WORK IN SUPPORT OF EPA ENFORCEMENT CASE, … · Conduc a preliminart y assessment of all possible...
Transcript of WORK IN SUPPORT OF EPA ENFORCEMENT CASE, … · Conduc a preliminart y assessment of all possible...
-
P00001
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS OFUNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
FIT PROJECT '
> * •1 '•. * 1 •
WORK IN SUPPORT OF EPA ENFORCEMENT CASE:
CONTAMINATION OFCURTISS STREET WELL FIELDSOUTHINGTON, CONNECTICUT
DRAFT REPORT
TDD No. F-l-8007-01A
ecology and environment, inc.International Specialists in the Environmental Sciences
3100
-
P00002
F-1-8007-01A
WORK IN SUPPORT OF EPA ENFORCEMENT CASE:
CONTAMINATION OF
CURTISS STREET WELL FIELD
SOUTHINGTON, CONNECTICUT
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared by: Submitted to:
Paul Exner Merrill S. Hohman (Director)
Glenn Smart Air and Hazardous Materials Division Margret Han ley U.S. EPA, Region I
William Norman
Submitted by: Date Submitted:
Paul J. Exner, Project Leader October 31, 1980 Ecology and Environment, Inc.
FIT Team, Region I
-
P00003
Section Page
w
Figures Tables VI
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Summary and Conclusions 1-4
1.2.1 Remedial Plans 1-4
1.2.2 Water Supply Plans 1-7
1.2.3 SRSNE Housekeeping 1-9 1.2.4 Preliminary Assessment of Possible Contamination Sources
in the Vicinity of the Curtiss Street Well Field 1-12
1.2.5 Program to Determine Extent of SRSNE Contribution tp'Well
Fo'eld Contamination-and. to Monitor Remedial.Plans. .... 1-15 2. Remedial Plans 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Soil Removal 2-2 2.2.1 Excavation and Backfill 2-3 2.2.2 Disposal of Contaminated Soil 2-5
2.3 Isolation from Groundwater 2-9
2.3.1 Capping and Bottom Seal 2-9
2.3.2 Slurry Walls, Grout Curtains and Sheet Piling 2-13
2.3.3 Diversion Wells 2-17 2.4 Localized Discharge Wells 2-18 2.5 Pumping Town Well No. 6 2-27
2.6 Summary 2-28
2.7 References 2-32
3. Water Supply Plans 3-1
3.1 Introduction/Background 3-1 3.2 Development of a New Production Well 3-4 3.3 Utilization of Southington Reservoirs 3-6 3.4 Development of Storage Facilities 3-8 3.5 Purchase Water 3-10
3.6 On-site Treatment of Production Well No. 6 3-11 . 3.6.1 Aeration 3-13
3.6.2 Carbon Adsorption 3-17 3.7 Summary 3-22 3.8 References 3-24
II
-
Page Section CONTENTS P00004
4. SRSNE Housekeeping 4-1
4.1 Introduction/Background 4-1
4.2 General Practices 4-11 4.2.1 Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures 4-11
4.2.2 Personnel Training 4-12
4.2.3 General Inspection Requirements 4-12
4.2.4 Security 4-13
4.2.5 Preparedness and Prevention 4-14
4.3 Process Area Practices 4-15
4.3.1 Overflow Prevention 4-15
4.3.2 Distillation Equipment Integrity 4-15
4.3.3 Outfall Monitoring 4-16
4.3.4 Process Area Cover 4-17
4.4 Drum Storage Area Practices 4-18
4.4.1 Use and Management of Containers 4-18
4.4.2 Greater Use of Bulk Storage 4-20
4.4.3 Fire Equipment 4-20
4.4.4 Drum Storage Area Cover 4-21
4.5 Bulk Storage Area Practices 4-22
4.5.1 General Requirements for Tanks 4-22
4.5.2 Containment Structure 4-23
4.5.3 Air Pollution Control 4-24
4.6 Summary 4-24
4.7 References 4-28
5. Preliminary Assessment of Possible Contamination Sources in the
Vicinity of the Curtiss Street Well Field 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-J
5.2 The Caldwell Property 5-2
5.3 Cianci Property 5̂ 6
5.4 Potential Industrial Pollution Sources South of Curtiss Street 5~8
5.4.1 The Industrial Chrome Plating Factory 5-9 5.4.2 The Southington Form Construction Company 5-11
5.4.3 The Ideal Forge Company 5-12
5.5 SRSNE Sludge Disposal Sites in the Vicinity of the Curtiss
Street Well Field 5-13
5.5.1 The Marek Property, South of Darling Street 5-13
5.5.2 The Mastrianni Gravel Pit, Flanders Street 5-16" 5.5.3 East Bank of the Quinnipiac River 5-20
5.6 Summary and Conclusions 5-22
5.7 References 5-26
III
-
P00005 Section CONTENTS
Program to Determine Extent of SRSNE Contribution to Wei?
Field Contamination and to Monitor Remedial Plans 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-2
6.2 Technical Approach 6-2
6.2.1 Drawdown Test 6-2
6.2.2 Computer Model . 6-3
6.6.3 SRSNE Borings 6-3
6.2.4 First Ring Off-Site Wells 6-5
6.2.5 Additional Off-Site Wells 6-6
6.3 Costs 6-7
6.4 Summary 6-10
6.5 Reference 6-11
IV
-
FIGURES P00006
Number Page
2-1
5-1
5-2
Schematic Remedial Plan for 'Contarm'nent PlumeContainment at SRSNE, Southington, CT
Plot Plan of Curtiss Street Well Field and Surrounding Area
Analysis of Sludge Found at Flanders Green Apartments Construction Site
2-21
5-3
5-19
-
TABLES P00007
Number
1-1 Summary of Remedial Plans and Estimated Costs 1-5
1-2 Summary of Water Supply Options and Cost for Southington,
Connecticut 1-8
1-3 Summary of Housekeeping Practices Available at SRSNE by Area . . . 1-10
1-4 Cost Estimate For Proposed Hydrogeologic Investigation 1-17
2-1 Estimated Unit Costs for Surface Sealing Methods and Materials . . 2-11
3-1 Chemical Analysis of Organic Compounds Found in Southington
Production Well No. 6 during Warzyn Study 3-12
3-2 Organic Removal Efficeincies for Pilot Scale Diffused-Air
Aeration Plants 3-16
3-3 Summary of Water Supply Options and Costs for Southington,
Connecticut 3-23
4-1 Summary of Housekeeping Practices Available at SRSNE by Area • • • 4-26
6-1 Cost Estimate for Proposed Hydrogeologic Investigation 6-8
-
P00008
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
On September 15, 1980 Ecology and Environment's (E & E) Field
Investigation Team (FIT) accepted Technical Direction Document (TDD)
No. F-1-8007-01A to perform work in support of EPA Enforcement in
Southington, Connecticut. Briefly, Production Wells Nos. 4 and 6,
both in the Curtiss Street well field, have been closed due to the
presence of organic contaminants. Adjacent to this well field and to
the northwest of the production wells is the site of Solvents
Recovery Service of New England (SRSNE), a solvent
recovery/reclamation process plant. SRNSE is suspected of
contributing to the groundwater pollution mainly through past
practices of depositing organic material in an open earthen pit which
overflowed to earthen lagoons on its property. Recent investigations
have also indicated that there may be other sources of organic
groundwater contamination in and around the Curtiss Street well
field. Generally, E & E"s assignment has been divided into five
tasks which were given priority ranking by EPA at the beginning of
the project. In descending order of importance, these tasks are:
1. Prepare a working list of viable remedial plans designed to
remove, neutralize, or isolate chemical wastes and
contaminated soil on and/or immediately surrounding SRSNE
property.
1 - 1
-
P00009
2. Prepare a working list of viable plans to assure that an
adequate supply of drinking water is provided to the
residents of Southington.
3. Prepare a working list of on-site measures needed to prevent
further contamination of groundwater by present on-site
activities at SRSNE.
4. Conduct a preliminary assessment of all possible sources of
contamination of the Curtiss Street well field.
5. Design a program to determine the extent of chemical waste
contamination in soil, groundwater, and surface water on
and/or surrounding SRSNE property. Further, design a
program to monitor the effectiveness of any implemented
remedial plan.
While performing the five tasks, E & E personnel have contacted
many sources of information in both the private and public sectors.
When performing Task No. 1, the Region I team drew on the expertise
and experience of E & E's ad hoc central committee investigating
remedial options for groundwater contamination. Further, ideas and
suggestions were solicited from many of the other E & E regional
offices throughout the U.S.
1 - 2
-
P00010
While developing plans to assure an adequate supply of drinking
water for Southington, Dan Christy of the Southington Water
Department provided valuable information. When developing on-site
measures to prevent further contamination of groundwater by SRSNE, Ed
Parker and Paul Marin of the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (DEPJ were particularly helpful in relaying to E & E all
their experiences while working for many years with the DEP in
Southington. While conducting the preliminary assessment of all
possible sources of contamination of the Curtiss Street well field,
many people and agencies were contacted. Town of Southington
officials, in particular, Al Adams of the Assessor's Office, lent
valuable assistance.
