Sustainable Approach to Groundwater

Remediation at Asphalt Testing Sites

Chris Niver, PG, CHMM - NCDOT

Matt Bramblett, PE – Hart & Hickman, PC

TRB ADC60 Summer Conference, July 28, 2016

• Environmental Stewardship and

Sustainability

• Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

• Understanding the Strategic and Bottom-

Line Benefits of Better Sustainable Practices

Asphalt Testing Labs

• By the 1960’s, the North Carolina Department of Transportation

(NCDOT) implemented an asphalt quality assurance program.

• Certified suppliers constructed and maintained onsite asphalt testing

laboratories (ATL's). Parties performing asphalt tests used

chlorinated solvents (e.g., carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethene, and

1,1,1-trichloroethane) per ASTM Methods.

• On-site solvent disposal from ATL's and other plant operations,

contaminated soil and groundwater at many facilities.

1-1-1 TCA

Brunswick

Ne wHanove r

Columb us

Pe nde r

Rob e son Bladen

OnslowCarte re t

Dup lin

Jones

Scotland

Hoke

Cumb e rlandSamp son

Johnston

Wayne

Le noir

Gre ene

Pitt

Wilson

Craven

Wake

Harne tt

Be aufort

MartinWashing ton

Be rtie

Edg ecomb e

NashFranklin

Pamlico

Warren

Halifax

Northampton

Hertford

Gate s

Ch

ow

an

Pe rquimans

Pasquotank

Cam

den

Currituck

Tyrre llDare

Hyde

VanceGranville

Pe rson

Durham

Orange

Caswe ll

Alamance

Chatham

Guilford

Rand olph

Moore

Le e

Montg omery

RichmondAnsonUnion

Stanly

Cab arrus

Mecklenb urg

Davidson

Rowan

Davie

Forsyth

Stokes Rockingham

Surry

Yad kin

Ire de ll

Alleg hany

Wilkes

Ashe

Watauga

Ave ry

Cald we ll

Ale xand e r

Catawb a

Lincoln

Gaston

Burke

Md Dowell

Ruthe rford

Cle ve landPolk

He nd e rson

Transylvania

Buncomb e

Mitche ll

Yancey

Mad ison

Haywood

Jackson

Swain

Macon

Clay

Che rokee

Graham

Priority Asphalt Site s

Site No. 22 Asphalt Paving of She lb y

Site No. 34 J.E.J. Ltd . Partne rship

Site No. 35 Jim L. Bost ConstructionSite No. 41 John YoungSite No. 45 The PAPCO Group , Inc.

Site No. 2 Crowder Construction Co.

Site No. 67 Crowde r Construction Co.

Site No. 5 REA Construction Co.Site No. 13 REA Construction Co.Site No. 14 Vulcan Mate rials Co.Site No. 17 Blythe Construction Co., Inc.Site No. 56 Blythe Construction Co., Inc.Site No. 57 REA Construction Co.

Site No. 33 Me dussa Aggregate s, Inc.

Site No. 4 Blythe Construction Co., Inc.Site No. 40 Lula C. & Eleanor Harris

Site No. 16 REA Construction Co.

Site No. 12 Boggs-Vaughn Construction Co.

Site No. 42 Stanle y C./ Doris Smith &Donald / Re b e cca Hamle t

Site No. 68 David & Elise P. Monroe

Site No. 43 Donald Wesmore land

Site No. 6 W.W. Owens & Sons - Moving

Site No. 3 Dr. John Garre tt

Site No. 21 Lee Paving Co.

Site No. 48 Lee Paving Co.Site No. 30 Lousiana Pacific

Site No. 44 Quail Ridg e Golf CourseSite No. 31 Le e Paving Co.

Site No. 70 Crowe ll Construction Co.

Site No. 53 Crowe ll Construction Co.Site No. 47 Barnhill Contracting Co.Site No. 7 Barnhill Contracting Co.

Site No. 64 Ne w Hanove r County

Site No. 32 Johnson Brothe rs Asphalt

Site No. 69 Small's Chape l Bib le Church ofG_d & Pascual, Amanda

Site No. 51 David & Melvin WoodarSite No. 11 S.T. Woote n Construction Co.

