Optical Screening Tools for Characterizing NAPL Source Zones  Randy St. Germain Dakota Technologies, Inc.
Optical Screening Tools <ul><li>NAPL </li></ul><ul><li>Past/Present OSTs </li></ul><ul><li>Technology description  </li></...
LNAPL – not simple as the experts once thought and taught <ul><li>rarely in “floating layers” as shown in textbooks and gu...
LNAPL  – the blind men and the contaminant   <ul><li>NAPL phraseology is easily stretched, exaggerated, misinterpreted, be...
Dakota’s role for 15 years… to develop/build/deploy/sell instruments that respond to NAPLs in-situ and “on the fly” <ul><l...
Dakota Technologies’ LIF History Optical Screening Tools (and yours truly) have existed for > 15 yrs
Today’s Optical Screening Tools Soil Color  TarGOST – Tar-specific Green Optical Screening Tool UVOST - Ultra-Violet Optic...
Basics of Optical Screening Tools… <ul><li>spectroscopic (light-based) </li></ul><ul><li>all employ a sapphire-windowed pr...
real time “NAPL hunt” Real-Time In-Situ Characterization Detailed Conceptual Model higher quality information for higher q...
Fluorescence Spectroscopy of Optical Screening Tools  (the “mysterious magic” behind the technology) spectroscopy = the st...
PAH aromatic rings
PAH Properties fuels/oils are “soups” made up of various PAHs “PAH-16” lab analysis only analyzes for 40% of coal tar PAHs...
PAHs prefer NAPL that’s why they call it “source term” 1.3 x 10-5  164  0.00053  6.4  276  2  indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (193-...
fortunately all PAH NAPLs fluoresce PAH fluorescence is a way to detect them by their “glow” short UV long UV kerosene gas...
Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF)  it’s the poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in all petroleum, oils, lubrican...
Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts in fuels there is a mix of many PAHs their spectra overlap and you lose ability ...
UVOST emission spectra for typical fuels naphthalene phenanthrene pyrene benzo[e] pyrene size/substitution
Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts there is a 3 rd  dimension to fluorescence that most people don’t know (or care)...
Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts each mix of PAHs (along with the aliphatic solvent, oxygen concentration, matrix...
Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts WTMS are powerful – but they couldn’t be obtained “on the move” and folks wanted...
Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts with time delay you combine spectral (wavelength/color) and temporal (lifetime) ...
Colorization of UVOST Waveforms
ultra-violet LIF detects… <ul><li>almost any PAH-containing NAPL </li></ul><ul><li>Reliably </li></ul><ul><li>Gasoline (hi...
OST applications pretty much any direct-push feasible site where PAH NAPL source term is an issue and requires delineation...
OSTs are flexible – deployable under variety of delivery platforms and conditions Brodhead Creek <ul><li>Geoprobe®, PowerP...
The Basics of Optical Screening Tool and Direct Push
UVOST ® Ultra-Violet Optical Screening Tool world’s first commercially available “turnkey” LIF product – just add direct p...
UVOST calibration <ul><li>calibrated with a known reference material (single point calibration) </li></ul><ul><li>similar ...
UVOST response to various common PAH-containing NAPLs these logs demonstrate quantitative and qualitative response  note t...
UVOST Response of Various NAPLs
UVOST Response of Various NAPLs note poor response to coal tar, creosote, bunker (bottom 3) due to energy transfer ( too  ...
lab study – demonstration of “semi-quantitative” performance of UVOST
UVOST logs contain both semi-quantitative and qualitative data
UVOST’s “semi-quantitative” performance <ul><li>usually a monotonic response – if “rollover” occurs at high end – no probl...
UVOST Matrix Effects <ul><li>LIF’s response depends on “optically available” NAPL pressed against the sapphire window.  Re...
in-situ  vs  lab or “homogenized” samples natural heterogeneity often allows “easier” detection of NAPL vs homogenized lab...
OST data vs grab samples <ul><li>correlating downhole LIF data vs samples grabbed from the “same depth” is a losing game <...
Example Field UVOST Logs  JPGs and .txt files - the OST service “deliverable” MN – Service Station - 2 NAPLS (oil top.... ...
Example Field UVOST Logs IA – railroad yard diesel WI – plastic plant - plasticizer cut w/diesel fuel  previoulsy remediat...
uv fluorescence false positives/negatives <ul><li>Previously observed positives   [weak 1-3% RE, medium 3-10% RE, strong >...
can UVOST detect BTEX? <ul><li>no… it can’t - due to fiber optic limitations </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST would use 266nm laser...
MIP vs UVOST? should perhaps be written “MIP  and  UVOST… a love story” they are actually complimentary with little or no ...
site heterogeneity affects… <ul><li>OST log-to-log repeatability </li></ul><ul><li>validation sampling and correlation </l...
TarGOST versus…
TarGOST (good) versus… note that recording “maximum” and correlating vs lab is a bad idea integrate the same zone depth as...
UVOST versus…
UVOST (good) versus…
UVOST versus…
UVOST (bad) versus… This also happens all the time with sampling/coring but nobody recognizes/realizes it due to expense/t...
3D UVOST Field Data CSMs
3D UVOST Field Data CSMs <ul><li>OST data is immediately stored in digital format </li></ul><ul><li>readily imported into ...
remember the poor performance of UVOST on “heavies”? here is typical MGP coal tar on UVOST
PAHs, Excitation Wavelength, and Energy Transfer 308 – UV – high energy 308 – UV – high energy dilute PAHs (fuels and ligh...
typical MGP coal tar on TarGOST
Tar-Specific Green Optical Screening Tool (TarGOST  ) designed  specifically  for  MGP and Creosote  LNAPL and DNAPL visi...
Typical MGP Coal Tar on UVOST vs. TarGOST TarGOST UVOST
TarGOST Facts <ul><li>TarGOST productivity ranges between 300 and 500 ft/day depending on site geology, push platform, and...
<ul><li>TarGOST does not respond significantly to lighter end NAPL/fuels like gasoline and kerosene and only mildly to die...
Example TarGOST Field Logs NY – former MGP near river done from a barge in > 20 ft. of water Oregon 150ft – mobile NAPL at...
Example TarGOST Field Logs WI - 2 layers of MGP NAPL separation into LNAPL/DNAPL? CA crude oil TarGOST response >>> than U...
Do TG logs “jive” with reality? Red MGP oil
2D and 3D Visualization of TarGOST Data
3D Visualization of TarGOST Data
3D Visualization of TarGOST Data MGP NAPL pooling on clay feature (ivory color)
3D Visualization of TarGOST Data Superior WI – MGP  (now water treatment plant)
Potential Sites/NAPLs Compatible with TarGOST no one wants to get ‘burned’ by recommending an innovative technology that f...
what stakeholders like about TarGOST <ul><li>Benefits: </li></ul><ul><li>non-subjective </li></ul><ul><li>continuous </li>...
