EPA 600/R-08/093 I September 2008 I www.epa.gov/ada
United States
Environmental Proti
Agency
                 Field Application of a Permeable
                 Reactive Barrier for Treatment of
                 Arsenic  in  Ground Water
  v^w.-'a,"
  'JSJlitll tVf
*J1UW 'V'P •T'srM.V
                                                              sss •
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahi

-------

-------
              Field Application of a Permeable
              Reactive Barrier for Treatment of
              Arsenic in Ground Water
              Richard T. Wilkin, Steven D. Acree,
              Douglas G. Beak, Randall R. Ross,
              Tony R. Lee, and Cindy J. Paul
              Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma 74820

-------
Notice
                    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research
                and Development funded the research described here. It has been subjected to the
                Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an
                EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
                endorsement or recommendation for use.

                    All research projects making conclusions or recommendations based on en-
                vironmentally related measurements and funded by the Environmental Protection
                Agency are required to participate in the Agency Quality Assurance Program.  This
                project was conducted under an  approved  Quality Assurance Project Plan.  The
                procedures specified in this plan were used without exception. Information on the
                plan and documentation of the quality assurance activities and results are available
                from the Principal Investigator.

-------
                                                                                      Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 threatens 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 (ORD) to assist the user community and to
link researchers with their clients. Arsenic is a common ground-water contaminant at hazardous waste sites. The
purpose of this document is to provide a hydrologic and geochemical analysis of a pilot-scale Permeable Reactive
Barrier (PRB) installed to treat ground water contaminated with arsenic. This report will fill a need for a readily
available source of information for site managers and others who are faced with the need to remediate ground
water contaminated with inorganic compounds and are considering the use of this cost-effective technology. The
information provided in this  document will be of use to stakeholders such as state and federal regulators, Native
American tribes, consultants, contractors, and other interested parties.
                                                Robert W/Puls, Acting Director
                                                Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division
                                                National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------

-------

Notice  	ii
Foreword	iii
Figures	 vi
Tables	 ix
Acknowledgments	x
Abstract	 xi
1.0   Introduction	 1
2.0   Background	 2
       Arsenic in ground water	2
       Arsenic removal from water by zerovaient iron  	3
3.0   Site Background	 4
4.0   PRB Installation .	 6
       Construction details	6
5.0   Methodology	8
       Well network 	8
       Water sampling and analysis	9
       Arsenic speciation modeling	 10
       Core sampling and analysis	11
       X-ray spectroscopy	 12
       Hydrologic methods	13
6.0   Results and Discussion	17
       Ground-water geochemistry 	17
       PRB behavior	22
       Hydraulic investigation	 26
       Flux evaluations	34
       PRB performance	 35
       Scanning electron microscopy	38
       X-ray absorption spectroscopy	 40
7.0   Future Study Improvements 	45
8.0   Summary and Relevance to Other Sites	 46
9.0   References	 48
Appendices	 52
   Appendix A	52
   Appendix B	54
   Appendix C	56
   Appendix D	 57
   Appendix E	59

-------

Figure 1.  Site aerial photograph showing the ASARCO East Helena smelter, town of
   East Helena (MT), primary arsenic source zones, and location of the pilot-scale PRB	4
Figure 2.  Installation photos: a) long-arm excavator, b) custom bucket, c) trench with
   biopolymcr slum', d) excavated materials, c) bucket with aquifer materials,
   f) tremie and trench backfill with granular iron, g) granular iron in super sacks,
   and h) construction site.	 . 7
Figure 3.  Aerial photos and map showing: a) arsenic concentrations  in ground water
   (June  2006), b) locations of pilot-PRB and monitoring wells in the test area, and
   c) map showing well locations around and in the PRB	8
Figure 4.  Discrete multilevel sampler (DMLS) design and application in monitoring wells	9
Figure 5.  Specially designed discrete interval sampler used with a mini bladder pump	10
Figure 6.  Photograph of a core segment collected from the PRB after 15 months of
   operation (September 2006).	 11
Figure 7.  Typical equipment used in performance of pneumatic slug tests	14
Figure 8.  Schematic diagram of electromagnetic borehole flowmetertest design	15
Figure 9.  Modified Durov diagram showing trends in major cations, anions, total
   dissolved solids, and arsenic concentrations from the former speiss handling area
   to the northern site boundary (data collected June 2006)	17
Figure 10. Long-term trends in the major ion chemistry of ground water collected
   from monitoring well PBTW-1.	 . 18
Figure 11. Geochemical profiles across the saturated aquifer in selected wells:
   a) PBTW-1, b) PBTW-2, c) EPA04, and d) DH-50 (see Figure 3  for well locations).	 . 19
Figure 12. Comparison of total dissolved arsenic concentrations and the sum of
   arsenate plus arsenite	21
Figure 13. Arsenic concentrations in solutions saturated with As2O- and As2O3 and
   site ground water (open red circles) compared to the MCL for arsenic	21
Figure 14. Comparison of total dissolved arsenic and the fraction of total dissolved
   arsenic present as  arsenite, As (III)	21
Figure 15. Distribution  of redox indicators in ground water near the PRB: a) Fe(II)
   contoured from data collected in 8/2003, and b) Eh values in ground water in 7/2007	22
Figure 16. Arsenic concentration trends in ground water upgradient from the PRB:
    a) total dissolved  arsenic as a function of time in ground water from monitoring
   wells  EPA02 and EPA08, b) fraction of total dissolved arsenic as arsenite,  and
   c) depth-resolved concentration trends in monitoring well EPA08	24
Figure 17. Plots showing trends with time: a) DOC concentrations,  b) arsenic
   concentrations, c)  pH, and d) Eh for wells sampling ground water from the pilot-PRB	24
Figure 18. Eh-pH diagram for arsenic. Data points show measured pH and Eh for
   ground water in the PRB and plume; color code of points shows the measured speciation
   of arsenic	25

-------
Figure 19. Comparison of Eh values of ground water measured using a platinum
   electrode and calculated using the As(HI)-As(V) redox couple	26
Figure 20. Depth dependent arsenic concentrations in wells EPA08 and EPA09 and
   conceptual model of ground-water transport underneath the pilot-PRB. ..................... 27
Figure 21. Ground-water elevations obtained using data from a pressure transducer/data
   logger installed in well DH-17 located approximately 30 m upgradient of the PRB. ............ 27
Figure 22. Shallow potentiometric surface interpreted from ground-water elevation
   measurements obtained using an electronic water level indicator on April 1, 2008	28
Figure 23. Wells instrumented with  pressure transducers/data loggers and used to
   characterize hydraulic gradient fluctuations on a daily basis	29
Figure 24. Distribution of the magnitude of the hydraulic gradient near the PRB estimated
   on a daily basis using data obtained from pressure transducers/data loggers installed
   in wells DH-17, PBTW-2, and EPA06	29
Figure 25. Ground-water monitoring wells within the tracer test area of the PRB	30
Figure 26. Ratio of the measured bromide ion concentration to the concentration in the
   injected slug as a function of time.	 30
Figure 27. Distance of tracer migration as a function of the time required for the first
   arrival at each monitoring location	30
Figure 28. Results of pneumatic slug tests within the PRB using a series of wells each
   screening a 0.76 m vertical interval.	 32
Figure 29. Results of pneumatic slug tests within the PRB after 5 months and  16 months	32
Figure 30. Hydraulic conductivity distribution estimated for materials adjacent to the
   screened intervals of wells DH-17, PBTW-1, and PBTW-2 based on characterization
   using borehole flowmeter techniques	33
Figure 31. Hydraulic conductivity distribution estimated for materials adjacent to the
   screened intervals of wells EPA02, EPA08, EPA09, and EPA 10 based on characterization
   using borehole flowmeter techniques	33
Figure 32. Comparison of hydraulic conductivity distribution adjacent to well EPA08
   estimated using borehole flowmeter techniques and the results of slug tests performed
   in a series short-screened wells within the PRB	34
Figure 33. Estimation of arsenic flux entering and leaving the PRB as a function of depth. ......... 35
Figure 34. Aragonite saturation indices  in ground water as a function of pH, upgradient and
   within the PRB	35
Figure 35. Solid-phase concentrations of inorganic carbon, sulfur, and arsenic in PRB
   core materials	36
Figure 36. Sulfate removal within the PRB as a function of time and  depth.	 36
Figure 37. Chromatograph of arsenic speciation for ground water entering the
   PRB (well EPA08) and ground water from well TR9 containing thioarsenic species. ........... 37
Figure 38. Solubility of As(III) phases as  a function of pH and dissolved sulfide concentration.  .... 37
Figure 39. Solubility of As(V) phases as a function of pH.  .................................. 37
Figure 40. Concentration of selenium in ground water upgradient, in, and downgradient
   of the PRB	38

-------
Figure 41. SEM photomicrographs: A) image of polished thin-section showing development
   of corrosion products. B) platy particles formed on the surface of an iron granule with
   EDX spectra and elemental composition	39
Figure 42. Normalized XANES spectra for arsenic reference materials used for the
   XANES analysis and LCF fitting of unknown samples.	 40
Figure 43. Normalized XANES spectra for unknown samples from the ASARCO Smelter site	41
Figure 44. a) Depth-dependent concentrations of total arsenic in aquifer solids retrieved from
   the well boring near the location of the PRB, and b) speciation of arsenic expressed as the
   fraction of total arsenic as As(V)  in the solid samples	42
Figure 45. Powder x-ray diffraction scans of aquifer materials collected from a well boring taken
   adjacent to the pilot-PRB..	  . 42
Figure 46. Comparison of LCF fitting results using: a) coordinated or b) sorbed reference
   materials for PRB core sample Core 1 30-34F	44
Figure 47. Ternary diagram showing the solid-phase arsenic speciation based on XANES LCF
   in samples collected from the PRB, source zone, and aquifer adjacent to the pilot-PRB	44
Figure Dl. Hydrograph of ground-water elevations measured at well DH-17	57
Figure D2. Hydrograph of ground-water elevations measured at well EPA02	57
Figure D3. Hydrograph of ground-water elevations measured at well EPA06	57
Figure D4. Hydrograph of ground-water elevations measured at well PBTW-2.	  . 57
Figure D5. Hydrograph of ground-water elevations measured at well TR8	58
Figure El. Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on June 19, 2002. .......... 59
Figure E2. Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on September 26, 2002	59
Figure E3. Potentiometric surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on August 14, 2003	60
Figure E4. Potentiometric surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on May 31, 2005	60
Figure E5. Potentiometric surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on July 20, 2005	61
Figure E6. Potentiometric surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on October 6, 2005.  ........ 61
Figure E7. Potentiometric surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on June 6, 2006. ........... 62
Figure E8. Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on September 18. 2006.  ..... 62
Figure E9. Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on January 24, 2007	63
Figure E10. Potentiometric  surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on July 18/19, 2007	63
Figure Ell. Potentiometric  surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on October 1, 2007	64
Figure E12. Potentiometric  surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on April 1, 2008	64
Figure E13. Potentiometric  surface at the watertable in vicinity of PRB on June 24, 2008	65

-------
                                                                               Tables
Table 1. Samples analyzed using x-ray absorption spectroscopy	12

Table 2. Edge and white-line positions for reference materials used in data analysis
   of the PRB cores, source zone materials and well borings	13

Table 3. Comparison of hydraulic gradients calculated using multiple wells in the vicinity
   of the PRB and using data from three wells (DH-17, PBTW-2, and EPA08)	14

Table 4. Ground-water parameters in selected wells	23

Table 5. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity in units of m d"1 obtained from pneumatic
   slug tests performed in wells located within the PRB	31

Table 6. Results of the LCF fitting of the unknown samples collected from the Asarco smelter.  	43

Table Al. Wells used in the design and assessment of the PRB	52

Table Bl.  Method reporting limits for selected analytes during five separate PRB sampling
   events and results of selected duplicate analyses	54

Table B2. Results of blank tests and pump rinsate results	55

Table Cl.  Thermodynamic data for arsenic oxyanions	56

-------
Acknowledgments
 Research described in this report was partially funded by a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
 (CRADA, 278-03) between ASARCO, Inc. and the U.S. EPA. The authors would like to acknowledge cooperation
 with ASARCO and U.S. EPA Region 8 for the successful completion of this project. Jon Nickel and Robert Miller
 from ASARCO are especially thanked for their helpfulness and knowledge shared during many site visits. Linda
 Jacobson, Randy Breeden, Chuck Figur, and Scott Brown (U.S. EPA) are thanked for their efforts in seeing this project
 through. Susan Zazzali (U.S. EPA) is thanked for initially focusing our attention on the East Helena site. Shaw
 Environmental provided support both in the field and laboratory, especially Elaine Coombe, Sujith Kumar, Don Janz,
 and Steve Markham. We thank Mary Sue McNeil, Pat Clark, Michael Brooks, Ken Jewell, Chunming Su, Frank Beck,
 Linda Callaway, Brad Scroggins, Ralph Ludwig, Robert Puls (U.S. EPA), Hsing-Lung Lien (National University of
 Kaohsiung, Taiwan), and Joanne Smieja (Gonzaga University) for discussions and help in the field and lab.
 The authors greatly appreciate  support provided by the staff of the Dow-Northwestern-DuPont Collaborative Access
 Team and the Pacific Northwest Consortium Collaborative Access Team at Argonne National Laboratory. Use of
 Argonne's Advanced Photon Source is supported by the U. S. Department of Energy (US DOE), Office of Science,
 Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357.  PNC-XOR facilities at the Advanced Photon
 Source, and research at these facilities, are supported by the US DOE Basic Energy Science, a major facilities access
 grant from NSERC, the University of Washington, Simon Fraser University and the Advanced Photon Source. DND-
 CAT is supported by E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., the Dow Chemical Company and the State of Illinois.
 The report was reviewed by Bruce Manning (San Francisco State University), Ralf Kober (University of Kiel),
 Kirk Scheckel (U.S. EPA), and Charles Pace (NewFields Companies LLC). Their comments helped improve the
 presentation and discussion of the study  results.

-------
                                                                                         Abstract
Contamination of ground-water resources by arsenic is a widespread environmental problem; consequently, there
is an escalating need for developments and improvements of remedial technologies to effectively manage arsenic
contamination in ground water and soils. In June 2005, a 9.1 m long,  14 m deep, and 1.8 to 2.4 m wide (in the
direction of ground-water flow) pilot-scale permeable reactive barrier  (PRB) was installed at a former metal smelting
facility, located near Helena, Montana. The reactive barrier was designed to treat ground water contaminated with
moderately high concentrations of both arsenite and arsenate.  The reactive barrier was installed over a 3-day period
using bio-polymer slurry methods and modified excavating equipment for deep trenching.  The reactive medium
was composed entirely of granular iron which was selected based on long-term laboratory column experiments. In
laboratory experiments, arsenic removal by zerovalent iron is controlled by adsorption and co-precipitation with
iron corrosion products. Previous studies indicate removal capacities on the order  of 1 to 10 mg arsenic per gram of
granular iron. A monitoring network of approximately 40 ground-water sampling points was installed in July 2005.
Monitoring results indicate arsenic concentrations >25 mg I/1  in wells located hydraulically upgradient of the PRB.
Within the PRB, arsenic concentrations are reduced to 2 to <0.01 mg I/1. After 2 years of operation, monitoring points
located within 1 m of the downgradient edge of the PRB showed significant decreases in arsenic concentrations at
depths intervals impacted by the emplaced zerovalent iron. Arsenic removal in the PRB results from several pathways
involving adsorption to iron oxide and iron sulfide surfaces. These different uptake processes lead to multiple
oxidation states and bonding environments for arsenic in the reactive medium as indicated using spectroscopic
methods. This report covers aspects of site characterization, remedial  design and implementation, and monitoring
results for this pilot-scale PRB, including a flux-based analysis for arsenic.

-------

-------
                                                                                                1.0
                                                                             Introduction
The permeable reactive barrier (PRB) technology has
gained acceptance as an effective passive remediation
strategy for the treatment of a variety of chlorinated
organic and inorganic contaminants in ground water
(e.g., O'Hannesin and Gillham, 1998; Blowes et al.,
2000). The technology combines subsurface fluid-
flow management with contaminant treatment by
combinations of chemical, physical and/or biological
processes. Application of PRBs for treatment of
contaminated ground water has advantages over
traditional pump-and-treat systems in that PRBs are
passive and are expected to require minimal operation
and maintenance expenditures. More than two hundred
implementations of the technology worldwide have
proven that passive reactive barriers can be cost-effective
and efficient approaches to remediate a variety of
hazardous compounds of environmental concern (ITRC,
2005).
Few well documented case studies are available that
evaluate the field performance of these in-situ systems,
especially with respect to the treatment efficiency of a
variety of contaminant types and including examples
from complex hydrogeologic environments.  In some
cases, PRB applications for ground-water remediation
have failed to achieve cleanup results as expected from
bench-scale tests. For example, Morrison et al. (2006)
reported on a zerovalent iron system that showed
sooner than expected breakthrough of molybdenum
and uranium.  Performance failure was determined to
be related to a sequence of events from the continual
buildup of mineral precipitates on the reactive medium,
loss of pore space, development of preferential flow
paths, and finally to complete bypass of the zerovalent
iron and loss of hydraulic control.  Research efforts
over the past decade point to complex behavior in PRB
systems, as biogeochemical processes in the reactive
medium govern contaminant removal and influence
processes that control fluid flow through porous media
(e.g., U.S. EPA, 2003a; Liang et al., 2005; Li et al.,
2006). Clearly these factors need to be better understood
in order to improve the design and implementation of
PRBs for ground-water remediation.
This report presents a pilot-scale examination of the PRB
technology with zerovalent iron for treatment of arsenic
in contaminated ground water. The goals of this report
are to (1) document the design and construction of the
pilot-scale PRB; (2) describe the hydraulic and reactive
performance of the PRB; and (3) document variation in
arsenic behavior and related geochemical factors within
the PRB and the contaminated aquifer system. The
study  serves to fill in a needed aspect of the technology
continuum that encompasses bench-scale testing, pilot-
scale field testing, and full-scale field applications.

-------
2.0
Background
 Arsenic in Ground Water
 Arsenic is a well-known toxic element that the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency and the World
 Health Organization list as a carcinogen. In subsurface
 systems, including soils, sediments, and ground water,
 arsenic is present in a variety of chemical forms that are
 influenced by changes in biogeochemical conditions.
 Arsenic occurs in association with minerals, such as
 sulfides (e.g., pyrite), metal oxides (e.g., goethite),
 clays, silicates, and carbonates. The most important
 natural sources of elevated arsenic in ground water
 are iron sulfides and iron oxides, partly because of
 the abundance of iron-containing minerals in aquifers
 (Smedley and Kinniburgh, 2002). Polizzoto et al. (2006)
 provide evidence that arsenic present in sulfide minerals
 is the dominant source of arsenic in Holocene aquifer
 sediments of Bangladesh.  There arsenic released from
 sulfide minerals in near-surface oxidizing environments
 subsequently adheres to iron oxyhydroxides which are
 then subject to dissolution in anaerobic environments.
 In the anaerobic aquifer, arsenic is not retained by
 the aquifer solids but instead remains in the aqueous
 phase where tragically it is pumped through wells and
 consumed as drinking water by an estimated 57 million
 people.
 As suggested above in the Bangladesh example, arsenic
 exhibits fairly complex chemical behavior in the
 environment and may be present in several oxidation
 states (-III, 0, III, V). In aquatic  environments, two
 oxidation states are mainly encountered (Cherry et
 al., 1979; Ferguson and Gavis, 1972). The dominant
 form in oxic waters is arsenate, an oxyanion with
 the +5 oxidation state. Arsenate  can be present as
 various protonated forms depending on pH: H3AsO4,
 H2AsO4", HAsO42", and AsO43". In anoxic waters, the
 most common form of arsenic is arsenite, an uncharged
 species (below pH 9.2, H3AsO3) with a +3 oxidation
 state. Because arsenite is typically uncharged in
 ground-water systems, it is usually found to be mobile
 in solution.  Ferrous  iron is able to reduce arsenate to
 arsenite in the presence of iron oxyhydroxide surfaces,
 but not in homogeneous solution (Johnston and Singer,
 2007a). In some ground-water settings oxygen is an
 available, thermodynamically favorable oxidant for
 arsenite. However, the rate of arsenate formation via
 oxidation of arsenite by molecular oxygen is generally
 sluggish and highly pH dependent (Cherry et al., 1979).
 Toxicological studies show arsenite to be the more
 hazardous form of arsenic. Thus, reducing conditions,
 which generally favor arsenic mobility, also favor the
formation of the more toxic oxyanion of arsenic.  Ground
water can also contain organoarsenic species, such
as monomethylarsenic acid and dimethylarsenic acid
(Cullen and Reimer, 1989). In general, organoarsenic
compounds are less toxic than their corresponding
oxyanions.  There are also arsenic-sulfur species
(thioarsenic species) that provide additional complexity
to arsenic speciation in reducing environments. Beak
et al. (2008) indicate that at sulfide concentrations
>100  (oM, thioarsenic species can become dominant over
the oxyanion species, arsenite and arsenate. Conversion
from arsenite to thioarsenite species is believed to reduce
arsenic toxicity (Rader et al., 2004). Under extremely
reducing conditions elemental arsenic and arsine may
be present,  although their occurrence in ground water
systems has not been widely documented.
Arsenate, arsenite, and thioarsenic  species are highly
soluble anions and will tend to remain in solution after
being released from the mineral-water interface. Indeed,
Magalhaes  (2002) points out that the primary challenge
in mitigating arsenic mobility in the environment is tied
to the high  solubility of metal arsenites and arsenates.
Under oxic conditions, arsenic can be released to  ground
water by dissolution of iron sulfides or by desorption
from iron oxides due  to an increase in pH or competition
with other anions (Welch et al., 2000; Smedley and
Kinniburgh, 2002). As pointed out above in the
Bangladesh study, a particular geochemical environment
that favors  release of arsenic is the  onset of iron-
reducing conditions, which results  from the degradation
of organic carbon. Under iron-reducing conditions,
arsenic associated with iron hydroxides, oxyhydroxides,
or oxides can be released to ground water by reductive
desorption  or reductive dissolution. Reductive
desorption  occurs when arsenate is reduced to arsenite,
which is less strongly sorbed to iron oxides; reductive
dissolution of iron minerals releases arsenic that is part
of the iron-mineral structure or sorbed at the mineral-
water interface. On the other hand, in sulfate-reducing
environments and environments where iron oxides
are stable, iron sulfides and iron oxides are important
sinks for arsenic, so the formation and stability of these
minerals can retard the migration arsenic in ground water
(U.S.  EPA,  2007).
In January 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency adopted a new maximum contaminant level
(MCL) for  arsenic of 0.01 mg I/1, decreased from the
previous level of 0.05 mg I/1.  This revision of the MCL
recognizes  the detrimental health effects associated with
arsenic in drinking water, including bladder, skin, and

