Perspectives on Innovative Characterization and Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sites Sept. 27, 2001 ENRY Belgrade, Yugoslavia Walter W. Kovalick.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In-Situ Remediation at Silver Lake Region 4 Hazardous Materials Geo/Bridge/Environmental Unit.
Advertisements

Young-Rainey STAR Centre
Greenwich Peninsula.
J-Field Edgewood Aberdeen Proving Ground. Description From 1940 to 1970s, the Army disposed of chemical agents, high explosives and chemical wastes. APG.
BoRit Superfund Site Timeline
Remediation methods of polluted soils
BIOREMEDIATION Jiří Mikeš.
CE 510 Hazardous Waste Engineering
Plaistow, New Hampshire
Biodegradation and Natural Attenuation
1 Brave New World Emerging Tools for NAPL Remediation Jim Cummings Technology Innovation Office/USEPA Chicago, Illinois Dec 2002.
Air Force Plant 4 Superfund Site Evaluation of SVE Combined with ERH for the Remediation of TCE Source Material Jeffrey Ragucci SWS 6262 – Soil Contamination.
1 Thermal Remediation Services, Inc. Electrical Resistance Heating for In-Situ Remediation of Soil & Groundwater December 10, 2002 Greg Beyke (770)
Environmental Geotechnology Presentation Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.
Triad - Sources of Additional Information and Training NEWMOA Meeting Kathy Yager Technology Innovation Office US Environmental Protection Agency.
Clean-up at BP Paulsboro New Jersey (USA) Roxane Fisher and Mark Ferguson.
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (12th Edition) Internet Seminar October 11, 2007 Carlos Pachon
1 Kent S. Sorenson, Jr. Ryan A. Wymore Enhanced Bioremediation for Treatment of Chlorinated Solvent Residual Source Areas – Case Study and Implications.
By: Martin Lee, Jey Hwan Lee, Wilson Leung. Background Former HKIA, replaced in 1998 ▫World’s busiest in 1997 ▫Overcrowded World famous difficult landings.
Green Remediation An Overview of the State of the Practice
In Situ Remediation Technologies and Site Reuse ConSoil 2005 October 4, 2005 Bordeaux, France Carlos Pachon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
.
Soil Washing “There is a need for increased use of new separation technologies (such as soil washing) that reduce the quantity of waste requiring solidification/stabilization,
Groundwater Pollution
1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.
C. Remediation of groundwater contaminants
Employee Presentation p 1
Brownfields in Baltic States - Lifelong Educational Project CZ/08/LLP-LdV/TOI/ Environmental Aspects of Brownfield Redevelopment Linas Kliučininkas.
1 Facilitating Reuse at RCRA Sites: Innovative Technologies for Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup Introduction Walter W. Kovalick Jr., Ph.D. Associate.
GFOA PS3260 Contaminated Sites Workshop Thursday, November 14, 2013 Whitehorse, YT.
Update on the Superfund Program: U.S. Tour de Table NATO SPS Pilot Study Prevention and Remediation in Selected Industrial Sectors June 17-23, 2006 Ljubljana,
Overview of Remedial Approaches at Superfund Fractured Bedrock Sites Edward Gilbert, CPG Technology Assessment Branch Technology Innovation and Field Services.
1June 19, 2002 Bioventing (7) Incineration (18) Soil Vapor Extraction (33) Bioremediation (16) Land Treatment (9) Composting (4) Slurry-Phase Bioremediation.
TURNING BROWNFIELDS. Definition US EPA 1997 abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated.
7th Avenue and Bethany Home Road Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Site August 20, 2013.
Typical Design of a Production or Monitoring Well.
Spectron Superfund Site Proposed Plan Contaminated Shallow Soils U.S. EPA Region III June 26, 2003 Philadelphia, PA Robert J. Sanchez US EPA - Remedial.
History and Cleanup at Chemical Commodities, Inc. Jeff Field US EPA Region 7 1.
INTRODUCTION TO BIOREMEDIATION
Bioremediation-From the Lab to the Field
Treatment Technologies
Monitored Natural Attenuation and Risk-Based Corrective Action at Underground Storage Tanks Sites Mike Trombetta Department of Environmental Quality Environmental.
Bioremediation Definition: Use of living organisms to transform, destroy or immobilize contaminants Goal: Detoxification of the parent compound(s) and.
Evaluation of Intrinsic Biodegradation and Amendments to Support Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery of Sediments Tom Krug and David Himmelheber, Geosyntec.
Update on Electronic Resources for Site Remediation and Characterization Information NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Prevention and Remediation In Selected Industrial.
Module 6: Alternatives. 2  Module 6 contains three sections: – 6.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives – 6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.
SERDP- ESTCP- ITRC A PARTNERSHIP Dr. Jeffrey Marqusee ESTCP, Director SERDP, Technical Director.
Area I Burn Pit Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan February 19, 2008 Laura Rainey, P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist California.
IDEAL DEMO A Brief Overview PRESENTER: BILL HOMBACH JUNE
Waste Program Monitoring Technology Needs and the 21M 2 Effort ETC Brownbag Thursday, May 19, 2005 Daniel Powell, U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation.
FRTR Soil Remediation Case Studies*
Donald Pope| IPEC 2015 Conference
DeNovo Constructors, Inc.
05/01 Bioventing (6) Incineration (18) In Situ Thermal Treatment (5) Land Treatment (7) Soil Vapor Extraction (31) Solidification/Stabilization (3) Solvent.
Conference Background and Opening Remarks December 10, 2002
Evaluating the Practicality of LNAPL Recovery Jeff Lane, P.G. November 17, 2015 International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) IPEC 22 Contact.
Tools and Technologies for Mining Site Remediation Michele Mahoney US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
Workshop on the Application of Characterization and Remediation Technologies at Fractured Bedrock Sites Providence, RI November 8, 2000 Walter Kovalick.
Promoting Innovative Environmental Technologies. Purpose of ITRC improve state permitting processes and speed deployment of technologies through interstate.
1 FORMER COS COB POWER PLANT From Characterization to Redevelopment Brownfields2006 November 14, 2006.
1 Groundwater Pollution GW 10 Monitored Natural Attenuation.
Groundwater Pollution
1 Source Removal- Policy and Practice in the FDEP Robert C. Cowdery, P.E. Hazardous Waste Cleanup Section Division of Waste Management Florida Department.
Benefits of Laboratory Treatability Studies in Support of Full-Scale Design for In Situ Remedies Michaye McMaster Geosyntec Consultants Sandra Dworatzek.
Applying Remediation Technologies in a Green World Moderated by: Daniel M Powell, Branch Chief U.S Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund.
Sustainable Remediation Case Studies
Technologies of Remediation
Average person produces 1700 lbs of MSW per year
Triad - Sources of Additional Information and Training
Objectives Provide an overview of the triad approach and its application Describe the elements of the triad approach for practical application Describe.
Presentation transcript:

Perspectives on Innovative Characterization and Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sites Sept. 27, 2001 ENRY Belgrade, Yugoslavia Walter W. Kovalick Jr., Ph.D. Director Technology Innovation Office US Environmental Protection Agency

8/3//01 Technology Innovation Office ResponsibleParty/OwnerOperatorFederal/StateProjectManager ConsultingEngineer Technology Vendor International Markets Investor Community Technology Vendors Clients for Information on Technology Innovations

8/3//01 TIO’s Mission Advocates “smarter” technologies for the characterization and cleanup of contaminated sites Works with clients to identify and understand better, faster, and cheaper options Seeks to identify and reduce barriers to the use of innovative technologies

8/3//01

8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Summary of Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY FY 1999) Soil Vapor Extraction (196) 26% In-Situ Soil Flushing (16) 2% In Situ Bioremediation (35) 5% In Situ Solidification/ Stabilization (46) 6% Incineration (off-site) (94) 13% Thermal Desorption (61) 8% Bioremediation (49) 7% Incineration (on-site) (42) 6% Chemical Treatment (10) 1% Solidification/Stabilization (137) 19% Other (ex situ) (32) 4% Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58%In Situ Technologies (314) 42% Other (in situ) (21) 3%

8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in Types of Source Control RODs (FY FY 1999) 75% 25% 4% 15% 35% 32% 86% 74% 68% 51% 45% 46% 44% 40% 33% 23% 25% 32% 27% 28% 29% 49% 42% 51% 47% 40% 52% 61% 70% 73% 67% 73% 71% 55% 14% 19% 30% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 2% 6% 9% 23% 21% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fiscal Year Percent of Source Control RODs Source Control Containment or Disposal Source Control Treatment Other Source Control Remedy (Institutional Controls, Monitoring, Relocation)

