Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0038 Project Name: Sindelfingen, Germany City: Sindelfingen State/Province: GERMANY Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): 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. The following was excerpted from U.S. EPA, Oct. 1991: Eng. Bull. In Situ Soil Flushing, EPA 540- 2-91-021, U.S. EPA OERR, Washington, DC: TCE was discharged into the aquifer at the site of a spill in Sindelfingen, Germany. The contaminated aquifer is a high-permeability (k= 5.10 x 10-4 m/sec) layer overlying a clay barrier. Soil flushing was accomplished by infiltrating water into the ground through ditches. The leaching liquid and polluted groundwater were pumped out of eight wells and treated with activated carbon. The treated water was recycled through the infilration ditches. Within 18 months, 17 metric tons of chlorinated hydrocarbons were recovered. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Stief, K., 1984: Remedial Action for Groundwater Protection Case Studies Within the Federal Republic of Germany, Presented at the 5th National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Washington, DC, 1984. 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 78 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0039 Project Name: Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base City: Camp Lejeune State/Province: NC Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Fred Holzmeyer Duke Engineering & Services Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): None The following text was provided in a project summary on September 8, 1998 by Duke Engineering & Services of Austin, TX: A Remedial Investigation (RI) recently conducted at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina has revealed the presence of an extensive aqueous plume of tetrachloroethene (PCE) in the vicinity of the Base dry cleaning facility known as Building 25. The RI delineated the extent of the ground-water plume for this area, referred to as Site 88, and reported aqueous PCE concentrations up to 54 mg/L. However, this large-scale investigation did not confirm the presence of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) in the subsurface. Site 88 was listed by Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NAVFAC) as a candidate site (i.e. likely to have DNAPL present in the subsurface) for conducting a field demonstration of surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR) with surfactant recycling and reinjection. The SEAR field demonstration is funded by the Navy’s Environmental Securities Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to promote the advancement of innovative technologies for effective remediation of Department of Defense sites contaminated with DNAPL and/or light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL). However, before Camp Lejeune could be selected by ESTCP as the SEAR demonstration site, the DNAPL source zone at Site 88 had to be located, characterized, and evaluated per site selection criteria. In support of the ESTCP site selection process, a DNAPL source-zone investigation was conducted at Site 88 by Duke Engineering & Services (DE&S) which included three phases of investigation. The objectives of Phase 1 of this investigation were to: (1) locate the DNAPL zone, (2) delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of DNAPL at the site, and (3) characterize the geosystem of the DNAPL zone (i.e. hydrostratigraphy, hydraulic and geochemical properties of the aquifer, and approximate DNAPL saturations). The Phase 1 investigation consisted of a relatively small scale, detailed program of soil borings and included collection of methanol-preserved soil samples. Borings were completed beneath the building and around the perimeter of the building to a depth of about 21 feet below ground surface. The DNAPL investigation found free-phase and residual DNAPL located at a depth interval of approximately 17 to 20 feet below ground surface. The DNAPL zone is bounded below by a clay aquitard which functions as an effective capillary barrier to prevent further downward migration of DNAPL. The DNAPL zone is located beneath the northern portion of Building 25 and also extends to an area approximately 20 to 30 feet beyond the north side of the building. This investigation also revealed the presence of LNAPL smeared across Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 79 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:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 125: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?