Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database in this area. The results of the work reported in the final report (available from DE&S) indicate that recovery of the aqueous TCE plume in the East Parking Lot can, however, be improved by reconfiguring the geometry of the existing ground-water extraction wellfield to include one or more of the PITT wells, and/or by locating additional recovery wells within the primary TCE plume migration pathway in the East Parking Lot terrace alluvial aquifer. Capillary pressure tests indicate that the bedrock beneath Plant 4 and the East Parking Lot, as well as the terrace alluvium which is derived from the bedrock, can be wetted by TCE, i.e., like typical carbonate materials that are frequently "oil wetting". This has important implications for remediation; i.e. if oil wet conditions exist at Plant 4, only surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation will be capable of removing DNAPL from the oil-wet sediments. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 108 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0054 Project Name: U.S. DOE Gaseous Diffusion Plnt, Paducah, KY City: Paducah State/Province: KY 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 excepted from Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997: In 1994, a single-well surfactant injection-withdrawal field pilot test was conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) located in Paducah, Kentucky (Intera, 1995). The test was completed in an alluvial aquifer located 20 to 30 m beneath a vapor degreasing facility located within Waste Management Unit 11 (WMU-11). It is estimated that 10,000 gallons of trichloroethylene (TCE) may have leaked from the degreasing facility to the subsurface. The aquifer beneath the facility is characterized as a gravely, fine to medium sand having a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 3 x 10-3 cm/s. TCE concentrations in sampled groundwater in the vicinity of the test site varied up to approximately 10 percent of the aqueous solubility of TCE, suggesting that immiscible-phase TCE may be present in the subsurface. Immiscible-phase TCE has not been observed in monitoring wells at the site. A total of 99 surfactants (25 nonionics and 74 anionics) were screened to asses their ability to solubilize TCE. The purpose of the surfactant injection was to solubilize TCE, not mobilize TCE. The screening procedure consisted of stirring TCE-surfactant mixtures for a minimum of 24 hours, followed be centrifugation at 3,500 rpm for 1 hour and gas chromatography (GC) analysis. A total of 10 of the 99 surfactants (5 nonionics and 5 anionics) solubilized TCE to concentrations greater than 15,000 ppm, representing a factor of approximately 13 increase in aqueous solubility. The final surfactant selected was a sorbitan monooleate, capable of solubilizing TCE to approximately 16,000 mg/L using a 1 percent micellar-surfactant solution. The sorbitan monooleate is approved for use as a food-grade additive by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The critical micelie concentration (CMC) of this surfactant is reported to be 0.012 percent (by volume). Prior to initiation of the field test, an assessment of vertical DNAPL mobilization was carried out. The interfacial tension between TCE and a 1 percent surfactant solution was measured to be 11.7 dynes/cm, indicating that a lowering of interfacial tension does occur upon exposure to the selected surfactant. It is not clear what equilibration time was used ' prior to conducting the interfacial tension measurements. As a result, it is not clear whether or not the minimum interfacial tension was measured given the exposure time expected for the field test. The mobility of residual DNAPL Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 109 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:
Page 105 and 106: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 155: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?