Green Remediation at. LUST Technical Workshop Stephen G. Reuter New Mexico Environment Department

Transcription

1 Green Remediation at Tank Sites LUST Technical Workshop Stephen G. Reuter New Mexico Environment Department

2 Green Remediation of LUST Sites Best management practices Common sense Fiscal responsibility 2

3 What Are Green LUST Cleanups? Less polluting, more efficient cleanups that increase the environmental benefits of remediation A process of fdecision-making i that t considers the sustainability trade-offs among remediation and re-use choices 3

4 Why Focus on LUST Sites? Similarity between sites Large number of sites 1200 in NM alone Protect State LUST Funds 4

5 Guiding Principles Ensure every cleanup protects public health and the environment Integrate site reuse plans into the cleanup strategy t Sequence work to improve efficiency Make use of engineered barriers and institutional controls that are compatible with future site development 5

6 More Guiding Principles Conserve Energy Rd Reduce energy consumption Use renewable energy sources to power cleanups Conserve raw materials Reduce waste disposal Reduce need for new materials Use current infrastructure 6

7 Even More Consider the effects of treatment technologies when choosing a remedy Contaminant disposition: permanent destruction, ti media transfer, or management in place Evaluate resource demands Assess long term stewardship responsibilities 7

8 Benefits of Greener Cleanups Reduced carbon and GHG emissions Conserve natural resources Reduced Waste requires less off-site disposal Efficiencies translate to cost savings 8

9 RBDM A Slightly Different Take 9

10 Risk? What Risk? 10

11 11

12 No Receptors = No Exposure 12

13 D&H vs Manage in Place Consider air and water impacts Heavy equipment use Vehicle miles traveled Dust, volatilization, erosion Transferring Contaminants vs Destruction 13

14 Green Remediation Implementation ti in New Mexico Reduced Monitoring Land Ready for Reuse RBDM Innovative Technologies Remote Operation Remote Sampling On-site lab analysis Excavation practices Reuse of major remediation equipment 14

15 Innovative Technology 15

16 North Main Shell-Las Cruces, NM Future use compatibility Remote Operation Remote sampling 16

17 17

18 18

19 Remote Operation 19

20 20

21 ALL WELLS 30 inh 2 O APPLIED VACUUM - SIMULATION RESULTS PORE-GAS VELOCITY AT WATER TABLE (SLICE 2) NO. OF PUMPING WELLS: 15 APPLIED VACUUM PER WELL: 30 inh 2 O (2.5 ft H 2 O) ESTIMATED Q TOTAL *: 848 ACFM 730 SCFM *Q TOTAL TOTAL SOIL VAPOR VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE N FEE ET V-1 V-6 V-5 V-4 V-3 V-7 V-2 V-8 V-1 V-15 V-9 V-14 V-10 V-11 - LOCATION AND NAME OF PUMPING WELL NOTES: FEET 1. Pore-gas velocities are based on horizontal Darcy velocities from SVE-3D model output t file. 2. White areas indicate pore gas velocities less than 10 feet/day (3.5x10-3 cm/sec) 3. Critical pore gas velocity of 30 feet/day (~0.01 cm/sec) suggested by USEPA in Development of Recommendations and Methods to Support Assessment of Soil Venting Performance and Closure, EPA/600/R-01/070. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, V-12 V-13 VELOCITY (FT/DAY)

22 CIRCUIT 1 30 inh 2 O APPLIED VACUUM - SIMULATION RESULTS PORE-GAS VELOCITY AT WATER TABLE (SLICE 2) NO. OF PUMPING WELLS: 4 APPLIED VACUUM PER WELL: 30 inh 2 O (2.5 ft H 2 O) ESTIMATED Q TOTAL *: 252 ACFM 216 SCFM *Q TOTAL TOTAL SOIL VAPOR VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE N FEET V-1 V-6 V-5 V-3 V-7 V-4 V-2 V-8 V-1 V-15 V-9 V-14 V-10 V-11 V-12 - LOCATION AND NAME OF PUMPING WELL NOTES: FEET 1. Pore-gas velocities are based on horizontal Darcy velocities from SVE-3D model output t file. 2. White areas indicate pore gas velocities less than 10 feet/day (3.5x10-3 cm/sec) 3. Critical pore gas velocity of 30 feet/day (~0.01 cm/sec) suggested by USEPA in Development of Recommendations and Methods to Support Assessment of Soil Venting Performance and Closure, EPA/600/R-01/070. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, V-13 VELOCITY (FT/DAY)

23 CIRCUIT 2 30 inh 2 O APPLIED VACUUM - SIMULATION RESULTS PORE-GAS VELOCITY AT WATER TABLE (SLICE 2) NO. OF PUMPING WELLS: 4 APPLIED VACUUM PER WELL: 30 inh 2 O (2.5 ft H 2 O) ESTIMATED Q TOTAL *: 247 ACFM 213 SCFM *Q TOTAL TOTAL SOIL VAPOR VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE N FEET V-1 V-6 V-5 V-3 V-7 V-4 V-8 V-2 V-1 V-15 V-9 V-14 V-10 V-11 V-12 - LOCATION AND NAME OF PUMPING WELL NOTES: FEET 1. Pore-gas velocities are based on horizontal Darcy velocities from SVE-3D model output t file. 2. White areas indicate pore gas velocities less than 10 feet/day (3.5x10-3 cm/sec) 3. Critical pore gas velocity of 30 feet/day (~0.01 cm/sec) suggested by USEPA in Development of Recommendations and Methods to Support Assessment of Soil Venting Performance and Closure, EPA/600/R-01/070. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, V-13 VELOCITY (FT/DAY)

