zebra expediting sustainable brownfield redevelopment by applying triad using the membrane interface...

7/31/2019 ZEBRA Expediting Sustainable Brownfield Redevelopment by Applying Triad Using the Membrane Interface Probe

1/21

REMEDIATION Autumn 2010

Expediting Sustainable BrownfieldsRedevelopment by Applying Triad Usingthe Membrane Interface Probe

Maria D. Watt

Michael Burlingame

Jessica R. Beattie

Melissa Koberle

Brad Carlson

Redevelopment and reuse plans are often based upon an expedited delineation and remediation

life cycle, since delayed reuse usually has economic consequences. It has also become increasingly

important to utilize sustainable practices to achieve investigation and remediation goals. In this

article, the Triad approach is used to expedite the delineation of a source area within a municipal

landfill to complete the remedial effort prior to construction of an urban civic center. The Triad

approach uses the three elements of systematic project planning, dynamic work strategy, and real-

time measurement to expedite site characterization (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council,

2003). In this article, the Triad sampling strategy consisted of two phases. The first phase includedin

situ screening of soil and groundwater using the membrane interface probe (MIP), and the second

phase included confirmatory sampling via vertical profiles in the soil and groundwater. This study

found that, using the MIP in a dynamic sampling strategy, a critical element of the Triad approach,

combined with the proper placement of confirmatory samples, significantly reduced overall project

cost and will expedite the site redevelopment. The use of the Triad approach also contributed to

the integration of green and sustainable practices into the project. Oc 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Optimizing contaminant delineation by the Triad approach has been practiced since atleast 1997 (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council [ITRC], 2003), including in situtesting with the membrane interface probe (MIP) as reported by the ITRC (2003), Saboyaet al. (2004), and Huang et al. (2010). The Triad approach uses real-time fieldmeasurements to allow sampling strategies to be dynamic and evolve to establish the range

of contaminant concentrations, the degree of heterogeneity, and spatial correlation ofcontaminant distributions. However, real-time screening does not replace off-sitelaboratory analysis, which has a high degree of certainty to support risk characterization,risk-based cleanup negotiation, remedy selection, and protective site-reuse strategies. TheTriad approach can expeditiously reduce uncertainty in site characterization, therebyreducing the risk of failure for site remediation and impeding site redevelopment.Numerous remediation/redevelopment efforts have either failed or greatly increased incost due to inadequacies in site characterization. By using real-time field measurements toguide sampling, the possibility of missing an area of contamination or underestimating the

c 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com. DOI: 10.1002/rem.20267 17


2/21

Expediting Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment by Applying Triad Using the Membrane Interface Probe

aerial extent of contamination is significantly reduced. Also, the potential of inadequatelycharacterizing potential future exposure caused by site redevelopment can lead tounanticipated increased risk to human health and the environment.

The three concepts comprising the Triad approach are (ITRC, 2003):

1. Systematic project planning,2. Dynamic work strategies, and3. Real-time measurement tools.

The unifying concept for these ideas is the need to understand and manageuncertainties that affect decision making in the remedial process. Many of the conceptsand ideas have been used previously to characterize sites, but their combination can allowthe user to:

r expedite complete delineation;r avoid late discovery of unknown sources;r

accurately evaluate risks, remedial alternatives, and remedy selection;r optimize design for increased efficiency; andr increase probability of remedial success.

A conceptual site model (CSM) should be part of the systematic project planningprocess to identify and clarify project objectives. A CSM consists of a 2-D, 3-D, or 4-Drepresentation of physical, chemical, and biological information organized into potentialfate, transport, and exposure scenarios in order to focus a remedys assessment, design,and implementation. A CSM can include information regarding contaminant distribution,movement, and potential receptors; hydrogeologic and stratigraphic conditions; land use;monitoring features; and data gaps. Although visual representations may not be

cost-effective for simple site models, they can be justified where contaminants posegreater risks for remedial decision makers, including responsible parties, consultants,regulators, and other stakeholders.

During systematic project planning, the numerical and/or qualitative cleanup goalsshould be identified or at least estimated, and should be re-referenced during laterdata analysis and decision making. Consideration of potential remediationapproaches/technologies should be considered, if possible, during project planning toallow for early data collection critical to remedial technology feasibility and selection.

Consideration of potential

remediation approaches/

technologies should be

considered, if possible,

during project planning to

allow for early data col-

lection critical to remedial

technology feasibility and

selection.

Project planning should include/consider: how background conditions will beevaluated, data flow and decision making, analytical methods (e.g., field and laboratory,qualitative and quantitative), team selection (with the necessary expertise), and

integration planning with regulators and stakeholders.Dynamic work strategies are different from conventional work strategies in thatdynamic planning documents will include decision logic when complexities areencountered. This will allow field personnel to change the site activities as needed, so asto continue to achieve the project objectives with increased quality and control. This doesnot require that decision makers be present on-site during data collection, only that theyare accessible to evaluate data and support the field staff. A key cost-saving component ofthe Triad approach is the potential to complete fieldwork more quickly and ideally withone mobilization. A dynamic work strategy allows for this by providing for data exchange

18 Remediation DOI: 10.1002/rem c 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


3/21


(via telecommunications tools, such as an FTP Internet site), data management systems,and contingencies to modify field activities during implementation. Real-timemeasurement technologies, necessary to the Triad approach because they facilitateexpedient and flexible decision making, include data-collection and management tools,processing, analysis, and transmittal. Real-time technologies can include not only field

tests, such as immunoassay kits, but also field laboratories. Reliance on arbitraryconfirmation sampling of a percentage of field samples should be avoided. Rather, thedesired approach uses the field data and laboratory data in a combined approach with thegoal to enhance the CSM. For example, where data certainty is sufficient (i.e., in areasthat are either well above or well below the regulatory or other remediation goal), lessexpensive field methods can be used to increase sample density and enhance the CSM.Laboratory analyses can be used in areas where an unacceptable level of uncertainty (interms of compliance with the remedial goals) remains.

