In Situ Remediation Technologies and Site Reuse ConSoil 2005 October 4, 2005 Bordeaux, France Carlos Pachon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [email protected].

In Situ Remediation Technologies and Site Reuse

ConSoil 2005October 4, 2005

Bordeaux, France

Carlos PachonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

[email protected]

2

Technology Innovation Program Technology Transfer Efforts

3

Why Innovate?

Key drivers in contaminated site restoration:» Cost» Uncertainty

Still a relatively young industry experiencing change in several areas, mainly:» Technology innovation» Advances in project management» Shifting market drivers

This presentation touches on each of these areas» Snap shot of the drivers for innovation» The Triad: Synthesizing practitioner experience in smart

project management to reduce cost and uncertainty» Technology innovation: Demand and supply side information» Brownfield Technology & Redevelopment Support Center

4

Innovative Site Management Approaches & The Land Reuse Equation

Purchase Costs + Redevelopment

Costs

•Transaction costs•Site prep•Construction•Development•Taxes/admin.•Marketing•Etc., etc., etc.

•Revenues•Resale/asset value•Social/political$$$

$$$

$$$$$$

$

Clean Valuevs.

5

Innovative Site Management Approaches & The Land Reuse Equation

•Transaction costs•Site prep•Construction•Development•Taxes/admin.•Marketing•Etc., etc., etc.

•Assessment•Cleanup•Liability issues

+

•Revenues•Resale/asset value•Social/political$$$

$$$

$$$$$$

$$$$ $

$$$$$

$

$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Purchase + Redevelopment

Clean Valuevs.

6

Real-Time Analytical and Sampling Technologies

Field analytical, rapid sampling, mobile labs, quick turnaround off-site all allow real-time or near real time analysis

Rapid turnaround results support dynamic decision making

Lower costs of field methods support increased density (address sampling uncertainty)

Field results guide confirmation (address analytical uncertainty)

Decision support software can help organize and process data, plan field activities

7

8

Subsurface CSM from high density data (DP-MIP sensing)

Slide adapted from Columbia Technologies, Inc., 2003

10

Treatment of Both a Source and

Groundwater (365)24%

Treatment of a Source Only (176)

12%

Containment or Off-Site Disposal of a

Source (202)13%

No Action or No Further Action (88)

6%

No ROD (158)11%

Other Source Control (72)5%

Non-Treatment Groundwater Remedy

Only (48)3%

Treatment of Groundwater Only

(390)26%

Remedy Types at NPL Sites (FY82-02)* Total Sites(a) = 1,499

Treatment (931) 62%

No Decision (158) 11%

Containment and Other (410) 27%

ROD = Record of Decision*Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.(a) NPL sites include current sites and former NPL sites that were deleted or removed from the NPL between FY 1982 and 2002.

11

Trends in NPL Soil Remedies

25%

14%19%

30%

55%

71%73%67%

73%73%70%

61%

51%

39%

75%

86%

74%68%

45%

28%27%32%

25%23%29%

33%

40%46%

32%

7%2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4%

14%

22%

12%

39%40%

49%

52% 52%47%

35%42%

36%

51%

44%

20%21% 18%9%6%4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 02*Fiscal Year

Per

cen

t o

f S

ou

rce

Co

ntr

ol R

OD

s

Treatment

Containment/Disposal Only

Other (Institutional Controls,Monitoring, Relocation)

12

NPL Soil Treatment Projects

Bioremediation (48)6%

Incineration (off-site) (104)12%

Chemical Treatment (10)1%

Thermal Desorption (69)8%

Soil Vapor Extraction (213)25%

Physical Separation (20)2%

Incineration (on-site) (43)5%

Bioremediation (54)6%

Solidification/Stabilization (48)

6%

Chemical Treatment (12)1%

Flushing (16)2%

Other (in situ) (27)3%

Other (ex situ) (42)5%

Solidification/Stabilization (157)

18%

In situ 364 (42%)

Ex situ 499 (58%)

13

In Situ Technologies for Soil Treatment

31%33%

21%

29%

43%

34%

47%

36%

45%

34%33%

62%

51%

43%

57%

40%

59%

45%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*

Fiscal Year

Per

cent

age

of S

ourc

e C

ontr

ol

Trea

tmen

t Pro

ject

s

Percentage of Source Control TreatmentTechnologies that are In SituLinear Trendline (In Situ Projects)

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

15

Groundwater Remedies

We’ve broken the P&T “monopoly”

» In situ remedies are more mature, diverse and specific

— In 1991, 5% in situ GW remedies; in 2002, 24%

» Time, experience, and technology are allowing us to

optimize the pumping, treating, and monitoring

components of long term P&T systems.

