WI0800148_Permit (Completion)_20240829 (2)

Final
Treatability Studies Report
Site 89, Operable Unit 16
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
North Carolina
Prepared for
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid Atlantic Division
Norfolk,Virginia
Under
Contract Number N62470-03-D-4401
Task Order 0071
Prepared by
A G V IC �
AGVIQ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CH2M HILL
JOINT VENTURE
February 2008
Enclosure 1

Executive Summary
Treatability studies were completed at Site 89 to evaluate the performance and design
criteria of four remedial technologies: enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) by injecting
a combination of sodium lactate and emulsified vegetable oil (EVO), chemical reduction via
zero valent iron (ZVI) injection using pneumatic fracture, air sparging via a horizontal well,
and a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) using mulch/compost as backfill. The treatability
studies were intended to support the Feasibility Study (FS) by evaluating technologies for
full-scale implementation to address dissolved-phase contaminants. The specific objectives
for measuring the effectiveness of the treatability studies were established as:
— Contaminant reduction trends in groundwater, as quantified by baseline and post-
treatment groundwater monitoring, and
— Reagent distribution/zone of influence
The locations of the field trials were selected based on dissolved-phase chlorinated volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations and the extent of trichloroethene (TCE) and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (PCA) contamination. Care was taken to avoid interaction
between the trial areas. Areas of very high contamination (in the percent levels of solubility)
were also avoided.
The treatability studies and associated field activities were conducted between November 6,
2006 and July 12, 2007. Field activities began with the installation of monitoring wells and
the directionally drilled horizontal well.
ERD
Over the course of a week, approximately 3,050 pounds of EVO and 3,300 pounds of lactate
were injected into the subsurface through four borings near monitoring well 89-MW44. The
substrate was chased with water to help distribute the substrate blend. The injection interval
was from 10 feet below ground surface to 25 feet below ground surface.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study and consisted of
a baseline sampling event and one, three, and six month sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from five monitoring wells.
Observations based on the treatability study include:
— The radius of influence of each ERD injection is estimated to be 35 feet from an
injection location.
— Analysis of field parameters, daughter products, natural attenuation indicator
parameters (NAIPs), and microorganisms suggests that reductive dechlorination is
occurring.
— Injection of lactate and EVO is effective at Site 89, as evidenced by reduction in
contaminant concentrations, for initial TCE concentrations ranging from 110 µg/L to
360 µg/L.
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC ES-1
2

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
Pneumatic Fracturing and Zero Valent Iron Injection Implementation (Chemical
Reduction)
Over the course of one week, 11,600 pounds of ZVI were injected into the subsurface
through six injection borings near building STC867. The iron was delivered to the
subsurface using nitrogen gas as a carrier fluid. Pneumatic pressure was applied to fracture
the formation. The fracture interval was from 12.5 feet below ground surface to 25 feet
below ground surface.
Limited use of gas was required due to the high water table, so a pulsed gas approach was
utilized instead of a continuous stream. This method did not result in fracturing of the
formation. As such, the ZVI was not fluidized and did not spread across the site as
expected.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study and consisted of
a baseline sampling event and one, three, and six month sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from five monitoring wells.
Observations based on the treatability study include:
— Pneumatic fracturing was not accomplished;therefore,ZVI distribution was poor.
— There is no indication of reduction in contaminant concentrations.
— ORP measurements declined over the monitoring period, indicating that subsurface
conditions were becoming favorable for reductive dechlorination.
Air Sparging with HDD
The horizontal directional drilled (HDD) sparge well was constructed with a 240-foot long
screen, positioned at approximately 40 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of building
TC864. The total lineal distance of the well was approximately 600 feet. The air sparge
system was activated on December 8, 2006 and operated continuously for approximately six
months.The compressor"up time" was approximately 89%.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) visits were conducted on a weekly basis. Compressor
air pressure, receiver tank air pressure, sparge pressure, compressed air flow rate, and
compressor hours were recorded during each O&M visit.
After operating the air sparge system for three months,pneumatic fracturing was completed
in four borings spaced 50 feet apart along the axis of the horizontal sparge well screen.
Fracturing was performed at 3 foot intervals, over a vertical span of 12.5 feet (from 12.5 to 25
feet bgs). Pneumatic fracturing was completed to evaluate the potential for improving air
sparging performance in the dense materials of the Surficial Aquifer.
Groundwater and soil vapor monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study
and consisted of a baseline sampling event and six monthly sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from eight monitoring wells and soil vapor
monitoring included three soil vapor monitoring wells.
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC ES-2
3

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
Observations based on the treatability study include:
— The radius of influence of air sparging is estimated to be 60 feet from the sparge well.
— Pneumatic fracturing did not have a significant effect on the radius of influence.
— Air sparging through a HDD well is effective at Site 89, as evidenced by significant
reduction in contaminant concentrations.
— Analysis of soil vapor samples collected in the vicinity of the air sparge treatability study
indicated that vapor concentrations increased; however, indoor inhalation risks at Site
89 during the test fell within acceptable ranges.
PRB Using Mulch/Compost as Backfill
The PRB was installed 210 feet long, 2 feet wide, and 25 feet deep in the southeast corner of
the site near Edwards Creek. The PRB was comprised of approximately 40 percent mulch
(reactive medium) and 60 percent sand (aggregate). Approximately 200 cubic yards of
mulch and 480 cubic yards of sand were placed in the wall.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the treatability study and consisted of
a baseline sampling event and one, three, and six month sampling events. Groundwater
monitoring included collecting samples from eleven monitoring wells. Observations based
on the treatability study include:
— Conditions appear to be favorable for the reduction of contaminant concentrations;
however, evaluation of the effectiveness, as observed during the six month monitoring
period,is limited by the slow rate of groundwater flow.
The overall effectiveness of each technology was evaluated in terms of reducing the
chlorinated VOCs within the surficial aquifer while balancing the technology's cost and ease
of implementation. While air sparging and ERD reduced contaminant mass for a similar
cost per volume treated,full scale implementation of ERD would be a significant field effort.
Additionally, the effectiveness of ERD in areas with higher contaminant concentrations is
not known. Rebounding is a potential issue with ERD. Full scale implementation of air
sparging would require an initial field effort to install the new HDD wells; however,
reduction of contaminant mass would be expected to proceed quickly.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC ES-3
4

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

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUDIES REPORT
CHEMICAL REDUCTION EVALUATION...............................................................................................4-1
4.1 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Confirmation Sampling.................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Field Parameters..........................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results.........................................................................................................4-1
4.2 EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Radius oflnfluence.......................................................................................................................4-1
4.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness................................................................................................................4-2
4.3 DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................4-2
4.3.1 Conceptual Design.......................................................................................................................4-2
4.4 COST..................................................................................................................................................4-2
4.5 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................4-2
AIR SPARGING EVALUATION..................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer...........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Field Parameters..........................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results.........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.1 Radius oflnfluence.......................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.2.1 Groundwater........................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.2.2 Soil Vapor............................................................................................................................................5-3
5.3 DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................5-3
5.3.1 Conceptual Design.......................................................................................................................5-3
5.4 COST..................................................................................................................................................5-4
5.5 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................5-4
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER EVALUATION.............................................................................6-1
6.1 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................6-1
6.1.1 Field Parameters.......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Chemical Analytical Results......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................................6-2
6.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds....................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.2 Total Organic Carbon.................................................................................................................. 6-3
6.3 DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................6-3
6.3.1 Conceptual Design....................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.4 COST..................................................................................................................................................6-4
6.5 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................6-4
TREATABILITY STUDY COMPARISON.................................................................................................7-1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................8-1
List of Tables
1-1 Treatability Study Chronology
2-1 Monitoring Well Construction Details
2-2 Summary of Treatability Study Sample Analyses
3-1 Bromide Results -ERD Confirmation Sampling
P.-U1 SMYCLEANOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STIE 89\TREATABIIIIYSTUDIES\REP0RI\FINALTS REPORI\TEXIISTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUDYREPORT-
FNALDOC II
6

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTU IES REPORT
3-2 Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the ERD Treatability Study
3-3 Detected Concentrations of Dechlorinating Bacteria
4-1 Detected Concentrations of VOCs and Field Parameters in Groundwater Within the
Chemical Reduction Treatability Study
5-1a Detected Concentrations of VOCs,Field Parameters,and S176 in Groundwater Within
the Air Sparge Treatability Study Zone A Wells
5-1b Detected Concentrations of VOCs,Field Parameters,and SF6 in Groundwater Within
the Air Sparge Treatability Study Zone B Wells
5-2 Detected Concentrations of VOCs in Soil Vapor Within the Air Sparge Treatability
Study
6-1a Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study Upgradient Wells
6-1b Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study In-Wall Wells
6-1c Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in
Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study Downgradient Wells
7-1 Summary of Technology Evaluation
Figures
1-1 Camp Lejeune Site Location Map
1-2 Site 89 Site Map
1-3 Geologic Cross Section Location Map
1-4 Cross Section A-A'
1-5 Cross Section B-B'
1-6 Groundwater Contour Map of the Surficial Aquifer,November 2005
1-7 TCE and PCA Impacts in Shallow Groundwater (20 feet bgs)
1-8 Treatability Study Locations
2-1 Chemical Reduction and Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Treatability Study
Locations
2-2 HDD Well As-Built Profile
2-3 Pneumatic Fracturing Locations-Air Sparge Treatability Study
3-1 ORP Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-2 89-MW53 Data Logger ORP
3-3 89-MW54 Data Logger ORP
3-4 PCA Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-5 TCE Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-6 Breakdown of VOCs in ERD Monitoring Well 89-MW44
3-7 Breakdown of VOCs in ERD Monitoring Well 89-MW54
P.-U1 SMYCLEANOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrI'E 89\TREATABIITIYSTUDIES\REPORI\FINALTS REPORI\TEXIISTIE 89 TREATABIITTYSTUDYREPORT-
FNALDDC DI
7

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSRIDIES REPORT
3-8 TOC Concentration Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
3-9 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
4-1 ORP Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-2 PCA Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-3 TCE Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-4 DCE Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
4-5 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
5-1 ORP Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-2 ORP Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-3 TCE Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-4 TCE Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-5 DCE Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-6 DCE Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-7 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-8 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
5-9 PCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
5-10 TCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
5-11 DCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
6-1 ORP Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-2 ORP Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-3 VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW28
6-4 VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW61
6-5 VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW58
6-6 VOC Trends Relative to Distance
6-7 TCE Trends Relative to Distance
6-8 DCE Trends Relative to Distance
6-9 Vinyl Chloride Trends Relative to Distance
6-10 TCE Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-11 DCE Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-12 Vinyl Chloride Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-13 TCE Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-14 DCE Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-15 Vinyl Chloride Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
6-16 Breakdown of VOCs in In-Wall Monitoring Well 89-MW61
6-17 TOC Concentration Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
6-18 TOC Concentration Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
P.-U1 SMYCLEANOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrI'E 89\TREATABIITIYSTUDIES\REPORI\FINALTS REPORI\TEXIISTIE 89 TREATABIITTYSTUDYREPORT-
FNALDDC TV
8

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUDIES REPORT
Appendices
A Groundwater Monitoring Well Completion Diagrams
B Photologs
B-1 ERD Implementation Photolog
B-2 Chemical Reduction Implementation Photolog
B-3 Air Sparge with HDD Implementation Photolog
B-4 PRB Installation Photolog
C ERD Injection Report
D Chemical Reduction Field Implementation Summary
E Soil Vapor Monitoring Well Completion Diagrams
F Pneumatic Fracturing Field Implementation Summary
G Analytical Results
G-1 ERD Analytical Results
G-2 Chemical Reduction Analytical Results
G-3 Air Sparge Analytical Results
G-4 PRB Analytical Results
H ERD Microbial Analytical Results
I Soil Vapor Monitoring Technical Memorandum
P.-U1 SMYCLEANOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrI'E 89\TREATABIITIYSTUDIES\REPORI\FINALTS REPORI\TEXIISTIE 89 TREATABIITTYSTUDYREPORT-
FNALDOC V
9

Acronyms and Abbreviations
bgs below ground surface
cfm cubic feet per minute
COC Chain-of-Custody
DEB dry enzyme breaker
DCE Dichloroethene
DHC dehalococcoides
DLA Defense Logistics Agency
DO dissolved oxygen
DPT direct push technology
DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
ERD enhanced reductive dechlorination
EVO emulsified vegetable oil
Fe(III) ferric iron
FS Feasibility Study
ft/day feet per day
ft/ft feet per foot
ft/year feet per year
gpm gallons per minute
HDD horizontal directional drilling
HDPE high density polyethylene
HSA hollow stem auger
I.D. inner diameter
IDW investigation derived waste
JV I AGVIQ-CH2M HILL Joint Venture I
kg kilogram
LEB liquid enzyme breaker
µg/L micrograms per liter
AS/cm microsiemens per centimeter
MCB Marine Corps Base
MEK methyl-ethyl ketone
ml milliliter
Mn(IV) manganese
mV millivolt
NAIPs natural attenuation parameters
O.D. outer diameter
P:\EBU\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND 93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORT E ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FNAL.DOC VI
10

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUflES REPORT
O&M operations and maintenance
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
OU Operable Unit
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCA 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
PCE tetrachloroethene
PLC programmable logic control
PRB permeable reactive barrier
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PVC polyvinyl chloride
gPCR real-time polymerase chain reaction
RI Remedial Investigation
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SDR standard dimension ratio
SF6 sulfur hexaflouride
TCA 1,1,2-trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethene
TOC total organic carbon
UST underground storage tank
VFA volatile fatty acids
VOC volatile organic compound
ZVI zero valent iron
P:\E 12SMYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrI'E 89\TREATABIITIYSTUDIES\REP0RI\FINALTS REPORI\TEXIISTIE 89 TREATABIITTYSTUDYREPORT-
FNALDDC VIE
11

SECTION 1
Introduction
This Treatability Study Report presents the field activities, data, results, and conclusions of
the treatability studies conducted at Operable Unit (OU) 16, Site 89 at Marine Corps Base
(MCB) Camp Lejeune located in Onslow County, North Carolina. The treatability studies
were conducted to evaluate the performance and design criteria of four remedial
technologies:
1. Enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) using a combination of sodium lactate and
emulsified vegetable oil (EVO),injected by direct push(Geoprobe®) equipment.
2. Chemical reduction via zero valent iron(ZVI) injection through pneumatic fractures.
3. Air sparging using a horizontal directional drilled (HDD) well.
4. Permeable reactive barrier (PRB),using mulch/compost as backfill.
Site background information and the selection process for the treatability study technologies
are presented in the following sections.
1.1 Rationale for Technology Selection
CH2M HILL completed a Draft Feasibility Study (FS) for Site 89 in February 2006
(CH2M HILL, 2006). The document evaluated potentially feasible options for addressing
groundwater contamination at Site 89, including air sparging, in situ chemical reduction,
and ERD. Based on this evaluation, each of the technologies was determined to have the
potential to effectively treat groundwater contamination at Site 89. Due to the extent of
contamination and associated costs of each technology evaluated in the FS, the Camp
Lejeune Partnering Team agreed in May 2006 to conduct treatability studies of these three
approaches over a six month period. In addition, the Partnering Team agreed to implement
a PRB using mulch as the reactive medium. A brief description of each technology is
provided in the following paragraphs.
ERD
Enhanced reductive dechlorination, also known as dehalorespiration, involves the transfer
of electrons from an electron donor source to the chlorinated volatile organic carbon (VOC)
compound, resulting in the sequential replacement of a chlorine atom with a hydrogen
atom. An electron donor source is required for the reaction to occur. Potential electron
donor sources include biodegradable organic co-contaminants, native organic matter, or
substrates intentionally added to the subsurface. Deeply anaerobic (reducing) conditions are
required for reductive dechlorination of many chlorinated VOCs. In addition, competing
electron acceptors, such as dissolved oxygen,nitrate,nitrite, manganese [Mn(IV)],ferric iron
[Fe(III)], and sulfate,must be depleted.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 1-1
12

SITE 89 TREATAB=SRIDIES REPORT
The principal anaerobic biodegradation pathway for reductive dechlorination of chlorinated
ethenes is:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) —>Trichloroethene (TCE)—>cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) —>
vinyl chloride—> ethene
The transformation rates for each step vary but tend to become slower with progress along
the breakdown sequence, often resulting in accumulation of cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride.
Further breakdown from cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride to ethene varies and is based on
site-specific conditions.
ERD of chlorinated VOCs is implemented by adding a suitable substrate to the subsurface.
The introduced substrate serves two purposes: (a) depleting competing electron acceptors
and creating strongly reducing conditions and (b) providing an electron donor source for
reductive dechlorination. Nutrients,lactate,emulsified oil, or other substrates are often used
to enhance reductive dechlorination. These substrates provide a carbon source for microbial
growth and electron donors, stimulating dechlorination.
Chemical Reduction via ZVI Injection through Pneumatic Fractures
One application of in situ chemical reduction involves the injection of reducing agents, such
as ZVI, to promote abiotic destruction of chlorinated organic compounds. ZVI consists of
pure iron metal granules or powder, which must be specially manufactured and packaged
to prevent premature corrosion. Once released into the environment, oxidation of the iron
under anaerobic conditions yields ferrous iron and hydrogen ions, both of which are
reducing agents for chlorinated solvents.
FeroxTM is a patented method of fracture-assisted injection of iron powder. The FeroxTM
process involves high-pressure injection of tiny iron particles within individual soil borings.
The reaction proceeds through two known pathways. In the beta-elimination pathway, the
formation of partially dechlorinated products such as DCE and vinyl chloride is avoided,
and TCE are transformed directly to ethene via the production of some short-lived
intermediates, such as chloroacetylene and acetylene. Most experts believe that chlorinated
solvents degrade primarily through the beta-elimination pathway when exposed to iron.
Very little DCE or vinyl chloride have been found in laboratory studies with iron, indicating
the dominant mechanism is probably beta-elimination. In the hydrogenolysis, or sequential
reductive dechlorination pathway, one chlorine atom is removed in each step, so that TCE
degrades to cis-1,2 DCE, then to vinyl chloride, and finally to ethene and ethane. In
addition, biological reductive dechlorination is also possible as microorganisms utilize the
hydrogen produced.
Air Sparging with HDD
Air sparging is an in situ technology involving the injection of air into the aquifer or water-
bearing zone below the water table. Pressurized injected air rises by buoyancy through the
saturated zone in a network of finger-like channels, the path of which is strongly influenced
by subsurface heterogeneity. Air sparging induces mass transfer (stripping) of VOCs from
groundwater and/or aerobic biological degradation (for those compounds that are
degradable aerobically).
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 1-2
13

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
For elongated plumes or sites with building restrictions, continuous HDD wells are
considered the most effective delivery method for air sparging. Continuous completions are
preferred for remediation applications because of the relative ease of installation and
improved control of the drilling process. HDD operations include advancing a pilot hole,
reaming the pilot hole, and pullback of well materials.
Pneumatic fracturing is a secondary permeability enhancement technology, designed to
increase the efficiency of other in situ technologies, such as air sparging or chemical
reduction. During pneumatic fracturing, gas is injected into the subsurface at pressures
exceeding the natural in situ stresses and at flow rates that exceed the natural permeability
of the subsurface, resulting in the propagation of fractures outward from the injection point
(ARS Technologies, 2006). The fracturing extends and enlarges existing fissures and
introduces new fractures, primarily in the horizontal direction (depending on anisotropy
and ratio of vertical to hydraulic permeability). In the pneumatic fracturing process, a
packer system is used to isolate small intervals of the boring so that short bursts of
compressed air can be injected into the interval to fracture the formation. The process is
repeated for each interval within the contaminated depth (FRTR,2005).
PRB Using MuWVCompost as Backfill
PRBs are installed perpendicular to the flow path of a contaminated groundwater plume,
producing treatment zones that allow the passage of water while treating contaminants. By
utilizing a reactive medium within the barrier, contaminant treatment can occur through
physical, chemical, or biological processes. The basic objective of any treatment material is
to either destroy or immobilize the contaminant or to condition the groundwater system to
promote the destruction or immobilization of the contaminant (ITRC,2005).
Over the last several years, compost or mulch has become an increasingly common medium
within PRBs since it provides a long-lasting slow release source of electron donors that is
much cheaper that ZVI PRBs. These walls are also known as Biobarriers or Biowalls. Bio-
available organic constituents in the mulch act as a carbon source for bacteria. As the aerobic
bacteria consume available dissolved oxygen, anaerobic conditions are created and the
oxidation reduction potential of the aquifer decreases. Once anaerobic conditions are
created, fermentation of the organic constituents generates hydrogen and acetate,which can
then be used to promote biological reductive dechlorination (AFCEE,2004).
The effects of the mulch in the subsurface will not be limited to the confines of the PRB
itself; rather, volatile fatty acids (VFAs) will diffuse from the sides and bottom of the PRB,
creating a zone of low oxidation reduction potential conducive to reductive dechlorination.
However, the extent of this zone is likely to be limited to less than 20 ft.
1.2 Treatability Study Objectives and Goals
The primary objective of each treatability study was to obtain information on design
parameters to better refine the FS. Equally as important, the overall effectiveness of each
technology was evaluated. Effectiveness was assessed based on the following criteria:
1. Contaminant reduction trends in groundwater, as quantified by baseline and post-
treatment groundwater monitoring, and
P.-TBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 1-3
14

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUDIES REPORT
2. Reagent distribution/zone of influence.
1.3 Site Background
Site background information is documented in the Draft Final Comprehensive Remedial
Investigation (RI), Operable Unit 16, Site 89, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (CH2M HILL,
2007). The following sections summarize information contained in this document.
1.3.1 Site History and Physical Setting
MCB Camp Lejeune Site 89 is located on the New River Air Station side of the Base (as
shown on Figure 1-1),southeast of the intersection of G Street and 8th Street,and just east of
Camp Geiger. The Site is relatively flat and covered by asphalt, gravel, and grass. The
eastern portion of the Site is wooded and slopes gently toward Edwards Creek.
The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO), operated by the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA), was located at the site until 2000. DRMO used the Site as a storage yard for
items such as scrap and surplus metal, electronic equipment, vehicles, rubber tires and fuel
bladders (mobile storage tanks). According to historical records, the Base Motor Pool
operated at the Site until 1988. Reportedly, various solvents, such as acetone, TCE, and 2-
butanone (methyl-ethyl-ketone [MEK]) were used for cleaning parts and equipment.
Historical records also indicate that a 550-gallon underground storage tank (UST), identified
as UST STC-868, was installed at the site in 1983 and used to store waste oil. The UST was
removed in 1993. Figure 1-2 depicts a site map for Site 89.
1.3.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The Comprehensive RI (CH2M HILL, 2007) provides details regarding site-specific geology
and hydrogeology at Site 89. The following sections briefly summarize these investigations.
1.3.2.1 Site Geology
During previous investigations at Site 89, the Undifferentiated Formation (surficial aquifer)
and the Upper Castle Hayne aquifer were identified. Shallow monitoring wells installed
during these investigations are screened in the surficial aquifer, while intermediate and
deep monitoring wells are screened in the upper portions of the Upper Castle Hayne
aquifer.
The Undifferentiated Formation occurs from surface to a depth of approximately 20 to 30
feet below ground surface (bgs) (shallower in some areas). Lithology within this zone
consists primarily of fine sand and silt, with interbedded zones of dense clay which are
discontinuous and anomalous.
The Belgrade Formation, a layer of dense clay several feet thick which overlies (confines) the
River Bend Formation at many other locations of the Base, is largely absent at Site 89.
However, discontinuous layers of dense clay are present in several areas of the Site, at
various depths.
The Upper Castle Hayne aquifer begins at a depth of approximately 20 to 30 feet bgs and
continues to the maximum explored depth. This unit is distinguished by the presence of
P:\EBLMVYCLF"OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 14
15

