Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0073 Project Name: Envirogen - Effects of Emulsion Viscosity City: Lawrenceville State/Province: NJ Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office Technology Information Summary Report, Jul. 16-31, 1998, page 10. The following text was excerpted from U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office Technology Information Summary Report, Jul. 16-31, 1998, page 10: The authors investigated the effects of in situ emulsification on the remediation process in laboratory column studies. Viscosities of emulsion solutions prepared with a 1% alcohol ethoxylate surfactant solution (Witconol registered SN90) and various concentrations of m-xylene were measured and compared with effluent collected during column-flushing experiments. Viscosity increased as m-xylene concentration in the emulsion solution increased, resulting in a decrease in relative permeability within the soil column, demanding an increase in the hydraulic gradient to maintain a constant flow rate. Even a relatively small viscosity increase could noticeably affect the mobilization process. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Crawford, S C.; C J. Bruell; D K. Ryan; J W. Duggan, 1997: "", in Journal of Soil Contamination, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 355-370, 1997. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 140 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0074 Project Name: SW Tank Farm, Tinker Air Force Base, OK City: Midwest City State/Province: OK Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Mark Hasegawa Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Surbec Environmental Services Draft report from Surbec Environmental Services, Norman, OK, phone (405) 364-9726. The following text was excerpted from October 1998 marketing information and a draft report from Surbec Environmental Services, Norman, OK, provided in November 1998: A surfactant flushing demonstration was conducted at the Southwest Tank Farms located at Tinker AFB, Midwest City,Oklahoma. Two injection wells were utilized for surfactant injection and three recovery wells were utilized for groundwater recovery. Recovered groundwater was air stripped to remove contaminant and then subjected to Micellar Enhanced Ultrafiltration (MEUF) for surfactant recovery. Target contaminants included benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The primary purpose of this project was to demonstrate the effectiveness of an above ground treatment process for surfactant-contaminant separation and surfactant stream concentration for surfactant reuse. However, surfactant injection and recovery were also included to generate realistic waste streams for treatment. This project was completed in October 1997. In examining the economics of surfactant-enhanced subsurface remediation, Krebs-Yuill et al. (1995) found that surfactant reuse is necessary for the system to be economical. In order to reinject the surfactant solution, the contaminants must be separated from the surfactants in the waste stream and the surfactants recovered. Systems incorporating air stripping for surfactantcontaminant separation along with micellar enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) for surfactant recovery and reuse have shown promise (Ang et al., 1994; Lipe et al., 1996). In MEUF, ultrafiltration membranes allow water and surfactant monomers to pass through the membrane while the micelles, even though they are dynamic clusters, are retained in the membrane. This effectively concentrates the surfactant in the extraction stream (which is more dilute than the injection stream) and allows for surfactant reuse. The presence of surfactants lowers the efficiency of air stripping. Models and design equations have been developed to account for the reduced efficiency of air stripping from surfactant and thus properly size air strippers to achieve the desired removal efficiency solutions (Lipe et al., 1996; Hasegawa et al., 1996). A primary objective of this project was to demonstrate surfactant/contaminant separation and potential surfactant reuse at an actual field site. This is a major stepping stone in the eventual commercialization of surfactant-enhanced remediation systems. Conceptual and pilot scale design of the surfactant injection and recovery system included site Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 141 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:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 187: 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?