Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> indicate the injection of permanganate solution did not impact the aquifer <br /> permeability. <br /> 5 CONCLUSIONS <br /> Based on the information herein, potassium permanganate is not recommended as a <br /> feasible technology for the Site due to the following limitations: <br /> • The delivery of permanganate within the soil matrix, and maintaining highly <br /> oxidizing conditions within the impacted areas for a sufficient period of time is <br /> required for in situ TCE destruction to occur. This requires a very large mass and <br /> high volume of potassium permanganate to be delivered with closely placed <br /> injection points. <br /> • Large volumes of potassium permanganate would likely result in substantial <br /> increases in TDS for groundwater. Increases in total dissolved solids are already a <br /> serious groundwater quality problem in the Ripon area due to the land application <br /> of high-TDS water at the former Neenah Paper Company and City of Ripon <br /> wastewater treatment facility. <br /> • Multiple injections over time would be required to effectively use this method of <br /> source removal because of the rapid .consumption of potassium permanganate. <br /> • Pink-colored groundwater was observed in wells within the study area. This <br /> secondary water quality impact would create a significant concern to the City of <br /> Ripon and may require additional treatment.. <br /> • The estimated TCE mass removal after 6 months was approximately 12 pounds of <br /> TCE. In comparison, the groundwater extraction and treatment system operating <br /> at the Site removes 120 pounds of TCE in six months (based on 1999 operation <br /> data). Compared to groundwater extraction and treatment, KMn04 injection <br /> appears to be a less efficient method of TCE mass removal at the Site. <br />