United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Demonstration of
Biodegradation of DNAPL
through Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation at Launch
Complex 34 in Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station, Florida
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
-------
EPA/540/R-07/007
September 2004
Demonstration of Biodegradation
of Dense, Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids (DNAPL)
through Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
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 Cumming, Joel
Sminchak, Jim Hicks, Bruce Buxton, Michele Morara, Thomas Wilk, and Rhonda
Copley.
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.
• Eric Hood from GeoSyntec Consultants.
• John DuPont and Scott Schroeder from DHL Analytical.
• Randy Robinson from Precision Sampling.
iv
-------
Executive Summary
The purpose of the project was to evaluate the technical and cost performance of the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology when applied to dense, nonaqueous-
phase liquid (DNAPL) contaminants in the saturated zone. This demonstration was
conducted at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, where
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs), mainly trichloroethylene (TCE), are
present in the subsurface as DNAPL. Smaller amounts of cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
(DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC) also are present as a result of the natural degradation
of TCE. The part of the source zone used as a test plot for the demonstration is
entirely underneath the Engineering Support Building.
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation project was conducted under the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Small Business Technology Transfer
Research (STTR) Program. For this project, the Small Business Concern vendor was
GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec). This demonstration was independently evalu-
ated by Battelle under the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S.
EPA's) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.
A sequential process of biostimulation and bioaugmentation is a promising remedia-
tion technology for enhancing the extent and rate of degradation of CVOCs. Biostim-
ulation involves stimulating indigenous microbial cultures by adding nutrients (i.e.,
biostimulation), whereas bioaugmentation involves introducing microbial cultures that
are particularly adept at degrading these contaminants into the target aquifer. The
premise is that although many aquifers contain native microorganisms that can
degrade CVOCs, the native microorganisms can be supplemented by specific cul-
tures that enhance the degradation of chlorinated solvents. Natural microorganisms,
such as Dehalococcoides ethenogenes, can be separately cultured and introduced
into the aquifer to enhance the degradation rates and extent of degradation that
would normally be achievable by natural attenuation or by biostimulation (addition of
nutrients) alone. Bioaugmentation using specific cultures is claimed to be particularly
effective in (1) degrading byproducts of reductive dehalogenation, such as cis-1,2-
DCE and VC, which would otherwise accumulate in the aquifer; and (2) completing
dechlorination processes to non-chlorinated products such as acetylene, ethene,
ethane, and methane.
This demonstration involved biostimulation followed by bioaugmentation in the same
test plot. During the biostimulation phase of treatment, an electron donor (ethanol)
was added to provide nutrients for indigenous microorganisms and stimulate CVOC
degradation. During the bioaugmentation phase, KB-1™, a consortium of naturally
occurring microorganisms known to completely dechlorinate high concentrations of
TCE to ethene, was added to the test plot. At Launch Complex 34, the DNAPL
source zone was not large enough to conduct a control demonstration using biostim-
ulation alone for comparison. Therefore, the sequential treatment of biostimulation
and bioaugmentation was evaluated at Launch Complex 34 in the same test plot.
v
-------
Bioaugmentation was chosen as a second treatment phase to determine if complete
dechlorination of a TCE-DNAPL source zone was possible.
Based on pre-demonstration groundwater and soil sampling by Battelle, a test plot
was identified for biostimulation and bioaugmentation that was 20 ft long * 20 ft wide
x 20 ft deep (saturated thickness). The Upper Sand Unit, where the treatment was
targeted, is the shallowest part of the surficial aquifer, and extends down to a depth
of 26 ft. The water table at the site occurs at about 5 to 6 ft below ground surface
(bgs), thus providing about a 20-ft-thick zone of aquifer for treatment. The Upper
Sand Unit is underlain by the Middle Fine-Grained Unit, which is made up of finer
sand and silt, and constitutes somewhat of a hydraulic barrier to the Lower Sand Unit
below. These three stratigraphic units constitute the surficial aquifer. The Lower Clay
Unit forms a thin aquitard under the surficial aquifer. The bioaugmentation treatment
was particularly targeted at depths of 16 to 24 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit, where
most of the DNAPL appeared to be present. The pre-demonstration soil and ground-
water characterization was done in January 2002, before the vendor began installing
the treatment system.
Prior to beginning the demonstration, the vendor installed a recirculating groundwater
system to establish a controlled hydraulic flow field. This was done to facilitate the
distribution of electron donor, simplify the placement of monitoring points, and accel-
erate the degradation process to a point where it could be monitored in the reason-
able timeframe allotted to this demonstration. The groundwater was recirculated from
the extraction wells to the injection wells for several weeks to establish hydraulic
control. During this testing and modification period (May 23 to September 12, 2002),
the recirculated groundwater was passed through carbon canisters and treated prior
to reinjection. CVOCs were removed from groundwater in the treatment plot during
this time. Prior to beginning the biostimulation phase of the treatment, the carbon
canisters were removed from the recirculating system. The electron donor (ethanol)
was injected inside the plot to begin the biostimulation phase of the demonstration
(October 23, 2002). Approximately 14 weeks later (February 6, 2003), the KB-1™
culture was injected in the aquifer to begin the bioaugmentation phase. Groundwater
sampling was conducted in December 2002 (one month after electron donor injec-
tion) and March 2003 (one month after KB-1 ™ culture injection). Post-demonstration
soil and groundwater characterization was done in June 2003.
Performance assessment activities for the biostimulation and bioaugmentation dem-
onstration included pre-demonstration investigations, installation of wells, operation,
monitoring, and post-treatment evaluation. Battelle conducted detailed soil and
groundwater characterization activities to establish the DNAPL distribution and mass
inside the test cell. The vendor conducted additional operational measurements. The
objectives of the performance assessment were to:
• Determine changes in total TCE (dissolved and free-phase) and DNAPL mass in
the test plot due to the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment;
• Determine changes in aquifer quality due to the treatment;
• Determine the fate of TCE, the primary DNAPL contaminant; and,
• Determine operating requirements and cost of the technology.
Changes in Total TCE and DNAPL Mass
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 treatment
technology. In general, the eastern portion of the plot had the highest pre-
demonstration TCE concentrations. TCE concentrations were higher at approximately
vi
-------
26 ft bgs, which is at the interface between the Upper Sand Unit and Middle Fine-
Grained 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, under pre-demonstration conditions, 25.5 kg of
total TCE (dissolved and free phase) was present in the Upper Sand Unit. Approxi-
mately 2.6 kg of the total TCE was estimated to be DNAPL. Following the demonstra-
tion, soil sampling indicated that 0.4 kg of total TCE remained in the Upper Sand
Unit; the post-demonstration mass of TCE-DNAPL was estimated as 0.0 kg because
no post-demonstration TCE concentrations were observed above the threshold of
300 mg/kg. Therefore, the overall decrease in TCE mass due to the treatment, as
indicated by linear interpolation, was 98.5% for total TCE and >99% for DNAPL in the
Upper Sand Unit.
Kriging of the soil data indicated that the total TCE mass in the target zone before the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment ranged from 17.6 to 46.6 kg, with an
average of 32.1 kg. After treatment, the total TCE mass in the plot ranged from 0.1 to
0.3 kg, with an average of 0.2 kg. The decline in TCE mass due to the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation treatment ranged from 98.6 to 99.7%, with an estimated aver-
age decline of 99%. 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 incorporate the uncertainty and spatial
variability in the data. The linear interpolation estimates are within the range of the
kriging estimates. These results indicate that the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatment caused a significant decrease in total TCE and DNAPL mass in the target
treatment zone.
Changes in Aquifer Quality
Dissolved TCE concentrations, as measured in the monitoring wells, declined sub-
stantially in the Upper Sand Unit of the demonstration area following the bioaugmenta-
tion treatment. DCE levels increased following biostimulation, and then decreased
after bioaugmentation. Vinyl chloride levels increased immediately after biostimulation
and bioaugmentation, and then decreased during subsequent post-demonstration
monitoring. Ethene concentrations increased substantially toward the end of the dem-
onstration. These changes indicate sequential degradation of TCE to DCE, and ulti-
mately to vinyl chloride and ethane during the demonstration.
In order to verify that the DNAPL source had been substantially reduced and that the
CVOC reductions observed during the demonstration could be sustained (without
encountering rebound), one further round of groundwater monitoring was conducted
in January 2004, almost one year after injection of the KB-1 ™ culture. This long-term
monitoring showed further substantial reductions in TCE (to below detection), cis-1,2-
DCE, and vinyl chloride. These results show that DNAPL mass was substantially
removed by the treatment and that the reduced CVOC levels were sustainable.
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels decreased in
the demonstration area after biostimulation began. The decreases continued through
the bioaugmentation phase of the demonstration and post-demonstration sampling.
These data indicate that strongly reducing anaerobic conditions were created in the
Upper Sand Unit during the demonstration. Groundwater pH in the shallow wells
remained relatively steady.
Dissolved iron concentrations in well PA-26 in the center of the test plot generally
decreased after the bioaugmentation treatment. The secondary drinking water limit
-------
for iron is 0.3 mg/L, which was exceeded in the majority of wells before, during, and
after the demonstration.
Chloride levels in the monitoring wells, which were already high partly due to
saltwater intrusion in the aquifer, showed a slight increase over the course of the
demonstration. The Waterloo Profiler® samples taken from various depths in the
Upper Sand Unit also showed increases in chloride concentrations from the pre- and
post-demonstration sampling events. Anaerobic reductive dechlorination of TCE, cis-
1,2-DCE, and VC, which was observed in this demonstration, releases chloride from
contaminant molecules and leads to increases in chloride levels in groundwater.
Increases in dissolved methane, as well as decreases in sulfate concentrations, indi-
cate that an increase in biological activity occurred as a result of the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation treatment. Biological oxygen demand (BOD) levels in the
groundwater increased, indicating an increase in the bioavailable organic matter in
the aquifer, most likely due to the addition of a carbon electron donor to the recircu-
lating groundwater. Total organic carbon (TOC) levels also increased, probably as a
result of the carbon electron donor addition.
The hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Sand Unit does not appear to have been
affected by the treatment, suggesting that the addition of electron donor and KB-1 ™
culture did not noticeably affect 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.
Fate of TCE/DNAPL in the Aquifer
The performance assessment indicates that biodegradation was a substantial path-
way accounting for the decrease in TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride measured in
the test plot. An increasing trend in dissolved ethene and chloride levels is evidence
of dechlorination reactions in the aquifer. The combination of biostimulation and bio-
augmentation treatments accounted for the enhanced biodegradation seen in the
plot. In addition, some TCE and other VOCs were likely extracted by the recirculation
system and captured by adsorption in the aboveground carbon canisters. However,
an analysis of the amounts of water and TCE potentially extracted from the test plot
by the recirculation system showed that biostimulation and bioaugmentation contrib-
uted substantially to the TCE removal observed in the test plot, even after adjusting
for any dilution due to the water recirculation system and carbon.
Operating Requirements and Cost
In general, the treatment system operated smoothly through the recirculation, bio-
stimulation, and bioaugmentation phases. Relatively good hydraulic control appeared
to have been maintained in the test plot, and the electron donor and KB-1 ™ culture
were well-distributed in the target zone. The vendor reported that biofouling in the
injection wells became apparent after amending the recirculating groundwater with
electron donor. To mitigate the biofouling, the duration of ethanol was decreased to
one concentrated dose administered daily; the injection wells were scrubbed, surged,
and purged on a weekly basis to removed biofilm from the screen; and the reinjected
groundwater was amended with sodium hypochlorite to inhibit microbial growth in the
injection wells. It is unclear what the long-term effect of the change in electron donor
dose/timing and the addition of sodium hypochlorite into the aquifer had on the micro-
organisms throughout the demonstration plot. Future applications of the biostimula-
tion and bioaugmentation technology may benefit from a study of optimizing electron
donor dosing schedules, and establishing procedures to monitor for biofouling and
treat occurrences of biofouling.
-------
A present value (PV) analysis was conducted to compare the cost of DNAPL source
treatment with biostimulation and bioaugmentation to the cost of installing and
operating an equivalent pump-and-treat system for a long period of time (30 years). It
was assumed that the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment would reduce
the DNAPL presence in the aquifer sufficiently for the rest of the contamination to
attenuate naturally. This analysis showed that the cost of source treatment with
biostimulation and bioaugmentation was lower than the PV of the costs of long-term
treatment with a pump-and-treat system at this site.
ix
-------
X
-------
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 Demonstration Site 3
1.4 Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Technology 3
1.5 Technology Evaluation Report Structure 6
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 14
2.2 Surface Water Bodies at the Site 15
2.3 DNAPL Contamination in the Demonstration Plot and Vicinity 15
2.4 Aquifer Quality at the Site 17
3. Technology Operation 23
3.1 Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Technology Description 23
3.2 Regulatory Requirements 23
3.3 Groundwater Control System 23
3.4 Enhanced Bioremediation by the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Technology 26
3.4.1 Biostimulation 26
3.4.2 Bioaugmentation 27
3.5 Waste Handling and Disposal 27
4. Performance Assessment Methodology 29
4.1 Estimating Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass 29
4.1.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass 29
4.1.2 Linear Interpolation by Contouring 34
4.1.3 Kriging 34
4.1.4 Interpreting the Results of the Two Mass Removal
Estimation Methods 35
4.2 Evaluating Changes in Aquifer Quality 35
xi
-------
4.3 Evaluating the Fate of the TCE-DNAPL 35
4.4 Verifying Operating Requirements and Costs 36
5. Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions 37
5.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass in the Plot 37
5.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Changes in TCE-DNAPL Distribution 37
5.1.2 TCE-DNAPL Mass Estimation by Linear Interpolation 42
5.1.3 TCE Mass Estimation by Kriging 42
5.1.4 Summary of Changes in the TCE-DNAPL Mass 44
5.2 Evaluating Changes in Aquifer Quality 44
5.2.1 Changes in CVOC Levels in Groundwater 45
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer Geochemistry 53
5.2.3 Changes in Hydraulic Properties of the Aquifer 56
5.2.4 Changes in Microbiology of the Treatment Plot 57
5.2.5 Summary of Changes in Aquifer Quality 57
5.3 Evaluating the Fate of the TCE-DNAPL Mass 58
5.3.1 Biological Reductive Dechlorination of TCE 58
5.3.2 Extraction and Adsorption onto Carbon 60
5.3.3 Potential for TCE-DNAPL Migration from the Treatment Plot 61
5.3.4 Summary Evaluation of the Fate of TCE-DNAPL 64
5.4 Verifying Operating Requirements 64
6. Quality Assurance 65
6.1 QA Measures 65
6.1.1 Representativeness 65
6.1.2 Completeness 66
6.1.3 Chain of Custody 66
6.2 Field QC Measures 66
6.2.1 Field QC for Soil Sampling 66
6.2.2 Field QC for Groundwater Sampling 67
6.3 Laboratory QC Measures 68
6.3.1 Analytical QC for Soil Samples 68
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for Groundwater Sampling 68
6.3.3 Analytical Detection Limits 69
6.4 QA/QC Summary 69
7. Economic Analysis 71
7.1 Treatment Technology Costs 71
7.2 Site Preparation and Waste Disposal Costs 71
7.3 Site Characterization and Performance Assessment Costs 72
7.4 Present Value Analysis of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Treatment Technology and Pump-and-Treat System Costs 73
8. Technology Applications Analysis 75
8.1 Objectives 75
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 75
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 75
8.1.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act 76
8.1.2.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 76
8.1.2.3 Clean Water Act 76
8.1.2.4 Safe Drinking Water Act 76
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act 77
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 77
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness 77
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 77
8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 78
xii
-------
8.1.6 Implementability 78
8.1.7 Cost 78
8.1.8 State (Support Agency) Acceptance 79
8.1.9 Community Acceptance 79
8.2 Operability 79
8.3 Applicable Wastes 79
8.4 Key Features 79
8.5 Availability/Transportability 79
8.6 Materials Handling Requirements 79
8.7 Ranges of Suitable Site Characteristics 79
8.8 Limitations 80
9. References 81
xiii
-------
Appendices
Appendix A. Performance Assessment Methods
A.1 Summary of Statistics in Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Plot
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
Appendix B. Hydrogeologic Measurements
B.1 Slug Tests
B.2 Well Completion Diagrams
B.3 Soil Coring Logsheets
Appendix C. CVOC Measurements
Table C-1a. CVOC Monitoring Results of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Demonstration (|jg/L)
Table C-1b. CVOC Monitoring Results of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Demonstration (mmole/L)
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Pre-Demonstration Monitoring
in Bioaugmentation Plot
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Post-Demonstration Monitoring
in Bioaugmentation Plot
Table C-4. Long-Term Monitoring Results in Treatment Plot
Table C-5 Monitoring Results of CVOCs and Dechlorination Products in PA-26
Table C-6 Results of Extracted Groundwater for Chloroethene and Ethene
Concentrations at the Influent Sample Port (SP-4) of Carbon Tanks
Appendix D. Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
Table D-1. Summary of Field Parameters in Groundwater
Table D-2. Summary of Inorganic Results in Groundwater
Table D-3. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater
Table D-4. Results of Chloride Samples Using a Waterloo Profiler®
Table D-5. Results of Dissolved Gases in Groundwater
Table D-6. Result of TOC in Soil Samples Collected in Bioaugmentation Plot
Appendix E. Genetrac Analysis of Groundwater Samples from the Bioaugmentation
Demonstration
Appendix F. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
Tables F-1 to F-15
Appendix G. Economic Analysis Information
Figure G-1. P&T System Costs for 100 Years
Table G-1. Pump-and-Treat (P&T) System Design Basis
Table G-2. Capital Investment for a P&T System
Table G-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30 Years of Operation
Table G-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 Years of Operation
XIV
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Demonstration at Launch Complex 34 2
Figure 1-2. Simplified Depiction of the Formation of a DNAPL Source Zone in
the Subsurface 3
Figure 1-3. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site 4
Figure 1-4. Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Demonstration Site Location 5
Figure 1-5. View Looking South toward Launch Complex 34, the Engineering
Support Building and Relative Location of the Demonstration Plot 6
Figure 1-6. Biodegradation Pathway for TCE Under Anaerobic Conditions 6
Figure 2-1. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space
Center Area 9
Figure 2-2. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation Plot 10
Figure 2-3. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through the Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation Plot 11
Figure 2-4. Water Table Elevation Map for Surficial Aquifer from June 1998 12
Figure 2-5. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Shallow
Wells at Launch Complex 34 (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 Complex 34 (March 2002) 15
Figure 2-8. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) in
Shallow Wells in the Treatment Plot (March 2002) 18
Figure 2-9. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved DCE Concentrations (|jg/L) in
Shallow Wells in the Treatment Plot (March 2002) 18
Figure 2-10. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil in the
Upper Sand Unit approximately 20 ft bgs in the Treatment Plot and
Vicinity (January 2002) 19
Figure 2-11. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil in the
Upper Sand Unit approximately 24 ft bgs in the Treatment Plot and
Vicinity (January 2002) 19
Figure 2-12. Vertical Cross Section through the Treatment Plot Showing Pre-
Demonstration TCE Soil Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Subsurface ...20
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) 20
Figure 3-1. Aboveground Water Treatment System 24
Figure 3-2. KB-1 ™ Dechlorinator Culture Containers 27
Figure 4-1. Soil Sampling for Performance Assessment at Launch Complex 34...29
Figure 4-2. Soil Sample Collection 30
Figure 4-3. Pre-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (BIO-SB-1 through BIO-
SB-7) in the Treatment Plot (January/February 2002) 31
xv
-------
Figure 4-4. Post-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (BIO-SB-202, BIO-SB-
205 through BIO-SB-207, BIO-SB-210, and BIO-SB-211) in the
Treatment Plot (June 2003) 32
Figure 4-5. Indoor Vibra-Push™ Rig (LD Geoprobe® Series) Used in the
Bioaugmentation Plot Inside the Engineering Support Building 33
Figure 4-6. Collecting and Processing Groundwater Samples Using the
Waterloo Profiler® 36
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Soil Concentrations (mg/kg) as a Function of
Depth (ft bgs) 38
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and
(b) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Horizontal Cross Sections of
TCE (mg/kg) at 20 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit 40
Figure 5-3. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and
(b) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Horizontal Cross Sections of
TCE (mg/kg) in soil at 24 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit 41
Figure 5-4. 3D Distribution of DNAPL in the Bioaugmentation Plot Soil Based
on (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and (b) Post-
Demonstration (June 2003) Characterization 43
Figure 5-5. Dissolved TCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration
Sampling (March 2002), (b) During Biostimulation (December
2002), (c) During Bioaugmentation (March 2003), and (d) Post-
Demonstration (June 2003) Sampling of Shallow Wells 48
Figure 5-6. Dissolved cis-1,2-DCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-
Demonstration Sampling (March 2002), (b) During Biostimulation
(December 2002), (c) During Bioaugmentation (March 2003), and
(d) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Sampling of Shallow Wells 49
Figure 5-7. Dissolved Vinyl Chloride Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-
Demonstration Sampling (March 2002), (b) During Biostimulation
(December 2002), (c) During Bioaugmentation (March 2003), and
(d) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Sampling of Shallow Wells 50
Figure 5-8. Dissolved Ethene Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-
Demonstration Sampling (March 2002), (b) During Biostimulation
(December 2002), (c) During Bioaugmentation (March 2003), and
(d) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Sampling of Shallow Wells 51
Figure 5-9. Changes in Chloride Levels over Time in Monitoring Wells 54
Figure 5-10. Waterloo Profiler® Chloride Concentration Data at Discrete Depths
Before and After the Demonstration in Two Locations Wthin the
Plot 55
Figure 5-11 a. Degradation Curve of TCE and Other CVOCs in PA-26 After
Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Treatment 59
Figure 5-11b. Degradation Curve of TCE and Ethene in PA-26 After
Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Treatment 59
Figure 5-12a. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering
Support Building During Pre-Demonstration Characterization
(March 2002) 62
Figure 5-12b. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering
Support Building During the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Technology Demonstration (March 2003) 62
Figure 5-13a. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering
Support Building During Pre-Demonstration Characterization
(March 2002) 63
Figure 5-13b. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering
Support Building During the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Technology Demonstration (March 2003) 63
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 16
Table 3-1. In Situ Bioremediation by Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation 25
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated
Measurements 30
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 44
Table 5-3. TCE Degradation Byproducts in the Treatment Plot Before, During,
and After the Demonstration 45
Table 5-4. Ethene Levels in Groundwater (|jg/L) 46
Table 5-5. Groundwater Parameters in the Treatment Plot Before and After the
Demonstration 46
Table 5-6. Dissolved Ethene and Ethane Concentrations in the Treatment Plot
Before, During, and After the Demonstration 57
Table 5-7. Dissolved Methane Concentrations In and Around the Treatment Plot
Before, During, and After the Demonstration 58
Table 5-8. Additional Monitoring of Test Plot Wells in January 2004 60
Table 6-1. Instruments and Calibration Acceptance Criteria Used for Field
Measurements 66
Table 6-2. List of Surrogate Compounds and Their Target Recoveries for Soil
and Groundwater Analysis by the Analytical Laboratory 68
Table 7-1. Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Process Treatment Cost
Summary Provided by Vendor 71
Table 7-2. Estimated Site Characterization Costs 72
Table 7-3. Estimated Performance Assessment Costs 72
xvii
-------
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
3D
ACL
ARAR
bgs
BOD
CAA
CERCLA
CFR
CVOC
CWA
DCE
DNA
DNAPL
DO
ESTCP
EZVI
FDEP
FRTR
GAC
gpm
HSWA
ISCO
KBr
LCS
LRPCD
MB
MCL
MS
MSD
msl
three-dimensional
alternate concentration limit
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
below ground surface
biological oxygen demand
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
chlorinated volatile organic compound
Clean Water Act
dichloroethylene
deoxyribonucleic acid
dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid
dissolved oxygen
Environmental Strategic Technology Certification Program
emulsified zero-valent iron
(State of) Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable
granulated activated carbon
gallon(s) per minute
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
in situ chemical oxidation
potassium bromide
laboratory control spike(s)
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
method blank(s)
maximum contaminant level
matrix spike(s)
matrix spike duplicate(s)
mean sea level
xix
-------
mV
MYA
millivolts
million years ago
NA
not available; not analyzed
N/A
not applicable
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NaOCI
sodium hypochloride
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ND
not detected
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M
operation and maintenance
ORD
Office of Research and Development
ORP
oxidation-reduction potential
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCE
tetrachloroethylene
PCR
polymerase chain reaction
POTW
publicly owned treatment works
PV
present value
QA
quality assurance
QA/QC
quality assurance/quality control
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
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
Sl/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
UF
University of Florida
UIC
Underground Injection Control
U.S. EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VC
vinyl chloride
VOA
volatile organic analysis
xx
-------
1. Introduction
This report presents results from the project field demon-
stration of a biostimulation and bioaugmentation tech-
nology for treatment 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 biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation 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 the treatment technology began
at Launch Complex 34 in June 2002 and ended in
February 2003. Performance assessment activities were
conducted before, during, and after the field application.
1.1.1 Project Organization
This project was conducted under the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration (NASA) Small Busi-
ness Technology Transfer Research (STTR) Program.
The STTR Program awards contracts to small business
concerns in partnership with nonprofit research institu-
tions 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 vendor GeoSyntec
Consultants (GeoSyntec) as the small business concern
in partnership with the University of Central Florida
(UCF) as the nonprofit research institution. The NASA
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative provided
a project management role for NASA. Figure 1-1 sum-
marizes the project organization for the demonstration.
Performance assessment of this technology was
conducted by Battelle under contract to United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as part of
the technology demonstration.
1.1.2 Performance Assessment
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology
demonstration is being independently evaluated under
the U.S. EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation (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 this technology.
Battelle also was responsible for providing quality assur-
ance (QA) oversight for the performance assessment
activities. Before the field demonstration, Battelle pre-
pared 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, quality
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 demon-
stration 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.
1
-------
Project Organization
NASA STTR
Jacqueline Quinn
Technical Representative
U.S. EPA SITE Program
Tom Holdsworth -Task Order Manager
Ron Herrmann - Task Order Manager
Technology Vendors
David Major, GeoSyntec - Project Director
Eric Hood, GeoSyntec-Project Manager
Battelle
Arun Gavaskar
Project Manager
Performance Assessment
Subcontractor
Drilling Contractor,
Precision Sampling
Performance Assessment
Subcontractors
Off-Site Laboratory, DHL Analytical
Drilling Contractor, Precision Sampling
LC34ORGAN03.CDF
Figure 1-1. Project Organization for the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation 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 biostimula-
tion and bioaugmentation technology demonstration at
Launch Complex 34 is based on these general guide-
lines.
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.
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,
2
-------
VVUU.'I
Table / Residual DNAPL
3E. /
L
Groundwater Flow
Direction
DNAPL Pool
Figure 1-2. Simplified Depiction of the Formation of a
DNAPL Source Zone in the Subsurface
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 sys-
tems are not economical for DNAPL remediation. Pools
of DNAPL that can be treated effectively by pump and
treat technologies are rare. Residual DNAPL is immobile
and does not migrate toward extraction wells. As with
plume control, 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
would be useful to address the DNAPL problem.
1.3 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 Engineering
Support Building and inside the building. Some of the
solvents ran off to the surface or discharged into drain-
age 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 this technology
demonstration, located inside the Engineering Support
Building. Figure 1-5 is a photograph looking south
toward the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment
plot inside the Engineering Support Building.
After four other remediation technologies had been
demonstrated, the remaining DNAPL source zone was
not large enough to have a test/treatment plot and a
control plot in which the effects of biostimulation and
bioaugmentation could be differentiated from those of
biostimulation alone. Therefore, one test plot was
identified and both biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatments were applied sequentially in this plot.
1.4 Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation Technology
Under anaerobic conditions, microbial reductive dechlo-
rination is a well-understood degradation mechanism for
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and TCE that can lead to
complete dechlorination through c/'s-1,2-DCE, VC,
ethene, and possibly ethane. Reductive dechlorination
involves the step-wise replacement of individual chlorine
atoms with hydrogen atoms, where the chlorinated
ethene acts as an electron acceptor while an electron
donor provides energy for this process (Figure 1-6).
Hydrogen is generally considered the direct electron
donor for reductive dechlorination, and typically is pro-
duced from the anaerobic oxidation of other carbon sub-
strates, such as organic acids or alcohols (Maymo-Gatell
et al., 1997). Ethanol was the electron donor used in this
demomnstration.
Complete reductive dechlorination of TCE to acetylene
and ethene may be enhanced by the addition of a car-
bon substrate, such as ethanol, into the groundwater.
The carbon source then is used by indigenous micro-
organisms. Some of these microbes may contribute to
PCE and TCE removal. A specific subset of these micro-
organisms may be dehalorespirers, which are microbes
capable of using TCE and other chloroethenes as a
terminal electron acceptor.
Plume
3
-------
Resistive
Heating
Bunker
/
Steam
Injection
ISCO
Plot
IW-27
® PA-6
a> PA-5
Bioaug mentation
Plot
Parking
Area
e.PA-9
EZV P ot
IW-16
No DaaJCTiallon ^
Asphalt
'S. *>
IW-15 e
Explanation
(fc Existing Monitoring Well
Cluster
120
Scale in Feet
SITE 34 06 CDR
Figure 1-3. Location Map of Launch Complex 34 Site
The addition of a carbon substrate to groundwater for
the purposes of enhancing the reductive dechlorination
process is known as biostimulation. At field sites where
the appropriate dehaiorespiring microorganisms are not
present in sufficient enough amounts to promote com-
plete dechlorination to ethene, it may be necessary to
augment the aquifer with a consortium of microorgan-
isms that has demonstrated the ability to dechlorinate
chloroethenes completely in the presence of electron-
donating substrate and nutrients. Adding dehaiorespiring
bacteria to an aquifer is known as bioaugmentation.
Several indigenous bacteria have been identified that
directly use chlorinated ethene compounds such as PCE
and TCE as terminal electron acceptors. Some of these
microorganisms seem capable of biodegrading PCE and
TCE but stall at c/s-1,2-DCE, whereas other microorgan-
isms can biodegrade PCE, TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and VC.
Although dehaiorespiring bacteria have been identified
at a number of sites, the relatively common occurrence
of PCE or TCE dechlorination stalling at the formation of
c/s-1,2-DCE and VC (Lee et al.. 1997) suggests that
these microorganisms are not ubiquitous in groundwater
systems. If the appropriate dehaiorespiring organisms
are not present, biostimulation may increase the overall
activity of indigenous microorganisms to promote reduc-
tive dechlorination, but the result may be an accumu-
lation of daughter products such as c/'s-1,2-DCE or VC
instead of a complete reduction to ethene. In this case, it
may be an appropriate remedial strategy to augment the
aquifer with a consortium of organisms known to
biodegrade PCE, TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, and VC, such as
Dehalococcoides ethenogenes.
A number of laboratory and field studies suggest that
microbial consortia containing dehaiorespiring bacteria
are not inhibited at high concentrations of chlorinated
ethenes (Yang and McCarty, 2000; Isalou et al., 1998;
Major et al., 1995). Therefore, some dehaiorespiring
organisms are tolerant to high concentrations of
4
-------
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support .
Building/
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN FEET
DESIGNED BY
ED
DRAWN BY
DS
CHECKED BY
TL
OBaieae
LC34 Building and
Bioaugmentation Plot Location
LAUNCH COMPLEX34—CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
G482010-EPA41 | BIOESBMAPQ1.CDR | 12/03
Figure 1-4. Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Demonstration Site Location
5
-------
Figure 1-5. View Looking South toward Launch Complex 34, the Engineering Support Building and
Relative Location of the Demonstration Plot
Approximate Location
of BioaugmentatiorbPlot
CI C! 2H HCI CI H 2H HO H H 2H HCI H H 2H HCI H H
Nc = Z Xc = Z K ' XC = Z NC = z v * Nc = z -
/ \ /\ /\ /\ /\
a CI CI CI CI CI H CI H H
PCE
TCE
cls-1.2-DCE
VC
Ethene
H H
I I
H—C —C—H
I I
H H
Ethane
Figure 1-6. Biodegradation Pathway for TCE Under Anaerobic Conditions (Source: GeoSyntec, 2003)
chlorinated solvents and can be active in close proximity
to DNAPL. Given sufficient microbial activity adjacent to
the DNAPL source, mass transfer from the surface of
free-phase DNAPL may be significantly accelerated,
thereby enhancing dissolution of the DNAPL. Launch
Complex 34 was chosen as a study site in part because
of the presence of TCE DNAPL.
Laboratory experiments conducted at UCF for NASA
have demonstrated that biostimulation and bioaugmen-
tation were successful at reducing TCE concentrations in
soil and groundwater samples taken from Launch Com-
plex 34 (GeoSyntec, 2003). In addition, the laboratory
experiments included a DNA analysis of the micro-
organisms present in the soil and groundwater collected
from Launch Complex 34. Dehalococcoides DNA was
detected in both the soil and groundwater.
The presence of Dehalococcoides in the aquifer indi-
cated that Launch Complex 34 was a suitable site for
biostimulation. However, not all Dehalococcoides are
capable of complete biodegradation of PCE through VC
to ethane or ethene. Therefore, the technology demon-
stration also included a bioaugmentation component to
follow biostimulation. After the biostimulation phase of
the demonstration. The test plot was bioaugmented with
KB-1™, a consortium of naturally occurring micro-
organisms known to completely dechlorinate high concen-
trations of TCE to ethene. The installation and operation
of the biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology is
described in Section 3.
1.5 Technology Evaluation
Report Structure
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology
evaluation report starts with an introduction to the project
organization, the DNAPL problem, the technology dem-
onstrated, and the demonstration site (Section 1). The
rest of the report is organized as follows:
• Site Characterization (Section 2)
• Technology Operation (Section 3)
6
-------
• 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).
Supporting data and other information are presented in
the appendices to the report. The appendices are orga-
nized as follows:
• Performance Assessment Methods (Appendix A)
• Hydrogeologic Measurements (Appendix B)
• CVOC Measurements (Appendix C)
• Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
(Appendix D)
• Gene-trac Analysis of Groundwater Samples from
the Bioaugmentation Demonstration (Appendix E)
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Information (Appendix F)
• Economic Analysis Information (Appendix G).
7
-------
-------
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 bioaugmentation plot. As seen in these figures,
the surficial 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
unconsolidated, 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
s -so -
-105 -
135 -
¦150 -
-165 -
-180 -
South
Se
Surficial
Aquifer
Se
ni-Confined
(Hawthorn r
Florida n
Aquifer
(bedrock)
LC34
Confining
Ad
)
Layer
ulfer
I I
Figure 2-1. Regional Hydrogeologic Cross Section through the Kennedy Space Center Area
(after Schmalzer and Hinkle, 1990)
9
-------
Location Map of
Transect
Upper Sand Unit
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
Lower
_| Upper Sand
J Middle Fine Cnuned Unit
J lower Sand
¦I I ower Clay Untr Sand Unit
lower SandBekm Clay Unit
2 exaggeration: 2.0
Lower Clay Unit
"X1"
Btoaugmentation Plot
1 J Btoaugmen Lation
T < • pm .y
20
1-25
i
Area of 3-D
'Block Model
r
i/Y7^
m
-201
ST
c
s
* -
-25l
40
-45
¦50
\
*
640'60
-30
--35
^>3
Technology
Demonstration
Plot
'Jfd
—^640Ji40. • a (feet)
T ^ostmg v
I! Battelle
Figure 2-2. NW-SE Geologic Cross Section through the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Plot
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 perva-
sive unit. However, the clay unit is fairly thin (approx-
imately 1.5 ft thick) in some areas (Battelle, 2001). Site
characterization data (Battelle, 1999a and 1999b; Eddy-
Dilek et al., 1998) suggest that the surfaces of the Mid-
dle 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 bioaugmentation
project were measured in March 2002 from all monitor-
ing wells in the surficial aquifer. A relatively flat hydraulic
gradient was observed within the localized area of the
test plot (Figures 2-5 to 2-7) (Battelle, 2003b). On a
regional scale, mounding of water levels near the Engi-
neering Support Building generates a radial gradient
10
-------
Upper Sand
Middle Fine Grained Unit
Lower Sand
Lower day Unit
Lower Sand Betow Cfay Unit
Z exaggeration: 4.0
Upper Sand Unit
Location Map of
Transect
Middle Fine-
Grained Unit
Lower
Sand Unit
Lower C av Unit
1 52
13^'" t ; Technology
j Demonstration
; Plots
-5
-10
-15
m
S
sa
-20 If
-25
¦30
-35
t,? 1 360 ^ 52 Northing (ft)
©Baltelle
Figure 2-3. SW-NE Geologic Cross Section through the Biostirnulation and Bioaugmentation Plot
Table 2-1. Local Hydrostratigraphy at the Launch Complex 34 Site
Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Upper Sand Unit
Surficial Middle Fine-Grained Unit
Aquifer
Lower Sand Unit
Lower Clay Unit
(Semi-Confining Unit)
Semi-Confined Aquifer
Thickness
(ft)
20-26
10-15
15-20
>40
Sediment Description Aquifer Unit Description
Gray fine sand and shell fragments Unconfined, direct recharge from surface
Gray, fine-grained silty/clayey sand Low-permeability, semi-confining layer
Gray fine to medium-sized sand and
shell fragments Semi-confined
1.5-3 Greenish-gray sandy clay
Gray fine to medium-sized sand,
clay, and shell fragments
Thin low-permeability semi-confining unit
Semi-confined, brackish
11
-------
ro
, "'o %, <* !t/XL» x.eA j.Lais. '
' CN
t© «*¦<£>
c^cni ,
Bioaugmentation
'V/// Plot /,
-------
Table 2-2. Hydraulic Gradients and Directions in the
Surficial and Semi-Confined Aquifers
Hydrostratigraphic
Unit
Sampling Date
Gradient
Direction
Surficial Aquifer
May 1997
0.00009
SW
December 1997
0.0001
ssw
June 1998
0.0006
WNW
October 1998
0.0007
NNE
March 1999
undefined
undefined
Semi-Confined
December 1997
0.0008
S
Aquifer
June 1998
0.0005
E
October 1998
0.00005
SSW
(Battelle, 1999c); the regional gradient across the test
plot is relatively flat (see Figure 2-4). Probable discharge
points for the aquifer include wetland areas, the Atlantic
Ocean, and/or the Banana River. Water level measure-
ments 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 indicates 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 conductivities
ranged from 1.4 to 6.4 ft/day from the intermediate wells
in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit. The hydraulic conduc-
tivities 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 averaged
1.59 g/cm5 (Battelle, 1999b). Other notable hydrologic
influences at the site include drainage and recharge.
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310
E
1521300
IE
£
o
z
1521290
1521280
1521270
1521260
Figure 2-5.
Bioaugmentation
Plot /
640100 640120 640140 640160 640180 640200 640220
Easting (ft)
Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Shallow Wells at Launch Complex 34
(March 2002)
Water Levels from Shallow Wells
- March 2002 (Pre-Demonstration)
EXPLANATION
9 Sampling Location
pa-24s Sampling Location ID
4.0) Water Level (ft msl)
Contour Interval: 0.05 ft
II Battelle
13
-------
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310
ra 1521300
IE
t
o
:z:
1521290
1521280
1521270
1521260
EXPLANATION
Water Levels from Intermediate Wells
- March 2002 (Pre-Demonstration)
Sampling Location
pa-24! Sampling Location ID
4.01 Water Level (ft msl)
Contour Interval; 0.05 ft
!! Battelle
PA-18
nm
Bioaugmentation
Plot
EZVI Plot
BJMAR BSOCDR
640100
640120
640140
640180
640160
Easting (ft)
Figure 2-6. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Intermediate Wells at
Launch Complex 34 (March 2002)
640200
640220
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 surface to the water table and drainage is excel-
lent. Water infiltrates directly to the water table.
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,
2003a). Water table elevations were measured at
approximately 1 to 5 ft msl, and formed a pattern 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, suggest-
ing 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
14
-------
1521340
1521330
1521320
1521310
ra 1521300
IE
t
o
z
1521290
1521280
1521270
1521260
Wafer Levels from Deep Wells
March 2002 (Pre-Demonstration)
EXPLANATION
* Sampling Location
pa-24d Sampling Location ID
3.89 Water Level (ft msl)
Contour Interval: 0.05 ft
II Barteiie
PA-12D
4.04
PA-28&
Bioau a mentation
Plot
EZVI Plot -
fA-240
3.89
D7MAH HfOCDH
640100
640120
640140
640180
640200
640160
Easting (ft)
Figure 2-7. Pre-Demonstration Water Levels (as elevation msl) in Deep Wells at Launch Complex 34
(March 2002)
640220
occur by downward leakage from overlying aquifers or
from direct infiltration inland where the aquifer is
unconfined. Schmalzer and Hinkle (1990) suggest that
saltwater intrusion may occur in intermediate aquifers
such as the semi-confined aquifer.
