Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database surfactant for remedial in situ flushing, to test the single-phase microemulsion as a removal mechanism. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 130 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0065 Project Name: Pearl Harbor City: Pearl Harbor State/Province: HI Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: John Londergan Duke Engineering & Services Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): None The following text was provided in a project summary on September 8, 1998 by Duke Engineering & Services of Austin, TX: Pearl Harbor Naval station is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons that are present in the subsurface as light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL). In particular, petroleum hydrocarbons are seeping into Pearl Harbor at Quarry Loch. To address this problem, the Navy has funded a project intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of various remediation technologies. A demonstration area adjacent to Quarry Loch has been dedicated for this project. The LNAPL contaminant at the site is mainly Navy Special Fuel Oil (NFSO), a highly viscous fuel oil. Duke Engineering and Services (DE&S) will demonstrate the use of Surfactant Enhanced Aquifer Remediation (SEAR) to remove the LNAPL contamination. In early December, 1997 DE&S began a hydrogeologic characterization of the Quarry Loch vicinity in search of a suitable area for the demonstration. The characterization concluded in January, 1998 with the installation of the demonstration well array and aquifer testing. Information obtained during this investigation was used to build a geosystem model. The numerical code used for the model is UTCHEM, a multi-phase, multi-dimensional chemical compositional simulator developed at the University of Texas at Austin. A major challenge of this project has been to develop a surfactant that is capable of effectively solubilizing the NSFO. The NSFO in the demonstration area is highly viscous (2,000 to 3,000 cp) and is not readily solubilized by commercially available surfactants. Laboratory work conducted on solubilizing the recalcitrant NAPL at Pearl Harbor eventually led to the development of a new surfactant and includes the additional requirement that the subsurface be heated to approximately 50°C to achieve satisfactory remediation performance. To accurately assess the efficiency of the SEAR demonstration, two partitioning interwell tracer tests (PITTs) will be conducted at the SEAR site. The first PITT will be performed to accurately measure the volume of NAPL present in the test zone before the surfactant flood. The SEAR will be immediately followed by a second PITT to measure the volume of DNAPL remaining in the test zone. PITT 1 and PITT 2 will be compared to evaluate the effectiveness (i.e. performance assessment) of the surfactant flood to remove DNAPL from the test zone. Laboratory studies have been completed to select a suite of conservative (non-partitioning) and partitioning tracers for the Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 131 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:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 177: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?