5
Source Remediation Technology Options

Many aggressive source remediation technologies have become increasingly popular in the last five years, which partly underlies the Army’s request for this study. This chapter presents those technologies that have surfaced as leading candidates for source zone remediation, including a description of each technology, a discussion of the technology’s strengths and weaknesses, and special considerations for the technology. The following sections are not necessarily equivalent because information on each technology is complete to varying degrees. For example, numerous case studies are available for surfactant flooding, chemical oxidation, and steam flushing, while almost none exist for chemical reduction. The uneven treatment of the innovative technologies in this chapter is thus largely a reflection of the amount of data available.

Because source zone remediation is the focus of this discussion, technologies that target remediation of the dissolved plume are not discussed. Thus, for example, permeable reactive barriers, which primarily treat the plume, are not included. In addition, excavation, containment, and monitored natural attenuation are only briefly touched upon. While they may well be used in combination with a source zone remedial activity, these remedies are not considered to constitute in situ source zone remediation.

In addition to describing the state of the art for each individual technology, the chapter provides a qualitative comparison of the technologies, first by assessing the types of contaminants for which each technology is suitable, and then by qualitatively evaluating each technology’s relative potential for mass removal, concentration reduction, mass flux reduction, source migration, and changes in toxicity—physical objectives discussed extensively in Chapter 4. It should be



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation 5 Source Remediation Technology Options Many aggressive source remediation technologies have become increasingly popular in the last five years, which partly underlies the Army’s request for this study. This chapter presents those technologies that have surfaced as leading candidates for source zone remediation, including a description of each technology, a discussion of the technology’s strengths and weaknesses, and special considerations for the technology. The following sections are not necessarily equivalent because information on each technology is complete to varying degrees. For example, numerous case studies are available for surfactant flooding, chemical oxidation, and steam flushing, while almost none exist for chemical reduction. The uneven treatment of the innovative technologies in this chapter is thus largely a reflection of the amount of data available. Because source zone remediation is the focus of this discussion, technologies that target remediation of the dissolved plume are not discussed. Thus, for example, permeable reactive barriers, which primarily treat the plume, are not included. In addition, excavation, containment, and monitored natural attenuation are only briefly touched upon. While they may well be used in combination with a source zone remedial activity, these remedies are not considered to constitute in situ source zone remediation. In addition to describing the state of the art for each individual technology, the chapter provides a qualitative comparison of the technologies, first by assessing the types of contaminants for which each technology is suitable, and then by qualitatively evaluating each technology’s relative potential for mass removal, concentration reduction, mass flux reduction, source migration, and changes in toxicity—physical objectives discussed extensively in Chapter 4. It should be

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation noted that effectiveness data that would be pertinent to these objectives and others discussed in Chapter 4 are infrequently gathered. Most pilot- and field-scale studies of source remediation measure effectiveness in terms of mass removal and occasionally concentration reduction (although these latter data can be very difficult to interpret). Mass flux and source migration measurements have rarely been documented. Indeed, virtually no data exist on the life cycle costs associated with the technologies. Furthermore, most reports of case studies are not published in the peer reviewed literature. These facts should be kept in mind throughout this chapter, especially when interpreting summary tables. The qualitative comparison is conducted for each of the hydrogeologic settings described in Chapter 2. Because these settings are generalizations, whether a certain technology will work for a given site depends on a complex integration of a wide range of site and contaminant properties. The two contaminant types of concern in this report—dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and chemical explosives—have varying characteristics and have been handled differently with respect to source remediation. This chapter covers DNAPLs in greater detail than explosives because most of the research to date has focused on DNAPL contamination. However, when a certain technology has been used or is applicable to chemical explosives, it is mentioned. The discussion of DNAPL treatment focuses on contamination of the saturated zone, as this medium presents the greatest difficulties in terms of site cleanup. Thus, technologies that target the unsaturated zone (e.g., soil vacuum extraction, bioventing, biosparging, etc.) are not discussed here. Table 5-1 provides an overview of the technologies discussed in this chapter. Although excavation, containment, and pump-and-treat are considered conventional approaches for addressing DNAPL contamination, they are discussed here TABLE 5-1 Source Remediation Technologies in This Chapter Technology Approach Page # Excavation Extraction 180 Containment Isolation 182 Pump-and-Treat Extraction/Isolation 185 Multiphase Extraction Extraction 187 Surfactant/Cosolvent Extraction 194 Chemical Oxidation Transformation 206 Chemical Reduction Transformation 218 Steam Flushing Extraction/Transformation 224 Conductive Heating Extraction/Transformation 236 Electrical Resistance Heating Extraction/Transformation 242 Air Sparging Extraction 250 Enhanced Bioremediation Transformation 256 Explosives Technologies Extraction/Transformation 288

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation to provide a baseline for the more innovative technologies that follow. Multiphase extraction is an approach for removing as much of the mobile DNAPL as possible. The remaining technologies target residual or trapped DNAPL, and their approach is categorized as either extraction, transformation, or both. An extraction technology seeks to improve the rate at which the DNAPL can be recovered from the subsurface, while transformation technologies seek to alter the form of the DNAPL in situ. Many technologies do both. The final section in this chapter discusses technologies for treating explosive contaminants. CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES The conventional technologies that play a significant role in managing source areas at hazardous waste sites include excavation, containment, and pump-and-treat. To a certain extent, excavation (if completely successful) and containment represent the extreme ends of what is possible with source remediation, in that one technology completely removes the source, while the other removes no mass whatsoever. Pump-and-treat and all of the innovative technologies discussed subsequently fall between these two extremes in their intent. Source Area Excavation Excavation is commonplace for source remediation at hazardous waste sites, and is thus mentioned briefly for completeness. Excavation is carried out by heavy construction equipment that can dig out the source materials and place them into shipping containers. The containers are then shipped to an appropriate site for treatment or disposal, which may include designated onsite locations. Backfilling the excavation is required and necessitates having available clean backfill material and carefully and safely placing the backfill so that cross-contamination is avoided. All of these activities require extensive physical access to the source area. For excavation to succeed it is essential to know the areal extent, depth, and general distribution of source materials, which suggests an intensive source characterization effort prior to the commencement of excavation. Indeed, if pre-excavation investigations are flawed, then some portion of the source zone may be unintentionally left in place. These same characterization tools are also used later to verify that all of the source material has been removed and to classify materials encountered during the excavation as contaminated or uncontaminated. In addition to information on the size and shape of the source zone, basic geotechnical information is also important to predicting the success of excavation. For example, one should determine whether bedrock is present, as it is hard to excavate. Excavation below the water table is difficult due to the influx of groundwater, which is contaminated by contact with the source material and must be treated. Saturated sandy soils tend to liquefy during excavation (the jargon for

