HomeMy WebLinkAboutWI0800138_Correspondence_20081015DRAFT
INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETION REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 16 - SITE 93
MARINE CORPS BASE
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid -Atlantic
6506 Hampton Boulevard
Norfolk Virginia 23508-1273
Contract No. N62470-02-D-3260
TO 0063
Prepared by:
Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Main Street,
Norfolk, Virginia
Ronald Kenyon
Technical Manager
Joseph W. Colella, P.E.
Project Manager
James A. Dunn, Jr., P.E.
Program Manager
Project No. 120348
October 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1
1.1
OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................................
1-1
1.2
SITEBACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................1-1
1.3
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS...........................................................................
1-2
1.3.1
UST Investigation(1995)...................................................................................................................
1-2
1.3.2
Remedial Investigation(1998)...........................................................................................................
1-2
1.3.3
Natural Attenuation Evaluation(2001)....-....................................................................................._.
1-3
1.3.4
Additional Plume Characterization (2002)........................................................................................
1-3
1.3.5
Supplemental Site Investigation(2005)........... -................................................................................
1-3
1.3.6
Feasibility Study(2005).................................... ...... .-......... ...............................................................
1-3
1.3.7
Proposed Remedial Action Plan(2006)....... -....................................................................................
1-4
1.4
PRIOR REMOVAL OR REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES...........................................................................
1-5
2.0
OPERABLE UNIT BACKGROUND..........................................................................2-1
2.1
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) REQUIREMENTS .... ...........................................................................
2-1
2.1.1
Description of the Selected Remedy..................................................................................................
2-1
2.1.2
Selected Cleanup Goals.....................................................................................................................
2-2
2.2
REMEDIAL DESIGN SUMMARY...........................................................................................................
2-3
2.3
MATERIALS COMPATIBILITY..............................................................................................................2-6
2.4
MASS OF KMN04......................................................................................................................................
2-6
2.5
INJECTION SEQUENCE, INJECTION RATES, AND HYDRAULIC CONTROL ..... .......
...... ___ ..... - 2-7
2.6
CONCENTRATION OF KMN04 INJECTION SOLUTION.....................................................................
2-7
2.7
SOIL OXYGEN DEMAND........................................................................................................................2-7
2.8
SITE GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................................
2-8
2.9
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY..........................................................................................................................2-9
3.0
REMEDIAL ACTION IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................3-1
3.1
SITE PREPARATION AND UTILITY CLEARANCE......................................_.....................................
3-1
3.2
INJECTION POINTS LAYOUT................................................................................................................
3-2
3.3
INJECTION POINT INSTALLATION AND DEVELOPMENT..............................................................
3-2
3.4
PRE -INJECTION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING...................................................................................
3-3
3.5
PERMANGANATE INJECTION SYSTEM MOBILIZATION AND SETUP .........................................
3-4
3.6
SECURITY.................................................................................................................................................
3-5
4.0
PHASE 1 INJECTION OCTOBER, 2006 THROUGH FEBRUARY,
2007 ............ 4-1
4.1
PERMANGANATE INJECTION SYSTEM OPERATION.......................................................................4-1
4.1.1
Permanganate Solution Mixing..........................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2
Pertanganate Solution Injection.......................................................................................................4-1
4.1.3
Operational Monitoring.....................................................................................................................
4-3
4.1.4
Operational Problems and Adjustments ............................................ ........ .........................................
4-4
4.2
POST -INJECTION REVIEW .......................... ......................... ..........................................
........................ 4-5
4.3
SITE 93 PUMP TEST .................................................................................................................................
4-6
5.0
PHASE 2 INJECTION JUNE, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER, 2007
....................5-1
5.1
ADDITIONAL SITE EVALUATION_, ....................... .......... ....... ......................
................. 5-1
5.2
PHASE 2 OPERATIONS............................................................................................................................
5-1
5.3
DECONTAMINATION and DEMOBILIZATION....................................................................................
5-2
5.3.1
Heavy Equipment...............................................................................................................................
5-2
5.3.2
Sampling Equipment..........................................................................................................................
5-3
5.3.3
KMnO4 Injection System...................................................................................................................
5-3
5.4
POST -INJECTION MONITORING... .. . ......................................... __ .....................................................
5-4
5.5
SITE RESTORATION................................................................................................................................
5-4
6.0
PROJECT MONITORING..........................................................................................6-1
6.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING...........................................................................................................6-1
6.1.1
Ground Water Baseline Analysis.......................................................................................................
6-1
6.1.2
Phase 2 Analysis................................................................................................................................
6-2
6.2
SURFACE WATER MONITORING.........................................................................................................
6-4
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report
Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 - Site 93 1
October 2008
6.3
ISCO PERFORMANCE CRITERIA..........................................................................................................
6-5
6.4
HEALTH AND SAFETY...........................................................................................................................
6-5
6.5
COMPARISON TO CLEANUP GOALS., .................................................................................................
6-5
6.6
LAND USE CONTROIS...........................................................................................................................
6-6
6.7
LESSONS LEARNED.............................................................................................................................-6-6
7.0
SCHEDULE AND COSTS............................................................................................7-1
8.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................8-1
LIST OF TABLES
3.1
Chronology of Events
6.1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
6.2A
COC Data — Phase One
6.213
COC Data — Phase Two
6.3
MW-06 Groundwater Analytical Data —TAL
Metals
6.4
MW-08 Groundwater Analytical Data —
TAL Metals
6.5
MW-17 Groundwater Analytical Data —
TAL Metals
6.6
MW-13Groundwater Analytical Data —TAL
Metals
6.7
MW-05 Groundwater Analytical Data —
TAL Metals
6.8
MW-12 Groundwater Analytical Data —
TAL Metals
6.9
MW-14 Groundwater Analytical Data —
TAL Metals
6.10
MW-15 Groundwater Analytical Data —
TAL Metals
6.11 MW-16 Groundwater Analytical Data — TAL Metals
6.12 MW-09 Groundwater Analytical Data — TAL Metals
6.13 Groundwater Analytical Data —Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Site Vicinity Map
1-2 Site Location Map
1-3 Contaminant Plume Limits
2-1 2004 Plume Characterization
2-2 Groundwater Contour Map (2005)
3-1 Permanganate Treatment Area Layout
3-2 Injection Point Construction Diagram
3-3 System Process Flow Diagram
6-1 Treatment Area Ground Water Quality
6-2 MW-06 COC Concentrations over Time
6-3 MW-08 COC Concentrations over Time
6-4 MW-17 COC Concentrations over Time
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report
Operable Unit No. 16—Site 93
it
Project 120348
October 2008
6-5 MW-13 COC Concentrations over Time
7-1 Project Schedule
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Cost and Performance Summary
Appendix B — Analytical Data Reports
Appendix C — Pump Test Data and Evaluation
Appendix D — Site Photographs
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 iii October 2008
List of Acronyms
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
BCT
BRAC Cleanup Team
bgs
Below Ground Surface
BHHRA
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
BRAC
Base Realignment and Closure
CMI
Corrective Measure hnplementation
CMS
Corrective Measures Study
COC
Chemical(s) of Concern
COPC
Chemical of Potential Concern
COPEC
Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern
DCE
Dichloroethene
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FADL
Field Activity Daily Log
gpm
Gallons per Minute
GSWSA
Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority
H&S
Health and Safety
Hp
Horsepower
ICM
Interim Corrective Measure
ISCO
In -Situ Chemical Oxidation
IR
Installation Restoration
IT
IT Corporation
LUC
Land Use Control
MBAFB
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
MCB
Marine Corps Base
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MDC
Maximum Detected Concentration
mg/kg
Milligrams per Kilogram
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
MPE
Multiphase Extraction
msl
Mean Sea Level
NAIP
Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
NSF
National Sanitation Foundation
ORP
Oxidation -Reduction Potential
PCA
1,1,2,2 TetraChloroethane
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No.
16 — Site 93 iv October 2008
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
List of Acronyms (Continued)
POL
Petroleum Oil and Lubricants
PPE
Personal Protective Equipment
ppm
Parts per Million
psi
Pounds per Square Inch
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDW
Remediation Derived Waste
RFI
RCRA Facility Investigation
SLERA
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
SNIP
Site Management Plan
SOW
Scope of Work
SSHP
Site -Specific Safety and Health Plan
SVOC
Semivolatile Organic Compound
SWMU
Solid Waste Management Unit
TAL
Target Analyte List
TCE
Trichloroethylene
TERC
Total Environmental Restoration Contract
µg/kg
Micrograms per Kilogram
µg/L
Micrograms per Liter
UIC
Underground Injection Control
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAF
U.S. Air Force
VC
Vinyl Chloride
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 v October 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Interim Remedial Action Completion Report (IRACR) documents the remedies for
Operable Unit (OU) 16, Site 93 at Marine Corp Base, Camp Lejeune have been implemented and
maintained in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). This IRACR includes the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI), Feasibility Study
(FS), Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP), Record of Decision (ROD), and Remedial Basis
of Design (RBD) and proposes implementation of Long Term Monitoring (LTM) and Land Use
Controls (LUC) at OU 16.
This IRACR has been prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc (Shaw) under Department of the
Navy's Remedial Action Contract administered by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Atlantic Division (LANTDIV) and follows the Department of Defense (DoD) / U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Joint Guidance on Streamlined Site Closeout
(DoD/EPA, January 2006). This IRACR was prepared under Contract Number N62470-02-D-
3260, Task Order 063.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this IRACR is to provide a description of the activities performed to implement
the selected remedy for groundwater remediation at OU No. 16 Site - 93. The Remedial Action
entails in -situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) using potassium permanganate (chemical formula:
KMn04).
1.2 SITE BACKGROUND
Site 93 is located within the Camp Geiger portion of Camp Lejeune (Figure I-1) near Building
TC-942 at the intersection of Ninth and E Streets, as shown in Figure I-2. The buildings in this
portion of Camp Geiger were constructed during the Korean War and currently function as
classrooms, barracks, and supply rooms for the Marine Infantry School.
Site 93 is relatively flat with portions covered by asphalt, gravel, and grass. The eastern portion
of the site is wooded and slopes gently towards Edwards Creek. Ground surface elevations in
the vicinity of Site 93 are approximately 5 to 20 feet above msl.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 1-1 October 2008
During an underground storage tank (UST) removal project in December 1993, dissolved phase
chlorinated solvents were discovered off the southwest corner of Building TC-942. In 1995, a
UST investigation was performed where saturated zone samples revealed groundwater impacted
with chlorinated solvents, primarily tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and cis -
and trans-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) (Wright 1995). Groundwater contamination was found to
be as shallow as 3 feet below ground surface (bgs). A baseline human health risk assessment
(Baker, 1998) identified the chlorinated solvents tetrachloroethylene and cis-1,2-DCE, as well as,
arsenic and manganese as chemicals of concern (COC) in groundwater warranting evaluation of
remedial options. Figure 1-3 illustrates the extent of contamination at this site.
This remedial action was performed at Site 93 to implement groundwater remediation to address
contamination at the site per the results of the Feasibility Study (FS) (CH2MHill, 2005) and the
approved PRAP. The Feasibility Study recommended ISCO using potassium permanganate.
The Basis of Design (Shaw 2006) was submitted to the Camp Lejeune Partnering Team and
approved by the NAVFAC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) in October 2006.
1.3 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS
1.3.1 UST Investigation (1995)
After the removal of the former waste oil UST at Building TC-942, an investigation was
performed to determine the extent of the petroleum related contamination in the soil and
groundwater associated with the UST. The investigation included the installation of monitoring
wells in the vicinity of the former UST excavation and the collection of soil and groundwater
samples. Chlorinated volatile organic compounds (cVOCs) were detected in soil and
groundwater samples above North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards (NCGWQS).
1.3.2 Remedial Investigation (1998)
In 1996 and 1997, the RI was conducted to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination.
Field activities included the installation of permanent and temporary monitoring wells and the
collection of soil and groundwater samples analyzed for chlorinated volatile organic compounds
(cVOCs). Soil analytical results indicated that the soil had not been significantly impacted by
the site -related activities. Groundwater analytical results identified cVOC contamination
(primarily trichloroethene [TCE]) concentrated in the surfrcial aquifer (less than 15 feet below
ground surface [bgs]) within the immediate area of the former UST. A groundwater plume was
identified as generally extending from Building G-920 east to "E" Street, between Ninth and
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 - Site 93 1-2 October 2008
Tenth Streets. Groundwater analytical data also suggested contaminant discharge to Edwards
Creek was occurring.
