WI0800147_Permit (Completion)_20240829

HH " L
'PHM slmdy RoPWL"
Opsra s UnR Moo 22 Q8o$s 22
'Isrine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Prepared for
114311hwmavaladiffies Engineering Command
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid Atlarift Division
Norfolk, Virginia
Under
CTO-0105
Contract No. N62470-02-D-3052
Navy Clean III
\`LSBSISfdlJj��
December 2008 �.% y\CAROB
Prepared by $
B SEAL_ � r
� 1501. �
% 1z/z
F �©

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 SITE BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 OBJECTIVE......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
2 SITE SETTING.............................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 SITE GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY.......................................................................................................................2-1
3 PILOT STUDY..............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 SITE SELECTION.................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 ENHANCED REDUCTIVE DECHLORINATION OVERVIEW.....................................................................3-2
3.3 PRE-INJECTION ACTIVITIES...............................................................................................................3-3
3.3.1 Monitoring Well Installation..............................................................................................3-3
3.3.2 Baseline Monitoring...........................................................................................................3-3
3.4 PILOT STUDY IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................................3-3
3.4.1 Substrate Description and Volume.....................................................................................3-3
3.4.2 Substrate Injection.............................................................................................................3-4
3.5 FIELD MICROCOSM STUDY................................................................................................................3-4
3.6 GROUNDWATER MONITORING...........................................................................................................3-4
3.6.1 Volatile Organic Compounds.............................................................................................3-5
3.6.2 Water Quality Parameters.................................................................................................3-5
3.6.3 Bromide..............................................................................................................................3-6
3.6.4 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters(NAIPs)..........................................................3-6
3.7 NATIVE DECHLORINATING BACTERIA...............................................................................................3-8
4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 SOURCE AREA CHARACTERIZATION..................................................................................................4-1
4.2 CONTAMINANT DEGRADATION..........................................................................................................4-1
4.3 TREATMENT ZONE.............................................................................................................................4-2
4.4 DECHLORINATING BACTERIA............................................................................................................4-2
4.5 COST..................................................................................................................................................4-2
5 RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................................5-1
6 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................6-1
P:\EB2NAVYC1EAN0U2(STIES 6,9,AND 82)\STIE 82\PIIAT STUDY(ERD)\REPORfNALSIIE 82 ERDPROT STUDY SU vIARYREPORT.DDC I

LIST OF TABLES
3-1 Chronology of Events
3-2 Summary of VOCs Detected in 6-DRW01
3-3 Substrate Injection Flow Rates
3-4 Detected Concentrations of VOCs in Groundwater
3-5 Summary of Water Quality Parameters
3-6 Summary of Wet Chemistry Parameters
3-7 Microbial Populations
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Base Location Map
1-2 Site Map
1-3 Pilot Study Layout
2-1 Cross-Section Location Map
2-2 Geologic Cross-Section A-A'
3-1 Pilot Study Monitoring Data
APPENDICES
A Boring Logs
B Groundwater Analytical Results
P:0BL\NAVYCZEAXOU2(STIES 6,9,AND 82)\STIE 82\PIIAT STUDY(ERD)\REPOR TP-AL\SIIE 82 ERDPIIDT ST[JDYSUMIARYREPORT.DOC II

Acronyms and Abbreviations
bgs below ground surface
cVOC chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound
DCE dichloroethene
DHB dehalobacter
DHC dehalococcoides
DO dissolved oxygen
DSM desulfuromonas
ERD enhanced reductive dechlorination
Fe(II) ferrous iron
Fe(III) ferric iron
ft/day feet per day
ft/ft feet per foot
gpm gallons per minute
gpd/ft gallons per day per foot
LTM Long Term Monitoring
MCB Marine Corps Base
MOB methanotrophic bacteria
µg/L micrograms per liter
AS/cm microsiemens per centimeter
mg/L milligrams per liter
ml milliliter
MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
mV millivolt
NAIPs natural attenuation indicator parameters
NCGWQS North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
OU Operable Unit
PCE tetrachloroethene
PVC polyvinyl chloride
P&T pump and treat
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
P-.UU,TAVYCI_EW0U2(STIES 6,9,AND 82)\STIE 82\PIUOT STUDY(ERD)\REPORfNALSTIE 82 ERDPROT ST[JDYSUMVIARYREPORIDOC in

SHE 82 PILOT STUDYREPORT
gPCR real-time polymerase chain reaction
ROI radius of influence
RI Remedial Investigation
SOP standard operating procedure
TCE trichloroethene
TOC total organic carbon
TOD Toluene dioxygenase
VC vinyl chloride
VOC volatile organic compound
P:0BUNAVYCZEAXOU2(STIES 6,9,AND 82)\STIE 82NPILOT STUDY(ERD)\REPOR T AL\SIIE 82 ERD PILOT STUDY SUIVMARYREPORT.DDC TV

SECTION 1
Introduction
This report documents the pilot study conducted at Operable Unit (OU) No. 2, Site 82 at
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Lejeune located in Onslow County, North Carolina. The
purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the
injection of a substrate blend (emulsified soybean oil and ethyl lactate) to stimulate
enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) of chlorinated solvents in groundwater.
The following sections describe the site background, setting, and pilot study planning and
implementation.
1.1 Site Background
Site 82 is located in the east-central portion of MCB Camp Lejeune ('Mainside'),
approximately two miles east of the New River and two miles south of State Route 24, as
shown on Figure 1-1. The site encompasses the wooded area between Lot 203 and Wallace
Creek and is bounded by Holcomb Boulevard on the west, Wallace Creek on the north,
Piney Green Road on the east,and Site 6 to the south.
Site 82 was identified in 1986 during an environmental investigation of Site 6. No organized
disposal operations were documented at the Site; however, Site 82 was found to be
randomly littered with debris. It appears Site 82 was used for disposal of miscellaneous
debris from Lot 203, located southeast of Site 82 (Baker, 1993). There are no historical
records indicating disposal of chlorinated solvents. However, chlorinated solvents have
been found in groundwater as deep as 240 feet below ground surface (bgs). A total of
nineteen volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
trichloroethene (TCE) have been detected in groundwater samples collected from Site 82.
Following completion of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, a Record of
Decision was issued in September 1993 that specified the selected remedy as groundwater
recovery and ex-situ treatment. Accordingly, in July 1996, a groundwater remediation
system began recovering and treating impacted groundwater from a series of shallow and
deep extraction wells.
Figures 1-2 and 1-3 depict the site map and pilot study layout.
1.2 Objective
The objective of the pilot study was to evaluate the viability of enhanced reductive
dechlorination as a cost effective alternative to remediate groundwater impacted by
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (cVOCs), in lieu of the on-going pump and treat
(P&T) operations.
P-.UU,TAVYC1_EW0U2(STIES 6,9,AND 82)\STIE 82\PIUOT STUDY(ERD)\REPORfNALSTIE 82 ERDPROT ST[JDYSUMVIARYREPORIDOC 1-1

SECTION 2
Site Setting
2.1 Site Geology
At Site 82, the surficial soils consist of fine to coarse grained sands, silts,and clays. In several
areas of the Site, the uppermost five feet of soil have been disturbed by Base activities and
contains much fill material. Massive beds of silty sand and discontinuous sandy to clayey
silts layers are present from ground surface to a depth of roughly 55 feet below ground
surface (bgs). At a depth of approximately 55 feet bgs, site investigations encountered a
continuous layer of heavily cemented silty sand and shelly limestone, roughly 10 feet in
thickness. Massive silty sands interbedded with lenses of cemented sand and limestone lie
beneath the cemented layer,extending to a depth in excess of 150 feet bgs. Figure 2-1 depicts
the alignment of geologic cross-section A-A',which is shown in Figure 2-2.
2.2 Site Hydrogeology
The Surficial aquifer at Site 82 occurs within the previously described silty sands, silts, and
clays that overlie the heavily cemented layer encountered at roughly 55 feet bgs. The Castle
Hayne aquifer exists below this same layer,extending to a depth of 250 to 300 feet bgs.
Based upon aquifer testing conducted during the RI (Baker, 1993), the hydraulic
conductivity of the Surficial and Castle Hayne aquifers has been estimated to be
approximately 3.4 feet per day (ft/day) and 35 ft/day, respectively. Due to the relatively
low conductivity of the Surficial aquifer, groundwater pumping rates for the shallow
recovery wells are low; in the range of one to four gallons per minute (gpm) or less.
Pumping rates for the deep recovery wells installed within the Castle Hayne aquifer range
from 30 to 150 gpm.
The direction of groundwater flow within the Surficial aquifer is northwest towards Wallace
Creek, and groundwater flow in the Castle Hayne aquifer is west-southwest towards the
New River. Water level data collected during the RI, suggests that there is no tidal influence
on groundwater elevations in the area of Site 82 (Baker,1993).
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 2-1

SECTION 3
Pilot Study
The following sections describe the planning and implementation of the ERD Pilot Study
conducted at Site 82. Table 3-1 provides a chronology of events during the pilot study.
TABLE 3-1
Chronology ofEvents
Plot Study Report,Site 82,Nv1CB Camp Lejeune
10 December through 13 December 2005 Installation of 6 intermediate-depth monitoring wells to serve as
observation points following injection
January 2006 Deactivation of groundwater extraction well 6-DRW01
1 February 2007 Collection of baseline groundwater quality samples from 7
monitoring wells located in the immediate vicinity of the injection
well (6-DRW01)
6 February through 9 February 2007 Injection of substrate material in 6-DRW01
21 February 2007 Installation of Bio-Traps
18 April through 19 April 2007 Post injection monitoring event(two months elapsed)
19 April 2007 Retrieval of Bio-Traps
13 June through 14 June 2007 Post injection monitoring event(four months elapsed)
14 August through 15 August 2007 Post injection monitoring event(six months elapsed)
3.1 Site Selection
Site 82 was selected as the location for the ERD pilot study due to the presence of on-going
groundwater remediation activities utilizing P&T technology, and a desire to evaluate
alternate, potentially more effective remedial technologies. Groundwater extraction well 6-
DRW01 was selected as the injection well for use in the pilot study since it was believed to
be located in close proximity to the contaminant source area, and its temporary deactivation
would not adversely effect hydraulic plume containment.
Since the start up of the P&T system, groundwater samples have been collected on an
annual basis from 6-DRW01 as part of the LTM program. Table 3-2 presents a summary of
the Long Term Monitoring analytical data for 6-DRW01; collected in September 2005 during
active groundwater recovery operations.
Sr1E82ERDPQDTSn DYSUNhMYREPORT.DOCP:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(SrrES 6,9,AND82)\Sr1E82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORT.DOC 3-1

SHE 82 PILOT SnDYREPORT
TABLE 3-2
SummaryofNDCs Detected in 6-DRVW1
September 2005
Site 82,MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
VOCS NCGWQS (µg/L) Concentration (µg/L)
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 790
Trichloroethene 2.8 9,200
cis-1,2-dichloroethene 70 1,600
trans-1,2-dichloroethene 100 330
Vinyl chloride 0.015 33 J
Note:
NCGWQS—North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standard
µg/L—micrograms per liter
J—Reported value is estimated
3.2 Enhanced Reductive De chlorination Overview
Enhanced reductive dechlorination involves the transfer of electrons from an electron donor
source to the cVOC, 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.
The principal anaerobic biodegradation pathway for reductive dechlorination of chlorinated
ethenes is:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) --;�Trichloroethene (TCE) cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis 1,2-DCE)
vinyl chloride (VC) --,.ethene
The transformation rates for each step vary but tend to become slower with progress along
the breakdown sequence, often resulting in accumulation of cis-1,2-DCE and VC. Further
breakdown from cis-1,2-DCE and VC to ethene varies and is based on site-specific
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.
Sr1E82ERDPQDTSn DYSUNhMYREPORT.DOCP:\EBL\NAVYCLEWM2(SrrES 6,9,AND82)\Sr1E82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\Sr1E82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORT.DOC 3-2

