Upload
javan
View
30
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Welcome to ITRC’s Internet Training. Historical Case Analysis of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound Plumes March 1999. Sponsored by the ITRC, EPA-TIO & Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Today’s Presenters. Greg Bartow, R.G., CH.g. California RWQCB [email protected] - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Welcome to ITRC’s Internet Training
Historical Case Analysis of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound Plumes
March 1999
Sponsored by the ITRC, EPA-TIO &
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
2
Today’s Presenters
Greg Bartow, R.G., CH.g. California RWQCB [email protected]
Walt McNab Environmental Protection Department,
Lawrence Livermore National Lab [email protected]
David Rice Environmental Protection Department,
Lawrence Livermore National Lab [email protected]
3
Presentation Overview
About the ITRC
Description of the methodology and results of a statistical evaluation of hydrologic and contaminant data from chlorinated compound contaminated plumes
Questions and Answers
Wrap-up and Links to additional
information and resources
4
Who’s Involved?
STATE-LED INITIATIVE WITH: 38 States (and growing)
Sponsoring State Organizations
Environmental Western Southern States
Council of Governors’ Energy Board
the States Association Public/Tribal Stakeholders
Industry Representatives
DOE US EPA DOD
5
Creating Tools and Strategies to Reduce Technical and Regulatory Barriers to the Deployment of Innovative Environmental Technologies
In Situ BioremediationDNAPLs/In Situ Chemical OxidationPermeable Reactive WallsRadionuclides
Unexploded OrdnanceIn Situ BiodenitrificationPhytoremediationVerification Diffusion Sampler
Active ITRC States
6
Understand the factors affecting behavior of the CVOC plumes in ground water from a broad, statistically oriented perspective
Enhance your understanding of plume behavior through examination of data from many sites
Allow you to focus on the major factors influencing plume behavior increase the efficiency of planning site investigations and cleanup
Purpose of this Training
7
CVOC Historical Case Analysis — Goals
Gather case information from over 200 VOC plumes Nation-wide “plumathon” DOE, DOD, Industry, ITRC States, EPA
Perform analysis that is defensible and peer reviewed Expert Working Task Force Expert Peer Review Panel
Findings and Conclusions based on case analysis Working Task Force prepares Peer Review Panel reviews
Recommendations for Policy Change Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Task Force
(ITRC) prepares Peer Review Panel reviews
8
Working Task Force
Greg Bartow—California RWQCB Jacob Bear—Technion Institute of Technology Mike Brown/Paul Zielinski—DOE Patrick Haas—DOD/USAF Herb Levine—EPA Curt Oldenburg/Tom McKone—LBL Mike Kavanaugh—Industry Bill Mason/Paul Hadley—ITRC Doug Mackay/Christina Hubbard—University of Waterloo Mohammad Kolhadooz—Industry Mike Pound—DOD/USN Dave Rice (Initiative Coordinator)—LLNL Heidi Temko—California SWRCB Cary Tuckfield—Savannah River Technology Center Walt McNab (Data Analysis Team Leader)—LLNL Richard Ragaini (Data Collection Team Leader)—LLNL
9
Peer Review Panel
David Ellis–Dupont Lorne Everett–UC Santa Barbara/Geraghty & Miller Marty Faile–USAFCEE William Kastenberg–University of California, Berkeley Perry McCarty–Stanford University Hanadi Rifai–Rice University Lenny Siegel—Pacific Studies Center Todd Wiedemeier–Parson’s Engineering John Wilson–U.S. EPA, ORD
10
CVOC Historical Case Analysis — Potential Benefits to Nation
What are the advantages to looking at CVOC plumes nationwide?
Similar sites can share common lessons learned High or Low risk VOC release scenarios can be identified
Help understand where natural attenuation may be applicable
Reduced Cleanup Costs Focus characterization costs on those factors that most
influence plume behavior
Technology Market Identified Analysis of large number of cases identifies technology needs
Defines technology functional requirements
11
VOC Historical Case Analysis — Hypothesis & Questions
Hypothesis: Chlorinated solvent cases have natural groupings
Hypothesis: These groupings can identify sites that have common predictable characteristics
12
CVOC Historical Case Analysis — Specific Questions
How often is a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) inferred to be present.
Are Plumes with possible DNAPLS longer?
How often is there evidence of transformation processes
Are plumes with CVOC transformations shorter?
Do daughter product plumes behave differently compared to parent CVOC plumes?
13
Historical Case Analysis: A New Data Model
Much of our knowledge of plume behavior comes from well-instrumented research sites.
Much of the CVOC groundwater data is collected at poorly-instrumented sites targeted for cleanup.
Historical case analyses offers a means for systematically analyzing these data.
14
Project Scope
Collect hydrogeologic and contaminant data from many sites reflecting diverse environmental and release settings.
Estimate representative values for key variables.
Employ statistical methods to assess relationships between dependent and independent variables.
Validate results with probabilistic modeling.
Source termAdvection
Transformation
15
Rules, Definitions, and Assumptions
“Plume” defined per CVOC per site.
Minimum site characterization requirements.
Site exclusion criteria.
Daylighting plumes.
Plumes undergoing active pump-and-treat.
Plumes that were highly complex as a result of unusual conditions.
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4 MW-6
MW-5
MW-7
Plume length (10 ppb)
(100 ppb)
Length = Distance from location of max. historical concentration to distal 10-ppb contour.
16
Definitions of Major Variables
Independent variables
Source strength
Mean groundwater velocity
Reductive dehalogenation category assignment
Dependent variables
Plume length
Change in plume length over time (growth rate)
17
Project Data Set
65 sites included in initial study; over 100 in current data set.
Data from a variety of release scenarios and sources:
D.o.D. and D.O.E. facilities
Dry cleaners
Commercial industrial sites
Landfills
CVOC 10 ppb plumes
100 ppb plumes
1000 ppb plumes
TCE 55 37 19 PCE 32 20 8 1,1-DCE 29 17 8 Cis-1,2-DCE 29 17 7 1,1,1-TCA 23 16 9 Vinyl chloride 20 10 4 1,1-DCA 18 10 2 Chloroform 8 1 0 Trans-1,2-DCE 8 0 0 Carbon tetrachloride 7 2 1 1,1,2-TCA 6 0 0 1,2-DCA 6 2 0 Chloroethane 2 1 0 Chloromethane 2 0 0 Methylene chloride 1 1 0 1,1,2,2-TCA 1 0 0 TOTAL 247 134 58
18
Plume Length Distributions
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Plu
me
le
ng
th (
ft)
10th 25th 50th 75th 90th
Percentile
Benzene vs. CVOC plume lengths
Benzene
CVOCs
19
Plume Length and Source Strength
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Max. concentration (ppb)
Plu
me
len
gth
(ft
)
R = 0.40, p = 2 x 10-6
100-ppb plumes
20
Groundwater Velocity
Mean groundwater velocity, v, estimated from Darcy’s law:
Geometric mean K estimated from site pumping tests and slug tests.
Mean hydraulic gradient from potentiometric surface maps.
Mean porosity assumed to be equal to 0.25.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-4.5 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
Log groundwater velocity (ft/day)
No
. of
sit
es
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Pro
ba
bili
ty d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Observation Probability distribution
50th percentile ~ 0.2 ft/day
10th percentile ~ 0.005 ft/day
90th percentile ~ 6 ft/day
21Log plume length (ft)
Lo
g v
elo
city
(ft
/day
)
Plume Length and Groundwater Velocity
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3
r = 0.46, p = 0.006R = 0.46, p = 0.006
22
Reductive Dehalogenation
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Con
c. (
mg/
L)
No RD Weak RD Strong RD
Median geochemical parameter values from 90th
percentile at each site
Total xylenes
Alkalinity
Mn(II)
No reductive dehalogenation group: 23 sites, no daughter products
Weak reductive dehalogenation group: 18 sites, cis-12,-DCE but no vinyl chloride
Strong reductive dehalogenation group: 20 sites, cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride
23
Example: Reductive Dehalogenation at Site 41350001
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 100000.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
VC Benzene Cl-
PCE conc. (ppb)
VC
an
d b
enze
ne
(pp
b)
Cl - (ppm
)
Coincident PCE and vinyl chloride plumes
GW flow direction
24
Reductive Dehalogenation: Distributions of Plume Lengths
No RD
Weak RDStrong RD
0
10
20
300%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 10 100
1000
1000
010
...
ANOVA: No significant differences between distributions
No. of plumes
Logarithm of plume length (ft)
CD
F
Plume length (ft)
25
Where is the reductive dehalogenation effect?
Plume length reduction by reductive dehalogenation is subtle compared to groundwater velocity and source strength effects.
Biases in the data collection/analyses processes skew the results between groupings.
26
Biases in the Data Set
Site groundwater velocity contrasts:
For Strong-RD group, median groundwater velocity is 0.21 ft/day.
For No-RD group, 9 of 13 sites have mean velocities below the Strong-RD group median.0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08
No RD Strong RD
Cu
mul
ativ
e di
stri
buti
on
Max. site concentration (ppb)
Strong RD sites have significantly stronger source terms (p = 0.007).
Strong RD sites have significantly stronger source terms (p = 0.007).
27
Biases in Data Set (cont’d)
Site screening process may preferentially exclude certain types of sites:
Small source, low velocity, reductive dehalogenation very small plumes not likely to be well-monitored (excluded).
Large source, high velocity, no transformation very large plumes likely to be subject to early remediation (excluded).
Strong RD No RD
Plume length
No.
