UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Characterization of a hydrocarbon contaminated site using in-situ methods Everard, Jodi Lynne 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0252.pdf [ 6.83MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0050377.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0050377-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0050377-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0050377-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0050377-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0050377-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0050377-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0050377-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0050377.ris

Full Text

CHARACTERIZATION OF A H Y D R O C A R B O N C O N T A M I N A T E D SITE USING IN-SITU METHODS by JODI L Y N N E E V E R A R D B.Sc , Dalhousie University, 1988 B.Eng., Technical University of Nova Scotia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF APPLIED SCIENCE in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Civil Engineering We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A April, 1995 ' © Jodi Lynne Everard, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Department Date Z?. o f PS: DE-6 (2/88) 11 ABSTRACT Conventional drilling and soil sampling together with well installation and water sampling are currently the most common methods used to assess site contamination. The time and expense associated with this approach often limit the scope of the investigation and the extent to which the stratigraphy and contaminant plume may be delineated. As such, there has been increasing interest in developing/refining technologies and methodologies that would provide quick, reliable and cost effective site screening. The piezocone penetration (CPTU) test and the resistivity CPTU (RCPTU) test utilize a direct push technology and provide rapid, high resolution delineation of stratigraphy and determination of in-situ hydrogeological regime. Both geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters are readily obtained from the testing. Equilibrium pore pressures can be obtained by conducting pore pressure dissipations at select depths enabling determination of existing hydraulic gradients and hydraulic conductivity values. Calibration of bulk resistivity measurements to discrete depth water sampling and appropriate analyses enable identification of discrete lenses and/or zones of elevated concentrations of contaminants. This technology was used to characterize a hydrocarbon contaminated industrial site located in the Lower Mainland, B .C . The project demonstrated how the R C P T U in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling can be used and interpreted to provide a geo-environmental characterization of a contaminated site, with respect to stratigraphy, geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters of interest and contaminant location and distribution within the subsurface. Results obtained from the R C P T U program were compared to those obtained from a more conventional investigation. Practical applications and limitations of penetration technology as applied to this hydrocarbon contaminated site are also presented and discussed. Recommendations for further areas of research with respect to tool and method usage are listed. Key words: resistivity, piezocone, in-situ testing, ground water, hydrocarbon, site characterization, geo-environmental iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. ii T A B L E O F CONTENTS iii LIST O F T A B L E S v LIST O F FIGURES vi A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S viii 1. INTRODUCTION ; 1 2. GROUND W A T E R CONTAMINATION , 3 2.1. SOURCES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 3 2.2. TYPES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 4 2.3. CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PROCESSES 6 2.4. ORGANIC CONTAMINATION OF GROUND WATER 7 2.4.1. Creosote 10 3. T E S T SITE 11 3.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY 11 3.2. SITE DESCRIPTION : 12 3.3. EXISTING INFORMATION 14 4. m-srru TESTING PROGRAM... . . . . . is 4.1. RATIONALE 18 4.2. TEST EQUIPMENT 18 4.2.1. Piezocone Penetration Test (CPTU) 19 4.2.2. Resistivity Piezocone Penetration Test (RCPTU) 21 4.2.2.1. Electrode Spacings 23 4.2.2.2. RCPTU Calibrations. 24 4.2.2.3. RCPTU Repeatability 26 4.2.3. Discrete Depth Water Sampling System 27 4.2.3.1. Rationale of Discrete Depth Water Samplers 35 4.2.3.2. Modified BAT Filter Tip Re-Entry 35 4.3. TEST PROCEDURE 36 4.4. IN-SITU TESTING PROGRAM 37 5. RESULTS 41 5.1. STRATIGRAPHY 41 5.2. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS 41 5.3. HYDROGEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS .44 5.4. BULK RESISTIVITIES 48 5.5. CHEMICAL ANALYSES 52 iv 6. INTERPRETATION O F B U L K RESISTIVITIES 54 7. COMPARISON O F SITE INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES 57 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 61 8.1. SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 61 8.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 62 9. CURRENT STATE O F R E S E A R C H , 64 9.1 DESCRIPTION OF RES-3 64 9.2 FIELD RESULTS, OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 65 REFERENCES ; 68 APPENDIX A: C O N E PLOTS 72 APPENDIX B: C O N E INTERPRETATIONS (CPTBST) 88 APPENDIX C: PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATIONS 103 APPENDIX D: C H E M I C A L ANALYSES F R O M W A T E R SAMPLES 115 LIST OF TABLES V T A B L E P A G E Table 2.1: Sources of Ground Water Contamination 3 Table 4.1: Summary of Typical Resistivity and Conductivity Values of Fluids and Bulk Soil Fluid Mixtures (after Weemees 1990) 23 Table 4.2: Preliminary Field Trial Results from Modified BAT Set-up 36 Table 4.3: Summaiy of the In-Situ Testing Program at the Test Site 38 Table 4.4: Summary of the Water Sampling and Testing Program at the Test Site 39 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE P A G E Figure 2.1: Dissolved Phase and LNAPL Contaminant Dispersal from a Leaky Storage Tank (Cherry, 1983) ! .". ..... 5 Figure 2.2: Ground Water Contamination Associated with a DNAPL Spill (from Frind and Germain, 1986) : 6 Figure 3.1: Test Site Location, Fraser Lowland, British Columbia (from Armstrong, 1984) 11 Figure 3.2: Test Site Location and Urban Geology, New Westminster, B.C. (from Blunden, 1975) 13 Figure 3.3: Borehole and Well Locations, New Westminster, B.C. (from Norecol, Dames & Moore, 1993) 15 Figure 3.4: Typical Cross Section Constructed Using Information Obtained from Conventional Techniques (from Norecol, Dames & Moore, 1993) 16 Figure 3.5: Approximate Areal Extent of DNAPL Contaminant Zone As Obtained from Conventional Drilling and Sampling Techniques (from Norecol, Dames & Moore, 1993).. 17 Figure 4.1: Schematic of a Typical UBC Piezocone (from Campanella et al, 1983) 20 Figure "4.2f Schematic of UBC Resistivity Cone, RES-1 22 Figure 4.3: Effects of Different Electrode Spacings on Measured Bulk Resistivities for UBC's RES-1 andRES-2 ...... 25 Figure 4.4: Typical Calibration Curves for RES-1 29 Figure 4.5: Typical Calibration Curves for RES-2 30 Figure 4.6: A comparison of two adjacent resistivity logs made 10 days apart for the various electrode spacings 31 Figure 4.7: A comparison of three adjacent resistivity logs for three different resistivity modules 32 Figure 4.8: BAT Enviroprobe Schematic (after Zemo et al, 1992) 33 Figure 4.9: Schematic of the Modified BAT Set-Up used at UBC 34 Figure 4.10: Borehole, Monitoring Well and Cone Hole Locations at the Test Site (modified form Norecol, Dames & Moore, 1993) 40 Figure 5.1: Typical East-West Cross Section Constructed Using Information From the UBC In-Situ Testing Program 42 Figure 5.2: Typical North-South Cross Section Constructed Using Information From the UBC In-Situ Testing Program 43 Figure 5.3: Typical Pore Pressure Dissipation in the Sands at the Test Site 46 Figure 5.4: Typical Pore Pressure Dissipation in the Clayey Silts at the Test Site 46 Figure 5.5: Calculated Permeabilities for Soils on the Test Site 47 Figure 5.6: Determination of Existence of Vertical Gradient at the Test Site '. 48 Figure 5.7: Bulk Resistivity Profile for CPT-6 at the Test Site 50 Figure 5.8: Bulk Resistivity Profile for CPT-8 at the Test Site 51 Figure 6.1: Bulk Resistivity Versus Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids 56 Figure 7.1: A Comparison Between An Adjacent Cone Penetration Sounding (CPT-15) And A Continuous Vibro Core Hole (DT-13) 59 Figure 7.2: A Stratigraphic Cross-Section Showing Information Obtained From Cone Penetration, Drilling And Continuous Vibro Coring Techniques 60 Figure 9.1: Schematic of RES-3 65 Figure 9.2: Comparsion Plot of Bulk Resistivities for CPT-6 and CPT-16 67 vii LIST OF SYMBOLS R = resistance V = voltage I = current p = resistivity Pb = bulk resistivity Pf = pore fluid resistivity O-m = ohm-metre, measure of resistivity A = cross-sectional area 1 = path length of flow K = electrode calibration factor F = apparent formation factor Q> = porosity m = soil shape factor D = dilation parameter Q c = measured cone bearing Q C n = normalized cone bearing Qt = total corrected cone bearing F s = sleeve friction R f = friction ratio U = dynamic pore pressure U l = U measured on the face U2 . = U measured behind the tip U3 = U measured behind the friction sleeve t = time T = temperature i = inclination c v ' = vertical effective stress VIU ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks are extended to my thesis supervisor, Dr. R.G. Campanella, for his support, advice and interest in my research project. I would also like to thank D.J. Woeller and all the guys at ConeTec Investigations Ltd. for their advice and interest. More thanks to fellow graduate students, Tim Boyd, Mike Davies, Yetvart Hosepyn, Jay Maclntyre, Ian Manning and Debassis Roy for their help in carrying out the field work; to technicians Scott Jackson and Harald Schrempp for designing, building and maintaining the U B C in-situ testing equipment; to Alain Liard of Domtar for providing me with a fantastic research site; and to British Columbia Ministry of the Environment for providing me a laboratory testing budget. Many thanks to my former employer and friend, Eric Jorden, whose advice and help were freely given. Finally, I would like to thank my parents and my sister for their continued support, understanding and patience throughout the last few years. I wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada, in the form of a graduate scholarship and ConeTec Investigations Ltd., Canada, in the form of a research grant. 1 1. INTRODUCTION Soil and ground water contamination can be a serious threat to the environment. Proper environmental site assessments must be made before remediation can begin. However the time and expense associated with conventional drilling and sampling techniques (i.e. boreholes and monitoring wells) often limit the scope of the site investigation and the extent to which the contaminant plume may be delineated. A variety of surface and borehole geophysical techniques have been used successfully for the rapid delineation of inorganic contaminant plumes, as described by MacFarlane et al (1983) and Tonics et al (1993). The applicability of the individual technique depends on the type of contaminant, the geologic environment and the existing ground water chemistry (hydrogeologic setting). These geophysical techniques have, however, had limited success in detecting and delineating organic contaminants (Saunders and Germeroth, 1985). Conventional drilling and sampling is currently the most common and accepted method used to assess site contamination. U B C has worked on the development of an alternate method of contaminant detection, the resistivity cone (Campanella and Weemees, 1992). Resistivity piezocone penetration testing (RCPTU), in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling, allows for the rapid high resolution delineation of stratigraphy and contaminant plumes and reasonable estimations of requisite geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters (Campanella et al, 1994a; Campanella et al, 1994b; Campanella and Everard, 1994). A geo-environmental site characterization using R C P T U in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling was carried out on a well characterized, well-documented creosote contaminated site. Repeatability and accuracy of the tools and techniques were considered and documented, comparison to conventional techniques is discussed. Applications and limitations of the procedure as applied to an organically contaminated site are also presented and discussed. The main objective of this work was to develop a technical understanding of the causes, processes and controls associated with site contamination and the methods, procedures and tools used in geo-environmental site assessments, and then to help modify/develop and evaluate resistivity piezocone penetration testing used in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling as a viable 2 means of geo-environmental site characterization, from both an environmental and a geotechnical perspective. The scope of the project involved a series of tasks. Successful completion of the project required an understanding of soil and ground water interactions (and reactions), fundamental soil and ground water properties and in-situ testing, as obtained through: • coursework selected readings and literature searches discussions with "experts in the field" design, implementation and interpretation of results from relevant field and lab testing programs • thorough evaluation of techniques and results upon completion of the programs 2. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION Ground water is an important natural resource that must be protected from the increasing threat of subsurface contamination. Municipal, agricultural and industrial use of ground water is increasing. Approximately 20% of the Canadian population obtains its drinking water from ground water supplies (Statistics Canada, 1986). Ground water contamination can render the water unsuitable for use. Contaminants migrating with the ground water can also discharge into nearby streams, rivers and lakes leading to surface water contamination and potentially having an effect on fish and wildlife and their habitat. 