Real-time measurement

technologies, necessary

to the Triad approach

because they facilitate ex-

pedient and flexible de-

cision making, include

data-collection and man-

agement tools, processing,

analysis, and transmittal.

In the project discussed in this article, the Triad approach using the membraneinterface probe specifically supported:

r

accurate daily interpretation of real-time data;r use of lines of evidence in evaluation;r proper placement of confirmation samples, not just a random percentage of

samples, to confirm plume geometry, high/source zones, mid/core zones, andlow/distal/fringe plume delineation; and

r a well-distributed sample database yielding accurate assessment of contaminant massremoval requirements.

The MIP uses the following three probes to screen for site contamination:

1. An electron capture device (ECD) to detect chlorinated compounds,

2. A photo-ionization detector (PID) to detect aromatic hydrocarbons, and3. A flame ionization detector (FID) to detect straight-chain hydrocarbons.

Results from the above detectors can be evaluated daily to optimize the samplingstrategy and reduce the number of samples required to characterize the spatialcontaminant distribution. Because chemical speciation is not achieved by any of these threedetectors, selected supplemental confirmatory sampling is necessary at critical locations todetermine the nature and extent of contamination with a high degree of certainty.

BACKGROUND

An 85-acre municipal landfill is located within a 200-acre brownfields development area(BDA). The BDA consists of eight abandoned brownfields sites along 2 miles of the New

Jersey shoreline on the Delaware River, overlooking the Philadelphia skyline and within ahighly urbanized area of New Jersey. The municipality has received significant brownfieldsfunding to stimulate redevelopment and revitalization. Redevelopment plans for thislandfill include a state-of-the-art, 132,000-square-foot community center that will featurean atrium-style town plaza, a family service center, indoor and outdoor recreationalfacilities, an aquatic center, and a child care center, as well as community-enrichment,

c 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Remediation DOI: 10.1002/rem 19


4/21


job-training, and antipoverty programs. To meet the aggressive construction andredevelopment schedule, an expedited Triad approach was utilized to comprehensivelydelineate a contaminated industrial source area within this site.

To meet the aggressive

construction and redevel-

opment schedule, an ex-

pedited Triad approach

was utilized to comprehen-

sively delineate a contami-

nated industrial source area

within this site.

The unlined landfill operated from 1952 until 1971, when it was closed with avegetative soil cover. The preliminary investigations revealed it contained mainly

municipal solid waste. An area of industrial chemical waste material saturated withchlorobenzene (CB) and dichlorobenzenes (DCBs) was identified in the southeast portionof the landfill. This material is approximately 20 to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) andacts as a continuing source of groundwater contamination and localized soil-vaporcontamination.

Although operations at the landfill ceased in 1971, illegal dumping activitiescontinued at the site through the 2000s. While evaluating the property for redevelopmentin 2006, a source area of volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination was identifiedin the southeast quadrant of the landfill. Investigations at the site identified concentrationsof benzene, CB, isomers of DCB (1,2-, 1,3-, 1,4-), and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (TCB)above the state cleanup standards in both soil and groundwater. More specifically, it was

identified that a grey-black clay layer situated below the waste fill was highly contaminatedand was likely acting as the source of groundwater contamination in this area of the parcel.In late 2007, an initial interim remedial measure (IRM) was implemented consisting ofexcavation and off-site disposal of an estimated 14,000 cubic yards of material within thissource area contaminated with CB and DCBs. This IRM excavated a portion of thecontaminated clay layer in this source area; however, residual contamination remained inthe clay outside the perimeter of the IRM excavation area (hot spot) that requiredexpedited delineation in order to meet an aggressive construction and redevelopmentschedule.

The objective of this Triad investigation was to expedite the delineation of theremaining source material. Using the Triad approach, a systematic sampling plan was

established wherein a MIP was evaluated to collect real-time data. These data were usedto select subsequent confirmatory samples in order to comprehensively delineate theremaining source material.

Physical Setting

The site is located in the New Jersey Coastal Plain and is underlain by thePotomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) aquifer system. The PRM aquifer system consists ofthree principal layers of fine to coarse sand and gravel separated by stiff clay layers that are20 to 50 feet thick. The three sand/gravel layers are referred to as the lower, middle, andupper aquifers of the PRM system. At the site, only the middle and lower aquifers of the

PRM are present, and in the hot spot area, only the middle aquifer of the PRM iscontaminated. Depth to groundwater in the middle aquifer of the PRM in the source arearanges from approximately 27 to 29 feet bgs, and groundwater flow is to theeast-southeast.