OST advantages <ul><li>highly productive (250-500 ft/day) </li></ul><ul><li>10-12 readings per foot – high definition – no...
OST advantages cont’d <ul><li>intuitive format – basic content readily interpreted with minimal training </li></ul><ul><li...
OST disadvantages <ul><li>currently not able to detect  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>metals (except for LIBS – not yet commercial...
OST Studies, Reviews, “Acceptance” <ul><li>Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>EPA/540/R-95/519 <...
the “shark’s fin” <ul><li>recent LNAPL saturation/recovery theory reflects what LIF logs ( in homogeneous lithology ) have...
Regulators who are LIF “Champions” <ul><li>Paul Stock   Hydrologist, Petroleum Remediation Program </li></ul><ul><li>Minne...
some TarGOST publications Publications R. St. Germain, B. J. Fagan, S. M. Carroll, W. R. Fisher;  A Continuous In-situ Dar...
Exciting New Arrivals <ul><li>Dakota continues to develop additional capabilities to enhance and expand your knowledge of ...
Soil Color Optical Screening Tool (SCOST) <ul><li>Soil color is an important property when distinguishing and identifying ...
Electrical Conductivity (EC) <ul><li>Dakota has recently added EC to our percussion-delivered OSTs for simultaneous EC alo...
Simultaneous EC, Soil Color, and Hammer Rate key feature is EC/Soil Color  “ collaboration” a peek at our brand new tools…...
OST Data more information = better CSM
What will OSTs do next? they  will  advance…
Thank you! Randy St. Germain, President [email_address] Dakota Technologies, Inc. 2201-A 12th St. N. Fargo, ND 58102 Phone...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Optical Screening Tools For Characterizing NAPL Source Zones

2,317 views
2,174 views

Published on

A presentation given to Michigan Association of Environmental Professionals last spring. Heavy focus on heterogeneity and difficulty of determining NAPL with monitoring wells and traditional analytical chemistry of dissolved phase.

0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,317
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Introduce myself, company, review purpose of talk…. President and co-founder of Dakota Technologies in 1994. Company originally incorporated with the purpose of developing direct sensing OST system. I have, in one way or another, been continuously involved with LIF since 1988.
  • This is a short period of time – with so much to cover – I hope that I’ve selected the topics of most interest to this particular audience.. anyone with questions or comments is encouraged to contact me and I’ll do my very best to give answers of respond to criticism/advice.
  • Long tortuous path – I’m not here to complain – just stating facts that answer questions for many of you “old timers” – and to apply some rational for why LIF can be at the same time virtually unknown AND mature and highly effective.
  • There has been so much confusion, myth, and legend involved due to the Army Corps’ licensing issues, that this slide is presented to help clarify who/what/where/how of today’s OST systems.
  • optical screening tools cover lots of ground quickly – resulting in high quality CSMs faster than conventional sampling and lab analysis quickly move from point to point – using latest results to guide/optimize the investigation end result is a CSM of higher quality, higher utility, in less time
  • Fluorescence was a recognized phenomenon long ago… only complication between our application (field characterization) and traditional lab techniques is an opaque matrix and the inconvenience of subsurface delivery vs. cuvettes/vials/bottles in the lab! What makes fluorescence “fun” for humans is that the excitation source is most often “invisible” – making the fluorescence seem “magic” – seems as though fluorescent objects are “plugged in” – they are in a sense – they are plugged into an excitation source.
  • For site characterization, our target is PAHs – they have the magic ring-shapes that make them very efficient “photon converters”.
  • It’s important to understand that site NAPLs are basically “cocktails” or “soups” of aliphatics and PAHs – in a wide-ranging variety of concentrations, viscosities, ratios, etc. Here are 3 familiar examples
  • One key to many LIF principles – and it explains many bits of misinformation - is the PAH’s love of NAPL and RELATIVE “distaste” for water.
  • Relatively ancient concepts… only complication is matrix and the inconvenience of subsurface delivery vs. cuvettes in the lab!
  • Relatively modern twist with pulsed sources.. Lifetimes (decay after pulsed excitation). Adds important 3rd dimension for qualitative capablities.
  • Relatively modern twist with pulsed sources.. Lifetimes (decay after pulsed excitation). Adds important 3rd dimension for qualitative capablities.
  • Relatively modern twist with pulsed sources.. Lifetimes (decay after pulsed excitation). Adds important 3rd dimension for qualitative capablities.
  • Patented process of time delay makes fluorescence similar to “fast GC” look.
  • Colorization based on waveform shape adds final piece to the puzzle for more intuitive results.
  • Anywhere POL source term needs delineation.. UVOST excels.
  • Anywhere POL source term needs delineation.. UVOST excels.
  • I’m obviously not here to sell you a UVOST – but it’s important that you as regulators understand what UVOST is as you’ll see it utilized more and more by consulting engineers to aid in design and decision-making
  • Main point to the following slides is to show variable quantitative and qualitative response – this is why OSTs are SCREENING Tools LAB LIF is an amazingly accurate and sensitive technology (detects single molecules under correct conditions) – but being forced to analyze 50 feet below the surface in real world on the move you have to live with the variability
  • again – not going to go over each and every NAPL… just showing the variability of lifetimes, spectra, and total fluorescence intensity
  • note the “red shifted” poor performers at the bottom – most high-PAH content NAPLs do this – these happen to be “exceptional” in their fluorescence – often much poorer
  • if one mixes up fuel/oil set of various concentrations and then “logs” their response with a UVOST – this is the result for diesel Left hand log has “autoscaled” waveforms – right hand is fixed scale
  • kerosene (jet fuel) on the left…. gasoline on the right.
  • cal curves that result from the logs on previous slides… note that some materials fluoresce as much as 10 x what others do – even more with “heavies”
  • this is why uphole results are often “weaker” than those achieved downhole or in “homogenized” samples placed on UVOST
  • describe colorization of logs here….
  • majority of the time the waveform can be useful for discounting or identifying potential false positives… basically they are most often curiosities – easily identified/confirmed with sampling
  • high quality CSMs can be generated using 3-5 days worth of OST data
  • no time to get into the stories behind these – we often don’t even know the full story – we log/visualize – then hand over to engineers/consultants/geologists can be nice “blobs” or highly dispersed with a bit here/there like middle right. there are almost infinite number of ways to cut/slice/parse – highly dependent on driver for investigation, degree of engineering, etc.
