Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
10/20/2011
1
New Opportunities in Water Sampling & Waste Treatment
Dave ThomasPerth, Australia
October 2011
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of these notes may be reproduced without written permission from Chevron. Contact D. Thomas at Chevron Energy Technology Company, [email protected], +61-8-9485-5141
Improvement?
Just because it is new doesn’t always mean it is better….
Windows Vista™
The Question we set out to answer:
“Can we invest in new technologies / science to gain a net benefit at multiple sites”
N t B fit i
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
Net Benefit is:
Cost savings
Other benefit (reduced time at site, less manual handling, improved reliability, data quality, etc)
2
10/20/2011
2
Some New Ideas
SaFE Thermal Treatment – New Technology for No-Hope wastes (i.e. soil & sludge with greater than 1% oil)
Passive groundwater monitoring (Snap Samplers)
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 3
Sustainable Facilitated Environmental (SaFE) Thermal TreatmentThermal Treatment
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
10/20/2011
3
R&D Team
David Major, Principal, Geosyntec
Grant Scholes, Project Engineer, SiREM
Gavin Grant, Senior Engineer, SiREM
Jason Gerhard, Env. Eng. Chair, U. Western
www.siremlab.com/STAR
Jose Torero, Fire Eng. Chair, U. Edinburgh
Dave Thomas, Chevron ETC
Tom Peargin, Chevron ETC Slide with Permission: Gavin Grant, SIREM
Oily Wastes –Plentiful & Challenging
Oily wastes – An Oil Industry Issue
Produced during oil recoveryg y
Waste stream from tank & line cleaning
Accidental releases
Difficult & Expensive to clean up
Not prone to degradationPhoto: D Thomas
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
Disposal options are limited & is often impractical
Always looking for better ways to manage
6
10/20/2011
4
The Concept –Sustainable Efficient Thermal Treatment
Oily waste added to a porous media & placed into a reaction vessel
Photo: D Thomas Photo: Chevron
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 7
The Reaction Vessel
The reaction vessel is fitted with an air supply & a heat source
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 8
10/20/2011
5
Apply Heat Until Mixture Around Air Pipe Reaches 200ºC to 400ºC
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 9
Turn On Air Supply & Turn Off External Heat
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 10
10/20/2011
6
Organic Waste Ignites & Creates a Smoldering Combustion Front that Moves Through the Mixture
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 11
Reaction Temperatures of 400ºC to 1000ºC –Near Complete Conversion of Organic Wastes to CO2
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 12
10/20/2011
7
Column Experiments
www.siremlab.com/STAR 13
Slide with Permission: Gavin Grant, Geosyntec
Column Experiments
Video
Video accelerated 50 times
www.siremlab.com/STAR 14
Slide with Permission: Gavin Grant, Geosyntec
10/20/2011
8
Column Experiments
Base Case TC Profiles
1300
1400
Distance from
Pre‐Heating CombustionSelf‐sustained Combustion Cooling
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Tempe
rature (oC)
2 cm
3 cm
4 cm
5 cm
6 cm
7 cm
8 cm
9 cm
10 cm
11 cm
12 cm
13 cm
14 cm
Distance from Heater
AirFlow Initiated
All NAPL Destroyed
www.siremlab.com/STAR 15
0
100
200
300
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (min)
15 cm
16 cm
Heating Element Turned
Off
Slide with Permission: Gavin Grant, Geosyntec
Sludge Test
Before TreatmentTPH 37 000 mg/kg
After TreatmentTPH BTEX < 0 1mg/kgTPH 37,000 mg/kg TPH, BTEX < 0.1mg/kg
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 16
Photos with permission: Gavin Grant, Geosyntec
10/20/2011
9
SaFE Summary
Low Energy Requirements
Heater used to heat small volume of soil (i.e. 10 to 15 cm of soil)( )
Heat generated from combustion used to drive ongoing reaction
Reaction controlled by airflow (needs forced air supply to propogate)
Simple to Apply
Resembles a bio-pile (slotted steel pipe, heating element & )
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
compressor)
Threshold concentration of TPH ≈ 10,000 mg/kg (1 percent oil) for sustainable reaction but option to blend to treat lower concentration material
SaFE Next Steps
Lab Testing
Air emissions, oil/soil ratio, air-flow rates, ,
Large Scale Pilot Vessel (late 2011)
Testing of Full Scale Reactor in Western Australia (mid 2012)
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
Peer Reviewed Literature
Switzer et al., 2009. Environmental Science and Technology, 43, pp. 5871–5877.
