Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX GWRTAC INFORMATION SOURCES, PROJECT SUMMARIES, AND ADDITIONAL REFERENCES Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center © GWRTAC Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Revision 1 11/17/98
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0001 Project Name: Koppers Co. Inc., Seaboard Plant, Kearny, NJ City: Kearny State/Province: NJ Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm Sawchuck, P.E., et al. "DNAPL Recovery at a Former Coke and By-Products Facility in New Jersey" The following was excerpted from Sawchuck, P.E., et al. "DNAPL Recovery at a Former Coke and By-Products Facility in New Jersey": An Interim Remedial Measures (IRM) pilot project was completed at a former coke and by-products facility in New Jersey, bordering the Hackensack River. The pilot project was developed to evaluate the most effective method of DNAPL (coal tar/creosote) recovery, and to provide design data for a full-scale IRM. The pilot system used two DNAPL recovery wells and two DNAPL recovery trenches. The wells and trenches were operated in two phases under a variety of scenarios to determine the effectiveness of simultaneous groundwater extraction and upgradient groundwater distribution on hydraulic gradients and DNAPL extraction. After above-ground separation of DNAPL, site groundwater was re-injected upgradient of the collection trenches to recirculate, and provide hydraulic push to mobilize DNAPL toward collection trenches. The DNAPL recovery and groundwater extraction systems included two recovery trenches and two recovery wells installed parallel to the river. The two recovery trenches were located downgradient of the former coal tar area. The two recovery wells were located west of the recovery trenches and downgradient of the former pitch processing area. The eastern recovery trench was approximately 180 feet in length, while the mid recovery trench was about 80 feet in length. Each trench was excavated to the top of the confining unit. Two horizontal perforated polyethylene recovery pipes were installed in each trench. One pipe was installed at the bottom invert of the trench to facilitate DNAPL recovery, while the second pipe was installed at about one-half the depth of the saturated zone to facilitate groundwater extraction. A 24-inch diameter recovery sump was installed in each trench. The design allowed simulation of about 150 foot sump spacings with the shorter trench, and 350 foot sump spacings for the longer trench. The two recovery wells were installed using conventional drilling techniques, and constructed of six-inch diameter stainless steel casings and screens. The screens were ten feet in length with slot sizes of 0.010 inches. Separate, dedicated DNAPL pumps and groundwater extraction pumps were installed in each trench and well. Submersible air powered piston driven DNAPL recovery pumps with conductivity sensor controls were used, together with aboveground air powered double diaphragm groundwater pumps. This Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 1 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 21 and 22: Table 3 In Situ Flushing - Geology
Page 27 and 28: Table 4 In Situ Flushing - Recovere
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: Unconfined Aquifer 65% Figure 16. I
Page 51 and 52: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 99 and 100:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
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?