Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database acid was used as the flushing additive. Currently, a proprietary compound is added as the flushing reagent. Remediation goals are to achieve MCLs (50 ppb) for dissolved arsenic for off site groundwater. As of August 1998, site closure was requested. Based on an overall view of the site, it has been determined that flushing is twice as efficient as unenhanced pump and treat, based on contaminant removed. Injection of the flushing agent into a given well, followed by a waiting period and removal from the same well has increased contaminant removal up to 100 times that expected with unenhanced pump and treat, however, only the aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the well could be affected in this manner. To enable implementation of this project, the regulatory agency has required assurance that the flushing additives being used were benign. Research needs identified by technical team members include a need to bridge the gap between laboratory and field demonstration work to full-scale implementation of in situ flushing where flushing agents are used, and to optimize the concentration of the flushing agent needed for the project. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Redwine, et al, 1997: "Innovative Technologies for Remediation of Arsenic in Soil and Groundwater", EPRI Report TR-106701, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, April 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), November 1996: Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies: Publications and Conference Proceedings 1990-1996, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (5102G) Washington, DC 20460, p. 7 Redwine, J.C.,1995: "Soil Flushing, Iron Coprecipitation, and Ceramic Membrane Filtration: Innovative Technologies for Remediating Arsenic-Contaminated Soil and Groundwater", Southern Company Services, Inc., in Proceedings: ACS Special Symposium: Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste Management, Atlanta, GA Sept. 17-20, 1995, pp. 1129-1132., Report no. CONF- 9509139. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 102 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0051 Project Name: U.S. Coast Guard, Traverse City, MI City: Traverse City State/Province: MI Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Steve Schmelling U.S. EPA ORD Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), April 1995: Status Report: Surfactant Enhancements, EPA 542-K-94-003, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102W), EPA Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), 1996: Surfactants/Cosolvents, Technology Evaluation Report TE-96-002, Surfactants/Cosolvents, Dr. Chad T. Jafvert, Purdue University, for GWRTAC, Pittsburgh, PA, 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 The following text was excerpted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), April 1995: Status Report: Surfactant Enhancements, EPA 542-K-94-003, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102W), EPA Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC, and GWRTAC, 1996: TE-96-002, Surfactants/Cosolvents, Jafvert, Purdue U, avail. at www.gwrtac.org, Knox, et. al, 1997: "Surfactant Remediation Field Demonstration Using a Vertical Circulation Well", and Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997, Rice University further cites Sabatini, et al. (1996); Knox, et al. (1996); and U.S. EPA (1995b). See also Martel, et al. (1996): In the summer of 1995, a field demonstration of surfactant injection and recovery was conducted at a Coast Guard station in Traverse City, Michigan. Overall, the primary focus of this effort was to evaluate the use of a vertical circulation well (VCW) for cycling fluids through a targeted interval. A secondary objective of the test was to assess the behavior of a surfactant solution in the subsurface with the goal of maximum surfactant recovery. Laboratory batch and column studies were first performed to test removal efficiencies of the contaminants and the surfactant. Modeling studies were performed on the VCW system. The VCW was a single borehole well system with two 5 ft screen lengths separated by a 3 ft spacer. The screens were isolated from each other within the well with packers. Water/surfactant was injected through the top screen and water/contaminants/surfactant extracted through the bottom screen. Preliminary tracer studies using fluorescein and sodium chloride were conducted at the site prior to installation of the VCW to characterize the system hydraulics. Sediments beneath the site consist of well-sorted eolian sands. The test occurred in a highly conductive, unconfined aquifer, consisting of a sand formation with natural ground-water velocities Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 103 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:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 149: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?