Environmental Restoration Program Optimization (ERP-O): A Consultant s Perspective. Sriram Madabhushi BAH and ITRC E2S2 Conference June 17, 2010

Transcription

1 Environmental Restoration Program Optimization (ERP-O): A Consultant s Perspective Sriram Madabhushi BAH and ITRC E2S2 Conference June 17, 2010

2 IPO 1 Conclusions ERP-Os are technically challenging and very satisfying Balancing RPM/Base/Client needs Intense team work requires dedicated substantial time during the visit Being part of the team of experts is a privilege Not for sensitive souls Lot of travel

3 2 Table Of Contents Conclusions RPO to ERP-O Examples Challenges

4 ERP-O Scoping Visit Team 3

5 ERP-O Scoping Visit Team 4

6 ERP-O Scoping Visit Team 5

7 6 ERP-O Opportunities Streamlined process Phase I Pre-visit Phase I Visit Recommendations Management Reviews Phase II Phase III

8 IPO 7 Evolution of Optimization SC&M Team RPO Team PBEM Team GSR 2009 RRM PBEM Exit Strategy GSR Team RRM Team Streamlined Investigation Remedial Process Optimization Long-Term Monitoring Optimization

9 8 ERP-O Flow Chart RSC or Triad Sampling (Field Lab, DBS) Drilling (CPT, Sonic) LTMO Cost & Performance Sustainability

10 Suggested Configuration for Monitoring Network 9 9

11 Monitoring Program Optimization 10

12 CoC Concs. in ug/l CoC Concs. in ug/l CoC Concs. in ug/l CoC Concs. in ug/l 11 LTMO at Example Site #1 E x c a v Tr e H OU XXX YYYY Road Disposal Area Time Series AP-3984 at. St u d y V E & S P S H c DCE t DCE PCE TCE 1122PCA VC E x c a v Tr e at. St u d y OUB XX YYYY Road Disposal Area Time Series AP-3989 H V E & S P S H c DCE t DCE PCE TCE 1122PCA VC E x c a8000 v OUXX YYYYYY Road Disposal Area Time Series AP-3985 Tr e at. St u d y H V E & S P S H E x c a v Tr e at. OUXX YYYYY Disposal H Area Time Series AP-3983 St u d y V E & S P S H c DCE t DCE PCE TCE 1122PCA VC

13 Performance PTT at Example Site #2 Performance Graphed 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% They never stood a chance! Fiscal Year Projected Mass Removal System Cost Performance Restoration Performance Capital Cost/DD Estimate 12 12

14 13 GTS at Example Site #3 Geostatistical Temporal Spatial analysis tool runs for the NPL Landfill Using all data: Some wells show: Increasing and Decreasing Impact on the time to complete and CTC MW-33 MW-26 MW-10

15 14 GTS at Example Site #3 GTS runs for the NPL Landfill LTM-10:Mn Using all data Increasing since 2002

16 15 SRT Evaluations at Example Site #4 Use of dedicated pumping systems for monitoring wells included in long-term sampling programs Use of passive diffusion bag samplers for groundwater monitoring of the interim remedial action, a groundwater extraction system Implementation of enhanced bioremediation for chlorinated solvent contamination on the main installation Enhancement of Soil Vapor Extraction systems to reduce overall treatment time Utilized electrical resistance heating (ERH) technology to remove over 12,500 lbs of CVOCs

17 16 SRT at Example Site #4 * SRT generated Emissions SVE Thermal CO 2 Emissions *52 tons *690 tons CO 2 Emissions per pound of CVOC removed** 8.32 lbs lbs NO x *0.27 tons *3.9 tons SO x *0.48 tons *7.3 tons PM *0.089 tons *1.4 tons Time Estimated time to completion** Five years 177 days ** Using Site Specific Data GWMR 2009 Article

18 Options Analysis Strategy Rationale Estimated costs Notes Excavate landfill contents and transfer to other landfill and/or incinerate. No LTM. Close site. Source removal prevents further flux to groundwater. No direct effect below ft. No receptors / risk. $12.4M $12.4M Assumes $10.8M excavation. Continue passive SVE. Implement LTM with 2-5 yr frequency. No receptors / risk. Minor reduction in contaminant load to subsurface. Passive SVE reduces/eliminates flux to groundwater. $0.85M to $1.7M $1.8M to $3.0M Depends on extent of SVE; passive and active; etc Break-even with excavation approach: 188 to 254 years 17 17

19 18 Tracked Recommendations Develop a VI Potentially At Risk Area Map (similar to Restricted Areas Use Map): Identify areas where it is reasonable to assume there is risk for VI Use DQO process to develop optimal groundwater and soil vapor monitoring frequency Do not perform exploratory excavations unless full scale excavation is proven necessary Evaluate the effectiveness of the operational modifications and if positive extend to Trench D

