Specifications Part 2 07073.pdf

JWM

TRD

TRT

DECEMBER 2013

PR

O

JE

C

T:

DATE:

SHEET NO.

ACI JOB #

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

PM REVIEW:

SEAL:

SIGNATURE:

SCALE:

HORZ:

VERT:

SH

EE

T

TIT

LE

of

NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE:

HARD COPY IS INTENDED TO

BE 24" X 36" WHEN PLOTTED.

SCALE(S) INDICATED AND

GRAPHIC QUALITY MAY NOT

BE ACCURATE FOR ANY

OTHER SIZES

QA/QC REVIEW:

DATE:

W es t M ai n

St re et Be nt on

H ar bo r, M I.

T 2

.9

.2

F

9.

7.

M an ist ee , M

I So ut h

Ha ve n, M

I So ut h

Be nd

, I N

Po rta ge , I

N

C on fid en ce B y D es ig n

En gi ne er in g

A rc hi te ct ur e La nd S ur ve yi ng

M ar in a/

W at er fro nt C om m un ity

P la nn in g La nd sc ap e

A rc hi te ct ur e D ev el op m en t S er vi ce s

C O

PY

RI

G

HT

- A

BO

N

M A

RC

HE

C O

N

SU

LT

A

N

TS

, I N

C

C

ITY

O F

SO

UT

H

HA

VE

N

VA

N

B

UR

EN

TR

A

IL

C O

N N

EC

TIO

N D

EV

EL

O

PM

EN

T

SO

UT

H

HA

VE

N

, M I

TR

A

IL

S

IG

N

A G

E ê ê ê

DJL

AS NOTED

N/A

13-0351

POTENTIAL TRAIL SIGNAGE EXHIBITS ARE

POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR DIRECTIONAL

SIGNAGE. FINAL LOCATION SHALL BE

DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER

Item Description

Unit

Sht 14

Quantity

Pavt Mrkg, Ovly Cold Plastic, Sharrow Sym

Ea 36

Trail Directional Sign, 2 Destination

Ea 4

Trail Directional Sign, 3 Destination

Ea 6

Trail Directional Sign, 4 Destination

Ea 3

Trail Directional Sign, 5 Destination

Ea 1

Post Hole Through Conc for Steel Post

Ea 5

Post Hole Through Conc for Wood Post

Ea 5

E:

\C

IV

IL

D

\E N

G

\1 3-

V A

N B

U R

EN

T

R A

IL

\d w g\

-0

TR

A

IL

S

IG

N

A G

E.

dw g, 4, 2/

/2

3:

:2

PM

, d la rs on

, 1 :1

City of South Haven Van Buren Trail Connection Development December 20, 2013

PROJECT MANUAL

00 01 10

Table of Contents

- i – P:\_Projects\2013 PROJECTS\13-0351 Van Buren Trail Connection Development\Spec\_00001 TOC.rtf

SECTION 00 01 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 – BIDDING AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

00 11 16 Advertisement to Bid 1/1

00 11 17 Progress Clause 1/1

00 21 15 Instructions to Bidders .......................EJCDC C-200 1/10

00 41 43 Bid Forms ...........................................EJCDC C-410 1/9

00 43 13 Bid Security 1/1

00 43 14 Non Collusion Affidavit 1/1

00 51 00 Notice of Award .................................EJCDC C-510 1/1

00 52 15 Agreement Form ................................EJCDC C-520 1/8

00 61 13 13 Performance Bond Form ....................EJCDC C-610 1/4

00 61 13 16 Payment Bond Form ..........................EJCDC C-615A 1/3

00 72 00 General Conditions ............................EJCDC C-700 1/65

00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions .................EJCDC C-800 1/11

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

01 10 00 Summary 1/2

01 20 00 Price and Payment Procedure 1/3

01 30 00 Administrative Requirements 1/3

01 33 00 Submittal Procedures 1/3

01 40 00 Quality Requirements 1/3

01 60 00 Product Requirements 1/3

01 70 00 Execution and Closeout Requirements 1/2

01 74 19 Construction Waste Management and Disposal 1/1

00 01 10

Table of Contents

- ii – P:\_Projects\2013 PROJECTS\13-0351 Van Buren Trail Connection Development\Spec\_00001 TOC.rtf

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

SECTION TITLE PAGE

31 23 17 Trenching 1/5

33 05 14 Public Manholes and Structures 1/11

33 41 13 Public Storm Utility Drainage Piping 1/10

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

Adoption of MDOT Standards SP – 1/2

Maintaining Traffic SP – 1/3

Non-hazardous Contaminated Material Handling and Disposal SP – 1/2

APPENDIX

Work Plan/Due Care Plan Everett Park Phase 1 1/14

01 40 00

Quality Requirements

SECTION 01 40 00

QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Quality control and control of installation.

B. Tolerances.

C. References.

D. Labeling.

E. Testing and inspection services.

F. Manufacturers' field services.

G. Examination.

H. Preparation.

1.2 QUALITY CONTROL AND CONTROL OF INSTALLATION

A. Monitor quality control over suppliers, manufacturers, products, services, site conditions, and workmanship, to produce Work of specified quality.

B. Comply with manufacturers' instructions, including each step in sequence.

C. When manufacturers' instructions conflict with Contract Documents, request clarification from Engineer before proceeding.

D. Comply with specified standards as minimum quality for the Work except where more stringent tolerances, codes, or specified requirements indicate higher standards or more precise workmanship.

E. Perform Work by persons qualified to produce required and specified quality.

F. Verify field measurements are as indicated on Shop Drawings or as instructed by manufacturer.

G. Secure products in place with positive anchorage devices designed and sized to withstand stresses, vibration, physical distortion, or disfigurement.

1.3 TOLERANCES

A. Monitor fabrication and installation tolerance control of products to produce acceptable

Work. Do not permit tolerances to accumulate.

B. Comply with manufacturers' tolerances. When manufacturers' tolerances conflict with

Contract Documents, request clarification from Engineer before proceeding.

C. Adjust products to appropriate dimensions; position before securing products in place.

1.4 REFERENCES

A. For products or workmanship specified by association, trade, or other consensus standards, comply with requirements of standard, except when more rigid requirements are specified or are required by applicable codes.

B. Conform to reference standard by date of issue current on date of receiving bids, except where specific date is established by code.

C. Obtain copies of standards where required by product specification sections.

D. When specified reference standards conflict with Contract Documents, request clarification from Engineer before proceeding.

E. Neither contractual relationships, duties, nor responsibilities of parties in Contract nor those of Engineer shall be altered from Contract Documents by mention or inference otherwise in reference documents.

1.5 TESTING AND INSPECTIONS BY CONTRACTOR

A. Where individual specification sections require, conduct testing and inspections.

B. Record required information and submit report to Engineer.

C. Engineer shall review Contractor’s testing reports to verify that the Work is in conformance with specifications.

D. Testing and Inspection Reports: At a minimum, testing and inspection reports shall contain the following information:

1. Project title.

2. Name of personnel conducting testing and inspections.

3. Description of testing and inspection procedures.

4. Date and time of testing or inspection.

5. Location in Project.

6. Results of tests.

7. Conformance with Contract Documents.

8. Other information as required in individual specification sections.

1.6 TESTING AND INSPECTIONS BY OWNER

A. Owner will employ and pay for services of an independent firm to perform testing and inspections.

B. Owner reserves the right to inspect any portion of the Work at any time.

C. The independent firm will perform tests, inspections and other services specified in individual specification sections and as required by Authority having jurisdiction.

D. Testing, inspections and source quality control may occur on or off project site.

E. Reports will be submitted by independent firm to Engineer, indicating observations and results of tests and indicating compliance or non-compliance with Contract Documents.

F. Cooperate with independent firm; furnish samples of materials, design mix, equipment, tools, storage, safe access, and assistance by incidental labor as requested.

1. Notify Engineer and independent firm 48 hours prior to expected time for operations requiring services, or as specified in individual specification sections.

2. Make arrangements with independent firm and pay for additional samples and tests required for Contractor's use.

3. Provide access to each layer of bedding and backfill for testing.

G. Testing and employment of testing agency or laboratory shall not relieve Contractor of obligation to perform Work in accordance with requirements of Contract Documents.

H. Re-testing or re-inspection required because of non-conformance to specified requirements shall be performed by same independent firm on instructions by Engineer.

Payment for re-testing or re-inspection will be charged to Contractor by deducting testing charges from Contract Price.

I. Limits On Testing Firm:

1. Testing Firm or laboratory may not release, revoke, alter, or enlarge on requirements of Contract Documents.

2. Testing Firm or laboratory may not approve or accept any portion of the Work.

3. Testing Firm or laboratory may not assume duties of Contractor.

4. Testing Firm or laboratory has no authority to stop the Work.

1.7 MANUFACTURERS' FIELD SERVICES

A. When specified in individual specification sections, require material or product suppliers or manufacturers to provide qualified staff personnel to observe site conditions, conditions of surfaces and installation, quality of workmanship, and to provide instruction when necessary.

B. Report observations and site decisions or instructions given to Contractor that are supplemental or contrary to manufacturers' written instructions.

PART 2 PRODUCTS - Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION - Not Used

END OF SECTION

01 60 00

Product Requirements

SECTION 01 60 00

PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Products.

B. Product delivery requirements.

C. Product storage and handling requirements.

D. Product options.

E. Product substitution procedures.

1.2 PRODUCTS

A. Furnish products of qualified manufacturers suitable for intended use. Furnish products of each type by single manufacturer unless specified otherwise.

1.3 PRODUCT DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

A. Transport and handle products in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.

B. Promptly inspect shipments to ensure products comply with requirements, quantities are correct, and products are undamaged.

C. Provide equipment and personnel to handle products by methods to prevent soiling, disfigurement, or damage.

1.4 PRODUCT STORAGE AND HANDLING REQUIREMENTS

A. Store and protect products in accordance with manufacturers' instructions.

B. Store with seals and labels intact and legible.

C. Store sensitive products in weather tight, climate controlled, enclosures in an environment favorable to product.

D. Provide off-site storage and protection when site does not permit on-site storage or protection.

E. Cover products subject to deterioration with impervious sheet covering. Provide ventilation to prevent condensation and degradation of products.

F. Store loose granular materials on solid flat surfaces in well-drained area. Prevent mixing with foreign matter.

G. Provide equipment and personnel to store products by methods to prevent soiling, disfigurement, or damage.

H. Arrange storage of products to permit access for inspection. Periodically inspect to verify products are undamaged and are maintained in acceptable condition.

1.5 PRODUCT OPTIONS

A. Products Specified by Reference Standards or by Description Only: Any product meeting those standards or description.

B. Products Specified by Naming One or More Manufacturers: Products of one of manufacturers named and meeting specifications, no options or substitutions allowed.

C. Products Specified by Naming One or More Manufacturers with Provision for

Substitutions: Submit request for substitution for any manufacturer not named in accordance with the following article.

1.6 PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

A. Engineer will consider requests for Substitutions within 15 days after the effective date of

Owner/Contractor agreement.

B. Engineer shall not be bound to any time limitations for review of substitution requests.

Contractor shall not receive any adjustment to completion schedules because of product substitution requests.

C. Substitutions may be considered when a product becomes unavailable through no fault of

Contractor.

D. Document each request with complete data substantiating compliance of proposed

Substitution with Contract Documents.

E. A request constitutes a representation that Contractor:

1. Has investigated proposed product and determined that it meets or exceeds quality level of specified product.

2. Will provide same warranty for Substitution as for specified product.

3. Will coordinate installation and make changes to other Work which may be required for the Work to be complete with no additional cost to Owner.

4. Waives claims for additional costs or time extension which may subsequently become apparent.

5. Will reimburse Owner and Engineer for review or redesign services associated with re-approval by authorities having jurisdiction.