8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: In Situ Technologies for Source Control (FY FY 1999) Percentage of Source Control Treatment Projects 44% 34% 47% 61% 68% 31% 33% 45% 31% 21% 29% 36% 34% 50% 47% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Fiscal Year Percentage of Treatment Technologies Linear Trendline (In Situ Projects)

8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Groundwater Remedies (FY FY 1999) Total Sites With Pump-and-Treat, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and In Situ Groundwater Treatment Remedies = 749 Pump-and-Treat Only (521) 71% Pump-and-Treat and In Situ (48) 6% Pump-and-Treat and MNA (55) 7% In Situ Only (16) 2% Pump-and-Treat, In Situ, and MNA (14) 2% In Situ and MNA (3) <1% MNA Only (92) 12%

8/3//01 Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field-Scale Demonstration Projects in North America, 2nd Edition Year 2000 Report

8/3//01 North American Innovative Technology Demonstration Projects Report Matrix summarizing 601 government-sponsored demonstrations (1985-present) Sponsoring government agencies (North America) –Canadian Government –U.S. Environmental Protection Agency –U.S. Military Services (Army, Navy, Air Force) –U.S. Department of Energy –California Environmental Protection Agency

8/3//01 North American Innovative Technology Demonstration Projects In Situ Technologies 383 Projects Soil Physical/Chemical (103) Ground Water Physical/Chemical (99) Ground Water Biological (61) Soil Thermal (54) Soil Biological (66)

8/3//01

FRTR Cost and Performance Guide In-Situ Ground Water Remediation Technologies with Recommended Reporting Elements Air Sparging Bioremediation Bioslurping Circulating wells (UVB) Cosolvents/surfactants Dual-phase extraction Dynamic underground stripping In-situ oxidation (Fenton’s Reagent) Natural attenuation of nonchlorinated compounds Natural attenuation of nonchlorinated hydrocarbons Permeable Reactive Barriers Pump and Treat Phytoremediation Steam flushing Vertical barrier walls

8/3//01 FRTR Remediation Case Studies Document cost/performance of clean-up technologies Includes full-scale cleanup and large-scale demonstrations 274 EPA, DoD, DoE cases Searchable by technology, contaminant, media ( Superfund, RCRA, State sites

8/3//01 FRTR Case Studies: Summary of Contaminants and Media Treated * * Some case studies address more than one type of media/contaminant Chlorinated Solvents Pesticides/ Herbicides Contaminant Types Metals BTEX/TPH PAHs Radioactivity PCBs Explosives SoilGroundwaterDebris/Solid Number of Case Studies

8/3//01 Remediation Technology Cost Compendium – Year 2000 Historical cost data compilation for six cleanup technologies: bioremediation, thermal desorption, SVE, on-site incineration, pump-and-treat, and PRBs unit costFocus on unit cost for quantity treated and contaminant mass removed “Fully defined” cost data –Based on actual applications from federal agency sources –Directly linked to technology application Cost curves developed Findings reconfirm factors driving remediation technology costs Available September 2001

8/3//01 Bioventing Cost/Volume Curve Remediation Technology Cost Compendium ,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000 Volume of Soil Treated (yd 3 ) Unit Cost ($/yd 3 ) Best Fit Lower Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation Upper Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation

8/3//01 EPA REACH IT System Free information service, searchable on-line Vendor information on 371 treatment and 160 characterization technologies Detailed site information on 900 EPA Superfund remediation projects Flexible search options including by technology, contaminant, media, and sites Updated continuously by EPA and vendors Replaces 3 previous PC based systems - requires no downloading

EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program

8/3//01 ETV Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies Pilot

Monitoring: Saving ResourcesThroughout the Cleanup Process “Let’s get through characterization and on to cleanup”

8/3//01 Systematic Planning Dynamic Workplanning On-Site Measurement Technologies The Triad Approach