2.1. SOURCES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION The main sources of ground water contamination can be divided into 2 categories: point sources and non-point sources. Point sources are local sources where the contaminants are derived by leaching wastes or from spills or leaks of industrial or agricultural chemicals in relatively small areas. Sources are local in the sense that they are distinct sources that cover only a small percentage of the land area over a given aquifer. On the other hand, non-point sources are regionally distributed sources that contribute contaminants over much larger areas. Table 2.1 lists some common examples of point and non-point sources of ground water contamination. Table 2.1: Sources of Ground Water Contamination NorvPotnt Sources agriculture (use of pesticides and herbicides) particulate in air, rain and snow (acid rain) Point Sou rces landfills seepage from unlined lagoons and surface impoundments accidental spills leaks in (underground) pipes and storage tanks improper disposal techniques septic fields 4 2.2. TYPES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION Types of ground water contaminants, or more correctly aquifer contaminants, can be broken into two categories: those that are miscible with water and those that are not. Water-miscible contaminants are those contaminants which occur as dissolved species (ions) in the ground water system. They are often referred to as dissolved contaminants or Aqueous Phase Liquids (APL). Common examples include most inorganics and metals (S04*-, P0 4 2% CI*, Pb 2 +) and some organics (alcohols). Since the plumes tend to follow existing flow fields, significant transport occurs only in high hydraulic conductivity zones. As such, the dominant transport process for APL's is advection. Mobility also occurs due to chemical and/or biological reactions. Most problems with A P L contamination occur near the surface in unconfined aquifers. Immiscible contaminants or Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPL) have low solubilities in water (100-8000ppm). Most of the contaminant tends to reside in pools of separate phase. NAPL's include most organics; some common examples include gasoline, oil, PCB's. Transport tends to occur as a simultaneous movement of the immiscible fluids through the pore space. NAPL's can then be subdivided into two groups: Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) or Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL). LNAPL's are lighter than water. They tend to locate on top of the water table, hence they are often referred to as floaters. Fuel oil and gasoline are two of the most common LNAPL's . DNAPL's, on the other hand, are heavier than water and tend to sink until a sufficiently low hydraulic conductivity zone is encountered. Some common sinkers include chlorinated solvents and creosote. An important aspect of N A P L contamination is the potential (or probability) for residual contamination or saturation. Residual contamination is the contamination left within the soil pore spaces after the fluid has passed through (either in the saturated or the unsaturated zones). Residual contamination is held within the pore space by capillarity and can be present as discontinuous or minimally connected blobs of N A P L . The finer grained the soil, the more residual contamination it can hold. Residual contamination can occupy up to 15-40% of the pore volume (Matthess, 1989), depending on the grain and pore size of the material, whether the 5 material is water or oil wet and the properties of the hydrocarbon. Residual saturation is an important source of secondary contamination of the ground water. The maximum porosity in a given formation is up to 30-40%, of that the maximum oil or hydrocarbon saturation is one third or 10% of the formation porosity (Cherry, 1983). Figure 2.1 shows how (APL and L N A P L ) contaminants from a leaky storage tank may disperse in the subsurface. Figure 2.2 shows how D N A P L moves in a given system and some of the different forms of contamination associated with DNAPL. S P I L L O R L E A K T A N K C A P I L L A R Y F R I N G E / .WATER ^ T Z / T A B L E H U N D R E D S O R T H O U S A N D S O F M E T R E S Figure 2.1: Dissolved Phase and L N A P L Contaminant Dispersal from a Leaky Storage Tank (Cherry, 1983) 6 Figure 2.2: Ground Water Contamination Associated with a D N A P L Spill (from Frind and Germain, 1986) 2.3. CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PROCESSES Contaminants migrate through the subsurface via four main processes. These migration processes include: 1. advection 2. dispersion 3. diffusion 4. reaction Advection is movement with the average velocity of the ground water. It is the dominant transport process for most contaminants, especially APL's. 7 Dispersion is ground water mixing caused by small velocity fluctuations. It can occur at the microscopic scale as mixing within the individual pores (tortuosity) or at the macroscopic scale depending on the type and variation in the porous media. Diffusion is movement due to changes in the concentration gradient. Contaminants tend to move from zones of high concentration to zones of low concentration. Diffusion is the dominant transport mechanism in low hydraulic conductivity material (i.e. k < 10"8 cm/s). In fact contaminant transport due to diffusion can often occur at a much higher rate than due to advection (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Contaminant migration is also affected by reaction processes. Geochemical or biochemical reactions tend to slow down the rate of contaminant migration through the subsurface. These reactions can occur entirely within the vapour, liquid or solid phases or at the interface between any combination thereof. Some of the important chemical reactions include: solution/precipitation: add or remove solid (solute) to or from liquid phase volatilization: mass transferred from the liquid phase to the vapour phase (vaporization or evaporation, primarily of organics) complexation: formation of one ion from two or more ions (not precipitation) surface reactions: surface bonding/debonding (sorption/desorption) redox reactions: gain or loss of an electron to produce another more stable ion radioactive decay: breakdown due to the presence of radioactive ions bio transformation: contaminant transformation caused by biological activity 8 2.4. ORGANIC CONTAMINATION OF GROUND WATER Organic compounds are widely used in everyday life. They are used in the manufacturing of solvents, preservatives, fertilizers, pesticides, cleaning fluids, gasolines, oil, etc. There are approximately 2 million organic compounds in use today. Organic compounds are common pollutants in the ground water system. Organic contaminants present a particular problem in that their long term effects are largely unknown or unsubstantiated, they can be toxic and/or carcinogenic in extremely low concentrations, they may be very persistent, they can be very mobile if present as an A P L or a L N A P L and they can serve as sources of secondary contamination as a N A P L is dissolved or volatilized. In particular, D N A P L contamination is much more difficult to deal with than other forms of contamination for 2 main reasons: 1. since D N A P L migration is controlled by the hydraulic conductivity of the different soils present, the main mass (free product) is often hard to find; and 2. residual D N A P L slowly dissolves into the ground water successively contaminating it. Organic compounds are those consisting, in large part, of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen. Organic compounds can be water miscible, such as alcohols or acetone. However, the largest class of organic compounds are hydrocarbons. Most hydrocarbons are considered water immiscible and for most engineering purposes they are considered water insoluble. However, for environmental purposes, hydrocarbons are water soluble, albeit they generally have extremely low solubilities. Hydrocarbon toxicity varies dependent on the species. Acceptable water, concentrations are very low for many of the more common hydrocarbons: acceptable limits for both benzene and trichloroethylene (TCE) are 5 ppb ( C C R E M 1993). Thus a small amount of hydrocarbon can contaminate a large amount of ground water (i.e. a few drops of benzene can contaminate an Olympic size swimming pool). 9 In order to design and implement effective detection, monitoring and remedial systems, it is important that the processes governing hydrocarbon contaminant migration are reasonably well understood. There are four processes important to organic contaminant migration: 1. solubility 2. volatility 3. sorption potential 4. transformations Solubility controls the source concentration for migration in the aqueous phase. Organics have a wide range of solubilities from extremely soluble (methanol) to hydrophobic (PCB's). Polar molecules and compounds containing Nitrogen or Oxygen are the most soluble while non-polar molecules tend to be the least soluble. In general, the lighter the organic compound, the greater the solubility. Volatilization is the evaporation of organic liquids or organic compounds dissolved in water. The rate of volatility is controlled by the vapour pressure of the organic solute, the rate of migration away from the evaporation surface and the rate of migration through the new region. Low molecular weight compounds such as Benzene, Toluene or Xylene tend to be highly volatile. Sorption is the surface bonding which occurs between the organic compounds and any solids in the subsurface. Organic compounds preferentially sorb on organic carbon in the substrate rather than on soil surfaces. The percentage of organic carbon in the sediment and the chemical structure of the organic compound determine the sorption potential of the compound. Transformations occurring in the subsurface affecting organic compounds are controlled either by physical/chemical conditions (abiotic) or by microbial activity (biodegradation). Abiotic transformations are affected by the acidity, redox potential or temperature of the ground water within the subsurface. Transformations include those precipitated by substitution reactions or hydrolysis. Some minerals (i.e. mica) often act as catalysts in abiotic transformations. Transformation of organics due to biological processes are very complex and depend on many variables. Transformation rates for a specific contaminant can vary by several orders of magnitude within different zones of a given aquifer. Some of these factors include geochemical 10 properties of the ground water (pH, pE, dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature), type of microbe, availability of nutrients, soil moisture and the concentration of specific contaminants. 2.4.1. Creosote Coal tar creosote, used in wood preservation/wood treatment, is a by-product of the distillation of tar produced at coke plants. It is a black tar like mixture of approximately 200 organic compounds consisting mostly of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (85%) and appreciable amounts of tar acids (phenols, cresols) and tar bases (pyridines, quinolines and acridines). As a result of the many components of creosote and their varying concentrations, physical and chemical properties can only be generalized. Each individual compound has a different toxicity, persistence and biological availability. The effects of the acidic and basic components are pH dependent and the toxic effects of some of the PAFfs may be influenced by salinity (Environment Canada, 1988). Generally speaking, creosote is not readily dissolved in water. It has a density slightly greater than water (1.03 to 1.1) and a viscosity about 50 times that of water. It is a D N A P L which does not tend to travel far from spill locations. Residual saturation appears to be responsible for much of the ground water contamination associated with creosote spills (Preira and Rostad, 1986). 3. TEST SITE 11 3.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The test site is located within the Fraser Lowlands on the north side of the Fraser River in the south western part of British Columbia, as shown in Figure 3.1. The region is covered by Quaternary deposits having relatively low relief. This topography was formed during the last glaciation (Late Wisconsin) and post glacial (Holocene) processes. Surficial deposits are of Vashon age (about 10 000 years) and younger (Armstrong, 1956). Figure 3.1: Test Site Location, Fraser Lowland, British Columbia (from Armstrong, 1984) The Fraser Lowland lies within an active seismic zone and is defined as an area likely to experience earthquake movement. Active and potentially active fault zones occur within the vicinity, although not within the actual Fraser Delta or Fraser Lowlands (Blunden, 1975) Salish deposits are most prevalent in the area including the test site. These deposits, which are still in the process of formation, consist of deltaic, channel and flood plain sediments of the Fraser River, smaller stream sediments and peat bogs. These fluvial and lacustrine deposits consist of sand, interbedded sandy silt and clayey silt. 12 The surficial deposits can be divided into three main zones: • discontinuous layers of clays, silts and peats, from the surface Up to thicknesses of 18 m but typically less than 5 m thick • thick (up to 30 m) deposits of sands and silts . marine delta deposits consisting mainly of silty clays and clayey silts to depths of 100 m and more The surficial deposits are, in turn, underlain by Pleistocene deposits. These Pleistocene deposits are composed of a complex series of thin seams of glacial till, glacial outwash and marine sediments interbedded regularly with thin layers of silty sand. Sandstone bedrock is commonly found at depths of 150 to 200 m in this area. 3.2. SITE DESCRIPTION The test site is located at 25 Braid Street, New Westminster, B.C. , on the north bank of the Fraser River, as shown in Figure 3.2. It is the location of a wood preserving/wood treatment plant that has been in operation since the 1930's. It was previously owned and operated by Domtar Inc but is currently being operated by Stella Jones Inc. The site is relatively flat and has an approximate area of 65 acres. It is bounded to the north by the Greater Vancouver Regional District Coquitlam Landfill, to the east by Crown Zellerbach's Fraser Mills Division, to the south by the Fraser River and to the west by Canfor Limited. According to a 1980 report (Domtar Information Package to B.C. Ministry of Environment) approximately 1.8 million cubic feet per year (railway ties, utility poles, piles, lumber products) are processed at this plant site. There are four preservatives which have been used at the site: . coal tar creosote 50/50 mixture of coal tar creosote and heavy petroleum oil 5% (w/w) pentachlorophenol (PCP) in petroleum oil solvent 13 3% A C A (Chemonite) solution which consists of approximately 3% copper arsenate (w/w oxides) and 2.7% ammonia (w/w NH3) Figure 3.2: Location Plan for U B C Research Sites in the Lower Mainland, B.C. 14 3.3. EXISTING INFORMATION There have been a number of investigations previously carried out on the site. These investigations consisted of a series of conventional drilling and sampling programs. Descriptions of site investigation and sampling techniques, including conventional drilling and sampling, are outlined in references such as Driscoll, 1986; Boulding, 1991; Rehm et al, 1985; and Nielsen, 1991. The previous investigations were carried out under the supervision of various local consultants. The various programs included over 70 boreholes, 50 monitoring wells and 1 pumping well Chemical analyses were conducted on all soil and water samples obtained. Figure 3.3 shows the location of all conventional testing conducted at the Test Site. Stratigraphy and requisite geotechnical parameters were typically inferred from empirical correlations based on conventional SPT-N values and visual classification and selected laboratory analysis (i.e. grain size analysis) of split spoon samples. Standard penetration testing (SPT) and split spoon sampling were carried out at several interval spacings, every 5 feet being the closest spacing. Hydraulic gradients were obtained by measuring piezometric levels in the monitoring wells. Hydraulic conductivities were estimated from empirical correlations with grain size and from hydraulic conductivity tests carried out in various monitoring wells. One pumping test was conducted in the main sand aquifier over a depth of 5 m to 10 m. The hydraulic conductivity of the sand at this location was found to be 5.8 x 10 "2 cm/sec. The main zone of free product has been reasonably well located. The size, extent and direction of several subsidiary contaminant plumes have also been determined. The maximum oil saturation was found to be 5%. This is approximately half of the maximum theoretical saturation. This can be explained in that the natural sands are considered to be a water wet material with a small pore size, the oil (creosote) is very viscous and there is a high surficial tension between the oil and the water. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show a typical cross section across the site, including relative percent of contamination, and areal size and extent of contaminant plumes, including the D N A P L zone, as determined by the conventional investigation. 15 16 tn o <o H *c3 c o 'ia <u o O e o < f c - o u c ' " 3 •*-» O c o 3 ON ON I-I O o V s Q c o O c o o « " o 2 £ - I •s £ a , o 17 18 4. IN-SITU TESTING PROGRAM Based on the regional and site geology, U B C carried out an in-situ testing program at the Test Site (New Westminster, B.C.) to demonstrate the feasibility of using cone penetration technology as a means of geo-environmental site characterization. Resistivity piezocone penetration testing (RCPTU) in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling was used to provide detailed stratigraphic logs, reasonable estimates of geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters and near continuous depth profiles of bulk resistivity. 4.1. RATIONALE The rationale of the testing program was to compare results obtained from the R C P T U to those obtained from a more conventional investigation (i.e. drilling and sampling). The purpose of the Domtar site characterization was to evaluate the effectiveness of R C P T U used in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling and to determine whether it is a more cost effective and better means of conducting geo-environmental site characterization in deltaic sediments with a high ground water table. Specific objectives of the project include: demonstrate the applicability of cone penetration techniques to geoenvironmental site characterizations provide detailed stratigraphic logs • provide reasonable estimates of relevant geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters . determine some practical applications and limitations of the R C P T U testing as applied to this organically contaminated site 4.2. TEST EQUIPMENT All testing was conducted by members of the U B C In Situ Testing Group (ISTG), under the supervision of Dr. R.G. Campanella. The U B C in-situ testing research vehicle was used as the 19 penetration rig. Al l equipment used is available from either research or commercial sources. Piezocone penetration (CPTU) testing provides a fast, economical and repeatable representation of subsurface lithology (Campanella and Robertson, 1984). Resistivity piezocone penetration (RCPTU) testing has been used successfully to evaluate contaminated sites (Horsnell, 1988; Campanella & Weemees, 1992). The methodologies and procedures used have been gaining widespread acceptance in the geoenvironmental field (MacFarlane et al., 1983, Tonks et al., 1993 and Zemo et al, 1992) for preliminary site characterizations. 4.2.1. Piezocone Penetration Test (CPTU) Piezocone penetration testing is becoming increasingly popular for use in unconsolidated sediments. It provides a fast, economical and repeatable representation of subsurface lithology, in addition to giving reasonable estimates of requisite geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters. The piezocone, as specified by A S T M D3441, is pushed into the ground at a constant rate of 2 cm/s or about 1 m in 1 minute. The cone can be pushed using either a properly equipped drill rig or a specially outfitted hydraulic pushing rig. Measurements of tip bearing (Q c ), sleeve friction (Fg), dynamic pore pressure ( U l , U2 or U3), temperature (T) and inclination (i) are recorded simultaneously by a computerized data acquisition system. Figure 4.1 shows a schematic of a typical piezocone. The cones have been equipped with accelerometers and/or seismometers to enable determination of dynamic soil properties. Readings are commonly taken every 1 to 5 cm of depth penetration. Pore pressure dissipations can be conducted at specific depths of interest. Al l measurements are made by calibrated strain gauges and/or transducers. Bearing or tip resistance, friction and pore pressure measurements are made by strain gauged transducers. Temperature is measured by a platinum resistive device. Seismometers and accelerometers, used for measuring inclination and in seismic testing, consist of mass dashpots and piezoelectric benders respectively. Al l measurement devices are routinely calibrated and well maintained. Data obtained from the C P T U can then be reduced and interpreted. Geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters can be estimated based on theory and empirical correlations. For a 20 complete discussion on the piezocone penetration test including interpretation techniques, the reader is referred to Robertson and Campanella, 1989. Pushing Rods up to Research Vehicle t Rubber Ring Seal Friction Sleeve (End Areas Equal) Porous Filter (U2 Position) PENETRATION Porous Filter over Pore Pressure Sensor (U3 Position) Slope Sensor to measure verticality Strain Gauges for Friction Load Cell Strain Gauges for 1/Bearing Load Cell PO R E - . Pressure Transducer [^Rubber Ring Seal-y 60 degree Tip Apex angle PENETRATION Porous Filter to Pore Pressure Sensor (U1 Position) Cross Sectional Area of Cone is 10 sq.cm. Alternate Tip Design to measure pore pressures generated on the face of the cone Figure 4.1: Schematic of a Typical U B C Piezocone (from Campanella et al, 1983) 21 4.2.2. Resistivity Piezocone Penetration Test (RCPTU) The combination of downhole geophysics and penetration technology has greatly improved the speed, quantity and quality of data obtained for geo-environmental site characterizations. The resistivity piezocone test is an adaptation of the standard CPTU. It consists of a non-standardized resistivity module mounted behind a standard piezocone (Campanella and Weemees, 1992). Use of the R C P T U allows for measurements of bulk resistivity (pjj), in addition to all the traditional CPTU measurements. Bulk resistivity gives a qualitative assessment of the ground water. Figure 4.2 shows a schematic of RES-1, one of the resistivity modules developed at UBC. Table 4.1 shows typical values of bulk resistivity (conductivity) measurements in addition to fluid conductivity (resistivity) measurements based on experience at U B C . Resistivity and conductivity are reciprocals related according to: Conductivity (uS/cm) = 10 000 / Resistivity (Om) (1) Bulk resistance (R) is determined from a measured voltage (V) across a given electrode pair at a constant supplied current (I). This relationship is based on Ohm's Law: R = V / I (2) It is resistivity, not resistance, which is a fundamental material property. Resistance, as calculated in equation (2) depends on the path length (1) and the cross-sectional area (A) of the resistive unit. By applying a geometry correction factor to the computed bulk resistance (R), bulk resistivity (Pb) can be obtained. Pb = ( A / l ) * R (3) Assuming that (1) the soil acts as a homogeneous, isotropic media, (2) the electrodes act as perfect conductors and (3) the electronic circuitry of the resistivity module acts as a perfect current supply source, the geometry factor (A/1) would be constant, K , and Equation (3) would reduce to the following equation: Pb = K * R (4) This constant, K , can be determined by conducting a calibration test on the module. Calibration factors are discussed in Section 4.2.2.2. 22 Bulk resistivity is a combination of the resistivity due to the soil particles (skeleton) and the resistivity of the pore fluid(s). It depends on several factors, most notably; the type and composition of the solids, the constituents of the pore fluid, the porosity and the degree of saturation (Urish, 1983). Figure 4. 2: Schematic of U B C Resistivity Cone, RES-1 23 Table 4.1: Summary of Typical Resistivity and Conductivity Values of Fluids and Bulk Soil Fluid Mixtures (measured by UBC ISTG) Material Type Rests Bulk Ohr ttvity Fluid n»m Conduci Bulk micros Mvity Fluid /cm Sea water (35g/l) in soil 0.7 0.2 15K 50K Drinking water >50 >15 <200 <670 McDonald Farm clay 1.5 0.3 . 7K 33K Laing Bridge site clay 20 7 500 1430 Colebrook site clay 25 18.2 400 550 TC @ 232 Ave clay 8 ~ 1250 -Strong Pit clay 35 ~ 285 -Kidd 2 site clay 14 12.5 715 800 McDonald Farm site sand 5-20 1.5-6 2K-500 7K-1670 Laing Bridge site sand 5-40 1.5-10 2K-250 7K-1000 Colebrook site sand 70 150 Strong Pit site sand 115 90 Kidd 2 site sand 1.5-40 0.5-21 7K-225 20K-475 Typical landfill leachate 1-30 0.5-21 7K-225 20K-475 Mine tailings site sand with acid drainage leachate 1-40 2-27 10K-250 5K-370 Mine tailings site sand without acid drainage 70-100 15-50 145-100 665-200 Industry site-inorganic (sand) 0.5-1.5 0.3-0.5 20K-7K 33K-20K 100% ethylene dichloride (ED) - 20,400 - 0.5 50% ED/50% water in sand 700 ~ 14 -17% ED/83% water in sand 275 - 36 -Industry site - organic (sand) 125 ~ 80 -BC Place, PAHs (coal gas) 200-300 - 50-33 -BC Place (wood waste) 300-600 - 33-66 -4.2.2.1. Electrode Spacings Different electrode spacings on the resistivity module often provide different measurements of bulk resistivity (eemees, 1990). This is the case as soil is generally a non-24 homogenous anisotropic medium often consisting of many layers of material each with its own specific properties. An electrode pair will not respond fully to a particular (given) layer unless it is entirely within that layer. Generally, smaller spacings (between the electrode pairs) allow for the possible detection of thinner layers of contrasting resistivity, whereas wider spacings provide a greater lateral penetration into undisturbed soil, thus giving a more accurate determination of soil resistivity, given the soil is homogeneous. The electrode spacings vary from 10 to 75 mm on RES-1 and 10 to 150 mm on RES-2. As shown in Figure 4.3, bulk resistivity values show the same trends for different spacings, but do not usually measure the same values. This is due to the different amounts of lateral penetration associated with the individual current paths and the fact that soil near the wall of the probe has been remoulded, therefore possibly accounting for the lower readings on the 10 mm spacing. Also, less averaging in bulk resistivity measurements takes place as the electrode spacing gets smaller. 4.2.2.2. R C P T U Calibrations The R C P T U measures electrical resistance of the medium between specific electrode pairs. The measured bulk resistance, R, is not a fundamental material property but depends on the electrode geometry (i.e. size and spacing). It is related to the bulk resistivity, which is an independent material property, via a calibration factor. This calibration, or geometry, factor can be determined by conducting a calibration test. Calibration tests, at U B C , consist of placing the resistivity module in a tank filled with distilled, de-ionized water. Salts ( K G , NaCl) are added incrementally and fully mixed. Since resistivity is a function of temperature (Carr, 1982), it is important to maintain an isothermal system. The temperature of the fluid was maintained at approximately 20 °C. Fluid resistivities were noted (on an Omega CDH-3) and resistance measurements were taken at each electrolytic concentration. By plotting the measured resistance against the fluid resistivity, a module calibration curve can be obtained. Calibration tests were conducted using the same excitation 25 26 voltages and frequencies that would be used in the field. For the higher resistivity ranges (i.e. pb .> 200 Q-m), ethanol, an organic compound, was used instead of a salt. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show example calibration curves for RES-1 and RES-2 respectively. It is important to note that the calibration factor is only constant over specific ranges, not over the entire measurement range of the instrument. In fact, there are apparent (obvious) non-linearities at the high and low measured voltages in RES-1. These have been attributed to grounding and circuitry impedance problems (Kokan, 1992). It is also important to note the maximum bulk resistivity measurement possible on RES-1 is 300 ohm-m, with a loss in resolution above 80 Cl-m. These problems appear to have been reasonably well accounted for in the design of RES-2 by isolating the body of the resistivity module from the rest of the system, as shown in Figure 4.5. The calibration curve for RES-2 is extremely linear and the module is capable of measuring bulk resistivities into the 400+ ohm-m range with little loss in resolution. The slight offset at approximately 350 Q-m is thought to be a bad reading, either due to incomplete mixing or inadequate conductivity meter immersion during the calibration procedure. It is important to note the similarity of RES-2's calibration curves, compared to the separation between RES-1 's calibration curves. 4.2.2.3. R C P T U Repeatability Regardless of the method of site characterization, one of the main concerns to users is the repeatability of the measurements. Repeatability is the phenomena that given the same conditions, the same results can be obtained at different times and with different instruments. Repeatability, both with the same tool and with different tools, provides confidence in the data produced. It also enables site specific correlations to be developed more easily in that observed changes in bulk resistivity are consistent regardless of when they were taken or with which instrument. Two separate tests were carried out to evaluate the repeatability of the equipment used: 1. Two R C P T U profiles, side by side, were conducted using RES-1 10 days apart. As shown in Figure 4.6, these profiles indicate good repeatability for the data obtained, including the three electrode 27 spacings. The only apparent deviation is in (the upper clay) and is due to fluctuations in the water table caused by rainfall during the intervening period. As a result of lithological variations, even over short distances, the values are not exact but the same peaks and troughs exist at the same depths. 2. Three RCPTU profiles, each separated by 1 m, were conducted on the same day using RES-1, RES-2 and ConeTec RES. As shown in Figure 4.7, these profiles indicate good repeatability of all measurements, including bulk resistivity measured across the 75 mm electrode spacing. The major deviation (in cone data), in the top 5 m, is due to tidal influences, as discussed in Norecol, Dames and Moore, 1993. While the resistivity values of the three soundings are not exact, the same trends are evident. The ConeTec RES typically measures 15-20 % less than the U B C modules. This may be in part due to the differences in calibration procedure. ConeTec applies resistors and measures voltage drops, whereas U B C uses buffered solutions of known resistivities and measures voltages. 