Pay-for-Performance Use of Third Generation Insitu Chemical Remediation as a Replacement for Obsolete, Best Effort / Well Based Fenton's Oxidation
Mark Vigneri, ERFS, Sea Girt, NJ

Pay-for-Performance In-situ Chemical Remediation – A Consultant and Client Perspective
Bruce Nelson, Malcolm Pirnie, Lantham, NY
David J. Glass, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Newport News, VA

Pay-for-Performance Site Management utilizing BioAug with the On-Contact Remediation Model
Robert S. Steele, ERFS, Fairfax, VA
Dave Philbrook, BioAug, Raleigh, NC  
Ron Adams, Environmental Remediation and Financial Services LLC, Ponte Vedra, FL

Pay-for-Performance Contracting and Implementation of Embedded Technology Strategies
Matthew Burklew, Shaw Group, Clermont, FL

Advances in Attaining Closure Levels at Pay-for-Performance UST sites utilizing Solid Oxidizers
Rich Werner, Environmental Consulting Inc., Norristown, PA

On Site Configuration via Instrumentation to Deliver Pay-for-Performance Remediation Technologies
Vince Barlock, Pelorus, Evergreen, CO and Ron Adams, ERFS, Ponte Vedra, FL  

Pay-for-Performance Use of Third Generation Insitu Chemical Remediation as a Replacement for Obsolete, Best Effort / Well Based Fenton's Oxidation

Mark G. Vigneri, Environmental Remediation and Financial Services, LLC (ERFS), 2150 Highway 35, Suite 250, Sea Girt, NJ 08750, Tel: 732-974-3570, Fax: 732-974-3571, Email: mvigneri@erfs.com

In the early 1990's, the insitu use of Fenton's Reagent dispensed through a well, became a popular remediation alternative to exsitu systems, such as pump and treat. Early first generation systems were crude, simple, and limited in scope and effectiveness in treating ground water with almost no effect on soil.

Second Generation systems began to appear in 1994. These variations used similar attributes of the basic First Generation concept. Attempted improvements included adding pressure, vacuum assistance, changes in chemistry, specialized injection wells and others to remove organic contamination from ground water and soil. Each field application design change lead to both an improvement as well as a new draw back. For example, pressurization can lead to plume migration; chemistry changes are moot without transport mechanisms; and any use of wells is limited by basic physics.

In 1998, the On-Contact Remediation Process® (OCRP) Model was designed to be the Third Generation of Insitu Chemical Remediation. The innovation is not an actual singular process, but a method to build a set of rules to interconnect physical, chemical and later biological technologies into a unified site specific, coordinated system. Under standard industry practices, these technologies would normally have been deployed as standalone systems and prone to significant deficiencies or failure.

The OCRP methodology has been used commercially for over six years utilizing 13 physical devices with 109 different chemical and biological series on a large number of full scale projects with a 100% success rate. Remediation projects either: 1) Complete as planned; 2) Complete with technology substitutions (usually with no additional remediation cost); 3) By a transition to a closing task, such as Managed Natural Attenuation; or 4) reach closure through risk analysis or by additional treatment of cubic volumes not within the original scope of work.

The presentation will concentrate on the second path to project completion, technology substitutions using many interconnected physical technologies including Propagations SM, ConductivPlanz SM, and Programmable Release Processors (PRPs) SM, Laterals SM and SIPs SM with many types of chemicals and biological field changes.

The efficiency of the Model combined with the Economic Model from last year's presentation (Application Theory & Practice of Pay-for-Performance Remediation) will be compared against Fenton-in-a-Well procedures to illustrate the limited applicability of this common but now limited remediation method.

Pay-for-Performance In-situ Chemical Remediation – A Consultant and Client Perspective

Bruce R. Nelson, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 43 British American Boulevard, Latham, NY 12110, Tel: 518-782-2115, Fax: 518-782-0500, Email: bnelspon@pirnie.com
David J. Glass, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 701 Town Center, Suite 600, Newport News, VA 23606, Tel: 757-873-4413, Fax: 757-873-7752, Email: dglass@pirnie.com

In-situ chemical oxidation is a remedial technology that can provide distinct technological advantages, including the ability to directly address source areas, minimize site disturbances, minimize off-site disposal liabilities, limit worker exposure to site impacts during remedial action, and expedite site closure.

Increasingly, industrial and government clients are requesting or demanding firm, fixed-price remedial solutions.  Accordingly, as the in-situ chemical oxidation remedial market has matured, some vendors have offered firm, fixed price, or pay-for-performance, contracting mechanisms to meet the rising market demand.

Such contract mechanisms can provide several advantages to clients.  This presentation will present case studies for two projects for which pay-for-performance in-situ chemical oxidation with Fenton’s Reagent was conducted.

