case studies: field qa/qc monitoring of subsurface bos 100

Battelle PresentationApril 10, 2018

Nathan Lichti (Vertex Environmental Inc.) – PresenterBruce Tunnicliffe (Vertex Environmental Inc.)Mike Mazzarese (AST Environmental Inc.)

Case Studies: Field QA/QC Monitoring of Subsurface BOS 100® Injections

• Introduction• Background

• BOS 100® Amendment• Delivery Approach• Field Monitoring

• Case Studies• Dry Cleaner Case Study • Industrial Site Case Study

• Conclusions

Introduction – Agenda

• Nathan Lichti, B.A.Sc., P.Eng.• Environmental Engineer• University of Waterloo, Canada

• Vertex Environmental Inc.• Environmental Contractor• Remediation services across Canada• Approved Installer for Trap & Treat®

products in Canada

Introduction – Vertex

Background – Delivery & Field Monitoring

Background – Amendment Overview

• BOS 100® • Consists of GAC impregnated

with metallic iron

• Mechanisms:• “Trap” the contamination

within the GAC matrix• “Treat” the contamination

via reductive dechlorination within the GAC matrix

• Applications:• Treatment of chlorinated

solvents• Overburden or bedrock• Plume or barrier applications

Mixing BOS 100® in the field

CONTAMINANTS

ACTIVATED CARBON

PORES

Activated Carbonadsorbs contaminants

Background – Delivery Equipment

INJECTION TRAILER

INTERLOCKING INTERVALS OF AMENDMENT

DIRECT PUSH RIG

DECOMMISSION WITH BENTONITE

TOP‐DOWN INJECTION ROD

SETUP

INJECTION TIP SELECTION IS IMPORTANT

Background – Injection Grid

Iterative Injection Grid – ISCO

TEMPORARYIP LOCATIONSINJECTION #1INJECTION #2INJECTION #3INJECTION #4

Single Application Injection Grid – Trap & Treat®

DELIVERY CRITICAL FOR SINGLE APPLICATION

AMENDMENTS

TemporaryIP LocationsINJECTION #1

TREATMENT AREA

TREATMENT AREA

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

Background – Monitoring Matrix

• Flowrate • Pressure Signatures

Injection Parameters Monitoring Wells

• Hydraulic influence• Geochemistry influence• Daylighting / Surfacing

• Soil cores• High resolution sampling /

characterization

Direct Push Rig Laboratory Analysis

• Soil and groundwater• Amendment concentrations

Real‐Tim

e Da

taInterim

Data

MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE ARE CRUCIAL

IDENTIFY KEY MONITORING PARAMETERS PRIOR TO

INJECTION

Case Study #1Dry Cleaner Site

Site Background• Ongoing dry cleaner operations• Former excavations (2002)• cVOCs in groundwater and soil

Remedial Objective• Generic groundwater/soil standards

Obstacles• Delivery around former excavations• Short time‐frame

Case Study #1 – Active Dry Cleaner Site

Site Map Conceptual Site Model

ACTIVE DRY

CLEANER UNIT

FORMER EXCAVATIONS

DENSE SILTY CLAY TILL WITH SAND SEAMS

WATER TABLE(~8 ft bgs)

FILL

TARGET TREATMENT

ZONE

PCE GW PLUME

FORMER EXCAVATIONS

GW FLOW DIRECTION


Pre‐Injection WorkStep 1) Remedial Design Characterization (RDC)• 4 BHs around/within former excavations• Re‐allocated vertical injection loadingsStep 2) Finalize Injection Plan• Injection of 5,200 lbs of BOS 100®• Temporary grid of 64 IPs on 5 ft spacingStep 3) Identify Key Monitoring Parameters• Injection Pressures / Signatures• Monitoring Well Influence• Confirmatory Soil Cores