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUDIES REPORT
calcareous sand and silty sand, shell fragments, and fossil fragments. Although these
materials are generally characterized in the drilling logs as"medium dense' to"very dense'
with occasional cemented layers, the hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Castle Hayne is
significantly higher than the overlying Undifferentiated Formation. Geological cross-section
locations are shown on Figure 1-3 and stratigraphic cross-sections are presented on
Figures 1-4 and 1-5.
1.3.2.2 Site Hydrogeology
Depth to groundwater varies across the Site, ranging from a few feet at the southern end to
just over 10 feet bgs in the northern portion of the Site. The groundwater elevation data
suggest that the flow patterns observed for the surficial and upper portions of the Castle
Hayne aquifer display similar trends. Overall, elevations are higher in the northern portion
of the Site,with decreasing elevations in the direction of Edwards Creek. Groundwater flow
in the surficial aquifer is to the south and east toward Edwards Creek (Figure 1-6), which
serves as a groundwater discharge boundary, in the southern and eastern portion of the site.
Edwards Creek affects flow within the surficial aquifer. Groundwater within the Upper
Castle Hayne aquifer generally flows southeast toward the New River. Based on data
collected in November 2005, the horizontal hydraulic gradient within the surficial and
Upper Castle Hayne aquifers averaged 0.006 feet per foot (ft/ft) and 0.004 ft/ft,respectively.
Hydraulic conductivity values were determined for the surficial aquifer using slug tests.
(Baker, 1998). CH2M HILL performed slug tests in the shallow aquifer on January 26, 2006,
which indicated consistent hydraulic conductivity values ranging from 3.9 feet per day
(ft/day) to 6.3 ft/day, with an average of 5.1 ft/day. Using effective porosity values for silts
and sands in the range of 25 to 50 percent (Freeze and Cherry, 1979), a seepage velocity
within the surficial aquifer at Site 89 was determined in the range from 0.047 to 0.151 ft/day
(17 to 55 ft per year [ft/year]).
1.4 Selection of Treatability Study Test Areas
Primary contaminants identified at Site 89 are chlorinated VOCs, including TCE and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane (PCA). In addition, degradation products of TCE and PCA have been
reported at the site, including cis-1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, and 1,2-trichloroethane (TCA).
Figure 1-7 depicts the extent of PCA and TCE impacts within the surficial aquifer.
The location of the field trials was selected based on contaminant concentrations and the
extent of contamination. Care was taken to avoid interaction between the trial areas. Areas
of very high contamination (in the percent levels) were also avoided. The test area of each
technology is shown on Figure 1-8. Locations for the four treatability studies within these
areas were selected based on the following rationale:
• The shape of the small, elliptical plume to the northwest extending beneath Building
TC864 is suited for air sparging through a horizontal well. Therefore, the air sparge
treatability study was conducted in this area.
• PRBs are intended to provide passive treatment, while intercepting groundwater flow.
As such, the PRB was placed as far down gradient and as close to the creek as possible.
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 1-5
16

SITE 89 TREATAB=SRIDIES REPORT
The PRB was positioned downgradient of 89-MW28, in the large plume located along
the southern portion of the Site.
• The chemical reduction study was conducted in the central portion of the site, in an area
of elevated impacts near 89-MW02. This area corresponds to the highest chlorinated
VOC impacts within the target study areas.
• The ERD treatability study was conducted 170 feet to the south of the chemical
reduction study near 89-MW44.
Additional sampling was conducted in August 2006 to ensure that the technologies would
be conducted in contaminated areas so that meaningful conclusions could be drawn from
the treatability studies. Nine soil borings were advanced using direct push technology
(DPT) for lithologic characterization and soil screening, and 24 discrete groundwater
samples were collected from six borings. The highest chlorinated VOC concentrations were
detected between 16 and 24 feet bgs in the vicinity of the air sparge and chemical reduction
treatability studies and between 28 and 32 feet bgs in the vicinity of the ERD treatability
study. Groundwater samples were not collected in the vicinity of the PRB; however, soil
screening in this area generally indicates that the highest concentrations of VOCs are
between 6 and 14 feet bgs. While these results were factored into the final design of each
treatability study, the depth interval from 15 to 25 feet bgs was the primary focus for
consistency between the studies.
1.5 Treatability Study Chronology
The Site 89 treatability studies and associated field activities were conducted between
November 6, 2006 and July 12, 2007. A chronology of the treatability studies is presented in
Table 1-1.
P-TBLMVY-CLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEXMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FII IALDOC 1-6
17

Tables
18

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

Figures
20

W hrodite\ ro"\USNavFaceNGCom\315007Cam Lejeune\Protects\Site89_FS\Fi ure 1-1-Camp Lejeune Site Location Map.mxd
Marine Corps Base,
Camp Lejeune
NC
Onslow
Jacksonville
Site 89
MCB Camp L une
o
o Site 89
0
0
./ °
0
0
O
CO
Legend N Figure 1-1
p Military Installation Area
w E Camp Lejeune Site Location Map
IR Site Boundary Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
Highway S MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
=Limited Access Higwhay 0 5 10
A G V
Local Roads Miles
•Cities CH2M HILL
21

MW341W
�� W331W ' W34DW !�
4,%IR89-MW4 MW33D 89-MW34
IR89-MW41 IR89-MW33
' 4R89-M W B
IR89-MW4
IR89.MW42
/�� IR89-MW48A
IR89-MW05 —IR89-MW48B
® IR89-MW49A _ •�' IR89- 5DW
IR89-MW32 //cIR89-MW496-- '�;�� —�—� /!•�
�y ��&NIR89-MW32DW
jR89-MW321W
IR -MWQ3
WN
IR89-MW50 �� /`I 89-MW031W
CAN% _A89-MW03DW
�C IR89-MW02DW -
IR89-MW021W /��/w /r<,IR89-MW01
IR89-MW52%)-- .1
IR89-MW13 1 If
.,r 1H89-11 5.1`
- 'IR89-MWO2
IR89-MW12 Q -MW40
/B. W53
•IR'89-MW44
IR89-MW54
r• • —s IR89-MWO41W
i /,IR89-MW55 &NIR89-MW04
.} IB89-MW19 IR89-MW04DW
IR89-MW18 ,\
.IR89-MW45
9 IR89-MW77 e1.t y
IB89-M�1�0' IR89-MIA
2 IR8 W56
IR8 -MW24 �R89-MW31.�
IR89-MW11,,,A� IR89-MW22 tN y IR89-MW25- / T IR89-MW62 a IR89-MW37
IR89-MW111V11 1, Oa IR89-MW26 V ♦ ii--,IR89-MW37DW
IR89-M W59
IR89-MW23<J /A\ IR89-MW57 IR89-MW371W
IR8g'hW27 I IR89-MW60
IR89-MW161W_9_ IR89-MW081W-04B b'
IR89-MW16 ��\0 /, 9VIR89-MW09
IR89-MW29 '1R89-MW091W
IR89-MW30'�� IR89
IR89-MW61
IR89-MW28
ft--1R89-MW15
IR89-MW14IW IR89-MW38
4) IR89-MW151W dN
— IR89-MW14 IR89-MW38DW'%)
IR89-MW38IW
_ r
vJ -A
Legend N Figure 1-2
Monitoring Well Locations W+E Site 89 - Site Map
Streams s Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
• • Carolina
1

Aw
I fi
-MW32 IR89-M[W341W m,IR89-MW W
-MW33DW '• T ` =,IR89-M 4
IR89-MW07%IR89-MW071W `
I- IFT89-MW07DW
IR89-MW351W�-,�R89-MW35Main
IR89-MW33 v� ----.q� 2WR MW05DW =_
`IR89-MW32DW �€E89-MW35DW
` = IR89-M321W IR
W _
IR89-M �� 89-MW03DW '
89-MW02DW%�� R89-MW031W
_ IR89-MW02 W01
89-MW130
1 r IR89-MW12 �J1;89-MW40
IR93-MWO41W �VR89-MW n ; _
&MRO W16 1 �' IR89-MW08 �?R89-MW081
• _ t _ ,.r IR89-MW08SH i-
�t h e ��IR89-MWO41W IR89-MW361W j4giR89-MW36DW
IR89-M 4DV1rg.°IR89-MW04
tlV
IR89-MW18*' 1 9 YR8 W36
m iA, = 't•+i!►. � .t *. ?� ► �LIR89-MW06DW
L t► IR89•MW2l IR8 ki
IR89-Mr2O- ell V 3e � 89-MW06
IR89-MW111W 0�gg�V��q IR89-��j37
IR89-MW11�-VR89-MW21ti oIR89-MW25 y -,R89-MW37DW IR89-MTII061W y
IR89-MW23 aA - NR89-MW26 IR89-MW IW-
IR�9 VM,1 6-\ aLIR89-MW28 l7
IR89-MW161VRVO ���IR89-MW09 I
. IR89-MW291R89---MW30 IR89-MW091W f IR89-MW39!� 89-MW39DW
1 ��� R89-MW391W
IR89-MWi 51W r i
IR89-MW15 IR89-MW38
•+Ir IR89-MW141W&N, *N IR89-MW381W -
IR89-MW14 -���
IR89-MW385W ' • ! i
ask
• ! RI ° •• �: is i ,� � 'L w0 ,
1 1 11

A A,
25• — — —— - —
93-MW041W 89-MW32DW 89-MW35DW 894MW07DW
89-MW08DW
894NIW0lSDW 89-MW020W - .
j - 1. '
:,` �.�:1."I­�..�..,:.. ­ .-:,..,.:.-,.,;.:..:,x.".::..'..-.',.`- :.:..,,,...."....;-..I.t:,.I,... ­V,-".�,1.'i-,:.�1-...-,.I.
S. . ,
.:'
;. i
;. :' -
0
ti.
i
::
f.
:;'
};
%i
y,•
i'
.�:
i.: t: ;t:
:5:
+.
:_: :i:
;i:
:ti
::
::r: ..
'• .
5,:
1 ti \'
O
'1. :i'
t t
C \•t•
.y.
i �i ti t ,�:
:Y'
y•
al
0 ,l
,'t• :}f
"5:
•.1
r: -
.,,i:.' . -
•1' •f
•2 6-
__ _ _ r;,
.i
•4
i.
'i
Y
y
s. •%.
t
l.. 1' 5
`:
1
s t' t it'
/'I'' :�
5' 1
�.
1 f: %..
•" :'\:
..,...,,. .......•r..•... :..,..
43
.y .
t i'
ti
I.
'y
t
1•
t;
y:
:''y: :i: I.
: : I•
:'�
:t
,'• 1 .1'
' i .
tt :s. !i
'1�
i 1
.i•
is
3 ;
..
..
t, is t
I'.
'ti'•
5' L' .i'
5
•L
�'S
1, �..t� :t.' .�t,.
: .
y.•
R••
.'.'•..emu i•.��.—u.:'.
:•G
ri,
.t
_� i•LA :.
'i'
t'
�aVV t'
•i' 5'
_ \.i,.
:si `i•
f'
,';::
5:
:5:
Y • ;.
5 y
i'
1
:•(.' :i.
t. ;I. ;•
:�:
i'
:�
'•t' \'1•':y
.i:
4
'•,' ••�. ..5•.
y I'.
j,
.i ii•, ';r•
:f:
::r'
f'
:1:
L'
I
,;.
I' .i• '.y'.
:y.'t i ,t..I
K'. t:
:"y::
:::
':' s :
:if
i''
'i•:'t� 1i,.
t' :S
•'•1. •r
5'.
('.
f: :1:
r: :.r,
i..:
4:
5:
_ .V
y: 5
t
y
i
l'�_
•1!
-75
i4 -ter•
y• y.
Wit'
ti•
:ti. y'
i:': :'i: .:t
tier :'1 ti'=
i•'
ti'i i ::•,
•'1
s:
,' i'•
I. ''t: i:r'
''i: ''t: r
::�:
i i ;r.
:'f: :ti
l'
:y.
..y, :�.
i'
1' i'
:,,
��
�,t. .:5
:'y:
'y::
�..
.�
:1
:_
:�:
:�:
't'
:''f' 1: Y:1:
f
I'
i 1.- :4:.
'S:::
:;::
5:
4'.
1'
i .i
1'
.'S 'i
I.
5'
'S'
r2
r•:
�'
i'�i
:i:
5
'sf '4
:'�r
'i:
Y
:..
�'.
i•
�r•.•._
�:
H_ —
�.�;': '_:L: � � t•. .fir`'-�`'r
- T7�Y'
I
-100, f"'rr,'_`i.�:'':r�"*`-:':-1::i�"r`'''i:�'�i � � � i`i�-i'i-tfij-���'�`��''��r�� � r't `-'1-T'1�r'Y'��'Ti'r: ;�� ;T+: �-.� I � r j- � � •:.•• � •-' "-
0 260 500 750 1000 1250 ism •1750 2000 2260 2600 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4600
Distance
Legend
Figure 1-4 El Overburden � Silty Sand 0 Sand [2 Clayey Silty Sand
Silty, fine to medium sands Silty,fine to medium sands, Fine to coarse sands, some Non-continuous, clayey silty
A G V I Q Cross Section A-A and organic soils, loose, dry trace clay, shell fragments in cementation, silt and clay sand, shell fragments in
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report to damp lenses of sand unit, dense, lenses, loose to medium lenses of sand unit, dense,
E N V I R o N M E N T .4 E 5 E R V I i E S dam to wet dense, wet damp to moist
CH2M HILL MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina p
E
"This soil boring information is considered to be representative of the subsurface conditions at the respective soil boring locations.
24Subsurface conditions interpolated between borings are estimated based on geologic judgment.

g 8'
is - -
89.MW34oW
89•09W030W ,
as-mma
89-M W 04 0 W
DW
,i r i 'i i 'i '� •r r
•} i { .{ ,' r �; 'S' + •.f _ •r.. �'!•. �- + %'i. :fit 'i t':a7R
'r i v v v 1• 't• .. , a.: 1":,t, •i'±:a'�. ".t tli`r R; `I
�: Y � V• ,• V •-N J':2• .,V.: N,: J;t:,,�••V:lam ,,r;• ' ram; : t�. :J. 1•. 1,. :• !r• 1, , tr.��,
-,t 't+.7,• �i.T _ e*./ •,+.:• �+.• .nr 'tt. .al ••,, ♦',',T ., .,. .�,..T,• ,.� .,n,.��.. ,a. .. .r\. t .,: :ate. t _•�. ..,
v- • . ;:a: • �:r•♦ •L'�.v • •w:v:♦,.r:v:♦,•a .v ♦, s:J :,; ♦, "••'"�:-+:.v;♦ti:�-Y ., : 7vr? �:�tir� .�.ayi�� i1• •tvi, ;a•,YI? ♦.',al. �'a'r" -`A:C': •,•t`"r,. ih:
't,. .'�' :ttt:i`' ':itt:i*:":ti L:i`' :ati:i~' :ttt:i :t'Rri` :a'Ra :lit:i'' :t't:iti' :a't:i`":t\R.i`.":a R•it'�'a t at':A '=.a%.t� !•.i`, 'A.�•a1:� }., ; L•t''�;%J,}..t'}''.a,L>_t '1 R.,taa t :a art 'S.�. ♦• i• tt�. 1• tfJ'••f 1•
-- - t '1� t 'li- 1 IJ. 1• IJ• I• li• 1•. /�. 1• 1• IJ. 1. IJ. 1• 1•. t• 1 1 1 1 . 2 s•
�•: .+: ..+: •,+: .,r:: .J::S, ,.r,:2•, .•r:SS ..r: .+: ,+. t':. :r., [�f rr 7,. 1:'.,•I,: :'.•r;: .H'�• .;J:: ':".,f;� .;d;� •••I:: ,_•r•: •_J•: :�• •�:i,•! •;t:=�•• ;;•
-i• is�1- l':i• '�• :i- :1`:i :1-••: i 'i. '�- :i- �1. :; ;.�.1. .i. �i.♦.:- i ::'�• 'i f :A.
l .7 .� .t. ,.7. •/1. R..
at f.� :,� ..1. �:. •ry- .,..r• .r1..T�•.. ,1,..1., a' .-t...� •t,.T�.. �•�•...•+. •v+. •�•.•'a••1::' •'a::' ','•::' �a::• •V1•:�:F
'y:�..:�'.•y���.. •,- '+.�'• :�•Y'r •V•�;•••••Y-•.;•u•!Y �;•�.,• �'• •Y,♦ +,,♦i.♦:V' -M•V ♦ 7. :.Y ♦ •••V •V•V � V:•• t. ;•'7, •Y'♦, ♦•:y;: :t.,•V r w.'+V f•,.,- +
r, 1 " 1 I.. a I_ , r., t 1. , r•,:•-, t I•.::�:t r• , Ii , i••: t !i f. s, f. , f, i; a f,. , h,•, a I•, t a f,.•.
,r; r= ,, '{ :i ', •, r ;:'=:f. ..�:i ..rr .l,t Sf, t'i,
� _ •.'. f�,.i.• ; :i:•' :{'• ••'•.a.'i'• 'i • %1'•'1 i :{'.':i' ';' :i:'';'T:i'•'i'i'`i'�.i• '1' .i' •1%'1:' •ti''��i,: 'ti''af
r .,.,. ti;�••.,I!;•�. ,ti;>�. :.n';Ta;Lt.:T� •`•:'a:: ='�:;•.:...i •:.;Ta;.,.�;♦a::. .t.;�.. +::�: .�::•':«
'� V• ' %1: ♦ 7. V a.; -V V�L`1l .••Lam•at♦� ,;tV,a. _
•, r.,,; , rT.i;' , i.�:.. , r 1 I t l.,.,� t r. .t s~r; ' �:t'ta'. ,*i. ':"f! ' - - ;:1,
[� �I,•;,-,t.\24+• :altn tt;_at4..lt :`tL%+_. Ao-R.i;t!?:a tfl':t'�A �.t•t .t R.aa,' t�� Rl t:' _• :!�' •�}' /
•f •j: r• + �. t• I:, t, IJ• If.Z li: 1• :1 I'i1 �•�, tr'• •I " •'• '! •fr•' 'r •fI•' I
Y,+. .J,: ,J:: ,J,: .•r.i ,N.= .J,': ,J.: .J: ,f,: •W, .r _ 'fr •'' .,::. :,
4:
i'
•a• ♦ i
�t �i •+.J� .J .n •n .. `tl.J• '+ -+ .ni.. .r t• .T .7?.T •a. .t. .•t. �-. y'.. .,:.• •a•:. ••� •,�•
t Tom• .,t •� r� .n. ,�. a•. :a•.. f,•...;n. ....+. .a•.. a••••.a 1, s'•. 1: +' .a 'a:' '�:: .S +::
,S:♦.:L.,t=♦. • �L•v•, ••L'�IT•a •L�.a::♦ �:.ai:♦ •♦•v:♦ •s•:•'+'�'��.+""• :,:•♦ • .`v; - .•,v:♦••♦:ti•y •b•V ♦ •�%,. •�:iii7 ;.+,, a .tV•••.'"t"i� ♦'ll•i. •v ♦••� Y ♦ •:•Y a, L.v'..S•♦•a. :7: •.-:L��v't •-A 4
\ r I r :, : r ,., t
t:i'• :t L:i :a'R.a`' :a'Li :a L.a :t t,;i' :t'i.t :\a», :a L.ati' :a t„atii' :a t.i�":t t.a t.,t';:a�.�y'':a t.+ :a,R.i.{' \.l.i�• .l�.i�i;A«L.i.tli:ati: ♦:att.t�ii;.t:t.l'�:'.af�?.. ?:� t t . }.. t.� �.. ,,''t.. •t.. t .1.. t.�, �f•' ,t
L• :r• I. :,`:•t•'': :r: fi. f• li. 1• li- 1. IJ. 1•. 1J• 1• /i. 1• ri. ,.. 1• IJ• 1 IJ t.• .•. .:•. 1•. tj. t•. ti• 2-. f�. t• /• / 1�. t t !r. !r-.ft,:••,i,•,N.:••.: •.�. .,J.:..,, .,N.. .,r.
.•►.i• •.r. .v,ii ..J;:S. .,r; .+: .+. .+.�i• .r. .r, .,•;:5. .+. .+:: ..7r,2 ..o;� a.►;i .•i::. r,. .�.1 '•'t:: a... ,... .a
a_.. .a. .a. a_. t. .t. .a. .,. -a. .a. .a. _+. ::':'t:�: ::'�: .i.:�::: ., .a. .,.• aS•. •1 ':1« .'.:•-
r.'
:
'�':{'. '� :i'` '�':�'. :�'` :i: •:i'♦ r';':i: :{'` ';':i'� ;' :{'~ ; :{'`'i '1`'t'�'%1'�'i'i'�i'•" we
tt
' i• : -: •r S ... ,' .:,..�• ..+.
at .t!_ ,,i t' .,,��.: .`i '.. •i ' .,A►.T•� :i :i �e1 �al.J •• _ _- s, . �� ,t• .,.7• • ' - .t. .+: ..•. .fit. :1.- .wt. ,•�•. •a,.
4.\t, A R.,t A}.t 1 +t A R•a , .a!.. .a R.a .a�.a •a},\t a,R a.60
N. A \ a 4.a .t,}., a,t a 1►;..a }.a A a.,t;;.aa t.+t'..t tfa y .t 4a \t•a rA b i.at-L.a i! 1,.a ,1 .t L ftt tt, f .t/4fa t.:at 4
••.,. .;.. i..,. 1:. t . . /;l /:. o-•.; t;. t . . t:. o-•.; t}- I . tr` t Irt a f.;•li. i ref.. fit I �li. ?ti. •t}. 1 Ali. 1 ti/{'.i:r : r : fir :' 1{'.tr: y. t. t t'. i..,_ : 3. 1• 1 u♦ r5
•I• ..•►. .r, ..J. ..J. ..J. ..+12 .J. ..a/. ..�. ..V, ..+1, •.r': .�:i• ,r 5,1.. .J,.:,,. .N.. ..r. �.,:1: ::�:f. ':�'
2+.. '2:•a.f: :t..a.. .a•f .t.• .a. .a- .a.• .a.:: .a.l: .,.:: _a.:: .a... �-{:•: .:a�'• :•:...
!' i' t' i' t• ,i' i'S !'tti: ,i" ,t, .T:'.'':::,`:'- -i::
'� •. '' .a :i•. Jt: .a. ♦ • .S. .t .: ��.♦LI ♦ i. .i •�1'''i" =�i��'�'�.i'' i• i'f• i•?' `, .t
a/.T •a','tr.t '•a.nr. T t.J' nl.T •af.? 't.l f.', • .ti.�' ,tt ,, 7 ,\..T •a. T n.;q'•. •� �•♦ a;••••+•
.; ,r ti ,.,a•. ,a•. ,A+ q•• •a;• .� .a•• .� y .rt .a•. ,,•, . y., 1, :y•. .t•: .T,,•:' ;: �r 4: "1:• 1�:• �� ,••��.7i:♦,•♦-•av
i .; \l .�i:.7r.♦;•: .;•: ::,♦j•L:.a.7 , : .a+;.t L ,i•.; L a:+i L':a: �t =•:,•:., .aV•,i •+. 1 b.a •.i:•a:•�; a•ttii♦• •atiiv; �St7li..; L.•.•;•. .tYi�� :tVi. tri ,Yi.;•.:7.i♦.;..•.r.+;
r. r. t : i r r r , , l: t r• , r a. ♦ ♦ !, f,
•:\t•� :a't:� i' %:a'R:i`•':a'a:i"=:►t;,i :a'R.;�":a R:i�':Jt R.ia •1'i.;ti":a L.i 1''`:a R.,'y':.a ara�'::a R.l , .a R.t'{ %:a t.t't';:a t.i't'-A't:i t,t�/';:a�.t't';:a t.t ;:a ti:a t'�:a fat :t R:i1' .a't:i`,"1 a •.t t;+�":a + '%1 R
F. �• t•. yt;• 1• .t of .tl I, •+1 1• .+1 1• �1 1• t 1• I 1• % i• t:•, t.. t•. IJ. i•. i.•. t•. 1:• /• t• t�. i t.. i I 2 t t 1'• Ir•S 1�. IJ tr• 1!. Iv, tJ• Ir . IJ• Ir•
JZ• •.r.S• .J.i. ,r, �'.J, {'.,r, � r, J'..�: ,r;:i�':;.,J:: ,r:2:.,, t�• .J:' t::rt' �•;.�J•: •J,: •,J,: •,r:S• ,,V;:t• •,V ..N:: ..r:!••• •,r. '•,.•/,IS,.L•,.
.a. _,., •_,.• .a.• .+,•. l,•• 1. .t. .y .,... ,\.,. .=a.'• �\.:,
r�
:i
.;. .;. i-, ; •a.,. ; .� ..t. ;.�`'. fit. •:'•'1 i •'t`.i• .i'�•'ti'� f t t -i -i•T l
'i i'�i'•:i � �1'�:i i �i'•:i i t�"i �i�:i `i'�:i '1'•':i.. �i.•.i .i.•:i ,a.,.:i.?. .t ,ti.•.t .t s .ti �f .�• .=•? a_ :+. :tr ..n. ...a.•T.�•. -•.�-
Y a.,�L V ♦,:L >: a., L >! ♦, �.71 �,•L J ♦,•L t1�♦ L'tiY •;:La7f'•;;�L it ♦;:Ltiil'•.�L'.v'♦, •L-•;y:vi....Y•♦. L•:,: ♦; :Y. ,:L•Ly.ti�.: ti•a; �Sv ♦, L-:a. •. i.,•�-•+,; �,•Y'a•; �,•�t �,, +�ti ♦i•♦ 'T • •a,
r. a r. t r. i..•, r. . •.- • r- 1 r. t r.�., , r. . , r ,
':�t:t'1:':�I�t't:':a'4i`t:':\t:t�' :t't:t`t':t t.i'+,' .t t•:'!' :t t.i`t'=:a t:at': t,L.: t.a�!';.t
.i, i• .i. i• si. i• ti. t• ti. t• ti. t• 1 f,•.tt•. ri. n. 1:. 1•. -/:. t•. t,. taT,; t,. t
J' ':% •':I• 'J•SI ,J• .V' •r: ,r:: r::1, J' i' tV.il• N•:S• ,J,:1, ,r, I'' •:•r. ••�. ..•I,. .,•f:: ,r;: „•I,: .,,I,: .,•I.: .,N,: ,J;� •,J.� .J,� .J,� .•I.: .J,
r.
-
{'' ,•i•�• :i'�';';-ri•.��•;•:i•. .a 4 :el: :{-. :i: :i'` '�':{'� :i. ; :�'. :i•• i••���1'�.i i. i. .. ..
... .:... ♦:... V .V. ��..,. ��.,+. �:.♦ �:..,. .�. „ .,•` ♦ ..,. .V. „:. .;�. y •♦•• ♦�•♦ . w; ♦S .V .: ♦ `'t !.•;•.•t .�;•V.'t f��•♦•
r, ','r. . A: . r. a r. , rT.: 1 r. ', r?.: 't r�:'-'t r. r. , r. 't r:. 'a r..:;♦', i. 't i. t r�� 't r '. f +
a», :a t.i ':a l.t ':a R.\ S;a R.i' ':1 Ra .a L.a'•. ♦:\b+ '� b\' :�R.a ':a t.it".a t.a�'�:a t.at"A t.t'Y�:a,a.a t' � t.,�'r:a l.,'',".1 t.a�i' .a;..,y:,:a,4,ty;�:a�.a'y ':a�.a�,'{:t,�.a:'t�::atlp41'�:a_4;'tr:a.}ftl' :a tSit a R�a�' .a Ll>.t •:atS
t. .. ti.; t. y+. ,. 1.: f• ,lt af.�l� t•. .•I'_ t-. :ti 1•. .�� 1-. �� r•. l.. t,:. a t• tat t• .�. 1. t�.
:, :_ :. Ir• �. /• Ir• 1- 1:. r• t t• tl• r• 1�. t•. t�. i .i• i ti• t 1�. ,,,r : ,J,i ':'.,H,: :'..J.: .Y. �/� •.�.
•.r. ..r. .J, •.J, .,V, •.J. y♦i,: •+/• •.J• •,'r, •,N.: •.•r•: .•J,� -.f,•,N•t• :{:,,Y,is ,.�; ,,1;::.;:'.:N;� .•N;: .,t:: ..•I.: .1.:: .:a•l•:: .\
-r: -r: -r: -r. r: -J.• J -r -r•' »J•' -t,: - 'r:.
♦:
s�:��• r s r� s�i fi ri
:i: :�•. :i: •;• :a•. •. •;•:i•. `f��:i•� � :{•: :i., :i.;.i., .i:, .i:: �• :i. .:' t i
:: { ��.♦:`. :�.♦:; ; ���:i. �`.':;. •.i. �i�.i.T :i• .e. .i_�. .� .•.*.� .i.�. .i. .i .i :j .i.1. .i.T r' .T• .A .}• t .)' •s.
t. .t. ,.t. .7..t• .,n.,T� ..n.•T• .,n. .,n..l•• .,n. .,.t •• .,,a. ..•t. .A. .;.,.�•. t. •i• .t.;•a'•• •►;•- .•,;-• .'\, 'a;• :�; :'a:: 'a:: :''a::
}iy� .,. :�.Y ♦;.�.V ♦;.L.,V,♦;.♦.,y,♦;•L•,V�♦; i.•,V;♦ .V�♦, �•.r ♦ :,•M� is•a••♦ •V ♦ a.•a.:a. �• 'a.• w-V'♦ •� V•♦;•L'•tV �S.y •�,-♦'1V rT.-�•��ti ��•�, ♦, V.•., L•,v:�• � V 7. V"• '�,•Y•`• L,'V
a !• t i, a r. t r. y, .tii; 9, , t.ai, , , t r.y, 't'rTti:,� : r,
t.% �� t.� ':a l.+' ':t t.� ':\t:i ':a'R:i♦ ':\'4.a :\'t:a ♦:a R:i ':a'R.a ':1 i:, a '.a L.t t ♦:\ R.a/ ::q L., t ':a R.t'y"` L.,`t'~:t L.a , ".a t.t'y•_:t�.t�' :a'!,:i`,';a ti.ty••��.a�'::�R.i�,".at�.i�'lltlVi�' :a;4.>:t••�at:�t'�:a a..;1;��a t.�t'%,a
V. tl,� [• t1i t• ti} t• ,tii, 1• �1 1• .7i' h, •+I1. 1• .tIJ• 1•• �i.r• M. +i. H. t;. 1•. i%• ti. t•. ..fat•. 1•. li, 1 1�. 1 1�. t f�. 1 4• t 1'. f 1 t t}.,N /�� P N ��•�'R
.r.t� :r:2� •.+.'ice••• .+:1• .+:t• .{: .+i. .{: .+.t• ...�= .r.il• .+. .••,i: .,N,: .,J,: ..Y.: ..•; ,,rr .,+' '�
ti•r• :'y•
r•«- :�•:•«• r:5..
:L' =.,. i':r.«' =3•'� :i�,r=2'• ci�.:Y'� 1=�•'�ei�.'=1•'• .•:•.
��: �i.• :�., ��.• ; Via., ��.•.. { :�•.' :�'. :i•,•...t'%i'�"��i'� �i'• %i• i i i- -•T 1 .a t
':'�i'•'i`Y�i'•'ir:�i'•:i �i'•:i :i :i" :i'' :i :i .i .s 'i'a' � •,.= .� .r� t. .,. .,i,-•�. .,
ti ,a. -} -� -.•..T .,-..�'..-. .•�•. -�• .Ta•. �ss.T�. •a:...ti,.,\•...,,..,a•...rat a'•..•+t:•�.. .a.;:�.. •�.. �,'•. �..•.+1: a':• 'a::• '� 'a::' 1'a::' .v1:+::L•v•.-•L•�
1'•,• •�•• :'; .1 .•�' '+.: •+.: 'S' >i Y •,V;♦ •w•V•�;•�•V ♦;-♦ V a. ♦�:ti ♦ •♦�tY'• ♦�Y•�; �•V,♦ ♦:V'�, w�Y•h;�L•�,:i♦, �•V ♦• �'
V •.;:L�\N'♦; •V ♦•��%F a.� :Y ♦;•L•ti V;•L,•V ♦, •a..•V a,�•♦•3i'♦ L•�•V�•V, 1<iti��SL•♦,•L' /1•��•L, �I•.•-V,•Y:•t: i..- a a
i. • a i ♦ r. ♦ r t r a r. , r a r..•„ t ,•, .�.. , r.,,. . n• a J..:' s i r a +. 7 , J a r.. r.. t r. t r: \ r.
L.,� L,• �:a.t.;:' .r t.4ti. A.R.i`I: .a•aris..e.t.a ..:a a.i'l:ra,t,t'::�.a,t.\`:'%:t,t.i't'= artt t t:it'�:ti La r :a 4.a t.':a}.+t":a}.tt L.i...:a tli,y'=1 R i l ':a R:iw .a a;i'•,...t;t,t:;�.�f.4 a t.t"a t, ":a t,_i'�:at.
1. tl; /. 4i si. t• .�. .f. .�. !i. :i. -r. sr. f.• e; t•. /:. a, ii. t .}. I t}. t fr. t t�. a .� t• 1.. 1• 1�_ o- t ref .. t�! 1. i�. f. t�.
V' N: ,:M' .•1' :'r: •:J;Si •:�: yK S% ;�;iS �V;i�•,• •:'r:ii• •;ter:: •:•r:Si•,• •V•I:i=•,• •.•r.: ,.J:: .J,2 .'r•i' •,J,:•,A I ,'r.� .J,,S ••�� •,fir• •;N,S •.1•S •r': •.a::� •,•\
r.• IX
r.
o 2:,0 5�0 7y1 1000 1�60 low
Ol:U"Ce
Legend
El Overburden (D Silty Sand Sand E2 Clayey Silty Sand
�� Figure 1-5 Silty,fine to medium sands Silty, fine to medium sands, Fine to coarse sands, some Non-continuous, clayey silty
A G V I Cross Section B-B' and organic soils, loose, dry trace clay, shell fragments in cementation, silt and clay sand, shell fragments in
E-N V I R O M E N T A L S i'rt V I C E S Site 89 Treatability Studies Report to damp lenses of sand unit, dense, lenses, loose to medium lenses of sand unit, dense,
CH2M HIILkL MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina damp to wet dense, wet damp to moist
'This soil boring information is considered to be representative of the subsurface conditions at the respective soil boring locations.
Subsurface conditions interpolated between borings are estimated based on geologic judgment.
25

