Environ. RiENVIRON. RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SITES.ppt

7/28/2019 Environ. RiENVIRON. RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SITES.ppt

1/67

FUNDAMENTALS OF CONTAMINATED SITETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

A Lecture Series

Presented

at

The China University of Mining and Technology (CUMT)

Xuzhou, Peoples Republic of China

by

Professor Hilary I. Inyang Honorary Professor, China University of Mining and Technology (CUMT)

Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China

Duke Energy Distinguished and Professor of Environmental Engineering and Science

University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC USA

Pro-term Chancellor, African Continental, University (ACUS) Initiative, Abuja, Nigeria

([email protected])

September, 2010
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/67

Examples of option categories and specific options (option categories have greater

performance uncertainties and specific options).


3/67

A surface pond polluted by crude oil and brine behind Prof. H. I. Inyang,

outside the City of Nizhnevartovsk, Russia


4/67

One of the several ponds polluted by oil leakages and drainage in the Samotlor Oil

Field in the Khanty-Mansisk Region of Western Siberia, Russia


5/67

illustration of the spatial distribution of biogeochemical zones that may

occur at a site contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. (NAVAL FACILITIESENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER Users Guide UG-2035-ENV, 1999)


6/67

CRITERIA FOR WASTE CLASSIFICATION

AS BEING HAZARDOUS

Corrosivity

Ignitability

Reactibility

Toxicity

CORROSIVITY pH < 2 or > 12.5

Corrodes steel at the rate of 6035 mm/year


7/67

IGNITABILITY

Substance is a liquid with a flash point

< 60o C

Non-liquid that can cause fire and burnsvigorously when ignited

Compressed gas

Oxidizer


8/67

Reactivity

Unstable substances

Reacts with water

Can generate toxic gases in combination with water

When mixed with other substances it can explode

Substance is a cyanide or sulfide-bearing (these generate

toxic gases) Substance can explode when decomposing

Toxicity Substance is poisonous

Substance is carcinogenic

Substance is listed as being EP-Toxic (or TCLP- toxic) as listed


9/67

RISK AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE

STORAGE SYSTEMS

IN = the intake defined as the amount of a specific chemical in a

contaminated medium taken (mg/kg of body weight per day). C = the average chemical concentration contacted over the

exposure period (mg/L for liquid and gases, and mg/mg for

solids);

IR = the intake rate defined as the amount of the contaminated

medium contacted per unit of time or event (mg/day or L/day) EF = the upper-bound value of the exposure frequency (day/year)

ED = the upper-bound value of the exposure duration (years)

BW = the average body weight over the exposure period (kg)

AT = the average time defined as the time period over which

exposure is averaged (exposure duration for non-carcinogens and 70 years for carcinogens)

The exposure Assessment Basic Equation:

))(())()()((

ATBW

EDEFIRCIN


10/67

Control of Risks through Design, Siting and Management Options

EXPOSURE

PARAMETER

APPROACH MEASURE

EF: exposure frequency Minimization

Siting controls

Scavenging bans

Reduction in work frequency

Process automation

ED: exposure duration Minimization

Siting controls

Scavenging bans

Reduction in work frequency

Process automation

C: Contaminant

exposure

concentration

Minimization

Reduction in stored waste quantity

Occupational health and safety

controls

Effective waste coverage

Effective leachate barrier system

Exclusive distances for water

wells


11/67

SUMMARY OF DEFAULT EXPOSURE FACTORS USED BY THE US EPA SUPERFUND PROGRAM FOR

ESTIMATING THE REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE (RME)

U.S. EPA - RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND VOLUME I: HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION MANUAL

http://www.hanford.gov/dqo/project/level5/hhems.pdf


12/67

SOIL AND GROUNDWATER ACTION LEVELS AND RISK GOALS AT EXAMPLE SUPERFUND METAL-

CONTAMINATED SITES (USEPA, 1995)


13/67

SOIL AND GROUNDWATER ACTION LEVELS AND RISK GOALS AT EXAMPLE SUPERFUND METAL-

CONTAMINATED SITES (USEPA, 1995) (CONTD)


14/67

CLEANUP LEVELS FOR HYDROCARBON-CONTAMINATED SOIL MASSACHUSETTS

(STOKMAN/SOGOKA, 98)

Product Parameter/Constituent Notification Level Cleanup Level A/B/C

Benzene 10/60g/g 10-200g/g

Toluene 90/500g/g 90-2500g/g

Ethylbenzene 80/500g/g 80-2500g/g

Total Xylenes 500/500g/g 500-2500g/g

MTBE 0.3/200g/g 0.3-200g/g

Naphthalene 4/1000g/g 4-1000g/g

C5-C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 100/500g/g 100-500g/g


Gasoline

C9-C10 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 100/500g/g 100-500g/gNaphthalene 4/1000g/g 4-1000g/g

2-Methylnapthalene 4/1000g/g 4-1000g/g

Phenanthrene 100/100g/g 100g/g

Acenaphthene 20/2500g/g 20-4000g/g



Diesel/#2 Fuel

C11-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 200/2000g/g 200-500g/g

NS=Not Specified in regulation, MT

1 Two notification thresholds have been established for "high" and "low" exposure potential areas.

2 Nine generic cleanup standards have been established depending upon exposure potential/accessibility of soil, and

use/classification of underlying groundwater. Alternative cleanup levels are permissible based upon a site-specific risk

characterization. See Massachusetts regulations 310 CMR 40.000 and associated support/policy documents for

complete details and requirements


15/67

RATINGS OF THE RELATIVE EASE OF CLEANING UP OF CONTAMINATED

GROUNDWATER (MACDONALD AND KAVANAUGH, 1994)

HydrogeologyMobile, Dissolve

(degrade/volatilize)

Mobile,

Dissolve

Strongly Sorbed,

Dissolve

(degrades/volatilizes

Strongly

Sorbed,

Dissolve

DNAPL LNAPL

Fractured 3 3 3 3 4 4

Heterogeneous,multiple layers

2 2 3 3 4 3

Heterogeneous,

single layer2 2 3 3 4 3

Homogeneous,

multiple layers1 1-2 2 2-3 3 2-3

1 is easiest and 4 is most difficult

DNAPL = Dense Nonaqueous-phase liquid

LNAPL = Light Nonaqueous-phase liquid


16/67

Change of waste hazardous characteristics fits within the following general

hazard reduction techniques

1. Changes in chemical function of the

contamination to reduce mobility

2. Changes in chemical form to reduce toxicity3. Changes in form to reduce volume

4. Changes in characteristics of the contaminant

transport media5. Removal of waste from the site


17/67

GENERAL TYPES OF WASTE TREATMENT APPROACHES

Chemical Treatment Processes

These processes are mainly intended to accomplish

one or more of the following functions.

pH adjustment Oxidation

Reduction

Pre-treatment


18/67

BASIC APPROACHES TO MITIGATING HAZARDOUS CHARACTERISTICS

Waste hazard Basic Response action

Corrosive waste pH adjustment

Ignitive waste Oxidation or reduction

Reactive waste Oxidation or reduction

Toxic waste Oxidation, reduction, lysisfor organics


19/67

Soil Technologies

Bioremediation (ex situ)

Bioremediation (in situ)

Contained recovery of Oily wastes (CROWTM)

Cyanide oxidation

De-chlorination

Hot air injection

In situ flushing

Physical separation

Plasma high temperature metals recovery

Soil vapor extraction Soil washing

Solvent extraction

Thermal desorption

Vitrification


20/67

Groundwater Technologies

Air sparging

Bioremediation (in situ)

Dual-phase extraction In-situ oxidation

In-situ well aeration

Passive treatment walls


21/67

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SELECTION APPROACHES

Factors considered:

1. Chemical Factors

Effectiveness of technology relative to the chemistry and concentrationsof contaminants, affected by:

a) Reaction conditions

b) Concentration variations

c) Composition variations

2. Physical Factors

Effectiveness of the technology with respect to media of concern.

3. Other Factors

Physical restraint at the site

Health and safety

Sensitivity of the site

* All the factors relate to the costs associated with

the implementation of a particular site treatment technology


22/67

ASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A TECHNOLOGY

A) Bench scale treatability studies

For demonstrated technologies,

Duration: 2 - 6 weeksCost: $10,000 - $50,000

For innovative technologies,

Duration: 4

16 weeks

Cost: $25,000 - $200,000


23/67

ASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A TECHNOLOGY

B) Plot scale treatability studies

For demonstrated technologies with available testingunits

Duration: 3

12 monthsCosts: $100,000 - $ 1milion

These studies are conducted if,

1) The level of certainty of success of technology islow

2) Consequence of failure of technology is high


24/67

SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: TREATMENT

TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY


25/67

SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: TREATMENT

TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

(Contd)

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition),

EPA-542-R-03-009, February 2004


26/67

Schematicillustration of the

arrangement of

injection extraction,

treatment and

disposal network for

reactants used inenhancement of

pump-and-treat

systems

(EPA, 1996, Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation A Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners)http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/pumptreat/pumpdoc.pdf


27/67

Pulsed pumping removal of residual contaminants from saturated media

(EPA, 1996, Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation A Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners)


28/67

Schematic illustration of solubility and diffusion limitations to pump-and-treat

Systems: (a) Contaminants are mobilized; (b) sorption of contaminant onto

mineral surface

USEPA - Introduction to Pump-and-Treat Remediationhttp://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/pumptreat/pumpdoc.pdf


29/67

ALKYLBENZENE SULFONATE

An illustration of the configuration of a type of surfactant (USEPA, 1992)

Hydrophobic Moiety Hydrophobic Moiety

AGGREGATION OF SURFACTANT MOLECULES INTO A MICELLE (USEPA


30/67

AGGREGATION OF SURFACTANT MOLECULES INTO A MICELLE (USEPA,

1992)


