Develop Installation Restoration
Design Technical Guidance
Remediation Alternatives Data
Draft
May 21, 1996
Requests for this document shall be referred to:
Commander, U.S. Army Armament Research
Development & Engineering Center
Industrial Ecology Center
ATTN: AMSTA-AR-ET, Building 172
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
Contract No. DAAA21-93-C-0046
Task No. N.073
CDRL No. A005
Submitted by
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
1450 Scalp Avenue
Johnstown, PA 15904
Table B-1. Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction Site Characteristics
Site Name
Site Location
Soil Type
Confidential Client
Oakland, CA
Naval Air Station;
Building 538 NEX
Service Station
Brunswick, Maine
Silty sand, sandy clay
and gravel; Fine
grain organic silts
and clays
Silty fine to medium
sand
BP Denison Avenue
Site
Cleveland, OH
Village Market
Silver Springs, Lyon
County, NV
Loading Yard,
Electronic
Component
Manufacturing
Facility
Solvent Spill
Connecticut
Savannah River
Europe
Depth to Water
Table
Size of Site
Contaminants
Present
Clean-up Level
Achieved
8-15 ft
500 ft x 500 ft;
15 ft BG
BTEX; TPH;
benzene
8 ft BG
150 ft horizontally
4-20 ft vertically
TPH gas(35 g/L)
TPH fuel (460 g/L)
BTEX & MTBE (05.3 g/L)
BTEX
TPH
Hydrocarbons
BTEX
Vapor concentrations
reduced from 11,000
ppmv to below 1,000
ppmv in 8 months
Improving site
conditions (on-going)
Interfingered silt and
silty clay; Sands and
sandy silt
Loose clayey
sand/silt mixture;
Stiff, rhythmic
bedded clayey
silt/silty clay; Dense
to very dense, fine to
coarse, arkosick sand
Stratified sand and
gravel, fine sands and
silts
15-25 ft
Quaternary sand and
gravel, silty sands
Sand, slit, clay
27 ft
36-38 ft
19 ft.
135 ft
408 ft x 300 ft;
38 ft BG
2,000 ft2; 20-30 ft BG
330 ft BG
TCE
DCA
TCA
tetrachloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
TCE; PCE
TCE; PCE
Table B-1. Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction Site Characteristics (Continued)
Benzene decreased from
11,013 ppb to nondetect
in 4 months; In 5
months, 1842 gallons of
fuel extracted
Pilot test only; 4 lb
contaminants removed in
4 weeks
99.18% total reduction
of VOCs in 3 months
98-43.03% TCE
reduction
96.47-32.6% PCE
reduction
Site Name
Dry Cleaning
Facility
Naval Air
Engineering
Station; Sites 16 &
17,
Area C
Fort Lewis,
Landfill No. 4
Site Location
Soil Type
Depth to Water
Table
Fill, coarse sand,
natural clay barrier
Sandy with organic
matter
13 ft
Washington
Coarse sand and
gravel
40 ft
Kincheloe AFB
Picatinny Arsenal
Kinross, Michigan
Gasoline Service
Station
Pawtucket, RI
Permeable sands
Medium to coarse
sand; Fine to very
fine sand and silt
Fine-coarse brown
sand with no silt;
Fine to medium
gravel’ Less
permeable
brown/grey wellsorted, dense, fine
sand
Interbedded silty
sand & poorly
graded fine gravel,
underlain by a silty
clay aquitard at a
depth of approx. 18
ft. BG
Amcor Precast
Lakehurst, NJ
Ogden, Utah
Size of Site
Contaminants
Present
PCE; TCE; DCE;
TPH
TPH - 5-9,000 ppm
at depths of 2-5 ft.
6 ft
Clean-up Level
Achieved
98% reduction in total
VOCs after 124 days.
300 ft diameter
TCE: 0.034-0.150
ppm
DCE: 0.012 ppm
VC: 0.0048 ppm
1,000 ft x 15,000 ft;
40 ft BG
TCE
15-25 ft BG
BTEX
>95% reduction in 2
months
30,000 ft2 ; 18 ft. BG
TPH: 51-190
Benzene: 1.3-4.7
Toluene: 2.4-9.4
Ethylbenzene: 0.782.7
Total Xylenes: 2.5-8
Naphthalene: 0.180.63
All clean-up levels
achieved
Pilot test only
8-12 ft
15.5-16 ft
5-11 ft.
Table B-1. Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction Site Characteristics (Continued)
Site Name
Site Location
Chicago, IL Site
Chicago, IL
Service Station
St. Martinsville, LA
Kenersville, NC
Site
Kenersville, NC
Furniture
Manufacturing
Facility
Conservancy Site
Liberty, NC
Belen, NM
Soil Type
Clayey surficial
sediments followed
by a plastic clay with
a trace course
grained material
Clay & silty clays;
stiff clay with silt;
clayey silts
Unconsolidated
deposits of silty sand
& clayey silt; some
areas of fill material
Silty & clay; silt &
trace sand
Silty sand, interfering
clay layer
Depth to Water
Table
Size of Site
Contaminants
Present
PCE, TCE, TCA, &
several other
DNAPLs
10.5 ft
17.5-20 ft BG
4-10 ft
6.5 ft
8,000 ft2
2,400 2 GW
1,500 ft2 soil
33” thick
Clean-up Level
Achieved
75% reduction in first 4
months
Dissolved phase
petroleum
hydrocarbons
Toluene
Acetone; 2-butanone;
Ethylbenzene;
Toluene; Xylenes
BTEX; Benzene;
Toluene; Xylenes
59% benzene reduction
66% toluene reduction
54% ethylbenzene
reduction
49% xylene reduction
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Scott Cuppett
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-2856/cuppett@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/4/96 data; 3/11/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
“Confidential Client”
3.
Address:
Oakland, CA
Information Source
1.
Name:
Tom Brunsing, Brunsing Associates, Inc.
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
707-838-3027
4.
Fax:
707-838-4420
5.
E-mail Address:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Silty sand, sandy clay, and gavel
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
8–15 ft
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
Fine grain organic silts and clays
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
7-8 ft bsg
Contaminants Present
1.
2.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
Horizontal Extent of Site: 500’X500’
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
15’
40–80F
leaded/unleaded gasoline UST
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
Gasoline BTEX
TPH (nondetect -9 mg/L)
Benzene (nondetect - 4,400 g/L)
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
III.
Page 3
TPH (10-5,000 mg/kg)
Benzene ( 14-41,000 g/kg)
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
Performed a bench scale test prior to equipment start-up.
