Completion of In-Situ Thermal Remediation of PAHs, PCP and Dioxins at a Former Wood Treatment Facility Ralph S. Baker, Ph.D., John M. Bierschenk, P.G.,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In-Situ Remediation at Silver Lake Region 4 Hazardous Materials Geo/Bridge/Environmental Unit.
Advertisements

Home with an Underground Heating Oil Tank (UST) Solutions for your Leaking Heating Oil Tank.
Solution Provider bij bodemsanering Leading in soil and groundwater remediation Solution Provider bij bodemsanering Leading in soil and groundwater remediation.
Young-Rainey STAR Centre
Greenwich Peninsula.
Fitchburg, Massachusetts USA
Plaistow, New Hampshire
And the contamination of Industrial Wasteland Adam Stanley Jonathan Beeson.
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.
1 In Situ Oxidation of PAH Contaminants Associated With Former Manufactured Gas Plants Ron Jensen Southern California Edison 1.
Ground Loop Design. Heat Sources Horizontal ground loops  Collector pipework laid horizontally  Requires large land area  Cost.
Dale T Littlejohn Senior Geologist. What is fate and transport in the vadose zone? Vadose Zone Hydrocarbon release from buried pipeline Aquifer Surface.
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.
1 Thermal Remediation Services, Inc. Electrical Resistance Heating for In-Situ Remediation of Soil & Groundwater December 10, 2002 Greg Beyke (770)
Environmental Geotechnology Presentation Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.
Biodegradation of btex
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Headquarters U.S. Air Force 1 Direct Sampling Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry Rob R. Smith Oak Ridge.
Background Site of a former Industrial Waste Treatment Plant Contaminants accumulated in sludge drying beds and surge pond, they subsequently leaked into.
Presented by Paul J. Garrett Regional Manager CHURNGOLD Remediation Limited DATE 5 th June 2006 Small Sites in Urban Areas.
“GAS MART” petroleum facility in Florida By: Ernest Twum-Barimah Zhengzhong Fang (John) Zhengzhong Fang (John)
Environmental Investigation by Con Edison Former E115th Street Gas Works November 13, 2007.
Multiphase Extraction for Soil and Groundwater Remediation Nick Swiger Spring 2007.
Clean-up at BP Paulsboro New Jersey (USA) Roxane Fisher and Mark Ferguson.
Contaminated ‘Brownfield’ site in south-eastern Michigan By Zhanyuan Cai And William Chow.
Manatee Power Plant: Chlorinated Solvent Leak Presentation Tom Miles Oliver Read.
Case study on bioremediation of soils contaminated with wood preservatives.
1 Soil Vapor Extraction Limitations and Enhancements LeeAnn Racz AgE 558 Semester Project April 2001.
Microwave Soil Vapor Treatment CHA Corporation Field DemonstrationWINTER 2004 CHA Corporation 372 W. Lyon Laramie, WY Telephone:(307) Fax:(307)
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Presented by the members of Superior Engineering Solutions: Mike Najera Dong Hoon Kim Seth Maher Priya Heerwani Thermal Desorption.
Autoclaving for PCB’s.
Remedy Analysis for Sierra Army Depot, Building 210 Area
Exergy Analysis of STHE P M V Subbarao Professor Mechanical Engineering Department I I T Delhi Formalization of Thermo-economics…..
Delivering Excellence in Remediation of Contaminated Sites.
1 In-Situ Treatment of Groundwater with Non-aqueous Phase Liquids December 10-12, 2002, Chicago, IL Scott G. Huling, Ph.D., P.E. USEPA Robert S. Kerr Environmental.
Adsorption Refrigeration System. INTRODUCTION  Adsorption refrigeration system uses adsorbent beds to adsorb and desorb a refrigerant to obtain cooling.
1 Case Summary: Electrical Resistance Heating ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Portland, Oregon Jennifer Sutter, Project Manager Oregon DEQ EPA Technology Innovation.
DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California.
Ross MacNames Edward Jackson Samantha Quiroga.  Elevated levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) found in sediment of the Little Brazos River
Overview of Remedial Approaches at Superfund Fractured Bedrock Sites Edward Gilbert, CPG Technology Assessment Branch Technology Innovation and Field Services.
Brownfields Health Risks & Remediation Diogo Cadima Topic ‘A’ Term Project CET 413.
Introduction to NAPLs Review of general concepts
1June 19, 2002 Bioventing (7) Incineration (18) Soil Vapor Extraction (33) Bioremediation (16) Land Treatment (9) Composting (4) Slurry-Phase Bioremediation.
1 Steam Enhanced Remediation In Fractured Rock (and a little about the other sites) Gorm Heron, Scientist/Engineer Hank Sowers, CEO/Chief Operator Dacre.
The world’s leading sustainability consultancy In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Pesticides Using Shallow Soil Mixing The world’s leading sustainability consultancy.
History and Cleanup at Chemical Commodities, Inc. Jeff Field US EPA Region 7 1.
1 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPALS OF In Situ THERMAL TREATMENT Professor Kent S. Udell Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental.
Review of Current Conditions Report and Work Plan for Area 1 Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical Outreach Services for Communities.
1 LOCKFORMER ELECTRIC RESISTIVE HEATING CASE STUDY U.S. EPA Emergency Response Branch Steve Faryan, On-Scene Coordinator ,
Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Offshore Technology Transfer Workshop Shell, GCEAG, API, Rice University and EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program June.
A Tree-Based Remediation System for Treatment and Hydraulic Control of a Hydrocarbon Plume in a 20 Foot Deep Aquifer at a Former Refinery in Central Oklahoma.
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,
05/01 Bioventing (6) Incineration (18) In Situ Thermal Treatment (5) Land Treatment (7) Soil Vapor Extraction (31) Solidification/Stabilization (3) Solvent.
In Situ Sediment Treatment: State of the Practice
By Alex Walton Josh Bush Alex Walton, Josh Bush1.
David J. Berestka, PE Remedial Design Engineer, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Green Remediation through Optimization Douglas Sutton, PhD, PE Tetra Tech GEO April 4, 2011.
Melissa Boggs California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response.
Expediting Site Remediation By Integrating The Membrane Interface Probe With In-Situ Remediation Injection Design Eliot Cooper,
Kent Sorenson CDM Smith Jeff Bamer CDM Smith Alexis Lopez CDM Smith
Microwave Soil Vapor Treatment
Sustainable Remediation Case Studies
Technologies of Remediation
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Rapid Closure of Lingering Off-Site Plume Remediation Program in Residential Neighborhood using Horizontal Air Sparge and Soil Vapor Extraction Wells Narayanan.
ENHANCED BIOREMEDIATION PILOT USING iSOC® TECHNOLOGY AT A FORMER MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT CASE STUDY PREPARED BY: MR. DAVID WORK, PE RETEC GROUP.
Brownfield Corrective Action with Revised RRS
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Web-based Class Project on Geoenvironmental Remediation
Presentation transcript:

