WI0800235_Application Attachment_20100701

Draft
Pilot Study Implementation Plan
Site 88, Operable Unit No. 15
Marine Corps Base Camp Lej eune
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Contract Task Order 0071
July 2010
Prepared for
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid-Atlantic
Under the
NAVFAC CLEAN 1000 Program
Contract N62470-08-D-1000
Prepared by
CH2MH ILL
11301 Carmel Commons Blvd., Suite 304
Charlotte, North Carolina 28226
NC Engineering License #F-0699

Contents
Acronymsand Abbreviations..........................................................................................................v
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1-1
2 Site Background.....................................................................................................................1-1
2.1 Site Description.............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Description of Pilot Study Areas ................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Zone 2 Pilot Study Areas................................................................................2-2
2.2.2 Zone 3 Pilot Study Area..................................................................................2-3
2.3 Bench-Scale Study.........................................................................................................2-4
2.4 Groundwater Modeling...............................................................................................2-6
3 Pilot Study Description........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Pilot Study Overview, Objectives, and Goals...........................................................3-1
3.1.1 Study Overview ...............................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Study Objectives and Goals............................................................................3-1
3.2 Technology Description...............................................................................................3-1
3.2.1 Chemical Oxidation.........................................................................................3-2
3.2.2 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination.............................................................3-2
4 Pilot Study Implementation................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Zone 2 ERD....................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Site Preparation................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Injections...........................................................................................................4-3
4.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring...............................................................................4-3
4.2 Zone 2 ISCO...................................................................................................................4-4
4.2.1 Site Preparation................................................................................................4-4
4.2.2 Injections...........................................................................................................4-5
4.2.3 Monitoring........................................................................................................4-6
4.3 Zone 3 ERD....................................................................................................................4-6
4.3.1 Site Preparation................................................................................................4-6
4.3.2 Injections ...........................................................................................................4-7
4.3.3 Monitoring........................................................................................................4-8
5 Health and Safety and Residuals Management...............................................................5-1
5.1 Health and Safety..........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 General Safety................................................................................................................5-1
5.3 Residuals Management................................................................................................5-1
5.3.1 Waste Streams..................................................................................................5-1
5.3.2 Waste Management.........................................................................................5-1
6 Site Activity Considerations................................................................................................6-1
7 Reporting.................................................................................................................................7-1
ES062210072353VBO III

PILOT STUDYMIENENMONPL^SHE 88,OPERABLE UTATNO.15
8 Project Management.............................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Project Schedule............................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Project Organization....................................................................................................8-1
9 References...............................................................................................................................9-1
Appendices
A Bench-Scale Study Summary Report
B Groundwater Modeling Results
Tables
2-1 Summary of Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
4-1 Proposed Well Construction Details
Figures
1-1 Base Location Map
2-1 Site Map
2-2 Definition of Remedial Zone
2-3 Cross Section Location Map
2-4 Geologic Cross Section A-A'
2-5 Geologic Cross Section D-D'
2-6 Tetrachloroethene Concentrations-Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer (40-50 ft bgs)
2-7 Tetrachloroethene Concentrations -Middle Castle Hayne Aquifer (95-125 ft bgs)
2-8 Geologic Cross Section F-F'
2-9 Increasing Tetrachloroethene Trends in Downgradient Wells
4-1 Proposed Zone 2 ERD Injection Locations
4-2 Proposed Zone 2 ISCO Injection Locations
4-3 Proposed Zone 3 ERD Injection Locations
4-4 Zone 2 ERD Process Flow Diagram
4-5 Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Process Flow Diagram
4-6 Zone 3 ERD Process Flow Diagram
8-1 Project Schedule
8-2 Project Organization
IV ES062210072353VBO

Acronyms and Abbreviations
3DMeTM Three-dimensional Microemulsion
AHA Activity Hazard Analysis
ASL Applied Sciences Laboratory
bgs below ground surface
C3H5O3Na sodium lactate
cells/mL cells per milliliter
CLEAN Comprehensive Long-term Environmental Action—Navy
COC contaminant of concern
CTO Contract Task Order
CVOC chlorinated volatile organic compound
DCE dichloroethene
DO dissolved oxygen
ERD enhanced reductive dechlorination
EVO emulsified vegetable oil
FS Feasibility Study
ft/day feet per day
ft/ft foot per foot
FTL Field Team Leader
g gram
g/kg grams per kilogram
gpm gallons per minute
H&S health and safety
HRC® Hydrogen Release Compound
HSP Health and Safety Plan
ID identification;inner diameter
IDW investigation-derived waste
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
ITRC Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
KMnO4 potassium permanganate
lb pound
µg/L micrograms per liter
MCB CamLej Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
mg/L milligrams per liter
mL milliliter
MnO4 permanganate
ES062210072353VBO V

PILOT STTJDYMLEM3qrAT1ONPL^SHE 88,OPERABLE UTATNO.15
MOB methane-oxidizing bacteria
msl mean sea level
mV millivolt
NAIP natural attenuation indicator parameter
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
OU Operable Unit
PCE tetrachloroethene
PID photo-ionization detector
PM Project Manager
PPE personal protective equipment
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
ROI radius of influence
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI Remedial Investigation
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
Sch. Schedule
SOD soil oxidant demand
SOP standard operating procedure
TCE trichloroethene
TOC total organic carbon
TSD treatment, storage,or disposal
UFP Uniform Federal Policy
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VFA volatile fatty acid
VOC volatile organic compound
ZVI zero valent iron
Vi ES062210072353VBO

SECTION 1
Introduction
This document presents the Pilot Study Implementation Plan for Operable Unit(OU)
No. 15,Site 88,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCB CamLej),Jacksonville,North
Carolina (Figure 1-1). This Implementation Plan is prepared under the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC)—Mid-Atlantic, Comprehensive Long-term
Environmental Action—Navy (CLEAN) 1000 Contract N62470-08-D-1000, Contract Task
Order (CTO) 071.
The Draft Feasibility Study, Site 88, OU No. 15,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,Jacksonville,
North Carolina (CH2M HILL,2008a) evaluated potential remedial alternatives to address
groundwater impacts identified at Site 88. Enhanced reductive dechlorination(ERD) and
chemical oxidation were examined in the Feasibility Study (FS) both individually and with
an injection-extraction delivery system for the treatment of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its
daughter products,trichloroethene (TCE),cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE),and vinyl
chloride (VC),in groundwater. Both ERD and chemical oxidation were determined to be
potentially viable. In May 2008,the Partnering Team agreed to conduct bench-scale and
field-scale pilot studies at Site 88 to evaluate the site-specific effectiveness of ERD and
chemical oxidation and to further refine the evaluation of treatment alternatives in the FS.
This Pilot Study Implementation Plan is organized as follows:
• Section 1,Introduction—Presents an overview of the project and Implementation Plan.
• Section 2, Site Background—Presents the general site background and description of
the pilot study areas.
• Section 3,Pilot Study Descriptions—Presents an overview of the pilot study objectives
and goals and a conceptual technical approach for each of the three pilot studies.
• Section 4,Pilot Study Implementation—Discusses how the pilot studies will be
conducted.
• Section 5,Health and Safety and Residuals Management—Outlines issues to be
presented in the Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for the project and presents the process
for managing investigation-derived waste (IDW).
• Section 6, Site Activity Considerations -Outlines the site-specific requirements and
constraints applicable during project implementation.
• Section 7,Reporting—Describes the reporting that will occur for the field
implementation.
• Section 8,Project Management—Provides the project schedule and organization.
• Section 9,References—Provides the references used in this document.
ES062210072353VBO 1-1

PILOT STTJDYMLENINCATIONPL^SHE 88,OPERABLE LN TNO.15
Tables and figures are included at the end of each section. A Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP),to address the collection of analytical data specific to the
pilot studies,will be issued under separate cover.
1-2 ES062210072353VBO

\\NORTH EN D\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAM PLEJE U N E\MAPFI LES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 1 1 BASF LOCATION MAP.MXD MRISSING 5/20/2010 16:26:08
t NWY
STATE HWY 24_
7 -
S '
may: TATE HW� �
g� Y _ .
_ Site 88 j
II
�70 _ ' VA
x STATE HWY V2
NC
MCB CamLej
/tir •.
Legend Figure 1-1
Highways Base Location Map
Site 88 N Site 88 Implementation Plan
0 Installation Boundary 0 7,500 15,000 30,000 MCB CamLej
North Carolina
2006 Aerial Imagery Feet
1 inch = 15,000 feet
Generated By:Brooke Propst CLT Checked by:Ked Hallberg/CLT

SECTION 2
Site Background
Information concerning site history,contaminant concentrations,plume distribution,and
subsurface geology/hydrogeology is documented in the Final Remedial Investigation Report
Site 88- OU No. 15 Building 25, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,Jacksonville, North Carolina
(CH2M HILL,2008b),the Draft FS(CH2M HILL,2008a),and the Additional Investigation
Technical Memorandum, Site 88 - OU No. 15,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune(CH2M HILL,
2010). This information is summarized below for the pilot study areas.
2.1 Site Description
Site 88 is the former Base Dry Cleaning Facility (former Building 25; Figure 2-1). The site is
located in a developed part of MCB CamLej and is surrounded by buildings,parking lots,
streets, and sidewalks.
Building 25 was used as a dry cleaning facility from the 1940s to 2004,when operations
ceased and the building was demolished to slab. Former facility employees have reported
that spent PCE was disposed of in floor drains that discharged to the sanitary sewer. The
sewer served as a mechanism to aid the spread of the PCE westward away from Building 25
into the shallow subsurface through leaks in the pipes,where it eventually migrated
vertically. In 2005,the source area beneath and around the building was treated using soil
mixing with zero valent iron (ZVI) and clay addition. The Site 88 investigative area
encompasses a larger area,which includes areas to the west,northeast, and south of the
former Building 25 location. The RI identified groundwater contamination approximately a
half-mile from the former Building 25. The pilot studies are targeted for areas in the central
and downgradient portions of the groundwater contaminant plume.
2.2 Des cription of Pilot Study Areas
In the Draft FS (CH2M HILL,2008a),the plume was divided into three zones (Zones 1,2,
and 3) and treatment alternatives were developed for each zone (Figure 2-2). Zone 1 is the
area around the former Building 25. Zone 2 is the area from Building 43 to McHugh
Boulevard. Zone 3 is the remaining portion of the site west of McHugh Boulevard.
Pilot studies were chosen for Zone 2 and Zone 3 based on technical challenges posed by the
site (i.e.,high concentrations at a relatively deep depth) and to implement a technology to
prevent contamination migration,respectively.
Based on the site conditions and contamination levels in Zone 2,the Partnering Team
selected two separate pilot studies. An enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) study will
be conducted around 88-MW39MP and an in situ chemical oxidation(ISCO) study will be
conducted around 88-MW16. The Partnering Team selected a third pilot study, an ERD
biobarrier,in the vicinity of 88-MW22IW to cut off contaminant flow in Zone 3.
ES062210072353VBO 2-1

PILOT STTJDYMLEM3qrAT1ONPL^STM 88,OPERABLEUMrNO.15
2.2.1 Zone 2 Pilot Study Areas
Zone 2 Geology
The Final RI Report (CH2M HILL,2008b) provides details regarding regional geology at
Site 88. Figure 2-3 illustrates the locations of geologic cross-sections in the vicinity of the
pilot studies. Geologic cross-sections generated from the boring logs of monitoring well
installations within Zone 2 are presented as Figures 24 and 2-5.
At Site 88,the uppermost undifferentiated formation of Quaternary age sediments consists
of mostly fine sand and silt. Thin discontinuous layers of silt and clay are found within the
undifferentiated formation in Zone 2,including clayey silt and silty clay units ranging in
thickness from 5 to 7 ft, as shown on Figure 2-5.The undifferentiated formation overlies the
Oligocene age River Bend Formation,which is encountered at elevations of-27 to-34 ft
below mean sea level (msl) in Zone 2,corresponding to approximately 55 to 60 ft below
ground surface (bgs). This contact is indicated by a significant increase in formation density.
Within the River Bend Formation sediments, sand is dominant,with minor amounts of silt
and shell fragments.The River Bend Formation overlies the Eocene Castle Hayne
Formation,which consists of fine-to-medium-grained sand with minor amounts of silt and
clay. This layer is generally encountered at approximately 80 ft bgs in Zone 2.
Zone 2 Hydrogeology
The Final RI Report (CH2M HILL,2008b) provides details regarding the occurrence of
surface water and groundwater resources at Site 88. The following is a summary of the
hydrogeology in Zone 2.
In the vicinity of monitoring well clusters 88-MW16 and 88-MW18,groundwater in the
upper and middle Castle Hayne aquifer generally flows to the northwest toward the New
River. The hydraulic gradients in the intermediate and deep zones in the vicinity of
88-MW16 and 88-MW18 are approximately 0.0011 foot/foot (ft/ft), and 0.0012 ft/ft,
respectively. In aquifer testing previously conducted at the site,the geometric mean
hydraulic conductivity values for the upper and middle Castle Hayne aquifer were
estimated to be 11.1 ft/day and 11.5 ft/day,respectively. Assuming an effective porosity of
0.20,average seepage velocities for the intermediate and deep wells in the vicinity of
88-MW16 and 88-MW18 are calculated to be 0.06 ft/day and 0.07 ft/day,respectively.
Zone 2 Groundwater Characterization
Laboratory analytical data from the October 2009 additional investigation indicates that PCE
is the primary contaminant in Zone 2. The highest PCE concentrations were detected in the
88-MW16 well cluster and the multi-port wells 88-MW39MP and 88-MW40MP, as shown on
Figures 2-6 and 2-7. The maximum concentration detected (110,000 micrograms per liter
[µg/L])was reported in the sample collected from 88-MW39MP at a depth of 100 ft bgs.
Three other monitoring wells contained PCE concentrations greater than 5,000 µg/L during
the October 2009 sampling event:
• 88-MW16IW (14,000 µg/L)
• 88-MW16DW2 (10,000 µg/L)
• 88-MW40MP (11,000 µg/L)
2-2 ES062210072353VBO

SECTION 2-SITE BACKGROUND
The deepest PCE concentrations are associated with multi-port well 88-MW39MP,where
PCE was detected at 47 µg/L at a depth of 180 ft bgs in October 2009.
Geochemical data collected in Zone 2 groundwater in October 2009 generally indicate
favorable conditions for reductive dechlorination with increasing depth.These conditions
include low dissolved oxygen(DO),pH levels, and negative oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP) values, detectable ferrous iron,and ideal groundwater temperatures (Table 2-1). In
addition,PCE daughter products,including TCE,cis-1,2-DCE,VC, and ethane,indicate that
reductive dechlorination has occurred in some areas of Zone 2.
Low total organic carbon(TOC) concentrations observed in Zone 2 may inhibit reductive
dechlorination. However,other indicator parameters suggest that reductive dechlorination
could be stimulated by addition of a carbon source.
In 2006,several groundwater samples were collected for microbial analysis. Microbial
analysis of the groundwater sample collected from 88-MW16IW shows the presence of
Dehalococcoides (199 cells per milliliter [cells/mL]) and total methanotrophs (3.74x106),
indicating that there is potential for enhanced dechlorination to be an effective treatment
alternative.
In 2010,soil samples were collected from the 88-MW16 well cluster at a depth of 45 to 60 ft
bgs and were tested for soil oxidant demand (SOD) using potassium permanganate
(KMn04). Testing indicated SOD demands of 0.18 to 4.25 grams per kilogram(g/kg),
suggesting that chemical oxidation is feasible.
2.2.2 Zone 3 Pilot Study Area
Zone 3 Geology
The Final RI Report (CH2M HILL,2008b) provides details regarding regional geology at
Site 88. Geologic cross-sections generated from the boring logs of monitoring well
installations within Zone 3 are presented on Figures 2-4 and 2-8.
Within the River Bend Formation in Zone 3,sand is dominant,with minor amounts of silt
and shell fragments. The Eocene Castle Hayne Formation,consisting of fine-to-medium
grained sand with minor amounts of silt and clay,is generally encountered at
approximately 50 ft bgs.
A confining unit was not identified west of McHugh Boulevard in the vicinity of Zone 3.
The undifferentiated formation overlying the Oligocene age River Bend Formation was
encountered in Zone 3 at elevations of-20 to-30 ft msl,which is approximately 40 to 50 ft
bgs.
Zone 3 Hydrogeology
Groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well cluster 88-MW22IW generally flows to the
west in the intermediate zone toward the New River.The hydraulic gradient in this area is
approximately 0.0013 ft/ft.The hydraulic conductivity in the intermediate wells across the
site ranged from 5.7 to 19.6 feet per day (ft/day)with a geometric mean of 11.1 ft/day.
Assuming an effective porosity of 0.20, the average seepage velocity for the intermediate
wells in the vicinity of 88-MW22 is calculated to be 0.07 ft/day.
ES062210072353VBO 2-3

PILOT STTJDYMLEM3qrAT1ONPL^SrM 88,OPERABLEUMrNO.15
Zone 3 Groundwater Characterization
Based upon the October 2009 groundwater monitoring event,PCE is the primary
contaminant in Zone 3,as shown on Figures 2-6 and 2-7. Concentrations of PCE in Zone 3
are lower than in Zone 2,with the greatest concentration(330 µg/L) detected in 88-
MW23DW. Additionally,based on the limited data set collected in 2009,the PCE
concentration appears to be increasing in the downgradient wells of both the upper and
middle portions of the Castle Hayne aquifer (88-MW22IW,88-MW241W,and 88-MW23DW)
(Figure 2-9).
Geochemical data collected in Zone 3 groundwater in October 2009 generally indicate
favorable conditions for reductive dechlorination. These conditions include low DO and
negative ORP values,the presence of ferrous iron,and ideal groundwater temperatures
(Table 2-1). In addition,PCE daughter products TCE and VC indicate that reductive
dechlorination is occurring or has occurred to some extent in Zone 3 groundwater.
The low TOC concentrations observed in Zone 3 may inhibit reductive dechlorination.
However, other indicator parameters suggest that reductive dechlorination could be
stimulated by the addition of a carbon source.
2.3 Bench-Scale Study
Beginning in October 2009,a bench-scale study was conducted to evaluate the potential
effectiveness and reagent types/dose requirements for chemical oxidation and ERD using
aquifer material from the site. The conclusions of the bench-scale study were incorporated
into the design of these pilot studies. The Bench-Scale Study Summary Report is provided in
Appendix A.
Sample Collection
Soil and groundwater samples were collected from representative monitoring wells in
October 2009 for use in the bench-scale studies. Continuous soil cores were collected from
Zone 2 at 35 to 60 ft bgs during the installation of 88-MW16DW3 and from 85 to 100 ft bgs
during the installation of 88-MW18DW3. Continuous soil cores were collected from Zone 3
from 45 to 60 ft bgs during the installation of a soil boring near the 88-MW22 well cluster.
Groundwater samples were collected from Zone 2 monitoring wells 88-MW16IW and 88-
MW18DW and from Zone 3 from monitoring well 88-MW22IW.Soil and groundwater
samples were shipped to the CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Laboratory (ASL) in Corvallis,
Oregon for testing.
Bench-Scale Testing
Testing involved constructing batch reactors (microcosms) containing soil and groundwater
with selected reagents and monitoring the reactors over time to track treatment
performance.
Chemical Oxidation
Chemical oxidation testing was conducted on materials collected from the 88-MW16 cluster
within Zone 2. Thirteen test conditions were evaluated for each chemical oxidation study. In
accordance with the Bench-Scale Study Work Plan(CH2M HILL,2009),chemical oxidation
test conditions included:
2-4 ES062210072353VBO

SECTION 2-SITE BACKGROUND
• Four separate concentration doses of KMn04
• One un-activated and three activated persulfate doses
• One un-catalyzed and three catalyzed hydrogen peroxide doses
• Control
Analytical results of the ISCO testing in Zone 2 indicated:
• KMn04,followed by catalyzed peroxide achieved the best chlorinated volatile organic
compounds (CVOC) treatment performance. There was little or no difference in
effectiveness among the various doses of these reagents evaluated.
• The persulfate treatments did not improve PCE treatment appreciably compared to the
Control,while the TCE and cis-1,2-DCE removal,especially for the non-activated
persulfate-only treatment,performed better than the Control.
• Treatment in the persulfate microcosms still lagged behind the KMn04 and peroxide
treatments.
• Peroxide was largely depleted at the end of the 14-day catalyzed peroxide tests,whereas
the KMn04 tests retained a substantial KMnO4 residual after 48 days. The longer-lived
nature of KMn04 can facilitate better contact and distribution in field implementation.
Based on these results,KMn04 was selected as the most effective reagent for reducing
contaminants in the upper Castle Hayne aquifer in Zone 2 (Appendix A).
ERD
ERD testing was conducted on materials collected from the 88-MW18 cluster within Zone 2
and from the 88-MW22 well cluster within Zone 3. Seven test conditions were evaluated for
each ERD study,resulting in a total of 14 tests for the two sample locations. In accordance
with the Bench-Scale Study Work Plan(CH2M HILL,2009),ERD test conditions included:
• Emulsified vegetable oil (EVO), manufactured by Terra Systems, Inc. (SRSTM),with and
without bioaugmentation
• Sodium lactate (C3H503Na) with and without bioaugmentation
• Three-dimensional Microemulsion (3DMeTM) with and without bioaugmentation
• Control
Analytical results of the ERD testing in Zone 2 indicated:
• Lactate and SRSTM without bioaugmentation supported rapid biological reductive
dechlorination of PCE and TCE to cis-1,2-DCE,followed by slow degradation of the cis-
1,2-DCE,which may have been due to biodegradation or volatilization from the test
reactors.
• Lactate and SRSTM with bioaugmentation using the TSI DC Bioaugmentation CultureTM
resulted in rapid biodegradation of PCE and TCE. The breakdown products cis-1,2-DCE
and VC accumulated briefly in the SRSTM tests,but were soon degraded.
• 3DMeTM,with or without bioaugmentation, did not appear to be as effective for ERD in
Site 88 Zone 2 materials.
ES062210072353VBO 2-5

PILOT STTJDYMLEM3qrAT1ONPL^SHE 88,OPERABLE L]NfI'NO.15
Lactate is a soluble substrate that normally requires periodic re-injection to sustain
treatment,whereas the SRSTM is considered to be an"insoluble" or slow-release substrate
capable of sustaining treatment for one to two years following a single injection event.
Based on these results,SRSTM in combination with bioaugmentation was selected as the
most effective treatment of groundwater within Zone 2 (Appendix A).
Analytical results of the ERD testing in Zone 3 indicated:
• Lactate,with and without bioaugmentation treatments,showed slight evidence of
enhanced biodegradation compared to the Control. The lactate with bioaugmentation
treatments resulted in somewhat faster and more complete removal of PCE and TCE,
but the degree of enhancement did not appear to be as great as in the Zone 2 tests.
• The SRSTM treatments,with and without bioaugmentation, showed little evidence of
enhanced biodegradation compared to the Control,in contrast to the results observed
for the Zone 2 tests.
• 3DMeTM treatment without bioaugmentation showed little evidence of enhanced
biodegradation compared to the Control.
• 3DMeTM treatment with bioaugmentation showed evidence of enhanced biodegradation
compared to the Control, due to an observed increase in the rate of degradation after
Day 30 in the microcosm.
Based on these results,3DMeTM in combination with bioaugmentation was selected as the
most effective treatment of groundwater within Zone 3 (Appendix A).
2.4 Groundwater Nbdehng
Groundwater flow modeling was performed to evaluate injection scenarios within the pilot
study areas,in accordance with the Bench-Scale Study Work Plan (CH2M HILL,2009).
MicroFEM© (Hemker,2009), an integrated groundwater finite element modeling package
was used to simulate the groundwater flow system.
The model was used to evaluate various configurations of injection and extraction wells to
determine an array of injection wells and a schedule that would maximize the delivery of
substrate within the target zone.The model accounted for lateral and vertical groundwater
flow to forecast the three-dimensional distribution of substrate for a given array of injection
wells.
Upon calibration of the groundwater flow model,multiple injection and extraction scenarios
were run for the pilot study areas. A total of 23 scenarios were run for chemical oxidation,
with the injectant assumed to be potassium permanganate with a half-life of three months.
For ERD scenarios,the injectant was assumed to be 50 percent lactate/50 percent EVO with
a half-life of three months for Zones and 3. Eight scenarios were run for Zone 2 and three
scenarios were run for Zone 3. The layout of injection and/or extraction wells,injection rate
and time, and extraction rate and time, if applicable,were varied to determine an optimized
layout and injection schedule.
The results of the modeled scenarios were used in conjunction with the results of the bench
scale treatability studies to determine the optimal injection substrate concentrations and
2-6 ES062210072353VBO

SECTION 2-SITE BACKGROUND
well spacing. For the ISCO pilot study,treatment volume was calculated based on the
results of the model. Using this volume,the mass of permanganate required (based on the
bench-scale studies) was calculated. The concentration of permanganate was then varied
until the gallons of solution was equal to the gallons of injectant used in the modeled
scenario. This exercise indicated that injecting 49,000 gallons of solution in a single location
would result in an optimized radius of influence of 38 feet,approximately 36% of the
135,740 gallon treatment pore volume,based on an effective porosity of 20 percent.
Aquifer properties for the locations of the Zone 2 ERD test and the Zone 3 ERD test are
similar to the location of the Zone 2 ISCO test. Further, the same degradation rates were
assumed for each reagent. Therefore,the injection of 49,000 gallons of ERD solution is also
expected to yield a radius of influence of 38 feet.The concentrations of ERD substrates to be
injected were determined by using the results of the bench scale studies and vendor
recommendations. For these studies,the vendor-recommended injectant concentrations will
be injected,then chase-water will be added to reach a total injected volume of 49,000
gallons.
A summary of groundwater modeling results is provided in Appendix B.
ES062210072353VBO 2-7

TABLE 2-1
Summary ofNatural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
Site 88 Implementation Plan
NUB CamLej,North Carolina
Natural Attenuation Range of Results Condition Needed for Reductive Favorable/Unfavorable
Indicator Parameter (October 2009) Dechlorination
Zone 2-Intermediate/Deep Near Source Area Zone
ORP -272 mV to+247 mV Less than+50 mV(favorable) Favorable to Ideal
Less than-100 mV(ideal)
pH 7.03 SU to 8.39 SU Greater than 6.0 SU and
Less than 8.0 SU Favorable
Dissolved Oxygen mg L)g/L to 2.41 mg/L(90%< 1 Less than 1.0 mg/L Favorable to Ideal
Nitrate <0.05 mg/L to 1.7 mg/L Less than 1.0 mg/L Unfavorable-reduction from
background not observed
Ferrous Iron 0.0 mg/L to 1.5 mg/L Measurable Levels Unfavorable to favorable
Sulfate 6.5 mg/L to 56 mg/L Less than 20 mg/L Unfavorable; may compete in
some areas
Methane Not Detected Measurable Levels Inconclusive
Total Organic Carbon 0.59 mg/L to 3.3 Greater than 20 mg/L Unfavorable
Chloride 7.3 mg/L to 26 mg/L Greater than the background Favorable
concentration'
Temperature 20.10 C to 21.98 C Greater than 20 C Ideal
Zone 3-Downgradient Intermediate/Deep Zone
ORP -205.6 mV to+97.5 mV Less than+50 mV(favorable) Favorable to Ideal
Less than-100 mV(ideal)
pH 7.17 Greater than 6.0 SU and Ideal
Less than 8.0 SU
Dissolved Oxygen 0.06 mg/L to 2.86 mg/L Less than 1.0 mg/L Favorable to ideal
Nitrate Not Detected Less than 1.0 mg/L Inconclusive
Ferrous Iron 0.1 mg/L to 3.26 Measurable Levels Favorable
Sulfate 6.7 mg/L to 25 mg/L Less than 20 mg/L Unfavorable; may compete in
some areas
Methane Not detected Measurable Levels Inconclusive
Total Organic Carbon 0.44 mg/L to 16 mg/L Greater than 20 mg/L Unfavorable
Chloride 4.9 mg/L to 16 mg/L Greater than the background Unfavorable
concentration
Temperature 20.71 C to 22.40 C Greater than 20 C Ideal
Notes:
mV-millivolts
mg/L-milligrams per liter
ORP-Oxidation-Reduction Potential
SU-Standard Unit
<-less than
Background concentrations are not available for this evaluation.
Page 1 of 1