  • Our first technology focus discussion is on TarGOST, which is most often used for sediments due to coal tar nearly always produced near rivers, etc. The cartoon depicts a “typical” scenario – MGP site is suspected of contaminating sediments in nearby river/lake/bay. Sheen is seen on water surface by locals biking/walking along shoreline. Previous borings (or better still – previous LIF) on land can tell us what’s going on at old MGP site – but how did the tar/NAPL get into the sediments? How deep is it? Was it overland flow long ago or is it migrating laterally deep below? What are the prospects for treatment and redevelopment? Previously, the only way to find out is to sample over water or with swamp buggy drill rigs, etc. – sometimes deeply in very unstable/runny materials. Poor recovery, difficult controls, and high analysis cost make it very expensive and typically only a fraction of desired data is generated to keep costs down. NAPL is often found to be associated with very small seams of gravel/sand capable of delivering NAPL a great distance. Traditional approaches have often failed to identify and/or locate these mechanisms or properly define coal tar distributions.
  • Our second technology focus discussion is on TarGOST, which is most often used for sediments due to coal tar nearly always produced near rivers, etc. The cartoon depicts a “typical” scenario – MGP site is suspected of contaminating sediments in nearby river/lake/bay. Sheen is seen on water surface by locals biking/walking along shoreline. Previous borings (or better still – previous LIF) on land can tell us what’s going on at old MGP site – but how did the tar/NAPL get into the sediments? How deep is it? Was it overland flow long ago or is it migrating laterally deep below? What are the prospects for treatment and redevelopment? Previously, the only way to find out is to sample over water or with swamp buggy drill rigs, etc. – sometimes deeply in very unstable/runny materials. Poor recovery, difficult controls, and high analysis cost make it very expensive and typically only a fraction of desired data is generated to keep costs down. NAPL is often found to be associated with very small seams of gravel/sand capable of delivering NAPL a great distance. Traditional approaches have often failed to identify and/or locate these mechanisms or properly define coal tar distributions.
  • TarGOST detected 4 impacted zones at a probe located approximately 50 ft west of the site. This was in agreement with the soil boring observations: reddish brown MGP oil was observed in a collocated soil boring. A photo of the reddish brown oil is shown. The fluorescent core photography gives an indication of how the oil has infiltrated sandy seams and small fractures within the silty glacial till.
  • The ultimate benefit of each TarGOST log is best realized in concert with all the others – in a conceptual site model or transect view. This is easily done since the data is already in dense and organized numerical file format. Combined with GPS or classic survey data and you get “big picture”. Communication with the client or regulators is much easier with pictures like this to refer to. These particular sites were actually on river/lake banks – we are currently graphing first 3D model of a “water job”. The transect at top is “typical” of TarGOST data along riverbanks/shores. Once one gets away from the main site (spill location at 880 feet in this example) we often see a narrowing of the affected zone vertically speaking – often less than 1 foot thick. In top example the tar happened to co-locate with a thin seam of gravel that ran 20-22 ft down. Previous backhoe test pits had just missed it by a foot or so (bucket/hoe just a bit too shallow to reach). Consultant was sure we would only find tar at 860-880 foot area. He was shocked to find that it spanned the entire river bank. Both of these sites took &lt;5 days to investigate and generate highly detailed models of NAPL distribution to 1 inch vertical resolution.
  • Another common occurrence is the case where DNAPL tars are being “held up” by various geologic features. Here is a site where a clay layer forming an impermeable barrier and consistently holding the tar up and preventing penetration deeper into the subsurface. The only area where TarGOST located tar deeper than clay formation is an area which had been excavated to place a large sump. Vertical exaggerations are used in many of these models to show features – so tar layer often looks thicker than it would if it were at same scale as site.
  • discuss obvious benefits of combination probes…
  • Thanks and don’t forget we’re just an email or phone call away to discuss tools, sites, research, commercialization, projects, teaming, etc.
  • Optical Screening Tools For Characterizing NAPL Source Zones

    1. 1. Optical Screening Tools for Characterizing NAPL Source Zones Randy St. Germain Dakota Technologies, Inc.
    2. 2. Optical Screening Tools <ul><li>NAPL </li></ul><ul><li>Past/Present OSTs </li></ul><ul><li>Technology description </li></ul><ul><li>Deployment methods </li></ul><ul><li>Advantages/Limitations </li></ul><ul><li>Field data samples </li></ul><ul><li>Next generation </li></ul>
    3. 3. LNAPL – not simple as the experts once thought and taught <ul><li>rarely in “floating layers” as shown in textbooks and guidance documents </li></ul><ul><li>follows geology/lithology - which itself is often tortuous and complicated </li></ul><ul><li>often hard to explain where NAPL is being found with LIF (even 20-30 ft below groundwater) </li></ul><ul><li>LIF, tracer studies, other high resolution tools showing we have to go back to basics – and start including geology’s major role </li></ul><ul><li>rarely does just chemistry or just geology properly define the CSM – it takes both </li></ul>
    4. 4. LNAPL – the blind men and the contaminant <ul><li>NAPL phraseology is easily stretched, exaggerated, misinterpreted, bent, broken, or twisted to fit nearly anyone’s agenda - be it chemist, geologist, engineer, regulator </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL jargon goes on and on…. </li></ul><ul><li>source term, residual, saturation, MCLs, dissolved phase, mobile, weathered, monitoring wells, soil samples, water samples, product, GRO, DRO, TPH, pore space, confining layer, conductive material, porosity, aliphatics, aromatics, plume, affected soil, positive response, PIDs, LNAPL, DNAPL, natural attenuation, rebound, BTEX, PAHs, nature, extent, API, ITRC, EPA, MN MPCA, MI DEQ…. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Dakota’s role for 15 years… to develop/build/deploy/sell instruments that respond to NAPLs in-situ and “on the fly” <ul><li>optical screening tools unrivaled for speed/resolution </li></ul><ul><li>show where NAPL is and, relatively speaking, about how much and what kind </li></ul><ul><li>OSTs can’t often answer why it got there, where it’s going next, whether it’s recoverable, what risk it poses, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>OSTs do provide data which can answer these, in concert with other evidence and lots of careful thought (all the while rejecting the temptation of being mislead by folklore) </li></ul>
