||Accutech pneumatic fracturing extraction and hot gas injection, phase I.
Skovronek, H. S.
||Science Applications International Corp., Hackensack, NJ.;Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
|| Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Hazardous wastes--Research--United States. ;
Hazardous waste treatment facilities--United States.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (U.S.) ;
Pneumatic fracturing extraction ;
Gas injection ;
New Jersey ;
Field tests ;
Technological innovation ;
Pneumatic equipment ;
Halogenated hydrocarbons ;
Land pollution control ;
Soil contamination ;
Economic analysis ;
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation ;
Cleanup operations ;
Accutech Remedial Systems
||Region 3 Library/Philadelphia, PA
||Region 4 Library/Atlanta,GA
||Region 10 Library/Seattle,WA
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||xii, 44 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
The report summarizes and analyzes the SITE demonstration of Accutech's Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction (PFE) process at an industrial park in NJ. Based on the results of 4-hr tests before and after fracturing, extracted air flow rate increased an average 600% and trichloroethene (TCE) mass removal rate increased about 675%, primarily due to the increased air flow. The radius for effective vapor extraction also is enlarged by fracturing; extracted air flow rates increased 700% to 1,400% in wells at a 10 ft radius and 200% to 1,100% in wells 20 ft from the fracture well. With passive air inlets, the extracted air flow rate increased about 19,500%, and TCE mass removal rate increased 2,300%. The estimated cost for full-scale remediation of the site with PFE was $307/kg ($140/lb) of TCE removed based on the SITE demonstration experience and information provided by the developer. Major contributing factors were: Labor (29%); Capital Equipment (22); and Emissions Collection/disposal (19%). Numerous assumptions were used in arriving at this cost. Results of two Hot Gas Injection (HGI) tests were inconclusive.
"SITE, Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation"--Cover. "Contract no. 68-CO-0048"--T.p. verso. Shipping list no.: 93-0574-P. "July 1993." "EPA/540/AR-93/509." Includes bibliographical references (p. 22).