Strong RD No RD
Plume length
No.
28
Biases in the Data Set: Source Strength and Groundwater Velocity
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Maximum conc. (ppb) X mean site groundwater velocity (ft/day)
Cum
ulat
ive
dist
ribu
tion
No RD Strong RD
p = 0.018p = 0.018
29
Analysis of Covariance
510 ft1047 ftAdjusted geometric means (ANCOVA)
872 ft876 ftGeometric means of raw plume lengths
Sites with strong evidence of reductive
dehalogenation
Sites with no evidence of reductive
dehalogenation
30
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
C0 R,
v
Plume length
31
Probabilistic Modeling
0
50
100
150
200
250
Fre
qu
en
cy
1 3 5 7 9 11
-Log v (m/sec)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Fre
qu
en
cy
1 3 5 7 9 11
Decay rate (%/yr)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Fre
qu
en
cy
100 400 700 1000
Length (m)
Solute transport
model
Groundwater velocity
Degradation rate
v c D c c S Rc
t
Plume length
Sensitivity?
32
Simulation: Overview
C0 R,
v
Plume length
1/2z
1/2z
1/2y
1/2y
1/2
x
1/2x
1/2
x
x
0
x2
Zerf
x2
Zerf
x2
Y/2yerf
x2
Y/2yerf
tRv
2
/v4R1tRv
xerfc
v
4R11
2
xexp
8
Ct)y,C(x,
Monte Carlo analysis with Domenico (1987) model
Analytical solute transport solution used as model of “average” plume behavior.
Monte Carlo techniques used to generate a synthetic plume set.
Probability distributions of input variables developed from project database.
Two synthetic populations - one transforming and one stable - used to assess reductive dehalogenation effects.
33
Plume Length as a Function of Source Strength: Simulation vs. Observation
100
1000
10000
100000
10 1000 100000 10000000
Max. concentration (ppb)
Plu
me
leng
th (
ft)
R = 0.36
Simulated Plume Set
100
1000
10000
100000
10 1000 100000 10000000
Max. concentration (ppb)
Plu
me
leng
th (
ft)
R = 0.20
Observed Plume Set (10-ppb plumes)
34
Plume Length as a Function of Ground Water Velocity: Simulation vs. Observation
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Log plume length (ft)
Log
vel
ocit
y (f
t/da
y)
R = 0.64
Simulated Plume Set
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Log plume length (ft)
Log
vel
ocit
y (f
t/da
y)
R = 0.46
Observed Plume Set (10-ppb plumes)
35
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
100 1000 10000
Stable
Transforming
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
100 1000 10000
No RD
Strong RD
Contaminant Transformation and Plume Length: Simulation vs. Observation
p = 0.51
Simulated Plume LengthsC
um
ula
tive
dis
trib
uti
on
Plume length (ft)
p = 0.91
Observed Plume Lengths
Cu
mu
lati
ve d
istr
ibu
tion
Plume length (ft)
36
Analysis of Covariance: Model Output
705 ft991 ftAdjusted geometric means (ANCOVA)
884 ft790 ftGeometric means of raw plume lengths
Transforming plumes
Stable plumes
37
Temporal Analysis of CVOC Measurements in Wells
Analyze temporal trends in data to discern natural attenuation effects
Methodology: Rank-based linear regression
with time 5 or more distinct sampling
events R < -0.5 declining trend R > 0.5 increasing trend
36%
50%
14%
Declining No trend Increasing
TCE concentrations in 533 wells from 41 sites
38
Temporal Trends
0.912125Vinyl chloride
2.541533TCE
2.6201831,1-DCE
2.1171071,1-DCA
2.7855Chloroform
3.510341,2-DCA
2.12195PCE
3.91174TCE (+ vinyl chloride)
0.7497Carbon tetrachloride
1.21163Cis-1,2-DCE
4.5821Toluene
6.5191341,1,1-TCA
7.0935Benzene
Decline: increaseNo. of sitesNo. of wellsCompound
39
Ratio Analysis: 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCE
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Ratio of 1,1-DCE (ppb) to 1,1,1-TCA (ppb)
Cum
ulat
ive
dist
ribu
tion
TCA source < 500ft 500-1000 ft > 1000 ft
Median ratio at source: 0.25Median ratio at source: 0.25
Predicted ratio at 1000 ft, assuming mean groundwater velocity of 0.6 ft/day, reaction half-life of 2 years, and 0.2 mole DCE produced from each mole of TCA.
Predicted ratio at 1000 ft, assuming mean groundwater velocity of 0.6 ft/day, reaction half-life of 2 years, and 0.2 mole DCE produced from each mole of TCA.
