WI0800148_Annual Report_20080201

FINAL
9
Treatability Studies Report
Site 89, operable Unit 16
Marine Corps
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Prepared for
14AIFAC
Navel Facilibes Engineering Command
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid Atlantic Division
Norfolk, Virginia
Contract No. N62470-03-Ci-4.4.61
Task O rder-071
Prepared by
A G V I Q-
E N V I R O N M E N T A L 5 E R V I C E S
CH2M HILL
JOINT VENTURE

Final
Treatability Studies Report
Site 89, Operable Unit 16
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lej eune
North Carolina
Prepared for
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid Atlantic Division
Norfolk, Virginia
Under
Contract Number N62470-03-D-4401
Task Order 0071
Prepared by
A Co V �; CG
RO NV
T A I. 5 E ': ICE 5
CH2M HILL
JOINT VFNTUR6
February 2008

Executive Summary
Treatability studies were completed at Site 89 to evaluate the performance and design
criteria of four remedial technologies: enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) by injecting
a combination of sodium lactate and emulsified vegetable oil (EVO), chemical reduction via
zero valent iron (ZVI) injection using pneumatic fracture, air sparging via a horizontal well,
and a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) using mulch/compost as backfill. The treatability
studies were intended to support the Feasibility Study (FS) by evaluating technologies for
full-scale implementation to address dissolved -phase contaminants. The specific objectives
for measuring the effectiveness of the treatability studies were established as:
- Contaminant reduction trends in groundwater, as quantified by baseline and post-
treatment groundwater monitoring, and
- Reagent distribution/zone of influence
The locations of the field trials were selected based on dissolved -phase chlorinated volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations and the extent of trichloroethene (TCE) and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (PCA) contamination. Care was taken to avoid interaction
between the trial areas. Areas of very high contamination (in the percent levels of solubility)
were also avoided.
The treatability studies and associated field activities were conducted between November 6,
2006 and July 12, 2007. Field activities began with the installation of monitoring wells and
the directionally drilled horizontal well.
ERD
Over the course of a week, approximately 3,050 pounds of EVO and 3,300 pounds of lactate
were injected into the subsurface through four borings near monitoring well 89-MW44. The
substrate was chased with water to help distribute the substrate blend. The injection interval
was from 10 feet below ground surface to 25 feet below ground surface.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study and consisted of
a baseline sampling event and one, three, and six month sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from five monitoring wells.
Observations based on the treatability study include:
- The radius of influence of each ERD injection is estimated to be 35 feet from an
injection location.
- Analysis of field parameters, daughter products, natural attenuation indicator
parameters (NAIPs), and microorganisms suggests that reductive dechlorination is
occurring.
- Injection of lactate and EVO is effective at Site 89, as evidenced by reduction in
contaminant concentrations, for initial TCE concentrations ranging from 110 µg/L to
360 µg/L.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC ES-1

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
Pneumatic Fracturing and Zero Valent Iron Injection Implementation (Chemical
Reduction)
Over the course of one week, 11,600 pounds of ZVI were injected into the subsurface
through six injection borings near building STC867. The iron was delivered to the
subsurface using nitrogen gas as a carrier fluid. Pneumatic pressure was applied to fracture
the formation. The fracture interval was from 12.5 feet below ground surface to 25 feet
below ground surface.
Limited use of gas was required due to the high water table, so a pulsed gas approach was
utilized instead of a continuous stream. This method did not result in fracturing of the
formation. As such, the ZVI was not fluidized and did not spread across the site as
expected.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study and consisted of
a baseline sampling event and one, three, and six month sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from five monitoring wells.
Observations based on the treatability study include:
- Pneumatic fracturing was not accomplished; therefore, ZVI distribution was poor.
- There is no indication of reduction in contaminant concentrations.
- ORP measurements declined over the monitoring period, indicating that subsurface
conditions were becoming favorable for reductive dechlorination.
Air Sparging with HDD
The horizontal directional drilled (HDD) sparge well was constructed with a 240-foot long
screen, positioned at approximately 40 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of building
TC864. The total lineal distance of the well was approximately 600 feet. The air sparge
system was activated on December 8, 2006 and operated continuously for approximately six
months. The compressor "up time' was approximately 89%.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) visits were conducted on a weekly basis. Compressor
air pressure, receiver tank air pressure, sparge pressure, compressed air flow rate, and
compressor hours were recorded during each O&M visit.
After operating the air sparge system for three months, pneumatic fracturing was completed
in four borings spaced 50 feet apart along the axis of the horizontal sparge well screen.
Fracturing was performed at 3 foot intervals, over a vertical span of 12.5 feet (from 12.5 to 25
feet bgs). Pneumatic fracturing was completed to evaluate the potential for improving air
sparging performance in the dense materials of the Surficial Aquifer.
Groundwater and soil vapor monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study
and consisted of a baseline sampling event and six monthly sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from eight monitoring wells and soil vapor
monitoring included three soil vapor monitoring wells.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC ES-2

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
Observations based on the treatability study include:
- The radius of influence of air sparging is estimated to be 60 feet from the sparge well.
- Pneumatic fracturing did not have a significant effect on the radius of influence.
- Air sparging through a HDD well is effective at Site 89, as evidenced by significant
reduction in contaminant concentrations.
- Analysis of soil vapor samples collected in the vicinity of the air sparge treatability study
indicated that vapor concentrations increased; however, indoor inhalation risks at Site
89 during the test fell within acceptable ranges.
PRB Using Mulch/Compost as Backfill
The PRB was installed 210 feet long, 2 feet wide, and 25 feet deep in the southeast corner of
the site near Edwards Creek. The PRB was comprised of approximately 40 percent mulch
(reactive medium) and 60 percent sand (aggregate). Approximately 200 cubic yards of
mulch and 480 cubic yards of sand were placed in the wall.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study and consisted of
a baseline sampling event and one, three, and six month sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from eleven monitoring wells. Observations based
on the treatability study include:
- Conditions appear to be favorable for the reduction of contaminant concentrations;
however, evaluation of the effectiveness, as observed during the six month monitoring
period, is limited by the slow rate of groundwater flow.
The overall effectiveness of each technology was evaluated in terms of reducing the
chlorinated VOCs within the surficial aquifer while balancing the technology's cost and ease
of implementation. While air sparging and ERD reduced contaminant mass for a similar
cost per volume treated, full scale implementation of ERD would be a significant field effort.
Additionally, the effectiveness of ERD in areas with higher contaminant concentrations is
not known. Rebounding is a potential issue with ERD. Full scale implementation of air
sparging would require an initial field effort to install the new HDD wells; however,
reduction of contaminant mass would be expected to proceed quickly.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC ES-3

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 RATIONALE FOR TECHNOLOGY SELECTION....................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 TREATABILITY STUDY OBJECTIVES AND GOALS............................................................................... 1-3
1.3 SITE BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.1 Site History and Physical Setting................................................................................................. 1-4
1.3.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.2.1 Site Geology.........................................................................................................................................1-4
1.3.2.2 Site Hydrogeology...............................................................................................................................1-5
1.4 SELECTION OF TREATABILITY STUDY TEST AREAS........................................................................... 1-5
1.5 TREATABILITY STUDY CHRONOLOGY................................................................................................ 1-6
TREATABILITY STUDIES INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MONITORING ........................... 2-1
2.1
PRE -IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES...................................................................................................
2-1
2.2
ENHANCED REDUCTIVE DECHLORINATION IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................
2-2
2.2.1
Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Substrate Concentration....................................................
2-2
2.2.2
Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Substrate Injection.............................................................
2-2
2.2.3
Zone oflnfluence Monitoring.......................................................................................................
2-2
2.3
PNEUMATIC FRACTURING AND ZERO VALENT IRON INJECTION IMPLEMENTATION (CHEMICAL
REDUCTION)
...................................................................................................................................................
2-3
2.3.1
Zero Valent Iron Concentration...................................................................................................
2-3
2.3.2
Pneumatic Fracturing and Injection.............................................................................................
2-3
2.3.3
Zone oflnfluence Monitoring.......................................................................................................
2-4
2.4
INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF AIR SPARGE SYSTEM WITH HDD WELL ....................................
2-4
2.4.1
Horizontal Well Installation.........................................................................................................
2-4
2.4.2
Soil Vapor Well Installation.........................................................................................................
2-5
2.4.3
Air Sparge System Installation and Operation.............................................................................
2-5
2.4.4
Pneumatic Fracturing...................................................................................................................
2-6
2.4.5
Zone of Influence Monitoring.......................................................................................................
2-6
2.5
INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER..........................................................................
2-6
2.6
TREATABILITY STUDIES MONITORING...............................................................................................
2-7
2.6.1
Groundwater Monitoring..............................................................................................................
2-7
2.6.2
Soil Vapor Monitoring..................................................................................................................
2-8
ENHANCED REDUCTIVE DECHLORINATION EVALUATION......................................................... 3-1
3.1 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Bromide Tracer.............................................................................................................................
3-1
3.1.2 Field Parameters..........................................................................................................................
3-1
3.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results.........................................................................................................
3-2
3.2 EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.1 Radius oflnfluence.......................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness................................................................................................................3-3
3.2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds...............................................................................................................3-3
3.2.2.2 Total Organic Carbon...........................................................................................................................3-3
3.2.2.3 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters............................................................................................3-4
3.2.2.4 Microorganisms...................................................................................................................................3-4
3.3 DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................
3-5
3.3.1 Conceptual Design.......................................................................................................................
3-5
3.4 COST..................................................................................................................................................3-5
3.5 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................3-5
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL IS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
CHEMICAL REDUCTION EVALUATION...............................................................................................
4-1
4.1
RESULTS............................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1
Confirmation Sampling.................................................................................................................
4-1
4.1.2
Field Parameters..........................................................................................................................
4-1
4.1.3
Chemical Analytical Results.........................................................................................................
4-1
4.2
EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1
Radius of -Influence .......................................................................................................................
4-1
4.2.2
Treatment Effectiveness................................................................................................................4-2
4.3
DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................
4-2
4.3.1
Conceptual Design.......................................................................................................................
4-2
4.4
COST..................................................................................................................................................4-2
4.5
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................4-2
AIR SPARGING EVALUATION..................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer...........................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.2 Field Parameters..........................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results.........................................................................................................
5-1
5.2 EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.2.1 Radius of -Influence .......................................................................................................................
5-2
5.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.2.1 Groundwater........................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.2.2.2 Soil Vapor............................................................................................................................................5-3
5.3 DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................
5-3
5.3.1 Conceptual Design.......................................................................................................................
5-3
5.4 COST..................................................................................................................................................5-4
5.5 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................5-4
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER EVALUATION............................................................................. 6-1
6.1
RESULTS............................................................................................................................................6-1
6.1.1
Field Parameters..........................................................................................................................
6-1
6.1.2
Chemical Analytical Results.........................................................................................................
6-1
6.2
EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................................
6-2
6.2.1
Volatile Organic Compounds.......................................................................................................
6-2
6.2.2
Total Organic Carbon..................................................................................................................
6-3
6.3
DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................
6-3
6.3.1
Conceptual Design.......................................................................................................................
6-3
6.4
COST..................................................................................................................................................6-4
6.5
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................6-4
TREATABILITY STUDY COMPARISON................................................................................................. 7-1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................ 8-1
List of Tables
1-1 Treatability Study Chronology
2-1 Monitoring Well Construction Details
2-2 Summary of Treatability Study Sample Analyses
3-1 Bromide Results - ERD Confirmation Sampling
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL IS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
3-2 Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the ERD Treatability Study
3-3 Detected Concentrations of Dechlorinating Bacteria
4-1 Detected Concentrations of VOCs and Field Parameters in Groundwater Within the
Chemical Reduction Treatability Study
5-1a Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Field Parameters, and SF6 in Groundwater Within
the Air Sparge Treatability Study Zone A Wells
5-1b Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Field Parameters, and SF6 in Groundwater Within
the Air Sparge Treatability Study Zone B Wells
5-2 Detected Concentrations of VOCs in Soil Vapor Within the Air Sparge Treatability
Study
6-1a Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study Upgradient Wells
6-1b Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study In -Wall Wells
6-1c Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study Downgradient Wells
7-1 Summary of Technology Evaluation
Figures
1-1 Camp Lejeune Site Location Map
1-2 Site 89 Site Map
1-3 Geologic Cross Section Location Map
1-4 Cross Section A -A'
1-5 Cross Section B-B'
1-6 Groundwater Contour Map of the Surficial Aquifer, November 2005
1-7 TCE and PCA Impacts in Shallow Groundwater (20 feet bgs)
1-8 Treatability Study Locations
2-1 Chemical Reduction and Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Treatability Study
Locations
2-2 HDD Well As -Built Profile
2-3 Pneumatic Fracturing Locations - Air Sparge Treatability Study
3-1 ORP Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-2 89-MW53 Data Logger ORP
3-3 89-MW54 Data Logger ORP
3-4 PCA Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-5 TCE Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-6 Breakdown of VOCs in ERD Monitoring Well 89-MW44
3-7 Breakdown of VOCs in ERD Monitoring Well 89-MW54
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC III

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
3-8 TOC Concentration Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-9 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
4-1 ORP Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-2 PCA Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-3 TCE Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-4 DCE Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-5 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
5-1 ORP Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-2 ORP Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-3 TCE Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-4 TCE Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-5 DCE Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-6 DCE Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-7 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-8 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-9 PCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
5-10 TCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
5-11 DCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
6-1 ORP Trends in In -Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-2 ORP Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-3 VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW28
6-4 VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW61
6-5 VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW58
6-6 VOC Trends Relative to Distance
6-7 TCE Trends Relative to Distance
6-8 DCE Trends Relative to Distance
6-9 Vinyl Chloride Trends Relative to Distance
6-10 TCE Trends in In -Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-11 DCE Trends in In -Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-12 Vinyl Chloride Trends in In -Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-13 TCE Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-14 DCE Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-15 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-16 Breakdown of VOCs in In -Wall Monitoring Well 89-MW61
6-17 TOC Concentration Trends in In -Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-18 TOC Concentration Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC IV

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
Appendices
A Groundwater Monitoring Well Completion Diagrams
B Photologs
B-1 ERD Implementation Photolog
B-2 Chemical Reduction Implementation Photolog
B-3 Air Sparge with HDD Implementation Photolog
B-4 PRB Installation Photolog
C ERD Injection Report
D Chemical Reduction Field Implementation Summary
E Soil Vapor Monitoring Well Completion Diagrams
F Pneumatic Fracturing Field Implementation Summary
G Analytical Results
G-1 ERD Analytical Results
G-2 Chemical Reduction Analytical Results
G-3 Air Sparge Analytical Results
G-4 PRB Analytical Results
H ERD Microbial Analytical Results
I Soil Vapor Monitoring Technical Memorandum
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC V

Acronyms and Abbreviations
bgs below ground surface
cfm
cubic feet per minute
COC
Chain -of -Custody
DEB
dry enzyme breaker
DCE
Dichloroethene
DHC
dehalococcoides
DLA
Defense Logistics Agency
DO
dissolved oxygen
DPT
direct push technology
DRMO
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
ERD
enhanced reductive dechlorination
EVO
emulsified vegetable oil
Fe(III) ferric iron
FS
Feasibility Study
ft/ day
feet per day
ft/ft
feet per foot
ft/year
feet per year
gpm gallons per minute
HDD
horizontal directional drilling
HDPE
high density polyethylene
HSA
hollow stem auger
I.D.
inner diameter
IDW
investigation derived waste
JV I AGVIQ-CH2M HILL Joint Venture I
kg kilogram
LEB liquid enzyme breaker
µg/L
micrograms per liter
PS/cm
microsiemens per centimeter
MCB
Marine Corps Base
MEK
methyl -ethyl ketone
ml
milliliter
Mn (IV)
manganese
mV
millivolt
NAIPs
natural attenuation parameters
O.D.
outer diameter
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC VI

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
O&M
operations and maintenance
ORP
oxidation-reduction potential
OU
Operable Unit
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCA
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
PCE
tetrachloroethene
PLC
programmable logic control
PRB
permeable reactive barrier
psi
pounds per square inch
psig
pounds per square inch gauge
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
gPCR real-time polymerase chain reaction
RI Remedial Investigation
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SDR standard dimension ratio
SF6 sulfur hexaflouride
TCA
1,1,2-trichloroethane
TCE
trichloroethene
TOC
total organic carbon
UST
underground storage tank
VFA
volatile fatty acids
VOC
volatile organic compound
ZVI
zero valent iron
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC VI I

SECTION 1
Introduction
This Treatability Study Report presents the field activities, data, results, and conclusions of
the treatability studies conducted at Operable Unit (OU) 16, Site 89 at Marine Corps Base
(MCB) Camp Lejeune located in Onslow County, North Carolina. The treatability studies
were conducted to evaluate the performance and design criteria of four remedial
technologies:
1. Enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) using a combination of sodium lactate and
emulsified vegetable oil (EVO), injected by direct push (Geoprobe ®) equipment.
2. Chemical reduction via zero valent iron (ZVI) injection through pneumatic fractures.
3. Air sparging using a horizontal directional drilled (HDD) well.
4. Permeable reactive barrier (PRB), using mulch/compost as backfill.
Site background information and the selection process for the treatability study technologies
are presented in the following sections.
1.1 Rationale for Technology Selection
CH2M HILL completed a Draft Feasibility Study (FS) for Site 89 in February 2006
(CH2M HILL, 2006). The document evaluated potentially feasible options for addressing
groundwater contamination at Site 89, including air sparging, in situ chemical reduction,
and ERD. Based on this evaluation, each of the technologies was determined to have the
potential to effectively treat groundwater contamination at Site 89. Due to the extent of
contamination and associated costs of each technology evaluated in the FS, the Camp
Lejeune Partnering Team agreed in May 2006 to conduct treatability studies of these three
approaches over a six month period. In addition, the Partnering Team agreed to implement
a PRB using mulch as the reactive medium. A brief description of each technology is
provided in the following paragraphs.
ERD
Enhanced reductive dechlorination, also known as dehalorespiration, involves the transfer
of electrons from an electron donor source to the chlorinated volatile organic carbon (VOC)
compound, resulting in the sequential replacement of a chlorine atom with a hydrogen
atom. An electron donor source is required for the reaction to occur. Potential electron
donor sources include biodegradable organic co -contaminants, native organic matter, or
substrates intentionally added to the subsurface. Deeply anaerobic (reducing) conditions are
required for reductive dechlorination of many chlorinated VOCs. In addition, competing
electron acceptors, such as dissolved oxygen, nitrate, nitrite, manganese [Mn(IV)], ferric iron
[Fe(III)], and sulfate, must be depleted.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 1-1

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
The principal anaerobic biodegradation pathway for reductive dechlorination of chlorinated
ethenes is:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) —> Trichloroethene (TCE)—> cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) —>
vinyl chloride —> ethene
The transformation rates for each step vary but tend to become slower with progress along
the breakdown sequence, often resulting in accumulation of cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride.
Further breakdown from cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride to ethene varies and is based on
site -specific conditions.
ERD of chlorinated VOCs is implemented by adding a suitable substrate to the subsurface.
The introduced substrate serves two purposes: (a) depleting competing electron acceptors
and creating strongly reducing conditions and (b) providing an electron donor source for
reductive dechlorination. Nutrients, lactate, emulsified oil, or other substrates are often used
to enhance reductive dechlorination. These substrates provide a carbon source for microbial
growth and electron donors, stimulating dechlorination.
Chemical Reduction via ZVI Injection through Pneumatic Fractures
One application of in situ chemical reduction involves the injection of reducing agents, such
as ZVI, to promote abiotic destruction of chlorinated organic compounds. ZVI consists of
pure iron metal granules or powder, which must be specially manufactured and packaged
to prevent premature corrosion. Once released into the environment, oxidation of the iron
under anaerobic conditions yields ferrous iron and hydrogen ions, both of which are
reducing agents for chlorinated solvents.
FeroxTM is a patented method of fracture -assisted injection of iron powder. The FeroxTM
process involves high-pressure injection of tiny iron particles within individual soil borings.
The reaction proceeds through two known pathways. In the beta -elimination pathway, the
formation of partially dechlorinated products such as DCE and vinyl chloride is avoided,
and TCE are transformed directly to ethene via the production of some short-lived
intermediates, such as chloroacetylene and acetylene. Most experts believe that chlorinated
solvents degrade primarily through the beta -elimination pathway when exposed to iron.
Very little DCE or vinyl chloride have been found in laboratory studies with iron, indicating
the dominant mechanism is probably beta -elimination. In the hydrogenolysis, or sequential
reductive dechlorination pathway, one chlorine atom is removed in each step, so that TCE
degrades to cis-1,2 DCE, then to vinyl chloride, and finally to ethene and ethane. In
addition, biological reductive dechlorination is also possible as microorganisms utilize the
hydrogen produced.
Air Sparging with HDD
Air sparging is an in situ technology involving the injection of air into the aquifer or water -
bearing zone below the water table. Pressurized injected air rises by buoyancy through the
saturated zone in a network of finger -like channels, the path of which is strongly influenced
by subsurface heterogeneity. Air sparging induces mass transfer (stripping) of VOCs from
groundwater and/or aerobic biological degradation (for those compounds that are
degradable aerobically).
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 1-2

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
For elongated plumes or sites with building restrictions, continuous HDD wells are
considered the most effective delivery method for air sparging. Continuous completions are
preferred for remediation applications because of the relative ease of installation and
improved control of the drilling process. HDD operations include advancing a pilot hole,
reaming the pilot hole, and pullback of well materials.
Pneumatic fracturing is a secondary permeability enhancement technology, designed to
increase the efficiency of other in situ technologies, such as air sparging or chemical
reduction. During pneumatic fracturing, gas is injected into the subsurface at pressures
exceeding the natural in situ stresses and at flow rates that exceed the natural permeability
of the subsurface, resulting in the propagation of fractures outward from the injection point
(ARS Technologies, 2006). The fracturing extends and enlarges existing fissures and
introduces new fractures, primarily in the horizontal direction (depending on anisotropy
and ratio of vertical to hydraulic permeability). In the pneumatic fracturing process, a
packer system is used to isolate small intervals of the boring so that short bursts of
compressed air can be injected into the interval to fracture the formation. The process is
repeated for each interval within the contaminated depth (FRTR, 2005).
PRB UsingMulch/Compost as Backfill
PRBs are installed perpendicular to the flow path of a contaminated groundwater plume,
producing treatment zones that allow the passage of water while treating contaminants. By
utilizing a reactive medium within the barrier, contaminant treatment can occur through
physical, chemical, or biological processes. The basic objective of any treatment material is
to either destroy or immobilize the contaminant or to condition the groundwater system to
promote the destruction or immobilization of the contaminant (ITRC, 2005).
Over the last several years, compost or mulch has become an increasingly common medium
within PRBs since it provides a long-lasting slow release source of electron donors that is
much cheaper that ZVI PRBs. These walls are also known as Biobarriers or Biowalls. Bio-
available organic constituents in the mulch act as a carbon source for bacteria. As the aerobic
bacteria consume available dissolved oxygen, anaerobic conditions are created and the
oxidation reduction potential of the aquifer decreases. Once anaerobic conditions are
created, fermentation of the organic constituents generates hydrogen and acetate, which can
then be used to promote biological reductive dechlorination (AFCEE, 2004).
The effects of the mulch in the subsurface will not be limited to the confines of the PRB
itself; rather, volatile fatty acids (VFAs) will diffuse from the sides and bottom of the PRB,
creating a zone of low oxidation reduction potential conducive to reductive dechlorination.
However, the extent of this zone is likely to be limited to less than 20 ft.
1.2 Treatability Study Objectives and Goals
The primary objective of each treatability study was to obtain information on design
parameters to better refine the FS. Equally as important, the overall effectiveness of each
technology was evaluated. Effectiveness was assessed based on the following criteria:
1. Contaminant reduction trends in groundwater, as quantified by baseline and post-
treatment groundwater monitoring, and
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 1-3

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
2. Reagent distribution/zone of influence.
1.3 Site Background
Site background information is documented in the Draft Final Comprehensive Remedial
Investigation (RI), Operable Unit 16, Site 89, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (CH2M HILL,
2007). The following sections summarize information contained in this document.
1.3.1 Site History and Physical Setting
MCB Camp Lejeune Site 89 is located on the New River Air Station side of the Base (as
shown on Figure 1-1), southeast of the intersection of G Street and 8th Street, and just east of
Camp Geiger. The Site is relatively flat and covered by asphalt, gravel, and grass. The
eastern portion of the Site is wooded and slopes gently toward Edwards Creek.
The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO), operated by the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA), was located at the site until 2000. DRMO used the Site as a storage yard for
items such as scrap and surplus metal, electronic equipment, vehicles, rubber tires and fuel
bladders (mobile storage tanks). According to historical records, the Base Motor Pool
operated at the Site until 1988. Reportedly, various solvents, such as acetone, TCE, and 2-
butanone (methyl -ethyl -ketone [MEK]) were used for cleaning parts and equipment.
Historical records also indicate that a 550-gallon underground storage tank (UST), identified
as UST STC-868, was installed at the site in 1983 and used to store waste oil. The UST was
removed in 1993. Figure 1-2 depicts a site map for Site 89.
1.3.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The Comprehensive RI (CH2M HILL, 2007) provides details regarding site -specific geology
and hydrogeology at Site 89. The following sections briefly summarize these investigations.
1.3.2.1 Site Geology
During previous investigations at Site 89, the Undifferentiated Formation (surficial aquifer)
and the Upper Castle Hayne aquifer were identified. Shallow monitoring wells installed
during these investigations are screened in the surficial aquifer, while intermediate and
deep monitoring wells are screened in the upper portions of the Upper Castle Hayne
aquifer.
The Undifferentiated Formation occurs from surface to a depth of approximately 20 to 30
feet below ground surface (bgs) (shallower in some areas). Lithology within this zone
consists primarily of fine sand and silt, with interbedded zones of dense clay which are
discontinuous and anomalous.
The Belgrade Formation, a layer of dense clay several feet thick which overlies (confines) the
River Bend Formation at many other locations of the Base, is largely absent at Site 89.
However, discontinuous layers of dense clay are present in several areas of the Site, at
various depths.
The Upper Castle Hayne aquifer begins at a depth of approximately 20 to 30 feet bgs and
continues to the maximum explored depth. This unit is distinguished by the presence of
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 1-4