On October 1, 1980, after most of the preliminary investigations
had been completed, a meeting was held at EPA during which E & E
presented its findings. At the conclusion of the meeting, the
direction and scope of subsequent work was established. Basically,
for remedial planning, E & E's task was to develop a list of possible
plans, generate cost data associated with implementing each plan, and
to outline the studies which must be undertaken to evaluate each plan
before a final decision can be reached. E & E was not required to
make a recommendation to EPA about the best remedial plan. For SRSNE
housekeeping practices, a working list of methods was required, but
the development of cost data for this part of the study was
considered beyond the scope of E & E's assignment.
1 - 3
-
P00011
E & E believes that the tremendous amount of information
gathered and developed during this study has been assembled here in a
logical fashion. Each of the five tasks described earlier has been
assigned an entire chapter of this report. Generally, each chapter
begins with an introduction, followed by the technical and cost
information. Finally, a summary section and a list of references are
included. An overall summary of the report is presented below.
1.2 Summary and Conclusions
The summary and conclusions of this report have been divided by
task.
1.2.1 Remedial Plans:
Table 1-1 provided a list of the remedial options with
associated costs that have been considered viable for
isolation and removal of chemical wastes and contaminated soil
on and/or immediately surrounding SRSNE property. E & E
suggests that each option presented in this report be
considered as a module. Combining modules, a variety of
viable remedial plans can be assembled.
1 - 4
-
'"^ °f *™^ "». -d Estimated Cosu
installed Cost jthousandj:
i. Excavation aj Excavation
& Backfill 132 bj Backfill
134 2. Disposal of
aj Landfill Disposal Contaminated Soil
bj Incineration 2900 160
3. Isolation from Groundwater
aj Capping
bj Bottom Seal 14.5
cj Slurry Wall
dj Grout Curtain ej Sheet Pi ling
fj Diversion Wells
150
450
290
NE
4. LocalizedWells
Discharge aj Discharge/Rechargebj Carbon Treatment
Wells 38.2
144 5. Pumping Town
Well No. 6 N/A
N/A = Not Applicable NE = NGt Esti-ted for this Study
P00012
Maintenance Costs
N/A
N/A
16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NE
NE
63
NE
1 - 5
-
An obvious conclusion that can be drawn at this time
is that a plan which includes the excavation of the
lagoons, backfill with clean fill, and disposal of the
contaminated soil is an expensive alternative
(transporting contaminated soil to and disposal at a
secure landfill can cost 2.9 million dollars). However,
this is the quickest method of removing gross subsurface
contamination. The plan can be made less expensive
through the use of a portable rotary kiln incinerator,
located on-site, to destroy all the organic material in
the excavated soil. However, the liabilities of such a
system include a lack of operating data and possible
objections from local citizens due to potential hazardous air pollution.
Another plan may be to isolate the contamination
from the groundwater by constructing barrier walls and
capping. This alone, however, is only a temporary
measure due to the inevitable failure of the barriers.
This plan can be modified through the use of a discharge
well system designed to draw contaminated water out of
the ground, treat it, and inject it back into the ground.
The liability of such a system is that it is basically
untried. In particular, much more work is needed to
evaluate carbon adsorption as a potential treatment system.
1 - 6
-
Another modular option is to pump Production. Well No,
6 in order to flush the aquifer after isolating the
source(s) of contamination. Much more study is required
before this plan can be recommended.
The general conclusion that can be reached for the
remedial plans section of this report is that the options
presented by £ & E make up only a working list.
Considerably more detailed engineering analysis is
required before any. plan can be recommended and
implemented.
1.2.2 Water Supply Plans:
Table 1-2 provides a list of the options available to
insure an adequate supply of safe drinking water for the
residents of Southington. Considering each option as a
module, a variety of viable plans can be devised by
assembling modules. For example, instead of installing a
new 1000 6PM production well, a 500 6PM well could be
installed in conjunction with a storage tank for peak
loads. When considering treatment of Production Well No.
6, both aeration and carbon treatment can be used in
conjunction at an overall cost lower than the addition of
the individual costs.
1 - 7
ecology and environment, inc.
-
P00015
TABLE 1 - 2
Summary of Water Supply Options and Costs for Southington, Connecticut
Operating/Maintenance Installed Cost £ Costs (Thousands of
ITEM (Thousands of dollars) dollars per year)
1. New Production Well 238 10
2. Use Reservoirs 957 289
3. Develop Storage Facilities2 993 NE
4. Purchase Water 6 315
5. Aeration Treatment of PW No. 6 285 1103
6. Carbon Treatment of PW No. 6 237 893
NE = not estimated for this study
(1) All costs based on supplying 1.44 MGD except storage facilities
(2) Based on 2.3 million gallon capacity
(3) Costs do not include 0 & M for PW No. 6
1 - 8
-
P00016
It should be noted that, from E & E's investigation,
the installation of a new production well is the least
expensive option. The Town of Southington has already
reached this conclusion and has had a hydrogeologic survey
conducted to establish potential well sites.
Purchasing water is both expensive and risky since
the lease could be cancelled if and when the source of
water needs the supply for its own purposes.
The treatment of the water at the discharge of
Production Well No. 6 appears both technically and
economically viable. However, considerably more
engineering work is required before any recommendation can
be made.
1.2.3 SRSNE Housekeeping:
Table 1-3 lists housekeeping procedures by area for the
three major sections of the SRSNE facility. Many of the
proposed methods are generally included as part of the
recently published regulations to implement RCRA, in
particular 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. An asterisk is used
in Table 1-3 to identify those methods which are covered
by the regulations. Importantly, the Process Area is now
1 - 9
-
P00017
TABLE 1 - 3
SUMMARY OF HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
AVAILABLE AT SRSNE BY AREA
Process Area Drum Storage Area Bulk Storage Area
1. Contingency Plan 1. Contingency Plan (*) 1. Contingency Plan (*)
2. Personnel Training 2. Personnel Training (*) 2. Personnel Training (*)
3. General Inspection 3. General Inspection (*) 3. General Inspection (*}
4. Security 4. Security (*) 4. Security (*)
5. Preparedness 5. Preparedness (*) 5. Preparedness (*)
6. Overflow Prevention 6. Container Management (*) 6. Equipment Integrity (*)
7. Equipment Integrity 7. More Bulk Storage 7. Containment Structure
8. Outfall Monitoring 8. Fire Equipment 8. Air Pollution Control
9. Area Cover 9. Area Cover
* = Covered under existing hazardous waste regulations
1 - 10
-
P00018
exempted from the hazardous waste regulations since SRSNE
is a recycling/reuse operation. New regulations which
will specifically address solvents recycling industries
are supposedly imminent. It is E & E's feeling that, as a
minimum, these new regulations will address the general
requirements now imposed on the Drum Storage and Bulk
Storage Areas (See numbers 1 through 5 in Table 1-3).
However, the time frame between publication of draft
regulations and the effective date of their implementation
may be many months. Therefore, any housekeeping practices
that are to be immediately applied to the Process Area
must be implemented through a mechanism other than RCRA.
Beyond regulated housekeeping practices, there are
methods which are "good engineering practice". Though
expensive, these practices are extremely effective in
preventing further groundwater and surface water
contamination in the Curtiss Street well field]. Examples
of such practices are the construction of a roof over the
Process Area, the construction of a pad and roof in the
Drum Storage Area, and the^construction of a containment
structure (dike) in the Bulk Storage Area (tank farm).
1 - 11
-
P00019
Many of the basic concepts for these practices have been
extracted from environmental regulations such as 40 CFR
Part 112 - Oil Pollution Prevention and 40 CFR Part 761
PCB's.
Other practices of note are 1) monitoring outfalls
for organic contaminant levels, 2) reducing the drum
inventory, 3) installation of quick response fire
equipment (e.g., deluge system), and, 4) the installation
of appropriate organic vapor control equipment.
1.2.4 Preliminary Assessment of Possible Contamination Sources
In the Vicinity of the Curtiss Street Well Field:
The information obtained during this assessment
suggests that several sources of contamination exist in
the vicinity of the Curtiss Street well field.
As discussed in previous studies, the contamination
observed on the Caldwell property appears to emanate from
a more local source than SRSNE. However, aerial photo
examination and available site history do not adequately
confirm the assumption that the source of contamination is
the Caldwell property.
1 - 12
-
P00020
The president of Supreme Screw Manufacturing, the
sole generator of solvent waste to occupy the Caldwell
property, denies that his company disposed of solvent
waste on site. In addition, Supreme Screw Manufacturing
occupied the site for a relatively short period of time
approximately 15 years ago. It is not clear whether
Supreme Screw Manufacturing could generate enough waste in
such a short time of the necessary consistency to persist
in that location.