\\NORTHEND\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAMPLEJEUNE\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 2 1 SITE MAP.MXD MRISSING 5/21/2010 10:25:29
ai {{ 102 .IR88
)y
t
!tllY�t cG' ,.^ i0{�fi� L1R88-MW-r�W r7- 0
}✓ ^^� -MW351W 1 6i '18 V,4 M.
T1
T.11�C't .1>�
raIK146 w ' C�T2
P C(J T21
� S IR88-MW34DW � 4
HP14� i �. IR88-MW341W
HP105 ,
v r ` IR88-MW071
136 IR88-MW07DW IR88-MW07 IR88-MW11
` ♦ T IR88-MW11DW
� � �• IR88-MW11
SPIP111 ♦ l4t�(rrNd ;�_ ' H IR88-MW121W `�
• � � IR88-MW12DW ,
HP112 P11 IR88-MW33DW I088-MW331W IR88-MW12
'.. a SOD
t f 58 k}
�ty/► L
♦ lt.tc .v
� 1 1 IR8 -MW16 , l , r '• iT,.
88-MW OMP IR88-MW05DW2
A{ { IR88-MWO W+
y{V'r- tO � IR88-MW16DW IR88=MWO5DW 0
t 14 F:1 R F, 1rrp 1_ 111 :. a !i�!{e a i�s ,rt* 1♦M.
`[T�'Kr�►k`{Fit Tt�!s t!`, R IR88MW16D 8,M'WW.030D3.W IR88iMVUr17D WW
f
r I - _ VIRr
DRY IR88-MW0 DARE
HP12504 W3 NE •�IR88-MWOSI IR88-MW071{ 7522
t—WIL -MW23M MOM W171! r !IR88-MW231 37 IR8
!Vr ! � 88-MW39M IR88MW1t7
♦, - - f 3 IR8M
MOO- W2 543 R8W t
9 IR88-MW13 M t 3
115 ( ti , j V % ♦ EN �.�.�►_ �_ f IR88-MW181W " S43� �. IR88-MW431W 3
! . p IR88-MW321W' 94 ,� • IR88-EX08D
` V%� IR88'MW211W IR88 MW32DW IR88-MW18DW IR88-MW18DW3' IR88-MW26 < p
IR88-MW21DW 7 •�� R' IR88MW25 �' r
4 •7 f; � IR88-MW18DW2 IR88-MW061W Former Building 25 �
dM • + IR88-MWO6DW, r ' 6HP57
IR88-MW06 IR88-MW311W{ r cv
d " IR88-MW41DW r _3*"* m
" ►! IR88-MW31 �• � fs
IR88-MW27 r A
{ IR88-MW41 DW2
IR88-MW151W '
IR8 -MW221W IR88-MW15DW 4' �p IR88M�0 IR88-MW02 IR88-MW011W or
IR88-MW,15 SS y
% IR88-MW241W PD IR88-MW301W >Rf�IR88-MW01'
IR88-MW22DW + IR88-MW42DW2 1 T' IR8 -MW021 m • r
88-MW24D
' IR88-MW201 IR W 4 IR88-MW IR88-MW02DW
IR88-MW200W I
223 IR88-MW361W r r HP55 �t
234 -
t
_ r r _ "\ IR88=MW091W T(
IR88 MW14DW t` IR88-MW041W �k. , .
\ .�- �' {ER IR88-MW14 `�• � -
t. G
r ! IR88-MW141W �S
IR88-MW191W .- $' ��g � t •$� •
•, IR88-MW19DW �` R • IR88-MW371W t r s
.� 'IR88-MW37DV1/ 62
r� �,• _ .J► .. PAFC^-rM2X
i� ♦�!� C IR88-MW38DW
� 54 r
- rr '` 7n t i
i 4H 't-Ax r ♦ ` 1�
HP259
63
�HJ'250
FJP53 s F
Legend 2007 Aerial Imagery Figure 2-1
Q� Shallow Monitoring Well Location Site Map
+ Upper Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location N Site 88 Implementation Plan
at Middle Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location 0 100 200 400 MCB CamLej
0• Lower Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location MOOMMIFeet North Carolina
® Multi-Port Wells
— Surface Water Centerline 1 inch = 200 feet
® Former Building 25 40 CH2MHILL
Site 88 Boundary 4W
Generated By:Brooke PropstlCLT Checked by:Keri Hallberg/CLT

\\NORTH END\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAMPLEJEUNE\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 2 2 DEFINITION OF REMEDIAL ZONES.MXD CBOWMAN 6/10/2010 10:38:04
t{� 1 p
T�� y�tNiK+1v1:4R� �1 -
H1e�1 - t
Jill
t 'd �tteN • AIR88-MW35DW
kl ec ww ` .c " RUM 351
w
• IR88-MW34DW ---
"` IR88-MW341W
E'j.i' - IR88-MW071 FF"�?
IR88-MW07DW IR88-MW07 IR88-MW11
` - � # IR88-MW11DW
� � �• IR88-MW11
• ! !� °' IR88-MW12DW IR88-MW12 l !�� T
+ ,. IR88-MW331W o% r c�f
` a IR88-MW33D W `-
tf *t°L ;� y IR88-MW1 88-MW OMP l y3� t • p i
IR88-MW161W
Fey f i IR88=MW0
[f1 : �' � IR88-MW16DW IR88=MW05DW 0
�hR88-MW08 IR88-MW16DW2 IR8 -MW051 E pRIVE,.,
tf !f r [ ; !t tiR r1�1� r Alt
IR88-MW081W I :Iir VIRGINIApAR• n .
�1 .f�L4Fet d` t8�8kMW2 MP �4 F r
t"O . r IR88 MW.03D.W IR88-MW171W
_(� tb!!1 IR88-MW231W • 88-MW39MP 1' f IR8'-MW031 IR88-MW�117t
r', Ott E IR88-MW28 i '
e � r• ,,�� -..�' - + I0881M1"Ai03 IR88-MVU17DW
IR88-MW13 . t 3
'' V y.�► t- IR88-MTg
• j .: ` W101W IR88-MW431W
IR88-MW321W' IR88-MW181W - IR88-EX08D
�` IR88-MW26-
i IR88-MW18DW ,� /'E IR88=MW25
IR88-MW211W IR88-MW32DW IR88-MW18DW2 ^� ; �^ - s 0
`F `IR88-MW21DW
M061WR
MW06DW :'
o r , V1lrlV- IR88-MW27 ,Mi IR88�MW31 _ � �
IR88-MW151W1
t� IR88-MW15DW IR88 M0 IR88-MW02R ` rR88-oW011W n-
IR88-MW221W j' IR88-MW15 IR88-MW241W IR88-MW301W
IR88-MW22DW rn 1 t'%► IR88-MW021WR �T IR88-MW01 m -
- IR88-MW24DW 1 ♦ �z
IR88=MW201W IR8 -M 02DWR v �{ n
- IR88-MW20DW
® IR88-MW361W M
IR88-MW36DW G
t r IR8&MW.09 IR88-MW04DW y
IR88=MYi IS
IR88-MW14DW
IR88-MW041W �_k •
IR88-MW14
IR88-MW141W
.��_ r► ` r IR88 MW191W
r
y f IR88-MW19DW I IR88-MW371W r
�' ` .� J1' w :� • / • 'T 'IR88-MW37DVY
IR88-MW381
Wk
e140
vt
Legend Figure 2-2
Q� Shallow Monitoring Well Location ® Former Building 25 Location Remedial Zone Delineations
Intermediate Monitoring Well Location 0 Pilot Study Areas N Site 88 Implementation Plan
Abandoned Intermediate Monitoring Well Location o 1 200 40o MCB CamLej
Deep Monitoring Well Location 6 North Carolina
0• Very Deep Monitoring Well Location Feet
Surface Water Centerline 1 inch = 200 feet
Zone Boundary
CH2M1{ILL
Site 88 Boundary

\\NORTHEND\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAM PLEJ FUN E\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 2 3 CROSS SECTION MAP.MXD MRISSING 5/21/201010:29:47
do
�iii� C' f 61
IR88-MW35DW� f ,
tea ,
�W A ' !• 41 IR8 -MW351W NT16CON f18
M a0 •, ONT17C
.�
6 y .� �'� �. �! _ &ANT
IR88-MW34DW
HP145, +' IR88-MW3+41W
S67 -
� .� S67• �..
s- IR88_MW071W t a•
�!_ r' 3 •y i� IR88=MW07DW IR88 MW07 IR88-MW11 W
1 IR88-111AW11DW
IR88-MW11 �K
SHP1T1
S58C
j ��`• Hp H. IR88-MW33DW IR88-MW331W IR88-MW1,2
• r R88 MW121W . .. . .• S5lb
�• r IR88-MW1
�� ♦ P - . IR8 -MW161 88-MW OMP 1R1Rg8 MW.OW2 '
�` S�1\C�;• i, IR88-MW16DW IR88'-MW05.
♦� * •� , .:�►' t�� •.' 1��a IR88-MW16DW2
IR88-MW08 IR8111MW051W IR88-MW171W pAREpRtVE '♦
HP125_ IR88-MW081W IR88-MW16DW3 IR88-MW071W � VIR
, � �. �' • IR88-MW17 GINIA
• __ 88-MW23MP r=MW.1r!�
3'f� ; ♦ IR88-MW231W 37 IR88-MW.03UW IR88-MW17DW-
�• .? 88-MW39MP IR8&MW28 IR88'-MW031W
IR88-MW23DW S4 4 ` IR88-MW03 S5 * O
y S43Bj IR88-MW13
F IR88-MW181W ♦ IR88-MW131W a
? , �� IR8&MW.32DWL IR88-MW18DW IR88-MW18DW3 ;3 • n`
' , \, IR88-MW26 IR88-EX08DW =+1
• � IR88-MW321W IR88 MW25 _
IR88-MW211 HP
W IR88-MW18DW2 IR88-MW061W 57 59�� rA
r.o �� � -� •' IR88-MW21DW r► � T
• �' i + IR88-MW 6qW �1iP5�j SHP
IR88-MW06 IR88-MW311W +►
IR88-MW41DW + ' 1R88_Mw31 *� IR88 MW01IW r
IR88-MW41DW2 IRIOR W2?10 IR88-MW01 ' • "
IR8 -MW221 IR8 -MW02 I
IR88-Mw241W IR8 -MW301 •
yIR88_M 415DW IR8 -MW021W + j0 -
IR88-MW22DW •. W IR88-MW42DW2 • i m
IR88-MW151W IR88-MW24DW / 13•
IR88-MW
IR88-MW42DW IR88-MW02DW }
- 15 �.
IR88-MW20DW !s
'236 IR8 -MW361 � � HP55 v
• IR88-MW201 •' - IR88-MW36DW ' � i m' ;• 60
z
do � m
T IR88:MW.09 I1N0�•4� , ANc
_ 1 _ IR88=MW091W R881M
IR88-MW041W • '
IR88-MW14DW � _
IR88-MW14 - IR88-MWO ow4
r
IR88-MW141W -. � J - I ' ._�.
57
IR88-MW19DW ' N*
+ ti _ IR88-MW37,IW a. A-
IR88-MW191W t+ / IR88 MW37DW 62
A FCL14 ' 1
IR88-MW38DW lop �' ♦
. +�.
IR8 -MW381
' 40 1� P 0
63
P2 2
Legend 2007 Aerial Imagery Figure 2-3
i� Shallow Monitoring Well i Geologic Cross-Sections
+ Upper Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location N Site 88 Implementation Plan
Middle Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location 0 100 200 400 MCB CamLej
OO Lower Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location 1 00009Feet North Carolina
�-► Geologic Cross-Section
Surface Water Centerline 1 inch — 200 feet
Site 88 Boundary 40 CH2MHILL
Generated By:Brooke PropsUCLT Checked by:Keri Hallberg/CLT

A West East A'
40 40
00 00 0o co ���
00 co 00
oo 0c oo 0o 00 c0 c
00 0o co 00 00 oc 0c o0 00 0o cc 00 0o cc oo coc1-1
• °O oc 00 00 00 PCE:0.5 U PCE:0.5 U
PCE:13U PCE:12000 TCE:0.17J
PCE:55� TCE:0.5U
Q 'i i i i i i i i i i i i i i PCE:0.5 U i i i i i ' -,�„T, TCE:3.3' '' TCE:13 U TCE:800 c-DCE:0.5 U c-DCE:0.17 J 0
c-DCE:380 VC:0.5 U TCE:0.5 U , , , ' o-DCE:3.8' , c-DCE:13000 VC:0.5L
����� �.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' i r, �'.'.'i'i'�' �; ��'�' '�'�' Vc•13U VC:310U
!c-DCE:0.5 U VC:0.5 U '
VC'0.5U 'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i' 'i'i'i'i'i' - -
i'i'i'i'i'i'i'�'�'�'�'�'�'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'.'.•. . . . . . . . �'�'�'�'�'�'�'�'�'�'i'i'i'i' i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'�' .'.'i'i'i'i'i'i i'i' 'PCE:630U
'.;.'.'.'.'.'.•.'.•.'. . . .; . . . . . . . . . . .'.'.'. . . TCE 1500
c-DCE:9900
VC:630U
�, PCE:0.5U
, , , .'.'i'i'i i'�' PCE:8400 PCE:O.SU
PCE:0.5U
PCE:170 .'.i.i.i.i.i.i. . . . . . . . . . . '.i. .� . . . . TCE:0.59
TCE:55 �',',',',','i'ii�'� �i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�� � �i �i �i �' �' �' � i' i' i' i' i �i�i�i�i�' TCE:180J TCE:7.9
-40 TCE:4.5 . . . , , PCE:180 . . . . . . . .'.'.'.'.'.'.'. . . . . . . . . . . .- c-DCE:250 U o-DCE:11 c-DCE:0.66 -40�-' c-DCE:39 '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.',',',i�i ��i�i�i�i�i�i�i���������������i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�� ', PCE:60000 PCE:14000 ,'.'.'.'.'.' VC:0.5U
0) c-DCE:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TCE: .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. . . . . . . .'.'.'. VC:<250 VC:0.5U
VC:2.5U ',�,i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i ������������������������������i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�������i�� TCE:1300 TCE:150J ,i �
VC:0.5U , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,� c-DCE:11 .'.'.'.'.'.',',',',',',',',', , , ''i'i c-DCE:1300 c-DCE:170J
VC•8.4U
J . . VC:250 U VC:360 U
PCE:0.5 U
C]I
•i�'� �i�� ��i�i�i�i�i�i�i ��i�i�i�i�i�i�i���� PCE:7.3 TCE:0.5U
+p' PCE:0.5;U ;'
PCE:0.5 U PCE: ; PCE:0.43 J i PCE:1100' PCE:24001 TCE:7.4 c-DCE:0.17 J
PCE:0.5 U TCE:1.3 TCE:1.3' TCE:110 TCE:140 VC:0.5 U
> [i]TCE:0.5 U TCE:0.5 U PCE:5000 PCE:10000 c-DCE:2.8 J
TCE:0.5 U c-DCE:0.37 J c-DCE:0.35 J c-DCE:88 c-DCE:950 VC:0.5 U
• c-DCE:0.5 U c-DCE:0.5 U TCE:290 TCE:490 PCE:2.5 U
a+ 0-DCE:0.5 U- - _ _ _ - - VC:0.5 U VC:1.3 U VC:0.5 U VC:63 U VC:42 U
f6 _80 - -VC:0.5 U - - - - - -VC:0.5 U - � _ _ - - / /..•, c-DCE:170 c-DCE:160 J TCE:2.5 U-- _ - - _ _
4) VC:.077 VC:250 U c-DCE:26
--- 200 PCE:7700 1 PCE:110000
C TCE: .5 U TCE:150 TCE:290 TCE:2700 VC:2.5 U
p c-DCE:290 c-DCE:1100 J
w c-DCE:2.5 U c-DCE:37 VC:63 U VC:2000 U
VC:2.5 U VC:0.45 J
_d PCE:1 H PCE:0.42 J
W TCE:2.5 U TCE:0.31 J PCE:1400 PCE:3500 PCE:0.86 ,
TCE:100 TCE:330 TCE:0.5 U -•• -
c-DCE:2.5U c-DCE:0.18J c-DCE:170 c-DCE:2700- __-_-_-_- c-DCE:0.5U _ _______________________________
VC:2.5 U VC:0.5 U VC:63 U VC:63 U, :_ _ _ VC:0.5 U
PCE:0.89 J PCE:0.58 PCE:2200 PCE:14 J- -----------------
TCE:1.3U TCE: TCE: - TCE: - ----------- - - --------------------------------• -
c-DCE:1.3U c-DCE:0.15J c-DCE:110 -c-DCE:980_ ------------ -- - -------------------------------• _
VC:1.3U VC:0.5U VC:84U _ VC:25U_ _________________ ______________________________
----------- ---- PCE:4.8 - -- _PCE: ----------------:.-'
PCE:0.78 J PCE:0.51 :-:PCE:1900 PCE:39' _ _':: TCE:1.1 _ _ 'TCE:0.31 J "------------.--
TCE:0.84 U TCE:0.26 J_: :-- TCE:95 TCE:31 U- . c-DCE:1 - - c-DCE:0.31 J-------._..
c-DCE:0.84 U•c-DCE:0.5 J__ ---c-DCE:64 c-DCE:1300, -____VC_0.5 U_-_ -_VC:0.5 U-__---_•.
-160 -VC:0.04U__ VC_0.13J_- VC:63 U.----- - U._ -
--- PCE:1.3: PCE:059" - PCE:2400 - PCE:47_ ______ -160
TCE:0.5 U TCE:0.18 J•- - -
TCE:140 TCE:5.5'_ - ---------------_--------
c-DCE:0.5 U -c-DCE:0.5 J-- _c-DICE:91 J c-DCE:320 - - - -
VC:os U VC:0.12 J VC:130 U VC:0.49 J
-200 -200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
Distance in Feet from A to A'
Legend Figure 2-4
9 Notes:Y 1.The depth and thickness of the subsurface 2.Analytical results are from the August 2007 remedial
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
Silt strata indicated on this section(profile)were investigation and October 2009. Site 88 Implementation Plan
generalized from and interpolated between Site 88
Foss�L'>erous Sand Silt/Clay3.Concentrations are presented in ug/L.
Horizontal:1"-200' test locations. Information on actual MCB CamLej
Vertical:r'=4a
subsurface conditions applies only to the 4.J-Reported value is estimated.
North Carolina
❑Cemented Sand Screened Interval specific locations and dates indicated.
V.E.=10x 5. U The material was analyzed for, but not detected
Subsurface conditions and water levels at
other locations may differ from conditions , CH2MHILL
Sand � Water Table Elevation y
occurring at the indicated location.
ES012009013M<E Site_88_Eigure_5 cross section A-N v10.ai 02.19.10 mlb

D North South D'
cli co
a a3:
VV 1� Mco M 00000000 ACV�N 01M
40 MM CD CD CD MM V V 00 coco 40
co co 0000 co co oO 00 00 00 00 00 00 co co co co ro' co co co M a0 00 co 00 00 00 0000 OD co co co
PCE:0.5 U ;PCE:0.5 U
TCE:1.1 TICE:0.5 U
D E .4 :c-DCE•0.5U;c C .0 8J;
y;
VC:0.5 U VC 0.5 U
�����
0 0
PCE:0.55 U
r
P E 17 PCE:1 C 0 C 80 J
d PCE:0.5 U PCE:0.5 U� PCE:12 TCE:0.28 J PCE:0.5 U;
m TCE 10 J TCE 9 TCE 23
-TCE: c-DCE•0.5 U C .0.5 U TCE:1 TCE:0.5 U'
w
0'
��:
E 1 c-DCE 12
c-DCE:21' c-DC 6 J'
V-D E•4.7 C:0.5 U c C ;c-DCE:5.8 -DCE:0.5 U' 77
J VC:0.5U VC: VC: �;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�
N
VC:0.5 U VC:0.5 U VC:0.5 U
0
-40 -40
> PCE:0.5 U PCE:0.5 U PCE 660
PCE:0.5 U
TCE:0.5 U TCE:0.16 J TCE:170 PCE:5,300 ,PCE:4400 TCE:0.5 U
c-DCE:0.5 U c-DCE:0.5 U c-DCE:25 PCE:2400 _PCE:1100
a, VC:0.5 U VC:0.5 U VC:0.28 J TCE:140 TICE:110 TCE:340 J TCE:260 c-DCE:0.5 J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -c-DCE:930 -c-DCE:88 c-DCE:500 U_c-DCE:7.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VC:0.5 U
Lj
� VC:50 U VC:63 U VC:500 U VC:0.5 U - - - - - - -
r
_80 PCE:110000 PCE:7700 _80
y TCE:2700 TCE:290
c-DCE:1100 J c-DCE:290
lL
VC:2000 U VC:63 U
PCE:3500 PCE:1400 PCE:1.8
TCE:330 TCE:100 TCE 0.13 J
c-DCE:2700`Jc-DCE:170 -c-DCE:0.23 J
VC:63 U :::VC:63 U ;VC 0.5 U
PCE:14 J PCE:2200
120 TCE:5.3 J TCE:150 120
c-DCE:980 c-DCE:110 PCE O.5U; �;�;�;�;�;�
.PCE•0.5 U ;PCE:0.5 U TCE:0.5 U
VC:25 U VC:84 U
;TCE•0.5U TCE: c-DCE:O.SU
PCE:39 PCE:1900 ;c-DCE•0.5 U:c-DCE:0.5 U VC:0.5 U
TCE:31 U TCE:95 :VC:0.5 U ;Vc•0;5 U
c-DCE:1300 c-DCE:64
VC:31 U VC:63 U
' PCE:47 PCE:2400 PCE: 0.5 U
-160 ;: ;TCE•5.5 TCE:140 TCE:0.5 U -160
c-DCE:320' c-DCE:91 J ; c-DCE:0.5 U
ram.
- VC:0.49 J VC:130 U - y - VC:0.5 U
-200 -200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Distance in Feet from D to D'
Legend Notes: Figure 2-5
1.The depth and thickness of the subsurface 2.Analytical results are from the August 2007 remedial GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D-D'
Clay ❑ Silt strata indicated on this section(profile)were investigation and October 2009. Implementation Plan
generalized from and interpolated between Site 88
Fossiliferous Sand Screened Interval test locations. Information on actual 3. J-Reported Value is estimated.
Horizontal:1"=100' subsurface conditions applies only to the MCB CamLej
Vertical:1"-40' 4. U-The material was analyzed for,but not detected
Cemented Sand V Water Table Elevation - specific locations and dates indicated. North Carolina
V.E.=10x Subsurface conditions and water levels at
Sand INS Not sampled other locations may differ from conditions CH2MHILL
occurring at the indicated location. 40
ES012009013MKE Site_88_Figure_2-5_v6.ai 06.09.10 mlblsls

\\NORTHEND\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAMPLEJEUNE\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 2 6 UPPER CASTLE HAYNE AQUIFER PCE.MXD CBOWMAN 6/10/2010 11:06:00
r-
V Ile
Vol
't ,.'. ,• •t ! t • �- '7 •!+a Lti aim rLt
,Jt .,1c, •� ..� y. � .��t~y1 5��4"' Neo
yyy ' ',�Y R -�ra• L.fH"1'"� (S` :� l.r+`► ` ' �" � •�, r •A _� .,� IR88-MW351W
`Y'L.7 .' A �`` tp qq •it r� 1 '� `Y� '� -0.5 U
IR880 U341W;
-'/ ' 'F'�`a :k. �+�.v�• el�l';4�.�4� Y,, •M },. '+1.. _ 1�' �- IR88-MW071W
A.
"` � O.S U IR88 MW111W
{r ,
' tK <t �1 !► - �* T IR88-MW121W
U _
150
r t + { IR88-MW051W
t . r� 1 ' IR88=MW181W
0.
• f _ s a �" �^� = t, ,.,r ,.r v ..� �b 14000 IR88-MWEX071W
_ �. .a .t � � •,r . ��a,tt'� !t T _ �ti • IR88-MW081W 2400 '
IR88-MW031Ott
yin • S r t 2 •: 1 = +c t .. . r � R88MW231W 2600 #
Z. r 1114
V• .�Fpi5 Up IR88 MW131W K
IR88-MW321W.!!
�„ .. .r 1 ar 1 S ' � ..IR88-MW211
w W - �" - _ -
Z t , or '�� IR88-MW181W IR88 MW171W r,� `s . ss •. ' t+ 1 i�t` �~ Syr rj1� 180 IR88 MW061W 0.5 U r
2.. IR88 MW311W
t " IR88-MW221W IR88-MW151W
320 630 U 1 IR88-MW011W
a IR88-MW201W
i
s« 0.5 U 4- 0.81 IR88-MW021W
IR880 U381W 8400 *t
• Try F -S ':•,�• `r •_ - IR88-MW041W � - - �-
r IR88-MW091W 0.5 U a cs ,'
;. :, ° •�4 '� t r IR88 MW141W 0.55 U - I
IR88 MW191W
• 0.5 U IR88-MW371W f !� ,.�
At
IRA 8-MW381W
L-ilk
Air
.4000 -
t'.. ; e. t. _-1' a,„+ta ��' ,`�,.t �:r•- r r r �, x t I i��.�
y�.�+ ♦1`_ s •+`tl• F• 1 n!t l �
Md1; +QX t Aci f r � �; -
�. _ a
Oil
•�.. . 1 ' f i• 'y + A 4>x ° I tit A06a
Legend Notes: Figure 2-6
Upper Castle Ha ne Monitoring Well 40-50 ft b s PCE Contours 1. Concentration contours have been interpolated between
pp y g ( g ) p � Tetrachloroethene Concentrations
Surface Water Centerline NCGWQS : 0.7 pg/L monitoring well locations.Actual contaminant distribution may differ. N Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer (40-50 ft bgs)
Site 88 Boundary0 0.7 /L 2. -ll resultF-shown in green
> pg 0 150 soo soo Site 88 Implementation Plan
0 >70 pg/L 3. October 2009 analytical results -shown in black FM 00000IIIIFeet MCB CamLej
> 700 pg/L 4. U - Compound analyzed but not detected North Carolina
> 7,000 pg/L 5. PCE -Tetrachloroethene 1 inch = 300 feet
6. NCGWQS - North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standard
7. 2007 Aerial Imagery cr12MI 1[
Generated By:Brooke Propst/CLT Checked by:Keri Hallberg/CLT

