1

ITRC Fall Meeting 2007

Enhanced Attenuation: Chlorinated Organics

Judie Kean, (Fl )and Kimberly Wilson (SC) October 24, 2007

San Antonio, Texas

2

Background Information

Æ Project Name: Enhanced Attenuation/Monitored Natural Attenuation

Æ Team Name: Enhanced Attenuation: Chlorinated Organics (EACO)

Æ Year Project Began: December 2003 (Proposal) Æ First Team Meeting: March 2004 Æ Program Advisor: Steve Hill, REGTECH, INC

3

Team Logo

Enhanced Attenuation

ITRC Team

4

TEAM SLOGAN

PARTNERING WITH NATURE!!!!

5

Team Membership EACO TEAM 2007

26%

3%3%

6%3%

53%

6%

State MembersStakeholderDODDOEUSGSIndustryAcademia

State Representatives

CALIFORNIAFLORIDA

MAINESOUTH CAROLINA

NEVADANEW JERSEYNEW MEXICO

PENNSYLVANIAWASHINGTON

We have the best team!!!

6

Problem Statement Æ Original Team Problem Statement

è Chlorinated solvents and organic contamination exist nationwide and worldwide. There is little guidance available regarding when to transition from active remedies, such as source control, to a Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) remedy and from a MNA remedy to active remediation. Additional guidance is needed for the development of remedial strategies to enhance attenuation processes, by either increasing the attenuation capacity of the aquifer or decreasing the flux of contaminants.

è Promulgation of applicable scientific protocol and decision tools

can encourage regulators and the entire environmental market to promote innovative approaches to site closure reducing overall costs and timeframe No change in problem statement

7

TEAM CLOSURE 10/1/2008

PROJECT END •  July 2010

PROJECT START December 2003

Enhanced Attenuation: Monitored Natural Attenuation

PROJECT TRANSITION

•  Begin June 2010 • Evaluate the Current nature of the Tech-Reg and revise if necessary, or • Develop a ‘Status of the Technology” statement and end the project.

PRODUCT IMPLEMENTATION FINAL PHASE

•  Begin June 2008 •  End May 2010

PRODUCT IMPLEMENTATION INITIAL PHASE

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

• Develop Implementation Strategy April 2008

•  Insert Date Expected to Start

See next slides

January 2004

TEAM FORMATION

PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT

December 2003

•  Develop Implementation Strategy – Fall 2007

•  Organize Implementation Session with POCs – 2008

•  Develop Team Project Summary Statement - April 2008

8

Information “Building Blocks”

Enhanced Attenuation Fact Sheet-Early 2005

Regulator Survey-White Paper/Presentations-10/05

Database-Designed and Implemented-11/05

Decision Framework-Document, Presentations-10/06

Technical Regulatory Document-White Paper 07-08

Internet Training-2008

Resource Guide-05-06

Decision Framework-Short 1 page Handout- 11/06

9

Value of Team Products

è The six products before the Tech-Reg Document were considered “building blocks” to the final Technical Regulatory Document.

è Distribution of information early in the team working timeframe for

outreach and feedback. è Help regulators and industry move chlorinated organic sites

through the remedial process more efficiently, with a possible long term cost savings.

10

Outreach Status DATE Workshop/Conference/Paper Comments

Dec-05 SERDP Abstract Poster Presentation-EA

May-06 Battelle Conference-Monterey(2006) White Paper/ Presentation/Panel

Sep-06 DNAPL Conference-Pittsburg White Paper/ Presentation-Survey

Nov-06 Florida Remediation Conference EA-Decision Framework

Dec-06 SERDP Abstract Poster Presentation-Decision

Feb-07 Florida Contractor's Workshop EA-Decision Framework

Feb-07 American Bar Association Year in Review Journal 2006-EA

Mar-07 Oak Ridge Site Seminar* EA-Decision Framework

Apr-07 Hanford Site Seminar* EA-Decision Framework

Apr-07 Remediation Journal-Article Enhanced Attenuation

Apr-07 Savannah River Site Seminar* EA-Decision Framework

May-07 Florida Waste Cleanup Workshop EA-Decision Framework

May-07 State of Washington Conference EA-Decision Framework

May-07 Battelle Conference Baltimore Training Session--ITRC Decision

Jun-07 New Jersey Water Environmental Assoc EA-Decision Framework

Jul-07 Battelle Conference-Monterey(2008) Abstract Submitted

Jul-07 Battelle Conference Monterey (2008) Training Session Proposal Submitted

NOTE: * participants include DOE, contractors, regulators, and public stakeholders

11

Product Schedule-Challenges

Product Scheduled

Date Actual Date Comments

Survey 7/15/2005 10/20/2005 ITRC Web site down for 3 months

Fact Sheet 2005 2005 No problems

Resource Guide 5/30/2006 9/1/2006 Designed as Web Based/Problems/Removed Links

Database 6/30/2006 6/30/2006 Design Complete/Capture of

various Site Information

Decision Framework--Summary 12/15/2006 2/28/2007 POC late comments

Decision Framework-1 page No Date No Date Team Detailed Info

Tech-Regulatory Document 9/24/07 9/25/2007 To POCs and DOD, DOE internal

review complete

12

Collaboration with Other ITRC Projects

Æ Work with other existing or past ITRC Projects/Teams

è Working with In-Situ Bioremediation of DNAPL team regarding technical information. The DNAPL team provides good “backup” of technical overview information.

è Proposal submitted in regards to BioWalls. Working with Permeable Reactive Barriers Team Leader-Matt Turner

Æ Collaboration

è Review technical information-Tech Regulatory Document-Draft. è Attend teleconference calls when applicable

13

Project Success Stories è Presentations delivered - noted overall support from audience and regulator

representatives were pleased with the decision process. è POC “overview” of decision tree indicated favorable comments; “good to have

some guidance on direction for closure”. è Provided training/ presentation with DOE team at the Battelle conference in

2007. The ITRC received a check for $685.98, as part of our team participation.

Æ  If none identified currently, what successes do you expect to be identified in the future? è Targeted—project managers, regulators, industry è Streamline approach for remediation of chlorinated organic sites, which will

help to develop “treatment train” remedial philosophy based on mass flux and attenuation capacity concepts.

è Speed closure timeframe and reduce overall long term site cleanup costs.

14

Enhanced Attenuation (EA)

Æ So……. what is EA and why should I care?!!

Enhanced = Improve/Augment Attenuation= Shrinking/Decrease

15

EA provides a “bridge” between Source

Treatments and MNA (& reverse)

Source Treatments

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Enhanced Attenuation Technologies

16

Challenges for Implementation of MNA

Æ Limited efforts to understand the balance between source loading and attenuation capacity, therefore longer remediation timeframes.

Æ Limited understanding of site specific natural attenuation processes.

Æ Little guidance for when to transition from active remedies to MNA and the reverse;

Æ Naturally occurring rates can be too slow when using MNA.

17

Enhanced Attenuation (EA)/Decision Flowchart (DF)- Benefits

è  DF-Facilitates transition of contaminated sites through the remediation process. EA uses various technologies and techniques to stabilize the plume

è  DF-Encourages a systematic approach to total site remediation

è  DF-Encourages open communication between the regulated and the regulators, so that effective decision making is possible

è  EA complements MNA and expands remediation opportunities

à  Tailored intervention approach

è  EA encourages energy efficiency and develops the best solutions for the environment

18

Site Data

Risk Criteria

Time Criteria

Performance

Monitoring

Performance

Monitoring

Cost Criteria

II. Evaluate Plume Stability·∙ Determine plume stability·∙ Describe how plume stability is currently evaluated·∙ Estimate long-term sustainability

Implement and Monitor

Enhancements

I. Source and/or Primary Plume Treatment·∙ Removal (e.g., excavation, thermal, vapor extraction, etc.)·∙ Destruction (e.g., chemical or biological oxidation or reduction, etc.)·∙ Containment

III.Evaluate Enhancement Options·∙ State goals·∙ Identify technologies

§ Increase attenuation§ Reduce loading

·∙ Evaluate options to meet goals

F. Approve and Implement MNA

A. Are the risks

acceptable?

B. Is the plume stable or shrinking?

C. Are conditions

sustainable?

D. Is the remediation time frame

acceptable?

E. Are the costs-benefits acceptable?

Are sustainable enhancements

viable?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Evaluate performance and implement contingencies if needed

Until Cleanup

Does risk require Active

Source Remediation?

Is the Plume Stable?

Is Enhanced Attenuation

Appropriate?

Is MNA Appropriate?

Monitor Natural Attenuation until

Site Closure!

D

ECIS

ION

FR

AM

EWO

RK