20 19 Tracked Recommendations Conduct investigations to gain a better understanding of fouling mechanisms Establish a base wide fouling mitigation process Conduct pressure testing in conjunction with air purging Structure flexible ROD wording to accommodate proposed remedy and contingent remedy based on EMNA treatability study Include exit strategy in ROD

21 20 Tracked Recommendations Prepare an ERP Management Plan that establishes program continuity among: ROD requirements, RAOs, performance objectives, parameters, metrics, decisions and actions Include performance monitoring parameters that inform decision making and actions that accelerate and maximize efficiency of cleanup over life cycle

22 21 Challenges Being professional Technical discussions Team approach to recommendations Honest assessment Serving the client facility RPM, RPO client, technical client Withstand the push back

23 Green and Sustainable Remediation Summary 22 Backup slides

24 OU 5/10 Site 285 Figure 1. OU 5/10 CSM 23

25 24 OU 5/10 Site 285 Cleanup Standards Soil: Perchlorate Region 9 PRG: 55 mg/kg (residential); 720 mg/kg (industrial) Edwards PCG: mg/kg (detection limit) Ground Water: Perchlorate Region 9 tap water PRG: 26 g/l California MCL: 6 g/l

26 25 OU 5/10 Site 285 Risk Assessment Perchlorate found in 3 discrete soil columns Non-cancer residential risk (based on maximum concentration) Potential for ecological risk Only for unrestricted use since contamination is deep GW perchlorate contamination Site-wide distribution Non-cancer residential risk Only for unrestricted use since water is not used No human health risk unless goal is unrestricted use 200 year travel time to public water wells Assumes current pumping rates NOTE: Agreement made with regulators to remove a number of sites from CERCLA on condition that a remedy would be installed at Site 282 or 285 Remedy probably needs to proceed regardless of risk profile

27 26 OU 5/10 Site 285 Remedy Evaluation Site used for several treatability studies GETS installed as treatability study Primary Objective: Evaluation of ORNL ion exchange resin Water flushing of soil shown to be effective 40 million gallons of water pumped 143 lbs of perchlorate removed Perchlorate plume size/concentration dramatically reduced since 2003 start-up of GETS (see Figures 2,3 and 4)

28 OU 5/10 Site 285 Figure Start-Up 27

29 OU 5/10 Site 285 Figure 3. January

30 OU 5/10 Site 285 Figure 4. January

31 30 OU 5/10 Site 285 Remedy Evaluation/Exit Strategy Successful treatability study becomes preferred remedy in FS (soil flushing, and current GETS) Goal is to achieve cleanup to residential standards with unrestricted future use within 8 years Eliminates out-year LUCs/ICs Exit Strategy: Proceed with internal plan to achieve residential cleanup w/unrestricted use Don t commit to other than industrial cleanup in the proposed plan and ROD. This approach gives the AF the option of falling back to an industrial standard if soil cleanup is not as successful as anticipated

32 31 OU 5/10 Site 285 Monitoring Program Monitoring RPO evaluation conducted in 2008 Reduced frequency recommendations yield a 40% savings Recommendations: Implement 2008 RPO monitoring recommendations DQOs should be re-evaluated 5 years of data has documented what is there R&D effort for the ion exchange resin is over Evaluate the need to continue sampling NDMA (never detected) Special method..high cost? 10% splits no longer needed. Everyone should agree by now Life cycle O&M costs significantly increased by monitoring A commitment to proceed with long term remedy should be accompanied by a commitment to reduce monitoring costs to the absolute minimum

33 32 OU 5/10 Site 285 Recommendations Remedy Proceed with internal plan to achieve residential cleanup with unrestricted use Don t commit to other than industrial cleanup in the proposed plan and ROD Monitoring Implement 2008 RPO monitoring recommendations now Re-evaluate DQOs for an operating system Plan for the long haul by minimizing monitoring costs now