-------
lung cancers, diabetes, and neurological dysfunction
(National Research Council, 1999). Elevated
concentrations of arsenic from natural sources (>0.05
mg I/1) have been widely documented, for example, in
Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, West Bengal, Mexico,
Taiwan, Mexico, and parts of the United States (e.g.,
Mandal,  1997; Nickson et al., 1998; Welch et al.,
1988; Del Razo et al., 1990; McArthur et al., 2001;
Rahman et al., 2001; Nordstrom, 2002). While arsenic
occurs naturally, it may also be found as a result of a
variety of industrial processes, including mining, metal
refining, manufacture and use of arsenical pesticides
and herbicides, release of industrial effluents, leather
and wood treatments, and chemical waste disposal.
These industrial activities have created a long legacy
of arsenic pollution throughout the United States
where arsenic is a common contaminant of concern
at Superfund and RCRA sites. For example, in 1996
arsenic contamination was found at 226 Superfund sites
(U.S. EPA, 1997).  Levels of arsenic in ground water
>1-10 mg I/1 are not unusual at many Superfund and
RCRA sites  in the United States. The combination of
high toxicity and widespread occurrence of arsenic has
created a pressing need for the development of arsenic
treatment strategies in ground water. Furthermore, it
is expected that the new MCL for arsenic will impact
cleanup expectations at Superfund and RCRA sites
across the country.
Arsenic Removal from Water by Zerovalent Iron
Lackovic et al. (2000) concluded that zerovalent iron
could be used in PRBs to remove inorganic forms of
arsenic from ground water, including arsenate  and
arsenite. These researchers noted that the removal
mechanism for arsenic contrasted with that of
chlorinated hydrocarbons (reductive dechlorination)
and hexavalent chromium (reductive precipitation), and
involved either adsorption or precipitation on the iron
surface.  Lackovic  et al. (2000) further found that arsenic
removal efficiency improved with time, perhaps related
to corrosion of the  zerovalent iron and production of new
sorption sites for arsenic uptake.
Since the Lackovic et al. (2000) study there has been a
considerable research effort focused on zerovalent iron
and its potential for removing arsenic from water (e.g.,
Ramaswami et al.,  2001; Su and Puls, 2001a,b; Farrell
et al., 2001;  Morrison et al., 2002; Manning et al., 2002;
Melitas et al., 2002; Su and Puls, 2003; Nikolaidis et al.,
2003; Bang  et al., 2005a,b; Lien and Wilkin, 2005;
Leupin and Hug, 2005; Kober et al., 2005; Sun et al.,
2006; Yuan and Chiang,  2007; Biterna et al., 2007). A
common finding of these studies is that arsenic removal
from water is attributable to adsorption onto corrosion
products of zerovalent iron, including iron hydroxides,
oxyhydroxides, and mixed valance Fe(II)-Fe(III) green
rusts (Farrell et al., 2001; Melitas et al.,  2002; Manning
et al., 2002; Su and Puls, 2003; Leupin and Hug, 2005;
Lien and Wilkin, 2005; Bang et al., 2005b; Yuan and
Chiang, 2007).  Batch studies to examine the effects of
anion competition for arsenite and arsenate adsorption
indicate that phosphate causes a significant decrease
in the removal rate of arsenic, followed by silicate,
chromate, molybdate, carbonate, and nitrate (Su and
Puls, 200Ib).  Borate and sulfate caused only slight
reductions in arsenic uptake rates.  Uptake capacities
determined in controlled laboratory column tests have
ranged from about 1 to 7.5 mg As per g of zerovalent
iron (Su and Puls, 2003; Nikolaidis et al., 2003; Lien and
Wilkin, 2005).
The detailed nature of arsenic uptake mechanisms
onto zerovalent iron has been probed with solid-phase
characterization tools sensitive to arsenic,  including
x-ray absorption spectroscopy, Auger electron
spectroscopy, x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and wet
chemical extractions (e.g., Su and Puls, 200la; Farrell
et al., 2001; Manning et al., 2002; Melitas et al., 2002;
Nikolaidis et al., 2003; Lien and Wilkin, 2005; Bang et
al.,  2005a). Application of these techniques suggests
that several processes may be important during the initial
removal of arsenic from water and during  long-term
aging processes, such as adsorption, precipitation, co-
precipitation, and redox transformation. For example,
studies suggest that sorbed As(III) can transform to
As(0) (Bang et al., 2005a) or As(V) (Su and Puls, 2001a;
Manning et al., 2002; Lien and Wilkin, 2005; Leupin and
Hug, 2005) depending on aging conditions, but reduction
of sorbed As(V) to As(0) has not been observed (Farrell
et al., 2001; Bang et al., 2005a). Reduction of As(V)
to As(III) is indicated in some studies (e.g., Su and
Puls, 2001a) but not in others (e.g., Farrell et al., 2001),
possibly due to the variable nature of zerovalent iron and
water chemistries used in laboratory experiments.
Field-based applications of zerovalent iron for arsenic
treatment are few in comparison to laboratory bench
tests (e.g., Morrison et al., 2002; Nikolaidis et al.,
2003; Vlassopoulos  et al., 2005; Bain et al., 2006), and
evaluations of uptake mechanisms are not available to
compare with laboratory tests.  An additional factor that
needs to be accounted for in field tests is the impact of
microorganisms. Activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria in
zerovalent iron PRBs has been documented (Roh et al.,
2000; Furukawa et al., 2002; Wilkin et al., 2003, 2005).
Production of biotic sulfide adds additional pathways
for  removal of inorganic contaminants via adsorption to
and precipitation of insoluble metal sulfide precipitates.
Indeed, several studies  suggest that arsenic removal
processes in zerovalent iron are linked to interactions
with sulfur (Ramaswami et al., 2001; Nikolaidis et al.,
2003; Kober et al., 2005).  This pilot-scale study allows
for  an examination of arsenic uptake processes in a
complex field setting.

-------
3.0
Site  Background
 The ASARCO East Helena plant was a custom smelter
 located just to the south of the City of East Helena,
 Montana. The site is located at the southwestern margin
 of the Helena Valley. The plant is bounded to the south
 by Upper and Lower Lake and, to the east and northeast,
by Prickly Pear Creek (Figure 1). The geology and
hydrogeology of the area have been described in detail
by Lorenz and Swenson (1951) and summarized by
Briar and Madison (1992). Surficial geology in the area
of the site has been mapped by Stickney (1987).
 Figure 1.   Site aerial photograph showing the ASARCO East Helena smelter, town of East Helena (MT), primary
           arsenic source zones, and location of the pilot-scale PRB.

-------
The Helena Valley is an intermontane basin bounded by
sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks (Briar and
Madison, 1992). The valley is underlain by a sequence
of layered sediments that are not well characterized at
depth.  During the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic
era, streams, including Prickly Pear Creek, deposited
sediments in channel-fill and alluvial-plain environments
over much of the central portion of the valley.  The
geology of the valley near the site was also affected by
glaciation during the Pleistocene period. Alpine glaciers
at the headwaters of Prickly Pear Creek increased the
coarse  sediment load of the creek through increased
stream discharge during spring melting and the draining
of glacial lakes. With respect  to the shallow portion
of the valley-fill aquifer system, these processes have
resulted in a complex sequence of stratified lenses of
cobbles, gravel, and sand with interlayered silt and
clay. The  sequence grades from predominantly cobbles,
gravel, and coarse sand where streams such as Prickly
Pear Creek enter the valley to  predominantly sand, silt
and clay near Lake Helena in the  northern part of the
valley.
Surface sediments at much of the plant site have been
mapped by Stickney (1987) as smelter tailings. The
native geologic materials bounding the northern,
southern, and eastern margins of the plant are described
as Holocene-age stream-channel deposits that are
moderately sorted, fine to coarse sandy pebble to cobble
gravel and Holocene terrace and alluvial fan deposits
consisting of moderately sorted pebble to cobble  gravel
in a silty sandy matrix.  Based on geologic logs produced
from continuous split-spoon sampling at wells PBTW-1
and PBTW-2 in the area of the PRB (Figure 1), the
shallow aquifer consists of relatively coarse-grained
but highly variable, unconsolidated alluvial deposits
containing mixtures of cobbles, gravel, sand with some
silt.  Fine-grained material, described as volcanic ash
deposits, underlie the shallow  aquifer materials in this
area of the site.
The climate of the Helena Valley  is semiarid with
average annual precipitation between 10 and 12 inches
per year in the vicinity of the site (Briar and Madison,
1992). Precipitation is generally highest during the late
spring/summer months and lowest during the fall and
winter months. Prickly Pear Creek, bounding the eastern
portion of the smelter site and supplying water to Upper
Lake at the southern site boundary, is the largest of the
four principal streams flowing into the valley. During
a hydrologic study performed by the U.S. Geological
Survey in 1990/1991 (Briar and Madison,  1992),
streamflow in Prickly Pear Creek was highest during the
months of May and  June and lowest during the months
of December and January.  The principal sources of
recharge to the Helena Valley aquifer system as inferred
by the 1990/1991 study are infiltration from streams,
infiltration from irrigation-related sources, and inflow
from fractures in surrounding bedrock.
The plant operated for over 100 years starting around
1888. Lead and zinc smelting operations resulted in the
deposition of lead, arsenic, copper, zinc, cadmium, and
other hazardous substances into soil and surface waters
around the plant.  Ground water underneath the site is
contaminated in locations with arsenic, selenium, lead,
cadmium, and zinc;  plumes of arsenic and selenium
have migrated offsite whereas the occurrence of other
dissolved metals appears to be restricted within site
boundaries.  The East Helena Site was listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in 1984. ASARCO shut
down plant operations in April 2001 and currently plant
demolitions and remedial investigations are underway.
Arsenic contamination in the ground water stems from
several identified source areas.  The primary source
area for arsenic is located near the  former speiss
handling area (Figure 1). Speiss is the lightest molten
phase produced in lead smelting operations and is
characteristically enriched in arsenic and sometimes
antimony. Other source areas include Lower Lake and
the former acid plant sediment drying area. Arsenic
concentrations in ground water exceed the 0.01 mg L'1
maximum concentration limit on the plant site and in
an area hydraulically downgradient of the plant site.
The highest concentrations occur in the former speiss
handling area, the acid plant area, and the former acid
plant sediment drying area.

-------
4.0
PRB  Installation
 The pilot-PRB is a 9.1m long (perpendicular to ground
 water flow), 13.7 m deep, and 1.8 to 2.4 m wide
 (parallel to ground water flow) installation of granular
 zerovalent iron (-8 + 50 mesh, Peerless Metal Powders
 and Abrasives, Detroit, MI). The reactive barrier was
 installed over a 3-day period using bio-polymer slurry
 methods and modified excavating equipment for deep
 trenching (see Figure 2 for installation photos).  The
 reactive medium was composed entirely of granular
 iron which was selected based on long-term laboratory
 column experiments (Lien and Wilkin, 2005). The
 trench, located approximately 280 m hydraulically
 downgradient of the speiss handling area, was backfilled
 with a 7.6-m thick layer of granular iron (from 13.7 to
 6.1m below ground surface) and a 6.1-m thick layer
 of sand (from 0 to 6.1 m below ground surface). The
 top of the granular iron zone is located >1 m above
 the maximum ground water level observed during site
 characterization studies.  The base of the granular iron
 zone is located approximately 1 m above the confining
 ash tuff deposit, and therefore the PRB is a "hanging
 wall".  This configuration was a planned aspect of the
 study in order to ensure that the lower confining unit was
 not breached during construction of the pilot system,
 to minimize costs, and to examine potential by-pass
 processes. The PRB contains approximately 174 t of
 granular iron with an initial porosity of over  50%.
 After completing the backfill of granular iron and sand
 there was excess bio-polymer slurry in the trench and
 within the pore space of the zerovalent iron medium. In
 order to re-establish the permeability of the surrounding
 aquifer and to permit ground water to flow through
 the PRB, it was necessary to initiate breakdown of the
 slurry. This was accomplished by (1) breaking down the
 bio-polymer slurry to simple carbohydrates (monomers)
 and (2) encouraging native soil microbes to consume the
 carbohydrates. Two air lift pumps were set up to extract
 slurry from eight temporary wells and discharge the
 slurry over the surface of the backfill. The set up of the
 airlift pumps permitted slurry to circulate from the wells
 through the backfill layers and back to the wells into the
 reactive medium.  Liquid enzyme breaker was placed
 into the temporary wells. The degradation or "breaking"
 process of the bio-polymer slurry took 3 d to complete.
 A Marsh funnel viscosity of less than 30 seconds
 indicated the slurry was broken. The pumping and
 slurry recirculation continued until a minimum of
 3 pore volumes of the trench was circulated to flush and
 develop the trench.
Construction Details
Shaw Environmental, Inc. performed the construction
in accordance with Work Assignment WA-RB-1-8
issued by the EPA under Contract No. 68-C-03-097
(Shaw, 2005a) and described in Shaw (2005b) from
which the following narrative on construction details
is derived. Geo-Solutions was the subcontractor
to Shaw for the bio-polymer slurry portion of the
project. Prior to excavation, asphalt was cut with a
walk behind saw; approximately 13 cubic yards (cy)
of asphalt were disposed of offsite at the local sanitary
landfill. Excavation started on June 4, 2005. The PRB
trench was excavated initially with a Cat 320 smooth
bucket excavator in the utility corridor. Spotters with
shovels were also utilized during the first 1 m of the
excavation to ensure that no underground utilities were
present. A long-arm excavator (Komatsu PC750) with
a ~l-m wide bucket completed the remaining trench
excavation.  Excavated soils were  placed in a lined
spoils containment area, which was located within the
reach of the long-arm excavator.
Bio-polymer slurry was added to the PRB trench in
order to stabilize the trench walls.  Excess water in the
excavated soil was allowed to spill from the excavator
bucket back  into the trench before  unloading the soil into
a lined spoils containment area. Measurement below
the bio-polymer slurry level was made with a sounding
cable.  The slurry consisted of guar gum (Rantec G150),
water, and additives. A 20,000 gallon frac tank was used
to temporarily store the mixed slurry.  A smaller tank
was used to hold potable water prior to mixing.
Zerovalent iron was placed into the trench using tremie
equipment.  The tremie method was used to minimize
the potential for segregation and to ensure adequate
backfill density.  The tremie consisted of jointed
vertical pipe connected to a hopper that had legs that
straddled the trench. Granular iron was backfilled into
the trench from the bottom or 13.7 m below ground
surface to 6.1 m below ground surface.  The granular
iron was delivered in "super sacks" that weighed about
3,000 pounds each. Prior to installing the PRB, the
super sacks were stored at an ASARCO warehouse. The
super sacks were transported to the PRB location.  The
granular iron was moisture conditioned and mixed with
bio-polymer slurry in a bedding box prior to backfilling.
The conditioned zerovalent iron was placed in the tremie
hopper where it fell through a tremie pipe and flowed
out on  to the bottom of the trench.  It was necessary
to move the tremie laterally three times and raise the

-------
tremie equipment vertically when the tremie pipe was
filled in order to continue the backfill process. A total of
116 iron-filled super sacks was used to backfill the PRB
trench.
Sand material, which consisted of coarse bedding sand,
was then placed into the trench on top of the zerovalent
iron. The installation work plan called for backfilling
the sand layer using the tremie system (Shaw, 2005a)
to avoid segregation issues. However, the sand was
backfilled using a loader bucket because segregation
was not an issue with the coarse bedding sand used. The
sand material was backfilled to near ground surface.
Approximately 228  tons of coarse bedding sand was
used.
 Figure 2.   Installation photos: a) long-arm excavator, b) custom bucket, c) trench with biopolymer slurry,
            d) excavated materials, e) bucket with aquifer materials, f) tremie and trench backfill with granular iron,
            g) granular iron in super sacks, and h) construction site

-------
5.0
Methodology
 Well Network
 Ground-water monitoring wells were installed in a
 selected region of the site for site characterization
 purposes prior to the installation of the pilot-PRB.
 Subsequently, additional monitoring wells were installed
 upgradient, within, and downgradient of the PRB
 following installation to monitor reactive and hydraulic
 performance of the pilot system (Figure 3).  Wells
 within the PRB were installed using direct push methods
 (Geoprobe Systems).  Specifically, the wells were
installed through steel rods allowing the iron to collapse
around the well as the rods were removed. Most of
the wells within the PRB are constructed using either
2.54 cm (1 in) or 5.08 cm (2 in) schedule 40 PVC casing
and screen with a slot size of 0.051 cm (0.020 in), and
are completed between 7.6m and 14.6m below ground
surface.  In addition, five wells were installed using
3.175 cm (1.25 in) OD three-channel tubing. In other
wells screened across the entire saturated zone, detailed
concentration and geochemical profiles were obtained
                                                                                       \
                            3m
                                c)
                                           i Multiport well
 Figure 3.   Aerial photos and map showing: a) arsenic concentrations in ground water (June 2006), b) locations of
            pilot-PRB and monitoring wells in the test area, and c) map showing well locations around and in the
            PRB.

-------
                                                        Discrete multi-
                                                        level sampler (DMLS)
                                        Well casing
                                       Screened
                                       interval
                                                                  Land Surface
                                                                   Water Table
Figure 4.    Discrete multilevel sampler (DMLS) design and application in monitoring wells.
using discrete multi-level samplers (DMLS, Ronen
et al, 1986; Figure 4) or a specially designed discrete
interval sampler used in combination with a mini bladder
pump (Figure 5). Wells located outside of the PRB
were installed using either air-rotary or hollow stem
auger rigs. The majority of the wells installed in the
aquifer adjacent to the PRB are of similar construction
to the 5.08 cm ID wells within the PRB. All wells were
developed using pumping and surging techniques. Well
construction details for the performance monitoring
network are provided in Table Al (Appendix A). All
wells were surveyed into the existing site wide well
network using a Topcon Model CTS-2 Total  Station
and location data for nearby wells were provided by
ASARCO.
Water Sampling and Analysis
A monitoring network of approximately 40 ground-water
sampling wells was installed in July 2005. Ground-
water samples were collected and analyzed at 1 month,
4 months, 12 months, 15 months, and 25 months of
operation. Ground-water samples were collected with
a submersible pump (Fultz Pumps, Inc.) or a mini
bladder pump (Innovative Sampling Systems). Flow
rates varied between 200 and 800 mL min'1 depending
on the well diameter and screen length.  Samples
were collected following equilibration of geochemical
parameters: dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), and specific conductance
in a sealed flow-through cell (YSI 556). Measured
ORP values were converted to Eh values by adding the
difference between the measured ORP of a reference
solution (Orion ORP solution) and the theoretical ORP
of the reference solution. At the time of sampling,
turbidity values were generally less than 20 NTUs (mean
value 16 NTU, w=132) as determined using a Hach
turbidimeter (Model 21 OOP).  Field measurements were
made for sulfide and ferrous iron using the methylene
blue and 1,10-phenanthroline colorimetric methods,
respectively (HachDR/2010). Alkalinity measurements

-------
                              Tubing from
                              bladder pump
                   Multi-electrode  /
                   flow cell
                             Well casing —
                            Screened
                            interval
                                                            Land Surface
                                                              Water Table
                                            Water in-let
                                            head
Figure 5.    Specially designed discrete interval sampler used with a mini bladder pump.
were made by titrating ground-water samples with
standardized 1.6 N H2SO4 to the bromcresol green-
methyl red endpoint.
Filtered samples (0.45 |am, Gelman Aquaprep) were
collected for metals and cation analysis and acidified to
pH<2 with ultra-pure HNO3.  Analyte concentrations
were measured using inductively coupled plasma -
optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES, Perkin-Elmer
Optima 3300DV). Most samples for arsenic  speciation
were filtered, acidified with ultra-pure HC1, and retained
in amber-plastic bottles.  Speciation analysis  was carried
out using ion chromatography (1C) coupled on-line to
ICP-mass spectroscopy (IC-ICP-MS; Thermo Electron
Spectra HPLC). For samples in which thioarsenic
species were suspected based on elevated dissolved
sulfide concentrations (>0.2 mg I/1), filtered  samples
were collected in amber glass bottles (precleaned
3000 class) and frozen (no acid added). Filtered and
unacidified samples were analyzed for major anions
by capillary electrophoresis (CE, Waters).  Filtered
samples were also collected for dissolved organic carbon
(Dohrmann DC-80 Carbon Analyzer).
Field analyses were generally completed within
10 minutes of sample collection in order to minimize
any oxidation of dissolved ferrous iron and sulfide.
Electrodes used for geochemical parameters were
calibrated with certified buffer solutions and periodically
rechecked through daily sampling routines. Sample
bottles were kept refrigerated after collection and were
shipped back to the R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
Center (Ada, OK) in ice-packed coolers. Duplicate
samples were collected at a frequency of about 1 in
every 10 wells. Method reporting limits and results of
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples are
presented in Appendix B.  In between wells, pump heads
and tubing were rinsed with distilled water. In selected
instances analysis of pump rinsate indicated generally
non-detectable concentrations of metals, cations, and
anions.
Arsenic Speciation Modeling
Equilibrium arsenic speciation modeling was carried
out using The Geochemist's Workbench, Release 6.0
(RockWare). Thermodynamic databases were modified
to include the As-O species in Nordstrom and Archer
(2003), As-S species presented in Wilkin et al. (2003),
As2S3 solubility products reported inEary (1992) and
Webster (1990), and ferrous arsenate phases reported
in Johnston and Singer (2007b). The standard database
(thermo.dat) was modified and used for modeling the
geochemical speciation of ground water (Appendix C).