WS01

EXTERIOR INJECTION GRID

INTERIOR INJECTION GRID


RECORD INJECTION PARAMETERS AT

INJECTION TRAILER

RECORD INFLUENCE AT

ADJACENT WELLS

COLLECT CONFIRMATORY SOIL CORES


Injection Parameters• Flowrate

• Positive displacement pump (constant 34 GPM)• 10 to 20 GAL of BOS 100® slurry per shot

• Injection Pressure• Within former excavations fill:

• 275 psi (avg peak pressure)• Within native clay till:

• 350 psi (avg peak pressure)

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells

Direct PushVerificatio

n

LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

00:00 00:05 00:10 00:15 00:20 00:25 00:30 00:35

Injection Pressure

(psi)

Time(mm:ss)

Pressure Signature(IP17 @ 19 ft)

CLAY TILL FRACTURE AT 325 PSI

INJ START INJ END

15 GAL SHOT OF BOS 100® IN NATIVE

CLAY TILL


STABLE INJECTION PRESSURE ~280 PSI

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

00:00 00:05 00:10 00:15 00:20 00:25 00:30 00:35

Injection Pressure

(psi)

Time(mm:ss)



INJ END

15 GAL SHOT OF BOS 100® IN FORMER EXCAVATION FILL

INJ START


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

00:05 00:10 00:15 00:20 00:25 00:30 00:35 00:40 00:45 00:50 00:55

Injection Pressure

(psi)

Time(mm:ss)


RAPID DROP IN PRESSURE

INJ END

20 GAL SHOT OF BOS 100® IN NATIVE

CLAY TILL

INJ START


CLAY TILL FRACTURE AT 390 PSI



Pressure Signatures Summary

Benefits Limitations

• Data available real‐time in Injection Trailer• Establish expected pressure signatures during pilot‐

test (for each geology)• Use pressure signatures real‐time to assess delivery

patterns and flag variations for further investigation

• Soil heterogeneities (i.e. sand seams in clay layer) can raise false flags

• Pressure signatures will indicate that “something” is happening but may need other lines of evidence to understand (i.e., soil cores, monitoring wells)

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells

Direct PushVerification

LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

Confirmatory Soil Cores – Edge of Former Excavation

0 to 5 ft

5 to 10 ft

10 to 15 ft

None

8’‐0” (fill)8’‐5” (fill)9’‐0” (sand)9’‐2” (clay)

11’‐6” (clay)12’‐8” (sand)12’‐11” (clay)14’‐6” (sand)

15’‐8” (sand)17’‐1” (clay)17’‐3” (clay)18’‐8” (clay)19’‐2” (sand)


InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

15 to 20 ft

BOS 100® Seam in Sand @ 9’‐0”

BOS 100® Seam in Clay @ 12’‐11”

BOS 100® Seam in Sand @ 19’‐2”


Confirmatory Soil Cores – Edge of Former Excavation

Confirmatory Soil Cores – North of Excavation

0 to 5 ft

5 to 10 ft

10 to 15 ft

15 to 20 ft

None

6’‐1” (sand)7’‐6” (clay)8’‐0” (sand)8’‐3” (clay)8’‐10” (clay)9’‐1” (sand)9’‐3” (clay)9’‐7” (sand)10’‐0” (clay)

10‐8” (sand)11’‐8” (clay)13’‐0” (sand)13’‐4” (clay)14’‐0” (sand)

15’‐10” (clay)


BOS 100® RE‐ALLOCATED TO TARGET 16 – 20 ft

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

Interim

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

BOS 100® Seams in Sandy Clay @ 9’‐0” to 9’‐6”


Confirmatory Soil Cores – North of Excavation


Soil Core Summary


• Critical evidence for confirming delivery within each unique geologic units

• Useful tool to investigate pressure signature flags

• Time & budget to complete• Not real‐time data

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

Monitoring Well Influence• Hydraulic Influence

• Observed at all wells within injection zone

• Influence ranging from 1.9 to 9.7 ft• Geochemistry Influence

• Avg ORP = ‐182 mV (pre‐injection)• Avg ORP = ‐320 mV (post‐injection)


