Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 7 - Federal ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and Air Sparging at Three Drycleaner Sites, Various Locations Site Name: Multiple (3) Drycleaner Sites - SVE/Air Sparging Period of Operation: Hooker’s Cleaners - August 23, 2001 - not specified (data available as of May 15, 2002) Sunny Village Cleaners - February, 1999 - not specified (data available as of May, 2001) Vicksburg Cleaners - Summer, 1995 - November, 1997 Purpose/Significance of Application: Remediation of chlorinated solvents in soil and groundwater at drycleaner facilities using SVE and air sparging Contaminants: Chlorinated Solvents - PCE and TCE Soil concentrations varied between the sites, ranging from 2,000 µg/kg to 2,131,000 µg/kg for PCE and 23 µg/kg to 9,574 µg/kg for TCE Groundwater concentrations varied between the sites, ranging from 1,290 µg/L to 27,824 µg/L for PCE and 248 to 260 µg/L for TCE One site reported that DNAPLs were present Contacts: Varied by site 22 Location: Hooker’s Cleaners, Charlevoix, MI Sunny Village Cleaners, Livonia, MI Vicksburg Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Vicksburg, MI Cleanup Authority: State Cleanup Type: Full scale Waste Source: Waste and wastewater from drycleaning operations Technology: SVE and Air Sparging SVE and air sparging design was provided for one site - Sunny Village Cleaners. The SVE system consisted of 24 wells, with a radius of influence estimated from the pilot test to be 45 ft. The air sparging system consisted of 112 wells. Type/Quantity of Media Treated: Soil and Groundwater Groundwater plume areas ranged from 52,800 ft 2 to 57,600 ft 2 Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals: Soil Cleanup goals for soil were not identified Groundwater Cleanup goals were based on state regulatory cleanup levels and ranged from 5.0 µg/L to 34 µg/L for PCE; the cleanup goal for TCE was 5.0 µg/L Results: Soil At Sunny Village Cleaners, 284.4 lbs of PCE had been recovered from the soil as of May, 2001 Groundwater Hooker’s Cleaners: the highest PCE concentration as of May 15, 2002 was 62 µg/L, thereby not meeting the cleanup goal. The system was scheduled to continue operation and then be turned off in late September, 2002, pending results of sampling at that time. Sunny Village Cleaners: 34.7 lbs of PCE had been extracted from the groundwater as of May 2001. No information was provided on the resulting concentration of PCE in the groundwater. Vicksburg Cleaners: Contamination in a portion of the site was reduced to acceptable drinking water cleanup criteria of 5.0 µg/L for PCE and TCE.
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and Air Sparging at Three Drycleaner Sites, Various Locations (continued) Costs: A design and implementation cost of $251,552 was provided for Hooker’s Cleaners. Cost information was not provided for the other two sites. Description: SVE and air sparging were conducted at three drycleaner sites in Michigan contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds from leaks, spills, or dumping of drycleaning solvents or wastewaters. Cleanup goals for groundwater were based on state regulatory cleanup level, and ranged from 5.0 µg/L to 34 µg/L for PCE. The cleanup goal for TCE was 5.0 µg/L. Although all of the treatment systems removed contaminants from the subsurface, only one treatment reported to have achieved treatment goals for groundwater in a portion of the site. 23
Page 1: Abstracts of Remediation Case Studi
Page 4 and 5: NOTICE This report and the individu
Page 6 and 7: Accessing Case Studies The case stu
Page 8 and 9: IN SITU GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ABSTR
Page 10 and 11: The case study abstracts in this vo
Page 12 and 13: Table 1. Summary of Remediation Cas
Page 14 and 15: Table 1. Summary of Remediation Cas
Page 16 and 17: Table 2. Remediation Case Studies:
Page 22 and 23: Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) at Six
Page 24 and 25: Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and Mon
Page 26 and 27: Pump and Treat, Pump and Treat/Soil
Page 28 and 29: Pump and Treat, Pump and Treat/Soil
Page 32 and 33: Site Name: Avery Dennison Period of
Page 34 and 35: In Situ Conductive Heating at a Con
Page 36 and 37: Dynamic Underground Stripping-Hydro
Page 38 and 39: In Situ Solidification/Stabilizatio
Page 40 and 41: Lasagna TM at the Paducah Gaseous D
Page 42 and 43: In Situ Solidification/Stabilizatio
Page 44 and 45: This page intentionally left blank
Page 46 and 47: Site Name: Site B (actual site name
Page 48 and 49: Ex Situ Thermal Desorption using th
Page 50 and 51: Site Name: Industrial Latex Superfu
Page 52 and 53: This page intentionally left blank
Page 54 and 55: Mulch Biowall at Altus Air Force Ba
Page 56 and 57: Site Name: Offutt Air Force Base Pe
Page 58 and 59: Enhanced In situ Biotransformation
Page 60 and 61: In Situ Bioremediation Using Hydrog
Page 62 and 63: Site Name: Fort Richardson Electric
Page 64 and 65: Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE) at
Page 66 and 67: Electrical Resistive Heating at the
Page 68 and 69: Electrical Resistive Heating Treatm
Page 70 and 71: Site Name: Multiple (10) Sites - Ai
Page 72 and 73: Cometabolic Air Sparging at McClell
Page 74 and 75: Anaerobic Compost Constructed Wetla
Page 76 and 77: In Situ Chemical Reduction at the M
Page 78 and 79: In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Two D
Page 80 and 81:
In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) T
Page 82 and 83:
Permeable Reactive Barrier Longevit
Page 84 and 85:
This page intentionally left blank
Page 86 and 87:
Bi-functional Resin Groundwater Tre
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
EXHIBIT A-1. SUMMARY OF 342 REMEDIA
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Solid Waste and EPA 542-R-03-011 Em
show all

Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 7 - Federal ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?