pilot scale test - esaa · elevated sar . elevated organic nitrogen ... range) average phc...
Post on 12-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Presented by: Tanya Shanoff, M.Sc., P.Geo
Pilot Scale Test for beneficial re-use of contaminated sediment
Presentation Layout 1 Study Background & Context
2 Project Background
3 Test Program Set-up and Methodology
4 Study Results to Date
5 Next Steps & Conclusions
6 Questions
7 Acknowledgements
Study Background & Context 1
140 SWM Ponds in the City of Kitchener
64 SWM Ponds in the City of Waterloo
37m3/yr Estimated volume
of SWM pond sediment generated
per pond
77 SWM Ponds in the City of Cambridge
Primary COCs in SWM Pond Sediment: PAHs PHCs NaCl Organic Nitrogen
Study Background & Context 1
Study Background & Context 1
Numerous studies on SWM ponds and sediment management Non-impacted SWM pond sediment management options Impacted SWM pond sediment management options BMPs
References: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (June 2012),Marsalek, Watt and Anderson (2008), MOE (4328a)
Study Background & Context 1
Many studies to date on options for treating low level PAHs impacts in sediment/soil PAHs are transferred, degraded and sequestered Aerobic degradation Anaerobic degradation Cometabolism Biostimulation Composting Landfarming Phytoremediation
References: Boving and Neary (2007), Eick, Haus, Sukkariyah, Haering & Daniels (2011), Johnsen, Wick and Harms (2005), Haritash & Kawshik (2009)
Study Background & Context 1
Regulatory Environment Ontario Regulation 153/04 Draft Guidance Soil Management Compost Guidelines
Project Background 2
Rehabilitation of Victoria Park Lake in Downtown Kitchener, Ontario
Work included: • Environmental Assessment Study • Detailed Design and Construction
o including management of >55,000 tonnes of impacted sediment in the Lake
Stantec approached Kitchener and the Region on innovative approach Kitchener and the Region entered into an agreement and received funding from MOE
Funding for this project was provided by the Showcasing Water innovation Grant through the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE). Such support from the MOE does not indicate endorsement by the Government of Ontario of the contents of this material
Questions we asked ourselves
?
Project Background 2
Broader scale applications may include:
Minimize Reuse Soil and Material Establish Stockpile Treat & Manage Reuse Treated vs. Recycling Products
Project Background 2 Project elements: Excavation Stabilization
Project Background 2 Project elements: Sampling In situ Ex situ At study site
Test Program Set-up and Methodology 3 Stockpiles: Untreated, Nutrient Added, Compost Sampling Program Reduction in concentrations of COCs Planned Beneficial End Use
9 large
stockpiles
4 small
stockpiles +
Reorganized piles for study
program
Control Add
nutrients. Cover.
Exposed with
nutrients
Exposed without
nutrients
Covered with
nutrients
Covered without
nutrients
Test Pile Setup Based on Initial Sampling Results
Mix Material with Compost
Control
Pile E
20% material : compost
ratio
Pile B
add 10% material to the pile after 4
months
Pile C
add 20% material to the pile after 4
months
Pile D
10% material : compost
ratio
Pile A
Test Program Set-up and Methodology 3
Sampling Program Design Composites Appropriate Volume Representativeness
Reference: Lame, Honders, Derksen and Gadella (2005)
Test Program Set-up and Methodology 3
Challenges Funding Material State Winter Conditions
Study Results to Date 4
In situ vs. ex situ Elevated SAR Elevated organic nitrogen Elevated PHCs and PAHs
Study Results to Date 4
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
PHC F2 (>C10-C16range)
PHC F3 (>C16-C34range)
PHC F4 (>C34-C50range)
Average PHC Concentrations (µg/g) in Untreated Test Piles
In situ (May 2011) Ex situ (Dec 2011 and Jan 2012)
Control (Nov 2012) Untreated (May 2013)
Control (June 2013)
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
PHC F2 (>C10-C16range)
PHC F3 (>C16-C34range)
PHC F4 (>C34-C50range)
Average PHC Concentrations (µg/g) in Treated Test Piles
Control (Nov 2012) Nutrient (Nov 2012)
Control (June 2013) Nutrient (June 2013)
Study Results to Date 4
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
PHC F2 (>C10-C16range)
PHC F3 (>C16-C34range)
PHC F4 (>C34-C50range)
Maximum PHC Concentrations (µg/g) in Untreated Test Piles
In Situ (May 2011) Ex Situ (Dec 2011 and Jan 2012)
Control (Nov 2012) Untreated (May 2013)
Control (June 2013)
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
PHC F2 (>C10-C16range)
PHC F3 (>C16-C34range)
PHC F4 (>C34-C50range)
Maximum PHC Concentrations (µg/g) in Treated Test Piles
Control (Nov 2012) Nutrient (Nov 2012)
Control (June 2013) Nutrient (June 2013)
Study Results to Date 4
012345
Average Selected PAH Concentrations (µg/g) in
Untreated Test Piles
In Situ (May 2011) Ex situ (Dec 2011 and Jan 2012)
Control (Nov 2012) Untreated (May 2013)
Control (June 2013)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Average Selected PAH Concentrations (µg/g) in Treated
Test Piles
Control (Nov 2012) Nutrient (Nov 2012)
Control (June 2013) Nutrient (June 2013)
Study Results to Date 4
0123456789
1011
Maximum Selected PAH Concentrations (µg/g) in
Untreated Test Piles
In situ (May 2011) Ex situ (Dec 2011 and Jan 2012)
Control (Nov 2012) Untreated (May 2013)
Control (June 2013)
0123456789
1011
Maximum Selected PAH Concentrations (µg/g) in Treated
Test Piles
Control (Nov 2012) Nutrient (Nov 2012)
Control (June 2013) Nutrient (June 2013)
Study Results to Date 4
Summary Nutrient Value Reductions in PHCs, PAHs, & SAR Impact on Compost Quality
Study Results to Date 4
Summary Analysis/Sampling of study stockpiles – on going Compost study – on going Discussion on options for soil management in
the Region – on going
Next Steps & Conclusions 5 Additional sampling in 2013 Comparison of results Determination of end use
? Questions 7
Thanks to: Naz Ritchie & Mike Greenhill
(Regional Municipality of Waterloo) Melissa Ryan & Nick Gollan (City of Kitchener) Tiana Robinson, Mike Charles & David Wilson
(Stantec)
Acknowledgements 8
top related