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
Design Tools:
Page 4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate:
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval: 5–10’
Screen Type:
slotted
Number and Spacing:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
RSI
PVC
2”
15’
12 variable, 60 ft centers
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
$45K
$3K/month
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
15 ft (variable)
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Continuous
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
3.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Internal combustion engine & catalytic converters.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
V.
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Page 7
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
excavation
bio insitu
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
B.
gasoline & BTEX – shallow ground water; many site improvements and yard
needed excavation options.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE: None
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2 years (December 1993 - December 1995)
2.
Other:
70% of time
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
3.
Must balance vacuum to ground water depth.
Through March 1994, no supplemental fuel was required to operate the internal
combustion engine.
Why was the Technology Successful?
VI.
During the first 8 months of operation, vapor concentrations changed from 11,000
ppmv to below 1,000 ppmv. Through August 1994, approximately 325 gallons of
gasoline were extracted and burned as fuel.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Page 8
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
$210/month for propane +
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
4/5/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
Naval Air Station
2.
Facility Name:
Naval Air Station; Building 538 NEX Service Station
3.
Address:
Brunswick, Maine
Information Source
1.
Name:
Michael S. Battle
2.
Address:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
The Maple Bldg, 3 Washington Ctr.
Newburgh, NY 12550
3.
Phone:
(914) 565-8100
4.
Fax:
(914) 565-9203
5.
E-mail Address:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Silty fine to medium sand
2.
Unified Soil Classification: SP
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis: N/A
4.
Moisture Content:
N/A
-7
5.
Air Permeability: 1.5 x 10 cm2
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
~.30
~8 ft below grade
N/A
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
silty f-m sand
2.
Unified Soil Classification: SP
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
8.6x10-6 cm/sec
4.
Transmissivity:
N/A
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
0.011 ft/ft
6.
Porosity:
~0.30
7.
Aquifer Type:
unconfined
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site: ~150 ft
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
4–20 ft
0F–100F
gasoline spill
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
TPH as gas (35 g/L)
TPH as fuel oil (460 g/L)
BTEX and MTBE (nondetect - 5.3 g/L)
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
III.
Page 3
TPH as gas (6 g/kg)
TPH as fuel oil (10 g/kg)
BTEX and MTBE (1.3-2.6 g/kg)
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
Access effectiveness of remedial technologiesradius of influence, VOC removal
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
Injection
b.
Pipe Type:
PVC
c.
Pipe Diameter:
2-inch
d.
Depth:
7–19 ft (to top of clay unit at depth)
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
Above clay unit. Hi-flow PVC
g.
Number and Spacing:
10 total sparge wells; 30 ft radial influence spacing
2 ft screens–0.010 slot nominally
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate: 127–183 cfm
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
3 May–7 June 1994
Vacuum (psi)
<5 psi
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
N/A
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Inject ambient air beneath zone of dissolved-phased VOC
Pipe Type:
PVC
Pipe Diameter:
2 in
Depth:
7–19 ft
Screen Interval: 2 ft (i.e., 5–7 ft17–19 ft)
Screen Type:
Hi-flow machine slotted PVC
Number and Spacing:
10 wells with 30 ft (maximum)
Other:
Assumed radius of influence
Page 4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
See section VI
See section VI
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
165 cfm @ 4 psi
Air Flow Rate: 10–20 cfm per well (5 running at once)
Operating Pressure:
2–5 psi
Operating Temperature: ~150F
Steam Inclusion: N/A
Other:
In-line flow meters, gauges, pressure regulators
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
C.
Page 5
M-D pneumatics 40005A positive displacement blower
5.
Capital Cost:
~15 K
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
See section VI
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Recovery of VOC-laden soil vapor
Pipe Type:
PVC
Pipe Diameter:
4 in
Depth:
3–4 ft below grade
Screen Interval: Lateral SVE trenches 30 – 60 ft
Screen Type:
0.010-in factory slotted PVC
Number and Spacing:
5 total
Other: Horizontal SVE trenches due to shallow depth to ground
water
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
Page 6
Design Tools:
Regression analysis to assess radius of influence
D.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
See Section VI
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
tank field soils
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
Full coverage (vacuum) across target AAS area, and old
Operating Vacuum: 0–20 in vacuum per line (5 total)
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
4 ft below grade, ~0.10 in H 2O
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Cont.
Other:
500 SCFM @ 30 in H2O
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
Rotron EN12 15 HP Blower
E.
5.
Capital Cost:
~20 K
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Maintenance costs minimal. See section VI for operating costs.
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
100 lbs/day
Total volatile Hydrocarbons
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
500 cfm
1,800 lb granular activated carbon vessel
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Page 7
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
None required
b.
Monitoring:
Twice/month with PID
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
~4 K
~6–8 K/yr
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
Ground water pump & treat
Excavation and off-site disposal
Bioremediation.
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
B.
Capability of removing VOC from subsurface
Minimize disruption of site
Low well yields on site.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE: N/A
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
SVE:
Nov. 1993Present
SVE/AAS:
July 1995Present
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
3.
Reliable equipment
Low maintenance
Why was the Technology Successful?
VI.
Page 8
Favorable site conditions. Ongoing; but is improving soil and ground water quality.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
N/A
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Fixed price
$12,000
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Fixed price
~$110,000
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Time and materials
~$200,000
For period 11/93–6/96
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Scott Cuppett
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-2856/cuppett@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Commercial
BP Denison Avenue Site
Cleveland, Ohio
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source: Clark, J.R., R.E. Chaudet, and R.L. Johnson. “Assessing UST Corrective Action
Technologies: Lessons Learned about In Situ Air Sparging at the Denison Avenue Site,
Cleveland, Ohio.” Project Summary. EPA/600/SR-95/040. March 1995.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Interfingered silt & silty clay
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
15–25 ft (avg = 19)
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Aquifer 2
Sands and sandy silt
4–7 ft
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
UST leak
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
Page 3
BTEX
TPH
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
[HC]
III.
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
5.
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
IV.
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
4”
Depth:
~1–4 ft
Screen Interval: .010” – 5 ft in length
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
6
Other:
Design Tools:
Page 4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate:
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Used to remove HC from vadose zone when neg. pressure is applied.
Pipe Type:
40 PVC – .010” gaps
Pipe Diameter:
4”
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
2
Other:
Design Tools:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
B.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
2 years
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
VI.
The difficult interpretation of the data resulting in the placement of wells has a major
impact on the performance data collected.
BTEX cannot be the sole indicator of performance
Additional insight through DO and pressure, contaminant indicator.
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Page 8
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Scott Cuppett
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-2856/cuppett@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
2/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
Commercial
2.
