&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Earth Tech Inc.'s Enhanced
In-Situ Bioremediation Process
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
FEET
20
—Transmiuiv*
Fnctur* SurfK* 50
Airflow Pathways
NOTE&
— View looking cast
—Airflow pathways simplified
90
100
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
EPA/540/R-00/5Q4
September 2003
Earth Tech Inc.'s Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation Process
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based Ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free.
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Contract Nos. 68-C5-0036 and 68-COO-179 to Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC).lt has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has
been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air,
and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge
base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health,
and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Hugh W. McKinnon, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Abstract
This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of an enhanced in-situ bioremediation
technology developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at the Westinghouse Savannah River
Plant site in Aiken, South Carolina and implemented by Earth Tech Inc. at the ITT Industries Night
Vision (ITTNV) Division plant in Roanoke, Virginia. This evaluation was conducted between March
1998 and August 1999 under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. The area focused on during the demonstration was
immediately downgradient of a solvent release area. At this locality, several volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) had been measured at concentrations above regulatory levels in both upper and
lower fractured zones of the underlying shallow bedrock. Four specific VOC compounds were
designated as "critical parameters" for evaluating the technology: ehloroethane (CA), 1,1-
dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC).
The primary objective of the demonstration was to evaluate Earth Tech's claim that there would be
a minimum 75% reduction with a 0.1 level of significance (LOS) in the groundwater concentrations
for each of the four critical analytes, following six months of treatment. The demonstration results
indicated, that on an overall average, concentrations levels of ail four critical VOCs were measured
to be reduced from baseline to final events as follows: CA (35%); 1,1-DCA (80%); cis-1,2-DCE
(97%); and VC (96%). The lower confidence limit (LCL) and upper confidence limit (UCL) were also
calculated for percent contaminant reduction. The LCL can be thought of as the most conservative
estimate of reduction. The UCL can be thought of as the best possible reduction the technology may
have achieved. The 90% confidence intervals (LCL-UCL) for the four compounds were: CA (4 -
54%); 1,1-DCA (71 - 86%); cis-1,2-DCE (95 - 98%); and VC (92 - 98%). Therefore, cis-1,2-DCE
and VC achieved the 75% reduction goal with a 0.1 LOS; 1,1-DCA was just under this goal at 71%
LCL and CA reduction was barely significant at 4% LCL.
Acetone and isopropanol (IPA), the two non-chlorinated compounds analyzed for during the
demonstration, were detected at significant levels in just one of the wells sampled. On an overall
average, concentrations of acetone and IPA were measured to be reduced from baseline to final
events in this upper zone well by 94% and 96%, respectively. The 90% confidence intervals (LCL-
UCL) for acetone and IPA were 78-96% and 86-98%, respectively.
The lower fractured zone of the bedrock aquifer was the focus of the demonstration groundwater
sampling. However, samples were also collected from an upper fractured zone at a reduced
frequency. The data were useful for evaluating treatment of VOCs contained in fractures above the
injection depth. The results indicated the technology had a greater impact in the upper fractured zone,
where higher initial concentrations of the same VOCs were reduced by larger percentages.
IV
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Tables , viii
Figures , ix
Abbreviations and Acronyms x
Acknowledgments , , , xiii
Executive Summary ES-1
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Brief Description of the SITE Program 1-2
1.3 The SITE Demonstration Program and Reports 1-2
1.4 Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) 1-3
1.5 Technology Description 1-3
1.6 Key Contacts 1-4
2.0 Technology Applications Analysis 2-1
2.1 Key Features of the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process 2-1
2.2 Operability of the Technology 2-1
2.3 Applicable Wastes 2-2
2.4 Availability and Transportability of Equipment 2-2
2.5 Materials Handling Requirements 2-3
2.6 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics 2-3
2.7 Limitations of the Technology 2-4
2.8 ARARS for the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process 2-5
2.8.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) 2-5
2.8.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2-7
2.8.3 Clean Air Act (CAA) 2-7
2.8.4 Clean Water Act (CWA) 2-8
2.8.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) , 2-8
2.8.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Requirements 2-8
3.0 Economic Analysis 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Conclusions 3-5
3.3 Factors Affecting Estimated Cost 3-5
3.4 Issues and Assumptions 3-5
-------
Contents (Cont'd)
3.4.1 Site Characteristics 3-5
3.4.2 Design and Performance Factors 3-6
3.4.3 Financial Assumptions 3-6
3.5 Basis for Economic Analysis 3-6
3.5.1 Site Preparation 3-6
3.5.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements 3-7
3.5.3 Capital Equipment 3-7
3.5.4 Startup and Fixed Costs 3-8
3.5.5 Labor 3-8
3.5.6 Consumables and Supplies 3-9
3.5.7 Utilities 3-10
3.5.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal 3-10
3.5.9 Residuals Shipping and Disposal 3-10
3.5.10 Analytical Services 3-10
3,5.11 Maintenance and Modifications 3-11
3.5.12 Demobilization/Site Restoration 3-11
4.0 Demonstration Results 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Project Background 4-1
4.1.2 Project Objectives 4-1
4.2 Detailed Process Description 4-3
4.3 Field Activities 4-5
4.3.1 Pre-Demonstration Activities 4-5
4.3.2 Sample Collection and Analysis 4-5
4.3.3 Process Monitoring 4-5
4.3.4 Process Residuals 4-7
4.4 Performance and Data Evaluation 4-7
4.4.1 Groundwater VOC Results 4-7
4.4.2 Groundwater Nutrient Results 4-17
4.4.3 Groundwater Dissolved Gases Results 4-18
4.4.4 Groundwater Field Monitoring Results 4-19
4.4.5 Groundwater Microbial Results 4-20
4.4.6 Soil Gas Results 4-21
4.4.7 Data Quality Assurance 4-27
5.0 Other Technology Requirements 5-1
5.1 Environmental Regulation Requirements 5-1
5.2 Personnel Issues 5-1
5.3 Community Acceptance 5-2
Vi
-------
Contents (Cont'd)
6.0 Technology Status 6-1
6.1 Previous Experience 6-1
6.2 Ability to Scale Up 6-1
7.0 References 7-1
Appendices
Appendix A - Earth Tech's Claims & Discussion A-1
Appendix B - Pump Test Data and Discussion of Acoustic Borehole Televiewer B-1
VII
-------
Tables
Table Page
2-1 Federal and State ARARs for the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process 2-6
3-1 Cost Estimates for Initial Year of Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Treatment 3-2
3-2 Cost Estimates for Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Extended Treatment Scenarios .. 3-3
4-1 Demonstration Objectives , 4-2
4-2 Summary of Laboratory Analyses Conducted for the Demonstration ,, 4-6
4-3 Summary of Field Measurements Conducted for the Demonstration , 4-7
4-4 Critical VOC Results for Critical Wells 4-9
4-5 Non-Critical VOC Results for Critical Wells 4-12
4-6 Critical VOCs in Upper Fractured Zone in Immediate Treatment Area 4-13
4-7 Critical VOCs in Lower Fractured Zone in Immediate Treatment Area 4-14
4-8 Selected Water Quality Results for Critical Wells 4-17
4-9 Field Measurement Summary for Upper Zone Wells 4-19
4-10 Field Measurement Summary for Lower Zone Wells , 4-20
4-11 Microbial Results (MPN, TCH, and PLFA) for Upper Fractured Zone ,,, 4-22
4-12 Microbial Results (MPN, TCH, and PLFA) for Lower Fractured Zone 4-22
4-13 Critical VOCs in Soil Gas 4-25
4-14 Methane, Ethane, and Ethene in Soil Gas 4-27
4-15 Spiked Sample Summary Data - Overall Accuracy Objective 4-29
4-16 Second Source Standard Summary Data 4-29
Appendices'Tables
A-1 Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No, 3 Area, ITT Night Vision
- Roanoke, VA (provided by Earth Tech, Inc.) A-4
A-2 Summary of VOCs in Groundwater from Split Sampling Events, Interim Measure at
Building 3, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (provided by Earth Tech, Inc.) A-17
B-1 Data From Limited Pumping Tests, ITT Night Vision - RFI Supplemental Data
Report (provided by Earth Tech, Inc.) B-2
VIII
-------
Figures
1-1 Treatment Area Showing Fractured Bedrock Surface, Injection Well and
Monitoring Points 1-4
2-1 Process Effectiveness on Various Media 2-4
3-1 Cost Distributions - Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Treatment for 2-, 3-, & 4 Years. ,, 3-4
4-1 Injection System Process Schematic , 4-3
4-2 Study Area and Monitoring Point Locations for Earth Tech's Treatment System 4-4
4-3 Critical VOC Concentrations Measured Over the Duration of the Demonstration .... 4-10
4-4 Groundwater Elevations Vs. Critical VOC Concentrations for Select Wells 4-10
4-5 Treatment Effectiveness - Upper Vs. Lower Fractured Zones 4-15
4-6 Treatment Effectiveness on Individual VOCs in the Upper Fractured Zone 4-16
4-7 Treatment Effectiveness on Individual VOCs in the Lower Fractured Zone 4-16
4-8 Dissolved Gases in Upper and Lower Fractured Zones 4-18
4-9 MPN, TCH, and PLFA Concentrations in Upper Fractured Zone 4-23
4-10 MPN, TCH, and PLFA Concentrations in Lower Fractured Zone , 4-23
4-11 Critical VOC Concentrations in Soil Gas and Upper Zone Groundwater 4-26
4-12 Methane Concentrations in Soil Gas 4-28
IX
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABT
AODC
AQCR
AQMD
ARARs
bis
CA
CAA
CERCLA
CO2
CH4
cis-1,2-DCE
CFR
CSCT
cfu
cfm
CWA
1,1 -DCA
1,1-DCE
DNA
DNAPL Dense
DO
DOE
EPA
Earth Tech
FS
ft2
ft3
G&A
HSWA
HP
ITER
ITTNV
IW
!M
IPA
kW-hr
LCSs
Acoustic borehole televiewer
Acridine orange direct counts
Air Quality Control Regions
Air Quality Management District
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Below land surface
Chloroethane
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Carbon dioxide
Methane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Code of Federal Regulations
Consortium for Site Characterization Technologies
Colony forming units
Cubic feet per minute
Clean Water Act
1,1-Dichioroethane
1,1-DichIoroethene
Deoxyribonucleic acid (RE; gene detection and approximation)
non-aqueous phase liquid
Dissolved oxygen
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Earth Tech, Inc. of Concord, MA
Feasibility study
Square feet
Cubic feet
General and administrative
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Horsepower
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
ITT Industries Night Vision
Injection well
Interim measure
Isopropanol, or Isopropyl alcohol
Kilowatt hours
Laboratory control samples
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms (Cont'd)
LCL Lower confidence limit
LEL Lower explosive limit
LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid
LOS Level of significance
MCLs Maximum contaminant levels
MCLGs Maximum contaminant level goals
mg/I Milligrams per liter
MW Monitoring well
MPN Most probable number (RE: total culturable methanotrophs)
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCR National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory (EPA)
NSCEP National Service Center for Environmental Publications
ND Non-detectable, or not detected at or above the method detection limit
NPDWS National primary drinking water standards
NTU Normal turbidity unit
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
ORD Office of Research and Development (EPA)
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA)
OSC On-scene coordinator
ORP Oxidation/reduction potential
O2 Oxygen
PLFA Phospholipid fatty acids
ppbv Parts per billion by volume
ppmv Parts per million by volume
PPE Personal protective equipment
POL Practical quantitation limit
PLC Programmable logic controller
psi Pounds per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
QA/QC Quality assurance/Quality control
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study
RPM Remedial project manager
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RSK R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
scfh Standard cubic feet per hour
SOWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SM Standard method
SG Soil gas
XI
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms (Cont'd)
SVE Soil vapor extraction
SOP Standard operating procedure
SW-846 Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
S.U. Standard units
3-D Three dimensional
TR Trace
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethene
TEP Triethyl phosphate
TER Technology Evaluation Report
TCH Total culturable heterotrophs
TO-14 Total organics - method 14 (gas analysis)
TOC Total organic carbon
ug/l Micrograms per liter
uS/cm Micro Siemens per centimeter
UCL Upper confidence level
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VC Vinyl chloride
VADEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Management
VOCs Volatile organic compounds
XII
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Vicente Gallardo, the EPA Technical Project
Manager for this SITE demonstration at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
in Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA review of this report was conducted by Mr. Gallardo, Dr. Ronald Lewis
(retired), Dr. Tamara Marsh, and Dr. Ronald Herrmann. Ms. Deborah Goldblum of the EPA Region 3
is the project coordinator overseeing the RCRA Facility Investigation and Corrective Measures being
performed at the ITT Night Vision site. Dr. Brian Looney of the Savannah River Technology Center
provided helpful insight into the PHOSter™ technology capabilities.
The demonstration required the combined services of several individuals from Earth Tech Inc., ITTNV
Industries, and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Ms. Rosann Kryczkowski
served as on-site project coordinator for ITTNV and Mr. Gregory Carter served as the on-site project
coordinator for Earth Tech, Inc. Ms. Barbara Lemos served as the Earth Tech project manager. Dr.
Scott Beckman of SAIC served as the SITE work assignment manager for the implementation of
demonstration field activities and completion of all associated reports. The cooperation and efforts of
these organizations and individuals are gratefully acknowledged.
This report was prepared by Joseph Tillman, Rita Stasik and Dan Patel of SAIC. Ms. Stasik also
served as the SAIC Quality Assurance (QA) Coordinator for data review and validation. Andrew
Matuson served as SAIC field manager. Joseph Evans (the SAIC QA Manager) internally reviewed the
report. Field sampling and data acquisition was conducted by Mike Bolen, Andrew Matuson, Christina
Paniccia, and Joseph Tillman of SAIC; and John Huisman of Matrix Environmental.
XIII
-------
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the
Earth Tech Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation treatment
process. The process was evaluated for its effectiveness
for treating groundwater contaminated with elevated levels
of volatile organic compounds, including chlorinated
compounds. The study was conducted at the ITT
Industries Night Vision (ITTNV) Division plant in Roanoke,
Virginia, This evaluation was conducted under the U.S.
EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program,
Overview of Site Demonstration
The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process is a
biostimulation technology developed by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) at the Westinghouse
Savannah River Plant site in Aiken, South Carolina. DOE,
who refers to their technology as PHOSter™, has licensed
the process to Earth Tech, Inc. of Concord, MA (Earth
Tech). Earth Tech is utilizing the process to deliver a
gaseous phase mixture of air, nutrients, and methane to
contaminated groundwater in fractured bedrock. These
enhancements are delivered to groundwater via an
injection well to stimulate and accelerate the growth of
existing microbial populations, especially methanotrophs.
This type of aerobic bacteria has the ability to metabolize
methane and produce enzymes capable of degrading
chlorinated solvents and their degradation products to non-
hazardous constituents.
A pilot-scale technology demonstration of the enhanced in-
situ bioremediation system was conducted from March
1998 to August 1999 at the ITTNV Division plant in
Roanoke, Virginia. The ITTNV facility is an active
manufacturing plant that produces night vision devices and
related night vision products for both government and
commercial customers. Groundwater contamination has
been detected at several areas at the facility. The area
focused on during the demonstration is immediately
downgradient of a solvent release source area. At this
locality, several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have
been measured at concentrations above regulatory levels
in both an upper and lower fractured zone in the underlying
shallow bedrock. Four specific VOC compounds were
designated as "critical parameters" for evaluating the
technology: chloroethane (CA); 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-
DCA); cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE); and vinyl
chloride (VC).
The pilot treatment system that Earth Tech installed within
the area of contamination consisted of eleven monitoring
points, including an injection well, four monitoring wells
located within the anticipated radius of influence, two
monitoring wells located outside of the anticipated radius
of influence, and four soil vapor monitoring points. The four
wells located in the anticipated radius of influence were
designated as "critical wells", based on their location and
the temporal and spatial variability for the four critical
parameters measured within those wells. Collecting
samples daily from these wells represented a conservative
basis for ensuring sample independence based upon the
groundwater gradient. During the demonstration, one of the
monitoring wells was temporarily converted to a second
injection well.
Over the duration of the demonstration combinations of air,
nutrients, and methane were injected into the lower
fractured zone approximately 43 feet below land surface.
Although emphasis was placed on evaluating treatment
effectiveness at the injection depth, groundwater in both
the upper and lower fractured zones of the bedrock was
sampled and analyzed by the SITE Program.
ES-1
-------
Conclusions from this SITE Demonstration
A number of conclusions may be drawn from the evaluation
of the Earth Tech Enhanced Bioremediation process,
based on extensive analytical data supplemented by field
measurements. These include the following:
On an overall average, concentrations levels of all
four critical VOCs were measured to be reduced
from baseline to final events as follows: CA(35%);
1,1-DCA (80%); cis-1,2-DCE (97%); and VC
(96%), The 90% lower and upper confidence limit
intervals (LCL-UCL) for the four compounds were:
CA (4-54%); 1,1-DCA (71-86%); cis-1,2-DCE (95-
98%); and VC (92-98%). Therefore, cis-1,2-DCE
and VC achieved the 75% reduction goal with a
0.1 LOS; 1,1-DCA was just under this goal at 71%
LCL and CA reduction was barely significant at 4%
LCL.
The results of the microbiai analyses were highly
variable, but did suggest that the treatment system
was able to stimulate the indigenous
microorganisms to degrade the target
contaminants. The phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA)
data, which provides a biomass measurement for
the entire microbiai community, was the most
consistent of all the microbiai data collected.
PLFA increased by an order of magnitude
following the first intermediate sampling event and
then remained fairly constant throughout the
remainder of the demonstration.
• Comparison of upper and lower zone data
suggests that treatment effectiveness may have
been greater in the upper zone. In the immediate
area of treatment, the summed total for the four
critical VOCs in upper zone wells was reduced on
average by 91% from baseline to final sampling
events, as compared to 39% for lower zone wells.
This is believed to be due to the upward airflow
pathways from the injection point at 43 feet below
land surface up to shallower depths.
Microbiai data seemed to lend support to the
above conclusion. For example, total culturable
heterotroph (TCH)and PLFA concentrations in the
upper fractured zone attained significantly higher
levels than in the lower fractured zone. There was
also significant concentration drops in total
culturable methanotrophs as measured by the
most probable number technique (MPN), TCH,
and PLFA in the lower fractured zone six days
after the injection system was turned off.
However, there was not a significant drop
concentration drop for those three parameters in
the upper fractured zone. TCH and MPN levels
actually increased in the upper zone six days after
the injection system was turned off. The methane,
oxygen, and nutrients could have migrated upward
from the injection point to the upper fractured
zone, thus lowering microbiai levels in the lower
zone and enriching the levels in the upper zone.
Therefore, a depletion of methanotrophs could
have occurred in the lower fractured zone at the
same time a population increase occurred in the
upper fractured zone.
Acetone and IPA, the two non-chlorinated
compounds analyzed for during the demonstration,
were detected at significant levels in just one of the
wells sampled. On an overall average,
concentrations of acetone and IPA were measured
to be reduced from baseline to final events in this
upper zone well by 94% and 96%, respectively.
The 90% confidence intervals (LCL-UCL) for
acetone and IPA were 76- 98% - and 86-98%,
respectively.
There is evidence to suggests that anomalously
high baseline groundwater elevations may have
diluted VOC baseline concentrations, thus biasing
low observed VOC reductions. The highest
concentrations of critical VOCs were measured
during a December 1997 pre-demonstration
sampling event, during a period of depressed
water levels. However, just three months later
during the demonstration baseline sampling event
heavy precipitation had caused the raising of the
groundwater to peak elevations. An inverse
relationship between groundwater levels and
contaminant concentrations prior to start of
treatment suggests that the critical VOC
concentrations were diluted by more than half (i.e.,
from - 11,600 ug/l to ~ 5,500 ug/l). Thus, the VOC
reductions reported for the demonstration may be
conservative.
ES-2
-------
VOC soil gas data were variable and inconclusive
with respect to determining VOC sparging into the
upper vadose zone as a result of injecting gases
into the lower saturated zone. Of the four soil
vapor monitoring points sampled, two showed
order of magnitude increases for averaged total
critical VOCs from baseline to six months after
baseline (only one of which showed a steady
increase), A third monitoring point showed an
order of magnitude decrease over the same time
period; a fourth showed no appreciable change.
The estimated cost to remediate an approximate
23,000 ft2 area to a depth of 40 feet of VOC-
contaminated groundwater over a two year period
is $370,000. This assumes that a 40- foot thick
section of bedrock would be affected, thus an
estimated 900,000 ft3 of contaminated fractured
bedrock is assumed treated. The cost would
convert to $16/ft2 or $0.40/ft3 if the injection depth
was 40 feet bis. If the injection campaign needs to
be extended at the same site, the cost over a 3-,
or 4-year period is estimated to increase to
approximately $440,000 ($19/ft2or $0.48/ft3), and
$520,000 ($23/ft2 or $0.57/ft3), respectively.
ES-3
-------
Section 1.0
Introduction
This section provides background information about the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program, discusses the purpose of this Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes
Earth Tech's Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process.
Key contacts are listed at the end of this section for
inquiries regarding additional information about the SITE
Program, this technology, and the site where the
technology was demonstrated.
1.1 Background
A pilot-scale technology demonstration of the Enhanced In-
Situ Bioremediation process was conducted from March
1998 to August 1999 at the ITT Industries Night Vision
(ITTNV) Division plant in Roanoke, Virginia. The ITTNV
facility is an active manufacturing plant that produces night
vision devices and related night vision products for both
government and commercial customers. Groundwater
contamination has been detected at several areas at the
facility. The area focused on during the demonstration is
immediately downgradient of a solvent release source
area. At this locality, several volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) have been measured at concentrations above
regulatory levels in both an upper and lower fractured zone
in the underlying shallow bedrock. Four specific VOC
compounds were designated as "critical parameters" for
evaluating the technology: chloroethane (CA), 1,1-
dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis 1,2-
DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC).
The pilot treatment system that Earth Tech installed within
the area of contamination consisted of eleven monitoring
points (i.e., an injection well, four monitoring wells located
within the anticipated radius of influence [designated as
"critical wells"], two monitoring wells located outside of the
anticipated radius of influence, and four soil vapor
monitoring points). Over the duration of the demonstration
combinations of air, nutrients, and methane were injected
into the lower fractured zone approximately 43 feet below
land surface. One of the monitoring wells was activated as
a second injection well during the demonstration.
The primary objective of the demonstration was to evaluate
Earth Tech's claim that there would be a minimum 75%
reduction in groundwater concentrations in the treatment
zone for each of the four critical VOCs, following six
months of treatment. A statistical analysis recommended
collecting 28 samples to confidently detect a 75% reduction
at a 90% lower confidence level (LCL) for those VOCs
within the critical wells, over the course of the
demonstration. Collecting samples daily represented a
conservative basis for ensuring sample independence
based upon the groundwater gradient. This approach also
took into account both temporal and spatial variability for
the four critical analytes. Therefore, four wells sampled
seven consecutive days yielded the 28 samples needed for
evaluating Earth Tech's claim. For each critical analyte,
the concentration for the baseline and final events were
calculated by averaging the 28 values.
Although emphasis was placed on evaluating treatment
effectiveness at the injection depth, groundwater in both
the upper and lower fractured zones of the bedrock were
sampled and analyzed by the SITE Program. This was
conducted by sampling wells specially designed by Earth
Tech to separately monitor the upper and lower fractured
zones, and by sampling of existing wells screened in the
upper fractured zone.
1-1
-------
1.2 Brief Description of the SITE Program
The SITE Program is a formal program established by the
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development
(ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE Program
promotes the development, demonstration, and use of new
or innovative technologies to clean up Superfund sites
across the country.
The SITE Program's primary purpose is to maximize the
use of alternatives in cleaning hazardous waste sites by
encouraging the development and demonstration of new,
innovative treatment and monitoring technologies. It
consists of three major elements:
* the Demonstration Program,
* the Consortium for Site Characterization
Technologies (CSCT), and
* the Technology Transfer Program.
The objective of the Demonstration Program is to develop
reliable performance and cost data on innovative
technologies so that potential users can assess the
technology's site-specific applicability. Technologies
evaluated are either available commercially or close to
being available for full-scale remediation of Superfund
sites. SITE demonstrations usually are conducted at
hazardous waste sites under conditions that closely
simulate full-scale remediation conditions, thus assuring
the usefulness and reliability of the information collected.
Data collected are used to assess: (1) the performance of
the technology; (2) the potential need for pre- and post-
treatment of wastes; (3) potential operating problems; and
(4) the approximate costs. The demonstration also
provides opportunities to evaluate the long term risks and
limitations of a technology.
Existing and new technologies and test procedures that
improve field monitoring and site characterizations are
explored in the CSCT Program. New monitoring
technologies, or analytical methods that provide faster,
more cost-effective contamination and site assessment
data are supported by this program. The CSCT Program
also formulates the protocols and standard operating
procedures for demonstration methods and equipment.
The Technology Transfer Program disseminates technical
information on innovative technologies in the
Demonstration and CSCT Programs through various
activities. These activities increase awareness and
promote the use of innovative technologies for assessment
and remediation at Superfund sites. The goal of
technology transfer activities is to develop interactive
communication among individuals requiring up-to-date
technical information.
1.3 The SITE Demonstration Program and
Reports
For the first ten years in the history of the SITE program,
technologies had been selected for evaluation through
annual requests for proposals. EPA reviewed proposals to
determine the technologies with promise for use at
hazardous waste sites. Several technologies also entered
the program from current Superfund projects, in which
innovative techniques of broad interest were identified
under the program.
In 1997 the program shifted from a technology driven focus
to a more integrated approach driven by the needs of the
hazardous waste remediation community. The SITE
program now annually solicits applications for participation
in the Demonstration program from parties responsible for
clean up operations at hazardous waste sites. A team of
stakeholders led by SITE program personnel will select
sites and work with site representatives in bringing
technologies for demonstration to their respective sites.
Once the EPA ha accepted an application, cooperative
arrangements are established among EPA, the developer,
and the stakeholders to set forth responsibilities for
conducting the demonstration and evaluating the
technology. Developers are responsible for operating their
innovative systems at a selected site, and are expected to
pay the costs to transport equipment to the site, operate
the equipment on site during the demonstration, and
remove the equipment from the site. EPA is responsible for
project planning, sampling and analysis, quality assurance
and quality control, preparing reports, and disseminating
information. Typically, results of Demonstration Projects
are published in three documents: the SITE Demonstration
Bulletin, the Technology Capsule, and the ITER. The
Bulletin describes the technology and provides preliminary
results of the field demonstration. The Technology Capsule
provides more detailed information about the technology
and emphasizes key results of the SITE field
demonstration. An additional report, the Technology
Evaluation Report (TER), is available by request only. The
TER contains a comprehensive presentation of the data
collected during the demonstration and provides a detailed
quality assurance review of the data. For the Earth Tech
1-2
-------
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process demonstration,
there is a SITE Technology Bulletin, Capsule, and ITER; all
of which are intended for use by remedial managers for
making a detailed evaluation of the technology for a
specific site and waste. A TER is also submitted for this
demonstration to serve as verification documentation.
1.4 Purpose of the Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report (ITER)
This ITER provides information on Earth Tech's pilot scale
implementation of the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation
process for treatment of VOC-contaminated groundwater
in fractured bedrock. This report includes a
comprehensive description of this demonstration and its
results. The ITER is intended for use by EPA remedial
project managers (RPMs), EPA on-scene coordinators
(OSCs), contractors, and other decision-makers carrying
out specific remedial actions. The ITER is designed to aid
decision-makers in evaluating specific technologies for
further consideration as applicable options in a particular
cleanup operation.
To encourage the general use of demonstrated
technologies, the EPA provides information regarding the
applicability of each technology to specific sites and
wastes. The ITER includes information on cost and
desirable site-specific characteristics; and discusses
technology advantages, disadvantages, and limitations.
Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a
technology in treating a specific waste matrix. The
characteristics of other wastes and other sites may differ
from the those of the treated waste. Thus, a successful
field demonstration of a technology at one site does not
necessarily ensure its applicability at other sites. Data from
the field demonstration may require extrapolation for
estimating the operating ranges in which the technology will
perform satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be
drawn from a single field demonstration.
1.5 Technology Description
The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process is a
biostimulation technology developed by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) at the Westinghouse
Savannah River Plant site in Aiken, S.C. DOE refers to
their phosphate injection technology as PHOSter™ and
has licensed the process to Earth Tech, Inc. (Earth Tech).
Earth Tech is utilizing the process to deliver a gaseous
phase mixture of air, nutrients, and methane to
contaminated groundwater in fractured bedrock. These
enhancements are delivered to groundwater via one or
more injection wells to stimulate and accelerate the growth
of existing microbial populations, especially
methanotrophs. This type of aerobic bacteria has the ability
to metabolize methane and produce enzymes capable of
degrading chlorinated solvents and their degradation
products to non-hazardous constituents.
The primary components of Earth Tech's treatment
system consist of an injection well (or wells), air injection
equipment, groundwater monitoring wells, and soil vapor
monitoring points. Figure 1-1 shows a 3-D representation
of the treatment area (below the fractured bedrock
surface), the injection well, and monitoring points.
The injection well is designed to deliver air, gaseous-phase
nutrients, and methane to groundwater in the underlying
bedrock For the system evaluated at the ITT Roanoke
facility, the air was supplied by a compressor that was
capable of delivering 15-30 pounds per square inch (psi)
and approximately 10-100 standard cubic feet per hour
(scfh) to the injection well 30-50 feet below land surface
(bis). At smaller/shallower sites, a smaller compressor
may suffice. The monitoring wells and soil vapor monitoring
points were installed upgradient, down-gradient and cross-
gradient relative to the injection well location to delineate
the zone of influence and to monitor groundwater within
and outside the zone of influence. The soil vapor
monitoring points can be designed to release or capture
vapors that may build up in the overburden. The
monitoring wells were constructed in a manner to allow
them to be converted to either injection wells or soil vapor
extraction points.
