Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0032 Project Name: Ormet Corp., Hannibal, OH City: Hannibal State/Province: OH Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Tony Rutter U.S. EPA Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): 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; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm The following text is from notes from a July 1998 conversation with the EPA RPM: Two high capacity pumping wells are used to extract groundwater and provide hydraulic control. In June of 1998, construction was completed on a sprayfield system for the site. Treated site groundwater (no additives) is used for flushing solution, and will be applied surficially via the sprayfield system sprinklers to flush vadose zone soils. There is no slurry wall or other constructed containment means at the site. The geologic material being targeted for flushing is comprised primarily of fairly porous and well sorted sands, though some silt is present. Information on areal extent, depth of system, etc. unavailable. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): None Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 68 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0033 Project Name: Patuxent Naval Air Test Center City: Patuxent State/Province: MD Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), November 1996: Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies: Publications and Conference Proceedings 1990-1996, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (5102G) Washington, DC 20460, p. 112 The following was excerpted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), November 1996: Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies: Publications and Conference Proceedings 1990-1996, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (5102G) Washington, DC 20460, p. 112: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of surfactant-enhanced biodegradation of JP-5 in soil from Patuxent Naval Air Test Center (NATC) under simulated conditions of soil venting. Surfactants and emulsifiers were screened for microbial toxicity and for their capacity to solubilize jet fuel from soil. Three surfactants were subsequently evaluated in 60-day flask aerobic biodegradation experiments. One surfactant was tested in soil columns under simulated soil venting conditions for 47 days. The results of the soil column study showed that the surfactant plus soil venting failed to enhance biodegradation of JP-5 compared to soil venting alone. Soil venting appears to overcome oxygen limitations in unsaturated soil and should be considered for enhanced biodegradation and soil bioremediation at NATC. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Arthur, et al., 1992: "Evaluation of Innovative Approaches to Stimulate Degradation of Jet Fuels in Subsoils and Ground Water, Final Report, June 1988 to August 1989, Battelle Columbus Labs, OH, June 1992, 35 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), November 1996: Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies: Publications and Conference Proceedings 1990-1996, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (5102G) Washington, DC 20460, p. 112 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 69 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:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 115: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?