Completion of In-Situ Thermal Remediation of PAHs, PCP and Dioxins at a Former Wood Treatment Facility Ralph S. Baker, Ph.D., John M. Bierschenk, P.G., James P. Galligan, P.E., and Ron Young TerraTherm, Inc., FitchburgMassachusetts, USA TerraTherm, Inc., Fitchburg, Massachusetts, USA March 29, 2007

Power distribution system Vapor treatment Knockout pot Blower Water treatment Discharge Heater and vacuum wells Treated vapor to atmosphere Heat exchanger Pump Treatment area foot-print Temperature and pressure monitoring holes (1 of many) Sketch of ISTD Process Power Supply ISTD is the Simultaneous Application of: Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH) Vapor Recovery

What Makes Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH) so Unique?  The Thermal Conductivity of a Wide Range of Soil Materials (gravel, sand, silt, clay) Varies Only by a Factor of ~3  By Contrast:  Hydraulic / Pneumatic Conductivities Vary >10 6 – 10 8  Electrical Conductivities Vary > 10 2  TCH Heats the Entire Target Zone – No Locations are Bypassed or Unaffected  Soil Immediately Adjacent to TCH Wells Dries, Creating Permeability, Assisting Efficient Vapor Recovery  TCH Heaters Can Be Readily Controlled, to Achieve Low, Moderate or Higher Soil Temperatures as Needed