    6. 6. Dakota Technologies’ LIF History Optical Screening Tools (and yours truly) have existed for > 15 yrs
    7. 7. Today’s Optical Screening Tools Soil Color TarGOST – Tar-specific Green Optical Screening Tool UVOST - Ultra-Violet Optical Screening Tool ROST - Rapid Optical Screening Tool FFD – Fuel Fluorescence Detector NA Model fuels/oils (poor jet fuel response) nitrogen laser-337 nm OMA detector CPT only SCAPS (Army/Navy/AF) gov’t use coal tars/creosotes containing moderate to heavy PAH Nd:YAG laser - 532nm spectral/temporal Percussion & CPT Dakota Dakota exclusively Munsell soil color, soil class, ??? broadband white light reflectance Percussion & CPT Dakota mfct’d offered by Dakota and available to providers fuels/oils containing low to moderate PAH XeCl laser - 308nm spectral/temporal Percussion & CPT Dakota offered by numerous field service providers fuels/oils containing low to moderate PAH dye laser - 290nm spectral/temporal hybrid CPT only Dakota Fugro exclusively fuels/oils containing low to moderate PAH CW Hg Lamp - 254.7 nm PMT CPT only Vertek mfct’d offered by numerous field service providers Target Technology / Deployment Manufacturer / Providers
    8. 8. Basics of Optical Screening Tools… <ul><li>spectroscopic (light-based) </li></ul><ul><li>all employ a sapphire-windowed probe (patented by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1993) </li></ul><ul><li>require “direct push” delivery – both dynamic (Geoprobe ® /AMS) and static (CPT) </li></ul><ul><li>log a light-based phenomenon vs. depth (usually fluorescence of PAHs) </li></ul><ul><li>sometimes referred to collectively as “LIF” (laser-induced fluorescence) – but inaccurately so, since one uses Hg-lamp (or possibly modified with LED) </li></ul><ul><li>Dakota’s employs fiber optics – some don’t – pros/cons for each </li></ul>windowed probe - percussion windowed probe – submerged derrick windowed CPT “sub” above CPT
    9. 9. real time “NAPL hunt” Real-Time In-Situ Characterization Detailed Conceptual Model higher quality information for higher quality engineering/decisions Optical Screening Tools
    10. 10. Fluorescence Spectroscopy of Optical Screening Tools (the “mysterious magic” behind the technology) spectroscopy = the study the interaction between light and matter fancy quantum level physics rule the behavior molecules first absorb light – then might rid themselves of that energy by emitting light aromatic (ring-shaped) molecules excel at this especially poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) For details - see Joseph R. Lakowicz’ “ Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy ”, 3 rd Edition
    11. 11. PAH aromatic rings
    12. 12. PAH Properties fuels/oils are “soups” made up of various PAHs “PAH-16” lab analysis only analyzes for 40% of coal tar PAHs and 1% of petroleum PAHs! for instance – look what you get if you analyze just for naphthalene 31 1.4 2.8 Triphenylene 196 2.2 6.9 Chrysene 90 1.2 2.3 Benz[a]anthracene 23 41 4.5 Pyrene 240 37 2.9 Fluoranthene 828 7677 89 2-Methylphenanthrene 43 173 - 1-Methylphenanthrene 482 429 26 Phenanthrene 2400 3600 <100 Fluorenes 8800 18400 1900 Trimethylnaphthalenes 12300 31100 2000 Dimethylnaphthalenes 4700 18900 700 2-Methylnaphthalene 2800 8200 500 1-Methylnaphthalene 1000 4000 400 Naphthalene Bunker C residual oil (µg/g) No. 2 fuel oil (µg/g) Kuwait Crude (µg/g) Compound PAH concentrations in a crude oil and two distillate fuel oils (From Neff, 1979)
    13. 13. PAHs prefer NAPL that’s why they call it “source term” 1.3 x 10-5 164 0.00053 6.4 276 2 indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (193-39-5) 2.8 x 10-9 217 0.0043 6.06 252.32 2 benzo[k]fluoranthene (207-08-9) 166 252.32 2 benzo[j]fluoranthene (205-82-3) 0.13 x 10-5 to 0.133 at 20°C 168 0.014 6.06 252.32 2 benzo[b]fluoranthene (205-99-2) 0.37 x 10-6 179 0.0038 6.0 252.32 1,2 benz[a]pyrene (50-32-8) 14.7 x 10-3 162 0.0057 5.6 228 1 benz[a]anthracene (56-66-3) 1328 111 0.26 5.1 202.26 1 fluoranthene (206-44-0) 91.3 x 10-6 156 0.135 4.9 202.26 1 pyrene (129-00-0) 25 216 0.045 4.5 178.24 1 anthracene (120-12-7) 90.7 101 1.29 4.5 178.24 1 phenanthrene (85-01-8) 94.7 116.5 1.98 4.18 166 1 fluorene (86-73-7) 594 95 3.42 4.33 154.21 1 acenaphthene (83-32-9) 11 960 80.5 31.7 3.5 128.16 1 naphthalene (91-20-3) Vapor pressure at 25 °C (mPa) Melting point (°C) Water solubility at 25°C (mg/L) log Kow Molecular weight Compound (C.A.S.N°)
    14. 14. fortunately all PAH NAPLs fluoresce PAH fluorescence is a way to detect them by their “glow” short UV long UV kerosene gasoline diesel oil
    15. 15. Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) it’s the poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in all petroleum, oils, lubricants (POLs) that are responsible for their innate fluorescence emission spectrum is unique for each PAH – does not change with excitation wavelength
    16. 16. Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts in fuels there is a mix of many PAHs their spectra overlap and you lose ability to identify any one PAH – just classes at best emission spectrum is still unique for each PAH BUT… the effect of different excitation spectra for each PAH DOES cause a change in overall emission spectrum
    17. 17. UVOST emission spectra for typical fuels naphthalene phenanthrene pyrene benzo[e] pyrene size/substitution
    18. 18. Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts there is a 3 rd dimension to fluorescence that most people don’t know (or care) about it involves time over which a population of excited PAHs fluoresce
    19. 19. Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts each mix of PAHs (along with the aliphatic solvent, oxygen concentration, matrix, etc.) yield a fairly unique wavelength/time matrix or “WTM” all “classes” of fuels/oils have a characteristic WTM
    20. 20. Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts WTMS are powerful – but they couldn’t be obtained “on the move” and folks wanted them every foot or so (back in ROST’s early days – mid 90’s) so we were forced to get “clever” and design a solution… time delayed fluorescence “channels” solve this
    21. 21. Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Concepts with time delay you combine spectral (wavelength/color) and temporal (lifetime) fluorescence info that’s being emitted by the NAPL for fast simultaneous quantitative and qualitative information – a multi-wavelength waveform is “tough to beat”
    22. 22. Colorization of UVOST Waveforms
    23. 23. ultra-violet LIF detects… <ul><li>almost any PAH-containing NAPL </li></ul><ul><li>Reliably </li></ul><ul><li>Gasoline (highly weathered and/or aviation yield is very low to zero) </li></ul><ul><li>Diesel </li></ul><ul><li>Jet (Kerosene) </li></ul><ul><li>Motor Oils </li></ul><ul><li>Cutting Fluids </li></ul><ul><li>Hydraulic Fluid </li></ul><ul><li>Crude oils </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel oils </li></ul><ul><li>Poorly </li></ul><ul><li>Coal Tar (MGP waste) – often poor due to self-quenching/intersystem crossing/photon cycling </li></ul><ul><li>Creosote/Pentachlorophenol (wood treating) – often poor due to self-quenching/intersystem crossing/photon cycling </li></ul><ul><li>Bunker – often poor due to self-quenching/intersystem crossing/photon cycling </li></ul><ul><li>Never/Rarely </li></ul><ul><li>polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCB)s – due to internal heavy atom effect </li></ul><ul><li>chlorinated solvent DNAPL – aliphatics lack aromaticity (no ring-shapes) - but co-solvated PAHS can/do respond on occasion </li></ul>
    24. 24. OST applications pretty much any direct-push feasible site where PAH NAPL source term is an issue and requires delineation <ul><li>Leaking underground storage tanks </li></ul><ul><li>Pipelines </li></ul><ul><li>Refineries </li></ul><ul><li>Fueling areas </li></ul><ul><li>Fire-training facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Automobile service locations (hydraulic fluid, POLs) </li></ul><ul><li>Surface spills </li></ul><ul><li>Lagoons - waste ponds </li></ul>
    25. 25. OSTs are flexible – deployable under variety of delivery platforms and conditions Brodhead Creek <ul><li>Geoprobe®, PowerProbe, CPT, even drill rigs (in soft materials) </li></ul><ul><li>on-shore, off-shore, ice, bogs, sediments, tar pits, settling ponds </li></ul><ul><li>rain, snow, sleet, sun, wind, hot, cold </li></ul>
    26. 26. The Basics of Optical Screening Tool and Direct Push
    27. 27. UVOST ® Ultra-Violet Optical Screening Tool world’s first commercially available “turnkey” LIF product – just add direct push <ul><li>designed specifically for logging light-midweight fuels/oils </li></ul><ul><li>detects most fuels/oils with LOD ~ 10-500 ppm (basically from “sheen to neat”) </li></ul><ul><li>most useful in cases where NAPL levels dictate either remediation design or major decision making (used as engineering tool) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>excavation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>recovery wells </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISCO </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>dig/haul </li></ul></ul><ul><li>provides </li></ul><ul><ul><li>location and relative concentration of “source term” PAH NAPL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LODs at/near typical state MCLs for typical PAH NAPL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ product type” or class and its heterogeneity/homogeneity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>precision guidance for physical sampling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>minimizes sampling LOTS of “zeros” (in PAH NAPL concentration terms) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>often provides clues to transport mechanism via location </li></ul></ul><ul><li>does NOT provide </li></ul><ul><ul><li>dissolved phase conc’s used for risk evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>speciation of PAHs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BTEX information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>chlorinated solvents, metals, or explosives information </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. UVOST calibration <ul><li>calibrated with a known reference material (single point calibration) </li></ul><ul><li>similar to calibrating a photo-ionization detector (PID) with 100ppm isobutylene </li></ul><ul><li>Dakota has used same “reference emitter” (RE) material since 1994 </li></ul><ul><li>RE is placed on window just before each/every sounding </li></ul><ul><li>all subsequent readings are normalized by the reference emitter response </li></ul><ul><li>(data is ultimately displayed as %RE) </li></ul><ul><li>this corrects for change in optics, laser energy drift, window, mirror, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>RE approach is used by all ROST and UVOST providers in U.S. and EU </li></ul><ul><li>the correct shape of waveform also QA’s the qualitative aspect of the fluorescence </li></ul>
    29. 29. UVOST response to various common PAH-containing NAPLs these logs demonstrate quantitative and qualitative response note the variable waveform shapes and varying intensity (%RE on x-scale) (similar to how a PID has variable response to VOCs)
    30. 30. UVOST Response of Various NAPLs
    31. 31. UVOST Response of Various NAPLs note poor response to coal tar, creosote, bunker (bottom 3) due to energy transfer ( too much PAH) TarGOST (discussed later) provides solution to these problematic compounds some bunkers/coal tars/creosotes have no fluorescence at all these three are “exceptional” and do fluoresce somewhat
    32. 32. lab study – demonstration of “semi-quantitative” performance of UVOST
    33. 33. UVOST logs contain both semi-quantitative and qualitative data
    34. 34. UVOST’s “semi-quantitative” performance <ul><li>usually a monotonic response – if “rollover” occurs at high end – no problem </li></ul><ul><li>note the variable response - some fuels/oils simply “glow” better than others </li></ul><ul><li>lab studies like this underestimate in-situ LODs due to homogenization </li></ul>
    35. 35. UVOST Matrix Effects <ul><li>LIF’s response depends on “optically available” NAPL pressed against the sapphire window. Response decreases as particle size and soil reflectivity decreases. Tiny particles (high surface area) help “hide” the NAPL and dark soils help “sink” any resulting fluorescence. </li></ul><ul><li>There can easily be a 10-fold difference in response due solely to soil matrix! </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced responses in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>course “clean” sands with open pore spaces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>light colored soils help reflect resulting emission back into window </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Degraded responses in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>fines/clays </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>dark colored soils absorb resulting emission </li></ul></ul><ul><li>IMPORTANT </li></ul><ul><li>This phenomenon plays as much a role in “visual” and “organoleptic” (smell) techniques as it does LIF – maybe more. What about geologists, regulators, engineers, and drillers using these to guide their sampling, etc.? Are these observations valid? Has anyone rigorously tested them? I’m confident (after creating and observing hundreds of samples) they would fail a regulatory approval process. That doesn’t mean they are not useful/crucial to the process! </li></ul>
    36. 36. in-situ vs lab or “homogenized” samples natural heterogeneity often allows “easier” detection of NAPL vs homogenized lab samples so lab-based LODs are typically conservative
