Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0076 Project Name: UST Site, Shawnee, OK City: Shawnee State/Province: OK Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Mark Hasegawa Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): None Surbec Environmental Services The following text was excerpted from marketing information provided by Surbec Environmental, Norman, Oklahoma, in October 1998: Surface remediation can be a cost effective method for removal of residual subsurface petroleum hydrocarbons. When used in conjunction with Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA) this technology can be used to remediate to Site Specific Target Levels (SSTLs). In order to quantify the potential cost of this application, a pilot test is being conducted in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Results of the flush will be used for future design and cost analysis purposes. Predesign analysis, Modflow analysis, tracer test analysis, surfactant selection and optimization, surfactant recovery design, fate transport analysis, and process design were conducted by Surbec. A treatability study was conducted to evaluate surfactant-enhanced recovery of BTEX and TPH. This study focused on separating the contaminant from the waste stream and Micellar Enhanced Ultrafiltration (MEUF) for surfactant reconcentration. Numerical 3-D flow and 2-D fate and transport modeling to identify injection/capture zones was also conducted. Surfactant injection/recovery project included re-injection of treated surfactant. Demonstrated 92% recovery of injected surfactant. A surfactant-contaminant separation process and surfactant reconcentration system (MEUF) was designed and implemented. The effective application of foam fractionation for tertiary surfactant recovery was demonstrated. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 152 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0077 Project Name: Coast Guard Facility, Elizabeth City, NC City: Elizabeth City State/Province: NC Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Mark Hasegawa Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): None Surbec Environmental Services The following text was excerpted from marketing information provided by Surbec Environmental, Norman, Oklahoma, in October 1998: Surbec supervised and conducted field screening to determine the feasibility of surfactantenhanced removal of chromium and chlorinated solvents. A surfactant screening analysis was conducted for removal of chromium from the subsurface at the Coast Guard Facility in Elizabeth City, NC. The project included a predesign analysis, Moc analysis, tracer test analysis, surfactant selection and optimization, surfactant recovery design, and fate transport analysis. Treatability studies were conducted to evaluate surfactant-enhanced recovery of chromium. The results indicated that the addition of surfactant and a complexing agent increased chromium (chromate ion) removal by over 1 order of magnitude over water flushing alone. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 153 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:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 199: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?