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