4.2.3. Discrete Depth Water Sampling System The U B C discrete depth water sampling system consists of a modified B A T system (Torstensson, 1984). High quality water samples are obtained in an evacuated sample tube through a double ended hypodermic needle from an installed filter tip. Samples are typically collected in 35 -150 ml tubes. Figure 4.8 shows a detailed schematic of the B A T system. The sample tube is lowered by a cable to the sampling point. The modified B A T used by U B C is 50 mm in diameter and is hydraulically pushed into the ground. Standard A W L drilling rods are used for the deployment of this equipment. The sampling point can be pushed (on its own) or down a pre-pushed CPTU/RCPTU hole. A comparison of these two methods will be discussed in Section 4.2.3.2. Figure 4.9 shows a schematic of the modified B A T sampler used at U B C . The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and other such groups have conducted many field trials and comparisons of the existing water sampling technologies (Blegen et al, 1988). They have recognized the B A T technology as being superior in obtaining high quality ground water samples for use in screening studies and for geo-environmental characterizations. Figure 4.4: Typical Calibration Curves for RES-1 Figure 4.5: Typical Calibration Curves for RES-2 31 32 33 Septum Stainless steel center rod Threads for cross-over to drive casing - O-ring Stainless steel -[retractable sleeve Stainless steel -drive point Stainless steel screen (20 micron pore size} •O-ring - Drive casing (minimum inside-diameter of 1 inch) -Vial and needle assembly loweredj to Enviroprobe on wireline ~Vial housing -Glass sampling vial -Vial cap with septum -Double-ended hypodermic needle assembly Septum of Enviroprobe -Stainless steel retractable sleeve -Stainless steel screen -Stainless steel drive point Enviroprobe: Closed Position Enviroprobe: Open Position Sample Collection Configurtation Figure 1. BAT Enviroprobe schematic (not to scale). Figure 4.8: B A T Enviroprobe Schematic (after Zemo et al, 1992) 34 125 mm 50 mm 125 mm "test container septum -—44 mm dia. needle septum -filter tip Water Somple filter 50 mm dio. solid steel •previous CPTU hole 44 mm dio. Figure 4.9: - Schematic of the Modified B A T Set-Up used at U B C 35 4.2.3.1. Rationale of Discrete Depth Water Samplers In recent years, there have been significant developments in in-situ, discrete depth water samplers. These samplers, such as the B A T Enviroprobe and the QED Hydropunch, have earned favorable reviews and gained widespread acceptance (Barcelona et al, 1988, Blegen et al, 1988 and Rehm et al, 1985). Discrete depth samplers minimize purging and exposure to the sample, allow for rapid, high quality and representative sampling of the in-situ regime and are easy and economical to use. Discrete depth water samplers, often used in conjunction with CPTU/RCPTU testing, are best used in preliminary site characterizations or for screening studies. They are effective in delineating contaminant plumes (both vertically and laterally) and are thus valuable in optimizing locations for permanent monitoring wells. Discrete depth samplers have also been shown to be effective for sampling of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) (Mines et al. 1993 and Pohlman et al 1990). 4.2.3.2. Modified B A T Filter Tip Re-Entry The U B C procedure has been to push the modified B A T filter tip down a pre-pushed CPTU/RCPTU hole. Questions regarding sample integrity and direction of sample flow path have been raised when using this technique. The modified B A T filter tip diameter is slightly larger than the R C P T U diameter so that the filter maintains intimate contact with the formation but is reasonably quick and easy to install. The modified B A T filter tip is 50 mm in diameter, where the R C P T U diameter is 44 mm. The filter itself is 50 mm long. Sample volumes are typically small, up to 150 mL at a time. Any number of samples can be obtained, with the first sample drawn being a purge. Based on a nominal porosity of 0.4, water is drawn from up to 30 to 45 mm inside the formation. This shows that water samples are obtained from the area immediately adjacent to the filter, and from the area influencing the bulk resistivity measurements. Purge samples can be taken to minimize the influence of sample and formation disturbance as caused by filter penetration. 36 Preliminary field tests were conducted on samples obtained from an actual well point and the modified B A T filter tip. Well points were installed at 2 depths (5 m and 8 m) ; the modified B A T was pushed to both these depths on its own and down a pre-pushed R C P T U hole. Al l test locations were within 2 m of one another. Field conductivity and pH tests were conducted on the six samples obtained. Results are shown in Table 4.2. These preliminary field test results indicate there are no significant differences in the samples obtained from the different filter tip installations. Research is ongoing regarding the integrity of samples obtained using this technique. Table 4.2: Preliminary Field Trial Results from Modified BAT Set-up SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSBStSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSt WP W P A A B B 5 8 5 8 5 8 ( Conductivity (uS/cm) 870 1220 861 1212 895 1242 pH 6.24 7.01 6.31 6.95 6.43 7.11 WP: BAT Well Point Installation, A: Modified BAT pushed on its own, B: Modified BAT in a pre-pushed hole 4.3. TEST PROCEDURE Resistivity piezocone penetration (RCPTU) testing in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling can be used as a preliminary method of geo-environmental site characterization given the appropriate soil conditions. This technique is particularly useful as a screening method. The procedure provides accurate and repeatable results in significantly less time than conventional drilling techniques, thus proving very cost-effective. Locations for more rigorous testing and permanent installations can then be easily optimized. RCPTU bulk resistivity logs are used to determine anomalies across the site which can not be explained by changes in soil type or stratigraphy. These anomalies are based on comparisons to site specific background or baseline values. Background values are established from on-site experience or from similar geological and geochemical environments. The modified B A T is then used to obtain water samples within the zone(s) of interest. Upon sample retrieval, preliminary 37 chemical analyses can be conducted on site, and the sample can be appropriately stored for further chemical analyses. The filter tip can then be advanced to the next depth of interest and the procedure repeated. The combination of cone penetration technology and discrete depth water sampling is being used increasingly for many geo-environmental investigations and has met with widespread success, approval and acceptance ( Karwoski et al 1992, Klopp et al 1989 and Zemo et al, 1992). 4.4. IN-SITU TESTING PROGRAM U B C carried out an in-situ testing program at the Test Site consisting of 13 RCPTU soundings and 2 C P T U soundings (combined depth of approximately 450m) and 12 water samples in three different hole locations. Soundings were located such that results could be checked against those obtained from the conventional drilling and sampling program. Water sampling holes were located to enable a reasonable comparison between site baseline values and values in the midst of the contaminant zone(s). The testing program is summarized in Table 4.3. The table includes the sounding number, date of sounding, final depth and a list of equipment used. H O G 3, AD006 and ConeTec RES are commercially available; while UBC9, RES-1 and RES-2 are research tools that have been developed at U B C . Table 4.4 summarizes the water sampling and testing program. The table includes the sample location, depth, amount and a visual description. Al l chemical lab analyses were carried out by Zenon Laboratories, an independent commercial lab located in Burnaby, B.C. . The testing program was carried out in three stages. The first stage, completed from 29 November 1993 until 2 December 1993, consisted of 8 R C P T U soundings. It was designed to provide an initial site screening using the R C P T U and a stratigraphic confirmation of borehole data. The second stage, completed on 4 February 1994, consisted of a repeatability and accuracy check on the equipment. The third stage carried out on 26, 27 and 28 April, 1994, consisted of detailed logging of a continuous vibro core hole (to 32.6m), an adjacent R C P T U sounding and several other CPTU/RCPTU soundings in other areas of interest. Figure 4.10 shows a general 38 site layout in addition to the location of each sounding (all previous test locations at the site are also noted). Table 4.3: Summary of the In-Situ Testing Program at the Test Site Date of D e P t h o f SOund,n9 sounding Sounding (m) Equipment Comments CPT-1 29.11.93 31.7 HOG3/RES-1 CPT-2 29.11.93 28.9 HOG3/RES-1 CPT-3 29.11.93 33.5 HOG3 /RES-1 CPT-4 29.11.93 38.9 HOG3/RES-1 CPT-5 30.11.93 1.5 HOG3/RES-1 Hole Aborted CPT-6 30.11.93 24.4 HOG3/RES-1 Water Sampling Hole CPT-7 01.12.93 28.8 HOG3/RES-1 Water Sampling Hole CPT-8 02.12.93 36.6 HOG3/RES-1 Water Sampling Hole CPT-9 04.02.94 31.7 UBC97 RES-2 Repeatability Check CPT-10 04.02.94 35.4 AD006 / ConeTec Repeatability Check CPT-11 27.04.94 34.3 UBC9/RES-2 CPT-12 27.04.94 35.6 UBC9 Stratigraphic detail CPT-13 28.04.94 37.1 UBC9 Stratigraphic detail CPT-14 28.04.94 20,8 UBC9/ RES-2 CPT-15 28.04.94 32.6 TJBC9/RES-2 Comparison to vibro core 39 Table 4.4: Summary of the Water Sampling and Testing Program at the Test Site Hole Sample # D f p J h Test Description CPT-6 5.0 Metals, T E H , P A H , phenols # 1 5.5 Metals, TEH, P A H , phenols visible free product #2 7.0 Metals, TEH, PAH, phenols visible free product #3 8.25 Metals, TEH, P A H , phenols visible free product CPT-7 #1 3.6 Metals, T E H , P A H , phenols, VOC trace free product #2 4.6 Metals, T E H , P A H , phenols trace free product #3 5.5 Metals, TEH, P A H , phenols, VOC trace free product #4 6.5 Metals, T E H , P A H , phenols cloudy grey CPT-8 # 1 3.0 N O N E #2 5.0 Metals, TEH, P A H , phenols, VOC light grey #3 10.0 Metals, T E H , P A H , phenols, VOC light grey #4 15.0 Metals, T E H , P A H , phenols, VOC light grey 40 41 5. RESULTS The following subsections present the results of the geo-environmental site characterization of the Domtar Site, as determined by the U B C In-Situ Testing Group. All data plots, graphical representations and listings of relevant geotechnical parameters, pore pressure dissipation curves and chemical analyses results are presented in Appendices A, B, C and D. Interpretation and evaluation of the bulk resistivity results are fully discussed in Chapter 6. 5.1. STRATIGRAPHY The stratigraphic sequence is reasonably consistent across the site. However, the thicknesses and location depths of the different layers vary significantly across the site. Specific stratigraphy can be found on the individual coneplots in Appendix A. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show East-West and North-South cross sections constructed based on the cone data as interpreted by CPTINT 5.0 (CPTINT 5.0, 1993). Locations of the cross sections are as noted on Figure 4.10. Generally the stratigraphy can be described as a thin layer of sand and gravel fill (0.3 to 1.5m thick) overlying a soft clayey silt. This compressible silt is underlain by a variable density sand (loose to medium dense) which is sometimes clean but often interbedded with thin layers of sandy silt. With depth, the interbedded layers of sandy silt tend to become less frequent but thicker and more distinct. The sand sequence extends to a depth of 30 to 35 m, and is underlain by a lightly overconsolidated soft clayey silt. At this interface, there often exists a zone of transition whereby the clayey silt is interbedded with sandy silt. The ground water table is variable from 2 m to 3 m below the ground surface and appears to depend on the tide. There is no evidence of upward or downward gradients. 5.2. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ^ A preliminary assessment of several geotechnical parameters of interest was carried out using CPTINT. CPTINT is a U B C developed software package used to determine soil type and to estimate geotechnical parameters based on cone data and well established empirical correlations 42 43 44 (CPTINT 5.0, 1993). Estimated values for relative density, internal friction angle and SPT-N values are included (in Appendix B). The relative density of a soil is used as an indication of the stress-strain and strength behaviour of a cohesionless material. It is a ratio used to express the relationship between the actual void ratio and the limiting minimum and maximum void ratios. Relative density was found to be extremely variable both across the site and within each hole. It was found to vary from 30% to 100%. The angle of internal friction, <j), is essentially the stress dependent component of the shear strength for the soil. It is not an inherent material property but depends on many things, most notably the density and the distribution and angularity of the grain size. Phi appears to be reasonably consistent in the sands across the site, varying from 39° to 41° . SPT-N values are often considered a strength parameter in that they give an indication of the resistance to penetration of the soil. Cone bearing has been correlated to SPT-N values based on mean grain size and material type (Robertson et al, 1983). However, there are problems with SPT-N correlations based mostly on lack of standardization. SPT-N 1 values are SPT-N values normalized to 1 tsf of overburden. SPT-N1 values tend to vary between 10-20 in the sands, 2-5 in the clayey silts and 5-10 in the silty sands. 5.3. HYDROGEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS Hydrogeological parameters can be defined as parameters describing the rate and path of flow in the subsurface. The main parameters of interest include hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient and porosity. During pauses in penetration, any excess pore pressure generated will start to dissipate and can be monitored. The rate of dissipation depends on the coefficient of consolidation, which is a function of the compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of the soil. Cohesionless materials, such as sands and gravels, are generally free draining and dissipation occurs immediately, as shown in Figure 5.3. Whereas cohesive materials, such as silts and clays, below the water table 45 are considered undrained and undergo various dissipation rates, as shown in Figure 5.4. Relevant pore pressure dissipation curves are included in Appendix C. Hydraulic conductivities were estimated from grain size analysis (based on Hazen's equation) and from pore pressure dissipations (based on Torstensson's cylindrical theory). As shown in Figure 5.5, most of the estimated values fall in the accepted range for a silty sand, after Hunt, 1986. As these estimates are very approximate in value, they should be used only as indicator values in a qualitative sense. For more accurate values, field hydraulic conductivity or pump tests should be carried out. Estimates of in-situ vertical hydraulic gradients can be obtained by plotting the equilibrium pore pressures, as obtained by complete pore pressure dissipations, against depth. If these plots follow the same line as the hydrostatic line, as shown in Figure 5.6, then there is no vertical gradient. If the equilibrium line plots below the hydrostatic line, a downward gradient exists; and if the equilibrium line plots above the hydrostatic line, an upward gradient exists. For the 14 soundings completed on the Domtar Site, no evidence of vertical gradients was found. Estimates of horizontal gradients can be obtained based on location of the water table. As a result of proximity to the Fraser River and the tidal influence on location of the water table, fluctuations in water table elevations were encountered. By accounting for these fluctuations, it was determined that ground water movement occurs in a south to south-west direction (i.e. towards the Fraser River). Mixing laws, such as Archie's Equation (Archie, 1942) relate bulk soil resistivity, pore fluid resistivity and pore space geometry within the soil. Archie's Equation is thought to be an over-simplification of the true relationship between bulk and pore fluid resistivity (Campanella & Weemees, 1992); however it appears valid under the condition that there is only a small quantity of clay minerals in the soil (or the sand is relatively clean). Porosity and apparent formation factor calculations will be presented and discussed in Chapter 6. o "o E o Q_ in CD Water tablc= 2.50m a o o o o 2 6 . 