-------
Core Sampling and Analysis
Core samples from the PRB were collected after
15 months to assess the uptake of arsenic and to evaluate
corrosion and mineral buildup on the iron surfaces. Core
collection methods and analysis procedures are described
in previous publications on PRB long-term performance
(U.S. EPA, 2003a,b).  In all cases 5 cm inner diameter
cores were collected using a Geoprobe™. Core barrels
were driven using a pneumatic hammer to the desired
sampling location and continuous, up to 110 cm, sections
of iron or iron + soil were retrieved. Vertical cores were
collected in order to determine the spatial distribution
of mineral buildup in the reactive medium. Angle cores
were not collected; direct push methods were incapable
of advancing core barrels through the subsurface but
were amenable in the gravelly fill directly above the iron
and in the PRB. Core materials from the East Helena
PRB were black to gray in color without any obvious
signs of cementation or oxidation (Figure 6).
Figure 6.    Photograph of a core segment collected
            from the PRB after 15 months of operation
            (September 2006).
Immediately after collection, the cores were frozen and
shipped back to the R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
Center for sub-sampling and analysis.  The frozen cores
were partially thawed and then placed in an anaerobic
chamber with a maintained H2-N2 atmosphere. Each
core was logged and partitioned into 5  to 10 cm
segments. Each segment was homogenized by stirring
in the glove box and then split into 3 sub-samples for:
(1) inorganic carbon analyses, (2) sulfur analyses/x-ray
diffraction (XRD)/x-ray absorption spectroscopy, and
(3) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM). All sub-
samples were retained in airtight vials to prevent any air
oxidation of redox-sensitive constituents.
To determine elemental concentrations in bulk solids,
samples were digested in a microwave oven in 10%
nitric acid, and digestates were analyzed for metals
and non-metals by the same methods as those used for
ground water analysis. Concentrations of inorganic
carbon in core samples were determined with a carbon
coulometer system (UIC, Inc. Model CM5014).
Inorganic carbon analysis results are given in weight
percent C based upon carbon released from a sample
after acidification with hot 5% perchloric acid. This
acid digestion procedure releases inorganic carbon
present in minerals such as calcite (trigonal CaCO3),
aragonite (orthorhombic CaCO3), siderite (FeCO3),
magnesite (MgCO3), rhodochrosite (MnCO3), ferrous
carbonate hydroxide (Fe2(OH)2CO3), and carbonate
green rust (Fe6(OH)12CO3-2H2O). Measurements of total
sulfur in the solid phase were carried out using a sulfur
coulometer (UIC, Inc. Model CM5014S) in combustion
mode. Details of the sulfur measurement method are
described in Wilkin and Bischoff (2006).
Powder x-ray diffraction analysis of core samples
collected from the East Helena site was conducted
to determine the mineralogy of the aquifer materials
and precipitates formed in the iron treatment zones.
Materials for analysis were prepared by sonicating iron
core samples in acetone for 10 minutes followed by
filtration of the released particulates through 47 mm
diameter, 0.2-|am filter paper (polycarbonate). The
separated particles were mounted on a zero-background
quartz plate and scanned with Fe Ka radiation from 10°
to 90° 2-theta using a Rigaku Miniflex Diffractometer.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy
dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) was used to
evaluate the morphology and composition of mineral
precipitates on the surfaces of zero-valent iron particles
collected at the East Helena site. Measurements
were conducted on polished samples to determine
the composition of surface precipitates on a semi-
quantitative basis. Samples for  SEM and EDS
analyses were stored in an anaerobic glove box and
then embedded in an epoxy resin. The sample mounts
(2.5 cm diameter round mounts) were ground and
polished using diamond abrasives and coated with a
thin layer of gold prior to being placed within the SEM
sample chamber. Secondary electron and back-scattered
electron images were obtained using a JEOL JSM-6360
SEM. The instrument was operated using a 20 kV
electron accelerating potential and a beam current of

-------
about 10 nA.  Micrographs were obtained at a range of
magnifications from about 50x to 5000x. Copper grids
obtained from SPI Supplies (West Chester, PA) were
used to verify quantitative length scales.  EDS spectra
were acquired using an Oxford Instruments Model 6587
EDS Unit.
X-Ray Spectroscopy
X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) measurements
were made at the Advanced Photon Source (Argonne
National Laboratory) in February 2005 and March
2007. The February 2005 XAS data were collected at
the PNC Collaborative Access Team (CAT), beam line
20-BM, Sector 20 and the March 2007 data at the DND-
CAT, Sector 5, beam line 5BM-D. Table 1 provides a
list of the samples/standards analyzed, the beam line
used to collect the spectroscopic data, and the type of
XAS data collected for each sample. The As K-edge
(11867 eV) measurements were collected using a silicon
(111) double-crystal monochromator at both beam
lines. The x-ray fluorescence signals were monitored
using a 13-element solid-state Ge detector at PNC-CAT
and a Canberra 13-element SSD detector at DND-CAT.
Transmission signals were collected at both beam lines
using ionization chambers.  All XAS measurements
were performed at room temperature. Data for reference
samples were collected in transmission mode. Samples
were ground to a fine powder using an agate mortar
and pestle and evenly spread onto Kapton tape and
sealed with another piece of Kapton tape. Transmission
samples were inserted directly in the beam path between
the Io and ll ionization detectors prior to XAS data
collection.  Samples collected in fluorescence mode
were packed into 1-mm thick plastic holders and sealed
with Kapton tape. The sample in the plastic holder
was placed in the beam path at a 45° angle to the
incident beam. The fluorescence detector to sample
distance was adjusted for each sample to maximize
the fluorescence signal at energies above the arsenic
absorption edge.  Redox sensitive reference materials
and samples were handled in a N2 filled glove bag and
analysis was conducted  in a plastic glove bag containing
a N2 atmosphere and continuously purged with N2 gas to
exclude O2.
As indicated in Table 1, the XAS analysis consisted of
x-ray absorption near edge spectroscopy (XANES).
Table 1 provides the data collection parameters for
the XANES analysis for data collected at both PNC-
CAT and DND-CAT. The energy calibration was
accomplished using metal foils or powdered reference
materials of known edge position. A gold foil (edge
position= 11918.7 eV) was used for data collected at
PNC-CAT. Data collected at DND-CAT used an arsenic
foil (edge position= 11866.7 eV) and sodium arsenate
(edge position= 11874.0 eV). The use of the arsenic
foil was abandoned because  it was found that with time
the foil was oxidized by the x-ray beam and the edge
position shifted toward arsenite.  Sodium arsenate is
an oxidized form of arsenic and does not exhibit beam
damage and was therefore stable and desirable as a
reference material for the arsenic absorption edge. It
also should be noted that the use of sodium arsenate
is advantageous over the gold foil because the edge is
closer to the absorption edge position of the unknown
samples.
Table 1. Samples analyzed using x-ray absorption
        spectroscopy.
Sample Id
30ft
35ft
45ft
50ft
Core 1 30-34 ft fines
Core 1 44-48 ft
Core 2 30-34 ft
Core 2 3 8-42 ft fines
Core 2 3 8-45 ft fines
Core 3 30-38 ft
Core 3 38-42 ft
Core 3 3 8-42 ft fines
Core 4 30-34 ft
APBH4-2 10-11.5 ft
APBH 4-1 5-6.5 ft
TW 1-5 20-25 ft
TW 1-8 38-40 ft
TW 1-6 25-30 ft
Arsenopyrite
As2O3
Arsenian Pyrite
As(III) sorbed to
Ferrihydrite
As(V) sorbed to
Ferrihydrite
Elemental As
Sample Type
Boring
Boring
Boring
Boring
PRBCore
PRBCore
PRB Core
PRB Core
PRB Core
PRB Core
PRB Core
PRB Core
PRB Core
Source Zone
Source Zone
Source Zone
Source Zone
Source Zone
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Beam
Line
PNC
PNC
PNC
PNC
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
XAS Data
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
XANES
 As(III) sorbed FeS
 As(III) sorbed FeS
 Oxidized
 As(III) sorbed
 to FeS Oxidized
 (duplicate)
 As(III) sorbed to
 Pyrite
 Scorodite
Reference    PNC

Reference    DND   XANES


Reference    PNC   XANES


Reference    DND   XANES

Reference    DND   XANES
Notes: PNC is Pacific Northwest Consortium; DND is
  Dow-Northwestern-DuPont. These are beamline access
  facilities at the Advanced Photo Source (Argonne National
  Laboratory, Argonne, IL).

-------
Raw XANES data were processed using the Athena
software package (Ravel and Newville, 2005) that is
based on the IFEFFIT procedures (Newville, 2001).
Multiple scans (2 to 10 scans depending on data quality
and depending on whether the scans were collected in
fluorescence or transmission mode) of each sample were
collected and each scan was aligned using a reference
spectrum shown in Table 1.  The aligned spectra were
merged into a final spectrum for each sample. The
merged averaged spectra were background corrected
and step height normalized.  The normalized data were
used for XANES and linear combination of fits (LCF)
analysis. XANES and LCF operations were processed
using Athena.  XANES analysis consisted of examining
the first derivative of the spectrum to determine the edge
position and comparing the edge position to standard
reference materials.  The edge position of the standard
reference materials was used to help determine the local
bonding environment surrounding the arsenic atom
(see Table 2).  Similarly, the white line position could
be determined using the raw spectrum and the white
line position could also be used to determine the local
bonding environment around the central arsenic atom
(Table 2).

Table 2. Absorption edge and white-line positions of
reference materials used in data analysis of the PRB
cores, source zone materials and well borings.
Compound
Elemental As
Orpiment
As(III) sorbed FeS
As(III) sorbed to
Ferrihydrite
Sodium Arsenite
Enargite
Sodium Arsenate
As(V) sorbed to
Ferrihydrite
Edge Position
(eV)
11866.7
11868.7
11867.6
11869.9
11870.1
11870.2
11874.0
11873.8
White Line
(eV)
11868.7
11870.1
11870.5
11871.9
11871.8
11871.7
11875.5
11875.5
                               LCF analysis was accomplished using the Athena
                               software package.  The LCF analysis was used to
                               determine the types of bonding environments in
                               the samples.  In addition, LCF can be used to give
                               the relative contribution of each bond type in the
                               analyzed samples.  The LCF fitting was accomplished
                               using the normalized XANES over the fit range:
                               -20 eV < E0 < 30 eV The data were fitted using all
                               possible combinations of standards and the fit weights
                               were forced to be > 0. Initially LCF analysis was used to
                               determine the types of arsenic bonds present (e.g., As-S,
                               As-O) as well as the formal oxidation state of arsenic.
                               This type of fitting was accomplished using mineral
                               phases of known valence and bond type:  elemental
                               arsenic (As(0)), sodium arsenite (As(III)-O), sodium
                               arsenate (As(V)-O), orpiment (As(III)-S), enargite
                               (4:1 As(V)-S), and dimethyl thioarsenate (2:1 As(V)-S,
                               DMTA). In all samples it was found that only As(V)-O,
                               As(III)-O, and As(III)-S had contributing fractions
                               above 0. Additional LCF analysis was carried out on
                               the samples using As(III) or As(V) sorbed to specific
                               iron mineral phases.  The significant phases were
                               likely As(III) sorbed to ferrihydrite, As(V) sorbed to
                               ferrihydrite, and As(III) sorbed to FeS.
                               Hydrologic Methods
                               Hydraulic gradients at the water table were estimated
                               using both potentiometric surfaces interpreted from
                               manual ground-water elevation measurements and from
                               solution of the three-point problem using data from wells
                               instrumented with pressure transducers/data loggers.
                               A method similar to that described in Devlin (2003)
                               was used for automated solution of the three-point
                               problem. Gradients were estimated by fitting a plane to
                               the hydraulic head data using multiple linear regression
                               techniques. The hydraulic gradients calculated using the
                               three-point solution were compared with estimates  of
                               gradients from potentiometric surfaces and found to be
                               similar (Table 3). This allowed gradients to be estimated
                               on a daily basis and averages more representative of the
                               full range of hydrologic conditions to be calculated.
      Scorodite
11874.0
11875.8
Notes: Edge position is defined as the maximum in the first-
  derivative of the energy vs. absorption function. White
  line position is defined as the maximum in the energy vs.
  absorption function.

-------
Table 3. Comparison of hydraulic gradients calculated
using multiple wells in the vicinity of the PRB and using
data from three wells (DH-17, PBTW-2, and EPA08).

             Multi-Point Estimate Three-Point Estimate
Measurement	
T-> t          A ,   •. j  Direction ,,    .  ,   Direction
Date         Magnitude  ,,     . Magnitude  ,,
                       (degrees)            (degrees)
10/6/05
6/6/06
9/18/06
7/19/07
10/1/07
4/1/08
0.005
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
336
342
338
331
335
329
0.005
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
335
323
339
345
335
331
Field measurements of hydraulic conductivity were
made using single-well pumping tests and pneumatic
slug testing. Pneumatic slug tests within the PRB have
been performed using equipment similar to that depicted
in Figure 7. This method is based on recommendations
derived from Butler (1997) and utilizes air pressure and
vacuum to initiate instantaneous changes in head within
the well combined with high frequency monitoring of
the aquifer response using data loggers and pressure
transducers. This type of test provides the instantaneous
change in hydraulic head needed for the performance
of meaningful slug tests in media with high hydraulic
conductivity. The response data were analyzed using
the methods of Bouwer and Rice (1976), Springer and
Gelhar (1991), and Butler and Garnett (2000).
A sensitive electromagnetic borehole flowmeter was
used to define  the relative hydraulic conductivity
                           Quick Release Valve
                             Land Surface         U-il
                                                       Pneumatic Manifold Assembly
                                                                  Regulator
                                                                        Pressure / Vacuum
                                                                               Pump
                                                        Wellhead Adapter
                                                                               Water Table
                                                        	Pressure Transducer

                                                        'Well Casing
                                                        Well Screen
Figure 7.   Typical equipment used in performance of pneumatic slug tests.

-------
distribution of aquifer materials within and in the
vicinity of the pilot-PRB.  The studies consisted of
measuring the vertical component of ground water
flow at fixed intervals in the wells under undisturbed
(ambient) and pumping conditions (Figure 8).
Measurements were made during constant-rate ground
water extraction to define the distribution of ground
water flow to the well.  The rate of water flow to the
well from an individual interval is proportional to the
hydraulic conductivity of the materials adjacent to the
screen. Therefore, knowledge of the contribution of flow
from each measurement interval allows interpretation
of the hydraulic conductivity structure relative to the
average hydraulic conductivity of materials screened by
the well (Molz et al, 1994; Young et al., 1998).
  Flowmeter
   Alluvium
                               1 Pressure Transducer
                                    Data Logger
                                Wall
                               Screen
                                LLJ
                                     Flowrate
   Volcanic Ash
Figure 8.    Schematic diagram of electromagnetic
            borehole flowmeter test design.
The electromagnetic borehole flowmeter used in
these studies was a commercially available system
manufactured by Tisco, Inc., consisting of a 1.3-cm
ID downhole probe,  a 2.5-cm ID downhole probe,
and an electronics module.  Probe design is based on
Faraday's Law which states that the voltage induced by
an electrical conductor moving through a magnetic field
is directly proportional to the velocity of the conductor.
The major components of the probe include an
electromagnet and a  pair of electrodes mounted at right
angles to the poles of the magnet.  The downhole probe
is designed as a hollow iron core through which water
flows. The electromagnet surrounding the core produces
a strong magnetic field.  A voltage that is proportional to
the average water velocity is generated as the conductor
(i.e., ground water) flows through the magnetic field.
An uphole electronics package connected to the probe
amplifies and displays the voltage signal. Real-time data
acquisition is controlled by an associated computer. The
system is capable of measuring flow rates ranging from
less than 0.040 L miff1 to 40 L miff1.
Prior to conducting the study, the flowmeter was
calibrated in test cells constructed of materials identical
to those of well construction. Calibration was performed
by measuring water discharge from the test cell using
graduated cylinders and comparison with the associated
voltage measured by the flowmeter. Flow rates were
chosen to span the range of rates that would be used in
the field. Data obtained during the calibration phase
indicated that the meter responses for both the 1.3-cm
ID probe and the 2.5-cm ID probe were linear over the
range of potentially applicable flow rates.
The field tests were conducted using a procedure
based on the methods of Molz et al. (1994) and
Young et al. (1998). Flow rate measurements using
the electromagnetic borehole flowmeter were made
under ambient and constant-rate pumping conditions
at a measurement interval between 30 cm and 60 cm
within the well screen. The use of the 1.3-cm ID probe
was attempted for flow measurements under ambient
conditions.  However, extreme variability, which was
likely due to electromagnetic interference from outside
sources, necessitated the use of the less sensitive,
2.5-cm ID probe which was used for all measurements
under pumping conditions. The tests were performed
at constant pumping rates ranging from 3 L miff1 to
7 L miff1. The rates were chosen to induce sufficient
flow from each test interval with negligible head loss
across the downhole probe. Each test was performed
using the following general protocol:
1.   Ambient vertical flow rates were measured from
    total depth to the top of the screen or water table
    under static conditions.
2.   The 2.5-cm ID probe was lowered to the bottom of
    the well. A submersible pump was installed at the
    water table and pumping was initiated to establish
    a horizontal flow field. A pressure transducer and
    data logger were used to monitor the water-level
    response to groundwater extraction. The discharge
    rate from the pump was measured using a graduated
    cylinder and a stop watch at intervals not exceeding
    approximately  30 min.
3.   The establishment of a steady horizontal flow field
    was indicated by stability in the pressure response to

-------
    pumping which occurred after only a few minutes.
    After conditions in the well stabilized, the flowmeter
    was used to measure vertical flow rates at each of
    the elevations occupied during the ambient flow
    profile.
Measurements of vertical flow rates under ambient
and constant-rate pumping (induced flow) conditions
were analyzed using methods described by Molz
and Young (1993) and Young et al. (1998). The sign
convention used in this study is positive for upward
flow and negative for downward flow within the well.
The ambient flow rate at each measurement point is
subtracted from the flow rate measured at that elevation
under constant-rate pumping to obtain the portion of
total flow due only to pumping. The differences between
these pumping-induced flow rates at different elevations
represent the differences in horizontal flow toward the
well due to differences in hydraulic conductivity of
aquifer materials and  hydraulic gradients. Assuming the
hydraulic head distribution along the well screen was
essentially uniform under the low flow rate conditions
of these tests, the relative hydraulic conductivity
distribution was then estimated using:
where: K is the average hydraulic conductivity of
screened materials, K. is the horizontal hydraulic
conductivity of interval /', Ag. is induced flow from
interval /', Aa is ambient flow from interval /', Az is the
        '   *i                            >   i
thickness of interval /', QP is the total extraction rate,
and b is the aquifer thickness influenced by the test. The
estimated relative hydraulic conductivity distribution
may be converted to a distribution in units of volume per
time using an estimate of the average or bulk hydraulic
conductivity obtained from a pumping or slug test.
A natural gradient tracer test was also performed using
a dilute sodium bromide solution to provide a direct
line of evidence verifying ground-water flow through
the PRB. A slug of potable water amended with sodium
bromide was injected near the upgradient edge of the
PRB.  The transport of the bromide pulse was monitored
through periodic sampling of ground water using wells
screened within the middle portion of the PRB between
elevations of approximately 1177.5 and 1178.0. Samples
were analyzed for bromide using Lachat flow injection
analysis.
                   QP/b

-------
                                                                                               6.0
                                                     Results  and   Discussion
Ground-water Geochemistry
A snapshot trend of major ion chemistry across the site,
from the primary source area for arsenic downgradient
to the PRB location and further to the site boundary,
is shown using a modified Durov diagram (Figure 9).
Ground water in the former speiss handling area
is slightly alkaline (pH ~10), and elevated in total
dissolved solids (TDS>3500 mg I/1) and arsenic
(>100 mg I/1). Sodium is the major cation and
approximately equimolar concentrations of bicarbonate
and sulfate are present in ground water near the source
area for arsenic.  Downgradient from the former speiss
handling area, ground water evolves to lower pH (-6.5),
TDS values (<1500 mg I/1), and arsenic concentrations
(<50 mg I/1); sulfate becomes the dominant anion and
the proportion increases of calcium and magnesium
relative to  sodium (Figure 9).
Long-term trends in the major ion chemistry of ground
water near the PRB test area are shown in a series of
Stiff diagrams on Figure 10 constructed using data from
well PBTW-1 (see Figure 3).  These plots show little
variation over about six years in the proportions and
absolute concentrations of major cations and anions
sampled from monitoring well PBTW-1.  In the area of
the pilot-PRB and over most of the  site, ground water is
generally of Na+-SO42' type, withNa+ (150-900 mg I/1)
and SO/' (300-1000 mg I/1).  On a molar basis,
sodium is enriched over calcium by about 6 times and
sulfate is enriched over bicarbonate by about 3 times.
Variations in ground water chemistry can be attributed to
interactions between ground water,  aquifer minerals, and
wastes generated on the plant site.
Geochemical profiles across the entire saturated zone
for selected wells are shown on Figure 11. These depth
                                                     250T
                                                              1500     2000     2500     3000     3500
                                                                Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
                                                                                   Former speiss
                                                                                   handling area
Figure 9.   Modified Durov diagram showing trends in major cations, anions, total dissolved solids, and arsenic
          concentrations from the former speiss handling area to the northern site boundary (data collected June
          2006).

