i Evaluation of the Applicabilityof In-Situ Thermal Remediation«

Technologies

CD

in

ooce

Former Koppers Co., Inc. SiteNewport, Delaware

Agenda LO

COOC.

Introduction- Purpose- Technical Evaluation Approach- Overview of Findings- Desired Outcomes

BackgroundStatus of RI/FSSite Conceptual ModelTechnical Evaluation- Resistance Heating- In-Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD)- Steam Injection

Conclusions

Purpose and ApproachCNJ

-3"LO

:^>

Satisfy EPA's request to critically evaluate applicable insitu thermal remediation technologies for the FormerKoppers Newport Superfund Site

•

•

Present our evaluation of applicable in-situ thermal "remediation technologies ;

Technical Evaluation Approach- Technology Overview- Status of Technology- Challenges- Applicability to the Site- Conclusion •

: CO•«

Evaluation Process

Performed a thorough evaluation of the status of in-situ thermal remediation technologies

in

coor

Evaluated the applicability of in-situ thermal |remediation technologies to the site based onjsite-specific factors "

9

*K

Determined if and how in-situ thermal remediationtechnologies should be applied at the site

Overview of Findings LO

COoc

There are challenges and certain site- ;

specific factors that would preclude the useof in-situ thermal remediation technologies atthis site

The site-specific factors are discussed indetail later in the presentation

V

**

Desired OutcomesGain a better understanding of applicable in-situ thermalremediation technologies and their requirements for-success

V

Improve our understanding of the site conceptual model

Gain a better understanding of the site-specific factorsthat may influence and/or limit the successful applicationof in-situ thermal remediation technologies /

Work toward an agreement with the EPA regarding theapplicability of in-situ thermal remediation technologiesfor the site

or

Background5

Operational History- Wood treating site that operated from about 1929 to 1971 . "f- Used creosote/coal tar to preserve railroad ties, telephone poles, and

other wood products

Site Setting- 300 acre site (approx)- Upland areas comprise ~ 160 acres- Wetlands comprise -140 acres- Bordered on the north by high-speed railroad lines- Bordered on the east by the former DuPont Holly Run Plant and

Christina River- Bordered on the south and west by White Clay Creek and Hershety Run- Depth to groundwater ~ 10 feet below ground surface

Site Setting

2OOC 2000

ooor

t-:

Site Setting - Former Process Area CO("••o

-3-t.0

Site Setting - Fire Pond\-T>

CO

Status of RI/FSoCO-:±LO

CO

Rl approved Fall 2002 ">

Draft FS submitted September 1999 •

USEPA requested evaluation of in-situ thermal remediation :technologies in comment letter dated November 2001

•

Supplemental data collection activities performed in Fall 2002/Winter2003 to support FS ;:- Soil boring program to further delineate the fine-grained, low permeability

layer in the Upper Potomac Fmt.- Sediment sampling program to further delineate extent of impacts;in

Hershey Run ;

Revised FS to be submitted in Spring 2003

••.,

Site Conceptual Model 1>r!

ty

• Site Layout ;

• Hydrogeology- Stratigraphy- Hydraulic gradients and flow rates

• NAPL Distribution- Surface and shallow subsurface (vadose zone)- Below water table

• Groundwater Quality and Use ;

CO-:*•LO. - , ! —

COre

Site Layout

COMPANY, 1*C. MtWt^fT S-IOIIT. aeuftftMT

NAPL DEUNEATKM VOftK PLAN

C\J

CO.:±LO

Hydrogeology COI*

(D

Upper Hydrostratigraphic Unit- Includes fill, Quaternary deposits, and Columbia Formation soils- Thickness ranges from about 10 to 50 ft- Distributed lenses of sand, silt, and clay- Heterogeneous- Depth to water table - 10 feet below the ground- Kv*~5x10- 5 t o4x10 - 7

Fine-grained, low permeability unit- Classified as clayey silt / silty clay based on geotechnical analyses- Distinctive, reddish-pink color- Low activity based on Atterberg Limits (low shrink-swell capacity)- Kv*~5x io - 8