WS01ΔWLMAX = 1.9 ftΔORP = ‐132 mV

VMW1ΔWLMAX = 9.7 ftΔORP = ‐227 mV

VMW2ΔWLMAX = 4.4 ftΔORP = ‐141 mV

WS02ΔWLMAX = 3.1 ftΔORP = ‐48 mV

WS04ΔWLMAX = 1.8 ftΔORP = +13 mV

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim


Monitoring Well Influence


• Real‐time data• Confirm delivery and radius of influence (ROI)

assumptions• Monitor downgradient receptors and property

boundaries• Make adjustments to injection program based on

real‐time MW responses

• Relies on existing well network (which may be inadequate)

• Well screens often straddle multiple geological layers

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim


Project Summary• Remedial Design Characterization

• Identified new soil impact outside excavations• Re‐allocation of vertical injection loadings

• Key Monitoring Parameters• Injection pressures utilized to flag intervals with unexpected signatures• Soil cores utilized to confirm BOS 100® delivery/ROI assumptions, and identify zones for re‐application• Monitoring well evidence for delivery/ROI assumptions, and that amendments stayed within the target zone

(no offsite migration)• Analytical Results

• Initial cVOCs GW results >90% decrease (initial “Trap”)• Subsequent GW samples and soil cores to be collected by Consultant

Case Study #2Industrial Site with Inflexible Remediation Deadline

Site Background• Site being sold; full remediation required as condition of

sale• Timeline for remediation was inflexible

Contaminant Situation• Two separate areas of cVOCs

Remedial Objective• Generic groundwater standards

Obstacles• Short timeframe for remediation (<5 months)• Creek adjacent to Site – non‐mobile amendment needed

Case Study #2 – Industrial Site with Inflexible Deadline

AEC‐1


CREEK

AEC‐2


Pre‐Injection WorkStep 1) Remedial Design Characterization• Fill in data gapsStep 2) Develop Pilot & Full‐Scale Injection Plan• Injection of 5,400 lbs of BOS 100®• Grid of 135 IPs on 5 to 7.5 ft spacing• 14 day injection programStep 3) Identify Key Monitoring Parameters• Monitoring Wells & Preferential Pathways• Interim Groundwater Monitoring


Conceptual Site Model

Case Study #2 – Industrial Site with Inflexible DeadlineSite Map

AEC1

INJECTION GRID

AEC2

INJECTION GRID

ASPHALT

FILL

LIMESTONE BEDROCK

WATER TABLE(~13 ft bgs)

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SILTY SAND LAYER

CREEK

TARGET TREATMENT

ZONE

Monitoring Well Influence in AEC1• Hydraulic Influence



• Avg ORP = +97 mV (pre‐injection)• Avg ORP = ‐100 mV (post‐injection)

• Preferential Pathways• No influence in creek• No surfacing along creek bank


InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

MW206‐16ΔWLMAX = 13.3 ftΔORP = ‐208 mV




AEC1Monitoring Well Influence in AEC1• Hydraulic Influence




• Preferential Pathways• No influence in creek• No surfacing along creek bank

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

Monitoring Well Influence in AEC2• Hydraulic Influence


• Influence ranging from 3.6 to 12 ft• Geochemistry Influence



MW204‐16dΔWLMAX = 9.9 ftΔORP = +107 mV



AEC2

MW204‐16sΔWLMAX = 8.7 ftΔORP = ‐26 mV



BH1 (MW)ΔWLMAX = 12 ftΔORP = ‐142 mV

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

Monitoring Wells and Preferential Pathways


• Real‐time data• Confirm delivery and radius of influence (ROI)

assumptions• Monitor downgradient receptors and property

boundaries• Make adjustments to injection program based on

real‐time MW responses

• Relies on existing well network (which may be inadequate)