Site No. 52 Barrus Construction Co.

Site No. 27 S.T. Woote n Construction Co.Site No. 63 Ronnie Gle nn and Grace D. Bailey

Site No. 62 Dare Reg ional Authority

Site No. 37 R.D. Randolph

Site No. 71 William F. & Sophia H. Ashb urnand Storage , Inc.

Site No. 50 Rose Brothe rs Paving Co., Inc.

Site No. 1 Barnhill Construction Co.

Site No. 65 Rose Brothe rs Paving Co., Inc.

Site No. 59 Martin Marie tta Ag gregate s

Site No. 19 Barnhill Construction Co.Site No. 60 Barnhill Construction Co.

Site No. 29 REA Construction Co.

Site No. 58 Carolina Sunrock Corp .

Site No. 23 Triang le PavingSite No. 26 Martin Marie tta Aggreg ate s

Site No. 8 Vulcan Mate rials Co.Site No. 10 APAC - Thompson Arthur Paving DivisionSite No. 25 Martin Marie tta Aggregate s

Site No. 54 APAC - Thompson Arthur Paving Division

Site No. 9 The PAPCO Group , Inc.

Site No. 55 The PAPCO Group , Inc.

Site No. 24 Ramey, Inc.

Site No. 46 Vulcan Mate rials Co.

Site No. 61 Norflk Southe rn Corp .Site No. 72 Ive y/ Joyce Riggs & LARCO Construction

Site No. 38 Brown Brothe rs Construction Co.

Site No. 66 APAC - Ce ntral Carolina Division

Site No. 20 APAC - Ce ntral Carolina Division

Site No. 28 Patrick B. StevensSite No. 39 APAC - Carolina, Inc.

Site No. 36 Vulcan Mate rials Co.

South Carolina

Site No. 49 Nantahala Talc & Limestone

Site No. 18 APAC - Tennessee , Inc.

Site No. 15 APAC - Tennessee , Inc.

Ge org ia

Virg inia

Tennessee

ATLANTIC O

CEAN

Miles

0 50

36

2

14

57

8

10

12

9

11

13

14

Groundwater Investigations

Asphalt Testing Labs

Challenge

• These solvents are heavier than water and sink in the aquifer.

• Chlorinated solvents attenuate slowly. Groundwater remediation with mechanical extraction technologies (air sparge; pump and treat) is marginally effective.

• Injection wells with bioremediation….. In situ stimulation of indigenous microbial populations with energy substrates (e.g., sugars) is the best alternative.

• The scale of the ATL remediation program makes commercial products cost prohibitive.

• Increases in commodity prices make long-term programmatic budgeting difficult.

• NCDOT needs lower cost alternatives.

Partnership

• Commercial beverage manufacturer, Pepsi Bottling Ventures (PBV), Raleigh, North Carolina uses High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in their formulations. HFCS has been used for bioremediation around the country. It’s also on DEQ’s list of approved injectants.

• The sugar concentrations in their products are comparable to commercially available bioremediation products.

• In a public service collaboration with NCDOT, PBV provided infrastructure and labor to recover and repackage expired beverages normally discharged to the City of Raleigh publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

• The new product is called Beverage Remediation Product (BRP) and is Donated to the NCDOT.

Partnership

Partnership

Partnership

Partnership

Partnership

History

• NCDOT first met with PBV in 2011 to discuss sustainable benefits to PBV, City of Raleigh, and the State. PBV considered the project an excellent fit with their corporate environmental stewardship and sustainability goals. As business leaders and corporate citizens they felt that this was a very good way to give back to the communities of North Carolina.

• PBV and NCDOT next met with the NC Division of Health and Human Services NC DHHS, and NC Department of Environmental Quality NC DEQ, to discuss the human and environmental health benefits of utilizing BRP for groundwater bioremediation.

• NC DHHS provided agency approval so that NCDOT could apply for a required injection control permit for the use of BRP. Pursuant to these meetings, the injection control permit was approved by NC DENR in January 2013.