Pironi et al., 2011. Environmental Science and Technology, 45, pp. 2980–2986.
10/20/2011
10
Conceptualised Full Scale Reactor
3 m
10 m
Blended sludge, waste soil, etc.
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 19
Reusable sandy fill
Passive GroundwaterSampling
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 20
10/20/2011
11
What is Passive Groundwater Sampling
Sample groundwater from aquifer without pumping, agitation or other form of disturbance
Avoids mixing & entrainment of insoluble material
Avoids volatilisation & degradation losses caused by aeration
Sample without purging
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 21
Why Do We Purge Wells?
Regulatory Requirement
“Representativeness”p
Tradition? (Because we like to work hard)
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 22
10/20/2011
12
Ambient Groundwater Flow Concept –Hydraulics Control Flow Through Wells
Groundwater & Contaminants Flow Through Wells
Scientifically proven processy p p
– Field Scale Evaluation of the Passive Flux Meter for Simultaneous Measurement of Groundwater & Contaminant Fluxes, Annable et al. ES&T, 2005, 39, 7194-7201
– “Natural background flow in a moderate permeability sand flushed tracers from an isolated screen interval in 24 hours or less.” Robin & Gillham, 1987, Ground Water Monitoring Review, v. 7, no. 4, p. 85-93
Low-flow sampling recommended by US EPA relies on the same
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
Low flow sampling recommended by US EPA relies on the same natural flow through conditions
23
Dye source with gravity feed to injection port
Upgradient/
Piezometers
Effluent reservoir
DTSC Sand Tank Well Model
Upgradient/ influent reservoir
Dye port
Constant head reservoir
Water
reservoir
Simulated 4-inch well
supply bucket
Influent supply from constant head reservoir Effluent drain
Britt, SL, 2005, Testing the Horizontal Laminar Flow Assumption with a Sand Tank Well Model, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Summer issue p. 73-81.
Slide with permission: Sandy Brit, ProHydro Inc.
10/20/2011
13
In-Well mixing/homogenization
21:00 hrs
Britt, 2005 experiments, homogeneous flow field
21:00 hrs. seepage velocity:
~0.5 ft/day
6h 9h 12h 15h 18hSlide with permission: Sandy Brit, ProHydro Inc.
Done correctly, passive equilibrationis very similar to purge sampling
The Take Away?
• Natural flow delivered to well
• Ambient / passive mixing according to native flow dynamics
• Flow weighted averaging effect
26
• Flow-weighted averaging effect
A dedicated passive sampling system can take advantage of this
phenomenon
Slide with permission: Sandy Brit, ProHydro Inc.
10/20/2011
14
Passive Sampling Presently Not Widely Used
Several commercially available methods
Passive Diffusion Bag®g
Hydrosleeve ®
Not widely used in the industry
Suitability is often limited to a narrow range of chemicals & parameters
Data quality reliant on operator technique or method application
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
Data quality reliant on operator technique or method application
Poor data reproducibility & correlation with low-flow methods
27
Data Comparison – PDB® vs Low Flow Sampling
R2 = 0.79 for VOCs
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 28
Parsons, 2005, Demonstration of No-Purge Groundwater Sampling Devices, McClellan AFB, Sacramento, CA (with Permission – Sandy Britt, ProHydro Inc.