- Uniform distribution- Thickness ranges from about 0.5 - 35 feet

Lower Hydrostratigraphic Unit- Includes Potomac Formation soils- Thickness not determined (believed to be greater than 50 feet)- Distributed lenses of gravel, sand, silt, and clay- Kv* not measured

"Units in cm/sec

HydrogeologyCO

ID

COen

n:z::rJE. ____

QEHERAUXED CROSS 8CCTION DO

Hydrogeology

inCO..3-I.O

CO

r UO'.i'G-t'-.C A i - . L ..CC

j- SCrtUM-U INItWVAi1 INFTRRCD KYDRoUtlCf nwAmt^r aiPtcnow

870 u>»ojnL- ftJilK• '

A'

MMCDIAL WVCSTKATI«M.REPORT

GENERALIZED CROSS*6ECTION A-A

3-2

Visual interpretation of soil boring logs SB-607 and SPG-1 as presented in Rl

CO

SILTY FINE-CL1ARSE SANDAND GRAVFL

C L A Y E Y MEDIUMTD FINE SAND

COARSE TD FINE SAND

WELL-SORTED GRAVEL

SANDY CLAY

SILTY COARSE TD FINE SAND

FINE SANDY SILT

SILTY FINE SAND

C L A Y E Y S ILTY SAND

Return

Hydrogeology CO

\W.TXANOS BOUNQ*t

ALWfNl AlB UONI'ORt^C IOC*T10MS

FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. NEWPORT SITENEWPORT, DELAWARE

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

TOP OF POTOMAC FORMATIONGRAINED UNIT (CAPILLARY BARRIER)

ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP

BBI:LASLAND. BOUCK ft LEE. INC

3-7

HydrogeologyCO

(XL

Hydraulic gradients and flow rates- Upper hydrostratigraphic unit

• Radial flow pattern, outward from site toward surface water• Kh* ranges from 4 x 10~4 to 2 x 10~1

• Average linear groundwater velocity - 4 ft/day• Tidally influenced

- Lower hydrostratigraphic unit• Radial flow pattern outward from site toward surface water• Kh* ranges from 3 x 10'3 to 3 x 10'2

• Average linear groundwater velocity ~ 1 ft/day• Tidally influenced

* Units in cm/sec

cr»

Hydrogeologyin

CO(XL

:c^5•'ilryc^::* TM

.'•70*>1'«M^^jr

i—'•^-v';

v—

V

y -t

,T. t5£XAWARE

MVC5HQAHOM RCPOffTGROUKDWATER CONTOUR MAP-

COLUMBIA FORMATION HIGH TIDE10/15/96

BBL 3-8

Hydrogeology COoc

~>C^ V *4-- Hi?\ ;i~i--:i •

.ND IfeKL IHtl.Hi<ftt'!l3 WM.j-*ACr>{>, Ar Sttwf'Cwf ctW*Ui£ CO*>JC7(VTTY C*

•

LtSi-ND

I»O(ITGROUNOWATER CONTOUR MAP-

POTOMAC FORMATION HIGH TIDE1C

BBL 3-12

NAPL Characterization/Distributionen

CO

Surface soils/vadose zone £J

- NAPL Types:

• Weathered, brittle, granular, and immobile (behaves like a solid). Generally found in surface soils andsome subsurface soils above the water table

• NAPL Blebs and Thin Seams: Present in very small quantities in samples; likely at or below residual saturationand therefore immobile and immobilizable

- Observations: Extensively visible in large areas at or near the ground surface

Below the water table (> 10 feet)

- NAPL Types:

• NAPL Blebs and Thin Seams: Present in very small quantities in samples; likely at or below residualsaturation and therefore immobile and immobilizable

Saturated NAPL. Present throughout pore spaces in a sample; potentially mobilizable

• Pooled NAPL: Present as a continuous phase in the soil; mobilizable

- Observations:

• NAPL was initially present at two shallow MWs (MW-2A and MW-8A) during Rl activities

NAPL was not measured at these same two MWs in Fall 2002 (sheen only)

NAPL DistributionOsJT>-J-in

co

V S

' rt ~ ' ""V" ~ ~

f \ •\ \ v* ^ \

.A-A iv . » \

\ ;

l. OUAWARL

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION RETORT

SURFICIAL CREOSOTE/TARDEPOSITS DELINEATION

BBL 4-1

NAPL DistributionCOT»

LO

V

FOftuTR KOPPEKS COMPANY, INC. NCWPOftT SITE

NEWPORT, DELAWAREREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

EXTENT OF NAPL BELOWTHE WATER'TABLE

BBL BUSLAHQ, BOUCX & J.L IHC.