-------
profiles were obtained using a multi-layer sampler with
baffles fit flush to the well casing, enabling sampling
of discrete depth intervals in the saturated zone (Ronen
et al, 1986). At well locations PBTW-1 and PBTW-2,
solute profiles are relatively uniform with no sharp
concentration gradients. Concentrations of total arsenic
vary between about 40 and 50 mg I/1 across the entire
saturated thickness in these wells. Arsenic speciation
results indicate that arsenite is the dominant form of
arsenic with some As(V) detected (2 to 14% of the total
arsenic, excluding the shallowest sampling point in
well PBTW-1). Wells DH-50 and EPA04 show more
pronounced chemical gradients (Figure llc,d).  For
example, a 3-fold increase in arsenic concentration is
observed at the base of well DH-50, which corresponds
with a change in aquifer geology from a sandy matrix
to a sandy matrix mixed with coarse gravel and
cobbles.  In well EPA04, located near the pilot-scale
PRB (Figure lie), a transition in arsenic concentration
is observed at a depth of about 12m below ground
surface, a concentration trend mirrored by sulfate and
specific conductance.  Monitoring well results are also
shown on Figure 11 for samples collected at comparable
                                            times for which the discrete interval sampling was
                                            carried out. In most cases, the bulk well results give a
                                            good representation of the average chemistry across the
                                            saturated aquifer.
                                            Arsenic concentrations in ground-water samples
                                            collected over a period of 6 y vary from below detection
                                            limits to a high value of 238 mg I/1. A comparison
                                            between total dissolved arsenic concentrations and the
                                            sum of arsenic  species (arsenite + arsenate) is shown
                                            on Figure 12. In over 90% of the samples, total arsenic
                                            values are in very good agreement with the sum of
                                            arsenic species (±10%). There appears to be a tendency
                                            for the sum of arsenite plus arsenate to be slightly
                                            less than the  measured total arsenic value.  This slight
                                            discrepancy is likely related to a bias stemming from the
                                            large dilutions often necessary to conduct the speciation
                                            analysis  on high concentration samples rather than to  the
                                            possibility of there being a missing species of arsenic
                                            unaccounted for in the speciation analysis. As will be
                                            discussed later, thioarsenic species are present in some
                                            wells located within the PRB. Organic species of arsenic
                                            were not detected during this study.
     30
     I
20
 I
                   10
meq/kg
  0
  I
10
 I
20
 I
30
J
                                                                 Cations
20
 I
                                                                          10
meq/kg
  0
  I
10
 I
                                                                                               Anions
20
 I
30
J
August 2001
Mn2*
r
rv,** J

30 20 10 C
I I I
August 2003



August 2002


10 20 30 30 20 10 C
III III
July 2005






10 20 30
I I 1




     30
     I
20
 I
                    10
         10
          I
        20
        I
       30
        I
June 2006
Mn2*
7



x/
/
__/

          30
           I	
20
 I	
                                                                          10
                                                                                         10
                20
               	I	
                                                                July2007
                                       SO,2"    Mg*-


                                       HCO,   Ca"	


                                       a   Na' + IC	
                                                                                                        30
                                                                                                         so,2-

                                                                                                         HCO,-

                                                                                                         cr
Figure 10.  Long-term trends in the major ion chemistry of ground water collected from monitoring well PBTW-1.

-------
          a)
8.2-
Water
level 3
9.1-
_i
1 10.1-
co
O5
CO
1 11.0-
1
CO
1 11.9-
12.8-
13.7-
.
.
C.
\
7.3 -,
) Water
' level
8.8-
w
1 10-4-
E
q
" 11.9-
8
£
io 13.4-
•o
3
14.9-
16.5-
1
J
!
C
w


-- c
a if
Ne
r
-

ll
: a
i I
) t
^ K
ell PBTW-1
V
•*
X


.82 c
1 =
< i
HIPB
' . t "
V
'•
' •' i
'.*"

o
i
1
CY
S
d
10-
'
11-
E
Q 12-
13-
0
S
9
10
11
° 12
13
T)
D 14
0
J
5
TW-2
10-
11-
12-
^ 13-
14-
15-

0
S
10-,
11-
12-
13-
14-
f
) 16-
) C
j
o Purge value/Pumping depth
9
\ 10
\
f E"
4 |l2
\ -
V
• 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1
pecific Conductance, mS/cm
9
1 10
f
. 11
\ E
\
i
0 500 1000 1500 2000
sulfate, mg/L
9
/\ '
\ \
I > > "
/ I
\° I"
V-
-^As / 13
1 -«-As3 j .

0 10 20 30 40 50
As, mg/L
-, 9
10
. I
. 1 i.
13
678
PH
o Purge value/Pumping depth
10 -|
" 11 -
• 12-
I
i S 14-1
\ 1
. 15-i
.
i 1
D 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0
pecific Conductance, mS/cm
10 -,
I
. 12-
°} f13-
1 °,4-
j
•, 16-
10-,
II
1
1 M
^i Si4"
-•-AS J.r „.
•• I
10 20 30 40 50 0
As, mg/L
10-,
| 11-
1
A
,v a '
A 14-
1 1°"
y>
d •
)•
0 5 10 15 20 25
(Fe, Mn), mg/L
A
- i
\
A
0 \
1
00 150 200 250 300
Eh, mV
1 |-*-Mn
.
•
. J
, I
*
(Fe, Mn), mg/L
A
A
y
/*
1
500 1000 1500 2000 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 100 150 200 250 300
sulfate, mg/L pH Eh, mV
           D J Water
              ' level
Figure 11. Geochemical profiles across the saturated aquifer in selected wells: a) PBTW-1, b) PBTW-2, c) EPA04, and
          d) DH-50 (see Figure 3 for well locations).

-------
         c)
          d)
Well EPA04 ° Purge value/Pumping depth

WaterZ"
level

10.1-

	 i
to
< 11.0-
£

i
*~ 11 O-
T— II .9
I
3
" 12.8-
1
— '

13.7-




14.6-

























"



-
~
-

-






-

•



-•
" 9~ •

• ' *•
, .



.••:•

;••••
.••:•

i-0.T
• •'•
•••• •
' A**
fW. .
•'•
fW. .



11 -





















12-
£
° 13-


14-

1U-
t
1
*~^^^^
^~i~t 12-
\ ^
\ ° «-
\
T
/ ""
	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 15

•
i 11
J
7 o 12
• i.
\ ° 13
1
'\
i 14
	 15

I— •— Fe 

" *~f^^ ~^. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 01234 0-00 0.05 0.10 0.15 Specific Conductivity, mS/cm As, mg/L (Fe, Mn), mg/L 8.0 -| 8.5- 9.0- ° 9.5- 10.0- £ D) (0 •*•' *- 105 8.0 i' 8.5 ; i • 9.0 I !" ^^^ 10.0 o \,.B — 5 0 250 500 750 1000 -. 8.0- -^_ 8.5- ~-~~~,M I ^ * 9.5- \ 0 10'°' \ A I 1 1 1 \ \ o V 6 7 8 300 350 400 450 500 a) Q sulfate, mg/L pH Eh, mV tils (DO CT 5 O CO ^ Q Figure 11. Geochemical profiles across the saturated aquifer in selected wells: a) PBTW-1, b) PBTW-2, c) EPA04, and d) DH-50 (see Figure 3 for well locations).


-------
                             250
                             200-
                             150-
                               0-
                                                                       n = 149
                                          50       100      150      200
                                            Total Dissolved Arsenic. mg/L
                                                                             250
        Figure 12. Comparison of total dissolved arsenic concentrations and the sum of arsenate plus arsenite.
Figure 13 shows a comparison between arsenic
concentrations in ground water and the pH-dependent
solubility of As2O3 and As2O5. This figure illustrates
that site ground water, even with high levels of arsenic
present, is still highly undersaturated with respect to
possible solubility controlling phases, As2O3 and As2O5.
In a following section this analysis is extended to
examine other possible phases that form in and around
the PRB, yet the trends indicate that factors controlling
arsenic concentrations in ground water are primarily
controlled by mineral-water reactions taking place in
the source area and dilution during transport, rather than
to retardation and arsenic attenuation by aquifer solids.
Redox conditions also impact the mobility and observed
arsenic concentration distributions. The highest total
arsenic concentrations are typically observed when
arsenic is dominated by arsenite (Figure 14); thus,
reducing conditions presumably play a role  in governing
the plume dynamics. This correlation between reducing
conditions and elevated arsenic concentrations is also
shown on Figure 15 where ferrous iron concentrations
and Eh in ground water are contoured in the area around
the PRB.  Note that ferrous iron and Eh values <150 mV
are typical in areas where  arsenic concentrations are
high.  Where ferrous iron concentrations are low
(<0.5 mg I/1), arsenic is generally present at lower
concentrations (<10 mg I/1) as arsenate.



™
o
ni
o


4-
2-
D-
-2-
-4-

-6-
•8-
-m-
XAs O. solubility
^
As.O solublty ^^^
Q) OO O
;^^^ 0 o o
° O O3S tK
0 o 0
- — 10ppbAs

                                       10   11
                            pH
Figure 13.  Arsenic concentrations in solutions saturated
           with As2O5 and As2O3 and site ground water
           (open red circles) compared to the MCL for
           arsenic.
     1.0-
   = °6-
   5
                                                              0.2-
           Q»
              ODO   0 CD  0  ,K) CD
o            o
            o
                    o
                                                                          o o
                                                                          10     20      30     «>
                                                                          Total Dissolved Arsenic. mg/L
                                                         Figure 14.  Comparison of total dissolved arsenic and the
                                                                   fraction of total dissolved arsenic present as
                                                                   arsenite, As(III).

-------
                                         Code
                                    •As >20 ppm
                                    ® As 10-20
                                    ®As 1-10
                                    ® No data
                                                          •
Figure 15. Distribution of redox indicators in ground water near the PRB: a) Fe(II) contoured from data collected in
          8/2003, and b) Eh values in ground water in 7/2007.
PRB Behavior
Selected geochemical data for upgradient and in-wall
wells are presented in Table 4. Time trends of total
arsenic concentrations in monitoring wells located
hydraulically upgradient of the pilot-PRB are shown
in Figure 16. Well EPA02 is located on the eastern
upgradient edge of the PRB (Figure 3). Over the time
interval from 2002 to 2007, total arsenic concentrations
in well EPA02 have ranged between about 30 mg I/1
and 40 mg I/1. Most of the dissolved arsenic in this
well, 90-100%, is present in the reduced or trivalent
state.  Well EPA08 was installed as part of the pilot-PRB
evaluation project after the PRB was constructed.  This
well is located immediately upgradient and in the center
region of the pilot-PRB  (see Figure 3).  Sampling results
from well  EPA08 show total arsenic concentrations
of approximately 28 mg I/1 entering the PRB.  Again
arsenite is the major arsenic species in well EPA08
(>80%; Figure 16b).
In June 2006, a discrete multi-level sampler (DMLS)
was installed in upgradient well EPA08 for the purpose
of evaluating the depth-dependent concentration
trend in the aquifer.  Results of this test are shown  in
Figure 16c. Arsenic concentrations in well EPA08
vary little  as a function of depth. The mean arsenic
value obtained from the DMLS  study in well EPA08 is
26.5 mg I/1, which agrees reasonably with the bulk well
concentration noted above (-28.5 mg I/1; June 2006).
At the deepest sampling interval, ~1175 m AMSL, an
analytically significant increase in arsenic concentration
was observed, suggesting that in this area of the site
the highest arsenic concentrations in the aquifer are
present just above the basal ash tuff. A separate test
was performed in July 2007 using a mini-bladder pump
and baffled sampling assembly and similar results were
observed (Figure 16c).
Monitoring results for wells EPA02 and EPA08 show
that ground water entering the pilot-PRB is near-
neutral in pH (6.1-6.7), anoxic/suboxic (generally
<0.5 mg DO I/1), moderately reducing (Eh values from
130 to 200 mV), and contains moderate concentrations
of ferrous iron (<10 mg I/1) and dissolved organic
carbon (<5 mg I/1;  see Table 4).
Ground-water sampling results from within the PRB
show evolving trends in the concentration of dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and geochemical parameters that
clearly reflect interactions with zerovalent iron. For
example, Figure 17 shows time-dependent variations
in the concentrations of DOC, arsenic, pH and Eh in
ground water sampled from wells located within the
pilot-PRB compared to the influent. Notice that over
the first four months of operation DOC concentrations
exceeded 1,000  mg I/1. These high concentrations

-------
Table 4.   Ground-water parameters in selected wells.
Parameter
Source
DH-33
DH-33
DH-21
DH-34
Upgradient
PBTW-1
EPA08
EPA08
EPA08, 33ft
EPA08, 37ft
EPA08, 42ft
PRB
T3A
T3A, early
T3A
T3A, late
S5
S8
S2
S4
Date

Jun-06
Jul-07
Jul-07
Jul-07

Jun-06
Jun-06
Sep-06
Jul-07
Jul-07
Jul-07

Jul-05
Jun-06
Sep-06
Jul-07
Jun-06
Jun-06
Jul-07
Jul-07
Al
(mg/L)

0.09
0.07
0.07
0.05

<0.05
0.23
0.25
1.30
0.28
0.22

0.03
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
0.146
0.113
<0.05
<0.05
Ca
(mg/L)

2.96
10.6
14.2
4.13

32.5
45.2
51.1
72.1
59.1
55.9

26.0
4.97
10.8
3.15
4.63
3.22
1.25
14.5
Mg
(mg/L)

0.836
8.43
6.82
1.78

9.45
18.3
20.3
28.4
23.4
22.5

7.94
1.55
12.6
3.73
0.61
4.95
<0.02
0.31
Mn
(mg/L)

0.10
0.31
0.62
0.02

1.4
4.7
5.1
9.4
6.2
5.8

0.99
0.04
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.01
Fe
(mg/L)

0.27
0.36
0.06
0.12

0.40
5.5
6.9
8.2
6.9
5.6

3.52
0.50
<0.01
<0.01
0.28
0.22
0.02
0.02
K
(mg/L)

6.41
5.85
14.5
19.0

11.9
13.9
13.1
15.1
14.4
14.5

3.4
9.5
10.5
15.1
4.59
7.3
11.1
17.6
Na
(mg/L)

786
869
807
548

509
249
220
223
222
228

126
255
281
233
95
120
194
155
Zn
(mg/L)

0.06
<0.02
0.03
<0.02

0.10
2.1
2.3
7.9
3.5
3.3

0.03
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.03
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Si
(mg/L)

3.10
3.17
6.30
6.11

7.8
13.5
11.5
16.6
14.0
13.7

0.26
1.29
1.99
0.54
3.30
1.28
0.35
0.20
Cl
(mg/L)

60.0
74.8
25.4
30.2

67.3
42.5
37.2
34.0
33.5
34.8

38.8
50.3
42.6
34.6
23.0
19.7
23.8
17.5
so
(mg/L)

1050
1050
557
502

907
514
545
593
510
509

63
81
365
192
52
191
8.4
9.7
HC03
(mg/L)

672
917
1383
786

420
300
221
180
196
206

325
385
372
366
175
106
368
337
T
(°C)

11.7
11.7
10.9
11.1

13.4
13.6
13.1
13.2
13.2
13.2

nm
13.9
13.2
16.6
13.5
14.2
15.9
14.0
PH
(SU)

10.2
9.39
8.81
9.58

7.50
6.50
6.20
5.85
5.89
6.25

7.42
10.10
9.34
10.07
9.10
6.80
10.31
9.92
Eh
(mV)

157
15
189
68

173
207
159
210
221
224

-382
42
-43
181
113
25
-134
-75
DO
(mg/L)

0.3
0.5
3.6
0.6

0.2
0.1
<0.1
1.0
0.5
0.4

<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
0.5
SC

3.03
3.29
2.73
2.38

2.04
1.33
1.48
1.58
1.50
1.49

1.25
1.03
1.44
0.99
0.45
0.63
0.93
0.75
TOO
(mg/L)

7.14
9.45
21.4
5.88

4.50
3.62
3.11
6.12
3.58
3.96

905
20.4
4.38
7.17
9.69
4.98
28.0
171
As
(mg/L)

103
104
89
99

45
28.5
27.3
24.5
25.1
25.6

<0.1
0.07
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.03
0.02
As(lll)
(mg/L)

87
105
47
101

40.4
20.2
19.3
22.2
25.2
25.5

<0.01
0.03
0.11
0.19
0.08
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
As(V)
(mg/L)

1.26
<0.01
47
<0.01

0.95
4.8
5.6
0.36
0.19
0.12

<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.06
0.02
<0.01
<0.01

-------

"3> 4^ '
it
o 30


| 20-
1
B
J
EPAOZ O A

" °-o 	 .
^~o
EPAOe
t
PRB
Installed
a)
1 13"*

1181-


1180-
j 1179-
V>
3/29/2002 3O6/2003 3^6/2004 3'26/20G5 3/26COO8 3/28/2007 ^ 1178-
1.0-

0.8-
~m 0-6-
c
o
= 0.4-
e
111

0,2-
00-
_^--*— — — -^ f*
*^~ EPA02 ~~ 	 «)a|^ 	 ^/
^__^-O





b)
_o
I 1177.
UJ
1175-


11 74
2
Depth-dependent
As concentrations in
well EPA08


Results .
from 7/07 .
"~~~^^ --^ Results
^*~°*" « from 6/06
• s
;
yi
1
'^
'*- _ t

c)

B 25 30 3
Total Dissolved Arsenic, mg/L
Figure 16.  Arsenic concentration trends in ground water upgradient from the PRB: a) total dissolved arsenic as a
           function of time in ground water from monitoring wells EPA02 and EPA08, b) fraction of total dissolved
           arsenic as arsenite, and c) depth-resolved concentration trends in monitoring well EPA08.
*L.


1000.

j aoo.
~ 600-
{
3 400-


0.

(

r^
°^

10.
I
a.
9-




Upgradient concentrations <5 mg/L

ft °

e o





n=24 H=I9
60 8

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 3
Months of Operation


O
8

88 °
o
Q H 0
e § S|
^\^9^*>^>^

b)




f 3
I2.
£
<


0-
0 (

d)
'.00.

0-
> .100.
£.200.


-300.
•400.

Upgradient concentrations >25 mg/L




'
n»19 n-25
O O
11=24

0 ° §
Q O
9 i H h •-
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 IB 20 22 24 26 28 31
Months of Operation
'/^A^/^^/A^^////////,

° H
°
• ^ !


O o
« §
e

                               Months of Operation
                                                                      Months of Operation
Figure 17. Plots showing trends with time: a) DOC, b) arsenic concentrations, c) pH, and d) Eh for wells sampling
          ground water from the pilot-PRB.

-------
of DOC were likely residual carbon leftover from
the guar bio-slurry. During the first two sampling
events, ground water sampled from within the pilot-
PRB was difficult to filter (using 0.45 |am disc filters)
and slightly malodorous. After 12 months, however,
DOC concentrations decreased to near-background
levels (mean value 9 mg I/1), and after  15 months
DOC concentrations in the PRB were indistinguishable
from concentrations present upgradient of the PRB
(mean value 5 mgl/1).  Consequently, approximately
1 year passed before the guar had fully broken down or
passed through the PRB. Generally low values of DOC
were also observed after 25 months, yet in some wells
increases in DOC concentrations were observed, perhaps
related to changing water levels or subsurface movement
of residual guar gum.
Concentrations of arsenic entering the PRB are
>25 mg I/1. Within the PRB, arsenic concentrations
have generally been <0.50 mg I/1. Of 80  samples
collected from the pilot-PRB, only 11 samples exceeded
0.50 mg As I/1 (see Figure 17b); 62 samples had
concentrations of arsenic at or below 0.50 mg I/1; and,
24 samples were at or below the MCL for arsenic of
0.01 mg I/1. The highest concentrations of arsenic
appear to be restricted to the deeper wells within the
PRB and this  is likely reflective of regions where
ground-water seepage velocities are fast and/or where
less iron was emplaced in the subsurface possibly due to
collapse of the trench walls. Interestingly, the oxidation
state of arsenic within the PRB varies widely. The
fractional abundance of As(III) ranges from 0.20 to
1.00, with a mean value of 0.52, which  is  low compared
to the mean oxidation state of arsenic entering the
PRB (fractional abundance of arsenite >0.8). This
observation is consistent with laboratory tests with
arsenite and zerovalent iron that often show some
degree of arsenite oxidation to arsenate, perhaps due  to
oxidation reactions with iron corrosion  products (e.g.,
Manning et al., 2002; Lien and Wilkin,  2005). Overall
the arsenic concentration distribution inside the PRB is
similar between the 15 and 25 month sampling periods.
Geochemical  parameters, pH and Eh, in the PRB show
expected trends.  For example, the pH of ground-water
entering the PRB ranged from about 6.1 to 6.5. Whereas
the pH of ground water samples collected from the PRB
ranged from 6.2 to 10.8 (Figure 17c). As water reacts
with zerovalent iron the pH is expected to increase due
to the reaction: Fe(0) + 2H2O = Fe2+ + 2OH~ + H2.  The
Eh of ground  water entering the PRB ranges from about
130 to 200 mV, that is, the ground water is moderately
reducing. Within the PRB, Eh values ranged from about
140 mV to values as low as -380 mV. The lowest Eh
values (highly reducing) were recorded within the first
4 months of operation. After about 1 y, and continuing
through the second year of operation, Eh values
increased to a range typical for zerovalent iron PRB
systems, 100 to -200 mV (U.S. EPA, 2003a). Regions
of limited pH and Eh changes can be attributed to high
velocity and short residence time in the PRB, whereas
increases in pH and decreases in Eh are indicative of
longer reaction times between ground water and the
reactive medium (e.g., Liang et al., 2005).
Figure 18 shows an Eh-pH diagram for arsenic with
points plotted that contrast ground water collected from
the plume and the PRB. The data points also indicate
the measured speciation of arsenic in order to compare
analytical results with an equilibrium model. Within
the plume, pH is near-neutral and measured Eh values
would suggest the presence of mainly H2AsO4", HAsO42",
and H3AsO3°. This expected distribution of As(V) and
As(III) is generally observed, in that samples dominated
by arsenate tend to  be elevated in Eh, whereas arsenite
is dominant in low  Eh  samples. Note in many cases,
however, measured arsenic speciation was dominated
by arsenite, but the equilibrium model, based on the
Pt-electrode response, predicted arsenate dominance.
Similar trends are observed for ground water collected
from the PRB, although higher pH values are present
in many cases.  Interestingly, several measured points
in the PRB  (after 1  month of operation) indicate highly
reducing conditions and fall within the stability field for
elemental arsenic.  These highly reducing conditions
were not sustained  past the very earliest operation of the
PRB.
>
iS
  -.5
                          PRB
                 Plume
O ASM Ml) mixture   • >80%As(V)
  >80%As(IM)      OAs(V, III) mixture
               • >80%As(lll)
                                          PO,=1 bar
     0      2      4      6      8      10     12     14
                          PH

Figure 18.  Eh-pH diagram for arsenic. Data points
          show measured pH and Eh for ground water
          in the PRB and plume; color code of points
          shows the measured speciation of arsenic.
          Diagram constructed for 25°C and SAs=10~4.

