v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Demonstration of In Situ
Dehalogenation of DNAPL
through Injection of Emulsified
Zero-Valent Iron at Launch
Complex 34 in Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station, Florida
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
EPA/540/R-07/006
September 2004
Demonstration of In Situ Dehalogenation of
DNAPL through Injection of
Emulsified Zero-Valent Iron at
Launch Complex 34 in
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
Final Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
Prepared by
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
26 Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
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 threaten
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their
cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and
ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL
collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of
compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental
problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the
technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community
and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has funded the research described here-
under. In no event shall either the United States Government or Battelle have any
responsibility or liability for any consequences of any use, misuse, inability to use, or
reliance on the information contained herein. Mention of corporation names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use of specific products.
-------
Acknowledgments
The Battelle staff who worked on this project include Arun Gavaskar (Project Man-
ager), Woong-Sang Yoon, Megan Gaberell, Eric Drescher, Lydia Gumming, Joel
Sminchak, Jim Hicks, Bruce Buxton, Michele Morara, Thomas Wilk, and Loretta Bahn.
Battelle would like to acknowledge the resources and technical support provided by
several members of the project team:
• Tom Holdsworth and Ron Herrmann at U.S. EPA for providing resources to
evaluate this demonstration.
• Jackie Quinn at NASA who provided technical guidance and oversight.
• Suzanne O'Hara, Thomas Krug, and David Bertrand from GeoSyntec
Consultants.
• Cherie Geiger and Chris Klaussen from University of Central Florida.
• John DuPont and Scott Schroeder from DHL Analytical.
• Randy Robinson from Precision Sampling.
IV
-------
Executive Summary
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the technical and cost performance of
emulsified zero-valent iron (EZVI) technology when applied to DNAPL contaminants
in the saturated zone. This demonstration was conducted at Launch Complex 34,
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, where chlorinated volatile organic compounds
(CVOCs), mainly trichloroethylene (TCE), are present in the subsurface as DNAPL.
Smaller amounts of dichloroethylene (DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC) also are present
as a result of the natural degradation of TCE.
The EZVI project was conducted under the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) Pro-
gram. The Small Business Concern is GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) and the
Research Institution is the University of Central Florida (UCF). This EZVI demon-
stration was independently evaluated under the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's (U.S. EPA's) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
(the SITE Program).
EZVI can be used to enhance the destruction of chlorinated DNAPL in source zones
by creating intimate contact between the DNAPL and the nanoscale iron particles.
The EZVI is composed of surfactant, biodegradable oil, water, and zero-valent iron
particles, which form emulsion particles (or micelles) that contain the iron particles in
water surrounded by an oil-liquid membrane. Because the exterior oil membrane of
the emulsion particles has similar hydrophobic properties as the DNAPL, the emul-
sion is miscible with the DNAPL (i.e., the phases can mix). It has been demonstrated
in laboratory experiments conducted at UCF that DNAPL compounds (e.g., TCE)
diffuse through the oil membrane of the emulsion particle and undergo reductive
dechlorination facilitated by the zero-valent iron particles in the interior aqueous
phase. The final byproducts (nonchlorinated hydrocarbons) from the dehalogenation
reaction then can diffuse out of the emulsion into the surrounding aqueous phase.
The main dehalogenation reaction pathways occurring at the iron surface require
excess electrons produced from the corrosion of the zero-valent iron. Hydrogen gas
also is produced, as well as OH that results in an increase in the pH of the surround-
ing water. The degradation of TCE also occurs via a B-elimination reaction where
TCE is converted to chloroacetylene followed by a dehalogenation reaction to acety-
lene, and then to ethene and ethane. It has been shown in laboratory studies that
complete dehalogenation occurs within the micelles. TCE is continually degraded
within the emulsion particle, maintaining a concentration gradient across the oil mem-
brane, and thus a driving force for TCE molecules to continue to enter into the micelle.
Based on pre-demonstration groundwater and soil sampling by Battelle, a test plot
for EZVI of 15 ft long x 9.5 ft wide x 26 ft deep was identified; this plot consists of the
upper portion of the surficial aquifer known as the Upper Sand Unit. The Upper Sand
Unit is underlain by the Middle Fine-Grained Unit, which constitutes somewhat of a
-------
hydraulic barrier to the Lower Sand Unit below. These three stratigraphic units con-
stitute the surficial aquifer. The Lower Clay Unit forms a thin aquitard under the
surficial aquifer. The EZVI treatment was targeted at depths of 16 to 24 ft bgs in the
Upper Sand Unit, where most of the DNAPL appeared to be present within the target
depths. The layout of the pilot test area for application of the EZVI technology at
Launch Complex 34 included: (1) injection and extraction wells that were used to
maintain hydraulic control over the test area; (2) a row of upgradient monitoring wells
to allow characterization of groundwater upgradient of the treatment zone; (3) a row
of downgradient monitoring wells to allow characterization of the groundwater
downgradient of the treatment zone; and (4) the location of multilevel iron emulsion
injection points to allow injection of the EZVI into the subsurface.
Prior to beginning the EZVI demonstration, GeoSyntec recirculated groundwater from
the extraction wells to the injection wells for three weeks to establish steady state
flow conditions. At the end of the three-week recirculation period, one round of
groundwater samples was collected to measure the baseline mass flux of TCE. The
recirculation system then was shut down, and the EZVI was injected inside the plot to
begin the demonstration. The process was repeated after the EZVI treatment to
estimate the post-demonstration TCE mass flux from the DNAPL source in the plot.
During the field demonstration, a total of 661 gal of EZVI, containing 77 Ib of nano-
scale iron, was injected into the Upper Sand Unit. Pressure pulse technology (PPT)
was used by Wavefront Environmental to inject the EZVI; this injection technology
involves periodic (e.g., one pulse per second) hydraulic excitations to dilate pores
and facilitate movement of the injected fluid in the aquifer. The EZVI was injected into
the test plot through directional PPT injection wells located along the edges of the
plot (with well screens open only in the direction of the treatment plot interior).
Approximately 1,627 gal of water was injected along with the EZVI as part of the PPT
implementation.
Performance assessment activities for the EZVI demonstration included pre-
demonstration investigations, installation of wells, operation, monitoring, and post-
treatment evaluation. Battelle conducted detailed soil and groundwater characteriza-
tion activities to establish the DNAPL distribution and mass inside the test cell.
Geosyntec conducted the mass flux measurements. The objectives of the perform-
ance assessment were to:
• Determine changes in total TCE (dissolved and free-phase) and DNAPL mass
in the test plot and the change in groundwater TCE flux due to the EZVI
treatment;
• Determine changes in aquifer quality due to the EZVI treatment;
• Determine the fate of TCE, the primary DNAPL contaminant; and,
• Determine operating requirements and cost of the EZVI technology.
Changes in Total TCE and DNAPL Mass and Mass Flux
Detailed pre-demonstration and post-demonstration soil sampling was the main tool
for estimating changes in total TCE and DNAPL mass in the plot due to the EZVI
injection. The majority of the pre-demonstration DNAPL mass was found in the
western and southern portions of the plot in the Upper Sand Unit. The rest of the plot
appeared to contain mostly dissolved-phase TCE. The soil sampling results were
evaluated using both linear interpolation and kriging to obtain mass estimates for the
entire treatment zone (i.e., Upper Sand Unit). Linear interpolation indicated that,
before the EZVI treatment, 17.8 kg of total TCE (both DNAPL and dissolved-phase
TCE) were present in the treatment zone; 3.8 kg of the total TCE mass was present
VI
-------
as DNAPL. After the EZVI treatment, the estimated total TCE mass in the plot
declined to 2.6 kg, of which 0.6 kg was DNAPL. Linear interpolation indicated that the
total TCE and DNAPL masses in the plot declined by 86% and 84%, respectively.
Kriging of the soil data indicated that the total TCE mass in the target zone before
EZVI treatment ranged from 10 to 46 kg, with an average of 28 kg. After EZVI treat-
ment, the total TCE mass in the plot ranged from 2.5 to 21 kg, with an average of
11.7 kg. The decline in TCE mass due to the EZVI treatment ranged from 22 to
100%, with an estimated average decline of 58%. Because few data points were
available for DNAPL estimation, only the total TCE data were subjected to kriging.
These estimated TCE mass ranges are based on an 80% confidence level and incor-
porate the uncertainty and spatial variability in the data. The linear interpolation esti-
mates are within the range of the kriging estimates. These results indicate that the
EZVI injection caused a significant decrease in total TCE and DNAPL mass in the
target treatment zone.
In measurements conducted by the vendor, mass flux of dissolved TCE in ground-
water, as measured in the extraction transect on the downgradient side of the plot,
declined from 1,826 to 810 mmoles/day due to the EZVI treatment. During the same
period, mass flux of c/s-1,2-DCE increased from 83 to 438 mmoles/ day; mass flux of
VC increased from 0 to 143 mmoles/day; and mass flux of ethene increased from 0
to 69 mmoles/day. These results show that the EZVI treatment reduced the mass
flux of TCE emanating from the DNAPL source in the target plot, indicating that the
DNAPL source was contributing less TCE to the plume. The decrease in TCE mass
flux could have been caused either by a decrease in the total TCE/DNAPL mass in
the plot, or through dissolution (and sequestration) of total TCE/DNAPL in the
vegetable oil component of the EZVI. The mass flux of TCE degradation products
increased, indicating that some TCE was being degraded, either through biotic or
abiotic means. The increase in c/s-1,2-DCE and VC mass fluxes may be attributed
primarily to biologically induced reductive dehalogenation caused by the vegetable
oil, and secondarily to abiotic reduction caused by the iron. The increase in ethene
can be attributed to either abiotic (zero-valent iron-driven) or biologically-driven
reactions.
Changes in Aquifer Quality
The dissolved TCE level in the treatment plot groundwater declined considerably,
from 1,180,000 ug/L (close to saturation) before the EZVI treatment to 8,800 ug/L
afterward. This indicates that there was a considerable decline in dissolved TCE lev-
els due to EZVI treatment. Levels of c/s-1,2-DCE increased tenfold from 16,900 ug/L
to 169,000 ug/L, and VC levels increased sharply from below detection to
21,600 ug/L. These increases in the degradation products match the increases seen
in the mass flux measurements and indicate degradation of TCE through biological
and abiotic mechanisms.
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and dissolved oxygen (DO) decreased slightly
after the EZVI injection. These changes can be attributed to the anaerobic conditions
generated by either the vegetable oil or iron components of EZVI. Groundwater pH
remained relatively stable (close to neutral), with a slight increase. Generally, addi-
tion of zero-valent iron to an aquifer generates very high pH (up to 10 or 11); how-
ever, in this case, the action of the nanoscale iron could have remained muted as it
was sequestered in the oil.
Calcium, magnesium, and alkalinity levels in the treatment plot remained relatively
constant, indicating that the effect of the nanoscale iron was relatively muted in the
bulk aquifer. Chloride levels in well PA-23 in the center of the plot remained relatively
constant, but chloride levels measured at discrete depths using a Waterloo Profiler
VII
-------
showed a slight increasing trend; this indicates that some TCE was completely
mineralized through biotic or abiotic mechanisms. Anomalously, both total and
dissolved iron concentrations in the groundwater were relatively high before EZVI
treatment and declined after the treatment.
Sulfate levels dropped considerably, indicating the presence of sulfate-reducing
bacteria in the aquifer. Somewhat anomalously, total organic carbon (TOC) levels
decreased, possibly due to mass transfer of dissolved organic matter from the water
phase to the oil phase. At the same time, biological oxygen demand (BOD) levels
increased, indicating that the oil is a contributing nutrient source for microbes in the
aquifer. An increase in methane levels in the aquifer also indicates increased micro-
bial activity. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis conducted by the vendor indi-
cated the presence of an active Dehalococcoides population, which is probably
contributing to the sequential degradation of TCE and daughter products.
Slug tests conducted before and after EZVI treatment did not indicate any changes in
aquifer permeability; the addition of the EZVI did not affect the hydraulic properties of
the aquifer.
Long-term groundwater monitoring results were collected in December 2003 and
March 2004, and suggest that the EZVI treatment had a long-lasting effect on
CVOCs in the subsurface. TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and (eventually) VC levels declined
sharply in the one year following EZVI injection. Ethene level was substantially
increased. This may suggest that the remaining EZVI in the treatment plot area con-
tinued to dechlorinate TCE in and around the test area for several months after the
demonstration due to biotic and abiotic mechanisms.
Fate of TCE/DNAPL in the Aquifer
The decrease in total TCE and DNAPL mass in the test plot can be attributed to
several possible causes:
• Biologically mediated degradation of TCE, as indicated by the increases in cis-
1,2-DCE and VC, the increases in dissolved ethene and methane, and the slight
increase in chloride. The decreases in ORP, DO, and sulfate in the aquifer all
indicate heightened microbial activity, probably induced by the vegetable oil
component of the EZVI.
• Abiotic degradation of TCE due to reaction with the nanoscale iron. The
increase in ethene and chloride, the slight decrease in ORP, and the slight
increase in pH indicate the presence of zero-valent iron activity in water
containing TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and VC could partly indicate abiotic degradation
reactions involving iron.
• Dissolution into the vegetable oil phase. Vegetable oil can induce mass transfer
of dissolved-phase TCE from the water phase to the oil phase. In addition,
DNAPL itself can dissolve in the oil phase upon contact. The sequestration of
dissolved and DNAPL TCE in the oil phase may have contributed to a reduction
in the mass flux of TCE from the test plot.
• Migration of DNAPL outside the test plot. Monitoring wells were installed
around and below the test plot to monitor migration. In addition, soil cores were
collected in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower Sand Unit as well. These
data did not indicate that any significant migration of DNAPL outside the test
plot occurred due to the EZVI injection.
VIM
-------
Operating Requirements and Cost
As indicated by the changes in the aquifer chemistry, the EZVI injection was imple-
mented with relative success, given the highly viscous nature of the emulsion. After
initial evaluation of different delivery methods, PPT was used to inject the EZVI into
the aquifer. The entire operation was relatively smooth and successful. Additional
testing of the delivery method may be needed in the future to improve the distribution
of the EZVI in the aquifer. The need to use the water recirculation system to help
distribute the EZVI should be re-examined, as a significant amount of water was
required to be treated aboveground before it could be reinjected.
A cost comparison between short-term source treatment with EZVI and long-term
source/plume containment with an equivalent pump-and-treat system indicates that
the EZVI treatment is cost-competitive.
IX
-------
(Intentionally left blank)
-------
Contents
Executive Summary v
Appendices xiv
Figures xv
Tables xvii
Acronyms and Abbreviations xix
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Project Background 1
1.1.1 Project Organization 1
1.1.2 Performance Assessment 1
1.1.3 The SITE Program 1
1.2 The DNAPL Problem 2
1.3 The Demonstration Site 3
1.4 The EZVI Technology 4
1.5 Technology Evaluation Report Structure 4
2. Site Characterization 9
2.1 Hydrogeology of the Site 9
2.1.1 The Surficial Aquifer at Launch Complex 34 9
2.1.2 The Semi-Confined Aquifer at Launch Complex 34 13
2.2 Surface Water Bodies at the Site 16
2.3 DNAPL Contamination in the EZVI Plot and Vicinity 16
2.4 Aquifer Quality at the Site 20
3. Technology Operation 21
3.1 EZVI Description 21
3.2 Regulatory Requirements 21
3.3 Application of EZVI Technology 21
3.3.1 EZVI Injection Methods 21
3.3.1.1 Direct Injection 23
3.3.1.2 Liquid Atomization Injection 23
3.3.1.3 Pressure Pulse Technology 24
3.3.2 EZVI Injection Field Operations 25
3.4 Groundwater Control System 28
3.5 Waste Handling and Disposal 29
4. Performance Assessment Methodology 31
4.1 Estimating Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass and TCE Flux 31
4.1.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass 31
4.1.2 Linear Interpolation by Contouring 36
4.1.3 Kriging 36
4.1.4 Interpreting the Results of the Two Mass Removal
Estimation Methods 37
XI
-------
4.1.5 TCE Flux Measurements in Groundwater 37
4.2 Evaluating Changes in Aquifer Quality 37
4.3 Evaluating the Fate of the TCE-DNAPL 37
4.4 Verifying Operating Requirements and Costs 38
5. Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions 39
5.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Plot 39
5.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Changes in TCE-DNAPL Distribution 39
5.1.2 TCE-DNAPL Mass Estimation by Linear Interpolation 44
5.1.3 TCE Mass Estimation by Kriging 44
5.1.4 Groundwater Mass Flux 45
5.1.5 Summary of Changes in the TCE-DNAPL Mass and Mass Flux
in the Plot 46
5.2 Evaluating Changes in Aquifer Quality 46
5.2.1 Changes in CVOC Levels in Groundwater 47
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer Geochemistry 49
5.2.3 Changes in Hydraulic Properties of the Aquifer 55
5.2.4 Changes in Biology of the EZVI Plot 55
5.2.5 Summary of Changes in Aquifer Quality 56
5.3 Evaluating the Fate of the TCE-DNAPL Mass 56
5.3.1 Abiotic Reductive Dechlorination of TCE 56
5.3.2 Microbial Reductive Dechlorination of TCE 57
5.3.3 Potential for TCE-DNAPL Migration from the EZVI Plot 58
5.3.4 Summary Evaluation of the Fate of TCE-DNAPL 64
5.4 Verifying Operating Requirements 64
6. Quality Assurance 67
6.1 QA Measures 67
6.1.1 Representativeness 67
6.1.2 Completeness 68
6.1.3 Chain of Custody 68
6.2 Field QC Measures 68
6.2.1 Field QC for Soil Sampling 68
6.2.2 Field QC for Groundwater Sampling 69
6.3 Laboratory QC Measures 70
6.3.1 Analytical QC for Soil Sampling 70
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for Groundwater Sampling 70
6.3.3 Analytical Detection Limits 71
6.4 QA/QC Summary 71
7. Economic Analysis 73
7.1 EZVI Application Treatment Costs 73
7.2 Site Preparation and Waste Disposal Costs 73
7.3 Site Characterization and Performance Assessment Costs 74
7.4 Present Value Analysis of EZVI Technology and Pump-and-Treat
System Costs 75
8. Technology Applications Analysis 77
8.1 Objectives 77
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 77
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 77
8.1.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act 78
8.1.2.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 78
8.1.2.3 Clean Water Act 78
8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act 78
XII
-------
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act 79
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 79
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness 79
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 80
8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 80
8.1.6 Implementability 80
8.1.7 Cost 80
8.1.8 State (Support Agency) Acceptance 81
8.1.9 Community Acceptance 81
8.2 Operability 81
8.3 Applicable Wastes 81
8.4 Key Features 81
8.5 Availability/Transportability 81
8.6 Materials Handling Requirements 82
8.7 Ranges of Suitable Site Characteristics 82
8.8 Limitations 82
9. References 83
XIII
-------
Appendices
Appendix A. Performance Assessment Methods
A.1 Summary of Statistics
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
Appendix B. Hydrogeologic Measurements
B.1 Performance Monitoring Slug Tests
B.2 Well Completion Diagrams
B.3 Soil Coring Logsheets
Appendix C. CVOC Measurements
Table C-1. CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Pre-
Demonstration Monitoring
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Intermediate
Monitoring
Table C-4. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Post-
Demonstration Monitoring
Table C-5. Long-Term Groundwater Sampling
Appendix D. Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
Table D-1. Groundwater Field Parameters
Table D-2. Inorganic Results of Groundwater from the EZVI Demonstration
Table D-3. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater from the EZVI
Demonstration
Table D-4. Results of Chloride Using Waterloo Profiler®
Table D-5. Results of Dissolved Gases in Groundwater from the EZVI
Demonstration
Table D-6. Result of TOC in Soil Samples Prior to the EZVI Demonstration
Table D-7. Mass Flux Measurements of Groundwater from the EZVI
Demonstration
Table D-8. Genetrac Analysis of Groundwater Samples from the EZVI
Demonstration
Appendix E. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
Tables E-1 toE-15
Appendix F. Economic Analysis Information
Table F-1. Pump-and-Treat (P&T) System Design Basis
Table F-2. Capital Investment for a P&T System
Table F-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30 Years of Operation
Table F-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 Years of Operation
Figure F-1. P&T System Costs for 100 Years
XIV
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the EZVI Demonstration at Launch
Complex 34 2
Figure 1-2. Simplified Depiction of the Formation of a DNAPL Source Zone in
the Subsurface 2
Figure 1-3. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site 3
Figure 1-4. Demonstration Site Location 5
Figure 1-5. View Looking South toward Launch Complex 34, the Engineering
Support Building and Relative Location of EZVI Plot 6
Figure 1-6. Schematic of a Micelle Structure of the Emulsified Zero-Valent Iron 6
Figure 1-7. Picture of Iron Particles Trapped Inside a Drop of Water-Oil Emulsion ..7
Figure 1-8. Degradation Pathways for TCE with Zero-Valent Iron 7
Figure 2-1. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space
Center Area 9
Figure 2-2. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the EZVI Plot 10
Figure 2-3. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through the EZVI Plot 10
Figure 2-4. Water Table Elevation Map forSurficial Aquifer from June 1998 12
Figure 2-5. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Shallow Wells
at Launch Complex34 (March 2002) 13
Figure 2-6. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Intermediate
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (March 2002) 14
Figure 2-7. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Deep Wells
at Launch Complex34 (March 2002) 14
Figure 2-8. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) in Shallow
Wells in the EZVI Plot (March 2002) 17
Figure 2-9. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved DCE Concentrations (ug/L) in Shallow
Wells in the EZVI Plot (March 2002) 17
Figure 2-10. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil in the Upper
Sand Unit approximately 18 ft bgs in the EZVI Plot and Vicinity
(January 2002) 18
Figure 2-11. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil in the Upper
Sand Unit approximately 22 ft bgs in the EZVI Plot and Vicinity
(January 2002) 18
Figure 2-12. Vertical Cross Section through the EZVI Plot Showing Pre-
Demonstration TCE Soil Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Subsurface....19
Figure 2-13. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) as DNAPL in Soil
in the Upper Sand Unit at Launch Complex 34
(January/February 2002) 19
Figure 3-1. EZVI Experiments Using Pressure Pulse Technology,
before (above) and after (below) 24
Figure 3-2. Field Injection Test Setup with PPT Injection Technique 25
Figure 3-3. Location Map and Injection Volume for EZVI Injection 26
Figure 3-4. Aboveground Water Treatment System (A Series of Two Carbon
Tanks and a BackupTank) 29
xv
-------
Figure 4-1. Soil Sampling for Performance Assessment at Launch Complex 34.... 31
Figure 4-2. Soil Sample Collection (tan color indicates the native soil color; the
gray to blackish band indicates evidence of the injected EZVI) 32
Figure 4-3. Pre-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (SB-1 through SB-4; SB-7;
SB-8) in the EZVI Plot (January/February 2002) 33
Figure 4-4. Post-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (SB-201 through SB-204;
SB-207; SB-208; and SB-301 to SB-304; SB-307; SB-308) in the
EZVI Plot (October 2002; November 2002) 34
Figure 4-5. Indoor Vibra-Push™ Rig (LD Geoprobe® Series) Used in the
EZVI Plot Inside the Engineering Support Building 35
Figure 4-6. Collecting and Processing Groundwater Samples Using the
Waterloo Profiler® 38
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Pre-
Demonstration and Post-Demonstration Characterization in the
EZVI Plot Soil 40
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and (b) Post-
Demonstration (October to November 2002) Horizontal Cross Sec-
tions of TCE (mg/kg) in soil at 18 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit Soil....41
Figure 5-3. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and (b) Post-
Demonstration (October to November 2002) Horizontal Cross
Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in soil at 22 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit ....42
Figure 5-4. 3D Distribution of DNAPL in the EZVI Plot Based on
(a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(October to November 2002) Characterization 43
Figure 5-5. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (ug/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration
(March 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration (November 2002)
Sampling of Shallow Wells 50
Figure 5-6. Dissolved c/s-1,2-DCE Concentrations (ug/L) during
(a) Pre-Demonstration (March 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(November 2002) Sampling of Shallow Wells 51
Figure 5-7. Dissolved Vinyl Chloride Concentrations (ug/L) during
(a) Pre-Demonstration (March 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(November 2002) Sampling of Shallow Wells 52
Figure 5-8. Chloride Increases Produced by the EZVI Treatment in
Shallow Wells in and Around the Demonstration Plot 54
Figure 5-9a. Degradation Curve of TCE and Other CVOCs in PA-23 After
EZVI Treatment 60
Figure 5-9b. Degradation Curve of TCE and Ethene in PA-23 After EZVI
Treatment 60
Figure 5-1 Oa. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support
Building During Pre-Demonstration Characterization (March 2002) 61
Figure 5-1 Ob. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support
Building During the EZVI Technology Demonstration (August 2002) ...61
Figure 5-1 Oc. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support
Building During Post-Demonstration Characterization
(November 2002) 62
Figure 5-11 a. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering
Support Building During Pre-Demonstration Characterization
(March 2002) 62
Figure 5-11b. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering
Support Building During the EZVI Technology Demonstration
(August 2002) 63
Figure 5-11c. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering
Support Building During Post-Demonstration Characterization
(November 2002) 63
Figure 5-12a. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil with Depth ....65
Figure 5-12b.Post-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil with Depth...65
XVI
-------
Tables
Table 2-1. Local Hydrostratigraphy at the Launch Complex 34 Site 11
Table 2-2. Hydraulic Gradients and Directions in the Surficial and Semi-Confined
Aquifers 13
Table 2-3. Hydrostratigraphic Units of Brevard Country, Florida'3' 15
Table 3-1. EZVI Demonstration Chronology 22
Table 3-2. EZVI Demonstration Schedule 27
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated
Measurements 32
Table 5-1. Estimated Total TCE and TCE-DNAPL Mass Reduction by Linear
Interpolation 44
Table 5-2. Estimated Total TCE Mass Reduction by Kriging 45
Table 5-3. Total Mass Discharge of CVOCs in Groundwater Before and After the
Demonstration 46
Table 5-4. CVOCs in Groundwater in the EZVI Plot Before and After
the Demonstration 47
Table 5-5. Groundwater Parameters in the EZVI Plot Before and After the
Demonstration 48
Table 5-6. Dissolved Ethene and Ethane Concentrations in the EZVI Plot Before,
During, and After the Demonstration 58
Table 5-7. Dissolved Methane Concentrations in the EZVI Plot Before, During,
and After the Demonstration 58
Table 5-8. TCE Degradation Byproducts in the EZVI Plot Before, During, and
After the Demonstration 59
Table 6-1. Instruments and Calibration Acceptance Criteria Used for Field
Measurements 68
Table 6-2. List of Surrogate Compounds and Their Target Recoveries for Soil
and Groundwater Analysis by the Analytical Laboratory 70
Table 7-1. EZVI Treatment Cost Summary Provided by Vendor 73
Table 7-2. Estimated Site Characterization Costs 74
Table 7-3. Estimated Performance Assessment Costs 74
XVII
-------
(Intentionally left blank)
XVIII
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
2D two-dimensional
3D three-dimensional
ACL alternative concentration limit
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
ARS ARS Technologies
bgs below ground surface
BOD biological oxygen demand
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CVOC chlorinated volatile organic compound
CWA Clean Water Act
DCE dichloroethylene
DNAPL dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid
DO dissolved oxygen
EEW EZVI extraction well
EIW EZVI injection well
EZVI emulsified zero-valent iron
FDEP (State of) Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FRTR Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable
GAG granulated activated carbon
gpm gallon(s) per minute
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
IW injection well
LAI liquid atomization injection
LCS laboratory control spike(s)
LRPCD Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
MB method blank(s)
MCL maximum contaminant level
MS matrix spike(s)
MSD matrix spike duplicate(s)
XIX
-------
msl mean sea level
mV millivolts
MYA million years ago
NA not available; not analyzed
N/A not applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ND not detected
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M operation and maintenance
O.D. outside diameter
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OW observation well
PCE tetrachloroethylene
PCR polymerase chain reaction
PLFA phospholipid fatty acid
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PPT pressure pulse technology
psi pounds per square inch
PV present value
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RPD relative percent difference
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SB soil boring
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SI/E steam injection/extraction
SIP State Implementation Plan
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (Program)
STTR Small Business Technology Transfer Research (Program)
TCA trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
UCF University of Central Florida
DIG Underground Injection Control
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VC vinyl chloride
VOA volatile organic analysis
WP Waterloo Profiler®
xx
-------
1. Introduction
This report presents the project field demonstration of
emulsified zero-valent iron (EZVI) technology for treat-
ment of a dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL)
source zone at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, FL.
1.1 Project Background
The goal of the project was to evaluate the technical and
cost performance of the nanoscale EZVI technology
when applied to a DNAPL source zone. The chlorinated
volatile organic compound (CVOC) trichloroethylene
(TCE) is present as a DNAPL source in the aquifer at
Launch Complex 34. Smaller amounts of dissolved cis-
1,2-dichloroethylene (c/s-1,2-DCE) and vinyl chloride
(VC) also are present in the groundwater as a result of
the natural degradation of TCE.
The field application of EZVI technology began at
Launch Complex 34 in June 2002 and ended in January
2003. Performance assessment activities were con-
ducted before, during, and after the field application.
1.1.1 Project Organization
The EZVI project was conducted under the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Small
Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) Pro-
gram. The STTR Program awards contracts to small
business concerns in partnership with nonprofit research
institutions for cooperative research and development.
The goal of the STTR Program is to facilitate the transfer
of technology developed by a research institution through
the entrepreneurship of a small business. For this pro-
ject, STTR funding was awarded to GeoSyntec Consult-
ants (GeoSyntec) as the small business concern in
partnership with the University of Central Florida (UCF)
as the nonprofit research institution. The NASA Contract-
ing Officer's Technical Representative provided a project
management role for NASA. Figure 1-1 summarizes the
project organization for the EZVI demonstration.
1.1.2 Performance Assessment
The EZVI technology demonstration is being independ-
ently evaluated under the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.
The U.S. EPA contracted Battelle to plan, conduct, and
report on the detailed site characterization at Launch
Complex 34 and perform an independent performance
assessment for the demonstration of the EZVI technol-
ogy. Battelle also was responsible for providing quality
assurance (QA) oversight for the performance assess-
ment activities. Before the field demonstration, Battelle
prepared a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that
was reviewed by all project stakeholders. This QAPP
was based on the general guidelines provided by the
U.S. EPA's SITE Program for test plan preparation, qual-
ity assurance, and data analysis (Battelle, 2002a).
1.1.3 The SITE Program
The performance assessment planning, field implemen-
tation, and data analysis and reporting for the EZVI dem-
onstration followed the general guidance provided by the
U.S. EPA's SITE Program. The SITE Program was
established by U.S. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) in response to the 1986 Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act, which recognized
a need for an "Alternative or Innovative Treatment Tech-
nology Research and Demonstration Program." ORD's
National Risk Management Research Laboratory in the
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
(LRPCD), headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, administers
the SITE Program. This program encourages the devel-
opment and implementation of (1) innovative treatment
technologies for hazardous waste site remediation, and
(2) innovative monitoring and measurement tools.
-------
Project Organization
NASA STTR
Jacqueline Quinn
Contracting Officer's Technical
Representative
Technology Vendors
Tom Krug, GeoSyntec - Project Director
Suzanne O'Hara, GeoSyntec
- Project Manager
Performance Assessment
Subcontractor
Drilling Contractor,
Precision Sampling
U.S. EPA SITE Program
Tom Holdsworth
Task Order Manager
Ron Herrmann
Task Order Manager
Battelle
Arun Gavaskar, Battellle
Project Manager
Performance Assessment
Subcontractors
Off-Site Laboratory, DHL Analytical
Drilling Contractor, Precision Sampling
LC340RGWJ01.i::DR
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the EZVI Demonstration at Launch Complex 34
In the SITE Program, a field demonstration is used to
gather engineering and cost data on the innovative
technology so that potential users can assess the tech-
nology's applicability to a particular site. Data collected
during the field demonstration are used to assess the
performance of the technology, the potential need for
pre- and post-processing of the waste, applicable types
of wastes and waste matrices, potential operating prob-
lems, and approximate capital and operating costs.
U.S. EPA provides guidelines on the preparation of an
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report at the end of
the field demonstration. These reports evaluate all avail-
able information on the technology and analyze its over-
all applicability to other site characteristics, waste types,
and waste matrices. Testing procedures, performance
and cost data, and quality assurance and quality stand-
ards also are presented. This report on the EZVI tech-
nology demonstration at Launch Complex 34 is based
on these general guidelines.
1.2 The DNAPL Problem
Figure 1-2 illustrates the formation of a DNAPL source
zone at a chlorinated solvent release site. When solvent
is released into the ground due to previous use or dis-
posal practices, it travels downward through the vadose
zone to the water table. Because many chlorinated sol-
vents are denser than water, the solvent continues its
downward migration through the saturated zone (assum-
ing sufficient volume of solvent is involved) until it en-
counters a low-permeability layer or aquitard, on which it
may form a pool. During its downward migration, the sol-
vent leaves a trace of residual solvent in the soil pores.
Many chlorinated solvents are only sparingly soluble in
water; therefore, they can persist as a separate phase
for several years (or decades). This free-phase solvent
is called DNAPL.
DNAPL in pools often can be mobilized toward extrac-
tion wells when a strong hydraulic gradient is imposed;
this solvent is called mobile DNAPL. In contrast, residual
DNAPL is DNAPL trapped in pores that cannot be mobi-
lized toward extraction wells, regardless of the strength
of the applied gradient. Residual DNAPLs form as
DNAPL pools dissolve in groundwater over time, leaving
behind residual DNAPL in the soil structure. At most
sites DNAPL pools are rare, as DNAPL is often present
in residual form.
Spill
Source
Ground suffice
DNAPL Pool
Residual DNAPL
DNAPL Pool
Figure 1-2. Simplified Depiction of the Formation of a
DNAPL Source Zone in the Subsurface
-------
As long as DNAPL is present in the aquifer, a plume of
dissolved solvent is generated. DNAPL therefore consti-
tutes a secondary source that keeps replenishing the
plume long after the primary source (leaking above-
ground or buried drums, drain pipes, vadose zone soil,
etc.) has been removed. Because DNAPL persists for
many decades or centuries, the resulting plume also per-
sists for many years. As recently as five years ago,
DNAPL sources were difficult to find and most remedial
approaches focused on plume treatment or plume con-
trol. In recent years, efforts to identify DNAPL sources
have been successful at many chlorinated solvent-
contaminated sites. The focus is now shifting from plume
control to DNAPL source removal or treatment.
Pump-and-treat systems have been the conventional
treatment approach at DNAPL sites and these systems
have proven useful as an interim remedy to control
the progress of the plume beyond a property boundary
or other compliance point. However, pump-and-treat
systems are not economical for DNAPL remediation.
Pools of DNAPL that can be pumped and treated above
ground are rare. Residual DNAPL is immobile and does
not migrate toward extraction wells. As with plume con-
trol, the effectiveness and cost of DNAPL remediation
with pump and treat is governed by the time (decades)
required for slow dissolution of the DNAPL source in the
groundwater flow. An innovative approach is required to
address the DNAPL problem.
1.3 The Demonstration Site
Launch Complex 34, the site selected for this demon-
stration, is located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
FL (see Figure 1-3). Launch Complex 34 was used as a
launch site for Saturn rockets from 1960 to 1968. His-
torical records and worker accounts suggest that rocket
engines were cleaned on the launch pad with chlorinated
organic solvents such as TCE. Other rocket parts were
cleaned on racks at the western portion of the
IW-15 »
Explanation
Existing Monitoring V\fell
Cluster
t)uD«usf->i»x
Figure 1-3. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site
-------
Engineering Support Building and inside the building.
Some of the solvents ran off to the surface or discharged
into drainage pits. The site was abandoned in 1968;
since then, much of the site has been overgrown by
vegetation, although several on-site buildings remain
operational.
Preliminary site characterization efforts suggested that
approximately 20,600 kg (Battelle, 1999a) to 40,000 kg
(Eddy-Dilek et al., 1998) of solvent could be present in
the subsurface near the Engineering Support Building.
Figure 1-4 is a map of the Launch Complex 34 site that
shows the target DNAPL source area for the EZVI tech-
nology demonstration, located inside the Engineering
Support Building. Figure 1-5 is a photograph looking
south toward the EZVI plot inside the Engineering Sup-
port Building.
1.4 The EZVI Technology
EZVI can be used to enhance the dehalogenation of
chlorinated DNAPL in source zones by creating intimate
contact between the DNAPL and the nanoscale iron par-
ticles. The EZVI is composed of surfactant, biodegrad-
able oil, water, and nanoscale zero-valent iron particles,
which form emulsion particles (or micelles) that contain
the iron particles in water surrounded by an oil-liquid
membrane. Figure 1-6 is a schematic drawing of an
EZVI micelle, and Figure 1-7 is a photograph of iron
particles visible inside an emulsion drop. Because the
exterior oil membrane of an emulsion particle has similar
hydrophobic properties as the DNAPL, the emulsion is
miscible with the DNAPL (i.e., the phases can mix).
Laboratory experiments conducted at UCF for NASA
have demonstrated that DNAPL compounds (e.g., TCE)
diffuse through the oil membrane of the emulsion particle
and undergo reductive dechlorination facilitated by the
zero-valent iron particles in the interior aqueous phase.
The final byproducts from the dehalogenation reaction
(i.e., nonchlorinated hydrocarbons) then can diffuse out
of the emulsion into the surrounding aqueous phase.
The main dehalogenation reaction pathways occurring at
the iron surface require excess electrons, which are pro-
duced from the corrosion of the zero-valent iron in water
as follows:
Some portion of the chlorinated ethenes is degraded by
a stepwise dehalogenation reaction according to:
Fe° -+ Fe2+ + 2e
pp2+
rc
(surface)
p
re
3+
(aqueous)
0)
(2)
Hydrogen gas also is produced, as well as OH , which
results in an increase in the pH of the surrounding water
according to the following reaction:
RCI + H+ + 2e -> RH + Cl
(4)
2H20 + 2 e -> H2(gas) + 2OH
(3)
In the dehalogenation step, reaction (4), the "R" repre-
sents the molecular group to which the chlorine atom is
attached. In the case of TCE, R would be the CHCICI
fragment. For the total dehalogenation of TCE, reaction
(4) must occur three times, with the end product being
ethene. The degradation of TCE also occurs via a p-
elimination reaction where TCE is converted to chloro-
acetylene followed by a dehalogenation reaction to
acetylene. The acetylene degrades to ethene and then to
ethane. Figure 1-8 illustrates the degradation pathways
for TCE using zero-valent iron. The predominant path-
way for degradation of chlorinated ethenes is reported
to be the p-elimination pathway (Roberts et al., 1996).
Laboratory studies conducted at UCF have shown that
complete dehalogenation occurs within the EZVI micelles
(UCF, 2000).
Before the EZVI demonstration was started, concerns
were raised about the potential difficulties associated
with the injection and subsurface distribution of the emul-
sion. Concerns also were raised about the effectiveness
of the recirculation system designed to establish steady
state flow conditions in the test plot, and the possibility of
contaminant dilution or drawing in contaminated water
from outside the plot boundaries. The installation and oper-
ation of the EZVI technology is described in Section 3.
1.5 Technology Evaluation Report
Structure
The EZVI technology evaluation report starts with an
introduction to the project organization, the DNAPL prob-
lem, the technology demonstrated, and the demonstra-
tion site (Section 1). The rest of the report is organized
as follows:
• Site Characterization (Section 2)
• Technology Operation (Section 3)
• Performance Assessment Methodology (Section 4)
• Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions
(Section 5)
• Quality Assurance (Section 6)
• Economic Analysis (Section 7)
• Technology Applications Analysis (Section 8)
• References (Section 9).
-------
Engineering
Support
Building
25
i
50
FEET
DESIGNED BY
ED
DRAWN BY
DS
CHECKED BY
TL
dBaffeue
... Patting Technology ToVMi
LC34 Building and EZVI Plot Location
LAUNCH COM PL EX 34—CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
G482010-EPA41 | EZVIESBMAP02.CDR I 03/03
Figure 1-4. Demonstration Site Location
-------
Approximate Location
of EZVI Plot
Figure 1-5. View Looking South toward Launch Complex 34, the Engineering Support Building and
Relative Location of EZVI Plot
n_n
o
II '(.'I .!!
-------
• :' • » *•• .-:;•... C
•
•.
•
•*
Figure 1-7. Picture of Iron Particles Trapped Inside a Drop of Water-Oil Emulsion
Hydrogenolysis
DCE
cr
H+
c
J
C
\
xri
2e
2Cr
TCE
B-Elimination
\ —C — C — Cl Chloroacetylene
cr
H —C = C — Cl Acetylene
Ethene
1 x-
1 *
H C — C H
H
Ethane
Figure 1-8. Degradation Pathways for TCE with Zero-Valent Iron (Source: GeoSyntec, 2002)
-------
Supporting data and other information are presented in • Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
the appendices to the report. The appendices are orga- (Appendix D)
nized as follows:
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
• Performance Assessment Methods (Appendix A) (Appendix E)
. Hydrogeologic Measurements (Appendix B) * Economic Analysis Information (Appendix F)
• CVOC Measurements (Appendix C)
-------
2. Site Characterization
This section provides a summary of the hydrogeology
and chemistry of the site based on the data compilation
report (Battelle, 1999a), the additional site characteriza-
tion report (Battelle, 1999b), and the pre-demonstration
characterization report (Battelle, 1999c).
2.1 Hydrogeology of the Site
Several aquifers are present at the Launch Complex 34
area (Figure 2-1), reflecting a barrier island complex
overlying coastal sediments. A surficial aquifer and a
semi-confined aquifer comprise the major aquifers in the
Launch Complex 34 area. The surficial aquifer extends
from the water table to approximately 45 ft below ground
surface (bgs) in the Launch Complex 34 area. A clay
semi-confining unit (i.e., the Lower Clay Unit) separates
the surficial aquifer from the underlying semi-confined
aquifer. Details of the surficial aquifer are provided in
Section 2.1.1. The underlying semi-confined aquifer is
further described in Section 2.1.2.
2.1.1 The Surficial Aquifer at
Launch Complex 34
Figures 2-2 and 2-3 are geologic cross sections, one
along the northwest-southeast (NW-SE) direction across
the middle of the test plot area and the other along the
southwest-northeast (SW-NE) direction across the mid-
dle of the EZVI plot. As seen in these figures, the sur-
ficial aquifer is subclassified as having an Upper Sand
Unit, a Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and a Lower Sand
Unit. The Upper Sand Unit extends from ground surface
to approximately 20 to 26 ft bgs and consists of uncon-
solidated, gray fine sand and shell fragments (see Table
2-1). The Middle Fine-Grained Unit is a layer of gray,
fine-grained silty/clayey sand that exists between about
26 and 36 ft bgs. In general, this unit contains soil that is
finer-grained than the Upper Sand Unit and Lower Sand
Unit, and varies in thickness from about 10 to 15 ft. The
Middle Fine-Grained Unit is thicker in the northern
North
South
15-
0-
•15-
-30-
-45-
« -60 -
uj -75 -
HI
E
-90 «
-105 -
-120-
-135 -
•150-
-165-
-180 -
1
p—
-195-1
„-
Se
^V
Surficial
Aquifer
ni-Confined
(Hawthorn
'
Floridan
Aquifer
(bedrock)
LC34
ni-
m
A(
0
Confining
uifer
1 1
Layer
Figure 2-1. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space Center Area
(after Schmalzer and Hinkle, 1990)
-------
. . . Pulling Technology To Work
Figure 2-2. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the EZVI Plot
Atktcttc fine Gntfoat Unit
fowerSsrttf
lower City Urtff
tower Sand Bftow Clay Unit
4.0
-••'
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
CPBaireiie
. . . Putting Technology To Wnrk
Figure 2-3. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through the EZVI Plot
10
-------
Table 2-1. Local Hydrostratigraphy at the Launch Complex 34 Site
Thickness
Hydrostratigraphic Unit (ft) Sediment Description
Aquifer Unit Description
Upper Sand Unit 20-26
Surficial Middle Fine-Grained Unit 10-15
Aquifer
Lower Sand Unit 15-20
Gray fine sand and shell fragments
Gray, fine-grained silty/clayey sand
Gray fine to medium-sized sand and
shell fragments
Unconfined, direct recharge from surface
Low-permeability, semi-confining layer
Semi-confined
Lower Clay Unit
(Semi-Confining Unit)
1.5-3
Greenish-gray sandy clay
Thin low-permeability semi-confining unit
Semi-Confined Aquifer
>40
Gray fine to medium-sized sand,
clay, and shell fragments
Semi-confined, brackish
portions of the test area under the Engineering Support
Building and appears to become thinner in the southern
and western portions of the test area. Below the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit is the Lower Sand Unit, which con-
sists of gray fine to medium-sized sand and shell frag-
ments. The unit contains isolated fine-grained lenses of
silt and/or clay. The lithologies of thin, very coarse, shell
zones were encountered in several units. These zones
may be important as reservoirs for DNAPL.
A 1.5- to 3-ft-thick semi-confining layer exists at approxi-
mately 45 ft bgs in the Launch Complex 34 area. The
layer consists of greenish-gray sandy clay. The semi-
confining unit was encountered in all borings across the
Launch Complex 34 site, and it appears to be a per-
vasive unit. However, the clay unit is fairly thin (around
1.5 ft thick) in some areas (Battelle, 2001). Site charac-
terization data (Battelle, 1999a and 1999b; Eddy-Dilek et
al., 1998) suggest that the surfaces of the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit and the Lower Clay Unit are somewhat
uneven.
Baseline water level surveys were performed in the surfi-
cial aquifer in May 1997, December 1997, June 1998,
October 1998, and March 1999. Water table elevations
in the surficial aquifer were between about 1 and 5 ft
mean sea level (msl). In general, the surveys suggest
that water levels form a radial pattern with highest eleva-
tions near the Engineering Support Building. Figure 2-4
shows a water-table map from June 1998. The gradient
and flow directions vary over time at the site. Table 2-2
summarizes the hydraulic gradients and their directions
near the Engineering Support Building. The horizontal
gradient ranged from 0.00009 to 0.0007 ft/ft. The flow
direction varied from north-northeast to south-southwest.
Baseline groundwater levels for the EZVI project were
measured in March 2002 from all monitoring wells in the
surficial aquifer. A relatively flat hydraulic gradient was
observed within the localized area of the test plot (Fig-
ures 2-5 to 2-7) (Battelle, 2003). On a regional scale,
mounding of water levels near the Engineering Support
Building generates a radial gradient (Battelle, 1999c);
the regional gradient across the test plot is relatively flat
(see Figure 2-4). Probable discharge points for the aqui-
fer include wetland areas, the Atlantic Ocean, and/or the
Banana River. Water level measurements from deep
wells screened in the Lower Sand Unit usually are
slightly higher than the water levels from the Upper Sand
Unit and/or the Middle Fine-Grained Unit, which indi-
cates that the Middle Fine-Grained Unit serves as a
potential hydraulic barrier between the Upper Sand Unit
and the Lower Sand Unit.
The baseline slug-test results indicate that the Upper
Sand Unit is more permeable than the underlying units
(the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower Sand Unit),
with hydraulic conductivity ranging from 4.0 to 5.1 ft/day
in the shallow wells at the site. The hydraulic conductiv-
ities ranged from 1.4 to 6.4 ft/day from the intermediate
wells in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit. The hydraulic con-
ductivities ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 ft/day from the deep
wells in the Lower Sand Unit. Porosity averaged 0.26 in
the Upper Sand Unit, 0.34 in the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit, 0.29 in the Lower Sand Unit, and 0.44 in the Lower
Clay Unit. The bulk density of the aquifer materials aver-
aged 1.59g/cm3 (Battelle, 1999b). Other notable hydro-
logic influences at the site include drainage and recharge.
Paved areas, vegetation, and topography affect drainage
in the area. No streams exist in the site area. Engi-
neered drainage at the site consists of ditches that lead
to the Atlantic Ocean or swampy areas. The flow system
may be influenced by local recharge events, resulting in
the variation in gradients. Recharge to the surficial aqui-
fer is from infiltration of precipitation through surface soils
to the aquifer. Permeable soils exist from the ground sur-
face to the water table and drainage is excellent. Water
infiltrates directly to the water table.
11
-------
IV)
1522200
1522100
1522000
1521900
1521800
1521700
1521600
1521500
1521400
1521300
1521200
795600
795600
796000
796200
796400
796600
796SOO
797000
797200
• Measurement Location
PZ-13 ID
4.2 Water Table Elevation (ft)
Contour Line (0.02 ft Interval)
Contour Line {0.10 ft Interval)
Demonstration Plot Boundaries
Projection Information: ^^^
Florida State Plane Coordinate System (East Zone)
* Contouring has been extrapolated from nearest data points surrounding the map area.
CPBatteiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
Battelle. Columbus OH
Dale: 11/09/98
Script: wlcontour_98.sh
Figure 2-4. Water Table Elevation Map for Surficial Aquifer from June 1998
-------
Table 2-2. Hydraulic Gradients and Directions in the
Surficial and Semi-Confined Aquifers
Hydrostratigraphic
Unit
Surficial Aquifer
Semi-Confined
Aquifer
Sampling Date
May 1 997
December 1997
June 1998
October 1998
March 1999
December 1997
June 1998
October 1998
Gradient
(ft/ft)
0.00009
0.0001
0.0006
0.0007
undefined
0.0008
0.0005
0.00005
Direction
SW
ssw
WNW
NNE
undefined
S
E
SSW
2.1.2 The Semi-Confined Aquifer
at Launch Complex 34
The semi-confined aquifer underlying the Lower Clay
Unit was investigated as part of another technology
demonstration at Launch Complex 34 (Battelle, 2001).
The semi-confined aquifer (Caloosahatchee Marl forma-
tion or equivalent) is 40 to 50 ft thick or greater and is
composed of silty to clayey sand and shells. Underlying
the semi-confined aquifer is the Hawthorne formation, a
clayey sand-confining layer. The limestone Floridan Aqui-
fer underlies the Hawthorne formation and is a major
source of drinking water for much of Florida. Table 2-3
summarizes the character and water-bearing properties
of the hydrostratigraphic units in the area.
Water level surveys in the semi-confined aquifer were
performed at various times from April 2001 to March
2002 (Battelle, 2003). Water table elevations were mea-
sured at approximately 1 to 5 ft msl, and formed a pat-
tern similar to the pattern formed by surficial aquifer water
levels. Water level elevations from wells in the deep
aquifer were measured at approximately 1 to 5 ft msl,
suggesting that the aquifer is confined in the Launch
Complex 34 area. The gradient in the semi-confined
aquifer is positioned in a similar direction to the surficial
aquifer. The horizontal gradient is east to northeast. The
vertical gradient changes from downward to upward
depending on seasons, which suggests that the Lower
Clay Unit is not a fully confined unit. Recharge to the
aquifer may occur by downward leakage from overlying
aquifers or from direct infiltration inland where the aqui-
fer is unconfined. Schmalzer and Hinkle (1990) suggest
that saltwater intrusion may occur in intermediate aqui-
fers such as the semi-confined aquifer.
1521340
1521330
1521320 -
1521310
1521300 -
1521290 •
1521280
1521270 5
1521260 •
Contour Interval 0.05 ft
OBaffene
640100 640120 640140 640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 2-5. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Shallow Wells at Launch Complex 34
(March 2002)
13
-------
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310
1521300
1521290
1521280
1521270
1521260
Water Levels from Intermediate Welts
March 2002
EXPLANATION:
• S«mp*ng Locition
PA-241 Sampling Lacaliwn ID
4.01 '/*il*r L»v»|illms!i
Contour Interval 0.05ft
OBaffeOe
• •• f\*** JmJwntv b HfeA
640100 640120 640140 640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 2-6. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Intermediate Wells at
Launch Complex 34 (March 2002)
1521340
1521330 -
1521320 -
1521310 -
1521300 -
1521290 -
1521280
1521270
1521260 -
EXPLANATION:
Locabgn
PA-24D Sampling Locaawi ID
Ut '/»!.. U.v.l. It null
Water Levels from Deep Wells
Contour Interval 0 05 ft
OBanene
• Bioaugmentation Plot
r^
640100 640120 640140 640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 2-7. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Deep Wells at Launch Complex 34
(March 2002)
14
-------
Table 2-3. Hydrostratigraphic Units of Brevard Country, Florida
(a)
Geologic Age
Stratigraphic Unit
Approximate
Thickness (ft)
General Lithologic Character
Water-Bearing Properties
Recent
(0.1 MYA-present)
Pleistocene
(1.8-0.1 MYA)
Pliocene
(1 .8-5 MYA)
Miocene
(5-24 MYA)
Eocene
(37-58 MYA)
Pleistocene and Recent Deposits
Upper Miocene and Pliocene
Deposits (Caloosahatchee Marl)
Hawthorne Formation
CL
^
o
0
ro
8
0
Crystal River Formation
Williston Formation
Inglis Formation
Avon Park Limestone
0-110
20-90
1 0-300
0-100
10-50
70+
285+
Fine to medium sand, coquina and sandy shell
marl.
Gray to greenish gray sandy shell marl, green
clay, fine sand, and silty shell.
Light green to greenish gray sandy marl,
streaks of greenish clay, phosphatic radiolarian
clay, black and brown phosphorite, thin beds of
phosphatic sandy limestone.
White to cream, friable, porous coquina in a
soft, chalky, marine limestone.
Light cream, soft, granular marine limestone,
generally finer grained than the Inglis
Formation, highly fossiliferous.
Cream to creamy white, coarse granular
limestone, contains abundant echinoid
fragments.
White to cream, purple tinted, soft, dense
chalky limestone. Localized zones of altered
to light brown or ashen gray, hard, porous,
crystalline dolomite.
Permeability low due to small grain size, yields
small quantities of water to shallow wells, principal
source of water for domestic uses not supplied by
municipal water systems.
Permeability very low, acts as confining bed to
artesian aquifer, produces small amount of water
to wells tapping shell beds.
Permeability generally low, may yield small quanti-
ties of fresh water in recharge areas, generally
permeated with water from the artesian zone.
Contains relatively impermeable beds that prevent
or retard upward movement of water from the
underlying artesian aquifer. Basal permeable
beds are considered part of the Floridan Aquifer.
Floridan Aquifer: Permeability generally very high,
yields large quantities of artesian water. Chemical
quality of the water varies from one area to
another and is the dominant factor controlling
utilization. A large percentage of the groundwater
used in Brevard County is from the artesian
aquifer. The Crystal River Formation will produce
large quantities of artesian water. The Inglis
Formation is expected to yield more than the
Williston Formation. Local dense, indurate zones
in the lower part of the Avon Park Limestone
restrict permeability but in general the formation
will yield large quantities of water.
(a) Source: Schmalzerand Hinkle (1990).
MYA = million years ago.
-------
2.2 Surface Water Bodies
at the Site
The major surface water body in the area is the Atlantic
Ocean, located to the east of Launch Complex 34. To
determine the effects of surface water bodies on the
groundwater system, water levels were monitored in
12 piezometers for more than 50 hours for a tidal influ-
ence study during Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) activities (G&E
Engineering, Inc., 1996). All the piezometers used in the
study were screened in the surficial aquifer. No detect-
able effects from the tidal cycles were measured, sug-
gesting that the surficial aquifer and the Atlantic Ocean
are not well connected hydraulically. However, the
Atlantic Ocean and the Banana River seem to act as
hydraulic barriers or sinks, as groundwater likely flows
toward these surface water bodies and discharges into
them.
2.3 DNAPL Contamination in the
EZVI Plot and Vicinity
Figure 2-8 shows representative pre-demonstration dis-
tributions of TCE in groundwater, the primary contami-
nant at Launch Complex 34, in the shallow wells. Pre-
demonstration distributions of TCE in the intermediate
and deep wells were not available due to the limited data
set (i.e., only two wells per depth). The shallow, inter-
mediate, and deep monitoring wells were installed during
the site characterization to correspond with the hydro-
stratigraphic units: Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-
Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit (Battelle, 2002a),
respectively. The targeted unit for the EZVI demonstra-
tion was the Upper Sand Unit. A pre-demonstration TCE
concentration in groundwater greater than the solubility
level of TCE (1,100,000 ug/L [1,100 mg/L]) was mea-
sured in monitoring well PA-23 in the center of the test
plot (see Figure 2-8). Pre-demonstration TCE concentra-
tions in groundwater measured in the shallow monitoring
wells (EEW-1 and PA-24S) also were at or near the sol-
ubility level of TCE, suggesting that DNAPL was likely
present in the EZVI plot and surrounding area. However,
the TCE-DNAPL was not visually observed during the
pre-demonstration monitoring. Substantial c;s-1,2-DCE
also was detected in the surficial aquifer, indicating some
historical natural attenuation of TCE (see Figure 2-9).
Figures 2-10 to 2-11 show representative pre-
demonstration horizontal distributions of TCE in soil from
the Upper Sand Unit at 18 ft bgs and 22 ft bgs,
respectively. TCE levels were highest in the western and
southern portions of the test plot, and concentrations
indicative of DNAPL extend beyond the plot boundaries.
As seen in the vertical cross section in Figure 2-12,
much of the TCE was present in the Upper Sand Unit
and the Middle Fine-Grained Unit. Based on the results
of the pre-demonstration soil sampling, the Upper Sand
Unit was chosen as the targeted zone for the EZVI injec-
tion, specifically at the 18-ft depth.
The pre-demonstration soil sampling indicated that be-
tween 10 and 46 kg of TCE was present in the Upper
Sand Unit of the EZVI plot before the demonstration.
Approximately 3.8 kg of this TCE may occur as DNAPL,
based on a threshold TCE concentration of about
300 mg/kg in the soil. This threshold figure is determined
as the maximum TCE concentration in the dissolved and
adsorbed phases in the Launch Complex 34 soil. This
figure is a conservative estimate and takes into account
the minor variability in the aquifer characteristics, such
as porosity, bulk density, and organic carbon content.
The native organic carbon content of the Launch Com-
plex 34 soil is relatively low and the threshold TCE
concentration is driven by the solubility of TCE in the
porewater.
The threshold figure was calculated as follows:
Q = Cwater (KdPb + n)
Pb
(2-1)
where C
sat
= maximum TCE concentration in the
dissolved and adsorbed phases
(mg/kg)
Cwater = TCE solubility (mg/L) = 1,100
pb = bulk density of soil (g/cm3) = 1.59
n = porosity (unitless) = 0.3
Kd = partitioning coefficient of TCE in soil
[(mg/kg)/(mg/L)], equal to (foc • Koc)
foc = fraction organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient
[(mg/kg)/(mg/L)].
At concentrations below the threshold value of 300 mg/kg,
the TCE was considered to be present in the dissolved
phase; at or above this threshold value, the TCE was
considered to be TCE-DNAPL.
Figure 2-13 is a three-dimensional (3D) depiction of pre-
demonstration concentrations of TCE as DNAPL in the
soil of the Upper Sand Unit. Figure 2-13 was created by
taking TCE concentrations above the threshold value of
300 mg/kg in the all three units (i.e., Upper Sand Unit,
Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit) of the
test plot (see Figure 2-12), and using the software pro-
gram Earth Vision® to create the 3D picture. The mass of
TCE as DNAPL in Figure 2-13 is 3.8 kg in the Upper
Sand Unit.
16
-------
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(SHALLOW WELLS)
Explanation:
• Sampling Location
PA-24S Sampling Location ID
47,400 Concentration (pg/L)
Concentration (|jg/L}
i 1*3
CDs.™
100 . 1.00Q
j 1.QOO - 10,000
10,000 -5Q.GQO
-100,004
[100.000-800,040
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
• Sampling Location
PA-24S Sampling Location ID
772000 Concenballon
Engineering
Support
Building
Engineering
Support
Building
Figure 2-8. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE
Concentrations (|jg/L) in Shallow Wells in the
EZVI Plot (March 2002)
Figure 2-9. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved DCE Concentra-
tions (ug/L) in Shallow Wells in the EZVI Plot
(March 2002)
-------
PRE-DEMONSTRATIGN
(18* bgs -Upper Sam) Unit)
EZVI-SB-6
44
Explanation:
Concentration <
Sampling Location
[ |so -100
^B too -aoo
EZVI-SB-1 Sampling Location ID r
" Concsntration (mg/kg)
300 - 1.0QD
[ 11.000 -3,000
[ I 3.000 • 10.000
^•> 10.000
oo
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(22' bgs - Upper Sand Unit)
Explanation:
Concentration {mgAtg}
Engineering
Support
Building
EOILTCEJK-UITCOK
Figure 2-10. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg)
in Soil in the Upper Sand Unit approximately
18 ft bgs in the EZVI Plot and Vicinity
(January 2002)
Figure 2-11. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg)
in Soil in the Upper Sand Unit approximately
22 ft bgs in the EZVI Plot and Vicinity
(January 2002)
-------
10-
Location of Transect
Showing TCE Concentration in Soil
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
35-
Z exag: 1.0
Baneiie
'.'. . Pulling Technology To IVivt
Figure 2-12. Vertical Cross Section through the EZVI Plot Showing Pre-Demonstration TCE Soil
Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Subsurface
Figure 2-13. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) as DNAPL in Soil in the Upper Sand Unit
at Launch Complex 34 (January/February 2002)
19
-------
2.4 Aquifer Quality at the Site
Appendix A.3 lists the various aquifer parameters
measured and the standard methods used to analyze
them. Appendix D contains the results of the pre-
demonstration groundwater analysis. Pre-demonstration
groundwater field parameters were measured in several
wells in the demonstration area in March 2002. The pH
was relatively constant with depth, and ranged from 6.4
to 6.8. Prior to the EZVI application, dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels were measured at 1 mg/L or less in all of the
wells that were sampled, indicating that the aquifer was
anaerobic. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) from all
the sampled wells ranged from +15 to +148 millivolts
(mV). The levels for total organic carbon (TOC) were
relatively low and varied from 0.9 to 1.7% of dry soil
weight, which indicates that microbes degrading TCE at
the site used available TOC as a carbon source.
Inorganic groundwater parameters in the surficial aquifer
were measured in March 2002 at the performance moni-
toring wells in the Upper Sand Unit to determine the pre-
demonstration quality of the groundwater in the target
area.
• Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations
increased sharply with depth, suggesting that the
water becomes more brackish with depth. The TDS
levels ranged from 947 to 1,670 mg/L. Chloride
concentrations ranged from 177 to 848 mg/L and
increased sharply with depth, indicating some
saltwater intrusion in the deeper layers. These high
levels of chloride made it difficult to determine the
extent to which additional chloride byproducts were
formed after treatment.
• Alkalinity levels ranged from 222 to 475 mg/L, with
no discernable trend with depth.
• Dissolved iron concentrations ranged from 1.1 to
27 mg/L in the groundwater, and decreased with
depth. Total iron concentrations ranged from 1.2 to
22 mg/L in groundwater. Both dissolved and total
iron concentrations in groundwater were highest in
the Upper Sand Unit.
• Dissolved silica concentrations ranged from 20.4 to
54.6 mg/L, and increased with depth.
• Calcium concentrations ranged from 60 to
935 mg/L, with no discernible trend with depth.
Magnesium concentrations ranged from 15 to
72 mg/L, and increased with increasing depth.
• Sodium concentrations were between 34 and
443 mg/L, and increased with depth. Potassium
concentrations ranged from 17 to 299 mg/L, and
decreased with depth.
• The changes in microbial characteristics of the
aquifer were determined by comparing the
biological oxygen demand (BOD) and dissolved
methane gas concentrations in groundwater
samples collected before and after the EZVI dem-
onstration. BOD levels in the pre-demonstration
groundwater samples ranged from <3 to 10 mg/L.
20
-------
3. Technology Operation
This section describes the details of the EZVI technology
demonstrated at Launch Complex 34.
3.1 EZVI Description
As discussed in Section 1.4, EZVI is composed of food-
grade surfactant, biodegradable vegetable oil, water,
and zero-valent iron particles, which form emulsion drop-
lets (or micelles). The micelles contain the iron particles
in water surrounded by an oil-liquid membrane (see
Figures 1-6 and 1-7). The EZVI has a specific gravity of
approximately 1.1 and exists in a nonaqueous phase
that is stable in water. Because the exterior oil mem-
brane of the emulsion particles has similar hydrophobic
properties as the DNAPL, the emulsion is miscible with
the DNAPL (i.e., the phases can mix). The DNAPL com-
pounds (e.g., TCE) diffuse through the oil membrane of
the emulsion particle and undergo reductive dechlori-
nation facilitated by the zero-valent iron particles in the
interior aqueous phase. Reductive dechlorination path-
ways are described in Section 1.4.
3.2 Regulatory Requirements
Prior to the design of the EZVI injection system, a petition
for variance from Underground Injection Control (DIG)
regulations was filed with the State of Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Technically,
the EZVI demonstration was considered a research proj-
ect in a small area, and therefore was exempt from
FDEP oversight. However, the variance was filed, and
the project was reported to be consistent with good field
practices involved with injecting materials prepared on
the surface into the subsurface. Hydraulic control of
groundwater in the EZVI plot area was achieved via
recirculation of groundwater (taken up from upgradient
extraction wells and reinjected into downgradient injec-
tion wells).
3.3 Application of EZVI Technology
The field application of the EZVI technology was con-
ducted over six months from July 8, 2002 to January 6,
2003, and included frequent monitoring until January
2003. A long-term post-demonstration groundwater sam-
pling event was conducted in March 2004. The detailed
time line is summarized in Table 3-1.
The design report for the EZVI technology was prepared
by GeoSyntec (2002) and includes location maps for
injection and monitoring well locations; schematic dia-
grams of the EZVI delivery mechanism, groundwater
recirculation system, hydraulic control recirculation sys-
tem; and other design-related information. The treatment
plot was located over an area of the DNAPL source zone
at Launch Complex 34. This zone is contaminated pri-
marily with TCE and to a lesser extent with tetrachloro-
ethylene (PCE) and dichloroethylenes (including c/s-1,2-
DCEandfrans-1,2-DCE).
Three other in situ remedial technology demonstrations
previously were hosted at the Launch Complex 34
DNAPL source zone: in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO),
resistive heating, and steam injection/extraction (SI/E).
During the SI/E demonstration, it was noted that the
injected heat and steam flowed along preferential path-
ways through the subsurface in the DNAPL source area.
Therefore, it was decided that the EZVI technology would
be applied at a location inside the Engineering Service
Building and near the SI/E test plot (see Figure 1-3).
3.3.1 EZVI Injection Methods
In theory, delivering the EZVI emulsion into a DNAPL
source area creates a multiphase environment (aqueous
for groundwater, nonaqueous for DNAPL, nonaqueous
for the emulsion, and solids from the aquifer formation),
assuming that the emulsion is distributed relatively well
in the subsurface. However, in practice, injecting EZVI
into the subsurface is challenging due to the high vis-
cosity and interfacial surface tension of the emulsion.
Three commercially available injection techniques were
evaluated for this project: high pressure injection, pneu-
matic injection, and pressure pulse enhanced injection.
Each is described in detail below. Based on the results
21
-------
Table 3-1. EZVI Demonstration Chronology
Dates
Activity
Comments
March 2001
June 2001
October 2001 to
January 7, 2002
January 8, 2002
January 15-17 and 31,
2002
February 1-2 and 7,
2002
February 22, 2002
March 20, 2002
June 25 to July 17,
2002
July 8-12, 2002
July 15-16, 2002
July 17, 2002
August 1-7, 2002
Technology demonstration contract awarded to GeoSyntec and UCF.
Site characterization conducted by GeoSyntec.
Design/modeling of the EZVI technology application performed.
Final design report submitted to NASA.
Pre-demonstration soil sampling conducted.
Pre-demonstration soil sampling continued.
First field emulsion injection test conducted (precision sampling-direction injection method)
Q 44 gal of EZVI at 1,000 psi with piston pump (vibration mode); injected EZVI did not
appear at the target depths, and short circuiting up borehole was observed.
Pre-demonstration soil sampling continued; groundwater monitoring.
Recirculation. Extraction rate at 0.5 gpm from each well for a total of 1 gpm.
Pre-demonstration groundwater was collected by GeoSyntec.
Field test and injection well installation in the plot:
O Injection well (6-inch diameter).
O Three observation wells located 2.4, 4, and 6.5 ft radial distance from injection well.
Field injection test set up (pressure pulse technology).
First Field Injection Test Conducted Using Pressure Pulse Technology
Deeper Depths (20 to 24 ft bgs) with Lower Pulse Pressure
Q Started with 20 gal of EZVI at 60 psi pulse, then 10 gal of EZVI at 10 to 30 psi pulse
(45 minutes).
O 240 gal of water for 35 min.
Q Searching for EZVI from observation wells (OWs) (at 2.4, 4, and 6.5 ft from the
injection well) using a bailer, no evidence of EZVI.
Q Drilling at 2 ft and 4 ft radial distance from the injection well (IW), no evidence of EZVI.
Q Drilling at 1 ft away from the IW; evidence of EZVI at 20 to 24 ft bgs (see Figure 3-3).
Shallow Depths (14 to 17 ft bgs) with Higher Pulse Pressure
Q Upper packer was set at 13.5 ft bgs.
Q Evidence of short circuiting from observation of the upper packer.
O Injected 20 gal of EZVI with the pulse rate: 60 to 100 psi and frequency of 1 pulse/sec,
followed by 350 gal of water. This higher pulsing damaged the pressure gauges and
transducer.
Q No evidence of EZVI from this injection at the OWs.
Q Difficulties encountered during the extrusion of injection tool from the IW.
Second Field Injection Test Conducted Using Pressure Pulse Technology
Deeper Depths (20.5 to 24 ft bgs)
Q 20 gal of EZVI and 250 gal of water with 100 psi pulse pressure.
O Cored soil samples at 1, 2, 4, and 6 ft from the IW. Evidence of EZVI was only from
1 ft-core sample at the depths of 20 to 24 ft bgs.
Shallow Depths (17 to 21 ft bgs)
Q Started with 100 gal of water at 60 psi with 2 pulses/sec, then the co-injection for
20 gal of EZVI and 150 gal of water followed by 110 gal of water.
O Cored at four locations, no evidence.
O Interfacial tension measurements from the OWs, which suggested the evidence of
surfactant but no evidence of EZVI:
o Background: 70 dynes/cm.
o 2.5 ft-OW: 60 dynes/cm.
o 4.5 ft-OW: 40 dynes/cm.
Reinjection at Shallow Depths (17 to 21 ft bgs)
Q 100 gal of water, followed by 32 gal of EZVI with 120 gal of water.
Q Cored soil samples for the EZVI evidence at 23 and 22 inches from the IW. Smearing
of EZVI observed at the core sleeve at the 22-inch core.
O Surface tension measured from the OWs and showed the evidence of surfactant but
no EZVI.
Cores SB-1 to SB-4;
Core SB-5 (gap in
January time due to
sampling in
bioaugmentation plot)
Cores SB-6 and SB-7
Injection Technology:
Pressure
Core SB-8
Pressure pulse tech-
nology by Wavefront
Environmental
22
-------
Table 3-1.
EZVI Demonstration Schedule (continued)
Dates
Activity
Comments
August 8-13, 2002
August 20-21, 2002
August 24-29, 2002
September 13-25,
2002
October 8-9, 2002
November, 2002
December 12, 2002 to
January 6, 2003
March 8, 2004
EZVI Injection Conducted (see Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3).
Groundwater sampling conducted during the monitoring.
Groundwater extracted from PA-23 at 0.3 gpm.
Groundwater extracted from PA-23 at 0.3 gpm.
Simplified post-demonstration soil sampling.
Post-demonstration characterization (soil and groundwater).
Groundwater recirculation from the injection wells to extraction wells at 0.5 gpm per well for
total of 1 gpm.
Final round of groundwater samples collected (January 6) by GeoSyntec.
Groundwater sampling conducted in select monitoring wells to collect long-term post-
demonstration observational data.
Cores SB-203, -204,
-207 to -210
Cores SB-301 to -304;
-307 to -308
PA-23, PA-24S, PA-
25S, EIW-1, EEW-1
of field tests, one injection technique was selected for
use during the demonstration.
3.3.1.1 Direct Injection
The first injection technology evaluated was direct injec-
tion with high pressure. A direct-push drilling rig (Preci-
sion Sampling) was used to advance a drilling rod to a
desired depth, and then the outer casing of the driving
rod was lifted in order to expose a screen to the forma-
tion. The emulsion then was injected downward through
the rod and sideways through the screen.
The initial plans for EZVI injection were involved with the
injection at multiple locations and multiple depths in the
treatment zone of the EZVI plot using a direct-push drill
rig equipped with a "top-to-bottom" injection tool and an
injection pump. The vertical and horizontal spacing of the
injection points were to be determined by the limited
space of the plot.
A direct-push hydraulic drill rig was used to deliver the
EZVI into the subsurface over three discrete adjacent 2-ft
intervals. The EZVI was injected over a 6-ft interval to
simplify monitoring of the subsurface distribution of EZVI.
During the field test, the hydraulic rig advanced a custom
top-down injection slide tool assembly attached to a
direct-push, hollow 1.5-inch-outside diameter (O.D.)
drive rod. The injection tip was comprised of a
customized Geoprobe® open interval, 360-degree-
circumference, hole-perforated drive stem sealed within
the drive rods. The assembled slide tool was advanced
to the top of the injection interval using a standard drive
cap. An injection pull cap was connected to the top
probe rod and the tool string was withdrawn 4 to 6
inches to expose the injection ports in the drive-point.
The upper portion of the probe rod, which is pulled back
to expose the injection ports seals off the zones above
the injection ports, was intended to function as a packer
and minimize short-circuiting of the emulsion. The injec-
tion tip was advanced to approximately 2 ft below the
water table and the first injection of EZVI was initiated.
The EZVI emulsion was injected using a GS2000 grout
pump (reciprocating-type piston pump) capable of
providing operating pressures up to 1,500 pounds per
square inch (psi). The EZVI emulsion was gravity fed to
the pump from a hopper and pumped through high
pressure hose to the hollow drill stem and down to the
injection tip. After the target volume of EZVI had been
pumped at the first injection depth, the injection tip was
advanced 2 ft and the injection process was repeated
(GeoSyntec, 2003).
Before the EZVI emulsion was injected at the third depth
it became obvious that the emulsion was short-circuiting
up the drill stem and evidenced both at the ground
surface and over the interface of water table and unsat-
urated interval. The injection was repeated at two differ-
ent locations with varying injection pressures but the
EZVI emulsion continued to travel vertically up the injec-
tion tool rather than out into the aquifer formation.
It was determined that the direct injection method was
not suitable for the demonstration of EZVI injection.
3.3.1.2 Liquid Atomization Injection
The second injection technology evaluated was the
Liquid Atomization Injection (LAI) pneumatic injection
technique by ARS Technologies. This technique is more
effective at injecting gases or "aerosols" into the sub-
surface. The technique involves using nitrogen gas to
atomize low-kinetic-energy, high-viscosity fluids into
high-energy aerosols, and then using a multiphase injec-
tion system to distribute the material into the subsurface.
23
-------
An aboveground field test was conducted using LAI to
evaluate whether the EZVI remained intact after being
atomized and sprayed from a nozzle. The emulsion was
introduced into a high-flow, high-velocity gas stream at
relatively low pressures (<100 psi) and sprayed out of an
injection nozzle outside of the Engineering Support
Building. Microscopic analysis of the atomized EZVI
indicated that the emulsion structure had been destroyed
(i.e., it had separated out into iron particulate and oil
droplets). Although the LAI technique is very innovative
and promising, it was determined that it was not suitable
for the injection of EZVI.
3.3.1.3 Pressure Pulse Technology
The third injection technology evaluated was pressure
pulse technology (PPT) by Wavefront Environmental.
This technology involves injecting fluid while simultane-
ously applying large-amplitude pulses of pressure to por-
ous media at the water table or variable depths. These
pressure pulses cause instantaneous dilation of the pore
throats in the porous media, and thus increase fluid flow
and minimize the "fingering" effect that occurs when a
fluid is injected into a saturated media.
PPT uses a process of periodic (e.g., one pulse per sec-
ond) large-impulse hydraulic excitations to introduce
hydraulic strain energy into the formation. Applied to geo-
logic formations exhibiting elastic properties, this energy
opens perforations, increases pressure, and generally
enhances the ability to move fluids. High-amplitude wave
pulses are generated by blasts of air delivered by a pro-
prietary pneumatic system. The air is used to drive down
a piston in the wellhead assembly that transmits the
pressure pulse to the fluid contained in the injection tool
and well. Pulse rate and amplitude are calculated based
on-site parameters. A porosity-pressure pulse propa-
gates at between 5 and 300 m/s (15 to 900 ft/s) depend-
ing on the fluid viscosity, permeability, and the scale of
the pulse. Mechanical energy capture causes a buildup
of pressure in the reservoir, deforming the material elas-
tically outward.
Before any field injection tests were conducted using
PPT, laboratory tests were conducted by Wavefront to
insure that the technology would be able to move the
EZVI without destroying the emulsion structure. A batch
of EZVI was produced and shipped to Wavefront, where
a set of injection tests were conducted in a two-
dimensional (2D) sandbox set up in their laboratory.
Figure 3-1 shows the advancement of EZVI through a
media of saturated and compacted sand. PPT appeared
to be able to move the EZVI through the sand matrix with
minimal fingering at relatively low pressures (~30 psi). A
second test was conducted to investigate the potential
for the PPT to move the DNAPL before the advancing
EZVI front. For this test, a free-phase TCE-DNAPL was
2:25:30PM
UA" 30-20,0
Figure 3-1. EZVI Experiments Using Pressure Pulse
Technology, before (above) and after
(below)
placed in the 2D sand matrix, and EZVI was pumped
through the matrix while applying PPT. The location and
motion of the TCE could be monitored because of its
distinct color and the corrosive effects it had on the walls
of the cell. Based on these laboratory tests, it appeared
that PPT was effective at moving the EZVI to the DNAPL
source zone without displacing the DNAPL.
After the successful laboratory experiments, a field test
for the EZVI injection system and for the flow properties
24
-------
of the emulsion in undisturbed geologic media was con-
ducted at an uncontaminated area outside the Engineer-
ing Support Building.
The injection components consist of a well-head assem-
bly that contains the piston that is used to transmit the
pressure pulse to the fluids being injected (Figure 3-2).
The well-head assembly isolates the well casing so that
the pressure pulses are transmitted to the fluid contained
in the well. The downhole injection assembly comprises a
set of packers, positioned approximately 4 ft apart with a
screened interval between. The lower packer assembly
is removable to allow injection into the lower portion of
the well screen. The injection tool was threaded onto
lengths of steel riser pipe and the whole system was
lowered into the well to the desired injection depth and
held in place by the well-head assembly. A minimum
volume of fluid had to be contained in the well casing in
order to maximize the effects of the pressure pulse on
that fluid. It was determined that a minimum 3-inch O.D.
was needed for the EZVI injection wells.
Figure 3-2. Field Injection Test Setup with PPT
Injection Technique
The first field injection test using a PPT injection appa-
ratus was conducted to apply EZVI into the aquifer
formation in a 3-inch injection well (Figure 3-2). After
several injection attempts, soil coring samples were col-
lected a few inches from the injection wells. It appeared
from the soil samples that the EZVI emulsion was not
distributed. After a thorough field investigation of the
injection assembly, it was determined that the packers
inside the casing were not sealing tight and were caus-
ing a poor distribution.
The second field test was attempted at another injection
well with a proper set of packers. With a few trials of
injection by PPT and soil sample verification, the appli-
cation of EZVI was successful with the modified packer
design. After the successful field test, the injection
assembly for the PPT method was directly employed in
the EZVI application in the EZVI plot.
3.3.2 EZVI Injection Field Operations
One of the main goals of the technology demonstration
was to determine the best method of introducing the
EZVI into the contaminated zone. From an evaluation
of three injection techniques, Wavefront's PPT was
selected for the EZVI technology demonstration.
The total amount of EZVI to be injected was a function of
the estimated mass of TCE-DNAPL in the treatment zone
and the estimated mass of the EZVI required per unit
mass of TCE based on stoichiometric calculations and
laboratory experiments. The TCE-DNAPL mass in the
treatment zone was difficult to estimate due to its hetero-
geneous distribution in the subsurface. The estimated
TCE-DNAPL mass in the EZVI plot was calculated using
TCE results in soil from the pre-demonstration coring
(see Section 5.1) using a threshold TCE soil concentra-
tion of 300 mg/kg to determine the presence of DNAPL.
Stoichiometric calculations suggested that 8 kg of EZVI
is required per kg of TCE. Using a safety factor of 2 and
using an average concentration of 2,000 mg of TCE per
kg of soil, it was estimated that the required volume of
EZVI would range from 608 gal (2,300 L) to 845 gal
(3,200 L) per each injection round, and that multiple
injections may be necessary depending on the injection
scenario.
After the treatment zone size for the EZVI plot was
determined based on the vendor's project budget,
Battelle performed pre-demonstration characterization to
estimate the mass of TCE by soil coring. The target
volume for treatment was approximately 1,425 ft3 (a 15 ft
x 9.5ft rectangle treating the lower 10 ft of the Upper
Sand Unit). The target treatment zone for the EZVI dem-
onstration was between 16 and 24 ft bgs. An assumption
was made for the radius of influence to pump and pulse
EZVI at the distance of 4.5 ft from the injection well. A
series of eight 3-inch-diameter Schedule 80 polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) injection wells with 10-ft screens were
installed in the EZVI plot, six along the edges and two in
the center of the EZVI plot. The injection wells were
screened from 14 to 24 ft bgs. The wells installed on the
edges of the EZVI plot were screened only on 180° of
the well circumference and oriented so that the screened
interval was pointing into the plot. This was done to min-
imize the amount of EZVI that would be injected outside
of the EZVI plot. Figure 3-3 shows the location of the
EZVI injection wells and the assumed injection radius
used in the design of the EZVI injection network.
25
-------
EZVI Plot
EZV1-SB-B
Explanation
extraction well (recirculation well)
EZVI injection well (1/2 screen)
EZVI injection well (full screen)
injection well (recirculation well)
monitoring well
multi-level monitoring well
soil boring
(O orientation of screen
Not to Scale
Source: GeoSyntec 2003
DESIGNED BY
SY
DRAWN BY
GS
CHECKED BY
SY
0Batielle
EZVI Injection Locations and Volumes
LAUNCH COMPLEX 34 - CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
G482010-EPA41 |EZVIPLOTSEPT.CDR| 07/03
Figure 3-3. Location Map and Injection Volume for EZVI Injection
26
-------
Table 3-2. EZVI Demonstration Schedule
ro
Injection Well Depth
ID (ft bgs)
Injection #1
Injection #2
Injection #3
Injection #4
Injection #5
Injection #6
Injection #7
Injection #8
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
16-20.5
20.5 to 24
16-20.5
16-20.5
Water Volume
Added Before
EZVI Injection
Date (gal)
09-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
09-Aug-02
1 2-Aug-02
08-Aug-02
12-Aug-02
08-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
09-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
10-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
10-Aug-02
12-Aug-02
1 3-Aug-02
10-Aug-02
12-Aug-02
1 3-Aug-02
30
20
25
20
36
20
23
20
20
30
20
Water Volume Water Volume
Added with Added After
EZVI Injection EZVI Injection
(gal) (gal)
38
54
150
5
22
58
40
49
50
75
13
22
129
0
10
8
10
28
27
20
13
15
Total Volume of
Water Volume of EZVI
(gal) (gal) Comments
81
96
154
170
120
51
140
112
50
91
88
72
89
83
93
110
25
40
25
154
25
15
25
15
25
15
25
40
35
60
42
35
60
EZVI injection stopped - Injection
Well #8 has water and EZVI flowing
out of it
Second injection at this depth
Attempt second injection of EZVI but
Injection Well #2 starts to have EZVI
and water flowing out as soon as
injection starts
-------
Before injecting the EZVI emulsion into the test plot, a
second injection test with the PPT system was con-
ducted outside Engineering Services Building. This test
was conducted from August 1-7, 2002 (see Table 3-1.)
The second field injection test demonstrated that the
bottom packer was not properly working as designed: the
lower packer inflation line was breaking when the packer
was inflated. After the vendor fixed the bottom packer,
20 gal of EZVI was injected, followed by 250 gal of fresh
water in order to chase EZVI at an injection pressure of
100 psi. Gauges confirmed that the injection was work-
ing and that pressure was maintained on the packers,
injection pulses, and wellhead. After the EZVI injection,
several soil cores were collected at distances of 1, 2, 4,
and 6 ft from the injection well. Only one soil core sam-
ple saturated with EZVI was observed at 1 ft from the
injection well at depths of 20 to 24 ft bgs. Given that co-
injection with water appeared able to carry the EZVI
emulsion into the formation, it was determined that
fluidizing the subsurface prior to the EZVI injection was
necessary. A rough calculation suggested that the injec-
tion of 20 gal of EZVI filled more than 100% of the void
space in the radius around the injection well at depths of
20 to 24 ft bgs. As a result of the oversaturated pore
space, the EZVI was forced to move through preferential
flows and channels towards the surface. Therefore, the
injection technique was modified by first injecting water
in the aquifer before and after the injection of EZVI. This
modified injection technique was able to successfully
overcome the difficulties of injecting a high-viscosity
emulsion into subsurface.
During the EZVI application in the treatment plot, the co-
injection ratio of EZVI and water was maintained
between 1:2 to 1:4 at various depths as summarized
in Table 3-2. The total volume of EZVI injected was
approximately 661 gal and the total volume of water
injected into the injection wells was 1,627 gal (Table 3-2).
Approximately 2,300 gal of water and EZVI were injected
into the EZVI plot. The details of the injection information
are summarized in Figure 3-3 and Table 3-2.
3.4 Groundwater Control System
A groundwater control system was designed and
installed to maintain the hydraulic groundwater control in
the EZVI plot. The groundwater control system consists
of (1) two injection wells (EIW-1 and EIW-2) upgradient
and two extraction wells (EEW-1 and EEW-2) down-
gradient of the EZVI plot, (2) an aboveground treatment
system (see Figure 3-4) to treat VOCs prior to reinjec-
tion, (3) the associated process piping, and (4) additional
monitoring wells on the edges of the plot (EML-1 to -4),
outside the plot (PA-24S/I/D and PA-25S/I/D), and inside
the plot (PA-23).
The groundwater control system was used to maintain
flow and hydraulic residence time in the EZVI plot. The
technology vendor designed the specifics of the flow
control based on Visual MODFLOW™ (GeoSyntec,
2002). The results indicated that a flowrate of 1 gallon
per minute (gpm) was sufficient to maintain flow in the
system. Extra care was taken to prevent any potential air
from entering into the treatment system. Flowrate, pres-
sure, and the extracted groundwater chemistry were
monitored by the vendor.
The groundwater control system was operated during
three separate periods: (1) pre-demonstration (June 25
to July 17, 2002) from EEW-1 and EEW-2, (2) during
the demonstration (August 24 to 29 and September 13
to 25, 2002) from PA-23, and (3) post-demonstration
(December 16, 2002 to January 6, 2003) from EEW-1
and EEW-2. Although the optimal flowrate indicated by
the modeling results was 1 gpm, the recirculation system
could be controlled with much lower flow. The technol-
ogy vendor frequently calibrated and daily recorded the
logs of the average groundwater extraction flowrates
using a pressure transducer from various sample ports.
The water level was measured and recorded several
times a day with a data logger (GeoSyntec, 2003). Dur-
ing every site visit (every other week), the following
activities were performed to maintain the groundwater
control system:
• Monitoring of the pressure drop across granulated
activated carbon (GAG) tank filter cartridges
• Collection of water samples from the effluent
sampling port of the GAG tanks
• Flowrate and pressure measurements
• Water level measurements
• Site inspection and engineering control
• Replacement of GAG tanks and filter cartridges
when necessary
• Routine maintenance of the extraction pump.
Before the demonstration, the average flowrate was
maintained at 0.5 gpm from both EEW wells (EEW-1 and
EEW-2) downgradient from the EZVI plot. The flowrate
was kept at average of 0.3 gpm from PA-23 prior to and
during the demonstration. Approximately 7,000 gal was
extracted from PA-23. Of those 7,000 gal, approximately
2,300 gal of water extracted from PA-23 were then co-
injected with EZVI into the EZVI plot. The remaining
water was reinjected into the injection wells (EIW-1 and
EIW-2), which are approximately 20 ft upgradient of the
plot, after the EZVI injection. This reinjection scheme
would likely induce an inward gradient into the plot.
28
-------
Figure 3-4. Aboveground Water Treatment System (A Series of Two Carbon Tanks
and a Backup Tank)
In the post-demonstration period, the extraction rate aver-
aged between 0.4 and 0.7 gpm to induce the remaining
unspent EZVI into action.
In summary, the groundwater control system was oper-
ated to maintain groundwater flow through the EZVI plot
with minimal hydraulic disturbance.
3.5 Waste Handling and Disposal
Spent GAG was characterized and disposed of by the
manufacturer of the GAG units. Solid waste generated
during the demonstration such as gloves and sampling
tubes were contained in open-top 55-gal drums specified
(UN1A2/Y1.4/100) by the U.S. Department of Transpor-
tation and required by the site owner (NASA). Liquid
samples were contained in closed-top 55-gal drums
specified (UN1A1 /Y1.4/100) and stored on site in a
locked, fenced storage area until disposal by the site
owner. If DNAPL was present in the extracted ground-
water, the DNAPL was stored in liquid waste disposal
drums with the liquid samples.
29
-------
-------
4. Performance Assessment Methodology
Battelle, in conjunction with the U.S. EPA SITE Program,
conducted an independent performance assessment of
the EZVI demonstration at Launch Complex 34 (see
Figure 4-1). The objectives and methodology for the
performance assessment were outlined in a QAPP pre-
pared before the field demonstration and reviewed by all
project stakeholders (Battelle, 2002a). The objectives of
the performance assessment were to:
• Estimate the change in total TCE and DNAPL mass
in the test plot and the change in TCE flux in
groundwater due to the EZVI treatment;
• Evaluate changes in aquifer quality due to the EZVI
treatment;
• Evaluate the fate of TCE due to the EZVI treatment;
• Verify EZVI technology operating requirements and
costs.
Table 4-1 summarizes the measurements and sampling
locations associated with each performance objective.
Figure 4-1. Soil Sampling for Performance
Assessment at Launch Complex 34
The performance assessment was based on results
obtained from sampling activities in the targeted hydro-
stratigraphic unit for the EZVI injection, which was the
Upper Sand Unit. Results from samples collected in
other units (Middle Fine-Grained Unit, Lower Sand Unit)
were used to evaluate the technology's effect, if any, on
vertical contaminant migration.
4.1 Estimating Changes in
TCE-DNAPL Mass and TCE Flux
The primary objective of the performance assessment
was to estimate the changes in total TCE and DNAPL
mass in the target unit (i.e., the Upper Sand Unit), as
well as the change in TCE flux in groundwater, due to
the EZVI treatment. Total TCE includes both dissolved-
phase and free-phase TCE present in the aquifer soil
matrix. DNAPL refers to free-phase TCE only and is de-
fined by the threshold TCE concentration of 300 mg/kg
as calculated in Section 2.3. Soil sampling in the EZVI
plot was used for estimating changes in TCE-DNAPL
mass before and after the demonstration. The method
used to estimate TCE mass flux in groundwater was the
measurement of mass changes due to TCE dissolution
in groundwater from the multichamber wells located in
upgradient and downgradient sides of the EZVI plot,
before and after the demonstration.
4.1.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass
At the outset of the demonstration, a total TCE removal
target of 50% in the Upper Sand Unit was chosen for the
EZVI demonstration, as determined by 80% confidence
levels by kriging. Previous soil coring, sampling, and
analysis at Launch Complex 34 (Battelle, 1999b; Eddy-
Dilek et al., 1998) indicated that soil sampling was a
viable technique for identifying the boundaries of the
DNAPL source zone and estimating the TCE and
DNAPL mass. The advantage of soil sampling (see
Figure 4-2) was that relatively intensive horizontal and
vertical coverage of any test plot, as well as of the
31
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated Measurements
Objective
Measurements
Frequency
Sampling Locations'
(a)
Estimate change in total
TCE and DNAPL mass in
soil, and change in TCE
flux in groundwater
Evaluate changes in
aquifer quality
Evaluate the fate of TCE
Verify operating
requirements and costs
of the EZVI technology
CVOCs(b) in soil
CVOCs(b) and dissolved
hydrocarbon gases(c) in
groundwater
CVOCs(b), inorganics'"', TOC,
BOD, field parameters'6' in
groundwater
TOC in soil
Hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer
CVOCs"" in soil
CVOCs"", inorganics'1", field
parameters, dissolved
hydrocarbon gases'0' in
groundwater
Chloride in groundwater
Hydraulic gradient in the aquifer
Field observations, tracking
materials consumption and costs
Primary Objective
Before and after
treatment
Before, during, and
after treatment
Secondary Objectives
Before, during, and
after treatment
Before and after
treatment
Before and after
treatment
Before and after
treatment
Before, during, and
after treatment
Before and after
treatment
Before, during, and
after treatment
Before, during, and
after treatment
Six horizontal locations in the Upper Sand Unit.
Extract and analyze every 2-ft depth.
Extraction wells (EEW-1 and EEW-2); test plot well
PA-23.
Center well PA-23 and perimeter well clusters PA-24
and PA-25.
Three multiple depths of two locations inside the plot.
Center well PA-23.
Extend the six locations from the Upper Sand Unit
vertically into the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower
Sand Unit. Extract and analyze every 2-ft depth.
Perimeter well clusters PA-24 and PA-25; injection well
EIW-1 and extraction well EEW-2.
Four locations in the plot at five discrete depths using
a Waterloo Profiler®.
Water level measurements taken in the test plot well
(PA-23), perimeter well clusters (PA-24 and PA-25),
and distant wells.
Field observations by vendor and Battelle; materials
and consumption costs reported by vendor to Battelle.
(a) Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show soil core sampling locations and groundwater monitoring well locations within the EZVI plot.
(b) CVOCs of interest are TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, frans-1,2-DCE, and VC.
(c) Dissolved hydrocarbon gases are methane, ethane, and ethane.
(d) Inorganics include cations (Ca, Mg, total and dissolved Fe, Mn, Na, K), anions (chloride, bromide, sulfate, phosphate, and nitrate/nitrite),
alkalinity, dissolved silica, and TDS.
(e) Field parameters are pH, DO, ORP, conductivity, and temperature.
dissolved-phase TCE and DNAPL distribution, could be
achieved with a reasonable number of soil samples and
without DNAPL access being limited to preferential flow-
paths in the aquifer. Soil sampling was conducted before
(pre-demonstration event) and after (post-demonstration
event) the EZVI application (see Figures 4-3 and 4-4).
An additional soil sampling event was held approxi-
mately six weeks after EZVI was injected at the target
depths in the plot, but prior to post-demonstration moni-
toring. The purpose of this intermediate soil sampling
event was to verify that the EZVI had been distributed
into the subsurface area under the test plot, and also to
determine if an additional EZVI injection would be neces-
sary to treat any remaining contaminant before beginning
the post-demonstration characterization. An additional
EZVI injection was determined to be unnecessary based
on the preliminary results of the intermediate soil sam-
pling event. The results of all three soil sampling events
are presented in Section 5.1.
Figure 4-2. Soil Sample Collection (tan color indicates
the native soil color; the gray to blackish
band indicates evidence of the injected EZVI)
32
-------
EZVI Plot
Boundary
EZVI-SB-7
EZVI-SB-8
Explanation
Soil Boring
GRAPHIC SCALE
EZVI Plot and Pre-Demo Soil Boring Locations
LAUNCH COMPLEX 34—CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
PROJECT G331505-11IEZVIPLOTMAP05.CDR I DATE 02/03
Figure 4-3. Pre-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (SB-1 through SB-4; SB-7; SB-8) in the EZVI Plot
(January/February 2002)
33
-------
EZVI Plot
Boundary
EML-1
EEW-1
Explanation
Injection Well
Extraction Well
0 Monitoring Well
Multi-Level Monitoring Well
Soil Boring
GRAPHIC SCALE
EZVI Plot and Post-Demo Soil Boring Locations
LAUNCH COMPLEX 34—CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
PROJECT G331505-11IEZVIPLOTMAP05.CDR I DATE 02/03
Figure 4-4. Post-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (SB-201 through SB-204; SB-207; SB-208; and
SB-301 to SB-304; SB-307; SB-308) in the EZVI Plot (October 2002; November 2002)
34
-------
Although the primary focus of the performance assess-
ment was on TCE, the soil samples also were analyzed
for c/s-1,2-DCE and VC to determine if these degrada-
tion products were accumulating in the aquifer after
treatment due to reductive dechlorination in anaerobic
conditions.
