3,000 mg/Kg total volatile hydrocarbons (TVH) in the soils (based on the GRI report, May, 1987), the total quantity of TVH in,.th~~,alume is estimated to be approximately 14,900 pounds (2,300 ga<l<'l'òñSiY. A closure limit of 100 mg/Kg total petroleum hydrocarbons has been established for the site. Vacuum well performance curves are presented in Figure 5. These curves represent the flow versus vacuum relationship for each of the wells. The curves were developed based on field pilot test data and model simulations. The performance of vacuum well VWD-1, presented as curve A, indicates the high vacuum - low flow characteristics associated with the stiff fine grained soils observed at those depths. 19 e TreqT~ Inc. e , "'" ,. 150.00 0 0 N / I c: / VWo- ..J W 100.0Ø / / æ: ::J ", (f) (f) ./ W ./ æ: a.. /' VWs-¡ L: ,c ::J 50.ØØ /' ::J ./" ........... FIELD DATA U ..Ji3 n. " " " I MODEL DATA « > /' /' vIAls-I_ /' yWf)-"J. AN£- - ./ -- - - - Ø.0Ø Ø.00 20.0Ø 4Ø.0Ø 60.Ø0 e0.00 VACUUM WELL FLOW RATE. cfm 10Ø.ØØ FIGURE 5. VACUUM WELL PERFORMANCE CURVES I ..-- e e 9.2 SVES Confiauration utilizing the historical site data provided and the- results;,'of the field pilot tests and computer modelling, a high vacuum¡J.:ow,flow conceptual SVES design was developed for the site which consists of a 100 cfm (maximum capacity) vacuum pump. The system will utilize the four existing vacuum extraction wells to remove VOC's from subsurface soils. This system will operate at an overall design air flow rate of 70 to 80 cfm. The 70 to 80 cfm design air flow rate will be achieved by utilizing a 7.5 hp liquid ring vacuum pump operating at a vacuum of approximately 10 inches of mercury (136 inches of water). All four wells will' be actively evacuated during the initial remedial phase. As the project progresses, discharge concentrations at wells VWS-1 and VWD-2 will gradually decrease. The SVES will be balanced such that air flow is primarily from wells VWD-1 and VWS-2 which will be operated at the optimal air flow rates of approximately 30 cfm and 40 cfm, respectively. The 100 cfm liquid ring vacuum pump will be capable of drawing a maximum of 40 cfm from VWD-1, assuming no other wells are operating. ' The low vacuum/high flow conceptual design consists of a 5 hp 260 cfm (maximum capacity) regenerative blower operating at a vacuum of approximately 6 inches of mercury (82 inches of water). The blower will be restricted to a maximum flow rate of 100 cfm. The system will require installation of two additional vacuum wells ~p similarly to VWD-l¡ and will utilize a total of seven exraction wells. As with the low flow design, the system will be continually optimized such that hydrocarbons are removed in an efficient manner. The blower will withdraw an optimal 50 cfm from the three VWD-1 wells combined and will be capable of drawing a maximum of 60 cfm from the three VWD-1 wells combined, assuming no other wells are operating. At an optimal flow rate of 50 cfm from the three VWD-1 wells, a time frame of approximately 1 to 2 years will be required to reach the closure criteria. The pump/blower will be manifolded to the extraction wells using 2 inch or 3 inch Schedule 40 PVC pipe which will be buried in a shallow trench (if necessary) at a depth of approximately 24 inches. Gate valves will be installed in the manifold line between each well and the pump/blower to allow flexibility in the operating configuration to reflect the dynamics of the vapor extraction process and to continually optimize the system. Twenty-four inch square steel valve boxes will be installed at each extraction well to protect the wellhead and allow access for sampling and/ or maintenance purposes. The existing 16 soil vapor probes will be utilized for monitoring vacuum distribution and the progress of soil remediation. 21 ¡ 1.- e e The pump/blower will be staged within a 12 to 15 foot square. fenced t:::: or enclosediarea. Al:l' electrica-l equipment'and connections>:within the enclosure will be explosion proof. The location of the staging area will be selected following consultation with Southern Pacific Railroad. The pump discharge will be piped (steel) directly to an off gas treatment system consisting of Falmouth Products (Model 89- 100) or compatible, 100 cfm (rated) catalytic oxidation unit. The unit contains an electrically heated platinum catalyst bed with a design oxidation efficiency of 95%. Experience at several New England gasoline LUST sites with this particular catalytic oxidation unit has indicated that the average oxidation efficiency fluctuates between 99.9% and 95% depending on inlet hydrocarbon concentrations. Assuming a design oxidation efficiency of 95%, an optimal inlet concentration of 3,500 ppm-v/v and a discharge flow rate of 100 cfm, the maximum potential emission rate for the proposed soil vapor extraction system will be approximately 5.13 pounds per day (quantified as benzene). Emission rate calculations are attached in Appendix A of this report. This emission rate reflects a worse case condition that will only be possible during the initial months of system operation when inlet concentrations are relatively high. Discharge of treated vapors to the atmosphere will be through a six to seven inch galvanized stack, extending approximately ten feet above grade. Sampling ports will be provided in the pump discharge line and on the catalytic unit stack to allow monitoring of catalytic unit efficiency and discharge rates. 