ISTR Technologies: Feasibility and Limitations, and Overview of SEE

Transcription

1 ISTR Technologies: Feasibility and Limitations, and Overview of SEE Mechanisms Treatment area and volume Thermal technologies How to select? Gorm Heron TerraTherm, Inc. Keene, California, USA

2 Mechanisms for VOCs Vapor pressure (atm) o C TCE H 2 O PCE Henry's law constant ( - ) o C PCE TCE 1 mm

3 Oils - Viscosity reduction Fuel oil, 14 gravity No. 5 fuel oil Viscosity (cp) Temperature ( o C) Viscosity (cst) Temperature ( o C)

4 Light ends are removed at 100 o C or higher Typical Soil Chromatogram Before SEE Soil Residual Chromatogram After SEE Chromatograms from TPH analysis of soils from Alameda Point, CA (Udell et al. 2000)

5 Vapor Pressure vs. Temperature ERH, SEE, TCH TCH 500 Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) Temperature ( C) Vapor pressures increase exponentially with temperature 5

6 100 o C 70 o C 325 o C Level 2 In Situ Stabilization/ Solidification Level 1 Thermally enhanced NAPL recovery Level 3 Complete COC removal/destruction

7 Challenge Will make COCs mobile Steam and COC vapors generated NAPL may move Groundwater concentrations may increase Groundwater permeability increases Better treat the right volume Pneumatic and hydraulic control = capture

8 Treatment Area and Volume (and goals)

9 Aerial View of Memphis Site (During Demob) 367 heaters 68 extraction wells

10 Example: NASA Michoud Objectives: Determine top and bottom of treatment zone Determine areal extent and shape of treatment zone Provide a mass estimate for TCE and other CVOCs Method: MIP with soil and groundwater sampling, variable

11 Conceptual source area as start Characterization area

12 Max ECD response and suggested next pushes

13

14 Final MIP results Original conceptual area

15 Geological conceptual model

16 Conceptual model w/mip profiles

17 Selection of Treatment Zone Need quick tools (screening OK) hundreds of data points Most widely used: MIP for screening (LIF if looking for aromatics) GeoProbe w/grab samples Rotosonic drilling w/grab samples Conceptual model important Pick TTZ which exceeds the remedial goals Soil (mg/kg) GW (mg/l) Soil gas (mg/m 3 ) Mass reduction Flux reduction

18 Thermal Technologies and Providers ERH/ET DSP TRS, CES, McMillan McGee ISTD 100 C TerraTherm ISTD dry and hot TerraTherm, TPS SEE TerraTherm, ERM, others? RF/MW heating Kasevich, ERM STARS/smoldering SiREM Hot water flushing? Hot air injection?

19 Example source zone Silt GW Sand Silt 19

20 ISTD/TCH - Heating governed by thermal conductivity (f~3) nearly uniform Groundwater Level Heater Well SVE Well Source Area ISTD = In Situ Thermal Desorption TCH = Thermal Conduction Heating 20

21 TerraTherm ISTD Heaters Covered by one or more of the following: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,190,405, 5,318,116, 6,485,232 and 6,632,047. International patents (e.g., EPC ). 21

22

23 ERH/ET-DSP - Heating governed by electrical conductivity (f~200) may require stacked electrodes Groundwater Level Electrode Well (shown w/3 electrodes) MPE Well Source Area Silt Sand Silt ERH = Electrical Resistance Heating ET-DSP = Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process 23

24 ET DSP Electrodes (McMillan-McGee Corp.) 24

25 ET DSP Wellfield Power Control Unit for Electrodes Vapor Manifold Liquid Manifold Stacked Electrodes Stacked Electrodes MPE Well 25

26 SEE - Heating governed by hydraulic conductivity non-uniform steam flow Groundwater Level Steam Injection Well MPE Well Source Area Silt Sand Silt SEE = Steam Enhanced Extraction 26

27 Steam Enhanced Extraction New tools for environmental application Pressure cycling Limitations low K sites and fractured rock Combinations with TCH and resistive heating

28 28

29 Oil field well patterns 5 spot 7 spot Line drive

30 Alameda Point

31 Visalia Pole Yard SEE Creosote DNAPL to +140 ft depth Alluvial sands and gravels with clays Both LNAPL and DNAPL Approaching MCLs in ,000 gallons removed from subsurface Superfund Site delisted UC Berkeley LLNL - SCE

32 Example steam modeling Temperature Depth (m) days 12 days 30 days 45 days C 86 C 76 C 66 C 56 C 46 C 36 C 26 C 16 C kpa kpa Pressure Depth (m) kpa 157 kpa 145 kpa 134 kpa kpa kpa 100 kpa Length (m) Length (m) Length (m) Length (m)