34 Green and Sustainable Remediation Summary 33

35 LTMO at Example Site #1 Well ID Current Sampling Frequency Well purpose (e.g., water level only, background, compliance monitoring, sentry well, plume monitoring, etc.) Target Analytes/Method (e.g., 8260B, MNA, field parameters, etc.) # Sample results in historic record and most recent result ug/l( #, TCE, PCA) Qualitative Concentration Trends Most Wells Decreasing in Plume Potentially spatially redundant or unnecessary Recommend statistical temporal trend analysis? Recommendation for future monitoring (e.g., frequency, analyte list, sampling method, removal) Rationale for recommendation Comment AP-3748 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 21, ND, ND Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Down gradient of sentry well AP4019 All non detects since inception (21 sampling rounds) AP-4011 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 19, 17, 1.3 Decreasing/Stable Spatially redundant with AP4017 & AP4525 No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed Only TCE remains above MCLs after 19 rounds of sampling AP-4017 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 18, 1200, 280 Decreasing/Stable No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) Main plume monitoring well Principal indicator of progress towards RAOs AP-4019 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 18, ND, ND Decreasing/Stable No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) To monitor plume stability and behavior Sentry well to ensure the plume stability AP-4344 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 7, 15, nd Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Plume is stable Sentry well has a well upgradient to monitor AP4525 AP-4345 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 7, nd, nd Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed No detections of CoCs for over five years of sampling AP-4350 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 7, nd, nd Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed TCE, PCE ND for ten years AP-4525 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 5, 600, 120 Decreasing/Stable No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) Plume monitoring Principal indicator of progress towards RAOs AP-4551 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 3, 19, 120 Decreasing/Stable Spatially redundant with AP4017 & AP4525 No NO (Abandon) Plume is stable TCE can be monitored from the wells AP4017 & AP4525 AP-5246 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 1, nd, nd Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed No detections of CoCs AP-3744 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 14, 56, 9 Decreasing/Stable Spatially redundant with AP4017 & AP4525 No NO (Abandon) Up gradient of sentry monitoring well AP3747 All COCs below action levels except for TCE & PCA AP-3745 semi-annual sidegradient VOCs by 8260B 17, 29, 25 Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Up gradient of sentry monitoring well AP3748 All COCs below action levels except for TCE & PCA AP-3747 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 16, 250, 2.5 Decreasing/Stable No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) Monitoring/Sentry well Sentry well to ensure the plume stability AP-3749 semi-annual way upgradient VOCs by 8260B 18, ND, ND Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Upgradient clean well AP-3981 semi-annual Upgradient VOCs by 8260B 14, 9.8, 2.5 Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) Plume stability is confirmed No/low detections since 2000 AP-3982 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 18, ND, ND Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed No detections since 2000 AP-3983 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 17, 2100, 720 Decreasing/Stable Spatially redundant with AP4017 & AP4525 No NO (Abandon) Plume is stable Wells on either side AP3989 and AP4519 will suffice AP-3984 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 17, 350, 53 Decreasing/Stable Spatially redundant with AP4017 & AP4525 No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed Other wells in the main plume area will continue to monitor AP-3985 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 16, 250, 27 Decreasing/Stable Spatially redundant with AP4017 & AP4525 No NO (Abandon) Plume is stable Other wells in the main plume area will continue to monitor AP-3989 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 18, 920, 200 Decreasing/Stable No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) To monitor plume stability and behavior TCE and PCA can be monitored in this well to make future cleanup complete decision AP-4352 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 7, nd, nd Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Down gradient clean well No detections since 2000 AP-4353 semi-annual Upgradient 7, 210, 62 Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed Upgradient well AP-4354 semi-annual Upgradient 7, nd, nd Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Upgradient clean well No detections ever AP-4518 semi-annual sidegradient 15, ND, ND Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary No NO (Abandon) Sidegradient clean well No detections ever YES (5 yr, TCE & 34 34

36 35 35 LTMO at Example Site #1 Well ID Current Sampling Frequency Well purpose (e.g., water level only, background, compliance monitoring, sentry well, plume monitoring, etc.) Target Analytes/Method (e.g., 8260B, MNA, field parameters, etc.) # Sample results in historic record and most recent result ug/l( #, TCE, PCA) Qualitative Concentration Trends Most Wells Decreasing in Plume Potentially spatially redundant or unnecessary AP-3748 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 21, ND, ND Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary AP-4011 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 19, 17, 1.3 Decreasing/Stable Spatially redundant with AP4017 & AP4525 AP-4017 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 18, 1200, 280 Decreasing/Stable AP-3745 semi-annual sidegradient VOCs by 8260B 17, 29, 25 Decreasing/Stable Unnecessary AP-3747 semi-annual sentry VOCs by 8260B 16, 250, 2.5 Decreasing/Stable AP-3989 semi-annual PM VOCs by 8260B 18, 920, 200 Decreasing/Stable Recommend statistical temporal trend analysis? Recommendation for future monitoring (e.g., frequency, analyte list, sampling method, removal) Rationale for recommendation Comment No NO (Abandon) Down gradient of sentry well AP4019 All non detects since inception (21 sampling rounds) No NO (Abandon) Plume stability is confirmed Only TCE remains above MCLs after 19 rounds of sampling No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) Main plume monitoring well Principal indicator of progress towards RAOs Up gradient of sentry monitoring well No NO (Abandon) AP3748 All COCs below action levels except for TCE & PCA No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) Monitoring/Sentry well Sentry well to ensure the plume stability TCE and PCA can be monitored in this well to make future cleanup complete No YES (5 yr, TCE & PCA only) To monitor plume stability and behavior decision