a hrodite\ ro'ects\USNavFaceNGCom\Pro'ects\Site89 RI\Fi ure 1-6 GW Contour Ma -Surficial Aquifer 8.5x11.mxd
�r • i y .�e1ir ���
IR89-MW33 IR89-MW34
IR89tMW41 +11.9 12:1
P1
IR89-MW43 - � 1
9.4 �!
IR89-MW42 ;
9.9 IR89-MW05 — r IR89-7VI1
8:3
IR89-MW32 IR89-7VI3
10:3� IR89-Zvl2
IR89'Z.14
IR89-MW03
10.5 IR89-ZVI4 r2
IR89-ZVI4 r1
IR89-MW13 ' IR89-MW01
10.4 10.4
IR89-MW12 IR89-MW02?
IR89-MW40
10:2 = 10.3� ��` 9.9 IR89-ERD1
IR89-ERD2
IR89-MW 10 IR89;MW 44 IR89-MW08
1 8.8 IR89-ERD3
I989-MW18 _, ^ IR89-ERD4
8'2 r
IR89-MW21 IR89-TW 1 2 IR89-MW04
IR89-MW 19 9.4
8:3
IR89-MW21 IR89-TW1 U1 IR89-MW17 IR89-MW45, 8.5
IR89-MW20 6.9
8:3
IR89-MW31
g;3 IR89-MW37
IR89-MW11 IR89-MW26 7:6
11.0 7'7
IR89-MW22
8A IR89-MW09
IR89-MW24 9.0
IR89-MW23 IR89-TW 1 63 /IR89-MW 28 IR89-M W38
IR89-M W 14 IR89-MW 15 6:7
7:3 8:7 IR89-MW29
IR89-MW27 8.0
I IR89-MW30
8.2 8:7
s+ IR89-MW25
t
IR89-MW16
e 6.8 IR89-MW46
1 �
Legend Figure 1-6
• ERD Injection Locations Groundwater Contour Map of the Surficial Aquifer, November 2005
• Ferox Pneumatic Fracture Locations N Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
PRaBllow Groundwater Monitoring Well W+E Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
♦ HDD Sparge Well Screen S North Carolina
Horizontal Directionally Drilled Well 0 50 100 200 300 A G V I Q
— Contour Upper Castle Hayne Nov2005 CH2M HILL
Water Bodies ZtO Feet

Station PCA TCE Station PCA TCE
SB-01 ND ND SB-75 ND ND
SB-02 ND ND SB-76 ND w 1
SB-03 ND ND SB-77 ND 81
SB-06 ND ND SB-79 ND 31 LL
SB-07 ND ND SB80 NA NA .r r
SB-08 ND ND SB-80 ND ND
SB-09 ND 290 SB81 NA NA
! }
SB-24 4.9 1600 SB-81 ND 300 -77 —
SB-50 <20 780 SB82 NA NA � ' 1 � --j -- --
SB-51 100 330 SB-82 ND 2600
SB-52 370 9400 SB83 NA NA �� 1,� }'�.;_ _�__i�_ ,� / * • _ 1 7
SB-53 160 300 SB84 NA NA
SB-54 11000 23001 SB85 NA NA F
SB-55 190 60 SB86 NA NA a •` �' _
SB-56 420 590 SB87 NA NA
SB-58 5.2 36 SB89 NA NA
SB-57 3100 1300 SB88 NA NA
r _ •�11 1� r • .
SB 59 SB90 NA NA
" - •�
SB-60 210 SB91 E
NA
SB-61 11 84 SB92 NA
SB-62 <20 370 SB93 NA �;i "' • :
SB-63 6.8 370 SB94 NA ';e R I
SB-64 NA NA SB95 12 � , r
SB 65 4.3 350 SB96 490000t� A y
1
SB-66 ND 170 SB97 NA NA •� , ~
ter. l►. -� : i;
SB-67 ND 29 SB98 4800 r ��
SB-68 ND 77 SB99 NA NA 1 •;• ® U -
U
SB-69 ND 103 SB100 NA NA
Ot
SB-70 2.2 2.5 SB101 100000 98000 r ;'
►. r
SB-71 1300 420 SB102 -80000 60000 ,� � •� =�=
SB-72 ND 87 SB103 350000 140000 �� �, F� •�i-,
SB-73 ND 28 SB104 2600 3000 -
SB105 300 84 U
Station PCA TCE Date Station PCA TCE Date _
IR89-MW01 180 64 Apr-04 IR89-MW21 12 330 Aug-04
IR89-MW02 21000 5500 Dec-05 IR89-MW22 14000 D 140000 C' Dec-05 _ -• S t
IR89-MW03 0.59 13 Dec-05 IR89-MW23 39600 498000 Aug-04
IR89-MW04 1.6 580 Dec-05 IR89-MW24 <100 475 Aug-04
IR89-MW05 <4.2 74 Dec-05 IR89-MW25 <20 30 Aug-04 �. -• ,
IR89-MW08 200 47 Apr-04 IR89-MW26 31000 25000 Dec-05 p -' ''' .• •• :
.. r
IR89-MW09 <1300 27000 Dec-05 IR89-MW27 5500 D 150000 D Dec-05 b y
IR89-MW10 37 95 Dec-05 IR89-MW28 5150 121000 Aug-04 • _ -
IR89-MW11 13000 6900 Dec-05 IR89-MW29 2300 D 19000 D Dec-05
IR89-MW12 2 140 Apr-04 IR89-MW30 <1000 2800 Dec-05 '+ , ' • . ., =' ti JI - i
... ::1
IR89-MW13 31 65 Apr-04 IR89-MW31 9700 B 49000 B Dec-05
IR89-MW15 <0.5 <0.5 Dec-05 IR89-MW33 <0.5 <0.5 Dec-0 -'• �L
IR89-MW16 <420 <420 Dec-05 IR89-MW37 <13 560 Dec-0 -•• ��
IR89-MW17 210 J 1000 Dec-05 IR89-MW40 <180n 24000 Dec-05
IR89-MW18 250000D 320000D Dec-05 IR89-MW41 <0.5 <0.5 Dec-05 ^ �� TCE PCA Area Volume
IR89-MW19 43000 D 17000 D Dec-05 IR89-MW43 <13 1300 Dec-05 (µg/L) (µg/L) (sq. feet)
IR89-MW20 65000 D 390000 D Dec-05 IR89-MW44 <16 400 Dec-05 1 in 10,000 Cancer Risk 590 31 315,024 291,689
--.S. IR89 MW45 <13 480 Dec 05 ' ` - Potential NAPL Area (10%of Solubility) 100,000 280,000 23,209 21,490
,r r +
Legend N Figure 1-7
GeoProbe Soil Borings - CH2M Hill 2004 Remedial Investigation 1 in 10,000 Cancer Risk for Industrial WorkerA TCE and PCA Impacts in Shallow Groundwater (20 ft bgs)
g g Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
GeoProbe Soil Borings - CH2M Hill May 2002 Supplemental Investigation Potential NAPLArea (10% of Solubility) Feet MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina A G V I U
Monitoring Well Locations All Values in /L ND- Not Detected 0 100 200 CH2M HILL
µ9 NA-Not Analyzed Aerial Photograph taken Feb.2004
File Path:X:\USNavFaceNGCom\315007CampLejeune\Projects\Site89_FS\Figure 1-7-TCE and PCA Impacts in shallow Groundwater Results.mxd 7

V:A hrodite\Pro'ects\USNavFaceNGCom\315007Cam Le'eune\Pro'ects\Site89 FS\Fi ure 1-8 Treatabili Stud ocations lettersize 120.mxd
IR89-MW33
TC875 IR89-MW34
r
c86 -
V02 — •
IR89-MW43A
InMMW43B
TC864
IR89-MW48A
IR89-MW486 IR89-MW49A
IR89-MW49B
IR89-MW32
—' IR89-ZVI2 -
IR89-MW50 IR89-MW03
IR89-ZVI1 IR89-ZVI4 R2
IR89-ZVI3 IR89-ZVI4 R7 ,�, `
IR89-ZVI4 IR89-MW01
IR89-MW13 , IR89-MW51
IR89-MW02
IR89-MW52
®IR89`-MVV40 P,
IR89-MW12 ;_ TC861
IR89-MW53
IR89-ERD1 IR89-MW08
IR89-ERD2
IR89MW10 IR89-MW44 t�
TC952 IR89-ERD3 IR89-ERD4
IR89-MW54
IR89-MW55 a'
� I 9 MW04
IR89-MW18
IR89-MW45
IR89-MW19 i
IR89=MW21 IR89-MW56
IR89-MW20 IR89-MW17
IR89-MW24 IR89-MW31
IR89-MW11 IR89-MW22 IR89-MW62
_ IR89-MW37
IR89-MW23
IR89-MW25 IR89-MW59
IR89-M W 27 IR89-M W 26 IR89-M W 60
IR89-MW16 IR89-MW57
IR89-MW09
IR89-MW29 IR89-MW58
IR89-MW30 IR89-MW61
IR89-MW28
IR89-MW15
IR89-MW74
Aerial Photograph taken Feb.200,
a
N Figure 1-8
Legend W E Treatability Study Locations
A Soil Gas Wells HDD Sparge Well Screen Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
• ERD Injection Locations Horizontal Directionally Drilled Well s MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
• Ferox Pneumatic Fracture Locations — Streams 0 60 120
® Monitoring Well Locations Feet A v l LL
PRB 28 1 inch= 120 feet CH2M HILL

SECTION 2
Treatability Studies Installation, Operation and
Nbnitoring
2.1 Pre-Implementation Activities
Preliminary activities associated with the implementation of the treatability studies
included:
— Coordination with Camp Lejeune personnel on the location of utilities in the area and
utility locating;
— Treatability study monitoring well installation;
— Gauging and baseline groundwater sampling event; and
— Installation of a directionally drilled horizontal well.
Seventeen new monitoring wells were installed for the Site 89 treatability studies. Locations
of the monitoring wells are provided in Figure 1-8. Construction details for the newly
installed monitoring wells are provided in Table 2-1 and well completion diagrams are
provided in Appendix A. Most new monitoring wells were screened from 20 to 25 feet bgs
to ensure consistency when comparing the technologies.
Monitoring wells 89-MW43B through 89-MW58 and 89-MW62 were installed by Probe
Technology, Inc., a North Carolina-licensed well driller using hollow stem auger (HSA)
drilling techniques. The monitoring wells were completed using 4.25-inch inner diameter
(I.D.) augers. Monitoring wells 89-MW59 through 89-MW61 were installed by Probe
Technology, Inc. using direct push technology drilling techniques. The monitoring wells
were completed using 3-inch Geoprobe® rods and pre-packed screens to minimize
disturbance to the PRB. Each monitoring well was constructed using two-inch diameter
Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) flush thread casing and screen; and completed with
five feet of 0.010-inch slotted screen. A watertight locking expansion cap was installed on
top of the PVC well casing at the surface. A factory-made flush-threaded 2-inch diameter,
Schedule 40 PVC end cap was placed on the bottom of each well screen.
All drill rods, bits, augers, and associated equipment were decontaminated prior to use and
between monitoring well locations as outlined in the Treatability Studies Work Plan
(CH2M HILL, 2006). Drill cuttings and fluids were containerized and managed in
accordance with the Work Plan and Base investigation derived waste (IDW) protocols.
Following completion, each well was developed by surging and overpumping.
Development activities were coordinated and observed by an AGVIQ-CH2M HILL Joint
Venture 1 (JV1) field representative. Development was considered complete when clear,
sediment-free formation water was produced and pH, conductivity, and turbidity
measurements stabilized.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLE:AN\OU 16(STIES 89 AN093)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIIITYSTLDYREPORT-
FKAL EOC 2-1
29

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUMS REPORT
2.2 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Implementation
The ERD treatability study was implemented the week of November 27, 2006. Four
injection borings were installed as depicted on Figure 2-1. The injections were performed by
Vironex. Photographs documenting field activities from the ERD implementation are
provided in Appendix B-1.
2.2.1 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Substrate Concentration
A combination of Terra Systems SRSTM EVO and sodium lactate was selected as an insoluble
and soluble substrate to enhance reductive dechlorination. The substrate blend was 50
percent EVO and 50 percent sodium lactate,resulting in the addition of approximately 3,050
pounds of EVO and approximately 3,300 pounds of sodium lactate. The dosage was based
on a substrate demand analysis, which evaluated site contaminants and other natural
electron acceptors, such as dissolved oxygen (DO), sulfate, nitrate, ferrous iron, and
manganese. The substrate demand was then compared to the assumed radius of influence
and the injection zone interval to determine the volume of substrate required. EVO was
provided as pure product and sodium lactate was diluted with water prior to delivery. In
the field, the substrate was blended with approximately 2,250 gallons of water to create a
four-to-one dilution.
2.2.2 Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Substrate Injection
The ERD injection borings were advanced using DPT. Drive rods were pushed to the target
depth of 25 feet bgs. The ERD substrate was injected using a combination of piston and
progressive cavity pumps. Injections were conducted from 10 to 25 feet bgs in one-foot
intervals at ERD-4 and five-foot intervals at the other three injection locations. Injection
pressures varied from 55 to 78 pounds per square inch (psi), with an overall average
injection pressure of 70 psi. Pumping rates varied from 1.5 to 17.9 gallons per minute (gpm),
with an overall average pumping rate of 12.8 gpm.
A summary of each injection location, including injection intervals, injection pressure, flow
rate, and volumes of substrate and chase water is presented in Appendix A of the Injection
Report (Appendix C). A total of 2,940 gallons of substrate was injected in the four borings.
Approximately 4,050 gallons of chase water was also injected to help distribute the substrate
blend.
Following injection, the boreholes were abandoned in place in accordance with standard
operating procedures as described in the Base Master Project Plans.
2.2.3 Zone of Influence Nbnitoring
Water levels and field parameters including DO, pH, oxidation-reduction (ORP), and
specific conductivity were measured in wells associated with the ERD treatability study to
evaluate the zone of influence. The measurements were made in conjunction with the
scheduled sampling events.
In-situ Multi-Parameter Troll 9000 data loggers were installed in monitoring wells 89-MW53
and 89-MW54 to evaluate the response of subsurface conditions to the ERD injections.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 2-2
30

SITE 89 TREATAB=SRIDIES REPORT
To further assess the zone of influence, ten kilograms (kg) of sodium bromide (2.5 kg per
injection location) was blended into the substrate prior to injection. Two weeks after the
injections, nine confirmation borings were advanced to 25 feet (Figure 2-1) using DPT by
Vironex. Discrete groundwater samples were collected at 15 and 25 feet bgs. Field tests for
bromide were performed on groundwater samples immediately following collection.
2.3 Pneumatic Fracturing and Zero Valent Iron Injection
Implementation (Chemical Reduction)
The chemical reduction treatability study was implemented the week of November 28, 2006.
Four injection locations were advanced as depicted on Figure 2-1. Photographs
documenting field activities from the chemical reduction implementation are provided in
Appendix B-2.
2.3.1 Zero Valent Iron Concentration
The concentration of iron injected into the formation during the chemical reduction
treatability study was based on 0.4 percent of the soil mass within the treatment area. To
achieve this concentration, 10,400 pounds of powdered H-200 and 1,200 pounds of HC-15
(ranging from 15 to 200 microns) were injected into the subsurface. Pneumatic fracturing
and ZVI injection was conducted by ARS Technologies, Inc. of New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The amount and type of ZVI was based on recommendations from the vendor, which was
based on their past experience.
2.3.2 Pneumatic Fracturing and Injection
The injection borings at the chemical reduction treatability study site were advanced using
HSA and temporarily supported using a PVC sleeve. The fracture interval was from 25 feet
bgs to 12.5 feet bgs, working from the bottom up. The borings were advanced to 29 feet bgs
to allow space for the packers.
As prescribed by the FeroxTM methodology, the injectors were lowered into the bottom of
the borehole. The PVC sleeve was retracted in 2.5-foot stages, exposing the internal packer
and nozzle assembly to the subsurface. The packers were then inflated, sealing the borehole.
Pneumatic pressure (ranging from 25 to 30 pounds per square inch psi) was applied to
fracture the formation in the interval between the packers. Nitrogen gas was used as the
carrier fluid. A double-diaphragm pump was used to deliver the ZVI slurry in to the
nitrogen gas stream creating an aerosol of ZVI. The combined gas and slurry stream were
injected into the formation. When the injection was complete, the PVC sleeve was retracted
upward and the packer and nozzle assembly was positioned for the next injection event.
Following injection, the boreholes were abandoned in place in accordance with standard
operating procedures as described in the Base Master Project Plans. A summary of each
injection location, including injection pressures, H-200 and HC-15 mass, slurry volumes,
pressure influence and surface heave data for each injection point are presented in Tables 1
through 4 of the Field Implementation Summary (Appendix D). A total of 10,160 pounds of
H-200 and 1,188 pounds HC-15 were injected in the six borings, at an averaged injection
pressure of 25 psi.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 2-3
31

SITE 89 TREATAB=SRIDIES REPORT
The Field Implementation Summary (Appendix D) states that limited use of gas during ZVI
injections was required due to the high water table, so a "pulsed" gas approach was
utilized. Analysis of the pressure versus time curves reveals that the formation did not
fracture using this pulsing method. Without fracturing, the ZVI cannot be distributed a
significant distance. Fluidization might be possible, but may also be limited if significant
injection pressures cannot be used or obtained. Therefore, all ZVI is assumed to be within
limited distance (estimate two feet) of the injection boring and not spread across the site as
desired.
2.3.3 Zone of Influence Nbnitoring
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the chemical reduction treatability study to evaluate the zone of influence.
The measurements were made in conjunction with the scheduled sampling events.
Two weeks after the injections, seven confirmation borings were advanced to 25 feet
(Figure 2-1) using DPT by Vironex, a North Carolina-licensed driller, to further assess the
zone of influence. Visual observations and magnetic separation were used to indicate
evaluate the presence of iron in the confirmation borings.
2.4 Installation and Operation of Air Sparge System with HDD
Well
2.4.1 Horizontal Well Installation
The HDD sparge well was installed the week of November 13, 2006. The well was
constructed with a 240-foot long screen, positioned at approximately 40 feet bgs. The total
lineal distance of drilling was approximately 600 feet. The location of the horizontal well is
provided in Figure 1-8.An as-built profile of the horizontal well is shown on Figure 2-2.
The horizontal sparge well was installed by a North Carolina-licensed well driller (Directed
Technologies Drilling), using HDD techniques. Drilling operations included advancing the
pilot hole,reaming the pilot hole, and pullback of well materials. Photographs documenting
field activities from the horizontal sparge well installation are provided in Appendix B-3.
The horizontal well borehole was advanced using a combination of high-pressure, low-
volume fluid cutting and mechanical cutting. A pilot hole was drilled with an entry angle of
approximately 19 degrees and directed downward until it reached 40 feet bgs. The drill
head was then leveled off for the length of the screen and then directed to the surface. The
pilot hole was reamed out to a diameter approximately 1.5 to 2 times the outer diameter
(O.D.) of the well using an 8-inch diameter reamer. The reamer was then attached to pull the
well materials into the hole.
The horizontal well was constructed of standard dimension ratio (SDR)-11 high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) casing and screen, with a nominal diameter of four inches (3.682-inch
I.D.) and 4.50-inch O.D. An open slot design was utilized (i.e., no sand packs, filter screens,
etc.). The screen was slotted longitudinally (0.020-inch slots) to create a single slot zone with
an open area of 0.5%. After the well casing and screen assembly were set, the annulus of the
borehole was sealed with a polyurethane grout seal along 25 feet from either end of the
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 24
32

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUDIES REPORT
slotted section. No gravel pack of filter fabric was installed; natural collapse material was
allowed to fill the annular space around the screen.
Following completion, fresh water mixed with Dry Enzyme Breaker (DEB) and Liquid
Enzyme Breaker (LEB) was pumped into the well to break down the guar gum in the mud
and remove drilling fluid and residual foreign materials. The fluid was allowed to stand
inside the well overnight. The horizontal well was then developed via jetting with
approximately 3,000 gallons of water.
All horizontal well installation activities were coordinated and observed by a JV I field
hydrogeologist and were completed in accordance with the Treatability Studies Work Plan
(JV 1,2006).
2.4.2 Soil Vapor Well Installation
Following the installation of the horizontal well, soil vapor monitoring wells 89-SV01
through 89-SV03 were installed by Probe Technology, Inc. using DPT. Soil vapor monitoring
well 89-SV01 was advanced to a depth of 5.75 feet bgs and soil vapor monitoring wells 89-
SV02 and 89-SV03 were advanced to a depth of 6 feet bgs.
Each soil vapor monitoring well was constructed using one-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC
and completed with one foot of 0.01-inch slotted screen. The annulus of each borehole was
filled with #2 filter (silica) sand extending from the bottom of the borehole to 0.5 feet above
the top of the screen. A three-foot thick bentonite seal was placed above the filter pack. The
remaining annular space of the borehole was grouted to within a few inches of the ground
surface with Portland cement mixed with five percent bentonite. Each soil vapor monitoring
well was completed with flush-mounted permanent 8.5-inch diameter steel casing and
security cover,set in a two-foot square concrete pad. Soil vapor monitoring well completion
diagrams are provided in Appendix E.
2.4.3 Air Sparge System Installation and Operation
A rotary screw air compressor with a capacity of 110 pound per square inch gauge (psig)
was installed the week of December 7, 2006. The compressed air system was stored in a
(lockable) steel shipping container.
Specialized well caps were installed on the monitoring wells within the study area. The
caps, also called breather caps, have a membrane that avoids air pressure from building in
the well by allowing air to escape,while keeping water in the well. The breather caps failed
in wells closest to the horizontal well, where bubbling was observed. Three breather caps
were then replaced with screwed on ball valve caps in order to keep the water within the
well.
The air sparge system was activated on December 8, 2006. The compressed air system was
operated continuously for approximately six months, except for scheduled maintenance,
power failures, or sampling events. During the treatability study period (December 8, 2006
through June 6, 2007), the compressor "up time' was approximately 88.7 percent (based on
run time hours recorded on the compressor programmable logic control [PLC]). The
compressor was shut down from December 15, 2006 to December 29, 2006 to investigate
water discharge into Edwards Creek, which was determined to be unrelated to the
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 2-5
33

SITE 89 TREATAB=SRDIES REPORT
treatability studies at Site 89. This accounts for 7.7 percent of the study time. The other 3.4
percent of downtime was related to turning the system off to conduct monitoring.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) visits were conducted on a weekly basis. Compressor
air pressure, receiver tank air pressure, sparge pressure, compressed air flow rate, and
compressor hours were recorded during each O&M visit. The air flow rate ranged from 79
to 92 cubic feet per minute (cfm) with an average of 81 cfm and was at a pressure of 5 to 20
psig with an average of 10.3 psig.
2.4.4 Pneumatic Fracturing
After operating the air sparge system for three months,pneumatic fracturing was completed
in four borings spaced 50 feet apart along the axis of the horizontal sparge well screen, as
shown on Figure 2-3. Fracturing was performed at 3 foot intervals, over a vertical span of
12.5 feet (from 25 to 12.5 feet bgs). Pneumatic fracturing was completed to evaluate the
potential for improving air sparging performance in the dense materials of the Surficial
Aquifer. Pneumatic pressure ranged from 80 to 400 psi. A summary of each injection
location, including injection pressures, pressure influence, and surface heave data are
presented in the Pneumatic Fracturing Field Implementation Summary (Appendix F).
Short circuiting of gas occurred around the downhole injection tooling at the end of each
injection event. The Pneumatic Fracturing Field Implementation Summary (Appendix F)
states that short circuiting did not render the fracturing ineffective because each discrete
interval was fractured for at least 10 seconds and achieved flow rates averaging 2,000
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm),which is sufficient to initiate and propagate fractures.
2.4.5 Zone of Influence Nbnitoring
Water levels and field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were
measured in wells associated with the air sparging treatability study to evaluate the zone of
influence. The measurements were made in conjunction with the scheduled sampling
events.
To further assess the zone of influence, a tracer test was conducted. Sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6) was blended into the air stream for approximately 48 hours from March 21, 2007 to
March 23, 2007 to evaluate the zone of influence of the air sparge system prior to pneumatic
fracturing. S176 was again blended into the air stream following pneumatic fracturing to
determine if fracturing resulted in additional distribution.
2.5 Installation of Permeable Reactive Barrier
The PRB was installed on December 18, 2006. A continuous trenching machine was used to
excavate the trench. The machine operated a cutting chain in front of a trench box boot that
extended the trench as the machine advanced. A hopper on the trenching machine delivered
the mulch/sand mixture to the boot, immediately backfilling the trench. The PRB, as shown
on Figure 1-8,is 200 feet long,2 feet wide,and 25 feet deep.
The PRB was comprised of approximately 40 percent mulch (reactive medium) and 60
percent sand (aggregate). Approximately 200 cubic yards of mulch,provided by MCB Camp
Lejeune,was loaded into trucks and transferred to the site.The mulch consisted of a mixture
P:\EBL\NAVYCLE:AN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIIITYSTLDYREPORT-
FKALDOC 2-6
34

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
of compost material, including grass clippings, wood chips, and horse manure.
Approximately 480 cubic yards of sand, also provided by MCB Camp Lejeune, was utilized
as aggregate. A back hoe was used to mix the mulch and sand, which was then poured into
the hopper. The PRB was covered with a polypropylene woven monofilament fabric
geotextile (Clearfilter 330W) and three feet of soil (reserved from the excavation and from
the Base borrow pit) to prevent infiltration.
A horizontal pipe was installed at the bottom of the trench to facilitate future injections of
oil or another substrate in this area if needed. The 2-inch diameter HDPE SDR 11 slotted
pipe extends across the length of the trench. A HDPE riser connects to the horizontal pipe at
each end.
2.6 Treatability Studies Nbnitoring
Chlorinated VOCs were monitored throughout the treatability studies. Additionally, select
parameters particular to the PRB and ERD study performance were monitored.
2.6.1 Groundwater Nbnitoring
The monitoring plan for the four treatability studies addressed groundwater at various
intervals during the study, as described below. All groundwater monitoring activities were
conducted in accordance with the Treatability Studies Work Plan (CH2M HILL, 2006) and
the MCB, Camp Lejeune Master Project Plans, as summarized below. Table 2-2 summarizes
the analytes,analytical methods,and laboratories associated with each sampling event.
ERD Treatability Study
Three new monitoring wells: 89-MW53, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55; and two existing
monitoring wells: 89-MW08 and 89-MW44 were monitored during the ERD treatability
study. Groundwater monitoring included a baseline event, followed by three sampling
events as detailed in Table 1-1.
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Groundwater samples associated with the ERD treatability study were additionally sampled
for dissolved gases (methane, ethane, ethene) by RSK 175; chloride, nitrate, nitrite, and
sulfate by EPA Method 300.0; alkalinity by EPA Method 310.1; phosphorous by EPA
Method 365.1; Total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon by EPA Method
415.1; and microorganisms (dehalococcoides [DHC], dehalobacter, desulfuromonas,
methanotrophs, and initial polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon [PAH] aerobics) by real-time
polymerase chain reaction (gPCR) analysis.
Chemical Reduction TreatabiliN Study
Three new monitoring wells: 89-MW50, 89-MW51, and 89-MW52; and two existing
monitoring wells: 89-MW01 and 89-MW02 were monitored during the chemical reduction
treatability study. Groundwater monitoring included a baseline event, followed by three
sampling events as detailed in Table 1-1.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 2-7
35

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Air Sparge Treatabilitp Study
Five new monitoring wells: 89-MW43B, 89-MW48A, 89-MW48B, 89-MW49A, and
89-MW49B; and three existing monitoring wells: 89-MW32, 89-MW33, and 89-MW43 were
monitored during the air sparging treatability study. Groundwater monitoring included a
baseline event prior to system start-up, followed by six monthly sampling events conducted
during air sparge operations as detailed in Table 1-1.
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Groundwater samples associated with the air sparge treatability study were additionally
analyzed for SF6, as described in Section 2.4.5.
PRB Treatability Study
Seven new monitoring wells: 89-MW56, 89-MW57, 89-MW58, 89-MW59, 89-MW60, 89-
MW61, and 89-MW62; and four existing monitoring wells: 89-MW09, 89-MW28, 89-MW30,
and 89-MW45 were monitored during the PRB treatability study. Groundwater monitoring
included a baseline event,followed by three sampling events as detailed in Table 1-1.
Three of the new monitoring wells, 89-MW59 through 89-MW61, were installed within the
PRB; therefore,baseline monitoring was delayed until immediately following construction.
All groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Groundwater samples associated with the PRB treatability study were also additionally
sampled for TOC and dissolved organic carbon.
2.6.2 Soil Vapor Nbnitoring
Due to the presence of buildings around the air sparge treatability study, three soil vapor
wells (89-SV01, 89-SV02, and 89-SV03) were installed and monitored over the duration of
the study. Soil vapor monitoring included a baseline event, followed by six monthly
sampling events as detailed in Table 1-1.
Soil vapor samples were collected with a Summa canister by attaching Teflon tubing
permanently located in each well. Samples were collected in appropriately labeled
containers. Soil vapor samples remained in the presence of a JV1 project representative
until delivery to the laboratory via overnight carrier. A chain-of-custody (COC) record was
used to maintain a record of personnel who had contact with the samples. Soil vapor
samples were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method TO-15.
All soil vapor monitoring data were evaluated using the Draft Guidance for Evaluating the
Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (USEPA, 2002). The
soil vapor data were first compared to generic screening criteria based on a 1 in 100,000
cancer risk and residential land use to determine whether the potential exists for vapor
intrusion to result in unacceptable indoor inhalation risks. If VOC concentrations exceeded
the generic screening criteria by a factor of 50, in accordance with EPA's guidance, site-
specific screening criteria were calculated for these compounds using the Johnson and
Ettinger model based on industrial land use assumptions.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 2-8
36

Tables
37

Table 2-1
Nbnitoring Well Construction Details
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
NUB Camp Ujeune,North Carolina
Study Area Well ID Date of Total Depth Screen Interval
Installation (feet bgs) (feet bgs)
Air Sparge with HDD IR89-MW32 1/31/2004 14 4-14
IR89-MW33 1/31/2004 14 4-14
IR89-MW43 10/11/2005 23 18-23
IR89-MW43B 11/18/2006 30 25-30
IR89-MW48A 11/18/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW48B 11/14/2006 30 25-30
IR89-MW49A 11/17/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW49B 11/17/2006 30 25-30
Chemical Reduction IR89-MW01 6/22/1994 13.3 3.3-13.3
with ZVI IR89-MW02 6/22/1994 14 4-14
IR89-MW50 11/14/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW51 11/14/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW52 11/14/2006 25 20-25
ERD IR89-MW08 1/28/2004 15 5-15
IR89-MW44 10/11/2005 23 18-23
IR89-MW53 11/13/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW54 11/13/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW55 11/13/2006 25 20-25
PRB IR89-MW09 6/29/1999 15 5-15
IR89-MW28 5/13/2003 15 5-15
IR89-MW30 5/13/2003 15 5-15
IR89-MW45 10/11/2005 23 18-23
IR89-MW56 12/27/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW57 12/27/2006 30 30-35
IR89-MW58 12/27/2006 25 20-25
IR89-MW59 12/26/2006 20 15-20
IR89-MW60 1/10/2007 20 15-20
IR89-MW61 12/26/2006 20 15-20
IR89-MW62 12/28/2006 25 20-25
38

TABLE 2-2
Sumrnary ofTreatability Study Sample Analyses
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report,N"Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Chloride, Nitrate,
VOCs Methane, Ethane, Nitrite, Sulfate Alkalinity Phosphorous TOC/DOC Microorganisms SF6
Treatability Study Date of Sampling Event (826013) Ethene (RSK 175) (300.0) (310.1) (365.1) (415.1) (gPCR)
ERD Nov-06 Baseline X X X X X
January-07 1-Month X X X X X
Mar-07 3-Month X I X X I X X I X X
Jun-07 6-Month X X X X X X X
Chemical Reduction Nov-06 Baseline X
January-07 1-Month X
Mar-07 3-Month X
Jun-07 6-Month X
Air Sparge Nov-06 Baseline X
Jan-07 1-Month X
Feb-07 2-Month X
Mar-07 3-Month X X
May-07 4-Month X X
Jun-07 5-Month X
Jul-07 6-Month X
PRB Dec-06 Initial X
Jan-07 1-Month X
Mar-07 3-Month X X
Jun-07 6-Month X X
Notes:
1. Samples collected for analysis by RSK 175 and EPA Methods 8260B, 300.0, 310.1, and 365.1 between November 2006 and January 2007 were submitted to Pace
Analytical Services of Huntersville, North Carolina
2. Samples collected for analysis by RSK 175 and EPA Methods 8260B, 300.0, 310.1, 365.1, and 415.1 between February 2007 and July 2007 were submitted to Empirical
Labs, Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee.
3. Samples collected for analysis of SF6 were submitted to MicroSeeps Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
4. Samples collected for analysis of microorganisms were submitted to Microbial Insights, Inc., of Rockford, Tennessee.
39

Figures
40

v:a hrodite\ roects\USNavFaceNGCom\315007Cam Leeune\Proects\Site89 FSTi ure 2-1 ChemicalReduction and Enhanced Red uctiveDechlorinationTreatabilit Studies lettersize.mxd
r
'
f o _
U t ,
o
It
STC8 t
IR89-ZV11 IR89-M W 50 �
IR89-MW03 �
IR89-F-CS8 IR89-ZVI2 .4
IR89-F-CS6 IR89-ZVI4R1 i
QA IR89 ZVI4R2 ►-
7�i IR89-F-CS7
IR89-ZV13 - '9
TC8 5 IR89-MW52 IR89-F-CS3 i
IR89-F-CS5 IR89�F?CS2 ° � '
IR89aYIW13 - IR89,ZVI4 IR89-F-CS1 '/ } ,
mIR89-MW02 .
IR89-MW40 I
U O t
IR89-MW53 !1
IR89-CS6 ,
• IR89aYIW08 �r�' .
IR89-ERD1 e II
} �„_ �IR89-ERD2 -• 1
-�• `_ �_ � IR89-CS5
IR89-M W44
®i� � � IR89-ERD3 IR89-CS7 ..
IR89-MW10 - _ •IR89-CSQ IR89-CS4
IR89�CS2 IR89-ERD40 SB-01
IR89-CS9 IR89-MW54 t
t�� IR89-CS3
CAN
IR89-CS8
• � IR89-MW55
'• IR89-MW04
f IR89-MW45 1
IR89-MW19 � _
IR89aYIW31
CAN
IR89-MW62 '
IR89-MW24 IR89-MW56 —
IR89-MW37 - •��Y' . '.1,
(AN
IR89-MW25
IR89-MW59 �
IR89-MW26
IR89-MW16 IR89-MW28
IR89-MW60
IR89-MW57
IR89auIW09
IR89-MW58 /
IR89-MW29
IR89-MW61
IR89-MW30
Aerial Photograph taken Feb.2004
Legend N Figure 2-1
A Soil Gas Wells PRB W+E Chemical Reduction and Enhanced Reductive
• Confirmation Sample Locations — Streams Dechlorination Treatability Studies
• ERD Injection Locations S Site 89 Treatability Studies Work Plan
• Ferox Pneumatic Fracture Locations 0 50 100 MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
® Monitoring Well Locations M06iiiiiiiiiil Feet A G V I O
O GeoProbe Soil Boring Locations 41 1 inch= 100 feet CH2M HILL

PROFILE
Urethane Seal Beginning of Screen End of Screen Urethane Seal
South East --100'from top of casing 205 feet from top of casing 455 feet from top of casing -100'from End of casing North West
0.0
10.0
> 20.0
LU w 30.0
40.0
w 50.0
m "
60.0
C 70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r N co CO
Horizontal Distance from Entry(ft)
IR89-MW33
TC875
1� Y
TC860
IR89-MW43A
IRS MW436 -_ -
TC864
s �
9 03
IR89-MW48A
IR89-MW48B '
IR89-MW49A , -
866 IR89-MW496"
IR89-MW32
r . �
TC865
_ r -
a
IR89 MW12
TC861 y
IR89-M W 10
TC952
Aerial Photograph taken Feb.2004
Legend N
Soil Gas Wells W E
Monitoring Well Locations
HDD Sparge Well Screen s
Horizontal Directionally Drilled Well 0 35 70
Feet
1 inch=70 feet
Figure 2-2
HDD Well As-Built Profile
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
A G V 1
CH2M HILT_
42
ES092007009SAC Figure_2-2.ai 10/16/2007 afint

V:A hrodite\Pro'ects\USNavFaceNGCom\315007Cam Le'eune\Pro'ects\Site89 FS\Fi ure 2-3 Pneumatic Fracturing Locations.mxd
,. IR89-MW33 -
!6SB-i815
875
. M -
OAN
. � r
-
W -
;;�
IR89-MW43A
IR89-MW43B
TC864
IR89-MW48A
IR89-MW48B
IR89-MW_49A
� 866'
IR894MW49B
CA,
IR89-MW32
a:
r � r• 4 � 1% .2
i�
r
O U
t �L IR89-MW12
TC861
}
1
- IR89-MW70 J
TC952
Aerial Photograph taken Feb.2004 r
Legend N Figure 2-3
A Soil Gas Wells W E Pneumatic Fracturing Locations-Air Sparge Treatability Study
® Monitoring Well Locations Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
O GeoProbe Soil Boring Locations s MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
• Pneumatic Fracturing Locations 0 35 70
HDD Sparge Well Screen M006iiiiiiiiiii Feet A G V 1 0
Horizontal Directionally Drilled Well 1 inch=704Met CH2M HILL

SECTION 3
Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Evaluation
3.1 Results
3.1.1 Bromide Tracer
As described in Section 2.2.3, sodium bromide was blended into the substrate prior to
injection as a tracer. Results of the confirmation sampling event are shown in Table 3-1.
Bromide concentrations were consistently higher in the shallow groundwater sample,
indicating that substrate was more easily distributed in this zone. Bromide was positively
detected above background concentrations in shallow groundwater samples up to 30 feet
away from an injection location. Bromide was positively detected above background
concentrations in deep groundwater samples up to 20 feet away from an injection location.
3.1.2 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the ERD treatability study during each groundwater sampling event to
evaluate the distribution of substrate. Field parameters are presented in Table 3-2. DO
measurements appear to be high (up to 7.2 milligrams per liter [mg/L]); however, DO
measurements have a higher occurrence of being unreliable; therefore, DO will not be
considered in this evaluation. Specific conductivity and pH did not reveal meaningful
trends and will not be discussed further.
ORP trends within the ERD treatability study monitoring wells are presented in Figure 3-1.
During the baseline sampling event, ORP measurements in the ERD treatability study
monitoring wells ranged from -31 millivolts (mV) to 116 mV. Following ERD substrate
injection, ORP generally decreased. Three months following ERD injection, all of the
monitoring wells exhibited ORP less than -50 mV. During the final sampling event (6
months),ORP measurements in representative wells ranged from-250 mV to-204 mV.
During implementation, In-situ Multi-Parameter Troll 9000 data loggers were installed in
monitoring wells 89-MW53 and 89-MW54 to evaluate the response of subsurface conditions
to the ERD injections.
Monitoring well 89-MW53, located approximately 38 feet upgradient, was selected for
monitoring during injections because of its position relative to the injections. Specific
conductivity and ORP stabilized immediately following installation. As shown on
Figure 3-2, variations in ORP were recorded during each injection, indicating that
subsurface conditions were being influenced. Following injections, ORP stabilized around -
650 mV. These ORP measurements vary significantly from those observed during the
groundwater sampling events; however the relative decreasing trends are consistent.
Approximately four days following the final ERD injection, ORP fluctuated from-150 mV to
-700 mV, and then re-stabilized around -700 mV. Specific conductivity showed fluctuation
approximately eight days following the final ERD injection. While these results indicate that
P:\EBU\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINAL.DOC 3-1
44