1.3.3 Natural Attenuation Evaluation (2001)
In 2001, a preliminary Natural Attenuation Evaluation (NAE) was conducted to determine
whether natural site conditions would encourage the natural attenuation process to degrade TCE.
The results indicated limited natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents was occurring. The
reductive dechlorination process appeared to be stalling, indicating that the reduced state of the
aquifer was not enough to encourage optimal dechlorination.
1.3.4 Additional Plume Characterization (2002)
Additional plume characterization / delineation activities were conducted including the
installation of permanent monitoring wells and the collection of groundwater samples. The
analytical results identified several "hot spot' areas. The primary plume appeared related to the
former UST area, with smaller "hot spot' areas downgradient. The results indicated horizontal
migration of the groundwater contamination had been minimal since 1995; however, vertical
migration was observed. During the RI (1998), cVOC concentrations above NCGWQS were
generally limited to a depth of 15 feet bgs; while in 2002, elevated levels of cVOCs were
identified up to a depth of approximately 30 feet bgs, with impacts concentrated at 15 to 19 feet
bgs.
1.3.5 Supplemental Site Investigation (2005)
A supplemental site investigation was performed to detemnine the current conditions of
groundwater contamination in the surficial aquifer and collect additional data to support the
selection of a remediation alternative. Groundwater samples were collected from boring
locations at three depths, and analyzed for VOCs, iron, and manganese, chloride, nitrate, nitrite,
sulfate, methane, ethane, ethene, sulfide, total dissolved solids and total suspended solids. Once
the groundwater screening results were analyzed, additional permanent monitoring wells were
installed to complete the horizontal and vertical delineation of the shallow groundwater
contamination. The results of this investigation formed the basis of the nature and extent of
contamination for the FS.
1.3.6 Feasibility Study (2005)
The FS report (CH2MHill, 2005) summarized the previous investigations and assessments which
were performed at Site 93 and evaluated several alternatives to remediate the site. The overall
conclusion of the investigations was that chlorinated solvents are present in groundwater at
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 —Site 93 1-3 October 2008
concentrations above the 2L standard, with the majority of the impact occurring in the surficial
aquifer (516feet).
The long term monitoring of the site, 1999 until August 2006, indicates the highest
concentrations at Site 93 are found in monitoring well MW-06. Also, that PCE concentrations in
the target area have consistently increased; while the TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE and VC
concentrations have remained relatively stable. The natural attenuation evaluation performed in
2001 revealed a limitation in reductive dechlorination.
As part of the FS, a USEPA predictive modeling program, BIOCHLOR, was run by CH2MHill
to evaluate contamination movement at the site. BIOCHLOR is a screening model that simulates
remediation by natural attenuation of dissolved solvents at chlorinated solvent release sites.
According to the model results, a no action scenario would require 14 years to reach a steady-
state condition, and would result in chlorinated solvents impacting Edwards Creek. The model
was run assuming a 90% reduction in the concentrations of chlorinated volatile organic
compounds. Based on these parameters, a steady-state condition would be reached in 7 years
and concentrations would be below the 2L standard within 450 feet of the source.
The FS report (CH2MHill, 2005) evaluated five alternatives to remediate Site 93. The
alternatives were: 1) No Action; 2) Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Installation and Monitored
Natural Attenuation (MNA); 3) In -Situ Chemical Reduction and MNA; 4) In -Situ Chemical
Oxidation (ISCO) and MNA; and 5) Air sparging and MNA.
1.3.7 Proposed Remedial Action Plan (2006)
The Proposed Action Plan, prepared by CH2M Hill in 2006, identified the Preferred Alternative
as ISCO with MNA. The ISCO would include injection of permanganate in a 200 foot by 100
foot target area to promote chemical oxidation; other areas of the site would be addressed via
long term MNA. The Preferred Alternative would have the potential to achieve the Remedial
Action Objectives (RAO) for the site:
Reduce COC concentration in the source area;
2. Prevent human ingestion of water containing the COCs at concentrations above
2L standards or MCLs, whichever is more conservative.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 1-4 October 2008
Throughout the implementation of the remedy, the Navy would restrict access as necessary to
prevent unacceptable risks to human receptors from exposure to contaminants in the
groundwater.
Land Use Controls (LUCs) for Site 93 would be implemented to prohibit withdraw and /or future
use of water, except for monitoring from the aquifers (surficial and Castle Hayne) within 1,000
feet of the identified groundwater plume. The LUCs would also prohibit intrusive activities
within the extent of current groundwater contamination unless specifically approved by both
NCDENR and USEPA. The LUCs would require filing a Notification of Inactive Hazardous or
Waste Disposal per North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 130A-310.8.
1.4 PRIOR REMOVAL OR REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
The only prior removal activity occurred in December 1993, when the 550—gallon UST was
removed from the site. The removal included the tank and any contaminated soil that was visible
at that time. The removal was performed under the UST program. The site was transferred to
the Installation Restoration (IR) Program in 1998 due to the presence of chlorinated VOCs.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 1-5 October 2008
2.0 OPERABLE UNIT BACKGROUND
This section of the IRACR provides background information on the ROD and RD for Site 93 at
MCB Camp Lejeune.
2.1 RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) REQUIREMENTS
2.1.1 Description of the Selected Remedy
The Proposed Remedial Action Plan's (PRAP) preferred alternative was in -situ chemical
oxidation (ISCO) using potassium permanganate (KMn04) injected over a 200 foot by 100 foot
target area at Site 93. ISCO was to be implemented within the targeted shallow groundwater
zone in the area exhibiting the highest concentration of total chlorinated chemicals of concern
(TCE, DCE isomers, PCE, 1,1,2,2 PCA and VC) within the 100 µg/L contour as shown in
Figure 2-1. Other areas would be addressed through Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA).
Land Use Controls (LUC) for Site 93 would be implemented to prohibit the withdrawal and /or
future use of water except for monitoring from the aquifers (surficial and Castle Hayne) within
1,000 feet of the identified groundwater plume.
The ROD presented the remedy selected by the PRAP, ISCO via permanganate injection of the
200 foot by 100 foot target area and MNA for untreated areas to address groundwater
contamination at Site 93. LUCs for the groundwater would be maintained for as long as required
to prevent unacceptable exposures to contaminated groundwater or to preserve the integrity of
the remedy.
The chemical oxidation treatment would be performed by injecting permanganate into 200 Direct
Push Technology (DPT) borings within the targeted 200 foot by 100 foot treatment area. The
oxidizing agent would be pushed into the groundwater table with potable water to distribute the
chemicals. This technology required an estimated 460 pounds of potassium permanganate per
injection boring for a total of 92,000 dry pounds of potassium permanganate to be injected into
the treatment area. The estimated time frame for completing the injection per the ROD was 30
to 35 days (using 2 injection rigs) or 50 to 55 days (using one rig), depending on conditions
encountered in the field.
The Navy, MCB Camp Lejeune, USEPA and NCDENR agreed that the injection of the
permanganate would be a "one time" approach (assuming residual impacts will be addressed by
MNA). Groundwater monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis for the first year upon
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 2-1 October 2008
completion of the target area treatment and annually thereafter. Ground water monitoring well
samples would be analyzed for VOCs and NAIP. The duration of the monitoring would be
assessed during the 5 year remedy reviews.
Throughout implementation of the remedy, the Navy will utilize LUCs to prevent potential
unacceptable risks to human receptors from exposure to contaminants in the groundwater. LUCs
will be implemented and maintained by the Navy within the boundaries of Site 93 until
concentrations of hazardous substances in the groundwater have been reduced to the levels that
allow unlimited exposure and unrestricted use. The LUCs will meet the following objectives:
• Prohibit withdraw of groundwater except for environmental monitoring from the
aquifers (surficial and Castle Hayne) within 1,000 feet of the groundwater plume.
• Prohibit intrusive activities within the extent of the current groundwater.
contamination unless specifically approved by both NCDENR and USEPA until
RAOs are achieved.
• Maintain the integrity of any current or future remedial or monitoring system such as
monitoring wells.
Specific types of LUCs to be employed for these purposes will include: 1) incorporating land use
prohibitions into the MCB Camp Lejeune Base Master Plan; 2) a deed Notice of Inactive
Hazardous substance or Waste Disposal filed in Onslow County real property records per North
Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 130A-310.8; and 3) deed restrictions included in any deed
transferring any portions of Site 93 to any non federal transferee.
The Navy will develop and submit to the USEPA and NCDENR, in accordance with the FFA
and the schedule in the SMP, a groundwater treatment Remedial Action Work Plan (Remedial
Design document) and a LUC RD. The LUC RD will provide for implementation and
maintenance actions, including periodic inspections and reporting. The Navy will implement,
maintain, monitor, report on and enforce the LUCs according to the RD.
2.1.2 Selected Cleanup Goals
Applicable cleanup goals for groundwater at Site 93 included objectives derived from the
BIOCHLOR model with source reduction and monitored attenuation to reach steady-state
conditions at or below the North Carolina Water Quality Standard (2L Standard). The 2L
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 —Site 93 2-2 October 2008
Standard has existing values for the chlorinated chemicals of concern in groundwater. Cleanup
goals for groundwater COCs are as follows:
• PCE
0.7 µg/L
• cis-1,2-DCE
70 µg/L
• trans-1,2-DCE
70 µg/L
• TCE
2.8 µg/L
• VC
0.15 µg/L.
• 1,1,2,2 TetraChloroethane (PCA)
0.17 µg/L
2.2 REMEDIAL DESIGN SUMMARY
The Remedial Action Basis of Design (RD) prepared by Shaw in October 2006 provided a work
plan, basis of design, field procedures, sampling and analysis plan, Health and Safety Plan and
schedule for implementation of the ISCO remedy. The ROD defined the treatment area and the
proposed method of injection for the chemical oxidant.
ISCO entails injecting an aqueous solution of an oxidant into the subsurface soil/aquifer matrix,
resulting in the chemical oxidation of the constituents of interest. The oxidant is typically
injected through screened well intervals or discrete injection tips and can be applied to both
unsaturated and saturated soils. ISCO has been successfully applied to many different
lithological environments, including sand, silts, and porous limestone.
KMn04 (Potassium Permanganate) was selected as the oxidant of choice for this corrective
measure. KM1104 offers the following advantages over other oxidants:
• KMn04 quickly and completely oxidizes chlorinated ethenes to innocuous end products
over a wide pH range. Reaction half-lives are between 1 minute (trans-1,2-DCE) and 4
hours (PCE) (Yan and Sewartz, 2000).
• A visible (purple) solution makes it easy to track the injection influence or the degree of
treatment.
• KMn04 is chemically stable in groundwater; stays in solution until it is reacted.
• No off -gas treatment is required.
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 2-3 October 2008
Permanganate is relatively easy to handle, being essentially nontoxic and non -hazardous
at the 2 to 3 percent concentration in solution typically used under field conditions.
Minimal energy and equipment are required.
Proven effective for the in -situ treatment of chlorinated ethenes at other Shaw -managed
sites.
The balanced chemical equations for permanganate oxidation of chlorinated ethenes are as
follows:
PCE: 4KMnO4 + 3C2C14 + 4H2O ---> 6CO2 + 4MnO2 + 4K+ + 12C1- + 8H'
TCE: 6KMnO4 + 3C2HC13 � 6CO2 + 6MnO2 + 6W + 9C1- + 3 H'
DCE: 8KMn04 + 3C2H2C12 6CO2 + 8MnO2 + 8W + 6Cl- + 20H- + 2112O
VC: I OKMnO4 + 3 C2H3C1 6CO2 + 1 OMnO2 + 1 OK F + 3CI- + 70H- + H2O
As can be seen from these equations, the lower the degree of chlorination, the more
permanganate is required to oxidize the chlorinated ethene. Nevertheless, the lower the degree
of chlorination, the faster the reaction rate between permanganate and the chlorinated ethenes
(Yan and Sewartz, 2000). In addition to addressing the contaminants, permanganate will also
oxidize organic matter and reduced metal species in the soil/water matrix. The permanganate
demand required to oxidize the soil matrix (i.e. organic matter and reduced metal species) is
called the soil oxidant demand (SOD).
