NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of Demonstrated and ... - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2002 Project No. 3 Location Former solvent blending plant, Essen, Germany Technical Contact Eberhard Beitinger WCI Umwelttechnik GmbH Sophie-Charlotten-Straße 33 14059 Berlin Tel: +49-/(0)30-32609481 Fax: +49-(0)30-32609472 E-mail: exbeiti0@wcc.com Project 3 was completed in 1999. 1. INTRODUCTION Permeable Treatment Beds Project Status Field tests finalized in 1999 Project Dates Accepted 1997 Completed 1999 Costs Documented? Cost estimation is available Contaminants Chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents, BTEX-aromates, TCE, PCE Media Groundwater Project Size Full-scale Technology Type Permeable reactive barrier as in situ groundwater remediation technology Results Available? Field test results available A pilot groundwater treatment plant was installed at a former industrial site in Essen, Germany, where organic solvents had been stored and processed in a small chemical plant for several decades. Leakage and handling losses caused significant soil and groundwater contamination, mainly by BTEX and CHC. The contaminated aquifer has low hydraulic conductivity and is only 2-3 m thick. The aquifer is covered by 4-11 m of thick, silty and clayey covering layers (loess). During investigations and conceptual remediation design, it was determined that the site was suitable to install adsorbent walls since conventional remediation and contamination control measures cannot be applied in a cost-efficient manner. Subsequently, WCI and IWS studied and reported on various technical variants to install an adsorbent wall in a feasibility study. The study also established which data were necessary to arrive at the dimensions of the adsorbent wall. The feasibility study recommended that pilot tests be conducted on the site for this purpose. The objective of the pilot tests was to obtain precise information on the adsorption potential for the contaminants at the site, the type and quantity of the required adsorbent material, the functioning of filters at different flow speeds, and the long-term effectiveness and attendant risks, if any, of installing an adsorbent wall. Conducting the pilot tests involved the following principal tasks: • Selecting a suitable adsorbent for the tests depending on water quality and the relevant contaminant concentrations at the site; • Structural design and planning of the pilot plant; • Operating and taking samples from the pilot plant, as well as carrying out laboratory analyses; • Assessment of the pilot tests. 2. BACKGROUND/SITE DESCRIPTION From 1952 to 1985, a chemical factory was located on an area of about 10,000 m² in a city in the Ruhr area. Mostly solvents, like hydrocarbons, volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons, PAHs, petroleum, turpentine oil substitute, ketones, monoethyleneglycol, and alcohols were handled, stored, and processed. Today, a residential building is left on the site while underground and above ground tanks are demolished.
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2002 The ground was filled up 2.0 m over silty soil (approx. 4 to 11 m thick). Below the silt, a layer of sand and gravel (0.8 to 7.4 m) and marly sands (7.0 to 16.3 m below the top) have been detected. The marly sands are the first waterproof layer. The first aquifer is about 1.0 to 3.2 m thick and the flow velocity is very slow (kf = 6.6 x 10 -6 m/s). The concentrations of main contaminants in groundwater are petrol hydrocarbons 23.6 mg/l to 164.0 mg/l, volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons 27.0 mg/l and aromatic hydrocarbons 153.0 mg/l. Furthermore, higher concentrations of manganese and iron are present. The project is funded by the city of Essen and the state; Nordrhein-Westfalen, the former owner, went bankrupt. 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS The pilot plant was fed with groundwater, which was pumped directly from the aquifer into the front column. Two dosing pumps located behind a gravel bed in the front column fed groundwater into columns 1 and 2. The gravel filter served to hold back sediments as well as to eliminate iron and manganese. Column 1 contained: • 45 cm gravel filter (size: 2 to 3.15 mm) • 5 cm activated carbon ROW 0.08 supra • 5 cm gravel filter (gravel size: 2 to 3.15 mm) • 65 cm activated carbon ROW 0.08 supra The thickness of the activated carbon bed in Column 1 corresponded to the recommended thickness of the activated carbon bed of the adsorbent wall in the feasibility study. Column 2 contained: • 100 cm activated carbon ROW 0.08 supra The treated water was led via an overflow into a trough located outside the container. Groundwater analyses were based on the contamination at the site; their scope was determined by the feasibility study to install an adsorbent wall. The analyses covered field parameters, general parameters and parameters to quantify BTEX and volatile CHC contamination. The analyzed general parameters included sum parameters for organic compounds as well as the parameters iron and manganese. A sum parameter for organic compounds was used in order to study whether it could serve as a substitute for analyses of individual substances. Moreover, the sum parameters were also used to check whether the results of individual analyses were plausible. Iron and manganese contents were determined in order to check whether precipitation of these substances would block the adsorbent wall. Separate analyses were carried out for BTEX and volatile CHC. The number of analyzed parameters (16) was deliberately large so as to also cover important decomposition products such as vinyl chloride. Contaminant retention by the activated carbon was determined in two ways. First, contaminant concentrations were continuously monitored at the inlet, in the columns, and at the column outlets. Secondly, following the conclusion of tests, the columns were disassembled and individual partitions of carbon samples were analyzed for contaminant content. Tests were carried out to determine whether iron and manganese precipitation or microbial activity in the activated carbon could block the adsorbent wall. 20
Page 1 and 2: COMMITTEE ON EPA 542-R-02-001 THE C
Page 3 and 4: NOTICE This Annual Report was prepa
Page 5 and 6: Country Tour De Table Presentations
Page 7 and 8: NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contamin
Page 23: NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contamin
Page 63 and 64: Table 8: Percent retention efficien
Page 75 and 76:
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contamin
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
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:
Table 3: Assessment of Hazardous Im
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:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285:
show all

NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of Demonstrated and ... - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?