Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database added and mixed to 25 Kg of sand. A wooden form was used to maintain the space where the source was emplaced, and removed by overhead pulley after the source was emplaced. Humic acid, obtained as sodium salt and prepared as a solution using tap water at a concentration of 1 g/lL pH 8.5) was added to the head tank to provide a well-defined concentration gradient. An average three-fold increase in PAHs was observed when humic acid was added. A ten-fold increase in solubilization was observed for trimethyl naphthalene. This was consistent with earlier column studies and is generally the case with surfactants, where the least soluble compounds benefit the most of the addition of a solubilization agent. In this large model, because the emplaced diesel source was designed not to exceed the holding capacity of the sand, dissolution only was observed. Unlike what is generally observed with surfactants, the increase in solubility occurred below the critical micelle concentration for humic acids (7.4 g/L for Aldrich humic acid). Most of the humic acid was recuperated at the withdrawal wells and this allowed recirculation of the treatment in a closed loop system, resulting in significant cost savings. The effluent was collected in a reservoir which was assayed for humic acid concentration and replenished as necessary by the addition of a concentrate through a recirculating pump. Based on the evolution of the PAH plume, it was evident that despite the dissolution enhancement by the humic acids, rapid cleanup will not occur using dissolution alone. Plans for a next step will be to study the potential of bioremediation under these conditions. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Lesage, et al., "Use of Humic Acids to Enhance the Removal of Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Contaminated Aquifers Part II: Pilot Scale" Xu, H., S. Lesage and L. Durham, 1994. "The Use of Humic Acids to Enhance Removal of Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Contaminated Aquifers. Part I. Laboratory Studies". Fourth Annual Symposium on Groundwater and Soil Remediation, Calgary, Alberta, Sept. 21-23. Pgs. 635-666. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 122 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0061 Project Name: Dover AFB, Dover, DE (Test Cell 2, Surfactant Solubilization) City: Dover State/Province: DE Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Tim McHale Mantech Environmental Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm The following text is from notes taken during May 1997 and July 1998 conversations with personnel stationed at Air Force Laboratory, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, and additional information provided to GWRTAC. A series of demonstrations will be conducted at the Groundwater Remdiation Field Laboratory (GRFL) site at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. The GRFL site was established in 1996 to test and evaluate innovative remediation technologies geared towards the cleanup or containment of soil and groundwater contamination, specifically from chlorinated solvents. The GRFL site is funded by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) established to develop innovative technologies for the cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination. SERDP was developed as a partnership between the EPA, DoD, and the DOE to support these environmental efforts. Two in-ground 3 meter by 5 meter test cells with sheet metal framing have been constructed. The test cells are keyed into a clay unit present at 40 feet below the ground surface. A secondary containment cell is also present. (Three test cells had been constructed; test cells 2 and 3 will be used for the enhanced source removal (ESR) project demonstrations. Six different pilot tests will be conducted at Dover AFB, beginning in August 1998; five of the six tests will be in situ flushing demonstrations, with the sixth being an air sparging/SVE demonstration. Each test will be run for approximately seven months, including phases for tracer studies, demonstration, and post-tracer studies for delineation of residual contamination. A total of 12 injection/extraction wells were to be installed in an array. Each in situ flushing technology tested will consist of flushing the test cell with a remedial fluid to remove PCE. Researchers know only that the permit allowed for the release of up to 100 liters, or 26 gallons, of PCE, thus simulating a 1/2 barrel spill. Recovered PCE/remedial fluids will be extracted from the test cell and treated at the surface or at an off-site facility. After each demonstration, the test cell will be flushed again with clean water to remove any remaining remedial fluids. The second in situ flushing project will be conducted in test cell 2 at Dover AFB. University of Oklahoma researchers will identify the volume of PCE released into the test cell. They will then Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 123 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:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 169: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?