4-2

Groundwater Quality and UseTV

•J-

to

co

Groundwater Quality (5 sampling events)- Impact limited to upper hydrostatigraphic unit- Lower hydrostratigraphic unit not impacted- Impact is not horizontally extensive; limited to "halo" around some NAPL areas- BTEX and other VOCs detected in samples from MW-2A at levels >^\ ppm- Total PAHs detected in samples from MW-2A at levels >10 ppm (NAPL blebs

potentially present in samples)- Low levels of BTEX and total PAHs (<50 ppb) detected in some other wells

Groundwater Use- Groundwater in upper hydrostratigraphic unit not used for potable water •- Groundwater in lower hydrostratigraphic unit is used for potable water in some areas- There are no drinking water wells at the site- There are no current potential human health risks based on groundwater exposure

pathways identified in the EPA-approved risk assessment

Groundwater Quality LO

COor:

i W ]*?,:**! •'•**_' *'*T I*7?rioc'"T 14 Tsc" =?* ' " Iw"

'. 3ft AAAR?

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTiy« 4yia j »/»»/!> ia^>

SUMMARY ANALYTICAL RESULTSUPPtR HYOBOSTRATKJRAPHIC UNIT (COLUMBIA

FORMATIOK AND OUAtERNAMV DEPOSITS)

Technical Evaluation

UD

co

Resistance heating- 6 phase heating- 3 phase heating

In-situ thermal desorption (ISTD)

Steam injection

Technical Evaluation Approach4'

• Technology Overview• Status of Technology• Challenges• Applicability to the Site• Conclusion

in

COQC.

CO

in

coor

RESISTANCE HEATING

- 6 Phase Heating- 3 Phase Heating

Technology Overviewin

COor

Uses electromagnetic waves to heat up soil andgroundwater

Electrodes are required to transmit energy

All subsurface features receive energy

Large subsurface features (tank, foundations,etc.) act as energy sinks

Technology Overview:6 c|) Heating

Applied as stand-alone technology

6 electrodes in hexagon around neutral vent well

Hexagon diameter typically -20-45'

Typical objective was to boil water/NAPL, volatilizeNAPL, or drive via steam stripping

Requires above-ground vapor and water treatmentsystems

LO

CO

Technology Overview:3 4 > Heating

. Primarily used as component ofDynamic Underground Stripping (DUS)

. Provides technique to accelerate heatingof low permeability layers during steaming

O10inco

Status Of Technology

CNi

oin

COex:

Commercially available technology

Multiple field pilot tests have beencompleted (chlorinated solvent sites)

Several full-scale applications havedemonstrated advantages anddisadvantages

ICN Pharmaceuticals Site,Portland OR

COo10\n

COor

December 2002 EPA/TIO Conference

Presentation by Jennifer Sutter, Oregon DEQ

120'x80'Area;60ftbgs

TCE, daughter products, benzene, toluene

Heating Electrode - Portland, ORO10'•.n

CO

Well Field Layout - Portland, ORLO

in

COaz-cr

Status Of Technology

• Lower cost approaches being evaluated

• Costs typically not competitive with steaminjection

•

• Focusing on lowering energy requirements byjust heating to reduce viscosity or enhancebiodegradation

• Would still require collection of fluids

\nID

CO

ChallengesoinLO

COrt:

Failures of electrodes and wells experienceddue to localized overheating

Water infiltration used to prevent "dryout" andcontrol overheating

Difficult to balance water infiltration and heatingrequirements

Larger treatment areas require more than onehexagon

Steam Release - Portland, OR

COoLOLO

CO(XL

«*

Applicability to SiteSix Phase Heating

Power supply: High power lines would have to be routed to site and transformerinstalled. Would likely require phased implementation

• Size of Impacted Area: Would require multiple hexagons, creating interference andchanneling between adjacent cells

Heterogeneities: Low and high permeabilities will exacerbate uneven heating andalso prevent uniform distribution of water used to control overheating

Creosote: Never successfully applied for creosote; DNAPL will be difficult to fullyrecover and may migrate into underlying layer

Three Phase Heating*

Primarily applicable as component of steam injection»* .

Further evaluated w/ steam injection

LOLO

CO

Conclusions - 6 PhaseLOLO

CO

Electrical Resistance Heating

6 phase heating is not feasible as a stand-aloneremedy given the types of soil andcontaminants present at the site and overalllimitations for effectiveness of the technology

3-phase heating is further evaluated ascomplement to steam injection

LOLO

CO

In Situ Thermal Desorption

Technology Overview• Patented technology licensed to single vendor

CXJ

LOLO

COoc:

The process uses thermal conduction to heat soil and groundwaterto vaporize contaminants

Electric elements are placed in steel wells and operated at >1400°F(750°C)

Heating progresses through soil laterally from each thermal well

Heating is continued until vaporization of interstitial water andcontaminants is complete

Vapors are extracted by SVE and treated via abovegroundequipment (RTO/GAC)

Technology OverviewApplied as stand-alone technology

Typically applied in vadose zone for treatment ofrecalcitrant contaminants (e.g., PCBs)

Thermal wells placed on 5-7 foot centers

Demonstrations and full scale implementation performedfrom 1996 to present

Typical power requirements are 350 Watts per linear footof heater element

CO

LOLO

COcc

Technology OverviewVapor Pressure of Contaminants

inin

cocc.uct

300 C 200 C

LO

LOLO

COCfL

TechnologyOverview

ThermModel

Simulation

TechnologyOverview

Stainless SteelConstruction

SimultaneousVacuum Extraction/Electrical Heating

LOLO

COcc«cr

5-7 feet

Technology StatusThermal Well Project History

• Missouri Electric Works/BADCAT Demonstration- 12 wells; 2-12 feet BGS; PCBs

• Portland, IN - Industrial Manufacturing Facility100 wells; 2-19 feet BGS; Solvents

• *Eugene, OR - Bulk Storage Facility700 wells; 2-11 feet BGS; Petroleum

• Centerville Beach, CA - Former Naval Facility- - 60 wells; 5-16 feet BGS; PCBs

• *Alhambra, CA Former Wood Treating (ongoing)- ~ 600 wells; 10-90 feet BGS; PCP, PAHs

r-.

LOLO

COQC.•ct

Eugene, OR - Full Scale ProjectAerial Photograph

CO

inin

CO

Eugene, OR - Full Scale ProjectProcess Monitoring

cr»

LOLO

COcc.•tr

^TCRRATHERM li

2ti IO - o f j

5V.VAVAV.•v.v.v.

Hott*«t:Muttr MAN 1626Slav* 1S«OLJi2*i

8M Point 1600Currant Ramp 1«OORamp Mate 2OOOutyCycl*<KAlarm PoinU:Hlgti 0Lew

Alhambra, CA- Full Scale PThermal Well Field Construction

OCNJLO1.0

CO

• 15,000 cycontaminated to100' depth in siltysands

• PAHContamination

ChallengesC\JLOin

COcc.

Failures of elements experienced due to overheating

Groundwater recharge (horizontal and vertical)

Permitting/operation of air quality control equipment

Maintaining subsurface vacuum levels

Larger areas require significant electric power forsimultaneous operation

Applicability to Newport SiteCNJC\JLOLO

COcc

Dewatering of treatment areas will be necessary to achieve sufficienttemperatures to vaporize contaminants

Groundwater recharge will limit ability to dewater upper hydrostratigraphic unitdue to K

Surface insulation and seals will be required to achieve elevated temperaturesand recovery of contaminants, thereby impacting existing vegetation

Significant impacted material will be generated from thermal well installations(5-7 ft spacing)

Permit substantive requirements will be necessary for operation of above-ground treatment AQC equipment

Power requirements will exceed current resources available

ConclusionsCOc\jLOLO

COcc«cr

ISTD will not be able to attain effective treatment without completelyde-watering the Columbia Formation, which is improbable giyeh thepermeability and structure of site soils, as well as the proximityofsurface water features

Dewatering the Columbia Formation could result in increasing thedownward hydraulic gradient and/or desiccation and fracturing of thefine-grained unit, which increases the risk of mobilizing NAPLdownward into the Potomac formation

Ground water/surface water control requirements are virtually'insurmountable

Wetland habitat destruction required in some areas

CNJ

LOLO

COoc

Steam Injection

(Steam Enhanced Extraction)(Dynamic Underground Stripping)

Technology OverviewLOCNJLOLO

COcc•cr

Two main patents- UC Berkeley- Lawrence Livermore

Heat up subsurface via injection of steam

Derived from thermally-enhanced oil recovery

Efficient way to apply energy to subsurface

Well Layout for Steam Injection

03

C/3

T3(73d)

o

CO

V/" V^

v/* v/* vy

N-/" vy vy

Injection well

Extraction well

CNJLOLO

COCC•CC

Technology Overview:Typical Application ;

• Steam injected via stainless steel wells

• Fluid recovery from extraction wells using dual-phase pumps

• Distance between wells - same as depth toground surface

• Steam "chest" evolves spherically from injectionwell if no other influences

r-.C\JLOLO

CO

Process Flow for Steam InjectionCOC\JLOLO

CO

Watersofteners Fresh water supply/treated

recirculated water

Stack gas exhaust toatmosphere

Off-gaspolisher

Stack

Steam to pressureregulator stations and

well-field

Power toprocessequipmentand net

-*-

Heat exchanger/condenser

De-airator Air b|ovver

PumP treatment Q]

Technology Overview:Multiple Recovery Mechanisms

Contaminants removed via volatilization,distillation, steam displacement, andbiodegradation

Mechanisms different for different contaminantsand lithologies

Most effective in zones with K > 103 cm/s

Other technologies used in conjunction withsteam (3-(() Heating)

enC\JLOLO

COcc

Status of TechnologyOCOLOLO

CO

Proven technology via pilot tests

1 field-scale, full-size application (Visalia)

Several vendors w/ experience and licenses- SteamTech- IWR

- SCE w/ CH2M Hill

- ERM?

Status of TechnologyCOLOLO

COor«cr

Effectiveness is function of site-specificfeatures

Bench tests don't simulate site-specificeffectiveness

Field pilot tests required for optimization

Case Study at VisaliaCMCOinin

oocc

Visalia Pole Yard; Visalia, CA

Creosote DNAPL

Target zone was 700' x 300' x 120'bgs

Layered geology

COCOLOLO

CO

Phase I Steam Injection Cross Section

. 'Ac-LI . Ml 11 1 <lll

Grounkiraiter Flux 3 gpdj'ff2

10 Source: Eaker, 2000.

Phase II Steam Injection Cross-Section

COLOLO

COQC

14 Source: Eaker, 2000.

Representative Well Field Layout

LOCOLOLO

COOC

e-J t- —_.^ _ -__ _

Piping & Instrumentation DiagramFreshwater

supply '

Water

softenersWS1

51

FRT.P

Vaporfrom

centralwell

Vap »ors ^fr°welm Isoufend *sideE ,extw fracVJaeion is *

»—

uidextrs acti *~~froon

m welou|s ^side *

Liquid from centrextraction well

C

P L ( \i' Propane fuel' PROP1 j

T.P V. JI n , 0^

• o3 FRP i,team genera

1Brinewaste

Liquic

Heat exchanger/ sepcondenser L

HX1

PoDint-r hKI 'H " SG-1

DAI ^ ::'::Air dryer Air blower I;!;

Am (—} K :;|:/vapor Vacuum pump 1 i/ ;:;:

arator > • • "•""vsi (C^i Tr :•::

^~"X* v/1: Primarv 1, /v \ V2 ^ f^Af.1 »

T V_V T ^TT^- ^ y^7 va water

Heat exchanger/condensor V-

HX2 ^

Heatexchanger

HX4

L3-To NAPL

P* ' ' 1 ^ J T'P FRT,T |f« gjjj^=^ Air VS V9 ~ V10 I>

y AD2 FRT.T.P f^> VS §

vs lillsl^ Liquid /vapor K**S«SPS«| Q^

:•:•:'] T P I Prmary;•:•:• i .H.L ^Ar?