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
calcareous sand and silty sand, shell fragments, and fossil fragments. Although these
materials are generally characterized in the drilling logs as "medium dense' to "very dense'
with occasional cemented layers, the hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Castle Hayne is
significantly higher than the overlying Undifferentiated Formation. Geological cross-section
locations are shown on Figure 1-3 and stratigraphic cross -sections are presented on
Figures 14 and 1-5.
1.3.2.2 Site Hydrogeology
Depth to groundwater varies across the Site, ranging from a few feet at the southern end to
just over 10 feet bgs in the northern portion of the Site. The groundwater elevation data
suggest that the flow patterns observed for the surficial and upper portions of the Castle
Hayne aquifer display similar trends. Overall, elevations are higher in the northern portion
of the Site, with decreasing elevations in the direction of Edwards Creek. Groundwater flow
in the surficial aquifer is to the south and east toward Edwards Creek (Figure 1-6), which
serves as a groundwater discharge boundary, in the southern and eastern portion of the site.
Edwards Creek affects flow within the surficial aquifer. Groundwater within the Upper
Castle Hayne aquifer generally flows southeast toward the New River. Based on data
collected in November 2005, the horizontal hydraulic gradient within the surficial and
Upper Castle Hayne aquifers averaged 0.006 feet per foot (ft/ft) and 0.004 ft/ft, respectively.
Hydraulic conductivity values were determined for the surficial aquifer using slug tests.
(Baker, 1998). CH2M HILL performed slug tests in the shallow aquifer on January 26, 2006,
which indicated consistent hydraulic conductivity values ranging from 3.9 feet per day
(ft/day) to 6.3 ft/day, with an average of 5.1 ft/day. Using effective porosity values for silts
and sands in the range of 25 to 50 percent (Freeze and Cherry, 1979), a seepage velocity
within the surficial aquifer at Site 89 was determined in the range from 0.047 to 0.151 ft/day
(17 to 55 ft per year [ft/year]).
1.4 Selection of Treatability Study Test Areas
Primary contaminants identified at Site 89 are chlorinated VOCs, including TCE and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane (PCA). In addition, degradation products of TCE and PCA have been
reported at the site, including cis-1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, and 1,2-trichloroethane (TCA).
Figure 1-7 depicts the extent of PCA and TCE impacts within the surficial aquifer.
The location of the field trials was selected based on contaminant concentrations and the
extent of contamination. Care was taken to avoid interaction between the trial areas. Areas
of very high contamination (in the percent levels) were also avoided. The test area of each
technology is shown on Figure 1-8. Locations for the four treatability studies within these
areas were selected based on the following rationale:
• The shape of the small, elliptical plume to the northwest extending beneath Building
TC864 is suited for air sparging through a horizontal well. Therefore, the air sparge
treatability study was conducted in this area.
• PRBs are intended to provide passive treatment, while intercepting groundwater flow.
As such, the PRB was placed as far down gradient and as close to the creek as possible.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 1-5

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
The PRB was positioned downgradient of 89-MW28, in the large plume located along
the southern portion of the Site.
• The chemical reduction study was conducted in the central portion of the site, in an area
of elevated impacts near 89-MW02. This area corresponds to the highest chlorinated
VOC impacts within the target study areas.
• The ERD treatability study was conducted 170 feet to the south of the chemical
reduction study near 89-MW44.
Additional sampling was conducted in August 2006 to ensure that the technologies would
be conducted in contaminated areas so that meaningful conclusions could be drawn from
the treatability studies. Nine soil borings were advanced using direct push technology
(DPT) for lithologic characterization and soil screening, and 24 discrete groundwater
samples were collected from six borings. The highest chlorinated VOC concentrations were
detected between 16 and 24 feet bgs in the vicinity of the air sparge and chemical reduction
treatability studies and between 28 and 32 feet bgs in the vicinity of the ERD treatability
study. Groundwater samples were not collected in the vicinity of the PRB; however, soil
screening in this area generally indicates that the highest concentrations of VOCs are
between 6 and 14 feet bgs. While these results were factored into the final design of each
treatability study, the depth interval from 15 to 25 feet bgs was the primary focus for
consistency between the studies.
1.5 Treatability Study Chronology
The Site 89 treatability studies and associated field activities were conducted between
November 6, 2006 and July 12, 2007. A chronology of the treatability studies is presented in
Table 1-1.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 1-6

Tables

TABLE 1-1
Treatability Study Chronology
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Date Event
ERD
November 6-10, 2006
Utility Location
November 6-18, 2006
Monitoring Well Installation
November 17, 2006
Baseline Sampling
November 27 - December 1, 2006
ERD Injections
December 14, 2006
ERD Confirmation Sampling
January 2-3, 2007
1-Month Sampling
March 15, 2007
3-Month Sampling
June 7, 2007
6-Month Sampling
Chemical Reduction
November 6-10, 2006
Utility Location
November 6-18, 2006
Monitoring Well Installation
November 19-20, 2006
Baseline Sampling
November 27 - December 3, 2006
Ferox Injections
December 15, 2006
Ferox Confirmation Sampling
January 4, 2007
1-Month Sampling
March 14, 2007
3-Month Sampling
June 5, 2007
6-Month Sampling
Air Sparge
November 6-10, 2006
Utility Location
November 7-18, 2006
Monitoring Well Installation
November 13-18, 2006
Horizontal Well Installation
November 16, 2006
Soil Vapor Well Installation
November 20-21, 2006
Baseline Groundwater Sampling
December 5, 2006
Baseline Soil Vapor Sampling
December 8, 2006 - July 12, 2007
Operation of Air Sparge System
January 18-19, 2007
1-Month Groundwater Sampling
January 19, 2007
1-Month Soil Vapor Sampling
February 16, 2007
2-Month Soil Vapor Sampling
February 16-19, 2007
2-Month Groundwater Sampling
March 21-23, 2007
Injection of SF6 Tracer
March 28-29, 2007
3-Month Groundwater Sampling
March 29, 2007
3-Month Soil Vapor Sampling
April 4-6, 2007
Pneumatic Fracturing
May 1, 2007
4-Month Soil Vapor Sampling
May 1-2, 2007
4-Month Groundwater Sampling
June 5-6, 2007
5-Month Groundwater Sampling
June 6, 2007
5-Month Soil Vapor Sampling
June 18-21, 2007
Injection of SF6 Tracer
July 11, 2007
6-Month Groundwater Sampling
July 12, 2007
6-Month Soil Vapor Sampling
PRB
November 6-10, 2006
Utility Location
November 6, 2006 - January 10, 2007
Monitoring Well Installation
December 18, 2006
Mulch Wall Installation
December 29, 2006 - January 15, 2007
Initial Sampling
January 25-26, 2007
1-Month Sampling
March 26-27, 2007
3-Month Sampling
June 26-27, 2007
6-Month Sampling

Figures

une\Pro'ects\Site89 FS\Fiqu
511C i , A—b
MR89-mwi
IR89-MW41
�■
111111389-11AW42�89�M1Rr43Am��
Ipt 89 W -I& 48X
AI O
-MW48B
111389_11AW44A IR89- 5DW
IR89 OA&
-MW32- MV
MA ,�
MV20W
_mO3DW
A, omIk89-Mw01
IR89-MW51
R
1111113897NMi
%IR89-MWO8
W44
F. 7 00, IR89-MW54 ."Y
IR89-MW041W
•,%111389-11AW55 04sIR89-MW04
Ir-11AW19, CAR-1
IR89-MW04DW
IR89-MWI8
IR89-MW45
IR80-M 17
IR89-AIR89-M 1711
W24
f till ' 1 ., . IR -MW56
IR89-MW11 111319-"011389-
241_1 M897MW23' %JR89-MW62 0119, IR89-MW37
IR89-MWIIIP 7,Nl
'i - IR89-MW26 OANIR89-MW59 R89-MW37DW
IR89-MW23 SO OA IR89-MW371W
IA
IR89-MW57
I R gg IR89-MW60
OA ob IR89-MW08IW-04B
111389-11WWII;�. CA;r
IR89-MW29 000MR89-11AW09
OAN — OAR IR89-MW30 %N IR89-M&7*WO9,IW
IR89-MW61
IR89-MW28 Alf
CAVIR89-MWI5 IR89-MW38
,,IR89-MW14IW IR89-MWI51W
IR89-MWI4 IR89-MW38DW aAIR89-MW381W
1,j

is3 His 0
w
0 H
c� �
w
i
>�
U,7
QV
Q
R
� R
r c
0 0'a
J N r
c -a 0
_O z
ii U ti
y9
Cl)
�2R
mocoo)U
70y00
rn0 U
LL (DN 2
O
O
n J Cn
y
O
� U
133a1s 3
O �
.. O
a 0
Q)
��I

Q
1
m
v
I i
�8
i
NOI avns�vll�
�.
4
eaawstR±oe��a'O !� �
II I
p
Nona
d
n
Y"'.�li 2�m�o�S7 M
I I I II
LbR%VAGG

Em c
a - I .li ON
Em Awl;
q
too:
t A
- .4,2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
fill w
4) E o
not
Ali!
my se,
71"
LO
L.. CU
OVA CO .15 Cu
..........
. . . . . . . . . . .
..... .....
dd
....... . . . . . . . .
... ... ...
T—

m
y
O
m
y
O
-
E
o
� -
9
CAy
o
O-
M
o
I
am
>
'
O00-5
c
00
y
p
_
-
-
O
C6
-
...„y
w
2
_ -
-
�
0
I
y o
y
M
i
m
a[
CO
LU Im
Cl)
m
x
; r r
��
cc
_ M
®t m
v
•�i
�
V
ILL C,
Cb
N
N, ¢
N.
y
� V
�
M
m
2 y m
cc M
N
t i
x
O
N
y 0
p4 O O
O
-
Y O
U Q
� J
o Z
p
o
d
C 3
N
G 0
a a a a a❑
13z]HisA ❑ ❑ o ❑ m QZZ
w o
~ o
a ❑ o ❑ ❑ o m N
V c
a oo m
N 6 _
>
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ¢ ❑ ¢ ❑ ¢ ❑ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ o o ¢ o ¢ ¢ o IMF
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z o z m z z o w o
❑ ❑ ❑ - - O
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mmmmmmm mm O J m m m m_
m
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ¢ N , ❑ ❑ ❑ U) Co
> Z
Z Z Z Z Z Z N M Z M 4 Q o
v IV
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N o ❑ ❑
z z z z z z z v
c Q) Q) o
o NC3 C3�
NM a�� ,

SECTION 2
Treatability Studies Installation, Operation and
Monitoring
2.1 Pre -Implementation Activities
Preliminary activities associated with the implementation of the treatability studies
included:
- Coordination with Camp Lejeune personnel on the location of utilities in the area and
utility locating;
- Treatability study monitoring well installation;
- Gauging and baseline groundwater sampling event; and
- Installation of a directionally drilled horizontal well.
Seventeen new monitoring wells were installed for the Site 89 treatability studies. Locations
of the monitoring wells are provided in Figure 1-8. Construction details for the newly
installed monitoring wells are provided in Table 2-1 and well completion diagrams are
provided in Appendix A. Most new monitoring wells were screened from 20 to 25 feet bgs
to ensure consistency when comparing the technologies.
Monitoring wells 89-MW43B through 89-MW58 and 89-MW62 were installed by Probe
Technology, Inc., a North Carolina -licensed well driller using hollow stem auger (HSA)
drilling techniques. The monitoring wells were completed using 4.25-inch inner diameter
(I.D.) augers. Monitoring wells 89-MW59 through 89-MW61 were installed by Probe
Technology, Inc. using direct push technology drilling techniques. The monitoring wells
were completed using 3-inch Geoprobe® rods and pre -packed screens to minimize
disturbance to the PRB. Each monitoring well was constructed using two-inch diameter
Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) flush thread casing and screen; and completed with
five feet of 0.010-inch slotted screen. A watertight locking expansion cap was installed on
top of the PVC well casing at the surface. A factory -made flush -threaded 2-inch diameter,
Schedule 40 PVC end cap was placed on the bottom of each well screen.
All drill rods, bits, augers, and associated equipment were decontaminated prior to use and
between monitoring well locations as outlined in the Treatability Studies Work Plan
(CH2M HILL, 2006). Drill cuttings and fluids were containerized and managed in
accordance with the Work Plan and Base investigation derived waste (IDW) protocols.
Following completion, each well was developed by surging and overpumping.
Development activities were coordinated and observed by an AGVIQ-CH2M HILL Joint
Venture 1 UV1) field representative. Development was considered complete when clear,
sediment -free formation water was produced and pH, conductivity, and turbidity
measurements stabilized.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-1

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
2.2 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Implementation
The ERD treatability study was implemented the week of November 27, 2006. Four
injection borings were installed as depicted on Figure 2-1. The injections were performed by
Vironex. Photographs documenting field activities from the ERD implementation are
provided in Appendix B-1.
2.2.1 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Substrate Concentration
A combination of Terra Systems SRSTM EVO and sodium lactate was selected as an insoluble
and soluble substrate to enhance reductive dechlorination. The substrate blend was 50
percent EVO and 50 percent sodium lactate, resulting in the addition of approximately 3,050
pounds of EVO and approximately 3,300 pounds of sodium lactate. The dosage was based
on a substrate demand analysis, which evaluated site contaminants and other natural
electron acceptors, such as dissolved oxygen (DO), sulfate, nitrate, ferrous iron, and
manganese. The substrate demand was then compared to the assumed radius of influence
and the injection zone interval to determine the volume of substrate required. EVO was
provided as pure product and sodium lactate was diluted with water prior to delivery. In
the field, the substrate was blended with approximately 2,250 gallons of water to create a
four -to -one dilution.
2.2.2 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Substrate Injection
The ERD injection borings were advanced using DPT. Drive rods were pushed to the target
depth of 25 feet bgs. The ERD substrate was injected using a combination of piston and
progressive cavity pumps. Injections were conducted from 10 to 25 feet bgs in one -foot
intervals at ERD-4 and five-foot intervals at the other three injection locations. Injection
pressures varied from 55 to 78 pounds per square inch (psi), with an overall average
injection pressure of 70 psi. Pumping rates varied from 1.5 to 17.9 gallons per minute (gpm),
with an overall average pumping rate of 12.8 gpm.
A summary of each injection location, including injection intervals, injection pressure, flow
rate, and volumes of substrate and chase water is presented in Appendix A of the Injection
Report (Appendix Q. A total of 2,940 gallons of substrate was injected in the four borings.
Approximately 4,050 gallons of chase water was also injected to help distribute the substrate
blend.
Following injection, the boreholes were abandoned in place in accordance with standard
operating procedures as described in the Base Master Project Plans.
2.2.3 Zone of Influence Monitoring
Water levels and field parameters including DO, pH, oxidation-reduction (ORP), and
specific conductivity were measured in wells associated with the ERD treatability study to
evaluate the zone of influence. The measurements were made in conjunction with the
scheduled sampling events.
In -situ Multi -Parameter Troll 9000 data loggers were installed in monitoring wells 89-MW53
and 89-MW54 to evaluate the response of subsurface conditions to the ERD injections.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-2

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
To further assess the zone of influence, ten kilograms (kg) of sodium bromide (2.5 kg per
injection location) was blended into the substrate prior to injection. Two weeks after the
injections, nine confirmation borings were advanced to 25 feet (Figure 2-1) using DPT by
Vironex. Discrete groundwater samples were collected at 15 and 25 feet bgs. Field tests for
bromide were performed on groundwater samples immediately following collection.
2.3 Pneumatic Fracturing and Zero Valent Iron Injection
Implementation (Chemical Reduction)
The chemical reduction treatability study was implemented the week of November 28, 2006.
Four injection locations were advanced as depicted on Figure 2-1. Photographs
documenting field activities from the chemical reduction implementation are provided in
Appendix B-2.
2.3.1 Zero Valent Iron Concentration
The concentration of iron injected into the formation during the chemical reduction
treatability study was based on 0.4 percent of the soil mass within the treatment area. To
achieve this concentration, 10,400 pounds of powdered H-200 and 1,200 pounds of HC-15
(ranging from 15 to 200 microns) were injected into the subsurface. Pneumatic fracturing
and ZVI injection was conducted by ARS Technologies, Inc. of New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The amount and type of ZVI was based on recommendations from the vendor, which was
based on their past experience.
2.3.2 Pneumatic Fracturing and Injection
The injection borings at the chemical reduction treatability study site were advanced using
HSA and temporarily supported using a PVC sleeve. The fracture interval was from 25 feet
bgs to 12.5 feet bgs, working from the bottom up. The borings were advanced to 29 feet bgs
to allow space for the packers.
As prescribed by the FeroxTM methodology, the injectors were lowered into the bottom of
the borehole. The PVC sleeve was retracted in 2.5-foot stages, exposing the internal packer
and nozzle assembly to the subsurface. The packers were then inflated, sealing the borehole.
Pneumatic pressure (ranging from 25 to 30 pounds per square inch psi) was applied to
fracture the formation in the interval between the packers. Nitrogen gas was used as the
carrier fluid. A double -diaphragm pump was used to deliver the ZVI slurry in to the
nitrogen gas stream creating an aerosol of ZVI. The combined gas and slurry stream were
injected into the formation. When the injection was complete, the PVC sleeve was retracted
upward and the packer and nozzle assembly was positioned for the next injection event.
Following injection, the boreholes were abandoned in place in accordance with standard
operating procedures as described in the Base Master Project Plans. A summary of each
injection location, including injection pressures, H-200 and HC-15 mass, slurry volumes,
pressure influence and surface heave data for each injection point are presented in Tables 1
through 4 of the Field Implementation Summary (Appendix D). A total of 10,160 pounds of
H-200 and 1,188 pounds HC-15 were injected in the six borings, at an averaged injection
pressure of 25 psi.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-3

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
The Field Implementation Summary (Appendix D) states that limited use of gas during ZVI
injections was required due to the high water table, so a "pulsed" gas approach was
utilized. Analysis of the pressure versus time curves reveals that the formation did not
fracture using this pulsing method. Without fracturing, the ZVI cannot be distributed a
significant distance. Fluidization might be possible, but may also be limited if significant
injection pressures cannot be used or obtained. Therefore, all ZVI is assumed to be within
limited distance (estimate two feet) of the injection boring and not spread across the site as
desired.
2.3.3 Zone of Influence Monitoring
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the chemical reduction treatability study to evaluate the zone of influence.
The measurements were made in conjunction with the scheduled sampling events.
Two weeks after the injections, seven confirmation borings were advanced to 25 feet
(Figure 2-1) using DPT by Vironex, a North Carolina -licensed driller, to further assess the
zone of influence. Visual observations and magnetic separation were used to indicate
evaluate the presence of iron in the confirmation borings.
2.4 Installation and Operation of Air Sparge System with HDD
Well
2.4.1 Horizontal Well Installation
The HDD sparge well was installed the week of November 13, 2006. The well was
constructed with a 240-foot long screen, positioned at approximately 40 feet bgs. The total
lineal distance of drilling was approximately 600 feet. The location of the horizontal well is
provided in Figure 1-8. An as -built profile of the horizontal well is shown on Figure 2-2.
The horizontal sparge well was installed by a North Carolina -licensed well driller (Directed
Technologies Drilling), using HDD techniques. Drilling operations included advancing the
pilot hole, reaming the pilot hole, and pullback of well materials. Photographs documenting
field activities from the horizontal sparge well installation are provided in Appendix B-3.
The horizontal well borehole was advanced using a combination of high-pressure, low -
volume fluid cutting and mechanical cutting. A pilot hole was drilled with an entry angle of
approximately 19 degrees and directed downward until it reached 40 feet bgs. The drill
head was then leveled off for the length of the screen and then directed to the surface. The
pilot hole was reamed out to a diameter approximately 1.5 to 2 times the outer diameter
(O.D.) of the well using an 8-inch diameter reamer. The reamer was then attached to pull the
well materials into the hole.
The horizontal well was constructed of standard dimension ratio (SDR)-11 high -density
polyethylene (HDPE) casing and screen, with a nominal diameter of four inches (3.682-inch
I.D.) and 4.50-inch O.D. An open slot design was utilized (i.e., no sand packs, filter screens,
etc.). The screen was slotted longitudinally (0.020-inch slots) to create a single slot zone with
an open area of 0.5%. After the well casing and screen assembly were set, the annulus of the
borehole was sealed with a polyurethane grout seal along 25 feet from either end of the
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-4

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
slotted section. No gravel pack of filter fabric was installed; natural collapse material was
allowed to fill the annular space around the screen.
Following completion, fresh water mixed with Dry Enzyme Breaker (DEB) and Liquid
Enzyme Breaker (LEB) was pumped into the well to break down the guar gum in the mud
and remove drilling fluid and residual foreign materials. The fluid was allowed to stand
inside the well overnight. The horizontal well was then developed via jetting with
approximately 3,000 gallons of water.
All horizontal well installation activities were coordinated and observed by a JV I field
hydrogeologist and were completed in accordance with the Treatability Studies Work Plan
(JV 1, 2006).
2.4.2 Soil Vapor Well Installation
Following the installation of the horizontal well, soil vapor monitoring wells 89-SV01
through 89-SV03 were installed by Probe Technology, Inc. using DPT. Soil vapor monitoring
well 89-SV01 was advanced to a depth of 5.75 feet bgs and soil vapor monitoring wells 89-
SV02 and 89-SV03 were advanced to a depth of 6 feet bgs.
Each soil vapor monitoring well was constructed using one -inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC
and completed with one foot of 0.01-inch slotted screen. The annulus of each borehole was
filled with #2 filter (silica) sand extending from the bottom of the borehole to 0.5 feet above
the top of the screen. A three-foot thick bentonite seal was placed above the filter pack. The
remaining annular space of the borehole was grouted to within a few inches of the ground
surface with Portland cement mixed with five percent bentonite. Each soil vapor monitoring
well was completed with flush -mounted permanent 8.5-inch diameter steel casing and
security cover, set in a two -foot square concrete pad. Soil vapor monitoring well completion
diagrams are provided in Appendix E.
2.4.3 Air Sparge System Installation and Operation
A rotary screw air compressor with a capacity of 110 pound per square inch gauge (psig)
was installed the week of December 7, 2006. The compressed air system was stored in a
(lockable) steel shipping container.
Specialized well caps were installed on the monitoring wells within the study area. The
caps, also called breather caps, have a membrane that avoids air pressure from building in
the well by allowing air to escape, while keeping water in the well. The breather caps failed
in wells closest to the horizontal well, where bubbling was observed. Three breather caps
were then replaced with screwed on ball valve caps in order to keep the water within the
well.
The air sparge system was activated on December 8, 2006. The compressed air system was
operated continuously for approximately six months, except for scheduled maintenance,
power failures, or sampling events. During the treatability study period (December 8, 2006
through June 6, 2007), the compressor "up time' was approximately 88.7 percent (based on
run time hours recorded on the compressor programmable logic control [PLC]). The
compressor was shut down from December 15, 2006 to December 29, 2006 to investigate
water discharge into Edwards Creek, which was determined to be unrelated to the
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-5

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
treatability studies at Site 89. This accounts for 7.7 percent of the study time. The other 3.4
percent of downtime was related to turning the system off to conduct monitoring.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) visits were conducted on a weekly basis. Compressor
air pressure, receiver tank air pressure, sparge pressure, compressed air flow rate, and
compressor hours were recorded during each O&M visit. The air flow rate ranged from 79
to 92 cubic feet per minute (cfm) with an average of 81 cfm and was at a pressure of 5 to 20
psig with an average of 10.3 psig.
2.4.4 Pneumatic Fracturing
After operating the air sparge system for three months, pneumatic fracturing was completed
in four borings spaced 50 feet apart along the axis of the horizontal sparge well screen, as
shown on Figure 2-3. Fracturing was performed at 3 foot intervals, over a vertical span of
12.5 feet (from 25 to 12.5 feet bgs). Pneumatic fracturing was completed to evaluate the
potential for improving air sparging performance in the dense materials of the Surficial
Aquifer. Pneumatic pressure ranged from 80 to 400 psi. A summary of each injection
location, including injection pressures, pressure influence, and surface heave data are
presented in the Pneumatic Fracturing Field Implementation Summary (Appendix F).
Short circuiting of gas occurred around the downhole injection tooling at the end of each
injection event. The Pneumatic Fracturing Field Implementation Summary (Appendix F)
states that short circuiting did not render the fracturing ineffective because each discrete
interval was fractured for at least 10 seconds and achieved flow rates averaging 2,000
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm), which is sufficient to initiate and propagate fractures.
2.4.5 Zone of Influence Monitoring
Water levels and field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were
measured in wells associated with the air sparging treatability study to evaluate the zone of
influence. The measurements were made in conjunction with the scheduled sampling
events.
To further assess the zone of influence, a tracer test was conducted. Sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6) was blended into the air stream for approximately 48 hours from March 21, 2007 to
March 23, 2007 to evaluate the zone of influence of the air sparge system prior to pneumatic
fracturing. SF6 was again blended into the air stream following pneumatic fracturing to
determine if fracturing resulted in additional distribution.
2.5 Installation of Permeable Reactive Barrier
The PRB was installed on December 18, 2006. A continuous trenching machine was used to
excavate the trench. The machine operated a cutting chain in front of a trench box boot that
extended the trench as the machine advanced. A hopper on the trenching machine delivered
the mulch/sand mixture to the boot, immediately backfilling the trench. The PRB, as shown
on Figure 1-8, is 200 feet long, 2 feet wide, and 25 feet deep.
The PRB was comprised of approximately 40 percent mulch (reactive medium) and 60
percent sand (aggregate). Approximately 200 cubic yards of mulch, provided by MCB Camp
Lejeune, was loaded into trucks and transferred to the site. The mulch consisted of a mixture
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-6

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
of compost material, including grass clippings, wood chips, and horse manure.
Approximately 480 cubic yards of sand, also provided by MCB Camp Lejeune, was utilized
as aggregate. A back hoe was used to mix the mulch and sand, which was then poured into
the hopper. The PRB was covered with a polypropylene woven monofilament fabric
geotextile (Clearfilter 330W) and three feet of soil (reserved from the excavation and from
the Base borrow pit) to prevent infiltration.
A horizontal pipe was installed at the bottom of the trench to facilitate future injections of
oil or another substrate in this area if needed. The 2-inch diameter HDPE SDR 11 slotted
pipe extends across the length of the trench. A HDPE riser connects to the horizontal pipe at
each end.
2.6 Treatability Studies Monitoring
Chlorinated VOCs were monitored throughout the treatability studies. Additionally, select
parameters particular to the PRB and ERD study performance were monitored.
2.6.1 Groundwater Monitoring
The monitoring plan for the four treatability studies addressed groundwater at various
intervals during the study, as described below. All groundwater monitoring activities were
conducted in accordance with the Treatability Studies Work Plan (CH2M HILL, 2006) and
the MCB Camp Lejeune Master Project Plans, as summarized below. Table 2-2 summarizes
the analytes, analytical methods, and laboratories associated with each sampling event.
ERD Treatability Stud
Three new monitoring wells: 89-MW53, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55; and two existing
monitoring wells: 89-MW08 and 89-MW44 were monitored during the ERD treatability
study. Groundwater monitoring included a baseline event, followed by three sampling
events as detailed in Table 1-1.
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Groundwater samples associated with the ERD treatability study were additionally sampled
for dissolved gases (methane, ethane, ethene) by RSK 175; chloride, nitrate, nitrite, and
sulfate by EPA Method 300.0; alkalinity by EPA Method 310.1; phosphorous by EPA
Method 365.1; Total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon by EPA Method
415.1; and microorganisms (dehalococcoides [DHC], dehalobacter, desulfuromonas,
methanotrophs, and initial polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon [PAH] aerobics) by real-time
polymerase chain reaction (gPCR) analysis.
Chemical Reduction Treatability Studu
Three new monitoring wells: 89-MW50, 89-MW51, and 89-MW52; and two existing
monitoring wells: 89-MW01 and 89-MW02 were monitored during the chemical reduction
treatability study. Groundwater monitoring included a baseline event, followed by three
sampling events as detailed in Table 1-1.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-7

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Air Sparge TreatabiliteIL Stud
Five new monitoring wells: 89-MW43B, 89-MW48A, 89-MW48B, 89-MW49A, and
89-MW49B; and three existing monitoring wells: 89-MW32, 89-MW33, and 89-MW43 were
monitored during the air sparging treatability study. Groundwater monitoring included a
baseline event prior to system start-up, followed by six monthly sampling events conducted
during air sparge operations as detailed in Table 1-1.
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Groundwater samples associated with the air sparge treatability study were additionally
analyzed for SF6, as described in Section 2.4.5.
PRB Treatabilitey Study
Seven new monitoring wells: 89-MW56, 89-MW57, 89-MW58, 89-MW59, 89-MW60, 89-
MW61, and 89-MW62; and four existing monitoring wells: 89-MW09, 89-MW28, 89-MW30,
and 89-MW45 were monitored during the PRB treatability study. Groundwater monitoring
included a baseline event, followed by three sampling events as detailed in Table 1-1.
Three of the new monitoring wells, 89-MW59 through 89-MW61, were installed within the
PRB; therefore, baseline monitoring was delayed until immediately following construction.
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Groundwater samples associated with the PRB treatability study were also additionally
sampled for TOC and dissolved organic carbon.
2.6.2 Soil Vapor Monitoring
Due to the presence of buildings around the air sparge treatability study, three soil vapor
wells (89-SV01, 89-SV02, and 89-SV03) were installed and monitored over the duration of
the study. Soil vapor monitoring included a baseline event, followed by six monthly
sampling events as detailed in Table 1-1.
Soil vapor samples were collected with a Summa canister by attaching Teflon tubing
permanently located in each well. Samples were collected in appropriately labeled
containers. Soil vapor samples remained in the presence of a JV1 project representative
until delivery to the laboratory via overnight carrier. A chain -of -custody (COC) record was
used to maintain a record of personnel who had contact with the samples. Soil vapor
samples were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method TO-15.
All soil vapor monitoring data were evaluated using the Draft Guidance for Evaluating the
Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (USEPA, 2002). The
soil vapor data were first compared to generic screening criteria based on a 1 in 100,000
cancer risk and residential land use to determine whether the potential exists for vapor
intrusion to result in unacceptable indoor inhalation risks. If VOC concentrations exceeded
the generic screening criteria by a factor of 50, in accordance with EPA's guidance, site -
specific screening criteria were calculated for these compounds using the Johnson and
Ettinger model based on industrial land use assumptions.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 2-8

Tables

Table 2-1
Monitoring Well Construction Details
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Study Area
Well ID
Date of
Installation
Total Depth
(feet bgs)
Screen Interval
(feet bgs)
Air Sparge with HDD
IR89-MW32
1/31/2004
14
4-14
I R89-MW33
1 /31 /2004
14
4-14
1R89-MW43
10/11/2005
23
18-23
IR89-MW43B
11/18/2006
30
25-30
1R89-MW48A
11/18/2006
25
20-25
IR89-MW48B
11/14/2006
30
25-30
1R89-MW49A
11/17/2006
25
20-25
IR89-MW49B
11/17/2006
30
25-30
Chemical Reduction
IR89-MW01
6/22/1994
13.3
3.3-13.3
with ZVI
IR89-MW02
6/22/1994
14
4-14
1R89-MW50
11/14/2006
25
20-25
IR89-MW51
11/14/2006
25
20-25
1R89-MW52
11/14/2006
25
20-25
ERD
IR89-MW08
1/28/2004
15
5-15
1R89-MW44
10/11/2005
23
18-23
1R89-MW53
11/13/2006
25
20-25
1R89-MW54
11/13/2006
25
20-25
1R89-MW55
11/13/2006
25
20-25
PRB
IR89-MW09
6/29/1999
15
5-15
1R89-MW28
5/13/2003
15
5-15
1R89-MW30
5/13/2003
15
5-15
1R89-MW45
10/11/2005
23
18-23
1R89-MW56
12/27/2006
25
20-25
1R89-MW57
12/27/2006
30
30-35
1R89-MW58
12/27/2006
25
20-25
1R89-MW59
12/26/2006
20
15-20
1R89-MW60
1/10/2007
20
15-20
1R89-MW61
12/26/2006
20
15-20
1R89-MW62
12/28/2006
25
20-25

N 11)
LL
x
x
U)
E
0
C
ma
x
x
o a
U_
U
O
O ui
x
x
x
x
Ov
o ^,
o
aui
x
x
x
x
'A M
O
a
C �
o
x
x
x
x
Y M
Q
N N
� R
Z O
x
x
x
x
o
a y M
O b
s Z
U
c
m
s Y
wm
6
x
x
x
x
c y
m c
s y
y s
W
N m
o N
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
iW
c
LL,
0
o
0
o
m o 0 o
m
m
m
o
�
0 0
� �
0
�
0
�
o
�
m
-
o
�
0
�
0
�
m
m
O
m 7 (O
m-
N M
VU)
(O
C
co
c
Q
E
m
�
o
0
0
0
r
0
y
o
Co
o
0
o Co o 0
0
0
0 0
o
r
o
0
po
m
m
o c m
o
m
a�i m
m>>
m
m
m
M
Z
Z
Z
LL
0
V
C
3
O
U)
U
._LLU
N
a
m
N
o
`U
co~c
U
¢
I
a
m
U
a) n
m w
0 O
_O
a
a N
N �
9
9 N
7
v) N
N
3 3
0
r O
0
N _T
Z+ 7
m
7 O
C C
m m
-o O
c O
m N
co
O m
O L
9 N
N N IVO)
9 LL
E N
> N c
N N
Z ~
C N O
N 9
N m -O
cco U
N > O
9 cV)
17
c o
ui m c
Cl)ON
a
-o c co ui —
-
m m m
9 m
O O l C
Cl) Cl) 4: -
m
O O O 9
O O - O
O O C U
m m v) 0
O O Q -
co co N
a
co co U) N
v) v) O
a a U
.0 .0 9
N a)O N
2 2 ; N
a,a a � 3
W W E v)
o m a -a E
C C C 7 N
Co '- Co U r-
Lo
O Lo Co
N m
C) 3 0
o � 2
cn E
T Z T
-0 -0 Qj O 0
v) v) N v) v)
>, L >, a) T T
m m m c m m
C C C C C
m Cm m m m m
O 2 O H O O
m
-O O -O = -O -O
m N m > a) a)
L
N N N
O O Z O O
U m U U U
v) U) v) O v) v)
Nm N N N
Q Q U Q Q
E E E E
0 m 2�, m Vi m m
~O (n C (n 9 (n (n
Z Q N J 'o V

Figures

PROFILE
Urethane Seal Beginning of Screen
South East -100' from top of casing 205 feet from top of cas
0.0
10.0
> 20.0
c 30.0
w
i 40.0
0
m x 50.0
In
60.0
y 70.0
80.0
90.0
End of Screen I I Urethane Seal
feet from top of casing I -100' from End of casing North West
100.0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N CJ V
Horizontal Distance from Entry (ft)
r
IR89 MW33� ,
M
TC875
J
lid
TC866' "p.
t Fwmkxm".
�� t
rrx.w„
,01
- - - IRS 9•MW43A"
-
IR83MW43B
o
TC864 `r
9 ,7
dr
`
"' m,
IR89-MW48A
IR89-MW486
IR69-MW49A
Pa
IR89-MW49B
p
IR89•MW32
x
TcS
IR89-MW72
TC861
n
a �
v �
" IR891
TC952"%
Aerial Photograph taken Feb. 2004
Legend N
Soil Gas Wells W+E
9 Monitoring Well Locations
HDD Sparge Well Screen s
Horizontal Directionally Drilled Well o 35 70
Feet
1 inch = 70 feet
Figure 2-2
HDD Well As -Built Profile
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
A G V 1
CH2M HILL

v:Hpnroa¢ewrc
w�c
o-a rneumauc r
i
TC860
f
Aerial Photograph taken Feb. 2004
TC875
x
O
Legend N Figure 2-3
A Soil Gas Wells W E Pneumatic Fracturing Locations -Air Sparge Treatability Study
® Monitoring Well Locations Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
O GeoProbe Soil Boring Locations S MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
• Pneumatic Fracturing Locations 0 35 70
HDD Sparge Well Screen M006iiiiiiiii@ Feet A G V i 0
Horizontal Directionally Drilled Well 1 inch = 70 feet CH2M HILL

SECTION 3
Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Evaluation
3.1 Results
3.1.1 Bromide Tracer
As described in Section 2.2.3, sodium bromide was blended into the substrate prior to
injection as a tracer. Results of the confirmation sampling event are shown in Table 3-1.
Bromide concentrations were consistently higher in the shallow groundwater sample,
indicating that substrate was more easily distributed in this zone. Bromide was positively
detected above background concentrations in shallow groundwater samples up to 30 feet
away from an injection location. Bromide was positively detected above background
concentrations in deep groundwater samples up to 20 feet away from an injection location.
3.1.2 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the ERD treatability study during each groundwater sampling event to
evaluate the distribution of substrate. Field parameters are presented in Table 3-2. DO
measurements appear to be high (up to 7.2 milligrams per liter [mg/L]); however, DO
measurements have a higher occurrence of being unreliable; therefore, DO will not be
considered in this evaluation. Specific conductivity and pH did not reveal meaningful
trends and will not be discussed further.
ORP trends within the ERD treatability study monitoring wells are presented in Figure 3-1.
During the baseline sampling event, ORP measurements in the ERD treatability study
monitoring wells ranged from -31 millivolts (mV) to 116 mV. Following ERD substrate
injection, ORP generally decreased. Three months following ERD injection, all of the
monitoring wells exhibited ORP less than -50 mV. During the final sampling event (6
months), ORP measurements in representative wells ranged from -250 mV to -204 mV.
During implementation, In -situ Multi -Parameter Troll 9000 data loggers were installed in
monitoring wells 89-MW53 and 89-MW54 to evaluate the response of subsurface conditions
to the ERD injections.
Monitoring well 89-MW53, located approximately 38 feet upgradient, was selected for
monitoring during injections because of its position relative to the injections. Specific
conductivity and ORP stabilized immediately following installation. As shown on
Figure 3-2, variations in ORP were recorded during each injection, indicating that
subsurface conditions were being influenced. Following injections, ORP stabilized around -
650 mV. These ORP measurements vary significantly from those observed during the
groundwater sampling events; however the relative decreasing trends are consistent.
Approximately four days following the final ERD injection, ORP fluctuated from -150 mV to
-700 mV, and then re -stabilized around -700 mV. Specific conductivity showed fluctuation
approximately eight days following the final ERD injection. While these results indicate that
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 3-1

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
some stimulus prompted a response in the subsurface conditions at four and eight days
following the injections, these are considered an anomaly and not directly related to the
ERD injections.
Monitoring well 89-MW54 is located approximately 33 feet downgradient of the ERD
injections. Similar to 89-MW53, specific conductivity and ORP fluctuated during each
injection. Immediately following the final ERD injection, the specific conductivity steadily
increased for ten days, peaking around 1,050 microsiemens per centimeter (µS/cm), and
then decreased thereafter. Following injections, the ORP stabilized around -420 mV, and
then began to decrease approximately eight days following the final injection (Figure 3-3).
As with 89-MW53, these ORP measurements vary significantly from those observed during
the groundwater sampling events; however the relative decreasing trends are consistent.
Reactions observed eight to ten days following the final injection are considered anomalies
and not directly related to the ERD injections.
The data logger manufacturer, In -Situ, indicated that deploying the data logger in or
through vegetable oil can coat and clog the sensors, providing inaccurate results. This
indicates that the substrate was distributed to the wells with the data loggers, and may
account for the significant variation of results recorded by the data loggers versus those
collected during the groundwater sampling events.
3.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results
Groundwater analytical results associated with the ERD treatability study, including VOCs
and natural attenuation indicator parameters, are presented in Table 3-2 and Appendix G-1.
The subsurface microbial populations were analyzed in March and June 2007, three and six
months following injection of ERD substrate, to assist with the evaluation of the ERD
treatability study. Microbial analytical results obtained during the ERD treatability study
are presented in Table 3-3 and Appendix H. These results are evaluated in Section 3.2.2.
3.2 Evaluation
3.2.1 Radius of Influence
The results of the bromide tracer study indicate that the radius of influence of the ERD
injections was at least 30 feet at 15 ft bgs and at least 20 feet at 25 ft bgs. Variations in ORP
readings measured during each injection by the data logger placed in 89-MW54 indicate that
the radius of influence is at least 33 feet. The maximum radius of influence is estimated to be
approximately 35 feet from an injection. Based on this evaluation, monitoring well 89-
MW08, located approximately 60 feet from an ERD injection location, is outside the
treatability study zone of influence. Therefore, data collected from 89-MW08 are not
representative and will not be considered further.
Monitoring well 89-MW53 is located approximately 33 feet hydraulically sidegradient of the
treatability study area. Based on the above evaluation, 89-MW53 is expected to be within the
radius of influence; however, as shown on Figure 3-1, ORP measurements in 89-MW53 did
not follow the same pattern as those in the other monitoring wells. ORP measurements
recorded by the data logger suggest that an external factor is influencing this well, as
described in Section 3.1.2. Additionally, 89-MW53 is the only well within the treatability
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 3-2

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
study to have very high concentrations of TCE (peaking at 52,000 micrograms per liter
[µg/L]) and it exhibited an overall increase in TCE concentrations over the monitoring
period. The TCE concentration in 89-MW53 increased 173% over the course of the
treatability study. It is possible that 89-MW53 is located within a stringer and a small
amount of product was mobilized or desorption off soil occurred. For these reasons, data
collected from this well are not considered representative and will not be analyzed further.
A radius of influence of approximately 35 feet is 40% greater than the expected radius of
influence of 25 feet, as assumed during the dosage calculation. This suggests that substrate
may be flowing preferentially through more permeable stringers, which could result in
rebounding once subsurface conditions equilibrate.
3.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness
3.2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
During the baseline sampling event, PCA concentrations ranged from 2.2 µg/L to 20 µg/L.
Within the first month after ERD substrate injection, PCA concentrations in monitoring
wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55 decreased (Figure 34). For the remainder of the
monitoring period, PCA was generally not detected above method reporting limits.
During the baseline sampling event, TCE concentrations ranged from 110 µg/L to 360 µg/L
in wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55 (Figure 3-5). Within the first month after ERD
substrate injection, TCE concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW54 and 89-MW55
decreased, while TCE concentrations in 89-MW44 increased. The groundwater sample
collected from 89-MW44 during this sampling event was described as milky white,
suggesting that EVO was present. The EVO may have preferentially extracted, or
sequestered, the TCE from the soil. If substrate was collected in the groundwater for
analysis, the TCE concentration would appear higher. This may explain the increase in TCE
observed in 89-MW44 during the first month. For the remainder of the monitoring period,
TCE concentrations generally decreased in 89-MW44. Over the course of the monitoring
period, TCE concentrations decreased 94.4%, 98.8%, and 99.4% in monitoring wells 89-
MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55, respectively.
Analysis of TCE daughter products DCE and vinyl chloride suggests that reductive
dechlorination is occurring within the ERD treatability study, as shown in Figures 3-6 and
3-7. The DCE concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55
increased within the first month following ERD substrate injection. Between the one and six
month monitoring events, DCE concentrations decreased, while vinyl chloride
concentrations increased.
3.2.2.2 Total Organic Carbon
Carbon is the energy source that drives dechlorination. TOC concentrations exceeding 20
mg/L are generally indicative that sufficient energy is available for dechlorination to
proceed.
TOC in monitoring wells 89-MW44 and 89-MW54 peaked one month following substrate
injection at 250 mg/L and 34 mg/L, respectively, then declined, suggesting that carbon was
being consumed (Figure 3-8). This is generally consistent with decreasing TCE
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 3-3

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
concentrations. The TOC concentration in monitoring well 89-MW55 peaked three months
following substrate injection at 41.9 mg/L, then declined. These results may suggest that
the lactate was consumed rather quickly in the system. The EVO should be retained in the
formation for an extended period of time. However, since it is slow release, little
measurable TOC may be present.
3.2.2.3 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
Nitrate, sulfate, methane, alkalinity, and chloride were measured in ERD monitoring wells
over the course of the study to determine if the conditions are favorable for biodegradation.
Natural attenuation indicator parameters (NAIPs) are presented in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-9.
In representative wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55, nitrate concentrations are
initially less than 0.21 mg/L and sulfate concentrations are less than 39 mg/L. The low
concentrations suggest that there should not be major competition for electron donors.
Alkalinity concentrations increased at least one order of magnitude in each of the
representative wells, indicating that carbon dioxide is being released and anaerobic
biodegradation is taking place. Methane was detected in each of the representative wells,
which also suggests that anaerobic degradation is taking place.
Monitoring well 89-MW53 exhibited each of these characteristics as well, indicating that
conditions are favorable for reductive dechlorination. Reductive dechlorination was not
observed in 89-MW53 during this study, possibly because the high contaminant
concentrations masked any measurable change.
3.2.2.4 Microorganisms
Microbiological data collected from monitoring well 89-MW44 indicate a significant increase
in the population of important dehalogenating bacteria, such as DHC, between March and
June 2007. Counts of DHC increased from 4.7E+01 cells per milliliter (ml) in March to
6.32E+04 cells per ml in June 2007, an increase of 3 orders of magnitude. DHC are known to
be capable of converting TCE to ethane and the increase in DHC generally coincides with
the period during which DCE concentrations decreased.
Microbial data collected from monitoring well 89-MW54 also indicate a significant increase
in the population of DHC between March and June 2007. Counts of DHC increased from
5.03E+04 cells per ml in March to 4.56E+06 cells per ml in June 2007.
Analysis of microbial data indicates the presence of dehalogenating bacteria. The data also
suggest that the native bacterial consortium at the site is capable of completely
dechlorinating TCE. Analysis of microbial data suggests that if ERD were implemented on
a full-scale basis at the site, bioaugmentation would not be required. These interpretations
are only applicable to initial TCE concentrations ranging from 110 µg/L to 360 µg/L.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 3-4

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
3.3 Design Parameters
3.3.1 Conceptual Design
This conceptual design is based on site conditions observed before initiation of the
treatability studies. Prior to any complete design, a full round of sampling would be
required to capture current site conditions.
Although a 35-foot radius of influence was observed during the treatability study, it is
expected that substrate flowed through higher permeability zones preferentially. To achieve
full distribution of substrate, full scale implementation is based on a 25-foot radius of
influence. Full scale implementation of ERD would require approximately 180 to 220
injection locations. Substrate would be injected from 15 to 30 feet bgs to treat the known
zone of contamination. Similar to the treatability study, 3,050 pounds of EVO and 3,300
pounds of sodium lactate would be injected at each location, totaling approximately 137,000
to 168,000 pounds of EVO and 149,000 to 182,000 pounds of sodium lactate across the site.
Substrate would be diluted in the field to create a four -to -one dilution and chased with
approximately 1,200 gallons of water at each location.
3.4 Cost
The total cost of the ERD treatability study was $83,000: $60,000 for implementation and
$23,000 for monitoring.
3.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the ERD treatability study, the following conclusions can be made:
• The radius of influence of the ERD injection was estimated to be 35 feet from an injection
location. A slightly more conservative radius of influence of 25 ft could be used for scale
design.
• Analysis of field parameters, daughter products, NAIPs, and microorganisms suggests
that reductive dechlorination occurred.
• Injection of lactate and EVO was effective at Site 89, as evidenced by mass reduction in
contaminant concentrations, for initial TCE concentrations ranging from 110 µg/L to 360
µg/L. It is impossible to determine if similar results would have been achieved in
higher concentration areas with a similar approach. Multiple injections over a longer
time period may have been required to see significant reductions.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 3-5

Tables

Table 3-1
Bromide Results - ERD Confirmation Sampling
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Bromide Concentration
Well/Boring ID
Location of Boring
Depth of Sample (ft bgs)
(ppm)
Two weeks following injections
CS-1
15' south of ERD-3
15
0.893
25
0.587
CS-2
20' south of ERD-3
15
0.494
25
0.294
CS-3
30' south of ERD-4
15
0.165
25
0.080
CS-4
30' east of ERD-4
15
0.100
25
0.009
CS-5
35' east of ERD-2
15
0.021
25
0.018
CS-6
25' north of ERD-2
15
0.378
CS-7
Midway between ERD-2 and ERD-4 and
15
0.578
25' east of ERD-2 and ERD-4
25
0.083
CS-8
25' southeast of ERD-4
15
0.220
25
0.184
CS-9
30' south of ERD-3
15
0.089
25
0.013
Three months following injections
89-MW08
54' northeast of ERD-2
5-15
0.071
89-MW33
Background
4-14
0.097
89-MW34
Background
4-14
0.087
89-MW44
15' northwest of ERD-3
18-23
0.968
89-MW53
36' north of ERD-1
20-25
0.912
89-MW54
30' southeast of ERD-4
20-25
0.378
89-MW55
54' south of ERD-4
20-25
0.108
Six months following injections
89-MW08
54' northeast of ERD-2
5-15
0.030
89-MW44
15' northwest of ERD-3
18-23
0.840
89-MW53
36' north of ERD-1
20-25
0.094
89-MW54
30' southeast of ERD-4
20-25
0.773
89-MW55
54' south of ERD-4
20-25
0.120

3
0
I-

TABLE 3-3
Detected Concentrations of Dechlorinating Bacteria
Site 89 Treatability Studies
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Station ID
IR89-MW33
IR89-MW34
IR89-MW44
IR89-MW54
Sample ID
IR89-GW33-07A
IR89-GW34-07A
IR89-GW44-07A
IR89-GW44-07B
IR89-GW54-07A
IR89-GW54-07B
Sample Date
03/08/07
03/08/07
03/07/07
06/07/07
03/07/07
1 06/07/07
Microorganism Name
(cel Is/mL)
DehalococCOldes spp
1.81E+01
7.09E+01
4.70E+01
6.32E+04
5.03E+04
4.56E+06
Desulfuromonas sap
5.00E-01 U
5.00E-01 U
1.54E+04
7.14E+04
2.31E+02
2.77E+04
Dehalobacter sop
5.06E+02
1.95E+02
7.74E+03
3.16E+04
2.55E+02
6.86E+00
Notes:
U - analyte not detected
cells/mL - cells per milliliter
Page 1 of 1

Figures

ti
O
O
00
r-
0
O
N
I —
CD
O
N
00
N
ti
O
O
N
M
ti
O
O
r-
N
O
N
O
O
O
N
i O
O O O O— O
LO O LO p L?
nw `dNO
O O O O O
O O LO O
N N M

N
O
O
O
N
Lf )
N
0
0
O
N
M
N
CD
0
O
N
N
CD
O
O
N
N
0
O
0
N
N
O
O
O
N
L(i
N
O
O
O
N
M
N
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
O N O O O O O
O O O O O
N M IT U?
Aw `dNO
O O O
O O O
I OP
N a- m
M •�
L O o
tm U
j o
J
O
�z
(0
(M O
N
cri
� J
U
O m
C) U
O
M
N
� a
Lu Ic�
C �
O �
N
C �
N co
orf co
W

0
0
0
N
N
CD
O
0
N
N
0
O
0
N
M
N
CD
O
0
N
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
ti
N
O
O
O
N
N
0
O
0
N
M
N
O
O
O
N
1
c�
1
0
O
N
O
O
O
N
ti
N
O
O
O
N
O O O N O O O O
O O O CD CD CD
N N M
/FLU `dNO
O O
O CD
LO
M
M
i
LL
a- co
O' .ZZ:
O o
mU0)
O
J
O
cCU
o�
LN
� J
co cri
U
m
U
z
N
a
cri
N
OD
N

N N
-1/Bri `uOi}ea}u83UO3 VOd
O
L
O � �U
0c0 O
•� O
O Z
4)
W
J
rl- Q
O -0 E
CD� m
N �U
� � m
U
d
vi
m
L
CO
o
o
co m
N �
00 0)
N �
O
00
O
q- CO
>O
75
O 00
O � �
� 0
co
NT
75
d)
00
O
O
N
co
co
O
O
N
N

ful mi
rl-
O
O
N
�i
rl-
O
O
N
a
T
rl-
O
O
N
00
N
rl-
O
O
N R
d5 o
co
rl-
O
O
N
co
O
O
N
m
N
I I I I I I I I I I O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O m N f— O LO It co N
-1/6ri `uOl;eJIUOOUOO 301
Lo v, m
L o
m
tm ,U
W o -C--
.tf O
O Z
� O
W Qj
� J
U) Q
-o E
C (0
�U
� m
W U
U 75
vi
m
U)
LO
co
75
O7
co
NT
75
00
m
m
O
i
O7
00
O
m

O O O O O O O
N CO N O co (o
-j/6ri `uoi;ea;uaouoo
O O O
O O
't N
r-
0
0
N
T
r-
0
C)
N
LO
M
rl-
O
C>
N
N
0
0
N
co �
am rn
ii CO
m
a:
O
O
w
U)
U
O
4-
0
3
O
m
i

r-
0
0
N
T
r-
CD
CD
M
rl-
CD
CD
N
M
suoi o2.ful Q�J�
0
0
N
W
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
rl- CO LO It M N
-1/6ri `uoi;ea;ueouoo
CU
M LO
L
O
m cu
am rn U
w
a) O
�z
O a)
O J
E
cB
uJ U
00
U
U
O m
o Y
U)
O y
c
a) CU
co
W L
O7
00
a)
J

suo JOa.rul a2i3
O O O O O O O
O LO O LO O LO
Cl) N N
-1/6w `uoi;ea;ueouoo uogaeo
rl-
0
0
N
�i
W
r—
O
O
N
T
r-
0
0
N
co
N
It
r—
O
CD
N R
rn o
Cl)
r—
O
O
N
W
0
0
N
N
O
O
N
PMO
z
w
LO
co
M
i
co
NT
i
d7
00
00
>O
i
00
co v, m
L o
m
U
O
O
O z
dj
ui Qj
J
U Q
E
�U
� m
�U
O g
m vi
m
m �
U �
C C/)
O
U �
O m
(0
O
i
O7
00
O
J

SECTION 4
Chemical Reduction Evaluation
4.1 Results
4.1.1 Confirmation Sampling
Confirmation borings were advanced to evaluate the zone of influence of the chemical
reduction treatability study. There were no conclusive indications of ZVI in any of the seven
confirmation borings. The closest confirmation boring to an injection location was 10 feet
away.
4.1.2 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the chemical reduction treatability study to evaluate the distribution of ZVI.
Field parameters are presented in Table 4-1. DO, pH, and specific conductivity did not
reveal meaningful trends and will not be discussed further.
ORP measurements less than 50 mV indicate that a reductive pathway is possible and ORP
measurements less than -100 mV indicate that a reductive pathway is likely and conditions
for chemical or biological reduction are favorable. ORP trends within the chemical reduction
treatability study monitoring wells are presented in Figure 4-1.
During the baseline sampling event, ORP measurements in the chemical reduction
treatability study monitoring wells ranged from -57 mV to 152 mV. ORP in monitoring wells
89-MW02, 89-MW50, and 89-MW51 consistently decreased over the monitoring period.
After six months, ORP measurements in these wells ranged from -242 mV to -165 mV.
4.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results
The groundwater analytical results associated with the chemical reduction treatability study
are presented in Table 4-1 and Appendix G-2. These results are evaluated in Section 4.2.2.
4.2 Evaluation
4.2.1 Radius of Influence
The zone of influence within the chemical reduction treatability study cannot be
conclusively determined. Based on the results of the confirmation sampling, the zone of
influence of the chemical reduction treatability study could not be confirmed. Further, as
described in Section 2.3.2, analysis of pressure versus time curves suggest that the formation
did not fracture. Therefore, all ZVI is assumed to be within a limited distance of the injection
boring and not spread across the site as expected.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 4-1

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
Groundwater may be reduced as it migrates through the isolated zones of ZVI. Monitoring
wells 89-MW02 and 89-MW50 are immediately adjacent to injection locations (6 and 8.5 feet
away, respectively), and 89-MW51 is located approximately 12 feet downgradient. Each of
these monitoring wells exhibited similar reductions in ORP, as shown on Figure 4-1,
suggesting that the addition of ZVI is creating reducing conditions, but that these conditions
are slow to propagate.
4.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness
Monitoring wells 89-MW02, 89-MW50, and 89-MW51 were the closest wells to the injections
points, all within 12 feet of an injection point. Significant mass reduction of PCA and TCE
did not occur within the chemical reduction treatability study. PCA and TCE concentrations
were reduced in 89-MW02 approximately 39% and 31%, respectively, during the monitoring
period (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Overall, the DCE concentration remained steady and the vinyl
chloride concentration increased in 89-MW02 (Figures 4-4 and 4-5). In 89-MW50, the TCE
concentration decreased approximately 57%. There was little change in the DCE
concentration and the vinyl chloride concentration increased slightly in 89-MW50. These
results suggest that reductive dechlorination was not occurring and that chemical reduction
was not an effective technology.
4.3 Design Parameters
4.3.1 Conceptual Design
Chemical reduction was not effective; therefore, a conceptual design for this technology was
not developed.
4.4 Cost
The total cost of the chemical reduction treatability study was $166,000: $152,000 for
implementation and $14,000 for monitoring.
4.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the chemical reduction treatability study, the following conclusions can
be made:
• Pneumatic fracturing was not accomplished; therefore, ZVI distribution was poor.
• There is relatively low reduction in contaminant concentrations.
ORP measurements declined over the monitoring period, suggesting that subsurface
conditions were becoming favorable for possible reductive dechlorination.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 4-2

Tables

E
E
o��
1-

Figures

I -
CD
0
N
P-
C)
0
N
N
O
O
N
m
Cl)
P-
O
O
N
suoiJO
ful xoaa�
/CD
N
N
O
O
N
O O O O O- O
O O O O p O
Cl) N
/FLU`dNO
O O
O O
N M
N
r
v
LL
O
LO
d
co
>O
i
d
co
>LO
i
d
co
u
N
>O
i
00
U m
m=
o
m
�U
o It
o
o z
C �
o
Y �
U �Qj
Z3 J
a) Q
E
(0
cU
U
E m
U
U vi
U
C cf)
a
ocu
i
0)
00
a)
m

r—
O
O
N
C)
O
O
N
co
N
0
0
N
M
CD
O
O
N
S Olefin X Jaj N
rn
N
A
14
O O O O O O CD CDO O
O O O O O O O O
CO N O 00 CO N
-I/6rl `uOlIBJ;u83uO3 ` Od
r
f0
0
0
>LO
75
co
0
d
w
N
LO
00
>U')
75
00
N
>O
00
N U cB
i O
cu
o -C--
o
o z
� m
o D
y m
U �Qj
� J
� Q
E
(0
�U
U m
�U
L 75
U vi
m
U
� y
m
U)
� y
Q
U �
a- m
m
rn
00
a)
m

ti
O
O
N
ti
r`
O
O
N
00
N
O
O
- N
m
ti
O
O
N
00
O
O
suoilo
.rUl XOJ2j
CD
N
6�
N
O
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O O
CD CD 0 CD
N O 000 CO0 N
-1/6rl °uoi;ea;ueouoo 301
M cn cB
i > O
cu
U
o V-
o
o z
� m
D
o D
.r m
U Qj
Z3 J
O
>LO
00
0
00
N
>O
i
00
G'
>O
i
00
N
>O
i
00
� Q
E
(0
cU
U m
�U
U �
� y
m
U)
� y
W Tn
U �
m
m
rn
00
a)
J

rl-
0
0
N
rl-
0
O
N
00
N
r-
0
0
N
r-
0
0
N
0
0
N
N
11
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O 00 C0 N O 00 CO V N
N
-I/6rl `uoi;ea;u9ouo3 go(]
d
R
0
O
>LO
07
w
>O
d
w
N
>O
75
d
00
G.
>O
75
d7
00
N
>O
75
6
00
� Q
E
(0
cU
U
U
75
ui
C �
U
C CO
W
U
m
m
0-)
00
m

r-
0
0
N
1
O
O
N
00
N
1
04
0
0
N
M
I —
CD
O
N
co
uoiTOafuI
xoaaj
O
O
N
rn
0
0
0
N
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
co CO N O co O "T
-1/Brl `uoi;ea;u83uo3 OPPO M lAuin
O O
O O
N
N
m
G
LO
as
11�
1�
O
O
w
O
c�
C
m
N0
N
LO
i
O
00
G.
>U')
i
O
00
N
>O
i
O
00
U) m
a�
c
C
L
O
O
O Z
o
U Qj
J
N fl-
E
LU
Em
U
C u
C co
N
L
U I-
-5,0-)
C co
i

SECTION 5
Air Sparging Evaluation
5.1 Results
5.1.1 Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer
As described in Section 2.4.5, a tracer test was conducted to assess the zone of influence for
the air sparge system. Analytical results of SF6 in groundwater collected from Zone A and
Zone B monitoring wells are presented in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b, respectively. Prior to
pneumatic fracturing, SF6 was detected in both Zone A and Zone B monitoring wells at very
low concentrations located within 50 feet of the sparge well. Following pneumatic
fracturing, the concentrations of SF6 are similar to those detected prior to pneumatic
fracturing, suggesting that pneumatic fracturing did not have an effect on the extent of
treatment.
5.1.2 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the air sparge treatability study to evaluate the distribution of air. Field
parameters are presented in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b. DO, pH, and specific conductivity did
not reveal meaningful trends and will not be discussed further.
Increasing ORP values in groundwater samples are used as an indicator of air sparge system
zone of influence. ORP trends within the treatability study Zone A and Zone B monitoring
wells are presented in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, respectively. Zone "A" monitoring wells (89-
MW32, 89-MW33, 89-MW43, 89-MW48A, and 89-MW49A) have screens of varying lengths
and depths, but fall within 4 to 25 feet bgs. Zone "B" monitoring wells (89-MW43B, 89-
MW48B, and 89-MW49B) are screened from 25 to 30 feet bgs.
The ORP data shows a gradual increasing trend in response to air sparging. Prior to the start
of the treatability study, ORP ranged from -162 mV to 274 mV in Zone A wells and from -
150 mV to 20 mV in Zone B wells. Over the course of the treatability study, ORP generally
increased in both Zone A and Zone B wells. Following six months of air sparging activities,
ORP increased in all monitoring wells, ranging from 85 mV to 276 mV in Zone A monitoring
wells and from 141 mV to 180 mV in Zone B monitoring wells.
Pneumatic fracturing generally did not have an effect on ORP measurements in either zone.
As shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, ORP measurements do not exhibit any meaningful trends
following pneumatic fracturing.
5.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results
The groundwater analytical results associated with the air sparge treatability study are
discussed according to the screened interval of the monitoring wells. Results for the air
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 5-1

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
sparge treatability study are presented in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b and Appendix G-3. These
results are evaluated in Section 5.2.2.
Soil vapor analytical results are presented in Table 5-2. These results are also discussed in
Section 5.2.2.
5.2 Evaluation
5.2.1 Radius of Influence
The results of the SF6 tracer test indicate that the radius of influence of air sparging was at
least 50 feet in both Zone A and Zone B monitoring wells. The ORP in Zone A and Zone B
monitoring wells located within 50 feet of the air sparge well exhibited similar increasing
trends, as shown on Figures 5-1 and 5-2. The ORP in monitoring wells 89-MW32 and
89-W33, located within 115 feet of the air sparge well in Zone A, generally were high and
stable over the course of the study. This may indicate that these wells were outside of the
zone of influence, although ORP is not conclusive since these wells started with high values.
Based on this evaluation, the radius of influence of the air sparging treatability study is
estimated to be approximately 60 feet.
5.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness
5.2.2.1 Groundwater
As shown in Figure 5-3, TCE concentrations decreased in monitoring wells 89-MW43, 89-
MW48A, and 89-MW49A, which are within 50 feet of the sparge well. Over the course of
the treatability study, TCE concentrations were reduced in these Zone A wells 77%, 93%,
and 99%, respectively.
TCE was not detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells 89-MW32
and 89-MW33 during the baseline sampling event; however, TCE was detected at
concentrations ranging from 26 µg/L to 510 µg/L during the following months. The six-
month TCE concentrations in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells 89-
MW32 and 89-MW33 were 74 µg/L and 33 µg/L, respectively. The overall increase is not
unexpected as both wells are shallow (screened from 4 to 14 feet) and are located somewhat
further away from the sparge well (115 feet and 110 feet, respectively). TCE from the deeper
zone was likely pushed upward into the more shallow zone, which was then eventually
stripped out, as indicated by the beginning of decreasing trends observed during the final
months of the monitoring period.
TCE concentrations in Zone B monitoring wells, shown in Figure 5-4, decreased rapidly
during the monitoring period. TCE concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW43B,
89-MW48B, and 89-MW49B decreased 89%, 92%, and 99.9% over the course of the
treatability study.
Similar to TCE, DCE and vinyl chloride concentrations decreased in Zone A and Zone B
monitoring wells throughout the monitoring period, as shown in Figures 5-5 through 5-8.
Analysis of VOCs suggests that site contaminants are effectively being removed by air
sparging activities. Reductions in TCE and DCE concentrations in both Zone A and Zone B
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 5-2

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
monitoring wells are most likely attributed to mass transfer to the gaseous state (stripping).
Based on the analytical results shown in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b, pneumatic fracturing did not
have an affect on the reduction of site contaminants. VOC trends do not show significant
variations following pneumatic fracturing activities.
5.2.2.2 Soil Vapor
Due to the presence of buildings around the air sparge treatability study and the potential
for vapor intrusion, three soil vapor wells (89-SV01, 89-SV02, and 89-SV03) were monitored
during the six month treatability study. Soil vapor analytical results are provided in
Table 5-2.
PCE, TCE, and DCE progressively increased in wells 89-SV01 and 89-SV02 as air sparging
proceeded. This is expected as VOCs volatilize. Soil vapor monitoring well 89-SV03 shows a
spike in each contaminant one month after system start-up, followed by a steady decrease in
concentrations; however, an overall increase in VOC concentrations is observed (Figures 5-9
through 5-11).
As shown in Table 5-2, the following VOCs were detected at concentrations greater than the
generic screening criteria (EPA, 2002) in at least one soil vapor sample collected during the
course of the treatability study: PCE; TCE; cis-1,2-DCE; vinyl chloride; PCA; methylene
chloride; chloroform; benzene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. PCE,
TCE, and PCA concentrations exceeded the generic screening criteria by a factor of 50;
therefore, in accordance with EPA's guidance, site -specific screening criteria were calculated
for these compounds using the Johnson and Ettinger model based on industrial land use
assumptions. No exceedances of site -specific screening criteria were reported during the
treatability study, indicating that indoor inhalation risks at Site 89 were acceptable during
air sparging activities. Analysis of soil vapor analytical results, modeling, and potential
mitigation alternatives are detailed in Appendix I.
5.3 Design Parameters
5.3.1 Conceptual Design
This conceptual design is based on site conditions observed before initiation of the
treatability studies. Prior to any complete design, a full round of sampling would be
required to capture current site conditions.
To implement air sparging full scale at Site 89, approximately seven to nine new HDD wells
would be required, based on the 60-foot radius of influence observed during this treatability
study. Each well would be installed 40 feet bgs, similar to the well installed for this
treatability study. This would include a total of approximately 2,300 to 2,800 feet of screen
and 860 to 1,060 feet of casing. Based on site constraints and the location of the existing air
sparge system, these lengths are based on blind well installations.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 5-3

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
5.4 Cost
The total cost of the air sparge treatability study was $291,000: $250,000 for installation and
operations and maintenance and $41,000 for monitoring.
5.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the air sparge treatability study, the following conclusions can be
made:
• The radius of influence of air sparging is estimated to be 60 feet from the sparge well.
• Pneumatic fracturing did not have a significant effect on the radius of influence.
• Air sparging through a HDD well is effective at Site 89, as evidenced by significant
reduction in contaminant groundwater concentrations.
• There was some evidence of dissolved contaminants being pushed away from the
sparging wells, but decreasing TCE trends observed in these areas during the final
months of the study suggest that TCE was then stripped out.
• Analysis of soil vapor samples collected in the vicinity of the air sparge treatability study
indicated that vapor concentrations increased; however, indoor inhalation risks at Site
89 during the test fell within acceptable ranges.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 5-4

Tables

Of
C
0
N
T
_O
T
L
(4
(4
p
F-
21
(4
Q
U)
Q
L
C
>L_
(4
C
❑
0
Al
(6
ui
0
F-
(6
C6
a-
L
U 0 0
(D ca
U
O
N 0
0 :3 Z
T C
0.0
C (B J
U
cu
00
� � U
O
N
O
O
O
(M
N
N
N
N
(�
C)
�
O
Q'
m
N
0
0
N
N
M
N
N
O
O
O
N
CD
O
U�
cM0
M
M
N
O
O
co
00
00
Q'
m
D
D
D
r
O
N
0
0
NO
N
a0
N
O
O
N
N
r
O
O
'DD
N
V
V
CO
(DD
co
N
0
O
00
Q'
r
0
0
N
M
O
O
N
N
N
M
_O
cr>M
CO
CO
O
O
O
W
N
N
N
N
O
O
N
N
N
N
V
�
N
C,
N
O
M
V
w
M
O
r
M
N
O
I-
M
N
N
c0
N
N
O
M
c0
O
O
co
Q'
r0
�
N
N UN
I-
M
0
O
V
N
(0
N
N
W
O
N
O
M
N
V
M
�
C�
0
O
00
Q'
Q
Z)
Z)
D
D
D
D
D
O
O
—
�
N—
ON
N
co
O
N
M
N
6
N
c1D
L6
N
M
N
N
00
�
00
Q'
(07
O
cD
I-
00
0
u7
O
00
u7
O
O
N
7
O
y
N M
0 E
1
Z U
U
J
c�
N
U
O
COE
L
C
C
4%
N
O)
?
p
co
N
L
w
N
U
V
O
t0
0@
L
CL>
o
o
o
r
O
c
:>
m
m
c
'�
r
0
r
0_
o
E
°°
E
o
r
o
0
0
o
d
o
o)
3
Z
@5Q
O
O
O
O
o
E2
Z
G
O
F
O
U
OCO
O
U
Q
l6
3
@
N
U
O
C.
C.
E
:E
:E
ca
C
N
N
T
N
�.O
>,
'FO
E
E
is
N
3
OC
E
O
`O
L
m
3
:ET
N
v
d
E
N
d
U
l6
l6
t
5
N
—
m
N
U
N
CO
2
CO
L
U
'O
N
N
O
'U
O
N
N
LL
N
Q
Q'
O
2
,
Q
U')
O
F

1-
I

w-
f

Figures

r—
O
O
w
r-
O
O
N
00
6uianl
d oijewna
d
O
O
N
O
O
N
do-:Peis
w
O
CD
O
N
co
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O 7-- O
LO O LC) O LC) O Ln O Ln
M M N N
Aw `dUO
O O O
O n O
N
Q
rn
00
1
Q
00
i
00
M
i
00
w
M
>M
d7
00
N
>M
d)
00
1
o U
N
c
U) N
�a
c �
H co
O�
N
N
0)
00
N
co

ti
O
O
00
ti
O
O
N
ti
co
N
6 injoea
j 01.1
wneu
ti
0
0
N
M
rl-
O
n-veiS LuaisAs
0
0
N
N
O
O
N
I I I I I I O I
O O O O O O O
N N
nw `dbo
O O O
N
m
m
0
N U) N
Lh > .�
i > O
cri
vm °' U
iz o
o Z
m �
2
a�
(n J
Q
m �j
o U
N
c
•- vi
U N
_a
m
rn
o�
00
G'
m
00
rn
00
0.'
m
M
00

O O
O O
LO O
co co
uianloead gilewnaud
n-:p els
O O O
O O O
LO O LO
N N
-I/6rl `uoi;ea;u9ouo3 go
PA,
O O
O O
O LO
r—
O
O
N
IA
"I
O
O
N
a
T
P-
O
O
N
N
r—
O
O
N R
rn 0
M
O
O
N
O
O
N
Q
rn
00
Q
>0
75
i
6
w
M
75
0)
00
M
M
75
d7
00
N
M
75
00
M U) co
z
.
O
cri
am °' U
� O �
:o z
75
U) J
Q
Q CO
o U
N
U) N
�a
m�
w
U
cri
cri
rn
OD
a)

O O O O O O O O O O
coCD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO It N O co (o 't N
-1/6ri `uoi;eJIUOOUOO 301
v U) cB
o m o
N �V
00
o
oz
75cu
r-- U) J
O Q
� m U
C° o U
N
U N
rl-
0
0
N
co
N
rl-
O
C y
N fC
o
M
rl-
O
O
N
00
O
O
N
m
N
O
O
N
a
IS
00
m
00
75
00
m
M
75
00
�a
w
U
N
OD
N
co

rl-
0
N
co
I—
C)
O
N
C°
0
0
N
co
N
6uianloead of ewnaud
o y
0
N R
M
O
O
N
co
co
d -gels wal
0
0
N
N
O
O
N
O
O CD O O O O O O
CDCD O O O O O CDLO CDLO CDLn CDLO
M M N N
-I/6ri `uoi;ea;uOOuOO 3oa
Q
00
Q
w
w
co
>M
i
00
N
co
00
LO U) co
.c
m � o
m °' Co
O
oCU
U) J
Q
Q CO
00
N
U) N
�a
w
0 co
cri
rn
OD
a)

6ui
njaead aijewnaud
S
n-gels wajs
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O
N O cU CO It N
-1/6ri `uoi;ea;uaOuOO 3oa
0
0
N
.i
O
O
N
a
T
0
0
N
co
N
It
0
0
N
I —
CD
O
N
co
0
0
N
N
co
O
O
N
►�i1
a�
r
R
m
rn
co
m
00
rn
00
m
M
i
co U) c4
ac
m � o
m °' Co
O
oCU
U) J
Q
m �j
00
N
U) N
�a
w
0 co
cri
rn
OD
a)

6uianjaeadl oilewnaud
d n-:p els
LO O LO O LO
N N
-j/6rl `uol;ea;uaouoo appol4o IAuln
0
0
N
�i
O
O
N
T
0
0
N
co
N
o y
0
N R
In
co
I —
CD
O
N
co
0
0
N
m
N
O
O
N
a
S
Q
d
x
ry
Q
w
w
ry
I
M
75
d
co
Q
Q U
o U
N
� N
�a
m�
o co
L ctj
U Q)
j ao
a)

6uiinjo
ad oijewneud
dn-
els welsAS
LO O LO O
N N
-I/6rl `uol;ea;uaouoo aplaol4o IAuln
LO O
0
0
N
�i
O
O
N
r,
T
0
0
N
co
N
It
o y
0
N m
C7� G
M
I —
CD
O
N
co
0
0
N
N
O
O
(N
1�
1�
CO U) co
m o
am °� Co
O
ocu
U) J
Q
00
N
.- vi
U) N
-0a
m
00
d7
00
m
M
i
d7
00

6uianlo
0000
ad oijewne
d
`
do -gels
welsAS
O O O O O O O O
O O O OLO T CDN O
ngdd `uOi;e4uG3uO3 30d
rl-
O
N
�i
rl-
O
O
N
A
rl-
O
O
N
w
N
rl-
O
CD
m
M
rl-
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
I
it
rn
LL
O
U)
rn
co
U) co
.c
� o
°) U
O �
oz
o�
>
J
CO
�U
0- U
U
Q
U) Z
m�
W -Q
U cri
a
N
rn
co

O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
COCD CD CD 'T O 00 (D CD CD 'T N N
ngdd `uoi;ea;ueouoo
rl-
0
0
N
�i
rl-
O
O
N
ro
T
rl-
0
0
N
w
N
rl-
O
O
N
rn o
M
rl-
O
O
N
9
O
O
N
N
I
it
NO
1d
0
m
LL
co
0
U)
co
rr,
N
O
>
CO
co
rr,
O
>
CO
U) cB
,c
� o
U
O
:o z
7
o�
>
J
�U
U
Q
U
m�
uW
U cri
CO
0)
co
N

O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
LO 'T 'T M Om N N - CD
ngdd `uOi;e4u83uO0 3oa
rl-
0
N
�i
rl-
0
0
N
rl-
0
0
N
co
N
ti
O
O
N
co
O
O
N
67
N
O
O
N
it
NO
1d
0
U)
6)
co
0'
N
O
U)
67
co
O
U)
d)
co
c
cri
oz
7
O
CU
U
�U
m op
U
Q �
U
m�
w�
U cri
CO
co
N

SECTION 6
Permeable Reactive Barrier Evaluation
6.1 Results
6.1.1 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the PRB treatability study to evaluate the extent of treatment. Field
parameters are presented in Tables 6-1a, 6-1b, and 6-1c. DO, pH, and specific conductivity
did not reveal meaningful trends and will not be discussed further.
ORP trends within the in -wall and downgradient PRB treatability study monitoring wells
are presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. In -wall monitoring wells are those located
within the PRB, including 89-MW59, 89-MW60, and 89-MW61. Downgradient monitoring
wells are those located on the southeast side of the PRB, including 89-MW09, 89-MW30, 89-
MW57, 89-MW58, and 89-MW62.
In the upgradient wells, ORP measurements range from -260 mV to -104 mV. Upgradient
monitoring wells are those located on the northwest side of the PRB, including 89-MW28,
89-MW45, and 89-MW56. The upgradient monitoring wells are not affected by the PRB;
therefore, the ORP measurements suggest that subsurface conditions may naturally be
favorable for reductive dechlorination. Immediately following the installation of the PRB,
ORP measurements in the in -wall wells ranged from -129 mV to -140 mV. During the six
month sampling event, ORP measurements ranged from -125 mV to -82 mV in the in -wall
wells. Despite the increase, ORP measurements are still within the range of a possible
reductive pathway.
Immediately following the installation of the PRB, ORP measurements in the downgradient
wells ranged from -161 mV to -131 mV. The downgradient ORP remained relatively stable
over the course of the study.
6.1.2 Chemical Analytical Results
The groundwater analytical results associated with the PRB treatability study are discussed
in the following sections according to the location of the monitoring wells. Results for the
PRB treatability study are presented in Tables 6-1a, 6-1b, and 6-1c and Appendix G-4.
Due to the velocity of groundwater flow and the monitoring timeframe, the results cannot
be viewed as complete. Groundwater did not have enough time to flow from the
upgradient wells to the wall and then from the wall to the downgradient wells.
Groundwater that was initially in the wall after installation or was immediately upgradient
was treated and migrated a limited distance during this treatability study.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 6-1

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
6.2 Evaluation
6.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
The effectiveness of the PRB can be evaluated by analyzing the degradation of VOCs as
groundwater moves downgradient. This can be represented by the flow of groundwater
from upgradient monitoring well 89-MW28, to in -wall monitoring well 89-MW61, and
finally to downgradient monitoring well 89-MW58. VOC trends for each of these wells are
presented on Figures 6-3 through 6-5. Based on groundwater elevation data collected
during groundwater sampling events, the seepage velocity in the vicinity of the PRB
treatability study is 0.138 ft/ day. With each of the representative wells approximately 20
feet apart, it is estimated that groundwater requires 5 months to migrate from one well to
the next. Baseline, three month, and six month VOC concentration trends versus distance, as
represented by monitoring wells 89-MW28, 89-MW61, and 89-MW58, are shown on
Figure 6-6. Six months following the installation of the PRB, decreasing VOC trends are
observed as groundwater passes through the wall and downgradient. This suggests that the
wall is effectively treating site contaminants. TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride trends versus
distance are presented in Figures 6-7 through 6-9, which show decreasing TCE and DCE
trends and increasing vinyl chloride trends over time and distance, again suggesting that
reductive dechlorination is occurring.
An alternate method to evaluate the effectiveness of the PRB in terms of VOC reduction is to
analyze degradation over time with respect to well location (in -wall and downgradient).
TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride trends within the PRB treatability study in -wall monitoring
wells and downgradient monitoring wells are presented in Figures 6-10 through 6-15,
respectively.
Within the in -wall wells, TCE concentrations ranged from 720 µg/L to 21,000 µg/L during
the initial sampling event. TCE concentrations in the three in -wall monitoring wells
decreased most rapidly during the first month following the PRB installation. TCE
concentrations continued decreasing over the monitoring period.
DCE concentrations generally increased slightly during the first month following the PRB
installation, followed by a steady decrease in DCE over the remainder of the monitoring
period. Vinyl chloride concentrations increased slightly in the first month following
installation of the PRB. Vinyl chloride concentrations then increased more rapidly.
Analytical results from in -wall monitoring wells suggest that reductive dechlorination is
occurring. As shown in Figure 6-16, the increase in DCE and vinyl chloride concentrations
during the first month following installation of the PRB is consistent with the decrease in
TCE concentration. As reductive dechlorination progresses further, DCE is reduced and
vinyl chloride concentrations increase more rapidly.
Monitoring wells 89-MW57, 89-MW58, and 89-MW62 are between 9 and 21 feet
downgradient of the PRB, while monitoring wells 89-MW09 and 89-MW30 are
approximately 40 feet downgradient. Based on groundwater flow as described above, it is
unlikely that groundwater treated by the PRB has migrated to monitoring wells 89-MW09
and 89-MW30 during the 6-month monitoring period; therefore, results from these wells are
not representative and will not be considered further.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 6-2

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
In downgradient monitoring wells, water quality showed improvement within the first
month following the installation of the PRB, when TCE concentrations declined rapidly.
DCE concentrations generally decreased during the first three months of the monitoring
period, then remained stable. Vinyl chloride concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW57
and 89-MW58 slightly increased over the course of the monitoring period, while vinyl
chloride increased significantly in 89-MW63 during the first three months, then declined to
baseline conditions between three and six months following installation of the PRB.
Decreasing TCE concentrations in 89-MW57 and 89-MW58 do not correlate to increasing
DCE concentrations and sequential increases in vinyl chloride concentration. Analysis of
VOCs in monitoring well 89-MW62 suggests that reductive dechlorination is occurring, with
reductions in TCE correlating to increases in DCE, followed by decreases in DCE correlating
to increases in vinyl chloride. It is possible that groundwater flow through the PRB is not
consistent and that treated groundwater is migrating more quickly in the vicinity of
monitoring well 89-MW62.
6.2.2 Total Organic Carbon
Groundwater samples were analyzed for TOC. Carbon is the energy source that drives
dechlorination. TOC concentrations exceeding 20 mg/L are indicative that a sufficient
carbon source is available for dechlorination to proceed. The mulch in the PRB is expected to
serve as continuous carbon source for several years.
TOC concentrations in the in -wall monitoring wells were generally greater than 20 mg/L
over the course of the study. TOC concentrations in monitoring well 89-MW59 show a
decreasing trend (Figure 6-17), suggesting that carbon is being consumed. This is consistent
with decreasing TCE concentrations. TOC concentrations in the other in -wall monitoring
wells exhibit increasing trends over the course of the study.
An increasing TOC trend is observed in monitoring well 89-MW62 (Figure 6-18), which also
corresponds to trends in VOCs indicative of reductive dechlorination, as described in
Section 6.2.2.1. The TOC concentrations in other downgradient monitoring wells are
generally constant, which may indicate that treated groundwater has not yet migrated to
these locations or that carbon is being consumed prior to reaching these locations (which is
considered less likely).
6.3 Design Parameters
6.3.1 Conceptual Design
This conceptual design is based on site conditions observed before initiation of the
treatability studies. Prior to any complete design, a full round of sampling would be
required to capture current site conditions.
To prevent offsite migration of contaminants, full scale implementation of a PRB would
require the installation of a wall approximately 600 feet long adjacent to the eastern
boundary of the site and approximately 350 feet long adjacent to the southern boundary of
the site. Similar to the PRB installed for this treatability study, the wall would be 2 feet wide
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 6-3

SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDIES REPORT
and 25 feet deep using a continuous trenching machine. Further evaluation of the PRB is
required to determine the appropriate mixture of backfill material.
6.4 Cost
The total cost of the PRB treatability study was $262,000, including $224,000 for installation
and $38,000 for monitoring.
6.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the PRB treatability study, the following conclusions can be made:
• Conditions appear to be favorable for the reduction of contaminant concentrations;
however, evaluation of the effectiveness, as observed during the six month monitoring
period, is limited by the slow rate of groundwater flow.
• Analysis of field parameters and daughter products suggests that reductive
dechlorination is occurring.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 6-4

Tables

N
U
O
�
�
o
O
O m
2r
N
(9
m
K
Q
-
z o
Z
Q
Z
Q m
Z
K
Z
Z
Z N
2i
o
�
o
O
�
o
(9
m
-
N
Z
Q
Z
Q o
Z m
2i
N
�
o
Z
Z
Z m
m
�
K
N
o
O Q
Z
N
o
o
o
p.
o O
OO o
O O
Q 0
Z 0
Q
Z
�
o
Z
o0
0o
m
Z O
(9
m
O
cli
N
_
N
Z
Z Q
o 0
�
0 0
0 0
0
�
N
7 116
Q N
Z m
ud
U y
2 u
G
G
"
U
a �
-
o
';�
42
-
-
- -
v
-
--
E
E m
_
_ _
_
_
T2
_
o
N
fn y
y U
m
U U
> -
E
❑
O
N
❑

Z
o
N S
rn
O
�
�
o
Q
Z
N
cq
(9
m
S Z
Z
Lq
Z O
2i
N
_
�
o
Q
Z
Q ro
Z
.
S m
Q o
Z N
2i
N
C7
K
N
�
o
Q
h
N h
Q
Z
N n
N N
S m
tp
O o
S V
2r
N
(9
m
_
0
0 0
o Q
N Z
IN
Q O
O O
O O
Q
K
O
h
S S
o Q
N Z
N
O
Q o
Z O
0 voi
S S
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
Z Z
Q V
Z
�
O
2
N
�
o
Zm
�
N
m
3 �
K n
-
o
S o
m¢
n Z
N
o
Q o
Z
o S
oo
Q O
I
Q
m Z
Q
Z
N O
N
O 00
Nc6Z
Q o
N
2i
N
�
N
� n
U
y
2
G
u
G
"
U
-_
g
cc�c
in
v O
U z
.E
-
E
E
N
E
N L
-
m a
w
y
fn y
y U
N
O«

E
3
..........