33

34 Guadalupe project Diluent and crude oil

35 SEE: Pressure cycling to optimize vaporization and to achieve diminishing returns

36 5,000 4,500 Steam injection rate (lbs/hr) Injection rate (lbs/hr) 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, /1 10/11 10/21 10/31 11/10 11/20 11/30 12/10 12/20 12/30 1/9 1/19 1/29 2/8 2/18 2/28 CVOC removal (lbs/day) Estimated VOC rate (pounds per hour) /1 10/11 10/21 10/31 11/10 11/20 11/30 12/10 12/20 12/30 1/9 1/19 1/29 2/8 2/18 2/28 Time (4.5 months total)

37 P P T Pressurization T Depressurization

38 Edwards AFB Site 61 Fractured granite (quartz monzonite)

39 39

40 ERT data planes ERT data planes VEA-4 VEA-2 VEA-5 VEA-3 VEA-1

41 WHY? Temperature distribution after 30 days of steam injection into a 100 um fracture at 50 ft depth, using 0.8 psi/ft Heat conduction into matrix from a steam filled fracture (simulated using a modified Marx Langenheim solution; Tom Heron et al. 1999) Distance from injection hole (m) Q = K x dt/dx dt/dx = 60 K/m DIstance into matrix (m)

42 RF Heating Preferentially heat polar molecules Limited full-scale applications Cost? Limited to small sites? Gentle heating (40-50 C) to enhance hydrolysis, biodegradation, and ISCO? Figures courtesy of JR Technologies, LLC 42

43 Gas Thermal Remediation (GTR ) New TCH/ISTD kid on the block Limited in-situ applications Limited application in US Permitting concerns Air discharge City building/fire Hundreds of gas connections and fittings Natural gas availability Advantage? Fuel cost? Figures courtesy of TPS Tech America, Inc. 43

44 How to Select Heating Method? TCH/ISTD Heating governed by thermal conductivity Comparison ET DSP/ERH Heating governed by electrical conductivity (max temp = boiling point) SEE Heating governed by hydraulic conductivity (max temp = boiling point)

45 Start Primary Factors Affecting Selection of Treatment Technology/Approach - BP/VP of COCs - Cleanup Criteria -GW flux - Bedrock - Stratigraphy Are the COCs volatile? Yes No No Stringent COC soil treatment criteria? Yes ISTD >100 o C Is there a highflow aquifer? No Is bedrock present in the treatment zone? Yes ISTD 100 o C Yes No SEE No Is there a thick clay layer? ISTD, ERH or ET-DSP TM (100 o C) Yes SEE combined with ISTD, ERH or ET-DSP TM (100 o C) Simplified decision tree for identifying applicable thermal technologies for a site 45

46 Example source area DNAPL and VOC distribution Fill Sand/silt Clay Gravel/weathered rock aquifer (v>1 ft/d) Fractured bedrock

47 Applicable technologies in each zone SEE/TCH/ ERH/ET DSP Fill Sand/silt TCH/ERH/ET DSP Clay TCH, ET DSP? SEE Gravel/weathered rock aquifer (v>1 ft/d) Fractured crystalline bedrock

48 TCH CVOC BTEX Sand, vadose Sand, saturated Silt, vadose Silt, saturated Clay, vadose Clay, saturated Crystalline rock Cemented sedimentary rock Organic rock Chlorobenzenes Gasoline Diesel Oils > 50 cp Creosote, cp MGP coal tar, viscous Effective Promising/site specific Problematic/unproven Will not be effective ERH/ET-DSP CVOC BTEX Sand, vadose Sand, saturated Silt, vadose Silt, saturated Clay, vadose Clay, saturated Crystalline rock Cemented sedimentary rock Organic rock Chlorobenzenes Gasoline Diesel Oils > 50 cp Creosote, cp MGP coal tar, viscous Effective Promising/site specific Problematic/unproven Will not be effective SEE CVOC BTEX Sand, vadose Sand, saturated Silt, vadose Silt, saturated Clay, vadose Clay, saturated Crystalline rock Cemented sedimentary rock Organic rock Chlorobenzenes Gasoline Diesel Oils > 50 cp Creosote, cp MGP coal tar, viscous Effective Promising/site specific Problematic/unproven Will not be effective TCH+SEE CVOC BTEX Sand, vadose Sand, saturated Silt, vadose Silt, saturated Clay, vadose Clay, saturated Crystalline rock Cemented sedimentary rock Organic rock Chlorobenzenes Gasoline Diesel Oils > 50 cp Creosote, cp MGP coal tar, viscous Effective Promising/site specific Problematic/unproven Will not be effective

49 ISTD+SEE or ET-DSP +SEE in Complex Stratigraphy Power Steam Power Extraction Power Steam Steam Steam Vapor cap Top soil/clay Permeable zone TCH TCH Clay 49

50 Knullen site, Denmark Depth bgs Building 0 m / 0 ft 1 m / 3 ft Clayey till Fill 11 m / 36 ft 14 m / 46 ft Sand/gravel

51 Vertical temperature profiles Temperature (C) Temperatur (C) 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0 0,00 2,00 4,00 Depth (m) Dybde (m) 6,00 8,00 10,00 Jord & Grundvand Clay till 12,00 14,00 Aquifer 16,