• Well screens often straddle multiple geological layers


InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim

Interim Monitoring Timeline• <5 months from Project Award

to Real‐Estate transaction


FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

FEB 24, 2017PROJECT AWARD

MAR 29 ‐ 30PILOT TEST(2 INJ DAYS)

INTERIM SAMPLING #1

MAR. 25

APR. 24 ‐MAY 5FULL‐SCALE(10 INJ DAYS)

JUL

INTERIM SAMPLING #2

APR. 17

INTERIM SAMPLING #3

APR. 28

INTERIM SAMPLING #4

MAY 12

INTERIM SAMPLING #5

JUN 13

MAY 18 ‐ 19CONTINGENCY(2 INJ DAYS)

JUN 30, 2017REAL ESTATETRANSACTION

InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim


0

50

100

150

200

250

25‐M

ar‐17

1‐Ap

r‐17

8‐Ap

r‐17

15‐Apr‐17

22‐Apr‐17

29‐Apr‐17

6‐May‐17

13‐M

ay‐17

20‐M

ay‐17

27‐M

ay‐17

3‐Jun‐17

10‐Ju

n‐17

17‐Ju

n‐17

1,1‐DCE

Con

centratio

n(ug/L)

AEC1: 1,1‐DCE Groundwater Results

MW205‐16

MW206‐16

MOECC Standard = 17 ug/L

PILOT‐TESTINJECTION

FULL‐SCALE INJECTION

CONTINGENCY INJECTION

1,1‐DCE SPIKE

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

25‐M

ar‐17

1‐Ap

r‐17

8‐Ap

r‐17

15‐Apr‐17

22‐Apr‐17

29‐Apr‐17

6‐May‐17

13‐M

ay‐17

20‐M

ay‐17

27‐M

ay‐17

3‐Jun‐17

10‐Ju

n‐17

17‐Ju

n‐17

VC Con

centratio

n(ug/L)

AEC2: Vinyl Chloride Groundwater Results

MW116‐15MW201‐16MW110‐15MOECC Standard = 1.7 ug/L


PILOT‐TESTINJECTION

FULL‐SCALE INJECTION

CONTINGENCY INJECTION

CONTINGENCY DAYS NEEDED IN AEC2

Interim Monitoring Events


• Provides progress updates on delivery (“Trap”)• Leads to adjustments of horizontal or vertical

injection spacings and loadings• Most useful on projects where there are multiple

phases to the injection program (i.e., Pilot, Full, Contingency)

• Time & budget to complete• Relies on existing well network (which may be

inadequate)• Not real‐time data


InjectionParameters

Monitoring Wells


LaboratoryAnalysis

Real‐

Time

Interim


Project Summary• Key Monitoring Parameters

• MWs provided evidence for delivery/ROI• MWs indicated no offsite migration of amendments• Interim monitoring identified need for re‐allocation in

AEC1, and contingency injection in AEC2• Analytical Results

• Site remediation completed on time• Remedial objective achieved

• Real‐Estate transaction successful

Closing Thoughts for Successful Injections

Stage Description Scope(Approx. Cost)

Pre‐Injection Remedial Design Characterization drilling and sampling Fill‐in soil data gaps(drill rig + analytical costs)

Pilot‐Test Assess design assumptions (drilling, delivery, ROI) ~10% of Full‐Scale(extra MOB cost)

Full‐Scale

Identify “Key Monitoring Parameters” for site:• Monitoring Wells and Preferential Pathways• Pressure Signatures• Soil Cores• Interim Sampling

Use “Key Monitoring Parameters” to make in‐field adjustments

Field Delivery Monitoring(field labour costs)(field labour costs)(drill rig costs)

(analytical costs)

Thank You for Your Time

Nathan Lichti (Vertex Environmental Inc.)[email protected]

Bruce Tunnicliffe (Vertex Environmental Inc.)[email protected]

Mike Mazzarese (AST Environmental Inc.)[email protected]

Questions

case studies: field qa/qc monitoring of subsurface bos 100

Documents