1 / 50

Perspectives on Innovative Characterization and Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sites

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. Technology Innovation Office.

eotis
Download Presentation

Perspectives on Innovative Characterization and Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sites

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Technology Innovation Office Clients for Information on Technology Innovations Technology Vendor Responsible Party/ Owner Operator Federal/ State Project Manager International Markets Investor Community Consulting Engineer Technology Vendors

  3. 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

  4. http://cluin.org/asr

  5. In Situ Bioremediation (35) 5% In-Situ Soil Flushing (16) 2% Other (in situ) (21) 3% Other (ex situ) (32) 4% Superfund Remedial Actions:Summary of Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - FY 1999) Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58% In Situ Technologies (314) 42% Chemical Treatment (10) 1% Soil Vapor Extraction (196) 26% Incineration (on-site) (42) 6% Bioremediation (49) 7% In Situ Solidification/ Stabilization (46) 6% Thermal Desorption (61) 8% Incineration (off-site) (94) 13% Solidification/Stabilization (137) 19% http://cluin.org/asr

  6. Superfund Remedial Actions:In Situ Technologies for Source Control (FY 1985 - FY 1999) 80% Percentage of Treatment Technologies Linear Trendline (In Situ Projects) 68% 70% 61% 60% Percentage of Source Control Treatment Projects 50% 50% 47% 47% 44% 45% 40% 36% 31% 34% 31% 34% 33% 30% 29% 21% 20% 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Fiscal Year http://cluin.org/asr

  7. Superfund Remedial Actions:Groundwater Remedies (FY 1982 - FY 1999) Total Sites With Pump-and-Treat, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and In Situ Groundwater Treatment Remedies = 749 MNA Only (92)12% In Situ and MNA (3)<1% Pump-and-Treat Only (521)71% In Situ Only (16)2% Pump-and-Treat, In Situ, and MNA (14)2% Pump-and-Treat and MNA (55)7% Pump-and-Treat and In Situ (48)6% http://cluin.org/asr

  8. http://cluin.org/products/nairt/overview.htm Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field-Scale Demonstration Projects in North America, 2nd Edition Year 2000 Report

  9. 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 http://clu-in.org/products/nairt/

  10. North American Innovative Technology Demonstration ProjectsIn Situ Technologies 383 Projects Soil Physical/Chemical (103) Ground Water Physical/Chemical (99) Soil Biological (66) Ground Water Biological (61) Soil Thermal (54)

  11. 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 FRTR Cost and Performance GuideIn-Situ Ground Water Remediation Technologies with Recommended Reporting Elements

  12. FRTRRemediation 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 (www.frtr.gov) • Superfund, RCRA, State sites http://www.frtr.gov

  13. 11 35 20 29 28 Metals BTEX/TPH FRTR Case Studies:Summary of Contaminants and Media Treated * 1 120 100 Soil Groundwater Debris/Solid 70 80 Number of Case Studies 60 40 16 9 45 2 20 2 1 2 19 19 2 13 9 5 0 PAHs PCBs Explosives Radioactivity Chlorinated Solvents Pesticides/ Herbicides Contaminant Types http://www.frtr.gov * Some case studies address more than one type of media/contaminant

  14. 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 • Focus on unit costfor 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

  15. Bioventing Cost/Volume CurveRemediation Technology Cost Compendium 50 45 Upper Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation 40 35 30 Best Fit Unit Cost ($/yd3) 25 Lower Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation 20 15 10 5 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)

  16. 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 http://www.epareachit.org

  17. EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program http://www.epa.gov/etv

  18. ETV Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies Pilot http://www.epa.gov/etv

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

  20. The Triad Approach Dynamic Workplanning Systematic Planning On-Site Measurement Technologies

  21. 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

  22. 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 • http://clu-in.org/techpubs.htm

  23. Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999)1Part 1 of 2 Total Projects = 104 35 32 30 25 22 19 20 13 Number of Projects 15 8 10 5 0 Wood Preserving Petroleum Refining, Reuse, and Pipeline Landfill/ Disposal Area Underground/ Aboveground Storage Tank Pesticide Manufacturing/ Use/Storage Site Type 1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.

  24. Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999)1Part 2 of 2 Total Projects = 104 35 30 25 20 Number of Projects 15 10 7 7 7 7 6 5 0 Fire/Crash Training Area Munitions Manufacturing or Storage Surface Impound-ment or Lagoon Vehicle Maintenance Drum Storage/ Disposal Site Type 1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.

