HSRCS

1
HSRC/SSW Research and OutreachActivities and
Capabilities
Danny Reible Chevron Professor of Chemical
Engineering Director, Hazardous Substance
Research Center/SSW Louisiana State
University Baton Rouge, LA 70803
2
Hazardous Substance Research Center
South and Southwest

• Established under CERCLA
• Mission
• Research and Technology Transfer
• Contaminated sediments and dredged material
• Historically focused on in-situ processes and
  risk management
• Unique regional (46) hazardous substance
  problems
• Outreach
• Primarily regional in scope
• Driven by community interests and problems

LSU
Georgia Tech
Texas AM
Rice
3
HSRC Contacts
4
HSRC S/SW Programs

• Core funding from EPA
• 900 K per annum, 2001-2006
• 600 K research
• 300 K outreach
• Technology Transfer
• Technical Outreach Services to Communities
• Technical Assistance for Brownfields (TAB)
• 150 K per annum
• Other Federal Support
• Anacostia Capping Demonstration Program -5 M
  (2001-2004)
• Defense Threat Reduction Agency - 1.7 M
  (1999-2001)
• Louisiana Biotechnology Initiative
• 235 K per annum, 2002-2007
• 285 K capital, 2002-2003

5
HSRC/SSW Outreach

• Goal (TOSC)To provide no-cost, non-advocate
  technical assistance to communities in EPA
  Regions 4 and 6 addressing issues of
  environmental contamination.
• Goal (TAB) To provide no-cost, non-advocate
  technical assistance to communities and
  municipalities in EPA Regions 4 and 6 addressing
  redevelopment of environmentally contaminated
  property.

6
Why Outreach?

• Presidential and Congressional Commission on Risk
  Assessment and Management
• Provides framework more decision making
• Key point
• Engage stakeholders early and often
• Without stakeholder involvement decisions are
  easily made but difficult to implement
• With stakeholder involvement, decisions may be
  difficult but implementation may be easier
• Allowing us to finally complete the circle!!!

7
Approach to Outreach Efforts

• Identify a community
• Success is dependent upon identifying appropriate
  community
• Community is not defined by its loudest
  individuals
• Develop a letter of agreement
• Identifies expectations and approach
• Negotiated and agreed upon jointly
• Basis for metrics of success The Yardstick
• Must be sufficiently detailed and specific to
  provide useful metrics
• Conduct outreach effort
• Continuously review and update objectives and
  approach
• Document changes as necessary, including updating
  letter of agreement
• Evaluate success in delivering outreach
  objectives
• Exit interviews with community
• Outreach team internal review
• Center administration and Outreach Advisory
  Committee review

8
2002 TOSC Program

• First Year of TOSC II, Five-Year Funding Period
• Mix of traditional TOSC challenges with
  multi-media assistance efforts
• Meetings with EPA February in Dallas June in
  Atlanta
• State agencies marketing campaign

9
Total TOSC Assistance Efforts By Year
10
TOSC Region 4 Communities

• Holly Hill, SC
• Byron, GA
• Barnwell, SC
• Southern Pines, NC
• Davie, FL
• Albany, GA
• Rome, GA
• El Paso, TX

11
TOSC Region 6 Communities

• Alsen (Baton Rouge), LA
• Corpus Christi, TX
• Shreveport, LA
• Amarillo, TX
• Las Cruces, NM
• Calcasieu Parish, LA

12
TOSC Short-Term Assists

• Fogelsville, PA
• Landfill issue. Found TOSC through an
  Environmental Update on landfills on TOSC
  web-site
• Georgia State Senator Campaign (brownfields)
• Louisville, KY (risk management plan)
• Memphis TN
• DeQuincy, LA (plant siting concerns)
• Region 6 Environmental Justice Listening Session

13
2002 TAB Program

• Projects becoming more complex
• Not just site assessments anymore
• Land-use planning and visioning requests are more
  common
• Economic development aspect still crucial
• Looking beyond TAB in order to provide assistance

14
Total TAB Assistance Efforts by Year
15
Region 4 TAB Communities

• Augusta, GA
• Macon, GA
• Spartanburg, SC
• Charleston, SC
• Jackson, MS
• Atlanta, GA
• Macon, GA

16
Region 6 TAB Communities

• Lake Charles, LA
• West Monroe, LA
• Baton Rouge, LA
• Prairie View, TX
• Westwego, LA

17
New Research

• Urban Reflux The 2000 Census and the Challenges
  of Metro Growth Patterns
• The Design and Use of Modeling Tools and Their
  Application
• Brownfields and Scale Factors in Research and
  Urban Redevelopment

