zero valence iron permeable reactive barrier assessment of zero valence iron permeable reactive...

Download Zero Valence Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier   Assessment of Zero Valence Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier Projects In California Prepared by: John Muegge Office of Pollution Prevention And Technology Development

Post on 10-Mar-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • An Assessment of

    Zero Valence Iron

    Permeable Reactive Barrier Projects

    In California

    Prepared by:

    John Muegge

    Office of Pollution Prevention And Technology Development

    California Department of Toxic Substances Control

    April 22, 2008

    Final Report 4/22/20081

    Document No. 1219

  • This report was prepared by the staff of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Green Technology. The Principal Investigator for this report was John Muegge. Other contributors included Paul Hadley and John Wesnousky.

    This report would not have been possible without the support and contributions of the following project managers, consultants and their respective organizations:

    Peter Ruttan, P.G. Scott D. Warner, CHG, CEG Department of Toxic Substances Control Sacramento, Ca

    Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Oakland, Ca

    Alejandro Galdamez Miao Zang, P.E. Department of Toxic Substances Control Geomatrix Consultants Berkeley, Ca Seattle, Wa

    Francesca DOnofrio Jim Ortman Department of Toxic Substances Control Sacramento, Ca

    GeoSierra Environmental, Inc. Norcross, Ga

    Max Shahbazian, P.G. John Vogan, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Oakland, Ca

    EnviroMetal Technologies Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

    Adriana Constantinescu Michael Dukes San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ARCADISOakland, Ca Richmond, Ca

    Charles H. Orwig James K. Henderson DuPont Corporate Remediation Group DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Houston, Tx Charlotte, NC

    Final Report 4/22/20082

  • Table of Contents

    Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 8

    1.1 Dehalogenation of Chlorinated Compounds by Zero Valent Iron..................... 8 1.2 The Basic Zero Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier.................................. 9 1.3 Projects in California ...................................................................................... 10

    2 PRB Design Comparison Calculations............................................................. 13 2.1 PRB Comparison Calculation Summary .......................................................... 15

    3 Site Performance Reviews ................................................................................... 16 3.1 Evaluation of the Alameda NAS PRB Project.................................................. 16 3.2 Evaluation of the BP-Hitco Permeable Reactive Barrier Project ................... 19 3.3 Evaluation of the DuPont Oakley PRB Project ............................................... 28 3.4 Evaluation of the Fairchild / Applied Materials PRB Project......................... 54 3.5 Evaluation of the Intersil Permeable Reactive Barrier Project....................... 62 3.6 Evaluation of the Moffett Field PRB Project ................................................... 75 3.7 Evaluation of the Mohawk Laboratory PRB.................................................... 82 3.8 Evaluation of the Sierra Army Depot PRB Project - GeoSierra ................... 122 3.9 Evaluation of the Sierra Army Depot PRB Project - ARS Technologies ....... 128 3.10 Evaluation of the Travis AFB PRB Project ................................................... 138

    4 Findings ................................................................................................................ 145 4.1 Design ............................................................................................................. 145 4.2 Performance.................................................................................................... 145 4.3 Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 146 4.4 Cost ................................................................................................................. 146

    5 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 147 5.1 Design ............................................................................................................. 147 5.2 Performance.................................................................................................... 147 5.3 Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 147

    Final Report 4/22/20083

  • Tables

    Table 1 ZVI Permeable Reactive Barrier Projects Reviewed......................................... 11 Table 2 Projects Considered but not Reviewed .............................................................. 12 Table 3 Chlorinated Compound Half Lives in ZVI ........................................................ 14 Table 4 ZVI Wall Thickness Design Equations for Chlorinated Compounds............... 14 Table 5 Design Parameters and Wall Thickness............................................................. 15 Table 6 Design Factor Color Code Key.......................................................................... 15 Table 7 BP Hitco Monitoring Well Details .................................................................... 21 Table 8 DuPont Oakley Geologic Layers ....................................................................... 28 Table 9 DuPont Oakley PRB Monitoring Wells............................................................. 37 Table 10 Intersil Monitoring Well Specifications .......................................................... 69 Table 11 California MCLs ............................................................................................... 70 Table 12 Mohawk Remedial Activities .......................................................................... 87 Table 13 Panel Design Parameters and Calculations...................................................... 90 Table 14 Mohawk PRB Panel Specifications ................................................................. 91 Table 15 Mohawk Monitoring Well Specifications........................................................ 94 Table 16 Transect Performance against Design Targets............................................... 115 Table 17 % Reduction TCE, DCE Across Barrier........................................................ 116 Table 18 Mohawk Performance Monitoring Criteria .................................................... 120 Table 19 Sierra Army Depot Monitoring Wells - ARS Technologies.......................... 133

    Final Report 4/22/20084

  • Figures

    Figure 1 Reactive Barrier Schematic ................................................................................. 9 Figure 2 Plan View of Alameda Funnel and Gate PRB System...................................... 17 Figure 3 Alameda PRB Cross Section View ................................................................... 17 Figure 4 BP Hitco Monitoring Well Layout .................................................................... 20 Figure 5 BP Hitco TCE Concentration, 30 ft. Wells ....................................................... 22 Figure 6 BP Hitco PCE Concentration, 30 ft. Wells........................................................ 23 Figure 7 BP Hitco TCE Concentrations, 50 ft. Wells...................................................... 24 Figure 8 BP Hitco PCE Concentrations, 50 ft. Wells ..................................................... 25 Figure 9 BP Hitco TCE Concentrations, 70 ft. Wells..................................................... 26 Figure 10 DuPont Oakley Groundwater Contamination Plumes..................................... 29 Figure 11 Upper Aquifer Carbon Tetrachloride Concentrations at DuPont Oakley ....... 30 Figure 12 Lower Aquifer Carbon Tetrachloride Concentrations at DuPont Oakley ....... 31 Figure 13 Azimuth Controlled Vertical Hydrofracturing ................................................ 33 Figure 14 Two Injection Well Hydrofracturing Schematic ............................................. 33 Figure 15 Two Well / 4 Level Injection Schematic......................................................... 34 Figure 16 DuPont Oakley PRB Project ........................................................................... 36 Figure 17 DuPont Oakley Geology and Project Placement............................................. 36 Figure 18 PRB Location and Monitoring Wells .............................................................. 38 Figure 19 Upper Aquifer (20 50 bgs) Transect 1 CT Concentrations......................... 41 Figure 20 Upper Aquifer (20 50 bgs) Transect 1 Chloroform Concentrations......... 42 Figure 21 Upper Aquifer (20 50 bgs) Transect 3 CT Concentrations....................... 43 Figure 22 Upper Aquifer (20 50 bgs) Transect 3 Chloroform Concentrations.......... 44 Figure 23 L1/L2 Aquifer (52 90 bgs) Transect 1 CT Concentrations........................ 45 Figure 24 L1/L2 Aquifer (52-90 bgs) Transect 1 Chloroform Concentrations.............. 46 Figure 25 L1/L2 Aquifer (52 90 bgs) Transect 2 CT Concentrations........................ 47 Figure 26 L1/L2 Aquifer (52 90 bgs) Transect 2 Chloroform Concentrations........... 48 Figure 27 L3 Aquifer (92-120 bgs) Transect 2 CT Concentrations............................... 50 Figure 28 L3 Aquifer (92-120 bgs) Transect 2 Chloroform Concentrations ................. 52 Figure 29 Fairchild/Applied Materials at 974 East Arques Ave..................................... 55 Figure 30 PRB Monitoring Well Locations.................................................................... 56 Figure 31 Fairchild/Applied Material c

Recommended

View more >