31/67

Model of an Air Sparging System

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Ninth Edition),EPA-542-R99-001, Number 9, April 1999


32/67

VAPOR PRESSURE OF COMMON PETROLEUM CONSTITUENTS (USEPA,

1995)


33/67

THE MOST PREVALENT NATURAL ATTENUATION MECHANISM

(USEPA, 1995)


34/67

SCHEMATIC OF CROSSHOLE SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY IMAGING SYSTEM (US DOE, 1994A)


35/67

Model of Phytoremediation

(Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)

M d l f Ph t di ti


36/67


Illustration of nickel uptake through the process of phytoremediation(Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)


37/67




38/67




39/67



M d l f Ph t di ti


40/67


Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Ninth Edition),EPA-542-R99-001, Number 9, April 1999

EXAMPLES OF HYPERACCUMULATORS OF METALS (USEPA


41/67

EXAMPLES OF HYPERACCUMULATORS OF METALS (USEPA,

1996B)

Metal Plant Species

% of Metal in Dry

Weight of

Leaves

Native Location

ZnThlaspi calaminare 3Southern Europe

and Turkey

Sebertia acuminata 25 (in latex) New Caledonia

Stackhousia tryonli 4.1 Australia

Pb Brassuca juncea


42/67

EFFECTS OF ADDING EDTA TO Pb-CONTAMINATED SOILa WITH TOTAL SOIL Pb mg/kg ON Pb

CONCENTRATION IN XYLEM SAP AND Pb ACCUMULATION IN SHOOTSb OF 21-DAY-OLD CORN

GROWN IN CONTAMINATED SOIL (Huang et al; 1997)

EFFECTS OF ADDING EDTA TO Pb-CONTAMINATED SOILa WITH TOTAL SOIL Pb mg/kg ON Pb


43/67

EFFECTS OF ADDING EDTA TO Pb-CONTAMINATED SOIL WITH TOTAL SOIL Pb mg/kg ON Pb

CONCENTRATION IN XYLEM SAP AND Pb ACCUMULATION IN SHOOTSb OF 21-DAY-OLD CORN

GROWN IN CONTAMINATED SOIL (Huang et al; 1997)

RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF FIVE SYNTHETIC CHELATESa IN ENHANCING Pb


44/67

RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF FIVE SYNTHETIC CHELATESa IN ENHANCING Pb

ACCUMULATION IN SHOOTS OF CORN AND PEA PLANTS GROWN IN Pb-

CONTAMINATED SOIL WITH A TOTAL PB OF 2500 MG/KG (HUANG ET AL; 1997)

A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER


45/67

A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER

BIORECLAMATION (USEPA, 1986)


46/67


47/67

Illustration of the effects of Oxygen access on biodegradation of a

contaminant plume (USEPA, 1995)

REFRACTORY INDICES OF SOME ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (data from


48/67


Lyman et al; 1982)



49/67


Lyman et al; 1982) (contd)

BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al;


50/67


1982)



51/67


1982)



52/67


1982)



53/67

O 5/ O OS O OUS O O OU S ( y a e a ;

1982)


54/67

Principal mechanisms through which chlorinated hydrocarbons reduced by

iron (Wilson, 1995)


55/67

Suggested pathways for the reduction of chloroethylenes by zero-valent

iron (courtesy of undated USEPA information sheet)


56/67


57/67

Effects of zero-valent iron metal surface area concentration on pseudo-

first-order reaction rate constant for nitrobenzene reduction (Agrawal andTratnyek, 1996)

A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF IN SITU VITRIFICATION PROCESS IN WHICH


58/67

ELECTRODES ARE USED FOR HEAT APPLICATION

(Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov/)


59/67

An example of a silicate glass network structure (Mc Lelland and Strand, 1984)

TYPICAL RANGES OF OXIDE COMPOSITIONS IN SODA-LIME GLASS, BOROSILLICATE

( ) ( )


60/67

GLASS AND IN SITU VITRIFIED (ISV) GLASS (COMPILED BY USEPA, 1992)

APPROXIMATE RANGES OF SOLUBILITY OF ELEMENTS IN SILICATE


61/67

GLASSES (Volf, 1984)

TCLP EXTRACT METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE FROM IDAHO NATIONAL


62/67

ENGINEERING LABORATORY VITRIFIED SOILS (USEPA, 1994b)

ORGANICS DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES (DRE) RECORDED FOR


63/67

CONTAMINATED MEDIA VITRIFICATION SYSTEMS (HWC, 1990)

COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY COMPOUNDS IN


64/67

PORTLAND CEMENT


65/67

Schematic Diagram of One Electrode Configuration and Geometry Used in

Field Implementation of Electrokinetic Remediation

(Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4_6.html )

ELECTROACOUSTICAL SOIL DECONTAMINATION PROCESS


66/67

(USEPA, 1997)



67/67

y


Environ. RiENVIRON. RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SITES.ppt

Documents

Transcript of Environ. RiENVIRON. RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SITES.ppt