Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0067 Project Name: Petroleum Company (Bulk Plant) City: State/Province: QC Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Charles Boulanger GSI Environnement Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): GSI Environnement (formerly Ecosite, Inc.), 965 Newton Ave., Office 270, Québec City, Qc. Canada G1P 4M4, Marketing Information The following text was excerpted from marketing information provided by GSI Environnement (formerly Ecosite, Inc.), 965 Newton Ave., Office 270, Québec City, Qc. Canada G1P 4M4 in August 1998: The contaminants at the site consisted of gasoline (BTEX) and diesel (MOG) at 15,000 ppm. The 9,000 m3 (approx. 11,800 yd3) contaminated zone extended from 2 to 6 m (6.6 to 19.7) below the ground surface, and was comprised of sand with boulders. This former bulk petroleum plant is located less than 300 feet from the St. Lawrence River, and the water table is tidally influenced. The containment of the surfactant and contaminants was thus a concern during project implementaiton. The Injecsol TM hydrodynamic process creates hydraulic barriers that keep all contaminants and surfactants in the contaminated area. After a treatability study, specific surfactant solutions were developed for a highly efficient treatment. Injecsol TM enhanced in situ flushing was used to reduce the concentration of Mineral Oil and Grease of the contaminated matrix. BTEX were extracted by pumping groundwater and air simultaneously. The mobile water treatment unit, consisting of coalescent separators, dissolved air flotation units, sand filters, and activated carbon filters separated the water from the surfactants and contaminants at a rate of 400 liters per minute (approx. 106 gpm) and enabled the expeditious results. All work was performed taking tidal fluctuations into consideration and leaving existing railroad tracks in place. Contaminants were remediated to levels as low as 1017 ppm MOG, 0.67 ppm (benzene), 0.99 ppm (toluene) and 2.53 ppm (xylene). The project duration was 4 months, and the project cost was +/- $300,000. (Canadian). Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): None Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 134 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0068 Project Name: Petroleum Company (Residential Site Contamination) City: State/Province: QC Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Charles Boulanger GSI Environnement Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): GSI Environnement (formerly Ecosite, Inc.), 965 Newton Ave., Office 270, Québec City, Qc. Canada G1P 4M4, Marketing Information The following text was excerpted from marketing information provided by GSI Environnement (formerly Ecosite, Inc.), 965 Newton Ave., Office 270, Québec City, Qc. Canada G1P 4M4 in August 1998: A residential property including several houses and utilities was located next to a former petroleum plant, and contaminated beneath houses with gasoling (BTEX) and diesel (MOG). Contaminants were present at concentrations of 10,500 ppm (MOG), 50 ppm (benzene), and 45 ppm (toluene). The 1,000 m3 (approx. 1,300 yd3) contaminated zone extended from 1,0 to 2.6 m (3.3 to 8.5 ft) below ground surface (bgs), and was comprised of organic soil (peat moss). Due to high levels of soil contamination remaining at the adjacent plant, hydraulic barriers to stop the migration of the contaminants to the residential area were provided. Installation of a vertical cutoff wall, using synthetic liners and leachate drainage network, was also necessary to recover free phase present. Several technologies were combined to lower caontamination to residential levels. While proceeding with vacuum extraction and biosparging, Injecsol TM as used to recover the free phase and for in situ flushing of the contaminated soil beneath the houses. A surfactant was developed from a laboratory treatability study to allow highly efficient treatment. Work was completed leaving all existing infrastructures in place and ensuring long term safety for the residents. Contamination was lowered to concentrations of 1,000 ppm (MOG) over a 12 month project duration, at a cost of +/- $300,000. (Canadian). Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): None Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 135 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:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 181: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?