Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0028 Project Name: Lipari Landfill, Pitman, NJ City: Pitman State/Province: NJ Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Fred Cateneo U.S. EPA Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1996: "Lipari Landfill Superfund Site, On-Site Remediation System Final 1994 Annual Report, Lipari Longterm Remedial Action, Lipari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey", Prepared for U.S. EPA, New York, NY, Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 125 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10038, May 2, 1996 Internet URL: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm; U.S. EPA, Nov. 1996: Inn. Trtmt. Techs.: Ann. Status Rpt. (8th Ed.), EPA 542-R-96-010, No. 8, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G) TIO, Wash., DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991: Engineering Bulletin In Situ Soil Flushing, EPA/540/2-91/021, U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), Washington, DC 20460, Office of Research and Development (ORD), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, 8 pp., October 1991. The following text is from notes from an Apil 1997 conversation with the EPA RPM and Internet URL EPA.gov: The six-acre Lipari Landfill site is located in the township of Mantua, adjacent to the towns of Pitman and Glassboro, New Jersey. Landfill used for disposal of household waste, municipal refuse, liquid and semi-solid chemical wastes, and other industrial materials. Best estimates indicate approximately 12,000 cubic yards of solid wastes and 2.9 million gallons of liquid wastes were disposed. Wastes include solvents, paint thinners, formaldehyde paints, phenol and amine wastes, dust collector residues, resins and ester press cakes. RODs (8/3/82,9/30/85) indicate the six acre landfill and a ten acre contaminated area between the landfill and Chestnut Branch were to be contained inside bentonite/soil slurry wall keyed into underlying aquitard, and capped (with impermeable synthetic membrane liner) as Phase I of remedy. Phase II of remedy involves in situ flushing within slurry wall. RPM (4/23/97) indicates slurry wall is 30 to 50 feet deep, and surrounds 15.3 acres of the site. In situ flushing is conducted within the upper water table aquifer (Cohansey Aquifer), which is underlain by a nine to 15 foot thick clay layer (Kirkwood clay). Approximately 26 extraction wells and 14 injection wells are utilized; wells vary from 30 to 50 feet in depth, depending upon the area of the landfill. In situ flushing is conducted in a "batch flushing" operation, and began in spring 1993. Source of flushing water is deep well in uncontaminated Mount Laurel Aquifer, which pumps approximately 200 gpm. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 60 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database This water flows by gravity to the 14 injection wells, for injection in eight MM gallon batches within the containment system. After injection of each 8 MM gallons, the 26 extraction wells remove the contaminated water, where it is treated aboveground, and discharged to POTW. The treated extracted groundwater is not re-injected. RPM indicates it had been estimated that the in situ flushing project would be completed in 2001, although it will probably run longer. Remediation goals are federal and state ambient water quality criteria. RODs indicate an estimated 15 years would be required to remove 90% of the waterborne contaminants from groundwater within the containment system. (The Kirkwood Aquifer, which underlies the clay layer beneath the Cohansey Aquifer, is being remediated by conventional pump and treat.) Annual reports (most recently through 1994) have been prepared, however performance of in situ flushing/trends data are not yet available as project was not at full operation. RPM verifies that in situ flushing has been effective in reducing contaminant load, though concentration reductions were not quantified. Figures from Table 2-2 as reported in the 1994 Annual Report indicate the following estimated mass of COCs extracted compared with initial concentrations in groundwater and soils. Contaminant Total Mass Extracted Est. Mass in Containment Est. Mass in 1993 & 1994 (kg) Syst. Groundwater (kg) Landfill Soil (kg) methylene chloride 227 409 2157 chloroform 0.2 234 383 benzene 94 174 567 1,2-dichloroethane 501 1240 2444 4-methyl-2-pentanone 194 598 1639 toluene 973 1526 48,247 chlorobenzene 0.8 NA NA ethylbenzene 85 184 10,099 xylenes (total) 349 734 70,647 phenol 183 596 2,891 bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 598 1,938 3,840 arsenic NA 1.4 3,754 chromium NA 7.55 32,152 lead NA 1.99 6,945 mercury NA 0.035 71 nickel NA 3.69 4,744 selenium NA 0.645 NA silver NA 1.36 NA zinc NA 92.4 25,905 Digits are retained for correpsondence to calculations. Only 2 digits of accuracy apply. Detection limits of metals laboratory analyses may have been too high to detect removals. Estimated Mass in Containment System Groundwater calulated based on 1992-1993 groundwater quality data. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 61 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
Page 1 and 2:
Technology Status Report Technology
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACT This technology status rep
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 I
Page 7 and 8:
1.0 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF STATU
Page 9 and 10:
a laboratory-scale project. As illu
Page 11 and 12:
3.1 Flushing Solutions 3.0 ANALYSIS
Page 13 and 14:
(approximately eight) full-scale pr
Page 15 and 16:
Table 1. In Situ Flushing - Summary
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Table 3 In Situ Flushing - Geology
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Table 4 In Situ Flushing - Recovere
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Full-Scale/Commercial 26% Figure 2.
Page 35 and 36:
Site Remediation 25% Figure 4. In S
Page 37 and 38:
NAPL Removal 34% Figure 6. In Situ
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 8. In Situ Flushing - Distri
Page 41 and 42:
Number of Projects 35 30 25 20 15 1
Page 43 and 44:
Number of Case Studies 45 40 35 30
Page 45 and 46:
25 ft and 50 ft and 10 ft and 100 f
Page 47 and 48:
Unconfined Aquifer 65% Figure 16. I
Page 49 and 50:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 107: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?