-------
Oxidation-reduction potentials were calculated from the
measured arsenic speciation based on the following half-
cell reaction:
H3AsO4°
2H+
                    2e- = H3AsO3°
                                      H2O.
The activities of H3AsO4° and H3AsO3° were calculated
based on the measured arsenic speciation, pH, and
calculated ionic strength.  The equilibrium expression
was solved for a- and the Eh was calculated using
the relation Eh=0.059pe.  Because of the high
concentrations of arsenic in ground water at this site, this
system perhaps represents a best case scenario for the
Pt-electrode response to reflect aqueous distributions of
arsenate and arsenite. The calculated redox potentials
are compared with measured potentials in Figure 19. A
correlation exists, but there is poor agreement between
the speciation measured using IC-ICP-MS and speciation
predicted using the Pt-electrode readings. In all cases,
calculated redox values based on analysis of aqueous
speciation are lower when compared to Eh measurements
made with a Pt electrode.  Results on Figure 19 are
also shown for studies by Holm and Curtiss (1989)
and Rude and Wohnlich (2000).  Consistent with these
previous studies, results here indicate that Pt-electrode
response is not highly indicative of arsenic  speciation in
ground-water samples, not even in this seemingly ideal
environment where elevated concentrations of arsenate
and arsenite might be expected to poise the oxidation-
reduction potential.
   300
ffi"
200-

100-

  0-

-100-

-200-

-300-

-400-
   -500-
                                     Rude and Wohnlich (2000)
              Holm and Curttes (1989)    Q
              i9  *•     •
                §o*
                                       Eh in aquifer
                                       Eh in PRB
     -200  -100   0    100  200  300  400  500  600  700
                      Eh, measured (mV)


Figure 19.  Comparison of Eh values of ground water
          measured using a platinum electrode and
          calculated using the As(III)-As(V) redox
          couple.
in June 2006, September 2006, and July 2007 at 12,
15, and 25 months of operation, respectively.  The
concentration of total dissolved arsenic at these sampling
times was 27.3 mg L"1, 22.6 mg I/1, and 15.5 mg I/1,
respectively. Considering the low concentrations
of arsenic determined within the PRB from the first
sampling event at 1 month, the elevated concentrations
of arsenic in EPA09 determined in June 2006 and
July 2007 were unexpected. A more  significant decrease
in arsenic concentration downgradient of the pilot-PRB
was expected.  Consequently, detailed, depth-resolved
sampling was carried out in September 2006 and
July 2007. Note that the bulk well concentration in
EPA09 in September 2006 was 83% of the arsenic
concentration entering the PRB at that time. This value
decreased to 61% in July 2007. Results of the depth-
resolved sampling are shown in Figure 20. Arsenic
concentrations on the downgradient side of the pilot-PRB
are significantly reduced from the water table  down to a
depth of about 1177.1 m AMSL.  Arsenic concentrations
in this shallow aquifer interval were 0.07 to 0.65 mg L"1,
and generally coincide with concentrations observed
within the reactive medium (see Figure  17). Samples
taken at 1176.2 and 1175.3 m AMSL showed arsenic
concentrations of 20 to 30 mg L'1, respectively.  These
results indicate that ground water is moving beneath
the pilot-PRB and transporting arsenic across the plane
of the PRB.  In the upper region of the aquifer where
ground water is moving through the PRB, -99% arsenic
removal is achieved.
Hydraulic Investigation
The elevation of the water table in the vicinity of the
PRB varied within a range of approximately 1 m to
2 m on a seasonal basis (Figure 21 and Appendix D)
between June 2002 and April 2008. This fluctuation
likely reflects seasonal variations  in infiltration from
Prickly Pear Creek and associated Upper Lake as well
as infiltration of precipitation. Since  installation of
the PRB, ground-water elevations measured in well
TR8 (see Figure 3) within the PRB have ranged from
approximately 1179 m AMSL to 1181 m AMSL. This
indicates that the water table has remained below the
top of the zero-valent iron which  is at an approximate
elevation of 1183.5 m AMSL.
Monitoring well EPA09 is located immediately
downgradient of the pilot-PRB.  This well was sampled

-------
    1182
        Arsenic, mg/L
        0  5 10 15 20 25 30 35
CO
5  1180-

E

o
 >  1178-
_£
UJ
    1176-
         EPA08
                                                              Water level
                                                 Iron

                                          Weathered ash
                                                                            Arsenic,  mg/L
                                                                           0  5  10  15 20 25 30  35
                                                                       1182-1—i—i—•—i—•—i—i—i—•—i—•—i—i-
                                                                        1180-
                                                                       117E
                                                                       1176-
                                                                            EPA09      * •
Figure 20. Depth dependent arsenic concentrations in wells EPA08 and EPA09 and conceptual model of ground-water
          transport underneath the pilot-PRB. (Blue filled circles in EPA09 are from September 2006; red open
          circles are from July 2007).
                          1181.50 -
                       CO  1161-00
                       §  118050 -
                       LU
                       0)  1180.00 •
                       2  1179,50
                          1179.00 •
                                      \      \            \      \
                                  2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008
                                                   Date
Figure 21. Ground-water elevations obtained using data from a pressure transducer/data logger installed in well DH-
         17 located approximately 30 m upgradient of the PRB.

-------
 Temporal variations in the potentiometric surface
 near the PRB were interpreted from data obtained by
 manual measurements of ground-water elevations on
 nine dates between July 2005 and June 2008. Based
 on these data, there is no evidence of ground-water
 mounding upgradient of the PRB that would indicate
 the PRB is acting as a significant impediment to ground-
 water flow.  The surfaces (Appendix E) were similar
 to that interpreted from data obtained on April 1, 2008
 (Figure 22), indicating that the hydraulic gradient was
 relatively stable in both magnitude and direction through
 time. In each case, the data indicated a northwest
 direction of flow. The magnitude of the hydraulic
 gradient near the PRB ranged from approximately 0.005
 to 0.008 with an average of 0.006.
                     262500
               ,§
                O)
                     262450
                     262400
                                  414350
414400
414450
                                                 Easting  (m)
Figure 22. Shallow potentiometric surface interpreted from ground-water elevation measurements obtained using an
          electronic water level indicator on April 1, 2008.  The contour interval between equipotential lines is 0.1 m.
          The approximate location of the PRB is depicted in red.
 To better evaluate the full range of variation in
 hydraulic gradient potentially associated with seasonal
 changes in ground-water elevations, data obtained from
 pressure transducers/data loggers installed in wells
 DH-17, PBTW-2, and EPA06 (Figure 23) were used
 to estimate the direction and magnitude of the gradient
 approximately every four hours between July 2005 and
 April 2008. The estimated magnitude and direction
 of the gradient were averaged on a daily basis.  The
 magnitude of the gradient calculated from this expanded
 data set also ranged from approximately 0.005 to 0.008
 (Figure 24) with an average of 0.006.  The estimated
 direction of ground-water flow ranged from an azimuth
 of 322 deg to 350 deg (Figure 23) with an average
 azimuth of 334 deg.

-------
                        262500-
                   3-  2624504
                    0)
                        262400
                        262350
                                    414350
414400
414450
414500
                                                  Easting (m)
Figure 23. Wells instrumented with pressure transducers/data loggers and used to characterize hydraulic gradient
          fluctuations on a daily basis. The azimuthal distribution in degrees of the calculated hydraulic gradient
          vectors is depicted using a Rose diagram in the figure inset.  Locations of the wells and approximate
          location of the PRB (red line) are overlain on the potentiometric surface on April 1, 2008, for reference.
          The contour interval between equipotential lines is 0.1 m.
A natural gradient tracer test was performed from
June 23 to 29, 2008, using a solution of potable water
amended with sodium bromide to provide another direct
line of evidence verifying ground-water flow through
the PRB. A slug of approximately 95 L of potable water
with a bromide ion concentration of approximately
500 mg L"1 was injected into well TR1 (Figure 25)
over a period of approximately 5 min. The injection
was restricted to a 0.9 m zone between approximately
1177.4 m and 1178.3 m AMSL by isolating this zone
with mechanical packers. The injection pipe consisted
of hand perforated 3/4" Schedule 40 PVC.
        300 -,
     •5  100 —
                                                            0.004
                                                                    0.005     0.006     0-007     0.008
                                                                     Hydraulic Gradient Magnitude
                                                                                                    0009
                                                       Figure 24. Distribution of the magnitude of the
                                                                 hydraulic gradient near the PRB estimated
                                                                 on a daily basis using data obtained from
                                                                 pressure transducers/data loggers installed in
                                                                 wells DH-17, PBTW-2, and EPA06.

-------
The downgradient transport of the bromide was
monitored using nine observation wells (TR3, TR4-2,
TR5-2, TR6-2, TR7, TR8, TRIO, TR11-2, and TR12-2)
located in the PRB (Figure 25). Each of the observation
wells was screened in approximately the same interval
as the injection zone. Ground-water samples were
obtained at frequent intervals and analyzed for bromide
(Figure 26) using a Lachat flow injection analyzer.
              3 m
                               TR11-2
                           TR10   \   TR12-2
                      TR9
          EPA01
                               TRO TR1TR2
                      T1A
        T1B
  • 1-inch well
  O 2-inch well    © Multiport well
Figure 25. Ground-water monitoring wells within the
          tracer test area of the PRB. The well used for
          tracer injection, TR1, is highlighted in red.
o
   0.0 —f""i  " |—«-i—*|- - i— j —i	r-
              12345
                 Time Since Injection (d)

Figure 26. Ratio of the measured bromide ion
          concentration to the concentration in the
          injected slug as a function of time.
                                                        With the exception of well TR8, the bromide tracer
                                                        was observed at all locations. The first arrival of the
                                                        bromide pulse required approximately three days to
                                                        migrate across the PRB. A plot of the time required for
                                                        first arrival of the tracer as a function of distance from
                                                        the injection well (Figure 27) indicates the presence
                                                        of a heterogeneous flow field within the PRB with
                                                        more rapid transport to wells TRIO and TR11-2 and
                                                        slower transport to well TR6-2 than to the majority of
                                                        the wells in the network.  Assuming that bromide is
                                                        conservatively transported in this system, an estimate
                                                        of the ground-water velocity through relatively fast
                                                        pathways based on a simple linear regression of the first
                                                        arrival times at wells TR3, TR4-2, TR5-2, TR7, and
                                                        TR12 is approximately 0.35 m d"1.  These results confirm
                                                        that ground water moves at a significant rate through the
                                                        PRB.
                                                           1.5-1
                                                           1.0-
g

I
m
en
Q
                                                           0.5-
                                                           0.0
                                                                   TR10
                                                                    +
                                                                                                 TR12-2
                                                                                                     TKB-2
                                                                           = 0.35*X + 0.45
                                                                          R2=0.99
                                                                             1             2
                                                                     Time of First Bromide Arrival (d)
                                                       Figure 27.  Distance of tracer migration as a function of
                                                                  the time required for the first arrival at each
                                                                  monitoring location. A linear regression was
                                                                  performed using data from wells TR3, TR4-2,
                                                                  TR5-2, TR7, and TR12-2.
                                                       A short-term, single well pumping test was performed at
                                                       well PBTW-2 to estimate bulk hydraulic conductivity of
                                                       the aquifer materials in this area during the PRB  design
                                                       phase. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity ranged from
                                                       25.3 md"1 to 41.1 md"1 with an average of 33.2 md"1.
                                                       This estimate is supported by the value of 36.6 m d"1
                                                       obtained from pneumatic slug tests at this well. For
                                                       purposes of this investigation, a value of 36.6 m d"1 for
                                                       the bulk hydraulic conductivity of aquifer materials
                                                       adjacent to the PRB was used to estimate the interval-
                                                       specific hydraulic conductivity of these materials from
                                                       the borehole flowmeter surveys.

-------
Results of pneumatic slug tests performed in short
(0.76 m) screened wells located within the PRB (Table 5,
Figure 28) ranged from 2.1 m d"1 to 110 m d"1 with
an average of approximately 58 m d"1. The highest
estimates for the hydraulic conductivity of the PRB
were consistently obtained from wells screened below
approximately 1177.4 m AMSL. No changes were
observed in the distribution of hydraulic conductivity
between measurements made after 5 months and after
16 months (Figure 29).  Pneumatic slug tests were
also performed in July 2007 in two wells, TR1  and
EPA10, that screen the majority of the PRB and are
located (see Figure 3) near the western end and center
of the PRB, respectively. Results indicate the average
hydraulic conductivity of materials adjacent to  these
wells is approximately 43 m d"1 (well TR1) and 49 m d"1
(well EPA10). It is noted that the majority of these
values are equal to or significantly greater than the
permeability estimated for a sample of the zerovalent
iron material (30 m d"1 to 58 m d"1) using laboratory
test method ASTM 2434 during the PRB design phase.
This indicates that the PRB installation method did not
significantly reduce the hydraulic conductivity  of the
PRB materials.
The borehole flowmeter methodology has been used
to characterize the hydraulic conductivity of aquifer
materials adjacent to six wells (PBTW-1, PBTW-2,
DH-17, EPA02, EPA08, EPA09, and EPA10) (Figure 3).
With the exception of existing well DH-17, each of these
wells is screened from approximately the water table
to the top of the ash unit underlying the upper aquifer.
Three of the wells bound the study area to the east
(PBTW-1 and PBTW-2) and south (DH-17), providing
information concerning the scale of heterogeneity in
this portion of the site. At well PBTW-1 (Figure 30),
aquifer materials immediately above the ash unit at
the bottom of the well  screen appear to have higher
hydraulic conductivity than the average for materials in
this portion of the site.
Table 5. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity in units of
            m d"1 obtained from pneumatic slug tests
            performed in wells located within the PRB.
Well
EPA10
SOI
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
SOS
TR1
TR2
TR3
TR7
TR8
TR9
TRIO
October
2005



98
7.3
56
100
95
70


51




September
2006

88
75
98
11
42
110
92
69
32
55

43
47
2.1
34
July 2007
49








43







-------
                        C/3

                            1182 -
                            1181 -
                            1180
                            1179 —
                            1178
                        "S  1177 •
                         c
                         o>
                         0)
                         O  1176
                        GO
                            1175
                            1174
                                      S04
                              Average Water Table Elevation

                          TR2          S02
                                            TR10 TR7 TR8 TR3    308
                                                                      807  S06
                                          SO I
                                                  Approximate Bottom of Zero-Valent Iron
                                                                 Range of Laboratory
                                                                 Permeameter Results
                                                 40               80
                                           Hydraulic Conductivity (mid)
                                                                                 120
Figure 28. Results of pneumatic slug tests within the PRB using a series of wells each screening a 0.76 m vertical
          interval.  The screened elevations are depicted by the length of the line representing each well. The results
          of laboratory permeameter measurements of the zero-valent iron used in construction of the PRB are
          provided for reference.
                   >» 2-
                   O ^
                   c
                   o
16 months
n=7
                                                                   150
                                                                                 200
                                      50            100           150
                                     Hydraulic Conductivity, m/d
                                                                                 200
Figure 29. Results of pneumatic slug tests within the PRB after 5 months and 16 months.

-------
   1181
   1180
 O 117
                            Top' of Ash
           K (m/d)
K(m/d)
K (m/d)
Figure 30.  Hydraulic conductivity distribution
          estimated for materials adjacent to the
          screened intervals of wells DH-17, PBTW-1,
          and PBTW-2 based on characterization using
          borehole flowmeter techniques.
During this test, consistently anomalous readings were
observed at approximately 1177.0 m and 1178.8 m
AMSL. The source of these anomalies cannot be
determined but may be related to well construction
problems such as void space between the well screen and
borehole wall in these zones. Due to the significance of
these anomalies, the values for hydraulic conductivity
of intervals above 1177.0 m AMSL may not be accurate.
At well PBTW-2 (Figure 30),  aquifer materials between
depths of approximately 1174.5 m and  1176.4 m
AMSL appear to be between two and three times more
conductive than the average for all materials adjacent to
the well.
At well DH-17 (Figure 30), which bounds the southern
portion of the study area, aquifer materials in the lower
half of the screened zone appear to be as much as
three times more conductive than the average for all
materials adjacent to the well. This pattern is similar
to that observed in the other test wells.  However, the
partially penetrating construction of this well may result
in increased flow in the measurements obtained near the
bottom of the well screen.  Therefore, absolute values
of hydraulic conductivity for aquifer materials at the
bottom of the well screen may be overestimated.
The borehole flowmeter was also  used to characterize
hydraulic conductivity in wells EPA02, EPA08, EPA09,
and EPA10 within and adjacent to the PRB (Figure 31).
At well EPA02, the most permeable materials appear
to be located at the top of the ash unit.  Materials near
the water table were also more conductive than the bulk
hydraulic conductivity.  However, anomalous readings
                             were observed at approximately 1176.0 m and 1177.3 m
                             AMSL. Therefore, the hydraulic conductivity estimated
                             for this interval represents an average value for materials
                             within this zone. The results from wells EPA08 and
                             EPA09 were similar with materials having hydraulic
                             conductivities significantly greater than the bulk
                             conductivity for the aquifer adjacent to the bottom half
                             of the PRB.  Materials near the water table had hydraulic
                             conductivities lower than the bulk  conductivity for the
                             aquifer. Although heterogeneity is evident, the hydraulic
                             conductivity profiles obtained from these wells display
                             similar patterns with respect to the existence of materials
                             with high hydraulic conductivity in the deeper portion of
                             the aquifer.
                                                                         EPA 08
1          I






B   Bottom  I
•  cfPRB  •
                                     0   '30   20C C   100   200 0   1CO  2CO  0   '00  20CI
                                      K (m/d)     K(m/d)     K (m/d)     K (m/d)
                             Figure 31. Hydraulic conductivity distribution estimated
                                       for materials adjacent to the screened
                                       intervals of wells EPA02, EPA08, EPA09,
                                       and EPA 10 based on characterization using
                                       borehole flowmeter techniques.
                             The borehole flowmeter technique was also applied to
                             characterization of materials adjacent to well EPA 10
                             (Figure 31) located near the center of the PRB and
                             screened across the entire saturated thickness of the
                             PRB. At this location, the hydraulic conductivity of
                             the PRB appears to increase with depth displaying a
                             trend that is generally similar to the results of estimates
                             obtained using pneumatic slug tests (Figure 28). These
                             data indicate that the hydraulic conductivity of the PRB
                             is generally equal to or greater than that of the aquifer
                             in most intervals. Although the results of the flowmeter
                             analysis at EPA 10 are considered to be somewhat
                             uncertain due to possible effects related to the proximity
                             of the trench walls, a comparison of the slug test data
                             with the estimated hydraulic conductivity profile for
                             well EPA08 (Figure 32) supports the conclusion that
                             the PRB does not provide a significant impediment to
                             groundwater flow.

-------
                           1181
                           1180
                                                         EPA08 Flowmeter Results

                                                         Slug Tests within PRB
                       CO
                           1179
                           1178
                       I  1177
                       OJ
                       ffl
                       LU
                           1176
                           1175
                           1174
                                                                 T
                                                40               80
                                          Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d)
                           1
                          120
Figure 32. Comparison of hydraulic conductivity distribution adjacent to well EPA08 estimated using borehole
          flowmeter techniques and the results of slug tests performed in a series short-screened wells within the
          PRB. The screened intervals are depicted by the length of the line representing each well.
In summary, the hydraulic conductivity of the materials
adjacent to these wells, including the location within the
PRB, appears to be non-uniform. Materials in the lower
portion of the aquifer and PRB appear to be significantly
more transmissive than materials in the upper portion
of the saturated zone. This implies that ground-water
velocities and associated contaminant fluxes may be
significantly higher in the lower portion of the PRB.
Flux Evaluations
Data collected in the geochemical and hydrologic aspects
of this  study can be combined to determine arsenic flux
in the subsurface.  The mass flux of arsenic entering and
leaving the PRB was estimated by multiplying the depth-
dependent volumetric flow velocity (Darcy velocity) by
depth-dependent arsenic concentrations in wells EPA08
and EPA09 (Figure 33):

           Arsenic Flux = (K • dhldx) C,
where K is the interval specific hydraulic conductivity,
dhldx is the hydraulic gradient, and C is the total
arsenic concentration at specific depths in ground water.
Volumetric flows were determined at the midpoint of
depth intervals tested with the borehole flowmeter.
Arsenic concentrations at these depth intervals were
extrapolated from discrete interval sampling profiles.
Arsenic mass flux entering the PRB ranges from 0.5
to 16.9 g nrM"1 with a maximum value at a depth of
about 1177 m AMSL. The flux of arsenic downgradient
of the PRB ranges from 0.01 to 20 g m"2d"'.  Arsenic
mass flux is significantly reduced downgradient of
the PRB from the ground-water table to a depth of
about 1177 m AMSL. Deeper in the aquifer, where
emplacement of zerovalent iron was incomplete, there
is no indication that arsenic transport in the  subsurface
is being impacted.  Results plotted on Figure 33 clearly
show the impact of the PRB on arsenic attenuation.
The depth related analysis shows that specific intervals
with high contaminant flux need to be incorporated
into PRB design. Regions of high contaminant flux
are likely to determine the overall efficiency of PRB
systems for reducing contaminant transport. An
important implication is that bulk characterization of
wells screened across the saturated thickness may not
be able to resolve variability of contaminant flux in
the subsurface leading to inappropriate system design.
Clearly a full-scale PRB  at the East Helena site requires
emplacement of zerovalent down to the confining ash
tuff layer with consideration of the high flux zone at
1177m AMSL.