7 2 0 m -5-1 • "I — ' 1 • 1 " I 1 • 1 • 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 i : f VO.S ( s e e s ) Figure 5.3: Typical Pore Pressure Dissipation in the Sands at the Test Site m so • m CD i — Q_ •40-CD \ O ° - S O -cn in CD O 20-Water tablc= 2.50m o o o o o 3 8 . 9 0 0 m O -\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —I 1—71 1 1 1 [-O lO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 - 1O0 110 12 \O .S ( s e e s ) Figure 5.4: Typical Pore Pressure Dissipation in the Clayey Silts at the Test Site 47 Calculated Permeabilities 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 Permeability (cm/s) 1E-2 1E-1 Figure 5.5: Calculated Permeabilities for Soils on the Test Site 48 Pore Pressure (m) -10 0 10 20 30 40 o 10 E, £ 20 Q. r3 40 I l l I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I l l -;• Water Tabte at 2.5 m \ Hydrostatic Line —> >^ Figure 5.6: Determination of Existence of Vertical Gradient at the Test Site 5.4. BULK RESISTIVITIES As explained previously, bulk resistivity measurements can be used as an indication of ground water quality. Inorganic constituents soluble in water will decrease the measured bulk resistivity of the media (or increase the bulk conductivity), while organic compounds tend to increase the bulk resistivity. Changes in bulk resistivity which cannot be explained by stratigraphic changes can be easily identified as anomolous zones. These anomolous zones, as compared to background values, identify areas for discrete depth water sampling. As such, defining background levels is very important to the procedure. Since the site is located in what has been characterized as a long term industrial area, close to the Fraser River, establishing a consistent and reliable background value has been difficult. Based on an understanding of regional surficial geology and hydrogeology, cone soundings located at the far northern boundary of the test site gave reasonable estimations of background 49 resistivity values. Average values of 80 to 90 D-m in the sands and 20 Cl-m in the silts were used as typical background values. The bulk resistivity values ranged from 15 Cl-m to 250 Cl-m across the site and with depth. Bulk resistivity values in the main sand aquifer ranged from 75 Cl-m to 200 Q-m. The highest bulk resistivity values were found around CPT-6, CPT-7 and CPT-15, as would be expected from the results of the previous investigations. Bulk resistivities measured in the sands in other areas of the site are slightly above or below (+/- 5%) the assumed background value of 80 to 90 Cl-m. Bulk resistivity values in the silts were typically measured at 15 Q-m to 25 Cl-m, indicating that it is not likely contamination has penetrated this layer to any significant amount. Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show two R C P T U profiles for different areas of the site. Figure 5.7, the profile for CPT-6, shows one of the soundings completed in the known contaminated zone. Figure 5.8, the profile for CPT-8, shows one of the soundings completed in the far north western corner of the site. Soundings in this area were used as the background or baseline soundings. 50 10 z H h 00 bJ h < Q <o O o> 3: o Q 00 O D !-H (/) Z 0 C O S ! a to < i i-o Q 3 o tt; (0 CO U 1 Z l i SO bo to H 43 H u <2 53-s OH >> 3 ffl HicGQ 51 in H CO 00 I H PL, O <u o P H 3 CQ oo <u i— 52 In examining the bulk resistivity ( p b ) profiles on Figures 5.7 and 5.8, there are four key points to notice: 1. the sharp drop in p b (within the top 2 m) infers location of the ground water table. Since electrical current movement occurs mainly through the pore fluids (i.e. air and the soil skeleton are assumed near perfect insulators in comparison to the pore fluid), this distinct drop indicates the presence of soil saturation or water table. In finer grained materials, the drop can be gradual, this may indicate the extent of the capillary fringe. 2. distinct decreases and/or increases in p b corresponding to changes in porosity or changes in material type as demonstrated by significant changes in other measured parameters, such as and Rf. For example the marked drop in p b at 1 lm in CPT-6 (Fig. 5.7) indicates a change in material type and not necessarily a change in pore fluid chemistry, as suggested by the corresponding increase in R f and decrease in Q^. 3. consistency in p b within a given stratigraphic unit suggests essentially no change in pore fluid chemistry eventhough stratigraphic variability exists, as shown from 19 to 22 m in CPT-6 on Figure 5.7. 4. the variability (spikiness) in p b within the sand units suggest the presence of N A P L in thin layers of interbedded coarse sand. In CPT-6 (Fig.5.7), from 5 to 1 lm and 15 to 19m, where distinct changes in R f are absent, the extreme variability in p b suggest the presence of N A P L . This information targets depth intervals for pore fluid sampling. 5.5. C H E M I C A L A N A L Y S E S Various chemical analyses were conducted on 10 of the 12 water samples using standard procedures. The laboratory testing was conducted by Zenon Laboratories of Burnaby, B.C. Chemical testing included Metals, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Total Petroleum 53 Hydrocarbons (TPH), Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (TEH), phenols and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) on selected samples. Al l results are presented in Appendix D. It should be noted that free product was visible in three of the samples tested (those from CPT-6), as indicated by the levels of PAH's, TEH's and phenols above solubility. These values tend to decrease with depth. Analyses conducted on samples obtained from CPT-7 indicate P A H values well below established guidelines. However, T E H values are at or slightly above industry guidelines. Both these values tend to increase with depth. Phenol contents are well above water quality guidelines and tend to decrease with depth. There were no significant amounts of PAH's or TEH's detected in samples obtained from CPT-8. Although phenol limits were slightly exceeded. Results from oil and grease testing were significantly higher than expected. This may indicate some type of contamination was introduced during the sampling procedure. Benzene, Toluene, Ethylene and Xylene (BTEX) values are very similar in results obtained from samples in CPT-7 and CPT-8. Values ranged from 38 ppb to 62 ppb and are considered essentially the same. This suggests a problem with the sampling equipment and/or procedures, the sample storage and transport procedure or the laboratory analysis procedure. Lab blanks suggest there was no problem with the lab procedure. Problems associated with the sampling equipment and/or procedure may include the filter material (polyvinyl was used instead of stainless steel based on cost), the installation method (i.e. the use of WD-40 as a rod lubricant) or the cleanup procedure. Some of the samples were not decanted into the lab sample vials, however there appeared to be no direct relationship between the results and the storage container. Metals were not detected to any significant degree in any of the water samples collected, with the exception of slightly elevated concentrations of copper and iron in two of the samples collected from CPT-7. Iron oxide is frequently reduced upon biodegradation of hydrocarbons, therby solubilizing the iron. As such, these elevated iron concentrations may be an indication that biodegradation is underway. The elevated iron concentrations could also be part of the background condition as dissolved iron is common in alluvial aquifers. 54 6. INTERPRETATION OF BULK RESISTIVITIES In order to interpret bulk resistivity measurements for an indication of potential contamination, a clear contrast must exist with the natural background. Background values were difficult to establish at this site as a result of the many influencing factors in the area. The entire region is known to be a long serving industrial zone for many different applications, flow of leachate from the landfill upgradient no doubt occurs and tidal and possibly salinity effects from the nearby Fraser River no doubt affect the site. Most of these factors would serve to lower the bulk resistivity values. Average values of 80 H-m in the sand and 20 Q-m in the silts were ultimately chosen as typical background values. Numerous attempts have been made to correlate field bulk resistivity measurements and concentration of contaminant (Ebraheem et al, 1990). These correlations are not only dependent on the type of contaminant and the methods and instruments used but also on the material type, porosity and degree of saturation. The relationships between some or all of these factors (i.e. bulk or pore fluid resistivity, porosity, saturation, etc.) can be defined via the various mixing laws. Archie's equation (Archie, 1942) is one of the simplest mixing laws relating bulk resistivity, pore fluid conductivity and porosity. Work is currently being done to extend the mixing laws, or portions thereof, to include an estimate of contaminant concentration. Establishing a valid relationship between contaminant concentration and bulk resistivity would enable a better and more accurate assessment of contaminated zones within a site. Such a relationship appears possible for ionic contaminant constituents, as shown in Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1 compares Ebraheem et al (1990) data between fluid conductivity and concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS), with field fluid conductivity measurements (taken from both an A P L contaminated site and a N A P L contaminated site), versus concentration of TDS, obtained during this study, and with work done at U B C on mine waste. Most of the earlier resistivity work was not logged taking concentrations of total dissolved solids into account and as such there is limited information for this figure. As would be expected higher concentrations of TDS correspond to higher fluid conductivity (and lower bulk resistivity) values and lower 55 concentrations of TDS correspond to lower fluid conductivity (and higher bulk resistivity) measurements. Ebraheem et al's relationship appears to be valid through most of both ranges in field measurements for the sites used in this study (i.e. high and low resistivity ranges). Field measurements taken at the A P L contaminated site show a linear relationship exists, however there appears to be a fairly wide band of compliance. This may be due to significant lateral non-homogeneities across the site and drastic changes in the concentrations of influencing ions. The U B C mine waste research data appears to follow a curviliear relationship at higher concentrations of TDS. However, direct application of these relationships to the organic contaminant data obtained "does not seem to apply. There were no obvious trends or relationships over any significant depth interval observed in the Formation Factors (Archie, 1942), as calculated based on the bulk resistivities and fluid conductivities, or in bulk resistivity and contaminant concentration. This is shown by the obvious scatter in the field data. This may in part be explained by the different solubilities of the various organic compounds composing creosote, the different hydrocarbon saturation levels, the A P L versus N A P L nature of the contaminant (i.e. the fact that NAPLs will reduce the amount of pore volume available for the conductive fluid), film effects of the N A P L and the variability in silt content throughout the formation. Results of the two different stages of field testing allow for several important conclusions to be drawn: 1. there appears to be a correlation between [TDS] arid bulk resistivity, as shown by the various relationships in Figure 6.1, although the difficulty lies in accounting for the relative solubilities of the various components of creosote. 2. there appears to be many insitu factors which influence pi» as shown by the scatter in the field data points of Figure 6.1. These factors must be accounted for and quantified if a reliable correlation equation is to be developed and used. 3. where a dominant ion exists, as in the U B C mine waste research work, it appears much easier to obtain a definite relationship. 56 E CL CL CO Q 1E+5 9E+4 8E+4 7E+4 6E+4 5E+4 4E+4 3E+4 2E+4 1E+4 OE+0 Ebraheem et al (1090) Field (APL contaminated site) Field (NAPL) UBC Mine waste research i i r -i i r 1—— 20000 40000 60000 80000 Fluid Conductivity (microS/cm) E a. CO Q h-250 200 150 100 Ebraheem et al (1990) Field (APL contaminated site) Field (NAPL) U B C Mine waste research 0 50 100 150 200 Fluid Conductivity (microS/cm) 250 Figure 6.1 Fluid Conductivity Versus Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids 57 7. COMPARISON OF SITE INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES As a result of the many investigations and site characterization programs carried out on the test site, it was possible to make a cursory comparison of the quality and quantity of the data obtained using the different methods. Methods used on site include conventional drilling and split spoon sampling, cone penetration technology and vibro coring (or sonic drilling). Sonic drilling is a relatively new technique whereby casing is vibrated into the ground to obtain a continuous sample. A vibro core or sonic rig uses an oscillator or a head with eccentric weights driven by hydraulic motors to generate high sinusoidal force in a rotating drill pipe. The frequency of vibration of the drill bit or core barrel can be varied to allow for optimal penetration of subsurface materials. A dual string assembly allows for advancement of casing with the inner casing used to collect the samples. Small amounts of air or water can be used to remove the material between the inner and the outer casing wall. The head of the rig tilts outward to allow easy access for threading and sample extraction. Figure 7.1 shows a direct comparison between a vibro core log (DT-13) and a resistivity piezocone sounding (CPT-15). Both holes were completed on the same day, about 2.5 m from one another. Each hole was drilled and logged by separate individuals or groups. The stratigraphic sequencing, descriptions and thicknesses are very consistent between the two logs. Thus, the agreement between the R C P T U profile and the visually logged vibro core hole validated the cone interpretation. It is not possible to differentiate grain size in the sand, solely using the cone. On the other hand, it is difficult to determine density based on the visual classification of the vibro core. The numbers along the right side of the vibro core log indicate the percentage recovery for each vibro core run. Percentage recovery varied from 40% to 100+%. The smaller recoveries tended to occur in the very loose to loose sands, as was classified by the cone. It is interesting to note that the high resistivity zones (as noted on the cone soundings) fell within the zones having elevated hydrocarbon concentrations. However, the peak bulk resistivity measurements did not appear to 58 correspond solely to peak hydrocarbon concentrations. The distribution of hydrocarbon was largely affected by the hydraulic conductivity and grain size of the individual materials. Figure 7.2 shows a stratigraphic section through two adjacent R C P T U soundings (CPT-6 and CPT-15), a conventional drill hole (DWW-1) and a continuous vibro core hole (DT-13). The agreement of the R C P T U profiles with the visually obtained vibro core log validated the cone interpretation. However, it should be noted that certain small marker layers were not picked up in the convnetional drill hole (i.e. the sandy silt layer at 10 m). Problems with vibro core recovery include: 1. loss of material from core runs, mainly in coarse grained and loose materials 2. flow (heaving) of loose sands into the borehole between core runs 3. core shortening or compaction due to lateral spreading of sand since the core bags are 1.38 times greater in size than the core barrels These factors, or any combination thereof, require careful consideration and a good understanding of the technique during interpretation of depth locations of the different stratigraphic units. This is especially important for location of thin confining or boundary layers. As such, depth corrections must often be applied to the basic core logs. Corrections are based most frequently on driller experience and observations. Errors associated with sample compaction and sample loss are especially common in vibro coring conducted in saturated sands. These losses must then be estimated and can lead to inaccurate locations of thin strata, as shown by the mislocation of the sandy silt layer picked up by the cone at 11 m. Neither the drill hole nor the vibro core hole provided any hydrogeologic data, thus requiring the installation of piezometers and increasing the time and costs associated with either method of drilling. However, both the drill holes and the vibro core hole do allow for visual inspection of the soil and disturbed soil sampling. 