SHE 82 PIIOT SnDYREPORT
3.3 Pre-Injection Activities
Prior to the initiation of the pilot study, several preparatory tasks were completed,
including:
• Deactivation of recovery well 6-DRW01
• Installation of 6 intermediate-depth groundwater monitoring wells
3.3.1 Nbnitoring Well Installation
In December 2005, 6 intermediate-depth monitoring wells (designated as 6-GW47IW
through 6-GW52IW) were installed using rotosonic drilling methods to a depth of 100 feet
bgs. Figure 1-3 illustrates the locations of these monitoring wells; in the vicinity of 6-
DRW01.
The monitoring wells were constructed from two-inch diameter Schedule 40 polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe and five feet of 0.010-inch machine-slotted well screen. Wells were
completed at grade with flush-mounted 8.5-inch diameter steel protective locking covers set
in two foot square concrete aprons.
All monitoring wells were constructed and developed in accordance with the standard
operating procedures (SOPS) as described in the Base Master Project Plans (CH2M HILL,
2005). Monitoring well boring logs are presented in Appendix A.
3.3.2 Baseline Nbnitoring
It was presumed that the on-going groundwater extraction operations could potentially
elevate dissolved oxygen concentrations, resulting in slightly aerobic, oxidizing conditions
in the Surficial and upper Castle Hayne aquifers. Therefore, the groundwater recovery well
proposed for use as the pilot study injection well (6-DRW01) was deactivated for a period of
approximately 12 months, beginning in January 2006, to allow groundwater geochemistry
within the proposed injection zone to return to native conditions. The remaining recovery
wells continued normal operations throughout the duration of the pilot test.
Prior to the start of the pilot study, the six newly installed monitoring wells (6-GW47IW
through 6-GW52IW) and the injection well (6-DRW01) were sampled to establish baseline
groundwater conditions. All groundwater samples were collected in accordance with the
Base Master Project Plans (CH2M HILL, 2005), and analyzed for: VOCs (EPA Method
8260B),bromide, and natural attenuation indicator parameters (NAIPs) including: dissolved
gases (RSK-175); nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, and chloride (EPA Method 300.0); sulfide (EPA
Method 376.1); alkalinity (EPA Method 310.1); total organic carbon (TOC), total dissolved
iron and manganese (SW-846 6010B).Water quality parameters, including DO,conductivity,
pH,temperature, turbidity,and ORP were measured in the field.
3.4 Pilot Study Implementation
3.4.1 Substrate Description and Volume
A blend of emulsified oil and ethyl lactate was selected as the preferred amendment
solution; approximately 262 gallons of emulsified oil (50 to 60%) was mixed on-site with
Sr1E82ERDPQDTSn DYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(SrrES 6,9,AND82)\Sr1E82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\Sr1E82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 3-3

SHE 82 PIIOT SnDYREPORT
roughly 112 gallons of 100% ethyl lactate to create a blend of approximately 42% lactate in
oil, by volume. Approximately 4.3 kilograms of bromide was also added to the substrate to
act as a conservative tracer. During the injection process, the blended mixture was
progressively diluted to 1.3% in water using potable water,obtained from a fire hydrant.
The target injection volume was one pore volume, which, assuming a 20-foot radius of
influence (ROI) and an effective porosity of 0.15, was 28,185 gallons. The actual volume of
solution injected was 28,140 gallons, over a period of three days. A total volume of 374
gallons of lactate/oil blend was injected, and approximately 500 gallons of chase water was
used to help flush the solution out of the well screen after the substrate injection was
complete.
3.4.2 Substrate Injection
Substrate injection commenced on February 6, 2007 and concluded on February 9, 2007.
Dilution of the substrate was accomplished using a proportional feed system, which
eliminated the need for a mixing tank and drew blended substrate directly from drums. A
manifold, including a throttling valve, flow meter, and pressure gauge, was used to
modulate and monitor solution flow rates during injection. A summary of injection stages
and cumulative volume is presented in Table 3-3.
During the injection event, the six new monitoring wells (6-GW47IW through 6-GW52IW)
were monitored for the presence of bromide tracer using a groundwater probe, equipped
with an ion selective electrode. Water quality parameters were also monitored in these
wells.
3.5 Field 1V1'icrocosm Study
A field microcosm study was conducted using two groundwater monitoring wells situated
outside of the proposed injection zone (6-GW47IW and IR06-GW27DW). On February 21,
2007, three "Bio-Trap" samplers were suspended in each test well: one control, one baited
with 100% ethyl lactate, and one baited with the same emulsified oil/ethyl lactate blend
injected in 6-DRW01. The control and ethyl lactate-baited traps were collected and analyzed
approximately three months after emplacement, during the April groundwater monitoring
event. The Bio-trap amended with the oil/lactate blend was collected and analyzed
approximately six months after emplacement, because of limited solubility (and short term
bioavailability) of the oil. The samplers were submitted to Microbial Insights for polymerase
chain reaction (gPCR) analysis, to quantify known dechlorinating bacteria. Results of the
field microcosm study are presented in Section 3.7.
3.6 Groundwater Nbnitoring
Following the substrate injection, post-injection groundwater monitoring was conducted at
two-month intervals for a period of six months. Post-injection monitoring consisted of
sampling the six new monitoring wells (6-GW47IW through 6-GW52IW) and the injection
well (6-DRW01). The pilot study concluded with the third and final post-injection
groundwater monitoring event.
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 34

SHE 82 PIIOT SnDYREPORT
All groundwater samples were collected in accordance with the Base Master Project Plans
(CH2M HILL, 2005), and analyzed for: VOCs (EPA Method 8260B), bromide, and NAIPs
including: dissolved gases (RSK-175); nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, and chloride (EPA Method
300.0); sulfide (EPA Method 376.1); alkalinity (EPA Method 310.1); TOC, and total dissolved
iron and manganese (SW-846 6010B). Water quality parameters, including DO,
conductivity,pH,temperature, turbidity,and ORP were also measured in the field.
Appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were submitted in
accordance with all normal protocols. This included trip blanks (one per cooler with
samples for VOC analysis), matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSDs) (5% of
samples), duplicates (10% of samples), and equipment blanks (one per day of sampling).
3.6.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
During the baseline groundwater monitoring event, conducted in February 2007, the
greatest concentrations of PCE were detected in monitoring wells 6-GW511W and 6-
GW521W, while TCE concentrations were greatest in 6-GW49IW, 6-GW501W and 6-
GW511W (Figure 3-1 and Table 3-4). It is noteworthy that the VOC concentrations detected
in the samples collected from 6-DRW01 decreased between one and two orders of
magnitude following deactivation of the recovery well pump.
During the first post-injection monitoring event, conducted in April 2007, VOC
concentrations detected in the sample collected from the injection well (6-DRW01) were
significantly lower than those reported from the baseline monitoring event, as shown in
Table 34. Wells 6-GW481W, 6-GW491W 6-GW50IW and 6-GW51IW also showed decreases
in PCE and/or TCE. An increase in cis-1,2-DCE and VC was noted in 6-GW491W and 6-
GW511W.
Comparison of the results from the second post-injection monitoring event, conducted in
June 2007, to data from the April 2007 event generally revealed increases in concentrations
of PCE and TCE, and in some instances to concentrations that exceeded the baseline data.
Monitoring well 6-GW491W exhibited significant increases in concentrations of TCE and VC
over the previous monitoring event and the baseline event. However, the concentrations of
VOCs detected in the injection well remained significantly below the baseline data.
The third and final post-injection monitoring event, conducted in August 2007, indicated
relatively little change in concentrations compared to the previous event. The only
exceptions were moderate increases of PCE and TCE in monitoring well 6-GW481W and a
significant decrease of TCE in 6-GW501W (with a corresponding increase of cis-1,2-DCE).
Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE were reported in all wells, particularly 6-GW50IW and 6-
GW511W. Over the course of the pilot study, no changes were observed in the VOC
concentrations detected in samples collected from upgradient monitoring well, 6-GW47IW.
3.6.2 Water Quality Parameters
In order to evaluate the distribution of the injected substrate and assess indicators of
biological activity, field measurements of key water quality parameters were recorded in all
seven monitoring wells associated with the pilot study, including DO, pH, specific
conductivity, turbidity, temperature, and ORP. A summary of the water quality parameters
recorded during the pilot test are presented in Table 3-5.
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 3-5

SHE 82 PIIDT SnDYREPORT
3.6.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is the most thermodynamically favored electron acceptor used by
microbes for the biodegradation of organic carbon. Generally, DO concentrations below
0.5 mg/L are required for anaerobic bacteria necessary for reductive dechlorination to be
active. As the DO decreases within the aquifer, other electron acceptors (such as nitrate,
ferric iron, or sulfate) may be used by microorganisms to facilitate reductive dechlorination
reactions. Baseline DO concentrations in five of the seven monitored wells were less than or
equal to 0.5 mg/L. With the exception of the June monitoring event, DO concentrations
remained low throughout the study period.
3.6.2.2 Oxidation-Reduction Potential
The ORP of groundwater is a measure of electron activity and an indicator of the relative
tendency of a solution to accept or transfer electrons. Reductive dechlorination is most
efficient in the ORP range corresponding to sulfate reduction and methanogenesis [i.e. less
than-100 millivolts (mV)].
ORP trends within the pilot study monitoring wells are presented in Figure 3-1. During the
baseline monitoring event, ORP measurements in the pilot study monitoring wells ranged
from -265 mV to 170 mV. With the exception of the injection well, ORP measurements
generally decreased following substrate injection, leading to an ORP range at the conclusion
of the pilot study of-233 mV to-82 mV.
3.6.2.3 Total Organic Carbon
Biodegradable organic carbon is utilized as an electron donor in the fermentation process
that facilitates reductive dechlorination. The presence of TOC at concentrations greater than
20 mg/L indicates conditions conducive for reductive dechlorination to occur (USEPA,
1998; Wiedemeier et al, 1996). TOC was not detected at concentrations greater then 20mg/L
during the baseline monitoring. Following substrate injection, TOC was detected in two
wells, 6-GW49IW and 6-DRW01, at concentrations greater then 20 mg/L. The TOC
concentration in injection well 6-DRW01 reached a maximum of 470 mg/L during the April
2007 monitoring event, while the TOC concentration at 6-GW49IW reached a maximum of
845 mg/L in June 2007.
3.6.3 Bromide
A bromide tracer was blended into the substrate prior to injection. Table 3-6 provides a
summary of the bromide concentrations detected during the monitoring events. Bromide
was detected above background levels in the injection well (6-DRW01) and one
hydraulically downgradient monitoring well (6-GW49IW) for a period of four months after
substrate injection.
3.6.4 Natural Attenuation Indicator Parameters (NAIl's)
Natural attenuation indicator parameters (NAIPs), including nitrate, nitrite, total iron,
dissolved iron, sulfate, sulfide, methane, chloride and alkalinity, were monitored in the
seven pilot study wells throughout the course of the study. These parameters were
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 3-6

SHE 82 PIIOT SnDYREPORT
evaluated to determine if the conditions were favorable for biodegradation. Table 3-6
presents a summary of the NAIPs.
Under anaerobic conditions, anaerobic bacteria utilize additional electron acceptors in the
following order of preference: nitrate ("nitrate reduction'), ferric iron ("iron reduction'),
sulfate ("sulfate reduction"), and carbon dioxide ("methanogenesis"). Reductive
dechlorination has been demonstrated under nitrate-reducing and sulfate-reducing
conditions, but is most likely to occur in methanogenic conditions. Because reductive
dechlorination occurs under similar conditions to the processes mentioned above, the
concentrations of constituents (such as nitrate, ferrous iron, etc.) can provide an indication
of the general redox state of the aquifer and the potential for reductive dechlorination to
occur.
When DO has been depleted, nitrate can be used as an electron acceptor in anaerobic
degradation via denitrification. In denitrification, nitrate is reduced to produce nitrite.
Therefore, decreased nitrate concentrations and increased nitrite concentrations relative to
background indicate nitrate reduction is occurring. However, at concentrations greater than
1 mg/L, nitrate can compete with chlorinated hydrocarbons as an electron acceptor. Nitrate
was not detected in any of the monitoring wells at Site 82. Nitrite was detected in
monitoring well 6-GW491W at concentrations ranging from 0.815 mg/L to 8.84 mg/L in
April and June 2007, respectively. Nitrite was also detected in 6-DRW01 at a concentrations
of 8.94 mg/L and 6.44 mg/L in April and June, respectively. The presence of nitrite and
absence of nitrate in the 6-DRW01 and 6-GW49IW suggest that nitrate reduction is
occurring.
In some cases, ferric iron [Fe(III)] is used as an electron acceptor during anaerobic
degradation and reduced before sulfate. During this process (termed "iron reduction"),
ferric iron is reduced to ferrous iron [Fe(II)]. Reduced ferric iron concentrations relative to
background and ferrous iron concentrations greater than 1 mg/L are considered indicators
of iron reduction. Ferrous iron concentrations can be estimated by subtracting detected
ferric iron concentrations from total iron concentrations. Wells 6-DRW01 and 6-GW481W
detected both total and dissolved iron over 1 mg/L and increasing concentrations from the
baseline monitoring event. The other wells did not indicate an increase in iron
concentrations,total or dissolved,throughout the monitoring events.
After DO, nitrate, and iron have been depleted, sulfate may be used as the electron acceptor
in anaerobic degradation. This process is termed "sulfate reduction" and results in the
production of sulfide. However, sulfide will preferentially precipitate with available
dissolved metals (for example, ferrous iron) before remaining dissolved in groundwater.
Sulfate concentrations less than background are indicative of anaerobic degradation by
sulfate reduction. Sulfate was detected four monitoring wells, 6-GW49IW, 6-GW501W, 6-
GW51IW, and 6-DRW01 and sulfide in one monitoring well, 6-DRW01. Sulfate
concentrations were less than 20 mg/L in all wells, with concentrations ranging from 5.03
mg/L to 5.85 mg/L. Sulfide was found in only 6-DRW01 at 1.0 mg/L in August, see
Appendix B.
After the preceding electron acceptors have been utilized, carbon dioxide can be used as the
electron acceptor in anaerobic degradation. In this process, termed "methanogenesis",
carbon dioxide is reduced to produce methane. The presence of methane in the aquifer is
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 3-7

