Presentation from the North American Environmental Field Conference - Jan 2011

1. Direct Push Optical
Screening Tool for
Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL
Randy St. Germain, Dakota Technologies, Inc.
Murray Einarson & Adrian Fure, AMEC Geomatrix

2. presentation summary
• NAPL heterogeneity
• LIF technology review
• innovative use for LIF (chlorinated DNAPL)
• recent results of prototype testing
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 2

3. NAPL architecture not nearly as simple as we often assume even
after years of lectures, papers, alerts, ‘shouting from the hill tops’
heterogeneity remains this industry’s inconvenient truth
when discussing ISCO, recovery, slurry walls, etc.
OSTs such as ROST, UVOST, and TarGOST have shown:
• LNAPLs and DNAPLs rarely exist as simple “layers” as once
shown in textbooks and guidance documents – even the
‘pregnant LNAPL pancakes’ error on the side of simplicity
• both LNAPLs and DNAPLs follow geology/lithology closely
(porosity of sand can vary – see pic of dye-stained gasoline) John Mosquera
• LNAPL architecture found with OSTs is often strange (even
find LNAPL 20-30 ft below groundwater)
• OSTs, tracer studies, MIP, other high resolution tools showing
we have to go back to basics and start including geology’s
major role in NAPL distribution
• separate phase NAPLs simply disperse less than dissolved
• rarely does just chemistry or just geology properly define the
NAPL CSM – it takes both - along with lots and lots of data
representative sample zone?
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 3

4. let’s review the basics of optical screening tools…
• spectroscopic (light-based)
• OSTs employ a sapphire-windowed probe
• require “direct push” delivery – both dynamic (Geoprobe®/AMS) and
static (CPT)
• log a light-based phenomenon vs. depth (usually fluorescence of PAHs)
• sometimes referred to collectively as “LIF” (laser-induced fluorescence)
– but inaccurately so, since some use Hg-lamp (or modified with LEDs)
windowed probe - percussion windowed probe – submerged derrick windowed CPT “sub” above CPT
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 4

5. the basics of optical screening tools
breakout
generator umbilical box remote
display
laser
scope string
pot
printer
A/D e-deck LAN pc
cable
split cap
rods
fiber
optics
floating
Depth
peg
%RE
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 5

6. Optical Screening Tools produce footage very rapidly
with real time results to guide the investigation
Real-Time In-Situ Characterization
higher quality information
for higher quality engineering/decisions
Detailed Conceptual Model
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 6

7. OSTs are flexible… deployable under variety of delivery platforms and conditions
• Geoprobe®, PowerProbe, CPT, even drill rigs (in soft materials)
• on-shore, off-shore, ice, bogs, sediments, tar pits, settling ponds
• rain, snow, sleet, sun, wind, hot, cold
Brodhead Creek
TIP: no “poor recovery” with OSTs… and NAPLs usually reside in poor recovery prone matrices
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 7

8. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site
remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too!
Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOST
Day 1
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 8

9. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site
remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too!
Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOST
Day 1
2
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 9

10. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site
remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too!
Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOST
Day 1
3
2
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 10

11. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site
remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too!
Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOST
Day 1
4
3
2
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 11

12. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site
remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too!
Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOST
Day 1
5
4
3
2
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 12

13. 5-day TarGOST investigation at a coal tar DNAPL site
remember that coal tar and creosotes ARE most often DNAPLs too!
Dakota has characterized over 100 DNAPL sites with TarGOST
hi-resolution 3D OST data provides
information useful for…
• MNA studies
• recovery/monitoring well placement
• dig/haul design/costing
• trenching design
• containment design
• thermal design
• in situ chemical oxidation injection
• groundwater sampling guidance
• soil engineering sampling guidance
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 13

14. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce
this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow”
kerosene
gasoline
diesel
oil
long
UV
short
UV
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 14

15. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce
this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow”
kerosene
gasoline
diesel
oil
long
UV
short
UV
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 15

16. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce
this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow”
kerosene
gasoline
diesel
oil
long
UV
short
UV
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 16

17. OSTs work because the PAHs in NAPLs fluoresce
this provides a convenient way to detect NAPLs by their “glow”
kerosene
gasoline
diesel
oil
long
UV
short
UV
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 17

18. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluoresce
but indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs
test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand
3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand
then TCE was poured in from top
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 18

19. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluoresce
but indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs
test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand
3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand
then TCE was poured in from top
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 19

20. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluoresce
but indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs
test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand
3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand
then TCE was poured in from top
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 20

21. unfortunately, chlorinated solvents don’t fluoresce
but indicator dyes are a common way to detect DNAPLs
test tube containing moist Fisher sea sand
3 tubes on the right contain dyes mixed in the sand
then TCE was poured in from top
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 21

22. ‘DYE-LIF’ probe
• simple “add-on” to mature
LIF technology
• port below sapphire window
introduces a DNAPL
fluorescing dye
• once solvated in DNAPL, the
dye fluoresces, allowing for
detection with conventional
LIF system
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 22

23. recent prototypes
sapphire window
dye injection port
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 23

24. TarGOST HD?
High Definition or High Density OST
because it might well be necessary to spot tiny DNAPL ‘ganglia’
test pattern printed on poster stock scanned past sapphire window at 2cm/sec
resulting TG-HD log of fluorescing paper lines detected down to .005” wide!
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 24

25. quantitative (and temporal) results for TCE
TarGOST HD™ log • 200 ul of dye solution placed on sapphire window ‘miniwells’
• sand/TCE samples then placed on the sapphire window over
top of dye solution – a backwards simulation of dye solution
being injected into the sand/TCE
• ~ 3seconds elapsed time in each sample zone demonstrates
fast ‘melt’ of dye into TCE… more than the time needed for
window to travel down to meet injected dye
• TarGOST HD necessary to capture the ‘melting’
phenomenon
fluorescence-only data from log at left
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 25

26. DYE-LIF bucket tests
• DNAPL loaded onto moist Fisher Scientific
sea sand
• ~1 inch thick sand ‘disks’ of DNAPL/sand
• wrapped in thin aluminum foil that was
readily punched through but allows any
sloughing as if no container existed
2 bucket experiments:
• single disk – PCE at 50% pore saturation
• stacked 3 disks – TCE at 35%, 17, and 9%
saturation – 1 inch between the 3 disks
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 26

27. DYE-LIF bucket test logs
single PCE/sand disk buried in bucket of sand 3 TCE/sand disks buried in bucket of sand
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 27

28. DYE-LIF ‘selectivity’
• some dyes solvate readly in
chlorinateds, not petroleum, clean soil
and vice versa
TCE
• solubility of dyes varies with
organic solvent gasoline
• should allow for tailoring for kerosene
a selective response
PCE
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 28

29. NNLS fitting to ‘find the dye’
vs. natural and manmade fluorophores
dye waveforms will often differ from tar, creosote, or oil waveforms
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 29

30. NNLS fitting to ‘find the dye’
vs. natural and manmade fluorophores
contaminants now in digitally separate data sets… can be combined, parsed, visualized
process can be implemented in real time for field discernment between chlorinated DNAPL, PAHs, etc.
chlorinateds
PAHs
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 30

31. Some questions to ponder:
Q: say goodbye to Geoprobe® MIP?
A: hardly… as is the case with traditional LIF, DYE-LIF will respond only to
source term NAPL – it won’t ‘follow the scent trail’ like MIP can. DYE-LIF
will be brought in to characterize/confirm DNAPL in high probability zones
Q: Will we finally find those needles in the haystack?
A: Yes… if they exist. Some claim that most DNAPL ganglia dissolved years
ago and now it’s only back-diffusion that’s providing the high dissolved
phase concentrations. I guess we’re fixing to find out!
Q: When will it be commercialized?
A: Available early 2011 for select test sites. ESTCP-funded testing at AF sites
from 2011-2013 teamed with AMEC Geomatrix and Guelph University.
Likely to undergo a transition from a Dakota service to productization much
like UVOST.
Q: How do you plan to “prove” that the DYE-LIF works?
A: Good question. Would like to get feedback/ideas!
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 31

32. Thank you!
Randy St. Germain, President
stgermain@dakotatechnologies.com
Dakota Technologies, Inc.
2201-A 12th St. N.
Fargo, ND 58102
Phone: 701-237-4908
www.dakotatechnologies.com
2011 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 32