Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (12th Edition) Internet Seminar October 11, 2007 Carlos Pachon

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dion Novak, EPA Region 5 RPM
Advertisements

Former NAS Moffett Field
Fultz Landfill Site Remediation Ohio by Simon Taylor.
Young-Rainey STAR Centre
J-Field Edgewood Aberdeen Proving Ground. Description From 1940 to 1970s, the Army disposed of chemical agents, high explosives and chemical wastes. APG.
Vapor Intrusion. What is Vapor Intrusion? The migration of volatile chemical vapors from the subsurface to overlying buildings.
MPCA Citizens’ Board Information Item February 25, 2014.
Erica Davey, Ellie Hoffman, Lisa Vienckowski R EMEDIATION OF THE 2012 L ONDON O LYMPICS S ITE.
BoRit Superfund Site Timeline
BIOREMEDIATION Jiří Mikeš.
John Lynch, P.E. Palisade Software Miami Users Conference October 25,
Clean-up of Lincoln Park, Colorado Introduction The Source of the problem The area effected.
Plaistow, New Hampshire
1 Brave New World Emerging Tools for NAPL Remediation Jim Cummings Technology Innovation Office/USEPA Chicago, Illinois Dec 2002.
Overview of New EPA Superfund Groundwater Guidance and Tools
Water Contaminants Soluble Contaminants - dissolve in water Particulates/Colloids - carried by the water column Insoluble Contaminants - very low solubility.
Air Sparging at Fort Greely, Alaska Presented by Aung Syn & James Powell.
+ Water Quality & Human Health: From Arsenic Exposure to Biological Response Understanding how contaminants move through the environment UNC Superfund.
Air Force Plant 4 Superfund Site Evaluation of SVE Combined with ERH for the Remediation of TCE Source Material Jeffrey Ragucci SWS 6262 – Soil Contamination.
Triad - Sources of Additional Information and Training NEWMOA Meeting Kathy Yager Technology Innovation Office US Environmental Protection Agency.
Clean-up at BP Paulsboro New Jersey (USA) Roxane Fisher and Mark Ferguson.
Green Remediation An Overview of the State of the Practice
Fate and Transport of Chemicals A Presentation by Terrie Boguski Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous.
In Situ Remediation Technologies and Site Reuse ConSoil 2005 October 4, 2005 Bordeaux, France Carlos Pachon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.
C. Remediation of groundwater contaminants
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination
SCH 3U- Detox for Contaminated Land
Background and lessons learned Managers Meeting February 13, 2014.
2011 ITRC Spring Membership Meeting Minneapolis, Minnesota April 6, 2011.
Overview of Regulatory Changes, Policy and Implementation Colleen Brisnehan Colorado Department of Public Health And Environment Hazardous Materials and.
Update on the Superfund Program: U.S. Tour de Table NATO SPS Pilot Study Prevention and Remediation in Selected Industrial Sectors June 17-23, 2006 Ljubljana,
Overview of Remedial Approaches at Superfund Fractured Bedrock Sites Edward Gilbert, CPG Technology Assessment Branch Technology Innovation and Field Services.
Fort Ord, Monterey County, California History and Closure of a Landfill on a former Military Installation and Current Superfund Site Derek S. Lieberman,
1June 19, 2002 Bioventing (7) Incineration (18) Soil Vapor Extraction (33) Bioremediation (16) Land Treatment (9) Composting (4) Slurry-Phase Bioremediation.
Module 1: Introduction to the Superfund Program. 2 Module Objectives q Explain the legislative history of Superfund q Describe the relationship between.
CCR Rule: Consultant’s Perspective 2015 Air & Waste Management Association Meeting Callaway Gardens, GA Presented by: Randy Sullivan, Principal & Senior.
Spectron Superfund Site Proposed Plan Contaminated Shallow Soils U.S. EPA Region III June 26, 2003 Philadelphia, PA Robert J. Sanchez US EPA - Remedial.
History and Cleanup at Chemical Commodities, Inc. Jeff Field US EPA Region 7 1.
Perspectives on Innovative Characterization and Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sites Sept. 27, 2001 ENRY Belgrade, Yugoslavia Walter W. Kovalick.
CHEMICAL COMMODITIES INC. The History, Cleanup and Ecological Reuse of a Superfund Site 1.
Former Point Cook Fire Training Area Contamination Remediation Works Project Community Information Session 26 September 2013.
1 Groundwater Pollution Ex Situ Physical Removal of Pollution. 안정제.
Bioremediation Definition: Use of living organisms to transform, destroy or immobilize contaminants Goal: Detoxification of the parent compound(s) and.
Module 6: Alternatives. 2  Module 6 contains three sections: – 6.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives – 6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.
State and Tribal Government Working Group November 12, 2008 FERNALD NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES SETTLEMENT.
Remediation of Contaminated Land Introduction Engineering Methods Biological methods Physical/ Chemical/ Thermal.
IDEAL DEMO A Brief Overview PRESENTER: BILL HOMBACH JUNE
Waste Program Monitoring Technology Needs and the 21M 2 Effort ETC Brownbag Thursday, May 19, 2005 Daniel Powell, U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation.
FRTR Soil Remediation Case Studies*
Using OMB Section 508 reporting in addressing your agency's program maturity. How to Measure Your Agency's 508 Program.
1 SMARTe’s Site Characterization Tool Ann Vega, USEPA, Office of Research and Development Kelly Black, Neptune and Company, Inc. Demonstration to ITRC.
FULL - SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PULSED AIR SPARGE AND SVE SYSTEM FOR TREATMENT OF VOCS, SVOCS, AND ARSENIC Authors: Kale Novalis, Nadira Najib, Omer Uppal,
By Mitch Cooper & Haley Herbert January 1987 Vertac site manufactured herbicides 1978 National Dioxin Survey 1983 Site placed on the National.
05/01 Bioventing (6) Incineration (18) In Situ Thermal Treatment (5) Land Treatment (7) Soil Vapor Extraction (31) Solidification/Stabilization (3) Solvent.
Conference Background and Opening Remarks December 10, 2002
Evaluating the Practicality of LNAPL Recovery Jeff Lane, P.G. November 17, 2015 International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) IPEC 22 Contact.
In Situ Sediment Treatment: State of the Practice
Workshop on the Application of Characterization and Remediation Technologies at Fractured Bedrock Sites Providence, RI November 8, 2000 Walter Kovalick.
The Dalles, Industrial Certification Northwest Aluminum Company The Dalles, Oregon Douglas C. MacCourt Ater Wynne LLP US German Bilateral Working.
Green Remediation through Optimization Douglas Sutton, PhD, PE Tetra Tech GEO April 4, 2011.
Groundwater Pollution
Former Spellman Engineering Site Project Update Meeting March 18, 2008 William C. Denman, P.E. Remedial Project Manager (404)
Applying Remediation Technologies in a Green World Moderated by: Daniel M Powell, Branch Chief U.S Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund.
Sustainable Remediation Case Studies
ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES PUBLIC MEETING
Attendance, Introductions & Correspondence Old Business
AN emerging issue (PFAS POLY- AND PERFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES)
UNC Superfund Research Program
Remediation of Environmental Lead Contamination
Presentation transcript:

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (12th Edition) Internet Seminar October 11, 2007 Carlos Pachon

2 OSRTI & The Superfund Technology Innovation Program  Interpret and supply information on technologies and markets  Partner with agencies, states and private companies to develop and evaluate technologies  Increase acceptance of innovative options by regulators, consulting engineers, and purchasers of technologies and services  Develop policy tools that help foster acceptance of innovative technologies  Disseminate information - conferences, direct mail, electronic mail, home pages and bulletin boards

3 Objectives of the Report  Goal is to document the selection and implementation of remedies in Superfund  Data serves as a “benchmark” of the state of the practice, it informs program management and supports remedy evaluations  Reports on “as built” remedies, including their implementation status, and remedy-specific technical data (e.g. contaminant, techniques, treatment components)  Highlights innovative remediation technology applications

4 ASR Background  Current edition (12 th ) has ROD data through 2005 and project status information through November 2006  First edition was produced in 1991, last edition was released in February 2004  Information extracted from RODs, CERCLIS, 5yr reviews, site specific documents/websites  Covers 1,536 NPL sites, 2,976 RODs, and 1,915 treatment projects

5 Background on Identifying Remedies Report Focus:  Sites, RODs, and projects  Source and groundwater control (SC & GW)  Treatment and containment  Innovative technologies  Remedial actions only (no removals) OU 3 OU1 OU2 Example of a site No ROD ROD #1 -SVE Soil (completed) -P&T GW (operational) -Inst. Control GW ROD #2 -Landfill cap -MNA (Design) Site boundary

6 RODs per Site on the NPL

7 Overview of Remedies at Superfund Sites* SC Remedy Type 11 th Ed # Sites 12 th Ed # Sites Treatment of a Source Containment or Off-Site Disposal of a Source Other Source Control GW Remedy Type 11 th Ed # Sites 12 th Ed # Sites Groundwater Pump and Treat In Situ Treatment of Groundwater Groundwater MNA Other Groundwater *Differences in numbers from one edition to another represent net changes

8 Summary of Overall Findings  NPL Sites (1,536): »62% have some form of treatment. »28% of sites have both source and groundwater treatment »27% have containment as the most “aggressive” remedy »11% have no remedy decision yet »1,055 sites have a SC remedy, 1,072 have a GW remedy  RODs (2,976 RODs & ROD Amendments): »In ’02-’05 we signed about 100 RODs/year »In ’05, 55% had some form of treatment »Percentage of “multimedia” RODs is holding at about 32%  Remedies (ASR focus is on treatment remedies) »There are 1,915 treatment projects at NPL sites (status varies) »Of these, 977 are SC treatment and 938 GW treatment