. ISTD Thermal Wells Heater- Vacuum Well Process Trailer  Heater-Only Wells Heater-Vacuum Well Hexagonal Well Pattern Heater-Only Well Heater- Vacuum Well Thermal Destruction Zone

Typical Heating Progression for Various Levels of ISTD Treatment

Contrasting Applications of ISTD/TCH Level of Heating and Contaminant Type Target Treatment Temperature (°C) Thermal Well Spacing (m) Desiccate Target Treatment Zone (TTZ)? Range of Costs (Turnkey)* ($/m) ($/m 3 ) 1. VOCs: Gentle Heating** (BTEX, CVOCs) <100>6No40-240* 2. VOCs (BTEX, CVOCs) Not Necessary * 3. SVOCs (PAHs, PCBs, dioxins) >1002-4Yes * *For volumes > 1,500 m implemented in the U.S. *For volumes > 1,500 m 3, implemented in the U.S. **Thermally enhanced SVE, NAPL recovery, and bioremediation

Shell TerraTherm TerraTherm, Inc. ISTD Development and Deployment Shell R&D 1980’s through 2000’s CVOCs MGP CVOCs PAHs, Dioxins CVOCs PCBs PAHs Chlorinated Benzenes CVOCs Chlorinated Pesticides CVOCs/SVOCs, radionuclides PCBs GRO/DRO, Benzene PCBs Saipan CVOCs 19 Chlorinated Benzenes, PAH, BTEX CVOCs ISTD Projects are also ongoing in Denmark and the U.K. 22

Alhambra, California Site Features Former Wood Treatment Facility n Two Former Full-length Treatment Tanks (~3 x 21 x 1.7 m deep) n Two Former Butt-Dip Tanks (~3 x 14 x 4 m deep) n Former Boiler House and Tank Farm n Decommissioned Pipe Lines n Railroad Spurs

Former Wood Treatment Tanks AOC-2 Treatment Area:  Heterogeneous fine silty sands  2,800 m 2  12,400 m 3  Avg. depth 6 m; max. depth 32 m  Water Table >82 m Former ASTs Former Boiler House Piping Former Railroad Spur

Constituent Max. Conc. (mg/kg) Mean Conc. (mg/kg) Cleanup Standard (mg/kg) TPH50,0002,730N/A Total PAH 35,0002, [B(a)P-Eq] Creosote61,0004,505N/A PCP582.94*2.5 Dioxins (TEQ) *Mean of 15 detects; PCP not detected in 231 samples B(a)P-Eq = Benzo(a)pyrene equivalents TEQ = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin Toxicity Equivalents Soil Contaminant Concentrations and Cleanup Standards

Alhambra ISTD Design Features n Target temperature (treatability results) of 335  C (635  F), maintained for 3 days n 2.1-m thermal well spacing n 785 thermal wells, total (131 heater-vacuum and 654 heater-only wells) n Insulated surface seal n Two treatment phases

Aerial View – December 2004 Phase 1 Phase 2

Thermal Well Fields Installed Phase 1Phase 2

Air Quality Control System n 24/7 Continuous Manned Operation n Monitoring Well Field Temperatures & Vacuum, Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) of Off-Gas System Parameters Electrical Transformer CEM System Granular Activated Carbon Vessels Air-to-Air Heat Exchanger Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer Inlet Manifold Extraction Blowers Switchgear

Source Testing Results PCB Emission Limit: 2.44  g/dscm PCDD/PCDF Emission Limit: 2 x  g/dscm

Source Testing Results Carcinogenic PAHs MICR = maximum individual cancer risk

Phase 2 Centroid Phase 1 Centroid Well Field Layout and Representative Centroid Locations

