Pete CraigGeo‐Solutions

Passive (Aggressive) Barriers for Plume Remediation

www.vertexenvironmental.ca

SMART RemediationJanuary 26, 2017 │ Toronto, OntarioFebruary 16, 2017 │ O awa, Ontario

SMART isPowered by:

1

Passive (Aggressive) Barriers for Plume Remediation© Canada Geo-Solutions 2017

Pete Craig, M.Sc., PChem (BC)Regional Manager, Canada Geo-Solutionsrpcraig@geo-solutions.com250.885.7940

• > 30 PRBs (> 1500 total projects)

• Only firm in North America with biopolymer slurry trenching, continuous trenching and soil mixing under one roof

• $50 to $70 M/year worldwide

• Bonding to $75M+ (aggregate)

• Own fleet of specialty equipment

• 200+ years senior staff experience

2

(ETI, 2005)

4th International Conference on Sustainable Remediation [2016]

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Suggested, e.g., by McMurty and Elton [1985]

Gillham and O’Hannesin Field Test (U of Waterloo: Borden) [1991]

First full-scale: Sunnyvale, California [1995]

Moffett Field, Dover Air Force Base (long-term monitoring sites) [1996/97]

40 to 50 PRBs in operation [2000]

First PRB in Italy [2004]

Deep soil mix BOSS-100 (impregnated carbon) at Vandenberg [2009]

Over 200 in operation [2010]First multi-stage barrier in Australia [2010]ETI US ZVI Patent expires [2010]

CH2M multi-trench for LNAPL (Brazil) [2014]Fenton et al.: nitrogen and phosphorous treatment [2014]

3

Contaminants of Concern

ZV

I

Bio

ba

rrie

rs

Ap

atit

e

Ze

olit

e, S

MZ

Sla

g (B

OF

), M

eta

l Oxi

des

Act

iva

ted

Ca

rbo

n, G

AC

/PA

C

Pro

prie

tary

Car

bons

(Z

VI/

GA

C)

Org

an

op

hili

c/m

odifi

ed

cla

ys

Tra

nsf

orm

ed

Re

d M

ud

Ca

lcite

with

CO

2In

ject

ion

Lim

est

on

e, li

me

, qu

ickl

ime

Chlorinated ethenes, ethanes F F L F F

Uranium F P F L

Arsenic F L F F

Chromium(VI) F L L F

Cationic metals (e.g., Cu, Ni, Zn) L F F L L F L F

Chlorinated pesticides L L P

Selenium L L

Energetics P F P

Nitrobenzene P

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) F F L

Acid Mine Drainage F F F

Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) F

Nitrate F F F

Perchlorate F F L L

Sulfate F L

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) F F

Chloride (CL-) L L

Creosote, Hydrocarbon NAPLs F

Pentachlorophenol L

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) L

Ammonium P

Chlorinated methanes, propanes F

Flouride (Fl-) [Spent Potliner Leachate]] L

PFAS/PFOS L

Phosphate P

Strontium-90 F F

F - Full Scale; P- Pilot Scale; L – Benchtop/Laboratory ScaleModified from ITRC (2011). Contact presenter for detailed references. See also Obiri-Nyarko et al. (2014); CRC CARE Technical Report no. 25 (2016)

$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

NPV ($M)

Time (years)

(ITRC 1999)

30 Year PRB

7 Year PRB

10 Year PRB

15 Year PRB

Pump and TreatBreak Even

4

More PRBs

Proven Long Term 

Performance

Cost Pressure

Widening Range of 

Contaminants

GSR

Partially Penetrating (“Hanging”)

Fully Penetrating (“Keyed In”)

PLUMEPlan View - Continuous Reactive Barrier (CRB):Receptor Protection

Plan View - Continuous Reactive Barrier (CRB):Source Control

PLUME

MNA(?)