\\NORTHEND\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAMPLEJEUNE\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 2 7 LOWER PORTION MIDDLE CASTLE HAYNE AQUIFER PCE.MXD CBOWMAN 6/10/2010 11:07:37
HP131
Multi-Port Well Screen Intervals 88-MW23MP 88MW39MP 88-MW40MP t ,�
Port Designation Screen Interval (ft bgs) Screen Interval(ft bgs) Screen Interval(ft bgs)
A 77-82 76-81 74.5-79.5 �
e B 97-102 96-101 89.5-99.5
C 117-122 116-121 109.5-119.5
D 137-142 136-141 129.5-139.5 � � � ��I 11J '• • _
' ♦�er—
E 157-162 156-161 149.5-159.5 A'�' �t. -
1 F 172-177 171-176 169.5-174.5
AL
pop-
AP-1 11 /. 4lti crN H , !�•�
♦! �r� S58A
HP155 �t • HP112 P115 4rf q I , t ! 1000
S5�
H'r1 •1F 1 IR88=MW39MP0
k 11�1 1. 01 � B:110000 IR88-MW40MP
ttti♦! C:3500 _ B:5200
,,` v. t♦i t' DER �! � V/
`'``i q t C ♦4 ♦ 4 HRtj7 R��MgO -
t !r �� ♦ !e !� HP125 V 4�f�� �u-�f� -
S� F•'�IR88-MW23MP �IR8 M .16 VF
e F, �► IR88-MW16DW3
��•- B:200�F �`® •
o t K126 � *Cflt'� l C:0.42�J r, 0.86 _
r i a R a- .�►: :; 1 t
43
it L . (� 37
�r 1q 1 111 ♦ �� t t�ttlC''•�t r103 'j' S43F�., `
kit S43,#
115 Y - ' 4 •mac hl': WOO,r.
117 . ��e ♦ :—133 q �t -
1 1C7A ! 97 w '1`' \IR88-MW18DW3
1! v Y �i: A NI tf� r P56 PA
1 t •. ,, •cv s m k
St �4 23 '' r HP55
234
tt S A
S ♦ `\
26
lr4i O� T 1` L. r • ap r•� t r T 62
cn
✓ /` Jr r. ' y1, • TMFCQ�1TM2X F.� r ! r r� • '� �i -
4a ; ♦ E • m 54
A N ' Z ,� I it- *• ,.
4'., � 6r�r`'.
AS'T46 )Ole `
~fS Sk1plq yj , I. .�
Legend Notes: Figure 2-7
Middle Castle Hayne Monitoring Well (95-125 ft bgs) PCE Contours 1. Concentration contours have been interpolated between Tetrachloroethene Concentrations
® Multi-Port Well NCGWQS : 0.7 pg/L monitoring well locations. Actual contaminant distribution may differ. N Middle Castle Hayne Aquifer (95-125 ft bgs)
Surface Water Centerline 0 > 0.7 pg/L 2. October 2009 analytical results -shown in black 0 100 200 400 Site 88 Implementation Plan
Site 88 Boundary 0 > 7 pg/L 3. J - Reported value is estimated Feet MCB CamLej
> 700 /L 4. PCE -Tetrachloroethene
pg 5. NCGWQS - North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standard North Carolina
� > 7,000 pg/L 1 inch = 200 feet
6. 2007 Aerial Imagery
CM2MIIIlI
Generated By:Brooke Propst/CLT Checked by:Keri Hallberg/CLT

F North >South F'
40 40
0Ccc
0000 0C 00
00 cc
cc cc 0c0C
20 20
. . . . . . . . . . . . .S�
� . .;. . Notes:
:Sand; 1.The depth and thickness of the
subsurface strata indicated on this
J 0 Q section(profile)were generalized
'' from and interpolated between test
locations. Information on actual
�
S�tue lay subsurface conditions applies only
> to the specific locations and dates
indicated.Subsurface conditions
and water levels at other locations
may differ from conditions occurring
-20 PCE:0.11J -20 at the indicated location.
0 TCE:0.6 WCE:170 y PCE:0.5 U
+, c-DCE:1.4 TCE:55 TCE:0.5 U 2.Analytical results are from the
0 VC:0.5 U c-DCE:39 _DCE:0.5 U August 2007 remedial investigation.
VC:2.5 U VC:0.5 U
LV 3.Constituent concentrations are
presented in ug/L.
-40 ' . . ' . _40 4.J-Reported value is estimated.
Cemented Sand
5. U-The material was analyzed
for, but not detected
Fossil&rcus
Sand
P .5 U
PCE:0.5 U PCE:0
TCE:0.5 U PCE:0.5 U
c-DCE:0.5 U TCE:0.5 U — TCE:0.5 U
-60 VC:0.5 U c-DCE:0.5 U c-DCE:0.5 U -6Q
VC:0.5 U VC:0.5 U
Horizontal:1"=200'
Vertical:1"=20'
V.E.=10x
-80 1 1 1 -80
0 200 400 600
Distance in Feet from F to F'
Figure 2-8
Legend GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION F-F
Implementation Plan
VIClay El Sand Screened Interval Site 88
MCB CamLej
❑Fossiliferous Sand ❑ Silt V Water Table Elevation North Carolina
❑Cemented Sand ❑ Silt/Clay
CH2MHILL
1712009013NKE Sae 88 Figure 2-8_v16 06.08.10 mlb/sls

350 0.9
0.8
300
0.7
250
0.6
J J
0
N 200 0.5
0 0 3: MW221W
Y oZS ,f6�, ^� MW23DW
0.4 MW241W
3 150 0
U
W W
U U
a a
0.3
100
0.2
50
0.1
Figure 2-9
Increasing Tetrachloroethene
0 0 Trends in Downgradient Wells
Site 88 Implementation Plan
9/20/04 4/8/05 10/25/05 5/13/06 11/29/06 6/17/07 1/3/08 7/21/08 2/6/09 8/25/09 M CB Ca m Lej
Date North Carolina

SECTION 3
Pilot Study Description
This section presents an overview of the pilot studies, as well as objectives and goals,and
describes the methodology that will be used with each technology. The specific
implementation plans for the pilot studies are presented in Section 4.
3.1 Pilot Study Overview, Objectives, and Goals
3.1.1 Study Overview
The Draft FS (CH2M HILL,2008a) identified ERD and chemical oxidation as potentially
viable for the treatment of PCE and its daughter products in groundwater within Zones 2
and 3 at Site 88. The Partnering Team agreed in May 2008 to conduct three pilot studies over
a 1-year period. ERD will be implemented in separate study areas within Zones 2 and 3 and
chemical oxidation will be conducted in a separate study area within Zone 2.
Key tasks associated with the pilot studies are summarized below.
• Installation and development of four injection wells and five monitoring wells at each
pilot study location
• Baseline groundwater monitoring
• Injection of reagents (i.e. KMn04, EVO,3DMeTM,microorganisms)
• Performance monitoring by groundwater sampling and analysis
3.1.2 Study Objectives and Goals
The primary objectives of the pilot studies are:
• To obtain information on design parameters to further refine the evaluation of treatment
alternatives in the FS
• To evaluate the overall effectiveness in terms of reducing contaminant mass in Zone 2
• To prevent impacts to downgradient receptors in Zone 3
New and existing monitoring wells within each pilot study area will be gauged and
sampled prior to initiation of the pilot studies. The resulting laboratory and analytical data
and field geochemical data will be used to establish baseline conditions in each area.
Subsequent data will be compared to baseline conditions to evaluate performance during
the pilot studies.
3.2 Technology Description
This section presents a brief technical overview of the methodology associated with each of
the technologies and the reagents selected for the Site 88 Pilot Studies.
ES062210072353VBO 3-1

PILOT STTJDYMLEM3qrAT1ONPL^SHE 88,OPERABLE UMrNO.15
3.2.1 Chemical Oxidation
Chemical oxidation involves delivering chemical oxidants into the groundwater so that
contaminants are completely oxidized into carbon dioxide or converted into innocuous
compounds. There are a number of chemicals that successfully degrade chlorinated solvents
via chemical oxidation. A key factor in the effectiveness of chemical oxidation is contact
between the contaminant and the oxidant.
Based on the results of the bench-scale study, the Zone 2 chemical oxidation will utilize
KMn04 (Appendix A). Permanganate (MnO4) is a common chemical oxidizing agent with
strong oxidation potential,predictable chemistry, stability, and non-toxic byproducts.
Chemical oxidation using permanganate is achieved primarily through direct electron
transfers, as shown in the following reaction (United States Environmental Protection
Agency [USEPA],2006):
Mn04+4H+ + 3e-—>Mn02(s) + 2 H2O
Degradation of chloroethenes is achieved using KMn04 by adding to the alkene bond, as
shown below in the reactions of PCE and TCE with KMnO4 (USEPA,2006):
4 KMnO4 +3C2C14+4H2O—> 6CO2+4Mn02 +4K+ +8H+ + 12C1-
2 KMnO4 + C2HC13—>2 CO2+2 Mn02 +2 K+ +H+ +3 Cl-
8 KMnO4 +3 C2H2C12 6 CO2+8 Mn02+ 8 K++ 2 OH-+ 6 Cl-+2 H2O
10 KMnO4 +3 QH3C1 6 CO2+ 10 Mn02+ 10 K+ + 7 OH-+ 3 Cl-+ H2O
The greatest advantage of KMn04 is its stability. Persisting for 3 months or more,the use of
KMn04 enables long contact times and transport distances (USEPA,2006). The oxidation
strength and specificity of the KMn04 ion improves its longevity,relative to non-specific
oxidizers,such as hydroxyl radicals and ozone. However,Mn02 precipitates as a solid,
which can reduce subsurface permeability (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
[ITRC],2005).
3.2.2 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination
ERD is a bioremediation technology used for treating chlorinated hydrocarbons with the
addition of organic compounds (electron donors) such as molasses, C3H503Na,vegetable
oil,and other commercially available carbon sources. ERD accelerates the naturally
occurring process of reductive dechlorination,wherein chlorinated hydrocarbons in
groundwater are biodegraded by indigenous anaerobic microbes. Anaerobic microbes take
electrons from small organic compounds and produce hydrogen(fermentation). Next,
dechlorinating microbes use the electrons in the hydrogen to replace a chlorine atom in the
chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The principal anaerobic biodegradation pathway for reductive dechlorination of chlorinated
ethenes is:
PCE—>TCE—>cis-1,2-DCE—>VC—>ethene
The transformation rates for each step vary but tend to become slower with progress along
the breakdown sequence,often resulting in accumulation of cis-1,2-DCE and VC.Further
breakdown from cis-1,2-DCE and VC to ethene varies and is based on site-specific
3-2 ES062210072353VBO

SECIION 3--PICOT SR DYDESCPRTION
conditions. During the bench-scale study, accumulation of cis-1,2-DCE and VC was
observed in tests without bioaugmentation.
ERD of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is implemented by adding a suitable substrate
to the subsurface. The introduced substrate serves two purposes: (a) depleting competing
electron acceptors and creating strongly reducing conditions and (b) providing an electron
donor source for reductive dechlorination. Nutrients,lactate,EVO, or other substrates are
often used to enhance reductive dechlorination. These substrates provide a carbon source
for microbial growth and electron donors,stimulating dechlorination.
Based on the results of the bench-scale studies,the Zone 2 ERD will utilize emulsified
vegetable oil (SRSTM) with bioaugmentation and the Zone 3 ERD will utilize 3DMeTM with
bioaugmentation.
SRSTM
SRSTM is a common substrate utilized for ERD provided by Terra Systems, Inc. SRSTM
degrades to fatty acids,which are then fermented to hydrogen. SRSTM is a long-lasting,
slow-release substrate, as it is relatively insoluble,and produces low concentrations of
hydrogen.SRSTM has a low viscosity,which makes it more mobile,allowing for more
uniform distribution in the aquifer. SRSTM peak activity is typically observed 3 years after
injection, and the substrate may be active as a slow-release donor for up to 5 years.
No significant health and safety (H&S) concerns are associated with SRSTM;however,it is
recommended that eye protection and impervious gloves be donned to avoid irritation.
Three-Dimensional 1\4croemuls ion
3DMeTM is a form of Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC®) Advanced produced by
Regenesis. 3DMeTM consists of lactate,polyactate esters,free fatty acids,and free fatty esters.
3DMe TM was designed to achieve rapid and sustained reductive dechlorination with
continuous distribution and staged hydrogen release. 3DMe TM provides three stages of
electron donor release: immediate,mid-range, and long-term hydrogen production, as
achieved by free lactic acid,controlled-release lactic acid, and long-release fatty acids,
respectively. The immediately available free lactic acid is fermented rapidly,whereas the
controlled-release lactic acid is metabolized at a slower rate. The fatty acids are converted to
hydrogen over a long-range timeline. 3DMe TM was designed so that single application
longevity is up to 3 to 5 years (Regenesis,2009). The longevity of 3DMETM favors its use in a
biobarrier arrangement.
Unlike oil products,3DMe TM forms micelles, groups of molecules with the hydrophilic
group facing out to the water.The micelles are mobile in groundwater and are intended to
enhance electron donor distribution after injection(Regenesis,2009).
Exposure to 3DMeTM during injection may be harmful if the material is inhaled,ingested, or
absorbed by skin. Exposure can result in irritation,behavioral and gastrointestinal malady,
and paternal and fertility effects (Regenesis,2009).
Bioaugmentation
Bioaugmentation is the introduction of microorganisms into the subsurface for the treatment
of contaminated soil or groundwater. Bioaugmentation is used to ensure that contaminants,
ES062210072353VBO 3-3

PILOT STTJDYMLEM3qrAT1ONPL^SI E88,OPERABLELNTNO.15
particularly chlorinated solvents, are completely degraded. TSI-DCTM Bioaugmentation
Culture,provided by Terra Systems,Inc.,will be injected into the subsurface for the ERD
pilot studies. TSI-DCTM is an enriched natural bacteria culture that contains Dehalococcoides
species. Dehalococcoides bacteria are the only known organisms capable of dechlorination of
PCE to ethane.Without Dehalococcoides, dechlorination of PCE typically only progresses to
cis-1,2-DCE (SiREM,2009). Bioaugmentation has been demonstrated to work with most
commonly used electron donors,including lactate,vegetable oils, and slow-release
compounds. Bioaugmentation can be inhibited by aerobic conditions,high sulfate
concentrations,moderate concentrations of chloroform, and extremely low groundwater
temperatures (SiREM,2009).
3-4 ES062210072353VBO

SECTION 4
Pilot Study Implementation
This section specifies the implementation plan for each of the Site 88 Pilot Studies. Each
study will be discussed individually.
4.1 Zone 2 ERD
The Zone 2 ERD pilot study will be the injection of SRSTM into four injection wells located
around 88-MW39MP.
4.1.1 Site Preparation
Utility Location
CH2M HILL will coordinate with Base personnel and a professional utilities locating
subcontractor to define all subsurface structures that could be impacted by drilling activity
in the immediate area of the pilot studies.
The field geologist will mark the locations of the 5 monitoring wells and 4 injections wells.
All utilities will be marked by a professional utilities locating subcontractor prior to the start
of drilling. The preliminary well locations are shown on Figure 4-1;final locations will be
determined based on results of subsurface structure/utility locations and other conditions
encountered in the field. Locations of known subsurface utilities are shown on each figure.
Well Installation
Four new 4-inch injection wells (88-IW05 through 88-IW08) and five new 2-inch monitoring
wells (88-MW43DW3 through 88-MW47DW3)will be installed using rotosonic drilling
techniques in the vicinity of the Zone 2 ERD Pilot Study as shown on Figure 4-1. Proposed
well construction details are provided in Table 4-1.
The four injection wells will be installed downgradient of IR88-MW39MP,arranged in a
square formation,with 50 ft between each well. Each injection well in the Zone 2 ERD pilot
study area will be installed to 110 ft bgs using a 20-ft section of 4-inch inner diameter (ID)
0.020-inch slot Vee-wire PVC screen.
To monitor the effectiveness of the ERD treatment and the ROI,five monitoring wells will
be installed in the vicinity of the study,as shown on Figure 4-1. One of the monitoring wells
will be installed 10 ft upgradient of injection well 88-IW06. Another monitoring well will be
installed 20 ft sidegradient of injection well 88-IW07,between 88-IW07 and 88-MW18DW3.
Three monitoring wells will be installed downgradient of injection well 88-IW08 at 15-ft
intervals. Each monitoring well will be installed to 100 ft bgs using a 5-ft section of 2-inch ID
0.010-inch slot polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screen.
All of the wells will be constructed and developed in accordance with the MCB CamLej
Master Project Plans (CH2M HILL,2008).
ES062210072353VBO 4-1

PILOT STUDYEV]PIENENI'ATIONPIAN,STIE 88,OPERABLE UNITNO.15
TABLE 4-1
Well Construction Details
Screen"'
Pilot Study Well Total Well Depth (feet) Length (ft)
88-I W01 60 20
88-I W02 60 20
88-I W03 60 20
88-I W04 60 20
Zone 2 Chemical 88-MW531W 50 5
Oxidation
88-M W541 W 50 5
88-M W551 W 50 5
88-M W561 W 50 5
88-M W571 W 50 5
88-I W05 110 20
88-I W06 110 20
88-I W07 110 20
88-I W08 110 20
Zone 2 ERD 88-MW43DW3 100 5
88-M W44 D W3 100 5
88-M W45D W3 100 5
88-M W46 D W3 100 5
88-M W47 D W3 100 5
88-I W09 60 20
88-I W 10 60 20
88-1 W 11 60 20
88-I W 12 60 20
88-I W 13 60 20
Zone 3 ERD
88-M W481 W 50 5
88-M W491 W 50 5
88-M W501 W 50 5
88-M W51 I W 50 5
88-M W521 W 50 5
Notes:
a 0.020-inch slot Vee-wire Schedule(Sch.)40 PVC screen for injection wells
b 010-inch machine slot PVC screen for monitoring wells
4-2 ES062210072353VBO

SECIION4-PILOT STUDYAPLEIVIMATION
4.1.2 Injections
Injection Equipment
A process flow diagram for Zone 2 ERD is shown on Figure 44.SRSTM will be supplied in a
tank,which will be staged onsite.Water will be obtained from a fire hydrant located
approximately 100 feet east of the injection area on the south side of C Street,as shown on
Figure 4-1. The fire hydrant will be equipped with a backflow preventer. The water will be
pumped to an 18,000-gallon tank,equipped with a mixer.Simultaneously,SRSTM will be
pumped from the storage tank into the mixing tank. The solution will be mixed in the tank,
and then pumped into the injection wells through a series of hoses connected to an injection
manifold. Each manifold leg will include a flow meter and pressure gauge.
ERD Substrate Injection
Based on the results of the bench-scale study,vendor recommendations, and modeling
calculations for the Zone 2 ERD study area,49,000 gallons (approximately 36% of the
treatment pore volume) of a 6.4% (37,027 mg/L) solution of SRSTM will be injected into each
of the four injection wells at a rate of 20 gpm. This is expected to result in an ROI of
approximately 38 ft per well. This is equivalent to approximately 15,140 lb (1,870 gallons) of
SRSTM mixed with 47,130 gallons of water. To achieve the full volume,three batches of
solution will be injected into each injection well,with each batch consisting of 5,046 lb of
SRSTM (624 gallons) and 15,710 gallons of water. Due to the high contaminant concentrations
and low pH of the groundwater in the Zone 2 ERD study area,a buffering agent will be
needed. The SRSTM solution will be supplemented with approximately 700 mg/L of sodium
bicarbonate to buffer the pH in the aquifer. This is equivalent to approximately 95 lb of
sodium bicarbonate per batch. Mix time required to achieve SRSTM solubility will be based
on field observations. The SRSTM injections will take approximately 41 hours per well at a
rate of 8 hours per day. Assuming simultaneous injections in at least two injection wells,it is
expected that the injections can be conducted over an approximately 12-day period.
Two weeks following the SRSTM injection,Terra Systems,Inc.will perform the
bioaugmentation injections. A total of 10.3 liters of a 5 x 1010 cells per liter microorganism
solution will be injected with 5,000 gallons of anaerobic chase water per well. The anaerobic
chase water will be generated on-site by dosing with 0.0066 pounds per gallon of sodium
sulfite to remove the oxygen and reduce the ORP to less than 0 millivolts (mV).
Groundwater parameters, including ORP and conductivity,will be monitored in select
monitoring wells during injections using downhole pressure transducers/data loggers.
4.1.3 Groundwater Nbnitoring
Groundwater samples will be collected from the Zone 2 ERD pilot study area to monitor the
effectiveness of the injections. Baseline sampling will be conducted upon completion of
monitoring well installation,prior to the start of the injections.Groundwater monitoring
will be conducted after three,six,nine,and 12 months from the injection.Groundwater
sampling will be conducted in accordance with the Site 88 UFP-SAP,which will be issued
under separate cover.
Groundwater samples will be collected from the five newly installed monitoring wells (88-
MW43DW3 through 88-MW47DW3) and multi-port well 88-MW39MP (Ports A,B,and C,
ES062210072353VBO 4-3

PILOT STUDYMIENENCAnONPL^SIIE 88,OPERABLE UTATNO.15
only), as shown on Figure 4-1.Groundwater samples will be analyzed for the following
parameters:
• Select VOCs (contaminants of concern [COCs] only) (USEPA Method 8260)
— 1,2-dichlorobenzene
— Acetone
— Benzene
— Bromodichlormethane
— Cis-1,2-dichloroethene
— Tetrachloroethene
— Trichloroethene
— VC
• TOC (USEPA Method 9060)
• Microbial analysis for dehalogenating bacteria (88-MW43DW3,88-MW44DW3,88-
MW45DW3, and 88-MW46DW3, only)
— Dehalococcoides spp.(1)
— Desulfuromonas sp.
— Dehalobacter spp.
— Toluene Dioxygenase
— Methanotrophs Type I and II methane-oxidizing bacteria (MOB)
• Volatile fatty acids (VFAs)
4.2 Zone 2 ISCO
4.2.1 Site Preparation
Utility Location
CH2M HILL will coordinate with Base personnel and a professional utilities locating
subcontractor to define all subsurface structures that could be impacted by drilling activity
in the immediate area of the pilot studies.
The field geologist will mark the locations of the 5 monitoring wells and 4 injections wells.
All utilities will be marked by a professional utilities locating subcontractor prior to the start
of drilling. The preliminary well locations are shown on Figure 4-2;final locations will be
determined based on results of subsurface structure/utility locations and other conditions
encountered in the field. Locations of known subsurface utilities are shown on each figure.
Well Installation
Four 4-inch diameter injection wells (88-IW01 through 88-IW04) and 5 new 2-inch diameter
monitoring wells (88-MW531W through 88-MW57IW)will be installed using rotosonic
drilling techniques in the vicinity of the Zone 2 chemical oxidation pilot study,as shown on
Figure 4-2. Proposed well construction details are provided in Table 4-1.
Based on a review of historical boring logs from the site, a clay layer has been observed east
of the study area and may be encountered within the Zone 2 ISCO Pilot Study area. As the
4-4 ES062210072353VBO

SECIION4-PILOT STUDYAPLEIVIMATION
easternmost borehole is advanced,continuous soil cores will be collected for lithologic
characterization and field-screened for VOCs using a photo-ionization detector (PID). If the
clay layer is encountered and if PID readings above the clay indicate elevated VOC
concentrations,it will be necessary to use temporary isolation casings to limit the potential
for downward cross-contamination during the drilling process. Rotosonic override casings
will be used as isolation casings during well construction. If the clay layer is not
encountered, it will not be necessary to collect continuous soil cores from the remaining
boreholes within the study area.
The injection wells will be placed to encompass the 88-MW16 well cluster and arranged in a
square formation,with 60 ft between each injection well. Each injection well will be
completed to 60 ft bgs using a 20-ft section of 4-inch ID 0.020-inch slot Vee-wire PVC screen.
To monitor the effectiveness of the chemical oxidation treatment and the ROI,five
monitoring wells will be installed in the vicinity of 88-MW16IW,as shown on Figure 4-2.
One monitoring well will be installed 20 ft upgradient of injection well 88-IW02 and one will
be installed 10 ft upgradient of injection well 88-IW03. Three monitoring wells will be
installed downgradient of 88-IW04 at 15-ft intervals. Each well will be installed to 50 ft bgs
using a 5-ft section of 2-inch ID 0.010-inch slot PVC screen.
All of the wells will be constructed and developed in accordance with the MCB CamLej
Master Project Plans (CH2M HILL,2008).
4.2.2 Injections
Injection Equipment
A process flow diagram for Zone 2 chemical oxidation is shown on Figure 4-5. A 4%
solution of KMnO4 will be delivered to the site in 5,000-gallon tanker trucks. The solution
will be discharged to an 18,000-gallon storage tank staged onsite. Water will be obtained
from a fire hydrant located approximately 150 feet northeast of the injection area,along
Virginia Dare Drive,as shown on Figure 4-1. The fire hydrant will be equipped with a
backflow preventer.The water will be pumped to another 18,000-gallon tank, equipped
with a mixer.Simultaneously,the KMn04 solution will be pumped from the storage tank
into the mixing tank. The solution will be adequately mixed in the tank,and then pumped
into the injection wells through a series of hoses connected to an injection manifold.Each
manifold leg will include a flow meter and pressure gauge.
Each tank set-up will include above-ground secondary containment provided by the
supplier. The tanks will be placed in a location such that they can be used for the Zone 2
chemical oxidation injections and the Zone 2 ERD injections. Upon completion of the
KMn04 injections,the mixing tanks will be thoroughly cleaned for use during the Zone 2
ERD injections.
A licensed electrician will be subcontracted to install the necessary temporary electrical
service,which will be provided by a generator.
A neutralizing solution such as sugar,hydrogen peroxide, or sodium thiosulfate will be
kept on site in the event of a spill.
Groundwater parameters, including ORP and conductivity,will be monitored in select
monitoring wells during injections using downhole pressure transducers/data loggers.
ES062210072353VBO 4-5

PILOT STUDYMIENENIAnONPL^SIZE 88,OPERABLE UN rNO.15
Chemical Oxidation Injection
Based on the results of the bench-scale study (low dose of 1.8 milligrams per liter [mg/L] of
KMn04) and modeling scenarios for the Zone 2 chemical oxidation study,49,000 gallons
(approximately 36% of the treatment pore volume) of a 2.5% KMnO4 solution will be
injected into each of the four injection wells,at a rate of 20 gpm. This is expected to result in
an ROI of approximately 38 ft per well. This is equivalent to 10,200 lb of KMnO4 mixed with
47,600 gallons of water per injection well. To achieve the full volume,three batches of
solution will be injected into each injection well,with each batch consisting of 3,400 lb of
KMn04 (approximately 10,192 gallons of 4% KMn04 solution) and 6,142 gallons of water.
Mix time required to achieve KMn04 solubility will be based on field observations. The
injections will take approximately 41 hours per well. Assuming simultaneous injections in at
least two injection wells,it is expected that the injections can be conducted over an
approximately 8 to 12-day period.
4.2.3 Nbnitoring
Groundwater samples will be collected from the Zone 2 ISCO pilot study area to monitor
the effectiveness of the injections. Baseline sampling will be conducted upon completion of
monitoring well installation,prior to the start of the injections.Groundwater monitoring
will be conducted after one, three, six, and 12 months from the ISCO injection. Groundwater
sampling will be conducted in accordance with the Site 88 UFP-SAP,which will be issued
under separate cover.
Groundwater samples will be collected from the five newly installed monitoring wells (88-
MW531W through 88-MW571W) and two permanent monitoring wells (88-MW161W and
88-MW16DW3), as shown on Figure 4-2.Groundwater samples will be analyzed for the
following parameters:
• Select VOCs (contaminants of concern [COCs] only) (USEPA Method 8260)
• Microbial analysis for dehalogenating bacteria (88-MW161W,88-MW54IW, and 88-
MW551W, only)
4.3 Zone 3 ERD
4.3.1 Site Preparation
Utility Location
CH2M HILL will coordinate with Base personnel and a professional utilities locating
subcontractor to define all subsurface structures that could be impacted by drilling activity
in the immediate area of the pilot studies.
The field geologist will mark the locations of the 5 monitoring wells and 4 injections wells.
All utilities will be marked by a professional utilities locating subcontractor prior to the start
of drilling. The preliminary well locations are shown on Figure 4-3;final locations will be
determined based on results of subsurface structure/utility locations and other conditions
encountered in the field. Locations of known subsurface utilities are shown on each figure.
4-6 ES062210072353VBO

