slide 1 in-situ remediation lessons learned · john sankey, p.eng., true blue technologies, long...

Slide 1

In-situ Remediation Lessons Learned

John Sankey, P.Eng.,

True Blue Technologies,

Long Beach, CA—Vancouver, BC

Slide 2

In-situ Remediation Lessons Learned

Introduction

Case studies

LNAPL Remediation using Surfactant

Petroleum site remediation using bioremediation.

DNAPL In-situ Chemical Reduction and

Bioremediation

Lessons Learned

Slide 3

3

Untreated Source Area Silt

Permanganate Treated 1st WBZ Sands

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2014 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Page 4

From: McGuire et al, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 26, 73–84, 2006.

Performance of source depletion technologies:“Rebound”

$ $$ $$$ $$$$

Slide 5

5

Post-Permanganate Rebound

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2014 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Page 6

From: ESTCP Project 201120 (GSI Environmental). 2014-ITRC-Project-Proposal-Projecting-Remediation-Performance.pdf 07/07/2014

Average source zone concentrations in groundwater before and after source remediation projects at 176 chlorinated solvent sites

Case #1--North Carolina Air

National Guard Using Surfactant

Fuel oil, NAPL from several feet to a sheen

Treated two 20’ x 20’ plots in a larger plume

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2012 Tersus Environmental, LLC All rights reserved

Column ComparisonGround Water

FoodSurfactant

LaundrySurfactant

“Designer” blend

GRO Breakthrough Curve

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

RWA1 mg/l

RWA2 mg/l

RWB1 mg/l

RWB2 mg/l

Start Surfactant Inj

Time in Hours

Start Polymer Inj

Resume Water

Concmg/l Water Flood

Pictorial Breakthrough

Results

79% capture of injected fluids

Removed 100 gallons of product in 3

days

No more NAPL after

Slide 12

Case #2 Aerobic Bioremediation

(Drawing Modified from AFCEE and Wiedemeier)

++ +

Potterville, MI

BTEX

Unsuccessful previous techniques

vacuum

oxygen bio-sparging

bioaugmentation

7 surface applications from 2003 to 2005

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Page 13

Click to edit Master title stylePage 13

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Potterville Source Area Well

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

To

tal B

TE

X (

ug

/l)

Date

OW-18Sulfate Concentrations vs. BTEX Concentrations Total BTEX

Sulfate Application

Sulfate Concentrations

Su

lfa

te C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

s

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Page 14

Click to edit Master title stylePage 14

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Potterville Down Gradient Well

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

To

tal B

TE

X (

ug

/l)

Date

OW-4

Sulfate Concentrations vs. BTEX Concentrations

Total BTEX

Sulfate Application

Sulfate Conc

Su

lfa

te C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

s

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Page 15

Click to edit Master title stylePage 15

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Potterville Case Study

• Results – Source area cleanup objectives achieved

– No permanent infrastructure

– No waste

– No O&M site visits or electrical usage

Slide 16

Case #3 DNAPL In-situ Chemical

Reduction and Bioremediation

(Drawing Modified from AFCEE and Wiedemeier)

++ +

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Page 17

Click to edit Master title stylePage 17

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Case Study – Full Scale

– Full Scale in Florida

– TCE source area 75 by150 feet

– 20 acre dissolved plume

– 62,000 gallons of 10% EZVI

– Vegetable oil and KB-1 injected in the down gradient plume areas.

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Page 18

Click to edit Master title stylePage 18

tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Baseline

2.5 yrs Post EZVI Injection

3.5 yrs Post EZVI Injection

• Results– ~90% removal/destruction within one year

– >99% destruction to date

Case Study – Full Scale

Slide 19

19

Lessons Learned

Get the data

• Substrate ROI tool

• Specific Isotope Analysis

• Treatability studies

• Assess Microbe Populations

Add enough stuff…and the correct stuff

Love your bugs (pH, enough contaminant, salinity,

inhibitors)

Slide 20

High Resolution to Address Heterogeneity

Slide 21

Real Time Tracer

Parameters

• P

• T

• C

Slide 22

22

Journal of Contaminant Hydrology

Allocation of plume

Method of degradation

PCETCE

cDCE

VC

Ethene

1,1,1-TCA

1,1-DCA

CA

Chloroform

1,1,2-TCA

1,2-DCA

Key Degradation Pathways in Bioaugmentation Cultures

DCM

Chlorofluorocarbon-113CFC-123aCFC-1113TFE

Other, Dhc, Dhb

Other, Dhb Dhc

Dhc

Dhb

Dhb

Dhb

Dhc, Dhb, Dhg, Other,

Dhc = Dehalococcoides Dhb = DehalobacterDhg = Dehalogenimonas Other= Desulfitobacterium, Sulfurospirillum, Clostridium

Other, Dhc, Dhb

= inhibition

Acetate/Formate CO2

Dhb/Other

1,1,2,2-TeCADhb

Dhb?

Slide 24

In-situ Thermal Remediation

Electrical Resistance Conductive

200-325°C

20-30°C

95-105°C

ERH ISTD(thermal conduction heating)

99% VOC

Reduction

99.9999%

99.9%

30%

ERH energy input causes a 99% reduction ISTD energy: (99.9999%+99.9%+30%)/3 = 77%

average reduction

Shown at equal energy inputs

Slide 25

Boiling Temperature and Dalton’s Law

TCE 87°C PCE 121°C

TCE/Water 73°C PCE/Water 88°C

Continued Decline in Average TCE in GW

2 Years Post ERH – Maywood, CA - 2008

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

MW-19-90

MW-26-90

MW-27-90

RW-01-95

4968

21

403177

20

4

1,767

9,450

4,330

11,500

TC

E µ

g/l

Monitoring Wells and Sample Depth (ft bgs) Inside ERH Treatment Area

99.6% average

reduction

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

hyd

roly

sis

ha

lf-l

ife

at

pH

7 (

da

ys

)

Temperature (°C)

methylene chloride

1,2-DCA (EDC)

1,1-DCA

carbon tetrachloride

1,2,-DBA (EDB)

1,3 dichloropropane

1,1,2,2 TeCA

1,1,1-TCA

Hydrolysis Rates of Selected Halogenated Alkanes

Slide 28

The Future

1. Less investigation, more remediation.

2. Emerging Contaminants.

3. Less “technology breakthroughs”, more “tech

refinement”.

4. Vapor intrusion still major risk driver.

5. Continued focus on Green/Sustainable

Remediation

Slide 29

Emerging Contaminants

PFCs

PPCPs

1,4-Dioxane CrVIperchlorate

Evaluating scale

and risk

Drinking Water

Standards and have

effective remediation

technologies

PFCs: Perfluorinated Compounds PPCPs: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products

CrVI: Hexavalent Chromium

Slide 30

Summary--In-situ Remediation

• Source zones can be treated in

place….quickly and guaranteed.

• Dissolved plumes can be treated in place.

• Can be very predictable if you reduce the

potential pitfalls.

Slide 31

True Blue---We want to be a resource for you.

Westbay