10/20/2011
15
Data Comparison – PDB® vs HydroSleeve®
R2 = 0.38 for VOCs
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 29
Parsons, 2005, Demonstration of No-Purge Groundwater Sampling Devices, McClellan AFB, Sacramento, CA (with Permission – Sandy Britt, ProHydro Inc.
What’s Changed
SNAP Sampler
Dedicated (i.e. one per well) passive sampling system( p ) p p g y
Deploy open, double sided bottles within screened interval in a well
Sample after either a short or long duration
– (e.g. One week or many months)
Bottles sealed in the well & below the water table & transferred to laboratory for insertion onto auto-sampler (no vacuum, mixing or exposure to tubing, pump or air)
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
exposure to tubing, pump or air)
30
10/20/2011
16
www.SnapSampler.com
31Equipment Design Award Technical Guidance DSP-5 Demonstration/Validation ER-0630
Slide with permission: Sandy Brit, ProHydro Inc.
How the Snap Sampler works….
Insert
Set “Snap Caps”
32
40ml VOA vial 125ml & 350ml
Poly
Slide with permission: Sandy Brit, ProHydro Inc.
10/20/2011
17
Data Comparison – SNAP Sampler® vs Low Flow
R2 = 0 99 for all analyte
Snap Sampler vs. Low Flow
)
40ml
125ml
R = 0.99 for all analyte comparisons to low flow
am
ple
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(g
/L)
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 33
Parsons, 2005, Demonstration of No-Purge Groundwater Sampling Devices, McClellan AFB, Sacramento, CA (with Permission – Sandy Britt, ProHydro Inc.
Little Scatter
Low Flow Purge Sample Concentration (g/L)
Sn
ap
Sa
Example Data Variation
140
160
ter
Example Data Variation
140
160
ter
Improved Reproducibility
Purge Sealed in situ
Pump purge and bail sample Passive Snap Sample
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Sampling Quarter
TC
E m
icro
gra
ms
per
lit
purge 24.3 134 54.9 120 28.9 92.7 71 5.6 12.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
20
40
60
80
100
120
Sampling Quarter
TC
E m
icro
gra
ms
per
lit
Snap 56.9 72.6 64.1 103.0 39.7 65.6 40.9 50.8 50.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Range: 5.6 to 134Median RPD Q to Q: 94%
Sampling Quarter Sampling Quarter
Range: 39.7 to 103Median RPD Q to Q: 35%
2/3 reduction in 2/3 reduction in Q’lyQ’ly changechangeBritt, Sanford L., Beth Parker, John Cherry, 2010, New Downhole Sampling System to Avoid Bias and
Error in Groundwater Sample Handling, Env. Sci, & Technol. 44(13):4917-23
Slide with permission: Sandy Brit, ProHydro Inc.
10/20/2011
18
Interpretation is Easier With Less Random Error –
<<Purge<< >>Snap>> >>Snap>><<Purge<<
63%reduction in variability
48%
54%reduction in variability
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 35
<<Purge<< >>Snap>>
48%reduction in variability
10 years of monitoring data from an anonymous site near Los Angeles, CAWith permission: Sandy Britt, ProHydro Inc
Summary – SNAP Sampler
Improved data quality
Less scatter & random error
Less potential for entrainment & false positives
Improved Consistency
Easier to identify and analyse trends
Better able to recognise and react to changes
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 36
10/20/2011
19
Summary – Other Advantages
Less equipment use following deployment
Re-usable
No pumps
Negligible waste (no purge water)
Less time in field
80% reduction in field time, no manual handling of waste water
Cost savings of greater than 50%
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
Western Australia Department of Environment & Conservation endorsement of the technology in 2010
37
Snap Sampler – References
Britt, Sanford L., Beth Parker, John Cherry, 2010, New Downhole Sampling System to Avoid Bias and Error in Groundwater Sample Handling, Env. Sci, & Technol 44(13):4917 23& Technol. 44(13):4917-23.
“Best groundwater sampling method available today” – Personnel communication, Dr. John Cherry, May 2010
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 38
10/20/2011
20
Thanks For Listening
Questions……….
© 2011 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 39