Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database PCE. The surfactant solution was recycled. Phase II was similar with one well being replaced. In Phase III a new surfactant was used. In Phase IV a smaller area was tested. Surfactant was added to the extracted groundwater at the surface, injected through an array of distribution wells, and then removed via extraction wells. The contaminants were separated by air stripping, and the stripped solution mixed with surfactant. The surfactant solution was then reinjected; the concentration of surfactant used was 1% in this pilot test. The surfactant was not a food-grade additive, but is approved for use in "food preparation procedures", has low toxicity, and is readily biodegradable under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The cycle of extraction, aboveground treatment and mixing of surfactant and re-injection of surfactant was repeated throughout the test. The project was conducted in four separate phases. In Phase I (June 1991 to August 1991), a 1% surfactant solution was delivered through six distribution wells, and removed via one central extraction well. In Phase II (March 1992 to June 1992) a new extraction well was utilized as one original extraction well was rendered unusable by sanding. During Phase II, the original surfactant was subjected to a high sorption rate, and biofouling of surface tanks and delivery wells occurred. In Phase III (June 1992 to October 1992), because of the issues encountered in Phase II, the surfactant was changed. In Phase IV (January 1993 to February 1993), a smaller area comprising the northern half of the original test area was utilized, due to low flow rates due to a depressed regional water table. In the first two phases, completed in 6/91-8/91 and 3/92-6/92, respectively, the surfactant was found to sorb considerably and biofouling of the above ground tanks occurred resulting in the change of surfactant. The initial concentrations in monitoring wells were 200-300 mgL with concentrations jumping to 800-900 mg / L at the point that the surfactant reached 0.5% in the monitoring wells (i.e., about 1 PV). The average concentration of CTET in the solution recovered was 790 and 219 mg / L for Phases I and II, respectively. After 12.5 pore volumes, a total of 73 gallons of CTET were removed. Prior to the test, CTET was found at >1,000 ppm in both soil core and water samples from the test zone. During the in situ flushing test, the average effluent concentration of CTET decreased from 790 ppm (Phase I) to 219 ppm (Phase IV). A total of approximately 73 gallons of CTET was removed during the project, after injection of 12.5 pore volumes of flushing solution. DNAPL removal progressed at a rate more rapid than would be expected with standard pump and treat technology, based on analysis of three monitoring well nests within the DNAPL source area. It was concluded that although initial capital costs would be greater than pump and treat, the reduction in time required to complete remediation greatly reduces the O&M costs. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Fountain, John; Hodge, D., Project summary: Extraction of organic pollutants using enhanced surfactant flushing: Initial field tests, Part I, NY State Center for Hazardous Waste Management, February, 1992. Fountain, J. C. “A pilot scale test of surfactant enhanced pump and treat, in Proceedings of Air and Waste Management Association’s 86th Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, June 13-18, 1993. Fountain, J. C.; Waddell-Sheets, C., A pilot field test of surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation: Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 10 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database Corpus Christi, Texas, Extended Abstract from ACS symposium in Atlanta Georgia, September 27-29, 1993. Fountain, John., 1993: Project summary: Extraction of organic pollutants using enhanced surfactant flushing, part II, NY State Center for Hazardous Waste Management, Buffalo, NY, November 1993. 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, 1995: "In Situ Remediation Technology Status Report: Surfactant-Enhancements”, EPA 542-K-94-003, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5102W), Washington, DC Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 11 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 57: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 109 and 110:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?