Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database primary conclusion drawn from this effort was that increased levels of PCB removal could be achieved as long as surfactant concentrations were maintained at concentrations above the critical micelle concentration. The second test was conducted in 1995 and consisted of two periods of surfactant delivery. In this case, the chemical system included 91 wt% ethoxylated alcohols (Witconol SN-70) and 9 wt% cocamidopropyl betaine (Mirataine BET C-30). The first period involved 91 gallons delivered over 42 hours. The second period involved 200 gallons delivered over 27 hours. Produced fluids were treated using an onsite biological treatment unit. Enhanced concentrations of PCBs were observed at surfactant concentrations exceeding 500 mg/L. Peak surfactant concentrations observed at the spring during this test were 11,000 and 13,000 mg/L, respectively, for the first and second periods. Correspondingly, peak PCB concentrations were 8,000 and 3,200 ug/L. Lower concentrations from the second period are attributed to lower groundwater temperatures. During the 1995 tests, an estimated mass of 0.320 kg of PCB was recovered. Key conclusions cited by the author include the following: The mass recovered was probably small relative to the total mass of PCBs in the subsurface. The mass recovered in 1995 was large relative to the mass recovered during the 1993 effort. The mass recovered in 1995 was equal to the total mass that would have been discharged from the spring under natural conditions over a period of 16 years. Following both of the 1995 surfactant delivery periods, PCB concentrations at the spring returned to their historical level of 5 ug/L. At present, no plans exist for further surfactant flushing at the site. Instead, recovery and treatment of PCBs at the spring is planned. The limiting factor controlling the duration of the surfactant injections presented above was the ability to effectively treat the surfactant-containing spring water. A more efficient treatment system would be needed for successful operation of a long-term surfactant injection system. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997 S.S. Papadopulos & Assoc., Inc., 1996: "Field Demonstration of Surfactant Injections to Enhance PCB Removal from Fractured Rock, Delmont, Pennsylvania, Main Report", Prepared for Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Houston, TX, Prepared by S.S. Papadopulos & Assoc., INc., Bethesda, MD, May 1996 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 84 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0042 Project Name: Thouin Sand Quarry, Quebec, CA City: L'Assomption State/Province: QC Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: The following is excerpted from Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), 1996: Surfactants/Cosolvents, Technology Evaluation Report TE-96-02, Dr. Chad T. Jafvert, Purdue University, for GWRTAC, Pittsburgh, PA, December 1996, available at www.gwrtac.org and Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997, which referenced Martel, et al. (1996): The Thouin Sand Pit site is located in L'Assomption, Quebec, approximately 20 km northeast of Montréal and is characterized by a thin silty sand layer (2 m or 6.6 ft) underlain by a 30 m (98 ft) thick deposit of silty clay. Waste oils and organic compounds dissolved in water have been flowing in ditches and nearby creeks. Historic activities at the site involved disposal of waste oils from petroleum refining and other industrial activities. The NAPL present at the site consists of a mixture of chlorinated and nonchlorinated hydrocarbons with a density greater than water. Sediments at the site consist of approximately 2 m (6.6 ft) of silty sand underlain by approximately 30 m (98.4 ft) of siltly clay. During the fall of 1994, a field test of aquifer washing using a micellar solution was conducted at the Thouin Sand Pit. The overall objective of this effort was to evaluate the use of a washing solution including a surfactant, an alcohol, two solvents, and a mobility control blank of polymer to recover a DNAPL. The washing solution was designed after several laboratory column experiments and after construction of several phase diagrams. Based on extensive laboratory work, a chemical system involving the following components was selected: · n-Butanol None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), 1996: Surfactants/Cosolvents, Technology Evaluation Report TE-96-02, Dr. Chad T. Jafvert, Purdue University, for GWRTAC, Pittsburgh, PA, December 1996, available at www.gwrtac.org Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997 U.S. EPA, Aug 1996: Completed North American Innovative Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects, EPA 542-B-96-002, PB 96-153-127, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G), TIO, Washington, DC 20460 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 85 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:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 131: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?