GROYNE 42 - ATV - Jord og Grundvand

atv.jord.grundvand.dk

GROYNE 42 - ATV - Jord og Grundvand

GROYNE 42MASS CALCULATIONS AND CHALLENGESLars R. Bennedsen (lrsb@ramboll.dk) & Mette Christophersen (Rambøll)Kirsten Rügge, Torben H. Jørgensen & Lars Nissen (COWI)Freddy S. Petersen (Kogsgaard Miljø)Leah MacKinnon & Neal D. Durant (Geosyntec Consultants, USA)Morten Bondgaard & Børge Hvidberg (Region Midtjylland)2012/03/05


GROYNE 422012/03/05


INTRODUCTION1957-62:1981:2006:Today:• Legal disposal of waste from pesticide production• 1,200 ton of toxic chemical were excavated down to the water table• 20,000 m 2 encapsulated with a 600 m (14 m deep) iron sheet piling• 200-300 tons of toxic chemicals (primarily parathion, EP3) remainsunder the water table within the sheet piled area2012/03/05


NORTHPESTCLEAN (2010-2013)• The primary objectives of the NorthPestClean project are:1. To demonstrate in a large-scale pilot experiment the efficiency of anovel remediation method that uses in situ alkaline hydrolysis totreat pesticide contaminated soil and groundwater.2. To demonstrate the performance and usability of different"enhancement" technologies.• This presentation will focus on the initial characterization of thepilot test cells and contaminant mass calculations.2012/03/05


TEST CELLSTEST PIPES2012/03/05


INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION• Detailed description of geology,contaminant distribution and mass:10 m• 3 test cells (and 4 test pipes)• 9 boreholes in each test cell• >400 composite soil samples10 m• 90 water samples• Each sample was analysed for 10-20parameters2012/03/05


DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE SOILAverage total conc. about 2500 mg/kgE-OOOPSEEM-OOSPS2% M-OOSPS2%4%E-OOSPS1%4-Cl-Cresol1%E-Sulfotep3%M-Amino-P31%MP313%EP363%Malathion10%E-Amino-P30%2012/03/05


DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE WATERAverage total conc. about 200 mg/LE-OOOPS4%EP2-acid26%EP15%M-OOSPS6%EEM-OOSPS4%E-OOSPS0%4-Cl-CresolMCPA 3%2%M-Amino-P31%MP32%E-Sulfotep0%Malathion2%EP35%E-Amino-P31%Iso-MP13%MP110%PNF9%MP2-acid16%2012/03/05


% OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND AS SORBED+DNAPL100,0090,0080,0070,0060,0050,0040,0030,00TC1TC2TC320,0010,000,002012/03/05


2012/03/05DNAPL OBSERVATIONS VS. EP3 CONCENTRATIONSTC2-256001600230882600700278026003400TC2-8120015002202011001771012002700TC2-921003000400042004100103702400200010000TC2-10310028003100110097221800180049012003800270016009105736002100570TC2-5


3D MODELS (BOREHOLES)2012/03/05


3D MODELS (GEOLOGY)2012/03/05


3D MODELS (EP3 CONCENTRATION)2012/03/05


CONCENTRATIONS OF EP3 >1300 MG/KG2012/03/05


CONCENTRATIONS OF EP3 >1500 MG/KG2012/03/05


CONCENTRATIONS OF EP3 >1700 MG/KG2012/03/05


CONCENTRATIONS OF EP3 >2000 MG/KG2012/03/05


CONTAMINANT MASS10 subsamples (from each 0.5m of all boreholes)1 composite sample (covering 0.5 m)Mass in sub cell (5.5m 3 soil)Mass in test cell (270m 3 soil)2012/03/05


RESULTS FROM MASS CALCULATION (KG)TC1 TC2 TC3E-OOOPS 23 24 46M-OOSPS 21 51 17EEM-OOSPS 41 66 60E-OOSPS 11 24 134-Cl-Cresol 6 7 6E-Sulfotep 19 35 46M-Amino-P3 7 12 6MP3 62 230 179Malathion 32 135 198E-Amino-P3 2 1 2EP3 575 991 780Hg 89 101 1222012/03/05


CONCLUSIONS• Visually observed DNAPL did not correlate with the analyticalresults• Difficult to document significant differences in contaminantconcentration and mass due to large variability even though manysamples were collected• Systematic collection of composite samples resulted in a goodcontaminant mass estimation2012/03/05


THANK YOUFor more information visitwww.northpestclean.dk2012/03/05


CONTAMINANT MASSComposite sample #12200 mg EP3/kgComposite sample #21200 mg EP3/kgComposite sample #32900 mg EP3/kg******************************0.3m above the target treatment area0.2m×11.1m 2 ×1800kg/m 3 ×2.2g/kg= 8,800g0.5m×11.1m 2 ×1800kg/m 3 ×1.2g/kg= 12,000g0.5m×11.1m 2 ×1800kg/m 3 ×2.9g/kg= 29,000g2012/03/05


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (EP3 IN TTA)TC1 TC2 TC3Samples (#)* 58 58 56Soil volume (m 3 ) 280 270 270EP3 Mass (kg) 575 991 780*Composite samples, each consisting of 10 subsamplesP-value(conc. in sub cells)P-value(masses in sub cells)TC1 vs. TC2575 vs. 991TC2 vs. TC3991 vs. 780TC1 vs. TC3575 vs. 7800.11 0.84 0.220.08 0.26 0.242012/03/05

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines