Perspectives on Innovative Perspectives on Innovative Characterization and Remediation Characterization and Remediation

Technologies for Contaminated SitesTechnologies for Contaminated Sites

Sept. 27, 2001ENRY

Belgrade, Yugoslavia

Walter W. Kovalick Jr., Ph.D.Director

Technology Innovation OfficeUS Environmental Protection Agency

8/3//01

Technology Innovation OfficeTechnology Innovation Office

Responsible Responsible Party/Party/OwnerOwner

OperatorOperator

Federal/Federal/StateState

Project Project ManagerManager

ConsultingConsultingEngineerEngineer

Technology VendorTechnology Vendor

International Markets

Investor Community

Technology Vendors

Clients for Information on Technology Innovations

8/3//01

TIO’s MissionTIO’s Mission

• Advocates “smarter” technologies for the characterization and cleanup of contaminated sites

• Works with clients to identify and understand better, faster, and cheaper options

• Seeks to identify and reduce barriers to the use of innovative technologies

8/3//01

http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

Superfund Remedial Actions:Superfund Remedial Actions:Summary of Source Control Treatment Technologies Summary of Source Control Treatment Technologies

(FY 1982 - FY 1999)(FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Soil Vapor Extraction (196)

26%

In-Situ Soil Flushing(16) 2%

In Situ Bioremediation (35) 5%

In Situ Solidification/

Stabilization (46) 6%

Incineration (off-site) (94) 13%

Thermal Desorption (61) 8%

Bioremediation (49) 7%

Incineration (on-site) (42) 6%

Chemical Treatment (10) 1%

Solidification/Stabilization (137) 19%

Other (ex situ) (32) 4%

Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58% In Situ Technologies (314) 42%

Other (in situ) (21) 3%

http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

Superfund Remedial Actions:Superfund Remedial Actions:In Situ Technologies for Source Control In Situ Technologies for Source Control

(FY 1985 - FY 1999)(FY 1985 - FY 1999)

Percentage of Source Control Treatment Projects

44%

34%

47%

61%

68%

31% 33%

45%

31%

21%

29%

36%34%

50%47%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99Fiscal Year

Percentage of Treatment TechnologiesLinear Trendline (In Situ Projects)

http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

Superfund Remedial Actions:Superfund Remedial Actions:Groundwater Remedies (FY 1982 - FY 1999)Groundwater Remedies (FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Total Sites With Pump-and-Treat, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and In Situ Groundwater Treatment Remedies = 749

Pump-and-Treat Only (521)71%

Pump-and-Treat and In Situ (48)

6%

Pump-and-Treat and MNA (55)

7%

In Situ Only (16)2%

Pump-and-Treat, In Situ, and MNA (14)

2%

In Situ and MNA (3)<1%

MNA Only (92)12%

http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field-Scale Demonstration Projects in North America, 2nd EditionYear 2000 Report

http://cluin.org/products/nairt/overview.htmhttp://cluin.org/products/nairt/overview.htm

8/3//01

North American Innovative North American Innovative Technology Demonstration Projects Technology Demonstration Projects

ReportReport

• Matrix summarizing 601 government-sponsored demonstrations (1985-present)

• Sponsoring government agencies (North America)– Canadian Government– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency– U.S. Military Services (Army, Navy, Air Force)– U.S. Department of Energy– California Environmental Protection Agency

http://clu-in.org/products/nairt/http://clu-in.org/products/nairt/

8/3//01

North American Innovative North American Innovative Technology Demonstration ProjectsTechnology Demonstration Projects

In Situ Technologies 383 ProjectsIn Situ Technologies 383 Projects

Soil Physical/Chemical (103)

Ground Water Physical/Chemical (99)

Ground Water Biological (61)

Soil Thermal (54)

Soil Biological (66)

8/3//01

8/3//01

FRTR Cost and Performance GuideFRTR Cost and Performance Guide In-Situ Ground Water Remediation Technologies In-Situ Ground Water Remediation Technologies

with Recommended Reporting Elementswith Recommended Reporting Elements

• Air Sparging• Bioremediation• Bioslurping• Circulating wells (UVB)• Cosolvents/surfactants• Dual-phase extraction• Dynamic underground stripping• In-situ oxidation (Fenton’s

Reagent)

• Natural attenuation of nonchlorinated compounds

• Natural attenuation of nonchlorinated hydrocarbons

• Permeable Reactive Barriers• Pump and Treat• Phytoremediation• Steam flushing• Vertical barrier walls

8/3//01

FRTRFRTRRemediation Case StudiesRemediation Case Studies

• Document cost/performance of clean-up technologies

• Includes full-scale cleanup and large-scale demonstrations

• 274 EPA, DoD, DoE cases

• Searchable by technology, contaminant, media (www.frtr.gov)

• Superfund, RCRA, State sites

http://www.frtr.govhttp://www.frtr.gov

8/3//01

FRTR Case Studies:FRTR Case Studies:Summary of Contaminants and Media Summary of Contaminants and Media

Treated *Treated *

* Some case studies address more than one * Some case studies address more than one type of media/contaminanttype of media/contaminant

Chlorin

ated

Solven

ts

Pestic

ides/

Herbic

ides

Contaminant TypesContaminant Types

45

70

1

19

9

91

16

19

2

132

52

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

28

20

11Meta

ls

29

35

BTEX/TP

H

PAHsRad

ioacti

vity

PCBs

Explos

ives

Soil Groundwater Debris/Solid

Num

ber o

f Cas

e St

udie

sN

umbe

r of C

ase

Stud

ies

http://www.frtr.govhttp://www.frtr.gov

8/3//01

Remediation Technology Cost Remediation Technology Cost Compendium – Year 2000Compendium – Year 2000

• Historical cost data compilation for six cleanup technologies: bioremediation, thermal desorption, SVE, on-site incineration, pump-and-treat, and PRBs

• Focus on unit costunit cost for quantity treated and contaminant mass removed

• “Fully defined” cost data– Based on actual applications from federal agency sources– Directly linked to technology application

• Cost curves developed• Findings reconfirm factors driving remediation technology costs • Available September 2001

8/3//01

Bioventing Cost/Volume CurveBioventing Cost/Volume CurveRemediation Technology Cost Remediation Technology Cost

CompendiumCompendium

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)

Uni

t Cos

t ($/

yd3 )

BestFit

LowerConfidence Limit - 1 StandardDeviation

UpperConfidence Limit - 1 StandardDeviation

8/3//01

EPA REACH IT SystemEPA REACH IT System

• Free information service, searchable on-line • Vendor information on 371 treatment and 160

characterization technologies• Detailed site information on 900 EPA Superfund

remediation projects • Flexible search options including by technology,

contaminant, media, and sites• Updated continuously by EPA and vendors• Replaces 3 previous PC based systems - requires

no downloading

http://www.epareachit.orghttp://www.epareachit.org

EPA’s Environmental Technology EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification ProgramVerification Program

http://www.epa.gov/etvhttp://www.epa.gov/etv

8/3//01

ETV Site Characterization and ETV Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies PilotMonitoring Technologies Pilot

Categories Technologies

Verified Report Status Cone penetrometer/laser-induced fluorescence 2 Completed

Field-portable XRF (SITE) 7 Completed

Field portable GC/MS 2 Completed

Soil/soil gas sampling (SITE) 6 Completed

Well-head monitoring of VOCs 5 Completed

PCB analysis 9 Completed

Decision-support software 6 Completed

Ground water sampling 6 Completed

Explosives test kits 4 Completed

TPH test kits (SITE) 5 In Peer review

Sediments sampling (SITE) 2 Completed

Lead-in-dust detection 8 New Project

http://www.epa.gov/etvhttp://www.epa.gov/etv

Monitoring: Saving Monitoring: Saving ResourcesThroughout the ResourcesThroughout the

Cleanup ProcessCleanup Process

“Let’s get through characterization and on to cleanup”

8/3//01

Systematic Planning

Dynamic Workplanning

On-Site Measurement Technologies

The Triad ApproachThe Triad Approach

8/3//01

Characteristics of the “Triad”Characteristics of the “Triad”

• Fully maximizing capabilities of field analytical instruments and rapid sampling tools

• Systematic planning – Meeting site or project-specific goals vs.

prescriptive methods “checklists”– Relying on thorough advance planning/up-

front understanding of the site– Global view of project, ultimate goals

• Dynamic or adaptive decision making• Bringing together the right team• Changing perception

– Requirements for accurate, protective, and defensible decisions

– Time, money, and quality

8/3//01

Recent Bioremediation ReportRecent Bioremediation Report

• Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites• Describes site-specific applications of ex situ and

in situ bioremediation at 104 Superfund sites• Summarizes contaminants and media treated• Provides available cost and performance data• Analyzes trends over time• 48 pages• http://clu-in.org/techpubs.htm

8/3//01

Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999)Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999)11

Part 1 of 2Part 1 of 2

32

2219

13

8

Wood Preserving

Petroleum Refining,

Reuse, and Pipeline

Landfill/ Disposal

Area

Underground/ Aboveground Storage Tank

Pesticide Manufacturing/ Use/Storage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.

Total Projects = 104

Site Type

8/3//01

Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999)Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999)11

Part 2 of 2Part 2 of 2

1 Some sites are described by more than one site type.Site Type

Fire/Crash Training

Area

Munitions Manufacturing

or Storage

Surface Impound-ment or Lagoon

Vehicle Maintenance

Drum Storage/Disposal

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

Total Projects = 104

7 7 7 7 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

8/3//01

Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99)

Ex SituEx Situ Source Treatment Technologies Source Treatment Technologies

Biopile 3 Ž Ž Ž

Slurry Phase 2 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Other 3 Ž Ž

Land Treatment

33 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Composting 8 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Techno-logy

Total No. of Projects PAHs

Other Non-Chlori-natedSVOCs BTEX

OtherNon-Chlori-natedVOCs

Pesti-cidesAndHerbi-cides

OtherChlori-natedSVOCs

Chlori-natedVOCs

Explo-sives/Propel-lants

8/3//01

Example Windrow Composting Example Windrow Composting SystemSystem

FormWindrows

With soil and Amendments

PeriodicTurning ofWindrow

WindrowMonitoring

CompostAnalysis

WindrowDisassembly

AndDisposition

Excavateand

Screen Soils

8/3//01

Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99)

In SituIn Situ Treatment Treatment

Other 9 Ž Ž

Bioventing 24 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Slurry Phase 2 Ž

Ž

Ž Ž Ž Ž

Ž Ž

Source Control

Biosparging 3 Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž

Injection/Recirculation

17 Ž Ž Ž ŽŽ Ž

Groundwater

Techno-logy

Total No. of Projects PAHs

Other Non-Chlori-natedSVOCs BTEX

OtherNon-Chlori-natedVOCs

Pesti-cidesAndHerbi-cides

OtherChlori-natedSVOCs

Chlori-natedVOCs

Explo-sives/Propel-lants

8/3//01

In Situ Treatment TechnologiesIn Situ Treatment TechnologiesSoilSoil

• Established– Bioventing (fuels)– SVE (fuels, organics) – Solidification/stabilization (metals) – Soil washing

• Emerging– Electrokinetics (metals)– Phytoremediation (fuels, metals)– Thermal treatment (fuels, organics)

8/3//01

Superfund Remedial Actions:Superfund Remedial Actions:Percentage of Soil Treated by Technology Type Percentage of Soil Treated by Technology Type

(FY 1982 - FY 1999)(FY 1982 - FY 1999)

Other Ex Situ7%

Bioremediation (Ex Situ) 7%

Neutralization (Ex Situ) 7%

Solidification/Stabilization (Ex Situ)

8%

Solidification/Stabilization (In Situ) 6%

Other In Situ 3%

Bioremediation (In Situ)5%

Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ) 57%

http://cluin.org/asr

8/3//01

Soil Vapor ExtractionSoil Vapor ExtractionEnhancements/AdaptationsEnhancements/Adaptations

• MODIFY OPERATIONBioventing

• IMPROVE PLACEMENTDirectional Drilling

• INTEGRATE WITH GROUNDWATERDual-Phase ExtractionAir Sparging

• IMPROVE RECOVERYPneumatic FracturingHydraulic FracturingThermal Processes

Radio-Frequency HeatingElectrical Resistance HeatingSteam/Hot Water InjectionConduction

8/3//01

DescriptionDescription

• Use of plants to remove,destroy or sequestercontaminants

• Applicable to wide rangeof media and contaminants

• Hydraulic control andremediation

• Mainly poplars for chlorinated solvents in ground water

• Grasses for fuels, metals in soil

Contaminants TreatedContaminants Treated• VOCs• SVOCs• Fuels • Explosives• Inorganics

PhytoremediationPhytoremediation

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

8/3//01

ProsPros• In situ, permanent

solution• Low capital and

operating costs• Low maintenance• High hydraulic

pumping pressures• Reduced volume for

disposal• Treats wide variety of

contaminants

PhytoremediationPhytoremediation

ConsCons• Shallow, low- to moderate-

level contamination• Lack of performance data• Treatment duration• Seasonally, climatically

dependent• Not applicable to all mixed

wastes• Need to displace existing

facilities

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

8/3//01

In Situ Treatment TechnologiesIn Situ Treatment TechnologiesGroundwaterGroundwater

• Established– Air Sparging (fuels, organics)– Bioslurping (fuels, organics)– Enhanced Bioremediation

(organics, fuels)– Multiphase Extraction (fuels, organics)

• Emerging – Chemical oxidation (fuels, organics)– Electrokinetics (metals)– Phytoremediation (organics)– Recirculating Wells (fuels, organics)– Steam stripping (fuels, organics)

Permeable Reactive Barriers (metals, organics)

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

8/3//01

Biodegradation MechanismsBiodegradation MechanismsTypically Occurring with Enhanced Typically Occurring with Enhanced In SituIn Situ Bioremediation of CAHs Bioremediation of CAHs

CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination

Direct Cometabolic Direct CometabolicPCETCEDCEVC YesTrichloroethaneDichloroethane YesC. tetrachlorideChloroformMethylene chloride Yes

*Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons

CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination

Direct Cometabolic Direct CometabolicPCETCE YesDCE YesVC Yes YesTrichloroethane YesDichloroethane YesC. tetrachlorideChloroform YesMethylene chloride Yes Yes

CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination

Direct Cometabolic Direct CometabolicPCE Yes YesTCE Yes Yes YesDCE Yes Yes YesVC Yes Yes Yes YesTrichloroethane Yes YesDichloroethane Yes YesC. tetrachloride YesChloroform Yes YesMethylene chloride Yes Yes Yes Yes

8/3//01

Example Example In SituIn Situ Groundwater GroundwaterBioremediation SystemBioremediation System

8/3//01

TrendsTrends• Other reactive media

• Other contaminants

• Deeper contaminant plumes

NeedsNeeds• Longevity of wall reactivity

• Permeability changes due to precipitation

• Long term performance monitoring data

Contaminants TreatedContaminants Treated• Chlorinated solvents• Metals and radionuclides

Permeable Reactive BarriersPermeable Reactive Barriers

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

8/3//01

Remediation Technologies Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)Development Forum (RTDF)

Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Installation Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Installation ProfilesProfiles

CCCooonnntttaaammmiiinnnaaannntttsss TTTrrreeeaaattteeeddd FFFuuullllll---SSScccaaallleee PPPiiilllooottt SSScccaaallleee Chlorinated Solvents 23 13

Metals and Inorganics 8 2

Other Organic Compounds 6 1

Radionuclides 3 2

Nutrients 1 1

Fuel Hydrocarbons 0 2

http://www.rtdf.org

Natural Attenuation ProcessesNatural Attenuation Processes

include a variety of physical, chemical, or biological processes that

act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility,

volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater.

