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