290 likes | 391 Views
Applied Science and Technology for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management. Grand Junction, Colorado November 2010. Today’s Format. Two-hour session to accommodate facilitated discussion
E N D
Applied Science and Technology for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management Grand Junction, ColoradoNovember 2010
Today’s Format • Two-hour session to accommodate facilitated discussion • Presentation on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) Applied Science & Technology (AS&T) program • Introduce Panel – brief summaries • Break? • Proposed discussion topics • Full audience participation • Goal: discuss opinions on future direction of groundwater research for long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS&M) • Product: chart of favorable areas for applied research for groundwater remediation
AS&T Subtask LM provides funding through AS&T to: • Evaluate technologies to improve LTS&M remediation strategies. • Solve mechanical and chemical problems in LM activities at sites. • Use technologies to make remedies more sustainable.
Two Main Areas of Emphasis • Groundwater projects • Surface projects (disposal cell covers, phytoremediation)
Main Contaminants • Uranium • Nitrate • Sulfate • Ammonium • Vanadium • Molybdenum • Selenium • Arsenic • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) • Fission products (e.g., tritium)
AS&T Projects Analysis Charts • Only includes projects within AS&T; includes some projects from LM predecessor [Office of Environmental Management (EM)] • Includes many other projects in LM that have technology innovations; e.g., Rocky Flats, Pinellas, Central Nevada Test Area • There are lumpers and splitters; organized by project reports
LM Site Contaminants AS&T Projects by Contaminant
Contaminant Plume F l o w Permeable Reactive Barrier Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB): Evolution of an Applied Research Project Trench (filled) Aquifer
Approach • 1998: Laboratory treatability studies • 1998: Field columns • Geochemical modeling • 1999: PRB installation • 1999–2010: Performance evaluation • Routine groundwater sampling • Two episodes of coring/analysis • Tracer testing • Residence time determination using 222Rn • Four episodes of hydraulic conductivity testing • 2005: Treatment cells installed
Geochemical Modeling: Mineral Zonation in Approach to ZVI Saturation
Coring for Performance Evaluation 9 tons of calcite deposited in the first 3 years
Groundwater Flow Hydraulic Conductivity in Monticello PRB After 4 YearsRed = low conductivity
PRB Performance: Mineralization of ZVI Electron microprobe photomicrograph of core material
Lakeview Mound Old Rifle Green River Central Nevada Test Area Rocky Flats New Rifle Monticello Durango Monument Valley Weldon Spring Shiprock LM Sites SOARS Sites Salmon LM Sites and System Operations and Analysis at Remote Sites (SOARS)
SOARS System Innovations • Post processor allows instant access by all LM personnel; reliable means to record notes on activities • Use of three-point calculations that automatically plot the orientation and velocity of groundwater • Remote collection of tracer data (rhodamine) • Remote operation of well pumps (automated pump tests)
Summary: LM’s AS&T Program (Groundwater) • Operate geochemical/ecological laboratory • Operate SOARS telemetry system • Conduct applied scientific research • Directions to date have emphasized: • Low cost • Site-specific projects • Radionuclide/sulfate/nitrate/oxyanion contaminants • Site characterization/remediation What directions should applied science for legacy management be going?
Suggested Discussion Topics • Big or small science • Promising technologies for groundwater remediation. What should LM’s role be? • What are other agencies (e.g., DOE-EM, DOE Office of Science, U.S. Department of Defense, Armys Corps, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) doing? Overlap? • Basic research vs. applied research vs. project support • Groundwater remediation vs. point-of-use treatment
Suggested Discussion Topics (continued) • Groundwater contamination • Is it better to stabilize groundwater contamination (e.g., acetate injection) or enhance removal (e.g., in-situ leaching with oxidant and carbonate for uranium)? • Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) • How much emphasis? • Is this going to be the future? • How to approach MNA? • Major issues and future of research? • Technical impracticability • What is it and what role does it play?