18
TOSC/TAB Staffing

• Bob Schmitter, Ga Tech, Program Reg 4
  Coordinator
• Denise Rousseau Ford, LSU, Reg. 6 Coordinator
• Corey Fischer, Ga Tech
• Faith Stephens, LSU
• Tomeka Prioleau, LSU
• Mark Hodges, Ga Tech
• Claudia Huff, Ga Tech

19
HSRC Research Why are contaminated sediments
difficult?

• Reside in highly variable, dynamic systems
• Normal variation in flows and storm events
• Significant source of uncertainty
• Sophisticated models but limited process
  knowledge to drive them
• Large volume of sediment
• Often greater than 1,000,000 m3
• Average Superfund site ex situ treatment -
  
• Large amounts of water
• Dredged solids content often in range of 1-10
• Often marginal contamination with incomplete
  exposure pathways and uncertain risks

20
Contaminated SedimentsWhy are they so important?

• Historical sources largely controlled
• Legacy of contaminated sediments as important
  source
• Continuing sources, however, limit potential
  cleanup
• Lack of disposal options is a major impediment to
  harbor development
• 95 of shipping trade passes through dredged
  ports
• Significant impediment to unrestricted usage of
  waterways
• Fish advisories throughout great lakes and other
  areas
• Widespread problem
• Of 21,000 national sediment sampling stations
  (1996 survey)
• 26 exhibit potential of adverse effects
• Additional 49 exhibiting intermediate
  probability of adverse effects
• About 30 of superfund sites involve contaminated
  sediments

21
Regional Sediment Issues Why are they important
in the Southern US?

• Contain 54 of nations wetlands
• Contain 45 of nations inland waters
• 46 of total on and off-site toxic releases
• 52 of surface water toxic discharges
• 35 of total number of river reaches intermediate
  or high probability of adverse effects (national
  average 26)
• Large variety of lacustrine, riverine, estuarine,
  and coastal marine sediments
• Sensitive wetland habitat concerns about
  invasive management options
• Subject to large tropical storm events including
  hurricanes

22
Instrumentation Capabilities HSRC/SSW

• Analytical Capabilities
• GC/MS, GC, HPLC- Fluorescence/UV, LSC, TOC,
  ICP-MS
• Cooperative units XRF and XANES, XRT, gamma
  emitter profiling
• Field assessment capabilities
• Environmental monitoring and sampling systems
  (e.g. multicorer, portable anemometry, acoustic
  doppler profiler, sediment profiling camera)
• Cooperative units research vessels, sonar
  profiling
• Biological assessment
• Accumulation, bioturbation, bioavailability
• Cooperative Units molecular biological
  facilities

23
Research and Assessment CapabilitiesHSRC/SSW

• Engineering Management of Contaminated Sites
• Modeling for chemical transport and fate
• In-house modeling tools
• Experience with 3rd party models
• In-situ management technologies evaluation and
  development
• Conventional and active capping of contaminated
  sediments
• Natural and enhanced recovery of soil and
  sediment systems
• Decision framework support

24
Current Core Research Programs

• Bioavailability of Desorption Resistant
  Contaminants
• Evaluation of the kinetics and extent of the
  availability of desorption-resistant contaminants
  and the relationship to fate and accumulation
• In-situ Containment and Treatment of Contaminated
  Sediments
• Development of innovative approaches to in-situ
  containment, particularly the combination of
  in-situ containment and treatment- active caps
• Contaminant Losses during Sediment Resuspension
  by Removal or Storm Events
• Assess contaminant losses, particularly of
  metals, as a result of exposure by dredging or
  episodic storm events
• Phytoremediation of Wetland and CDF Sediments
• Evaluate effectiveness of phytoremediation for
  in-situ treatment in wetlands or to employ
  confined disposal facilities as active treatment
  facilities

25
Bioavailability of Desorption-Resistant
Contaminants

• PIs D.D. Reible and J.W. Fleeger
• Evaluation of the kinetics and extent of the
  availability of desorption-resistant contaminants
  and the relationship to fate and accumulation
• Desorption resistance well known
• Implications for availability less well known or
  unknown
• Deposit feeders have clear advantages in
  assessing bioavailability
• Preliminary work suggested porewater paradigm
  valid
• Can physico-chemical measurements predict
  bioavailability?
• Can we move toward a truly predictive estimate of
  bioavailability by predicting physico-chemical
  partitioning?