• In March 2013, NCDOT substituted the BRP in an existing in situ bioremediation injection project in Richmond County where sodium lactate was previously used. Field and analytical testing with detailed chemical thermodynamic analyses confirmed that BRP is in fact a low cost substitute for commercially available products currently used by NCDOT.

History

• PBV realized a cost savings through a 65,000-gallon reduction in high BOD wastewater discharge to the City of Raleigh POTW. There was also increased available capacity for the POTW, which may result in reduced energy costs.

• NCDOT reduced material and labor costs. We can spend less money than it would cost to get the same result with commercially available products.

• BRP was added to the DEQ list of approved injectants in December 2014. This is a critical milestone, in that BRP is now a regulatory approved product for bioremediation in North Carolina and can be used statewide.

• PBV plans to enhance their environmental stewardship practices by expanding BRP recovery to their Winston-Salem facility. They also plan to foster their BRP environmental stewardship initiative with other Pepsi beverage manufacturers across the state and nationally.

• This innovation will allow NCDOT to accelerate site cleanups, meet regulatory mandates more economically, and ultimately reduce risks to human and environmental health. NCDOT will continue to use BRP at additional locations, as budget permits.

BRP Expired Mountain Dew ready for crushing

Two crushing and product recovery units at Raleigh Plant • Expired beverages are placed in hopper for

crushing

• BRP is gravity drained into underground holding tank for recovery.

• Each unit also has a compactor to capture

bottles and cans for recycling.

BRP

Crushed beverage containers ready for recycling

BRP ready for transport to NCDOT site in Richmond County • BRP is pumped from holding tank to

transfer vessels. • Total volume transported is 2,500 gallons

per load.

BRP Mixing tanks staged at the NCDOT Richmond County Maintenance Yard • Transported BRP is transferred to a series

of 3,000 gallon mixing tanks prior to groundwater injections.

• Baking soda was mixed with the BRP to

adjust the ph of groundwater prior to injections.

Mixed BRP is transported, via 300 gallon tanks, to site for injection

BRP

BRP injected into contaminated groundwater via injection well

BRP injection delivery system.

Sustainability So

cial

Envi

ron

me

nta

l

Eco

no

mic

Summary • NCDOT recognized that the compositions of PBV beverages were comparable

to those solutions already commercially available and in use for groundwater clean-up; and that they would work.

• NCDOT then took the initiative and sought out PBV, gained an understanding of what they produced and how, and found a way to use their close-dated sugar products as a repackaged product.

• We persevered through the regulatory process to put this otherwise edible food product in groundwater to clean up pollution.

• BRP is now a regulatory approved product for bioremediation in North Carolina and can be used statewide.

• These are bottom line benefits with the ability to directly protect human health and the environment faster, better, and cheaper.

“A common sense solution to a complex problem, a positive change in the way we conduct business, and puts taxpayer dollars

to good use”

2015

Governor’s Award Video

ATL 48 Pittsboro BRP Application

Site Parameters

• Fractured metavolcanic bedrock below PWR and saprolite

• Target compounds include TCE and degradation products

• Soil previously contained TCE up to 206 mg/kg

• Groundwater previously contained TCE up to 99,000 µg/L

• Shallow and deeper bedrock groundwater impacted

Potential Receptors

• Stream that crosses the Site impacted with TCE

• 94 water supply wells within a 0.5-mile radius of the Site

• No municipal water

GW FLOW

FORMER ATL

Strea

m

Water Well

Stream

Plume Extent

Key Remedies

• ERD Pilot Test with SRS-FRL (2014)

• Soil Excavation (2014-2015)

• ERD with BRP (July 2015)

2014 ERD and Bioaugmentation Injection

• 1,750 gal of 3-10% emulsified oil (SRS-FRL) injected into in source area via five IWs

• Average batch TOC concentration of approximately 956 mg/L

• 7 L of Dehalococciodes mccartyii culture injected 2 weeks post ERD injection

• 98% reduction of TCE in source area well 48SVE-01R, then TCE Rebound

• TOC sustained for 9 months

Winter 2014-2015 Source Area Soil Excavation

• Funding secured for the “Big Dig”

