Evaluating the Practicality of LNAPL Recovery Jeff Lane, P.G. November 17, 2015 International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) IPEC 22 Contact.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Multiphase Extraction Techniques
Advertisements

In-Situ Remediation at Silver Lake Region 4 Hazardous Materials Geo/Bridge/Environmental Unit.
Home with an Underground Heating Oil Tank (UST) Solutions for your Leaking Heating Oil Tank.
Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability to Contamination in Texas
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.
© 2011 COLUMBIA Technologies. Use of MiHpt Systems to Improve Project Outcomes Rapid, Real-Time High Resolution Site Characterization © 2013 COLUMBIA Technologies.
By: Robert J. Carr, P.E., LEP CONNECTICUT’S 2013 REVISIONS TO REMEDIATION STATUTES AND REGULATIONS MARCH 12, 2014.
21 st Annual Conference. Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Developing Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels for International Service Station Sites.
Biodegradation and Natural Attenuation
1 Brave New World Emerging Tools for NAPL Remediation Jim Cummings Technology Innovation Office/USEPA Chicago, Illinois Dec 2002.
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.
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.
“GAS MART” petroleum facility in Florida By: Ernest Twum-Barimah Zhengzhong Fang (John) Zhengzhong Fang (John)
Phytotechnologies for Environmental Restoration and Management Micah Beard, M.S. Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Multiphase Extraction for Soil and Groundwater Remediation Nick Swiger Spring 2007.
Clean-up at BP Paulsboro New Jersey (USA) Roxane Fisher and Mark Ferguson.
By: Martin Lee, Jey Hwan Lee, Wilson Leung. Background Former HKIA, replaced in 1998 ▫World’s busiest in 1997 ▫Overcrowded World famous difficult landings.
1 Soil Vapor Extraction Limitations and Enhancements LeeAnn Racz AgE 558 Semester Project April 2001.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Fate and Transport of Chemicals A Presentation by Terrie Boguski Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous.
Evaluating Natural Attenuation
EnviroSense, Inc. An Overview of Environmental Factors in Developing Brownfields Sites in Massachusetts Presented By: Eric S. Wood, P.Hg., PG, LSP President.
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD): National Overview of Cleanup Strategies in the United States William J. Linn, PG Florida Department.
C. Remediation of groundwater contaminants
Kathy Metropulos Division of Drinking and Ground Waters Protecting your aquifer: What to consider when drilling oil and gas wells.
General Electric – Housatonic River Project November 6, 2002 Overview of NAPL and Groundwater Programs Mike Nalipinski EPA New England Mike Nalipinski.
Wellhead Protection Strategies: Keys to Success Prepared by: Mr. Brian Oram, PG, Licensed Driller, PASEO B.F Environmental Consultants and Wilkes University.
Module 4: Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS. 2 Module Objectives  Explain the purpose of the scoping phase of the RI/FS  Identify existing data which.
Sean Bushart- EPRI Karen Kim- EPRI NRC RIC Conference-
Presentation Outline Attenuation Concepts for Radionuclides
InVentures Technologies Overview of Site Remediation Technologies Gas inFusion Systems for Groundwater Remediation Jim Begley inVentures Technologies Inc.
DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California.
LOGO Feasibility Test of Applying Complex Remediation Technology for Diesel Contamination in Soil and Groundwater 2012 International Conference on Environmental.
By: Jennifer Schaffer LNAPL (Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids) Courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey.
GFOA PS3260 Contaminated Sites Workshop Thursday, November 14, 2013 Whitehorse, YT.
Jan Smolders ( 史默德) Independent Consultant Soil & Groundwater Remediation Jan Smolders, Client Advisor Soil & Groundwater Remediation 1.
Fate and Transport of Ethanol in the Environment Presented to the Environmental Protection Agency Blue Ribbon Panel Presented by Michael C. Kavanaugh,
Introduction to NAPLs Review of general concepts
2010 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Conference Institutional Controls Featuring the Pinellas Site Jack Craig U.S. Department of Energy Office of.
1 Section 5: Limitations. 2 ISCO Limitations  Saturated Zone vs Unsaturated Zone  Chemistry  CoSolvents  Geology /Geochemistry/Hydrogeology  NAPL.
Remediation System Design & Implementation Presented by.
The Role of Groundwater Sampling/Monitoring COGCC Proposed Rule 609 University of Colorado Law School Nov 26, 2012.
Utilizing CPT/UVIF to Delineate Free- Phase Dowtherm® in the Subsurface Bryan Heath, URS Corporation (URS Diamond) Steve Shoemaker, DuPont Corporate Remediation.
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.
Monitored Natural Attenuation and Risk-Based Corrective Action at Underground Storage Tanks Sites Mike Trombetta Department of Environmental Quality Environmental.
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model. Typical Site Management Problems: Site complexities  Complicated hydrogeology  Multiple contaminants of concern (COCs)
7th Avenue and Bethany Home Road Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Site February 19, 2013.
Daniel J. Lombardi, P.G. 22 nd International Petroleum Environmental Conference Denver, Colorado November 17, 2015.
1 Section 4- Characterization  Characterization is 95% of the Success of ISCO  Develop a complete and comprehensive Conceptual Site Model  ISCO is a.
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,
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم تلوث المياه الجوفية الناتج عن التسربات من خزانات الوقود المدفونة الخيار بين الوقاية والعلاج.
Feb. 2006IHA/pm1 Site remediation 1 Planning site remediation Excavation: Pros/cons & How.
2650 East 40 th Avenue Denver, Colorado GROUND WATER SAMPLING WATER LEVEL & PRESSURE WATER SAMPLE FILTRATION GROUND WATER REMEDIATION.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP)
By Alex Walton Josh Bush Alex Walton, Josh Bush1.
David J. Berestka, PE Remedial Design Engineer, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
1 Groundwater Pollution GW 10 Monitored Natural Attenuation.
Groundwater Pollution
Melissa Boggs California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response.
Cover Slide TCEQ logo.
Timothy Veatch, Section Chief
ENHANCED BIOREMEDIATION PILOT USING iSOC® TECHNOLOGY AT A FORMER MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT CASE STUDY PREPARED BY: MR. DAVID WORK, PE RETEC GROUP.
Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations: Volatilization Criteria
Former Waddell Compressor Station
Olusola Ayilara, P.E., P.G. PST-DCRP Section, Remediation Division
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model
Presentation transcript:

Evaluating the Practicality of LNAPL Recovery Jeff Lane, P.G. November 17, 2015 International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) IPEC 22 Contact information: FM 1960 West, Suite 575 Houston, Texas 77090

 Explosive vapors  Expanding LNAPL or dissolved phase plume  Threat to an underground utility or structure  Surface water impact LNAPL – light nonaqueous phase liquid (i.e. oil, gasoline)

 40 CFR – owners and operators of USTs must remove free product to the “maximum extent practicable”…as determined by the implementing agency

Texas/Louisiana Risk-Based Approach No “floating oil”≤ 1/8 inch Risk-Based No “measurable product” To the extent practical New Mexico Oklahoma Colorado

 ITRC Guidance provides a tool for screening remedial technologies ◦ Site setting ◦ Geological information ◦ LNAPL properties ◦ LNAPL distribution ◦ LNAPL recoverability information ◦ LNAPL mobility and stability ◦ Identified remedial objective

 Excavation  Liquid recovery (single & dual phase)  Vapor recovery  Air sparging  Insitu treatment (i.e. soil mixing, chemical oxidation, soil flushing)  Natural Source Zone Depletion (i.e. MNA)

 Highly volatile LNAPL  High hydraulic conductivity  Thick vadose zone SVEand/or Soil venting  Crude oil in shallow subsurface  Surface water seepage  Low hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic recovery and/orExcavation

Deep contamination Limits: Excavation, Insitu treatment Equipment obstructions Limits: Recovery systems, Insitu treatment Limited radius of influence Limits: Vapor and Hydraulic recovery systems Low residual saturation Limits: Vapor and Hydraulic recovery systems Lack of vadose zone Limits: Vapor recovery

 Prevention of plume spreading  Protection of receptors  Reduce plume longevity  Recovery to extent practical

 Stable plume footprint  Verifying the absence of receptors  Recover trends  Transmissivity ITRC 2009 Training

 Already recovered to the extent practical  When only residual saturation exists  No receptors at risk (vapors/water wells/surface water)  Stable plume  No ongoing sources  When institutional controls are possible

Vapors source Monitoring wells Dissolved-Phase Residual or Free-Phase LNAPL Surface Water Water Supply well

Monitoring wells Water Supply well Surface Water Dissolved-Phase Vapors Residual or Free-Phase LNAPL

and remedial objectives  Applicability of potential remedial technologies depends on site-specific hydrogeologic characteristics, nature and distribution of contaminants, and remedial objectives. some sites  Technologies for removal of mobile LNAPL exist and may be applicable at some sites. virtually all LNAPL  Subsurface restoration to precontamination conditions may require removal of virtually all LNAPL and much of the contamination sorbed to aquifer material. Technological limitations to complete LNAPL removal may exist at many sites. (EPA Ground Water Issue – EPA/540/S-95/500, 1995)

 No LNAPL source = No LNAPL spread (ITRC 2009)  Most remedial technologies leave residual product in place (except excavation)

 Dissolved hydrocarbon plume growth is typically restricted by natural attenuation  Deed restriction can prohibit water well use (i.e. institutional control) 250 feet Dilution, Sorption, Volatilization, Microbial degradation

 Site-specific conditions influence options  Regulations provide structure and options  Receptors can be protected by LNAPL removal or LNAPL control  Implementation of institutional controls is frequently necessary It may or may not be necessary to remove LNAPL to protect receptors.

Contact information: FM 1960 West, Suite 575 Houston, Texas 77090