SrM 82 PIIOT SnDYREPORT
indicative of strongly reducing conditions. In general, methane concentrations greater than
background indicate methanogenesis is occurring. Reductive dechlorination is most efficient
under methanogenic conditions. Methane was detected above the baseline concentrations in
all but two wells, 6-GW51IW and 6-GW521W. The presence of methane in excess of the
baseline concentrations suggests that strongly reducing conditions were created within the
pilot study area.
Chloride concentrations greater than background concentrations are indicative of the
reduction of chlorinated solvent-related contamination is occurring (USEPA, 1998;
Wiedemeier et al, 1996). A general decrease in chloride concentrations from the baseline
concentrations was seen throughout the post-injection monitoring events.
3.7 Native Dechlorinating Bacteria
The previously referenced Bio_TrapsTM were shipped to Microbial Insights for evaluation to
determine the presence and relative abundance of indigenous dechlorinating bacteria.
Table 3-7 presents a summary of the dechlorinating bacteria detected at Site 82.
The target bacteria included: Dehalobacter (DHB), Dehalococcoides (DHC),
Desulfuromonas (DSM), Methanotrophic bacteria (MOB)(able to cometabolically degrade
some VOCs under aerobic conditions). DHB can indicate the transformation of TCE to cis-
1,2-DCE. DHC, which are the only bacteria shown to be capable of complete degradation of
PCE and TCE to ethane, grow slowly under strictly anaerobic conditions and may require
several months to begin to thrive. DSM is also a strict anaerobic bacterium (Bitton,1999).
DHB was reported to range from 787 to 219,000 cells/bead, with the highest detection
reported in the baited control Bio_TrapTM and were found to be thriving in all traps. DHC
ranged from less than 25 to 38.8 cells/bead, and DSM ranged from less than 50 to 824
cells/bead.
DHC populations were found to be quite limited, however DHC are known to take longer
than the three months allotted during the pilot study to become thriving populations. The
number of dechlorinators detected on the control trap was generally similar to the traps
baited with the injected substrate, indicating that the naturally occurring conditions are
adequate for dechlorinating bacteria to grow and thrive as well as they would with the
addition of substrate. However,as shown by the low DHC and DSM detections,it may take
up to six months to a year for dechlorinating bacteria to grow and thrive depending on the
conditions.
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTSTLDYSUAMARYREPORTDOC 3-8

SECTION 4
Conclusions
This pilot study successfully demonstrated that ERD is a viable remedial technology for the
site-specific conditions encountered at Site 82. The following sections summarize the key
findings and conclusions derived from the study.
4.1 Source Area Characterization
During design of the pilot study, it was assumed that the proposed injection well 6-DRW01
was located in the immediate vicinity of the source of the observed VOC impacted
groundwater. Table 3-2 summarizes the typical VOC concentrations detected in 6-DRW01
during active groundwater recovery operations.
During the roughly 12-month hiatus of groundwater recovery operations involving 6-
DRW01 (in preparation for the initiation of the ERD substrate injection), VOC
concentrations in this well decreased significantly, e.g. TCE decreased from 9,200 to 160
µg/L. The baseline monitoring indicated that the greatest VOC concentrations were
reported for monitoring wells 6-GW50IW and 6-GW51IW, located west of 6-DRW01. This
discovery suggests that groundwater pumping from 6-DRW01 is capturing impacted
groundwater from nearby, but under static (no pumping) conditions the VOC
concentrations in the immediate vicinity of this well are one to two orders of magnitude
lower. The generally low ORP measured in wells 6-GW47IW, 6-GW501W, and 6-GW51IW
may also suggest that the source area is located to the west of 6-DRW01; the ORP
measurements from wells 6-GW47IW, 6-GW50IW, and 6-GW51IW remained negative
throughout the pilot study indicating the presence of naturally occurring reductive
conditions.
In summary, it appears that while groundwater recovery from 6-DRW01 may be somewhat
effective at removing contaminant mass, it is not an ideally located injection well for the
purposes of remediation by means of ERD. Furthermore, this discovery questions the
adequacy of previous source area characterization efforts with regards to the future
evaluation of alternate remedial strategies.
4.2 Contaminant Degradation
Post-injection groundwater monitoring events detected TCE daughter products in each well,
although byproduct production was most pronounced in monitoring wells 6-GW491W, 6-
GW501W, and 6-GW511W. The elevated concentrations of degradation byproducts indicate
successful reductive dechlorination was identified at three out of six of the monitoring
wells. The observed changes in groundwater geochemistry (low DO and negative ORP)
indicate a shift towards a more reducing environment (such as the development of iron-
reducing, sulfate-reducing, or methanogenic conditions). It should also be noted that
groundwater quality in 6-DRW01, at the conclusion of the pilot study,met the NCGWQS.
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTSTDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 4-1

SIIE 82 PIIOT SnDYREPORT
4.3 Treatment Zone
Evaluation of the distribution of the bromide tracer suggests that the maximum extent of the
treatment zone was approximately 20 feet hydraulically downgradient from the point of
injection. Aside from the injection well, the bromide tracer was only detected in
groundwater samples collected from monitoring well 6-GW49IW (within two months of
injection), suggesting that the initial radius of influence was somewhat less than 20 feet and
that the tracer was subsequently transported by means of advection. Therefore, the lateral
and upgradient dimensions of the treatment zone are presumed to radiate less than 20 feet
from the injection well.
Changes in ORP measurements may also be used to infer the extent of migration of the
substrate. For example, monitoring wells 6-GW481W, 6-GW491W and 6-GW521W exhibited
post-injection decreases of ORP suggesting that these wells may have been influenced by
the substrate injection.
The limited detection of the bromide tracer may also be due to several factors including: a)
use of insufficient tracer volume, b) limited half-life of the bromide tracer may have lead to
the degradation of the bromide tracer before reaching other wells, and c) heterogeneities
within the treatment zone may have created preferential flow paths not intersected by the
monitoring wells.
4.4 Dechlorinating Bacteria
The presence of the reductive dechlorination daughter products of TCE (cis-1,2-DCE and
VC) in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells 6-GW49IW and 6-GW50IW is
considered to be an indicator that biologically mediated reductive dechlorination is
occurring within the aquifer. The presence of elevated concentrations of VC in samples
collected from 6-GW491W is also considered to be significant, since it indicates the presence
of bacteria capable of degrading cis-1,2-DCE. However, it is likely that the duration of the
pilot test may not have been long enough to determine if vinyl chloride would degrade to
ethane over time.
4.5 Cost
The cost to plan and implement the Site 82 ERD pilot was approximately $140,000, and
included the following elements:
• Development of a project-specific work plan
• Installation and development of six 100 feet deep monitoring wells,
• Preparation of an Underground Injection Control permit application,
• Procurement and injection of the oil and lactate mixture,
• Mobilization for four groundwater monitoring events,
• Subcontracted laboratory services for VOC and microbial analyses,
• Preparation of a summary report
SHE 82ERDPQDTSn DYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(SrrES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSUAhMYREPORTDOC ¢2

SECTION 5
Recommendations
Considering that a remedy is currently in place at Site 82, and is reportedly meeting the
remedial objectives of plume containment and mass reduction, the decision to evaluate and
pursue alternative remedial strategies should be weighed in terms of cost and benefit.
During this pilot study, it was noted that recovery well 6-DRW01 did not appear to be
ideally located to efficiently extract impacted groundwater, potentially leading to greater
time to reach cleanup goals. Based upon the available information, it is unknown whether
the other groundwater recovery wells are more advantageously located. Consequently, it is
recommended that before larger scale application of ERD technology is considered for Site
82, additional source characterization activities should be conducted to refine the conceptual
site model and more accurately identify target treatment zones.
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTST[IDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC 5-1

SECTION 6
References
Baker Environmental, Inc., 1993. Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit No. 2 (Sites 6,
9, and 82),MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. August 1993.
Bitton,Gabriel. Wastewater Microbiology Second Edition,Wiley-Liss,Inc.,1999.
CH2M HILL, 2005. Master Project Plans, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North
Carolina. August 2005.
CH2M HILL, 2006. Draft Annual Long-Term Monitoring Report, Operable Unit No. 2 - Sites 6 &
82,Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. June 2006.
CH2M HILL, 2007. Final Site 82 Work Plan, Operable Unit No. 2 - Site 82, Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. January 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural
Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water. September 1998.
Weidemeier, Todd, et al. 1996. Draft Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of
Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence. San
Antonio,Texas. November 1996.
Sr1E82ERDPILOTSnDYSUNhMYREPORT.DCYT:\EBL\NAVYC[EWM2(Sr1ES 6,9,AND82)\SIIE82\PIIDTSTUDY(ERD)\REPORWP;AL\SrIE82 ERDPQDTSTDYSU,4MMYREPORTDOC CfI

Tables

TABLE 3-3
Substrate Injection Flow Rates
Site 82 Pilot Study Report
NUB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Flow Rate Cumulative
Date and Time (gpm) (gallons)
2/7/07 7:30 22 NA
2/7/07 11:15 22 4950
2/7/07 14:45 22 9570
2/8/07 7:50 22 14,100
2/8/07 8:50 22 15,404
2/8/07 12:50 22 20,684
2/8/07 14:20 22 22,440
2/9/07 8:50 12 25,260
2/9/07 9:50 12 25,980
2/9/07 10:50 12 26,700
2/9/07 12:50 12 28,140
gpm - gallons per minute

TABLE 3-4
Detected Concentrations of VOCs in Groundwater
Site 82 Pilot Study Report
NUB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Concentration (ug/L)
Well ID 7ZZ Date PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE trans-1,2-DCE VC
NCGWQS (ug/L) 0.7 2.8 70 100 0.015
Sep-05 790 9200 1600 330 33 J
Feb-07 15 160 150 36 1.6 J
06-DRW01 Apr-07 0.17 J 2 29 D 5 0.79
Jun-07 0.26 J 2.2 7.3 1.7 0.5 U
Aug-07 0.28 J 1.9 10 1.7 0.74
Feb-07 11 5.8 2.1 0.24 J 0.5 U
06-GW471W Apr-07 32 D 6.2 3 0.49 J 0.5 U
Jun-07 47 D 5.3 9.1 0.47 J 0.5 U
Aug-07 18 1 5.5 20 0.5 0.5 U
Feb-07 53 120 40 4.2 4.2 U
06-GW481W Apr-07 43 42 39 4.8 5.7
Jun-07 53 40 27 4.9 4.7
Aug-07 100 69 50 9.6 4.6
Feb-07 63 1000 D 610 98 4.8 J
06-GW491W Apr-07 21 U 21 U 810 D 18 J 85
Jun-07 22 J 1600 550 100 1100
Aug-07 50 U 1100 500 68 1300
Feb-07 50 J 8300 D 1 1700 1 350 1 130 U
06-GW501W Apr-07 50 U 1300 790 99 50 U
Jun-07 130 J 7400 1900 260 250 U
Aug-07 42 J 4500 D 2800 D 140 21 J
Feb-07 110 3800 D 520 D 210 5.5 J
06-GW511W Apr-07 87 J 3200 D 1600 290 100 U
Jun-07 220 J 6900 1000 1 290 250 U
Aug-07 210 J 6200 990 380 17 J
Feb-07 96 150 130 20 4.2 U
06-GW521W Apr-07 130 D 97 67 14 2.8
Jun-07 220 130 74 220 6.3 U
Aug-07 240 D 130 D 100 D 22 3.5
Feb-07 168 3225 657 145 26
Average concentration over Apr-07 52 667 477 62 35
all wells Jun-07 99 2297 510 125 230
Aug-07 21L 1715 639 89 192
Note:NCGWQS-North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards
D-Compound identified in an analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
J-Analyte present. Value may or may not be accurate or precise
U-The material was analyzed for, but not detected