9 Remedy Types at NPL Sites , 1,536 Sites No Decision 13% Containment and Other 24% Treatment 63%

RODs by Remedy (2,976 RODs)

RODs by Remedy (2,976 RODs) Total

12 Summary of Source Control Findings  1,055 sites (69%) have SC remedies, 1,994 RODs include a source control remedy, 1,105 have treatment  Selection of treatment and containment in RODs tracks closely in 45% range  Continued increase in selection of in situ treatment, 75% of SC treatment RODs in 2005  Most common in situ remedies are SVE, multiphase extraction, and bioremediation  Major ex situ remedies are solidification/stabilization, thermal desorption, and bioremediation  There is continued evidence of the “maturing” status of treatment projects, both is situ and ex situ.

13 Trends in Source Control RODs Total of 1,994 RODs

14 Source Control Treatment Projects Total of 977 projects Other Ex Situ (43) Chemical Treatment - 9 Neutralization - 7 Soil Vapor Extraction - 7 Soil Washing - 6 Mechanical Soil Aeration - 4 Open Burn/Open Detonation - 4 Solvent Extraction - 4 Phytoremediation - 1 Vitrification - 1 Other In Situ (20) Neutralization - 8 Phytoremediation - 6 Mechanical Soil Aeration - 3 Vitrification - 2 Electrical Separation - 1 Ex Situ Technologies (515) 53%In Situ Technologies (462) 47%

15 Source Control Treatment Projects Total of 126 Other Ex Situ (8) Incineration (off-site) - 3 Open Burn/Open Detonation - 3 Chemical Treatment - 1 Neutralization - 1 Other In Situ (6) Mechanical Soil Aeration - 2 Phytoremediation - 2 Flushing - 1 Neutralization - 1 Ex Situ Technologies (50) 40%In Situ Technologies (76) 60%

16 In Situ Technologies for Source Control

17

18 Implementation Status of Source Control Treatment Projects August 2000: 314 Projects Nov 2006: 515 Projects March 2003: 499 Projects August 2000: 425 Projects Nov 2006: 462 Projects March 2003: 364 Projects In Situ RemediesEx Situ Remedies

19 Use of Innovative Technologies: 82-91

20 Use of Innovative Technologies: 82-05

21 Summary of Groundwater Control Findings  1,072 sites (70%) have a GW remedy  1,509 RODs have a GW remedy, 958 include P&T, and 195 in situ treatment  However, a new pattern in GW remedy selection that emerged after 1997 is holding, mainly; »In situ treatment continues to climb »GW Remedy mix in RODs has stabilized with P&T, in situ and MNA all in the 30-40% range, and… »ICs and “other” remedies are selected in over 90% of GW RODs  Bioremediation and chemical treatment have eclipsed air sparging as top in situ remedies  45% of sites with P&T as the sole GW treatment remedy also have a source control remedy.

22 Groundwater Remedies through FY 05 (ASR 12 th Edition, FY ) Total Number of Sites = 877

23 Groundwater ROD Remedies* “Groundwater Containment” includes the use of vertical engineered barriers to contain groundwater. “Groundwater other” includes water supply actions, institutional controls, monitoring, population relocation, and engineering controls. *RODs and Amendments are included in this figure. RODs are counted in each category as appropriate; no hierarchy is used for this figure.

24 In Situ Groundwater Remedies *RODs and Amendments are included in this figure. As of October 2006, 74% of FY 2005 RODs and Amendments were available.

25 Status of P&T Projects Total Projects = 725 *As of October 2006, 74% of FY 2005 RODs and Amendments were available.

26 Contaminants Treated by In Situ Groundwater Remedies

27 Status of In-site GW Treatment Projects ASR Category Predesign/ Design Design Complete/ Being InstalledOperationalCompletedTotal Air Sparging Bioremediation Chemical Treatment Permeable Reactive Barrier Multi-Phase Extraction Phytoremediation In-Well Air Stripping11608 In Situ Thermal Treatment11215 Flushing01001 Total Percentage of In Situ Groundwater Technologies29%7%47%18% --

28 RODs Selecting On-site Containment Remedies RODs = Record of Decision *RODs and Amendments are included in this figure. As of October 2006, 74% of FY 2005 RODs and Amendments were available.

29 Concluding Points  Solid use of treatment remedies at Superfund sites  Across the program we are making full use of the remedy tool box.  The program continues to mature; »Fewer sites with no remedies »The implementation status of selected remedies, more are completed and operational, fewer in design. »Innovative technologies are gaining ground and becoming mainstream  The prevalence of in situ treatment remedies suggests we focus on innovations in in situ performance monitoring  75% of P&T projects are operational – hold the course on RSE, capture zone analysis, etc.

30 Thank You After viewing the links to additional resources, please complete our online feedback form. Thank You Links to Additional Resources Feedback Form