» As with source control, we are using a “rich” mix of

remedies, with a more robust tool box to address each

scenario

16

Groundwater Remedies in The NPL

72%

89%85%

91%

79%

68%

74%

62%

52%

30%35%

40%

0% 2%6%

3%9%

11%9%

16% 17% 16%

22%18%

28%24%

6%3%

8%3%

19%

36%

48%

27% 28%

9%

2% 2% 3% 5% 3%0%

4% 2%5% 6%

3%0%

24%

12%6%

11%14% 15%

25%

80%

54%

91%88%

30%

37%

89% 90%85%

9%5%

5%

29%23%

35%

16%

8% 7%13%

7%4%

7%6%

91%

7%

20%

5%8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*

Fiscal Year

Per

cen

tag

e o

f All

Gro

un

dw

ater

RO

Ds

P&T

GW in situ

GW MNA

GW VEB

GW other

* Each ROD may have multiple remedies

17

Trends in the % of GW RODs Selecting In Situ Treatment (FY86- 02)*

0%

5%

2%

6%

3%5%

9% 9%11%

9%

16%17%

16%

22%

18%

28%

24%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02*

Fiscal Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f All

Gro

undw

ater

RO

Ds RODs Selecting In Situ Treatment

Linear (RODs Selecting In Situ Treatment)

* Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.

18

GW Treatment Remedies in Superfund

P&T Only (556)65%

P&T and In Situ (63)7%

In Situ Only (31)4%

P&T, In Situ, and MNA (30)4%

MNA Only (96)11%

P&T and MNA (64)8%

In Situ and MNA (11)1%

Sites with P&T, In Situ Treatment, or MNA Selected as Part of a Groundwater Remedy (Total Sites = 851)

19

Becoming “Main Stream”; In Situ Groundwater Treatment Remedies Selected

in2000 -- 2002* N= 66

Technology Number of New Projects

Bioremediation 21

Chemical Treatment 15

Air Sparging 10

Permeable Reactive Barrier

7

Multi-Phase Extraction

4

In-Well Air Stripping 3

Phytoremediation 3

Flushing 2

In Situ Thermal Treatment

1

20

In Situ Treatment TechnologiesGroundwater

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)

21

EPA REACH IT System

Meant to be a screening tool to identify potentially applicable innovative technologies and vendors

Open online database released in 1998

Combined VISITT, VendorFACTs, & ITT systems into a web-based, searchable system (www.epareachit.org)

Remediation And Characterization Innovative Technologies

Ongoing updates and periodic streamlining efforts

22

Characterization/Monitoring Technologies Listed In EPA REACH IT

Acoustic Wave Chemical Sensors

Air Measurement (Weather Measurement Technologies Excluded)

Air/Gas Sampling Technologies

Analytical Detectors (Stand Alone Only)

Analytical Traps

Borehole

Chemical Reaction-Based Indicators (Colorimetric)

Chromatography

Direct-push

Downhole Sensors-Vadose Zone

Electrochemical-based Detectors

Electromagnetic

Fiber Optic Chemical Sensors

Fourier-Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy

Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption

Ground Penetrating Radar

Immunoassays

Infrared Monitors

Ion Mobility Spectroscopy

Laser-induced Fluorescence

Magnetometry

Mass Spectroscopy (may include GC/MS)

Multimedia Sampling

Non-Specific Screening Tests

Physical Characterization

Resistivity/Conductivity

Seismic Reflection/Refraction

Software

Soil Gas Analyzer Systems

Soil Sampling Technologies

Solid Phase Extraction

Spectroscopy

Thermal Desorption (Characterization)

Water Monitoring Technology

Water Sampling Technologies

X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzers

23

Remediation Technologies Listed In EPA REACH IT

Acid Extraction

Adsorption (in situ)

Air Sparging (in situ) - Groundwater

Bioremediation (in situ) - Lagoon

Bioremediation (ex situ) - Biopiles

Bioremediation (ex situ) - Composting

Bioremediation (ex situ) - Land Treatment

Bioremediation (ex situ) - Slurry Phase

Bioremediation (ex situ) - Solid Phase

Bioremediation (in situ) - Biosparging

Bioremediation (in situ) - GW

Bioventing

Chemical Immobilization

Chemical Treatment - Groundwater

Dechlorination

Decontamination of Debris

Delivery/Extraction Systems

Chemical Treatment - Oxidation/Reduction

Electrical Separation/Electrokinetics

Flushing (in situ)

Fracturing - Hydraulic

Fracturing - Pneumatic

In Situ Thermal Treatment

In Well Air Stripping

Magnetic Separation

Materials Handling/Physical Separation

Mechanical Soil Aeration

Multi-Phase Extraction

Off-Gas Treatment

Permeable Reactive Barrier

Phytoremediation

Pump and Treat

Pyrolysis

Soil Vapor Extraction

Soil Washing

Solidification/Stabilization

Solvent Extraction

Thermal Desorption (ex situ)

Vitrification

24

25

26

27

28

CLU-IN Web Site http://clu-in.org

Cluin.org

29

Broadcasts monthly e-mail messages to a list of over 21,000.

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

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

Technology Information Service

Highlights