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 detectable
effects from the tidal cycles were measured, suggesting
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 sur-
face water bodies and discharges into them.
2.3 DNAPL Contamination in the
Demonstration 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
dataset (i.e., only two wells per depth). The shallow,
intermediate, and deep monitoring wells were installed
during the site characterization to correspond with the
hydrostratigraphic units: Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-
Grained Unit, and Lower Sand Unit (Battelle, 2002a),
respectively. The targeted unit for the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation demonstration was the Upper Sand
15
-------
Table 2-3. Hydrostratigraphic Units of Brevard Country, Florida'3'
Approximate
Geologic Age Stratigraphic Unit Thickness (ft) General Lithologic Character Water-Bearing Properties
Recent
(0.1 MYA-present)
Pleistocene and Recent Deposits
0-110
Fine to medium sand, coquina and sandy shell
marl.
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.
Pleistocene
(1.8-0.1 MYA)
Pliocene
(1.8-5 MYA)
Upper Miocene and Pliocene
Deposits (Caloosahatchee Marl)
20-90
Gray to greenish gray sandy shell marl, green
clay, fine sand, and silty shell.
Permeability very low, acts as confining bed to
artesian aquifer, produces small amount of water
to wells tapping shell beds.
Miocene
(5-24 MYA)
Hawthorne Formation
10-300
Light green to greenish gray sandy marl,
streaks of greenish clay, phosphatic radiolarian
clay, black and brown phosphorite, thin beds of
phosphatic sandy limestone.
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.
Eocene
(37-58 MYA)
Ocala Group
Crystal River Formation
0-100
White to cream, friable, porous coquina in a
soft, chalky, marine limestone.
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
Wlliston 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.
Williston Formation
10-50
Light cream, soft, granular marine limestone,
generally finer grained than the Inglis
Formation, highly fossiliferous.
Inglis Formation
70+
Cream to creamy white, coarse granular
limestone, contains abundant echinoid
fragments.
Avon Park Limestone
285+
White to cream, purple tinted, soft, dense
chalky limestone. Localized zones of altered to
light brown or ashen gray, hard, porous,
crystalline dolomite.
(a) Source: Schmalzerand Hinkle (1990).
MYA = million years ago.
-------
Unit and the treatment was applied only to this unit. A
pre-demonstration TCE concentration in groundwater
greater than the solubility level of TCE (1,100,000 |ag/L =
1,100 mg/L) was measured in monitoring well PA-26 in
the center of the test plot (see Figure 2-8). However, the
TCE-DNAPL was not visually observed during the pre-
demonstration monitoring. Substantial TCE also was
detected to the north and south around the perimeter of
the plot in monitoring wells PA-27S and PA-28S, respec-
tively. Considerable c/'s-1,2-DCE was detected in the
Upper Sand Unit, indicating some historical natural
attenuation of TCE (see Figure 2-9).
Figures 2-10 and 2-11 show representative pre-
demonstration horizontal distributions of TCE in soil from
the Upper Sand Unit at 20 ft bgs and 26 ft bgs, respec-
tively. TCE levels were highest in the eastern portion of
the test plot at both 20 and 24 ft bgs. Pre-demonstration
concentrations of TCE in soil appear to be higher at 24 ft
bgs than at 20 ft bgs. At both depths, TCE in soil was
measured at concentrations greater than 300 mg/kg,
which is indicative of DNAPL. As seen in the vertical
cross section in Figure 2-12, much of the TCE was pres-
ent 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 demonstration because of the high
concentrations of TCE present and because the hydro-
stratigraphic unit contained permeable soils that would
be amenable to the injections associated with biostimu-
lation and bioaugmentation.
The pre-demonstration soil sampling indicated that be-
tween 18 and 47 kg of TCE was present in the Upper
Sand Unit of the bioaugmentation plot before the demon-
stration. Approximately 2.6 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 charac-
teristics, such as porosity, bulk density, and organic car-
bon content. The native organic carbon content of the
Launch Complex 34 soil is relatively low and the thresh-
old TCE concentration is driven by the solubility of TCE
in the porewater.
The threshold figure was calculated as follows (U.S.
EPA, 1996):
q _ ^water (^dPb (2-1)
S3t Pb
where Csat = 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) =
0.057.
foc = fraction organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient
[(mg/kg)/(mg/L)] = 126.
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 (Battelle, 1999d).
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. It was created by taking TCE
concentrations above the threshold value of 300 mg/kg in
the Upper Sand Unit of the test plot (see Figure 2-12),
and using the software program EarthVision to create
the 3D picture. The mass of TCE as DNAPL in Figure 2-
13 is 2.6 kg in the Upper Sand Unit (see Section 5.1.2).
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 6.5
to 7.0. Prior to the treatment, dissolved oxygen (DO) lev-
els 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 +54 to +171 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 and other native groundwater parameters in
the surficial aquifer were measured in March 2002 at the
performance monitoring wells in the Upper Sand Unit to
determine the pre-demonstration quality of the ground-
water 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 898 to 1,630 mg/L. Chloride
concentrations ranged from 125 to 852 mg/L and
increased sharply with depth, indicating some salt-
water intrusion in the deeper layers. These high
17
-------
B-ML5
BEW-2
111,000
MW-6
^Baneile
• Sampling Location
PA-27S Sampling Location ID
650.000 Concentration (pg/L)
llvM
• 100
100 -1,000
1.000-10.000
¦ 100.000
• 000.000
-1.100.000
659
'Solubility - 1.100.000 pg/L
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
TCE - MARCH 2002
(PRE-DEMONSTRATION)
Explanation:
Concentration (py.'L)
PA.27S #Baneiie
67.300
BEW-2
55.600
Bioaugmentation
Plot
FEET
PA-28S
28.100
Engineering
Support
Building
c/s-1,2-DCE - MARCH 2002
(PRE-DEMONSTRATION)
Figure 2-8. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved TCE Figure 2-9. Pre-Demonstration Dissolved DCE Concentra-
Concentrations (jjg/L) in Shallow Wells in the tions (pg/L) in Shallow Wells in the Treatment
Treatment Plot (March 2002) Plot (March 2002)
-------
Explanation:
Engineering
Support
Building
• Sampling Location
BiO-SB-1 Sampling Local ion ID
0 Concentration (fngftg)
t0 Bioaugmentation
Plot
Batteiie
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(20' bgs • Upper Sand Unit)
Figure 2-10. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil in the Upper Sand Unit
approximately 20 ft bgs in the Treatment Plot and Vicinity (January 2002)
Engineering
Support
Building
Bioaugmentation
Plot
IIO-SB-4
\ 99
Explanation: Concentration fonofeg)
• Sampling Location SO-100
BiO-SB-1 Sampling Localwn IU CU1™"200
12B ConceoHration (tngftg) 200 ' 3W
HI >00 ¦ 500
# Batteiie
a
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(24' bgs • Upper Sand Unit)
BIO-SB-1
12B
Figure 2-11. Pre-Demonstration TCE Concentrations (mg/kg) in Soil in the Upper Sand Unit
approximately 24 ft bgs in the Treatment Plot and Vicinity (January 2002)
19
-------
5-
ffli 10"
-D
& 15"
Q
20-
25-
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
-is
llBaneiie
Figure 2-12. Vertical Cross Section through the Treatment Plot Showing Pre-Demonstration ICE Soil
Concentrations (mg/kg) in the Subsurface
V)
£
o
c
O
a
"f \
-5r—
-ioJ—
llBattelle
10 en
\
Bioaugmentation
Plot
TCE >300 mg/kg
(PRE-DEMONSTRATION)
TC£ _M)NAPl INAl _HPT CDR
640130 640135 640140 640145 640150 640155
Easting (ft)
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)
-
3000.0
1000.0
300.0
200.0
100.D
50.0
z
exag: 1.0
Location of Transect
Showing TCE Concentration in Soil
Upper Sand
20
-------
levels of chloride made it difficult to determine the
extent to which additional chloride byproducts were
formed after treatment.
Alkalinity levels ranged from 261 to 463 mg/L, and
decreased with depth. Alkalinity levels were lowest
in the Lower Sand Unit.
Dissolved iron concentrations ranged from 2.7 to
31 mg/L in the groundwater, and decreased with
depth. Dissolved iron concentrations in ground-
water were highest in the Upper Sand Unit. Total
iron concentrations were not measured for this
demonstration.
Dissolved silica concentrations ranged from 14.1 to
56.6 mg/L, and increased with depth.
Calcium concentrations ranged from 53 to
168 mg/L, with no discernible trend with depth.
Magnesium concentrations ranged from 10 to
82 mg/L, and increased with increasing depth.
• Sodium concentrations were between 32 and
362 mg/L, and increased with depth. Potassium
concentrations ranged from 19 to 279 mg/L, and
decreased with depth.
• The changes in microbial characteristics of the
aquifer were determined by comparing the bio-
logical oxygen demand (BOD) and dissolved
methane gas concentrations in groundwater sam-
ples collected before and after the bioaugmentation
demonstration. BOD levels in the pre-demonstration
groundwater samples ranged from <6.0 to
<12.0 mg/L.
• TOC concentrations in groundwater ranged from
31 mg/L to 235 mg/L. Concentrations were highest
in the Upper Sand Unit and Middle Fine-Grained
Unit.
• Sulfate concentrations ranged from 73 mg/L to
385 mg/L, and showed an increasing trend with
depth.
21
-------
-------
3. Technology Operation
This section describes the details of the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation technology demonstrated at Launch
Complex 34.
3.1 Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Technology Description
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology is
an enhanced bioremediation treatment process which
involves adding a carbon electron donor to the CVOC-
contaminated aquifer to create conditions for suitable
microbial reductive dechlorination, followed by the addi-
tion of dehalorespiring microorganisms (Dehalococcoi-
des ethenogenes) into the aquifer. The Dehalococcoides
group includes multiple strains, not all of which are profi-
cient at cis-1,2-DCE and VC dechlorination. Today, three
isolated strains of Dehalococcoides can dehalorespire
and dehalogenate TCE and PCE solvents in anaerobic
aquifer conditions (Major et al., 2002). The strain used
for this technology demonstration at Launch Complex 34
was KB-1 ™ microbes inoculated in a laboratory in Uni-
versity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; and SiRem labora-
tory in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. KB-1™ is cultured to be
predominantly those strains capable of biodegrading
TCE to ethene.
3.2 Regulatory Requirements
Prior to the design of the biostimulation and bioaugmen-
tation treatment system, a petition for variance from
Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations was
filed with the State of Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection (FDEP). This demonstration in the
DNAPL source area was considered a research project
in a small area, and therefore was exempt from FDEP
oversight. However, the variance was filed, and the proj-
ect was reported to be consistent with good field prac-
tices involved with injecting materials into the subsurface
that were prepared on the surface. Hydraulic control of
groundwater in the treatment plot area was achieved via
recirculation of groundwater (taken up from upgradient
extraction wells and reinjected into downgradient injec-
tion wells).
3.3 Groundwater Control System
A groundwater control system was designed and installed
to maintain the hydraulic control of groundwater in the
treatment plot (in the Upper Sand Unit). This was done
to facilitate the distribution of electron donor, simplify the
placement of monitoring points, and to accelerate the
degradation process to one that could be monitored in
the reasonable timeframe allotted to this demonstration.
The groundwater control system consists of (1) three
injection wells (BIW-1, BIW-2, and BIW-3) upgradient [at
the east side of the treatment plot] and three extraction
wells (BEW-1, BEW-2, and BEW-3) downgradient [at the
west side], (2) an aboveground treatment system (see
Figure 3-1) to treat CVOCs in the pumped groundwater
prior to reinjection, (3) the associated process piping,
(4) and additional monitoring network for the monitoring
wells (MW-3 to MW-6 within the plot) and multilevel sam-
pler wells (BML-1 to BML-5) to the downgradient side
inside the plot. In addition to the groundwater control
system, performance monitoring wells were installed to
monitor groundwater quality outside the plot (PA-27S/I/D
and PA-28S/I/D), and inside the plot (PA-26). Further
investigative monitoring wells (FL-1 to FL-3) were placed
for in situ flux measurement tool in the plot by the Uni-
versity of Florida (UF), separately funded by the Envi-
ronmental Strategic Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP). Because the scope of the study conducted by
the UF researchers was not designed for the feasibility
of the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment in
the source zone, the data collected by the UF research-
ers were not incorporated in this report.
The groundwater control system was used to maintain
flow and hydraulic residence time in the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation plot. The technology vendor
designed the specifics of the flow control based on
Visual MODFLOW™ (GeoSyntec, 2002). The results
indicated that a flowrate of 1.5 gallons per minute (gpm)
was sufficient to maintain flow in the system while pre-
venting air from mixing with the water in the treatment
system. Flowrate, pressure, and the extracted ground-
water chemistry were monitored during the recirculation.
23
-------
Figure 3-1. Aboveground Water Treatment System
The groundwater control system started operation on
June 10, 2002 at the combined extraction rate of 1,5 gpm
(each of 0.5 gpm from BEW-1 to BEW-3) and continued
throughout the demonstration of the treatment pro-
cesses. The control system was operated throughout the
(1) baseline phase prior to biostimulation (June 10 to
October 08, 2002) from BEW-1 to BEW-3, (2) the
biostimulation phase (October 2002 to January 2003),
and (3) the bioaugmentation phase (after the addition of
Dehalococcoides in early February 2003) [see Table 3-
1], However, the recirculated groundwater was run
through the carbon canisters only during the testing and
modification portion of the baseline phase, from May 23
to September 12, 2002.
As predicted by the vendor's modeling results, the
extraction rate was set at 1.5 gpm from the combined
extraction wells (BEW-1 to BEW-3). Extraction rates
were approximately 0.5 gpm from each of wells BEW-1,
-2, and -3. The technology vendor frequently recorded
the logs of the average groundwater extraction flowrates
from various sample ports daily and water levels mea-
sured using a pressure transducer (GeoSyntec, 2003).
In every site visit (every other week), the following activi-
ties were performed to maintain the groundwater control
system:
• Pressure drop across granulated activated carbon
(GAC) tank filter cartridges
• Collection of liquid samples from the effluent
sampling port of the GAC tanks
• Collection of liquid samples before the reinjection
into BIW-1, BIW-2. and BIW-3.
• Flowrate and pressure measurements
• Water level measurements
• Site inspection and engineering control
• Replacement of GAC tanks and filter cartridges
• Routine maintenance of the extraction pump.
Before the biostiumulation and bioaugmentation phases,
the average flowrate was maintained at a total of
1.5 gpm (0.5 gpm from each extraction wellhead).
During the baseline period prior to the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation processes, a series of tracer tests were
conducted to estimate an average groundwater velocity
along the centerline of the treatment plot. The tracer test,
using a concentrated potassium bromide (KBr) solution,
was conducted from August 8 to 13, 2002. Groundwater
was amended with a KBr solution concentration at
50 mg/L before the reinjection into the injection wells
(BIW-1 to BIW-3). Groundwater was monitored from the
monitoring wells along the flow path during the entire
demonstration period. The observed groundwater veloc-
ity was 0.75 ft/day in the treatment plot.
The groundwater control system was designed to oper-
ate and maintain the residence time of 32 days. Hydrau-
lic control was well maintained in the treatment area of
the demonstration plot (see Section 5.3.3).
24
-------
Table 3-1. In Situ Bioremediation by Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Dates Activity
Comments
January 10, 2001
June 4 to 9, 2001
October 2001 to January
7, 2002
January 8, 2002
January 14, 23, and 24,
2002
February 4 to 6, 2002
February 25 to May 11,
2002
March 7, 11-12, 19-20,
and 28
March 25 to 30, 2002
April 22 to May 30, 2002
May 23, 2002
June 10, 2002
August 8 to 13, 2002
September 12, 2002
October 23, 2002
November 21, 2002
December 2002
February 6, 2003
March 2003
June 17 to 21, 2003
Technology demonstration contract awarded to GeoSyntec (technology vendor).
Site characterization conducted by the vendor.
Design/modeling of the biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology performed.
Final design report submitted to NASA.
Pre-demonstration soil sampling conducted.
Pre-demonstration soil sampling continued.
Injection/extraction wells installed by the vendor for groundwater recirculation.
Multilevel chamber wells installed by the vendor for groundwater monitoring.
Monitoring wells installed by the vendor for groundwater monitoring.
Performance monitoring wells installed by Battelle.
Aboveground treatment system constructed by the vendor.
Testing and modifications of the treatment system performed.
Recirculated groundwater passed through carbon canisters prior to reinjection.
Continuous recirculation began. Extraction rate at 0.5 gpm from each well for a total of
1.5 gpm.
Tracer test started. Reinjected groundwater was amended for 5 days with concentrated
KBr to achieve the injected concentration level at 50 mg/L.
Carbon canisters removed from the recirculated groundwater system; recirculation
continued.
Biostimulation Phase started:
~ Electron donor (ethanol) injected into injection wells BIW-1, -2, and -3 in the
upgradient side of the plot.
~ Multiple observation wells (FL-2, BML-3, MW-6, PA-26, and MW-3 at the distances
of 1, 3, 7, 15, and 17.5 ft, respectively, right to the flow direction within the treatment
plot).
First observed presence of biofouling in injection well screens and treatment system:
~ Decrease of ethanol injection frequency.
~ Scrubbing, surging, and purging of each injection well.
~ Amending the reinjected groundwater with sodium hypochloride (NaOCI) to inhibit
the microbial activity in the wells.
Groundwater sampling during biostimulation
Bioaugmentation Phase started
Groundwater sampling during bioaugmentation
~ Addition of 40 L of KB-1 ™ cultures into the injection wells (BIW-1 to -3).
Post-demonstration characterization (soil and groundwater) conducted.
Cores SB-1 to -4 (gap in
January time due to
sampling in EZVI plot)
Cores SB-5 and SB-7
BIW-1 to -3, BEW-1 to -3,
BML-1 to -5 (5 depths)
MW-3 to -6, FL-1 to -3
PA-26, -27S/I/D, and -
28S/I/D
Cores SB-202, SB-205 to ¦
207; SB-210 and -211
25
-------
3.4 Enhanced Bioremediation
by the Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation Technology
As discussed in Section 1.4, complete reductive dechlo-
rination of TCE to ethene at some sites can be achieved
by the sequential treatment of biostimulation and bio-
augmentation processes. Biostimulation involves adding
an electron donor solution of carbon substrate, such as
ethanol, methanol, and/or acetate, under anaerobic
aquifer conditions. Then, bioaugmentation enhances the
degradation processes by adding a consortium of
Dehalococcoides microbial cultures capable of degrad-
ing TCE-DNAPL and any byproducts. Although biostimu-
lation alone may be sufficient to cause biodegradation at
some sites, it may be appropriate to bioaugment an
aquifer in cases where the presence of indigenous
Dehalococcoides is weak or nonexistent, or where there
is historical evidence of biodegradation stalling at cis-
1,2-DCE. Inside the Engineering Support Building at
Launch Complex 34, the DNAPL source zone was not
large enough to conduct a control demonstration using
biostimulation alone. Therefore, the sequential treatment
of biostimulation and bioaugmentation was evaluated
in the same demonstration plot. The bioaugmentation
phase of the treatment was designed to determine if the
KB-1™ culture was capable of biodegrading TCE (at
DNAPL concentrations) to ethene within the timeframe
of this project.
The design report for the biostimulation and bioaugmen-
tation technology was prepared by GeoSyntec (2002)
and included location maps for injection and monitoring
well locations; schematics of biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation phases, a groundwater recirculation system,
and a hydraulic control recirculation system; and other
design-related information. The treatment plot was
located over an area of the DNAPL source zone inside
the Engineering Support Building at Launch Complex 34.
This zone was contaminated primarily with TCE and to a
lesser extent with PCE and dichloroethenes (including
cis-1,2-DCE and trans-1,2-DCE).
Previously, four other in situ remedial technology dem-
onstrations were hosted at the Launch Complex 34
DNAPL source zone: in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO),
resistive heating, steam injection/extraction (Sl/E), and
emulsified zero-valent iron (EZVI) injection. During the
Sl/E demonstration, it was noted that the injected heat
and steam flowed along preferential pathways through
the subsurface of the DNAPL source area. Therefore, it
was decided that the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
technology demonstration would be performed at a loca-
tion inside the Engineering Support Building south of the
resistive heating plot (see Figure 1-3).
3.4.1 Biostimulation
In theory, biostimulation can be established by adding
electron donor to the aquifer to provide a source of
energy for microbes and stimulate reductive dechlorina-
tion of TCE and intermediate byproducts. However, the
biostimulation process alone may take a very long
time, especially to complete the degradation of TCE
byproducts.
For the biostimulation phase of this demonstration, eth-
anol was chosen as the electron donor. The electron
donor was added using an Ismatec® multi-channel
chemical metering pump to control dosage from the
chemical storage vessels into the groundwater injection
wells (BIW-1 to BIW-3).
The biostimulation system consisted of the following
components:
• A chemical metering pump,
• A reservoir vessel to contain concentrated tracer
and electron donor,
• Check valves to prevent groundwater in the
aboveground treatment system from flowing back
into the chemical reservoir vessel,
• An in-line static mixer.
Delivery of the electron donor solution into the treatment
plot began on October 23, 2002. The injection concen-
tration for the electron donor was daily average of
140 mg/L. This rate was based upon providing a time-
weighted average concentration which was seven times
in excess of the concentration required on a stoichio-
metric basis to biodegrade the CVOC concentrations
observed during baseline operation. The addition of the
proper dosage (approximately 140 mg/L) was performed
as a 1 to 2 hour pulse per day. A flow sensor located
immediately upstream of the dosing equipment was
used to control the dose rate of electron donor.
During the biostimulation phase, groundwater was moni-
tored to determine whether a proper aquifer condition
was established for KB-1 ™ cultures to grow in the aqui-
fer. In November 2002, an accumulation of biofouling
was observed in monitoring well screens and treatment
systems: FL-2, BML-3, MW-6, PA-26, and MW-3. As a
result of the biofouling, electron donor (ethanol) was
added less frequently (less than a daily addition). In
order to clean out the biofouling in the monitoring wells,
each impacted monitoring well was scrubbed, surged,
and purged out. Then, the recirculated groundwater
amended with sodium hypochloride (NaOCI) was reintro-
duced into the injection wells. The NaOCI solution was
26
-------
used to inhibit the microbial growths in the injection
wells.
Groundwater samples for performance assessment were
collected in December 2002 during the biostimulatiori
phase (see Table 3-1). Groundwater monitoring results
are discussed in Section 5. The biostimulation phase
lasted until early February 2003 prior to the addition of
KB-1™ cultures. The the biostimulation phase of the
technology demonstration was considered to be finished
based on the vendor's monitoring data and contractual
scheduling constraints. The bioaugmentation phase
began with the injection of the microbial cultures in early
February 2003.
3.4.2 Bioaugmentation
In early February 2003, the microbial consortium of KE3-
1 ™ cultures was introduced into the aquifer. KB-1 ™ is a
consortium of genetically engineered cultures from natu-
rally occurring microbes, growing in a TCE-contaminated
site. The cultures were isolated and inoculated by the
University of Toronto, Canada and SiRem Laboratory,
available through the vendor.
The KB-1 ™ culture was shipped by an overnight carrier
to the site in specially designed 20-L stainless steel
vessels, as shown in Figure 3-2. The vessels were
designed to preserve microbial cultures at anaerobic
conditions while the containers were safe to the cultures.
The vessel was pressurized with inert gas during ship-
ment, and the inert gas was later used to apply the
microbial cultures passively into the injection wells
without any other engineering pumps.
Approximately 40 L of KB-1™ (biomass density of 4 x
10 to 4 x 10 as Dehalococcoides) was added into the
upgradient injection wells (BIW-1 to BIW-3) for this
demonstration. The total culture volume injected was
estimated based on the laboratory bench scale con-
ducted by University of Toronto (GeoSyntec, 2003).
The bioaugmentation phase continued when the post-
demonstration monitoring was conducted in June 2003.
The post-demonstration CVOC and other aquifer quality
results are discussed in Section 5. Similar to the bio-
stimulation phase of the treatment, the bioaugmentation
Figure 3-2. KB-1 ™ Dechlorinator Culture
Containers
phase ended and post-demonstration monitoring was
initiated based on scheduling and contractual obligations
rather than available data. However, it is likely that
any KB-1 M remaining in the aquifer after the post-
demonstration performance assessment monitoring
would continue to biodegrade CVOCs still present in the
treatment area.
3.5 Waste Handling and Disposal
Spent GAC was characterized and disposed of by the
manufacturer of the GAC 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 Department of Transportation
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 groundwater, the DNAPL
was stored in liquid waste disposal drums with the liquid
samples.
27
-------
-------
4. Performance Assessment Methodology
Battelle, in conjunction with the U.S. EPA SITE Program,
conducted an independent performance assessment of
the biostimulation and bioaugmentation demonstration at
Launch Complex 34 (see Figure 4-1). The objectives
and methodology for the performance assessment were
outlined in a QAPP prepared before the fieid demonstra-
tion 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 due to the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation treatment;
• Evaluate changes in aquifer quality due to the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment;
• Evaluate the fate of TCE due to the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation treatment;
• Verify biostimulation and bioaugmentation
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 treatment technology, which
was the Upper Sand Unit. Results from samples col-
lected 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
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) due to
the biostimulation and bioaugmentation 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 defined by the threshold TCE
concentration of 300 mg/kg as calculated in Section 2,3.
Soil sampling in the treatment plot was used to estimate
changes in TCE-DNAPL mass before and after the
demonstration. A statistical evaluation for determining
whether the remediation technology removed DNAPL at
a pre-deterrnined percentage over the period of the
treatment was not used for this performance assess-
ment. Biostimulation and bioaugmentation are different
from other, more rigorous and directly applied remedi-
ation technologies. Biostimulated and bioaugmented
sites require a much longer time frame for remediation,
not only to determine if the microbial communities are
actively established to treat the site, but also because
the microbial communities may continue to treat the
contaminants on site long after a technology demon-
stration ends.
4.1.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass
Soil coring was chosen as the primary method for col-
lecting and analyzing samples to determine changes in
TCE and TCE-DNAPL mass as a result of the tech-
nology. 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
Ho ParKtng
29
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Assessment Objectives and Associated Measurements
Objective
Estimate change in total
TCE and DNAPL mass
in soii
Evaluate changes in
aquifer quality
Evaluate the fate of TCE
Measurements
CVOCs(b) in soil
CVOCs) inorganics""
BOD, field parameters1 in
groundwater
TOC in soil
Hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer
CVOCs(b) in soil
Frequency
Primary Objective
Before and after
treatment
Before, during,
and after
treatment
Secondary Objectives
TOC, Before, during,
and after
treatment
Before and after
treatment
Before and after
treatment
Before and after
treatment
CVOCs(t>), inorganics"",
parameters, dissolved
hydrocarbon gases'0' in
groundwater
Chloride in groundwater
field Before, during,
and after
treatment
Before and after
treatment
Hydraulic gradient in the aquifer
Field observations, tracking
materials consumption and
costs
Before, during,
and after
treatment
Before, during,
and after
treatment
Sampling Locations1®'
Four horizontal locations in the Upper Sand Unit.
Extract and analyze every 2-ft depth.
Extraction well (BEW-2); test plot well PA-26.
Center well PA-26 and perimeter well clusters PA-27
and PA-28.
Three multiple depths of two locations inside the plot.
Center well PA-26.
Extend the four 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-27 and PA-28; injection
well BIW-2 and extraction well BEW-2.
Four locations in the plot at five discrete depths using
a Waterloo Profiler .
Water level measurements taken in the test plot well
(PA-26), perimeter well clusters (PA-27 and PA-28),
and distant wells.
Field observations by vendor and Battelle; materials
and consumption costs reported by vendor to
Battelle.
Verify operating
requirements and costs
ofthe bioaugmentation
technology
(a) Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show soil core sampling locations and groundwater monitoring well locations within the treatment plot.
(b) CVOCs of interest are TCE, c/s-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and VC.
(c) Dissolved hydrocarbon gases are methane, ethane, and ethane.
(d) Inorganics include cations (Ca, Mg, 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.
for identifying the boundaries ofthe DNAPL source zone
and estimating the TCE and DNAPL mass. The advan-
tage of soil sampling (see Figure 4-2) was that a reason-
able horizontal and vertical coverage of any test plot, as
well as ofthe dissolved-phase TCE and DNAPL distribu-
tion, could be achieved with a practical 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) the biostim-
ulation phase and after (post-demonstration event) bio-
augmentation (see Figures 4-3 and 4-4). Soil sampling
was not conducted between the phases. The results of
the pre- and post-demonstration soil sampling events
are presented in Section 5.1.
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 degradation
Figure 4-2. Soil Sample Collection
30
-------
Bioaugmentation Plot Inside of
Engineering Support Building
BEW-1
PA-27
s s s
I
D
^BML-1
® ^WP-1
BIO-SB-7
^BML-2
BIO-SB-6
® A
R-(; vF
MW4
0
BEW-2
BIO-SB-1
BEW-3
BML-3
^BML-4
(S) BIO-SB-2
BML-5
BIO-SB-3
PA-28
S G
D I
<§>
BIO-SB-4
s
MW3
PA-18
(§) WP-2®
BIO-SB-5 ^
MW5
BIW-1
BIW-2
BIW-3
S ^
~
Explanation
Extraction Well (Recirculation Well)
Injection Well (Recirculation Well)
Monitoring Well
Multi-Level Monitoring Well
Soil Boring (BIO-SB-#)
Approximate Bio Plot DRAWN BY
Boundary ds
10
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN FEET
DESIGNED BY
ED
CHECKED BY
SY
©BaBelle
Bioaugmentation Plot and
Pre Demonstration Soil Boring Locations
LAUNCH COMPLEX 34 - CAPE CANAVERAL. FL
G48201Q-EPA41 | BIOPLOTQ2.CDR | 12/03
Figure 4-3. Pre-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (BIO-SB-1 through BIO-SB-7) in the Treatment
Plot (January/February 2002)
31
-------
PA-27
s s s
S I D
BEW-,1
BEW-2
BEW-3
BIO-SB207
5
BIO-WP201
BIO-SB206
w
BI0-SB211
BIO-SB202
Bioaugmentation Plot Inside of
Engineering Support Building
PA-28
s s
D I
BIO-SB210
® BIO-WP202J
BIO-SB205
BIW-1
BIW-2
®
BIW-3
s
Explanation
Extraction Well (Recirculation Well)
Injection Well (Recirculation Well)
Monitoring Well
Soil Boring (BIO-SB-#)
Approximate Bio Plot
Boundary
10
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN FEET
DESIGNED BY
JH
# Baiteiie
DRAWN BY
DS
Bioaugmentation Plot and
Post-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations
CHECKED BY
SY
LAUNCH COMPLEX 34 - CAPE CANAVERAL, FL
G482010-EPM1 | BIOESBMAP02.CDR | 12/03
Figure 4-4. Post-Demonstration Soil Boring Locations (BIO-SB-202, BIO-SB-2G5 through BIO-SB-2Q7,
BIO-SB-210, and BIO-SB-211) in the Treatment Plot (June 2003)
32
-------
products were accumulating in the aquifer after treat-
ment due to reductive chlorination under anaerobic
conditions.
After considering the size of the demonstration plot (20 ft
x 20 ft) and the restrictions on working inside a building,
the test plot was divided into four quadrants with one
borehole located in each quadrant. Initially, a systematic
unaligned sampling scheme was designed for the plot.
However, the size of the plot and building-related
obstructions (walls, doorframes, structural pillars, etc.)
limited the actual spatial locations that could be sam-
pled. Many possible borehole locations were obstructed
by the biostimulation and bioaugmentation injection
points in the test plot. Also, an attempt was made to
locate the boreholes such that the grouted boreholes
produced minimal interference with the hydraulic aspects
of the injection plans. As a result, sampling points were
selected as near to the center of each quadrant as
possible, while providing good horizontal coverage of the
test plot within the level of resources available.
A 2-ft vertical sampling interval from 6 to 26 ft bgs was
selected. This vertical distance represents the targeted
stratigraphic unit for the biostimulation and bioaugmenta-
tion demonstration, which is roughly the vertical distance
from the water table to the bottom of the Upper Sand
Unit. The 2-ft sampling interval was chosen based on a
kriging model that used preliminary information about the
test plot, site characterization data, and a desire to
remain consistent with the sampling interval used in pre-
vious technology demonstrations at Launch Complex 34.
The sample size chosen for this demonstration was 40
for both pre- and post-demonstration sampling, for a
total of 80 samples in the target unit, which was the high-
est number of samples that would be practical to collect
for the smaller size of the test plot (20 * 20 ft) and still pro-
duce an 80% confidence interval for the kriging analysis.
The sample size results from four boreholes (one per
quadrant) and ten 2-ft sections sampled from each
borehole in the targeted stratigraphic unit between 6 and
26 ft bgs. The kriging model indicated that increasing the
number of samples taken per borehole had a minimum
impact on the standard error of the TCE concentration.
The site characterization data indicated that the TCE
concentrations varied considerably with depth, and that
a 2-ft sampling interval would be sufficient in adequately
capturing the variations (Battelle, 1999b). Note that each
soil sample contains groundwater in the pore space.
Therefore, the pre- and post-demonstration cores
essentially evaluate total TCE removal from the plot.
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 treatment technology.
The soil samples collected from the Middle Fine-Grained
Unit and Lower Sand Unit were used to evaluate any
impact the biostimulation and bioaugmentation technol-
ogy may have had on the fate and transport of TCE in
the lower units of the aquifer, or any impact on the water
quality in the lower units of the aquifer.
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
Figure 4-5. Indoor Vibra-Push™ Rig (LD Geoprobe®
Series) Used in the Bioaugmentation Plot
Inside the Engineering Support Building
33
-------
inside the Engineering Support Building. A direct Vibra-
Push™ rig with a 2-inch-diameter, 4-ft-long sample bar-
rel 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 (approxi-
mately 125 g of wet soil) was deposited into a predeter-
mined 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 certified off-site laboratory for analysis. The sam-
pling and extraction technique used at this site provided
better coverage of a heterogeneously distributed con-
taminant distribution as compared to the more conven-
tional method of collecting and analyzing small soil
samples at discrete depths, because the entire vertical
depth of the soil column at the coring location could be
analyzed. Preliminary 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 cover-
age of the soil column (GeoSyntec, 2002). The efficiency
of TCE recovery by this method (modified U.S. EPA
Method 5035; see Appendix A.2) was evaluated through
a series of tests conducted for a previous (i.e., EZVI)
demonstration (Battelle, 2003b). In these tests, a surro-
gate 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 aver-
age recovery of 92%), which was considered sufficiently
accurate for the EZVI demonstration.
Two data evaluation methods were used for estimating
the change in TCE-DNAPL mass in the treatment plot:
linear interpolation by contouring, and kriging. The spa-
tial variability or spread of the TCE distribution in a
DNAPL source zone typically is high, because 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 biotreatment plot and obtain a true TCE
mass estimate for the plot, both methods address the
practical difficulty of estimating the TCE concentrations at
unsampled points by interpolating (estimating) between
sampled points. The objective of both methods is to use
the information from a limited sample set to make an
inference 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 interpolated.
For linear interpolation by contouring, input parameters
must be adjusted to accommodate various references
such as geology and sample size. Between 120 and 140
total soil samples were collected from the 7 and 6 coring
locations in the plot during pre-demonstration and post-
demonstration sampling, respectively, which was the
highest number practical within the resources of this
project. The number and distribution of these sampling
points were determined to obtain good representative
coverage of the plot. However, only the soil concentra-
tion data generated from the soil borings inside the plot
boundaries were used to determine the TCE concentra-
tion in soil through linear interpolation by contouring.
Data from the soil borings outside the plot boundaries
were used to make more accurate contour plots, such as
plots in Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-11.
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 concentra-
tions 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
34
-------
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
level of significance of 0.2 (or 80% confidence) was
determined to be necessary at the beginning of the dem-
onstration (Battelle, 2002a).
Only the soil concentration data generated from the soil
samples taken from the Upper Sand Unit inside the plot
boundaries were used to determine the range of TCE
concentrations in soil by the kriging method.
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 linear inter-
polation and kriging, TCE mass removal is accounted 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 esti-
mate a high level of mass removal. Kriging most likely
provides a more informed estimate of the TCE mass
removal than contouring because it takes into account
the spatial correlations in the TCE distribution and the
uncertainties (error) associated with the estimates. The
results in Section 5.1 show that linear interpolation was
able to overcome the spatial variability to a considerable
extent and provide mass estimates that were generally
in agreement with the ranges provided by kriging.
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. Biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation affect 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
treatment 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 combined biostimulation and bioaugmenta-
tion treatment. Possible pathways (or processes) for
TCE removal include dehalogenation (destruction of
TCE) and migration from the treatment plot (to outside
the plot). Dehalogenation was determined by the pres-
ence of TCE degradation products, including chloride.
The amount of chloride generated during treatment was
evaluated by collecting groundwater samples with a
Waterloo Profiler® inside the plot (see Figure 4-6), as
well as from the performance monitoring wells. These
possible pathways for TCE removal were evaluated by
the following measurements:
• Chloride in groundwater (mineralization of CVOCs
leads to formation of chloride) and other inorganic
constituents in groundwater
• Hydraulic gradients (injection of the electron donor
creates gradients indicative of groundwater
movement)
• Changes in dehalogenated byproducts (c/'s-
1,2-DCE, VC, and ethenes)
• Impact on natural attenuation products (ferrous iron,
methane) via the anaerobic process.
35
-------
Figure 4-6. Collecting arid 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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation
application (GeoSyntec, 2003). An operating summary
based on this report is provided in Section 3. Site char-
acterization costs were estimated by Battelle.
36
-------
5. Performance Assessment Results and Conclusions
The results of the performance assessment are described
in this section.
5.1 Changes in TCE-DNAPL Mass
in the Plot
Continuous soil sampling was the primary tool for esti-
mating total TCE and DNAPL mass removal. Total TCE
refers to both dissolved-phase and DNAPL TCE. 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-demonstration
characterization from four soil cores (approximately 40
soil samples), and post-demonstration characterization
from six soil cores (approximately 60 soil samples) of the
Upper Sand Unit in the treatment plot were tabulated
and graphed to qualitatively identify changes in the TCE-
DNAPL mass distribution and the efficiency of the
treatment in different parts of the plot (Section 5.1.1). In
addition, TCE-DNAPL mass removal was quantified by
two methods:
• Linear interpolation (Section 5.1.2)
• Kriging (Section 5.1.3).
The quantitative techniques for estimating TCE-DNAPL
mass removal due to the biostimulation and bioaugmen-
tation 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 (a) charts the pre-demonstration and post-
demonstration TCE concentrations at four paired soil
boring locations (SB-2, SB-5, SB-6, and SB-7) in the
treatment plot (see Figures 4-3 and 4-4); detailed TCE
results in soil samples are tabulated in Appendix C. The
dashed horizontal lines in the chart indicate the depth
at which the Middle Fine-Grained Unit was encoun-
tered. Soil samples were collected from the groundwater
table (approximately 6 ft bgs) down to the Lower Sand
Unit; however, this discussion of sampling performance
assessment focuses primarily on concentrations in the
Upper Sand Unit because the biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation treatment focused on that specific geograph-
ical stratigraphic unit. Figure 5-1 (b) includes data from
soil borings BIO-SB-1, BIO-SB-3, and BIO-SB-4, which
were outside the plot boundaries but useful in creating
more accurate contour plots, such as those seen in Fig-
ure 5-2(a). The data from these three pre-demonstration
cores were not used to calculate changes in TCE-
DNAPL mass as a result of treatment.
Figure 5-1 (c) contains data from two additional post-
demonstration soil borings (BIO-SB-210 and BIO-SB-
211) where soil samples were collected at every 1-foot
interval (where possible) in the treatment zone. These
two post-demonstration borings were collected next to
pre-demonstration soil borings BIO-SB-5 and BIO-SB-6
in order to supplement the data for post-demonstration
calculations of changes in TCE-DNAPL mass. Because
these soil borings were within the plot boundaries and
corresponded to a pre-demonstration soil boring, the soil
samples collected from BIO-SB-210 and BIO-SB-211
were used to calculate changes in TCE-DNAPL mass as
a result of treatment.
Figures 5-1 (d) and 5-1 (e) are graphical representations
of the data contained in Figure 5-1 (a) and 5-1 (c). They
represent the TCE soil concentrations in mg/kg at depths
within the treatment plot for the pre- and post-
demonstration characterization events.
In the targeted Upper Sand Unit, the highest pre-
demonstration TCE concentrations in soil were detected
in the eastern half of the plot in soil borings BIO-SB-7
(8,327 mg/kg) and BIO-SB-5 (961 mg/kg). Following the
demonstration, TCE concentrations in soil across the
entire plot were markedly lower, and were often not
detected or had values less than 1 mg/kg.
Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show representative pre-
demonstration and post-demonstration distributions of
TCE in soil at two selected depths (20 and 24 ft bgs) in
37
-------
Pre-
Post-
Pre-
Post-
Pre-
Post-
Pre-
Post-
Top
Bottom
Demo
Demo
Demo
Demo
Demo
Demo
Demo
Demo
Depth
Depth
SB-2
SB-202
SB-5
SB-205
SB-6
SB-206
SB-7
SB-207
6
8
0
0
ND
0
ND
1
1
1
8
10
2
1
0
0
2
NA
2
NA
10
12
4
0
ND
0
2
0
3
0
12
14
13
0
1
ND
1
ND
7
ND
14
16
44
0
13
ND
5
ND
6
ND
16
18
74
0
40
ND
11
NA
7
NA
18
20
78
ND
559
NA
96
ND
19
3
20
22
91
0
194
ND
105
ND
15
8
22
24
152
ND
961
NA
163
NA
160
2
24
26
174
ND
197
ND
231
2
8,327
NA
~26~ ~
- - - 23 " "
48~0~
300 ~ ~
4 " -
~ " 420"~
n__ _
i", 024
_141" "
28
30
399
319
462
1,691
401
25
422
191
30
32
449
375
4,032
1,981
2,054
2,530
331
358
32
34
189
NA
389
402
250
1,535
251
360
_ __ _
_______
_9~6_
_ _2_ _
222
_ _
~ 2,084
- "i ".,34- "
~ 625
408~ "
36
38
155
NA
308
1,100
3,011
548
3,723
486
38
40
245
248
500
2,052
636
6,222
379
288
40
42
241
1,473
369
2,033
385
NA
88
ND
42
44
2
NA
NA
221
NA
NA
NA
NA
44
46
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pre-
Pre-
Pre-
Post-
Post-
Top
Bottom
Demo
Demo
Demo
Top
Bottom
Demo
Demo
Depth
Depth
SB-1
SB-3
SB-4
Depth
Depth
SB-210
SB-211
6
8
0
0
0
14
15
1
2
8
10
2
1
1
15
16
6
1
10
12
1
1
1
16
17
NA
NA
12
14
13
8
10
17
18
NA
ND
14
16
13
24
25
18
19
ND
ND
16
18
6
33
28
19
20
1
0
18
20
8
17
34
20
21
NA
NA
20
22
21
51
120
21
22
1
1
22
24
128
80
99
22
23
1
ND
24
26
265
83
173
23
24
1
1
-2g- -
" " " 28" " "
" "308
" "140 " "
297"
24
25
NA
NA
28
30
430
233
405
25
26
ND
NA
30
32
156
99
179
26
27
ND
0
32
34
26
1
10
27
28
1
0
34
36
1
0
ND
28
29
14,277
0
~36~ "
" " " 38" " "
______
_ _ _
~N~D~
29
30
301
10
38
40
ND
1
ND
(c)
40
42
ND
0
ND
42
44
NA
0
ND
44
46
NA
0
ND (b)
NA: Not available due to no recovery or no sample collection at the sample depth.
ND: TCE was detected below the detection limit.
0: TCE in soil was detected in the methanol extracts but the concentration was small, such that the subsequent calculation to TCE in dry soil was 0.
Dashed horizontal line indicates the lithologic unit change from the Upper Sand Unit to the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and from the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit to the Lower Sand Unit.
Pre-Demo: January 2002.
Post-Demo: June 2003.
Figure 5-1. Distribution of TCE Soil Concentrations (mg/kg) as a Function of Depth (ft bgs):
(a) Pre-Demonstration and Post-Demonstration Characterization in the Treatment Plot; (b) Pre-
Demonstration Characterization Outside the Treatment Plot; (c) Post-Demonstration Characterization
in the Treatment Plot from 14 to 29 ft.
38
-------
0.0001 0.001 0.01
0 H— i 11 mi— i 11 mil—i
Pre-Demonstration
TCE Concentration (mg/kg)
0.1 1 10 100
Upper Sand Unit
8> 20
.Q
a.
m 30 -
O Middle Fine-grained Unit
40
50
Lower Sand Unit
1000 10000 100000
(d)
0.0001 0.001 0.01
0
Post-Demonstration
TCE Concentration (mg/kg)
0.1 1 10 100
Upper Sand Unit
D> 20
.Q
8" 30
O Middle Fine-grained Unit
40
50
Lower Sand Unit
1000 10000 100000
s
i
•• •
• •
Figure 5-1. (Continued) Distribution of TCE Soil Concentrations (mg/kg) as a Function of Depth (ft bgs):
(d) Pre-Demonstration Characterization in the Treatment Plot; (e) Post-Demonstration
Characterization in the Treatment Plot.
39
-------
Engineering
Support
Building
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Explanation: Cancenjralion (mg/kg}
Samp&ng locaiton
BIO-SS-1 Sampling Localion 10 d]
8 Goncenlralion (mg/kg) I *M01
PS 300 - MO
nan mo - 1.000
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(20' bgs • Upper Sand Unit)
BtO-SB-3
17
BlO'SB-1
8
ilBanene
BIO-SB-4
34
Engineering
Support
Building
IIO-SB-
B1O-SB-202
Bioaugmentation
Plot
POST-DEMONSTRATION
(2Q- bgs • Upper Sand Unit}
Explanation: Concentration
r i*»
• Sampiing Locatton C__J 50 •100
BIO-SB-207 Sampling locateon fD i i1M~JKI
3 ConcenlraUon (mg/kg) JWI"3M
I 13M-SM
llBafteile
Figure 5-2. Representative (a) Pre-Demonstration (January 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration (June
2003) Horizontal Cross Sections of TCE (mg/kg) at 20 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit
40
-------
Engineering
Support
Building
Bioaugmentation
Plot
BIO-SB-1
128
m
PRE-DEMONSTRATION
(24' bgs ¦ Upper Sand Unit)
Explanation: Concentration
-------
the Upper Sand Unit of the treatment plot and surrounding
aquifer. These figures illustrate the horizontal and verti-
cal extent of the initial contaminant distribution, and the
subsequent changes in TCE concentrations after treat-
ment. The orange to red colors indicate the presence of
free-phase TCE-DNAPL (based on the TCE-DNAPL
threshold of 300 mg/kg, see Section 2.3). In general, the
eastern portion of the plot (BIO-SB-5 and BIO-SB-6) had
the highest pre-demonstration TCE concentrations based
on soil samples, and the TCE concentrations in soil were
higher at 24 ft bgs (Figures 5-2[a] and 5-3[a]). Post-
demonstration coring indicated that the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation treatment substantially reduced the
concentrations of TCE in the plot at both 20 ft and 24 ft
bgs (see Figures 5-2[b] and 5-3[b]).
Figure 5-4 depicts 3-D distributions of TCE-DNAPL
greater than 300 mg/kg as identified from the pre- and
post-demonstration characterization in the treatment
plot. As shown in Figure 5-4(a), TCE was present
throughout the treatment plot as DNAPL. After the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation treatment, the relatively
well-distributed mass of TCE-DNAPL appeared to have
declined to below the 300 mg/kg threshold in the Upper
Sand Unit (see Figure 5-4[b]). This suggests that the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation treatment was effective
throughout the targeted portion of the Upper Sand Unit.
In summary, a qualitative evaluation of the TCE-DNAPL
changes indicates that the biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation treatment significantly reduced the TCE-
DNAPL mass throughout the targeted Upper Sand Unit.
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 treatment 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 due to the treatment.
Table 5-1 presents the estimated masses of total TCE
and TCE-DNAPL in the treatment plot and the three
individual stratigraphic units based on the linear interpo-
lation method. Although the target depth for the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation treatment was the
Upper Sand Unit, the evaluation was performed in the
entire surficial aquifer in order to examine any potential
impact of vertical migration from the treatment. Under
pre-demonstration conditions, soil sampling indicated the
presence of 25.5 kg of total TCE (dissolved and free
phase) in the Upper Sand Unit. Approximately 2.6 kg of
the total TCE was estimated to be DNAPL. Following the
demonstration, soil sampling indicated that 0.4 kg of total
TCE remained in the Upper Sand Unit; the post-
demonstration mass of TCE-DNAPL was estimated as
0.0 kg because there were no post-demonstration TCE
concentrations above the threshold of 300 mg/kg. There-
fore, the overall mass decrease by contouring was
98.5% of total TCE and >99% of DNAPL in the Upper
Sand Unit.
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment is esti-
mated to have removed 98.5% of total TCE and >99% of
TCE-DNAPL in the target treatment zone (i.e., the Upper
Sand Unit). The mass reduction percentage was not
estimated in the other two stratigraphic units because
biostimulation and bioaugmentation were not applied in
those lower stratigraphic units. The estimated post-
demonstration TCE mass in the Lower Sand Unit was
higher than the pre-demonstration mass. However,
because the TCE mass in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit
has declined, it is unlikely that the higher post-
demonstration mass in the Lower Sand Unit is attribut-
able to the treatment above.
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.
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 method 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 treatment plot
as well as the statistics summary of the data distribution.
Mass estimation by kriging was conducted to evaluate
42
-------
in
£
o
c
.0
o
>
10
\
©Batteiie
-1cf
,5c
Bioaugmentation
Plot
TCE >300 mg/kg
(PRE-DEMQNSTRATION)
\
10
15
CO
cr>
n
Cl
(U
Q
20
— 25
TCE 3DNAPL BIO FINAL RPTCDR
640130 640135 640140 640145 640150 640155
Easting (ft)
(a)
to
£
o
c
.2
a
>
&
La
10-
5r
Oj-
i-
-10
- 15H
II Batfelle
\
\
Bioaugmentation
Plot
TCE >300 mg/kg
(POST-DEMONSTRATION)
No DNAPL Identified
71
0
10 O)
.O
Q-
15 Q
- 20
— 25
i
640130 640135 640140 640145 640150 640155
Easting (ft)
(b)
Figure 5-4. 3D Distribution of DNAPL in the Bioaugmentation Plot Soil Based on (a) Pre-Demonstration
(January 2002) and (b) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Characterization
43
-------
Table 5-1. Estimated Total TCE and TCE-DNAPL Mass Reduction by Linear Interpolation
Pre-Demonstration Post-Demonstration Change in Mass (%)
Stratigraphic Unit
Total TCE Mass
(kg)
TCE-DNAPL Mass
(kg)
Total TCE Mass
(kg)
TCE-DNAPL Mass
(kg)
Total
TCE
TCE-
DNAPL
Upper Sand Unit
25.5
2.6
0.4
0.0
98.5
>99
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
127.5
76.0
77.2
47.9
N/A
N/A
Lower Sand Unit
88.6
54.7
273.5
218.8
N/A
N/A
N/A = not applicable. Change in mass was calculated for the targeted treatment zone only.
Table 5-2. Estimated Total TCE Mass Reduction by Kriging
Pre-Demonstration Post-Demonstration
Total TCE Mass Total TCE Mass Change in Mass
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Average
Bound
Bound
Average
Bound
Bound
Average
Bound
Bound
Stratigraphic Unit
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Upper Sand Unit
32.1
17.6
46.6
0.2
0.1
0.3
98.99
98.55
99.66
the biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology per-
formance in the heterogeneously distributed TCE con-
tamination source in the Upper Sand Unit.
Table 5-2 summarizes the total TCE mass estimates in
the Upper Sand Unit calculated from kriging. The table
summarizes an average and range (lower bound and
maximum bound) for total TCE only. Evaluating the
change in TCE-DNAPL using the kriging method was
difficult due to the limited number of usable data points
with TCE concentrations greater than 300 mg/kg. Thus,
kriging was conducted 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
mass estimate from linear interpolation. This suggests
that linear interpolation 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
biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment is between
98.6 and 99.7% (99.0% on average) for the entire data-
set from the Upper Sand Unit.
In this demonstration of in situ dehalogenation of TCE-
DNAPL by biostimulation and bioaugmentation, the
range of TCE mass estimation by kriging after the treat-
ment does not overlap the TCE mass range before the
treatment. This indicates that there was a significant,
measurable change in TCE-DNAPL mass due to the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation treatment.
5.1.4 Summary of Changes in the
TCE-DNAPL Mass
In summary, the evaluation of TCE concentrations in soil
indicates the following:
• In the horizontal plane, the highest pre-
demonstration TCE contamination was in
the eastern half of the treatment plot.
• In the vertical plane, the highest pre-demonstration
TCE-DNAPL contamination in the Upper Sand Unit
was between 24 to 26 ft bgs.
• A statistical evaluation for mass estimation by linear
interpolation based on TCE in soil shows that the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment
reduced the total TCE mass in the test plot by
approximately 98.5%.
• A statistical evaluation for mass estimation by
kriging of TCE concentrations in soil from pre- and
post-demonstration characterization shows that the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment
removed between 98.6 and 99.7% with the average
reduction of 99.0%. 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 application of biostimulation and bio-
augmentation at Launch Complex 34. Aquifer parameters
44
-------
were measured by monitoring conducted before, twice
during, and after the demonstration. The groundwater
sampling events during the demonstration were con-
ducted in December 2002, approximately one month
after the electron donor was injected to begin biostimula-
tion, and again in March 2003, approximately one month
after the KB-1 ™ culture was injected to begin bioaug-
mentation. Changes in aquifer characteristics were
determined by comparing the differences between the
pre-demonstration and post-demonstration sampling
events. The affected aquifer characteristics are grouped
into four subsections in this report:
• Changes in CVOC levels (see Appendix C for
detailed results)
• 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.
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 list the concentrations of selected
CVOCs and degradation byproducts in groundwater at
the treatment plot, and Table 5-5 lists concentrations of
various groundwater parameters that indicate aquifer
quality and the impact of the biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation treatment. The tables summarize the levels
from pre-demonstration and post-demonstration sam-
pling events. Other important organic and inorganic aqui-
fer 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, Middle 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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation treat-
ment was targeted to that zone. General observations
about CVOC concentrations in groundwater sampled
Table 5-3. TCE Degradation Byproducts in the Treatment Plot Before, During, and After the Demonstration
During
During
During
During
Post-
Well ID
Pre-Demo
Biostimulation
Bioaugmentation
Post-Demo
Pre-Demo
Biostimulation
Bioaugmentation
Demo
TCE (fxg/L)
c/s- 1,2-DCE (ng/L)
Treatment Plot Well
PA-26
1,220,000
7,460
13,800
239
31,600
94,700
19,400
780
Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
659,000
347,000
379,000
168,000
67,300
16,900
186,000
219,000
PA-27I
565,000
690,000
906,000
1,110,000
41,300
7,030
5,430
7,820
PA-27D
394,000
665,000
1,020,000
919,000
64,100
8,080
6,180
8,030
PA-28S
801,000
69,200
68,200
67,500
28,100
95,100
162,000
136,000
PA-28I
620,000
512,000
838,000
912,000
87,600
88,200
100,000
225,000
PA-28D
79,600
89,200
46,700
4,730
169,000
178,000
98,200
179,000
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW-2
105,000
117,000
93,000
<20
45,700
30,000
54,300
11,800
BEW-2
111,000
5,750
79,600
227
55,600
3,360
65,400
19,800
trans- 1,2-DCE (|xg/L)
Vinyl Chloride ((ig/L)
Treatment Plot Well
PA-26
<1,000
350
419
436
<1,000
3,430
103,000
8,040
Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
300 J
320 J
420 J
822
520
100 J
28,700
52,800
PA-27I
340 J
50 J
<1,000
<1,000
<500
200 J
230 J
<1,000
PA-27D
240 J
<500
<1,000
<1,000
<500
<500
<1,000
<1,000
PA-28S
170 J
321
480
360 J
<1,000
7,420
55,800
37,200
PA-28I
280 J
270 J
290 J
820 J
<500
140 J
160 J
880 J
PA-28D
410
813
362
764
34 J
134
1,510
8,550
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW-2
370
139
307
428
161
179
16,400
30,900
BEW-2
206
24.4
409
464
325
69
17,600
44,900
Well IDs: S = shallow well (Upper Sand Unit); I = intermediate well (Middle Fine-Grained Unit); D = deep well (Lower Sand Unit).
BIW-2 = injection well; BEW-2 = extraction well.
Pre-demonstration = March 2002; During Biostimulation = December 2002; During Bioaugmentation = March 2003; post-demonstration =
June 2003.
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit.
45
-------
Table 5-4. Ethene Levels in Groundwater (jjg/L)
Pre-
Demonstration|a|
During
Biostimulation|b>
During
Bioaugmentation|c>
Post-
Demonstration|d|
PA-26
573
30
2,310
22,900
BIW-2
7
8
368
14,000
BEW-2
29
<3
1,140
16,200
PA-27S
235
9
852
2,790
PA-28S
235
123
1,780
16,300
B-ML1
NA
430
2,600
NA
B-ML2
NA
<1,000
4,200
NA
B-ML3
NA
<1,000
5,200
NA
B-ML4
NA
320
2,800
NA
B-ML5
NA
650
3,000
NA
MW-6
NA
<200
2,800
NA
ML-3
NA
<200
4,800
NA
FL-2
NA
<200
3,100
NA
(a) March 2002; (b) March 2003; (c) December 2002; (d) June 2003.
NA: Not sampled during this event.
Table 5-5. Groundwater Parameters in the Treatment Plot Before and After the Demonstration
Applicable Groundwater
Groundwater Parameter Standard1"1 Pre-Demonstration Post-Demonstration
(mg/L) (mg/L) Aquifer Depth|b| (mg/L)|c| (mg/L)|c|
PH
Not applicable
Shallow
6.5 to 6.7
6.4 to 6.7
Intermediate
6.8 to 6.9
7.3
Deep
6.7 to 7.0
7.4 to 8.1
ORP
Not applicable
Shallow
+76 to +171
-301 to -191
(mV)
Intermediate
+105 to +142
-218 to -173
Deep
+54 to +89
-321 to -231
DO
Not applicable
Shallow
0.7 to 1.0
0.2 to 0.7
Intermediate
0.8 to 1.0
0.4 to 0.7
Deep
0.7 to 1.0
0.7
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Not applicable
Shallow
0.15 to 0.21
0.20 to 0.28
Intermediate
0.19 to 0.23
0.13 to 0.17
Deep
0.22 to 0.32
0.22 to 0.27
Calcium
Not applicable
Shallow
109 to 140
50 to 538
Intermediate
53 to 140
44 to 74
Deep
59 to 168
70 to 71
Magnesium
Not applicable
Shallow
10 to 18
33 to 49
Intermediate
30 to 82
63 to 105
Deep
29 to 73
56 to 73
Alkalinity as CaC03
Not applicable
Shallow
390 to 463
469 to 847
Intermediate
344 to 441
375 to 396
Deep
261 to 262
303 to 320
Chloride
250
Shallow
125 to 246
278 to 344
Intermediate
194 to 367
142 to 268
Deep
305 to 852
393 to 551
Manganese
0.05
Shallow
0.074 to 0.213
0.195 to 1.31
Intermediate
0.091 to 0.406
0.029 to 0.198
Deep
0.075 to 0.088
0.034 to 0.09
Dissolved Iron
0.3
Shallow
7.5 to 31
0.4 to 17
Intermediate
3.1 to 3.2
0.5 to 1.2
Deep
2.7 to 4.0
<0.1 to 1.0
Dissolved Silica
Not applicable
Shallow
14.1 to 28.3
24.8 to 36.1
Intermediate
29.2 to 56.6
66.6 to 68.0
Deep
41.6 to 47.9
43.4 to 50.6
46
-------
Table 5-5. Groundwater Parameters in the Treatment Plot Before and After the Demonstration (Continued)
Applicable Groundwater
Groundwater Parameter Standard'3' Pre-Demonstration Post-Demonstration
(mg/L) (mg/L) Aquifer Depth|b| (mg/L)|c| (mg/L)|c|
TDS
500
Shallow
898 to 1,220
1,320 to 3,060
Intermediate
1,100 to 1,120
869 to 1,000
Deep
1,350 to 1,630
1,200 to 1,350
BOD
Not applicable
Shallow
<12.0
38.0 to 104
Intermediate
6.0 to 10.0
8.0 to 10.0
Deep
<6.0 to 7.0
19.0 to 41.0
TOC
Not applicable
Shallow
31 to 235
140 to 1,050
Intermediate
65 to 180
8 to 10
Deep
54 to 58
15 to 37
Potassium
Not applicable
Shallow
146 to 279
51 to 69
Intermediate
21 to 106
22 to 39
Deep
19 to 52
31 to 32
Sodium
160
Shallow
32 to 58
69 to 80
Intermediate
97 to 218
52 to 256
Deep
180 to 362
270 to 378
Phosphate
Not applicable
Shallow
<3.0
<0.5 to 1.2
Intermediate
<3.0
<0.5
Deep
<3.0
<0.5
Bromide
Not applicable
Shallow
<2.0
<1.0 to 5.7
Intermediate
<2.0
<1.0
Deep
<2.0 to 25.3
<1.0 to 4.5
Total Nitrate/Nitrite as N
10
Shallow
NA
<0.5 to 1.6
Intermediate
NA
<0.5
Deep
NA
<0.5 to 1.8
Sulfate
250
Shallow
100 to 172
1,2J to <3.0
Intermediate
107 to 292
92.2 to 101
Deep
73.0 to 385
11.0 to 110
(a) State of Florida drinking water standards for inorganic contaminants (sodium, total nitrate/nitrite) and secondary drinking water standards
(iron, manganese, chloride, sulfate, pH, TDS, total nitrate/nitrite)
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
NA = Not analyzed.
Bold face denotes that the level exceeds applicable groundwater standards (either Maximum contaminant level [MCL's] or Florida cleanup
standards for groundwater).
from the intermediate and deep wells are made in this
section of the report, but trends are hard to identify with
the limited dataset 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-
26) and around the perimeter of the plot (PA-27 and PA-
28), in the multilevel wells along the plot edges (BML-1
through BML-4), and in extraction well BEW-2. Table 5-3
shows the changes in TCE, DCE, and VC concentra-
tions in the monitoring wells screened in the Upper Sand
Unit. Figures 5-5 to 5-8 show dissolved TCE, cis-1,2-
DCE, VC, and ethene concentrations in the shallow wells,
respectively, in the treatment plot and perimeter. Table
C-1 of Appendix C tabulates the levels of TCE, cis-1,2-
DCE, VC, and ethene in the groundwater in all of the
monitoring wells for the biostimulation and bioaugmenta-
tion demonstration. Table C-5 of Appendix C also sum-
marizes the levels of TCE, c/'s-1,2-DCE, VC, ethene, and
chloride in the groundwater in units of mmol/L to evalu-
ate a stoichiometric balance to complete dechlorination
of TCE for PA-26 in the center of the treatment plot.
Before the demonstration, concentrations of TCE were
at or close to the solubility of TCE (1,100,000 jjg/L) in
the performance assessment well PA-26 in the center of
the plot (Figure 5-5a). High concentrations of TCE also
were detected around the perimeter of the plot in moni-
toring wells PA-27S and PA-28S.
Approximately one month after the electron donor was
added to the plot (i.e., biostimulation), groundwater sam-
pling was conducted in December 2002. The results are
47
-------
Explanation cortm-* 1
IZj^
1-fBO
• Sampling Location 1ioo • 1.000
wi-its Sampling Location ID ' coo. «o coo
64.7000 Concentration 10 mo ¦
-------
BEW-2
5 5. GOO
Bioaugmentation
Plot
llBaneiie
cis- 1,2-DCE - MARCH 2002
(PRE-DEMONSTRATION)
feet
Engineering
Support
Building
PA-28S
28*100
(a)
(c)
Figure 5-6. Dissolved cis-1,2-DCE Concentrations (|jg/L) during (a) Pre-Dernonstration Sampling (March
2002), (b) During Biostimulation (December 2002), (c) During Bioaugmentation (March 2003),
and (d) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Sampling of Shallow Wells
B-ML4
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Explanation:
ED"
PA.*7S llBaneiie
FEET
c/s-1,2-DCE -
(AFTER BIOSTIMULATION)
Engineering
Support
Building
Baiteiie
MW-6
no wo
180,000
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
c/s-1,2-DCE - MARCH 2003
(AFTER KB-1 INJECTION)
B-ML3
NA
Explanation:
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
FEET
c/s-1(2-OCE - JUNE 2003
(POST-DEMONSTRATION)
llBaneiie
49
-------
Explanation:
BEW-2
17.600
B-ML2
40.000
16.400
B-ML3
NA
B-ML1
Explanation:
PA-27S
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
llBaneiie
PA-2BS
55.800
VINYL CHLORIDE - MARCH 2003
(AFTER KB-1 INJECTION)
ClBaiteiie
Explanation:
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
PA-28S
37.200
C-Baneiie
VINYL CHLORIDE - JUNE 2003
(POST-DEMONSTRATION)
VINYL CHLORIDE - MARCH 2002
(PRE-DEMONSTRATION)
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
VINYL CHLORIDE - DECEMBER 2002
(AFTER BfOSTIMULATION)
Figure 5-7. Dissolved Vinyl Chloride Concentrations (pg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration Sampling (March
2002), (b) During Biostimulation (December 2002), (c) During Bioaugmentation (March 2003),
and (d) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Sampling of Shallow Wells
50
-------
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Bioaugmentation
Plot
B-ML3
NA
B-ML1
II Batteiie
B-ML3
<1.000
Explanation
• Sampling Location 1i
>k-27% Sampling Location ID m=~" j']
as Co«c«»*traiion (pg/l)
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
won
pa-2 r s
aoo-i
PA28S
235
ETHENE - MARCH 2002
(PRE-DEMONSTRATION)
€> Batlelle
5 10
FEET
ETHENE - MARCH 2003
(AFTER KB-1 INJECTION)
Explanation ZSSSSS Mvi
P ]«900
l. 500-1000
• Sampling Location 120.000
Bioaugmentation
Plot
Engineering
Support
Building
II Batlelle
Engineering
Support
Building
PA-28S
123
ETHENE - DECEMBER 2002
(AFTER BIOSTIMULATION)
Figure 5-8. Dissolved Ethene Concentrations (jjg/L) during (a) Pre-Demonstration Sampling (March 2002),
(b) During Biostimulation (December 2002), (c) During Bioaugmentation (March 2003), and
(d) Post-Demonstration (June 2003) Sampling of Shallow Wells
51
-------
shown in Figure 5-5(b). TCE concentrations decreased
sharply throughout the plot, particularly in the center well
PA-26, where concentrations decreased from a pre-
demonstration level of 1,220,000 |ag/L to 7,460 |ag/L in
December 2002. TCE concentrations also decreased in
monitoring wells around the perimeter of the plot in PA-
27S and PA-28S, suggesting that the microbial popu-
lations were impacted by the electron donor on a scale
larger than the demonstration plot. Approximately one
month after the KB-1 ™ culture was injected into the plot
(i.e., bioaugmentation), groundwater sampling was con-
ducted in March 2003. The results, shown in Figure 5-
5(c), indicate that TCE concentrations continued to
decline over time, despite fluctuations in levels. Post-
demonstration groundwater sampling conducted in June
2003 showed that a much lower level of TCE remained
in groundwater sampled from within the plot. The ground-
water results are in line with the TCE mass removal esti-
mates generated from post-demonstration soil sampling
(see Section 5.1).
Table 5-3 and Figure 5-6 show the concentrations of c/'s-
1,2-DCE over the course of the demonstration in moni-
toring wells screened in the Upper Sand Unit. The
concentrations of c/s-1,2-DCE increased nearly 200%
during the biostimulation phase from 31,600 |jg/L to
94,700 |jg/L in PA-26, indicating that the TCE degraded
to c/s-1,2-DCE (Figure 5-6b). The results of the second
sampling event in March 2003 indicated that the pre-
viously formed c/s-1,2-DCE began to degrade during
the bioaugmentation phase, from 94,700 |jg/L to
19,400 |jg/L in the center well PA-26 (Figure 5-6c). Post-
demonstration sampling results show a continued
decrease in c/s-1,2-DCE to below pre-demonstration
concentrations (Figure 5-6d).
Table 5-3 and Figure 5-7 contain the results of vinyl
chloride concentrations in groundwater in the Upper
Sand Unit over the course of the demonstration. Con-
centrations of vinyl chloride in the plot were less than
1,000 |jg/L (Figure 5-7a) prior to the demonstration. Dur-
ing the biostimulation phase, vinyl chloride concentra-
tions increased from less than 1,000 |jg/L to 3,430 |jg/L
in PA-26 (Figure 5-7b). The increase in vinyl chloride
suggested that the TCE and c/s-1,2-DCE were degrad-
ing. After the KB-1™ injection, vinyl chloride concen-
trations increased, from 3,430 |jg/L to 103,000 |jg/L in
PA-26 (Figure 5-7c). Vinyl chloride concentrations also
increased throughout the plot and beyond the plot
boundaries in PA-27S and PA-28S (Figure 5-7c).
Post-demonstration sampling suggested that vinyl chlo-
ride itself was beginning to be removed from ground-
water. Concentrations of vinyl chloride decreased from
103,000 |jg/L in March 2003 to 8,040 |jg/L during the
post-demonstration sampling event in June 2003 (Fig-
ure 5-7d). The groundwater standard for VC is 1 |jg/L,
and was exceeded in the majority of the wells both
before and after the demonstration. The increase and
subsequent decrease in vinyl chloride concentrations
suggest that the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatment improved the degradation rate of TCE and c/'s-
1,2-DCE.
Ethene concentrations in groundwater also were mea-
sured during the demonstration (Table 5-4 and Table D-5
in Appendix D). Increases in ethene concentrations in
groundwater would be a line of evidence that complete
dehalogenation was occurring, from TCE through c/'s-
1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride to ethene. Figure 5-8 con-
tains the contour plots of ethene for the four groundwater
sampling events. Pre-demonstration ethene concentra-
tions were measurable, which suggested that some his-
toric natural attenuation of TCE occurred (Figure 5-8a).
Concentrations of ethene in PA-26 decreased slightly
after biostimulation (Figure 5-8b), and then increased
significantly following the KB-1 ™ injection, from 30 |jg/L
to 2,310 |jg/L (Figure 5-8c).
Concentrations of ethene rose from a pre-demonstration
level of 573 |jg/L in performance monitoring well PA-26
to 22,900 |jg/L during post-demonstration monitoring
(Figure 5-8d). Ethene concentrations also increased in
monitoring wells PA-27S, PA-28S, BIW-2, and BEW-2
located outside the plot boundaries (Figure 5-8d). The
increase in ethene concentrations, coupled with the
decrease in TCE concentration and the increase and
subsequent decrease in c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride
concentrations, suggest that both the rate and extent of
complete reductive dehalogenation were enhanced as a
result of biostimulation and bioaugmentation.
CVOC concentrations in groundwater sampled at inter-
mediate depths in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and
greater depths in the Lower Sand Unit varied in the
perimeter wells (i.e., wells PA-27I/D, PA-28I/D) during
post-demonstration characterization (see Table C-1a
in Appendix C). In well PA-27I, TCE concentrations
increased from 565,000 |ag/L to 1,110,000 |ag/L, whereas
c/s-1,2-DCE concentrations in the same well decreased
from 41,300 |ag/L to 7,820 |ag/L after the demonstration.
Vinyl chloride concentrations did not display a clear
trend, and ethene concentrations in PA-27I remained
relatively constant throughout the demonstration. In the
Lower Sand Unit, TCE concentrations in well PA-27D
increased from 394,000 p.g/L to 1,020,000 p.g/L before
decreasing to 919,000 p.g/L during post-demonstration
sampling, c/s-1,2-DCE levels decreased from 64,100 p.g/L
to 8,030 p.g/L after the demonstration, and vinyl chloride
results showed concentrations less than 1 mg/L, sug-
gesting that the treatment did not impact a reductive
dechlorination in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and the
Lower Sand Unit. Ethene concentrations in PA-27D
52
-------
decreased from 370 |ag/L to 70 |ag/L after the demonstra-
tion. Outside the southern edge of the plot in well PA-28,
TCE concentrations increased from 620,000 |ag/L to
912,000 |ag/L at intermediate depths (i.e., well PA-28I),
and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations also increased from
87,600 |ag/L to 225,000 |ag/L. At deep depths, TCE
concentrations decreased from 79,600 |ag/L in well
PA-28D to 4,730 |ag/L after the demonstration, and cis-
1,2-DCE levels decreased slightly from 169,000 |ag/L
to 98,200 |ag/L in March 2003 before rising again to
an approximate pre-demonstration concentration of
179,000 |ag/L. Vinyl chloride concentrations in PA-28D
increased from less than 1,000 |ag/L to 8,500 |ag/L after
the demonstration, whereas ethene decreased from
338 |ag/L to 37 |ag/L.
The increase in TCE concentrations observed in ground-
water sampled from the perimeter monitoring wells
indicates that some redistribution of TCE may have
occurred in the aquifer. The groundwater dataset 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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation treat-
ment. Soil data indicate that TCE-DNAPL existed in con-
centrations above the threshold limit (300 mg/kg) in the
Middle Fine-Grained Unit and the Lower Sand Unit
during both pre-demonstration and post-demonstration
soil characterization. The fluctuations in groundwater
TCE concentrations during the demonstration may be
due to continued equilibration of TCE concentrations
around the existing TCE-DNAPL mass in the Middle
Fine-Grained Unit and the Lower Sand Unit, following
well installation.
5.2.2 Changes in Aquifer
Geochemistry
Among the field parameter measurements (tabulated in
Table 5-5 and Table D-1 in Appendix D) conducted in
the affected aquifer before, during, and after the demon-
stration, the following trends were observed:
• Groundwater pH in the shallow wells fluctuated in
a relatively narrow range over the course of the
demonstration. In the performance assessment
well PA-26, pH increased from 6.6 during pre-
demonstration sampling to 8.0 in March 2003,
before decreasing to 6.5 during post-demonstration
sampling (see Table D-1 in Appendix D).
• ORP decreased in the center of the test plot (i.e.,
well PA-26) from +90 mV before the demonstration,
to -111 mV following biostimulation, and to -157
mV following bioaugmentation (see Table D-1 in
Appendix D). ORP continued to decrease after
the demonstration to -245 mV during post-
demonstration sampling. The drop in ORP is
indicative of reducing conditions created in the plot
immediately after the addition of electron donor to
the recirculating system (i.e., biostimulation). The
same trend was observed in all of the perimeter
wells (i.e., PA-27S/I/D and PA-28S/I/D), indicating
that progressively stronger reducing conditions
were created first by biostimulation and then by
bioaugmentation.
• DO decreased from a maximum of 0.9 mg/L in the
center well PA-26 before the demonstration to
0.3 mg/L after the demonstration. In the shallow
perimeter wells PA-27S and PA-28S, DO concen-
trations in general decreased over the course of the
demonstration. A similar decreasing trend in
dissolved oxygen concentrations was observed in
the intermediate and deep wells (see Table D-1 in
Appendix D). Following the demonstration, there
was a slight increase in dissolved oxygen levels,
but in general the aquifer remained relatively
anaerobic through the demonstration.
Due to the limitations of measuring DO with a
flowthrough cell, groundwater with DO levels below
1.0 mg/L is considered anaerobic. All three hydro-
logic units of the shallow aquifer (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 a maximum of 2.5 mS/cm during the demonstra-
tion (see Table D-1 in Appendix D). The increase is
attributed to a buildup of dissolved ions formed from
the mineralization of organic matter and CVOCs.
Other groundwater measurements indicative of aquifer
quality included inorganic ions, BOD, and TOC (see
Appendix D). The results of these measurements are as
follows:
• Chloride levels were already relatively high in the
aquifer before the demonstration (in PA-26, PA-27,
and PA-28). In PA-26 (see Figure 5-9), chloride
levels decreased slightly from 246 mg/L to
172 mg/L before increasing to 311 mg/L during
post-demonstration sampling. As seen in Fig-
ure 5-9, a similar trend, i.e., first a slight decrease
followed by a measurable increase during post-
demonstration sampling, can be seen in the other
shallow monitoring wells (i.e., PA-27S, PA-28S,
BIW-2, and BEW-2). Although the high initial con-
centration of chloride present in the treatment plot
account for some variability in the data, the overall
53
-------
Pre-Demo
Sampling
Recirculation
Beqins
GW
Ethanol Sampling
Injection Event 1
/ ,/
KB-1
Added
GW
Sampling
Event 2
Post-Demo
Sampling
Time (months)
Figure 5-9. Changes in Chloride Levels over Time in Monitoring Wells
a> 200
¦c 150
—PA-26
—PA-27S
PA-28S
BIW-2
—BEW-2
increasing trend in chloride suggests that reductive
dechlorination was contributing to chloride formation.
At intermediate and deep depths, chloride levels
remained relatively stable, indicating that the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation treatment did not
significantly affect chloride levels at these depths.
The secondary MCL for chloride in drinking water is
250 mg/L, which was exceeded in PA-26 in the
center of the plot 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 before and after the demonstra-
tion. The pre-demonstration boring locations are
shown in Figure 4-3 as BIO-WP-1 and BIO-WP-2 in
the northwest and southeast quadrants, respec-
tively. The post-demonstration boring locations are
shown in Figure 4-4 as BIO-WP-201 and BIO-WP-
202. The pre- and post-demonstration boring
locations were chosen in close proximity in order to
be able to compare the results. However, the
depths at which the chloride samples were
collected varied slightly. The results are shown in
Table D-4 (in Appendix D) and are illustrated in
Figure 5-10. In Figure 5-10a, the pre- and post-
demonstration results for BIO-WP-1 and BIO-WP-
201 in the northwest quadrant of the test plot show
that chloride concentrations in the Upper Sand Unit
increased following the demonstration. Chloride
concentrations decreased in the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit and Lower Sand Unit. The same
trend can be seen in Figure 5-10b, where the
Waterloo Profiler® data were collected in the south-
east quadrant at discrete depths in each hydro-
stratigraphic unit.
Although the dataset is limited, the Waterloo
Profiler® data collected at discrete depths provide
better support for reductive dechlorination of TCE
occurring inside the test plot in the Upper Sand Unit
than the depth-averaged data from the monitoring
wells.
• Dissolved iron concentrations in well PA-26 in the
center of the test plot decreased from 30.9 mg/L to
2.7 mg/L during the demonstration before increas-
ing to 8.1 mg/L after the demonstration. The pre-
demonstration concentration of 30.9 mg/L in PA-26
is unusually high compared to other shallow wells
around the plot and may be suspect. In general,
iron concentrations increased following the treat-
ment, indicating the creation of reducing conditions
conducive to dechlorination.
Similar decreases followed by increases also were
observed in the shallow wells around the perimeter
of the plot (i.e., PA-27S and PA-28S). Dissolved
iron concentrations at intermediate and deep
depths decreased during the demonstration and
remained low during post-demonstration
54
-------
Waterloo Profiler Results (Paired Locations WP-1 and WP-201)
0
Upper Sand
5
10
15
o> 25
Middle Fine-Grained
Unit
30
35
40
Lower Sand Unit
45
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Chloride Concentration (mg/L)
• Pre-
demonstration
WP-1
—¦— Post-
demonstration
WP-201
Waterloo Profiler Results (Paired Locations WP-2 and WP-201)
Upper Sand Unit
M 25
Middle Fine-Grained
Unit
30
35
40
Lower Sand
45
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Chloride Concentration (mg/L)
demonstration
WP-2
—A— Post-
demonstration
WP-202
Figure 5-10. Waterloo Profiler® Chloride Concentration Data at Discrete Depths Before and After the
Demonstration in Two Locations Within the Plot
55
-------
characterization. The secondary drinking water
limit for iron is 0.3 mg/L, which was exceeded
before, during and after the demonstration.
Calcium levels measured in the shallow center well
(PA-26) of the test plot increased from 140 mg/L to
321 mg/L over the course of the demonstration
before dropping to 50.1 mg/L during post-
demonstration sampling. In the injection and
extraction wells BIW-2 and BEW-2, calcium con-
centrations increased almost 4 times between pre-
and post-demonstration. Calcium concentrations
also increased in the perimeter wells PA-27S and
PA-28S. In the intermediate and deep wells,
calcium concentrations remained relatively steady
or decreased slightly. On the other hand,
magnesium and alkalinity levels increased in
groundwater over the course of the demonstration.
Alkalinity levels in PA-26 first decreased slightly
from 463 mg/L to 310 mg/L, and then rose substan-
tially to 847 mg/L during post-demonstration sam-
pling. The same trend was observed for alkalinity
levels in BIW-2, BEW-2, PA-27S and PA-28S.
Sulfate levels in PA-26 decreased substantially
from 172 mg/L to <3 mg/L over the course of the
demonstration. Sulfate levels in the perimeter wells
followed this same decreasing trend. At deeper
depths, sulfate levels declined slightly. Sulfate
concentrations in the Upper Sand Unit may have
begun to decrease immediately following the
addition of electron donor into the subsurface due
to an increase in a sulfate-reducing microbial
organism population, which mediated electron
transfer reactions that reduced sulfate.
