Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Remediation Evaluation At Site St 14 Jba

510 views

Published on

This presentation provides an overview of remediation efforts conducted by the contractor at Site ST-14 on Joint Base Andrews

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Remediation Evaluation At Site St 14 Jba

  1. 1. Remediation Evaluation of Site ST-14 Joint Base Andrews: A Detective Story (Part 1) Michael H. Flinn, Ph.D., PMP
  2. 2. IntroductionRestoration Branch of Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment Technical Division (AFCEE/TDV) performed an Environmental Restoration Program – Optimization (ERP-O) visit at Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility Washington (JBA)ERP-O Team recommended that the Site ST-14 remedy be reviewed – Evaluate for effectiveness – Recommend a path forwardConducting the evaluation was like reading a detective story. The available documentation had several red herrings and false leads. Multiple lines of evidence (clues) had to be pieced together to reach a full understanding of the site situation.
  3. 3. Introduction (Concluded) I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise [sic] before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sherlock Holmes in “A Scandal in Bohemia” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
  4. 4. The Scene - Joint Base AndrewsFormerly known as Andrews Air Force BaseLocated southeast of Washington, D.C. JBA
  5. 5. The Scene - Site ST-14 (Continued)Location of the former East Side Service StationTwo 10,000 gallon USTs removed in 1983Approximately 20,000 gallons of gasoline recoveredOther contaminant sources include aircraft and vehicle washracks Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  6. 6. The Scene – Hydrogeology (Continued)Unconfined aquifer comprised of three stratigraphic lithologies of the Brandywine Formation Upland Deposits – Shallow: clayey, gravelly silt (range 0 – 28’ bgs, avg. 14’ bgs) – Intermediate: sand and gravel (range 10 – 38’ bgs, avg. 26’ bgs) – Deep: silty fine sand (range 15 – 40’ bgs, avg. 33’ bgs)Average depth to water is 17’ bgsEstimates of Intermediate K range from 0.24 – 3.5’ per dayHydraulic gradient = 0.007 – 0.02Underlain by Calvert Formation (range 38 – 40’ bgs, outcrops at northeast) – Described as a regional aquitard (Final ST-14 Feasibility Study Report, January 2007)
  7. 7. The Scene - Hydrogeology (Concluded) Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  8. 8. The Suspects – TCE, BTEX, CCl4 (2006) 5.5 Acre CCl4 Plume 6.4 Acre BTEX Plume62 Acre TCE Plume Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  9. 9. The Tools: TCE and CCl4 Remediation – Reductive Dechlorination Sodium lactate (6% solution) injected to promote reductive dechlorination – Ten injection events between October 2007 and November 2009 – Ten injection “barriers” – 210 injection points (max. 45’ bgs) – Total of 239,250 gallons of sodium lactate solution injected  Emulsified vegetable oil (EOS®) – One injection event between May and June 2010 – 250 gallons of 4-6% EOS injected per injection point – Total of 25,000 gallons of EOS added
  10. 10. The Tools: BTEX Remediation - Aerobic Respiration PermeOx® Plus injections 120 pounds of PermeOx® Plus in 120 gallons of water per point One foot increments from 32’ to 19’ bgs First: October 2007 (40 points, 4,800 lbs PermeOx® Plus) Second: July 2009 (10 points, 1,200 lbs PermeOx® Plus) Third: May 2010 (8 points, 960 lbs PermeOx® Plus) Total = 6,960 lbs
  11. 11. Injection Event 1 Locations (OCT 2007) 49,500 gallons of Sodium Lactate 7 6 4,800 pounds of 5 PermeOx® Plus 4 3 1 2 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  12. 12. Injection Event 2 Locations (DEC 2007 – JAN 2008) 7 47,000 gallons of Sodium Lactate 6 5 4 3 1 2 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  13. 13. Injection Event 3 Locations (FEB 2008 – MAR 2008) 45,500 gallons of Sodium Lactate 7 6 6 5 4 3 1 2 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  14. 14. Injection Event 4 Locations (APR 2008 – MAY 2008) 33,000 gallons of 7 Sodium Lactate 6 5 4 3 1 2 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  15. 15. Injection Event 5 Locations (JUL 2008) 30,750 gallons of 7 Sodium Lactate 6 5 4 3 1 2 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  16. 16. Injection Event 6 Locations (NOV 2008) 7 19,000 gallons of Sodium Lactate 6 5 4 3 1 2 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  17. 17. Injection Event 7 Locations (JUN 2009) 3,000 gallons of 7 Sodium Lactate 6 5 4 3 1 2 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  18. 18. Injection Event 8 Locations (JUL 2009) 3,500 gallons of 7 Sodium Lactate 6 5 9 1,200 pounds of 8 4 PermeOx® Plus 3 1 2 10 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  19. 19. Injection Event 9 Locations (SEP 2009) 5,000 gallons of Sodium Lactate 6 7 9 8 5 4 3 1 2 10 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  20. 20. Injection Event 10 Locations (NOV 2009) 3,000 gallons of 7 Sodium Lactate 6 9 5 8 4 3 1 2 10 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  21. 21. Injection Event 11 Locations (MAY - JUN 2010) 7 25,000 gallons of EOS® 6 9 960 pounds of 8 PermeOx® Plus 5 4 3 1 2 10 Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  22. 22. Contractor’s ConclusionThe groundwater analytical data and geochemical parameters at Site ST-14 suggest that the remedial actions performed at the site, including the PermeOx® Plus and sodium lactate injections, generated favorable conditions in the treatment area conducive to the biodegradation of the primary [contaminants of concern].And,The data collected during the second long term monitoring event showed that the remedial actions implemented at ST- 14 have had positive results in most of the targeted areas.