8/3//01 Characteristics of the “Triad” Fully maximizing capabilities of field analytical instruments and rapid sampling tools Systematic planning –Meeting site or project-specific goals vs. prescriptive methods “checklists” –Relying on thorough advance planning/up- front understanding of the site –Global view of project, ultimate goals Dynamic or adaptive decision making Bringing together the right team Changing perception –Requirements for accurate, protective, and defensible decisions –Time, money, and quality

8/3//01 Recent Bioremediation Report Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites Describes site-specific applications of ex situ and in situ bioremediation at 104 Superfund sites Summarizes contaminants and media treated Provides available cost and performance data Analyzes trends over time 48 pages

8/3//01 Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999) 1 Part 1 of Wood Preserving Petroleum Refining, Reuse, and Pipeline Landfill/ Disposal Area Underground/ Aboveground Storage Tank Pesticide Manufacturing/ Use/Storage Number of Projects 1 Some sites are described by more than one site type. Total Projects = 104 Site Type

8/3//01 Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999) 1 Part 2 of 2 1 Some sites are described by more than one site type. Site Type Fire/Crash Training Area Munitions Manufacturing or Storage Surface Impound- ment or Lagoon Vehicle Maintenance Drum Storage/ Disposal Number of Projects Total Projects =

8/3//01 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) Ex Situ Source Treatment Technologies Biopile3ŽŽŽ Slurry Phase2ŽŽŽŽŽ Other3Ž Ž Land Treatment 33ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ Composting8ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ Techno- logy Total No. of Projects PAHs Other Non- Chlori- nated SVOCs BTEX Other Non- Chlori- nated VOCs Pesti- cides And Herbi- cides Other Chlori- nated SVOCs Chlori- nated VOCs Explo- sives/ Propel- lants

8/3//01 Example Windrow Composting System Form Windrows With soil and Amendments Periodic Turning of Windrow Monitoring Compost Analysis Windrow Disassembly And Disposition Excavate and Screen Soils

8/3//01 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) In Situ Treatment Other9ŽŽ Bioventing 24ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ Slurry Phase2Ž Ž ŽŽŽŽ ŽŽ Source Control Biosparging3ŽŽŽŽŽ Injection/ Recirculation 17ŽŽŽŽŽŽ Groundwater Techno- logy Total No. of Projects PAHs Other Non- Chlori- nated SVOCs BTEX Other Non- Chlori- nated VOCs Pesti- cides And Herbi- cides Other Chlori- nated SVOCs Chlori- nated VOCs Explo- sives/ Propel- lants

8/3//01 In Situ Treatment Technologies Soil Established –Bioventing (fuels) –SVE (fuels, organics) –Solidification/stabilization (metals) –Soil washing Emerging –Electrokinetics (metals) –Phytoremediation (fuels, metals) –Thermal treatment (fuels, organics)

8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Percentage of Soil Treated by Technology Type (FY FY 1999) Other Ex Situ 7% Bioremediation (Ex Situ) 7% Neutralization (Ex Situ) 7% Solidification/Stabilizati on (Ex Situ) 8% Solidification/Stabilization (In Situ) 6% Other In Situ 3% Bioremediation (In Situ) 5% Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ) 57%

8/3//01 Soil Vapor Extraction Enhancements/Adaptations MODIFY OPERATION Bioventing IMPROVE PLACEMENT Directional Drilling INTEGRATE WITH GROUNDWATER Dual-Phase Extraction Air Sparging IMPROVE RECOVERY Pneumatic Fracturing Hydraulic Fracturing Thermal Processes Radio-Frequency Heating Electrical Resistance Heating Steam/Hot Water Injection Conduction

8/3//01 Description Use of plants to remove, destroy or sequester contaminants Applicable to wide range of media and contaminants Hydraulic control and remediation Mainly poplars for chlorinated solvents in ground water Grasses for fuels, metals in soil Contaminants Treated VOCs SVOCs Fuels Explosives Inorganics Phytoremediation

8/3//01 Pros In situ, permanent solution Low capital and operating costs Low maintenance High hydraulic pumping pressures Reduced volume for disposal Treats wide variety of contaminants Phytoremediation Cons Shallow, low- to moderate- level contamination Lack of performance data Treatment duration Seasonally, climatically dependent Not applicable to all mixed wastes Need to displace existing facilities