One site is a ground service equipment (GSE) maintenance facility, located at an international airport in upstate New York.  Soil and groundwater in a portion of the GSE maintenance facility had been affected by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) derived from petroleum-based solvents.  Concentrations of individual VOCs and SVOCs exceeded applicable state standards and guidance values.  Based on the nature, extent, and air-side location of the contamination, in-situ chemical oxidation with Fenton’s Reagent was selected as the remedial approach.  Proposals were received from four vendors.  One vendor proposed a pay-for-performance contract mechanism that was between approximately 60 and 200 percent of the cost of proposals from vendors that priced a single round of in-situ chemical oxidation with no performance metric.  The client selected the pay-for-performance approach and after three rounds of oxidant injection, the site was closed.

The second site is an active painting supply store and warehouse located in Tidewater Virginia at which gasoline compounds, primarily benzene, were present in groundwater in excess of state standards.  At this site, more than 10 rounds of oxidant injection have been conducted under a pay-for-performance agreement.  Despite this extraordinary effort, gasoline compounds, while significantly decreasing in concentration, persisted at concentrations in excess of state groundwater standards.  As such, the conceptual site model has been revised and an additional potential secondary source area under the building identified.  The pay-for-performance agreement has been modified to include treatment of this area and concentrations of gasoline compounds continue to decrease.  Site closure is expected through the revised pay-for-performance agreement.

Pay-for-Performance Site Management utilizing BioAug with On-contact Remediation Model

Robert Steele, BioAug LLC, 13114 Blue Willow Place, Clifton, VA 20124, Tel: (703) 830-9780, Fax (703) 830-6608, Email: bsteele@bioaug.com
Dave Philbrook, BioAug LLC, 3412 Yelverton Circle, Raleigh, NC 27601, Tel: (919) 785-1161, Fax (919) 785-1079, Email: dphilbrook@bioaug.com
Ron Adams, Environmental Remediation and Financial Services LLC, 335 Pablo Road, Ponte Vedra, FL  32082, Tel: (904) 280-2596, Fax (904) 280-2597, Email:  radams@erfs.com

Conventional remediation technologies, such as pump and treat and soil vapor extraction, sparging, etc., rely on mass transfer mechanisms to reduce contaminant concentrations.  While contaminant levels can be reduced using these methods, contaminant rebound, due to mass transfer limitations associated with conventional remediation technologies, yields asymptotic constituent concentrations that often precludes achieving site closure. Furthermore, continued use of conventional technologies over a prolonged period will not overcome these limitations   Therefore, reducing contaminant concentrations to levels that achieves site closure is the most significant challenge at most sites. 

The On-Contact^SM Remediation Model is predicated on fact that a single remediation technology will not, in most cases, result in obtaining site closure. Therefore, to reach site closure, an integrated treatment approach is used to overcome such limitations. This involves the application of various chemical and biological treatment conditioners and reagents that are proven to be effective for treatment of a specific constituent. To be effective, the in-situ treatment must be directed to those areas where the contamination exists. This can be accomplished using ERFS’ ConductivPlanz^SM technology to increase the subsurface permeability so that reagents can be delivered to the specific areas where contamination exists.  This technology involves the installation of a permeable lens that radiates laterally such that treatment reagents can be directly applied to a targeted treatment area.

In all On-Contact^SM Process designs, the subsurface in the targeted treatment area is prepared for high efficiency mass removal or contaminant degradation. Desorbing and liberating contaminant mass within the treatment area soils is the first step in most in-situ treatments to address rebound effects. Contaminants are desorbed from subsurface soils using conditioning chemicals, blended on a site-specific basis, and applied prior to the application of chemical or biological remediation reagents within the influence of the ConductivPlanz^SM.

Bioaugmentation has emerged as one of the most effective techniques for performing in-situ treatment of chlorinated solvent and petroleum contaminated saturated soils and groundwater in a safe and economical manner.  In some cases, bioaugmentation is used as the final “polishing” treatment intended to reduce contaminant concentrations to achieve site closure. The technology involves the injection of inoculum, nutrients, and other aquifer conditioning media into the subsurface to establish a bioactive treatment zone. BioAug LLC maintains a mixed consortium inoculum containing Dehalococcoides Ethenogenes (DHE) microbes for the dechlorinate PCE, TCE, and their breakdown products to ethene, and BC3 inoculum for treatment of petroleum constituents. 

Pay-for-Performance Contracting and Implementation of Embedded Technology Strategies

Matt Burklew, Project Manager, Shaw Environment and Infrastructure, Inc., 415 Citrus Tower Boulevard, Clermont, FL  34711, Tel: 352-394-8601, Fax 352-394-7722, Email: mburklew@theitgroup.com

Risk based cleanup goals can serve the dual purpose of protecting the environment and reducing environmental liability for site owners.  Analysis of contaminant fate and transport and possible receptor exposures can lead to cleanup goals that are two or more orders of magnitude higher than listed cleanup levels.  Higher cleanup goals, coupled with in-situ remediation methods that are applied in their proper sequence can result in the most cost-effective approach to removing environmental liability.

This paper will provide an overview of risk-based cleanup goal estimating techniques and their relative applicability under differing conditions.  The paper will also review several sequential in-situ remediation methods, including ISCO and bio-stimulation as means to achieve these goals quickly and cost-effectively.  Two case studies will be presented where these techniques were employed.

Top