In Situ Treatment of Groundwater In Situ Treatment of Groundwater Contaminated with NAPL: Contaminated with NAPL:

Fundamentals and Case StudiesFundamentals and Case StudiesConference Background and Opening Remarks

December 10, 2002Chicago, IL

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

Technology Innovation OfficeUS Environmental Protection Agency

Kovalick.walter@epa.gov

1

2

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

3

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

4

Ranking Criteria for Difficulty in Ranking Criteria for Difficulty in Remediating Ground WaterRemediating Ground Water

HydrogeologyMobile

Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes)

Mobile Dissolved

Strongly Sorbed,

Dissolved

Strongly Sorbed,

Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes)

Separate Phase LNAPL

Separate Phase DNAPL

Homogeneous, Single Layer 1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 3

Homogeneous,Multiple Layers

1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 3

Heterogenous, Single Layer 2 2 3 3 3 4

Heterogenous, Multiple Layers 2 2 3 3 3 4

Fractured Bedrock 3 3 3 3 4 4

least difficult = 1 / most difficult = 4

National Research Council, 1997

HydrogeologyMobile

Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes)

Mobile Dissolved

Strongly Sorbed,

Dissolved

Strongly Sorbed,

Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes)

Separate Phase LNAPL

Separate Phase DNAPL

Homogeneous, Single Layer 1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 1-2

Homogeneous,Multiple Layers

1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 2 ?

Heterogenous, Single Layer 2 2 3 3 3 3 ?

Heterogenous, Multiple Layers 2 2 3 3 3 4

Fractured Bedrock 3 3 3 3 4 4

TIO Update to NRC Table, October 2002

5

Types of Sites Likely to Have Types of Sites Likely to Have Significant NAPLSignificant NAPL

• Chlorinated Solvents - TCE most common contaminant at NPL sites

• Wood Treaters - > 80 sites on NPL• Former Manufactured - Estimated 3,500-35,000

Gas Plants (MGP) sites• Petroleum Refineries - Large quantities of

LNAPL• Dry Cleaners - Very prevalent class for

state cleanup programs

6

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%

Source: Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition), U.S. EPA, EPA 542-R-01-004, February 2001

7

Selection of P&T for Superfund Remedial Selection of P&T for Superfund Remedial Actions 1986 - 1999Actions 1986 - 1999

92% 91% 88% 90% 90% 88%

78%73%

67% 70%

50%45%

24%30%

9% 6% 7% 5% 7%

16%

7% 9%

18%13%

17% 18%8%0%

5% 3% 5% 5%11%

25%21%

32%

59%53%

0% 10%

42%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998Fiscal Year

Percentage of

Groundwater RODs

P&T Only

P&T and Another Groundwater Remedy(MNA or In Situ Treatment)In Situ Treatment and MNA, but Not P&T

8

In Situ Groundwater Treatment for In Situ Groundwater Treatment for Superfund Remedial Actions 1986 - 1999Superfund Remedial Actions 1986 - 1999

0%

6%3%

7%

3%5%

9% 10%12%

9%

18%20%

22%

35%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fiscal Year

Percentage of

Groundwater RODs

In Situ Treatment

Linear Trendline

9

Estimated Annual Costs Incurred for Estimated Annual Costs Incurred for O&M at Fund-lead P&T SystemsO&M at Fund-lead P&T Systems

$0$5

$10$15$20$25$30$35$40

2001

2005

2009

2013

2017

2021

2025

2029

2033

2037

2041

2045

2049

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

O&M cost paid by EPA

O&M cost paid by States

?

10

Superfund Pump and Treat Superfund Pump and Treat Optimization InitiativeOptimization Initiative

• 2-yr nationwide study to evaluate/optimize 20 Fund-lead P&T systems

• Cost reductions identified at 17 of 20 sites– Total potential cost savings exceeds $5M/yr – Over 30 yrs this could save EPA and States $150M

• Improvements in remedy protectiveness identified at 17 of 20 sites– Lack of sufficient evaluation of capture zones highest priority

12

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

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

• Outstanding issues– Science– Policy– Other (Economic – Public and Private sector)

14

NAPL Site NAPL Site CharacterizationCharacterization• Essential component of the remedial package• Currently tool-limited for more complex

scenarios– Large facilities/chlorinated solvents/heavier

PAHs• Subject of future technical information transfer

efforts• EPA/Army COE/DOE--Argonne actively

investing in the rollout of the “Triad” approach to site monitoring

15

Systematic Planning

Dynamic Workplanning

Real Time Measurement Technologies

The Triad ApproachThe Triad Approach

19

DNAPL DNAPL Treatment Treatment Technologies: Technologies: Current ResourcesCurrent Resources

• Technology Evaluation Report: Technologies for Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Source Zone Remediation – Dec 98 (http://www.gwrtac.org)

• Technology Status Review: In Situ Oxidation – Nov 99 (http://www.estcp.org/documents)

• Guidance for In Situ Oxidation at Contaminated Sites:Technology Overview with a Focus on Permanganate Systems, Siegrist et al, DOE Jan 2000

20

DNAPL DNAPL Treatment Treatment Resources (cont.) Resources (cont.)

• In Situ Thermal Treatment Site Profiles – 67 projects

(http://clu-in.org/products/thermal)• In Situ Chemical Oxidation-- 200+ projects

(http://clu-in.org/products/chemox)• In Situ Surfactant/Cosolvent Flushing-- 46

projects (7 full-scale)Data Base under development

• In Situ Thermal Treatment Design Guide – Joint USACE/EPA effort – In preparation

21

Remediation Technologies Development Remediation Technologies Development Forum: NAPL Clean Up AllianceForum: NAPL Clean Up Alliance

• Mission: Develop technically practicable, cost-effective solutions to remediation of large sites contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., oil refineries)

• Formed in 2001; co-chaired by EPA Region 8 and Chevron/Texaco

• 15 members participate on the "core team" and many more "associate" members

http://www.rtdf.org/public/napl

22

RTDF-NAPL Alliance RTDF-NAPL Alliance Current ProjectsCurrent Projects

• Evaluation of innovative technologies for LNAPL removal - 2 Region 8 sites (Texaco and Conoco)

• LNAPL decision-making framework document– Guide for characterization and remediation at

large-scale LNAPL sites (draft 3/03)

• LNAPL Technical Training (anticipated 2003)– Characterization, mobility, and removal

• Pursuing additional state and EPA members– Recent discussions with ASTSWMO and TNRCC

23

State Coalition for Remediation of Dry State Coalition for Remediation of Dry Cleaners (SCRD)Cleaners (SCRD)

• Public-public partnership formed by TIO with 11 states having legislation; formed in 1998

• Mission: Share information on technical solutions and other issues re: PCE in soils and ground water from leaks, spills and drainfields

• States that are drafting legislation also attend (GA, LA, NM)

• Driving force in many states is deed transfers

24

SCRD- Resources (cont.)SCRD- Resources (cont.)• 1998 SCRD state survey of cleanup technologies

– 61% natural attenuation– 60% oxidation– 57% air sparging– 20% bioremediation

• Database of drycleaner site profiles– 61 profiles– Source removal technologies– Small sites are a microcosms – technology

application is quicker and more precise

http://drycleancoalition.org

25

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

26

• Broadcasts periodic e-mail messages to list of over 14,500 subscribers

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

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

HighlightsHighlights

27

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/

28

29

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

31

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