The contamination of the private well on the Cianci
property indicates that an additional source of
contamination exists upgradient from SRSNE. The origin of
this source is presently unknown. Local residents have
expressed their opinion that SRSNE has deposited waste
materials on the Cianci property as recently as 1979. The
management of the Cianci Construction Company, however,
has declined to comment.
Potential sources of contamination exist upgradient
from Production Well No. 4, south of Curtiss Street.
However, their impact on Well No. 4 is not substantiated
by the water quality data from previous studies. The very
high levels of organohalides in observation well TW-2
suggests that there is probably a substantial source of
1 - 13
-
contamination in the vicinity of Ideal Forge and/or
Marek's property, south of Darling Street. Water quality
data in that area is, however, nonexistent. Ideal Forge
appears to be a well managed forging operation, and aerial
photographs do not reveal any surface abnormalities or
vegetative stress at that location. Marek's property
should be studied more closely. Available information
indicates that liquid and/or sludge waste from SRSNE was
deposited at Marek's property for an undetermined amount
of time. Surface mining of gravel and fi l l at Marek's has
changed the appearance of the property, probably
destroying or removing any surface expression of waste
disposal. It is also possible that sludge deposited at
Marek's was removed in part, with the f i l l , and may be
found at other locations in town.
The presence of industrial sludge at the Flanders
Green Apartment Complex has been verified by DEP analysts.
It is an assumption, however, that this sludge originated
from SRSNE. Groundwater quality data for the area located
east of the Quinnipiac is necessary to determine if the
sludge located at Flanders Green has or will eventually
affect the Curtis Street well field.
1 - 14
-
Finally, the disposal of industrial waste on the bank
of the Quinnipiac south of Lazy Lane during the 1960's has
been verified in the records of the Connecticut Water
Resources Commission. In addition, the fill used on the
flood plain located behind the Mastrianni diner may have
been contaminated by SRSNE sludge. Water quality data,
and soil sampling east of the Quinnipiac River between
Lazy Lane and Curtiss Street will be necessary to
determine if the wastes have persisted in the flood plain
environment, and if they are impacting the water quality
of Production Wells Nos. 4 and 6.
In conclusion, the information obtained during this
assessment suggests that several sources of contamination
exist in the vicinity of the Curtiss Street well field.
However, further investigation is required to confirm or
estimate their impact on Production Wells Nos. 4 and 6.
1.2.5 Program to Determine Extent of SRSNE Contribution to Well
Field Contamination and to Monitor Remedial Plans:
E & E has presented a program that will both aid in
determining the extent of groundwater contamination in the
Curtiss Street well field north of Production Well No. 6
and serve as a network of monitoring wells to evaluate the
1 - 15
paper ecology and environment,
-
this program are:
* A drawdown test for Wei] NO. 6
* Computer model l ing of the aquifer
* Contamination characterization on SRSNE property
using ho l low stem augers and split spoon samplers.
* Establishment of mul t ipoint monitoring wel ls on SRSNE
property using BAR-CAD samplers.
# . Contamination characterization in the well f ie ld
using h o l l o w stem augers and spli t spoon samplers.
Establishment of a mul t ipo in t monitoring well network
in the well f ield us ing BAR-CAD samplers.
S * The cost of the proposed program wi l l be
^approximately $76,000. Cost details are outlined in Table 1-4.
1 - 16
-
P00025
2. REMEDIAL PLANS
2.1 Introduction
As part of the work to be performed under the assigned
technical directive, E & E was tasked to investigate remedial
options available to restore the Curtiss Street well field to
a condition where the groundwater can be used as a source of
drinking water for the Town of Southington. It is neither
E & E's task to present detailed remedial plans nor to make
any recommendations concerning the general concepts presented.
The purpose of this report is rather to present a variety of
possible pollution abatement methods in a modular form, giving
"ball park" cost figures for each. Cost estimates have been
derived from the best available sources and are meant to be
used for comparison of various methods. An indepth
hydrogeologic and engineering study is needed to arrive at
actual project designs and costs. It should be noted that
much of the work currently being done in hazardous waste
remedial action is state-of-the-art. E & E has made an
attempt to address all available options and to commjfent on
those which seem to be most viable for use in the Curtiss
Street wellfield.
2 - 1
-
P00026
Hydrologically, groundwater flow through the study area
comes from both local and regional flow patterns and though
infiltration of precipitation from the surface, the direction
of flow being generally west to east at SRSNE's property.
Since well water quality tests indicate that the highest
levels of contamination are within the aquifer in the
immediate vicinity of the old lagoons on SRSNE's property, it
is reasonable to assume that continued groundwater flow
through the area will result in a continuing plume of
contamination off the property into the adjoining well field.
These basic concepts are the basis of the remedial options
presented in this section of E & E's report.
2.2 Soil Removal
The most direct method of pollution abatement is the
physical removal of the grossly contaminated soil underlying
the old lagoons. Test results reported by Warzyn" indicate
organic contaminant levels as high as 70,000 parts per billion
(PPB) at a depth of about 15 feet and over 30,000 PPB in the
bedrock at about 20 feet. Since depth to bedrock appears to
average about 20 feet, a vast amount of excavation would be
required to remove the grossly contaminated overburden.
E & E estimates that approximately one acre of land has been
2 - 2
-
P00027
contaminated by the "mounding" and subsequent downward
movement of contaminants in and around the old lagoons.
In this section of the report, the various available
methods for removal, treatment and disposal of contaminated
soil are presented with ballpark cost figures.
2.2.1 Excavation and Backfill:
At 4840 ydp£ per acre and a depth of seven yards, an
estimated 34,000 cubic yards of material would need to
be excavated to reach bedrock. Estimates for cost of
excavation vary for different soil types and removal
methods, but under normal conditions, costs range from
$1.16 to $3.47 per cubic yard5. Under the best
conditions, cost of excavation alone will be
approximately $40,000. The cost of excavation will at
least double* when excavation intersects the water
table, and if dewatering the hole and stabilization of
the sides of the hole with sheet piling is necessary,
costs could run as high as $10-15/cu. yd^.
Once the contaminated soil has been removed,
suitable fill must be supplied to backfill the hole.
Other peripheral costs include compaction, grading, and
2 - 3
-
P00028
resurfacing of the area, and the less tangible cost of
disruption of SRSNE business.
An additional consideration concerning excavation
of hazardous wastes that must be addressed is the
exposure of personnel, equipment, and the environment
to the contaminants. Purchase and use of protective
equipment, decontamination of equipment, and
confinement of wastes to the site will all add to the
cost. Further, for excavation below the water table,
dewatering discharge must be disposed of properly.
In order to generate a ball park cost estimate for
excavation work at SRSNE, the following assumptions
have been made:
* Volume of excavated material is 34,000 cu.
yds.
* Volume of material below water table is 24,000
cu. yds.
* Cost of excavating material above water table
is $1.16/cu. yd.
2 - 4
-
P00029
* Cost of excavating material below water table
is $5.00/cu. yd. This does not include sheet
piling, dewatering or any other necessary
apurtances.
* Approximate cost of excavation at SRSNE:
(10,000 cu. yd.) ($1.16/cu.yd) + (24,000 cu.yd)
($5.00/cu.yd.) = $131,600.
* Approximate cost of common borrow for backfill
is $3.36/cu. yd.1: ($3.36) (40,000 cu. yd.)
= $134,400.
* Total excavation cost is: $131,600 + $134,400 =
$266,000.
2.2.2 Disposal of contaminated soil:
Excavated soil must be disposed of in an acceptable
manner. NumJ/erous methods have been investigated
including reburial at a secure landfi l l , incineration,
solidification, and encapsulation.
2 - 5
http:5.00/cu.ydhttp:1.16/cu.yd
-
Cost of disposing of wastes in a secure landfill
range from $140/ton for very hazardous wastes to S85/ton
for industrial sludges. Transporation cost can be on
the same order of magnitude as disposal costs. Making
certain assumptions, the following cost estimate for
secure landfill disposal of the material excavated from
SRSNE has been generated:
* Volume of waste is approximately 34,000 cu.
yds.
* Average density of the waste is 1000 Ib/cu. yd.
* Total weight of material to be dis/carded is:
(34,000 cu. yd.) (1000 Ib./cu. yd) (1 ton/2000
Ib) = 17,000 tons.
* Assuming cost of $170/ton for transportation and
disposal of industrial sludge, the cost of
disposal of SRSNE material would be:- (17,000
tons) $(170/ton) = $2.9 million.
Additionally, the risks associated with excavation
and transportation of contaminated soils to licensed a
landfills includi; exposing equipment operators and the
2 - 6
-
general public living along the route to hazardous
waste. A report by the New York State Task Force on
Hazardous Waste*' found that "excavation and
transportation which results in reburial in a 'secure1
landfill will not often warrant the risks."
Incineration of exhumed soils can be performed on
site using a portable rotary kiln. These kilns have
the capability to dispose of solid, liquid, and gaseous
wastes. Using EPA figures^, the following cost
estimate can be derived:
* Volume of waste is approximately 34,000 cu.
yds.