The waste fill is 15 to 20 feet thick and consists of fine tan sand, black silt, lenses ofclay, gravel, rocks, concrete, wood, roots, construction and demolition (C&D) debris,and municipal solid waste. The C&D debris includes pieces of brick, asphalt, cement,plastic, glass, paper, tires, drums, metal scraps, wood, and cinders. The municipal solidwaste includes plastics (e.g., bags, bottles), glass bottles, cans, cardboard and paper,



5/21


clothing, fabrics and rags, ceramic fragments, car metal fragments, wires, large rubberbelts, and Styrofoam. The waste fill is underlain by 6 to 12 feet of dark grey to blackmedium plasticity clay (CL)/silty-clay (ML). The clay has a hydraulic conductivity rangingfrom 2.0 106 centimeters per second to 7.7 108 cm/sec. Clay surface contouringsuggests that the topography of the clay forms a U shape to the east of the excavated

area, with highs to the northwest and southeast and an undulating trough runningsouthwest to northeast.The clay layer is underlain by the middle aquifer of the PRM, a light brown to gray

fine to medium sand (SP) to silty-sand (SM), with trace to some gravel. This unit isapproximately 25 feet thick.

Beneath the middle aquifer of the PRM is a red fat clay (CH) layer with a very lowhydraulic conductivity of 2.2 108 cm/sec extending from about 55 feet bgs to about97 feet bgs. The clay is underlain by the lower aquifer of the PRM, a light brown to grayfine to coarse sand with gravel, which extends to bedrock.

TRIAD APPROACH FOR EXPEDITED DELINEATION

To conduct a streamlined Triad approach for the contaminant delineation of the remainingon-site hot spot, a sampling strategy was developed that consisted of two phases. Thefirst phase included in situ screening of soil and groundwater using the MIP, and thesecond phase included confirmatory sampling via vertical profiles, by means of aGeoprobe, in the soil and groundwater.

The MIP investigation was

designed to start at the

upgradient transect and

proceed toward transects

downgradient of the hot

spot, but the exact place-

ment and order of the

locations was a dynamic

process based upon the

data obtained daily and

best judgment.

Phase I: Membrane Interface Probe Investigation

In the planning stages of the MIP investigation, a series of six transects (labeled A throughF in Exhibit 1) oriented perpendicular to the groundwater flow direction were established

covering the hot-spot area and downgradient. On each transect, between two and fivepotential MIP locations were selected, spaced approximately 60 feet apart. These pointswere selected to try to identify the most significant soil and groundwater contaminationin the hot spot, based on the available data. A 3-D model showing the ECD responseswas then generated and updated daily during the MIP investigation. This enabled theproject team to generate a detailed conceptual model of the contaminant distribution in

both the saturated and unsaturated zones in an efficient, effective, and sustainable manner.The MIP investigation was designed to start at the upgradient transect and proceed

toward transects downgradient of the hot spot, but the exact placement and order of thelocations was a dynamic process based upon the data obtained daily and best judgment.The objective was to use the MIP to provide real-time data at 1-foot intervals from the

ground surface to the top of the confining red clay layer, 55 feet bgs, producing a verticalprofile of the contamination. At each 1-foot interval, detectors on the MIP would screenthe subsurface for chlorinated compounds (e.g., tetrachloroethene [PCE], trichloroethene[TCE], DCB, CB), aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, andxylene [BTEX] compounds), and aliphatic hydrocarbons (e.g., methane, butane). Anelectrical conductivity meter on the MIP was used to aid in distinguishing between thegrey-black clay layer (source material) and the sandy aquifer below. Once the verticalprofile of contamination was obtained from one location, it would be analyzed andcompared against the data obtained at the other points to select the next sampling



6/21


Exhibit 1. MIP and vertical profile sampling locations (the vertical profile locations were located

along six transects displayed in the box in the lower-right-hand corner)

location. At this point, the original transects that had been established were just a guide,and MIP points were adjusted to better define the plume. A total of 18 locations (A1, B0through B4, C1 through C7, D1 through D4, and E2) were screened with the MIP duringthe investigation (Exhibit 1).

Once the area of contamination was defined with the MIP screening, the next phaseof the investigation involved collecting confirmatory samples at 13 locations (VP01through VP13) (Exhibit 1). Since the MIP only provides qualitative data, quantitativeanalytical data is needed to identify the specific compounds and concentrations.

Membrane Interface Probe Screening

For MIP screening, the ASTM Standard D-7352 and Geoprobe MIP standard operatingprocedure (SOP) (Geoprobe, 2006) were followed.

The MIP acts as an interface between VOCs in the subsurface and the detectors at theground surface. As the MIP tool (Exhibit 2) is advanced through the subsurface, the tip ofthe tool is heated to volatize contaminants. VOCs in soil and water particles diffuse acrossthe MIP membrane, enter into a carrier gas stream, and are conveyed to gas-phase



7/21


Exhibit 2. MIP tool

detectors at the ground surface for measurement. The MIP uses a replaceable, thin-filmfluorocarbon, polymer membrane, approximately 6.35 mm in diameter, that is in directcontact with the soil. This thin-film membrane is impregnated into a stainless steel screen.The screen serves as a rigid support for the fluorocarbon polymer. The downhole,permeable membrane serves as an interface for detectors at the surface. Geoprobe

currently provides two different configurations of its MIP trunkline. This project used aPEEK return line and a TFE Teflon supply line to transport the supply gases. ThePEEK return gas tube (part of the MIP trunkline) is typically 100 to 200 feet in length



8/21


Exhibit 3. MIP site setup

and allows the transport of the VOCs to the surface detector. The trunkline is able toclear itself of the VOCs much more efficiently than the TFE Teflon . The time requiredfor the MIP sampling depends on the carrier gas flow rate and the types of contaminants.Subsurface contaminants in the gaseous, dissolved, and free-product phases can partition

via molecular diffusion into the membrane. Bulk fluids, either gases or liquids, do nottravel across the membrane. This allows the MIP to be used in both saturated andunsaturated subsurface matrices.

