The groundwater and soil in the vicinity of the C-400 Building at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), is contaminated with substantial quantities of industrial solvents, primarily trichoroethene (TCE). This solvent 'source' is recognized as a significant challenge and an important remediation target in the overall environmental cleanup strategy for PGDP. Thus, the cleanup of the C-400 TCE Source is a principal focus for the Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors, and for PGDP regulators and stakeholders. Using a formal investigation, feasibility study and decision process, Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH) was selected for the treatment of the soil and groundwater in the vicinity of C-400. ERH was selected as an interim action to remove 'a significant portion of the contaminant mass of TCE at the C-400 Cleaning Building area through treatment' with the longer term goal of reducing 'the period the TCE concentration in groundwater remains above its Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).' ERH is a thermal treatment that enhances the removal of TCE and related solvents from soil and groundwater. The heterogeneous conditions at PGDP, particularly the high permeability regional gravel aquifer (RGA), are challenging to ERH. Thus, a phased approach is being followed to implement this relatively expensivemore » and complex remediation technology. Conceptually, the phased approach encourages safety and efficiency by providing a 'lessons learned' process and allowing appropriate adjustments to be identified and implemented prior to follow-on phase(s) of treatment. More specifically, early deployment targeted portions of the challenging RGA treatment zone with relatively little contamination reducing the risk of adverse collateral impacts from underperformance in terms of heating and capture. Because of the importance and scope of the C-400 TCE source remediation activities, DOE chartered an Independent Technical Review (ITR) in 2007 to assess the C-400 ERH plans prior to deployment and a second ITR to evaluate Phase I performance in September 2010. In this report, these ITR efforts are referenced as the '2007 ITR' and the 'current ITR', respectively. The 2007 ITR document (Looney et al., 2007) provided a detailed technical evaluation that remains relevant and this report builds on that analysis. The primary objective of the current ITR is to provide an expedited assessment of the available Phase I data to assist the PGDP team as they develop the lessons learned from Phase I and prepare plans for Phase II.« less