Environmental Services Business Group

Reducing O&M Costs with Remedial Process Optimization: Concepts and Case Studies 2013 Alabama Department of Environmental Management Groundwater Conference - June 5, 2013, Mike Perlmutter, P.E.

2

Agenda

Overview of Remedial Process Optimization (RPO) Strategy for Site Closure Unit Process Improvements Reduced Monitoring Alternative Technology Evaluation Portfolio Optimization (time permitting) Discussion

3

RPO Focus Areas

Remediation Process

Optimization

Strategy for Site Closure • Begins with Flexible Design • Defined progress milestones • Land use assumptions/controls • Brownfield approach

Reduced Monitoring • Reduced wells/locations • Reduced frequency • Simplified analytical • Create decision rules • Statistical tools for large sites

Alternative Technologies • Source removal • Permeable barrier walls • Natural attenuation • Sustainable Solutions

Unit Process Improvements • Pumping Effectiveness • Unit process optimization • Alternate or modified treatment • Energy and Sustainability Audits • Life-cycle Optimization

Strategy for Site Closure

5

At-a-glance performance tracking tool to assess progress made toward site closure milestones:

– Achieve 90% run time efficiency – Achieve 75% reduction in in-well

LNAPL thickness and total COC concentration

– Meet interim COC reduction goals of 50%, 75%, and 90% to ultimately achieve site closure approval

– Achieve RGs in a groundwater collection trench and allow for shutdown

Facilitates efficient decision making during OMM

– Reviewed during quarterly RPO meetings

Strategy for Closure - RPO Dashboard Tool

6

RPO Dashboard – Runtime and In-well LNAPL Thickness Tracking

7

Strategy for Closure – New Jersey Case Study Designing for Future Remedy Optimization

Subgrade remedy designed to allow for concurrent redevelopment Fully valved, zoned AS/SVE system,

1200 scfm soil vapor AS/SVE with sequenced bioremediation

contingency – Phase I AS/SVE Operation - Remove xylene “carrier”

fluid and gratuitously bioremediate the secondary contaminants of concern (COCs)

– Phase II Shutdown and Rebound Assessment – If observe production of secondary COCs after return to anaerobic conditions, then enter contingency phase

– Biosparging Contingency Phase – Alternate anaerobic (off) and aerobic (on) conditions to bioremediate secondary COCs to closure criteria

On-going RPO includes: – Operation prioritization – Annual attenuation evaluation – Air permit modifications

8

New Jersey Case Study – Strategy for Closure

Over 800,000 lbs of COCs volatilized and aerobically biodegraded over 6 years

– 89% historical average runtime efficiency – Annual O&M budget reduced 37% – Annual groundwater monitoring budget reduced 30%

Exiting volatilization phase and entering biodegradation-driven remediation phase on schedule

– Initiating assessment of magnitude of residuals and impacts on secondary COCs

Site is now home to one of the highest grossing home improvement stores in the US

RPO program continues to proactively drive site toward closure

Unit Process Improvements

10

Pumping System Optimization

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

TCE

Rem

oval

Rat

e (lb

s/ye

ar)

EW-1

EW-2

EW-3

EW-4

EW-5

EW-6

EW-7

EW-8

EW-9

EW-1

0

EW-1

1

EW-1

2

EW-1

3

EW-1

4

EW-1

5

EW-1

6

EW-1

7

EW-1

8

Extraction Wells

11

Optimization Annual Savings

Life-cycle Savings (30 yr)

Cost to Implement

Sustainability Metrics

Turn off 11 of the 18 extraction wells

$90,000 $2.7M

$50,000 22 HP reduction Over 30 Years = 5.8M kwhrs 3900 Tons CO2

Turn off the air stripper and use spray aeration pond

$60,000 $1.8M $65,000 25 HP reduction Over 30 years = 6.6M kwhrs 4400 Tons CO2

Totals $150,000 $4.5M $115,000 12M kwhrs 8300 Tons CO2

Benefits of Pumping/Unit Process Optimization

12

Treating 1500 gpm of chromium VI

contaminated groundwater

High ion exchange resin use creating high O&M costs

Bench scale pilot testing completed to compare alternative resin performance for specific groundwater geochemistry