Potassium levels decreased over the course of the
demonstration in PA-26. Similar significant
decreases were observed in the shallow wells BIW-
2 and BEW-2, and the perimeter wells PA27S and
PA-28S.
Manganese levels in well PA-26 decreased from
0.18 mg/L before the demonstration to 0.11 mg/L
during the demonstration. In general, manganese
concentrations in the perimeter wells decreased
during the demonstration and then rose slightly
during post-demonstration characterization. Mn2+ is
not a health hazard, but there is a secondary
drinking water standard because manganese can
cause discoloration of the water at concentrations
greater than 0.05 mg/L. Manganese levels
exceeded the drinking water standard both before
and after the demonstration. The increase in
manganese may be indicative of reducing condi-
tions that generate the soluble species Mn(ll).
• TDS levels increased over the course of the
demonstration. In PA-26, TDS rose from
1,220 mg/L to 3,000 mg/L after the demonstration
possibly due to the introduction of recirculated
groundwater. Similar increases were seen in the
other shallow wells PA-27S, PA-28S, BIW-2, and
BEW-2. TDS levels remained relatively stable or
decreased slightly at deeper depths. A secondary
drinking water standard of 500 mg/L for TDS was
exceeded both before and after the demonstration.
• TOC concentrations increased significantly in the
majority of the shallow monitoring wells after the
demonstration. In PA-26, TOC concentrations
increased from 76 mg/L to 1,050 mg/L. In the
shallow perimeter wells (PA-27S and PA-28S), TOC
levels increased from 95 mg/L and 235 mg/L to
140 mg/L and 684 mg/L, respectively. TOC levels
rose in BIW-2 from 31 mg/L to 572 mg/L, and in
BEW-2 from 59 mg/L to 384 mg/L. The increase in
TOC concentrations is most likely due to the
addition of a carbon electron donor into the Upper
Sand Unit. At deeper depths, TOC concentrations
decreased in groundwater collected from the
intermediate and deep wells.
• BOD levels in well PA-26 increased from 12 mg/L to
38 mg/L after the demonstration. Similar increases
were seen in the injection and extraction wells
(BIW-2 and BEW-2), where BOD levels increased
from less than 6.0 mg/L to 104 mg/L and 99 mg/L,
respectively. Similar increases were observed in
the shallow perimeter wells PA-27S and PA-28S.
BOD levels remained fairly stable at deeper depths.
The rise in BOD levels indicates that the carbon
electron donor was well distributed throughout the
Upper Sand Unit.
5.2.3 Changes in Hydraulic
Properties of the Aquifer
Slug tests were performed in well PA-26 in the center of
the treatment plot before and after the demonstration to
assess any effects on aquifer quality caused by the reme-
diation technology. The remediation system was 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-26) (see Appendix B). Pre-
demonstration hydraulic conductivity averaged 22 ft/day
(0.0079 cm/sec) in well PA-23. Post-demonstration
hydraulic conductivity averaged 32.3 ft/day (0.011 cm/sec).
There was no substantial difference in the hydraulic con-
ductivity due to the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatment.
56
-------
5.2.4 Changes in Microbiology of the
Treatment Plot
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis indicates that
groundwater sampled from PA-26 before the demon-
stration (March 2002) showed a weak detection for
Dehalococcoides (see Appendix E). After the demon-
stration, the PCR analysis on groundwater collected
from PA-26 showed a clear, positive, very high band
intensity result, which indicates that Dehalococcoides
increased as a result of the demonstration. However, it is
not clear from the PCR analysis how much of the
increase in Dehalococcoides is a result of biostimulating
the existing colony versus the addition of KB-1 ™ during
bioaugmentation. The Dehalococcoides group includes
multiple strains, not all of which are proficient at cis-1,2-
DCE and VC dechlorination. KB-1T is cultured to be
predominantly those strains capable of biodegrading
TCE to ethene.
Table 5-6 shows that ethene levels increased during the
demonstrations in wells inside and on the perimeter of
the plot. The considerable rise in ethene levels in the
plot indicates that the dechlorination of the chlorinated
VOCs was substantially complete. The increasing trend
in chloride levels supplements this finding.
Increases in methane concentrations (see Table 5-7) also
can support the theory of increased microbial activity from
the 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-26 increased steadily from a pre-demonstration
concentration of 0.004 mg/L to 0.014 mg/L during the bio-
stimulation phase; and to 0.023 mg/L during the bio-
augmentation phase. The methane concentration during
post-demonstration sampling in PA-26 was 0.14 mg/L, an
approximately 40-fold increase over pre-demonstration
levels (see Table D-5 in Appendix D). Methane con-
centrations also increased in extraction well BEW-2 and
in injection well BIW-2, from 0.008 mg/L and 0.016 mg/L
respectively, to 0.21 mg/L and 0.14 mg/L, respectively,
after the demonstration.
5.2.5 Summary of Changes in
Aquifer Quality
In summary, the following changes in the aquifer
occurred after application of the biostimulation and bio-
augmentation technology:
• TCE concentrations in groundwater declined sub-
stantially in the Upper Sand Unit of the demon-
stration area following the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation treatment, cis-1,2-DCE levels
increased during the biostimulation phase and then
decreased during the bioaugmentation phase. Vinyl
chloride levels increased following biostimulation,
increased again following bioaugmentation, and
then decreased toward the end of the demonstra-
tion. These changes indicate sequential degrada-
tion of TCE to cis-1,2-DCE, and ultimately to vinyl
chloride and ethene.
• ORP and DO levels decreased in the demonstration
area after biostimulation began. The decreases
continued through the bioaugmentation phase of
the demonstration and post-demonstration sam-
pling. These data indicate that strongly reducing
anaerobic conditions were created in the Upper
Sand Unit during the demonstration. Groundwater
pH in the shallow wells remained relatively steady.
• Dissolved iron concentrations in well PA-26 in the
center of the test plot generally increased after the
Table 5-6. Dissolved Ethene and Ethane Concentrations in the Treatment Plot Before, During,
and After the Demonstration
Ethane (mg/L)
Ethene (mg/L)
Well ID
Pre-Demo
During
Biostimulation
During
Bioaugmentation Post-Demo
Pre-Demo
During
Biostimulation
During
Bioaugmentation
Post-Demo
Treatment Plot Well
PA-26
0.025
<0.002
0.002 0.002
0.573
0.030
2.31
22.9
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW-2
0.019
<0.002
<0.002 0.001
0.007
0.008
0.368
14.0
BEW-2
0.008
<0.002
0.004 0.016
0.029
<0.003
1.14
16.2
BIW-2 = injection well; BEW-2 = extraction well.
Pre-demonstration = March 2002; during biostimulation = December 2002; during bioaugmentation = March 2003; post-demonstration = June 2003.
57
-------
Table 5-7. Dissolved Methane Concentrations In and Around the Treatment Plot Before, During,
and After the Demonstration
Methane (mg/L)
During During
Well ID Pre-Demonstration Biostimulation Bioaugmentation Post-Demonstration
Treatment Plot Well
PA-26 0.004 0.014 0.023 0.137
Treatment Plot Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
0.007
0.044
0.023
0.013
PA-27I
0.002
0.021
0.023
0.015
PA-27D
0.006
0.013
0.018
0.005
PA-28S
0.031
0.014
0.032
0.036
PA-28I
0.023
0.067
0.103
0.069
PA-28D
0.008
0.016
0.018
0.013
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW-2
0.016
0.014
0.014
0.137
BEW-2
0.008
0.011
0.028
0.214
BIW-2 = injection well; BEW-2 = extraction well.
Pre-demonstration = March 2002; during biostimulation = December 2002; during bioaugmentation
= March 2003; post-demonstration = June 2003.
treatment. The secondary drinking water limit for
iron, 0.3 mg/L, was exceeded in the majority of
wells before, during, and after the demonstration.
• Chloride levels in the monitoring wells, which were
already high due to saltwater intrusion in the aqui-
fer, first decreased and then increased over the
course of the demonstration. The Waterloo
Profiler® samples taken from various depths in the
Upper Sand Unit also show increases in chloride
concentrations from the pre- and post-
demonstration sampling events. Chloride increases
may indicate reductive dechlorination of the TCE,
which was supported by the increase and subse-
quent decrease in cis-1,2-DCE and VC observed
during post-demonstration characterization.
• Increases in dissolved methane, as well as
decreases in sulfate concentrations, indicate that an
increase in biological activity occurred as a result of
the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment.
BOD levels in the groundwater increased, indicating
that the bioavailable organic matter in the aquifer
increased, most likely due to the addition of a
carbon electron donor to the recirculating ground-
water. TOC levels also increased, probably as a
result of the carbon electron donor addition.
• Ethene concentrations increased substantially in
the groundwater, consistent with reductive
dechlorination of CVOCs, including the byproducts
cis-1,2-DCE and VC.
• Hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Sand Unit does
not appear to have been affected by the biostimu-
lation and bioaugmentation treatment, suggesting
that the addition of electron donor and KB-1 ™
culture 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 involved an examination of three potential
pathways: microbial reductive dechlorination of TCE,
extraction and adsorption on carbon, and migration from
the plot to the surrounding regions.
5.3.1 Biological Reductive
Dechlorination of TCE
The performance assessment of the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation technology demonstration indicates that
biological reduction of TCE was a substantial pathway of
TCE removal from the treatment plot.
Many of the changes noticed in the aquifer and dis-
cussed in Section 5.2 indicate that biostimulation and
bioaugmentation caused a decline in concentrations of
TCE and, eventually, cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride.
TCE levels decreased following biostimulation, but cis-
1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride increased (Table 5-3). After
bioaugmentation, cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride levels
increased, but then declined considerably by the time
the plot was sampled in June 2003 (Figure 5-11a). To
account for the large difference in scale in Figure 5-11a,
TCE and ethene concentrations were plotted separately
in Figure 5-11b. Towards the end of this treatment
period, both ethene (Table 5-6) and methane (Table 5-7)
58
-------
120,000
100,000
80,000
05
3.
t/)
O 60,000
>
o
ai
£
o
40,000
20,000
cis-1,2-DCE
trans-1,2-DCE
Vinyl chloride
TCE
—5K— Ethene
—~—TCE
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000 _
_j
O)
3.
Ill
o
600,000 H
400,000
-- 1,000,000
-- 800,000
600,000
-- 400,000
200,000
0 -1 -X— T » I » I * i # 0
Pre-Demo Post-Electron Donor Post-KB-1 Addition Post-Demo Long-term
Addition
Degradation Curve of TCE and Other CVOCs in PA-26 After Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation Treatment
1,400,000
-- 1,200,000
-- 200,000
Pre-Demo Post-Electron Donor Post-KB-1 Addition Post-Demo
Addition
Long-term
Figure 5-11b. Degradation Curve of TCE and Ethene in PA-26 After Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation Treatment
Figure 5-11a.
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
59
-------
levels rose sharply, indicating that the dechlorination
was substantially complete.
An increasing trend in chloride supplements the evi-
dence of TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride mineralization
(Figure 5-9). Other groundwater parameter trends, such
as a decline in sulfate and an increase in dissolved iron,
indicate that the reducing conditions necessary to facili-
tate anaerobic reductive dechlorination were generated
in the treated aquifer.
As many of these trends started late in the demon-
stration, an additional confirmatory sampling event was
conducted in January 2004. The data from this limited
sampling of wells PA-26 and MW-6 inside the test plot
are shown in Table 5-8 (and Table C-4 in Appendix C).
These additional data indicate that many of the observed
trends continued for several months after the treatment.
TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride levels continued to decline
considerably (Figure 5-11a). Dissolved iron levels con-
tinued to increase and sulfate concentrations remained
below detection. Ethene levels declined (Figure 5-11b),
but methane levels rose considerably.
Dehalococcoides were detected weakly in groundwater
from well PA-26 before the demonstration and very
strongly after the demonstration (see Appendix E). How-
ever, it is not clear from the genetic analysis how much
of the increase in Dehalococcoides is a result of biostim-
ulating the indigenous colony as opposed to the addition
of KB-1™ during bioaugmentation. The significant pres-
ence of these microorganisms provided strong evidence
that Dehalococcoides survived in an area with known
TCE-DNAPL mass and participated in removing the
DNAPL from the Upper Sand Unit.
Because of the limited size of the DNAPL source area at
Launch Complex 34, no control plot (with biostimulation
only) was available that would allow a careful differen-
tiation between the combined effect of the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation treatments (as currently imple-
mented) and the effect of biostimulation alone (without
the addition of KB-1™). However, the biostimulation-
bioaugmentation combination worked well, as evidenced
by the decline in TCE, generation and eventual decline
of byproducts (c/s-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride), and a
fairly noticeable increase in chloride levels.
5.3.2 Extraction and Adsorption
onto Carbon
To stabilize flow and maintain hydraulic control in the
test plot during the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatments, a continuous recirculation system was main-
tained through three injection and three extraction wells.
During testing and modification of the treatment system
(see Table 3-1), and prior to the biostimulation phase (i.e.,
before electron donor was injected), the extracted water
was run through carbon canisters before re-injection.
Table 5-8. Additional Monitoring of Test Plot Wells in January 2004
Analyte Well MW-6 Well PA-26
CVOCs (iig/L)
TCE
<10
<10
c/s-1,2-DCE
35.6
62.4
transA ,2-DCE
104
143
Vinyl Chloride
875
161
Dissolved Hydrocarbon Gases (mg/L)
Methane
4.83
4.36
Ethane
0.00377
<0.002
Ethene
7.07
4.38
Inorganics (mg/L)
Calcium
731
1,050
Iron
18.8
22.8
Magnesium
46.3
55.3
Manganese
0.255
1.44
Potassium
50.9
62.4
Sodium
72.2
78
Alkalinity
1,090
1,550
Anions (mg/L)
Bromide
0.67 J
<1
Chloride
406
389
Nitrate (N03)
2.3
3.42
Phosphate
<0.5
<0.5
Sulfate
<3
<3
Others (mg/L)
TDS
3,730
4,980
Note: Groundwater monitoring was conducted on January 22, 2004, approximately one year
after the bioaugmentation phase of the demonstration began.
60
-------
The vendor analyzed the extracted water before and
after its passage through the carbon, and the measure-
ments indicate that TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride
were present in the influent to the carbon, but so was
ethene. Using these data, approximately 140 kg of TCE
was estimated to have been removed by recirculating
groundwater through the carbon canisters (Table C-6,
Appendix C).
A substantial portion of this TCE mass may have been
extracted with groundwater drawn from the surrounding
aquifer. The effective TCE mass removed only from the
test plot can be calculated using an estimated flowrate
into the treatment plot.
Qtest plot - C| A (5-1)
= v e A (5-2)
where Qtestplot = flowrate (volume/unit time)
q = specific discharge = v 9
v = groundwater velocity (ft/day) = 0.75 ft/day
(based on the results of tracer tests
conducted by the vendor)
9 = porosity (unitless) = 0.3
A = cross-sectional area (ft2) = 20 ft * 10 ft
Qtest plot — 0.2 gpm.
These calculations indicate that groundwater flowed
from the injection wells to the extraction wells through
the plot (and through the carbon canisters) at a rate of
0.2 gpm. However, groundwater was being extracted at
1.5 gpm through the recirculation system, so ground-
water from outside the test plot must have been
extracted at a flowrate of 1.3 gpm. It is estimated that
only 16% of the total flow extracted by the groundwater
recirculation system came from inside the test plot:
Ratio = Qtest plot / ^recirculation rate
(5-3)
where Qrecircuiation rate — average 1.5 gpm
Ratio = 16%.
It is difficult to use this ratio to estimate the respective
contributions of TCE from inside and outside the test plot
to the total TCE (140 kg) extracted and captured on the
carbon canisters. This is because over the time period of
the demonstration, the groundwater inside the test plot
became progressively cleaner, whereas the groundwater
outside the test plot remained highly contaminated (see
Table 5-3). If the TCE concentrations inside and outside
the test plot had been the same throughout the demon-
stration, then a maximum of 22.4 kg of TCE (16% of the
total TCE) captured on the carbon would have come
from inside the test plot. However, the actual contribu-
tion of the test plot to the TCE mass on the carbon is
probably much less than 22.4 kg.
A better way of understanding how the recirculation sys-
tem and the carbon canisters contributed to the removal
of TCE is to examine the number of pore volumes of
groundwater extracted from the test plot. Based on the
extraction rate of 1.5 gpm, an estimated 2 pore volumes
of water were removed from the test plot and replaced
with 2 pore volumes of carbon-treated water. (This is
a conservative estimate, because the treated water
injected back into the plot probably mixed with the con-
taminated water from the surrounding aquifer, and also
because the carbon canisters were not used throughout
the demonstration). If the only factor causing TCE con-
centrations in the test plot to decline was dilution due to
the recirculation system, then the TCE concentration
would have declined from approximately 1,100,000 |jg/L
(i.e., 1,100 mg/L, the saturation concentration) before
the demonstration to approximately 176,000 |jg/L after
the demonstration, thereby representing an approxi-
mately 84% decline based on first-order decay driven by
2 pore volume changes. However, the actual TCE
concentration in groundwater extracted from the test plot
declined to 239 |jg/L immediately after the demonstra-
tion, and to <10 |jg/L several months later. At a mini-
mum, the decline from 176,000 |jg/L to <10 |jg/L can be
attributed to the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatment. Therefore, despite any dilution of TCE due to
the recirculation system, the biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation likely contributed substantially to the treat-
ment of CVOCs inside the test plot.
5.3.3 Potential for TCE-DNAPL Migration
from the Treatment Plot
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.
Pre-demonstration measurements of water levels in the
Upper Sand Unit showed a minimal gradient in the area
of the demonstration plot and a slight depression to the
east of the plot (see Figure 5-12a). During the demon-
stration, the recirculation system appeared to produce a
gradient across the bioaugmentation plot from the north-
west to the southeast, but the gradient appeared to
reach a steady elevation on the eastern edge of the plot.
The slightly elevated gradient across the Upper Sand
Unit would have limited the potential for TCE-DNAPL
migration from the Upper Sand Unit (see Figure 5-12b).
Water level maps of the Middle Fine-Grained Unit before
and during the demonstration were prepared using water
level measurements from wells around the treatment
plot (Figures 5-13a and 5-13b). During the demonstra-
tion, a weak gradient appears to have developed in the
61
-------
EXPLANATION
Water Levels from Shallow Wells
- March 2002 (Pre-Demonstration)
• Sampling Location
pa-24$ Sampling Location ID
4,01 Water Level (ft msl)
1521330
Contour Interval: 0,05 ft
ClBaneiie
1521320
1521310
ra 1521300
i u
ioaugmentation
Plot /
1521280
1521270
EZVI Plot
24 S
1521260
»
640100
640120
640140
640160
640200
640220
640180
Easting (ft)
Figure 5-12a. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support Building During Pre-
Demonstration Characterization (March 2002)
EXPLANATION
Water Levels from Shallow Wells
- March 2003 (After KB-1 Injection)
• Sampling Location
pa-24S Sampling Location ID
4Water Level (ft msl)
1521330
Contour Interval: 0.05 ft
1521320
?A-27S
1521310
I2S
4.24
4.2;
L25
Bioaugmentation
Plot
1521280
1521270
EZVI Plot
1521260
wv I
640220
640100
640120
640140
640160
640180
640200
Easting (ft)
Figure 5-12b. Water Levels Measured in Shallow Wells in the Engineering Support Building During the
Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Technology Demonstration (March 2003)
62
-------
EXPLANATION
Water Levels from Intermediate Wells
- March 2002 (Pre-Demonstration)
• Sampling Location
pa-24i Sampling Location ID
4.01 Water Level (ft msl)
1521330
Contour Interval: 0.05 ft
€*Battelle
1521320
1521310
1521290
3.95-
Bioaugmentation
Plot
1521280
1521270
EZVI Plot
1521260
640100
640120
640140
640160
640 ISO
640200
640220
Easting (ft)
Figure 5-13a. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering Support Building During
Pre-Demonstration Characterization (March 2002)
EXPLANATION
• Sampling Location
pa-24i Sampling Location ID
* 8* Water Level (ft msl)
Water Levels from Intermediate Wells
1521340 - March 2003 (After KB-1 Injection)
1521330
Contour Interval: 0.05 ft
Hill
1521320
1521310
o> 1521300
1521290
Bioaugmentation
Plot /
X. /
1521280
1521270
EZVI Plot
1521260
640100
640120
640140
640160
640180
640200
640220
Easting (ft)
Figure 5-13b. Water Levels Measured in Intermediate Wells in the Engineering Support Building During
the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Technology Demonstration (March 2003)
63
-------
Middle Fine-Grained Unit, which mirrors the northwest to
southwest gradient seen in the Upper Sand Unit (see
Figure 5-13b).
TCE and other CVOC concentrations in perimeter wells
were monitored for evidence of TCE-DNAPL migration
outside the boundaries of the treatment plot. In well PA-
27S, which is outside the northern edge of the plot and
in the Upper Sand Unit, dissolved TCE concentrations
decreased from 659,000 |jg/L to 347,000 |jg/L during the
demonstration, and then to 168,000 |jg/L after the dem-
onstration (see Table 5-3). A similar decrease in TCE
was observed in PA-28S along the southern perimeter of
the plot, where TCE concentrations decreased signifi-
cantly from 801,000 |jg/L before the demonstration to
68,200 |jg/L during the demonstration, and then to
67,500 |ag/L after the demonstration (see Table 5-3).
The substantial decrease suggests that TCE-DNAPL did
not migrate outside the plot boundaries on the northern
and southern edges of the plot as a result of the demon-
stration. The effects of the biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation were experienced beyond the boundaries of
the plot (possibly due to migration of electron donor
and/or KB-1 ™ culture).
The potential for vertical TCE-DNAPL migration as a
result of the biostimulation and bioaugmentation tech-
nology was evaluated using soil and groundwater sam-
ples collected from the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and
Lower Sand Unit during post-demonstration characteri-
zation (Figure 5-1). There was no noticeable increase in
TCE levels in the soil samples collected after the demon-
stration in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower Sand
Unit. The monitoring well data in Table 5-3 indicate a
noticeable increase in TCE levels in perimeter wells PA-
27I and PA-27D. This cluster of wells is located on the
north side of the plot. The exact reasons for this increase
are unclear, but it may be related to continued equili-
bration of TCE in these wells after their construction.
5.3.4 Summary Evaluation of the Fate
of TCE-DNAPL
In summary, the performance assessment indicates that
biodegradation was a significant pathway accounting for a
substantial portion of the decrease in TCE, c/'s-DCE, and
vinyl chloride measured in the test plot. The combination
of biostimulation and bioaugmentation improved the rate
and extent of biodegradation in the plot. In addition, some
TCE and other VOCs appear to have been extracted by
the recirculation system and captured by adsorption in
the aboveground carbon canisters. There is no indication
that any significant amount of TCE-DNAPL migrated out-
side the test plot due to the treatment demonstration.
5.4 Verifying Operating
Requirements
Section 3 describes the field operations for the biostim-
ulation and bioaugmentation technology demonstration
at Launch Complex 34. Overall, two operational factors
need to be improved: (1) hydraulic control by recircu-
lation prior to, during, and after each phase of treatment;
and (2) biofouling of the injection wells.
An artificial hydraulic gradient in the Upper Sand Unit
was created by using three injection wells at the western
edge of the plot (BIW-1, BIW-2, and BIW-3) and three
extraction wells along the eastern edge of the plot
(BEW-1, BEW-2, and BEW-3) to establish continuous
recirculation in a rather flat aquifer and at a low flowrate.
The recirculation system appeared to help effectively
distribute the electron donor and KB-1™ throughout the
Upper Sand Unit. However, as described in Section 3.3,
water extracted from the downgradient extraction wells
was not run through the carbon unit at all times. The
recirculated groundwater was run through the carbon
units from May 23 to September 12, 2002 during testing
and modification of the treatment system (see Table 3-1).
The carbon tanks were removed from the recirculation
system prior to initiating the biostimulation phase (i.e.,
before electron donor was injected).
Second, the vendor reported that biofouling in the injec-
tion wells became apparent after amending the recirculat-
ing groundwater with electron donor (GeoSyntec, 2003).
To mitigate the biofouling, the addition of ethanol was
decreased to one concentrated dose administered daily;
the injection wells were scrubbed, surged, and purged on
a weekly basis to remove biofilm from the screen; and
the reinjected groundwater was amended with sodium
hypochlorite to inhibit microbial growth. It is unclear what
the long-term effect of the change in electron donor
dose/timing and the addition of sodium hypochlorite into
the aquifer had on the microorganisms throughout the
demonstration plot. Future applications of the biostimu-
lation and bioaugmentation technology may benefit from
a study of optimizing electron donor dosing schedules,
and establishing procedures to monitor for biofouling and
treat occurrences of biofouling during the demonstration.
64
-------
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
Appendix F. 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 the technology performance
assessment. 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
concentration 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 20-ft * 20-ft
treatment plot, based on the horizontal and vertical
variability observed during a preliminary characteri-
zation event (see Section 4.1). Four locations (one
in each cell of a 2 * 2 grid in the plot) were cored
before and after the demonstration. Each contin-
uous core was collected and sampled in 2-ft
sections from the ground surface to the aquitard.
During post-demonstration characterization, two
additional locations were cored within the plot
boundaries and soil samples were collected at 1 -ft
intervals from 12 ft to 30 ft bgs, which is predomi-
nantly within the targeted Upper Sand Unit. At the
80% confidence level, the reduction of TCE mass
between the pre- and post-demonstration was
considered to be achieved very well by the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation 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 sam-
pling, 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 treatment 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 any persistence of TCE
65
-------
in the sample tubing after sampling wells with high
TCE-DNAPL levels.
6.1.2 Completeness
All the regular samples planned in the QAPP were col-
lected and analyzed, with the exception of a duplicate
sample during pre-demonstration groundwater sampling
and method blanks spiked with 1,1,1-TCA during post-
demonstration soil sampling.
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 sent to the off-
site analytical laboratory. Copies of the chain-of-custody
records can be found in Appendix F. 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 verified that the samples were received in
good condition, and the temperature blank sample sent
with each shipment was measured to ensure that the
required temperature was maintained during transit.
Each sample received then was checked against the
chain-of-custody form, and any discrepancies were
brought to the attention 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 F (Table F-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
demonstrate 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 |jL. 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
results of the post-demonstration soil characterization,
where soil samples also were spiked with 1,1,1-TCA. Of
Table 6-1. Instruments and Calibration Acceptance Criteria Used for Field Measurements
Instrument Measurement Acceptance Criteria
YSI Meter Model 6820
PH
3 point, ±20% difference
YSI Meter Model 6820
ORP
1 point, ±20% difference
YSI Meter Model 6820
Conductivity
1 point, ±20% difference
YSI Meter Model 6820
Dissolved Oxygen
1 point, ±20% difference
YSI Meter Model 6820
Temperature
1 point, ±20% difference
OHaus Weight Balance
Soil - Dry/Wet Weight
3 point, ±20% difference
Hermit Water Level Indicator
Water Levels
±0.01 ft
66
-------
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%. The results indicate that the
methanol extraction procedure used in the field is suit-
able for recovering CVOCs. For the bioaugmentation
demonstration, a similar evaluation was used to com-
pare the extraction efficiencies. Soil samples and blank
methanol samples were spiked with equal amounts of
1,1,1-TCA. During pre-demonstration characterization,
all seven of the samples were within the acceptable
range of precision (i.e., RPD), where RPD is less than
30% (see Table F-2). During post-demonstration char-
acterization, an error occurred during field sampling, and
the corresponding methanol blanks spiked with 1,1,1-
TCA were not able to be included in Table F-2. However,
given the consistent results of this procedure during
previous demonstrations at Launch Complex 34, the
methanol extraction procedure used in the field remains
suitable for recovering CVOCs.
During the biostimulation and bioaugmentation pre- and
post-demonstration sampling events, duplicate soil sam-
ples 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. Appendix F (Table F-3)
shows the result of the field soil duplicate 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 sam-
ples was generally within the acceptable range (RPD
<30%) for the demonstration, indicating that the sam-
pling procedure was representative of the soil column at
the coring location. The RPD for two of the duplicate soil
samples from the pre-demonstration sampling was
greater than 30%. This indicated that the repeatability of
some of the pre-demonstration soil samples was outside
targeted acceptance criteria. However, given the hetero-
geneous nature of the contaminant distribution, a large
RPD is expected on occasion. The RPDs for two of the
duplicate soil samples from the post-demonstration sam-
pling were greater than 30%. The reason for the higher
RPD calculated in the two post-demonstration soil
samples is that TCE concentrations were low (often near
or below the detection limit). For example, the RPD
between duplicate samples, one of which is below detec-
tion and the other is slightly above detection, tends to be
high. In general, though, the variability 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
four-step process where the sampling equipment was
washed with soapy water, rinsed in distilled water to
remove soap and debris, then rinsed a second time with
distilled water, and finally rinsed with methanol. The
rinsate blank samples were collected by pouring distilled
water over the equipment after the equipment had been
processed through the routine decontamination proce-
dure. As seen in Appendix F (Table F-4), TCE levels in
the rinsate blanks were below detection (<1.0 jjg/L) for
all but two of the nine rinsate 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 F (Table F-5). Only
one of the pre-demonstration methanol blanks had a
TCE concentration that was slightly above the targeted
detection limit of 100 |jg/L of TCE in methanol. However,
the TCE concentration in this one methanol blank was
below 10% of the concentration in the associated batch
of soil samples. All of the post-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
sampled, with the exception of the pre-demonstration
groundwater sampling event. A duplicate groundwater
sample was not collected during this event. Appendix F
(Table F-6) contains the analysis of the field duplicate
groundwater samples that were collected twice during
and after the demonstration. The RPD (precision) calcu-
lated for these samples met the QA/QC target criteria of
RPD <30% for the two duplicate samples collected dur-
ing the demonstration. The RPD was exceeded for the
samples collected during post-demonstration sampling,
most likely because differences in low TCE concen-
trations can have a large effect on the RPD calculation.
67
-------
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 mg/L); this indicated that some
free-phase solvent may have been drawn into the 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
sampling events conducted for the bioaugmentation
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 F, Table F-7)
were below the targeted detection limit (3.0 jjg/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 |jg/L for all of the
18 trip blanks analyzed for the demonstration (Appen-
dix F, Table F-8).
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 cal-
culate analytical accuracy (percent recovery) and preci-
sion (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 Samples
Analytical accuracy for the soil samples (methanol
extracts) was generally within acceptance limits for TCE
(70-130%) for the pre- and post-demonstration period
(Appendix F, Tables F-9 and F-10). Matrix spike recov-
eries 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 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 between MS and MSD was
always within acceptance limits (RPD <30%), with the
exception of one post-demonstration MS/MSD sample.
Laboratory control spike recoveries for all pre- and post-
demonstration samples were within the acceptance cri-
teria (Appendix F, Table F-11).
Method blanks were below the target level of 3.0 |jg/L for
TCE for all 37 method blanks analyzed during pre- and
post-demonstration sampling. (Appendix F, Table F-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 Groundwater
Analysis by the Analytical Laboratory
Target Recovery
Surrogate Compound
for Soil
(Methanol
Extracts)
(%)
Target Recovery
for Groundwater
(%)
Dibromofluoromethane
65-135
75-125
1,2-Dichloroethane - d4
52-149
62-139
Toluene - d8
65-135
75-125
Bromofluorobenzene
65-135
75-125
6.3.2 Laboratory QC for
Groundwater Sampling
Pre- and post-demonstration MS and MSD results for
groundwater are listed in Appendix F (Table F-13). The
MS and MSD recoveries (75 to 125%) were generally
within acceptance criteria. The only exceptions were one
MS/MSD sample set during pre-demonstration ground-
water sampling and one MS/MSD sample set during
post-demonstration groundwater sampling. The spike
recovery was outside of the control limits due to either
very high or very low (i.e., near detection limit) concen-
trations of TCE present in the reference sample. No cor-
rective 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 samples met the QA/QC criteria of RPD
<20%. Recoveries for LCS samples were always within
the acceptance range of 75-125% (Appendix F, Table F-
14).
Method blanks (Appendix F, Table F-15) for the ground-
water samples were always below the targeted 3.0 |jg/L
detection limit.
68
-------
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 cis-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. The detection limit of the
BOD analysis was higher than expected in one pre-
demonstration sample (12 mg/L) due to laboratory error,
but was met for the other samples.
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.
• Four 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 measure-
ments 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.
69
-------
-------
7. Economic Analysis
The cost estimation for the biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation technology application involves the following
three major components:
• Application cost of electron donor and micro-
organisms (KB-1 ™) 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.
• 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 bioaugmentation treatment cost with the cost of a
conventional pump-and-treat system.
7.1 Treatment Technology
Costs
The costs of the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatment technology were tracked and reported by the
vendor. Table 7-1 summarizes the cost breakdown for
the treatment. The total cost of the demonstration
incurred by the vendor was approximately $370,000.
This total includes the design, microcosm laboratory
studies, baseline characterization, biostimulation and
bioaugmentation processes, process monitoring, and
reporting costs incurred by the vendor. The total does
not include the costs of either waste disposal by the site
owner National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), or site characterization, which was conducted
by other organizations (Remedial Investigation/Feasibil-
ity Study [RI/FS] by NASA, preliminary characterization
by Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and
detailed characterization by Battelle).
Table 7-1. Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Process Treatment Cost Summary
Provided by Vendor
Actual Cost Percentage
Cost Item ($) (%)
Design and submittals
24,714
6
Microcosm Lab Studies
10,000
3
Baseline Characterization
23,510
6
Design and Construction of
Treatment System
108,403
28
Biostimulation processes
82,293
21
Bioaugmentation processes
12,752
3
Performance monitoring and post-
treatment characterization
82,293
21
Data evaluation and reporting
25,000
6
Subtotal
370,226
93
Site preparation and waste disposal'3'
25,000
6
Total Cost
392,226
100
(a) Costs incurred by the site owner.
Source: GeoSyntec, 2004.
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
demonstration. This includes removal of tiles inside the
Engineering Support Building, surveying of the plot
boundaries, establishment of utilities (water and elec-
tricity 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 use of the nonintrusive direct-
push rig and the nature of the in situ technology, minimal
waste was contained and stored for proper disposal by
NASA. The total cost for all these activities was esti-
mated at approximately $25,000 (Table 7-1).
71
-------
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
primarily demonstration-related costs. Most of
these costs were incurred in an effort to further
delineate the portion of the DNAPL source con-
tained in the Engineering Support Building and the
treatment plot and determine the TCE-DNAPL
mass reduction achieved by the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation treatment processes. 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 biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation technology demonstration.
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 $100,000
• Drilling - 7 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 (monitoring wells in and
around the bioaugmentation plot)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing; bioaugmentation plot and perimeter wells)
Post-Demonstration Assessment $100,000
• Drilling - 6 continuous soil cores (4 soil cores for
every 2-ft interval from the water table to the above
semi-confining layer; 2 soil cores for every 1 -ft
interval in the Upper Sand Unit [the target treatment
depths; approximately 110 soil core samples)
• Soil and groundwater sampling (9 monitoring wells;
collection and field extraction of 160 soil samples -
approximately 80 from the intermediate soil coring
event, and 80 from the post-demonstration
characterization)
• Laboratory analysis (organic and inorganic analysis)
• Field measurements (water quality; hydraulic
testing)
Total $250,000
72
-------
7.4 Present Value Analysis of
Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Treatment 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 con-
tamination and plume also will persist for several dec-
ades. The conventional approach to this type of contami-
nation has been the use of pump-and-treat systems that
extract and treat the groundwater above ground. This
conventional technology is basically a plume control
technology and would have to be implemented as long
as groundwater contamination exists. The biostimulation
and bioaugmentation treatment process 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 biostimulation and bio-
augmentation treatment technology, a short-term treat-
ment. The present value (PV) of a long-term pump-and-
treat application is calculated as described in Appen-
dix G. The PV analysis is conducted over a 30-year
period, as is typical for long-term remediation programs
at Superfund sites. Site characterization and perform-
ance (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 20 ft wide * 20 ft
long x 20 ft deep. For a more realistic cost comparison,
the remediation site is assumed to be spatially twice as
big (40 ft wide * 40 ft long * 20 ft deep). 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 the 40-ft-long * 40-ft-wide *
20-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 needing to extract and treat ground-
water 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 cata-
lytic oxidation unit (for air effluent).
As shown in Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the
total capital investment for an equivalent pump-and-treat
system would be approximately $161,000, and would be
followed by an annual operation and maintenance
(O&M) cost of $57,000 (including quarterly monitoring).
Periodic maintenance requirements (replacements of
pumps, etc.) would raise the O&M cost every five years
to $70,000 and every 10 years to $99,000. A discount
rate (real rate of return) of 2.9%, based on the current
recommendation for government projects, was used to
calculate the PV. The PV of the pump-and-treat costs
over 30 years is estimated to be $1,393,000.
An equivalent treatment cost for full-scale deployment of
the combination of the biostimulation and bioaugmenta-
tion treatment processes in a source area approximately
the same size as the one for the pump-and-treat system
would be at least $500,000. This estimate is based on a
total biostimulation and bioaugmentation process treat-
ment ($392,000 [see Table 7-1] incurred for the dem-
onstration). The assumed dimension to be treated is
approximately twice the size of the current demonstra-
tion plot. An equal number (8) of injection wells could be
used for the injection, and twice as much of the electron
donor and KB-1 ™ could be used in the source
treatment, although two additional volumes of waste
would be generated. Additional costs of approximately
$110,000 would be necessary for the additional electron
donor for the biostimulation and KB-1 ™ for the bioaug-
mentation ($82,000 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 the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation treatment was allowed
to attenuate naturally, the total treatment cost with the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology would be
approximately $500,000. One major assumption is that
the DNAPL source has been substantially removed after
the first application of biostimulation and bioaugmenta-
tion. At least at the Launch Complex 34 site, the per-
formance assessment indicated that this was the case. If
multiple biostimulation or bioaugmenation treatments
are required, the total costs could be higher. Another
assumption is that the full-scale deployment of the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation treatment processes
would entail design, equipment, and deployment similar
to that done during the demonstration.
73
-------
Therefore, the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treat-
ment technology costs less than an equivalent pump-
and-treat system, when the aquifer environment is right.
An investment in the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatment has a lower PV than the long-term investment
in a pump-and-treat system. The up-front capital invest-
ment incurred for the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
process may by recovered after the seventh year (see
Table G-3 in Appendix G), when the PV of the pump-
and-treat system surpasses the cost of the biostimula-
tion and bioaugmentation 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 G 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
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 situation would
lead to concomitantly higher remediation costs for the
pump-and-treat or plume containment option (without
source removal). As seen in Appendix G, the PV of a
pump-and-treat system operated for 100 years would be
$2,179,000. Even if the DNAPL source is only partially
removed by the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
treatment, and natural attenuation is insufficient to meet
downgradient cleanup goals, it is anticipated that the
reduced DNAPL source leads to a reduction in the size
and timeframe for a pump-and-treat system.
74
-------
8. Technology Applications Analysis
This section evaluates the general applicability of the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology to sites
with contaminated groundwater and soil. The analysis is
based on the results and lessons learned from the dem-
onstration, as well as general information available about
the technology and its application at other sites.
8.1 Objectives
This section evaluates the biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation technology against the nine evaluation criteria
used for detailed analysis of remedial alternatives in feasi-
bility studies under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Much of the discussion in this section applies to DNAPL
source removal in general and the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation technology in particular.
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
Biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment is protec-
tive of human health and the environment in both the
short and long term. Because DNAPL acts as a second-
ary source that can contaminate an aquifer for decades
or centuries, DNAPL source removal or mitigation con-
siderably 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 con-
tributes to the plume reduces the threat to potential
receptors.
8.1.2 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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation 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 biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation technology. One advantage of the biostimu-
lation and bioaugmentation technology is the potential
for the electron donor to be injected without the accom-
panying recirculating groundwater system. The recircu-
lating system produces groundwater that must be
treated prior to reinjection according to the requirements
of RCRA 3020(b). Further testing of the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation technology is necessary to opti-
mize 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 biostimulation
and bioaugmentation process at the site and the cleanup
goals agreed on by various stakeholders. In general,
reasonable DNAPL mass removal goals are more achiev-
able 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 vari-
ous studies (Pankow and Cherry, 1996) have shown that
almost 100% DNAPL mass removal may be required
before a significant change in groundwater concentra-
tions is observed. However, removal of DNAPL, even if
most of the removal takes place from the more accessi-
ble pores, probably would result in a weakened plume
75
-------
that may allow risk-based cleanup goals to be met in the
downgradient aquifer.
