Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database concentrated in the sand layers. Cleaning of the layers is retarded by low horizontal flow rates resulting from the low hydraulic conductivity of the silt layers. Similar hard-to-clean low-flow zones can be expected in any aquifer." Scale-up plans not applicable, as this research activity was conducted in response to a planned release. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Fountain, J.C. and D.S. Hodge, February 1992: "Extraction of Organic Pollutants Using Enhanced Surfactant Flushing - Initial Field Test (Part 1), New York State Center for Hazardous Waste Management, State University of New York at Buffalo, Jarvis Hall 207, Buffalo, New York Fountain, John; Waddell-Sheets, Carol ; Lagowski, Alison; Taylor, Craig; Frazier, Dave; Byrne, Michael. Chapter 13: Enhanced removal of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids using surfactants, in Surfactant-Enhanced Subsurface Remediation: Emerging Technologies, ACS Symposium Series 594, Dave A. Sabatini, Robert C. Knox, and Jeffrey H. Harwell, eds., 1995. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), 1996: Technology Evaluation Report TE-96-002, Surfactants/Cosolvents, Dr. Chad T. Jafvert, Purdue University, GWRTAC, 320 William Pitt Way, Pittsburgh, PA, available at www.gwrtac.org Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), April 1995: Status Report: Surfactant Enhancements, EPA 542-K-94-003, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102W), TIO, Washington, DC Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 6 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0004 Project Name: Chem-Dyne, Hamilton, OH City: Hamilton State/Province: OH Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Larry Schmidt U.S. EPA Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): Internet URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm. The following text is from notes taken from May 1997 conversation with EPA RPM: The 20-acre site is located adjacent to the Great Miami River. The constituent plume was present in an alluvial water table aquifer; the depth of the water table is approximately 20 to 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The valley floor, at 200 feet bgs, formed the confining layer, however the contaminants were present at 80 feet bgs and shallower. No physical containment, such as a slurry wall, was constructed at the site. A total of 25 shallow (30 feet bgs) and deep (80 feet bgs) wells were utilized for groundwater extraction. Re-injection of the treated groundwater was accomplished through approximately eight shallow (20 feet bgs) wells. A total of 859 gpm groundwater is pumped and treated. Some treated groundwater is re-injected, while a percentage is discharged via an NPDES permit. Re-injection was discontinued due to the high cost of filtering groundwater prior to re-injection. Results and cost information were not available from GWRTAC source. 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 7 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 and 48: Unconfined Aquifer 65% Figure 16. I
Page 49 and 50: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 53: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 105 and 106:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?