2. Perspectives on Innovative Characterization and Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sites Sept. 27, 2001 ENRY Belgrade, Yugoslavia Walter W. Kovalick Jr., Ph.D. Director Technology Innovation Office US Environmental Protection Agency

3. 8/3//01 Technology Innovation Office ResponsibleParty/OwnerOperatorFederal/StateProjectManager ConsultingEngineer Technology Vendor International Markets Investor Community Technology Vendors Clients for Information on Technology Innovations

4. 8/3//01 TIO’s Mission Advocates “smarter” technologies for the characterization and cleanup of contaminated sites Works with clients to identify and understand better, faster, and cheaper options Seeks to identify and reduce barriers to the use of innovative technologies

5. 8/3//01 http://cluin.org/asr

6. 8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Summary of Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY 1982 - FY 1999) Soil Vapor Extraction (196) 26% In-Situ Soil Flushing (16) 2% In Situ Bioremediation (35) 5% In Situ Solidification/ Stabilization (46) 6% Incineration (off-site) (94) 13% Thermal Desorption (61) 8% Bioremediation (49) 7% Incineration (on-site) (42) 6% Chemical Treatment (10) 1% Solidification/Stabilization (137) 19% Other (ex situ) (32) 4% Ex Situ Technologies (425) 58%In Situ Technologies (314) 42% Other (in situ) (21) 3% http://cluin.org/asr

7. 8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Trends in Types of Source Control RODs (FY 1982 - FY 1999) 75% 25% 4% 15% 35% 32% 86% 74% 68% 51% 45% 46% 44% 40% 33% 23% 25% 32% 27% 28% 29% 49% 42% 51% 47% 40% 52% 61% 70% 73% 67% 73% 71% 55% 14% 19% 30% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 2% 6% 9% 23% 21% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 828384858687888990919293949596979899 Fiscal Year Percent of Source Control RODs Source Control Containment or Disposal Source Control Treatment Other Source Control Remedy (Institutional Controls, Monitoring, Relocation) http://cluin.org/asr

8. 8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: In Situ Technologies for Source Control (FY 1985 - FY 1999) Percentage of Source Control Treatment Projects 44% 34% 47% 61% 68% 31% 33% 45% 31% 21% 29% 36% 34% 50% 47% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 858687888990919293949596979899 Fiscal Year Percentage of Treatment Technologies Linear Trendline (In Situ Projects) http://cluin.org/asr

9. 8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Groundwater Remedies (FY 1982 - FY 1999) Total Sites With Pump-and-Treat, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and In Situ Groundwater Treatment Remedies = 749 Pump-and-Treat Only (521) 71% Pump-and-Treat and In Situ (48) 6% Pump-and-Treat and MNA (55) 7% In Situ Only (16) 2% Pump-and-Treat, In Situ, and MNA (14) 2% In Situ and MNA (3) <1% MNA Only (92) 12% http://cluin.org/asr

10. 8/3//01 Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field-Scale Demonstration Projects in North America, 2nd Edition Year 2000 Report http://cluin.org/products/nairt/overview.htm

11. 8/3//01 North American Innovative Technology Demonstration Projects Report Matrix summarizing 601 government-sponsored demonstrations (1985-present) Sponsoring government agencies (North America) –Canadian Government –U.S. Environmental Protection Agency –U.S. Military Services (Army, Navy, Air Force) –U.S. Department of Energy –California Environmental Protection Agency http://clu-in.org/products/nairt/

12. 8/3//01 North American Innovative Technology Demonstration Projects In Situ Technologies 383 Projects Soil Physical/Chemical (103) Ground Water Physical/Chemical (99) Ground Water Biological (61) Soil Thermal (54) Soil Biological (66)

13. 8/3//01

14. FRTR Cost and Performance Guide In-Situ Ground Water Remediation Technologies with Recommended Reporting Elements Air Sparging Bioremediation Bioslurping Circulating wells (UVB) Cosolvents/surfactants Dual-phase extraction Dynamic underground stripping In-situ oxidation (Fenton’s Reagent) Natural attenuation of nonchlorinated compounds Natural attenuation of nonchlorinated hydrocarbons Permeable Reactive Barriers Pump and Treat Phytoremediation Steam flushing Vertical barrier walls