    37. 37. OST data vs grab samples <ul><li>correlating downhole LIF data vs samples grabbed from the “same depth” is a losing game </li></ul><ul><li>site heterogeneity, even sample heterogeneity make any attempt at an apples-to-apples comparison impossible </li></ul><ul><li>only sure way to analyze homogeneous </li></ul><ul><li>splits of obtained samples with both LIF </li></ul><ul><li>and the lab methods – </li></ul><ul><li>what portion of soil in core at left is “representative” of the site? </li></ul><ul><li>[lab methods often don’t compare well against each other – so is it a surprise LIF is difficult to “validate”?] </li></ul>visible fluorescence
    38. 38. Example Field UVOST Logs JPGs and .txt files - the OST service “deliverable” MN – Service Station - 2 NAPLS (oil top.... gasoline bottom) MN - bus garage/terminal No. 1 Fuel Oil (kerosene)
    39. 39. Example Field UVOST Logs IA – railroad yard diesel WI – plastic plant - plasticizer cut w/diesel fuel previoulsy remediated (dug out) to 10 feet later, free product in a well – LIF shows flawed CSM
    40. 40. uv fluorescence false positives/negatives <ul><li>Previously observed positives [weak 1-3% RE, medium 3-10% RE, strong >10% RE] </li></ul><ul><li>sea shells (weak-medium) </li></ul><ul><li>paper (medium-strong) </li></ul><ul><li>peat/meadow mat (weak) </li></ul><ul><li>calcite/calcareous sands (weak-medium) </li></ul><ul><li>asphalt (very weak) </li></ul><ul><li>stiff/viscous tars (weak) </li></ul><ul><li>certain soils (weak) </li></ul><ul><li>tree roots (weak-medium) </li></ul><ul><li>sewer lines (medium-strong) </li></ul><ul><li>coal (very weak to none) </li></ul><ul><li>quicklime (weak) </li></ul><ul><li>Previously observed negatives (or heavily subdued) </li></ul><ul><li>extremely weathered fuels (especially gasoline) </li></ul><ul><li>aviation gasoline (weak) </li></ul><ul><li>coal tars (most) </li></ul><ul><li>creosotes (most) </li></ul><ul><li>“ dry” PAHs such as aqueous phase, lamp black, purifier chips, “black mayonnaise” </li></ul><ul><li>most chlorinated solvents </li></ul><ul><li>benzene, toluene, xylenes (relatively pure… sometimes contains PAHs making it detectable) </li></ul>
    41. 41. can UVOST detect BTEX? <ul><li>no… it can’t - due to fiber optic limitations </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST would use 266nm laser if fiber’s didn’t limit us </li></ul><ul><li>but since all 95% of fuels/oils are detectable anyway – inability to “see” BTEX doesn’t prevent NAPL detection </li></ul>
    42. 42. MIP vs UVOST? should perhaps be written “MIP and UVOST… a love story” they are actually complimentary with little or no overlap <ul><li>MIP (Geoprobe’s Membrane Interface Probe) </li></ul><ul><li>Designed for dissolved phase VOCs </li></ul><ul><li>“ sticky” semi-VOCs known to cause transfer line/carryover problem </li></ul><ul><li>difficult to find “bottom” of NAPL due to carryover and resulting lag time </li></ul><ul><li>logs are often contain strange baseline shifts (compared to LIF) – difficult for a novice to interpret </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST </li></ul><ul><li>Designed specifically for PAH-NAPL delineation </li></ul><ul><li>smooth/hard sapphire window is “slick” like Teflon – resists pulldown </li></ul><ul><li>nearly instantaneous rise/fall - and 100% reversible response </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST does NOT see any useful levels of response to dissolved phase </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST shows intimate detail of NAPL distribution (relative to MIP) </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST provides readily interpreted “spectral” information in real time </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST is blind to chlorinateds – even chlorinated DNAPL </li></ul><ul><li>more intuitive - easier for novices to interpret </li></ul>
    43. 43. site heterogeneity affects… <ul><li>OST log-to-log repeatability </li></ul><ul><li>validation sampling and correlation </li></ul><ul><li>remediation design </li></ul><ul><li>conceptual site models </li></ul><ul><li>attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>i.e. darn near everything on NAPL sites </li></ul><ul><li>Some example “sister logs” follow… </li></ul>
    44. 44. TarGOST versus…
    45. 45. TarGOST (good) versus… note that recording “maximum” and correlating vs lab is a bad idea integrate the same zone depth as soil sample came from average across this lower NAPL zone is 150% vs 100%
    46. 46. UVOST versus…
    47. 47. UVOST (good) versus…
    48. 48. UVOST versus…
    49. 49. UVOST (bad) versus… This also happens all the time with sampling/coring but nobody recognizes/realizes it due to expense/time of doing twins. reaction of young consultant who was “hornswoggled” into using new-fangled UVOST – duplicate is terrible!
    50. 50. 3D UVOST Field Data CSMs
    51. 51. 3D UVOST Field Data CSMs <ul><li>OST data is immediately stored in digital format </li></ul><ul><li>readily imported into MVS, EVS, Surfer, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>can guide field work – but typically used to convey complex data to non-engineer/chemist “decision makers” after the investigation is complete </li></ul>
    52. 52. remember the poor performance of UVOST on “heavies”? here is typical MGP coal tar on UVOST
    53. 53. PAHs, Excitation Wavelength, and Energy Transfer 308 – UV – high energy 308 – UV – high energy dilute PAHs (fuels and light oils) strong absorbance by smaller PAHs low chance of energy transfer few neighboring large PAHs strong fluorescence conc’d “close packed” PAHs (tars, creosotes, heavy crude) strong absorbance by smaller PAHs high chance of energy transfer many neighboring large PAHs weak if any fluorescence 532nm – visible - low energy conc’d “close packed” PAHs (tars, creosotes, heavy crude) no absorbance by smaller PAHs direct excitation of large PAHs low chance of energy transfer moderate fluorescence excited state energy “ cloud”
    54. 54. typical MGP coal tar on TarGOST
    55. 55. Tar-Specific Green Optical Screening Tool (TarGOST  ) designed specifically for MGP and Creosote LNAPL and DNAPL visible excitation defeats the energy transfer trap by “skipping over” the absorbance of the excitation source by the smaller PAHs who “love” to absorb UV but then transfer their energy to larger PAHs… which ultimately “quenches” fluorescence basically the visible light zips through smaller PAHs and is only absorbed by the very large PAHs which are much more likely to fluoresce due to lack of suitable “neighbors” to which they can transfer their absorbed energy instead of fluorescing especially effective for “near shore” coal tar in rivers/bays/lake sediments – where drilling is difficult rainbow sheen/blebs often indicate that “something’s amiss”
    56. 56. Typical MGP Coal Tar on UVOST vs. TarGOST TarGOST UVOST
    57. 57. TarGOST Facts <ul><li>TarGOST productivity ranges between 300 and 500 ft/day depending on site geology, push platform, and general site layout </li></ul><ul><li>TarGOST responds in a monotonic fashion to all MGP OLMs and TLMs tested to date with the exception of stiff “asphalts” </li></ul><ul><li>TarGOST’s typical LOD for MGP NAPL on site soil (or Fisher sea sand) is 100-500 ppm (weight of customer’s NAPL/weight of soil matrix mixed in lab) </li></ul><ul><li>TarGOST does detect staining, smearing, and residual levels of MGP NAPL, as well as saturated/free phase of course </li></ul><ul><li>TarGOST works above and below the groundwater table </li></ul><ul><li>TarGOST is “blind” to dissolved phase PAHs </li></ul><ul><li>TarGOST is not able to reliably detect PAHs not associated with NAPL - such as those sorbed to “dry” carbon, wood chips, and ash </li></ul><ul><li>TarGOST on occasion, generates positive responses to mineral and plant interference. These include crushed limestone gravel fill (minor) – and buried rotting wood/brush debris/sawdust/peat (minor to major) – waveforms/colors often enable differentiation from NAPL </li></ul>
    58. 58. <ul><li>TarGOST does not respond significantly to lighter end NAPL/fuels like gasoline and kerosene and only mildly to diesel – unless they contain dissolved MGP NAPL or creosote </li></ul><ul><li>MGP NAPLs can and do vary in their fluorescence response – even those found on the same site since the NAPLs do indeed change as they mobilize, wash, weather, or separate into LNAPL/DNAPL </li></ul><ul><li>Thinner, less viscous OLMs typically fluoresce more brightly (larger signals) than the more viscous TLMs </li></ul><ul><li>Stiff asphalt-like TLMs fluoresce poorly </li></ul><ul><li>Unfortunately – there is no magic RE threshold that defines “residual” vs. “saturated”, etc. But the TarGOST logs allow precision placement of sampling that can answer these types of questions </li></ul>TarGOST Facts cont’d
    59. 59. Example TarGOST Field Logs NY – former MGP near river done from a barge in > 20 ft. of water Oregon 150ft – mobile NAPL at 100ft (first 30 ft were in open hole)
    60. 60. Example TarGOST Field Logs WI - 2 layers of MGP NAPL separation into LNAPL/DNAPL? CA crude oil TarGOST response >>> than UVOST
    61. 61. Do TG logs “jive” with reality? Red MGP oil
    62. 62. 2D and 3D Visualization of TarGOST Data
    63. 63. 3D Visualization of TarGOST Data
    64. 64. 3D Visualization of TarGOST Data MGP NAPL pooling on clay feature (ivory color)
    65. 65. 3D Visualization of TarGOST Data Superior WI – MGP (now water treatment plant)
    66. 66. Potential Sites/NAPLs Compatible with TarGOST no one wants to get ‘burned’ by recommending an innovative technology that fails (snake oil) neither does Dakota want to end up at a site where we don’t deliver what client needs so we typically discuss the site at length, learn what’s needing to be accomplished (drivers) and fully examine all the “what ifs” and only do projects we’re confident in Dakota provides examination of target NAPL samples, samples of potential false positives/negatives (lamp black, pitch, spent lime, wood purifier waste, etc.) at no charge example client sample logs
    67. 67. what stakeholders like about TarGOST <ul><li>Benefits: </li></ul><ul><li>non-subjective </li></ul><ul><li>continuous </li></ul><ul><li>easy to “go little deeper” </li></ul><ul><li>adapt in real time </li></ul><ul><li>“ green” geologist on site not a problem </li></ul><ul><li>productivity </li></ul><ul><li>ascii files readily CSM’d </li></ul><ul><li>logs tar in places traditional approach suffers from poor recovery – that’s where the tar is! (gravels/stoney high porosity) </li></ul><ul><li>Observations: </li></ul><ul><li>thin seams conduct tar – like garden hose </li></ul><ul><li>CSM from traditionally acquired data is usually WRONG </li></ul><ul><li>neutral density NAPL goes places no one would guess (up/down/over/through) </li></ul><ul><li>no two sites ever the same </li></ul><ul><li>machine vision – consistent data! </li></ul><ul><li>great engineering tool – regulator “approval” or not </li></ul>
    68. 68. OST advantages <ul><li>highly productive (250-500 ft/day) </li></ul><ul><li>10-12 readings per foot – high definition – no data gaps </li></ul><ul><li>data is “machine vision” and non-subjective – consistent product </li></ul><ul><li>UVOST/TarGOST calibrated/operated same way by all providers </li></ul><ul><li>little to zero investigation derived waste </li></ul><ul><li>fewer mobilizations (often just one) </li></ul><ul><li>real time data and high-res logs encourage adaptive characterization </li></ul><ul><li>minimized exposure risk for personnel </li></ul><ul><li>no carryover, sloughing, mislabeling jars, sample handling – less error </li></ul><ul><li>no waiting for lab sample analysis – not to mention lower lab costs </li></ul>
    69. 69. OST advantages cont’d <ul><li>intuitive format – basic content readily interpreted with minimal training </li></ul><ul><li>no “arguing” over results (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s position) </li></ul><ul><li>yields immense data sets which are key to properly understanding heterogeneously distributed NAPL </li></ul><ul><li>electronic data files readily imported into visualization software for “big picture” </li></ul><ul><li>qualitative response (waveforms) assist in false positive/negative ID </li></ul><ul><li>responds ONLY to the source term – the true target of many remediation designs </li></ul><ul><li>used as a design tool – regardless of regs/rules – tells engineers what they need to know </li></ul><ul><li>sees narrow seams often missed – these seams can fill wells/pits with many feet of NAPL– often LOWERS estimates (m 3 ) of affected soil for dig/burn or dig/haul </li></ul><ul><li>aids in targeting depths for injection of ISCO, etc. </li></ul>
    70. 70. OST disadvantages <ul><li>currently not able to detect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>metals (except for LIBS – not yet commercialized?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>trace NAPL (< 10-100 ppm) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sorbed PAHs (no NAPL present such as purifier chips, lamp black, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>chlorinated solvents – DNAPL or dissolved phase (unless tainted with PAH) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>explosives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>poly-chlorinated PCBs/transformer oil </li></ul></ul><ul><li>does not respond to dissolved phase PAHs or BTEX </li></ul><ul><li>no PAH speciation – just “class” of product or fuel type at best </li></ul><ul><li>expensive technology for service providers to invest in – especially if regulators in their market are hesitant or resistant to use </li></ul><ul><li>can require some (ca. 10%) locations be confirmed via sampling (once familiar with OSTs, many regulators accept data without confirmation) </li></ul><ul><li>not “recognized” by many states - no EPA Method, ASTM, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>natural false positives combined with low NAPL conc’s can make interpretation difficult </li></ul><ul><li>operation requires care, skill, and diligence – software/training critical </li></ul><ul><li>so “complex” and seemingly complicated that it “must be snake oil” </li></ul><ul><li>only applicable where direct push can be utilized – no bedrock/boulders </li></ul>