  23. 23. Evidence of Success? The contractor cited the following lines of evidence to demonstrate the success of the injections: –Mann-Kendall analysis –Trend analysis –Reductions in contaminant concentrations –Phospholipid Fatty Acid (PLFA) analysis for percent biomass –Reductions in plume size
  24. 24. Clues from Mann Kendall and Trend Analyses Mann Kendall analysis were conducted using the Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) software to identify general trends (increasing, decreasing, stable, no trend) Regression analyses were conducted on selected wells to predict when contaminants would meet maximum contaminant limits (MCLs)
  25. 25. TCE Regression Analysis (Red Herrings)
  26. 26. Clues from Injection Barrier Monitoring Well Data Injection Barrier Wells – Injection Barrier 1: Monitor Well (MW) 17 – Injection Barrier 3: MW 11 – Injection Barrier 5: MW 12 and MW 19 (well pair) – Injection Barrier 6: MW 23 and MW 24 (well pair) Downgradient Monitoring Wells – MW 16 – MW 37 – MW 07
  27. 27. Injection Barrier 1 - MW 17 Data (Evidence of Incomplete Degradation) Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  28. 28. Injection Barrier 3 - MW 11 Data (Evidence of Incomplete Degradation) Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  29. 29. Injection Barrier 5 - MWs 12 (Deep?) and 19 (Shallow) Data (Evidence of Incomplete Degradation) Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  30. 30. Injection Barrier 6 - MWs 23 (Deep) and 24 (Shallow?) Data (Evidence of Incomplete Degradation) Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  31. 31. Downgradient Wells - MWs 16 and 37 Data (Evidence of Displacement) Similar Response Pattern Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  32. 32. Downgradient Wells – MW 07 Data (Smoking Gun for Displacement) Mounding PermeOx 4,800 lbs 1,200 lbs Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  33. 33. Sample DO Concentrations
  34. 34. Calvert Formation a Regional Aquitard? (False Lead) Derived from Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  35. 35. Calvert Formation a Regional Aquitard? (False Lead)Boring logsindicate thatCalvertFormation inarea of SiteST-14consists ofsandy clay
  36. 36. Calvert Formation a Regional Aquitard? (False Lead)The Calvert is a silty clay with local sand beds. It is reported to bea poor aquifer and considered to be a confining bed in southernMaryland (Chapelle and Drummond, 1983). Locally, it may yieldsmall amounts of water to farm or domestic wells. Recharge to theCalvert is probably transmitted from overlying units and dischargeis likely directed either to local surface waters or to water-bearingunits at greater depth. Water in the Calvert may exist under watertable or artesian (confined) conditions [emphasis added].“Installation Restoration Program Phase I Records Search” (June1985)
  37. 37. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (MAR 2006) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  38. 38. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  39. 39. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JUL 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  40. 40. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (OCT 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  41. 41. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JAN 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  42. 42. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  43. 43. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JUL 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  44. 44. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (OCT 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  45. 45. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2010) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  46. 46. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2010) Letter to Maryland Department of Environmental Quality, 2011
  47. 47. Remediation Evaluation of Site ST-14 Joint Base Andrews: A Detective Story (Part 2) Michael H. Flinn, Ph.D., PMP
  48. 48. Clues from CCl4 Regression Analysis
  49. 49. Clues From CCl4 Well Data – MWs 23, 24, and 01
  50. 50. Concentration 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 Jan-08 6,000 gal (5,6) Feb-08 Mar-08 12,500 gal (5,6,7) Apr-08 May-08 4,500 gal (6,7) Jun-08 Jul-08 6,500 gal (5,7) Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 6,000 gal (5,6) Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09Sample Date May-09 Jun-09 2,000 gal (5,6) Jul-09 Evidence of Displacement Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 MW 24 DO and CT Concentrations Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 CT DO (ug/L) (mg/L) Sodium Lactate