The gas-phase detectors used in this project were a PID, an ECD, and an FID. Allthree detectors provided a relative screening response rather than a concentration.Electrical conductivity is also measured to generate a lithological log of the subsurface, byusing a dipole measurement arrangement at the end of the MIP loop. Both conductivityand VOC detector readings were logged simultaneously as the MIP advanced. Aschematic drawing of the MIP tool and system components is presented in Exhibit 3.



9/21


Ex Situ Response Test

An ex situ response test is used to test the response of the probe to a known concentrationof a target contaminant in a test cell. During the response test, the MIP operator is able tomeasure the time it takes for the contaminant to go from the probe, through the

trunkline, and to the detectors. The trip time is used is by the MIP software for depthcalculations. An ex situ response test was run at the start of each day, and if more thanthree hours elapsed between the last response test and the next logging run, the MIPprobe, membrane, trunkline, dryer, probe rod, or any major components of the MIPsystem were repaired or replaced.

During the response test,

the MIP operator is able to

measure the time it takes

for the contaminant to go

from the probe, through

the trunkline, andto the de-

tectors.

A CB standard was prepared for the response test using the following calculationprovided by Geoprobe (2006):

(25 mL methanol 50 mg/mL chlorobenzene) (1/density of chlorobenzene) = amount of

material to be placed into 25 mL of methanol

The following procedure was conducted for the response test:

r

The baseline was stabilized by immersing the MIP into a container filled withwater that covered the probes membrane.r The detector versus time data log of the MIP software was checked for stability before

proceeding.r The working standard was poured intoa nominal 2-inch-by-24-inchpolyvinylchloride

(PVC) pipe.r The MIP probe was immediately inserted into the solution for 45 seconds.r The probe was then placed back into the container of water.r The MIP software results then calculated the trip time and response time.

Field Operations

A biodiesel-powered generator was used to power the MIP controller and fieldinstrument. Nitrogen, the trunkline carrier gas, and hydrogen and air for the FID werethen fed to the system. The probe heater was activated to warm up to aconstituent-specific temperature of 140C in order to volatilize site-specific CBcompounds (CB has a boiling point of 132C). The preprobe was then advanced to 4 feet

bgs at the location to be logged. A response test, as described above, was performed torecord the height of the peak response and the trip time. The trip time during theresponse testing was entered into the MIP software. The following system parameterswere then recorded into the field notebook: borehole name; date; mass flow; trip time;

pressure; and maximum ECD, PID, and FID values. The trigger switch was turned on,and the MIP probe was advanced at a rate of 1 foot per minute or until a temperaturegreater than 132C was reached. This procedure was repeated until terminal depth of the

borehole was achieved. The advancement rate of the MIP was often slowed in order toretain the 140C constituent-specific temperature. Times up to 10 minutes elapsed beforeadvancing the MIP the next foot.

Upon completion of the MIP log, the MIP was decontaminated followed by a responsetest. The response-test results were compared to the initial test to ensure the data for that

borehole log are valid (Kejr, 2006). All response-test results were comparable.



10/21


Exhibit 4. MIP detector parameters

Contaminants Detection Limit Carrier Gas

PID BTEX 1 part per million Nitrogen, helium

FID Methane, butane NA Nitrogen, helium

ECD Chlorinated substances 250 parts per billion Nitrogen

Limitations

The MIP is highly sensitive to hard lithological material, such as bedrock, brick, and filldebris. The FID, ECD, and PID detectors associated with the MIP are limited to detectingspecific compounds, which have the ability to volatilize and stay in a gaseous state duringthe trip from the membrane at the probe, through the rod string, to the detectors at the

surface. Exhibit 4 presents the detection limits of BTEX for the PID, methane and butanefor the FID, and chlorinated substances for the ECD. The detection limits are reliable atabout 1 part per million (ppm) and can be pushed to about 250 parts per billion (ppb)total VOCs, but not much below that. Sufficient temperature must also be maintained inthe trunkline itself, as mentioned previously concerning the site-specific temperature of132C, or the CB compound could condense. The FID, ECD, and PID cannot detectscreening concentrations below the detection limits and above the concentration thatsupersaturates the upper limits of the detectors. Because the thermal conductivity of soilvaries depending on degree of saturation, particle size, density, and composition(Mitchell, 1993), a qualitative comparison of MIP detector data across different strata can

be misleading.

Phase II: Confirmatory Delineation Sampling

All soil samples were analyzed for target compound list (TCL) VOCs by U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Method 8260, and a select number of soil sampleswere analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC) by US EPA Method 9060. All of thegroundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs+10 by US EPA Method 624, and TOC byUS EPA Method 9060.

Confirmatory soil and groundwater sampling was conducted via direct-pushtechnology using an 8010 Geoprobe to facilitate penetration of waste fill and C&D

debris. At each boring location, between one and four soil samples were collected in thegrey-black clay, depending on the thickness of the clay layer and the number and intensityof the MIP detections. In the saturated zone at each location, between two and fivegroundwater samples were collected through the aquifer thickness, again biased tointervals with elevated MIP responses. Soil samples were collected from a 2-inch acetatesleeve using a stainless steel trowel. VOC samples were first collected using anEnCoreTM sampler. TOC samples were collected after homogenizing the remaining soil ina stainless steel bowl. Groundwater samples were collected through a check valveconnected to Teflon -lined tubing. Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH,



11/21


oxidation-reduction potential, and turbidity were also measured and recorded using a YSIModel No. 600 XL and LaMotte Model No. 2020 Turbidity Meter. Both meters werecalibrated daily according to the manufacturers instructions. All nondedicated samplingequipment was decontaminated by washing with an Alconox water mixture, followed bya deionized/distilled water rinse.