37 36 36 PTT at Example Site #2 Assists in answering two key questions: Is contaminant mass being reduced at the appropriate rate? Are costs consistent with projections? Provides input for either optimizing or discontinuing system Goes beyond simply assessing whether contaminants are being removed to evaluate removal efficiency by comparing treatment performance with cost Originally for Pump & Treat, but now includes the following: Bioslurping Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) Surfactant Extraction (SurfactX) Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Dual Phase SVE-P&T Extraction

38 PTT at Example Site #2 JP Fuel Leak Decision Document Expectations Mass Data Entry Directions: Enter mass data in Mass Calculations worksheet Interim Action Start Year N/A Interim Action Cost N/A Interim Action Mass Removed N/A Remedy Start Year (from DD) 1991 Estimated Mass at Remedy Start (lbs.) 250,000 Estimated Acreage Impacted 10 Acre-ft of groundwater impacted 50 Remedy Completion Year 2015 DD Cost-To-Complete (CTC) $ 6,250,000 DD Estimated Capital Costs $ 250,000 DD Estimated O&M Costs $ 6,000,000 Total Capital Costs $ 250,000 Total O&M Costs $ 3,250,

39 38 38 PTT at Example Site #2 Raw data entered and calculated Fiscal Year 1991 Avg. Volume Pumped (gpm) Percent Operational Uptime Average Annual Concentration ug/l (influent) TCE DCE VCl BTEX Other VOC NAPL Recovered (lb/yr) Total Annual Mass Removed (lb/yr)

40 PTT at Example Site #2 Capital and O&M costs entered Results tabulated Fiscal Year Total Mass Removed per Year (lbs.) Capital Cost per Year O&M Cost per Year Capital Cost as Percent of DD Estimate O&M as Percent of CTC Projected System Cost as Percent of CTC Actual System Cost as Percent of CTC Projected Mass Removed Actual Mass Removed 1991 $ 250, % 0% 0% 0% $ 250,000 4% 4% 8% 4% 0% $ 250,000 8% 8% 12% 8% 0% $ 250,000 12% 12% 16% 13% 0% $ 250,000 16% 17% 20% 17% 0% $ 250,000 20% 21% 24% 21% 1% $ 250,000 24% 25% 28% 25% 1% $ 250,000 28% 29% 32% 29% 1% $ 250,000 32% 33% 36% 33% 1% $ 250,000 36% 37% 40% 38% 1% $ 250,000 40% 42% 44% 42% 1% $ 250,000 44% 46% 48% 46% 1% $ 250,000 48% 50% 52% 50% 1% $ 250,000 52% 54% 56% 54% 1% % 58% % 63% % 67% % 71% % 75% % 79% % 83% % 88% % 92% % 96% % 100% 39 39

41 40 40 PTT at Example Site #2 Future Expenditures Projected To Date Projected Total Cost Estimated Total Cost System Cost/Acre $ 325, $ 27,864, $ 625, System Cost/Acre Foot $ 65, $ 5,572, $ 125, Cost/lb Removed by System $ 1, $ 95, $ System Costs $ 3,250, $ 278,642, $ 6,250, Mass Removed by System 2,916 Percent of DD Mass Removed 1% Total Mass Removed 2,916 Total Remediation Costs $ 3,250,000

42 41 41 Outline Environmental Restoration Program Optimization Tools 4 Long Term Monitoring Optimization Tools 4 Performance Tracking Tool 4 Geostatistical Temporal/Spatial Optimization Software SRT

43 42 GTS at Example Site #3 GTS runs for the NPL Landfill LTM-26: Mn Increasing since 2000

44 43 GTS at Example Site #3 GTS runs for the NPL Landfill LTM-33: Mn Decreasing since 1998 Still above regulatory limit and asymptotic

45 44 44 GTS at Example Site #3 GTS runs for the NPL Landfill Optimized Sampling intervals for access wells for the COC: Mn About 350 days

46 45 45 Outline Environmental Restoration Program Optimization Tools 4 Long Term Monitoring Optimization Tools 4 Performance Tracking Tool 4 Geostatistical Temporal/Spatial Optimization Software 4 SRT

47 46 SRT at Example Site #4 * SRT generated SVE Thermal Energy Cost Risk Energy consumed ~800,000 Megajoules 40 million Megajoules Energy consumed ~200,000 kwh 11 million kwh** Cost 1,600,000 3,900,000** Cost per lb dissolved mass removed ~ ** Accident/Safety Injury Risk ** Using Site Specific Data GWMR 2009 Article