Geostatistical methods were used to determine the num-
ber of soil coring locations and number of soil samples
required. A minimum sample size for each characteri-
zation event (i.e., pre- and post-demonstration) was
selected at 50 in the Upper Sand Unit based on the
sample requirements for the kriging analysis, which was
the highest number of samples that would be practical to
collect for the smaller size of the test plot (15 x 9.5 ft)
and still produce an 80% confidence interval.
The number of boreholes (6) chosen for the plot was
limited by the small size of the test plot (15 x 9.5 ft).
Initially, a systematic unaligned sampling scheme
(Battelle, 1999c) was designed for the plot. However, the
small size of the plot and some physical obstructions
limited the actual spatial locations that could be sam-
pled. Many possible borehole locations were obstructed
by the EZVI injection points in the test plot, and also by
the requirement that grouted boreholes produce minimal
interference with the hydraulic aspects of EZVI injection
and extraction. To compensate for these limiting factors,
a systematic aligned sampling scheme was used where-
by the plot was divided into a 3 x 2 grid, and the soil
core sample locations were placed as close as possible
to the center of each grid cell. The resulting sampling
configuration provided good horizontal and vertical cov-
erage of the test plot within the level of resources
available. Figure 4-3 contains the pre-demonstration soil
coring locations (soil cores SB-1 through SB-4; SB-7 and
SB-8).
For each soil boring collected during the pre- and post-
demonstration, the entire soil column from ground sur-
face to the Lower Clay Unit (approximately 45 ft bgs) was
sampled and analyzed in 2-ft sections. However, only the
soil samples collected from the Upper Sand Unit were
considered in evaluating the EZVI technology. Seven
soil borings (SB-201 to -204; SB-207 to -209) were col-
lected and analyzed for CVOCs during the intermediate
soil sampling event that was held shortly after EZVI
injection. Sample SB-209 was collected from outside the
western edge of the plot. Six soil borings (SB-301 to SB-
304; SB-307 and SB-308) were collected during the
post-demonstration characterization, as shown in Figure
4-4. Each soil sampling event, therefore, consisted of
nearly 50 soil samples collected for the purposes of eval-
uating the EZVI technology (5 to 6 borings with approx-
imately ten 2-ft intervals per boring in the Upper Sand
Unit, plus duplicates).
Soil coring, sampling, and extraction methods are
described in Appendix A.2 and summarized in this sec-
tion. Figure 4-5 shows the indoor rig used for soil coring
inside the Engineering Support Building. A direct Vibra-
Push™ rig with a 2-inch-diameter, 4-ft-long sample barrel
was used for coring. As soon as the sample barrel was
retrieved, the 2-ft section of core was split vertically and
approximately one-quarter of the core (approximately
125 g of wet soil) was deposited into a predetermined
volume (250 ml) of methanol for extraction in the field.
The methanol extract was transferred into 20-mL volatile
organic analysis (VOA) vials, which were shipped to a
Figure 4-5.
Indoor Vibra-Push™ Rig (LD Geoprobe
Series) Used in the EZVI Plot Inside the
Engineering Support Building
35
-------
certified off-site laboratory for analysis. The sampling
and extraction technique used at this site provided better
coverage of a heterogeneously distributed contaminant
distribution as compared to the more conventional meth-
od of collecting and analyzing small soil samples at dis-
crete depths, because the entire vertical depth of the soil
column at the coring location could be analyzed. Prelimi-
nary site characterization had shown that the vertical
variability of the TCE distribution was greater than the
horizontal variability, and this sampling and extraction
method allowed continuous vertical coverage of the soil
column (GeoSyntec, 2002). The efficiency of TCE recov-
ery by this method (modified U.S. EPA Method 5035;
see Appendix A.2) was evaluated through a series of
tests conducted for the demonstration (Battelle, 2003). In
these tests, a surrogate compound (1,1,1-trichloroethane
[1,1,1-TCA]) was spiked into soil cores from the Launch
Complex 34 aquifer, extracted, and analyzed. Replicate
extractions and analysis of the spiked surrogate
indicated a CVOC recovery efficiency between 84 and
113% (with an average recovery of 92%), which was
considered sufficiently accurate for the demonstration.
Two data evaluation methods were used for estimating
the change in TCE-DNAPL mass in the EZVI plot: linear
interpolation by contouring, and kriging. The spatial vari-
ability or spread of the TCE distribution in a DNAPL
source zone typically is high, the reason being that small
pockets of residual solvent may be distributed unevenly
across the source region. The two methods address this
spatial variability in different ways, and therefore the
resulting mass removal estimates differ slightly. Because
it is impractical to collect a sample from every single
point in the EZVI plot and obtain a true TCE mass esti-
mate for the plot, both methods address the practical
difficulty of estimating the TCE concentrations at unsam-
pled points by interpolating (estimating) between sam-
pled points. The objective of both methods is to use the
information from a limited sample set to make an infer-
ence about the entire population (the entire plot or a
stratigraphic unit).
4.1.2 Linear Interpolation by Contouring
Linear interpolation by contouring is the most straight-
forward and intuitive method for estimating TCE concen-
tration or mass in the entire plot, based on a limited
number of sampled points. TCE concentrations are
assumed to be linearly distributed between sampled
points. A software program, such as EarthVision™, has
an advantage over manual calculations in that it is easier
to conduct the linear interpolation in three dimensions. In
contouring, the only way to address the spatial variability
of the TCE distribution is to collect as large a number of
samples as is practical so that good coverage of the plot
is obtained; the higher the sampling density, the smaller
the distances over which the data need to be interpo-
lated.
For linear interpolation by contouring, input parameters
must be adjusted to accommodate various references
such as geology and sample size. Nearly 200 soil sam-
ples were collected from the 17 coring locations in the
plot during each event (pre-demonstration, intermediate,
and post-demonstration), which was the highest number
practical within the resources of this project. The number
and distribution of these sampling points were deter-
mined to obtain good representative coverage of the
plot.
Linear interpolation by contouring using EarthVision™
software uses the same methodology that is used for
drawing water level contour maps based on water level
measurements at discrete locations in a region. The only
difference with this software is that the TCE concen-
trations are mapped in three dimensions to generate iso-
concentration shells (i.e., volumes of soil that fall within a
specified concentration range). The average TCE con-
centration of each shell is multiplied by the volume of the
shell (as estimated by the volumetric package in the
software) and the bulk density of the soil (1.59 g/cm3) to
estimate a TCE mass for each shell. The TCE mass in
each region of interest (Upper Sand Unit, Middle-Fine-
Grained Unit, or Lower Sand Unit) is obtained by adding
up the portion of the shells contained in that region. The
DNAPL mass is obtained by adding up the masses in
only those shells that have TCE concentrations above
300 mg/kg. Contouring provides a single mass estimate
for the region of interest.
4.1.3 Kriging
Kriging is a geostatistical interpolation method that takes
into consideration the spatial correlations among the
TCE data in making inferences about the TCE concen-
trations at unsampled points. Spatial correlation analysis
determines the extent to which TCE concentrations at
various points in the plot are similar or different. Gener-
ally, the degree to which TCE concentrations are similar
or different is a function of distance and direction. Based
on these correlations, kriging determines how the TCE
concentrations at sampled points can be optimally
weighted to infer the TCE concentrations/masses at
unsampled points in the plot or the TCE mass in an
entire region of interest (entire plot or stratigraphic unit).
Kriging accounts for the uncertainty in each point esti-
mate by calculating a standard error for the estimate.
Therefore a range of TCE mass estimates is obtained
instead of a single estimate; this range is defined by an
average and a standard error or by a confidence interval.
The confidence or level of significance required by the
project objectives determines the width of this range. A
36
-------
level of significance of 0.2 (or 80% confidence) was
determined as necessary at the beginning of the dem-
onstration (Battelle, 2002a).
4.1.4 Interpreting the Results of
the Two Mass Removal
Estimation Methods
The two data evaluation methods address the spatial
variability of the TCE distribution in different ways and,
therefore, the resulting mass removal estimates differ
slightly between the two methods.
In both contouring and kriging, TCE mass removal is ac-
counted for on an absolute basis; higher mass removal
in a few high-TCE concentration portions of the plot can
offset low mass removal in other portions of the plot, to
infer a high level of mass removal. Kriging most likely
provides a more informed inference of the TCE mass re-
moval than contouring because it takes into account the
spatial correlations in the TCE distribution and the uncer-
tainties (error) associated with the estimates. The results
in Section 5.1 show that contouring was able to over-
come the spatial variability to a considerable extent and
provide mass estimates that were generally in agree-
ment with the ranges provided by kriging.
4.1.5 TCE Flux Measurements
in Groundwater
In addition to estimating the changes in TCE-DNAPL
mass, another primary objective of the performance
assessment was to evaluate any changes in TCE flux in
groundwater after the EZVI injection. Groundwater sam-
ples were collected by the vendor from the multilevel
samplers and the performance monitoring well network
in the plot. The change in TCE flux is a measure of the
reduction in activity of the DNAPL source (i.e., the
strength of the DNAPL contribution to plume formation)
brought about by the technology.
4.2 Evaluating Changes in
Aquifer Quality
A secondary objective of the performance assessment
was to evaluate any short-term changes in aquifer qual-
ity due to the treatment. EZVI affects the contaminant
and, to a lesser extent, the native aquifer characteristics.
Pre- and post-demonstration measurements conducted
to evaluate the short-term impacts of the technology
application on the aquifer included:
• CVOC measurements in the groundwater inside the
EZVI plot
• Field parameter measurements (pH, DO, ORP,
temperature, and conductivity) in the groundwater
• Inorganic measurements (common cations and
anions) in the groundwater
• TDS and 5-day BOD
• TOC measurements in the soil
• Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer.
These measurements were conducted in the monitoring
well within the plot and in the extraction wells and perim-
eter wells surrounding the plot.
4.3 Evaluating the Fate of the
TCE-DNAPL
Another secondary objective of the performance assess-
ment was to evaluate the fate of TCE removed from the
plot by the EZVI treatment. Possible pathways (or pro-
cesses) for TCE removal include dehalogenation (de-
struction of TCE) and migration from the EZVI plot (to
outside the plot). Dehalogenation will be determined by
the presence of TCE degradation products, including
chloride. The amount of chloride generated during EZVI
treatment was evaluated by collecting groundwater sam-
ples with a Waterloo Profiler® inside the plot (see Figure
4-6), as well as from the performance monitoring wells.
These pathways were evaluated by the following mea-
surements:
• Chloride in groundwater (mineralization of CVOCs
leads to formation of chloride) and other inorganic
constituents in groundwater
• Alkalinity in groundwater (oxidation of CVOCs and
native organic matter leads to formation of CO2
which, in a closed system, forms carbonate)
• Hydraulic gradients (injection of the emulsion
creates gradients indicative of groundwater
movement)
• Dissolved and total iron concentrations in the EZVI
plot and surrounding wells
• Changes in dehalogenated byproducts (c/s-
1,2-DCE, VC, and ethenes)
• Impact on natural attenuation products (nitrate,
sulfate) via the aerobic process.
37
-------
Figure 4-6. Collecting and Processing Groundwater Samples Using the Waterloo Profiler
4.4 Verifying Operating Requirements
and Costs
The final secondary objective of the performance assess-
ment was to verify the vendor's operating requirements
and cost for the technology application. The costs were
evaluated, reported, and presented using the methodol-
ogy outlined in the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable report (FRTR, 1998). The vendor prepared a
detailed report describing the operating requirements
and costs of the EZVI application (GeoSyntec, 2003). An
operating summary based on this report is provided in
Section 3.3.2. Site characterization costs were estimated
by Battelle.
38
-------
5. Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions
The results of the performance assessment methodology
outlined in Section 4 are described in this section.
5.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass
in the Plot
Section 4.1 describes the methodology used to estimate
the masses of total TCE and TCE-DNAPL removed from
the plot due to the EZVI treatment at Launch Complex
34. Intensive soil sampling was the primary tool for esti-
mating total TCE and DNAPL mass removal. Total TCE
refers to both dissolved-phase and TCE-DNAPL. DNAPL
refers to that portion of total TCE in a soil sample that
exceeds the threshold concentration of 300 mg/kg (see
Section 2.3). TCE concentrations for pre- and post-
demonstration characterization from six soil cores (ap-
proximately 50 soil samples each) of the EZVI plot were
tabulated and graphed to qualitatively identify changes in
TCE-DNAPL mass distribution and determine the
efficiency of the EZVI treatment in different parts of the
plot (Section 5.1.1). In addition, TCE-DNAPL mass
removal was quantified by three methods:
• Contouring (Section 5.1.2)
• Kriging (Section 5.1.3)
• Groundwater Mass Flux (Section 5.1.4).
The quantitative techniques for estimating TCE-DNAPL
mass removal due to the EZVI treatment are described
in Section 4.1; the results are described in Sections
5.1.2 through 5.1.5.
5.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Changes
in TCE-DNAPL Distribution
Figure 5-1 charts the pre-demonstration, intermediate,
and post-demonstration TCE concentrations at six paired
locations in the EZVI plot (see Figures 4-3 and 4-4);
detailed TCE results in soil samples are tabulated in
Appendix C. The thick horizontal line in the chart indi-
cates the depth at which the Middle Fine-Grained Unit
was encountered. Soil samples were collected from the
groundwater table (approximately 6 ft bgs) down to the
Lower Sand Unit; however, this discussion of sampling
results will focus primarily on concentrations in the
Upper Sand Unit because the EZVI treatment focused
on that specific geographical stratigraphic unit.
At several locations in the plot at that target depth, TCE
concentrations were considerably lower after the EZVI
injection. Cells highlighted in gray on Figure 5-1 indicate
depths where EZVI was visually observed in the soil
samples during sample collection. Note that the TCE
concentrations were considerably lower at the depths
where EZVI was visually observed. The highest pre-
demonstration contamination was detected in soil core
SB-3 (6,067 mg/kg at 18 ft bgs). Similarly, the highest
post-demonstration TCE concentration was detected in
soil core SB-303 (4,502 mg/kg at 24 ft bgs).
Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show representative pre-
demonstration and post-demonstration distributions of
TCE in soil at two selected depths (18 and 22 ft bgs) in
the Upper Sand Unit of the EZVI plot and surrounding
aquifer. These figures illustrate the areal and vertical
extent of the initial contaminant distribution, and the sub-
sequent changes in TCE concentrations. The yellow to
red colors indicate the presence of free-phase TCE-
DNAPL (based on the TCE-DNAPL threshold of
300 mg/kg). In general, the southern and western por-
tions of the plot (SB-3 and SB-7) had the highest pre-
demonstration TCE concentrations in and near the EZVI
plot. Post-demonstration coring indicated that the injec-
tion of EZVI decreased TCE distribution at multiple depths
in the plot (16 to 20.5 ft bgs, and 20.5 to 24 ft bgs).
Figure 5-4 depicts 3D distributions of TCE-DNAPL identi-
fied from the pre- and post-demonstration characteriza-
tion in the EZVI plot, and based on the 300 mg/kg
threshold. Suspected TCE-DNAPL prior to the applica-
tion of EZVI in the Upper Sand Unit appeared at the
depths of approximately 16 to 24 ft as well. After the
application of the EZVI injection at strategic depths
(between 16 and 24 ft bgs), a relatively well-distributed
mass of TCE-DNAPL appeared to decrease to relatively
smaller residual pocketfuls in and around the EZVI plot.
39
-------
Top
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Bottom
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Pre-Demo
SB-1
ND
1
1
3
6
87
282
208
230
283
263
Post-
Demo
SB-301
0
1
1
4
1
1
12
8
0
NA
119
Pre-Demo
SB-3
ND
0
0
1
7
6,067
209
195
253
272
252
Intermediate
SB-203
1
NA
1
13
1
1,023
1 798
495
2
1
Post-
Demo
SB-303
0
0
1
1
4
1
451
7
4,502
17
45
Pre-Demo
SB-7
ND
0
0
2
70
1,167
207
175
202
222
268
Intermediate
SB-207
1
NA
ND
ND
0
1 54
ND
268
177
252
Post-Demo
SB-307
0
NA
2
1
0
NA
23
NA
19
149
175
Top
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Bottom
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Pre-Demo
SB-2
ND
ND
ND
1
10
89
182
233
262
259
270
Post-
Demo
SB-302
0
NA
1
1
11
5
57
NA
18
7
8
Pre-Demo
SB-4
ND
0
0
6
6
45
161
171
249
289
255
Intermediate
SB-204
ND
NA
0
1
1
1
6
3
35
183
27
Post-
Demo
SB-304
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
2
1
0
0
28
Pre-Demo
SB-8
ND
3
2
2
21
127
136
157
162
212
237
Intermediate
SB-208
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
143
NA
269
Post-Demo
SB-308
ND
0
1
0
NA
0
NA
177
130
125
NA
Summary chart for TCE results is divided into two groups (the western soil boring group: SB-1/-3/-7; the eastern soil boring group: SB-2/-4/-8).
NA: Not available due to no recovery or no sample collection at the sample depth.
ND: The sample was detected below the detection limit.
Solid horizontal line indicates the lithologic unit change from the Upper Sand Unit to the Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
Pre-Demo: January 2002.
Intermediate: October 2002.
Post-Demo: November 2002.
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) During Pre-Demonstration and Post-Demonstration Characterization in the EZVI Plot Soil
-------
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(18' bgs • Upper Sand Unit)
EZVI-SB-6 //
Explanation:
• Sampling Location M-100
EZVI-SB-1 Swiping Location ID [. _!««•«»
87 ConcentraliMi (mg/kg) [ZZl'W-'W
! JJM-1.0M
^•3.000-10,000
POST-DEMONSTRATION
|18' bgs - Upper Sand Unit)
Explanation: conwdtration (
_ «»
• Sampllr>g Localion so -1M
EZVI-S8-203 Sampling Location ID
1 Concentration (1113*3)
1.00 - 200
200 - 50C
3CO - 1.MM
t.WC - 3,000
3.0M . 10.000
Engineering
Support
Building
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration (October to November 2002) Horizontal
Cross Sections of TCE (mg/kg) in soil at 18 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit Soil
(b)
-------
PRE-DEMCWSTRATION
22' bgs - Uppor Sand Unit)
EZVI-SB-6
124
ro
Explanation: Cononlrwlon (mstg)
I l<50
• sampling Location
EZVI-SB-1 Sampling Location ID
87 Correemratmi (mg/kg) I |zw-»o
60.100
1M . 2M
]1,OM-3.000
| 3.000-10,000
Engineering
Support
Building
POST-DEMONSTRATION
[22' bgs • Upper Sand Unit)
Explanation: c
-------
•
OBanefle
li^ Tectinalagy To Wort
(a)
pBafleiie
. . . Putting Technology Tn Wartr
(b)
Figure 5-4. 3D Distribution of DNAPL in the EZVI Plot Based on (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002)
and (b) Post-Demonstration (October to November 2002) Characterization
(Purple block is an underlying lithologic unit of Middle Fine-Grained Unit)
43
-------
One narrow pocket of significant DNAPL (4,502 mg/kg)
was found in SB-303 at a depth of 22 to 24 ft bgs. Inter-
estingly, EZVI also was observed at much shallower
depths between 10 and 16 ft bgs where EZVI was not
intentionally injected, but which reacted with TCE at the
shallower depths (see Figure 5-1). This indicates that the
EZVI was not evenly distributed laterally and ascended
close to the groundwater table, suggesting that EZVI
was likely pushed up during the injection.
In summary, a qualitative evaluation of the TCE-DNAPL
changes indicates that the injection of EZVI treatment
was able to achieve partial decrease of free-phase TCE-
DNAPL in some parts of the plot. However, the efficiency
of EZVI distribution may need to be improved in order to
treat the remaining pockets of DNAPL.
5.1.2 TCE-DNAPL Mass Estimation
by Linear Interpolation
Section 4.1.2 describes the use of linear interpolation or
contouring to estimate pre- and post-demonstration
TCE-DNAPL masses and calculate TCE-DNAPL mass
changes within the plot. In this method, EarthVision™, a
3D contouring software, is used to group the TCE con-
centration distribution in the EZVI plot into 3D shells (or
bands) of equal concentration. The concentration in
each shell is multiplied by the volume of the shell and
the bulk density of the soil to arrive at the TCE mass in
that shell. The masses in the individual shells are
summed to arrive at a total TCE mass for the entire plot.
This process is conducted separately for the pre- and
post-demonstration TCE distributions in the test plot.
The pre-demonstration TCE-DNAPL mass in the entire
plot then can be compared with the post-demonstration
mass in the entire plot to estimate the change in TCE-
DNAPL mass in the plot. During the post-demonstration
characterization, however, one soil sample contained a
much higher level of TCE (at 4,502 mg/kg from soil core
SB-303 at the depth of 24ft bgs). This TCE level
prompted a concern by the project team on the uncer-
tainties from limited field sampling. After a thorough QA
review process eliminated the possibility of errors due to
either field sampling or laboratory procedures, it was
determined that two sets of scenarios for TCE distri-
bution in soil would be evaluated: TCE mass estimates
with and without the highest post-demonstration TCE
data point (4,502 mg/kg).
Table 5-1 presents the estimated masses of total TCE
and TCE-DNAPL in the EZVI plot and the three indi-
vidual stratigraphic units. Although the target depth for
the EZVI treatment was the Upper Sand Unit, the evalu-
ation was performed in the entire surficial aquifer in
order to examine the potential impact of vertical migra-
tion from the injection in the Upper Sand Unit. Under
pre-demonstration conditions, soil sampling indicated the
presence of 17.8 kg of total TCE (dissolved and free
phase) in the Upper Sand Unit, approximately 3.8 kg of
which was estimated to be TCE-DNAPL. Following the
demonstration, soil sampling indicated that 2.6 kg of total
TCE remained in the plot, approximately 0.6 kg of which
was estimated to be TCE-DNAPL. Therefore, the overall
mass removal indicated by contouring was 86% of total
TCE and 84% of DNAPL. Without the possible post-
demonstration outlier, 1.8 kg of total TCE is estimated to
remain in the plot; approximately 0.2 kg of this remaining
TCE is DNAPL.
The EZVI treatment is estimated to have removed 86%
of total TCE and 84% of TCE-DNAPL in the target treat-
ment zone (i.e., the Upper Sand Unit). The mass reduc-
tion percentage was not estimated in the other two
stratigraphic units because EZVI was not applied in
those lower stratigraphic units. It was only verified that
no mass increases were observed in the lower strati-
graphic units that could be attributed to DNAPL migra-
tion from the treated Upper Sand Unit.
5.1.3 TCE Mass Estimation
by Kriging
Section 4.1.3 describes the use of kriging to estimate the
pre- and post-demonstration TCE masses in the aquifer.
Table 5-1. Estimated Total TCE and TCE-DNAPL Mass Reduction by Linear Interpolation
Pre-Demonstration
Post-Demonstration
Change in Mass (%)
Stratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Upper Sand Unit (without outlier)(a)
Middle Fine-Grained Unit1"1
Lower Sand Unit1"1
Total TCE Mass
(kg)
17.8
17.8
11.8
0.12
TCE-DNAPL Mass
(kg)
3.8
3.8
1.5
0.0
Total TCE Mass
(kg)
2.6
1.8
6.9
0.10
TCE-DNAPL Mass
(kg)
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.0
Total
TCE
86
90
N/A
N/A
TCE-
DNAPL
84
95
N/A
N/A
(a) The highest data point in the post-demonstration TCE data was dropped as a possible outlier.
(b) The last two rows are shaded because any EZVI treatment of the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower Sand Unit was incidental and these two
units were not targeted during the injection.
N/A = not applicable.
44
-------
Although linear interpolation estimates TCE concentra-
tions of unsampled points based on the TCE measure-
ments of discrete sampling point, kriging takes into
account the spatial variability and uncertainty of the TCE
distribution when estimating TCE concentrations (or
masses) at unsampled points. As a result, kriging analy-
sis results provide a range of probable values. Thus,
kriging is a good way of obtaining a global estimate for
the parameters of interest (such as pre- and post-
demonstration TCE masses), when the parameter is
heterogeneously distributed.
Appendix A contains a description of the kriging model
and results for the TCE distribution in the EZVI plot as
well as the statistics summary of the data distribution.
Mass estimation by kriging was conducted to evaluate
the EZVI technology performance in the heterogene-
ously distributed TCE contamination source in the Upper
Sand Unit. The estimation also was conducted for two
sets of scenarios (with and without the highest TCE level
from soil samples).
Table 5-2 summarizes the total TCE mass estimates
calculated from kriging. The table summarizes an aver-
age and range (lower bound and maximum bound) for
total TCE only for each stratigraphic unit. Limiting the
evaluation to TCE-DNAPL was difficult due to the
number of usable data points to those with TCE concen-
trations greater than 300 mg/kg. Thus, kriging was con-
ducted on total TCE values only to avoid using too few
data points for the mass estimates of TCE-DNAPL.
In general, the pre- and post-demonstration total TCE
mass ranges estimated from kriging match the total TCE
calculated from contouring, which suggests that contour-
ing was able to capture much of the variability of the
TCE distribution in the plot despite the relatively small
sample size. Kriging results show that the estimated
decrease in TCE mass in the plot after the EZVI treat-
ment is between 22 and 100% (58% on average) for the
entire data set from the Upper Sand Unit. For the data
set without the post-demonstration outlier, the TCE mass
reduction is averaged at 73% with the range between 53
and 93%. As described in Appendix A.1, the variability of
the data was much greater for the entire data set than
for the individual stratigraphic units. As a result, the esti-
mated TCE-DNAPL reduction for the entire plot was
quite different from the arithmetic sum of the TCE mass
in the individual units. The TCE mass reduction efficien-
cies in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower Sand
Unit were not quantified because the EZVI treatment
was not applied in those stratigraphic units.
In this demonstration of in situ dehalogenation of TCE-
DNAPL by EZVI, the range of TCE mass estimation by
kriging after the treatment overlaps the TCE mass range
before the treatment. The overlapping may be attributed
to an insufficient number of soil samples collected before
and after the demonstration. This overlap creates some
uncertainty in the estimates, as evidenced by the wide
range of estimates (22 to 100%) for the change in TCE
mass.
5.1.4 Groundwater Mass Flux
Mass flux is a measure of the TCE that dissolves from
the source zone and crosses a defined vertical cross-
sectional plane in the aquifer. In order to estimate mass
flux, defined spatial transects and flow velocity are
required. Two transects (upgradient and downgradient)
at right angles to the flowpath were selected for the
cross-sectional planes. The upgradient transect is com-
posed of the plane determined from five discrete sam-
pling locations of each multilevel sample chamber (EML-3
and EML-4). Similarly, five discrete depths of the down-
gradient multilevel sampler chambers (EML-1 and EML-2)
were used. Groundwater samples were collected before
(June 2002) and after (January 2003) the EZVI treat-
ment in the plot when the recirculation system was oper-
ating. Collected groundwater samples were analyzed
forCVOCs and ethene (nonchlorinated). Then, analytical
results in groundwater (ug/L) from each sampling point
Table 5-2. Estimated Total TCE Mass Reduction by Kriging
Pre-Demonstration
Total TCE Mass
Post-Demonstration
Total TCE Mass
Change in Mass
Stratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Upper Sand Unit (without outlier)(a)
Middle Fine-Grained Unit(b)
Lower Sand Unit(b)
Total (Entire Plot)
Average
(kg)
28
28
6.6
0.2
35.2
Lower
Bound
(kg)
10
10
6
0.05
16.5
Upper
Bound
(kg)
46
46
8
0.4
54.5
Average
(kg)
11.7
7.5
5.9
0.1
17.8
Lower
Bound
(kg)
2.5
4.6
5
0.06
8.5
Upper
Bound
(kg)
21
10.5
7
2
27.1
Average
(%)
58
73
N/A
N/A
N/A
Lower
Bound
(%)
22
53
N/A
N/A
N/A
Upper
Bound
(%)
100
93
N/A
N/A
N/A
(a) The highest data point in the post-demonstration TCE data was dropped as a possible outlier.
(b) The last two rows are shaded because any EZVI treatment of the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower Sand Unit was incidental and these two
units were not targeted during the injection.
N/A = not applicable.
45
-------
were converted to a mass discharge in each grid (1-ft
wide, 3-ft tall, and 1-ft deep) in molar-based concentra-
tions. The flow velocity used for the mass flux estimation
was 0.75 ft/day.
Mass flux estimation was summarized for the extraction
and injection transects of the recirculation pathway
before and a/?erthe treatment (see Table 5-3). Approxi-
mately 1,826 mmoles/day of TCE flux before the treat-
ment decreased to 810 mmoles/day of TCE flux after the
treatment in the extraction transect. Note that 56% of
reduction in dissolved TCE flux was achieved. Approxi-
mately 1,909 mmoles/day of total ethenes were present
in the extraction transect before the treatment. The dis-
charge of the ethene mass decreased to 1,461 mmoles/
day after the treatment. Mass flux of c/s-1,2-DCE, VC,
and ethene show overall increases in the extraction
transect after the treatment.
For the injection transect, the flux change in TCE mass
discharge was minimal, as expected, because less EZVI
was applied. The TCE mass discharge rate decreased,
from 14 mmoles/day before the treatment to
11 mmoles/day after the treatment (21%). However, the
total mass discharge rate for total ethenes increased
significantly, from 16 mmoles/day before the treatment
to 127 mmoles/day after the treatment, which is an
increase of 694%. This may suggest that the EZVI
injected through wells #3 and #5 (see Figure 3-3)
migrated upgradient of the plot and caused both redis-
tribution and degradation of TCE around the plot.
5.1.5 Summary of Changes in the
TCE-DNAPL Mass and
Mass Flux in the Plot
In summary, the evaluation of TCE concentrations in soil
indicates the following:
• In the horizontal plane, the highest pre-
demonstration DNAPL contamination was in
the western half of the EZVI plot.
• In the vertical plane, the highest pre-demonstration
TCE-DNAPL contamination was at the target
depths for the injection (between 16 and 26 ft bgs).
• A statistical evaluation for mass estimation by linear
interpolation based on TCE in soil shows that the
EZVI treatment reduced the original TCE mass by
approximately 86%.
• A statistical evaluation for mass estimation by
kriging of TCE concentrations in soil from pre- and
post-demonstration characterization shows that the
EZVI treatment removed between 22 and 100%
with the average reduction of 58%. The reduction
efficiency estimated by kriging is in a wide range
because, unlike contouring, kriging takes into
account the uncertainties associated with the
pre-demonstration and post-demonstration mass
estimates. This range was based on a confidence
level of 80%.
5.2 Evaluating Changes in
Aquifer Quality
This section describes the changes in aquifer character-
istics created by the EZVI application at Launch Complex
34. Aquifer parameters were measured by monitoring
conducted before, during, and after the demonstration.
Changes in aquifer characteristics were determined by
comparing the changes between the pre-demonstration
and post-demonstration sampling events. The affected
aquifer characteristics are grouped into four subsections:
• Changes in CVOC levels (see Appendix C for
detailed results)
Table 5-3. Total Mass Discharge of CVOCs in Groundwater Before and After the Demonstration
Total Mass Discharge Mass Flux (mmoles/day)
Transect
TCE
c/s-1 .2-
DCE
VC
Ethene
Total
Ethenes
Pre-Demonstration
EML-1 and EML-2
(Extraction Transect)
EML-3and EML-4
(Injection Transect)
1,826
95.7%
14
88.2%
83
4.3%
2
1 1 .8%
0
0
0
0.0%
0
0
0
0.0%
1,909
100%
16
100%
Post-Demonstration
EML-1 and EML-2
(Extraction Transect)
EML-3 and EML-4
(Injection Transect)
810
55.5%
11
8.7%
438
30.0%
35
27.3%
143
9.8%
13
10.1%
69
4.7%
69
53.9%
1,461
100%
127
100%
The percentage represents a portion of total ethenes as a specified compound.
46
-------
• Changes in aquifer geochemistry (see Appendix D
for detailed results)
• Changes in the hydraulic properties of the aquifer
(see Appendix B for detailed results)
• Changes in the aquifer biology.
Table 5-4 lists selected CVOC concentrations in ground-
water at the EZVI plot, and Table 5-5 lists levels of vari-
ous groundwater parameters that indicate aquifer quality
and the impact of the EZVI treatment. The tables sum-
marize the levels from pre-demonstration and post-
demonstration sampling events. Other important organic
and inorganic aquifer parameters are discussed in this
subsection.
5.2.1 Changes in CVOC Levels
in Groundwater
CVOC levels in groundwater were monitored from wells
screened in the Upper Sand Unit, Medium Fine-Grained
Unit, and the Lower Sand Unit. A greater number of
monitoring wells (i.e., performance assessment and
multilevel wells) were screened in the Upper Sand Unit
because the EZVI injection was targeted to that zone.
General observations are made about CVOC concen-
trations in groundwater sampled from the intermediate
and deep wells, but trends are difficult to identify with the
limited data set available.
CVOC levels in groundwater were measured in several
shallow wells screened in the Upper Sand Unit, including
the performance assessment wells inside the plot (PA-
23) and around the perimeter of the plot (PA-24S and
PA-25S), in the multilevel wells along the plot edges
(EML-1 through EML-4), and in extraction well EEW-1.
Table 5-4 shows the changes in TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and
VC concentrations in the monitoring wells screened in
the Upper Sand Unit. Figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7 show dis-
solved TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and VC concentrations in the
shallow wells, respectively, in the EZVI plot and perim-
eter. Table C-1 of Appendix C tabulates the levels of
TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE and VC in the groundwater in all of
the monitoring wells for the EZVI demonstration.
Before the demonstration, concentrations of TCE above
or close to the solubility of TCE (1,100,000 ug/L) were
detected in PA-23 in the center of the plot and in extrac-
tion well EEW-1 just outside the southern edge of the
plot. Immediately after the demonstration, TCE concen-
trations in several of the shallow wells in and around the
plot (i.e., PA-23, EEW-1, EML-1, EML-2, and PA-24S)
decreased significantly. TCE concentrations in PA-23
decreased from 1,180,000 ug/L to less than 9,000 ug/L
after the demonstration. TCE concentrations in EEW-1
decreased from 1,050,000 ug/L to 471,000 ug/L after the
demonstration.
Figure 5-5 indicates that the EZVI injection had a posi-
tive impact on the concentrations of dissolved TCE in the
demonstration plot (i.e., TCE concentrations decreased),
and that the impact extended beyond the plot boundary.
Some redistribution of TCE due to the injections may
have occurred as indicated by a decrease in one perim-
eter well (PA-24S) and an increase in another perimeter
well (PA-25S).
A tenfold increase in c/s-1,2-DCE was evident in PA-23,
from 16,900 ug/L to 169,000 ug/L (see Figure 5-6). A
corresponding increase in VC concentrations also was
evident in PA-23, where concentrations of VC increased
from less than 1,000 ug/L to 21,600 ug/L (see Figure 5-
7). The groundwater standard for VC is 1 ug/L, and was
exceeded in the majority of the wells both before and
after the demonstration.
Table 5-4. CVOCs in Groundwater in the EZVI Plot Before and After the Demonstration
TCE (Mg/L)
c/s-1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Well ID
PA-23
EEW-1
EML-1
EML-2
EML-3
EML-4
PA-24S
PA-25S
Pre-
Demonstration
1,180,000
1 ,050,000
450,000
350,000
1,300
1,600
772,000
71,300
Post-
Demonstration
8,790
471 ,000
76,000
23,000
74,000
24,000
12,100
129,000
Pre-
Demonstration
16,900
67,100
1 1 ,000
21,000
<100
130
47,400
69,200
Post-
Demonstration
169,000
80,100
96,000
130,000
41 ,000
42,000
31 ,700
42,800
Pre-
Demonstration
< 1,000
<1 ,000
<500
<500
<100
<20
< 1,000
<1,000
Post-
Demonstration
21 ,600
6,980
29,000
20,000
500
1,500
1,580
75J
J = Estimated value; below reporting limit.
Pre-demonstration: March 2002; Post-Demonstration: November 2002
47
-------
Table 5-5. Groundwater Parameters in the EZVI Plot Before and After the Demonstration
Applicable Groundwater
Groundwater Parameter
(mg/L)
PH
ORP
(mV)
DO
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Calcium
Magnesium
Alkalinity as CaCO3
Chloride
Manganese
Dissolved Iron
Total Iron
Dissolved Silica
IDS
BOD
TOC
Potassium
Sodium
Phosphate
Standard'"1
(mg/L)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
250
0.05
0.3
0.3
Not applicable
500
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
160
Not applicable
Aquifer Depth1"1
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Pre-Demonstration
(mg/Lf>
6.4 to 6.6
6.8
6.8
+ 15 to +148
+33 to +83
+15 to +71
0.3to 1.0
0.6 to 0.9
0.9 to 1.0
0.1 5 to 0.22
0.21 to 0.22
0.1 6 to 0.33
138 to 184
66 to 935
60 to 104
1 5 to 27
65
53 to 72
320 to 475
342 to 363
222 to 320
177 to 244
359 to 463
353 to 848
0.099 to 0.21
0.046 to 0.15
0.039 to 0.089
7.2 to 27
2.7 to 5.5
1.1 to 2.4
7.3 to 22
1.5 to 6.0
1.2 to 3.1
20.4 to 32.1
38.4 to 54.6
37.8 to 53.5
947 to 1,230
1,120to 1,290
1,100to 1,670
<3.0to7.0
6.0to 10.0
<6.0to6.0
55to154
54 to 87
18 to 66
116 to 299
52 to 56
17 to 50
34 to 99
232 to 280
174 to 443
<3.0
<6.0
<3.0
Post-Demonstration
(mg/L)(c|
6.4 to 7.1
7.1 to 7.2
6.9 to 7.0
-17 to +106
+ 11 to +55
+3 to +40
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1 2 to 0.24
0.1 9 to 0.28
0.28 to 0.30
72 to 240
49 to 59
59 to 87
17 to 58
59 to 66
59 to 66
208 to 669
341 to 391
267 to 31 6
1 28 to 294
277 to 581
572 to 722
0.019to0.65
0.026 to 0.057
0.024 to 0.035
3.0 to 16
1.8 to 2.6
0.9 to 3.1
2.5 to 17
1.8 to 2.6
1.0 to 4.2
44.1 to 92.2
65.8 to 87.1
61 .2 to 76.4
663 to 1,470
1,040 to 1,460
1,450 to 1,600
5.0 to 1 48
<3.0 to 5.0
<3.0 to 4.0
21 to 85
19 to 28
19 to 21
87 to 170
27 to 29
20 to 46
62 to 73
195 to 312
257 to 374
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
48
-------
Table 5-5. Groundwater Parameters in the EZVI Plot Before and After the Demonstration (continued)
Groundwater Parameter
(mg/L)
Applicable Groundwater
Standard'"1
(mg/L)
Aquifer Depth
Pre-Demonstration
•w (mg/L)(c|
Post-Demonstration
(mg/L)(c|
Bromide Not applicable
Total Nitrate/Nitrite as N 10
Sulfate 250
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
<2.0
<4.0
<2.0 to 22.9
NA
NA
NA
90.7 to 1 64
100 to 136
58.0 to 89.6
0.41Jto3.8
0.36Jto 1.1
1.4 to 5.5
<0.5to0.84
<0.5
<0.5
1 .4J to 1 1 8
77.5 to 112
61 .6 to 73.9
(a)
State of Florida drinking water standards for organic contaminants (TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, VC), inorganic contaminants (sodium, total
nitrate/nitrite) and secondary drinking water standards (iron, manganese, chloride, sulfate, pH, IDS)
Shallow well screens are located in the Upper Sand Unit; intermediate well screens are located in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit; and deep well
screens are located in the Lower Sand Unit.
All reported quantities are in mg/L, except for pH, which is in log units, ORP, which is in mV, and conductivity in mS/cm.
J = Estimated value but below reporting limit.
NA = Not analyzed.
Bold face denotes that the level exceeds Florida cleanup standards for groundwater.
(b)
(c)
The significant accumulation of c/s-1,2-DCE and VC in
groundwater suggests that multiple TCE degradation
mechanisms may have been stimulated by the EZVI
injection. Abiotic degradation of TCE by zero-valent iron
primarily bypasses the formation of c/s-1,2-DCE and VC
and results in the direct formation of ethene (Roberts et
al., 1996). On the other hand, biological degradation of
TCE, as may be stimulated by the addition of an electron
donor source (e.g., the vegetable oil portion of the
EZVI), would result in significant generation of c/s-1,2-
DCE and VC. Other evidence of this type of anaerobic
biodegradation is described in Section 5.2.2. The gen-
eration of ethene, c/s-1,2-DCE, and VC in substantial
quantities indicates that the EZVI causes TCE degrada-
tion through multiple pathways.
CVOC concentrations in groundwater sampled at inter-
mediate depths in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and deep
depths in the Lower Sand Unit varied in the perimeter
wells (i.e., wells PA-24I/D, PA-25I/D) during post-
demonstration characterization (see Table C-1 in Appen-
dix C). In well PA-24I, TCE concentrations decreased
from 258,000 ug/L to 86,400 ug/L, whereas c/s-1,2-DCE
concentrations in the same well increased from
149,000 ug/L to 181,000 ug/L after the demonstration. In
the Lower Sand Unit, TCE concentrations in well PA-
24D increased from 469,000 ug/L to 656,000 ug/L, and
c/s-1,2-DCE levels also increased from 61,800 ug/L to
99,400 ug/L after the demonstration. Outside the west-
ern edge of the plot in well PA-25, TCE concentrations
increased from 534,000 ug/L to 944,000 ug/L at inter-
mediate depths (i.e., well PA-25I), whereas c/s-1,2-
DCE concentrations decreased from 116,000 ug/L to
90,900 ug/L. At deep depths, TCE concentrations in-
creased from 2,800 ug/L in well PA-25D to 53,200 ug/L
after the demonstration, and c/s-1,2-DCE levels in-
creased from 60,800 ug/L to 117,000 ug/L. The increase
in TCE concentrations observed in groundwater sam-
pled from the perimeter monitoring wells suggests that
some unexpected redistribution of TCE may be occur-
ring in the aquifer. The groundwater data set from the
Middle Fine-Grained Unit and the Lower Sand Unit is too
limited to determine if CVOCs migrated downward as a
result of the EZVI injections. Soil data indicate that there
is no increasing trend in the Lower Sand Unit.
Section C-5 in Appendix C contains the results of
groundwater sampling conducted in the test plot after
one year of EZVI injection. This long-term sampling
showed that TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and (eventually) vinyl
chloride levels continued to decline sharply for several
months.
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer
Geochemistry
Among the field parameter measurements (tabulated in
Table 5-5 and Appendix D) conducted in the affected
aquifer before, during, and after the demonstration, the
following trends were observed:
• Groundwater pH in the shallow wells increased
slightly, from 6.4 to 6.6 before the demonstration to
6.4 to 7.1 after the demonstration, and reached a
peak of 7.2 during the demonstration (see
Table D-1 in Appendix D). The same increasing
trend was observed in the intermediate and deep
wells. Much greater pH increase was expected
because the corrosion of zero-valent iron in water
49
-------
cn
o
Concentration -\*y'-.
I
J3-100
POST-DEMONSTRATION
(SHALLOW WELLS)
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(SHALLOW WELLS)
• Sampling Location
PA-24S Sampling Location ID
772.000 Concentration (uoA)
100 - t 000
11JOQ-10.000
10 O'i'3 - 100. .000
I 1100.000 -MO.OOO
^^ 900.000 - 1.100.000
PA-25S
12*000
Engineering1^
Support
00o Building
Engineering
Support
Building
EML1-3
76.000
EEW-1 O
• O
471.000 \
wBaltelle
- Putting Technchay To Wort
Battelle
Putting rfcnmjfow To Wbrf
Figure 5-5. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration (March 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(November 2002) Sampling of Shallow Wells
-------
cn
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(SHALLOW WELLS)
Explanation:
• Sampling Loceuxi
PA-24S Sampling LocaHon ID
Conocmtn»or>(K9A)
Concentration (vgf\.)
3-100
^| 100 • 1.0M
; j 1.000 -10.000
10.000 • 50,000
E^] 50.000 -100,000
^m 100.000 • sco.ooo
^B -'&a 'j.Ooo-
Sohibliily LtmH - WW.WO utfL
neermg
Support
Building
POST-DEMONSTRATION
(SHALLOW WELLS)
50000
Engineering
Support
Building
Figure 5-6. Dissolved c/s-1,2-DCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration (March 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(November 2002) Sampling of Shallow Wells
-------
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(VINYL CHLORIDE - SHALLOW WELLS)
Explanation:
Concsmratlon (|
^3-K
en
IV)
Engineering
Support
Building
POST-DEMONSTRATION
(VINYL CHLORIDE - SHALLOW WELLS)
Explanation:
• Sampling Location
PA-24S Sampling Location ID
772.000 concentration <
Concenuatlon (M9/L)
13-100
[ 1100 -1000
[ {1.000-10-000
I 10,000 • 100.000
C 1100.000 -POO.OOO
^HSOQ.OM - 1.10Q.OOQ
••^1,100.000
Engineering
Support
Buildi
(b)
Figure 5-7. Dissolved Vinyl Chloride Concentrations ((jg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration (March 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration
(November 2002) Sampling of Shallow Wells
-------
produces excess electrons, which then react with
water to produce hydrogen gas and OH .
At some sites where zero-valent iron has been used
for groundwater treatment, pH increases of up to
10 or 11 have been reported (Battelle, 2002c). This
indicates that the iron in the EZVI influences the
aquifer environment, but does not create strongly
reducing conditions.
• ORP decreased in the center of the test plot (i.e.,
well PA-23) from +31 mV before the demonstration
to -143 mV during the demonstration (see Table D-1
in Appendix D). The drop in ORP is indicative of
reducing conditions created in the plot immediately
after the EZVI injection. The ORP in well PA-23
showed a net decrease to -17 mV during the post-
demonstration characterization. The same trend
was observed in all of the perimeter wells (i.e.,
PA-24S/I/D and PA-25S/I/D), indicating that the
EZVI injection influenced the reduction potential of
groundwater throughout the test plot aquifer, but did
not generate strongly reducing conditions.
• DO decreased from a maximum of 1.0 mg/L before
the demonstration to 0.0 mg/L after the demonstra-
tion. The decrease in DO is expected as both zero-
valent iron and vegetable oil deplete dissolved
oxygen in the groundwater. This decreasing trend
in dissolved oxygen concentrations was observed in
all wells regardless of location or depth (see
Table D-1 in Appendix D). Due to the limitations of
measuring DO with a flowthrough cell, groundwater
with DO levels below 1.0 mg/L is considered anaer-
obic. All three hydrologic units of the shallow aqui-
fer (i.e., the Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained
Unit, and Lower Sand Unit) were anaerobic for the
duration of the demonstration.
• Conductivity in the Upper Sand Unit increased from
approximately 0.2 mS/cm before the demonstration
to 1.8 mS/cm during the demonstration (see
Table D-1 in Appendix D). The increase is attrib-
uted to a buildup of dissolved ions formed from the
mineralization of organic matter and CVOCs.
Conductivity does not appear to have increased as
a result of adding iron particles to the subsurface
because both dissolved and total iron concentra-
tions in groundwater decreased after the technology
demonstration.
Other groundwater measurements indicative of aquifer
quality included inorganic ions, BOD, and TOC. The
results of these measurements are as follows:
• Dissolved iron concentrations in well PA-23 in the
center of the test plot decreased from 15.7 mg/L to
3.0 mg/L after the demonstration. Decreases also
were observed in the shallow wells around the
perimeter of the plot (i.e., PA-24S and PA-25S).
Dissolved iron concentrations at intermediate and
deep depths decreased during the demonstration
and then rose during post demonstration characteri-
zation, but remained below pre-demonstration con-
centrations. The secondary drinking water limit for
iron is 0.3 mg/L, which was exceeded before, dur-
ing, and after the demonstration. Precipitation of
ferric iron on soil was not visually seen (as tan
color) during post-demonstration characterization,
but a full microscopic analysis of the soil was not
conducted to verify the presence of iron precipi-
tates. The relatively high levels of dissolved iron
before EZVI injection and their subsequent
decrease are somewhat contrary to the expected
trend.
