1. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES WITH LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS TO OVERCOME DCRP CHALLENGES
Presented by:
Kerry Martin, P.G., DCRP Technical Specialist
Michael F. Marcon, P.G., InControl Technologies, Inc.

2. DCRP Overview
The Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Act (Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 374) was created by the 78th Texas Legislature (2003)
Purpose of legislation was to reduce and prevent pollution from dry cleaning facilities through new environmental standards and the establishment of a Dry Cleaner Remediation Program (DCRP) funded by registration and solvent fees
To participate in the benefits of the DCRP, an eligible applicant must submit a completed application to the PST - DCRP Section of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

3. DCRP PROCESS Ranking Sites Prioritizing Sites Postponed Sites
Sites are Ranked based on the data provided in the application;
The ranking score is a measure of the potential for receptors to be exposed due to a release from the site
Prioritizing Sites
Prioritization is based primarily on Site Ranking (i.e. environmental risk), but also on non-risk factors which promote effective use of the Dry Cleaner Fund;
All Ranked Sites will be Prioritized
Postponed Sites
TCEQ may postpone corrective action at low ranked/prioritized sites in order to make funds available for higher ranked/prioritized sites

4. Current Status (April 2018)
300 applications received to date
211 sites under assessment/ remediation (i.e. prioritized sites)
110 actively being worked
101 postponed
76 sites have achieved TRRP closure standards

5. ADDRESSING Groundwater
More Aggressive Technologies (Pump & Treat, Dual Phase, & Soil Vapor Extraction)
Shorter response action time
Typically very expensive
High O&M Costs
Should be reserved for the highest risk sites

6. Preferred Remediation Technology
Selecting Remediation Technology for DCRP
Short duration to implement
Minimal Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
Long-Term Effectiveness
Lower cost than the more aggressive technologies
Ability to achieve site closure cost effectively

7. Preferred Remediation Technology
Source Area Removal
Usually small scale
Preferred when property is slated for redevelopment
In Situ Injection Technology
In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)
Enhanced Bioremediation

8. Enhanced Bioremediation
Enhanced Bioremediation can have long term effectiveness
The technology has a typical effective lifespan of 3 to 5 years
Allows response action to work over a longer period with minimal O&M
Continues to actively address groundwater with minimal additional costs

9. Enhanced Bioremediation (Continued)
Relying on natural processes already active in the environment
Aerobic Technologies
Short effective lifespan (6 to 12 months)
Reintroduce over multiple events
Inoculants with Pseudomonas sp. bacteria
Efficiencies derived by optimizing the inoculant through the intentional culturing and blending of different bacterial species
Establishing high population densities of the appropriate microbes, which was anticipated to lead to contaminant degradation

10. Enhanced Bioremediation (Continued)
Anaerobic Technologies through dehalorespiration (dehalococcoides sp.)
Most rely on using some proprietary substrate for an electron donor while enhancing naturally occurring microbes
Can supplement natural microorganisms
With new developments, microbes/nutrients can last 3 to 5 years
Long-term treatment is consistent with DCRP Remediation Goals
Because of longer effective lifespans, less need to manage

11. Anaerobic Bioremediation
Microorganisms belonging to the genus dehalococcoides sp. have demonstrated the capacity to dechlorinate through to ethene
Dehalococcoides microorganisms appear to be widespread
However, the specific microorganisms required to achieve complete dechlorination may not be ubiquitous in the site’s environment

12. Anaerobic Bioremediation (Continued)
It is not uncommon for “Stalling” to occur
Problem: Degradation stalls at DCE
Evidence suggests that the lack (or very low numbers) of competent microorganisms are present in environment.
DCE is almost 4 times more soluble than TCE and can “emerge” and be retained in ways that would simulate a build-up related to poor metabolic response in the aquifer; and
Competing processes can also inhibit conversion (e.g., high levels of bioavailable iron and conversions from ferric to ferrous forms can interfere with electron flow to DCE)

13. Anaerobic Bioremediation (Continued)
Solution: Minimize stalling/ restart degradation process
Confirmation from appropriate monitoring wells to observe contaminant degradation results
Monitor water quality parameters including Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP)
Monitor degradation parameters including iron, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, chloride
Conduct Bioassays

14. Bioassays What does the bioassay tell us:
If there is sufficient population for reductive dechlorination
Presence/ absence of genes responsible for reductive dechlorination of TCE to cis-1,2-DCE
Presence/ absence of genes responsible for reductive dechlorination of VC to ethene
Helps to determine whether bioaugmentation is needed
Helps to determine the need for additional nutrients and/or substrates

15. DC 233 Miracle mile cleaners
Former facility conducted on-site dry cleaning
Dry cleaner no longer onsite and suite is now occupied by another business
Phased approach to groundwater response actions

16. Time Series Progression – Distribution of PCE
January 2015
0.005 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
5 mg/L
MW-20
MW-19
MW-9
MW-6
MW-7
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-13
MW-18
MW-22
MW-17
MW-21
MW-16
MW-8
MW-23

17. Time Series Progression – First Injection
July 2015
0.005 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
5 mg/L
Response
Action Area
MW-20
MW-19
MW-9
MW-6
MW-7
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-13
MW-18
MW-22
MW-17
MW-21
MW-16
MW-8
MW-23

18. Time Series Progression – Distribution of PCE
January 2016
0.005 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
MW-20
MW-19
MW-9
MW-6
MW-7
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-13
MW-18
MW-22
MW-17
MW-21
MW-16
MW-23
MW-8

19. Time Series Progression – Second Injection
June 2016
0.005 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
Response
Action Area
MW-20
MW-19
MW-9
MW-6
MW-7
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-13
MW-18
MW-22
MW-17
MW-21
MW-16
MW-23
MW-8

20. Time Series Progression – Distribution of PCE
January 2017
0.005 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
MW-20
MW-19
MW-9
MW-6
MW-7
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-13
MW-18
MW-22
MW-17
MW-21
MW-16
MW-23
MW-8

21. Time Series Progression – Third Injection
April 2017
MW-20
MW-19
MW-9
MW-6
MW-7
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-13
MW-18
MW-22
MW-17
MW-21
MW-16
MW-23
MW-8
0.005 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
Response
Action Area

22. Time Series Progression – Distribution of PCE
January 2018
MW-20
MW-19
MW-9
MW-6
MW-7
MW-10
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-13
MW-18
MW-22
MW-17
MW-21
MW-16
MW-23
MW-8

23. Summary Response Actions must be effective over long periods.
DCRP strategy emphasizes:
Source area removal (soil excavations)
Enhanced Bioremediation with Bioaugmentation

24. Contact Information
Kerry Martin, P.G., DCRP Technical Specialist
TCEQ Remediation Division
Michael F. Marcon, P.G., Vice President
InControl Technologies, Inc.