EVALUATION OF OIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR EVOS LINGERING OIL IN PWS

1
EVALUATION OF OIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR
EVOS LINGERING OIL IN PWS

• Jacqueline Michel
• Research Planning, Inc.

2
Study Objective

• Determine if there are
• feasible,
• effective, and
• environmentally sound
• remediation methods that can speed the removal
  of subsurface oil over that of natural recovery

3
Evaluation Tasks
Spatial analysis of 2001 survey data
Selected site visits for field observations
Develop list of promising technologies
Evaluate technologies for applicability to PWS
4
Spatial Analysis

• For the 42 segments with subsurface oil in 2001
• Cluster analysis to define patches
• Kriging probability procedure to create
  subsurface oil distribution maps
• Calculate subsurface oil area and volume

5
Subsurface Oil Probability Map KN 109A (1
patch)
6
Subsurface Oil Probability Map LA 20D (3
patches)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Estimated Subsurface Oil Volume by Segment (42)
9
Tidal Elevation of Pits with Subsurface Oil
10
(No Transcript)
11
For the 42 Segments with Subsurface Oil
Oiling Category Number of Beach Segments Surface Area of Oiled Sediments (m2) Volume of Oiled Sediments (m3)
OF 18 859 26 (4)
LOR 38 4,858 398 (54)
MOR 19 1,540 184 (25)
HOR 7 784 124 (17)
12
DI 67A
13
KN 114
14
KN 115-A2
15
KN 117A
16
Geomorphic Characteristics

• Most sites sheltered from wave action
• Many are not true beaches
• Rocky rubble shores with angular clasts
• Cobble/boulder platforms with berms
• Coarse gravel armor on surface (key factor
  contributing to subsurface oil persistence)

17
KN 117A
18
KN 117A
19
Geomorphic Characteristics

• Most sites sheltered from wave action
• Many are not true beaches
• Rocky rubble shores with angular clasts
• Cobble/boulder platforms with berms
• Coarse gravel armor on surface (key factor
  contributing to subsurface oil persistence)

20
KN 117A
21
Geomorphic Characteristics

• Most sites sheltered from wave action
• Many are not true beaches
• Rocky rubble shores with angular clasts
• Cobble/boulder platforms with berms
• Coarse gravel armor on surface (key factor
  contributing to subsurface oil persistence)

22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
Promising Remediation Technologies

1. Natural Recovery
2. Sediment Reworking/Tilling
3. Trenching and Flushing (hot water)
4. Flushing with Chemical Agents
5. Nutrient Enrichment
6. Natural Microbe Seeding

25
Promising Remediation Technologies

• Capping with Clean Sediments
• Physical Removal - Landfill
• Physical Removal - Incineration
• Physical Removal - Landfarming
• Physical Removal - Sediment Washing

26
Phase 1 Evaluation Factors

• Effectiveness 130 pt
• Implementability 70 pt
• Operations 40 pt
• Total Score 240 pt

27
Effectiveness Factors (130 pt)

• Ability to treat different oil levels 40
• Ability to meet cleanup goal 40
• Oil recovery 10
• No. of waste streams generated 10
• Volume of sidestream waste 10
• No. of processes to treat byproducts 10
• Volume of waste for disposal 10

28
Implementability Factors (70 pt)

• Demonstrated effectiveness 20
• Mobilization time 10
• Time to complete 5
• Proven in sub-Arctic conditions 5
• Complexity of equipment 10
• Safety of operations 10
• Safety restrictions 10

29
Operational Factors (40 pt)

• Personnel needs 10
• Complexity of operation/training 10
• Complexity of operation and maintenance 10
• Energy/power demand 10

30
Remediation Technology Effect-iveness Score Imple-menta- bility Score Opera-tional Score Sum of Scores (240)
Physical Removal - Incineration 83 37 0 120
Flushing with Chemical Agents 81 22 10 113
Physical Removal - Sediment Washing 70 19 0 99
Capping with Clean Sediments 76 23 0 99
Natural Microbe Seeding 40 32 15 87

31
Remediation Technology Effect-iveness Score Imple-menta- bility Score Opera-tional Score Sum of Scores (240)
Natural Recovery 60 61 40 161
Physical Removal - Landfill 91 41 10 142
Physical Removal - Landfarming 101 39 0 140
Nutrient Enrichment 70 40 25 135
Trenching and Flushing 71 42 15 128
Sediment Reworking/ Tilling 52 56 15 123

32
Weathering Degree for PAH
33
PAH in LOR Sediments
34
PAH in MOR Sediments
35
PAH in HOR Sediments
36
Environmental Impact Factors

• Disturbed sediment recovery 20
• Intertidal community recovery 30
• Acute and chronic toxicity during implementation
  10
• Fish and wildlife disturbance 10
• Bioavailable oil remaining after termination 30

37
Tech-nology Sedi-ment Recover Intertidal Com-munity Recover Acute/ Chronic Toxic Fish and Wildlife Disturb Remove Bioavail-able Oil Sum of Scores
Natural Recovery 20 30 10 10 0 70
Nutrient Enrich-ment 15 20 5 5 15 60
Physical Removal - Landfill 5 10 0 0 30 45
Physical Removal - Landfarm 5 10 0 0 30 45
Max Score 100
38
Cost Analysis Natural Recovery
Year Monitoring Costs
2007 155,000
2009 164,000
2011 174,000
2013 185,000
2015 196,000
Total 874,000
39
Costs Analysis Nutrient Enrichment

• Subsurface application system
• Nutrients applied 3x in one summer
• Considered tidal elevation restrictions
• Applied to all LOR, MOR, HOR gt100m2
• Developed costs for 2001 segments
• Extrapolated to all oil in PWS ( 30 in lower
  ITZ)

40
Costs Analysis

• Nutrient Enrichment Criteria (gt100m2) for the 42
  segments
• 88 of volume of all subsurface oil
• All HOR except 4.4 m3 on 1 segment
• MOR on 12/18 segments 95 volume
• 17 of 42 segments qualified for treatment

41
Nutrient Enrichment Costs 17 Segments
Cost Category Costs
Installation and initial nutrient addition 4,697,150
Two additional nutrient additions 157,950
Total 4,855,100
42
Nutrient Enrichment Costs All Qualifying
Subsurface Oil
Cost Category Costs
Design Phase 500,000
Nutrient Enrichment 48,551,000
Monitoring 874,000
Total 49,925,000
43
Costs Do NOT Include

• Finding the rest of the subsurface oil to be
  treated
• Government project management and oversight
• Multi-year applications

44
Acknowledgements

• Jeff Short and Mandy Lindeburgh, ABL, NOAA
• John Whitney and Alan Mearns, ORR, NOAA
• Al Venosa, USEPA
• Rick Wilson, PEC

45
Questions or Comments?