Figures

rl-
O
N
LO
N
O
O
N
rl-
rl-
O
N
LO
Lf )
rl-
O
N
N
M
rl-
O
N
N
u011e1181
ul Mdd
O
O
N
co I I I I I
O O O O O O O O O
N CO C? O N CO
r r r r
nw `dNO
r
00�/
w
m

r-
O
O
N
L(i
N
w
r—
O
0
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
00
N
co
r—
O
O
N
N
ol113llel
ul MId
0
N
O zz O O O O O O O O O O
N V O 00 O N V O O CD
N
i
Aw `dNO
N
>(.0
co
0'
co
i
co
>LO
00
1
m

O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
co CD OT CD CD
CD
(qdd) uoi;ea;ueouoo
rl-
O
rl-
O
rl-
co
rl-
O
0
rl-
O
w
N
� U
O
w uW
� U
C
0
rn uW
coU
0
N
N
rl-
O
rl-
rl-
O
co
co
O
N
N
co
O
O N
M Co m
to NN C
O
am c U
ii
o
z
o
c J
o
75 0-
co E
E cB
a- U
� 00
U) 75;
vi
m �
U y
O U)
> >,
m
m
m
rn
w
a)
m

181suI Mdd
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
LO O LO O LO O
V V co m N N
(qdd) uoi;ea;ueouoo
CN
N
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O O
O O N
O O
O
O O
O
LO O
LC)
m
m
0 �U
ii �
O
z
O a)
O
J
Q
m E
cB
W U
� 00
U
vi
m �
U y
O U)
m
m
O
rn
w
a)
m

r-
O
O
N
r
O
rl-
rl-
co
LO
rl-
N
O
co
It
rl-
rn
m
rl-
rl-
N
rl-
N
O
co
O
O
m
O
u011 IIelSul82i N
N
CD
O O O O O O O O O N
CO 't N O co O N
(qdd) uoi;ea;ueouoo
U
W
U
W
U
LO co m
CD � C
o
m m
am d U
ii
O
z
O a)
0 J
O
75 Q
m E
cB
a- U
� 00
U
vi
m �
U y
O U)
m
m
a)
i
rn
w
a)
D,

O
E
c0
I I
Q�
E
a--r
U
O
W
a)
E
U
O
@0
O
N
O
N
0
or
a):
U C
L 0 0
m o U r':
E o >_
> z ry
� J
C
N O_
U �
O U
� m
U
ui
m
U
co
N
U)
O
N
i

Location of P
O O O O
O O O O
O O O
O O
O
-1/Brl `uoi}ea}ueouo3
O
O
N
0
+O
N
i
iAAt,,
AW
W
F
U
�F+
3
U)
0
2
x
cn
U)
c0
C
a)
L
a)
a)
U)
m
fCO
i. a) m
� U C
C
N m 0
M T m
im p U
M 0
0
>z
U
m
_0 J
C
m az
E
W m
U U
CO
U
75
U)
A)
U)

Location of PIRB
O O O O O
O O O O
O O O
O O
O
-1/6rl `uoi;ea;ueouoO
O
N
0
0
N
0
U)
0
a>
a>
L
L�
r
a)
c
a)
0
m
m
tm0
M O
m

0
(N
0
0 0 0 0 CD
0 0 0
0 0
0
-1/Bri `uoi;ea;ueouoo
C1
C
N
G
U)
c
O
x
UA
u_ o
i
0
U
J

O O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
LO O LO O LO
N N
-1/6rl `uOi;e4uG3uO0 301
rl-
0
N
�i
rl-
O
0
N
A
rl-
Q
Q
N
co
N
rl-
O
O
N
rl-
O
O
(N
O
O
N
N
o U) m
c
O
U
O
'E O
O Z
2 dj
m �
a O
= J
cu Q
E
C (0
— U
� m
ui
�U
m
O
>�
75
co
>LO
75
co
U)
m
m
m
LL
r
00
O
m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V N o 00 CO Izi- N
-I/6rl `uoi;ea;u9ouo3 3o4
rl-
0
0
N
r-
0
0
N
w
0
0
N
00
N o
CO
d7
d 00
f�0 �
0
r-
0
0
N
r-
0
0
N
Cfl
0
0
N
N
>O
75
d7
00
co
i
u_
m
m
00
a)
J

Ul Mdd
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O co 0 CD N O 00 D CD CD
N
N
-1/6ri `uOi;e4uG3uO0 OPPOIyO lAuin
W
rl-
O
N
rl-
O
O
N
A
N U) ca
� � C
0
U
ia'o�
i ,r
'E 0
0 z
2 6
CO c
a- m
m
= J
cu Q
E
C (0
— U
Uui
m
� m
� o �
6
-
00
U
�
� m
o
cu
>
o
N
00
O0
00
N
CD
co
75
N
r
07
00
rl-
O
O
N
rl-
O
O
N
9
O
O
N
N
m
LO
75
00

rl-
O
N
co
rl-
O
N
O
ti
O
O
N
00
N
ti
O
O
N
M
rl-
O
N
00
mIMI- IWRr.������
I I I I I I I I I I
O O O O O O O O O O O N
O O O O O O O O O O
CD CD CD O 00 CD CD LO CD
CDN CD
-1/6rl `uOi;e4uG3uO0 301
N
r
M
tD
i
7
LL
N
>O
d
00
00
LLO
d
w
ti
LO
75
00
iI
O
>M
75
00
O
>O
75
00
U) ca
O
cu
O �
'E O
O Z
2 dj
m c
a O
� J
O Q
G E
m ca
�U
�m
0U
O 75
vi
U O
� y
O �
W
U �
m
m
rn
00
O
m

O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
m co f— CO LO It m N
-1/6ri `uol;ea;uaOuOO 3oa
0
0
N
W
I —
CD
O
N
I —
CD
0
N
co
N
I —
CD
O
N
V
co
0
0
N
N
N
w
10
G
m

O O O O O O O O
cl� O 00 c9 N
-1/6rl `uoi;ea;uOOuOO apiaolyO lAuin
r-
0
0
N
r-
0
0
N
ti
0
0
N
00
N
11,
O
O
N
M
M
0
0
0
N
N
N
i
00
00
>O
i
00
(Y
ti
>O
00
LO (n m
r � C
to O
d m
� � U
o
L
c c
cC Z
MC a)
NW
I^.L
LL
N Q
G E
m m
�U
� m
cU
o �
vi
a) CO
L
N
O
�0-)
co
i N
m

0
0
0
0
LO
011el
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO O LO O V! O V! O U')
V m m N N
-I/6ri `uoi;ea;uaouo3;ueuiwe;uoo
0
rl-
O
O
N
ch
r
r-
0
0
N
co
N
co
r-
0
0
N
LO
N
0
0
N
N
N
O
c
O
75
M
U)
U
O
4-
0
3
O
(0
i
m

O O O O O O O
co N N � �
-I/Bw `uoi;ea;uaouoo DO I
rl-
0
0
N
P-
C)
O
N
N
co
r-
0
0
N
r-
0
0
N
r-
ZZ
d
r-
O
O
N
00
N
r-
O
O
N
Lfl
O
O
N
Lfl
O
O
N
N
ro
O7
w
O
75
d7
co
,ig
I
L0
75
d7
00
r- U) m
to o
U
� O �
LL
'E O
O Z
2 a)
m �
a- a)
= J
cu Q
E
C (0
— U
� 00
UU
m
O Z3
m co
.� >1
._
U �
C (0
O
U �
U �
O w
a)
m

u011e11elsul Mdd
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LO O LO O LO
co N N
-I/Bw `uol;ea;uoouoo
I
IMIN
u
rl-
0
0
N
a)
N
M
I
r
0
0
N
a�
r
N
i
00
00
LO
rn
w
r-
C)
LO
N
00
00
O
O
N
00
1�+
a
3
Co
co
LL
U) m
m �
� o
m
o
'E O
O Z
2 dj
m c
a O
� J
O Q
G E
m LO
�U
�m
0U
o �
vi
U
� y
C
O �
t
C
O
CU
cB
O �
O 00
U m
U O U)

SECTION 7
Treatability Study Comparison
The objective of the treatability studies was to evaluate technology performance and design
criteria. The overall effectiveness of each technology was evaluated in terms of reducing the
chlorinated VOCs within the surficial aquifer while balancing the technology's cost and ease
of implementation. The effectiveness of each technology is assessed based on the following
criteria:
1. Contaminant reduction trends in groundwater, as quantified by baseline and post-
treatment groundwater monitoring, and
2. Reagent distribution/zone of influence.
The implementability of each technology was evaluated in terms of full scale
implementation and potential concerns based on the results of the treatability studies. This
evaluation is summarized in Table 7-1.
While air sparging and ERD reduced contaminant mass for a similar cost per volume
treated, full scale implementation of ERD would be a significant field effort. Additionally,
the effectiveness of ERD in areas with higher contaminant concentrations is not known.
Rebounding is a potential issue with ERD. Full scale implementation of air sparging would
require an initial field effort to install the new HDD wells; however, reduction of
contaminant mass would be expected to proceed quickly.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 7-1

Tables

�
o
m
v v
m
>
Y
O O :F
3 m
o N
v
0 3
o
p v
�
-CCW.
0
o G 3
o
v G
o y o
o o ... o m
v y
o m
Fr
o Y
�
0
v
.9 0 7
p
v
m
rn
°o
w o�n
o
o
v
o
o
°J c
...
^C
G
o
,G x
G .N
.r
°
Y°
30
m m .G
= N
...
m O
^G
'-0 u
rNC N
y
N
v
N
N
v N
0
b0 p 0 0
G
3
o v
rn
v
v v
u
v .3
o 3
°D.o
G
G
v
iNii
!A
N
QO o
v b0
v
°
v°
°�°
.m
v 3° G0
y
o
o
o
G
y
� v
�
o
�
o
�
v
o
o°
v
o m
v
o
u
p
o
U
°
0
°
u
o
z
z
°
"0
v p
v
s
v
0
0
o7
f
C o
-o
y
o
o� o o�
v v
o
gYyo o
y
v� �.
Z
v
v
v sv.
Oti
O'
v a
O �O
v N y0 O ti O
N
n
O
l
00
cC y O
o
8°
v
r,
c
rn
m y
.C, o .o o
o
.a•
a s
cU rn
F m
a o
m m° m w°
3
@
°' U
>
w N
Co
o U) ai
o
c a %
U
ra a3i
(D
ECOv
a E m m
w
y
v
v E
nine
w>

SECTION 8
References
Groundwater. Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry. Prentice -Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey,1979.
Remedial Investigation of Operable Unit 16 (Sites 89 and 93). Baker Environmental. June 1998.
OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from
Groundwater and Soils. USEPA. November, 2002. EPA530-D-02-004.
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, April 2004. Report for Full -Scale Mulch Wall
Treatment of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon -Impacted Groundwater, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska,
Building 301.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 2005. Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Permeable Reactive Barriers Team, 2005.
Permeable Reactive Barriers: Lessons Learned/New Directions. February 2005.
ARS Technologies, 2006. FeroxTM - Zero Valent Iron Powder Injection.
http://www.arstechnologies.com/ferox zero valent iron.html.
Draft Feasibility Study Operable Unit 16, Site 89, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina. CH2M HILL. February 2006.
Final Treatability Studies Work Plan, Site 89 - Operable Unit No. 16. AGVIQ-CH2M HILL Joint
Venture 1. November 2006.
Draft Final Comprehensive Remedial Investigation, Site 89 - Operable Unit No. 16, Former Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office. CH2M HILL. August 2007.
P:\EBL\NAVY CLEAN\OU 16 (SITES 89 AND 93)\SITE 89\TREATABILITY STUDIES\REPORT\FINAL TS REPORT\TEXT\SITE 89 TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT -
FINAL.DOC 8-1

Appendix A

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW43B SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
Alow WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology, .Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LC V CLJ
3a 3
J I HK I : I I/ 10/LUUO I L:LJ CIVU : LUUU=M . N.
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
4 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1 Bag
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
110 Gallons
Comments

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW48A SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
Alow WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology, .Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LC V CLJ
3a 3
J I HK I : I I/ 10/LUUO 0:34 CIV U : LUUU=M . N.
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
4 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
110 Gallons
Comments

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW48B SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
Alow WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology, .Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LC V CLJ
3a 3
J I HK I : I I/ 14/LUUO 0:4U CIV U : LUUU=M . N.
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
4 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1 Bag
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
75 Gallons
Comments

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW49A SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
Alow WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology, .Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LCVCLJ: 01/AMI : I I/I//LVVO IJ:LV MNIU: I/:VV LUUU=M.N.
3a 3
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
3 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
47 Gallons
Comments

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW49B SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
Alow WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology, .Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LCVCLJ: 01/AMI : I I/I//LVVO IJ:LV MNIU: I/:VJ LUUU=M.N.
3a 3
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
4 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1.5 Bags
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
145 Gallons
Comments

D.RILLIN.G.CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology,. Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LC V CLJ
3a 3
J I HK I : I I/ 14/LUUO 6:JU CIVU : LUUUCfC . N. M1gg5//iUV 1U - C. IVIUSUML
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
6 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1 Bag
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
110 Gallons
Comments

D.RILLIN.G.CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology,. Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LC V CLJ
3a 3
J I HK I : I I/ 14/LUU0 14: ID CIVU : LUUUCK . N. M1gg5//1UV 1U - C. IVIUSUML
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
4 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1 Bag
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour Density: 14.8
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
85 Gallons
Comments

D.RILLIN.G.CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology,. Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LC V CLJ
3a 3
J I HK I : I I/ 14/LUUO IL: 1 V CIVU : LUUL1=M . N. M1gg5//iUV 1U - C. IVIUSUML
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
4 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1 Bag
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour Density: 14.8
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
115 Gallons
Comments

D.RILLIN.G.CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology,. Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LCVCLJ: 01/AMI : I I/13/LUUO IU: ID CIVU: II: IU LUUUr_M.rl.
3a 3
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
- C. IVIUSUML
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
5 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1.5 Bags
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour Density: 15
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
120 Gallons
Comments

D.RILLIN.G.CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology,. Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LCVCLJ: 01HKI : I I/13/LUUO 1L:JJ CIVU: 14: 1J LUUUr_M.h.
3a 3
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
- C. IVIUSUML
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
5 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
1.5 Bags
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour Density: 15
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
130 Gallons
Comments

D.RILLIN.G.CONTRACTOR .Probe Technology,. Inc
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25" Augers
VV/i I r-M LCVCLJ: 01HKI : I I/13/LUUO IJ:3U CIVU: IO: ID LUUUr_M.h.
3a 3
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush -mount
- C. IVIUSUML
a) locking expansion plug
2" Plug
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Dia./type of surface casing
8" Flush -mount Metal Casing
with Vault Cover
6- Type/slot size of screen
0.01" Machine Slotted PVC
7- Type screen filter
#2 Filter Sand
a) Quantity used
4 Bags
8- Type of seal
Bentonite Seal
a) Quantity used
9- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95% Type I Portland/5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of surface casing grout
d) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Purge and Surge
Development time
1 Hour
Estimated purge volume
110 Gallons
Comments

PROJECTNUMBER WELL NUMBER
345548 89-MW55 SHEET 1 OF 1
CH?1MIAILL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
_PR()=T� I 0^nTI0N : MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRILLING CON FRACTOR Prue Te::h C oncc-d NC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENTUSED 6020DT GcOC,r�:Ijc -1.25" ID HSA
WATER LEVELS : START . 1212712UL'(3 END: 12.28.06 LOGGER:J Frank/RDU
3
I�J
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type 8" steel manhole cover
a) drain tube?
NA
bj concrete pad dimensions
2- X 2-
4- Dia.ltype of well casing
2" ID Schedule 40 PVC
5- Type/slot SiZe of Screen
0.010, $lots
6- Type screen filter
Hughes N2 lilter sand
a) Quantity used
5 501b hags
7- Type of seal
PDSGO Bentonite holeplug 318'
a] Quantity used
1 501b bag
8- Grout
a] Grout mix used
Portland Type 1 + bentonite granules
b) Method of placement
Tremie
c] Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Overpump and sine
Development time
50 minutes
Estimated purge volume
—100 gallons
Comments:
WellCompletionDiagram_89-MW56.xls xxxxxx.xx.xx

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 89-MW57 SHEET 1
GH2MHILL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJILC'1' : Site 89 Mulch Udall Manro,I^.g wells LOC.pTION MCS C;irr:a Lr_cun2 J ii+m env Ile. rv(', Sile 89
DRII - :NG CONTRACTC)R F'Io7C Tech Concord NYC
DRII :INCH l'•AFTI IQ[) AND =QLJIPMFNT USED 6620L1 t Geaorooe 4.25" IL) HSA
VVM I Lhi LL1,LLo I F4 F'{ I' : W4114uy* mrw :.. 12.-1tl�uu- I A =H :J r-ran KIMIJu
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type A' X 4" Sticku
OF 1
a) drain tube?
NA
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Diadtype of well casing
2' ID Schedule 40 PVC
5- Type/slot size of screen
0.010" slots
6- Type screen filter
Hughes *2 filter sand
a) Quantity used
6 50It] bags
7- Type of seal
PDSCO Bentonite holepiug 318'
a) Quantity used
1 5(Nb bag
a- Grout
a) Grout mix used
Portland Type 1 + Bentonite granules
b) Method of placement
Tremie
c) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Qverpump and surge
Development time
72 minutes
Estimated purge volume
-145 gallons
Comments:
crdc- :-,"Iagrarn_89-MW57.xls xxxxxzXXAX

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
3asrJ�48 89-MW58 SHEET 1 OF 1
� E-i 2 �IJI M I LL
Aw WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PAaJECT : Site 89 NA.,l: h W al Monitor•n,-; wells I QCATION ; MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
)HILLING (;0N T 7;A( 10H : Prone Teti Concord NC _
❑HILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED : 6620DT Geaprobc 4.25" ID HSA �
`NATFR I FVEL.S S I AH I : 12l2 !!2G!.`6 END: 12-28-06 LOGGER :J Frank/RDU
3
i
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of rasing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type 4" X 4" Stickup
a) drain tube?
NA
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing
2" ID Schedule 40 PVC
5- Type/slot size of screen
0-010" slots
6- Type screen filter
Hughes #2 filter sand
a) Quantity used
B 501b bags
7- Type of seal
PDSCf7 Bentonite holeplug 3/8"
a) Quantity used
1 501b bag.
8- Grout
a) Grout mix used
Portland Type 1 + bentonite granules
b) Method of placement
Tremie
c) Val. of well casing grout
Development method
Overpump and surge
Development time
50 minutes
Esfimated purges volume
-100 gallons
Comments:
!E-'_," .-,..._ ..'-r; '.u�L'•. n!': XX%X]U[JUC.%%

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 89-MW59 SHEET 1
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT : S le 89 Mu oh Wali Monitorr g wel's LOCATION: MCB Camp-.e;aune Jackson, le NC Site 59
17R:1 I ING CONTRACTOR Prone Tech Concord NC
OR'[-L.ING ME-n 10L) AND EQUIPMENT USED 6620D i Gcoorooe 3' Rods
WATER LEVELS : START : 1212612006 END 12-28-0b LOGGER : J FrankMDLI
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cavertype B'sloe iia,•nuIcLCcvcr
a) drain tube? NA.
b) concrete pad dimensions 2' X 2'
4- ❑ia.ltype at well casing 3+4" ID SC^ (j Ule 40 PVC
5- Typelslot size of screen Geop robe pre -pack screen
6- Type screen filter
a) Quantity used
T- Type of seal
a) Quantity used
8- Grout
a) Grout Mix used
b) Method of placement
c) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Development time
Estimeted purge volume
Comments?
0
Hughes p2 filter sand
1 501b bags
PDSCA Bentonite holeplug 3/8'
112 501h bag
OF 1
PQrlland Type 1 + bentonite granules
Tremie
overpump and surge
50 minutes
-50 gallons
Vk IC:ompIcti,-nCiagram 99-A.1W'j Ed xIS XXXXXX.xx."

PROJECT NUMBER WELL N JMBER
346545 $9-M WSO sr lFF r 1 0l� t
CH2MHILL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT : Site 69 Mul::h Wal M❑nitor,ng wel's LOCATION : MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRIt I ING CONTRACTOR: Probc Fccr1 Concord NC
DR LING MFTrl0l) AND FQUIPMEN I USED, 6620Di Gcaprobc 4.25' ID DPT
WATER LEVELS S I AHI ! i10,2C07 END: 1110/07 LOGGER : J Frank/RDU
3
4.25"
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flush Mount
a) gain tUbe7
NA
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' x 2
4- Dia.Aype of well casing
nn II, Schr.0-11-- 40 NVC:
5- Typelslot size of screen
0.010 slcts
6- Type screen filter
Hughes 02 filler sand
a) Quantity used
7- Type of seal
PDSCO Bentoni[e holeplug 318"
a) Quantity used
8- Grout
a) Grout mix used
_ Portland 1-y_ pe 1 • bcantcn tc gran•a'es
b) Method of placement
Tremie
c) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
Development time
Estimated purge volume
Comments:
rn_99-PAW 60. xl5 xxxxxx xx.xx

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
CH2MHILL �J 34�4$ 89-MV1161 StiEET 1
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
FROJECT : Site 89 M,.Ich Wal, Monitorng we Is LOCATION : MCB Camp',-6 euneJa:ksnnvi le NC Site 89
DRII I ING CONTRACI-OR Probe Tech Concord NC
C)RII I ING MFTI i0D ANO FQIJIPMFNT USED 6620L) I Geoprobe 3" Figs
V VI L M L'- V L L:',
\
� -- j
A 1 mri Y : I414Di4vuo r_IYV . I4-40-UD LVU$2r-ri :J
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type 8' steel manhole cover
OF 1
a) drain tube?
NA
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- ❑ a,/type of well casing
3/4- ID Schedule 40 PVC
5- Typelslot size of screen
Geoprobe pre -pack screen
6- Type screen filter
Hughes 92 filter sand
a) QuanfiW used
1 501b bags
7- Type of seal
PE)SOO Bentonite holeplug 3/8"
a) Quantity used
1/2 501b bag
8- Grout
a) Grout rnix used
Poniand Type 1 bentcnite 9ran,:ies
b) Method of placement
Tremie
c) Vol. of well casing grout
Development Method
Overpump and surge
Development time
60 minutes
Estimated purge volume
-60 gallons
Comments:
WellCompletionDlagram_89-MW61.KIs XKX" xxxx

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 89-MW62 SHEET 1 OF 1
AwzWELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PRCJFCT : i1?nrl.-I .tic I LOCATION ; MCB Camp Lejeu e.lar.� ;onville NC Sate 89
DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Probe Tpc^ f:cncarc: NC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT LJSF❑ 6610DT Geoprobe 4.25" ID HSA
VV'HI En LCV ELJ
3
3h 9 1
0
LVourri : J r•unnvnuu
1- Ground a levation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type 4" X 4" Stick up
a) drain tube?
NA
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' X 2'
4- Dia./type at well casing
2" ID Schedule 40 PVC
5- Type/slot size of screen
0.010" slots
6- Type screen filter
Hughes *2 filter sand
a) Quantity used
6 50ib bags
7- Type of seal
PDSCO Bentonite holeplug 318"
a) Quantity used
1 50Ib bag
8- Grout
a) Grout mix used
Portland Type 1 + bentonite granules
b) Method of placement
Tremie
c) Vol. of Well casing grout
Development method
Overpump and surge
Development time
60 minutes
Esb'mated purga volume
-120 gallons
Comments:
WeliComplelianDiagram_89-MW62.xis XXXXXx..XX.Xx

Appendix B

Appendix B-1

_ ' mn.. •w w•„unr a `� � � "^ � � �° �;.
Vav
� „i a ,� •rriUr
'41 1
K
uwa .�.. ��• Fey � .� r �� �, I
I
y .
t
2006/11/28
�+ •'fix r PT
i
1
2006/11/29

Pumping of substrate with appropriate PPE

Appendix B-2

Ferox injection rig
Pressure monitoring in nearby monitoring wells

R 2 "Cb
IK
r
3
m ..y
x
r*� ee ,r
ff k ih jrj

NI injection boring with subsurface packer assembly
3

Appendix B-3

Vermeer
w v — i'r•.� 14
Q?d,40 7
Directional Drill Rig (Vermeer 24,000 lb rig).
Initiation of Drilling.

Entry Pit Used to Contain Drilling Fluids, Which Are Pumped To a Roll -Off.
Drilling Rod Breakthrough at Distal End
2

w
a
Air Sparge "Screen": 4" SDR 11 HDPE Pipe, 350 Long Slotted Section
0.020 Inch Wide Slots, 0.5% Open Area.
o`
Sparge Well Laid Out for Installation
3

Drill Rod Pullback and Installation of Sparge Well

ff,"Ifill
Completed Proximal End Well Pad with Protective Bollards.
5

Appendix B-4

Ak
���� � r .yam-;J •.4�'Ft'�' y, � „�`'�"� Nl
;�' 1
� .

L
Extended view of trench
3

Appendix C

Injection Report
Camp LeJeune Site # 89
GV I a 40 CH2N1HILL
e, GV 4 Q E N V V R O N gat. t% A[ 1 F
Joint Venture
�.�
Aft4 a.
it
- a
December 28, 2006
'r
onex
cc=
"Bringing Chemistry and Contaminants Together"
For the Consulting Community
Reproduction and dk[ril uu.on of this document without the express
written consent of V&RONEX is strictly prohihiaed. The mcthodotogy
and appruat:hcti premmtW hmin atc prupnctaty [u VIRONEX.

Rick Chalk 1 Jason Chebetar December 28, 2006
AGVIQ — CH2M HILL Joint Venture
4663 Haygood Road, Suite 201
Virginia Beach, VA. 23455
Dear Rick and Jason,
Attached is a report of the recently completed injection project conducted by Vironex
at your site in Camp Lejeune, NC Excel spreadsheets and graphs of the appendices
are available, if desired.
On behalf of Vironex, I would like; to express our appreciation for the opportunity to
provide injection services. Should you have any questions regarding this report or
about additional services please do not hesitate to contact me at 8-00-847-6639 or 301-
352-6642.
Sincerely,
ze�7-4--Z—
Kurt M. Scarbro
Project Manager
Vironex, Inc.
AGVIQ-CH2M HILL — Site #89, Camp Lejeune, NC—12128/06

vronex
Table of Contents
LJ Project Background and Site Conditions
LJ Vironex Mixing and Injection Process
U Vironex Process Flow
CJ Proposed Scope
LJ Injection Photographs
LJ Injection Summary
❑ Appendix A- Injection Logs
AGVIQ-CH2M HILL Site 489, Camp Lejeune, NC 12/29/06 3

Project Background and Site Conditions
fluhaound
AGVIQ asked Vironex to provide services to inject an enhanced reductive
dechlorination substrate (ERD) and water at your site (Site 989) at Camp
Lejeune, NC. In general, the vertical treatment cones were between 10 feet
to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) with the four injection points about
25 feet apart.
Geology I Hvdrogeology
Y The site lithology is sandy clay and sand based on well logs.
> Depth to groundwater is approximately 7-10 feet bgs throughout the base.
y The intent of the remedial action is to conduct a pilot study on the use of
ERD to reduce the mass of chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants present
in the upper portion of the aquifer, thereby reducing groundwater impacts
over the long term.
Y The reagents provided by AGVIQ included ERD (a vegetable oil and
lactate solution) and bromide.
AGVIQ-CE2M HILL — Site #89, Camp Lejeune, NC—12/28/06
4

a
nex
Viranex. Mixing and Injection Process
Viranex uses various Direct Push Technology
(DPT) to advance a specially designed 1.5" and
2.125" D.D. injection tool to the bottom of the
desired injection zone. Once the target depth has
been achieved, an injection cap is secured to the
top of the tool string.
The solution is prepared to the desired
concentration and is then injected using a
dedicated remediation delivery system that is
capable of providing specified pressures and flow
rates as well as the desired volumes based on the
subsurface lithology and the manufacturer's
recommendations. Pressure, flow rate, and
concentration can all be adjusted as needed on our
self-contained injection unit.
Viranex targets one to five (l to 5) foot injection.
zones through the customized injection tooling to
provide for vertical distribution of reagents
throughout the injection zone.
Once the injection tooling has been retracted
through the injection zone at one to five (1 to 5)
foot intervals, it is removed from the borehole.
The borehole is backfilled with appropriate
backfilling material and then patched at the surface
to match existing surface material.
Custom Designed Injection Rigs
Integrated Pumping and Mixing
Systems
2.125' DPT Injection Tool
AG VIQ-CH2M HILL - Site 489, Camp Lejeune, NC - 12128/06 5

ronex
Vi>ronex Mixing and Injection Process Flow
Water Source From Hydrant
600 Gallon on board
Supply Tank
Reagent Feed System (55
Dilution Water wI Flow Gallon Drums of Oil and
Monitoring Lactate) w/ Flow Monitoring
750 Gallon. Auxiliary Tank with
Trash Pump to Continually Mix
Diaphragm Pump
5-20 GPM @ 100 PSI
(Primary Pump)
Instantaneous Flaw, Total Flow,
and Pressure Monitoring
Progressive Cavity Pump
7-45 GPM @ 250 PSI
(Stand-by Pump)
Injection Well(s)
(Not used on this project.)
Direct Push Points)
1 to 5 Foot Bottom -Up and Top -
Down Injection Tools, 1.5" OD and
2.125" OD
Truck Mounted, Track, and
Limited Access DPT Rigs
A(jVIQ-CEI2M HILL Site -89, Camp Lejeune, NC 12/28,106
6

li" onex
Project Scope Of Fork
The scope of our work is broken down into the following tasks:
1. Mobilization:
Vironex mobilized l heavy direct push technology (DPT) rig and 1
customized mixing injection rig to the site.
Injection Services — Vegetable oil and Sodium Lactate (ERD)
Vironex provided the following services:
Injection of reagents and chase water into 4 DPT injection points.
➢ Both 1-foot and 5-foot injection screens were used for this project.
w Dual diaphragm and progressive cavity pumps were used to provide
injection of solution under low to moderate pressures (<100 psi) to DPT
points.
;r Approximately 750 gallons of diluted ERD substrate (oil, lactate, and
water) with 1,200 gallons of chase water and 2 pounds of a bromide chaser
were injected using a combination of air diaphragm and progressive cavity
pumps.
Y Pumping rates varied from 5.30 to 17.90 gallons per minute (gprn). Overall
an average injection rate of about 12.79 gpm was maintained.
Z- Pressures varied from 55 to 78 pounds per square inch (psi). Overall an
average injection pressure of about 70 psi was maintained.
�- An overall total of about 3,000 gallons of the reagent was injected.
An overall total of about 4,079 gallons of chase water was injected.
AGVIQ-CH2M HILL - Site 489, Camp Lejeune, NC - 12/28/06

Injection Photographs
Injection set-up with mixing tank,
ERD product drum, and air
diaphragm pumps with pressure
and flow gauges.
Preparation of the
injection rig.
Injection set-up with mixing rank,
ERD product drum, air
compressor, and air diaphragm
PUMPS,
AGVIQ-CH2M HILL - Site #89, Camp Lejeune, NC-12/28/06 H

irvn�111
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Date
11 /27/06
11 /28/06
11 /29/06
11 /30/06
12/01/06
Injection Summary
Injection Points
Completed
0.9
1.7
1.4
Total Substrate
Injected*"
(gals)
750
Si
m
Total Water
Injected
(gals)
900
1823
1328
28
TOTALS4 1 3000 1 4079
Note: *" Enhanced Reductive Dechlorinatlon (ERA) ou63trate
AGV1Q-CH2M HILL - Site #89, Camp Lejeune, NC W 12/28/06

a
u
E
Ef
e
C
;f
T
C ✓�%
C
�
Cll
�
C
G
e
_
�'
v
•~: a �,
N
O
s
�v
�:n3
U u3E•
3
rr,3Ui33m�rw3
n i
c
I
Oc....
I�
I "'
N
�
i
Q C p p
I ti
•y
y
�
Q^.
x
C
r
P
_�
di
G,,
.n
lr�i
n
n n
N 4
e• r
n n
n
i
-Q
2
C
C
� � w
�i
•
��i
rvi ry
ry ri�v++
-. -
-
Gi
I
o
.••:
M
fi5 V
1' ^
�
V
w
ice; �
M .[]
[� �
�
Yi
M n
66

mi
v
u
�
b
"
w
o
o
3
_0
c
�
�
N
�
C
is
I
ti
-3
S «
5 '-'
$
rn
3 u�
3 rn
3
v$
✓; .S
'n'
cn 5
s•
3 r
r
3
3
z
?
a
c
o
e5
0
ppe
i
I
o
pq ,
o
pp. t
a
W
—y ec
v
w
_
CC
C
C
C
C C
a
C
C
C
C C
C C
O
i
-� y
r-
n
�N--
nor
ao
'�o
••;---o--oo
r-r
nnrnr
acorn
r�ci
�b
�;.c.a
r-'��:
cr.xoc
���0
ca+CCCC
�c'
-��On�nt•
a
t,
r
•-
I
Q
OQ E
y n
m
W n
n11 :'
V
C
,,
,,
_
Cn.
M N
CI4
C 6
T
C
N
N
N
O
9
A AF.
t?
E u`u��°.
cr�9 L
4 '°L
-9
�
o
�c
ar5
COOQpAp
OL]t7C]OOo�c
coe�000c
n
a ¢
¢ ¢
¢
a
¢
¢ d
F
a a
a a
¢
¢
C
-
^
T
M va
C
V
r a
4't
[•{ 5'1
N
M y
—
N c's
c
cp rr
o
r
i
0
e'.
s

�
E
Ni
!
&
§
\
2
)
J
\(
B
oc
A�
\)\\���®�'k/
--
#}�
§2
RE
�S
4
[Ee
/
�#$$)
/
fzmT2
\
\
!

Appendix D

Field Implementation Summary
Site 89 FEROX Injection Pilot Study
MARINE CORPS EMIR STATIO\
CAMP LEJEUNE, JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLI\A
Prepared for:
AGVIQ LLC
4663 Haygood Road, Suite 201
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Prepared by:
ARS Technologies, Inc.
98 North Ward Street
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
December 2006
98 NORTH WARD STREET. NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY 08901
TEL [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.ARSTECHNOLOGIES.COM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
3.0 TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
4.0 INJECTION WELL INSTALLATION AND LAYOUT
5.0 INJECTION PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS
6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD OPERATIONS
7.0 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FIELD INJECTION PARAMETERS
TABLES
Table 1 ZVI-1 Injection Summary Table
Table 2 ZVI-2 Injection Summary Table
Table 3 ZVI-3 Injection Summary Table
Table 4 ZVI-4 Injection Summary Table
FIGURES
Graph 1-11 Pressure vs. Time Curves for Fracturing Events
GLOSSARY
BGS
Below Ground Surface
CVOC
Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound
ND
Not detectable
PF/LAI
Pneumatic Fracturing and Liquid Atomized Injection
PSI
Pounds Per Square Inch
ROI
Radius of Influence
SCFM
Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
WARS Technologies, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the field operations and injection parameters associated with the
installation of a Ferox treatment system at the Marine Corps Air Station, Site 89, Camp Lejeune
North Carolina (The Site). The installation was implemented by ARS Technologies, Inc. (ARS)
on behalf of AGVIQ LLC / CH2M Hill Joint Venture as part of a corrective measure study to
evaluate the effectiveness of Pneumatic Fracturing and Liquid Atomized Injection (PF/LAI)
technologies for the In -Situ emplacement of Zero Valent Iron (ZVI) for the subsurface treatment
of dissolved phase Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds (CVOCs).
Target ZVI dosages for the project were as follows: 10,400 pounds of H-200 ZVI powder and
1200 pounds of HC-15 ZVI powder (ranging from 15 to 200 microns) divided over four
temporary injection borings. The target mass per boring was 2600 pounds H-200 and 300 pounds
HC-15. Injections were to be applied from an approximate depth of 12 ft bgs to 25 ft bgs in five
discrete 2.5 foot intervals. Target dosage per interval was 520 pounds H-200 and 60 pounds HC-
15. Where appropriate, higher H-200 dosages were used to compensate for extra ZVI (625
pounds) that was shipped to the site.
Field operations at the Site were performed from November 28th through December 3rd, 2006.
A total of 10,160 pounds of H-200 and 1188 pounds of HC-15 were emplaced within the four
proposed injection borings and two offsets. These two offset points were required to achieve the
target mass of H-200 and HC-15 for ZVI-4.
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
The Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Lejeune, is an active military facility where the primary
contaminants consist of CVOC's. The water table is located approximately 3 feet below ground
surface (bgs) in various -sized sand layers overlain by a thin surficial layer of sandy clay.
3.0 TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
A critical component of ARS' injection process is ensuring that the reactive media is distributed
effectively within the subsurface to facilitate the desired chemical reactions. To accomplish this
distribution, ARS incorporates its gas -based PF/LAI Technologies for the subsurface
emplacement of reactive media barriers.
PF is a patented process in which a gas is injected into the subsurface at pressures that exceed the
combined overburden pressure and cohesive soil strength of the geologic matrix, and at flow
rates that exceed the effective permeability of the undisturbed soil. The result is the propagation
of fractures outward from the injection well to various distances depending upon the geology.
Depending upon the permeability or heterogeneities within the targeted geologic zone, PF may
be integrated as a precursor to LAI of a reactive media.
WARS Technologies, Inc.

Soil fracturing mechanisms in coarse -grained soils vary considerable from fine-grained cohesive
soils and consolidated rock formations. In a coarse grained soil, it is theorized
that the formation will not "fracture" in the normal brittle sense but rather be cut or intruded by
the pneumatic injection system. More specifically, under circumstances where geologic
conditions comprise of coarse -grained particles such as sands, distribution is accomplished
through the fluidization effect (Figure I — a and b) resulting in the dilation of interconnected
pore space and the temporary suspension or "fluidization" of the coarse grained particles in
response to the influx of gas. The LAI Technology relies upon this theory and is based on the
fact that it is more effective to inject a low viscosity gas or "aerosols" into the subsurface than it
is to inject an incompressible liquid into the subsurface.
1 — Pneumatic Velivery 1Vlechamsms
O0000 0
0 °000000 °000°O
000 000 0 00--'ppo�0",--,0
Dilute Phase O -0 _ �_Q0�0 O0 0 0 p° 0, , 0 0
Injection of 00,0000
00 DO 000 O 0 � °0 0 0 010�
Gas/Solids � 000
O 0- O 00i000 0�°O° O O
O
000000` gl 0-00000�00
0000 0 ��--'00
0 00 p 00 0
0000°00
a) iron slurry travels through formation through the intergranular
pore spaces
Fluidized Zone
00°000000 000000000
000000 000000
Dilute Phase — 00080 0000
_ 600000,0 0 0 O O
Injection of 0' 0' / 0 s" O ' 0 �'O 0
Gas/Solids 0 �000 0 0�0 p°p O O°00 ° °� 0000
0 000 000 000 000 0O 0 00
000000000000000 000
b) high volumes of gas cause fluidization of formation, causing
iron to mix with soil
Dilute Phase01-l_ll.1�_ / // / /_/ /_/
Injection of10::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. :.:....::,:;•:.:.:.:;::.-::.:.:.:::..::.;:':':':::: ... _
Gas/Solids J f jrj-/-J - f /`J 7 J
Completely Dispersed Saltation and Banking
c) Iron powder is emplaced within the dilated fracture
WARS Technologies, Inc.

Field Implementation Summary
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
12/15/2006
Page 3
4.0 INJECTION WELL INSTALLATION
Injection well installation was directly integrated with the injection operations. A total of six (6)
temporary injection points (4 proposed and 2 offsets) were required to emplace the targeted mass
of ZVI. Borings were installed with an Auger Rig utilizing 3.5 inch solid flight augers which
were advanced to the maximum target depth at each location. The augers were retracted and 4.25
inch diameter casing was subsequently advanced to the maximum target depth. Once the
injection tooling was lowered to depth, the casing was retracted to a point where the packers
were exposed to the formation. This methodology assured that the target depths could be
reached and prevented borehole collapse before the injection tooling reached the bottom of hole,
as well as to prevent material from caving in on the injection tooling and locking it in place. In
the case of Injection Point ZVI-2 and ZVI-4 Offset 2, 5 inch diameter casing was used.
5.0 INJECTION PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS
This section summarizes the operational procedures and parameters monitored as part of the
injection process. The parameters discussed below may be used as confirmatory measures to
determine whether reagents were successfully propagated within the targeted treatment intervals.
The specialized equipment used for the injection process consisted of a skid mounted high
pressure -high flow fracture module complete with an injection control manifold and a digital
data logger that are used to monitor various operational parameters. Due to the large quantity of
compressed gas needed for the liquid injections, ARS used pressurized nitrogen as the
fracturing/delivery fluid. A bulk nitrogen "tube" trailer was mobilized to the site for this
operation.
Injection of the ZVI within the target treatment zones was accomplished utilizing a nitrogen gas
stream integrated with a high-pressure, high -flow injection manifold. The reagent slurry was fed
into the gas stream from a proprietary mixing trailer that maintains the reagents in suspension by
continual circulation of the slurry. Once sufficiently mixed, the dual phase slurry/nitrogen blend
was routed through a proprietary injector fitted with a 360' high -flow dispersion nozzle.
Injections were performed in approximately 2.5-foot intervals. Injections were accomplished by
starting at the deepest interval and working upward. When the target dosage for each respective
treatment was emplaced into the formation, the packers were deflated, and the nozzle assembly
was raised to the next injection location.
During the injection process, ARS personnel monitored the quantity of iron slurry injected as
well as the duration of each injection. The quantity of material was recorded after each injection.
For the ZVI slurry injections, each batch was specifically mixed within the holding tank and
subsequently injected, ensuring accurate mass loading rates.
During the injections, pressure influence was measured at wells near the injection points using
calibrated pressure (psi) gauges. Each pressure gauge is outfitted with a drag arm indicator that
records the maximum pressure detected at the monitoring point during the injection. The
WARS Technologies, Inc.

Field Implementation Summary
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
12/15/2006
Page 4
analysis of pressure response at various locations around an injection point provides
supplemental evidence of reagent propagation. This data also assists in determining which
directions fractures and the subsequent reagent may have propagated. In addition, the degree of
pressure response can often help determine whether a monitoring point has been directly
influenced (i.e. fractures propagate outward and intersect wells or boreholes), or indirectly
influenced through localized groundwater displacement and/or mounding. Minimal pressure
response in monitoring wells located close to the injection point may indicate that fluidization
and significant gas dispersion is occurring.
Ground surface heave was also monitored to determine gas propogation. The heave monitoring
was conducted using a surveying transit in conjunction with a heave rod, which was placed
adjacent to the injection point. The rod was observed for the maximum amount of upward
motion (surface heave) and the post -injection resting position (residual heave). During the course
of this project, ground surface heave has recorded for most fracture events. Surface heave and
associated groundwater surfacing was visually observed with the naked eye in multiple locations
for the majority of events where gas was applied.
6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD OPERATIONS
This section summarizes the field operations and provides a discussion of the down -hole
injection parameters specific to each injection boring and discrete interval. Mobilization for the
fieldwork began on November 27th and equipment setup was performed on November 28th,
2006. A total of 5.5 days were required to complete the reagent injections.
The historically heterogeneous nature of the soils at the site required fracturing as a preemptive
measure to facilitate ZVI propagation and distribution within the silty clay and reasonably
competent cemented sand layers within the targeted treatment zones. A fracture event was
initiated at all intervals where it was feasible.
As a result of the high water table in the region, surfacing of groundwater occurred in multiple
locations during injections at each boring. The surfacing of the groundwater, coupled with the
permeable nature of the formation resulted in groundwater surfacing through abandoned borings
and natural surface fissures. These site specific conditions required limited use of gas during ZVI
injections, so a "pulsed" gas approach was utilized to minimize seal loss and control to some
extent groundwater surfacing. It should be noted that, under most circumstances during the
injections, groundwater mounding was observed, not ZVI slurry.
Examination of the Pressure vs. Time Curves generated from the fracture events, revealed the
formation did not fracture. The curves themselves show a "flat -line" shape, where the initiation
and maintenance pressures were essentially the same. (See Graphs 1 through 11) The lack of a
discernable pressure peak is indicative of soil fluidization typically observed in predominantly
unconsolidated sands. It was determined in the field that in some intervals constant gas flow of
over 200 scfm could be achieved as low as 10 psi, suggesting very receptive zones of high
permeability.
WARS Technologies, Inc.

Field Implementation Summary
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
12/15/2006
Page 5
Due to groundwater surfacing and subsequent seal -loss issues, ZVI-4 required two offset
locations, and ZVI-2 required re -drilling with a larger casing to address the designated treatment
zone. The re -advancement of a larger casing served to stabilize the borehole wall providing a
fresh surface for the packers to seal against.
Operational parameters collected during each injection event included the discrete injection
interval, initiation and operational pressures recorded on the control module and wellhead,
pressure influence at surrounding monitoring wells and visual field observations. Tables 1
through 4 summarize the quantities of ZVI that were emplaced within each interval specific to
each borehole location. Slurry injection rates varied from approximately 10 to 30 gallons per
minute.
6.1.1 Injection Point ZVI-1
On November 30d' 2006, a total of 7 injections were successfully applied across the five target
treatment intervals from a depth of 12.5 ft to 25 ft bgs. A total of 2,750 lbs of H-200 and 300 lbs
of HC-15 were injected at an averaged injection pressure of 25 psi. As a result of groundwater
mounding, surfacing of groundwater occurred during the third interval and jeopardized the
packer seal against the formation. For the final two intervals, the dosages were halved and two
injection events were used to complete each interval. Injection pressures, H-200 and HC-15
mass, slurry volumes, pressure influence and surface heave data were collected during the
injections and are presented in Table 1.
A total of seven wells were monitored for pressure influence, which are listed in Table 1.
During the injections, direct influence was observed 15 feet away at MW-50 in the form of
groundwater mounding indicating induced connectivity through propagation of fluidized
migration pathways resulting from the injections. Pressure influence at this monitoring point
peaked at 10 PSI. When vented, groundwater and pressurized gas were expelled from the
monitoring packer installed in MW-50. This venting continued throughout the course of
injections at ZVI-1. During the second interval slurry injection, the well cap of MW-03IW,
located 60 feet away, blew off. This well was then monitored for the duration of injections at this
point and registered positive pressure.
6.1.2 Injection Point ZVI-2
On December 2nd 2006, a total of 6 injections were successfully applied across five targeted
treatment intervals from a depth of 12.25 to 26.25 ft bgs. A total of 2,170 lbs of H-200 and 300
lbs of HC-15 were injected at an averaged injection pressure of 30 PSI. Injection pressures, H-
200 and HC-15 mass, slurry volumes, pressure influence and surface heave data were collected
during the injections and are presented in Table 2.
WARS Technologies, Inc.

Field Implementation Summary
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
12/15/2006
Page 6
At this location, the deepest interval placed the injection nozzle in what was perceived to be a
fairly competent cemented sand layer. In order to mitigate the possibility of damage to MW-02
(approximately 7 feet away) from the high flow rates associated with a pneumatic fracture event,
the injection pump was used to initiate flow into the formation. At 250 PSI, water began to flow
freely into the formation and the injection pressure dropped to 50 PSI. Once this occurred, gas
was applied at 70 PSI and 200 SUM to confirm flow and propagate any hydraulically induced
fractures.
During the fracture event of the second interval, groundwater mounding led to surfacing at
numerous locations around the injection point, and compromised the injection point seal. The
surfacing of groundwater became severe during the injection at the fourth interval. The boring
was re -drilled using a five inch diameter casing in order to address the fourth and fifth intervals.
The advancement of a larger casing served to stabilize the borehole wall and create a new surface
against which the packers could seal.
A total of six wells were monitored for pressure influence, which are listed in Table 2. Direct
pressure influence was recorded at MW-02 during the injections at the upper three intervals. The
well expelled groundwater and gas during the injections. The lack of connection with well MW-
02 within the lowest two injection intervals was encouraging due to the fact that well MW-02 has
a shallow well screen (14 ft bgs). The lack of influence at MW-02 during the deepest 2 intervals
suggests that the gas and slurry were being distributed horizontally within the targeted deeper
intervals.
6.1.3 Injection Point ZVI-3
On December 1st 2006, a total of 5 injections were successfully applied across the 5 targeted
treatment intervals within Injection Point ZVI-3, from a depth of 12.50 — 25 ft bgs. A total of
2,640 lbs of H-200 and 288 lbs of HC-15 were injected at an averaged injection pressure of 30
psi. Injection pressures, H-200 and HC-15 mass, slurry volumes, pressure influence and surface
heave data were collected during the injections and are presented in Table 3.
A total of seven wells were monitored for pressure influence during injection within ZVI-3.
MW-02 (approximately 17 feet away) showed continuous pressure influence for all injection
events. Significant surfacing of groundwater and gas occurred in multiple locations around ZVI-
3, at distances of up to 30 feet away. This may have had a lessening effect on the impact of gas
on the monitoring wells. ZVI slurry began to surface out of cracks in the asphalt around MW-52
(approximately 25 feet away) during the injection event at the third interval, suggesting
significant propagation of the slurry within the subsurface. The surfacing of ZVI was a likely
result of gas and slurry intersecting the grout column of MW-52.
WARS Technologies, Inc.

Field Implementation Summary
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
12/15/2006
Page 7
6.1.4 Injection Point ZVI-4
On November 29th 2006, a total of 2 injections were successfully applied, completing the deepest
two of the five targeted intervals from 21.25 — 26.25 ft bgs. Loss of seal during gas injection at
the third interval necessitated an offset boring, ZVI-4 Offset. On December 1st 2006, a total of 2
injections were successfully applied, completing the third interval, 18.75 — 21.25 ft bgs at ZVI-4
Offset. Loss of seal at the injection point, as well as surfacing of groundwater and ZVI slurry out
of previous boring ZVI-4, during gas injection of the fourth interval necessitated a second offset
boring, ZVI-4 Offset 2. On December P 2006, a total of 2 injections were successfully applied
at ZVI-4 Offset 2, completing the upper two intervals from 12.25 — 17.25 ft bgs. A total of 2,600
pounds of H-200 and 300 pounds HC-15 were injected over the course of the three borings, at an
averaged injection pressure of 25 psi. Injection pressures, H-200 and HC-15 mass, slurry
volumes, pressure influence and surface heave data were collected during the injections and are
presented in Table 4. A higher dosage ratio was used at ZVI-4 Offset 2 due to the likelihood of
seal loss and to compensate for the extra ZVI shipped to the site.
A total of seven wells were monitored for pressure influence. During injections at the ZVI-4,
MW-50 (approximately 35 feet away) showed significant influence even when vented.
Groundwater and gas were continuously emitted from the vented monitoring well throughout the
course of injections. MW-02IW (approximately 15 feet away) also showed continuous pressure
influence. These pressure influence data suggest good propagation of gas and slurry in that
direction. When fracturing was initiated and gas was applied to start the third interval at ZVI-4
Offset 2 the grout seal around MW02-IW was blown out. Injections at the two offset points
generated pressure influence at MW-02 (approximately 20 feet away).
7.0 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FIELD INJECTION PARAMETERS
The installation of a Feroxsm treatment system was successfully completed at Site 89. The
mechanics and overall process of the injection were applicable to the site conditions. Due to the
heterogeneous nature of the treatment zone, on -the -field adjustment of the injection parameters
such as flow, pressure and methodology was crucial to the effectiveness of the delivery.
Subsurface injections at this site presented unique challenges in the form of geologic
heterogeneities coupled with a very shallow water table and high permeability sands within the
majority of the target treatment zones. Consequently, these conditions were not conducive
towards full -atomization (continuous nitrogen gas flow) during ZVI injections. hi an effort to
minimize groundwater surfacing and mitigate monitoring well blow -outs, the injections were
completed using pulses of gas as opposed to continuous flow. The technique of "pulsing" limits
the over -stressing of the formation with large volumes of gas, thereby minimizing the extent of
groundwater mounding and subsequent surfacing.
The target dosages specified in the Scope of Work were achieved for each boring and
corresponding intervals resulting in the emplacement of 10,160 pounds of H-200 and 1,188
WARS Technologies, Inc.

Field Implementation Summary
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
12/15/2006
Page 8
pounds of HC-15 ZVI within the targeted treatment intervals from an approximate depth of 12 ft
bgs to 25 ft bgs. Delivery of the ZVI was accomplished through the utilization of 6 temporary
injection borings which included two offset locations.
Pressure response measurements collected at surrounding monitoring points during the Feroxsm
injections revealed significant radial pressure influence. More specifically, pressure influence
was consistently observed at monitoring points located up to 60 ft from the injection wells.
The Pressure vs. Time curves identified soil fluidization as the primary ZVI transport mechanism
rather than fracture propagation. This conclusion was based on the general flat -lined pressure
response observed during injections. The absence of a discernable initial peak provides evidence
that fracture initiation and propagation did not occur. A flat lined pressure response is indicative
of pore space dilation. This is type of response is typically observed in sandy formations and
represents the point where equilibrium is established between the injected gas and the dilated
pore volume of the formation.
WARS Technologies, Inc.

L■J
I
a
� a
a�
38
3 m`FFm�
£aE3Q
AT�Za

0)
00
M
C
!�
O
L
r
N
>
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
L
O
Z
.O
a
L
o
C
Q
6
G
N
LL
Q—
O
-
v
O
G
V
ti
C
U
O
.a;
M
E
C
e
V
N
�
a
co
co
N
0
m
m
H
co
co
N
O
O O O O O O O
N O CO CO N
(ISd) ainssaad
/Ln
v

0)
00
M
C
!�
O
L
r
N
>
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
O
Z
•O
L
v
=
Q
6
a
G
M
N
i
LL
Q—
O
-
v
i
O
>
G
V
Lo
N
M
u
O
.4;
:
E
C
e
N
V
�
a
O O
N O
O O O
00 co 'T
(ISd) ainssaad
O
N
00
(D
N
H
00
N
O
O O
N
N
L
a
m
/Ln
v

0)
00 M
w+ —
(n O
L
Cl) O
L_ Z
Q G�
O c
U O
m N
C he
— V
r N
N Q
O LO
a ry
N
O
v LO
G� ~
•� ao
r
00 O CDOT CD
co
(ISd) aanssaad
N
O
NT
N
O
O O O
N M
L
a
m
VM

0)
00 M
w+ —
(n O
L
Cl) O
Q m
O C
U O
m N
C he
— V
00 O CDOT CD
co
(ISd) aanssaad
N
O
NT
N
O
O O O
N
L
a
m
VM

0)
00
M
!�
O
L
N
N
>
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
L
O
Z
.O
a
L
o
C
Q
6
G
N
LL
Q—
O
-
v
O
G
V
ti
C
U
O
.a;
M
E
C
e
V
N
�
a
00 O CDOT CD
co
(ISd) aanssaad
N
O
w
m
m
E
NT
N
O
O O O
N LO
a
m
Mv

0)
00
M
C
!�
O
L
N
N
>
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
O
Z
•O
L
v
=
Q
6
a
G
M
N
i
LL
Q—
O
-
v
i
O
>
G
V
Lo
N
M
u
O
.4;
:
E
C
e
N
V
�
a
Oco � 'T o O - N
(ISd) ainssaad
0
N
00
N
m
o -N-
00
N
O
O O
L
a
m
cD

0)
00
M
C
0
L
M
N
i
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
L
0
Z
.O
a
L
v
Q
6
G
LC)
N
LL
Q—
O
-
v
0
G
V
N
m
U
0
.a;
M
E
C
e
V
N
�
a
0 0 0 0 0 0
N o 00 CO NT
(ISd) ainssaad
0
N
00
N
H
00
N
0
o
N
a
m
cD

0)
00
M
C
O
L
M
N
>
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
L
O
Z
•O
a
L
M
v
i
N
LL
Q—
O
-
v
O
G
V
ti
C
U
O
•°;
o
E
C
e
V
N
�
a
0) 00 O � CD OT CD
co
(ISd) aanssaad
0
N
9
N
m
o -N-
w
N
O
00
O O
N —
O

0)
00
M
C
0
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
L
O
Z
.O
a
L
o
C
Q
6
G
N
LL
Q—
O
-
v
O
G
V
ti
C
U
O
.a;
M
E
C
e
V
N
�
a
0 0
N O
0 0 0
co co 'T
(ISd) ainssaad
LO
N
O
N
m
m
H
0
m
0
0 0
N 0)
L
a
m
VM

0)
00
M
C
0
LLI
O
U
N
N_
.
C
_
!�
O
Z
•O
L
v
=
Q
6
a
G
M
N
i
LL
Q—
O
-
v
i
O
i
G
V
Lo
N
M
u
O
.4;
:
E
C
e
N
V
�
a
O O O O
CO LO co
(ISd) ainssaad
0
N
00
N
m
o -N-
00
N
O
O O
O
O
N
a
m
cD

0)
00
M
w+
yr
i
O
O
c
W
O
N_
L
L
Z
C
N
i
Q
Gi
O
N
LL
Q=
a
,
U
o
c
o
0
ti
a
U
c6
N
he
V
m
E
a
O O
N O
O O O
00 co 'T
(ISd) ainssaad
O
N
00
(D
N
00
N
O
O O
N
�
L
a
m
/Ln
v

Appendix E

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
34654$ SV01 SHEET 1
CH2MHoLL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 LOCATION: MCB Camp Lejcune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Probe Tech Concord INC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED 6620DT Geoprobe
"M I CR LCYCLJ
3 \
0
I Hrl l : 1 I! 10/LVUD CIV L+:
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flushmount
Mu`3[
OF 1
a) drain tube?
NA
b) •concrete pad dimensions
2` x 2'
4- Dia.1type of well casing
1' Schedule 40 PVC
5- Typelslot size of screen
II.010" s€otted PVC
&- Type screen filter
92 filter sand
a) Quantity used
1.5 bags
7- Type of seal
Bentonite Hole Plug
a) Quantity used
1.5 bag
8- Groin
a) Grout mix used
95 % Type 1 Portland cement]5% Bentonite
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
NA
Development time
NA
Estimated purge volume
NA
Comments: Soil Vapor Well
aver ComplefionDiagram SVt]1.xls xxxxxx.xx.xx

JECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
34654$ SV 02 SHEET 1 OF 1
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PHOJFC'T : Site 89 LOCATION : MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRI11 INC, C0NTRACT(DH l''roDe Tcch Concord NC
❑RII I ING 10FT110DAND EQUIPMENI USED: 0620DTGcopro:�,
w
— 3 t
+ — j
CIY4 : LVUl1CR
1- Ground elevation at well
2- Top of casing elevation
3- Wellhead protection cover type Flushmount
a) drain tube?
INA
b) concrete pad dimensions
2' x 2'
4- DiaJtype of well casing
1" Schedule 40 PVC
5- Type/slot size of screen
DbIO' slotted PVC
6- Type screen filter
*2 filter sand
a) Quantity used
1.5 bags
I
7- Type of seal
i
_ Bentonite Hole Plug
a) Quantity used
1.5 bag
8- Grout
a) Grout mix used
95%Tyfpe 1 Portland cerrs71;'. - i4=r,i-, t,
b) Method of placement
Pour
c) Vol. of well casing grout
Development method
NA
Development time
NA
Estimated purge volume
NA
GpmmenW Soil Vapor Well
,re-F,.e -i1.Ieran0iagram_SVO2.xis xxxxxx xx.xx

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 SV03 sI F1- r , OF 1
CH2MHILL
aO WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT Site 89 LOCATION! MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DWLLING C UN FRACT0R : Prme Tech Concord NC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: 662ODTGeoprohe
WA EK LEVELS : START : END: LOGGER :K.Riggs,!k.Must
36 3 \ 11 1 2 1.
1- Arnunrl Mnvntinn at wall
WeIIC©mpletlonDlagram SV03.xls xxxxxx.xx.xx

Appendix F

FIELD IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
Pneumatic Fracturing — Site 89
MAR NE CORPS AIR STATioN
CAmp LEjEuNE, JACKSoNvILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
AGVIQ LLC
4663 Haygood Road, Suite 201
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Prepared by:
ARS Technologies, Inc.
98 North Ward Street
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
April 2007

TABIX OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
3.0 FRACTURE BOREHOLE INSTALLATION
4.0 INJECTION PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS
5.0 FIELD IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
5.1 Pneumatic Fracturing Boring PF-1
5.2 Pneumatic Fracturing Spring PF-2
5.3 Pneumatic Fracturing Baring PF-3
5.4 Pneumatic Fracturing Baring PF-4
6.4 CONCLUSION
ARS Technologies, Inc.

TABLES
Table i Pneumatic Fracturing Injection Summary Table
FIGURES
Graph 1-16 PressurelFlow vs. Time Curves for Fracturing Events
GLOSSARY
BGS Below Ground Surface
CVaC Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound
ND Not detectable
PF Pneumatic Fracturing
PSI Pounds Per Square Inch
RCI Radius of Influence
SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
WARS Technologies, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the field operations and presents the injection data parameters
associated with a Pneumatic Fracturing (PF) application implemented by ARS
Technologies on behalf of AG`TIQ LLC/CH2M HILL Joint Venture at the Marine Corps
Air Station, Site 89 located at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (The Site). The scope of
services entailed the Pneumatic Fracturing of four (4) boreholes from a depth of 12.5 —
25.0 feet bgs to increase soil permeability and augment the remedial performance of an
air sparge horizontal well system currently operating at the site.
2.0 7YWHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
PF can best be described as a process whereby a gas is injected into the subsurface at
pressures exceeding the natural in -situ pressures present in the soil/rock interface (i.e.
overburden pressure, cohesive stresses, etc.) and at flow volumes exceeding the natural
permeability of the subsurface. The result of this action is the propagation of fractures
outward from the injection point. Unconsolidated materials such as silts and clays
typically exhibit fracture propagation distances of 20 - 40 feet_ In most geologic
formations the propagation is relatively uniform around the injection well. The
traditional PF technology creates fractures in cohesive soils such as clay and also in rocks
(shale, sandstone, etc.). Such geologic formations exhibit "self propping„ behavior,
which means that the asperities present on the fracture surface are appreciable, and fluid
flow is maintained through the openings.
3.0 FRACTURE BOREHOLE INSTALLATION
Fracture well installation was directly integrated with ARS' injection operations. A total
of four (4) temporary injection points installed with a conventional Auger Rig utilizing a
5 inch solid drill casing which was advanced to the maximum target depth at each
location. Once the injection tooling was lowered to depth, the casing was retracted to a
point where the packers were exposed to the formation. This methodology assured that
the target depths could be reached and prevented borehole collapse before the injection
tooling reached the bottom of hole, as well as to prevent material from caving in on the
injection tooling and locking it in place.
4.0 INJECTION PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS
This section summarizes the operational procedures and parameters monitored as part of
the pneumatic fracturing process. The parameters discussed below may be used as
confirmatory measures to determine whether fractures were initiated and successfully
propagated within the targeted treatment intervals.
+ ARS Technologies, Inc.

The specialized equipment used for the injection process consists of a skid mounted high
pressure -high flow fracture module complete with an injection control manifold and a
digital data logger that are used to monitor various operational parameters. Injection
pressures are regulated with a high-pressure, high -flow injection manifold. The manifold
system provides precise control of injection pressures combined with sufficient flows,
which enabled the creation and/or enhancement of fractures within the subsurface. The
duration of the PF injections typically ranged between 10 to 15 seconds.
Fracture Initiation and Maintenance Pressures: During each PF injection, pressures in
the discrete fracture interval were recorded by a pressure transducer located in -line within
the conduit leading to the injection nozzle. These pressures are recorded by a data
logging system located on the injection module and accessed using a lap top computer.
By comparing the magnitude and shape of the pressure -history curve to previously
collected curves in similar geology, an assessment can be made on whether fracture
initiation and propagation occurred. This information allows the evaluation of two
critical measurements; the fracture initiation pressure and the fracture maintenance
pressure. A typical PF event can be subdivided into three distinct stages consisting of
-Breakdown of formation
-Fracture Initiation
-Fracture Maintenance
These independent stages are illustrated in Figure 1. It should be noted that the shape of
the pressure -time history curve depends on a number of factors including insitu stress
fields and geologic characteristics of the medium being fractured.
The following section describes each stage as it relates to the PF mechanism as illustrated
in Figure 1. During the first stage identified as "breakdown", the pressure rapidly builds
up as gas is injected into the discrete sealed interval of the borehole. This stage is
identified as curve segment A-B. The formation of these initial elevated pressures result
from the fact that the formation is not yet fractured and still has low permeability. This
stage is relatively short and typically last 1-2 seconds. Once the pressure exceeds the
insitu stress conditions and media strength prevailing within the sealed pressurized
interval, the formation yields and fracture initiation instantaneously occurs. The pressure
at this instant is identified as the initiation pressure identified as Stage B in Figure 1.
Following the instantaneous fracture initiation stage, the pressure decreases rapidly in the
sealed interval and eventually stabilizes at a pressure plateau as the injection continues.
During this time period, high volumes of gas rush out of the pressurized interval and
fractures propagate radially into the formation. This accounts for the rapid decline in the
borehole pressure as represented by curve segment B-C. The pressure plateau C-D
represents a period of the fracture maintenance and dilation, which is nearly constant for
the remainder of the injection period. This pressure indicates that an equilibrium state
has been attained for that particular injection flow rate. During this period, the flow rate
into the fractured formation exactly equals the leak -off into the formation from the
ARS Technologies, Inc.

fracture surfaces and tips_ As the injection pressure is terminated, the maintenance
pressure declines rapidly from D-E.
FIGURE 1 — Example of a Pressure Versus Time Curve
rr,
c �
_ 250
i
a 20O
a
d
150
100
50
a
Camp Lejeune Site 89
Jacksonville, !North Carolina
injection Boring PF-1.
B
C
❑
A
E
2 4 8 8 16 12
Tine{sec}
---- Pressure
14 16 18 20
Pressure Influence at Adjacent Monitoring Wells: During the fracturing events,
pressure gauges were placed at select monitoring wells to monitor pressure influence,
Each pressure gauge was fitted with a maximum drag -arm indicator, which enables the
user to monitor the maximum pressure influence at that location during each event.
During the injections, pressure influence is measured at wells near the injection points
using calibrated pressure (psi) gauges. Each pressure gauge is outfitted with a drag arm
indicator that records the maximum pressure detected at the monitoring point during the
injection. This data, also assists in determining which directions fractures may have
propagated. In addition, the degree of pressure response can often help determine
whether a monitoring point has been directly influenced (i.e. fractures propagate outward
and intersect wells or boreholes, or indirectly influenced through localized groundwater
displacement and/or mounding. Minimal pressure response in monitoring wells located
close to the injection point may indicate that fluidization and significant gas dispersion is
occurring.
ARS Technologies, Inc.

,Vurface Heave: Ground surface heave is used as one of the primary methods to detect
fracture initiation and propagation. Since soil is a deformable medium, the observed
surface heave represents the lower limit of fracture aperture and radius. Ground surface
heave measurements were recorded during each fracturing event using a surveying level
in conjunction with a heave rod. A heave rod was placed at a predetermined radial
distance from the fracture well. During each injection event, the rod was observed for
the maximum amount of upward motion (surface heave) and residual or permanent
heave.
5.0 FIELD INUqXAIENTATIQN SUNS IARY
This section summarizes the field operations and provides a discussion of the down -hale
injection parameters specific to each injection boring and discrete interval. Field
operations at the Site were performed from April 4 through April h, 2007. Operational
parameters collected during each injection event included the discrete injection interval,
initiation and operational pressures recorded on the control module and wellhead,
pressure influence at surrounding monitoring wells, surface heave and visual field
observations. Table l presents the data collected within each interval specific to each
borehole location.
PF injections were accomplished by starting at the deepest interval and working upward.
Following the completion of a discrete fracturing interval, the packers were deflated, and
the nozzle assembly was raised to the next injection location.
5.1 Pneumatic Fracturing Boring PF-1
Injection operations at boring PF-1 were performed on April 4, 2007. The fracturing
injection intervals at borehole PF-1 were as follows:
1)
22.25 — 25.5 ft bgs
2)
19.0 — 22.5 ft bgs
3)
15.75 — 19.0 ft bgs
4)
12.5 — 15.75 ft bgs
Fracture boring PF-1 was located to the north of Building TC864. The PF injections at
this location resulted in the short-circuiting of gas around the down -hole injection
tooling. More notably and in all cases, short-circuiting occurred towards the end of the
injection event. It is important to note that this occurrence did not render the fracturing
ineffective since, at a minimum, each discrete interval was fractured for a sufficient time
(> 10 seconds) and at flowrates (averaging = 2000 SCFM) to adequately initiate and
propagate fractures -
WARS Technologies„ Inc.

Data parameters recorded for PF-1 are presented in Table 1 of this report. The fracture
initiation and maintenance pressures ranged from 80 to 300 psi and 50 to 200 psis
respectively. More notably, fracturing initiation pressures were highest within the
deepest intervals suggesting the presence of a more competent low -permeable material_
Pressure/Flow vs. Time curves generated from Fracture Events 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
presented in the attached Figures. The curves pertaining to events 1, 2 and 3 illustrate
prominent fracture curves with distinct peak pressures confirming fracture initiation and
propagation within the respective interval. The smoothed rounding appearance for
Fracture Event 4 is indicative of dilation of fractures and/or leak -off into more permeable
portions or seams of the isolated interval through the duration of the fracture event.
Surface heave measurements recorded during the PF injections are presented in Table 1.
One location adjacent to the injection well was monitored for heave during the fracturing
injections. Heave measurements during the fracturing phase of the operations ranged
between 0.1 and 0.3 inches.
During the PF injections pressure influence was observed at wells MW-43 and MW-43B
which were located approximately 40 feet west of boring PF-1. A detailed summary of
pressure influence at surrounding points during injections at PF-1 is provided in Table 1,
5.2 Pneumatic Fracturing Baring PF-2
Injection operations at boring PF-2 were performed on April 5, 2006. The fracturing
intervals at borehole PF-2 were as follows:
1) 22.25 — 25.5 ft bgs
2) 19.0 — 22.5 ft bgs
3) 15.75 — 19.0 It bgs
4) 12.5 - 15.75 ft bgs
Fracture boring PF-2 was located to the south of building TC864. Data parameters
recorded for PF-2 are presented in 'fable 1 of this report. The fracture initiation and
maintenance pressures ranged from; 85 to 400 psi and 70 — 110 psi, respectively. More
notably, fracturing initiation pressures were highest within the deepest intervals
suggesting the presence of a more competent low -permeable material.
Pressure vs. Time curves generated from Events 1, 2 and 3 reveal three prominent
fracture curves with distinct pressures peaks indicating fracture initiation and
propagation. The smoothed mounding appearance of the curves likely resulted from
dilation of previously formed fractures and/or gas leak -off into more permeable portions
or seams within the isolated interval during the early stages of the fracture initiation
process.
K,
1t ARS Technologies, Inc.

Surface heave measurements recorded during the PF-2 injections are presented in Table
1. One location was monitored for heave during the fracturing injections as identified in
Table 1. The monitoring point was located adjacent to the injection well (approximately
3 feet). Heave measurements during fracturing ranged between 0.1 and 0.3 inches.
During the injections at PF-2, pressure influence was observed at wells MW-48A and
MW-48B in the form of positive pressure when the valve to the well was opened. A
detailed summary of pressure influence at surrounding points during PF injections at PF-
2 2 is provided in 'fable 1.
5.3 Pneumatic Fracturing Boring PF-3
Injection operations at baring PF-3 were performed on April 6, 2006. The fracturing
intervals at borehole PF-3 were as follows-
1) 22.25 — 25.5 ft bgs
2) 19.0 -- 22.5 ft bgs
3) 15.75 — 19.0 ft bgs
4) 12.5 — 15.75 ft bgs
Fracture boring PF-3 represented the fi chest south injection location_ Data parameters
recorded for PF-3 are presented in Table 1 of this report. The fracture initiation and
maintenance pressures ranged from 145 to 340 psi and 100 — 225 psi, respectively.
More notably, fracturing initiation pressures were highest within the deepest intervals
suggesting the presence of a more competent low-pernicable material.
Pressure/How vs. Time curves generated from Events 1 and 2 reveal prominent fracture
curves with distinct initiation pressures indicating fracture initiation and propagation.
The smoothed mounding appearance of the curves representing Events 3 and 4, likely
resulted from gas leak -off into more permeable portions or seams within the isolated
interval during the early stages of the fracture initiation process.
Surface heave measurements recorded during the PF-3 injections are presented in Table
1. One location was monitored for heave during the fracturing injections as identified in
Table 1. The monitoring point was located adjacent to the injection well (approximately
3 feet). Heave measurements during fracturing ranged between 0.1 and 0.5 inches.
During the injections at PF-3, pressure influence was observed at wells MW-49A and
MW-49B in the form of registered pressure influence on the gauge and positive pressure
when the valve to the well was opened. Direct pressure influence was also observed at
boring PF-4 during the PF-3 injections. A detailed summary of pressure influence at
surrounding points during PF injections at PF-3 is provided in Table 1.
AIRS Technologies, Inc.

5.4 Pneumatic Fracturing Baring PF-4
Injection operations at boring PFA were performed on April 6, 2006. The fracturing
intervals at borehole PF-4 were as follows:
l) 22.25 — 25.5 ft bgs
2) 19.0 — 22.5 ft bgs
3 ) 15.75 — 19.0 ft bgs
4) 12.5 — 15.75 ft bgs
Fracture boring PF-4 was located between borings PF-2 and PF-3. Data parameters
recorded for PF-4 are presented in Table 1 of this report. The fracture initiation and
maintenance pressures ranged. from 140 to 320 psi and 80 — 190 psi, respectively. More
notably, fracturing initiation pressures were highest. within the deepest intervals
suggesting the presence of more competent low -permeable material.
Pressure vs_ Time curves generated from Events 2, 3 and 4 reveal prominent fracture
curves with distinct initiation pressures indicating fracture initiation and propagation.
The smoothed mounding appearance of the curves illustrated in Event 1, likely resulted
from gas leak -off into more permeable portions or seams within the isolated interval
during the early stages of the fracture initiation process.
Surface heave measurements recorded during the PF4 injections are presented in. Table
1. One location was monitored for heave during the fracturing injections as identified in
Table 1 _ The monitoring point was located adjacent to the injection well (approximately
3 feet). Reave measurements during fracturing ranged between 0.1 and 0.4 inches.
Influence was not observed at any of the monitored wells. Lack of pressure influence at
monitoring well cluster MW 49A and 49B which were greater than 40 feet away.
6.0 CONCLUSION
A pneumatic fracturing application was recently completed at Marine Corps Air Station,
Site 89 Camp Lejeune North Carolina. A total of four (4) boreholes were fractured from
a depth of 12.5 to 25.5 feet bgs. Data parameters collected as part of the PF process, such
as surface heave measurements, pressure response measurements in surrounding
monitoring wells and boreholes, and the pressure -history curves, indicates that fractures
were successfully initiated and propagated within the targeted areas. The pressure -
history curves indicate that the soils fractured numerous times during the field effort.
Initial pressure peaks indicate that fractures were created with at pressures ranging from
80 to 400 psig. Fracturing initiation pressures were highest within the deepest intervals
ARS Technologies, Inc.

suggesting the presence of a more competent low -permeable material. During a few
applications, the pressure curves indicate a "mounded" pattern that is indicative pore
space dilation of existing fractures and/or more permeable soils, During PF operations,
pressure responses were observed in monitoring wells and in one instance (PF-3) at
distances up to 40 feet from the injection borings indicating successful propagation of
fractures and subsequent permeability enhancements within the targeted treatment
Intervals.
WARS Technologies, Inc.

m 2
m @
�C)
@ t
E z
E £
��
§
43)2
c u
. �
k©
LL \
� 2
§ �
2 f
� q
:
)
!
�
f
}
_
]
\
�
�
\
\
}
�
\
}
%
!
§
a!!!!!!>I!
¥
|
z z
z z
{|
zzzzz
!!
$
������!!!!!!!z
$lw�ee©,��,:�e°Meea
{§§mr§!G§2n§§gEBB
|6
|.
)(Meea:■;R!«§B#!§E
!
\|■■m;§&9m2!§9N§N>
,e=:22�}�=:

C
cn '0CIO
1
LL CO p
BI} c
CD C .�
c O L. W) LU
� - In Sri m
L
lu
E D ri di
w .to N
Cy
Cif
"7
(wj3s) a;ea A OI-A
o CD o 0 o
COY N L G
Co o 0 o a v a
(D Ul IT M fV CDr
(isd) ainssa.Id
w
r
'W
r
l�
0
[V
0
r
z
LU
LU
IL
LL
m

C
CD GO ,0
CD LL
Q. im +�+
cn 0 M C
d
Z 0 Lei
C? der,
W N
CL y=+ a w
O 0 LL
� � c
c.�
c�
(tum) inv+ mold
v v v a
o LO o
cv ry T T Lo
LD a uv7 0 �
CV N r T
(ssd) a-InssOJd
N
4o
r
m
to
IV
04
40
a
z
w
W
r
LL
m

gw13sy ejej mol,-A
o a o a
c o a CD
in a ,n c7
CJ N r r
a
0
Lo
a
a
N
co
T
co
to
{V
C-:
0 o LO C) � cs
(!sd) ainssaid
z
W
7
W
r
LL
a

r
z
CD a r
tL N
CL
co
Z D
CO
E a 0 c�i l
m 0. �rl
v��
cs
0
a ca v
a m co
(W13s) azaj mal-4
Q C7 O CD a v O
CD w CD I CD n c a
N
O C N co Lo IT co CZ) CD N
r
(isd) a insswd
m
T
Dr.l
cv
v
Co G
T
d'
H
Z
W
W
r
LL
a

k
co a C%l
LL
CL co
0 §
■ � � � »
c o W) �
E � C �
� : § ` 2
CL > & k
E t 4) 04 U.
L)
0
e
�
(mom WJ mm]
cn � � /
k
Co k \ k N k
tisd)ains OJd
0
�
�
&
�
LN
�
q
C-E,
_
�
z
m
�
w
44
LL
IL

00 v n�
LL
A cc
IM C
C p "% W
M Z O L7
IM N
E v 0 U-
ca
(w;as) a;ei MOIA
a a 0 v
o c 0 a
ors a 10 o
N r
LO v � a L o
(!sd) wnsswd
a
0
�n c
a
ao
T
c14
T
0
w
m Io �
r � �
E
a
00
ca
�r
IN
[V
H
a Z
W
y
W
C4
U-
tL

Q :-4
co
LL fA
*+ (j a �+
m C
7
C 0 a 0 W
d CD LO Ui
ca N '_ r
C? Y
U
co
n
(wjas) a;ea MOI-4
a <9 v o CD o 0 0p 0ppCD
N GoLp CV O LD d N
�- - N
o Go w Co cCN c � `>
(y r r r r
4esdj s-lnssaid
v
cv
Z
uj
7
W
N
U.
0-

00 Q N
a� .0 a
L. luu
Z 0
L
E a a) N LL
�.} JC t
Li
�S
(w;as) a;ei Mow
o CD
N 0 O G N as
a- OD ED
a
CV
CD
Ir-
T
It
a
N O co 0 � N a
(isdj aunsswd
H
Z
LU
LU
N
LL
0-

■
c
m p m
Go 2 � g _
� � c
c IM
s 0 C >
W
c C
o -
> %
E 2 4) C%4 U-
U o
u
e
�
(mpg mm mm]
k k 0 k k k k
V- n n a a -
k
0
0
q
0 2 R 2 S LO CD 2 0
le C r cv m
(|ed)ainsseud
m
�
q
"T
q
L
_
�
z
W
�
W
M
IL

f-
C3
LL.
Va C
��rn.Qc
C v �*- ' w
= Z 0 W)
d m CV
J w- 0
E D m L.
� � C
(WJ's) OJOJ ► OIJ
a v a c)
0 0 Cl 0
to o tin a
N 04 z
0
0
47 G
G
co
r
-
r
Ln O � C) L
N CV r
(19d) e.Iflssald
;,
co
ry
W
v
H
z
W
w
A
LL
d

