|
|
|
NEWS NEWS NEWS Confused about Direct Push? The EPA has a short introduction to the various platforms, components, tools, sensors and advantages and limitation that apply to Direct Push. [ www.fate.clu-in.org/dpp.asp?techtypeid=41 ] QED Environmental Systems Conducts Performance Comparison: Direct-Push Wells vs. Drilled Wells QED Environmental compared direct-push monitoring wells vs. hollow stem auger installed monitoring wells at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueme, California. The project was designed to determine whether representative chemical and water table data could be generated using properly designed direct-push monitoring wells at an MTBE plume. This article give a detailed cost comparison of the two methodologies. [ www.qedenv.com/products/porthueneme_right.html ] USEPA and BP Amoco conduct Comparison of direct push vs. Conventional Monitoring Wells. The comparison study was undertaken to determine whether measurements of groundwater parameters obtained using direct-push wells are comparable to those obtained from conventional monitoring wells. Direct-push monitoring wells contained no filter pack and were pushed into the subsurface. The measured parameters included groundwater level, BTEX, MTBE, TSS, and naphthalene concentrations, hydraulic conductivity, and natural geochemistry parameters. The summary of the study notes "...provided the wells are properly developed, there is good reason to believe that all measurements obtained from direct-push monitoring wells are equivalent to those obtained from conventional monitoring wells." [ www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/wellstdy.pdf ] USEPA conducts case studies and performance review of direct push technology. In the lessons learned section of EPA document number EPA-543-R-00-003, the evaluation notes "The probe provides more detailed stratigraphic information than conventional auger borings" [www.cluin.org/download/char/geophys_innovate_a.pdf] Copies of the EPA document are available from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) [www.cluin.org]. Or contact the NSCEP in writing at PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45242-2419, (800)490-4198. The Department of Defense (DoD) has a need for Direct Push Technology. The Environmental Security Technology Certification Program through the DoD (Department of Defense) has a current ongoing study to improve the capability to delineate and remediate DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) in the subsurface environment. Utilizing the MIP probe (membrane interface probe) coupled with additional sensors to achieve even higher levels of accurate contaminant locating. [ www.estcp.org ] The Kansas Geologic Survey publishes Direct Push Study Results The KGS [ www.kgs.ukans.edu ] published study results of investigations using EC and CPT Direct Push methods. The results indicate that this technology can provide detailed information about the hydrostratigraphic framework of unconsolidated deposits in a rapid and cost efficient manner without generation of cuttings or the need for a pre-existing borehole or well. USACE Buffalo District Redcues Cost with Direct Push Technology Several sites in Illinois and Michigan [ www.usace.army.mil ] utilized Geoprobe® direct push technology and realized significant reductions in cost in time, money and manpower. Cost saving features included rapid well placement, in-situ testing with field gas chromatography, and higher accuracy of contamination plume mapping due to more sampling locations in less time.
Visit [ www.geoprobe.com ] for additional technical information and equipment news. The Spring 2002 issue of the Probing Times Newsletter:
|
|
Last modified: June 05, 2008 |