The typical injection system consists of air, nutrient, and
methane injection equipment (all housed in a temporary
building or shed). A compressor serves as the air source,
and includes a condensate tank ("trap") with a drain, an air
line, coalescing filters and pressure regulators and
valves.Methane and nitrous oxide provide the source of
carbon and nitrogen, respectively. Both are provided in
standard gas cylinders and are piped into the main air line
using regulators and flow meters. Triethyl phosphate
(TEP), the phosphorus source, is stored as a liquid in a
1-3
-------
Ground Surface
SG-4
SG-3
306S
-..404
iop of Fractured
Bedrock Surface
Figure 1-1. Treatment Area Showing Fractured Bedrock Surface, Injection Well and Monitoring Points.
(TEP), the phosphorus source, is stored as a liquid in a
pressure rated steel tank. Air from the main line is diverted
through the tank to volatilize the TEP for subsurface
delivery. The air, nitrous oxide, and TEP are injected
continuously while the methane is injected on a pulsed
schedule. The methane is closely monitored just prior to
injecting into subsurface wells to ensure that the injection
concentration does not exceed 4% by volume, thus
avoiding the methane lower explosive limit (LEL) of 5%.
1.6 Key Contacts
Additional information regarding Earth Tech's Enhanced
In-Situ Bioremediation process, the ITTNV site, and the
SITE Program can be obtained from the following sources:
Technology Licensee Contacts:
Greg Carter - Project Manager
Earth Tech Inc., CIO ITT Night Vision
7635 Plantation Road
Roanoke, VA 24019
(540) 563-0371
David Woodward - Senior Remediation Specialist
Earth Tech Inc.
2 Market Plaza Way
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717)795-8001
PHOSter™ Process Contact;
Brian B. Looney, Ph.D.
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Technology Center, Bldg. 773-42A
Aiken, SC 29808
(803) 725-3692
Demonstration Site Contact:
Rosann Kryczkowski, Mgr, Environmental H&S
ITT Night Vision
7635 Plantation Road
Roanoke, VA 24019
(540) 362-7356
1-4
-------
The SITE Program
Mr. Robert A. Olexsey
Director, Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
USEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7861
Mr. Vicente Gallardo -USEPA SITE Project Manager
USEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7176
E-mail: gallardo.vincente@epa.gov
Information on the SITE Program is available through the
following on-line information clearinghouses:
The SITE Home page (www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE)
provides general program information, current
project status, technology documents, and access
to other remediation home pages.
The OSWER CLU-ln electronic bulletin board
(http://www.clu-in.org) contains status information
of SITE technology demonstrations. The system
operator can be reached at (301) 585-8368.
Technical reports may be obtained by writing to
USEPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-
2419, or by calling (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190.
1-5
-------
Section 2.0
Technology Applications Analysis
This section addresses the general applicability of the
Earth Tech Inc. Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process
to sites containing groundwater contaminated with volatile
organic compounds. The analysis is based on results from
and observations made during the SITE Program
demonstration and from additional information received
from Earth Tech Inc. Demonstration results are presented
in Section 4 of this report. Earth Tech has presented a
discussion of the applicability, additional studies and
performance of the technology in Appendix A,
2.1 Key Features of the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation Process
The primary components of Earth Tech's treatment
system consists of one or more injection wells, air injection
equipment, groundwater monitoring wells, and soil vapor
monitoring points. The injection wells at the demonstration
site were designed to deliver air, nutrients, and methane to
groundwater in shallow bedrock 30 to 50 feet below
ground surface. The air is supplied by a compressor that
is capable of delivering 15-30 psi and approximately 30-
100 scfh to each injection well. The monitoring wells and
soil vapor monitoring points are installed upgradient,
downgradient and laterally to the injection well location(s)
to delineate the zone of influence and to monitor
groundwater within and outside the zone of influence. The
soil vapor monitoring points can be designed to release
vapors that may build up in the overburden. Monitoring
wells can be constructed in a manner to allow them to be
converted to either injection wells or soil vapor extraction
points.
The injection system is comprised of air, nutrient, and
methane injection equipment. The supply of enhancements
are housed in a temporary building or shed. A compressor
serves as the air source, and includes a condensate tank
("trap") with a drain, an air line, coalescing filters and
pressure regulators and valves. The methane and nitrous
oxide provide a source of carbon and nitrogen,
respectively. Both of these gases are provided in standard
air cylinders and are piped into the main air line using
regulators and flow meters. TEP, the phosphorous source,
is in liquid state and is stored in a steel tank. Air from the
main line is diverted through the tank to volatilize the TEP
for subsurface delivery. The air, nitrous oxide, and TEP
are injected continuously while the methane is injected on
a pulsed schedule. The methane is closely monitored at
the injection well head to ensure that the injection
concentration does not exceed 4% by volume, thus
avoiding the methane LEL of 5%.
2.2 Operability of the Technology
The key factor influencing the effectiveness of Earth Tech's
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process is the placement
and depth of injection. Although the injection of necessary
supplements, including oxygen, nutrients, and carbon
sources, is rather routine in unconsolidated materials, it is
quite complex in fractured bedrock.
To optimize and accelerate contaminant breakdown, the
natural subsurface conditions are converted to aerobic
conditions through the injection of air. Gaseous-phase
nutrients and methane are injected to further stimulate the
growth of native microbial populations. During pilot testing
at the ITTNV site, heterogeneities in the subsurface airflow
were observed. In order to offset these heterogeneties, an
existing monitoring well was converted into an additional
injection well.
2-1
-------
During startup of the demonstration air injection campaign,
Earth Tech used a mixture of approximately 5% helium and
95% air by volume injected into the subsurface to evaluate
the injection well zone of influence. Helium measurements
were made in the surrounding monitoring wells and soil gas
points. Methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen
measurements were also taken. Helium tracer tests were
also performed throughout the treatment period to evaluate
the flow path changes over time and at the various injection
rates. The periodic analysis of headspace was performed
on the soil gas points and injection monitoring wells for the
presence of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. In
addition, pressure readings at the monitoring points were
recorded using magnehelic gauges.
At the Roanoke site, the supply of enhancements for Earth
Tech's treatment system was contained inside a shed that
was approximately 20 feet long and twelve feet wide. The
shed provided ample room for compressed gas cylinders,
a liquid triethyl phosphate tank, spare parts, and sampling
equipment. The storage shed or building at a site must be
large enough to contain a triethyl phosphate tank, and
cylinders of nitrous oxide and methane. Although the TEP
has a low freezing point (i.e., - 69 °F) and is kept in a
closed system the shed needs to be heated during cold
months to prevent any condensation buildup in system
piping from freezing. At the Roanoke site the remediation
is being conducted immediately adjacent to one of ITT's
active facilities, therefore power to operate the air
compressor is available from the electrical service. At a
remote site, a generator used for injecting enhancements
would have to be stored/secured within a shed or building.
It should also be noted that the proximity of the ITTNV site
to a facility building enabled the process injection piping to
be buried underground.
2.3 Applicable Wastes
The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation (PHOSter™)
process is amenable for treating petroleum hydrocarbons
and organic solvents in groundwater that can be
aerobically biodegraded (Looney, 2001), including some
hard-to-degrade (i.e., recalcitrant) chlorinated VOCs.
According to Earth Tech the mixture of air, methane, and
gaseous phase nutrients that is injected into the subsurface
provides an environment for methanotrophic degradation
of chlorinated VOCs and aerobic degradation of non-
chlorinated VOCs. Toxic products resulting from anaerobic
degradation of chlorinated solvents (e.g., vinyl chloride)
may be broken down completely in this aerobic
methanotrophic environment.
The in-situ process can be applied to hydrogeologically
complex sites where injected nutrient flow paths are
uncertain and where low permeability is anticipated. For
example, in fractured bedrock gaseous phase nutrient
injection is more likely to affect a larger area than liquid
nutrient injection. Regardless of the permeability of the
material being treated, the gaseous-phase nutrients are
much more likely to attain a better volumetric distribution as
compared to a liquid. Liquid amendments tend to sorb to
the soil as ions which restricts their distribution and has led
to well clogging problems due to overstimulation and
biofouling (Looney, 2001). The process is also applicable
in situations where subsurface utilities limit or preclude the
use of technologies requiring excavation.
2,4 Availability and Transportability of
Equipment
The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process can
theoretically be implemented anywhere monitoring wells
can be installed, which would include any location that can
be accessed by a drill rig. Since all-terrain drill rigs are
available, most locations would be accessible.
At the Roanoke site, the treatment system consisted of
eleven monitoring points. These included seven
groundwater wells and four soil vapor monitoring wells.
Four of the groundwater wells were constructed with an
outer casing that allows for monitoring an upper zone of
fractured bedrock and an inner casing that connects to an
isolated well screen that separately monitors a lower zone
of fractured bedrock. These four wells extended to a
depth of approximately 50 feet bis. The other three wells
consisted of a single-cased screen; two of which are
considered to monitor the upper fractured zone and the
third considered to monitor the lower fractured zone.
All wells installed consisted of readily available construction
materials typically used for well installation. The major
difference between injection and monitoring well
construction is the casing materials used. The injection
wells are constructed with 1" I.D. galvanized steel riser pipe
and 1" I.D. stainless steel screen. This added chemical
stability was chosen to prevent any potential reaction
between injected chemicals and well construction
materials. For example, high concentrations of TEP could
react with polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The monitoring wells
and soil gas monitoring points, on the other hand, were
constructed of PVC casings and screens. Also of note, the
majority of the wells at the demonstration site were
installed in a parking lot, and thus were flush mounted.
2-2
-------
The main component of the air injection system is the
manifold apparatus, which can be constructed of
galvanized or stainless steel. At the Roanoke site, the
majority of the manifold "T" assembly piping was buried
underground. The manifold assembly is light and can be
assembled and easily transported by one person if needed.
The piping for the manifold, regulators, valves, and gauges
are readily available supplies that may be purchased
locally; or purchased from vendors and shipped overnight
if necessary. Per Earth Tech, the only backup equipment
that was needed to be kept readily available at the site for
immediate replacement were the air flow meters. TEP is
reactive with certain materials (i.e., some plastics and
rubber) and can lead to plugging of air flow meters. Non-
reactive materials should thus be considered for designing
systems.
Enhancements associated with the process were shipped
to the site by truck in a drum (in the case of TEP) or in
smaller containers. The TEP is available from major
chemical suppliers. When in use the TEP must be stored
in a pressure-rated steel tank. The tank used at the
Roanoke site was light and was easily transported by one
person via a dolly. The methane is shipped in cylinders by
truck and is available locally from a gas supplier. The
cylinders must be secured (i.e., chained) when stored.
During the demonstration Earth Tech's system required
periodic monitoring of basic groundwater parameters. The
equipment used for these activities (e.g., water level
indicators, YSI multi-meters, etc.) are portable and can be
easily shipped or transported to a site.
2.5 Materials Handling Requirements
The major materials handling requirement for the
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process is containing and
moving residuals from well installation activities. Examples
would include drumming of soil cuttings, purge water, and
decontamination water. The actual injection equipment is
relatively small and easily mobilized. Steel cylinders of
compressed gases (e.g., methane) can be transported just
as the drums were with a two wheel dolly.
Installation of the injection system can be conducted by
one person, if proficient with general plumbing assembly.
All associated equipment is small and light enough to
permit this individual to unload and transport the equipment
to the assembly location.
Prior to beginning the demonstration a variety of activities
were necessary to prepare the treatment system for start-
up. For example, initial testing is required to identify
fracture patterns, estimate the zone(s) of influence, and
determine the optimum injection strategy. Helium is
commonly used as a tracer for determining preferential
flow paths. Injection strategies that may be chosen include
constant injection versus pulsed injection, injecting a single
enhancement versus a mixture of enhancements, and the
depth of injection. Once the treatment injections are
initiated, helium testing may need to be continued to
determine flow path changes. Earth Tech has estimated
that system assembly and initial testing requires -100
hours of effort (see Section 3 for cost estimates).
Drilling services are generally subcontracted to a company
which has both the required equipment (drill rigs, augers,
samplers) and personnel trained in drilling operations and
well construction. If work is to be performed on a
hazardous waste site, drilling personnel must have the
OSHA-required 40-hour health and safety training.
The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process alone does
not generate any hazardous residuals. However, small
quantities of potentially hazardous residuals (e.g., well
purge water) are generated during sampling activities.
Residuals generated during the demonstration, including
spent personal protective equipment (PPE), well purge
water, and decontamination water, were placed in 55 gallon
drums and disposed of by ITTNV.
2.6 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics
Locations suitable for on-site treatment using the
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process must be able to
provide access for a drill rig and fixed or portable electrical
power and potable water for cleanup activities. Electrical
power is required for operating the compressor used for
injecting the enhancements. If bladder pumps are to be
utilized for low flow groundwater sampling techniques (i.e.,
micro purge) the electrical power would also be needed to
operate compressors required to supply air to those
pumps. Heat may be necessary to maintain a minimum
temperature of above 32°F to protect equipment and
personnel during cold temperatures. Overall, the Enhanced
In-Situ Bioremediation process requires enough power to
operate a large enough air compressor to sustain the
desired injection flow rate. Earth Tech has indicated that
the maximum size air compressor required to operate a
full-scale injection system would be no more than 15
horsepower (HP). Although a gasoline operated air
compressor can be used, electric utilities are preferred.
2-3
-------
2.7 Limitations of the Technology
One of the main limitations of the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation process is that it can be difficult to predict
how long the technology will need to be operated and what
major adjustments need to be made to attain satisfactory
levels. For example, the pilot-scale injection system used
for the demonstration was expanded from one to two
injection wells and the pilot test treatment duration was
extended to over 18 months instead of the originally
planned six-month time frame.
Per the developer, the PHOSter™ process is not ideally
suited for lower zone contaminants based on the geometry
of its effectiveness (Looney, 2001). This limitation was
discovered during this SITE demonstration when lower
zone contaminants were not being treated as effectively as
contaminants in the upper zone. The geometry of the
process's effectiveness can be best described as an
inverted cone that begins at the point of injection. Figure 2-
1 illustrates this geometry for treatment of a typical
unconsolidated aquifer. As shown in the illustration,
separate phase Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs) would often not be effectively treated since they
accumulate in thin layers at the aquifer bottom and would
not be intimately contacted with the gaseous-phase
nutrients that tend to rise upward (Looney, 2001).
On the other hand, the technology could be expected to
work well for treating Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(LNAPLs) since LNAPLs float atop the water table and
would be intercepted by the upward sparging gaseous
phase nutrients. As shown in Figure 2-1, if the types of
media and contaminants most treatable by the process
were ranked on a basis of "most certain to be effectively
treated" to "least certain to be effectively treated, the
ranking would be as follows (Looney, 2001):
Vadose Zone Soils (i.e., bioventing soils above
the water table)
Capillary Fringe Soils that can be biosparged from
below (i.e., LNAPLs)
Dissolved and residual contaminants dispersed
throughout the aquifer
• DNAPLs, due to the difficulty of getting nutrients to
the contaminants
The pressure needed to inject the gaseous-phase nutrients
is not as important of an inhibiting factor, as is the
uncertainty of where a very deeply injected gas phase
would migrate to. For instance, the probability that the
gases could be trapped in deep pockets (thus preventing
the nutrients from reaching a wide range of contaminants)
would significantly increase the deeper the enhancements
are injected.
Injection
Well
®
Expected Certainty
of Effectiveness
(from highest to lowest)
1 ) Vadose Zone Soils
VADOSE
ZONE
3; Dissolved
Contaminants
Confining Layer
Figure 2-1. Process Effectiveness for Various Media
2-4
-------
Generally speaking, the gaseous-phase injection technique
is applicable to those sites that are amenable to bioventing
and biosparging. Thus, this would include depths below
the water table that are typically in the 10s of feet, not 100s
(Looney, 2001). However, treatment at greater depths is
possible under suitable geologic conditions. As an
example, Earth Tech has reported successfully injection of
enhancements at a depth of 100 feet bis at the ITTNV
Roanoke facility.
It should also be noted that the limitations described above
are expressed in terms of distance below water table (not
ground surface) so that total depth of treatment including
the vadose zone can be quite extensive at some sites
(Looney, 2001).
The Enhanced In-situ Biological process requires minor
daily monitoring and adjustment of injected gases
(although the system can be designed to be automated
with monitoring via telemetry). Initial testing is required to
identify fracture patterns, estimate the zone(s) of influence,
and determine the optimum injection strategy. The injection
zones would need to be located beneath the treatment
zone to be effective. Injected air, nutrients, and methane
have a tendency to rise within the groundwater as long as
these constituents remain in the gas phase. Consequently,
injection wells may have to be installed relatively deep to
attain the desired lateral influence. Soil vapor extraction
(SVE) wells can be installed to improve lateral influence.
2.8 ARARS for the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation Process
This subsection discusses specific federal environmental
regulations pertinent to the operation of the Enhanced In-
Situ Bioremediation process including the transport,
treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and treatment
residuals. These regulations are reviewed with respect to
the demonstration results. State and local regulatory
requirements, which may be more stringent, must also be
addressed by remedial managers. Applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) include the
following: (1) the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; (2) the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; (3) the Clean
Air Act; (4) the Clean Water Act; (5) the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and (6) the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration regulations. These six general ARARs are
discussed below; specific ARARs that may be applicable to
the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process are identified
in Table 2-1.
2.8.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The CERCLA of 1980 as amended by the SARA of 1986
provides for federal funding to respond to releases or
potential releases of any hazardous substance into the
environment, as well as to releases of pollutants or
contaminants that may present an imminent or significant
danger to public health and welfare or to the environment.
As part of the requirements of CERCLA, the EPA has
prepared the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous
substance response. The NCP is codified in Title 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300, and delineates the
methods and criteria used to determine the appropriate
extent of removal and cleanup for hazardous waste
contamination. SARA states a strong statutory preference
for remedies that are highly reliable and provide long-term
protection. It directs EPA to do the following:
• use remedial alternatives that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or the
mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants;
select remedial actions that protect human health
and the environment, are cost-effective, and
involve permanent solutions and alternative
treatment or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent possible; and
avoid off-site transport and disposal of untreated
hazardous substances or contaminated materials
when practicable treatment technologies exist
[Section 121(b)].
In general, two types of responses are possible under
CERCLA: removal and remedial actions. Superfund
removal actions are conducted in response to an
immediate threat caused by a release of a hazardous
substance. Many removals involve small quantities of
waste of immediate threat requiring quick action to alleviate
the hazard. Remedial actions are governed by the SARA
amendments to CERCLA. As stated above, these
amendments promote remedies that permanently reduce
the volume, toxicity, and mobility of hazardous substances
or pollutants. The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation
process could be part of a CERCLA remedial action since
the toxicity of the contaminants of concern are reduced by
enhancement of natural biodegradation processes.
2-5
-------
Table 2-1. Federal and State ARARs for the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process.
*$$**'
wntfc^
. . jUftuVnl.
'" -<£"¥£F 1|J|
?
•! *
' •*,-
af/fC
W*IirT' *
^* <,
"""W-, •
•$ *'-,
" T '""^KT
<-* ^a-fr" , -
^•dSfv**--
t <•*»••.?.
.*!**>*
liilSL--
* CTvS^
w
&^>M>iV I.**r . vi '•;«*«« i
ARAR
RCRA: 40 CFR
Part 261 ( or the
state equivalent)
RCRA: 40 CFR
Part 264 (or the
state equivalent)
CAA: 40 CFR
Part 50 (or the
state equivalent)
RCRA: 40 CFR
Part 264
Subpart J (or
the state
equivalent)
RCRA: 40 CFR
Part 264
Subpart I (or the
state equivalent)
SARA: Section
121(d)(2)(ii);
SDWA: 40 CFR
Part 141
RCRA: 40 CFR
Part 262
CWA: 40 CFR
Parts 403 and/or
122 and 125
RCRA: 40 CFR
Part 268
Description
Standards that apply to
the identification and
the characterization of
wastes.
Standards apply to
treatment of wastes in
a treatment facility.
Regulations govern
toxic pollutants, visible
emissions and
particulates.
Regulation governs the
standards for tanks at
treatment facilities.
Regulation covers the
storage of waste
materials generated.
Standards that apply to
surface & groundwater
sources that may be
used as drinking water.
Standards that pertain
to generators of
hazardous waste.
Standards for discharge
of wastewater to a
POTW or to a
Standards regarding
land disposal of
hazardous wastes
Basis
Chemical and physical properties of waste
determine its suitability for treatment by
the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation
process.
Not likely applicable or appropriate for the
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process.
During process operations, any off-gas
venting (i.e., from buildup of VOCs,
methane, etc. in shallow soils) must not
exceed limits set for the air district of
operation. Standards for monitoring and
record keeping apply.
Storage tanks for liquid wastes (e.g.,
decontamination waste) must be
placarded appropriately, have secondary
containment and be inspected daily.
Potential hazardous wastes remaining
after treatment (i.e., purge water) must be
labeled as hazardous waste and stored in
containers in good condition. Containers
should be stored in a designated storage
area and storage should not exceed 90
days unless a storage permit is obtained.
Applicable and appropriate for the
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process
used in projects treating groundwater for
use as drinking water.
Waste generated by the Enhanced In-
Situ Bioremediation process which may
be hazardous is limited to contaminated
drill cuttings, well purge water, PPE, and
decontamination wastes.
Applicable and appropriate for well purge
water and decontamination wastewater
generated from process.
Applicable for off-site disposal of auxiliary
waste (e.g., drill cuttings).
Response
Chemical and physical analyses
must be performed to determine if
waste is a hazardous waste.
When hazardous wastes are
treated, there are requirements for
operations, record keeping, and
contingency planning.
Off-gases may contain volatile
organic compounds or other
regulated substances, although
levels are likely to be very low.
If storing non-RCRA wastes, RCRA
requirements may still be relevant
and appropriate.
Applicable for RCRA wastes;
relevant and appropriate for non-
RCRA wastes.
Remedial actions of surface and
groundwater are required to meet
MCL goals (MCLGs) or MCLs
established under SDWA.
Generators must dispose of wastes
at facilities that are permitted to
handle the waste. Generators must
obtain an EPA ID number prior to
waste disposal.
Discharge of wastewater to a
POTW must meet pre-treatment
standards; discharges to a
permitted under NPDES.
Hazardous wastes must meet
specific treatment standards prior to
land disposal, or treated using
specific technologies.
2-6
-------
Remedial actions are governed by the SARA amendments
to CERCLA. On-site remedial actions must comply with
federal and more stringent state ARARs. ARARs are
determined on a site-by-site basis and may be waived
under six conditions; (1) the action is an interim measure,
and the ARAR will be met at completion; (2) compliance
with the ARAR would pose a greater risk to health and the
environment than noncompliance; (3) it is technically
impracticable to meet the ARAR; (4) the standard of
performance of an ARAR can be met by an equivalent
method; (5) a state ARAR has not been consistently
applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR compliance would not
provide a balance between the protection achieved at a
particular site and demands on the Superfund RPM for
other sites. These waiver options apply only to Superfund
actions taken on-site, and justification for the waiver must
be clearly demonstrated.
2.8.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA), is the primary federal legislation governing
hazardous waste activities. It was passed in 1976 to
address the problem of how to safely dispose of the
enormous volume of municipal and industrial solid waste
generated annually. Subtitle C of RCRA contains
requirements for generation, transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste, most of which are also
applicable to CERCLA activities. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 greatly expanded the
scope and requirements of RCRA.
RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regulate
their transport, treatment, storage, and disposal. These
regulations are only applicable to the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation process if RCRAdefined hazardous wastes
are present.
Hazardous wastes that may be present include
contaminated soil cuttings and purge water generated
during well installation and development, and the residual
wastes generated from any groundwater sampling activities
(e.g., PPE and purge water). If wastes are determined to
be hazardous according to RCRA (either because of a
characteristic or a listing carried by the waste), essentially
all RCRA requirements regarding the management and
disposal of this hazardous waste will need to be addressed
by the remedial managers. Wastes defined as hazardous
under RCRA include characteristic and listed wastes.
Criteria for identifying characteristic hazardous wastes are
included in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C. Listed wastes
from specific and nonspecific industrial sources, off-
specification products, spill cleanups, and other industrial
sources are itemized in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D.
RCRA regulations do not apply to sites where RCRA-
defined wastes are not present.
Unless they are specifically de-listed through de-listing
procedures, hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart D currently remain listed wastes regardless of the
treatment they may undergo and regardless of the final
contamination levels in the resulting effluent streams and
residues. This implies that even after remediation, treated
wastes are still classified as hazardous wastes because
the pre-treatment material was a listed waste.
For generation of any hazardous waste, the site
responsible party must obtain an EPA identification
number. Other applicable RCRA requirements may
include a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (if the waste
is transported off-site), restrictions on placing the waste in
land disposal units, time limits on accumulating waste, and
permits for storing the waste.
Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated
facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F and
Subpart S. These subparts also generally apply to
remediation at Superfund sites. Subparts F and S include
requirements for initiating and conducting RCRA corrective
action, remediating groundwater, and ensuring that
corrective actions comply with other environmental
regulations. Subpart S also details conditions under which
particular RCRA requirements may be waived for
temporary treatment units operating at corrective action
sites and provides information regarding requirements for
modifying permits to adequately describe the subject
treatment unit.
2,8.3 Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA establishes national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and
lead. It also limits the emission of 189 listed hazardous
pollutants such as vinyl chloride, arsenic, asbestos and
benzene. States are responsible for enforcing the CAA.
To assist in this, Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) were
established. Allowable emission limits are determined by
the AQCR, or its sub-unit, the Air Quality Management
District (AQMD). These emission limits are based on
whether or not the region is currently within attainment for
2-7
-------
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The CAA requires that treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities comply with primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards. Emissions from vapor buildup in the
near surface soils associated with the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation process may require monitoring and post-
treatment to meet current air quality standards. Also, State
air quality standards may require additional measures to
prevent emissions, including requirements to obtain
permits to install and operate a process (i.e., such as
activated carbon and air stripping units) for control of
VOCs.
2.8.4 Clean Water Act (CWA)
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the nation's waters by establishing federal, state, and local
discharge standards. If treated water is discharged to
surface water bodies or Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs), CWA regulations will apply. A facility desiring
to discharge water to a navigable waterway must apply for
a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). When a NPDES permit is issued, it
includes waste discharge requirements. Discharges to
POTWs also must comply with general pretreatment
regulations outlined in 40 CFR Part 403, as well as other
applicable state and local administrative and substantive
requirements.
Since the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process is in-
situ and disposal of the purge water generated during the
demonstration was shipped to a licensed disposal facility,
CWA criteria did not apply for this demonstration.
2.8.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The SDWA of 1974, as most recently amended by the Safe
Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, requires the EPA to
establish regulations to protect human health from
contaminants in drinking water. The legislation authorized
national drinking water standards and a joint federal-state
system for ensuring compliance with these standards.
The National Primary Drinking Water Standards (NPDWS)
are found in 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. Parts 144 and
145 discuss requirements associated with the underground
injection of contaminated water. If underground injection
of wastewater is selected as a disposal means, approval
from EPA or the delegated state for constructing and
operating a new underground injection well is required.
If the groundwater were to be used for drinking purposes
while providing no additional treatment, the quality of the
water would need to meet NPDWS. Following treatment,
Earth Tech has indicated that the population of
microorganisms, that had been enhanced during treatment,
revert back to pre-injection levels. Residual
microorganisms would likely consist of heterotrophic
bacteria, which have no reported health effects. 40 CFR
141.72 of the NPDWS states that in lieu of measuring the
residual disinfectant concentration in the distribution
system, heterotrophic bacteria, as measured by the
heterotrophic plate count,, may be performed. If
heterotrophic bacteria concentrations are found above
500/100 ml in the distribution system, the minimum
residual disinfectant concentration is not in compliance with
the NPDWS.
The NPDWS also have turbidity standards which must be
met. A standard of 1.0 normal turbidity unit (NTU), as
determined by a monthly average must be met. Turbidity
was not measured during the demonstration.
2.8.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Requirements
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be performed in accordance with the OSHA
requirements detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926,
especially Part 1910.120, which provides for the health and
safety of workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site
construction activities at Superfund or RCRA corrective
action sites must be performed in accordance with Part
1926 of OSHA, which describes safety and health
regulations for construction sites. State OSHA
requirements, which may be significantly stricter than
federal standards, must also be met.
If working at a hazardous waste site, all personnel involved
with the construction and operation of the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation treatment process are required to have
completed an OSHA 40-hour training course and must be
familiar with all OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous
waste sites.
Workers on hazardous waste sites must also be enrolled
in a medical monitoring program. The elements of any
acceptable program must include: (1) a health history, (2)
an initial exam before hazardous waste work starts to
establish fitness for duty and as a medical baseline, (3)
periodic examinations (usually annual) to determine
whether changes due to exposure may have occurred and
to ensure continued fitness for the job, (4) appropriate
medical examinations after a suspected or known
2-8
-------
overexposure, and (5) an examination at termination.
For most sites, minimum PPE for workers will include
gloves, hard hats, steel-toe boots, and Tyvek® coveralls.
Depending on contaminant types and concentrations,
additional PPE may be required, including the use of air
purifying respirators or supplied air. Noise levels are not
expected to be high, except during well installation which
will involve the operation of drilling equipment. During
these activities, noise levels should be monitored to ensure
that workers are not exposed to noise levels above a time-
weighted average of 85 decibels over an eight-hour day.
If noise levels increase above this limit, then workers will
be required to wear hearing protection. The levels of noise
anticipated are not expected to adversely affect the
community, but this will depend on proximity to the
treatment site.
2-9
-------
Section 3.0
Economic Analysis
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this economic analysis is to estimate costs
(not including profits) for commercial treatment of VOC-
contaminated groundwater utilizing the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation Process. To reasonably estimate costs for
the technology, the cost values presented in this section
will be based on a treatment system consistent in size to
the full-scale treatment system currently in operation at the
ITTNV site. This system is comprised of a total of 16
groundwater wells, including three additional injection wells
installed since the end of the demonstration. The original
injection well used during the pilot demonstration is also
part of the full-scale system, therefore there are a total of
four injection wells being operated for the full-scale
treatment.