• Source area soils encompassed approximate 3,600 ft2 up to 33 ft deep

• Approximately 8,000 tons of impacted soil and PWR excavated and disposed

• All non-hazardous by TCLP

Injection Gallery Installation

• Infiltration gallery installed at the base of the excavation just above the

water table for future injections

• Composed of 4-in sch 40 slotted PVC and #57 Stone with three PVC risers

ports

• Ports completed with steel locking stickups

• BRP mixed onsite using bag-in-box

• 440 gal of concentrated Sierra Mist syrup mixed with 2,060 gal of potable water

• 1,100 lbs of sodium bicarbonate added to neutralize pH and for aquifer buffer

• 100 lbs of sodium polymetaphosphate to support increased biomass metabolic

requirements

• BRP recirculated in tank with pump to thoroughly mix

• Gravity fed into infiltration gallery

• Batch BRP analyses indicated a TOC concentration of 67,600 mg/L and density of

1.05 g/mL

July 2015 BRP Pilot Study

• Groundwater samples

collected ~1 month prior to

injection

• To date, groundwater

samples collected 1 month,

3 months, 6 months, and 9

months post-injection

• Samples analyzed for

VOCs, MNA parameters,

TOC, etc.

BRP Performance

Monitoring

~60 ft

~160 ft

Infiltration Gallery

BRP Performance Monitoring

23.7

25.5 41.1 41 37.9

53.1 41 40.6 65.5

22.2 21.4

31.5

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

18,000

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

TCE cis-1,2-DCE

Vinyl Chloride Ethene

BRP Injection TOC

VO

C a

nd

Eth

en

e C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(µ

g/L

)

Time (d)

TO

C C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

48SVE-01R – (45 ft deep) Source Area Groundwater Results (through June 2016)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

TCE cis-1,2-DCE

Vinyl Chloride Ethene

BRP Injection TOC

VO

C a

nd

Eth

en

e C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(µ

g/L

)

Time (d)

TO

C C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

48MW-16R (45 ft deep) Groundwater Results

Shallow Groundwater 60 ft Downgradient of Source Area

BRP Performance Monitoring

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

TCE cis-1,2-DCE

Vinyl Chloride Ethene

BRP Injection TOC

VO

C a

nd

Eth

en

e C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(µ

g/L

)

Time (d)

TO

C C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

48DW-5R (102 ft deep) Groundwater Results

Deeper Groundwater 60 ft Downgradient of Source Area

BRP Performance Monitoring

23.7 25.5

13.5

212

59.8

5.4

16,000

8,800

4,830

2,280

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

06/10/14 09/18/14 12/27/14 04/06/15 07/15/15 10/23/15 01/31/16 05/10/16 08/18/16

TCE cis-1,2-DCE Vinyl Chloride BRP Injection Ethene Emulsified Oil Injection TOC

VO

C a

nd

Eth

en

e C

on

cen

trati

on

(µ

g/L

)

Date

TO

C C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

48SVE-01R – Source Area Groundwater Results

Rebound

BRP Performance Monitoring

BRP Longevity Comparison

y = 1.1172e-0.015x R² = 0.9303

y = 0.5169e-0.011x R² = 0.8749

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Emulsifide Oil BRP

TO

C C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

s (

C/C

0)

Time (d)

48SVE-01R - Source Area TOC Results

Emulsified

BRP Source Area Longevity

Comparison

Emulsified

Oil

Time Elapsed TOC (mg/L) TOC (C/C0) T ½ (d)

0 956 1 --

105 212 0.22 48.32

253 59.8 0.06 63.27

323 5.4 0.005 43.25

BRP

Time Elapsed TOC (mg/L) TOC (C/C0) T ½ (d)

0 67,600 1 --

29 16,000 0.24 13.95

92 8,800 0.13 31.27

183 4,830 0.07 48.07

267 2,280 0.03 54.60

• Deeper injections and 2nd shallow injection planned for late Summer 2016

• NCDEQ approved injectant

• Obtained from reclaimed Pepsi beverages

• BRP is not commercially available (donated to NCDOT)

• Limited product-related health and safety concerns

• TOC consumption and longevity similar to emulsified oil at this site to date.

• Use of BRP will allow NCDOT to continue to economically accelerate site

cleanup

Conclusions on BRP