Update on the Use of Treatment, Source Control, and Green Remediation Techniques in the US

Transcription

1 Update on the Use of Treatment, Source Control, and Green Remediation Techniques in the US Bruce Means Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC September 10-11, 2007

2 Superfund Federal program for the cleanup of nation s most contaminated properties. >1500 National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Preference for permanent remedies. Remedies must be cost effective. National guidelines for assessment of risk and decision making. 2

3 Remedy Types FY (1,536 Sites) No Decision 13% No Action or No Further Action (91) 6% Non-Treatment Groundwater Remedy (47) 3% No Remedy Decision (204) 13% Treatment of a Source Only (178) 12% Treatment 63% Other Source Control (46) 3% Containment or Off-Site Disposal of a Source (186) 12% Treatment of Both a Source and Groundwater (427) 28% Containment and Other 24% Treatment of Groundwater Only (357) 23% 3

4 Remedy Types FY (2,976 RODs) 200 Not Yet Available for FY 2005 Treatment - 1,677 MNA (w ith no treatment) Containment (w ith no treatment or MNA) Other remedies (w ith no treatment, MNA, or containment) NA/NFA (w ith no other remedy) Number of RODs Fiscal Year * 4

5 Trends in Source Control Total of 1,994 RODs Percentage of Source Control RODs 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 75% 25% 86% 74% 19% 68% 30% 51% 49% 55% 45% 71% 73% 67% 28% 27% 32% 73% 73% 70% 61% 33% 29% 25% 23% Some Treatment Containment or Disposal (with no treatment) Other Only (Institutional Controls, Monitoring, Relocation) 51% 52% 40% 58% 57% 46% 44% 46% 47% 44% 42% 39% 40% 39% 42% 46% 35% 32% 33% 20% 21% 18% 22% 24% 19% 48% 10% 0% % 0% 0% % 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 2% 6% Fiscal Year (FY) 9% % % % * 14% 5% 5

6 Source Control Treatment FY (977 projects) Ex Situ Technologies (515) 53% In Situ Technologies (462) 47% Other Ex Situ (43) Chemical Treatment - 9 Neutralization - 7 Soil Vapor Extraction - 7 Soil Washing - 6 Mechanical Soil Aeration - 4 Open Burn/Open Detonation - 4 Solvent Extraction - 4 Phytoremediation - 1 Vitrification - 1 Bioremediation (60) 6% Thermal Desorption (71) 7% Incineration (off-site) (105) 11% Incineration (on-site) (42) 4% Solidification/Stabilization (173) 18% Physical Separation (21) 2% Other Ex Situ (43) 4% Other In Situ (20) 2% Soil Vapor Extraction (248) 26% Bioremediation (53) 5% Multi-Phase Extraction (46) 5% Solidification/Stabilization (44) 5% Chemical Treatment (20) Flushing (17) 2% 2% In Situ Thermal Treatment (14) 1% Other In Situ (20) Neutralization - 8 Phytoremediation - 6 Mechanical Soil Aeration - 3 Vitrification - 2 Electrical Separation - 1 6

7 Source Control Treatment FY (126 projects) Ex Situ Technologies (50) 40% In Situ Technologies (76) 60% Other Ex Situ (8) Incineration (off-site) - 3 Open Burn/Open Detonation - 3 Chemical Treatment - 1 Neutralization - 1 Physical Separation (5) 4% Bioremediation (8) 6% Thermal Desorption (9) 7% Other Ex Situ (8) 6% Solidification/Stabilizati on (20) 16% In Situ Thermal Treament (5) Other In Situ (6) 4% 5% Soil Vapor Extraction (27) 22% Multi-Phase Extraction (13) 10% Chemical Treatment (12) 10% Solidification/Stabilizati on (8) 6% Bioremediation (5) 4% Other In Situ (6) Mechanical Soil Aeration - 2 Phytoremediation - 2 Flushing - 1 Neutralization - 1 7

8 Innovative Technologies FY Established Technologies (729) 75% Physical Separation (21) 2% Thermal Desorption (71) 7% Incineration (146) 15% Other Established Technologies (25) 3% Innovative Technologies (237) 25% Bioremediation (112) 12% Multi-Phase Extraction (44) 5% Chemical Treatment (29) 3% Solidification/Stabilization (214) 22% Flushing (17) 2% In Situ Thermal Treatment (14) 1% Other Innovative Technologi (21) 2% Other Established Technologies (25) Neutralization - 14 Mechanical Soil Aeration - 7 Open Burn/Open Detonation - 4 Soil Vapor Extraction (252) 26% Other Innovative Technologies (21) Phytoremediation - 7 Soil Washing - 6 Solvent Extraction - 4 Vitrification - 3 Electrical Separation - 1 8

9 Use of Innovative Technologies FY Multi-Phase Extraction (46) Chemical Treatment (29) 12% 19% Flushing (17) 7% In Situ Thermal Treatment (14) 6% Other Innovative Technologies (21) 9% Bioremediation (113) 47% Other Innovative Technologies (21) Phytoremediation (7) Soil Washing (6) Solvent Extraction (4) Vitrification (3) Electrical Separation (1) 9

10 Groundwater Remedies FY (Sites = 877) In Situ and MNA (18) 2% P&T, In Situ, and MNA (57) 6% In Situ Only (38) 4% MNA Only (93) 11% P&T and In Situ (115) 13% P&T Only (485) 56% P&T and MNA (71) 8% 10

11 Trends in Groundwater Decisions* 100% 90% 93% 80% Percentage of All Groundwater RODs 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 72% 24% Groundwater P&T Groundwater In Situ Groundwater MNA Groundwater Containment Groundwater Other 49% 39% 31% 10% 6% 2% 0% 0% * 4% Groundwater Containment includes the use of vertical engineered barriers to contain groundwater. Groundwater other includes water supply actions, institutional controls, monitoring, population relocation, and engineering controls. *RODs and Amendments are included in this figure. RODs are counted in each category as appropriate; no hierarchy is used for this figure. 11

12 Status of P&T Projects (725 Projects) Shut Down (73) 10% Predesign/Design (107) 15% Design Complete/Being Installed (24) 3% Operational (521) 72% *As of October 2006, 74% of FY 2005 RODs and Amendments were available. 12

13 On-Site Containment Decisions Number of RODs Cap VEB Liner * RODs = Record of Decision *RODs and Amendments are included in this figure. As of October 2006, 74% of FY 2005 RODs and Amendments were available. 13

14 Renewable Energy Sources and Uses Vegetable Oil; 1 Landfill Gas; 1 Wind; 4 Energy Sources Solar; 10 Pow er Generation; 3 Equipment Operation; 1 Pump and Treat; 7 Energy Uses Irrigation; 1 Data Collection; 3 SVE; 1 14

15 Renewable Energy Trends Solar and wind most common (remediation systems). Remediation supplemented with renewable energy for smaller energy requirements:» Low flow pumps» Data collection or monitoring» Irrigation Renewable energy systems ranged from 200W to 275kW (not including power generation sites) Limitations included:» Lack of financial resources» Community acceptance 15

16 Future Potential Benefit Example 545 operational pump and treat systems (ASR 12 th ed. Draft). 10% of these systems use renewable energy for 30% of their energy needs. 12,838,469 kwh of energy consumption generated from renewable energy 8, tons of CO 2 per year. NOTES: An average pump and treat system uses 778,089 kwh per year; DOE estimates 1.37 pounds of CO 2 emissions for each kwh generated. 16

17 Future Potential Benefits Example: CO 2 Reductions P&T Projects 10% 30% of energy needs met with renewable energy 1,024 X Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Average American households (1 year) 204,567 X 1,727 X Tree seedlings grown for 10 years 18,554 X Passenger cars (1 year) Source: U.S. Climate Technology Corporation Barrels of oil 17

18 Conclusions Making full use of remedy tool box. Innovative technologies gaining ground / becoming mainstream. Prevalence of in situ treatment remedies suggests we focus on innovations to in situ performance monitoring. 72% of GW P&T projects are operational. Increasing use of renewable energy greater emphasis in remedy selection warranted. Most common applications of renewable energy at remediation sites include pump and treat systems (low flow pumps), remote locations. 18

19 Further Information Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (12 th Edition).» Carlos Pachon, US EPA, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.» Use of green remediation at contaminated sites in the US.» Amanda D. Dellens, Case Western Reserve University.» Carlos Pachon, US EPA, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. 19

20 Contact Information Bruce Means Chief, Analytical Services Branch Technology Innovation and Field Services Division Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mail code: 5102G) Washington, DC USA Phone: