Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database unit.) Performance results are not available (have completed pilot, and are at 65% design for full-scale). Remediation goals are 20 ppm As (soil), 50 ppb total As (groundwater). Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): 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. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 98 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0049 Project Name: Volk Air National Guard Base, WI City: Camp Douglas State/Province: WI Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: The following was excerpted from Nash, J. H., 1988, Project Summary Field Studies of In Situ Soil Washing, EPA/600/S2-87/110, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1988: Laboratory Study Soil impacted by fire training operations at the Volk Air National Guard Base, Wisconsin was characterized in a laboratory. Physical tests performed included grain size, TOC, CEC, mineralogy by x-ray diffraction, and permeability. Grain size indicated 98% sand, x-ray diffraction indicated alpha-quartz, with a minor amount of feldspar was present. Other results were TOC (14,900 ug/g) and CEC (5 meq/100 g). The permeability of the fire pit soil, at 10-3 and 10-4 cm/sec, was one to two orders of magnitude less than adjacent uncontaminated soil. Dichloromethane, chloroform, TCA and TCE were present at levels up to 3 ppm, and total chlorinated solvents were found at concentrations up to 3.5 ppm. The level of hydrocarbon contamination was in the hundreds of ug/g, based on the laboratory analysis. Soil adsorption constants (K) for the soil contaminants ranged from 10 to 1,000,000. Ground-water from the aquifer below the fire training pit contained chlorinated and non-chlorinated hydrocarbons above 300 ppm. The soil was recompacted into glass columns creating a simulated in situ environment. Under gravity flow, 12 pore volumes (PV) of aqueous surfactant solutions were passed through each column. Previous laboratory work had identified a 50/50 blend of two commercially available surfactants (Adsee 799 and Hyonic PE-90, sold by Witco Chemical and Diamond Shamrock, respectively) that work well in removal of soil contaminants. GC analyses of the washing effluent and soil was performed to determine removal efficiency (RE), with encouraging results. Field Study None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Nash, J. H., 1988, Project Summary Field Studies of In Situ Soil Washing, EPA/600/S2-87/110, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1988. 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. Ten two by two foot, one-foot deep holes were dug into the impacted surface of the fire training pit, and surfactant solutions were applied to each hole at the rate of 1.9 gpd/ft2. The daily dosage was Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 99 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:
Page 95 and 96: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 145: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?