26
In-situ Containment and Treatment of Contaminated
Sediments

• PIs KT Valsaraj, M. Wiesner, B. Edge
• Development of innovative approaches to in-situ
  containment and/or treatment- active caps
• Conventional capping effective tool for physical
  separating contaminants, armoring underlying
  sediments and reducing contaminant flux
• Innovative caps may be effective tool in niche
  applications where conventional caps are
  problematic
• Innovative caps may have poor placement
  properties- an improved understanding of
  depositional processes may assist (M. Wiesner)
• Innovative caps may exhibit marginal stability
  we need a modeling tool capable of assessing that
  stability (B. Edge)
• What are the real advantages of an innovative cap
  we need experimental assessment and modeling
  tools capable of predicting effectiveness (KT
  Valsaraj)

27
Contaminant Losses during Sediment Resuspension

• PIs M. Tomson and L. Thibodeaux
• Assess contaminant losses, particularly of
  metals, as a result of exposure by dredging or
  episodic storm events
• Storm or dredging events tend to move sediments
  from stable anaerobic environment to aerobic,
  exposed environment
• Release of hydrophobic organics relatively
  insensitive to physicochemical state (e.g. redox
  conditions) of sediments
• Metals expected to be influenced to a much
  greater degree
• What are the fundamental processes and can we
  describe and predict their behavior? (M. Tomson)
• What are the implications of these processes and
  behavior on real storm and dredging events? (L.
  Thibodeaux)

28
Phytoremediation of Wetland and CDF Sediments

• PIs J. Pardue, C. Theegala (Southern
  University)
• Evaluate effectiveness of phytoremediation for
  in-situ treatment in wetlands or to employ
  confined disposal facilities as active treatment
  facilities
• If sediment removal is planned, phytoremediation
  may represent one of the few cost-effective means
  of managing the contaminants beyond simple
  storage
• If the contaminated sediments lie in a sensitive
  wetland, phytoremediation may be the only means
  of managing the contaminants without destroying
  the wetland
• To what extent do plants mobilize and take up
  contaminants?
• To what extent do plants decontaminate the
  sediments?

29
Related Research Programs

• Natural and enhanced recovery of contaminated
  sediments
• Identification and assessment of mechanisms
• Development of modeling tools
• Contaminant losses from confined disposal
  facilities
• Seepage, leachate losses (D. Reible)
• Model development effort with LSU Computer
  Science
• Volatile losses (KT Valsaraj and L. Thibodeaux)
• Extensive process and mechanism evaluation
• Various models developed in cooperative effort
  with USACE
• Field validation in planning (Chicago CDF)
• Sediment cap design and evaluation
• Apatite reactive barrier for metal control
  (w/Univ New Hampshire)
• Spectroscopic tools for characterization of cap
  effectiveness
• Site specific support activities
• Anacostia Active Capping Demonstration Program

30
Capping with a Reactive Barrier

• Apatites Ca5(PO4)3OH
• Subject to isomorphic substitution
• Pb5(PO4)3OH
• Cd5(PO4)3OH
• Reduces migration of metal species
• Employing X-Ray Fluorescence to evaluate in
  cooperative effort between D. Reible, C. Willson
  and Univ of New Hampshire

31
Characterization of Cap Effectiveness

• XANES (X-Ray Adsorption Near Edge Spectroscopy)
• XANES sensitive to oxidation state
• Chromium
• XANES differentiation of Cr(III) and Cr(VI)
• Cr(VI) of much more environmentally significance
• Differentiation not possible by conventional
  analytical techniques due to rapid conversion
  (e.g. by ICP-MS)
• Effort to further define state and mobility of
  metal contaminants
• XRT (X-Ray Tomography)
• Define sediment structure at the pore level
• Employed by C. Willson and K. Thompson for
  nonaqueous phase liquids in soils , now
  evaluating reactive barriers as caps

32
Site Specific Cap Support

• Thea Foss Waterway, WA
• Assessing cap placement for containment of a NAPL
  seep
• Pine Street Canal, VT
• Design of a cap over extremely soft sediments
• San Francisco Bay, CA (3 sites)
• Design of cap for refinery sludges, coastal
  sediments and metal contaminated slough
• Fox River, WI
• Evaluation and design of dredging and capping
  alternatives
• Calcasieu Estuary, LA
• Design of a cap over soft sediments employing
  dredged material

33
Innovative Cap Demonstration - Anacostia

• Sand caps easy to place and effective
• Contain sediment
• Retard contaminant migration
• Physically separate organisms from contamination
• Greater effectiveness possible with active caps
• Encourage fate processes such as sequestration or
  degradation of contaminants beneath cap
• Discourage recontamination of cap

34
Demonstration Site Anacostia River

• Two potential study areas identified adjacent to
  Navy Yard
• First site has elevated PCBs and metals 1
• Second site is primarily PAHs 2
• Some seepage, free phase at depth at second site
• Funding
• 2.25 MM (Phase 1)
• 2.75 MM (Phase 2)

Washington DC
Tidal Basin
2
1
35
(No Transcript)
36
Cap Technologies Under Evaluation

