Leachability of Elements From Hydraulic Fracturing Residuals by Dr. Gregory Boardman
â˘Download as PPTX, PDFâ˘
0 likesâ˘526 views
Leachability of Elements From Hydraulic Fracturing Residuals by Dr. Gregory Boardman
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (16)
Similar to Leachability of Elements From Hydraulic Fracturing Residuals by Dr. Gregory Boardman
Similar to Leachability of Elements From Hydraulic Fracturing Residuals by Dr. Gregory Boardman (20)
More from Appalachian Research Initiative for Environmental Science
More from Appalachian Research Initiative for Environmental Science (18)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Leachability of Elements From Hydraulic Fracturing Residuals by Dr. Gregory Boardman
- 1. LEACHABILITY OF ELEMENTS FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RESIDUALS DR. GREGORY BOARDMAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING VIRGINIA TECH
- 2. Presentation Outline Introduction Project Approach â Step 1: Representative Samples â Step 2: Elements of Concern â Step 3: Leaching Tests â Step 4: Leaching Solution Objective Methods Results Conclusions Significance
- 3. Fracking Wastewater and Residual Solids WASTEWATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT RESIDUAL SOLIDS TO LANDFILL FRACTURING FLUID (FF) (WATER + CHEMICALS) RE-USE DISPOSAL FORMATION WATER + FF
- 4. Fracking Wastewater and Residual Solids TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) METALS HYDROCARBONS FRACTURING FLUID CHEMICALS NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (NORM) HF WASTEWATER RESIDUAL SOLIDS CONTAMINANTS CONCENTRATION
- 5. Fracking Wastewater and Residual Solids POTWs not equipped for removing high TDS and metal concentrations from HF wastewater Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities for re-use of water in fracking operations Common CWT treatment process includes metals precipitation, particularly for removal of metals such as Barium and Strontium that can limit reuse potential of HF wastewater Image Source: http://airphotoslive.com/portfolio/wastewater- treatment-plant-simulation-services/
- 6. Fracking Wastewater and Residual Solids ⢠Release of toxic leachates from landfill facilities to groundwater and surface water sources can significantly impact the environment and public health ⢠Characterization of the wastes is critical to ensure that they are handled accordingly for the sustainable development of the shale gas industry. ⢠Residuals may require pretreatment before their disposal, or an alternative disposal method may need to be implemented
- 7. Project Objective To understand the leaching behavior of heavy metals and other elements of concern (EOC) from residual solids in typical disposal environments.
- 8. Step 1: Elements of Concern FRACTURING WASTEWATER COMPOSITION MARCELLUS SHALE FORMATION WATER FRACTURING CHEMICALS
- 9. Step 1: Elements of Concern TRANSITION METALS ALKALINE EARTH METALS METALLOIDS ALKALI METALS OTHER METALS POST TRANSITION METALS HALOGEN Cadmium Barium Antimony Lithium Phosphorus Aluminum Bromide Chromium Beryllium Arsenic Potassium Selenium Lead Cobalt Calcium Boron Sodium Sulfate Copper Magnesium Silicon Iron Strontium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Silver Uranium Vanadium Zinc Zirconium
- 11. Step 2: Representative Samples Produced Water Gravity Separation Chemical Precipitation Clarification Filtration Effluent Drilling Mud Thickening Solidification To Landfill RAW SOLIDS (RS) Process Water Residual Solids TREATED SOLIDS (TS) SOLIDIFIED SOLIDS (SS)
- 12. Residuals Raw Solidified Treated Drilling Mud
- 14. Step 3: Leaching Tests SINGLE EXTRACTION Short Duration (Hours â Days) Renewal of Leaching Solution Agitation MULTIPLE EXTRACTION Long Duration (Weeks â Months) Renewal of Leaching Solution Agitation
- 15. Step 4: Leaching Solutions Distilled De-ionized WaterEF DDI TCLP Leaching Solution pH = 2.9EF 2.9 SPLP Leaching Solution pH = 4.2 EF 4.2 MSW landfill when co-disposed with other municipal refuse Mono-disposal in pits or land disposal when exposed to acid rain Mono-disposal environments when the pH of the leachate is dictated by the buffering capacity of the waste
- 16. Methods: Shake Extraction Test (SET) Sample Weight: 5 g Leaching Solution Volume: 100 mL Duration: 18 h Agitated in Circular Motion ASTM D3984: Shake Extraction of Solid Waste Using Water
- 17. Methods: Shake Extraction Test (SET)
- 18. Methods: Immersion Test (IT) Sample Weight: 100 g Leaching Solution Volume: 1 L Duration (with replenishment): 6 h, 1, 2.25, 5, 9, 16 & 36 days No Agitation NEN 7375: Tank Test
- 19. Methods: Immersion Test (IT)
- 20. Result: Immersion Test RAW SOLIDS 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Li K Na Ba Be Ca Mg Sr U Zr V Cr Mo Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Ag Cd Hg Zn Al B Pb Si Sb As P Se S Br mgElementLeached/kgSample Elements of Potential Concern EF 2.9 EF 4.2 EF DDI
- 21. 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Li K Na Ba Be Ca Mg Sr U Zr V Cr Mo Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Ag Cd Hg Zn Al B Pb Si Sb As P Se S Br mgElementLeached/kgSample Elements of Potential Concern EF 2.9 EF 4.2 EF DDI Result: Shake Extraction Test RAW SOLIDS
- 22. Result: Immersion Test TREATED SOLIDS 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Li K Na Ba Be Ca Mg Sr U Zr V Cr Mo Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Ag Cd Hg Zn Al B Pb Si Sb As P Se S Br mgElementLeached/kgSample Elements of Potential Concern EF 2.9 EF 4.2 EF DDI
- 23. 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Li K Na Ba Be Ca Mg Sr U Zr V Cr Mo Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Ag Cd Hg Zn Al B Pb Si Sb As P Se S Br mgElementLeached/kgSample Elements of Potential Concern EF 2.9 EF 4.2 EF DDI Result: Shake Extraction Test TREATED SOLIDS
- 24. 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Li K Na Ba Be Ca Mg Sr U Zr V Cr Mo Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Ag Cd Hg Zn Al B Pb Si Sb As P Se S Br mgElementLeached/kgSample Elements of Potential Concern EF 2.9 EF 4.2 EF DDI Result: Immersion Test SOLIDIFIED SOLIDS
- 25. 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Li K Na Ba Be Ca Mg Sr U Zr V Cr Mo Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Ag Cd Hg Zn Al B Pb Si Sb As P Se S Br mgEOCLeached/kgSample Elements of Concern (EOC) EF 2.9 EF 4.2 EF DDI Result: Shake Extraction Test SOLIDIFIED SOLIDS
- 26. Observations KEY POINTS: Alkali metals (Li, K and Na), alkali earth metals (Ba, Ca, Mg and Sr) and halides (Br) leached at high concentration Al, Fe, Mn and Si were extracted at high concentrations for EF 2.9 only Li, Ba, Br and B leached at low concentrations for solidified solids Most transition metals, metalloids, and other metals from the EOCs were detected either below detection limits, at trace levels or at extremely low concentrations (< 10 mg/kg)
- 27. Observations KEY POINTS: Total Amount of EOCs extracted: SET : EF 2.9 > EF DDI ~ EF 4.2 IT: EF 2.9 > EF DDI > EF 4.2 TCLP leaching solution, of pH 2.9 = maximum extraction of the inorganic elements from the residual solids.
- 28. Observations COMPARISON WITH TCLP Barium exceeded the TCLP threshold limit (100,000 ppb) for treated solids in leaching solution EF 2.9. No other sample failed the TCLP limit. COMPARISON WITH NPDWS Barium exceeded the NPDWS threshold limit (2,000 ppb) for treated solids and raw solids. Within threshold limits for solidified solids. The following EOCâs also exceeded: Treated Solids: Ba, Pb; Raw Solids: Ba, Be, Cd, Cr; Solidified Solids: Pb, Sb, As, Be, Cr
- 29. Observations Sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite and other proprietary chemicals used in treatment process at CWT The concentration of elements in leachate escaping to groundwater may be attenuated by several factors, including dilution, adsorption and rate of contaminant transport.
- 30. Conclusions KEY POINTS: Alkali metals (Li, K and Na), alkaline earth metals (Ba, Ca, Mg and Sr) and a halide (Br) were observed to leach at high concentrations (> 100 mg/kg) from all samples (TS, RS and SS) in different leaching solutions (EF DDI, EF 4.2, EF 2.9). However, Li and Ba leached at low concentrations for SS (< 20 mg/kg). Most of the elements commonly measured in all of the samples were characteristic of wastewaters from hydraulic fracturing operations in Marcellus shale.
- 31. Conclusions KEY POINTS: Most transition elements (Be, U, Zr, V, Mo, Co, Ni, Ag, Cd, Hg), metalloids (Sb, As), and other metals (P, Se) were detected either below detection limits, at trace levels, or at extremely low concentrations (< 10 mg/kg) in different leaching solutions in all samples. Al, Fe and Mn were extracted at high concentrations (>100 mg/kg) by EF 2.9 and at extremely low concentrations (<10 mg/kg) in EF DDI and EF 4.2. The EOCs leaching from TS and RS in all the leaching solutions were similar except for SS due to its stabilization with cement kiln dust.
- 32. Conclusions Key Points: EF 2.9 was the most aggressive leaching solution for all samples. Disposal of residual solids in MSW landfills under mono-disposal conditions may be a better management practice than disposal under co-disposal conditions.
- 33. Significance Better understanding of these wastes will help environmentally sound management of residual solids. The data should prove useful for regulatory authorities in their efforts to develop specific guidelines for the disposal of residual solids. Determine the suitability of the current management practices and provide a comment on whether the wastes require some form of treatment prior to their disposal.
- 34. Acknowledgements Funding from NETL Graduate students - Shekar Sharma, Christina Swann, Stephanie Countess Dr. Jeff Parks, Research Scientist
- 35. Disclaimer This project was funded by the Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, an agency of the United States Government, through a support contract with URS Energy &Construction, Inc. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor URS Energy & Construction, Inc., nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
- 36. THANK YOU