Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0036 Project Name: Rasmussen's Dump, Brighton, MI City: Brighton State/Province: MI Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Ken Glatz U.S. EPA Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. EPA, Nov. 1996: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA 542-R-96-010, Number 8, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G) TIO, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm The following text is from notes from July 1998 conversation with EPA RPM: In situ flushing begain approximately June 1996. At the site, there is an upper well-sorted sand aquifer, a clay confining layer, which is located about 35 to 40 feet below the ground surfact (bgs), and is 10-15 feet thick, and a lower aquifer below the clay confining layer. There is a "pinch out" of the units, so that water from the upper aquifer can enter the lower aquifer through a "waterfall effect", so that the lower aquifer is also contaminated. The targeted contaminants at the site are located within the vadose zone and within the unconfined aquifer. In the in situ flushing operation, water is pumped from the upper and lower aquifers via four or five extraction wells. The wells are pumped at different rates, but a total of approximately 120 gpm is pumped. The entire 120 gpm is re-injected continuously, via infiltration galleries located just below the surface, and which are approximately two acres in areal extent. No slurry wall is present at the site. The flushing operation is contained via hydraulic containment. The lower aquifer is not directly targeted by the in situ flushing operation. A total of about 330 million gallons of groundwater is contaminated at the site; roughly divided half and half between the upper and lower aquifers. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm U.S. EPA, Nov. 1996: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA 542-R-96-010, Number 8, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G) TIO, Washington, DC Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 74 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0037 Project Name: Serrener/Varisco Consortium, Canada City: Drummondville State/Province: QC Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): GSI Environnement (formerly Ecosite, Inc.), 965 Newton Ave., Office 270, Québec City, Qc. Canada G1P 4M4, Marketing Information Internet URL http://echs.ida.org/s13/report/intrm04.html "Field Demonstration of an In Situ Treatment for Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites Using Wellpoints Project Summary: The following text was excerpted from marketing information provided by GSI Environnement (formerly Ecosite, Inc.), 965 Newton Ave., Office 270, Québec City, Qc. Canada G1P 4M4 in August 1998: The Serrener/Varisco Consortium developed an in situ treatment technology using a combined physico-chemical and biological approach. The concept, the injection of solutions for the treatment and recovery of contaminants, is based on the use of well points, which had been developed by Varisco, Italy and proven to lower the water table and control groundwater. The selected approach consists of isolating the surfact to be treated and saturating the contaminated soil during successive hydraulic operations. This treatment technique is viable on all four phases of a contamination enclave, which are the free, adsorbed, dissolved, and volatile phases. The process is applied in four stages: 1. Primary recovery of free-phase contaminants; 2. Secondary recovery of contaminants by injection of water; 3. Tertiary recovery of contaminants by injection of surfactants; 4. Biodegradation of residual contaminants by injection of nutrients and air. A lab study was conducted to optimize the treatment process for application on the contaminated soil at a former oil depot site in Drummondville, QC, followed by an on-site demonstration. The project's total cost was $1,073,736. (Canadian). The project was conducted on an experimental land parcel at an old oil depot site. Mineral oil and grease (MOG) and gasoline were present. The study area occupied a volume of 520 m3 (approx. 680 yd3) at a high point of the water table so as to prevent recontamination of the area after the demonstration. The experimental parcel is comprised of low permeability till (10-5 cm/sec) covered with a 1 m (approx. 3.3 ft) thick layer of fill, consisting of granular material in a silty matrix. Rock is located at approximately 3 m (approx. 9.8 ft) deep. The site is greatly heterogeneous, and exhibited great variability of results, both for soil and groundwater analysis. The mean concentration of MOG was 11,000 ppm, with values up to 25,000 ppm. The laboratory work consisted of assessing the efficiency of different surfactants to extract the Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 75 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:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 121: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?