15. 8/3//01 FRTR Remediation Case Studies Document cost/performance of clean-up technologies Includes full-scale cleanup and large-scale demonstrations 274 EPA, DoD, DoE cases Searchable by technology, contaminant, media (www.frtr.gov) Superfund, RCRA, State sites http://www.frtr.gov

16. 8/3//01 FRTR Case Studies: Summary of Contaminants and Media Treated * * Some case studies address more than one type of media/contaminant Chlorinated Solvents Pesticides/ Herbicides Contaminant Types 45 70 1 19 9 9 1 16 19 2 13 2 5 2 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 28 20 11 Metals 29 35 BTEX/TPH PAHs Radioactivity PCBs Explosives SoilGroundwaterDebris/Solid Number of Case Studies http://www.frtr.gov

17. 8/3//01 Remediation Technology Cost Compendium – Year 2000 Historical cost data compilation for six cleanup technologies: bioremediation, thermal desorption, SVE, on-site incineration, pump-and-treat, and PRBs unit costFocus on unit cost for quantity treated and contaminant mass removed “Fully defined” cost data –Based on actual applications from federal agency sources –Directly linked to technology application Cost curves developed Findings reconfirm factors driving remediation technology costs Available September 2001

18. 8/3//01 Bioventing Cost/Volume Curve Remediation Technology Cost Compendium 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000 Volume of Soil Treated (yd 3 ) Unit Cost ($/yd 3 ) Best Fit Lower Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation Upper Confidence Limit - 1 Standard Deviation

19. 8/3//01 EPA REACH IT System Free information service, searchable on-line Vendor information on 371 treatment and 160 characterization technologies Detailed site information on 900 EPA Superfund remediation projects Flexible search options including by technology, contaminant, media, and sites Updated continuously by EPA and vendors Replaces 3 previous PC based systems - requires no downloading http://www.epareachit.org

20. EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program http://www.epa.gov/etv

21. 8/3//01 ETV Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies Pilot http://www.epa.gov/etv

22. Monitoring: Saving ResourcesThroughout the Cleanup Process “Let’s get through characterization and on to cleanup”

23. 8/3//01 Systematic Planning Dynamic Workplanning On-Site Measurement Technologies The Triad Approach

24. 8/3//01 Characteristics of the “Triad” Fully maximizing capabilities of field analytical instruments and rapid sampling tools Systematic planning –Meeting site or project-specific goals vs. prescriptive methods “checklists” –Relying on thorough advance planning/up- front understanding of the site –Global view of project, ultimate goals Dynamic or adaptive decision making Bringing together the right team Changing perception –Requirements for accurate, protective, and defensible decisions –Time, money, and quality

25. 8/3//01 Recent Bioremediation Report Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites Describes site-specific applications of ex situ and in situ bioremediation at 104 Superfund sites Summarizes contaminants and media treated Provides available cost and performance data Analyzes trends over time 48 pages http://clu-in.org/techpubs.htm

26. 8/3//01 Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999) 1 Part 1 of 2 32 22 19 13 8 Wood Preserving Petroleum Refining, Reuse, and Pipeline Landfill/ Disposal Area Underground/ Aboveground Storage Tank Pesticide Manufacturing/ Use/Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Projects 1 Some sites are described by more than one site type. Total Projects = 104 Site Type

27. 8/3//01 Superfund Site Types Most Commonly Treated by Bioremediation (FY 1982 – FY 1999) 1 Part 2 of 2 1 Some sites are described by more than one site type. Site Type Fire/Crash Training Area Munitions Manufacturing or Storage Surface Impound- ment or Lagoon Vehicle Maintenance Drum Storage/ Disposal Number of Projects Total Projects = 104 7 777 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