TABLE 3-5
Summary ofWater Quality Parameters
Site 82 Pilot Study Report
MCB Camp Lejeme,North Carolina
Purge
Volume Purge Rate pH Conductivity Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen Temperature ORP
Well ID Sample Date (gallons) (ml/min) (SU) (S/cm) (NTU) (mg/L) (°C) (mV)
Feb-07 340.0 7.73 0.241 0.0 0.36 18.2 -156
06-DRW01 Apr-07 350.0 5.97 1.02 24.0 0.00 18.57 -87
Jun-07 330.0 5.90 0.886 132 5.20 19.41 -29
Aug-07 380.0 -- 7.89 0.900 7 0.42 19.6 -82
Feb-07 14.0 350.0 8.42 0.243 0.0 0.50 14.6 -265
06-GW471W Apr-07 14.0 500.0 8.09 0.232 0.5 0.01 19.55 -265
Jun-07 13.5 500.0 8.44 0.231 9.2 2.02 19.75 -254
Aug-07 14.0 500.0 10.67 0.307 100 0.18 23.6 -233
Feb-07 13.0 350.0 7.52 0.339 0.8 1.72 16.5 9
06-GW481W Apr-07 13.5 500.0 7.63 0.287 13.8 0.09 19.51 -155
Jun-07 13.0 500.0 7.72 0.334 0.0 2.00 20.29 -152
Aug-07 13.0 500.0 8.87 0.321 79 0.22 21.3 -138
Feb-07 13.0 400.0 7.52 0.099 11 0.09 16.31 59
06-GW491W Apr-07 14.0 500.0 7.07 0.89 185 0.03 19.72 -185
Jun-07 13.0 500.0 6.31 1.92 24.1 1.69 19.91 -112
Aug-07 13.0 500.0 9.2 1.5 83 0.18 20.6 -157
Feb-07 12.5 350.0 7.93 0.009 0.1 0.18 14.78 -200
06-GW501W Apr-07 13.5 500.0 7.96 0.36 8.9 0.00 19.71 -214
Jun-07 13.0 500.0 8.30 0.215 90.7 1.70 20.98 -214
Aug-07 13.0 500.0 10.23 0.909 0 0.20 22.4 -202
Feb-07 13.0 350.0 7.95 0.009 0.0 0.50 16.35 -189
06-GW511W Apr-07 14.0 500.0 8.01 0.26 1.3 0.00 19.75 -233
Jun-07 12.5 500.0 8.29 0.255 37.7 1.82 21.51 -213
Aug-07 13.0 500.0 10.56 0.999 7 0.12 22.7 -214
Feb-07 13.0 400.0 7.43 0.398 3.1 0.80 17.9 170
06-GW521W Apr-07 14.0 500.0 7.53 0.511 6.5 0.00 20.17 -128
Jun-07 13.0 500.0 7.66 0.269 0.0 1.82 20.33 -151
Aug-07 13.5 500.0 8.46 0.999 14 0.21 21.0 -135
mI/min-milliliter per minute
SU-standard unit
S/cm-Siemen per centimeter
NTU-Nephelometric turbidity unit
mg/L-milligram per liter
°C-degree celcius
mV-millivolt

TABLE 3-6
Summary of Wet Chemistry Parameters
Site 82 Pilot Study Report
NUB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Chloride Ethene Methane Nitrate Nitrite TOC Alkalinity Total Iron Dissolved Iron Bromide
Well ID Sample Date (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Feb-07 3.70 2.0 U 0.4 JB 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 91.9 3.7 E 0 B 0.1 U
06-DRW01 Apr-07 2.80 2.0 U 2 0.05 U 8.94 470 587 28.9 N 26.9 2.89
Jun-07 3.12 2.0 U 43 B 0.05 U 6.44 332 499 36.7 34 0.66
Aug-07 2.03 2.0 U 79 BD 0.03 U 0.02 U 310 586 16.6 13.7 0.1 U
Feb-07 4.32 0.8 J 0.6 JB 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 101 1.2 E 0.6 0.1 U
06-GW471W Apr-07 4.87 2.0 U 0.9 J 0.05 U 0.05 U 2.02 B 123 1.6 N 0.9 0.1 U
Jun-07 4.35 2.0 U 1 B 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 110 1.5 0.7 0.1 U
Aug-07 3.95 0.3 J 5 B 0.03 U 0.02 U 2.4 B 97.5 1.3 0.4 E 0.1 U
Feb-07 5.15 2.0 U 0.4 JB 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 156 0.1 E 0 B 0.1 U
06-GW481W Apr-07 5.26 2.0 U 0.6 J 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 141 0.4 N 0 B 0.1 U
Jun-07 4.02 2.0 U 1 B 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 137 0.2 0 B 0.1 U
Aug-07 4.27 0.08 J 1 B 0.03 U 0.02 U 1.6 U 122 0.2 0 BE 0.1 U
Feb-07 5.03 2.0 U 0.5 JB 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 118 0.2 E 0 B 0.1 U
06-GW491W Apr-07 3.30 2.0 U 2 0.05 U 0.815 392 380 3.4 N 0.9 7.94
Jun-07 5.14 2.0 240 BD 0.05 U 8.84 845 1540 12.5 12.5 6.4
Aug-07 3.22 0.6 J 300 BD 0.03 U 0.02 U 531 1760 8.5 6.3 E 0.1 U
Feb-07 7.60 0.7 J 0.5 JB 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 93.5 0.9 E 0.4 0.1 U
06-GW501W Apr-07 6.72 0.6 J 3 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 103 0.9 N 0.4 0.1 U
Jun-07 5.08 2.0 U 2 B 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 99.7 0.9 0.2 0.1 U
Aug-07 4.81 0.2 J 3 B 0.03 U 0.02 U 1.6 U 89.4 0.6 0.3 E 0.1 U
Feb-07 6.32 0.9 J 0.6 JB 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 83.1 0.5 E 0.3 0.1 U
06-GW511W Apr-07 6.97 2.0 U 0.4 J 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 108 0.9 N 0.4 0.1 U
Jun-07 5.48 2.0 U 0.7 BJ 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 94 0.8 0.3 0.1 U
Aug-07 5.05 2.0 U 0.3 BJ 0.03 U 0.02 U 1.6 U 86.9 0.7 13.7 E 0.1 U
Feb-07 5.23 2.0 U 0.7 JB 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 158 0.5 E 0.2 0.1 U
06-GW521W Apr-07 5.33 2.0 U 0.4 J 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 153 0.4 N 0 B 0.1 U
Jun-07 4.71 2.0 U 0.7 BJ 0.05 U 0.05 U 5 U 143 0.4 0.2 0.1 U
Aug-07 4.72 2.0 U 0.4 BJ 0.03 U 0.02 U 1.6 U 121 0.3 0 0.1 U
Note:B-Analyte not detected above the level reported in blanks
D-Compound identified in an analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
J-Analyte present. Value may or may not be accurate or precise
U-The material was analyzed for,but not detected
E-(Inorganics)Estimated concentration due to interference
N-Spiked smapled recovery not within control limits

TABI E 3-7
Xtrobiological Populations
Site 82 Pilot Study Report
N fB Camp Iejeune,North Carolina
Sample ID IR06-GW27DW-07B Control IR06-GW27DW-07B Baited EL IR06-GW27DW-07B Baited ELO IR06-GW471W-07B Control IRO6-GW471W-07B Baited EL IR06-GW471W-07B Baited ELO
Sample Date 4/19/07 4/19/07 4/19/07 4/19/07 4/19/07 4/19/07
Chemical Name
DHB 127,000= 787= 16,300= 219,000= 108,000= 180,000=
DHC 25< 25< 25< 27.3= 38.8= 25<
DSM 50< 93.1= 50< 50< 50< 824=
MOB 4,930,000= 6,300,000= 795,000= 623,000= 4,140,000= 621,000=
MOBI 4,840,000= 6,230,000= 603,000= 618,000= 4,120,000= 618,000=
MOBII 92,600= 71,100= 191,000= 5,040= 23,300=1 3,220=
TOD 501< 1 73,600= 1 50<1 50<1 45,200=1 12,600=
Notes:
Units in microbial cells per bead
DHB-Dehalobacter
DHC-Dehalococcoides
DSM-Desulfuromonas
MOB-Methanotrophic bacteria
TOD-Toluene diozygenase
Baited EL-Biotrap baited with ethyl lactate
Baited ELO-Biotrap baited with the emulsified oil/ethyl lactate blend

Figures

\\Nriadne\groups\GIS\USNavFaceNGCom\315007CampLejeune\Projects\Sites6 and 821\Figure_2_1_Base_Loc_Map.mxd
i f
i
t � �
Duplin
17
I y
258
70
117 '
Carteret
1 Jacksonville �,;r,
Onslow %;,
\ -ti r ------------------- Site 82 1 ) — i 5 /"
Morehead Cityf
MCB Camp\,�ejeune
241 Ne` F
V
Pender
Gea
WV
VA
17 _,� '�;
NC
Marine Corps Base
/Y Camp Lejeune
- rJ
SC Atlantic Ocean
s
Legend N Figure 1-1
DlnstallationArea WE Base Location Map
�
Site 82 Site 82, Operable Unit No. 2
Limited Access Higwhay S MCB Camp Lejuene, North Carolina
Highway 0 4,500 9,000 13,500 18,000
Local Roads FM Meters
Cities

\\Ariadne\groups\USNavFaceNGCom\315007CampLejeune\Projects\Sites_6_and_82\Figure 1-2-Site Map.mxd
IT
TP-
i� �� slit rialt .�` r'¢r►
W.
ca
r }
W. 1. -1. 1 -1. 1•
r
t {• W. 1- 1
- `r
W.
i
• - i -1. 1 t -1. 1
1 J
W.
y�,� fc�► �� l�6, IR06-GW01 DB
IR06-GWOIDA 6-GW521W
I Itr' \�`r Ys IR06-GW01 D
-GW01Q ®6-GW481W 4
=O 'l '. #tr 6-GW01DC
n 6-GW501W®
p !. / ! 6-GW491W A,6-DRW01
r
� 6-GW511W
03
O y r'
q
C f IR06-GW471W®
r 11i r• -
fll �Y f l S • 1 -1• 0 37.5 75 Feet
Legend N Figure 1-2
aEnvironmental Restoration Area Approximate location w+E Site Map
Deep Monitoring Well of pilot study s Site 82,Operable Unit No.2
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
®Intermediate Monitoring Well 0 200 400 800
Shallow Monitoring Well Feet
Deep Recovery Well cH�..
Shallow Recover Well 1"=400 ft

AphroditetprojtUSNavFacEngComt315007CampLejeune\Projects\Sites_6_and_82\Figure 1-3 Pilot Study Layout.mxd
•• AL -
715
_ q ; t
J
. ; .
r A% j6-GW521W CONT78
IR06-GW01
� �IR06-GW01 DB
IR06-GW01
®-6-GW48IW
6-GW01 DC�
WW
_ i s 6 GW501W—® IR 6-DRW01
! 6-GW511W '
-G W471 W
pt
i t
626
IV
4 -
.i
-
Legend N Figure 1-3
Deep Monitoring Well wLaut
+e Pilot SdSite 82,Operrable Unit No 2
®Intermediate Monitoring Well s MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
O Shallow Monitoring Well 0 50 100
Injection Well
Feet CH211WHILL
1"=50ft

Aphrodite\proj\USNavFacEngCom\315007CampLejeune\Projects\Sites_6_and_82\Figure 2-1 Cross_Section_Lcoation_map.mA
ifl
1 - -
- 8
%A, 4-
Al'
a " r
N.
6-G W521 W
6-GW01 DA A
6-GW01 Dil 6-GW01 DB :
s - 6-G W01 O 06-G W481 W
6-GW01 DC 6-GW491W
6-G W501 WO
6-GW511W
6-G W471 W®
O
,a 7" r s
Mv ;
-
a
Legend N Figure 2-1
Z�Injection Well w+P_ Cross-Section Location Map
Deep Monitoring Well s Site 82,Operable Unit No.2
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
®Intermediate Monitoring Well
0 50 100
O Shallow Monitoring Well
—Cross-Section Location Feet CH2MHILL
1"=50ft