Ion Exchange Process Optimization

13

New Resin Provides 20X Greater Capacity

13

125000

90000

78000

54000 50000

20000

12000 7000 7000 6000

1800 0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

*ResinTech SIR-700 2.5"

*ResinTech WBG30-B

2.5"

*ResinTech SIR-700 5"

*ResinTech SIR-700 40"

*ResinTech SIR-700 20"

*ResinTech WBG30-B 20"

Purolite A500 Purolite A600 ResinTech SIR-1200

Dowex 21K Purolite A100

Bed

Volu

mes

pro

cess

ed b

efor

e re

achi

ng C

r(VI

) cap

acity

Resin Performance

Original

NEW RESIN

ORIGINAL RESIN

*Indicates testing stopped prior to reaching capacity

14

Life-Cycle Cost Comparison

14

Baseline Regenerationa

Off-site Resin Regeneration

On-site Resin Regenerationb

Single-Use Resind

Estimated Capital Cost ($ million)

11.20 7.77 10.07 7.33

Estimated Annual O&M Cost ($ million)

3.57 2.40 2.26 1.93

Estimated Life-Cycle Cost ($ million)c

42.18 28.56 29.63 24.07

a. Off-site regeneration with original purchased resin 21K

b. Prorated cost for the DX plant includes 59 percent of total CRF costs

c. Life-Cycle costs based on 11 year lifetime and discount rate of 4.2%

d. Based on 40,000 bed volume resin change out frequency

15

Sustainability Tracking – 16 MGD Pump and Treat System O&M

Data from monthly electricity, gas bills, fuel purchases, GAC usage are entered into utility accounting system

Output from reports are entered into a master tracking spreadsheet for annual reporting purposes.

Allows for generation of graphics to clearly show effects of optimizations. Normalized metrics for Pump and Treat systems

• kWh per million gallons of water treated • tons of CO2 per million gallons of water treated • tons of GAC and cost per million gallons treated

16

Reduced Monitoring

18

Monitoring Distribution, Frequency, and Analyte

Recommendations

Temporal

Qualitative

Spatial

Monitoring Optimization Approach

A monitoring program must adequately track the effectiveness and protectiveness of a remedy

– Balance cost savings vs. unacceptable loss of accuracy – Optimal monitoring results in minor information loss with large cost reduction

Consider use of qualitative and quantitative analyses – Objectivity and repeatability of dual evaluation provides

increased stakeholder confidence – Statistics and geostatistics used to determine

redundancies in the monitoring network – Qualitative review of program processes

and procedures to determine what is necessary and practical

19

Quantitative Tools to Evaluate Monitoring Reduction

Ricker Plume Stability Method CH2M HILL Plume Moment Analysis Tool Monitoring and Remediation Optimization Software

(MAROS) 3TMO Geostatistical Temporal-Spatial Algorithm (GTS) Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance (SADA) Geospatial Modeling Tools

– EVS/MVS, SGeMS, geoR, and gstat

20

Before Optimization 14 sites in Program

276 monitoring wells, surface water, and sediment sampling locations sampled semi-annually;

Analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and/or natural attenuation indicator parameters;

Monitoring requirements were specified in the decision documents

Optimization Result Monitoring program continues to

address all regulatory requirements; Number of monitoring points reduced

by 50%; Sampling frequency reduced to

annually for 81% of sampling points; Analyte list reduced for nearly all sites; Implementation of low-flow sampling

and PDBs increased field efficiency by more than 50%;

Reduced cost up to $800K

Optimization Process Examined each site’s analyte list, contaminant trends, plume maps, frequency,

well layout, regulatory requirements, sampling procedures, data management, and reporting

For larger sites, ran MAROS to optimize well network

Large Remediation Program Case Study – Monitoring Optimization Example

21

Keys to Successful Monitoring Optimization

Understand that Reduced Monitoring is a common-sense approach – Develop approach based on clear objectives – Implement quantitative and qualitative assessment for more defensible outcomes

to gain stakeholder approval – Use the appropriate tools to support optimum outcomes for the project

Applies similarly to media and process monitoring programs – For example, couple with permit modifications for reduced

monitoring requirements that are consistent with remedy progress

Cost savings are almost always achievable – Carefully balance cost of evaluation versus

savings potential

21

Alternative Technology Evaluation

23

Aggressive Source Removal - Soil Mixing

24

Pre and Post Soil Mixing Groundwater Data (µg/L)

Baseline After 27 months

Ave Median Max Ave Median Max

PCA 56,129 8,550 160,000 0.25* 0.25* 0.25*

TCE 146,064 81,000 490,000 0.72 0.36 2.3

cDCE 96,463 83,000 230,000 329 4.8 1,900

VC 9,763 5,600 29,000 401 1.85 1,300

Baseline – 10 MWs, 27 months – 6 MWs * indicates non-detect, with half detection limit used

25

Soil Mixing Life-Cycle Cost Reduction Example

Capital Cost of $2M Estimated Cost Avoidance

– 60-Years of P&T system operations at $150,000/year

$9M in future expenditures avoided (uninflated)

26

New 45-ft Continuous Trenching Machine For PRB Installations

27

Pump and Treat Replaced By PRB

30-Year Life-Cycle Impacts Pump and Treat System Boundary Biowall

GHG Emissions 460 tons 260 tons

Kilowatt Hours Equivalents Consumed

1,600,000 940,000

30-Year Life-Cycle Cost $18M $7.7M

Assumes Biowall recharged with vegetable oil every 5 years

GSR comparison by Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT)

Summary

29

Summary Remedial Process Optimization Focus Areas

– Updating Site Closure Strategies – Pumping and Unit Process Improvements – Alternative Technology Evaluations – Reduced Monitoring

Many Tools Are Available to Standardize Approach Case Studies Demonstrate Large Life-Cycle Savings

Questions/Discussion

Portfolio Optimization (time permitting)

32

Improving Remediation O&M Portfolios

Provides consistency and economy of scale in an optimization program and project oversight

Allows prioritization of improvements that provide the greatest reductions in life-cycle costs and focus on site closure.

Contractual arrangements that provide incentive fees based on savings produced by optimization of systems

Full RPO evaluations for large remediation systems that are underperforming or have high life-cycle costs

RPO “lite” for simple systems with lower life-cycle paybacks

33

Site Management Process Optimization (SMPO)

Long-term planning tool for optimization of a portfolio of environmental sites – Optimization of existing remediation systems – Technical support logic for programming and planning – Systematic annual evaluation of site progress and management risk

Collaborative- and consensus-based project to ensure results that meet wide range, and sometimes competing, site management objectives

Establishes a “tool” that can and should be revisited on a regular basis to update the business plan for the portfolio

34

Site Prioritization Example Includes technical performance and site understanding uncertainty scores,

input from risk inventory, and life-cycle costs Low Certainty Score = Large LCC Delta = High Priority

Site Name

Technical Perform Certainty

Site CSM Certainty

Overall Site

Certainty

Estimated Life Cycle

Cost Best Case Worst Case

Optimize Activity

Priority 1 LF-20 83% 66% 73% $420,000 $420,000 $620,000 No

SS-122 100% 98% 99% $245,000 $245,000 $248,000 No

ST-123 64% 52% 59% $2,776,000 $2,776,000 $6,296,500 Yes

SS-124 89% 94% 91% $300,000 $300,000 $341,500 No

SS-125 68% 62% 65% $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $2,710,000 Yes

SS-130 88% 78% 81% $275,000 $275,000 $343,250 No

SS-139 98% 94% 95% $245,000 $245,000 $265,000 No

SS-215 88% 95% 91% $467,114 $467,114 $614,182 No

SS-216 91% 95% 93% $424,257 $424,257 $519,767 No

HYDRANT 63% 47% 57% $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $1,707,500 Yes

Total $8,678,371 $8,678,371 $14,058,699

NOTES: Site is given priority if CSM Certainty < 70% OR deviation between Best Case and Worst Case is > 1.5. LCC = life-cycle cost to complete "Complete" is defined as a site-specific site management endpoint including long-term care LUCs or clean closure. Limit of 30 years.