Bedrock

Sand

Reactive Material

Benner, 1995 – Nickel Rim (University of Waterloo)

5

(CRC CARE Technical Report 25, 2016)

Z = PRB thickness

K = hydraulic conductivity of the reactive media or zone (m/day)

i = hydraulic gradient through the reactive media or zone

n = porosity of the reactive media or zone

Ct = contaminant concentration in solution at time t (mg/l)

Co = influent concentration (mg/l)

k = first-order rate constant (d-1)

SF = safety factor

(CRC CARES/CH2M - 2016)

(K < 3.5 x 10-3 to 10-4 cm/sec)

6

Funnel and Gate

Reactive Zones, Passive Wells

Surround and Treat

Reactive Interceptors (PRIs), Drains, “Refractive Treatment”

Reactive (Sediment) Caps [Horizontal Barriers]

Geosiphon™

Funnel and GateReactive Zones, Passive Wells Reactive Interceptors (PRIs), Drains, “Refractive Treatment”

FILL & IMPACTED SOIL

DESIGN HIGHGROUNDWATER LEVEL

DESIGN LOW GROUNDWATER LEVEL

LOWER (UNAFFECTED) STRATA

NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE(SEPARATOR)

COLLECTION SUMP

OC/GAC/SAND

Above: Golder (2009) Sequential Sawdust/ZVI (Bellevue, Australia, w/ GSI); Right: CH2M (2014) NAPL Skim & Polish (Brazil, w/GSI)

Trend #1: Sequential Barriers

7

Engineered Wetlands

Permeable Reactive

InterceptorsPermeable Reactive Barriers

Left: Penn (2011) - “PRI” using BOF for Phosphate;

Right: Tetra Tech via USEPA (1998) (sic) – “Reactor Cells” of ZVI for CVOC

Trend #2: Low Energy Systems for Non-Point and Agricultural Pollution

The following conclusions were derived for the 68 PRBs where reviewable site data were readily available [2005]:

• 90% of the sites are reportedly meeting regulatory objectives

• 6% of the sites had hydraulic issues that have required system expansion (additional iron to address incomplete plume capture) or were related to construction artefacts

• 4% of the sites implemented pump and treat alternatives to ensure capture of the portion of the plume bypassing the PRB.

…To date, no ZVI PRB has required rejuvenation due to hydraulic plugging or loss of reactivity due to precipitate formation. In most environments, ZVI PRBs are expected to last at least 15 years before refurbishment or replacement is considered….However, for the 10% of the PRBs with relatively poor performance, it is apparent that hydraulic issues (rather than geochemical) have been the primary cause. Potential problems include unrecognised variability in plume dimensions, groundwater flow velocity and/or direction, and problems with PRB construction…”

Causes of Failure:

(1) Incorrect or incomplete conceptual site model

(2) Improper construction

CRC CARE 2016 and ETI 2005

8

MethodRelative

Mobilization Cost

Approx. Max. Depth

(m)

Relative Cost

Notes

Direct Placement Low 6* Very low Wide (>1.3 m), dewatering issues, safety, very depth limited

Trench Box Low 6* Low Wide (>1.3 m), dewatering issues, very depth limited

Sheet & Shore Medium 12 High Slow, possible dewatering issues, smearing, vibrocompaction.

Caissons Medium >12** High Slow, wastage in overlapping columns, smearing, vibrocompaction

Continuous Trencher High 12* Moderate Limited soil types, limited width, difficult to verify key.

Biopolymer Trench Medium >25 ModerateSlurry requires expert contractor, slower than trencher in shallow (<12 m) sandy soil.

Hydrofracturing, Injections Low/Medium >40Low to Moderate Gaps in coverage

Jetting/jet grouting Low/Medium 30 Very High Potential gaps in coverage

Soil Mixing Very High 30 High High cost.

Mandrels, Vibrating Beams Medium 30Low to Moderate

Gaps in coverage, extremely thin (0.15 m!), QA/QC difficult. Smearing, vibrocompaction. No spoils, though.

* Benching (digging down to create a work platform) extends depth

**Hypothetically, very large caissons and very large depths are possible. Most experience, however, is with caissons <2.5 m in diameter to depths < 12 m

Day 1999, ETI 2003, USACE 1997

9

10

Bio-Polymer Trenching

11

12

clu‐in.org (above); geo‐solutions (below)

13

• Similar to soil mixing

• Soils are eroded and mixed by high pressure (400 bar) streams of fluid• Can go through slab, in between (steel, concrete) utilities, drill on angle• (Potentially) smaller rig• More expensive

14

Masternbroek 60/80 (Mastenbroek 2016):

Steenbergen Hollanddrain BSY 4500 (GSI, 2016)

• Extremely effective in shallow (<12 m) sandy soil• Production rates of 60 to 120 m per day are possible

• Box limits PRB installs with trenchers to shallow depths• 15 m claimed: 8 to 9 m is the common maximum

• Cut width is set by chain• Hypothetically 30 cm (12”) to 1.2 m (claimed): generally 60 cm to 76 cm Built width is

narrower• Box is narrower than cutting chain (nominal 76 cm trench is usually closer to 69 cm)• Up to 25% compression of width in situ observed (Puls et al. 1999: Elizabeth City, NC).

15

SRB for AMD Falconbridge Nickel Rim Mine, Sudbury, ON (1995)

• U of Waterloo (Benner, Blowes, Ptacek, Waybrant) • Mulch wall downgradient of tailings dam (in bedrock trench)• Slightly acidic: pH 6 [iron oxidation not complete]• High sulfate & iron – also nickel, zinc• Water flowing through is net acid consuming

Photos: University of Waterloo (1995)

16

Modified from Benner et al. (1997)

20% municipal compost20% leaf mulch 9% wood chips1% limestone 50% gravel

sand filters

Tailings Pond

Tailings Dam

Clay cap

Fe2+ 1/4O2 + 5/2H2O Fe(OH)3(s)+2H+

SO42- + 2CH2O H2S +2HCO3

-

Fe2+ + H2S FeS + 2H+

Sulfate Reduction

Sulfide Oxidation

Iron Oxidation

FeS2(s) + 7/2O2 + H2O        Fe2+ + 2SO4

2‐+ 2H+bicarbonate

Benner et al. (1997)

Acid Generating

Potential (meq/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Iron (mg/L)

groundwater flow direction

meters

0 5 m

reactivematerial sandsand

>20

10 - 20

0.0 - 10

-10 - 0.0

<-10

>2000

1500-2000

1000-1499

500-999

<500

>350

250-350

150-249

50-149

<50

17

Passive Non Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Physical BarrierBinghamton, NY(2006)

• Design-Build (Arcadis: GSI as sub)• Former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP)• 30 m from river, ~ 20 abandoned pipes & conduits• Passive Dense and Light NAPL (DNAPL/LNAPL) collectors• 2,800 m2 biopolymer slurry trench• Jet grouting under infrastructure (diversion barriers)• Up to 17.4 m bgs

Permeable Absorbent Barrier (PAB)Mogi das Cruzes, Brazil (2014)

• CH2M/GSI• Replace multiphase extraction system • Phthalate LNAPL• Passive NAPL collection trench & sumps (116 m) • Low permeability cement-bentonite slurry wing wall • Organoclay/activated carbon absorptive barrier for dissolved phase (4 m deep)

Credit: Joyce Cruz, CH2M (2016)

18

Credit: Joyce Cruz, CH2M (2016)

Two-Stage Permeable Reactive BarrierPerth (Bellevue), Western Australia (2010)

• LandCorp; first biopolymer PRB in Australia (40% lower than next bid)• Golder; Menard Oceania/GSI as contractor (GHD as superintendent) • Multiple contaminants (incl. TCE, BTEX) entering Helena river after 2001 fire at

waste treatment facility• Two continuous 76 m long, 11 m deep reactive barriers

19

Golder (2009)

50% sand with 50% sawdust

Two mixes: 28% ZVI with 72% sand and 49% ZVI with 51% sand

The first Bio Polymer Slurry PRB install in Australia, as featured in “Engineers Australia” [May 2010, Vol. 82, No. 5]

Sand/ZVI

Sand/Sawdust

20

• AECOM/GSI• Injection failed• BOS-100 (iron impregnated

carbon)/sand mix for TCE/DCE• Bio-polymer slurry drilling fluid• 30 m long, 21 m deep (max.)• 2000 m2 face area

Soil Mixed Carbon Permeable BarrierVandenberg AFB, CA (2009)

High-Dose ZVI Soil Mixing (Barrier Repair)Ripley TN (2016)

• GSI/USA Environment• Hexavalent chromium plume at a plating facility. • Fix an existing PRB, treat hot spots• 437 m3 of soil with 191 tonnes ZVI (0.44 tonnes/m3) to 8 m.