  25. Other Non- Chlori- nated VOCs Pesti- cides And Herbi- cides Other Non- Chlori- nated SVOCs Explo- sives/ Propel- lants Other Chlori- nated SVOCs Total No. of Projects Chlori- nated VOCs Techno- logy PAHs BTEX Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) Ex Situ Source Treatment Technologies Land Treatment 33 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Composting 8 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Biopile 3 Ž Ž Ž Slurry Phase 2 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Other 3 Ž

  26. Example Windrow Composting System Excavate and Screen Soils Form Windrows With soil and Amendments Periodic Turning of Windrow Windrow Monitoring Compost Analysis Windrow Disassembly And Disposition

  27. Other Non- Chlori- nated VOCs Pesti- cides And Herbi- cides Other Non- Chlori- nated SVOCs Explo- sives/ Propel- lants Other Chlori- nated SVOCs Total No. of Projects Chlori- nated VOCs Techno- logy PAHs BTEX Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) In Situ Treatment Source Control 24 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Bioventing Slurry Phase 2 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Other 9 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Groundwater Biosparging 3 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Injection/ Recirculation 17 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

  28. In Situ Treatment TechnologiesSoil • Established • Bioventing (fuels) • SVE (fuels, organics) • Solidification/stabilization (metals) • Soil washing • Emerging • Electrokinetics (metals) • Phytoremediation (fuels, metals) • Thermal treatment (fuels, organics)

  29. Superfund Remedial Actions:Percentage of Soil Treated by Technology Type (FY 1982 - FY 1999) Bioremediation (In Situ)5% Other Ex Situ7% Bioremediation (Ex Situ) 7% Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ) 57% Neutralization (Ex Situ) 7% Solidification/Stabilization (Ex Situ) 8% Other In Situ 3% Solidification/Stabilization (In Situ) 6% http://cluin.org/asr

  30. 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 Soil Vapor ExtractionEnhancements/Adaptations

  31. Phytoremediation Description • Use of plants to remove,destroy or sequestercontaminants • Applicable to wide rangeof media and contaminants • Hydraulic control andremediation • Mainly poplars for chlorinated solvents in ground water • Grasses for fuels, metals in soil • Contaminants Treated • VOCs • SVOCs • Fuels • Explosives • Inorganics http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

  32. 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 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 Phytoremediation http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

  33. In Situ Treatment TechnologiesGroundwater • 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) http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

  34. Biodegradation MechanismsTypically Occurring with Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of CAHs *Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons

  35. Example In Situ GroundwaterBioremediation System

  36. Permeable Reactive Barriers Trends • Other reactive media • Other contaminants • Deeper contaminant plumes Needs • Longevity of wall reactivity • Permeability changes due to precipitation • Long term performance monitoring data • Contaminants Treated • Chlorinated solvents • Metals and radionuclides http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

  37. Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Installation Profiles http://www.rtdf.org

  38. 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.

  39. Monitored Natural AttenuationRemediation 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

  40. Monitored Natural AttenuationPerformance 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

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

  42. Pros Volatilizes VOCs Can be used in low permeability soils Can help remove DNAPL Permits not usually required Cons Could increase size of plume Temporarily destroys biomass Expensive  Heat source (steam, radio frequency Thermal Enhancement http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

  43. 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

  44. In Situ Thermal Cleanup Projectshttp://cluin.org/products/thermal • Technologies Included: • Conductive Heating • ERH- Electrical Resistance Heating • Hot Air Injection • RF- Radio Frequency Heating • SEE- Steam Enhanced Extraction

  45. CLU-IN World Wide Web Sitehttp://clu-in.org • Site Remediation Technologies • Site Characterization Technologies • Technology Partnerships, Roundtables, and Consortia • Updates on International Clean-Up Activities • Vendor Support • Publications for Downloading • Free E-mail Updates via TechDirect • Regulatory Information and Technology Policy • Links to Other Internet and Online Resources

  46. Broadcasts periodic e-mail 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

  47. Top 10 Websites ForHazardous Waste Management • http://clu-in.org (or http://www.epa.gov/tio) • http://www.epareachit.org • http://www.frtr.gov • http://www.gwrtac.org • http://www.rtdf.org • http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE • http://em-50.em.doe.gov • http://www.itrcweb.org/ • http://www.serdp.org/research/research.html • http://www.epa.gov/etv/

  48. 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 Environmental Engineering Practice vs. Remediation Practice Standard Engineering Practice Remediation Practice

More Related