-------
    1180-



 | 1179'


 E 1178-
 c
 .2
 CD
 £ 1177-
    1175
                              Arsenic flux in, EPA08
                              Arsenic flux out, EPA09
                 5       10      15      20
                     Arsenic Flux, g/m" d
                                                25
 Figure 33. Estimation of arsenic flux entering and
          leaving the PRB as a function of depth.
PRB Performance
A number of factors have been shown to be important in
controlling the long-term performance of zerovalent iron
reactive barriers. Key among these factors are reaction
processes that lead to excessive oxidative corrosion
of iron granules and/or excessive carbonate mineral
precipitation (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2003a, Liang et al., 2005;
Li et al., 2006). Both of these processes degrade the
reactive and hydraulic performance of zerovalent iron
PRBs. Dissolved oxygen (DO), for example, rapidly
reacts with zerovalent iron and drives the formation
of various ferric oxide, oxyhydroxide, and hydroxide
minerals.  In situations where ground water containing
several mg L'1 of DO interacts with zerovalent iron,
rapid cementation and loss of pore space and hydraulic
conductivity occurs due to the precipitation of ferric-
iron bearing minerals. Although the formation of these
Fe(III) corrosion products may be a benefit from the
standpoint of arsenic removal (e.g., Furukawa et al.,
2002), excessive corrosion can lead to the complete
bypass of the reactive  medium.  This particular problem
is not a concern at the East Helena Site. As noted above
DO concentrations entering the PRB are very low and
core samples show no evidence of nodule formation or
cementation after 15 months of operation.
Carbonate mineral precipitation in PRBs is primarily
driven by the pH increase that comes about during
anaerobic corrosion of metallic iron. Typically ground
water is saturated or undersaturated with respect to
calcium carbonate phases (e.g., calcite and aragonite);
however, as ground-water pH increases, saturation with
respect to various carbonate minerals is approached
and is usually exceeded at pH>9. This situation drives
precipitation of fairly low density minerals that over
time can impact the performance of PRBs by decreasing
reactivity (by coating iron surfaces and removing
reactive sites) and decreasing porosity and permeability
and thereby affecting hydraulic performance (U.S.
EPA, 2003a; Li et al., 2006). Geochemical modeling
results indicate that ground water upgradient of the PRB
is saturated to near-saturated with aragonite (CaCO3;
Figure 34).  Ground water within the PRB  is slightly
oversaturated with respect to aragonite at pH>8.  These
model results and the observed decrease in  calcium
concentrations between upgradient and in-wall sampling
points suggest that precipitation of aragonite is occurring
in the PRB.  However, ground water entering the PRB is
sodium-sulfate type water (see Figure 10 and discussion
above).  Concentrations of calcium and bicarbonate
are comparatively low (~50  mg L'1 and 200 mg I/1,
respectively) in the influent  ground water. Consequently,
rapid buildup of carbonate phases is not expected.
Measurements of inorganic  carbon concentrations
accumulated on the reactive medium after 15 months
range from 0.01 to 0.46 wt% (mean 0.09 wt%, n=29,
Figure 35), with the highest values observed near the
leading edge of the barrier and at shallow depths where
pH is  elevated. The maximum carbonate concentration
observed after 15 months corresponds to an equivalent
reduction in the fractional porosity of <0.05 (U.S. EPA,
2003a).
 c
 o
 O)
    «
    -2-
                    0
                        O   O     '
                       >°° cPoo
               o   o
                                          oversaturated
                                          undersatu rated

                                   Upgradient aquifer
                                   PRB
                    8              10
                           PH
                                                  12
Figure 34. Aragonite saturation indices in ground water
          as a function of pH upgradient and within the
          PRB.

-------
   16-1
    0
     0.00  0.02  0.04  0.06  0.08  0.10  0.12   0.14  0.16
   20-

 5" 1

 I '°-
 ,i-  5 -
                  Total Sulfur. wt%
            100     200    300    400
                   Arsenic, mg/kg
                                       500
Figure 35.  Solid-phase concentrations of inorganic
          carbon, sulfur, and arsenic in PRB core
          materials.

Elevated concentrations of sulfate (-530 mg I/1)
in ground water entering the PRB coupled with
moderately to highly reducing conditions in the PRB
have led to the reduction of sulfate and production of
sulfide, which has precipitated in the PRB, likely as
an iron sulfide. Evidence for sulfate reduction in the
PRB includes decreases in sulfate concentrations (up
to 100%; Figure 36), detection of dissolved sulfide
within and downgradient of the PRB (up to 13 mg I/1),
and accumulation of sulfur on the reactive medium.
Reduction in sulfate concentrations is greatest at
shallower depths where residence time in the PRB is the
greatest (Figure 36 inset). Total sulfur values determined
in core samples range from 100 to 1200 mg kg"1 (mean
400 mg kg'1, n=43, Figure 35). Previous studies have
shown that sulfur accumulation in zerovalent iron PRBs
is mainly due to precipitation of mackinawite (FeS,
e.g., Roh et al., 2000; Furukawa et al., 2002; Wilkin et
al., 2003).  The sulfate reduction process is microbially
mediated. Sulfate-reducing bacteria in this system
utilize either hydrogen (formed during the anaerobic
iron corrosion) or possibly organic carbon (derived
from broken-down guar gum), or both. Column and
batch experiments performed during the design phase
of the study were abiotic; sulfate was present in the
systems but behaved as a conservative tracer and was not
reduced to sulfide. Consequently this important aspect
of PRB behavior is typically not captured in laboratory
experimentation (but see Nooten et al., 2008).

1 2-

10-
08-
0.6-
0.4-
02-


00-


, ! 1
' _ :
(
EMnftM. m AUSL


B
o
fl


8

8 |
8
8 o
8
H
u O
c



8
0
§
O
8
8
8
o
o

M
            0      5     10     15     20     26     30
                      Months of Operation

Figure 36.  Sulfate removal within the PRB as a function
          of time and depth.  Sulfate concentration
          entering the PRB, C°, is 530 mg I/1.


The role of arsenic-sulfur interactions in zerovalent
iron systems has been previously noted by Ramaswami
et al. (2001), Nikolaidis et al. (2003), and Kober et al.
(2005). Reduction of sulfate to sulfide can impact: 1) the
aqueous speciation of arsenic by driving the formation
of thioarsenic species and, 2) the removal process of
arsenic in the reactive medium.  Aqueous thioarsenic
formation was noted within the PRB in several wells
with sulfide concentrations above 0.2 mg I/1.  Figure 37
shows an IC-ICP-MS chromatogram for ground water
from influent well EPA08 and PRB well TR9. As noted
previously, arsenite dominates the aqueous speciation
of arsenic in influent  ground water.  In well TR9, the
dissolved arsenic and sulfide concentrations were
0.38  mg I/1 and 0.42  mg I/1, respectively.  Arsenite
is present in trace amounts. Note that the arsenate
concentration in TR9 is similar to the influent and two
additional As-S species are present. The additional
species are thioarsenic ions that contain S and As in the
ratio of 1:1 and 2:1, respectively (Figure 37).

-------

Sxltf-

16 4x10' -
[2 3x10' -
5 2x10' -
1x10*-
0-


1
1



— EPA08
£
a
I


	 TR9

£
i

1 1
o
i
CO
i
pj

L^

        0    2   4    S    6    10    12   14    16   18
                        Time, minutes

Figure 37.  Chromatograph of arsenic speciation for
          ground water entering the PRB (well EPA08)
          and ground water from well TR9 containing
          thioarsenic species.

Because arsenic and sulfur form bonded ions in the
aqueous phase, it is reasonable to expect solid-phase
associations of arsenic and sulfur in the reactive
medium. The nature of arsenic bonding in the solid-
phase is examined in a following section describing
x-ray absorption spectroscopy results.  The problem is
explored here with the aid of geochemical modeling.
Removal of arsenic via the precipitation of an As(III)-
bearing phase is considered on Figure 38 showing the
pH-dependent solubility of As2O3 and As2S3. Claudetite
(As2O3) is highly soluble and this phase is not expected
to play a role in arsenic removal. Solubility of orpiment
(As2S3) is highly pH dependent and influenced by the
concentration of dissolved sulfide at pH<10. Based
on solubility reasoning, at pH>8 it is unlikely that
precipitation of As2S3 is an important arsenic removal
mechanism in zerovalent iron PRBs (Kober et al.,
2005). However, at lower pH it is possible that orpiment
precipitation could play a role in arsenic uptake. This
modeling does not rule out arsenic sorption to iron
monosulfides or thioarsenic sorption to iron corrosion
products (e.g., Gallegos et al., 2007; Wolthers et al.,
2005). Removal of arsenate via precipitation of calcium
and ferrous salts is examined on Figure 39. Note the
contrasting pH dependencies of arsenite and arsenate
precipitation. Arsenate removal is favored with
increasing pH, whereas arsenite is expected to become
increasingly more soluble at higher pH. Although
there is some uncertainty in the thermodynamic
data for symplesite (ferrous arsenate), the modeling
results suggest that symplesite, Fe3(AsO4)2-8H2O, may
precipitate in the PRB at typical conditions.
Figure 38. Solubility of As(III) phases as a function of
          pH and dissolved sulfide concentration. Data
          points are measured As(III) concentrations
          within the PRB.
Figure 39. Solubility of As(V) phases as a function
          of pH. Data points are measured As(V)
          concentrations within the PRB (blue circles,
          Fe=0.1 mM; red circles, Fe=10 um; green
          circles, Fe=l um).

Arsenic is obviously the main contaminant of concern
for which the PRB performance is critical at this site.
Several other metals are present in the ground water
entering the PRB, including Zn (2300 |ag I/1), Cd
(50 |ag L-1), Co (20 |ag I/1), and Ni (10 |ag I/1).
Concentrations of Cd, Co, and Ni within ground water
from the PRB are below detection (generally < 1 M-g L'1),
and Zn concentrations have decreased to <50 |ag L'1.
All of these metals form insoluble precipitates with
sulfide, so that metal sulfide precipitation is one possible
removal mechanism for these contaminants, as is
adsorption onto iron corrosion products.

-------
Data for selenium are shown on Figure 40. The
histogram shows the concentration values of selenium
observed within the PRB (after 25 months) as compared
to the concentration observed in upgradient well EPA08,
which is about 12 (o,g I/1. Selenium concentrations
within the PRB span from about 5 (o,g I/1 to 18 (o,g I/1
and are log-normally distributed about the upgradient
value. These data are difficult to interpret in terms of Se
removal by the PRB. While there is a greater weighting
of observations below the upgradient  concentration
within the wall, it is equally clear that some wells within
the PRB have greater concentrations than the upgradient
location.
                              Se values wilhin PRB
                           upgradient Se
                           concentration (12 ii
        0   2   4   E   8   10   t2  14   16   18  20
                      Selenium. |ig/L

Figure 40.  Concentration of selenium in ground water
          upgradient, in, and downgradient of the PRB.
Scanning Electron Microscopy
Microscopy studies were conducted to examine
the nature of mineral deposits on the iron surfaces
that developed after 15 months, both in terms of
compositional and morphological properties.  Ten
samples were selected for analysis based on location
and bulk chemical properties. Figure 4 la shows a
backscattered image of iron grains from a polished
thin-section mount.  In some areas mineral precipitates
coat the iron grains; in other areas the iron grains
remain free of corrosion products. A closer view of
precipitates formed on an iron surface is shown in
Figure 41b (unpolished mount). Platy particles, rich in
iron, silicon, and oxygen, are fairly typical corrosion
products formed on granular zerovalent iron (e.g., Roh
et al., 2000;  Kamolpornwijit et al., 2004; Kohn et al.,
2005). Arsenic was not detected in any of the energy
dispersive x-ray scans (n~100).  The approximate
minimum detection limit for arsenic using SEM/EDX
is 0.5 wt% or 5000 mg kg"1. This concentration is
about lOx greater than the maximum bulk arsenic
concentration determined from the core materials by
acid digestion (see Figure 35). It was initially expected
that arsenic might be concentrated in the corrosion
products to detectable levels by SEM/EDX, but
exhaustive attempts to locate regions with measureable
arsenic were unsuccessful. This failure to identify
regions with concentrated arsenic concentrations may
indicate that arsenic uptake is widely distributed on the
reactive medium.  The maximum arsenic concentration
determined from the cores collected after 15 months
represents about 10% of the maximum uptake capacity
determined in laboratory column tests (Lien and Wilkin,
2005). The  nature of arsenic bonding to the reactive
medium is more fully explored in the  next section on
x-ray absorption spectroscopy applications.

-------
                                                           0 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 8 9 It] 11 12 13 14 15 18 1718 1fl 20
                                                                          Energy (keV)
                                                                                            Weight  %
                                                                                             Sigma
Figure 41. SEM photomicrographs. A) Image of polished thin-section showing development of corrosion products. B)
          Platy particles formed on the surface of an iron granule with EDX spectra and elemental composition.

-------
X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy
XANES analysis was conducted on reference materials,
PRB core samples, source zone materials, and well
boring samples collected in the aquifer near the location
of the pilot-PRB. These analyses were conducted to
determine the oxidation state and bonding environment
of arsenic in these different environments.
XANES spectra for the reference materials are shown
on Figure 42 and the corresponding absorption edge
and white-line positions are listed in Table 2. Reference
materials were used to analyze XANES spectra of the
                                                   unknown samples shown on Figure 43. Examination of
                                                   Figure 43 indicates no contribution of elemental arsenic
                                                   to any of the unknown samples. For this reason the
                                                   reference line for elemental arsenic has been removed
                                                   from Figure 43. Panels A and B show XANES data
                                                   for PRB core materials collected in September 2006.
                                                   Panel C shows XANES data for cores taken near
                                                   the arsenic source zone in August 2006, and Panel
                                                   D provides data for well borings collected prior to
                                                   installation of the PRB in November 2004.
                               ABC     D
Ill
"=3"
 ft
73
 N
                                                                           • Elemental As
                                                                           •Orpi merit
                                                                            As(lll) Sorted FeS
                                                                           • As(lll) Sorbed Ferrihydrite
                                                                            Arsertte
                                                                           • Enargte
                                                                           • Arsenate
                                                                           • As(V) Sorbed Ferrihydrite
                                                                            Scorodrte
    11850
                                                               11890
Figure 42. Normalized XANES spectra for arsenic reference materials used for the XANES analysis and LCF
          fitting of unknown samples. (A) is the absorption edge position for elemental As (11866.7 eV); (B) is the
          absorption edge position for As(III)-S bonds (11868.7 eV); (C) is the absorption edge position for As(III)-O
          bonds or As(V)-S bonds (-11870.1 eV); and, (D) is the absorption edge position for As(V)-O bonds
          (11874.0 eV). Orpiment (As2S3) is used as a model As(III)-S compound; FeS is disordered mackinawite
          (FeS); enargite (Cu3AsS4) is used as a model As(V)-S compound and scorodite (FeAsO4) is used as a model
          forAs(V)-O.

-------
                                     abc
                                                               Core33842F
                                                            O- Core33842
                                                               Core23845F
                                                               Core23842F
                                                                ore14448
 O Core33038A
    Core43034B
    Core23034B
-O-Core 13034
                      11850    11660    11870    11880    11860 11850     11
                                                                       11870     11880    11890
                            APBH4210115
                        -O-APBH41565
                            TW183840
                        - •- TW162530
                        -O-TW152025
                                  -O-9.1 m
                                   O 10.7m
                                                                       E(eV)
Figure 43. Normalized XANES spectra for unknown samples from the ASARCO Smelter site.  PRB core sample
          spectra are shown in Panels A (shallow depths) and B (deep depths).  Panel C shows spectra for samples
          collected from the source zone and Panel D shows spectra of samples from a well boring taken prior to
          installation of the PRB. (a) is the white-line position for As(III)-S, (b) is the white-line for the As(III)-O,
          and (c) is the white-line position for the As(V)-O.
XANES spectra from the PRB samples show that
there are multiple solid-phase arsenic species present.
Arsenic in all the PRB samples includes at least two
species: As(III)-O and As(V)-O, but in many samples
As(III)-S appears to be present as well.  It should be
noted that As(V)-S cannot be ruled out in any of the
samples because the As(III)-O and As(V)-S white line
positions overlap (Beak et al., 2008), although this
solid-phase coordination is considered to be unlikely
in this environment.  The source zone samples appear
to contain only As(V)-O.  The presence of As(III)
oxyanions in the source zone ground water suggests the
possibility of microbial reduction of arsenate to arsenite
in the subsurface.
                                Multiple arsenic species are also present in well
                                borings collected from the aquifer near the location
                                of the pilot-PRB.  In shallow samples the speciation
                                appears to be an unusual mixture of As(V)-O and
                                As(III)-S (Figure 43a).  To our knowledge this unique
                                arsenic speciation has not been observed in other
                                subsurface environments. However, the observed
                                As(III)-S speciation can be explained by the presence
                                of a petroleum hydrocarbon plume that induces
                                microbially mediated redox reactions. Degradation of
                                the hydrocarbon leads to local iron- and surf ate-reducing
                                conditions that result in the formation of Fe-S surfaces
                                and As(III)-S speciation at shallow depths. Deeper in
                                the aquifer, arsenic speciation is a more typical mixture

-------
of As(III)-O and As(V)-O. Figure 44 shows the depth-
dependent arsenic concentration and speciation profile
through the unsaturated zone and saturated aquifer near
the location of the PRB.  In the unsaturated zone, total
arsenic concentrations are low (<25 mg kg"1) and the
solid-phase speciation is completely as As(V). Maximal
arsenic concentrations are observed in the reducing zone
near the water table, indicating that arsenic attenuation
can occur in iron- and sulfate-reducing environments.
A profile of x-ray diffraction scans was also collected
for the core samples (Figure 45). The mineralogical
analysis indicates the presence of a mixture of quartz,
feldspars, and clay minerals. Any reduced, sulfide-
bearing minerals are not concentrated enough to  be
detectable by bulk XRD methods.
  1190

  1 iss-

  ues

U> 1184

E 1182-

» 1180-
1
  1178-

  1176-

  1174
                    Land surface
a)
                                    1190
                              1188-


                              1186-


                              1184-


                              1182-


                              1180-


                              1178-


                              1176-
                                    1174
       0  100 200 300 400 500 600  700 800 900  0.0   0.5   1.0
                Arsenic, mg/kg               fraction As(V)
                                                           Figure 44.  a) Depth-dependent concentrations of total
                                                                     arsenic in aquifer solids retrieved from the
                                                                     well boring near the location of the PRB,
                                                                     and b) speciation of arsenic expressed as the
                                                                     fraction of total arsenic as As(V) in the solid
                                                                     samples.
                                      -njuuu_
                                                                         Depth below ground surface
                                                                                     3.0 m
                          7.6 m

                          9.1 m

                         10.7m
                                                                                     13.7m

                                                                                     14.7m
                                                                                      Quartz
                         10      20      30      40      50      60      70      80      90
                                                       °29
Figure 45. Powder x-ray diffraction scans of aquifer materials collected from a well boring taken adjacent to the pilot-
           PRB.

-------
XANES analysis of unknown samples by comparison
of white line and absorption edge positions to reference
materials demonstrates that XANES alone is not
sensitive enough to distinguish between arsenic species
(see Figure 42 and 43). Because of this limitation
linear combination fitting (LCF) was employed to
further analyze the XANES data. LCF consisted of
using reference spectra of several possible solid-phase
arsenic species to allow the "quantification" of species in
unknown, multiple-component mixtures.  This method
uses a least-squares fitting algorithm to refine the sum
of reference spectra to an experimental spectrum.  The
reference spectra shown on Figure 42 were used in the
LCF fitting of the unknown samples. Examination of
Figure 42 and Table 1 shows that the reference materials
fall into two general categories: 1) arsenic sorbed to
mineral phases (sorbed), and 2) pure arsenic minerals
that contain As(III) or As(V) coordinated to S or O
(coordinated). LCF analysis was carried out using both
types of reference materials and results are shown in
Table 6.  The data in Table 6 illustrate that in most cases
the values determined for solid-phase species were
similar, whether coordinated or sorbed models were
adopted.  In fact, ANOVA analysis of the spectral fit
data indicates no statistical difference between sorbed
and coordinated models. Fitting statistics (R-Factors)
of the sorbed model were significantly better than the
coordinated model as shown visually on Figure 46.
The improved fit suggests that the arsenic species present
in the samples are primarily sorbed to iron oxide or
sulfide surfaces. We cannot rule out the presence of pure
arsenic phases, although LCF analysis does not support
these species being present in significant amounts.
Table 6.     Results of LCF fitting of unknown samples collected from the Asarco Smelter.
Coordinated
Core
PRB1
PRB1
PRB2
PRB2
PRB2
PRB3
PRB3
PRB3
PRB4
APBH 4-1
APBH 4-2
TW1-5
TW1-6
TW1-8
Boring
Boring
Boring
Boring
Depth (ft)
30-34F
44-48
30-34B
38-42F
38-45F
30-38A
38-42
38-42F
30.34B
1.5-6.5
10-11.5
20-25
25-30
38-40
30
35
45
50
As(V)-O
28.8
18.5
35.9
14.4
22.4
37.3
26.1
20.1
39.9
93.5
72.0
50.0
65.8
73.4
28.7
30.2
50.3
51.1
fitting model
As(III)-O
41.7
55.1
39.3
60.5
60.6
37.3
48.1
29.1
45.8
6.5
28.0
27.0
34.2
26.6
0.9
8.5
49.7
48.9
As(III)-S
29.4
26.4
24.8
25.1
17.1
25.4
25.8
50.8
14.3
0.0
0.0
23.0
0.0
0.0
70.4
61.2
0.0
0.0
R-Factor
coordinated
0.004
0.015
0.006
0.011
0.011
0.019
0.017
0.011
0.005
0.015
0.015
0.011
0.015
0.011
0.009
0.011
0.014
0.016
Sorbed fitting model
As(V)-Fh
31.7
19.3
40.6
19.1
26.6
41.8
29.5
16.6
48.4
99.4
79.8
57.0
75.4
81.8
18.0
22.7
63.9
64.1
As(III)-Fh
30.4
59.3
31.9
54.1
62.2
41.8
35.9
18.7
26.2
0.6
20.2
43.0
24.6
18.2
0.0
0.0
28.7
35.4
* /TTTX T- o R-Factor
As(III)-FeS , ,
sorbed
37.9
21.4
27.5
26.9
11.2
16.4
34.6
64.7
25.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
82.0
77.3
7.4
0.5
0.0010
0.0013
0.0015
0.0008
0.0008
0.0060
0.0037
0.0013
0.0017
0.0060
0.0050
0.0015
0.0050
0.0030
0.0030
0.0020
0.0050
0.0060
The results of both fitting types, minerals containing As(III) or As(V) coordinated with S or O and As(III) or As(V) sorbed to
  mineral surfaces, are shown in this table. As(V)-O is As(V) coordinated with O as in arsenate; As(V)-Fh is As(V) sorbed to
  ferrihydrite; As(III)-O is As(III) coordinated with oxygen as in arsenite; As(III) is As(III) sorbed to ferrihydrite; As(III)-S is
  As(III) coordinated with S as in the mineral orpiment; and As(III)-FeS is As(III) sorbed to FeS. The R-Factor is a statistical
  measure of the error of the fit. As(V)-S was not found to contribute to the fits in any of the samples and was therefore dropped
  from the table. Also, there was no standard reference material for As(V) sorbed to FeS used in the fitting.