21

http://www.geo-solutions.com/technical-papers

Technical papers, case studies, specifications:

Contact Us:

Tony Moran, P.E. – Project Directortmoran@geo-solutions.com517.490-2376

Pete Craig, PChem – Western Canada Regional Managerrpcraig@geo-solutions.com250.885.7940

Reference Repositories – PRBs

Geo-Solutions On-line Library (8 hand-picked PRB papers, including geotechnical guidance):

o http://www.geo-solutions.com/technical-reactive-barriers Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC):

o http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/ListDocuments?topicID=19&subTopicID=23

o http://www.itrcweb.org/Training/ListEvents?topicID=19&subTopicID=23(This site includes links to recordings of previous ITRC training!)

US EPA’s Contaminated Site Clean-Up Information (Clu-in.org):o https://clu-

in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Permeable_Reactive_Barriers%2C_Permeable_Treatment_Zones%2C_and_Application_of_Zero-Valent_Iron/cat/Overview//

Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team (references through 2009 only):

o https://rtdf.clu-in.org/public/permbarr/barrdocs.htm

22

Battelle (2002). Cost and Performance Report – Evaluating the Longevity and Hydraulic Performance of Permeable Reactive Barriers at Department for Defense Sites. Technical Report TR-2213-ENV. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP).

Benner, S.G., Blowes, D.W., Gould, W.D., Herbert Jr., R.B., Ptacek, C.J. (1999). “Geochemistry of a permeable reactive barrier for metals and acid mine drainage.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 2793-2799.

Benner, S.G., Blowes, D.W., Ptacek, C.J. (1997). “A full-scale porous reactive wall for prevention of acid mine drainage.” Ground Water Monit. Rem. 17, 99-107.

Benson, C., Lee, S., and Oren, A. (2008). “Evaluation of three organoclays for an adsorptive barrier to manage DNAPL and dissolved-phase polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in ground water.” Geo Engineering Rep. No. 08-24, Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.

Birke, V., Burmeier, H., et al. (2003). "Design, construction, and operation of tailored permeable reactive barriers." Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 7: 264-280.

Blowes, D.W., Ptacek, C.J., Benner, S.G., McRae, C.W.T., Bennett, T.A., Puls, R.W. (2000). ”Treatment of inorganic contaminants using permeable reactive barriers.” J. Contam. Hydrol. 45, 123-137.

Boldt-Leppin, B. E. J., Haug, M. D., and Headley, J. V. (1996). “Use of organophilic clay in sand-bentonite as a barrier to diesel fuel.” Can. Geotech. J., 33(5), 705–719.

Commission 5th Framework RTD Project no. EVK1-CT-1999-000021 "Passive in-situ remediation of acidic mine / industrial drainage" (PIRAMID). University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne UK. 166pp.

CRC CARE (2016). Guidance document: A framework for selecting, designing and implementing a permeable reactive barrier system. CRC CARE Technical Report No. 25. CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Newcastle, Australia.

Day, S.R., O'Hannesin, S.F., Marsden, L. (1999) Geotechnical techniques for the construction of reactive barriers. J Hazard Mater. 1999 Jun 30;67(3):285-97.

Doherty, R., Phillips, D. H. et al. (2006). "Development of modified flyash as a permeable reactive barrier medium for a former manufactured gas plant site, Northern Ireland." Environmental Geology 50: 37–46.

Fenton, O., Healy, M.G., Brennan, F., Jahangir, M.M.R., Lanigan, G.J., Richards, K.G., Thornton, S.F., & Ibrahim, T.G. (2014). Permeable reactive interceptors: blocking diffuse nutrient and greenhouse gases losses in key areas of the farming landscape. Journal Agricultural Science (1) 1-11

Fenton, O., Healy, M.G., Brennan, F., Jahangir, M.M.R., Lanigan, G.J., Richards, K.G., Thornton, S.F., Ibrahim, T.G. (2014).”Permeable reactive interceptors: blocking diffuse nutrient and greenhouse gases losses in key areas of the farming landscape.” Journal Of Agricultural Science, 152 :S71-S81.

Selected References – PRBs

Gavaskar, A., Gupta, N., Sass, B., Janosy, R., & Hicks, J. (2000). Design Guidance for Application of Permeable Reactive Barriers for Groundwater Remediation. Columbus, OH, Battelle.

Gavaskar, A., Yoon, W. S. et al. (2005). Long term performance assessment of a permeable reactive barrier at former naval air station Moffett Field. Columbus, Ohio, Battelle.