• Aquablok for control of seepage and advective
  contaminant transport
• Zero-valent iron to encourage dechlorination and
  metal reduction
• Phosphate mineral (Apatite) to encourage sorption
  and reaction of metals
• BionSoil to encourage degradation of organic
  contaminants
• Natural organic sorbent to encourage
  sorption-related retardation (reduction in
  advective-diffusive transport)
• Other technologies undergoing feasibility
  evaluation
• CETCO (needlepunched mat)
• Coke/Carbon

37
Capping Demonstration Schedule(Revised)

• Technology Evaluations (Initial Phase) Jul/Dec
  2002
• Studies currently ongoing at LSU and
  collaborating institutions
• Site Characterization Jan-Apr 2003
• Phase 1 Geophysical Investigation (Jan 2003)
• Phase 2 Geotechnical and Chemical Assessment (Feb
  2003)
• Phase 3 Biological Assessment (Apr 2003)
• Cap Design Jan/Jun 2003
• Cap Placement Jul/Aug 2003
• Cap Evaluation Aug 2003/Sept 2004

38
Louisiana Biotechnology Initiative

• Goal
• Enhance fundamental understanding and practical
  application of biological systems for remediation
  of environmental contaminants and treatment of
  industrial wastes
• Approach
• Select, enrich, and manipulate the members of a
  microbial consortia to attain specific, desirable
  characteristics that minimize the uncertainty
  accompanying design and operation of waste
  treatment systems and environmental remediation
  strategies
• Molecular biology tools allow the detection of
  specific organisms, track the expression of
  specific genes, and characterize microbial
  populations
• Key technical leads
• Fred Rainey, Department of Biological Sciences
• Bill Moe, Department of Civil and Environmental
  Engineering

39
Louisiana Biotechnology InitiativeProjects

• Assessment/Enhancement of Biological Processes in
  Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (D. Reible)
• Characterize microbial community inhabiting
  biologically active zone and influence of benthic
  organisms on that community
• Identify genetic markers that indicate potential
  for bioremediation in benthic organisms
• Characterization of Reductively Dechlorinating
  Microbial Populations (J. Pardue)
• Investigate factors controlling the spatial and
  temporal distribution, selection and enrichment
  of Dehalococcoides sp., a specific strain of
  which is the only known degrader of
  tetrachloroethene (PCE) to ethene
• Field laboratory Petroprocessors Superfund Site

40
Louisiana Biotechnology Initiative Projects

• Characterization of Microbial Populations
  Responsible for Target Organics in Industrial
  Wastewater Treatment (W. Moe)
• Modeling effort to link experimental observations
  and molecular characterization of microbial
  populations with treatment process performance
• Collaborative effort with BASF
• Biofiltration for Treatment of Gas-Phase VOC
  Contaminants (W. Moe)
• Application of selective pressures to manipulate
  the selection and enrichment, physiological
  state, and spatial distribution of biofilters
  microbial consortia
• Collaborative effort with Honeywell Corp.

41
HSRC/SSW Technology Transfer

• GoalTo widely disseminate research findings and
  technical expertise to interested communities
  with regards to hazardous substance/sediments
  remediation research.

42
HSRC/SSW Technology Transfer (Traditional
Activities)

• Technology transfer
• Website
• Electronic newsletters
• Quarterly email notification Are you on the
  email list?
• Printed publications
• Research Briefs
• Environmental Updates
• Workshops/facilitated meetings
• Contaminated Sediments Working Group (web-based)
• Audio/video research presentations

43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
HSRC Web Highlights

• Allows all HSRC accomplishments to be viewed in a
  single frame a portal to each center web site.
• 590,000 hits on site since March 2000
• Currently averaging 559/day, 200,000/yr
• Archive of research abstracts from all centers
• Online archive of key center publications
• Growing library of HSRC audio presentations
• Interactive map of HSRC outreach sites, with
  retrievable community information embedded
• Created several technology-specific web sites.

46
HSRC/SSW Technology Transfer (Five Center
Support)

• Centerpoint
• Summary of successes of past centers
• New centers research focuses and themes
• Outreach activities

47
Advanced Study Institutes In situ Assessment and
Remediation

• NATO ASI
• Prague, May 24 June 2, 2001
• Approximately 100 lecturers and students
• Book in final stages of preparation
• NSF Pan-American Advanced Studies Institute
• Rio de Janeiro, July 22-August 3, 2002
• Organization currently underway
• 75-100 lecturers and students (half from US)

48
HSRC/SSWTechnology Transfer Personnel

• Leigh McCook, Georgia Tech, Associate Director
• Mark Hodges, Georgia Tech
• Therese Turman, Georgia Tech
• Jim Demmers, Georgia Tech