Based on reductions of VOC concentrations that has
occurred in specific wells, the areal extent of fractured
bedrock impacted by the full-scale treatment system at the
ITTNV site is estimated to be approximately 22,500 ft2 (150
ft X 150 ft), which is about 14 acre (1 acre = 43,560 ft2).
The injection of enhancements is primarily occurring at 43
feet bis, which is the depth of the primary fracture zone.
Therefore, assuming that a 40- foot thick section of
bedrock would be affected, an estimated 900,000 ft3 of
contaminated fractured bedrock is assumed treatable for
this cost estimate.
Based on demonstration results and observations, it will be
assumed for this cost estimate that a minimum of four
injection wells, operated on a pulsed injection mode for a
minimum of two years, are required to reduce the target
concentrations to acceptable regulatory levels at the site.
The costs associated with implementing the process,
designed and operated by Earth Tech, have been broken
down into 12 cost categories that reflect typical cleanup
activities at Superfund sites. They include:
Site Preparation
Permitting and Regulatory Activities
Capital Equipment
Start-up and Fixed
Labor
Consumables and Supplies
Utilities
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Residuals Shipping, & Disposal
Analytical Services
Maintenance and Modifications
Demobilization/Site Restoration
Before attempting to calculate costs for implementing the
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process over a two year
period, costs for the initial first year's treatment must be
determined to provide a basis estimate. The initial year
estimate will have the highest cost due to drilling and well
installation costs and the costs associated with
procurement and assembly of almost all of the capital
equipment. The increased total costs for ail subsequent
years of treatment are associated primarily with labor and
analytical services.
Table 3-1 presents a categorical breakdown of estimated
costs for an initial year of enhanced in-situ biological
treatment of almost 900,000 ft3 of VOC-contaminated
fractured bedrock aquifer (which assumes treatment to
affect 40 feet of aquifer thickness over a 150 ft X 150 ft
area). Table 3-2 uses those first year cost estimates to
project approximate costs for two-, three-, and four-year
treatment scenarios. Figure 3-1 graphically illustrates the
percentage of total cost that each of the twelve cost
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. Cost Estimates for Initial Year of Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Treatment.
Cost Category
1 . Site Preparation
Injection/Monitoring Well Installation 2
Soil Gas Probe Installation 2
Building Enclosure (10* x 15')
Utility Connections
2. Permitting & Regulatory Activities
Permits
Studies and Reports
3. Capital Equipment
Air Compressor
Injection Equipment
Gauges & Regulators
Vapor Monitoring Equipment
Water Quality Instrumentation (YSI)
Bladder Pumps/Tubing
Pump Flow Regulator
Building Heater
Quantity
16
4
1
1
1
1
NA
1
1
24
1
1
Units
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Total
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Unit Cost
$5,500
$2,000
$1,200
$1,500
$4,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,500
$6,000
$500
$900
$500
$-1stYr, $/Cateaory1
$88,000
$8,000
$1,200
$1,500
$15,000
$20,000
$4,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,500
$6,000
$12,000
$900
$500
4, Startup & Fixed (10% of Capital Equipment)
5. Labor
Well/Probe Construction Oversight
Startup Testing 3
Groundwater Sampling
System Monitoring
6. Consumables and Supplies
Helium
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Triethyl Phosphate
PPE
Rental - Compressors for Purging
7. Utilities (Electricity)
8. Effluent Treatment & Disposal
9. Residuals & Disposal
Contaminated Solids 4
Contaminated Purge Water 4
10. Analytical Services
VOCs in Groundwater
VOCs in Soil Gas 5
Methane in Soil Gas
MPN counts
Sample Shipments
11, Maintenance & Modifications
12. Demobilization/Site Restoration
300
150
80
500
3
20
20
1
1
8
74,000
NA
30
50
106
18
18
20
8
50
40
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Days
kW-hr
NA
Drums
Drums
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Hours
Hours
$60
$60
$60
$60
$60
$100
$50
$800
$300
$120
$0,07
NA
$300
$300
$150
$290
$85
$120
$50
$60
$60
Total Initial
1 Cost values in totals column are rounded to two significant digits,
2 Includes drilling costs using an air rotary rig, and well completion costs,
3 Startup testing includes initial helium tracer tests and headspace field screening.
4 Solids include drill cuttings and PPE. Purge water includes that Generated durina well
$18,000
$9,000
$4,800
$30,000
$180
$2,000
$1,000
$800
$300
$960
$5,000
$0.00
$9,000
$15,000
$15,900
$5,220
$1,530
$2,400
$400
$3,000
$2,400
Year Cost
development.
$99,000
$35,000
$36,000
$3,600
$62,000
$5,200
$5,000
$0.00
$24,000
$25,000
$3,000
$2.400
$300,000
3-2
-------
Table 3-2. Cost Estimates for Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Extended Treatment Scenarios,
Cost Category
1. Site Preparation
Injection/Monitoring Well Installation1
Soil Gas Probe Installation1
Building Enclosure (10' x 151)1
Utility Connections'
2, Permitting/Regulatory Activities1
3. Capital Equipment1
4. Startup & Fixed1
5. Labor
Well/Probe Construction Oversight
Startup Testing
Groundwater Sampling
System Monitoring
6. Consumables & Supplies
Helium
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Trietrjyl Phosphate
Rental - Compressors
7. Utilities (Electricity)
8. Effluent Treatment & Disposal
9. Residuals Shipping & Disposal
Contaminated Solids
Contaminated Purge Water
10. Analytical Services
VOCs in Groundwater
VOCs in Soil Gas r t
Methane in Soil Gas
MPN counts
Sample Shipments
11. Maintenance & Modifications
12. Demobilization/
Site Restoration
TOTAL COSTS
Initial Year
$99,000
$88,000
$8,000
$1,200
$1 ,500
$35,000
$36,000
$3,600
$62,000
$18,000
$9,000
$4,800
$30,000
$5,200
$180
82,000
81,000
8800
55300
$960
$5,000
$0
$24,000
$9,000
$15,000
$25,000
$15,900
85,220
81,530
82,400
$4bo
$3,000
$2.400
2 Years
$99,000
<
588,000
$8,000
$1,200
$1,500
$35,000
$36,000
$3,
$9;
<
<
<
i
$9,
^
<
V
1
1
1
1
600
r.ooo
518,000
59,doo
59,600
560,000
200
HBO
54,000
S2.000
!800
S300
11,900
$10,000
$0
$29,000
$9,000
$20,400
$43
<
!
(
{
1,000
531,800
55,220
51,530
54,800
5800
$6,000
$2.400
\^\j \vt\jt-r\ i ! v i_
3 Years
$99,000
$88,000
$8,000
$1 ,200
$1,500
$35,000
$36,000
$3,600
$130,000
$18,000
S9,dOO
814,400
$90,000
$13,000
$180
86,000
$3,000
8800
8300
$2,900
$15,000
$0
$35,000
$9,000
$25,800
$63,000
$47,700
85,2^20
81,530
87,200
$1,200
$9,000
$2.400
4 Years
$99,000
$88,000
$8,000
$1 ,200
$1,500
$35,000
$36,000
$3,600
$170,000
$18,000
$9,000
$19,200
$120,000
$17,000
$180
88,000
M.OOO
8800
8300
$3,800
$20,000
$0
$40,000
$9,000
$31,200
$82,000
$63,600
85,2^20
81,530
89,600
$1,600
$12,000
$2,400
$300,000
$370,000
$440,000
$520,000
Bolded costs are categorical totals which have been rounded to two significant digits.
Designates a one time cost incurred for all scenarios.
3-3
-------
co
200,000
180,000
160,000
Extended Treatment Scenarios
2-Yrs 3-Yrs 4-Yrs
20,000
10,000
Utilities / Analytical
/ Permitting / Labor \
Capital Consumables Residuals Maintenance &
Equipment & Supplies Shipping/ Modifications
Disposal
Total Treatment preparation
Major Technology Cost Catagories
Figure 3-1, Cost Distributions - Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Treatment for 2-, 3-, & 4-Years (Cumulative).
-------
components comprise, for each of the three cleanup
scenarios. As with all cost estimates, there are associated
factors, issues, and assumptions that caveat specific cost
values. The major factors that can affect estimated costs
are discussed in subsection 3.3. The issues and
assumptions made regarding site characteristics are
incorporated into the cost estimate. They are discussed in
subsection 3.4.
The basis for costing each of the individual 12 categories
in Table 3-1 is discussed in detail in subsection 3.5. Much
of the information presented in this subsection has been
derived from observations made and experiences gained
from the SITE demonstration that was conducted over an
approximate 18 month period at the ITTNV facility in
Roanoke, Virginia. Other cost information has been
acquired through subsequent discussions with Earth Tech
and by researching current estimates for specific cost
items related to the technology.
It should be emphasized that the cost figures provided in
this economic analysis are "order-of-magnitude" estimates,
generally + 50% / -30%.
3.2 Conclusions
« The estimated cost to remediate an approximate
23,000 ft2 area of VOC-contaminated groundwater
over a two year period is $370,000, which would
convert to $16/ft2 or $0.40/ft3 assuming a 40 foot
thick section of bedrock to be treated. If the
injection campaign needs to be extended at the
same site, the cost over a 3-, or 4-year period is
estimated to increase to approximately $440,000
($19/ft2 or $0.48/ft3), and $520,000 ($23/ft2 or
$G.57/ft3), respectively.
• The largest cost components for the two-year
application of the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation
technology at a site having characteristics similar
to those encountered at the ITTNV site are site
preparation (27%) and labor (26%), together
accounting for over half of the total cost. Analytical
services, which can be quite variable, have been
estimated to comprise approximately 12% of total
costs and capital equipment has been estimated to
comprise 10% of total costs.
The cost of implementing the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation Process may be less or more
expensive than the estimate given in this
economic analysis depending on several factors.
Such factors may include the depth and vertical
extent of the contamination, the site geology, the
contaminant concentration levels, the number of
injection and monitoring wells needed to be
installed, and the level of site characterization
required by a regulatory agency.
3.3 Factors Affecting Estimated Cost
There are a number of factors that could affect the cost of
treatment of VOC contaminated groundwater using
enhanced in-situ bioremediation. It is apparent that the
number of injection wells required to inject the
enhancements and the number of wells required for
monitoring the treatment have very significant impacts on
up-front costs. The contaminant distribution pattern will
affect the number of injection wells required to attain a
sufficient area of influence to degrade the contaminants to
acceptable levels. Spatially large sites would not only
require more injection wells, but the wells may have to be
installed deeper to increase the spatial dispersion of the
gaseous-phase enhancements as they migrate upwards
into shallower fracture zones. The increased drilling and
well construction materials required for deeper wells would
increase costs. Large sites would also likely require
additional monitoring wells and soil gas vapor monitoring
points for characterizing the treatment effectiveness.
3.4 Issues and Assumptions
This section summarizes the major issues and
assumptions used to estimate the cost of implementing the
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process at full-scale. In
general, the assumptions are based on information
provided by Earth Tech and observations made during the
SITE demonstration.
3.4.1 Site Characteristics
The site characteristics used for this economic analysis
will be considered similar to those found at the ITTNV site.
The ITTNV demonstration pilot system consisted of
eleven monitoring points, including an injection well, four
monitoring wells located within the anticipated radius of
influence, two monitoring wells located outside of the
anticipated radius of influence, and four soil vapor
monitoring points. Since that time the system has been
expanded to include four injection wells. The approximate
square footage for the affected area is approximately
23,000 ft2, which is roughly 1/2 acre. Therefore this areal
extent will also be used for this economic analysis.
Also for purposes of estimating costs, it will be assumed
that the site consists of a fractured bedrock aquifer, and
overall similar to the geology at the ITTNV site and that the
groundwater contamination consists of chlorinated
compounds. However, it will be assumed that only a very
thin cover of soil overlies the shallow bedrock, therefore a
40 foot thick section of fractured bedrock, or roughly
900,000 ft3 of bedrock aquifer will be treated. All other
3-5
-------
performance factors depend primarily on the selection of
the optimal injection method (continuous versus pulsed
injection rates) and the selection and optimization of
enhancements.
For estimating costs to fully remediate a site, the treatment
duration has been considered a variable. It is assumed that
a minimum of two years of continuous injection of
enhancements and pulsed methane injection will be
required to reduce the concentrations of the VOC
compounds to below their respective regulatory MCL. Any
additional treatment will be assumed to be conducted in
one year increments, up to a total of four years. Thus cost
estimates are provided for scenarios of two, three, and
four years of treatment.
3.4.2 Design and Performance Factors
The only mechanical equipment operated during the
injection campaign consists of an air compressor capable
of supplying air to four or more injection wells at a rate of
30-40 scfh. All other performance factors depend primarily
on the selection of the optimal injection method (i.e.,
continuous versus pulsed injection rates) and the selection
and optimization of enhancements.
3.4.3 Financial Assumptions
All costs are presented in Year 2000 U.S. dollars without
accounting for interest rates, inflation, or the time value of
money. Insurance and taxes are assumed to be fixed
costs lumped into "Startup and Fixed Costs" (see
subsection 3.5.4). Licensing fees and site-specific royalties
passed on by the developer, for using the DOE patented
injection system and implementing technology-specific
functions, would be considered profit. Therefore, those
fees are not included in the cost estimate.
3.5 Basis for Economic Analysis
In this section, each of the 12 cost categories that reflect
typical clean-up activities encountered at Superfund sites,
will be defined and discussed. Combined, these 12 cost
categories form the basis for the detailed estimated costs
presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The labor costs that are
continually repeated from year to year are grouped into a
single labor category (see subsection 3.5.5).
3.5.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation for implementing an in-situ bioremediation
technology comprises a significant portion of the total
treatment costs, especially for the initial year of operation.
The site preparation phase can be subdivided into two
subcategories. These include well/probe installation and
site setup. Both of these site preparation tasks are
considered to be one time occurrences for this cost
estimate, since they should not have to be repeated if the
site has been properly characterized. These two sub
tasks and their associated estimated costs are discussed
in the following subsections. The total non-labor cost of
site preparation for the initial first year of treatment is
estimated to be approximately $99,000. Each additional
year of treatment should not incur additional costs.
3.5.1.1 Well/Probe Installation
The number and location of injection wells, monitoring
wells, and soil gas probes required for treatment and
monitoring is highly site-specific and depends on many
factors. As a result, the high initial costs for this phase can
vary greatly. If a sufficient number of monitoring wells
already exist at a site, the high cost of installing wells can
be greatly reduced. For this cost estimate, it is assumed
that no wells are present in the area requiring treatment
and that the monitoring system installed will consist of 4
injection wells, 12 monitoring wells, and four soil gas
probes.
From discussions with Earth Tech, subcontracted well
installation costs at the Roanoke site included costs of $40
per foot for air rotary drilling plus approximately $3,500 for
well materials and setting wells into the bedrock. At the
ITTNV site, three deeper injection wells have been installed
to approximately 75 feet bis to widen the lateral dispersing
of the enhancements. Each of these wells were designed
with two injection points, one shallow and one deep. Some
of the monitoring wells are set at shallower depths. For
this cost estimate, the average well depth is assumed to be
50 feet, which would correlate to drilling costs of $2,000 per
well and total well installation costs of $5,500 per well.
Thus, for a 16 well system the total well installation costs
are estimated to be $88,000.
3.5.1.2 Site Setup
The second phase of site preparation is site setup. If the
treatment is being implemented at an active facility, there
may be no need for a site trailer, although a small building
or shed is necessary for storing consumables. As a result,
the non-labor costs associated with this phase would most
likely include those associated with the construction or
assembly of a storage shed. The storage shed must be
large enough to contain a triethyl phosphate tank, and
cylinders of nitrous oxide and methane. The shed also
needs to be heated during cold months to prevent any
condensation buildup in system piping from freezing. The
installation of the prefabricated shed at the ITTNV site has
been estimated by Earth Tech to be $1,200.
The cost for supplying electrical power for the injection
system can be quite variable. At the ITTNV site, electrical
hookups, communications, and water supply were readily
available and therefore costs (if any) were negligible.
However, more often than not, utility hookups would be
3-6
-------
necessary and for this cost estimate are estimated to be a
one time charge of $1,500.
It is assumed that the model site is secured and cannot be
easily vandalized. If security is an issue, then a fence
would need to be erected. This could substantially
increase site setup costs, especially for a large site.
Assuming no costs for security, the total non-labor site
setup costs (e.g., shed and utility hookups) for initiating the
activities are estimated to total $2,700. The actual labor
costs associated with site setup, and which would be
conducted by the remediation contractor implementing the
treatment system, is discussed in subsection 3.5.5.
3.5.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
Several types of permits may be required for implementing
a full-scale remediation. The types of permits required will
be dependent on the type and concentration of the
contamination, the regulations covering the specific
location, and the site's proximity to residential
neighborhoods. For the system installed at the ITTNV
facility in Roanoke, Virginia an injection permit was not
required. However a thorough eight week sampling
program was required by the U.S. EPA to establish a
statistically valid contamination baseline for the
groundwater prior to installing the treatment system. The
non-analytical costs incurred for ultimately receiving
approval from the regulatory agency to install the treatment
system are included under the Permitting and Regulatory
Activities category. These costs would include the
preparation of site characterization reports that establish a
baseline for the site contamination, the design feasibility
study for the pilot system, and numerous meetings with
regulators for discussing comments and supplying related
documentation for acquiring approval for installing and
implementing the treatment.
The permitting fees for bioremediation are assumed to be
about $15,000. It should be noted that actual permitting
fees are usually waived for government-conducted
research type projects.
Depending upon the classification of the site, certain RCRA
requirements may have to be satisfied as well. If the site
is an active Superfund site, it is possible that the
technology could be implemented under the umbrella of
existing permits and plans held by the site owner or other
responsible party. Certain regions or states have more
rigorous environmental policies that may result in higher
costs for permits and verification of cleanup. Added costs
may result from investigating all of the regulations and
policies relating to the location of the site; and for
conducting a historical background check for fully
understanding the scope of the contamination. From
previous experiences, the associated cost with these
studies and reports is estimated to be $20,000.
3.5.3 Capital Equipment
Capital equipment for the Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation
technology would consist of an air compressor equipped
with an air receiving tank, piping and other components
comprising the injection system, and specialized field
instrumentation used to monitor the system. Well
construction material costs are not considered capital
equipment since well materials are expendable (not
reusable) and are inherently linked to specialized well
installation services.
Most of the capital equipment cost data directly associated
with the injection system has been supplied by Earth Tech.
Some of the monitoring equipment costs are based on the
SITE Program's experience during the demonstration and
from other similar products. It is assumed that all
equipment parts will be a one time purchase and will
have no salvage value at the end of the project. Field
monitoring equipment is assumed to be dedicated to the
site.
Earth Tech has estimated that a total of about 4 cubic feet
per minute (cfm) of gaseous phase enhancements are
being injected into their full-scale system comprised of four
injection wells. For any full-scale system, a 15 HP air
compressor, which supplies up to 50 cfm at 100 psi, would
be more than adequate. A compressor of such size could
be purchased for slightly more than $4,000.
The primary injection components, which would include
manifold(s) and associated piping would cost about $5,000
and the associated gauges and regulators have been
estimated to cost another $4,000. The injection system at
Roanoke is being monitored by a portable combustible gas
monitor which costs approximately $3,500 and is dedicated
to the project. It should be noted that a Programmable
Logic Controller (PLC) could be installed on-line to
continuously monitor combustible gas levels for
approximately $10,000. The total cost for the injection
system, including the combustible gas monitor, is
estimated to be approximately $16,500.
For monitoring the treatment of groundwater during the
demonstration, dedicated bladder pumps and tubing were
installed in each of the wells to be sampled. For those
wells that were constructed to monitor both the upper and
lower fractured zones, a pair of bladder pumps were
installed. Although the teflon® bladder pumps are relatively
expensive, once installed they allow for relatively easy
collection of groundwater samples by the low flow purging
technique (the method used for the demonstration, which
is preferred by EPA-NRMRL). A second advantage of
using bladder pumps is that they eliminate the need to
3-7
-------
decontaminate sample collection equipment between wells
and reduce the chance of cross-contamination or the
introduction of decontamination chemicals into the
groundwater. In essence, much of the capital expenditure
related to the use of dedicated bladder pumps is recouped
by the reduced labor costs.
For this cost estimate, it is assumed that two bladder
pumps will be installed in each of the twelve monitoring
wells, one for each fractured zone. Each bladder pump and
associated tubing costs about $500, therefore the total cost
for 24 bladder pumps and associated tubing is estimated
to be $12,000, A pump flow regulator, estimated to cost
$900, is required to regulate compressed air as a cycle of
pulses that corresponds to a desired groundwater flow rate
out of the well.
Also during the demonstration, continual water quality data
was collected from two wells at a time using two YSI multi-
parameter water quality monitors. The use of these down
well instruments allowed for the continuous monitoring for
parameters of interest throughout the demonstration.
Periodically, the instruments were rotated to different wells.
Although this level of monitoring may not be a necessity to
implement the Enhanced In-Situ Biological Process, the
data collected from the units proved to be of great value to
Earth Tech for refining their injection campaign.
Multi-parameter water quality monitors are fairly
sophisticated and thus not commonly rented. Regardless
of this fact, rental costs for such instrumentation for
extended periods {as would be the case for a full-scale
remediation) would equal or exceed the purchase price.
Therefore, for this cost estimate, it will be assumed that
one water quality instrument will be rotated among selected
wells to collect continual data for parameters of interest.
The cost for a multi-parameter meter and data logger,
dedicated to a full-scale remediation project, is estimated
at $6,000.
The total costs for capital equipment are estimated to be
approximately $36,000.
3.5.4 Startup and Fixed Costs
From past experience, the fixed costs for this economic
analysis are assumed to include only insurance and taxes.
They are estimated to be 10 percent of the total capital
equipment, or $3,600.
3.5.5 Labor
Included in this subsection are the core labor costs that are
directly associated with the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation Process. These costs include the labor
hours required to oversee drilling activities, assemble the
treatment equipment and monitor system effectiveness;
thus comprising the bulk of the labor required for the full
implementation of the technology. Non-core labor costs
(i.e., those associated with maintenance activities and site
restoration) are discussed in subsections 3.5.11 and
3.5.12, respectively.
Labor costs for a minimum two-year cleanup scenario
comprises the largest cost component (27%) of the total
two-year treatment cost. The hourly labor rates presented
in this subsection are loaded, which means they include
base salary, benefits, overhead, and general and
administrative (G&A) expenses. Travel, per diem, and
standard vehicle rental have not been included in these
figures. The labor tasks have been broken down into four
subcategories, each representing distinct phases of
technology implementation. They include 1) Well/Probe
Construction Oversight; 2) Startup Testing; 3) Groundwater
Sampling; and 4) System Monitoring.
3.5.5.1 Well/Probe Construction Oversight
Although drilling and well installation labor activities are
performed by a drilling contractor, the remediation
contractor at a site (such as Earth Tech) would be
responsible for logging boreholes, monitoring for VOCs and
explosive conditions, and ensuring that well construction
and installation is conducted in accordance with design
specifications. Roughly assuming that to drill through the
bedrock and fully install a well or probe will take on average
11/2 10-hour days, an estimated 300 hours of oversight
labor would be required for installing 20 monitoring points.
Thus, a geologist's labor at a $60/hour rate would result in
$18,000 in oversight labor.
3.5.5.2 Startup Testing
Startup testing includes the labor to procure the injection
system parts, the associated monitoring equipment, and
initial first year enhancement supplies (e.g., methane, TEP,
etc.); arranging for and overseeing the electric utility
hookup; installing the injection system components and
associated monitoring equipment (e.g., dedicated bladder
pumps for the wells), and conducting preliminary air and
helium injection tests to determine fracture patterns and
zone(s) of influence. Earth Tech approximated their labor
hours for these tasks at 100 hours. Therefore for a full-
scale system the total hours for startup testing has been
increased by 1/3 to an estimated 150 hours for the initial
year of treatment. The majority of startup testing should be
a one time occurrence, therefore no additional labor is
shown to occur in Table 3-2 for successive years of
treatment.
3,5.5.3 Groundwater Sampling
It is assumed that, prior to installation of the Enhanced In-
Situ Biological Treatment System, the contamination in the
groundwater is fully characterized from a Remedial
3-8
-------
investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI), etc. Therefore, for this cost estimate,
it will be assumed that the regulatory agency will require
quarterly monitoring of the 12 monitoring wells. Since
dedicated bladder pumps are to be used for collecting
groundwater samples, the primary time constraint will be
purging of the wells. During the demonstration, this
process was time consuming because some of the wells
had a very low recharge rate and several hours were
needed for water quality parameters to stabilize. The
process was sped up somewhat by utilizing two portable air
compressors which enabled the purging of two wells at a
time.
For this cost analysis, it will be assumed that both zones in
the twelve monitoring wells can be purged and sampled in
one 10-hour day by two people. Therefore, each quarterly
sampling event would incur 20 hours of labor at $60/hr; or
$1,200. Thus, for the initial year and all successive years
of treatment, an annual labor cost of $4,800 would be
incurred for groundwater sampling.
3.5.5.4 System Monitoring
System monitoring occurs as separate preplanned events
at either a specific stage of the treatment process or in
accordance with a specific time line. The labor for this
event includes monitoring the system for explosive vapors,
injection pressure, and flow rate of gases; taking pressure
readings using magnehelic gauges; conducting soil gas
and headspace screening for methane (CH4), carbon
dioxide (CO2), and oxygen (O2); conducting continuous
field parameter monitoring in one or more wells; and taking
water level readings. Earth Tech estimated that
approximately 400 hours were spent monitoring the pilot
system over the course of a year. Therefore, for a full
scale system it is estimated that 500 hours annually would
be required to conduct the system monitoring. At a rate of
$60/hour, a total labor cost of $30,000 would be incurred
for each year of system operation.
3.5.6 Consumables & Supplies
Consumables and supplies for a two-season cleanup
scenario comprises a surprisingly small cost component
for the Earth Tech system. Total costs of this category are
associated with three subcategories of consumables and
supplies: 1) Enhancements; 2) PPE; and 3) Equipment
Rentals. Each of these sub category costs are discussed
separately in the following subsections.
3.5.6.1 Enhancements
Enhancements include any consumable supply that is
injected into the groundwater to specifically increase the
viability of indigenous microbes. These materials include
air, nitrous oxide, CH4, and triethyl TEP. The TEP, which
is purchased on a 55-gallon drum basis, is used modestly
and the original supply is expected to last for the duration
of full-scale treatment. Also included is helium, which is
used as an initial tracer for delineating fracture patterns.
During the first year of full-scale treatment, Earth Tech has
estimated that three cylinders of helium (at $60 per
cylinder), 20 cylinders of CH4 (at $100 per cylinder), and 20
cylinders of nitrous oxide (at $50 per cylinder) were
expended. For each subsequent year of treatment an
additional $3,000 would be incurred from the increased use
of CH4 and nitrous oxide. No subsequent costs are
expected to be incurred by either helium or TEP. Helium is
used almost exclusively for system startup testing. The
initial bulk purchase of TEP at $800 per drum would
supply enough TEP for the entire treatment duration.
3.5.6.2 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
PPE is routinely used for well drilling, groundwater
sampling, residuals management, and maintenance
activities; during which there is the potential to be exposed
to contaminated soil and groundwater. Expendable items
would primarily include nitrile gloves and tyvek® coveralls;
and possibly respirator cartridges if the work is conducted
in Level C or higher. Earth Tech has estimated purchase of
PPE during the pilot system operation to be $300. Once a
full-scale system is up and running, the limited PPE used
during groundwater sampling and maintenance activities
throughout the entire treatment duration is expected to be
negligible in cost. Therefore, the $300 cost for PPE is
assumed constant for all treatment scenarios. This value
does not include cost for disposing of PPE.
3.5.6.3 Equipment Rentals
Equipment rentals include the costs for non-capital
equipment required to efficiently perform the majority of
monitoring activities for the site. Most of the monitoring
equipment that will be used for a full-scale treatment
system will be dedicated to the site and thus purchased.
The only items that would be used sparingly, yet on a
consistent basis, would be portable air compressors
needed for injecting air into bladder pumps during the
quarterly groundwater sampling episodes.
It is assumed that a minimum of two portable air
compressors, costing a combined $120 per day, would be
required for each sampling event. Therefore, the air
compressor rental costs for quarterly sampling would sum
to $960 annually. If the air compressors were to be
gasoline or diesel powered (not recommended for VOC
sampling) the fuel is assumed to be included into the
rentals costs, with any additional fuel costs considered
negligible.
3-9
-------
3.5.7 Utilities
The predominate utility required for operating the injection
system is the electricity required to generate compressed
air. Certainly, the proximity of the demonstration site to a
readily available facility power source and to outdoor
electrical outlets enables utility logistics to be of a minor
nature for the ongoing treatment at ITTNV in Roanoke.
However, at a remote site, logistics can get complicated. It
maybe even necessary to use a diesel powered air
compressor if electrical hookup is not economically
feasible.
Since the facility generator being used at the ITTNV site is
supplying power for other normal functions besides Earth
Tech's compressed air requirements, there is no accurate
way for determining power usage for supplying the
compressed air. Earth Tech has indicated that the
maximum size air compressor required to operate a full-
scale injection system would be no more than 15 HP.
Assuming a 15 HP compressor that utilizes about 11.2
kilowatts (kW) of power is operated ~ 75% of the time, the
number of kW-hrs used annually would be approximately
11.2 kW x 18 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = - 74,000 kW-hrs.
Assuming a utility charge of $0.07/kWh, the cost of running
the compressor continuously would = - $5,000 annually.
A small additional electrical cost may be needed to supply
lighting to the supply shed and a security light, and possibly
for a phone and facsimile hookup. Other than electricity,
water may be needed for occasional decontamination
activities; however those costs are considered negligible.
3.5.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal
For this technology there is no effluent. Therefore, it is
assumed that there will be no effluent treatment and
disposal expense. Disposal of small amounts of
decontamination wastewater, that may be generated from
cleaning sampling equipment, is considered negligible.
3.5.9 Residuals Shipping and Disposal
The only residuals anticipated to be generated during a
full-scale enhanced bioremediation treatment are
contaminated drill cuttings, purge water, and PPE. For this
cost estimate it is assumed that there will be a relatively
high first year cost for this category since drill cuttings and
a significant amount of purge water would be generated
during the drilling, installation, and developing of the newly
installed wells. Earth Tech has indicated that roughly 30
drums of combined contaminated drill cuttings/PPE
("solids") and 50 drums of contaminated purge water
("liquids") were generated during installation of the injection
and monitoring wells; and that the drums were removed
and disposed of for approximately $300 each. Therefore,
the initial cost of residuals shipping and disposal for the
initial year of operation is estimated at $24,000.
For each subsequent year, however, the costs of this
category would be significantly less. There would be no
additional drill cuttings (unless additional wells were to be
installed) and purge water would be generated solely from
low-flow purging of wells during quarterly sampling
episodes. Generation of PPE during sampling activities
would be considered negligible. Assuming that 1) a single
well volume would be purged from each of the 12
monitoring wells during each sampling event 2) the wells to
have a 4-inch inside diameter casing and 3) each well to
have a 30 foot water column, roughly 20 gallons of purge
water would be generated for each well. This would sum
to a total of 240 gallons per sampling episode or 960
gallons of purge water generated annually. Therefore 18
drums would be disposed of annually following the first
year of treatment, at an estimated total cost of $5,400.
Thus, the total cost of residuals shipping and disposal
would increase by that amount for each additional year of
treatment.
3,5.10 Analytical Services
All groundwater and soil gas samples collected for the
model site would be sent to an off-site analytical laboratory.
The level of testing required to substantiate site cleanup is
assumed to be significantly scaled down from the SITE
Demonstration sampling plan. The reason for this is that
the demonstration objectives focused on percent reduction
claims that could only be adequately evaluated by a
statistically-based population of pre- and post-treatment
samples. On the other hand, remediation projects focus on
attaining a specific cleanup concentration target level, not
percent reduction.
For estimating the cost of analytical samples, it is assumed
that the Rl or RFI report has adequately delineated the
contaminant concentration and distribution at the site.
Therefore it is assumed that the on-site contractor will
conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring over the duration
of the treatment. For this cost estimate, the regulatory
agency overseeing site activities will require at least one
groundwater sample from both the upper and lower
fractured zone, from each of the twelve monitoring wells,
each and every quarter (for a total of 24 samples per
quarter or 96 samples per year).
The technology licensee will likely have methanotroph
counts by the most probable number (MPN) technique
performed on the groundwater samples collected from
certain wells and from specific zone intervals over the
entire treatment duration; estimated at four analyses per
quarter or 18 analyses per year. It will also be assumed
that quarterly soil gas samples will be required to be
3-10
-------
collected from the four soil vapor wells the first year only,
at which time it would be demonstrated that venting of
either VOCs or methane is not occurring in a significant
manner. Therefore it is estimated that 18 soil gas (air)
analyses will be performed for both VOCs and methane for
the initial year of system operation only.
Assuming that quality assurance sampling and analysis for
the groundwater samples is to be conducted at a 10%
frequency, the total number of VOC analyses per year is
estimated to be 106 and the total number of MPN analyses
for the initial year is estimated at 20,
The resulting total of 106 groundwater samples, analyzed
for total VOCs at an estimated amount of $150 per sample,
would cost $15,900 annually. The resulting total of 20
MPN counts conducted at an estimated $120 per sample
would cost $2,400 annually. The 18 soil gas samples
would be analyzed for VOCs and methane at estimated
costs of $290 and $85 each, respectively. The total air
analysis costs for the project is thus estimated at $6,750.
An estimated eight sample shipments per year at $50 per
shipment (four to a traditional environmental laboratory and
four to a laboratory specializing in biological analyses)
would conservatively cost $400 annually. The cost of
shipping the soil gas samples to a air quality laboratory for
the first year is considered negligible.
Total analytical costs for a two year treatment scenario is
estimated at $44,000.
3.5,11 Maintenance and Modifications
Once the injection campaign has started, the system can
be routinely monitored at an operating site by visual
inspection of gauges and meters. For less accessible sites
the system may have to be remotely monitored in
combination with occasionally scheduled site visits. The
labor hours for these activities are included in the system
monitoring labor subcategory (subsection 3.5.5.4). Actual
maintenance would occur only if the system malfunctioned
and needed repair; or, if any of the monitoring equipment
requires servicing. One such example would be the
periodic servicing of a YSI water quality instrument, which
requires cleaning and changing out of worn gaskets and
membranes from time to time. For the purposes of this
cost estimate maintenance labor will be estimated at 10%
of the annual system monitoring labor estimate, which
would be 50 hours or $3,000 per year.
3.5.12 Demobilization/Site Restoration
Demobilization and site restoration are performed at the
conclusion of the treatment project, and would therefore
consist of a one time labor cost. It is most likely that at the
majority of sites the monitoring wells would remain
operable for an indefinite time period and would not have
to be abandoned to restore the site.
For this cost estimate, it is assumed that
demobilization/site restoration will consist solely of
removing all the above ground injection and monitoring
equipment, as well as removing all remaining consumables
and drummed waste residuals. These tasks are estimated
to take two individuals two 10-hour days to complete.
Therefore, the 40 hours of labor at $60/hour would incur a
$2,400 one time cost for this category.
It should be noted that some states may require well
abandonment at some point in time. These requirements
can vary from simply grouting the well casings to actual
removal of all well casings and related materials. This
work would likely be subcontracted and could significantly
impact site restoration costs.
3-11
-------
Section 4.0
Demonstration Results
4,1 Introduction
4.1.1 Project Background
A pilot-scale technology demonstration of the Enhanced In-
Situ Bioremediation process was conducted from March
1998 to August 1999 at the ITTNV Division plant in
Roanoke, Virginia. The facility is an active manufacturing
plant that produces night vision devices and related night
vision products for both government and commercial
customers. Groundwater contamination has been detected
at several areas of the ITTNV Roanoke facility.
The area focused on during the demonstration is
immediately downstream of a solvent release source area.
At this locality, several VOCs have been measured at
concentrations above regulatory levels in both upper and
lower fractured zones of the underlying shallow bedrock.
Four specific VOC compounds were designated as "critical
parameters" for evaluating the technology: chloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl
chloride (CA, 1,1 -DCA, cis-1,2-DCE, and VC).
The pilot treatment system that Earth Tech installed within
the area of contamination consisted of eleven monitoring
points, comprising seven groundwater wells and four soil
vapor monitoring points. The groundwater wells consisted
of an injection well, four monitoring wells located within the
anticipated radius of influence, and two monitoring wells
located outside of the anticipated radius of influence.
Combinations of air, nutrients, and methane were injected
approximately 43 feet bis and into the lower fractured zone
over the duration of the demonstration (a period of 18
months).
Although an emphasis was placed on evaluating treatment
effectiveness at the injection depth, both the upper and
lower fractured zones of the bedrock were sampled and
evaluated by the SITE Program. Earth Tech had
determined that the upper and lower fracture zones were
hydraulically interconnected, based primarily on pumping
tests and downhole logging using an acoustic borehole
televiewer (AST) tool. A discussion of the pumping test
results and usage of the AST is included in Appendix B.
It should also be noted that helium tracer tests, conducted
prior to and during the demonstration, confirmed
interconnection of upper and lower fracture zones.
4,1.2 Project Objectives
For all SITE demonstrations there are specific objectives
that are defined prior to the initiation of field work; each of
which is described in a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP). These objectives are subdivided into two
categories; primary and secondary. Primary objectives are
those goals of the project that need to be achieved to
adequately compare demonstration results to the claims
made by the developer. The field measurements required
for achieving primary objectives are referred to as critical
measurements. Secondary objectives are other goals of
the project for acquiring additional information of interest
about the technology, which are not imperative for verifying
developer claims. The field measurements required for
achieving secondary objectives are referred to as
noncritical measurements.
Table 4-1 presents the one primary and seven secondary
objectives of the demonstration, and summarizes the
method(s) by which each were evaluated. Except for the
cost estimate (Objective 8), which is discussed in Section
3, each of these objectives is addressed in this section.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1, Demonstration Objectives.
Objective
Description
Method of Evaluation
Primary Objective
Objective 1
Evaluate the performance of the Earth Tech Enhanced
Bioremediation process to determine that, on average, there will
be a 75% reduction (with a 90% confidence interval) in the
groundwater concentrations of each of the Individual target
chlorinated organic contaminants after six months of treatment.
The target analytes were:
1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)
Chloroethane (CA)
cis-1 ,2-Dichloraethene (cis-1 ,2-DCE)
Vinyl Chloride (VC),
Collection of groundwater samples at baseline (immediately
before system start-up) and after six months of operation (final)
from four critical wells (MW-1 , IW-400, MW-401 and MW-403);
and collection of these wells over a seven-day period, with one
sample recovered from each critical well on each day of
sampling (resulting in a total of 28 critical samples at both the
baseline and final events). Determination of chlorinated volatile
organic compound concentrations in groundwater via EPA
SW-846 Methods 5030/8021 .
Secondary Objectives
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 4
Objective 5
Objective 6
Objective 7
Objective 8
Evaluate changes (baseline to final) in detectable chlorinated
volatile organic compounds, acetone, and isopropyl alcohol, as
a result of the methanotrophic process, in seven individual wells
within the study area.
Evaluate changes in detectable chlorinated volatile organic
compounds, acetone, and isopropyl alcohol at two intermediate
events during the demonstration. The intermediate sampling to
occur after anticipated changes in operating parameters (i.e.,
after air-only injection and after air/nutrient injection.
Determine the presence and extent (if any) of chlorinated volatile
organic compounds, acetone and isopropyl alcohol in vadose
zone soil gas that may be attributable to the injection of gas-
phase amendments into the saturated zone. Monitor methane,
ethane and ethene periodically as indicators of anaerobic
degradation and/or gas injection.
Evaluate changes in chlorinated VOCs, acetone, and IPA in the
shallow zone of the aquifer.
Track changes in the microbial community over the course of
the six-month demonstration in groundwater samples as an
indicator of microbial activity within the solid-phase of the
aquifer.
Characterize changes in the groundwater characteristics that
may affect, control, or be modified by process performance over
the course of the demonstration (e.g., nutrients, total organic
carbon, dissolved gases (methane, ethane, ethene), iron,
oxygen concentration, oxidation-reduction potential and pH.
Collect and compile information and data pertaining to the cost
of implementation of the Earth Tech Enhanced In-Situ Biological
process.
Collection of groundwater samples at baseline (immediately
before system start-up) and after six months of operation (final)
from all seven wells over a seven-day period, with one sample
recovered from each critical well on each day of sampling (a
total of 28 samples for both baseline and final events).
Collection of groundwater samples from critical wells during
two intermediate events that correspond to changes in the
types of injected materials. The samples to be collected over
a four-day period, with one sample recovered from each of the
four weils on each day of sampling (a total of 16 samples for
both intermediate events).
Collect vadose zone soil gas headspace samples from four soil
gas monitoring points (SG-1, SG-2, SG-3, and SG-4) during
baseline, final, and intermediate events. Analyze the samples
for chlorinated VOCs to determine if sparging is occurring.
Analyze also for methane, ethane, ethene, and CO2 to serve as
indicators of methane buildup and degradation type.
Collect and analyze a limited number of samples from the
upper zone of wells IW-400, MW-401, MW-402, and MW-404.
Collect samples from all seven monitoring weils during
baseline, final and intermediate events and analyze for Total
Heterotrophs, Total Methanotrophs, and PLFA.
Analyze groundwater samples for nitrate, nitrite, phosphate,
total organic carbon, total carbon, ammonia, total phosphorous,
total iron, sulflde, sulfate, bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride,
potassium, sodium, and dissolved gasses (methane, ethane,
ethene).
Acquire cost estimates from past SITE experience and from
the developer. Evaluate treatment costs for the pilot-system
used at Roanoke, and for a larger full-scale system. Break
down estimates into 12 cost categories that reflect typical
cleanup activities at Superfund sites. (See Section 3)
4-2
-------
4.2 Detailed Process Description
The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation process is a
biostimulation technology developed by the U.S. DOE at
the Westinghouse Savannah River Plant site in Aiken,
South Carolina. DOE has licensed the process to Earth
Tech. Earth Tech is utilizing the patented process to
deliver a gaseous phase mixture of air and gaseous-phase
nutrients, and methane to contaminated groundwater in
fractured bedrock. These enhancements are delivered to
contaminated groundwater via one or more injection wells
to stimulate and accelerate the growth of existing microbial
populations, especially methanotrophs. This type of aerobic
bacteria has the ability to metabolize methane and produce
enzymes capable of degrading chlorinated solvents and
their degradation products to non-hazardous constituents.
The primary components of Earth Tech's treatment
system consists of one or more injection wells (IW), air
injection equipment, groundwater monitoring wells (MW),
and soil gas monitoring points (SG). The injection wells
are designed to deliver air, nutrients, and methane to
groundwater in shallow bedrock 30 to 50 feet below
ground surface. The air was supplied by a compressor that
was capable of delivering 15-30 psi and approximately 10-
100 scfh to the injection wells.
The monitoring wells and soil vapor monitoring points were
installed upgradient, downgradient and laterally to the
injection well location(s) to delineate the zone of influence
and to monitor groundwater within and outside of the zone
of influence. The soil vapor monitoring points can be
designed to release vapors that may build up in the
overburden. The monitoring wells can be constructed in a
manner to allow them to be converted to either injection
wells or soil vapor extraction points.
The injection system (Figure 4-1) is comprised of air,
nutrient, and methane injection equipment. The supply of
enhancements is housed in a temporary building or shed.
A compressor serves as the air source, and includes a
condensate tank ("trap") with a drain, an air line, coalescing
filters and pressure regulators and valves. The methane
and nitrous oxide provide a source of carbon and nitrogen,
respectively. Both of these gases are provided in standard
air cylinders and are piped into the main air line using
regulators and flow meters. TEP, the phosphorus source,
is in liquid state and is stored in a steel tank. Air from the
main line is diverted through the tank to volatilize the TEP
for subsurface delivery. The air, nitrous oxide, and TEP
are injected continuously while the methane is injected on
a pulsed schedule. The methane is closely monitored at
the injection well head to ensure that the injection
concentration does not exceed 4% by volume, thus
avoiding the methane LEL of 5%.
NITROUS
OXIDE
TRIETHYL
PHOSPHATE
Inject Gas to
Subsurface via
Injection Wells
LEL
MONITORING
©
LEGEND
Pressure Gauge/Switch $3 Air Flow Meter & Valve
Air Flow Check Valve LEL = Lower Explosive Limit
e
Figure 4-1. Injection System Process Schematic.
4-3
-------
LEGEND
) ~ Injection/Monitoring Well
= Monitoring Well Only
(screened interval in ft. Us)
Kl ITT Building No.
SG-4
MW-403
(16-41)
MW-404
(31.5-46.5)
Downgradienl
of Injection
System
SG-1
MW-306 S
(16.5-26.5)
V J Upgradient
of Injection
System
IWMOO
(40-50)/
MW-402
(42.5-50)
o
MW-1
(15-30)
o
e>
SG-2
Figure 4-2, Study Area and Monitoring Point Locations for Earth Tech's Treatment System.
Figure 4-2 shows the demonstration study area and the
locations of eleven monitoring points comprising the
treatment system installed by Earth Tech. Four of the
monitoring wells (IW-400, MW-401, MW-402, and MW-
404) are considered nested well pairs. Each of these
wells is constructed with an outer casing that allows for
monitoring an upper zone of fractured bedrock (occurring
at about 10Vz - 351/i feet bis) and an inner casing that
connects to an isolated well screen that separately
monitors a lower zone of fractured bedrock (occurring
at about 40-50 feet bis). MW-1, MW-306 S and MW-403
consist of a single-cased screen; MW-1 and MW-306 S
are considered to monitor the upper fractured zone. MW-
403 is considered to monitor the lower fractured zone.
As shown in Figure 4-2, the study area is located
adjacent to one of ITTNV's major manufacturing
buildings (Building 3). Groundwater contamination in this
general area is comprised of both chlorinated and non-
chlorinated groups of VOCs. An underground
contamination source from a tank spill is located in the
vicinity of MW-306 S. VOCs from this spill source have
entered the low-permeability silty-clay overburden and
have migrated to the underlying bedrock.
Several VOC compounds have been detected above
their respective Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) in MW-306 S and in the downgradient wells to the
south. These compounds include actual solvents, such
as trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCA), as well as several of their breakdown
products. It was Earth Tech's intent to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Enhanced In-Situ Biological process
for reducing the mass of VOCs in the demonstration
study area, then to potentially expand the treatment into
the waste solvent source area and to other source areas
at the facility.
4.4
-------
A phased approach was planned for the injection
campaign to help optimize system operating conditions.
Based on dissolved oxygen (DO) and redox
measurements, Earth Tech initiated an air only injection
phase to change the subsurface environment from
anaerobic to aerobic. After approximately eight weeks of
air only injection, Earth Tech initiated continuous injection
of air and nutrients. Approximately ten weeks into this
phase, Earth Tech determined through field
measurements that methane was being depleted. As a
result, the continuous air and nutrient injection was
supplemented by intermittent methane injection. Helium
tracer tests were also conducted by Earth Tech during
the initial air only injection phase for estimating the
injection well zone of influence. Earth Tech continued
these tracer tests throughout the demonstration to
determine flow path changes.
4.3 Field Activities
4.3.1 Pre-Demonstration Activities
In December of 1997, the SITE Program characterized
the contaminants of interest at the proposed
demonstration site. Groundwater samples were collected
from monitoring wells IW-400, MW-401, MW-402, MW-
403 and MW-1. The following conclusions were made:
(1) Detectable levels of chlorinated VOCs were
found at each monitoring station;
(2) Detectable levels of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) were
encountered at each monitoring station;
(3) The presence and levels of contaminants
encountered were consistent with historical data
from the site;
(4) 1,1-DCA exhibited the lowest variability of all of
the chlorinated VOCs;
(5) Although TCE is a source contaminant at the
site, it was only detected in MW-402;
(6) The absence of TCE in other wells, and
presence of high concentrations of other
chlorinated VOCs is likely due to natural
anaerobic degradation of TCE (anaerobic
biodegradation does not completely mineralize
chlorinated solvents, thus it can result in the
production of other chlorinated compounds of
similar or greater toxicity).
4.3.2 Sample Collection and Analysis
This subsection describes the general procedures that
were used to collect and analyze groundwater samples
collected from the seven monitoring wells and the soil
gas samples collected from the four soil vapor wells.
The sampling strategy developed for the demonstration
was based on a statistical design relating to the primary
objective (refer to Table 4-1). The statistical design
recommended collection of 28 valid samples for
conservatively attaining a 90% confidence interval for
estimating the baseline to final percent reduction
(SAIC.1998). Thus for the baseline and final events, the
SITE Program collected one sample (excluding QA
samples) from each of the four critical wells per day for
seven consecutive days. Collecting samples daily
represented a conservative basis for ensuring sample
independence based upon the groundwater gradient.
This approach also took into account both temporal and
spatial variability for the four critical analytes. Therefore,
four wells sampled seven consecutive days yielded the
28 samples needed for determining a 75% reduction with
a 0.1 level of significance (LOS). For each critical
analyte, the concentration for the baseline and final
events were calculated by averaging the 28 values.
Table 4-2 presents a summary of the laboratory
analyses conducted on samples collected from each
sampling point. All wells were purged prior to collecting
grab samples using low flow purge techniques, which
normally do not require removal of a specific volume of
water. However, USEPA Region 3 required that at least
one well casing volume be removed. Prior to the
demonstration, the SITE team calculated the volume
needed to be removed from each of the wells to be
sampled. Each of the nested monitoring well pairs were
equipped with a set of dedicated bladder pumps, one
each for the upper and lower zone. Due to the
construction design of the injection wells, bladder pumps
could not be fitted down their narrow casings. Thus, a
peristaltic pump was used for collecting groundwater
samples from the injection wells.
4.3.3 Process Monitoring
Process monitoring was conducted by the SITE field
team on a routine daily basis during the baseline, final,
and two intermediate sampling events. In addition, Earth
Tech conducted monitoring of their system during the
entire duration of the demonstration. Table 4-3
summarizes the SITE process monitoring conducted
during the demonstration, the frequency of that
monitoring, the criteria for determining stabilized
groundwater, and the equipment used.
4-5
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Laboratory Analyses Conducted for the Demonstration.
PARAMETER
TEST METHOD
SAMPLE EVENT
Baseline '
March 4-12, '98
First
Intermediate 2
April 28-May 1, '98
Second
Intermediate 2
July 13-16, '98
Final '
Juty28-Aug.3,
'99
Chemical Analyses of Groundwater
Chlorinated VOCs
Acetone/lsopropanol
Dissolved gases
Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitroaen
Nitrite-Nitrogen
Phosphate (total, ortho)
Bicarbonate
Fluoride
Carbonate
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Total Sodium
Total Potassium
Total Carbon
Ammonia-Nitroflen
Total Phosphorus
Metals3
SW-846 5030/8021 A
SW-8468015
RSK 175
EPA 352.1
SM 4500-NO,B
EPA 365.1
SM 23208
SM 4500C
SM 2320B
EPA 41 5.1 (modified)
EPA 325.3
EPA 375.4
EPA 376.1
SM 311113
EPA 258.1
EPA 415.1 (modified)
EPA 350.1
EPA 300.0
SW-846 3010/6010
1 samples each
from seven lower
zone wells
2 samples each
from four upper
zone wells
1 sample each
from seven lower
zone wells
4 samples each
from seven lower
zone wells
1 sample each
from four upper
zone wells
1 sample each
from seven lower
zone wells
4 samples each
from seven lower
zone wells
1 sample each
from four upper
zone wells
1 sample each
from seven lower
zone wells
7 samples each
from seven lower
zone wells
2 samples each
from four upper
zone wells
1 samples each
from seven lower
zone wells
Biolopical Analyses of Groundwater
Total Heterotrophs
Total Methanotrophs
DNA
PLFA
SOP
SOP
SM9215M
SOP GCLIP
2 samples each
from seven lower
zone wells
1 sample each
from five lower
zone wells
1 sample each
from five lower
zone wells
1 sample each
2 samples each
from seven lower
zone wells
1 sample each
from four upper
zone wells
1 sample each
Chemical Analyses of Soil Gas *
Chlorinated VOCs
Methane, Ethane, Ethene
Modified TO-14
Modified TO-14
Baseline
2 daytime
samples each
from four soil
vapor wells
First
2 daytime
samples each
from four soil
vapor wells
Second
2 daytime
samples each
from four soil
vapor wells
Fourth Event
—
, Samples were collected on seven consecutive days,
! Sample were collected on four consecutive days.
3 Arsenic, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and zinc.
The baseline soil gas sampling event was conducted in conjunction with grpundwater sampling. The first and second intermediate soil gas sampling
events were conducted on April 22-23,1998 and July 9-10,1998, respectively. A fourth soil gas sampling event was conducted September 9-10,
1998 and consisted of two daytime and two nighttime samples collected on consecutive days (in anticipation of the final groundwater sampling event).
However, the demonstration was extended into 1999 and a fifth soil gas sampling event was not conducted.
4-6
-------
Table 4-3. Summary of Field Measurements Conducted for the Demonstration.
PARAMETER
pH
Temperature
Specific Conductance
Redox Potential
Dissolved Oxygen
Turbidity
Criteria for stabilized
Groundwater
±0.1 S.U,
+ 0.1 °C
+ 10 Mmho/cm
± 10%
±10%
Until reasonably clear of
sediment
Measurement
Method
YSI multi-
parameter probe
YSI multi-
parameter probe
YSI multi-
parameter probe
YSI multi-
parameter probe
YSI multi-
parameter probe
Visual
Measurement
Locations
At all groundwater sampling
locations, including:
+ MW-1,
* MW-306 S,
* IW-400,
* MW-401,
* MW-402,
* MW-403,
* MW-404,
Frequency
Prior to collecting any
groundwater samples
S.U. = Standard units.
4.3,4 Process Residuals
Other than potentially contaminated soil cuttings generated
during well and soil probe installation, there are minimal
residuals directly associated with the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation treatment process. Contaminated
groundwater is generated as a result of well purging
activities. Contaminated groundwater is also usually
generated when sampling the monitoring wells, however if
low flow purge techniques (i.e., micropurge) are used the
volume of contaminated water can be greatly minimized
(USEPA Region 1, 1996). PPE residuals are commonly
generated during borehole drilling, well installation,
groundwater sampling, and maintenance activities.
4.4 Performance and Data Evaluation
This subsection presents in summary form the
performance data obtained during the Earth Tech SITE
Demonstration conducted from March, 1998 to July, 1999.
4.4.1 Groundwater VOC Results
To adequately evaluate Earth Tech's treatment system, the
SITE Program selected specific monitoring wells to collect
and analyze the majority of samples for selected VOC
compounds. The selections were based on review of
historical site data, results from a pre-demonstration
sampling episode, and on a statistical analysis.
Emphasis was placed on sampling the lower fractured
zone of bedrock (the targeted injection zone) and the four
monitoring wells located within the anticipated lateral radius
of influence. These wells were designated as "critical
wells" and included IW-400L, MW-401 L, MW-403L, and
MW-1. The first three wells are designated with an "L"
since the critical samples were collected at the midpoint of
the well screens that monitor the lower zone of fractured
bedrock (approximately 40- 50 feet bis). MW-1 is
screened from a depth of approximately 15-30 feet bis and
monitors the upper zone of fractured bedrock. All three of
the non-injection wells are within 25 feet of injection well
IW-400 and all four wells are within 50 feet of one another
(refer back to Figure 4-2).
4.4.1.1 Critical VOC Results
There were four specific contaminants associated with the
critical wells that exhibited minimal acceptable temporal
and spatial variability for evaluating the technology. These
"critical parameters" were chloroethane (CA), 1,1-
Dichloroethane (1,1 -OCA), cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (cis-1,2-
DCE), and Vinyl Chloride (VC).
The primary objective of the demonstration was to evaluate
the performance of the Earth Tech Enhanced
Bioremediation process to determine that, on average,
there will be a 75% reduction (with a 90% confidence
interval) in the groundwater concentrations of each of the
individual target chlorinated organic contaminants after six
months of treatment. The statistical design recommended
collection of 28 samples to confidently detect a 75%
reduction for these compounds within individual wells, from
baseline to final events. Thus, for both baseline and final
events, one groundwater sample was collected and
analyzed from each of the four critical wells for seven
consecutive days (28 samples per event). For each critical
analyte, the concentration for the baseline and final events
were calculated by averaging the 28 values.
4-7
-------
Table 4-4 presents the 28 baseline and 28 final values for
each of the four critical compounds for samples collected
over a seven consecutive day period from each of the four
critical wells. Also presented are the results from two
intermediate sampling events in which one groundwater
sample was collected and analyzed from each of the four
critical wells for four consecutive days (a total of 16
samples per event). Collective results and statistics for
the critical VOCs for all four critical wells and for the four
events are presented at the bottom of Table 4-4.
The collective average percent change values listed in the
"Final" column for the four critical wells indicate that
concentrations of the four critical VOCs were reduced from
baseline to final events as follows: CA (35%); 1,1-DCA
(80%); cis-1,2-DCE (97%); and VC (96%). The lower
confidence limit (LCL) and the upper confidence limit (UCL)
were also calculated for percent reduction. The LCL can be
thought of as the most conservative estimate of reduction.
The UCL can be thought of as the best possible reduction
the technology may have achieved. The 90% confidence
intervals (LCL-UCL) for the four compounds were: CA (4
-54%); 1,1-DCA (71-86%); cis-1,2-DCE (95-98%); and VC
(92-98%). Therefore, cis-1,2-DCE and VC achieved the
75% reduction goal with a 0.1 LOS; 1,1-DCA was just
under this goal at 71% LCL and CA reduction was barely
significant at 4% LCL.
To depict a visual trend of the treatment effectiveness over
the course of the demonstration, the averaged critical VOC
data in Table 4-4 has been plotted in Figure 4-3 to
correspond with the injection phase being used during that
time period. Prior to the demonstration, there was evidence
that anaerobic degradation of TCE was naturally occurring
at the site due to the presence of methane and the
absence of TCE in some of the wells. Thus, at the outset
of the demonstration (March 1998), Earth Tech initiated an
air-only injection phase involving the continuous injection of
air at -30-40 scfh into injection well IW-4QO. The purpose
of the air-only injection was to help evaluate if
methanotrophic degradation of chlorinated VOCs could be
stimulated through the addition of oxygen to the
subsurface.
During this initial five-week period of continuous air
injection, an apparent sharp decrease in concentration for
each critical compound is reflected in all four plots in Figure
4-3. The similar patterns exhibited by all four plots suggest
that biological degradation was occurring. However,
nutrient results from previous sampling events indicated
that the subsurface may have been nutrient deficient and
significant fluctuations in groundwater elevation around the
same time period created difficulty for determining if and
how much of the sharp decrease in contaminant
concentration was in fact due to biological degradation (i.e.,
as opposed to groundwater dilution).
To address the potential groundwater dilution issue, the
water levels in the four critical wells have been plotted
against the totaled average critical VOCs concentrations of
the four critical wells (Figure 4-4). As illustrated the
highest concentrations of critical VOCs were measured
during the December 1997 Pre-demonstration sampling
event, during a period of depressed water levels. However,
just three months later during the Baseline sampling event
heavy precipitation had caused the raising of the
groundwater to peak elevations. The inverse relationship
between groundwater levels and contaminant
concentrations prior to the start of treatment suggests that
the critical VOC concentrations were diluted by more than
half (i.e., from ~ 11,600 ug/l to ~ 5,500 ug/l).
During the initial five-week period of continuous air
injection, this inverse relationship did not occur. Instead,
the water levels in certain wells dropped slightly with the
continued decrease in contaminant concentration (Figure
4-4). This suggests that groundwater level was not a factor
for the drop in contaminant concentration. Following the
air-only injection phase, Earth Tech initiated a "Nutrient
Addition" phase immediatety following the first intermediate
sampling event. This uninterrupted addition of air and
nutrients was continued for approximately nine weeks, at
which time the SITE Program conducted a second
intermediate sampling event. The plots in Figure 4-3
indicate average contaminant levels to actually increase for
three of the four compounds during the nutrient addition
phase. The lone exception was VC whose average
concentration essentially remained constant. During this
same time period the groundwater lowered considerably
(~21/2 to 4 ft. as shown in Figure 4-4). This may have
contributed to the apparent VOC increase.