SECIION4-PILOT STUDYAPLEIVIMATION
Well Installation
Five new 4-inch injection wells (88-IW09 through 88-IW13) and 5 new 2-inch monitoring
wells (88-MW48IW through 88-MW52IW) will be installed in the vicinity of the Zone 3 ERD
Pilot Study area,as shown on Figure 4-3. Proposed well construction details are provided in
Table 4-1.
The injection wells will be installed as a biobarrier across the contaminant plume adjacent to
88-MW21IW and placed at 60-ft intervals. Each injection well will be installed to 60 ft bgs
using a 20-ft section of 4-inch ID 0.020-inch slot Vee-wire PVC screen.
To monitor the effectiveness of the ERD treatment and the ROI,five monitoring wells will
be installed in the vicinity of the study area. One monitoring well will be installed
approximately 50 ft upgradient of the injection wells. Two monitoring wells will be installed
adjacent to the injections wells at the midway point between injection wells 88-IW10 and 88-
IW11 and the midway point between 88-IW11 and 88-IW12. Two monitoring wells will be
installed downgradient of 88-IW10 at 15-ft intervals. The monitoring wells will be installed
to 50 ft bgs using 5-ft of 2-inch ID 0.010-inch slot PVC screen.
All of the wells will be constructed and developed in accordance with the MCB CamLej
Master Project Plans (CH2M HILL,2008).
4.3.2 Injections
Injection Equipment
A process flow diagram for Zone 3 ERD is shown on Figure 4-6.3DMeTM will be supplied in
drums,which will be stored onsite. Water will be obtained from a fire hydrant located
approximately 100 feet east of the injection area,along C Street, as shown on Figure 4-3. The
fire hydrant will be equipped with a backflow preventer. The water will be pumped to a
6,000-gallon polyethylene tank. 3DMeTM will be pumped from the drums into the tank using
a submersible pump. A pump will be placed inside the 6,000-gallon tank to mix the solution
as needed via recirculation. The solution will then be pumped into the injection wells
through a series of hoses connected to an injection manifold. Each manifold leg will include
a flow meter and pressure gauge.
ERD Substrate Injection
Based on the results of the bench-scale study,vendor recommendations, and modeling
calculations for the Zone 3 ERD study area,2,464 gallons of a 10% solution of 3DMeTM
followed by 46,536 gallons of chase water (for a total of approximately 36% of the treatment
pore volume) will be injected into each of the five injection wells at a rate of 20 gpm. This is
expected to result in an ROI of approximately 38 ft per well. This is equivalent to 1,865 lb
(224 gallons) of 3DMeTM mixed with 2,240 gallons of water. One batch of solution will
achieve the full volume for two injection wells,with each batch consisting of 448 gallons of
3DMeTM and 4,930 gallons of water. Mix time required to achieve 3DMeTM solubility will be
based on field observations. The 3DMeTM injections will take approximately 41 hours per
well. Assuming simultaneous injections in at least two injection wells,it is expected that the
injections can be conducted over an approximately 10 to 14-day period. Empty drums will
be rinsed,removed from the site,and disposed of at an offsite landfill or recycler. Rinse
water will be pumped into the mixing tanks.
ES062210072353VBO 4-7

PILOT STUDYMIENENCAnONPL^SIIE 88,OPERABLE UTATNO.15
Immediately following the injection of the 3DMeTM solution, a total of 46,536 gallons of
chase water will be injected into each injection well to achieve the desired ROI.
Two weeks following the 3DMeTM injection,Terra Systems, Inc.will perform the
bioaugmentation injections. A total of 10.3 liters of a 5 x 1010 cells per liter microorganism
solution will be injected with 5,000 gallons of anaerobic chase water per well. The anaerobic
chase water will be generated on-site by dosing with 0.0066 lb of sodium sulfite per gallon
of chase water to remove the oxygen and reduce the ORP to less than 0 mV.
Groundwater parameters, including ORP and conductivity,will be monitored in select
monitoring wells during injections using downhole pressure transducers/data loggers.
4.3.3 Nbnitoring
Groundwater samples will be collected from the Zone 3 ERD pilot study area to monitor the
effectiveness of the injections. Baseline sampling will be conducted upon completion of
monitoring well installation,prior to the start of the injections.Groundwater monitoring
will be conducted after three, six,nine,and 12 months from the injection.Groundwater
sampling will be conducted in accordance with the Site 88 UFP-SAP,which will be issued
under separate cover.
Groundwater samples will be collected from the five newly installed monitoring wells (88-
MW48IW through 88-MW521W) and one permanent monitoring well (88-MW22IW),as
shown on Figure 4-3.Groundwater samples will be analyzed for the following parameters:
• Select VOCs (COCs only) (USEPA Method 8260)
• TOC (USEPA Method 9060)
• Microbial analysis for dehalogenating bacteria (88-MW22IW,88-MW50IW,88-MW51IW,
and 88-MW52IW,only)
• VFAs
Additionally, during the baseline sampling event only,the two outer-most injection wells
(88-IW09 and 88-IW13),will be sampled for select VOCs to ensure that contamination is
present at each injection location.
4-8 ES062210072353VBO

\\NORTH END\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAMPLEJEUNE\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 4 1 ZONE 2 ERD PILOT STUDY AREA ZOOM.MXD MARTESE6/17/201009:37M
1
700 µg/L
e
7000 µg/L IR88-MW40MP
r
G !
/^ p IR88-IWO IR88-MW18DW3
IR88-MW39MP
� IR88-MWA4DW3 � l r
' IR88-IW08 IR88-IWO -��� �
IR88-MW45DW3 l
�! IR88-MW48DW3 l
IR88-MW23MP
IR88-MW47DW3 i
F ar `
IR88-IWO
� 1
I1188-MW43DW3 ' 1�
l ;�43A
IR88-MW18DW3 1 l
Legend Figure 4-1
4 Fire Hydrant Water Utility Line Zone 2 ERD Pilot Study Area
I Proposed Middle Castle Hayne Monitoring Well (95-125 ft bgs) Wastewater Utility Line N Middle Castle Hayne Aquifer (95-125 ft logs)
CO Middle Castle Hayne Monitoring Well (95-125 ft bgs) Fence 0 20 40 80 Site 88 Implementation Plan
O Proposed Injection Well Surface Water Centerline Feet MCB CamLej
® Multi-Port Well C Injection Well Modeled Radius of Influence North Carolina
--- Steam Line 18,000-Gallon Mixing Tanks 1 inch = 40 feet
Storm Sewer Utility Line C PCE Contours
-- Electrical Utility Line
Generated By:Brooke Propst/CLT Checked by: Keri Hallberg/CLT

\\NORTH EN D\PROJ\USNAVFACEN GCOM\CAM PLEJ EUN E\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 4 2 ZONE 2 CHEMICAL OXIDATION PILOT STUDY AREA ZOOM.MXD CBOWMAN 6/10/2010 11:32:34
DARE
�d
t!
a A
IR88-IW01 s
IR88-MW161W
IR88-MW051W
IR88-MW16DW3 IR88-IW02
IR88-MW081W IR88 MW541W
IR88-MWEX0071W
IR88-MW551W IR88-IW04
IR88;MW561W 1
ULIRr8.,8-MW571W
IR88-IWO
R - IR88-MW531W
�O
f -
1
IR88-MW301W
� � • � 4 r r
°yG IR88-MW181W `ti
70 N9/� r
Legend Figure 4-2
0 Fire Hydrant - - Water Utility Line Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Pilot Study Area
O Proposed Injection Wells o Wastewater Utility Line N Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer (40-50 ft bgs)
at Middle Castle Hayne Aquifer Monitoring Well Surface Water Centerline o 20 40 80 Site 88 Implementation Plan
• Proposed Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer Fence Feet MCB CamLe 1
• Upper Castle Hayne Monitoring Well (40-50 ft bgs) C Injection Well Modeled Radius of Influence North Carolina
--- Steam Line 0 18,000-Gallon Mixing Tanks 1 inch — 40 feet
Storm Sewer Utility Line C PCE Contours
CH2MHIl f
--- Electrical Utility Line
Generated By:Brooke Propst/CLT Checked by:Keri Hallberg/CLT

\\NORTHEND\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAMPLEJEUNE\MAPFILES\SITE 88\IMPLEMENTATION PLAN\FIGURE 4 3 ZONE 3 ERD PILOT STUDY AREA ZOOM.MXD CBOWMAN 6/10/2010 11:46:59
•' '� y IR88-IW09 � '� • �
a '
IR88rtIW1
r r r
IR88-MW221W ' r ' •
c _ '
�.
IR88-MW501W
,y. IR88-IW11
+� IR88-MW521W
IR88-MW5j Wa—+ '
IR88-MW201W ` c tREET - W
IR88-MW481W
IR88-IW1
_ ,. IR88-MW491W �
oil a
- - � ♦. IR88-IW13
a�-
Legend Figure 4-3
0 Fire Hydrant --- Electrical Utility Line Zone 3 ERD Pilot Study Area
O Proposed Injection Wells - - Water Utility Line N Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer (40-50 ft bgs)
• Proposed Upper Castle Hayne Monitoring Well (40-50 ft bgs) o Wastewater Utility Line 0 20 40 80 Site 88 Implementation Plan
• Upper Castle Hayne Monitoring Well (40-50 ft bgs) 0 Staging Area Feet MCB CamLej
Surface Water Centerline Injection Well Modeled Radius of Influence North Carolina
--- Steam Line PCE Contours 1 inch = 40 feet
Storm Sewer Utility Line 40 CH2MF111 I
Generated By:Brooke Propst/CLT Checked by:Keri Hallberg/CLT

18,000 GALLONS
SRSTM TANK
PUMP 1
OFLOWMETER 2
VALVE 3
WATER FROM O FLOWMETER 3
HYDRANT V�ALVE 1
BACKFLOW FLOWMETER 1 PUMP 2 20 gpm
O
PREVENTION 18,000—GALLON VALVE 3
MIX TANK TO WELLS
O 20 gpm
FLOWMETER 4
SODIUM
BICARBONATE
NOTES:
1. THREE BATCHES OF SRST"" SOLUTION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH INJECTION WELL.
2. A BATCH WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
- 5,047 POUNDS OF SRSTM (EQUIVALENT OF 624 GALLONS)
- 15,710 GALLONS OF WATER
- 95 POUNDS OF SODIUM BICARBONATE
3. BIOAUGMENTATION WILL BE CONDUCTED TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING SRSTM INJECTIONS USING FIGURE 4-4
SEPARATE INJECTION EQUIPMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY A SUBCONTRACTOR. ZONE 2 ERD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
PILOT STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
MCB CAMLEJ
NORTH CAROLINA
40 CH2MHILL
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY: m
EBL\NavyClean\OU 15(Site88)\TreatabilityStudy\Figures

18,000 GALLON
4% POTASSIUM
PERMANGANATE
TANK
PUMP 1
VALVE 2
OFLOWMETER 2
FLOWMETER 3
PUMP 2 O 20 gpm
18,000—GALLON VALVE 3
WATER FROM O MIX TANK TO WELLS
HYDRANT
VALVE 1
BACKFLOW FLOWMETER 1 10,O PREVENTION 20 gpm
FLOWMETER 4
NOTES:
1. THREE BATCHES OF POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE SOLUTION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH INJECTION WELL.
2. A BATCH WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: FIGURE 4-5
- 3,400 POUNDS OF POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE (EQUIVALENT OF 10,192 GALLONS) ZONE 2 CHEMICAL OXIDATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
- 6,142 GALLONS OF WATER
PILOT STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
MCB CAMLEJ
NORTH CAROLINA
40 CH2MHILL
DRAWN BY: a.e
CHECKED BY: M. m,
EBL\NavyClean\OU 15(Site88)\TreatabilityStudy\Figures

3DMeTM STORAGE
0000
0000
0000
PUMP
IF
77
VALVE 2
FLOWMETER 2
6,000—GALLON PUMP Eo p. 20 gpm
POLY TANK
VALVE 3
WATER FROM Em
TO WELLS
HYDRANT VALVE 1 EC2:1--
BACKFLOW FLOWMETER 1
PREVENTION 20 gpm
FLOWMETER 3
PUMP TO
PROMOTE
MIXING
NOTES:
1. ONE BATCH OF 3DMeTm WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE TWO INJECTION WELLS.
2. A BATCH WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
— 448 GALLONS OF 3DMeTM
— 4,930 GALLONS OF WATER
3. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING INJECTION OF 3DMeTM SOLUTION, 46,536 GALLONS OF
CHASE WATER WILL BE INJECTED PER WELL.
4. BIOAUGMENTATION WILL BE CONDUCTED TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING 3DMeTM FIGURE 4-6
INJECTIONS, USING SEPARATE INJECTION EQUIPMENT, TO BE PROVIDED BY A ZONE 3 ERD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SUBCONTRACTOR. PILOT STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
MCB CAMLEJ
NORTH CAROLINA
40 CH2MHILL
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY: m
EBL\NavyClean\OU 15(Site88)\TreatabilityStudy\Figures

SECTION 5
Health and Safety and Residuals Management
5.1 Health and Safety
A HSP will be prepared in accordance with 29CFR1910 and 29CFR1926.The HSP will
address the potential hazards associated with the field activities and pilot studies.
Subcontractors are responsible for H&S procedures specific to their particular work
components and are required to develop and submit an Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA) to
CH2M HILL for review prior to the start of field work. Subcontractors must comply with
the established HSP,and CH2M HILL will monitor and enforce compliance with the
established HSP.
5.2 General Safety
All personnel involved with the injections will undergo training on chemical handling and
proper operation of the mixing/injection equipment. The training will also cover personal
protective equipment (PPE) and spill response measures. Only trained personnel will be
allowed to operate mixing and injection equipment or to respond to spills.
5.3 Residuals Management
Wastes generated during the investigation of potentially contaminated sites are classified as
IDW and will be managed to protect the public and the environment. Section 3.13,
Investigation-derived Waste Handling, of the Master SAP provides general information for the
characterization,handling,and disposal of contaminated wastes expected to be encountered
or generated during this work (CH2M HILL,2008c).
5.3.1 Waste Streams
The waste streams associated with this project may include:
• Soil cuttings from the installation of injection and monitoring wells
• Equipment and personnel decontamination fluid
• Development/purge water from the monitoring wells
• PPE
• Used sampling supplies
• Uncontaminated general debris
5.3.2 Waste Management
All IDW management actions will be documented in the field notes.Specific waste
management procedures are documented in the IDW standard operating procedure (SOP)
(CH2M HILL,2008c).
ES062210072353VBO 5-1

PILOT ST JDYMLEM3grATIONPL^STIE 88,OPERABLE UTATNO.15
Decontamination Fluids/Development Water
Decontamination fluids and development water from the monitoring wells will be collected
in bulk containers that will be provided by the drilling subcontractor and/or CH2M HILL.
The CH2M HILL Field Team Leader (FTL)will coordinate the transportation of all IDW
fluids to the wet well located at Lot 203 on Piney Green Road for disposal.A CH2M HILL
representative will provide oversight when transferring IDW fluids to Lot 203. Adequate
time will be allotted to allow for any solids to settle from the fluids prior to discharging to
the wet well.
Soil Cuttings
Soil cuttings will be containerized in drums. The drilling subcontractor will move the drums
to a temporary storage area located on Parachute Tower Road,where the containers will be
stored until disposal.
Soil IDW is expected to be characterized as non-hazardous. However,if soil IDW is
characterized as hazardous,then the drums will be marked with pre-printed hazardous
waste labels that include the following information: accumulation start date, generator
name,USEPA ID number, applicable waste codes,and the manifest number. The drums will
be moved by a licensed hazardous waste transporter to the less-than-90-day storage facility
located in Building S962.Within 90 days from the accumulation start date,the soil will be
transported offsite for disposal at a properly permitted Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C treatment, storage,or disposal (TSD) facility.
The FTL will coordinate and oversee placement of IDW.
PPE,Used Sampling Supplies,and General Debris
PPE and used sampling supplies associated with the generation of non-hazardous wastes
and general debris will be collected in black,non-translucent trash bags and disposed of in a
dumpster aboard MCB CamLej.
5-2 ES062210072353VBO

SECTION 6
Site Activity Cons iderations
The pilot studies will be conducted within a congested area of the Base. Care will be taken
to minimize disturbance of surrounding operations. Considerations related to implementing
the pilot studies at Site 88 include,but are not limited to,the following:
1. Equipment, space,and utility requirements
— Subcontractors will be solely responsible for their equipment,instrumentation,
materials,and supplies.
— Drilling subcontractor will be responsible for providing an equipment and materials
storage area during the well installation phase.
— Underground utilities will be identified by a professional utilities locating
subcontractor.
2. Site security
— During working hours, CH2M HILL personnel will secure the work area.
— Site access during the project will be limited to authorized personnel only.
— During non-working hours,the work area will be secured by temporary construction
fencing to prevent trespasser access.
ES062210072353VBO 6-1

SECTION 7
Reporting
At the conclusion of the monitoring activities, a draft Pilot Study Field Implementation
Summary Report will be prepared to summarize the field activities and to present the
results,conclusions,and recommendations. After the comment period,any comments
received will be addressed in the final report.
The results of the pilot studies will be incorporated into the FS to further refine the
evaluation of treatment alternatives. In addition,the results will used during the Remedial
Design phase.
ES062210072353VBO 7-1

SECTION 8
Project Management
8.1 Project Schedule
The proposed schedule for implementing the Pilot Studies at Site 88 is presented on
Figure 8-1. The tasks shown on the schedule correspond to the tasks identified in this
Implementation Plan.
8.2 Project organization
The project organization is presented on Figure 8-2. The Partnering Team includes
representatives from CH2M HILL,NAVFAC,MCB CamLej,North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), and USEPA Region 4.
Ms. Keri Hallberg,P.E.,will serve as the Project Manager (PM) for the pilot studies. The PM
is responsible for overall project management and the overall quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) of project deliverables.
Mr. Christopher Bozzini, P.E.,will serve as the Senior Consultant for the pilot studies. He
will work with the PM to ensure the quality of project execution and will review the
technical aspects of the work from project scoping to project completion.
Other members of the project team include:
• Project Engineer/Hydrogeologist
• FTL
• Field support staff
• Technical project staff
All field and subcontractor activity will be under the direction of the FTL.
ES062210072353VBO 8-1

ID Task Name Duration Start 30 '10 Jun 6 '10 Jun 13 '10 Jun 20 '10 Jun 27 '10 Jul 4 '10 Jul 11 '10 Jul 18 '10 Jul 25 '10 Aug1 '10 1 Aug8 '10 lAu 15 '10 Aug22 '10 Au 29 '10 Se 5 '10 Se 12 '10 Se 1
TWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMT
1
2 Pilot Study Implementation Plan 104 days Fri 4/2/10
3 Draft Implementation Plan 79 days Fri 4/2/10
4 Partnering Team Review 15 days Thu 7/22/10
5 Final Implementation Plan 10 days Thu 8/12/10
6
7 Pilot Study UFP SAP 114 days Mon 5/3/10
8 Draft UFP-SAP 65 days Mon 5/3/10
9 Navy Chemist Review 21 days Mon 8/2/10
10 Address Comments from Navy Chemist 5 days Tue 8/31/10
11 Partnering Team Review 10 days Tue 9/7/10
12 Final UFP SAP 3 days Tue 9/21/10
13 Final Acceptance 10 days Fri 9/24/10
33
15 Pilot Studies 57 days Tue 9114/10
16 Utility Locate 2 days Tue 9/14/10
17 Well Installation 19 days Fri 9/17/10
18 Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Injections 12 days Fri 10/29/10
19 Zone 2 ERD Injections 12 days Tue 11/16/10
20 Zone 3 ERD Injections 12 days Tue 11/16/10
21
22 Monitoring 317 days Fri 10/15/10
23 Baseline Groundwater Monitoring 10 days Fri 10/15/10
24 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoirng 212 days Mon 12/20/10
25 One Month 2 days Mon 12/20/10
26 Three Month 8 days Tue 3/1/11
27 Six Month 8 days Tue 6/7/11
28 Nine Month 6 days Tue 8/2/11
29 Twelve Month 8 days Fri 9/30/11
42
30 Data Management 307 days Fri 10/29/10
31 Lab Analysis 281 days Fri 10/29/10
32 Data Validation 285 days Tue 11/30/10
41
34 Pilot Study Summary Report 81 days Mon 1/9/12
35 Draft Summary Report 41 days Mon 1/9/12
36 Navy Review 6 days Tue 3/6/12
37 Address Comments 5 days Wed 3/14/12
38 Partnering Team Review 19 days Wed 3/21/12
39 Address Comments 5 days Tue 4/17/12
40 Final Summary Report 5 days Tue 4/24/12
Project:Figure 9-1_Project Schedule c Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split b
Date:Tue 7/20/10 Split Milestone ♦ Project Summary External MileTask p
Page 1 Figure 8-1
Project Schedule
Site 88 Pilot Study Implementation Plan

ID Task Name Duration —WT10 Se 26 '10 Oct 3 '10 Oct 10 '10 Oct 17 '10 Oct 24 '10 Oct 31 '10 Nov 7 '10 Nov 14 '10 Nov 21 '10 Nov 28 '10 Dec 5 '10 Dec 12 '10 Dec 19 '10 Dec 26 '10 Jan 2 '11 Jan 9 '11 Jan 16
TFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMT
1
2 Pilot Study Implementation Plan 104 days
3 Draft Implementation Plan 79 days
4 Partnering Team Review 15 days
5 Final Implementation Plan 10 days
6
7 Pilot Study UFP SAP 114 days
8 Draft UFP-SAP 65 days
9 Navy Chemist Review 21 days
10 Address Comments from Navy Chemist 5 days
11 Partnering Team Review 10 days
12 Final UFP SAP 3 days
13 Final Acceptance 10 days
33
15 Pilot Studies 57 days
16 Utility Locate 2 days
17 Well Installation 19 days
18 Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Injections 12 days
19 Zone 2 ERD Injections 12 days
20 Zone 3 ERD Injections 12 days
21
22 Monitoring 317 days
23 Baseline Groundwater Monitoring 10 days
24 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoirng 212 days
25 One Month 2 days (�
26 Three Month 8 days
27 Six Month 8 days
28 Nine Month 6 days
29 Twelve Month 8 days
42
30 Data Management 307 days
31 Lab Analysis 281 days
32 Data Validation 285 days
41
34 Pilot Study Summary Report 81 days
35 Draft Summary Report 41 days
36 Navy Review 6 days
37 Address Comments 5 days
38 Partnering Team Review 19 days
39 Address Comments 5 days
40 Final Summary Report 5 days
Project:Figure 9-1_Project Schedule c Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split b
Date:Tue 7/20/10 Split Milestone ♦ Project Summary External MileTask p
Page 2 Figure 8-1
Project Schedule
Site 88 Pilot Study Implementation Plan

ID Task Name Duration '11 1 Jan 23 '11 1 Jan 30 '11 1 Feb 6 '11 1 Feb 13 '11 1 Feb 20 '11 1 Feb 27 '11 1 Mar 6 '11 1 Mar 13 '11 1 Mar 20 '11 1 Mar 27 '11 1 Apr 3 '11 1 Apr 10 '11 1 Apr 17 '11 1 Apr 24 '11 1 MaX 1 '11 1 Ma 8 '11 Mav 15
—WIT FSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMT
1
2 Pilot Study Implementation Plan 104 days
3 Draft Implementation Plan 79 days
4 Partnering Team Review 15 days
5 Final Implementation Plan 10 days
6
7 Pilot Study UFP SAP 114 days
8 Draft UFP-SAP 65 days
9 Navy Chemist Review 21 days
10 Address Comments from Navy Chemist 5 days
11 Partnering Team Review 10 days
12 Final UFP SAP 3 days
13 Final Acceptance 10 days
33
15 Pilot Studies 57 days
16 Utility Locate 2 days
17 Well Installation 19 days
18 Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Injections 12 days
19 Zone 2 ERD Injections 12 days
20 Zone 3 ERD Injections 12 days
21
22 Monitoring 317 days
23 Baseline Groundwater Monitoring 10 days
24 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoirng 212 days
25 One Month 2 days
26 Three Month 8 days
27 Six Month 8 days
28 Nine Month 6 days
29 Twelve Month 8 days
42
30 Data Management 307 days
31 Lab Analysis 281 days
32 Data Validation 285 days
41
34 Pilot Study Summary Report 81 days
35 Draft Summary Report 41 days
36 Navy Review 6 days
37 Address Comments 5 days
38 Partnering Team Review 19 days
39 Address Comments 5 days
40 Final Summary Report 5 days
Project:Figure 9-1_Project Schedule c Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split b
Date:Tue 7/20/10 Split Milestone ♦ Project Summary External MileTask p
Page 3 Figure 8-1
Project Schedule
Site 88 Pilot Study Implementation Plan

ID Task Name Duration '11 Ma 22 '11 May 29 '11 Jun 5 '11 Jun 12 '11 Jun 19 '11 Jun 26 '11 Jul 3 '11 Jul 10 '11 Jul 17 '11 Jul 24 '11 Jul 31 '11 Aug7 '11 Aug14 '11 Aug21 '11 Aug28 '11 Se 4 '11 Se 11
—WITFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT
1
2 Pilot Study Implementation Plan 104 days
3 Draft Implementation Plan 79 days
4 Partnering Team Review 15 days
5 Final Implementation Plan 10 days
6
7 Pilot Study UFP SAP 114 days
8 Draft UFP-SAP 65 days
9 Navy Chemist Review 21 days
10 Address Comments from Navy Chemist 5 days
11 Partnering Team Review 10 days
12 Final UFP SAP 3 days
13 Final Acceptance 10 days
33
15 Pilot Studies 57 days
16 Utility Locate 2 days
17 Well Installation 19 days
18 Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Injections 12 days
19 Zone 2 ERD Injections 12 days
20 Zone 3 ERD Injections 12 days
21
22 Monitoring 317 days
23 Baseline Groundwater Monitoring 10 days
24 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoirng 212 days
25 One Month 2 days
26 Three Month 8 days
27 Six Month 8 days
28 Nine Month 6 days
29 Twelve Month 8 days
42
30 Data Management 307 days
31 Lab Analysis 281 days
32 Data Validation 285 days
41
34 Pilot Study Summary Report 81 days
35 Draft Summary Report 41 days
36 Navy Review 6 days
37 Address Comments 5 days
38 Partnering Team Review 19 days
39 Address Comments 5 days
40 Final Summary Report 5 days
Project:Figure 9-1_Project Schedule c Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split b
Date:Tue 7/20/10 Split Milestone ♦ Project Summary External MileTask p
Page 4 Figure 8-1
Project Schedule
Site 88 Pilot Study Implementation Plan

ID Task Name Duration —WT11 Se 18 '11 Se 25 '11 Oct 2 '11 Oct 9 '11 Oct 16 '11 Oct 23 '11 Oct 30 '11 Nov 6 '11 Nov 13 '11 Nov 20 '11 Nov 27 '11 Dec 4 '11 Dec 11 '11 Dec 18 '11 Dec 25 '11 Jan 1 '12 Jan 8 '
TFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT
2 Pilot Study Implementation Plan 104 days
3 Draft Implementation Plan 79 days
4 Partnering Team Review 15 days
5 Final Implementation Plan 10 days
6
7 Pilot Study UFP SAP 114 days
8 Draft UFP-SAP 65 days
9 Navy Chemist Review 21 days
10 Address Comments from Navy Chemist 5 days
11 Partnering Team Review 10 days
12 Final UFP SAP 3 days
13 Final Acceptance 10 days
33
15 Pilot Studies 57 days
16 Utility Locate 2 days
17 Well Installation 19 days
18 Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Injections 12 days
19 Zone 2 ERD Injections 12 days
20 Zone 3 ERD Injections 12 days
21
22 Monitoring 317 days
23 Baseline Groundwater Monitoring 10 days
24 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoirng 212 days
25 One Month 2 days
26 Three Month 8 days
27 Six Month 8 days
28 Nine Month 6 days
29 Twelve Month 8 days
42
30 Data Management 307 days
31 Lab Analysis 281 days
32 Data Validation 285 days
41
34 Pilot Study Summary Report 81 days
35 Draft Summary Report 41 days
36 Navy Review 6 days
37 Address Comments 5 days
38 Partnering Team Review 19 days
39 Address Comments 5 days
40 Final Summary Report 5 days
Project:Figure 9-1_Project Schedule c Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split b
Date:Tue 7/20/10 Split Milestone ♦ Project Summary External MileTask p
Page 5 Figure 8-1
Project Schedule
Site 88 Pilot Study Implementation Plan

ID Task Name Duration 12 Jan 15 '12 Jan 22 '12 Jan 29 '12 Feb 5 '12 Feb 12 '12 Feb 19 '12 Feb 26 '12 Mar 4 '12 Mar 11 '12 Mar 18 '12 Mar 25 '12 Apr 1 '12 Apr 8 '12 Apr 15 '12 Apr 22 '12 Apr 29 '12 Mav 6—WI '
TFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMT WITFSSMTWTFSSMT WITIFSSMT
1
2 Pilot Study Implementation Plan 104 days
3 Draft Implementation Plan 79 days
4 Partnering Team Review 15 days
5 Final Implementation Plan 10 days
6
7 Pilot Study UFP SAP 114 days
8 Draft UFP-SAP 65 days
9 Navy Chemist Review 21 days
10 Address Comments from Navy Chemist 5 days
11 Partnering Team Review 10 days
12 Final UFP SAP 3 days
13 Final Acceptance 10 days
33
15 Pilot Studies 57 days
16 Utility Locate 2 days
17 Well Installation 19 days
18 Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Injections 12 days
19 Zone 2 ERD Injections 12 days
20 Zone 3 ERD Injections 12 days
21
22 Monitoring 317 days
23 Baseline Groundwater Monitoring 10 days
24 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoirng 212 days
25 One Month 2 days
26 Three Month 8 days
27 Six Month 8 days
28 Nine Month 6 days
29 Twelve Month 8 days
42
30 Data Management 307 days
31 Lab Analysis 281 days
32 Data Validation 285 days
41
34 Pilot Study Summary Report 81 days
35 Draft Summary Report 41 days
36 Navy Review 6 days
37 Address Comments 5 days
38 Partnering Team Review 19 days
39 Address Comments 5 days
40 Final Summary Report 5 days
Project:Figure 9-1_Project Schedule c Task Progress Summary External Tasks Split b
Date:Tue 7/20/10 Split Milestone ♦ Project Summary External MileTask p
Page 6 Figure 8-1
Project Schedule
Site 88 Pilot Study Implementation Plan

Regulators NAVFAC Camp Lejeune EMD
EPA- Ms.Gena Townsend Mr. Dave Cleland Mr. Bob Lowder
NCDENR-Mr. Randy McElveen
Activity Manager Project Manager
Mr. Matt Louth Ms. Keri Hallberg
Technical Consultants
Mr.Chris Bozzini
Project Engineer/
Hydrogeologist FieldTeam Leader
Ms. Monica Fulkerson
Subcontractors
FIGURE 8-2
Project Organization
Site :: Bench-Scale Study Work
North Carolina

SECTION 9
References
CH2M HILL. 2008a. Draft Feasibility Study, Site 88, Operable Unit No. 15,MCB Camp Lejeune,
Jacksonville, North Carolina. February.
CH2M HILL. 2008b. Final Remedial Investigation Report Site 88-Operable Unit No. 15 Building
25,MCB Camp Lejeune,Jacksonville, North Carolina. March.
CH2M HILL. 2008c. Final Master Project Plans,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,Jacksonville,
North Carolina.
CH2M HILL. 2009. Final Bench-Scale Study Work Plan, Site 88, Operable Unit No. 15,Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina. May.
CH2M HILL. 2010.Additional Investigation Technical Memorandum, Site 88 - OU No. 15,
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. April.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Engineering Issue.In Situ
Chemical Oxidation. July 28.
Hemker, C.J. 2009. MicroFEM©Version 4.1 for Windows. Hemker Geohygrolog
Amsterdam,Elandsgracht 83,1016 TR Amsterdam.
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC),2005.Technical and Regulatory
Guidance for In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. Second
Edition.January.
Regenesis,2009. 3-D Microemulsion Overview.
http://www.regenesis.com/products/enhAna/3DMe/. May 5.
SiRem,2009. KB-1 Bioaugmentation. http://www.siremlab.com/kblbioaugmentation.html.
May 14.
ES062210072353VBO 9-1

Appendix A
Bench-Scale Study Summary Report

Draft
Bench-Scale Study Summary Report
Site 88, Operable Unit No. 15
Marine Corps Base Camp Lej eune
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Contract Task Order 071
June 2010
Prepared for
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Atlantic
Under the
NAVFAC CLEAN 1000 Program
Contract N62470-08-D-1000
Prepared by
fA CH2MHILL
11301 Carmel Commons Blvd., Suite 304
Charlotte, North Carolina
NC Engineering License #F-0699

Contents
Acronymsand Abbreviations..........................................................................................................v
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Rationale for Technology Selection............................................................................1-1
1.2 Bench-Scale Study Objectives......................................................................................1-1
2. Bench-Scale Study Methods................................................................................................1-1
2.1 Sample Collection.........................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation..................................................................................2-2
2.3 ISCO Testing..................................................................................................................2-2
2.3.1 Sample Characterization.................................................................................2-2
2.3.2 Test Setup..........................................................................................................2-2
2.3.3 Monitoring........................................................................................................2-3
2.4 ERD Testing...................................................................................................................2-4
2.4.1 Sample Characterization.................................................................................2-4
2.4.2 Test Setup..........................................................................................................2-4
2.4.3 Monitoring........................................................................................................2-6
3. Results and Discussion.........................................................................................................2-1
3.1 Initial Sample Characterization..................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 SOD Testing......................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Oil Retention Testing.......................................................................................3-1
3.2 ISCO Testing..................................................................................................................3-2
3.2.1 Control...............................................................................................................3-2
3.2.2 Permanganate Treatments..............................................................................3-2
3.2.3 Persulfate Treatments......................................................................................3-2
3.2.4 Peroxide Treatments........................................................................................3-3
3.3 ERD Testing...................................................................................................................3-3
3.3.1 Zone 2 (IR88-MW16IW)..................................................................................3-3
3.3.2 Zone 3 (IR88-MW22IW)..................................................................................3-5
3.3.3 Zone 2 and 3 -Supporting Data....................................................................3-6
4. Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................3-1
4.1 ISCO................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Zone 2 ERD....................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Zone 3 ERD....................................................................................................................4-2
5. References...............................................................................................................................4-1
ES052410024955VBO III

BENCII-SCALE ST[JDYSU vIARYREPORT,SHE 88,OPERABLE LMFNO.15
Tables
2-1 Initial Sample characterization Parameters and Analytical Methods
2-2 ISCO Test Conditions
2-3 ISCO Test Monitoring Plan
2-4 ERD Test Conditions
2-5 ERD Test Monitoring Plan
3-1 Initial Characterization Test Results
3-2 Field Sample Results
3-3 Oil Retention Test Results
3-4 ISCO Sampling Results
3-5 ERD Sampling Results
Figures
1-1 Site Map
2-1 ISCO Test Apparatus
2-2 Oil Retention Test Apparatus
3-1 PNOD Test Results
3-2 ISCO Test Results -Water PCE Data (normalized to starting concentration)
3-3 ISCO Test Results-Water TCE Data (normalized to starting concentration)
3-4 ISCO Test Results-Water cis-1,2-DCE Data (normalized to starting concentration)
3-5 ERD Results-Zones 2 and 3 Water CVOC Data-Controls
3-6 ERD Results-Zone 2 Water CVOC Data-Lactate Treatments
3-7 ERD Results-Zone 2 Water CVOC Data-SRS Treatments
3-8 ERD Results-Zone 2 Water CVOC Data-3DMe Treatments
3-9 ERD Results-Zone 3 Water CVOC Data-Lactate Treatments
3-10 ERD Results-Zone 3 Water CVOC Data-SRS Treatments
3-11 ERD Results-Zone 3 Water CVOC Data-3DMe Treatments
1V ES052410024955VBO

Acronyms and Abbreviations
3DMeTM Three-dimensional Microemulsion
ASL Applied Sciences Laboratory
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
bgs below ground surface
cells/L cells per liter
C3H5O3Na sodium lactate
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
CLEAN Comprehensive Long-term Environmental Action—Navy
Cr chromium
Cr[III] trivalent chromium
Cr[VI] hexavalent chromium
CTO Contract Task Order
CVOC chlorinated volatile organic compound
°C degrees Celsius
EOS EOS Remediation, Inc.
ERD enhanced reductive dechlorination
EVO emulsified vegetable oil
Fe-EDTA iron chelate
FS Feasibility Study
ft foot/feet
g grams
g/kg grams per kilogram
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
H2 hydrogen
H2O2 hydrogen peroxide
HRC® Hydrogen Release Compound
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
KMnO4 potassium permanganate
Mn manganese
MCB CamLej Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
µg/L micrograms per liter
µmol/L micromoles per liter
µM micromoles per liter
mg milligrams
mg/L milligrams per liter
mL milliliters
ES052410024955VBO V

BE[ICf SCALE STUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SHE 88,OPERABLE LMrNO.15
N2 nitrogen
Na2S208 sodium persulfate
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
OU Operable Unit
PCE tetrachloroethene
PNOD permanganate natural oxidant demand
ppmv parts per million by volume
ROI radius of influence
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SOD soil oxidant demand
SOP standard operating procedure
SRSTM Slow Release Emulsified Vegetable Oil Substrate
TCE trichloroethene
TOC total organic carbon
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VC vinyl chloride
VFAs volatile fatty acids
VOC volatile organic compound
VS volatile solids
M ES052410024955VBO

SECTION 1
Introduction
This Bench-Scale Study Summary Report describes treatability testing conducted for
Operable Unit(OU) No. 15,Site 88,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCB CamLej),
Jacksonville,North Carolina. This report was prepared under the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) -Mid-Atlantic, Comprehensive Long-term
Environmental Action-Navy (CLEAN) 1000 Contract N62470-08-D-1000, Contract Task
Order (CTO) 071.
1.1 Rationale for Technology Selection
The Draft Feasibility Study, Site 88, OU No. 15,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,Jacksonville,
North Carolina (CH2M HILL,2008a) evaluated potential remedial alternatives for addressing
groundwater impacts identified at Site 88.The plume was divided into three zones (Zones 1,
2, and 3) and treatment alternatives were developed for each zone (Figure 1-1).
In situ chemical oxidation(ISCO) and in situ enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD)were
considered in the feasibility study (FS) and determined to be potentially viable technologies
for treating the principal site contaminants: tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its anaerobic
breakdown products,trichloroethene (TCE),cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE),and vinyl
chloride (VC). Due to site conditions and the extent of contamination,in May 2008,the
Partnering Team agreed to conduct pilot studies in Zones 2 and 3 at Site 88 to evaluate the
site-specific effectiveness of ISCO and ERD and to further refine the evaluation of treatment
alternatives in the FS.
Bench-scale treatability studies were conducted using aquifer material from Zones 2 and 3
to evaluate the potential effectiveness and reagent types/requirements for ISCO and ERD
for treating chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) in groundwater. ISCO bench-
scale testing was conducted using materials from Zone 2 (IR88-MW16 cluster), and ERD
bench-scale testing was conducted using materials from Zones 2 (IR88-MW18 cluster) and 3
(IR88-MW22 cluster),the locations of which are shown in Figure 1-1. Both ISCO and ERD
testing consisted of a series of batch (microcosm) tests.These tests involved constructing
batch reactors containing soil and groundwater dosed with selected reagents,and
monitoring the reactors over time to track treatment performance.
1.2 Bench-Scale Study Objectives
The objectives of this bench-scale study were to:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of persulfate,potassium permanganate (KMn04),and
peroxide for oxidizing CVOCs within Zone 2 groundwater at Site 88.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of lactate,Slow Release Emulsified Vegetable Oil Substrate
(SRSTM), and Three-dimensional Microemulsion (3DMeTM)for enhancing biological
reductive dechlorination of CVOCs within Zone 2 and Zone 3 groundwater at Site 88.
ES052410024955VBO 1-1

BE[ICI SCALE STUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SHE 88,OPERABLE LMrNO.15
• Evaluate the effectiveness of bioaugmentation in addition to lactate,SRSTM,and 3DMeTM
for enhancing reductive dechlorination of CVOCs within Zone 2 and Zone 3
groundwater at Site 88.
1-2 ES052410024955VBO

\\tN{�O�RTHEND\PROJ\USNAVFACENGCOM\CAMPLEJEUNEWAPFILES\SITE 88\BENCH SCALE STUDY SR\FIGURE 2-1 SITE MAP.MXD CBOWMAN 5/18/2010 12:54:43
��(C
IR88-MW35DW r
!tet". R^ i�t IR88"- 351W N
't
rtK146 C*T-2cl
C(J T21
IR88-MW34DW
HP14� IR88-MW341W
HP105 •'
�� • a?�`` IR88-MW071
136 _ IR88-MW07DW IR884MW07 IR88-MW11
` T IR88-MW11DW
� =- r �• IR88-MW11
SIlP111IR88-MW1.21W
• � � IR88-MW1.2DW �
HP112 P11 IR88-MW33DW IR88-MW331W IR88-MW12 tt
'.. a SOD
t f 58
r
*t.g. -M
td 1 1 IR88W16 • i
IR88-MW05..
A�t � r i" .� r kil�'� IR8 -MW161W �88-MW OMP IR88_MW05
IL AW
��5vt` !FZ IR88-MW16DW t
H� 7 • r t{ IR8`8SMW05DW
:i H t4 F ] fit!, R � IR88-MW16DW2 IR88-MWOSIW T RIVE
IR88-MW08! !'- HP125 tik �QI , �li►y`� u R88-MW081W IR88-MW16DW3 IMA pARE D �1 '
\ 4t R88-MW071
R \• - ! - •.�i � *188-MW23MP _ NEW7522 �
F i M"'- , IR88,MW.03D.W IR88-MW171W ,t•
1 H >� ,• ! IR88-MW231W 88-MW39MP 37 IRA'-MW031W IR88-MW1
® IR88-MW28 { r 17 Sit
IR88-MW03-' IR88-MVU17DW
r1 111 Cib R IR88-MW23DW 43
543A IR88-MW43 ,
y S43B IR88 IR88-MW131
AVW t 3
IR88-MW321W .S94 • -EX08DW
115 �� ^ ' IR88-MW181W IR88-MW18DW3 • IR88-MW26clr' 3
IR88-MW211W IR88-MW32DW IR88-MW18DW O
R88-MW21DW IR88-MW18DW2 - r IR88-MW25 �` •' r
w
! IR88-MWo61W Former Building 25
�. � . IR88-MW06DW -� a ,:
♦� 'r HP56HP57 P
IR88-MW06 IR88-MW311W Y_ r _
1 . IR88-MW41DW IR88-MW31 l= dr
fs A
- 1 ! IR88-MW151W IR88-MW41DW2 IR88-MW27 p m
IRA -MW221W 1( IR88-MW15DW IR88-MW15 IR88-MW241W POsj I-PNE r I IR8-MW30 W IR88-MW02 IR88-MWWIW
IR88-M W 01 �0
IR88-MW22DW IR88-MW42DW2 IR8 -NI (CIO m • r
IR88-MW201W FREES T IR88-MW24DW IR88-MW42DW IR88-MW02DW o n mb 1
IR88-MW20DW 23 �, + HP55
r IR88-MW361W
234 IR88-MW36DW v
r IR88:MW-09 IR88-MW04DW 1 x
^�•��/
134 �' /
_ ' IR88=MW091W
�
� IR88-MW14DW _
S 6 IR88-MW14
257 ;__ •. IR88-MW141W
(IR88-MW191W �� �, ��C • r �� •
l IR88-MW19DW r • IR88-MW371W tr s
'IR88-M W 37 DVV, 62
I i MFCf0M2X 54
IR88-MW38DW`
= IR88-MW381 w- _ ID
y Y�.
< ifA l
HP259401110,
�HJ'250 FJP53 s F
•� r n i c`
Legend 2007Aerial Imagery Figure 1-1
Q� Shallow Monitoring Well Location 0 Zone 1 Site Map
+ Upper Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location 0 Zone 2 N Bench-Scale Study Summary Report
Middle Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location 0 Zone 3 0 100 200 400 Site 88
0• Lower Castle Hayne Monitoring Well Location Feet MCB CamLej
® Multi-Port Wells North Carolina
— Surface Water Centerline 1 inch = 200 feet
® Former Building 25 40 CH2MHILL
Site 88 Boundary 4=�
Generated By:Brooke PropstlCLT Checked by:Keri Hallberg/CLT

SECTION 2
Bench-Scale Study Methods
2.1 Sample Collection
Soil and groundwater samples for the Site 88 bench-scale study were collected by
CH2M HILL staff from September 29,2009 through October 14,2009 (Figure 1-1).
Groundwater samples were collected in flexible polyethylene CubitainersTM with zero
headspace to minimize turbulence and aeration,using a bladder pump and the low-flow
purging/sampling methods presented in Section 3.11, Groundwater Sample Collection, of the
Master Sampling and Analysis Plan(SAP) (CH2M HILL,2008b). All soil samples were
collected using rotosonic drilling techniques in acetate sleeves,which were capped with wax
and taped with minimal headspace immediately after retrieval.Samples were then packed
in coolers with ice and shipped by express courier to the CH2M HILL Applied Sciences
Laboratory (ASL), Corvallis,Oregon. The following samples were collected at the site for
use in bench-scale testing.
• Groundwater
— 30 liters (L) from monitoring well IR88-MW16IW in Zone 2 for ISCO testing
— 15 L from monitoring well IR88-MW181W in Zone 2 for ERD testing
— 15 L from monitoring well IR88-MW221W in Zone 3 for ERD testing
• Soil
— 12 L from the boring associated with IR88-MW16DW3 in Zone 2,from
approximately 35 to 60 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs),for ISCO testingl
— 7 L from the boring associated with IR88-MW18DW3 in Zone 2,from approximately
85 to 100 ft bgs,for ERD testing
— 7 L from a soil boring near IR88-MW22IW in Zone 3,from approximately 45 to 60 ft
bgs,for ERD testing
Field samples were collected concurrently with the bench-scale samples described above,to
determine in situ volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations since some VOC losses
due to volatilization could occur from unpreserved bulk bench-scale samples. Each
groundwater sample was collected with zero headspace in two 40-mL VOA vials pre-
preserved with hydrochloric acid. Each soil sample was collected in a 2-oz soil jar.The only
preservation used for soil samples was chilling. These samples were analyzed for VOCs
using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 8260B.
1 Samples were collected by volume rather than by mass;as a result,soil values are shown in L rather than mg.
ES052410024955VBO 2-1

BE[ICI SCALESTUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SHE88,OPERABLE UWNO.15
2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation
Upon receipt at ASL,the bench-scale study soil samples were transferred from the acetate
sleeves to clean stainless steel bowls and thoroughly mixed to create a homogeneous sample
for each location.Soil designated for ERD testing was mixed inside an anaerobic glove box
(97% nitrogen [N2]/3% hydrogen [H2] atmosphere). Soil designated for ISCO testing was
mixed in a fume hood in the lab atmosphere. After mixing,the homogenized soil samples
were placed in glass jars until bench-scale testing began.
2.3 ISCO Testing
2.3.1 Sample Characterization
Groundwater samples and aliquots of soil samples collected immediately following soil
homogenization were analyzed for the initial characterization parameters listed in Table 2-1
using the analytical methods specified,in accordance with the Bench-Scale Study Work Plan
(CH2M HILL,2009).
Soil oxidant demand (SOD) tests were also conducted to help determine appropriate
reagent doses for the ISCO bench-scale tests. SOD testing was performed on the Zone 2 soil
designated for use in ISCO testing using a customized version of American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D7262-07-B: Permanganate Natural Oxidant
Demand Kinetics. KMn04 doses of 500,5,000,and 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) were
evaluated at Days 0,3, 7,and 14.
Analytical methods used in conjunction with the SOD tests included the KMn04 in water
(spectrophotometric method) test.
2.3.2 Test Setup
Reagents used in ISCO testing included:
• KMn04-Carus Corporation
• Sodium persulfate (Na2S208) -Klozur (trade name), > 99%,from FMC Corporation
• Proprietary chelated iron persulfate activator (Fe-EDTA) from FMC
• Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) -30% solution from Fisher
• Proprietary hydrogen peroxide stabilizing agent from ISOTECH
• Proprietary chelated iron peroxide catalyst (Cat-4260) from ISOTECH
Thirteen ISCO tests were conducted,and reagent doses were determined based on initial
characterization data and vendor recommendations (Table 2-2).
Reagent doses for the KMn04 tests were selected based on the SOD test results. Based on
these results (discussed below), a dose of 3.5 g KMnO4 per kg of dry soil (g/dry kg) was
selected for the medium-low dose. Low,medium-high,and high doses of 2,5,and 7.5 g/
dry kg of soil,respectively,were chosen to bracket the medium-low dose.
Persulfate test doses were determined based on recommendations from the technology
supplier (FMC),which ran stoichiometric calculations using their proprietary spreadsheet
and initial sample characterization data. The low,medium,and high doses of persulfate
recommended by FMC and used in testing were 1,2, and 3 g/dry kg,respectively,of soil (as
2-2 ES052410024955VBO

SECHON2-432C -SCALE STUDYNETMDS
persulfate). Iron chelate (Fe-EDTA) from FMC was used as the activator in the three
activated persulfate tests at a concentration of 1,200 mg/L.
Peroxide doses were selected based on initial sample characterization results and
recommendations from the technology vendor (ISOTECH). The selected low,medium, and
high peroxide doses were 2,4,and 8 milliliters (mL),respectively, of stabilized hydrogen
peroxide solution(30%) per 100 mL of soil/water slurry,with the chelated iron catalyst
(Cat-4260) added at a 1:1 catalyst/peroxide volume ratio for all of the catalyzed peroxide
tests. For comparison to other ISCO reagent doses, these peroxide doses were equivalent to
roughly 17.5,35, and 70 grams per kilogram(g/kg) dry soil (as H2O2). Because of the large
amount of gas produced by the peroxide/catalyst reaction,the medium and high doses
could not be added at one time. Instead,the medium dose was split into two equal parts
that were added to the test reactor at Days 0 and 8,and the high dose was split into three
equal parts and added to the test reactor at Days 0,8,and 14. The timing of the second and
third dosing events was selected because the H2O2 monitoring data indicated substantial
decreases in residual at those times.
Each test reactor was set up using a 1-L glass bottle with a Teflon-lined silicone septum and
solid screw cap,with a hole and port installed and tubing connecting the reactor to a Tedlar
bag for off-gas collection(Figure 2-1). Each bottle was loaded with approximately 400 g of
soil (as-received wet weight) and approximately 800 mL of groundwater (nearly filling the
vessel). The reactors were then spiked with PCE and TCE to target (calculated)
concentrations of 14 mg/L and 250 micrograms per liter (µg/L),respectively,to roughly
mimic field concentrations. Finally,the appropriate reagents were added as shown in Table
2-2. The ISCO reactors were set up on December 9,2009. The second portion of the peroxide
dose was added to the ISCO-12 and-13 reactors on December 17,2009 (Day 8), and the third
portion of the dose was added to ISCO-13 on December 23,2009 (Day 14).
2.3.3 Nbnitoring
Monitoring was conducted at Days 0, 1,3, 7,14,28, and 48, according to the ISCO
monitoring schedule (Table 2-3) except that Day 48 was substituted for Day 42 and one set
of soil monitoring was done on Day 21 rather than 14. Day 0 samples were collected from
the ISCO test reactors during setup after spiking with PCE and TCE but before adding the
reagents. The purpose was to determine CVOC concentrations before immediate reaction
with the ISCO reagents. After setup was completed,the test reactors were sealed,
thoroughly mixed by hand-shaking,and then incubated at room temperature (21-22 degrees
Celsius [°C]) in the dark under static conditions (except for mixing prior to monitoring) for
the duration of the test. Reactors were periodically checked for gas production. Bottles were
shaken by hand 1 day before each monitoring event to promote representative sampling of
the contents. A repetitive sampling approach was used,in which the same reactors were
monitored repeatedly over time. All sampling was performed in a fume hood in the lab
atmosphere using the following techniques.
• Water-sampling consisted of withdrawing aliquots of water through the septum using
a long-needled syringe (i.e.,without removing the cap),while allowing the removed
volume to be replaced with nitrogen gas from a Tedlar bag using a second needle
inserted through the septum.Withdrawn sample aliquots were transferred to
appropriate containers for the analyses. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and pH
ES052410024955VBO 2-3

BE[ICI SCALE STUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SNE 88,OPERABLE LMNO.15
were analyzed immediately. Care was taken to minimize turbulence when transferring
samples,especially for ORP measurement and VOC analysis.
• Soil-soil was sampled only during the last monitoring event,and sampling consisted of
collection using a spoon after first removing all of the overlying water by siphoning.
Analytical methods were the same as those used for initial sample characterization.
Additional parameters/methods were: persulfate in water-USEPA Method 300.OM and ion
chromatography;off-gas VOCs-USEPA Method TO-15.
2.4 ERD Te sting
2.4.1 Sample Characterization
Groundwater samples and aliquots of soil samples collected immediately following soil
homogenization were analyzed for the initial characterization parameters listed in Table 2-1
using the analytical methods specified,in accordance with the Bench-Scale Study Work Plan
(CH2M HILL,2009).
Oil retention tests were performed on soils from Zones 2 and 3 areas designated for use in
ERD testing. Oil retention tests were conducted with two reagent products,SRSTM and
3DMeTM(described in the ERD section below),for both total organic carbon (TOC) and
volatile solids (VS). The test apparatus (Figure 2-2) and procedure used followed the test
method provided by EOS Remediation, Inc. (EOS) entitled"Measurement of Maximum
Emulsified Oil Retention by Aquifer Sands" (EOS,2006).
Analytical methods used in conjunction with the oil retention tests included TOC in soil
(USEPA 9060) and VS in soil (USEPA 160.4).
2.4.2 Test Setup
Reagents used in ERD testing were:
• Sodium lactate (C3H503Na) -60% syrup from Fisher
• SRSTM-a proprietary emulsified vegetable oil (SRSTM) product from Terra Systems,
Inc. containing approximately 60% soybean oil by weight
• 3DMeTM-a form of HRC-Advanced®, a proprietary substrate from Regenesis,
consisting of a glycerol ester of lactic acid and long-chained fatty acids
• TSI DC Bioaugmentation CultureTM -a bacterial culture from Terra Systems,containing
Dehalococcoides sp. and other bacteria, that is capable of completely dechlorinating PCE
and TCE to ethene
For each zone, a total of 7 ERD tests were conducted (Table 24). Reagent doses were based
on recommendations from technology vendors and experience conducting similar ERD
tests.
C3H5O3Na was added at a dose of 2,000 mg/L (equivalent to 1,623 mg/L as lactate),based
on vendor recommendations for this and other similar projects.
2-4 ES052410024955VBO