F. Substitutions will not be considered when they are indicated or implied on Shop Drawing or Product Data submittals, without separate written request, or when acceptance will require revision to Contract Documents.

G. Substitution Submittal Procedure:

1. Submit three copies of request for Substitution for consideration. Limit each request to one proposed Substitution.

2. Submit Shop Drawings, Product Data, and certified test results attesting to proposed product equivalence. Burden of proof is on proposer.

3. Engineer will notify Contractor in writing of decision to accept or reject request.

PART 2 PRODUCTS - Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION - Not Used

END OF SECTION

CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN

SPECIAL PROVISION

FOR

ADOPTION OF 2012 MDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

ABONMARCHE:JWM 1 OF 2 12/20/2013

P:\_Projects\2013 PROJECTS\13-0351 Van Buren Trail Connection Development\Spec\SP Adoption of MDOT Standards.doc

a. Description. This project shall be constructed in accordance with the following Divisions and Sections of the 2012 MDOT Standard Specifications for Construction as well as the latest edition of MDOT Road and Bridge Standard Plans and Special Details.

These documents may be downloaded or ordered as follows:

2012 MDOT Standard Specifications for Construction

Electronic File: Available in PDF Format at the Link Below http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/specbook/2012/

MDOT Road & Bridge Standard Plans

Hard Copy: Contact Michael Fiero at (517) 322-1676

Electronic File: Available in PDF Format at the Link Below http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/design/englishstandardplans/index.htm

This includes, but is not limited to earthwork, bases, subbases, preparation for paving, drainage, Hot Mix Asphalt Paving, and concrete paving/miscellaneous site work.

1. Division 1 – General Provisions

2. Division 2 – Earthwork

3. Division 3 – Bases

4. Division 4 – Drainage Features

5. Division 5 – Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements & Surface Treatments

6. Division 6 – Portland Cement Concrete Pavements

7. Division 7 – Structures

8. Division 8 – Incidental Construction

9. Division 9 - Materials

ABONMARCHE:JWM 2 OF 2 12/20/2013

P:\_Projects\2013 PROJECTS\13-0351 Van Buren Trail Connection Development\Spec\SP Adoption of MDOT Standards.doc

b. Materials. – See Division 9

c. Construction. See Individual Pay Items within each Division

d. Measurement and Payment.

1. Measurement and Payment set forth in the 2012 MDOT Standard Specifications for Construction shall prevail unless specified otherwise in the Contract Documents.

cweber Rectangle

Bidding and Contract Document (R 9/16) Project Name: Belgravia File No. 761/07073.SAR

APPENDIX IX

SOIL SEGREGATION PLAN

HAZARDOUS STARTING

@15’ BGL

HAZARDOUS STARTING

@10’ BGL

HAZARDOUS STARTING

@4’ BGL

HAZARDOUS

STARTING @0’ BGL

cweber Text Box FIGURE SHOWS DEPTH AT WHICH DRILL CUTTINGS ARE LIKELY TO BE HAZARDOUS BASED ON 20X TCE TCLP LIMIT OF 0.5 MG/L (10,000 UG/KG TCE) AS A SCREENING LEVEL. SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND PID SCREENING RESULTS WERE REVIEWED TO GENERATE AREAS

Bidding and Contract Document (R 9/16) Project Name: Belgravia File No. 761/07073.SAR

APPENDIX X

REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT EXCERPT

ET-DSPTM

Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process

100% Remedial Design Report

In-situ Thermal Remediation

Belgravia Site

South Haven, MI

McMillan-McGee Creators of

100% Remedial Design Report

Prepared For:

In-situ Thermal Remediation

Belgravia Site

South Haven, MI

McMillan-McGee Corp.

4895 - 35B Street SE Calgary, Alberta T2B 3M9 Canada Ph: 403-279-7948 Fx: 403-272 -7201 Web: www.mcmillan-mcgee.com

July 2017

McMillan-McGee Corp. Point of Contact Mr. Brent Winder, BA, B.S.Sc., MBA Ph: 403-569-5103 Email: brent.winder@mcmillan-mcgee.com

Written by:

Clayton Campbell, P.Eng.

Reviewed and Approved by:

David Rountree, P.Eng.

McMillan-McGee Corp. Technical Point of Contact Dr. Bruce McGee, PhD, P.Eng.

Ph: 403-569-5101 Email: bruce.mcgee@mcmillan-mcgee.com

McMillan-McGee Corp. Technical Point of Contact Mr. David Rountree, B.Sc., P.Eng., M.Eng. Env.

Ph: 403-569-5116 Email: drountree@mcmillan-mcgee.com

Confidentiality Notice This confidential document and any related presentation was prepared by McMillan-McGee Corp. for the exclusive use of the intended party and is not to be reproduced, distributed or made available, in whole or in part, to any person, company, or organization without the express permission of McMillan-McGee Corp.

Belgravia Site, South Haven, Michigan

July 2017 McMillan-McGee Corp.

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report ii

Executive Summary

McMillan-McGee (Mc2) has prepared this 100% Remedial Design Report (report) for the Belgravia site located at 125 Elkenburg Street, South Haven, Van Buren County, Michigan (Site). The remedial goals for the Site will be achieved using Mc2’s patented Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process (ET-DSPTM) and a site-specific multi-phase extraction and treatment system. The volume delineated for thermal treatment has an approximate areal extent of 19,400 square feet (ft2), and an assumed depth of 33 feet (ft), for a total estimated treatment volume of 23,700 cubic yards (yd3).

The primary goals of thermal treatment are (i) to reduce trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), chloroethene (i.e., vinyl chloride, VC) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) concentrations in soil and groundwater, and (ii) to remove potential non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) from the treatment volume.

