State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles
Building 25, Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Dry Cleaners, Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Description
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Active perchloroethylene (PCE) drycleaner facility that has been in operation since the 1940s. The drycleaner used petroleum drycleaning solvent (Varsol™) until the 1970s when it was replaced by PCE. The facility is located in the industrial portion of the installation. |
Contaminants
Contaminants present and the highest amount
detected in both soil and groundwater.
| Contaminant | Media | Concentration (ppb) | Nondetect |
|---|---|---|---|
| cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | groundwater | 3,725 ppb | |
| Tetrachloroethene (PCE) | groundwater | 170,000 ppb | |
| Trichloroethene (TCE) | groundwater | 3,030 ppb | |
| trans-1,2-Dichloroethene | groundwater | 38 ppb | |
| No corresponding contaminant | groundwater | 7,100 ppb | |
| Vinyl Chloride | groundwater | 4 ppb |
Site Hydrology
| Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination: | 85ft bgs | |
| Plume Size: | Plume Length: 1,500ft Plume Width: 500ft |
|
| Average Depth to Groundwater: | 13ft |
Lithology and Subsurface Geology
Upper Surficial Aquifer |
Very fine-grained quartz sand with lenses and discontinuous layers of clay, silt, and peat Depth: 0-40ft bgs 40ft thick Conductivity: 1.4ft/day Gradient: 0.02ft/ft |
|
| clay Depth: 40-47ft bgs 7ft thick |
||
Lower Surficial Aquifer |
Fine-grained quartz sand with varying amounts of silt Depth: 47-62ft bgs 15ft thick Conductivity: 65ft/day Gradient: 0.003ft/ft |
|
Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer |
Fine-grained quartz sand and silt with shell fragments Depth: 62-102ft bgs 40ft thick Conductivity: 5.1ft/day Gradient: 0.0005ft/ft |
Pathways and DNAPL Presence
 Groundwater SedimentsSoilDNAPL Present |
Remediation Scenario
Cleanup
Goals: |
Technologies
In Situ Surfactant/Cosolvent Flushing |
Final remediation design: Results to date: Next Steps: |
Costs
Cost
for Assessment: |
||
Cost
for Operation and Maintenance: |
||
Total
Costs for Cleanup: |
Unknown. Several crews were on-site from March 15 to August 15, 1999. High-cost surfactant used. Technologies require a large number of sample analyses, laboratory bench test, and considerable computer simulation. |
Lessons Learned
|
1. SEAR and PITT technologies are ineffective for sediments with permeability of less than 1.4 ft/day. 2. At this test, permeability reduction associated with a downward-fining depositional sequence kept the tracer and surfactants from reaching all of the DNAPL. The nature and impact of geologic contacts and/or transition zones needs to be evaluated before selecting technology. 3. An estimated 92-96% of the DNAPL swept by the surfactant flood was removed; however, the surfactant flood did not sweep a significant portion of the DNAPL. 4. There is no evidence of aquifer plugging as a result of surfactant injection. 5. Surfactant apparently biodegraded during the SEAR. Biodegradation was a result of the aquifer conditions (sulfate reducing) and the time required moving surfactant through low permeability sediments. The impact of surfactant biodegradation should be considered before applying these technologies. 6. The results of the post-SEAR PITT test were unusable apparently because surfactant degradation products sorbed on the sediment, then reacted with the tracer during the PITT. 7. The SEAR did not reduce Varsol™ contamination. Underground Injection Control regulators were told that there would be a 90% overall reduction in Varsol™. This requirement was necessary for regulatory approval of recycled surfactant re-injection. 8. Detailed borehole data (geotechnical and geologic) are needed to evaluate technologies that rely on aquifer parameters to be effective. Relying on pump and/or tracer tests without an adequate geologic model can lead to erroneous interpretations. 9. Expensive, custom-made surfactant was selected to test recycling. New surfactant had to be mixed with recycled surfactant before it could be injected. The cost-effectiveness of using recycled surfactant was not shown. |
Contacts
| Randy McElveen North Carolina Division of Waste Management (919) 733-2801 Rick Raines Camp Lejeune Installation Restoration Program (910) 451-9461 |
