Drycleaner Site Profiles
Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina
|The area targeted for remediation lies beneath a former dry cleaning facility (Building 25). Historical activities at the site led to subsurface releases of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) comprising primarily perchloroethylene (PCE).
The dry cleaning facility had operated since the 1940s. In the 1970s, the facility began using PCE. From the 1970s through the mid-1990s, PCE was stored in a 150 gallon above ground storage tank (AST) adjacent to Building 25.
In 1995, underground storage tanks (UST) were removed from the site. Although the USTs were not used for PCE storage, soils impacted with chlorinated solvents were identified. Since this discovery, multiple remediation efforts have been attempted at the site.
In 1998, a DNAPL recovery system was installed north of Building 25 to remove as much DNAPL as possible from an area that was to be the subject of a Surfactant Enhanced Aquifer Remediation (SEAR) demonstration project. Approximately 30 to 60 gallons of DNAPL were removed.
In 1999, the SEAR demonstration project was undertaken on the north side of Building 25. Approximately 76 gallons of DNAPL were removed. Residual surfactant remained present in treated soils.
Remediation Status: In groundwater monitoring
|Tetrachloroethene (PCE)||groundwater||64,000 ppb|
|Tetrachloroethene (PCE)||soil||44,352,000 ppb|
|Trichloroethene (TCE)||groundwater||37,000 ppb|
|Trichloroethene (TCE)||soil||258,000 ppb|
|Vinyl Chloride||groundwater||45,000 ppb|
|Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:||20ft bgs|
|Average Depth to Groundwater:||7ft|
|alternating beds of sand and silt, which turn into a silty fine sand near the aquitard
Depth: 0-20ft bgs
Depth: 20ft bgs
|1. Reduce risk of exposure to human and ecological receptors.
2. Removal or depletion of DNAPL.
3. Reduction of contaminant flux from the source area to surrounding groundwater.
In Situ Zero Valent Iron
Why the technology was selected:
Final remediation design:
Other technologies used:
Results to date:
Cost to Design and Implement:
Cost for Assessment:
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:
Total Costs for Cleanup:
Once the mixing rig was mobilized, the marginal cost for treating each additional cubic yard of material was ~$46. Expanding treated area in order to minimize risk of missing a portion of the source zone is, therefore, relatively inexpensive.
Design the monitoring program to collect samples immediately after mixing to obtain more accurate initial concentrations.
Consistently collect more samples, bot soil and water, over time at the same locations.
Plan on managing stormwater through covering the treatment area or installing a sump with a small treatment system.
Over design/estimate the mixing depth, where possible, but cannot compromise any confining layers.
In mixing in areas with observed product, perform additional mixing and add additional ZVA as a safety factor.
| Chris Bozzini, CH2M Hill (email@example.com)
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Superfund Section
Tom Sale, Colorado State University (firstname.lastname@example.org, 970.491.8413)
Gary Amato, Colorado State University (email@example.com, 970.491.2765)
| Site 88 Building 25 Source Removal, Non-Time Critical Removal Action Report, Operable Unit No. 15, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, dated August 2006.
DNAPL Remediation at Camp Lejeune Using ZVI-Clay Soil Mixing, Bozzini, et al., presented at Sixth Battelle Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds conference, May 2006.