In this design, 168 electrodes in 84 borings are proposed to heat the treatment volume to minimum target co-boiling temperatures of 70-100 degrees Celsius (°C) [158-212 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)] . The total energy input to the electrodes is expected to be approximately 3,920 megawatt-hours (MWh) over 180 days of operation. The average rate of water injection to the electrodes is estimated to be 8.4 gallons per minute (GPM), which will maintain electrical conductivity near the electrode bodies during operations, and facilitate convective heat transfer within the treatment volume. Potassium chloride (KCl) electrolyte injection is proposed as a contingency in the event that resistive soil conditions are encountered during operations.

Vaporized VOCs, steam and other gases generated at elevated subsurface temperatures will be captured with a network of 54 multiphase extraction (MPE) wells, complete with downhole compressed air-assisted groundwater recovery slurps and pumps. The total average vapor flow rate is estimated at 600 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) under an applied vacuum of up to 12 inches of mercury (in. Hg). The total average liquid extraction flow rate is estimated at 8.61 GPM. Extracted fluids will be processed in an aboveground treatment system before discharge or reinjection.

Real time temperature will be collected during operations using 6 vertical sensor wells that will each be equipped with strings of 12 temperature sensors (DigiTAMTMs) embedded at 3 foot intervals.

There will be detailed tracking of the contaminant mass removal via the fluid streams that are extracted from the Site. All data will be available on a state of the art, secure webpage, where the progress of the project will be monitored and discussed by the team on a weekly conference call to ensure continued optimization.

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. II

ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................... V

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 TREATMENT SITE AND LOCATION

1.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

1.3 SOIL RESISTIVITY

1.4 CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION AND REMEDIAL GOALS

1.4.1 Contaminant Distribution

1.4.2 Current Remedial Objectives

1.5 PROJECT ORGANIZATION

1.6 PROJECT ORGANIZATION

2 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

2.1 ET-DSPTM HEAT TRANSFER MECHANISMS

2.2 ET-DSPTM MASS REMOVAL MECHANISMS

2.3 ET-DSPTM SUBSURFACE VAPOR GENERATION

2.4 ET-DSPTM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

3 REMEDIAL APPROACH

3.1 ET-DSPTM DESIGN SUPPORT

3.2 REMEDIAL COMPONENTS

3.3 DESIGN ALTERNATE

3.4 TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY

3.5 SUBSURFACE DESIGN

3.5.1 Target Zones

3.5.2 Electrodes

3.5.3 Multi-Phase Extraction Wells

3.5.4 Horizontal Soil Vapor Extraction Wells

3.5.5 Sensor Wells

3.6 ABOVEGROUND DESIGN

3.6.1 Extraction System

3.6.2 Treatment System

3.6.3 VOC Releases and Removal Efficiency

3.6.4 Injection System

3.6.5 Utility Requirements

3.7 CONTROLS AND SYSTEM MONITORING

3.8 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

4.1 STAGING EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES

4.2 SUBSURFACE CONSTRUCTION

4.2.1 Drilling Program Details

4.2.2 Underground Utilities

4.2.3 Aboveground Utilities

4.2.4 Electrode Wells

4.2.5 Multiphase Extraction Wells

4.2.6 Horizontal SVE Wells

4.2.7 Sensor Wells

4.2.8 Vapor Cap

4.2.9 Piping Systems

4.2.10 Site Security and Safety

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report iv

4.3 ABOVE GROUND CONSTRUCTION

4.3.1 Power Supply

4.3.2 ET-DSPTM Neutral Connections

4.3.3 Treatment System

4.4 SYSTEM SHUTDOWN AND SITE RESTORATION

5 OPERATIONAL STRATEGY

5.1 OPERATIONS SCHEDULE

5.2 HYDRAULIC AND PNEUMATIC CONTROL

5.3 HEALTH & SAFETY

6 PERFORMANCE MONITORING

6.1 SUBSURFACE MONITORING

6.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM MONITORING

6.3 TEMPERATURE AND VACUUM MONITORING

6.4 GROUNDWATER AND SOIL SAMPLING

6.5 DATA COLLECTION & MANAGEMENT

6.6 ET-DSP™ CONTROL SYSTEMS

7 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A – SIMULATION REPORT ........................................................................................ A

APPENDIX B – TREATMENT VOLUME ........................................................................................ B

APPENDIX C – DESIGN DRAWINGS ............................................................................................ C

APPENDIX D – CALCULATIONS .................................................................................................. D

APPENDIX E – EQUIPMENT CUT SHEETS ................................................................................. E

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: PROJECT ORGANIZATION

TABLE 2: PROJECT TECHNICAL DESIGN

TABLE 3: PROJECT TECHNICAL DESIGN ALTERNATE

TABLE 4: MONITORING SUMMARY

TABLE 5: DRILLING PROGRAM DETAILS

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE OF (A) VAPOR PRESSURE (YAWS, 2003), (B)

LIQUID VISCOSITY (HAYNES ET AL., 2013), (C) HENRY’S LAW CONSTANT (CHEN ET

AL., 2012) AND (D) SOLUBILITY (CHEN ET AL., 2012)

FIGURE 2: SCHEMATIC OF TYPICAL APPROACH USING ET-DSPTM (NOT TO SCALE)

FIGURE 3: SAMPLE SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION MAP

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report v

Acronyms

° Angle Measurement BGS Below Ground Surface °C Degrees Celsius CL Low-plasticity clay under the Unified Soil Classification System COC Contaminant of Concern DigiTAMTM Digital Temperature Acquisition Module 1,2-DCE 1,2-dichloroethene DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid e.g. Exempli Gratia (for example) ERH Electrical Resistance Heating ET-DSP™ Electro Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process °F Degrees Fahrenheit ft Feet ft2 Square Feet FS Belgravia Site (#80000010) Feasibility Study (GRT, June 10, 2011)

FSA

Belgravia Site (#80000010) Feasibility Study Addendum (GRT, December 16, 2011)

GP Poorly-graded gravel under the Unified Soil Classification System GPM Gallons Per Minute GRT Global Remediation Technologies, Inc.