The specific federal environmental regulations that are
potentially impacted by remediation of a DNAPL source
with the biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology
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 biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation technology meets several of these criteria
relating to a preferred alternative. Biostimulation and
bioaugmentation reduces the toxicity of chlorinated
contaminants by converting them into potentially non-
toxic forms. For example, at Launch Complex 34, as
described in Section 5.3.1, increases in ethene and
chloride concentrations in groundwater collected during
post-demonstration characterization indicate that some
portion of the TCE was converted into nontoxic forms by
the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment. 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 hetero-
geneities 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 biostimulation and bio-
augmentation 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 alterna-
tive of pump and treat. At Launch Complex 34, the
recirculation system used to enable hydraulic control of
the test plot and enhance the distribution of electron
donor and KB-1 ™ made it necessary to treat the
extracted groundwater prior to reinjection. However, the
carbon units being used to treat groundwater extracted
from the treatment plot were removed from the system
approximately two months before the electron donor
addition because of severe biofouling in the carbon
units. Compliance with RCRA regulations would need to
be evaluated at similar sites, and under similar circum-
stances, if RCRA were to 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 biostimulation and
bioaugmentation, and the resulting water stream needs
to be treated and discharged to a surface water body or
a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). On-site dis-
charges to a surface water body must meet National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) require-
ments; consequently, 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 activ-
ity and requires an NPDES permit. Sometimes, soil or
groundwater monitoring may lead to small amounts of
purge and decontamination water wastes that may be
subject to CWA requirements. Micropurging was one
measure implemented at Launch Complex 34 to mini-
mize such wastes during site characterization and tech-
nology 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 UIC Program and includes sole-source
aquifer and wellhead protection programs. A UIC variance
was obtained from FDEP to inject the electron donor and
KB-1 ™ culture 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., MCLs) are the most
76
-------
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 a
drinking water supply. In some cases, such as when
multiple contaminants are present, alternate 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 feder-
ally mandated MCL for VC is 2 |jg/L, whereas the State
of 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 to meet applicable drinking water standards
or other risk-based groundwater cleanup goals agreed
on between site owners and regulatory authorities, the
short-term objective of a source remediation technology
such as biostimulation and bioaugmentation is to remove
DNAPL mass. Because technology, site, and economic
limitations may limit DNAPL mass removal to less than
100%, it may not always be possible to meet ground-
water cleanup targets in the source region in the short
term. Depending on other factors, such as the distance
of the compliance point (e.g., property boundary, at
which groundwater cleanup targets 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 treatment, and the degree of natural
attenuation in the aquifer, 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 compared to the condition in which no
source removal action is taken.
8.1.2.5 Clean Air Act
The CAA and the 1990 amendments establish primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for protec-
tion of public health, as well as emission limitations for
certain 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 Qual-
ity 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 exo-
thermic reactions (e.g., oxidation with Fenton's reagent),
the potential for atmospheric releases is absent when
using biostimulation and bioaugmentation.
8.1.2.6 Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be carried out in accordance with OSHA require-
ments 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 regu-
lations for construction sites. State OSHA requirements,
which may be significantly stricter than federal stand-
ards, also must be met.
The health and safety aspects of biostimulation and bio-
augmentation are minimal. The main working hazards
encountered during the demonstration were operating
heavy equipment (e.g., drill rig) and handling the electron
donor and KB-1 ™ mixture. These hazards were dealt with
by using trained personnel and appropriate personal pro-
tective equipment. Level D personal protective equip-
ment generally was sufficient during implementation. 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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology leads
to removal of TCE-DNAPL mass and therefore perma-
nent removal of contamination from the aquifer. Although
dissolved solvent concentrations may rebound in the
short term when groundwater flow redistributes through
the treated source zone containing DNAPL remnants,
depletion of the source through dissolution will continue
in the long term, and will lead to eventual and earlier
compliance with groundwater cleanup goals.
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology
affects treatment by reducing the volume and toxicity of
contamination through the dehalogenation process, which
results in potentially nontoxic compounds such as chlo-
ride, ethene, or ethane. Multiple injections of electron
donor may be necessary to bring about complete dehalo-
genation and prevent accumulation of degradation
byproducts, such as VC. The mobility of the contaminant
is not affected by the biostimulation and bioaugmenta-
tion treatment.
77
-------
8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness of the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation 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 dissolved contaminant
levels in the source zone, achievement 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, pref-
erential flowpaths, and localized permeability changes
that determine flow in the treated region may lead to
such variability in post-treatment groundwater levels of
contamination. As discussed in Section 8.1.2.4, the
chances of DNAPL mass removal resulting in reduced
contaminant 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 electron donor may be
needed to promote complete dehalogenation to ethane
or ethene and prevent the accumulation of degradation
byproducts, such as VC.
8.1.6 Implementability
The implementability criterion addresses the technical
and administrative feasibility of implementing the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation technology and the
availability of various services and materials required
during its implementation. The technical feasibility of
implementing the technology is based on factors such as
construction and operation, reliability of the technology,
the ease of undertaking additional remedial action, and
monitoring considerations. For the biostimulation and
bioaugmentation technology, constructing and operating
the equipment associated with the recirculating system
is fairly straightforward in theory. Technical difficulties
that may be encountered include problems with
biofouling and predicting the influence of the microbial
community. Most likely, these technical difficulties can
be overcome with advance planning and careful
monitoring and without seriously affecting the reliability
of the technology.
The administrative feasibility of implementing the bio-
stimulation and bioaugmentation technology at Launch
Complex 34 was straightforward. A site-specific UIC
variance was obtained by the vendor from FDEP to
inject the electron donor. 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 demon-
stration without interfering with the surrounding commun-
ity. Adequate storage capacity and disposal services for
the waste generated during well installation, soil sam-
pling, and groundwater sampling also were available at
the Engineering Support Building. The electron donor
was commercially available through various vendors.
The KB-1 ™ culture is not readily available from a wide
variety of vendors, and may require special transport
and handling procedures.
At Launch Complex 34, aboveground wastes were gen-
erated during the demonstration due to the hydraulic
controls required to contain the plot. The groundwater
extracted from the plot required treatment before being
reinjected into the aquifer. Although the groundwater
was treated using a common, commercially available
technology (i.e., granular activated carbon), 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 biostimula-
tion and bioaugmentation treatment is competitive with
the life-cycle cost of traditional pump-and-treat technolo-
gies (over a 30-year period of comparison). The cost
comparison becomes even more favorable for source
remediation in general and biostimulation and bioaug-
mentation in particular when other tangible and intangi-
ble 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 evalu-
ation 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 with the large amount of downtime typically
experienced by site owners with pump-and-treat systems.
Factors that may increase the cost of the biostimulation
and bioaugmentation application 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.
• Need for a special strain of microorganisms capable
of surviving in the presence of DNAPL.
78
-------
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-led sites) have shown growing acceptance of
innovative technologies. The demonstration at Launch
Complex 34 provided evidence that biostimulation and
bioaugmentation may be effective in the reductive dehalo-
genation of chlorinated solvents.
8.1.9 Community Acceptance
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology's
low profile, limited space requirements, absence of air
emissions, absence of waste storage, 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 of bioaug-
mentation in the 20-ft * 20-ft plot at Launch Complex 34
only took a few months to complete. The remediation
generally is done as a turnkey project by multiple ven-
dors, who will design, build, and operate the bioaugmen-
tation system. Site characterization, site preparation
(utilities, etc.), monitoring, and any waste disposal often
are conducted by the site owner.
Other factors affecting the operability of the biostimula-
tion and bioaugmenation technology include the com-
mercial availability of the supplies and the availability of
the necessary equipment and specialists. The KB-1™
culture is available from a small number of commercial
vendors. The electron donor is widely available commer-
cially. Handling of the electron donor and KB-1™ culture
requires minimal health and safety measures.
Although the use of bioremediation in the reductive
dechlorination of solvents has been known for many
years, adding a microorganism capable of thriving in the
presence of DNAPL in an aquifer is a new application.
8.3 Applicable Wastes
The biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology 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 biostimulation and bio-
augmentation technology can be implemented in source
zones present in saturated conditions, but may not be
effective in the vadose zone because of the anaerobic
conditions required by the microorganisms.
8.4 Key Features
The following are some of the key features of biostimula-
tion and bioaugmentation that make the technology attrac-
tive 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 require additional treatment
or handling
• Potentially nontoxic byproducts
• Relatively fast field application time
• Electron donor and microorganisms are distributed
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 can be applied
over a shorter duration in the future.
8.5 Availability/Transportability
The electron donor used to biostimulate the natural aqui-
fer conditions is available commercially from a variety of
vendors. The KB-1 ™ culture is available commercially but
from a limited number of vendors. The KB-1 ™ culture was
transported in a stainless steel culture vessel and pres-
surized with an inert gas to maintain strict anaerobic
conditions.
8.6 Materials Handling Requirements
The electron donor did not require any special handling.
The KB-1 ™ microbial consortium requires strict anaero-
bic conditions, and must be handled carefully so as not
to introduce oxygen into the system.
8.7 Ranges of Suitable
Site Characteristics
The following factors should be considered when deter-
mining the suitability of a site for the biostimulation and
79
-------
bioaugmentation application. None of these factors
necessarily eliminate the technology from consideration.
Rather, these are factors that may make the application
less or more economical:
• Type of contaminants. Contaminants should be
amenable to reductive dehalogenation. The types
of contaminants most suited for this technology are
chlorinated hydrocarbons.
• Site geology. The electron donor and KB-1 ™
culture can be distributed more effectively in sandy
soils. Silts or clays can make the application more
difficult. Aquifer heterogeneities and preferential
flowpaths may make it difficult to evenly distribute
the electron donor and KB-1 ™ culture. DNAPL
source zones in fractured bedrock also may pose a
challenge.
• Regulatory acceptance. Regulatory acceptance is
important for this application because of the rela-
tively new application of bioremediation for DNAPL
source zone treatment. In addition, a UIC permit or
variance may be required. 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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation. 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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology has
the following limitations:
• Not all types of contaminants are amenable to
reductive transformation.
• Currently, the KB-1 ™ culture is not widely available
commercially and requires special handling to
maintain a strict anaerobic environment.
• Byproducts of reduction may make biostimulation
and bioaugmentation unsuitable for application in a
region very close to a receptor. Certain byproducts
(such as chloride) are subject to secondary,
nonhealth-based drinking water standards, and
require sufficient time and distance to dissipate.
• Aquifer heterogeneities can make the application of
biostimulation and bioaugmentation more difficult,
necessitating more complex application schemes,
greater amounts of electron donor, longer injection
times, and/or multiple injections. The treatment
may not be suitable in tight aquifer materials, such
as clay or silt.
• At some sites, multiple injections of electron donor
or KB-1 ™ culture may be necessary to prevent the
accumulation of degradation 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.
• Biofouling may be an issue in both the injection
wells and the aboveground system used to treat
extracted groundwater, if applicable.
80
-------
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. 1999d. Performance Assessment Site Charac-
terization for the Interagency DNAPL Consortium,
Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Station,
Florida. Prepared for the Air Force Research
Laboratory, United States Air Force, Tyndall AFB,
Florida. July 20.
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 Biodegradation of Dense
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids Through Bioaugmen-
tation at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral,
Florida. Prepared for U.S. EPA Superfund Inno-
vative Technology Evaluation Program. June 14.
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. 2003a. 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.
Battelle, 2003b. Draft Final Report on Demonstration of
In Situ Dehalogenation of NAPL through Injection of
Emulsified Zero-Valent Iron at Launch Complex 34
in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FLorida. Pre-
pared for U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation Program. September 17.
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 Per-
formance 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.
81
-------
Geosyntec. 2004. Email from Eric Hood, GeoSyntec, to
Arun Gavaskar, Battelle. January.
Isalou, M., B.E. Sleep, and S.N. Liss. 1998. "Biodegra-
dation of High Concentrations of Tetrachloroethene
in a Continuous Flow Column System." Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 32(22): 3579-3585.
Lee, M.D., S.A. Bledsoe, S.M. Solek, D.E. Ellis, and R.J.
Buchanan. 1997. "Bioaugmentation with Anaerobic
Enrichment Culture Completely Degrades Tetra-
chloroethene in Column Studies." In: B.C. Alleman
and A. Leeson (eds.), In Situ and On Site Bio-
remediation, Vol. 3. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.
Major, D.W., E.E. Cox, E. Edwards, and P.W. Hare.
1995. "Intrinsic Dechlorination of Trichloroethene to
Ethene in a Bedrock Aquifer." In: R.E. Hinchee, J.T.
Wilson, and D.C. Downey (eds.), Intrinsic Bioremedi-
ation. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.
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. Techno!., 36(23): 5106-5116.
Maymo-Gatell, X., J.M Gossett, and S.H. Zinder. 1997.
"Dehalococcous Ethenogenes Strain 195: Ethene
Production From Halogenated Aliphatics." In: B.C.
Alleman and A. Leeson (eds.), In Situ and On Site
Bioremediation, Vol. 3. Battelle Press, Columbus,
OH.
Pankow, J., and J. Cherry. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Sol-
vents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History,
Behavior, and Remediation. Waterloo Press,
Portland, OR.
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. 1996.
Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background
Document. EPA/540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, see United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
Yang, Y., and P.L. McCarty. 2000. "Biologically
Enhanced Dissolution of Tetrachloroethene
DNAPL." Env. Sci. and Techno!., 34(14): 2979-2984.
82
-------
-------
Appendix A
Performance Assessment Methods
A.1 Summary of Statistics in Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Plot
A.2 Sample Collection and Extraction Methods
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
-------
Appendix A.l Summary of Statistics in Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Plot
This document summarizes the results of the statistical analyses of TCE data in soil samples from
the biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment plot. In this case, two different analyses were
performed: one used the summary statistics of the data without considering the spatial
information, the other used kriging to account for the spatial correlation of the data.
Soil Monitoring Data
Soil coring data were collected from three stratigraphic layers: Lower Sand Unit, Middle Fine-
Grained Unit, and Upper Sand Unit, before and after the bioaugmentation treatment (pre-
demonstration and post-demonstration data). The technology demonstration was performed only
in the Upper Sand Unit, but statistical analysis was performed in all the three units. The Middle
Fine-Grained Unit and the Lower Sand Unit were considered as control groups to assess the
results obtained from the Upper Sand Unit. If a drastic reduction of the TCE concentration was
observed in the Upper Sand Unit, while a significant increase in the Middle Fine-Grained Unit
was observed, it could be considered that the TCE simply migrated from one unit to the other. On
the other hand, if a drastic reduction in TCE concentration was observed in both the Upper Sand
Unit and Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and knowing that the Middle Fine-Grained Unit had not been
treated directly, the reduction in TCE concentration may have been due to natural attenuation
rather than to the treatment process.
Originally, the biostimulation and bioaugmentation plot was defined on a "nearly-rectangular"
quadrilateral having a surface of about 430 ft2. To simplify the statistical analysis, a slightly
different rectangular surface of 400 ft2 was used in the calculations. This affected the calculations
of the total masses of TCE by a few percent, which is abundantly within the confidence limits of
the results. All stratigraphic units in the Upper Sand Unit, Middle Fine-Grained Unit and Lower
Sand Unit were assumed to be horizontal with a constant thickness of 18, 10, and 10 feet,
respectively.
Summary Statistics Analysis
The simple average and the simple variance of the pre-demonstration and the post-demonstration
data for the three units were calculated as shown in Table A. 1 -1. The data were not weighted to
account for possible spatial correlations. The values obtained for the pre- and post-demonstration
data were compared, unit by unit, to assess the mean change in the TCE concentration and its
confidence limits. The change was expressed both as a difference and as a percentage reduction in
Table A. 1-2.
Table A.l-1. Summary Statistics of TCE Concentration Resulting from Pre- and Post-
Demonstration Monitoring
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Statigraphic Unit
Mean (mg/kg)
Variance
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Pre-Demonstration
Upper Sand Unit
81.58
776.66
45.85
117.30
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
995.14
155,006.20
490.40
1,499.87
Lower Sand Unit
762.75
80,355.42
399.34
1,126.16
Post-Demonstration
Upper Sand Unit
0.62
0.04
0.36
0.87
Middle Fine-Grained Unit
967.74
279,611.75
289.84
1,645.64
Lower Sand Unit
1,367.27
280,689.95
688.07
2,046.48
-------
Table A.l-2. Mean Changes inTCE Concentrations after the Biostimulation and
Bioaugmentation Treatment
Statigraphic Unit
Mean
(mg/kg)
Variance
Lower Bound
(mg/kg)
Upper Bound
(mg/kg)
80% Lower
Bound (mg/kg)
Differences in TCE Concentrations (pre- post)
Upper Sand Unit
80.96
776.70
45.23
116.69
57.55
Middle Fine-Grained
Unit
27.40
434,617.95
-817.77
872.56
-526.38
Lower Sand Unit
-604.52
361,045.37
-1,374.84
165.79
-1,109.25
% Reduction = (1 - Post / Pre) * 100
Mean (mg/kg)
Median (mg/kg)
10%
90%
Upper Sand Unit
99.08
99.25
98.53
99.61
98.86
Middle Fine-Grained
Unit
-60.52
3.61
-127.83
73.77
-67.33
Lower Sand Unit
-94.55
-77.93
-274.59
19.09
-183.91
Kriging Analysis
A weighted average and a weighted variance of TCE concentrations in the soil of the target
treatment zone (i.e., Upper Sand Unit) were calculated before and after the treatment. The
weights, accounting for the spatial correlation in the data, were evaluated through the variogram
model. Nearly continuous TCE data were available from four soil cores in the entire surficial
aquifer (i.e., all three stratigraphic units), and continuous soil core data in the saturated zone of
the Upper Sand Unit. Less continuous TCE concentration data was available for the horizontal
plane. It was assumed that the covariance among a pair of data depends on their relative distance
but not on the direction. As a result, an isotropic variogram was calculated.
Results
Both the summary statistical analysis and the kriging analysis showed a drastic reduction in TCE
concentrations in the Upper Sand Unit. Confidence limits for the mean were considered to be a
two-sided, 80% limit. To evaluate the confidence limits, a normal distribution assumption was
assumed for the mean. Within those limits, the summary statistics analysis of the Middle Fine-
Grained Unit and Lower Sand Unit layers did not show a statistically significant change in their
concentrations, which indicates that the reduction in TCE concentrations in the Upper Sand Unit
was mainly due to the biostimulation and bioaugmentation technology.
The percentage reduction in TCE concentrations in the Upper Sand Unit as predicted by the
summary statistic has a two sided, 80% confidence interval of between 98.53 and 99.61, which
indicates that almost all the TCE is no longer present. The pre and post-demonstration two-sided
80% confidence intervals are [14.86, 38.03] and [0.12, 0.28], respectively, with a confidence limit
of [14.66, 37.83] for the difference between pre- and post-demonstration. (Note that the
confidence limits of a difference are not equal to the difference of the confidence limits.
However, the center of the confidence interval of a difference, is equal to the difference of the
centers of the confidence intervals.)
The percentage reduction in the Upper Sand Unit as predicted by the kriging analysis has a two
sided 80% confidence interval of [98.55, 99.66], which is consistent with that obtained by the
simple summary analysis. The pre- and post-demonstration two-sided 80% confidence intervals
are [18.92, 50.14] and [0.12, 0.34], respectively, with aconfidence limit for the difference
between pre- and post-demonstration of [17.37, 46.41], Those intervals are also consistent (that
is, overlapping), with the ones obtained in the summary analysis.
-------
The consistency between the summary and kriging results indicated that the samples were
spatially well distributed. It reflects the absence of clusters of data that, in the simple average,
would over-weight a certain region of space respect to the others.
1521315 n
1521310
1521305
1521300
1521295
1521290
1521285
1521280 -I
Plan View
Original Coords
640125 640130 640135 640140 640145 640150 640155 640160
Figure A.l-1. Locations of Soil Coring Locations and Plot Boundary
Pre-Demo TCE Concentration (mg/kg)
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
0
10 -
u> 20 H
-Q
Upper Sand Unit
o.
a> 30
o
40
Middle Fine-grained Unit
Lower Sand Unit
50
•••
• • •
m • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • •
¦¦»«» ~ - ¦
• • M
• •
~ Plot
¦ PreDemo
PostDemo
Figure A.l-2. TCE Concentration Distribution of Pre-demonstration Soil Samples
Before the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Treatment
-------
Post-Demo TCE Concentration (mg/kg)
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
10
Upper Sand Unit
I
ro 20 « • •
a | •
I I •
«
a I • • •
at 30 - • • •<
O Middle Fine-grained Unit
40 - • •
••
Lower Sand Unit
50
Figure A.l-3. TCE Concentration Distribution of Post-demonstration Soil Samples
After the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Treatment
-------
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 bioaugmentation 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) (1997b)
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 |Jg/kg) or high concentrations
-------
(>200 jug/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:
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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.2-1. 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.2-1. Soil Sampling and Analytical Parameters
Analytes
Extraction Method
Analytical Method
Sample Holding
Time
Matrix
VOCs(a)
SW846-5035
SW846-8260
14 days
Methanol
(a) EPA 601/602 list.
A.3 List of Standard Sample Collection and Analytical Methods
Table A.3-1. Sample Collection Procedures
Measurements
Task/Sample
Collection Method
Equipment Used
Primary Objectives
CVOCs
Soil sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTM D4547-98 (1997c)
Butyrate or acetate sleeves
500-mL plastic bottle
CVOCs
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTM D4448-01 (1997a)
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
DHGW
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTM D4448-01 (1997a)
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
PCRW
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTM D4448-01 (1997a)
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Secondary Objectives
Field parametersw
Inorganics-cations
Inorganics-anions
TOC, BOD, TDS,
dissolved silica
Alkalinity
Groundwater sampling/
Mod.(a) ASTM D4448-01 (1997a)
Peristaltic pump
Teflon™ tubing
Hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity/
ASTMD4044-96 (1997d)
Winsitu® data logger
Laptop computer
Groundwater level
Water levels
Water level indicator
(a) Modifications to ASTM are detailed in Appendix B.
(b) DHG: methane, ethene, and ethane (see Appendix D).
(c) PCR: Polymerase chain reaction (see Appendix C).
(d) Field parameters include pH, ORP, temperature, DO, and conductivity. A flow-through cell will
be attached to the peristaltic pump when measuring field parameters.
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials.
-------
Table A.3-2. Sample Handling and Analytical Procedures
Measurements
Matrix
Amount
Collected
Analytical
Method
Maximum
Holding
Time0"
Sample
Preservation'1''
Sample
Container
Sample
Type
Primary Objectives
CVOCs
Soil
250 g
Mod. EPA 8260(c'
14 days
4°C
Plastic
Grab
CVOCs
Groundwater
40-mL x 3
EPA 8260
14 days
4°C, pH < 2 HC1
Glass
Grab
DHG(d)
Groundwater
40 mL x 3
RS Kerr Method
7 days
4°C
Glass
Grab
Dehalococcoidis
Ethenogenes(e>
Groundwater
2 x 1L
GeneTrac ™ 'e'
30 days
4°C
Plastic
Grab
Secondary Objectives
Hydraulic conductivity
Aquifer
NA
ASTM D4044-96 (1997d)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inorganics-cations'1'
Groundwater
100 mL
EPA 200.8
28 days
4°C
Plastic
Grab
Inorganics-anions'1'
Groundwater
50 mL
EPA 300.0
28 days
4°C
Plastic
Grab
Dissolved silica
Groundwater
250 mL
SW6010
28 days
None
Plastic
Grab
TOC
Soil
20 g
Based on SW9060
28 days
None
Plastic
Grab
TOC
Groundwater
500 mL
EPA 415.1
7 days
4°C, pH < 2 H2S04
Plastic
Grab
TDS
Groundwater
500 mL
EPA 160.1
7 days
4°C
Plastic
Grab
BOD
Groundwater
1,000 mL
EPA 405.1
48 hours
4°C
Plastic
Grab
DHG'd'
Groundwater
40 mL x 3
RS Kerr Method
7 days
4°C
Glass
Grab
Alkalinity
Groundwater
200 mL
EPA 310.1
14 days
4°C
Plastic
Grab
Water levels
Aquifer
NA
Water level from the top
of well casing
NA
NA
NA
NA
(a) 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.
(b) Samples will be preserved immediately upon sample collection, if required.
(c) Samples will be extracted using methanol on site. For the detailed extraction procedure see Appendix B.
(d) Dissolved hydrocarbon gases are analyzed by R.S. Kerr Method (see Appendix D).
(e) GeneTrac™ is a proprietary method (see Appendix C).
(f) Cations include Ca, Mg, total and dissolved Fe, Mn, K, and Na. Anions include Br, CI, S04, P04, N03/N02 and Alkalinity.
HC1 = Hydrochloric acid, H2S04 = Sulfuric acid.
NA = Not applicable.
-------
Appendix B
Hydrogeologic Measurements
B.1 Slug Tests
B.2 Well Completion Diagrams
B.3 Soil Coring Logsheets
-------
Appendix B. Slug Tests
Slug tests were performed on well PA-26 in the biostimulation and bioaugmentation plot before
and after the demonstrations to assess any effects on aquifer quality caused by the remediation
technologies. Pre-demonstration tests were conducted in the well in March 2002. Post-
demonstration tests were completed in well PA-26 in June 2003. As the remediation treatment
was applied to just the Upper Sand Unit, slug tests were only performed in the shallow
performance monitoring well in the center of the plot. PA-26 is 24 ft deep with a 5-ft long
screen. The tests consisted of placing a pressure transducer (Mini Troll™) 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 1.0 ft of change in water level
within the well. Water level recovery was then monitored for at least 5 minutes using a Mini
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 unconfined 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
parameters to provide a value of the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer materials surrounding
the well.
Slug test response curves are presented in this Appendix B. 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 22 ft/day
(0.0079 cm/sec) in well PA-26. These values are comparable to the typical hydraulic
conductivity range in the Upper Sand Unit at LC34, which is usually higher than in the
underlying hydrostratigraphic units. Post-demonstration hydraulic conductivity averaged at 32.3
ft/day (0.011 cm/sec) in PA-26. These data indicate that the biostimulation and bioaugmentation
technology did not affect the hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Sand Unit.
Table 1. Slug Test Results in Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Plot
Well
Test
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
Response (r2)
Pre-Demonstration
22.5
0.0079
Excellent (0.989)
21.5
0.0076
Excellent (0.992)
PA-26
23.0
0.0081
Excellent (0.997)
Post-Demonstration
A
29.3
0.0100
Excellent (0.977)
B
33.5
0.0118
Excellent (0.997)
C
34.1
0.0120
Excellent (0.983)
-------
Well PA-26: Pre-Demo Replicate A
1U
t
1 —
\
0.1
\
*
0.01
ln(Y) = -2.55765 * X + 0.366454
Number of data points used = 40
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.989
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1E-3
~ ~ ~
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
10
0.1
Well PA-26: Post-Demo Replicate A
0.01
ln(Y) = -3.20851 *X + -0.151681
Number of data points used = 10
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.977579
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
-------
10
Well PA-26: Pre-Demo Replicate B
1 —v
0.1
0.01
ln(Y) = -2.44185 *X + 0.272358
Number of data points used = 40
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.992
1E-3
10
0.0
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (min)
Well PA-26: Post-Demo Replicate B
10.0
0.1 —
~
~
4
*
~\
0.01 —
ln(Y) = -3.64914 *X + -0.0686846
Number of data points used = 31
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.983073
1E-3
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (min)
-------
10
Well PA-26: Pre-Demo Replicate C
1 —
0.1
~
0.01
ln(Y) = -2.61248 *X + 0.34342
Number of data points used = 40
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.997
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
10
~
~
0.1
Well PA-26: Post-Demo Replicate C
0.01
ln(Y) = -3.58602 *X + -0.0797991
Number of data points used = 30
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.982164
1E-3
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Time (min)
8.0
10.0
-------
^RattPllP CAPE CANAVERAL
W Ddneiie WELL completion diagram
- - * P'rf'w1-' Tri ) 11Ss Fi> iV' if^ a
PA-26
Project #:
G482Q10-EPA31
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Well #
CCASLC34
BIO
PA-26
Rig Type and Drilling Method: i Date:
LD-2 Direc! Push i Mar 11. 2002
Northing (NAD 83):
1521295
Easting (NAD 83):
640145
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Driller- Precision Sampling j Geologist:
John Malo mg
Surface Elevation
j (NAVO 88): n2
Dcpsf' 8t tuw G oMmi
TOC Elevation: 10,99 ft amsl
. ft "t Tlso *' UrOut
Grout: Portland
Type; #1
Total Amount: 7 gal
L> 0 ft Toe c" Arrtu'ar Seal
Too of Sandpai
Weil Screen.
Type Stainless Steel
Amount, 5
Manufacturer. Mavenck
Diameter: 2
Slot St/e 0 010
9 0 ft Top of Screen
24,2 ft. Bottom of Casing
24, S ft. Bottom of Borififl
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type Flush boltdown
Air Line. 2" locking
Wolf Casing: i
Type: Stainless Sleet (SS) j
Diameter, 2,0' i
Amount 13' I
NOT TO SCALE
-------
^RattPllP CAPE CANAVERAL
W Ddneiie WELL completion diagram
- - * iUtt*y, Tci ^ 11Ss 5/i Fi> iV' if^
Project #:
G482010-EPA3I
Well #
CCASLC34
BIO
PA-27S
"Northing (NAD 83 r
1521315
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
j Rig Type and Drilling Method , Date:
LD-2 Direct Push t
Mar 12, 2002
Easting (NAD 83),
640149
Reviewed by
Sam Yoon
• Duller:
Precision Sampling
John Mala
Geologist;
MG
Surface Elevation
(NAVD 88): 1
Depth Below Ground Surface
TOC Elevation: 11,0 flatus!
<4
1 C Top ot GrOMf
Grout: Portland
Type #1
Total Amount; 7 gai
if P ft Ton of Annular Seal
16 Oft Too of Sandpac
Wei! Screen
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount: 5
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter' 2
Slot Si/e. 0 010
9 0 ft Top of Sciattn
:¦> 0 * Bottom of Screen
Solta-m of Casinfl
24 5 ft Pmsoni uf Boring
Surface Completion:
Size: 10"
Type: Flush boltdown
Air Line. 2" locking
Wet! Casing-
Type: Stainless Steel (SS)j
Diameter. 2.0"
Amount' 19'
NOT TO SCALE
-------
^RattPllP CAPE CANAVERAL
w Ddueiie WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
- - * iUtt*y, Tci ^ 11Ss 5/i Fi> iV' if^ a2"7f
Project #:
6482010-EPA31
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
CCASLC34
J Weil#. BIO
[ PA-27i
Northing {NAD 83)'
1521314
Rig Type and Drilling Method" 1 Date.
LD-2 Direct Push i
Mar 12, 2002
Easting {NAD 83):
840151
Reviewed by:
Sam Yoon
Duller, Precision Sampling j Geologist.
John Malo i MG
Surface Elevation
(NAVD88): u2
Depth Below Ground Surface
TOC Elevation: 11.1 ftaiwsl
Surface Completion:
Size. 10"
Type, Flush holldown
Air Line 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: Stainless Steel JSS t
Diameter 2 0"
Amount 29'
Grout; Portland
Type- #1
Total Amount 7 gal
10.0 $ Top of Annular Seat
b Q it Top of Sandpack y
Well Screen:
Type: Stainless Steel
Amount. 5
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2
Slot Size: 0.010
34 C> 1! Bottom of Screen
M I « bo",em j? tuMna
i -* c» r* pi s'or.i Burma
NOT TO SCALE
-------
^RattPllP CAPE CANAVERAL
w Ddueiie WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
- - * iUtt*y, Tci ^11Ss5/iFi> i V if I py^ ,2**711^
Project #:
6482010-EPA31
CCASLC34
Weiifr BIO
: PA-27D
Northing (NAD 33):
1521312
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
| Rig Type and Drilling Method') Date:
LD-2 Direct Posh i Mar 12,2002
Easting (NAD 83):
840154
Reviewed by,
Sam Yoon
! Driller- Precision Sampling | Geologist;
John Malo
Surface Elevation
(WAVD88); ^ 2
Depth Bektt G'uunfi Siis',
Tor EU v;iK»< 111,85 It amtl
UrtHlt
* D 0 h To^ of Annu'ar Sf
35Gil Top of Sandpaik /'
iB f) ft Top of Screen
Bottom of Screen
i ' ? ft B M( T >>1 C JS 'i 4
4.1 5 1 Bmteit > I HWit >(
-1 .
Surface Completion;
Size: 10"
Type. Flush bo I (down
Air Line; 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: Stainless Steel (SS>
Diameter- 2 0"
Amount, 38'
Grout; Portland
Type:
Total Amount, ? gal
Well Screen:
Type Stainless Steel
Amount: 5"
Manufacturer, Maverick
Diameter' 2'
Stot Size. 0 010
NOT TO SCALE
-------
^RattPllP CAPE CANAVERAL
W Ddneiie WELL completion diagram
- - ¦ Tct 'diii/i'r.;v T Date,
Precision Sampling I LD-2 Direct Push I Mar 20, 2002
Northing (NAD 83):
1521281
Easting (NAD 83}:
640139
Reviewed by.
Sam Yoon
| Driller: Precision Sampling j Geologist'
John Ma to j mq
Surface Elevation
(NAVD 88): 1t 2
Depth Below Ground Surface
TOC Etevatiorr.1l),95 flams!
Tor Gf Grout
100$ Top e* AnrrJar St?,a1
\
Ji*:
16 v Top L'l Sanqr.HL^ .X
19 0 ft Top of Screen
y
Bottom of Screen
ittorn of Casing
24. S ft. Bottom of Borififl
4n4r:
iff
;S£
Grout; Portland
Type: #1
Iota! Amount: 7 - 9ft
Surface Completion
Size: 10"
Type. Flush boltdown
Air Line. 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: Stainless Steel (SS)
Diameter: 2,0'
Amount: 19!
Weil Screen.
Type' Stainless Steel
Amount- 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter. 2"
Slot Size 0.010
NOT TO SCALE
-------
^RattPllP CAPE CANAVERAL
W Ddneiie WELL completion diagram
- - * iUtt*y, Tci ^11Ss5/iFi> i V. if I 28!
Project #:
G482010-EPA31
Drilling Contractor:
Precision Sampling
Site:
Weil #-
CCASLC34
BIO
PA-28I
Rig Type and Drilling Method . Date:
LD-2 Direct Push I
Mar 7, 2002
Northing (NAD 83)'
1521285
Easting (NAD 831:
840133
Reviewed by.
Sam Yoon
Driller
Precision Sampling
John Mato j
; Geologist'
MG
Surface Elevation
(IMAVD 88). 1f 2
Dcplt, Betu'A Otyurni Sv)rf.
TOC Elevation: 11,0 ft amsl
Surface Completion
Size, 10
Type. Flush boltdown
Air Line: 2" locking
Well Casing
Type: Stainless Steel (SS)
Diameter: 2.0
Amount 29'
5 rt TOLA'Umut
Grout: Portland
Type: #1
Total Amount; 7 gal - 9
li> 0 ft Tod of Anra.Iar Sea!
Too of Sandpack /
Well Screen:
Type. Stainless Steel
Amount: 5
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2
Siol Size' 0.010
29.0 ft Top of Screen
u u n Bottom of Screen
11 u SMtoT 01 Gjs>ng
54 *•> n Biitt- nr i, -t
NOT TO SCALE
-------
^RattPllP CAPE CANAVERAL
w Ddueiie WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM
- - ¦ Tct 'diii/i'r.;v T>1 C js 'i 4
4.1 5 1 Bmteit > I HWit >(
Grout: Portland
Type: #1
Total Amount, 7 gal - 9'
UrOul
U* 0 it Toe rjf Arrm'ar 3t»a'
35 fl \\ Top of SandpaiK y
5 Oft Top of Screen
TOO Elevation: 10.97 ft amsl
Well Screen:
Type Stainless Steel
Amount: 5'
Manufacturer: Maverick
Diameter: 2"
Slot Size 0 010
Surface Completion:
Size. 10*
Type Flush boltdown
Air Line. 2" locking
Well Casing:
Type: Stainless Steel (SS)
Diameter- 2 0"
Amount 38'
NOT TO SCALE
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/14/02
Boring ID BIO-SB1
Location BIO Plot
llBaneiie
Putting Technology To Wfart
Boring Diameter 2
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from — to
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine-med tan sand
Fine-med tan sand
Fine-med tan-gray sand
Fine-med gray sand, trace shell material
Fine-med gray sand, trace shell material
Fine-med gray sand, trace shell material
Fine-med gray sand, trace shell material
Fine-med gray sand, trace shell material
Fine-med gray sand, trace shell material
Fine-med gray sand, trace shell material
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Logged by: J. Sminchak
Completion Date: 1/14/02
in
in
in
ft
ft
Total Depth 42 ft
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to — ft
Grout Material Portland 4 gal
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push Vibra-core
Driller Precision
Q.
0)
Q
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
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID
Date 1/14/02 Location
Lithologic Description
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand to coarse shells
Coarse shells to silty fine gray sand
Silty-clayey fine sand
Clayey fine sand, low plasticity
Stop at 42' to avoid penetrating uncontaminated zone
BIO-SB1
BIO Plot
llBattelie
, . . Putting Technology To Work
Depth
Sample
uses
Rec.
PID
o
CO
BIO-SB1-
32
SM
75
90
BIO-SB1-
34
SM
75
105
BIO-SB1-
36
SM-
GP
75
70
BIO-SB1-
38
GP-
SP
75
19
BIO-SB1-
40
SC-
SM
50
1.8
BIO-SB1-
42
SM-
SC
75
0.0
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/23/02
Boring Diameter
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Fine tan sand to orange-tan sand
Orange-tan coarse sand
Orange-tan coarse sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine-med. gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Silty fine sand
Silty fine sand
Logged by: J. Sminchak
Completion Date: 1/23/02
Boring ID BIO-SB2
Location BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
to
Putting Technology To Wmk
in
in
in
ft
ft
Total Depth 46 ft
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to — ft
Grout Material Portland 10 gal
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push Vibra-core
Driller Precision
Q.
0)
Q
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
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB2 |lB3lt6ll6
Date 1/23/02 Location BIO Plot putting Technology to wo*
Lithologic Description
Silty fine sand Dl 32 gM 75 18 8
0... - j 32- BIO-SB2- SP- 7C „ q
Silty fine sand 34 34 SM 75 1.8
Silty gray fine sand with coarse shells 2^" B'°36B2~ qm~ ^
Silty gray fine sand with coarse shells 90 12.2
oo (jIVI
Silty-clayey fine sand and shells B'°4gB2~ qq ^0 30
Silty clayey fine sand and large shell fragments ^9~ BI°-SB2- SM- qq q q
4 Z (jU
49- RIO
Silty clayey fine sand, 1" clay lense @ 42.3, becoming more shelly ^ ~4 " ^ 100 0.0
Silty clayey fine sand and shells ^0 0.0
o
0) _
0£ Q.
Q
Terminate @ 46'
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/23/02
Boring Diameter 2
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from — to
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Fine tan sand to orange-tan sand
Orange-brown fine sand to fine gray sand
Orange-brown fine sand to fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand, trace silt
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine sand
Logged by: J. Sminchak
Completion Date: 1/23/02
Boring ID
Location
BIO-SB3
BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
Putting Technology To Wmk
in
in
in
ft
ft
46
ft
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to
Grout Material Portland 15 gal
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Driller
Q.
0)
Q
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
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/23/02
Lithologic Description
Silty fine sand
Silty fine sand
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand with shells
Silty-clayey fine sand and shells, some plasticity
Silty clayey fine sand, little plasticity
Silty clayey fine sand and shell material
Fine gray sand and shell material
Terminate (5) 46'
Boring ID
Location
BIO-SB3
BIO Plot
llBattelie
, . . Putting Technology To Work
0)
.c
Q.
CO
Q.
E
o
0)
re
(O
Q
<0
3
30-
BIO-SB3-
SP-
32
32
SM
32-
BIO-SB3-
SP-
34
34
SM
34-
BIO-SB3-
SP-
36
36
SM
36-
BIO-SB3-
SM-
38
38
GM
38-
BIO-SB3-
SC-
40
40
GC
40-
BIO-SB3-
SC-
42
42
GC
42-
BIO-SB3-
SM-
44
44
SC
44-
BIO-SB3-
SP-
46
46
GP
O
0)
75
75
75
75
90
90
g
CL
8.1
1.2
0.9
0.0
100 0.0
100 0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/24/02
Boring Diameter
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
Tan-brown fine sand
Tan fine-med sand
Tan fine-med sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand
Fine gray sand, trace silt
Silty fine gray sand
Silty fine gray sand
Logged by: J. Sminchak
Completion Date: 1/24/02
to
Boring ID BIO-SB4
Location BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
Putting Technology To Wmk
in
in
in
ft
ft
46
ft
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to
Grout Material Portland 15 gal
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Driller
Q.
0)
Q
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
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/24/02
Lithologic Description
Silty fine sand
Silty fine sand
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand with shells
Silty-clayey fine sand to sandy clay
Silty clayey fine sand to silty shells and sand
Silty clayey fine sand to silty shells and sand
Coarse shells and sand
Boring ID
Location
BIO-SB4
BIO Plot
llBattelie
, . . Putting Technology To Work
0)
.c
Q.