These in-situ processes include biodegradation, dispersion, dilution,

adsorption, volatilization, and chemical or biological stabilization or

destruction of contaminants.

Monitored Natural AttenuationMonitored Natural AttenuationRemediation of Sources and Source AreasRemediation of Sources and Source Areas

• Appropriate source control actions should be considered of the highest priority

• Source control measures should be evaluated at every site

• Improperly addressed contaminant sources complicate the long-term cleanup effort

Monitored Natural AttenuationMonitored Natural AttenuationPerformance MonitoringPerformance Monitoring

• Required to gauge effectiveness and protect human health and the environment

• Of even greater importance due to longer cleanup time frames for MNA

• Must demonstrate that NA is occurring as expected, identify transformation products, detect plume migration, verify attainment of cleanup goals

• Required for as long as contamination levels remain above cleanup goal anywhere on site

8/3//01

Rethinking Source Term vs. Plume Rethinking Source Term vs. Plume ManagementManagement

• Potential source term control solutions– Chemical oxidation– Surfactant-cosolvent flushing– Steam/heat

• Outstanding issues– Science– Policy– Other

8/3//01

Thermal Thermal EnhancementEnhancement

• ProsPros• Volatilizes VOCs• Can be used in low permeability soils• Can help remove DNAPL• Permits not usually required

• ConsCons• Could increase size of plume• Temporarily destroys biomass• Expensive

Heat source (steam, radio frequencyHeat source (steam, radio frequency

http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

8/3//01

Dynamic Underground (Steam) StrippingDynamic Underground (Steam) Stripping

• S. CALIF EDISION VISALIA, CA NPL SITE• Former wood (pole) treatment facility• Creosote, PCP• Pump & treat started in 1976, 10lbs/week• Began steam stripping 3 years ago• 100,000lbs removed in first 6 weeks• >1,300,000lbs removed to date• Goal to meet MCLs• More work needed to reduce costs

8/3//01

In Situ Thermal Cleanup ProjectsIn Situ Thermal Cleanup Projectshttp://cluin.org/products/thermalhttp://cluin.org/products/thermal

Organization # of ProjectsNavy 9

Air Force 5

Army 4

DOE 5

Private 37

Technologies Included:•Conductive Heating •ERH- Electrical Resistance Heating•Hot Air Injection•RF- Radio Frequency Heating•SEE- Steam Enhanced Extraction

8/3//01

CLU-IN World Wide Web SiteCLU-IN World Wide Web Sitehttp://clu-in.orghttp://clu-in.org

• Site Remediation Technologies • Site Characterization Technologies• Technology Partnerships, Roundtables, and Consortia • Updates on International Clean-Up Activities• Vendor Support • Publications for Downloading• Free E-mail Updates via TechDirect• Regulatory Information and Technology Policy• Links to Other Internet and Online Resources

8/3//01

• Broadcasts periodic e-mail messages to the list of over 11,000 subscribers.

• Highlights events of interest to site remediation and site assessment professionals.

• Describes new products and provides instructions on how to obtain them.

HighlightsHighlights

8/3//01

Top 10 Websites ForTop 10 Websites ForHazardous Waste Management Hazardous Waste Management

1. http://clu-in.org (or http://www.epa.gov/tio)2. http://www.epareachit.org3. http://www.frtr.gov4. http://www.gwrtac.org5. http://www.rtdf.org6. http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE7. http://em-50.em.doe.gov8. http://www.itrcweb.org/9. http://www.serdp.org/research/research.html10. http://www.epa.gov/etv/

8/3//01

8/3//01

Standard Environmental Engineering Standard Environmental Engineering Practice vs. Remediation PracticePractice vs. Remediation Practice

Civil/sanitary engineering disciplines

Use of experience and standards of practice for design, operation

Single technology orientation

Predictable operating environment

Interdisciplinary (chemical/civil engineering, microbiology, hydrology, geology)

More dependent on bench/pilot studies to assess treatability and determine design, operation

Treatment “trains” of multiple unit processes; systems integration

Unanticipated site conditions

Standard Engineering Practice Remediation Practice