groundwater remediation project
out of 21
Post on 28-Nov-2014
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONWater Air Soil Pollution 136: 11- 31 2002
- 1. DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A FUNNEL AND GATE IN-SITU PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER FOR REMEDIATION OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN GROUNDWATER TERRY McGOVERN1 , TURLOUGH F. GUERIN2 , STUART HORNER1 and BRENT DAVEY3 1 SRS Australia Pty. Ltd., Environmental Consultants, Werribee, Victoria, Australia; 2 Shell Engineering, NSW State Ofce, P.O. Box 26, Rosehilly, New South Wales 2142, Australia; 3 Prpic Davey Consulting, Murrumbeena, Victoria, Australia ( author for correspondence, e-mail: email@example.com, phone: 61-417-124453) (Received 27 November 2000; accepted 4 April 2001)Abstract. A white spirit spill at a factory site located in a residential area of south eastern Australialed to contamination of shallow groundwater that fed into a nearby river. The contaminated ground-water contained toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene and n-alkanes in the C6 C36 fraction range. Afunnel and gate permeable reactive barrier was designed and built, based on preliminary pilot scaletests using peat as the medium for the gate and the work conducted is presented as a case study.The technical effectiveness of the funnel and gate, over the 10 month operating period in which datawas collected, indicates that peat represents an effective material for use in the gate component offunnel and gate remedial systems. The application of the funnel and gate technology represented asubstantial saving to the client and was effective in preventing ongoing pollution of the nearby river.The construction of the funnel and gate system also incurred the minimum disturbance to the publicaccess areas between the facility and the river.Keywords: case study, dissolved phase, efciency, groundwater, passive remediation, peat, per-meable barriers, petroleum hydrocarbons, remediation, sparging 1. IntroductionTreatment walls, or permeable reactive barriers, rst reported by McMurty andElton (1985), involve construction of permanent, semi-permanent, or replaceableunits across the ow path of a dissolved phase contaminant plume (Starr andCherry, 1994; Vidic and Pohland, 1996). As the contaminated groundwater movespassively through the treatment wall, contaminants are removed by physical, chem-ical and/or biological processes, including precipitation, sorption, oxidation/reduc-tion, xation, or degradation. These barriers may contain agents that are placedeither in the path of contaminant plumes to prevent further migration or immedi-ately downgradient of the contaminant source to prevent plume formation (Vidicand Pohland, 1996). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 136: 1131, 2002. 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
- 2. 12 T. McGOVERN ET AL. Several methods have been developed for the installation of permeable treat-ment walls (Eykholt and Sivavec, 1995; Steimle, 1995). The majority of experiencewith installation of these walls is with relatively shallow emplacements (
View more >