40
Principal Component Analysis and Reductive Dehalogenation
0
2
4
6
8
10
<10%
10-2
0%
20-3
0%
30-4
0%
40-5
0%
50-6
0%
60-7
0%
70-8
0%
80-9
0%>90
%
012345678
<10%
10-2
0%
20-3
0%
30-4
0%
40-5
0%
50-6
0%
60-7
0%
70-8
0%
80-9
0%>90
%
Median = 74% Median = 74%
Median = 58% Median = 58% Median = 77% Median = 77%
No.
of
site
sN
o. o
f si
tes Results of PCA
Variance dominated by a single factor - GW flow regime?
Effect of reductive dehalogenation is apparent.
Results are independent of grouping strategy, i.e. no correlation with:
No. of CVOCs
No. of samples
41
Principal Component Analysis and Temporal Trends
R2 = 0.50
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80
Inferred plume age (yrs)
Fir
st c
ompo
nen
t va
rian
ce
con
trib
uti
on
26 sites26 sites
= site with evidence of reductive dehalogenation
42
Implications
Can historical case data be used to predict plume behavior?
Yes: Signals (i.e., expected patterns of plume behavior) can be detected through site-specific noise (i.e., heterogeneities, different disposal histories).
43
What are the key uncertainties associated with evaluating CVOC plume behavior using historical case data and what types of data are needed?
Ranges of groundwater velocities at sites (i.e., multiple pumping tests).
Geochemical indicator data (redox indicators, total soil organic carbon).
Implications
44
How may CVOC historical case analysis be used in CVOC cleanup decision-making?
Reference frame for comparative analyses of plumes at individual sites.
A set of bounds for typical plume behavior - GIS applications?
Prioritization of characterization and remediation.
Actuarial data for insurance on monitored natural attenuation.
Implications
45
Basic CVOC Plume Metrics*
compared to 1995 LLNL LUFT Study
Change in Plume Length, minimum 3 yrs of data. 29% increasing plume length (8%) 16% decreasing plume length (33%) 55% no statistically significant trend (59%)
Median length 1660 ft (130 ft)
90% less than 6300 ft (306 ft)(*Based on a review of 247 CVOC plumes from 65 sites)
46
Silicon Valley – About 125 CVOC Plumes including 24 Superfund SitesSan Francisco
San Francisco Bay Area
47
Non-Fuel Program:S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Remedial Actions at Significant Non-Fuel Sites
0
100
200
300
400
500
Nu
mb
er o
f A
ctio
ns
Source Control
Pump&Treat
Other Controls
There are nearly 600 significant non-fuel cases ranging from Superfund to small dry cleaners (not counting about 900 lower-risk sites)
65% have undertaken source control measures. This includes soil excavation and disposal/treatment, soil venting, soil vapor extraction, free product removal
About 36% have active groundwater cleanup in progress. This includes pump and treat systems, sparging, enhanced biodegradation, and innovative methods
About 13% have other engineering controls including capping and containment barriers
48
Overview
Study produces the first ever statistical analysis of data from CVOC sites.
More variability than LUFT sites.
Don’t look for major changes compared to LLNL LUFT Study.
Look for states, rather than authors, to recommend regulatory response.
Follow-up analysis to confirm results will likely be needed to increase acceptance.
49
Potential Regulatory Response #1
Finding: Unlike Lawrence Livermore 1995 LUFT Study, CVOC plumes show wide variability.
Response: Unlikely to see any “global” regulatory changes.
50
Potential Regulatory Response #2 - Plume Length
Finding: Reductive dehalogenation has less impact on plume length than source strength and groundwater velocity.
Potential Regulatory Response: Plumes with lower source strength and groundwater velocity may be better candidates for reductive dehalogenation - monitored natural attenuation remedies.
51
Potential Regulatory Response #3 Transformation Processes
Findings - Presence of Vinyl Chloride appears to indicate that reductive dehalogenation may be playing a role in reducing the extent of CVOC plumes.
Presence of cis-1,2 DCE w/out Vinyl Chloride appears to indicate reductive dehalogenation rates that are insufficient to effectively reduce extent of CVOC plumes.
Response: Focus Reductive Dehalogenation - Natural Attenuation remedies on sites with Vinyl Chloride.
52
Best Candidates for Reductive Dehalogenation - Monitored Natural Attenuation remedies appear to be:
Sites with Vinyl Chloride present,
Slow Groundwater Velocity,
Low Maximum Concentration.
53
Other potential regulatory outcomes:
Need greater focus on collecting data on: hydraulic conductivity organic carbon content in soil and groundwater
Initiative sites were heavily weighted in western U.S. thus findings may be easier to accept in the western vs. eastern states.
Findings of CVOC Initiative will likely need further confirmation prior to gaining wide spread acceptance.
54
Limitations
Data set is relatively small and may exhibit pronounced biases.
Findings are general and not necessarily applicable to individual sites.
55
Historical Analysis of CVOC Plumes
56
Wrap-up
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
57
Thank You!
Links to Additional Resources