Facility Name:
Village Market (gas station/convenience store)
3.
Address:
Silver Springs, Lyon County, Nevada
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source: Henkle & Associates. “A Synoptic Review of Project Located in Silver Springs,
Lyon County, Nevada.”
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Loose clayey sand silt mixture to 5-8 ft.; then stiff, rhythmic bedded clayey
silt/silty clay to 20-25 ft.
2.
Unified Soil Classification: SM/SC; ML/CL
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
36-38 ft.
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Aquifer 2
Dense to very dense, fine to coarse, arkosic sand (40-45 ft.)
.01 ft/ft
Contaminants Present
1.
2.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
Horizontal Extent of Site: 400 ft x 300 ft.
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
38 ft.
10-100 oF
UST diesel and gasoline leaks
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
4a.
Annual Precipitation:
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
III.
Page 3
4 inches
Benzene
11,103 ppb
Toluene
1,000 ppb
Xylenes
2,248 ppb
Ethyl Benzene
213 ppb
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
Sand
Silt
Gasoline Plume 26,617
75
Diesel
38,456
131
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
PVC
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval: 2’ below water table
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
10
Other:
Page 4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
RSI S.A.V.E.™ II System
$70,146 (includes installation)
$3.46/hr (includes maint/tech support/nrg consumpt)
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate:
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other: Powered by internal combustion engine
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
RSI S.A.V.E.™ II System
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
PVC
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
2”
8
RSI S.A.V.E.™ II System
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: Powered by internal combustion engine
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
RSI S.A.V.E.™ II System
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
0.6 lb total VOCs/hr.
Type: Internal combustion engine
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
Page 7
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
During operation, remained well below the limit of
0.6 lbs total VOC/hr.
b.
Monitoring:
At beginning, had to monitor monthly. Because of
remediation results, cut back to quarterly.
V.
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
RSI S.A.V.E.™ II System
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Pump and treat
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
B.
Chosen after extensive literature review and feasibility study.
Good for remediating vadose zone sands & groundwater plume.
Excavation/thermal remediation.
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
January 1994 - Early 1995 (projected)
good
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
3.
Cone of depression formed after 1 month.
Why was the Technology Successful?
VI.
Page 8
Benzene decreased from 11,013 ppb to nondetect in 4 months.
In 5 months, 1,842 gallons of fuel extracted.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Fixed
$70,176 (capital, including installation)
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
$3.46/hr. (including maintenance, technical support, and energy
consumption)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Scott Cuppett
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-2856/cuppett@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
Loading Yard, Electronic Component
Manufacturing Facility
Address:
Connecticut
3.
B.
Commercial
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source: Martin, Linda M., Richard J. Sarnelli, and Matthew T. Walsh. “Pilot Scale
Evaluation of Groundwater Air Sparging: Site-Specific Advantages and Limitations.”
Vadose Zone Remediation and Air Sparging. pp. 318-327.
Source: Johnson, R.L., P.C. Johnson, D.B. McWhorter, R.E. Hinchee, and I. Goodman.
“An Overview of In Situ Air Sparging.” GWMR. Fall 1993. pp 127-133.
6a.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Stratified sand and gravel
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
19 ft.
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
Fine sands and silts
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
0.0001-0.005 ft/ft
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site: 2,000 ft2
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
20-30 ft. below grade
Aquifer 2
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
trichloroethene (TCE) - 0.76-11.0 mg/L
also detected; 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA);
tetrachloroethane; and carbon tetrachloride
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
III.
Page 3
TCE 0.63-3.9 ppm
Xylenes 4,000 ppm
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
To evaluate the effectiveness in remediating saturated zone soils contaminated with
VOCs which are impacting ground water quality.
To determine full-scale operating parameters.
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose
b.
Pipe Type:
40 PVC
c.
Pipe Diameter:
1.5”
d.
Depth:
2-3 ft. above
table)
e.
Screen Interval:
3.
4.
Extraction
Injection
25–40 ft
40 PVC
2”
15–17 ft (5 ft. section
approx.
water
2 ft. section between
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
h.
Other:
7-20 ft. below water table
Threaded flush joint
Threaded flush joint
screen (10 slot)
screen (20 slot)
7, 15-20 ft. apart 2
Riser with silica to 1 ft.
Riser with silica to 1 ft.
above screen
above screen
Air Sparge Pumping Rate: 5-10 cfm/well
70 cfm at 15-20
at 15-60 psi
inches of water
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
e.
Other:
40’ radius of pilot study area
1,000 lb vapor phase activated carbon bed used.
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
4 lb./4 weeks
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
e.
f.
g.
B.
C.
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
3.
a.
Air Flow Rate:
b.
Operating Pressure:
c.
Operating Temperature:
d.
Steam Inclusion:
e.
Other:
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
Page 5
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type: Activated carbon
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Ground water pump and treat
Dewatering and excavation
Bioremediation
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
B.
Cost effective; time restraints
Literature review and practical experience
Cesidual contamination in shallow staurated zone soils
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
4 weeks, continuous
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
VI.
Additional sparging/extraction wells needed to control lateral migration
Effectively mobilized VOC contamination within shallow saturated zone soils; however,
air flow was limited in vertical direction becasue of lithography.
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
Page 8
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
$82,000 (design and installation)
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
$33,000 (equipment)
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Pilot Study Cost:
$25,000 (lab analysis, etc.)
$140,000
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/5/96 data
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Solvent spill
Europe
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source:
7.
Additional Information Available From:
Middeton, A.C., D. Hiller .“In Situ Aeration of Ground
Water – A Technical Overview.” Presented at a Conference on Prevention & Treatment of Soil & Ground Water in
the Petroleum Refinery & Distribution Industry, Montreal, Quebec, Oct 16–17, 1990.
EPA/600/R-92/173. September 1992.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Quaternary sand & gravel (110 ft thick)
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
27 ft from floor of building
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
Aquifer 2
Quaternary sand & gravel to 110 feet; silty sands from 44–47 ft
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
Solvent spill
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
TCE, PCE
Total VOCs–33 ppm
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
III.
Page 3
TCE – 2,800 mg/kg
PCE – 64 mg/kg
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
37 ft
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing: 5
Other:
Page 4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate:
30 cfm (about 6 cfm/pipe)
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
2
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: Extraction flow rate – 475 cfm
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Page 7
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
B.
Ground water pump and treat
Limited success of groundwater pump and treat at this site
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
3 months (air injection started after 100 days of venting, so 6 mo. total)
2.
Other: A total of 800 mg/m3 increased to 10,00 mg/m3 VOC concen in exhaust air in 2
hours after aeration began
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
VI.
