You are on page 1of 15
‘THE USE OF AERATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UPS Richard A. Brown, Ph.D. Erle Henry Curtis Herman Wendy Leonard Groundwater Technology, Inc. Trenton, New Jersey 1.0 INTRODUCTION ‘Traditionally, soll and groundwater contamination have been treated by excavation of the contaminated solls and/or by pumping and treating the contaminated groundwater. Soll excavation Is often nelther a practical nor cost effective solution. Groundwater pump and treat, while effective In containing contamination migration, is generally an unacceptably slow remediation process. If, as an alternative, the dissolved/adsorbed contamination can be removed In place, accelerated remediation of the site, reduced costs, and long term protection of potential downgradient receptors could potentially be achieved. ‘Approximately seven to ten years ago the use of vapor extraction technology was developed and applled to the treatment of solls contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). With this process, contaminants are physically removed using a form of in-situ alt stripping or volatilzation. Soll ‘vapor extraction (SVE) has proven to be one of the better technologies for treating contaminated soils. This approach is normally conducted using vacuum to induce alr flow through solls. Because the key to its successful use Is inducing alr flow, soll vapor extraction technology has been limited to Unsaturated solls. Treatment of sol contamination below the water table with soll vapor extraction Is difficult or unfeasible since it requires extensive dewatering of the contaminated area to create unsaturated conditions and facilitate air flow. ‘A recent innovation in remedial technology has, however, extended the utlity of soll vapor extraction to water saturated solls, This technology Is referred to as air sparging. In this process, alt Is injected Under pressure below the water table. The air bubbles which form traverse horizontally and vertically through the soll column creating transient air filed regimes in the saturated zone. Volatile compounds that are exposed to this sparged alr environment volatilize Into the gas phase and are carried by the alr movement into the vadose zone where they can be captured by a vent system. Air sparging also creates a crude air stripper In the subsurface. The soll acts as the packing. Alr Is Injected and allowed to flow through the water column over the “packing” (Figure 1). Air bubbles that contact dissolved/adsorbed phase contaminants in the aquifer cause the VOCs to volatilize. The ‘entrained organics are thus carried by the air bubbles into the vadose zone where they can be captured bby a vapor extraction system or, where permissible, allowed to escape through the ground surface. 265 Combining air sparging and soll venting is an effective means of treating volatile organic contaminants both above and below the water table. In sites where volatile contaminants have reached the water table, soil contamination Is likely to occur both above and below the water table. Addressing the soil contamination, therefore, requires application of both traditional soll vapor extraction (venting) and air Injection (sparging). ‘There are two potential concerns with the use of air sparging which must be evaluated in relation to Potential receptors. These concems are: = acceleration of vapor phase transport and the subsequent accumulation of vapors in buildings or other vapor receptors, and . Increase in dissolved contaminant levels and subsequent off-site migration. Since alr sparging Increases pressure In the vadose zone, any exhausted vapors can be drawn into building basements. Basements are generally low pressure areas. This pressure contrast can create preferential vapor migration and accumulation in surrounding basements. With the use of alr sparging, “turbulence* and mixing" occur in the saturated zone. This is especially true If the operating air sparge pressure or flow rate Is not correctly selected through pilot testing. Enhanced partitioning of organics Into the dissolved phase can result. Additionally, if the geology constricts vertical alr flow, sparging can cause lateral spread of the dissolved contamination off site, This has been observed at two sites in the U.S. and has been a significant problem in the use of air sparging in Germany. With proper system design, these problems can be alleviated. The location of the receptors Is essential to correctly design system safeguards. 2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS System safeguards must be designed into a sparge system to ensure effective and safe operation. System safeguards consist of the following: = concurrent installation of a soll vent system with an air sparge system, ™ groundwater recovery or control to prevent offsite migration, . Proper system design through field pilot testing, and knowledge and experience with air sparging performance. The first safeguard Is the use of soll vent systems. Soll vent systems are mandatory where there are potential receptors or where vapor phase controls are required. The vent system should be designed to have a greater flow than the sparge system and should have a greater radius of influence. Barrier ‘soll vent systems can also be placed between the sparge system and potential receptors. The second safeguard is to utlize groundwater control to prevent downgradient migration of contaminants. Active pumping systems or effective barriers should be installed. Groundwater control should be installed where receptors exist and in areas where the geology Is heterogenous or of low Permeability (<10* cm/sec). A downgradient sparge system can be used as an effective barrier system, Thirdly, the best assurance for effective system performance Is proper system design. Alr sparge systems can be property designed through field pilot testing and collection of the all appropriate site data. Field pilot testing consists of installation of test sparge/Vent points and evaluation of field 266 response to applied alr pressure and vacuum. The pilot testing will identity any subsurface barriers or irregularities, define the radius of Influence of the sparge point and soll vent point, and determine the correct operating air vacuum and pressure. ‘An alr sparging system can be correctly designed only if sufficient data concerning site conditions has been determined, The data requirements consist of : 1. the nature and extent of site contaminants, 2. specttics of the site hydrogeology, and 3. thorough knowledge of potential groundwater and vapor receptors. Nature and Extent of Site Contaminants The main contaminant properties of concem in air sparge design are volatlity and stripabilty. The stripabllty of VOCs by the air sparging system is roughly indicated by thelr Henry's Law constant, K,. Table 1 lists the Henry's constant for several common constituents. Stripabllty indicates whether or not sparging will be effective in reducing dissolved contamination. TABLE 1 Henry’s Constant for Selected VOCs. Constituent Henry's int, K, (atm-r?-mole,) ~~ Vapor Pressure (mm Ha) ‘Naphthalene ax 10" 1 Benzene 5.6 x 10° 28 Toluene 63x 10° 9.0 Xylene 57x10? 3.0 Tetrachloroathylene 1.5 x 10? 14.0 Trichloroethyene 99x 10° 28.0 Trans-1,2, Dichloroethene 9.4 x 10° 200.0 Acetone 6.8 x 10° 76 AK, of > 10° indicates a stripable volatile constituent. Acetone, for example, Is not stripable. Stripable contaminants are conducive to a direct extraction air sparge system. In such cases, sparging can be used to directly reduce groundwater contamination levels. ‘The volatility of a compound is indicated by the vapor pressure of the material. Volatility is an indication of how effective alr sparging will ben treating adsorbed phase contamination. In general, contaminants having a vapor pressure greater than 1mm Hg are sufficiently volatile to be removed by alr sparging. Table 1 gives the vapor pressure for common contaminants. Naphthalene, for example, is not ready volatile. ‘The mass distribution of the site contamination must also be known In order to effectively utilize air sparging. Determination of vertical extent should document adsorbed phase contaminants at or below the water table in order to effectively utlize sparging. The lateral extent of adsorbed phase contamination below the water table must be known to ensure complete remedial system coverage. In addition the downgradiant dissolved groundwater concentrations should be delineated in order to allow monitoring of the plume during sparging operation and placement of recovery or sparge wells for ‘groundwater treatment. Hydrogeologic Conditions ‘Several hydrogeologic parameters are of great concern in ensuring correct design and operation of an alr sparge system. The soll texture must allow for air transmission In order for volatilization or biodegradation to occur. In general a permeability of >10° om/sec is necessary for effective air 267 sparging. Poorly compacted fll materials are also a poor choice for an ar sparging system as they may exhibit settling f subjected to high alr pressures. Of even more importance is the homogenelty of the site solls. Permeability contrasts due to natural stratigraphic changes or differential filing by human activity will alter the air flow. Lower permeability lenses will create a barrier to the upward moving alr and will cause lateral spread of the contaminants. ‘Additionally, Improperly designed sparge systems operated at too high air pressures will increase the Potential for lateral spread. in order to ensure that site conditions will not create adverse responses to air sparging and to correctly size the system, field pllot testing Is necessary. 3.0 PILOT TESTING Installation of an ASV system requires proper design of the separate components (the vent system and the sparge system), as well as a balancing of the two components. There are many factors which must be considered in designing a soll vapor extraction/alr sparge system. These factors include a determination of the following: 1) The lateral and vertical distribution of contamination (soll and groundwater); 2) The presence of any barriers present in the subsurface which may significantly affect alr flow; 3) The radius of influence of the vacuum extraction system; 4) The radius of influence of the alr sparging system; and, 5) The vacuum and pressure requirements for effective treatment and effective capture of volatlized materials. ‘The fled tests consists of three sequential tests, The first test Is a vacuum radius of influence test. The second Is a sparge radius of Influence test. The third Is a combined sparge/vent test. A number of different parameters can be measured during the tests to determine radil of Influence. These include: : ‘Vacuum or pressure vs. distances. This Is an Indication of radius of influence. : VOC concentrations in soll or groundwater. This is an indication of what is being removed and areas being Impacted, it should be done before, during (with and without the system running) and after each test. : CO, and ©, levels in soll vapor. This Is an indication of blologlcal activity. These measurements need to be taken before, during and after each pllot test under static as, well as pumping conditions. - Dissolved oxygen levels in water. This ls a good Indicator of effect but may be slower In response than alr flow. Measurements require good base line readings to determine changes. = Water levels before and during test. Air flow during sparging will cause some mounding. Levels should be recorded before the test to determine background. ‘As shown In Figure 2, there is a faltly good correlation between a number of parameters measured during sparging. Using multiple parameters allows for cross correlation during design. With this cross Correlation, it is possible to determine effective air flow through the area of contamination and ensure ‘capture of the volatiized materials, 268 40 CASE HISTORY ‘The following case history llustrates the effectiveness of alr sparging technology. The site is a former location of a dry cleaning feciity in New Castle County, Delaware (Figure 3). Soll and groundwater ‘contamination resulted from leaking underground storage tanks which were located in the north-north western part of the property. The tanks, which were removed, were used to store dry cleaning solvents. Primary groundwater contaminants have been identified as perchioroethylene (PCE), trichlorosthy/ (ICE), dichloroethylene (DCE) and some total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) related to heating ol. PCE Is the primary contaminant of concer. TCE and DCE are present primarily due to biologically ‘mediated reductive dehalogenation. Site Geoloay ‘The subsurface environment at the property generally consists of fil materlal overlying a continuous sheet of naturally occurring Quaternary sediments. Within the southern geographical portion of the property, the Quatemary sediments rest unconformably on top of the sediments of the Potomac Formation which in turn overlle the basement complex consisting of a voloanic Intruslve rock, probably ‘granodiorite. The Potomac Formation appears to wedge out (thinning from south to north) near the geographic central portion of the property such that the Quaternary deposits unconformably overlie the granodiore in the northern portion of the property. This conclusion was drawn based on differentiation of mineral content within the weathered basement complex and the Potomac Formation. Cuttings returned from soll borings and monitoring wells drilled on the northern portion of the property contalned blotte, a mineral occurring in the intrusive igneous rocks common to the area. Muscovite, a mineral which distinguishes the Potomac Formation, was encountered in the cuttings returned from monitoring wells drilled on the southern portion of the property. Figure 4 ilustrates that the component of flow of shallow groundwater at the property appears to trend Northwest (NW) to Southeast (SE), under an average hydraulic gradient of 0.021 ft/ft across the property. The geology observed during drilling activity indicates that the saturated Quaternary ‘sediments are relatively homogeneous across the property. This observation of homogeneous sediment Is confirmed by the fact