C) v
m CL
c O L o W
�Zmv"�'
� a �' a+
Ln
u
E o (D Ln Li
go 2 C
(aupS) a;eJ Mold
o a n o
c� o o c)
�n a C)
N dY r r
a
v
Ln o
Q
N
T
to
T
N «m
r �
o � I
T
N �
Oa I
m
v
ry
e�
III
W
Jlsd)f ajnsSaJd A
LL
d

C
0 LL 0) �
en M _
'a) s
7.2 _
—i — 0 � u
E ® w N Ui
c!!y
WY
(WIDE) a;ei M0I=1
S CCl D (0 v o a a a a
N co (Q
o awn w Cp v c©.i v co m v
N T r r- r r
(isd) arnssaJd
0
M C7
an
N
0
cv
LO
T
v
T
ni.
11
f"
z
w
}
W
LL
d

(UVS) 0101 Moil
v v 0 Q v
0 Cl
m 9 rev r
0
cz
a
a
Cq
IT
cv
Eml
v � o uasCX Co
co N N
(Fsd) ainsswd

w` LL vI M
CL
W �._
r_ O C o W
CZmC7)
�= v
E a 0 In Li
im )r-
e�
(W102) 7;eJ MOI-A
G 0 o Q
0 0 0 C)
u7 O 10 0�
ty 04 r T
Ul) 0 in © Lo C`
c14 cq r V-
(isd) sinssOJd
Cl
C
to O
Q
tV
W
r
[o
T
T
E
r 0
.�. U.
C7 Im
T ® W
E j
a
0o I
co
Cnt
CV)
F-
a Z
W
7
ul
i
4
LL
[L

co I�
LL Y/
' V tm rr
C� t! j
Z 0 P' ai
L
J .. 2 ❑ #+
ca
E o a�+ccmLA-
L) •� —
U
R
7
(oohs) ajej mol3
o [a o 0
v o © 0 o o a
s-
Qsd) ainssOAd
CD
lV
qW
r
Ci9]
iV
m
z
LU
W
4
6L
CL

Appendix G

Appendix G-1

>!llll::!l
\(
>§!§/j!§§§>!!!!!!!>
,
:l:,:ll.......
;:::§1,:::::::::::l::!l:::::!°:°,:,:l:!!!!!!!!<
1]]IT'll
{!22
:!!:!:l;,:,;!jj\{{){)}}/
2'Hlfl$
{{/
))){{\\}}/}\{{

� U
K =�
(� 5. F m
� Q m m
a � � U
Q wr/iE
E
s -S° 2 m
s o o F

Appendix G-2

2
)r
!!!!!!l
74
),
----------
-::::::!lz;:::::l:::::l:::::::>§>::
/))/§!!§§§§§§§§§§§!§§!!§§§§§!
)r
l:.::::!!!:l:::::l:l:l;;:!l:::::::::::l::!l:::::!
-
--
------------------
;!:!:!:l,,:;,!!];,\
Moll
/}\}}}}}}\\\\\jjj\}}}())$))dllll
l2,
/
{j
/
{{{\{{{

d � m
t °.3 U
QUr��

Appendix G-3

...
�o
E�
�o
m
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
E
�o
�m
<
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
<
<
o�
z
z-
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
o

�o
4
�o
a�
�m
a
�o
4
4
4�
4�
4
a�
a
�m
4
m�

4
m
4
m`8
3
C
4
go
3
-
�
o
M
�
o
�
o
3 �
� �
o
4
n
4
�
o
3
m
4
3
C
4
o
4
n
4
n
4
v �
3
4
n
4
3
n
A
4
3
m
4
m`8
3
C
- E
E

i
� U
K �
- n 'd
3 m
- F m
m U�
� °.3 U
Q Q4iE

� a c F

���
K �
- a '�
(9Q mJ
- � m
m U�
� °.3 U
Q Q4iE
E
S S° 8 m
5 0 o F
a

I
� U
K �
- n 'd
3 m
- F m
m U�
� °.3 U
Q Q4iE

Appendix G-4

mom

�
a
3 �
-
$
A i
o
o
a
S
z g^
8
8 8
m
A
8 A
8 8
8 z
g z
g=
8 h
8
8
A
A 8
h A
A 8
A 8
8 A=
8
A
A
h A
n 8
A
h 8
m 8
3
r
8
8 0
a
�
@
a
$
3
� d
o
F 3,
3
a
S
h
A z
n$
n
h
g h
3
3
r
z
g h
h
z
3 -
i
o
a
�
3
�a
n
3
n
�a
3 -
_
R
S
3
�a
n
�a
3 -
_
a�
$
3
r
S
-
-LE
-
-
-
- -
- -
J
-2 -2
`2 E
L-
S S
_
= _
- E
E E
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
d'
�S
- -
- -
_
_ -

�U
K
(� 5. F m
� Q m m
a � � U
Q dr/iE

� U
K
(� 5. F m
¢ m m
an � � U
Q dr/iE

� U
K
(� 5. F m
¢ m m
an � � U
Q dr/iE

�U
K
(� 5. F m
� Q m m
a � � U
Q dr/iE

Appendix H

KICJbiaRnsi hts
Analysis Report
2340 Stock Creek Blvd.
Rockford TN 37853-3044
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Client: Ryan VanOosten Phone: [phone]
CH2M HILL
5700 Cleveland Street
Suite 101
Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Fax: [phone]
MI Identifier: 014EC Date Rec: 03/08/2007 Report Date: 03/15/2007
Client Project #: 3465448.TS.ER.MN
Purchase Order #: 920504
Analysis Requested: CENSUS (final)
Comments:
Client Project Name: Site 89, TO-071
All samples within this data package were analyzed under U.S. EPA Good Laboratory Practice Standards: Toxic Substances
Control Act (40 CFR part 790). All samples were processed according to standard operating procedures. Test results submitted
in this data package meet the quality assurance requirements established by Microbial Insights, Inc.
Reported By:
Reviewed By:
k'gz' /�? 4&
NOTICE: This report is intended only for the addressee shown above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If
the recipient of this material is not the intended recipient or if you have received this in error, please notify Microbial Insights, Inc.
immediately. The data and other information in this report represent only the sample(s) analyzed and are rendered upon
condition that it is not to be reproduced without approval from Microbial Insights, Inc. Thank you for your cooperation.
Page 1 of 4

MICROBIAL INSIGHTS, INC.
2340 Stock Creek Blvd. Rockford, TN 37853-3044
Q Potential (DNA)
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Client: CH2M HILL
Project: Site 89, TO-071
Sample Information
MI Project Number: 014EC
Date Received: 03/08/2007
Client Sample ID:
IR89-GW44-07A
IR89-GW54-07A
IR89-GW33-0
IR89-GW34-07
2-M
2-M
7A2-M
A2-M
Sample Date:
03/07/2007
03/07/2007
03/08/2007
03/08/2007
Units:
cells/mL
cells/mL
cells/mL
cells/mL
Dechlorinating Bacteria
Dehalococcoides spp (1) DHC 4.7E+01 5.03E+04 1.81E+01 7.09E+01
Desulfuromonas spp. DSM 1.54E+04 2.31E+02 <5E-01 <5E-01
Dehalobacter spp. DHB 7.74E+03 2.55E+02 5.06E+02 1.95E+02
Functional Genes
Toluene Dioxygenase TOD 7.6E+06 1.8E+05 3.93E+04 2.35E+06
Phylogenetic Group
Methanotrophs (total) MOB 1.48E+08 1.38E+06 3.43E+06 3.62E+06
Type I MOB MOBI 4.52E+07 4.71E+05 8.4E+05 1.46E+06
Type 11 MOB MOBII 1.02E+08 9.07E+05 2.59E+06 2.16E+06
Legend:
NA = Not Analyzed NS = Not Sampled J = Estimated gene copies below PQL but above LQL I = Inhibited
< = Result not detected
Notes:
1 Bio-Dechlor Census technology was developed by Dr. Loeffler and colleagues at Georgia Institute of Technology and was licensed for use
through Regenesis.
Page 2 of 4

•r�
—
a
0
E
O
v
o
m
t7
_
N
N
N
com
m
r
m
o
o E
o
U
E
Z
f
11
Y
U
V
I
O
O N
Q
v7
o
m eo
_E
E
O
O
C
Y
UO
C
O
j�Z�(
N
2
o- @
N
4F
�i
L
G
N
-o
v
El
Q1
C
iC �6
O d
� Z
a
Z F.
i� 0
U C
,au)o
:�ayi0
Z V �j
a
a 'Ck
�pl
.Hodb .pp
-Hodb'pp
O
=Hodb P
(aigo,ae auajggdeN) HVNb
(oigaaeuV auaj6Xryan)ol) SSgb
Q
Or U U
Olgoiae sHVd appa walul)1Vob
_
a ([S
�
(oigo,ae sHVd Ie9uU 0016
1
4 0 0
.�
m M
I
m
b(6uiznpixo
OwJae3g1M 6W
M
odb
Q
eiuowwe) gpyb
z(Wu
j Z
U)uao) ANob
n
J
a)b
(sydogoueyiaw) g0yy
(sua6oueg)aw) NE)Nb
o
a
cr (�
d
9HV9HSb
_
c
(Aluo sgHS) HSob
( -
E
a
cz.ewl)oVe3b E 1
G
cC Q
•�
g'
(wnuaioegop}jnsao)gSOb
(�} U L
�
r C
(seuowo,n7�nsao) yyS(lb
P
s
a
(Jalaegoleya0) 9Hob
i 1
y
aseo-H oA Mveb
�
FJ!
`
aseo-H 30lb
n
�
df
(sap}oaMWOO) oHUb
f
e(VNH) uo)ssajdx3.0
(VNO) lepuaiodl)
a>
313M
V3A
Vild
Xu)e"
paldweS awil
pa)dweS a}e4
rid
u
0
ti
c
�
a>
G
m
z
ev
E
c n
J
r
tt
iJV
� 1 "0
U
N is
t! cr. 0
E co
co Cl) LL
co
Q
E N J
a a
fIS �
J
U

x3'-[0
®e s+ec J
®-�rvisiarruf-Libeff na Y g, g(,5- i 3
Chent/Re] rtin Information
Project infort
Company Name
of c— L
Project Name
7—op —
Address
Sampling ocation
City State Zip
U� v3 v ;t
Turnaround time
Project Co tact
Batch QC or Project Specific? If Speci
Phone #
31
Are aqueous samples field filtered for i
Sampler's Na
Are high concentrations expected? Y u
CompuChetn No
Use)
Field ID
Collection
Matrix
-P O C-
�J IIf
W64@s
Nu
Date
Time
x
;
yy(Lab
c -C>'}
)plt;
)-O
GW
1
�•
--� - G � N-
3�Pk'7
l'f��
r
Lab Use On
Sample Unpacked By:
Cyanide samples checked foi
625 & Phenol samples check
Sample Order Entry By:
Samples Received in Good Condition? Y or N 608 samples checked for pH
If no. explain:
Relinquished by: -
Date/Time:3'r .
Relinquished by:
Date/Time:
Subcontact? Y or N If yes, where'?
Samples stored 60 days after date report mailed at no extra charge.

KICJbiaRnsi hts
DNA Analysis Report
2340 Stock Creek Blvd.
Rockford TN 37853-3044
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Client: Ryan VanOosten Phone: [phone]
CH2M HILL
5700 Cleveland Street
Suite 101
Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Fax: [phone]
MI Identifier: 027EF Date Rec: 06/08/2007 Report Date: 06/13/2007
Client Project #: 346548.TS.ER.MN
Purchase Order #: 920504
Analysis Requested: CENSUS
Comments:
Client Project Name: T071.GRD Pilot Study Area
All samples within this data package were analyzed under U.S. EPA Good Laboratory Practice Standards: Toxic Substances
Control Act (40 CFR part 790). All samples were processed according to standard operating procedures. Test results submitted
in this data package meet the quality assurance requirements established by Microbial Insights, Inc.
Reported By:
Reviewed By:
k'gz' /�? 4&
NOTICE: This report is intended only for the addressee shown above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If
the recipient of this material is not the intended recipient or if you have received this in error, please notify Microbial Insights, Inc.
immediately. The data and other information in this report represent only the sample(s) analyzed and are rendered upon
condition that it is not to be reproduced without approval from Microbial Insights, Inc. Thank you for your cooperation.
Page 1 of 3

MICROBIAL INSIGHTS, INC.
2340 Stock Creek Blvd. Rockford, TN 37853-3044
Q Potential (DNA)
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Client: CH2M HILL MI Project Number: 027EF
Project: T071.GRD Pilot Study Area Date Received: 06/08/2007
Sample Information
Client Sample ID:
IR89-GW54-07B
IR89-GW44-07B
Sample Date:
06/07/2007
06/07/2007
Units:
cells/mL
cells/mL
Dechlorinating Bacteria
Dehalococcoides spp (1) DHC 4.56E+06 6.32E+04
Desulfuromonas spp. DSM 2.77E+02 7.14E+04
Dehalobacter spp. DHB 6.86E+00 3.16E+04
Functional Genes
Toluene Dioxygenase
TOD
<1 E+00
2.02E+06
Phylogenetic Group
Methanotrophs (total)
MOB
1.55E+04
4.37E+05
Type I MOB
MOBI
5.85E+03
1.55E+05
Type 11 MOB
MOBII
9.7E+03
2.82E+05
Legend:
NA = Not Analyzed NS = Not Sampled J = Estimated gene copies below PQL but above LQL I = Inhibited
< = Result not detected
Notes:
1 Bio-Dechlor Census technology was developed by Dr. Loeffler and colleagues at Georgia Institute of Technology and was licensed for use
through Regenesis.
Page 2 of 3

,V1
[iS
71
Zo
to
C
,
-..
O
Y.
C7]
7
J
C
O
CC
2
C;
N
O
�
C
CS
i
O
L R
� d_ LL.
d
a)
m
(6
4
�
�
V)
Fj-
`m
tm
C
y
d.
a
u
;
u
C
mc
m
m
m
o
m
m�°
CL
LL a
a,
a
x
mommom
ON
11
1
O
Q5
g
s
3
2
C �
CO C
W

Appendix I

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
Proposed Monitoring Approach for Potential Vapor
Intrusion Pathways, Site 89
TO: Camp Lejeune Partnering Team
FROM: CH2M HILL
DATE: October 4, 2007
This Technical Memorandum provides an update to a previous memorandum (June 8, 2007)
which presented a preliminary evaluation of vapor soil data soil collected during an air
sparging treatability study and the proposed approach for monitoring potential vapor
intrusion pathways in buildings at Site 89 at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina. The preliminary evaluation of vapor intrusion was based on data from
four rounds of sampling that were collected during the treatability study; this memorandum
evaluates the soil gas vapor data collected during the entire study (i.e., six rounds).
Presented in this memorandum is an overview of the site setting, an evaluation of analytical
data from the completed air sparging treatability study, proposed monitoring approaches,
and a recommended monitoring approach.
Background
Air sparging (AS) was one of four treatability studies conducted at MCB Camp Lejeune Site
89 to evaluate the performance and effectiveness for remediation of trichloroethene (TCE),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), and associated dissolved chlorinated solvent contamination. The
treatability studies were not intended to be a final remedy for the site but were intended to
evaluate the performance and design criteria of four remedial technologies. Air sparging
was tested in an area with a relatively small, elliptical plume, conducive to treatment
through a well that has been installed using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)
methods. Areas of very groundwater high contamination (in the percent levels) were
avoided during installation of the horizontal well. The HDD sparge well was constructed
with a 240-foot long screen, and was positioned at approximately 40 feet below ground
surface near building TC864. The total lineal distance of the well was approximately 600
feet. The air sparge system was activated on December 8, 2006 and operated continuously
for approximately six months. The compressor "up time' was approximately 89%.
Operation of the system was concluded in July 2007. Groundwater monitoring was
performed during the treatability study including a baseline sampling event, followed by
six monthly sampling events. Due to the presence of buildings around the sparge area, three
soil vapor monitoring wells (SVMW) were installed and monitored for volatile organic
compound (VOCs) in conjunction with the groundwater monitoring. The analytical results
from the soil vapor monitoring wells are presented in Table 1. The location of the
treatability study area and the SVMWs are shown in Figure 1. Two SVMWs (IR89-SV01 and
IR89-SV02) are located adjacent to building TC860. One SVMW (IR-SV03) is located
adjacent to building TC864.
VAPOR MONITORING MEMO_FINAL_100407DOC

PROPOSED MONITORING APPROACH FOR POTENTIAL VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAYS, SITE 89
Purpose and Objectives
An approach was developed for evaluating potential vapor intrusion pathways in the
nearby buildings prior to full-scale implementation of AS at Site 89. The purpose for
evaluating potential vapor intrusion pathways is to be able to identify when potential
pathways might create indoor air impacts, so that mitigation measures can be implemented
in a timely manner. Since air sparging involves injection of air to remove or biodegrade
subsurface contaminants, there is the possibility of creating pressure fields that might result
in some degree of transport of volatile contaminants.
A preliminary evaluation of the soil gas sampling data was conducted in June 2007 to
evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion pathways in buildings located near the area where
AS is being conducted. These preliminary results were compared with the generic default
screening levels in soil gas presented in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft
vapor intrusion guidance (EPA, 2002). Eight of 21 VOCs detected in soil gas were detected
at concentrations higher than the generic screening levels. TCE and PCE were detected at
concentrations greater than 50 times the generic screening levels. In accordance with EPA's
vapor intrusion guidance, site -specific screening levels were calculated for TCE and PCE
using the Johnson and Ettinger model. The assumptions associated with these screening
levels are described in Table 2. As seen in Table 1, concentrations of TCE in some samples
approached, but did not exceed, the site -specific screening level. Concentrations of PCE
were lower than the site -specific screening level.
Based on the preliminary evaluation, different approaches were developed for monitoring
potential vapor intrusion pathways near the buildings:
Alternative 1: Continue to monitor soil gas in these wells, and use the data in the site -
specific Johnson and Ettinger model to evaluate potential exposures. During full-scale AS
implementation, periodically monitor soil gas from these wells to determine if a build up in
soil gas concentrations is occurring. Soil gas sampling and analysis would be conducted
using Summa canisters with the sampling analyzed using EPA Method TO-15. Other
monitoring methods, such as detector tubes (Drager tubes) or photoionization detectors
(PID) probably would not provide usable data for modeling. However, a PID might be
usable to monitor trends in total VOC concentration, which can be used to increase or
reduce the frequency as needed of sampling using the Summa canisters.
Alternative 2: Conduct a building survey to determine if that building is resistant to vapor
intrusion. That involves surveying the building for cracks in the floor (or sumps, or drains),
that could be conduits for soil gas, and determining if the building is depressurized - is it
pulling air from the subsurface indoors - by making measurements with a micromanometer.
If the building is pressurized and vapor -resistant, that result combined with the soil gas
sampling data may be useful in documenting that no further vapor intrusion evaluation is
needed. This approach would address the potential vapor intrusion pathway without the
need for intrusive indoor air and subslab sampling.
Alternative 3: Engage the base industrial hygienists, and addressing the potential exposure
pathway as an occupational exposure situation. As appropriate, Navy industrial hygienists
perform indoor air sampling using industrial hygiene methods, and comparing the results
with appropriate occupational exposure limits. If the levels in air do not represent a
workplace exposure, then no further action would be needed (beyond any soil gas
VAPOR MONITORING MEMO_FINAL_100407.DOC

PROPOSED MONITORING APPROACH FOR POTENTIAL VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAYS, SITE 89
monitoring we would do normally as part of the full-scale implementation of the AS
system). Soil gas monitoring could continue periodically, as described above.
Alternative 4: Perform a vapor intrusion investigation, with subslab and indoor air
samples, as described in EPA's draft 2002 guidance.
Updated Data Evaluation
Soil vapor samples were collected during a baseline sampling event, followed by six
monthly sampling events (Table 1). The final soil vapor samples associated with the study
were collected on July 11 and July 12, 2007. Twenty-two VOCs were detected in soil gas.
Soil vapor monitoring wells 89-SV01 and 89-SV02 show an increasing trend in
concentrations in soil gas through out the study, though concentrations in 89-SV02 decrease
in the last sampling event. In general, soil vapor monitoring well 89-SV03 shows a spike in
contaminant concentrations one month after system start-up, followed by a decrease in
concentrations; PCE and TCE concentrations increase in the July sampling event.
Ten VOCs were detected at concentrations greater than the generic screening criteria in at
least one soil vapor sample collected during the course of the treatability study: PCE; TCE;
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene; vinyl chloride; 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (PCA); methylene chloride;
chloroform; benzene;1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. PCA, PCE, and
TCE were detected at concentrations greater than 50 times the generic screening levels;
therefore, site -specific screening criteria were calculated for these compounds.
Concentrations of these three VOCs were lower than the site -specific screening level.
Recommendations for Further Investigation
Although the soil vapor concentrations collected during the treatability study did not
exceed site -specific screening criteria, the sampling data indicate an increasing trend in soil
gas concentrations. At this time, it is not apparent that the air sparging treatability study
has created potential vapor intrusion pathway. However, the soil vapor monitoring data
collected suggests that longer -term air sparging could produce higher concentrations in soil
vapor than observed during the treatability study. This could create an increased potential
for vapor intrusion pathways in buildings near the air sparge well. In addition, areas of Site
89 have higher groundwater concentrations than those in the treatability study area. Air
sparging in these areas with higher concentrations in groundwater also suggest there is the
potential for higher soil vapor concentrations to be observed, if air sparging is selected as
the final remediation technology for Site 89.
All though a combination of the four proposed alternatives may need to be implemented,
the initial recommended approaches for vapor intrusion evaluation are Alternative 1 (soil
gas sampling and modeling) and Alternative 2 (building surveys). Routine soil vapor
monitoring (using a combination of real-time monitoring and soil vapor sampling) would
be conducted in the vicinity of all buildings in the area in which air sparging is being
conducted. Installation of additional soil vapor monitoring wells may be needed to monitor
soil vapor concentrations in the vicinity of other buildings that may be near the sparge line.
If the sampling data and modeling indicate an increasing trend in soil gas concentrations,
and an increasing potential for vapor intrusion pathways in a building, then a subsequent
step would be to implement Alternative 2, which would involve performing a building
VAPOR MONITORING MEMO_FINAL_100407.DOC

PROPOSED MONITORING APPROACH FOR POTENTIAL VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAYS, SITE 89
survey. The results from that survey could be used to refine the modeling, or could be used
to identify mitigation measures that would reduce potential exposures through vapor
intrusion. The need for further investigation (industrial hygiene survey, or interior vapor
intrusion investigation) would be based on the results from these modeling and survey
activities.
VAPOR MONITORING MEMO_FINAL_100407.DOC

5
5
3"
CI �
� t
`- Z
� 'm
'��° E
�$ Lm
� Y
a $ yi
a F � m
F d
- F a
m� g$
m 8 a
d c" �
B v $ �
_ 0 5 y° 3 5

Work in Progress
For Discussion Purposes Only
Do Not Cite or Quote
TABLE 2
Vapor Intrusion Modeling Parameters Used in the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) Model
Site 89 Air Sparge Evaluation
Camp Leieune, North Carolina
Symbol
Parameter
Description
Selected Value
Units
Sources
Average Soil/Groundwater
Based on data for North Carolina
Ts
Temperature
16.7
C
(USEPA, 2004)
Depth Below Grade to Bottom of
This is the depth from soil surface to the
LF
Enclosed Space Floor
bottom of the floor in contact with soil
15
Cm
Assumes slab -on -grade construction
Assumed depth to groundwater at
combined on- and offsite locations,
Ly r
Depth Below Grade to Water Table
152.4
cm
approximately 5 feet.
hA
Thickness of Soil Stratum A
107
cm
hB
Thickness of Soil Stratum B
45.4
cm
Not Used
he
Thickness of Soil Stratum C
NA
cm
Not Used
Soil Stratum A SCS Soil Type
Used to estimate soil vapor permeability
Not Used
unitless
User -defined value used.
A parameter associated with convective
transport of vapors within the zone of
User -defined Soil Vapor
influence of a building. It is related to the
Value is consistent with a sand
kv
Permeability
size and shape of connected soil pores
1.00E-07
cm2
(USEPA, 2004).
Based on soil boring logs for site 89;
pbA
Stratum A Soil Dry Bulk Density
1.63
g/cm3
value is consistent with a Sandy Clay
Used with water -filled porosity to calculate
Based on soil boring logs for site 89;
nA
Stratum A Total Soil Porosity
air -filled porosity (see below)
0.385
unitless
value is consistent with a Sandy Clay
Used with total porosity to calculate air-
Based on soil boring logs for site 89;
6wA
Stratum A Soil Water -filled porosity
filled porosity (see below)
0.197
cm3/cm3
value is consistent with a Sandy Clay
Based on soil boring logs for site 89;
pbB
Stratum B Soil Dry Bulk Density
1.62
g/cm3
value is consistent with a Loamy Sand
Used with water -filled porosity to calculate
Based on soil boring logs for site 89;
ne
Stratum B Total Soil Porosity
air -filled porosity (see below)
0.39
unitless
value is consistent with a Loamy Sand
Used with total porosity to calculate air-
Based on soil boring logs for site 89;
0WB
Stratum B Soil Water -filled porosity
filled porosity (see below)
0.0076
cm3/cm3
value is consistent with a Loamy Sand
Pb
Stratum C Soil Dry Bulk Density
NA
g/cm
Not Used
Used with water -filled porosity to calculate
nc
Stratum C Total Soil Porosity
air -filled porosity (see below)
NA
unitless
Not Used
Used with total porosity to calculate air-
0,c
Stratum C Soil Water -filled porosity
filled porosity (see below)
NA
cm3/cm3
Not Used
Based on assumed 6 inch slab
L_.k
Enclosed Space Floor Thickness
15
cm
thickness
Default indoor/subslab pressure
Ap
Soil -Building Pressure Differential
40
g/cm-s2
difference (USEPA, 2004)
Corresponds to a 5,000 square foot
LB
Enclosed Space Floor Length
2155
cm
floor area
WB
Enclosed Space Floor Width
2155
cm
HB
Enclosed Space Height
305
cm
Corresponds to a 10 foot ceiling height
Represents a gap assumed to exist at the
junction between the floor and the
foundation perimeter. This gap is due to
building design or concrete shrinkage. It
represents the only route for soil gas
w
Floor -Wall Seam Crack Width
intrusion into a building
0.5
cm
Assumed floor -wall seam width
Building ventilation rate, expressed in units
Design outside air exchange rate for
ER
Indoor air exchange rate
of air changes per hour (ACH)
0.84
(1/h)
an office building.
ATc
Averaging Time for Carcinogens
70
yrs
ATNC
Averaging Time for Noncarcinogens
25
yrs
ED
Exposure Duration
25
yrs
EF
Exposure Frequency
250
days/yr
Used to calculate risk -based groundwater
TR
Target Risk for Carcinogens
concentration
1.00E-05
I unitless

Work in Progress
For Discussion Purposes Only
Do Not Cite or Quote
TABLE 2
Vapor Intrusion Modeling Parameters Used in the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) Model
Site 89 Air Sparge Evaluation
Camp Leieune, North Carolina
Symbol
I Parameter
Description
I Selected Value
Units
Sources
THQ
Target Hazard Quotient for
Noncarcinogens
Used to calculate risk -based groundwater
concentration
1
days/yr