• Total iron concentrations in all of the wells were
very similar to dissolved iron concentrations,
indicating that dissolved iron is the dominant form in
groundwater. It suggests that nanoscale iron
particles used in EZVI pass through 0.45 urn-size
filter. The trends in total iron concentrations
mimicked those of dissolved iron, with substantial
decreases seen during the demonstration, and then
slight increases in total iron concentrations during
post-demonstration characterization. The sec-
ondary drinking water limit for iron is 0.3 mg/L,
which was exceeded before, during, and after the
demonstration in all wells.
• Calcium, magnesium, and alkalinity levels
measured in the shallow center well (PA-23) of the
test plot remained relatively steady or increased
slightly. Evidence of microbial respiration was seen
in the dramatic increases in dissolved methane gas,
from 0.013 mg/L before the demonstration to
0.55 mg/L after the demonstration. Methane con-
centrations also increased in the perimeter wells at
all depths and in the injection and extraction wells
EIW-1 and EEW-1 (Table D-5 in Appendix D).
• Chloride levels were already relatively high in the
aquifer before the demonstration (in PA-23, PA-24,
and PA-25) and do not appear to have changed
significantly after the EZVI treatment. The second-
ary MCL for chloride in drinking water is 250 mg/L,
which was exceeded in several wells both before
and after the demonstration.
Chloride concentrations also were measured using a
Waterloo Profiler® in two locations in the test plot at
various depths. As seen in Table D-4 (in Appen-
dix D) and illustrated in Figure 5-8, chloride concen-
trations, as measured in the Waterloo Profiler®
samples, remained relatively steady with a slight
increasing trend.
53
-------
CHLORIDE INCREASE
(SHALLOW WELLS)
• Sampling Location
PA-24S Sampling Location 10
TO Concentration
Engineering
Support
Building
en_a._rtin_m.caB
Figure 5-8. Chloride Increases Produced by the EZVI Treatment in Shallow Wells in and Around the
Demonstration Plot
The Waterloo Profiler data collected at discrete
depths provide better support for reductive dechlori-
nation (biotic) and/or abiotic degradation of TCE
occurring inside the test plot in the Upper Sand Unit
than the depth-averaged data from the monitoring
wells.
• Sulfate levels in PA-23 increased slightly from
103 mg/Lto 147 mg/L during the demonstration,
and then decreased significantly after the demon-
stration to 13 mg/L. Sulfate levels in the perimeter
wells and at deeper depths displayed minor fluctua-
tions in sulfate but did not change significantly. Sul-
fate concentrations in PA-23 may have decreased
after the demonstration due to an increase in a
sulfate-reducing microbial organism population,
which mediate electron transfer reactions that
reduce sulfate.
• Sodium and potassium levels remained relatively
constant in the aquifer during the demonstration.
• Manganese levels in well PA-23 decreased from
0.12 mg/L before the demonstration to 0.05 mg/L
during the demonstration. After the demonstration,
manganese concentrations rose to pre-
demonstration levels of 0.12 mg/L. In the injection
well (EIW-1), manganese concentrations rose from
pre-demonstration levels of 0.21 mg/L to 0.65 mg/L
after the demonstration, and manganese levels
rose from 0.15 mg/L to 0.21 mg/L in the extraction
well (EEW-1) after the demonstration. In general,
manganese concentrations in the perimeter wells
decreased during the demonstration and then rose
slightly during post-demonstration characterization.
Manganese levels exceeded the secondary drinking
54
-------
water standard of 0.05 mg/L both before and after
the demonstration; Mn2+ is not a health hazard, but
can cause discoloration of the water at concentra-
tions greater than 0.05 mg/L.
• TDS levels remained relatively unchanged by the
EZVI demonstration. However, a significant
decrease in TDS occurred in PA-25S, where TDS
levels decreased from 1,230 mg/L before the
demonstration to 663 mg/L after the demonstration.
The low TDS level after the demonstration in
PA-25S is somewhat anomalous with respect to the
trends in all the other wells.
• TOO concentrations decreased in the majority of the
monitoring wells after the demonstration. In PA-23,
TOC concentrations decreased from 150 mg/L to
77 mg/L. In the shallow perimeter wells (PA-24S
and PA-25S), TOC levels decreased from 108 mg/L
and 114 mg/L to 45 mg/L and 21 mg/L, respectively.
The decrease in TOC levels is somewhat anoma-
lous, as the addition of vegetable oil would tend to
increase groundwaterTOC levels. The decreases
in TOC are possibly the result of dissolution (mass
transfer) of organic matter from the water phase to
the EZVI oil phase.
• BOD levels in well PA-23 increased from below the
detection limit (3 mg/L) up to 148 mg/L after the
demonstration. Similar increases were seen in the
injection and extraction wells (EIW-1 and EEW-1).
This indicates that the vegetable oil portion in the
EZVI emulsion is releasing as the emulsion is
partitioning. The BOD results in the perimeter wells
were difficult to interpret. In general, BOD levels
remained relatively unchanged in the perimeter
wells with the exception of PA-24S, where a large
increase in BOD was observed. PA-24S also was
the perimeter well where a large decrease in TCE
concentration was observed.
5.2.3 Changes in Hydraulic
Properties of the Aquifer
Slug tests were performed in well PA-23 in the center of
the EZVI plot before and after the demonstrations to
assess any effects on aquifer quality caused by the
remediation technology. The remediation systems were
applied to just the Upper Sand Unit, so slug tests were
only performed in the shallow performance monitoring
well in the center of the plot (PA-23) (see Appendix B).
Pre-demonstration hydraulic conductivity averaged 43 ft/
day (0.015 cm/sec) in well PA-23. Post-demonstration
hydraulic conductivity averaged 38.2 ft/day (0.013cm/
sec). There was no substantial difference in the hydrau-
lic conductivity due to the EZVI treatment. A change of
10 times or greater would indicate a substantial change
in permeability at the site. Any buildup of iron oxides or
vegetable oil due to the remediation technology does not
seem to have affected the hydraulic properties of the
aquifer.
5.2.4 Changes in Biology of the
EZVI Plot
This section summarizes microbial characteristics of the
aquifer observed in groundwater parameters after the
EZVI treatment. Comparing the microbial characteristic
parameters such as BOD, dissolved methane gas, and
sulfate concentrations was used to determine the
changes in biology of the EZVI plot:
• BOD concentrations in the Upper Sand Unit
increased from <3 mg/L before the demonstration
up to 148 mg/L after the demonstration, which
indicates an increase in bioavailable organic matter,
probably from the oil that partitions from the EZVI
emulsion.
• Sulfate concentrations in PA-23 decreased from
103 mg/L to approximately 13 mg/L after the dem-
onstration. The addition of vegetable oil to the aqui-
fer as part of the EZVI mixture (i.e., a carbon
source) may have stimulated growth of sulfate-
reducing bacteria in the target depth of the Upper
Sand Unit.
• Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis indicates
that the result from PA-23 shows not only a detec-
tion of Dehalococcoides group organisms, but also
very high band intensity (see Table D-8 in Appen-
dix D), which suggests that indigenous dehalo-
respiring microorganism in the aquifer may have
enhanced the degradation of TCE. Dehalo-
coccoides are known for their capability to dehalo-
respirate and dehalogenate TCE stepwise to less
toxic products such as c/s-1,2-DCE and VC and to
nontoxic ethene (Major et al., 2002). The micro-
organisms appear to have grown in the anaerobic
respiration environment created after the EZVI
emulsion was applied in the target depth.
• Increases in methane concentrations also may
indicate increased microbial activity from the
indigenous microorganisms in the Upper Sand Unit
beneath the test plot. As the Dehalococcoides
microorganisms use inorganic chemicals as
electron acceptors, methane byproduct gas is
produced. Methane concentrations in PA-23
increased approximately 40 times, from 0.013 mg/L
before the demonstration to 0.55 mg/L after the
demonstration (see Table D-5 in Appendix D).
Methane concentrations also increased in extrac-
tion well EEW-1 and in injection well EIW-1, from
55
-------
0.016 mg/L and 0.015 mg/L respectively, to
0.98 mg/L and 0.61 mg/L, respectively, after the
demonstration.
Although other direct detection methods of microbial activ-
ity (i.e., microbial population counting or live/dead stain
test, or, PLFA analysis) were not used as part of the
performance assessment, the use of indirect parameters
such as BOD, methane, and sulfate concentrations and
the PCR analysis suggests that the EZVI technology led
to increased microbial activity in the Upper Sand Unit.
5.2.5 Summary of Changes in
Aquifer Quality
In summary, the following changes in the aquifer occurred
after application of the EZVI technology:
• TCE concentrations declined in the Upper Sand Unit
of the demonstration area following the EZVI
treatment. In the center well of the test plot (PA-23),
TCE levels decreased from 1,180,000 ug/L to
8,790 ug/L. The level of c/s-1,2-DCE rose tenfold,
from 16,900 ug/L to 169,000 ug/L. VC concentra-
tions in PA-23 increased from <1,000 ug/L to
21,600 ug/L after the demonstration. Ethene levels
increased from 76 ug/L to 1,680 ug/L. The
increases in c/s-1,2-DCE and VC concentrations
during the demonstration suggests that TCE in
groundwater probably degraded through multiple
mechanisms, including anaerobic reductive dechlo-
rination (biotic) and abiotic reduction. These mecha-
nisms probably are driven by the presence of the
vegetable oil and zero-valent iron, respectively.
Despite the difficulties encountered in injecting and
distributing the EZVI mixture, the groundwater data
indicate that the EZVI technology was effective in
reducing TCE concentrations.
• ORP and dissolved oxygen levels decreased in the
demonstration area after the EZVI injection. This
indicates that strongly reducing anaerobic condi-
tions were created in the Upper Sand Unit during
the demonstration. Groundwater pH in the shallow
wells increased from 6.4 to 6.6 before the demon-
stration to 7.0 to 7.2 during the demonstration. The
increasing pH trend is the result of the production of
OH as zero-valent iron corrodes in water.
• Anomalously, dissolved iron concentrations in well
PA-23 in the center of the test plot decreased after
the EZVI injection. Precipitation of ferric iron on soil
was not visually seen (as tan color) during the post-
demonstration characterization, but a full micro-
scopic analysis of the soil was not conducted to
verify the presence of precipitates. Total iron
concentrations in all of the wells were very similar to
dissolved iron concentrations, indicating that the
nanoscale iron, a component of EZVI, is probably
recognized as a dissolved form in groundwater
samples. The secondary drinking water limit for
iron is 0.3 mg/L, which was exceeded in all wells at
all depths before, during, and after the
demonstration.
• Chloride levels, which were already high due to
saltwater intrusion in the aquifer, remained
relatively constant in the monitoring wells, but
increased slightly in the Waterloo Profiler® samples.
Chloride increases suggest reductive dechlorination
of the TCE occurred, which was supported by
increases in c/s-1,2-DCE and VC seen during post-
demonstration characterization.
• Increases in dissolved methane, as well as
decreases in sulfate concentrations, suggest an
increase in biological activity occurred as a result of
the EZVI injection. Methane is a common
byproduct of microbial respiration. A decrease in
sulfate concentrations may be the result of a
stimulation of sulfate-reducing bacteria. BOD levels
in the groundwater increased, indicating an
increase in the bioavailable organic matter in the
aquifer due to partial dissolution of oil from the
EZVI. TOC levels decreased, probably due to
dissolution of some organic matter in the EZVI oil
phase.
• Hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Sand Unit does
not appear to have been affected by the EZVI treat-
ment, suggesting that the injected EZVI did not plug
the aquifer. There were no substantial changes in
permeability in the test plot according to slug tests
conducted in the center well before and after the
demonstration.
5.3 Evaluating the Fate of the
TCE-DNAPL Mass
Determining the fate of the TCE-DNAPL mass following
treatment is a difficult task because the TCE-DNAPL
could have taken several pathways when subjected to
the EZVI treatment. The pathways evaluated for this per-
formance assessment included abiotic reductive dechlo-
rination of TCE, microbial reductive dechlorination, and
migration from the plot to the surrounding regions.
5.3.1 Abiotic Reductive
Dechlorination of TCE
As shown on Figure 1-8, reductive dechlorination of TCE
and other CVOCs by zero-valent iron particles leads to
the formation of chloride, hydroxyl ions, and dissolved
56
-------
gases such as ethene and ethane. Any iron oxide that
may be generated would be insoluble in water and is
expected to deposit on the soil surfaces; however, no
visual evidence of iron oxide formation (tan color) was
observed during the post-demonstration soil characteri-
zation event. The soluble or partially soluble species —
chloride and hydrogen ions (pH) — are more amenable
to more direct measurement. Although minor amounts of
c/s-1,2-DCE and VC may be generated due to the abi-
otic iron mechanism, ethene and chloride are by far the
predominant products of abiotic p-elimination reactions
(Roberts et al., 1996).
Chloride is one of the strongest indicators of TCE
dehalogenation because it is directly traceable to TCE.
Although its level is relatively high in the aquifer, sea-
water intrusion is not expected to increase chloride level
from tidal influences over the time period of the demon-
stration because the treatment was applied in the shal-
lowest unit of the surficial aquifer (i.e., the Upper Sand
Unit). Chloride generation due to reductive dechlorination
would be expected to cause chloride levels to rise in the
aquifer. Tables D-2 and D-4 in Appendix D show the pre-
and post-demonstration chloride levels in the EZVI plot
and surrounding aquifer. Chloride changes were not very
obvious in the monitoring wells, but a slight increase in
chloride levels was noticeable in the water samples from
the Waterloo Profiler®.
Figure 5-8 shows the increase in chloride concentrations
in the shallow wells that occurred after the EZVI treat-
ment was complete (i.e., from pre-demonstration levels
to post-demonstration levels); decreases in chloride are
represented as zero. A decrease was observed in
PA-25S (see Appendix D, Table D-2). The strongest
increase in chloride was observed in PA-23 (Upper Sand
Unit), where the pre-demonstration DNAPL mass was
highest. The data suggest that most of the chloride
increase in the test plot is attributable to reduction of
TCE by the EZVI injection, for the following reasons:
(1) The significant reduction in dissolved TCE that was
measured in the test plot wells after the EZVI was
injected. (2) The reduction in soil TCE concentrations
that was seen during the intermediate soil sampling
event (after the EZVI injection and prior to post-
demonstration characterization). (3) The absence of con-
tinued significant reduction between the intermediate
and post-demonstration soil sampling events indicates
that the TCE in the areas nearest the EZVI was reduced
as much as possible by the available EZVI mixture soon
after injection.
A change in groundwater pH can be seen as an indirect
indication of abiotic reductive dechlorination. As excess
electrons are produced from the corrosion of zero-valent
iron in water, hydrogen gas is produced from the follow-
ing reaction:
2H7O + 2e
H
!2(gas)
+ 2OH
(5-1)
The OH produced from this reaction results in an
increase in the pH of the surrounding water. An increase
in pH was observed in the shallow wells in the test plot
and around the perimeter from approximately 6.5 (pre-
demonstration) to approximately 7.1 during the demon-
stration. The observed increase in pH is much smaller
than the increase (up to pH 10 or 11) that has been
observed during groundwater treatment with zero-valent
iron at other sites. However, this may be due to the fact
that the iron is sequestered in the oil. The effect of the
EZVI technology on pH was short-lived, because pH
levels returned to pre-demonstration levels by the time
post-demonstration characterization was conducted. The
drop in pH levels after the demonstration would be
expected because, as the iron is exhausted, the produc-
tion of hydrogen gas and OH slows, allowing the natural
pH of the aquifer to be reestablished.
Dissolved hydrogen gases, such as ethene and ethane,
are indications of TCE degradation. Ethene and end-
product ethane are produced along the degradation
pathways for TCE by zero-valent iron (see Figure 1-8).
Ethene and ethane concentrations increased between
pre- and post-demonstration groundwater sampling
events in well PA-23 in the center of the test plot, and
also in the injection and extraction wells (i.e., EIW-1 and
EEW-1) at the edge of the test plot (see Table 5-6).
5.3.2 Microbial Reductive
Dechlorination of TCE
The performance assessment of the EZVI technology
suggested that biological reduction of TCE may have
occurred in the test plot after the EZVI was injected and
then continued until post-demonstration characterization
was conducted. Although biological reduction of TCE
was not considered prior to the demonstration based on
the results of the laboratory investigation of EZVI by
UCF, the use of vegetable oil in the emulsion would pro-
vide a carbon source (i.e., electron donor) to microbial
species present in the subsurface.
Dissolved methane concentrations increased significantly
in the shallow wells between pre- and post-demonstration
characterization. Table 5-7 shows dissolved methane
concentrations in groundwater during pre- and post-
demonstration characterization events, and also one
sampling event conducted during the technology dem-
onstration. Methane concentrations also rose slightly in
the perimeter wells at intermediate and deep depths,
indicating that microbial activity may have increased in
all three hydrostratigraphic units (i.e., the Upper Sand
Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and the Lower Sand
Unit).
57
-------
Table 5-6. Dissolved Ethene and Ethane Concentrations in the EZVI Plot Before, During, and After
the Demonstration
Ethene (mg/L)
Ethane (mg/L)
Well ID
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
Injection and Extraction
EIW-1
EEW-1
Pre-
Demonst ration
0.076
Wells
0.023
0.051
During the
Demonstration
0.010
NA
NA
Post-
Demonstration
1.68
0.137
0.978
Pre-
Demonstration
0.002
<0.002
0.004
During the
Demonstration
0.002
NA
NA
Post-
Demonstration
0.023
<0.002
0.055
Well IDs: S = shallow well (Upper Sand Unit); I = intermediate well (Middle Fine-Grained Unit); D = deep well (Lower Sand Unit).
EIW-1 = injection well; EEW-1 = extraction well.
Pre-demonstration = March 2002; during the demonstration = August 2002; post-demonstration = November 2002.
NA = not analyzed.
Table 5-7. Dissolved Methane Concentrations in the
EZVI Plot Before, During, and After the
Demonstration
Methane (mg/L)
Well ID
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
Pre-
Demonstration
0.013
During the
Demonstration
0.043
Post-
Demonstration
0.547
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S
PA-24I
PA-24D
PA-25S
PA-25I
PA-25D
0.022
0.017
0.013
0.007
0.020
0.005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.140
0.047
0.034
0.012
0.061
0.016
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1
EEW-1
0.015
0.016
NA
NA
0.611
0.978
Well IDs: S = shallow well (Upper Sand Unit); I = intermediate well
(Middle Fine-Grained Unit); D = deep well (Lower Sand Unit).
EIW-1 = injection well; EEW-1 = extraction well.
Pre-demonstration = March 2002; during the demonstration = August
2002; post-demonstration = November 2002.
NA = not analyzed.
occurred in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower
Sand Unit. The accumulation of VC, particularly in the
shallow wells, may indicate that the more recalcitrant
compounds need longer timeframes before complete
reduction to ethene and ethane can occur. It is difficult to
determine the significance of microbial-assisted degra-
dation when compared to abiotic reductive dechlorina-
tion using EZVI.
Dehalococcoides, a group of microorganisms known to
be capable of reductive dehalogenation at contaminated
sites, was detected in groundwater from well PA-23 both
before and after the EZVI demonstration by the tech-
nology vendor (GeoSyntec, 2003). Although a thorough
investigation on the indigenous microbes of the Dehalo-
coccoides group was not conducted as part of the EZVI
performance assessment, its presence indicates that
dehalorespiring microorganisms may have degraded
TCE during the demonstration.
5.3.3 Potential for TCE-DNAPL Migration
from the EZVI Plot
TCE degradation byproducts in groundwater, such as
c/s-1,2-DCE, frans-1,2,DCE, and VC, increased both at
shallow depths where the EZVI was injected, and at
intermediate and deep depths where there was no visi-
ble evidence of the emulsion mixture. Table 5-8 shows
the concentrations of TCE degradation byproducts for the
pre- and post-demonstration characterization, and for one
sampling event conducted during the demonstration.
Figure 5-9a presents the correlation between TCE and
its degradation products in PA-23, the monitoring well in
the center of the test plot. To account for the large
difference in scale in Figure 5-9a, the TCE and ethene
concentrations also are plotted on Figure 5-9b. The
increase in degradation byproducts at depths greater
than the target injection zone, coupled with the lack of
evidence for EZVI migration below the Upper Sand Unit,
suggest that microbial-assisted reductive dechlorination
The following measurements or observations were used
to evaluate the potential for TCE-DNAPL migration to the
surrounding aquifer:
• Hydraulic gradient in the aquifer
• TCE measurements in perimeter wells
• Evidence of EZVI outside the plot perimeter
Pre-demonstration measurements of water levels in the
Upper Sand Unit showed a slight depression in the area
of the EZVI demonstration plot (see Figure 5-1 Oa).
During the demonstration, the recirculation system
appeared to produce a relatively flat but slightly elevated
gradient due to the injection across the Upper Sand Unit,
which would have limited the potential for TCE-DNAPL
migration from the Upper Sand Unit (see Figure 5-1 Ob).
58
-------
Table 5-8. TCE Degradation Byproducts in the EZVI Plot Before, During, and After the Demonstration
Pre-
Well ID Demonstration
During the
Demonstration
Post-
Demonstration
TCE (Mg/L)
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23 1,180,000
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S 772,000
PA-24I 258,000
PA-24D 469,000
PA-25S 71 ,300
PA-25I 534,000
PA-25D 2,760
Injection and Extraction Wells
ElW-1 144,000
EEW-1 1 ,050,000
92,100
474,000
110,000
497,000
69,600
784,000
36,200
NA
NA
8,790
12,100
86,400
656,000
129,000
944,000
53,200
7,820
471 ,000
frans-1,2-DCE (ug/L)
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23 <1 ,000
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S <1 ,000
PA-24I 482
PA-24D 260 J
PA-25S <1 ,000
PA-25I 320 J
PA-25D 278
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1 556
EEW-1 550 J
68 J
<50
644
360 J
46 J
230
395
NA
NA
245
190 J
1,020
610
381
270 J
544
24 J
Pre-
Demonstration
During the
Demonstration
Post-
Demonstration
c/s-1,2-DCE (Mg/L)
16,900
47,400
149,000
61 ,800
69,200
116,000
60,800
38,300
67,100
17,900
15,800
161,000
83,400
9,320
104,000
101,000
NA
NA
169,000
31 ,700
181,000
99,400
42,800
90,900
117,000
3,280
80,100
Vinyl Chloride (ug/L)
<1,000
<1,000
140 J
110 J
<1,000
<500
<50
638
390 J <1,000
53 J
<50
1,070
590
<100
<100
142
NA
NA
21,600
1,580
779
160 J
75 J
170 J
354
322
6,980
Well IDs: S = shallow well (Upper Sand Unit); I = intermediate well (Middle Fine-Grained Unit); D = deep well (Lower Sand Unit).
EIW-1 = injection well; EEW-1 = extraction well.
Pre-demonstration = March 2002; during the demonstration = August 2002; post-demonstration = November 2002
NA = not analyzed.
J = Estimated value, below reporting limit.
The water level measurements taken after the dem-
onstration suggests a slight gradient from north to south
across the site (see Figure 5-1 Oc). However, it is difficult
to draw conclusions with the limited number of water
level measurements for each sampling event. Water
level maps of the Middle Fine-Grained Unit before,
during, and after the EZVI injection were prepared using
water level measurements from wells around the EZVI
plot. The contour maps are shown in Figures 5-11 a
through 5-11c. During the demonstration, a strong
gradient appears to have developed in the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit to create a depression into the EZVI plot
(see Figure 5-11b). The gradient could be due to the
injection of EZVI and water, which may have created a
depression in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit in the vicinity
of the EZVI plot. However, again it is difficult to draw
conclusions with the limited number of water level mea-
surements for each sampling event, and the lack of
monitoring wells available in the plot during the injection.
It is unlikely that the injection pressures forced EZVI
deep into the Middle Fine-Grained Unit, a theory which
is supported by the lack of visual observation of EZVI at
depth during post-demonstration soil coring.
TCE and other CVOC concentrations in perimeter wells
were monitored for evidence of TCE-DNAPL migration
outside the boundaries of the EZVI plot. In well PA-24S,
which is outside the eastern edge of the demonstration
plot and in the Upper Sand Unit, dissolved TCE concen-
trations decreased from 772,000 ug/L to 474,000 ug/L
during the demonstration, and then to 12,100 ug/L after
the demonstration (see Table 5-8). The substantial de-
crease suggests that TCE-DNAPL did not migrate out-
side the plot boundaries on the eastern edge of the plot
as a result of the EZVI injection itself. However, the
decrease in TCE concentrations does suggest that the
EZVI technology had an effect on groundwater outside
the test plot boundaries. To determine if the EZVI mix-
ture spread beyond the perimeter of the plot, soil borings
in the vicinity of PA-24S would be needed to visually
confirm the presence of EZVI, and low concentrations of
TCE and elevated concentrations of other CVOCs would
need to be present in those soil boring samples.
In well PA-25S along the western perimeter of the plot,
TCE concentrations decreased slightly from 71,300 ug/L
before the demonstration to 69,600 ug/L during the
59
-------
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
80,000
\
-- 1,000,000
1,400,000
- - 600,000
- - 200,000
Pre-Demonstration
During
Post-Demonstration
Figure 5-9a. Degradation Curve of TCE and Other CVOCs in PA-23 After EZVI Treatment
1,000,000
600,000
CM
1,600
1,400
1,200
200
Pre-Demonstration
During
Post-Demonstration
Figure 5-9b. Degradation Curve of TCE and Ethene in PA-23 After EZVI Treatment
demonstration, which suggests that the EZVI injection
had little effect on TCE levels in groundwater along the
western edge of the plot (see Table 5-8). However, post-
demonstration concentrations of TCE in PA-25S
increased to 129,OOOug/L. One soil boring (SB-210)
was collected outside the western boundary of the EZVI
plot to determine if the EZVI mixture had spread beyond
the edges of the plot (see Appendix C). Evidence of
EZVI was visually observed in soil collected from the
Upper Sand Unit. Clearly, TCE concentrations at depths
where EZVI was evidenced were quite low (between
nondetect and 65 mg/kg of TCE) from the soil boring.
60
-------
1521340
1521330 -
1521320 •
1521310 -
1521300 -
1521290 -
1521280
1521270 ^
1521250 -
Contour Interval: 0 05 ft
OBanefle
640100
640120
640140
640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 5-1 Oa. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support Building During Pre-
Demonstration Characterization (March 2002)
1521340
1521330 -
1521320 -
1521310 -
r 1521300 -
I
1521290 -
1521280
1521270 ^
1521260 •
• Sampling Location
PA-280 Sampling Location 10
3.96 Water Level ill msl)
640100
640120
640140
640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 5-1 Ob. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support Building During the
EZVI Technology Demonstration (August 2002)
61
-------
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310
1521300
1521290
1521260
1521270
1521260 -
Water Levels from Shallow Wells
November 2002
Contour Interval 0 05 n
OBaneoe
640100 640120 640140 640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 5-1 Oc. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support Building During Post-
Demonstration Characterization (November 2002)
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310
1521300
o
1521290
1521280
1521270
1521260
Water Levels from Intermediate Wells
March 2002
H
EXPLANATION:
• Sampling Location
PA-241 Samping Location ID
Contour Interval 0.05 ft
OBaneie
640100
640120
640140
640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 5-11 a. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering Support Building During
Pre-Demonstration Characterization (March 2002)
62
-------
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310
; 1521300
1521290
1521280
1521270
1521260
intermediate Water Levels
August 2002
S,
EXPLANATION:
• Sampling Location
PA-280 Sampling Location ID
3.96 Water Level (ft msl)
Contour Interval: 0.05 ft
sBatieiie
640100
640120
640140
640160
Easting (ft)
640160
640200
640220
Figure 5-11b. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering Support Building During
the EZVI Technology Demonstration (August 2002)
i1
1
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310 -
1521300 -
1521290 -
1521280
1521270
1521260 -
Water Levels from Intermediate Wells
November 2002
Contour Interval. 0.05ft
ClBaflefle
640100
640120
640140
640160
Easting (ft)
640180
640200
640220
Figure 5-11c. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering Support Building During
Post-Demonstration Characterization (November 2002)
63
-------
Yet, it is difficult to determine the cause of the increase
in TCE concentration in PA-25S after the demonstration.
It does not appear that the actual injection of the EZVI
mixture with water caused TCE-DNAPL to migrate
beyond the plot borders.
The potential for vertical TCE-DNAPL migration as a
result of the injection was evaluated using soil samples
collected from the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower
Sand Unit during post-demonstration characterization.
Visual evidence of the black EZVI banding was not
observed at depths below the Upper Sand Unit. Kriging
estimates of total TCE mass in the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit and Lower Sand Unit are presented in Table 5-2 to
enable a quantitative assessment of any large TCE-
DNAPL movement that may have occurred between the
stratigraphic units as a result of the injection applied.
Based on a comparison of the results between pre- and
post-demonstration total TCE mass estimates, the EZVI
injection does not appear to have caused vertical TCE-
DNAPL migration during the demonstration. Further evi-
dence that vertical migration of TCE-DNAPL did not
occur as a result of the EZVI injection can be seen in
Figures 5-12a and 5-12b, which are plots of TCE
concentrations with depth before and after the demon-
stration (see Appendix C for tabulated data). The con-
centration plots do not indicate that the TCE plume
shifted downward vertically as a result of the injection.
5.3.4 Summary Evaluation of the Fate
of TCE-DNAPL
In summary, the field measurements indicate that signif-
icant DNAPL migration outside the test plot due to the
EZVI technology demonstration is not likely to have
occurred in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer. There is
sufficient evidence that reductive dechlorination of TCE-
DNAPL occurred as a result of the EZVI injection. There
is also evidence that microorganism-assisted reductive
dehalorespiration of TCE occurred when the indigenous
microorganisms in the aquifer were stimulated by elec-
trons generated after the EZVI application. Water level
measurements indicate that the hydraulic gradients in
the targeted Upper Sand Unit were not sufficiently strong
to cause significant movement of TCE-DNAPL mass.
However, some of the EZVI emulsion may have been
transported with groundwater outside the boundaries of
the plot, aiding in microbial-assisted reductive dechlori-
nation. Visual evidence of EZVI was observed in soil
samples of one soil core collected outside the western
boundary of the plot; however, this is thought to be a
result of the injection method and not the result of
hydraulic gradients in or around the plot. TCE concentra-
tions in soil samples collected in the test plot before and
after the demonstration indicate that the EZVI injection
did not create vertical migration of TCE-DNAPL. Also,
EZVI was not visually observed in the soil below the
targeted Upper Sand Unit, and no significant changes
were observed in CVOCs in the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit and Lower Sand Unit. In summary, the reduction in
TCE-DNAPL concentrations in soil and groundwater are
probably a result of biotic and abiotic reactions caused
by the injection of EZVI.
In December 2003 and March 2004, groundwater sam-
ples were collected from various monitoring wells asso-
ciated with the EZVI demonstration and analyzed for
CVOCs. The purpose of these two individual sampling
events was to collect observational data on the con-
centrations of CVOCs in groundwater after a significant
amount of time had passed since the initial injection of
EZVI. The results were not used for the performance
assessment, so they are included in Section C-5 of Ap-
pendix C. These later samples indicated that contami-
nant degradation continued for several months after
EZVI injection, leading to sharp reductions in TCE, cis-
1,2-DCE, and (eventually) vinyl chloride in the test plot.
Ethene levels increased substantially. The remaining
EZVI in the plot area continued to complete
dechlorination of TCE.
5.4 Verifying Operating
Requirements
Section 3 describes the field operations for the injection
of the EZVI emulsion at Launch Complex 34. Overall,
two operational factors need to be improved: (1) the
injection method and delivery mechanism of EZVI to the
subsurface, and (2) hydraulic control by recirculation
prior to, during, and after the EZVI injection. First, the
injection method (pressure pulse technology) used for
this technology demonstration had some advantages for
injecting an exogenous, high-viscosity emulsion into the
subsurface, especially when compared to the limits of
direct-push technology. As discussed in Section 3, one
half of each injection well screened cylinder was kept
open in order to control the EZVI distribution into the plot
and to prevent EZVI and TCE-DNAPL from moving out-
ward and away from the plot during the application of
EZVI. However, soil samples collected along the western
perimeter of the plot indicated that EZVI did travel out-
side the test plot, practically moving behind the closed
side of each screen cylinder. Also, evidence of EZVI was
observed at shallower depths closer to the groundwater
table, although the injection was applied only at deeper
target depths. These two observations raise the issue of
whether dissolved TCE has the potential to migrate
outward during the injection process. Thus, it is neces-
sary to improve injection techniques to distribute EZVI
emulsion effectively while limiting dissolved plume
migration at any remediation sites.
64
-------
10-
Location of Transect
Showing TCE Concentration in Soi
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
3000.0
1000.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
50.0
Z exag: i.n
!|Baltelle
. . , Pulling Ttxhnatogy To Work
Figure 5-12a. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil with Depth
Location of Transect
Showing TCE Concentration in Soil
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
—JO.O
1000.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
50.0
Z exag: 1.0
Baneiie
Putting Ttfhnafrtgy fa Work
Figure 5-12b. Post-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil with Depth
65
-------
Second, an artificial hydraulic gradient in the Upper Sand
Unit was created by using two injection wells at the north
end of the plot (EIW-1 and EIW-2) and two extraction
wells at the south end of the plot (EEW-1 and EEW-2) to
establish continuous recirculation in a rather flat aquifer
and at a low flowrate. This system appeared to help
advance the injected EZVI in the desired direction of
treatment while controlling localized hydraulics. How-
ever, water extracted from the downgradient extraction
wells was not treated before reinjection into the upgra-
dient aquifer of the EZVI plot. In order to prevent intro-
ducing additional contamination into the gradient aquifer,
it was necessary to continuously monitor the extracted
liquids from the influent and effluent sample ports of a
series of two GAG vessels. The CVOC results from the
effluent port of the carbon vessels in this demonstration
were all below a set of guidance levels, and appeared to
undergo proper treatment via GAG. Note that the proper
handling of liquids is required for future applications of
the EZVI technology at any remediation site.
66
-------
6. Quality Assurance
A QAPP (Battelle, 2002a) prepared before the demon-
stration outlined the performance assessment methodol-
ogy and the quality assurance measures to be taken
during the demonstration. The results of the field and
laboratory QA for the critical soil and groundwater CVOC
(primary) measurements and groundwater field param-
eter (secondary) measurements are described in this
section. The results of the QA measurements for both soil
and groundwater sampling events are described in Ap-
pendix E. The focus of the QA measures is on the critical
TCE measurement in soil and groundwater, for which, in
some cases, special sampling and analytical methods
were used. For other measurements (chloride, calcium,
etc.), standard sampling and analytical methods were
used to ensure data quality.
6.1 QA Measures
This section describes the data quality in terms of repre-
sentativeness and completeness of the sampling and
analysis conducted for technology performance assess-
ment. Chain-of-custody procedures also are described.
6.1.1 Representativeness
Representativeness is a measure that evaluates how
closely the sampling and analysis represents the true
value of the measured parameters in the target matrices.
The critical parameter in this demonstration is TCE con-
centration in soil. The following steps were taken to
achieve representativeness of the soil samples:
• Statistical design for determining the number and
distribution of soil samples in the 9-ft x 15-ft EZVI
plot, based on the horizontal and vertical variability
observed during a preliminary characterization
event (see Section 4.1). Six locations (one in each
cell of a 3 x 2 grid in the plot) were cored before
and after the demonstration. Each continuous core
was collected and sampled in 2-ft sections from the
ground surface to the aquitard at most coring loca-
tions except for the following: SB-8, SB-203,
SB-204, SB-207, SB-208, and SB-209. Sampling
did not proceed to the aquitard for these cores
either due to loss of sample during coring or
because drilling to the aquitard was not required to
fulfill the sampling objective. At the 80% confidence
level, the reduction of TCE mass between the pre-
and post-demonstration was considered to be
achieved relatively well by the EZVI technology.
• Continuous sampling of the soil column at each
coring location enabled the sampling design to
address the vertical variability in the TCE distribu-
tion. By extracting and analyzing the complete 2-ft
depth in each sampled interval, essentially every
vertical depth was sampled.
• Use of appropriate modifications to the standard
methods for sampling and analysis of soil. To
increase the representativeness of the soil sampling,
the sampling and extraction procedures in U.S. EPA
Method 5035 were modified so that an entire vertical
section of each 2-ft core could be sampled and
extracted, instead of the 5-g aliquots specified in the
standard method (see Section 4.1). This was done to
maximize the capture of TCE-DNAPL in the entire
soil column at each coring location.
Steps taken to achieve representativeness of the ground-
water samples included:
• Installation and sampling of one well in the center of
the EZVI plot and two clusters of performance
monitoring wells outside the plot. The well in the
center was screened at the target depth in the
Upper Sand Unit. Each performance well cluster
consisted of three wells screened in the three strati-
graphic units— Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-
Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit.
• Use of standard methods for sampling and analysis.
Disposable tubing was used to collect samples from
all monitoring wells to avoid persistence of TCE in
the sample tubing after sampling wells with high
TCE (DNAPL) levels.
67
-------
6.1.2 Completeness
All the regular samples planned in the QAPP were col-
lected and analyzed, with the exception of TOC analysis
from post-demonstration soil sampling. Additional soil
cores outside of the EZVI plot were collected during
post-demonstration sampling to evaluate the variability in
the subsurface distribution of the emulsion.
All the quality control (QC) samples planned in the
QAPP were collected and analyzed, except for the
equipment rinsate blanks during soil coring. Equipment
rinsate blanks as planned in the QAPP were collected
and analyzed during the pre- or post-demonstration soil
sampling events. Based on the preliminary speed of the
soil coring, one rinsate blank per day was thought to be
sufficient to obtain a ratio of one blank per 20 samples
(5%). One rinsate blank per core was determined to be
the optimum collection frequency.
6.1.3 Chain of Custody
Chain-of-custody forms were used to track each batch of
samples collected in the field and were to the off-site
analytical laboratory. Copies of the chain-of-custody rec-
ords can be found in Appendix E. Chain-of-custody seals
were affixed to each shipment of samples to ensure that
only laboratory personnel accessed the samples during
transit. Upon arrival at the laboratory, the laboratory veri-
fied that the samples were received in good condition
and the temperature blank sample sent with each ship-
ment was measured to ensure that the required tem-
perature was maintained during transit. Each sample
received then was checked against the chain-of-custody
form, and any discrepancies were brought to the atten-
tion of field personnel.
6.2 Field QC Measures
The field QC checks included calibration of field instru-
ments, field blanks (5% of regular samples), field dupli-
cates (5% of regular samples), and trip blanks; the results
of these QC checks are discussed in this section.
Table 6-1 summarizes the instruments used for field
groundwater measurements (pH, ORP, DO, tempera-
ture, water levels, and conductivity) and the associated
calibration criteria. Instruments were calibrated at the
beginning and end of the sampling period on each day.
The field instruments were always within the acceptance
criteria during the demonstration.
6.2.1 Field QC for Soil Sampling
As an overall determination of the extraction and ana-
lytical efficiency of the soil sampling, the modified U.S.
EPA Method 5035 methanol extraction procedure was
evaluated in a previous demonstration at Launch Com-
plex 34 by spiking a known amount of TCE into soil
samples from the Launch Complex 34 aquifer. Replicate
samples from the spiked soil were extracted and ana-
lyzed; the results are listed in Appendix E (Table E-1).
For the five replicate soil samples, the TCE spike recov-
eries were in the range of 72 to 86%, which fell within
the acceptable range (70-130%) for quality assurance of
the extraction and analysis procedure. The results de-
monstrate that a majority of the TCE was primarily
extracted during the first extraction, and that diminishing
returns were provided by the second and third extrac-
tions (Battelle, 2002b). Based on these results, the
extraction procedure defined for subsequent soil sam-
pling events and subsequent demonstrations at Launch
Complex 34 involved extracting one time only from the
soil before sending the methanol samples to the off-site
laboratory for analysis.
A more detailed evaluation of the soil extraction effi-
ciency was conducted in the field during a previous
steam injection/extraction technology demonstration at
Launch Complex 34 by spiking a surrogate compound
(1,1,1-TCA) directly into the intact soil cores retrieved in
a sleeve (Battelle, 2002b). The injection volume of 1,1,1-
TCA was approximately 10 uL. The spiked soil samples
were handled in the same manner as the remaining soil
samples during the extraction procedure. Extraction
efficiencies for the experiment ranged from 84 to 113%.
The results of the experiment were compared to the
Table 6-1. Instruments and Calibration Acceptance Criteria Used for Field Measurements
Instrument
Measurement
Acceptance Criteria
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
YSI Meter Model 6820
OHaus Weight Balance
Hermit Water Level Indicator
PH
ORP
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Soil - Dry/Wet Weight
Water Levels
3 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
1 point, ±20% difference
3 point, ±20% difference
±0.01 ft
68
-------
results of the post-demonstration soil characterization,
where soil samples also were spiked with 1,1,1-TCA. Of
the 13 soil samples spiked with 1,1,1-TCA during the
steam injection demonstration at Launch Complex 34,
12 soil samples were within the acceptable range of
precision for the post-demonstration soil sampling, cal-
culated as the relative percent difference (RPD), where
RPD is less than 30% (Table E-2). The results indicate
that the methanol extraction procedure used in the field
is suitable for recovering CVOCs.
During the EZVI pre- and post-demonstration sampling
events, duplicate soil samples were collected in the field
and analyzed for TCE to evaluate sampling precision.
Duplicate soil samples were collected by splitting each
2-ft soil core vertically in half and subsequently collecting
approximately 250 g of soil into two separate containers,
marked as SB#-Depth# and SB#-Depth#-DUP. Appen-
dix E (Table E-3) shows the result of the field soil dupli-
cate analysis and the precision, calculated as the RPD
for the duplicate soil cores, which were collected before
and after the demonstration. The precision of the field
duplicate samples was generally within the acceptable
range (RPD<30%) for the demonstration, indicating that
the sampling procedure was representative of the soil
column at the coring location. The RPD for one of the
duplicate soil samples from the pre-demonstration sam-
pling was greater than 30%, which indicated that the
repeatability of some of the pre-demonstration soil sam-
ples was outside targeted acceptance criteria. However,
given the heterogeneous nature of the contaminant dis-
tribution, a large RPD on occasion is not unexpected.
The RPDs for three of the duplicate soil samples from
the post-demonstration sampling were greater than 30%.
This suggests that the EZVI treatment created greater
variability in the contaminant distribution. Part of the rea-
son for the higher RPD calculated in some post-demon-
stration soil samples is that TCE concentrations tended
to be low (often near or below the detection limit). For
example, the RPD between duplicate samples, one of
which is below detection and the other is slightly above
detection, tends to be high. In general, though, the vari-
ability in the two vertical halves of each 2-ft core was in a
reasonable range, given the typically heterogeneous
nature of the DNAPL distribution.
Field blanks for the soil sampling consisted of rinsate
blank samples and methanol blank samples. The rinsate
blank samples were collected approximately once per
drilling borehole, or approximately once per 20 soil
samples, to evaluate the decontamination efficiency of
the sampling equipment used to collect each soil sam-
ple. Decontamination between samples consisted of a
three-step process where the sampling equipment was
washed with soapy water, rinsed in distilled water to
remove soap and debris, and then rinsed a second time
with distilled water. The rinsate blank samples were
collected by pouring distilled water over the equipment
after the equipment had been processed through the
routine decontamination procedure. As seen in Appen-
dix E (Table E-4), TCE levels in the rinsate blanks were
below detection (<1.0 ug/L) for all but one of the 15 rins-
ate blanks collected, indicating that the decontamination
procedure was helping control carryover of CVOCs
between samples.
Methanol blank samples were collected in the field at
the rate of one per soil boring, or approximately every
20 samples (5%), to evaluate the soil extraction process.
The results are listed in Appendix E (Table E-5). These
samples were generally below the targeted detection
limit of 100 ug/L of TCE in methanol. Detectable levels of
TCE were present in methanol blanks collected during
the post-demonstration phase of the project, but were
still relatively low. Because several of the methanol
blanks with detectable levels of TCE were collected dur-
ing the same sampling event in October 2002, it is pos-
sible that the methanol may have become contaminated
during storage at the site. However, the TCE concentra-
tions in these blanks were generally below 10% of the
concentrations in the associated batch of soil samples.
All the pre-demonstration methanol blanks were below
detection.
Trip blanks were sent with every sample shipment, both
soil and groundwater, to the off-site analytical laboratory.
The results are discussed in Section 6.2.2.
6.2.2 Field QC for Groundwater
Sampling
QC checks for groundwater sampling included field dup-
licates (5%), field blanks (5%), and trip blanks. Field
duplicate samples were collected once per sampling
event, or approximately once per eight to ten wells sam-
pled. Appendix E (Table E-6) contains the analysis of the
field duplicate groundwater samples that were collected
before, during, and after the demonstration. The RPD
(precision) calculated for these samples always met the
QA/QC target criteria of RPD<30%.
In previous demonstrations carried out at Launch Com-
plex 34, decontamination of the sample tubing between
groundwater samples initially consisted of a detergent
rinse and two distilled water rinses. However, the results
from these earlier demonstrations revealed that, despite
the most thorough decontamination, rinsate blanks con-
tained elevated levels of TCE, especially following the
sampling of wells containing TCE levels near or greater
than its solubility (1,100,000 ug/L); this indicated that
some free-phase solvent may have been drawn into the
69
-------
tubing. When TCE levels in such rinsate blanks refused
to go down, even when a methanol rinse was added to
the decontamination procedure, a decision was made to
switch to disposable Teflon® tubing. All groundwater sam-
pling events conducted for the EZVI demonstration used
disposable Teflon® tubing. Each new piece of tubing was
used for sampling each well once and then discarded,
despite the associated costs. TCE levels in the rinsate
blanks (Appendix E, Table E-7) were below the targeted
detection limit (3.0 ug/L) throughout the demonstration.
Trip blanks supplied by the off-site laboratory were
included for CVOC analysis with every sample shipment
sent to the laboratory. TCE levels in trip blank samples
were below the QA/QC target level of 3 ug/L for 17 of
the 19 trip blanks analyzed for the demonstration (Ap-
pendix E, Table E-8). Of the two trip blanks that failed to
meet the target level, the laboratory was able to deter-
mine that the trip blanks were part of an older batch of
blanks sent to the site during the previous month and
concluded that the trip blanks had become contaminated
during storage at the site and not during shipment.
6.3 Laboratory QC Measures
The off-site analytical laboratories performed QA/QC
checks consisting of 5% matrix spikes (MS) and matrix
spike duplicates (MSD). MS and MSD were used to
calculate analytical accuracy (percent recovery) and pre-
cision (RPD between MS and MSD). Laboratory control
spikes (LCS) and method blanks (MB) also were ana-
lyzed with every batch of samples.
6.3.1 Analytical QC for Soil
Sampling
Analytical accuracy for the soil samples (methanol
extracts) analyzed were generally within acceptance
limits for TCE (70-130%) for the pre- and post-demon-
stration period (Appendix E, Tables E-9 and E-10).
Matrix spike recoveries were outside this range for three
of the MS/MSD samples conducted during the pre-
demonstration sampling period, and three during the
post-demonstration period. The spike recovery was out-
side of the control limits due to either very high or very
low (i.e., near detection limit) concentrations of TCE
present in the reference sample. No corrective actions
were required and sample results were not adversely
affected by the MS/MSD spike recoveries that were out-
side the control limits. The precision between MS and
MSD was always within acceptance limits (RPD <30%).
Laboratory control spike recoveries for all pre- and post-
demonstration samples were within the acceptance cri-
teria (Appendix E, Table E-11).
Method blanks were below the target level of 3.0 ug/L for
TCE for 40 of the 41 method blanks analyzed during pre-
and post-demonstration sampling. The single sample
that did not meet the criteria was measured with a TCE
recovery <1,000 ug/L due to a change in the method
detection limit for that sample; therefore it is unknown if
that particular method blank met the QA/QC target cri-
teria (Appendix E, Table E-12).
The laboratory conducted surrogate spikes in 5% of the
total number of methanol extracts prepared from the soil
samples for CVOC analysis. Table 6-2 lists the surrogate
compounds used by the laboratory to perform the QA/
QC checks. Surrogate recoveries were within the speci-
fied acceptance limits.