Reduction of total VOCs from 33 ppm to 0.27 ppm in 3 months (5,100 lbs)
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Page 8
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/5/96 data
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
U.S. DOE
Savannah River
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source:
7.
Additonal Information Available From:
Looney, B.B., D.S. Kaback, J.C. Corey, “Field
Demonstration of Environmental Restoration Using Horizontal Wells.” Presented at Third Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic & International, June 11–13, 1991, Dallas, TX.
EPA/600/R-92/173. September 1992.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Sand, silt, clay
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
135 ft
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Aquifer 2
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
Sewer line leak
Highest concentration at 330 ft below grade
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
III.
Page 3
TCE
PCE
0.5–1.81 ppm
0.085–0.184 ppm
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
Helium tracer test to find the recovery rate between wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
monitoring
Duration (hrs)
[20 wk total test duration for all pilot studies.]
[Another study discovered that injecting hot air does not change the contaminant removal rate.]
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
After 46 days, 45% of the Helium was
recovered.
B.
IV.
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Horizontal well chosen because it would provide more surface area to
treat the linear contamination
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
150–175 ft
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
1 horizontal, 300 ft long
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate:
165–185 cfm
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Horiz. well chosen because it would provide more surface
treat the linear contamination.
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth: 75 ft
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
1 horizontal, 205 ft long
area to
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Operating Vacuum:
130–145 in H2O
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: Vacuum extraction rate 935–1,020 cfm
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
B.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
3 months
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
VI.
Reduction in contaminants:
Initial (ppm)
TCE
0.5–1.81
PCE
0.085–0.184
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Page 8
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Final (ppm)
0.010–1.031
0.003–0.124
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/4/96 data
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Dry cleaning facility
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source:
7.
Additional Information Available From:
Brown, R. A., R. Fraxedas, Ground Water Tech. Inc. “Air
Sparging – Extending Volatilization to Contaminated Aquifers.” Symposium on Soil Venting, Robert S. Kerr, Env.
Res. Lab., Houston, TX. April 29–May 1, 1991.
EPA/600/R-92/173. September 1992.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Fill, coarse sand; natural clay barrier
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
13 feet
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Aquifer 2
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
Leaking USTs
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
III.
Page 3
PCE
TCE
DCE
TPH (total petroleum HCs)
Total VOCs–41 ppm
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
b.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
extraction only, and combination
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate: (see below)
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
cfm
10
15
20
16
24
37
(injection)
3 phases: injection only,
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
B.
IV.
Page 4
injection pressure RI (ft)
10 psi
15 psi
20 psi
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
2 feet
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
7 sparge only
Other: 7 nested sparge/vacuum
72
76
177
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Based on results of pilot study
Air Flow Rate:
225 cfm
Operating Pressure:
277 inch H2O
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
Based on results of pilot study
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
8 feet
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
1 extraction only
Other:
7 nested sparged/vacuum
Page 5
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Based on results of pilot study
Operating Vacuum:
40 in H2O
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: 500 cfm extraction flow rate
3.
Design Tools:
Based on results of pilot study
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type: GAC vapor treatment (2–1,800 lb)
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
B.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
4 months
2.
Other:
Vapor extraction system operated for 1 month prior to start-up
of air sparging system
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
In 4 months, reduced total VOCs from 41 ppm to 0.897 ppm
(after 125 days, contaminant level dropped 98%)
3.
VI.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Page 8
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
2/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Navy
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, NJ
Sites 16 and 17 at Area “C”
Information Source
1.
Name:
Joe Reiner/Mike Figura
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
Public Works Engr. Dept., Code 843200 B5-2, Naval Air
Engineering Station, Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5069
(908) 323-2612
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Sandy with organic matter
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
6 feet
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Aquifer 2
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
Fuel farm
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
III.
Page 3
TPH ranging from 5 to 9,000 ppm at depths of 2 to 5 feet
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
5.
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
IV.
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
Page 4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Air Flow Rate:
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Horizontal PVC pipe placed in shallow trenches
Pipe Type:
PVC schedule 40
Pipe Diameter:
4 inch
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
Design Tools:
Page 5
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
Combination extraction and bioventing system which will be automated
and run continuously.
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: Flow rate 10 to 50 scfm at 20 to 100 in water
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
Explosion proof 3 HP air blower
Single phase 230V electric motor
Inlet side: install pressure indicator
Outlet side: install flow control and pressure relief valves, air velocity pilot tube,
temperature indicator, and pressure indicator.
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Page 7
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
B.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
System does not have air sparging capability. Consists of combination extraction
and bioventing system.
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
Continuous operation
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
VI.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Page 8
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
2/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Army
Fort Lewis, Landfill No. 4
Washington
Information Source
1.
Name:
William Goss
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4735 E. Marginal Way S., Seattle, WA 98124-2255
(206) 764-3711
(206) 764-6795
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Coarse sand and gravel
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeablity:
High (estimate 37 darcies vertical and 370 darcies
horizontal)
B.
6.
Porosity:
High
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
40 feet
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
Sand-gravel
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
9.
Thickness
10.
Groundwater velocity:
700 ft/day
0.0015 ft/ft
Assumed effective and total = 30%
Unconfined
120 feet
3.5 ft/day
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site: 300 ft diameter
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
III.
Page 3
High 64.6F (July); Low 39.1F (January)
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
TCE
0.034–0.150
DCE
0.012
VC
0.0048
5a.
Retardation Factors
6.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
TCE = 3
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
3.
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test upper portion of upper aquifer
Injected gas: 8 psi at 150F
Rate: 36 cfm
42 cfm entering vadose zone (calculated)
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Extraction rate: 110 cfm
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Sparge - 25 ft. (dissolved oxygen analysis)
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
VC
Cleanup Levels
TCE
0.005 ppm
0.001 ppm
Air Sparge Wells
1.
2.
Design Goals:
Placed perpendicular to direction of ground water flow and in vicinity of TCE highs.
Cycle wells to insure contaminated ground water does not flow around wells.
Not run during summer season due to low levels of TCE detected.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
Pipe Type:
PVC schedule 80
Pipe Diameter:
2 in
Depth:
50 ft
Screen Interval:
45 to 50 ft
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
e.
f.
g.
B.
Page 5
Screen Type:
0.01 in slot, schedule 40 PVC
Number and Spacing:
5 wells at 50 ft spacing
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Air Flow Rate:
45 cfm injection well
Operating Pressure:
0.9993 atm
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
Design Tools:
!
"
#
3.
C.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
Extraction rate of 85 cfm per well; wells are staggered to cover larger area and minimize
stagnation zones; run year round.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
PVC schedule 80
Pipe Diameter:
4 in
Depth:
30 ft
Screen Interval:
20 to 30 ft BGS
Screen Type:
0.01 in slot, schedule 40 PVC
Number and Spacing:
6 on 50 ft centers
Other:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
Remove minimum of 1 vadose zone pore volume per day
contaminated soil)
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
Operating Vacuum:
1.5 in/well
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
Air – 3D Model
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
(for TCE
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
C.
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
3.
Important to place SVE screened interval where the contaminant is likely located.
Strategic placement of valves in the piping system help account for the heterogeneous
nature of the site.
Why was the Technology Successful?
VI.
Used passive injection wells (screened in vadose zone and open to atmosphere. They
increased vadose velocities and reduced stagnation zones.)
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Page 8
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire:
Phone Number/E-mail:
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
Heather Fennessey
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
2/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Former Air Force Base
Kincheloe Air Force Base
Kinross, Michigan
Information Source
1.
Name:
Mary Katherine O’Mara
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
US Army COE
Buffalo District, 1776 Niagara St., Buffalo, NY 14207-3199
(716) 879-4417
(716) 879-4355
mary.k.o’mara@smtp.ncd.usace.army.mil
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Permeable sands
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Aquifer 2
permeable sands
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
Fire training area
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
III.
Page 3
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
Six months long term SVE/IAS Pilot test
a.
Purpose
b.
Pipe Type:
Injection
Extraction
PVC schedule 40
(galvanized steel)
c.
Pipe Diameter:
6 in (3/4 in)
d.
Depth:
(90 ft)
e.
Screen Interval:
25 to 55 feet
(35 ft below water table)
f.
Screen Type:
0.04 in slot
(3/4 in SS pressure nozzle)
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate: 25 cfm at 17 psia
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
4a.
Other:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Install a 2 in butterfly-valve to restrict flow out of vent well. Install a pressure gauge between the valve
and the well.
SVE System Blower: 2.5 HP EG&G Rotron DR505 CD58 regenerative, 160 cfm at 15 in water pressure.
Vacuum side has moisture separator and air filter.
Air sparge compressor regulated by an Allen Bradley controller pressure side contains gate valves, an air
dryer, pressure gauge, and pressure relief valve.
SVE will vent to a 1,000 lb vapor-phase carbon vessel. Discharge is reinjected into vadose zone.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
200 ft
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Air Flow Rate:
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
Page 5
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
C.
VI.
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Page 8
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Scott W. Cuppett
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-2856/cuppett@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
5/96 SITE VISIT
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Army
Picatinny Arsenal
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Jeff Fischer
USGS
New Jersey Disrtict Office
Water Resources Division
Mountain View Office Park
810 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 206
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Phone:609-771-3953
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Medium to coarse sand
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
10-30%
8-12 ft.
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Aquifer 2
Fine to very fine sand and silt
5-20 ft/day
0.002 ft/ft
Sand
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site: 1,000 x 15,000 ft.
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
approx. 40ft.
approx. 45oF
Degreasing operations
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
III.
Page 3
TCE - 25 ppm
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test - ONLY
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Well in zone of highest contamination.
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Steel
Pipe Diameter: 2 inch
Depth:
57-59 ft.
48-50 ft.
Screen Interval: 2 ft.
Screen Type:
Wire wrapped
Number and Spacing:
3, 3 ft. apart
Other:
40-42 ft.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air velocity transducers pressure gauges.
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate: 5-10 cfm
Operating Pressure:
15-35 psi
Operating Temperature: 45oF
Steam Inclusion:
Other: Methane for biodegradation
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
$4K
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Capture all air going down.
Pipe Type:
PVC
Pipe Diameter: 2”
Depth:
9 ft.
Screen Interval: 9-11 ft.
Screen Type:
Wire wrapped PVC
Number and Spacing:
9 at 30 ft. apart
Other:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
20-80 cfm
Operating Vacuum:
10 in water
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
0.5 psi
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
6 months
$6K
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type: Calgon GAC
< 1 lb/hr TCE
Design Parameters
a.
Flow Through Rate:
b.
c.
Residence Time:
Other:
80-100 cfm; 50 cfm per two parrallel
canisters
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Page 7
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
< 1 lb/hr. of TCE
4.
Design Tools:
Calgon GAC
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Surfactant use, contaminant stuck to sediment.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
B.
C.
Methane
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Groundwater pump and treat with air stripping.
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
Lessons Learned
1 year
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
Information based on pilot scale tests.
VI.
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
USGS
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
USGS
$35-40K (equipment)
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
USGS
$10K annual
Page 8
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/4/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
Commercial
2.
Facility Name:
Gasoline Service Station
3.
Address:
Pawtucket, RI
Information Source
1.
Name:
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source: Marley, Michael C. Vapex Environmental Technologies, Inc. “Air Sparging in
Conjunction with Vapor Extraction for Source Removal at VOC Spill Sites.” 5th National
Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Groundwater Monitoring, and
Geophysical Methods, Las Vegas, NV, May 1991. ALSO: EPA/600/R-92/173. September
1992.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Fine-coarse brown sand with no silt.
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
15.5-16 ft. (seasonal fluctuation of 3 ft.)
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
Aquifer 2
1.
Soil Type:
5-15% fine-medium gravel extending from 19-20 ft. below
grade; then less permeable brown/grey well-sorted, dense, fine sand
C.
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
15-25 ft. below grade
Gasoline spill
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
6.
BTEX - up to 38 ppm in 1987; 29 ppm in 1989 at start-up of air sparging with SVE
system.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
III.
Page 3
Non-detectable
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
Determine the design parameters.
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3 monitoring points
Injection
18-20 ft. below grade
2 test air injection wells approx. 40 ft. apart;
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate: 100 cfm extraction; 10-20 cfm injection
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
5 ft.
300 ppm by volume
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth: 18-20 ft. for shallows; 25-27 ft. for deep
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
7 shallow; 6 deep
Other: 3 hours on, 9 hours off
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Designed as a result of pilot study.
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate: 3-6 cfm for shallow; 2-6 cfm for deep
Operating Pressure:
28-55” water for shallow; 166-222” water
for deep
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other: Deep wells 6 hours on, 6 hours off
3.
Design Tools:
designed as a result of the pilot study.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
2 or 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Designed as a result of the pilot study.
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
Operating Vacuum:
6-8 psi
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: 2-6 cfm extraction on flow rate (6 hrs on/6 hrs off)
3.