Between the second intermediate and final sampling
events (~ 12-month period), Earth Tech made adjustments
to their injection system. During this period of time,
continuous air and nutrient injection was conducted and
methane was injected on a pulsed schedule. Groundwater
sampling by Earth Tech indicated that satisfactory VOC
reductions were not occurring in some demonstration wells
due to a limited delivery of amendments (i.e., low methane
levels indicated that TEP levels were not adequate and DO
was not increasing to levels needed for sustaining aerobic
conditions). Therefore, during the last seven months of the
demonstration, MW-402 was converted to a second
injection well. With modifications in place, average
concentrations for three of the four critical compounds
4-8
-------
Table 4-4. Critical VOC Results for Critical Wells.
Sample
Location
(Screened
Interval)
MW-1
_
(15 -30 )
Avg.'
cv!
%Change *
90% LCL '
IW-400 L
(40'-50')
Avg.'
CV2
%Change 3
90 % LCL '
MW-401 L
(40'-50')
Avg.'
CV
%Change'
90 % LCL '
MW-403 L
. 41,>5
(lb-41 )
Avg,'
CV1
%Change "
90 % LEL '
CRITICAL VOC
CA
(pg/D
1,1- DCA
(MO/I)
cis-1,2-DCE
(ug/i)
vc
(ug/i)
Sampling Event
BL
530
790
670
850
1,300
760
730
800
0,30
—
—
150
160
170
240
230
200
170
190
0 19
—
-
150
140
220
245
160
200
190
190
0.2?
—
-
160
140
160
180
125
96
100
140
023
—
—
1st&2nd
Intermediate
370
400
460
550
—
—
—
450
0 .18
-45
-26
83
62
67
68
_
—
—
70
013
-63
-55
83
78
56
63
—
_
—
70
0 18
-62
-52
94
110
70
61
—
_
_
84
027
-39
- re
470
550
640
720
_
_
—
600
0 .18
-26
- 1
100
190
260
320
—
—
—
220
044
+ 15
0
48
100
120
130
—
_
—
100
0,37
-47
-22
81
68
56
67
—
—
-
68
015
-50
-37
Final
290
428
271
293
271
289
306
310
0 18
-62
-50
232
230
259
222
227
242
257
240
006
+26
4
267
245
306
302
284
261
300
280
0,08
+51
+21
43
26
27
25
25
23
23
27
0,25
-80
-74
BL
1,300
1.900
1,700
2,200
3,800
1.800
1.800
2,100
039
—
-
760
690
650
750
750
680
590
700
009
—
-
700
570
770
695
530
750
580
660
014
—
-
300
380
500
480
360
270
250
360
0,27
_
—
1stS2nd
Intermediate
970
810
1,200
1,300
„
—
—
1,100
0.21
-48
-27
590
370
400
300
_
—
—
420
030
-40
- 19
500
450
320
290
—
—
—
390
0.26
-41
-21
140
140
220
260
—
_
—
190
032
-48
-25
1,200
1,300
1,700
1,800
—
_
_
1,500
020
-28
0
120
260
490
670
—
_
_
390
0.63
-45
-3
190
310
390
350
_
—
—
310
028
-53
-36
170
100
100
120
—
_
-
120
027
-66
-53
Final
167
200
140
152
142
119
118
150
0.19
-93
-90
283
269
272
264
337
275
312
290
009
-59
-54
186
273
354
318
325
320
366
310
020
-53
-43
20
11
13
13
15
14
14
14
019
-96
-95
BL
8,300
11,000
11 000
15,000
16,000
12,000
10,000
12,000
0,23
—
-
370
300
290
330
280
130
66
250
0,44
_
-
290
250
270
335
250
110
150
240
0,33
—
-
88
7,2
64
50
43
37
43
5,7
0,33
—
—
1ST & 2nd
Intermediate
1,800
2,200
4,300
1,700
—
—
—
2,500
049
- 79
-66
530
360
300
250
_
_
_
360
0.34
+43
0
440
310
250
210
—
_
—
300
0.33
+28
0
86
130
120
130
—
_
_
120
0 18
+1,960
+ 1.220
1.500
2,000
2,700
3,100
—
—
—
2,300
031
-80
- 72
270
890
1 900
2,500
—
_
_
1,400
072
+450
0
120
380
180
330
_
_
_
250
049
+7
0
200
87
78
74
—
_
—
110
0,55
+1,840
+460
Final
18
22
18
17
13
7,3
NO
14
056
- 100
- 100
272
160
193
148
133
119
108
160
OJ5
-36
- 4
281
165
220
165
142
111
143
180
033
-26
0
13
6.0
58
53
48
38
45
6.2
049
+8
0
BL
2.600
3,750
3,100
5,000
8,100
3,600
3,400
4,200
0.44
_
—
170
170
140
190
170
95
55
140
035
_~
-
170
160
190
210
170
130
110
160
0.2?
_
_
6.8
7 1
6.9
52
46
2 8
29
5,2
037
_
—
1stS2nd
Intermediate
1.100
1.100
1,800
2,100
—
—
_
1,800
0.33
-64
- 44
190
130
120
81
—
_
_
130
035
-8
0
160
120
89
61
_
_
_
110
040
-34
- f
37
53
44
52
_
_
_
47
0,16
+800
+460
660
970
1.500
1,800
—
_
—
1,200
042
- 71
-53
35
120
270
250
_
—
—
170
066
- 19
0
28
120
110
89
_
—
—
90
0.48
-47
- 15
98
53
36
30
_
_
—
54
057
+950
+ f70
Final
6.6
11
8.6
10
6.7
38
5
7,4
0.35
- (00
- 100
116
90
90
75
67
74
69
83
021
-41
-20
119
89
110
82
80
63
74
90
023
-46
-31
1.2
10
1 0
09
05
1 1
1 1
1,0
024
-81
- 74
Collective Results for the Critical Wells: MW-1 , IW-400L, MW-401 L.and MW-403L
Samp. Tot.
Avg.1
CV2
%Change3
90 % LEL "
28
330
092
-
-
16
170
1,0
-49
- 12
16
250
092
-26
0
28
210
054
-35
-4
28
950
0.82
-
—
16
520
071
-45
- 75
16
580
1.0
-39
0
28
190
066
-80
- 71
28
3,100
17
-
-
16
820
7 4
- 74
-44
16
1,000
1 1
-67
-35
28
89
1.0
-97
-95
28
1,100
1:8
~
-
16
450
1.5
-SO
- 13
16
390
1.5
-66
-26
28
45
0.97
-96
-92
Average values are rounded to two significant digits.
3 Coefficient of Variance (sample standard deviation/sample mean).
1 % Change represents the average % reduction (-) or increase (+•).
4 Represents the 90% Lower Confidence Level (LCL) for the average reduction (-) or increase (+).
The shallower screen interval is due to the lower fractured zone occurring at a higher elevation at the MW-403 L location.
4-9
-------
Air Only
(to 1W-400)
3000 —i
2000 —
s
• Air & Nutrients :
Continuouslnjection
(to IW-400)
Start of Pulsed Methane/
Continuous Air & Nutrients
Injection Phase
(pulsed methane 8 hrs/day, weekdays only)
IW400 Operating '
2nd Injection Weil
Online (IW402) ,
; Gper- :
aing
!W-402-
Shut-
down
CIS-1.2-DCE
TIMELINE -{>
Baseline
Sampling
March'98 Apr*May98
Figure 4-3. Critical VOC Concentrations Measured Over the Duration of the Demonstration,
Prs-Demonstration
Period
DEMONSTRATION PERIOD
1106-
1104-
it
•II 1102-
1098-
Sanrplng
'
I
Jan,
'98
- 8,000
-4,000
Sampling 'Istlnlef
Mart '98 Sampling
April/May 'S3
•2nd Intar.
Sarrpiing
Jyly'98
Jan,
Final Sarf pN
Figure 4-4. Groundwater Elevations Vs. Critical VOC Concentrations for Select Wells,
4-10
-------
appear to significantly decrease to below the second
intermediate levels (except for CA).
CA was measured to only slightly decrease on average
due to an increase in concentration of that compound in
the shallower screened MW-1. Although CA baseline
concentrations were lower than the other three critical
compounds, there is no readily apparent explanation for
the relatively poorer reductions in CA concentrations. In
fact, Earth Tech had anticipated CA to be the easiest of
the four compounds to degrade since it is less complex
molecularly. There was not a significant change in the
static groundwater elevations of the four critical wells
from the second intermediate to final sampling events.
Thus, the groundwater level is not believed to have been
a factor in the decrease in critical VOC concentrations
(Figure 4-4). However, the apparent short-term dilution
effect on VOC concentrations, caused by anomalously
high baseline groundwater elevations, may have biased
low the critical VOC baseline concentration. As a result,
observed reductions in critical VOCs concentrations may
be conservative.
4.4.1.2 Non-Critical VOC Results
In addition to the four critical compounds, there were five
additional VOCs analyzed in the same four wells at the
same frequency. These "non-critical" compounds
included 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1 -DCE), 1,1,1-
Trichtoroethane (1,1,1-TCA), Trichloroethene (TCE),
Acetone, and Isopropanol (IPA). These compounds
exhibited a statistically unacceptable spatial and
temporal variability during the pre-demonstration
sampling. As a result, less rigorous quality assurance
was conducted for these five parameters,
Table 4-5 presents the 28 baseline and 28 final values
for each of the five non-critical compounds for samples
collected over a seven consecutive day period from each
of the four critical wells. Also presented are the results
from two intermediate sampling events in which one
groundwater sample was collected and analyzed from
each of the four critical wells for four consecutive days (a
total of 16 samples per event).
The collective results and statistics for the non-critical
VOC results for all four critical wells and for the four
events is presented at the bottom of Table 4-5. The
collective average percent change values listed in the
"Final" column for the four critical wells indicates that
concentrations of four of the five non-critical VOCs were
reduced from baseline to final events as follows: 1,1-
DCE (94%); 1,1,1-TCA (75%); acetone (91%), and IPA
(95%). The 90% confidence intervals (LCL-UCL) for
these four VOCs were: 1,1-DCE (87-97%); 1,1,1-TCA
(48-86%); acetone (78-96%), and IPA (86 -98%). TCE,
which was non-detectable in many of the baseline
samples was shown on average to increase significantly
(I.e., > 600% with a 90% LCL of + 47%). However, the
variability in the TCE data from non-detectable to
detectable on consecutive days in the same well (e.g.,
MW-401L) may indicate a constant flux in the
concentration of that compound.
4.4.1.3 Upper Versus Lower Fractured Zones
Although the lower fractured zone of the bedrock aquifer
was the focus of the demonstration groundwater
sampling, samples were also collected from the upper
fractured zone that occurs approximately between 10.5
and 36.5 feet bis. There was a reduced number of upper
zone samples collected and therefore the results
obtained do not constitute a statistically valid sample set.
However the data is still useful for evaluating the
potential reduction of VOC compounds contained in
fractures located well above the treatment injection
depth.
In Tables 4-6 and 4-7, groundwater VOC data for
monitoring wells in the immediate area of treatment
injection has been averaged and segregated into "upper"
and "lower" fractured zones, respectively. Both tables
include the zone-segregated wells IW-400, MW-401, and
MW-402. Table 4-6 additionally includes MW-1, which
is the closest well to IW-400 that monitors the upper
zone solely. Table 4-7 additionally includes MW-403,
which is the closest well to IW-400 that monitors the
lower zone solely. All of the wells in both tables are within
25 feet of injection well IW-400 and are within 50 feet of
one another (refer back to Figure 4-2).
Comparison of the totaled average critical VOCs in
Tables 4-6 and 4-7 indicates that the upper fractured
zone contained significantly higher initial concentrations
of critical VOCs than did the lower fractured zone. The
data also indicate that although the air-nutrient-methane
enhancements were injected into the lower fractured
zone, substantial reductions of VOC concentrations have
apparently occurred in the upper fractured zone.
4-11
-------
Table 4-5. Non-Critical VOC Results for Critical Wells,
Sample
Location
(Screened
Interval)
MW-1
(15'-30')
Avg.1
cv1
%Change '
90% LCL'
IW-400L
(40'-50')
Avg.1
cv1
%Change '
90 % LCL "
MW-401L
(40'-50')
Avg.1
CV2
^Change'1
90 % LCL '
MW-403L
(16'- 41')5
Avg.'
CV'2
%Chang& *
90 % LEl '
NON-CRITICAL VOC
1,1-DCE
(Mg/l)
1,1,1-TCA
(M9/I)
TCE
(M9/I)
Acetone
(mg/l)
IPA
(mg/i)
Sampling Event
BL
140
230
210
260
280
190
220
022
—
—
ND
17
17
6.8
68
ND
ND
6.8
1.1
_
—
ND
17
17
72
72
ND
12
8.6
1.2
_
—
ND
0.3
03
02
0 1
0.3
03
0,2
056
_
—
1" & 2""
Intermed
34
39
40
56
_
_
42
023
-80
- 74
10
8
6.9
6.4
—
_
—
7.8
020
+15
0
97
7.3
86
69
—
_
—
8.1
0.16
-6
0
1 7
2.2
22
3.3
—
—
—
2.4
029
"1,000
+350
81
83
87
100
_
_
—
88
0 10
-59
-50
ND
12
14
16
—
_
—
11
0.68
+54
0
5.1
15
13
86
—
_
—
10
0.43
+2)
0
22
1 9
2.1
22
—
—
—
2.1
0.07
*9fO
+400
Final
0,7
2.1
07
1 9
03
07
06
1.0
0.71
- 100
-99
78
6.7
7 5
53
45
48
4 7
5.9
0.24
+13
0
94
7,2
7.7
6.6
72
4 5
7.7
7.2
020
- 17
0
0.5
05
06
0.5
0.2
0 5
06
0.5
028
+ J33
+3
BL
650
785
720
1.100
1.700
710
610
900
043
—
—
51
55
59
82
78
58
53
62
0.20
—
—
67
83
82
99
92
66
67
79
017
—
_
6.5
67
10
11
97
2.9
1 9
7.0
057
—
—
1 5' & 2"1"
Intermed
48
180
580
960
—
—
—
440
093
-51
0
ND
94
91
110
—
_
—
74
068
+ 78
0
—
93
130
120
—
—
—
110
017
+44
+5
28
25
34
45
—
_
_
33
027
+380
+110
130
190
280
350
—
—
—
240
041
- 74
-57
12
160
290
380
_
_
—
210
076
+240
0
72
170
180
160
_
—
—
150
034
+83
+5
94
83
17
23
—
_
—
14
0.41
+ 110
0
Final
1 8
23
1 0
20
05
0,6
06
1.3
06
- »00
- 100
159
133
143
110
100
96
108
120
020
+95
+46
184
136
160
131
117
101
129
140
0.20
+72
+33
3.2
36
42
4 8
49
48
SO
4,4
0.16
-37
- 8
BL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
.^
—
—
ND
14
17
18
18
14
14
14
0.46
4
—
NO
28
ND
30
ND
12
17
12
1.1
_
_
ND
0.7
07
08
06
OS
1 0
0.6
049
_
—
1"&2~1
InterTied
ND
ND
ND
NO
—
_
—
0
—
—
—
39
26
40
54
_
—
—
40
029
+ 190
+37
63
38
93
85
—
—
—
70
0.35
+460
0
28
43
69
11
—
—
—
6,3
057
+B60
+92
79
80
82
86
_
—
—
82
0.04
—
—
21
9.6
52
4 1
_
_
—
10
077
-27
0
432
110
110
100
_
—
—
91
035
+630
0
27
38
65
7
_
_
—
5.0
0.42
+670
+ »70
Final
32
ND
64
1 7
03
0.5
05
1.8
1.3
—
—
120
102
90
68
64
64
62
81
028
+500
+210
205
138
117
91
86
66
75
110
043
+790
0
29
26
25
26
28
25
26
2.1
006
+3)0
+ 130
BL
130
230
180
280
415
270
230
2SO
036
—
—
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
0
—
_
—
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
—
_
—
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0
_
—
—
1«i2™
Intermed.
100
160
190
_
—
—
150
0.31
-39
-8
1 3
0.7
0.5
ND
_
_
—
06
0.86
_
_
0.8
06
ND
ND
_
_
—
0.4
12
—
—
3
5
08
ND
—
—
—
2.2
1.0
_
64
150
260
_
—
—
—
160
062
-36
0
160
180
280
270
_
—
—
220
02B
—
—
0.4
1 1
0.9
06
—
_
—
0,8
0.41
—
—
6
3
2
1
_
—
—
3
0.72
—
_
Final
5.1
16
21
18
21
13
17
16
035
-94
-91
36
28
1.8
1.2
1 4
1 2
1 3
1,9
049
—
_
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1 6
1.7
1 5
1.9
023
_
—
11
25
1 4
08
04
03
0.2
2,4
1.7
_
—
BL.
190
280
230
370
555
330
260
320
0.38
—
—
32
2.8
2.8
34
3.1
1.5
ND
2.4
0.51
_
_
2 1
ND
2
3
ND
ND
ND
1.0
1.3
_
—
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0,0
—
—
—
1 " & 2nd
Infermed.
97
170
190
—
_
_
150
032
-52
-25
3
1.3
0.8
ND
—
_
—
1.3
0.99
-47
0
2
1 2
0.5
ND
__
_.
—
0.9
094
-9
0
3
_~
08
ND
— -
—
—
1.3
1.2
—
—
100
220
_
—
—
160
053
-49
-2
120
110
260
—
_
—
—
160
05)
+6.700
+ 1,100
07
1,1
1.3
06
_
_
—
0.9
036
-9
0
5
4
3
1 3
_
—
—
3.3
0.47
—
—
Final
5.1
14
19
14
19
10
13
13
037
-96
-94
1.3
06
ND
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.7
059
-72
-53
2 1
1.1
1.1
1 6
17
2.0
1 8
1.6
024
+er
0
7.2
19
1 2
0,5
NO
ND
ND
1.5
1.7
_,
—
Collective Results for MW-1, IW-400L, MW-401L,and MW-403L
Samp Tot
Avg.1
CV3
%Change 3
90 % LEL '
28
59
1.7
—
—
16
15
1.1
-74
• 4B
16
28
1 3
-52
- 1
28
3.6
08?
-94
-87
28
260
18
—
-
16
170
1 5
-35
0
16
150
082
• 42
0
28
66
1.0
- 75
-48
28
6.7
1 4
—
-
16
29
1 1
+330
0
16
47
093
+600
+ 19
28
49
1.1
+640
+47
28
62
19
—
-
16
31
2.1
• 50
0
16
92
1.2
+48
0
28
5.6
1 3
-91
- 78
28
80
1,9
—
—
16
34
20
-58
0
16
64
1.4
-20
0
28
4.3
1 4
-95
-86
' Average values are rounded to two significant digits.
~ Coefficient of Variance
3 % Change represents the average % reduction (-) or increase {+}
J Represents the 90% Lower Confidence Level (LCL) for the average reduction (-) or increase {+)
5The shallower screen interval is due to the lower IractLred zone occurring at a h:gher eievation at the MVV-403 L \<
4-12
-------
Table 4-6. Critical VOCs in Upper Fractured Zone in Immediate Treatment Area (iig/l)1.
Parameter
Chloroethane
1,1 -DCA
cis-1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Well
I.D.
MW-1
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
Fracture
Zone
Interval
15-30
0-26.5
0-31.6
0-36.5
Average
MW-1
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
15-30
0-26.5
0-31.6
0-36.5
Average
MW-1
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
15-30
0-26.5
0-31.6
0-36.5
Average
MW-1
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
15-30
0-26.5
0-31.6
0-36.5
Average
Total Average Critical VOCs
Average of all 16 Samples
SAMPLING EVENT
Baseline 2
800
620
200
220 J
460
2,100
1,200
520
2,100
1,800
12,000
5,400
2,300
8,000
6,900
4,200
1,600
1,000
5,100
3,000
11,860
3,000
First
Intermediate 3
450
450
120
100
280
1,100
680
440
1,600
960
2,500
1,700
2,700
8,500
3.900
1,500
560
800
4,100
1,700
6,840
2,200
Second
Intermediate 3
600
140
170
160
270
1,500
390
520
700
780
2,300
280
2,200
2,700
1,900
1,200
77
590
1,300
790
3,740
930
Final 2
310
310
63
350
260
150
65
52
1,100
340
14
6.7
22
1,400
360
7.4
4.1
7.5
320
85
1,045
260
Percent
Change4
-61 %
- 50 %
- 69 %
+ 59 %
-44%
- 93 %
- 95 %
- 90%
- 48 %
- 77 %
- > 99 %
- > 99 %
- 99 %
- 83 %
-95%
- > 99 %
- > 99 %
- 99 %
- 94 %
- 97 %
- 91 %
- 91 %
1 All values have been rounded to two significant digits. SW-846 5031/8021A were the analytical methods used.
2 Baseline and final concentration values for the MW-1 represent the average of 7 sample results collected over 7 consecutive days.
Baseline and final values for the other three wells represent the average of two sample results collected on two separate days,
one of which being the average of duplicates.
3 Intermediate concentration values for MW-1 represent the average of 4 results collected over 4 consecutive days.
Baseline and final values for the other three wells represent the average of two sample results collected on two separate days,
one of which being the average of duplicates.
4 Percent Change compares Final to Baseline Sampling Events.
J = estimated value.
4-13
-------
Table 4-7. Critical VOCs in Lower Fractured Zone in Immediate Treatment Area (M9/I)
Parameter
Chloroethane
1,1 -DCA
cis-1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Well
I.D.
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
MW-403
Fracture
Zone
Interval
40-50
40-50
42.5-50
16-41
Average
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
MW-403
40-50
40-50
42.5-50
16-41
Average
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
MW-403
40-50
40-50
42.5-50
16-41
Average
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
MW-403
40-50
40-50
42.5-50
16-41
Average
Total Average Critical VOCs
Average of all 16 Samples
SAMPLING EVENT
Baseline 2
190
190
180
140
180
700
660
1,100
360
700
250
240
4,800
5.7
1,300
140
160
640
5.2
240
2,420
610
First
Intermediate 3
70
70
250 J
84
120
420
390
1,300
190
580
360
300
6,000
120
1,700
130
110
780
47
270
2,670
660
Second
Intermediate 3
220
100
320
68
180
390
310
1,500
120
580
1,400
250
5,200
110
1,740
170
87
870
54
300
2,800
700
Final 2
240
280
590
27
280
290
310
1,400
14
500
160
180
1,800
6.2
540
83
88
480
1.0
160
1,480
370
Percent
Change4
+ 26 %
+ 47 %
+ 330 %
- 81 %
+ 56%
- 59 %
- 53 %
+ 27 %
- 96 %
• 29 %
- 36 %
- 25 %
- 63 %
+ 8.8 %
•58%
- 41 %
- 45 %
- 25 %
- 81 %
-33%
- 39 %
-39%
'All values have been rounded to two significant digits. SW-846 5Q31/8Q21A were the analytical methods used.
2 Baseline and final concentration values for the lower zone represent the average of 7 sample results collected over 7 consecutive days.
3 Intermediate concentration values for the lower zone represent the average of 4 results collected over 4 consecutive days.
Percent Change compares Final to Baseline Sampling Events,
J = estimated value.
4-14
-------
Direct comparison of the upper and lower zone data
further suggest that the treatment effectiveness may
have been greater in the upper zone. Figure 4-5, which
plots the total average critical VOC concentrations
measured for both zones for all four events, indicates a
more steady and consistent reduction for upper zone
VOC contaminants throughout the entire demonstration.
This is believed to be due to upward airflow pathways
from the injection point at 43 feet bis up to shallower
depths.
The averages presented in Tables 4-6 and 4-7 differ
markedly from each other. When the data averages for
each of the critical compounds are plotted versus each
of the four sampling events, as in Figures 4-6 and 4-7,
vastly contrasting patterns are shown. For example, the
apparent reductions for each of the four critical
compounds in the upper fractured zone are consistent
and fairly uniform. For each compound there appears to
be a steady decrease in upper zone concentration over
the duration of the demonstration, following an initial
sharp decline during the air injection campaign (Figure 4-
6). However, the patterns for concentrations of the same
contaminants in the lower fractured zone are
inconsistent and not uniform. Only the reduction trend
for 1,1-DCA shows any similarity to the upper zone
trends. The apparent insignificant change or even rise
in lower zone VOC concentrations during the early
stages of treatment seem to suggest that there may have
been difficulty maintaining adequate enhancement levels
in the lower primary fracture zone (which occurs at about
43 feet bis). ORP measurements, an indicator of redox
potential, were negative from all lower zone wells during
the baseline, 1st intermediate, and 2nd intermediate
sampling events. This suggests anaerobic conditions
prevailed, and that the enhancements failed to create an
aerobic environment. However, ORP readings were
taken after injection had ceased for at least twelve hours.
14,000'
12,000'
o
o
> 10,000
s
'C C.
0-2
-------
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Upper Fractured Zone
CiS-1,2-DCE
Baseline
1st Inter
Sampling Sampling
March'98 Apnl/May'98
2nd Inter.
Sampling
July '98
Final
Sampling
July/August '99
Figure 4-6. Treatment Effectiveness on Individual VOCs in the Upper
Fractured Zone (Both Critical and Noncritcal Wells).
2,000
1,500
~5
§
1,000
500
Lower Fractured Zone
/
V CIS-1.2-DCE
~*.
Baseline 1st lnter- 2nd lnter
Sampling Sampling Sampling
March! April/May'98 July'98
I
Final
Sampling
July/Augusl '99
Figure 4-7. Treatment Effectiveness on Individual VOCs in the Lower Fractured
Zone (Both Critical and Noncritca! Wells).
4-16
-------
4.4.2 Groundwater Nutrient Results
In order to characterize changes in the groundwater
characteristics that may have been affected, controlled, or
modified by the Earth Tech process performance over the
course of the demonstration, several non-VOC water
quality parameters were analyzed for on a limited basis
(Objective 7). One sample from each well/zone was
collected and analyzed during each sampling event.
Table 4-8 presents selected results of specific nutrient
parameters that may indicate limiting factors in the growth
and sustainability of the microbial communities or reflect
technology enhancement effectiveness. Total organic
carbon (TOC) and total carbon dissolved in groundwater
characterizes the amount of overall organic matter
potentially available for microbial degradation. The full
results for all water quality type parameters analyzed are
presented in the TER.
Total phosphorus was not detected in any of the wells until
the 2nd Intermediate event, therefore levels detected
afterwards should reflect injected TEP. The highest levels
of total phosphorus were measured in IW-400 (the primary
injection point) and nearby MW-401L during the final
sampling event (i.e., 79 and 15 mg/l, respectively). This
may indicate the injected TEP had substantially dissipated
in concentration away from the injection point.
Table 4-8. Selected Water Quality Results for Critical Wells (mg/l)1.
Well ID
(Zone)
MW-1
(Upper)
IW-400 L
(Lower)
MW-401 L
(Lower)
MW-403 L
(Lower)
Average
Parameter
Chloride
Total Phosphorus
Sulfafe
Total Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Total Phosphorus
Sulfafe
Total Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Total Phosphorus
Sulfafe
Total Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Total Phosphorus
Sulfafe
Total Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Total Phosphorus
Sulfafe
Total Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
SAMPLING EVENT and SAMPLE COLLECTION DATE
Baseline
March 9, 1998
170
<0.1
9.6
390
310
18
<0.1
<3
49
16
26
<0.1
<3
60
18
22
<0.1
3.2
120
2.2
59
<0.1
3.2
160
87
First Intermediate
April 29, 1998
13
<0.1
16
250
150
660
<0.1
4.0
32
6.5
15
<0.1
5.2
35
6.4
29
<0.1
15
52
17
180
<0.1
10
92
45
Second Intermediate
July 16, 1998
190
<0.1
13
610
440
190
<0.1
14
620
460
15
1.2
7.7
83
8.3
18
2.4
17
85
11
100
0.9
13
350
230
Final
July 30, 1999
240
0.2
120
100
43
30
79
<5
210
190
30
15
6
78
37
120
0.2
11
23
4.6
110
24
34
100
69
Values below the detection limit are considered zero for averaging. All values have been rounded to two significant digits.
4-17
-------
Sulfate is consumed during anaerobic processes, thus
levels of sulfate would be expected to be low during
anaerobic conditions and rise as conditions turned
aerobic, Sulfate levels slightly increased in all four critical
wells following the post-baseline air injection campaign,
consistent with this premise. Sulfate substantially
increased at the injection well location (IW-400L) during
the final event, but remained relatively stable in the lower
zones of the the critical wells MW-403 and MW-401.
Both total carbon and TOC can serve as an indicator of
carbon utilization by the microbes and thus would be
expected to decrease in concentration. In general terms,
both of these parameters mimicked the critical VOC
reduction in that they decreased during the initial air only
injection campaign, stabilized or slightly increased during
the 10-week period of continuous air and nutrient
injection, then decreased by the end of the
demonstration.
4.4.3 Groundwater Dissolved Gases Results
Of great interest for enhancement monitoring are the
measurements of dissolved CO2, CH4, ethene, and
ethane gases collected over the course of the
demonstration. Figure 4-8 plots the average dissolved
gases concentrations for those four parameters, as
measured in both the upper and lower fractured zones.
CO2 is a product of both anaerobic and aerobic
processes, thus CO2 can be used as an indicator of
relative biological activity occurring throughout the
demonstration. CO2 levels were consistently higher in the
upper fractured zone throughout the demonstration. The
slight dip in CO2 measured for both upper and lower
zones during the first intermediate sampling event lends
support to the possibility that the concentration drop in
VOCs at this same time was more likely due to
groundwater dilution rather than biological activity (see
Figures 4-3 and 4-4).
10s
104
o
o
1C1
10Z
10'.
Explanation
° = Upper Fractured Zone
* = Lower Fractured Zone
Ethene
*"
"V- ~~ ""
cy
\ Ethane
\ ,-V
Baseline
Sampling
March '98
1st Inter.