52 52

53 Surface cover 0 25 Depth (ft) 50 TCH heater boring Steam injection well Multiphase extraction well Horizontal vapor extraction well

54 Confidential site, Florida

55 How to choose? 1. Conceptual site model crucial 2. Let the site conditions dictate 3. Request feasibility screening info from experts Will it work? Preliminary design Cost estimates SEE ERH/ET DSP ISTD 4. Move to RFP or final proposal stage for viable alternatives

56 Performance monitoring during thermal 1. Operate equipment per specs (performance based; energy in, rates out, compliance) 2. Hydraulic and pneumatic control 3. Subsurface temperatures 4. Mass removal 5. Soil concentrations 6. Groundwater concentrations

57 Operational range Other ISTD system kw Safety checks OK Vapor treatment system Liquid treatment system Monitoring system 1250 scfm vapor 750 noncondensable 30 gpm water 1 gpm NAPL 95% up time on sensors Comply with air discharge std Comply with water discharge std Data web site current

58 Hydraulic control

59 Hydraulic control EE 27 EE 28 EE 26 EE 20 EE 25 EE 21 EE 16 EE 24 EE 22 EE 15 EE 19 EE 18 EE 17 EE 8 EE 9 EE EE 23 EE 13 EE 14 EE 12 EE 11 EE 10 EE 5 EE 6 EE 2 EE 1 20 EE 4 EE

60 Pneumatic control

61 Subsurface temperatures

62 Mass Removal During Treatment Removal Rate (lbs/hr) ~12,000 lbs of TCE Total Removed (Tons) Days after Initial Startup (Jan 29, 2007) Removal Rate Total Removed 62

63 Soil sampling

64 ISTD Results: CVOCs (100 C) Site Volume (yd 3 ) Major Contaminant Pre- Treatment Concentration (mg/kg) Remedial Goal Mean Post- Treatment Portland, IN 5,000 PCE 3, Midwest #1 7,882 TCE 4, Midwest #2 1,730 TCE Midwest #3 1,338 TCE Richmond, CA 7,000 PCE Carson, CA 6,700 1,2-DCA 902 [1.0] (pilot) 0.23 SC 8,230 TCE 10,

65 Point Richmond TCH Site, CA Soil PCE Concentration ( g/kg) Soil Concentration - g/kg Pretreatment - PCE Post Treatment - PCE ,000 10, ,000 1,000,000 10,000, Bottom of Treatment Zone Depth Below Ground Surface - m Bottom of Heated Zone 7 8 Treatment Objective: 2,000 ug/kg 65

66 Groundwater sampling Example: Young Rainey STAR Area A (SEE ETDSP combo) Location NAPL Remediation Goals Groundwater MCLS: Cis 1,2 DCE cis-1,2-dichlorethene (µg/l) MeCl 2 Methylene Chloride (µg/l) Toluene (µg/l) e TCE TCE (µg/l) 50,000 20,000 5,500 11, ,000 3 FL PRO Florida Petroleum Range (µg/l) 50,000 5,000* Date Apr May July Apr May July Apr May July Apr May July Apr May July Samples Inside Remediation Area A PIN15-CS-01 ND ND 0.40 JB ND ND ND 0.20 J ND 0.58 J 12 ND ND ND PIN15-CS-02 ND 0.74 J 52 ND 0.49 JB ND 0.24 J 0.38 J ND ND 0.13 J 8.0 ND 320 ND PIN15-CS-03 ND ND 16 ND 1.2 JB ND ND ND ND PIN15-CS J 0.45 J 0.18 J ND 1.3 JB ND ND ND ND ND 120 J PIN15-CS JB ND J ND 0.63 J 0.35 J ND 3,200 6, PIN15-CS J J 150 B J ND ND ND J 140 J ND PIN15-CS-07 ND.22 J 0.83 J 0.48 J 1.2 JB ND ND ND ND 1,000 6, PIN15-CS ND 1.8 JB ND ND J 210 J PIN15-CS-09 ND ND ND 0.52 J 1.4 JB ND ND ND ND ND J PIN15-CS-10 ND ND 0.65 J 0.82 J ND 0.62 J ND ND ND 180 J PIN15-CS-11 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.49 J ND ND ND 110 J 270 J 140 J PIN15-CS J 0.45 J 0.24 J 0.74 J 1.1 JB 0.51 J J 0.42 J ND PIN15-CS-13 ND ND ND 0.62 J 1.7 JB 0.30 J J 0.58 J ND ND ND 240 J 580 ND PIN15-CS-14 ND 0.30 J 0.16 J 0.78 J 1.7 JB ND 1 ND 0.75 J ND 0.11 J ND 120 J 400 ND PIN15-CS-15 ND ND ND 0.68 J ND ND 4.7 ND 1.1 ND ND ND 1,000 2, PIN15-CS J 0.75 JB ND ND ND 190 J 110 J

67 Conclusions Conceptual model crucial Treat right volume Pick heating method to match Capture mobilized COCs Data quality/metrics