building your case for sustainable remediation using a high resolution approach by john sohl...

© 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies.

Building Your Case for Cost Effec5ve Sustainable Remedia5on Using a

High Resolu5on Approach

Rapid, Real-‐Time High Resolu5on Site Characteriza5on

John Sohl, President/CEO COLUMBIA Technologies

www.columbiatechnologies.com [email protected]

+1-‐301-‐455-‐7644


Our Mission?


Efficient Sustainable

Social Economic Environment


Our industry spends over $1 BILLION each day assessing,

remediaVng, and making decisions on informaVon that is incomplete, inaccurate, and too

late.


Where does all the money go?


EPA 2011 NaVonal Backlog Study


Why?


80% of the errors, waste, and resources are spent on the wrong

and insufficient samples.


The NAPL Challenge


The NAPL Challenge

Oil Soil

Water Bugs

Vapor ??


The OIL Challenge Where is it (really)? Leaking or not? Moving or not?

Transmissive (recoverable) or not?Above saturaVon or not?

Degrading – YES but how fast?

© 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies. © 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies.

16

NAPL = Non-‐Aqueous Phase Liquid -‐  Do not mix with water and remain as a separate phase -‐  Include petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents

LNAPL = NAPL that is less dense than water -‐  Gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and crude oil -‐  MulV-‐component mixtures

Courtesy of:

LNAPL

© 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies. © 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies.

17

Courtesy of:

© 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies. © 2013 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Is it sand or clay? Or should we measure whether it is permeable or non-‐permeable?

The SOIL Challenge


Mass Discharge: Chemical Mass and Transmissivity

Across any Transect, a Contaminant Plume Conveys:

Groundwater Discharge, Q (e.g., L/day)

Contaminant Mass Discharge, Md (e.g., g/day or kg/year)

Md = Q x C (L/day x mg/L = mg/day)

Figure 2-‐1

Source Plume

Transects

Md

Q } C=Concentra5on

Well

20

Courtesy of:


It’s a Science Based Decision Tens of Thousands of Data Points to Define Problem

Is it worth the investment?

Ground Truth

Groundwater Flux

Highest

Lowest

Contaminant Concentra5on

Fast

Slow Figure 2-‐4

Courtesy of:

21


Heterogeneity Measured

•  Scale mahers – what needs to be measured •  How to interpolate between highly variable data •  Most transects sample < 1% of the groundwater

22

Courtesy of:

Clarity of Typical Site CharacterizaVon Power of High ResoluVon


80-‐90% of the contaminant mass is moving or stored within 10-‐20% of

the geospaVal volume


MIP (Membrane Interface Probe) (MIP-‐EC, MiHPT, MIP-‐HTL, LL MIP, MIP-‐XSD)

Vola5le Organic Compounds (VOCs) (Dissolved phase petroleum and/or Solvents )

LIF (Laser Induced Fluorescence) (UVOST®, ROST®, TarGOST®, FFD)

LNAPL/Residual phase petroleum Light petroleum fuels to coal tars

HPT (Hydraulic Profiling Tool) Soil hydraulics (pore pressure, soil permeability)

PST (Pneuma5c Slug Test) Soil characteris5c -‐ permeability

EC (Electrical Conduc5vity) Soil characteris5c -‐ electrical

CPT (Cone Penetrometer) Soil characteris5c, behavior type

Discrete Groundwater Profiling Short, discrete screen interval (0.2 – 1.0 meter)

VOCs, SVOCs, Metals, Biologics, Gases

Onsite Laboratory Analyses Rapid Laboratory grade GC, GCMS, HPLC, other

VOCs, SVOCs, Metals, Gases

Real Time Data Management Mapping and verGcal profile charts

Quality Assurance and Decision Making Results presented via Internet in real 5me

24 © 2013 COLUMBIA Technologies.


Direct Push Drilling Rig with Membrane Interface Probe for VOCs

MIP Transfer

Line

Drill Rods

Ultra Pure Compressed Gases


25

© 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies. 26

Op5cal Spectroscopy:

-‐  FOUR different frequency bands -‐  Fluorescent light received from the down hole window -‐  Lighter, shorter chain hydrocarbons blue-‐green -‐  Heavier, longer chain hydrocarbons orange-‐red -‐  Matrix effects -‐  Reference Emiher (RE) source test required

Kerosene/Diesel at water table

Deeper but lighter LNAPL



The WATER Challenge


Quick Notes: -‐  LNAPL share pore space with other fluids including air -‐  The head pressure of the LNAPL must overcome the pore entry pressure for LNAPL migraVon

28

Courtesy of:

Water LNAPL

Flow

Flow

For water wet media


Screen

ed

Interval


Screen

ed

Interval

Fined Grained Soil


“Upgradient” Transect

© 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies. The WATER Challenge

GW changes vs. Vme


$$ of Monitoring

Wells

NAPL D

istribuVon Cost-‐effec5vely characterize Contaminated sites



If you have a groundwater problem…you sVll have a

source problem.


The answer is not likely in the monitoring well.


MulVple Lines of Evidence

© 2014 COLUMBIA Technologies. 37 © 2013 COLUMBIA Technologies.

1. Isolate and

Refine the

Source Area

2. Determine

pathways

of permeability


Sample HPT Log

Quick Notes: -‐  Used to profile hydraulic pore pressure and permeability “effecVve K” -‐  Integrated EC -‐  PosiVve pressure flow of water supplied from surface -‐  Determine migraVon pathways, remediaVon injecVon regions, and placements for monitoring wells


38


Classic “shark fin” Evidence of higher NAPL saturaVons above

Supported by high pore pressure – low flow zone beneath


Quick Notes: -‐  VolaVle Organic Compounds (VOCs) -‐  Vapor, Dissolved Phase, Sorbed Phase,

some NAPL -‐  Typical DL: 1 ppm fuel / 200 ppb solvent

(can be lower with special procedures) -‐  Integrated Electrical ConducVvity and/or -‐  Hydraulic Profiling Tool -‐  OpVonal Heated Trunk Line -‐  Matrix effects -‐  Performance Test Required!


40


Think Sponge


Quick Notes: -‐  Performance test is GOOD -‐  Background check is GOOD -‐  Material in the formaVon is different than performance test standard and repeatable -‐  Material is at 17 and 19 feet below grade



Quick Notes: -‐  Performance test is GOOD -‐  Background check is GOOD -‐  Material in the well is lighter (more fresh, less degraded) than product in the formaVon -‐  Material in the well is different than the performance test standard -‐  Response is repeatable



Remember Csat



Sample MiHpt Log

Combined MIP-‐HPT Probe – mulVple lines of evidence in the same push!

-‐  Contaminant distribuVon of VOCs -‐  Measurements of EC -‐  HPT pore pressure and EffecVve “K”


46


Flow

More Permeable

Less Permeable


Stable Baseline

XSD

•  Linear response to number of chlorine atoms •  20 measurements per foot •  Stop for heaVng every 1-‐foot


Confirms chlorinated compound

XSD

•  Linear response to the number of double bonds (e.g. Benzene) •  Compounds with IP < 10.2 eV

PID


Non-‐Benzene and Non-‐Chlorinated (Methane?)

XSD

•  Linear response to organic C-‐H bonds

PID

FID


PID with no XSD

XSD


PID


FID confirms PID

XSD


PID

FID


Press

More Permeable

Less Permeable


Press

Finer Grains?

Cond


Flow

More Permeable

Less Permeable

Setpoint


Probable Transport

XSD

•  ConVnuous comparison of chemical and soil parameters

PID Press

Probable Storage


Do we want to guess (and pay) for more hardware, chemicals, and lab analyses or do we want to pay for

results?


Think and

Restore

John Sohl, President/CEO COLUMBIA Technologies

www.columbiatechnologies.com [email protected]

+1-‐301-‐455-‐7644

building your case for sustainable remediation using a high resolution approach by john sohl...

Environment

soil challenge

ll mip

groundwater discharge

contaminant plume

petroleum hydrocarbons

separate phase

chemical mass

component mixtures courtesy