Gibert, O., Ferguson, A. S. et al. (2007). "Performance of a sequential reactive barrier for bioremediation of coal tar contaminated groundwater." Environmental Science & Technology 41: 6795-6801.

Guerin, T. F., Horner, S. et al. (2002). "An application of permeable reactive barrier technology to petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater." Water Research 36: 15–24.

Healy, M.G., Ibrahim, T.G., Lanigan, G.J., Serrenho, A.J., & Fenton, O. (2012). Nitrate removal rate, efficiency and pollution swapping potential of different organic carbon media in laboratory denitrification bioreactors. Ecol. Eng. 40, 198–209

Ibrahim, T.G., Goutelle, A., Healy, M.G. et al. “Mixed Agricultural Pollutant Mitigation Using Woodchip/Pea Gravel and Woodchip/Zeolite Permeable Reactive Interceptors.” Water Air Soil Pollut (2015) 226: 51.

ITRC (1999). Regulatory Guidance for Permeable Reactive Barriers Designed to Remediate Chlorinated Solvents, 2nd Edition. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC), December 1999, document available from http://www.itrcweb.org.

ITRC (1999). Regulatory Guidance for Permeable Reactive Barriers Designed to Remediate Inorganic and Radionuclide Contamination. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC), September 1999, document available from http://www.itrcweb.org.

ITRC (2000). Design Guidance for Application of Permeable Barriers for Groundwater Remediation. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC), March 2000, document available from http://www.itrcweb.org.

ITRC (2005). Permeable Reactive Barriers: Lessons Learned/New Directions. PRB-4. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Permeable Reactive Barriers Team. Available on the Internet at www.itrcweb.org.

ITRC (2011). Permeable Reactive Barrier: Technology Update. PRB-5. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, PRB: Technology Update Team. www.itrcweb.org.

Li, L., & Benson, C.H (2010). Evaluation of five strategies to limit the impact of fouling in permeable reactive barriers. J. Hazard. Mater. 181 (1–3), 170–180.

McGovern, T., T. F. Guerin, et al. (2002). "Design, construction and operation of a funnel and gate in-situ permeable reactive barrier for remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 136: 11–31.

Selected References – PRBs

23

Meggyes, T. and Simon, F.G. (2000). "Removal of organic and inorganic pollutants from groundwater using permeable reactive barriers: Part 2. Engineering of permeable reactive barriers." Land Contamination & Reclamation 8: 175-187.

Obiri-Nyarko, F., Grajales-Mesa, S.J., and Malina G (2014). “An overview of permeable reactive barriers for in situ sustainable groundwater remediation.” Chemosphere. 111: 243-59.

Penn, C. J., McGrath, J. M., Rounds, E., Fox, G., & Heeren, D. (2012). “Trapping phosphorus in runoff with a phosphorus removal structure.” Journal of Environmental Quality, 41(3), 672–679.

Powell, R.M., Blowes, D.W., Gillham, R.W., Schultz, D., Sivavec, T., Puls, R.W., Vogan, J.L., Powell, P.D., & Landis, R. (1998). Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies for Contaminant Remediation. Report EPA/600/R-98/125, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 51pp

Scherer, Michelle M. , Richter, Sascha , Valentine, Richard L. and Alvarez, Pedro J. J.(2000) 'Chemistry and Microbiology of Permeable Reactive Barriers for In SituGroundwater Clean up', Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 30: 3, 363 — 411

Simon, F.G. and Meggyes, T. (2000). "Removal of organic and inorganic pollutants from groundwater using permeable reactive barriers: Part 1. Treatmentprocesses for pollutants." Land Contamination & Reclamation 8: 103-116.

Snape, I., C. E. Morris, et al. (2001). "The use of permeable reactive barriers to control contaminant dispersal during site remediation in Antarctica." Cold Regions Science and Technology 32: 157–174.

Thiruvenkatachari, R., S. Vigneswaran, et al. (2008). "Permeable reactive barrier for groundwater remediation." Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 14: 145–156.

Tiehm, A., A. Müller, et al. (2008). "Development of a groundwater biobarrier for the removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, BTEX, and heterocyclic hydrocarbons." Water Science & Technology 58: 1349-1355

Selected References – PRBs