ENVIRON. RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SITES

nullnullFUNDAMENTALS OF CONTAMINATED SITE TREATMENT 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 (h.inyang26@gmail.com) September, 2010nullExamples of option categories and specific options (option categories have greater performance uncertainties and specific options).nullA surface pond polluted by crude oil and brine behind Prof. H. I. Inyang, outside the City of Nizhnevartovsk, RussianullOne of the several ponds polluted by oil leakages and drainage in the Samotlor Oil Field in the Khanty-Mansisk Region of Western Siberia, Russia nullillustration of the spatial distribution of biogeochemical zones that may occur at a site contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. (NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER User’s Guide UG-2035-ENV, 1999) CRITERIA FOR WASTE CLASSIFICATION AS BEING HAZARDOUSCRITERIA FOR WASTE CLASSIFICATION AS BEING HAZARDOUSCorrosivity Ignitability Reactibility Toxicity CORROSIVITY pH < 2 or > 12.5 Corrodes steel at the rate of  6035 mm/yearIGNITABILITYIGNITABILITYSubstance is a liquid with a flash point < 60o C Non-liquid that can cause fire and burns vigorously when ignited Compressed gas Oxidizer 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 RISK AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE STORAGE SYSTEMSRISK AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE STORAGE SYSTEMSIN = 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:Control of Risks through Design, Siting and Management Options Control of Risks through Design, Siting and Management Options nullSUMMARY 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.pdfnullSOIL AND GROUNDWATER ACTION LEVELS AND RISK GOALS AT EXAMPLE SUPERFUND METAL-CONTAMINATED SITES (USEPA, 1995)nullSOIL AND GROUNDWATER ACTION LEVELS AND RISK GOALS AT EXAMPLE SUPERFUND METAL-CONTAMINATED SITES (USEPA, 1995) (CONT’D)CLEANUP LEVELS FOR HYDROCARBON-CONTAMINATED SOIL – MASSACHUSETTS (STOKMAN/SOGOKA, 98)CLEANUP LEVELS FOR HYDROCARBON-CONTAMINATED SOIL – MASSACHUSETTS (STOKMAN/SOGOKA, 98)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 RATINGS OF THE RELATIVE EASE OF CLEANING UP OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER (MACDONALD AND KAVANAUGH, 1994)RATINGS OF THE RELATIVE EASE OF CLEANING UP OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER (MACDONALD AND KAVANAUGH, 1994)1 is easiest and 4 is most difficult DNAPL = Dense Nonaqueous-phase liquid LNAPL = Light Nonaqueous-phase liquidChange of waste hazardous characteristics fits within the following general hazard reduction techniquesChange of waste hazardous characteristics fits within the following general hazard reduction techniquesChanges in chemical function of the contamination to reduce mobility Changes in chemical form to reduce toxicity Changes in form to reduce volume Changes in characteristics of the contaminant transport media Removal of waste from the siteGENERAL TYPES OF WASTE TREATMENT APPROACHESGENERAL 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 BASIC APPROACHES TO MITIGATING HAZARDOUS CHARACTERISTICSBASIC APPROACHES TO MITIGATING HAZARDOUS CHARACTERISTICSSoil TechnologiesSoil TechnologiesBioremediation (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 Groundwater TechnologiesGroundwater TechnologiesAir sparging Bioremediation (in situ) Dual-phase extraction In-situ oxidation In-situ well aeration Passive treatment wallsTREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SELECTION APPROACHESTREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SELECTION APPROACHESFactors considered: Chemical Factors Effectiveness of technology relative to the chemistry and concentrations of contaminants, affected by: a) Reaction conditions b) Concentration variations c) Composition variations Physical Factors Effectiveness of the technology with respect to media of concern. 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 technologyASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A TECHNOLOGYASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A TECHNOLOGYBench scale treatability studies For demonstrated technologies, Duration: 2 - 6 weeks Cost: $10,000 - $50,000 For innovative technologies, Duration: 4 – 16 weeks Cost: $25,000 - $200,000 ASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A TECHNOLOGYASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF A TECHNOLOGYB) Plot scale treatability studies For demonstrated technologies with available testing units Duration: 3 – 12 months Costs: $100,000 - $ 1milion These studies are conducted if, The level of certainty of success of technology is low Consequence of failure of technology is high SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: TREATMENT TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGYSUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: TREATMENT TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGYnullSUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: TREATMENT TRAINS WITH INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY (Cont’d)Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition), EPA-542-R-03-009, February 2004 nullSchematic illustration of the arrangement of injection extraction, treatment and disposal network for reactants used in enhancement 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 nullPulsed pumping removal of residual contaminants from saturated media (EPA, 1996, Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation A Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners) nullSchematic illustration of solubility and diffusion limitations to pump-and-treat Systems: (a) Contaminants are mobilized; (b) sorption of contaminant onto mineral surfaceUSEPA - Introduction to Pump-and-Treat Remediation – http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/pumptreat/pumpdoc.pdf ALKYLBENZENE SULFONATEALKYLBENZENE SULFONATEAn illustration of the configuration of a type of surfactant (USEPA, 1992)Hydrophobic Moiety Hydrophobic MoietyAGGREGATION OF SURFACTANT MOLECULES INTO A MICELLE (USEPA, 1992)AGGREGATION OF SURFACTANT MOLECULES INTO A MICELLE (USEPA, 1992)Model of an Air Sparging SystemModel of an Air Sparging SystemTreatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Ninth Edition), EPA-542-R99-001, Number 9, April 1999 VAPOR PRESSURE OF COMMON PETROLEUM CONSTITUENTS (USEPA, 1995)VAPOR PRESSURE OF COMMON PETROLEUM CONSTITUENTS (USEPA, 1995)THE MOST PREVALENT NATURAL ATTENUATION MECHANISM (USEPA, 1995)THE MOST PREVALENT NATURAL ATTENUATION MECHANISM (USEPA, 1995)nullSCHEMATIC OF CROSSHOLE SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY IMAGING SYSTEM (US DOE, 1994A)Model of PhytoremediationModel of Phytoremediation(Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)Model of PhytoremediationModel of PhytoremediationIllustration of nickel uptake through the process of phytoremediation (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)Model of PhytoremediationModel of PhytoremediationIllustration of nickel uptake through the process of phytoremediation (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)Model of PhytoremediationModel of PhytoremediationIllustration of nickel uptake through the process of phytoremediation (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)Model of PhytoremediationModel of PhytoremediationIllustration of nickel uptake through the process of phytoremediation (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)Model of PhytoremediationModel of PhytoremediationTreatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Ninth Edition), EPA-542-R99-001, Number 9, April 1999 EXAMPLES OF HYPERACCUMULATORS OF METALS (USEPA, 1996B)EXAMPLES OF HYPERACCUMULATORS OF METALS (USEPA, 1996B)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 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 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 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 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)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 BIORECLAMATION (USEPA, 1986)A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER BIORECLAMATION (USEPA, 1986)nullnullIllustration of the effects of Oxygen access on biodegradation of a contaminant plume (USEPA, 1995)REFRACTORY INDICES OF SOME ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (data from Lyman et al; 1982)REFRACTORY INDICES OF SOME ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (data from Lyman et al; 1982)REFRACTORY INDICES OF SOME ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (data from Lyman et al; 1982) (cont’d)REFRACTORY INDICES OF SOME ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (data from Lyman et al; 1982) (cont’d)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)BOD5/COD RATIOS FOR VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Lyman et al; 1982)nullPrincipal mechanisms through which chlorinated hydrocarbons reduced by iron (Wilson, 1995)nullSuggested pathways for the reduction of chloroethylenes by zero-valent iron (courtesy of undated USEPA information sheet)nullnullEffects of zero-valent iron metal surface area concentration on pseudo-first-order reaction rate constant for nitrobenzene reduction (Agrawal and Tratnyek, 1996)A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF IN SITU VITRIFICATION PROCESS IN WHICH ELECTRODES ARE USED FOR HEAT APPLICATION A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF IN SITU VITRIFICATION PROCESS IN WHICH ELECTRODES ARE USED FOR HEAT APPLICATION (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov/)nullAn example of a silicate glass network structure (Mc Lelland and Strand, 1984)TYPICAL RANGES OF OXIDE COMPOSITIONS IN SODA-LIME GLASS, BOROSILLICATE GLASS AND IN SITU VITRIFIED (ISV) GLASS (COMPILED BY USEPA, 1992)TYPICAL RANGES OF OXIDE COMPOSITIONS IN SODA-LIME GLASS, BOROSILLICATE GLASS AND IN SITU VITRIFIED (ISV) GLASS (COMPILED BY USEPA, 1992)APPROXIMATE RANGES OF SOLUBILITY OF ELEMENTS IN SILICATE GLASSES (Volf, 1984)APPROXIMATE RANGES OF SOLUBILITY OF ELEMENTS IN SILICATE GLASSES (Volf, 1984)TCLP EXTRACT METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE FROM IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY VITRIFIED SOILS (USEPA, 1994b)TCLP EXTRACT METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE FROM IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY VITRIFIED SOILS (USEPA, 1994b)ORGANICS DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES (DRE) RECORDED FOR CONTAMINATED MEDIA VITRIFICATION SYSTEMS (HWC, 1990)ORGANICS DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES (DRE) RECORDED FOR CONTAMINATED MEDIA VITRIFICATION SYSTEMS (HWC, 1990)COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY COMPOUNDS IN PORTLAND CEMENTCOMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY COMPOUNDS IN PORTLAND CEMENTnullSchematic 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 (USEPA, 1997)ELECTROACOUSTICAL SOIL DECONTAMINATION PROCESS (USEPA, 1997)Model of PhytoremediationModel of PhytoremediationIllustration of nickel uptake through the process of phytoremediation (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable - http://www.frtr.gov)