Hz Hertz ID Inside Diameter

in. Hg Inches of Mercury IPS Inter-Phase Synchronization ISTT In-Situ Thermal Treatment kbps Thousands of bits per second KCl Potassium Chloride kVA Kilo-Volt-Ampere kW Kilowatts LAN Local Area Network LGAC Liquid-Phase Granular Activated Carbon lbs Pounds Mc² McMillan-McGee Corp.

MPE Multiphase Extraction MWh Megawatt-Hour NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid NPT National Pipe Thread OD Outside Diameter Ωm Ohm-meter

OL

Organic low-plasticity soil under the Unified Soil Classification System

O&M Operations and Maintenance PCE Perchloroethene PDP Power Distribution Panel PDS Power Delivery System PEX Cross-Linked Polyethylene

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report vi

PFD Process Flow Diagram P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram PID Photoionization Detector POTW Publically-Owned Treatment Works psig Pounds per Square Inch Gauge PTFE Polytetrafluoroethene R-Value Thermal Resistance

RIR

Belgravia Site (80000010) Remedial Investigation Report (GRT, March 2006)

ROW Right of way SCFM Standard Cubic Feet Per Minute SM Silty fine-grained sand under the Unified Soil Classification System SMS Short Message Service

SP

Poorly graded fine-grained sand under the Unified Soil Classification System

SRGT Silicone Rubber Glass Fiber Tube SS Stainless Steel SVE Soil Vapor Extraction TCE Trichloroethene TDC Time-Distributed Control TDCM Time-Distributed Control Mechanism ™ Trademark TO-15 Total Organics-15 (air toxics laboratory analytical method) USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VC Vinyl Chloride VGAC Vapor-Phase Granular Activated Carbon VOC Volatile Organic Compound WCS Water Circulation System yd3 Cubic Yard

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

1 Introduction

Mc2 has prepared this design report for Global Remediation Technologies, Inc. (GRT) to describe the activities proposed for an in situ thermal treatment (ISTT) application using ET-DSPTM at the Belgravia Site (Site) in South Haven, Michigan. Results from the simulation report (Mc2, 2016, included in Appendix A) suggest that thermal treatment is a viable approach for remediation at the site.

1.1 Treatment Site and Location

The Site is located at 125 Elkenburg Street, South Haven, Van Buren County, Michigan. The Facility Identification number for the Site is 80000010. The Site is bordered by Elkenburg Street to the south, Indiana Avenue to the east, Orchard Drive to the north, and Saint Joseph Street to the west. A former railroad right-of-way (ROW) and former vacant parcel (former Overton property) are immediately east of the Site.

According to information provided in the Belgravia Site (80000010) Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) (GRT, March 2006), the Site is an old factory building and property that was developed in 1916. Previous manufacturing activities at the site include woodworking, metal plating, pipe organ assembly, and picture frame manufacturing. During the 1970s, metal plating waste was discharged to a septic tank and associated drain field located approximately 20 feet north of the building.

Area land use includes residential properties to the north and south of the Site, the aforementioned former light industrial manufacturing facility to the east, and a vacant lot south of the Site across Elkenburg Street. The shoreline of Lake Michigan is approximately 1,200 feet to the west of the Site. The total area of the Site is approximately 3.75 acres. Past land use included industrial, residential, and agricultural uses.

The specific treatment volume to be remediated is the volume of soil within the Secondary Target Zone as shown on Figures 1 through 5 of the Belgravia Site (#80000010) Review of Feasible Alternatives Addendum (FSA) (GRT, December 16, 2011) (Appendix B), subject to property access limitations on 107 Orchard Drive.

1.2 Site Geology and Hydrology

The RIR provides detailed information on the geology at the Site. Based on the information found in that document, the following typical lithological sequence is presented for the treatment volume:

1. Approximately one foot of dark-yellowish brown, silty, dry to moist, fine grained sand (SM) is present at land surface. This unit appears to be fill material, and was not present at locations on the east side of the site;

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

2. Underneath this fine-grained sand is approximately one foot of dark brown to black, moist, organic soil (OL) with varying quantities of sand and abundant decaying plant matter. Near the Belgravia building, slag and coal were also present in this soil layer.

3. Below the organic soil from approximately 2 to 4 feet below ground surface (BGS) lies a brown, poorly graded fine grained sand (SP) that was moist to wet during the Remedial Investigation;

4. Poorly graded gravel seams were observed interbedded within the fine-grained sand at some locations;

5. Underlying the fine-grained sand is a moist clayey glacial till (CL) containing some silt, trace sand, and trace gravel, extending from approximately 4.5 to 43 feet BGS. This clayey till has a medium plasticity and varies in consistency from soft to firm from 4.5 to 10 feet BGS, grading into stiff from 10 to 26 feet BGS, and then very stiff from 26 to 43 feet BGS;

6. A significant sand/gravel lens was encountered at 10 feet BGS. At five of the soil borings (PSB-4, PSB-5, PSB-18, PSB-28, and MW- 30), a brown poorly graded fine grained wet sand (SP) was encountered at approximately 10 feet BGS, while at one soil boring (MW-49), a poorly graded fine grained wet gravel (GP) was encountered at approximately the same depth. The thickness of the sand lens averaged 1.6 feet, though it varied between 0.5 and 3 feet thick; and,

7. A second significant sand/gravel lens was encountered at 26 feet BGS. At fifteen soil borings (PSB-14, PSB-33, MW-46I, PSB-25, PSB-

31, PSB-23, PSB-6, PSB- 7, PSB-11I, PSB-11, PSB-29, PSB-30,

PSB-36, PSB-37, and MW-45), a moist to wet sand lens was encountered at an average depth of 26 feet BGS. The thickness of this sand lens ranged between 0.05 and 0.8 feet, with an average of

0.3 feet.

GRT’s analysis of site hydraulic conditions found the following hydrostratigrahpic units at the Site in the treatment volume:

1. The unconfined groundwater unit, associated with SP sand located from 2 to 4 feet BGS;

2. The underlying clayey till (CL) unit, designated as “Aquitard A”, located from 4.5 to 43 feet BGS;

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

3. The saturated sand/gravel lens located at approximately 10 feet BGS;

and,

4. The saturated sand lens occurring at approximately 26 feet BGS.

A fat clay unit is found below 43 feet BGS, designated as “Aquitard B”;

however, this unit is outside of the designated treatment volume.

1.3 Soil Resistivity

Site soil samples were tested by Kemron Corporation’s Atlanta, Georgia laboratory by ASTM International’s Method G187 for soil resistivity. The results ranged from 23 to 109 ohm-meters (Ωm), well within the acceptable range for ET-DSPTM.

1.4 Contaminant Distribution and Remedial Goals

1.4.1 Contaminant Distribution

Analytical results of samples collected at the site indicate that TCE is the primary contaminant of concern (COC) (GRT, 2006). TCE is the main component (65%) of a multi-component dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) found on the site. Xylene was also identified as a component of this DNAPL, at 4%. Thirty-one percent (31%) of the DNAPL is composed of unidentified components: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, total xylenes, tetrachloroethene (PCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, benzo(a)pyrene, arsenic, cobalt, iron, nickel, selenium, and silver.

Despite the large number of contaminants, TCE is the primary contaminant driving electric resistance heating (ERH) remediation, and the Secondary Target Zone as presented in the FSA was chosen by GRT to delineate the volume to be treated.

1.4.2 Current Remedial Objectives

A remedial goal of 5,000 ug/Kg TCE has been established by GRT and its client. Thermal modeling outcomes predict that the heating, injection, and extraction design strategy, as presented herein, will most efficiently work toward achieving this remedial goal. Section 3.4 puts forth the predicted Percent Mass Recovery versus System Operating Days. The ultimate end-point treatment value will be determined based on verification sampling, an evaluation of monthly percent mass recovery changes and a cost-benefit analysis of the removal efficiency.

In the unfortunate situation whereby In Situ Treatment of 107 Orchard is not allowed, it should be noted that the treated/untreated contaminant mass boundary will affect removal efficiency in this region of the plume. The

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report uniform extraction well field will and location of electrodes positioned along this boundary will help alleviate contaminant mass migration but not completely stop said migration, as evidenced at other sites.

1.5 Project Organization

The thermal remediation team consists of Mc² and GRT. The responsibilities of each team member are outlined in Table 1.

1.6 Project Organization

Table 1: Project Organization

Contractor Role Contact Name Contact Information

Global Remediation

Technologies, Inc.

Lead Consultant / Oversight Contractor

Richard Raetz

(W) 231-941-8622

(M) 231-590-4202 richard@grtusa.com

Eric Benson

(W) 231-941-8622

(M) 231-342-0360 eric@grtusa.com

McMillan-McGee

ET-DSP™

Contractor

David Rountree

(W) 403-569-5116

(M) 403-921-0848 drountree@mcmillan-mcgee.com

Clayton Campbell

(W) 403-569-5104

(M) 403-660-8561 ccampbell@mcmillan-mcgee.com

MK Environmental Extraction and

Treatment System Edward Tung

(W) 630-920-1104

(M) 630-848-0585 etung@mkenv.com

Drilling Contractor Drilling TBD TBD

Electrical Contractor

Electrical Connections

TBD TBD

Civil Contractor Civil Work and

Vapor Cap

TBD TBD

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

2 Treatment Technology

Site remediation will incorporate the use of Mc2’s patented ET-DSPTM technology. Efficient recovery of VOCs in the vapor phase is applicable to compounds with a vapor pressure and a Henry’s law constant greater than

0.5 mmHg and 0.01, respectively. The physical characteristics of specific compounds detected within the treatment areas are all suitable for treatment using ET-DSPTM.

2.1 ET-DSPTM Heat Transfer Mechanisms

Field applications of ET-DSPTM use a Power Delivery System (PDS) to direct low frequency (60 Hertz (Hz)) three-phase electrical power to a network of subsurface electrodes. Adjacent electrodes are 120° out of phase such that gradients in electric potential are induced, which causes current conduction and resistive heat dissipation throughout the treatment volume. The power dissipated by electrical resistance heating is proportional to the inverse of the distance squared from each electrode (McGee and Donaldson, 2009). Water may be injected during ERH to compensate for this non-uniform power distribution by increasing convective heat transfer, which propagates heat further from the electrodes into the subsurface. Conductive heat transfer also occurs as a result of the temperature gradients induced during heating. The transient temperature distribution during operations is dictated by the conservation of energy, which can include conduction, convection, electrothermal, phase change and heat accumulation terms (McGee and Vermeulen, 2007).

2.2 ET-DSPTM Mass Removal Mechanisms

At elevated temperatures, vaporization, volatilization, dissolution and desorption are enhanced such that conditions are more favorable for the extraction of VOC mass from the subsurface (United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 2009; Triplett Kingston et al., 2014). These mechanisms are described by the temperature dependence of the vapor pressures, Henry’s law constants, solubilities and soil-water partition coefficients for the fluids in question, respectively. In addition, liquid viscosities, interfacial tensions and densities decrease at elevated temperatures, which can make NAPLs more mobile for extraction. Figure 1 illustrates the physical properties of groundwater and TCE that are most sensitive to changes in temperature.

Vaporization (i.e., boiling of immiscible VOCs and groundwater) and volatilization (i.e., partitioning of VOCs from the dissolved phase to the gas phase) are the most dominant mass removal mechanisms. Therefore, extraction wells must be designed for effective gas capture, with appropriate locations, screened intervals and applied vacuums, in order for

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

Figure 1: Temperature dependence of (a) vapor pressure (Yaws, 2003), (b) liquid viscosity (Haynes et al., 2013), (c) Henry’s law constant (Chen et al., 2012) and (d) solubility (Chen et al., 2012).

performance to be successful. The accurate development of a detailed geological and hydrogeological site conceptual model informs this design.

2.3 ET-DSPTM Subsurface Vapor Generation

The placement and operation of the ET-DSPTM electrodes and the extraction system are designed so that the treatment area temperature exceeds the minimum required to volatilize the COCs and move them to the extraction points. A COC removal mechanism employed by ET-DSPTM is steam stripping. ET-DSPTM creates steam through heating water at the electrodes, which will heat the treatment zone to steam temperatures. This steam generation is an energy efficient heat transfer mechanism because the steam generated in-situ follows preheated pathways created by the electro-thermal heating, which in turn provides extremely thorough and uniform heating of the soil.

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

0 25 50 75 100

L iq u id

V is co si ty m P a· S

Temperature (oC)

Water

TCE

PCE

0 25 50 75 100 125

V ap ou r

P re ss ur e kP a)

Temperature (oC)

Water

TCE

PCE

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0 25 50 75 100 ln (k

H a tm .m

3 / m ol

Temperature (oC)

TCE

TCE Fit

PCE

PCE Fit

0 20 40 60 80

P C

E S ol u bi lit y (m g /L

T C

E S ol u bi lit y (m g /L

Temperature (oC)

TCE

TCE Fit

PCE

PCE Fit

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

When steam temperatures are reached in the treatment volume, pressure and buoyancy cause the steam to migrate upward. Dynamic stripping together with volatilization forces the chemicals into induced micro-fractures in the soil matrix for subsequent recovery at the extraction wells. If no flow paths exist, the pressure of the steam bubbles increases until they create pathways of secondary porosity and induced micro-fractures. Therefore, the in-situ steam generation created by ET-DSPTM will provide effective remediation in areas of low and high permeability throughout the treatment zone.

In ET-DSPTM, steam is generated by the combination of low pressure and elevated temperature, and aids with evaporation of volatile chemicals in the contaminated soil and groundwater. Elevated temperatures created in the subsurface by the ET-DSPTM process causes the steam to be generated. In order to increase the propagation of this steam through the subsurface, vacuum is generated by the extraction system, reducing subsurface pressure. The “no flow” boundary condition provided by a competent vapor cap assists with steam propagation by allowing the creation of a uniform vacuum in the unsaturated zone. Also, this “no flow” boundary condition aids in increasing the amount of steam during pressure cycling.

Pressure cycling is an operational strategy used to create new flow paths and “disrupt” the subsurface in order to optimize mass removal near the end of a project. Pressure cycling is performed by varying electrode power and extraction rates in a way to pressurize and depressurize pockets of contaminant and draw them to the extraction wells.

Pressure gradients created by extraction from the vadose zone will also tend to reduce the steam temperature. Temperature data is collected in real time for monitoring the steam response and for performing appropriate operational adjustments that will need to be made to achieve uniform heating of the subsurface.

2.4 ET-DSPTM Conceptual Design

The conceptual design shown in Figure 2 illustrates the main processes that are involved in a typical ERH application, in particular those processes of the ET-DSP™ of Mc2.

Figure 2: Schematic of Typical Approach Using ET-DSPTM (not to scale)

Element 1: The treatment area is covered with a vapor cap that consists of air-entrained concrete with an insulating value of R-6 or better. A concrete wearing surface may be placed over this air-entrained concrete vapor cap.

The vapor cap is critical for minimizing heat loss and maximizing vapor capture. It also enhances thermal efficiency by limiting the short-circuiting of vapor or groundwater recharge during extraction.

Element 2: Electrodes are stacked in vertical boreholes to conduct electric current throughout the vertical extent of the treatment volume. The applied electric field accelerates charge carriers in the pore water, which results in the kinetic energy transfer that causes resistive heat dissipation. A principal element of ET-DSPTM is the ability to inject water at the electrodes to create steam for the Dynamic Stripping Process and to mitigate the dipole effect and thus prevent overheating at the ends of the electrodes. In-situ steam generation enhances the dynamic stripping process as the injected water vaporizes. The benefit of this approach is a more uniform temperature distribution throughout the entire vertical profile of the subsurface, which creates preferential paths for vapor flow towards the extraction points.

Element 3: Multiphase extraction (MPE) wells are used to capture fluids for aboveground treatment and discharge.

Compressed-air assist vacuum lift pumps in the extraction wells will be operated at sufficient extraction rates to maintain inward gradients for hydraulic control as injected liquids displace groundwater, and also function as a mechanism to capture dissolved VOCs.

Due to the shallow water table, horizontal soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells will be installed to enhance vadose zone vapor capture.

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

Element 4: The electric field and current path between electrodes may be controlled using Interphase Synchronization (IPS) and the input electrical power to the electrodes can be varied using The Time-Distributed Control Mechanism (TDCM). These current paths are dynamically controlled during heating operations to ensure uniform heating where varying electrical and lithological properties are encountered in the treatment volume. The benefits of this approach are a more uniform temperature distribution and the development of heat-facilitated pathways for steam flow into volumes of soil, which would otherwise be more difficult to heat.

Element 5: VOC vapors and steam created at elevated temperatures in the treatment volume are subjected to buoyancy, capillary, and viscous forces, which influence multiphase flow mechanisms during transport. Sufficient local and macroscopic connection of the vapor phase causes bubble and/or channel flow upwards towards the vadose zone and horizontal towards extraction wells for capture. Continuous operation of the extraction wells at sufficient vacuum pressures will capture vaporized VOCs and steam for pneumatic control.

Element 6: Continuous remote data monitoring of temperature and groundwater table elevation will allow operators to respond in real time to transient subsurface conditions. The data will be available on a dedicated project web page.

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

3 Remedial Approach

Remediation of the target treatment area will be accomplished by using ET-DSP™ combined with MPE. This design is based on fundamental physical and thermodynamic principles, lessons learned from previous projects, and the remedial objectives outlined in Section 1.4.2.

3.1 ET-DSPTM Design Support

The ET-DSP™ design process includes a number of steps to ensure that all remedial goals are achieved.

The suitability of ET-DSP™ for the thermal treatment of the soil depends on the electrical resistivity of the soil. Therefore, site soil samples from the treatment volume must be tested to determine this value for design purposes.