that the gradient does not vary appreciably across the property (ranging from 0.016 ft/ft between MW-1$ and MW-28 and 0.026 ft/ft between MW-2S and MW-7S). ‘Site-specific geologic conditions are such that a natural barrier (clays of the Potomac Formation) exists \Which locally minimizes the potential for vertical downward migration of dissolved-phase total petroleum hydrocarbon and chlorinated VOCs present in the shallow water bearing zone into deeper water bearing units. This Is supported by water quality data obtained from the deep and shallow wall nests (MW-18/D, MW-28/D and MW-38/D) located on the property. The shallow wells are highly contaminated, while the deep wells are relatively clean. Soil Contamination Headspace analyses are performed on soll samples collected at discrete locations through the unsaturated soll profile during installation of the shallow and deep monitoring wells and pilot test points at the property. Headspace analyses are performed using a Foxboro Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) calibrated to methane. ‘Several observations can be drawn from the soil data. First, the bulk of the contamination appears to tbe located within two soll horizons; one shallow (~3-9 ft), and one above, at, and just below the water table interface (15-18+ ft). Thus, It may be concluded that there is soil contamination In both the unsaturated (vadose) and saturated zones (water table aquifer). Second, the soll contamination is primarily Isolated to the former tank field area and extends hydrogeologically lateral and downgradient in the direction of shallow groundwater flow. Based on the soll results, itis estimated that approximately 269 300 to 500 pounds of contamination exist in the upper horizon and an additional 200 to 300 pounds exists in the lower horizon. Groundwater Contamination ‘The Impacted soll Is In the shellow aquifer. Quarterly groundwater results (Table 2) show that groundwater contamination is primarily confined to the shallow groundwater aquifer. PCE, TCE and DCE are the primary contaminants with TPH additionally appearing in the wells. TABLE 2 Results of Quarterly Groundwater Sampling - August 22, 1990 ‘Analyte - Concentration in Parts Per Billion Groundwater ‘Sample Total 1,2, Identiication # TRH Tilchloroethene —»Tetrachloroethene ——_Dichloroethene Field Blank <500 <5 <5 <5 MW-1S <500 72 1,970 66 MWD 4,700 <5 14 <5 Mw2s <600 11,000 20,000 10,000 MW-20 ‘600 <5 <6 <5 MW-3S: 500 NS 1,580 466 MW-3D 500 <5 <5 <5 MW-4S: <500 78 4,200 50 MW-5S- 2,200 1,800 2,700 2,200 Mw-es "<500 " 147 3 MW-7S- <600 <5 134 <5 ‘TCE and DCE constituents are primarily isolated to the shallow saturated Quaternary sediments with migration of the constituents occurring In a hydraulically downgradient direction from the former underground storage tank field area(s). This is consistent with the direction of inferred groundwater flow within the water table aquifer. Pilot Test ‘The field test was run in three parts. First, the vacuum extraction system was tested with the air sparger system tured off. Second, the alr sparge system was tested with the vacuum extraction system turned off. Finally, both systems were tested simultaneously. A description of testing procedures and results |s glven below. The test configuration consisted of a single vacuum extraction well, a single air sparger well pint, and five nested monitoring probe sets. The location of the vent point, sparge point and five probe sets Is depicted in Figure 6. Vent Test Ina relatively homogeneous site, the vacuum developed In the soll is generally radial from the extraction Point, However, where there Is structural heterogenelty the vacuum response observed may reflect a structural control. This appears to be the case at this site. Pilot test results indicated an apparent Increase in vacuum levels, preferentially oriented from NW to SE, generally in the direction of shallow ‘groundwater flow. ‘The vent test results were evaluated as discussed above, by plotting the log of the vacuum versus distance. The results of these calculations are tabulated In Table 3. As indicated, there Is a higher correlation observed when the results are grouped by orientation rather than when used without any groupings. Since there was litle variation in readings with probe depth, the results are listed for the deepest probe only. 270 TABLE 3 Calculation of Effective Radius of Influence m 10" Applied Vacuum all with Cross All With, Cross Points Gradient Gradient Points Gradient Gradient Effective Radius of Influence 52 tt. 54 34 183 192 6 Correlation 95.3% 99.7% 99.0% 93.0% 97.6% 99.3% As indicated from these calculations, the radius of influence NE to SW (in the general direction of shallow groundwater flow) may be as litle as one-half the radius of Influence NW to SE (perpendicular to the general direction of shallow groundwater flow). Sparne Test ‘The sparge well (AS-1) was installed to a depth of 33 fest below grade and screened from 30 to 33 feet. ‘Sparge tests were performed by injecting alr into the sparge test point. The resulting pressure and VOC. levels were measured In the five vapor probe nests which were previously utlized for the vent tests. The ‘sparge test data was analyzed by plotting the log of pressure versus distance. The results of these calculations are tabulated in Table 4. Because the response in Probe § was much lower than expected, radil of influence were calculated with and without its Inclusion at each pressure level. The radius of influence (RO!) obtained by excluding Probe 5 was used in final design of the system. TABLE 4 Calculated Radius of Influence for Sparge System 10 psi 15 pal 20 psi Al Exclude Al Exclude AL Exclude Probe § — Probes Probe § Effective Radius Influence 78 72 124 76 25 177 Correlation 69.0% 81.5 80.1% 95.6% 53.0% 95.7% ‘The sparge results appeared to be radial and do not Indicate any directional orientation/correlation. ‘The change In VOC concentrations during the sparge tests was dramatic. In most probes the VOC levels, as indicated by OVA readings, increased significantly with sparging; the OVA responses are presented in Table 5. A conclusion drawn from these results Is that the soll groundwater contamination ‘below the water table is being volatlized by the sparge point. TABLE 5 Change In OVA Readings During Sparge Test 10 psl 15 pel 20 pel Distance OVA Before ppmv @ Ppmv@ ppmv@ Probe from AS-1 Sparge Test. 10 psi 15 pel 20 pst (vent test) OVA OVA OVA 1s 82 ™ 200 240 1000 10 82 300 280 >1000 > 1000 28 51 4 220 840 1000 2D 51 150 280 1000 > 1000 3s 32 56 330 700 >1000 3D 32 420 700 >1000 440 4s 9 a 400 >1000 >1000 4D 9 780 > 1000 >1000 830 5s 18 - 100 840 >1000 5D 18 54 450 > 1000 >1000 271 Combined Vent/Sparge Test ‘The final test involved simultaneous operation of both the vent and sparge pilot systems. The purpose Of this test was to confirm that the vent system could capture the sparged VOCs. The test successfully demonstrated capture by the vent system when the sparge alr low was >70% of the vent alr flow. In summary, the results of the pilot tests indicated the following: - Significant air flow can be Induced through the vadose zone, capllary fringe and shallow saturated zone facilitating the effective removal of PCE, TCE, DCE and other Volatile organics currently in the subsurface at the property. - Alt flow in the vadose zone may be directional since there Is a greater apparent Influence NW to SE (parallel to the diraction of shallow groundwater flow) rather than perpendicular to it : Ar flow in the saturated zone appears to be radial. - ‘Sparged air can be effectively captured by a vent system co-located on the property. This can be accomplished by operating the vent system at a vacuum level/fiow rate ~2 fold greater than the sparge system. System Design Based on data obtained during the pllot tests a patter of additional vent and sparge points was developed to provide overlapping influence (negative net pressure) and favorable site coverage for the treatment system. Strategically placed additional probe nests were also added to monitor system performance. A complete list of treatment and monitoring points installed at the site Is specified below, and pictured in Figure 7. : 7 Combination vapor extraction/air sparge points (AS/VP1-AS/VP7); to be installed. : 1 Vapor extraction only point (VP1). e 7 Sparge only points (AS1-AS7). = 8 Vapor monitoring probe nests (PR1-PR8). ‘The vent system used a 15 Hp, Oil Recovery Systems soll vent system having a capacity of 500 CFM at 40 inches of water column vacuum. influent vacuum flow rate is controlled with an ambient alr intake valve. A liquid knockout tank, particulate fier and muffler will be placed on the influent line to eliminate or reduce water generated during system operation, solids and noise respectively. An effluent muffier ‘was specitied to further reduce noise levels to meet the City’s zoning regulations. Two 1800 pound (granular activated carbon (GAC) units ware specified to be used in serles on the vent effluent to remove contaminants from the vent air prior to discharge. These units are capable of accepting alr flow rates iin excess of 500 CFM. The sparge air was provided by a 20 Hp rotary lobe type blower capable of delivering 270 CFM at 10 psi. As with the vent system, a particulate fier is provided on the inlet to protect the moving parts of the unit. System pressure is controlled with a valve on the ambient alr discharge line placed on the pressure side of the sparge blower. Noise reduction was achieved with