Quality control samples, including trip blanks, field blanks, and duplicate samples,were collected according to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) requirements during the investigation. Trip blanks were collected on-site dailyto determine if any on-site atmospheric contaminants seeped into sample vials or if anycross-contamination of samples occurred during handling, storage, and/or shipment ofsamples. Field blanks were collected to evaluate the efficacy of equipmentdecontamination and general cleanliness of the field sampling procedures, at a rate of oneper decontamination event. Duplicate samples were collected at a rate of one for every 20samples, to evaluate laboratory analysis repeatability. Three duplicate samples werecollected during the groundwater investigation. None of the analytical data was rejected

based on quality control samples.

Sustainable Attributes

For this project, the MIP fuel was switched from diesel to biodiesel, which is aclean-burning alternative fuel, produced from domestic, renewable resources. Biodiesel is

biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics (National BiodieselBoard, 2009). The MIP, Geoprobe track unit, and support vehicles used 5 percent

biodiesel as their main fuel. The project also involved the replacement of allpetroleum-based hydraulic fluids with bio-hydraulic fluids. These are nonhazardous,

high-performance, hydraulic fluids engineered as drop-in replacements forpetroleum-based hydraulic fluid formulas. Bio-hydraulic fluids meet the newest originalequipment manufacturer industrial requirements for premium, heavy-dutyenergy-conserving hydraulic fluids (U.S. Department of Energy,2008).

For this project, the MIP

fuel was switched from

diesel to biodiesel, which

is a clean-burning alter-

native fuel, produced

from domestic, renewable

resources. Biodiesel is

biodegradable, nontoxic,

and essentially free of

sulfur and aromatics.

Using the Triad approach, we were able to expedite characterization with fewerborings. Instead of having to grid the site with borings, we were able to target specificsampling locations and depths using real-time data. During the study, the reduction ingreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (reported in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)) wascalculated using emission factors for diesel (distillate Fuel Oil No. 2) and 5 percent

biodiesel provided in the US EPAs Mandatory Reporting Rule (US EPA, 2010). The

calculations assumed that a traditional sampling program would have used 668 hours of rigoperation to complete all of the proposed borings along Transects A through F comparedto the 405 hours of operation utilized during the Triad approach. It was calculated that thetraditional approach would have generated 45 tons of CO2e compared to 26 tons of CO2egenerated using Triad and biodiesel. So compared to a traditional (non-Triad) samplingprogram, we were able to cut carbon dioxide emissions almost in half by the use of theTriad approach and biofuels during the investigation. In addition, we completed fulldelineation of the source area within a six-week field program as opposed to severalphased investigations extending over several months to years.



12/21


NATURE AND EXTENT OF SOURCE AREA/HOT SPOT

For this study, an elevated ECD detection was considered equal to or greater than1 million microvolts (uV). The ECD readings present at less-contaminated areas were

between 119,000 and 500,000 uV. Based on the MIP detector responses, two hot spots

were located adjacent to the former IRM. One hot spot was observed to the north andnortheast of the IRM excavation based on screening results from MIP locations C1, C2,C3, C5, and C7. A second hot spot was observed to the southeast of the IRM excavation

based on MIP locations B2 and B4. Exhibit 5 displays the ECD responses at each MIPlocation, and Exhibits 6 and 7 display the ECD responses at hot-spot boring locations atvarious depths.

Soil/Clay Contamination

Soil sampling results were compared to NJDEP site-specific impact to groundwater soil

cleanup criteria (SCC) using an average TOC value for soil of 16.5 kg/g (NJDEP, 2008).A total of nine VOCs exceeded the site-specific soil cleanup criteria: 1,2,4-TCB;1,2,3-TCB; 1,2-DCB; 1,3-DCB; 1,4-DCB; benzene; CB; 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA); andtrichloroethene (TCE).

Soil analytical samples from vertical profile locations VP05, VP06, and VP07exhibited the highest concentrations of TCBs, DCBs, and CB. VP05 and VP06 are locatedalong the northeastern side of the excavation area within the north/northeastern ECD hotspot of MIP locations C1, C2, C5, and C7. VP05 is located next to MIP location C2,which exhibited the greatest ECD response. The highest concentrations of TCBs andDCBs were detected at VP05. The highest CB concentration was detected at VP07,located along the northern side of the excavation area and east of MIP location C6 and

north of C3. Concentrations of TCBs, DCBs, and CB exceeding the site-specific criteriawere also detected at VP03, located at MIP location C3. This MIP location exhibited anelevated ECD response and is associated with the north/northeastern ECD hot spot.

Concentrations of TCBs, DCBs, and CB exceeding the site-specific criteria weredetected in soil samples collected from VP04. This vertical profile location (VP04) islocated along the southeastern side of the excavation area, south of MIP location B2 andwest of B4. The southeastern ECD hot spot is located within MIP locations B2 and B4.These two MIP locations also exhibited ECD hits within the waste fill between 5 and 6feet bgs at MIP location B2 and 2.5 to 3.5 feet bgs at MIP location B4. The soil samplecollected from 3 feet bgs from sample location VP04 did not contain any analyzedcompounds above the site-specific soil cleanup criteria.

