Stabilizing the NAPL Threat
by Jim Mueller and Joanna Moreno, Adventus Group, and Matthew Dingens and Phil Vella, Carus Chemical Corp.
March 1, 2007
Nature of the problem
Non-aqueous
phase liquids (NAPLs) and other hydrocarbon residuals can represent long-term
sources of groundwater contaminants. Excavation and disposal often represent
the most rapid and effective means of removing these source materials from the
environment. However, such an approach is not always physically possible, hence
in-situ source area management strategies are employed.
In-situ source management strategy
In-situ biogeochemical stabilization (ISBS) represents a
potential means of removing NAPL mass, and reducing flux of organic and
inorganic constituents of interest (COI) into groundwater. ISBS entails the use
of a specifically modified (catalyzed, buffered) solution of sodium
permanganate (NaMnO 4) or potassium permanganate (KMnO 4)
that is introduced into a targeted source zone suspected to contain residual
COI.
As relatively small amounts of oxidant migrate horizontally and vertically
through the targeted source area, various bio-geochemical reactions destroy COI
present in the dissolved phase. This, in turn, increases the release of COI
from NAPLs into the aqueous phase. The more water-soluble, lower
molecular-weight constituents (e.g. benzene, naphthalene) are treated/removed
at a proportionally higher rate, thus leading to a hardening or so-called
“chemical weathering” of the NAPL as it steadily loses its more labile
components. This increases the viscosity of the NAPL, resulting in a more
stable residual mass.
As a result, the flux of COI released into the dissolved phase is significantly
reduced and natural attenuation processes are more easily capable of managing
associated plumes (e.g. dissolved manganese is an effective electron acceptor
supporting bioremediation processes) [1].
In the presence of an organic compound (R), MnO 4-
reactions yield an oxidized intermediate (RO X) or CO 2
plus MnO 2 (R + MnO 4- ≤ MnO 2
+ CO 2 or RO X). More importantly,
when catalyzed via ISBS treatment, MnO 2 precipitates
will physically stabilize NAPL residuals by the formation of catalyzed
manganese dioxide so called “crusts” or “shells” at the organic interface. This
physical encapsulation decreases the permeability of the aquifer adjacent to
the NAPL and further reduces the COI flux.
 |
| SEM photograph showing uniform coating of ISBS treated
soil. Red arrows are the inside lighter region, blue arrows are the outside
darker region and yellow arrows show the dried crust from the addition of
RemOx-EC. |
|
|
Technology development, demonstration and validation
In 1997, basic technology development using non-catalyzed
permanganate was conducted in collaboration with the University of Waterloo [2,3].
Multiple field-scale technology validation efforts were conducted between 2001
and 2003, and full scale implementations began in 2004. Details on some of
these efforts are given below.
In 2002, pilot scale field studies were initiated at an operating wood
treatment facility in Colorado where NAPL creosote (PAHs) and pentachlorophenol
were found over an 11,000 cu. meter volume in consolidated shallow alluvium
deposit. Approximately 24,050 gallons of a 3-percent aqueous potassium
permanganate (KMnO 4) solution were injected into 13
locations within a defined test area (75 x 95 x 10 feet deep).
Performance monitoring was conducted for six months to evaluate the ability of
ISBS to stabilize the free-phase NAPL residuals and enhance the natural
attenuation processes by: A) mitigating the migration of NAPL; B) reducing the
concentration of COI in the dissolved phase; C) decreasing the mass of NAPL
residuals (source reduction); and D) reducing the flux of COI from NAPL
residuals (especially true with MnO 2 precipitate). Field
data showed rapid and complete stabilization of NAPL. In addition, mass was
reduced by 10 to 79 percent, and the flux of COI was reduced by 56 to 99
percent.
In December 2003, full-scale application of the technology at the Denver site
was approved by the state (Colorado DPHE) and federal (EPA Region 8)
regulators, and subsequently completed in May 2004. A total of 82,553 gallons
of KMnO 4 at 30 g/L (3 percent) was added to 44 injection
points, and 9,789 gallons were applied to three trenches (90 gal/LF trench),
yielding a total 10,495 kg KMnO 4 for 4.5 g KMnO 4
per kg of soil.
There was a discernible decrease over time in the thickness of the NAPL layer
only for those monitoring piezometers located within the treatment area.
Changes in NAPL thickness were not observed outside of the treated area,
suggesting that NAPL migration did not occur. Flux reduction should have a
significant beneficial affect, thereby accelerating the contraction (i.e.,
remediation by natural attenuation) of the dissolved phase plume at this site.
