Laser Guided Remediation(TM) of MGP NAPL EPRI Jan 2010


Published on

A presentation from EPRI\'s 2010 conference - short on case studies due to delays in pilot tests. 2012 will be packed with pilot results!

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Laser Guided Remediation(TM) of MGP NAPL EPRI Jan 2010

  1. 1. LASER-GUIDED REMEDIATION  OF MGP NAPL Dakota Technologies, Inc. - Fargo, ND, USA Randy St. Germain, President EPRI MGP 2010
  2. 2. Today’s Presentation <ul><li>MGP NAPL </li></ul><ul><li>MGP NAPL Conceptual Site Models </li></ul><ul><li>Combining High-Resolution NAPL CSMs with In-Situ Remedies </li></ul>
  3. 3. MGP NAPL <ul><li>MGP Waste </li></ul><ul><li>tars </li></ul><ul><li>light oils </li></ul><ul><li>sludges </li></ul><ul><li>lampblack </li></ul><ul><li>purifier waste (wood chips, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>these all contain chemicals such as: </li></ul><ul><li>polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) </li></ul><ul><li>petroleum hydrocarbons </li></ul><ul><li>BTEX </li></ul><ul><li>cyanide </li></ul><ul><li>metals </li></ul><ul><li>phenols </li></ul><ul><li>coal tar/oil – a toxic mixture of PAHs with low-moderate volatility, low solubility, and low biodegradability </li></ul><ul><li>consequently, this “recalcitrant” substance is difficult to remedy </li></ul>coal tar project manager
  4. 4. the aromatics prefer NAPL to water by factor of 100-1,000,000! that’s why NAPL is the “source term” MGP NAPL 150-1750 2.1-3.1 78.1 - 106.16 1 BTEX 0.00053 6.4 276 2 indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (193-39-5) 0.0043 6.06 252.32 2 benzo[k]fluoranthene (207-08-9) 0.014 6.06 252.32 2 benzo[b]fluoranthene (205-99-2) 0.0038 6.0 252.32 1,2 benz[a]pyrene (50-32-8) 0.0057 5.6 228 1 benz[a]anthracene (56-66-3) 0.26 5.1 202.26 1 fluoranthene (206-44-0) 0.135 4.9 202.26 1 pyrene (129-00-0) 0.045 4.5 178.24 1 anthracene (120-12-7) 1.29 4.5 178.24 1 phenanthrene (85-01-8) 1.98 4.18 166 1 fluorene (86-73-7) 3.42 4.33 154.21 1 acenaphthene (83-32-9) 31.7 3.5 128.16 1 naphthalene (91-20-3) Water solubility at 25°C (mg/L) log Kow Molecular weight Compound (C.A.S.N°)
  5. 5. MGP NAPL <ul><li>Unless and until MGP NAPL is </li></ul><ul><li>properly characterized and somehow removed/transformed, MNA processes will have to be satisfied with nibbling at the edges, as it has for decades – so we must deal with the NAPL </li></ul><ul><li>Characterizing NAPL is challenging for many in this industry – too many folks accustomed to ease of monitoring well (water) data </li></ul>
  6. 6. MGP NAPL <ul><li>How does industry identify/quantify NAPL ? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TPH (GC)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TPH (Infrared)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TRPH (GC)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>API RP 40 Extraction/Gravimetric (best available for “NAPL”?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GC-MS?.. PAH-16, PAH-34, “Total PAH” (no GC/HPLC method calibrates for all chemicals in NAPL, only small subsets) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measure PAH-16, PAH-34, total PAHs?, total mass? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some states still struggling even with defining NAPL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>matrix effects example: hand an experienced geologist 1,000 ppm tar-spiked clean sand and 1,000 ppm tar-spiked dark fine clay sediment – and get 2 wildly different descriptions of “NAPL impact” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>chemically is there a transition point from high dissolved phase or particle-sorbed PAHs to trace/sheen NAPL?… what is the lab test for this? (hint: none) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>labs not able to quantify “NAPL” like they can discrete species </li></ul></ul>gas holder?
  7. 7. MGP NAPL <ul><li>none of these analytical chemistry quandaries are show stoppers if we’re pursuing “significant” NAPL impacts (NAPL we sense organoleptically) </li></ul><ul><li>everyone agrees that almost any amount of observable NAPL is above and beyond what is toxic to biota… </li></ul><ul><li>characterization of observable levels of MGP waste NAPL in and around MGP sites must be accomplished before dealing “surgically” with the source term and then letting MNA mop up the rest </li></ul>biota on dilute dissolved-phase PAHs biota on coal tar NAPL
  8. 8. MGP Sites <ul><li>OK… so let’s get to sampling for coal tar! We can plainly see/smell tar… so an accurate characterization shouldn’t be a big problem? Get some subsurface samples, look at them and smell them – CSM accomplished… right? </li></ul><ul><li>But evidence suggests otherwise. The majority of MGP sites that Dakota has characterized have flawed NAPL conceptual site models - many grossly so. </li></ul><ul><li>WHY?.... </li></ul>WRONG!
  9. 9. MGP Sites <ul><li>BOTH LNAPL and DNAPL (“zero-gravity”) </li></ul><ul><li>decades to get where it’s gone to – and decades more if left alone </li></ul><ul><li>some fraction stays behind (sorbed) while a sub-fraction moves </li></ul><ul><li>geologic features – any available crack, fracture, or seam, even small ones, are potential conduits for large volumes (ever try to keep tar in a jar?) </li></ul><ul><li>complex geological settings - nothing “makes sense”, every mobilization results in new theory </li></ul><ul><li>what lab tests are most useful?.. must we rely on lab chemistry to tell us how much NAPL? </li></ul><ul><li>usually it falls back to the organoleptic approach </li></ul><ul><li>intimate/detailed “brainiac” chemistry (GC-MS) simply not that useful for NAPL survey </li></ul><ul><li>Q: how does one accumulate the 100s-1000s of organoleptic observations or 100s-1000s of lab data into an accurate CSM without hundreds of hours and the 100s-1000s samples? </li></ul><ul><li>A: we simply don’t/won’t/can’t – not worth the effort / $$ - data overwhelms us </li></ul><ul><li>Result: complicated/screwy NAPL distribution, combined with standard low-density sampling is doomed to create inaccurate CSMs </li></ul>So why the poor NAPL CSMs?
  10. 10. MGP Sites Sooty Creek Gas Co., Former MGP, TypiVille, USA release point black, viscous, obvious tar changing as it travels often “refined” to a runny oil (orange) clay feature that is preventing DNAPL from getting deeper (not always... a fracture!) peat or shell hash thin sheen at groundwater surface? yes… sometimes NAPL in angular gravel or running sands = tough sampling water over seds groundwater flow is often complicated - doesn’t behave classically rare “unfilled” gravel lens
  11. 11. TarGOST ® Tar-Specific Green Optical Screening Tool real time “NAPL hunt” (TRIAD) Detailed Conceptual Model higher quality information for higher quality engineering/decisions
  12. 12. Delivery Platforms <ul><li>CPTs </li></ul><ul><li>Barges </li></ul>Truck rigs Track rigs TarGOST has flexible DP delivery options – often the same systems used to advance ISCO
  13. 13. The Basics of TarGOST and Direct Push
  14. 14. Optical Hardware <ul><li>Standard hardware </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1.5in (3.8cm) hollow rod </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protected fiber optic cable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>May include electrical conductivity (EC) wires </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dakota's optical probe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Shock Protected Optical Compartment (SPOC) for percussion delivery </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CPT version available </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fiber chuck </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mirror </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sapphire window </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US Army Corps Eng. patent </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Optics Standard rod Fiber optics
  15. 15. TarGOST – semi-quantitative response TarGOST response to a wide variety of MGP NAPLs (lab analysis would certainly vary with method/tar as well) 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 Spiked NAPL Concentration (ppm) TarGOST (Signal %RE) NY NAPL Fine Sediment NY NAPL on Sand MA Tar on Sand IN Tar on Sand NH Tar on Sand CT Tar and Sand
  16. 16. TarGOST – Field Log <ul><li>Manufactured gas plant </li></ul><ul><li>Separation into LNAPL and DNAPL </li></ul><ul><li>Ground water at 13ft (4m) </li></ul><ul><li>Lithology change at 27ft (8m) </li></ul><ul><li>Why not treat these narrow zones in-situ? </li></ul><ul><li>Why treat the clean zones? </li></ul>
  17. 17. TarGOST – Field Log <ul><li>Oregon site </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coal tar </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Final depth of 150ft (45m) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First 30ft (9m) were in open hole </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NAPL down to 100ft (30m) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Silty material - following sand lenses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>only in-situ remedy is viable </li></ul>
  18. 18. TarGOST – Coal Tar Site Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4
  19. 19. TarGOST – Coal Tar Site Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 <ul><li>hi-resolution 3D data provides information expected to be useful for … </li></ul><ul><li>in situ chemical oxidation injection feasibility study </li></ul><ul><li>precision guidance of the ISCO process </li></ul><ul><li>follow-up characterization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>was the ISCO effective? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>did the NAPL mobilize? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is more treatment necessary? </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Field Data – Wood Treater: LG-ISCO MW Before ISCO After ISCO
  21. 21. MGP NAPL - Lessons Learned <ul><li>NAPL is most often heterogeneously distributed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conduct side-by-side logs to gauge this (how often is this done with conventional?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>STOP thinking in layers! (until you know it’s actually in layers) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>benefits of “carpet bombing” with screening tools pay for their use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>there is often much more or much less NAPL than conventional CSM predicted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If in-situ is to have a fighting chance put the remedy precisely where its needed </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Thank You <ul><li>To learn more... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Email </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>701-237-4908 </li></ul></ul></ul>