Based on the soil samples and MIP logs, a mass of soil contamination is present in twohot spots: along the north/northeastern and southeastern portion of the former IRM inthe grey-black clay layer situated immediately below the waste fill material. In both ofthese areas, high ECD responses were observed in the grey-black clay during the MIPinvestigation, which were verified by confirmatory soil samples. These areas of impactedclay appear to be acting as sources of contamination by means of diffusion and desorptionto the PRM aquifer below.

Based on the soil samples

and MIP logs, a mass of soil

contamination is present

in two hot spots: along

the north/northeastern and

southeastern portion of the

former IRM in the grey-

black clay layer situated im-

mediately below the wastefill material.

The hot spot/source area located north/northeast of the former IRM contains highconcentrations of TCBs, DCBs, and CB in soil samples collected in the grey-black clay



13/21


Exhibit 5. MIP ECD and lithological results

MIP Significant ECD Highest Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate Top

Location Responses (feet bgs) ECD Response (uV) Top of Clay Bottom of Clay of Lower Clay

MIP-A1 25 220,000 16 35 50

2735 170,000

MIP-B0 1 210,000 18 24 >49

21.524.5 240,000

38 190,000

MIP-B1 13 180,000 18.5 29.5 >50

1112 180,000

22 200,000

24 190,000

MIP-B2 56 3,900,000 19.5 26 ND

23.527 10,000,000

41.545 5,800,000

MIP-B3 2.53.5 1,000,000 21 27.5 >48

4.5 300,000

2026.5 290,000

MIP-B4 57 390,000 17.5 27 >50

11 1,000,000

1718 1,000,000

1920 290,000

MIP-C1 13.514.5 1,000,000 17.5 31 45.5

2539 13,900,000

MIP-C2 16.517.5 1,000,000 14 22 43

22.531.5 14,100,000

31.538 10,000,000

MIP-C3 21.526.5 14,000,000 18.5 26.5 47

MIP-C4 12 190,000 20 28 51.5

1821 130,000

32.550 275,000

MIP-C5 27.531.5 1,000,000 17 28 42

MIP-C6 02 150,000 15 24 50

68 200,000

13.514 150,000

3043 210,000

MIP-C7 1718.5 400,000 17 29 44

29.530.5 1,700,000

30.534.5 500,000

36.538.5 490,000

4246 495,000

MIP-D1 1.5 160,000 13 22 >50

17.522 119,000

(Continued)



14/21


Exhibit 5. (Continued)

MIP Significant ECD Highest Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate Top

Location Responses (feet bgs) ECD Response (uV) Top of Clay Bottom of Clay of Lower Clay

36 159,000

36.547.5 129,000

MIP-D2 04 250,000 17 27 50

22.5 225,000

22.528 149,000

MIP-D3 05.5 370,000 18 28 52

5.512 150,000

17.525 190,000

4146 160,000

MIP-D4 02 220,000 14.5 22.5 46.5

22 220,000

2235.5 125,000

MIP-E2 01 150,000 11.5 24 46.5

67 155,000

10.511.5 140,000

1317 120,000

17.5 220,000

18.525.5 135,000

5055.5 160,000

Notes: Soil type based on electric conductivity readings.

Acronyms: bgs: below ground surface.

ECD: electron capture detector.

MIP: membrane interface probe.

uV: microvolts.

Exhibit 6. Groundwater concentrations exceeding 1 percent of their solubility limits

VOCs VP02 VP03 VP04 VP06 VP07 VP08 VP09 VP11 VP12 VP13

CB 2.7% 2.8% 2.4% 1.3% 2.8% 3.9%


15/21


-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2

Elevation(feetabovemean

sealevel)

Distance Along Baseline (ft)

MIP-C3MIP-C3 VP03VP03

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>

47000 D1210014100

244

138007020

11300162

8970 D19501910114

1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Chlorobenzene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzne

Soil results in black, groundwater results in gray.

Soil results in milligrams per kilogram.Groundwater results in micrograms per liter.

Analytes

Sample

Interval

Low Plasticity Clay

EC - electrical conductivity, linear scaleECD - electron capture detector, log scale

FID - flame ionization detector, log scalePID - photo ionization detector, log scalemS/m - milliSiemens per meterV - microvolt

2350556

24.586.1

SoilE

C(m

S/m)

ECD

(V)

FID

(V)

PID

(V)

Exhibit 7. Correlation of MIP logs at C3 to boring log at VP03



16/21


from 18 to 24 feet bgs at vertical profile locations VP03 and VP05 through VP07. Soilsamples collected from the upper portion of the middle aquifer of the PRM, immediately

below the grey-black clay at VP06 and VP07, also had elevated concentrations ofchlorinated benzenes.

The second source area, located southeast of the former IRM excavation, contains

high concentrations of TCBs, DCBs, and CB above the site-specific SCC in the soil samplecollected from 19 feet bgs at vertical profile VP04. Based on MIP responses at MIP-B2 andMIP-B4, and the absence of soil contamination at VP09, the southeast source appears to

be limited to the area adjacent to the excavation area encompassing sample locationsVP04, MIP-B2, and MIP-B4.

Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater analytical data was compared to NJDEPs New Jersey Administrative Code(NJAC) 7:9C Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS) (NJDEP, 2009). Eight VOCs

exceeded GWQS: 1,2,4-TCB; 1,2-DCB; 1,3-DCB; 1,4-DCB; benzene; CB;cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE); and vinyl chloride (VC). All 13 vertical profiling locations(VP01 through VP13) detected VOCs exceeding GWQS.

Benzene and CB detections exceeded GWQS in all groundwater samples collectedfrom each of the 13 vertical profile locations (VP01 through VP13), since both benzeneand CB have a high solubility and, therefore, are relatively mobile. Overall, the highest

benzene and CB concentrations were detected in groundwater samples collected from themiddle aquifer of the PRM at locations VP08 and VP11. These locations are locatedwithin a U-shaped channel in the stratigraphy east/southeast of the IRM excavation andthe northeastern ECD hot spot.

Overall, the highest ben-

zene and CB concentra-

tions were detected in

groundwater samples col-

lected from the middle

aquifer of the PRM at loca-

tions VP08 and VP11.

TCB and DCB compound detections exceeded GWQS in groundwater samples

collected within all three lithological units. The highest TCB and DCB concentrationswere detected in groundwater samples collected from the grey-black clay at locationVP03 and the middle aquifer of the PRM immediately below the clay at locations VP06and VP09. Vertical profile locations VP03 and VP06 are located within thenorthern/northeastern ECD hot spot in close proximity to MIP locations C3 and C1.Samples from these MIP locations exhibited the highest ECD detections (C1 at 13 millionuV and C3 at 14 million uV). Vertical profile location VP09 is downgradient of thesoutheastern ECD hot spot. The groundwater sample collected from the sand layer atVP07 also contained elevated concentrations of DCB.

Groundwater contamination at concentrations significantly above NJDEP GWQS ispresent in the middle aquifer of the PRM. The highest concentrations of DCB isomers in

the groundwater are in the upper and middle portion of this aquifer in the source areasnorth-northeast (VP03, VP06, and VP07) and southeast of the excavation (VP04).However, the distribution of CB and benzene contamination extends the full thickness ofthe aquifer at, and downgradient of, the IRM excavation. The discrete groundwateranalytical data as well as the MIP logs show contaminant concentrations at vertical profilelocations VP04, VP06, VP08, VP09, and VP11 have concentrations of VOCs at the sameorder of magnitude in the lower portion of the aquifer as in the shallower portion. The CBand benzene plume in the middle aquifer of the PRM was found to extend from the sourceareas off-site.



17/21


Based on the water-solubility properties presented in Exhibit 6, free-phase productmay be present in the upper portion of the middle aquifer of the PRM at locations VP03,VP06, and VP07 through VP09, and in the middle to lower portion of the middle aquiferat locations VP02, VP04, VP08, VP09, and VP11 through VP13. Exhibit 6 summarizesthe groundwater analytical results where the contaminant concentration for a particular

compound was greater than 1 percent of the solubility limit for that compound, calculatedby dividing the highest concentration of a compound within the aquifer at the verticalprofile location by the water solubility of that compound. Locations with the greatestpotential for product, or residual product in the aquifer, are VP04 (southeast source area)and VP03, VP06, and VP07 (north-northeast source area). These data further validate thepresence of source material in the grey-black clay in these areas.

Streamlining Delineation With MIP

The MIP logs generated from the investigation correlated well with direct data from soiland groundwater sampling analysis. Soil boring logs validated the electrical conductivity

data, which tentatively defined the top and bottom of the grey-black clay layer. Soil and

Exhibit 8. ECD response based on a baseline of 1,000,000 microvolts (V)



18/21


groundwater sampling results also correlated well with the ECD responses presented inthe MIP logs. Exhibit 7 displays the MIP log for location C3. The results presented in thislog can be directly correlated to the ECD responses and lithology characteristics presentedin Exhibits 8 and 9. Exhibit 10 displays a cross-section running from the south to northand displaying both ECD and electrical conductivity results. The real-time data collected

at the MIP locations enabled the project team to pinpoint additional MIP locations andsubsequent confirmatory vertical profiling locations based on elevated ECD responses.The ability to promptly site MIP and sampling locations enabled the project team toreduce mobilization and demobilization time, as well as the reduction ininvestigation-derived waste (IDW) by minimizing the amount of confirmatory samplesneeded to meet the project objectives. These positive correlations suggests the MIP toolcan be used effectively and efficiently to streamline delineation of hot spots at a site.

Three-dimensional models of the hot-spot areas were produced using data generatedby the MIP, in conjunction with confirmatory analytical data. This enabled the projectteam to generate a detailed CSM of the contaminant distribution in both the saturated andunsaturated zones. The 3-D visualizations were developed using a modeling algorithm.

Exhibit 9. ECD response above1,000,000 microvolts (V) overlaid by electrical conductivity results

(lithology) (the location of potential sources is straddling the grey-black clay/sand interface)



19/21


Exhibit 10. Displays a cross-section slice running from the south end to the north end of the site

displaying both ECD and electrical conductivity results

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the MIP as part of a Triad approach was proven an effective tool for horizontaland vertical delineation of hot spots and source areas at the landfill. The real-time dataallowed placement of screening and sampling points more effectively, and resulted inwell-defined source areas to be further analyzed for remedial feasibility. The screeningdata generated by the MIP compared very favorably with the qualitative analytical data andenabled gathering the data needed to define the target remediation area in onemobilization.

