Title: EVALUATION OF OIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR EVOS LINGERING OIL IN PWS
1EVALUATION OF OIL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR
EVOS LINGERING OIL IN PWS
- Jacqueline Michel
- Research Planning, Inc.
2Study 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
3Evaluation Tasks
Spatial analysis of 2001 survey data
Selected site visits for field observations
Develop list of promising technologies
Evaluate technologies for applicability to PWS
4Spatial 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
5Subsurface Oil Probability Map KN 109A (1
patch)
6Subsurface Oil Probability Map LA 20D (3
patches)
7(No Transcript)
8Estimated Subsurface Oil Volume by Segment (42)
9Tidal Elevation of Pits with Subsurface Oil
10(No Transcript)
11For 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)
12DI 67A
13KN 114
14KN 115-A2
15KN 117A
16Geomorphic 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)
17KN 117A
18KN 117A
19Geomorphic 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)
20KN 117A
21Geomorphic 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)
24Promising Remediation Technologies
- Natural Recovery
- Sediment Reworking/Tilling
- Trenching and Flushing (hot water)
- Flushing with Chemical Agents
- Nutrient Enrichment
- Natural Microbe Seeding
25Promising Remediation Technologies
- Capping with Clean Sediments
- Physical Removal - Landfill
- Physical Removal - Incineration
- Physical Removal - Landfarming
- Physical Removal - Sediment Washing
26Phase 1 Evaluation Factors
- Effectiveness 130 pt
- Implementability 70 pt
- Operations 40 pt
- Total Score 240 pt
27Effectiveness 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
28Implementability 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
29Operational 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
32Weathering Degree for PAH
33PAH in LOR Sediments
34PAH in MOR Sediments
35PAH in HOR Sediments
36Environmental 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
38Cost Analysis Natural Recovery
Year Monitoring Costs
2007 155,000
2009 164,000
2011 174,000
2013 185,000
2015 196,000
Total 874,000
39Costs 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)
40Costs 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
41Nutrient 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
42Nutrient 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
43Costs Do NOT Include
- Finding the rest of the subsurface oil to be
treated - Government project management and oversight
- Multi-year applications
44Acknowledgements
- Jeff Short and Mandy Lindeburgh, ABL, NOAA
- John Whitney and Alan Mearns, ORR, NOAA
- Al Venosa, USEPA
- Rick Wilson, PEC
45Questions or Comments?