Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Montgomery Watson. 1995. "Final Interim Report: Evaluation of Bench Test Results for the Surfactant Flushing Treatability Study at Operable Unit 1, Hill Air Force Base, Utah." USAF Contract No. 2208.0804. Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997 GWRTAC ID: FLSH0057 Project Name: Hill Air Force Base (OU2 1/5 Full Scale Surfactant Flood) City: Layton State/Province: UT Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Jon Ginn U.S. Air Force Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): None The following text is from notes recorded from a July 1998 conversation with a U.S. Air Force representative and quoted from Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997, which cited Hirasaki, et al., 1996: "Operable Unit #2 is a closed chemical disposal area. Materials present in subsurface sediments include both chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents and degreasers. This mixture of compounds forms a DNAPL that has accumulated above a low-permeability lacustrian clay. Sediments in the DNAPL target zone consist of poorly sorted fluvial deposits." OU2 will be remediated in increments. In this project, funding to remediate 1/5 of OU2 has been received. A full-scale (1/5 full scale) surfactant flood will be performed, likely beginning in the fall of 1999, to effect this remediation. This source area remediation will be larger than any other demonstration performed at Hill AFB to date. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): None Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 116 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0058 Project Name: Hialeah County, FL City: State/Province: FL Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None 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 quoted from Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997: "In 1988, a combination of alkali and polymer was used to recover hydraulic oil present in limestone beneath a commercial facility in Hialeah County, Florida (Pouska, et al., 1989). The hydraulic oil had a density of 0.915 g/crn3 and a viscosity of 130 centipoise. An estimated 35,000 gallons of hydraulic oil was present beneath an area of 40,000 ft2. Free product thickness in wells was observed at thicknesses ranging from 0.01 to 1.5 ft. Average depth to the contamination was 7 ft. Average oil saturation in the free oil layer was 65 percent of the pore space, while oil saturation in areas having only adsorbed oil averaged 35 percent or less. Injection of water left a residual oil saturation of 20 percent, which resulted in an evaluation of enhanced recovery methods. The site geology is complex, consisting of a solution cavity limestone that exhibits a number of depression features. These depression features are in-filled with a clay and organic-rich sand. The limestone mounds were determined to be the main conduits of oil because the hydraulic conductivity of the limestone (1,000 ft/day) was 1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater than the clay and organic-rich sand. A laboratory program was performed to define the optimum chemical system to remove residual oil. A mobilization mechanism was selected. Interfacial tensions were lowered to ultra low values with either alkali or alkali plus surfactant addition to injection water. In situ components in the oil reacted with the alkali to develop surfactants which lowered the interfacial tension. The solution selected for injection was 0.5 wt% Na2 CO3 plus 1.1 wt% NaHCO3, plus 0.5 wt% Na2 O(Si02 )3.22, plus 0.01 wt% Chloramine T plus 1000 mg/L xanthan gum. Xanthan gum polymer was added to the injected solution to improve contact and displacement efficiencies. Because of the high hydraulic oil viscosity, the mobility ratio for water displacing hydraulic oil was adverse indicating a need for polymer. The pilot was confined in a 10-foot by 10-foot area. A 10-foot slotted lateral delivery drainline bisected the pilot area at a depth of 4 feet. The drainline was placed 5 feet from four vertical production wells, which were situated at the four corners of the pilot area. Vertical production wells Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 117 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:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 163: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?