3
A °i � C7 A' Horizontal:1"=10'
30 0 30 Wrtical:V=20'
o V.E.=0.5x
,_ , , .1 - , .,. 1 1 .L.
LEGEND
10 10
I rr ®G7ayey/Sandy Silt
0 Silty Sand
I.
e J .
n an Ceme ted sand
rr it
4 ri
Screened Interval
-10 C n* a -10
d --
. e t .. .'.'. hiEned geologic contact
w a .
y.:• '::.•::.:•: r'.:. 3 Water table elevation
— 30
_ NOTE
30 m
1 The depth and thickness ofthe subsurface
�e.��rrr` md
e
0
strata indicated on this section m were file
� `����'�' '''�'•�' •• generalized from and interpolated between
g rlrO
m
test locations.]nfomiati on on actual
w subsurface conditions apply rdY o to the
specific locations indicated.Subsurface
conditions and water levels at other
-50 -50 locations may differ from conditions
occurring at the indicated locations.
e 2)All water levels were measured during
S I sampling event in January 2005.
3)*Boring log not available
4)IR06-DRMI not used in cross-section
development.
A.
-70 -70
-90 L-90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance in Feet from A to A'(feet)
Figure 2-2
Geological Cross Section A-A'
Site 82, Operable Unit No. 2
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
CH2MHILL
LS0120080(AMTL Figorel-l_A-A v2.ai 02.21.08 A

Aphrodite\proj`,USNavFacEngCom\315007CampLejeune`Projects\Sites 6 and 82\Figure3-1_Pilot_Study_Monitoring_Data.mxd
Note:
Distance in Feet from 06-GW521W
Monitoring Well Injection Well (IR06- 200 ` Injection
,70
D R W 01 , 80 =d.1,2-DCE 120
VC
6-GW47IW 48 160 -ORP 70 06-GW481W
6-G W 48I W 28.5 a 140 2' zo 0 200 Injection 70
D
6-G W 49I W 21 N 100 30 7 180 —TCE120
6-GW50IW 29.5 a 80 80s 160 =-130 140 VC1,2-DCE 70
6-GW511W 31.5 60 80 n120 -ORP O
20
6-G W 52I W 40 xo z3o b too 30
' - -80 5
o -280 c eo
`
-- ' Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sap-07 60 _ __ -130
O Sample Date 40 -180
I 20 -230
7 - 0 -280
- - Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07
i Sample Date
7
A
1
6-G W 01 DA 06-GW491 W
6-GW01D \ 6-GW01DB 9000 Injection
no
8000 -GCSE 120
06-GWSOIW 6-GW01 -1,2-DCE
9000 Injection 7000 a —VC 70
—TCE 170 6-GW01DC a6000 ` ORP p O -
8000 PVC 1,2-DCE 1p 0 5000 -3p �
7000 —•ORP 70 - E 4000 -80 <
n 6000 20 O lo
3000 ` ` -130
- 0 5000 -30 O 2000 -180
a 4000 -Bo 5 1000 -230
'=3000 -130 0 -280
() Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May
2000 -07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07
,�
l000 -2. Sample Date
0 -28o y
Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 ��� 11111116
Sample Date
1
�f
_ .16 06-GW47IW
06-GW511W 06-DRW01 200 Injection
170
Injection 9000 170 Injection 180 120
r 8000 120 200 170 160 —TCE 70
7000 180 120 n 140 cis-1,2-DCE
70 -�TCE _VC 20
140 cis-1,2-DCE 70 120 O
fi000 20 O
n n 1 _VC -ORP
o -30
c 5000 -30 �ORP 20 O too
3
+ A 4000 �VCE 60
•2-DCE -80 5 0 100 -00 8U -80 5
t -80 -130
3
i'3000 •ORP -130 5 80 5 U
r•. U c 60 -130 40 -180
2000 -180 rj
40 -180 20 -230
t 1000 -230 --
20 -230 0 -280 t
0 -280 0 -280 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07
Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 6" Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Sample Date
Sample Date Sample Date
1Y
r
Legend N Figure 3-1
�il Deep Monitoring Well w+E Pilot Study Monitoring Data
®Intermediate Monitoring Well s Site 82,Operable Unit No.2
•Shallow Monitoring Well MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
0 50 100
Injection Well
Feet ® CH211WHILL
1"=50ft all

Appendix A
Boring Logs

0 CH2MHILL Well Number: GW471W Sheet: 1 of 4
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/13/05 9:15 to 1:20
Sample Info
>
a�
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
C� i0 0 - 0
c E
o cn u~i� rn° o �
0 Ground Surface 0
0-3.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Medium sand. 10YR 0'-7.0'= 0.00 ppm
3/8 yellowish brown, moist, loose
-3
3.0'-7.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand 3
10YR 7/4 pale brown, moist,very loose
5-
-7
7.0'-10.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand 7 7.0'- 17.0'= 0.00 ppm
10YR 7/4 pale brown,moist,very loose
10- -10
10.0'- 14.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand,
10YR 5/3 dark brown,moist, medium dense
-14
14.0'-17.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 1
15 10YR 7/1 light gray,moist to wet, loose
-17
17.0'- 19.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand,
10YR 7/1 light gray, moist to wet.loose but
10YR 5/1 gray,saturated 18.0'= 2.0 ppm
-19
19.0'-20.5'-Clayey Silt(ML), 10YR 5/1 gray, 19
20 moist.very stiff 111 20.0'=2.7 ppm
-22
19.0'-23.5'-Silty Sand(SM), 70%medium 2 \ 22.0'= 12.7 ppm
sand, 10- 15%coarse sand, 7.5YR 6/8
reddish-yellow,moist,very loose
-24
23.5'-27.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Medium sandy, 4
10-20%silt, 10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated, 24.0' = 17.8 ppm
251 1
medium dense,small clayey silt lens at 26.0'

to CH2MHILL Well Number: GW471W Sheet: 2 of 4
41111111111111.
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/13/05 9:15 to 1:20
Sample Info
>
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
d 0 Q
c CL - w
a E a - a
(D cn o 4)in cn 3
26.0'= 18.4 ppm
-27
27.0'-30.0'-Siltv Sand(SM), Medium sandy, 7
10-20%silt, 10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated, 28,0'= 20.3 m
medium dense,small clayey silt lens,but pp
10YR 3/1,gray
30 -30
30.0'-32.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 10- 15%silt, 30 30.0'= 32 ppm
Gley1 5/1 greenish gray, saturated,loose
32.0'-37.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, -32 32.0'= 64.0 ppm
10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated, loose,
homogenous
34.0'= 101 ppm
35
36.0'=52.2 ppm
-37
37.0'-42.0'-Silty Sand(SM)Medium
sand,10YR 4/1 dark gray, saturated, loose, TV
38.0'=
40 40.0'=4.0'
-42 42.0'= 22.1 ppm
42.0'-46.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Conglomerate,
10YR 7/1 light gray, saturated,very hard,solid.
shells/fossils
44.0'= 57.2 ppm
45
-46 46.0'=93 ppm
46.0'-47.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 4
10YR 4/1,dark gray,saturated,loose _47
47.0'-50.5'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 47
10YR 4/1.dark gray,saturated, loose
48.0'= 12 ppm
50 50.0'= 13 ppm

CH2111WHILL Well Number: GW471W Sheet: 3 of 4
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/13/05 9:15 to 1:20
Sample Info
>
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
L Q -J L 0
t0 +'
a a d
o � u~i � rn o �
-51
50.5'-55.5-Silty Sand(SM), 15-20%silt, 5
crushed shell,Gleyl 811 dark greenish gray,
moist,very dense,many shells/fossils
52.0'=21.2 ppm
54.0'= 33.4 ppm
55
-56
55.5'-57.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Gleyl 4/1 light 56.0'= 45.0 ppm
green gray,saturated, medium dense,
moderate cementing -57
57.0'-60.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Gleyl 4/1 light 57
green gray,saturated,medium dense, 58.0'= 48 ppm
moderate cementing
60 -60 60.0'= 152 ppm
60.0'-64.5'-Silty Sand(SM), Complete
conglomerate,binded shells, 10YR 7/1 light
gray,wet,very hard/solid,cemented shells
62.0'= 109 ppm
-65 64.0'=9.1 ppm
65 64.5'-67.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 65
poorly graded, 10YR 5/1 dark gray.
moist/saturated,very loose,homogenous
66.0'= 11.1 ppm
"Aquaseal at 76.0'bgs
68.0'=40.2 ppm
70 70.0' = 13.7 ppm
72.0'= 23 ppm
74.0'= 62 ppm
75

to CH2MHILL Well Number: GW471W Sheet: 4 of 4
4401,
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/13/05 9:15 to 1:20
Sample Info
>
# Soil Description w m Well Construction Notes
G
a E a `4 - a
o <n v~i`O �n° o �
j±3`
76.0'=4.1 ppm
l -77
' 77.0'-84.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 77
poorly graded, 10YR 5/1 dark gray. 78.0'— .7 ppm
}• =;" moist/saturated,very loose, homogenous
80 '= 80.0'_ .9 ppm
82.0' = .9ppm
84.0'-87.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Gley 4/1 dark 84 84.0'= 1.0 ppm4
85 greenish gray, saturated,medium dense,
numerous shells/fossils
86.0'= 1.4 ppm
-87
87.0'- 100.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand,
poorly graded Gley 4/1 dark greenish gray,
saturated,loose to very loose,very 88.0'_ .9 ppm
homogenous, trace shells/fossils
'Set screen from 100.0'-90,0'bgs
90 90.0'= 1.1 ppm
92.0'= 1.2 ppm
94.0'= 1.4 ppm
95
96.0' = 2.5ppm
98.0'= 1.4 ppm
-100
100 End of Boring at 100.0'bgs End of L 100.0,= 1.8 ppm

CH2MHiLL Well Number: GW481W Sheet: 1 of 4
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 2:55 to 5:15
Sample Info
>
Soil Description w m Well Construction Notes
d c1 o
a - s o
a E a - a
Ground Surface 0
0 0'-3.0'=0.00ppm
-1
0-3.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 10YR 1
8/3 very pale brown.very loose
-3 3.0'-7.0'=0.00ppm
3.0'-7.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand with
10%-15%-20%silt, 10YR 5/6 yellowish
brown,moist,medium dense
5
7
TO'- 10.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Medium sand. 7.0'- 10.0'= 0.0 ppm
10YR 6/8 yellowish yellow,moist,loose
10 -10 10.0'- 15.0'=0.00 ppm
10.0'- 15.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Some organic
wet. 10YR 2/2 very dark brown,moist, very
loose
1
15 15.0'- 17.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 5 15.0'- 17.0'= 0.00 ppm
10YR 5/6 yellowish brown,wet,loose
-17
17.0'-20.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 17 17.0'=0.00 ppm
10YR 5/6 yellowish brown,wet, loose
20
21.0'=2.2ppm
-22
22.0'-26.5'-Silty Sand(SM),90%medium
sand,poorly graded, 10YR 7/1 light gray,wet
23.0'=4.0 ppm
25

CH2MHILL Well Number: GW481W Sheet: 2 of 4
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 2:55 to 5:15
Sample Info
>
a�
$ " Soil Description w M Well Construction Notes
d 0 Q
r n - t
a E a `4 — a
o cn a) tO U) o
-26
26.0'-27.0'-Clayey Silt(ML), 10- 15%fine
sand, 10YR 4/1 dark gray,moist, stiff, slight -27
plastic 27 27.0'= 6.6 ppm
27.0'-37.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 10- 15%silt,
80%medium sand, 10YR 3/1 very dark gray,
saturated, loose to medium dense,
homogenous
30
31.0'= 2.9ppm
32.5'=6.0ppm
33.5'= 8.1 ppm
35 35.0' = 17.2 ppm
36.0'= 21.2 ppm
-37
37.0'-45.5'-Silty Sand(SC), 10-15%silt,
80%medium sand. 10YR 3/1 very dark gray,
saturated,loose to medium dense, 38.0'=31 ppm
homogenous but at 43.0',4"layer of clayey
sand
39.5'=38 ppm
40
41.0'= 26 ppm
43.0'=23.0 ppm
44.0'= 22.0 ppm
45 -46
45.5'-47.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Gleyl 4/1
greenish gray,wet,dense, many shells/fossils 46.0'= 26 ppm
-47
47.0'-53.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 47
10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated,medium dense
48.0'= 30 ppm
49.0'= 14.2 ppm
50

cH2nnHILL Well Number: GW481W Sheet: 3 of 4
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 2:55 to 5:15
Sample Info
> c
m
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
6) O 0
L Q J t
a E a T a
o r in rn o
51.5'= 11.8 ppm
52.0'= 16.0 ppm
-53 53.0'=22.3 ppm
53.0'-57.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Gley 411 dark 0-
greenish gray,saturated,dense, numerous
fossils,shells
55 55.0'= 16 ppm
-57
57.0'-60.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Gley 4/1 dark 57.0'= 18 ppm
greenish gray,saturated,dense, numerous
fossils, shells, medium cementing 58.0'=67 ppm
60 -60 60.0'= 71 ppm
60.0'-61.5-Silty Sand(SM), Gley 4/1 dark
greenish gray,saturated,dense. numerous
fossils,shells, increase to medium/heavy -62 61.0'= 74 ppm
cementing
61.5'-65.5'-Completely cemented 62.0'=4.5 ppm
conglomerate,shells with silty sand(SM).
10YR 7/1 light gray,wet/dry, hard,very hard
64.0'= 12 ppm
65
-66
65.5-67.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Medium sand,
10YR 5/1 gray.saturated,loose 66.0' =6 ppm
-67
67.0'-74.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 67
poorly graded, 10YR 5/1 gray,wet, moist,
loose, very homogenous 68.0'=2.1 ppm
69.0'- 71.0'= 1.1 ppm
70
71.0'-75.0' = 1.4ppm
-74
75

CH211VIIIHILL Well Number: GW481W Sheet: 4 of 4
4111111111110
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 2:55 to 5:15
Sample Info
> c
d
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
Nzoo - G
r CL - Y
a E a - a
o <n u~i fD in o 3
74.0'-77.0' Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand.
poorly graded, 10YR 5/1 gray,wet,moist, -76
loose,very homogenous but Gleyl 4/1 dark 76
greenish gray, trace fossils, still loose -77
Will set seal at 76.0'bgs 77.0'= 1.4 ppm
77.0'-79.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand. 78.0'= 1.6 ppm
poorly graded, 10YR 5/1 gray,wet,moist,
loose,very homogenous but Gleyl 4/1 dark _79
greenish gray,trace fossils,still loose
_79-
80- 79.0'-87.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 80.0'= 1.6 m
poorly graded, 10YR 6/1 gray, moist, PP
saturated,loose,homogenous
82.0'= 1.2 ppm
84.0'= 1.8 ppm
85
86.0'= 2.8 ppm
-87
87.0'-96.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 87 87.0'= 1.8 ppm
poorly graded, 10YR 6/1 gray, moist,
saturated, loose, homogenous, trace fossil,
slight hardening at 96.0'
89.0'= 3.0 ppm
90 90.0'= 2.8 ppm
92.0'=4.4 ppm
94.0' =4.0 ppm
95
-96 96.0'= 3.9'PPm
96.0'- 100.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 10-15% 76
silt/crushed shells, Gleyl 8/1 light greenish
gray,saturated,dense,slight crumbly,
numerous shells/fossils
98.0'=2.3ppm
HI
-100
100 End of Boring at 100.0'bgs End of Log 100.0'=2.1 ppm

40 cH2nnHILL Well Number: GW491W Sheet: 1 of 4
f
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 9:45 to 1:00
Sample Info
ai �
_ rn Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
in C _ 0
a - r
G. E a - a
0 Ground Surface 0 \
0-7.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 10YR 0'-3.0' = 0.00 ppm
2/1 black,moist,very loose
-3 30'- 7.0'=0.00 ppm
1 0.0 3.0'-7.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 15-20%silt, 3
7.0 10YR 5/6 yellow brown, moist,medium dense
5
7.0'-9.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 10- 15%silt,
-7 7.0'- 10.0'= 0.0 ppm
10YR 5/8 brown, moist, medium dense
-9 9.0'- 12.0'=0.00ppm
9.0'-12.0'-Silty Sand(SM),80%medium 9
10 sand,5- 10%silt, 10YR 6/6 brown yellow,very
loose
2 17.0 12.0'- 13.0'-Clayey Silt(ML), 10YR 5/6, 12 12.0'- 13.0' =0.00 ppm
moist,medium stiff,slight plastic -13 13.0'- 17.0' - 0.0 ppm
13.0'- 17.0'-Silty Sand(SM),80% 90% 1
medium sand, 10YR 7/1 light gray,moist,very
loose
15
-17
17.0'- 19-0'-Silty Sand(SM),80%-90% 17 18.0'=0.00 ppm
medium sand. 10YR 7/1 light gray,moist,very
loose
-19
19.0'-22.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 7.5YR 4/6 1
20 strong brown,wet, medium loose
3 17.0 -22
27.0 22.0'-27.0'-Silty Sand(SM),90%medium 22
sand, 10YR 6/1 gray,saturated,very loose,
some reduced iron color
24.0'= 1.4 ppm
25

10 CH2MHILL Well Number: GW491W Sheet: 2 of 4
4611.
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 9:45 to 1:00
Sample Info
a'�
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
y zo o
t Q - -J 0
o. E a CD - a
o cn v~i� cn o 3
26.0'= 1.8 ppm
-27
27.0'-29.0'-Silty Sand(SM),90%medium 27
sand, 10YR 6/1 gray,saturated,very loose,
some reduced iron color 28.0'= 1.4 ppm
-29
29.0'-31.25'-Sandy Silt(ML), 10-25%
30 medium sand, 10YR 2/1 very dark gray,
saturated, medium dense,slight plastic
31.0'= 1.9 ppm
4 27.0 -32
37.0 32.0'-35.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand,
10YR 5/6 yellowish brown,saturated,loose
34.0'=0.8ppm
35 -35
35.0'-37.0'-Transition into(SM), 10YR 4/1
dark gray,saturated,loose, homogenous
36.0'= 1.4 ppm
-37
37.0'-45.5'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 37
10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated,loose,
homogenous 38.0'= 1.8 ppm
40 40.0'=2.1 ppm
5 37.0 42.0'= 4.2 ppm
47.0
43.0'=8.6 ppm
44.0'=29.8 ppm
45 46 45.0'=27.6 ppm
45.5'-47.0'-Sandy Silty(ML). 10YR 4/1 dark 46
gray,saturated,medium dense
-47 46.5'=22.4 ppm
47.0'-53.0'-Sandy Silty(ML). 10YR 4/1 dark
gray,saturated,medium dense,trace
fossils/shells
50 50.0'= 18.9 ppm

10 CH2MHILL Well Number: GW491W Sheet: 3 of 4
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 9:45 to 1:00
Sample Info
_ Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
g' �O o 1
J t
a E a `O - a
a <n v~i� cn° 0 3
6 47.0 52.0'= 14.2 ppm
57.0
-53
53.0'-57.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Increasing to
15%silt, 10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated,
medium dense 54.0'= 8.9 ppm
55
56.0'=9.2 ppm
-57
57.0' 60.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Increasing to 57
15%silt, 10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated,
medium dense but moderate cementing 58.0'= 18.9 ppm
60 -60
60.0'-63.8'-Silty Sand(SM), Increasing to
15%silt, 10YR 4/1 dark gray,saturated,
medium dense,increse in cementing
57.0 61.5'= 55.2 ppm
7 67.0
-63
63.0'-67.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 10YR 7/1 light 63.0' = 88 ppm
gray,saturated,very hard,solid complete
cementing, numerous shells/fossils
65 65.0' = 154 ppm
66.0'= 122 ppm
-67
67.0'-77.0'- Silty Sand(SM), 90%medium 67
sand, 10YR 5/1 gray,saturated/wet,very
loose,very homogenous 68.0'= 81.0 ppm
70 70.0' = 72 ppm
8 67.0 72.0'= 108 ppm
77.0
75

It CH211VIIHILL Well Number: GW491W Sheet: 4 of 4
41111111110
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/11/05 9:45 to 1:00
Sample Info
> c
d
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
N O Q
r a - r
a E a - a m
a <n u~i� rn o �
-76
Seal set at 76.0'bgs to isolate upper aquifer 76 76.0'= 145 ppm
-77
77.0'-85.0'-Silty Sand(SM).90%medium
_77-
sand. 10YR 5/1 gray,saturated/wet,very
loose.very homogenous 78.0'= 28 ppm
80 80.0'= 60 ppm
81.0'= 51 ppm
9 77.0 82.0'= 32 ppm
87.0
84.0'= 29 ppm
-85
85 85.0'-87.0'-Silty Sand(SM),90%medium 5 85.0'= 37 ppm
sand, 10YR 5/1 gray,saturated/wet,very
loose,very homogenous,with slight
cementing,trace shells -87
87.0'-90.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Gleyl 6/1 7 87.0'= 32 ppm
greenish gray,wet,dense.some cementing
88.0' = 14 ppm
i
90 -90
90.0'- 100.0'-Silty Sand(SM),95%medium 9
sand, poorly graded, 10YR 4/1 dark gray,
saturated,very loose,very homogenous 91.0'= 5.1 ppm
93.0'= 2.9 ppm
95 'Well screened from 100.0'-90.0'bgs -95
95 95.0'= 2.9 ppm
97 97.0'=0.8 ppm
10 100.0
-100 99.0' = 1.0 ppm
100 End of Boring at 100.0'bgs End of Log

40 CH211VIIIHILL Well Number: GW501W Sheet: 1 of 4
qdw
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 8:45
Sample Info
>
d
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
Q� O L
a J L
a E a is - a
o rn (n '° <on a
0 Ground Surface 0
0-7.0'-Silty Sand(SM). Medium sand, 10YR
6/6 brownish yellow,moist,very loose.trace 0'-7.0'=0.00 ppm
grass roots at 5.0'bgs
5
-7
7.0'- 14.0'-No recovery, stripped out of casing 7 7.0'- 17.0'=0.00 ppm
10
-14 14.0' =0.00 ppm
14.0'- 17.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand,
15 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown,moist,very loose
-17
U. 17.0'-20.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 17
10YR 5/4 yellowish brown, moist,very loose
18.0' =0.00 ppm
20 -20 20.0'=0.00 ppm
20.0'-24.5'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium 10YR
3/2 dark brown,saturated,loose
22.0'=0.00 ppm
24.0'= 1.0 ppm
25

40 CH2MHILL Well Number: GW5O1W Sheet: 2 of 4
qW
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 8:45
Sample Info
m
# °1 Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
s a -J r
a E a - a =y
o (D in in o 3
-27 26.0'= 1.1 ppm
126 5'-27.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Poorly graded,
medium sand, 10YR 8/3 pale brown, saturated,
very loose
27.0'-30.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand 10
15%silt, 10YR 7/8 yellow,saturated,medium 28.5'= 6.8 ppm
dense
30 30.0'-34.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand. 30 30.0'= 1.1 ppm
10- 15%silt. 10YR 7/1 light gray,saturated.
medium dense
32.0'=2.2 ppm
34 34.0'= 1.1 ppm
34.0'-37.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 10- 15%silt, 3
35 10YR 6/6 brown yellow,saturated, loose
36.0'=0.9 ppm
-37 37.0'= 1.5 ppm
37.0'-39.0' d.Silty Sand(SM), Medium san
7.5YR 6/1 reddish yellow,saturated, loose
-39
39.0'-47.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, 39.0'= 1.6 ppm
40 approximately 10%silt. 10YR 9/1 dark gray,
saturated. loose,homogenous
41.0'= 6.2ppm
43.0'= 9.3 ppm
45 45.0' = 19.1 ppm
I -47
47.0'-57.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Medium sand, T7 47.0'=37.2 ppm
approximately 10%silt. 10YR 9/1 dark gray,
saturated,loose,homogenous, slight increase 48.0'=6.8 ppm
in silt to 15-20%at 52.0'bgs
50 50.0'= 35.4 ppm

OA CH211VIIIHILL Well Number: GW5O1W Sheet: 3 of 4
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 8:45
Sample Info
> c
d
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
p _ 0
r a - s
a E o. - a
rn in rno o
52.0'=21.6 ppm
54.0'= 37.8 ppm
55
56.0' =48.0 ppm
-57
57.0'-65.0'-Silty Sand(SM), 15-20%silt, 57
Gley1 4/1 dark greenish gray,saturated,
dense,shells/fossils.some light mottling at 58.0'= 73 ppm
64.0'-65.0'
60 60.0'= 26 ppm
62.0'=35 ppm
64.0'= 15.2 ppm
65 -65
65.0'-67.0'-Silty Sand(SM),Conglomerate 65
10YR 7/1 light gray, saturated,very hard,fully
cemented 66.0'= 16.1 ppm
-67
67.0'-68.0'-Continued cementing 67
-68 68.0' = 35.4 ppm
68.0'-77.0'-Silty Sand(SM). Medium sand.
poorly graded, 10YR 3/1 gray,wet, loose to
very loose,very homogeneous,trace
shells/fossils
70 70.0'=25.5 ppm
will set seal at 76.0'
72.0'= 21.4 ppm
74.0'= 24.2 ppm
75

40 CH2MHILL Well Number: GW501W Sheet: 4 of 4
qW
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Roto Sonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 8:45
Sample Info
> �'
4)
6, Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
y io 0
tp
a E a - a �
o Cn cn tD rno o 3:
76.0'= 17.8 ppm
-77
77.0'-86.0'-Silty Sand(SM). Medium sand,
poorly graded, 10YR 3/1 gray,wet,loose to
very loose,very homogeneous, trace 78.0'= 12.7 ppm
shells/fossils,slight increase in shells
80 80.0'= 15.5 ppm
82.0'=32.4 ppm
84.0'= 21.9 ppm
85
-86
86.0'-88.0'-Silty Sand(SM), Gley 4/1 dark 86 86.0'= 15.3 ppm
greenish gray,wet,medium dense, -87
homogenous shells fossils 87
87.0'- 100.0'-Silty Sand(SM),90%medium
sand, 10YR 8/1 gray,silt/saturated,loose, 88.0'= 20.6 ppm
trace shells/fossils,very homogenous
"Set screen from 100.0'-90.0'bgs
90 90.0'= 58.1 ppm
92.0'= 16.8 ppm
94.0'= 7.1 ppm
95
96.0'=22.3 ppm
98.0'=25.6 ppm
-100
100 End of Boring at 100.0'trgs End of Log 100.0'=30.4 ppm

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW511W Sheet: 1 of
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 13:45 to 17:15
Sample Info
> c
m
�* Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
d C Q
Q - - s
a E a `° — a
o in vi U) c
Ground Surface 0
0 0
0.0'-7.0'-Sility Sand (SM), Medium sand,
10 YR 7/4, pale brown, dry/moist,very === 8.5"Wellhead protection cover
loose
=== = 2'X 2'Concrete pad
=== Type of well-2-inch ID/Schedule 40
H.Auger PVC
5 Grout- Portland Type 1 w/bentonite
Bentonite chips-3/8"diameter
-7
7.0'-10.0'-Silty Sand (SM), Medium sand, 7
7.5 YR 6/8, reddish yellow, moist, medium
density
10 -10 =-- ---
10.0'-13.0': Silty Sand (SM), Medium 10
sand, 10YR 6/8, brownish yellow, medium --- ---
stiff --- ---
Macrocore
-13
13.0'-15.5'-Silty Sand (SM), Medium 13
sand with 10-15%silt, 10YR 6/8, brownish
15 yellow, medium dense, moist 16 Screen set from 150 bgs to 14.5 bgs
15.5'- 17.0'-Clayey Sand (ML)with 10- 16 ===
15%fine sand, 10 YR 6/8, brownish -17 ---
yellow, medium stiff, plastic 17 -- ---
17.0'- 19.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Medium
sand, 10YR 3/1,very dark gray _19 __ __ Filter pack-#2 Sand
19.0'-22.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Medium 19 == PID measurement were taken every
20 sand, 10 YR 5/1, gray, saturated, loose 2 feet from 0 to 20 ft bgs and
-- equaling 0.0 ppm.
-22 '--- --- 20.0'=0.9 ppm
Macrocore 22 0'-27.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Medium 22 21.0'= 1.5 ppm
sand, 10YR 7/1, light gray, saturated, very 23.0'=2.0 ppm
loose --- ---
25 25.0'= 1.5 ppm
-27 27.0'=2.1 ppm
27.0'-29.0'-Clayey Silt(ML) 10- 15% 27
fine sand, 10YR6/8, brownish yellow,wet, 28.0'=0.9 ppm
dense/stiff, slight plastic -29
29 === ===
30 === ===

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW511W Sheet: 2 of
qqW
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 13:45 to 17:15
Sample Info
> c
m
�* Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
d C 0
r •
J r
//��
Q. 1= Ii I � Q
G cn U � C
29.0'-34.5'-Silty Sand (SM)Medium
sand, 10-15%silt, 10YR 6/6,yellowish = _ === 31.0'= 1.1 ppm
brown, saturated loose
33.0'=2.4 ppm
-35 34.0'=3.8 ppm
35 34.5'-53.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Medium 35
sand, poorly graded, 10YR 4/1, dark gray, _
saturated, loose 36.0'=9.0 ppm
38.0'=3.1 ppm
40 - = 40.0'= 14.5 ppm
42.0'=28.9 ppm
43.0'=24 ppm
_-= 44.0'=31.6 ppm
45
46.0'= 16.1 ppm
48.0'=23.7 ppm
50 = 50.0'=20.1 ppm
--- 52.0'= 15.5 ppm
53.0'-57.0'-Silty Sand (SM) 10-15% silt, 53 - - ---
gley 1 6/1,greenish gray, moist, very - -- 54.0'= 19.8 ppm
dense, stiff, numerous fossils/shells = _
55
56.0'=41.2 ppm
-57 - - ---
57.0'-63.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Similar to 57
53.0'to 57.0' but less shells, more 10YR - 58.0'=25.6 ppm
4/1, gray
60 = 60.0'=70.7 ppm

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW511W Sheet: 3 of 4
qqW
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 13:45 to 17:15
Sample Info
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
0
—J
CL E 0. a
0 M 0
In U) U) U)
62.0'=85.8 ppm
-63
63.0'-67.0'-Silty Sand (SM) 63
Conglomerate, very hard, 10 YR 7/1, light = 64.0'=52.2 ppm
gray, saturated,fully cemented shells
65-
66.0'=75.0 ppm
flEHI -67
67.0'-77.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Medium 67 67.0'=59.2 ppm
sand, poorly graded, 10YR 5/1, gray, 68.0'= 18.6 ppm
wet/saturated, loose to very loose
70— 70.0'=24.3 ppm
72.0'= 19.5 ppm
74.0'=23.0 ppm
75-
76.0'= 17.9 ppm
r11 H N1 11 -77
77.0'= 12.0 ppm
77.0'-84.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Similar to 77
67.0'to 77.0'with trace shells/fossils = 78.0'=35 ppm
80— 80.0'=84.7 ppm
82.0'=63.7 ppm
HHU -84
84.0'-90.0'-Silty Sand (SM)Medium 84 84.0'=47.2 ppm
85—
sand, 10-15%silt, gley 1 6/1,greenish
gray,wet, medium density, many
shells/fossils 86.0'=29.2 ppm
88.0'=73.1 ppm
90— 90 --- 90.0'=49.2 ppm
�9OU

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW511W Sheet: 4of4
qqW
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/12/05 13:45 to 17:15
Sample Info
> c
m
�* Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
°' co C 0
L Q J L
C. E d - a-
111111 90.0'- 100.0'-Silty Sand (SM) Medium
sand, poorly graded, gley 4/1, dark ===
greenish gray,wet/saturated, loose, trace
shells/fossils === 92.0'=46.8 ppm
== 94.0'=41.0 ppm
95 ===
--- 96.0'=29.2 ppm
--- 97.0'=35.8 ppm
99.0'=37.9 ppm
100 -100
End of Log 100
105
110
115
120

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW521W Sheet: 1 of
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/10/05 11:00 to 14:45
Sample Info
> c
m
�* Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
d C 0
r •
J r
//��
Q. 1= Ii I � Q
G cn in G
Ground Surface 0
0 0
0'-2.0'-Silty sand (SM), black, 10 YR 2/1,
�illll�ll moist,very loose 8"Wellhead protection cover
-2 2.0'-4.0-Silty sand (SM), light grey, 10YR 2 2'X 2'Concrete pad
7/1, moist,very loose, medium sand Type of well-2-inch ID/Schedule 40
H.Auger -4 PVC
4.0'-9.0'-Silty sand with 10- 15%silt, 4 Grout- Portland Type 1 w/bentonite
5 (SM),yellow brown, 10YR 5/6, moist,
medium density, medium sand Bentonite chips-3/8"diameter
-9
9.0'-13.0'-Silty sand, (SM),yellow, 10YR 9
10 7/8, moist,very loose, medium sand
Macrocore
-14
13.6-15.5'-Silty sand (SM), light grey, 14
10YR 7/1, moist, very loose, medium
15 sand -16 Screen set from 150 bgs to 14.5 bgs
15.5'-19.0'-Silty sand (SM), yellowish 16
brown, 10YR 3/1, moist, very loose,
medium sand
-19 Filter pack-#2 Sand
19.0'-24.0'-Silty sand (SM), yellowish 19
20 brown, 10YR 6/8, saturated,very loose,
90% medium sand with trace coarse sand
PID measured about every 2 feet
Macrocore from 0 to 24 ft bgs equal 0.0 ppm.
-24
V26.0'-27.0'-
-26.0-Silty sand (SM), light grey, 24
25 R 7/1, saturated,very loose, 90%
ium sand with trace coarse sand -26
Silty sand (SM), grey, 10YR 2626.0'=0.00 ppm
moist, plastic, medium stiff
27.0'-35.0'-Silty sand (SM), yellowish
red, 10YR 5/8, saturated, loose
28.0'= 1.1 ppm
30 27.0'to 30.0' =0.0 ppm

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW521W Sheet: 2 of 4
qldw
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/10/05 11:00 to 14:45
Sample Info
> c
m
�* Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
d C Q
Q - - s
a E a `° — a
o in U� U) c
32.0'= 1.8ppm
35 35 35.0'= 1.7 ppm
35.0'-43.0'-Silty sand (SM),very dark 35
grey, 10YR 3/1, saturated, loose, medium 36.0'=5.2 ppm
sand
37.0'= 1.4 ppm
40 40.0'=2.2 ppm
41.0'=4.2 ppm
-43
43.0'-47.0'-Silty sand (SM), grey, 10 YR 43
5/1, saturated, hard, medium sand, heavy 44.0'= 17.8 ppm
cementing with numerous shells/fossils
45
46.0'= 16.2 ppm
-47 47.0'=22.1 ppm
47.0'-52.0'-Silty sand with 10-20%silt, 47
(SM), dark gray, 10 YR 4/1, saturated, 48.0'=66 to 78 ppm
medium density,fine/medium sand
50 50.0'=59 ppm
-52 52.0'= 14.2 ppm
52.0'-57.0'-Silty sand with 10-20%silt, 52
(SM), dark greenish grey, grey 4/1,wet,
dense, fossils/shells, medium stiff
54.0'=32.3 ppm
55 55.0'= 12.3 ppm
-57
57.0'-60.0'-Silty sand (SM), grey, 10YR 57 57.0'=23 ppm
3/1, saturated, hard to medium heavy, 58.0'=67 ppm
cementing with shells/fossils, medium
sand
60 60 60.0'=78 ppm

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW521W Sheet: 3 of 4
qldw
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/10/05 11:00 to 14:45
Sample Info
> c
m
�* Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
d C 0
r •
J r
//��
Q. 1= Ii I � Q
G cn U � C
60.0'-63.0'-Silty sand (SM), grey, 10YR
3/1, saturated, hard to medium heavy,
some with shells/fossils, medium sand,
lessoning cementing 63.0'=78 ppm
-63 64.0'=88.2 ppm
63.0'-67.0'-Silty sand (SM), light gray, 63
10YR 7/1, saturated,very hard, complete
cementing,shells/fossils
65 65.0'=95 ppm
66.0'=89 ppm
-67
67.0'-77.0'-Silty sand GSM), grey, 10YR 67 67.0'=76 ppm
5/1, saturated,very loose, very 68.0'=55 ppm
homogenous
70 70.0'=60 ppm
72.0'= 17.8 ppm
74.0'=4.9ppm
75
76.0'= 1.1 ppm
-77
77.0'-86.0'-Silty sand (SM), grey, 10YR 77 77.0'= 1.3 ppm
5/1, saturated,very loose,very
homogenous,trace shells at 85 ft bgs
79.0'= 1.0 ppm
80
81.0'=0.8ppm
84.0'=0.8ppm
85 -85
86.0'-87.0'-Silty sand (SM), grey, 10YR 85
5/1, saturated,very loose, very 86.0'= 1.0 ppm
homogenous, increasing in shells -87
87.0'-100.0'-Silty Sand (SM), medium 87 _ 87.0'=0.9 ppm
sand, poorly graded, 10YR 4/1, dark grey, _
loose to very loose, homogenous,trace =
shells
90 90.0'= 1.4 ppm

CH2MHILL Well Number: 6-GW521W Sheet: 4 of 4
qqw
Driller: Prosonic
Client: NAVFAC Drilling Method: Rotosonic SRO-75
Project: Site 82 Well Installation Sampling Method:
Location: Camp Lejeune Logged by: Ben Claus'
Project Number: 328432 Start/Finish Date: 12/10/05 11:00 to 14:45
Sample Info
Soil Description w Well Construction Notes
0
-J
CL E 0. a
0 M 0
In U) U) U)
95-
95.0'= 1.5 pprn
-100
100— End of Log 100 100.0,=0.9 ppm
105-
110-
115-
120—