Design Tools:
Designed as a result of the pilot study.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
3.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Regulatory Provisions
pulsed
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
V.
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Page 7
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Groundwater pump and treat used from 1985-1989. However, contaminants also
existed below the water table level.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
B.
C.
Limited success of groundwater pump and treat at this site (inadequate to meet
closure criteria).
Can treat contaminants below the waste table; time restraints; cost/benefit analysis.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Ground water pump and treat
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
Lessons Learned
2 months (May 21-July 14, 1990)
Maintained a volume injection/extraction ratio of 5:1.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
VI.
Aeration did not seem to effect aquifer characteristics (e.g. pH, redox potential)
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
BTEX reduction 21 ppm to < 1 ppm in 2 months (well below the established closure
criteria)
5-10 lbs. gasoline removed from groundwater and soils in 60 days.
Within 2-3 weeks, the cleanup goal (of 10 ppm BTEX) was reached.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Page 8
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire:
Phone Number/E-mail:
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
Heather Fennessey
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
2/23/96 Data
2/26/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
commercial
Amcor Precast
Ogden, Utah
Information Source
1.
Name:
Todd Schrauf, Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
2.
Address:
2251B West California Ave.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
3.
Phone:
801-972-8400
4.
Fax:
801-972-8459
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source: EPA-542-R-95-003
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
interbedded silly sand & poorly graded fine gravel
2.
Unified Soil Classification: SM/GP
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis: No data
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability: No data
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
No data
20-35%
5 to 11 feet (aquifer thickness 7-13 ft)
No data
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
1.
Soil Type:
interbedded silty sand & poorly graded fine gravel
underlain by a silty clay aquitard at a depth of
approximately 18 ft below ground surface
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
C.
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
190 ft/day
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
Unconfined
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
No data
0.004 R/D
20-35%
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
underground storage tank leaks
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site: 30,000 ft2
Diesel & gasoline fuel
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
Contaminant
TPH
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Naphthalene
6.
18 ft below ground surface
22F - 85F (58F average)
Avg. Concen (mg/l)
51
1.3
2.4
Max. Concen (mg/l)
190
4.7
9.4
0.78
2.5
0.18
2.7
8.0
0.63
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
TPH
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenze
Total xylenes
III.
Page 3
555
1,600
2.0
1.4
7.8
2.5
5.7
37
19
110
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
Not performed (Not required with DOC System)
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Technology:
In situ Density Driven Ground Water sparging and SVE:
System has 3 comp: GW sparging system, GW recirculation system, & SVE system
GW sparging was principal rem. method; SVE was used locally
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Remove petroleum hydrocarbons using (1) aerobic degradation & (2) in
situ air stripping
2.
Design Parameters
a.
Pipe Type:
40 PVC flush-coupled well casing
b.
Pipe Diameter:
4 inch
c.
Depth:
18 feet
d.
Screen Interval:
screened from 5 - 17½ feet
e.
Screen Type:
0.01-inch slotted (intake); 0.02-inch
(exhaust)
f.
Number and Spacing:
g.
Other:
12 wells
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
4.
5.
6.
B.
Design Tools:
Remediation Hardware:
Capital Cost:
$16,000 for 3 extraction, 13 sparging, and 6 monitoring
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
wells
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
extraction wells
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
C.
Page 5
Provide air for DOC wells and air drive pumps for GW
Design Parameters
a.
Air Flow Rate: 60-100 scfh/sparge well
b.
Operating Pressure:
4.0 to 7.0 psi depending on water level (at
wellhead)
c.
Operating Temperature: Ambient (air heated by compressor)
d.
Steam Inclusion:
e.
Other: Air was injected at base of well via 3/8-inch diameter
tubing
plastic
Design Tools:
Remediation Hardware:
Capital Cost:
$26,800 air compressor & control trailer
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Locally protect against volalilized hydrocarbons created by
the air
stripping process from entering neighboring office
buildings
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
3.
Pipe Type:
schedule 40 PVC
Pipe Diameter: 4”
Depth: 17 feet
Screen Interval: 4-17 ft (converted GW extraction wells)
Screen Type:
0.01 inch slotted screen
Number and Spacing:
3 vertical, adjacent to GW extraction wells g. Other:
Design Tools:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
E.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Page 6
See A5
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
Operating Vacuum:
b.
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
c.
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
d.
Soil Vapor Extraction Rate:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
70-90 scfm
Offgas System - Vapor from extraction wells was discharged to atmosphere
1.
2.
Design Goals
a.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
b.
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
Flow Through Rate:
b.
Residence Time:
c.
Other:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
Page 7
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
No air discharge permit was required because air
emissions were below de minimis standards of the
Utah
Division of Air Quality
b.
Monitoring:
Collect air samples from venting emissions stack &
laboratory analysis for TPH (total petroleum
hydrocarbons) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylene,
and naphthalene (BTEXN)-Weekly for first
two months;
monthly thereafter
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Also:
3 downgradient extraction (pumping) wells installed to a depth of 20 ft &
1
upgradient injection galley (former tank excavation backfilled with pea gravel); GW extraction rate
@ 10 gpm
V.
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
None
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
Cost effective/Suitable site conditions/Need for rapid cleanup
SVE chosen for protection from vapor migration into building only
3.
B.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE: GW
recirculation for plume containment (i.e. extraction and reinjection at source w/o surface
treatment)
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
March 1992-September 1993
(11 mo. for all contaminants except naphthalene 18 mo. for
naphthalene)
2.
Other:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Page 8
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
Max. sparging well air flow & GW wellborne circulation rates are dependent on well
diameter, depth to GW, & the hydraulic conductivity of the formation. Therefore, longer remediation
times or a greater number of sparging wells may be required in lower permeability formations.
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
The cleanup goals were achieved for all contaminants of concern in both
soil (Soil - TPH - 30 mg/kg; Benzene - 0.2 mg/kg; Toluene - 100
1,000 mg/kg; Naphthalene - 2.0 mg/kg) (GW - BTEX &
mg/kg; Xylenes naphthalene to below
MCLs). Site resampled one year after system
shut down and dissolved
concentrations were below levels at shutdown
(i.e. no rebound in dissolved levels).
3.
VI.
GW &
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
see (B)
see (B)
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Fixed price
$156,950 (including drill/install wells & sparging system, start-up,
management)
C.
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Fixed price
$62,750 annually (including electricity, maintenance, monitoring)
project
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
2/27/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
commercial
Chicago, Illinois (site is west of Chicago)
Information Source
1.
Name:
No contact identified
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Literature Source:
Barrera, John A. Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. “Air
Sparging and Vapor Extraction as a Means of Removing Chlorinated and BTEX Compounds in
Complex Ground Water Conditions.” Superfund XIV Conference & Exhibition. Nov 30-Dec 1,
1993. Case Study 1.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Clayey surficial sediments followed by a plastic clay with
course grained material
B.
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
Same as A1
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
(construction machinery washing chemicals)
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
Abandoned Sump
trace
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Page 3
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
Target VOCs: PCE, TCE, TCA, and several other DNAPLs
Concentrations over 5,000 mg/l
6.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
PCE, TCE, TCA, and several other DNAPLs
III.
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals: Evaluate efficacy of air sparging at this site and then evaluate air
sparging w/SVE
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
9 wells
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Page 5
Air Flow Rate: 200 CFM (10 H.P. blower)
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion: N/A
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
Other:
Design Tools:
5 wells
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: A 15 HP 1,000 CFM blower for vacuum extraction was
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
used.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
Traditional GW pump & treat
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
Time restraints (GW pump & treat would have taken several years)
3.
B.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
None
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
11/92 until at least 12/93
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Page 8
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
Initial Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels increased followed by a moderate reduction after
35 days. (suggests oxygen utilization or enhanced biodegradation)
Maximum “bubble radius” was 30 feet
SVE “capture rate” to sparge “injection rate” = 10:1
Air sparging with SVE effectively removes DNAPLs
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
The combined air sparging & vapor extraction system removed over 100 lb VOCs in
the first 30 days
3.
VI.
75% VOC reduction in first 4 months
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Cost: Under $190,000
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
2/27/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
commercial
Service Station
St. Martinsville, Louisiana
Information Source
1.
Name:
No contact identified
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Literature Source:
Barrera, John A. Four Seasons Env., Inc. “Air Sparging &
Vapor Extraction as a means of Removing Chlorinated & BTEX Compounds in Complex Ground
Water Conditions” Superfund XIV Conference. & Exhibition. Nov. 30 - Dec. 1, 1993. Case Study
2.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Upper 15 ft. - clay & silty clays
15 ft - 17 ft - stiff clay with silt
B.
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
10.5 feet (“seasonably high” water table)
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
16 - 18 ft clayey silts
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
10-5 - 10-4 cm/sec
0.04 feet/feet
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
UST leak
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Page 3
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
Dissolved phase petroleum hydrocarbons (peak concentration monitored = 88,688 ppb)
6.
III.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
(start-up test)
1.
Goals:
balance air injection to extraction ratio
approximate the “bubble” influence
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Measure air sparging impact on perched GW or aquifier by measuring
potentiometric surface changes, dissolved oxygen, BOD, pH, specific conductivity, and temperature
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter: 2 inches
Depth:
20-24 feet below grade
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
16
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
Page 5
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
Manage air injection/vapor extraction ratio to avoid
impact
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
C.
Air Flow Rate: 8 CFM (10 HP)
Operating Pressure:
4.5 PSIG/Well
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion: N/A
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
3.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth: 9 ft below grade
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
8 horizontal wells
Design Tools:
off-site
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
see B1
Calculate VOC export rates from saturated zone to unsaturated zone by vapor extraction
off-gas analysis
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Page 6
Operating Vacuum:
2” Hg/well
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: 15 HP 500 CFM (operated @ 429 CFM)
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
B.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
7/93 to at least 12/93 (was expected to run for 15 months)
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Page 8
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
Vacuum system only operated for first 14 days - off-gas concen = 710 ppm total VOC
(BTEX & TPH). Next, air sparging activated with vacuum system - VOC output
increased to over 2,600 ppm. (81 lb/day vs. 270 lb/day)
2.
Low DO readings suggest moderate O2 utilization & increased biological activity
Why was the Technology Successful?
(Not complete as of publication)
3.
VI.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Cost: Under $130,000
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
2/27/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
commercial
Kernersville, North Carolina
Information Source
1.
Name:
No contact identified
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Literature Source:
Barrera, John A. Four Seasons Env., Inc. “Air Sparging and
Vapor Extraction as a Means of Removing Chlorinated BTEX Compounds in Complex Ground
Water Conditions.” Superfund XIV Conf & Exhibition. Nov. 30 - Dec. 1, 1993. Case Study 3.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
Upper 20-25 ft. - unconsolidated deposits of silty sand &
clayey silt; some areas of fill material
B.
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability: low to moderate
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
17.5 - 20 ft. below grade
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site: 8,000 square feet
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
transfer line & UST
leaks
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
Page 3
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
toluene - over 1,000 ppm
6.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
toluene - over 1,000 ppm
III.
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
Determine efficacy of SVE by means of vapor extraction w/a patented technique (VACU-PILE™)
2.
Develop full-scale strategy & proposed operating parameters
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
Greater than 20 - feet in cohesive, clayey
soils
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
e.
Other:
No residual soil is produced during installation, avoiding
disposal (especially for RCRA wastes)
B.
IV.
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Overall objective: Recover toluene in the aqueous & vapor phase both
physically and biologically
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
up to 6 wells
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Air Flow Rate:
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion: N/A
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing: up to 9 VAC-U-PILE units (2 ft wide, 17 ft
long, 2 inches of void space)
Page 5
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Operating Vacuum:
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other:
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
Conventional pump and treat system
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
Viable option; results of pilot test; used with pump & treat to improve effectiveness
3.
B.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Ground water pump & treat system with air stripping
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
8/93 until at least 12/93
Estimated 14 months to achieve 2 ppm toluene cleanup goal
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
3.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
VI.
Installation was difficult due to underground utilities, structures, and USTs
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Cost:
Under $150,000
Page 8
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
2/27/96
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
commercial
Furniture Manufacturing Facility
Liberty, North Carolina
Information Source
1.
Name:
No contact identified
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Literature Source: Barrera, John A. Four Seasons Env., Inc. “Air Sparging and Vapor
Extraction as a Means of Removing Chlorinated BTEX Compounds in Complex Ground Water
Conditions.” Superfund XIV Conf & Exhibition. Nov. 30 - Dec. 1, 1993. Case Study 4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
silt & clay
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
4-6 feet during winter & spring
as low as 10 feet during summer
8.
B.
Diffusivity:
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
C.
1.
Soil Type:
silt & trace sand
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
1 x 10-4 cm/sec
Contaminants Present
1.
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill): drum leaks in storage area
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site: 2,400 ft2 GW
1,500 ft2 soil
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
Page 3
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
5.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
VOCs (e.g. acetone, 2-butanone, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes)
6.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
VOCs (e.g. see 5) in excess of 100,000 ppb in at least one location
Primary Assessment:
Acetone - 30 ppm
2 Butanone - 11 ppm
Toluene - 52 ppm
Ethylbenzene - 8 ppm
III.