CO
Q.
E
o
0)
re
(O
Q
<0
3
30-
BIO-SB4-
SP-
32
32
SM
32-
BIO-SB4-
SP-
34
34
SM
34-
BIO-SB4-
SP-
36
36
SM
36-
BIO-SB4-
SM-
38
38
GM
38-
BIO-SB4-
SC-
40
40
GC
40-
BIO-SB4-
SC-
42
42
GC
42-
BIO-SB4-
SM-
44
44
SC
44-
BIO-SB4-
SP-
46
46
GP
O
0)
75
g
CL
75 5.3
75 1.2
75 NA
NA
90 NA
90 NA
90 0.0
90 0.0
Terminate (5) 46'
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB5
Date 2/4/02 Location BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
Putting Technology To Wmk
Boring Diameter 2 in
Casing Outer Diameter — in
Casing Inner Diameter — in
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length — ft
Screen Depth from — to — ft
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
White to It brown sand
Lt brown fine sand to peach med sand
Lt brown fine sand to peach med sand
Peach med. sand to It gray fine sand
Lt gray med sand to It gray sand
Lt gray fine sand to It brownish gray med sand
Lt gray med sand to fine sand
Lt gray fine sand, trace shells
Lt gray fine sand, 1" layer of coarse sand to It gray fine sand
Lt gray fine sand, trace shells
Lt. Gray fine sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
Logged by: L. Cumming
Completion Date: 2/4/02
42
ft
to
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from
Grout Material
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Drilling Method
Driller
Q.
0)
Q
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
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 2/4/02
Boring ID
Location
BIO-SB5
BIO Plot
llBattelie
, . . Putting Technology To Work
Lithologic Description
Depth
Q.
E
re
<0
uses
(J
0)
ai
Q
CL
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
o
CO
BIO-SB5-
32
SM
75
NA
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
32-
34
BIO-SB5-
34
SM
100
NA
Silty gray fine sand with shells
34-
36
BIO-SB5-
36
SM
100
NA
Silty gray fine sand with shells
36-
38
BIO-SB5-
38
SM
100
NA
Silty sand with coarse sand, some clay
38-
40
BIO-SB5-
40
SM-
SC
100
NA
Silty sand with coarse sand, some clay
40-
42
BIO-SB5-
42
SM-
SC
100
NA
End of core
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 2/5/02
Boring ID
Location
BIO-SB6
BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
Putting Technology To Wmk
Boring Diameter 2 in
Casing Outer Diameter — in
Casing Inner Diameter — in
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length — ft
Screen Depth from — to — ft
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
White to It brown sand
Lt brown fine sand to peach med sand
Lt brown fine-med sand
Grayish brown-gray fine to med sand, thin layer of shells at top
Gray fine-med sand
Gray fine-med sand, trace shells
Gray fine-med sand, trace shells, odor
Gray fine sand, trace shells, odor
Gray fine sand, trace shells, strong odor
Gray fine sand, trace shells, silty, stong odor
Silty gray fine sand
Silty gray fine sand
Total Depth 42 ft
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to — ft
Grout Material
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Drilling Method
Driller
Logged by: L. Cumming
Completion Date: 2/5/02
Q.
0)
Q
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
aj
Q.
E
re
2000
1720
10
0
SP
SP 75
BIO-SB6
26
SP 75
BIO-SB6- SP-
28 SM
BIO-SB6- SP-
30 SM
2577
1885
75 3868
75 3413
Construction Notes: 4' Macro-core
w/ acetate sleeves, duplicate= bio-sb6-
28dup, bio-sb6-rinseate
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID
Date 2/5/02 Location
Lithologic Description
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand with shells
Silty gray fine sand with shells
Silty sand with coarse sand, some clay
Silty sand with coarse sand, some clay
BI°"SB6 llBattelie
BIO Plot • • • Putting Technology To Work
Depth
Sample
uses
Rec.
PID
o
CO
BIO-SB6-
32
SM
100
11375
32-
34
BIO-SB6-
34
SM
75
3218
34-
36
BIO-SB6-
36
SM-
GM
100
13032
36-
BIO-SB6-
SM-
100
8450
38
38
GM
38-
BIO-SB6-
SM-
75
4095
40
40
GM
40-
BIO-SB6-
GM
100
4875
42
42
-GC
End of core
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB7
Date 2/6/02 Location BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
Putting Technology To Wmk
Boring Diameter 2 in
Casing Outer Diameter — in
Casing Inner Diameter — in
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length — ft
Screen Depth from — to — ft
Lithologic Description
Hand auger fine tan sand
White to It brown fine-med sand
Lt brown med-coarse sand to shells to It brown fine-med. sand
Lt brown fine-med sand
Lt gray fine to med sand, little shells
Lt gray fine-med sand, trace shells
Lt gray fine-med sand, trace shells
Lt gray fine-med sand, trace shells
Lt gray fine sand, trace shells, slight odor
Lt gray fine sand, 1" layer of med sand at top
Lt gray med sand, to It gray fine sand, trace shells, stong odor
Silty fine gray sand with trace shells
Silty fine gray sand with trace shells
Logged by: L. Cumming
Completion Date: 2/6/02
42
ft
to
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from
Grout Material
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Drilling Method
Driller
Q.
0)
Q
0-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 2/6/02
Lithologic Description
Silty gray fine sand, 1" layer med sand
Silty gray fine-med sand, trace shells
Silty gray fine sand with med-coarse shells
Silty fine sand with med-coarse shells, little shells in bottom 2"
Silty fine sand with med-coarse shells
Silty fine sand with med-coarse shells
End of core
Boring ID BIO-SB7
Location BIO Plot
llBattelie
, . . Putting Technology To Work
aj
¦E
Q.
•*->
Q.
E
0)
re
Q
<0
30-
BIO-SB7-
32
32
32-
BIO-SB7-
34
34
34-
BIO-SB7-
36
36
36-
BIO-SB7-
38
38
38-
BIO-SB7-
40
40
40-
BIO-SB7-
42
42
CO
o O
CO 0)
SM-
GM
g
CL
SM 60 2275
SM 100 1982
SM 100 6500
SM 100 4072
100 3250
SM 100 815
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/21/02
Boring ID
Location
BIO-WP1
BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
Putting Technology To Wmk
Boring Diameter
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from
Lithologic Description
Hand auger tan fine sand
to
in
in
in
ft
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth
Grout Material
Grout Depth
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push
Driller Precision
38
ft
from — to — ft
Portland 10 gal
from 0 to Depth ft
Q.
0)
Q
0-5
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 1/22/02
Boring ID
Location
BIO-WP2
BIO Plot
llBaifeiie
Putting Technology To Wmk
Boring Diameter
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from
Lithologic Description
Hand auger tan fine sand
to
in
in
in
ft
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth
Grout Material
Grout Depth
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push
Driller Precision
38
ft
from — to — ft
Portland 10 gal
from 0 to Depth ft
Q.
0)
Q
0-5
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB202
Date 6/17/03 Location BIO Plot
Boring Diameter 2 in
Casing Outer Diameter — in
Casing Inner Diameter — in
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length — ft
Screen Depth from — to — ft
Lithologic Description
Hand auger 0-4 ft. tan sand
Light gray medium sand
Top 2 " Light gray medium sand, ~6-7 ft orange-brown med. sand,
7-8 orange-brown coarse sand
8-9 ft no recovery
9-10 ft light brown-orange medium sand
10-11 ft light brown-orange medium sand to coarse sand
11-12 ft gray fine sand
12-13 ft brown coarse sand with trace shells
13-14 ft gray fine sand
14-16 gray fine sand, bio odor?
16-16.5 ft brown coarse sand
16.5-18 ft gray medium-fine sand
18-20 ft gray fine sand
20-21 ft no recovery
21-22 ft gray medium fine sand
22-24 ft gray fine sand (bio odor?)
24-25 ft no recovery
25-26 ft gray fine sand
26-27.5 ft gray silty fine sand
27.5-28 ft coarse gray silty sand with shells (2") gray silty fine sand
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth
Grout Material
Grout Depth
Surface Completion
Drilling Method
Driller
42
ft
Q.
0)
Q
0-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-
12
12-
14
14-
16
16-
18
18-
20
20-
22
22-
24
24-
26
26-
28
from — to — ft
Portland 6 gal.
from 0 to Depth ft
Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/17/03
Boring ID BIO-SB202
Location BIO Plot
Lithologic Description
Depth
Sample
uses
(J
0)
0£
Q
CL
28-29 ft no recovery
29-30 ft gray silty fine sand
28-30
BIO-
SB202-30
SP-
SM
50
362
30-31 ft gray silty fine sand
31-32 ft gray silty fine sand with trace shells
30-32
BIO-
SB202-32
SP-
SM
100
953
No recovery
32-34
BIO-
SB202-34
—
0
—
Silty fine gray sand with trace shells
34-36
BIO-
SB202-36
SM-
SP
100
4492
1005
No recovery
36-38
BIO-
SB202-38
—
0
—
Gray silt with shells
38-40
BIO-
SB202-40
SM-
GM
100
1192
Gray clayey silt with trace shells
40-42
BIO-
SB202-42
SM-
SC
100
702
-stop at 42' to avoid penetrating confining layer-
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB205
Date 6/18/03 Location BIO Plot
Boring Diameter
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from
in
in
in
ft
to
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth
Grout Material
Grout Depth
Surface Completion
Drilling Method
Driller
45
ft
Lithologic Description
Hand auger 0-6 ft. tan sand
6.5-7 ft light gray medium coarse sand
7-8 ft orange brown medium sand
8-9 ft orange brown medium sand
9-10 ft orange brown coarse sand to brown med sand
Brown medium sand
12-13 ft gray medium sand
13-14 ft gray med-coarse sand, 3" coarse sand at 13.5 ft.
14-15 ft brown medium sand
15-16 ft gray coarse sand with trace shells
16-17 ft dark gray coarse sand with shells, 2" band of dk gray at 16'
17-18 gray fine sand
<30% recovery, combined approx 2" of soil with SB205-22
20-22 ft gray fine sand
<30% recovery, combined approx 2" of soil with SB205-26
24-25.5 ft gray fine sand
25.5-26 ft gray silty fine sand (strong odor, not TCE, maybe bio?)
gray silty fine sand
28-29 ft gray silty fine sand
29-30 ft gray silty sand with trace shells
Q.
0)
Q
0-6
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 — to — ft
Portland 6 gal.
from 0 to Depth ft
Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
aj
Q.
E
re
9999
Logged by: M. Gaberell
Completion Date: 6/18/03
Construction Notes: 4' Macro-core
acetate sleeves, rinseate = BIO-SB205
-Rinsate, Dup = BIO-SB202-40DUP
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB205
Date 6/18/03 Location BIO Plot
Lithologic Description
Depth
Sample
uses
(J
0)
0£
Q
CL
30-31 ft no recovery
31-32 ft gray silty fine sand
30-32
BIO-
SB202-32
SP-
SM
50
>9999
32-33 ft gray silty fine sand with trace shells
33-34 ft gray silty fine sand with coarse shells
32-34
BIO-
SB202-34
SM-
GM
100
>9999
No recovery
34-36
BIO-
SB202-36
—
0
—
36-37.5 ft gray silty fine sand with trace shells
37.5-38 ft gray silty fine sand
36-38
BIO-
SB202-38
SM-
GM
100
>9999
38-40 ft very wet, gray silty fine sand with many shells, tee odor
38-40
BIO-
SB202-40
SM-
GC
100
>9999
40-42 ft gray silty fine sand with many shells, very wet, tee odor
40-42
BIO-
SB202-42
SM-
GC
100
>9999
42-45 ft gray silty fine sand with significant shells and noticeable
clay at bottom
42-45
BIO-
SB202-45
SM-
SC
100
>9999
End of core
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB206
Date 6/19/03 Location BIO Plot
Boring Diameter
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from
Lithologic Description
Hand auger 0-4 ft. tan sand
to
in
in
in
ft
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth
Grout Material
Grout Depth
Surface Completion
Drilling Method
Driller
Q.
0)
Q
40
ft
from — to — ft
Portland 6 gal.
from 0 to Depth ft
Grout flush
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
0-4
aj
Q.
E
re
20 —
SP 100 54.7
SP 90 74.9
SP 100 62.9
0
SP 100 0.0
SP 100 39.2
SP 0
SP 75 88.2
100 161
Construction Notes: 4' Macro-core
acetate sleeves, rinseate = BIO-SB206
-Rinsate, Dup = BIO-SB206-22DUP
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID
Date 6/19/03 Location
Lithologic Description
Gray fine sand, apricot odor
30-31.5 ft gray silty fine sand
31.5-32 ft gray silty fine sand with trace shells, apricot odor
Gray silty fine sand, very wet
Gray silty fine sand, with trace shells, very wet
Gray silty fine sand with shells, very wet
Gray clayey sand with shells, very wet, bottom 2" clay
-stop at 40'-
BIO-SB206
BIO Plot
Q.
0)
Q
0)
Q.
(O
E
o
re
(O
<0
3
BIO-
SP-
SB206-30
SM
BIO-
SP-
SB206-32
SM
BIO-
SP-
SB206-34
SM
BIO-
SP-
SB206-36
SM
BIO-
SP-
SB206-38
SM
BIO-
SM-
SB206-40
SC
o
0)
0£
100
100
90
100
100
100
g
CL
362
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/17/03
Boring ID BIO-SB207
Location BIO Plot
Boring Diameter
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from
Lithologic Description
in
in
in
40
ft
ft
ft
to
ft
Total Depth
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to
Grout Material Portland 6 gal.
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Driller
aj
Q.
<0
o
0)
Q
re
<0
(O
3
0)
0£
Hand auger 0-4 ft. tan sand
0-4
none
SP
—
Brown coarse sand
4-6
none
SP
—
Brown orange medium coarse sand
6-8
BIO-
SB207-8
SP
100
<20% recovery
8-10
—
—
<20
Brown-orange coarse sand, dark brown medium sand (2" band)
Tan medium sand
10-
12
BIO-
SB207-12
SP
100
Tan medium-coarse sand
12-
14
BIO-
SB207-14
SP
100
Gray medium-coarse sand
14-
16
BIO-
SB207-16
SP
100
No recovery
16-
18
—
—
0
18-19.5 ft gray medium sand, gray coarse sand (3" band), gray fine
sand
18-
20
BIO-
SB207-20
SP
100
Gray medium to fine sand, very wet
20-
22
BIO-
SB207-22
SP
90
Gray medium-fine sand, very wet
22-
24
BIO-
SB207-24
SP
100
<20% recovery, sampled 2" with BIO-sb207-28
24-
26
—
—
<20%
26-26.4 ft gray medium-fine sand
26.4-28 ft gray medium fine sand with trace shells
26-
28
BIO-
SB207-28
SP
100
g
a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
2925
1795
Logged by: M. Gaberell
Completion Date: 6/20/03
Construction Notes: 4' Macro-core
acetate sleeves, rinseate = BIO-SB207
-Rinsate, Dup = BIO-SB207-28DUP
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/20/03
Boring ID
Location
BIO-SB207
BIO Plot
Lithologic Description
Gray silty fine sand
Gray silty fine sand
Gray silty fine sand
Gray silty fine sand, very wet
36-37 ft gray silty fine sand, very wet
37-38 ft gray silty fine sand with trace shells, very wet
Gray silty fine sand with shells, significant clay visible in bottom 2
inches, very wet
Q.
0)
Q
0)
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet Boring ID BIO-SB210
Date 6/18/03 Location BIO Plot
Boring Diameter 2 in
Casing Outer Diameter — in
Casing Inner Diameter — in
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length — ft
Screen Depth from — to — ft
Lithologic Description
Not sampled
No recovery
No recovery
Brown coarse sand
Gray medium sand, 1" gray coarse sand band at 15.5 ft
No recovery
No recovery
Fine gray sand
19-19.5 ft Gray fine sand
19.5-20 ft Coarse gray sand with trace shells
No recovery
Gray coarse sand with shells
Gray silty fine sand with trace shells
Gray fine sand with coarse shells
Logged by: M. Gaberell
Completion Date: 6/18/03
Total Depth 30 ft
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to — ft
Grout Material Portland
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method
Driller
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
aj
¦E
Q.
•*->
Q.
E
0)
re
Q
<0
0-12
none
12-
13
13-
14
14-
BIO-
15
SB210-15
15-
BIO-
16
SB210-16
16-
17
17-
18
18-
BIO-
19
SB210-19
19-
BIO-
20
SB210-20
20-
21
21-
BIO-
22
SB210-22
22-
BIO-
23
SB210-23
23-
BIO-
24
SB210-24
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/18/03
Boring ID BIO-SB210
Location BIO Plot
0)
Lithologic Description ~ |
a) as
a co
No recovery 24-25
BIO
Gray medium fine sand with trace shells 25-26 sb210~-26
BIO
Gray fine sand 26-27 sb210~-27
BIO
Gray fine sand 27-28 sb210~-28
BIO
Gray fine sand, TCE odor 28-29 sb210~-29
BIO
Gray fine sand, TCE odor 29-30 sb210~-30
-end of core (5) 30'-
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/19/03
Boring ID BIO-SB211
Location BIO Plot
Boring Diameter 2 in
Casing Outer Diameter — in
Casing Inner Diameter — in
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length — ft
Screen Depth from — to
Lithologic Description
0-12 ft no sample, not logged
No recovery
No recovery
Brown medium coarse sand
3" brown medium coarse sand
gray medium coarse sand to medium sand
No recovery
Gray medium sand, apricot odor
Gray medium sand, apricot odor
Gray medium sand, apricot odor
No recovery
Gray coarse sand, gray fine sand, apricot odor
Gray medium fine sand, apricot odor
Gray medium fine sand, apricot odor
Logged by: M. Gaberell
Completion Date: 6/19/03
ft
Total Depth 30 ft
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to — ft
Grout Material Portland 6 gal.
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method Direct Push Vibra-core
Driller Precision
aj
¦E
Q.
•*->
Q.
E
0)
re
Q
<0
0-12
none
12-
13
none
13-
14
none
14-
BIO-
15
SB211-15
15-
BIO-
16
SB211-16
16-
BIO-
17
SB211-17
17-
BIO-
18
SB211-18
18-
BIO-
19
SB211-19
19-
BIO-
20
SB211-20
20-
BIO-
21
SB211-21
21-
BIO-
22
SB211-22
22-
BIO-
23
SB211-23
23-
BIO-
24
SB211-24
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/19/03
Lithologic Description
No recovery
No recovery
Gray fine sand, apricot odor
Gray fine sand, apricot odor
Gray fine sand, apricot odor
Gray silty fine sand, apricot odor
Boring ID BIO-SB211
Location BIO Plot
Q.
0)
Q
24-25
25-26
26-27
27-28
28-29
29-30
aj
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/20/03
Boring Diameter 2
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from — to
Lithologic Description
Waterloo Profile
Collect Sample BIO-WP-201-18 @15:04
Collect Sample BIO-WP-201-24 @15:31
Collect Sample BIO-WP-201-33 @16:00
Collect Sample BIO-WP-201-38 @16:16
Boring ID
Location
BIO-WP201
BIO Plot
in
in
in
ft
ft
Total Depth 38 ft
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to — ft
Grout Material Portland
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method
Driller
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Q.
0)
Q
0)
Q.
E
re
-------
LC34 Coring Logsheet
Date 6/21/03
Boring Diameter 2
Casing Outer Diameter
Casing Inner Diameter
Casing Material
Screen Type
Screen Slot
Screen Length
Screen Depth from — to
Lithologic Description
Waterloo Profile
Collect Sample BIO-WP-202-18 @08:25
Collect Sample BIO-WP-202-24 @08:39
Collect Sample BIO-WP-202-33 @08:57
Collect Sample BIO-WP-202-38 @10:00
Boring ID
Location
BIO-WP202
BIO Plot
in
in
in
ft
ft
Total Depth 38 ft
Sand Pack
Sand Pack Depth from — to — ft
Grout Material Portland
Grout Depth from 0 to Depth ft
Surface Completion Grout flush
Drilling Method
Driller
Direct Push Vibra-core
Precision
Q.
0)
Q
0)
Q.
E
re
-------
Appendix C
CVOC Measurements
Table C-1a. CVOC Monitoring Results of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Demonstration (|jg/L)
Table C-1b. CVOC Monitoring Results of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Demonstration (mmole/L)
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Pre-Demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Post-Demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot
Table C-4. Long-Term Monitoring Results in Treatment Plot
Table C-5 Monitoring Results of CVOCs and Dechlorination Products in PA-26
Table C-6 Results of Extracted Groundwater for Chloroethene and Ethene Concentrations at the
Influent Sample Port (SP-4) of Carbon Tanks
-------
Table C-la. CVOC Monitoring Results of the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Demonstration
TCE (jig/L)
cis -1,2-DCE (jig/L)
Well ID
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
1,220,000
7,460
13,800
239
31,600
94,700
19,400
780
PA-26-DUP
NA
7,180
NA
158
NA
85,600
NA
757
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
659,000
347,000
379,000
168,000
67,300
16,900
186,000
219,000
PA-27I
565,000
690,000
906,000
1,110,000
41,300
7,030
5,430
7,820
PA-27D
394,000
665,000
1,020,000
919,000
64,100
8,080
6,180
8,030
PA-28S
801,000
69,200
68,200
67,500
28,100
95,100
162,000
136,000
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
55,200
NA
NA
NA
154,000
NA
PA-28I
620,000
512,000
838,000
912,000
87,600
88,200
100,000
225,000
PA-28D
79,600
89,200
46,700
4,730
169,000
178,000
98,200
179,000
Injection & Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
117,000
95,200
NA
NA
30,100
53,000
NA
BIW-2
105,000
117,000
93,000
<20
45,700
30,000
54,300
11,800
BEW
NA
109,000
946,000
NA
NA
29,300
56,800
NA
BEW-2
111,000
5,750
79,600
227
55,600
3,360
65,400
19,800
trans- 1,2-DC'E (jig/L)
Vinyl chloride (jig/L)
Well ID
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
<1,000
350
419
436
<1,000
3,430
103,000
8,040
PA-26-DUP
NA
424
NA
427
NA
4,050
NA
6,840
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
300 J
320 J
420 J
822
520
100 J
28,700
52,800
PA-27I
340 J
50 J
<1,000
<1,000
<500
200 J
230 J
<1,000
PA-27D
240 J
<500
<1,000
<1,000
<500
<500
<1,000
<1,000
PA-28S
170 J
321
480
360 J
<1,000
7,420
55,800
37,200
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
512
NA
NA
NA
55,000
NA
PA-28I
280 J
270 J
290 J
820 J
<500
140 J
160 J
880 J
PA-28D
410
813
362
764
34 J
134
1,510
8,550
Injection & Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
127
333
NA
NA
185
17,100
NA
BIW-2
370
139
307
428
161
179
16,400
30,900
BEW
NA
158
345
NA
NA
224
18,200
NA
BEW-2
206
24.4
409
464
325
69
17,600
44,900
NA: Not available.
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit.
Shading denotes that the level is exceeding or close to the saturation point (i.e. free-phase)
at TCE solubility of 1,100 mg/L.
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Post-Demo: June 2003.
BIW and BEW: BIW and BEW samples were collected from the combined ports.
S: designates shallow wells with the screen depths located in Upper Sand Unit.
I: desginates for intermediate wells with the screen depths located in Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
D: designates deep wells with the screen depths located in Lower Sand Unit.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table C-lb. CVOC Monitoring Results of the Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation
Demonstration
TL'K (mmole/L)
c/s-l,2-DC'E (mmole/L)
Well ID
Pre-Demo
Dec 2002
Mar 2003
Post-Demo
Pre-Demo
Dec 2002
Mar 2003
Post-Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
9.31
0.06
0.11
0.00
0.33
0.98
0.20
0.01
PA-26-DUP
NA
0.05
NA
0.00
NA
0.88
NA
0.01
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
5.03
2.65
2.89
1.28
0.69
0.17
1.92
2.26
PA-27I
4.31
5.27
6.92
8.47
0.43
0.07
0.06
0.08
PA-27D
3.01
5.08
7.79
7.02
0.66
0.08
0.06
0.08
PA-28S
6.11
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.29
0.98
1.67
1.40
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
0.42
NA
NA
NA
1.59
NA
PA-28I
4.73
3.91
6.40
6.96
0.90
0.91
1.03
2.32
PA-28D
0.61
0.68
0.36
0.04
1.74
1.84
1.01
1.85
Injection & Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
0.89
0.73
NA
NA
0.31
0.55
NA
BIW-2
0.80
0.89
0.71
<0.01
0.47
0.31
0.56
0.12
BEW
NA
0.83
7.22
NA
NA
0.30
0.59
NA
BEW-2
0.85
0.04
0.61
0.00
0.57
0.03
0.67
0.20
trans -1,2-DCE (mmole/L)
Vinyl chloride (mmole/L)
Well ID
Pre-Demo
Dec 2002
Mar 2003
Post-Demo
Pre-Demo
Dec 2002
Mar 2003
Post-Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
<0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.02
0.06
1.64
0.13
PA-26-DUP
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
NA
0.07
NA
0.11
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.46
0.84
PA-27I
0.01
0.01
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.02
PA-27D
0.01
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
PA-28S
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.02
0.12
0.89
0.60
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.88
NA
PA-28I
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
PA-28D
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.14
Injection & Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.28
NA
BIW-2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.27
0.50
BEW
NA
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.29
NA
BEW-2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.28
0.72
NA: Not available.
J: Estimated value, below reporting limit.
Shading denotes that the level is exceeding or close to the saturation point (i.e. free-phase)
at or near TCE solubility of 1,100 mg/L (8.40 m mole/L).
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Post-Demo: June 2003.
BIW and BEW: BIW and BEW samples were collected from the combined ports.
S: designates shallow wells with the screen depths located in Upper Sand Unit.
I: desginates for intermediate wells with the screen depths located in Middle Fine-Grained Unit.
D: designates deep wells with the screen depths located in Lower Sand Unit.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Pre-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-1-8 (SS)
6
8
1/14/2002
189
104
94
180
0
75J
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-10
8
10
1/14/2002
194
131
110
844
2
556
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-12
10
12
1/14/2002
191
146
131
488
1
244
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-14
12
14
1/14/2002
192
147
129
6,340
13
4,660
9
<100
ND
49J
0
BIO-SB-1-16
14
16
1/14/2002
195
78
71
3,650
13
2,000
7
<100
ND
18J
0
BIO-SB-1-18
16
18
1/14/2002
191
117
111
2,650
6
2,340
5
<100
ND
37 J
0
BIO-SB-1-20
18
20
1/14/2002
190
143
127
4,000
8
7,080
14
24J
0
171
0
BIO-SB-1-22
20
22
1/14/2002
191
88
77
6,500
21
5,830
19
23J
0
117
0
BIO-SB-1-22-DUP
20
22
1/14/2002
193
79
69
4,090
15
4,630
17
13J
0
100
0
BIO-SB-1-24
22
24
1/14/2002
190
100
86
43,200
128
2,660
8
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-26
24
26
1/14/2002
193
73
62
64,300
265
2,760
11
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-28
26
28
1/14/2002
190
79
63
75,600
308
3,150
13
10J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-30
28
30
1/14/2002
191
95
72
117,000
430
2,950
11
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-32
30
32
1/14/2002
194
170
135
75,100 S
156
10,800 S
22
39J
0
20J
0
BIO-SB-1-34
32
34
1/14/2002
191
81
71
7,390
26
9,940
35
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-36
34
36
1/14/2002
193
119
104
205
1
6,670
17
45J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-38
36
38
1/14/2002
192
123
98
435
1
9,560
26
63J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-40
38
40
1/14/2002
192
126
96
<100
ND
6,070
17
55J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-42
40
42
1/14/2002
194
106
83
<100
ND
2,470
8
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-MB (SS)
Lab Blank
1/14/2002
195
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-1-RINSATE
EQ
1/14/2002
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
BIO-SB-2-8 (SS)
6
8
1/23/2002
190
103
101
140
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-10
8
10
1/23/2002
191
114
99
587
2
268
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-12
10
12
1/23/2002
192
118
106
1,500
4
653
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-14
12
14
1/23/2002
190
141
119
5,710
13
3,040
7
<100
ND
19J
0
BIO-SB-2-14-DUP
12
14
1/23/2002
192
158
134
6,650
13
3,550
7
<100
ND
24J
0
BIO-SB-2-16
14
16
1/23/2002
191
141
131
23,100
44
5,690
11
24J
0
30J
0
BIO-SB-2-18
16
18
1/23/2002
190
210
176
47,200
74
5,120
8
30J
0
29J
0
BIO-SB-2-20
18
20
1/23/2002
190
164
146
44,100
78
4,680
8
19J
0
22J
0
BIO-SB-2-22
20
22
1/23/2002
191
163
135
45,700
91
6,830
14
24J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-24
22
24
1/23/2002
191
101
87
51,700
152
1,680
5
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-26
24
26
1/23/2002
191
107
96
66,000
174
2,290
6
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-28
26
28
1/23/2002
192
123
79
132,000
480
1,690
6
10J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-30
28
30
1/23/2002
191
174
137
196,000
399
2,470
5
<200
ND
<200
ND
BIO-SB-2-32
30
32
1/23/2002
191
156
112
176,000
449
5,270
13
<200
ND
<200
ND
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Pre-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot (Continued)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-2-34
32
34
1/23/2002
192
114
94
67,700
189
6,880
19
20J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-36
34
36
1/23/2002
191
201
168
58,500
96
20,200
33
58J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-38
36
38
1/23/2002
192
222
172
90,700
155
35,300
60
102
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-40
38
40
1/23/2002
192
207
156
130,000
245
17,500
33
57 J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-42
40
42
1/23/2002
192
145
100
83,800
241
26,900
77
81J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-44
42
44
1/23/2002
193
131
101
684
2
18,300
50
71J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-46
44
46
1/23/2002
192
110
85
805
3
5,31 OS
17
17J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-MB (SS)
Lab Blank
1/23/2002
191
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-2-RINSATE
EQ
1/23/2002
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
BIO-SB-3-8 (SS)
6
8
1/23/2002
187
83
85
127
0
11J
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-10
8
10
1/23/2002
187
89
83
189
1
51J
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-12
10
12
1/23/2002
188
127
116
480
1
153
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-14
12
14
1/23/2002
189
144
125
4,080
8
1,930
4
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-16
14
16
1/23/2002
192
111
96
8,830
24
3,090
8
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-18
16
18
1/23/2002
191
113
100
3,240
8
1,630
4
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-18-DUP
16
18
1/23/2002
195
107
94
12,100
33
3,060
8
<100
ND
23J
0
BIO-SB-3-20
18
20
1/23/2002
192
119
99
6,400
17
3,180
8
<100
ND
45J
0
BIO-SB-3-22
20
22
1/23/2002
194
94
74
14,100
51
3,460
12
12J
0
24J
0
BIO-SB-3-24
22
24
1/23/2002
191
110
95
29,700
80
2,700
7
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-26
24
26
1/23/2002
191
106
95
31,100
83
2,870
8
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-28
26
28
1/23/2002
192
143
120
63,100 S
140
4,600
10
18J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-30
28
30
1/23/2002
192
136
108
92,800
233
7,470
19
23J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-32
30
32
1/23/2002
192
107
86
32,300
99
13,600
42
40J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-34
32
34
1/23/2002
192
98
83
294
1
13,400
42
44J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-36
34
36
1/23/2002
192
153
131
185
0
5,730
12
37 J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-38
36
38
1/23/2002
191
132
101
115
0
3,340
9
29J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-40
38
40
1/23/2002
192
121
90
170
1
24J
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-42
40
42
1/23/2002
192
140
111
113
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-44
42
44
1/23/2002
192
140
110
112
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-46
44
46
1/23/2002
196
146
124
137
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-MB (SS)
Lab Blank
1/23/2002
194
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-3-RINSATE
EQ
1/23/2002
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
BIO-SB-4-8 (SS)
6
8
1/24/2002
195
100
107
113
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-10
8
10
1/24/2002
194
125
87
291
1
84J
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-12
10
12
1/24/2002
195
160
142
487
1
177
0
<100 S
ND
<100
ND
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Pre-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot (Continued)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-4-14
12
14
1/24/2002
196
128
111
4,280
10
2,520
6
<100
ND
39J
0
BIO-SB-4-16
14
16
1/24/2002
195
104
100
10,100
25
3,190
8
11J
0
25J
0
BIO-SB-4-18
16
18
1/24/2002
195
100
93
10,200
28
3,240
9
16J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-20
18
20
1/24/2002
196
170
144
18,000
34
4,530
9
26J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-22
20
22
1/24/2002
195
103
85
38,600
120
3,960
12
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-24
22
24
1/24/2002
195
119
101
37,600
99
2,580
7
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-26
24
26
1/24/2002
195
94
78
51,300
173
1,860
6
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-28
26
28
1/24/2002
195
109
91
102,000
297
3,450
10
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-30
28
30
1/24/2002
193
143
116
173,000
405
3,460
8
<100
ND
15J
0
BIO-SB-4-32
30
32
1/24/2002
195
94
77
52,200
179
10,300
35
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-34
32
34
1/24/2002
194
143
118
4,570
10
25,500
58
86J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-36
34
36
1/24/2002
194
93
78
<100
ND
9,230
31
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-38
36
38
1/24/2002
194
121
98
<100
ND
8,470
23
39J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-40
38
40
1/24/2002
195
144
109
<100
ND
6,960
18
30J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-42
40
42
1/24/2002
189
98
75
<100
ND
1,100
4
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-42-DUP
40
42
1/24/2002
189
103
81
<100
ND
1,110
4
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-44
42
44
1/24/2002
194
133
100
<100
ND
170
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-46
44
46
1/24/2002
194
140
121
<100
ND
171
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-MB (SS)
Lab Blank
1/24/2002
194
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-4-RINSATE
EQ
1/24/2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-5-8 (SS)
6
8
2/4/2002
195
75
77
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-10
8
10
2/4/2002
195
108
97
170
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-12
10
12
2/4/2002
194
103
94
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-14
12
14
2/4/2002
194
106
93
259
1
158
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-16
14
16
2/4/2002
196
117
101
5,090
13
1,820
5
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-18
16
18
2/4/2002
194
118
103
15,900
40
2,770
7
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-20
18
20
2/4/2002
195
107
97
211,000
559
3,090
8
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-22
20
22
2/4/2002
188
126
107
80,700
194
2,140
5
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-24
22
24
2/4/2002
193
134
116
425,000
961
2,590
6
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-26
24
26
2/4/2002
195
132
111
81,800
197
1,320
3
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-28
26
28
2/4/2002
195
101
83
93,900
300
855
3
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-30
28
30
2/4/2002
193
134
104
175,000
462
1,020
3
<100
ND
16J
0
BIO-SB-5-32
30
32
2/4/2002
194
137
113
1,690,000
4,032
3,140
7
<1,000
ND
<1,000
ND
BIO-SB-5-34
32
34
2/4/2002
195
125
104
151,000
389
1,450
4
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-36
34
36
2/4/2002
196
173
142
113,000
222
5,400
11
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-38
36
38
2/4/2002
194
107
89
104,000
308
8,140
24
13J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-38-DUP
36
38
2/4/2002
193
82
73
82,600
287
4,940
17
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-40
38
40
2/4/2002
193
248
183
296,000
500
12,700
21
28J
0
<100
ND
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Pre-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot (Continued)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-5-42
40
42
2/4/2002
195
179
138
177,000
369
5,960
12
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-MB (SS)
Lab Blank
2/4/2002
193
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-5-RINSATE
EQ
2/4/2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-6-8 (SS)
6
8
2/5/2002
194
68
69
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-10
8
10
2/5/2002
190
88
78
666
2
625
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-12
10
12
2/5/2002
193
142
137
1,200
2
1,080
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-14
12
14
2/5/2002
194
138
122
447
1
478
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-16
14
16
2/5/2002
192
97
82
1,700
5
907
3
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-18
16
18
2/5/2002
193
115
100
4,370
11
1,410
4
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-20
18
20
2/5/2002
193
135
116
42,100
96
4,700
11
12J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-22
20
22
2/5/2002
193
177
151
58,800
105
5,800
10
18J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-24
22
24
2/5/2002
191
148
133
84,200
163
1,690
3
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-26
24
26
2/5/2002
194
129
109
95,000
231
808
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-28
26
28
2/5/2002
195
109
88
138,000
420
719
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-28-DUP
26
28
2/5/2002
193
78
66
93,000
361
472
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-30
28
30
2/5/2002
195
130
98
141,000
401
721
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-32
30
32
2/5/2002
195
112
91
698,000
2,054
1,120
3
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-34
32
34
2/5/2002
194
108
101
99,900
250
471
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-36
34
36
2/5/2002
193
142
122
962,000
2,084
640J
0
<1,000
ND
<1,000
ND
BIO-SB-6-38
36
38
2/5/2002
192
140
113
1,260,000
3,011
910J
0
<1,000
ND
<1,000
ND
BIO-SB-6-40
38
40
2/5/2002
193
186
136
294,000
636
457
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-42
40
42
2/5/2002
194
155
129
183,000
385
288
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-MB (SS)
Lab Blank
2/5/2002
191
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-6-RINSATE
EQ
2/5/2002
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
BIO-SB-7-8 (SS)
6
8
2/6/2002
196
71
72
174
1
35J
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-10
8
10
2/6/2002
194
132
117
736
2
713
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-12
10
12
2/6/2002
194
136
120
1,290
3
1,180
3
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-14
12
14
2/6/2002
195
132
114
3,090
7
2,620
6
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-16
14
16
2/6/2002
195
122
109
2,630
6
2,700
6
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-18
16
18
2/6/2002
192
119
104
2,900
7
1,940
5
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-20
18
20
2/6/2002
192
177
132
8,670
19
4,550
10
19J
0
44J
0
BIO-SB-7-22
20
22
2/6/2002
193
116
102
5,820
15
3,400
9
12J
0
34J
0
BIO-SB-7-22-DUP
20
22
2/6/2002
195
95
86
4,830
14
2,440
7
<100
ND
22J
0
BIO-SB-7-24
22
24
2/6/2002
192
118
100
61,300
160
1,800
5
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-26
24
26
2/6/2002
191
124
102
3,220,000
8,327
4,460
12
64J
0
<100
ND
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-2. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Pre-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot (Continued)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-7-28
26
28
2/6/2002
193
139
113
428,000
1,024
1,190
3
11J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-30
28
30
2/6/2002
194
122
101
160,000
422
929
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-32
30
32
2/6/2002
192
124
103
129,000
331
672
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-34
32
34
2/6/2002
193
137
117
111,000
251
618
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-36
34
36
2/6/2002
192
241
196
425,000
625
7,620
11
<500
ND
<500
ND
BIO-SB-7-38
36
38
2/6/2002
194
201
171
2,310,000
3,723
6,380
10
<1,000
ND
<1,000
ND
BIO-SB-7-40
38
40
2/6/2002
194
159
113
147,000
379
19,400
50
42J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-42
40
42
2/6/2002
195
136
105
33,100
88
17,000
45
55J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-MB (SS)
Lab Blank
2/6/2002
194
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-7-RINSATE
EQ
2/6/2002
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
DUP: Duplicate sample.
EQ: Equipment rinsate.
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.
Boldface in shading denotes that TCE level is exceeding or near the saturation level (approximately 300 mg/kg, see Section 2.3).