,,__>; PT.L-

: LII

.,.„ . -^ * HHHH " HRT.LS

FT.LS :•:•

L3-water

Heatexchanger

!l HX3

U //\^\ L2

T ^J '

•!•"• Breakout ..u.u/:;j;: tank separator 2

VDDO- ^ L5 L6 ^^

^jW® « FT.LS Bnnewas,e FRT,LS j:i

" and blowdown ,I;I.

T.L- g)— * W3ter Wate

'Gra'vi'.y' ^'.^Rflparator 1 „ ....

tack gas exhaust toatmosphere

1VS f V12or | Steam to 4

*

injection wells • •

• k ''-FR.T.P • ._

I-2 • 1

a *S< Steam FR'T'P

FR.T.Pvy ,.3

Pressure • ^ *regulator FR.T.P

1-4 -•m B» '

1 V.1 r-K var,r,r«.r, FR.T.P ,.

gi VS ' atmosphere

sherVC3

^

i

r holdincank

.. --

^BNAPL holding

tank

L7r^, , . — 1\ To Unocal=* _ Jl . _ ' — i/ disposal wells

rKI ,Lb •

L

;

GS1 * Monitoring/sample point P Pressure

FINAL FR Flow rate T TemPeratijre

FT Flow totalizer VS Vapor sampling point

FRT Flow rate and totalizer LS Liquid sampling point

COLOLO

COQC.

Challenges - Design%

• Design of injection rates / injection wellspacing / injection depth

COLOLO

CO

Design of recovery system, wells andtreatment train

Cost-effective pilot test

Challenges:Ideal Features for Steam Injection

Easy access to utilities and monitoring

Moderate permeability or layer-cake geology withcontaminants in high K zone

*

Limited heterogeneities

Impermeable cover at ground surface

Contaminants that are highly volatile, low viscosity,single component, or highly biodegradable bythermotropic bacteria

COCOLOLO

CO

COLOLO

COCC

Applicability to Newport Site

Steam Injection at NewportCD-U-LOLO

CO(DC

10 to 15 feet between injectors and extractors

Thermocouples arranged between injectors andextractors to monitor steam drive

Injection rate sufficient to achieve steam breakthrough in~ 2 weeks

Aboveground piping on hangers to allow access to allwells

Newport Application (Cont'd)

• Mount equipment on skids to facilitatesteam generation and fluidseparation/treatment

LOLO

COOC.

Approx 20 skids may be required

NAPL, water, and vapor effluent streamsrequire separate cooling and treatment

Factors Influencing Success«

• Ground surface- No barrier creates concern for steam venting- Drilling and piping will denude vegetation

CNJ-3-LOLO

COor

Shallow application- Steam may channel or vent along injection

well to surface- Injection pressures could cause fracturing

Factors Influencing Success \%

• Heterogeneities- Difficult to control migration of contaminants- Heating will be uneven- Limit recovery effectiveness

CO

LO

COor

ncreased potential migration into lowpermeability units- Lower geologic unit- Low permeability zones within steam zone

Factors Influencing Success

• Contaminant^

- High viscosity- Low volatility- Key recovery mechanism will be distillation- Recovery will require long sustained

application

IDin

COcc.•ct

ConclusionsSteam Injection Is Not Feasible Because:

Shallow depth without ground cover would allow short-circuiting of injectedsteam and steam venting at surface. Steam would potentially over-rideintended DNAPL.

Creosote recovery via distillation would require long-term application ofsteam.

Injection pressures would likely cause fracturing, with unintended steamand contaminant migration. Steam front could not be monitored.

Heterogeneities would limit heating and limit recovery of low permeabilityzones. Contaminants would be mobilized from high-K zones to low-Kzones. Recovery well operation could not be optimized. Low K zones arenot continuous layers and thus not applicable for three phase heating".

Large size of impacted area would require phased implementation ofsteam treatment cells; phased program has never been successfully tried.

LO-3-LOLO

COQC•o: