serdp- estcp- itrc a partnership dr. jeffrey marqusee estcp, director...

Download SERDP- ESTCP- ITRC A PARTNERSHIP Dr. Jeffrey Marqusee ESTCP, Director SERDP, Technical Director

Post on 04-Jan-2016




0 download

Embed Size (px)



    Dr. Jeffrey MarquseeJeffrey.Marqusee@osd.milESTCP, DirectorSERDP, Technical Director

  • DoDs Environmental Technology Programs

  • Environmental Quality Sustainable InfrastructureEnvironmentalRestorationWeapons Systems& PlatformsMunitionsManagement

  • DUSD(I&E) SERDPDERP/O&MESTCPDDR&EDUSD(I&E)CommercialRequirementsBasic/Applied ResearchImplementation CommercializationAdvancedDevelopmentREGULATORY COOPERATIONINDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS Environmental Technology Development ProcessREGULATORY COOPERATION - ITRC

  • Our ImpactsCost Avoidance and Savings

    Improved Environmental Performance

    Improved Mission Performance

  • Permeable Reactive Barriers(PRB)Passive In Situ Treatment Chlorinated solvents treatment 21 DoD full scale systemsESTCPSupportOperational Systems1ST DoD DemoITRC Reg. Doc.ITRC Design Doc.ITRC LessonLearnedDoc.Multi Site Demo1st 10th 20th NPV Saving > $150 M

  • DoD Cleanup FundingFiscal Year

  • Where are we?

  • Opportunities and ChallengesWhat are the priorities?Needs of DoDPotential to impact cleanup programLets be proactive not reactive

    DNAPLMolecular BiologySedimentsEmerging ContaminantsUXO

  • Chlorinated SolventsDrive the costs of DoD groundwater cleanup

    Decisions on DNAPL are criticalCleanup objectivesRemedy selectionRemedy design and optimization

    Science based engineering decisionsTechnology applicationsAssessing remediesShort and long termMonitoring performance

  • Field Application of Molecular Biological ToolsExplosion of techniquesFundamentally changed laboratory microbiologyCan they truly impact the field?Design, Monitoring and AssessmentWhat decisions will they affect?How reliable are they?

  • Contaminated SedimentsOver 200 Navy sites$1B liability

    Sediment treatment option are limitedLarge complex sitesEcologically complex

    Need for in-situ management optionsScience based risk management

  • Emerging Groundwater ContaminantsPerchlorate is here what is next?N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)1,4 Dioxane1,2,3 Tricholropropane (TCP)....?All probable human carcinogensAll highlighted by regulatory agenciesUncertain distribution but may be widespreadAll are persistent and mobileWe need to be proactive not reactive

  • Unexploded Ordnance(UXO)UXO Contamination of land and water>20 million acres> 3300 sites>$20B liability

    R&D ObjectivesWide Area AssessmentDetection & DiscriminationLand and WaterRecovery and DisposalPlanning and Support

    Critical technical decisionsImpact in the $billions

  • Wide Area AssessmentChallenge of managing >20M acresMost is contamination freeBut which part?How do we decide on no further action?Visible DefensibleReproducibleThe key is technology

  • Challenge of decisions based on limited dataCost effective cleanup maximizes risk reductionRisk is not staticHow do we decide to dig or not?VisibleDefensibleReproducibleThe key is technology

    UXO Discrimination Complex Risk Decisions

  • Underwater UXOChallenge of managing risk in a dangerous environmentTwo primary risk drivers:Explosive safetyEnvironmental toxicity Management actionsAssess riskMitigate when necessaryWhat is the science?What are the real technical options?

  • OpportunitiesRemediation is a knowledge based industryScience can impact near termRigorous field trials are criticalValidated informationRapid transfer of information is criticalDecisions need to be madeSERDP-ESTCP-ITRCA partnership that works

  • Sponsored by SERDP and ESTCP

    Partners in Environmental Technology

    Technical Symposium and Workshop

    November 28 30, 2006

    Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Washington, D.C.

