As of July 2020, the content of this old version has been replaced with a new version. |
Description | Synonyms | Applicability | Limitations | Site Information | Points of Contact | |
Data Needs | Performance | Cost | References | Vendor Info. | Health & Safety |
|
|
Description: Figure 4-47a:Typical Ground Water Pumping System Possible objectives of ground water pumping include removal of dissolved contaminants from the subsurface, and containment of contaminated ground water to prevent migration. The first step of any remediation project consists of defining the remedial action objectives to be accomplished at the site. This involves gathering enough background site information and field data to make assessments of remedial requirements and possible cleanup levels. The first determination is whether cleanup or containment will be the most appropriate remedial action. If cleanup is chosen, the level of cleanup must be determined. If containment is chosen, ground water pumping is used as a hydraulic barrier to prevent off-site migration of contaminant plumes. The next component consists of the design and implementation of the ground water pumping system based on data evaluated in setting the goals and objectives. The criteria for well design, pumping system, and treatment are dependent on the physical site characteristics and contaminant type. Actual treatment may include the design of a train of processes such as gravity segregation, air strippers, carbon systems tailored to remove specific contaminants. Another component of any ground water extraction system is a ground water monitoring program to verify its effectiveness. Monitoring the remedial with wells and piezometers allows the operator to make iterative adjustments to the system in response to changes in subsurface conditions caused by the remediation. The final component is determining the termination requirements. Termination requirements are based on the cleanup objectives defined in the initial stage of the remedial process. The termination criteria are also dependent on the specific site aspects revealed during remedial operations. Although pumping for containment implies no treatment the following treatments usually follow pumping in pump and treat systems. These are briefly described below and in detail in technology profiles 4.41 through 4.51: 4.41 Bioreators: 4.42 Constructed wetlands: 4.43 Adsorption/Absorption: 4.45 Air Stripping: 4.46 Granulated Activated Carbon
(GAC)/Liquid Phase
Carbon Adsorption: 4.48 Ion Exchange: 4.49 Precipitation/Coagulation/ Flocculation: 4.50 Separation: 4.51 Sprinkler Irrigation: Surfactant Enhanced Recovery The application of surfactants micelles or steam to the ground water can facilitate the ground water pumping process by increasing the mobility and solubility of the contaminants sorbed to the soil matrix. This material can also facilitate the entrainment of hydrophobic contaminants to allow removal and assures that multi-phase contaminants can be effectively removed. Thus it can increase the contaminant mass removal per pore volume of ground water flushing through the contaminated zone. The implementation of surfactant-enhanced recovery requires the injection of surfactants into a contaminated aquifer. Typical systems utilize a pump to extract ground water at some distance away from the injection point. The extracted ground water is treated ex situ to separate the injected surfactants from the contaminants and ground water. In order to be cost-effective, the design of the surfactant-enhanced recovery system is critical. Once the surfactants have separated from the ground water they can be re-injected into the subsurface. Contaminants must be separated from the ground water and treated prior to discharge of the extracted ground water. Drawdown Pumping Pump drawdown nonaqueous-phase liquid (NAPL) recovery systems are designed to pump NAPL and ground water from recovery wells or trenches. Pumping removes water and lowers the water table near the extraction area to create a cone of depression. The cone of depression in the vicinity of the extraction well produces a gravity head that pushes flow of NAPL toward the well and increases the thickness of the NAPL layer in the well. Each foot of ground water depression provides a driving head equivalent to a pressure difference of 0.45 psi. In most cases, the production of a cone of depression will increase NAPL recovery rates. Pumping may be accomplished with one or two pumps. In the
single-pump configuration, one pump withdraws both water and NAPL. The dual-pump
configuration uses one pump located below the water table to remove water and a second
located in the NAPL layer to recover NAPL. A single-pump system reduces capital and
operating costs and allows simpler control systems and operation, but produces a stream of
mixed water and NAPL that must then be separated. |
|
Synonyms: Pump and treat. |
|
Applicability: The first step in determining whether ground water pumping is an appropriate remedial technology is to conduct a site characterization investigation. Site characteristics, such as hydraulic conductivity, will determine the range of remedial options possible. Chemical properties of the site and plume need to be determined to characterize transport of the contaminant and evaluate the feasibility of ground water pumping. To determine if ground water pumping is appropriate for a site, one needs to know the history of the contamination event, the properties of the subsurface, and the biological and chemical contaminant characteristics. Identifying the chemical and physical site characteristics, locating the ground water contaminant plume in three dimensions, and determining aquifer and soil properties are necessary in designing an effective ground water pumping strategy. Surfactant-enhanced recovery are most applicable for contaminated sites with enhanced dense, nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs). Drawdown pumping is effective for NAPL recovery when the aquifer has moderate to high hydraulic conductivity and a thick layer of low-viscosity NAPL. An aquifer with high hydraulic conductivity gives less flow resistance of NAPL into the well. A thick layer of NAPL allows the pumping system to collect a high proportion of NAPL in relation to the amount of ground water. For best operation, the NAPL thickness should be sufficient to completely cover the pump suction port. Drawdown pumping is a commercially available technology that can be easily implemented with conventional pumps in wells or trenches. System installation costs are low to moderate, but the cost per amount of NAPL recovered varies greatly. |
|
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of ground water pumping as part of the remedial process:
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of surfactant-enhanced recovery:
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of drawdown pumping:
|
|
Data Needs: Collecting as much background site data as possible, obtaining accurate information on the type of contaminants present, and determining the hydrogeological nature of the site are essential. Contaminant information needed consists of: 1) source characterization, including the volume released, the area infiltrated, and duration of release; 2) concentration distribution of contaminants and naturally occurring chemicals in the ground water and soil; and 3) processes affecting plume development, such as chemical and biological reactions influencing contaminant mobility. Hydrogeologic information include determining the size of the contaminated aquifer, depth to water table, hydraulic conductivity of the surrounding aquifer material, impermeable units and confining layers, ground water flow direction and velocity, recharge and discharge areas, seasonal variations of ground water conditions, and local ground water use. Methods for determining aquifer properties include a slug test, pump test, and a borehole flowmeter test. The pump test consists of pumping one well and measuring the water level response of surrounding wells. A slug test measures the rate at which water level in one well returns to its initial state after inducing a rapid water level change by introducing or with drawing a volume of water. The borehole flowmeter test measures flow direction and rate in a borehole. |
|
Performance Data: DOE has developed and tested many pump and treat technologies for hazardous waste removal over the past twenty years. Performance data on some of the most recent DOE sites can be in the Technology Application Analyses and site information below. |
|
Cost: Cost data varies from site to site for ground water pump and treat technology. Recent cost data on a few of DOE's sites can be found below in the links to the Technology Application Analyses and in the site information. Additional cost information can be found in the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes (HTRW) Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS) developed by Environmental Historical Cost Committee of Interagency Cost Estimation Group.
|
|
References: Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field Scale Demonstration Project in North America, 2nd Edition Abstracts
of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4, June 2000, EPA
542-R-00-006 EPA, 1988, Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, OSWER- 9355.3-01, Washington, DC EPA, 1988, Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Groundwater at Superfund Sites, EPA/540/G-88/003. EPA, 1989, Evaluation of Groundwater Extraction Remedies OSWER, Washington, DC EPA, 1989. Performance of Pump-and-Treat Remediations, EPA/540/4-89/005. EPA , 1990. A Guide to Pump and Treat Groundwater Remediation Technology, EPA/540/2-90/018. EPA, 1992. Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-Treat Remediation, EPA/540/S-92/001; NTIS: PB92-180074. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment, EPA/542/R-95/003.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents), EPA/542/R-98/013
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Solvents), EPA/542/R-98/014
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, EPA/542/R-98/015.
Keely, J.F., 1989. "Performance of Punp-and-Treat Remediations," EPA/540/4-89/005. |
|
Site Information:
Points of Contact:
Technology Specific Web Sites:
Vendor Information:
A list of vendors offering Water Containment Treatment is available from EPA REACH IT which combines information from three established EPA databases, the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT), the Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies System (Vendor FACTS), and the Innovative Treatment Technologies (ITT), to give users access to comprehensive information about treatment and characterization technologies and their applications. Health and Safety:
|
Notice | |
Foreword | |
Report Documentation Page | |
Acknowledgement | |
Objectives | |
Background | |
How to use this document | |
Natural Resources | |
Cautionary Notes | |
Online Survey |
Presumptive Remedies | |
Data Requirements | |
Nonhalogenated VOCs | |
Halogenated VOCs | |
Nonhalogenated SVOCs | |
Halogenated SVOCs | |
Fuels | |
Inorganics | |
Radionuclides | |
Explosives |
Soil,Sed.,Bedrock & Sludge | |
In Situ Biological | |
In Situ Phys/Chem | |
In Situ Thermal | |
Ex Situ Biological | |
Ex Situ Phys/Chem | |
Ex Situ Thermal | |
Containment | |
Other Treatment | |
Ground,Surf. H2O,Leachate | |
In Situ Biological | |
In Situ Phys/Chem | |
Ex Situ Biological | |
Ex Situ Phys/Chem | |
Containment | |
Off Gas & Air Emissions | |
Biofiltration | |
High Energy Destruction | |
Membrane Separation | |
Oxidation | |
Scrubbers | |
Carbon Adsorption |
Document Sources | |
Listing by Author | |
Listing of Websites |
A. Vendors | |
B. Site Projects | |
C. Federal Databases | |
D. Factors Affecting Treat. | |
E. Source Documents | |
F. Synonyms |
Site Map | |
Screening Matrix | |
Synonym List | |
Search | |
Contact Us | |
Disclaimer, Privacy, and Security Notice |
Soil,Sed.,Bedrock & Sludge | |
Gr. & Surf. H2O, Leachate | |
Air Emissions/Off-Gases |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Techs for H2O | |
Techs for Air Emissions | |
Treatment Train |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Techs for H2O | |
Techs for Air Emissions | |
Treatment Train |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Techs for H2O | |
Techs for Air Emissions | |
Treatment Train |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Techs for H2O | |
Treatment Train |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Techs for H2O | |
Treatment Train |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Techs for H2O | |
Treatment Train |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Techs for H2O | |
Treatment Train |
Properties & Behavior | |
Techs for Soil | |
Biological Techs | |
Thermal Techs | |
Other Techs | |
Common Techs | |
Treatment Train |
Bioventing | |
Enhanced Bioremediation | |
Phytoremediation |
Chemical Oxidation | |
Electrokinetic Sep. | |
Fracturing | |
Soil Flushing | |
Soil Vapor Extraction | |
Solidification/Stabilization |
Thermal Treatment |
Biopiles | |
Composting | |
Landfarming | |
Slurry Phase |
Chemical Extraction | |
Chemical RedOx | |
Dehalogenation | |
Separation | |
Soil Washing | |
Solidification/Stabilization |
Hot Gas Decon. | |
Incineration | |
OB/OD | |
Pyrolysis | |
Thermal Desorption |
Landfill Cap | |
Landfill Cap Enhancements |
Off-Site Disposal |
Enhanced Biodegradation | |
Natural Attenuation | |
Phytoremediation |
Air Sparging | |
Bioslurping | |
Chemical Oxidation | |
Directional Wells | |
Dual Phase Extraction | |
Thermal Treatment | |
Hydrofracturing | |
Air Stripping | |
Treatment Walls |
Bioreactors | |
Constructed Wetlands |
Adsorption/Absorption | |
Adv. Oxidation Processes | |
Air Stripping | |
GAC | |
Ground Water Pumping | |
Ion Exchange | |
Prec./Coag./Flocc. | |
Separation | |
Sprinkler Irrigation |
Physical Barriers | |
Deep Well Injection |