59 60 o C M o CO I.I , I [ I I I I I I I I I •LJ-LLLJ I I—L JL_L I I I I I I 5 o C o (0 "t-(0 a E o o o !E a 2 D) 2 a) a) 12 o o CD o _l £ CO o T O H 2 ° .g > t i l l 5E MEDIUM DENSE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL SANDY SILT LAYERS 1 *> 85. i i 2!£d U) t < 3 Jo Ss e l s I i " tfl Li eg BEi-i °- I— a) CL o Si CO < 111 2<Q < z ^ coo < UJCO« PI ii? TTT~ <S2 WO< ulCQ<n to < ti_ PS 255 TTTT' TTT IJJ s i t aoio III life _JtO-J O C M U ?5 GO i g < P (LU) ludarj C M r-' 61 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS R C P T U and discrete depth water sampling can provide a rapid , cost effective, repeatable and accurate representation of subsurface lithology and requisite geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters. Potential hydrocarbon contaminated zones can be identified and likely contaminant transport paths can be delineated. Hydrogeologic and analytical data from previous investigations agreed well with the data obtained from the test study. Specifically on the test site, the information gained from the in-situ testing demonstration provided a more detailed representation of site stratigraphy than that obtained from the conventional investigation. The data obtained helped with the modelling of ground water flow regime and the design of the remedial system. Based on the results of the in-situ testing program and good correlation to data obtained from the conventional investigations, it was shown that resistivity piezocone penetration (RCPTU) testing in conjunction with discrete depth water sampling can be used effectively for geo-environmental site characterizations. Screening methods, such as RCPTU, are particularly useful in that locations for more rigorous testing and permanent installations (e.g. monitoring wells) can be easily optimized. 8.1. SPECIFIC A P P L I C A T I O N S A N D L I M I T A T I O N S While at this site bulk resistivity profiles did not offer a clear quantitative assessment of contaminant concentration because of the lack of contrast between contaminated and background readings and instrument resolution, they were used effectively to identify potential problem zones. This was accomplished in two distinct ways: 1. identification of anomalous bulk resistivity zones across the site, as shown previously in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 2. identification of discrete stratigraphic layering (i.e. coarse sands overlying finer sediment lenses) that would provide preferential flow paths and " resting places " for DNAPLs (e.g. creosote) 62 Differences in bulk resistivity values as indicated in comparisons (i.e. ConeTec module measures 15 to 20 % less than U B C modules) suggests (or indicates) that until well calibrated equipment and standardized procedures are developed, R C P T U can be used effectively as a screening tool to determine trends or anomalies, but can not be used reliably to indicate percent contamination. However, site specific correlations may be obtainable i f a given instrument is calibrated to the site (i.e. % contamination curves may be obtained using one instrument depending on the reliability of the chosen module and the contrast existing between contaminated and background zones). Since D N A P L migration is generally dependent on small stratigraphic changes (i.e. coarse sand overlying finer grained material), the ability to accurately identify and locate such sequencing is extremely important for determining preferential flow paths. The cone has a much greater capability for delineating stratigraphy including fine layering than to other more conventional techniques. 8.2. R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R F U T U R E R E S E A R C H In order to improve the quality of the data obtained and achieve the confidence required to use this technology commercially, there are several areas in which further work needs to be done. As such, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. R C P T U Calibrations: Greater emphasis must be placed on R C P T U calibrations. The calibration procedure must in some manner be standardized. Measurement ranges must be clearly defined, switching from high to low excitation or vice versa must be automated. Calibration edge effects and proximity to objects must be examined. A practical electrode spacing set-up must be established as having too many electrodes not only makes the module cumbersome but increases the amount of data which must be interpreted. 2. Water Sampling Technique: For the quantities of water required in many of the hydrocarbon analyses, although the B A T system works well, it is not practical. It can be time ° consuming and arduous to use, sample contamination is a definite possibility upon decantation and equipment re-use. Methods based on B A T type technology, but not using a hypodermic 63 connection should be invesigated. Sample and equipment contamination must be carefully considered. 3. Laboratory Correlations: an in depth laboratory study must be conducted to look at the relationships between measured bulk resistivity, fluid conductivity, porosity, saturation and soil type. Consideration of the influence of background resistivity would also be an important aspect of a lab study. These, in turn, could lead to formulation of methods of normalizing bulk resistivity. Study under a controlled environment is necesary if bulk resistivity measurements are ever to be used in a quantitative manner. A separate study (or an extension) could look into methods of quantifying the effects of non-aqueous and aqueous contaminants in normalizing bulk resistivities. 4. Evaluation of Pore Pressure Dissipation Data: It is thought that hydrogeologic data can be obtained from careful evaluation of pore pressure dissipation data. This information is extremely important in contaminant studies. Ways and means of obtaining more accurate determinations or estimations of hydraulic conductivity should be evaluated. 5. Overall Improvement to the Tool: In denser material, the R C P T U set-up becomes very difficult to push because of the increase area associated with the resistivity module. The R C P T U is also somewhat difficult to handle physically because of the overall length of the equipment. While the possible combination of channels which can be monitored may seem endless, one to two resistivity channels are more than adequate for practical purposes. As such, reducing the size of the tool, both in cross sectional area and in length, and choosing one or two electrode spacings would improve the practicality and ease in handling of the tool. 64 9. CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH A new resistivity module, RES-3, was designed and built subsequent to the majority of the work required for this thesis, but prior to full completion and acceptance of the thesis. RES-3 has overcome many of the deficiencies of both RES-1 and RES-2 as recognized by the on-going research of members of the In-Situ Testing Group. It is fully isolated with isolation amplifiers in addition to isolated supply and measurement. It was also important that RES-3 be reasonably adaptable to some new avenues of research, such as the measurement of induced polarization (IP). RES-3 was field tested at the Test Site on 20 December 1994. One resistivity piezocone sounding was advanced to 26 m. The sounding was located adjacent to three previous soundings. A brief description of RES-3 and results of the field testing are included in the following sections. 9.1 DESCRIPTION OF RES-3 RES-3 is slightly larger than the standard 10 cm 2 piezocone, with a diameter 1 mm larger at 36.5 mm. It is about 200 mm long and has 4 electrodes. The two sets of two electrodes are each separated by 15 mm and 150 mm, center to center with the inner 15 mm electrodes centered between the 150 mm electrodes. All electrodes are 5 mm wide. As with RES-1 and RES-2, the outer electrodes provide the excitation. Figure 9.1 shows a schematic of RES-3. RES-3 is controlled uphole by a signal generator. It has been set up so that there are 5 ranges of voltage control, 0.05 volt, 0.1 volt, 0.5 volt, 1 volt and 5 volts. These ranges have been chosen based on research into the resolution and ability required to measure certain contaminant influences. The resistivity unit is completely isolated and measures to resolutions of 0.1% of the set full scale. Calibrations were conducted in the same manner as previously discussed (in Section 4.3.1). The calibrations were linear over the full range tested (i.e. up to 600 Cirri). In addition, RES-3 has been wired so that induced polarization (IP) can be measured across the inner electrodes. Electronics for signal generation would also be controlled uphole for IP measurement. Research is currently on-going in this area. standard cone rods 65 - 350 mm T 150 mm L - 650 mm plastic insulation current electrode : id mm Resistivity Module (~10.5 sq. cm) grounded electrode Standard Piezocone (10 sq. cm) Figure 9.1: Schematic of RES-3 9.2 F I E L D R E S U L T S , O B S E R V A T I O N S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S CPT-16, the field test carried out on December 20, 1994, at the Test Site was located in the vicinity of CPT-6, CPT-15, DT-13 and DWW-1 which is in the midst of the contaminated zone. The coneplot for CPT-16, including both resistivity measurements, RES015 and RES 150 can be found in Appendix A. Interpretation shows the stratigraphic and hydrogeologic properties to be comparable to those obtained from the previous tests. The one exception to these similarities is that there appears to be a slight downward gradient in CPT-16 where all other soundings indicate no discernible vertical gradient. This gradient may have been present due to proximity to the dewatering well which had been pumped immediately prior to testing, or due to the heavy rains prior to and during the field testing. Figure 9.2 compares bulk resistivity values from CPT-16 and CPT-6 for similar spacings. The following paragraphs present the observations, possible explanations and conclusions 66 regarding analysis, interpretation and comparison of the various bulk resisitivity values, as shown on Figure 9.2. A background value of 80 Clm, as originally chosen, appears to be reasonable. The background value appears to be slightly lower on the RES015 spacing; however, this may be attributed to the mixing of pore water and soil next to the barrel where the closely spaced measurement occurs in the remolded zone. There appears to be substantially more detail available and presented on the resistivity plots for RES-3 in CPT-16 in comparison to those of CPT-6. There are many more peaks and troughs in the data. While the RES 150 and RES015 data (of RES-3) compare very well, it is noticeable that the RES 150 shows more the effect of soil type, soil density and lateral non-homogeneity than does RES015. This is clearly evident as the same peaks and troughs are evident, but the absolute values of bulk resistivities are different. It is not expected that the peaks and troughs evident in both soundings should be located at the same depths, as the soundings were carried out at slightly different locations, under different environmental conditions and a year apart. The highest bulk resistivity below the water table noted in this sounding was in excess of 400 n-m. In previous soundings the maximum value registered was approximately 250 Q m , even after applying piecewise linear and polynomial calibrations. The apparent ability of RES-3 to measure in a greater range of bulk resistivity not only confirms the theory that both RES-1 and RES-2 were at their limits as far as measuring bulk resistivity but were incapable of obtaining the actual bulk resistivity readings for the formation because of instrument limitations. The improved resolution of bulk resistivity values due to isolation of the electronics is very evident when comparing the bulk resistivities on Figure 9.2. The ability of RES-3 to measure in excess of 800 Cl-m, with full linearity in calibrations, shows that it may be feasible for use in the unsaturated zone. This would be useful for determination of presence of contaminant in the vadose zone due to presence of either light non-aqueous phase liquids or oxidation processes and possibly volatiles or gaseous contaminants. This technique may be extremely useful for determining the degree of saturation. 67 68 REFERENCES Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Eng., Vol. 146, pp. 54-62. Armstrong, J.E., 1984. Environmental and Engineering Applications of the Surficial Geology of the Fraser Lowland, British Columbia, Paper 83-23 GSc. Armstrong, J.E., 1956. Surficial Geology of the Vancouver Area, British Columbia, GSC #55-40, 45pp. Barcelona, M.J. , J. A . Helfich and E .E Garske, 1988. Verification of Sampling Methods and Selection of Materials for Ground Water Contamination Studies, Ground Water Contamination Field Methods, A S T M STP 963, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PA, p221-231. Blegen, R.P., J.W. Hess and J.E. Denne, 1988. Field Comparisons of Ground Water Sampling Devices. Proceedings 2nd Outdoor Action Conference N W W A Las Vegas, pp.45. Blunden, R.H. , 1975. Urban Geology of Richmond British Columbia: Interpreting a delta landscape Earth Science Series #15, Department of Geological Sciences UBC, pp. 45. Boulding, J.R., 1991. Description and Sampling of Contaminated Soils: a Field Pocket Guide, EPA/625/12-91/002, pp. 122. Campanella R.G., M.P. Davies, T.J. Boyd, and J.L. Everard, 1994a. "In-Situ Testing methods for Groundwater Contamination Studies", invited preprint to the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Symposium on Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, From Harvard to New Delhi, 1936-1994. Campanella, R.G., T.J. Boyd, and M.P. Davies, 1994b. "Use of the Resistivity Piezocone for the Geotechnical and Geochemical Evaluation of Tailings Impoundment". 47th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, September 1994, p. 601-610. Campanela, R.G. and J.L. Everard, 1994. "In-Situ Testing for Characterizing Organically Contaminated Sites: A Case History". 47th Canadian Georechnical Conference, September 1994, p. 685-694. Campanella, R.G., P.K. Robertson and D. Gillespie, 1983. Cone Penetration Testing in Deltaic Soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal Vol.20 No. 1 February, p. 23-35. Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, 1992. Development and use of an electrical resistivity cone for ground water contamination studies. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, p. 557-567. Campanella, R.G. and P.K. Robertson, 1984. Guidelines for Use and Interpretation of Piezometer Cone Penetration Test, U B C , Department of Civil Engineering, Soil Mechanics Series 105, pp.200. 69 Carr, C , 1982. Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying. Centre for American Archeology Research Series, Vol2, p. 47-101. C C R E M , 1993. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, Environment Canada. Cherry, J. A., 1983. Piezometers and Other Permanently Installed Devices for Groundwater Quality Monitoring. Seminar on Groundwater and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Protection, Detection and Restoration, Ottawa, Proc. Petroleum Assoc. for Conservation of the Canadian Environment, Vol.4, p. 1-39. CPTINT 5.0, 1993. Cone Penetration Test Interpretation Program, Version 5. Department of Civil Engineering, UBC, pp. 17 Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Ground Water and Wells, 2nd Edition, Johnson Filtration Systems Inc., St. Paul, M N , 1089pp. Ebraheem, A . M . , M.W. Hamburger, E.R. Bayless and N.C. Krothe, 1990. A Study of Acid Mine Drainage Using Earth Resistivity Measurements. Groundwater 28:3, p361-368. Environment Canada 1986. Creosote Wood Preserving Facilities: Recommendations for Design and Operation, Report EPS 2/wp/l, 90pp. Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Ground water. Prentic-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, J.J. p. 279-286. Frind, E.O. arid D. Germain, 1986. Simulation of Contaminant Plumes With Large Dispersive Contrast, Water Resources Research, Vol22, No. 13, p. 1857-1873. Horsnell, M.R. 1988. The use of cone penetration testing to obtain environmental data in penetration in the U K . Thomas Telford, London. Hunt, R.E., 1986. Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices, McGraw Hill, New York, 729pp. Jackson, P.D., D. Taylor Smith and P.N. Stanford, 1978. Resistivity-Porosity-Particle shape relationships for Marine Sands. GeoPhysics, Vol 43, No.6 p. 1250-1268. Karwoski, T.J., J.E.Moser, K.J. Quinn and D.E. Penniman, 1992. Vertical Ground Water Quality Screening: a Cost Effective Approach to 3-D Investigations, Ground Water Management VI1 , p385-400. Klopp, R.A., A . M . Petsonk and B.A. Torstensson, 1989. In-situ Penetration Testing for Delineation of Ground Water Contaminant Plumes, Proc. 3rd National Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, p3 29-3 43. Kokan, M . V . , 1992. Dilatancy Characterisation of Sands Using the Resistivity Cone Penetration Test. M A S c thesis, Department of Civil Engineering UBC, pp.85. 70 MacFarlane, D.S., J.A. Cherry, R.W. Gillham and E.A. Sudicky, 1983. Migration of Contaminants at a Landfill: a case study: Part I Ground Water Flow and Plume Delineation Journal of Hydrology 66, p. 1-29. Mathess G., 1989. Behaviour of Organic Pollutants in Aquifers. Contaminant Transport in Ground Water. Balhema, Rotterdam, p. 127-131. Mines, B.S., J.L Davidson, D. Bloomquist and T.B. Stauffer, 1993. Sampling VOC's with the B A T Ground Water Sampling System, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 13(1), p i 15-120. Nielsen, D . M . , 1991. Practical Handbook of Ground Water Monitoring, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, pp.717. Norecol, Dames & Moore, 1993. Environmental Site Assessment, Report to Domtar Inc. Wood Preserving Division, June 1993. Pohlman, K.F. , R.P. Blegen and J.W. Hess, 1990. Field Comparisons of Ground Water Sampling Devices for Hazardous Waste Sites: An Evaluation Using Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA/600/4-90/028, pp.102. Preira, W.E. and C.E. Rostad, 1986. Investigations of Organic Contaminants Derived from Wood Treatment Processes in a Sand and Gravel Aquifer Near Pensacola, Florida, USGS Water Supply Paper #2290, p65-80. Rehm, B.W., T.R. Stolzenburg and D.G. Nichols, 1985. Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeologic Investigations, EPRIEA-4301, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Robertson, P.K. and R.G. Campanella, November, 1989. Guidelines for geotechnical design using CPT and CPTU. Soil Mechanics Series No. 120, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella and A. Wightman, 1983. SPT-CPT Correlations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109, pl449-1459. Saunders, W.R. and R . M . Germeroth, 1985. Electromagnetic Measurements for Subsurface Hydrocarbon Investigations. Proc. N W W A / A P I Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemical in GW—Prevention Detection and Restoration. Dublin, Ohio. p. 310-321. Telford, W.M. , L.P Geldart, R E . Sheriff and D.A. Keys, 1982. Applied Geophysics, Cambridge University Press, Tonks, D . M , S.D. Hunt and J.M. Bayne, 1993. Use of the conductivity Probe to evaluate ground water contamination. Ground Engineering. November, p. 24-29. Torstensson, B.A. , 1984. A new system for ground water monitoring. Ground Water Monitoring Reviews, Vol. 4, No.4, p. 131-138. 71 Urish, D.W., 1981. Electrical resistivity-conductivity relationships in glacial outwash aquifers. Water Resources Research, Vol. 17, No. 5, p. 1401-1408. Weemees, I. A., 1990. Development of an Electrical Resistivity Cone for Ground water Contamination Studies. M.A.Sc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia., pp.77. Zemo, D.A., Y . G . Pierce and V.D. Gallinatte, 1992. Cone Penetrometer Testing and Discrete Depth Ground Water Sampling Techniques: a Cost Effective Method of Site Characterization in a multiple Aquifer Setting, Proc. 6th Outdoor Action Conference, National Ground Association, Las Vegas. APPENDIX A: CONE PLOTS 73 < 0 z H h (/) LU VI <u 3 : 2 <u 2 m o o r-s Q H il/) z H w UJ a n o 0 1 UJ z o u CO T 0 CO D i Ul < o o >• >-3 o i -U. h-O =d i . T r 1 1 r - • i ' i i r—i r-"fcl mfc> < O Q l U < LU< O > o in in o < M ^ O) < O Q 2 LU Q LU LU Zj J ^ Q U O d d „j s_ CO >" J M i S U (w) Hld3Q 74 < Q CM O n X (1) tn c 0 s m CM o z s «; m TIVITV ohm-m) H! -) CO UJ CC h " o (/) :SSURE water u = or H— Q. o CM IES1 O " ° a. D O i h H (/) z H? OQ CD D Q: »-» CC o UJ CC »- a. >-3 o tn-—1 o5 u. COOT o — i 1 r-Q Z -J cot cn >. J2 ' I ' M I I I I I ' I • i — i — r — i — i — P ~ - T — i — i — r -*-> ro cc JO cc i_ -< 10 UJ J3 O ) Hld3Q (w) Hld3Q 76 o 5 O 55 77 < Q vO O n (T. 2: o D 0 z H h (/) Id D H (/) z H s L IV V yi c E V 1/1 J <u 2 CO O Ul a CM D n o 0 1 UJ 2 o o 0 CD D 1 t - a tn < 1 1-UJ x _) o ~> o 2 1-•-t < o o r——1 r— >-O Z > . 1 - < Q _J U . I - 2 - _ l 0=!< u_ (0 CO (O —1—1—I—1—1—1-1 Ul -1 1—1 1 r co CO z 0 O - J UJ z >- z < t -Q < Q < ?=! MEDIUM CLEAN S SOFT SAK MEDIUM DENSE S WITH OCCASIC SANDY S LAYERS Hicoa ( w ) H J L c G O 79 ( w ) H l c G O 80 < Q L CD 10 C •«H E 4J in m or CC o UJ or T — i — i — i — r ~ - i — i — i — r -o — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — Ul CO • i i T — i — i — i — i — i — i — r • . o -J Li. SOFT CLAYEY SILT INTERBEDDE LOOSE SAND AND SANDY SILT LOOSE TO MEDIUM DEN CLEAN SAND SOFT SANDY SILT VARIABLE DENSITY SAND WITH OCCASIONAL INTERBEDDE LAYERS OF SANDY SILT 81 0 z H h (/) UJ h < Q W UJ 1-CJ CD 3 n ro i • H a o 0 D D 1 0> o z n Q Z 3 O CO CO o o o — o o -< as —>• X o I UJ Ul — >- z 1 < o »—t QC o o H O m w RICTION bar) 2.! z SLEEVE F Fs ( 0 H 0 (D D o UJ h-UJ z o o o: UJ UJ z o z UJ CO fc>? O - l COO Q UJ O Q Z K Q < =! LU CO CO muj >. Pp. co o y o o z £ i j < c o O < 1- 5 CO UJ ^ LU 21 co ^co < Q £ z u > J 5 Q O 0=! coco - 1 — i — i 1 r-Q I < O L oo b > co CQ J" >. izisssl < L U < O t S < 5 Q O I QCOOfe-JCO8§ x f c » -g o 5 I CO CO - i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r ~ - i — i — i — i — r -*-* i >• E >-• .c »— o o d . D O 0 1 1 1 , 6 CM 10 x: +J a ai a x ID cr t_ LkJ -O (w) H ld30 82 i i—i—r -T J e o T J 0 z s H h (fl Q H If) Z H o Z U. Q 2 O I/) \ CM o> o m \ CM </> U) o: u z o o L (U +> 10 c E in 2 ' CD 2 0 -DO g § D < o o cx a. ex. o UJ UJ h- O O ~ c c z z f c U s f z > Q 0 ) £ J M >-Q < CO O) H l d 3 0 83 10 0* u. H h (/) o 2 n Q Z O to O D ™ H (/) Z H co 3 \ CM 3 \ O m 3 u CO D c OJ +< in c Ul ID J z < o o o — r >-— i 1 r — i 1 1 1 1 r — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — a : 1 1 1 ! T a UJ t— Ul £ y-. QN m T O i ] H UJ i _ t- Q Lj UJ tx a. ex Ul ROFIL D FILL AND DYSIl LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE CLEAN SA VARIABLE DENSITY SANDWITI INTERBED LAYERS 01 SANDY SIL LIGHLY OC SANDY SIL INTERBED! WITH PI AYFY <ll CrfL^M C I OI INT a. SAN SOF SILT SAN LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE CLEAN SA VARIABLE DENSITY SANDWITI INTERBED LAYERS 01 SANDY SIL LIGHLY OC SANDY SIL INTERBED! WITH PI AYFY <ll CrfL^M C I OI TILL K T — i — i — r — i — i — i — i — i — i — r -O) Hld30 84 o z 3 O (ft 0 Z UJ o - J z H H (/] l d g D H if] z H O CO CT> CM V \ o o \ o oo m CM ID u i u i i - z < o Q O ,0 CO D L <u c •ri 6 +> I- l/l (ft <U (ft 3: I UJ X or z ui o Z I-•H < o o Z o UJ _1 Q. u. cc o UJ a: •— a. 3oco a c  IS CO CO S"-b a o — m co or ^ S O U J u j g ! = S < " J D S ? J B O < » - s c o UJ T U l 8S8 isle* m-fr ~I 1 1 1 1 1 1 P — T - —i i i i r—r i—i i i i i T— r i — T T — i — i — i — r ~ _s*/U - l — r — - i — i — i — r - - 1 — I — I — I — I — I — I — I I I — I — I — I — I — I — I -N CM O (w) HlcGO 85 E 0 s u_ H h (/) CM J h H [/) z H O 0. o CD z Q Z 3 o CO \ CM 3 \ t> CO CD 3 \ CM to UJ a. D1 UJ z o o •x X I) z z o < o o Q- u. o= o UJ CC — i — >-o ILL AN Li. CO ON < 0=! co coco i 5 u . t i cob>co<2v < U J < O S < S Q C O O J C O 1 1 1 1 1 1 T" (w) HldUO 86 0 z H h (/) Id h D r -H If) z H in — m *T — e t— o 0-"O o Ul o _J z U. Q z Z3 o co CM 3 Cft o •<r -v. O CM \ V) 00 Ul CM a. Ul UJ. I - z < o o o 0 03 J I - l/l CO 41 CO j l I UJ 3 _ l <u -> z a z UJ o U M Z I -l - l < o o z o Ul _) O) Hld3Q 87 t r TJ o c u <n < <TJ 10 ID Ol 0) Z Z o o Q Q W CD - J Z n I—) u. Q 2 O 3 h H I z H u CD D T CU 0) O) . . O O I 0J \ . . m UJ UJ K Z < o D U Q I Q. 2: z s Q UJ _ i cc ~J < i-u r CD O CC D CC Z UJ O UJ t-( Z I-1-1 < CD CJ z o UJ _1 (UJ) HldBO APPENDIX B: CONE INTERPRETATIONS (CPTINT) 89 (UJ ) H I d 8 Q 91 93 6). M-J I I l_ J I I L CM n —I i 1 ! i I i i i i <s>. LO CD •o 6>_| w m" »< -I — O . c. " V Q ca-ts i 1 i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 ^ ^ I J V V V M W T i i i — i — i — i — i — i — i 1 — r <s>. n <s> Q ~ i — i — i — i — i — i — r i — i — r ~i i i i T i — i — i — i — i 1 — r • i | i i r n ' i — i — r CM n "i 1 1 r (tu ) m d e g o T N 1 IN o 1 LU ! — TU i C O i z l - H u m n o <s> r> CD <D O Q CO •*-> <_ *-/ » J CD CO to CD c h- CD o £ to a . c 1- c r .< o £ Q C L a •6 <D <s> 3 : n o o 2 n o CD z DO c _ c C CD o o £ o c CD o o o o — CD _ l L L o 95 97 98 99 101 102 APPENDIX C: PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATIONS 104 \0.5 s e e s ) DomTar Inc; U2 AT 1 S E C INTERVALS U B C : I n s i t u File: CPT8 Date: 02.12.93... J L E - M P D UNIT = m H 2 0 GWT = 2.1m 105 Water table— 1 . 7 5 m o o o o o 8.375rr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 — i 1 1 1 1 1 r — i lO . 1 5 / N0.5 ( s e e s ) I I I I . I I 20 2 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9302 | Date: 29.11.93 JLE-TJB-JM UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1.75m CD D 5: O E CO CD i Q_ a> i _ o Q_ co - 1 -C_> Water tab le - 1.75m o o o o o 11 .420m ( s e e s ) Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu F i l e : D O M 9 3 0 2 | D a t e : 2 9 . 1 1 . 9 3 JLE- TJB-JM UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1.75m 106 CP in cu o 10 CD o x o\ 0 \ 0 Water table = 2 . 1 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 1 B.420m --— \ 0 --T—,—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—'—1—1 : ( s e e s ) 0.5 Test Site: U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9308 |Date: 02.12.93 JLE- MPD UNIT — mH20 GWT 2.1 m Water table — 2.1 Om 0 0 0 0 0 19.070m 15 2 0 2 5 , N 0 . 5 ( s e e s ) T 3 0 35 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9308 | Date: 02.12.93 JLE- MPD UNIT = mH20 GWT = 2.1 m 107 Woter table— 2.10m o a o o a 1 9.470m 5 « So * 2.43 *wV. J R . -( s e e s ) 0.5 —I— 10 Test Site: U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9308 | Date: 02.12.93 JLE — MPD UNIT = mH20 GWT = 2.1 m 108 Water table— 2.50m ooooo V3.600m I— 10 15 ( s e e s ) Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9301 I Date: 29.11.93 jle/tjb/jm (D O o E =3 in CD \ O m CD o Water table— 2.50m ooooo 21.670m ( s e e s ) ' Test Site: U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C - Insitu File: D O M 9 3 0 1 | D a t e : 2 9 . 1 1 . 9 3 jle/tjb/jm UNIT = mH20 GWT = 2.50m 109 Water table— 1.75m o o o o o i 2.420m —I— 10 ( s e e s ) Test Site: U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9302 | Date: 29.11.93 JLE- TJB-JM UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1.75m CD O CO CD i— D _ CD O Water table— 1.75m ooooo 1 6.470r ( s e e s ) 0.5 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9302 | Date: 29.1 1.93 JLE- TJB-JM , • UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1.75m 110 Water t a b l e - 1.75m o o o o o 21.520m ( s e e s ) 1 15 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS UBC Insitu File: DOM9302 | Date: 29.11.93 JLE — T J B - J M UNIT = mH20 GWT — 1.75m Water table— 1.75m o a o o o 26.570m 0 i i i I i 5 i i i I i i 10 ( s e e s ) I i i i i 15 2C T e s t S i t e ; U 2 A T 1 S E C I N T E R V A L S U B C Insitu F i l e : D O M 9 3 0 2 | D a t e : 2 9 . 1 1 . 9 3 J L E — T J B - J M U N I T = m H 2 0 G W T = 1 . 7 5 m I l l Water table— 1.60m o o o o o 1 6.050m ( s e e s ) 0.5 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9304 | Dote: 29.11.93 j le/ t jb/ jm UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1 .6m Water tab le - 1.60m o o o o a 17.050m ( s e e s ) ' Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: D O M 9 3 0 4 | Oate: 2 9 . 1 1 . 9 3 j le/tjb/jm . UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1.6m 112 Water table— 1.60m o o o o o 24.000m ( s e e s ) 0.5 Test Site: U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9304 | Date: 29.11.93 j le/t jb/ jm UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1 .6m _o a a a n fi a a— Water table— 1.60m o o o o o 24 .970m ( s e e s ) 0.5 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: 0OM9304 | Date: 29.11.93 jle/tjb/jm UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1 .6m 113 CD E Q -CD O o_ w to o> Wotor table— 1.60m o o o a o 25 .970m —I— 10 ( s e e s ) 1 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu. File: 0 O M 9 3 0 4 | Date: 29 .11 .93 j le / t jb/ jm UNIT = mH20 GWT : 1.6m Water table— 1.60m o o o o o 27 .950m o 'o E CO CD aZ CD o Q_ <D o X ( s e c s ) c —I— 10 Test Site; U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu I - 1 0 M 9 3 0 4 - I Date: 29.11.93 jle/tjb/jm UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1.6m 114 Water table— 1.60m o o o o o 38 .900m H—i—i—i—i—i—>—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i— JFfo -805 tec • i i i i i • i • i i i i ( s e e s ) ' - 540 mir\ Test Site: U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: D0M9304 | Dote: 29.11.93 . j le/t jb/ jm UNIT = mH20 GWT = 1.6m Water table— 2 .20m o o o o o 12.100m ( s e e s ) ' Test Site: U2 AT 1 SEC INTERVALS U B C Insitu File: DOM9306 | Date: 30.1 1 .93 j le/st/ ibm UNIT = mH2Q GWT = 2.20m 115 APPENDIX D: CHEMICAL ANALYSES FROM WATER SAMPLES 116 Zenon Environmental Laboratories-Certificate of Analysis Repotted to: Dept of Civil Eng, UBC Date Reported: 4-Jan-94 Attention: Jodi Everard Project #: UBC InSitu Sample State: Water Zenon ID: 93029522 93029523 93029524 93029525 93029526 93029527 93029528 Client ID: CPT-6 #1 CPT-6 #2 CPT-6 #3 CPT-7#2 CPT-7#4 CPT-7#1 CPT-7#3 Parameter MDC Unit pH 0.1 pH units — — — — — — Specific Conductance 1 uS/cm — — — — — Res. Filterable l.Ou . 