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Post-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-202-8
6
8
6/17/2003
189
231.5
212
344
0
503
1
<100
ND
103
0
BIO-SB-202-10
8
10
6/17/2003
191
174.5
153.5
318
1
686
1
<100
ND
526
1
BIO-SB-202-12
10
12
6/17/2003
191.5
224
186
117
0
283
0
29
0
677
1
BIO-SB-202-14
12
14
6/17/2003
193.5
245.5
205
142
0
371
1
33 J
0
418
1
BIO-SB-202-16
14
16
6/17/2003
191.5
199
165
109
0
25 J
0
24 J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-202-18
16
18
6/17/2003
192.5
201.5
171
115
0
32 J
0
20 J
0
27 J
0
BIO-SB-202-20
18
20
6/17/2003
191
198.5
170.5
<100
ND
18 J
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-202-20-DUP
18
20
6/17/2003
196
190
163.5
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-202-22
20
22
6/17/2003
193
245.5
203
120
0
26 J
0
33 J
0
2,350
3
BIO-SB-202-24
22
24
6/17/2003
191.5
208
172
<100
ND
1,380
2
30 J
0
4,280
7
BIO-SB-202-26
24
26
6/17/2003
191.5
172
141.5
<100
ND
3,900
8
27 J
0
5,040
10
BIO-SB-202-28
26
28
6/17/2003
192
287
231
<100
ND
7,180
9
55 J
0
8,360
11
BIO-SB-202-30
28
30
6/17/2003
189.5
192
149
168,000
319
2,450
5
<100
ND
50 J
0
BIO-SB-202-32
30
32
6/17/2003
191.5
301.5
233.5
282,000
375
6,310
8
<100
ND
40 J
0
BIO-SB-202-34
32
34
6/17/2003
189
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-202-36
34
36
6/17/2003
188.5
276.5
225
221,000
285
9,630
12
24 J
0
21 J
0
BIO-SB-202-38
36
38
6/17/2003
194
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-202-40
38
40
6/17/2003
189.5
229
183
159,000
248
12,700
20
43 J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-202-42 (SS)
40
42
6/17/2003
192.5
256
198
967,000
1,473
35,500
54
110
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-202-MeOH
Lab Blank
6/17/2003
192.5
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-202-RINSATE
EQ
6/17/2003
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
NA
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
BIO-SB-205-8
6
8
6/18/2003
190.5
228.5
222
328
0
186
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-205-10
8
10
6/18/2003
191.5
206
184
135
0
214
0
<100
ND
239
0
BIO-SB-205-12
10
12
6/18/2003
193
229.5
193
109
0
152
0
26 J
0
251
0
BIO-SB-205-14
12
14
6/18/2003
194
172
145
<100
ND
12 J
0
23 J
0
296
1
BIO-SB-205-16
14
16
6/18/2003
193
222.5
182
<100
ND
31 J
0
26 J
0
218
0
Bl O-SB-205-16-DU P
14
16
6/18/2003
193
191.5
141
<100
ND
<100
ND
19 J
0
112
0
BIO-SB-205-18
16
18
6/18/2003
192.5
191
157.5
<100
ND
60 J
0
27 J
0
1,180
2
BIO-SB-205-20
18
20
6/18/2003
193.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-205-22
20
22
6/18/2003
192.5
304.5
249.5
<100
ND
538
1
51 J
0
3,620
4
BIO-SB-205-24
22
24
6/18/2003
192
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-205-26
24
26
6/18/2003
196.5
217.5
174.5
<100
ND
433
1
42 J
0
3,170
5
BIO-SB-205-28
26
28
6/18/2003
192.5
134.5
103
1,680
4
4,280
11
26 J
0
4,260
11
BIO-SB-205-30
28
30
6/18/2003
193.5
206
159
921,000
1,691
7,350
13
<100
ND
350 J
1
BIO-SB-205-32
30
32
6/18/2003
192.5
165
125.5
878,000
1,981
6,350
14
<500
ND
290 J
1
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Post-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot (Continued)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-205-34
32
34
6/18/2003
189
230
183
257,000
402
2,100
3
<100
ND
31 J
0
BIO-SB-205-36
34
36
6/18/2003
193.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-205-38
36
38
6/18/2003
194
318
253
896,000
1,100
14,600
18
<500
ND
<500
ND
BIO-SB-205-40
38
40
6/18/2003
193
251.5
198.5
1,370,000
2,052
18,800
28
<1,000
ND
<1,000
ND
BIO-SB-205-42 (SS)
40
42
6/18/2003
194
170
127.5
900,000
2,033
10,100
23
<500
ND
<500
ND
BIO-SB-205-45
43
45
6/18/2003
189.5
184
143.5
113,000
221
18,100
35
58 J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-205-MeOH
Lab Blank
6/18/2003
193.5
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-205-RINSATE
EQ
6/18/2003
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
<1
ND
<1
ND
<1
ND
BIO-SB-206-8 (SS)
6
8
6/19/2003
191
170
157
335
1
152
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-206-10
8
10
6/19/2003
193
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-206-12
10
12
6/19/2003
191
212
178
114
0
148
0
<100
ND
395
1
BIO-SB-206-14
12
14
6/19/2003
191.5
179
149.5
<100
ND
55 J
0
22 J
0
132
0
BIO-SB-206-16
14
16
6/19/2003
192.5
127.5
108
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
98 J
0
BIO-SB-206-18
16
18
6/19/2003
192.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-206-20
18
20
6/19/2003
193.5
233
194
<100
ND
<100
ND
31 J
0
1,370
2
BIO-SB-206-22
20
22
6/19/2003
193.5
189
152.5
<100
ND
73 J
0
32 J
0
1,120
2
BIO-SB-206-22-DUP
20
22
6/19/2003
193
141
115
<100
ND
166
0
24 J
0
854
2
BIO-SB-206-24
22
24
6/19/2003
193
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Na
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-206-26
24
26
6/19/2003
193.5
154.5
132
917
2
<100
ND
<100
ND
260
1
BIO-SB-206-28
26
28
6/19/2003
193
178.5
144.5
<100
ND
24 J
0
44 J
0
2,960
6
BIO-SB-206-30
28
30
6/19/2003
193.5
181
137.5
11,700
25
14,600
31
76 J
0
5,060
11
BIO-SB-206-32
30
32
6/19/2003
192.5
207.5
158.5
1,370,000
2,530
5,090
9
<100
ND
98 J
0
BIO-SB-206-34
32
34
6/19/2003
191.5
165.5
129.5
714,000
1,535
3,930
8
43 J
0
84 J
0
BIO-SB-206-36
34
36
6/19/2003
194
224
178
723,000
1,184
2,720
4
25 J
0
47 J
0
BIO-SB-206-38
36
38
6/19/2003
194
220
163
295,000
548
646
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-206-40 (SS)
38
40
6/19/2003
193.5
242.5
183
3,740,000
6,222
2,600
4
<100
ND
30 J
0
BIO-SB-206-MeOH
Lab Blank
6/19/2003
193
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-207-8
6
8
6/20/2003
192.5
170
153
397
1
253
0
<100
ND
407
1
BIO-SB-207-10
8
10
6/20/2003
193
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-207-12
10
12
6/20/2003
193.5
184.5
156.5
143
0
177
0
<100
ND
1,310
2
BIO-SB-207-14
12
14
6/20/2003
192.5
200.5
170.5
<100
ND
42 J
0
29 J
0
1,340
2
BIO-SB-207-16
14
16
6/20/2003
192
245.5
203
<100
ND
<100
ND
22 J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-207-18
16
18
6/20/2003
192.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-207-20
18
20
6/20/2003
192.5
197
165
1,860
3
4,100
7
27 J
0
1,420
2
BIO-SB-207-22
20
22
6/20/2003
191
174
141.5
3,920
8
18,200
35
76 J
0
4,880
9
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Post-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot (Continued)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(l^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-207-24
22
24
6/20/2003
193
167
135.5
839
2
10,100
21
48 J
0
4,650
9
BIO-SB-207-26
24
26
6/20/2003
192.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-207-28
26
28
6/20/2003
193.5
223.5
182
75,000
118
29,100
46
72 J
0
4,120
6
BIO-SB-207-28-DUP
26
28
6/20/2003
192
134
107
55,800
141
15,700
40
42 J
0
2,250
6
BIO-SB-207-30
28
30
6/20/2003
191
183
139.5
93,200
191
1,650
3
<100
ND
29 J
0
BIO-SB-207-32
30
32
6/20/2003
192.5
211
161
196,000
358
1,700
3
<100
ND
40 J
0
BIO-SB-207-34
32
34
6/20/2003
192
206.5
162.5
204,000
360
1,500
3
<100
ND
29 J
0
BIO-SB-207-36
34
36
6/20/2003
191
280.5
223
304,000
408
1,740
2
<200
ND
<200
ND
BIO-SB-207-38
36
38
6/20/2003
192
165
121.5
206,000
486
6,150
15
<200
ND
<200
ND
BIO-SB-207-40 (SS)
38
40
6/20/2003
192
214
162.5
159,000
288
21,300
39
<200
ND
<200
ND
BIO-SB-207-MeOH
Lab Blank
6/20/2003
192.5
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-207-RINSATE
EQ
6/20/2003
NA
NA
NA
4.53
NA
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
<1.0
ND
BIO-SB-210-15
14
15
6/18/2003
193.5
193
164.5
849
1
<100
ND
22 J
0
<100
ND
BIO-SB-210-16
15
16
6/18/2003
193
207.5
174.5
3,600
6
419
1
27 J
0
920
1
BIO-SB-210-17
16
17
6/18/2003
193
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-210-18
17
18
6/18/2003
192.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-210-19
18
19
6/18/2003
193.5
175
145.5
<100
ND
44 J
0
26 J
0
4,750
9
BIO-SB-210-20
19
20
6/18/2003
192.5
226.5
192.5
540
1
40 J
0
27 J
0
3,380
5
Bl O-SB-210-20-DU P
19
20
6/18/2003
193.5
167.5
143.5
165
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
1,690
3
BIO-SB-210-21
20
21
6/18/2003
193.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bl O-SB-210-22
21
22
6/18/2003
193.5
161
138
365
1
381
1
<100
ND
2,320
5
Bl O-SB-210-23
22
23
6/18/2003
193
187.5
149.5
290
1
1,620
3
<100
ND
3,140
6
Bl O-SB-210-24
23
24
6/18/2003
193
201.5
165
806
1
173
0
34 J
0
865
1
Bl O-SB-210-25
24
25
6/18/2003
192.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bl O-SB-210-26
25
26
6/18/2003
193
193
159
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
37 J
0
Bl O-SB-210-27
26
27
6/18/2003
193
141
112.5
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
Bl O-SB-210-28
27
28
6/18/2003
191.5
190
149
300
1
5,820
11
54 J
0
4,370
8
Bl O-SB-210-29
28
29
6/18/2003
194
181.5
140.5
7,000,000
14,277
4,090
8
47 J
0
38 J
0
Bl O-SB-210-30 (SS)
29
30
6/18/2003
193.5
180.5
135
140,000
301
12,800
28
52 J
0
998
2
BIO-SB-210-MeOH
Lab Blank
6/18/2003
193.5
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-211-15
14
15
6/19/2003
194
177
149.5
1,100
2
17 J
0
17 J
0
457
1
BIO-SB-211-16
15
16
6/19/2003
194
179.5
154
591
1
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
BIO-SB-211-17
16
17
6/19/2003
192.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-211-18
17
18
6/19/2003
192.5
177
132
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
148
0
BIO-SB-211-19
18
19
6/19/2003
193.5
157.5
147.5
<100
ND
<100
ND
38 J
0
37 J
0
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-3. Summary of CVOC Results in Soil for Post-demonstration Monitoring in Bioaugmentation Plot (Continued)
Sample Depth
(ft)
Wet Soil
Dry Soil
TCE
cis -1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Results in
Top
Bottom
Sample
Me OH
Weight
Weight
Me OH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
MeOH
Dry Soil
Sample ID
Depth
Depth
Date
(g)
(g)
(g)
(^g/L)
(mg/Kg)
(ML)
(mg/Kg)
(ML)
(mg/Kg)
(ms^l)
(mg/Kg)
BIO-SB-211-20
19
20
6/19/2003
191
193.5
159
145
0
<100
ND
24 J
0
2,410
4
BIO-SB-211-21
20
21
6/19/2003
193
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-211-22
21
22
6/19/2003
191.5
197.5
165.5
385
1
<100
ND
34 J
0
257
0
BIO-SB-211-23
22
23
6/19/2003
193
142
115.5
<100
ND
<100
ND
25 J
0
21 J
0
BIO-SB-211-24
23
24
6/19/2003
193
147
118.5
384
1
<100
ND
25 J
0
750
2
BIO-SB-211-24-DUP
23
24
6/19/2003
192.5
158.5
128.5
224
0
<100
ND
<100
ND
260
1
BIO-SB-211-25
24
25
6/19/2003
192.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-211-26
25
26
6/19/2003
191.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIO-SB-211-27
26
27
6/19/2003
193.5
155
124.5
209
0
<100
ND
26 J
0
436
1
BIO-SB-211-28
27
28
6/19/2003
195.5
203.5
161.5
169
0
3,570
6
65 J
0
8,330
15
BIO-SB-211-29
28
29
6/19/2003
192
182.5
140
105
0
6,980
14
70 J
0
10,700
22
BIO-SB-211-30 (SS)
29
30
6/19/2003
190.5
181.5
134.5
4,760
10
13,200
28
73 J
0
5,960
13
BIO-SB-211-MeOH
Lab Blank
6/19/2003
193
NA
NA
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
NA: Not available.
ND: Not detected.
DUP: Duplicate sample.
EQ: Equipment rinsate.
MB: Method blank.
SS: Surrogate spiked.
J: Result was estimated but below the reporting limit.
Boldface in shading denotes that TCE level is exceeding or near the saturation level (approximately 300 mg/kg, see Section 2.3).
M:\CapeCanaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio DemoGWResults.xls
-------
Table C-4. Long-Term Monitoring Results in Treatment Plot
CVOC (jig/L)
Dissolved Gases (mg/L)
Well ID
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
trans -1,2-DCE
Vinyl
Chloride
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
MW-6
<10
35.6
104
875
4.83
0.00377
7.07
PA-26
<10
62.4
143
161
4.36
<0.002
4.38
Inorganics (mg/L)
Well ID
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Alkalinity
MW-6
731
18.8
46.3
0.255
50.9
72.2
1,090
PA-26
1,050
22.8
55.3
1.44
62.4
78
1,550
Anions (mg/L)
Others
(mg/L)
Well ID
Bromide
Chloride
Nitrate (N03)
Phosphate
Sulfate
TDS
MW-6
0.67J
406
2.3
<0.5
<3
3,730
PA-26
<1
389
3.42
<0.5
<3
4,980
Groundwater monitoring was conducted on January 22, 2004 (approximately one year after KB-1™ culture application).
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table C-5. Monitoring Results of CVOCs and Dechlorination Products in Groundwater from PA-26
PA-26
Pre-demo
(MQ/L)
Post-
demo
(MQ/L)
Long-
Term
(Mg/L)
Pre-demo
(mmole/L
)
MOSt-
demo
(mmole/L
)
Long-
Term
(mmole/L
)
TCE
1,220,000
239
<10
9.31
0.00
<0.08
cis-1,2-DCE
31,600
780
62.4
0.33
0.01
0.00
trans-1,2-DCE
<1,000
436
143
<0.02
0.00
0.00
VC
<1,000
8,040
161
<0.02
0.13
0.00
ethene
573
22,900
4,380
0.02
0.82
0.16
Chloride
246,000
311,000
389,000
6.94
8.77
10.97
Pre-demo: March 2002.
Post-demo: June 2003.
Long-Term: January 2004.
Assuming a complete dechlorination occurred in the treatment plot, an increase in chloride was 65 mg/L from the post-demo monitoring.
A complete dechlorination of 1.23 mg/L of TCE will result in 1 mg/L of chloride production on the basis of stoichometric balance.
The increase in chloride concentration of 65 mg/L observed in the post-demonstration monitoring suggests that approximately
80 mg/L of TCE could have been dechlorinated. A continuous dechlorination process appeared to have taken place from the long-term monitoring
(approximately 1 year after the addition of KB-1 cultures). An additional 78 mg/L of chloride was observed from the monitoring. As a result of the
dechlorination, the additional dechlorination of 96 mg/L of TCE could have been dechlorinated. The total TCE reduction may be 176 mg/L since the
demonstration was performed at the site.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table C-6. Results of Extracted Groundwater for Chloroethene and Ethene Concentraions
at the Inflent Sample Port (SP-4) of Carbon Tanks
Groundwater Mass Discharge1
Total
Cumulative
(mmole/day)
Ethenes
Operat
ing
Cumulative
TCE Mass
Flow
cis-
Total
Mass
TCE Mass
Total Ethenes
Removed in
rate
Sampling
TCE
1,2-
VC
Ethene
; Ethenes2
Discharge
Discharge
days
Mass
Carbon
(gpm)
Date
DCE
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
(days)
Removed (Kg)
Tanks (Kg)
NA
5/23/02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
1.5
5/30/02
5,971
1,769
74 ;
NM
! 7,814
1.02
0.78
7
0
3
1.5
6/17/02
746
118
1 !
2.9
868
0.11
0.10
18
10
11
1.5
6/27/02
16,172
1,937
33 '
58
! 18,199
2.38
2.12
10
23
22
1.5
7/3/02
16,794
1,684
27 :
58
: 18,563
2.43
2.20
6
37
35
1.5
7/9/02
15,550
1,516
26 !
58
¦ 17,149
2.25
2.04
6
51
47
1.5
7/11/02
11,818
1,179
26 !
58
! 13,081
1.71
1.55
2
55
51
1.5
7/15/02
13,062
1,263
26 '
58
; 14,409
1.89
1.71
4
62
58
1.4
7/18/02
12,191
1,022
24 ;
54
: 13,291
1.74
1.60
3
68
62
1.5
7/23/02
13,062
1,011
26 !
58
! 14,156
1.85
1.71
5
77
71
1.5
7/25/02
12,440
1,011
26 !
58
! 13,534
1.77
1.63
2
80
74
1.5
7/29/02
11,196
766
26 '
58
; 12,046
1.58
1.47
4
87
80
1.5
8/1/02
12,440
741
26 ;
58
I 13,265
1.74
1.63
3
92
85
1.4
8/7/02
9,869
566
24 !
54
! 10,513
1.38
1.29
6
101
94
1.5
8/14/02
9,952
531
26 ;
58
! 10,566
1.38
1.30
7
111
103
1.4
8/19/02
9,288
464
24 '
54
; 9,830
1.29
1.22
5
118
109
1.5
8/22/02
9,952
472
26 ;
58
| 10,507
1.38
1.30
3
122
113
1.5
8/28/02
10,574
463
26 !
58
! 11,121
1.46
1.39
6
130
121
1.5
9/4/02
9,952
438
26 '
58
! 10,473
1.37
1.30
7
140
130
1.5
9/12/02
9,330
421
26 '
58
; 9,835
1.29
1.22
8
151
140
1.4
10/2/02
9,288
377
24 :
54
: 9,744
1.28
1.22
20
176
NA
1.5
10/17/02
9,952
430
26
58
; 10,465
1.37
1.30
15
196
NA
1.4
11/5/02
8,127
495
24
54
: 8,701
1.14
1.06
19
220
NA
1.2
11/21/02
7,961
613
52
115
; 8,742
1.15
1.04
16
238
NA
1.5
12/11/02
8,086
2,274
26
58
; 10,444
1.37
1.06
20
264
NA
1.5
12/18/02
8,086
3,116
99
58
= 11,359
1.49
1.06
7
274
NA
1.5
12/23/02
6,220
CO
V
en
CO
143
58
; 9,874
1.29
0.81
5
281
NA
0.5
1/7/03
2,281
1,741
200
19
: 4,240
0.56
0.30
15
294
NA
0.8
1/22/03
3,981
3,234
508
34
; 7,756
1.02
0.52
15
306
NA
1.0
2/7/03
16.2
4,604
2,782
500
; 7,902
1.04
0.00
16
323
NA
0.60
3/4/03
2,115
1,785
782
150
; 4,833
0.63
0.28
25
343
NA
0.40
3/19/03
1,443
1,235
591
138
I 3,408
0.45
0.19
15
352
NA
0.50
4/3/03
1,673
1,906
795
49
; 4,424
0.58
0.22
15
359
NA
0.50
4/20/03
1,650
1,637
3,333
356
= 6,976
0.91
0.22
17
372
NA
0.50
5/30/03
1,298
1,305
995
144
; 3,743
0.49
0.17
40
400
NA
0.47
7/31/03
1,111
1,108
899
2,351
; 5,469
0.72
0.15
62
437
NA
0.50
9/3/03
560
1,404
739
2,404
; 5,107
0.67
0.07
34
461
NA
0.50
10/14/03
155.5
2,442
782
2,308
; 5,688
0.75
0.02
41
490
NA
NA: Not available.
NM: Not measured.
1. Mass discharge determined using an average daily flow rate .
2. Includes TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, VC and ethene
The extracted groundwater was collected from the sample port (the influent combined manifold [SP-4] of the carbon canisters).
The recirculated groundwater was flowed into the carbon canisters until September 12, 2003. Thus, the TCE mass removed
in the carbon canisters was estimated using a set of data until the date.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table C-6. Results of Extracted Groundwater for Chloroethene and Ethene Concentraions
at the Inflent Sample Port (SP-4) of Carbon Tanks (Continued)
Volume (L)
0
147.161
81.756
49.054
49.054
16.351
32.702
22.892
40.878
16.351
32.702
24.527
45.783
57.229
38.153
24.527
49.054
57.229
65.405
Cumulative
Vol (L)
0
147.161
228.917
277.971
327.025
343.376
376.079
398.970
439.849
456.200
488.902
513.429
559.213
616.442
654.595
679.122
728.176
785.405
850.810
Influent TCE
(mg/L)
Pore Volume Calculation
Dimension 20 ft wide
Effluent Effective TCE
TCE (mg/L)
(mg/L)
Mass (kg)
96
0.016
96
0
12
<0.10
12
1.75
260
<0.01
260
21.3
270
0.01
270
13.2
250
0.01
250
12.3
190
0.01
190
3.1
210
0.01
210
6.9
LU
o
210
0.01
210
4.8
d)
>
ts
210
0.05
210
8.6
it
LU
200
0.01
200
3.3
180
0.01
180
5.9
200
0.01
200
4.9
170
0.01
170
7.8
160
19
141
8.1
160
0.01
160
6.1
160
0.01
160
3.9
170
0.01
170
8.3
160
0.01
160
9.2
150
0.01
150
9.8
Calculated Mass
139.1
Fitted Mass
136.4
Difference
-2.0%
Volume: 8,000 ft
20 ft deep
20 ft thickness for the sat. zone (from 6 to 26 ft bgs in the Upper Sand Unit)
Porosity
Pore Space
in the plot.
0.33
2,640 ft3
19,746 gals
1 gal = 0.1337 ft3
Curve Fitted Areas
Planar Area Below Curve: 136404791
Planar Area Above Curve: 374081204
Total Planar Area: 510485995 (-850000 x -600)
600
400
m 200
400000
Cumulative Volume (L)
Raw Data
200,000 400,000 600,000
Cumulative Volume (L)
800,000
Total extracted groundwater into the carbon cannisters: 239,904 gals.
Approximately, 12 PV's of groundwater flowed into the carbon cannisters until September 12, 2004.
12 PV's
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Appendix D
Inorganic and Other Aquifer Parameters
Table D-1. Summary of Field Parameters in Groundwater
Table D-2. Summary of Inorganic Results in Groundwater
Table D-3. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater
Table D-4. Results of Chloride Samples Using a Waterloo Profiler®
Table D-5. Results of Dissolved Gases in Groundwater
Table D-6. Result of TOC in Soil Samples Collected in Bioaugmentation Plot
-------
Table D-l. Summary of Field Parameters in Groundwater
Well ID
Temperature (°C)
DO (mg/L)
pH
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26 | 27.2 28.7 27.9 27.9
0.89 0.26 0.17 0.30| 6.55 7.16 7.96 6.5
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
30.6
29.5
28.8
28.6
0.73
1.19
0.23
0.21
6.64
7.24
8.02
6.7
PA-27I
31.4
29.5
29.1
28.9
0.83
0.27
0.37
0.70
6.80
7.08
8.45
7.3
PA-27D
30.6
28.9
28.6
28.7
0.95
0.05
0.27
0.70
6.71
7.11
8.69
7.4
PA-28S
25.3
28.9
27.7
27.3
0.91
0.35
0.00
0.70
6.55
6.89
7.92
6.6
PA-28I
25.2
27.9
27.4
27.2
0.95
0.63
0.33
0.40
6.88
7.31
8.79
7.3
PA-28D
25.2
27.2
26.9
26.9
0.68
0.83
0.27
0.70
7.00
7.32
8.26
8.1
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW-2
26.9
28.8
27.4
27.8
0.96
0.45
0.6
0.30
6.68
7.07
8.46
6.4
BEW-2
26.3
29.3
28.0
27.6
0.79
0.7
0.22
0.23
6.49
7.27
8.06
6.5
Well ID
ORP(mV)
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
Pre-Demo Dec 2002 Mar 2003 Post-Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26 | 90 -111 -157 -245| 0.21 0.12 2.46 0.28
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
76
56
-154
-191
0.17
0.11
1.71
0.2
PA-27I
105
21
-145
-218
0.19
0.14
1.43
0.13
PA-27D
89
6
-156
-231
0.22
0.2
1.91
0.22
PA-28S
138
19
-149
-217
0.19
0.13
1.81
0.26
PA-28I
142
19
-162
-173
0.23
0.18
1.87
0.17
PA-28D
54
23
-225
-321
0.32
0.3
2.32
0.27
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW-2
171
-106
-111
-290
0.15
0.099
1.71
0.24
BEW-2
151
-93
-160
-301
0.17
0.076
1.08
0.23
Pre-Demo: March 2002
Dec 2002: After Electron donor was added.
Mar 2003: March 19, 2003 (approximately 2 months after the KB-1 injection)
Post-Demo: June 2003.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-2. Summary of Inorganic Results in Groundwater
Dissolved Iron (mg/L)
Manganese (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Magnesium (mg/L)
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Well ID
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
30.9
1.76
2.67
8.13
0.175
0.109
0.177
0.402
140
135
321
50.1
16.6
14.9
38.7
47
PA-26-DUP
NA
1.94
NA
8.34
NA
0.102
NA
0.406
NA
129
NA
538
NA
14
NA
49.3
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
9.83
0.862
3.86
7.9
0.195
0.0804
0.161
0.416
120
87.7
136
249
13.6
16
19.7
34.2
PA-271
3.1
4.06
1.32
1.19
0.406
0.0639
0.0335
0.029
140
77.8
59.5
74.4
30
90.8
74.2
105
PA-27D
4.04
2.42
0.742
0.962
0.088
0.0646
0.0357
0.0343
168
68.4
50.5
70.2
28.8
45.4
36.8
55.5
PA-28S
20
3.82
5.71
12.4
0.213
0.0485
0.0782
0.195
133
132
185
431
17.7
12.4
22.2
47.8
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
5.79
NA
NA
NA
0.0798
NA
NA
NA
181
NA
NA
NA
22.1
NA
PA-281
3.15
1.72
0.886
0.502
0.091
0.0334
0.0228
0.198
53.1
49.4
41
43.9
81.8
68.4
57.4
62.9
PA-28D
2.69
1.65
3.13
<0.1
0.075
0.0274
0.154
0.09
59.1
63.8
80.6
71.1
73.3
77.4
52.6
72.7
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
1.16
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
88.4
NA
NA
NA
9.55
NA
NA
BIW-2
10.5
1.17
3.36
0.386
0.112
0.101
0.254
1.31
109
88.5
135
452
14.9
9.54
12.1
42.1
BEW
NA
1.2
NA
NA
NA
0.103
NA
NA
NA
82.2
NA
NA
NA
9.81
NA
NA
BEW-2
7.48
0.656
1.49
17
0.074
0.0569
0.263
1.06
129
72.3
127
386
9.63
4.95
13.3
32.9
Potassium (mg/L
)
Sodium (mg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Phosphate (mg/L)
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Well ID
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
279
43.7
45.1
50.8
46.3
64
66.3
76.1
246
172
232
311
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
PA-26-DUP
NA
40.5
NA
51.8
NA
60.3
NA
79.7
NA
163
NA
314
NA
<0.5
NA
<0.5
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
176
102
90.9
69
47.4
50.8
61.4
68.6
143
99.1
213
278
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
PA-271
106
31.4
28.6
38.8
96.8
51.6
45.8
52
194
169
147
142
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
PA-27D
51.8
29.2
23.0
32
180
273
221
270
305
397
347
393
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
PA-28S
146
48.1
40.8
51.7
31.7
59.6
62.1
75.8
193
182
230
325
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
39.2
NA
NA
NA
60.9
NA
NA
NA
242
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
NA
PA-281
21.2
25.1
19.7
21.7
218
206
222
256
367
273
261
268
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
PA-28D
18.6
21.5
25.5
30.5
362
424
276
378
852
774
404
551
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
43
NA
NA
NA
64.8
NA
NA
NA
125
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
NA
NA
BIW-2
241
44.4
42.7
64.9
38.4
67
62
72.6
125
121
155
344
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
1.18
BEW
NA
42.4
NA
NA
NA
60.8
NA
NA
NA
123
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
NA
NA
BEW-2
155 S
11.1
43.5
56.3
57.5
56.3
60
78.1
161
90
186
312
<3.0
<0.5
<0.5
0.22 J
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-2. Summary of Inorganic Results in Groundwater (Continued)
Bromide (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Nitrate (N03-N02 as N)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Pre-
Dec
Mar
Post-
Well ID
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
Demo
2002
2003
Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
<2.0
1.06
<1
<1
172
13.7
<3
<3
NA
<0.5
<0.5
1.27
463
310
677
847
PA-26-DUP
NA
2.17
NA
<1
NA
16.4
NA
<3
NA
<0.5
NA
0.512
NA
294
NA
835
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
<2.0
0.68 J
0.67 J
5.68
150
106
18.5
<3
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
398
230
401
469
PA-27I
<2.0
<1
<1
<1.0
292
99.5
109
101
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
344
409
327
375
PA-27D
<2.0
0.64 J
0.59 J
4.15
385
126
119
110
NA
<0.5
<0.5
1.82
261
310
314
303
PA-28S
<2.0
1.14
0.25 J
<1
100
<3
<3
<3
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
390
327
427
705
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
<1.0
NA
NA
NA
<3
NA
NA
NA
0.657
NA
NA
NA
425
NA
PA-28I
<2.0
1.36
0.29 J
<1
107
102
95.5
92.2
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
441
431
417
396
PA-28D
25.3
1.44
1.67
<1
73
69.2
107
11
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
262
299
242
320
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
1.25
NA
NA
NA
107
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
NA
NA
NA
204
NA
NA
BIW-2
<2.0
1.62
1.59
<1
128
104
74.3
<3
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
429
210
324
767
BEW
NA
0.72 J
NA
NA
NA
105
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
NA
NA
NA
206
NA
NA
BEW-2
<2.0
0.31 J
1.32
<1
141
108
75.7
1.2 J
NA
<0.5
<0.5
1.6
410
131
335
592
NA: Not analyzed.
Pre-Demo: March 2002
Dec 2002: After the addition of electron donor (ethanol).
Mar 2003: March 19, 2003 (approximately 2 months after the addition of KB-1 cultures).
Post-Demo: June 2003.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-3. Other Parameter Results of Groundwater
Well ID
TDS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
BOD (mg/L)
I
Hssolved Silica (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Dec
2002
Mar 2003
Post-
Demo
Pre-
Demo
Dec 2002
Mar
2003
Post-
Demo
Pre-
Demo
Post-
Demo
Pre-
Demo
Dec 2002
Mar 2003
Post-
Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
1,220
NA
2,110
3,000
76
NA
NA
1,050
12.0
38
23.1
NA
29.3
36.1
PA-26-DUP
NA
NA
NA
3,060
NA
NA
NA
1,040
NA
40
NA
NA
NA
35.1
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
955
NA
984
1,320
95
NA
NA
140
<6.0
39
21.5
NA
19.2
26.0
PA-271
1,120
NA
782
869
65
NA
NA
10
10.0
10
29.2
NA
55.3
68.0
PA-27D
1,350
NA
1,120
1,200
58
NA
NA
14.8
7.0
19
41.6
NA
48.3
50.6
PA-28S
921
NA
1,180
2,400
235
NA
NA
684
<12.0
40
28.3
NA
35.0
32.0
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
1,170
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.5
NA
PA-281
1,100
NA
1,010
1,000
180
NA
NA
8.08
6.0
8
56.6
NA
57.9
66.6
PA-28D
1,630
NA
1,290
1,350
53.6
NA
NA
37
<6.0
41
47.9
NA
31.6
43.4
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BIW-2
898
NA
821
2,270
31
NA
NA
572
<6.0
104
21.2
NA
17.6
31.9
BEW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BEW-2
901
NA
866
1,860
58.8
NA
NA
384
<6.0
99
14.1
NA
18.3
24.8
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Post-Demo: June 2003.
Shading denotes substantial increases after the biostimulation/bioaugmentation treatment.
M:\Projets\Envir Restor\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Draft Final Reports\Bioaugmentation\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GWResults.xls
-------
Table D-4. Results of Chloride Samples Using a Waterloo Profiler Sampler
Chloride
Chloride
Sample ID
(mg/L)
Sample ID
(mg/L)
BIO Plot
BIO-WP1-15
53.2
BIO-WP201-18
237
BIO-WP1-20
101
BIO-WP201-24
354
BIO-WP1-30
282
BIO-WP201-33
160
BIO-WP1-35
686
BIO-WP201-38
565
BIO-WP1-40
770
BIO-WP2-15
88.2
BIO-WP202-18
276
BIO-WP2-20
166
BIO-WP202-24
287
BIO-WP2-30
226
BIO-WP202-33
144
BIO-WP2-36
733
BIO-WP202-38
678
BIO-WP2-38
783
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-5. Results of Dissolved Gases in Groundwater
Well ID
Ethane (mg/L)
Ethene (mg/L)
Methane (mg/L)
Pre-
Demo
Dec
2002
Mar
2003
Post-Demo
Pre-
Demo
Dec
2002
Mar
2003
Post-
Demo
Pre-
Demo
Dec
2002
Mar
2003
Post-
Demo
BIO Plot Well
PA-26
0.0247
<0.002
0.002
0.00234
0.573
0.03
2.31
22.9
0.00368
0.0139
0.023
0.137
PA-26-DUP
NA
<0.002
NA
0.0025
NA
0.0319
NA
24.3
NA
0.0125
NA
0.203
BIO Perimeter Wells
PA-27S
0.0129
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.235
0.0088
0.852
2.79
0.00739
0.0443
0.0232
0.013
PA-27I
0.00713
0.0076
0.0067
0.00483
0.107
0.141
0.0904
0.161
0.00154
0.0205
0.0233
0.0148
PA-27D
0.0148
0.0033
0.0042
0.0015 J
0.366
0.0817
0.0688
0.0743
0.00551
0.013
0.0182
0.00543
PA-28S
0.0537
0.0383
0.0695
0.036
0.235
0.123
1.78
16.3
0.0308
0.0137
0.0315
0.036
PA-28S-DUP
NA
NA
0.098
NA
NA
NA
1.96
NA
NA
NA
0.0318
NA
PA-28I
0.0142
0.0047
0.006
0.00443
0.381
0.0524
0.0526
0.0624
0.0227
0.0674
0.103
0.0686
PA-28D
0.0252
0.0066
0.0201
0.00432
0.338
0.0316
0.0492
0.0373
0.00804
0.0158
0.0177
0.0128
Injection and Extraction Wells
BIW
NA
<0.002
NA
NA
NA
0.0083
NA
NA
NA
0.0157
NA
NA
BIW-2
0.0194
<0.002
<0.002
0.00069 J
0.00725
0.0075
0.368
14
0.0164
0.0142
0.0142
0.137
BEW
NA
<0.002
NA
NA
NA
0.0084
NA
NA
NA
0.015
NA
NA
BEW-2
0.00801
<0.002
0.0042
0.0159
0.0289
<0.003
1.14
16.2
0.00795
0.011
0.0277
0.214
NA: Not available.
Pre-Demo: March 2002.
Dec 2002: After Electron donor was added.
Mar 2003: March 19, 2003 (approximately 2 months after the addition of KB-1 cultures).
Post-Demo: June 2003.
Shading denotes substantial increases after the biostumulation/bioaugmentation treatment.
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App C\Bio Demo GW Results.xls
-------
Table D-6. Results of TOC in Soil Samples Collected in Bioaugmentation Plot
Sample ID
TOC Results
(wt%-dry)
Sample ID
TOC Results
(wt%-dry)
BIO-SB2-16
0.05
BIO-SB205-18
0.09
BIO-SB2-34
0.13
BIO-SB205-26
0.13
BIO-SB2-38
0.20
BIO-SB205-34
0.21
BIO-SB4-18
0.06
BIO-SB205-42
0.15
BIO-SB4-34
0.14
BIO-SB207-12
0.15
BIO-SB4-40
0.22
BIO-SB207-20
0.06
BIO-SB207-32
0.14
BIO-SB207-40
0.25
Bio Demo GWResults.xls
-------
Appendix E
Genetrac Analysis of Groundwater Samples from the
Bioaugmentation Demonstration
-------
S'REM
Site Recovery & Management
SAMPLING AND SHIPPING PROTOCOL FOR
GENE-TRAC DEHALOCOCCOIDES TESTING
Sample Containers:
Clean, new, wide-mouth screw cap 1-liter (L) high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles
(e.g., Nalgene or equivalent) should be used for Gene-Trac samples. Pre-cleaned, 40-
milliliter (ml_) volatile organic analysis (VOA) vials should be used for "companion"
volatile organic compound (VOC) samples. For your convenience, SiREM can ship
appropriate containers to your location at cost. Please allow three business days
notice for this service.
Sample Collection:
Groundwater samples should not be collected until oxidation/reduction potential (ORP)
measurements of the purged water stabilizes to within about 10% of the previous
reading. Turbidity in the Gene-Trac samples is desirable as it increases the likelihood
of capturing microorganisms. Two 1L groundwater samples should be collected from
each well for Gene-Trac analysis. Samples should be collected without headspace or
preservatives. In addition, two 40 ml_ VOA vials (with HCI as preservative) for each
sample location should be included for companion VOC analysis.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC):
Gene-Trac testing is extremely sensitive, so care must be taken to prevent
contamination of the samples with any foreign material, including groundwater from
other sampling points. QA/QC samples consist of field blanks and equipment blanks (if
non-dedicated equipment is used). A field blank is used to determine if sample
contamination in the field or in transit has occurred. The field blank consists of 1L of
commercially available distilled water (customer to provide) placed in a 1.0 L sample
bottle at one sampling location. Where non-dedicated sampling equipment is used,
equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated between sampling locations using
standard procedures for VOC analysis. An equipment blank should be prepared by
passing distilled water through non-dedicated equipment after the cleaning process, to
determine if decontamination procedures were effective.
Sample Custody, Shipping and Handling:
Samples should be clearly labeled and individually sealed in re-sealable freezer bags
then placed in a plastic cooler with cool packs (not ice).
Ship the samples priority overnight courier under chain-of-custody to SiREM for
analysis. Label samples on waybill "groundwater samples to be destroyed upon
analysis". Samples should be given a value of $1, otherwise 15% duty will be
applied to the stated value (to be paid by client). No special regulations apply to the
shipping of groundwater samples to Canada. Holding time for Gene-Trac samples is 28
days at 4 degrees C.
Send Coolers to: Direct Inquiries to:
SiREM Laboratory Phil Dennis
130 Research Lane, Suite 2 Phone: 1 -877-279-6832/519-822-2265 ext. 238
Guelph, Ontario Fax:519-822-3151
Canada, N1G 5G3 E-mail: pdennis@siremlab.com
-------
S'REM
Site Recovery & Management
130 Research Lane Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 5G3
Telephone: (519)-822-2230 Fax: (519)-822-3151 E-mail: pdennis@geosyntec.com
Gene-Trac™ Dehalococcoides Test, Case Narrative, Test DT-0003
Six groundwater samples from the NASA launch complex 34 were analyzed for the
presence of Dehalococcoides using the Gene-Trac™ method. The test was performed on
three separate occasions using two separate DNA extractions. The test was replicated due
to the fact that the results, while positive, tended to be weakly so and not positive with all
primer sets used. This may reflect the type of Dehalococcoides organism present, which
may not have gene sequences that bind all primers efficiently. This is why we include
several primer sets in the assay to ensure that a maximum diversity of Dehalococcoides
organisms are detectable. For sample PA-26S it was impossible to extract PCR
amplifiable DNA, based on the lack of amplification with a non-Dehalococcoides
specific PCR primer set. This suggests that while Dehalococcoides was not present in this
sample no significant amounts of any other Bacteria were detected either. Please note
that the high "Intensity % of positive control" and "Band Intensity Score" for sample IW-
II may not actually indicate high concentrations of Dehalococcoides at this location,
relative to the other locations. The "++++" result for this sample arose because the band
intensity score is determined relative to the positive control, which was relatively weak in
the positive control for the primer set that worked for this sample.
PD
-------
SiREM
Site Recovery & Management
SiREM Dehalococcoides Testing Service, 130 Research Lane Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 5G3
Telephone: (519)-822-2230 Fax: (519)-822-3151 E-mail: pdennis@geosyntec.com
Test Results for Gene-Trac™Dehalococcoides Assay
Test Particulars:
Test Reference Number: DT-0003
Date Report Issued: May 15, 2002
Date Sample(s)Received: April 1/2002
Client Name: Battelle
Contact: Sam Yoon
Site Location: NASA LC34
Telephone: (614) 424-4569
E-mail: yoon@Battelle.org
Fax: (614) 458-4569
Test Results:
Method Used: GeneTrac™ Dehalococcoides Assay
Positive Control (Pos. Ctrl.):
Assay with Cloned Dehalococcoides 16S rRNA gene
Negative Control (Neg. Ctrl): DNA extraction with sterile water
Client Sample ID
PA-26S
PA-27S
PA-27I
PA-28S
PA-28I
IW-1I
na
na
Site
Sampling
Date
3/29/2002
3/29/2002
3/29/2002
3/29/2002
3/29/2002
3/29/2002
na
na
SiREM ID
DNA
Extraction
Date
DHC-0022 4/19/2002
DHC-0023
DHC-0024
DHC-0025
DHC-0026
DHC-0027
Pos. Ctrl.
4/19/2002
4/19/2002
4/19/2002
4/19/2002
4/19/2002
na
Neg. Ctrl na
Intensity %
of Positive
Control
0%
4.2%
5.4%
14%
10%
141%
100%
0%
Band
Intensity
Score
+
++++
Comments
Dehalococcoides
not detected (no
DNA in sample)
Dehalococcoides
detected
Dehalococcoides
detected
Dehalococcoides
detected
Dehalococcoides
detected
Dehalococcoides
detected
Normal
Normal
The above results refer only to that portion of the sample tested with the Gene-Trac assay. The test is based on PCR with primer sets
specific to DNA sequences in the 16S rRNA gene of Dehalococcoides. A positive (+) result in this assay indicates that a member of
the Dehalococcoides group was detected in the water sample. 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 has been
positively correlated to complete dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes at contaminated sites.
*Band 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 (4 - 33%), -/+ = inconclusive (1-3%), - = no band (0%)
"Intensity % of Positive control" = Quantitative assessment of electrophoresis gel band intensity of combined test results as a
percentage of positive control reaction. This value provides a semi-quantitative assessment of the number of Dehalococcoides
organisms present in the sample. While band intensity might reflect actual concentration of the target organism, GeneTrac™ is a
semi-quantitative method and results are only guaranteed to be a qualitative indicator for determination of the presence or absence of
Dehalococcoides.
Authorized by:
Philip Dennis, M.A.Sc., SiREM Operations Manager
-------
SiREM
Site Recovery & Management
130 Research Lane, Suite 2 Guelph, Ontario, NIG 5G3 Canada Tel: (519) 822-2265 Fax: (519) 822-3151
Test Results for Gene-Trac Dehalococcoides Assay
Client Name: Battelle
Contact: Sam Yoon
Site Location: NASA LC34
Telephone: (614) 424-4569
E-mail: yoon@BATTELLE.ORG]
Fax: (614) 458-4569
Test Reference Number: DT-0095
Report Issued: 11 -Jul-03
Site Sampling: 23-Jun-03
Sample(s) Received:25-Jun-03
DNA Extraction: 25-Jun-03
Gel Image Number : DHC-UP-0050/AG-0117
Positive Control (+ve control):
Assay with Cloned Dehalococcoides 16S rRNAgene
Negative Control (-ve control):
Assay with DNA extraction blank
Test Results:
Client Sample ID SiREM ID
BIO-PA26-062303
PA-26S(A)
(sampled
3/29/2002)
Not applicable
Not applicable
DHC-0492
DHC-0022
+ve control
-ve control
Non-
Dehalococcoides
Bacterial
DNA
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not applicable
Not applicable
Dehalococcoides
Test, Intensity
(% of Positive
Control)
106%
3%
100%
0%
Intensity
Score
-/+
Test Result:
Dehalococcoides
DNA
I I I I Detected (3 of 3 primer sets)
Inconclusive (1 of 3 primer sets)
+++ Detected (3 of 3 primer sets)
Not Detected
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
three 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 tetrachloroethene or trichloroethene 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 (4-33%), -/+ = inconclusive (1-3%), - = no detectable band (0%)
Analyst: Authorized by: Date:
Jaimee Mariani, Philip Dennis, M.A.Sc.,
Laboratory Technologist Director, SiREM
DT-0095 Preliminary Report
-------
DT-0095 AG-0117C - Battelle Gene-Trac Gel Image
1
«
1
c
1
I
1
1
Positive Control
Positive Control
DNA Blank
1
1
1
1
BIO-PA-26-062303
PA-26S (A) (3/29/02)
-------
Appendix F
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information
Table F-1. Results of the Extraction Procedure Performed on PA-4 Samples
Table F-2. 1,1,1-TCA Surrogate Spike Recovery Values for Soil Samples Collected During the
Bioaugmentation Demonstration Characterization
Table F-3. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-
Demonstration Soil Sampling
Table F-4. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration
Soil Sampling
Table F-5. Results of the Methanol Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration
Soil Sampling
Table F-6. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Bioaugmentation
Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
Table F-1. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration
Groundwater Sampling Events
Table F-8. Results of the Trip Blank Samples Collected During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration
Soil and Groundwater Sampling
Table F-9. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis for the Bioaugmentation Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Events
Table F-10. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis for the Bioaugmentation Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Events
Table F-11. Laboratory Control Spike Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Pre- and Post-
Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
Table F-12. Method Blank Sample Analysis during the Bioaugmentation Pre- and Post-Demonstration
Soil Sampling Events
Table F-13. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater
Sampling Events
Table F-14. Laboratory Control Spike Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration
Groundwater Sampling Events
Table F-15. Method Blank Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater
Sampling Events
-------
Table F-l. Results of the Extraction Procedure Performed on PA-4 Soil Samples
Extraction Procedure Conditions
Combined
Total Weight of Wet Soil (g) = 2,124.2
1,587.8 g dry soil from PA-4 boring
Concentration (mg TCE/g soil) = 3.3
529.3 g deionized water
Moisture Content of Soil (%) = 24.9
5 mL TCE
Laboratory
TCE Concentration
TCE Mass
TCE Concentration in
Theoretical TCE Mass
Percentage Recovery
Extraction
in MeOH
in MeOH
Spiked Soil
Expected in MeOH
of Spiked TCE
Sample ID
(mg/L)
(mg)
(mg/kg)
(mg)
(%)
1st Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP-1-1
1800.0
547.1
3252.5
744.11
73.53
SEP-1-2
1650.0
501.8
3164.9
701.26
71.55
SEP-1-3
1950.0
592.2
3782.3
692.62
85.51
SEP-1-4
1840.0
558.1
3340.2
739.13
75.51
SEP-1-5
1860.0
564.0
3533.9
705.91
79.89
SEP-1-6 (Control)
78.3
19.4
-
25.00
77.65
Average % Recovery =
77.20
2nd Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP-2-1
568.0
172.7
861.1
887.28
19.47
SEP-2-2
315.0
95.5
500.5
843.77
11.31
SEP-2-3
170.0
51.3
268.2
846.42
6.06
SEP-2-4
329.0
99.8
498.4
885.29
11.27
SEP-2-5
312.0
94.8
476.3
880.31
10.77
SEP-2-6 (Control)
82.6
20.4
-
25.00
81.79
Average % Recovery =
11.78
3rd Extraction procedure on same set of samples
SEP-3-1
55.8
17.0
84.6
885.96
1.91
SEP-3-2
59.0
17.9
94.2
841.77
2.13
SEP-3-3
56.8
17.2
90.1
846.42
2.04
SEP-3-4
63.0
19.1
95.2
888.61
2.15
SEP-3-5
52.2
15.8
80.0
875.99
1.81
SEP-3-6 (Control)
84.3
20.9
-
25.00
83.55
Average % Recovery =
2.01
-------
Table F-2.1,1,1-TCA Surrogate Spike Recovery Values for Soil Samples Collected During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Characterization
Bioaugmentation Treatment Plot 1,14 TCA-Spiked Soil Samples
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 230 [Pre-(139); Post-(91)]
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Spiked Samples Analyzed = 7 (Pre-) 6 (Post-)
1,1,1-TCA
Met
1,1,1-TCA
Sample
Sample
Result
RPD
QA/QC
Sample
Sample
Result
RPD
Met QA/QC
ID
Date
(ug/L)
(%)
Criteria?
ID
Date
(ug/L)
(%)
Criteria?
I'n'-lh'inoii.slrufioii
Posl-Dcmonslmlion
BIO-SB 1-8(SS)
01/14/02
5,680
9.56
Yes
BIO-SB202-42(SS)
06/17/03
4,900
ND
No
BIO-SB l-MB(SS)
6,250
BIO-SB202- MB(SS)
NC
BIO-SB2-8(SS)
01/23/02
6,360
4.31
Yes
BIO-SB205-42(SS)
06/18/03
5,100
ND
No
BIO-SB2-MB(SS)
6,640
BIO-SB205- MB(SS)
NC
BIO-SB3-8(SS)
01/23/02
7,210
0.696
Yes
BIO-SB206-40(SS)
06/19/03
5,180
ND
No
BIO-SB3-MB(SS)
7,160
BIO-SB206- MB(SS)
NC
BIO-SB4-8(SS)
01/24/02
6,480
11.63
Yes
BIO-SB207-40(SS)
06/20/03
5,430
ND
No
BIO-SB4-MB(SS)
7,280
BIO-SB207- MB(SS)
NC
BIO-SB5-8(SS)
02/04/02
4,870
6.17
Yes
BIO-SB210-30(SS)
06/18/03
5,920
ND
No
BIO-SB5-MB(SS)
5,180
BIO-SB210- MB(SS)
NC
BIO-SB6-8(SS)
02/05/02
5,560
17.40
Yes
BIO-SB211-30(SS)
06/19/03
5,170
ND
No
BIO-SB6-MB(SS)
6,620
BIO-SB211- MB(SS)
NC
BIO-SB7-8(SS)
02/06/02
4,970
14.45
Yes
BIO-SB7-MB(SS)
4,300
NC=Not collected due to field error.
ND = Not determined.
-------
Table F-3. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Bioaugmentation Treatment Plot Field Duplicate Soil Samples
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 230 [Pre-(139); Post-(91)]
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 7 (Pre-) 6 (Post-)
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Result
(mg/kg)
RPD
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(mg/kg)
RPD
(%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
I'n'-lh'inoii.slrufioii
Posl-Dcmonslmlion
BIO-SB 1-22
01/14/02
21
33.33
No
BIO-SB202-20
06/17/03
Trace
0.0
Yes
BIO-SB 1-22 DUP
15
BIO-SB202-20 DUP
Trace
BIO-SB2-14
01/23/02
13
0.0
Yes
BIO-SB205-16
06/18/03
Trace
0.0
Yes
BIO-SB2-14 DUP
13
BIO-SB205-16 DUP
Trace
BIO-SB3-18
01/23/02
8
122(b)
No
BIO-SB206-22
06/19/03
Trace
0.0
Yes
BIO-SB3-18 DUP
33
BIO-SB206-22 DUP
Trace
BIO-SB4-42
01/24/02
Trace
0.0
Yes
BIO-SB207-28
06/20/03
118
17.76
Yes
BIO-SB4-42 DUP
Trace
BIO-SB207-28 DUP
141
BIO-SB5-38
02/04/02
308
14.26
Yes
BIO-SB210-20
06/18/03
1
200(a)
No
BIO-SB5-38 DUP
287
BIO-SB210-20 DUP
0
BIO-SB6-28
02/05/02
420
15.11
Yes
BIO-SB211-24
06/19/03
1
200(a)
No
BIO-SB6-28 DUP
361
BIO-SB211-24 DUP
0
BIO-SB7-22
02/06/02
15
6.90
Yes
BIO-SB7-22 DUP
14
(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 F-4. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Bioaugmentation Rinsate Blank Soil Extraction QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 1.0 ug/L
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 230 [Pre-(139); Post-(91)]
Total Number of Field Samples Analyzed = 9
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
I'rc-lh'moiislralioii liinsalc Blank Samples
Posl-Dcmonslralion liinsalc Blank Samples
BIO-SB 1-RINSATE
01/14/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-SB202-RINSATE
06/17/03
<1.0
Yes
BIO-SB2-RINSATE
01/23/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-SB205-RINSATE
06/18/03
2.58
No
BIO-SB3-RINSATE
01/24/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-SB206-RINSATE
06/19/03
4.53
No
BIO-SB6-RINSATE
02/05/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-SB207-RINSATE
06/20/03
<1.0
Yes
BIO-SB7-RINSATE
02/06/02
<1.0
Yes
-------
Table F-5. Results of the Methanol Blank Samples Collected During the Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling
Bioaugmentation Methanol Blank Soil Extraction QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level < 100 ug/L
Total Number of Soil Samples Collected = 230 [Pre-(139); Post-(91)]
Total Number of Methanol Blank Samples Analyzed = 13
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
I'n'-lh'tnon.slralion Methanol Blank Samples
Po\l-l)cnwnslralion Methanol lllat
ik Samples
BIO-SB 1-MEOH
01/14/02
<100
Yes
BIO-SB202-MEOH
06/17/03
<100
Yes
BIO-SB2-MEOH
01/23/02
177
No
BIO-SB205-MEOH
06/18/03
<100
Yes
BIO-SB3-MEOH
01/23/02
<100
Yes
BIO-SB206-MEOH
06/19/03
<100
Yes
BIO-SB4-MEOH
01/24/02
<100
Yes
BIO-SB207-MEOH
06/20/03
<100
Yes
BIO-SB5-MEOH
02/04/02
<100
Yes
BIO-SB210-MEOH
06/18/03
<100
Yes
BIO-SB6-MEOH
02/05/02
<100
Yes
BIO-SB211-MEOH
06/19/03
<100
Yes
BIO-SB7-MEOH
02/06/02
<100
Yes
-------
Table F-6. Results and Precision of the Field Duplicate Samples Collected During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Treatment Plot Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Groundwater Samples Collected = 43 [Pre- (9); During (24); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Field Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 3
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Result
(ug/L)
RPD
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
liioangmcntalion Prc-Dcmonstration i'iclil Duplicate Samples
l'A-26
03/26/02
1,180,000
ND
No
l'A-26-DUP
NC
i'irst Sampling livcnl During the liioangmcntalion Demonstration
PA-26
12/12/02
7,460
3.83
Yes
PA-26-DUP
12/12/02
7,180
Second Samn/ing livcnl During the liioangmcntalion Demonstration
i'\-:ss
^ :u {)--
-- :u {)--
55.2(1(1
liioangmcntalion Post-Demonstration I 'iclil Duplicate Samples
l'A-26(a)
06/23/03
239
40.81
No
PA-26-DUP(a)
06/23/03
158
NC = Not collected due to field error.
ND = Not determined.
(a) High RPD value due to the effect of low (or below detect) concentrations of TCE, which drastically affected the RPD calculation.
-------
Table F-7. Results of the Rinsate Blank Samples Collected During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Groundwater QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 43
[Pre- (9); During- (24); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Rinsate Blank Samples Analyzed = 4
Sampling Event
Analysis Date
TCE Concentration
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Pre-Demonstration
03/27/02
<1.0
Yes
First Sampling Event During the Demonstration
12/12/02
<1.0
Yes
Second Sampling Event During the Demonstration
03/20/03
<1.0
Yes
Post-Demonstration
06/24/03
1.48
Yes
-------
Table F-8. Results of the Trip Blank Samples Analyzed During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Soil and Groundwater Sampling
Bioaugmentation Trip Blank QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 230 (Soil) 43 (Groundwater)
Total Number of Trip Blanks Analyzed = 18
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Result
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
liioauf
'mentation Demonstration Trip Blanks
BIO-TB-1
01/16/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-10
06/19/03
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-2
01/24/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-11
06/20/03
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-3
01/24/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-12
03/27/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-4
01/25/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-13
03/28/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-5
02/04/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-14
12/12/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-6
02/05/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-15
12/12/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-7
02/07/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-16
03/20/03
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-8
02/08/02
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-17
06/23/03
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-9
06/18/03
<1.0
Yes
BIO-TB-18
06/24/03
1.41
Yes
-------
Table F-9. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis for the Bioaugmentation Pre-Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Demonstration Soil MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 230 [Pre- (139); Post- (91)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 19
Total Number of Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 19
TCE
Met
Met
TCE
Met
Met
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Recovery
(%)
QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Recovery
(%)
QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
QA/QC
Criteria?
liioiiH^mciiltilioii Prc-Dcmonslriilion Matrix Spike Samples
0201067-03A MS
01/18/02
103
Yes
0.054
Yes
0201112-05AMS
1/29/02
110
Yes
1.27
Yes
0201067-03A MSD
103
Yes
0201112-05A MSD
109
Yes
0201067-26A MS
01/19/02
101
Yes
1.97
Yes
0202015-04A MS
02/05/02
118
Yes
0.95
Yes
0201067-26A MSD
103
Yes
0202015-04A MSD
119
Yes
0201067-49A MS
01/21/02
121
Yes
0.446
Yes
0202016-04A MS
02/06/02
116
Yes
2.36
Yes
0201067-49A MSD
121
Yes
0202016-04A MSD
119
Yes
0201067-60A MS
01/22/02
103
Yes
5.47
Yes
0202024-14A MS
02/06/02
108
Yes
0.51
Yes
0201067-60A MSD
90
Yes
0202024-14A MSD
109
Yes
0201067-15A MS(a)
01/22/02
-52.4
No
0.712
Yes
0202024-15A MS
02/07/02
110
Yes
1.27
Yes
0201067-15A MSD(a)
-53.2
No
0202024-15A MSD
109
Yes
0201105-01A MS(a)
01/26/02
33.9
No
0.556
Yes
0202034-10A MS
02/08/02
101
Yes
1.27
Yes
0201105-01A MSD(a)
26.5
No
0202034-10A MSD
102
Yes
0201105-09A MS
01/28/02
113
Yes
0.169
Yes
0202035-04A MS
02/09/02
104
Yes
2.55
Yes
0201105-09A MSD
112
Yes
0202035-04A MSD
102
Yes
0201104-04A MS
01/29/02
110
Yes
2.46
Yes
0202037-10A MS
02/12/02
121
Yes
0.909
Yes
0201104-04A MSD
113
Yes
0202037-1 OA MSD
120
Yes
0201104-50A MS
01/29/03
109
Yes
4.77
Yes
0202037-09A MS
02/13/02
130
Yes
21.5
Yes
0201104-50A MSD
01/30/03
103
Yes
0202037-09A MSD
162
No
0201104-27A MS
01/30/02
97.8
Yes
1.79
Yes
0201104-27A MSD
95.9
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 F-10. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis for the Bioaugmentation Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Demonstration Soil MS/MSD Samples
QA/QC Target Level Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 30.0 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 230 [Pre- (139); Post- (91)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 10
Total Number of Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 10
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
I'M.)
Met
QA/QC
Criteria?
Hioimiimcnliilion Ptist-Dcmimstrutiim Matrix Spike Samples
0306097-02A MS
06/21/03
110
Yes
0.239
Yes
0306103-03A MS(a)
06/25/03
139
No
3.70
Yes
0306097-02A MSD
111
Yes
0306103-03A MSD(a)
125
Yes
0306097-01A MS
06/21/03
113
Yes
0.518
Yes
0306103-21A MS
06/26/03
113
Yes
0.209
Yes
0306097-01A MSD
114
Yes
0306103-21A MSD
113
Yes
0306097-39A MS
06/22/03
111
Yes
2.33
Yes
0306112-25AMS(a)
06/27/03
-2060
No
164
No
0306097-39A MSD
113
Yes
0306112-25AMSD(a)
-40.3
No
0306112-01A MS
06/26/03
115
Yes
1.26
Yes
0306112-10AMS(a)
06/30/03
73.2
No
1.97
Yes
0306112-01A MSD
113
Yes
0306112-10AMSD(a)
68.9
No
0306097-07A MS
07/02/03
113
Yes
5.46
Yes
0306116-03A MS
06/30/03
117
Yes
6.93
Yes
0306097-07A MSD
107
Yes
0306116-03A MSD
109
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 F-ll. Laboratory Control Spike Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Pre-and Post Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Demonstration Soil LCS Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE Recovery % = 70 - 130 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 230 [Pre- (139); Post- (91)]
Total Number of Laboratory Control Spike Samples Analyzed = 37
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
I're-Demoiisf ration Laboratory ( ontrol Spike Samples
LCS-9593
01/18/02
95.5
Yes
LCS-9662
01/28/02
90.2
Yes
LCS-9598
01/19/02
101
Yes
LCS-9665
01/29/02
112
Yes
LCS-9604
01/21/02
116
Yes
LCS-9668
01/29/02
113
Yes
LCS-9608
01/22/02
90.6
Yes
LCS-9676
01/30/02
96.5
Yes
LCS-9620
01/23/02
95.6
Yes
LCS-9673
01/29/02
102
Yes
LCS-9634
01/22/02
101
Yes
LCS-9724
02/05/02
113
Yes
LCS-9635
01/23/02
94.5
Yes
LCS-9730
02/06/02
118
Yes
LCS-9637
01/24/02
95.5
Yes
LCS-9733
02/06/02
110
Yes
LCS-9647
01/25/02
92
Yes
LCS-9736
02/07/02
111
Yes
LCS-9649
01/25/02
110
Yes
LCS-9745
02/08/02
104
Yes
LCS-9650
01/27/02
103
Yes
LCS-9758
02/08/02
108
Yes
LCS-9651
01/26/02
90.6
Yes
LCS-9772
02/11/02
121
Yes
LCS-9656
01/28/02
122
Yes
LCS-9788
02/13/02
123
Yes
Post-Demonstration Laboratory Control Spike Samples
LCS-13557
06/20/03
109
Yes
LCS-13595
06/25/03
118
Yes
LCS-13558
06/21/03
112
Yes
LCS-13601
06/26/03
116
Yes
LCS-13559
06/21/03
115
Yes
LCS-13613
06/27/03
108
Yes
LCS-13601
06/26/03
116
Yes
LCS-13623
06/29/03
119
Yes
LCS-13659
07/01/03
114
Yes
LCS-13628
06/30/03
117
Yes
LCS-13578
06/24/03
113
Yes
-------
Table F-12. Method Blank Sample Analysis during the Bioaugmentation Pre- and Post-Demonstration Soil Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Demonstration Soil QA/QC Samples
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 230 [Pre- (139); Post- (91)]
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 37
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE
Recovery
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
Pre-Demonstration Method Blank Samples
MB-9593
01/18/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9662
01/28/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9598
01/19/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9665
01/29/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9604
01/21/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9668
01/29/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9608
01/22/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9676
01/30/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9620
01/23/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9673
01/29/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9634
01/22/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9724
02/05/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9635
01/23/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9730
02/06/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9637
01/24/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9733
02/06/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9647
01/25/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9736
02/07/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9649
01/25/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9745
02/08/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9650
01/27/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9758
02/08/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9651
01/26/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9772
02/11/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9656
01/28/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-9788
02/13/02
<1.0
Yes
Posl-Denwnslralion Melhotl lilank Samples
MB-13557
06/20/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13595
06/26/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13558
06/21/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13601
06/26/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13559
06/21/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13613
06/27/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13601
06/26/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13623
06/29/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13659
07/02/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13628
06/30/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13578
06/24/03
<1.0
Yes
-------
Table F-13. Matrix Spike Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level TCE Recovery % = 75 - 125 %
QA/QC Target Level RPD < 20.0 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 43
[Pre- (9); During (24); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed = 8
Total Number of Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples Analyzed = 8
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
RPD
(%)
Met QA/QC
Criteria?
liioaugmentation Pre-Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
U203133-20A MS
03/29/02
99.1
Yes
0.995
Yes
0203133-20A MSD
100
Yes
<>2<>' I55-H(i \ MS"
o4 (i-l (>2
14 1
\o
Yes
(Po i 155-ui. \ MSI)
-4" :
\n
First Sampling liven! During the liioaugmentation Demonstration
0212061-01A MS
12/18/02
99.3
Yes
4.94
Yes
0212061-01A MSD
94.5
Yes
0212068-09A MS
12/17/02
80.9
Yes
3.17
Yes
0212068-09A MSD
78.3
Yes
Second Sampling Event During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration
0303 107-11A MS
03/24/03
109
Yes
4.65
Yes
0303107-11A MSD
104
Yes
liioangmeiitatioii Post-Demonstration Matrix Spike Samples
U306112-10A MS
06/30/03
73.2
No
1.97
Yes
0306112-10A MSD(a)
68.9
No
0306116-03A MS
06/30/03
117
Yes
6.93
Yes
0306116-03A MSD
109
Yes
0306097-07A MS
07/02/03
113
Yes
5.46
Yes
0306097-07A MSD
107
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 F-14. Laboratory Control Spike Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level TCE Recovery % = 75 - 125 %
Total Number of Samples Collected = 43
[Pre- (9); During (24); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Matrix Spike Samples Analyzed =8
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Recovery
(%)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
liioangmcnlalion I'rc-Dcmonslralion l.aboralory ( ontrol Spike Samples
I.CS-10187
03/29/02
105
Yes
I.CS-10232
04/04/02
102
Yes
I'irst Sampling livcnl During the liioangmcnlalion Demonstration
i.(
i: isn2
Yes
i.( s-i:nix
i: ni]
"'1 1
Yes
Second Sampling invent During the liioangmcnlalion Demonstration
i.(
{)-- 24 m
|()2
Yes
liioangmcnlalion I'osl-Dcmonslralion Laboratory ( ontrol Spike Samples
I.CS-13623
06/29/03
110
Yes
LCS-13628
06/30/03
117
Yes
LCS-13659
07/02/03
114
Yes
-------
Table F-15. Method Blank Sample Analysis During the Bioaugmentation Demonstration Groundwater Sampling Events
Bioaugmentation Demonstration
Groundwater QA/QC
QA/QC Target Level TCE < 3.0 ug/L
Total Number of Samples Collected = 43
[Pre- (9); During (24); Post- (10)]
Total Number of Method Blank Samples Analyzed = 8
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
TCE Recovery
(ug/L)
Met QA/QC Criteria?
HioaHf.
•mentation I'rc-Dcmonslralion Method lilank Samples
MB-10187
03/29/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-10232
04/04/02
<1.0
Yes
i'irst Sampling l:\ cnl During the liioangmcnlalion Demonstration
MB-12029
12/18/02
<1.0
Yes
MB-12018
12/17/02
<1.0
Yes
Second Sampling Hvcnt During the liioangmcnlalion Demonstration
{)-- 24 tn
1 o
Yes
liioangmcnlalion I'osl-Dcmonslralion Method lilank Samples
MB-13623
06/29/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13628
06/30/03
<1.0
Yes
MB-13659
07/02/03
<1.0
Yes
-------
Appendix G
Economic Analysis Information
Figure G-1. P&T System Costs for 100 Years
Table G-1. Pump-and-Treat (P&T) System Design Basis
Table G-2. Capital Investment for a P&T System
Table G-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30 Years of Operation
Table G-4. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 100 Years of Operation
-------
Appendix G
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 biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment 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 the
biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatment, 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 G-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 40
ft wide (width of a realistic contamination for the biostimulation and bioaugmentation plot) and
30 ft deep (thickness of the treatment 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.
G.l Capital Investment for the P&T System
The P&T system designed for this application consists of the components shown in Table G-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 air:water 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.
G.2 Annual Cost of the P&T System
The annual costs of P&T are shown in Table G-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.
G.3 Periodic Maintenance Cost
In addition to the routine maintenance described above, periodic maintenance will be required, as
shown in Table G-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.
G.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 ^ Annual Cost in V c ci r t Ecjuation (Ci-1)
0+r)1
PV p&t costs Capital Investment A.nnual cost in \c ci r 1 ~t~ ... ~t~ A.nnual cost in V car n
0+r)1 (l+r)n
Equation (G-2)
-------
Table G-3 shows the PV calculation for P&T based on Equation G-l. In Equation G-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 G-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 $1,393,000
(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 G-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 G-4) is estimated at $2,179,000.
-------
Table G-l. Pump-and-Treat (P&T) System Design Basis
Item
Value
Units
Item
Value
Units
Width of DNAPL zone, w
40
ft
Hyd. conductivity, K
40
ft/d
Depth of DNAPL zone, d
30
ft
Hyd. gradient, I
0.0007
ft/ft
Crossectional area of
DNAPL zone, a
1,200
sq ft
Porosity, n
0.3
Capture zone required
900
ft3/d
Gw velocity, v
0.75
ft/d
Safety factor, 100%
2
Required capture zone
1,800
CO
GPM =
2.0
gpm
Number of wells to achieve
Design pumping rate
2
gpm
capture
1
Pumping rate per well
2
gpm
TCE conc. in water near
TCE allowed in discharge
DNAPL zone
100
mg/L
water
1
mg/L
Air stripper removal
efficiency required
99.00%
TCE in air effluent from
stripper
2.4
lbs/day
TCE allowed in air effluent
6
lbs/day
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App G\Appendix G_rv.xls
-------
Table G-2a. Capital Investment for a P&T System at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
Item
# units
Unit Price
Cost
Basis
Design/Procurement
Engineer
120
hrs
$ 85
$10,200
Drafter
80
hrs
$ 40
$3,200
Hydrologist
120
hrs
$ 85
$10,200
Contingency
1
ea
$ 10,000
$10,000
10% of total capital
TOTAL
$23,600
Pumping system
2-inch, 30 ft deep, 30-foot SS screen; PVC;
Extraction wells
1
ea
$ 5,000
$5,000
includes installation
2.1 gpm max., 1,66"OD for 2-inch wells;
handles solvent contact; pneumatic; with chec
Pulse pumps
1
ea
$ 595
$595
valves
Controllers
1
ea
$ 1,115
$1,115
Solar powered or 110 V; with pilot valve
100 psi (125 psi max), 4.3 cfm continuous
Air compressor
1
ea
$ 645
$645
duty, oil-less; 1 hp
Miscellaneous fittings
1
ea
$ 5,000
$5,000
Estimate
1/2-inch OD, chemical resistant; well to
Tubing
150
ft
$ 3
$509
surface manifold
TOTAL
$12,864
Treatment System
Piping
150
ft
$ 3
$509
chemical resistant
Trench
1
day
$ 320
$320
ground surface
125 gal; high grade steel with epoxy lining;
DNAPL separarator tank
1
ea
$ 120
$120
conical bottom with discharge
Air stripper feed pump
1
ea
$ 460
$460
0.5 hp; up to 15 gpm
0.5 inch, chemical resistant; feed pump to
Piping
50
ft
$ 3
$170
stripper
Water flow meter
1
ea
$ 160
$160
Low flow; with read out
Low-profile air stripper with
control panel
1
ea
$ 9,400
$9,400
1 -25 gpm, 4 tray; SS shell and trays
Pressure gauge
1
ea
$ 50
$50
SS; 0-30 psi
Blower
1
ea
$ 1,650
$1,650
5 hp
Air flow meter
1
ea
$ 175
$175
Orifice type; 0-50 cfm
Stack
10
ft
$ 2
$20
2 inch, PVC, lead out of housing
Catalytic Oxidizer
1
ea
$ 65,000
$65,000
Carbon
2
ea
$ 1,000
$2,000
Stripper sump pump
1
ea
$ 130
$130
To sewer
Misc. fittings, switches
1
ea
$ 5,000
$5,000
Estimate (sample ports, valves, etc.)
TOTAL
$85,163
Site Preparation
20 ft x 20 ft with berm; for air stripper and
Conctrete pad
400
ft2
$ 3
$1,200
associated equipment
Berm
80
ft
$ 7
$539
240 V, 50 Amps; pole transformer and
Power drop
1
ea
$ 5,838
$5,838
licensed electrician
Verify source containment; 2-inch PVC with
Monitoring wells
5
wells
$ 2,149
$10,745
SS screens
Sewer connection fee
1
ea
$ 2,150
$2,150
Sewer pipe
300
ft
$ 10
$3,102
20 ft x 20 ft; shelter for air stripper and
Housing
1
ea
$ 2,280
$2,280
associated equipment
TOTAL
$25,854
Installation/Start Up of Treatment System
Engineer
60
hrs
$ 85
$5,100
Labor
Technician
200
hrs
$ 40
$8,000
Labor
TOTAL
$13,100
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
$160,581
-------
Table G-2b. O&M Costs for a P&T System at Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral
O&M Cost for P&T Sytem
Annual Operation &
Maintenance
Engineer
80
hrs
$ 85
$6,800
Oversight
Technician
500
hrs
$ 40
$20,000
Routine operation; annual cleaning of air
stripper trays, routine replacement of parts;
any waste disposal
Replacement materials
1
ea
$ 2,000
$2,000
Seals, o-rings, tubing, etc.
Electricity
52,560
kW-hrs
$ 0
$5,256
8 hp (~6 kW) over 1 year of operation
Fuel (catalytic oxidizer)
2,200
106 Btu
$ 6
$13,200
Sewer disposal fee
525,600
gal/yr
$ 0
$799
Carbon disposal
2
$ 1,000
$2,000
Waste disposal
20
drum
$ 80
$1,600
20 gal drum; DNAPL, if any; haul to
incinerator
TOTAL
$51,655
Annual Monitorinc
Air stripper influen'
12
samples
$ 120
$1,440
Verify air stripper loading; monthly
Air stripper effluent
14
samples
$ 120
$1,680
Discharge quality confirmation; monthly;
CVOC analysis; MS, MSD
Monitoring wells
20
samples
$ 120
$2,400
5 wells; quarterly; MS, MSC
Sampling materials
1
ea
$ 500
$500
Miscellaneous
Technician
64
hrs
$ 40
$2,560
Quarterly monitoring labor (from wells) only;
weekly monitoring (from sample ports)
included in O&M cost
Engineer
40
hrs
$ 85
$3,400
Oversight; quarterly reporl
TOTAL
$5,520
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$57,175
Periodic Maintenance,
Every 5 years
Pulse pumps
4
ea
$ 595
$2,380
As above
Air compressor
1
ea
$ 645
$645
As above
Air stripper feed pump
1
ea
$ 460
$460
As above
Blower
1
ea
$ 1,650
$1,650
As above
Catalyst replacement
1
ea
$ 5,000
$5,000
Stripper sump pump
1
ea
$ 130
$130
As above
Miscellaneous materials
1
ea
$ 1,000
$1,000
Estimate
Technician
40
hrs
$ 40
$1,600
Labor
TOTAL
$12,865
$70,040
Periodic Maintenance,
Every 10 years
Air stripper
1
ea
$ 9,400
$9,400
As above
Catalytic oxidizei
1
ea
$ 16,000
$16,000
Major overhaul
Water flow meters
1
ea
$ 160
$160
As above
Air flow meter
1
ea
$ 175
$175
As above
Technician
40
hrs
$ 40
$1,600
Labor
Miscellaneous materials
1
ea
$ 1,000
$1,000
Estimate
TOTAL
$28,335
TOTAL PERIODIC
MAINTENANCE COSTS
$98,375
-------
Table G-3. Present Value of P&T System Costs for 30-Year Operation
P&T
Cumulative PV of
Year
Annual Cost *
PV of Annual Cost
Annual Cost
0
$160,581
$160,581
$160,581
1
$57,175
$55,564
$216,144
2
$57,175
$53,998
$270,142
3
$57,175
$52,476
$322,618
4
$57,175
$50,997
$373,615
5
$70,040
$60,711
$434,326
6
$57,175
$48,163
$482,489
7
$57,175
$46,806
$529,294
8
$57,175
$45,486
$574,781
9
$57,175
$44,205
$618,985
10
$98,375
$73,915
$692,900
11
$57,175
$41,748
$734,648
12
$57,175
$40,571
$775,220
13
$57,175
$39,428
$814,648
14
$57,175
$38,317
$852,965
15
$70,040
$45,616
$898,580
16
$57,175
$36,188
$934,768
17
$57,175
$35,168
$969,936
18
$57,175
$34,177
$1,004,112
19
$57,175
$33,213
$1,037,326
20
$98,375
$55,536
$1,092,862
21
$57,175
$31,368
$1,124,230
22
$57,175
$30,484
$1,154,713
23
$57,175
$29,625
$1,184,338
24
$57,175
$28,790
$1,213,128
25
$70,040
$34,274
$1,247,401
26
$57,175
$27,190
$1,274,591
27
$57,175
$26,424
$1,301,015
28
$57,175
$25,679
$1,326,693
29
$57,175
$24,955
$1,351,649
30
$98,375
$41,728
$1,393,376
* 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
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App G\Appendix G_rv.xls
-------
Table G-4. Present Value of P T System for 100-Year Operation
P&T
PV of
Annual
Annual
Cumulative PV
Year
Cost'
Cost
of Annual Cost
0
$160,581
$160,581
$160,581
1
$57,175
$55,564
$216,144
2
$57,175
$53,998
$270,142
3
$57,175
$52,476
$322,618
4
$57,175
$50,997
$373,615
5
$70,040
$60,711
$434,326
6
$57,175
$48,163
$482,489
7
$57,175
$46,806
$529,294
8
$57,175
$45,486
$574,781
9
$57,175
$44,205
$618,985
10
$98,375
$73,915
$692,900
11
$57,175
$41,748
$734,648
12
$57,175
$40,571
$775,220
13
$57,175
$39,428
$814,648
14
$57,175
$38,317
$852,965
15
$70,040
$45,616
$898,580
16
$57,175
$36,188
$934,768
17
$57,175
$35,168
$969,936
18
$57,175
$34,177
$1
004,112
19
$57,175
$33,213
$1
037,326
20
$98,375
$55,536
$1
092,862
21
$57,175
$31,368
$1
124,230
22
$57,175
$30,484
$1
154,713
23
$57,175
$29,625
$1
184,338
24
$57,175
$28,790
$1
213,128
25
$70,040
$34,274
$1
247,401
26
$57,175
$27,190
$1
274,591
27
$57,175
$26,424
$1
301,015
28
$57,175
$25,679
$1
326,693
29
$57,175
$24,955
$1
351,649
30
$98,375
$41,728
$1
393,376
31
$57,175
$23,568
$1
416,944
32
$57,175
$22,904
$1
439,849
33
$57,175
$22,259
$1
462,107
34
$57,175
$21,631
$1
483,739
35
$70,040
$25,752
$1
509,490
36
$57,175
$20,429
$1
529,920
37
$57,175
$19,853
$1
549,773
38
$57,175
$19,294
$1
569,067
39
$57,175
$18,750
$1
587,817
40
$98,375
$31,352
$1
619,169
41
$57,175
$17,708
$1
636,878
42
$57,175
$17,209
$1
654,087
43
$57,175
$16,724
$1
670,811
44
$57,175
$16,253
$1
687,064
45
$70,040
$19,349
$1
706,413
46
$57,175
$15,350
$1
721,762
47
$57,175
$14,917
$1
736,679
48
$57,175
$14,497
$1
751,176
49
$57,175
$14,088
$1
765,264
50
$98,375
$23,557
$1
788,821
P&T
PV of
Annual
Annual
Cumulative PV
Year
Cost *
Cost
of Annual Cost
51
$57,175
$13,305
$1,802,126
52
$57,175
$12,930
$1,815,056
53
$57,175
$12,566
$1,827,622
54
$57,175
$12,212
$1,839,834
55
$70,040
$14,538
$1,854,372
56
$57,175
$11,533
$1,865,905
57
$57,175
$11,208
$1,877,113
58
$57,175
$10,892
$1,888,005
59
$57,175
$10,585
$1,898,590
60
$98,375
$17,700
$1,916,290
61
$57,175
$9,997
$1,926,286
62
$57,175
$9,715
$1,936,002
63
$57,175
$9,441
$1,945,443
64
$57,175
$9,175
$1,954,618
65
$70,040
$10,923
$1,965,542
66
$57,175
$8,665
$1,974,207
67
$57,175
$8,421
$1,982,628
68
$57,175
$8,184
$1,990,812
69
$57,175
$7,953
$1,998,765
70
$98,375
$13,299
$2,012,064
71
$57,175
$7,511
$2,019,575
72
$57,175
$7,300
$2,026,875
73
$57,175
$7,094
$2,033,969
74
$57,175
$6,894
$2,040,863
75
$70,040
$8,207
$2,049,070
76
$57,175
$6,511
$2,055,581
77
$57,175
$6,327
$2,061,908
78
$57,175
$6,149
$2,068,057
79
$57,175
$5,976
$2,074,033
80
$98,375
$9,992
$2,084,025
81
$57,175
$5,644
$2,089,669
82
$57,175
$5,485
$2,095,153
83
$57,175
$5,330
$2,100,483
84
$57,175
$5,180
$2,105,663
85
$70,040
$6,167
$2,111,829
86
$57,175
$4,892
$2,116,721
87
$57,175
$4,754
$2,121,476
88
$57,175
$4,620
$2,126,096
89
$57,175
$4,490
$2,130,586
90
$98,375
$7,508
$2,138,093
91
$57,175
$4,240
$2,142,334
92
$57,175
$4,121
$2,146,454
93
$57,175
$4,005
$2,150,459
94
$57,175
$3,892
$2,154,351
95
$70,040
$4,633
$2,158,984
96
$57,175
$3,676
$2,162,660
97
$57,175
$3,572
$2,166,232
98
$57,175
$3,471
$2,169,703
99
$57,175
$3,374
$2,173,077
100
$98,375
$5,641
$2,178,718
M:\Cape Canaveral 2\Reports\Final Reports\Bio\Appendices\App G\Appendix G_rv.xls
-------
Figure G-l. P&T System Total Costs over 100 years
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
H $1,500,000
^ $1,000,000
$500,000
$0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Years of Operation
------- |