    71. 71. OST Studies, Reviews, “Acceptance” <ul><li>Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>EPA/540/R-95/519 </li></ul><ul><li>August 1995 </li></ul><ul><li>(ROST) – info is outdated, cost big $$$, wrought with validation sampling issues, technology has changed, too little opportunity to defend results, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>http://attfile.konetic.or.kr/konetic/xml/estimate/41E2A0000095.PDF </li></ul><ul><li>See Section 7 - Developer Comments and Technology Update </li></ul><ul><li>(written by Dakota Technologies’ former president, Dr. Gregory Gillispie) </li></ul><ul><li>In general, “proving” that an in-situ technology “works” is expensive, difficult, and never fully answers skeptic’s doubts. We welcome discussions concerning how such a study can be done with proper controls and a method that fairly approaches both the innovative technology and the “gold standard” methodology used to judge it. We contend the gold standard is fraught with potential for error due to site heterogeneity, a dizzying array of options for sampling/analysis, etc. </li></ul>
    72. 72. the “shark’s fin” <ul><li>recent LNAPL saturation/recovery theory reflects what LIF logs ( in homogeneous lithology ) have shown for years </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/iuLNAPL / </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/LNAPLcr/ </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/docs/lnaplbasics.pdf </li></ul>LNAPL Saturation / Transmissivity <ul><li>The zone of highest LNAPL saturation has the highest LNAPL conductivity </li></ul><ul><li>Low LNAPL saturation results in low LNAPL conductivity </li></ul><ul><li>Hydraulic recovery rate is proportional to transmissivity for a given technology </li></ul><ul><li>Well thickness does not dictate relative recoverability </li></ul>LNAPL Transmissivity = Sum Saturation shark fin Vertical equilibrium (VEQ) conditions in a sand tank Coal Tar Diesel
    73. 73. Regulators who are LIF “Champions” <ul><li>Paul Stock Hydrologist, Petroleum Remediation Program </li></ul><ul><li>Minnesota Pollution Control Agency </li></ul><ul><li>714 Lake Avenue, Suite 220 </li></ul><ul><li>Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 </li></ul><ul><li>phone 218.846.8123 </li></ul><ul><li>fax 218.846.0719 </li></ul><ul><li>email [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>internet www.pca.state.mn.us </li></ul><ul><li>Paul championed getting LIF into MPCA NAPL guidance docs </li></ul><ul><li>Jim Cummings Technology Assessment Branch/OSRTI/OSWER USEPA (5102G) </li></ul><ul><li>1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW </li></ul><ul><li>Washington, DC 20460 </li></ul><ul><li>phone: 703-603-7197 </li></ul><ul><li>email [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Jim champions use of TarGOST to better define NAPL at MGP and wood treaters </li></ul>UV TG
    74. 74. some TarGOST publications Publications R. St. Germain, B. J. Fagan, S. M. Carroll, W. R. Fisher; A Continuous In-situ Dart Profiling System for Characterization MGP Coal Tar and PAH Impacts in Sediments: A Technology Using Laser Induced Fluorescence in Sediments. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Alliant Energy, Madison, WI, and Ameren, St. Louis, MO: 2007. 1014749 D. Bessingpas, N. Gensky, R. St. Germain, J. Clock, A. Coleman; Deep Water Sediment Application of the TAR-Specific Green Optical Screening Tool (TarGOST) at a Manufacturing Gas Plant (MGP) Site in New York Proc: EPRI Manufactured Gas Plants 2007 Symposium , (2007). R. St. Germain; New Generation of In-Situ Sensors for Contamination Detection and Characterization. Proc. Groundwater Resources Association Symposium “High Resolution Site Characterization and Monitoring”, (2006) R. St. Germain, S. Adamek and T. Rudolph, “In situ Characterization of NAPL with TarGOST® at MGP Sites, &quot; Land Contamination & Reclamation , 14(2), 573-578(6) (2006). M. B. Okin, S. M. Carroll, W. R. Fisher, and R. W. St. Germain, &quot; Case study: confirmation of TarGOST laser-induced fluorescence DNAPL delineation with soil boring data, &quot; Land Contamination & Reclamation , 14(2), 502-507(6) (2006). C. F. Ferland, R. W. St. Germain, P. Haederle, D. Ostrye, and J. Perlow, &quot;Rapid Delineation of OLM/TLM in Soil using the Tar-Specific Green Optical Screening Tool (TarGOST),&quot; Proc: Natural Gas Technologies II: Ingenuity & Innovation , (2004). R. W. St. Germain, G. D. Gillispie, S. D. Adamek, and T. J. Rudolph, &quot;Rapid MGP Site Characterization with Tar-Specific Green Optical Screening Tool (TarGOST ) ,&quot; Proc: EPRI Manufactured Gas Plants 2003 Forum , (2004).
    75. 75. Exciting New Arrivals <ul><li>Dakota continues to develop additional capabilities to enhance and expand your knowledge of the subsurface conditions </li></ul>
    76. 76. Soil Color Optical Screening Tool (SCOST) <ul><li>Soil color is an important property when distinguishing and identifying soil horizons or strata. Soil color is impacted by a number of factors including the moisture content of the soil, the chemical composition, and the oxygen levels present. </li></ul><ul><li>Features </li></ul><ul><li>Records RGB and Hue, Value, Chroma color information </li></ul><ul><li>Produces a jpeg of color versus depth </li></ul><ul><li>Compatible with percussion delivery </li></ul><ul><li>Utilizes standard TarGOST/UVOST fiber cables and probes </li></ul><ul><li>All the benefits of in-situ optical screening, </li></ul><ul><li>including no investigation derived waste </li></ul>example – important transition at 40’ was critical to recent project EC couldn’t “see” it, but SCOST found it easily other uses? VIRONEX
    77. 77. Electrical Conductivity (EC) <ul><li>Dakota has recently added EC to our percussion-delivered OSTs for simultaneous EC alongside NAPL and soil color delineation </li></ul><ul><li>EC provides additional stratigraphy </li></ul><ul><li>information that can aid in understanding </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) </li></ul><ul><li>clays will have high conductivity while sands/gravels will have low conductivity </li></ul><ul><li>reported in the EC standard </li></ul><ul><li>milli-Siemens per meter units (mS/m) </li></ul>
    78. 78. Simultaneous EC, Soil Color, and Hammer Rate key feature is EC/Soil Color “ collaboration” a peek at our brand new tools… EC – TarGOST EC- UVOST EC – SCOST Hammer Rate other combinations to come…
    79. 79. OST Data more information = better CSM
    80. 80. What will OSTs do next? they will advance…
    81. 81. Thank you! Randy St. Germain, President [email_address] Dakota Technologies, Inc. 2201-A 12th St. N. Fargo, ND 58102 Phone: 701-237-4908 www.dakotatechnologies.com

    ×