Slide 1
In-situ Remediation Lessons Learned
John Sankey, P.Eng.,
True Blue Technologies,
Long Beach, CA—Vancouver, BC
Slide 2
In-situ Remediation Lessons Learned
Introduction
Case studies
LNAPL Remediation using Surfactant
Petroleum site remediation using bioremediation.
DNAPL In-situ Chemical Reduction and
Bioremediation
Lessons Learned
Slide 3
3
Untreated Source Area Silt
Permanganate Treated 1st WBZ Sands
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2014 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Page 4
From: McGuire et al, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 26, 73–84, 2006.
Performance of source depletion technologies:“Rebound”
$ $$ $$$ $$$$
Slide 5
5
Post-Permanganate Rebound
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2014 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Page 6
From: ESTCP Project 201120 (GSI Environmental). 2014-ITRC-Project-Proposal-Projecting-Remediation-Performance.pdf 07/07/2014
Average source zone concentrations in groundwater before and after source remediation projects at 176 chlorinated solvent sites
Case #1--North Carolina Air
National Guard Using Surfactant
Fuel oil, NAPL from several feet to a sheen
Treated two 20’ x 20’ plots in a larger plume
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2012 Tersus Environmental, LLC All rights reserved
Column ComparisonGround Water
FoodSurfactant
LaundrySurfactant
“Designer” blend
GRO Breakthrough Curve
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
RWA1 mg/l
RWA2 mg/l
RWB1 mg/l
RWB2 mg/l
Start Surfactant Inj
Time in Hours
Start Polymer Inj
Resume Water
Concmg/l Water Flood
Pictorial Breakthrough
Results
79% capture of injected fluids
Removed 100 gallons of product in 3
days
No more NAPL after
Slide 12
Case #2 Aerobic Bioremediation
(Drawing Modified from AFCEE and Wiedemeier)
++ +
Potterville, MI
BTEX
Unsuccessful previous techniques
vacuum
oxygen bio-sparging
bioaugmentation
7 surface applications from 2003 to 2005
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Page 13
Click to edit Master title stylePage 13
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Potterville Source Area Well
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
To
tal B
TE
X (
ug
/l)
Date
OW-18Sulfate Concentrations vs. BTEX Concentrations Total BTEX
Sulfate Application
Sulfate Concentrations
Su
lfa
te C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
s
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Page 14
Click to edit Master title stylePage 14
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Potterville Down Gradient Well
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
To
tal B
TE
X (
ug
/l)
Date
OW-4
Sulfate Concentrations vs. BTEX Concentrations
Total BTEX
Sulfate Application
Sulfate Conc
Su
lfa
te C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
s
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Page 15
Click to edit Master title stylePage 15
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Potterville Case Study
• Results – Source area cleanup objectives achieved
– No permanent infrastructure
– No waste
– No O&M site visits or electrical usage
Slide 16
Case #3 DNAPL In-situ Chemical
Reduction and Bioremediation
(Drawing Modified from AFCEE and Wiedemeier)
++ +
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Page 17
Click to edit Master title stylePage 17
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Case Study – Full Scale
– Full Scale in Florida
– TCE source area 75 by150 feet
– 20 acre dissolved plume
– 62,000 gallons of 10% EZVI
– Vegetable oil and KB-1 injected in the down gradient plume areas.
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Page 18
Click to edit Master title stylePage 18
tersusenv.comCopyright © 2013 Tersus Environmental, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Baseline
2.5 yrs Post EZVI Injection
3.5 yrs Post EZVI Injection
• Results– ~90% removal/destruction within one year
– >99% destruction to date
Case Study – Full Scale
Slide 19
19
Lessons Learned
Get the data
• Substrate ROI tool
• Specific Isotope Analysis
• Treatability studies
• Assess Microbe Populations
Add enough stuff…and the correct stuff
Love your bugs (pH, enough contaminant, salinity,
inhibitors)
Slide 20
High Resolution to Address Heterogeneity
Slide 21
Real Time Tracer
Parameters
• P
• T
• C
Slide 22
22
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
Allocation of plume
Method of degradation
PCETCE
cDCE
VC
Ethene
1,1,1-TCA
1,1-DCA
CA
Chloroform
1,1,2-TCA
1,2-DCA
Key Degradation Pathways in Bioaugmentation Cultures
DCM
Chlorofluorocarbon-113CFC-123aCFC-1113TFE
Other, Dhc, Dhb
Other, Dhb Dhc
Dhc
Dhb
Dhb
Dhb
Dhc, Dhb, Dhg, Other,
Dhc = Dehalococcoides Dhb = DehalobacterDhg = Dehalogenimonas Other= Desulfitobacterium, Sulfurospirillum, Clostridium
Other, Dhc, Dhb
= inhibition
Acetate/Formate CO2
Dhb/Other
1,1,2,2-TeCADhb
Dhb?
Slide 24
In-situ Thermal Remediation
Electrical Resistance Conductive
200-325°C
20-30°C
95-105°C
ERH ISTD(thermal conduction heating)
99% VOC
Reduction
99.9999%
99.9%
30%
ERH energy input causes a 99% reduction ISTD energy: (99.9999%+99.9%+30%)/3 = 77%
average reduction
Shown at equal energy inputs
Slide 25
Boiling Temperature and Dalton’s Law
TCE 87°C PCE 121°C
TCE/Water 73°C PCE/Water 88°C
Continued Decline in Average TCE in GW
2 Years Post ERH – Maywood, CA - 2008
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
MW-19-90
MW-26-90
MW-27-90
RW-01-95
4968
21
403177
20
4
1,767
9,450
4,330
11,500
TC
E µ
g/l
Monitoring Wells and Sample Depth (ft bgs) Inside ERH Treatment Area
99.6% average
reduction
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
hyd
roly
sis
ha
lf-l
ife
at
pH
7 (
da
ys
)
Temperature (°C)
methylene chloride
1,2-DCA (EDC)
1,1-DCA
carbon tetrachloride
1,2,-DBA (EDB)
1,3 dichloropropane
1,1,2,2 TeCA
1,1,1-TCA
Hydrolysis Rates of Selected Halogenated Alkanes
Slide 28
The Future
1. Less investigation, more remediation.
2. Emerging Contaminants.
3. Less “technology breakthroughs”, more “tech
refinement”.
4. Vapor intrusion still major risk driver.
5. Continued focus on Green/Sustainable
Remediation
Slide 29
Emerging Contaminants
PFCs
PPCPs
1,4-Dioxane CrVIperchlorate
Evaluating scale
and risk
Drinking Water
Standards and have
effective remediation
technologies
PFCs: Perfluorinated Compounds PPCPs: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products
CrVI: Hexavalent Chromium
Slide 30
Summary--In-situ Remediation
• Source zones can be treated in
place….quickly and guaranteed.
• Dissolved plumes can be treated in place.
• Can be very predictable if you reduce the
potential pitfalls.
Slide 31
True Blue---We want to be a resource for you.
Westbay