Moffett Superfund Site 26 Update to the Moffett Restoration Advisory Board
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Moffett Superfund Site 26 Update to the Moffett Restoration Advisory Board






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 70 70



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Moffett Superfund Site 26 Update to the Moffett Restoration Advisory Board Moffett Superfund Site 26 Update to the Moffett Restoration Advisory Board Presentation Transcript

    • Former NAS Moffett FieldSite 26 Eastside Aquifer Treatment System Neil Hey, PG Shaw Environmental, Inc. Valerie Harris, PE Harris Navy BRAC PMO West September 8, 2011 S t b 8 RAB Meeting 1
    • Presentation Overview• Treatability Study Update• Focused Feasibility Study• Schedule• Questions 2
    • Site 26 Treatability Study - Location Note – inset location not to scale 3
    • Treatability Study PurposeEvaluate the applicability and effectiveness ofEHC®, an in situ abiotic/biotic treatmenttechnology,technology to reduce the chemicals of concern(COC; PCE, TCE, DCE, & VC) concentrations inggroundwater to levels below the ROD cleanup pstandards at IR Site 26 4
    • EHC® Treatment Technology• A product of Adventus Americas, Inc.• Patented combination of zero-valent iron (ZVI) zero valent particles & plant-based carbon• Combination of chemical (abiotic) and biological (biotic) reductive dechlorination processes 5
    • Project Description• Installed 5 observation wells• Injected EHC® at 16 locations• Performed 10 post-injection groundwater monitoring events g 6
    • EHC® Injection Site LocationTotal CEs ~80µg/L50 ft x 50 ft area40 to 8 feet bgs~6,600 gallons 6,600hydrant water~23,000~23 000 poundsEHC® Groundwater Flow 7
    • Treatment Area Results82 µg/L total 4 µg/L total 2 µg/L total 8
    • Treatment Area Results 9
    • TS Conclusions• EHC® easy to prepare but difficult to inject• EHC® not di t ib t d uniformly due to h t t distributed if l d t heterogeneous nature of subsurface• Complete reductive dechlorination observed in all treatment area wells• 98% reduction in total COCs concentration in treatment area• PCE, TCE, & DCE concentrations in treatment area reduced below ROD cleanup standards in < 1 year• Vinyl hl id Vi l chloride concentration in treatment area remains i i i slightly above ROD cleanup standard but decreasing• EHC® continues to treat on-flow of COCs 2 years after y treatment 10
    • Focused Feasibility Study 11
    • Site 26 Background• Chlorinated solvents identified in groundwater near Hangar 3 in 1983• Record of decision (ROD) signed in 1996. Selected remedy was groundwater extraction and treatment to restore groundwater to cleanup standards.• Cleanup standards – drinking water – Tetrachloroethene (PCE) = 5 g/L – Trichloroethene (TCE) = 5 g/L –CCis-1,2-dichloroethene = 6 g/L 2 d hl h / – Vinyl chloride = 0.5 g/L 12
    • Site 26 Background (continued)• Eastside Aquifer Treatment System (EATS) began q y ( ) g operating in 1999. – extracted 67 million gallons of water – removed 23.7 pounds of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs)• Shut down in 2003 to evaluate: – Evaluate plume stability – Chemical rebound – Natural attenuation – HRC in plume hot spots – Treatability study (almost completed) 13
    • 2010 Groundwater Plume Combined CVOC concentrations • 85.9 g/L (maximum) located near current treatability study • Max combined CVOC concentration in other areas about 25 g/L b t / TREATABILITY STUDY AREAGroundwater Flow 14
    • Focused Feasibility StudyPurpose – to evaluate several technologies along with the selected remedy• Identify remedial action objectives and applicable regulations• Identify and screen treatment technologies – Monitored Natural Attenuation – Abiotic/Biotic Treatment (EHC®) – In Situ Biostimulation/Bioaugmentation• Develop and evaluate remedial alternatives against seven of the nine NCP criteria• Compare the remedial alternatives against each other 15
    • Preliminary Remedial Alternatives• Alternative 1 – No Action• Alternative 2 – Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)• Alternative 3 – Optimized Pump and Treat 16
    • Preliminary Remedial Alternatives• Alternative 4 – Abiotic/biotic Treatment and MNA• Alternative 5 – In Situ Biostimulation /Bioaugmentation and MNA /Bi t ti d Biotic PCE TCE Cis 1,2‐DCE       Trans 1,2‐DCE VC Ethene Ethane α‐elimination 17 β‐elimination
    • Conceptual Treatment Areas •Trend analysis performed for each well •Identify areas th t could b that ld benefit fit from treatmentNaturalprocesses =60 years Natural processes > 60 years (increasing trend/no trend) 18
    • Sustainability• An evaluation of sustainability will be included in the feasibility study (FS)• FS will use SiteWiseTM – Streamlined life cycle analysis tool life-cycle – Developed by Navy, Army Corps and Battelle – Available at• Sustainability metrics considered are: – Energy and resource consumption gy p – Greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions – Water and ecological impacts – Worker and community safety 19
    • Schedule• November 30, 2011- Draft FS Report p• December 1, 2011 to January 29, 2011 – Agency/RAB Review of draft g y/• April 30, 2012 - Final FS ReportNext Steps – Proposed plan – ROD amendment 20
    • Questions? 21