Sampling
April/May '98
2nd Inter,
Sampling
July '98
Final
Sampling
July/August '99
Figure 4-8, Dissolved Gases in Upper and Lower Fractured Zones.
4-18
-------
Methane, ethane, and ethene are generally associated with
the anaerobic degradation of organic matter. Furthermore,
methanotrophic bacteria require methane as a metabolite.
In an anaerobic groundwater environment, there is an
adequate amount of methane to sustain methanotrophic
processes, however oxygen is absent so methanotrophic
processes are not established. When aerobic conditions
are established (i.e., during the air-only injection phase)
and methanotrophic processes begin, methane becomes
quickly depleted and levels decrease. Therefore, it was
necessary to augment the groundwater with methane to
continue and sustain the methanotrophic process.
The plots for methane, ethane, and ethene for both zones
in Figure 4-8 generally show that the relatively higher
baseline levels of these compounds dropped over the
course of the demonstration. This drop, which is much
more evident in the upper fractured zone, is consistent with
the establishment of aerobic conditions from the original
anaerobic conditions.
4.4.4 Groundwater Field Monitoring Results
Pertinent groundwater characteristics were recorded with
a "multi-parameter meter" to determine if groundwater
conditions had stabilized prior to sample collection. The
parameters measured included temperature, pH, specific
conductance, oxidation/reduction potential (ORP), and DO.
This recorded data is useful for determining the effect of
injections on these biological controlling parameters.
Tables 4-i and 4-10 present summaries of the field
monitoring results collected during all four sampling
Table 4-9. Field Measurement Summary for Upper Zone Wells.1
Weil ID
(Zone)
MW-1
(Upper)
MW-306S
(Upper)
IW-400 U
(Upper)
MW-401 U
(Upper)
MW-402 U
(Upper)
IW-404 U
(Upper)
Average
Parameter
Temp. fC)
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
oH (SU)
ORP Millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
PH (SU)
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. ("Cl
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
pH (SU)
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (uS/crn)
pH (SU)
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. tCi
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
H oH (SU)
ORP (milliVolts)
DO (%)
Temp, fC)
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
DH (SU) '
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%) '
Temp, fC)
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
H pH (SUT
ORFMmilliVolts)
DO (%)
SAMPLING EVENT
Baseline
March 1998
15(7)
2,800 (71
6.6-6.8(7)
- 120 (7)
11(7)'
12(6)
8,700 (61
6.6-6.817)
-92m
6.7 W
15(2)
2,800/2)
6.7 (2)
-110?2)
2.3 (2)
14(2)
1,900(2)
6.8(2)
-11072)
11(2)
15(2)
5,100(2)
6.5-6.6(2)
- 83 ra
4.7 (2/
8.5(2)
1,200(2)
7.6-7.1(2)
-4.5(2)
20(2)'
13
3,800
6.&-7.1
-87
9.3
First Intermediate
April/May 1998
15(3)
1,000 (4)
6,7-6,8(4)
-83(4)
5.3 far
19(4)
3,500 (4)
6.5-6.7(4)
-86{4)
7.3 (4/
960(1)
6.7 (1!
-85J1)
4.8 H
16(1)
720|f)
6-9(11
-85J1J
2.9 M
16(1)
2.500/1)
6.6 (f }
-110(1)
9.9(1)'
20(15
750(1)
7.1 f1J
+ 2.0(1)
37 (f)
17
1,600
6.S-7.1
-89
11
Second Intermediate
July 1998
18(4)
1,300(4)
6.5-6.6 (4)
- 95 (4)
22 (4)'
25(4)
4,500 (4)
6.4-6.5(4)
-100(4)
11 W
20(1)
500(1)
6.7(1}
-68m
2.8(1)
20(1)
990 (f)
6.6 (1)
- 150 (1)
7.9 (V
21 (1)
2,800/1)
6.4 (f}
-150(1)
10 (V
30(1)
TO
«
22
1,800
6.4-7.0
-110
16
Final
July/Aug. 1999
19(7)
1,300(7)
6.4-6,5(6)
-80(7)
4-7 (rf
22(7)
1.300(7)
6.4-7.017)
- 47 (7)
10 (V)'
20(2)
1.200/2)
6.4(2)'
-99m
3.3 M
22(2)
990@)
6.5 m
-72m
16 (2)'
19(2)
730(2)
6.7 (2J
- 120 (2)
6.0 (2)'
22(1)
1.900/1)
6.5 (f)
+ 130(1)
3.3 (f)
21
1,100
6.4-T.O
-58
7.2
' All values, except for the pH range, are averages of the number of measurements in parenthesis. All values rounded to two significant digits.
4-19
-------
Table 4-10, Field Measurement Summary for Lower Zone Wells.1
Well ID
(Zone)
IW-400 L
(Lower)
M\ftM01 L
(Lower)
MW-402 L
(Lower)
MW-403
(Lower)
MW-404 L
(Lower)
Average
Parameter
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (uS/cm)
PH (SUV
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. ( C)
Spec. Cond. (uS/cm)
pH (SU)
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. ( C)
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
pH (SU)
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. ( C)
Spec. Cond. (uS/cm)
pH (SU)
ORP (millivolts)
DO (%)
Temp. { C)
Spec. Cond. (us/cm)
pH (SUV
ORP (milliVoits)
DO (%)
Temp. (°C)
Spec, Cond. (us/cm)
_pH (SUT
ORPjmilliVoIts)
DO (%)
SAMPLING EVENT
Baseline
March 9, 1998
16(7)
1,100(5)
7.1-7.3(7)
-110(7)
3.7(7)'
16(7)
1,100(6}
7.6-7.2(7)
- 150 (7)
14(7)'
16(7)
1,000(6)
6.9-7.1 (7)
-110(7)
11(7)
16(7)
1,000(7)
6.9-7.2(7)
-130(7)
4.9(7)
16i7)
1,100(6)
7,6-7.1(7)
-140(7)
3.0 (7)'
16
1.100
6.9-7.3
•130
7.3
First Intermediate
April/May 1998
17(4)
380 (4)
7.0-7.2 (4)
- 70 (4)
2.2 (4)
380(4)
7.1-7.2(4)
-110(4)
1.5(4)'
16(4)
440 (4)
7.0-7.1 (4)
- 85 (4)
3.3 (4)
18(4)
400 (4)
7.0-7.2 (4)
- 61 (4)
30 (4)'
18(3)
390(4)
7,1-7.2(4)
-110(4)
1.3(4)'
17
400
7.0-7.2
-87
7.7
Second Intermediate
July 1998
21 (4)
1,500 (4)
6.6-6.7 (4)
-126(4)
12 (4)
18(4)
450 (4)
6.8-7.0 (4)
-110(4)
2.8(4)'
18(4)
510(4)
6.8-6.9 (4)
-110(4)
4.2(4)'
19(4)
450(4)
6.8-6.9 (4)
- 98 (4)
39 (4)'
17(4)
380 14)
7.0-7.2 (4)
- 70 (4)
2.2 (V
19
660
6.6-7.2
-100
12
Final
July 30, 1999
19(7)
450(6)
7.2-7.3 (7)
-86(7)
7.6 (V)'
19(7)
460(7)
6.1-7.0(7)
-140(7)
4.8 (t)
18(7)
580 (7)
6.8-6.9(7)
- 160(7)
2.8 (?)
630 (7)
6.6-6.9 (7)
-100(7)
7.5 (V
19(7)
530(7)
6.7-6.8(7)
-100(7)
3.3 (7)'
19
530
6,1-7.3
-120
5.2
1 All values, except for the pH range, are averages of the number of measurements in parenthesis. All values rounded to two significant digits.
events for the upper zone and lower zone wells,
respectively. The data should be interpreted with caution
since the number of measurements available for
averaging is variable. Nonetheless, there are some
consistent trends apparent.
For all wells sampled, there appears to have been a
significant drop in specific conductance following the
baseline sampling event, consistent with the average
drop of total critical VOCs shown on Figure 4-4. Except
for injection well IW-400, specific conductance remained
fairly stable during the first and second intermediate
sampling events. During the final event sampling,
specific conductance was significantly lower than
baseline measurements for all wells except for the upper
zone of injection well IW-400.
ORP did not appear to be significantly altered during the
demonstration. However DO levels appeared to be
measured in most cases at higher levels in the upper
fractured zone as compared to the lower fractured zone.
The process did not appear to alter groundwater pH.
4.4.5 Groundwater Microbial Results
In order to track changes in the microbial community
over the course of the demonstration a set of microbial
analyses were performed on groundwater samples as a
measure of the Earth Tech treatment system's ability to
stimulate indigenous microorganisms (Objective 6).
Although microbial communities are established and
operate on solid substrates within subsurface lithologies,
changes in numbers and populations on the solid phase
will impact and mirror changes in the aqueous
groundwater phase. Analysis of groundwater would
therefore reflect relative changes in microbial
communities responsible for contaminant degradation
over the course of the demonstration.
There were five specific types of microbial analyses
performed on groundwater samples, which included:
PLFA (Phospholipid fatty acids)
4-20
-------
TCH (Total Cultivable Heterotrophs)
MPN (Total Cultivable Methanotrophs as defined by
the "Most Probable Number" technique)
• DNA (gene detection and approximation)
• AODC (Acridine orange direct counts)
For this ITER, the first three listed parameters are
presented in summary form. All of the microbial data is
presented in the TER, In Tables 4-11 and 4-12,
summarized groundwater data for MPN, TCH, and PLFA
is presented as segregated results for the "upper" and
"lower"fractured zones, respectively. The MPN analyses
are an estimation of the microbial density of
methanotrophic bacteria (i.e., metabolize their sole
source of carbon and energy by the conversion of
methane into methanol). TCH are used to enumerate
culturable heterotrophic bacteria or fungi present within
a given sample. TCH, expressed as colony forming units
(cfu), represent the number of cells in a sample capable
of forming colonies on a suitable agar medium. PLFA
provides a biomass measurement for the entire
microbial community, including anaerobic, aerobic,
culturable and non-culturable organisms.
The data averages in Tables 4-11 and 4-12 are highly
variable. The variability between the two baseline event
samples and between the two final event samples are
particularly notable. The treatment injection system was
not activated until March 16, 1998 (after the baseline
event) and was shut off on July 27, 1999 (prior to the
final sampling event). Nonetheless, as was done with
the VOC data, the upper and lower zone microbial data
can be plotted separately to show any general trends for
evaluating the ability of Earth Tech's treatment system to
stimulate indigenous microorganisms.
Figures 4-9 and 4-10 show the averaged concentrations
of MPN, TCH, and PLFA measured during the four
sampling events of the demonstration, for the Upper and
Lower Fractured Bedrock zones, respectively. Although
the aforementioned variability is significant, the general
trends in both upper and lower zones exhibit a similar
pattern to the critical VOC concentration changes that
were previously shown in Figure 4-3. This is especially
true between the second baseline and first intermediate
samples, where there is an apparent sharp decrease in
concentration for MPN, TCH, and PLFA reflected in the
lower fractured zone during the initial five week period of
continuous air injection. This decrease was followed by
substantial increases in MPN and PLFA concentrations
during the phase of continuous injection of air and
nutrients. TCH concentrations remained fairly constant.
A second and rather obvious observation that can be
made about the upper versus lower fractured zone
comparison is that the TCH and PLFA concentrations in
the upper fractured zone attained significantly higher
levels than in the lower fractured zone. TCH in the upper
fractured zone sharply increased between May and July
of 1998 to levels that were an order of magnitude higher
than those measured in the lower fractured zone. Then,
during the final sampling event, TCH was measured at
about the same levels in both zones.
Thirdly, methanotroph populations apparently were better
stimulated in the lower zone as compared to the upper
zone. MPN concentrations in the upper fractured zone
appear to stabilize between July of 1998 and July of 1999
at about 103; following a substantial increase between
March and April of 1998 (Figure 4-9). MPN
concentrations in the lower fractured zone appear to
steadily increase between April of 1998 and J uly of 1999,
and are shown to peak at about 106 during the final
sampling event (Figure 4-10). Since groundwater
samples were not collected for over one year it is not
possible to know when the MPN population in the lower
fractured zone attained the thriving population level of
106 cells/ml.
A fourth observation from the comparison plots reveals
that during the final event sampling there were significant
concentration drops in MPN, TCH, and PLFA in the lower
fractured zone six days after the injection system was
turned off. However, this did not occur in the upper
fractured zone. In fact, levels of TCH and MPN were
measured to spike upwards in the samples collected six
days after the injection system was turned off.
This occurrence in microbial drop off may be further
evidence of the presence of upward airflow pathways, in
which injected methane would migrate from the injection
point at 43 feet bis to the upper fractured zones. Thus,
the lower fractured zone would become quickly methane
depleted once methane injection was stopped, however
the upper zone could remain methane enriched for an
indefinite period from the upward migration of gaseous
phase methane. Therefore, a depletion of MPN could
occur in the lower fractured zone at the same time an
increase of MPN occurred in the upper fractured zone.
4,4,6 Soil Gas Results
Vadose zone soil gases were collected from the four Soil
Gas Probe locations (e.g., SG-1, SG-2, SG-3, and SG-4)
that were installed into the overburden and screened
from -5-10 ft, bis. The gases were analyzed for
chlorinated volatile organics, acetone/lPA, methane
(CH4), ethane, and ethene. The samples were collected
4-21
-------
Table 4-11. Microbial Results (MPN, TCH, and PLFA) for Upper Fractured Zone.1
Well ID
MW-1
MW-306 S
IW-400 U
MW-401 U
MW-402U
MW-404 U
Averages
Unit2
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
SAMPLING EVENT
Baseline '98
March 5
480
8,200
2,000
48
1,800
9,000
E
—
—
—
260
5,000
5,500
March 10
92
280,000
960
5
3,800.000
1,700
—
._
—
—
49
2,000.000
1,300
First Intermed. '98
April 28
92
82,000
24,000
48
95,000
3,700
E
—
—
...
70
89,000
14,000
Second Intermed. '98
July 13
4.800
290,000
160,000
300
120,000
280,000
—
E
—
—
2,600
66,000,000
210,000
Final '99
July 28
4,200
1 ,000.000
140,000
42
130.000,000
580,06o
—
E
-
—
2,000
430,000
360,000
August 3-5
40
8,300,000
180,000
220.000,000
/7.000
400
90,000
400
97,000
30,000
600,000
4,800
17,000
7.100
110,000,000
180,000
Values represent the mean of three plate counts and are rounded to two significant digits.
* MPN = Most probable number for total culturable methanotrophs as measured in cells/ml. TCH = Total culturable heterotrophs as measured in cfu/ml,
PLFA = quantity of phospholipid fatty acids (e.g., biomass) as measured in total picomoles.
Table 4-12. Microbial Results (MPN, TCH, and PLFA) for Lower Fractured Zone,1
Well ID
IW-400 L
MW-401 L
MW-402L
MW-403L
MW-404 L
Averages
Unit2
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
MPN
TCH
PLFA
SAMPLING EVENT
Base
March 5
5
500
41
48
2,200
500
48
4,300
180
92
2,200
i90
480
TNG3
30
NC°
190
sline '98
March 10
48
530,000
200
48
1,300,000
380
2,200
70,000
5,400
480
500.000
510
92
480,000
540
570
580.000
1,400
First Intermed. '98
April 28
92
120,000
140
300
350,000
1,St30
480
3.000
100
92
200,000
240
480
22,000
230
200
140,000
440
Second Intermed. '98
July 13
92
1,100,000
110,000
3,000
250,000
90,000
22,000
13,000
9,500
3,000
38,000
13,000
300
8,300
4,200
5,700
280,000
45,000
Final '99
My 28
9,200
530,000
83,000
30
180,000
6,300
560
120,000
4,200
22,000,000
25,000
24,000
220,000
2,700
1,700
4.400,000
170,000
24,000
August 3
22,000
150,000
17,000
4,800
18,000
7,100
40
230,000
10,000
2,200
320,000
22,000
150
20,000
800
5.800
150,000
11,000
Values represent the mean of three plate counts and are rounded to two significant digits.
2 MPN = Most probable number for total culturable methanotrophs as measured in cells/ml. TCH = Total culturable heterotrophs as measured in cfu/ml.
, PLFA = quantity of phospholipid fatty adds (e,a,, biomass) as measured in total picomoles.
J TNC = Too numerous to count, NC = Not calculated.
4-22
-------
10'
107
106 '
£ 101
10'
103
102
*.„
""••«.„ TCH (cfu/ml)
PLFA
(total
picomoles)
f
MPN (cells/ml)
Upper Fractured Zone
t
Baseline
1st Inter.
Sampling
April/May '98
2nd Inter.
Sampling
July '98
Final
Sampling
July/August '99
Figure 4-9. MPN, TCH, and PLFA Concentrations in Upper Fractured Zone.
10'
I
o
U
10e
10s
10*
103
102
t
Baseline
Sampling
Lower Fractured Zone
i
1st lnter
2nd lnter
Final
Sampling
July/August '99
Mutch m "Hii»ivM.y ao July '98
Figure 4-10. MPN, TCH, and PLFA Concentrations in Lower Fractured Zone.
4-23
-------
on four different occasions in 1998: during baseline
conditions in March, in April and July (just prior to the two
intermediate groundwater sampling events), and in
September. Soil gas samples were not collected in 1999.
It was hoped that the soil gas results would determine: (1)
if VOCs were being stripped into the unsaturated zone as
a result of the injection of gases into the saturated zone; (2)
if methane was building up in the clay overburden during
injection phases; and (3) if a presence and/or change in
concentration of methane, ethane, ethene, and CO2 may
be an indicator of aerobic and anaerobic degradation
(Objective 5).
Table 4-13 summarizes the results of the soil gas
headspace sampling events for the four critical VOCs (e.g.,
CA; 1,1 - DCA; cis-1,2-DCE; and VC) separately for each of
the four soil vapor monitoring probes. Results are reported
in parts per billion by volume (ppbv). Other volatile
compounds, as part of the TO-14 scan, were also analyzed
as well. Full results are presented in the TER. For each of
the four events, there were at minimum two daytime soil
gas measurements. For the third intermediate event, there
were two additional nighttime measurements. The purpose
of the nighttime measurements was to determine if any off-
gassing was affected by the variability in temperature and
humidity typically experienced between daytime and
nighttime.
In addition to the individual results presented, the data in
Table 4-13 has also been summarized to show the
summation of the critical VOC concentrations. Based on
the variability in the data, only generalizations have been
made. Because all of the samples were collected from soil
gas wells screened at the same approximate depth, results
can be shown on a plan view to investigate any correlations
the soil gas results may have to injection and monitoring
well proximity.
The averaged critical VOC totals shown in parentheses in
Table 4-13 have been inserted in boxes adjacent to the
appropriate soil gas monitoring location in Figure 4-11.
Also included on Figure 4-11 are the upper fractured zone
critical VOC groundwater results for all wells sampled,
including those that were outside of the anticipated zone of
influence (i.e., MW-306 S, MW-402, and MW-404).
The VOC soil gas data is variable and inconclusive with
respect to determining whether VOCs have been stripped
into the vadose zone as a result of the injected gases into
the saturated zone. There is little correlation between the
summed average VOC soil gas concentrations and upper
zone groundwater data for the three 1998 sampling events.
The soil gas location having the most consistent higher
levels of the four critical VOCs (as a summed total) was
SG-1, which is the closest soil vapor monitoring probe to
the primary injection wells IW-400. Of the four soil vapor
monitoring points sampled, two (SG-2 and SG-3), showed
order of magnitude increases in averaged total critical
VOCs from baseline to the last soil gas sampling event six
months after baseline, while one of the points (SG-1)
showed an order of magnitude decrease and a fourth point
(SG-4) showed no appreciable change over the same time
period.
The summed average critical VOCs for SG-2 were
observed to increase steadily from the baseline event in
March of 1998 (12 ppbv) until the last soil gas sampling
event in September of 1998 (1,400 ppbv). The summed
average critical VOCs for SG-3 were measured at
approximately 1,500 ppbv for the baseline event in March
of 1998 and 14,000 ppbv for the last soil gas sampling
event in September of 1998; however the increase was not
steady as evidenced by the April and July averages. The
summed average critical VOCs for SG-1, the soil gas
probe nearest to the injection well IW-400, showed an
order of magnitude decrease over the same time period.
There was no appreciable change in the small
concentrations of critical VOCs measured in the somewhat
distant SG-4 monitoring point.
Table 4-14 summarizes the results of the soil gas
headspace sampling events for methane, ethane, and
ethene separately for each of the four soil vapor monitoring
probes. Results are reported in parts per million by volume
(ppmv). As was the case with the VOCs, for each of the
four events there were at minimum two daytime soil gas
measurements. For the third intermediate event, there
were two additional nighttime measurements. Of the three
gases, only CH4 was consistently measured above method
detection limits. The average of the two CH4
measurements recorded for each of the four events have
been inserted adjacent to the appropriate monitoring
location in Figure 4-12. Averaged methane concentrations
in soil gas peaked during baseline sampling in three of four
monitoring points and levels remained essentially the same
in the fourth monitoring point; indicating that there was no
CH4 buildup in soil due to injections of this enhancement
into the subsurface. This also suggests that there was
anaerobic degradation occurring prior to injection.
4-24
-------
Table 4-13. Critical VOCs in Soil Gas (ppbv).1
Vapor
Probe
I.D.
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3
SG-4
Parameter
CA
1,1 -OCA
cis-1,2-DCE
VC
Totals*
CA
1,1 -DCA
cis-1,2-DCE
VC
Totals4
CA
1,1 -DC A
cis-1,2-DCE
VC
Totals*
CA
1,1 -DCA
cis- 1,2-DCE
VC
Totals4
SAMPLING EVENT
Baseline
March '98^
69/110
33/52
91 / 150
4,500/5,700
4,700 / 6,000
(5,400)
ND / 7,3
ND/12
ND / 0.74
3.3 / ND
3.3/20
(12)
74/95
120/160
230 / 340
660/1,300
1,100/1,900
(1,800)
ND/ND
15/3.8
3.1 /1.9
5.7/5.0
24/11
(20)
1S| Intermediate
April 22-23, '98 5
< 1.5/280
2.2 / 480
1.3/ 170
4.3 / 3,000
7.8/3.900
(2,000)
< 1.5/< 1.5
3.4 / 20
2.3/5.5
1.8/9.8
7.8 / 39
(21)
< 380 / < 38
910/260
4,200/1,500
23,000 / 5,500
28,000 / 7,300
(18,00d)
< 1.5 /< 1.5
< 0.99 / 8.2
< 1.0/100
1.9/63
1.9/170
(86)
2nd Intermediate
July 9-10, '98^
<19/<76
970 / 4,300
130/580
< 20 / < 78
1,100/4,900
(3,000)
< 13/< 19
220 / 330
<8.4/<13
<13/<20
220 / 330
(280)
<3.8/<7.6
6.4/140
20 / 490
3.8™ / 100
30 / 730
(380)
<3.8/<3.8
<2.5/<2.5
<2.5/<2.5
<3.9/<3.9
ND/ND
(ND)
3rd Intermediate
Sept, 9-10,'98^
<7.6/<2.5
1,200/37
87/17
15/<2.6
1,300/390
(850)
< 19/<19
1 ,300 / 1 ,500
<13/<13
< 20 / < 20
1,300/1,500
(1,40d)
320 / 620
1,700/7,000
1,800/7,800
1,100/8,800
4,900 / 24,000
(14,000)
< 0.38 /< 1.9
1.9/15
0.94 / 5.6
0.35™ / 49
3.2 / 70
(37)
<3.8/<5.1
750 / 930
41 /40
< 3.9 / 4.4™
790 / 970
(880)
< 19/< 19
1,300/1,400
<13/< 13
<2QK2Q
1,300 / 1,400
(1,40d)
400 / 530
3,800/7,100
4,300 / 7,400
3,000/3,600
12,000/19.000
(16,000$
0.39 / < 2.5
2.3 / 20
0.57/7.6
16/41
19/69
(44)
'2 AII^a|ues have been rounded to_two significant digits.
Results consist of two daytime measurements taken on consecutive days.
Four values are given; the first two consist of two daytime measurements taken on consecutive days. The second two
consist of two nighttime measurements taken after me first day measurement and preceding the second.
4 Three totals are given; one for each round of sampling and a tnird (in parentheses) being the average total for both sampling rounds.
Values < detection limit are considered zero for summing totals.
ND = Not detected at or above method detection limit.
™ = Trace.
4-25
-------
O)
ID
O
8
o
o
n
3
O
3
r/J
O
Q
8
o.
T3
13
N
O
3
n
Q
o
c
9
O.
LEGEND
)= Injection/Monitoring Well
= Monitoring Well Only
- Soil Gas Probe
0 10
N
ITT Building No.
SG-4
: Total Critical VOCs
! March '98 20
! April '98 86
jJuly '98 ND
tSept '98 37
Scale (ft.)
1 Total Critical VOCs in Soil Gas
(Concentrations in ppb)
1 Total Critical VOCs in Upper
Zone Groundwater (pg/l)
MW-401
O
MVIM03
MW-404
I !Total Critical VOCs
iMarch'98 1.500
=April '98 1,800
Uuly '98 380
SSept '98 14,000
Total Critical VOCs
March '98 4,000
April'98 11,000
July '98 3,500
July'99 140
•o
o
SG-1
MW-306 S
March '98 130,000
April '98 150,000
July '98 170,000
July '99 9,900
IW-400
Total Critical VOCs2,
March '98 8,800
April '98 3,400
July '98 890
July '99 390
'98 5,400
[April '98 2,000
Uuly '98 3,000
fSept. '98 850
March '98 14
April '98 9.5J
July '98 7.6J
July '99 7.4
MW-1
Total Critical VOCs 2
March '98 15,000
April '98 14,000
July '98 4,900
July '99 3,200
O
Total Critical VOCs'
March'98 19,000
April '98 5,600
July '98 5,600
July '99 480
SG-2
; Total CrilicalYOCs"
:March '98 12
lApril '98 21
ijuly '98 280
ISept. '98 1.400
-------
Table 4-14. Methane, Ethane, and Ethene in Soil Gas (ppmv).1
Vapor Probe
I.D.
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3
SG-4
Parameter
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
SAMPLING EVENT
Baseline
March '98 z
180,000/160,000
900 / 800
570 / 520
86/2.7
0.5 / NO
0.7/ND
7,600/13,000
19 /NO
99/140
24/22
ND/ND
NO/ 0.2
1* Inter.
April 22-23, "98 2
7.2/62
ND / 0.67
ND/ND
4.7/7.3
ND/ND
ND/ND
10,000/610
25/1.8
260 / 37
130/2,500
1.3/14
NO/ 40
2nd Inter,
: My 9-10, -98 2
.
6.0/120
' ND/1.2
ND/ND
3.1 /2.6
ND/ND
ND/ND
6.1/29
ND/ND
I
ND/ND
4.1 /5.7
ND/ND
ND/ND
3'" Inter.
Sept. 9-10/98 3
23/7.7
ND/ND
ND/NO
3.2/4.0
ND/ND
ND/ND
1,900/3,700
7.2/15
26/170
7.0/7.0
ND/ND
ND/ND
7.7/4.8
ND/ND
ND/ND
3.1/4.5
NO/ND
ND/ND
1 ,600 / 2,900
9,2/14
24/72
6.8/7.0
ND/ND
ND/ND
^ All values have been rounded to two significant digits,
* Results consist of two daytime measurements taken on consecutive days
Four values are given; the first two consist of two daytime measurements taken on consecutive days.
The second two consist of two nighttime measurements taken after the first day measurement and preceding the second.
' Values < detection limit (i.e., ND) are considered zero when summing.
ND = Not detected at or above method detection limit.
Vft = trace
4.4.7
Data Quality Assurance
A review of the critical sample data and associated quality
control (QC) analyses was performed to determine whether
the data collected were of adequate quality to provide
proper evaluation of the project's technical objectives. The
critical parameters included groundwater concentrations of
four volatile compounds: chloroethane, 1,1 -dichloroethane,
cis-1,2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride, analyzed from
select wells during the pre- and post-treatment
sampling/analysis events. The results of the
measurements designed to assess the data quality
objectives are summarized in the following subsections,
along with a discussion of the impact of the data quality for
achieving the project's technical objectives.
4.4.7.1
Accuracy
Accuracy was assessed by the analysis of spiked samples
for the project. During the baseline event a total of six
spikes were analyzed, with the average recovery values for
the four compounds ranging from 88-102%. A total of 10
spiked samples were analyzed during the final event with
average recoveries ranging from 94-106%. Of the 64
critical compound recovery values, onlyfour individual data
points exceeded the control limits established in the QAPP
(80-120%); three of these data points were from the
analysis of a single spike, indicating a possible problem
with that specific analysis result. The spike data are
summarized in Table 4-15 and indicate that spiked
analyses achieved the overall QA objectives for accuracy.
An additional check on analytical accuracy included the use
of Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs) as a second-source
standard. These standards were analyzed periodically
throughout the project and recovery values compared to
the limits established in the QAPP. The analysis of these
standards was designed to assess trends in recovery
values over time, in the absence of matrix effects, to
evaluate the potential for a shift in analytical bias.
Second source standard summary data is presented in
Table 4-16. Average recoveries of the LCSs varied less
than 10% in most cases, as shown in the data below.
Chloroethane recovery values for LCSs analyzed during
the baseline and final events increased 12%. However, as
the data shows this did not represent a shift in bias, but
rather a series of recovery results all within expected
method variability.
4-27
-------
CD
c
.
CD
o
o
o
CD
O
3
a>
o>
en
LEGEND
(O)= Injection/Monitoring Well
C_) = Monitoring Well Only j
(screened interval in ft. bis)
^p = Soil Gas Probe
0 10
N
ITT Building No. 3
Scale (ft.)