4 mg/L — — — Hardness Dissolved N 107 147 136 124 159 70.1 147 Silver Dissolved 0.01 mg/L < < < < < < < Aluminum Dissolved 0.02 M 0.04 < < 0.19 0.03 0.74 0.07 Arsenic Dissolved 0.04 " < < < 0.05 < < < Boron Dissolved 0.008 H 0.248 0.053 0.101 0.049 0.059 0.058 0.054 Barium Dissolved 0.001 M 0.063 0.073 0.083 0.052 0.045 0.049 0.049 Beryllium Dissolved 0.001 < < < < < < < Bismuth Dissolved 0.02 < < < < < < < Calcium Dissolved 0.01 M 27.1 37.4 33.8 26.2 33.5 15-4 31.2 Cadmium Dissolved 0.002 < < < < < < < Cobalt Dissolved 0.003 « < 0.005 0.003 0.008 < 0.007 0.006 Chromium Dissolved 0.002 H < < < 0.012 0.002 0.055 0.006 Copper Dissolved 0.001 M < < < 0.009 0.009 0.077 0.011 Iron Dissolved 0.003 N 0.045 0.042 0.015 9.11 0.845 2.86 6.97 Potassium Dissolved 0.4 H 4.6 4.2 5.1 2.4 4.3 2.5 2.7 Magnesium Dissolved 0.02 tt 9.45 13-1 12.5 14.2 18.4 7.69 16.8 Manganese Dissolved 0.002 0.684 0.792 0.768 0.414 0.281 0.422 0.375 Molybdenum Dissolved 0.004 0.02 0.007 0.015 0.008 0.01 0.017 0.007 Sodium Dissolved 0.01 « 15.4 10.4 14.4 16.7 25.4 10.1 19 Nickel Dissolved 0.008 N < 0.02 0.009 0.046 0.029 0.071 0.041 Phosphorus Dissolved 0.04 N < < < < < 0.08 0.04 Lead Dissolved 0.02 It < < < 0.02 < < < Sulfur Dissolved 0.03 It 4.41 2.58 2.49 1.57 2.03 1.35 1.85 Antimony Dissolved 0.015 It 0.02 < • < < < < < Selenium Dissolved 0.03 It < < < < < < < Silicon Dissolved 0.03 It 119 12 10.5 20.7 13.9 18.3 17.9 Tin Dissolved 0.02 n < < < < < < < Strontium Dissolved 0.001 it 0.206 0.293 0.267 0.169 0.215 0.109 0.195 Tellurium Dissolved 0.02 it < < < < < < < Titanium Dissolved 0.003 N 0.003 < < 0.248 0.019 1.3. 0.059 Thallium Dissolved 0.02 < < < < < < < • Vanadium Dissolved 0.003 0.048 0.011 0.004 0.013 0.005 0.032 0.007 Zinc Dissolved 0.002 0.041 0.279 0.028 0.108 0.011 0.192 0.064 Zirconium Dissolved 0.003 < < < < < 0.011 < ToLExtr.Hydrocarbs 0.01 mg/L 150000 51000 2000 200 270 83 260 PAH Benz(a)anthracene 0.00001 mg/L 2700 470 52 0.0044 0.0053 0.049 0.0044 7 12-Dimethylbenz(a) 0.00005 < 1.0 < 1.0 17 < < < < Dibenz(a lOanthracen 0.00001 M 110 16 1.4 0.00017 0.00027 0.0015 0.00021 Chrysene 0.00001 n 2600 430 50 0.0041 0.0051 0.045 O.OO4I. BenzoCb+lOfluoranthe 0.00001 it 1900 320 36 0.0029 0.0035 0.033 0.0029 3-Methylcholanthrene 0.00002 <1.0 < 1.0 < 0.010 < < < < BenzoCpfluoranthene 0.00001 2700 430 3.3 0.00023 0.0003 0.003 0.00023 Benzo(g h Operylene 0.00002 180 29 3-8 0.00025 0.00032 0.0036 0.00026 Benzo(c)phenanthrene 0.00001 '-1.440 • 75 8.7 0.00069 0.00082 0.0079 0.00069 Zenon Environmental Laboratories Page 1 of 6 Repotted to: Attention: ""^ Sample State: Dept of Civil Eng, UBC Jodi Everard Water Date Repotted: Project #: 4-Jan-94 UBC InSitu ZenonID: 93029522 93029523 93029524 93029525 93029526 93029527 93029528 Client ID: CPT-6 #1 CPT-6 #2 CPT-6 #3 CPT-7 #2 CPT-7 #4 CPT-7 #1 CPT-7 #3 Parameter MDC Unit Pyrene 0.00001 - 11000 1900 210 0.017 0.019 0.19 0.016 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00001 800 140 16 0.00097 0.0011 0.015 0.00095 DibenzoCa h)pyrene .0.00005 M <1.0 <1.0 < 0.010 < < < < DibenzoCa Opyrene 0.0000s ft <1.0 < 1.0 < 0.010 < < < < DibenzoCa Dpyrene 0.00005 « <1.0 < 1.0 < 0.010 < < < < IndenoCl 2 3-c d)pyr 0.00001 M 190 33 43 0.00029 O.OOO36 0.0039 0.00027 Acenaphthene 0.00001 " 17000 2900 290 0.027 0.027 0.2 0.031 Acenaphthylene 0.00001 M 360 62 6.5 0.00071 0.00075 0.0039 0.00094 Anthracene 0.00001 6400 1000 100 0.0071 0.0082 0.076 0.0081 Fluoranthene 0.00001 M 18000 3000 320- 0.025 0.029 0.28 0.025 Fluorene 0.00001 M 16000 2700 280 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.022 Naphthalene 0.00001 H 12O0O0 20000 1900 0.52 0.47 1.2 0.7 Phenanthrene 0.00001 It 40000 66O0 670 0.043 0.049 0.5 0.046 Total PAH's 0.00005 H 240000 40000 4000 0.67 0.64 2.8 0.86 Total Low MW PAH's 0.00005 200000 33OO0 3200 0.62 0.57 2.2 0.81 Total High MW PAH's 0.00005 41000 6800 720 0.056 O.O65 0.63 0.055 Surrogate Recovery dlO-Acenaphthene % NA NA NA 103 104 104 116 dlO-Phenanthrene « NA NA NA 111 113 127 131 dl2-Crysene M NA NA NA 104 107 108 126 dl2-Perylene NA NA NA 80 84 74 81 VOC Chloromethane 2.3 ug/L — — — — — <12 <12 Vinyl Chloride 2.9 « — — — — — <15 <15 Bromomethane 2.4 — — — — — <12 <12 Chloroethane 2.3 N — -- — — — <12 <12 TriQFluoromethane 0.3 — — — <1.5 <1.5 1 1-Dichloroethene 0.4 — -- — — — <2.0 <2.0 Dichloromechane 0.3 — -- — — -- <16 <17 tl 2-Dichloroethene 0.4 _ -- — — — <2.0 <2.0 1 1-Dichloroethane 0.5 — -- — -- — <2.5 <2.5 cl 2-Dichloroethene 0.4 — -- — -- — <2.0 <2.0 Chloroform 0.4 -- ~ — — . . . <2.0 <2.0 1 1 1-TriClEthane 0.6 — — — — — <3.0 <3.0 1 2-Dichloroethane 0.4 -- -- — — -- <2.0 5-2 Carbon tetrachloride 0.3 • — — — — -- <1.5 <1.5 Benzene 0.2 — -- — — — 32 160 1 2-Dichloropropane 0.5 — -- -- -- ~ <2.5 <2.5 Trichloroethene 0.3 -- — -- -- -- <1.5 <1.5 Bromodichloromethane 0.4 — -- -- — <2.0 <2.0 2-ClEthylvinylether 2.9 — ~ -- -- — <14 <14 c-1 3-DiClPropene 0.7 -- — -- — . . . <3.5 <3.5 t-1 3-DiClPropene 1.1 — — — — ~ <5.5 <5-5 Toluene 0.4 •i -- -- — — — 77 200 1 1 2-TriClEthane 0.6 . . . -- — — <3.0 < 3-0 Chlorodibromomethane 0.4 — — -- — <2.0 <2.0 Ethylene Dibromide 0.6 — -- — <3.0 <3-0 Tetrachloroethyene 0.2 — ' — — -- 1.6 <1.0 Chlorobenzene 0.6 — ~ — <3.0 <3.0 Ethylbenzene 0.4 — -- - - 86 110 Zenon Environmental Laboratories Page 2 of 6 Zsssamh ISMvisiiiiniinniisintfSsiSL Tls&iwesiSiasissjOssi^S&MiSS!s off Atroilfysils Reported to: Dept of Civil Eng, UBC Date Reported: 4-Jan-94 Attention: Jodi Everard Project #: UBC InSitu Sample State: Water Zenon ID: 93029522 93029523 93029524 93029525 93029526 93029527 93029528 Client ID: CPT-6 #1 CPT-6 #2 CPT-6 #3 CPT-7 #2 CPT-7 #4 CPT-7 #1 CPT-7 #3 Parameter MDC Unit m&p-Xylenes 0.5 « — — — — 170 200 Bromoform 0.3 — — — — — <15 <1.5 Styrene 0.4 — — — — — 65 88 O-Xylene 0.4 — — — — — 110 140 112 2TetxaClEthane 0.4 — — — — — <2.0 <2.0 1 2-Dichlorobenzene 0.4 — — — — — <2.1 <2.0 1 3-Dich)orobenzene 0.3 M — — — — — <2.0 <1.5 1 4-Dkhlorobenzene 0.2 n _ — — — — <1J3 <1.0 Surrogate Recovery Bromofluorobenzene % — — — — — 105 99 d4-l 2-diClethane — — — — — 102 104 d8-Toluene «t — — — — — 99 101 Chlorophenols Trichlorophenol 0.0012 mg/L <3 <0.3 <1.2 0.005 0.0033 0.13 0.027 Tetrachlorophenol 0.0012 H 21 11 6.3 0.022 0.0055 0.36 0.056 Pentachlorophenol 0.0011 13 41 4.0 0.14 0.12 0.86 0.18 Nonchlorlnated phenols 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.0048 mg/L <12 <1.2 <4.8 0.03 <0.048 3 <0.048 2,4-Dimerhylphenol 0.0017 6.0 1.2 0.86 3-7 7.6 13 9.6 4,6-Dinitrc-2-methylphenoI 0.0015 N <3.8 <0.38 <1.5 <0.015 <1.5 < l - 5 <0.015 2-Nitrophenol 0.0014 " <3.5 1.9 <1.4 <0.014 <1.4 <1.4 <0.014 4-NitrophenoI 0.0014 M <3.5 <0.35 <1.4 <0.0l4 <1.4 <1.4 <0.014 Phenol 0.0011 M 8.2 0.1 <1.1 20 62 9.2 60 2-Methylphenol 0.0017 4.4 <0.43 <1.7 3.1 6 5.2 7.9 3-Methylphenol 0.0017 <4.3 <0.43 <1.7 <0.017 <1.7 <1.7 <0.017 4-Methylphenol 0.0017 3.1 0.09 <1.7 3.3 6.5 6.1 8.2 Surrogate Recovery d5-Phenol NA NA NA 109 124 NA 83 2-Fluorobiphenyl NA NA NA 114 124 NA 78 2,4,6-Tribromophenol NA NA NA 116 123 NA 78 Sample Date: 93/11/30 93/11/30 93/11/30 93/12/01 93/12/01 93/12/01 93/12/01 Notes: MDC = Minimum Detectable Concentration "< " = Less than MDC Surrogate recovery NA due to sample dilutions MDC'S raised due to sample dilutions Organic results are not corrected for surrogate recoveries (1) = Analysed out of optimal time frame Zenon Environmental Laboratories Page 3 of 6 Reported to: Dept of Civil Eng, UBC Date Reported: 4-Jan-94 '^Attention: Jodi Everard Project #: UBC InSitu Sample State: Water Zenon ID: 93029529 93029530 93029531 93029532 93029533 93029534 93029535 Client ID: CPT-8#2 C P T - 8 « CPT-8#4 Method K 9 3 1 1 K9311 K9311 Blank RES-1 RES-2 RES-3 Parameter MDC Unit pH 0.1 pH units 5-6(1) 6 .5(1) 6 . 8 ( 1 ) 6J3(1) Specific Conductance 1 uS/cm 210 220 330 1 2450 26400 27300 Res. Filterable l.Ou 4 mg/L — — < 1520 18000 18100 Hardness Dissolved M 76.9 86.7 139 < 6 5 6 2680 2870 Silver Dissolved 0.01 mg/L < < < < < < < Aluminum Dissolved 0.02 0.07 < < < < < < Arsenic Dissolved 0.04 < < < < 0.09 0.09 0.08 Boron Dissolved 0.008 0.039 0 X 3 6 0.014 < 0.113 0.947 0.932 Barium Dissolved 0.001 0.028 0.028 0.019 < 0.045 0.228 0.143 Beryllium Dissolved 0.001 M < < < < < < < Bismuth Dissolved 0.02 < < < < < < < Calcium Dissolved 0.01 17.2 16.6 27.7 0.01 66.4 257 292 Cadmium Dissolved 0.002 < < < < < < < Cobalt Dissolved 0.003 M < 0.004 0.005 < 0.004 < 0.003 Chromium Dissolved 0.002 < < < < < < < Copper Dissolved 0.001 0.002 < < < < < 0.001 Iron Dissolved 0.003 0.381 0.107 0.011 < < < < Potassium Dissolved 0.4 H 1.3 2.3 3-1 < 8.1 49.9 70.3 Magnesium Dissolved 0.02 8.24 11 16.9 < 119 495 519 Manganese Dissolved 0.002 0.56 0.693 1.55 < 1.77 6.57 8.98 Molybdenum Dissolved 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.004 < < < < Sodium Dissolved 0.01 ft 7.34 8.82 9.81 0.02 192 4130 4390 Nickel Dissolved 0.008 " 0.022 0.023 0.027 < 0.025 0.019 0.018 Phosphorus Dissolved . 0.04 < < < • ' < 0.07 0.08 0.09 Lead Dissolved 0.02 " < < < < < 0.03 0.03 Sulfur Dissolved 0.03 N 0.57 0.28 0.27 < 49.6 254 333 Antimony Dissolved 0.015 A < < < < < 0.022 < Selenium Dissolved 0.03 < < < < < < < Silicon Dissolved 0.03 13.4 15.1 17.8 < 19-5 11.2 9.46 Tin Dissolved 0.02 < < < < 0.04 0.03 0.04 Strontium Dissolved 0.001 0.095 0.082 0.129 < 0.489 2.8 3.22 Tellurium Dissolved 0.02 < < < < < < < Titanium Dissolved 0.003 .0.008 < < < < 0.004 0.004 Thallium Dissolved 0.02 < < < < < < < Vanadium Dissolved 0.003 < < < < < < < Zinc Dissolved 0.002 0.011 0.004 0.004 < 0.007 < < Zirconium Dissolved 0.003 < < < < < 0.004 0.003 ToLExtr.Hydrocarbs 0.01 mg/L 31 23 18 < - . . . — PAH Benz(a)anthracene 0.00001 mg/L 0.0086 0.046 0.0086 0.00014 . . . — --7 12-Dimethylbenz(a) 0.00005 < < < < — — --Dibenz(a tOanthracen 0.00001 0.00056 0.0023 0.00045 < — — --Chrysene 0.00001 0.009 0.044 0.0082 0.00014 . . . — — Benzo(b+k)fluorantrie 0.00001 0.0066 0.032 0.006 < — . . . --3-Methylcholanthrene 0.00002 " < < < < — — — BenzoCpfluoranthene 0.00001 0.006 0.003 0.00052 < — -- — Benzo(g h Dperylene 0.00002 0.0008 0.0033 9.OOO56 < — — — Benzo(c)phenanthrene 0.00001 0.0014 0.0077 0.0015 < — . . . — Zenon Environmental Laboratories Page 4 of 6 Reported to: Dept of Civil Eng, UBC Date Reported: 4-Jan-94 v Attention: Jodi Everard Project #: UBC InSitu Sample State: Water Zenon ID: 93029529 93029530 93029531 93029532 93029533 93029534 93029535 Client ID: CPT-8 #2 CPT-8 #3 CPT-8 #4 Method K93H K9311 K9311 Blank RES-1 RES-2 RES-3 Parameter MDC Unit Pyrene 0.00001 - 0.026 0.16 0.034 0.00014 _ BenzoCa)pyrene 0.00001 N 0.0029 0.012 0.0024 < DibenzoCa h)pyrene 0.00005 < < < < , „ DibenzoCa Opyrene 0.00005 « < < < < DibenzoCa Dpyrene 0.00005 < < < < IndenoCl 2 3-c d)pyr 0.00001 0.00085 0.0037 0.00071 < Acenaphthene 0.00001 0.024 0.3 0.21 0.00005 Acenaphthylene 0.00001 0.0007 0.01 0.0076 < Anthracene 0.00001 0.011 0.082 0.035 0.00004 Fluoranthene 0.00001 0.039 0.24 0.054 0.00017 . Fluorene 0.00001 0.022 0.22 0.13 0.00004 Naphthalene 0.00001 0.39 2.1 1-9 0.0035 Phenanthrene 0.00001 0.061 0.49 0.17 0.00021 Total PAH's 0.00005 n 0.61 3.8 2.6 0.0044 Total Low MW PAH's 0.00005 M 0.51 3-2 2.5 0.0038 Total High MW PAH's 0.00005 n 0.1 0.55 0.12 0.00059 Surrogate Recovery dlO-Acenaphthene % 110 96 74 76 dlO-Phenanthrene ft 121 119 93 85 dl2-Crysene tt 112 99 77 92 dl2-Perylene n 80 82 72 74 VOC Chloromethane 2.3 ug/L <12 < 12 <12 < Vinyl Chloride 2.9 <15 <15 <15 < Bromomethane 2.4 < 12 <12 < 12 < Chloroethane 2.3 • < 12 <12 <12 < TriClFluoromethane 0.3 <l-5 <1.5 <1.5 0.3 1 1-Dichloroethene 0.4 N <2.0 < 2.0 < 2,0 < Dichloromethane 0.3 H < 1 6 < 17 < 1 6 2.3 tl 2-Dichloroethene 0.4 <2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < ._ 1 1-Dichloroethane 0.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 < cl 2-Dichloroethene 0.4 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < Chloroform 0.4 <2.0 < 2.0 <Z0 < 1 1 1-TriClEthane 0.6 <3.0 <3.0 < 3.0 < 1 2-Dichloroethane .0.4 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < Carbon tetrachloride 0.3 < 1 5 <1.5 < 1.5 < Benzene • 0.2 9.9 <7.9 <6.0 0.8 1 2-Dichloropropane 0.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 < Trichloroethene 0.3 " <1.5 <l-5 <1.5 < Bromodichloromethane 0.4 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < _„ 2-aEthylvinylether 2.9 " < 14 < 1 4 <14 < c-1 3-DiaPropene 0.7 <3.5 <3.5 <3-5 < — t-1 3-DiClPropene 1.1 <5.5 <5.5 <5.5 < — Toluene 0.4 54 50 38 0.5 — 1 1 2-TriClEthane 0.6 <3.0 <3.0 <3-0 < Chlorodibromomethane 0.4 < 2.0 <2.0 < 2.0 < ' Ethylene Dibromide 0.6 " <3.0 <30 <3-0 < — Tetrachloroethyene 0.2 " < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < Chlorobenzene 0.6 < 3.0 <3.0 <3.0 < Ethylbenzene 0.4 49 75 58 < — . . . __ Zenon Environmental Laboratories Page 5 of 6 Reported to: Dept of Civil Eng, UBC Date Reported: 4-Jan-94 Attention: Jodi Everard Project #: UBC InSitu Sample State: Water Zenon ID: 93029529 93029530 93029531 93029532 93029533 93029534 93029535 Client ID: CPT-8 #2 CPT-8 #3 CPT-8 #4 Method K9311 K9311 K9311 Blank RES-1 RES-2 RES-3 Parameter MDC Unit m&p-Xylenes 0.5 100 140 120 0-9 — — Bromoform 0.3 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 < — — Styrene 0.4 43 45 38 < — — O-Xyiene 0.4 71 9 0 75 < — — 112 ZTetraClEthane 0.4 <2.0 <2.0 < 2.0 < 1 2-Dichlorobenzene 0.4 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 0.7 _ 1 3-Dichlorobenzene 0.3 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 0.8 1 4-Dkhlorobenzene 0.2 « <1.0 <1.0 < 1.0 0.7 Surrogate Recovery Bromofluorobenzene 98 9 7 95 98 — — d4-l 2-didethane 101 105 101 95 d8-Toluene 103 102 101 105 — — — Chlorophenols Trichlorophenol Tetrachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol 0.0012 mg/L 0.093 <0.012 <0.12 < — _ 0.0012 0.18 0.025 <0.12 < - _ — 0.0011 2.4 <0.011 <0.11 < — Nonchlorinated phenols 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.0048 mg/L < 0.03 <0.48 < — — 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.0017 • 0.68 0.032 <0.17 < — — 4,6^ Dinitro-2-methylphenol 0.0015 < <0.015 <0.15 < — _ — 2-Nitrophenol 0.0014 " < <aoi4 <0.14 < — _ 4-NitrophenoI 0.0014 M 0.011 <0.0l4 <0.14 < — — — Phenol 0.0011 0.42 0.013 0.021 0.065 — — — 2-Methylphenol 0.0017 0.12 <0.017 <0.17 < — — — 3-Methylphenol 0.0017 < <0.017 <0.17 < — — 4-Methylphenol 0.0017 0.1 0.027 <0.17 < — — Surrogate Recovery d5-Phenol 66 81 61 65 — _ — 2-Fluorobiphenyl 92 121 110 99 — — 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 81 86 56 72 — — — Sample Date: 93/12/02 93/12/02 93/12/02 93/12/02 93/11/26 93/11/26 93/11/2 Notes: MDC - Minimum Detectable Concentration "< " - Less than MDC Surrogate recovery NA due to sample dilutions MDC'S raised due to sample dilutions Organic results are not corrected for surrogate recoveries (1) = Analysed out of optimal time frame Zenon Environmental Laboratories Page 6 of 6 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0050377/manifest

Comment

Related Items