Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0043 Project Name: Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons), Hermiston, OR City: Hermiston State/Province: OR Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Harry Craig U.S. EPA Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/impm/products/nplsites U.S. EPA, Nov 1996: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (8th Ed.), EPA 542-R-96-010, No. 8, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G), TIO, Washington DC The following text is from notes from May 1997 and August 1998 conversations with the EPA RPM: Residual explosives (TNT, RDX, TNB, HMX) contamination was present from the surface to a depth of 53 feet below the ground surface (bgs), beneath an old lagoon area approximately onehalf acre in areal extent. The original lagoon was approximately five feet deep, and the area was excavated to a depth of 20 feet bgs. Consequently, the current contaminated zone being flushed is from approximately 20 to 53 feet bgs. (Excavated soils were treated via bioremediation (composting)). The contaminated zone consists of sandy alluvium with low organic content. The average hydraulic conductivity of the treatment zone is 10-5 cm/sec. The contaminated soil volume is approximately 48,400 yd3. The water table is present at an approximate 53 foot depth bgs. The groundwater contamination plume covers a 350 acre area. A confining layer is present at 80 to 90 feet bgs, and consists of a 20 to 30 foot thick solid basalt layer. Ground-water is extracted via three pumping wells at depths of 100 to 150 feet bgs, at a rate of approximately 1,600 gpm. Extracted ground-water is treated with carbon, and 400 gpm are re-injected via infiltration galleries. Containment is via hydraulic control. It is estimated that the in situ flushing project will continue for one to two years, and that groundwater treatment will continue for 27 years. The specific groundwater cleanup goals for each of the four main constituents are: TNT (2.8 ppb), RDX (2.1 ppb), TNB (1.8 ppb), and HMX (350 ppb). As of August 1998, monitoring wells adjacent to the flushing operation have exhibited a 90% reduction in leachable explosives in groundwater in the first year of operation. A slug of the four target contaminants (spike of 9,000 ppb in a monitoring well) had also moved through between the lagoon flushing zone and the closest extraction well. The spikes had not yet been seen in the extraction wells. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 88 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/impm/products/nplsites U.S. EPA, Nov 1996: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (8th Ed.), EPA 542-R-96-010, No. 8, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G), TIO, Washington DC Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 89 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:
Page 85 and 86: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 135: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?