KMn04 is a dark purple, odorless, nonvolatile, granular solid with a metallic luster. It has a
specific gravity of 1.039 and a bulk density of 100 pounds per cubic foot. KMn04 has been
certified by the National Sanitation Foundation to American National Standards
Institute/National Science Foundation Standard 60 for drinking water treatment. The standard
electrode potential for KMn04 is 1.68 volts, which makes it slightly weaker as an oxidant than
hydrogen peroxide (with a standard electrode potential of 1.78 volts). KMn04 is fairly soluble
and can easily be mixed in solution up to a concentration of 3 percent under field conditions.
The effectiveness of treatment is a function of three elements: the contact between the oxidant
and the contaminant(s), the kinetics of the reaction between the permanganate and the
contaminant, and competitive reactions of permanganate with the SOD. If the contaminants
targeted for ISCO are reactive (e.g., chlorinated ethenes) and sufficient oxidant has been added
to overcome the SOD, the limiting factor to the successful application of ISCO is the transport of
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 2-4 October 2008
the oxidant to the areas of contamination, and not the rate of reaction between the permanganate
and the contaminants. Compared to the time to transport the permanganate to the treatment
zone, the oxidation of chlorinated ethenes by permanganate is essentially an instantaneous
reaction. By contrast, travel times for the permanganate to migrate away from the injection point
may be several hours or days, depending on the spacing of the injection points, the rate of
injection flow, and site lithology.
Residual permanganate will physically stain the soil and groundwater until such time that
groundwater flow carries sufficient chemically reduced species into the treatment area to
consume the permanganate. Short-term water quality changes in color or total dissolved solids
are to be expected following the application of permanganate.
KMn04 reacts rapidly with the double bonds in chlorinated ethenes such as PCE, TCE, DCE
isomers, and VC. Several field -scale and full-scale applications have demonstrated that injection
of permanganate solutions into soils containing chlorinated ethenes results in substantial in situ
destruction of these compounds. KMn04 reacts with the chlorinated ethenes, resulting in the
innocuous breakdown products carbon dioxide, chloride ions, and manganese dioxide.
The ROD had proposed using Direct Push Technology (DPT) to inject the permanganate and
water into the subsurface. Shaw proposed using injection points and a gravity feed injection
system in the RD because of the anticipated cost of the operation and the unknown hydraulic
condition of the treatment area. Due to the shallow water table and the shallow area requiring
treatment, Shaw did not believe the Geoprobe would be able to inject the reagent into the sub-
surface without the reagent forcing its way to the surface and thereby limit the exposure to /
mixing with the contaminated ground water.
The treatment area was defined as the area where the shallow groundwater zone possessed a
VOC concentration total exceeding 100 µg/L. The areal extent of the permanganate treatment
area was estimated at approximately 20,000 square feet (ft2). A design radius of influence (ROI)
of 5-ft was selected based on results obtained from the permanganate injection in the shallow
zone at a similar sites (Site 35 and Site 86). Using a 5-$ ROI, the spacing between injection
points was determined to be 10-ft. The 10-ft spacing between injection points was applied to the
entire treatment zone. A minimum spacing of 5 feet was maintained between injection points
and existing monitoring wells and utilities to prevent short-circuiting of the injected solution to
the surface around the outside of the well annulus or via the well casing or the utility annulus. It
was necessary to move several injection points to maintain clearances for building access,
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 2-5 October 2008
utilities, or monitoring wells. The injection points were moved to the south and east to form
additional columns and rows.
Based on the treatment area of approximately 20,000 ft2, and a radius of influence for each
injection point of 5 feet, a grid layout with 200 injection points was used to cover the area.
2.3 MATERIALS COMPATIBILITY
KMn04 has specific material compatibility limits. A data sheet that itemizes the materials
compatibility was provided in the RD. KMn04 will react adversely with galvanized metal under
neutral conditions and almost any ferrous metal (e.g., carbon steel, iron) under acidic conditions.
Stainless -steel is the one exception, and is suitable at any pH with 304 and 316 stainless -steel
being preferential. As with ferrous metals, brass, bronze and aluminum are acceptable at neutral
conditions but will corrode under acidic conditions. Most thermoplastics are acceptable with
permanganate with the exception of polystyrene. PVC is considered a good material choice up
to 140°F. Acceptable hose, tubing, and gasket materials up to this temperature are CPVC,
Hypalon, Tygon, PVDF, Teflon, and Viton. Rubber and neoprene are unacceptable materials.
The injection components were constructed primarily of cross -linked HDPE tanks, PVC piping
and hosing, stainless -steel appurtenances, and PVDF or Teflon gaskets. No rubber hoses, carbon
or galvanized steel piping, or unsuitable gasket or seal materials were used.
2.4 MASS OF KMN04
The total mass of KMn04 required to meet the SOD was calculated by applying the design 5 g
KMn04/kg of soil to the mass of aquifer materials within the treatment area. The total amount
required was calculated at 92,000 lbs. The initial design for this site was predicated on injecting
the reagent equally into each of the points. The KMn04 demand for each injection point with the
same screened interval length is identical; injection points with an 8-ft screen assuming a 1 to 2
gpm injection rates was expected to deliver approximately 1,985 gallons of reagent per point.
The KMn04 mass was injected into the subsurface as a dilute (2-3%) solution which was
prepared on -site using hydrant water and solid phase pharmaceutical grade (USP) KMn04
purchased from Carus, Inc. Based on the total KMn04 demand, 92,000 lbs of USP grade
KMn04 would be delivered in reusable 250 gallon plastic totes. A dry chemical mixing system
was rented from Carus and used to convert the dry KMn04 into solution. The solution was
prepared in batches using a 1,600 gallon mixing tank prior to injection. Additional injection
details are provided in Sections 5.0 and 6.0.
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 2-6 October 2008
The volume of KMn04 solution required for each injection point was calculated assuming the
injection of one pore volume into the zone of influence of each injection point (5-ft ROI, varying
vertical thickness, and a porosity of 0.30). The total volume of KMn04 solution to be injected
via 200 injection points is approximately 397,000 gallons.
2.5 INJECTION SEQUENCE, INJECTION RATES, AND HYDRAULIC CONTROL
The ROD had proposed using a DPT to inject the permanganate and water into the subsurface.
Shaw proposed using injection points and a gravity feed injection system in the RD because of
the anticipated cost of the operation. Due to the shallow water table and the shallow area
requiring treatment, Shaw did not believe that DPT would be able to inject the reagent into the
sub- surface without the reagent forcing its way to the surface and thereby missing the
opportunity to mix with the contaminated ground water.
The injection system consists of two, four point manifold systems that delivered the reagent via
pumps to 8 selected points at one time. To complete the injection, 25 phases of 8 points per
phase for a total of the 200 points were proposed. The injection would commence on the western
edge of the treatment zone and move east across the site with the direction of groundwater flow.
The anticipated injection rate at this site was estimated from historical groundwater recovery
rates at approximately 0.1 gallon per minute (gpm) per foot of injection point screen. Hence, the
anticipated injection rate into the points with an 8-ft screen was 1 to 2 gpm. Assuming an
average injection time of 8 hours per day, the estimated time to complete each injection phase
was to range from two to four field days.
2.6 CONCENTRATION OF KMN04 INJECTION SOLUTION
The target in -situ concentration of the KMn04 solution calculated from the total mass demand
and the pore volume was 2.6 percent. The approach to achieve the target in -situ concentration
was to inject one pore volume of permanganate solution at a concentration of 2.6 percent. The
2.6 percent permanganate solution was recommended by Shaw technical experts and
permanganate suppliers to avoid screen clogging problems that a 5 — 6% solution injection had
been known to cause.
2.7 SOIL OXYGEN DEMAND
The Soil Oxygen Demand (SOD) test provides an indication of the amount of permanganate ion
that will be consumed by the organics, iron, and other native reductants in the aquifer media.
These constituents have been shown to be the overriding factor in total permanganate
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 2-7 October 2008
consumption on many sites. SOD tests were conducted at Site 35 and Site 86 by CH2MHill.
The results of the SOD test reflect both soil matrix and contaminant demand. This combined
demand test provided a realistic check of the overall permanganate consumption to be expected
on a unit basis at full scale. The SOD was estimated by Shaw at 5 g KMn04/kg of soil for the
Site 93 treatment area.
2.8 SITE GEOLOGY
Site 93 is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. The
sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain consist of interbedded sands, clays, calcareous clays,
shell beds, sandstone, and limestone. The MCB is underlain by seven sand and limestone units
separated by units which are comprised primarily of silt and clay. These include the surficial,
Castle Hayne, Beaufort, Peedee, Black Creek and the upper and lower Cape Fear lithologic units.
The combined thickness of these units is approximately 1,500 feet.
The Undifferentiated Formation is comprised of loose to medium dense sands and soft to
medium stiff clay. This formation is comprised of several units of Holocene and Pleistocene
ages and can consist of a fine to coarse sand, with lesser amounts of silt and clay. At Site 93, this
formation typically extends to a depth between 20 and 30 feet.
Overall, the Undifferentiated Formation (surficial aquifer) appears to lie immediately above the
River Bend Formation (upper portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer) with little to no presence of
the Belgrade Formation (Castle Hayne confining unit). The inconsistent nature of the Belgrade
Formation suggests that a significant hydraulic connection exists between the Undifferentiated
Formation (surficial aquifer) and the upper portions of the River Bend Formation (Castle Hayne
aquifer). At best, the Belgrade Formation at Site 93 can be classified as a semi -confining unit or
a "retarding layer" as it is laterally discontinuous and does not exhibit completely confining
conditions to the River Bend Formation below (Castle Hayne aquifer).
Beneath the Undifferentiated Formation and the limited Belgrade Fonnation lies the River Bend
Formation (upper portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer). This unit, which is predominately
composed of dense to very dense shell and fossil fragments interbedded with calcareous sands, is
present at approximately 25 to 50 feet bgs.
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 2-8 October 2008
2.9 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
The surficial aquifer resides within the Undifferentiated Formation. The Castle Hayne confining
unit resides within the Belgrade Formation. The Castle Hayne aquifer resides within the River
Bend Formation. The thickness of the surficial aquifer varies from 18 to 23 feet and the
thickness for the Castle Hayne Confining Unit varies from 4 to 7 feet, although a definite
confining layer, which separates the surficial aquifer from the Castle Hayne aquifer, is not
present at Site 93.
During the RI, groundwater levels within RI monitoring wells ranged from 2.15 feet below msl
to 13.52 feet above msl. During groundwater sampling activities conducted in January 2005 as
part of the Supplemental Site Investigation, groundwater levels ranged from 7.93 to 12.97 feet
above msl. The summer 2006 groundwater elevation data and approximate flow directions have
been illustrated on Figure 2-2.
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 portions of Site 93, with decreasing elevations in the directions of Edwards Creek
and the wooded area to the east. Groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer flows to the east
toward Edwards Creek, which serves as a groundwater discharge boundary. Edwards Creek
effects flow within the surficial aquifer more than in the deeper portions of the aquifer.
Groundwater flow in the upper portions of the Castle Hayne is affected somewhat by the local
discharge area of Edwards Creek. The New River, located east of Site 93, apparently influences
the groundwater flow of the deeper portions of the Castle Hayne aquifer, causing groundwater at
depth to move east, toward the river.
The hydraulic conductivity (K value) at Site 93 is estimated to be similar to the K value at Site
89. During the RI, the average hydraulic conductivity in shallow wells at Site 89 was 8.4
feet/day; and the average hydraulic conductivity in the intermediate well at Site 89 was
64.6 feet/day, nearly one order of magnitude greater than the shallow wells. The hydraulic
gradient at Site 93 was estimated at approximately 0.004 ft/ft.
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 2-9 October 2008
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONIMPLEMENTATION
This chapter describes the activities performed to implement the ISCO component of the selected
remedy at Site 93. The scope of work (SOW) for the Remedial Action at Site 93 included the
following activities:
• Mobilization of Equipment and Personnel
• Site Preparation
• Utility Clearance
• Injection Well Installation
• Permanganate Injection System Setup
• Permanganate Injection and Operational Monitoring— Phase 1
• Monitoring well pump test
• In Situ Performance Monitoring and Post Injection Monitoring
• Permanganate Injection / Site Dewatering and Operational Monitoring— Phase 2
• Completion Report and Remedial Action Progress Reports.
The chronology of events for the remedial action implementation is presented in Table 3.1
Photographs of the Remedial Action Implementation are presented in Appendix D.