Engineering optimization efforts for other projects showed that the generic
ISBS technology was not directly applicable to all sites due to variations in
soil chemistry and mineralogy. Subsequent development of catalyzed, buffered
ISBS reagents resolved these problems, yielding significant reductions in soil
permeability (less than 98 percent) after only seven days treatment [4].
In addition, the amount of high-molecular weight PAHs leached from the soils
after seven days of treatment dropped to 60 percent of that emanating from the
control; low molecular weight PAHs decreased by 52 percent, and
pentachlorophenol decreased by 96 percent.
 |
| Notice the telltale
purple color of the trench water due to the KMnO4
(acknowledgement to Orin Remediation Technologies – Madison, Wisc., and
GeoTrans, Inc. Denver). |
|
|
Application issues to consider
Proper selection, subsequent regulatory approval and
ultimate field implementation of the ISBS technology require understanding and
acceptance of the case for partial mass removal and flux reduction [5].
To date, two other main issues have also been identified and addressed
accordingly:
The first is potential for NAPL mobilization. The ISBS reagents are usually
applied at 1 to 5 percent of the calculated oxidant demand, which limits the
volume of material introduced into the subsurface. However, at some sites, NAPL
residuals are present as phase-separated hydrocarbons existing as discrete
pools and ganglia. There is always a potential concern associated with NAPL
mobilization (this is especially relevant when treating NAPL with surface
active agents such as surfactants or other emulsifiers/oils).
The potential for NAPL mobilization during injection can be limited by first
installing them around the edges of the targeted source and working inward.
They also can be evaluated in advance of injections by numerical modeling of
the effects of injection on hydraulic gradients, and analytical modeling of the
effects of this change in gradient on NAPL mobility.
For example, the potential effect of ISBS amendment injections on NAPL
mobilization at a site in Florida was analyzed using a simple, one-layer
Modflow/MT3D model of the amendment injection array. The model calculations
assumed the use of nine injection locations throughout the entire saturated
thickness of the target aquifer, at a rate of 3.5 GPM for seven hours at each
location.
Hydraulic gradient calculations required to mobilize residual and pooled NAPL
were made using the equations presented in Dense Chlorinated Solvents [6].
These calculations showed that:
If the residual NAPL is in connected fingers, the horizontal hydraulic gradient
would have to be doubled from 0.007 to 0.014 ft/ft to start incipient
mobilization of NAPL through the coarsest pores, and
If the residual NAPL is in smaller scale residual ganglia or blobs, then an
additional horizontal hydraulic gradient greater than 3 ft/ft would be required
to start incipient NAPL mobilization.
Also, the ISBS injection volume will create a negligible change in local
groundwater concentrations after 40 days or more have elapsed, due to
displacing in-situ groundwater. And the expected increase in horizontal
hydraulic gradient due to amendment injection, during the brief injection
period, is incapable of mobilizing NAPL at this site whether the NAPL is in
residual or pooled form.
The second main issue is long-term stability. Common questions include “what is
the composition of the crust” and “how long will the crust last?” Analyses of
so-called ISBS “crusts” generated with MGP contaminated and other soils have
shown that these physical coatings are similar in structure and composition to
Birnessite, which is an oxide of manganese and magnesium along with sodium,
calcium, potassium and other minerals. Scanning electron microscopy has
determined how these crusts form in soil. Preliminary calculations of crust
longevity suggest an effective lifetime of several hundred years. However, this
may represent an overestimate under some in-situ conditions because the
calculations assumed Eh -400mV and a pH of 6 (at which Birnessite is sparingly
soluble).
 |
| The
treatment chemicals are being fed into the injection points in the photograph
above. |
|
|
Conclusions
Comparing ISBS to alternate NAPL technologies, the approach
has various potential advantages.
Extraction techniques are limited by the rate of flushing and the rate of
partitioning between NAPL and mobile phases, whereas ISBS treats NAPL, soil and
groundwater contamination simultaneously and in-situ without the requirement of
large volumes of injectant.
In-situ thermal treatment is resource intensive, and conventional chemical
oxidation can require the introduction of large volumes of fluids, potentially
mobilizing NAPL products. ISBS does not require much infrastructure or the
injection of large volumes of oxidant to offset natural oxidant requirements
resulting in a reduction in capital and manpower expenditures.
Enhanced bioremediation techniques may not be able to handle the complex
mixtures of contaminants typically encountered. Some contaminants require
aerobic treatment and others require anaerobic treatment, whereas ISBS will
treat all of the typical COIs along with certain heavy metals, in particular
divalent cations such as lead, mercury, etc.
Total project costs for full-scale ISBS treatment at the sites described in
this paper have ranged from $45 to $80 per cu. meter. Soil and groundwater
treatment was achieved rapidly (within two to three months) and without rebound
to date (stable for at least five years). PE
|