mufflers on the inlet, outlet and ‘ambient discharge lines of the system. The air sparge blower was also furnished with an overpressure relief valve set to open at 15 psi. 272 ‘The 7 vent/sparge points form a rough ellipse surrounding the former tank field area and extending to the property perimeter. The 7 Inner most sparge only points were specified to complete coverage and provide concentrated treatment within the former tank field area where contaminant levels are highest. Operation of fourteen sparge points at 16 CFM each results In an expected total flow rate of 225 CFM which was used as the final design basis. The vent system was able to easily capture the sparged alr. This sparge system design flow rate was roughly one half of the vent system design flow rate of 500 CFM. ting Rs In the first phase of remediation, the vent system was initiated. Total flow from the eight vent wells was ‘approximately 450 CFM at a vacuum of 25-30 inches of water column. The vent system achieved a negative pressure throughout the site with the highest vacuum being attained in or adjacent to th source area(s). The operation of the vent system did not impact the basic hydrogeology of the sit. During the vent operation the influent concentration to the carbon system was monitored. Initia levels at start-up were 250 untts. Within one week the concentration had dropped to 150 units. After about ‘one month of operation, the vent system VOC influent concentration had dropped to <10 units, Atthis point, the sparge system was Implemented. The implementation was conducted In three phases. In the first phase the outer sparge/vent points were activated. This was to strip the groundwater and to create a barrier (due to mounding) to off-site groundwater migration. After several days of operation the AS-1 (the sparge point located in the former tank pit) was activated. VOC levels rose from <10 units to 60-70 units. After a week of operation all remaining sparge points were activated. The result of sparging on the groundwater VOC levels was dramatic, as shown in Table 6. TABLE 6 Change In Groundwater VOC Concentration With Time Monitoring Before 87 Days* 180 Days ** 244 Days ** Post Treatment Well Startup After Startup After Startup After Startup Monitoring (8 months 54 Days 147Days 211 Days _—_After Shut Down) Sparge Sparge ‘Sparge MWS 2,108 35 49 BDL BOL MW-D 4 19 BOL BOL NS Mw.28 41,000 290 997 704 1260 MW-2D BOL BOL 18 BOL NS MW-38 2,161 22 19 BOL BDL Mw-3D BDL BDL 12 BOL NS MW-4S 4,328 444 240 250 87.8 MW.58 6.940 367 124 115 249 Mw.6s 166 5 BOL BDL BDL MW-78 134 a1 16 23 346 * Results taken with system operating ** Results taken after system shutoff for two weeks. ‘The impact on groundwater VOC levels was rapid during sparging. Within about two months there was ‘greater than a 90% reduction In groundwater concentrations across the site, The reduction increased and persisted during seven months of system operation. 273 Once the groundwater concentrations achieved an asymptote, the system was shut down as per regulatory approval. After three months of no operation a quarterly sampling was performed. Groundwater concentrations both on site and off-site increased slightly but did not significantly rebound. At this point, closure was petitioned. The system showed a dramatic removal of VOCs. As shown in Figure ®, the vant system within a months time dropped the effluent levels from~120 ppmv to ~25 ppmv. Sparging ralsed the VOC level to ~50 ppmv upon activation. This level decayed over sik months to less than 1 ppmw at which point the system was shut down. The soll probes were monitored to determine effectiveness and showed a substantial decrease in concentrations before and after treatment. Table 7 shows the change in concentration. TABLE 7 Change In Concentration in Probes with Time Monitoring Before Treatment 2 Months Post 3 Months Post Treatment Probe * Ppmv VOC Treatment Monitor Monitoring PRI 12 58 12 PRA 460 28 5A PRI 52 WT 37 PRA 780 48 120 PRS 230 15 43 PRE 160 5 2 PR 56 15 34 PRE 13 0 02 * Average of shallow and deep probes The results of the probe sampling show that there has been a significant reduction of adsorbed phase contamination. There Is a small residual contamination in the area of the former tank pit as evidenced by the readings in PR3 and PR4. This explains the slight rise in groundwater concentrations In downgradient wells (MW-4, 5, and 7). Case History Summary In summary, during the first and second quarter of operations over 1,100 pounds of PCE and TCE were removed through operation of a combined air sparge/soil vapor extraction system. This material was captured and treated by an activated carbon system resulting in no detectable fugitive vapor losses. VOC and TPH concentrations in groundwater were