SECHON2-432C -SCALE STUDYNETMDS
Doses for SRSTM and 3DMeTM were selected based on past recommendations from Dr.
Robert Borden at North Carolina State University. Research conducted by Dr. Borden and
co-workers has shown that a given soil will sorb and retain a certain amount of SRSTM oil.
His dose recommendations,based on oil retention,are often in the range of 0.002-0.004 g
product/g dry soil (for an SRSTM product containing—60% oil), depending on soil type.
Consequently, 0.003 g/g dry soil was used for the dosing for both SRSTM and 3DMeTM. This
resulted in approximately 1.04 g product/reactor (1,390 mg/L) for the Zone 2 tests and 1.01
g product/reactor (1,350 mg/L)for Zone 3 tests. It should be noted that the original intent
of conducting oil retention tests on the site soils was to use those site-specific results as the
basis of selecting doses of SRSTM and 3DMeTM.However, those tests yielded results that
were on the order of 10 times higher than values obtained in other such studies,so the
"typical" values suggested by Dr. Borden were used rather than the site-specific oil
retention test results.
The TSI DC Bioaugmentation CultureTM dose used was selected to provide a biomass
concentration of 1.25x108 cells per liter (cells/L). According to a bioremediation culture
supplier (Terra Systems),this biomass concentration represents a typical microbial
population that has matured after introduction into the subsurface. In field applications,
cultures are usually added at a lower concentration and allowed to grow in situ.
Each microcosm vessel was a 1-L glass bottle with a Teflon-lined, silicone septum and
plastic screw-on septum cap. Each bottle was loaded with approximately 400 g of soil (as-
received wet weight),approximately 800 mL of groundwater (nearly filling the vessel), and
the appropriate ERD substrates required in accordance with the test conditions (Table 24).
Resazurin was added to each microcosm as a redox indicator at a concentration of 1 mg/L.
Following the addition of soil, groundwater, and amendments (excluding the TSI DC
Bioaugmentation CultureTM),each microcosm vessel was spiked with PCE and TCE to
create the following target(calculated) aqueous concentrations:
• Zone 2 tests: 5,000 µg/L of PCE and 500 µg/L of TCE
• Zone 3 tests: 500 µg/L of PCE and 250 µg/L of TCE
These target concentrations were selected to roughly approximate field conditions based on
recent and historical data for the site. Spiking was not required for cis-1,2-DCE because
initial characterization analysis showed that the concentrations in the unpreserved bulk
samples received at the lab for use in bench-scale testing were similar to field
concentrations.All microcosm setup activities were conducted inside an anaerobic glove
box (97% N2/3% H2 atmosphere).
Reactors designated for the TSI DC Bioaugmentation CultureTM were not bioaugmented
until low redox conditions were achieved (approximately 2 weeks after dosing with ERD
substrate),with an ORP value less than-110 mV, as indicated when the resazurin color
changed from pink to clear (Day 15).
Reactors were set up on December 8,2009. Each microcosm was then securely sealed,
shaken to thoroughly mix the contents, and then covered and incubated in an anaerobic
glove box at room temperature (21-22°C) under static conditions, except for mixing prior to
monitoring events.
ES052410024955VBO 2-5

BE[ICI SCALE STUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SHE 88,OPERABLE LmNO.15
2.4.3 Nbnitoring
Microcosm monitoring was done using the repetitive sampling approach,in which
microcosms were monitored repeatedly over time. Bottles were shaken 1 day prior to each
monitoring date to promote representative sampling of the contents. Samples were collected
through a septum in the bottle cap using a non-coring deflected tip needle and a 50-mL
syringe and essentially the same procedure as used for the ISCO tests. Septums were
punctured multiple times during each monitoring event to collect the required amount of
sample for analysis. All monitoring was done inside the anaerobic glove box. Monitoring
was conducted at Days 0,15,30,60,90,and 120 according to the ERD monitoring schedule
presented in Table 2-5. The analytical methods were the same as those used in the initial
sample characterization (Table 2-1). An additional parameter/method monitored in the
ERD tests was volatile fatty acids (VFAs) by USEPA 300.OM,ion chromatography.
2-6 ES052410024955VBO

TABLE 2-1
Initial Sample Characterization Parameters and Analytical 1Vhthods
NUB CamUj,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Parameter Analytical Method Method Description
Water
pH EPA 150.1 Meter
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) SM 2580B Meter
Alkalinity EPA 310.1 Titration
Anions(Cl, NO3, SO4) EPA 300.0 IC
VOCs EPA 8260B GUMS
Methane,ethane,ethene(MEE) EPA RSK-175 GC
Dissolved metals(As, Cr, Fe, Mn) EPA 601013 ICP
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) EPA 9060 TOC analyzer
Soil
VOCs EPA 5035(extraction)EPA 8260B GUMS
Total organic carbon(TOC) EPA 9060 or ASTM E-777 TOC analyzer
Moisture content EPA 160.3 Gravimetric
Particle size analysis ASTM D422 Sieves, hydrometer
Bulk Density - Weight/volume
Soil oxidant demand(SOD)-Permanganate ASTM D7262-B
Oil retention—EVO and 3DMe EOS Remediation Inc. method

TABLE 2-2
ISCO Test Conditions
NICB Cann j,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Test ID Description Reagent and Dose
ISCO-1 Unamended control None
ISCO-2 Permanganate dose 1 KMn04, low dose
ISCO-3 Permanganate dose 2 KMn04, medium-low dose
ISCO-4 Permanganate dose 3 KMn04, medium-high dose
ISCO-5 Permanganate dose 4 KMn04, high dose
ISCO-6 Persulfate-only Na2S208, medium dose
ISCO-7 Activated persulfate dose 1 Na2S208, low dose; Fe-EDTA activator
ISCO-8 Activated persulfate dose 2 Na2S208, medium dose; Fe-EDTA activator
ISCO-9 Activated persulfate dose 3 Na2S208, high dose; Fe-EDTA activator
ISCO-10 Peroxide-only H2O2, medium dose
ISCO-11 Catalyzed peroxide dose 1 H2O2, low dose; Cat-4260 catalyst
ISCO-12 Catalyzed peroxide dose 2 H2O2, medium dose; Cat-4260 catalyst
ISCO-13 Catalyzed peroxide dose 3 H2O2, high dose; Cat-4260 catalyst
Notes:
- Reagent doses were be determined based on initial sample characterization results and
technology vendor recommendations (see text)

TABLE 2-3
ISCO Test Monitoring Plan
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Medium I Day 0 Day 1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day 42
ISCO-1, Unamended Control
pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl,
water dissolved Cr pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl pH,ORP,VOCs,Cl pH, ORP,VOCs, CI pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl dissolved Cr
Soil VOCs, moisture
Offgas volume* volume*
ISCO-2 through 5,Permanganate Tests
pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH,ORP,VOCs,CI, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl,
water dissolved Cr, Mn04 Mn04 Mn04 Mn04 Mn04 dissolved Cr, Mn04
Soil VOCs, moisture
Offgas volume,VOCs* volume,VOCs*
ISCO-6 through 9,Persulfate Tests
pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH, ORP,VOCs, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH,ORP,VOCs,CI, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl,
water dissolved Cr, persulfate CI, persulfate persulfate persulfate persulfate dissolved Cr, persulfate
Soil VOCs, moisture
Offgas volume,VOCs* volume,VOCs*
ISCO-10 through 13,Peroxide Tests
pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH,ORP,VOCs, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl, pH,ORP,VOCs,CI, pH, ORP,VOCs, Cl,
water dissolved Cr, peroxide Cl, peroxide peroxide peroxide dissolved Cr, peroxide
Soil VOCs, moisture
Offgas volume,VOCs* volume,VOCs*
Notes:
*Or as produced

TABLE 2-4
ERD Test Conditions
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Test ID I Description Amendments
Zone 2 soil and groundwater
ERD-Al Unamended control None
ERD-A2 Lactate without bioaugmentation C3H503Na
ERD-A3 Lactate with bioaugmentation C3H503Na; culture
ERD-A4 EVO without bioaugmentation SRS
ERD-A5 EVO with bioaugmentation SRS; culture
ERD-A6 3DMe without bioaugmentation 3DMe
ERD-A7 13DMe with bioaugmentation 3DMe; culture
Zone 3 soil and groundwater
ERD-B1 Unamended control None
ERD-132 Lactate without bioaugmentation C3H503Na
ERD-133 Lactate with bioaugmentation C3H503Na; culture
ERD-134 EVO without bioaugmentation SRS
ERD-B5 EVO with bioaugmentation SRS; culture
ERD-136 3DMe without bioaugmentation 3DMe
ERD-B7 13DMe with bioaugmentation 3DMe; culture
Notes:
-Amendment doses were determined based on initial sample characterization results
-The bioaugmentation cultures was not added until anaerobic conditions are achieved
- Resazurin was added to all of the test reactors as a redox indicator

TABLE 2-5
ERD Test Nbnitoring Plan
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Medium I Day 0 1 Day 15 Day 30 Day 60 Day 90 Day 120
ERD-Al, ERD-B1, Unamended Controls
pH, ORP,VOCs, anions(Cl, pH, ORP,VOCs, anions(Cl,
NO3,SO4), MEE, dissolved NO3,SO4), MEE, dissolved
water pH, ORP, VOCs pH, ORP, VOCs metals(As, Fe, Mn) pH, ORP, VOCs metals(As, Fe, Mn)
ERD A2 through A7 and ERD-B2 through B7,Amended Systems
ORP (systems pH, ORP, VOCs, anions (Cl, pH, ORP, VOCs, anions (Cl,
designated for NO3, SO4), MEE, VFAs, NO3, SO4), MEE, VFAs,
water pH, ORP, VOCs bioaugmentation) pH, ORR VOCs dissolved metals (As, Fe, Mn) pH, ORP, VOCs dissolved metals (As, Fe, Mn)

Figure 2-1
ISCO Test Apparatus
NUB CamLej, Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Solid cap with septum, hole drilled
to access septum, and port installed
to connect tubing
Ted�rB
1-L Test Reactor

Figure 2-2
Oil Retention Test Apparatus
NUB CamLsj, Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Siphon break Top flange fitting w/ blind flange &outlet
Tee w/open tubing 5-1/2"
leg for siphon break Test column (3" diameter clear PVC pipe)
Peristaltic Feed Pump (can use multi-head
Soil bed pump to feed multiple columns)
Effluent Tank 6"
Support plate
Bottom flange fitting w/ blind flange &outlet Influent Tank
Ball Valve

SECTION 3
Re s ults and as cus s ion
3.1 Initial Sample Characterization
Table 3-1 presents characterization results for the unpreserved bulk bench-scale samples
sent to ASL,and Table 3-2 shows the field sample results,indicating actual field conditions.
The Zone 2 groundwater sample for ISCO testing had a pH of approximately 5.7,a positive
ORP of+145 mV, and a PCE (the predominant CVOC present) concentration of 7,580 µg/L.
Both the ISCO and ERD tests were spiked with selected CVOCs,as discussed in Sections 2.3
and 2.4,respectively,to create initial concentrations similar to field levels,based on the field
results and historical data for the site.
Both of the groundwater samples for ERD testing had near-neutral pH values, so pH
adjustment was not necessary to create conducive conditions for reductive dechlorination of
CVOCs. Both samples had a positive ORP,but the presence of dissolved manganese (Mn)
and methane in the Zone 3 sample suggest that the water may have been mildly reducing in
situ. Concentrations of nitrate and sulfate (potential competing electron acceptors) were
relatively low. PCE,TCE,and cis-1,2-DCE were present in both samples,indicating that
reductive dechlorination is occurring to some degree at the site,but the lack of measureable
VC and ethene/ethane implies that the dechlorination process may be incomplete. PCE and
TCE concentrations in the bench-scale samples were low relative to levels in the respective
field samples,and therefore the ERD tests were spiked with these compounds (described
above).
3.1.1 SODTesting
SOD using KMn04 was evaluated at Days 0,3,and 7. The planned 14-day monitoring event
was cancelled because KMnO4 demand was similar at Days 3 and 7 (Figure 3-1). Note that
the abbreviation PNOD (meaning"permanganate natural oxidant demand"),which is
equivalent to SOD for KMn04,is used in the ASTM method and so is used in the figure. The
figure legend indicates that three KMn04 doses (500,5,000,and 10,000 mg/L) were run in
duplicate (A and B). The results of these tests indicate that the soil PNOD was
approximately 3.7±0.5 g/dry g of soil (as KMn04). Based on these results,3.5 g/dry g was
chosen as the medium-low KMn04 dose for ISCO testing,as noted above.
3.1.2 Oil Retention Testing
The oil retention tests yielded values ranging from roughly 0.030 to 0.065 g/dry g (as the
product) (Table 3-3). These values are generally 10 times higher than oil retention values
determined in other lab tests using different soils from other sites. Consequently, these
results were considered suspect and were not used for determining ERD test doses,as
discussed in Section 2.4.2.
ES052410024955VBO 3-1

BE[ICI SCALE STUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SUE 88,OPERABLE LMrNO.15
3.2 ISCO Testing
The complete ISCO testing results are summarized in Table 3-4. PCE was the main CVOC
present in the ISCO tests. Initial water concentrations of PCE,TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE
immediately after setup were roughly 13,000,300, and 250 µg/L,respectively,showing
reasonably good agreement with target spiked concentrations of 14,000 µg/L for PCE and
250 µg/L for TCE. Normalized (C/Co) CVOC concentrations in microcosm water are plotted
against time in Figures 3-2 through 3-4.
3.2.1 Control
The Control reactor (ISCO-1) showed substantial loss of CVOCs during the ISCO test
period. Considering other results obtained in this study,it appears these losses from the
Control reactor water were caused by an unintended mechanism,most likely a poor seal in
the reactor cap or off-gas port that allowed volatilization out of the test apparatus. The
baseline chloride concentration in the Control system water was approximately 9.5 mg/L
throughout the study. This lack of variability in the Control supports the assumption that
CVOC losses in the Control were due to volatilization rather than a destructive mechanism.
3.2.2 Permanganate Treatments
The KMn04 treatments generally achieved faster and more complete removal of CVOCs
than the Control. In the KMnO4 tests (ISCO-2 through-5),PCE,TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE
concentrations in water were reduced to non-detectable levels within 7 days. Of the ISCO
treatments tested,the greatest CVOC treatment performance was achieved by KMn04.
There was little or no difference in effectiveness between the different doses of these
reagents.
Aqueous concentrations of chloride in the KMnO4 systems were approximately 19 mg/L.
Complete removal of chlorine atoms during oxidative destruction of PCE yields 0.855 mg
chloride per mg PCE degraded. Thus, complete oxidation of a 13-mg/L PCE starting
concentration would be expected to yield about 11 mg/L of chloride,which is
approximately equal to the chloride increase observed in the KMn04 tests. This is strong
evidence that the observed decreases in PCE (and other CVOCs) in these treatments were
attributable to oxidation rather than unintended volatilization losses.
Soil CVOCs were measured only at the end of the ISCO tests because sampling required
opening of the reactors for removal of water and soil. Soil PCE concentrations were not
detected in the KMn04 tests (ISCO-2 through-5) on Day 42.
Substantial concentrations of residual KMn04 (515 to 2,500 mg/L) remained at the end of
the tests (Days 28 and 48),suggesting the possibility of additional oxidation capacity. The
remaining KMnO4 was directly related to the initial dose.
3.2.3 Persulfate Treatments
The persulfate treatments (ISCO-6 through-9) did not improve PCE treatment appreciably
compared to the Control,while the TCE and cis-1,2-DCE removal,especially for the non-
activated persulfate-only treatment,performed better than the Control. However,treatment
in the persulfate microcosms still lagged behind the KMnO4 and peroxide treatments. There
was little or no difference in effectiveness between the different doses of these reagents.
3-2 ES052410024955VBO

SECTION3-- ESIJUIS AND DISCUSSION
Soil CVOCs measured at the end of the ISCO persulfate tests (Day 28) actually averaged
higher (110.5 µg/kg) than in the Control test on Day 48 (45.6 µg/kg). In addition, significant
residual persulfate (305 to 930 mg/L) remained at the end of the study in these tests (Days
28 and 48), suggesting the possibility of additional oxidation capacity.
3.2.4 Peroxide Treatments
The catalyzed peroxide treatments generally achieved faster and more complete removal of
CVOCs than the Control. Catalyzed peroxide treatments (ISCO-11 through-13) achieved
low levels of TCE and cis-1,2-DCE within 7 days,although some PCE remained in the water
phase through the end of those tests (14 days).
Similarly to the KMnO4 systems,increases in aqueous concentrations of chloride in the
catalyzed peroxide systems were close to what would be expected for the complete
oxidation of PCE in these systems, another line of evidence that the observed decreases in
PCE (and other CVOCs) in these treatments were attributable to oxidation rather than
unintended volatilization losses.
Only the catalyzed peroxide tests (ISCO-11 through-13) produced off-gas. Those test
systems generated off-gas when they were first set up. Sufficient off-gas was generated to
partially fill the 1-L Tedlar bags used to capture vapors to between 50% and 100% of the bag
capacity by Day 7 for all three catalyzed peroxide tests,and again by Day 14 for the high-
peroxide-dose test (ISCO-13). Note: the volume of gas produced could not be readily
measured because the bags were evacuated into the gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy [GC/MS] instrument for analysis.Analysis of these off-gas samples indicated
PCE concentrations of 31.2,12.6,and 8.9 ppmv (parts per million by volume) for the low-,
med-, and high-dose tests on Day 7,and 2.7 ppmv for the high-dose test on Day 14. TCE
and cis-1,2-DCE were also detected in off-gas,but at much lower concentrations. These
concentrations,however,represent a relatively small proportion of the total PCE mass in the
reactor vessels. For example,taking the extreme case of 31.2 ppmv,and assuming the entire
1-L Tedlar bag was full of off-gas,the mass of PCE contained in the gas phase would be
215 µg,compared to a total mass in excess of 10,400 µg in the vessel at the start of the test
(13 mg/L x 0.8 L),not including PCE sorbed to soil.
Soil CVOCs measured at the end of the ISCO peroxide tests on Day 14-21,averaged of 12.26
µg/kg,which were substantially lower than in the Control test at Day 48 (45.6 µg/kg).
Peroxide was largely depleted (residual concentrations at 10 to 40 mg/L) in the catalyzed
peroxide tests at Day 14 (although not in the peroxide-only test).
3.3 ERD Te sting
The complete ERD test results are summarized in Table 3-4.
3.3.1 Zone 2 (IR88-MW16N
PCE was the principal CVOC at the beginning of the Zone 2 tests,although initial
concentrations varied from approximately 1,500 to nearly 5,000 µg/L (the target
concentrations for spiking was 5,000 µg/L). Initial TCE concentrations were more
consistent, at about 400 to 500 µg/L (in good agreement with the spike target of 500 µg/L),
while cis-1,2-DCE and VC were not detected initially.
ES052410024955VBO 3-3

BE[ICI SCALE STUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SHE 88,OPERABLE WrNO.15
Controls
There were substantial losses of PCE and TCE from the Zone 2 and 3 Control reactors (ERD-
A1 and ERD-131) during the study (Figure 3-5). These system were unamended (intrinsic)
Controls rather than a sterilized/poisoned Controls, so some biodegradation of CVOCs
could have occurred;however,there is little or no independent evidence of biodegradation
in the Control data (e.g.,from breakdown products). Consequently, it is likely that
volatilization through the septum(during sampling or though punctures created by
sampling)was responsible for the bulk of the observed losses from the Controls.
Lactate Treatments
The lactate treatment without bioaugmentation (ERD-A2) showed nearly stoichiometric
reductive dechlorination of PCE and TCE to cis-1,2-DCE (Figure 3-6) between Days 0 and
30. Note that the ERD figures use molar concentration units (micromoles per liter [µmol/L,
or simply µM]) for convenience in comparing concentrations of parent compounds and
daughter products. In the ERD-A2 test,cis-1,2-DCE accumulated and then gradually
decreased over time. This gradual loss of cis-1,2-DCE could be due to volatilization through
the septum(although cis-1,2-DCE is much less volatile from water than PCE or TCE) or to
slow biodegradation. The latter would suggest that the indigenous microbial community
has limited ability to complete the final two dechlorination steps.
In contrast,the lactate treatment bioaugmented with TSI DC Bioaugmentation CultureTM
did not accumulate cis-1,2-DCE or VC,presumably because cis-1,2-DCE was quickly
degraded through VC to ethene/ethane. The data show that some ethene was produced
(17.6 µg/L),providing indication that CVOCs were undergoing complete reductive
dechlorination. In addition,the measured chloride concentration(25.0 mg/L compared to
an initial groundwater concentration of 14.0 mg/L) shows more than enough increase of
chloride to account for the PCE removal via biodegradation(4.7 mg/L). Consequently,it
appears likely that the CVOC removal observed in ERD-A3 was largely due to enhanced
biodegradation.
SRSTM Treatments
The SRSTM treatments (ERD-A4 and-A5) performed slightly better than that of the lactate
systems based on interim Day 60 and final Day 120 results (Figure 3-7). Based on the Day 0
and Day 30 results,it appears that part of the PCE initially dissolved into the SRSTM (free-
phase soybean oil) upon addition of the substrate, thus sequestering or trapping the PCE,
making it unavailable for detection during analysis of water samples during the Day 0
sampling event. If the Day 0 PCE concentration were actually closer to the intended spiking
level of 5,000 µg/L (rather than the measured value of-1,500 µg/L),the Day 0 data would
be more consistent with the data for Day 30 and later and the data for the SRSTM system
without bioaugmentation(ERD-A4) would show nearly stoichiometric transformation of
PCE and TCE to cis-1,2-DCE between Days 0 and 30,followed by gradually decreasing cis-
1,2-DCE concentrations (due either to slow biodegradation or volatilization) similar to the
lactate-only test.
Assuming underrepresented Day 0 PCE (due to sequestering),the data for the SRSTM
treatment bioaugmented with TSI DC Bioaugmentation CultureTM (ERD-A5) indicate nearly
stoichiometric conversion of PCE and TCE to cis-1,2-DCE and VC via biological reductive
dechlorination between Days 0 and 30. The cis-1,2-DCE and VC were short-lived and were
3-4 ES052410024955VBO

SECIION3-- ESIJUIS AND DISCUSSION
completely removed by Day 60. The chloride data show an increase sufficient to account for
the observed CVOC removal,but little ethene/ethane was detected, again likely a result of
volatile losses from the aqueous phase.
31)TMTreatments
The data for the 3DMeTM treatments,without and with bioaugmentation(ERD-A6 and-A7),
show less evidence of enhanced biodegradation than the other treatment tests (Figure 3-8).
Again,the Day 0 PCE concentrations were underrepresented at the measured
concentrations of roughly 2,700 µg/L,rather than the spiking target of 5,000 µg/L;as
described above, some of the PCE likely dissolved in the free-phase 3DMeTM,but slightly
less than the SRSTM. Other than Day 0,the data do not appear significantly different from
the Control data,where PCE and TCE concentrations slowly decreased, apparently due to
volatilization losses. Types of biodegradation evidence that are lacking for these treatments
include: production of CVOC daughter products,production of ethene/ethane,and
appreciable production of chloride.
3.3.2 Zone 3 (IR88-MW22M
Initial PCE concentrations varied between the tests in the same pattern as for Zone 2:
roughly 500 to 600 µg/L in the Control and lactate reactors (ERD-131 through-133),200 µg/L
in the SRSTM reactors (ERD-B4 and-135), and 300 µg/L in the 3DMeTM reactors (ERD-B6 and-
B7). The PCE spiking target was 500 µg/L. Initial TCE concentrations were approximately
250±50 µg/L in all reactors,in reasonable agreement with the spike target of 250 µg/L.
Initial cis-1,2-DCE concentrations were less than 20 µg/L and VC was not detected.
Controls
As noted above in Section 3.3.1,the Control exhibited gradual loss of PCE and TCE over the
course of the study (Figure 3-5). It is believed that this was largely due to volatilization
through the punctured septum.
Lactate Treatments
In general,the lactate with and without bioaugmentation treatments (ERD-132 and-133)
tested on Zone 3 soil and groundwater showed slight evidence of enhanced biodegradation
compared to the Control (Figure 3-9).The lactate with bioaugmentation treatments resulted
in somewhat faster and more complete removal of PCE and TCE,but the degree of
enhancement did not appear to be as great as in the Zone 2 tests. Little ethene/ethane was
observed in the aqueous phase, likely as a result of volatilization, and increases in chloride
concentration were observed that could account for the decrease in CVOC concentrations.
SRSTM Treatments
The SRSTM treatments,with and without bioaugmentation(ERD-B4 and-B5),tested on
Zone 3 soil and groundwater showed little evidence of enhanced biodegradation compared
to the Control (Figure 3-10),in contrast to the results observed for the Zone 2 tests. The
lower initial CVOC concentrations are likely the reason the sequestering of CVOCs into the
SRSTM was not observed in the Zone 3 tests. As discussed previously,the production of
some ethene/ethane in combination with increases in chloride concentration that could
account for the decrease in CVOC concentrations provide indication that CVOCs were
undergoing complete reductive dechlorination.
ES052410024955VBO 3-5

BE[ICI SCALE STUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SNE 88,OPERABLE LiwNO.15
3ENtTMTreatments
3DMeTM treatment without bioaugmentation (ERD-6) tested on Zone 3 soil and
groundwater showed little evidence of enhanced biodegradation compared to the Control
(Figure 3-11). Increased levels of acetic acid (353 mg/L on Day 120 in comparison to
28 mg/L on Day 60) could account for the slower degradation rate in the initial 90 days of
the bench-scale study due to the slower rate of 3DMeTM degradation;however,an increase
in chloride concentration was not observed in this treatment.
3DMeTM treatment with bioaugmentation(ERD-7) tested on Zone 3 soil and groundwater
showed evidence of enhanced biodegradation compared to the Control,due to an observed
increase in the rate of degradation after Day 30 in the microcosm (Figure 3-11). As observed
for ERD-6,increased levels of acetic acid (324 mg/L on Day 120 in comparison to 35.3 mg/L
on Day 60) indicate a slower rate of 3DMeTM degradation,suggesting that 3DMeTM was still
supplying readily available substrate. Also, an increase in chloride concentration that could
account for the decrease in CVOC concentrations was observed in the 3DMeTM treatment
with bioaugmentation.
3.3.3 Zone 2 and 3 — Supporting Data
pH
pH remained within the favorable range for biological reductive dechlorination in virtually
all of the substrate-amended tests throughout the test period. Except in the Controls,pH
was typically about 6.7 to 7.7.
ORP
ORP in the substrate-amended tests was generally-200 mV or lower throughout the study,
indicating anaerobic, strongly reducing conditions that are conducive to reductive
dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes.
VFAs
The in situ breakdown of VFAs by indigenous microorganisms produces hydrogen,which
then fuels the reductive dechlorination process. Thus,the presence of VFAs (at least greater
than 10 to 20 mg/L in the treatment zone [USAF,2004]) indicates that subsurface conditions
are conducive for CVOC biodegradation. It should be noted,however,that high
concentrations of VFAs leading to subsurface concentrations of hydrogen becoming greater
than 2 to 11 nanomoles per liter (approximately 0.004 to 0.022 mg/L of H2),could lead to
methanogens and other microorganisms outcompeting Dehalocoiccoides sp. for required
CVOC-reducing hydrogen (Yang and McCarty, 1998).
VFAs were monitored on Day 60 and 120 as a measure of the readily available substrate for
reductive dechlorination. VFA concentrations,mostly acetic and propionic acid,were ample
(greater than 300 mg/L of total VFAs)for supporting biodegradation at the end of the
study. In lactate-amended microcosms, significant VFAs remained at the end of the study,
roughly 1,022 mg/L in Zone 2 and 542 mg/L in Zone 3, of total VFAs. However,the
concentration of VFAs in the lactate microcosms had either leveled off or decreased between
Day 60 and 120 for the majority of VFAs tested,indicating the potential for a quick release
followed by a rapid decline of readily available substrate. In SRSTM-amended microcosms,
approximately 580 mg/L in Zone 2 and 1,050 mg/L in Zone 3, of total VFAs remained at the
3-6 ES052410024955VBO

SECTION3-RESILUS AND DISCUSSION
end of the study. In 3DMeTM-amended microcosms, approximately 305 mg/L in Zone 2 and
390 mg/L in Zone 3, of total VFAs remained at the end of the study on Day 120.However,
unlike most lactate-amended microcosms,VFA concentrations in most SRSTM and 3DMeTM
tests increased between 60 and 120 days,indicating that those long-lived substrates were
still supplying readily available substrate to the dissolved phase. These results provide
some indication that SRSTM and 3DMeTM would provide increased longevity in the
subsurface.
NVbtals
The reducing conditions created by substrate amendment can cause concentrations of
dissolved iron and manganese to increase due to reduction of those metals to their soluble
divalent forms. No appreciable increase in arsenic was measured,suggesting that arsenic is
not a prevalent metalloid in the site soil.
ES052410024955VBO 3-7

Table 3-1
Initial Characterization Test Results
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Analytical Zone 2 ISCO Zone 2 ERD Zone 3 ERD
Parameter Method Units samples samples samples
Water IR88-MW16IW IR88-MW1811 IR88-MW22IW
pH EPA 150.1 std units 5.74 7.03 6.72
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) SM 2580B mV 145 125 137
Alkalinity EPA 310.1 mg/L as CaCO3 124 166 281
Dissolved organic carbon(DOC) EPA 9060 mg/L 1.41 0.50 U 0.83
Anions EPA 300.0
Chloride(CI) mg/L 11.2 14.0 22.6
Nitrate(NO3) mg/L 0.20 0.10 U 0.10 U
Sulfate(SO4) mg/L 82.8 35.8 43.2
VOCs EPA 8260B
Tetrachloroethene(PCE) pg/L 7,580 524 33.9
Trichloroethene(TCE) pg/L 254 80.9 22.8
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE) pg/L 685 7.61 44.4
trans-1,2 dichloroethene(t-DCE) pg/L 3.83 J 0.2 J 1.38
Vinyl chloride(VC) pg/L 10 U 1.1 U 0.5 U
1,1-Dichloroethene(1,1-DCE) pg/L 10 U 0.26 J 0.5 U
MEE EPA RSK-175
Methane pg/L 0.87 0.29 U 23.5
Ethane pg/L 0.76 U 0.76 U 0.77 U
Ethene pg/L 0.76 U 0.76 U 0.76 U
Dissolved metals EPA 6010B
Arsenic(As) pg/L 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U
Chromium(Cr) pg/L 10.0 U 10.0 U 100 U
Iron(Fe) pg/L 100 U 100 U 160 U
Manganese(Mn) pg/L 199 17.7 40.4
ormg near boring near
88MW16 well 88MW18 well boring near
cluster, cluster, 88MW221W,
Soil -40-60 It bgs -95-107 ft bgs -45-60 ft bgs
EPA 5035(extr)
VOCs EPA 8260B
Tetrachloroethene(PCE) pg/Kg,dry 30.8 24.6 1.66
Trichloroethene(TCE) pg/Kg,dry 1.11 U 0.49 J 1.15 U
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE) pg/Kg,dry 1.11 U 1.06 U 1.15 U
trans-1,2 dichloroethene(t-DCE) pg/Kg,dry 1.11 U 1.06 U 1.15 U
Vinyl chloride(VC) pg/Kg,dry 1.11 U 1.06 U 1.15 U
1,1-Dichloroethene(1,1-DCE) pg/Kg,dry 1.11 U 1.06 U 1.15 U
EPA 9060 or
TOC ASTM E-777 mg/Kg,dry 1667 5333 5333
Moisture content EPA 160.3 % 14.0 13.6 16.1
Bulk density(avg) Weight/volume I g/mL,wet 1 1.941 2.01 2.02
Notes:
U=not detected at specified reporting limit
J=estimated value below reporting limit
*all other VOCs were nondetectable or less than reporting limits
**all other VOCs were nondetectable or less than reporting limits,except for trace levels of DCFM and 1,2-DCA
***all other VOCs were nondetectable or less than reporting limits,except for trace levels of 1,2-DCA
Replicate Data
Soil Units Rep-1 Rep-2 Rep-3 Avg S.D CV[%]
Zone2-ISC0 PCE pg/Kg 32.2 27.2 32.9 30.8 3.11 10.1
TCE pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.16 U 1.10 U 1.11 U
c-DCE pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.16 U 1.10 U 1.11 U
t-DCE pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.16 U 1.10 U 1.11 U
VC pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.16 U 1.10 U 1.11 U
1,1-DCE Ng/Kg pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.16 U 1.10 U 1.11 U
Zone2-ERD PCE pg/Kg 23.0 19.5 31.2 24.6 6.01 24.4
TCE pg/Kg 0.5 J 0.39 J 0.58 J 0.49 J 0.101 0.19
c-DCE pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.08 U 1.02 U 1.06 U
t-DCE pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.081 U 1.02 U 1.06 U
VC pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.08 U 1.02 U 1.06 U
1,1-DCE Ng/Kg pg/Kg 1.07 U 1.08 U 1.02 U 1.06 U
Zone3-ERD PCE pg/Kg 1.02 J 3.07 0.88 J 1.66 1.23 74.0
TCE pg/Kg 1.12 U 1.14 U 1.18 U 1.15 U
c-DCE pg/Kg 1.12 U 1.14 U 1.18 U 1.15 U
t-DCE pg/Kg 1.12 U 1.14 U 1.18 U 1.15 U
VC pg/Kg 1.12 U 1.14 U 1.18 U 1.15 U
1,1-DCE pg/Kg I 1.12 U I 1.14 U 1 1.18 U 1.15 U
Notes:
SD=standard deviation
CV=coefficient of variation(=SD/Avg x 100%)

TABLE 3-2
Field Sample Results
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Analytical Zone 2 ISCO Zone 2 ERD Zone 3 ERD
Parameter Method Units IR88-GW161W-09D IR88-GW18DW-09D IR88-GW221W-09D
Water
VOCs (ug/L) EPA 8260B
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) pg/L 14,000 4,400 D 320
Trichloroethene (TCE) pg/L 150 J 260 D 92
cis-1,2 dichloroethene (c-DCE) pg/L 170 J 100 U 64
Vinyl chloride (VC) pg/L 360 U 100 U 8.3 U
Analytical Zone 2 ISCO Zone 2 ERD Zone 3 ERD
Parameter Method Units IR88-MW16DW3-09D IR88-MW18DW3-09D IR88-SB15-50-51
Soil
EPA 5035 (extr)
VOCs (ug/kg) EPA 8260B
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) pg/Kg 290 D 58 DJ 22
Trichloroethene (TCE) pg/Kg 230 U 250 U 4.1
cis-1,2 dichloroethene (c-DCE) pg/Kg 230 U 250 U 2.2 J
Vinyl chloride (VC) pg/Kg 230 U 250 4 U
Notes:
U = not detected at specified reporting limit
J = estimated value below reporting limit

TABLE 3-3
Oil Retention Test Results
MCB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Site location Oil retention based on TOC Oil retention based on VS
and product [g/dry g]* [g/dry g]*
Zone 2 SRS 0.067 0.065
Zone 2 3DMe 0.05 0.078
Zone 3 SRS 0.042 0.028
Zone 3 3DMe 0.032 0.045
Notes:
* Units: g product per dry g of soil

TABLE 3-4
ISCO Sampling Results
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
I S CO-2 ISCO-3 ISCO-4 IS CO-5 I S CO-6 ISC O-7 ISCO-8 ISCO-9 I SC 0-10 I S CO-11 I S CO-12 ISCO-13
ISCO-1 Permang. Permang. Permang. Permang. Persulf.not Persulf. Persulf. Persulf. Perox. Perox. Perox. Perox.
Parameter Units Control Low Med-Low Med-High High activ. Low Med High not catalyz. Low Med High
T=0 1219109
pH std units 7.15 7.15 7.1 7.19 7.12 7.17 7.02 7.03 7.07 6.89 6.84 6.65 6.75
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 343.1 594.1 637.4 653.2 663.4 264.1 290.9 283.1 275.6 275.7 286.2 295.7 294.4
Oxidant
Permanganate(KWO4)mg/L 1,794 3,058 4,263 6,154
Persulfate(NaZSZOB)mg/L 755 325 754 1300
Peroxide(HZOZ)mg/L 20,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
VOCs(taken before oxidants added)
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 14300 13200 14000 14500 12900 12400 13100 11400 11900 12200 12700 11800 12400
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 327 320 303 333 285 305 305 322 292 266 300 299 299
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 256 240 241 257 239 238 247 269 248 236 246 241 240
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 9.48 10.5 9.72 8.89 8.67 9.01 8.72 8.57 8.46 8.62 8.5 8.39 9.11
Dissolved metals
Chromium(Cr)pg/L 10U 10U 0.86J 10U 10U 10U 10U 10U 10U 10U 10U 10U 10U
T=1 12110109
pH std units 7.27 7.2 7.13 7.19 7.05 7.05 7.03 7.22
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 341.7 326.8 350.2 407.5 271.5 275.9 275.7 273.4
Oxidant
Permanganate(KMnO4)mg/L
Persulfate(Na2S2O8)mg/L 868 377 820 1370
Peroxide(HZOZ)mg/L 10,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
VOCs(Water)
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 8560 9150 8010 8420 6300 230 180 87.2
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 235 224 225 191 138 2.45 J 2.27 J 1.17 J
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 188 176 162 155 138 1.18 J 0.87 J 0.61 J
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 50 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 8.62 8.95 9.01 9.8 9.97 20 18.6 18.6
VOCs(Air)
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)ppbv 1 31200 126001 8850
Trichloroethene(TCE)ppbv 293 J 112 J 129 J
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)ppbv 94.2 J 33.4 J 24.8 J
trans-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)ppbv 400 U 193 U 190 U
1,2-Dichloroethane(1,2-DCA)ppbv 55.5 J 69.7 J 61.3 J
Vinyl chloride(VC)ppbv 400 U 193 U 190 U
T=3 12H2(09
pH std units 7.18 7.16 7.38 8.64 7.33 7.69 7.26 7.26 7.15 7.05 7.08 7.03 7.24
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 191.3 575.6 580 524.8 600.1 348 388.1 386.4 399.8 229.1 228.5 232.2 224.8
Oxidant
Permanganate(KMnO4)mg/L 838 1581 2297 3493
Persulfate(Na2S2O8)mg/L 911 396 869 1400
Peroxide(HZOZ)mg/L 6,000 400 400 400
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 7380 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 5430 5860 4680 5290 1390 328 213 158
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 226 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 166 164 165 178 30.4 7.35 3.73 3.64
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 218 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 167 165 164 167 26.9 5.56 2.67 3.36
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 100 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 8.73 19.1 19.4 18.6 18.1 9.14 9.41 9.3 9.62 6.51 18.6 18.8 18.9
T=7 12116109
pH std units 7.25 7.36 7.59 7.27 7.48 7.76 7.38 7.37 7.15 7.08 7.16 8.09 7.52
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 153.9 567.4 571.5 597.9 595.5 371 401.2 391.2 412.8 218.7 213.1 175.3 182.8
Oxidant
Permanganate(KMnO4)mg/L 538 1026 1653 2356
Persulfate(Na2S2O8)mg/L 725 269 677 1060
Peroxide(HZOZ)mg/L 2,000 60 40 40
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 3420 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2470 3210 2400 2850 235 295 213 177
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 159 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 89.9 118 104 118 10 U 6.75 2.5 U 2.5 U
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 177 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 93.5 131 121 141 10 U 5.45 2.5 U 2.5 U
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 100 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 9.33 18.8 18.5 18.6 18.1 10.2 10.9 9.75 9.86 9.08 18.8 18.5 18.4
VOCs(Air)
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)ppbv 2740
Trichloroethene(TCE)ppbv 24.4
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)ppbv 12.1
1,2-Dichloroethane(1,2-DCA)ppbv 25.5
Vinyl chloride(VC)ppbv 10 U
T=14 1212"9
pH std units 7.27 7.46 7.69 7.44 7.56 8 7.48 7.49 7.11 7.13 7.35 6.96 7.47
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 132.4 554 557.6 600.9 599.8 357.8 378.5 370.1 399 218.3 216 238.1 220.5
Oxidant
Permanganate(KMnO4)mg/L 427 932 1395 2270 -- -- -- --
Persulfate(Na2S2O8)mg/L 770 320 697 1000
Peroxide(HZOZ)mg/L 200 10 40 20
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 1440 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 782 944.5 643 1302 41.7 310.4 72.1 103.2
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 99.4 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 21.5 44 32.9 58.4 1 U 8.32 1 U 1.25
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 143 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 28.5 72.6 58.9 87.8 1 U 9.25 1 U 1 U
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 9.52 18.6 19.9 18.8 17.9 11.5 10.1 10.6 15.5 13.7 19.1 18.7 19
Dissolved metals
Chromium(Cr)pg/L 63.1 4.27 J 25.1
Soil VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE) pg/kg 3.92 34.9 2.75
Trichloroethene(TCE) pg/kg 0.74 U 0.91 U 0.9 U
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE) pg/kg 0.74 U 0.91 U 0.9 U
Vinyl chloride(VC) pg/kg 0.74 U 0.91 U 0.9 U
T=21 12(30/09
PH std units -- 8.27
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 171.9
Oxidant
Peroxide(HZOZ)mg/L 50
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 5.87
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 2.5 U
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 2.5 U
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 2.5 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 15.6
Dissolved metals
Chromium(Cr)pg/L 34.7
Soil VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE) pg/kg 7.45
Trichloroethene(TCE) pg/kg 0.9 U
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE) pg/kg 0.9 U
Vinyl chloride(VC) I pg/kg 0.9 U

TABLE 3-4
ISCO Sampling Results
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
I S CO-2 ISCO-3 ISCO-4 IS CO-5 I S CO-6 ISC O-7 ISCO-8 ISCO-9 ISC 0-10 I S CO-11 I S CO-12 ISCO-13
ISCO-1 Permang. Permang. Permang. Permang. Persulf.not Persulf. Persulf. Persulf. Perox. Perox. Perox. Perox.
Parameter Units Control Low Med-Low Med-High High activ. Low Med High not catalyz. Low Med High
T=28 1/6110
pH std units 8.16 7.94 7.89 7.37 7.7 7.58 7.53 7.46 7.29
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 304.8 535.7 550.7 596.5 587 221.9 205.3 239.7 297.2
Oxidant
Permanganate(KWO4)mg/L 348 1033 1615 2590
Persulfate(NaZSZOB)mg/L 647 305 629 930
Peroxide z z mg/L -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- --
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 469 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 162 324 200 423
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 40.9 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.36 J 11.4 7.35 17.5
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 110 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 5.86 27.1 19 44.5
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 10 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 10.1 19.4 20.5 19.8 19.6 12.3 10.7 11 12.1
Dissolved metals
Chromium(Cr)pg/L -- 2.17 J 4.61 J 4.74 J 4.19 J
Soil VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE) pg/kg 38.9 126 155 122
Trichloroethene(TCE) pg/kg 0.64 J 2.25 2.23 2.55
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE) pg/kg 0.79 J 5.05 3.16 6.58
Vinyl chloride(VC) pg/kg 0.9 U 0.84 U 0.8 U 0.9 U
moisture % 15.6 19.6 19.4 16.8
T=42 1126110
pH std units 7.85 7.69 8.05 7.52 8.08 -- -- -- --
Oxidation-reduction potential(ORP) mV 165.7 505.9 537.5 563.9 574.7
Oxidant
Permanganate(KMnO4)mg/L 515 1121 1643 2525
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)pg/L 243 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
Trichloroethene(TCE)pg/L 23.3 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE)pg/L 93.8 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
Vinyl chloride(VC)pg/L 5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
Anions
Chloride(CI)mg/L 9.39 19.8 19.6 19.5 19
Dissolved metals
Chromium(Cr)pg/L 10 U 223 178 J 171 J 138 J
Soil VOCs
Tetrachloroethene(PCE) pg/kg 45.6 1.17 U 1.23 U 1.18 U 1.22 U
Trichloroethene(TCE) pg/kg 1.31 1.17 U 1.23 U 1.18 U 1.22 U
cis-1,2 dichloroethene(c-DCE) pg/kg 4.43 1.17 U 1.23 U 1.18 U 1.22 U
Vinyl chloride(VC) pg/kg 1.17 U 1.17 U 1.23 U 1.18 U 1.22 U
moisture % 1 20.81 1 20.9 1 2MI 1 22.5 1 22.5
Notes:
U=not detected at specified reporting limit
J=estimated value below reporting limit

TABLE 3-5
ERD Sampling Results
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
ERD-Al ERD-A2 ERD-A3 ERD-A4 ERD-A5 ERD-A6 ERD-A7 ERD-B1 ERD-132 ERD-133 ERD-134 ERD-135 ERD-B6 ERD-B7
Parameter Units Z2 Control Lactate Lac + bio SRS SRS + bio 3DMe 3DMe + bio Z3 Control Lactate Lac + bio SRS SRS + bio 3DMe 3DMe + bio
T=0 121812009
pH std units 7.83 7.89 7.88 7.42 7.64 6.84 6.81 7.42 7.35 7.44 7.34 7.34 6.57 6.54
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) mV 129.5 125 67.8 20.6 13.2 61.8 81.6 56.8 7 48.8 12.8 16.4 72 80.3
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) lag/L 4780 4860 4940 1530 1540 2670 2820 540 512 597 191 181 307 333
Trichloroethene (TCE) lag/L 582 606 599 420 409 520 524 307 291 291 215 207 258 262
cis-1,2 dichloroethene (c-DCE) lag/L 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 17.4 12.3 12.2 11.9 11.3 12.2 12.3
Vinyl chloride (VC) lag/L 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U
T=15 12123109
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) mV -- -- -382.1 -- -313.7 -- -307.4 -- -- -368.2 -- -329 -- -308
T=30 1/7/2010
pH std units 7.58 7.4 6.91 7.49 7.14 6.84 6.68 6.99 6.77 6.73 7.27 7.14 6.55 6.61
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) mV 186.3 -341.6 -335.3 -351.1 -357.9 -399.8 -347.8 -200 -308.6 -298.1 -318.5 -471.2 -462.3 -452.4
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) lag/L 3740 429 1150 168 164 2910 3170 374 401 492 153 160 366 353
Trichloroethene (TCE) lag/L 465 253 25 U 125 112 463 359 226 252 1.34 J 174 69.9 250 212
cis-1,2 dichloroethene (c-DCE) lag/L 25 U 3130 5.75 J 3100 2170 25.0 U 63.1 14.1 10.8 5.0 U 10.3 18 11.4 25.1
Vinyl chloride (VC) lag/L 25 U 25 U 14.1 J 25 U 649 25 U 44.8 5 U 5 U 1.70 J 1.1 U 48.9 2.5 U 7.62
T=60 21612010
pH std units 7.85 7.32 7.09 7.47 7.65 6.89 7.51 7.65 7.16 6.95 7.49 7.29 6.86 7.41
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) mV -167.9 -283.3 -300 -302.2 -318.2 -315.5 -295.5 -104.9 -296.2 -280.4 -309.5 -288.5 -289.9 -287.4
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) lag/L 1880 250 226 22.6 J 35 1330 482 159 37.1 193 81.6 98.2 233 118
Trichloroethene (TCE) lag/L 381 203 0.5 J 22.9 J 1.29 348 84.9 167 137 13.0 82.6 0.82 1 J 184 89.3
cis-1,2 dichloroethene (c-DCE) lag/L 25 U 2430 0.69 J 2080 1.06 J 25 U 31.4 14.1 9.07 2.49 J 7.22 2.5 U 10.6 17.4
Vinyl chloride (VC) lag/L 25 U 25 U 2.5 U 25 U 0.6 J 25 U 5.93 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.95 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.1 J
Anions
Chloride (CI) mg/L 237 16.4 24.4 16.6 22.7 24.2 16.7 21.2 27.3 26.5 22.7 21.3 22.5 24.4
Nitrate (NO3) 200 * 0.1 U 0.78 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.15 0.1 U 0.84 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U
Sulfate (SO4) 129 2.63 12.9 0.45 14 1.56 28.8 125 2.67 4.76 4.22 3.22 0.3 1.89
Dissolved Metals
Arsenic(As) 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 3.26 J 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U
Iron (Fe) 1700 138 108 188 65.8 74.1 113 201 413 806 161 424 608 612
Manganese (Mn) 58.5 42.4 40.1 56.9 21.9 51.6 31.9 51.1 43.8 64.9 31.3 42.3 91.4 82.2
MEE
Methane lag/L 2.17 5.06 13.5 2.54 93.6 2.42 9.11 1.06 15.9 161 302 241 3.48 101
Ethane lag/L 1.84 U 1.52 U 1.31 U 1.5 U 1.54 U 1.5 U 2.67 U 1.35 U 1.46 U 1.46 U 1.47 U 1.33 U 1.55 U 1.49 U
Ethene lag/L 1.77 U 1.48 U 17.6 1.46 U 3.35 1.46 U 2.55 U 1.32 U 1.43 U 8.92 1.43 U 3.32 1.5 U 1.45 U
Volatile fatty acids (VFAs)
Acetic Acid mg/L -- 513 500 113 72.2 144 84.1 -- 334 278 47.6 47.4 28 35.3
Butyric Acid mg/L -- 34.5 10 U 2.58 0.22 0.52 0.1 U -- 0.1 U 10 U 0.15 0.44 3.64 0.1 U
Formic Acid mg/L -- 8.35 10 U 0.3 0.19 0.33 0.1 -- 0.1 U 10 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2.5 U
Lactic Acid mg/L -- 5U 10U 2U 1 U 2U 2U -- 10U 10U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2.5U 2.5U
Propionic Acid mg/L -- 619 655 6.37 1.2 31.7 8.9 -- 576 539 0.98 0.96 26.2 6.35
Pyruvic Acid mg/L -- 1.14 1.01 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U -- 0.1 U 0.43 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.37 0.1 U

TABLE 3-5
ERD Sampling Results
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
ERD-Al ERD-A2 ERD-A3 ERD-A4 ERD-A5 ERD-A6 ERD-A7 ERD-131 ERD-132 ERD-133 ERD-134 ERD-135 ERD-136 ERD-137
Parameter Units Z2 Control Lactate Lac + bio SRS SRS + bio 3DMe 3DMe + bio Z3 Control Lactate Lac + bio SRS SRS + bio 3DMe 3DMe + bio
T=90 3/8/2010
pH std units 8.11 7.56 7.36 7.87 7.9 7.27 7.56 7.54 7.39 7.3 6.95 6.95 8.1 7.8
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) mV -149.1 -230.7 -256.6 -272.6 -275.3 -282.7 -295.5 -125.2 -262.7 -252 -233.7 -223.6 -201.2 -152.6
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) lag/L 174 15.4 J 12.6 25 U 2.35 836 115 38.2 4.31 9.15 69.4 78.4 144 15.6
Trichloroethene (TCE) lag/L 54.5 9.75 J 2.5 U 25 U 1.1 U 234 12.9 64.9 32.3 2.5 U 51.2 2.5 U 128 16.9
cis-1,2 dichloroethene (c-DCE) lag/L 25 U 2600 2.5 U 1570 0.33 J 25 U 7.44 8.03 7.16 2.5 U 6.24 2.5 U 10.1 8.01
Vinyl chloride (VC) lag/L 25 U 25 U 2.5 U 25 U 1.1 U 25 U 5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
T=120 41812010
pH std units 7.8 7.4 7.36 6.78 7.01 6.64 7.06 7.2 7.41 7.27 6.7 6.63 6.97 6.98
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) mV 134.7 -255.6 -263.8 -262.6 -273.9 -273 -284 151.1 -241.7 -219.1 -222.6 -197.1 -233.5 -239.1
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) lag/L 22 J 7.03 J 2.54 25 U 0.93 J 275 38.4 5.48 2.5 U 1.6 J 51.1 51.5 18.4 3.34
Trichloroethene (TCE) lag/L 5.01 J 25 U 2.5 U 25 U 1.1 U 90.2 3.74 J 12.6 5.3 2.5 U 20.4 2.5 U 17.6 2.44 J
cis-1,2 dichloroethene (c-DCE) lag/L 25 U 1120 2.5 U 46.1 1.1 U 25 U 1.72 J 3.82 4.43 2.5 U 3.69 2.5 U 4.13 1.4 J
Vinyl chloride (VC) lag/L 25 U 25 U 2.5 U 25 U 1.1 U 25 U 5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U
Anions
Chloride (CI) mg/L 15.6 21.5 25 16.4 22.2 14.8 16.1 22.9 29 32.3 23.5 24.9 22.4 25
Nitrate (NO3) mg/L 1.19 0.24 0.32 0.22 0.13 0.33 0.21 0.23 0.095 J 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.055 J 0.1 U
Sulfate (SO4) mg/L 132 1.21 0.99 0.53 1.86 1.68 2.82 137 1.35 1.67 1.38 1.22 1.9 0.55
Dissolved Metals
Arsenic(As) lag/L 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 !J 25 !J 25 U
Iron (Fe) lag/L 28.4 J 45.1 J 45.5 J 81.7 J 72.6 J 85.4 J 45.1 J 9.5 J 152 248 2280 3770 1060 722
Manganese (Mn) lag/L 30.6 10.1 8.13 J 48.5 39.2 47.8 30.6 34.4 17 25.6 133 159 90.1 77.3
MEE
Methane lag/L 3.02 13.5 15.4 797 692 283 493 2.18 2040 1320 668 1480 405 1110
Ethane lag/L 1.14 J 0.99 J 0.96 J 1.07 J 1.1 J 0.52 J 1.09 J 0.68 J 1.21 J 1.07 J 0.85 J 0.6 J 1111 1.06 J
Ethene lag/L 0.32 J 0.45 J 0.85 J 26.9 0.82 J 0.37 J 0.42 J 0.27 J 0.52 J 4.21 2.25 3.48 0.53 J 0.38 J
Volatile fatty acids (VFAs)
Acetic Acid mg/L -- 464 406 536 536 241 328 -- 9.97 6.64 917 1000 353 324
Butyric Acid mg/L -- 2.58 J 5 U 50.3 11.2 8.41 0.47 -- 5 U 5 U 81.3 80.7 12.3 5.67
Formic Acid mg/L -- 3.14 J 5.84 1.86 1.73 0.63 0.66 -- 2.06 J 2.36 J 5 U 5 U 1.5 1.06
Lactic Acid mg/L -- 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U -- 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U
Propionic Acid mg/L -- 592 572 13.2 6.82 30.9 5 U -- 690 374 4.15 J 9.2 71.2 2.73 J
Pyruvic Acid mg/L -- 5 U 5 U 0.11u 0.1 U 5 U 0.1 U -- 5 U 5 U 5 U 0.1 U 2.04 0.13
Notes:
U = not detected at specified reporting limit
J = estimated value below reporting limit

Figure 3-1
PNOD Test Results
NUB CamLej,Site 88 Bench-Scale Study
Permanganate Residual
10,000
9,000
8,000 ----- --------------
7,000 0 Site 88-500 A
J ---F--Site 88-500 B
6,000 Site 88-5,000 A
E 5,000 ---x---Site 88-5,000 B
O - - —*—Site 88-10,000 A
4,000
---0---Site 88-10,000 B
Y - ----------------- ----x
3,000
2,000
1,000
-----------
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time [d]
PNOD
5.0
4.5
4.0 -----------------------
3.5
Y i
3.0 ;
t Site 88-500 A
a1 2.5 ---■---Site 88-500 B
p Site 88-5,000 A
0 2.0 --x---Site 88-5,000 B
Z
d Site 88-10,000 A
1.5
-- ---Site 88-10,000 B
1.0 '
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8
Time [d]

Figure 3-2
ISCO Test Results-Water PCE Data(normalized to starting concentration)
N1CB Camp',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
Permanganate Tests —�' ISCO-1Control
f ISCO-2 Low
1
f ISCO-3 Med-Low
0.8
ISCO-4 Med-High
u; --X—ISCO-5 High
U
0.6
a
0.4
\
0.2 \~'
0 —.—•— •—. .—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]
Persulfate Tests — ISCO-1 Control
1 1, 0 ISCO-6 Not activated
A ISCO-7 Low
0.8 ISCO-8 Med
ISCO-9 High
LU
a 0.6
u
U �
a 0.4 \
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]
Peroxide Tests — ISCO-1 Control
1 4 ISCO-10 Not catalyzed
f ISCO-11 Low
0.8 Tf ISCO-12 Med
ISCO-13 High
LU
a 0.6
U �
a 0.4 \
0.2
0 ♦ —. —. ♦.— —.—•— — — — —
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]

Figure 3-3
ISCO Test Results-Water TCE Data(normalized to starting concentration)
XUB Camp' Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
Permanganate Tests — ISCO-1 Control
1 f ISCO-2 Low
f ISCO-3 Med-Low
0.8 f ISCO-4 Med-High
ISCO-5 High
u; 0.6
u
W
0.4 \
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]
Persulfate Tests — ISCO-1 Control
1 1, 0 ISCO-6 Not activated
* ISCO-7 Low
0.8 ISCO-8 Med
�►� ISCO-9 High
ui 0.6
W
F 0.4 \
0.2 _
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]
Peroxide Tests — • ISCO-1 Control
1 ISCO-10 Not catalyzed
7--ISCO-11 Low
0.8 f—ISCO-12 Med
ui 0.6 ISCO-13 High
U
�.�
W
0.4 \
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]

Figure 3-4
ISCO Test Results-Water cis-1,2-DCE Data(nomnalized to starting concentration)
MCB Camle•,Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
Permanganate Tests — ISCo-1 Control
1 f ISCO-2 Low
ui .y A ISCO-3 Med-Low
0.8 \ ISCO-4 Med-High
Uj
u ►�•
0.6 ISCO-5 High
0.4 ~ — —
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]
Persulfate Tests — ISCo-1 Control
1.2 ISCO-6 Not activated
ui 1 ; ISCO-7 Low
v
�. ISCO-8 Med
v 0.8
\ ISCO-9 High
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]
Peroxide Tests — ISCo-1 Control
1 t ISCO-10 Not catalyzed
\ ISCO-11 Low
LU
ti
p 0.8 ISCO-12 Med
u ISCO-13 High
0.6
0.4 ~ — —
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time[d]

Figure 3-5
ERD Results-Zones 2 and 3 Water CVOC Data-Controls
NUB Camle',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
ERD-Al (Zone 2 Control) —�PCE[umol/L]
40 TCE[umol/L]
cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
35 ---E--Total CVOCs[umol/L]
J
0 30
E
725
m
w 20
w
15
c
`0 10
U
5
------
0 --- ---------- -----
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]
ERD-131 (Zone 3 Control) }PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
6.0 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
---F--5.0 Total[umol/L]
J
E
_. 4.0
N
_
3.0
w
0 2.0
c
0
V 1.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]

Figure 3-6
ERD Results-Zone 2 Water C UC Data-Lactate Treatments
NUB Camle',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
ERD-A2 (Lactate) • PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
40 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
35 ------- ---t--Total[umol/L]
J
0 30
E -------- ---------- -
�, 25
c
t 20
w
15
Io
c
0 10
t
U
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]
ERD-A3 (Lactate w/ bioaugmentation) PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
40 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
35 ---t--Total[umol/L]
J_
0 30
E
a
25
c
w 20
W
15
�a
c
L
sc 10
U
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]

Figure 3-7
ERD Results-Zone 2 Water C UC Data-SRS Treatments
NUB Camle',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
ERD-A4 (SRS) —�PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
40 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
35
---t--Total[umol/L]
J
0 30
E
y 25
20
w
15
Y
0 10
V 5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]
—�PCE[umol/L]
ERD-A5 (SRS w/ bioaugmentation) tTCE[umol/L]
40 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
35 ---t--Total[umol/L]
J
0 30
E
y 25
w 20
w
15
c
0
10
U 5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]

Figure 3-8
ERD Results-Zone 2 Water C UC Data-3DNb Treatments
NUB Camle',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
ERD-A6 (3DMe) • PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
40 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
35 ---t--Total[umol/L]
J
6 30
E
y 25
a�
w20 --------- -------- - -
w
15
c _
0 10 -
-
U 5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]
ERD-A7 (3DMe w/bioaugmentation) PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
40 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
35 ---t--Total[umol/L]
J
6 30
E
w 25
0
C --------- --------
20
--------- -
w
15
c
0
10
t� 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]

Figure 3-9
ERD Results-Zone 3 Water C UC Data-Lactate Treatments
NUB Camle',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
—�ERD-B2 (Lactate) PCE[umol/L]t TCE[umol/L]
6 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
VC[umol/L]
---f--Total[umol/L]
J 5
0
4
c
3
w
a�
v 2
c
0
v 1
- -------------------
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]
ERD-B3 (Lactate w/ bioaugmentation) —�PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
7 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
---IF--Total[umol/L]
6
J
E 5
c 4
w
LU
E 2
0
U 1
0 --------- ---
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]

Figure 3-10
ERD Results-Zone 3 Water C UC Data-SRS Treatrrtents
NUB Camle',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
ERD-B4 (SRS) • PCE[umol/L]
TCE[umol/L]
6 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
5 ---f--Total[umol/L]
J
O
4
a�
c
3 11- - --w
c
2
0
v1 ---- --- ----- -------
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]
ERD-B5 (SRS w/ bioaugmentation) —�PCE[umol/L]
t TCE[umol/L]
6 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
---5 ---Total[umol/L]
J
O
4
a�
c
3
w
a�
2
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]

Figure 3-11
ERD Results-Zone 3 Water C )C Data-3DNb Treatments
NUB Camle',Site 88 Bench-Scale Stud
ERD-B6 (3DMe) —�PCE[umol/L]
t TCE[umol/L]
6 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
---F--Total[umol/L]
5
J
O
? 4 --- ---- ----- --------
c
3
w
c
2
0
v 1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]
ERD-B7 (3DMe w/ bioaugmentation) +PCE[umol/L]
t TCE[umol/L]
6 cis-1,2-DCE[umol/L]
t VC[umol/L]
5
---t--Total[umol/L]
J
O
4 --------- ---------- ----
c
3
w
•. 2
c
0
v 1
------- ---------4-------
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time[d]

SECTION 4
Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusions and recommendations presented below are supported by the data gathered
in this bench-scale study:
4.1 ISCO
1. Of the ISCO processes tested, the best CVOC treatment performance was achieved by
KMn04,followed by catalyzed peroxide.There was little or no difference in
effectiveness among the various doses of these reagents evaluated. Thus,the
recommended ISCO reagent and dose,based on the aqueous-phase CVOC data from
these tests,is the low dose of KMn04.
2. KMn04 ISCO also reduced CVOCs in soil to non-detectable levels by the end of the test,
exhibiting better removal of sorbed-phase contaminants than the other reagents tested.
3. Catalyzed peroxide reacted vigorously and produced off-gas at the medium and high
doses tested.
4. Peroxide was largely depleted at the end of the 14-day catalyzed peroxide tests,whereas
the KMn04 tests retained a substantial KMn04 residual after 48 days, especially for the
higher initial doses. The longer-lived nature of KMn04 can facilitate better contact and
distribution in field implementation.
5. KMn04 treatment of Zone 2 soil and groundwater resulted in elevated concentrations of
dissolved chromium (probably Cr[III]). The other ISCO reagents yielded relatively low
concentrations of dissolved Cr. It is believed that Cr[VI] is effectively reduced back to
Cr[III] when exposed to reducing conditions, such as those downgradient from an ISCO
treatment in an aquifer with otherwise anaerobic conditions,but Cr[VI] can persist
under aerobic conditions.
For the Zone 2 ISCO Pilot Study, it is therefore recommended that the actual low dose of
KMn04 (1.8 g/kg dry soil) be used to evaluate in situ treatment of CVOC impacts at Site 88.
4.2 Zone 2 ERD
1. For Zone 2,lactate and SRSTM without bioaugmentation supported rapid biological
reductive dechlorination of PCE and TCE to cis-1,2-DCE,followed by slow degradation
of the cis-1,2-DCE,which may have been due to biodegradation or volatilization from
the test reactors.
2. For Zone 2,lactate and SRSTM with bioaugmentation using the TSI DC Bioaugmentation
CultureTM resulted in rapid biodegradation of CVOCs. The breakdown products cis-1,2-
DCE and VC accumulated briefly in the SRSTM tests,but were soon removed.
3. 3DMeTM,with or without bioaugmentation, did not appear to be as effective for ERD in
Site 88 Zone 2 materials
ES052410024955VBO 4-1

BE[ICI SCALESTUDYSUNMARYREPORT,SHE88,OPERABLE UwNO.15
4. The effective ERD treatments for Zone 2,based on the results of this study,are lactate
and SRSTM,both with bioaugmentation using the TSI DC Bioaugmentation CultureTM.
Lactate is a soluble substrate that normally requires periodic re-injection to sustain
treatment,whereas SRSTM is considered to be an"insoluble" or slow-release substrate
capable of sustaining treatment for 1-2 years following a single injection event.
5. No significant mobilization of arsenic was observed in the Zone 2 ERD tests.The
strongly reducing conditions did,however,cause reduction and dissolution of iron and
manganese.
For the Zone 2 ERD Pilot Study,it is therefore recommended that 49,000 gallons of a 6.9%
SRSTM solution be injected into four injection wells with an expected 38-ft radius of influence
(ROI),for evaluation of in situ treatment of CVOC impacts at Site 88. SRSTM was chosen due
to the rapid biodegradation of CVOCs observed during the bench-scale study in
combination with SRSTM being able to sustain treatment for 1-2 years following a single
injection event.
4.3 Zone 3 ERD
1. For Zone 3,the ERD treatments without bioaugmentation did not exhibit substantially
better CVOC removal than the Control.
2. The effective ERD treatment for both Zone 3,based on the results of this study,are
lactate and 3DMeTM,both with bioaugmentation using the TSI DC Bioaugmentation
CultureTM. Lactate is a soluble substrate that normally requires periodic re-injection to
sustain treatment,whereas 3DMeTM is considered to be an"insoluble" or slow-release
substrate capable of sustaining treatment for 1-2 years following a single injection event.
3. In general,pH remained near-neutral throughout the ERD study,suggesting that no
independent buffering of the subsurface would be needed for the Zone 3 materials
tested.
4. No significant mobilization of arsenic was observed in the Zone 3 ERD tests. The
strongly reducing conditions did,however,cause reduction and dissolution of iron and
manganese.
For the Zone 3 ERD Pilot Study,it is therefore recommended that 2,464 gallons of a 10%
solution of 3DMeTM,followed by 46,536 gallons of chase water,be injected into four injection
wells with an expected 38-ft ROI,to evaluate in situ treatment of CVOC impacts at Site 88.
3DMeTM was chosen due to the ERD of CVOCs observed during the bench-scale study in
combination with 3DMeTM being able to sustain treatment for 1-2 years following a single
injection event.
4-2 ES052410024955VBO

SECTION 5
References
CH2M HILL. 2008a. Draft Feasibility Study, Site 88, OU No. 15,Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune,Jacksonville, North Carolina. February.
CH2M HILL. 2008b. Final Master Project Plans,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,Jacksonville,
North Carolina. June.
CH2M HILL. 2009. Bench-Scale Study Work Plan, Site 88, Operable Unit No. 15,Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina. July.
EOS Remediation,Inc. 2006.Measurement of Maximum Emulsified Oil Retention by Aquifer
Sands.
United States Air Force (USAF). 2004. Final Principles and Practices of Enhanced Anaerobic
Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents. August.
Yang,Y.,and P. L. McCarty. 1998. Competition for hydrogen within a chlorinated solvent
dehalogenating anaerobic mixed culture. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:3591-3597.
ES052410024955VBO 5-1

Appends B
Groundwater Nbdeling Results

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
Site 88 Groundwater Flow Model Summary
PREPARMFOR Keri Hallberg/CH2M HILL
PFEPARMBY Fritz Carlson/CH2M HILL
DATE: May 21,2010
The pilot study at Site 88 will target three separate zones the areas surrounding wells 88-
MW16IW (Zone 2 chemical oxidation),88-MW18IW/88-MW39MP (Zone 2 ERD),and 88-
MW221W (Zone 3 ERD). A groundwater flow model was developed using site data to
evaluate injection and extraction scenarios within the pilot study areas with the goal of
determining an array of injection and extraction wells and a schedule of extraction and
injection that will maximize the delivery of substrate within each target zone for the pilot
test. The model accounted for lateral and vertical groundwater flow. The principal result of
the modeling was a forecast of the three dimensional distribution of substrate for a given
array of injection and extraction wells. The model was run repeatedly,with differing
assumptions of the location, depth and pumping rates of the injection and extraction wells.
The alternative configurations determined to maximize injectant distribution for the lowest
cost were selected to design the Pilot Study.
Groundwater Nbdehng Code
MicroFEMO (Hemker,2009),an integrated groundwater finite element modeling package
developed in The Netherlands,was used to simulate the groundwater flow system for this
project. The current version of the program (4.10) has the ability to simulate up to 25 layers
and 250,000 nodes in each model layer. MicroFEMO is capable of modeling saturated,
single-density groundwater flow in layered systems.
MicroFEMO was the chosen modeling platform for the Site 88 model for the following
reasons:
• The finite-element scheme allowed the construction of a model grid covering large
geographic areas (over 10,000 acres)with a coarse node spacing outside of the area of
interest and a finer node spacing in areas of interest (e.g.,Site 88 and the pilot study
areas). The finer node spacing in the area of interest provides greater resolution of the
details of the subsurface flow pattern in the areas planned for the pilot study.
• MicroFEMO includes an inverse modeling option that will facilitate model calibration.
Inverse modeling is the process of using the model to compute the aquifer properties
and recharge quantities that result in a best fit to the observed water levels in site
monitoring wells. Typically, groundwater models are calibrated by manually adjusting
the aquifer properties and recharge rates to match the observed water levels. Inverse
modeling automates this process,resulting in more efficient model calibration.
i

SHE 88 GROUNDWATER FLOW WDFL SUMMARY
Data Requirements
The model incorporated the available hydrogeologic and groundwater level data for the
site. These data included:
• Topographic data
• Stratigraphic data on the thickness and material properties of the aquifers and aquitards
that underlie Site 88 and surrounding areas.
• Aquifer test data
• Groundwater level data
• Groundwater quality data
• Precipitation and evapotranspiration data
Xbdel Calibration
The groundwater flow model was calibrated against the following targets:
• Measured groundwater levels-The principal target was a snapshot of water levels.
• Groundwater flow directions -The general shapes and extent of the plume were used to
disclose the subsurface flow directions.
• Aquifer test results-Past aquifer testing performed at the site were re-evaluated to
develop estimates of the vertical hydraulic conductivity between the various aquifer
layers.
• Location of simulated and observed groundwater discharge areas -The groundwater
flow directions within the area may be partially controlled by the location of areas of
discharging groundwater.
The overall goal of model calibration was to develop a set of aquifer properties and model
boundary conditions that resulted in a reasonable simulation of groundwater conditions in
the Site 88 area.
Xbdeling Scenarios
Upon calibration of the groundwater flow model,multiple injection and extraction scenarios
were run for the pilot study areas. For chemical oxidation scenarios,the injectant was
assumed to be potassium permanganate with a half-life of three months. For ERD scenarios,
the injectant was assumed to be 50 percent lactate/50 percent emulsified vegetable oil (EVO)
with a half-life of three months. The layout of injection and/or extraction wells,injection
rate and time,and extraction rate and time,if applicable,were varied to determine an
optimized layout and injection schedule.A summary of modeling scenarios is provided on
Table 1.
2

SHE 88 GROUNDWATER FLOW NODES.SLWMARY
Nbdehng Results
A plan view and cross-section of the modeling scenarios are presented in Attachment 1.
Based on the results of the model,it was determined that extraction scenarios did not
significantly increase the area of influence and,therefore,were not considered further.
The results of the modeled scenarios were used in conjunction with the results of the bench
scale treatability studies to determine the optimal injection substrate concentrations and
well spacing. For the ISCO pilot study,treatment volume was calculated based on the
results of the model. Using this volume,the mass of permanganate required (based on the
bench-scale studies) was calculated. The concentration of injection was then varied until the
gallons of solution was equal to the gallons of injectant used in the modeled scenario. This
exercise indicated that injecting 49,000 gallons of solution in a single location would result in
an optimized radius of influence of 38 feet.
Aquifer properties for the locations of the Zone 2 ERD test and the Zone 3 ERD test are
similar to the location of the Zone 2 ISCO test. Further,the same degradation rates were
assumed for each reagent. Therefore,injection of 49,000 gallons of ERD solution is also
expected to yield a radius of influence of 38 feet.The concentrations of ERD substrates to be
injected were determined by using the results of the bench scale studies and vendor
recommendations. For these studies,the vendor recommended injectant concentrations will
be injected,then chase-water will be added to reach a total injected volume of 49,000
gallons.
References
Hemker, C.J. 2009. MicroFEM©Version 4.1 for Windows. Hemker Geohygrolog
Amsterdam,Elandsgracht 83, 1016 TR Amsterdam.
3

TABLE 1
Summary of Modeling Scenarios
Site 88 Groundwater Flow Model Summary
MCB Caml-ej,North Carolina
Injection Injection Extraction xtraction
Depth rate Depth Rate Injection Well Spacing
Scenario Description Injection Time (ft) (gpm) Extraction Time (ft) (gpm) Extraction Layout (ft)
Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation(Potassium Permanganate Injection:half-life of 3 months)
1 Injection nly 100 hours:10 hours per day for 10 days 40-60 1 20 1 injection well
2 Injection/Extraction 100 hours:10 hours per day for 10 days 40-60 20 480 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;4 injection wells 25
3 Injection/Extraction 100 hours:10 hours per day for 10 days 40-60 20 480 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;4 injection wells 50
4 Injection/Extraction 100 hours:10 hours per day for 10 days 40-60 20 480 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;4 injection wells 75
5 Injection/Extraction 100 hours:10 hours per day for 10 days 40-60 20 480 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 25
6 Injection/Extraction 100 hours:10 hours per day for 10 days 40-60 20 480 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 50
7 Injection/Extraction 100 hours:10 hours per day for 10 days 40-60 20 480 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 75
18 Injection/Extraction 200 hours:10 hours per day for 20 days 40-60 12 480 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;4 injection wells 25
19 1 Injection/Extraction 300 hours:10 hours per day for 30 days 40-60 6 720 hours:24 hour days 55-65 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 50
21 Injection/Extraction 32 hours:8 hours per day for 4 days 40-60 1 20 4 injection wells
22 Injection/Extraction 32 hours:8 hours per day for 4 days 40-60 20 5 injection wells
23 Injection Only 1%Soln 100 hours:8 hours per day for—12.5 days 40-60 20 5 injection wells
24 Injection Only 4%Soln 16 hours:8 hours per day for 2 days 40-60 20 1 injection well
25 Injection Only 1%Soln 64 hours:8 hours per day for 8 days 40-60 20 1 injection well
26 Injection Only 4%Soln 8 hours:1 day 40-60 20 1 injection well
27 Injection Only 1%Soln 28 hours:8 hours per day for 3.5 days 40-60 20 1 injection well
28 Injection Only 1%Soln 113 hours: 8 hours per day for 14 days 40-60 20 1 1 injection well
29 Injection Only(2%Soln) 42 hours:8 hours per day for 5.25 days 40-60 20 1 injection well
30 Injection Onl 3%Soln 28 hours:8 hours per day for 3.5 days 40-60 20 1 injection well
31 Injection Only(2%Soln); 19 hours:8 hours per da for 2.38 da s 40-60 20 1 injection well
32 Injection Only3%Soln); 12.5 hours:8 hours da per for 1.56 da s 40-60 20 1 injection well
33 Injection Only(2%Soln) 19.5 hours:8 hours per day for 2.44 days 1 40-60 20 1 1 injection well
34 Injection Only(3%Soln); 13 hours:8 hours per day for 1.63 days 1 40-60 20 1 1 injection well
Zone 2 ERD(50%Lactate/50%EVO:half-life of 3 months)
8 Injection nly 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 20 1 injection well
9 Injection/Extraction 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 20 96 hours:24 hour days 95-105 20 1 extraction well;4 injection wells 25
10 Injection/Extraction 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 20 96 hours:24 hour days 95-105 20 1 extraction well;4 injection wells 50
11 Injection/Extraction 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 20 96 hours:24 hour days 95-105 20 1 extraction well;4 injection wells 75
12 Injection/Extraction 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 20 96 hours:24 hour days 95-105 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 25
13 Injection/Extraction 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 20 96 hours:24 hour days 95-105 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 50
14 Injection/Extraction 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 20 96 hours:24 hour days 95-105 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 75
20 Injection/Extraction 20 hours:10 hours per day for 2 days 80-100 12 96 hours:24 hour days 95-105 20 1 extraction well;8 injection wells 25
Zone 3 ERD(50%Lactate/50%EVO:half-life of 3 months)
15 1 Injectionj Only10 hours:10 hours per dayfor 1 day40-60 20 1 injection well
16 nection Only 20 hours:20 hours per day for 2 days 1 40-60 1 20 1 1 injection well
17 1 Injection Only 130 hours:30 hours per day for 3 days 1 40-60 1 20 1 - 1 injection well

Attachment 1
Results From Modeling Scenarios

Camp Lejeune
Site 88
Results from Modeling Scenarios

Map Interpretation
■ Scale is in meters
■ Orange squares on map view are spaced 10 m apart
2

Zone 2 Chemical Oxidation Results

i � i
� - - —�` -
- - o
0
0
�\
< ,: o
,.-
o - • o
e ��
° 4
0
o
o

i
0 1
i
3
S
7
a
9
q
Il
.m li
u
41
IS
.b
16
.so
0 10 i0 ]0 x dfl ;o 100 110 1i0

a o
0
o

i
0 1
3
4
7
a
9
q
Il
.m li
u
41
is
.b
16
.so
0 10 20 ]0 .o SO bJ al !0 90 t00 110 1Z0

i � i
�'"_ _ _ --- -ram-,��,',���Jj j._ -- -----
_J ;� �� o
�" C =;s'
��
L
;'c'�fi- ��i
�_.-- _�,
�' �`,
,�
�'�r
s��.��I
a o
0
o
° o

Scenario 3 - Cross Section
i "`14k A•� - -..sue-;��'-,�'�^':vi":1��..
9

Scenario 4 - Map View
10

Scenario 4 - Cross Section
R1,111
11

Scenario 5 - Map View
j fr�
1 \
Y_4i
12

Scenario 5 - Cross Section
I N.
13

Scenario 6 - Map View
f
'.I V 9�t
14

z
1
•
3
e i
m
al
u _ s
u
U •
µ
�� tl
V 11
b
A n
v tl
r tl
,y
a
n
a
b
A
JI
R
y
b
y tl
a�
a
a
.1
v
y
+s
s
.r
a
0 k 7D A �0 tl M A p W Itl Itl m

i � i
? ti .`+.,�._ ...elf_ -1�
• � �j� -
_ � s,,''!L%�
��,� �� ..
T,,, _
����
.w .� :.
� y' 2 � r� 1 �Il,
v. • z t..L•�•
�.w
a o
0
o
° o

Scenario 7 - Cross Section
17

Scenario 18 - Map View
18

Scenario 18 - Cross Section
19

Scenario 19 - Map View
11
i
N
i
20

Scenario 19 - Cross Section
znnzz:- _- ..fir:=i" `•�: �:;..
J
21

Scenario 21 - Map View
y l
ij
`i
22

13
as
11
36
30 a 0

Scenario 22 - Map View
24

i
z
0
..per-�_
+ —� _
� _
e _
-0 �_
w
u �— �� __
u
�.
U
N
tl
y
m
!t
v
r
m
n
a
b
w
JI
R
y
y
a�
a
.i
v
y
+s
s
.r
a
o w 10 o So w

Scenario 23 - Map View
r
Sri
26

Scenario 23 - Cross Section
vim,' 1 a h
27

Scenario 24 - Map View

o
3
S
•10 - - - 6
8
W OF
9
10
11
.p 12
13
14
1S
.30
16
�0
-SO
0 1 2 3 S 6 7 ! 9 10 11 12 13

Scenario 25 - Map View

i
o '
4
S
— 6
8
9
10
11
.p 12
13
14
is
.30
16
AD
•SO
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2+ 25

Scenario 26 - Map View

0 1
♦
s
7
8
9
1C
if
.p
lc
1•
1:
.3D
lE
�♦U
-SO
0 1 2 3 ♦ S 6 7 8 9

Scenario 27 - Map View

i
0 1
�s
Pulp—
a
Boom
w
11
.p 12
13
14
1S
.30
16
-4U
-SO
0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 6 9 10 13 14 IS

_ • AS
1
ti

•
o 1
8
9
i
1
.p 1
1
1
1
•30
1
-40
-50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 2+ 25 26 27 28 29 30

Scenario 29 - Map View
i1j11
38

Scenario 29 - Cross Section

Scenario 30 - Map View

Scenario 30 - Cross Section

Scenario 31 - Map View

Scenario 31 - Cross Section

Scenario 32 - Map View

Scenario 32 - Cross Section

Scenario 33 - Map View

Scenario 33 - Cross Section

Scenario 34 - Map View

Scenario 34 - Cross Section

Zone 2 ERD Results

Scenario 8 - Map View

•
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
-- l4
x 15
-30
16
-40
-50
0 :0 20 30 10 9D 60

Scenario 9 - Map View
�'�� Si f 1��.•y.
•
53

-30
.p
-50
0 10 9] y T]

Scenario 10 - Map View
J
55

Scenario 10 - Cross Section

Scenario 11 - Map View
• ,t
i
57

Scenario 11 - Cross Section
u..
58

\mac
1 \

Scenario 12 - Cross Section

Scenario 13 - Map View
a
t
J
61

Scenario 13 - Cross Section

Scenario 14 Map View
63

Scenario 14 - Cross Section
64

Scenario 20 - Map View

Scenario 20 - Cross Section
66

Zone 3 ERD Results

Scenario 15 - Map View

i
e
s
s
t 1
0
1
s
a
a — )
)
a
q S
•
U )
U
N •
u s
u
v �
u tt
ro
A 1)
)1 u
u
n 1•
°� fs
A
A
n
A
A
A
)1
p
u
N
A w
»
A
A
�l
r
a
0 f • ) • 9 p It 17 U 34 n N

Scenario 16 - Map View

e
s
s
1 1
0
1
s
/
a
q S
p
1.
u s
u
v �
u 11
ro
A II
�1 u
u
n 1•
°� fs
A
A
n
A
A
A
)1
p
ss
N
A w
n
A
A
�l
r
a

Scenario 17 - Map View

i
e
s
s
0
i
s
a - _
a s
a
q _ S
N
u
i.
u s
N
v N
ro
A II
u
n i•
°� fs
A
A
n
A
A
A
)1
p
u
A N
n
A
A
�l
r
a
24