Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database were drilled to a depth of 11 feet with slotted PVC in the bottom 3 feet. 125,000 gallons of water were initially injected, which recovered 62 gallons of oil or 20 percent of the original oil saturation. After water injection, two chemical slugs were injected. The first slug was 1,300 gallons of 15 centipoise chemical solution followed by a second slug of 2,000 gallons of 46 centipoise solution followed by 2,000 gallons of polymer solution to displace the previously injected chemical solution from the pilot area. 142 gallons of hydraulic oil, or 45 percent of the original oil saturation, were recovered by chemical injection for a total of 204 gallons of oil, or 65 percent of the original oil saturation. The pilot pore space was 500 gallons. A water-in-oil emulsion was produced by alkali-polymer injection which was removed to an offsite treatment facility. Waterflood oil was separated from the produced stream using an oil/water separator with the water discharged to the sanitary sewer after passing through a filter and an activated carbon column to remove trace oil. The pilot was not expanded to the entire 40,000 ft3 area for a variety of reasons. A management change, a cost and benefit analysis to remove a nonhazardous oil, and the location of the contaminate under a functioning structure made expansion difficult." Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Pouska, G.A., Trost, P.B., and Day, M. 1989. "APS Remediation of a Shallow Aquifer Containing Viscous Oil." In Proceedings of the 6th National Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 423-430. 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 118 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0059 Project Name: Fredricksburg, VA Wood Treating Site City: Fredricksburg State/Province: VA 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 1990, a combination of an alkaline agent, surfactant, and polymer were used to recover creosote-based wood-treating oils from soils at a wood-treating site in Fredricksburg, Virginia. Soils of concern consisted of a clay-silt alluvium. Characteristics of the oil included a density of 1.03 g/cm3and a viscosity of 50 centipoise. The site geology was complex, with clay lenses on which creosote based oil was perched. Hydraulic conductivity was low and varied as the soil composition changed. Soil composition resulted in varying oil saturations that changed with time as perched creosote moved off of clay lenses. A laboratory program was undertaken to define the optimum chemical system to remove the oil. A mobilization mechanism was selected. Interfacial tensions were lowered to ultra low values with a combination of alkali and surfactant. The solution selected for injection was 0.5 wt% Na2 CO3 plus 0.1 wt% Makon-10 (nonyl phenol with 10 moles ethylene oxide) and 1,500 mg/L xanthan gum. Polymer was added to the injected solution to improve contact and displacement efficiencies. Mobility ratio for water displacing creosote was adverse indicating need for polymer. Existing wells were used for the field demonstration. A single vertical injection well and a single vertical production well were used. Spacing between the wells was 6 feet. Injection of the chemical solution was the limiting factor. Injection of the chemical solution was attempted for approximately 1 month with minimal success. Oil recovery as a result of the alkaline-surfactant-polymer solution was low for two reasons. Low chemical solution injectivity reduced the planned injection volumes to less effective amounts and the creosote saturation in the area selected was low as a result of perched material moving off clay lenses. The pilot project was not expanded. The failure of the application points out the critical need for accurate and reliable site assessment Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 119 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:
Page 115 and 116: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 165: 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?