Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0047 Project Name: Cape Canaveral Lodge Complex 34 City: Cape Canaveral State/Province: FL Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Tom Early Oak Ridge National Lab Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): None The following text is from notes from August 1998 conversations with EPA ORD (R.S. Kerr Laboratory) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (DOE) representatives: Three side by side DNAPL remediation demonstration projects are being planned at NASA's Cape Canaveral to allow comparison of the technologies. One of those being planned is an in situ flushing demonstration, which may be either a surfactant or a cosolvent flood. Also planned is a thermal enhancements demonstration using either steam or electrical resistance heating, and an in situ chemical oxidation demonstration using either Fenton's reagent or permanganate. All three technologies will be demonstrated in separate, approximately 50 x 75 ft. demonstration plots within the TCE DNAPL source area. The TCE contamination resulted from the cleaning of engine parts in this area. The majority of the DNAPL is present below the water table, within an unconfined aqufier comprised of barrier island sediments. These sediments consist of sands with silts and clay and are heterogeneous in nature. The maximum depth of the target treatment zone is approximately 45 to 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs), which is also the depth of a clay confining layer. Installation of a slurry wall or other barrier around the test areas has not been ruled out, but researchers would prefer not to install a physical barrier. Hydraulic containment will be practiced, though the delivery and extraction systems are still in design. Site characterization work (including characterization of the dissolved phase plume) was done by NASA as part of an RFI at the site,and the residual satuaration of DNAPL in the source areas is fairly well know from cores which have been collected. Additional site characterization work prior to conducting the site demonstrations must still be completed. As of September 1998, all site demonstrations are in the design phase. It is not yet known whether in situ flushing will involve the use of surfactants or cosolvents. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): None Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 96 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0048 Project Name: Vineland Chemical, Vineland, NJ City: Vineland State/Province: NJ Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Matthew Westgate U.S. EPA Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. EPA, Nov. 1996: Inn. Trtmt. Techs.: Ann. Status Rpt. (8th Ed.), EPA 542-R-96-010, No. 8, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102G) TIO, Wash., DC 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 text is from notes from April 1997 conversation with EPA RPM, and from Internet URL EPA.gov: ROD (9/28/89) indicates site is located in Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey, in residential/industrial area, and bordering Blackwater Branch Stream, a tributary to Maurice River, which flows into Union Lake. Facility consists of several herbicide manufacturing and storage facilities, wastewater treatment facility and several lagoons, and produces approximately 1,107 tons of herbicide waste by-product salts (K031) per year. These K031 wastes were stored on site in surficial piles, in unlined lagoons, and in abandoned chicken coops, and arsenic-impacted wastewater was discharged into the unlined lagoons until 1980. Due to the high solubility of the salts, the past improper storage has resulted in extensive arsenic contamination of soil, groundwater, and sediment. ROD (9/28/89) indicates selected remedies for the site include in situ flushing of 126,000 cubic yards of soil (OU 1). Of this soil, 54,000 cubic yards will be excavated and consolidated with 72,000 cubic yards of undisturbed soil. RPM (4/25/97) indicates that currently, a pump and treat system is in operation at the facility, consisting of 13 extraction wells completed in the Cohansey Aquifer, at depths varying from 30 to 50 feet. Each well is used to pump an average of 100 gpm, for a total of 2 MM gpd. Isolated areas of contaminated soil with >20 ppm arsenic will be collected and placed into a former lagoon area above the main body of impacted soil. It is planned to re-inject treated groundwater via a discharge pipe into the former lagoon area to flush the arsenic impacted soils present in the 12 to 15 foot unsaturated zone, as well as those collected from the isolated areas. Site aquifer soils consist of medium to fine sand, with low organic content, and are therefore conducive to in situ flushing. (River sediments adjacent to site contain appreciable fines, such as clays, as well as higher organics, and will be subjected to ex situ soil washing, and are part of a separate operable Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 97 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:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 143: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?