SG-4
Methane Levels1 =
"march '98 23 I
fApril '98 1,300 i
Ijuly '98 4.9 I
=Sept. '98 7 i
'AverageMethane (CH4
Concentrations in ppb
MW-403
MW-404
MW- 401
O
lMarcri"98 10,000
lApnl '98 5,300
iJuly '98 18
ISapt. '98 11,000
ro
09
MW-306 S
O
O
IW-400
o
SG-1
MW-402
IjMethane Levels
SMareh'98 170,000
|April '98 35
iJuty '98 63
iSet. '98 15
MW-1
o
SG-2
= March '98 44
= April '98 6.0
iJuly '98 2.9
iSept. '98 3.6
-------
Table 4-15. Spiked Sample Summary Data - Overall Accuracy Objective.
CRITICAL COMPOUND
1-1 Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Accuracy Data: Average % Spike Recoveries (Std. Deviation)
Baseline
88 (6.5)
102(4.4)
96(5.1)
102(9.3}
Final
101 (9.1)
106(12)
94(10)
96 (7.2\
Table 4-16. Second Source Standard Summary Data.
CRITICAL COMPOUND
1-1 Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Accuracy Data: Average % LCS Recoveries {Std. Deviation)
Baseline
98 (5.6)
100 (7.5)
100(4.7)
98 (6.5)
1st Intermediate
100(3.4)
106 (5.6)
98 (4.2)
106(2.8)
2nd Intermediate
95 (5.5)
102 (4.0)
98 (7.2)
105(2.2)
Final
106(8.9)
112(6.1)
96(16)
100(9.3)
4.4.7.2
Precision
Precision objectives were assessed by the analysis of the
spiked duplicate samples. Of the 32 RPD values
generated during the baseline and final sampling/analysis
events, only one MS/MSD had an RPD value (for one
compound, cis-1,2-dichloroethene) which exceeded the
20% control limit. Overall, precision objectives met QAPP
objectives. As a further assessment, for which control
limits were not established, select field samples from each
event were collected in duplicate. These field duplicates
also had most RPD values (29 of 32) below 20%, One of
the four baseline field duplicate pairs with low
concentrations of cis-1,2-dichloroethene had an RPD of 40
and two field duplicate pairs from the final event had RPD
values above 20%. Again, these results indicate that
precision objectives for the project were achieved.
4.4.7.3
Detection Limits
Detection limits were achieved for the critical parameters
for all samples. There was a few minor issue regarding the
qualification of some estimated data reported at
concentrations below the detection limits, but this did not
impact overall project objectives.
4.4.7.4
Completeness
Completeness objectives, specified in the QAPP as 90%
for this project, were achieved.
4,4.7.5
Comparability
Comparability, as stated in the QAPP, is achieved through
the use of standard, EPA-approved methods. One issue
investigated during this demonstration was a change in
laboratory software used in volatile analysis for the critical
compounds. The software change resulted in a difference
in the calibration protocol used. Although there was a
difference in the way calibration curves were generated
between the first and subsequent events (dependent and
independent variables were switched), based on the linearity
of the compounds being evaluated, this issue did not
negatively affect data quality and therefore did not impact
overall project objectives.
4.4.7.6
Representativeness
Representativeness refers to the degree with which a
sample exhibits average properties of the site at the
particular time being evaluated. This is addressed prior to
the start of the project through the QAPP procedures for
sampling. Field duplicates are used to assess
representativeness, and also provide insight into the
homogeneity, or heterogeneity, of the matrix. Field duplicate
samples have inherent in the result combined field and
analytical variability. For this project, as discussed earlier,
field duplicate results indicated samples were representative
of the matrix.
In summary, data generated from the baseline and final
event are considered to be of sufficient quality to provide for
proper evaluation of the project technical objectives.
4-29
-------
Section 5.0
Other Technology Requirements
5.1 Environmental Regulation
Requirements
State and local regulatory agencies may require permits
prior to implementing an in-situ biodegradation technology.
Most federal permits will be issued by the authorized state
agency. An air permit issued by the state Air Quality
Control Region may be required if it is anticipated that the
air emissions from potential surface venting are in excess of
regulatory criteria, or of toxic concern. Wastewater
discharge permits may be required if any wastewater
generated from well purging and decontamination activities
were to be discharged to a POTW. If remediation is
conducted at a Superfund site, federal agencies, primarily
the U.S. EPA, will provide regulatory oversight. If off-site
disposal of contaminated waste (contaminated drill cuttings)
is required, the waste must be taken to the disposal facility
by a licensed transporter.
Section 2 of this report discusses the environmental
regulations that may apply to the Enhanced In-Situ
Bioremediation process.
5.2 Personnel Issues
The number of personnel required to install the Enhanced
In-Situ Bioremediation technology should depend on the
size of the treatment system and the time desired for the
installation. Drilling and well installation labor activities are
performed by a drilling contractor. Normally, there are a
minimum of two contractor personnel assigned to a drill rig
(head driller and helper). There may be a third contractor
representative who conducts well completion and
development following well installation. The remediation
contractor at a site (such as Earth Tech) would be
responsible for logging boreholes, monitoring for VOCs and
explosive conditions, and ensuring that well construction
and installation is conducted in accordance with design
specifications. These activities would require the services
of at least one individual (preferably a geologist).
The site contractor would need one to two individuals to
procure the injection system parts, the associated
monitoring equipment, and initial first year enhancement
supplies (e.g., methane, TEP, etc.); arranging for and
overseeing the electric utility hookup; installing the injection
system components and associated monitoring equipment
(e.g., dedicated bladder pumps for the wells), and
conducting preliminary air and helium injection tests to
determine fracture patterns and zone(s) of influence.
Estimated labor requirements for a full-scale treatment
system are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this report.
Personnel are also required for sample collection and
groundwater monitoring. During the demonstration
sampling events, two to three SITE team members were
required to conduct field measurements and sample
preparation. Personnel present during sample collection
activities at a hazardous waste site must have current
OSHA health and safety certification.
For most sites, PPE for workers will include steel-toed
shoes or boots, safety glasses, hard hats during drilling
operations, and chemical resistant gloves. Depending on
contaminant types, additional PPE (such as respirators)
may be required. For example, respiratory protective
equipment may be needed in instances when VOCs are
measured in the breathing zone (i.e., above the well head)
exceeding predetermined levels.
Noise levels would be a short-term concern during drilling
operations and maybe of concern during injection phases
(i.e., a loud compressor for larger systems could create
appreciable noise). Thus, noise levels should be monitored
for such equipment to ensure that workers are not exposed
to noise levels above the time weighted average of 85
5-1
-------
decibels over an 8-hour day. If this level is exceeded and
cannot be reduced, workers would be required to wear
hearing protection and a hearing conservation program
would need to be implemented.
5.3 Community Acceptance
The short-term risk to the community is minimal since the
compressed gases are secured in a building or shed and
the treatment occurs in-situ (i.e., underground). As with any
gas that has flammable characteristics there is a potential
to create an explosive environment, therefore methane is
closely monitored to ensure that the injection concentration
does not exceed 4 % by volume, thus avoiding the lower
explosive limit of 5 %. The level of environmental
disturbances would be dependent on the number of wells
required and the locations of those wells. Other than noise
generated during drilling to install monitoring wells, noise
would only occur during operations requiring an air
compressor (i.e., periods of gaseous phase injection and
sample collection if bladder pumps are used).
5-2
-------
Section 6.0
Technology Status
6.1 Previous Experience
The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process is currently
being employed at multiple sites throughout the country, by
Earth Tech and other approved DOE licensees. Earth Tech
has indicated, however, that the ITTNV Roanoke Building 3
site is the first locality where the technology is being
implemented in a clay and fractured bedrock environment.
Earth Tech is evaluating the feasibility of using the process
for remediation of other areas of the ITTNV facility. Injection
air testing is currently being planned at two source areas
associated with Building 1.
6.2 Ability to Scale Up
At the demonstration study area, Earth Tech has expanded
the existing injection system into the source area. Operation
of the pilot system used during the demonstration system
was halted in November 1999 to allow the system
expansion to be completed. The expanded system,
considered as full-scale, was restarted in December 1999
with injection of air, nutrients, and methane in four wells (I W-
400, IW-406, IW-407 and IW-408). Of these wells, only IW-
400 has continued functioning as an injection well from the
pilot study. MW-402, which had been used as an injection
well during the pilot demonstration, has been taken off-line.
Earth Tech has provided additional information (including
analytical data) regarding their expanded system in
Appendix A. Figure 1 of Appendix A shows the locations of
the full-scale monitoring and injection wells.
6-1
-------
Section 7.0
References
Analytical Laboratory Services, Inc. 1999; Data Packages
for samples submitted for SAIC Project - Earth Tech Inc.'s
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process.
Carter, G.L., T. Dalton, J, Vincent, B. Lemos, and R.
Kryczkowski. May 2000. Enhanced Bioremediation of
Solvents, Acetone, and Isopropanol in Bedrock
Groundwater - ITT Night Vision Facility, Roanoke, VA. In
Proceedings: Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of
Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds; Volume C2-4,
p.434. Battelle Press.
Carter, G.L., J. Vincent, B. Lemos, and R. Kryczkowski.
April 1999. Air Flow in Fractured Bedrock for In-Situ
Groundwater Bioremediation. In Proceedings from the Fifth
International In Situ On-Site Bioremediation Symposium;
San Diego, CA. pp. 255-261.
ITT Night Vision Facility. 1997. Supplemental Data Report:
Additional Stage MB Activities, Bldg, #3 Interim Measure
(prepared by Earth Tech Inc. as a supplement to the
Remedial Investigation Report).
Looney, B.B., January 2001. Personal Communication
between Brian Looney (Savannah River Technology Center)
and Joseph Tiliman (SAIC) RE: Aspects of the PHOSter™
Process.
Microbial Insights, Inc., October 1999. Report for SAIC
Project: Earth Tech Bio-Demonstration (results from Total
Culturable Heterotrophs plate count, Total Culturable
Methanotrophs MPN analysts, DNA analysis, and PLFA
analysis.
Performance Analytical Inc. April-May, 1998. Results of
Volatile Organic and Methane, Ethene, and Ethane
Analysis.
Performance Analytical Inc. July 1998. Results of Volatile
Organic and Methane, Ethene, and Ethane Analysis.
Performance Analytical Inc. September 1998. Results of
Methane, Ethene, and Ethane Analysis.
SAIC. February 1998. Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation of Earth Tech
Inc. Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Process at the ITT
Night Vision Facility, Roanoke, Virginia.
USEPARegionl, 1996. Low Stress (Low Flow) Purging and
Sampling Procedure for the Collection of Ground Water
Samples From Monitoring Wells. SOP # GW 0001.
7-1
-------
Appendix A - Earth Tech's Claims and Discussion
Note: Information contained in this appendix was provided by Earth Tech, Inc.
and has not been independently verified by the U.S. EPA SITE Program
Abstract
Additional data collected by Earth Tech (consultant to ITT
Night Vision) prior to and after the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program demonstration
indicate that the evaluated cometabolic bioremediation
technology has destroyed more volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) over a larger area than identified through the SITE
demonstration. The results from groundwater monitoring
indicate significant (90 to 99.96%) total VOC reductions in
the pilot test area and at locations 75 feet hydraulically
downgradient, since the initiation of the injection campaign.
A.1
Introduction
An in-situ enhanced bioremediation pilot study was
implemented at a source area at the Building 3
manufacturing facility at ITT Night Vision in Roanoke,
Virginia. When evaluating the technology options for
remediation of the target source area, particular emphasis
was placed on treatment technologies that could be applied
in-situ given the site restrictions with above-ground and
underground utilities and structures. After review of a range
of technologies, in-situ enhanced cometabolic
bioremediation was selected as the technology best suited
to the contaminants (VOCs), clay and fractured rock
hydrogeology, and logistical factors present at the site. The
chosen technology, developed at the Westinghouse
Savannah River Plant site (Hazen, 19951) and licensed by
the U.S. Department of Energy, is an injection system used
to deliver a gaseous phase mixture of air, nutrients (nitrous
oxide and triethyl phosphate), and a carbon source
(methane) to the targeted subsurface zone to stimulate the
growth of methanotrophs. These bacteria produce enzymes
(methane monooxygenase) that degrade VOCs including
the more recalcitrant chlorinated solvents and their daughter
products to non-hazardous constituents. This technology
had previously been successfully performed in the
laboratory and field projects in unconsolidated clay, silt and
sand formations. Prior to the start of this pilot test, this
technology had not been performed in a clay and fractured
1 Hazen,T.C.1995. Preliminary Technology Report for the In Situ
Bioremediation Demonstration (Methane Biostimulation) of the
Savannah River Integrated Demonstration Project, DOE/OTD,
U.S. Dept. of Energy Report, WSRC-TR-93-670, Westinghouse
Savannah River Company, Aiken, S.C.
rock environment per discussions with the technology
developer.
A.2 Project Objective
The purpose of this pilot test, which was implemented as a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Interim
Measure (IM), was to document the effectiveness of the
system in reducing VOC concentrations in groundwater in
the pilot test area. The effectiveness of the pilot test study
would determine whether this technology would be
expanded in this source area and potential application at
other sites with similar conditions.
A. 3 Project Activities
This project began with the submittal of an Interim Measures
Workplan to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) for review and approval in
December 1996. This workplan described the cometabolic
bioremediation pilot test. Following regulatory review and
comments, a revised Interim Measures Workplan was
submitted in May, 1997 and subsequently approved by the
USEPA and VADEQ which allowed for the initiation of the
field work. The first activity in the Workplan was the
acquisition of background groundwater quality data, which
included weekly sampling of selected monitoring wells over
an eight week period between June and August 1997. The
next step was to begin the injection of the nutrients, which
was planned for the Fall 1997; however, this was delayed to
allow for the SITE program staff to become involved in the
project,
ITT Night Vision applied to have the site evaluated as part
of the SITE Demonstration program and on October 15,
1997 representatives of the program visited the site and
provided verbal acceptance of the project into the SITE
Demonstration program. The SITE program performed
preliminary background sampling in December 1997 to
establish the critical VOCs, monitoring wells and number of
samples needed to statistically evaluate the project. In
February 1998 the SITE program completed a Test Plan
establishing the SITE Demonstration methods for this
project. Program personnel collected groundwater samples
to establish the baseline for the demonstration during the
first two weeks of March 1998.
A-1
-------
During the SITE Demonstration program, a phased injection
of the amendments was performed to evaluate and optimize
the addition of air (oxygen source), nitrous oxide and triethyl
phosphate (nutrient sources) and methane (carbon source)
in a single injection well. The air only injection phase was
initiated in March 1998 following the SITE program baseline
data collection. Groundwater samples were collected by
Earth Tech during the air only injection phase in a few
selected wells. At the conclusion of 6 weeks of air only
injection, SITE program staff performed a groundwater
sampling event at the end of April 1998, Earth Tech split
groundwater samples with the SITE program in selected IM
monitoring wells during this sampling event. Injection was
suspended for the SITE program groundwater sampling
events.
Following the air only injection phase, the air plus nutrient
(nitrous oxide and triethyl phosphate) injection phase was
initiated and conducted over a 10-week period ending in
July 1998. At the end of this air and nutrient injection
period, the SITE program performed a groundwater
sampling event and Earth Tech split samples with the SITE
program. At the end of July 1998, the third and final
injection phase was initiated consisting of air, nutrient, and
methane injection. During this phase, the back pressure at
the single injection well (IW-400) appeared to have
decreased which allowed for increased air and gaseous
phase media injection. This reduced back pressure was
attributed to the lower water table elevation resulting from
decreased precipitation.
Earth Tech performed groundwater sampling events after 4
and 14 weeks of air, nutrient, and methane injection at
selected monitoring wells during the Fall of 1998. The
groundwater results from these sampling events indicated
that some wells within the SITE Demonstration project area
were not showing satisfactory VOC reductions, which was
attributed to the limited delivery of the amendments.
Therefore, the injection of gaseous phase media was
temporarily suspended during January 1999 to expand the
treatment system by adding injection of the air, nutrients,
and methane to MW-402. Injection was initiated in MW-402
and re-established in IW-400 in February 1999.
Earth Tech conducted a groundwater sampling event in April
1999 to evaluate the progress of the two injection wells.
From late July through early August 1999, the SITE program
performed the final groundwater sampling event for the
demonstration. Once this data was received by Earth Tech
and significant VOC reductions were confirmed in the pilot
test area, plans were made for expansion of the system to
full scale within the source area. This was accomplished by
installing three additional injection wells in the source area.
This more aggressive approach was aimed at targeting the
center of the source area to accelerate VOC mass removal
to the ultimate goal of reaching drinking water standards, if
technically feasible. Increased subsurface amendment
injection and airflow pathways created by the newly installed
injection wells made injection in MW-402 unnecessary.
Thus, MW-402 has only been used for monitoring purposes
following the restart of the expanded system. Operation of
the system was halted in November 1999 to allow the
system expansion to be completed and was restarted in
December 1999 with injection of air, nutrients and methane
in fourwells (IW-400, IW-406, IW-407 and IW-408), Figure
1 shows the locations of the site monitoring and injection
wells.
Groundwater samples were collected during May 2000 from
the Building No. 3 IM monitoring wells to determine the
affect of operating the system at full scale for approximately
6 months. At the end of August 2000 a limited groundwater
sampling event was performed to assess the monitoring
wells that had contained the highest VOC concentrations.
A.4 Results and Discussion
This section focuses on the VOC laboratory results for
groundwater samples collected by Earth Tech prior to and
following the SITE program's involvement period. The
results show more significant VOC reductions over a larger
area and suggest that drinking water standards are being
reached in groundwater from selected monitoring wells.
Baseline Comparison
Background groundwater quality analyses were performed
on groundwater samples collected over an eight-week
period by Earth Tech from the following wells: MW-1, MW-
306O, MW-306S, IW-400, MW-401, MW-402, MW-403,
MW-404, and MW-405. The data from these sampling
events are included in Table A-1. In addition to these wells,
groundwater samples were collected and analyzed less
frequently from IW-400S, MW-401 S, MW-402S, MW-404S,
and MW-405S; these results are also included in Table A-1.
This area is larger than the demonstration site and includes
monitoring wells within the entire source area and
downgradient locations. The target VOCs for remediation,
as identified by Earth Tech's baseline sampling events are
as follows: acetone, isopropanol, parent chlorinated
hydrocarbons (trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichlorethane), and
daughter products (cis-1,2 dichloroethene, 1,1-
dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, and
chioroethane).
A-2
-------
V
' 1
$ NEW INJECTION WELLS
4- INJECTION WELL
® SOIL
9MW MON1TOWNC WELL
®'S* INACTIVE SUPPLY WELL
SCALE IN FEET
BIOBFl.DWC 01-10-00
CO
z.
o
H
<1 w
OK
il
CO
i 8
0 ȣ
LJ '
Ou)
A-3
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA.
Well ID
Sample Date
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
[ChJoroethane
!
Federal
MCL
200
NL
7
NL
NL
* |
•* :>- ,- ,1 *•, ,, e |
-r
MW-1
15-May-OO
ND[1]J
3.2 J
ND[1] J
__NDJ50J_J_
3.2 J
.NPi50]_R_
13-Apr-99
ND[5]
97
ND[5]
420
ND[5|_R__
ND[250j R _
j ND['jj
21-Oct-98
ND[100]
330
ND[100]
5,700
ND [100]
17-Aug-98
ND[100]
270
ND[100]
5,000
5-Apr-98
ND[100]
450
_JvlD|100]__
9,500
ND[100] | ND[100]
iji.bdo 1 14,666 | i4,boo
5-Apr-98
130
570
__N£|1iOpj___
7,300
NO [100]
13,000
20-Aug-97
ND[1000]
ND [1000]
ND [1000]
72,000
ND[1000]
100,000
13-Aug-97
ND [1000]
ND[1000]
_NDJ1000L
92,000
nsd5[100n] I
_ 160, 0^-5
MDil'f : ND;:00" ^Df-'O; ; ND['00: I ND!1Cr»jj hi> t- ', '
6.6 I 140 • 100 J SftJ { 350~ f ND[10uO; 1,2Jn
•: ' - , •' I f c; . T .; ,4., .--, • ' -;o^ | *2 . -,
, - MO [80] j *"" """"' j - !*,"'•; '•••!>?:,:.•"
520 | i
'-•'..':
!/-ueio .«.
jChiorueilidne
isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
•^
L ^L '
NL
^ 5
2
70
NL
NL
jO, • v>UU
ND[10CO]
140,000
NDJ1_OOpj_
ND[1000]
ND [1000]
203,000
-
-
t'-<-' i f Uf 'UUUj
ND [2000]
110,000
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
110,000
-
-
| • *4U> 1 ! OUUl'' j
*" ND [2500] ,
260,000
ND [2500]
ND [2500]
ND [2500]
260,000
ND [800]
4,000
' -ai— ' [ i tj » 'WUj
, _NDJ25CO]
280,000
ND [2500]
ND
ND [2500]
280,000
-
-
Ill— J I " ' » VW v^j
JJpJ2COG]
200,000
ND [2000]
ND
ND [4000]
200,000
-
-
i^i^- ^ i OuCuj
1 300
90,000
ND[1000]
ND[1000]
ND [2000]
92,700
-
-
oU,a~ u
1,100 J
100,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND[1000]
138,800
-
-
w ' \~ 'j'j
, _ ,^-,^- i
.MU ^UU>- i
__2WOOO_J«;
ND [500]
2800 J
12000 J
296,600
1,400
1 1 ,000
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
7C
fc i!
L_- '""---J
MW-1
22-Jul-96
; t.HicM"
1,000
ND [500]
200,000
ND [500]
400,000
ND [500]
6,300
5,300
'613, 70C
i
16-Jul-96
ND[1000]
ND[1000]
ND[1000]
54,000
ND[1000]
230,000
NDflOOO]
2,900
3,300
2t2l?iLL
9-Jul-96
"" f,T8&.r ;
1,100
ND [250]
80000 J
ND [250]
400000 J
ND [250]
5,43©
5,200
492,800
.. - L - 2
2-Jul-96
• " f j6Hf '
2000 J
ND[1000]
1 50000 J
ND[1000]
670000 J
ND [1000]
8,900
8,600
841,300
. . . ~ _.
tMethane ! NL s! - ! - .' - I -
4-Apr-96
'" §i$ ':
900
ND [500]
30,000
ND [500]
130,000
ND [500]
1.H80
5,100
168,210
13-Dec-94
ND [500]
1,100
ND [500]
190,000
ND [500]
1 90000 J
ND [500]
ND [500]
_N[DJ500L
381,100
^28GJ5 J_ j_ __-
16-Dec-91
ND [500]
2,000
ND [500]
980,000
ND[1000]
-
ND [500J
58,000
-
h.040,000
23-Apr-91
ND
1,300
ND
430,000 B
ND
38,000 J
"""219""
34,000
30,000
535,060
;_ J ____j ___
i
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
VOCs {ug/L or ppb)
1 ,1 ,1-Trichioroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
MW-306O
30-Aug-OO
180
380
40
ND [500]
140
ND[500]
1 &MP- :
m
1,500
4,906
-
-
15-May-OO
ND[5]
60
5.8
ND [250]
ND[5]
ND[250] R
^350 '
23
400
839
-
-
12-Apr-99
6,200
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [25000]
ND[500] R
ND(25000] R
S2.QOO
ND [500]
8,800
67,000
ND [40]
190
12-Apr-99
7.100
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [25000]
ND[500] R
ND[25000] R
64,000
ND [500]
10,000
81,100
-
-
21-Oct-98
3,300
390
140
ND [100]
ND[2]
ND [100]
17.000
250
2500
23,280
ND [800]
820
19-Aug-98
19.000
1400
ND [500]
ND [25000]
ND [500]
ND [25000]
58,000
ND[1000]
5,800
84,200
-
-
5-Apr-98
220
220
72
ND[100]
ND[2]
ND[100]
30
120
16
678.0
ND [800]
6,400
18-Aug-97
43
180
47
ND[100]
ND[2]
ND[100]
6.7
84
34
394.7
-
-
* trans-1 ,2-dichloroethylene was detected at 46 ug/L.
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
MW-306S
30-Aug-OO
70
80
ND [25]
1,200,000
31
1,300,000
'° :, ':ilMHil,» fS
:- 508 'i •
1,000
2,503,050
-
-
15-May-OO
61
120
ND [25]
1,400,000
ND [25]
740,000 R
Hi&d .
r;*«to :
2.100
2,143,541
-
-
12-Apr-99
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
760,000
ND [10000] R
2,000,000 R
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
16.000
2,776,000
ND [20]
900
22-Oct-98
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [3E+06]
ND [50000]
5,300,000
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND[50000]
5,300,000
2,500
2,100
22-Oct-98
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [3E+06]
ND [50000]
5,100,000
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND[50000]
5,100,000
2,600
2,300
19-Aug-98
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [3E+06]
ND [50000]
6,100,000
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
6,100,000
-
-
5-Apr-98
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [3E+06]
ND [50000]
3,900,000
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
• ' 'fto»-;A
3,956,000
2,300
10,000
20-Aug-97
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [3E+06]
ND [50000]
5,800,000
ND [50000]
ND [50000)
sum*
5,854,000
-
-
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Fed.
MCL
NL
NL
NL
NL
70
NL
NL
MW-306O
11-Aug-97
44
180
ND [50]
ND[1]
110
35
516.4
4-Aug-97
70
220
ND [100]
ND[2]
100
48
658.0
28-Ju!-97
61
270
ND [100]
2.2 J
ND [100]
61
672.4
16-Jul-97
44
200
ND[100]
2.2
ND[100]
45
525.7
ND [800]
1,700
8-Jul-97
51
180
&
ND [50]
1.4 J
ND50]
52
503.6
1-Jul-97
85
210
ND [250]
ND[5]
ND 250
64
738.0
25-Jun-97
38
130
ND [250]
ND[5]
ND250
26
385.2
29-Sep-96
16
260 J
ND [250]
ND[5]
ND [250]
32
433.0
ND [930]
2,400
5-Apr-96
450
ND [250]
ND[5]
ND [250]
1,287
310 J
2300 J
13-Dec-94
460
1200 J
ND[10] J
1300J
-•.:
33
4,453
Fed.
MCL
MW-306S
13-Aufl-97
6-Aug-97
30-Jul-97
17-Jul-97
10-Jul-97
3-Jul-97
25-Jun-97
30-Sep-96
30-Sep-96
4-Apr-96
4-Apr-96
14-Dec-94
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
200
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [2000]
1,1-Dichloroethane
NL
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [2000]
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000
ND [50000]
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [2000]
Acetone
NL
ND [3E+06]
ND [500000]
ND [3E+06]
ND [SE-t-06]
ND [3E+06]
ND [3E+06]
ND [3E+06]
350,000
270,000
520,000
590,000
310,000
Chloroethane
NL
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [50000]
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [2000]
Isopropanol
NL
6,400,000
6,600,000
5,800,000
6,500,000
6,600,000
5,000,000
3,600,000
6300000 J
4900000 J
8,100,000
9.200,000
1 6000000 J
Trichloroethene
ND [50000]
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1 , 1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Date
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
IW-400S
31-Aug-OO
ND[1]
13
ND[1]
ND [50]
38
ND [50]
1
ND[1]
2.4
54
-
-
15-May-OO
2.7 J
20 J
ND[1] J
ND[50] J
2.7 J
85 R
ND[1]J
ND[1] J
1.8J
112
-
-
27-Oct-98
ND[1000]
ND[1000]
ND[1000]
50,000
ND [1000]
72,000
ND[1000]
ND[1000]
ND[1000]
122,000
-
-
20-Aug-98
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [100000]
ND [2000]
210,000
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
210,000
-
-
MW-401S
15-May-OO
4.6 J
21 J
ND[1] J
ND[50] J
ND[1]J
82 R
iCTiirmi
ND[1] J
1.6 J
115
-
-
22-Oct-98
ND
[2]
42
ND
I2)
100
55
200
ND
*-:vfiw)j
?;•,«'!«•«
2]
ste'
14
167.6
-
1100
17-Aug-98
ND[5]
59
ND[5]
400
ND[10]
750
ND[5]
"•• .rf :-"•"
31
1,247
-
-
17-Jul-98
ND [500]
510
ND [500]
23,000
ND [500]
47,000
ND [500]
ND (500]
*: * an? n!
72,410
-
-
22-Aug-97
ND [200]
ND [200]
ND [200]
20000 J
ND [200]
30,000
ND [200]
ND [200]
ND [200]
50,000.0
-
-
MW-402S
31-Aug-OO
82
150
ND[10]
520
78
1,200
15-May-OO
140
170
ND [50]
4,300
57
3,800 R
^•SiHI I .*-"!ii ,
2 I
70
I ND[1°] I NPJ5Q]
lUHHHNHRMMB
I 2,320 | 8,800
NL
NL 1
-
-
26-Oct-98
ND [10000]
29,000
ND [10000]
580,000
ND [10000]
2,100,000
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
2,709,000
ND[100]
830
18-Aug-98
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [500000]
ND [10000]
810,000
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
810,000
-
-
22-Aug-97
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
ND [10000]
580000 J
ND [10000]
940,000
ND riOOOO]
SBBHaPPil*
1,556.000
-
-
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ J = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroetherte
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
MW-404S
15-May-OO
ND[1]
3.5
ND[1]
NO [50]
ND[1]
92 R
ND[1]
ND[10]
1.8
97
-
-
26-Oct-98
ND[1]
ND [10]
ND[1]
140
ND[1]
630
ND[1]
ND[10]
ND[10]
770
-
-
18-Aug-98
ND[1]
2.1
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[11
4.7
11
-
-
17-Jul-98
ND[1]
1.6
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[1]
1
4
6
-
-
22-Aug-97
ND[10]
30
ND[10]
ND [500]
ND[10]
ND [500]
ND [10]
•'•-": T7>1»:".' ••*V;:>'
64
123.0
-
-
MW-405S
15-May-OO
ND[1]
12
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[1]
73 R
ND[1]
ND[1]
1.1
86.1
-
-
27-Oct-98
ND[1]
45
ND[2]
ND [50]
7.4
87
ND[2]
ND[2]
2.3
141.7
-
4,600
19-Aug-98
ND[2]
97
ND[2]
170
ND[2]
300
ND[2]
ND[2]
2.3
569.3
-
-
22-Aug-97
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
71000 J
ND [500]
ND [25000]
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
71,000
-
-
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
reaerai
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichtoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Date
Constituent (ug/L or ppb)
200
ML
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
IW-400
31-Aug-OO
210
3.7
ND [100]
140
470
^-.:wa&m
"*. >: aK&tM
^•^gp-Tfe:?'
1,376
-
-
15-May-OO
760
300
ND [50]
4,000
200
3,900 R
i*v5fH@&: -
*;-.;: :1«i '
£~i». •" "
11,070
-
-
13-Apr-99
260
540
ND[10]
1,300
26 R
1.600R
77
190
306
4,283
100
180
20-Aug-98
12
46
ND[1]
ND [50]
8.5
72
3.7
4,1
35
181.3
-
-
16-Jul-98
ND [2500]
ND [2500]
ND [2500]
150,000
ND [2500]
240,000
ND [2500]
ND [2500]
ND [2500]
390,000
-
-
29-Apr-98
64
370
ND[10]
760
ND[10]
1,800
15
120
290
3,419
-
-
18-Aug-97
ND[1000]
2,400
ND[1000]
98,000
ND[1000]
190,000
ND [1000)
1,400
2,600
294,400
-
-
13-Aug-97
ND[1000]
2,000
ND[1000]
75,000
ND[1000]
150,000
ND[1000]
1.00Q
1,900
229,900
-
-
MW-401
15-May-OO
Bldg. 3 IM*
160
70
2.2
ND[100]
7.4
NDJ100] R
~% USSJ^'^
;T?piit-cr'"i
-; : • «rr^ ;
620.6
-
-
15-May-OO
BldgJJ IM"
170
75
2.3
ND [100]
9.2
ND[100JR
'-". £» i :
.^~m-r -.,
r' «0 "
652.4
-
-
13-Apr-99
Spring '99
'.'• 288
480
1ft
ND [250]
7R
800 R
"fao '••
'3W
^20
2,386.7
ND [40]
370
22-Oct-98
Fall '98
120
310
ND [10]
ND[1000]
ND [20]
1,400
ND(201
;'?i."
190
2,096
-
830
17-Aug-98
Bldg. 3 IM
170
460
ND[5]
410
25
670
1$ :
42
320
2,170
-
-
16-Jul-98
Bldg. 3 IM
180
380
ND[10]
540
110
1,300
100
80 '
' 3W ]
3,000
-
-
29-Apr-98
Spring^'98
100
460
ND[10]
620
69
1,200
3fe ••••••«.
iW
31ff
#REF!
-
-
20-Aug-97
Bldg. 3 IM
ND[100]
1,000
ND[100]
14,000
210
19,000
ND[100]
..-'• -28ft:::::
" 5SO>'^;
35,080
-
-
* Bromomethane was detected at 1 3 ug/L. ** Bromomethane was detected at 5.9 ug/L.
Notes: All concentrations presented in \ig/\ or ppb. MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
IIW-400
B-Aug-97
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Date
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
ND [1000]
2,100
ND[1000]
96,000
ND[1000]
180,000
ND[1000]
c*. *13SW T '
":~$3Ssr ,
282,800
-
- .
30-Jul-97
ND [2000]
2,100
ND [2000]
100,000
ND [2000]
180,000
NDJ2000J
5.4SO
289,800
-
-
30-Jul-97
ND [2000]
2,300
ND [2000]
100,000
ND [2000]
200,000
NDJ2000]
y%jjjg.rf
43®
309,300
-
-
16-Jul-97
ND [2500]
6,600
ND [2500]
ND [130000]
ND [2500]
210,000
ND [2500J
; 6.200
2.800
225,600
4,400
10,000
10-Jul-97
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [250000]
ND [5000]
500,000
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [10000]
500,000
-
-
1-Jul-97
2.906
4,800
ND [2500]
180,000
ND [2500]
350,000
ND [2500]
~73»ft-.-.-i
5J8QQ
550,200
-
-
25-Jun-97
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [250000]
ND [5000]
280,000
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [10000]
280,000
-
-
25-Jun-97
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [5000]
ND [250000]
ND [5000]
290,000
ND [5000]
ND [5000L
ND [10000]
290,000
-
-
MW-401
13-Aug-97
ND [200]
1,700
ND [200]
ND [10000]
210 J
19,000
ND [200]
460
1,40©
22,770
-
-
6-Aug-97
220
1,700
ND [200]
16,000
ND [200]
28,000
ND [200}
490
1.6CO
48,010
-
-
6-Aug-97
ND [200]
1,700
ND [200]
17,000
ND [200]
32,000
ND [200]
sfo
1,600
52,810
-
-
30-Jul-97
ND [500]
2,100
ND [500]
66,000
ND [500]
97,000
ND [500]
1,360
2,900
169,300
-
-
16-Jul-97
ND [500]
1,800
ND [500]
ND [25000]
ND [500]
57,000
ND [500]
860
1,800
61,260
1,000
3,600
10-Jul-97
ND [500]
1,000
ND [500]
ND [25000]
ND [500]
71,000
ND [500]
9f»
1.300
74,100
-
-
1-Jul-97
72&
1,500
ND [500]
32000
ND [500]
54,000
ND [500]
"'-" Tie'*"
2,200
91,150
-
-
1-Jul-97
1.100
2,200
ND [500]
37000
ND [500]
70,000
ND [500]
i,*oo
3,100
114,500
-
-
25-Jun-97
4,000
2,600
ND[1000]
ND [50000]
ND[1000]
150,000
ND MOOOJ
'; :iiue-;'s;
6.800
164,900
-
-
25-Jun-97
"^-qSgHgW
2,200
ND[1000]
ND [50000]
ND [1000]
130,000
NDMOOOJ
C. «*fc'H
?-^BSKr^
142,300
-
-
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Depth (Feet BGS)
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Depth (Feet BGS)
Sample Date
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
MW-402
30-Aug-OO
;' - .;;-;»K:-;.~
280
g.*^:*m'. ->•;./,,
230
110
2,200
••••*» ... *
, . ^ -m--- . . - .
y ;•.,,. :*i«r :••-' .T
3,817
-
-
15-May-OO
: 350' '
260
ND [20]
2,800
180
3,100 R
o;i$d.v,
•••*3K"--.
Vv-ij8&' ;
7,563
-
-
15-May-OO
460
390
ND [20]
3,700
380
4,300 R
•. :•*»:::>:
: :.m-"-"
r-'- "«8»--;:.;
10,570
-
-
13-Apr-99
1,280
1,700
ND [200]
ND [10000]
ND [200] R
24,000 R
:-.J:;J».=.:
''M-r'-W^'' .'
• '&&*•
30,730
ND [80]
620
26-Oct-98
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
15,000
ND [500]
38,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
53,000
250
1,900
18-Aug-98
• a»v":;
2,800
ND [2000]
ND [100000]
ND [2000]
150,000
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
SifOf
160,500
-
-
16-M-98
3,600 "
1,500
ND [500]
11,000
ND [5001
37,000
tm ^
ND [500]
;-:476$:'-
59,200
-
-
29-Apr-98
•'...VSJSfrn
1,300
ND [5001
ND [250001
ND [5001
59.000
. ;l,iSr,
ND [500]
4jtee
70,100
-
-
MW-403
15-May-OO
1.6
15
ND[1]
ND [50]
11
ND[50] R
3.5
ND[1]
9.1
40.2
-
-
13-Apr-99
1.2
11
ND[1]
ND [50]
7.9 R
ND [50]
1.5
ND[1]
1.3
22.9
ND [80]
1,400
Motes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regu
NO [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Val
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading in
27-Oct-98
ND [50]
ND[200]
ND [50]
6,700
ND [50]
11,000
ND [50]
ND [50]
ND[200]
17,700
-
4,000
20-Aug-98
ND [250]
530
ND [250]
ND [250]
ND [250]
21,000
ND [250]
ND [250]
ND [250]
21,530
-
-
16-Jul-98
22
120
ND [10]
710
55
1,300
ND [10]
, - ,£,...>
62
2,294
-
-
29-Apr-98
ND [50]
210
ND [50]
3,800
ND [50]
4,600
ND [50]
ND [50]
•j'-imm
8,710
-
-
20-Au£-97
ND [2001
1,100
NDf2001
22,000
ND [2001
40,000
ND [2001
ND [2001
ND [2001
63,100
-
_
20-Au^97
ND [2001
1,100
ND [2001
22,000
ND [2001
40,000
ND [2001
ND [2001
ND [2001
63,100
-
_
ation.
ue. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
dicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Date
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
MW-402
20-Aug-97
^mms
2,100
ND [250]
20,000
ND [250]
51,000
\,mm^
:?•&&?&
^3sm®'
82,910
-
-
13-Aug-97
tf&mM
2,100
ND [500]
28,000
ND [500]
51,000
.•:•*»*'$
*:;wm^.
•^-TflBjgMlf*^
•4, '.SBIBBW-'.'v
93,700
-
-
6-Aug-97
;:•>..*&& '
2,300
ND [250]
22,000
ND [250]
50,000
^m&'-s
i-,**9wllBB;'-'.. !
^;;MiSi.'^
90,400
-
-
30-Jul-97
' 133B&
3,100
ND [500]
39,000
ND [500]
94,000
•iAMBt^
risoar?
•?Wi&:-.
169,100
-
-
17-Jul-97
•'-•••'•saao-.r1
ND[1000]
ND [1000]
ND [50000]
ND[1000]
74,000
-.-;-.:iaaTv';
, rxm * -
'-:-:^aft ;.
83,700
ND [800]
2,000
10-Jul-97
"::>:'4HBK:'- .-<
ND [1000]
ND [1000]
ND [50000]
ND[1000]
120,000
" 'aawr^
" jam*-
I", 42SB* , :
132,800
-
-
10-Jul-97
I.7W
ND[1000]
ND [1000]
ND [50000]
ND[1000]
93,000
" i*&ji&&f;;::?
"~:mKm
' -*wnr:"«
106,500
-
-
1-Jul-97
Kffffi
1,800
ND[1000]
ND [50000]
ND[1000]
92,000
..i-JSfiftT"
f£&*'JA
j.r«»h&
125,800
-
-
MW-403
13-Aug-97
ND [500]
1,200
ND [500]
35,000
ND [500]
91 ,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
127,200
-
-
13-Aug-97
ND [500]
1,200
ND [500]
41,000
ND [500]
99,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
141,200
-
-
6-Aug-97
ND[1000]
1,300
ND[1000]
46,000
ND [1000]
92,000
ND [1000]
ND[1000]
ND [1000]
139,300
-
-
30-Jul-97
ND [500]
940
ND [500]
36,000
ND [500]
79,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
115,940
-
-
15-Jul-97
ND [2000]
2,100
ND [2000]
ND [100000]
ND [2000]
200,000
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
202,100
1,800
5,400
10-Jul-97
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [100000]
ND [2000]
170,000
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [4000]
170,000
-
-
30-Jun-97
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [100000]
ND [2000]
150,000
ND [2000]
ND [2000]
ND [4000]
150,000
-
-
24-Jun-97
ND[1000]
1,200
ND[1000]
ND [50000]
ND[1000]
100,000
ND [10001
•^isstt^
ND [2000]
102,400
-
-
MW-402
25-Jun-97
L;iiPW; ,
1,900
ND [500]
ND [25000]
ND [500]
99,000
^mmKf:
S'^SSPI^
"' %3B&M*
123,500
-
-
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1 ,1 ,1-Triehloroethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Diehioroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
fsopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Date
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb}
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
MW-404
15-May-OO
2.2
17
ND[1]
88
3.6
ND[50J R
4.8
3.1
6.5
125
-
-
5-Apr-99
ND[1]
6.7
ND[1]
ND[10]
ND[1] R
ND[50] R
ND[1]
ND[1]
1.4
8.1
ND [100]
810
26-Oct-98
ND[10]
ND[10]
ND[1]
ND[10]
14
130
ND[1]
ND[1]
1.3
145.3
-
840
18-Aug-98
2.4
16
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[1J
ND [50]
ND[1]
ND[1]
2.1
20.5
-
-
16-Jui-98
ND[1]
11
ND[1]
ND [50]
19
ND [50]
1.2
1.2
ND[1]
32.4
-
-
29-Apr-98
ND[1]
17
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[1]
ND [50]
ND[1]
ND[1]
ND[1]
17.0
-
-
18-Aug-97
ND [20]
240
ND [20]
1,400
100
1,600
ND [20]
ND [20]
ND [20]
3,340
-
-
11-Aug-97
ND [20]
280
ND [20]
1,600
120
2,500
ND [20]
ND [20]
ND [20]
4,500
-
-
MW-405
15-May-OO
ND[1]
17
ND[1]
ND {50]
10
73 R
1.2
1.2
1
103.4
-
-
11-Apr-99
ND[1]
5.9
ND[1]
ND [50]
3,4 R
ND[50] R
ND[1]
ND[1]
ND[1]
9.3
ND [80]
4,200
27-Oct-98
ND[1]
6.6
ND[1]
ND [50]
44
ND [50]
ND[1]
ND[1]
ND[1]
50.6
-
3,800
19-Aug-98
ND[1]
21
ND[1]
ND [50]
88
ND [50]
1.4
ND[1]
ND[1]
110.4
-
-
18-Aug-97
ND [200]
830
ND [200]
15000J
ND [200]
12,000
ND [200]
ND [200]
ND [200]
27,830
-
-
18-Aug-97
ND [200]
710
ND [200]
16000J
ND [200]
12,000
ND [200]
ND [200L
ND [200]
28,710
-
-
11-Aug-97
ND [250]
600
ND [250]
14,000
ND [250]
26,000
ND [250]
ND [250]
ND [250]
40,600
-
-
11-Aug-97
ND [250]
670
ND [250]
13,000
ND [250]
21,000
ND
ND [250]
ND [250]
34,670
-
-
Notes: Ail concentrations presented in ug/1 or ppb. MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding
Not Listed for Regulation.
detected in QA blank.
of the MCL.
-------
Table A-1. Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater, Building No. 3 Area, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
Well ID
Sample Date
Federal
MCL
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
Well ID
Sample Date
VOCs (ug/L or ppb)
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Chloroethane
Isopropanol
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total VOCs
Ethylene
Methane
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
Federal
MCL
200
NL
7
NL
NL
NL
5
2
70
NL
NL
MW-404
4-Aug-97
ND[10]
150
ND[10]
ND [500}
40
1,200
NDJ101
MS^M^mW-
ND [10]
1,400
-
-
28-Jul-97
ND [25]
240
ND [25]
1,400
77
3,200
ND [25]
ND [25]
ND [25]
4,917
-
-
15-Jul-97
ND[50]
140
ND [50]
ND [2500]
64J
3,600
ND [50]
ND [50]
ND [50]
3,804
ND [800]
4,100
15-Jul-97
ND [50]
160
ND [50]
ND [2500]
56 J
3,400
ND [50]
ND[50]
ND [50]
3,616
-
-
8-Jul-97
ND[10]
130
ND [10]
770
57
960
ND|10|
•. ' •"- 18;- -:«
ND [20]
1,952
-
-
8-Jul-97
ND[10]
120
ND[10]
900
58
1,300
ND[10]
^m:%
ND [20]
2,412
-
-
30-Jun-97
ND [20]
210
ND [20]
ND[1000]
91
1,900
ND [20]
.'iNW-
r? :*»"••
2,521
-
-
24-Jun-97
ND [50]
380
ND [50]
2,600
110
7,800
ND [50]
•'^g«B#i
•Y'liijfrr
11,660
-
-
MW-405
4-Aug-97
ND [250]
1,100
ND [250]
16.000
420 J
25,000
ND [250]
ND [250]
ND [250]
42,520
-
-
4-Aug-97
ND [250]
750
ND [250]
14,000
460 J
23,000
ND [250]
ND [250]
ND [250]
38,210
-
-
28-Jul-97
ND [250]
1,200
ND [250]
17,000
690 J
22,000
ND [250]
ND [250]
ND [250]
40,890
-
-
28-Jul-97
ND [250]
1,200
ND [250]
20,000
630 J
22,000
ND [250]
ND [250]
ND [250]
43,830
-
-
15-Jul-97
ND [500]
1,200
ND [500]
ND [25000]
720 J
31 ,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [500]
32,920
1,800
9,900
8-Jul-97
ND [500]
1,900
ND [500]
36,000
ND [500]
51,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND[1000]
88,900
-
-
30-Jun-97
ND [500]
1,600
ND [500]
49,000
740
72,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND [1000]
123,340
-
-
30-Jun-97
ND [500]
1,200
ND [500]
28,000
800
41 ,000
ND [500]
ND [500]
ND[1000]
71,000
-
-
24-Jun-97
ND [500]
1,300
ND [500]
30,000
810
55,000
ND J500]
, '.& "&&££*
ND[1000]
87,830
-
-
Notes: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level. L = Listed for regulation. NL = Not Listed for Regulation.
ND [ ] = Analyte not detected above method detection limits shown in brackets. J = Estimated Value. B = Analyte also detected in QA blank.
R = Data validation qualifier is unusable. - = Sample not analyzed for this constituent. Shading indicates an exceeding of the MCL.
-------
As shown in Table A-1, the total VOC concentrations
decreased with depth and distance from the source area
(MW-306S location) as would be expected. The range of
VOC concentrations over time for each monitoring well
varied by as much as an order of magnitude over the eight-
week baseline sampling period. This variability was
consistent with VOC concentrations observed during
previous sampling events. This is believed to be attributable
to the naturally occurring biodegradation and varying
recharge rates from precipitation. In addition, the elevated
detection limits caused by elevated acetone and isopropanol
concentration in several monitoring wells occasionally
masked the presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons that were
present at concentrations below those detection limits.
When comparing the Earth Tech baseline data to the SITE
program baseline data, it is important to remember the time
between these sampling events (weekly sampling versus
daily sampling), but more importantly, the change in
precipitation conditions between sampling events. The SITE
program baseline sampling event was performed following
and during three months of nearly twice normal precipitation,
which created anomalously elevated groundwater levels.
These conditions could have created a short-term dilution
affect on the observed groundwater VOC baseline
concentrations. Thus, based on the ITT NV baseline data,
the SITE program baseline can be considered truly
conservative and any observed reductions would therefore
be significant.
Split Samples
Groundwater samples were split with the SITE program
following the air-only and air/nutrient injection phases to
evaluate the comparability of the SITE program and Earth
Tech data sets for selected monitoring wells. For the
majority of the compounds and monitoring wells, the
laboratory results were comparable, as shown on Table- A-
2.
Full Scale Results
The SITE program focused on four critical VOCs (1,1-
dichloroethane, chloroethane, cis-1,2 dichloroethene, and
vinyl chloride) based upon acceptable statistics derived from
the SITE program baseline sampling event. Several more
biodegradable compounds are present in the groundwater
at this site as indicated in Table A-1. The presence of these
additional VOCs could have an effect on the rate of
reduction of the critical VOCs since several alternative
carbon sources are available. The heterogeneous nature of
the fractured rock system allowed for preferential airflow
pathways and a nonuniform delivery of the amendments.
This led to VOC reductions occurring at different rates and
at varying locations and distances from the injection well
during the pilot test. VOC reductions were initially apparent
in MW-401, MW-403, and MW-401S. Based on field
monitoring data, these wells were the most connected to the
airflow pathways from the injection well; and therefore,
received amendments at a higher rate as compared to other
locations in the pilot test area. As the pilot test and the
injection phases progressed, VOC reductions were
observed in other pilot test monitoring wells (MW-1) and
hydraulically down gradient locations (MW-404S, MW-404,
MW-405S, and MW-405).
The furthest hydraulically downgradient location to manifest
VOC reductions thus far is the monitoring well couplet MW-
405 and MW-405S located 75 feet down gradient from IW-
400. Based on helium tracer test and methane monitoring,
this well couplet was not directly affected by the injection
system. The average total VOC concentration for the Earth
Tech baseline sample for MW-405 is 53,940 ppb with the
minimum total VOC concentration observed for the baseline
being 25,600 ppb. Since the operation of the bioremediation
system, the average total VOC concentration at MW-405 is
68 ppb. Likewise, significant VOC reduction was observed
in MW-405S; the baseline total VOC concentration was
71,000 ppb and the most recent sampling event result was
86.1 ppb. Greater than 99% total VOC reduction was
observed for both MW-405 and MW-405S.
The minimum VOC reductions in the pilot test area observed
during the SITE Demonstration were in the samples
collected from the MW-402 couplet. This lack of response
to the bioremediation system was attributed to an
insufficient volume of air, nutrients, and methane being
delivered to this area. Following system expansion to full
scale, significant VOC reductions were observed at this
location. The average total VOC concentration during the
baseline sampling event for MW-402 was 112,045 ppb.
MW-402 has shown a steady decline in total VOCs since the
system expansion with 30,730 ppb in April 1999 and 3,817
ppb in August 2000. Trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1 -TCA) reductions at this location were
significant. The TCE baseline average was 2,644 ppb while
the most recent sampling result was 230 ppb. The 1,1,1
TCA baseline average was 6,733 ppb while the most recent
sampling result was 270 ppb. This represents a greater
than 90% reduction in the chlorinated hydrocarbon source
contaminants. MW-402S had an average total VOC
concentration of 1,617,000 ppb prior to the system
expansion. The most recent sampling event for MW-402S
indicated 2,320 ppb total VOCs. Vinyl chloride reductions
were observed ranging from 24,000 ppb to less than 10 ppb
in well MW-402S. Cis 1,2 dichloroethene reductions on the
same order of magnitude (12,000 ppb to 170 ppb) were
observed at MW-402S. Greater than 99% total VOC
reduction was observed for both MW-402 and MW-402S.
A-16
-------
Table A-2. Summary of VOCs in Groundwater from Spirt Sampling Events, Interim Measure at Building 3, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA,
MW-401
Event Date
Constituent
(ug/L or ppb)
VOCs
Acetone
Isopropanoi
TCE
Cis 1,2 DCE
1,1 DCE
VC
1,1,1 TCA
L 1,1 DCA
CA
Total VOCs
MW-403
Event Date
Constituent
(ug/L or ppb)
VOCs
Acetone
Isopropanol
TCE
Cis 1.2 DCE
1,1 DCE
VC
' 1.1,1 TCA
1.1 DCA
CA
Total VOCs
*imm j
Post-Aur
BBB
620
1200
3500
310
-------
Table A-2. Summary of VOCs in Groundwater from Split Sampling Events, Interim Measure at Building 3, ITT Night Vision - Roanoke, VA (Cont'd).
MW-401S MW-404
Event Date 7/17/98 I 7/13/98 to
I I 7/17/98
Constituent Post-Nutrient SAIC Post-
(ug/L or ppb) Nutrient
Acetone
Isopropanol
TCE
Cis 1.2 DCE
1,1 DCE
VC
1,1,1 TCA
1,1 DCA
CA
Total VOCs
23MS
47000
<500
1900
<$00
<580
510
<500
72410
54000
17
2200
29
590
410
520
170
97936
MW402S
Event Date
Constituent
(ug/L or ppb)
I 7/16/98
1
7/13/98 to
7/17/98
Post-Nutrient SAIC Post-
Nutrient
Acetone
Isopropanol
TCE
Cis 1.2DCE
1.1 DCE
VC
1,1,1 TCA
1,1 DCA
CA
Total VOCs
590,000
920000
2700
85
1300
640
700
160
1515673
Event Date
Constituent
(ug/L or ppb)
VOCs
Acetone
Isopropanol
TCE
Cis 1,2 DCE
1,1 DCE
VC
1,1,1 TCA
1,1 DCA
CA
Total VOCs
MW-W4S
Event Date
Constituent
(ug/L or ppb)
VOCs
Acetone
Isopropanol
TCE
Cis 1,2 DCE
1,1 DCE
VC
1,1,1 TCA
1,1 DCA
CA
Total VOCs
4/29/98
Post-Air
<$»
<50
-------
To summarize the overall VOC reductions at the site,
average VOC concentrations in the pilot test monitoring
wells were plotted over time on Figure 2 which shows a
steady overall decline in VOC concentrations at the site
during the pilot test and following system expansion.
Currently, VOC concentrations remain one to two orders of
magnitude above the drinking water maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) in MW-3Q6O, MW-306S, IW-400, MW-401,
MW-40I, MW-402S, and MW-4Q2, However, the
bioremediation system has reduced the VOC concentrations
in groundwater to drinking water MCLs in MW-1, IW-400S,
MW-401 S, MW-403, MW-404S, MW-404, MW-405S, and
MW-405.
If these VOC reductions continue, long-term VOC removal
will have been accomplished and the injection system
operation will be discontinued in the very near future. Given
the high initial VOC concentrations, recalcitrant VOCs
present, and the complex hydrogeologic environment at the
site, the observed VOC source removal has exceeded the
expectations of Earth Tech and ITT Night Vision, Because
of the successes at this and other sites, this enhanced
cometabolie bioremediation technology is being successfully
applied at other sites across the United States by Earth
Tech and other approved Department of Energy licensees.
Figure 2
Average Total VOC Concentration in Pilot Test Area
eoDooi
Earth Tech
Baseline
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
SITE DemoretiaHon Period
AWNutriert/Methane
(IW-400) 4 and 14 weeks
Aug-87 Nw-97 Feb-98
Ful Scale
Aug-98 Nov-98 Feb-SB May-99 Aug-99 Nov-QB Feb-00 MayOO
Date
A-19
-------
Appendix B - PUMP TEST DATA and DISCUSSION OF
ACOUSTIC BOREHOLE TELEVIEWER
Note: The excerpted information contained in this appendix was provided by Earth Tech, Inc.
and has not been independently verified by the U.S. EPA SITE Program
B.1 Limited Pumping Test Results
During the development of IW-400, groundwater levels were
monitored in selected surrounding monitoring wells. The
monitoring well data is presented in Table B-1.
Groundwater was pumped from IW-400 initially at 5.7 gpm;
however, soon after pumping began it was apparent that the
pumping rate was decreased to 2.6 gpm, the drawdown in
the pumping well ceased and recovery began. Therefore,
the well yield for IW-400 would be expected to be between
2 and 4 gpm.
As shown in Table B-1, drawdown was observed in the
shallow bedrock as evidenced in MW-1. The shallowest
zone monitored (SG-1D) showed a slight decrease in
groundwater level during pumping. This apparent drawdown
was minimal. Drawdown was most pronounced in the
monitoring wells closest to the pumping well and decreased
with distance from IW-400. Drawdown in the monitoring
wells intercepting separate zones suggests that the shallow
and deep upper bedrock fracture zones are hydraulically
interconnected.
Hydraulic characteristic estimates were made using the
groundwater measurement data from IW-400. The
frequency of measurements from the surrounding
monitoring wells was too limited for estimating the hydraulic
characteristics. The Moench method was used to estimate
the hydraulic characteristics of the water-bearing zone in
this location. The hydraulic conductivity of the fissure (major
fractures) system was estimated to be 8.1 x 10~4 ft/min, with
the hydraulic conductivity of the matrix (minor discrete
fractures) system estimated to be on the order of 1.2 x 10"5
ft/min. The specific storage estimates yielded a 1Q~8 ft"1 for
the fissure system and 0.5 ft"1 for the specific storage of the
matrix system. These estimates are consistent with the
hydraulic characteristic estimates from the MW-1 extended
pumping test (discussed in the Stage I IB Data Report). As
would be expected, groundwater storage is primarily
occurring in the matrix rock.
B.2 Acoustic Borehole Televiewer Discussion
Numerous open hole wells were selected for downhole
logging using the acoustic borehole televiewer (ABT) tool.
The ABT log is created when an acoustic pulse is reflected
off the borehole wall as the transmitter and receiver rotate.
The digital image is related to magnetic north and is
presented as a continuous image on logs. The image can be
displayed in color or black and white. The reproducibility of
black and white was chosen over color for the purposes of
Earth Tech's report1. Therefore, fractures and other
borehole irregularities appear in the report as the darker
features. If the fracture was tilted, relative to the borehole,
the image will appear as a sine wave. The dip direction is
the lowest point on the curve. The dip angle is calculated
using the amplitude of the curve and borehole diameter.
The trend of the fracture would be perpendicular (90
degrees relative) to the dip direction.
When viewing the ABT logs, the exact fracture curve is not
always clear; therefore, interpretation plays an important
role in the determination of the fracture orientation. Also, the
ABT log data as presented in the Earth Tech's report has an
estimated error range between 1 and 5 degrees. The
potential error would be highest with low (<15 degrees) dip
angle fractures.
The ABT tool provided the most data in boreholes with
limited "wash out" zones. In some boreholes with large
irregular openings (such as "mud seams"), the tool lodged
in the hole because of the tool's centralizers and could not
be advanced. In other boreholes, planer features were not
apparent.
B-1
-------
Table B-1. Data From Limited Pumping Tests, ITT Night Vision - RFI Supplemental Data Report.
Well ID
IW-400
MW-401
MW-402
MW-403
MW-404
MW-1
SG-1 Deep
Time
(min)
0
2
3
5
18
30
35
48
59
0
9
21
38
62
0
10
22
42
64
0
12
25
45
66
0
15
28
46
68
0
13
24
43
0
7
20
37
60
Depth to Water
(ft BGS)
13.22
18.72
19.5
21.18
32.13
41.12
41.92
39.15
36.74
12.98
22.91
33.13
40.81
36.02
12.49
13.79
16.62
20.47
22.59
13.56
14.02
14.88
15.58
15.93
13.21
13.25
13.44
13.79
14.08
15.15
15.32
15.66
16.29
12.15
12.15
12.17
12.19
12.21
Drawdown
(ft)
5.5
6,28
7.96
18.91
27.9
28.7
25.93
23.52
_»
9.93
20.15
27.83
23.04
mm,
1.3
4.13
7.98
10,1
. — ,
0.46
1.32
2.02
2.37
0.04
0.23
0.58
0,87
—
0.17
0.51
1.14
—
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Conditions
Static
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.0 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Static
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.0 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Static
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.0 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Static
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.0 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Static
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.0 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Pumping 2,6 gpm
Static
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.0 gpm
Pumping 2. 6 gpm
Static
Pumping 5.7 gpm
Pumping 5.0 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
Pumping 2.6 gpm
B-2
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERED ;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE a FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/R-00/504
September 2003
------- |