Table 6-2. List of Surrogate Compounds and Their
Target Recoveries for Soil and Ground-
water Analysis by the Analytical Laboratory
Surrogate Compound
Dibromofluoromethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane - d4
Toluene - d8
Bromofluorobenzene
Target Recovery for
Soil
(Methanol Extracts)
(%)
65-1 35
52-1 49
65-1 35
65-1 35
Target Recovery
for Groundwater
(%)
75-125
62-139
75-125
75-125
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for
Groundwater Sampling
Pre- and post-demonstration MS and MSD results for
groundwater are listed in Appendix E (Table E-13). The
MS and MSD recoveries (75 to 125%) were generally
within acceptance criteria. The only exceptions were one
MS/MSD sample set during the demonstration and one
MS/MSD sample set during post-demonstration ground-
water sampling. The spike recovery was outside of the
control limits due to either very high or very low (i.e.,
near detection limit) concentrations of TCE present in
the reference sample. No corrective actions were
required and sample results were not adversely affected
by the MS/MSD spike recoveries that were outside the
control limits. The precision for all of the MS/MSD sam-
ples met the QA/QC criteria of RPD <20%. Recoveries
for LCS samples were always within the acceptance
range of 75-125% (Appendix E, Table E-14).
Method blanks (Appendix E, Table E-15) for the ground-
water samples were always below the targeted 3.0 ug/L
detection limit.
70
-------
6.3.3 Analytical Detection Limits
Detection limits for TCE in groundwater and in the meth-
anol extracts from soil generally were met. The detection
limits most affected were those for c/s-1,2-DCE and VC,
due to the masking effect of high levels of TCE. The
laboratories verified and reported that analytical instru-
mentation calibrations were within an acceptable range
on the days of the analyses.
6.4 QA/QC Summary
Given the challenges posed by the typically heterogene-
ous TCE distribution in a DNAPL source zone, the col-
lected data were an acceptable representation of the
TCE distribution in the Launch Complex 34 aquifer
before, during, and after the demonstration.
• Six spatially distributed locations were sampled
within the plot to adequately capture the horizontal
variability in the TCE distribution. The continuous
sampling of the soil at each coring location ensured
that the vertical variability of the TCE distribution
was captured. Sampling and analytical procedures
were appropriately modified to address the expected
variability. Standard sampling and analysis
methods were used for all other measurements to
ensure that data were comparable between
sampling events.
• Accuracy and precision of the soil and groundwater
measurements were generally in the acceptable
range for the field sampling and laboratory analysis.
In the few instances that QC data were outside the
targeted range, the reason was generally interfer-
ence from extremely low (near detection) or
extremely high levels of TCE in the sample that
caused higher deviation in the precision (repeat-
ability) of the data.
• The masking effect of high TCE levels on other
CVOCs and the need for sample dilution as a result
caused detection limits for TCE to rise in certain
instances. However, because the surrogate recov-
eries were all within acceptable range, the rise in
detection limits did not interfere with reporting
acceptable CVOC concentrations.
• Rinsate blanks associated with the soil and ground-
water samples generally had acceptably low or
undetected levels of TCE.
71
-------
-------
7. Economic Analysis
The cost estimation for the EZVI technology application
involves the following three major components:
• Application cost of EZVI at the demonstration site.
These costs include material procurement and
material production. Costs of the technology
application at Launch Complex 34 were tracked by
the technology vendor GeoSyntec and their
subcontractor UCF.
• Site preparation and waste disposal costs, which
were incurred by the owner.
• Site characterization and performance assessment
costs. Battelle estimated these costs based on the
site characterization and performance assessment
that was generally based on U.S. EPA's SITE
Program guidelines.
An economic analysis for an innovative technology gen-
erally is based on a comparison of the cost of the inno-
vative technology with a conventional alternative. In this
section, the economic analysis involves a comparison of
the EZVI cost with the cost of a conventional pump-and-
treat system.
7.1 EZVI Application
Treatment Costs
The costs of the EZVI technology were tracked and
reported by the vendor. Table 7-1 summarizes the cost
breakdown for the treatment. The total cost of the EZVI
demonstration incurred by the vendor was approximately
$327,000 (not including waste disposal incurred by the
site owner, see Section 7.2). This total includes the de-
sign, permitting support, implementation, process moni-
toring, and reporting costs incurred by the vendor. The
total does not include the costs of waste disposal by the
site owner, NASA, and site characterization, which was
conducted by other organizations (Remedial Investi-
gation/Feasibility Study [RI/FS] by NASA, preliminary
characterization by Westinghouse Savannah River Com-
pany, and detailed characterization by Battelle).
Table 7-1. EZVI Treatment Cost Summary Provided
by Vendor
Cost Item
Design and submittals
Design and Installation of
Recirculation System and wells
Baseline Characterization
Injection Method Evaluation/Testing
EZVI Production
Performance monitoring and post-
treatment characterization
Data evaluation and reporting
Subtotal
Site preparation and waste
disposal*3'
Total Cost
Actual Cost
($)
10,000
75,000
17,000
60,000
25,000
75,000
65,000
327,000
25,000
352,000
Percentage
(%)
3
21
5
17
7
21
18
93
7
100
(a) Costs incurred by the site owner.
Source: GeoSyntec, 2003.
7.2 Site Preparation and
Waste Disposal Costs
Actual costs incurred by the site owner, NASA, for site
preparation and waste disposal can be estimated based
on the support received from the site owner. NASA had
prepared and cleared the site for the technology dem-
onstration. This includes removal of tiles inside the
building, surveying of the boundary of the plot, establish-
ment of utilities (water and electricity for the system
operation), and disposal of waste generated during the
site preparation and performance monitoring. Although
waste generation was minimal for this demonstration
due to the use of nonintrusive direct-push rig and the
nature of in situ technology, minimal waste was con-
tained and stored for proper disposal incurred by NASA.
The total cost for all these activities was estimated at
approximately $25,000.
73
-------
7.3 Site Characterization and
Performance Assessment Costs
This section describes two categories of costs:
• Site characterization costs. These are the costs
that a site would incur in an effort to bridge the gap
between the general site information in an RI/FS or
RFI report and the more detailed information
required for DNAPL source delineation and remedi-
ation technology design. This cost component is
perhaps the most reflective of the type of costs
incurred when a site of the size and geology of
Launch Complex 34 undergoes site characteriza-
tion in preparation for remediation. Presuming that
groundwater monitoring and plume delineation at a
site indicates the presence of DNAPL, these site
characterization costs are incurred in an effort to
define the boundaries of the DNAPL source zone,
obtain an order-of-magnitude estimate of the
DNAPL mass present, and define the local hydro-
geology and geochemistry of the DNAPL source
zone.
• Performance assessment costs. These are pri-
marily demonstration-related costs. Most of these
costs were incurred in an effort to further delineate
the portion of the DNAPL source contained in the
EZVI plot and determine the TCE-DNAPL mass
reduction achieved by the EZVI treatment. Only a
fraction of these costs would be incurred during full-
scale deployment of this technology; depending on
the site-specific regulatory requirements, only the
costs related to determining compliance with
cleanup criteria would be incurred in a full-scale
deployment.
Table 7-2 summarizes the costs incurred by Battelle for
the February 1999 site characterization at Launch Com-
plex 34. The February 1999 site characterization event
was a suitable combination of soil coring and ground-
water sampling and analysis fororganics and inorganics,
and hydraulic testing (water levels and slug tests) that
may be expected to bridge the gap between the RI/FS or
RFI data usually available at a site and the typical data
needs for DNAPL source delineation and remediation
design.
Table 7-3 summarizes performance assessment costs
incurred by Battelle for the EZVI technology demon-
stration. Note that the total cost for post-demonstration
assessment includes the cost incurred during the inter-
mediate soil coring in October 2002.
Table 7-2. Estimated Site Characterization Costs
Activity
Cost
Site Characterization Work Plan $25,000
• Additional characterization to delineate DNAPL
source
• Collect hydrogeologic and geochemical data for
technology design
Site Characterization $160,000
• Drilling - soil coring and well installation
(12 continuous soil cores to 45 ft bgs; installation
of 24 monitoring wells)
• Soil and groundwater sampling (36 monitoring
wells; 300 soil samples collection and field
extraction)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic
analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Data Analysis and Site Characterization Report $65,000
Total
$ 250,000
Table 7-3. Estimated Performance Assessment Costs
Activity
Cost
Pre-Demonstration Assessment $75,000
• Drilling - 4 continuous soil cores; installation of
7 monitoring wells
• Soil and groundwater sampling for TCE-DNAPL
boundary and mass estimation (9 monitoring wells;
collection and field extraction of 80 soil samples)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Demonstration Assessment $50,000
• Groundwater sampling (EZVI plot and perimeter
wells)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing; EZVI plot and perimeter wells)
Post-Demonstration Assessment $150,000
• Drilling - 12 continuous soil cores (6 from the
intermediate soil coring event; 6 from the post-
demonstration characterization)
• Soil and groundwater sampling (9 monitoring wells;
collection and field extraction of 160 soil samples-
approximate 80 from the intermediate soil coring
event; 80 from the post-demonstration
characterization)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Total
$275,000
74
-------
7.4 Present Value Analysis of EZVI
Technology and Pump-and-Treat
System Costs
DNAPL, especially of the magnitude present at Launch
Complex 34, is likely to persist in the aquifer for several
decades or centuries. The resulting groundwater contami-
nation and plume also will persist for several decades.
The conventional approach to this type of contamination
has been the use of pump-and-treat systems that extract
and treat the groundwater above ground. This conven-
tional technology is basically a plume control technology
and would have to be implemented as long as ground-
water contamination exists. The EZVI application tech-
nology is an innovative in situ technology that may be
comparable to the conventional pump-and-treat approach.
The economic analysis therefore compares the costs of
these two alternatives.
Because a pump-and-treat system would have to be
operated for the next several decades, the life-cycle cost
of this long-term treatment has to be calculated and
compared with the cost of the EZVI treatment technol-
ogy, a short-term treatment. The present value (PV) of a
long-term pump-and-treat application is calculated as
described in Appendix F. The PV analysis is conducted
over a 30-year period, as is typical for long-term remedi-
ation programs at Superfund sites. Site characterization
and performance (compliance) assessment costs are
assumed to be the same for both alternatives and are
not included in this analysis.
For the purpose of comparison, it is assumed that a
pump-and-treat system would have to treat the plume
emanating from a DNAPL source. However, the demon-
stration was limited to a plot that was 9-ft wide x 15-ft
long x so-ft deep. For a more realistic cost comparison,
the remediation site is assumed to be spatially three
times bigger (27-ft wide x 45-ft long x so-ft deep) than
the EZVI plot for this cost evaluation. Recent research
(Pankow and Cherry, 1996) indicates that the most effi-
cient pump-and-treat system for source containment
would capture all the groundwater flowing through the
DNAPL source region. For a 27-ft-long x 45-ft-wide x
30-ft-deep (Upper Sand Unit) DNAPL source region at
Launch Complex 34, a single extraction well pumping at
2 gpm is assumed to be sufficient to contain the source
in an aquifer where the hydraulic gradient (and therefore,
the groundwater flow velocity) is extremely low. This
type of minimal containment pumping ensures that the
source is contained without having to extract and treat
groundwater from cleaner surrounding regions, as would
be the case in more aggressive conventional pump-and-
treat systems. The extracted groundwater is treated with
an air stripper, polishing carbon (liquid phase), and a
catalytic oxidation unit (for air effluent).
As shown in Tables F-1 and F-2 of Appendix F, the total
capital investment for an equivalent pump-and-treat sys-
tem would be approximately $161,000, and would be fol-
lowed by an annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost of $50,000 (including quarterly monitoring). Periodic
maintenance requirements (replacements of pumps,
etc.) would raise the O&M cost every five years to
$69,000 and every 10 years to $97,000. A discount rate
(real rate of return) of 2.9%, based on the current recom-
mendation for government projects, was used to calcu-
late the PV. The PV of the pump-and-treat costs over
30 years is estimated to be $1,365,000.
An equivalent treatment cost for full-scale deployment of
the EZVI treatment technology in a source area approxi-
mately for the same size of treatment area as the one
used for the pump-and-treat system would be at least
$452,000. This estimate is based on a total EZVI treat-
ment ($352,000 [see Table 7-1]) incurred for the dem-
onstration. The assumed dimension to be treated is
approximately three times of the EZVI plot. An equal
number (8) of injection wells could be used for the injec-
tion, and twice as much of the EZVI could be used in the
source treatment, although two additional volumes of
waste would be generated. Additional costs of $100,000
would be necessary for the additional EZVI production
cost ($25,000 times two) and waste disposal cost
($25,000 times two) based on the demonstration cost in
Table 7-1. Therefore, if the TCE remaining after EZVI
treatment was allowed to attenuate naturally, the total
treatment cost with the EZVI technology would be ap-
proximately $452,000. Given the presence of vegetable
oil residuals from the EZVI, a slow-release carbon
source is available to aid biodegradation of TCE residu-
als. Another assumption here is that the full-scale
deployment of the EZVI treatment system would entail
design, equipment, and deployment similar to the kind
done during the demonstration.
Therefore, the EZVI treatment technology is cost-
competitive with an equivalent pump-and-treat system.
An investment in the EZVI treatment has a lower PV
than the long-term investment in a pump-and-treat sys-
tem. The up-front capital investment incurred for the
EZVI treatment may by recovered after the fifth year (see
Table F-3 in Appendix F), when the PV of the pump-and-
treat system surpasses the cost of the EZVI treatment.
In addition to a lower PV or life-cycle cost, there may be
other tangible and intangible economic benefits to using
a source remediation technology. For example, the eco-
nomic analysis in Appendix F assumes that the pump-
and-treat system is operational at all times over the next
30 years or more, with most of the annual expense
associated with operation and routine (scheduled) main-
tenance. Experience with pump-and-treat systems at
several sites has shown that downtime associated with
75
-------
pump-and-treat systems is fairly high (as much as 50%
downtime reported from some sites). This may nega-
tively impact both maintenance requirements (tangible
cost) and the integrity of plume containment (intangible
cost) with the pump-and-treat alternative.
Another factor to consider is that although the economic
analysis for long-term remediation programs typically is
conducted for a 30-year period, the DNAPL source and
therefore the pump-and-treat requirement may persist
for many more years or decades. This would lead to
concomitantly higher remediation costs for the pump-
and-treat or plume containment option (without source
removal). As seen in Appendix F, the PV of a pump-
and-treat system operated for 100 years would be
$2,126,000. Even if the DNAPL source is only partially
removed by the EZVI treatment, and natural attenuation
is insufficient to meet downgradient cleanup goals, it is
anticipated that the reduced source leads to a reduction
in the size and timeframe for a pump-and-treat system.
76
-------
8. Technology Applications Analysis
This section evaluates the general applicability of the
EZVI technology to sites with contaminated groundwater
and soil. The analysis is based on the results and les-
sons learned from the demonstration, as well as general
information available about the technology and its appli-
cation at other sites.
8.1 Objectives
This section evaluates the EZVI technology against the
nine evaluation criteria used for detailed analysis of
remedial alternatives in feasibility studies under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Much of the discussion
in this section applies to DNAPL source removal in gen-
eral and the EZVI technology in particular.
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
EZVI is protective of human health and environment in
both the short and long term. Because DNAPL acts as a
secondary source that can contaminate an aquifer for
decades or centuries, DNAPL source removal or mitiga-
tion considerably reduces the duration over which the
source is active. Even if DNAPL mass removal is not
100%, the resulting long-term weakening of the plume
and the reduced duration over which the DNAPL source
contributes to the plume reduces the threat to potential
receptors.
8.12 Compliance with ARARs
This section describes the technology performance ver-
sus applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). Compliance with location-, action-, and
chemical-specific ARARs should be determined on a
site-specific basis. Location-specific ARARs may apply
during a remediation project if the technology has the
potential to affect resources in and around the site
location. Examples of resources that fall under location-
specific ARARs include cultural resources, biological
resources, flood plains and wetlands, hydrologic
resources, and critical habitat. In general, the design of
the EZVI technology is flexible enough that location-
specific ARARs could be met.
Action-specific ARARs correspond to waste discharge
requirements associated with the technology, such as
discharging to the air or hazardous waste generation,
management, and disposal. In general, action-specific
ARARs could be met with the EZVI technology. One
advantage of the EZVI technology is the potential for the
emulsion to be injected without the accompanying recir-
culating groundwater system. The recirculating system
produces groundwater that must be treated prior to rein-
jection according to the requirements of RCRA 3020(b)
(U.S. EPA, 2000). Further testing of the EZVI technology
is necessary to optimize injection strategies in the
absence of a recirculating groundwater system.
Chemical-specific ARARs are generally health- or risk-
based numerical values or methodologies applied to site-
specific conditions that result in the establishment of a
cleanup level. Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs
depends on the efficiency of the EZVI process at the site
and the cleanup goals agreed on by various stakehold-
ers. In general, reasonable DNAPL mass removal goals
are more achievable and should lead to eventual and
earlier compliance with long-term groundwater cleanup
goals. Achieving short-term groundwater cleanup goals
(e.g., federal or state maximum contaminant levels
[MCLs]), especially in the DNAPL source zone, is more
difficult because various studies (Pankow and Cherry,
1996) have shown that almost 100% DNAPL mass
removal may be required before a significant change in
groundwater concentrations is observed. However,
removal of DNAPL, even if most of the removal takes
place from the more accessible pores, probably would
result in a weakened plume that may allow risk-based
cleanup goals to be met in the downgradient aquifer.
77
-------
The specific federal environmental regulations that are
potentially impacted by remediation of a DNAPL source
with EZVI are described below.
8.1.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendment
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), provides for federal
authority to respond to releases or potential releases of
any hazardous substance into the environment, as well
as to releases of pollutants or contaminants that may
present an imminent or significant danger to public
health and welfare or the environment. Remedial alter-
natives that significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous materials and that provide long-
term protection are preferred. Selected remedies also
must be cost-effective and protective of human health
and the environment. The EZVI technology meets sev-
eral of these criteria relating to a preferred alternative.
EZVI reduces the toxicity of chlorinated contaminants by
converting them into potentially nontoxic forms. For
example, at Launch Complex 34, as described in Sec-
tion 5.3.1, increases in ethene and chloride concentra-
tions in groundwater collected during post-demonstration
characterization indicate that some portion of the TCE
was converted into nontoxic forms by the EZVI treat-
ment. This elimination of solvent hazard is permanent
and leads to a considerable reduction in the time it takes
for the DNAPL source to deplete fully. Although aquifer
heterogeneities and technology limitations often result in
less than 100% (complete) removal of the contaminant
and elevated levels of dissolved solvent may persist in
the groundwater over the short term, there is faster and
eventual elimination of groundwater contamination in the
long term. Section 7.4 shows that EZVI technology is
cost-effective compared with the conventional alternative
of long-term pump and treat.
8.1.2.2 Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, regulates management
and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes.
The U.S. EPA and RCRA-authorized states (listed in 40
CFR Part 272) implement and enforce RCRA and state
regulations. Generally, RCRA does not apply to in situ
groundwater treatment because the contaminated
groundwater may not be considered hazardous waste
while it is still in the aquifer. The contaminated ground-
water becomes regulated if it is extracted from the ground,
as would happen with the conventional alternative of
pump and treat. At Launch Complex 34, the recirculation
system required for hydraulic control of the test plot
necessitated treatment of the extracted groundwater
prior to reinjection. At similar sites, and under similar cir-
cumstances, RCRA may be invoked as an ARAR.
8.1.2.3 Clean Water Act
The CWA is designed to restore and maintain the chem-
ical, physical, and biological quality of navigable surface
waters by establishing federal, state, and local discharge
standards. The CWA may apply if groundwater extrac-
tion is conducted in conjunction with EZVI injection, and
the resulting water stream needs to be treated and dis-
charged to a surface water body or a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW). On-site discharges to a sur-
face water body must meet National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements; consequent-
ly, an NPDES permit may be needed under the NPDES
requirements. Off-site discharges to a surface water
body must meet NPDES limits and require an NPDES
permit. Discharge to a POTW, even if it is through an on-
site sewer, is considered an off-site activity and requires
an NPDES permit. Sometimes, soil or groundwater mon-
itoring may lead to small amounts of purge and decon-
tamination water wastes that may be subject to CWA
requirements. Micropurging was one measure imple-
mented at Launch Complex 34 to minimize such wastes
during site characterization and technology performance
assessment.
8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA, as amended in 1986, requires U.S. EPA to
establish regulations to protect human health from con-
taminants in drinking water. The legislation authorizes
national drinking water standards and a joint federal-
state system for ensuring compliance with these stand-
ards. The SDWA also regulates underground injection of
fluids through the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program and includes sole-source aquifer and wellhead
protection programs. A UIC variance was obtained from
the FDEP to inject the EZVI into the aquifer during this
demonstration.
The National Primary Drinking Water Standards are
found at 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. The health-
based SDWA primary standards (e.g., MCL) are more
critical to meet; SDWA secondary standards (e.g., for
iron, chloride, or TDS) are based on other factors, such
as aesthetics (discoloration) or odor. The MCLs based
on these standards generally apply as cleanup stand-
ards for water that is, or potentially could be, used for
drinking water supply. In some cases, such as when
multiple contaminants are present, alternative concentra-
tion limits (ACLs) may be used. CERCLA and RCRA
standards and guidance are used in establishing ACLs.
In addition, some states may set more stringent stand-
ards for specific contaminants. For example, the federally
mandated MCL for VC is 2 ug/L, whereas the State of
78
-------
Florida drinking water standard is 1 |jg/L. In such
instances, the more stringent standard is usually the
cleanup goal.
Although the long-term goal of DNAPL source zone
treatment is meeting applicable drinking water standards
or other risk-based groundwater cleanup goals agreed
on between site owners and regulatory authorities, the
short-term objective of the EZVI technology and source
remediation is DNAPL mass removal. Because technol-
ogy, site, and economic limitations may limit DNAPL
mass removal to less than 100%, it may not always be
possible to meet groundwater cleanup targets in the
source region in the short term. Depending on other fac-
tors, such as the distance of the compliance point (e.g.,
property boundary, at which groundwater cleanup tar-
gets have to be met) from the source (as negotiated
between the site owner and regulators), the degree of
weakening of the plume due to DNAPL source treat-
ment, and the degree of natural attenuation in the aqui-
fer, it may be possible to meet groundwater cleanup
targets at the compliance point in the short term. DNAPL
mass removal will always lead to faster attainment of
groundwater cleanup goals in the long term, as com-
pared to the condition in which no source removal action
is taken.
One aspect of using EZVI as a reductant for DNAPL
source remediation is the potential for an increase in iron
concentrations in groundwater as a result of the treat-
ment. Iron is a secondary drinking water standard under
the SDWA, with a maximum concentration of 0.3 mg/L.
At Launch Complex 34, the concentrations of dissolved
iron measured in the shallow monitoring wells during the
pre-demonstration characterization were much higher
than the secondary drinking water standard, and ranged
from 7.2 to 27 mg/L (see Table 5-5). Total iron con-
centrations were approximately the same as those for
dissolved iron, indicating that dissolved iron is the pre-
dominant form in the aquifer. Both total and dissolved
iron concentrations decreased after the EZVI injection.
Precipitation of ferric iron on soil was not observed visu-
ally (as tan color) during post-demonstration character-
ization, but a full microscopic analysis of the soil was not
conducted to verify the presence of precipitates. The
post-demonstration data were inconclusive regarding the
impact of the EZVI technology on iron concentrations in
the targeted Upper Sand Unit following the EZVI injection.
However, because the shallow aquifer at Launch Com-
plex 34 is not used for drinking water, the secondary
standard for iron did not apply to the EZVI demonstration.
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act
The CAA and the 1990 amendments establish primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for protection
of public health, as well as emission limitations for cer-
tain hazardous pollutants. Permitting requirements under
CAA are administered by each state as part of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) developed to bring each
state in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Unlike pump-and-treat systems, which often generate air
emissions (when an air stripper is used), and unlike
other source removal technologies that use thermal
energy (e.g., steam injection or resistive heating) or
result in exothermic reactions (e.g., oxidation with Fen-
ton's reagent), the potential for atmospheric releases is
absent when injecting EZVI.
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be carried out in accordance with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements
detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, especially
Part 1910.120, which provide for the health and safety of
workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site construction
activities at Superfund or RCRA corrective action sites
must be performed in accordance with Part 1926 of
RCRA, which provides safety and health regulations for
construction sites. State OSHA requirements, which may
be significantly stricter than federal standards, also must
be met.
The health and safety aspects of EZVI injection are mini-
mal. The main working hazards encountered during the
demonstration were operating heavy equipment (e.g.,
drill rig) and handling the emulsified iron mixture. These
hazards were dealt with by using trained personnel and
appropriate personal protective equipment. Level D per-
sonal protective equipment generally would be sufficient
during implementation. During the injection phase of the
demonstration, Tyvek® suits were worn to prevent work-
ers' clothing from being covered in the emulsion. All
operating and sampling personnel were required to have
completed the 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations
training course and 8-hour refresher courses.
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness
The EZVI technology leads to removal of TCE-DNAPL
mass and therefore permanent removal of contamination
from the aquifer. Although dissolved solvent concentra-
tions may rebound in the short term when groundwater
flow redistributes through the treated source zone con-
taining DNAPL remnants, depletion of the source
through dissolution will continue in the long term, and
lead to eventual and earlier compliance with ground-
water cleanup goals.
79
-------
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
The EZVI technology effects treatment by reducing the
volume and toxicity of contamination through the dehalo-
genation process, which results in potentially nontoxic
compounds such as chloride, ethene, or ethane. Multiple
injections of the emulsified iron mixture may be neces-
sary to bring about complete dehalogenation and pre-
vent accumulation of degradation byproducts, such as
VC. The mobility of the contaminant is not affected by
the EZVI treatment.
8.1.5 Short- Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness of the EZVI technology
depends on a number of factors. If the short-term goal is
to remove as much DNAPL mass as possible, this goal
can be achieved. If the short-term goal is to reduce dis-
solved contaminant levels in the source zone, achieve-
ment of this goal will depend on the hydrogeology and
DNAPL distribution in the treated region. As seen in
Section 5.2.1, TCE levels declined sharply in some
monitoring wells and in some multilevel chamber wells.
Geologic heterogeneities, preferential flowpaths taken by
the emulsion and localized permeability changes that
determine flow in the treated region may lead to such
variability in post-treatment groundwater levels of con-
tamination. As discussed in Section 8.1.2.4, the chances
of DNAPL mass removal resulting in reduced contami-
nant levels at a compliance point downgradient from the
source is more likely in the short term. In the long term,
DNAPL mass removal will always shorten the time
period required to bring the entire affected aquifer in
compliance with applicable standards.
If necessary, multiple injections of the iron emulsion may
be used to promote complete dehalogenation to ethane
or ethene and prevent the accumulation of degradation
byproducts, such as VC. However, multiple injections
may not be cost-effective due to intensive labor require-
ments and relatively high material cost.
8.1.6 Implementability
The implementability criterion addresses the technical
and administrative feasibility of implementing the EZVI
technology and the availability of various services and
materials required during its implementation. The techni-
cal feasibility of implementing the EZVI technology is
based on factors such as construction and operation, reli-
ability of the technology, the ease of undertaking addi-
tional remedial action, and monitoring considerations.
For the EZVI technology, constructing and operating the
equipment associated with the recirculating system and
the injection is fairly straightforward in theory. Technical
difficulties that may be encountered include problems
with injecting the emulsion (e.g., emulsion backing up in
the injection well) and predicting the radius of influence.
These technical difficulties affect the reliability of the
technology, leading to schedule delays and making it
difficult to have confidence in the predicted direction and
travel distance of the emulsion without confirmatory
sampling. Many of the technical difficulties seen during
the EZVI demonstration may be mitigated by improving
the method of injection into the subsurface. Further test-
ing is needed in this area.
The administrative feasibility of implementing the EZVI
technology at Launch Complex 34 was straightforward.
A site-specific DIG variance was obtained by the vendor
from the FDEP to inject the emulsion mixture. Because
the Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34
was abandoned and in a remote location, the site was
accessible for the equipment and supplies needed to
conduct the demonstration without interfering with the
surrounding community. Adequate storage capacity and
disposal services for the waste generated during well
installation, soil sampling, and groundwater sampling
also was available at the Engineering Support Building.
The zero-valent iron, vegetable oil, and surfactant were
commercially available through various vendors. Due to
the innovative use of the iron emulsion, the number of
vendors trained and available to conduct the injection
was limited; however, this may change as the technol-
ogy advances in the remediation field.
At Launch Complex 34, aboveground wastes were gen-
erated during the demonstration due to the hydraulic
controls required to contain the plot and measure mass
flux. The groundwater extracted from the plot required
treatment before being reinjected into the aquifer. Al-
though the groundwater was treated using a common,
commercially available technology (i.e., GAG), the com-
plexity of the operation increased to some degree as a
result.
8.1.7 Cost
As described in Section 7.4, the cost of the EZVI treat-
ment is competitive with the life-cycle cost of traditional
pump-and-treat technologies (over a 30-year period of
comparison). The cost comparison becomes even more
favorable for source remediation in general and EZVI in
particular when other tangible and intangible factors are
taken into account. For example, a DNAPL source, such
as the one at Launch Complex 34, is likely to persist
much longer than 30 years (the normal evaluation time
for long-term remedies), thus necessitating continued
costs for pump and treat into the distant future (perhaps
100 years or more). Annual O&M costs also do not take
into account the nonroutine maintenance costs associated
80
-------
with the large amount of downtime typically experienced
by site owners with pump-and-treat systems.
Factors that may increase the cost of the EZVI applica-
tion are:
• Operating requirements associated with any
contamination under a building
• Need for additional hydraulic control (e.g., with
extraction wells) and any associated need to treat
and dispose/reinject extracted fluids.
8.1.8 State (Support Agency)
Acceptance
Because of the technical limitations and costs of conven-
tional approaches to DNAPL remediation, state environ-
mental agencies (or support agencies in the case of
State-lead sites) have shown growing acceptance of
innovative technologies. The demonstration at Launch
Complex 34 provided evidence that the emulsified iron
mixture may be effective in reductive dehalogenation of
chlorinated solvents, despite difficulties in distributing the
EZVI to the subsurface.
8.1.9 Community Acceptance
The EZVI technology's low profile, limited space require-
ments, absence of air emissions, absence of waste stor-
age, handling, and off-site transportation requirements,
low noise levels, and ability to reduce short- and long-
term risks posed by DNAPL contamination are expected
to promote local community acceptance.
8.2 Operability
Unlike a pump-and-treat system that may involve contin-
uous long-term operation by trained operators for the
next 30 or 100 years, a source remediation technology is
a short-term application. The field application (actual
injection) of EZVI in the 14-ft x 9.5-ft plot at Launch
Complex 34 only took a few days to complete. The
remediation generally is done as a turnkey project by
multiple vendors, who will design, build, and operate the
EZVI delivery system. Site characterization, site prepara-
tion (utilities, etc.), monitoring, and any waste disposal
often are done by the site owner.
Other factors affecting the operability of the EZVI tech-
nology include the commercial availability of the supplies
and the availability of the necessary injection equipment
and specialists. The nanoscale zero-valent iron is avail-
able from a small number of commercial vendors. The
surfactant and vegetable oil are widely available com-
mercially. Handling of the iron, surfactant, and vegetable
oil requires minimal health and safety measures. A spe-
cialized vendor was required for injecting the emulsion.
Although the use of zero-valent iron in the reductive
dechlorination of solvents has been known for many
years, the use of an injectable, emulsified form of zero-
valent iron is a new application and is in the process of
being patented.
8.3 Applicable Wastes
The ability of zero-valent iron to remediate chlorinated
hydrocarbons has long been known. EZVI was designed
for remediation of aquifers contaminated with chlorinated
solvents. Source zones consisting of PCE and TCE in
DNAPL form, as well as dissolved c/s-1,2-DCE and VC,
can be addressed. The EZVI technology can be imple-
mented in source zones present in saturated or vadose
zones.
8.4 Key Features
The following are some of the key features of EZVI that
make the technology attractive for DNAPL source zone
and groundwater treatment:
• In situ application
• Potential for injection-only mode at some sites that
prevents the generation of aboveground wastes,
which would need additional treatment or handling
• Potentially nontoxic products
• Fast field application time
• Longer-lived emulsion distributes in the aquifer
through both advection and diffusion, thus
achieving better contact with contaminants
• At many sites, a one-time application has the poten-
tial to reduce a DNAPL source to the point where
either natural attenuation is sufficient to address a
weakened plume, or pump and treat needs to be
applied for over a shorter duration in the future.
8.5 Availability/Transportability
Nanoscale zero-valent iron is commercially available
from a few vendors. The food-grade vegetable oil and
surfactant are commercially available from a variety of
vendors. Mixing the emulsion of iron, oil, surfactant, and
water generally would take place on site just prior to
injection. Until the difficulties associated with injecting
and distributing the emulsion mixture into the subsurface
are resolved, a specialized vendor is recommended. The
EZVI technology is not yet available in the form of a
mobile mixing/injection unit.
81
-------
8.6 Materials Handling Requirements
The nanoscale zero-valent iron was available as a solid
suspended in water. The food-grade vegetable oil and
surfactant do not require any special handling. Mixing
equipment is required to form the emulsion.
8.7 Ranges of Suitable
Site Characteristics
The following factors should be considered when deter-
mining the suitability of a site for the EZVI application.
None of these factors necessarily eliminate EZVI from
consideration. Rather, these are factors that may make
the application less or more economical.
• Type of contaminants. Contaminants should be
amenable to reduction by zero-valent iron. They
types of contaminants most suited for this technol-
ogy are chlorinated hydrocarbons.
• Site geology. The emulsion mixture can be dis-
tributed more effectively in sandy soils. Silts or
clays can make the application more difficult. Aqui-
fer heterogeneities and preferential flowpaths can
make contact between the emulsion and the con-
taminants much more difficult. DNAPL source
zones in fractured bedrock also may pose a
challenge.
• Soil characteristics. Soils with high organic
carbon content may require more emulsion
because the organic matter may compete with the
contaminant forthe reductive capacity of the iron.
More testing is needed to explore the influence of
soil characteristics on the EZVI technology.
• Regulatory acceptance. EZVI has long-term
benefits in terms of a diminished DNAPL source.
However, use of the emulsified iron may temporarily
increase the concentrations of dissolved iron
beyond secondary drinking water standards. More
testing is needed to explore this possibility.
Regulatory acceptance is important for this appli-
cation and a DIG permit or variance may be
required. In addition, hydraulic control require-
ments and economics at some sites may necessi-
tate extraction, treatment, and reinjection of the
groundwater. A reinjection permit will be required.
• Site accessibility. Sites that have no aboveground
structures and fewer utilities are easier to remediate
with EZVI. The presence of buildings or a network
of utilities can make the application more difficult
because of the need for injection wells.
8.8 Limitations
The EZVI technology has the following limitations:
• Not all types of contaminants are amenable to
reductive transformation.
• Currently, EZVI is not commercially available.
However, bulk volumes can be produced by a
limited number of vendors. Nanoscale zero-valent
iron particulate is available in bulk from a (limited)
number of vendors. Also, the handling of nano-
scale zero-valent iron requires extreme care: the
particulates are flammable when exposed to air,
and the iron may stain the site during emulsion
preparation. Once the required volume of emulsion
is prepared, it can be stored in drums.
• Byproducts of reduction may make EZVI unsuitable
for application in a region very close to a receptor.
Certain byproducts (such as dissolved iron and
chloride) are subject to secondary, nonhealth-based
drinking water standards, and require sufficient time
and distance to dissipate. Also, EZVI byproducts
may promote the growth of some indigenous
microbes, which could adversely inhibit other
activities in the aquifer.
• Aquifer heterogeneities can make the application of
EZVI more difficult, necessitating more complex
application schemes, greater amounts of emulsion,
longer injection times, and/or multiple injections.
EZVI injection may not be suitable in tight aquifer
materials, such as clay or silt.
• Multiple injections of the emulsion mixture may be
necessary to prevent the accumulation of degra-
dation products, such as VC.
• Some sites may require greater hydraulic control to
minimize the spread of contaminants. This may
necessitate the use of extraction, aboveground
treatment, and disposal/reinjection of groundwater.
82
-------
9. References
Battelle. 1999a. Hydrogeologic and Chemical Data Com-
pilation, Interagency DNAPL Consortium Remedi-
ation Demonstration Project, Launch Complex 34,
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida. Prepared for
Interagency DNAPL Consortium.
Battelle. 1999b. Interim Report: Performance Assess-
ment Site Characterization for the Interagency
DNAPL Consortium, Launch Complex 34, Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Florida. Prepared for Inter-
agency DNAPL Consortium.
Battelle. 1999c. Pre-Demonstration Assessment of the
Treatment Plots at Launch Complex 34, Cape
Canaveral, Florida. Prepared for Air Force Research
Laboratory and Interagency DNAPL Consortium.
September 13.
Battelle. 2001. Seventh Interim Report on the IDC Dem-
onstration at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
Air Station. Prepared for the Interagency DNAPL
Consortium. August 15.
Battelle. 2002a. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Per-
formance Evaluation of In Situ Dehalogenation of
Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids (DNAPL)
Through the Use of Emulsified Zero-Valent Iron at
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Pre-
pared for U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation Program. April 23.
Battelle. 2002b. Draft Final Innovative Evaluation Report.
Demonstration of Steam Injection Treatment of
DNAPL Source Zone at Launch Complex 34 in Cape
Canaveral Air Station, Florida. Prepared for the
Interagency DNAPL Consortium, August 20.
Battelle. 2002c. Final report: Evaluating the Longevity
and Hydraulic performance of Permeable Reactive
Barriers at Department of Defense Sites. Prepared
for NFESC, Port Hueneme, CA, under Contract No.
N47408-95-D-0730. February 1.
Battelle. 2003. Final Innovative Evaluation Report.
Demonstration of Resistive Heating Treatment of
DNAPL Source Zone at Launch Complex 34 in Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. Prepared for
the Interagency DNAPL Consortium, February 19.
Eddy-Dilek, C., B. Riha, D. Jackson, and J. Consort.
1998. DNAPL Source Zone Characterization of
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station,
Florida. Prepared for Interagency DNAPL Consor-
tium by Westinghouse Savannah River Company
and MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
FRTR, see Federal Remediation Technologies Round-
table.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 1998.
Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and
Performance Information for Remediation Projects,
revised. EPA/542/B-98/007. Prepared by the Mem-
ber Agencies of the FRTR. October.
G&E Engineering, Inc. 1996. RCRA RFI Work Plan for
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station,
Brevard County, Florida. Prepared for NASA Envi-
ronmental Program Office.
GeoSyntec. 2002. 100% Draft Design Report Perform-
ance Evaluation of Dehalogenation of Dense Non-
Aqueous Phase Liquids, (DNAPLs) Using Emulsified
Zero-Valent Iron Launch Complex 34, Cape
Canaveral, Florida. Prepared for National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration. January.
GeoSyntec. 2003. Performance Evaluation of Dehalo-
genation of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs) Using Emulsified Zero-Valent Iron Launch
Complex 34, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Prepared for
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
March 14.
Major, D.W., M.L. McMaster, E.E. Cox, E.A. Edwards,
S.M. Dworatzek, E.R. Hendrickson, M.G. Starr, J.A.
Payne, and L.W. Buonamici. 2002. "Field Demon-
stration of Successful Bioaugmentation to Achieve
Dechlorination of Tetrachloroethene to Ethene."
Environ. Sci. Technol., 36(23): 5106-5116.
Pankow, J., and J. Cherry. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Sol-
vents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History,
83
-------
Behavior, and Remediation. Waterloo Press,
Portland, OR.
Roberts, G.W., L.A. Totten, W.A. Arnold, D.R. Burris,
and T.J. Campbell. 1996. "Reductive Elimination of
Chlorinated Ethylenes by Zero-Valent Metals."
Environ. Sci. Technol.
Schmalzer, P.A., and G.A. Hinkle. 1990. Geology, Geo-
hydrology and Soils of the Kennedy Space Center: A
Review. NASA Kennedy Space Center, FL.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000.
Memorandum: "Applicability of RCRA Section 3020
to In-Situ Treatment of Ground Water." Prepared by
E. Cotsworth, Director, U.S. EPA OSWER.
December 27.
University of Central Florida (UCF). 2000. In-Situ Reduc-
tive Dehalogenation of DNAPLs by the Use of Emul-
sified Zero-Valent Nanoscale Iron Particles. Unpub-
lished report, prepared for GeoSyntec.
U.S. EPA, see United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
84
-------
-------
-------
Appendix A
Performance Assessment Methods
A.1 Summary of Statistics
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
-------
Appendix A.I Summary of Statistics
This summarizes the results of our statistical analyses of TCE monitoring data for the EZVI plot. The
basic approach we used is the same as for previous remediation technologies (e.g., Steam). This approach
consists of three main steps: (1) perform a semivariogram analysis to assess spatial correlation, (2)
perform a kriging analysis to estimate the global (i.e., overall) average TCE concentration, and (3) using a
normal distribution assumption, calculate confidence bounds for the estimates and assess the statistical
significance of any observed average TCE reductions. In addition, for the EZVI plot, we considered two
other topics: (1) the effect on the conclusions due to one high, post-demonstration TCE concentration in
soil, and (2) analysis of TCE concentrations in groundwater.
Soil Monitoring Data (Full Data Set)
Although soil monitoring data were collected for all three stratigraphic layers (i.e., lower sand unit,
middle fine-grained unit, and upper sand unit [USU]), statistical analyses were only conducted with the
USU data. This is because the pre-demonstration soil data for the LSU and MFGU layers indicated only
relatively small amounts of TCE, and it was decided these lower two layers might not provide an
adequate setting for the demonstration.
Based on the spatial coordinates provided, the EZVI plot was defined to be an area of 14.92 ft. by 9.46 ft.
The USU layer is assumed to be a horizontal stratigraphic unit with a constant thickness of 20 ft.,
centered at a vertical midpoint of -4.79 ft. (i.e., 4.79 ft. below mean sea level). For the purposes of
kriging the global average TCE concentration, these dimensions are held constant for all calculations with
the pre-demonstration and post-demonstration data.
In the semivariogram and kriging analyses, only those data were used which were classified by the
geologists as belonging to the USU layer as shown in Table A-l. This layer was sampled pre-
demonstration by a series of 8 drill holes, and post-demonstration by a series of 11 drill holes. In both
cases, the drill holes were placed to provide roughly uniform spatial coverage of the EZVI plot. The
resulting pre-demonstration data set consisted of N=81 TCE measurements with a sample average of
175.9 mg/kg and a sample standard deviation of 680.7 mg/kg. The resulting post-demonstration data set
consisted of N=104 TCE measurements with a sample average of 105.5 mg/kg and a sample standard
deviation of 468.0 mg/kg.
Table A-2 summarizes that the estimated (kriged) pre-demonstration global average TCE concentration is
220.1 mg/kg, with a two-sided, 80% confidence interval from 82.3 to 357.9 mg/kg. The kriged post-
demonstration global average TCE concentration is 92.4 mg/kg, with a two-sided, 80% confidence
interval from 19.3 to 165.4 mg/kg. To test whether the average TCE reduction is significant, we
calculated an 80% lower confidence bound (LCB) on the difference of the Pre-demo minus Post-demo
TCE concentrations. If this LCB is greater than 0 (zero), then the average reduction is significant at the
20% significance level. The estimated average TCE concentration reduction (i.e., Pre-demo minus Post-
demo) is 127.7 mg/kg (i.e., 58% of the TCE was removed), with an 80% LCB of 25.6 mg/kg, which is
significant at the 20% significance level. In fact, this reduction is significant up to about the 15% level of
significance.
Effect of a Single High Soil Datum
As noted above, N=104 post-demonstration TCE data were collected from the EZVI plot. The majority
of these data were found to be below 10 mg/kg, with 83% of the data being below 100 mg/kg, and all but
two of the data being below 1000 mg/kg. The single highest measured TCE concentration was 4,502
mg/kg and the second highest TCE concentration was 1,023 mg/kg. Because the highest TCE datum was
-------
well above the rest of the data set, there was a question as to how strongly this single datum might affect
the overall statistical results. Generally speaking, if the results of an analysis can be significantly
influenced by a single data point, then it is important to confirm the accuracy of that data point, and
perhaps to caution reviewers that the study conclusions might be heavily tied to this one datum.
To address this potential question, the kriging analysis of the soil monitoring data was repeated after
eliminating the single highest post-demonstration datum from the data set (see Table A-3). The reduced
post-demonstration data set included N=103 TCE measurements with a sample average of 62.8 mg/kg
and a sample standard deviation of 172.7 mg/kg. With the reduced data set, the kriged post-
demonstration global average TCE concentration is 59.2 mg/kg, with a two-sided, 80% confidence
interval from 35.9 to 82.6 mg/kg. The estimated average TCE concentration reduction (i.e., Pre-demo
minus Post-demo) is 160.9 mg/kg (i.e., 73% of the TCE was removed), with an 80% LCB of 69.3 mg/kg,
which is significant at the 20% significance level and up to about the 7% level of significance.
Clearly, eliminating the single highest post-demonstration data point would result in several predictable
changes to the statistical results (in Table A-4): (a) the kriged post-demonstration average TCE
concentration would drop (i.e., from 92.4 to 59.2 mg/kg), (b) the variability in post-demonstration data
would drop and result in tighter confidence bounds on the post-demonstration average (i.e., width of the
confidence interval (upper confidence bound minus lower confidence bound) would decrease from 146.1
to 46.7 mg/kg), the average TCE reduction and percentage reduction would increase (i.e., increase from
127.7 to 160.9 mg/kg, and from 58% to 73%, respectively), and the statistical significance of the average
TCE concentration reduction would also increase (i.e., from 15% to 7% significance level).
Groundwater Monitoring Data
In addition to the soil monitoring data, a limited number of samples were collected from the groundwater
in the EZVI plot before and after the demonstration. Although they may not be direct measurements of
TCE levels in the soil, they may provide indirect evidence of TCE reductions.
A total of N=20 pairs of groundwater TCE concentrations were collected from four wells in the EZVI plot,
each pair consisting of a pre-demonstration and post-demonstration TCE concentration at the same depth.
In addition, a 21st pair of pre-demo and post-demo TCE concentrations was collected from a fifth well in
the EZVI plot. Unfortunately, these data included too few discrete spatial locations to allow for a
semivariogram and kriging analysis, and the overall sample size is probably too small to allow for strong
statistical conclusions to be drawn. However, recognizing these limitations, a paired t-test analysis was
conducted to estimate the groundwater average TCE reductions and assess possible statistical significance.
In the paired t-test analysis (Table A-5), the difference between the pre-demonstration and post-
demonstration TCE concentrations (i.e., the TCE reduction) is calculated at each discrete sampling
location, and then the average difference in this data set is estimated. The corresponding statistical test
(using the Student's t distribution instead of the normal distribution) evaluates whether the average
difference (i.e., reduction) is significantly greater than zero (0). The results of this analysis indicate that
the average TCE reduction for the 21 pairs of data was 804 umoles/L, and the statistical significance of
the reduction is 0.66%. Even though the groundwater data set is small, the average TCE reductions still
appear to be quite significant.
-------
Table A-l. Summary Statistics of TCE Concentrations in Soil from Upper Sand Unit
Concentration (mg/Kg)
Survey
Pre Demo
Post Combined
Unit
usu
usu
N
81
104
Mean
175.85
105.46
Stdev
680.69
467.99
Min 1stQu. Median 3rd Qu.
0.18
0.18
0.36
0.18
44
1
187
17.5
Max
6,067
4,502
Table A-2. Summary of Kriged TCE Soil Data from both Pre- and Post-demonstration soil results in Upper Sand Unit
Soil density = 1,590 kg/m3
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
Pre-Post
% Reduction
Dfinfh
Depth
ft
20.00
Depth
ft
20.00
Depth
ft
= (1 - Post
Area
ft2
141.14
Area71
ft2
141.14
Ared"
ft2
141.14
/Pre) MOO
Area71
ft2
141.14
Volume
3
79.93
Volume
3
79.93
Volume
3
79.93
Mean
Volume
3
79.93
Mean
Mean
220.10
Mean
92.37
127.73
58
Concentration
Var
11550.00
Concentration
Var
3245.87
Concentration
Var
14795.87
(mg/Kg)
Lower
82.32
(mg/Kg)
Lower
19.33
(mg/Kg)
Lower
25.56
Lower
22
Upper
357.88
Upper
165.40
Upper
283.67
Upper
94
Mean
27.97
Mean
11.74
Mean
16.23
Mass
Var
186.56
Mass
Var
52.43
Mass
Var
238.99
(Kg)
Lower
10.46
(Kg)
Lower
2.46
(Kg)
3.25
Upper
45.48
Upper
21.02
Upper
36.05
20.00
m
ft
20.00
-------
Table A-3. Summary Statistics of TCE Concentrations in Soil from Upper Sand Unit without Highest TCE Datum
Concentration (mg/Kg)
Survey Unit N Mean Stdev Min 1stQu. Median 3rd Qu. Max
Pre-Demo USD
Post Combined USD
81 175.85 680.69 0.18 0.36 44 187 6,067
103 62.77 172.67 0.18 0.18 1 17 1,023
Table A-4. Summary of Kriged TCE Soil Data from both Pre- and Post-demonstration soil results in Upper Sand Unit without Highest
TCE Datum
Pre-Demo
USU
PostDemo
USU
Pre - Post
USU
Depth
ft
20.00
Area
ft2
141.14
Volume
3
79.93
Mean
220.10
Concentration
Var
11550.00
(mg/Kg)
Lower
82.32
Upper
357.88
Mass
Mean Var
27.97 186.56
(Kg)
Lower
10.46
Upper
45.48
(Combined) m
Depth
ft
20.00
Depth
ft
20.00
% Reduction = (1 -
USU
Depth
20.00
Area
ft2
141.14
m
Area
ft2
141.14
Post / PTe)
Area
ft2
141.14
Volume
3
79.93
Volume
3
79.93
MOO
Volume
3
79.93
Mean
59.22
Mean
160.88
Mean
73
Concentration
Var
331.57
Concentration
Var
11881.57
(mg/Kg)
Lower
35.88
(mg/Kg)
Lower
69.32
Lower
55
Upper
82.57
Upper
300.62
Upper
xll 4*"»
88 ^u'40
Mass
Mean Var
7.53 5.36
Mass
Mean Var
191.92
(Kg)
Lower
4.56
(Kg)
Lower
8.81
Upper
10.49
Upper
38.21
m
-------
Table A-5. Summary Statistics of TCE Concentrations in Groundwater from Upper Sand Unit
Pre-Demo
All
Low
High
Post-Demo
All
Low
High
Pre - Post
All
Low
High
One Sample
All
Low
High
Reducj^on
All
Low
High
LCL N
UCL
N
21
13
8
N
21
13
8
N
21
13
8
t-Test for "Pre -
21
13
8
21
13
8
Mean
1,424
33
3,685
Mean
620
14
1,605
Mean
804
19
2,079
Post"
T
2.72
1.36
3.95
Mean
25%
1%
63%
80% Lower confidence limit (fi
80% Upper confidence limit (fi
Concentration pmoles/L
Stderr
Stderr
Stderr
446
12
560
280
5
604
295
14
527
LCL
833
17
2,893
LCL
249
7
751
LCL
413
0
1,334
UCL
2,015
49
4,477
UCL
992
21
2,460
UCL
1,195
37
2,825
p-value
1.31%
19.86%
0.55%
Stderr
27%
42%
12%
LCL
-11%
-56%
46%
UCL
60%
58%
80%
-------
Table A-6. Summary Statistics of EZVI Demonstration for TCE Concentrations in Soil (nig/kg)
Survey
Pre-demonstration
Pre-demonstration
Pre-demonstration
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Post-Demonstration
Post-Demonstration
Post-Demonstration
Post Combined
Post Combined
Post Combined
Unit
usu
MFGU
LSU
USU
MFGU
LSU
USU
MFGU
LSU
USU
MFGU
LSU
N
81
44
34
49
9
0
55
28
30
104
37
30
Mean
175.8514
123.793
3.792941
95.98082
186.5556
NA
113.8985
77.18143
2.204667
105.4565
103.7859
2.204667
Stdev
680.6889
122.995
9.388218
229.4949
108.3295
NA
608.9154
89.70052
6.424438
467.9888
104.4303
6.424438
Concentration (mg/Kg)
Min 1stQu. Median 3rd Qu.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.18
.18
.18
.18
1
NA
.18
.18
.18
.18
.18
.18
0
0
0
.36
1
.18
.18
133
0
0
0
0
NA
.18
5
.18
.18
9
.18
44
55.5
0.18
1
247
NA
1
40
0.18
1
58
0.18
187
248
1
35
252
NA
12
131.5
0.18
17.5
204
0.18
Max
6067
340
33
1023
296
NA
4502
293
27
4502
296
27
USU: Upper Sand Unit
MFGU: Middle Fine-Grained Unit
LSU: Lower Sand Unit
-------
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
This section describes the modification made to the EPA standard methods to address the
lithologic heterogeneities and extreme variability of the contaminant distribution expected in the
DNAPL source region at Launch Complex 34. Horizontal variability was addressed by collecting
a statistically determined number of soil cores in the EZVI Plot. The vertical variability at each
soil coring location was addressed with this modified sampling and extraction procedure, which
involved extraction of much larger quantities of soil in each extracted sample, as well as allowed
collection and extraction of samples in the field per event. This extraction allowed the extraction
and analysis of the entire vertical column of soil at a given coring location.
A.2.1 Soil Sample Collection (Modified ASTM D4547-91) (1997a)
The soil samples collected before and after the demonstration were sampled using a stainless steel
sleeve driven into the subsurface by a Vibra-push LD-2 rig. After the sleeve had been driven the
required distance, it was brought to the surface and the soil sample was examined and
characterized for lithology. One quarter of the sample was sliced from the core and placed into a
pre-weighed 500-mL polyethylene container containing methanol. At locations where a field
duplicate sample was collected, a second one-quarter sample was split from the core and placed
into another pre-weighed 500-mL polyethylene container containing methanol. The remaining
portion of the core was placed into a 55-gallon drum and disposed of as waste. The samples were
labeled with the date, time, and sample identification code, and stored on ice at 4°C until they
were brought inside to the on-site laboratory for the extraction procedure.
After receiving the samples from the drilling activities, personnel staffing the field laboratory
performed the methanol extraction procedure as outlined in Section A.2.2 of this appendix. The
amount of methanol used to perform the extraction technique was 250 mL. The extraction
procedure was performed on all of the primary samples collected during drilling activities and on
5% of the field duplicate samples collected for quality assurance. Samples were stored at 4°C
until extraction procedures were performed. After the extraction procedure was finished, the soil
samples were dried in an oven at 105°C and the dry weight of each sample was determined. The
samples were then disposed of as waste. The remaining three-quarter section of each core
previously stored in a separate 500-mL polyethylene bottle were archived until the off-site
laboratory had completed the analysis of the methanol extract. The samples were then disposed
of in an appropriate manner.
A.2.2 Soil Extraction Procedure (Modified EPA SW846-Method 5035)
After the soil samples were collected from the drilling operations, samples were placed in pre-
labeled and pre-weighed 500-mL polyethylene containers with methanol and then stored in a
refrigerator at 4°C until the extraction procedure was performed. Extraction procedures were
performed on all of the "A" samples from the outdoor and indoor soil sampling. Extraction
procedures also were performed on 5% of the duplicate (or "B") samples to provide adequate
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) on the extraction technique.
Extreme care was taken to minimize the disturbance of the soil sample so that loss of volatile
components was minimal. Nitrile gloves were worn by field personnel whenever handling sample
cores or pre-weighed sample containers. A modification of EPA SW846-Method 5035 was used to
procure the cored samples in the field. Method 5035 lists different procedures for processing
samples that are expected to contain low concentrations (0.5 to 200 ng/kg) or high concentrations
-------
(>200 |Jg/kg) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Procedures for high levels of VOCs were
used in the field because those procedures facilitated the processing of large-volume sample cores
collected during soil sampling activities.
Two sample collection options and corresponding sample purging procedures are described in
Method 5035; however, the procedure chosen for this study was based on collecting
approximately 150 to 200 g of wet soil sample in a pre-weighed bottle that contains 250 mL of
methanol. A modification of this method was used in the study, as described by the following
procedure:
a The 150 to 200 g wet soil sample was collected and placed in a pre-weighed 500 mL
polypropylene bottle filled with 250 mL of methanol. After capping, the bottle was
re weighed to determine the total weight of the soil and the bottle with methanol. The
bottle was marked with the location and the depth at which the sample was collected.
a After the containers were filled with methanol and the soil sample they were placed
on an orbital shaker table and agitated for approximately 30 min.
a Containers were removed from the shaker table and reweighed to ensure that no
methanol was lost during the agitation period. The containers were then placed
upright and suspended soil matter was allowed to settle for approximately 15 min.
a The 500 mL containers were then placed in a floor-mounted centrifuge. The
centrifuge speed was set at 3,000 rpm and the samples were centrifuged for 10 min.
a Methanol extract was then decanted into disposable 20-mL glass volatile organic
analysis (VOA) vials using 10-mL disposable pipettes. The 20-mL glass VOA vials
containing the extract then were capped, labeled, and stored in a refrigerator at 4°C
until they were shipped on ice to the analytical laboratory.
a Methanol samples in VOA vials were placed in ice chests and maintained at
approximately 4°C with ice. Samples were then shipped with properly completed
chain-of-custody forms and custody seals to the subcontracted off-site laboratory.
a The dry weight of each of the soil samples was determined gravimetrically after
decanting the remaining solvent and drying the soil in an oven at 105°C. Final
concentrations of VOCs were calculated per the dry weight of soil.
Three potential concerns existed with the modified solvent extraction method. The first concern
was that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) had not formally
evaluated the use of methanol as a preservative for VOCs. However, methanol extraction often is
used in site characterization studies including three technology demonstrations at Launch
Complex 34 under U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, so
the uncertainty in using this approach was reasonable. The second concern was that the
extraction procedure itself would introduce a significant dilution factor that could raise the
method quantitation limit beyond that of a direct purge-and-trap procedure. The third concern
was that excess methanol used in the extractions would likely fail the ignitability characteristic,
thereby making the unused sample volume a hazardous waste. During characterization activities,
the used methanol extract was disposed of as hazardous waste into a 55-gallon drum. This
methanol extraction method was tested during preliminary site characterization activities at this
site (see Appendix G, Table G-l) and, after a few refinements, was found to perform acceptably
-------
in terms of matrix spike recoveries. Spiked TCE recoveries in replicate samples ranged from 72
to 86%.
The analytical portion of Method 5035 describes a closed-system purge-and-trap process for use
on solid media such as soils, sediments, and solid waste. The purge-and-trap system consists of a
unit that automatically adds water, surrogates, and internals standards to a vial containing the
sample. DHL Analytical performed the analysis of the solvent extraction samples by Gas
chromatogram/mass spectrum (GC/MS). Soil samples were analyzed for organic constituents
according to the parameters summarized in Table A-7. Laboratory instruments were calibrated
for VOCs listed under U.S. EPA Method 601 and 602. Samples were analyzed as soon as was
practical and within the designated holding time from collection (14 days). No samples were
analyzed outside of the designated 14-day holding time.
Table A-7. Soil Sampling and Analytical Parameters
Analytes
VOCs(a)
Extraction Method
SW846-5035
Analytical Method
SW846-8260
Sample Holding
Time
14 days
Matrix
Methanol
(a) EPA 601/602 list.
-------
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
Table A-8. Sample Collection Procedures
Measurements
Task/Sample
Collection Method
Equipment Used
Primary Objectives
CVOCs
CVOCs
DHG(b)
Soil sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTMD4547-98 (1997a)
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a)ASTMD4448-01 (1997b)
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a)ASTMD4448-01 (1997b)
Butyrate or acetate sleeves
500-mL plastic bottle
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Secondary Objectives
Field parameters'^1
Inorganics-cations
Inorganics-anions
TOC, BOD, IDS,
dissolved silica
Alkalinity
Hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater level
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a)ASTMD4448-01 (1997b)
Hydraulic conductivity/
ASTMD4044-96(1997c)
Water levels
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Winsitu® data logger
Laptop computer
Water level indicator
(a) Modifications to ASTM.
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997a. Standard Practice for Waste and Soils for Volatile Organics.
Designation: D 4547-98.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997b. Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells.
Designation: D 4448-01.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997c. Standard Test Method (Field Procedure) for Instantaneous
Change inHead (Slug) Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers. Designation: D 4044-96.
(b) DHG: methane, ethene, and ethane (see Appendix D).
(c) Field parameters include pH, ORP, temperature, DO, and conductivity. A flow-through cell will be
attached to the peristaltic pump when measuring field parameters.
-------
Table A-9. Sample Handling and Analytical Procedures
Measurements
Matrix
Amount
Collected
Analytical
Method
Maximum
Holding
Time(a)
Sample
Preservation'1"'
Sample
Container
Sample
Type
Primary Objectives
CVOCs
CVOCs
DHG(d)
Dehalococcoidis Ethenogenei ,
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
250 g
40-mL x 3
40mLx3
2xlL
Mod. EPA 8260(c)
EPA 8260
RS Kerr Method
GeneTrac™^
14 days
14 days
7 days
30 days
4°C
4°C, pH < 2 HC1
4°C
4°C
Plastic
Glass
Glass
Plastic
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Secondary Objectives
Hydraulic conductivity
Inorganics-cations'-1'
Inorganics-anionsw
Dissolved silica
TOC
TOC
IDS
BOD
DHGW
Alkalinity
Water levels
Aquifer
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Aquifer
NA
100 mL
50 mL
250 mL
20 g
500 mL
500 mL
l,OOOmL
40mLx3
200 mL
NA
ASTMD4044-96 (1997d)
EPA 200.8
EPA 300.0
SW6010
Based on SW9060
EPA 415.1
EPA 160.1
EPA 405.1
RS Kerr Method
EPA 3 10.1
Water level from the top
of well casing
NA
28 days
28 days
28 days
28 days
7 days
7 days
48 hours
7 days
14 days
NA
NA
4°C
4°C
None
None
4°C, pH < 2 H2SO4
4°C
4°C
4°C
4°C
NA
NA
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Glass
Plastic
NA
NA
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
NA
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Samples will be analyzed as soon as possible after the samples arrive in an off-site laboratory. The times listed are the maximum
holding times that samples will be held before analysis and still be considered valid. All data obtained beyond the maximum
holding times will be flagged.
Samples will be preserved immediately upon sample collection, if required.
Samples will be extracted using methanol on site. For the detailed extraction procedure see Appendix B.
Dissolved hydrocarbon gases are analyzed by R.S. Kerr Method (see Appendix D).
GeneTrac™ is a proprietary method (see Appendix D).
Cations include Ca, Mg, total and dissolved Fe, Mn, K, and Na. Anions include Br, Cl, SO4, PO4, NO3/NO2 and Alkalinity.
HC1 = Hydrochloric acid, H2SO4 = Sulfuric acid.
NA = Not applicable.
-------
Appendix B
Hydrogeologic Measurements
B.1 Performance Monitoring Slug Tests
B.2 Well Completion Diagrams
B.3 Soil Coring Logsheets
-------
B.I Performance Monitoring Slug Tests
Slug tests were performed on well PA-23 within the EZVI plot before and after the demonstra-
tions to assess any effects on aquifer quality caused by the remediation technologies. Pre-
demonstration tests were conducted in the wells in March 2002. Post-demonstration tests were
completed in December 2002. As the remediation system was applied to just the upper sand unit,
slug tests were only performed in the shallow performance monitoring wells in the center of each
plot. PA-23 is 24 ft deep with a 5 ft long screen. The test consisted of placing a pressure trans-
ducer and 1.5-inch-diameter by 5-ft-long solid PVC slug within the well. After the water level
reached equilibrium, the slug was quickly removed. Removal of the slug created approximately
1.5 ft of change in water level within the well. Water level recovery was then monitored for at
least 10 minutes using a TROLL pressure transducer/data logger. The data was then downloaded
to a notebook computer. Three replicate tests were conducted in each well to ensure repeatable
results.
The recovery rates of the water levels were analyzed with the Bouwer (1989) and Bouwer and
Rice (1976) methods for slug tests in unconfmed aquifers with partially penetrating wells.
Graphs were made showing the changes in water level versus time and curve fitted on a semi-
logarithmic graph. The slope of the fitted line then was used in conjunction with the well para-
meters to provide a value of the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer materials surrounding the
well.
Slug test response curves are presented in this appendix. Water levels returned to equilibrium
within 5 minutes for all the tests. Response curves were excellent with coefficients of
determination of 0.95 or greater. Table 1 summarizes the results of the slug tests. The results
show a very good agreement between the replicate tests. Comparison of the pre-demonstration
and post-demonstration slug test results shows mostly negligible changes due to inherent
variations in the testing methods. A change of 10 times or greater would indicate a substantial
change in permeability at the site. Pre-demonstration hydraulic conductivity averaged 43 ft/day
(0.015 cm/sec) in well PA-23. This value is comparable to the typical hydraulic conductivity
range in the USU at LC34, which is usually higher than in the underlying hydrostratigraphic
units. Post-demonstration hydraulic conductivity averaged 38.2 ft/day (0.013 cm/sec) in PA-23.
Table 1. Slug Test Results
Well
PA-23
(EZVI Plot)
Test
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
Response (r2)
Pre-Demonstration
A
B
C
47.4
40.9
39.6
0.017
0.014
0.014
Excellent (0.988)
Excellent (0.984)
Excellent (0.957)
Post-Demonstration
A
B
C
40.5
36.1
37.9
0.014
0.013
0.013
Excellent (0.999)
Excellent (0.988)
Excellent (0.992)
Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice, 1976, A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfmed aquifers
with completely or partially penetrating wells, Water Resources Research, v. 12, n.3, pp. 423-428.
Bouwer, H., 1989, The Bouwer and Rice slug test- an update, Ground Water, v. 27, n.3, pp. 304-309.
-------
Well PA-23: Pre Demo Replicate A
10
0.1 —
0.01 —
1E-3
0.0
ln(Y) =-5.38361 *X + 1.01034
Number of data points used = 44
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.988
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
Well PA-23: Post Demo Replicate A
0.01 —
1E-3
|n(Y) = -4.44801 *X + 0.465421
Number of data points used = 44
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.9995
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
-------
Well PA-23: Pre Demo Replicate B
0.01 —
1E-3
ln(Y) = -4.6464 *X + 0.457565
Number of data points used = 51
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.984
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
10
1 —
0.1 —
0.01 —
1E-3
•i
•t
«\
Well PA-23: Post Demo Replicate B
ln(Y) = -3.9378 *X +0.563338
Number of data points used = 51
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.988
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
-------
10
1 —
0.1 —
0.01 —
1E-3
0.0
Well PA-23: Pre Demo Replicate C
t
ln(Y) = -2.96972 *X +0.618945
Number of data points used = 48
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.9763
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
10
1 — 1
0.1 —
0.01 —
Well PA-23: Post Demo Replicate C
1E-3
log(Y) = -4.14717 *X +0.579781
Number of data points used = 48
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.992
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
-------
B.2 Well Completion Diagrams
Baitene
Putting Technology To Work
CAPE CANAVERAL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PA-23
Project #:
G482010-EPA41
Site:
CCAS LC34
Well #:
EZVI
PA-23
Northing (NAD 83):
1521268.57
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
LD-2 Direct Push
Date:
Mar 7, 2002
Easting (NAD 83):
640164.96
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller: Precision Sampling
John Malo
Geologist:
MG
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
11.14
Depth Below Ground Surface
Ground Surface
TOC Elevation: 11.14ftamsl
10.0 ft. Top of AnnularSeal
16.0ft. Top of Sandpack ,
24.0 ft. Bottom of Screen
24.2 ft. Bottom of Casing
24 5 ft. Bottom of Boring
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: EC-5
Diameter: 3.5"
Amount: 24'
* Note: Top 4ft are PVC casing'
Grout:
Type: #1
Total Amount: 7 gallons
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size: 0.010
WOT TO SCALE
WCD-PA23.CDR
-------
Baneiie
. Putting Technology To Work
CAPE CANAVERAL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PA-24S
Project #:
G482010-EPA41
Site:
CCAS LC34
Well #:
EZVI
PA-24S
Northing (NAD 83):
1521263.09
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
LD-2 Direct Push
Date:
Mar 18, 2002
Easting (NAD 83):
640174.46
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller: Precision Sampling
John Malo
Geologist:
MG
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
10.97
Depth Below Ground Surface
Ground Surface
TOC Elevation: 10.97 (tarns!
10.0 ft. Top of Annular Seal
16.0ft. Top of Sandpack,
19.0ft. Top of Screen
24.0 ft. Bottom of Screen
24.2 ft. Bottom of Casing
24.5 ft. Bottom of Boring
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: EC-5
Diameter: 3.5"
Amount: 24'
Grout:
Type: #1
Total Amount: 7 gallons
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size: 0.010
WOT TO SCALE
WCD-PA24-S.CDR
-------
Baneiie
. Putting Technology To Work
CAPE CANAVERAL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PA-241
Project #:
G482010-EPA31
Site:
CCAS LC34
Well #:
EZVI
PA-24I
Northing (NAD 83):
1521261.37
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
LD-2 Direct Push
Date:
Mar 18, 2002
Easting (NAD 83):
640173.44
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller: Precision Sampling
John Malo
Geologist:
MG
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
10.95
Depth Below Ground Surface
Ground Surface
TOC Elevation 10.95 ft amsl
10.0 ft. Top of Annular Seal
26.0 ft. Top of Sandpack „
29.0ft. Top of Screen
34.0 ft. Bottom of Screen
34.2ft. Bottom of Casing
34.5 ft. Bottom of Boring
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: EC-5
Diameter: 3.5"
Amount: 34'
Grout:
Type: #1
Total Amount: 7 gal - 9'
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size: 0.010
WOT TO SCALE
WCD-PA24-I.CDR
-------
Baneiie
. Putting Technology To Work
CAPE CANAVERAL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PA-24D
Project #:
G482010-EPA31
Site:
CCAS LC34
Well*: EZVI
PA-24D
Northing (NAD 83):
1521259.65
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
LD-2 Direct Push
Date:
Mar 15, 2002
Easting (NAD 83):
640172.42
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller: Precision Sampling
John Malo
Geologist:
MG
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
10.82
Depth Below Ground Surface
Ground Surface
TOC Elevation. 10.82 ft amsl
10.0 ft. Top of Annular Seal
35.0 ft. Top of Sandpack ,
38.0ft. Top of Screen
43.0 ft. Bottom of Screen
43.2 ft. Bottom of Casing
43.5 ft. Bottom of Boring
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: EC-5
Diameter: 3.5"
Amount: 43'
Grout:
Type: #1
Total Amount: 7 gal - 9'
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size: 0.010
WOT TO SCALE
WCD-PA24-D.CDR
-------
Baneiie
. Putting Technology To Work
CAPE CANAVERAL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PA-25S
Project #:
G482010-EPA31
Site:
CCAS LC34
Well*: EZVI
PA-25S
Northing (NAD 83):
640156.69
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
LD-2 Direct Push
Date:
Mar 11, 2002
Easting (NAD 83):
1521276.77
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller: Precision Sampling
John Malo
Geologist:
MG
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
11.01
Depth Below Ground Surface
Ground Surface
TOC Elevation: 11.01 Hams
1.0 ft. Top of Grout
10.0 ft. Top of Annular Seal
16.0ft. Top of Sandpack J
19.0ft. Top of Screen
24.0 ft. Bottom of Screen
24.2 ft. Bottom of Casing
24.5 ft. Bottom of Boring
I f
s
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: EC-5
Diameter: 3.5"
Amount: 24'
Grout:
Type: #1
Total Amount: 7 gal
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size: 0.010
WOT TO SCALE
WCD-PA25-S.CDR
-------
Baneiie
. Putting Technology To Work
CAPE CANAVERAL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PA-251
Project #:
G482010-EPA31
Site:
CCAS LC34
Well*: EZVI
PA-251
Northing (NAD 83):
1521274.6
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
LD-2 Direct Push
Date:
Mar 7, 2002
Easting (NAD 83):
640155.68
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller: Precision Sampling
John Malo
Geologist:
MG
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
10.94
Depth Below Ground Surface
Ground Surface
TOC Elevation: 10.94 ft arnsl
10.0 ft. Top of Annular Seal
26.0 ft. Top of Sandpack „
29.0ft. Top of Screen
34.0 ft. Bottom of Screen
34.2 ft. Bottom of Casing
34.5 ft. Bottom of Boring
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: EC-5
Diameter: 3.5"
Amount: 34'
Grout:
Type: #1
Total Amount: 7 gal - 9'
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size: 0.010
WOT TO SCALE
WCD-PA25-I.CDR
-------
Baneiie
. Putting Technology To Work
CAPE CANAVERAL
WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
PA-25D
Project #:
G482010-EPA31
Site:
CCAS LC34
Well*: EZVI
PA-25D
Northing (NAD 83):
1521272.76
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Rig Type and Drilling Method:
LD-2 Direct Push
Date:
Mar 8, 2002
Easting (NAD 83):
640154.65
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller: Precision Sampling
John Malo
Geologist:
MG
Surface Elevation (NAVD 88):
10.92
Depth Below Ground Surface
Ground Surface
TOC Elevation: 10.92 ft amsl
10.0 ft. Top of Annular Seal
35.0 ft. Top of Sandpack ,
38.0ft. Top of Screen
43.0 ft. Bottom of Screen
43.2 ft. Bottom of Casing
43.5 ft. Bottom of Boring
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: EC-5
Diameter: 3.5"
Amount: 43'
Grout:
Type: #1
Total Amount: 7 gal - 9'
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size: 0.010
WOT TO SCALE
WCD-PA25-D.CDR
-------
B.3 Soil Coring Logsheets
LU34 uormq Loasneei bonna ID LZVI-SBI .^fe.
Date 1/15/02 Location EZVI Plot **
Batteiie
Putting Technology To Work
Borinq Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casing Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand
Fine-med. tan sand and shell fragments
Fine-med. tan sand and shells to fine-med. tan-gray sand
Fine-med. tan-gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand and silt
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
.c
S.
0)
a
0-5
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
from
46 ft
...
... to — ft
Portland 15 qal.
from 0 to Depth ft
n Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
-------
LC34 Corinq Loq sheet Borinq ID EZVI-SB1 .w
^iS
Date 1/16/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand with some clay
Silty fine gray sand
Silty-clayey fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand to fine-med. sand and shells
Silty fine sand to clayey fine gray sand
Silty-clayey fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand with 20% shells
Coarse shell material in silt to fine gray sand to silty clayey fine sand
Terminate boring at 46' to avoid penetrating confining layer
.c
fc
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LC34 Corinq Loq sheet Borina ID EZVI-SB2 .^fe.
Date 1/15/02 Location EZVI Plot **
Borinq Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand and shell material
Fine tan sand
Fine coarse tan-orange-brown sand and shell material
Fine coarse tan-orange-brown sand and shell material
Fine coarse tan-orange-brown sand and shell material
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand with trace silt
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
.c
S.
-------
-Rinseate, Pup = EZVI-SB2-24DUP
LU34 uormq l_oq sheet Borina ID EZVI-SB2 .*jig
^SifS
Date 1/16/02 Location EZVI Plot
IBaiteiie
. Putting Technology To Work
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand to coarse shells
Coarse shells to silty-clayer fine gray sand
Silty-clayey fine sand (plug at 38-38.1')
Silty-clayey fine gray sand
Silty soupy fine gray sand
Silty to fine sand to coarse shells with silt and clay
Terminate boring at 46' to avoid penetrating confining layer
f
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
0)
a.
E
re
V)
EZVI-
SB2-32
EZVI-
SB2-34
EZVI-
SB2-36
EZVI-
SB2-38
EZVI-
SB2-40
EZVI-
SB2-42
EZVI-
SB2-44
EZVI-
SB2-46
V)
o
V)
D
SM
SM
SM-
GP
GP-
SM
SC-
SM
SM-
SC
SM
SM-
GC
o
0)
K
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
a
a.
6.2
1.2
0.4
0.8
0
0
0
0
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB3 .^fe.
Date 1/17/02 Location EZVI Plot **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger tan fine-med. sand
Tan to orange-brown fine sand
Tan to orange-brown fine sand
Tan to orange-brown fine sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Med-coarse gray sand and shell material
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine gray sand with trace silt
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB3 .&*.
^5iiS
Date 1/16/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand to coarse shells
Silty fine gray sand, shells, trace clay
Silty-clayey fine gray sand with shells
Silty-clayey fine gray sand with shells
Silty clayey fine sand and shells
Silty clayey fine sand
Terminate boring at 46' to avoid penetrating confining layer
+-
Q.
0)
Q
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB4 .^fe.
Date 1/17/02 Location EZVI Plot **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Tan to gray fine sand
Tan to orange fine-med. sand
Tan to orange fine-med. sand (TOC)
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Gray fine sand
Gray fine sand
Gray fine sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB4 .w.
^5ilS
Date 1/17/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand (TOC)
Silty fine gray sand (TOC)
Silty fine gray sand
Coarse shells to fine gray sand
Silty-clayey fine gray sand (TOC)
Coarse shells with gray fine sand (TOC)
Coarse shells with minor fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand to silty clayey fine gray sand
Terminate boring at 46' to avoid penetrating confining layer
+-
Q.
0)
Q
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LU34 uormq Loasneei bonna ID hzvi-SBb .^fe.
Date 1/31/02 Location EZVI Plot **
Batteiie
Putting Technology To Work
Borinq Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casing Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Light brown, light gray, orange-brown med.-fine sand
Orange brown med.-fine sand, trace shells
Orange-brown med-fine sand
Orange-brown med sand with shells to gray med-fine sand w/shells
Gray fine sand with trace shells
Gray fine sand with trace shells
Gray med-fine sand
Gray med-fine sand
Gray fine sand
Gray fine sand
Gray silty fine sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine sand
Gray silty fine sand
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
.c
S.
0)
a
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
30-32
from
42 ft
...
... to — ft
Portland
from 0 to Depth ft
n Flush
Direct Push
Precision
2000
>
2000
>
2000
>
2000
>
2000
>
2000
1800
Logged by: M. Gaberell, L. Gumming
Completion Date: 1/31/02
Construction Notes: 4' Macro-core
acetate sleeves, Pup = EZVI-SB5-
38DUP
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borinq ID EZVI-SB5 .&*
^iS
Date 1/31/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Gray silty fine sand to silty med sand with shells
Gray silty fine sand to silty med sand with shells
Silty med sand with medium to coarse shells
Clayey silty sand with shells
Clayey silty sand with shells
End at 42'
.c
fc
0)
a
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB6 .^fe.
Date 2/1/02 Location EZVI Plot **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Brown to yellow to gray fine sand
Brown fine-med. sand
Gray fine-med sand
Fine-med gray sand
Fine-med gray sand
Fine-med gray sand
Fine-med gray sand
Fine-med gray sand
Gray fine sand, trace shells
Gray fine sand, trace shells, med. sand at bottom
Gray silty fine to medium sand, little shells
Gray silty fine to medium sand, trace shells
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB6
Date 2/2/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Gray silty fine to medium sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine to medium sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine to medium sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine to medium sand with shells
Gray silty fine to medium sand and shells
Gray silty fine to medium sand and shells to silty sand and clay
End of core
+*
a.
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
llBaiteiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB7 .^fe.
Date 2/7/02 Location EZVI Plot **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Whte to It brown fine to med sand
Lt brown fine sand to It brown med sand and shell frags
White to It brown f-m sand to It brown med sand and shell frags
Brownish gray fine sand to lit brown sand and shells to fine-med
sand
Gray fined sand to med sand and shell frags (strong odor)
Gray fine to med sand (strong odor)
Gray fine to med sand (strong odor)
Gray fine sand, trace shells, silt
Gray fine sand, trace shells, silt
Gray fine sand, trace shells
Gray fine sand, trace shells
Gray fine sand, trace shells
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB7
Date 2/7/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Gray silty fine sand, trace shells, more silty
Gray silty fine sand, shells
Gray silty fine sand, some shells
Gray silty fine sand, some shells
Gray silty fine sand and shells to clayey sand
Gray silty sand and shells to silty sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine sand and med gravel shells
End of core
+*
a.
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
40-44
40-46
llBaiteiie
. . . Putting Technology To Work
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-WP1 .^fe.n
^M?D
Date 1/18/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Direct push
Cl sample
Direct push
Cl sample
Direct push
Cl sample
Direct push
Cl sample silty, low flow
Direct push
Cl sample, silty, low flow
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-WP2 .^fe.n
^M?D
Date 1/19/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Direct push
Cl sample
Direct push
Cl sample
Direct push
Cl sample
Direct push
Cl sample silty, low flow
Direct push
Cl sample, silty, low flow
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB203 .*%n
^M?D
Date 10/9/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Dept
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pack
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pack
Casinq Material — Grout Mate
Screen Type — Grout Depl
Screen Slot — Surface Cc
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand, no sample
Brown to medium sand; orange-brown medium sand
No recovery
Brown medium sand with trace shells; dark brown med sand; 1"
EZVI band at 12' in medium sand
Fine-med orange brown sand
1" EZVI band at 14' in medium fine sand (evidence of smearing)
gray medium sand with trace shells; dark gray coarse sand with
shells; fine gray sand at 16'
Orange-brown medium-coarse sand with trace shells, gray med.
sand, dark gray sand with shells @17.5', evidence of EZVI smearing
at 17'
Dark gray medium-fine sand with shells, medium gray sand, fine
gray sand (no evidence of EZVI)
Brown medium sand with shells, silty fine gray sand (no evidence of
EZVI)
Very fine gray sand (no evidence of EZVI)
Silty gray fine sand (no evidence of EZVI)
Silty gray fine sand (no evidence of EZVI)
Silty gray fine sand (no evidence of EZVI)
h
Depth
jrial
th
>mpletior
thod
t
2000
>
2000
>
2000
7
3
151
Logged by: M. Gaberell
Completion Date: 10/9/02
Construction Notes: EZVI-SB203-18-
DUP, equipment rinseate at 07:30
-------
LC34 Corinq Loq sheet Borinq ID EZVI-SB203 .w
^iS
Date 10/9/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Silty gray fine sand (no evidence of EZVI)
.c
fc
0)
a
30-
32
2000
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB204 .*%n
^M?D
Date 10/9/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Dept
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pack
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pack
Casinq Material — Grout Mate
Screen Type — Grout Depl
Screen Slot — Surface Cc
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand, no sample
Brown medium sand; white medium sand; orange-brown medium
sand with trace shells (no EZVI)
No recovery
Orange-brown medium sand with trace shells, gray, gray fine-med
sand w/ trace shells (no EZVI)
Orange brown med sand w/trace shells (no EZVI)
Dark gray med sand with trace shells to fine gray sand to med sand
(dark gray) (no EZVI)
Brown medium sand, gray fine sand, brown med sand with trace
shells, gray fine-med sand (no EZVI)
Fine gray sand, med-coarse sand with shells @19', very fine sand
(no EZVI)
Orange medium sand with trace shells, gray fine sand (no EZVI)
Gray fine sand, EZVI band 4" long in med sand @~23', gray silty
fine sand (no EZVI)
Gray fine sand (no EZVI)
Gray silty fine sand (no EZVI)
Gray silty fine sand (no EZVI)
h
Depth
jrial
th
>mpletior
thod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB204 .w.
^5ilS
Date 10/9/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Silty gray fine sand (no evidence of EZVI)
+-
a.
0)
a
30-
32
0)
a.
E
re
V)
EZVI-
SB204-32
IBaiteiie
. Putting Technology To Work
V)
o
V)
D
SM
o
0)
K
100
a
a.
19
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB207 .*%n
^M?D
Date 10/8/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Dept
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pack
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pack
Casinq Material — Grout Mate
Screen Type — Grout Depl
Screen Slot — Surface Cc
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand, no sample
Med gray sand; dark brown med sand to orange-brown medium
sand with trace shells
No recovery
Orange-brown medium sand, dark brown medium sand (2" thick), to
gray fine sand *soil may have slid down sleeve
Brown coarse sand w/trace shells
Gray fine sand to medium gray sand, black EZVI 2" band @~15' in
medium gray sand
Brown medium coarse sand with trace shells to gray fine sand (no
EZVI)
Fine gray sand to med sand with trace shells, EZVI black 2" band
@18' in med fine sand
Orange-brown coarse sand with trace shells (~3" thick) at 20 ft; gray
medium sand to gray fine sand with trace shells; EZVI black band
(2"thick) @21 ft in medium sand
Gray med-coarse sand with trace shells to gray sand, black EZVI
band (3" thick) at 23.5 ft in med sand
Gray fine sand, trace silt (no EZVI)
Gray silty fine sand (no EZVI)
Gray silty fine sand (no EZVI)
h
Depth
jrial
th
>mpletior
thod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB207 .w.
^5ilS
Date 10/8/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Silty gray fine sand (no evidence of EZVI)
+-
a.
0)
a
30-
32
0)
a.
E
re
V)
EZVI-
SB207-32
IBaiteiie
. Putting Technology To Work
V)
o
V)
D
SM
o
0)
K
100
a
a.
49.5
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB208 .*%n
^M?D
Date 10/8/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Dept
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pack
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pack
Casinq Material — Grout Mate
Screen Type — Grout Depl
Screen Slot — Surface Cc
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand, no sample
Med light brown sand; orange brown med sand (1" thick), tan
medium sand
Brown medium sand to brown medium sand with trace shells
Brown medium sand with trace shells to gray medium sand (1.5"
black EZVI band at 12' in gray med sand)
Brown med-fine sand with trace shells, gray fine sand, black EZVI
band 1/2" thick at 14'
Gray fine sand, black EZVI band @15.5" in medium-fine gray sand
Tan medium sand with trace shells, gray medium sand to gray
medium sand with trace shells, black EZVI band 1" thick at 17'
Fine gray sand, EZVI black 1" band @18' in med sand
No recovery
Gray med-fine sand (no EZVI)
No recovery
Gray silty fine sand with trace shells (no EZVI)
No recovery
h
Depth
jrial
th
>mpletior
thod
t
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB209 .*%n
^M?D
Date 10/8/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Dept
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pack
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pack
Casinq Material — Grout Mate
Screen Type — Grout Depl
Screen Slot — Surface Cc
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand, no sample
Lt to drk brown med sand, orange brown medium sand with trace
shells
No recovery
Orange-brown medium-coarse sand with trace shells to gray
medium-fine sand (2" black EZVI band at 12')
Brown med-fine sand with trace shells, gray med-fine sand, some
evidence of EZVI
Gray fine sand, 2" black EZVI band @15.5" in med-coarse sand
Brown medium sand with trace shells, gray fine sility sand, black
EZVI band at 17.5-18' in med-coarse sand'
Gray silty fine gray sand, med sand with trace shells (no EZVI)
Brown med sand with trace shells, gray fine silty sand, black EZVI
band (1") at 21 ft in med coarse gray sand
Gray silty fine sand, EZVI black band (2") at 23" in med fine gray
sand with trace shells
Silty fine gray sand (no evidence of EZVI)
Silty fine gray sand, trace shells at 27' (no evidence of EZVI)
Silty fine gray sand (no evidence of EZVI)
h
Depth
jrial
th
>mpletior
thod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB209 .w.
^5ilS
Date 10/8/02 Location EZVI Plot
Lithologic Description
Silty gray fine sand, very wet at 32' (no evidence of EZVI)
+-
a.
0)
a
30-
32
0)
a.
E
re
V)
X
IBaiteiie
. Putting Technology To Work
V)
o
V)
D
SM
o
0)
K
100
a
a.
—
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB210 .*%n
^M?D
Date 10/9/02 Location EZVI Plot -^
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Dept
Casinq Outer Diameter — in Sand Pack
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pack
Casinq Material — Grout Mate
Screen Type — Grout Depl
Screen Slot — Surface Cc
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand, no sample
Orange brown med sand with trace shells
Orange brown med sand with trace shells, 1" EZVI band at 12' in
med sand
Orange-brown medium-coarse sand with trace shells (2" black EZVI
band at 14')
Gray med sand with trace shells, gray fine sand, gray med sand with
trace shells, gray fine sand (no EZVI)
Orange brown sand with trace shells, gray med-fine sand, gray fine
sand
Dark gray med sand with trace shells, fine gray sand, dark gray med
sand with trace shells, gray fine sand, odor at 17' (no EZVI)
Brown medium coarse sand with trace shells, gray med sand, EZVI
band 1" thick at 20.5' in medium sand, (evidence of smearing below
EZVI band)
Gray fine sand, dark gray med sand with trace shells, gray fine sand,
odor (no EZVI)
Gray silty fine sand (no EZVI)
Gray silty fine sand (no EZVI)
h
Depth
jrial
th
>mpletior
thod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB301 .**&.
Date 11/21/02 Location EZVI Post **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand
Lt gray-white fine-med sand to brown fine-med sand
Gray-brown fine-med sand with shell matter
As above to gray fine-med sand with shell matter
Gray-brown fine-med sand with shell matter
As above to gray fine-med sand, EZVI band at 15' (shelly layer)
Orange brown fine-med sand with shell matter to gray brown fine-
med sand with shell matter
Gray fine-med sand to gray fine sand, EZVI band at 18.5'
Gray fine-med sand, bad odor
Gray fine-med sand, trace shells, bad odor
No recovery
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand, trace shells
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB301 .w.
^5ilS
Date 11/21/02 Location EZVI Post
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand, trace shells
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand to gray silty fine-med sand with shell matter
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine-med gray sand and shell matter to silty fine-med sand
Silty-clayey fine gray sand, trace shells, slightly clayey
As above
Gray silty fine-med sand and shells
End core at 46'
+-
a.
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB302 .**&.
Date 11/18/02 Location EZVI Post **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand
Lt gray fine sand, some black bands to med sand to coarse sand
with shell material
No recovery
Brown fine-med to orange-brown sand and shell material, wet
As above to gray fine-med sand with shell matter
Gray fine-med sand with shell matter to light gray fine sand
Orange brown fine-med sand with shell matter to very dark gray
med sand, banding?
Lt gray fine sand, trace shells to gray med sand to It gray fine sand
No recovery
Lt gray fine-med sand
Gray fine sand to silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB302 .w.
^5ilS
Date 11/18/02 Location EZVI Post
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand
No recovery
Silty fine gray sand to coarse sand with shell matter
Coarse shells with sand to gray silty sand with shell material
Gray silty sand with shell material
Gray silty fine sand, soupy, clayey
Gray silty fine-med sand
Gray silty fine-med sand
End core at 46'
+-
a.
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LU34 uormq Loqsneei bonna ID LZVI-SBSOS .*%
Date 11/20/02 Location EZVI Post **
Batteiie
Putting Technology To Work
Borinq Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casing Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand
White-gray fine sand to orange-brown fine-med sand with shell
material
As above, more coarse, faint dark gray layer (EZVI?)
Orange brown med sand with shell matter to light gray fine sand,
black EZVI bands appear at 1 1-12' bgs
Orange-brown med sand with shell matter to gray-orange brown
med sand with shell matter, EZVI evidence
Gray fine-med sand with shell matter, EZVI dark gray layers at
bottom
Orange brown med sand with shell matter to gray fine-med sand
Gray fine-med sand, some dark gray layers
Orange-brown fine-med sand to gray fine-med sand
Lt gray fine-med sand, more silty at bottom
Gray silty fine sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand, wet
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
.c
S.
0)
a
0-5
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
from
46 ft
...
... to — ft
Med Bentonite Chips
from 0 to Depth ft
n Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
2000
138
>
2000
4.5
91
20.9
Logged by: L. Gumming
Completion Date: 11/20/02
Construction Notes: 4' Macro-core
acetate sleeves, rinseate = EZVI-SB303
-Rinseate. Pup = EZVI-SB303-20DUP
-------
LC34 Corinq Loq sheet Borinq ID EZVI-SB303 .w
^iS
Date 11/20/02 Location EZVI Post
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand, wet
Silty fine gray sand, wet
Silty fine gray sand, trace shells, soupy at top
Gray silty fine sand, no sample
Gray silty fine sand to silty-clayey sand to silty fine-med sand with
shell material
Gray silty fine sand with shells
Gray silty fine sand with more shells
Gray silty fine-med sand to silty shells and fine-med sand
End core at 46'
.c
fc
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB304 .**&.
Date 11/19/02 Location EZVI Post **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand
Light gray-white fine sand to orange brown fine-medium sand
Gray-brown fine-med sand
Orange brown med sand with shell matter to gray fine-med sand
Orange-brown fine-med sand with shell matter
As above to gray fine-med sand, EZVI dark gray band at -15.5'
Orange brown fine-med sand with shell matter to gray fine-med
sand
Gray fine-med sand, some dark gray med sand layers, faint
banding?
Gray fine sand, bad odor
Gray fine-med sand, bad odor
Gray fine sand, trace shell matter
As above, more silty at bottom
Silty fine gray sand
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB304 .w.
^5ilS
Date 11/19/02 Location EZVI Post
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand to gray fine-med sand
Gray silty sand with shell matter to silty fine sand
Gray silty fine sand to silty-clayey sand to fine to coarse sand
Gray silty fine sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine sand, trace shells
Gray silty fine sand with shell matter
End core at 46'
+-
a.
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB307 .**&.
Date 11/21/02 Location EZVI Post **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand
Light gray fine sand to orange brown fine-med sand
No recovery
Brown-orange fine-med sand with shells to gray fine-med sand
Brown-gray fine-med sand to orange-brown fine-med sand with
shell matter
Gray fine-med sand with shell matter to gray fine sand, EZVI dark
gray band at -15.25'
No recovery
Gray fine-med sand
No recovery
Gray fine-med sand, EZVI band at middle (coarse layer)
Gray silty fine sand, trace shells
As above
No recovery
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB307 .w.
^5ilS
Date 11/21/02 Location EZVI Post
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand, very strong TCE odor
Silty fine gray sand, trace shells, soupy
Silty fine gray sand, trace-little shells
Gray silty fine sand with shell matter
As above to gray silty clayey sand
Gray silty-clayey sand to gray silty fine sand with shells
Gray silty fine sand
Gray silty fine sand, trace large shells to silty fine sand
End core at 46'
+-
a.
0)
a
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
LC34 Corinq Loqsheet Borina ID EZVI-SB308 .*%
Date 11/22/02 Location EZVI Post **
Boring Diameter 2 in Total Depl
Casinq Outer Diameter 2 in Sand Pac
Casinq Inner Diameter — in Sand Pac
Casinq Material — Grout Mat
Screen Type — Grout Dec
Screen Slot — Surface C
Screen Lenqth — ft Drillinq Me
Screen Depth from — to — ft Driller
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med. tan sand
Light gray to white fine sand
As above to orange brown fine-medium sand
Brown-orange fine-med sand with shell matter
As above to gray fine-med sand
No recovery
Brown-gray fine-med sand to gray fine-med sand
No recovery
Gray fine-med sand to gray fine sand, faint EZVI band 3" from
bottom
Gray silty fine sand
As above
As above
Gray silty fine sand, trace shells to gray silty fine sand, more clayey
at bottom
th
<
< Depth
erial
th
ompletio
jthod
t
-------
LC34 Corina Loasheet Borina ID EZVI-SB308 .w.
^5ilS
Date 11/22/02 Location EZVI Post
Lithologic Description
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand, more clayey at bottom interval
Silty fine gray sand to gray silty shells and sand
Silty sand and shells to gray fine-med sand, clayey at bottom
Gray clayey-silty fine-med sand to silty sand and shells
Silty sand and shells to clayey fine sand to clayey-silty fine-med
sand
Gray silty fine-med sand to silty sand and shells
Gray silty fine sand and shells to silty fine-med sand
End core at 46'
+-
Q.
0)
Q
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
-------
Appendix C
CVOC Measurements
Table C-1. CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Pre-
Demonstration Monitoring
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Intermediate
Monitoring
Table C-4. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Post-
Demonstration Monitoring
Table C-5. Long-Term Groundwater Sampling
-------
Table C-l. CVOC Results of Groundwater Samples for EZVI Demonstration
Well ID
ICE (jig/L)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1 |Post-Demo
cis-l,2-DCE(jig/L)
Pre-Demo | Demo 1 |Post-Demo
trans -1,2-DCE (jig/L)
Pre-Demo | Demo 1 |Post-Demo
Vinyl chloride (jig/L)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1 |Post-Demo
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
PA-23-DUP
1,180,000
1,130,000
92,100
84,600
8,790
9,010
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S
PA-241
PA-24D
PA-25S
PA-251
PA-25D
772,000
258,000
469,000
71,300
534,000
2,760
474,000
110,000
497,000
69,600
784,000
36,200
12,100
86,400
656,000
129,000
944,000
53,200
16,900
17,300
17,900
14,600
169,000
132,000
47,400
149,000
61,800
69,200
116,000
60,800
15,800
161,000
83,400
9,320
104,000
101,000
31,700
181,000
99,400
42,800
90,900
117,000
<1,000
<1,000
68 J
33 J
245
314
<1,000
<1,000
53 J
<100
21,600
24,700
<1,000
482
260 J
<1,000
320J
278
<50
644
360 J
46 J
230
395
190 J
1,020
610
381
270 J
544
<1,000
140 J
110J
<1,000
<500
<50
<50
1,070
590
<100
<100
142
1,580
779
160 J
75 J
170 J
354
Injection & Extraction Wells
EIW-1
EEW-1
144,000
1,050,000
NA
NA
7,820
471,000
38,300
67,100
NA
NA
3,280
80,100
556
550J
NA
NA
24 J
390 J
638
<1,000
NA
NA
322
6,980
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit.
