Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database technical viability of the process. In the ultrafiltration experiments, 67% of the surfactant mass was recovered with the PM500 membrane, with 90 and 83% of the PCBs and oils being retained, respectively. The XM50 membrane did not capture the surfactant quite as efficiently (46%), however retained approximately the same fraction of PCB and oil (94% and 89%, respectively). Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Abdul, A.S., Gibson, T.L., and Rai, D.N. 1990. "Selection of Surfactants for Removal of Petroleum Products from Shallow Sandy Aquifers," Ground Water, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 920-926. Abdul, S.A., and Gibson, T.L. 1991. "Laboratory Studies of Surfactant-Enhanced Washing of Polychlorinated Biphenyl from Sandy Materials," Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 665-671. Abdul, A.S., Gibson, T.L., Ang, C.C., Smith, J.C., and Sobczynski, R.E. 1992. "In-Situ Surfactant Washing of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Oils from a Contaminated Aquifer," Ground Water, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 219-231. Abdul, A.S., and Ang, C.C. 1994. "In-Situ Surfactant Washing of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Oils from a Contaminated Field Site: Phase II Pilot Study," Ground Water, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 727- 734. Ang, C.C., and Abdul, A.S. 1991a. "Aqueous Surfactant Washing of Residual Oil Contamination from Sandy Soil," Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 121-127. Ang, C.C., and Adbul, A.S. 1991b. "A Laboratory Study of the Biodegradation of an Alcohol Ethyoxylate Surfactant by Native Soil Microbes," Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 138, pp. 191-209. Ang, C.C., and Adbul, A.S. 1994. "Evaluation of an Ultrafiltration Method for Surfactant Recovery and Reuse During In Situ Washing of Contaminated Sites: Laboratory and Field Studies," Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 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 24 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0013 Project Name: GHEA Associates, New Jersey Operating Facilty of Major U.S. City: State/Province: NJ Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): 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 (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 The following was excerpted from 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, and GWRTAC, 1996: TE-96-002, Surfactants/Cosolvents, Jafvert, Purdue University, available at www.gwrtac.org: Nonionic surfactant to be used as flushing solution to treat VOCs, SVOCs and BTEX. (Project was started, but put on hold as of April 1995). On-site system for cleaning leachates and reconstituting surfactants. Site is actively used for machining operations. Soils underlying the site are very clayey, and are contaminated with a mixture of chlorinated organic solvents and BTEX at levels of 1,000 to 2,000 ppm. The water table is located approximately ten feet below the ground surface. There is a clay barrier about ten feet below the ground surface. The treatment zone will be isolated with slurry walls. Due to relatively low permeability of the soil, a dense network of feed trenches alternated with extraction wells will be used to contact the flushing solution within this zone. This project had been on hold since 1995. There were no plans to restart the project at that time. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): 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 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 25 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 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 71: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 123 and 124:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?