* Average density of the waste is 1,000 Ib./cu.
yd.
* Total quantity of waste to be incinerated is:
(34,000 cu. yd) (1,000 Ib/cu. yd) (1 ton/2,000
Ib.) * 17,000 tons.
* Thruput of portable rotary kiln is 16
tons/day.
2 - 7
ecology and environ
-
* Number of days to complete incineration is:
(17,000 tons) (1 day/16 tons) = 1,062 days. At
260 operating days per year, it would take 4.1
years to process excavated material.
* Assuming the maximum reported installed cost of
$10,000 per ton per day: (16 ton/day)
($10,000/ton/day) = $160,000.
* Assuming an annual maintenance cost of 10% of
the installed cost: ($160,000) (0.10) =
$16,000/year.
* Total cost of method is installed cost plus
maintenance cost: $160,000 + ($16,000/yr) (4.1
yr.) - $225,600.
Some costs not included in this estimate are for
operation, disposal of incinerator residue and for
final disposition of the incinerator after its
application at SRSNE is completed.
Other methods of disposal including solidification
and encapsulation are state-of-the-art engineering
practices which are both expensive and limited in their
2 - 8
ecology and enviro»«»»—•— '
-
P00033
Application. E & E believes that these methods cannot
be considered viable options for remedial work at
SRSNE.
2.3 Isolation from Groundwater:
The New York Task Force on Hazardous Waste found that
on-site containment "may be, at present, the only financially
and technically practical alternative at many inactive
sites^." This section of the report will consider several
methods of containment and address their possible use at
SRSNE.
Groundwater recharge to a given area can come from the
essentially horizontal flow of the regional and local flow
patterns, from downwater percolating precipitation, and upward
vertical flow from underlying strata.
2.3.1 Capping and Bottom Seal:
The capping of landfills, lagoons, etc. with
impermeable material has long been used as an effective
aid in reducing flow of water through contaminated
soil. An impermeable layer above a disposal site will
isolate that portion of the waste material which lies
2 - 9
-
P00034
above the water table from the leaching action of
precipitation. Much of the SRSNE property is currently
paved and, as such, is at least partially impermeable.
Table 2-1, taken from a report entitled "Manual for
Remedial Actions at Waste Disposal Sites" by J. R. 8.
Associates, list comparable costs for various cover
materials. Other estimates for capping material range
from $14,0007acre for 6" of clay to $57,5007acre for 30
mil PVC sheets^ . The function of an impermeable
cap is to reduce inflow of groundwater to an area of
known contaminants. It has no effect, however, on those
contaminants already saturated with groundwater. In
the case of the SRSNE property, the contaminant plume
extends into the saturated portion of the aquifier,
thereby necessitating further containment measures.
A ballpark cost estimate can be generated for
capping work at SRSNE by making some general
assumptions:
* Approximately one acre must be either newly
capped or upgraded.
* The method of capping will cost approximately
2 - 1 0
-
P00035 TABLE 2 - 1
ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS FDR SURFACE SEALING METHODS AND MATERIALS
Cover Material and/or Method of Installation
Top soil (sandy loam), hauling, spreading and grading (within 20 miles)
Clay hauling, spreading and compaction
Sand hauling
spreading and compaction
Cement concrete (4 to 6" layer), mixed, spread, compacted on-site
Bituminous concrete (4 to 6" layer, including base layer)
Lime or cement, mixed into 5" cover soil
Bentonite, material only; 2" layer spread and compacted
Sprayed asphalt membrane (1/4" layer and soil cover), installed
PVC membrane (20 mil), installed
Chlorinated PE membrane (20-30 mil), installed
Elasticized polyolefin membrane, installed
pHypalon membrane (30 mil), installed
Neoprene membrane, installed
Ethylene proplene rubber membrane, installed
Butyl rubber membrane, installed
Teflon-coated fiberglass (TFE) membrane (10 mil), installed
Fly ash and/or sludge, spreading, rolling
Unit Costs*
$13/yd.:
$8.50/yd
$15/ydJ
$8,000-10,000 acre
$3-5/y(T
$1.50-2.10/yd'i
$1.40 yd2
$1.50-2.50/yd/:
$1.30-2.00/yd^
$2,40-3.20/yd2
$2.70-3.60/yd/
$6.50/yd2
$5.00/yd2
$2.70-3.50/yd2
$2.70-3.80/yd2
$20/yd2
$100-1.70/ydJ
Source of Cost Information
a New York Trucking Company (1980)
a New York Trucking Company (1980)
a New York Trucking Company (1980) Universal Linings, Inc. (1980)
Tolman et al., 1979
Tolman et al., 1979
Tolman et al., 1979
Lutton et al., 1979
Lutton et al., 1979
Lutton et al., 1979
Lutton et al., 1979
DuPont Elastomer Chemicals Dept. (1980)
DuPont Elastomer Chemicals Dept. (1980)
Lutton et al., 1979
Lutton et al., 1979
Lutton et al., 1979
DuPont Elastomer Chemicals Dept. (1980)
Tolman et al., 1979
* NOTE: Different units for Volume (yd3) and surface area (yd2) costs
Reproduced from JRB Report (Reference 5)
2 - 11
-
F00036
$3.00/yd.2.
* The installed cost will be: (1 acre) (4840 sq.
yd./acre) ($3.00/sq. yd) = $14,500.
Wells on the SRSNE property reportedly show an
upward vertical gradient at certain times of the year
and exhibit characteristics of flowing artesian wells.
A similar situation was noted in the Warzyn report at a
Piezometer nest east of the SRSNE site. Indications
are that the arkosic bedrock provides input to the
local groundwater pattern. A bottom seal installed
beneath the site would reduce the total flow exposed to
the wastes. Two methods of installing bottom seals are
currently in use: 1) Excavation and direct
application, and 2) Injection. As noted previously,
the cost of excavation is extremely high, poses a
health hazard and, therefore, is probably not suitable
to this site. Injection of material is accomplished by
drilling a series of wells and forcing a grouting or
slurry material into the wells at high pressure. The
depth of the seal should be on the order of 4-6 feet
and should be situated about 5 feet beneath the plume.
Since tests indicate that the plume at SRSNE extends to
and into bedrock the use of a bottom seal does not
2 - 12
-
P00037
appear to be a viable option. A further constraint
would be the cost of installation with estimates
running from $170,000-420,0007acre for a six foot depth
in an aquifer of 20% void space*0. Since E & E,
Inc. feels that a bottom seal is not a viable remedial
option at SRSNE, a detailed cost estimate has not been
generated.
2.3.2 Slurry Walls, Grout curtains, and Sheet Piling:
The majority of the contaminants present at SRSNE have
been found at or near bedrock or an impervious layer
and flow as a discrete plume alonglne interface"!
Since the groundwater flow pattern is the major driving
force of contaminants off the site, it follows that
isolating the contaminated soil from the groundwater
will reduce pollutant concentrations. Various
impermeable barriers are available to divert
groundwater flow, including slurry walls, grout
curtains, and sheet piling. It must be noted that any
man-made obstruction to groundwater flow is at best a
delaying action. Though effective for years, leaks can
be expected to develop.
The purpose of impermeable barriers is to deflect
2 - 13
-
flow around an area of high levels of contamination.
Less contact with the pollutant results in lower
concentrations in the water. A certain amount of
geologic and soils data must be generated before the
barrier is installed. Such variables as flow rates and
directions, depth to bedrock, nature of soils, and
constituents of the plume must be defined before
construction can begin. Care must be taken during
construction to prevent wastes from migrating off site
by run-off or other methods.
Slurry wall construction involves digging a trench
through or under a slurry of clay, then backfilling and
mixing the original soil with the slurry. Soil is
excavated to bedrock or an impervious layer, thus
forming a continuous wall as an obstruction to
groundwater flow. By introducing the slurry while
excavation is in progress, the bentonite acts as
shoring to support walls and prevent cave-ins, also
forming a filter cake along the trench walls and
bottom. When the wall is in place, moisture moves into
the slurry wall causing the 2:1 expanding lattice of
the clay to swell and close the pore spaces. One point
needing further investigation is the effect of organic
solvents on the structure of the clay. Results of a
2 - 14
recycled paper ecoloev ttnA -—
-
study mentioned in the J.R.B. report showed that
alcohol caused failure of the filter cake. The cost of
a bentonite slurry trench varies with construction
methods, distance from contractor, and size of the
wall. For a 54 foot deep by 3 foot wide trench, costs
will average $300-500/1inear foot*0.
Grout curtains are similar to bottom seals in that
they are injected under pressure into an aquifer to
seal the interstices. After injection, the grouting
material sets or gels to form an impermeable barrier.
Grout curtains are particularly effective in porous or
fractured rock where other methods of sealing are
impractical. To install the curtain, a series of
injection holes are drilled, often in parallel rows,
whereupon the grout is forced into the pore spaces of
the aquifer. Two main types of grout are currently
used: 1) suspension grouts and 2) chemical grouts.
Suspension Grouts are made up of finely divided
particulate matter suspended in water. Typical
suspension grouts are composed of Bentonite or Portland
cement. Additives such as clays, sands, fly-ash, and
chemical grouts are often used with Portland cement.
Chemical grouts are usually composed of silicate or
lignin based material although organic based grouts of
2 - 1 5
-
P00040
urea formaldehyde and acrylamlde are currently being
used. If permeabilities of less than 10"̂ cm/sec
are present, grouting is not effective . Grouting
techniques require very specialized equipment and often
cost three times as much as slurry trenches .
Sheet piling is a series of interlocking plates of
wood, concrete, or most frequently, steel which are
driven into the ground with a pneumatic or stream
driven pile driver. Various configurations, widths,
and lengths are available. The full length of the wall
is constructed and each plate is advanced, in turn, a
few feet at a time to ensure a good lock between piles.
Initially, sheet piling is quite permeable, but as fine
soil material is washed against the wall it becomes
relatively impermeable. A 1000 foot long by 20 foot
deep, 5 gauge galvanized steel sheet would cost an
estimated $290,OOO5.
In order to generate ballpark costs, some
assumptions must be made which are outlined below:
(1) Slurry wall:
* Dimensions of wall are 3 feet wide x 20 feet
deep x 1000 feet long.
2-16
-
P00041
* From extrapolation of EPA data, cost of slurry
wall 3 feet wide and 20 feet deep is $150 per
linear foot.
* Cost of wall is: ($150/ft.) (1,000 ft) =
$150,000.
(2} Grout curtain:
* Cost is appriximately three times that of a
slurry wall or $450,000.
(3) Sheet piling:
* Cost for 20 foot deep x 1000 foot long, 5 gauge
galvanized steel sheet piling is $290,000.
2.3.3 Diversion Wells:
Diversion methods, previously mentioned have been by
passive methods^ An active approach to diversion can be
achieved in some cases by installing pumping wells
around the perimeter of a waste disposal site. In
theory, the wells are pumped to waste causing a
lowering of the water table by the intersecting cones
2 - 17
-
P00042
of depression. The lowered water table prevents
migration of wastes through the contaminated area. A
pumping well barrier would probably not be effective in
Southington for a number of reasons. Existing wells
show at least a seasonal upward vertical gradient
indicating groundwater movement into the contaminated
zone from the arkosic bedrock in addition to the nearly
horizontal regional flow. Contamination has been shown
to exist all the way down to and into the bedrock, so
upward gradients would continue to feed the plume.
Also, since all of the saturated thickness is
contaminated, 100% dewatering - an unlikely situation
would be required to eliminate the plume. Development
of the wells would entail surging and pumping to remove
fines from around the casing and annulus, and water
used in this process would become contaminated by
existing pollution thus posing a disposal problem.
Finally, the method itself is simply a delaying action
since no attempt is made to remove the contaminants
from the site.
2.4 Localized Discharge Wells:
Removal of pollutants from the aquifer by installing
discharge wells in the vicinity of the contamination is an
2 - 18
-
P00043
effective method that might be implemented in Southington. By
pumping a well at a sufficiently high discharge rate, a
contaminant plume can theoretically be induced into the radius
of influence of the well and subsequently be removed from the
aquifer. The pumped water can be discharged untreated to a
nearby water body, treated and discharged to a water body, or
treated and injected back into the aquifer through a recharge
well. In the Southinqton case, the nature and levels of
contaminant preclude direct discharge into the environment.
Treated discharge to a river would entail installation of
piping to the river.
The recharge of treated water to the aquifer provides a
flushing action whereby a continuous flow of water through the
lagoon area would remove contaminants by leaching. To refine
the system even further, an impermeable boundary could be
installed up gradient of the well system to prevent
uncontaminated water from migrating unjter the, lagoon site and ̂~" " ^ --- '—" - ' --to form somewhat of a "closed system" for waste treatment. j>
Various methods of well drilling and types of equipment are
currently available lending to a high degree of flexibility of
design and cost. Estimates from the J.R.B. report^ indicate
cost of drilling to be about $2.5/inch/foot of well, $6.5/foot
of casing (6 inch wells), $1175 per pump (4 inch submersible),
and $46/linear foot for 8 inch piping. In considering
2 - 19
-
P00044
the hydraulics of the system, it should be noted that the
recharge well must be larger than the discharge well to allow
for reduced efficiency caused by fine particles and dissolved
gases clogging the screen and annulus. Figure 2-1 shows a
system incorporating the above suggestions into a composite
plan. As the cone of influence expands, it induces the plume
into the well from which it is pumped into a treatment
facility and injected back into the aquifer upgradient of the
old lagoons. Some flow from the upward gradient of the
bedrock should help purge this as well. A reversal of the
natural grounwater flow direction should occur initially,
drawing part of the existing plume back into the treatment
system.
Methods of recharging an aquifier, other than by
injection well, have been investigated. These include lagoons
and water spreading, both of which have drawbacks in temperate
climates where the problem of ice accumulation exists.
Furthermore, rates of recharge are less and extensive
maintenance is necessary to remove silt and other sediment
which may accumulate and clog the pore spaces.
The drawbacks of a discharge/recharge system include:
1) Frequent monitoring to gauge changing plume
characteristics,
2-20
-
LU
2 - 21
-
P00046
2) High initial cost,
3) Discharge water from well development will be
contaminated and must be safely discarded.
Of particular importance is the problem of disposing of
development stages of the well drilling. A surging action is
initiated in the well to draw fine material through the screen,
These fines are then "blown" out of the casing with high
pressure air. If fines are not removed, the abrasion they
cause would destroy the vanes of the pump. The problem with
pumping and surging is that under normal development
procedures, waste water is simply discharged onto the ground.
At SRSNE some provision will have to be made to prevent such
wastes from migrating off site.
A preliminary cost estimate can be prepared using J.R.B.^
cost figures and certain assumptions:
* Assume that discharge/recharge system flow rate is 100
6PM
* Assume 6" discharge well, 30 feet deep with single
submersable pump.
2-22
-
P00047
* Assume 12" recharge well, 30 feet deep
* Assume 500 feet of 8" piping required
* Drilling costs are $2.5/in/ft. of well
* Casing costs are: $6.5/ft. for 6" casing and $15/ft.
for 12" casing
* Piping costs are $46/linear foot for 8" pipe
* Pump cost is $1,200.
* Total cost can be generated as follows:
1) Installed cost of wells $ 2,000.
2) Installed pump cost 1,200.
3) Installed piping cost 23,000.
4) Pump test cost 2,000.
5) Engineering/Misc. Costs 10,000.
Total Cost $38,200.
In conjunction with the installation of the slurry trench
and wells, a treatment method must be selected and a facility
2 - 23
-
P00048
designed. The two methods of removing organic pollutants from
groundwater which deserve some attention are aeration and
carbon adsorption. While aeration has been shown to be
effective in removing highly volatile organics such as
trichloroethane from groundwater, its effectiveness in
removing the many compounds detected under the SRSNE property
has not yet been thoroughly investigated. E & E, Inc. feels
that it is safe to say that since aeration is still in the
development stage and, further, since the majority of the
wastes discarded in the lagoons were low-volatility still
bottoms, the aeration method could probably not be an effective
treatment method at SRSNE. The possible use of aeration as a
treatment method at well #6 and the general use of carbon
adsorption will be addressed later in this report.
Though more research will be required on its effectiveness
under the conditions found in the groundwater at SRSNE,
activated carbon adsorption appears to be a viable treatment
method for removal of organic contamination.^ This treatment
system can be placed in-line between the discharge and recharge
wells previously discussed. Since it can be predicted that
this system must be operated for many years before flushing of
the lagoon area is complete, E & E, Inc. believes that SRSNE
would probably choose to purchase all equipment and operate it
through its own staff (Equipment leasing and
2-24
-
P00049
operating contracts are presently available through companies
such as Calgon Corporation^). A question that must be
answered before a carbon treatment system is installed is; how
will the spent carbon be handled? There are at least three
options:
* Discard spent carbon and purchase fresh material.
Disposing of hazardous material may pose a formidable
problem.
* Construct a carbon regeneration facility on-site. The
capital cost of such a system is great. The small
amount of spent carbon generated may not justify the
expense.
* Find a regeneration contractor who will make periodic
pickups and deliveries. This option seems most viable
for SRSNE. Locating a certified firm may be
difficult.
The treatment system will probably consist of two
pressurized contactors, piping, valving, and instrumentation.
For winterizing, the entire system must be enclosed. In order
to generate a cost estimate for a carbon treatment system, the
following assumptions were made:
* Design flow rate is 100 GPM
2 - 25
-
POOOSO
* Two pressurized downflow contactors with a design
working pressure of 50 psi are required. Vessels used
are 10 Ft. diameter and 14 ft high.
* A complete carbon system requires cylinder-operated
valves, liquid and carbon handling piping,
instrumentation and totally enclosed building.
* Bed depth in each contactor is 5 feet, bed area is 78
ft̂ . Total contact time is 30 minutes in each
contactor (conservative design).
* From EPA document; "Estimating Water Treastment
Costs13" (EPA - 600/2/79-162 b), p. 300, the
installed cost of a complete two-vessel carbon system
is approximately $144,000.
* Operating and mainetnance costs will run about $27,000
per year. From the previously cited EPA report;
"Energy requirements are for backwash pumping, for
pumping of spent carbon to regeneration facilities, and
for return of regenerated carbon . . . energy for
supply pumping to contactors is not included. Building
energy requirements are for heating, lighting,
ventilating, instrumentation, and other general
2-26
-
P00051
building purposes. It was assumed that the contactors
are completely housed. Maintenance material costs
reflect estimated annual requirements for general
supplies, pumps, instrumentation repair, valve
replacement or repair, and other miscellaneous work
items."
* Assume that new carbon is purchased every six months/
when system is saturated. Also assume that cost of
disposal of spent carbon is insignificant relative to
cost of fresh material. Assume 1570 ft3 of carbon is
purchased every year. At an apparent density of 27
lb/ft3: (1570 ft.3/yr.) (27 lb./ft.3) = 42,400
Ib/yr.
* Assume that the cost of fresh activated carbon is
85^/lb. The annual cost for carbon is: (42,400
Ib./yr.) ($0.85/lb.) = $36,000/yr.
2.5 Pumping Town Well No. 6
A remedial measure which could be used in conjunction with
other schemes, is to pump well No. 6 in hopes of accelerating
the natural purging of the aquifer. Pumping the well will lower
the water level at the well and increase the gradient of the
piezomeric surface, thereby increasing flow velocities. The
Warzyn Report6 estimated transmissivities at 150,000 - 200,000
2 - 27
-
P00052
GPD/ft., formational permeabilities of 10'* to 10"̂
CM/SEC., and groundwater flow velocities of 2.3 to 0.23
feet/day. For the time it would take groundwater to flow from
the vicinity of SRSNE to production well No. 6 estimates range
from 1.4 to 14 years. Pumping of both Well No. 6 and Well No. 4
could significantly reduce this transit time since pumping well
No. 4 would eliminate recharge to Well No. 6 from the south,
causing the cone of influence to shift northerly towards SRSNE.
Before a more accurate estimate for the number of years can be
made, more extensive hydrogeologic and soils investigations will
be needed. The heteorgenous nature of glacial outwash deposits
makes it difficult to estimate formational permeabilities.
Furthermore, Well 4 and 6 have not been pumped together. Any
estimate of the composite effects is speculation.
It should be noted that pumping Well No. 6 to waste
involves discharge of polluted water to a river, so that a
discharge permit will be required. Conecticut D.E.P. was
contacted in order to determine the extent of the permit
requirements. Paul Marin stated the two permits would be
required, both NPDES and state. He also felt that obtaining
both permits would not be difficult since Southington Production
Well No. 4 had been previously pumped to waste under similar
constraints*4.
2.6 Summary;
A variety of possible remedial action plans have been
presented in this report, but the list is by no means limited to
measures described herein. Recently national coverage of the
2 - 28
-
P00053
hazardous waste problem has resulted in increased work in
research and design of viable clean-up methods. However, the
implementation of remedial actions is still in its infancy and
most methods are considered state-of-the-art. Such things as
barrier walls have been used extensively in the construction
f what effect organic pollutants
"vill hav^_j^--tiigT_r_structural JuLê Ê -ty. Treatment of discharge
for removal or the organics is a new science and research is
necessary on a site by site basis to design the proper system
for removal of the site specific pollutants. In-depth
hydrogeologic work is essential to determine the parameters by
which a discharge/recharge well system is to be designed or to
ascertain the economic feasibility of pumping Well No. 6 to
purge the aquifer.
Some examples of additional information needed are:
1) Delineation of the direction and extent of plume
migration,
2) Determination of permeabilities, transmissivities, and
groundwater velocities within the aquifer,
3) Effects on plume migration if Wells No. 4 and No. 6 are
2 - 29
-
P00054
pumped simultaneously,
4) Effects of upward vertical gradients exhibited near
SRSNE, and
5) Extent of offsite dumping of contaminants within the
aquifer boundaries.
It would appear that a combination of methods is best
.fnr_thp Southington site. A-nidjor'toriJiLrdlnl.,1
is high cost of implementing such
Frig feasibility study is needed to design the most
efficient and economical system for the site.
The costs generated in this section are summarized in Table
2-2.
2 - 30
-
P00055
TABLE 2 - 2
Summary of Remedial Plans and Estimated Costs for Curtiss Street Well Field
ITEM
1. Excavation a) Excavation & Backfill b) Backfill
Disposal of a) Landfill disposal Contaminated Soil b) Incineration
Isolation from a) Capping Groundwater b) Bottom Seal
c) Slurry Wall d) Grout Curtain e) Sheet Pi ling f) Diversion Wells
Localized a) Discharge/Recharge wells Discharge Wells b) Carbon Treatment
Pumping Town Well No. 6
(1) N/A = Not Applicable (2) NE = Not Estimated for this Study
2 - 31
Installed Cost (thousands of dollars}
132 134
2900 160
14.5 NE(2) 150 450 290 NE
38.2 144
N/A
Operating/ Maintenance Costs
(thousands of dol lars per year)
N/A1
N/A
N/A 16
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NE
NE 63
NE
-
P00056
2.7 References
1. Building Construction Cost Data 1980, Robert Snow Means Company, Inc. Kingston, MA (1979) p. 17-25
2. Campbell, M. D., J. H. Lehr, Water Well Technology, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, NY (1973) p. 681
3. Ginsberg, W. R. "Hearings On: Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and the Report of the Interagency Task Force on Hazardoud Wastes", State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (October 1979) p. 97
4. Love, 0. T. Jr. "Treatment for the Control of Trichloroethylene and Related Industrial Solvents in Drinking Water" U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio (August 1980)
5. "Manual for Remedial Actions at Waste Disposal Sites", JRB Associates, Inc, McLean, VA (June 1980)
6. Preliminary Draft "Hydrogeologic Investigation EPA/JRB Associates, Town of Southington, Connecticut", Warzyn Engineering, Inc., Madison, WI (June 1980)
7. "Procedures Manual for Groundwater Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities", Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530/SW-611 (August 1977) p. 270
8. Nebolsine Kohlman Ruggiero Engineers, P. C., "Removal of Organic Contaminants from Drinking Water Supply at Glen Cove, NY", Interim Report on U.S. EPA Agreement No. CR806355-01, Office of Research and Development, MERL, Drinking Water Research Division, Cincinnati, OH (May 1980)
9. TODD, D. K. Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY (1959) p. 251-272
10. Tolman, "Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites", U.S. EPA 600/2-78-142
2 -32
-
P00057
11. Crail, J. D., "Dealing With Hazardous Dissolved Organic Compounds in Groundwater, Lagoons or Spills", Calgon Environmental Systems Division, Calgon Corporation, Pittsburg, PA. (1978)
12. Patterson, J. H., Technical Sales Representative, Activasted Carbon Division, Calgon Corporation, Personal Communication (October 27, 1980)
13. Gumerman, et. al., "Estimating Water Treatment Costs, Volume 2, Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to 200 mgd Treatment Plants," Culp/Wesner/Culp Consulting Engineers, EPA-600/2-79-162b, (August 1979)
14. Marin, P., Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Personal Communication (October 28, 1980)
15. Lutton, R.; Regan, G.; Jones, L, "Design and Construction of Covers for Solid Waste Landfills." Cincinnati, OH.: Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, ORD, EPA-600/2-79-165 (1979)
2 -33
-
P00058
3. WATER SUPPLY PLANS
3.1 Introduction/Background
The Town of Southington has had a public water system
since the early 1880's when the Water Company constructed a
supply from Humiston Brook. Since that time, as demands
increased and loss of water supplies resulted from
contamination of various groundwater resources, the town has
been faced with the immenent problem of augmenting a depleted
water supply. Under TDD No. F1-8007-01A, E & E, Inc. has been
tasked to investigate methods that can be implemented to
replace the supply of water lost due to the closing of
Production Well No. 6 which has a rated capacity of 1000
gallons per minute (GPM) or 1.44 million gallons per day
(MSD).
Presently the population demands between 3.6 to 3.8 MGD.
During peak usage hours, the demand is 6.2 MGD. . Currently
the town is supplied water from three different sources. A
discussion of these sources follows:
(a) Groundwater Sources: The ground water supply
consisted of six gravel packed wells until the shut-down
3 - 1
-
P00059
of Production Wells Nos. 4, 5, and 6 due to the discovery of
unacceptable levels of chemical contaminants. Two new wells,
Numbers 7 and 8, were recently completed in the southeastern
section of town and are expected to yield 1000 6PM each. Well
No. 8 is expected to be in production by October 1980. Wells
No. 1, 2, and 3 currently supply 550 gallons per minute.