3.1 SITE PREPARATION AND UTILITY CLEARANCE
Site 93 was readily accessible, and the surface was suitable for setup of a DPT drill rig for
installation of the injection points. No site clearing and only minimal grading was required to
provide a stable, flat surface for setup of the permanganate injection system and the secondary
containment. Site preparation for the mixing/injection system required a backhoe and gravel to
establish a suitable surface base for the equipment. A 6 mil plastic liner was installed over the
equipment area and confining berms were established using hay bales with the plastic laid over
top of the bales. This provided a secure, contained area for the mixing operation and eliminate
the potential for leakage of permanganate from the mixing area.
The nearby fire hydrant was used as a water source for makeup water to mix the penmanganate
solution for the Phase 1 operation. The location of underground utilities were identified and
marked prior to injection point installation. The existing monitoring well locations were
identified. Five of the existing monitoring wells were identified for the remedial action network.
And five additional monitoring point locations were identified and the monitoring wells
installed.
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 3-1 October 2008
3.2 INJECTION POINTS LAYOUT
The treatment area was defined as the area where the shallow groundwater zone possessed the
highest VOC concentration within the contour exceeding 100 µg/L. The areal extent of the
permanganate treatment area was estimated at approximately 20,000 square feet (ft2), and is
depicted in Figure 3-1. A design radius of influence (ROI) of 5-ft was selected based on results
obtained from the permanganate injection in the shallow zone at a similar sites (Site 35 and Site
86). Using a 5-ft ROI, the spacing between injection points was determined to be 10-ft. The 10-
ft spacing between injection points was applied to the entire treatment zone. A minimum
spacing of 5 feet was maintained between injection points and existing monitoring wells and
utilities in order to prevent short-circuiting of the injected solution to the surface around the
outside of the well annulus or via the well casing or the utility annulus. It was necessary to move
several wells to maintain clearances for building access, utilities, or monitoring wells. The
injection points were moved to the south and east to form additional columns and rows.
Based on the treatment area of approximately 20,000 ft2, and a radius of influence for each
injection point of 5 feet, a grid layout with 200 injection points was used to cover the area. The
layout of the 200 injection points is depicted on Figure 3-1. The injection points were numbered
in sequential order from west to east and north to south and were identified as A.06 through
K.21.
An updated hydrogeological cross section which includes the information obtained from
MW031W, ISO4A, IS13A and MW05IW drill logs was used to identify the depth intervals of the
shallow groundwater zone requiring ISCO treatment. Although the surface topography and the
depth of the shallow groundwater zone vary within the treatment area, the proposed length and
location of the injection point screens were set as standard. The injection points were screened
from 6 to 16 feet bgs, relative to surface topography, with a 2-foot thick grout cap installed from
the surface down.
3.3 INJECTION POINT INSTALLATION AND DEVELOPMENT
All 200 injection points were installed in the shallow groundwater zone using a 3.25-inch DPT
rod. The work began in early October 2006 and finished in mid October, 2006. The location for
each injection point and the ground water monitoring wells are summarized in Figure 3-1. The
points were installed to a depth 16 feet bgs across the permanganate treatment zone. Since the
subsurface lithology had been adequately described during previous borings, detailed boring logs
were not completed during injection point installation. Each injection point was constructed of
1.25-inch inside diameter (ID) continuous wrapped 0.020 inch slot screen with a 1.25-inch ID
riser comprised of Schedule 40 PVC. A filter pack consisting of 20/40 filter sand was placed
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 3-2 October 2008
around the screen from the bottom of the borehole to at least 2 feet above the screen. The filter
pack was completed with a I-ft lift of fine sand (30150 grade) intended to prevent infiltration of
the bentonite seal into the underlying 20/40 sand. Pure Gold Tm bentonite and cement grout were
used to seal the annular space above the filter pack. The seal extended from the top of the filter
pack to the ground surface. All injection points were completed with at least a 6-inch stick-up
above ground surface to enable fitting the risers with the injection system via a cam lock fitting.
No surface protective casing was installed, however, a fence was installed around the treatment
area prior to injection point installation. An injection point construction diagram is presented in
Figure 3-2. Only limited development of the injection points was performed to establish
hydraulic connection with the natural formation. The duration of development was less than one
hour per injection point.
Following installation, Shaw used a GPS unit to determine the horizontal locations of the new
monitoring wells and the corners of the treatment area. All horizontal coordinates were recorded
to an accuracy of 0.10 feet within the state plane coordinate system using two horizontal
coordinate systems [North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) and NAD 83]. Vertical
elevations of the injection points will not be surveyed, because these points will not be used as
typical monitoring points.
Remediation Derived Waste (RDW) was managed and disposed as outlined in the Basewide
QAPP. The RDW generated from the injection points installation effort consisted of removed
soil, injection point development fluid, purge water from sampling activities, decontamination
fluids, spent injection points materials, and PPE. Additionally, debris, and PVC pipe cuttings
were properly disposed at the MCB landfill.
3.4 PRE -INJECTION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
Numerous LTM sampling events have been conducted at the site since completion of the RFI,
with the most recent event completed in January 2005. The LTM events have provided
groundwater data that indicate an increase in PCE and a stable reading for TCE, cis-1,2-DCE,
trans-1,2-DCE, and VC concentrations. Shaw performed a baseline groundwater monitoring
event to determine pre -injection conditions in mid October, 2006. This sampling event included
5 existing wells and 5 new wells installed during October 2006 while the injection points were
being installed. The existing wells (06, 08, 09, 12, and 05) and the newly installed wells that
were sampled are shown on Figure 3-2. The pre -injection sampling results are presented in
Table 6.1
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16- Site 93 3-3 October 2008
3.5 PERMANGANATE INJECTION SYSTEM MOBILIZATION AND SETUP
The permanganate injection was implemented using a modular, automated hatching plant. The
modular system consisted of a weighing/mixing unit and manifold system capable of injecting
into 8 points simultaneously.
The KMn04 solution was prepared on site at the design injection concentration of 2.6% by
mixing a dry, free -flowing USP grade KMn04 solid with water. This solution was continuously
re -circulated to keep the permanganate ion (Mn04) in solution. The injection system equipment
was mobilized to the site, including the components of the injection trailer, and consisted of the
following components:
• Dry chemical injector system (supplied by Carus, Inc.) with a booster pump
• 1,600-Gallon high -density polyethylene solution mixing tank
• 1,600-Gallon high -density polyethylene solution holding/recycling tank
• Booster Pump, 3 horsepower, single phase
• Slurry make-up system with volumetric feeder bin
• Injection pre -manifold with totalizing flow meter, and pressure gauge
• Injection manifold for an 8-point system.
• 1,000 feet of clear PVC braided hose
• 8 injection point connectors
Figure 3-3 illustrates these components in a process flow diagram. Secondary containment was
established around the components of the injection system. An industrial forklift was mobilized
to the site primarily to set the equipment and move the 1500 lb KMn04 bins.
The USP grade KMn04 was delivered in 250-gallon plastic bins of free -flowing material from
the Carus, Inc. manufacturing plant in Peru, Illinois. A total of 61 bins, each weighing 1500 lbs
(92,000 lbs), were to be delivered. Shaw requested partial shipments to minimize storage
requirements. The dry KMn04 bin was set on the mixing area and connected to the chemical
feed system. The KMn04 mix/feed injector system was pre -wired and pre -plumbed on a skid.
The bin was set in place and connected and when the system was initiated, the correct weight of
dry reagent was mixed with the proper amount of water for a 2.6% solution. Once the KMn04
solution had been thoroughly mixed at the target concentration, the solution was conveyed from
the 1,600 gallon holding/recycling tank to the injection feed pump. Rigorous material handling
protocols were in place, along with secondary containment for the entire system.
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 3-4 October 2008
3.6 SECURITY
Following installation of the injection points, a high -visibility, 4 foot high plastic fence was
installed around the treatment area for security concerns and to keep the occasional trespassers
out. Figure 3-1 presents the footprint of the fence, and indicates the locations of the injection
points and the mixing / injection system, which were within the fence boundary.
Interim remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 3-5 October 2008
4.0 PHASE 1 INJECTION OCTOBER, 2006 THROUGH FEBRUARY, 2007
This section describes the activities performed to implement the ISCO component of the selected
remedy at Site 93 for the Phase 1 period of October 30, 2006 through February 12, 2007. All
field activities were conducted in accordance with the Site -Specific Safety and Health Plan
(SSHP) and the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) provided in the Basis of Design (Shaw
2006). During this period, Shaw injected approximately 92,000 gallons of reagent into the
subsurface. Photographs of the Remedial Action Implementation are presented in Appendix D.
4.1 PERMANGANATE INJECTION SYSTEM OPERATION
4.1.1 Permanganate Solution Mixing
The permanganate solution was prepared on a batch basis of about 1600 gallons which allowed
continuous injection from the feed tank over the course of the field day. The concentration of the
injected solution was not altered from one day to the next. Once the solution was thoroughly
mixed at the design concentration, 2.6%, the solution was be transferred to the oxidant feed tank
using the injector pump. Once in the feed tank, the reagent was re -circulated by the pump to
maintain the concentration. A second batch could be made when necessary without impacting
the first batch.
4.1.2 Permanganate Solution Injection
The recirculation/injection pump was used to pump the permanganate solution from the feed
tank to the 8-point manifold, and then to 8 injection points. Each injection lateral off of the
manifold had a direct readout totalizing flow meter, pressure gauge, check valve, and a ball
valve. The flow was transmitted from each lateral to a hose assembly that connected to the
injection point. Each assembly had a pressure gauge and a pressure release ball valve. The
manifold lines were connected to the injection point via clear PVC braided hose and cam lock
fittings.
The injection pumping system delivered the permanganate solution to two sets of four injection
point manifolds. Shaw initially estimated that at an average injection time of 8 hours per day,
the time to complete each injection phase was estimated to range from three to four field days
per well at the anticipated injection rate of 2 gpm.
Shaw controlled the pump output to insure the injection pressures were maintained below 5 lbs
per square inch (psi) or essentially gravity feed at the injection point to prevent soil fracturing or
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 4-1 October 2008
the formation of preferential flow paths to the surface. Any permanganate discharges from the
injection points were allowed to infiltrate back into the subsurface should they occur within the
treatment area. Permanganate discharges that were leaving the treatment area were neutralized
with a vinegar and peroxide solution.
A mixture of dilute hydrogen peroxide, vinegar, and water was used to neutralize any KMn04
spilled outside of the treatment area, the injection system, or on PPE. The neutralizing solution
was prepared by mixing one part water, one part hydrogen peroxide (3 percent concentration),
and one part vinegar. The hydrogen peroxide and vinegar solutions are produced for home -use
and are readily available at local drug and convenience stores. Neutralizing the KMn04 with the
hydrogen peroxide/vinegar solution transforms the purple solution containing the permanganate
ion into a brown precipitate of manganese dioxide. Further addition of hydrogen peroxide and
vinegar will transform the manganese dioxide to the Mn2+ ion, which forms a colorless solution
in water.
The flow and pressure to each injection point was modified during the injection within the
limitations imposed by the lithology. The real-time performance monitoring during injection
was used to provide feedback for any operational changes, such as changing the concentrations
of the injection solution the operating pressure, and the delivery rate. The initial intent of the plan
was that KMn04 injection would continue until the design KMn04 mass loading and hydraulic
loading of the area was achieved. Shaw soon learned that the actual volume injected each day
would not match the mathematical models and the daily volume varied depending on the
antecedent site moisture conditions, observed injection flow rates / injection point acceptance
rate, the injection duration and the lithology of the site.
Shaw intended to treat the area by dividing it into quadrants defined by 5 columns of injection
points. The treatment area was approximately 20 points wide by 10 points deep. The treatment
area was divided by wide with about 5 columns of wells per quadrant. Shaw initially installed 8
hoses that extended from the recirculation tank to the injection points.
Once the system was set up and as part of the start-up testing, Shaw began by injecting water
into the injection points to ensure proper operation of the entire system. All went well with the
"wet start-up" and Shaw proceeded to operate the system with permanganate. Shaw began
injecting at the 1-2 gpm rate and flooded the injection points and incurred substantial "day
lighting" / break out of the reagent at the surface. Shaw reduced the pump rate to the point that
essentially the reagent was being gravity fed into the injection points which resulted in flow rates
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 4-2 October 2008
of 0.3 to 0.5 gpm. The subsurface materials could not accept the 1-2 gpm flow which caused the
excess flow to drain over the treatment area. Shaw performed daily inspections of the treatment
area monitoring reagent break-out, inspecting the monitoring points for any purple color that
would indicate the reagent had traversed to that point, inspecting the injection point for break out
and to move the hose to another injection point, and performing selected field monitoring tests.
