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

Clients for Information on Technology Innovations

Technology Vendor Responsible Party/ Owner Operator Federal/ State Project Manager Consulting Engineer International Markets Investor Community Technology Vendors

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

http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

Superfund Remedial Actions:

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

8/3//01

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% 60% Percentage of Source Control Treatment Projects 50% 40% 44% 30% 31% 31% 20% 85 86 87 21% 88 29% 89 34% 47% 36% 50% 33% 90 91 92 Fiscal Year 93 34% 94 95 96 61% 97 98 47% 45% 99 http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

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 In Situ and MNA (3) <1% MNA Only (92) 12% 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% Pump-and-Treat Only (521) 71% http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field-Scale Demonstration Projects in North America, 2nd Edition

Year 2000 Report http://cluin.org/products/nairt/overview.htm

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

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

8/3//01

North American Innovative Technology Demonstration Projects

In Situ Technologies 383 Projects

Soil Physical/Chemical (103) Soil Biological (66) Soil Thermal (54) Ground Water Physical/Chemical (99) Ground Water Biological (61)

8/3//01

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 (www.frtr.gov) • Superfund, RCRA, State sites

http://www.frtr.gov

8/3//01

FRTR Case Studies: Summary of Contaminants and Media Treated *

1 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 70 45 35 29 11 20 28 Soil Groundwater 9 19 16 1 9 2 19 2 13 Debris/Solid 2 5 2 http://www.frtr.gov

Contaminant Types * Some case studies address more than one type of media/contaminant

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 • Focus on

unit cost

removed for quantity treated and contaminant mass • “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

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

Bioventing Cost/Volume Curve

Remediation Technology Cost Compendium

10,000 Upper Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation Best Fit Lower Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Volume of Soil Treated (yd 3 )

60,000 70,000 80,000 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

http://www.epareachit.org

8/3//01

EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program

http://www.epa.gov/etv

ETV Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies Pilot

Technologies Categories Verified Report Status

Cone penetrometer/laser-induced fluorescence 2 Completed Field-portable XRF (SITE) 7 Completed Field portable GC/MS Soil/soil gas sampling (SITE) Well-head monitoring of VOCs PCB analysis 2 6 5 9 Completed Completed Completed Completed Decision-support software Ground water sampling Explosives test kits TPH test kits (SITE) Sediments sampling (SITE) Lead-in-dust detection

http://www.epa.gov/etv

6 6 4 5 2 8 Completed Completed Completed In Peer review Completed New Project 8/3//01

Monitoring: Saving ResourcesThroughout the Cleanup Process

“Let’s get through characterization and on to cleanup”

Systematic Planning

The Triad Approach

Dynamic Workplanning On-Site Measurement Technologies

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

8/3//01

Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999) 1 Part 1 of 2

Total Projects = 104 35 32 30 25 20 15 10 22 19 13 8 5 0 Wood Preserving Petroleum Refining, Landfill/ Disposal Underground/ Aboveground Pesticide Manufacturing/ Reuse, and Pipeline Area Storage Tank Use/Storage

Site Type

1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.

8/3//01

Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999) 1 Part 2 of 2

Total Projects = 104 35 30 25 20 15 10 7 7 7 7 5 0 Fire/Crash Training Area Munitions Manufacturing or Storage Surface Impound ment or Lagoon Vehicle Maintenance

Site Type

1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.

6 Drum Storage/ Disposal 8/3//01

Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99)

Ex Situ

Source Treatment Technologies Techno logy Total No. of Projects PAHs Other Non Chlori nated SVOCs BTEX Other Non Chlori nated VOCs Pesti cides And Herbi cides Land Treatment Composting 33 8

         

Other Chlori nated SVOCs Chlori nated VOCs Explo sives/ Propel lants

     

Biopile Slurry Phase Other 3 2 3

          8/3//01

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 8/3//01

Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99)

In Situ

Treatment Techno logy Total No. of Projects PAHs Other Non Chlori nated SVOCs BTEX Source Control Bioventing 24

  

Other Non Chlori nated VOCs Pesti cides And Herbi cides

 

Other Chlori nated SVOCs Chlori nated VOCs Explo sives/ Propel lants

 

Slurry Phase 2

         

Other Groundwater Biosparging 3 9 Injection/ Recirculation 17

           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 1982 - FY 1999) Bioremediation (In Situ) 5% Other Ex Situ 7% Bioremediation (Ex Situ) 7% Neutralization (Ex Situ) 7% Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ) 57% Solidification/Stabilizati on (Ex Situ) 8% Other In Situ 3% Solidification/Stabilization (In Situ) 6% http://cluin.org/asr

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

Phytoremediation

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

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

8/3//01

Phytoremediation

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

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/ 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)

Permeable Reactive Barriers (metals, organics)

• Emerging – Chemical oxidation (fuels, organics) – Electrokinetics (metals) – Phytoremediation (organics) – Recirculating Wells (fuels, organics) – Steam stripping (fuels, organics)

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

8/3//01

Biodegradation Mechanisms

Typically Occurring with Enhanced

In Situ

Bioremediation of CAHs

*Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8/3//01

Example

In Situ

Groundwater Bioremediation System

8/3//01

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Trends

• Other reactive media • Other contaminants • Deeper contaminant plumes

Needs

• Longevity of wall reactivity • •

Contaminants Treated

Chlorinated solvents Metals and radionuclides • Permeability changes due to precipitation • Long term performance monitoring data

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

8/3//01

Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)

Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Installation Profiles C o n t a m i n a n t s T rr e a t e d

Chlorinated Solvents Metals and Inorganics Other Organic Compounds Radionuclides Nutrients Fuel Hydrocarbons

F u l l S c a l e 23 8 6 3 1 0 P i l o t S c a l e 13 2 1 2 1 2 http://www.rtdf.org

8/3//01

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

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



Heat source (steam, radio frequency

Thermal Enhancement

•

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

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

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 http://cluin.org/products/thermal

Organization Navy Air Force Army DOE Private Technologies Included:

•Conductive Heating •ERH- Electrical Resistance Heating •Hot Air Injection •RF- Radio Frequency Heating •SEE- Steam Enhanced Extraction

# of Projects

9 5 4 5 37 8/3//01

CLU-IN World Wide Web Site http://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 8/3//01

Highlights

• • •

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.

8/3//01

Top 10 Websites For Hazardous Waste Management

1. http://clu-in.org (or http://www.epa.gov/tio) 2. http://www.epareachit.org

3. http://www.frtr.gov

4. http://www.gwrtac.org

5. http://www.rtdf.org

6. http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE 7. http://em-50.em.doe.gov

8. http://www.itrcweb.org/ 9. http://www.serdp.org/research/research.html

10. http://www.epa.gov/etv/

8/3//01

8/3//01

Standard Environmental Engineering Practice vs. Remediation Practice

Standard Engineering Practice Remediation Practice

Civil/sanitary engineering disciplines

Interdisciplinary (chemical/civil engineering, microbiology, hydrology, geology)

Use of experience and standards of practice for design, operation

More dependent on bench/pilot studies to assess treatability and determine design, operation

Single technology orientation

Treatment “trains” of multiple unit processes; systems integration

Predictable operating environment

Unanticipated site conditions

8/3//01