Total daily yeild from groundwater supplies is 5.3 MGD.
(b) Existing Surface Supplies: Southington's surface
supply consists of three reservoirs located in the southwest
section of town. The reservoirs have a combined storage
capacity of 157.7 million gallons (MG). The safe yield of
these sources, defined as the maximum dependable draft that
can be made continuously on a water supply during an extended
drought, has been estimated to be 1.0 MGD. During this past
summer (June-September 1980), the reservoirs were used for
water supply due to the inadequacy of the existing wells to
supply enough water during drought conditions. The use of
these reservoirs was curtailed at the end of September 1980.
(c) Lease of Well From City of New Britain: Presently
the Town of Southington is augmenting their water supply with
water leased from a New Britain Water Department well which is
located with-in Southington town boundaries. The lease
agreement calls for a one year period of usage with two,
3 - 2
-
F00060
six month extensions. The first extension has already been
exercised. The cost of the lease is $1,000 per month.
An initial cost of $6,000 was expended for piping to connect
to the existing Southington water supply.
Current potential yield from all three sources is 6.2
MGD. This assures full utilization of all sources, an
infeasible condition due to fluctuations in groundwater and
surface water capacities caused by variables such as climatic
changes and aquifer recharge characteristics. Further,
provisions for population increases are not taken into
account.
Future water demand is based upon anticipated domestic
and non-domestic demands. Southington has experienced a
faster growth rate between 1940 and 1970 than the State of
Connecticut, Hartford County, and any of the adjoining towns.
Attractive, developable, residential land, and the proximity
of the town to Hartford and New Haven are two reasons why the
area has experienced rapid growth. According to a report by
Camp, Dresser, and McKee* of February 24, 1977, the town
will reach a saturation population of 68,000 in the year 2000.
This means that the present water system capacity will not
be adequate to supply domestic and non-domestic needs. Total
estimated use for the entire town in the year 2000 is
3 - 3
-
F00061
summarized as follows.
Use Consumption (mgd)
Domestic 4.17
Non-domestic 1.74
Unaccounted for 1.05
(Leakage, Fire Fighting etc.)
Total Average Day 6.96
Total Maximum Day 11.83
Total Peak Hour 18.79
One will note that projected demands for the year 2000
are above the current supply capacity of the water system.
Therefore, new water resources will have to be developed to
meet the needs of the town. In the following sections of this
report E & E, Inc. presents some of the possible measures
that can be, and/or are being undertaken to meet future
demands.
3.2 Development of a New Production Well
Geraghty and Miller recently completed a groundwater
3 - 4
-
P00062
availability assessment for the town resulting in the
discovery of 20 sites that are favorable for drilling
production wells. To date two new production Wells, Nos. 7
and 8, have been developed in the southeastern section of
town. Both wells are scheduled to be put on-line in October,
19802.
Based upon the recent construction of Wells Nos. 7 and 8,
cost estimates can be projected to cover further development
of groundwater resources. The following costs do not take
into account the initial cost of hydrogeologic studies.
Previous expenditures for such studies have been in the
vicinity of $200,000. Development costs for a 1000 GPM well
to replace No. 6 are as follows:
* Costs for two, 1000 GPM wells in Southington:
1) Pumps and Building construction $ 260,000
2) Acquisition of Land 80,000
3) Pipeline to present water system 50,000
4) Cost of Drilling Wells 45,000
(Labor, Materials, etc.)
5) Final hydrogeologic testing and
exploration 40,000
Total $ 475,000
3 - 5
-
P00063
* Cost of one, 1000 GPM production well to replace No. 6
is approximately $238,000.
* A ballpark estimate for operating and maintenance cost
is $10,000/year3.
According to Daniel Christy, Superintendent of
Southington's Water Works Department, further development of
groundwater resources seems to be the most economical approach
to solving Southington's water problems^. Since the most
expensive part of development (hydrogeologic studies) have
been completed, all that remains is to place wells in the most
desirable locations.
3.3 Utilization of Southington Reservoirs
The general quality of Southington's reservoir supply is
within recommended Federal and State limits. However during
spring and fall overturn of the lakes (due to changes in the
density of surface and bottom water), color, odor, and
turbidity exceed or approach the limits. If the reservoirs
are to be used as a permanent water supply, water treatment
would be required to conform with the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act and the State of Connecticut Public Health Code
regulations "Standards for Quality of Drinking Water" (Section
19-13-B102). Construction of a treatment plant would have to
3 - 6
-
P00064
to be completed by December 31, 1980 in order to conform to
these regulations. According to the Camp, Dresser and McKee
report of 1977 the following treatment processes would
probably be required:
* Coagulation and Flocculation for a period of 20 to 30
minutes
* Intermediate sedimentation, followed by filtration using
dual media filters.
* Chemical treatment using
1) Alum, ferric sulfates or polymers for coagulation
2) Lime or caustic soda for pH adjustment
3) Chlorine for disinfection
4) Potassium permanganate for manganese removal
5) Activated carbon for taste and odor control
Based on 1977 estimates, the construction, annual
operation and maintenance costs, and the acquisition of
3 - 7
-
P00065
surrounding watershed land for the protection of the
reservoirs would be as follows:
* The installed cost of a 1.6 MGD treatment plant is
$1,063,000. Prorated for 1.44 MGD (loss of Production
Well No. 6), the cost is $957,000.
* Operating and maintenance cost for the 1.6 MGD plant and
watershed are $321,000. Prorated for 1.44 MGD, the cost
is $289,000.
Dan Christy stated that the town would rather not pursue
the usage of reservoir water because of the obvious large
capital expenditure. Compared with the costs of groundwater
development, it is more economical for the town to continue
developing groundwater resources.
3.4 Development of Storage Facilities
In order to alleviate peak demands on the water system
during certain hours, one alternative that has been suggested
is the use of some sort of storage facility from which water
can be pumped during high demand hours and into which water
can be replenished during low demand periods. Currently the
town uses Reservoir No. 1 (2.5 mg capacity), along with the
3 - 8
-
P00066
Mill Street standpipes (2.2 mg capacity) as storage areas.
Total volume of storage is 4.7 mg. Realistically, the total
active volume of the Mill Street standpipes is only about 1.0
mg due to inadequate pressures developed in areas adjacent to
the standpipes and near the extremities of the distribution
system, when the water level reaches mid-depth in the tanks.
Since Reservoir No. 1 has been isolated (as of the end of
August 1980) from the water distribution system, the Mill
Street standpipes serve as the only storage facilities in the
town.
Presently the total volume of storage required to satisfy
hourly fluctuations is 3.1 mg. Projection to the year 2000
produces a need for 3.9 mg. Therefore, without the use of
Reservoir No. 1 as a storage facility, the town has
insufficient storage.
In order to realize the use of Reservoir No. 1 as a
storage facility, a one million dollar treatment plant would
have to be built, operated and maintained as discussed
previously. The cost of construction for a storage facility
with the recommended capacity of 2.3 mg is $993,000. This is
based on a 1977 estimate by Camp, Dresser, and McKee for a
prestressed concrete storage tank, or a steel standpipe.
3 - 9
-
F00067
If additional groundwater resources prove to be
available, it is more economical for the town to proceed with
such development than to construct treatment facilities to
utilize the existing reservoir for storage or to construct new
storage facilities.
3.5 Purchase Water
To supplement their depleted water supply due to the
shut-down of Wells Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the town is currently
purchasing water from the City of New Britain which owns a
well on Southington town property. Conditions of the lease
call for a one year rental with two, six month extensions.
Another possible source of rental water is from the City
of New Haven, which owns a well field in the Town of Cheshire,
just south of Southington. However, these wells have also
started to show traces of solvent contamination, so their
future usage is not assured.
Costs for purchasing water can be generated as follows:
* Assume lease arrangement investigated by Southington
Water Department will provide for amount of water lost
due to closing of Production Well No. 6.
3 - 10
-
F00068
* Capital cost of piping to connect to water system is
$6,000.
* Cost of treatment is not included.
* Cost of water is similar to arrangements made by Town of
Bedford, Massachusetts which has three contracts to buy
water at $530/million gallons, $600/million gallons and
$700/million gallons4. Assume average value of
$600/million gallons:
(1.44 MGD) ($600/M6) = $864/day = $25,920/mo = $315,400/year
3.6 On-site Treatment of Production Well No. 6:
One method that can be employed to restore the supply of
drinking water lost due to groundwater contamination of the
Curtis Street well field is on-site treatment of the dicharge
from Production Well No. 6. The two techniques that are now
being most thoroughly investigated for organic removal are
aeration and adsorption. This section of E & E, Inc.'s report
outlines current opinion on the effectiveness of these
techniques.