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
some stimulus prompted a response in the subsurface conditions at four and eight days
following the injections, these are considered an anomaly and not directly related to the
ERD injections.
Monitoring well 89-MW54 is located approximately 33 feet downgradient of the ERD
injections. Similar to 89-MW53, specific conductivity and ORP fluctuated during each
injection. Immediately following the final ERD injection, the specific conductivity steadily
increased for ten days, peaking around 1,050 microsiemens per centimeter (µS/cm), and
then decreased thereafter. Following injections, the ORP stabilized around -420 mV, and
then began to decrease approximately eight days following the final injection (Figure 3-3).
As with 89-MW53, these ORP measurements vary significantly from those observed during
the groundwater sampling events; however the relative decreasing trends are consistent.
Reactions observed eight to ten days following the final injection are considered anomalies
and not directly related to the ERD injections.
The data logger manufacturer, In-Situ, indicated that deploying the data logger in or
through vegetable oil can coat and clog the sensors, providing inaccurate results. This
indicates that the substrate was distributed to the wells with the data loggers, and may
account for the significant variation of results recorded by the data loggers versus those
collected during the groundwater sampling events.
3.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results
Groundwater analytical results associated with the ERD treatability study, including VOCs
and natural attenuation indicator parameters, are presented in Table 3-2 and Appendix G-1.
The subsurface microbial populations were analyzed in March and June 2007, three and six
months following injection of ERD substrate, to assist with the evaluation of the ERD
treatability study. Microbial analytical results obtained during the ERD treatability study
are presented in Table 3-3 and Appendix H. These results are evaluated in Section 3.2.2.
3.2 Evaluation
3.2.1 Radius of Influence
The results of the bromide tracer study indicate that the radius of influence of the ERD
injections was at least 30 feet at 15 ft bgs and at least 20 feet at 25 ft bgs. Variations in ORP
readings measured during each injection by the data logger placed in 89-MW54 indicate that
the radius of influence is at least 33 feet. The maximum radius of influence is estimated to be
approximately 35 feet from an injection. Based on this evaluation, monitoring well 89-
MW08, located approximately 60 feet from an ERD injection location, is outside the
treatability study zone of influence. Therefore, data collected from 89-MW08 are not
representative and will not be considered further.
Monitoring well 89-MW53 is located approximately 33 feet hydraulically sidegradient of the
treatability study area. Based on the above evaluation, 89-MW53 is expected to be within the
radius of influence; however, as shown on Figure 3-1, ORP measurements in 89-MW53 did
not follow the same pattern as those in the other monitoring wells. ORP measurements
recorded by the data logger suggest that an external factor is influencing this well, as
described in Section 3.1.2. Additionally, 89-MW53 is the only well within the treatability
P:\EBU\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FII IAL.DOC 3-2
45

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
study to have very high concentrations of TCE (peaking at 52,000 micrograms per liter
[µg/L]) and it exhibited an overall increase in TCE concentrations over the monitoring
period. The TCE concentration in 89-MW53 increased 173% over the course of the
treatability study. It is possible that 89-MW53 is located within a stringer and a small
amount of product was mobilized or desorption off soil occurred. For these reasons, data
collected from this well are not considered representative and will not be analyzed further.
A radius of influence of approximately 35 feet is 40% greater than the expected radius of
influence of 25 feet, as assumed during the dosage calculation. This suggests that substrate
may be flowing preferentially through more permeable stringers, which could result in
rebounding once subsurface conditions equilibrate.
3.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness
3.2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
During the baseline sampling event, PCA concentrations ranged from 2.2 µg/L to 20 µg/L.
Within the first month after ERD substrate injection, PCA concentrations in monitoring
wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55 decreased (Figure 3-4). For the remainder of the
monitoring period,PCA was generally not detected above method reporting limits.
During the baseline sampling event, TCE concentrations ranged from 110 µg/L to 360 µg/L
in wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55 (Figure 3-5). Within the first month after ERD
substrate injection, TCE concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW54 and 89-MW55
decreased, while TCE concentrations in 89-MW44 increased. The groundwater sample
collected from 89-MW44 during this sampling event was described as milky white,
suggesting that EVO was present. The EVO may have preferentially extracted, or
sequestered, the TCE from the soil. If substrate was collected in the groundwater for
analysis, the TCE concentration would appear higher. This may explain the increase in TCE
observed in 89-MW44 during the first month. For the remainder of the monitoring period,
TCE concentrations generally decreased in 89-MW44. Over the course of the monitoring
period, TCE concentrations decreased 94.4%, 98.8%, and 99.4% in monitoring wells 89-
MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55,respectively.
Analysis of TCE daughter products DCE and vinyl chloride suggests that reductive
dechlorination is occurring within the ERD treatability study, as shown in Figures 3-6 and
3-7. The DCE concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55
increased within the first month following ERD substrate injection. Between the one and six
month monitoring events, DCE concentrations decreased, while vinyl chloride
concentrations increased.
3.2.2.2 Total Organic Carbon
Carbon is the energy source that drives dechlorination. TOC concentrations exceeding 20
mg/L are generally indicative that sufficient energy is available for dechlorination to
proceed.
TOC in monitoring wells 89-MW44 and 89-MW54 peaked one month following substrate
injection at 250 mg/L and 34 mg/L, respectively, then declined, suggesting that carbon was
being consumed (Figure 3-8). This is generally consistent with decreasing TCE
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 3-3
46

SITE 89 TREATAB=SRIDIES REPORT
concentrations. The TOC concentration in monitoring well 89-MW55 peaked three months
following substrate injection at 41.9 mg/L, then declined. These results may suggest that
the lactate was consumed rather quickly in the system. The EVO should be retained in the
formation for an extended period of time. However, since it is slow release, little
measurable TOC may be present.
3.2.2.3 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
Nitrate, sulfate, methane, alkalinity, and chloride were measured in ERD monitoring wells
over the course of the study to determine if the conditions are favorable for biodegradation.
Natural attenuation indicator parameters (NAIPs) are presented in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-9.
In representative wells 89-MW44, 89-MW54, and 89-MW55, nitrate concentrations are
initially less than 0.21 mg/L and sulfate concentrations are less than 39 mg/L. The low
concentrations suggest that there should not be major competition for electron donors.
Alkalinity concentrations increased at least one order of magnitude in each of the
representative wells, indicating that carbon dioxide is being released and anaerobic
biodegradation is taking place. Methane was detected in each of the representative wells,
which also suggests that anaerobic degradation is taking place.
Monitoring well 89-MW53 exhibited each of these characteristics as well, indicating that
conditions are favorable for reductive dechlorination. Reductive dechlorination was not
observed in 89-MW53 during this study, possibly because the high contaminant
concentrations masked any measurable change.
3.2.2.4 Mcroorganisms
Microbiological data collected from monitoring well 89-MW44 indicate a significant increase
in the population of important dehalogenating bacteria, such as DHC, between March and
June 2007. Counts of DHC increased from 4.7E+01 cells per milliliter (ml) in March to
6.32E+04 cells per ml in June 2007, an increase of 3 orders of magnitude. DHC are known to
be capable of converting TCE to ethane and the increase in DHC generally coincides with
the period during which DCE concentrations decreased.
Microbial data collected from monitoring well 89-MW54 also indicate a significant increase
in the population of DHC between March and June 2007. Counts of DHC increased from
5.03E+04 cells per ml in March to 4.56E+06 cells per ml in June 2007.
Analysis of microbial data indicates the presence of dehalogenating bacteria. The data also
suggest that the native bacterial consortium at the site is capable of completely
dechlorinating TCE. Analysis of microbial data suggests that if ERD were implemented on
a full-scale basis at the site, bioaugmentation would not be required. These interpretations
are only applicable to initial TCE concentrations ranging from 110 µg/L to 360 µg/L.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 34
47

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
3.3 Design Parameters
3.3.1 Conceptual asign
This conceptual design is based on site conditions observed before initiation of the
treatability studies. Prior to any complete design, a full round of sampling would be
required to capture current site conditions.
Although a 35-foot radius of influence was observed during the treatability study, it is
expected that substrate flowed through higher permeability zones preferentially. To achieve
full distribution of substrate, full scale implementation is based on a 25-foot radius of
influence. Full scale implementation of ERD would require approximately 180 to 220
injection locations. Substrate would be injected from 15 to 30 feet bgs to treat the known
zone of contamination. Similar to the treatability study, 3,050 pounds of EVO and 3,300
pounds of sodium lactate would be injected at each location, totaling approximately 137,000
to 168,000 pounds of EVO and 149,000 to 182,000 pounds of sodium lactate across the site.
Substrate would be diluted in the field to create a four-to-one dilution and chased with
approximately 1,200 gallons of water at each location.
3.4 Cost
The total cost of the ERD treatability study was $83,000: $60,000 for implementation and
$23,000 for monitoring.
3.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the ERD treatability study,the following conclusions can be made:
• The radius of influence of the ERD injection was estimated to be 35 feet from an injection
location. A slightly more conservative radius of influence of 25 ft could be used for scale
design.
• Analysis of field parameters, daughter products, NAIPs, and microorganisms suggests
that reductive dechlorination occurred.
• Injection of lactate and EVO was effective at Site 89, as evidenced by mass reduction in
contaminant concentrations,for initial TCE concentrations ranging from 110 µg/L to 360
µg/L. It is impossible to determine if similar results would have been achieved in
higher concentration areas with a similar approach. Multiple injections over a longer
time period may have been required to see significant reductions.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 3-5
48

Tables
49

Table 3-1
Bromide Results-ERDConfinnation Sampling
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Well/Boring ID Location of Boring Depth of Sample(ft bgs) Bromide Concentration
(ppm)
Two weeks following injections
CS-1 15' south of ERD-3 15 0.893
25 0.587
CS-2 20' south of ERD-3 15 0.494
25 0.294
CS-3 30' south of ERD-4 15 0.165
25 0.080
CS-4 30' east of ERD-4 15 0.100
25 0.009
CS-5 35' east of ERD-2 15 0.021
25 0.018
CS-6 25' north of ERD-2 15 0.378
CS-7 Midway between ERD-2 and ERD-4 and 15 0.578
25' east of ERD-2 and ERD-4 25 0.083
CS-8 25' southeast of ERD-4 15 0.220
25 0.184
CS-9 30' south of ERD-3 15 0.089
25 0.013
Three months following injections
89-MW08 54' northeast of ERD-2 5-15 0.071
89-MW33 Background 4-14 0.097
89-MW34 Background 4-14 0.087
89-MW44 15' northwest of ERD-3 18-23 0.968
89-MW53 36' north of ERD-1 20-25 0.912
89-MW54 30' southeast of ERD-4 20-25 0.378
89-MW55 54' south of ERD-4 20-25 0.108
Six months following injections
89-MW08 54' northeast of ERD-2 5-15 0.030
89-MW44 15' northwest of ERD-3 18-23 0.840
89-MW53 36' north of ERD-1 20-25 0.094
89-MW54 30' southeast of ERD-4 20-25 0.773
89-MW55 54' south of ERD-4 20-25 0.120
50

TABLE 3-2
Detected Concentrations of VOCs,Wet Chemistry,and Field Parameters in Groundwater Within the ERD Treatability Study
Site 89 Treatability Studies
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID NC2LGW IR89-MW08 IR89-MW44 IR89-MW53 IR89-MW54 IR89-MW55
Semple ID
(December200 IR89-GWOS-06D IR89-GW08-07A IR89-GW08-07A2 IR89-GWOS-07B IR89-GW44-O6D IR89-GW44-07A IR89-GW44-07A2 IR89-GW44-07B IR89-GW53-06D IR89-GW53-07A IR89-GW53-07A2 IR89-GW53-07B IR89-GW54-06D IR89-GW54-07A IR89-GW54-07A2 IR89-GW54-076 IR89-GW55-06D IR89-GW55-07A IR89-GW55-07A2 IR89-GW55-076
5)
Sample Date 11/17/06 01/03/07 03/15/07 06/07/07 11/18/06 01/02/07 03/15/07 06/07/07 11/18/06 01/03/07 03/15/07 06/07/07 11/18/06 01/03/07 03/15/07 06/07/07 11/18/06 01/03/07 03/15/07 06/07/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Telrachloroethene 0.17 1 1 U 5 U 1 U 500 U 200 U 180 J 0.16 J 0.17 J 1 U 1 U 1 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethene 2.2 3 J 2.4 2.8 1 U 1 U 5 U 1 U 76 J 500 U 180 J 400 U t U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 1.2 1 J 0.82 J 0.49 J 2.4 5 4.3 J 2.8 6.7 J 500 U 200 U 400 U 2.7 3.6 6 0.76 J 2.7 2.8 1 U 1.1
1,2-Dichloroethene 0.38 1 U 1 U 0.34 J 0.31 J t U 1 U 5 U 1 U t U 500 U 200 U 400 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
2-Butanone 4,2001 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 5 U 42 50 U 10 U 5 U 2,500 U 2,000 U 4,000 U 5 U 14 10 U 10 U 5 U 5 U 41 10 U
2-Hexanone 280 NA NA 5 U 5 U NA NA 25 U 5 U NA NA 11000 U 2,000 U NA NA 5 U 5 U NA NA 3.9 J 5 U
-Methyl-2-pentanone NA NA 5 U 5 U NA NA 25 U 5 U NA NA 11000 U 2,000 U NA NA 5 U 5 U NA NA 1.4 J 5 U
Acetone 700 25 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 25 U 29 J 10 U 25 U 12,000 U 2,000 U 4,000 U 25 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 25 U 15 10 U
Benzene 1 1 U 1 U 0.89 J 0.78 J 1 U 1 U 5 U 0.25 J 1 U 500 U 200 U 400 U 1 U 1 U 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 018,1 1 U
Isopropylbenzene 70 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 5 U 1 U 1 U 500 U 200 U 400 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Methyl acetate NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 5 U 1 U NA NA 200 U 400 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1 U
Methylene chloride 4.61 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 11 2 U 2 U 11000 U 460 800 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U
Naphthalene 21 1 U 1.2 J NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 500 U NA NA t U 1 U NA NA t U 1 U NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 3.6 6.1 J 2.8 4.1 2 9.1 5 U 1 U 74 J 500 U 230 270 J 1.9 1 U 0.25 J 1 U 1.9 1 U 1 U 1 U
Toluene 1,000 1 U 1 U t U 1 U t U 1 U 5 U 1 U 1.2 J 500 U 200 U 400 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Trichloroethene 2.8 110 110 J 66 78 360 670 290 0 11,000 J 52,000 36,000 30,000 320 3 140 3.8 5.8 0.33 J 1.9
Vinyl chloride 0.015 27 27 J 31 jiIIIIIIIIIIIII. 40 3 34 540 170 34 J 500 U 450 310 J 4.1 4.7 61 50 5.2
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 140 160 J 100 20 270 800 750 95 1,100 J 4,700 3,500 3,300 260 600 130 24 610 1.3 7.8
p-Isopropyltoluene 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA t U 500 U NA NA 1 U 8.4 NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 66 87 J 47 61 10 81 32 2.1 9,500 1 1,200 1,100 16 14 7 1.6 11 12 1 U 0.47 J
Field Parameters
Temperature(°C) 19.58 17.79 15.26 20.37 22.03 19.47 20.09 22.63 20.99 21.26 20.07 21.31 20.52 19.61 19.88 20.85 21.30 19.21 19.93 21.14
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 6.61 4.3 3.58 2.02 5.5 4.66 1.79 7.2 5.52 3.62 2.58 1.02 5.58 4.43 2.60 1.42 5.17 3.81 1.24 0.36
ORP(mV) 271 293 248 227 116 -198 -148 -204 -13 10 -103 -84 -9 -194 -230 -241 -31 -182 -246 -258
pH 4.37 4.8 4.77 4.44 7.06 7.06 7.01 6.81 7.00 6.83 7.17 6.85 7.14 7.21 7.34 6.97 7.04 7.11 7.29 7.06
Specific Conductivity(pS/cm) 300 370 320 290 513 1000 631 700 612 666 475 613 553 779 504 662 544 695 890 920
Turbidity(NTU) 17.7 0 4.3 39.2 0 0 600 443 10.2 0.0 2.7 20.9 0.0 0.0 19.9 31.7 36.4 0.0 5.0 45.7
Wet Chemistry(MG_L)
Alkalinity 5 U 6 6.7 2.9 24 2,000 1,220 369 28 300 210 263 25 420 236 307 25 370 434 431
Chloride 250 39 41 30.9 33.2 14 20 15.9 15.7 28 42 25.8 28.4 15 17 12 12 14 14 11.7 11.8
Dissolved organic carbon NA NA 2.5 3 NA NA 13.2 9.4 NA NA 0.99 J 1 J NA NA 1.4 J 7.2 NA NA 41.6 2.2
Ethane NA NA 0.0019 0.0024 NA NA 4.00E-05 6.00E-04 J NA NA 4.30E-04 1.00E-03 U NA NA 0.0011 0.0017 NA NA 0.012 0.005
Ethane NA NA 8.10E-04 0.0014 NA NA 0.076 0.2 NA NA 0.0024 0.0013 NA NA 0.035 0.072 NA NA 0.015 0.0011
Methane NA NA 0.31 0.77 NA NA 0.66 1.2 NA NA 0.21 0.063 NA NA 0.078 0.31 NA NA 7 1.1
Nitrate 10 NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U NA NA 0.1 U 0.43 NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U NA NA 0.1 U 0.076 J
Nitrogen' 0.1 U 0.1 U NA NA 0.21 0.1 U NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U NA NA 0.17 0.1 U NA NA
Phosphorus 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.06 U 0.06 U 0.128 1.63 1.6 0.36 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.058 J 0.024 J 0.1 U 0.188 0.14 0.18 0.102 0.151 0.19 0.17
MSuHate 250 58 57 51.8 56 36 5 U 1.6 1.1 15 9.5 6.4 14.8 38 5 U 18.4 4 39 5 U 0.18 J 2.1
anic carbon(TOC) 5.2 5.3 2.4 2.9 2.1 250 14 9.4 3.4 3.6 0.8 J 0.81 J 3.2 34 1.3 J 6.9 2.4 21 41.9 2.2
Notes:
1.Nitrate and nitrite reported as nitrogen
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
NA-Not Analyzed
Shading represents exceedance of NC2LGW
Screening Criteria
NC2LGW-North Carolina Groundwater
Quality Standards
Page 1 of 1
51

TABLE 3-3
Detected Concentrations of Dechlorinating Bacteria
Site 89 Treatability Studies
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID IR89-MW33 I IR89-MW34 IR89-MW44 IR89-MW54
Sample ID IR89-GW33-07A IR89-GW34-07A IR89-GW44-07A IR89-GW44-07B IR89-GW54-07A IR89-GW54-07B
Sample Date 03/08/07 03/08/07 03/07/07 06/07/07 03/07/07 06/07/07
Microorganism Name
(cells/mL)
Dehalococcoides spp 1.81E+01 7.09E+01 4.70E+01 6.32E+04 5.03E+04 4.56E+06
Desulfuromonas spp 5.00E-01 U 5.00E-01 U 1.54E+04 7.14E+04 2.31E+02 2.77E+04
Dehalobacter spp 5.06E+02 1.95E+02 7.74E+03 3.16E+04 2.55E+02 6.86E+00
Notes:
U-analyte not detected
cells/mL-cells per milliliter
Page 1 of 1
52

Figures
53

150
100
50
0
10/1 2006 29/2 1/18 07 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/ 007
> U
-50
0
w
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Date
IfIR89-MW44 IR89-MW54 --)K--IR89-MW55 --*--IR89-MW53 Figure 3-1
P Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
54

0
11/27 2006 11/29/2006 12/1/2006 12/3/2006 12/5/2006 12/7/2006 12/9/2006 12/11/2006 12/13/2006 12/15/2006 12/17/2006
-100
-200
-300
E
a -400
O
-500
-600
-700
-800
Date
—ORP HERD 1 Injection ERD 4 Injection HERD 2 Injection HERD 3 Injection Figure 3-2
�9-MW53 Data Logger ORP
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
55

200
100
0
11/2 2006 11/27/2006 11/29/2006 12/1/2006 12/3/2006 12/5/2006 12/7/2006 12/9/2006 12/11/2006 12/13/2006 12/15/2006 12/17 2006
-100
E
a -200
O
-300
-400
-500
-600
Date
—ORP —ERD 1 Injection ERD 4 Injection ERD 2 Injection —ERD 3 Injection
Figure 3-3
89-MW54 Data Logger ORP
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
56

25
20
J
cm
' 15
CF
r
L (/)
O
C1 U
C N
0
v 10 0
a �
v w
a
5
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
(IR89-MW44 IR89-MW54 IR89-MW55 Figure 3-4
PCA Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
57

1000
900
800
700
J
'- 600
C
O
ca
m
500
c c:
U O
w 400
U ')
H —
300 w
w
200
100
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
f I R89-M W44 I R89-M W 54 I R89-M W 55
— Figure 3-5
TCE Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
58

1800
1600
1400
1200
0
M a:
c 1000
0 0
w �
L LU
800
C
O
U
600
400
200
0
11/18/2006 1/2/2007 3/15/2007 6/7/2007
Date
❑Trichloroethene ❑DCE ❑Vinyl chloride
Figure 3-6
Breakdown of VOCs in ERD Monitoring Well 89-MW44
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
59

700
600
500
J
'- 400
c
0
L
300
o �
U �
0
200 w
100
0
11/18/2006 1/3/2007 3/15/2007 6/7/2007
Date
❑Trichloroethene ❑DCE ❑Vinyl chloride
Figure 3-7
Breakdown of VOCs in ERD Monitoring Well 89-MW54
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
60

300
c
250 °
U
0
orf
J 200
a>
E
c
0
w
�a
150
U
C
O
U
c
O
�j 100
50
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
--4o--IR89-MW08 fIR89-MW44 IR89-MW53 --X—IR89-MW54 —*--IR89-MW55
Figure 3-8
TOC Concentration Trends in ERD Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
61

v:a hrodite\ ro'ects\USNavFaceNGCom\315007Cam Le'eune\Pro'ects\Site89 FSTi ure 3-9 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters.mA
STC867 '
IR89-MW03 ,
IR89-MW50
IR89-ZVI1 IR89-ZVI2
i
IR89-ZVI4
IR89-F-CS8 IR89-ZVI4 r2 a -
IR89-F-CS7 IR89-F-CS3
IR89-MW02
IR89-F-CS6 IR89-F-CS2 - - -
IR89-F-CS1
IR89-ZV13 IR89-MW51
IR89-MW52
IR89-ZVI4 r1
IR89-MW13 IR89-F-GS5
r.
IR89-MW40
NAIP IR89-MW44 IR89-MW53
(mg/L) 11/18/06 01/02/07 03/15/07 06/07/07 IR89-CS6
NO3 NA NA 0.1 U 0.43 IR89-MW08
SO4 36 5 UE22
1.1
CH, NA NA 1.2 i01 IR89-ERD2
Alk 24 2,000 369
CI 14 2015.7 r IR89-CS5
J
IR89-ERD3' IR89-CS7
+_ � IR89-ERD4 IR89-CS4
IR89-CS1
IR89-CS2
IR89-CS8 -
IR89-CS9
* 'F I1389-CS3
T
I •
NAIP IR89-MW55
(mg/L) 11/18/06 01/03/07 03/15/07 06/07/07 NAIP IR89-MW54
NO3 NA NA 0.1 U 0.076 J (mg/L) 11/18/06 01/03/07 03/15/07 06/07/07
SO4 39 5 U 0.18 J 2.1 _ NO3 NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U
CH, NA NA 7 1.1 SO4 38 5 U 18.4 4
Alk 25 370 434 431 P1CH4 NA NA 0.078 0.31
CI 14 14 11.7 11.8 - Alk 1 25 420 236 307
CI 15 17 12 12
_ IR89-MW45
Aerial Photograph taken Feb.2004
Legend N Figure 3-9
• Confirmation Sample Locations — PRB W�E Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters
• ERD Injection Locations — Streams Site 89 Treatability Studies Work Plan
• Ferox Pneumatic Fracture Locations S MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
® Monitoring Well Locations 0 25 50 100
♦ Soil Gas Wells Feet A G V 1 0
621nch= 100 feet CH2M HILL

SECTION 4
Chemical Reduction Evaluation
4.1 Results
4.1.1 Confirmation Sampling
Confirmation borings were advanced to evaluate the zone of influence of the chemical
reduction treatability study. There were no conclusive indications of ZVI in any of the seven
confirmation borings. The closest confirmation boring to an injection location was 10 feet
away.
4.1.2 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the chemical reduction treatability study to evaluate the distribution of ZVI.
Field parameters are presented in Table 4-1. DO, pH, and specific conductivity did not
reveal meaningful trends and will not be discussed further.
ORP measurements less than 50 mV indicate that a reductive pathway is possible and ORP
measurements less than-100 mV indicate that a reductive pathway is likely and conditions
for chemical or biological reduction are favorable. ORP trends within the chemical reduction
treatability study monitoring wells are presented in Figure 4-1.
During the baseline sampling event, ORP measurements in the chemical reduction
treatability study monitoring wells ranged from-57 mV to 152 mV. ORP in monitoring wells
89-MW02, 89-MW50, and 89-MW51 consistently decreased over the monitoring period.
After six months,ORP measurements in these wells ranged from-242 mV to-165 mV.
4.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results
The groundwater analytical results associated with the chemical reduction treatability study
are presented in Table 4-1 and Appendix G-2. These results are evaluated in Section 4.2.2.
4.2 Evaluation
4.2.1 Radius of Influence
The zone of influence within the chemical reduction treatability study cannot be
conclusively determined. Based on the results of the confirmation sampling, the zone of
influence of the chemical reduction treatability study could not be confirmed. Further, as
described in Section 2.3.2, analysis of pressure versus time curves suggest that the formation
did not fracture. Therefore,all ZVI is assumed to be within a limited distance of the injection
boring and not spread across the site as expected.
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 4-1
63

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
Groundwater may be reduced as it migrates through the isolated zones of ZVI. Monitoring
wells 89-MW02 and 89-MW50 are immediately adjacent to injection locations (6 and 8.5 feet
away, respectively), and 89-MW51 is located approximately 12 feet downgradient. Each of
these monitoring wells exhibited similar reductions in ORP, as shown on Figure 4-1,
suggesting that the addition of ZVI is creating reducing conditions,but that these conditions
are slow to propagate.
4.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness
Monitoring wells 89-MW02, 89-MW50, and 89-MW51 were the closest wells to the injections
points, all within 12 feet of an injection point. Significant mass reduction of PCA and TCE
did not occur within the chemical reduction treatability study. PCA and TCE concentrations
were reduced in 89-MW02 approximately 39% and 31%,respectively, during the monitoring
period (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Overall, the DCE concentration remained steady and the vinyl
chloride concentration increased in 89-MW02 (Figures 44 and 4-5). In 89-MW50, the TCE
concentration decreased approximately 57%. There was little change in the DCE
concentration and the vinyl chloride concentration increased slightly in 89-MW50. These
results suggest that reductive dechlorination was not occurring and that chemical reduction
was not an effective technology.
4.3 Design Parameters
4.3.1 Conceptual Design
Chemical reduction was not effective; therefore,a conceptual design for this technology was
not developed.
4.4 Cost
The total cost of the chemical reduction treatability study was $166,000: $152,000 for
implementation and$14,000 for monitoring.
4.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the chemical reduction treatability study,the following conclusions can
be made:
• Pneumatic fracturing was not accomplished;therefore,ZVI distribution was poor.
• There is relatively low reduction in contaminant concentrations.
• ORP measurements declined over the monitoring period, suggesting that subsurface
conditions were becoming favorable for possible reductive dechlorination.
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 4-2
64

Tables
65

TABLE 4-1
Detected Concentrations of VOCs and Field Parameters in Groundwater Within the Chemical Reduction Treatability Study
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID NC2LGW IR89-MW01 IR89-MW02 IR89-MW50 IR89-MW51 IR89-MW52
Semple ID (December200 IR89-GW01-06D IR89-GW01-07A IR89-GW01-07A2 IR89-GW01-076 IR89-GW02-06D IR89-GW02-07A IR89-GW02-07A2 IR89-GW02-076 IR89-GW50-06D IR89-GW50-07A IR89-GW50-07A2 IR89-GW50-076 IR89-GW51-06D IR89-GW51-07A IR89-GW51-07A2 IR89-GW51-07B IR89-GW52-06D IR89-GW52-07A IR89-GW52-07A2 IR89-GW52-076
5)
Sample Date 11/19/06 1 01/04/07 1 03/14/07 1 06/05/07 1 11/20/06 1 01/04/07 1 03/14/07 1 06/05/07 1 11/20/06 1 01/04/07 1 03/14/07 1 06/05/07 11/19/06 01/04/07 1 03/14/07 1 06/05/07 11/19/06 01/04/07 03/14/07 1 06/05/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethene 0.17 14000 J 13,000 10,000 MEL 2500 4800 J 2800 3200
1,1,2-Trichloroethene 1 U 1.1 1 U 0.59 J 69 J 540 77 58 J 1.1 2.2 2 U 4.1 J 170 J 88 J 83 120 180 J 82 J 56 110
1,1-Dichloroethene 70 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 50 U 100 U t U 1 U 2 U 0.75 J t U 1 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 100 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 20 J 21 100 U 3.3 10 20 26 20 J 16 J 50 U 100 U 32 J 20 J 100 U
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3501 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA t U 1 U NA NA 1.2 J 1.1 J NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.38 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.7 J 9.1 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 5 U 5 J 3.9 J 50 U 100 U 3.6 J 2.4 J 20 U 100 U
2-Butanone 4,200 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 5 U 17 500 U 11000 U 5 U 5 U 20 U 50 U 5 U 5 U 500 U 11000 U 5 U 5 U 200 U 11000 U
Acetone 700 25 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 25 U 500 U 11000 U 25 U 25 U 11 J 50 U 25 U 25 U 500 U 11000 U 25 U 25 U 200 U 11000 U
Benzene 1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.4 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 2 U S U 13 J 5.9 J 50 U 100 U 1.9 J 1 U 20 U 100 U
Chloroform 70 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 6 J 100 U 1.2 1 U 2 U 5 U 1 U 1 U 5.3 J 100 U 1 U 1 U 2.4 J 100 U
Ethylbenzene 550 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.6 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 5 U t U 1 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 100 U
Isopropylbenzene 70 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 1 U 1 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 5 U 1 U 1 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 100 U
Methyl-tert-butyl ether(MTBE) 200 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 5 U 1.8 J 1.6 J 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 100 U
Methylene chloride 4.6 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 200 U 2 U 2 U 4 J 10 U 2 U 2 U 140 200 U 2 U 2 U 52 200 U
Naphthalene 21 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1.8 NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1.3 J NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA
Styrene 100 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.6 50U 100 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 5U 1 U 1.6J 50 U 1000 1 U 1 U 20 U 1000
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 62 20 U
Toluene 1,000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.5 J 4.2 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 5 U 1.2 J 1.1 J 50 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 100 U
Trichloroethene 2.8 25 45 28 4,100 J 3,100 3,800 2,800 490 680 230 210 6,40 12,000 11,000 91900 J 4,600 9,800
Vinyl chloride 0.015 1 U 1 U J 670 J 860 11600 1,200 29 120 120 120 200 J 330 370 660 660 J 310 170 810
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 19 37 21 16 8,200 J 10,000 10,000 9,400 710 1,700 2,100 910 4,900 J 9,500 7,800 12,000 13,000 J 7,000 4,400 12,000
o-Xylene 530 1 U 1 U NA NA t U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 1.4 J 1.2 J NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA
p-Isopropyltoluene 1 U 1 U NA NA t U 1.3 NA NA t U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 9.2 16 7.67" 6.9 3,900 J 4,200 4,000 3,300 AMl 560 150 210 1,900 J 3,100 2,600 3,600 1,500 790 3,700
Field Parameters
Temperature(°C) 20.42 17.9 16 21.45 20.42 18.1 17.9 22.07 22.53 21.26 21.23 27.7 20.66 20.02 19.75 20.98 21.81 20.8 20.91 22.84
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 5.56 329 3.15 2.39 5.24 3.19 1.56 2.83 5.12 2.99 2.27 1.63 5.12 3.07 2.06 1.58 5.32 3.01 1.87 2.5
ORP(mV) 152 299 276 232 56 -128 -160 -187 -57 -109 -135 -165 1 -125 -206 -242 -8 -73 -82 -3
pH 4.82 4.58 4.68 4.47 5.27 6.3 6.38 6.48 6.72 6.75 6.93 6.65 6.2 6.6 7.09 6.72 6.26 7.05 6.84 6.45
Specific Conductivity(PS/cm) 205 172 279 218 632 891 759 749 549 613 527 649 999 800 648 773 900 781 721 970
Turbidity(NTU) 0 3.4 33.6 16.4 10.2 29.1 116 48 0 0.1 89.2 47 0 2 62.3 185 0.3 36.1 88.8 85.1
Notes:
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
NA-Not Analyzed
Shading represents exceedence of NC2LGW
Screening Criteria
NC2LGW-North Carolina Groundwater
Quality Standards
Page 1 of 1
66

Figures
67

400
300
200
c
0
U
100
E X
a °
O a_
0
10/1 2006 11/29/2 0 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17 007
-100
J�
-200
-300
Date
fIR89-MW02 --X—IR89-MW51 —0—IR89-MW01 IR89-MW50 Figure 4-1
ORP Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
68

16000
14000
12000 0
U
N
J_ X
C) 10000
Z �
C L.L
O
L
c 8000
d
V
C
O
U
U 6000
IL
4000
2000
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007
Date
IR89-MW02 (IR89-MW51 IR89-MW52 IR89-MW01 --*—IR89-MW50
Figure 4-2
PCA Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
69

14000
12000
c
_o
10000 /00011
J X
O
c 8000
i
r.+
C
N
V
C
v 6000
w
U
H
4000
2000
0
10/10/2006 11 r29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007
Date
IR89-MW02 (IR89-MW51 IR89-MW52 IR89-MW01 —I--IR89-MW50 1 Figure 4-3
TCE Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
70

20000
18000
16000
c
0
14000 (D
J
L
? 12000 m
C L.L
O
r
M
L
c 10000
N
V
C
O
W 8000 OP
U
0
6000
4000
2000
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007
Date
IR89-MW02 (IR89-MW51 IR89-MW52 IR89-MW01 -I-IR89-MW50
Figure 4-4
DCE Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
71

1800
1600
1400 c
0
J U
� C
1200 X
c o
o a`)
LL
L
r- 1000
V
C
O
U
800
L
O
t
U
>, 600
c
400
200
0 Aw
10/10/2006 11 9/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007
Date
IR89-MW02 (IR89-MW51 IR89-MW52 IR89-MW01 --*—IR89-MW50 Figure 4-5
Vinyl Chloride Trends in Chemical Reduction Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
72

SECTION 5
Air Sparging Evaluation
5.1 Results
5.1.1 Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer
As described in Section 2.4.5, a tracer test was conducted to assess the zone of influence for
the air sparge system. Analytical results of S176 in groundwater collected from Zone A and
Zone B monitoring wells are presented in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b, respectively. Prior to
pneumatic fracturing,SF6 was detected in both Zone A and Zone B monitoring wells at very
low concentrations located within 50 feet of the sparge well. Following pneumatic
fracturing, the concentrations of SF6 are similar to those detected prior to pneumatic
fracturing, suggesting that pneumatic fracturing did not have an effect on the extent of
treatment.
5.1.2 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the air sparge treatability study to evaluate the distribution of air. Field
parameters are presented in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b. DO, pH, and specific conductivity did
not reveal meaningful trends and will not be discussed further.
Increasing ORP values in groundwater samples are used as an indicator of air sparge system
zone of influence. ORP trends within the treatability study Zone A and Zone B monitoring
wells are presented in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, respectively. Zone "A" monitoring wells (89-
MW32, 89-MW33, 89-MW43, 89-MW48A, and 89-MW49A) have screens of varying lengths
and depths, but fall within 4 to 25 feet bgs. Zone "B" monitoring wells (89-MW43B, 89-
MW48B, and 89-MW49B) are screened from 25 to 30 feet bgs.
The ORP data shows a gradual increasing trend in response to air sparging. Prior to the start
of the treatability study, ORP ranged from -162 mV to 274 mV in Zone A wells and from -
150 mV to 20 mV in Zone B wells. Over the course of the treatability study, ORP generally
increased in both Zone A and Zone B wells. Following six months of air sparging activities,
ORP increased in all monitoring wells,ranging from 85 mV to 276 mV in Zone A monitoring
wells and from 141 mV to 180 mV in Zone B monitoring wells.
Pneumatic fracturing generally did not have an effect on ORP measurements in either zone.
As shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2,ORP measurements do not exhibit any meaningful trends
following pneumatic fracturing.
5.1.3 Chemical Analytical Results
The groundwater analytical results associated with the air sparge treatability study are
discussed according to the screened interval of the monitoring wells. Results for the air
P:\EBLMVYCLE:AMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SHEE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIIITYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 5-1
73

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
sparge treatability study are presented in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b and Appendix G-3. These
results are evaluated in Section 5.2.2.
Soil vapor analytical results are presented in Table 5-2. These results are also discussed in
Section 5.2.2.
5.2 Evaluation
5.2.1 Radius of Influence
The results of the SF6 tracer test indicate that the radius of influence of air sparging was at
least 50 feet in both Zone A and Zone B monitoring wells. The ORP in Zone A and Zone B
monitoring wells located within 50 feet of the air sparge well exhibited similar increasing
trends, as shown on Figures 5-1 and 5-2. The ORP in monitoring wells 89-MW32 and
89-W33, located within 115 feet of the air sparge well in Zone A, generally were high and
stable over the course of the study. This may indicate that these wells were outside of the
zone of influence, although ORP is not conclusive since these wells started with high values.
Based on this evaluation, the radius of influence of the air sparging treatability study is
estimated to be approximately 60 feet.
5.2.2 Treatment Effectiveness
5.2.2.1 Groundwater
As shown in Figure 5-3, TCE concentrations decreased in monitoring wells 89-MW43, 89-
MW48A, and 89-MW49A, which are within 50 feet of the sparge well. Over the course of
the treatability study, TCE concentrations were reduced in these Zone A wells 77%, 93%,
and 99%,respectively.
TCE was not detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells 89-MW32
and 89-MW33 during the baseline sampling event; however, TCE was detected at
concentrations ranging from 26 µg/L to 510 µg/L during the following months. The six-
month TCE concentrations in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells 89-
MW32 and 89-MW33 were 74 µg/L and 33 µg/L, respectively. The overall increase is not
unexpected as both wells are shallow (screened from 4 to 14 feet) and are located somewhat
further away from the sparge well (115 feet and 110 feet,respectively). TCE from the deeper
zone was likely pushed upward into the more shallow zone, which was then eventually
stripped out, as indicated by the beginning of decreasing trends observed during the final
months of the monitoring period.
TCE concentrations in Zone B monitoring wells, shown in Figure 5-4, decreased rapidly
during the monitoring period. TCE concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW43B,
89-MW48B, and 89-MW49B decreased 89%, 92%, and 99.9% over the course of the
treatability study.
Similar to TCE, DCE and vinyl chloride concentrations decreased in Zone A and Zone B
monitoring wells throughout the monitoring period, as shown in Figures 5-5 through 5-8.
Analysis of VOCs suggests that site contaminants are effectively being removed by air
sparging activities. Reductions in TCE and DCE concentrations in both Zone A and Zone B
P.-TBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 5-2
74

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTCIDIES REPORT
monitoring wells are most likely attributed to mass transfer to the gaseous state (stripping).
Based on the analytical results shown in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b, pneumatic fracturing did not
have an affect on the reduction of site contaminants. VOC trends do not show significant
variations following pneumatic fracturing activities.
5.2.2.2 Soil Vapor
Due to the presence of buildings around the air sparge treatability study and the potential
for vapor intrusion, three soil vapor wells (89-SV01, 89-SV02, and 89-SV03) were monitored
during the six month treatability study. Soil vapor analytical results are provided in
Table 5-2.
PCE, TCE, and DCE progressively increased in wells 89-SV01 and 89-SV02 as air sparging
proceeded. This is expected as VOCs volatilize. Soil vapor monitoring well 89-SV03 shows a
spike in each contaminant one month after system start-up,followed by a steady decrease in
concentrations;however, an overall increase in VOC concentrations is observed (Figures 5-9
through 5-11).
As shown in Table 5-2,the following VOCs were detected at concentrations greater than the
generic screening criteria (EPA, 2002) in at least one soil vapor sample collected during the
course of the treatability study: PCE; TCE; cis-1,2-DCE; vinyl chloride; PCA; methylene
chloride; chloroform; benzene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. PCE,
TCE, and PCA concentrations exceeded the generic screening criteria by a factor of 50;
therefore, in accordance with EPA's guidance, site-specific screening criteria were calculated
for these compounds using the Johnson and Ettinger model based on industrial land use
assumptions. No exceedances of site-specific screening criteria were reported during the
treatability study, indicating that indoor inhalation risks at Site 89 were acceptable during
air sparging activities. Analysis of soil vapor analytical results, modeling, and potential
mitigation alternatives are detailed in Appendix I.
5.3 Design Parameters
5.3.1 Conceptual Design
This conceptual design is based on site conditions observed before initiation of the
treatability studies. Prior to any complete design, a full round of sampling would be
required to capture current site conditions.
To implement air sparging full scale at Site 89, approximately seven to nine new HDD wells
would be required,based on the 60-foot radius of influence observed during this treatability
study. Each well would be installed 40 feet bgs, similar to the well installed for this
treatability study. This would include a total of approximately 2,300 to 2,800 feet of screen
and 860 to 1,060 feet of casing. Based on site constraints and the location of the existing air
sparge system,these lengths are based on blind well installations.
P-TBUNAVY-CLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTLDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 5-3
75

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUDIES REPORT
5.4 Cost
The total cost of the air sparge treatability study was $291,000: $250,000 for installation and
operations and maintenance and$41,000 for monitoring.
5.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the air sparge treatability study, the following conclusions can be
made:
• The radius of influence of air sparging is estimated to be 60 feet from the sparge well.
• Pneumatic fracturing did not have a significant effect on the radius of influence.
• Air sparging through a HDD well is effective at Site 89, as evidenced by significant
reduction in contaminant groundwater concentrations.
• There was some evidence of dissolved contaminants being pushed away from the
sparging wells, but decreasing TCE trends observed in these areas during the final
months of the study suggest that TCE was then stripped out.
• Analysis of soil vapor samples collected in the vicinity of the air sparge treatability study
indicated that vapor concentrations increased; however, indoor inhalation risks at Site
89 during the test fell within acceptable ranges.
P-TBLMVY-CLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 54
76

Tables

TABLE 5-1 a
Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Field Parameters, and SF6 in Groundwater Within the Air Sparge Treatability Study Zone A Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Station ID IR89-MW32
Sample ID NC2LGW IR89-GW32-06D IR89-GW32-07A IR89-GW32-07A-2 IR89-GW32-07A3 IR89-GW32-07B IR89-GW32-07B2 IR89-GW32-07C
(December2005)
Sample Date 11/20/06 01/18/07 02/16/07 03/28/07 05/01/07 06/05/07 07/11/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.17 1 U 1 U 2 U 0.31 J 0.52 J 1.2 1 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 1 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.21 J
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.51 1 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
2-Butanone 4,200 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U
Acetone 700 25 U 25 U 50 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U
Benzene 1 1 U 1 U 2 U 0.19 J 0.2 J 1 U 1 U
Bromodichloromethane 0.56 1 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Chloroform 70 6.1 2.5 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Dibromochloromethane 0.41 1 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Methylene chloride 4.6 2 U 2 U 4 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 1 U 3.7 3.5 1.8 1.8 0.53 J 0.91 J
Toluene 1,000 1 U 5 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Trichloroethene 2.8 1 U 510 360 150 120 34 74
Vinyl chloride 0.015 1 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 1 U 340 270 93 69 24 17
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 1 U 27 21 7.7 5.1 1.5 3.3
Field Parameters
Temperature(°C) 23.14 16.1 18.3 20.54 22.06 24.4 23.94
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 5.53 2.21 2.49 4.08 4.08 6.24 2.55
ORP(mV) 220 182 158 128 143 117 276
pH 5.67 5.84 6.33 6.32 6.23 5.91 5.1
Specific Conductivity(pS/cm) 421 411 19200 472 360 363 176
Turbidity(NTU) 34.5 0 14.7 80.6 114 39.5 25.9
Page 1 of 1
78

TABLE 5-1 b
Detected Concentrations of VOCs,Field Parameters,and SF6 in Groundwater Within the Air Sparge Treatability Study Zone B Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID -07A3 W43B -07A3 W48B
NC2LGW
Sample ID IR89-GW43B-06D IR89-GW43B-07A IR89-GW43B-07A-2 IR89-GW436-07A3 IR89-GW436-07B IR89-GW436-07B2 IR89-GW436-07B3 IR89-GW436-07C IR89-GW48B-06D IR89-GW48B-07A IR89-GW486-07A-2 IR89-GW48B-07A3 IR89-GW48B-07B IR89-GW48B-07B2 IR89-GW48B-07B3 IR89-GW48B-07C
(December2005)
Sample Date 11/21/06 01/19/07 02/16/07 03/29/07 05/02/07 06/06/07 06/25/07 07/11/07 11/21/06 01/18/07 02/19/07 03/29/07 05/01/07 06/06/07 06/25/07 07/11/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.17 2.2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 1.6 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 0.29 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
2-Butanone 4,200 5 U 11 5 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA 10 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA 10 U
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 16 8.7 4.3 2.3 1.9 1.4 NA IF� 1.5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
Tichloroethene 2.8 730 150 180 98 62 75 NA 80 2.3 1 U 0.28 J 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
Vinyl chloride 0.015 2.1 1 U 1 U 0. 1 U 0.4 J NA 0.58 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 130 68 38 21 16 22 NA 25 9.2 3.9 2.6 1.4 1.3 0.88 J NA 0.8 J
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 14 6.5 3.3 2 1.2 1.9 NA 2.6 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
Field Parameters
Temperature CC) 19.54 18.9 18.5 19.68 23.41 21.99 23.87 21.67 18.9 21.7 22.3 25.04 25.13 24.84
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 3.9 2.41 2.02 1.7 0.96 2.8 1.46 4.05 3.6 2.5 6.2 4.22 6.4 7.54
ORP(mV) -150 -11 24 17 -16 10 141 -142 129 134 124 98 130 180
pH 7.12 6.67 6.98 7.1 6.72 6.79 6.8 7.15 6.35 6.92 7.16 6.84 6.91 7.13
Specific Conductivity(pS/cm) 423 647 3680 3190 810 940 990 433 1860 9700 1970 1890 2110 2030
Turbidity(NTU) 13.4 82.5 58.2 9.1 120 45.3 68.2 10 25.9 11.1 42.2 136 49.6 143
Wet Chemistry(MG_L)
Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) NA NA NA 9.10E-04 NA 1.50E-05 6.50E-04 NA NA NA NA 0.0013 NA 8.30E-06 J 2.30E-04 NA
Notes:
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
NA-Not Analyzed
Shading represents exceedance of
NC2LGW Screening Criteria
NC2LGW-North Carolina Groundwater
Quality Standards
Page 1 of 2
79

TABLE 5-1 b
Detected Concentrations of VOCs,Field Parameters,and SF6 in Groundwater Within the Air Sparge Treatability Study Zone B Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID IR89-MW49B
Sample ID NC2LGW IR89-GW49B-06D IR89-GW49B-07A IR89-GW49B-07A-2 IR89-GW49B-07A3 IR89-GW49B-07B IR89-GW4913-07132 IR89-GW496-07133 IR89-GW49B-07C
(December2005)
Sample Date 11/21/06 01/18/07 02/19/07 03/29/07 05/02/07 06/06/07 06/25/07 07/11/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.171 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 11 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
2-Butanone 4,200 5 U 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA 1.5 J
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 3.4 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
Tichloroethene 2.8 1,600 1.9 0.76 J NA 1.1
Vinyl chloride 0.015 20 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 11000 9.9 5.2 1.8 1.3 0.75 J NA 0.99 J
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 61 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 U
Field Parameters
Temperature CC) 21.44 18.8 21.9 23.41 26.23 26 25.25
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 4.31 4.84 3.06 6.92 4.67 6.73 7.12
ORP(mV) 20 189 161 126 108 169 173
pH 7.13 6.49 6.97 7.28 6.77 6.98 7.24
Specific Conductivity(pS/cm) 416 2930 2200 2610 2350 2550 2370
Turbidity(NTU) 10.4 33.2 118 31.2 13.1 43.1 161
Wet Chemistry(MG_L)
Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) NA NA NA 1.30E-04 NA 9.40E-06 J 1.40E-04 NA
Notes:
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
NA-Not Analyzed
Shading represents exceedance of
NC2LGW Screening Criteria
NC2LGW-North Carolina Groundwater
Quality Standards
Page 2 of 2
80

TABLE 5-2
Detected Concentrations of VOCs in Soil Vapor Within the Air Sparge Treatability Study
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID Generic Screening Site Specific IR89-SV01 IR89-SV02 IR89-SV03
ISaimple ID
Sample Date ILpepvbevl
ppbvning Level IR899SV9010-07A IR8-SV0 007A2 IR89--3 29/007A3 IR89-SVO10 07B IR8-SVO 007B2 IR890S 2010-07C IR899SV9020 07A IR8-SV0-07A2 IR89--3 2002--07A3 IR89-SV020 07B IR8 -SV0-07B2 IR890S'020 07C IR899SV9030 07A IR8-SV0-07A2 IR89--3 2003--07A3 IR89-SV030 07B IR8-SV0-07B2 IR890S'033-07C
11
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_M3)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.61 495 2.38 U 2.22 U 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 105 U 2.02 U 2.05 U 16.4 U 52.3 U 103 U 168 U 101 U 107 U 86.7 U 10.4 J 50.5 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 500 -- 1.43 J 4.91 5.92 J 58.9 U 6.76 J 22.1 J 0.323 J 4.69 11.5 J 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 75.7 J 96 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 270 -- 11.9 U 2.22 U 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 105 U 10.1 U 2.05 U 2.79 J 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 842 U 101 U 107 U 14.7 J 51.8 U 50.5 U
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 12 -- 0.643 J 0.2 J 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 53.6 J 0.606 J 0.246 J 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 39.4 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 12 -- 2.38 U 2.22 U 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 17.9 J 2.02 U 2.05 U 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 37.4 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Benzene 9.8 -- 0.309 J 2.22 U 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 0.364 J 2.05 U 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 101 U 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 10.1 J
Chlorobenzene 130 -- 2.38 U 2.22 U 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 105 U 2.02 U 2.05 U 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 40.4 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Chloroform 2.2 -- 0.619 J 0.311 J 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 105 U 1.09 J 0.779 J 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 20.2 J .6 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Chloromethane 120 -- 1.67 J 2.22 U 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 105 U 1.01 J 2.05 U 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 101 U 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freon-12) 400 -- 0.571 J 0.4 J 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 105 U 0.545 J 0.472 J 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 91.9 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Ethylbenzene 51 -- 0.643 J 0.355 J 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 10.5 J 0.505 J 0.226 J 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 39.4 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Methylene chloride 150 -- 4.86 1.51 J 43.5 48.9 J 32.4 J 1111FOOFFE 3.8 1.31 J 34.2 46 J 98 J 139 zzt MOMM, 88.5 J mmmmmmmmg, 52.8 57.1
Styrene 2,300 -- 0.214 J 2.22 U 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 105 U 0.162 J 2.05 U 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 34.3 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Tetrachloroethene 12 4,910 3.14 13.1 54.4 128 158 295 1.07 J 20.1 70.3 212 602 371 406 267 158 47.7 J 45.5 J 70.2
Toluene 1,100 -- 9.07 1.95 J 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 39.9 J 1.19 J 0.533 J 2.46 J 52.3 U 100 U 228 168 U 43.4 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 U 50.5 U
Trichloroethene 0.41 A17,200 19.2 149 1,030 3,450 3,860 8,370 1.45 J 132 613 2,370 7,230 4,540 13,800 9,290 6,510 3,520 2,360 2,810
inyl chloride 11 2.38 U 2.09 J 148 U 589 U 451 U 105 U 202 U 3.46 164 U 523 U 100 U 103 U 126 J 117 107 U 867 U 518 U 505 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 88 2.38 U 2.02 J 29.7 164 167 648 2.02 U 1.17 J 5.42 J 40.2 J 244 226 4,340 4,190 2,830 2,130 1,300 1,310
m-and p-Xylene 16,000 245 J1.13 J 296 U 118 U 901 U 41 J 1.86 J 0.718 J 32.8 U 105 U 200U205 U 337 U 87.9 J 213 U 173 U 104 U 10.1 J
o-Xylene 16,000 09041 0.4 J 14.8 U 58.9 U 45.1 U 20 J 0.687 J 0.267 J 16.4 U 52.3 U 100 U 103 U 168 U 44.4 J 107 U 86.7 U 51.8 ul 5.05 J
Notes:
'Risk=1 x 10,based on residential land use,using a default attenuation factor of 0.1(EPA,2002)
2 Risk-1 x 105,calculated with the Johnson and Ettinger model using site-specific assumptions,based on industrial land use assumptions.
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
Shading indicates exceedance of Generic Screening Level
Page 1 of 1
81

Figures
82

350
300
250
200
c
L
150
a LL
X
> 100 E
0 50 a
0
10/1 2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 /2007 4/28 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
-50
-100
-150
-200
Date
--+--IR89-MW32 fIR89-MW33 fIR89-MW43 -- I—IR89-MW48A —+—IR89-MW49A Figure 5-1
ORP Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
83

250
200
150
100
:? co
U-
U U
50 E
d �
O 0
10/1 2006 11/29/2006 1/1 W41007 3/9/2007 4/28 6/17/2007 8/6/ 007
Z-50
-100
-150
-200 -
Date
--*--IR89-MW43B fIR89-MW48B IR89-MW49B Figure 5-2
ORP Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
84

3500
3000
2500
J � �
f U
co
Z LL
c 2000 _
cyL6 U)
C
d
V �
C IL
V 1500
w
tU
H
1000
500
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
IR89-MW32 (IR89-MW33 IR89-MW43 IR89-MW48A CIE-IR89-MW49A
Figure 5-3
TCE Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
85

1800
1600
a
7
1400
E
m
1200
J �
M U
C LL
1000
c �
c 800 a
U
W
U
H
600
400
200
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—*m—IR89-MW43B f'IR89-MW48B IR89-MW49B
Figure 5-4
TCE Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
86

3500
3000
2500 Q °'
c�
J U
(a
� a) L.L
c 2000 w v
R E
L �
V CL
v 1500
LU
U
0
1000
500
0 —
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
--*---IR89-MW32 fIR89-MW33 IR89-MW43 --)(---IR89-MW48A -I(--IR89-MW49A
Figure 5-5
DCE Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
87

1200
1000
7
c�
E
N6'
J 800 U)
a1 U
1
C L.L
O U
c- M
c 600
c d
O
U
W
U
400
200
SIMON
o ITT
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—*—IR89-MW43B fIR89-MW48B IR89-MW49B
Figure 5-6
DCE Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
88

25
20
J � �
7 C
y L
(L6
C N U
O N
L 15 LL
r —
c
m E
0 Nc:
U d
a�
L
0 10
U
c
5
0 —
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—4—IR89-MW32 (IR89-MW33 —d IR89-MW43 '" IR89-MW48A —*—IR89-MW49A
Figure 5-7
Vinyl Chloride Trends in Zone A Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
89

25
Q
20
ca
U)
J E
M O7
dvJ L
O U
15
M
cLo
LL
� U
C) �
o E
U �
L
c 10
U
c
5
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
-4--IR89-MW43B fIR89-MW48B IR89-MW49B Figure 5-8
Vinyl Chloride Trends in Zone B Air Sparge Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
90

700
600
+7 _
L L
F
> 500 E
LL
a
Q U
o E
400
c IL
m
O
U
v 300
a
200
100
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—*m—IR89-SV01 fIR89-SV02 IR89-SV03 Figure 5-9
PCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
91

16000
14000
L L
12000
U U
E
N LL
y U
> 10000 E
a c
c �
0
8000
Y
V
v 6000
4000
2000
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
I R89-SV01 f I R89-SV02 I R89-SV03 Figure 5-10
TCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
92

5000
4500
4000
Z
3500 E
N U
Q U j (0
3000
o
a a
2500
0
v 2000
w
t�
0
1500
1000
500 0000*
0
10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
I R89-SV01 f I R89-SV02 I R89-SV03
Figure 5-11
DCE Trends in Air Sparge Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
93

SECTION 6
Permeable Reactive Barrier Evaluation
6.1 Results
6.1.1 Field Parameters
Field parameters including DO, pH, ORP, and specific conductivity were measured in wells
associated with the PRB treatability study to evaluate the extent of treatment. Field
parameters are presented in Tables 6-1a, 6-1b, and 6-1c. DO, pH, and specific conductivity
did not reveal meaningful trends and will not be discussed further.
ORP trends within the in-wall and downgradient PRB treatability study monitoring wells
are presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2,respectively. In-wall monitoring wells are those located
within the PRB, including 89-MW59, 89-MW60, and 89-MW61. Downgradient monitoring
wells are those located on the southeast side of the PRB, including 89-MW09, 89-MW30, 89-
MW57, 89-MW58, and 89-MW62.
In the upgradient wells, ORP measurements range from -260 mV to -104 mV. Upgradient
monitoring wells are those located on the northwest side of the PRB, including 89-MW28,
89-MW45, and 89-MW56. The upgradient monitoring wells are not affected by the PRB;
therefore, the ORP measurements suggest that subsurface conditions may naturally be
favorable for reductive dechlorination. Immediately following the installation of the PRB,
ORP measurements in the in-wall wells ranged from -129 mV to -140 mV. During the six
month sampling event, ORP measurements ranged from -125 mV to -82 mV in the in-wall
wells. Despite the increase, ORP measurements are still within the range of a possible
reductive pathway.
Immediately following the installation of the PRB, ORP measurements in the downgradient
wells ranged from-161 mV to-131 mV.The downgradient ORP remained relatively stable
over the course of the study.
6.1.2 Chemical Analytical Results
The groundwater analytical results associated with the PRB treatability study are discussed
in the following sections according to the location of the monitoring wells. Results for the
PRB treatability study are presented in Tables 6-1a,6-1b,and 6-1c and Appendix G4.
Due to the velocity of groundwater flow and the monitoring timeframe, the results cannot
be viewed as complete. Groundwater did not have enough time to flow from the
upgradient wells to the wall and then from the wall to the downgradient wells.
Groundwater that was initially in the wall after installation or was immediately upgradient
was treated and migrated a limited distance during this treatability study.
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SHEE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 6-1
94

SITE 89 TREATABIITIYSTUMS REPORT
6.2 Evaluation
6.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
The effectiveness of the PRB can be evaluated by analyzing the degradation of VOCs as
groundwater moves downgradient. This can be represented by the flow of groundwater
from upgradient monitoring well 89-MW28, to in-wall monitoring well 89-MW61, and
finally to downgradient monitoring well 89-MW58. VOC trends for each of these wells are
presented on Figures 6-3 through 6-5. Based on groundwater elevation data collected
during groundwater sampling events, the seepage velocity in the vicinity of the PRB
treatability study is 0.138 ft/day. With each of the representative wells approximately 20
feet apart, it is estimated that groundwater requires 5 months to migrate from one well to
the next. Baseline, three month, and six month VOC concentration trends versus distance, as
represented by monitoring wells 89-MW28, 89-MW61, and 89-MW58, are shown on
Figure 6-6. Six months following the installation of the PRB, decreasing VOC trends are
observed as groundwater passes through the wall and downgradient. This suggests that the
wall is effectively treating site contaminants. TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride trends versus
distance are presented in Figures 6-7 through 6-9, which show decreasing TCE and DCE
trends and increasing vinyl chloride trends over time and distance, again suggesting that
reductive dechlorination is occurring.
An alternate method to evaluate the effectiveness of the PRB in terms of VOC reduction is to
analyze degradation over time with respect to well location (in-wall and downgradient).
TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride trends within the PRB treatability study in-wall monitoring
wells and downgradient monitoring wells are presented in Figures 6-10 through 6-15,
respectively.
Within the in-wall wells, TCE concentrations ranged from 720 µg/L to 21,000 µg/L during
the initial sampling event. TCE concentrations in the three in-wall monitoring wells
decreased most rapidly during the first month following the PRB installation. TCE
concentrations continued decreasing over the monitoring period.
DCE concentrations generally increased slightly during the first month following the PRB
installation, followed by a steady decrease in DCE over the remainder of the monitoring
period. Vinyl chloride concentrations increased slightly in the first month following
installation of the PRB. Vinyl chloride concentrations then increased more rapidly.
Analytical results from in-wall monitoring wells suggest that reductive dechlorination is
occurring. As shown in Figure 6-16, the increase in DCE and vinyl chloride concentrations
during the first month following installation of the PRB is consistent with the decrease in
TCE concentration. As reductive dechlorination progresses further, DCE is reduced and
vinyl chloride concentrations increase more rapidly.
Monitoring wells 89-MW57, 89-MW58, and 89-MW62 are between 9 and 21 feet
downgradient of the PRB, while monitoring wells 89-MW09 and 89-MW30 are
approximately 40 feet downgradient. Based on groundwater flow as described above, it is
unlikely that groundwater treated by the PRB has migrated to monitoring wells 89-MW09
and 89-MW30 during the 6-month monitoring period; therefore, results from these wells are
not representative and will not be considered further.
P-TBLMVY-CLEAN0U 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 6-2
95

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUf ES REPORT
In downgradient monitoring wells, water quality showed improvement within the first
month following the installation of the PRB, when TCE concentrations declined rapidly.
DCE concentrations generally decreased during the first three months of the monitoring
period, then remained stable. Vinyl chloride concentrations in monitoring wells 89-MW57
and 89-MW58 slightly increased over the course of the monitoring period, while vinyl
chloride increased significantly in 89-MW63 during the first three months, then declined to
baseline conditions between three and six months following installation of the PRB.
Decreasing TCE concentrations in 89-MW57 and 89-MW58 do not correlate to increasing
DCE concentrations and sequential increases in vinyl chloride concentration. Analysis of
VOCs in monitoring well 89-MW62 suggests that reductive dechlorination is occurring,with
reductions in TCE correlating to increases in DCE,followed by decreases in DCE correlating
to increases in vinyl chloride. It is possible that groundwater flow through the PRB is not
consistent and that treated groundwater is migrating more quickly in the vicinity of
monitoring well 89-MW62.
6.2.2 Total Organic Carbon
Groundwater samples were analyzed for TOC. Carbon is the energy source that drives
dechlorination. TOC concentrations exceeding 20 mg/L are indicative that a sufficient
carbon source is available for dechlorination to proceed. The mulch in the PRB is expected to
serve as continuous carbon source for several years.
TOC concentrations in the in-wall monitoring wells were generally greater than 20 mg/L
over the course of the study. TOC concentrations in monitoring well 89-MW59 show a
decreasing trend (Figure 6-17), suggesting that carbon is being consumed. This is consistent
with decreasing TCE concentrations. TOC concentrations in the other in-wall monitoring
wells exhibit increasing trends over the course of the study.
An increasing TOC trend is observed in monitoring well 89-MW62 (Figure 6-18), which also
corresponds to trends in VOCs indicative of reductive dechlorination, as described in
Section 6.2.2.1. The TOC concentrations in other downgradient monitoring wells are
generally constant, which may indicate that treated groundwater has not yet migrated to
these locations or that carbon is being consumed prior to reaching these locations (which is
considered less likely).
6.3 Design Parameters
6.3.1 Conceptual Design
This conceptual design is based on site conditions observed before initiation of the
treatability studies. Prior to any complete design, a full round of sampling would be
required to capture current site conditions.
To prevent offsite migration of contaminants, full scale implementation of a PRB would
require the installation of a wall approximately 600 feet long adjacent to the eastern
boundary of the site and approximately 350 feet long adjacent to the southern boundary of
the site. Similar to the PRB installed for this treatability study, the wall would be 2 feet wide
P:\EBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\SrrE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 6-3
96

SITE 89 TREATAB=STUDIES REPORT
and 25 feet deep using a continuous trenching machine. Further evaluation of the PRB is
required to determine the appropriate mixture of backfill material.
6.4 Cost
The total cost of the PRB treatability study was $262,000, including $224,000 for installation
and$38,000 for monitoring.
6.5 Conclusions
Based on analysis of the PRB treatability study,the following conclusions can be made:
• Conditions appear to be favorable for the reduction of contaminant concentrations;
however, evaluation of the effectiveness, as observed during the six month monitoring
period,is limited by the slow rate of groundwater flow.
• Analysis of field parameters and daughter products suggests that reductive
dechlorination is occurring.
P:\EBLMVYCLEAMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIITIYSTLDYREPORT-
FIIIALDOC 6-4
97

Tables
98

TABLE 6-1 a
Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study Upgradient Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Station ID IR89-MW28 IR89-MW45 IR89-MW56
Sample ID NC2LGW
(December2005) IR89-GW28-07A IR89-GW28-07A-2 IR89-GW28-07A3 IR89-GW28-07B IR89-GW45-06D IR89-GW45-07A IR89-GW45-07A2 IR89-GW45-07B IR89-GW56-07A IR89-GW56-07A-2 IR89-GW56-07A3 IR89-GW56-07B
Sample Date 01/05/07 01/24/07 03/26/07 06/26/07 12/29/06 01/26/07 03/27/07 06/27/07 01/05/07 01/25/07 03/27/07 06/26/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.17 50 U 50 U 100 U 1,000 U 1.1 2 U 1 U 1 U lilt 84 240 1,900 2,400
1,1,2-Trichloroethane -- 50 U 50 U 100 U 1,000 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 10 U 13 12 J
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 h 190 111iffM 230 J 4.5 5.7 1.7 0.52 J 2 U 10 U 7 J 3.3 J
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 350 50 U 50 U NA NA 1 U 2 U NA NA 4.5 10 U NA NA
Acetone 700 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,000 U 10,000 U 25 U 50 U 10 U 1.8 J 50 U 250 U 100 U 250 U
Benzene 1 50 U 50 U 100 U 1,000 U 1 U 2 U 0.16 J 0.16 J 2 U 10 U 10 U 25 U
Carbon disulfide 700 NA NA 100 U 1,000 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 10 U 7.1 J
Chloroform 70 50 U 50 U 13 J 1,000 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 10 U 10 U 25 U
Ethylbenzene 550 50 U 50 U 100 U 1,000 U 1 U 2 U 1 U 1 U 2.6 10 U 10 U 25 U
Methyl acetate -- NA NA 100 U 1,000 U NA NA 2.2 1 U NA NA 10 U 25 U
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 50 U 50 U 100 U 1,000 U 1 u 2 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 10 U
Trichloroethene 2.8 40 110 170 1,000 J 8 12 0.29 J 1 U 1,100 2,800 1,500
Vinyl chloride 0.015 3,000 2,900 10,000 28,000 13 130 92 8 4.1 12 51 39
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 39,000 36,000 38,000 J 53,000 430 350 120 21 280 580 940 980
m-and p-Xylene 530 100 u 100 U NA NA 2 U 4 U NA NA 5.5 20 U NA NA
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 2,500 2,600 2,100 3,100 11 8.6 1.9 0.49 J 19 89 330 290
Field Parameters
Temperature(°C) 19.78 15.90 18.18 22.60 20.70 18.70 21.14 22.16 20.08 16.80 18.49 21.67
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 2.65 1.76 2.11 1.60 0.28 0.81 0.46 0.98 2.74 1.59 0.66 1.12
ORP(mV) -104 -110 -172 -128 -248 -239 -260 -227 -130 -151 -193 -174
pH 6.57 6.76 6.91 6.65 7.29 7.08 7.76 7.72 7.06 7.22 7.55 7.53
Specific Conductivity(pS/cm) 1,720 1,960 3,680 7,980 710 780 1,220 791 536 610 2,210 16,700
Turbidity(NTU) 22.5 0.00 0.00 47.00 5.60 21.00 82.10 81.00 21.30 0.90 81.80 20.00
Wet Chemistry(MG_L)
Dissolved organic carbon NA NA 12.2 NA NA NA 8.2 NA NA NA 1.4 J NA
Total organic carbon(TOC) 9.2 7.4 8.4 11 4-1 30 1 7.8 1 1.3 J 1 2.4 1 1.3 1 0.96 J 1 1.1 J
Notes:
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
NA-Not Analyzed
Shading represents exceedance of NC2LGW
Screening Criteria
NC2LGW-North Carolina Groundwater
Quality Standards
Page 1 of 1
99

TABLE 6-1 b
Detected Concentrations of VOCs, Wet Chemistry, and Field Parameters in Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study In-Wall Wells
Station ID IR89-MW59 IR89-MW60 IR89-MW61
Sample ID NC2LGW IR89-GW59-06D IR89-GW59-07A IR89-GW59-07A2 IR89-GW59-07B IR89-GW60-07A IR89-GW60-07A-2 IR89-GW60-07A3 IR89-GW60-07B IR89-GW61-06D IR89-GW61-07A IR89-GW61-07A2 IR89-GW61-07B
(December2005)
Sample Date 12/29/06 01/25/07 03/27/07 06/26/07 01/12/07 01/25/07 03/26/07 06/26/07 12/29/06 01/25/07 03/26/07 06/27/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.17 110 10 U 1 U 1 U 50 U 50 U 250 U 75 J 81 100 U 50 U 100 U
1,1,2-Tdchloroethane 12 10 U 0.24 J 1 U 50 U 50 U 250 U 500 U 22 100 U 50 U 100 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 22 60 1 U jr 290 270 160 J 3 J 76 100 U 42 J 100 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.38 3.9 10 U 1.2 1 U 50 U 50 U 250 U 500 U hL 2.3 100 U 8.8 J 100 U
2-Butanone 4,200 89 79 100 12 250 U 250 U 2,500 U 5,000 U 5 U 500 U 500 U 1,000 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone NA NA 5 U 0.55 J NA NA 1,200 U 2,500 U NA NA 250 U 500 U
Acetone 700 110 250 U 260 17 1,200 U 1,200 U 2,500 U 5,000 U 25 U 2,500 U 120 J 210 J
Benzene 1 1 U 10 U 0.63 J 0.52 J 50 U 50 U 250 U 500 U 100 U 50 U 100 U
Chloroethane 2,800 1 U 10 U 1.4 J 0.29 J 50 U 50 U 500 U 1,000 U 1 U 100 U 100 U 200 U
Chloroform 70 1 U 10 U 1 U 1 U 50 U 50 U 250 U 500 U 1 U 100 U 6.8 J 100 U
Methyl acetate NA NA 15 3.1 NA NA 250 U 500 U NA NA 50 U 100 U
Naphthalene 21 1 U 10 U NA NA 50 U 50 U NA NA 6.6 100 U NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 2.2 10 U 1 U 1 U 120 110 250 U 500 U 470 J 100 U 50 U 100 U
Toluene 1,000 1 U 10 U 2 3.7 50 U 50 U 250 U 500 U 1 U 100 U 50 U 100 U
Trichloroethene 2.8 720 10 U 1 U 1 U 19,000 8,500 2,600 1,300 21,000 2,500 82 J
Vinyl chloride 0.015 270 1,300 46 710 670 2,800 8,300 310 J 3,100 18,000 12,000
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 970 2,900 6.2 17 110,000 88,000 62,000 27,000 14,000 40,000 12,000 920
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 280 460 9.9 0.77 J 5,500 5,200 2,400 1,100 j 1,100 1,800 500 d 140
Field Parameters
Temperature(°C) 19.30 17.20 19.22 21.56 NA 16.80 18.59 21.46 20.80 18.40 19.81 21.42
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 0.34 1.84 0.63 0.49 NA 1.24 0.61 1.75 0.26 2.37 0.74 2.12
ORP(mV) -140 -152 -148 -121 NA -115 -136 -125 -129 -91 -89 -82
pH 6.55 6.31 6.64 6.58 NA 6.65 7.05 7.13 6.85 6.45 6.50 6.44
Specific Conductivity(pS/cm) 1,630 2,280 2,340 9,360 NA 1,790 1,290 8,580 967 1,500 4,950 2,080
Turbidity(NTU) 65.0 8.2 102.1 335.0 NA 5.5 33.2 79.5 0.0 0.0 212.0 10.2
Wet Chemistry(MG_L)
Dissolved organic carbon NA NA 102 38 NA NA 45.9 44.5 NA NA 247 204
Total organic carbon(TOC) 270 250 126 38.5 14 31 45 44.4 20 160 245 203
Notes:
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
NA-Not Analyzed
Shading represents exceedance of NC2LGW
Screening Criteria
NC2LGW-North Carolina Groundwater
Quality Standards
Page 1 of 1
100

TABLE 6-1c
Detected Concentrations of VOCs,Wet Chemistry,and Field Parameters in Groundwater Within the PRB Treatability Study Downgradient Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID IR89-MW09 IR89-MW30 IR89-MW57 IR89-MW58 IR89-MW62
NC2LGW
Semple ID IR89-GW09-06D IR89-GW09-07A IR89-GW09-07A2 IR89-GW09-07B IR89-GW30-06D IR89-GW30-07A IR89-GW30-07A2 IR89-GW30-07B IR89-GW57-06D IR89-GW57-07A IR89-GW57-07A2 IR89-GW57-07B IR89-GW58-O6D IR89-GW58-07A IR89-GW58-07A2 IR89-GW58-07B IR89-GW62-06D IR89-GW62-07A IR89-GW62-07A2 IR89-GW62-07B
(December2005)
Sample Date 12/29/06 01/26/07 03/27/07 06/27/07 12/29/06 01/26/07 03/26/07 06/26/07 12/29/06 01/25/07 03/26/07 06/26/07 12/29/06 01/24/07 03/26/07 06/27/07 12/29/06 1 01/25/07 03/27/07 06/27/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethene 0.17 1 U 100 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 100 U 27 J 200 U t U 1 U 1 U t U 1 U 1 U 5 U 1 U 1 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethene 1 U 100 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 100 U 50 U 200 U 1 U t U 1 U t U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2.2 5 U 1 U 1 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 170 100 U 1 U t U 1 U 0.22 J 1 U t U 1 U 1 U 5.9 5.4 1 U 0.25 J
1,2-Dichloroethene 0.38 9.6 100 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 100 U 50 U 200 U 1 U t U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 5 U 0181
2-Butanone 4,200 5 U 500 U 500 U 11000 U 5 U 500 U 500 U 2,000 U 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 5 U 25 U 27 24
-Methyl-2-pentenone NA NA 250 U 500 U NA NA 250 U 11000 U NA NA 5 U 5 U NA NA 5 U 5 U NA NA 5 U 0.42 J
Acetone 700 25 U 2,500 U 500 U 1,000 U 25 U 2,500 U 500 U 2,000 U 25 U 25 U 10 U 2 J 25 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 120 U 100 44
Benzene 1 1 U 100 U 50 U 100 U 100 U 50 U 200 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 5 U 0.3 J 0.3 J
Chloroform 70 1 U 100 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 100 U 50 U 200 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.4 5 U 1 U 1 U
Methyl acetate NA NA 50 U 100 U NA NA 50 U 200 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 15 10
Naphthalene 21 1 U 100 U NA NA 3 100 U NA NA 1 U 1 U NA NA 2.2 1 U NA NA 1 U 5 U NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 4.4 100 U 14 J 14 J 57 110 56 91 J 4.9 2.7 2.2 2.4 120 86 21 3.2 5 U 1 U 1 U
Toluene 1,000 1 U 100 U 50 U 100 U 1 U 100 U 50 U 200 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 5 U 1.8 7.4
Trichloroethene 2.8 1 1,100 5,400 4,100 1,900 4,100 8,700 6,100 7,800 280 53 26 12 140 67 26 9.4 370 5 U 1 U 0.25 J
Vinyl chloride 0.015 610 340 860 J 1,400 4,000 3,300 51000 4,600 1 1 U 0.78 J 1 U 1 U 0.63 J 4.7 29 120
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 49,000 20,000 14,000 8,900 15,000 17,000 10,000 110 21 24 9.4 25 27 6.2 15 540 790 68 35
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 12 1 0.8 J 0.53 J 1.8 1 U 0.56 J 0.8 J 68 48 3.6 1.6
Field Parameters
Temperature(°C) 18.52 17.00 18.12 19.68 19.00 14.90 17.51 19.68 20.50 16.80 21.51 22.34 21.70 18.30 20.71 21.90 20.37 17.60 19.60 21.01
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) 4.34 3.04 1.84 2.15 3.56 1.48 0.63 1.42 0.33 1.54 1.00 1.32 3.55 1.50 0.55 1.15 3.42 0.69 0.61 1.68
ORP(mV) -144 -139 -173 -158 -129 -141 -171 -150 -141 -134 -174 -155 -131 -150 -167 -157 -161 -142 -140 -128
pH 7.34 6.82 7.43 7.43 7.25 6.77 7.36 7.36 7.25 7.26 7.57 7.56 7.40 7.15 7.48 7.46 7.46 6.65 6.71 6.69
Specific Conductivity(PS/cm) 801 704 1,400 2,040 749 766 11500 1,006 505 523 900 5,150 490 505 11980 2,100 644 11000 1,640 3,560
Turbidity(NTU) 12.6 0.0 6.3 27.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 11109.0 15.4 3.6 13.1 22.2 8.4 8.1 0.0 14.5 17.2 1.2 121.0 89.9
et Chemistry(MG_L)
Dissolved organic carbon NA NA 3 4.4 NA NA 4.6 4.3 NA NA 4 2.3 NA NA 3 2.4 NA NA 67.5 34.1
Total organic carbon(TOC) 8 4.1 2.5 4.2 6.5 5.7 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.2 2.3 2.3 3.8 2.9 2.3 2.4 20 55 66.3 33.1
Notes:
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
NA-Not Analyzed
Shading represents exceedance of
NC2LGW Screening Criteria
NC2LGW-North Carolina
Groundwater Quality Standards
Page 1 of 1
101

Figures
102

0
12/1 200 2/6/2007 3/28/2007 5/17/2007 7/6/2007 8/25/ 007
-20
-40
-60
c
0
> ca
E 2
a -80 c
o! —
O m
d
-100
-120
-140
-160 —
Date
--*--IR89-MW59 fIR89-MW60 IR89-MW61 Figure 6-1
ORP Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
103

0
12/18 20 6 2/6/2007 3/28/2007 5/17/2007 7/6/2007 8/25 007
-20 -
-40
-60 c
0
�a
-80 c:
m
E
d
a -100
w
O
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
Date
--*--IR89-MW57 fIR89-MW58 IR89-MW62
Figure 6-2
ORP Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
104

60000
50000
c
0
40000
a �
m
c �
0 0_
c�v 30000
L
V
0
U
20000
10000
0
12/9/06 12/29/06 1/18/07 2/7/07 2/27/07 3/19/07 4/8/07 4/28/07 5/18/07 6/7/07 6/27/07 7/17/07
—*—TCE f DCE VC
Figure 6-3
VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW28
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
105

45000
40000
35000
c
o_
30000
E
a
a
r 25000
ro
L
20000
C
O
U
15000
10000
5000
0
12/9/06 12/29/06 1/18/07 2/7/07 2/27/07 3/19/07 4/8/07 4/28/07 5/18/07 6/7/07 6/27/07 7/17/07
—*—TCE f DCE —A—VC
Figure 6-4
VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW61
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
106

160
140
120
c
0
100 is
a
cn
a cn
m
m0
80 a
c
m
c
0
V 60
40
20
0
12/9/06 12/29/06 1/18/07 2/7/07 2/27/07 3/19/07 4/8/07 4/28/07 5/18/07 6/7/07 6/27/07 7/17/07
—0—TCE f DCE VC
Figure 6-5
VOC Trends in PRB Monitoring Well 89-MW58
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
107

VOCs at time = 0 VOCs at time = 3 months VOCs at time = 6 months
°°°° ,°°° o000
°° / Upgradient
Down gradient
° '°Downgradient Upgradient
F1
Upgradient PRB PRB PRB Downgradient
-20 0 20 4 -20 0 20 -20 0 20
Distance from PRB,feet
TCE --B--Cis-1 ,2-DCE Vinyl Chloride
Figure 6-6
VOC Trends Relative to Distance
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
A G V 1
108
CH2M HILL

100000
10000
1000
=L r
c
O
O
L �
V
v 100 W
ri
10
1
-20 0 20
Distance, teet
L70713aseline (Three Months Six Months
Figure 6-7
TCE Trends Relative to Distance
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
109

100000
10000 \
J
C) 1000
M
r
= o
o
o
c �
o_
0 100
U ao
10
1
-20 0 20
Distance,feet
Baseline (Three Months Six Months
Figure 6-8
DCE Trends Relative to Distance
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
110

100000
10000
1000
:L r
c �
v
'�o o
L
o
V -U
T
V 100
10
1
-20 0 20
Distance,feet
Baseline (Three Months Six Months
Figure 6-9
Vinyl Chloride Trends Relative to Distance
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
111

25000
20000
J
� C
? 15000 0
c 71�
o
r
� m
U
a
0
w 10000
U
H
5000
0
11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date Figure 6-10
—*O—IR89-MW59 fIR89-MW60 IR89-MW E Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
112

140000
120000
100000
J
01
� O
O
L 80000 co
C �
O �
v m
O
U d
w 60000
U
40000
20000
0 _
11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—*—IR89-MW59 fIR89-MW60 IR89-MW61
Figure 6-11
DCE Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
113

20000
18000
16000
J
0
c 14000
0
o
c 12000
m
0 cu
c �
0 S
v 10000 m
m �
IL
L
Q
v 8000
> 6000
4000
2000
0
11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—*O—IR89-MW59 fIR89-MW60 IR89-MW61 Figure 6-12
Vinyl Chloride Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
114

10000
9000
8000
7000
J
6000
CF
cu
5000 5
U
= m
o
v w 4000 0_
t�
3000
2000
1000
0zfx
11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—0—IR89-MW09 fIR89-MW30 IR89-MW57 —'"'—IR89-MW58 -I0—IR89-MW62 Figure 6-13
TCE Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
115

900
800
700
600
a�
c
c o
500
c �
m �
0 400
U IL
W
U
300
200
100
0 -
11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
IR89-MW57 IR89-MW58 -*—IR89-MW62 Figure 6-14
DCE Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
116

140
120
100
a o
80
d U)
c —
o m
U
L 60
0
s
U
c
> 40
20
o - C�
11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 8/6/2007
Date
—IR89-MW57 --X—IR89-MW58 -I-IR89-MW62
Figure 6-15
Vinyl Chloride Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
117

50000
45000
40000
35000
a�
c
R
30000
a�
0 25000
U _0
r
20000
E
r m
O
U 15000 a
10000
5000
0
12/29/2006 1/25/2007 3/26/2007 7/3/2007
■Trichloroethene ❑DCE ❑Vinyl chloride
Figure 6-16
Breakdown of VOCs in In-Wall Monitoring Well 89-MW61
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
118

300
250
J 200
tM
E c
c
o c2
150
m —
� m
c
o IL
U
U
O
~ 100
50
0
11/29/2006 12/19/2006 1/8/2007 1/28/2007 2/17/2007 3/9/2007 3/29/2007 4/18/2007
Date
—*E—IR89-MW59 OWIR89-MW60 IR89-MW61
Figure 6-17
TOC Concentration Trends in In-Wall PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
119

300
250
200
J �
p� O
E CO
C (0
O N
q 150
r m
c �
m a
c
O
U
100
50
0
11/29/2006 12/19/2006 1/8/2007 1/28/2007 2/17/2007 3/9/2007 3/29/2007 4/18/2007
Date
IR89-MW57 IR89-MW58 -I-IR89-MW62
Figure 6-18
TOC Concentration Trends in Downgradient PRB Monitoring Wells
Site 89 Treatability Studies, MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
120

SECTION 7
Treatability Study Comparison
The objective of the treatability studies was to evaluate technology performance and design
criteria. The overall effectiveness of each technology was evaluated in terms of reducing the
chlorinated VOCs within the surficial aquifer while balancing the technology's cost and ease
of implementation. The effectiveness of each technology is assessed based on the following
criteria:
1. Contaminant reduction trends in groundwater, as quantified by baseline and post-
treatment groundwater monitoring, and
2. Reagent distribution/zone of influence.
The implementability of each technology was evaluated in terms of full scale
implementation and potential concerns based on the results of the treatability studies. This
evaluation is summarized in Table 7-1.
While air sparging and ERD reduced contaminant mass for a similar cost per volume
treated, full scale implementation of ERD would be a significant field effort. Additionally,
the effectiveness of ERD in areas with higher contaminant concentrations is not known.
Rebounding is a potential issue with ERD. Full scale implementation of air sparging would
require an initial field effort to install the new HDD wells; however, reduction of
contaminant mass would be expected to proceed quickly.
P:\EBLMVYCLE:AMOU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMTIE 89 TREATABIIITYSTLDYREPORT-
FINALDOC 7-1
121

Tables
122

Table 7-1
Summary ofTechnology Evaluation
Site 89 Treatability Studies Report
NUB Camp Ujeune,North Carolina
Evaluation Criteria ERD Chemical Reduction Air S ar a with HDD PRB
Effectiveness PCA reduced 55 to 99%and TCE reduced No indication of contaminant reduction TCE reduced 77 to 99%in Zone A wells and Effectively reducing contaminant mass as
94 to 99% 89 to 99%in Zone B wells groundwater passes through
The radius of influence is estimated to be No apparent distribution of ZVI. The radius of influence is estimated to be 60 The zone of influence is limited on the velocity
35 feet from an injection location. feet from the sparge well. of groundwater flow through the wall.
Substrate may be flowing through more Air sparging reduced contaminant mass
permeable stringers.Rebounding may quickly,generally within the first three
occur once conditions recover. months of operation.
Air sparging pushed contamination out and
away from the sparge well.
Rebound may occur;however,the sparge
system can be restarted at a low cost to
further treat the area.
Implementability Based on the observed radius of influence, Based on the results of the treatability study, To implement air sparging full scale,seven Full scale implementation of a PRB would
full scale implementation would require chemical reduction is not implementable at Site to nine new HDD wells would be required, require the installation of a 600-foot long wall
approximately 180-220 injection 89. totaling approximately 2,300-2,800 feet of adjacent to the eastern site boundary and
locations,with the total addition of screen and 860-1,060 feet of casing. approximately a 350-foot long wall adjacent to
approxiamtely 137,000-168,000 pounds of the southern site boundary.
EVO and 149,000-182,000 pounds of
sodium lactate across the site.
Microorganisms may not be able to thrive Continued air sparging may result in Mulch backfill may become spent before all
with higher contaminanat concentrations. unacceptable indoor inhalation risks. contaminated groundwater can be treated.
Multiple injections may be required due to Full scale implementation may be difficult
rebounding. with shallow groundwater and could cause
flooding.
Implementation Cost per $9.71/yds $7133/yds $5.25/yd3 $56.95/ydshl
Volume Treated
123

SECTION 8
References
Groundwater. Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey,1979.
Remedial Investigation of Operable Unit 16 (Sites 89 and 93). Baker Environmental.June 1998.
OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from
Groundwater and Soils. USEPA. November,2002. EPA530-D-02-004.
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, April 2004. Report for Full-Scale Mulch Wall
Treatment of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon-Impacted Groundwater, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska,
Building 301.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 2005. Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix and Reference Guide,Version 4.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Permeable Reactive Barriers Team, 2005.
Permeable Reactive Barriers:Lessons Learned/New Directions. February 2005.
ARS Technologies, 2006. FeroxTM - Zero Valent Iron Powder Injection.
http://www.arstechnologies.com/ferox zero valent iron.html.
Draft Feasibility Study Operable Unit 16, Site 89, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina. CH2M HILL. February 2006.
Final Treatability Studies Work Plan, Site 89 - Operable Unit No. 16. AGVIQ-CH2M HILL Joint
Venture 1. November 2006.
Draft Final Comprehensive Remedial Investigation, Site 89 - Operable Unit No. 16, Former Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office. CH2M HILL. August 2007.
P.-TBL\NAVYCLEAN\OU 16(STIES 89 AND93)\STTE 89\'IREATABIIITYSTUDIES\REPORTT ALTS REPORI\TEMNE 89 TREATABIITIYSTMYREPORT-
FINALDOC 8-1
124

Appendix A
125

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW43B SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technolocty,_Inc____________________________________________________________
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/18/2006 12:25 END: LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
21' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
6"
23'
74- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
25'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
30'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 4 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1 Bag
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 110 Gallons
Comments
126

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW48A SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/18/2006 8:34 END: LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
16' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
20'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
25'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 4 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 110 Gallons
Comments
127

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW48B SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/14/2006 8:40 END: LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
21' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
6"
23'
74- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
25'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
30'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 4 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1 Bag
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 75 Gallons
Comments
128

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW49A SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technolocty,_Inc____________________________________________________________
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/17/2006 15:20 END: 17:00 LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
15' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
720'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
25'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 3 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 47 Gallons
Comments
129

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW49B SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technolocty,_Inc____________________________________________________________
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/17/2006 15:20 END: 17:05 LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
21.5' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
23' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
25'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
30'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 4 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1.5 Bags
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 145 Gallons
Comments
130

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW50 SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/14/2006 8:50 END: LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ-E.Must/RD
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
16' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
20'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
26'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 6 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1 Bag
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 110 Gallons
Comments
131

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW51 SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/14/2006 14:15 END: LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ-E.Must/RD
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
15.5' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
20'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
26'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 4 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1 Bag
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour Density:14.8
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 85 Gallons
Comments
132

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW52 SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/14/2006 12:10 END: LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ-E.Must/RD
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
16' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
20'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
26'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 4 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1 Bag
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour Density:14.8
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 115 Gallons
Comments
133

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW53 SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/13/2006 10:15 END: 11:10 LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ-E.Must/RD
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
15.5' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
20'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
26'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 5 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1.5 Bags
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour Density:15
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 120 Gallons
Comments
134

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW54 SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/13/2006 12:55 END: 14:15 LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ-E.Must/RD
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
15.5' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
20'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
26'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 5 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used 1.5 Bags
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour Density:15
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 130 Gallons
Comments
135

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 IR89-MW55 SHEET 1 OF 1
CH2MHILL
44411, WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: TO-71 Site 89 LOCATION: MCAS New River
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Technologty,_Inc______
----------- ----- ....................... .... - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USE Geoprobe 4.25"Augers
WATER LEVELS: START: 11/13/2006 15:30 END: 16:15 LOGGER K.Riggs/AGVIQ-E.Must/RD
3a 3
1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3b 5
3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush-mount
9--------- a)locking expansion plug 2"Plug
16.5' b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
1
6"
18' 4- Dia./type of well casing 2"Schedule 40 PVC
20'
5- Dia./type of surface casing 8"Flush-mount Metal Casing
8--- with Vault Cover
26'
4--` 6-Type/slot size of screen 0.01"Machine Slotted PVC
7-Type screen filter #2 Filter Sand
a)Quantity used 4 Bags
6
8-Type of seal Bentonite Seal
a)Quantity used
9- Grout
a)Grout mix used 95%Type I Portland/5%Bentonite
5' 7 b)Method of placement Pour
c)Vol.of surface casing grout
d)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Purge and Surge
Development time 1 Hour
Estimated purge volume 110 Gallons
Comments
136

PROJECT NUMBER L NUMBER
40 CH2MHILL r
346548 89-MW56 SHEEP 1 OF 1
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 Mulch Wall Monitoring wells LOCATION: MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRIWNG CONTRACTOR: Probe Tech Concord NC
DRIWNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED.- 6620DT Geoprobe 4.25"ID HSA
WATER LEVELS START: 12/27/2006 END_ 12 28 06 LOGGER:J Frank/RDU
3
3b \ /2 1 1-Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3a— i 3-Wellhead protection cover type 8"steel manhole cover
a)drain tube? NA
b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
8----- 15'
4-Dia./type of well casing 2"ID Schedule 40 PVC
18'
20' 5-Type/slot size of screen 0.010'slots
26' 6- Type screen filler Hughes#2 filter sand
4 a)Quantity used 5 501b bags
7-Type of seal PDSCO Bentonite holeplug 3/8'
a)Quantity used 1 501b bag
_ - 5 8-Grout
a)Grout mix used Portland Type 1 t bentonite granules
b)Method of placement Tremie
c)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Overpump and surge
5' 6
Development time 50 minutes
Estimated purge volume -100 gallons
Comments:
Imo- -I
0
W ellCompletionDiagram_89•M W 56.xis xxxxxx.xxxx
137

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
10 346548 1 89-MW57 SHEET I c,F ,
CH2MHILL
"W" WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 Mulch Wall Monitoring wells LOCATION: MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Tech Concord NC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: 66=T Geoprobe 4.25"ID HSA
WATER LEVELS: START: 12/27/2006 END 12-28-06 LOGGER J Frank RDU
3
3b \� 2 1 1-Ground elevation at well
4 2-Top of casing elevation
3a— / 3-Wellhead protection cover type 4'X 4"Stickup
a)drain tube? NA
/ l h b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
8— — 20-
4- Dra./type of well casing 2-ID Schedule 40 PVC
25' 5- Type/slot size of screen 0 010"slots
7
31' 6-Type screen filter Hughes#2 filter sand
4 a)Quantity used 6 50lb bags
7-Type of seal PDSCO Bentorote holeplug 3/8"
a)Quantity used 1 501b bag
--- 5 8-Grout
a)Grout mix used Portland Type 1+benlonite granules
b)Method of placement Tremie
c)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Overpump and surge
5' 6
Development time 72 minutes
Estimated purge volume -145 gallons
Comments:
_Y_
E
WellComplebon01agram_89-MW 57 As xxxxxx.xx.xx
138

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 89-MW58 st+LLT , o� ,
CH2MHILL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 Mulch Wall Monitoring wells LOCATION. MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Tech Concord NO
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: 6620DT Gecprobe 4.25"ID HSA
WATER LEVELS: START: 12/27/2006 END 12-28 06 LOGGER:J Frank/RDU
3
3b 2 1 1- Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3a �' 3-Wellhead protection cover type 4"X 4"Slickup
7/ a)drain tube? NA
b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
4- Dia./type of well casing 2"ID Schedule 40 PVC
�! 18'
20' 5- Typu/slot size of screen 0.010"slots
7
26' 6- Type screen filter Hughes#2 filter sand
4 a)Quantity used 6 501b bags
7-Type of seal PDSCO Bentonile holeplug 3/8"
a)Quantity used 1 5011b bag
5 8-Grout
a)Grout mix used Portland Type 1 +bentonite granules
b)Method of placement Tremie
c)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Overpump and surge
s -- --- 6
Development Gme 50 minutes
Estimated purge volume -100 gallons
Comments:
1—
f� el
W ellCompletlonDiagram_89-M W 58.xis xXrxxx.xx.xx
139

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 89-MW59 stiEEi , of ,
CH2MHILL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 Mulch Wall Monitoring wells LOCATION: MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville INC Site 89
DRILUNG CONTRACTOR: Probe Tech Concord INC
DRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: 662ODT Geoprobe 3'Rods
WATER LEVELS: START: 12/26/2GO6 END 12-28-06 LOGGER:JFrank/RDU
3,
3b \ / 2 1 1-Ground elevation at well
4 + 2-Top of casing elevation
3a— 3-Wellhead protection cover type 8'steel manhole cover
i; a)drain tube? NA
b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
8 10'
4- Dia./type of well casing 3/4'ID Schedule 40 PVC
15' 5- Type/slot size of screen Geoprobe pre-pack screen
7
21' 6-Type screen filter Hughes#2 filter sand
4 a)Quantity used 1 50lb bags
7-Type of seal PDSCO Bentonite holeplug 3/8'
a)Quantity used 1/2 501b bag
5 8-Grout
a)Grout mix used Portland Type 1+bentonite granules
b)Method of placement Tremie
c)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Overpump and surge
5' 6
Development time 50 minutes
Estimated purge volume -50 gallons
Comments:
�I
3
W ellCompletionDiagram_89-M W 59 xis xxxxxx.xx.xx
140

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 89-MW60 srIFF1 1 of 1
CH2MHILL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 Mulch Wall Monitoring wells LOCATION: MCB Camp Lejeune Jacksonville INC Site 89
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Tech Concord NC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: 662ODT Geoprobe 4.25'ID DIRT _
WATER LEVELS START: 1/10/2007 END: 1/10/07 LOGGER:J Frank/RDU
3.
3b / 2 1\ 1-Ground elevation at well
2-Top of casing elevation
3a 3-Wellhead protection cover type Flush Mount
a)drain tube? NA
b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
&--- 177
4-Dia./type of well casing 0.75'ID Schedule 40 PVC
13'
15' 5- Type/slot size of screen 0.010'slots
21' 6-Type screen filter Hughes#2 filter sand
4 a)Quantity used
7-Type of seal POSCO Bentonite holeplug 3/8"
a)Quantity used
_ 6 8-Grout
a)Grout mix used Portland Type 1 +bentonite granules
b)Method of placement Tremie
c)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method
5' 6
Development time
Estimated purge volume
Comments:
4.25"
WellCompretion0iagram_89-MW60 As xxxxxx.xx.xx
141

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
346548 89-MW61
CH2MHILL
44W WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 Mulch Wall Monitoring wells LOCATION: MCB Camp Lefeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Tech Concord INC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: 6620DT Geoprobe 3'Rods
WATER LEVELS: START: 1 212 6/20 0 6 END:12-28-06 LOGGER J Fran
3
3b \ 2 1 1-Ground elevation at well
e 2-Top of casing elevation
I
3a— 3-Wellhead protection cover type 8-steel manhole cover
a)dram tube? NA
b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
8---- 11'
4-Dia./type of well casing 3/4'ID Schedule 40 PVC
13'
'y` 15' 5-Type/slot size of screen Geoprobe pre-pack screen
v
7
21' 6-Type screen filter Hughes#2 filter sand
4 a)Quantity used 1 501b bags
7-Type of seal PDSCO Bentonite holeplug 3/8"
a)Quantity used 1/2 501b bag
5 8-Grout
a)Grout mix used Portland Type 1+bentonite granules
b)Method of placement Tremie
c)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Overpump and surge
s' 6
Development time 60 minutes
Estimated purge volume -60 gallons
Comments:
I- ►I
3
WellComPletionDlagrart,_89-MW61.xls XXXxXX XX X•
142

PROJECT NUMBER WELL NUMBER
® CH2MHiLL 346548 89-MW62 SHEET , OF ,
41810 WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PROJECT: Site 89 Mulch Wall Monitoring wells LOCATION: MCS Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC Site 89
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Probe Tech Concord NC
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: 6620DT Geoprobe 4.25"ID HSA
WATER LEVELS START: 12/28/2006 END:12-28-06 LOGGER:J Frank/RDU
3�
3b \ 2 1 1-Ground elevation at well
7-7 s b a 2-Top of casing elevation
3a— 3 Wellhead protection cover type 4"X 4"Stick up
a)drain tube? NA
b)concrete pad dimensions 2'X 2'
8 15'
4- Dia./type of well casing 2"ID Schedule 40 PVC
1,.
18'
20' 5-Type/slot size of screen 0.010"slots
7
26' 6-Type screen filter Hughes#2 filter sand
4 a)Quantity used 6 501b bags
7- Type of seal PDSCO Bentonite holeplug 3/8'
a)Quantity used 1 501b bag
5 8-Grout
a)Grout mix used Portland Type 1+benlonite granules
b)Method of placement Tremie
c)Vol.of well casing grout
Development method Overpump and surge
Development time 60 minutes
Estimated purge volume -120 gallons
Comments:
W ellCompletionDiagram_89-M W 62.xis xxxxxx.xx.xx
143

Appendix B
144