9.3 SVES Performance Based on the results of the field pilot tests, the historical data provided and chemical transport modelling, it is estimated that the initial discharge concentration from a full scale SVES without air controls will be approximately 10,000 to 12,000 ppm-v/v of total hydrocarbons. This value is based on the assumption that the SVES will be valved appropriately to restrict air flow from each of the four vacuum wells to approximately 20 to 30 cfm. The initial blower discharge concentration will exceed the maximum allowable input concentration for the catalytic oxidation unit (i.e., 3,500 to 4,000 ppm-v/v) unless dilution air is added to the vacuum well discharge. Air inlet valve adjustments will be required to maintain optimum input concentrations. The SVES will be balanced with air flow control valves throughout the course of operations to focus air flow to those extraction wells that will result in optimal VOC removal rates. Expected total hydrocarbon removal rates are in the range of 80 to 90 pounds per day during the initial months of full scale system operation, when pre-treated hydrocarbon discharge concentrations 22 .. ' are in the ra_ of 2,500 pm-v Iv to _ 500 ppn~v.h.Y~· total hydrocarbons. Extracted vapor concentrations. should.; dêQJ:ëase", to· concentrations in the range of 100 ppm-v/v to 500 ppm-vtv:: after a system operating time of approximately 12 months. At this"; tlme', an evaluation of system performance will be,p·, made:'.', to,,.,·de:teEDsLnei-e, ,the costs and benefits of replacing the catalytic oxidation0;únit' with a vapor phase activated carbon treatment system. 10.0 SVES Configuration Recommendations Based on the information obtained during the pilot test and subsequent computer modeling, two alternatives for the configuration of the SVES were available. The first alternative, the high vacuum/low flow configuration would utilize the existing onsite vapor extraction wells with a high vacuum, liquid ring, vacuum pump. This SVES configuration would require two to three years to achieve the remedial action goal of 100 mglkg of TPH within the site soils. The second SVES configuration, the low vacuum/high flow option, would require the installation of two additional vapor extraction wells. These wells, in conjunction with existing onsite vapor extraction wells, will be used to extract vapors via a high flow capacity regenerative blower. This configuration would result in the achieval of the site closure criteria within a one to two year time period. Due to the relative comparative cost' of both alternatives and considering the low vacuum/high flow SVES configuration option will result in a more expedient remediation, TreaTek Inc. recommends that the low vacuum/high flow SVES configuration option be utilized at the site. 10.1 Monitorinq TreaTek recommends the following procedure and schedule for monitoring the SVES: During startup, the soil vapor discharge (prior to and following treatment) should be analyzed using a hand held total hydrocarbon instrument (a century Foxboro Model 108 organic Vapor Analyzer or equivalent flame ionization detector (FID) , equipped with a carbon filter to identify the presence of methane). Total hydrocarbon concentrations should be verified by having samples analyzed using gas chromatographic analyses (GC/PID). startup data will be recorded and summarized in tabular fashion to establish record keeping requirements for onsite personnel. Key system operation rationale, monitoring requirements and schedule, maintenance requirements and system balancing techniques will be reviewed with the designated monitoring personnel during the startup period. It is anticipated that TreaTek personnel will be on site for approximately one week during startup operations. 23 - I ¡ t:: e In addition to monitoring' the SVES discharge, vacuum pressure measur:ementsl,' at'"thec·pump!.' intake:: and" vapor: . extraction·"~;'weŒ"lheads· should be obtained during weekly site checks. The'systun;should.be balanced during, each site check to maximize,hydrocarbon;';,removal rates. Typically, it is recommended that weekly monitoring during the first few months of catalytic oxidation unit operation (or until input dilution is no longer required), which can be reduced to biweekly for the later months and then monthly until completion. TreaTek recommends sampling and analyzing the soil gas from the permanent vapor probes on a quarterly schedule using a portable FID or GC. The results will be analyzed to determine the progress of soil remediation at the site and will allow adjustment of the SVES operating parameters, if required, such that cleanup goals can be met in an optimal fashion. , ì ' I - , 24 APPENDIX A EHHISSION RATE CALCULATIONS:, -. .~".: ' , " '" ~ Î e - CLIENT: Southern Pacific Transportation Company PROJECT NO.: 90184 BY: Erik A. Friedrich SUBJECT: Discharge Calculations - Bakersfield The following calculations determine maximum discharge rate and concentration from a proposed soil vapor extraction system at the Southern Pacific Railroad site in Bakersfield, California. ASSUMPTIONS: Gasoline hydrocarbons removed from the subsurface are oxidized by a catalytic oxidation unit (Falmouth Products Model 89-100 or comperable) at a design efficiency of 95%. Inlet concentration = 3,500 ppm by volume (optimal) total gasoline hydrocarbons. Vapor extraction system flow rate is 100 SCFM (maximum) . To convert volumetric concentration to mass concentration, average molecular weight of hydrocarbons discharged is that of benzene and the conversion factor is as follows: 1 ppm-v/v benzene = 3.26 mg/m3 (From K. Verschueren, Handbook of Environmental Data on Oraanic Chemicals, 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold PUb., 1983.) e e ~- COMPUTATION SHEET CLIENT: Southern Pacific Transportation Company PROJECT NO.: 90184 BY: Erik A. Friedrich SUBJECT: Discharge Calculations - Bakersfield CALCULATIONS: 1} Convert 3,500 ppm-v/v gasoline vapor in air to lbs./ft.3 as benzene. 3,500 ppm-v/v x 3.26 mq/m3 x 1 lb. 1 ppm-v/v 454,000 mg x 1 m3 35.31 ft3 = 7.12 X 104 lbs./ft3 2} Calculate emission rate from blower. 7.12 X 104 lbs. x 100 ft3 x 1440 min. = ft3 min day 102.53 lbs. day 3} Post catalytic oxidation emission rate (95% efficiency). 102.53 lbs. x 0.05 day = 5.13 Ibs. day 4} Post catalytic oxidation emission concentration in ppm-v/v as benzene. 5.13 lbs. x dav x min. day 1440 min. 100 ft.3 x 35.31 ft.3 x 454.000 mq x DDm-v/v = 175.2 ppm-v/v m3 lb. 3.26 mg/m3