1
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
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
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
4
Who’s Involved?STATE-LED INITIATIVE WITH:
� 38 States (and growing)� Sponsoring State Organizations
Environmental Western Southern StatesCouncil of Governors’ Energy Board
the States Association
� Public/Tribal Stakeholders� Industry Representatives
� DOE US EPA DOD
5
5
Creating Tools and Strategies to Reduce Technical and Regulatory Barriers to the Deployment of Innovative Environmental Technologies
�In Situ Bioremediation�DNAPLs/In Situ Chemical Oxidation�Permeable Reactive Walls�Radionuclides
�Unexploded Ordnance�In Situ Biodenitrification�Phytoremediation�Verification�Diffusion Sampler
Active ITRC States
6
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-2MW-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
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
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
18
Plume Length Distributions
01000200030004000500060007000
Plum
e le
ngth
(ft)
10th 25th 50th 75th 90thPercentile
Benzene vs. CVOC plume lengths
BenzeneCVOCs
19
19
Plume Length and Source Strength
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10100
1000
10000
10000
0
10000
00
1000..
.
Max. concentration (ppb)
Plum
e le
ngth
(ft)
R = 0.40, p = 2 x 10-6
100-ppb plumes
20
20
Groundwater Velocity
� Mean groundwater velocity, v, estimated from Darcy’s law:
� Geometric mean Kestimated from site pumping tests and slug tests.
� Mean hydraulic gradient from potentiometricsurface maps.
� Mean porosity assumed to be equal to 0.25.
0123456789
10
-4.5 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
Log groundwater velocity (ft/day)
No. o
f site
s0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Prob
abili
ty d
istr
ibut
ion
Observation Probability distribution
50th percentile ~ 0.2 ft/day
10th
percentile ~ 0.005 ft/day
90th
percentile ~ 6 ft/day
21
21Log plume length (ft)
Log
velo
city
(ft/d
ay)
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
22
Reductive Dehalogenation
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000C
onc.
(mg/
L)
No RD Weak RD Strong RD
Median geochemical parameter values from 90th
percentile at each site
Total xylenesAlkalinityMn(II)
No reductive dehalogenationgroup: 23 sites, no daughter products
Weak reductive dehalogenation group: 18 sites, cis-12,-DCE but no vinyl chloride
Strong reductive dehalogenationgroup: 20 sites, cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride
23
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
and
ben
zene
(ppb
)
Cl -(ppm
)
Coincident PCE and vinyl chloride plumes
GW flow direction
24
24
Reductive Dehalogenation: Distributions of Plume Lengths
0.5 1.3 2.0 2.8 3.5 4.3
No RDWeak RD
Strong RD0
10
20
300%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 10100
1000
10000
10...
ANOVA: No significant differences between distributions
No. of plumes
Logarithm of plume length (ft)C
DF
Plume length (ft)
25
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
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
Cum
ulat
ive
dist
ribu
tion
Max. site concentration (ppb)
Strong RD sites have significantly stronger source terms (p = 0.007).
27
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 lengthN
o.
28
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 = 0.018
29
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
31
31
Probabilistic Modeling
0
50
100
150
200
250
Freq
uenc
y
1 3 5 7 9 11
-Log v (m/sec)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Freq
uenc
y
1 3 5 7 9 11
Decay rate (%/yr)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Freq
uenc
y
100 400 700 1000
Length (m)
Solute transport
model
Groundwater velocity
Degradation rate
− ⋅ ∇ + ∇ ⋅ ∇ − + =v c D c c S R ct
λ ∂∂
Plume length
Sensitivity?
32
32
Simulation: Overview
C0 R, λ
v
Plume length
( )
( )( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
−−
•
−−
+•
+−•
+−
=
1/2z
1/2z
1/2y
1/2y
1/2
x
1/2x1/2
x
x
0
x2Zerf
x2Zerf
x2Y/2yerf
x2Y/2yerf
tRv2
/v4R1tRvx
erfcv
4R112xexp
8Ct)y,C(x,
αααα
α
λαλαα
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
33
Plume Length as a Function of Source Strength: Simulation vs. Observation
100
1000
10000
100000
10 1000 100000 10000000
Max. concentration (ppb)
Plum
e le
ngth
(ft)
R = 0.36
Simulated Plume Set
100
1000
10000
100000
10 1000 100000 10000000
Max. concentration (ppb)
Plum
e le
ngth
(ft)
R = 0.20
Observed Plume Set (10-ppb plumes)
34
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
ocity
(ft/d
ay)
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)L
og v
eloc
ity (f
t/day
)
R = 0.46
Observed Plume Set (10-ppb plumes)
35
35
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
100 1000 10000
StableTransforming
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
100 1000 10000
No RDStrong RD
Contaminant Transformation and Plume Length: Simulation vs. Observation
p = 0.51
Simulated Plume Lengths
Cum
ulat
ive
dist
ribu
tion
Plume length (ft)
p = 0.91
Observed Plume LengthsC
umul
ativ
e di
stri
butio
n
Plume length (ft)
36
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
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
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
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: 0.25
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.
40
40
Principal Component Analysis and Reductive Dehalogenation
0
2
4
6
8
10
<10%
10-20
%20
-30%30
-40%40
-50%50
-60%60
-70%70
-80%80
-90%
>90%
012345678
<10%
10-20
%20
-30%30
-40%40
-50%50
-60%60
-70%70
-80%80
-90%
>90%
Median = 74%
Median = 58% Median = 77%
No.
of s
ites
No.
of s
ites
� 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
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)
Firs
t com
pone
nt v
aria
nce
cont
ribu
tion
26 sites
= site with evidence of reductive dehalogenation
42
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
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
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
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
46
Silicon Valley –About 125 CVOC Plumes including 24 Superfund SitesSan Francisco
San Francisco Bay Area
47
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
Num
ber o
f Act
ions
Source Control
Pump&Treat
Other
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
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
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
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
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
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
53
Other potential regulatoryoutcomes:
� 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
54
Limitations
� Data set is relatively small and may exhibit pronounced biases.
� Findings are general and not necessarily applicable to individual sites.