Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database Estimated Mass in Landfill Soils as reported in Baseline Soil Study, (CDM, 1987) NA - Not available or not able to be calculated. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1996: "Lipari Landfill Superfund Site, On-Site Remediation System Final 1994 Annual Report, Lipari Longterm Remedial Action, Lipari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey", Prepared for U.S. EPA, New York, NY, Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 125 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10038, May 2, 1996 Internet URL: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm; U.S. EPA, Nov. 1996: Inn. Trtmt. Techs.: Ann. Status Rpt. (8th Ed.), EPA 542-R-96-010, No. 8, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G) TIO, Wash., DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991: Engineering Bulletin In Situ Soil Flushing, EPA/540/2-91/021, U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), Washington, DC 20460, Office of Research and Development (ORD), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, 8 pp., October 1991. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 62 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0029 Project Name: Michigan State University - Surfactant Research and Soils Mo City: East Lansing State/Province: MI Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), April 1995: Status Report: Surfactant Enhancements, EPA 542-K-94-003, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102W), TIO, Washington, DC, avail. at www.gwrtac.org The following is excerpted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), April 1995: Status Report: Surfactant Enhancements, EPA 542-K-94-003, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102W), TIO, Washington, DC, avail. at www.gwrtac.org: Dr. Stephen Boyd is working on three research projects involving surfactants: 1) Surfactant treatment of soils and sediments Basic research is being conducted to study the effects of different classes of surfactants on the partitioning of contaminants between the water and solid phases of sediments and sandy soils. Tests have been conducted on DDT, PCBs, and PAHs such as naphthalene and phenanthrene. 2) Modification of soils with cationic surfactants Clayey soils are being treated with cationic surfactants to make the soil more sorptive to common organic contaminants. Though the work is basic research, a projected use of the technique would be to inject the cationic surfactant into the ground in a location through which a contaminant plume would flow. Theoretically, contaminant concentrations in the water downgradient from the treated (sorptive) zone would be substantially reduced. The contaminants immobilized within the zone could then be treated with enhanced bioremediation to provide a comprehensive in-situ remediation technology. In a related application, the cationic organo-clays could be used as components of barrier walls. They would not only seal an area, but sorb any contaminants threatening to seep through. 3) Effects of low levels of surfactants on bioremediation Through a cooperative agreement with ERL-Athens, laboratory work has just begun to study how the biological dechlorination of PCBs in sediments can be enhanced by treating the sediments with low levels of surfactants. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 63 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
Page 1 and 2:
Technology Status Report Technology
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACT This technology status rep
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 I
Page 7 and 8:
1.0 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF STATU
Page 9 and 10:
a laboratory-scale project. As illu
Page 11 and 12:
3.1 Flushing Solutions 3.0 ANALYSIS
Page 13 and 14:
(approximately eight) full-scale pr
Page 15 and 16:
Table 1. In Situ Flushing - Summary
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Table 3 In Situ Flushing - Geology
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Table 4 In Situ Flushing - Recovere
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Full-Scale/Commercial 26% Figure 2.
Page 35 and 36:
Site Remediation 25% Figure 4. In S
Page 37 and 38:
NAPL Removal 34% Figure 6. In Situ
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 8. In Situ Flushing - Distri
Page 41 and 42:
Number of Projects 35 30 25 20 15 1
Page 43 and 44:
Number of Case Studies 45 40 35 30
Page 45 and 46:
25 ft and 50 ft and 10 ft and 100 f
Page 47 and 48:
Unconfined Aquifer 65% Figure 16. I
Page 49 and 50:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 109: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?