Direct Push Optical Screening Tool For Chlorinated Solvent Dnapl St Germain 12 2010

  • 983 views
Uploaded on

Presentation from the North American Environmental Field Conference - Jan 2011

Presentation from the North American Environmental Field Conference - Jan 2011

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
983
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Direct Push Optical Screening Tool forChlorinated Solvent DNAPL Randy St. Germain, Dakota Technologies, Inc. Murray Einarson & Adrian Fure, AMEC Geomatrix
  • 2. presentation summary • NAPL heterogeneity • LIF technology review• innovative use for LIF (chlorinated DNAPL) • recent results of prototype testing 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 2
  • 3. NAPL architecture not nearly as simple as we often assume evenafter years of lectures, papers, alerts, ‘shouting from the hill tops’ heterogeneity remains this industry’s inconvenient truth when discussing ISCO, recovery, slurry walls, etc.OSTs such as ROST, UVOST, and TarGOST have shown:• LNAPLs and DNAPLs rarely exist as simple “layers” as once shown in textbooks and guidance documents – even the ‘pregnant LNAPL pancakes’ error on the side of simplicity• both LNAPLs and DNAPLs follow geology/lithology closely (porosity of sand can vary – see pic of dye-stained gasoline) John Mosquera• LNAPL architecture found with OSTs is often strange (even find LNAPL 20-30 ft below groundwater)• OSTs, tracer studies, MIP, other high resolution tools showing we have to go back to basics and start including geology’s major role in NAPL distribution• separate phase NAPLs simply disperse less than dissolved• rarely does just chemistry or just geology properly define the NAPL CSM – it takes both - along with lots and lots of data representative sample zone? 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 3
  • 4. let’s review the basics of optical screening tools…• spectroscopic (light-based)• OSTs employ a sapphire-windowed probe• require “direct push” delivery – both dynamic (Geoprobe®/AMS) and static (CPT)• log a light-based phenomenon vs. depth (usually fluorescence of PAHs)• sometimes referred to collectively as “LIF” (laser-induced fluorescence) – but inaccurately so, since some use Hg-lamp (or modified with LEDs) windowed probe - percussion windowed probe – submerged derrick windowed CPT “sub” above CPT 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 4
  • 5. the basics of optical screening tools breakout generator umbilical box remote display laser scope string pot printer A/D e-deck LAN pc cable split cap rods fiber optics floating Depth peg %RE2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 5
  • 6. Optical Screening Tools produce footage very rapidly with real time results to guide the investigationReal-Time In-Situ Characterization higher quality information for higher quality engineering/decisions Detailed Conceptual Model 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 6
  • 7. OSTs are flexible… deployable under variety of delivery platforms and conditions • Geoprobe®, PowerProbe, CPT, even drill rigs (in soft materials) • on-shore, off-shore, ice, bogs, sediments, tar pits, settling ponds • rain, snow, sleet, sun, wind, hot, cold Brodhead Creek TIP: no “poor recovery” with OSTs… and NAPLs usually reside in poor recovery prone matrices 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 7
  • 8. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too! Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOSTDay 1 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 8
  • 9. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too! Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOSTDay 1 2 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 9
  • 10. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too! Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOSTDay 1 3 2 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 10
  • 11. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too! Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOSTDay 1 4 3 2 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 11
  • 12. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too! Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOSTDay 1 5 4 3 2 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 12
  • 13. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too! Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOST hi-resolution 3D OST data provides information useful for… • MNA studies • recovery/monitoring well placement • dig/haul design/costing • trenching design • containment design • thermal design • in situ chemical oxidation injection • groundwater sampling guidance • soil engineering sampling guidance 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 13
  • 14. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow” kerosene gasoline diesel oil long UV short UV 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 14
  • 15. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow” kerosene gasoline diesel oil long UV short UV 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 15
  • 16. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow” kerosene gasoline diesel oil long UV short UV 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 16
  • 17. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow” kerosene gasoline diesel oil long UV short UV 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 17
  • 18. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluorescebut indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand 3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand then TCE was poured in from top 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 18
  • 19. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluorescebut indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand 3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand then TCE was poured in from top 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 19
  • 20. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluorescebut indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand 3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand then TCE was poured in from top 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 20
  • 21. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluorescebut indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand 3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand then TCE was poured in from top 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 21
  • 22. ‘DYE-LIF’ probe• simple “add-on” to mature LIF technology• port below sapphire window introduces a DNAPL fluorescing dye• once solvated in DNAPL, the dye fluoresces, allowing for detection with conventional LIF system 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 22
  • 23. recent prototypes sapphire window dye injection port2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 23
  • 24. TarGOST HD? High Definition or High Density OST because it might well be necessary to spot tiny DNAPL ‘ganglia’test pattern printed on poster stock scanned past sapphire window at 2cm/secresulting TG-HD log of fluorescing paper lines detected down to .005” wide! 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 24
  • 25. quantitative (and temporal) results for TCETarGOST HD™ log • 200 ul of dye solution placed on sapphire window ‘miniwells’ • sand/TCE samples then placed on the sapphire window over top of dye solution – a backwards simulation of dye solution being injected into the sand/TCE • ~ 3seconds elapsed time in each sample zone demonstrates fast ‘melt’ of dye into TCE… more than the time needed for window to travel down to meet injected dye • TarGOST HD necessary to capture the ‘melting’ phenomenon fluorescence-only data from log at left 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 25
  • 26. DYE-LIF bucket tests• DNAPL loaded onto moist Fisher Scientific sea sand• ~1 inch thick sand ‘disks’ of DNAPL/sand• wrapped in thin aluminum foil that was readily punched through but allows any sloughing as if no container existed2 bucket experiments:• single disk – PCE at 50% pore saturation• stacked 3 disks – TCE at 35%, 17, and 9% saturation – 1 inch between the 3 disks 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 26
  • 27. DYE-LIF bucket test logssingle PCE/sand disk buried in bucket of sand 3 TCE/sand disks buried in bucket of sand 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 27
  • 28. DYE-LIF ‘selectivity’• some dyes solvate readly in chlorinateds, not petroleum, clean soil and vice versa TCE• solubility of dyes varies with organic solvent gasoline• should allow for tailoring for kerosene a selective response PCE 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 28
  • 29. NNLS fitting to ‘find the dye’vs. natural and manmade fluorophores dye waveforms will often differ from tar, creosote, or oil waveforms 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 29
  • 30. NNLS fitting to ‘find the dye’ vs. natural and manmade fluorophores contaminants now in digitally separate data sets… can be combined, parsed, visualizedprocess can be implemented in real time for field discernment between chlorinated DNAPL, PAHs, etc. chlorinateds PAHs 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 30
  • 31. Some questions to ponder:Q: say goodbye to Geoprobe® MIP?A: hardly… as is the case with traditional LIF, DYE-LIF will respond only to source term NAPL – it won’t ‘follow the scent trail’ like MIP can. DYE-LIF will be brought in to characterize/confirm DNAPL in high probability zonesQ: Will we finally find those needles in the haystack?A: Yes… if they exist. Some claim that most DNAPL ganglia dissolved years ago and now it’s only back-diffusion that’s providing the high dissolved phase concentrations. I guess we’re fixing to find out!Q: When will it be commercialized?A: Available early 2011 for select test sites. ESTCP-funded testing at AF sites from 2011-2013 teamed with AMEC Geomatrix and Guelph University. Likely to undergo a transition from a Dakota service to productization much like UVOST.Q: How do you plan to “prove” that the DYE-LIF works?A: Good question. Would like to get feedback/ideas! 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 31
  • 32. Thank you! Randy St. Germain, President stgermain@dakotatechnologies.com Dakota Technologies, Inc. 2201-A 12th St. N. Fargo, ND 58102 Phone: 701-237-4908 www.dakotatechnologies.com2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 32