Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0052 Project Name: University of Michigan - Partitioning Characteristics of PAHs City: Ann Arbor State/Province: MI Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None 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 The following 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, available at www.gwrtac.org: Researchers with the Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Substance Research Centers are conducting basic research to determine the partitioning characteristics of PAHs such as phenanthrene. This information applies to the use of cationic surfactants to reduce the mobility of contaminants such as PAHs. Such treatment may be used in conjunction with bioremediation to keep the contaminants from migrating over the relatively long period for complete biodegradation to occur. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): 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 1993: "Surfactants Can Trap, Untrap Contaminants", Centerpoint, 1 (2). (A publication of the Hazardous Substances Research Center). Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 106 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0053 Project Name: U.S. Air Force, Plant 4, Fort Worth, TX City: Fort Worth State/Province: TX Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Jacqui Avvoukomides Duke Engineering & Services Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997 The following was provided by Duke Engineering and Services (formerly INTERA) of Austin, TX, on August 28, 1998, and Jacobs Engineering on October 15, 1998: During the period June 1995 to August 1997, INTERA (now Duke Engineering and Services) and the University of Texas at Austin, a subcontractor to INTERA, conducted a series of field, laboratory, and numerical-simulation studies to characterize the contamination by trichloroethene (TCE) of the terrace alluvial aquifer beneath the East Parking Lot of USAF Plant 4 in Fort Worth, Texas. The principal purpose of these studies was to characterize the distribution and volume of TCE present as a dense, non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in the terrace alluvial aquifer. These studies included (1) an extensive program of coring the terrace alluvium, (2) laboratory experiments to select appropriate partitioning tracers to detect and quantify TCE DNAPL in the terrace alluvium, (3) field tests to determine the hydraulic properties of the terrace alluvial aquifer, and, most importantly, (4) a partitioning interwell tracer test (PITT) to measure the spatial distribution and volume of TCE DNAPL in the terrace alluvial aquifer. The site chosen for the hydraulic and tracer testing is adjacent to monitoring well HM-88 in the center of the East Parking Lot. This well has consistently measured aqueous TCE concentrations ranging from 35 to 75 mg/L since late 1993. Consequently, HM-88 met the "rule-of-thumb" criterion that aqueous solvent concentrations of 1% or more of the effective solubility of an immiscible solvent is an indication of nearby DNAPL (EPA, 1992). However, soil cores collected during the drilling and instrumentation of a 5-spot wellfield pattern and preserved in the field with methanol showed no evidence of TCE DNAPL. An eight-day PITT conducted in December 1996 that swept approximately 3,600 gallons of terrace alluvial aquifer pore space failed to detect any DNAPL in the 5-spot pattern. Thus, it is concluded that TCE DNAPL is not present beneath the center of the East Parking Lot at Plant 4. Furthermore, alluvial coring in 1995 by INTERA indicated that DNAPL was absent from a cross-section of boreholes much closer to the Plant itself. While a narrow TCE-DNAPL zone could easily have passed between the boreholes that were spaced 50 feet apart, it is increasingly likely that the TCE DNAPL zone is mainly under Buildings 181 and 182 of the Plant. The results of this investigation indicate that surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation is not necessary in the area from well HM-88 to the "window" since no TCE DNAPL is likely to be present Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 107 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:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 153: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?