28. 8/3//01 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) Ex Situ Source Treatment Technologies Biopile3ŽŽŽ Slurry Phase2ŽŽŽŽŽ Other3Ž Ž Land Treatment 33ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ Composting8ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ Techno- logy Total No. of Projects PAHs Other Non- Chlori- nated SVOCs BTEX Other Non- Chlori- nated VOCs Pesti- cides And Herbi- cides Other Chlori- nated SVOCs Chlori- nated VOCs Explo- sives/ Propel- lants

29. 8/3//01 Example Windrow Composting System Form Windrows With soil and Amendments Periodic Turning of Windrow Monitoring Compost Analysis Windrow Disassembly And Disposition Excavate and Screen Soils

30. 8/3//01 Contaminant Groups Treated by Bioremediation Technologies at Superfund Sites (FY 82 – FY 99) In Situ Treatment Other9ŽŽ Bioventing 24ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ Slurry Phase2Ž Ž ŽŽŽŽ ŽŽ Source Control Biosparging3ŽŽŽŽŽ Injection/ Recirculation 17ŽŽŽŽŽŽ Groundwater Techno- logy Total No. of Projects PAHs Other Non- Chlori- nated SVOCs BTEX Other Non- Chlori- nated VOCs Pesti- cides And Herbi- cides Other Chlori- nated SVOCs Chlori- nated VOCs Explo- sives/ Propel- lants

31. 8/3//01 In Situ Treatment Technologies Soil Established –Bioventing (fuels) –SVE (fuels, organics) –Solidification/stabilization (metals) –Soil washing Emerging –Electrokinetics (metals) –Phytoremediation (fuels, metals) –Thermal treatment (fuels, organics)

32. 8/3//01 Superfund Remedial Actions: Percentage of Soil Treated by Technology Type (FY 1982 - FY 1999) Other Ex Situ 7% Bioremediation (Ex Situ) 7% Neutralization (Ex Situ) 7% Solidification/Stabilizati on (Ex Situ) 8% Solidification/Stabilization (In Situ) 6% Other In Situ 3% Bioremediation (In Situ) 5% Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ) 57% http://cluin.org/asr

33. 8/3//01 Soil Vapor Extraction Enhancements/Adaptations MODIFY OPERATION Bioventing IMPROVE PLACEMENT Directional Drilling INTEGRATE WITH GROUNDWATER Dual-Phase Extraction Air Sparging IMPROVE RECOVERY Pneumatic Fracturing Hydraulic Fracturing Thermal Processes Radio-Frequency Heating Electrical Resistance Heating Steam/Hot Water Injection Conduction

34. 8/3//01 Description Use of plants to remove, destroy or sequester contaminants Applicable to wide range of media and contaminants Hydraulic control and remediation Mainly poplars for chlorinated solvents in ground water Grasses for fuels, metals in soil Contaminants Treated VOCs SVOCs Fuels Explosives Inorganics Phytoremediation http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

35. 8/3//01 Pros In situ, permanent solution Low capital and operating costs Low maintenance High hydraulic pumping pressures Reduced volume for disposal Treats wide variety of contaminants Phytoremediation Cons Shallow, low- to moderate- level contamination Lack of performance data Treatment duration Seasonally, climatically dependent Not applicable to all mixed wastes Need to displace existing facilities http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

36. 8/3//01 In Situ Treatment Technologies Groundwater 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) http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

37. 8/3//01 Biodegradation Mechanisms Typically Occurring with Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of CAHs CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination DirectCometabolicDirectCometabolic PCE TCE DCE VCYes Trichloroethane DichloroethaneYes C. tetrachloride Chloroform Methylene chloride Yes *Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination DirectCometabolicDirectCometabolic PCE TCEYes DCEYes VCYes TrichloroethaneYes DichloroethaneYes C. tetrachloride ChloroformYes Methylene chloride Yes CAH* Aerobic Oxidation Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination DirectCometabolicDirectCometabolic PCEYes TCEYes DCEYes VCYes TrichloroethaneYes DichloroethaneYes C. tetrachlorideYes ChloroformYes Methylene chloride Yes