Appendix B
Groundwater Analytical Results

Appendix B:Groundwater Analytical Results
OU 2,Site 82
MCB Camp Lejeune,North Carolina
Station ID IR06-DRW01 IR06-GW471W IRO6-GW481W IRO6-GW491W
Sample ID IR06-DRW01-07A IR06-DRW01-07B IR06-DRW01-07B2 IR06-DRW01-07C IR06-DRW01-07C2 IRO6-GW471W-07A IR06-GW471W-07B IR06-GW471W-07B2 IR06-GW471W-07C IR06-GW481W-07A IRO6-GW481W-07B IRO6-GW481W-07B2 IR06-GW481W-07C IRO6-GW491W-07A IR06-GW491WD-07A IR06-GW491W-07B IR06-GW491W-07B2
Sample Date 02/01/07 04/18/07 06/13/07 08/14/07 08/14/07 02/01/07 04/19/07 06/13/07 08/14/07 02/01/07 04/18/07 06/14/07 08/15/07 02/02/07 02/02/07 04/18/07 06/14/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1-Dichloroethene 4.2 U 0.5 U 0.13 J 10 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U :NA
4 21 UEMIL
26
1,2-Dichloroethene(total) NA NA NA 7 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2-Butanone 21 U 44 26 16 32 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 21 U 5.2 U 16 U 6 J 63 U 130 U 110 U 130 U
2-Hexanone 21U 2.5U 3.8 10U 4.6 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U 21U 5.2U 16U 16U 63U 130U 110U 130U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 21 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 1.6 J 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 21 U 5.2 U 16 U 16 U 63 U 130 U 110 U 130 U
Acetone 21 U 2.5 U 42 B 21 78 B 2.5 U 2.5 U 1.3 BJ 4 B 21 U 5.2 U 24 B 22 B 63 U 130 U 110 U 280 B
Carbon disulfide 4.2 U 0.38 J 0.42 BJ 10 U 0.43 J 0.5 U 0.22 BJ 4.2 U 1 U 13 U 25 U 21 U
Chlorobenzene 4.2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.2 U 1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 13 U 25 U 21 U 25 U
Chloroform 4.2 U 9.2 10 U 0.64 0.59 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.2 U 1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 13 U 25 U 21 U 25 U
Ethylbenzene 4.2U 0.5U 0.5U 10U 0.131 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 4.2U 1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 13U 25U 21 U 25U
Methylene chloride 4.2 U 4.6 4.8 B 10 U 5.8 B 0.16 J 0.5 U 0.23 BJ 4.2 U 1 U 2.1 BJ 3.1 U 13 U 21 U 7.7 BJ
Tetrachlomethene 15 0.17 J 0.26 J 10 U 0.28 J 11 32 D 18 53 43 53 100 63 62 21 U 22 J
Toluene 4.2U 0.5U 0.191 10U 0.51 0.5U 0.5U 0.12J 0.5U 4.2U 1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 13U 25U 21 U 7.8J
Tichloroethene 160 2 2.2 1 J 1.9 5.8 6.2 5.3 5.5 120 42 40 69 11000 830 21 U 11500
Vinyl chloride 1.6 J 0.79 0.5 U 10 U 0.74 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.2 U 5.7 4.7 4.6 4.8 J 25 U 85 11100
Xylene,total 4.2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.2 U 1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 13 U 25 U 21 U 25 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 150 29 D 7.3 7 J 10 2.1 3 9.1 20 40 39 27 50 610 670 810 D 550
o-Xylene 4.2U 0.5U 0.5U 10U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 4.2U 1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 13U 25U 21 U 25U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 36 5 1.7 10 U 1.7 0.24 J 0.49 J 0.47 J 0.5 4.2 4.8 4.9 9.6 98 100 18 J 100
Total Metals(UG_L)
Iron 3,780 E 28,900 N 36,700 NA 16,600 1,240 E 1,630 N 1,570 1,270 E 360 N 239 178 194 E 207 E 3,470 N 11,600
Manganese 44.2 E 82.1 65.7 E NA 60.9 106 E 80 74.7 E 61.6 9.4 BE 26.1 22.8 E 16.7 7 E 12 E 107 231 E
Dissolved Metals(UG_L)
Iron 87.4 B 26,900 34,000 NA 13,700 E 588 919 719 440 E 10 B 76.3 B 78.3 B 71.5 BE 51.6 B 54.7 B 875 12,500
Manganese jjjr:2:4 81.6 66.8 NA 52.3 E 104 78.8 73.8 54.6 E 7.2 B 24.4 15.5E 10.6 111 248
Wet Chemistry(MG_L)
Alkalinity 91.9 587 499 NA 586 101 123 110 97.5 15 141 137 122 18 118 380 1,540
Bromide 0.1 U 2.89 0.66 NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U NA 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U NA 0.1 U 0.1 U 7.94 6.4
Chloride 3.7 2.8 3.12 NA 2.03 4.32 4.87 4.35 3.95 5.15 5.26 4.02 4.27 5.03 4.78 3.3 5.14
Ethane 0.002 U 7.00E-04 J NA NA 4.00E-04 J 0.002 U 0.002 U NA 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U NA 0.002 U 0.002 U 7.00E-05 J 0.002 U NA
Ethane 0.002 U 0.002 U NA NA 0.002 U 8.00E-04 J 0.002 U NA 3.00E-0 0.002 U 0.002 U NA 8.00E-05 J 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U NA
Methane 4.00E-04 JB 0.002 NA NA 0.079 BD 6.00E-04 JB 9.00E-04 J NA 0.005 B 4.00E-04 JB 6.00E-04 J NA 1.110E-03 B 5.00E-04 JB 5.00E-04 JB 0.002 NA
Nitrite 0.05 U 8.94 6.44 NA 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.815 8.84
Sulfate 1.38 B 5 U NA 0.185 B 0.92 B 2.36 B 1.85 B 2.18 B 2.15 B 2.3 B 1.63 B 2.01 B 2.65 B 1.09 B
Sulfide 1 U 1 U 1 U NA 1 0.6B 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Total organic carbon(TOC) 5 U 470 NA 310 51.1 2.02 B 5 U 2.4 B 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 51.1 5 U 392
Notes:
Data is unvalidated
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
B-(Organics)Possible blank contamination
B-(Inorganics)Below detection limit
E-(Organics)Concentration exceeded calibration range
E-(Inorganics)Estimated concentration due to interference
D-Diluted result
N-Spiked smapled recovery not within control limits
Shading represents detection
NA-Not analyzed
Page 1 of 2

Appendix B:Groundwater Ana
OU 2,Site 82
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Ca
Station ID IR06-GW501W IR06-GW511W IR06-GW521W
Sample ID IR06-GW491WD-07B2 IRO6-GW491W-07C IR06-GW501W-07A IRO6-GW501W-07B IRO6-GW501WD-07B IR06-GW501W-07B2 IR06-GW501W-07C IRO6-GW511W-07A IR06-GW511W-07B IR06-GW511W-07B2 IR06-GW511W-07C IR06-GW511WD-07C IR06-GW521W-07A IRO6-GW521W-07B IRO6-GW521W-07B2 IR06-GW521W-07C
Sample Date 06/14/07 08/15/07 02/02/07 04/19/07 04/19/07 06/13/07 08/14/07 02/01/07 04/19/07 06/13/07 08/14/07 08/14/07 02/01/07 04/18/07 06/14/07 08/15/07
Chemical Name
Volatile Organic Compounds(UG_L)
1,1-Dichloroethene REV 22 J 12 J 130 U 50 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 13 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 250 U
1,2-Dichloroethene(total) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2-Butanone 280 J 400 630 U 250 U 500 U 1,300 U 250 U 63 U 500 U 1,300 U 250 U 1,300 U 21 U 13 U 31 U 2.5 U
2-Hexanone 500 U 250 U 630 U 250 U 500 U 11300 U 250 U 63 U 500 U 11300 U 250 U 1,300 U 21 U 13 U 31 U 2.5 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 500 U 250 U 630 U 250 U 500 U 1,300 U 250 U 63 U 500 U 1,300 U 250 U 1,300 U 21 U 13 U 31 U 2.5 U
Acetone 900 B 360 B 630 U 250 U 500 U 1,900 B 270 B 63 U 500 U 1,500 B 240 JB 650 JB 21 U 13 U 46 B 3.4 B
Carbon disulfide 22 BJ 50 U 130 U 50 U 100 U 73 BJ 50 U 13 U 100 U 59 BJ 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 1.6 BJ
Chlorobenzene 100 U 50 U 130 U 50 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 13 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 6.3 U 0.5 U
Chloroform 100 U 50 U 130 U 50 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 13 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 6.3 U 0.5 U
Ethylbenzene 100 U 50 U 28 JB 50 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 2.6 JB 100 U 250 U 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 6.3 U 0.5 U
Methylene chloride 41 BJ 50 U 130 U 50 U 100 U 100 BJ 50 U 13 U 100 U 100 BJ 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 2.8 BJ 0.5 U
Tetrachlomethene 100 U 50 U 50 J 50 U 61 J 130 J 42 J 110 87 J 220 J 210 210 J 96 130 D 22ME 240 R
Toluene 100 U 50 U 130 U 50 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 13 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 6.3 U 0.11 J
Tichloroethene 1,100 8,300 3,200 7,400 4,500 D 3,800 3,200 D 6,900 8,000 D 6,200 150 97 130 130 D
Vinyl chloride 990 1,300 130 U 50 U 100 U 250 U 21 J 5.5 J 100 U 250 U 17 J 250 U 4.2 U 2.8 6.3 U 4.1
Xylene,total 100 U 50 U 150 B 50 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 14 B 100 U 250 U 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 6.3 U 0.1 J
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 540 500 1,700 790 1,200 11900 21800 D 520 1,600 11000 1,700 990 130 67 74 100 D
o-Xylene 100 U 50 U 130 U 50 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 13 U 100 U 250 U 50 U 250 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 6.3 U 0.1 J
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 120 68 350 99 180 260 190 210 290 290 570 250 20 14 20 28
Total Metals(UG_L)
Iron 12,500 8,540 871 E 875 N 860 N 929 564 542 E 919 N 750 606 655 510 E 433 N 476 273
Manganese 244 E 194 64 E 57.7 56.6 54.8 E 43.5 20.4 E 16.3 14.4 E 12 12.1 35.8 E 26.2 25.4 E 12.9
Dissolved Metals(UG_L)
Iron 12,100 6,330 E 471 344 367 228 293 E 256 422 330 365 E 13,700 E 166 79.9 B 150 88.9 BE
Manganese 242 173 E 59.2 53.2 53.5 51.3 38.2 E 19.4 14.8 14.6 10.7 E 52.7 E 25.1 22.4 21.1 11.3 E
Wet Chemistry(MG_L)
Alkalinity 1,550 1,760 93.5 103 108 99.7 89.4 83.1 108 94 86.9 80.9 158 153 143 121
Bromide 6.14 NA 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U NA 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U NA NA 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U NA
Chloride 4.68 3.22 7.6 6.72 7.4 5.08 4.81 6.32 6.97 5.48 .05 5.16 5.23 5.33 4.71 4.72
Ethane NA 0.002 U 2.00E-04 J 2.00E-04 J 0.002 U NA 0.002 U 2.00E-04 J 0.002 U NA 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U NA 0.002 U
Ethane NA 6.00E-04 J 7.00E-04 J 6.00E-04 J 0.002 U NA 2.00E-04 J 9.00E-04 J 0.002 U NA 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U NA 0.002 U
Methane NA 0.3 BD 5.00E-04 JB 0.003 0.003 NA 0.003 B 6.00E-04 JB 4.00E-04 J NA 1.00E-03 JB 1.00E-03 JB 7.00E-04 JB 4.00E-04 J NA 1.00E-03 JB
Nitrite 8.89 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U
Sulfate 1.2 B 0.95 B 4.98 B 5.11 4.09 B 4.87 B 4.53 B 5.39 4.42 B 3.54 B 3.33 B 2.61 B 2.98 B
Sulfide 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.6B 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U
Total organic carbon(TOC) 845 531 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 51.1 51.1
Notes:
Data is unvalidated
U-Analyte not detected
J-Reported value is estimated
B-(Organics)Possible blank contamination
B-(Inorganics)Below detection limit
E-(Organics)Concentration exceeded calibra
E-(Inorganics)Estimated concentration due t
D-Diluted result
N-Spiked smapled recovery not within contro
Shading represents detection
NA-Not analyzed
Page 2 of 2