    Thank you very much History: DOIT , 95 meeting in denver, focus on contentHuge success

    What I want to tell you todayWho we are -what are the future opportunities

    First Who I am2 programsInvest 1B in the next decade;- DoD does not invest this level of resources for feel good reasons- Improved scientific understanding and advanced env tech are critical for DoD to perform its missionMission driven r&DPhilosophy of RDT&E- env protection and performance are not contrary fundamental R&D can impact operations near term

    - let me return to that shortlyFirst what drives are programSERDP invests in the four broad environmental pillars:

    Focus of itrc on er and mm.Changing paradigm

    Remediation is a knowledge based industry

    Right decisions needRight information- at the right timeThis chart shows what we have been spending on CL in ER and BracBRAC in tan ER in blueThis cover both IRP and MMRPAlthough the ER program is not at the levels it was in the early 90s it is not decliningIt is a huge task to cleanup all these sites we are talking aboutIN IR > 27000 sites on >3,300 propertiesAre we getting done?Yes and noWhere are we now

    we have spent approx 20 billionTraditional cleanup cost to complete is 15.4BThe great majority of sites have RIPHi risk sites re to have rip soonBut mod and low risk are projected longer

    IRP >1000s sites are still in the investigative phaseBut the world is really not that simple

    I have pulled out the Air Force data to show you why that isNot because they are unique or represent a problem- in fact I believe the AF in some areas has been the leader in the world n the areas of CLand particularly exploiting technologies of bioremediation

    The first chart shows the funding the AF has spend over the lat decade. Focus on the er funding approximately 300 to 400 m a year-the chart on the left shows the cost to complete which from 96 has gone from 3.8B to in 04 3.8B ignoring MMRP - after spending approximately 2 to 3 billion ?Its not that progress has not been made- sites are often more complex than expected- regulations have changes stds (ie. draft TCE risk assessment and issues of vapor intrusion)- new contaminants become of concern

    So my bottom line is Yes and No site are being closed out and RIP but the requirement is far from met and there is a lot of work to be done- an opportunities to exploit new technologies to decrease costs and improve efficiency of the clSo Where are we goingPrioritized re driven by .

    Specific needs within those priorities are

    Chlorinated solvents is without a doubt the largest driver for DoD groundwater cleanup

    Although great progress has been made there are still challengesThe ability to treat DNAPL, assess the benefits- The challenge of mixing and transporting chemical amendments( such as electron donors) or biologic culture in heterogenous formation remainsThis is not exhaustive issues associated with bioaugmentation , the prediction of sustainment of NA, treatment of large aerobic plumes perhaps where dehalogenation has stalled at DCE and VC still require more cost effective solutionsBut in some ways are greatest challenge in what is a maturing field is to improve our ability to come to the optimum decision for site specifc conditions more rapidly and cost effectively assessment and decision aids

    Advances in the fields of genomics, proteonomics, metabolomics, and bioinformatics techniques such as gene probes, micro arrays, quant pcr etcAdvances in molecular biology have had a profound effect on our understanding of biological remedial processes and are used extensively in the research community. Yet, use of these tools in the operational cleanup community is limited at present. research and development that have the potential to lead to improved cost-effective tools to support remedial design and decisions ultimately improve the design, monitoring and/or performance assessment of remedial technologies This field offers great promise but we must be clear aboutWhat questions are we trying to answer with MBT for field remediation system design, monitoring, and/or performance assessment?

    Near term there are a large number of technical challenges that face us

    But in the end the challenge is to understandWhere can the application of MBT have the greatest impact on understanding environmental remediation processes?What are realistic endpoints and benefits in applying MBT?What information do people in the field need? At what cost and when?How can MBT be used to understand the subsurface microbiolgy occurring at different scales in relevant to the field?Sediments are often the ultimate receptor-large # navy sites all Services concernedIncreasing regulatory pressure-complex ecological environment/pathwaysExpensive and difficult to treatDredging and treatment not cost effective- unclear environmental benefit-size limits optionsContaminates of concern PCB, PAH metals are difficult to treatManaging the risk in-situ offers the greatest hope-understanding and measuring the fate and transport and availability in this complex environmentBlock pathways reduce bioavailability, sequestration beyond simple capping treat in -situ issues of amendments and delivery efficacy of biological approachesWalk throghThe challenge of being proactive- there is no magic way to id theseThey are not the only ones- We need to be proactive not reactive what are the priorities what are the technical optionsImpact is unknown but could be largeNew sites?Sites reopened?A two way flow of informationIf treatment required lets make the right decisions the first time

    LAST TOPICLack of data on past history of munitions use on sites (what munitions, where impact, etc.)Very large number of sites (some huge in extent each different)Difficulty of seeing underground (detection, discrimination of scrap, artifacts)Cost of surveying, digging, removal, safetyLack of understanding of, and standards for, munitions constituents tox


View more >