ASSESSMENT and COMPARISON of TWO PHYTOREMEDIATION SYSTEMS TREATING SLOW-MOVING GROUNDWATER PLUMES of TCE a Thesis Presented To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON OF TWO PHYTOREMEDIATION SYSTEMS TREATING SLOW-MOVING GROUNDWATER PLUMES OF TCE A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Amy C. Lewis June 2006 © 2006 Amy C. Lewis All Rights Reserved This thesis entitled ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON OF TWO PHYTOREMEDIATION SYSTEMS TREATING SLOW-MOVING GROUNDWATER PLUMES OF TCE by AMY C. LEWIS has been approved for the Program of Environmental Studies and the College of Arts and Sciences by Guy Riefler Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Abstract LEWIS, AMY C., M.S., June 2006. Environmental Studies ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON OF TWO PHYTOREMEDIATION SYSTEMS TREATING SLOW-MOVING GROUNDWATER PLUMES OF TCE (158 pp.) Director of Thesis: Guy Riefler This study assessed the impact of the X-740 Phytoremediation System, located at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, on a TCE plume. Differences in planting technique and tree species used at the site were analyzed. In addition, groundwater uptake and TCE removal were determined. The X-740 Phytoremediation System was planted in 1999 and was calculated over the following years. The phytoremediation system was initially expected to take two years to reach maturity, however, the groundwater data presented in this paper documents that actually it was four years before the phytoremediation system began noticeably influencing the groundwater. The phytoremediation system does not show a decrease in water elevations until 2003, even though it was expected to have occurred in 2001 or 2002. Increased hydraulic gradient across the site indicates by 2005 the system trees were extracting 75,000 gallons per day (gpd) or 98 gpd per tree. The total mass of TCE in the phytoremediation area in 1999 was 425 g when compared to 2005 the TCE mass was 394 g showing a slight decrease particularity in the final two years of sampling. Furthermore, the TCE concentration is demonstrating fluctuating results. During the growing season the TCE concentrations are lower than during the dormant season. This occurrence is also evident in the byproducts of TCE consistently from 2001 through 2005. BIOCHLOR simulations also indicate that the TCE concentrations are below what would be expected due to natural attenuation. The results of this evaluation indicate that the trees are having a positive effect on the groundwater at the X-740 Area, although the effect is slight and not apparent until the fourth year of growing. It is expected that TCE contaminant and removal will continue to improve as the trees mature. Approved: Guy Riefler Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering Acknowledgement I would like to begin by clearly stating my involvement in the phytoremediation study at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) facility. I started working at PORTS in June of 1999 as an intern for my undergraduate degree. In September I was hired full time after graduation. During the summer of 1999, the X-740 Phytoremediation Area was installed which I missed due to my hire date. I immediately began groundwater sampling for the contaminants of concern required by the Integrated Groundwater Monitoring Plan (IGWMP). A total of 18 wells at the X-740 Area are sampled on a semiannual (twice a year) basis. In addition to collecting, I also evaluated the data in order to create isoconcentration and potentiometric surface maps which illustrate the flow of the groundwater as well as the plume migration. This allows the prediction of the effectiveness of the phytoremediation system pertaining to the groundwater flow and uptake by trees. I used this information to generate the visual extent of the contamination via the isoconcentration illustrations as well as the visual groundwater flow changes initiated by the phytoremediation system. Also, I monitored tree growth, health, and mortality rates, well casings, groundwater levels, and in-well pressure transducer/data loggers. All of these monitoring options were instituted to demonstrate that the phytoremediation system was working effectively. I compared the isoconcentration and potentiometric surface diagrams each quarter to the previous quarters, sequentially to illustrate the effects of the chosen remediation options. In relation to the X-749 Phytoremediation Area, I acted as the Field Quality Engineer during the installation of the project. In collaboration with a construction business my company helped to install the X-749 Phytoremediation System in January of 2003. During the implementation my involvement included the daily field tasks of ensuring the trenches were aligned according to the drawings as well as excavated to the correct depth, the materials were the specified brand, the amended soils were mixed with the correct amount of each material such as peat moss, coarse sand, fertilizer, and lime, along with the proper thickness of sand in the trenches. When this phase was complete the installation of the tree species began. At this phase, my tasks included the assurance that the trees were the correct species, size, and planted according to drawings and specifications. I also ensured the total number of trees were planted according to the design, installation, and the total number of watering tubes were installed in relation to the total number of trees installed. Once this phase was completed, the monitoring phase began which included the extended version of the IGWMP (a total of 79 groundwater wells are sampled on a semiannual basis). Prior to this, the X-749 Area was monitored, however, not as extensively. Also, similar to the X-740 Phytoremediation Area, I conducted surveillance and maintenance inspections. I have worked at the PORTS facility for over 6 years monitoring these areas as well as others. Some activities on-site require a two man crew, others do not. A total of five other individuals have assisted in portions of the data collection. I did not participate in the background data collection; although it will be used as a means of comparison. My thesis will include the knowledge and experience I have gained during my professional career and monitoring data I collected during my employment. However, the evaluation and analysis of data that will be completed for this thesis results from my individual academic research and goes well beyond what is required for my employment at PORTS. Additionally, I would like to thank everyone involved for their time throughout my research. I would especially like to thank Dr. Guy Riefler for his efforts during my last months of research who offered guidance and direction in the completion of this paper. I would also like to thank Dr. Stuart and Dr. Miles for being members of my committee. 9 Table of Contents Page Abstract................................................................................................................................4 Acknowledgement .............................................................................................................. 6 List of tables...................................................................................................................... 11 List of figures.................................................................................................................... 12 1.0 Trichloroethylene contamination................................................................................ 17 1.1 Trichloroethylene history........................................................................................ 17 1.2 Public health effects................................................................................................ 18 1.3 Regulations ............................................................................................................. 19 2.0 Phytoremediation........................................................................................................ 20 2.1 Plant selection ......................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Phytoremediation process ....................................................................................... 22 2.3 Advantages.............................................................................................................. 28 2.4 Disadvantages ......................................................................................................... 30 2.5 Economical benefits................................................................................................ 31 2.6 Determinate factors of phytoremediation ............................................................... 33 2.7 Evidence of TCE uptake ......................................................................................... 34 2.8 Evidence of volatile organic compound (VOC) transpiration ................................ 36 2.9 Evidence of VOC degradation................................................................................ 38 2.10 Evidence of groundwater uptake .......................................................................... 39 2.11 Implications for this study .................................................................................... 40 3.0 Site description ........................................................................................................... 41 3.1 Plant history ............................................................................................................ 41 3.2