  51. 51. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (MAR 2006) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  52. 52. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  53. 53. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JUL 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  54. 54. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (OCT 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  55. 55. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JAN 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  56. 56. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  57. 57. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JUL 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  58. 58. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (OCT 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  59. 59. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2010) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  60. 60. The Tools: BTEX Remediation - Aerobic Respiration PermeOx® Plus injections 120 pounds of PermeOx® Plus in 120 gallons of water per point One foot increments from 32’ to 19’ bgs First: October 2007 (40 points, 4,800 lbs PermeOx® Plus) Second: July 2009 (10 points, 1,200 lbs PermeOx® Plus) Third: May 2010 (8 points, 960 lbs PermeOx® Plus) Total = 6,960 lbs
  61. 61. Clues from Benzene Regression Analysis
  62. 62. Clues from Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and Total Xylene Regression Analysis
  63. 63. Clues From BTEX Well Data – MWs 10 and 04
  64. 64. Substrate Competition MW 10 Total BTEX and DO Concentrations 70 Sodium Lactate 60Concentration in mg/L PermeOx 50 7,500 gal (3) 40 980 lbs 1,200 lbs 2,500 gal (8,9) 30 DO 20 20.000 gal (3,4) 4,800 lbs 4,000 gal (3,8,9) 20,000 gal (3,4) 12,000 gal (3) Total 10 7,500 gal (3) 7,500 gal (3) 2,500 gal (8,9) BTEX 0 Sample Date
  65. 65. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (MAR 2006) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  66. 66. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  67. 67. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JUL 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  68. 68. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (OCT 2008) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  69. 69. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JAN 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  70. 70. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  71. 71. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (JUL 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  72. 72. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (OCT 2009) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  73. 73. Clues from Changes in Plume Size (APR 2010) Draft ST-14 Second Long-Term Monitoring Report, Andrews Air Force Base. June 2010
  74. 74. Conclusion - What can we deduce from the available evidence?The preponderance of the evidence suggests that: – Remediation of contaminants at Site ST-14 was only marginally effective • Limited in extent and duration • Contaminant reductions primarily the result of displacement and dilution – Reductive dechlorination appears to be limited by recharge of oxygenated water through the Calvert Formation and the method of substrate addition • Difficulty in establishing and maintaining low DO concentrations • Inconsistent production of microbial biomass • Reductive dechlorination of TCE generally stalls at DCE
  75. 75. Lessons Learned (Site Characterization) Fit the theory to the facts, not the facts to the theory –Calvert Formation was considered a regional aquitard in spite of available data that suggested otherwise –Demonstrates the need for a complete and accurate conceptual site model
  76. 76. Lessons Learned (Substrate Injections)When designing a remedial approach involving substrate injections: –Ensure groundwater flow gradient is sufficient to overcome injection-related mounding effects –Consider limiting perpendicular injections to laterally limited hydrogeologic systems (e.g. paleochannels)
  77. 77. Lessons Learned (Remediation) Do not try to promote aerobic respiration of certain contaminants (BTEX) while simultaneously trying to promote reductive dechlorination of other compounds (TCE) in close proximity
  78. 78. Lessons Learned (Data Analyses) Statistics and trend analyses do not always tell the whole story and can be misleading When evaluating the performance of reductive dechlorination, consider changes in concentration of the daughter products in addition to the primary contaminant of concern Site conditions are dynamic and change with time, groundwater movement, and remedial activity
  79. 79. Lessons Learned (Plume Depictions) Contaminant plume depictions are generated based on kriging algorithms found in the individual software systems –Results influenced by contaminant concentrations, and data quality and density –Use professional judgment when drawing conclusion for software generated plume maps
  80. 80. Lessons Learned (Third Party Review) An independent third party review can be useful by providing an objective assessment of the available data to provide an alternative perspective.
  81. 81. Closing Argument It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Sherlock Holmes in “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

×