Shaw would move the 8 hoses around to different injection points within the treatment quadrant
as necessary to maintain the injection rate. Some points would be able to accept the 0.3 gpm rate
for the day, other for only a few hours and then break out would occur. At that point, Shaw
would move the hose to a new injection point within the quadrant. Shaw initially injected in
each well within the quadrant, but leaving several open points between injection points to allow
the reagent to mound and flow out of the injection area.
4.1.3 Operational Monitoring
The following system parameters were intended to be monitored during the injection: flow rates,
total KMn04 mass injected, total KMn04 solution volume injected, manifold pressures, wellhead
pressures, and KMn04 concentration of the injected solution. Changes in flow rates and pressure
were to be recorded during the injection to document the effect of fluid injection on the site -
specific lithology. Observations were also to be recorded regarding any solids fouling in the
point screens or process piping.
During the injection, select monitoring and recovery wells were to be monitored for parameters
indicating the distribution of the permanganate solution. In particular, the following were used
as indicator parameters: oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), conductivity, presence of
purple/pink water as an indication of KMn04, and visual presence of brown suspended particles
as an indication of manganese dioxide. In addition, the depth to water in the selected wells was
monitored to provide an indication of the extent and duration of groundwater mounding. During
each injection phase, a set of monitoring and/or injection points were to be monitored for the
aforementioned parameters. Much of this monitoring was revised once the flow rates and flow
pressures (gravity feed) were determined to be so low for the area.
Site personnel completed field activity daily logs (FADL) to document site activities.
Information recorded in the FADLs included narratives of the activities that occurred during that
day consisting of the personnel on site, daily progress of the injection, samples that were
collected and shipped, daily equipment maintenance, a record of decisions made, and current
action items. Copies of the FADLs are included in the project records.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 - Site 93 4-3 October 2008
4.1.4 Operational Problems and Adjustments
The implementation of the ISCO using KMn04 posed operational problems of different scales.
In keeping with a flexible design strategy, several contingencies were pre -planned to maintain
the operational performance. But several adjustments to the operational sequence were required
due to site conditions that caused a much slower injection rate. The following adjustments were
made once the operation started:
1. The estimated injection rate of 1-2 gpm per well was not possible due to the
subsurface conditions. This flow rate flooded the injection point and caused break-
out of the reagent from the sub surface. Shaw was only able to attain an inflow of 0.3
to 0.5 gpm for Phase 1.
2. Shaw was anticipating minimal break out of the reagent from the sub surface, but it
became a daily occurrence during the Phase 1 work. The sub -surface would not
accept the original flow rate and Shaw was constantly adjusting the rate down and
moving the hoses to other injection points.
3. Shaw estimated 90 days to inject 398,000 gallons of reagent. During the first 90
days, Shaw injected 92,000 gallons of reagent due to site sub surface conditions. The
injection rate was limited primarily by a high existing water table and low soil
permeability.
4. All reagent was injected under gravity feed at a rate of 0.3 gpm; a pressurized
injection was not possible as it would have caused a "blow out of the sub surface soil
materials".
5. Shaw increased the injection system from 8 points to 16 points by providing "Ts" at
the end of the manifolds. This was possible due to the gravity feed and not a
pressurized feed which may have put more demand on the pump.
6. The injection of KMn04 into the subsurface caused localized groundwater mounding
in the treatment zone that typically developed rapidly. The mounding / surface break
outs occurred quickly and it was not possible to avoid KMn04 spills at the surface by
monitoring water levels in surrounding wells and capping overflowing monitoring
wells.
Since the actual injection rates were less than I gpm per 1-ft of injection point screen,
additional field time would be required to deliver the design volume of KMn04
solution. Gravity feed injection during nighttime hours was considered to
compensate for time lost during daylight hours resulting from the lower than
anticipated flow rates. But due to the potential for the reagent to migrate off site even
under lighted conditions, this was not considered feasible.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 4-4 October 2008
8. Due to the low injection rate, monitoring of the injection pressure and well head
pressures were not performed since this injection pressure was no more than gravity
feed. The permanganate concentration was kept constant at 2.6% since potential
clogging was a concern with the low injection rates and ground water flow rates.
9. Shaw initially believed that each well should receive the 2,300 gallons of reagent
originally designed for each well. As time went on and the injection points appeared
to have problems accepting the designed flow, Shaw believed that each quadrant
should receive '/ of the total 398,000 gallons of reagent. This was later revised to the
treatment area should receive the 398,000 gallons at whatever injection points would
accept the flow due to the heterogeneity of the sub surface soils and the low
permeability.
10. Although it was not anticipated that permanganate solution would be released to the
drainage ditch east of the treatment area, during a site inspection of the area, Shaw
personnel discovered a release from the sub -surface near the drainage channel that
had flowed into the Edward's Creek. The injection system was shut down
immediately and Shaw personnel responded to the material in the drainage channel.
Shaw poured neutralizing solution into the drainage channel to remove the purple
color and precipitate the permanganate. The neutralizing solution resulted in killing
about 30 minnows downstream from the entry point. Shaw prepared an incident
report and performed additional water quality analysis of the drainage channel water
to confirm the neutralizing solution had dissipated and the area could now
accommodate native fish. Preventative measures were implemented to avoid surface
water contamination with permanganate solution in the event of an unforeseen
release. Porous bags containing peat material were placed in the drainage channel to
intercept surface water flow. Peat moss has a SOD two orders of magnitude higher
than the SOD of the aquifer materials, and is effective in rapidly consuming
permanganate. Any subsequent releases of permanganate to surface water were
intercepted by the peat moss.
4.2 POST -INJECTION REVIEW
As the injection period continued into the winter months / rainy season at Camp Lejeune, the
natural water table came up to within a foot of the surface and made it exceedingly difficult to
continue to inject reagent effectively into the subsurface, as there was no -where for the reagent to
go but to the surface. During the injection period from November 2006 to January 2007, Shaw
injected about 900 to 1000 gallons per day of reagent. In January 2007, Shaw requested that the
ISCO remediation be temporarily shut down until drier weather prevailed, preferably May or
June. Shaw also requested that a pump test be performed to evaluate the hydro -geologic flow
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 4-5 October 2008
characteristics of the area and to evaluate alternative delivery systems for the reagent. Shaw also
requested that the ground water be sampled and analyzed to determine if the ISCO remediation
was performing as planned.
4.3 SITE 93 PUMP TEST
Shaw performed a pump test along the northern edge of the treatment area in April 2007. Shaw
had worked for approximately 120 days during the Phase 1 work and had injected only 92,000
gallons of reagent. During the break between Phase 1 and Phase 2, Shaw requested that a pump
test be performed to better define the hydro -geologic subsurface conditions at the site.
Monitoring well MW-17 was used as the extraction well and other monitoring wells as well as
the injection points were used to measure the drawdown. The pump test was used to clarify flow
conditions and develop alternative injection procedures. The data sheets from the pump test are
provided in Appendix C. The results of the pump test indicated a horizontal conductivity of 7
feet per day and a vertical conductivity of 0.1 feet per day. This data was used to develop
alternative injection methods during the down time between Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 4-6 October 2008
5.0 PHASE 2 INJECTION JUNE, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER, 2007
5.1 ADDITIONAL SITE EVALUATION
Remedial action progress reports to document and track the progress of ISCO were presented at
Partnering Team meetings. The progress reports discussed the operational concerns and the
problems of the slow injection of reagent. The Baseline sampling and the February sampling
event findings as they pertain to the performance and effectiveness of the selected remedy were
reviewed during these meetings. In March 2007, Shaw performed a pump test using MW 17 as
the extraction well and the adjacent monitoring wells and the injection points were used to
determine the drawdown effects. The pump test was performed to determine the hydro -geologic
characteristics for the treatment area and to develop flow parameters to evaluate alternative
delivery methods. The results of the pump test are presented in Appendix C. The pump test
yielded a horizontal conductivity of 7 feet per day while the vertical conductivity was 0.1 feet
per day.
Based on the hydro -geologic characteristics, Shaw modeled and evaluated three alternatives for
delivery of reagent. The three alternatives were the original gravity feed injection at each
injection point; an alternative using dewatering equipment to dewater the treatment area, mix the
water with reagent and then inject the reagent into the sub surface; and an alternative using
dewatering points to lower the water table and open trenches to deliver larger quantities of
reagent. The evaluation (Appendix Q was presented to the Partnering Team and submitted to
NCDENR for review. The evaluation selected dewatering and injection through the existing
well points as the better operational method going forward. The model indicated the injection
rate could be as high as 1 gpm for this system. The Partnering Team agreed with the
recommendation and NCDENR granted a re -injection permit for the treated water on June 19,
2007.
5.2 PHASE 2 OPERATIONS
Shaw began operation of the second phase of the ISCO injection on June 25, 2007 and continued
the injection operations until December 17, 2007. The end date was determined during the
November 2007 Partnering Meeting. At the end of the injection period, Shaw had injected
another 144,000 gallons of reagent into the sub -surface for a total of 236,000 gallons, 60% of the
design 398,000 gallons for injection. Photographs of the Remedial Action Implementation are
presented in Appendix D.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 5-1 October 2008
Shaw rented a de -watering pump and associated hosing, and a portable tank to include in the
equipment train. Half of the injection points were converted to dewatering points by installing a
smaller diameter pipe inside of the injection point to pull the ground water from the lower
elevations of the well point. The de -watering was performed on 3 rows of 10 points at a time
starting from the west side. Every other well point was converted to a de -watering point and
every other injection point was used for injection of reagent. The extracted water was pumped to
the portable tank and used for the make-up water for the reagent. The intent was to remove the
same amount of water that the injection operation was placing in the sub -surface. Thereby,
Shaw would have minimal water to inject once the de -watering operation ceased. Shaw's intent
was to achieve 1 gpm per well for extraction and injection per the design model. The sub-
surface would not accept this injection amount, but Shaw was able to input about 1,500 gallons
per day using 15 injection points with the de -watering assistance which was 50% more than the
rate operating at gravity feed.
Shaw operated the dewatering and injection system approximately 50 hours per week, 5 days per
week, and 10 hours per day. The system did not operate on holidays. Shaw did not operate the
system on days with high antecedent moisture in the ground, e.g. days of high rain intensity or
after several days of rain because the water table at the site would rise and it would be difficult to
get any reagent into the sub surface.
Shaw divided the treatment area into 7 segments, each about 3 columns wide with each segment
having about 15-16 extraction points and 15-16 injection points. Reagent was injected until
break-out would occur over a large portion of the treatment segment. It usually took 5-10 days
for this saturation point to occur; at that time Shaw would move the extraction headers and the
injection hoses to the next treatment segment. Shaw performed three complete cycles across the
treatment area. During the first two cycles, Shaw used the same injection points and dewatering
points. On the third cycle, Shaw reversed the flow by converting the withdraw points to
injection points and the injection points to withdraw points. The intent was to fully saturate the
groundwater and subsurface soil with permanganate. The de -watering injection process stopped
on December 17, 2007. The de -watering, mixing and process equipment were decontaminated
and demobilized as noted below.
5.3 DECONTAMINATION and DEMOBILIZATION
5.3.1 Heavy Equipment
Prior to demobilizing, the drilling equipment that contacted the interior of a borehole (including,
but not limited to, drill rig, drill rods, bits, sampling equipment, and tools) was thoroughly
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 --Site 93 5-2 October 2008
cleaned at a temporary decontamination facility located on the site. The equipment was cleaned
using steam or high-pressure hot water from a steam cleaner before setting up on the first
borehole and following completion of the final borehole. Decontamination of drilling equipment
was not required between injection point locations, since any potential cross -contamination
would be neutralized by the injected oxidant. At the drill sites, cleaned equipment will be kept
off the ground by storing on cleaned metal racks (not wooden pallets) or on polyethylene -
covered pallets. Excess soil was removed from the drilling rig and support vehicles before
pulling off a drilling site to prevent tracking soil throughout the site. The decontamination water
and soil from the well points was containerized and properly disposed of.
5.3.2 Sampling Equipment
All equipment that contacted samples was thoroughly cleaned prior to collecting samples. The
decontamination procedure for cleaning stainless -steel sampling equipment included the
following steps:
• Wash equipment thoroughly with laboratory -grade detergent and water, using a brush to
remove any particulate matter or surface film.
