Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0018 Project Name: Hill Air Force Base, UT (Cell 8, OU1 - Surfactant/Cosolvent S City: Layton State/Province: UT Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: Jon Ginn U.S. Air Force Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): AATDF Spring 1998 Newsletter: Summary "Lab and Field Evaluation of Single-Phase Microemulsions for Enhanced In-Situ Remediation of Contaminated Aquifers". Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), 1996: Surfactants/Cosolvents, Technology Evaluation Report TE-96-002, Surfactants/Cosolvents, Dr. Chad T. Jafvert, Purdue University, for GWRTAC, Pittsburgh, PA, available at www.gwrtac.org Jawitz, J.W., R.D. Rhue, M.D. Annable, and P.S.C. Rao, 1997: Executive Summarry of "Laboratory and Field Evalution of Single-Phase Microemulsions (SPME) ffor Enhanced In-situ Remediation of Contaminated Aquifers" Final Report, Nov. 28, 1997, Submitted to: DoD/AATDF, Rice University, Houston, TX 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 The following is excerpted from Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), 1996: Surfactants / Cosolvents,Technology Evaluation Report TE-96-002, Chad T. Jafvert, Purdue University, for GWRTAC, Pittsburgh, PA, December 1996, available at www.gwrtac.org, ,AATDF Spring 1998 Newsletter: Summary "Lab and Field Evaluation of Single- Phase Microemulsions for Enhanced In-Situ Remediation of Contaminated Aquifers", and Jawitz, J.W., R.D. Rhue, M.D. Annable, and P.S.C. Rao, 1997: Executive Summarry of "Laboratory and Field Evalution of Single-Phase Microemulsions (SPME) ffor Enhanced In-situ Remediation of Contaminated Aquifers" Final Report, Nov. 28, 1997, Submitted to: DoD/AATDF, Rice University, Houston, TX: Hill AFB Operational Unit 1 (OU1) consists of two fire training areas, two chemical disposal pits, and two landfills. The primary contaminant is LNAPL (light lubricating oils, jet fuel). At OU1, the design of each test is process dependent, however, each test cell (of nine test constructed test cells) that will undergo some type of flushing is basically the same. Each cell is constructed of sheet piling driven into a clay layer approximately 30 feet below the surface, each occupying a rectangular surface area of 3 m x 5 m. The sheet piling has inter-locking grout-sealed joints to hydraulically isolate the cell from its surroundings. This type of containment is sometimes referred Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 36 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database to as a Waterloo Barrier system. The poorly sorted sand and gravel aquifer is approximately 15 to 20 ft below the surface to the clay aquitard. Four injection and three extraction wells are located on the opposite 3 m sides of each cell. Well screens are variable from the clay layer to above the water table. In the interior are 12 evenly spaced sampling wells, each with nested ports at 5 vertical depths. The saturated zone pore volume (PV) within each cell is variable from 1,000 to 2,500 gallons per cell. The hydraulic conductivity of the saturated potion of the upper sand and gravel unit at OU1 is 10-1 to 10-2 cm/sec based on aquifer test data, and 10-2 to 10-5 cm/sec based on slug test data. For all of the flushing experiments (those with surfactants, cosolvents, and cyclodexdrin), the flushing rate will be approximately one pore volume per day. Prior to and after treatment of each cell, a partitioning tracer test has or will be performed. The mix of tracers will be designed according to the expected volume of NAPL within the cell before and after treatment. Among the tracers, hexanol and dimethylpentanol may be included. For the test at Cell 8, OU 1, conducted in the summer of 1996, a field trial involving flushing with a microemulsion precursor (a mixture of a nonionic surfactant and alcohol) was conducted. A mixuture of 3.5 wt% Brij 91 [Polyoxyethylent (10) Oleyl Ether]) and 2.5 wt% n-pentanol was used to generate a stable, single-phase microemulsion (SPME) of LNAPL in the aqueous solution. In the single-phase microemulsion SPME process, a surfactant and co-surfactant (alcohol) mixture is added to the subsurface, where a water-continuous, low-viscosity, oil-in-water microemulsion forms on contact with residual NAPL. This Winsor Type I microemulsion can be diluted in water and transported through porous media as a single-phase, low-viscosity fluid. In contrast with micellar solubilization, which typically requires 10 - 20 pore volumes of flushing and selectively solubilizes NAPL components, fewer pore volumes of the surfactant/alcohol mixture are needed to microemulsify all NAPL components uniformly. The SPME study was divided into three separate phases: Laboratory Precursor Selection, Field Implementation, and Numerical Simulations. The first phase of this study was to select a surfactant and cosurfactant which together form the microemulsion precursor, which would produce a low-viscosity, single-phase microemulsion on contact with the complex, multi-component NAPL found at the field site. Eighty-six surfactants and a number of alcohols were screened, with enhanced NAPL solubilization and low-viscosity (
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 83: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 135 and 136:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?