38. 8/3//01 Example In Situ Groundwater Bioremediation System

39. 8/3//01 Trends Other reactive media Other contaminants Deeper contaminant plumesNeeds Longevity of wall reactivity Permeability changes due to precipitation Long term performance monitoring data Contaminants Treated Chlorinated solvents Metals and radionuclides Permeable Reactive Barriers http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

40. 8/3//01 Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) Installation Profiles http://www.rtdf.org

41. Natural Attenuation Processes include a variety of physical, chemical, or biological processes that act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater. These in-situ processes include biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and chemical or biological stabilization or destruction of contaminants.

42. Monitored Natural Attenuation Remediation of Sources and Source Areas Appropriate source control actions should be considered of the highest priority Source control measures should be evaluated at every site Improperly addressed contaminant sources complicate the long-term cleanup effort

43. Monitored Natural Attenuation Performance Monitoring Required to gauge effectiveness and protect human health and the environment Of even greater importance due to longer cleanup time frames for MNA Must demonstrate that NA is occurring as expected, identify transformation products, detect plume migration, verify attainment of cleanup goals Required for as long as contamination levels remain above cleanup goal anywhere on site

44. 8/3//01 Rethinking Source Term vs. Plume Management Potential source term control solutions –Chemical oxidation –Surfactant-cosolvent flushing –Steam/heat Outstanding issues –Science –Policy –Other

45. 8/3//01 Thermal Enhancement ProsPros Volatilizes VOCs Can be used in low permeability soils Can help remove DNAPL Permits not usually required ConsCons Could increase size of plume Temporarily destroys biomass Expensive  Heat source (steam, radio frequency http://clu-in.org/techfocus/

46. 8/3//01 Dynamic Underground (Steam) Stripping S. CALIF EDISION VISALIA, CA NPL SITE Former wood (pole) treatment facility Creosote, PCP Pump & treat started in 1976, 10lbs/week Began steam stripping 3 years ago 100,000lbs removed in first 6 weeks >1,300,000lbs removed to date Goal to meet MCLs More work needed to reduce costs

47. 8/3//01 In Situ Thermal Cleanup Projects http://cluin.org/products/thermal Organization# of Projects Navy 9 Air Force 5 Army 4 DOE 5 Private 37 Technologies Included: Conductive Heating ERH- Electrical Resistance Heating Hot Air Injection RF- Radio Frequency Heating SEE- Steam Enhanced Extraction

48. 8/3//01 CLU-IN World Wide Web Site http://clu-in.org Site Remediation Technologies Site Characterization Technologies Technology Partnerships, Roundtables, and Consortia Updates on International Clean-Up Activities Vendor Support Publications for Downloading Free E-mail Updates via TechDirect Regulatory Information and Technology Policy Links to Other Internet and Online Resources

49. 8/3//01 Broadcasts periodic e-mail messages to the list of over 11,000 subscribers. Highlights events of interest to site remediation and site assessment professionals. Describes new products and provides instructions on how to obtain them. Highlights

50. 8/3//01 Top 10 Websites For Hazardous Waste Management 1.http://clu-in.org (or http://www.epa.gov/tio) 2.http://www.epareachit.org 3.http://www.frtr.gov 4.http://www.gwrtac.org 5.http://www.rtdf.org 6.http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE 7.http://em-50.em.doe.gov 8.http://www.itrcweb.org/ 9.http://www.serdp.org/research/research.html 10.http://www.epa.gov/etv/

51. 8/3//01

52. Standard Environmental Engineering Practice vs. Remediation Practice Civil/sanitary engineering disciplines Use of experience and standards of practice for design, operation Single technology orientation Predictable operating environment Interdisciplinary (chemical/civil engineering, microbiology, hydrology, geology) More dependent on bench/pilot studies to assess treatability and determine design, operation Treatment “trains” of multiple unit processes; systems integration Unanticipated site conditions Standard Engineering PracticeRemediation Practice