Because of detector sensitivity limitations, the MIP may not be appropriate at all sites.

The tool is geared toward sites with known contamination at concentrations abovedetection limits. In this investigation, it was critical that the temperature be maintainedabove 132C (boiling point of CB) in order that it would volatilize and be detected by theECD. The MIP contributed to meeting sustainability objectives for the project, andoverall project objectives were met on an expedited basis due to real-time fieldmeasurements and dynamic work strategies.

Use of technologies promoted by the Sustainable Remediation Forum (Ellis &Hadley, 2009) resulted in a nearly 50 percent reduction of the investigations carbonfootprint including the use of biodiesel, decreasing the amount of IDW produced from



20/21


soil and groundwater sampling (e.g., bottleware, shipping materials, and decontaminationfluids), by only collecting confirmatory samples, and requiring one mobilization anddemobilization. This was aided by streamlining the investigation using real-time screeningdata during the Triad approach, which saved time and money compared to the traditionalnondynamic approach.

REFERENCES

Ellis, D. E., & Hadley, P. W. (2009). Sustainable remediation white paperIntegrating sustainable principles,

practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediation, 19(3), 5114.

Geoprobe Systems. (2006). Geoprobe membrane interface probe (MIP) standard operating procedure.

Salina, KS: Author.

Huang, W. Y., Kao, C. M., Cho, W. C., Li, Y. Y., & Lin. G. L. (2010). Using Triad approach to manage uncertain

decisions for a chlorinated ethane contaminated site in Taiwan. Gung-Cheng Environ-Tech Protection

Corp. Ltd. Retrieved from www.gcep.com.tw/upload/file/533 file 1 en.pdf

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). (2003, December). Technical and regulatory guidance

for the Triad approach: A new paradigm for environmental management. SCM-1. Retrieved from

http://www.ITRCweb.org

Mitchell, J. K. (1993). Fundamentals of soil behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

National Biodiesel Board (NBB). (2009). Biodiesel myths busted (V3). Retrieved from

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf files/fuelfactsheets/Myths and Facts.pdf

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (2008, June). New Jersey Administrative Code

7:26D: Soil cleanup criteria. Trenton, NJ: Author.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (2009, November). New Jersey Administrative

Code 7:9C: Groundwater quality standards. Trenton, NJ: Author.

Saboya, A. V., Collins, K. G., & Shields, T. (2004, Winter). Triad case study: Marine Corps Base Camp

Pendleton. Remediation, 15(1), 5768.

United States Department of Energy (US DOE). (2008, April). Clean cities fact sheet: Biodiesel blends.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Midwest Research Institute, Battelle. DOE/GO-102008-2542.

Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/42562.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2010, June). 40 CFR Parts 86 and 98: Mandatory

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, Tables C-1 and C-2 of Subpart C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109;

FRL-9158-6], RIN 2060-A079. Washington, DC: Author.

Maria D. Watt, PE, is a senior project manager at CDM. She has more than 25 years of environmental

experience. Her background contains a unique blend of chemical engineering combined with groundwater and

surface-water hydrology, providing exceptional skills for the evaluation of source-pathway-receptor relation-

ships, as well as evaluating, designing, and implementing remediation techniques. Watt has been the program

manager and project manager on projects for private clients, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE), U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), New York State Department of En-

vironmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). These



21/21


contracts included hazard ranking system (HRS) scoring; remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FS); re-

medial designs (RDs); and remedial actions (RAs). She earned her BS in chemical engineering from Rutgers

University and is a registered professional engineer in New Jersey.

Michael J. Burlingame, PE, is a senior project manager at NJDEP. He has more than 25 years of experience

with remedial investigations, design, and construction on state and federal hazardous waste sites where cleanup

is being performed with public funds. Burlingame has published numerous papers concerning the geotechnical

and geohydrological challenges posted by site remediation. He has a BS in civil engineering and an MS in

geotechnical engineering from Drexel University. He is a registered professional engineer in New Jersey.

Jessica R. Beattie, PG, is a project manager at CDM. She has more than 13 years of experience managing

and performing environmental projects, with an emphasis on site assessments and investigations. Beatties

background in both geology and environmental engineering provides a foundation suited to the evaluation of

contaminant fate and transport, as well as designing and evaluating remediation techniques. She has been the

project manager on projects for private clients, as well as projects for NYSDEC and NJDEP. These contracts

included environmental site assessments, RI/FS, RDs, and RAs. Beattie earned her BA in geological science from

the State University of New York at Geneseo and her MEng in environmental engineering from the Stevens

Institute of Technology. She is a registered professional geologist in Delaware.

Melissa Koberle is an environmental scientist field manager at CDM. She has more than four years of

experience managing andperforming environmentalprojects, with an emphasis on siteassessments andremedial

investigations. Koberle has been the field manager on projects for NYSDEC, NJDEP, and the US EPA, as well as

private-sector clients. Koberle earned her BA in environmental science and biology from Muhlenberg College,

and MS in environmental science from Rutgers Newark/New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Brad Carlson is the direct sensing manager at ZEBRA Environmental Inc. He has more than eight years of

experience managing environmental site characterization projects. Carlsons experience in information technol-

ogy, direct-sensing, and direct-push tools provides a foundation suited to the evaluation of site-characterization

tools. Carlson has been the project manager on projects for private clients and major consulting firms. He earneda BS in computer science from the University of South Florida.

zebra expediting sustainable brownfield redevelopment by applying triad using the membrane interface...

Documents