Phase 1 Centroid Temperature °F /11/2003 7/1/2003 7/20/2003 8/7/2003 8/26/ /11/ /6/200312/2/ /28/2003 1/14/2004 2/9/2004 3/4/2004 6:00 4/17/2004 T7A4B-4BHK Temperature °F Date Description Target Treatment Temperature 635°F Vaporization of Water Complete, Start of Superheating Attainment of Target Treatment Temperature Heater Circuits Shut Down, Start of Well Field Cool-Down 4/17/20043/4/20042/9/20041/14/ /28/ /2/200311/6/ /11/2003 8/26/20038/7/20037/20/20037/1/20036/11/ /11/2003 7/1/2003 7/20/2003 8/7/2003 8/26/ /11/ /6/200312/2/ /28/2003 1/14/2004 2/9/2004 3/4/2004 6:00 4/17/2004 T7A4B-4BHK Temperature °F Date Description Target Treatment Temperature 335°C Vaporization of Water Complete, Start of Superheating Attainment of Target Treatment Temperature Heater Circuits Shut Down, Start of Well Field Cool-Down 4/17/20043/4/20042/9/20041/14/ /28/ /2/200311/6/ /11/2003 8/26/20038/7/20037/20/20037/1/20036/11/2003

Phase 2 Centroid Temperature °F /22/ :00 7/14/2004 8:00 8/4/2004 6:00 9/3/ :00 10/5/ :30 11/8/ /12/ :30 1/12/2005 8:00 2/6/2005 3/3/ :00 3/26/2005 4/17/2005 8:005/11/2005 6:30 6/7/2005 6/30/ :00 7/23/2005 8/13/ :30 9/5/2005 0:01 9/27/ /17/2005 7:00 T11A2-2HG Temperature °F Date Description Target Treatment Temperature 635°F Vaporization of Water Complete, Start of Superheating Attainment of Target Treatment Temperature 635°F Heater Circuits Shut Down, Start of Well Field Cool- Down 11/17/2005 9/27/2005 9/5/2005 8/31/20057/23/20056/30/2005 6/7/2005 5/11/20054/17/20053/26/2005 3/3/20052/6/2005 1/12/ /12/ /8/200410/5/2004 9/3/20048/4/2004 7/14/20046/22/ /22/ :00 7/14/2004 8:00 8/4/2004 6:00 9/3/ :00 10/5/ :30 11/8/ /12/ :30 1/12/2005 8:00 2/6/2005 3/3/ :00 3/26/2005 4/17/2005 8:005/11/2005 6:30 6/7/2005 6/30/ :00 7/23/2005 8/13/ :30 9/5/2005 0:01 9/27/ /17/2005 7:00 T11A2-2HG Temperature °F Date Description Target Treatment Temperature 335°C Vaporization of Water Complete, Start of Superheating Attainment of Target Treatment Temperature 335°C Heater Circuits Shut Down, Start of Well Field Cool- Down 11/17/2005 9/27/2005 9/5/2005 8/31/20057/23/20056/30/2005 6/7/2005 5/11/20054/17/20053/26/2005 3/3/20052/6/2005 1/12/ /12/ /8/200410/5/2004 9/3/20048/4/2004 7/14/20046/22/2004

Coke from product zone Auger cuttings oxidation vs. pyrolysis Confirmatory sampling in well field ~5.5 m bgs ~2.7 m bgs ~0.3 m bgs

Cleanup Goals 65  g/kg B(a)P 1  g/kg Dioxin 30, N = 60 N = Comparison of Pre- and Post-Treatment Contaminant Concentrations

Summary n Site demob. completed March 2006 n Estimated mass removed via combustion (oxidizer and subsurface) 395,000 kg (CO 2 method) n Additional mass destroyed in situ by pyrolysis (dark soil/coke) n Air emissions were well below compliance requirements n Post–treatment soil sampling results all below stringent clean-up requirements n No Further Action letter (February 7, 2007) from California Department of Toxic Substances Control to Southern California Edison allows unrestricted land use

Cost Implications of Lessons Learned for Future Applications of ISTD at Creosote Sites n Achievement of unrestricted/residential land use by an in-situ remediation method is achievable and practical n ISTD was initially compared and selected over excavation with offsite incineration n ISTD remediation costs exceeded original estimates; however, all-in project cost was still ~40% lower than the excavation alternative n TerraTherm’s estimate for similar site of 12,600 m 3, with one 130-day treatment is $500/m 3 :  Capital cost: $3.9M  Operations, source testing, and electricity: $2.2M  Demobilization, reporting, licensing fee: $0.23M