• Rinse equipment thoroughly with potable water.
• Rinse equipment thoroughly with analyte-free water.
• Rinse equipment with isopropanol (allow to air dry).
• Second rinse with analyte-free water.
• Wrap equipment, if appropriate, in one layer of aluminum foil (shiny side exposed) to
prevent contamination if equipment is going to be stored or transported. Roll edges of
foil into a "tab" to allow for easy removal.
5.3.3 KMn04 Injection System
After completing of the KMn04 injection in December 2007, the injection system components
were rinsed with water until the "purple color" of the water disappears. The KM1104 solution
generated during the decontamination process was flushed down the injection points to maximize
the amount of KMn04 delivered to the treatment zone, and to minimize the amount of KMn04
disposed as remediation derived waste (RDW). The Mn02 is not soluble, and was removed via
filter bag. The sludge was collected and disposed of as non -hazardous RDW.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 5-3 October 2008
5.4 POST -INJECTION MONITORING
Post -injection groundwater samples were collected from the ten monitoring points analyzed for
VOCs to evaluate the effectiveness of the selected remedy in achieving the 2L standards.
Samples were collected on December 27, 2007 after completion of the injection and about three
months later in March 2008. Chloride analysis was also conducted to provide an indication of
the mass of chlorinated ethenes that was oxidized. Details regarding the post -injection sampling
and analysis plan are provided in Section 6.0 of the IRACR.
5.5 SITE RESTORATION
Upon completion of the inject work, Shaw restored the site. Due to funding issues, this work
was performed in August, 2008. The 200 existing injection points were abandoned in
accordance with NC DENR requirements by a NC licensed driller. The injection points were
filled with bentonite to seal the points. The injection points in the field and gravel parking areas
were filled with bentonite to within one foot of the surface. The top of the casing was removed
to about one foot below grade, and the area was either backfilled with top soil and seeded or
crushed stone was placed. On the road way area, the injection points were filled with bentonite
to within two feet of the surface. The injection points were cut flush with the road surface. The
top two feet of the injection point was then filled with a cement grout. The bentonite used was
specially coated to allow it to settle to the bottom of the injection point through the ground water,
and then begin to expand after several minutes in the water, insuring the complete point was
filled. The NC abandonment record was prepared and submitted by the drilling contractor.
Shaw removed the roadway barriers and the perimeter access fencing to fully restore the site to
the original condition. The site will be inspected quarterly as part of the LUC inspection for the
MCB facilities.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 5-4 October 2008
6.0 PROJECT MONITORING
Project groundwater monitoring consisted of sampling and analysis of the ten monitoring wells
for standard field purge parameters, cVOCs, chloride, and target analyte list (TAL) metals and
was performed periodically during the project duration. The following subsections describe the
project sampling and analysis of the groundwater and surface water at Site 93.
6.1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Groundwater samples were collected from the ten monitoring wells around the site for analysis
of VOCs, TAL metals, and chloride at various times during the project duration.
Monitoring wells MW-05, MW-06, MW-08, MW-09, MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15 and
MW-16 were the selected monitoring wells around the site. They are presented on Figure 6-1.
Based on the ground water contours, MW-16 is hydraulically upgradient of the treatment area,
and still within the affected area. MW-06 and MW-08 were within the treatment area.
Monitoring wells MW-17 and MW-15 are just north and south of the treatment area. Monitoring
wells MW-09, MW-13, MW-12, MW-14 and MW-05 are all downgradient of the treatment area.
The COCs were TCE, PCE, Cis DCE, Trans DCE, and Vinyl Chloride (VC).
The Design Basis Plan (DBP) established the post injection ground water sampling and analysis
requirements as quarterly for one year following completion of the injection (semiannually for
the first year). Additionally, the DBP stated that monthly samples would be collected for
permanganate analysis the first six months following completion of the injection in order to
monitor the consumption of permanganate at the site. The post injection monitoring plan was
revised once Shaw and the Partnering Team realized the duration necessary to inject the
complete volume of reagent. Shaw with the concurrence of the Partnering Team determined that
intermediate sampling and analysis was required to determine if the remediation process was
working and to evaluate the value of the process prior to the post injection period. The post
injection quarterly sampling and analysis was still viable. All sampling and analysis activities
were conducted in accordance with the QAPP. Groundwater and surface water samples were
analyzed using standard EPA methods where available.
6.1.1 Ground Water Baseline Analysis
Shaw collected baseline groundwater samples for analysis prior to beginning injection of the
reagent in mid to late October 2006 from the ten monitoring wells. The analytical data is
presented on Table 6.1 for the COCs. No other ground water samples from the Baseline
Monitoring wells were collected during the Phase 1 work. The next samples from the ten
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 6-1 October 2008
monitoring wells were collected in February 2007 right after the injection system was shut down
at the end of Phase 1. The results of the Baseline and February 2007 data are provided in Table
6.1. The data indicated there was sufficient degradation of the COCs, primarily TCE and PCE,
from the injection of 92,000 gallons of reagent to continue with the Phase 2 injection and
endeavor to place the remaining quantity of reagent. The February 2007 data indicates the ROD
ground water criteria within the treatment were not met for all parameters, but most parameters
decreased. The concentrations of the COCs in the monitoring wells downgradient of the
treatment area were either not affected or increased from October 2006 to February 2007 reagent
injection.
When analyzing the total COC concentration (addition of concentration of TCE, PCE, Cis DCE,
Trans DCE and VC), within the treatment area, MW-06 started at 821 µg/L in October 2006 and
was reduced to 719 µg/L by February 2007, a reduction of 12%; MW-08 started at 229 µg/L in
October 2006 and was reduced to 113 by February 2007, a reduction of 50%. See data presented
in Table 6.2A.
6.1.2 Phase 2 Analysis
The Phase 2 injection was performed using a new delivery system which was similar to a
localized pump and treat remedial system with the intent of getting more reagent into the sub-
surface. The groundwater was removed from the treatment area by a dewatering pumping
system; ground water was conveyed to a holding tank; then the groundwater was mixed with the
dry powder reagent which treated the groundwater and then it was pumped / gravity fed into the
injection points within the treatment area. As noted in Section 4.5, the dewatering points and the
injections points were adjacent to each other and about 10 feet away. The dewatering and
injection system achieved a closed loop since purple water was observed at various times coming
out of the dewatering points during the Phase 2 injections.
Shaw collected samples from three of the interior monitoring wells, MW-06, MW-08 and MW-
17, in August 2007, after about 6 weeks of operation, to determine if the system was remediating
the groundwater as intended. No other wells were sampled at that time since this was to provide
a glimpse of how the process was working and not part of the official monitoring program. There
was a decrease in concentration of most COC parameters from the February 2007 sampling
event. All of the COC parameters from the 3 monitoring wells decreased in concentration except
for VC in MW-08. The COCs in MW -17 were nearing the ROD Criteria; three of the five
COCs were below the ROD criteria. See Table 6.1 for the data.
Shaw again collected samples from four of the interior monitoring wells, MW-06, MW-08, MW-
17 and MW-13, in September 2007 to monitor the remediation process. Again, most COC
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 6-2 October 2008
parameters continued to decrease with the exception of VC in MW-08, MW-17 and MW-13
increasing. See data present in Table 6.1. The increase in Vinyl Chloride concentration was
believed to be a positive sign as it indicated the oxidation was occurring and producing more
VC, the proposed end product.
Shaw collected ground water samples for analysis from the remaining six monitoring wells,
MW-05, MW-09, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-16, in October 2007 to have a complete
set of the ten monitoring wells over September and October 2007. This was performed to
monitor the progress of the remediation / oxidation. The analytical data is present in Table 6.1.
The data indicated that the COC concentration in the downgradient wells were either decreasing
or staying at roughly the same level. MW-16, the upgradient well, decreased in overall COC
concentrations compared to the February 2007 sampling.
After Phase 2 injection was stopped in mid December 2007, all ten monitoring wells were
sampled in late December 2007. The data from the sampling and analysis from baseline
(October 2006) through December 2007 are presented in Table 6.1. The data indicated some
reduction in concentrations of COCs, stabilizing in some of the COC parameters and minor
increases in other COC concentrations. Many of the COC parameters at the downgradient wells
were meeting the ROD Criteria. The data was reviewed by the Partnering Team in February
2008. The Team agreed to collect another set of samples three months after the December 2007
sampling event to detennine if the groundwater remediation continued after the injection
stopped.
Groundwater samples were collected in mid March 2008 for comparison to the past series of data
and evaluation of the remedial process on the groundwater. The COC ground water data is
presented in Table 6.1. The data indicates there has been a reduction in the COC parameters,
TCE and PCE concentration, within the treatment area and an increase in the VC concentrations,
indicating a level of remediation. As the Table 6.1 indicates, many of the COCs at 9 of the ten
monitoring wells have met the ROD COC criteria. Graphs of the COC concentrations over time
for each parameter at each of the 4 wells around the treatment area are presented on Figure 6-2
through Figure 6-5.
When analyzing the total COC concentration (addition of concentration of TCE, PCE, Cis DCE,
Trans DCE and VC), within the treatment area, MW-06 started at 821 µg/L in October 2006 and
was reduced to 555 µg/L by March 2008, a reduction of 32%; MW-08 started at 229 µg/L in
October 2006 and was reduced to 113 by March 2008, a reduction of 51 %. See data presented in
Table 6.2B. The BIOCHLOR model presented in the FS was based on a 90% reduction of the
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 --Site 93 6-3 October 2008
concentrations in the treatment area which would allow MNA to take over and meet the NC 2L
standard at the discharge to Edwards Creek.
Shaw also monitored the TAL metals, Calcium, Chloride, Potassium, and Sodium as requested
by NC DENR in the treatment / injection approval letter. This data is presented for each of the
ten monitoring wells over time in Table 6.3 to Table 6.12. Background analysis (October 2006)
for Calcium, Chloride, Potassium, and Sodium was not performed and not provided in the tables
as this was not requested until later in the project.
The data indicates there was little variation of the TAL metals over the duration of the injection
and spatially from the treatment area. Chloride increased slightly within the treatment area but
not as much as the farther away from the treatment area. Calcium and Sodium did not indicate a
trend line in the treatment area or within the overall monitored area. Potassium increased in the
treatment area and the overall monitored area due to the use of potassium permanganate. This
indicates that the reagent was transported to the edges of the monitored area.
MNA is a component of this ROD, therefore MNA parameters were analyzed to evaluate the
contribution of biodegradation to site restoration. The Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
(NAIP) are presented in Table 6-13, and compared to the baseline work performed by CH2M
Hill. The data indicates the ground water remained in the same condition during the ISCO
injection activities except for sulfate and methane. There was an increase in sulfate and a
decrease in methane within the treatment area as indicated by the data from Wells MW-06 and
MW-08. The increase in sulfate and decrease in methane appear to extend out beyond the
treatment area as it was noticed in MW-05, the farthest monitoring well from the treatment area.
Most of the other NAIP were non -detect.
Shaw performed oxygen —reduction potential (ORP) monitoring periodically at the monitoring
wells through the injection phases. The values ranged from -40 to -200 mV within the monitored
area which indicates the conditions were favorable for reductive dechlorination.
6.2 SURFACE WATER MONITORING
The surface water in the creek was inspected for the presence of pernanganate during the
injection process. The surface water was not sampled or tested except for the discharge incident
in November 2006. The surface water was inspected daily during the injection periods. On one
occasion, the reagent made its way under ground to a point near the un-named tributary to
Edwards Creek and discharged to the tributary.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 6-4 October 2008
All sampling and analysis activities were conducted in accordance with the QAPP. Groundwater
and surface water samples were analyzed using standard EPA methods where available. When
required aqueous KMn04 concentrations were determined using field spectrophotometry.
As the ISCO implementation continued, recommendations for changes to the sampling
frequency, wells sampled, and parameters for analysis were included in progress reports to the
Partnering Team and the public.
6.3 ISCO PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Groundwater VOC concentrations obtained from the monitoring program were evaluated to
detennine the effectiveness of the ISCO component of the selected remedy. The overall
corrective measure objective was to achieve 21, standards for all COCs across the site after
injection of the design quantity of oxidant. Only 60 % of the design quantity of reagent was
installed through December 2007 due to site conditions, low site permeability and increased
costs. The ISCO component of the selected remedy only targeted the area with total
concentrations of chlorinated ethenes in excess of 100 µg/L; COC concentrations continue to
remain elevated above 2L standards following the ISCO application. The Partnering Team
reviewed the ground water data and the level of effort necessary to inject the remaining designed
reagent dosing to achieve the reduction in COC concentrations to 2L standards and determined
the addition effort was not cost effective at this time. The Team agreed to continue to perform
quarterly monitoring of the10 monitoring wells and review the data at the 5 year review and
make recommendations for additional remediation if necessary at that time, or continued
monitoring of the site, but in any case LUCs would remain in place.