significantly reduced within and downgradient of the property In a short period of time without the use of artificlal groundwater control. During the second quarter of operations, VOC concentrations as measured in the influent air stream prior to treatment, appear to have reached an asymptotic level with respect to time. Additionally, average groundwater VOC constituent concentrations, as Indicated through sampling of the existing monitoring wells at the property, have reached an asymptotic value with respect to time. These results demonstrate that the alr sparge/soll vapor extraction remedial system approached Its technologically practical limit, and was effective In achieving comprehensive removal of VOC and TPH constituents from the vadose zone, capilary fringe and shallow water bearing zone at the property. Based on third and fourth quarter monitoring and post-treatment monitoring date, vacuum Influence Continued to be maintained throughout the property with on-going operation of the combined soll vapor extraction/alr sparge systam. Approximately 100 pounds of VOC constituents were removed during the third and fourth quarter of operations (10% of the first quarter total) indicating the achievement of an asymptotic remediation response. ‘The average reduction in concentration of dissolved phase VOC constituents in groundwater as measured through sampling of the tan existing monitoring wells was 274 maintained during the third and fourth quarter of operation at approximately 98% and during post- treatment monitoring at approximately 96%. Based on the performance of the remedial system, which documented that the remedial program has achieved its technologically practical limit, and the results of post-treatment monitoring which document that the concentrations of VOC and TPH constituents have maintained a reduction of 96% or greater. Groundwater Technology requested that no further investigative, remedial or monitoring activity be performed, and that site closure be considered for existing site conditions. Gosts ‘Total project costs from investigation to closure have run about $425,000. The cost breakdown was 2s follows: Site Investigation $50,000 Pilot testing 25,000 System design 25,000 Equipment & piping 90,000 Installation & start-up 40,000 Operations & maintenance 78,000 Carbon usage 75,000 Reporting & negotiations Closure documentation 5.0 SUMMARY While soll vapor extraction has long been recognized as an effective means of removing volatile organics from subsurface solls, it has been limited to treatment of unsaturated soils. Where contamination exists below the water table, soll vapor extraction is limited and can only be used with an extensive and often costly dewatering operation. ‘Air sparging is a means of extending the utilty of vapor extraction technology to the saturated regime. With alr sparging, air is Injected under pressure below the water table creating a transient alr filled porosity. This enhances the volatilization of contaminants from the soll and strips them from the (groundwater. The net result is a rapid and significant decrease in contaminant levels, Ar sparging has two inherent dangers. First, the VOC laden air stream can rapidly migrate through the vadose zone to low pressure zones such as basements. This could cause a vapor hazard. To prevent this occurrence, a sparge system should be operated in conjunction with a vent system. A second danger is that the injected air can mobilize groundwater contaminants rather than stripping them, causing accelerated downgradient migration. This can occur If there are vertical barriers to alr migration ‘causing the alr to be trapped producing lateral spread. It can also occur if too much pressure is used, physically displacing the water column. Because of these dangers, proper design is essential. This necessitates a fleld plot test and careful site delineation. With proper design, the use of sparging can substantially and rapidly remediate ‘groundwater contamination. As presented in the case history above, site closure can be obtained In very short period and at a reasonable cost. 275 "id esny sige 01am 8 Wd ‘sOupesy Old ba ‘UeBAix9 Paaiossiq i JZ suejeuevey aBueds usemyeg uojejeusog -Z B14 deg. ——+ (@unsseugyidems - smpoy s0seds (unnoeA)s = SmpeY 1U9, xp abeds ego e005 iy \wnoesbe sedan, postr) weshs yebyeds sty Jo we berg 1 61 276 ome am \ wae 8 4S URW fUSTPeID vapempunouy mojyeus ‘+ 614 ws oan \ wea e 4S UH Chapel St ALIS Apnis ‘€ eunbty 277 tnofie] 4Se] OE 9 6 | | \ [eLO] Jo 4S UIOH dd ‘OOA suno}uog '¢ bBI4 278 uoyeuadg jo seg or cz 06 OAL OBE OL zt ot ww ae. 260005 7 $09K | MO 4UeA] 8B e Rk audd "301 8 3d suinsey eldueg 62g Je1pe, g & aut] SA uoTyeujusoU0D jUEN]yUT UuOqueg °g HT4 tnofie7 wet,sAs ‘7 BI4

You might also like