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
VOC removal
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth: 10 ft. below grade
Screen Interval: 2.5 ft. screen positioned to intersect 7.5 -10
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
7
ft. depth
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Air Flow Rate: capable of up to 100 CFM cumulative
Operating Pressure:
up to 5 PSIG
Operating Temperature:
Steam Inclusion:
Other: 5 HP Blower
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
VOC removal
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth: less than 3 ft below grade
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing: horizontal (due to shallow GW conditions);
8 trench wells
Page 5
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
E.
Operating Vacuum:
4” HG
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
Other: 10 HP, 250 CFM blower
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
Page 6
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
pump & treat
bioremediation
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
most viable & cost - effective cleanup option
remediates GW & soil simultaneously
3.
B.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Above ground (“ex situ”) vapor extraction system
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
May 1993 until at least Dec 1993 (operates continuously)
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Page 8
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
Maximum “bubble radius” was 12 feet
SVE “capture rate” to sparge “injection rate” = 8:1
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
Air sparging with SVE effectively removes dissolved phase VOCs
3.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
Main obstacles: shallow watertable, heterogeneous soils, soluble target VOCs, &
irregular topography (due to nearby creek)
Only removed 25 lbs VOCs in first 120 days (low yield is likely due to shallow water
conditions)
VI.
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Under $90,000 for design & installation
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
nav_rem1.doc
3/20/97
Purpose: Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), in conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), is collecting real-life design information on remediation technologies involving Air Sparging
with Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE). The collected information will be compiled into a technical design guidance
document that will indicate if a specific selected remediation technology will be effective at a given site, the design
criteria that should be considered for that site, and lessons learned from past users of these technologies. The
guidance document will provide the information necessary to effectively design the selected remediation technology.
Point of Contact concerning questionnaire: Heather Fennessey
Phone Number/E-mail:
814-269-6479/fennesse@ctc.com
Date entered:
Date updated:
I.
3/4/96 data
GENERAL INFORMATION
A.
B.
Installation Information
1.
Type of Installation (e.g., Navy):
2.
Facility Name:
3.
Address:
Conservancy site
Belen, New Mexico
Information Source
1.
Name:
No contact identified
2.
Address:
3.
Phone:
4.
Fax:
5.
E-mail Address:
6.
Source: EPA/600/R-92/179 Sept. 1992
7.
Additional information available from: Billings & Associates, 1991.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
II.
Page 2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
C.
Vadose Zone
1.
Soil Type:
silty sand, interfering clay layer
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Gradation/Sieve Analysis:
4.
Moisture Content:
5.
Air Permeability:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Depth to Water Table:
8.
Diffusivity:
6.5 feet
Saturated Zone
Aquifer 1
Aquifer 2
Source of Contamination (e.g., gasoline spill):
6,500 gal gasoline
1.
Soil Type:
2.
Unified Soil Classification:
3.
Hydraulic Conductivity:
4.
Transmissivity:
5.
Hydraulic Gradient:
6.
Porosity:
7.
Aquifer Type:
8.
Capillary Fringe Height:
Contaminants Present
1.
from UST
2.
Horizontal Extent of Site:
3.
Vertical Extent of Site:
4.
Temperature Range at Site:
33 inches thick
leak
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
Page 3
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in Ground Water (ppm):
BTEX
Benzene 3-6 ppm
6.
III.
Contaminant Names and Concentrations in the Vadose Zone (ppm):
PILOT OR BENCH SCALE TESTS
A.
Pilot Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Wells
a.
Purpose (e.g., injection, extraction, or monitoring):
b.
Pipe Type:
c.
Pipe Diameter:
d.
Depth:
e.
Screen Interval:
f.
Screen Type:
g.
Number and Spacing:
3.
Air Sparge Pumping Rate:
4.
Test Vacuum and Duration:
Vacuum (psi)
Duration (hrs)
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
5.
B.
IV.
Page 4
Test Results
a.
Optimum Sparge Pressure:
b.
Optimum Vacuum:
c.
Radius of Influence:
d.
Contamination Removal Rate:
Bench Scale Test
1.
Goals:
2.
Other:
TECHNOLOGY DESIGN - AIR SPARGING WITH SVE
Typical System Components:
Air Sparge Wells (Section A)
Air Sparge Pump System (Section B)
Vacuum Extraction Wells (Section C)
Vacuum Extraction System (Section D)
Offgas System (Section E)
Other:
A.
Air Sparge Wells
1.
Design Goals:
Radially installed wells around source of contamination to
minimize migration of contamination plume
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
PVC
Pipe Diameter: 2 inch
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
35
Other: Nested injection wells; Solvent-welded pipe used in addition to PVC pipe
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
B.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Air Sparge Pump System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
Air Flow Rate:
b.
Operating Pressure:
c.
Operating Temperature:
d.
Steam Inclusion:
e.
Other: Several blowers installed in parallel systems with manifolds
networks for operational flexibility
C.
Page 5
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum Extraction Wells
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pipe Type:
Pipe Diameter:
Depth:
Screen Interval:
Screen Type:
Number and Spacing:
35
Other: nested extraction wells
& piping
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
D.
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Vacuum System
1.
Design Goals:
2.
Design Parameters
a.
Operating Vacuum:
b.
Operating Depths/Vacuums:
c.
Operating Mode (e.g., continuous, modulating, stepwise):
d.
Other: Several pumps installed in parallel systems with manifolds
networks for operational flexibility
E.
Page 6
3.
Design Tools:
4.
Remediation Hardware:
5.
Capital Cost:
6.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Offgas System
1.
Design Goals
a.
b.
2.
Contaminant Discharge Limit:
Type:
Design Parameters
a.
b.
c.
Flow Through Rate:
Residence Time:
Other:
& piping
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
3.
V.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
b.
Monitoring:
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
B.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
3.
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE:
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
2.
Other:
Estimated 2.5 year duration to meet clean-up criteria
Page 7
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
C.
Lessons Learned
1.
Lessons Learned about the Operation of the Equipment:
2.
Why was the Technology Successful?
59% reduction in benzene after 5 months
66% reduction in toluene after 5 months
54% reduction in ethylbenzene after 5 months
49% reduction in xylenes after 5 months
3.
VI.
Why was the Technology Unsuccessful?
CONTRACT TYPE AND COSTS
A.
B.
C.
Design of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Construction of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Operation of System
1.
Contract Type:
2.
Cost:
Page 8
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
Page 9