6.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Health and safety issues were coordinated by the SHSO prior to field activities and include the
designation of exclusion zones, staging areas, and decontamination pads. A SSHP was provided
as Appendix A in the Basis of Design document. All personnel working on site reviewed and
signed the SSHP, and followed the safety procedures provided. Level D personal protective
equipment (PPE) was utilized at the site. The SSHP developed for this activity specifically
addressed PPE and circumstances requiring upgrades. There were no health and safety incidents
during the performance of this work.
6.5 COMPARISON TO CLEANUP GOALS
Shaw placed 60% of the design dose, 224,000 gallons of reagent compared to 398, 000 gallons.
The FS had estimated performing the work in 55 days using one DPT rig. Shaw proposed a
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 6-5 October 2008
gravity fed system in the Basis of Design and estimated 90 days in the field to inject the 392,000
gallons. Shaw spent about 100 days in the field injecting 92,000 gallons of reagent due to the
low permeability of the sub surface materials.
Shaw performed a pump test in the area and modeled the hydraulic characteristics of the sub-
surface. Shaw developed an alternative delivery system including a dewatering system and the
gravity injection system to improve the injection rate of the reagent. Shaw was able to increase
the delivery by 50%, but over the 22 weeks in the field was only able to inject 144,000 gallons of
reagent, for a total of 232,000 gallons.
The COC concentrations of the ground water in the treatment area decreased by an average of
30% due to the ISCO treatment. The FS had estimated a 90% reduction in COC concentrations
was necessary in the treatment area to meet the BIOCHLOR model. The ISCO technology was
only able to achieve a 30% reduction in the treatment area using 60% of the reagent and
approximately nine months in the field. Many of the COC concentrations in the downgradient
wells did meet the ROD Criteria.
The Partnering Team believed that the ISCO technology should have done better with the low
level of contamination present. The Team decided to monitor the site for the next 2 years and
then review the ground water conditions at the five year review period to determine if additional
remediation is required. LUCs will remain in place during the monitoring and evaluation period.
6.6 LAND USE CONTROLS
Land Use Controls (LUCs) for Site 93 should continue to be implemented to prohibit withdraw
and /or future use of water, except for monitoring from the aquifers (surficial and Castle Hayne)
within 1,000 feet of the identified groundwater plume. The LUCs would also prohibit intrusive
activities within the extent of current groundwater contamination unless specifically approved by
both NCDENR and USEPA. The LUCs require filing a Notification of Inactive Hazardous or
Waste Disposal per North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 130A-310.8.
6.7 LESSONS LEARNED
During the performance of the project, Shaw gained valuable insight that can apply to other
projects:
The major limiting factor for this project was the hydraulic permeability of the sub
surface materials. The permeability in the vertical and horizontal direction was low
hiterim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 6-6 October 2008
and impacted the acceptance rate for the reagent. Performing the pump test prior to
starting the work would have gotten Shaw to Phase 2 sooner and possibly a different
delivery system other than the injection points.
2. The difficulty with the reagent day -lighting / break-out from too much feed from the
gravity system would mean that the DPT would have had the same or more problems.
The fact that the ground water was so shallow and the interval to be treated was
shallow, should have led to a decision not to pressurize the injection system since
there was not much space to take the additional fluid caused by injecting the reagent.
3. The Partnering Team believed the ISCO process was not cost effective in reducing
the low level contamination at the site and decided to not inject the full design dose of
reagent. The additional cost to inject the full dose would have increased the cost of
the project probably to $1 M and this cost was too high for the low level of
contamination compared to the need for funds at other Camp Lejeune sites.
6.8 RECOMMENDATIONS
Groundwater monitoring should continue and Land Use Controls (LUCs) should be maintained
until the concentrations of COCs have been reduced to 2L standards across the site and a no -
further -action determination is obtained.
It is recommended that the Long Term Monitoring (LTM) be performed quarterly post -injection
sampling for the designated parameters, and the VOC concentrations be evaluated to determine
the effectiveness of the ISCO component of the selected remedy. If concentrations of total
chlorinated ethenes remain above 10 µg/L (one order of magnitude below the 100 µg/L targeted
concentration), an evaluation will be performed to determine if additional pennanganate
injection activities are warranted.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 6-7 October 2008
7.0 SCHEDULE AND COSTS
The schedule of the performed remediation is shown in Figure 7-1. The actual cost data is
provided in Appendix A and compared to the FS cost estimate.
The FS estimated the field effort to be 55 days in the field. Due to the site hydro -geologic
conditions, Shaw spent approximately I 1 months in the field performing site preparation and
injection to place 60% of the design dose of potassium permanganate for ISCO remediation.
Despite the extended duration, the cost for the effort was approximately 15% more than the FS
cost estimate due to the reduced usage of reagent and the use of lower cost injection equipment.
Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 -- Site 93 7-1 October 2008
8.0 REFERENCES
CH2MHi112005, Final Feasibility Study Operable Unit No. 16 (Site 93), November
2005.
CH2MHi11 2006, Final Remedial Design./or Land Use Controls and Monitored
Natural Attenuation Operable Unit16 (Site 93), December, 2006
IT Corporation (IT), 2002, Report of Findings, Pilot -Scale Potassium Permanganate
Injection, Fire Training Area FT-11 (SWMU 11), Myrtle Beach Air Force Base,
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, October.
Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw), 2004a, Final Focused Corrective Measures Study,
Building 575 (SWMU 256), Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, April.
Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw), 2004b, Operation and Maintenance Plan, Interim
Corrective Measure, Groundwater Recovery System, Building 575 (SWMU 256),
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, August.
Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw), 2003, Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Quality
Assurance Program Plan, Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, October.
Simpson, M. J., T. P. Clement, and F. E. Yeomans, 2003,"Analytical Model for
Computing Residence Times Near a Pumping Well," Ground Water, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.
351-354.
Yan, Ye and F. W. Scwartz, 2000b, Oxidative Degradation of Chlorinated Ethelenes by
Permanganate, Ohio State Progress Report.
Completion Report Project 120348
Operable Unit No. 16 — Site 93 8-1 March 2008
TABLES
TABLE 3.1
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
Proposed Remedial Action Plan Submitted
Record of Decision Signed
Basis of Remedial Design Submitted / Approved
Install Injection Points
Collect Baseline Samples
Set-up Mixing / Injection Operation
Begin Injection of Permanganate —Phase I
Stop Permanganate Injection Phase 1
Collect First Round of Remediation Samples
Perform Pump Test
Evaluate Permanganate Delivery System
Prepare Technical Memo on Modified Permanganate
Delivery System
Received NC DENR Approval of Delivery Method
Begin Phase 2 Permanganate Injection
Collect Intermediate Remediation Samples
Collect Intermediate Remediation Samples
Collect Intermediate Remediation Samples
Finish Phase 2 Permanganate Injection
Collect Intermediate Remediation Samples
Collect Intermediate Remediation Samples
Evaluate Data
Site Restoration
February 16, 2006
May 2006
October 2006
October 17, 2006
October 11115, 2007
October 21, 2006
October 30, 2006
February 12, 2007
February 15, 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
June 19, 2007
June 20, 2007
August 9, 2007
September 27, 2007
October 17, 2007
December 17, 2007
December 27, 2007
March 17, 2008
April 2008
August 2008
TABLE 6.1
Groundwater Analytical Data (Volatile Organic Compounds)
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
10/i5/06 02/01/07 10/07/07 12127107 3/18/2008 ROD Criteria Current NC 2L
TCE
163 138 78.7 91.5 86.8
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
94.4
65.6
15.9
22.1
14.7
0.7
0.17
MW-06
Cis DCE
409
373
383
390
328
70
Trans DCE
150
138
116
120
115
70
100
VC
4.6
4.5
ND
5.9
9.5
0.015
0.015
TCE
38.3 21.2 11 3 2.8
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
82.9
20
5.5
1.1
1.8
0.7
0.17
MW-08
Cis DCE
77.2
52.3
80.6
89.5
70.9
70
Trans DCE
26.2
17.9
9.2
6.7
4.4
70
100
VC
3.9
2.1
18.8
33.4
32
0.015
0.015
TCE
3.4 3.5 1.9 3.3 ND
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
2.1
3.5
NO
0.67
ND
0.7
0.17
MW-17
Cis DCE
72
67.3
96.5
193
45.6
70
Trans DCE
22.1
11.5
27.7
49.9
8.8
70
100
VC
11.7
18.5
42.4
47.1
14.9
0.015
0.015
TCE
3.5 3.2 2.8 0.78 1.1
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
0.7
0.17
MW-13
Cis DCE
81.8
177
111
57.2
82.8
70
Trans DCE
24.2
69.5
28
16
33.6
70
100
VC
6.9
16.6
66.5
95.7
104
0.015
0.015
TCE
28.1 29.2 31.7 34.3 34.8
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
0.65
0.63
0.63
0.77
0.89
0.7
0.17
MW-05
Cis DCE
51.6
51.8
58.5
60.8
60
70
Trans DCE
21.6
23.5
25.7
26.5
31.6
70
100
VC
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.9
2
0.015
0.015
TCE
NO ND NO NO NO
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
0.7
0.17
MW-12
Cis DCE
7.2
6.6
32.8
23.1
28.5
70
Trans DCE
NO
0.54
4.1
3.1
4.7
70
100
VC
ND
1.7
3.4
3.6
4.6
0.015
0.015
TCE
11.9 13.7 3.1 3.4 2.5
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
0.7
0.17
MW-14
Cis DCE
51.6
92.2
23.8
46.1
36.9
70
Trans DCE
9
18.4
2.6
8.6
6.9
70
100
VC
2.4
10.6
16.9
70.4
73.2
0.015
0.015
TCE
NO 0.99 NO ND 0.68
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
ND
1.1
NO
ND
NO
0.7
0.17
MW-15
Cis DCE
3.1
3.6
3.8
3
3.1
70
Trans DCE
ND
ND
ND
NO
0.29
70
100
VC
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
0.015
0.015
TCE
17.5 49.7 38.9 36.8 30.7
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
9.3
17.1
17.2
12.8
11.8
0.7
0.17
MW-16
Cis DCE
56
148
93.6
69.6
68.6
70
Trans DCE
15.6
56.6
29.2
24.3
25.7
70
100
VC
0.9
1.8
1.6
1.9
2.1
0.015
0.015
TCE
15.9 1.5 0.44 4.9
2.8 2.8
Tetrachloroethylene
NO
ND
NO
NO
0.7
0.17
MW-09
Cis DCE
94.6
21.3
0.42
25.9
70
Trans DCE
28.9
6.7
0.33
9.3
70
100
VC
10.9
2.5
ND
3
0.015
0.015
Sampling event reflected as 10/15/06 is the site baseline for this project.
Sampling event reflected as 10/07/07 had four wells (MW-06, MW-08, MW-17, and MW-13) sampled on 09/07/07.
Highlighted data indicates compliance with ROD criteria.
Q) C
O
L
U Co
a> U
U
'O O
3 z
O aj
Q
N
E co
O M
U N
Q
N °' co U
L
W CD
J
m � �
~ � N
_U 3
(6 N
C —J
Q 0
cu
co
-a rS
o E
U CO
0
0
a
O
0
0
o
° °
W
V
M
M
co
N
O
�
N
n
M
M
6)
M
V
GO
O
N
M
V
W GO M W LO
GV O M O �-
O N M'o�
N Q O
M'oM=VNNLO=NMMM
MMZ
�(O
M V 6) O CO
M O N N O
7 N
Q W N O
O d0' V'
M W ti N M
M N N
M z coN co
N
N
N
N
a
`o U
w
o U
w
o V
w
o` w U
w M❑ �
w m
w m
w UM❑�
h fa)Uh>
FhUIL>
hFUF>
FU- FT-Uh>
CO
W
I�
M
Co
cn C
O
U N
�U
O
70 O
Z
E co
Q y
O CD
U N
N 2)U
W C
J
m
m
F- N
U_
_ J
� J
Q Q
m
�U
3
a co
O
C9 CO
0
co
0
W
M
O
0
R
O
0
0
0
U(
O
Il
M
M
L6
Cl)
O)
O
O
co
Ln
µ
Ln
co
N
N
O
Ln
M
d
N
N
co
W
N
�
CO I- W` M
W W� V N
0 o co m 6)
0 oO q 0
'COO "' M c- 6
N
Z Z V co V
c- Z co M �
M dt 6) O (p
M 6) N N O
V `- N h
L6 CO N 0)W
V d'
M W r N M
M N N
M Z coN 6
C
C
C
G
o W
o W
`6
o W
`o
o W
`6
o Lli U
U
U
U
U�
cciUO
W G
cci
W@
cLiU0
W C
cLiU�
W
i-rUri
rf Ur%
f-rUf->
f-f-Uf-i
C6
N
f�
M
TABLE 6.3
MW-06 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
8/9/2007
9/27/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW846 9056
30100
30900
40600
33000
31800
Aluminum
SW846 6010E
482
128
516
170
141
Antimony
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW846 601 OB
48.1
109
82.4
197
70.6
59.9
Beryllium
SW8466010B
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW8466010B
81900
81900
210000
79700
72100
Chromium
SW8466010B
3
0.89
ND
4.4
1.5
ND
Cobalt
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Iron
SW8466010B
20600
13300
18800
10900
10000
Lead
SW846 6010E
3.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Magnesium
SW846 6010B
10500
9330
183001
9340
8150
Manganese
SW846 6010E
3271
836
2360
6680
6750
Mercury
SW846 7470A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
ND
ND
1.8
1.1
ND
Potassium
SW846 6010B
38400
180000
923000
237000
189000
Selenium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.83
Sodium
SW8466010B
45900
51200
78300
50500
46300
Thallium
SW846
ND
ND
6.5
ND
7.2
Vanadium
SW846 6010B
3.1
1.4
ND
2.3
ND
Zinc
SW8466010B
8.7
ND
15.6
16.2
13
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.4
MW-08 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
8/9/2007
9/27/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW846 9056
21300
19100
15800
18400
16600
Aluminum
SW8466010B
358
120
117
ND
ND
Antimony
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW8466010B
97.9
290
118
97.1
101
51.1
Beryllium
SW846 6010B
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW8466010B
84000
69100
59400
41000
46700
Chromium
SW8466010B
4.5
9.9
2.6
ND
2
ND
Cobalt
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
Iron
SW8466010B
5770
1660
1530
2390
1000
Lead
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.2
3.1
Magnesium
SW846 6010E
6940
8000
7810
5600
5960
Manganese
SW846 60106
1 7750
151001
136001
12600
9820
Mercury
SW846 7470A
0.15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
1.1
ND
ND
Potassium
SW846 6010B
425000
380000
352000
287000
231000
Selenium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
6.4
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW846 6010E
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sodium
SW846 6010E
31300
25500
31900
19600
20106
Thallium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
14.4
ND
9.7
Vanadium
SW8466010B
1.51
ND
ND
1A
ND
Zinc
SW8466010B
3.6
ND
12
NDI
7.3
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.5
MW-17 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
8/9/2007
9/27/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW846 9056
15700
13000
12200
20900
11400
Aluminum
SW846 6010B
165
ND
ND
ND
146
Antimony
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW846 6010E
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW846 6010B
85.5
78.8
51.7
56.8
68.1
55.2
Beryllium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW846 60106
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW8466010B
109000
101000
106000
105000
118000
Chromium
SW846 6010B
1.9
ND
ND
ND
1.2
ND
Cobalt
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
1.4
ND
ND
Iron
SW846 6010B
9870
2390
2900
7360
5050
Lead
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
3.4
ND
2.2
Magnesium
SW84660106
26401
2500
26301
2280
2550
Manganese
SW8466010B
54.9
34.9
34.4
40.3
45.9
Mercury
SW8467470A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Potassium
SW8466010B
1180
2120
3230
1290
3330
Selenium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.1
Silver
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
1.3
ND
ND
ND
Sodium
SW846 6010B
11900
18600
19200
14900
15400
Thallium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vanadium
SW846 6010B
2
ND
ND
1.3
1.3
Zinc
SW846 60106
103
10
21.7
11.6
43.9
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.6
MW-13 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
10/17/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW8469056
23900
17300
21400
21000
Aluminum
SW8466010B
93.1
ND
ND
ND
Antimony
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW846 6010B
86.3
97
176
110
148
Beryllium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW846 6010E
111000
168000
112000
133000
Chromium
SW846 6010B
1.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cobalt
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Iron
SW8466010B
6080
3250
2170
2550
Lead
SW8466010B
ND
ND
3.2
2.9
ND
Magnesium
SW8466010B
2440
3840
3100
3220
Manganese
SW8466010B
39
67.61
51.5
52.4
Mercury
SW8467470A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Potassium
SW846 6010B
1080
146000
40900
54300
Selenium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
- ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sodium
SW8466010B
18500
24100
39500
25800
Thallium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vanadium
SW8466010B
1.3
ND
ND
ND
ZincI
SW8466010B
1
1 13.11
NDI
ND
ND
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.7
MW-05 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
10/17/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW8469056
14900
13900
15400
15000
Aluminum
SW846 6010B
45.2
138
156
206
Antimony
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW84660106
81.2
37.9
51.6
45.7
43.5
Beryllium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW8466010B
NDI
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW846 6010B
14900
20100
18400
17400
Chromium
SW846 6010E
1.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cobalt
SW846 6010E
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Iron
SW846 6010E
3580
2050
3090
8050
Lead
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
2.8
2.8
Magnesium
SW846 6010B
1290
1710
1410
1270
Manganese
SW8466010B
30
24.11
42
58.3
Mercury
SW8467470A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
ND
ND
1
ND
Potassium
SW8466010B
814
1330
1030
3150
Selenium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sodium
SW846 6010B
10800
11500
11000
14000
Thallium
SW846 6010E
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vanadium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Zinc
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
7.2
ND
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.8
MW-12 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
10/17/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW846 9056
12800
13100
13600
13400
Aluminum
SW8466010B
801
3610
1750
461
Antimony
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW846 6010B
82.4
37.3
58.5
36.3
35.5
Beryllium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW846 6010E
83600
103000
87400
92800
Chromium
SW846 6010B
1.6
1.6
11.1
5.4
1.2
Cobalt
SW8466010B
ND
2.6
1.5
ND
Copper
SW8466010B
ND
38.1
2.3
2.4
Iron
SW8466010B
4810
15800
8860
5910
Lead
SW8466010B
3.6
ND
5
ND
3.8
Magnesium
SW84660106
1790
2710
2030
1890
Manganese
SW84660106
1 43.1
94.91
64.4
45
Mercury
SW8467470A
NDI
ND
NDl
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
ND
21.2
2.7
1.7
Potassium
SW8466010B
864
2530
1470
3340
Selenium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sodium
SW846 6010B
5590
5980
5770
7600
ham
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Valliunadium
SW846 6010E
2.5
%2
5.2
1.4
Zinc
I SW846 6010E
8.51
183
15.5
12.7
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.9
MW-14 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
10/17/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW846 9056
14100
12600
15400
15200
Aluminum
SW846 6010B
56.2
ND
ND
94.3
Antimony
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW8466010B
89.1
78.4
62.7
73.1
88.2
Beryllium
SW84660108
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW8466010B
97500
120000
133000
162000
Chromium
SW8466010B
1.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cobalt
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW8466010B
ND
4.4
ND
ND
Iron
SW8466010B
12300
3770
4060
6510
Lead
SW8466010B
3.5
ND
ND
2.9
2.3
Magnesium
SW84660106
1 2070
2610
3070
3720
Manganese
SW8466010B
49
53.9
61.4
70
Mercury
SW8467470A
0.13
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Potassium
SW8466010B
1010
2050
1700
3790
Selenium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sodium
SW8466010B
13200
13300
15000
18100
Thallium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vanadium
SW846 6010B
1.8
ND
ND
ND
Zinc
SW846 6010E
37.8
48.3
17.6
181
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.10
MW-15 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/2712006
2/15/2007
10/17/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW8469056
11000
11200
12000
11900
Aluminum
SW8466010B
36.4
ND
ND
ND
Antimony
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW8466010B
84.2
37.9
25.4
25.9
24.4
Beryllium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW8466010B
83500
85300
81200
91800
Chromium
SW8466010B
1.8
ND
1
ND
ND
Cobalt
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Iron
SW846 6010E
8960
2550
3690
2890
Lead
SW846 6010E
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
Magnesium
SW846 6010B
1700
1840
1660
1840
Manganese
SW8466010B
39.6
36.91
49.6
39.8
Mercury
SW8467470A
NDI
ND
NDI
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Potassium
SW8466010B
845
1320
1070
3230
Selenium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.95
Sodium
SW8466010B
4990
5760
5650
8020
Thallium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vanadium
SW8466010B
1.1
ND
ND
ND
Zinc
SW8466010B
91.4
8.8
12.6
18.8
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.11
MW-16 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
10/17/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW846 9056
22600
13400
12800
14800
Aluminum
SW8466010B
2990
134
405
376
Antimony
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW846 6010E
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW8466010B
95.8
70.8
51.4
58.4
54.4
Beryllium
SW8466010B
ND
No,
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW8466010B
NDI
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW8466010B
138000
101000
95000
108000
Chromium
SW8466010B
10.6
6.7
7.3
3.1
0.94
Cobalt
SW8466010B
1.1
ND
ND
ND
Copper
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Iron
SW846 6010B
22300
7210
12200
11206
Lead
SW846 6010E
7.3
ND
ND
ND
2.9
Magnesium
SW846 6010E
9140
4800
3480
5210
Manganese
SW8466010B
141
69.91
56.8
69
Mercury
SW8467470A
NDI
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW8466010B
5.3
6
5
12.6
Potassium
SW8466010B
2400
2310
1580
3860
Selenium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW8466010B
ND
ND
0.81
ND
0.84
Sodium
SW8466010B
42800
19300
14400
21800
Thallium
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vanadium
SW8466010B
7.8
ND
2.2
ND
Zinc
SW8466010B
70.3
19.3
27
8.8
All data presented in ug/L units.
TABLE 6.12
MW-09 Groundwater Analytical Data
Site 93, Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
10/27/2006
2/15/2007
10/17/2007
12/27/2007
3/18/2008
Parameter
Method
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Chloride
EPA 300/SW846 9056
10400
12400
7800
12700
Aluminum
SW846 6010B
1210
340
191
1240
Antimony
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
Arsenic
SW8466010B
6.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
Barium
SW8466010B
157
42.6
22.3
5.5
24.1
Beryllium
SW84660106
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Calcium
SW846 6010B
60700
38000
22200
43000
Chromium
SW8466010B
32.6
2.3
38
2.1
22.8
Cobalt
SW8466010B
ND
ND
ND
1.1
Copper
SW8466010B
1.7
ND
ND
6.3
Iron
SW846 6010B
2060
5950
152
4640
Lead
SW846 6010B
20.9
2.1
ND
3.3
11
Magnesium
SW846 6010B
1740
12801
562
1160
Manganese
SW846 6010B
59.5
91.2
43.9
188
Mercury
SW8467470A
NDI
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nickel
SW846 6010E
1.7
ND
1
7
Potassium
SW846 6010B
906
1810
1990
3480
Selenium
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
SW846 6010B
ND
ND
3.6
0.82
3.4
Sodium
SW846 6010B
7610
8980
1670
10700
Thallium
SW846 6010E
ND
ND
ND
ND
Vanadium
SW846 6010E
2.6
3
5
9
Zinc
SW846 6010B
53.3
25.4
12.7
156
All data presented in ug/L units.
v
N
N
L
�
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
❑
Z
W
w
E
M
N
M
V
N
m
N
a
d
N
o
0
0
N
❑
M
o
0
0
0
0
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
N
N
J
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
O
O
❑
❑
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
2
E
o
v
R❑❑
o❑❑❑❑
o❑
o
o
o
o
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
1c)
z
z
E
❑
M
c
M
v
M
v
M
v
M
M
co
m
m
m
v
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
E
2
Q
2
Q
2
Q
2
Q
2
2i
2i���
m
fn
O
0
3=
3=
3=
3=
3
3
3
3
3
3
U
n
Y
Y
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Y
H
E
m
N
❑
115
j
l0
N3r3VN
113
0
3
3
�
3