-------
 ty.
  a
  11850 11860  11870  11880  1189011850  11860  11870 11860 11890
            E (eV)                   E (eV)
Figure 46. Comparison of LCF fitting results using a)
          coordinated or b) sorbed reference materials
          forPRB core sample Core 1 30-34F.  The
          solid black line is the measured spectra and
          the open red circles are the fits.
                         Keeping the previous discussion in mind and using
                         the LCF and XANES data we can make some
                         generalizations about the speciation of arsenic in the
                         solid samples collected from the source zone, aquifer
                         adjacent to the PRB, and the PRB.  A ternary diagram is
                         shown in Figure 47 that shows the relative proportions
                         of As(III)-O, As(V)-O, and As(III)-S bonding
                         environments. In all cases the PRB core  samples likely
                         contained three species, As(V) and As(III) sorbed to Fe
                         (oxy)hydroxides and As(III) sorbed to Fe sulfide phases.
                         Samples collected in the source zone contained two As
                         species As(V) and As(III) sorbed to Fe (oxy)hydroxides
                         and in the case of sample APBH 4-1 the speciation was
                         primarily As(V) sorbed to Fe (oxy)hydroxides, although
                         there was a small amount of As(III) sorbed to (oxy)
                         hydroxides.  The well borings collected prior to PRB
                         installation show that the speciation in the shallow
                         depths was primarily As(III) sorbed to FeS, with a small
                         fraction of the speciation being As(V) sorbed to Fe (oxy)
                         hydroxides.  Again this is likely because  of hydrocarbon
                         contamination driving microbial processes that result
                         in iron- and  sulfate-reducing conditions.  Finally, in
                         the deeper depths the speciation was As(V) and As(III)
                         sorbed to Fe (oxy)hydroxides.
                          PRB             0.00^1.00
                          Source Zone
                          Borings
                                    0.25,
                           0.50.
        1.00
                 0.75
                                                              0.00
          0.00
0.25
    0.50
As(V)-O
0.75
1.00
Figure 47. Ternary diagram showing the solid-phase arsenic speciation based on XANES LCF in samples collected
          from the PRB, source zone, and aquifer adjacent to the pilot-PRB.

-------
                                                                                           7.0
                                         Future  Study  Improvements
At this point it may be worthwhile to point out areas
where this study could have been improved to help
future efforts of this sort and to indicate planned
continued studies.  One obvious shortcoming of the
study is the fact that the lower confining unit was not
tagged during construction of the pilot PRB. As noted in
the report, however, the negative consequences exceeded
the possible benefit. More information is needed at this
site regarding the continuity and thickness of the lower
ash confining unit. The initial high DOC concentrations
were a bit surprising and were not helpful in the early
ground-water sampling campaigns.  While it is possible
that microbial populations were stimulated by this dose
of organic carbon, it may have been beneficial to spend
more time and effort in attempts to actively degrade the
residual bioslurry. Future plans involve more detailed
tracer studies that combine heat and chemical tracers.
Spectroscopic studies that move beyond the near-edge
region of arsenic are also planned on a new set of cores
to be collected after about 3.5 y of operation. These
cores will be subjected to XRD analysis, as well as As
EXAFS and Fe EXAFS analysis, to better fingerprint the
important arsenic uptake and iron corrosion processes.

-------
8.0
Summary  and   Relevance  to  Other  Sites
 In June 2005, a 9.1 m long, 14 m deep, and 1.8 to 2.4 m
 wide (in the direction of ground-water flow) pilot-scale
 permeable reactive barrier (PRB) was installed at a
 former metal smelting facility, located near Helena,
 Montana.  The reactive barrier was installed over a 3-day
 period using bio-polymer slurry methods and modified
 excavating equipment for deep trenching.  The reactive
 medium was composed entirely of granular iron.  A
 monitoring network of approximately 40 ground-water
 sampling wells was installed in July 2005. Ground
 water samples were collected and analyzed at 1 month,
 4 months, 12 months, 15 and 25 months of operation.
 After over 2 years of monitoring, results indicate
 arsenic concentrations >25 mg I/1  in wells located
 hydraulically upgradient of the PRB. Within the PRB,
 arsenic concentrations are  reduced to 2 to <0.01 mg I/1.
 Detailed studies in the aquifer downgradient of the PRB
 show an upper zone of the saturated aquifer (8.8 m to
 12.8 m below land surface) where  arsenic concentrations
 are reduced to <0.5 mg I/1 after 25 months of operation.
 Arsenic concentrations in the lower zone of the
 downgradient region, from 12.8 m to 14.6 m below land
 surface, increase with increasing depth to a maximum
 value of about 27 mg I/1, or roughly the same arsenic
 concentration observed on the upgradient side of the
 PRB. Ineffective treatment of arsenic over the lower
 depth interval is likely due to the fact that the maximum
 PRB depth is  13.7-14.0 m below land surface, about
 1 m short of the depth of the basal  weathered ash.  The
 pilot-PRB was not anchored into the weathered ash
 because of uncertainties about the  ash thickness in the
 area of the site where the PRB was installed and to
 insure that the lower confining unit was not breached
 during the excavation. In short, where  hydraulic
 connection between the upgradient aquifer and the PRB
 is established, the pilot PRB is performing as expected.
 Monitoring of the water table upgradient of the PRB
 indicates that mounding of groundwater on the leading
 edge of the barrier is negligible. In addition, slug testing
 in the PRB indicates hydraulic conductivities average
 approximately 60 m d1, a value that is comparable to the
 native aquifer materials in this region of the site.  These
 data, along with other geochemical indicators (such as
 reduced arsenic concentrations in the PRB), indicate
 that the system is meeting  hydraulic performance
 expectations.
General conclusions and observations can be made
regarding the application of PRB technology with
granular iron for treatment of arsenic in ground water.
• Zerovalent iron can be effectively used to treat ground
  water contaminated with arsenic given appropriate
  geochemical and hydrological conditions.  Results
  of pilot testing are promising in that significant
  concentration reductions for arsenic have been
  achieved for over 2 years in the downgradient aquifer
  directly impacted by the PRB and the system is
  meeting hydraulic performance expectations.  Solid-
  phase tests indicate that <10% of the arsenic uptake
  capacity of the reactive medium was used after about
  1 year of operation.
• Arsenic removal processes appear to be complex as
  multiple bonding and coordination environments
  around arsenic are revealed using advanced
  spectroscopic techniques. Sequestration mechanisms
  taking place in the field are more varied compared
  to those previously indicated in highly controlled
  laboratory tests.  PRB core samples likely contain
  arsenic in three solid-phase species: As(V) and As(III)
  sorbed to Fe (oxy)hydroxides and As(III) sorbed to Fe
  sulfide phases. This study demonstrated a relationship
  between observed distributions of aqueous species of
  arsenic with solid-phase species as determined using
  spectroscopic analyses.
• Granular iron has a finite capacity to remove arsenic
  from solution. Therefore, successful applications
  of PRB technology for arsenic removal require
  detailed subsurface characterization data that
  capture geochemical and hydrogeologic variability.
  Evaluation of depth-dependent arsenic flux is critical.
  Zones with maximal contaminant flux will necessarily
  dictate system design requirements. This study
  employed discrete interval sampling for geochemical
  profiles, interval-specific probes of hydraulic
  conductivity, and continuous water level logging to
  evaluate long-term arsenic transport in the subsurface.
  Flux evaluations indicate that arsenic removal by
  zerovalent is highly effective at loadings below
  5 g As/m2d.
• Sodium-sulfate-type ground water is better suited
  for contaminant treatment by zerovalent iron over
  calcium-bicarbonate-type ground water. Carbonate

-------
precipitation is an undesirable consequence of             •  Source control measures will reduce arsenic loading to
zerovalent iron applications and is expected to reduce        the PRB and implementation of such measures should
long-term reactive and hydraulic performance.               result in increased PRB lifetimes.  The increase in
Microbial reduction of sulfate to sulfide and                 effective lifetime should be directly proportional to the
precipitation of low-density iron sulfides within the          level of concentration reduction achieved by isolating
reactive medium creates additional mineral surfaces         and/or treating the source of contamination.
for arsenic removal.

-------
9.0
References
 Bain, J., D. Blowes, D. Smyth, C. Ptacek, J. Wilkens,
 and R. Ludwig. "Permeable reactive barriers for the
 in-situ treatment of arsenic contaminated groundwater."
 In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
 on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant
 Compounds, Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, 2006.

 Bang, S., M. D. Johnson, G. P. Korfiatis, and X. Meng.
 Chemical reactions between arsenic and zero-valent iron
 in water.  Water Research 39: 763-770 (2005a).

 Bang, S., G. P. Korfiatis, and X. Meng. Removal of
 arsenic from water by zero-valent iron. Journal of
 Hazardous Materials 121: 61-67 (2005b).

 Beak, D., R. T. Wilkin, R. G. Ford,  and S. Kelly.  An
 examination of arsenic speciation in sulfidic solutions
 using x-ray absorption spectroscopy. Environmental
 Science and Technology 42: 1643-1650 (2008).

 Blowes, D. W., C. J.  Ptacek, S. G. Benner, C. W. T.
 McRae, T. A. Bennett, and R. W. Puls. Treament
 of inorganic contaminants using permeable reactive
 barriers. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 45: 123-137
 (2000).

 Biterna, M., A. Arditsoglou, E. Tsikouras, and D. Voutsa.
 Arsenate removal by zero valent iron: Batch and column
 tests. Journal of Hazardous Materials 149: 548-552
 (2007).

 Bouwer, H. and R. C. Rice. A slug  test method for
 determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfmed
 aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells.
 Water Resources Research 12: 423-428 (1976).

 Briar, D.  W. and J. P. Madison. Hydrogeology of the
 Helena valley-fill aquifer system, west-central Montana.
 Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4023, U.S.
 Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 1992.

 Butler, J. J., Jr. The Design, Performance, and Analysis
 of Slug Tests, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,  1997.

 Butler, J. J., Jr. and E. J. Garnett. Simple procedures for
 analyses  of slug tests informations  of high hydraulic
 conductivity using spreadsheet and scientific graphics
 software. Kansas Geological Survey,  Open File Report
 2000-40, 2000.
Cherry, J. A., A. U. Shaikh, D. E. Tallman, and R. V
Nicholson.  Arsenic species as an indicator of redox
conditions in groundwater. Journal of Hydrology 43:
373-392 (1979).

Cullen, W. R. and K. J. Reimer. Arsenic speciation in the
environment.  Chemical Reviews 89: 713-764 (1989).

Del Razo, L. M., M. A. Arellano, and M. E. Cebrian,.
The oxidation states of arsenic in well water from
a chronic arsenicism area of northern Mexico.
Environmental Pollution 64: 143-153 (1990).

Devlin, J. F. A spreadsheet method of estimating best-fit
hydraulic gradients using head data from multiple wells.
Ground Water 41: 316-320 (2003).

Eary, L. E. The solubility of amorphous As2S3 from 25
to 90 °C.  Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56: 2267-
2280 (1992).

Farrell, J., J. Wang, P. O'Day, and M. Conklin.
Electrochemical and spectroscopic study of arsenate
removal from water using zero-valent iron media.
Environmental Science and Technology 35: 2026-2032
(2001).

Ferguson, J. F. and J. Gavis. A review of the arsenic
cycle in natural waters. Water Research 6: 1259-1274
(1972).

Furukawa, Y, J. Kim, J. Watkins, and R. T. Wilkin.
Formation of ferrihydrite and associated corrosion
products in Permeable Reactive Barriers of zero-valent
iron. Environmental Science and Technology 36: 5469-
5475 (2002).

Gallegos, T. J., S. P. Hyun, and K. F. Hayes.
Spectroscopic investigation of the uptake of arsenite
from solution by synthetic mackinawite. Environmental
Science and Technology 41: 7781-7786 (2007).

Holm, T. R. and C. D. Curtiss. A comparison of
oxidation-reduction potentials calculated from the
As(V)/As(III) and Fe(III)/Fe(II) couples with measured
platinum-electrode potentials in groundwater.  Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 5: 67-81 (1989).

ITRC. Permeable Reactive Barriers: Lessons learned/
new directions. Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council, Report PRB-4, Washington, DC, 2005.

-------
Johnston, R. B. and P. C. Singer.  Redox reactions in the
Fe-As-O2 system.  Chemosphere 69: 517-525 (2007a).

Johnston, R. B. and Singer, P. C.  Solubility of
symplesite (ferrous arsenate): implications for reduced
groundwaters and other geochemical environments.
5*0/7 Science Society of America Journal 71: 101-107
(2007b).

Kamolpornwijit, W., L. Liang, G. R. Moline, T. Hart,
and O. R. West. Identification and quantification of
mineral precipitation in FeO filings from a column study.
Environmental Science and Technology 38: 5757-5765
(2004).

Keys, W. S. and R. F. Brown. The use of temperature
logs to trace the movement of injected water. Ground
Water 16: 32-48 (1978).

Kober, R., E. Welter, M. Ebert, and A. Dahmke.
Removal of arsenic from groundwater by zerovalent
iron and the role of sulfide. Environmental Science and
Technology 39: 8038-8044 (2005).

Kohn, T., K. J. T. Livi, A. L. Roberts, and P. J.
Vikesland. Longevity of granular iron in groundwater
treatment processes:  Corrosion product development.
Environmental Science and Technology 39: 2867-2879
(2005).

Lackovic, J. A., N. P. Nikolaidis, and G. M. Dobbs.
Inorganic arsenic removal by zero-valent iron.
Environmental Engineering Science  17: 29-39 (2000).

Leupin, O. X. and S. J. Hug. Oxidation and removal
of arsenic(III) from aerated groundwater by filtration
through sand and zero-valent iron. Water Research
39: 1729-1740 (2005).

Li, L., C. H. Benson, and E. M. Lawson. Modeling
porosity reductions caused by mineral fouling in
continuous-wall permeable reactive barriers. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrogeology%?>: 89-121 (2006).

Liang, L., G. R. Moline, W. Kamolpornwijit, and O.
R. West.  Influence of hydrochemical processes on
zero-valent iron reactive barrier performance: A field
investigation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrogeology
80: 71-91 (2005).

Lien, H.-L.  and R. T. Wilkin. High-level arsenite
removal from groundwater by zero-valent iron.
Chemosphere 59: 377-386 (2005).

Lorenz, H. W. and F. A. Swenson. Geology and ground-
water resources of the Helena Valley, Montana. Circular
83, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,  VA, 1951.
Magalhaes, M. C. F. Arsenic. An environmental
problem limited by solubility. Pure and Applied
Chemistry'74: 1843-1850 (2002).

Mandal, B. Chronic arsenic toxicity in West Bengal.
Current Science 72: 917-924 (1997).

Manning, B. A., M. L. Hunt, C. Amrhein, and J. A.
Yarmoff. Arsenic(III) and arsenic(V) reactions with
zerovalent iron corrosion products. Environmental
Science and Technology 36: 5455-5461 (2002).

Me Arthur, J. M., P. Ravenscroft, S. Safiulla, and M. F.
Thirlwall. Arsenic in groundwater: Testing pollution
mechanisms for sedimentary aquifers in Bangladesh.
Water Resources Research 37: 109-117 (2001).

Melitas, N., J. Wang, M. Conklin,  P. O'Day, and J.
Farrell. Understanding soluble arsenate removal kinetics
by zerovalent iron media. Environmental Science and
Technology 36:  2074-2081(2002).

Molz, F. J. and S. C. Young. Development and
application of borehole flowmeters for environmental
assessment. The Log Analyst 34: 13-23 (1993).

Molz, F. J., G. K. Boman, S. C. Young, and W. R.
Waldrop. Borehole flowmeters: field application and
data analysis. Journal of Hydrology 163: 347-371
(1994).

Morrison, S. J., D. R. Metzler, and B. P. Dwyer.
Removal of As, Mn, Mo, U, V, and Zn from groundwater
by zero-valent iron in a passive treatment cell: reaction
progress modeling. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
56:99-116(2002).

Morrison, S. J., P. S. Mushovic, and P. L. Niesen.
Early breakthrough of molybdenum and uranium in a
permeable reactive barrier. Environmental Science and
Technology 40: 2018-2024 (2006).

National Research Council. Arsenic in Drinking Water.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC,  1999.

Newville, M. IFEFFIT:  Interactive EXAFS analysis and
FEFF fitting. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 322-324
(2001).

Nickson, R., J. McArthur, W.  Burgess, K. M. Ahmed,
P. Ravenscroft, and M. Rahman.  Arsenic poisoning of
Bangladesh groundwater. Nature 395: 338 (1998).

Nikolaidis, N. P., G. M. Dobbs, and J. A. Lackovic.
Arsenic removal by zero-valent iron:  field, laboratory
and modeling studies. Water Research 37': 1417-1425
(2003).

-------
Nooten, T. V, D. Springael, and L. Bastiaens.  Positive
impact of microorganisms on the performance of
laboratory-scale permeable reactive iron barriers.
Environmental Science and Technology 42: 1680-1686
(2008).

Nordstrom, D. K. Worldwide occurrences of arsenic in
ground water. Science 296: 2143-2145 (2002).

Nordstrom, D. K. and D. G. Archer. "Arsenic
thermodynamic data and environmental geochemistry."
In Arsenic in Ground Water: Geochemistry and
Occurrence, A. H. Welch and K. G. Stollenwerk (eds.),
Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2003.

O'Hannesin, S. and R. W. Gillham. Long-term
performance of an in situ "iron wall" for remediation of
VOCs. Ground Water 36: 164-170 (1998).

Polizzoto, M. L., C. F. Harvey, G. Li, B. Badruzzman,
A. Ali, M. Newville, S.  Sutton,  and S. Fendorf. Solid-
phases and desorption processes of arsenic within
Bangladesh sediments.  Chemical Geology 228:  97-111
(2006).

Rader, K., P. M. Dombrowski, K.  J. Farley, J. D.
Mahony, and D. M. Ditoro. Effect of thioarsenite
formation on arsenic(III) toxicity.  Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 23: 1649-1654  (2004).

Rahman, M., U. Chowdhury, S. Mukherjee, B. Mandal,
K. Paul, D. Lodh, B. Biswas, C. Chanda, G. Basu, K.
Sana, S. Roy, R. Das, S. Palit, Q. Quamruzzaman,  and
D. Chakraborti. Chronic arsenic toxicity in Bangladesh
and West Bengal, India-A review and commentary.
Toxicology and Clinical Toxicology 39: 683 (2001).

Ramaswami, A., S. Tawachsupa, and M. Isleyen. Batch-
mixed iron treatment of high arsenic waters. Water
Research 35: 4474-4479 (2001).

Ravel, B. and M. Newville. Athena, Artemis,
Hephaestus: data analysis for x-ray absorption
spectroscopy using IFEFFIT. Journal of Synchrotron
Radiation 12: 537-541 (2005).

Roh, Y, S. Y. Lee, and M. P. Elless. Characterization of
corrosion products in the permeable reactive barriers.
Environmental Geology 40: 184-194 (2000).

Ronen, D., M. Magaritz, and I. Levy. An in-situ
multilevel sampler for preventive  monitoring and study
of hydrochemical profiles in aquifers. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 7: 69-74 (1986).

Rude, T. R. and S. Wohnlich. "The couple of As(V) -
As(III) as a redox indicator." In Redox: fundamentals,
processes, and applications, J. Schilling et al. (eds.).
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.

Shaw Environmental, Inc. (2005a). Technical Work Plan,
Pilot-Scale Installation of a Permeable Reactive Barrier
for the Treatment of Arsenic in Groundwater, May 2005.

Shaw Environmental, Inc. (2005b). Post Wall Installation
Report: Pilot-Scale Permeable Reactive Barrier for the
Treatment of Arsenic in Groundwater, July 2005.

Smedley, P. L. and D. G. Kinniburgh.  A review of the
source, behaviour, and distribution of arsenic in natural
waters. Applied Geochemistry 17: 517-568 (2002).

Springer, R. K. and L. W. Gelhar. Characterization of
large-scale aquifer heterogeneity in glacial outwash by
analysis of slug tests with oscillatory response, Cape
Cod, Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Investigations Report 91-4034, 1991.

Stickney, M. C. Quaternary geology and faulting in
the Helena Valley, Montana. Geologic Map Series 46,
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte, MT,
1987.

Su, C. and R. W. Puls. Arsenate and arsenite removal
by zerovalent iron: Kinetics, redox transformation,
and implications for in situ groundwater remediation.
Environmental Science  and Technology 35: 1487-1492
(200 la).