3 -11
-
P0006S
Table 3-1 outlines the analytical results generated during a
study of the contamination problem by Warzyn Engineering
Company5. In general, the chemicals found in Production Well
No. 6 are widely used solvents in industries and households.
EPA is currently reviewing most of these compounds for possible
inclusion in the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. The single compound found in Well No. 6, not
included, is 1, 1 Dichloroethane.
TABLE 3 - 1
Chemical Analysis of Organic Compounds Found in Southington
Production Well No. 6 during Warzyn Study5
Concentration of Chemical in PW No. 6
Chemical by Analytical Lab (ppb)
ERCO EPA
1.1 Dichloroethane 8.3 7.6 4
1.2 Dichloroethane 0.1 0.1 ND
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 63 53 30
Trichloroethylene 0.5 0.5 1
Tetrachloroethylene 0.1 0.1 ND
3-12
-
P00070
3.6.1 Aeration:
Aeriation is a treatment method that has recently been
receiving considerable attention. Briefly, the process
consists of routing the contaminated well water
countercurrent to diffused air in an enclosed column.
The well water is pumped through the column in a
downflow configuration with the column being typically
designed for a storage capacity of more than ten
minutes. Air from a blower is introduced to the bottom
of the column through a diffuser system at an air to
water ratio ranging typically from 4:1 to 30:1.
A major consideration in evaluating aeration for
Production Well No. 6 is that there are no full-scale
aeration plants for well water organic contaminant
removal in operation. Therefore, the application in
Southington would be research oriented.
In fact, EPA is now considering the installation of
a full-scale aeration plant on Southington Production
Well No. 4. To date, the program has not progressed
beyond the funding phase and preliminary engineering has
not been conducted^. Much of the research on aeration
has been conducted by EPA's Municipal Environmental
3-13
-
P00071
Research Laboratory, Drinking Water Research Division
(USEPA-DWRD) using pilot scale equipment. Also, a
consulting firm, NKRE, has evaluated the method on a
pilot scale at a well site on Long Island, New York.
Looking at 1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane, the major
contaminant in Production Well No. 6, NKRE observed a 66
to 85 percent reduction in concentrations (influent
concentrations of 3 to 7 ppb) with air-to-water ratios
ranging from 5:1 to 30:1. The diffused-air aerator used
by the UEPA-DWRD at its pilot facility in New Jersey has
consistently shown approximately 90 percent removal of
1, 1, 1-trichloroethane ( in f luen t concentration range of
170 to 280 ppb) at a 4:1 air-to-water ratio. Similar
results were obtained for other organic compounds.
Table 3-2 is a summary of those results^. It appears
that diffused aeration can be a successful means of
lowering the concentration of the applicable
contaminants in the drinking water from Production Wel l
No. 6. The major liability of the method is the lack of
full-scale plant data.
3-14
-
FOGG?; Some cost data has been generated in a study for
which a final report has not been published'7. These
costs are presented below:
* Capital costs based on a 1 MGD plant
1) /Aeration Storage Tank $ 45,000
2) Air Compressors 62,000
3) Air Piping 37,000
4) Control Bu i ld ing 32,000
5) Electrical and Instrumentation 12,000
6) Miscellaneous 10,000
Total $198,000
* Capital cost prorated for a 1.44 MGD plant (1000
GPM Production Wel l No. 6) is:
($198,000) (1.44) = $285,000
* Annual operating and maintenance cost for a 1 MGD
plant, based on an energy cost of $0.09/kwh are:
1) Energy $ 44,000
2) Maintenance 3,500
3) Operation 20,000
4) Quality Control 9,000
Total $ 76,500
* Annual 0 & M costs prorated for a 1.44 MGD plant
are: ($76,500J (1.44) = $110,200
3 - 1 5
-
P00073
TABLE 3 - 2
Organic Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Diffused-Air Aeration Plants 6
Highest Removal Efficiency for Chemical Each Study (%)
USEPA-DWRD Pilot NKRE Pilot Plant in N.J. Plant on L.I.
1,2 Dichloroethane NS NS
1,1,1 Trichloroethane >90(170-280)* 66-85(3-7)
Trichloroethylene >80(3.3) 69-90(132-313)
Tetrachloroethylene 95 75-95
* Values in parenthesis represent influent contaminant concentration in ppb.
NS - not studied
3 - 16
-
P00074
3.6.2 Carbon Adsorption:
These are two major adsorption systems receiving
attention. One system employs very specific and very
expensive exchange resins such as those developed by
Rohm and Haas. These resins have proven to be very
effective for the chemicals identified in the drinking
water from Production Well No.6. However, the cost of
the resin is too high to justify its application when
compared to the other adsorption system, activated
carbon. Also, it seems that specific resins are
effective for specific chemicals, but no one resin is
good for all chemcials.
Basically, a carbon adsorption treatment system for
this application would consist of more than one granular
activated carbon bed piped into the discharge from
Production Well No. 6. More engineering work will be
required to select from the various alternatives
available such as 1) downflow or upflow through the
carbon bed, 2) series or parallel operation, 3) pressure
or gravity operation in downflow contactors, 4) packed
or expanded bed in upflow contactors, and 5) materials
of contruction and configuration of carbon vessel (sj.
For well water application, a typical installation would
3 - 17
-
P00075
consist of two lined steel tanks, each with a packed
carbon bed, operated in series in the downflow mode.
An example of an activated carbon system now in
service at a town production well is the treatment
system on Woodbury, Connecticut Well No. 2̂ . The well
operates at 125 GPM and is contaminated with about 140
ppb 1, 1, 1, trichloroethane and lesser amounts of
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. The basis of
the treatment system is three converted softening units.
Generally, two units operate in series while the third,
as a standby, is put on line when a spent carbon bed is
being changed. Each tank contains 60 cubic feet of
activated carbon and the total retention time of two
tanks in series is 7.5 minutes. Though little data has
been generated to date due to mechanical problems, Mr.
Kevin Moran of the General Waterworks of the Northeast
Region stated that nearly complete removel of organics /•̂ 5
was accomplished during proper operation. Calgon Carbon
Service, which supplies the activated carbon, estimates
that the life of a bed is from six months to one year.
Most studies show that nearly 100 percent removal
of the organic compounds in question can be effected
with the proper design of an activated carbon system^.
3-18
-
P00076
However, some very important factors that must be
evaluated before a treatment system can be installed
are:
* Length of service to breakthrough or contaminant
loading for the components in question on activated
carbon.
* The desired or legally required effluent
concentrations and thus the retention time.
* Water characteristics, in particular, suspended
solids content. (May require pre-filters)
* The disposal method for spent carbon.
There are two major financing routes that can be
followed when installing an activated carbon treatment
system on Production Well No. 6. First, a turnkey
system can be leased from a service company such as
Calgon Corporation. As part of the contract, the
service company will design, build, operate, and
maintain the treatment plant including disposal and/or
regeneration of spent carbon. A representative of
Calgon Corporation stated that the cost of such a system
3 - 19
-
P00077
would be about $500 per million gallons treated^.
Since Production Well No. 6 is 1.44 MGD, the cost would
be about $21,600 per month or about $236,000 per year.
In order to generate a cost estimate for the
purchase of a carbon system, the following assumptions
were made:
* Design flow rate is 1,000 GPM (1.44 MGD)
* Treatment system consists of two pressurized
downflow contactors with a design working pressure
of 50 psi. Vessels are 12 feet in diameter. Total
contact area is 113 ft.2.
* Required detention time in carbon bed is 20
minutes. Therefore, total bed length is: (1000 GPM)
(1 ft.3/7.48 gal.) (20 min.) (1/113 ft.2) = 24
ft. Each vessel will have 12 feet of bed.
* Total bed volume is 2712ft.3.
* From EPA document; "Estimating Water Treatment
Costs" (EPA-600/2-79-162b), p. 302,3 the
installed cost of a complete two-vessel carbon
3 - 2 0
http:ft.3/7.48
-
P00078
system similar to that described above is
$237,000.
* Operating and maintenance costs, exclusive of
carbon replacement/regeneration, is about $27,000
per year. The major cost is for building heating,
lighting, ventilating, instrumentation and other
general building requirements.
* Assume that new carbon is purchased when system is
saturated (most conservative approach). Also
assume that the cost of disposal of spent carbon is
insignificant relative to the cost of fresh
material. Assume that total volume of carbon is
replaced each year, (2712 ft3). At an apparent
density of 27 lb/ft3:
(2712 ft3/yr.) (27 lb/ft.3) = 73,200 Ib/yr.
* Assume that the cost of fresh activated carbon is
85
-
P00073
3.7 Summary:
Table 3-3 is a summary of the water supply options and
associated costs. The most cost-effective alternative that the
Town of Southington can pursue to alleviate water supply
problems appears to be groundwater resource development. In
conversation with Dan Christy, he stated that the town is
leaning away from reservoir usage due to the high cost involved
with building a treatment plant. He places more confidence in
the development of new well fields, since the recent
hydrogeologic studies have point