Site soil samples were tested by Kemron Corporation’s Atlanta, Georgia laboratory by ASTM International’s Method G187 for soil resistivity. The results ranged from 23 to 109 ohm-meters (Ωm), well within the acceptable range for ET-DSPTM.

3.2 Remedial Components

The design elements for the thermal remediation of the site are presented in Table 2. Key features are summarized as follows:

1. Eighty-four (84) ET-DSPTM electrode wells, with two (2) electrodes per well, in the treatment volume;

2. A minimum of fifty-four (54) MPE wells in the treatment volume screened from 4 to 36 feet BGS.

3. Six (6) horizontal extraction wells will be placed in the shallow vadose zone below the vapor cap.

4. Six (6) temperature sensor wells will be installed in the treatment volume. Each of the sensor wells will have twelve temperature sensors spaced vertically at approximately every three feet, for a total network of 72 temperature measurement devices.

The MPE and SVE wells will be used to extract vapor, liquid and dissolved phase VOCs. Extracted fluids will be directed towards an aboveground treatment system, which is specifically designed for the COCs, emissions requirements, required cooling, and flow rates anticipated for the thermal treatment of the site. The treatment system equipment will include separators, knockout pots, an air stripper, holding tanks, bag filters, carbon vessels, vacuum blowers, pumps, air compressors, chiller towers, and heat exchangers.

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

3.3 Design Alternate

Currently, the 107 Orchard Drive property is off limits to remediation activities, and it is unknown whether or not it will be included later as part of the ISTT system. The remedial approach discussed herein includes design parameters that reflect treatment of the impacted area, excluding the 107 Orchard Drive property. However, should access to the 107 Orchard Drive property be made available, the well field will be expanded to include this additional area. This means that the size of the treatment system and the power drop will need to be upsized to accommodate a potentially larger site,.

Included within this design package are two drawings that reflect this upsized system, WFL-01 Alt. and ESL-01 Alt. At this time, the treatment system and power drop are to be sized and priced according to these alternate specifications. The alternate design parameters are included in Table 3.

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report

3.4 Technical Design Summary

A synopsis of the proposed technical design is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Project Technical Design

Item Description Comments

Site Characteristics

Treatment Area [ft2] 19,400 Approximated from the design figures, which include the total area of thermal influence expected to extend 3 feet outside of the electrode network

Volume Treated [yd3] 23,700 Assumes a 33 foot treatment depth across the site Deep Extent of Treatment [feet BGS]

33 Based on supplied information

Shallow Extent of Treatment [feet BGS]

0 Heating to land surface for contaminant vapor capture

Depth to Groundwater [feet BGS] 1.8-3.3 Based on GRT, 2006 Constituents of Concern VOCs Primarily TCE and xylene

Remedial Goals

DNAPL and contaminant mass removal to 5,000 µg/kg TCE

A remedial goal of 5,000 ug/Kg TCE has been established by GRT and its client

Soil Resistivity [∙m] 23 to 109 Based on Kemron, December 1, 2014 Mass Estimate [lbs] <77,000 Estimate as provided by GRT

Remedial Approach Electrodes 168 10’ length × 8” OD; 84 locations with 2/boring.

Power Delivery Systems [kVA] 3 × 1,330 Internet power control, 480 V primary, multi-tap secondary [1,330 kVA = 60 electrodes]

Temperature Sensors 72 Spaced at 3 foot vertical intervals; 6 strings with 12 sensors each

Electrode Spacing [feet] 20 From numerical simulation for pilot treatment area.

Spacing depends on area of treatment.

Bottom of Deep Electrode [feet

BGS]

33 Heat transfer ~3 feet above/below electrode

Top of Shallow Electrode [ft. BGS] 5 Heat transfer ~3 feet above/below electrode

Vapor Cap [ft2] 29,500 Air-entrained insulating concrete extending 10 feet outside of heated area

Minimum Target Temperature [°C] 70 to ~100°C Above co-boiling point for complete NAPL removal;

steam temperatures preferred to facilitate additional transport and dynamic stripping process

MPE Wells 54

4” diameter carbon steel riser, with 304 stainless steel continuous wire wrap well screen from 4’ to 33 feet BGS, 0.006” slot size, 40-60 clean sand filter pack. 25 wells complete with pneumatic pumps and 36 wells complete with slurp assemblies.

Vapor Recovery Air Flow [SCFM] ~600 5 PVX/day in vadose zone (~26 feet BGS, assuming surficial aquifer and glacial till dewatered)

Liquid Extraction Rate [GPM] 8.61

Target extraction rate, based on 2.5% more extraction than injection. Treatment system to be sized for an additional 3 GPM to account for ancillary wells outside of the ERH area.

Vapor Treatment Method VGAC Regenerative carbon units with potassium permanganate polish

Liquid Treatment Method AS and LGAC Air stripper and sacrificial liquid activated carbon units Energy Density [kWh/yd3] 166 Based on simulation results. Typical energy density is

APEGA Permit to Practice: P09178 ET-DSP™ Remedial Design Report approximately 200 kWh/yd3 depending on the actual site conditions encountered.

Table 3: Project Technical Design Alternate

Item Description Comments

Site Characteristics

Treatment Area [ft2] 22,500 Approximated from the design figures, which include the total area of thermal influence expected to extend 3 feet outside of the electrode network

Volume Treated [yd3] 27,500 Assumes a 33 foot treatment depth across the site Deep Extent of Treatment [feet BGS]

33 Based on supplied information

Shallow Extent of Treatment [feet BGS]

0 Heating to land surface for contaminant vapor capture

Depth to Groundwater [feet BGS] 1.8-3.3 Based on GRT, 2006 Constituents of Concern VOCs Primarily TCE and xylene

Remedial Goals

DNAPL and contaminant mass removal to 5,000 µg/kg TCE

A remedial goal of 5,000 ug/Kg TCE has been established by GRT and its client

Soil Resistivity [∙m] 23 to 109 Based on Kemron, December 1, 2014 Mass…