8/3//01 In Situ Treatment Technologies Groundwater Established –Air Sparging (fuels, organics) –Bioslurping (fuels, organics) –Enhanced Bioremediation (organics, fuels) –Multiphase Extraction (fuels, organics) Emerging –Chemical oxidation (fuels, organics) –Electrokinetics (metals) –Phytoremediation (organics) –Recirculating Wells (fuels, organics) –Steam stripping (fuels, organics) Permeable Reactive Barriers (metals, organics)

8/3//01 Biodegradation Mechanisms Typically Occurring with Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of CAHs CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination DirectCometabolicDirectCometabolic PCE TCE DCE VCYes Trichloroethane DichloroethaneYes C. tetrachloride Chloroform Methylene chloride Yes *Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination DirectCometabolicDirectCometabolic PCE TCEYes DCEYes VCYes TrichloroethaneYes DichloroethaneYes C. tetrachloride ChloroformYes Methylene chloride Yes CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination DirectCometabolicDirectCometabolic PCEYes TCEYes DCEYes VCYes TrichloroethaneYes DichloroethaneYes C. tetrachlorideYes ChloroformYes Methylene chloride Yes

8/3//01 Example In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation System

8/3//01 Trends Other reactive media Other contaminants Deeper contaminant plumesNeeds Longevity of wall reactivity Permeability changes due to precipitation Long term performance monitoring data Contaminants Treated Chlorinated solvents Metals and radionuclides Permeable Reactive Barriers

8/3//01 Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Installation Profiles

Natural Attenuation Processes include a variety of physical, chemical, or biological processes that act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater. These in-situ processes include biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and chemical or biological stabilization or destruction of contaminants.

Monitored Natural Attenuation Remediation of Sources and Source Areas Appropriate source control actions should be considered of the highest priority Source control measures should be evaluated at every site Improperly addressed contaminant sources complicate the long-term cleanup effort

Monitored Natural Attenuation Performance Monitoring Required to gauge effectiveness and protect human health and the environment Of even greater importance due to longer cleanup time frames for MNA Must demonstrate that NA is occurring as expected, identify transformation products, detect plume migration, verify attainment of cleanup goals Required for as long as contamination levels remain above cleanup goal anywhere on site

8/3//01 Rethinking Source Term vs. Plume Management Potential source term control solutions –Chemical oxidation –Surfactant-cosolvent flushing –Steam/heat Outstanding issues –Science –Policy –Other

8/3//01 Thermal Enhancement ProsPros Volatilizes VOCs Can be used in low permeability soils Can help remove DNAPL Permits not usually required ConsCons Could increase size of plume Temporarily destroys biomass Expensive  Heat source (steam, radio frequency

8/3//01 Dynamic Underground (Steam) Stripping S. CALIF EDISION VISALIA, CA NPL SITE Former wood (pole) treatment facility Creosote, PCP Pump & treat started in 1976, 10lbs/week Began steam stripping 3 years ago 100,000lbs removed in first 6 weeks >1,300,000lbs removed to date Goal to meet MCLs More work needed to reduce costs

8/3//01 In Situ Thermal Cleanup Projects Organization# of Projects Navy 9 Air Force 5 Army 4 DOE 5 Private 37 Technologies Included: Conductive Heating ERH- Electrical Resistance Heating Hot Air Injection RF- Radio Frequency Heating SEE- Steam Enhanced Extraction

8/3//01 CLU-IN World Wide Web Site Site Remediation Technologies Site Characterization Technologies Technology Partnerships, Roundtables, and Consortia Updates on International Clean-Up Activities Vendor Support Publications for Downloading Free Updates via TechDirect Regulatory Information and Technology Policy Links to Other Internet and Online Resources

8/3//01 Broadcasts periodic messages to the list of over 11,000 subscribers. Highlights events of interest to site remediation and site assessment professionals. Describes new products and provides instructions on how to obtain them. Highlights

8/3//01 Top 10 Websites For Hazardous Waste Management 1. (or

8/3//01

Standard Environmental Engineering Practice vs. Remediation Practice Civil/sanitary engineering disciplines Use of experience and standards of practice for design, operation Single technology orientation Predictable operating environment Interdisciplinary (chemical/civil engineering, microbiology, hydrology, geology) More dependent on bench/pilot studies to assess treatability and determine design, operation Treatment “trains” of multiple unit processes; systems integration Unanticipated site conditions Standard Engineering PracticeRemediation Practice