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Demo 1 for EZVI: August 19th to 21st, 2002.
Post-Demo: EZVI-November 2002.
M:\Projets\Envir RestortCape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App C\EZVI Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Pre-Demonstration Monitoring
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-1-8
EZVI-SB-1-8-DUP
EZVI-SB-1-10(SS)
EZVI-SB-1-12
EZVI-SB-1-14
EZVI-SB-1-16
EZVI-SB-1-18
EZVI-SB-1-20
EZVI-SB-1-22
EZVI-SB-1-24
EZVI-SB-1-26
EZVI-SB-1-28
EZVI-SB-1-30
EZVI-SB-1-32
EZVI-SB-1-34
EZVI-SB-1-36
EZVI-SB-1-38
EZVI-SB-1-40
EZVI-SB-1-42
EZVI-SB-1-44
EZVI-SB-1-46
EZVI-SB-I-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB-1-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-2-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-2-10
EZVI-SB-2-12
EZVI-SB-2-14
EZVI-SB-2-16
EZVI-SB-2-18
EZVI-SB-2-20
EZVI-SB-2-22
EZVI-SB-2-24
EZVI-SB-2-24-DUP
EZVI-SB-2-26
EZVI-SB-2-28
EZVI-SB-2-30
EZVI-SB-2-32
EZVI-SB-2-34
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
6
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
8
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
32
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
32
34
Sample
Date
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
MeOH
(g)
194
191
193
192
192
191
190
192
192
191
194
191
192
190
194
191
192
194
194
194
192
192
NA
192
194
193
191
193
192
191
191
191
195
191
192
194
192
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
93
72
147
100
149
88
124
80
106
129
155
135
145
190
101
149
151
123
126
146
187
NA
NA
101
111
113
158
196
172
152
208
97
94
90
121
104
164
189
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
89
68
125
80
126
74
103
58
93
111
126
106
112
148
84
124
122
93
90
122
155
NA
NA
100
97
99
131
164
141
130
165
83
74
75
95
85
116
157
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
121
<100
459
184
1,300
1,760
34,100
61 ,800
75,400
98,200
130,000
103,000
104,000
3,060
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
140
4,650
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
501
5,700
45,700
89,800
135,000
67,200
72,600
75,600
95,200
63,000
2,180
376
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
ND
1
1
3
6
87
282
208
230
283
263
256
6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
10
89
182
233
207
262
259
270
196
5
1
as -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
10J
488
119
1,920
1,600
6,200
884
1,000
1,100
1,220
1,590
1 ft ^00
53,000
15,100
9,760
9,090
1,340
3,110
3,520
6,980
<100
<1.0
<100
118
113
1,120
6,680
7,980
4,440
4,860
913
1,020
4,440
2,550
10,100
38,100
27,500
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
1
0
4
6
16
4
3
3
3
4
45
101
47
21
20
4
10
8
12
ND
ND
ND
0
0
2
11
16
9
8
3
4
15
7
31
96
48
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
34J
34J
60J
<100
<100
12J
<100
<100
49J
140
35J
44J
74J
<100
44J
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
19J
141
85J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
102
79J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
21J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
20J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
63J
38J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\Appendix C
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Pre-Demonstration Monitoring (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-2-36
EZVI-SB-2-38
EZVI-SB-2-40
EZVI-SB-2-42
EZVI-SB-2-44
EZVI-SB-2-46
EZVI-SB-2-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-2-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-3-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-3-10
EZVI-SB-3-12
EZVI-SB-3-14
EZVI-SB-3-16
EZVI-SB-3-18
EZVI-SB-3-20
EZVI-SB-3-22
EZVI-SB-3-24
EZVI-SB-3-26
EZVI-SB-3-28
EZVI-SB-3-30
EZVI-SB-3-32
EZVI-SB-3-34
EZVI-SB-3-36
EZVI-SB-3-38
EZVI-SB-3-40
EZVI-SB-3-40-DUP
EZVI-SB-3-42
EZVI-SB-3-44
EZVI-SB-3-46
EZVI-SB-3-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-3-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-4-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-4-10
EZVI-SB-4-12
EZVI-SB-4-14
EZVI-SB-4-16
EZVI-SB-4-18
EZVI-SB-4-20
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
44
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Sample
Date
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/16/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
192
192
194
192
192
191
NA
194
191
191
191
190
191
191
191
192
191
190
192
190
194
192
192
193
191
192
191
190
195
NA
191
193
191
190
190
190
190
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
256
193
130
192
85
211
NA
NA
134
157
134
171
167
101
102
109
171
144
115
114
127
157
132
139
142
95
145
118
152
NA
NA
153
215
171
148
129
119
102
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
211
162
90
150
50
178
NA
NA
132
140
111
146
146
90
88
95
137
114
94
92
94
125
112
118
111
44
116
97
127
NA
NA
149
188
142
130
110
102
85
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
209
110
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
120
107
544
3,830
2,160,000
72,000
72,500
125,000
114,000
90,700
118,000
72,400
859
<100
212
241
158
192
<100
15,700
<100
<1.0
<100
139
158
2,770
2,520
17,700
53,300
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
1
7
6,067
209
195
253
272
252
340
211
2
ND
0
1
1
0
ND
33
ND
ND
ND
0
0
6
6
45
161
as -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(HS/L)
16,000
8,600
1,890
668
3,760
3,180
<100
<1.0
<100
156
124
1,320
2,920
10,200
1,430
906
1,570
1,180
798
6,040
26,400
40,400
4,180
7,220
347
249
371
1,540
5,150
<100
<1.0
<100
154
159
1,890
2,840
4,570
2,480
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
22
15
6
1
21
5
ND
ND
ND
0
0
2
5
29
4
2
3
3
2
17
77
90
10
16
1
2
1
4
11
ND
ND
ND
0
0
4
7
12
8
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
69J
44J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
24J
60J
134
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
12J
62J
83J
<100
17J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
39J
52J
67J
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
27J
<100
29J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
19J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
25J
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\Appendix C
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Pre-Demonstration Monitoring (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-4-22
EZVI-SB-4-24
EZVI-SB-4-26
EZVI-SB-4-28
EZVI-SB-4-30
EZVI-SB-4-32
EZVI-SB-4-34
EZVI-SB-4-36
EZVI-SB-4-38
EZVI-SB-4-40
EZVI-SB-4-40-DUP
EZVI-SB-4-42
EZVI-SB-4-44
EZVI-SB-4-46
EZVI-SB-4-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-4-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-5-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-5-10
EZVI-SB-5-12
EZVI-SB-5-14
EZVI-SB-5-16
EZVI-SB-5-18
EZVI-SB-5-20
EZVI-SB-5-22
EZVI-SB-5-24
EZVI-SB-5-26
EZVI-SB-5-28
EZVI-SB-5-30
EZVI-SB-5-32
EZVI-SB-5-34
EZVI-SB-5-36
EZVI-SB-5-38
EZVI-SB-5-38-DUP
EZVI-SB-5-40
EZVI-SB-5-42
EZVI-SB-5-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-5-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-6-8 (SS)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
40
42
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
Sample
Date
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/18/2002
1/17/2002
1/17/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
1/31/2002
2/1/2002
MeOH
(g)
190
192
191
192
191
191
192
191
192
191
190
192
191
192
192
NA
193
192
192
191
192
191
192
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
189
190
191
192
192
191
NA
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
117
147
175
120
139
281
152
230
165
167
145
104
174
181
NA
NA
96
119
119
116
121
156
120
103
122
110
120
102
104
96
128
100
92
110
156
NA
NA
93
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
91
118
140
98
108
220
110
181
140
107
116
87
144
151
NA
NA
93
103
104
92
114
136
105
88
100
93
102
82
83
87
107
90
81
77
126
NA
NA
94
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
58,500
108,000
146,000
94,300
93,500
10,100
23,300
514
<100
512
217
366
<100
17,500
<100
<1.0
<100
105
<100
329
3,510
35,200
46,800
37,900
67,400
56,600
85,000
77,500
44,900
15,600
362
4,050
245
<100
<100
<100
<1
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
171
249
289
255
236
14
60
1
ND
1
1
1
ND
32
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
1
8
68
115
111
178
157
216
247
142
45
1
11
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
as -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(HS/L)
1,740
1,840
2,020
5,620
17,900
52,500
42,200
16,600
3,680
111
88J
226
2,600
5,650
<100
<1.0
<100
78J
128
509
2,320
7,120
3,630
2,700
2,700
2,290
2,540
3,240
15,300
17,500
21 ,800
12,800
1 1 ,600
10,600
8,410
<100
<1
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
5
4
4
15
45
72
109
27
7
0
0
1
5
10
ND
ND
ND
0
0
1
5
14
9
8
7
6
6
10
48
50
53
36
36
38
18
ND
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<200
<200
<200
<200
43J
122
100
45J
<100
<100
<100
<100
13J
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
27J
23J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
31J
36J
53J
28J
26J
46J
38J
<100
<1
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<200
<200
<200
<200
23J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1,00
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\Appendix C
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Pre-Demonstration Monitoring (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-6-10
EZVI-SB-6-12
EZVI-SB-6-14
EZVI-SB-6-16
EZVI-SB-6-18
EZVI-SB-6-20
EZVI-SB-6-22
EZVI-SB-6-24
EZVI-SB-6-26
EZVI-SB-6-28
EZVI-SB-6-30
EZVI-SB-6-32
EZVI-SB-6-32-DUP
EZVI-SB-6-34
EZVI-SB-6-36
EZVI-SB-6-38
EZVI-SB-6-40
EZVI-SB-6-42
EZVI-SB-6-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-6-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-7-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-7-10
EZVI-SB-7-12
EZVI-SB-7-14
EZVI-SB-7-16
EZVI-SB-7-18
EZVI-SB-7-20
EZVI-SB-7-22
EZVI-SB-7-24
EZVI-SB-7-26
EZVI-SB-7-28
EZVI-SB-7-30
EZVI-SB-7-32
EZVI-SB-7-34
EZVI-SB-7-36
EZVI-SB-7-38
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
Bottom
Depth
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Sample
Date
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/1/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
191
192
192
192
193
191
193
193
194
195
192
193
192
190
193
195
191
192
NA
193
190
191
192
193
192
192
192
193
193
191
195
192
192
192
191
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
106
142
107
103
127
139
141
129
132
170
98
121
94
125
103
168
132
154
NA
NA
84
135
102
133
99
139
139
157
146
160
124
141
133
198
150
141
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
93
124
96
90
109
115
123
113
110
141
77
88
76
109
91
133
94
120
NA
NA
84
135
92
114
85
121
118
133
127
133
97
118
110
152
128
120
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<100
122
266
4,020
18,300
51 ,300
58,900
81 ,000
80,500
144,000
93,200
82,600
67,600
1 1 ,600
169
195
10,900
727
<100
<1.0
<100
153SR
137
698
23,000
541,000
92,500
87,100
97,600
109,000
96,600
109,000
305
26,900
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
1
11
44
120
124
187
195
280
324
259
233
28
0
0
33
2
ND
ND
ND
0
0
2
70
1,167
207
175
202
222
268
249
1
51
ND
ND
as -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(HS/L)
59J
212
539
3,660
6,320
3,360
2,200
1,230
1,010
1,020
1,940
1 1 ,000
7,390
23,800
24,700
22,800
33,100
26,300 S
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
55J
1,010
2,370
1 1 ,200
1,740
1,180
1,270
1,980
4,140
12,200
17,400
56,500
12,500
2,380
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
1
10
15
8
5
3
2
2
7
35
26
57
69
48
100
60
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
2
7
24
4
2
3
4
11
28
42
107
26
5
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<100
<100
61J
29J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
27J
16J
62J
56J
70J
90J
71J
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
95J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
25J
97J
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
189
615
422
317
390
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\Appendix C
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Pre-Demonstration Monitoring (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-7-40
EZVI-SB-7-42
EZVI-SB-7-44
EZVI-SB-7-44-DUP
EZVI-SB-7-46
EZVI-SB-7-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-7-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-8-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-8-10
EZVI-SB-8-12
EZVI-SB-8-14
EZVI-SB-8-16
EZVI-SB-8-18
EZVI-SB-8-20
EZVI-SB-8-22
EZVI-SB-8-24
EZVI-SB-8-26
EZVI-SB-8-28
EZVI-SB-8-30
EZVI-SB-8-32
EZVI-SB-8-34
EZVI-SB-8-34-DUP
EZVI-SB-8-36
EZVI-SB-8-MeOH(SS)
EZVI-SB-8-RINSATE
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
38
40
42
42
44
Bottom
Depth
40
42
44
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
Lab Blank
EQ
Sample
Date
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
2/7/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
3/20/2002
MeOH
(g)
192
192
192
192
191
192
NA
193
194
193
195
194
194
193
193
192
196
195
192
193
192
192
195
193
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
145
154
132
133
141
NA
NA
87
119
121
125
103
104
113
100
98
111
106
104
143
126
124
169
NA
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
111
125
112
112
120
NA
NA
88
107
87
111
90
90
106
87
93
91
88
90
114
110
104
144
NA
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(£g/L)
182
<100
<100
161
<100
<100
2.88
<100
1,180
503
714
7,170
43,900
57,300
53,000
60,600
71 ,800
78,800
79,000
19,600
160
219
136
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
0
ND
3
2
2
21
127
136
157
162
212
237
226
47
0
1
0
ND
ND
as -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(HS/L)
10,600
5,720
444
430
741
<100
<1.0
<100
505
274
1,040
2,210
2,270
2,430
837
802
1,090
1,120
5,880
33,300
16,800
16,700
6,950
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
26
12
1
1
2
ND
ND
ND
1
1
2
6
7
6
2
2
3
3
17
80
40
42
13
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
37J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
22J
46J
19J
20J
<100
<100
<100
<100
18J
65J
41J
38J
24J
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(£g/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
18J
11J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
DUP: Duplicate sample.
MB: Method blank.
SS: Surrogate spiked.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
S: Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits due to the high concentration present in the sample.
R: RPD for MS/MSD outside accepted receovery limits.
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\Appendix C
-------
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Intermediate Monitoring
Coring after the EZVI
Injection
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-203-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-203-10
EZVI-SB-203-12
EZVI-SB-203-14
EZVI-SB-203-16
EZVI-SB-203-18
EZVI-SB-203-18-DUP
EZVI-SB-203-20
EZVI-SB-203-22
EZVI-SB-203-24
EZVI-SB-203-26
EZVI-SB-203-28
EZVI-SB-203-30
EZVI-SB-203-MeOH
EZVI-SB-203-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-204-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-204-10
EZVI-SB-204-12
EZVI-SB-204-14
EZVI-SB-204-16
EZVI-SB-204-18
EZVI-SB-204-20
EZVI-SB-204-22
EZVI-SB-204-24
EZVI-SB-204-24-DUP
EZVI-SB-204-26
EZVI-SB-204-28
EZVI-SB-204-30
EZVI-SB-204-MeOH
EZVI-SB-207-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-207-10
EZVI-SB-207-12
EZVI-SB-207-14
EZVI-SB-207-16
EZVI-SB-207-18
EZVI-SB-207-20
EZVI-SB-207-22
EZVI-SB-207-24
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Bottom
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
24
26
28
30
Lab Blank
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Sample
Date
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/9/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
MeOH
(g)
194
193
192
191
190
191
191
193
192
194
192
192
192
NA
NA
191
190
196
194
192
193
191
195
194
192
194
192
193
193
192
193
191
195
193
196
194
197
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
137
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
129
No Recovery
154
122
217
232
168
158
200
126
104
123
70
NA
NA
106
136
114
188
201
146
133
169
107
85
99
57
NA
NA
98
No Recovery
186
81
198
191
135
174
164
144
102
156
106
157
162
71
171
163
120
159
138
119
82
128
84
149
No Recovery
148
155
224
145
230
154
184
128
138
196
132
196
139
161
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(£g/L)
387
NA
290
324
8,990
538
426
505,000
492,000
200,000
518
433
60,300
254
<1.0
<100
NA
143
148
391
436
2,990
1,580
17,800
5,570
56,400
12,800
42,000
200
535
NA
246
<100
<100
114
37,400
<100
506,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1
NA
1
1
13
1
1
1,023
798
495
2
1
271
NA
ND
ND
NA
0
1
1
1
6
3
35
13
183
27
133
1
NA
1
ND
ND
0
54
ND
856
cis -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(£g/L)
165
NA
324
198
1,020
142
124
16,700
7,840
5,800
153
191
2,220
54 J
<1.0
148
NA
112
58 J
36 J
95 J
2,780
897
11,100
9,260
8,440
2,700
22,200
36 J
161
NA
90 J
68 J
2,030
218
10,600
711
13,400
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
NA
1
0
1
0
0
34
13
14
0
1
10
NA
ND
0
NA
0
0
0
0
6
1
22
21
27
6
70
0
NA
0
0
3
0
15
1
23
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
70 J
95 J
33 J
<100
<100
14J
<100
<1.0
16J
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
17J
13J
13J
<100
29 J
<100
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
22 J
<100
<500
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
0
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<500
75 J
257
19J
38 J
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
174
17J
1,370
1,490
13J
38 J
<100
<100
<100
NA
<100
<100
132
14J
428
87 J
1,120
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
1
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
3
3
0
0
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
0
0
1
0
2
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-demo\Appendices\App C
-------
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Intermediate Monitoring (Continued)
Coring after the EZVI
Injection
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-207-24-DUP
EZVI-SB-207-26
EZVI-SB-207-28
EZVI-SB-207-30
EZVI-SB-207-MeOH
EZVI-SB-207-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-208-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-208-10
EZVI-SB-208-12
EZVI-SB-208-14
EZVI-SB-208-16
EZVI-SB-208-18
EZVI-SB-208-20
EZVI-SB-208-22
EZVI-SB-208-24
EZVI-SB-208-26
EZVI-SB-208-28
EZVI-SB-208-28-DUP
EZVI-SB-208-30
EZVI-SB-208-MeOH
EZVI-SB-209-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-209-10
EZVI-SB-209-12
EZVI-SB-209-14
EZVI-SB-209-16
EZVI-SB-209-18
EZVI-SB-209-20
EZVI-SB-209-22
EZVI-SB-209-22-DUP
EZVI-SB-209-24
EZVI-SB-209-26
EZVI-SB-209-28
EZVI-SB-209-30
EZVI-SB-209-MeOH
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
22
24
26
28
Bottom
Depth
24
26
28
30
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
26
28
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
28
30
Lab Blank
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
24
26
28
30
Lab Blank
Sample
Date
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
MeOH
(g)
194
193
196
192
NA
192
193
191
192
193
191
190
192
191
192
192
190
191
191
190
190
194
192
192
191
190
189
192
192
190
192
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
162
118
230
114
NA
148
98
126
130
110
136
154
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
145
101
188
91
NA
145
90
119
114
97
97
130
No Recovery
154| 131
No Recovery
172J" 138
134| 109
No Recovery
165
155
No Recovery
157
145
209
192
171
178
151
146
87
186
101
139
130
171
168
149
160
120
133
71
146
81
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
148,000
68,400
163,000
84,900
193
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
70,800
NA
134,000
83,900
NA
160
156
NA
1,120
<100
<100
1,170
22,800
311
166
10,200
78,800
154,000
76,000
313
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
268
177
252
248
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
143
NA
269
204
NA
0
NA
2
ND
ND
2
40
1
0
20
287
296
247
cis -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
10,200
1,460
3,740
4,570
37 J
<1.0
163
201
33 J
109
152
295
927
NA
2,250
NA
6,830
5,300
NA
33 J
138
NA
184
174
1,300
1,990
10,100
1,240
828
3,520
1,020
1,570
1,480
60 J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
18
4
6
13
ND
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
NA
5
NA
14
13
NA
0
NA
0
0
2
3
18
2
2
7
4
3
5
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
<500
13J
28 J
41 J
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
12J
NA
25 J
20 J
NA
<100
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
14J
<100
<100
14J
14J
33 J
10J
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
0
NA
0
0
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(^g/L)
715
14J
21 J
20 J
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
37 J
11 J
129
NA
32 J
NA
18J
12J
NA
<100
<100
NA
20 J
31 J
46 J
238
847
335
140
554
10J
15J
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
1
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
NA
0
NA
0
0
NA
ND
ND
NA
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
ND
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
DUP: Duplicate sample.
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-demo\Appendices\App C
-------
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from EZVI Intermediate Monitoring (Continued)
Coring after the EZVI
Injection
Sample ID
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
Sample
Date
MeOH
(g)
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
MB: Method blank.
SS: Surrogate spiked.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
S: Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits due to the high concentration present in the sample.
R: RPD for MS/MSD outside accepted receovery limits.
M:\Projects\Envir RestoiACape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-demo\Appendices\App C
-------
Table C-4. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from Post-Demonstration Monitoring in EZVI Plot
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-301-8(SS)
EZVI-SB-301-10
EZVI-SB-301-12
EZVI-SB-301-14
EZVI-SB-301-16
EZVI-SB-301-18
EZVI-SB-301-20
EZVI-SB-301-22
EZVI-SB-301-24
EZVI-SB-301-26
EZVI-SB-301-28
EZVI-SB-301-30
EZVI-SB-301-32
EZVI-SB-301-34
EZVI-SB-301-36
EZVI-SB-301-36-DUP
EZVI-SB-301-38
EZVI-SB-301-40
EZVI-SB-301-42
EZVI-SB-301-44
EZVI-SB-301-46
EZVI-SB-301-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB-301-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-302-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-302-10
EZVI-SB-302-12
EZVI-SB-302-14
EZVI-SB-302-16
EZVI-SB-302-18
EZVI-SB-302-18-DUP
EZVI-SB-302-20
EZVI-SB-302-22
EZVI-SB-302-24
EZVI-SB-302-26
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
16
18
20
22
24
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
Sample
Date
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
MeOH
(g)
194
194
195
194
194
194
194
195
195
194
193
193
194
194
193
193
195
193
193
193
194
194
NA
194
195
195
195
195
197
196
195
196
196
197
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
122
122
129
130
170
165
195
170
149
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
117
110
111
110
152
144
172
142
129
no recovery
183
164
147
162
132
137
171
165
201
162
317
NA
NA
151
150
131
115
128
111
119
142
120
153
131
261
NA
NA
147
no recovery
192
177
154
135
154
203
168
158
140
121
135
175
no recovery
209 I 178
155J_ 134
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
119
476
626
1,680
670
329
7,500
3,970
136
NA
64,100
4,450
24,200
16,400
118
1,090
<100
123
168
112
574
130
<1.0
192
NA
354
596
5,870
2,330
3,180
36,100
NA
1 1 ,400
3,680
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
1
1
4
1
1
12
8
0
NA
119
9
58
36
0
2
ND
0
0
0
1
NA
ND
0
NA
1
1
11
5
6
57
NA
18
7
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
33J
506
4,580
2,430
5,560
5,520
7,850
4,250
752
NA
5,860
2,050
13,300
21 ,200
15,900
24,800
8,220
5,020
1,470
860
7,000
16J
<1.0
65J
NA
262
1,400
3,210
2,890
3,110
5,410
NA
2,940
974
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
1
11
6
10
10
12
8
2
NA
11
4
32
46
38
55
16
12
3
2
8
NA
ND
0
NA
0
2
6
6
6
8
NA
5
2
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
16J
20J
21J
NA
16J
<100
38J
88J
40J
61J
30J
26J
28J
<100
29J
<100
<1.0
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
23J
NA
23J
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
NA
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
NA
0
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
<100
<100
<100
<100
175
43J
748
2,300
4,410
NA
864
52J
11J
11J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
26J
18J
358
NA
129
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
1
4
9
NA
2
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
0
0
1
NA
0
ND
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\EZVI\Appendix\App C\EZVI Post-demo TCE Soil Results.xls
-------
Table C-4. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from Post-Demonstration Monitoring in EZVI Plot (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-302-28
EZVI-SB-302-30
EZVI-SB-302-32
EZVI-SB-302-34
EZVI-SB-302-36
EZVI-SB-302-38
EZVI-SB-302-40
EZVI-SB-302-42
EZVI-SB-302-44
EZVI-SB-302-46
EZVI-SB-302-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-302-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-303-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-303-10
EZVI-SB-303-12
EZVI-SB-303-14
EZVI-SB-303-16
EZVI-SB-303-18
EZVI-SB-303-20
EZVI-SB-303-20-DUP
EZVI-SB-303-22
EZVI-SB-303-24
EZVI-SB-303-26
EZVI-SB-303-28
EZVI-SB-303-30
EZVI-SB-303-32
EZVI-SB-303-34
EZVI-SB-303-36
EZVI-SB-303-38
EZVI-SB-303-40
EZVI-SB-303-42
EZVI-SB-303-44
EZVI-SB-303-46
EZVI-SB-303-MB (SS)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
Sample
Date
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/002
11/18/003
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
11/20/2002
MeOH
(g)
195
195
196
193
192
194
194
193
195
192
195
NA
196
194
196
194
195
194
193
195
193
194
193
193
193
193
194
194
194
195
193
195
194
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
188
144
230
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
155
115
181
no recovery
189
166
145
175
188
250
NA
NA
132
131
240
101
265
171
165
156
173
241
122
166
132
161
207
144
158
146
117
127
151
202
NA
NA
126
121
209
96
227
151
141
132
156
209
101
133
106
122
163
127
no recovery
199
138
189
206
NA
163
115
156
169
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(M|/L)
4,360
60,000
17,000
NA
124
211
212
196
222
3,300
121
<1.0
164
194
567
364
3,290
784
237,000
195,000
4,110
3,390,000
6,410
21 ,400
115,000
95,100
9,880
<100
NA
<100
168
290
242
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
8
144
28
NA
0
0
0
0
0
5
NA
ND
0
0
1
1
4
1
451
400
7
4,502
17
45
293
221
18
ND
NA
ND
0
1
0
ND
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
1,160
13,600
43,500
NA
21 ,700
9,780
7,660
2,310
2,040
5,970
19J
<1.0
44J
83J
4,580
5,120
6,790
8,250
9,880
1 1 ,900
8,160
36,600
1,260
3,070
4,160
17,200
48,000
21 ,900
NA
5,170
590
627
3,030
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
2
33
71
NA
38
18
18
5
4
9
NA
ND
0
0
6
13
9
15
19
24
14
49
3
6
11
40
85
45
NA
9
1
1
5
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
10J
34J
95J
NA
56J
40J
36J
25J
25J
29J
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
13J
15J
37J
29J
19J
193
22J
36J
20J
57J
122
69J
NA
38J
<100
13J
14J
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
ND
0
0
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
54J
10J
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
75J
16J
197
54J
355
483
120
1,020
25J
51J
14J
17J
<100
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\EZVI\Appendix\App C\EZVI Post-demo TCE Soil Results.xls
-------
Table C-4. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from Post-Demonstration Monitoring in EZVI Plot (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-303-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-304-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-304-10
EZVI-SB-304-12
EZVI-SB-304-14
EZVI-SB-304-16
EZVI-SB-304-18
EZVI-SB-304-20
EZVI-SB-304-22
EZVI-SB-304-24
EZVI-SB-304-26
EZVI-SB-304-28
EZVI-SB-304-30
EZVI-SB-304-32
EZVI-SB-304-32-DUP
EZVI-SB-304-34
EZVI-SB-304-36
EZVI-SB-304-38
EZVI-SB-304-40
EZVI-SB-304-42
EZVI-SB-304-44
EZVI-SB-304-46
EZVI-SB-304-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-304-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-307-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-307-10
EZVI-SB-307-12
EZVI-SB-307-14
EZVI-SB-307-16
EZVI-SB-307-18
EZVI-SB-307-20
EZVI-SB-307-22
EZVI-SB-307-24
EZVI-SB-307-26
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Sample
Date
11/20/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
MeOH
(g)
NA
194
194
195
195
194
195
196
196
196
194
194
195
195
195
193
194
195
195
194
195
194
192
NA
195
194
193
195
192
193
193
194
194
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
151
102
102
153
170
143
147
116
199
136
154
116
133
147
186
179
141
145
155
153
174
NA
NA
108
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
147
98
91
134
152
130
130
98
168
116
122
94
103
115
136
149
119
134
120
122
148
NA
NA
109
no recovery
166
174
202
145
149
184
no recovery
177| 152
no recovery
236
164
195
135
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
<1.0
105
102
120
209
<100
<100
965
439
152
150
12,200
67,400
27,700
25,900
139
<100
<100
221
256
<100
1,850
<100
<1.0
151
NA
979
760
250
NA
12,700
NA
13,200
55,800
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
2
1
0
0
28
193
74
63
0
ND
ND
0
1
ND
3
ND
ND
0
NA
2
1
0
NA
23
NA
19
113
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
<1.0
25J
39J
1,830
1,740
1,960
2,260
3,190
8,540
723
84J
1,100
13,700
29,800
30,500
33,100
12,800
2,030
1,340
970
81J
4,920
10J
<1.0
31J
NA
4,270
4,560
4,210
NA
3,870
NA
3,900
1,430
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
0
0
5
3
3
5
7
23
1
0
3
39
80
74
72
24
5
3
2
0
9
NA
ND
0
NA
8
8
6
NA
7
NA
6
3
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
34J
67J
72J
75J
36J
15J
10J
10J
<100
15J
<100
<1.0
<100
NA
<100
<100
<100
NA
31J
NA
31J
15J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
0
NA
0
0
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
15J
45J
308
2,300
1,350
280
25J
13J
82J
68J
14J
22J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
NA
<100
17J
62J
NA
1,650
NA
1,660
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
1
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
0
0
NA
3
NA
2
ND
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\EZVI\Appendix\App C\EZVI Post-demo TCE Soil Results.xls
-------
Table C-4. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from Post-Demonstration Monitoring in EZVI Plot (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-307-26-DUP
EZVI-SB-307-28
EZVI-SB-307-30
EZVI-SB-307-32
EZVI-SB-307-34
EZVI-SB-307-36
EZVI-SB-307-38
EZVI-SB-307-40
EZVI-SB-307-42
EZVI-SB-307-44
EZVI-SB-307-46
EZVI-SB-307-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-307-RINSATE
EZVI-SB-308-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB-308-10
EZVI-SB-308-12
EZVI-SB-308-14
EZVI-SB-308-16
EZVI-SB-308-18
EZVI-SB-308-20
EZVI-SB-308-22
EZVI-SB-308-24
EZVI-SB-308-26
EZVI-SB-308-28
EZVI-SB-308-30
EZVI-SB-308-32
EZVI-SB-308-34
EZVI-SB-308-36
EZVI-SB-308-38
EZVI-SB-308-40
EZVI-SB-308-42
EZVI-SB-308-42-DUP
EZVI-SB-308-44
EZVI-SB-308-46
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Bottom
Depth
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
Lab Blank
EQ
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
40
42
44
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
42
44
46
Sample
Date
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
MeOH
(g)
194
193
193
194
193
194
193
194
193
193
193
194
NA
194
193
194
194
194
193
193
194
193
192
194
193
194
194
195
193
193
194
192
194
194
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
166
134
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
135
112
no recovery
221
219
190
174
187
155
199
128
NA
NA
92
136
205
157
171
163
155
144
150
112
156
100
NA
NA
92
125
178
138
no recovery
197| 173
no recovery
180
130
161
152
109
131
no recovery
185
146
no recovery
140
192
167
194
140
152
148
215
111
162
136
150
110
118
123
171
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
72,500
73,400
NA
136,000
51 ,900
12,700
242
172
165
172
8,790
129
<1.0
<100
186
605
131
NA
159
NA
98,300
53,500
60,000
NA
128,000
NA
17,800
134
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
16,000
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
149
175
NA
235
96
23
0
0
0
0
24
NA
ND
ND
0
1
0
NA
0
NA
177
130
125
NA
248
NA
44
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
27
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
1,350
1,340
NA
21,100
55,200
50,300
7,200
3,970
328
480
4,570
11J
0.26J
13J
47J
1,990
999
NA
1,200
NA
24,400
2,990
2,210
NA
5,680
NA
27,100
12,000
5,060
5,430
5,320
5,210
692
5200
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
3
3
NA
36
102
91
14
7
1
1
12
NA
NA
0
0
3
2
NA
2
NA
44
7
5
NA
11
NA
67
21
10
10
13
12
2
9
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
12J
15J
NA
54J
118
112
19J
25J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
<100
NA
31J
11J
<100
NA
26J
NA
62J
30J
16J
31J
30J
30J
<100
17J
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
0
0
ND
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(MgflO
11J
11J
NA
23J
16J
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1.0
<100
<100
<100
<100
NA
144
NA
1,400
169
56J
NA
17J
NA
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
0
0
NA
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
0
NA
3
0
0
NA
0
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\EZVI\Appendix\App C\EZVI Post-demo TCE Soil Results.xls
-------
Table C-4. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil from Post-Demonstration Monitoring in EZVI Plot (Continued)
Sample ID
EZVI-SB-308-MB (SS)
EZVI-SB-308-RINSATE
Sample Depth
(ft)
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
Lab Blank
EQ
Sample
Date
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
MeOH
(g)
193
NA
Wet Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
Dry Soil
Weight
(g)
NA
NA
TCE
Results in
MeOH
(Mg/L)
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
cis-l,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
trans -1,2-DCE
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
MeOH
(Hg/L)
<100
<1.0
Results in
Dry Soil
(mg/Kg)
ND
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
DUP: Duplicate sample.
MB: Method blank.
SS: Surrogate spiked.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\EZVI\Appendix\App C\EZVI Post-demo TCE Soil Results.xls
-------
C-5. Long-Term Groundwater Sampling
In December 2003 and March 2004, groundwater samples were collected from various monitoring wells
associated with the EZVI demonstration and analyzed for CVOCs. The purpose of these two individual
sampling events was to collect observational data on the concentrations of CVOCs in groundwater after a
significant amount of time had passed since the initial injection of EZVI. The results were not intended to
use in assessing the performance of the technology. Because the results were not used for performance
assessment, they are not included in the main text of the report but are presented here in Appendix C-5.
In November 2002, Battelle performed the post-demonstration soil and groundwater characterization for
performance assessment of the EZVI technology. In December 2003, GeoSyntec collected a round of
groundwater samples from the multilevel wells along the plot edges (EML-1 through EML-4, see Figure 3-
3). The results are presented in Table C-5. In addition, the pre- and post-demonstration CVOC
concentrations in the multilevel wells and other nearby wells have been reprinted from Table 5-4 for
reference. TCE concentrations decreased substantially in all four monitoring wells, from 23,000-76,000
u,g/L during post-demonstration monitoring to <100-2,700 u,g/L one year later. Decreases in cis-1,2-DCE
also were observed in all four monitoring wells. With respect to vinyl chloride, concentrations increased in
two monitoring wells, from 29,000 u,g/L to 33,500 u,g/L in EML-1 and from 500 u,g/L to 1,830 u,g/L in EML-3.
Vinyl chloride concentrations decreased substantially in EML-2, from 20,000 u,g/L to 4,950 u,g/L, while
concentrations remained relatively stable in EML-4 one year later. The continued decreases in TCE and
c;s-1,2-DCE concentrations one year after post-demonstration groundwater characterization suggests that
the EZVI technology had a prolonged impact on the treatment area. The continued increase in VC
concentrations indicates that biologically driven reductive dechlorination of the CVOCs is continuing.
In March 2004, approximately 16 months after the post-demonstration characterization, a single
groundwater sampling event was conducted in several of the shallow monitoring wells in and around the
test plot. The results are presented in Table C-6. In addition, the pre- and post-demonstration CVOC
concentrations in the wells have been reprinted from Table 5-8 for reference. The CVOC concentrations in
monitoring well PA-23 are plotted in Figure C-1. Figure C-2 contains TCE and ethene concentrations to
reflect the significant difference in concentration scales between the two compounds. Although the data
were collected for observational purposes, the results suggest that the EZVI treatment had a long-lasting
effect on CVOCs in the subsurface. In PA-23, TCE concentrations decreased from 8,790 ug/L during post-
demonstration sampling to 2 ug/L. Concentrations of the degradation byproducts c/s-1,2 DCE, frans-1,2-
DCE, and vinyl chloride also decreased substantially in monitoring PA-23 in the center of the test plot after
post-demonstration characterization. Decreases in TCE were also seen in shallow monitoring wells PA-
24S and PA-25S around the perimeter of the test plot, as well as in the injection and extraction wells EIW-
1 and EEW-1. Increased concentrations of degradation daughter products c/s-1,2-DCE, frans-1,2-DCE,
and vinyl chloride were observed in PA-24S and PA-25S. Ethene concentrations increased substantially in
PA-23 after the post-demonstration characterization event. This could suggest that the remaining EZVI in
the treatment area still promotes dechlorination of TCE in and around the test area.
These groundwater samples were collected when the recirculation system in the test plot had been turned
off for over one year, and natural groundwater flow patterns were likely reestablished. The results of this
sampling event suggest that the CVOCs in the test plot continued to degrade by biotic and abiotic means
for more than a year after injection of EZVI.
-------
Table C-5. CVOC Groundwater Concentrations in the Multilevel Wells One Year after Post-
Demonstration Characterization
TCE (ug/L)
c/s-1,2-DCE(ug/L)
Vinyl Chloride (ug/L)
Well ID
PA-23
EEW-1
EML-1
EML-2
EML-3
EML-4
PA-24S
PA-25S
Pre-
Demo
1,180,000
1 ,050,000
450,000
350,000
1,300
1,600
772,000
71 ,300
Post-
Demo
8,790
471 ,000
76,000
23,000
74,000
24,000
12,100
129,000
Long-
Term
NA
NA
2,700
1,000
740
<100
NA
NA
Pre-
Demo
16,900
67,100
1 1 ,000
21 ,000
<100
130
47,400
69,200
Post-
Demo
169,000
80,100
96,000
130,000
41 ,000
42,000
31 ,700
42,800
Long-
Term
NA
NA
77,900
5,320
2,630
1,150
NA
NA
Pre-
Demo
<1,000
<1,000
<500
<500
<100
<20
<1,000
<1,000
Post-
Demo
21 ,600
6,980
29,000
20,000
500
1,500
1,580
75J
Long-
Term
NA
NA
33,500
4,950
1,830
1,460
NA
NA
NA = not analyzed
Pre-demonstration: March 2002; Post-demonstration: November 2002; Long-Term: December 2003.
Table C-6. CVOC and Ethene Concentrations in Groundwater in Shallow Wells, March 2004
Well ID Pre-Demo
During
Post-Demo
Long-
Term Pre-Demo
TCE (ug/L)
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23 1,180,000
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S 772,000
PA-25S 71 ,300
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1 144,000
EEW-1 1 ,050,000
92,100
474,000
69,600
NA
NA
8,790
12,100
129,000
7,820
471 ,000
2J
501
<5
108
4.5
frans-1,2-DCE(ug/L)
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23 <1 ,000
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S < 1,000
PA-25S <1,000
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1 556
EEW-1 550 J
68 J
<50
46 J
NA
NA
245
190 J
381
24 J
390 J
71
1,140
83.8
148
10.5
Ethene (ug/L)
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23 79.3
10
1,680
9,280
During
Post-Demo
Long-
Term
c/s-1,2-DCE (ug/L)
16,900
47,400
69,200
38,300
67,100
17,900
15,800
9,320
NA
NA
169,000
31,700
42,800
3,280
80,100
870
63,100
<5
8,650
10.6
Vinyl Chloride (ug/L)
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
638
<1 ,000
53 J
<50
<100
NA
NA
21 ,600
1,580
75 J
322
6,980
3,620
54,600
8.75
4,890
34.9
Well IDs: S = shallow well (Upper Sand Unit)
EIW-1 = injection well; EEW-1 = extraction well.
Pre-demonstration = March 2002; during the demonstration = August 2002; post-demonstration = November 2002;
Long-term = March 2004
J = Estimated value, below reporting limit.
-------
180,000
160,000
140,000
=! 120,000
jS 100,000
o
§
o
£
o
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
1,400,000
-- 1,200,000
-- 1,000,000
-- 800,000
ill
O
-- 600,000
-- 400,000
-- 200,000
Pre-Demonstration During Post-Demonstration Long-Term
Figure C-1. CVOC Concentrations and Ethene in PA-23 After EZVI Treatment
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
ill
O
600,000
400,000
200,000
- 9,000
- 8,000
- 7,000
- 6,000
10,000
"5)
3.
5,000 u
- 4,000
- 3,000
- 2,000
- 1,000
Pre-Demo
During
Post-Demo
Long-Term
Figure C-2. TCE and Ethene Concentrations in Groundwater in PA-23 after EZVI Treatment
-------
Appendix D
Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
Table D-1. Groundwater Field Parameters
Table D-2. Inorganic Results of Groundwater from the EZVI Demonstration
Table D-3. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater from the EZVI
Demonstration
Table D-4. Results of Chloride Using Waterloo Profiler®
Table D-5. Results of Dissolved Gases in Groundwater from the EZVI
Demonstration
Table D-6. Result of TOC in Soil Samples Prior to the EZVI Demonstration
Table D-7. Mass Flux Measurements of Groundwater from the EZVI
Demonstration
Table D-8. Genetrac Analysis of Groundwater Samples from the EZVI
Demonstration
-------
Table D-l. Groundwater Field Parameters
Well ID
Temperature (°C)
Pre-Demo
Aug2002
Post-Demo
DO (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Aug2002
Post-Demo
PH
Pre-Demo
Aug2002
Post-Demo
ORP(mV)
Pre-Demo
Aug2002
Post-Demo
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Pre-Demo
Aug2002
Post-Demo
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
26.2| 29.62| 27.88| 0.39| 0.1
0.00| 6.49| 7.23| 6.41
31
-143| -17| 0.18| 1.81
0.24
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S
PA-241
PA-24D
PA-25S
PA-251
PA-25D
25.9
25.6
25.4
26.2
25.7
25.4
29.4
28
27.99
29.75
28.93
28.11
27.72
27.02
26.54
29.42
27.53
26.9
1.03
0.59
0.94
0.98
0.90
0.97
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.40
6.81
6.78
6.58
6.83
6.77
7.07
7.5
7.16
7.22
7.56
7.49
6.6
7.16
6.93
7.1
7.12
6.97
42
33
15
148
83
71
-97
-128
-107
-125
-121
-195
32
55
40
11
11
3
0.15
0.22
0.16
0.22
0.21
0.33
1.82
2.73
2.42
1.78
1.99
3.1
0.2
0.28
0.28
0.12
0.19
0.3
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1
EEW-1
29.1
25.4
NA
NA
26.98
28.09
0.83
0.31
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
6.62
6.47
NA
NA
6.6
6.48
15
55
NA
NA
17
106
0.16
0.16
NA
NA
0.19
0.19
Pre-Demo: March 2002
Post-Demo: EZVI-November 2002.
M:\Projects\Envir RestonCape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App D\EZVI Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-2. Inorganic Results of Groundwater from the EZVI Demonstration
Well ID
Dissolved Iron (nig/L)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
Total Iron (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
Manganese (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
Calcium (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
Magnesium (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
Potassium (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
Sodium (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
PA-23-DUP
15.7
15.4
3.65
3.56
3.03
2.99
14.8
13
4.07
4.11
2.73
2.52
0.12
0.119
0.0498
0.0492
0.121
0.12
159
157
111
122
224
240
19.9
19.2
34.7
40.9
51
57.7
231
232
122
133
147
161
36.8
34.4
72.4
80.4
67.2
66.5
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S
PA-241
PA-24D
PA-25S
PA-251
PA-25D
27.4
5.54
2.36
12
2.68
1.12
2.58
0.751
1.74
2.27
0.255
0.784
16.2
2.56
3.12
2.97
1.82
0.906
21.8
6.05
3.07
13.2
1.54
1.21
2.8
0.811
2.04
2.51
0.448
1.08
17.3
2.62
4.2
3.23
1.84
1.02
0.2
0.148
0.0893
0.0985
0.0461
0.0391
0.067
0.0473
0.0567
0.0318
0.0163
0.0182
0.0701
0.0568
0.035
0.0188
0.026
0.024
184
935
104
138
66.5
59.9
160
68.3
105
138
51.1
59.2
154
59.1
87.4
72
49.3
59.2
26.6
65.3
53.2
21.3
65.2
72.3
40.7
78.2
61.8
38
83
74.5
41.9
59.4
59.4
16.8
66.2
66.4
116
55.6
50.1
299
51.9
17.2
98.9
36.2
53.9
75.6
30.3
20.9
87.1
28.6
46
68
27.2
19.7
38
280
174
39.7
232
443
64.2
323
218
81.4
213
405
65.8
312
257
62.3
195
374
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1
EEW-1
7.23
13.4
NA
NA
6.16
6.45
7.33
12.9
NA
NA
5.54
6.76
0.21
0.154
NA
NA
0.653
0.208
156
178
NA
NA
201
160
15
15.9
NA
NA
32.7
30.5
161
195
NA
NA
134
170
99.1
37.1
NA
NA
65.6
73.4
NA: Not analyzed.
S: Spike recovery outside control limits.
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Post-Demo: EZVI-November 2002.
Well ID
Chloride (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Demol
Post-
Demo
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
PA-23-DUP
200
200
175
175
294
209
Phosphate (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Demol
Post-
Demo
<0.5
<0.5
<3.0
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
Bromide (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Demol
Post-
Demo
<1.0
<1.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.65
2.6
Sulfate (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Demol
Post-
Demo
103.0
103.0
147
147
12.7
12.9
Nitrate (NO3-NO2 as N)
Pre-Demo
Demo 1
Post-
Demo
NA
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Demol
Post-
Demo
475
470
384
391
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S
PA-24I
PA-24D
PA-25S
PA-25I
PA-25D
191
463
353
244
359
848
183
521
487
170
313
760
201
581
572
128
277
722
<3.0
<6.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<4.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
22.9
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
6.2
<2.0
<2.0
0.41 J
1.06
5.47
2.61
0.36 J
1.44
90.7
100.0
89.6
132.0
136.0
58.0
139
105
132
237
112
64.4
118
77.5
73.9
112
112
61.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
392
342
320
537
363
222
416
364
326
367
405
249
669
616
461
341
316
208
391
267
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1
EEW-1
199
177
NA
NA
196
195
<3.0
<0.5
NA
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<1.0
NA
NA
2.66
3.84
164.0
107.0
NA
NA
1.4J
113
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
0.842
320
453
NA
NA
623
479
M:\Prqjets\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App D\EZVI Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-3. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater from the EZVI Demonstration
Well ID
TDS (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
August
2002
Post-
Demo
TOC (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
BOD (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
Post-Demo
Dissolved Silica (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
August
2002
Post-Demo
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
PA-23-DUP
1,090
1,080
969
972
1,470
1,160
150
154
77
85
3.0
3.0
30
148
32.1
32.1
40.6
33.5
85.7
92.2
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S
PA-241
PA-24D
PA-25S
PA-251
PA-25D
947
1,290
1,100
1,230
1,120
1,670
1,020
1,390
1,400
1,120
1,100
1,680
1,070
1,460
1,450
663
1,040
1,600
108
54
66
114
87
18
45
19
21
21
28
19
<6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
10.0
<6.0
39
<3.0
4
5
5
<3.0
32.1
38.4
37.8
31.7
54.6
53.5
46.6
54.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
65.4
65.8
61.2
44.1
87.1
76.4
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1
EEW-1
993
989
NA
NA
1,180
1,200
55
144
66
76
<3.0
<3.0
141
136
20.1
24.3
NA
NA
88.0
49.4
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Post-Demo: EZVI-November 2002.
M:\Projets\Envir RestortCape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App D\EZVI Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-4. Results of Chloride Using Waterloo Profiler
Sample ID
Chloride II
mg/L Isample ID
Chloride
mg/L
EZVI Plot
EZVI-WP1-15
EZVI-WP1-20
EZVI-WP1-30
EZVI-WP1-38
EZVI-WP1-40
EZVI-WP2-15
EZVI-WP2-20
EZVI-WP2-30
EZVI-WP2-36
EZVI-WP2-38
64.8
170
349
783
743
88.8
188
347
763
798
EZVI-WP201-15
EZVI- WP20 1-24
EZVI- WP20 1-30
EZVI- WP20 1-38
EZVI- WP20 1-40
EZVI-WP202-15
EZVI-WP202-24
EZVI-WP202-30
EZVI-WP202-38
EZVI-WP202-40
175
227
388
993
990
157
188
672
902
927
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App D\EZVI Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-5. Results of Dissolved Gases in Groundwater from the EZ VI Demonstration
Well ID
Ethane (mg/L)
P re-Demo
August
2002
Post-
Demo
Ethylene (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
August
2002
Post-
Demo
Methane (mg/L)
Pre-Demo
August
2002
Post-
Demo
EZVI Plot Well
PA-23
PA-23-DUP
0.00205
0.00328
0.0022
0.0021
0.0231
0.0214
0.0757
0.0793
0.010
0.01
1.68
1.56
0.0125
0.0141
0.0432
0.0399
0.547
0.502
EZVI Perimeter Wells
PA-24S
PA-241
PA-24D
PA-25S
PA-251
PA-25D
0.0376
0.0203
0.0388
0.0061 3 R
0.00829
0.00909
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0047
0.0065
0.0089
<0.002
0.0035
0.0048
0.274
0.278
0.475
0.207
0.305
0.051
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.105
0.031
0.069
0.007
0.062
0.018
0.0218
0.0174
0.0127
0.00734
0.0204
0.00524
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.140
0.047
0.034
0.012
0.061
0.016
Injection and Extraction Wells
EIW-1
EEW-1
<0.002
0.0035
NA
NA
<0.002
0.0551
0.0234
0.0512
NA
NA
0.137
0.978
0.0145
0.0162
NA
NA
0.611
0.978
R: RPD outside accepted recovery limits.
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Post-Demo: EZVI-November2002.
M:\Projets\Envir RestortCape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App D\EZVI Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-6. Results of TOC in Soil Samples Prior to the EZVI Demonstration
Sample ID
EZVI-SB4-12
EZVI-SB4-14
EZVI-SB4-32
EZVI-SB4-34
EZVI-SB4-40
EZVI-SB4-42
TOC Results
(wt%-dry)
0.10
0.06
0.14
0.15
0.32
0.26
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App D\EZVI Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-7. Mass Flux Measurements of Groundwater from the EZVI Demonstration
Provided by GeoSyntec Consultants
Extraction Transect
Depth (ft bgs)
16
18.5
21
23.5
26
Sum of All Depths
Injection Transect
Depth (ft bgs)
16
18.5
21
23.5
26
Sum of All Depths
PA ft
TCE (umoles/L)
Pre
49
2967
6086
10498
9357
28956
Post
2
1223
1278
3880
6466
12849
A
-47
-1744
-4808
-6618
-2891
-16107
Pre
18
14
22
47
124
225
Post
68
18
33
26
31
175
A
50
4
11
-21
-93
-49
Pre
723
Post
1
A
-722
c
i
Pre
23
61
330
330
564
1307
is-l,2-DCE
umoles/L)
Post
7
1288
1669
1772
2215
6950
A
-15
1227
1339
1442
1650
5643
Pre
4
4
1
3
17
30
Post
447
19
33
27
26
551
A
443
15
32
23
9
521
Pre
42
Post
12
A
-30
VC (umoles/L)
Pre
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post
320
451
622
413
462
2268
A
320
451
622
413
462
2268
Pre
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post
179
2
8
7
6
202
A
179
2
8
7
6
202
Pre
0
Post
45
A
45
Ethene (umoles/L)
Pre
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post
128
318
402
134
109
1091
A
128
318
402
134
109
1091
Pre
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post
561
90
138
152
148
1089
A
561
90
138
152
148
1089
Pre
0
Post
145
A
145
Total Ethenes
(umoles/L)
Pre
72
3028
6415
10827
9921
30263
Post
458
3280
3971
6198
9252
23159
A
385
252
-2444
-4629
-669
-7105
Pre
22
18
23
50
141
255
Post
1255
129
212
212
210
2018
A
1233
111
188
162
69
1763
Pre
765
Post
202
A
-563
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canavereal 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App DWIass Flux Calcs_03.07.03.XLS
-------
Table D-7. Mass Flux Measurements of Groundwater from the EZVI Demonstration (Continued)
Provided by GeoSyntec Consultants
Sample Location
E-ML1-1
E-ML1-2
E-ML1-3
E-ML1-4
E-ML1-5
E-ML2-1
E-ML2-2
E-ML2-3
E-ML2-4
E-ML2-5
E-ML3-1
E-ML3-2
E-ML3-3
E-ML3-4
E-ML3-5
E-ML4-1
E-ML4-2
E-ML4-3
E-ML4-4
E-ML4-5
PA-23
TCE (umoles/L)
Pre
20
2815
3423
5173
4564
30
152
2662
5325
4792
13
9
10
21
33
5
4
12
27
91
723
Post
0
1217
700
1597
989
2
6
578
2282
5477
67
17
28
21
26
1
1
4
6
5
1
Change
-20
-1597
-2723
-3575
-3575
-27
-146
-2084
-3043
685
54
8
18
0
-7
-4
-3
-8
-21
-86
-722
cis-l,2-DCE
(umoles/L)
Pre
0
49
113
134
101
23
11
216
196
464
3
3
0
2
6
1
1
1
2
11
42
Post
0
834
783
948
1957
7
453
886
824
258
443
16
20
11
16
4
3
13
15
9
12
Change
0
785
670
814
1856
-16
442
670
628
-206
440
13
20
10
11
3
2
12
14
-2
-30
VC (umoles/L)
Pre
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post
1
319
319
319
462
319
132
303
94
0
175
0
3
3
3
4
2
6
4
3
45
Change
1
319
319
319
462
319
132
303
94
0
175
0
3
3
3
4
2
6
4
3
45
Ethene (umoles/L)
Pre
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post
5
169
236
92
109
124
148
166
42
0
494
74
78
74
81
67
16
60
78
67
145
Change
5
169
236
92
109
124
148
166
42
0
494
74
78
74
81
67
16
60
78
67
145
Total Ethenes (umoles/L)
Pre
20
2864
3536
5307
4665
52
163
2879
5521
5256
16
12
10
22
38
7
5
14
28
103
765
Post
6
2540
2038
2956
3518
452
740
1933
3243
5735
1179
107
128
109
127
76
22
84
103
84
202
Change
-14
-324
-1498
-2351
-1147
399
576
-946
-2278
479
1163
95
118
87
88
70
16
70
75
-19
-563
M:\Projects\Envir RestortCape Canavereal 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App DWIass Flux Calcs_03.07.03.XLS
-------
Table D-8. Genetrac Analysis of Groundwater Samples from the EZVI Demonstration
Provided by GeoSyntec Consultants
Well ID
E-ML3-2
PA-23
Sample ID
E-ML3-2-DB
E-ML3-2-RS
PA-23-DB
PA-23-RS
Sample Date
10-M-02
6-Jan-03
10-M-02
6-Jan-03
Non-Dehalococcides Bacterial DNA
Detected
Not Determined
Detected
Detected
*Dehalococcides Test, Intensity
(% of Positive Control)
80%
0%
105%
151%
"Intensity Score
+++
++++
++++
Test Results: Dehalococcoides
DNA
Detected (3 of 3 primer sets)
Not Detected
Detected (3 of 3 primer sets)
Detected (3 of 3 primer sets)
Notes:
The above results refer only to that portion of the sample tested with the Gene-Trac™ assay. The test is based on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test with 3 primer sets specific to DNA sequences in the 16S rRNA gene of
Dehalococcoides organisms. A positive (+ to ++++) result indicates that genetic material (DNA) from a member of the Dehalococcoides group was detected. Dehalococcoides organisms are the only microorganisms proven to
possess the necessary enzymes for the complete dechlorination of PCE or TCE to ethene. The presence of Dehalococcoides genetic material has been positively correlated to complete dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes at
contaminated sites.
*"Dehalococcoides Test Intensity" = quantitative assessment of electrophoresis band intensity of PCR product as a percentage of the corresponding positive control reaction. This value provides a semi-quantitative assessment of
the amount of Dehalococcoides genetic material present in the sample. While band intensity might reflect actual concentration of the target organism, Gene-Trac™ is a semi-quantitative method and is only recommended to
determine the presence or absence of Dehalococcoides genetic material in the sample.
**"Intensity Score", categorizes PCR product quantity based on the "intensity (% of positive control)":
++++ = Very high band intensity (greater than 100% of positive control), +++ = high band intensity (67-100%),
++ moderate band intensity (34-66%) + = low band intensity (10-33%), -/+ = inconclusive (1-9%), - = no detectable band (0%)
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App D\Gene-Trac Dehalococcoides Assay.xls
-------
Appendix E
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
-------
Table E-l. Results of the Extraction Procedure Performed on PA-4 Soil Samples
Extraction Procedure Conditions
Total Weight of Wet Soil (g) = 2,124.2
Concentration (mg TCE/g soil) = 3.3
Moisture Content of Soil (%) = 24.9
Combined
1,587.8 g dry soil from PA-4 boring
529.3 g deionized water
5mLTCE
Laboratory
Extraction
Sample ID
TCE Concentration
in MeOH
(mg/L)
TCE Mass
in MeOH
(mg)
TCE Concentration in
Spiked Soil
(mg/kg)
Theoretical TCE Mass
Expected in MeOH
(mg)
Percentage Recovery
of Spiked TCE
(%)
1s* Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP- -1
SEP- -2
SEP- -3
SEP- -4
SEP- -5
SEP-1-6 (Control)
1800.0
1650.0
1950.0
1840.0
1860.0
78.3
547.1
501.8
592.2
558.1
564.0
19.4
3252.5
3164.9
3782.3
3340.2
3533.9
-
744.11
701.26
692.62
739.13
705.91
25.00
Average % Recovery =
73.53
71.55
85.51
75.51
79.89
77.65
77.20
2nd Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP-2-1
SEP-2-2
SEP-2-3
SEP-2-4
SEP-2-5
SEP-2-6 (Control)
568.0
315.0
170.0
329.0
312.0
82.6
172.7
95.5
51.3
99.8
94.8
20.4
861.1
500.5
268.2
498.4
476.3
-
887.28
843.77
846.42
885.29
880.31
25.00
Average % Recovery =
19.47
11.31
6.06
11.27
10.77
81.79
11.78
3rd Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP-3-1
SEP-3-2
SEP-3-3
SEP-3-4
SEP-3-5
SEP-3-6 (Control)
55.8
59.0
56.8
63.0
52.2
84.3
17.0
17.9
17.2
19.1
15.8
20.9
84.6
94.2
90.1
95.2
80.0
-
885.96
841.77
846.42
888.61
875.99
25.00
Average % Recovery =
1.91
2.13
2.04
2.15
1.81
83.55
2.01
-------
Table E-2.1,1,1-TCA Surrogate Spike Recovery Values for Soil Samples Collected During the EZVI Demonstration Characterization
EZVI Treatment Plot 1,1,1 TCA-Spiked Soil Samples
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
1,1,1-TCA
Result
(ug/L)
RPD
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
Pre-Demonstration
EZVI-SBl-lO(SS)
EZVI-SBl-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB2-8(SS)
EZVI-SB2-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB3-8(SS)
EZVI-SB3-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB4-8(SS)
EZVI-SB4-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB5-8(SS)
EZVI-SB5-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB6-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB6-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB7-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB7-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB8-8 (SS)
EZVI-SB8-
MeOH(SS)(a)
01/16/02
01/16/02
01/17/02
01/18/02
01/31/02
02/01/02
02/07/02
03/20/02
5,270
6,700
5,840
4,820
6,100
6,250
5,190
6,310
4,750
5,180
6,190
6,250
5,070
4,640
6,230
5,670
23.89
19.14
2.43
19.48
8.66
0.96
8.86
9.41
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 328 [Pre-(157); Post-(171)]
Total Number of Spiked Samples Analyzed = 8 (Pre-) 6 (Post-)
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
1,1,1-TCA
Result
(ug/L)
RPD
(%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Post-Demonstration
EZVI-SB302-8(SS)
EZVI-SB302- MB(SS)
EZVI-SB304-8(SS)
EZVI-SB304- MB(SS)
EZVI-SB303-8(SS)
EZVI-SB303-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB301-8(SS)
EZVI-SB301-MB(SS)
EZVI-SB307-8(SS)
EZVI-SB307- MB(SS)
EZVI-SB308-8(SS)
EZVI-SB308- MB(SS)
11/18/02
11/19/02
11/20/02
11/21/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
6,560
5,670
4,230
5,580
5,790
8,000
5,140
4,930
5,300
6,130
5,200
5,470
14.55
27.52
32.05
4.17
14.52
5.06
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
(a) Sample was labeled with -MeOH rather than the traditional -MB.
-------
Table E-3. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
EZVI Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Soil Samples
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Result
(mg/kg)
RPD
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
Pre-Demonstration
EZVI-SB1-8
EZVI-SB1-8DUP
EZVI-SB2-24
EZVI-SB2-24 DUP
EZVI-SB3-40
EZVI-SB3-40 DUP
EZVI-SB4-40
EZVI-SB4-40 DUP
EZVI-SB5-38
EZVI-SB5-38 DUP
EZVI-SB6-32
EZVI-SB6-32 DUP
EZVI-SB7-44
EZVI-SB7-44 DUP
EZVI-SB8-34
EZVI-SB8-34 DUP
01/16/02
01/16/02
01/17/02
01/18/02
01/31/02
02/01/02
02/07/02
03/20/02
Trace
Trace
207
262
1
1
1
1
11
1
259
233
Trace
Trace
Trace
1
0.0
23.45
0.0
0.0
167(a)
2.34
0.0
0.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 328 [Pre-(157); Post-(171)]
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 8 (Pre-) 11 (Post-)
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result RPD
(mg/kg) (%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Post-Demonstration
EZVI-SB208-8
EZVI-SB208-8 DUP
EZVI-SB207-24
EZVI-SB207-24 DUP
EZVI-SB209-22
EZVI-SB209-22 DUP
EZVI-SB203-18
EZVI-SB203-18 DUP
EZVI-SB204-24
EZVI-SB204-24 DUP
EZVI-SB302-18
EZVI-SB302-18 DUP
EZVI-SB304-32
EZVI-SB304-32 DUP
EZVI-SB303-20
EZVI-SB303-20 DUP
EZVI-SB301-36
EZVI-SB301-36DUP
EZVI-SB307-26
EZVI-SB307-26 DUP
EZVI-SB308-42
EZVI-SB308-42 DUP
10/08/02
10/08/02
10/08/02
10/09/02
10/09/02
11/18/02
11/19/02
11/20/02
11/21/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
269
204
856
268
1.0
Trace
1.1
1.0
35
13
5.2
6.1
74
63
451
400
Trace
2.0
113
149
Trace
Trace
27.48
104(b)
0.0
9.52
91.67(a)
15.93
16.06
11.98
200(a)
27.48
0.0
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
(a) High RPD value due to the effect of low (or below detect) concentrations of TCE, which drastically affected the RPD calculation.
(b) High RPD value may be due to high levels of DNAPL distributed heterogeneously through the soil core sample.
-------
Table E-4. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
EZVI Rinsate Blank Soil Extraction QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 1.0 ug/L
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Pre-Demonstration Rinsate Blank Samples
EZVI-SB1 -RINSATE
EZVI-SB2-RINSATE
EZVI-SB3-RINSATE
EZVI-SB4-RINSATE
EZVI-SB6-RINSATE
EZVI-SB7-RINSATE
EZVI-SB8-RINSATE
01/16/02
01/16/02
01/17/02
01/18/02
02/01/02
02/07/02
03/20/02
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
2.88
<1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 328 [Pre-(157); Post-(171)]
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 15
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Post-Demonstration Rinsate Blank Samples
EZVI-SB207-RINSATE
EZVI-SB203 -RINSATE
EZVI-SB304-RINSATE
EZVI-SB302-RINSATE
EZVI-SB303-RINSATE
EZVI-SB301-RINSATE
EZVI-SB307-RINSATE
EZVI-SB308-RINSATE
10/08/02
10/09/02
11/19/02
11/18/02
11/20/02
11/21/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Table E-5. Results of the Methanol Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
EZVI Methanol Blank Soil Extraction QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 100 ug/L
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Pre-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
EZVI-SB1-MEOH
EZVI-SB2-MEOH
EZVI-SB3-MEOH
EZVI-SB4-MEOH
EZVI-SB5-MEOH
EZVI-SB6-MEOH
EZVI-SB7-MEOH
EZVI-SB8-MB(a)
01/16/02
01/16/02
01/17/02
01/18/02
01/31/02
02/01/02
02/07/02
03/20/02
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 328 [Pre-(157); Post-(171)]
Total Number of Methanol Blank Samples Analyzed = 19
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
Post-Demonstration Methanol Blank Samples
EZVI-SB208-MEOH
EZVI-SB207-MEOH
EZVI-SB209-MEOH
EZVI-SB203-MEOH
EZVI-SB204-MEOH
EZVI-SB302-MEOH
EZVI-SB304-MEOH
EZVI-SB303-MEOH
EZVI-SB301-MEOH
EZVI-SB307-MEOH
EZVI-SB308-MEOH
10/08/02
10/08/02
10/08/02
10/09/02
10/09/02
11/18/02
11/19/02
11/20/02
11/21/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
160
193
313
254
200
<100
<100
<100
117
140
<100
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
(a) Sample was labeled with -MB rather than the traditional -MEOH.
-------
Table E-6. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the EZVI Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
EZVI Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Total Number of Groundwater Samples Collected = 28 [Pre- (10); During (8); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 3
TCE Result
(ug/L)
RPD
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
EZVI Pre-Demonstration Field Duplicate Samples
PA-23
PA-23DUP
03/26/02
03/26/02
1,180,000
1,130,000
4.33
Yes
During the EZVI Demonstration
PA-23
PA-23DUP
08/20/02
08/20/02
92,100
84,600
8.49
Yes
EZVI Post-Demonstration Field Duplicate Samples
PA-23
PA-23DUP
11/25/02
11/25/02
8,790
9,010
2.47
Yes
Table E-7. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the EZVI Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
EZVI Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Sampling Event
Pre-Demonstration
During the Demonstration
Post-Demonstration
Total Number of Samples Collected = 28
[Pre- (10); During- (8); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Rinsate Blank Samples Analyzed = 3
Analysis Date
03/26/02
08/20/02
11/25/02
TCE Concentration
(ug/L)
<1.0
1.05
<1.0
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Table E-8. Results of the Trip Blank Samples Analyzed During the EZVI Demonstration Soil and Groundwater Sampling
EZVI Trip Blank QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Result
(ug/L)
Total Number of Samples Collected = 328 (Soil) 28 (Groundwater)
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 19
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
EZVI Demonstration Trip Blanks
EZVI-TB-1
EZVI-TB-2
EZVI-TB-3
EZVI-TB-4
EZVI-TB-5
EZVI-TB-6
EZVI-TB-7
EZVI-TB-8
EZVI-TB-9
EZVI-TB-10
01/16/02
01/21/02
02/01/02
02/04/02
02/07/02
02/08/02
03/20/02
03/26/02
03/27/02
10/08/02
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.09
<1.0
<1.0
14.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
EZVI-TB-11
EZVI-TB-12
EZVI-TB-13
EZVI-TB-14
EZVI-TB-15
EZVI-TB-16
EZVI-TB-17
EZVI-TB-18
EZVI-TB-19
10/09/02
11/19/02
11/18/02
11/20/02
11/21/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
11/25/02
11/25/02
12.4
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Table E-9. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis for the EZVI Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
EZVI Demonstration Soil MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
Total Number of Samples Collected = 328 [Pre- (157); Post- (171)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 18
Total Number of Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 18
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
EZVI Pre-Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
020 1067-03 A MS
020 1067-03 A MSB
0201067-26AMS
0201067-26AMSD
0201067-49AMS
0201067-49AMSD
0201067-60AMS
0201067-60AMSD
0201 067- 15AMS(a)
0201 067- 15AMSB(a)
0201087-04AMS
0201087-04AMSD
0201087-27AMS
0201087-27AMSD
0201087-17AMS
0201087-17AMSD
0201105-01AMS(a)
0201105-01AMSD(a)
01/18/02
01/19/02
01/21/02
01/22/02
01/22/02
01/23/02
01/23/02
01/25/02
01/26/02
103
103
101
103
121
121
103
90
-52.4
-53.2
102
102
105
104
110
110
33.9
26.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
0.054
1.97
0.446
5.47
0.712
0.269
0.381
0.039
0.556
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0201104-04AMS
0201104-04AMSD
0201104-50AMS
0201104-50AMSD
0202007-04A MS
0202007-04A MSB
0202007-27A MS
0202007-27A MSB
0202007-21 A MS
0202007-21 A MSB
0202014-1 1A MS
0202014-1 1A MSB
0202037-10AMS
0202037-10AMSB
0202037-09A MS
0202037-09A MSB
0203105-03AMS
0203 105-03A MSB
01/29/02
01/29/03
01/30/03
02/04/02
02/04/02
02/05/02
02/06/02
02/12/02
02/13/02
03/24/02
110
113
109
103
108
105
108
108
112
110
108
109
121
120
130
162
101
99.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
2.46
4.77
2.52
0.918
2.18
0.799
0.909
21.5
1.34
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(a) Spike recovery was outside of the control limits due to the high concentration of TCE present in the reference sample. No further corrective actions were
required and no sample results were adversely affected.
-------
Table E-10. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis for the EZVI Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
EZVI Demonstration Soil MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
Total Number of Samples Collected = 328 [Pre- (157); Post- (171)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 16
Total Number of Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 16
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
EZVI Post-Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
0210032-02AMS
0210032-02AMSD
0210032-13AMS
0210032-13AMSD(a)
0210037-28AMS
0210037-28AMSD
0210037-27AMS
0210037-27AMSD
0210037-05AMS
0210037-05AMSD
0210037-15AMS
0210037-15AMSD
0211089-03AMS
0211089-03AMSD
0211089-20AMS
0211089-20AMSD
10/10/02
10/10/02
10/11/02
10/14/02
10/12/02
10/15/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
101
96.2
107
139
104
102
89
87.1
116
117
99.7
92.6
107
110
111
110
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5.08
24.9
2.44
2.20
0.274
6.94
2.44
0.649
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0211098-18AMS(a)
0211098-18AMSD(a)
0211079-03AMS
0211079-03AMSD
0211108-08AMS
0211108-08AMSD
0211108-24AMS
0211108-24AMSD
0211120-17AMS
0211120-17AMSD
0211142-10AMS(a)
0211142-10AMSD(a)
0211120-02AMS
0211120-02AMSD
0211121-18AMS
0211121-18AMSD
1 1/26/02
1 1/20/02
11/26/02
11/27/02
12/02/02
12/05/02
12/05/02
11/27/02
136
139
110
103
93.5
98.3
108
99.6
111
103
-294
-402
110
106
92.6
85.3
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.45
5.44
4.51
8.13
7.24
4.59
4.04
8.17
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(b) Spike recovery was outside of the control limits due to the high concentration of TCE present in the reference sample. No further corrective actions were
required and no sample results were adversely affected.
-------
Table E-ll. Laboratory Control Spike Sample Analysis During the EZVI Pre-and Post Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
EZVI Demonstration Soil LCS Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
Total Number of Samples Collected = 328 [Pre- (157); Post- (171)]
Total Number of Laboratory Control Spike Samples Analyzed = 41
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
EZVI Pre-Demonstration Laboratory Control Spike Samples
LCS-9593
LCS-9598
LCS-9604
LCS-9608
LCS-9620
LCS-9634
LCS-9635
LCS-9621
LCS-9629
LCS-9635
LCS-9637
LCS-9646
LCS-9647
01/18/02
01/19/02
01/21/02
01/22/02
01/23/02
01/22/02
01/23/02
01/23/02
01/23/02
01/23/02
01/24/02
01/25/02
01/25/02
95.5
101
116
90.6
95.6
101
94.5
100
101
94.5
95.5
110
92
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LCS-9649
LCS-9650
LCS-9662
LCS-9665
LCS-9668
LCS-9706
LCS-9711
LCS-9712
LCS-9726
LCS-9772
LCS-9788
LCS-10147
01/25/02
01/27/02
01/28/02
01/29/02
01/29/02
02/04/02
02/04/02
02/05/02
02/05/02
02/11/02
02/13/02
03/24/02
110
103
90.2
112
113
107
106
107
107
121
123
97.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
EZVI Post-Demonstration Laboratory Control Spike Samples
LCS-11576
LCS-11583
LCS-11595
LCS-11601
LCS-11593
LCS-11600
LCS-11850
LCS-11857
10/09/02
10/10/02
10/11/02
10/14/02
10/11/02
10/14/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
99.5
102
103
103
102
108
105
103
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LCS-11873
LCS-11841
LCS-11879
LCS-11887
LCS-11897
LCS-11907
LCS-11933
LCS-11940
11/25/02
11/20/02
11/26/02
11/27/02
11/27/02
12/02/02
12/04/02
12/05/02
117
103
89
105
85.1
107
109
110
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Table E-12. Method Blank Sample Analysis during the EZVI Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
EZVI Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Total Number of Samples Collected = 328 [Pre- (157); Post- (171)]
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 41
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
EZVI Pre-Demonstration Method Blank Samples
MB-9593
MB-9598
MB-9604
MB-9608
MB-9620
MB-9634
MB-9635
MB-9621(a)
MB-9629
MB-9635
MB-9637
MB-9646
MB-9647
01/18/02
01/19/02
01/21/02
01/22/02
01/23/02
01/22/02
01/23/02
01/23/02
01/23/02
01/23/02
01/24/02
01/25/02
01/25/02
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<100
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
MB-9649
MB-9650
MB-9662
MB-9665
MB-9668
MB-9706
MB-9711
MB-9712
MB-9726
MB-9772
MB-9788
MB-10147
01/25/02
01/27/02
01/28/02
01/29/02
01/29/02
02/04/02
02/04/02
02/05/02
02/05/02
02/11/02
02/13/02
03/24/02
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
EZVI Post-Demonstration Method Blank Samples
MB-11576
MB-11583
MB-11595
MB-11601
MB-11593
MB-11600
MB-11850
MB-11857
10/09/02
10/10/02
10/11/02
10/14/02
10/11/02
10/14/02
11/21/02
11/22/02
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
MB-11873
MB-11841
MB-11879
MB-11887
MB-11897
MB-11907
MB-11933
MB-11940
11/25/02
11/20/02
11/26/02
11/27/02
11/27/02
12/02/02
12/04/02
12/05/02
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(a) Reporting limit was 100 ug/L TCE for this sample.
-------
Table E-13. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis During the EZVI Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
EZVI Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level TCE Recovery % = 75 - 125 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 20.0 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Recovery
(%)
Total Number of Samples Collected = 28
[Pre- (10); During (8); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 6
Total Number of Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 6
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
EZVI Pre-Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
0203129-04AMS
0203129-04AMSD
0203133-20AMS
0203133-20AMSD
03/28/02
03/29/02
90.7
88.4
99.1
100
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0.913
0.995
Yes
Yes
During the EZVI Demonstration
0208 106-03 A MS
0208 106-03 A MSD
02081 15-04AMS(a)
0208115-04AMSD(a)
08/27/02
08/29/02
125
115
353
347
Yes
Yes
No
No
7.76
0.421
Yes
Yes
EZVI Post-Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
0211142-10AMS(a)
0211142-10AMSD(a)
0211120-02AMS
02 11 120-02 A MSD
12/05/02
12/05/02
-294
-402
110
106
No
No
Yes
Yes
4.59
4.04
Yes
Yes
(a) Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) were outside of the control limits due to the high concentration of TCE present in the reference
sample. No further corrective actions were required and no sample results were adversely affected.
-------
Table E-14. Laboratory Control Spike Sample Analysis During the EZVI Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
EZVI Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level TCE Recovery % = 75 - 125 %
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Total Number of Samples Collected = 28
[Pre- (10); During (8); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 6
TCE Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
EZVI Pre-Demonstration Laboratory Control Spike Samples
LCS-10179
LCS-10187
03/28/02
03/29/02
102
105
Yes
Yes
During the EZVI Demonstration
LCS-11251
LCS-11273
08/27/02
08/28/02
111
100
EZVI Post-Demonstration Laboratory Control S
LCS-11933
LCS-11940
12/04/02
12/05/02
109
110
Yes
Yes
pike Samples
Yes
Yes
-------
Table E-15. Method Blank Sample Analysis During the EZVI Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
EZVI Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Total Number of Samples Collected = 28
[Pre- (10); During (8); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 6
TCE Recovery
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
EZVI Pre-Demonstration Method Blank Samples
MB-10179
MB-10187
03/28/02
03/29/02
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
During the EZVI Demonstration
MB-11251
MB-11273
08/27/02
08/29/02
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
EZVI Post-Demonstration Method Blank Samples
MB-11933
MB-11940
12/04/02
12/05/02
<1.0
<1.0
Yes
Yes
-------
DHL
ANALYTICAL
2300 Double Creek Drive • Round Rock, TX 78664
Phone (512) 388-8222 » FAX (512) 388-8229
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
DHL WORK ORDER #:
PROJECT LOCATION OR NAME:*3 "2-
DATA REPORTED TO: _
COLLECTOR:
CLIENT PROJECT #:
ADDITIONAL REPORT COPIES TO:
Authorize 5%
surcharge for
TRRP report?
S=SOIL P=PAINT
W=WATEH SL=SLUDGE
A=A!R A- OT=OTHER
PRESERVATION
Field
Sample I.D.
RECEIVED BY: (Signature)
LABORATORY USE ONLY
RECEIVING TEMP: _
CUSTODY SEALS - a BROKEN a INTACT a NOT USED
O CARRIER BILL #
JKT
RUSH D CALL FIRST
1 DAY n CALL FIRST
2 DAY D
NORMAL D
OTHER
BY: (Signature)
RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature
:CE!VED BY: (Signature)
^
RECEIVED BY: (Signature)
RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature)
O PICKED UP BY DHL ANALYTICAL STAFF
D HAND DELIVERED
O DHL DISPOSAL 9 $5,00 each
-------
Appendix F
Economic Analysis Information
Table F-1. Pump-and-Treat (P&T) System Design Basis
Table F-2. Capital Investment for a P&T System
Table F-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30 Years of Operation
Table F-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 Years of Operation
Figure F-1. P&T System Costs for 100 Years
-------
Appendix F
Economic Analysis Information
This appendix details the cost assessment for the application of the pump-and-treat (P&T) system
for containment of a DNAPL source at Launch Complex 34, for a source zone that is the same
size as the EZVI plot. Because the groundwater flow in this area is generally to the northeast, the
DNAPL source could be contained by installing one or more extraction wells on the northeast
side of the resistive heating plot. The life cycle cost of a pump-and-treat system can be compared
to the cost of DNAPL source removal by EZVI injection, as described in Section 7 of the main
report.
Experience at previous sites indicates that the most efficient long-term P&T system is one that is
operated at the minimum rate necessary to contain a plume or source zone (Cherry et al., 1996).
Table F-l shows a preliminary size determination for the P&T system. The P&T system should
be capable of capturing the groundwater flowing through a cross-section that is approximately 50
ft wide (width of a realistic contamination for the EZVI plot) and 30 ft deep (thickness of the
EZVI target depth). Because capture with P&T systems is somewhat inefficient in that cleaner
water from surrounding parts of the aquifer may also be drawn in, an additional safety factor of
100% was applied to ensure that any uncertainties in aquifer capture zone or DNAPL source
characterization are accounted for. An extraction rate of 2 gallon per minute (gpm) is found to be
sufficient to contain the source.
One advantage of low groundwater extraction rates is that the air effluent from stripping often
does not have to be treated, as the rate of VOC discharge to the ambient air is often within
regulatory limits. The longer period of operation required (at a low withdrawal rate) is more than
offset by higher efficiency (lower influx of clean water from outside the plume), lower initial
capital investment (smaller treatment system), and lower annual O&M requirements. Another
advantage of a containment type P&T system is that, unlike source removal technologies, it does
not require very extensive DNAPL zone characterization.
F.I Capital Investment for the P&T System
The P&T system designed for this application consists of the components shown in Table F-2.
Pneumatically driven pulse pumps, which are used in each well, are safer than electrical pumps in
the presence of TCE vapors in the wells. This type of pump can sustain low flowrates during
continuous operation. Stainless steel and Teflon™ construction ensure compatibility with the
high concentrations (up to 1,100 mg/L TCE) of dissolved solvent and any free-phase DNAPL that
may be expected. Extraction wells are assumed to be 30 ft deep, 2 inches in diameter, and have
stainless steel screens with PVC risers.
The aboveground treatment system consists of a DNAPL separator and air stripper. Very little
free-phase solvent is expected and the separator may be disconnected after the first year of
operation, if desired. The air stripper used is a low-profile tray-type air stripper. As opposed to
conventional packed towers, low-profile strippers have a smaller footprint, much smaller height,
and can handle large airwater ratios (higher mass transfer rate of contaminants) without
generating significant pressure losses. Because of their small size and easy installation, they are
more often used in groundwater remediation. The capacity of the air stripper selected is much
higher than 2 gpm, so that additional flow (or additional extraction wells) can be handled if
required.
-------
The high airwater ratio ensures that TCE (and other minor volatile components) are removed to
the desired levels. The treated water effluent from the air stripper is discharged to the sewer. The
air effluent is treated with a catalytic oxidation unit before discharge.
The piping from the wells to the air stripper is run through a 1-ft-deep covered trench. The air
stripper and other associated equipment are housed on a 20-ft-x-20-ft concrete pad, covered by a
basic shelter. The base will provide a power drop (through a pole transformer) and a licensed
electrician will be used for the power hookups. Meters and control valves are strategically placed
to control water and air flow through the system.
The existing monitoring system at the site will have to be supplemented with seven long-screen
(10-foot screen) monitoring wells. The objective of these wells is to ensure that the desired
containment is being achieved.
F.2 Annual Cost of the P&T System
The annual costs of P&T are shown in Table F-3 and include annual O&M. Annual O&M costs
include the labor, materials, energy, and waste disposal cost of operating the system and routine
maintenance (including scheduled replacement of seals, gaskets, and O-rings). Routine
monitoring of the stripper influent and effluent is done through ports on the feed and effluent
lines on a monthly basis. Groundwater monitoring is conducted on a quarterly basis through
seven monitoring wells. All water samples are analyzed for PCE and other CVOC by-products.
F.3 Periodic Maintenance Cost
In addition to the routine maintenance described above, periodic maintenance will be required, as
shown in Table F-3, to replace worn-out equipment. Based on manufacturers' recommendations
for the respective equipment, replacement is done once in 5 or 10 years. In general, all equipment
involving moving parts is assumed will be replaced once every 5 years, whereas other equipment
is changed every 10 years.
F.4 Present Value (PV) Cost of P&T
Because a P&T system is operated for the long term, a 30-year period of operation is assumed for
estimating cost. Because capital investment, annual costs, and periodic maintenance costs occur
at different points in time, a life cycle analysis or present value analysis is conducted to estimate
the long-term cost of P&T in today's dollars. This life cycle analysis approach is recommended
for long-term remediation applications by the guidance provided in the Federal Technologies
Roundtable's Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects (United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 1998). The
PV cost can then be compared with the cost of faster (DNAPL source reduction) remedies.
PV P&T costs = E Annual Cost in Year t Equation (F-l)
(1+r)1
P V P&T costs = Capital Investment + Annual cost in Year 1 + ... + Annual cost in Year n
(1+r)1 (l+r)n
Equation (F-2)
-------
Table F-3 shows the PV calculation for P&T based on Equation F-l. In Equation F-l, each
year's cost is divided by a discount factor that reflects the rate of return that is foregone by
incurring the cost. As seen in Equation F-2, at time t = 0, which is in the present, the cost
incurred is the initial capital investment in equipment and labor to design, procure, and build the
P&T system. Every year after that, a cost is incurred to operate and maintain the P&T system. A
real rate of return (or discount rate), r, of 2.9% is used in the analysis as per recent U.S. EPA
guidance on discount rates (U.S. EPA, 1999). The total PV cost of purchasing, installing, and
operating a 2-gpm P&T source containment system for 30 years is estimated to be $1,360,000
(rounded to the nearest thousand).
Long-term remediation costs are typically estimated for 30-year periods as mentioned above.
Although the DNAPL source may persist for a much longer time, the contribution of costs
incurred in later years to the PV cost of the P&T system is not very significant and the total 30-
year cost is indicative of the total cost incurred for this application. This can be seen from the
fact that in Years 28, 29, and 30, the differences in cumulative PV cost are not as significant as
the difference in, say, Years 2, 3, and 4. The implication is that, due to the effect of discounting,
costs that can be postponed to later years have a lower impact than costs that are incurred in the
present.
As an illustration of a DNAPL source that may last much longer than the 30-year period of
calculation, Figure F-l shows a graphic representation of PV costs assuming that the same P&T
system is operated for 100 years instead of 30 years. The PV cost curve flattens with each
passing year. The total PV cost after 100 years (in Table F-4) is estimated at $2,126,000.
-------
Table F-l. Pump-and-Treat (P&T) System Design Basis
Item
Width of DNAPL zone, w
Depth of DNAPL zone, d
Crossectional area of
DNAPL zone, a
Capture zone required
Safety factor, 100%
Required capture zone
Design pumping rate
Pumping rate per well
TCE cone, in water near
DNAPL zone
Air stripper removal
efficiency required
TCE in air effluent from
stripper
Value
50
30
1500
140
2
280
2
2
100
99.00%
2.4
Units
ft
ft
sqft
cuft/d
cuft/d
gpm
gpm
mg/L
Ibs/day
Item
Hyd. conductivity, K
Hyd. gradient, I
Porosity, n
Gw velocity, v
GPM =
Number of wells to achieve
capture
TCE allowed in discharge
water
TCE allowed in air effluent
Value
40
0.0007
0.3
0.093333
1.5
1
1
6
Units
ft/d
ft/ft
ft/d
gpm
mg/L
Ibs/day
-------
Table F-2. Capital Investment for a P&T System at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
Item
Design/Procurement
Engineer
Drafter
Hydrologist
Contingency
TOTAL
Pumping system
Extraction wells
Pulse pumps
Controllers
Air compressor
Miscellaneous fittings
Tubing
TOTAL
Treatment System
Piping
Trench
DNAPL separarator tank
Air stripper feed pump
Piping
Water flow meter
Low-profile air stripper with
control panel
Pressure gauge
Blower
Air flow meter
Stack
Catalytic Oxidizer
Carbon
Stripper sump pump
Misc. fittings, switches
TOTAL
Site Preparation
Conctrete pad
Berm
Power drop
Monitoring wells
Sewer connection fee
Sewer pipe
Housing
TOTAL
# units Unit Price Cost
120
80
120
1
1
1
1
1
1
150
150
1
1
1
50
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
2
1
1
400
80
1
5
1
300
1
hrs
hrs
hrs
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ft
ft
day
ea
ea
ft
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ft
ea
ea
ea
ea
sq ft
ft
ea
wells
ea
ft
ea
$ 85
$ 40
$ 85
$ 10,000
$ 5,000
$ 595
$ 1,115
$ 645
$ 5,000
$ 3
$ 3
$ 320
$ 120
$ 460
$ 3
$ 160
$ 9,400
$ 50
$ 1 ,650
$ 175
$ 2
$ 65,000
$ 1 ,000
$ 130
$ 5,000
$ 3
$ 7
$ 5,838
$ 2,149
$ 2,150
$ 10
$ 2,280
$10,200
$3,200
$10,200
$10,000
$23,600
$5,000
$595
$1,115
$645
$5,000
$509
$12,864
$509
$320
$120
$460
$170
$160
$9,400
$50
$1 ,650
$175
$20
$65,000
$2,000
$130
$5,000
$85,163
$1 ,200
$539
$5,838
$10,745
$2,150
$3,102
$2,280
$25,854
Installation/Start Up of Treatment System
Engineer
Technician
TOTAL
60
200
hrs
hrs
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
$ 85
$ 40
$5,100
$8,000
$13,100
$160,581
Basis
10% of total capital
2-inch, 30 ft deep, 30-foot SS screen; PVC;
includes installation
2.1 gpm max., 1 .66"OD for 2-inch wells;
handles solvent contact; pneumatic; with chec
valves
Solar powered or 1 10 V; with pilot valve
100 psi (125 psi max), 4.3 cfm continuous
duty, oil-less; 1 hp
Estimate
1/2-inch OD, chemical resistant; well to
surface manifold
chemical resistant
ground surface
125 gal; high grade steel with epoxy lining;
conical bottom with discharge
0.5 hp; up to 15 gpm
0.5 inch, chemical resistant; feed pump to
stripper
Low flow; with read out
1-25 gpm, 4 tray; SS shell and trays
SS; 0-30 psi
5hp
Orifice type; 0-50 cfm
2 inch, PVC, lead out of housing
To sewer
Estimate (sample ports, valves, etc.)
20 ft x 20 ft with berm; for air stripper and
associated equipment
240 V, 50 Amps; pole transformer and
licensed electrician
Verify source containment; 2-inch PVC with
SS screens
20 ft x 20 ft; shelter for air stripper and
associated equipment
Labor
Labor
-------
Table F-2. Capital Investment for a P&T System at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
(Continued)
O&M Cost for P&T Sytem
Annual Operation &
Maintenance
Engineer
Technician
Replacement materials
Electricity
Fuel (catalytic oxidizer
Sewer disposal fee
Carbon disposal
Waste disposal
TOTAL
Annual Monitorinc
Air stripper influen'
Air stripper effluent
Monitoring wells
Sampling materials
Technician
Engineer
TOTAL
TOTAL ANN UAL COST
Periodic Maintenance,
Every 5 years
Pulse pumps
Air compressor
Air stripper feed pump
Blower
Catalyst replacement
Stripper sump pump
Miscellaneous materials
Technician
TOTAL
Periodic Maintenance,
Every 10 years
Air stripper
Catalytic oxidize:
Water flow meters
Air flow meter
Technician
Miscellaneous materials
TOTAL
TOTAL PERIODIC
MAINTENANCE COSTS
80
500
1
52,560
2,200
525,600
2
1
12
14
20
1
64
40
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
40
1
1
1
1
40
1
hrs
hrs
ea
kW-hrs
10E6Btu
gal/yr
drum
smpls
smpls
smpls
ea
hrs
hrs
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
hrs
ea
ea
ea
ea
hrs
ea
$ 85
$ 40
$ 2,000
$ 0
$ 6
$ 0
$ 1,000
$ 80
$ 120
$ 120
$ 120
$ 500
$ 40
$ 85
$ 595
$ 645
$ 460
$ 1,650
$ 5,000
$ 130
$ 1,000
$ 40
$ 9,400
$ 16,000
$ 160
$ 175
$ 40
$ 1,000
$6,800
$20,000
$2,000
$5,256
$13,200
$799
$2,000
$200
$50,255
$1,440
$1,680
$2,400
$500
$2,560
$3,400
$5,520
$55,775
$2,380
$645
$460
$1,650
$5,000
$130
$1,000
$1,600
$12,865
$68,640
$9,400
$16,000
$160
$175
$1,600
$1,000
$28,335
$96,975
Oversight
Routine operation; annual cleaning of air
stripper trays, routine replacement of parts;
any waste disposal
Seals, o-rings, tubing, etc.
8 hp (~6 kW) over 1 year of operation
30 gal drum; DNAPL, if any; haul to
incinerator
Verify air stripper loading; monthly
Discharge quality confirmation; monthly;
CVOC analysis; MS, MSD
Swells; quarterly; MS, MSC
Miscellaneous
Quarterly monitoring labor (from wells) only;
weekly monitoring (from sample ports)
included in O&M cost
Oversight; quarterly reporl
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
Estimate
Labor
As above
Major overhaul
As above
As above
Labor
Estimate
-------
Table F-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30 Years of Operation
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
P&T
Annual Cost *
$160,581
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
PV of Annual Cost
$160,581
$54,203
$52,676
$51,191
$49,748
$59,498
$46,984
$45,660
$44,373
$43,122
$72,863
$40,726
$39,578
$38,463
$37,379
$44,704
$35,302
$34,307
$33,340
$32,400
$54,746
$30,600
$29,737
$28,899
$28,085
$33,589
$26,524
$25,777
$25,050
$24,344
$41,134
Cumulative PV of
Annual Cost
$160,581
$214,784
$267,460
$318,651
$368,399
$427,897
$474,880
$520,540
$564,913
$608,035
$680,898
$721,624
$761,202
$799,664
$837,043
$881,747
$917,049
$951,355
$984,695
$1,017,095
$1,071,841
$1,102,441
$1,132,178
$1,161,077
$1,189,162
$1,222,751
$1,249,275
$1,275,051
$1,300,102
$1,324,446
$1,365,579
* Annual cost in Year zero is equal to the capital investment.
Annual cost in other years is annual O&M cost plus annual monitoring cost
Annual costs in Years 10, 20, and 30 include annual
O&M, annual monitoring, and periodic maintenance
-------
Table F-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 Years of Operation
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
P&T
Annual
Cost*
$160,581
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
PVof
Annual
Cost
$160,581
$54,203
$52,676
$51,191
$49,748
$59,498
$46,984
$45,660
$44,373
$43,122
$72,863
$40,726
$39,578
$38,463
$37,379
$44,704
$35,302
$34,307
$33,340
$32,400
$54,746
$30,600
$29,737
$28,899
$28,085
$33,589
$26,524
$25,777
$25,050
$24,344
$41,134
$22,991
$22,343
$21,714
$21,102
$25,237
$19,929
$19,367
$18,822
$18,291
$30,906
$17,275
$16,788
$16,315
$15,855
$18,962
$14,974
$14,552
$14,142
$13,743
$16,436
Cumulative PV
of Annual Cost
$160,581
$214,784
$267,460
$318,651
$368,399
$427,897
$474,880
$520,540
$564,913
$608,035
$680,898
$721,624
$761,202
$799,664
$837,043
$881,747
$917,049
$951,355
$984,695
$1,017,095
$1,071,841
$1,102,441
$1,132,178
$1,161,077
$1,189,162
$1,222,751
$1,249,275
$1,275,051
$1,300,102
$1,324,446
$1,365,579
$1,388,571
$1,410,914
$1,432,628
$1,453,729
$1,478,966
$1,498,895
$1,518,263
$1,537,084
$1,555,375
$1,586,282
$1,603,556
$1,620,344
$1,636,659
$1,652,514
$1,671,476
$1,686,449
$1,701,001
$1,715,143
$1,728,886
$1,745,323
Year
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
P&T
Annual
Cost*
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$68,640
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$55,775
$96,975
PVof
Annual
Cost
$12,979
$12,614
$12,258
$11,913
$14,247
$11,251
$10,934
$10,625
$10,326
$17,448
$9,752
$9,477
$9,210
$8,951
$10,705
$8,453
$8,215
$7,984
$7,759
$13,109
$7,327
$7,121
$6,920
$6,725
$8,043
$6,351
$6,172
$5,998
$5,829
$9,850
$5,505
$5,350
$5,200
$5,053
$6,043
$4,772
$4,638
$4,507
$4,380
$7,401
$4,137
$4,020
$3,907
$3,797
$4,541
$3,586
$3,485
$3,386
$3,291
$5,561
Cumulative PV
of Annual Cost
$1,758,302
$1,770,916
$1,783,174
$1,795,086
$1,809,334
$1,820,584
$1,831,518
$1,842,143
$1,852,469
$1,869,917
$1,879,669
$1,889,147
$1,898,357
$1,907,308
$1,918,012
$1,926,466
$1,934,681
$1,942,664
$1,950,423
$1,963,532
$1,970,859
$1,977,980
$1,984,901
$1,991,626
$1,999,669
$2,006,020
$2,012,193
$2,018,191
$2,024,021
$2,033,870
$2,039,376
$2,044,726
$2,049,926
$2,054,979
$2,061,022
$2,065,794
$2,070,432
$2,074,939
$2,079,319
$2,086,720
$2,090,856
$2,094,876
$2,098,783
$2,102,579
$2,107,120
$2,110,706
$2,114,190
$2,117,577
$2,120,867
$2,126,428
M:\Projects\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\EZVI Post-Demo\Appendices\App F\Appendix F.xls
-------
Figure F-l. P&T System Costs - 100 years
$2,000,000 -|
H $1,200,000
<%
o.
o
U
^ $1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
Z
10
20
30
40 50 60
Years of Operation
70
80
90
100
------- |