In Situ Solidification Field Demonstration Quanta Resources Corp. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

In Situ Solidification Field Demonstration

Quanta Resources Corp. Superfund Site Keli McKenna/CH2M Tim Olean/CH2M Steve Coladonato/Honeywell

2

Agenda

• Site Background
• ROD Requirements
• Bench Scale Treatability
• Field Demonstration

– Treatment Areas – Mixing Plan – Sampling Plan

• Analytical Results
• Conclusions

3

Quanta Hudson River 115 River Road I.Park City Place

Site Location

4

Site Background

• Former coal tar processing facility dating back to the late

1800s

• Former industrial area experiencing upscale

redevelopment

• Coal tar NAPL, PAHs, and arsenic present in groundwater

and soils

• Remedial Investigation completed in 2010
• Feasibility Study completed in 2010

5

Record of Decision (ROD) Requirements

• Selected soil and NAPL remedy

– ISS for shallow “NAPL Zones” and arsenic (~130k CY total) – Supplemented by deep NAPL recovery, high- concentration arsenic stabilization, capping, institutional controls

• ISS performance criteria

– Unconfined Compressive Strength >40 psi – Permeability <1x10-6 cm/s – Leaching reduction of 90% for majority of site constituents

6

ISS Treatment Areas

7

Bench Scale Treatability Testing

• Nine boring locations across the site (11 total samples)
• Baseline each sample

– Particle size, bulk density, % moisture, – Total BTEX, PAH, and Arsenic – SPLP and 1314** BTEX, PAH, and Arsenic

• Contractor prepare composites
• Multi-phase approach testing a total of 13 mixes

– 7 with only pozzalon reagents – 6 with pozzalons and additives – Overall total reagent dose ranged from 7.5 to 20 percent

8

Treatability Testing Conclusions

• UCS, permeability, leaching reductions were comparable across the range of mixes

evaluated.

• Total pozzalon addition of 8 percent or greater met the ROD requirements

– TARGET = 2% Portland + 6% slag

• Incorporation of other additives (i.e. carbon, hydrated lime, Enviroblend, or calcium

polysulfide) did not result in an improvement in the leaching reduction

9

• Demonstrate consistency with the treatability test

results to meet ROD requirements in the field using both auger-mixing and bucket-mixing techniques

• Determine short-term construction parameters to

be used during full-scale treatment

• To further refine the understanding of reagent

delivery

• Evaluate feasibility of proposed debris

management procedures including pile removal and management

• Assess potential exposure risk to airborne

contaminants through real-time monitoring and analytical sampling methods

• Demonstrate the efficacy of odor and dust control

mitigation methods

Field Demonstration Test Objectives

10

ISS Field Demonstration Locations Selected

A-02 - Arsenic to 22 ft bgs Auger Mixed 390 cy Evaluated for multiple mixes N-01 – Deepest NAPL to 25 ft bgs Auger Mixed 490 cy AN-02 – Arsenic and NAPL to 15 ft bgs Bucket Mixed 148 cy (max depth 11.5 ft) N-04 – Worst case NAPL to 15 ft bgs Bucket Mixed 233 cy Attempted multiple mixes

11

ISS Field Demonstration Performed

A-02 - Arsenic + Auger

Recommended Mix 2% PC and 6% Slag Alternative Mix 3.5% PC and 10.33% Slag Alternative Mix 1.5% PC and 4.4% Slag

12

ISS Field Demonstration Performed

AN-02 – Arsenic/NAPL + Bucket N-04 – NAPL + Bucket

Bucket Mixing

13

ISS Field Demonstration Performed

N-01 – NAPL + Auger

Auger Mixing

14

Sample Collection & Analysis

• Samples from the 4 areas various depths

– 44 analyzed for UCS and permeability – 16 selected for 1315M leaching

Sampling Tool with a Hydraulically-Controlled Sample Bucket

15

Performance Sampling

Conformance Testing – to demonstrate consistency with the ROD requirements

– UCS: reported on 28-day cured samples – Permeability: reported on 28-day cured sample – Leachability: Premethod 1315 (GRO; BTEX, PAHs, arsenic) reported on 28-day cured sample

16

Performance Sampling

Consistency Testing - to monitor for variability in the mixed material and demonstrate construction quality control.

– Pocket penetrometer testing performed on 1-, 3-, 5-, and 7-day cured samples – Slump test on freshly treated material – Moisture content and wet density – Alkalinity and pH – UCS: reported on 7- and 14-day cured samples

17

Analytical Results Evaluation - UCS

• 41 of 44 samples achieved ROD criteria (>40 psi)
• Median – 152 psi
• Three samples < 40 psi at 28-day cure (28, 39, and 36 psi)

– From auger locations and with <8% reagent – All samples >40 psi (185, 151, and 55 psi) when retested after longer cures (76, 77, and 82 days)

18

UCS vs. Time

19

Analytical Results Evaluation - Permeability

• 42 of 44 samples achieved ROD criteria (<1 x 10-6 cm/s)
• Median = 3.55 x 10-8 cm/s
• Two samples missed criteria (1.5 x 10-6 cm/s and 1.8 x 10-6 cm/s)

– From both auger locations and with <8% reagent

• Permeability still much lower than surrounding material (10-3 cm/s)

20

Samples Selected for Leaching Analysis

Location Delivery Column # Depth Mix ID 28-day Conformance Testing Planned Mix Actual Mix UCS Permeability %PC % BFS %PC % BFS (psi) (cm/s) N-4 Bucket 1 0-5 FD-1 2 6 2 6 163 1.6E-08 2 5-10 FD-2 2 6 2 6 98 1.4E-08 3 5-10 FD-3 2 6 2 6 209 3.1E-08 4 5-10 FD-4 2 6 2 6 153 3.7E-08 N-1 Auger 2 10-15 FD-5 2 6 2 5.9 50 3.7E-07 4 0-5 FD-6 2 6 2 6 54 5.9E-07 5 20-25 FD-7 2 6 2.1 6.3 56 6.9E-07 7 10-15 FD-8 2 6 2.1 6.4 104 1.2E-07 A-2 Auger 2 0-5 FD-9 2.5 7.5 3.5 10.33 332 1.2E-08 4 8.5-13.5 FD-10 1.5 4.5 1.5 4.4 83 3.6E-07 5 17-22 FD-11 1.5 4.5 1.5 6.5 89 1.4E-07 7 8.5-13.5 FD-12 2 6 2 6 361 1.4E-08 AN-2 Bucket 1 0-5 FD-13 2 6 3 9 650 5.8E-09 2 6-12 FD-14 2 6 3 9 740 1.6E-08 3 0-6 FD-15 2 6 3 9 777 7.3E-09 4 6-12 FD-16 2 6 3 9 875 6.5E-09

21

Example Leaching Calculation

22

Leaching Results – Example for N4 (Bucket Area)

Predicted CMR (Mc)* Leaching reduction Predicted CMR (Mc)* Leaching reduction Predicted CMR (Mc)* Leaching reduction Predicted CMR (Mc)* Leaching reduction mg/kg mg/L mg/m2 mg/m2 % mg/m2 % mg/m2 % mg/m2 % % Arsenic 7.80 0.003 49.0 1.89 96.1% 2.27 95.4% 2.09 95.7% 1.94 96.0% NA GRO 3,680 45.3 652,320 7,936 98.8% 5,908 99.1% 7,088 98.9% 7,030 98.9% NA Benzene 571 12.0 172,800 350 99.8% 381 99.8% 306 99.8% 349 99.8% NA Toluene 129 0.785 11,304 508 95.5% 586 94.8% 406 96.4% 489 95.7% NA Ethylbenzene 836 8.15 117,360 342 99.7% 234 99.8% 255 99.8% 318 99.7% NA Total Xylenes 574 2.74 39,456 1,610 95.9% 648 98.4% 1,104 97.2% 1,351 96.6% NA Naphthalene 8,050 15.9 228,960 10,934 95.2% 12,361 94.6% 9,724 95.8% 10,658 95.3% 96.0% Acenaphthene 983 0.23 3,283 415 87.4% 492 85.0% 414 87.4% 422 87.1% 1.38% Acenaphthylene 364 0.12 1,786 73.6 NE 83.7 NE 68.6 NE 68.8 NE 0.75% Less than 1% tPAH in SPLP; not evaluated Anthracene 905 0.01 147 61.3 NE 73.6 NE 61.8 NE 54.8 NE 0.06% Less than 1% tPAH in SPLP; not evaluated Benzo(a)anthracene 548 0.0003 3.60 43.7 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 44.6 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Benzo(a)pyrene 149 0.0003 3.60 40.0 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 44.6 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Benzo(b)fluoranthene 400 0.0003 3.60 40.0 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 44.6 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 417 0.0003 3.60 40.0 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 44.6 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Benzo(k)fluoranthene 196 0.0003 3.60 40.0 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 44.6 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Chrysene 483 0.0003 3.60 40.0 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 40.7 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 45.9 0.0003 3.60 40.0 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 44.6 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Fluoranthene 1,930 0.004 53.3 52.8 NE 72.5 NE 56.8 NE 51.2 NE 0.02% Less than 1% tPAH in SPLP; not evaluated Fluorene 1,090 0.14 1,987 246 NE 295 NE 247 NE 248 NE 0.83% Less than 1% tPAH in SPLP; not evaluated Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 162 0.0003 3.60 40.0 NE 56.5 NE 44.1 NE 44.6 NE 0.002% Not detected in baseline SPLP; not evaluated Phenanthrene 3760 0.156 2,246 399 NE 478 NE 427 NE 429 NE 0.94% Less than 1% tPAH in SPLP; not evaluated Pyrene 1710 0.003 47.5 43.9 NE 65.0 NE 46.9 NE 48.5 NE 0.02% Less than 1% tPAH in SPLP; not evaluated Total BTEX 2,110 23.7 340,920 2,648 99.2% 1,822 99.5% 1,974 99.4% 2,351 99.3% NA Total PAH 21,193 16.6 238,539 12,558 94.7% 14,369 94.0% 11,393 95.2% 12,344 94.8% NA Nondetects are italicized/gray and values shown are 1/2 the detection limit; J-flagged results are italicized/black Total BTEX and Total PAH are summed using 1/2 the reporting limit for non-detected parameters Percent leaching reduction is ≥90% relative to original baseline for constituent. Parameter not evaluated. Baseline SPLP result is low or nondetect and/or constituent makes up <1% tPAH. Percent leaching reduction is <90% relative to original baseline; and baseline SPLP result is elevated and/or constituent makes up >1% tPAH. *The site specific time to reach L/S Ratio equivalent to SPLP [L/S=20] (days) is the the corresponding number of days of aquifer flux in in-situ conditions (based on site-specific assumptions and inputs). This is calculated by dividing the achieved or method L/S ratio (20 L/Kg) by the daily percolation rate (in L/kg/day) - resulting unit is days. Parameter

Untreated Treated

Percent Contribution of Constituent to tPAH Total of Untreated Sample Untreated SPLP result Predicted Mass Release to aquifer at L/S of 20 based on SPLP* = N-4A-1 (FD-1) 2% PC; 6% Slag N-4B-2 (FD-2) 2% PC; 6% Slag N-4B-3 (FD-3) 2% PC; 6% Slag N-4B-4 (FD-4) 2% PC; 6% Slag Comment

23

Leaching Results

65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% FD-1 (8%) FD-2 (8%) FD-3 (8%) FD-4 (8%) FD-5 (7.9%) FD-6 (8%) FD-7 (8.4%) FD-8 (8.5%) FD-9 (13.8%) FD-10 (5.9%) FD-11 (8%) FD-12 (8%) FD-13 (12%) FD-14 (12%) FD-15 (12%) FD-16 (12%)

Achieved Leaching Reduction Sample ID (Total % reagent, dry weight)

As tBTEX tPAH Naphth

Notes: BTEX at very low concentrations in untreated baseline from AN-2

N-4 N-1 A-2 AN-2

Target leaching reduction (90%)

24

Field Demonstration Test Conclusions

• Confirmed the effectiveness and ability to achieve the ROD criteria using a

2% Portland cement and 6% slag reagent dose

• Leaching for the majority of the BTEX and PAH compounds was reduced by

more than 90 percent

• In the limited instances where the leaching reductions of individual COCs:

– Compound was typically composing a small portion of the tPAH – Leaching was still significantly reduced to between 83 percent and 90 percent of the untreated material – Total PAH all met 90% reduction

25

Field Demonstration Test Conclusions – cont.

• Bench-scale testing translated well to the field demonstration
• Field tests were identified for use as indicators during full-scale

implementation:

– Slump test – consistency and uniformity between batches – Pocket penetrometer – curing progress – Visual inspection – uniform color and consistency

• Bucket mixing can be as effective as auger mixing at shallow depths
• Monitoring of the reagent mix, delivery, and complete mixing are the critical

field quality control parameters

26

Questions or Comments?

Debris Removal Batch Plant Bucket Mixing Auger Mixing

Thank You

Special Thanks to Steve Coladonato/Honeywell