Su, C. and R. W. Puls. Arsenate and arsenite  removal by
zerovalent iron: Effects of phosphate, silicate, carbonate,
borate, sulfate, chromate, molybdate, and nitrate, relative
to chloride. Environmental Science and Technology 35:
4562-4568 (200Ib).

Su, C. and R. W. Puls. In situ remediation of arsenic in
simulated groundwater using zerovalent iron: Laboratory
column tests on combined effects of phosphate and
silicate . Environmental Science and Technology
37: 2582-2587 (2003).

Sun, H., L. Wang, R. Zhang, J. Sui, and G. Xu.
Treatment of groundwater polluted by arsenic
compounds by zero valent iron. Journal of Hazardous
Materials m29: 297-303 (2006).

USEPA. Technology alternatives for the remediation
of soils contaminated with As, Cd, Cr, Hg, andPb,
EPA/540/S-97/500. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1997.

USEPA. The QTRACER2 program for tracer-
breakthrough curve analysis for tracer tests in karstic
and other hydrologic systems, EPA/600/R-02/001.

-------
Washington, D. C.:  U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2002.

USEPA.  Capstone report on the application,
monitoring, and performance of permeable reactive
barriers for ground-water remediation; Volume 1,
Performance evaluations at two sites, EPA/600/R-
03/045a.  Cincinnati, OH: USEPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, 2003a.

USEPA.  Capstone report on the application,
monitoring, and performance of permeable reactive
barriers for ground-water remediation; Volume 2,
Soiling sampling and ground water sampling, EPA/600/
R-03/045b. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, 2003b.

USEPA.  Monitored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic
Contaminants in Ground Water:  Volume 2, Assessment
for Non-radionuclides Including Arsenic, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Nitrate, Perchlorate,
and Selenium, EPA Report, EPA/600/R07/140, 2007.

Vlassopoulos, D., N. Rivera, P. A. O'Day, M. T. Rafferty,
and C. B. Andrews. "Arsenic removal by zero-valent
iron: a field study of rates, mechanisms, and long
term performance." In Advances in Arsenic Research:
Integration of Experimental and Observational Studies
and Implications for Migration, PA. O'Day et al. (eds.).
American Chemical Society Symposium Series 915,
Ch. 25, 2005.

Webster,  J. G.  The solubility of As2S3 and speciation
of As in dilute and sulphide-bearing fluids at 25 and 90
°C. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54: 1009-1017
(1990).

Welch, A. H., M. S. Lico, and J. L. Hughes. Arsenic
in ground water of the western United  States. Ground
Water 26: 333-347 (1988).

Welch, A. H., D. B. Westjohn, D. R. Helsel,  and R. B.
Wanty. Arsenic in ground water of the United States:
occurrence and geochemistry. Ground  Water 38: 589-604
(2000).

Wilkin, R. T., D. Wallschlager, and R. G. Ford.
Speciation of arsenic in sulfidic waters. Geochemical
Transactions 4: 1-7 (2003).

Wilkin, R. T., R. W. Puls, and G. W Sewell. Long-term
performance of Permeable Reactive Barriers using zero-
valent iron: geochemical and microbiological effects.
Ground Water 41: 493-503 (2003).
Wilkin, R. T., C. Su, R. G. Ford, and C. J. Paul.
Chromium removal processes during groundwater
remediation by a zerovalent iron permeable reactive
barrier. Environmental Science and Technology
39: 4599-4605 (2005).

Wilkin, R. T. and K. J. Bischoff. Coulometric
determination of total sulfur and reduced inorganic sulfur
fractions in environmental samples.  Talanta 70: 766-773
(2006).

Wolthers, M., L. Charlet, C. H. van der Weijden, P. R.
van der Linde, and D. Rickard. Arsenic mobility in the
ambient sulfidic environment: sorption of arsenic(V) and
arsenic(III) onto disordered mackinawite.  Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 69: 3483-3492 (2005).

Young, S.  C., H. E. Julian, H. S. Pearson, F. J. Molz,
and G. K. Boman.   Application of the electromagnetic
boreholeflowmeter, EPA/600/R-98/058. Ada, OK: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1998.

Yuan, C. and T.-S. Chiang, The mechanisms of arsenic
removal from soil by electrokinetic process coupled with
iron permeable reaction barrier. Chemosphere 67: 1533-
1542 (2007).

-------
Appendix A
Table Al.   Wells used in the design and assessment of the PRB.
Existing Wells:
WELL
DH-8
DH-17
DH-21
DH-24
DH-27
DH-33
DH-34
DH-36
DH-49
DH-50
DH-51
DH-56
DH-63
DH-64
DH-66
STW-1
STW-4
STW-7
STW-9
PRB1
PRB2
PRB3
Ground Surface
Elevation
(mAMSL)
1192.61
1189.34
1190.53
1187.91
1191.53
1191.43
1190.75
1189.44
1188.15
1188.35
1188.36
1204.58
1188.64
1188.20
1191.26
1188.65
1188.14
1188.67
1188.23
1190.24
1188.80
1190.96
Top of Screen
(m BLS)
11.9
9.4
5.8
8.2
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
21.3
7.3
13.7
11.6
10.1
9.8
7.6
10.7
10.7
11.3
11.0
Bottom of Screen
(m BLS)
14.9
12.5
8.8
10.7
8.8
9.1
9.1
9.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
25.9
11.9
16.8
14.6
11.6
11.3
12.2
12.2
15.2
15.8
15.5
Top of Screen
(mAMSL)
1180.7
1179.9
1184.7
1179.7
1185.7
1185.3
1184.7
1183.0
1180.8
1181.0
1181.0
1183.2
1181.3
1174.5
1179.7
1178.6
1178.4
1181.0
1177.6
1179.6
1177.5
1180.0
Bottom of Screen
(mAMSL)
1177.7
1176.8
1181.7
1177.2
1182.7
1182.3
1181.6
1180.0
1177.8
1178.0
1178.0
1178.7
1176.8
1171.4
1176.6
1177.1
1176.9
1176.5
1176.0
1175.0
1172.9
1175.4
Construction
4" PVC
4" PVC
4" PVC
4" PVC
4" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
Note:   AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level.
BLS = Below Land Surface.

-------
Wells Installed by USEPA:
WELL
EPA01
EPA02
EPA03
EPA04
EPA05
EPA06
EPA07
EPA08
EPA09
EPA10
PBTW-1
PBTW-2
SOI
S02
803
S04
805
S06
S07
SOS
T1A
TIB
TIC
T2A
T2B
T2C
T3A
T3B
T3C
TR1
TR2
TR3
TR4-1
TR4-2
TR4-3
TR5-1
TR5-2
TR5-3
TR6-1
TR6-2
TR6-3
TR7
TR8
TR9
TRIO
TR11-1
TR11-2
TR11-3
TR12-1
TR12-2
TR12-3
Ground Surface
Elevation
(m AMSL)
1189.72
1189.59
1189.35
1189.41
1188.89
1189.45
1188.99
1189.63
1189.60
1189.57
1189.29
1189.01
1189.57
1189.57
1189.58
1189.57
1189.59
1189.57
1189.61
1189.61
1189.70
1189.72
1189.72
1189.58
1189.57
1189.59
1189.56
1189.55
1189.56
1189.61
1189.56
1189.58
1189.57
1189.57
1189.57
1189.57
1189.57
1189.57
1189.57
1189.57
1189.57
1189.59
1189.60
1189.60
1189.61
1189.60
1189.60
1189.60
1189.60
1189.60
1189.60
Top of
Screen
(m BLS)
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
9.1
9.4
9.8
13.0
9.9
13.0
9.9
11.4
12.2
12.2
11.4
9.6
9.4
9.4
9.2
8.8
8.8
8.6
9.3
8.7
10.4
9.9
11.4
10.0
11.5
13.0
10.0
11.5
13.1
10.0
11.5
13.0
11.4
11.4
9.9
11.4
10.0
11.5
13.0
10.0
11.6
13.1
Bottom
of Screen
(m BLS)
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.3
13.7
16.5
13.7
10.7
13.7
10.7
12.2
13.0
13.0
12.2
11.9
11.6
11.7
13.8
13.4
13.4
13.2
13.8
13.2
13.4
10.7
12.2
10.6
12.1
13.6
10.6
12.1
13.7
10.6
12.1
13.6
12.2
12.2
10.7
12.2
10.6
12.1
13.6
10.6
12.2
13.7
Top of
Screen
(mAMSL)
1179.7
1179.5
1179.3
1179.4
1178.8
1179.4
1178.9
1179.6
1179.5
1180.4
1179.8
1179.3
1176.6
1179.7
1176.6
1179.7
1178.2
1177.4
1177.4
1178.2
1180.1
1180.4
1180.3
1180.4
1180.8
1180.8
1181.0
1180.3
1180.9
1179.2
1179.7
1178.1
1179.6
1178.1
1176.6
1179.6
1178.0
1176.5
1179.6
1178.1
1176.6
1178.2
1178.2
1179.7
1178.2
1179.6
1178.1
1176.6
1179.6
1178.1
1176.5
Bottom
of Screen
(mAMSL)
1175.1
1175.0
1174.7
1174.8
1174.3
1174.8
1174.4
1175.0
1175.0
1175.2
1175.6
1172.6
1175.9
1178.9
1175.9
1178.9
1177.4
1176.6
1176.7
1177.4
1177.8
1178.1
1178.0
1175.8
1176.2
1176.2
1176.4
1175.7
1176.3
1176.2
1178.9
1177.4
1179.0
1177.5
1176.0
1178.9
1177.4
1175.9
1179.0
1177.5
1176.0
1177.4
1177.4
1178.9
1177.4
1179.0
1177.5
1176.0
1179.0
1177.4
1175.9
Construction
2" PVC
4" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
"PVC
"PVC
"PVC
"PVC
"PVC
"PVC
"PVC
"PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC
1" PVC
1" PVC
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
1" PVC
1" PVC
1" PVC
1" PVC
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT
3 channel CMT

-------
Table B1.    Method reporting limits for selected analytes during five PRB sampling events and results of selected duplicate analyses.
Technique ICP-OES
Date Al





Well
EPA03
EPA03-DUP

EPA01
EPA01-DUP

TR1
TR1-DUP

EPA06
EPA06-DUP

EPA08
EPA08-DUP

EPA01
EPA01-DUP

TRO
TRO-DUP

T3C
T3C-DUP

7/05
10/05
6/06
9/06
7/07
Sampling Date
7/19/2005
7/19/2005
RPD
10/5/2005
10/5/2005
RPD
6/8/2006
6/8/2006
RPD
6/7/2006
6/7/2006
RPD
9/18/2006
9/18/2006
RPD
9/25/2006
9/25/2006
RPD
7/19/2007
7/19/2007
RPD
7/26/2007
7/26/2007
RPD
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.036
0.030

0.063
0.061
3.2
0.286
0.281
1.8
0.028
0.018
43.5
0.147
0.128
13.8
0.249
0.235
5.8
0.183
0.181
1.1
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ICP-OES
Ca
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.024
0.028

39.0
41.0
5.0
52.1
51.9
0.4
73.1
72.4
1.0
42.8
42.7
0.2
51.5
50.1
2.8
38.6
40.0
3.6
3.68
3.73
1.3
14.5
14.4
0.7
ICP-OES
Mg
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.024
0.023

13.8
14.3
3.6
20.8
20.8
0.0
21.9
21.7
0.9
16.7
16.8
0.6
20.3
19.8
2.5
15.3
15.8
3.2
7.29
7.56
3.6
12.4
12.3
0.8
ICP-OES
Mn
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002

3.35
3.36
0.3
5.73
5.73
0.0
5.31
5.28
0.6
4.57
4.63
1.3
5.12
5.13
0.2
3.96
4.11
3.7
0.015
0.020
28.6
0.185
0.188
1.6
ICP-OES
Fe
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.008

4.55
5.71
22.6
6.92
6.90
0.3
27.8
25.2
9.8
8.45
8.43
0.2
6.87
6.77
1.5
4.76
4.88
2.5
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ICP-OES
K
0.042
0.042
0.042
0.055
0.092

12.4
12.5
0.8
14.7
14.7
0.0
15.5
15.4
0.6
14.0
13.9
0.7
13.1
13.0
0.8
9.85
9.91
0.6
13.0
13.0
0.0
12.4
12.3
0.8
ICP-OES
Na
0.122
0.122
0.122
0.042
0.091

407
408
0.2
299
299
0.0
263
261
0.8
313
318
1.6
220
227
3.1
153
153
0.0
202
203
0.5
245
242
1.2
ICP-OES
Zn
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.016

0.80
0.81
1.4
2.96
2.99
1.0
0.021
0.021
0.0
1.19
1.19
0.0
2.28
2.25
1.3
1.93
1.99
3.1
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
ICP-OES
Si
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.044
0.047

10.0
10.2
2.0
12.2
12.2
0.0
14.3
14.4
0.7
13.0
13.0
0.0
11.5
11.5
0.0
9.03
9.29
2.8
0.44
0.43
1.8
2.12
2.16
1.9
ICP-OES
As
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.008

38.9
38.8
0.3
28.4
28.4
0.0
18.1
18.2
0.6
34.0
34.1
0.3
27.3
27.5
0.7
19.3
20.2
4.6
0.134
0.133
0.7
0.724
0.739
2.1
IC-ICP-MS
As(III)
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.015
0.015

34.4
34.8
1.2
23.7
22.3
6.1
3.16
3.57
12.2
22.0
22.2
0.9
19.3
18.1
6.4
15.5
15.7
1.3
0.141
0.117
18.6
1.53
1.54
0.7
IC-ICP-MS
As(V)
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.015
0.015

0.97
0.96
1.0
4.19
4.32
3.1
10.5
10.7
1.9
8.77
7.25
19.0
5.60
5.17
8.0
4.08
4.40
7.5
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
NA
CE
Cl
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.113

68.6
67.7
1.3
65.7
63.5
3.4
42.1
42.5
0.9
42.6
41.5
2.6
36.1
36.9
2.2
41.0
33.3
20.7
32.7
33.2
1.5
34.8
33.4
4.1
CE
S°4
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.137

645
636
1.4
621
619
0.3
470
476
1.3
628
623
0.8
547
554
1.3
667
536
21.8
205
206
0.5
223
213
4.6
CD
—5
_J
Q_
— •
X
00
























RPD is the relative percent difference used to compare duplicate results, RPD = (|C2 - Cl |)/((C1 + C2)/2) x 100, where Cl is the concentration in the sample and C2 is the
  concentration in the duplicate. The replicate results are in good agreement. Less than 5% difference is observed in 90 out 104 comparisons; better than 10% difference is
  observed in 95 out of 104 observations. As expected, larger percent differences are observed in measurements approaching the detection limit and are sometimes associated
  with the arsenic speciation analysis.

-------
Table B2.    Results of blank tests and pump rinsate tests.


Field Blank
Field Blank
Field Blank
Field Blank
Field Blank
Pump Rinse

PBTW-1
Pump Rinse

EPA05
Technique
Date
7/05
10/05
6/06
9/06
7/07

8/02


8/02

ICP-OES
Al
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


0.15

ICP-OES
Ca
ND
ND
0.26
ND
ND

0.88


0.44

ICP-OES
Mg
ND
ND
0.05
ND
ND

0.45


0.17

ICP-OES
Mn
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.02


0.02

ICP-OES
Fe
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.33


0.71

ICP-OES
K
0.06
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


ND

ICP-OES
Na
ND
0.18
0.70
ND
ND

1.85


0.57

ICP-OES
Zn
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


ND

ICP-OES
Si
ND
0.55
0.54
ND
ND

0.26


0.35

ICP-OES
As
ND
0.007
ND
0.005
ND

ND


ND

IC-ICP-MS
As(III)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

NA


NA

IC-ICP-MS
As(V)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

NA


NA

CE
Cl
ND
0.20
ND
ND
ND

NA


NA

CE
so4
ND
ND
0.67
ND
ND

NA


NA

ND, not detected. NA, not analyzed.  All results in mg/L.

The majority of the field based analyses indicate ND or near MDL values. The analytes with detectable values are likely reflective of trace components in distilled water purchased
  locally for field decontamination. Low levels of arsenic in blanks from 10/2005 and 9/2006 are likely due to artifacts after running samples with high arsenic concentrations (>50
  mg/L). The Fultz pump was rinsed in between wells with 1 gallon of distilled water.  At the end of the rinse cycle, water was collected and analyzed in wells PBTW-1 and EPA05 to
  evaluate decontamination effectiveness.

-------
Appendix  C
Table Cl. Thermodynamic data for arsenic oxyanions.

Reaction
As(III) species
H3AsO3(aq) = H2AsO3' + H+
H2AsO3- = HAsO32' + H+
HAsO32' = AsO33' + H+
As(V) species
H3AsO4(aq) = H2AsO; + H+
H2AsO; = HAsO/- + H+
HAsO42-=AsO43- + H+
Redox
H3As04(aq) + H2(g) =
H3As03(aq) + H20(l)
MINTEQA21


-9.38
-14.35
ND

-2.24
-7.01
-11.94

22.96
WATEQ4P


-9.36
-14.70
-15.70

-2.25
-7.18
-11.79

23.40
LLNL3


-9.23
-11.01
ND

-2.25
-6.75
-11.90

22.56
Nordstrom
and Archer
(2003)


-9.15
-14.70
-15.70

-2.30
-7.16
-11.65

19.35
Raposo
et al. (2004)






-2.25
-7.06
-11.58


Zakaznova-
Herzog et al.
(2006)


-9.25








1 Allison, J. D., Brown, D. S., and Nova-Gradac, K. J. (1990). MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2, A geochemical assessment model for
  environmental systems. USEPA, EPA/600/3-91/021.

2 Ball, J. W. and Nordstrom, D. K. (1991). User's manual for WATEQ4F, with revised thermodynamic data base. USGS Open File
  Report 91-183.

3 Dataset from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, thermo.dat.  Wolery, T. J. (1992). EQ3/6, a software package for
  geochemical modeling of aqueous systems, package overview and installation guide (version 7.0). Technical Report UCRL-
  MA-110662, Part 1, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Nordstrom, D. K. and Archer, D. G. (2003). Arsenic thermodynamic data and environmental geochemistry. In Arsenic in Ground
  Water: Geochemistry and Occurrence, Welch, A. H. and Stollenwerk, K. G., eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Raposo, J. C., Zuloaga, O., Olazabal, M. A., and Madariaga, J. M. (2004). Study of the precipitation equilibria of arsenate anion
  with calcium and magnesium in sodium perchlorate at 25°C. Applied Geochemistry, v. 19, p. 855-862.

Zakaznova-Herzog, V. P., Seward, T. M., and Suleimenov, O. M. (2006). Arsenous acid ionization in aqueous solutions from 25 to
  300 °C. GeochimicaetCosmochimicaActa, v. 70, p.  1928-1938.

-------
                                                                          Appendix  D
Ground-Water Elevation Hydrographs
  S  11 SO 30
  ra
  °  117950
           2002  2003  20C4  2COC  2006  2007  200
                          Date
Figure D1.   Hydrograph of ground-water elevations
           measured at well DH-17.
                                                    <
                                                    E
                                                    TO
                                                    C

                                                    O
                                                                         006      2007       2003
                                                                            Date
                                                  Figure D3.   Hydrograph of ground-water elevations
                                                             measured at well EPA06.
  <
  E
                                                    CO
                                                    s
                                                    <
                                                    _
                                                    LU
                                                    fc
                                                       117950
                      2:06       zo:
                          Date
                                                                         C06      20"
                                                                            Date
Figure D2.  Hydrograph of ground-water elevations
           measured at well EPA02.
Figure D4.   Hydrograph of ground-water elevations
           measured at well PBTW-2.

-------
  O
  (5  117900
                            Date
Figure D5.   Hydrograph of ground-water elevations
            measured at well TR8.

-------
                                                         Appendix E
Potentiometric Surface in Vicinity of PRB
                    262550-
                 0)
                .E  262450-

                I
                    262350-
                           414300
414400
414500
                                    Easting (m)
Figure El.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on June 19, 2002.


                          '  }J*-T(jf
                    262550-
                 O)
                .E  262450H
                    262350-
                           414300      414400      414500

                                    Easting (m)
Figure E2.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on September 26, 2002.

-------
                     262550-
                 O)
                .E  262450-
                .C
                t:
                 o
                     262350-
                                414300
414400
414500
                                           Easting (m)
Figure E3.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on August 14, 2003.
                     262550
                                414300         414400         414500

                                            Easting (m)
Figure E4.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB onMay 31, 2005.

-------
                                 414300          414400           414500


                                              Easting (m)


Figure E5.   Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on July 20, 2005.
                     262550-
                  O)
                 .E  262450

                 •e
                  o
                     262350-
                                 414300
414400
414500
                                              Easting (m)
Figure E6.   Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on October 6, 2005.

-------
                     262550
                  O)
                 .£  262450-
                 .C
                 tr
                  o
                     262350-
                                414300          414400           414500


                                              Easting (m)




Figure El.   Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on June 6, 2006.
                     262550-
                  D)

                 .E  262450
                 .C
                 -c
                  O
                     262350-
                                414300          414400           414500


                                              Easting (m)


Figure E8.   Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on September 18, 2006.

-------
                      262550
                  05
                  .E  262450-

                  €
                  o
                      262350-
                                 414300           414400           414500


                                               Easting (m)



Figure E9.   Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on January 24, 2007.
                       262550-
                   O)
                   .£  262450
                   .C
                   tr
                   o
                       262350-
                                  414300          414400          414500


                                               Easting (m)


Figure E10.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on July 18/19, 2007.

-------
              262500
         CD

         .E   262450
              262400-
                             414400
         I
     414450
                                       Easting (m)
           414500
Figure Ell.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on October 1, 2007.
                    262550-
                O)
                .£  262450-

                tr
                O
                    262350-
                             414300
414400
414500
                                         Easting (m)
Figure E12.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on April 1, 2008.

-------
                     262550-
                  D3
                 .E  262450
                 .C
                 tr
                  o
                     262350-
                                 414300          414400           414500


                                              Easting (m)



Figure E13.  Potentiometric surface at the water table in vicinity of PRB on June 24, 2008.

-------

-------
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free

-------