Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database · Hostapur (SAS) (Hoechst GmbH) · Toluene · d-Limonene The evaluation considered the following: Efficiency of the chemical solution Effectiveness of the delivery/recovery strategy, including the field testing of polymers for mobility control Effects of the solution density and viscosity Mechanism of DNAPL recovery Post soil flushing soil treatment Treatment of produced fluids The test plot, 4.3 m by 4.3 m (14.1 x 14.1 ft) and covering less than 0.075% of the area, was equipped with one central injection well, four recovery wells spaced in a square, and 12 multilevel observation wells. Recovery wells were 3 meters (9.8 ft) from the injection well, resulting in approximately 17 m3 (600 ft3) of contaminated soil in the saturated zone within the treatment area. The pore volume was approximately 6 m3 (212 ft3 or 1,585 gal). During well installation, 42 soil samples were taken. The average initial DNAPL concentration was 55,000 mg / kg dry soil. The test plot was flooded with: (1) 1.34 PV water, (2) 0.54 PV polymer, (3) 0.9 PV surfactant, (4) 1.6 PV polymer, (5) 1.4 PV water, (6) and finally with an injection of bacteria and nutrients to increase biodegradation of the remaining DNAPL. Based on soil cores collected before and after the flood in the saturated zone, in the zone swept by the washing solution, 86% of (980 kg) the residual DNAPL was recovered using 0.9 pore volumes of surfactant and those rinses described above. Average pre- and post-flushing concentrations were 33,000 and 4,500 mg/kg, respectively. DNAPL between extraction wells was not removed well due to insufficient flow in these areas. The use of a polymer solution before and after injection of the surfactant solution appeared to be beneficial in insuring that the surfactant solution swept the majority of the total treated volume, despite the heterogeneity of the soil. Rinse cycles were not completed because of weather. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): 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 Martel, Richard; Gélinas, Pierre, Surfactant solutions developed for NAPL recovery in contaminated aquifers, Ground Water, 34:143-154, 1996. Martel, Richard; Gélinas, Pierre, Residual diesel measurement in sand columns after surfactant/alcohol washing, Ground Water, 34:162-167, 1996. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 86 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database Martel, Richard; Gélinas, Pierre; Laurent Saumure, In situ recovery of DNAPL in sand aquifers: clean-up test using surfactants at Thouin Sand Quarry, presented at the 5th Annual Symposium on Ground-water and Soil Remediation, Toronto, Ontario Canada, Oct. 2-6, 1995. Martel, Richard; Gélinas, Pierre; Desnoyers, Jacques E.; Masson Anne, Phase diagrams to optimize surfactant solutions for oil and DNAPL recovery in aquifers, Ground Water, 31:789-800, 1993. 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 87 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:
Page 83 and 84: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 133: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?