24 CIRCUIT 3 24 inh 2 O APPLIED VACUUM - SIMULATION RESULTS PORE GAS VELOCITY AT WATER TABLE (SLICE 2) N FEET 450 V V-6 V-8 V V-9 V V V V-4 V V-3 V-2 V V V NO. OF PUMPING WELLS: 4 80 APPLIED VACUUM PER WELL: 24 inh 2 O (2.0 ft H 2 O) ESTIMATED Q 100 TOTAL *: 265 ACFM SCFM 40 *Q TOTAL TOTAL SOIL VAPOR VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE V-1 - LOCATION AND NAME OF PUMPING WELL NOTES: FEET 1. Pore-gas velocities are based on horizontal Darcy velocities from SVE-3D model output t file. 2. White areas indicate pore gas velocities less than 10 feet/day (3.5x10-3 cm/sec) 3. Critical pore gas velocity of 30 feet/day (~0.01 cm/sec) suggested by USEPA in Development of Recommendations and Methods to Support Assessment of Soil Venting Performance and Closure, EPA/600/R-01/070. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, VELOCITY (FT/DAY) 24

25 CIRCUIT 4 24 inh 2 O APPLIED VACUUM - SIMULATION RESULTS PORE GAS VELOCITY AT WATER TABLE (SLICE 2) N FEET 450 V V-6 V-8 V V-9 V V V V-4 V V-3 V-2 V V V NO. OF PUMPING WELLS: 3 (ANGLED) APPLIED VACUUM PER WELL: 24 inh 2 O (2.0 ft H 2 O) ESTIMATED Q TOTAL *: 258 ACFM SCFM *Q 30 V-1 TOTAL TOTAL SOIL VAPOR VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE - LOCATION AND NAME OF PUMPING WELL NOTES: FEET 1. Pore-gas velocities are based on horizontal Darcy velocities from SVE-3D model output t file. 2. White areas indicate pore gas velocities less than 10 feet/day (3.5x10-3 cm/sec) 3. Critical pore gas velocity of 30 feet/day (~0.01 cm/sec) suggested by USEPA in Development of Recommendations and Methods to Support Assessment of Soil Venting Performance and Closure, EPA/600/R-01/070. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, VELOCITY (FT/DAY) 25

26 Remote Sampling 26

27 27

28 Mike s Auto-Belen, New Mexico Recirculation of Thermal Oxidizer Exhaust 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 Electro-Thermal l Desorption Dexter, New Mexico 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 Well Numbe r Date Sampled Benze ne Toluene Xylene s MTBE EDB EDC Total Naphthalene s MW-5R 19-Dec-07 30,000 18,000 5,300 18,000 <100 < , Jun Mar Jun Jul-05 NAPL Present in Well NAPL Present in Well NAPL Present in Well NAPL Present in Well 6-May-05 21,000 13,000 4,600 13, < ,040 MW-6R 28-Jun-07 Well Plugged and Abandoned 19-Jun Mar Jun Jul-05 NAPL Present in Well NAPL Present in Well NAPL Present in Well NAPL Present in Well 6-May-05 9,000 4,200 1,800 4, < MW Dec-07 16,000 2,900 1,700 2, < Jun-07 8,300 2,100 1,000 1,700 <100 < <200 9-Mar-07 13, ,300 <300 <100 < < Jun-06 6, <300 <150 < < Jul-05 9, < May-05 3,500 3, , < SVE-1 11-Feb NM NM NM NM 28-Aug feet of NAPL SVE-4 11-Feb NM NM NM NM 28-Aug-07 Sheen SVE-6 11-Feb NM NM NM NM 28-Aug-07 NAPL or Sheen Present - Well Not Sampled 41

42 Project Costs Project Management, Engineering, Construction, 6 months Operation and Maintenance, Reporting- $ 369,260 Electricity it $ 21,000 Project Total $ 390,260 $175 /cubic yard cost includes groundwater cleanup from NAPL to stringent standards 42

43 Mj Major Equipment Re-Use 43

44 44

45 45

46 Reduced Monitoring Strategy 46

47 47

48 48

49 Value Added? Qtr 1 Site is dirty Qtr 2- Yep, still dirty Qtr 3 Yep, still dirty Qtr 12 Yep, still dirty Qtr 20 Yep, still dirty Qtr Nth -?????????? 49

50 Green Things You Probably bl Already Do (Should Be Doing!) In-Situ Remediation Destruction of Contaminants Equipment Salvage NAPL Recovery Only > 1/8 inch Dig and Haul Reuse of Clean Overburden On-site lab work RBDM Modify FRPs on the fly Electronic Communication Report submittal Communicate concerns Wbb Web based regs/databases/guidance Site Investigation Prescribed dapproach Direct Push Technology Combined stages minimize mobilizations 50

51 Acknowledgements Hernando Albarracin- Illinois EPA Alan Bakeberg-South Dakota Petroleum Fund U.S. EPA Region 6 McMillan McGee Inc Golder and Associates, Inc US EPA OSWER AMEC Inc. 51