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation this phenomenon is running sands) and can dramatically raise the complexity of excavation—in some cases sheet piling or dewatering systems must be employed around the source materials to reduce the water flow and to stabilize the side walls and bottoms of excavations. Finally, the ability to completely excavate a source is highly dependent on having adequate physical access to the source zone. If physical access is restricted by nearby foundations or buildings, complete removal may not be possible without serious damage to surrounding structures. In any case where an excavation is planned near a foundation or a building, it is particularly important to have a high quality-investigation before excavation begins. It is also difficult to excavate on steep slopes with a thin layer of contaminated soil because the construction equipment tends to slip in dangerous ways. Certain hydrogeologic settings are more amenable to excavation as a remedial action. Shallow source zones in hydrogeologic settings I, II, and III can readily be excavated with standard equipment. Some Type IV sedimentary bedrock—for example, soft sandstone or shale—can be excavated. However, excavation of source zones in bedrock that falls into hydrogeologic settings IV and V is generally difficult, especially if the source zone is in igneous or metamorphic rock. Overall, experience has shown that excavation works best and is most cost-competitive at sites where confining layers are shallow, soil permeabilities are low, the volume of source materials is under 5,000 m3, and the contaminants do not require complex treatment or disposal. Many other references, including NRC (2003), discuss innovative and adaptive ways of excavating sites to ensure more complete capture of the entire source zone. As suggested in Chapter 2, excavation is the principal remediation measure for near-surface explosives source areas. When there is risk of detonation, tele-robotic remote excavation equipment can be used to increase the standoff distance between the field teams and the source areas. For very high explosives concentrations, removed soil must be blended with clean soil as a pretreatment, followed by incineration or composting, the latter of which has become the principal technology for treating soils highly contaminated with explosives. The primary advantage of excavation is that source materials are taken out of the groundwater system very quickly. Migration of contaminants out of the source area is cut off as soon as excavation is finished. Excavation may be inexpensive compared to in situ treatments, and is often preferred by potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and stakeholders because of its perceived simplicity. There are also many disadvantages to excavation, especially the need for an area that can receive the excavated material, the dangers of working with heavy excavation equipment, worker exposure to potential volatile organic compound (VOC) releases, and the inability to predict source area volumes. Indeed, experience with excavation is that projects often remove up to twice the volume of source material predicted before the excavation began because of faulty initial source characterization. Deep excavations may require benching, which greatly increases the volume of soil excavated. Furthermore, when water tables are lowered for exca-

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation vation, it is likely that DNAPL will be remobilized and will flow into the excavation, creating a worker exposure hazard. Finally, cost can be a disadvantage if the excavated volume is large or if the source materials removed are subject to land disposal restrictions that lead to high ex situ treatment costs (e.g., incineration of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Toxic Substances Control Act wastes). A properly planned and executed excavation carried out in an appropriate hydrogeologic setting should completely remove all mass in a source zone. In these cases, mass flux reduction, concentration reduction, and reduction of source migration potential will also be complete. Excavation produces no change in contaminant toxicity because the contaminants are transported offsite for treatment or disposal, so that is shown as “not applicable” in the comparison table presented at the end of the chapter. Containment Containment, both physical and hydraulic, is a common remedy applied to contaminant source areas. This section discusses physical containment of a source zone, while the following section on pump-and-treat technology encompasses hydraulic containment. The goal of a containment remedy is to reduce risks by greatly minimizing contaminant migration via containment of the source so that there can be no direct route of exposure to the source. Physical containment is accomplished by creating impermeable barriers on all sides of the source zone with standard heavy construction methods and equipment. Thus, a typical containment remedy consists of a very low-permeability vertical barrier surrounding the source on all sides, a clay aquitard below the source, and a low-permeability cap on top. Vertical barriers can be constructed using bentonite slurries, slurries combined with polymer sheets, sheet pilings with sealed joints, pressurized injection methods, or cryogenic systems that freeze the soil. Constructed-bottom barriers can be emplaced by several drilling methods, but such barriers are uncommon. Top barriers are used to minimize infiltration of rain water and subsequent dissolution of contaminants. Most top barriers are multilayer systems that include polymer sheeting and drainage layers. Typical operating practice for a containment system is to keep groundwater levels inside the container low relative to the adjacent aquifer by operating a small pump-and-treat system that withdraws groundwater from inside the system. This creates an inward groundwater gradient that helps ensure that contaminants will not migrate outward. Top barriers are very helpful in maintaining an inward gradient and in lowering pumping and treating costs. More recently vegetative/evaporative caps are becoming popular for controlling infiltration.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Applicability of the Technology Contaminants. Containment systems are broadly applicable to organic contaminants. They can be used to contain any contaminants that are not expected to react with or leach through the components of the containment system. Source materials with extreme pH values are the most likely to create problems. Hydrogeology. Two types of characterization related to hydrogeology are essential to containment: the areal extent and the depth of source areas to be contained, which must be known so that all source materials are indeed inside the containment system. There is no need to understand the internal structure of the source materials or the mass or concentration of contaminants present. Knowing the depth and thickness of the underlying aquitard is critical to making the vertical barriers deep enough to key into the aquitard. The aquitard topography must also be known so that any depth variations can be taken into account during barrier construction. Subsurface obstructions should be carefully mapped in advance so that barrier construction is not interrupted and so that they do not cause worker safety concerns. Groundwater modeling is necessary during the designing of a containment system because the flow of groundwater will be changed by the new barrier. Adjacent sites could be affected as water diverts around the barrier, and some groundwater mounding will happen upgradient of the barrier. If modeling predicts that mounding will be substantial, then groundwater overflowing the top of the barrier and flooding of low areas or basements up gradient would be significant concerns, and a diversion/drainage method might have to be implemented. Containment systems typically work well in unconsolidated soil (hydrogeologic settings I, II, and III) due to the relative ease of construction. Environmental conditions that can limit the applicability of containment include the presence of boulders or cobbles in soil, which can make installing vertical barriers difficult and costly. Containment is difficult in Type IV and V bedrock environments, and often relies on grout curtains. Grout curtains are difficult to install and do not yet provide the same level of assurance as vertical barriers constructed by trenching in unconsolidated soils. Verification of construction quality is also more difficult in Type IV and V settings. At sites where no natural bottom exists, there is little experience in constructing bottom barriers. Finally, it should be noted that a containment system creates a permanent subsurface wall that eliminates that part of the aquifer as a potential water source. Barriers and other structural enhancements used for containment can be constructed to depths of approximately 30 meters, using such equipment as augers, draglines, clamshells, and special excavators with extended booms. As with all technologies discussed in this chapter, the cost of containment rises as the depth of treated subsurface increases.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Health, Safety, and Environmental Considerations. The main safety concerns of containment are those associated with operation of the heavy equipment necessary for construction. Once a containment system is in place, it is paramount that it remain effective in order to avoid potential health or other problems in the surrounding areas. This requires continuous and rigorous inspections during the construction of the remedy and subsequent long-term monitoring. Even though there is a loss of the use of the area for any intrusive activities, alternative land uses such as parks and golf courses built on top of containment systems are becoming more common, and newer construction technologies such as jetting are reducing land-use restrictions around contained systems. If the source materials have the potential to generate gasses, a system to control gas migration should be built to avoid future exposures. Potential for Meeting Goals Compared to most of the technologies discussed in this chapter, containment is simple and robust. When constructed well, a containment system almost completely eliminates contaminant transport to other environmental compartments and thus prevents both direct and indirect exposures. In Type I, II, and III environments, containment systems provide a very high degree of mass flux reduction and a very high reduction of source migration potential. Nonetheless, monitoring of containment systems is essential for assuring no migration of the contaminants. Containment systems do not reduce source zone mass, concentration, or toxicity unless they are deliberately used with treatment technologies. (In most cases only limited treatment will be provided by the pump-and-treat systems installed to control groundwater infiltration.) It is possible to combine containment systems with in situ treatment, since most in situ technologies that can clean up a free-range source can operate inside a contained zone—for example, the Delaware Sand & Gravel cometabolic bioventing system. In some cases, containment may allow for the use of treatments that would constitute too great a risk (e.g., with respect to migration of either contaminants or reagents) in an uncontrolled aquifer, though there would need to be substantial drivers to cause installation of two remedies in the same source zone. Cost Drivers The cost drivers for containment all relate to the types and quantities of construction necessary. They are the depth to aquitard, the total length of vertical barrier necessary, the type of barrier wall construction selected, the type of cap selected, and the need (if any) to construct a bottom. Monitoring systems are necessary, but they are not complex or costly. Containment systems are typically inexpensive compared to treatment, especially for large source areas.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Technology-Specific Prediction Tools and Models Containment systems are very predictable because they are basically standard construction projects. Their long-term performance is currently predicted by models. The same techniques have been used in the construction industry for water control for some time, and have a good track record. Bench studies are typically used to define the best components of slurry mixtures. Research and Demonstration Needs Given its status as a conventional technology, the research needs of containment are minimal. However, better monitoring techniques would be helpful, and better ways to confirm the integrity of vertical barriers and the bottom containment would raise confidence. More information on the longevity of barrier materials in contact with contaminants would be helpful in the design of better barrier materials. Hydraulic Containment Hydraulic containment is one of the most widely used methods to limit the movement of contaminants from DNAPL source zones. Through the use of extraction wells, contaminated groundwater emanating from source zones can be captured and treated ex situ, a technique commonly referred to as pump-and-treat (NRC, 1994, 1999). To reduce ex situ treatment costs, injection wells can be used in conjunction with extraction wells to hydraulically isolate contaminant source zones. It is generally accepted that in most cases, hydraulic containment will not be very effective for source remediation due to the limited solubilities of most contaminants of concern and due to limitations in mass transfer to the aqueous phase (NRC, 1994, 1999; EPA, 1996; Illangesekare and Reible, 2001). Therefore, the current discussion is focused only on hydraulic containment of source zones, rather than their remediation. (Some small measure of source depletion may result from the water flow through the source zone that may accompany hydraulic containment.) Case Studies Because pump-and-treat is the most widely used technology applied at contaminated sites, detailed case studies are numerous and are best summarized elsewhere (e.g., NRC, 1994, and EPA, 1998a). At most sites where pump-and-treat has been used, decreases in contaminant concentrations in extracted water were observed during pumping, but cleanup targets were not met. However, at almost all sites hydraulic containment was achieved, demonstrating that the technology can be effective in simply halting the spread of contaminants from source zones to groundwater.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Applicability of the Technology Contaminants. Hydraulic containment is not limited to a particular contaminant type. However, any concomitant mass removal from the source zone that might occur during pump-and-treat operations will be greater for contaminants with higher solubilities. Hydrogeology. The effective design of hydraulic containment systems requires a thorough understanding of site hydrogeology in order to choose the optimal locations of and pumping rates for wells. Incomplete hydrogeologic characterization can lead to systems that do not achieve complete containment or that pump excessive amounts of groundwater, leading to increased pump-and-treat costs. Thus, the more complex the hydrogeologic setting, the more challenging will be the design of an optimal hydraulic containment system. There are no depth limitations associated with hydraulic containment other than those associated with well drilling, although costs are expected to increase as well depth increases. In systems with high hydraulic conductivities (such as gravel or coarse sand), hydraulic containment may be difficult to achieve because high pumping rates may be required from closely spaced wells. In low-permeability formations (such as clays, silts) it may also be difficult to obtain effective hydraulic containment due to the high gradients required to achieve significant capture zone size. In highly heterogeneous systems, effective hydraulic containment is limited by the lack of hydraulic connectivity resulting from the presence of lower-permeability zones. This may be particularly problematic for fractured systems and karst, for which the connectivity can be difficult to determine. Health, Safety, and Environmental Considerations. The primary health, safety, and environmental considerations for hydraulic containment relate to the treatment and disposal of contaminants removed from the subsurface. Precautions must be taken to ensure that exposure to extracted contaminated groundwater does not occur, particularly due to off-gassing of contaminant vapors. Typical ex situ treatment technologies involve activated carbon, catalytic oxidation, and biological treatment. When contaminants are transferred to another medium, as with activated carbon treatment, the additional steps that are involved in the ultimate disposal of the contaminants may present health and safety risks. Potential for Meeting Goals Given its widespread use, the effectiveness of hydraulic containment for meeting various objectives for different types of sites is widely known. Regardless of hydrogeologic setting, hydraulic containment will not achieve significant mass removal due to the low aqueous phase solubilities of most contaminants of concern relative to the amounts of mass typically present in the organic phase

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation (Illangasekare and Reible, 2001) and sorbed to the soil. These solubilities are primarily controlled by the slow mass transfer from the organic and soil phases to the aqueous phase. For some highly soluble contaminants such as DCA (solubility of 8,600 mg/L), hydraulic containment that maximizes water flow through the source zone may produce significant mass removal in homogeneous permeable settings. In heterogeneous media settings, removal of contaminants from the permeable zones may also contribute to a reduction in contaminant flux, while local average concentrations may not be significantly reduced due to the channeling of water through the high-permeability regions. Due to the low mass removal expected with hydraulic containment, reduction of source migration potential is not significant, although maintenance of upward gradients has been proposed as a means of preventing downward migration of DNAPL in fractured rock (Chown et al., 1997). Cost Drivers The costs of hydraulic containment are associated with the operation and maintenance of a pumping system and with treatment of extracted water. Technology-Specific Prediction Tools and Models In the majority of cases, the design of the hydraulic containment system and the associated modeling are focused on simulating water flow, not on contaminant transport and removal. There are a large number of tools and models that can be used to design hydraulic containment systems. These range from simple analytical solutions for homogeneous steady-state systems (EPA, 1996) to complex numerical models that can incorporate heterogeneities and transient boundary conditions. EXTRACTION TECHNOLOGIES Two technologies commonly used for source remediation work primarily by physically extracting the contaminants from the subsurface. Multiphase extraction employs a vacuum or pump to extract NAPL, vapor, and aqueous phase contaminants, which may then be disposed of or treated. Surfactant and cosolvent flushing are somewhat akin to pump and treat (discussed earlier) in that a liquid is introduced into the subsurface into which the contaminant partitions, and then the mixture is extracted out of the subsurface and subsequently treated. Multiphase Extraction Multiphase extraction involves the extraction of water, gas, and possibly NAPL from the subsurface through the application of a vacuum to wells. In one

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation variant referred to as two-phase extraction (EPA, 1997), a high vacuum of 18–26 inches (46–66 cm) of Hg is applied to the extraction well through a suction pipe (slurp tube) to extract a mixture of soil vapor, groundwater, and possibly NAPL (see Figure 5-1). Turbulent multiphase fluid flow in the suction pipe may enhance transfer of VOC vapors to the gas phase. The second variant, referred to as dual-phase extraction, uses a submersible, or pneumatic, pump to extract the liquids from the well, while a vacuum (3–26 inches or 8–66 cm of Hg) extraction blower is used to remove soil vapor (see Figure 5-2). Because application of a vacuum in multiphase extraction induces atmospheric air infiltration that can stimulate aerobic biodegradation, it is sometimes also referred to as bioslurping. Multiphase extraction wells are usually installed with at least a portion of their screened sections in the vadose zone. Thus, the vacuum applied creates vapor flow through the vadose zone to the multiphase extraction wells, thereby removing volatile organic vapors in the soil gas. The extraction of water lowers the water table, and therefore exposes a greater portion of the subsurface to vapor stripping. The extraction of groundwater also removes dissolved contaminants from the subsurface. The application of a high vacuum to the extraction well enhances groundwater flow to the well by increasing pressure gradients around the well, without substantial drawdown of the water table. If LNAPL is present at the site, this can reduce the smearing of LNAPLs in the soil around the well that can occur when there is significant water table lowering. NAPL present in the zone of influence of the multiphase extraction well may also be captured, particularly in the case of LNAPL pools sitting on the water table. Design of a multiphase extraction system requires determining the zones of influence of wells for given vacuum levels, determining gas and liquid extraction rates, and determining optimal well spacing. Preliminary design can be done with hydraulic models for gas and water flow, but pilot tests are advisable. The required aboveground equipment includes pumps, gas–liquid separators, and gas and liquid treatment trains. A variety of proprietary designs for multiphase extraction have been developed (EPA, 1999), which typically involve variations in the details of fluid extraction from the wells. Overview of Case Studies Multiphase extraction has been applied to a variety of sites contaminated with either halogenated or nonhalogenated VOCs. The only documented examples of using this technology specifically for NAPL recovery have been sites where the contaminant was an LNAPL (and these cases are not described further). There are a limited number of chlorinated solvent case studies available (as described below), and there appears to have been little monitoring for contaminant concentration rebound after treatment. A one-year multiphase extraction treatability study was conducted at the Defense Supply Center in Richmond, Virginia, during 1997–1998. The contaminants were

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation specific nature of both performance and cost, it is not possible to generically predict the impact of source remediation technologies on life cycle costs. The level and type of source zone characterization required to design, implement, and monitor the performance of remedies is dependent on the chosen objectives and the remediation technology. For example, in situ chemical oxidation requires accurate estimates of source zone mass and composition and matrix oxygen demand, or else the remedy could be plagued by stoichiometric limitations or by the consumption of oxidant by unidentified co-contaminants. The properties of the source material (e.g., composition, viscosity, density, interfacial tension) should be determined for field-weathered samples in order to assess such remedies as surfactant-enhanced flushing. The location and geometry of source zone materials should be known to some level of certainty in order to design containment systems. For example, the most effectively designed slurry wall will have less effect on downstream mass flux if it is placed across the source zone rather than around it. With respect to performance monitoring, judging the effectiveness of in situ chemical oxidation by monitoring mineralization products or by monitoring the consumption of oxidant could overestimate treatment effectiveness in cases where alternate contaminants are present. Development of treatment technologies for explosives source zones is in its infancy because the characterization of explosive source materials and of their interactions with geologic media lags far behind the knowledge base that exists for DNAPLs. Before one can understand the utility or performance characteristics of treatment technologies for explosives contamination, one should understand the chemical and physical nature of the explosives source zones. Furthermore, source areas containing high concentrations of explosives have the potential for dangerous explosions during remediation, which will necessitate laboratory and field assessment of explosives source zones within specialized facilities. REFERENCES Abriola, L. M., T. J. Dekker, and K. D. Pennell. 1993. Surfactant-enhanced solubilization of residual dodecane in soil columns: 2—mathematical modeling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(12):2341–2351. Abriola, L. M., C. A. Ramsburg, K. D. Pennell, F. E. Loeffler, M. Gamache, and E. A. Petrovskis. 2003. Post-treatment monitoring and Biological Activity at the Bachman Road Surfactant-enhanced Aquifer Remediation Site. 43(1) Extended Abstract, American Chemical Society Meeting, New Orleans, LA, March 23–27, 2003. Abston, S. 2002. U.S. Army. Presentation to the NRC Committee on Source Removal of Contaminants in the Subsurface. August 22, 2002. Alvarez-Cohen, L., and G. E. Speitel. 2001. Kinetics of aerobic cometabolism of chlorinated solvents. Biodegradation 12(2):105–126.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation AATDF. 1997. Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents. CH2MHILL. http://clu-in.org/PRODUCTS/AATDF/Toc.htm. Baker, R., D. Groher, and D. Becker. 1999. Minimal desaturation found during multi-phase extraction of low permeability soils. Ground Water Currents, 33, EPA 542-N-99-006. Bier, E. L., J. Singh, Z. Li, S. D. Comfort, and P. J. Shea. 1999. Remediating RDX-contaminated water and soil by Fenton Oxidation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:1078–1084. Brauner, J. S., and M. A. Widdowson. 2001. Numerical Simulation of a Natural Attenuation Experiment with a Petroleum Hydrocarbon NAPL Source. Groundwater 39:939–952. Brown, C. L., M. Delshad, V. Dwarakanath, R. E. Jackson, J. T. Londergan, H. W. Meinardus, D. C. McKinney, T. Oolman, G. A. Pope, and W. H. Wade. 1999. Demonstration of surfactant flooding of an alluvial aquifer contaminated with dense nonaqueous phase liquid. Pp. 64–85 In: Innovative Subsurface Remediation: Field Testing of Physical, Chemical and Characterization Technologies. M. L. Brusseau, D. A. Sabatini, J. S. Gierke, and M. D. Annable (eds.). American Chemical Society Symposium Series 725. Washington, DC: ACS. Brown, R. A. 1998. An analysis of air sparging for chlorinated solvent sites. Pp. C1.5:285–291 In: Physical, Chemical and Thermal Technologies. G. B. Wickramanayake and R. E. Hinchee (eds.). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. Buettner, H. M., W. D. Daily, and A. L. Ramirez. 1992. Enhancing cyclic steam injection and vapor extraction of volatile organic compounds in soils with electrical heating. Proc., Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Mgmt., Spectrum 1992:1321–1324. Butler, R. M. 1991. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Carr, C. S., S. Garg, and J. B. Hughes. 2000. Effect of dechlorinating bacteria on the longevity and composition of PCE-containing nonaqueous phase liquids under equilibrium dissolution conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:1088–1094. Chown, J. C., B. H. Kueper, and D. B. McWhorter. 1997. The use of upward hydraulic gradients to arrest downward DNAPL migration in rock fractures. Journal of Ground Water 35(3):483–491. Cirpka, O. A., and P. K. Kitanidis. 2001. Travel-time based model of bioremediation using circulation wells. Groundwater 39(3):422–432. Clement, T. B., C. D. Johnson, Y. Sun, G. M. Klecka, and C. Bartlett. 2000. Natural attenuation of chlorinated ethene compounds: model development and field-scale application at the Dover site. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 42:113–140. Comfort, S. D. 2003. Evaluating in-situ permanganate oxidation and biodegradation of RDX in a perched aquifer. Project Report, University of Nebraska, October 2003. Comfort, S. D., P. J. Shea, T .A. Machacek, and T. Satapanajaru. 2003. Pilot-scale treatment of RDX-contaminated soil with zerovalent iron. J. Environ. Qual. 32:1717–1725. Cope, N., and J. B. Hughes. 2001. Biologically-enhanced removal of PCE from NAPL source zones. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:2014–2021. Craig, H. D., W. E. Sisk, M. D. Nelson, and W. H. Dana. 1999. Bioremediation of explosives-contaminated soils: a status review. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research. Great Plains-Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance Research Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. May 23–24, 1995. Delshad, M., G. A. Pope, and K. Sepehrnoori. 1996. A compositional simulator for modeling surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation: 1—formulation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 23(4):303–327. Delshad, M., G. A. Pope, L. Yeh, and F. J. Holzmer. 2000. Design of the surfactant flood at Camp Lejeune. The Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 22–25, 2000. Dicksen, T., G. J. Hirasaki, and C.A. Miller. 2002. Mobility of foam in heterogeneous media: flow parallel and perpendicular to stratification. SPE Journal, June 2002. Dwarakanath, V., and G. A. Pope. 2000. Surfactant phase behavior with field degreasing solvent. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34(22):4842.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Dwarakanath, V., K. Kostarelos, G. A. Pope, D. Shotts, and W. H. Wade. 1999. Anionic surfactant remediation of soil columns contaminated by nonaqueous phase liquids. J. Contaminant Hydrology 38(4):465–488. Dwarakanath, V., L. Britton, S. Jayanti, G. A. Pope, and V. Weerasooriya. 2000. Thermally enhanced surfactant remediation. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference. Albuquerque, NM, November 7–10, 2000. Elder, C. R., C. H. Benson, and G. R. Eykholt. 1999. Modeling mass removal during in situ air sparging. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125(11):947–958. Elliott, L. J., G. A. Pope, and R. T. Johns. 2004. Multi-dimensional numerical reservoir simulation of thermal remediation of contaminants below the water table. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 24–27, 2004. Ellis, D. E., E. J. Lutz, J. M. Odom, R. J. Buchanan, C. L. Bartlett, M. D. Lee, M. R. Harkness, and K. A. Deweerd. 2000. Bioaugmentation for accelerated in situ anaerobic bioremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:2254–2260. Enfield, C. G., A. L. Wood, M. C. Brooks, and M. D. and Annable. 2002. Interpreting tracer data to forecast remedial performance. Pp. 11–16 In: Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced Restoration of Groundwater Pollution. S. Thornton and S. Oswald (eds.). Sheffield, UK: IAHS. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995a. In Situ Remediation Technology Status Report: Thermal Enhancements. EPA/542-K-94-009. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Technology Innovation Office. EPA. 1995b. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers. EPA 510-B-95-007. Washington, DC: EPA. EPA. 1996. Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation, A Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners. EPA/625/R-95/005. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Research and Development. EPA. 1997. Presumptive Remedy: Supplemental Bulletin Multi-Phase Extraction Technology for VOCs in Soil and Groundwater. Directive No. 9355.0-68FS, EPA 540-F-97-004 PB97-963501. Washington, DC: EPA. EPA. 1998a. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3. EPA 542-98-010. Washington, DC: EPA Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. EPA. 1998b. Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Chemical Oxidation. EPA 542-R-98-008. Washington, DC: EPA. EPA. 1998c. Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies for Contaminant Remediation. EPA/600/R-98/125. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 1999. Multi-Phase Extraction: State-of-the-Practice. EPA 542-R-99-004. Washington, DC: EPA. EPA. 2000. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4. EPA 542-R00-006. Washington, DC: EPA Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. EPA. 2001. A Citizen’s Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging. EPA 542-F-01-006. Washington, DC: EPA. EPA. 2003. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 7. Washington, DC: EPA Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Falta, R. W., K. Pruess, I. Javandel, and P. A. Witherspoon. 1992. Numerical modelling of steam injection for the removal of nonaqueous phase liquids from the subsurface. I. Numerical formulation. Water Resources Research 28(2):433–449. Falta, R. W., C. M. Lee, S. E. Brame, E. Roeder, J. T. Coates, C. Wright, A. L. Wood, and C. G. Enfield. 1999. Field test of high molecular weight alcohol flushing for subsurface nonaqueous phase liquid remediation. Water Resources Research 35(7):2095–2108.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Finn, P. S., A. Kane, J. Vidumsky, D. W. Major, and N. Bauer. 2004. In-situ bioremediation of chlorinated solvents in overburden and bedrock using bioaugmentation. In: Bioremediation of Halogenated Compounds. V. S. Magar and M. E. Kelley (eds.). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. Fortner, J. D, C. Zhang, J. C. Spain, and J. B. Hughes. 2003. Soil column evaluation of factors controlling biodegradation of DNT in the vadose zone. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37(15):3382–3391. Fountain, J. C., R. C. Starr, T. Middleton, M. Beikirch, C. Taylor, and D. Hodge. 1996. A controlled field test of surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation. Ground Water 34(5):910–916. Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fruchter, J., C. Cole, M. Williams, V. Vermeul, J. Amonette, J. Szecsody, J. Istok, and M. Humphrey. 2000. Creation of a subsurface permeable treatment barrier using in situ redox manipulation. Ground Water Monitor. Rev. 66–77. Gallo, C., and G. Manzini. 2001. A fully coupled numerical model for two-phase flow with contaminant transport and biodegradation kinetics. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 17:325–336. Gandhi, R. K., G. D. Hopkins, M. N. Goltz, S. M. Gorelick, and P. L. McCarty. 2002. Full-Scale demonstration of in situ cometabolic biodegradation of trichloroethylene in groundwater. II. Comprehensive analysis of field data using reactive transport modeling. Water Resources Research 38:1040. Gates, D. D., and R. L. Siegrist. 1995. In situ chemical oxidation of trichloroethylene using hydrogen peroxide. J. Environ. Eng. September:639–644. Gates-Anderson, D. D., R. L. Siegrist, and R. L. Cline. 2001. Comparison of potassium permanganate and hydrogen peroxide as chemical oxidants for organically contaminated soils. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering 127(4):337–347. Gauglitz, R. A., J. S. Roberts, T. M. Bergsman, R. Schalla, S. M.Caley, M. H. Schlender, W. O. Heath, T. R. Jarosch, M. C. Miller, C. A. Eddy Dilek, R. W. Moss, and B. B. Looney. 1994. Six-phase soil heating for enhanced removal of contaminants: volatile organic compounds in non-arid soils integrated demonstration, Savannah River Site, PNL-101 84. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. GeoSyntec Consultants. 2004. Assessing the Feasibility of DNAPL Source Zone Remediation: Review of Case Studies. Port Hueneme, CA: Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. Glaze, W. H., and J. W. Kang. 1988. Advanced oxidation processes for treating groundwater contaminated with TCE and PCE: laboratory studies. J. Amer. Water Works 80(5):57–63. Gordon, M. J. 1998. Case history of a large-scale air sparging soil vapor extraction system for remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in ground water. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 18(2):137–149. Ground-Water Remediation Technology Analysis Center (GWRTAC). 1999. In situ chemical oxidation. Technology Evaluation Report TE-99-01. http://www.gwrtac.org. Harvey, A. H., M. D. Arnold, and S. A. El-Feky. 1979. Selective electric reservoir heating. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July–Sept. 1979):45–47. Hasegawa, M. H., B. J. Shiau, D. A. Sabatini, R. C. Knox, J. H. Harwell, R. Lago, and L. Yeh. 2000. Surfactant-enhanced subsurface remediation of DNAPLs at the former Naval Air Station Alameda, California. Pp. 219–226 In: Treating Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids (DNAPLs). G. B. Wickramanayake, A. R. Gavaskar, and N. Gupta (eds.). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. He, J., K. M. Ritalahti, M. R. Aiello, and F. E. Loeffler. 2003. Complete detoxification of vinyl chloride by an anaerobic enrichment culture and identification of the reductively dechlorinating population as a Dehalococcoides species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69(2):996–1003. Hirasaki, G. J., C. A. Miller, R. Szafranski, D. Tanzil, J. B. Lawson, H. Meinardus, M. Jin, R. E. Jackson, G. Pope, and W. H. Wade. 1997. Field demonstration of the surfactant/foam process for aquifer remediation. In: Proceedings - SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, TX, SPE 39292.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Holmberg, K., B. Jonsson, B. Kronberg, and B. Lindman. 2003. Surfactants and Polymers in Aqueous Solution. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. Holzmer, F. J., G. A. Pope, and L. Yeh. 2000. Surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation of PCE-DNAPL in low permeability sands. Pp. 187–193 In Treating Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids (DNAPLs). G. B. Wickramanayake, A. R. Gavaskar, and N. Gupta (eds.). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. Hood, E. D., and N. R. Thomson. 2000. Numerical simulation of in situ chemical oxidation. In: Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 22-25, 2000. Hood, E. D., N. R. Thomson, D. Grossi, and G. J. Farquhar. 1999. Experimental determination of the kinetic rate law for oxidation of perchloroethylene by potassium permanganate. Chemosphere 40(12):1383–1388. Hossain, M. A., and M. Y. Corapcioglu. 1996. Modeling primary substrate controlled biotransformation and transport of halogenated aliphatics in porous media. Transport in Porous Media 24(2):203–220. Huang, K. C., G. E. Hoag, P. Chheda, B.A. Woody, and G. M. Dobbs. 1999. Kinetic study of oxidation of trichloroethylene by potassium permanganate. Environ. Eng. Sci. 16(4):265–274. Huang, K. C., G. E. Hoag, P. Chheda, B. A. Woody, and G. M. Dobbs. 2002. Kinetics and mechanism of oxidation of tetrachloroethylene with permanganate. Chemosphere 46(6):815–825. Hundal L., J. Singh, E. L. Bier, P. J. Shea, S. D. Comfort, and W. L. Powers. 1997. Removal of TNT and RDX from water and soil using iron metal. Environ. Pollut. 97:55–64. Hunt, J. R., N. Sitar, and K. S. Udell. 1988. Nonaqueous phase liquid transport and cleanup. I. Analysis of mechanisms. Water Resources Research 24(8):1247. Illangasekare, T. H., and D. D. Reible. 2001. Pump-and-treat remediation and plume containment: applications, limitations, and relevant processes. Pp. 79–119 In: Groundwater Contamination by Organic Pollutants: Analysis and Remediation. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2001. Technical and regulatory guidance for in situ chemical oxidation of contaminated soil and groundwater. Washington, DC: ITRC In Situ Chemical Oxidation Work Team. ITRC. 1998. Technical and regulatory requirements for enhanced in situ bioremediation of chlorinated solvents. Washington, DC: ITRC In Situ Bioremediation Subgroup. Isalou, M., B. E. Sleep, and S. N. Liss. 1998. Biodegradation of high concentrations of tetrachloroethene in a continuous column system. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(22):3579–3585. Jackson, R. E.; V. Dwarakanath, H. W. Meinardus, C. M. Young. 2003. Mobility control: how injected surfactants and biostiumulants may be forced into low-permeability units. Remediation, Summer:59–66. Jawitz, J. W., M. D. Annable, P. S. C. Rao, and R. D. Rhue. 1998. Field implementation of a Winsor Type I surfactant/alcohol mixture for in situ solubilization of a complex LNAPL as a single-phase microemulsion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(4):523–530. Jayanti, S., and G. A. Pope. 2004. Modeling the benefits of partial mass reduction in DNAPL source zones. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 24-27, 2004. Jayanti, S., L. N. Britton, V. Dwarakanath, and G. A. Pope. 2002. Laboratory evaluation of custom designed surfactants to remediate NAPL source zones. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36(24):5491–5497. Jeong, S.-W., A. L. Wood, and T. R. Lee. 2002. Enhanced contact of cosolvent and DNAPL in porous media by concurrent injection of cosolvent and air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36:5238–5244. Ji, W. A., A. Dahmani, D. Ahlfeld, J. D. Lin, and E. Hill. 1993. Laboratory study of air sparging: air flow visualization. Ground Water Monitor. Remed., Fall:115–126.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Johnson, P. C., R. L. Johnson, C. L. Bruce, and A. Leeson. 2001. Advances in in situ air sparging/ biosparging. Bioremediation Journal 5(4):251–266. Kastner, J. R., J. A. Domingo, M. Denham, M. Molina, and R. Brigmon. 2000. Effect of chemical oxidation on subsurface microbiology and trichloroethene (TCE) biodegradation. Bioremediation Journal 4(3):219–236. Kim, H., H.-E. Soh, M. D. Annable, D.-J. Kim. 2004. Surfactant-enhanced air sparging in saturated sand. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(4):1170–1175. Knauss, K. G., M. J. Dibley, R. N. Leif, D. A. Mew, and R. D. Aines. 1999. Aqueous oxidation of trichloroethene (TCE): a kinetic analysis. Applied Geochemistry 14:531–541. Knox, R. C., B. J. Shiau, D. A. Sabatini, and J. H. Harwell. 1999. Field Demonstration of Surfactant Enhanced Solubilization and Mobilization at Hill Air Force Base, UT. Pp. 49–63 In: Innovative Subsurface Remediation: Field Testing of Physical, Chemical and Characterization Technologies. M. L. Brusseau, D. A. Sabatini, J. S. Gierke and M. D. Annable (eds.). American Chemical Society Symposium Series 725. Washington, D.C.: ACS. Lee, E. S., Y. Seol, Y. C. Fang, and F. W. Schwartz. 2003. Destruction efficiencies and dynamics of reaction fronts associated with the permanganate oxidation of trichloroethylene. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:2540–2546. Lee, M. D., J. M. Odom, and R. J. Buchanan Jr. 1998. New perspectives on microbial dehalogenation of chlorinated solvents. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 52:423–425. Leeson, A., P. C. Johnson, R. L. Johnson, C. M. Vogel, R. E. Hinchee, M. Marley, T. Peargin, C. L. Bruce, I. L. Amerson, C. T. Coonfare, R. D. Gillespie, and D. B. McWhorter. 2002. Air sparging design paradigm. ESTCP technical document CU-9808. Washington, DC: ESTCP. Li, Z. M., S. D. Comfort, and P .J. Shea. 1997. Destruction of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) by Fenton Oxidation. J. Environ. Qual. 26:480–487. Liang, S., L. S. Palencia, R. S. Yates, M. K. Davis, J.-M. Bruno, and R. L. Wolfe. 1999. Oxidation of MTBE by ozone and peroxone processes. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 91(6):104–114. Liang, S., R. S. Yates, D. V. Davis, S. J. Pastor, L. S. Palencia, and J. M. Bruno. 2001. Treatability of MTBE contaminated groundwater by ozone and peroxone. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 93:110–120. Liang, C., C. J. Bruell, M. C. Marley, and K. L. Sperry. 2003. Thermally activated persulfate oxidation of trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) in aqueous systems and soil slurries. Soil & Sediment Contamination 12(2):207–228. Londergan, J. T., H. W. Meinardus, P. E. Mariner, R. E. Jackson, C. L. Brown, V. Dwarakanath, G. A. Pope, J. S. Ginn, and S. Taffinder. 2001. DNAPL Removal from a Heterogeneous Alluvial Aquifer by Surfactant-Enhanced Aquifer Remediation. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Fall:57–67. Lundegard, P. D., and G. Andersen. 1996. Multi-phase numerical simulation of air sparging performance. Groundwater 34 (3):451–460. Ma, Y., and B. E. Sleep. 1997. Thermal variation of organic fluid properties and impact on thermal remediation feasibility. J. Soil Contamination 6(3):281–306. MacKinnon, L. K., and N. R. Thomson. 2002. Laboratory-scale in situ chemical oxidation of a perchloroethylene pool using permanganate. J. Contam. Hydrol. 56:49–74. Major, D. W., M. L. McMaster, E. E. Cox, E. A. Edwards, S. M. Dworatzek, E. R. Hendrickson, M. G. Starr, J. A. Payne, and L. W. Buonamici. 2002. Field demonstration of successful bioaugmentation to achieve dechlorination of tetrachloroethene to ethene. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36:5106–5116. Malone, D. R., C. M. Kao, and R. C. Borden. 1993. Dissolution and biorestoration of nonaqueous phase hydrocarbons—model development and laboratory evaluation. Water Resources Research 29:2203–2213. Marley, M. C., L. Fengming, and S. Magee. 1992. The application of a 3-D model in the design of air sparging systems. Ground Water Manag. 14:377–392.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Martel, R., and P. Gelinas. 1996. Surfactant solutions developed for NAPL recovery in contaminated aquifers. Ground Water 34:143–154. Martel, R., P. J. Gelinas, and L. Saumure. 1998. Aquifer washing by micellar solutions: field test at the Thouin Sand Pit, L’Assomption, Quebec, Canada. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 30:33–48. Mason, A. R., and B. H. Kueper. 1996. Numerical simulation of surfactant-enhanced solubilization of pooled DNAPL. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30(11):3205–3215. May, I. 2003. Army Environmental Center. Presentation to the Committee on Source Removal of Contaminants in the Subsurface. January 30, 2003. McCarty, P. L. 1997. Breathing with chlorinated solvents. Science 276:1521–1522. McCarty, P. L., M. N. Goltz, G. D. Hopkins, M. E. Dolan, J. P. Allan, B. T. Kawakami, and T. J. Carrothers. 1998. Full-scale application of in situ cometabolic degradation of trichloroethylene in groundwater through toluene injection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:88–100. McClure, P., and B. E. Sleep. 1996. Simulation of bioventing for remediation of organics in groundwater. ASCE. J. Env. Eng. 122(11):1003–1012. McCormick, N. G., J. H. Cornell, and A. M. Kaplan. 1981. Biodegradation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42:817–823. McCormick, N. G., J. H. Cornell, and A. M. Kaplan. 1985. The anaerobic biotransformation of RDX, HMX and their acetylated derivatives. AD Report A149464 (TR85-007). Natick, MA: U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Center. McCray, J. E., and R. W. Falta. 1997. Numerical Simulation of Air Sparging for Remediation of NAPL. Ground Water 35(1):99–110. McGee, B. C. W., F. E. Vermeulen, P. K. W. Vinsome, M. R. Buettner, and F. S. Chute. 1994. In-situ decontamination of soil. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, October:15–22. McGee, B. C. W., B. Nevokshonoff, and R. J. Warren. 2000. Electrical heating for the removal of recalcitrant organic compounds. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 22–25, 2000. Meinardus, H. W., V. Dwarakanath, J. Ewing, K. D. Gordon, G. J. Hirasaki, C. Holbert, and J. S. Ginn. 2002. Full-scale field application of surfactant-foam process for aquifer remediation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 20–23, 2002. Morgan, D., D. Bryant, and K. Coleman. 2002. Permanganate chemical oxidation used in fractured rock. Ground Water Currents Issue 43. Morse, J.J., B. C. Alleman, J. M. Gossett, S. H. Zinder, D. E. Fennell, G. W. Sewell, and C. M. Vogel. 1998. Draft technical protocol—a treatability test for evaluating the potential applicability of reductive biological in situ treatment technology to remediate chloroethenes. Washington, DC: DOD Environmental Security Technology Certification Program. Myers, D. 1999. Surfaces, Interfaces, and Colloids, Principles and Applications. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-VCH. Nash, J. H. 1987. Field Studies of In-Situ Soil Washing. EPA/600/2-87/110. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Research Council (NRC). 1993. In Situ Bioremediation: When Does it Work? Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1999. Groundwater Soil Cleanup. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2000. Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2003. Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Adaptive Site Management. Washington, DC. National Academies Press.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation NAVFAC. 1999. In-situ chemical oxidation of organic contaminants in soil and groundwater using Fenton’s Reagent. TDS-2071-ENV. Port Hueneme, CA: Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC). 2002. Surfactant-Enhanced Aquifer Remediation (SEAR) Design Manual. NFESC Technical Report TR-2206-ENV. Battelle and Duke Engineering and Services. http://enviro.nfesc.navy.mil/erb/erb_a/restoration/technologies/remed/phys_chem/sear/tr-2206-sear.pdf Nielsen, R. B., and J. D. Keasling. 1999. Reductive dechlorination of chlorinated ethene DNAPLs by a culture enriched from contaminated groundwater. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 62:162–165. Nyer, L. K., and D. Vance. 1999. Hydrogen peroxide treatment: the good, the bad, the ugly. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 19(3):54–57. O’Haver, J. H., R. Walk, B. Kitiyanan, J. H. Harwell, and D. A. Sabatini. 2004. Packed column and hollow fiber air stripping of a contaminant-surfactant stream. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE 130(1):4–11. Pennington, J. C., M. Zakikhani, and D. W. Harrelson. 1999. Monitored natural attenuation of explosives in groundwater—Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Completion Report. Technical Report EL-99-7. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Philip, J. R. 1998. Full and boundary-layer solutions of the steady air sparging problem. J. Contam. Hydrol. 33(3–4):337–345. Poston, S. W., S. Ysrael, A. K. M. S. Hossain, E. F. Montgomery III, and H. J. Ramey, Jr. 1970. The effect of temperature on irreducible water saturation and relative permeability of unconsolidated sands. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., June:171–180. Rabideau, A. J., and J. M. Blayden. 1998. Analytical model for contaminant mass removal by air sparging. Ground Water Monitor. Remed. 18(4):120–130. Ramsburg, C. A., and K. D. Pennell. 2002. Density-modified displacement for DNAPL source zone remediation: density conversion and recovery in heterogeneous aquifer cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (14):3176–3187. Rao, P. S. C., A. G. Hornsby, D. P. Kilcrease, and P. Nkedi-Kizza. 1985. Sorption and transport of hydrophobic organic chemicals in aqueous and mixed solvent systems: model development and preliminary evaluation. Journal of Environmental Quality 14(3):376–383. Rao, P. S. C., M. D. Annable, R. K. Sillan, D. Dai, K. Hatfield, W. D. Graham, A. L. Wood, and C. G. Enfield. 1997. Field-scale evaluation of in situ cosolvent flushing for enhanced aquifer remediation. Water Resources Research 33(12):2673–2686. Rao, P. S. C., H. W. Jawitz, C. G. Enfield. R. W. Falta, Jr., M. D. Annable, and A. L. Wood. 2001. Technology integration for contaminated site remediation: cleanup goals and performance criteria. Presented at Groundwater Quality 2001, Sheffield, UK, June 18–21, 2001. Rathfelder, K. M., L. M. Abriola, T. P. Taylor, and K. D. Pennell. 2001. Surfactant enhanced recovery of tetrachloroethylene from a porous medium containing low permeability lenses. II. Numerical simulation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 48(3–4):351–374. Ravikumar, J. X., and M. D. Gurol. 1994. Chemical oxidation of chlorinated organics by hydrogen peroxide in the presence of sand. Environ. Sci. Technol. 28(3):395–400. Reitsma, S., and Q. Dai. 2000. Reaction-enhanced mass transfer from NAPL pools. In: Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 22–25, 2000. Rice, B. N., and R. F. Weston. 2000. Lessons learned from a dual-phase extraction field application. Pp. 93–100 In: Physical and Thermal Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. G. B. Wickramanayake and A. R. Gavaskar (eds.). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Richardson, R. E., C. A. James, V. K. Bhupathiraju, and L. Alvarez-Cohen. 2002. Microbial activity in soils following steam exposure. Biodegradation 13(4):285–295. Rieger, P. G., and H. J. Knackmuss. 1995. Basic knowledge and perspectives on biodegradation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene and related nitroaromatic compounds in soil. In: Biodegradation of Nitroaromatic Compounds. J. C. Spain (ed.). New York: Plenum Press. Rosen, M. J. 1989. Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. Rubingh, D. 2003. Presentation to the NRC Committee on Source Removal of Contaminants in the Subsurface. April 14, 2004. Washington, DC. Sabatini, D. A., J. H. Harwell, M. Hasegawa, and R. C. Knox. 1998. Membrane processes and surfactant-enhanced subsurface remediation: results of a field demonstration. Journal of Membrane Science 151(1):89–100. Sabatini, D. A., J. H. Harwell, and R. C. Knox. 1999. Surfactant selection criteria for enhanced subsurface remediation. In: Innovative Subsurface Remediation: Field Testing of Physical, Chemical and Characterization Technologies. M. L. Brusseau, D. A. Sabatini, J. S. Gierke and M. D. Annable (eds.). ACS Symposium Series 725. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Sabatini, D. A., R. C. Knox, J. H. Harwell, and B. Wu. 2000. Integrated design of surfactant enhanced DNAPL remediation: effective supersolubilization and gradient systems. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 45(1):99–121. Schnarr, M., C. Truax, G. Farquhar, E. Hood, T. Gonullu, and B. Stickney. 1998. Laboratory and controlled field experiments using potassium permanganate to remediate trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene DNAPLs in porous media. J. Contam. Hydrol. 29:205–224. Schroth, M. H., M. Oostrom, T. W. Wietsma, and J. D. Istok. 2001. In-situ oxidation of trichloroethene by permanganate: effects on porous medium properties. J. Contam. Hydrol. 50:79–98. Seagren, E. A., B. E. Rittmann, and A. J. Valocchi. 1994. Quantitative evaluation of the enhancement of NAPL-pool dissolution by flushing and biodegradation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 28:833–839. Semprini, L., and P. L. McCarty. 1991. Comparison between model simulations and field results for in-situ biorestoration of chlorinated aliphatics. I. Biostimulation of methanotrophic bacteria. Ground Water 29:365–374. Semprini, L., and P. L. McCarty. 1992. Comparison between model simulations and field results for in-situ biorestoration of chlorinated aliphatics. II. Cometabolic transformations. Ground Water 30:37–44. She, Y., and B. E. Sleep. 1998. The effect of temperature on capillary pressure-saturation relationships for air-water and perchloroethylene-water systems. Water Resources Research 34(10):2587–2597. She, H., and B. E. Sleep. 1999. Removal of PCE from soil by steam flushing in a two-dimensional laboratory cell. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 19(2):70–77. Shiau, B. J., J. M. Brammer, D. A. Sabatini, J. H. Harwell, and R. C. Knox. 2003. Recent Development of In Situ Surfactant Flushing and Case Studies for NAPL-impacted Site Closure and Remediation. Pp. 92–106 In: Proceedings of 2003 Petroleum Hydrocarbon and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Assessment and Remediation. National Ground Water Association, August 19-22, 2003, Costa Mesa, CA. Siegrist, R. L., K. S. Lowe, L. C. Murdoch, T. L. Case, and D. A. Pickering. 1999. In situ oxidation by fracture emplaced reactive solids. ASCE J. Env. Eng. 125(5):429–440. Sinnokrot, A. A., H. J. Ramey Jr., and S. S. Marsden Jr. 1971. Effect of temperature level upon capillary pressure curves. Soc. Petroleum Engrs. J. 11:13–22. Sleep, B. E. 1993. Modelling and laboratory investigations of steam flushing below the water table. Groundwater 31(5):831.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Sleep, B. E., L. Sehayek, and, C. Chien. 2000. A modeling and experimental study of LNAPL accumulation in wells and LNAPL recovery from wells. Water Resources Research 36(12):3535–3546. Song, D. L., M. E. Conrad, K. S. Sorenson, and L. Alvarez-Cohen. 2002. Stable carbon isotopic fractionation during enhanced in-situ bioremediation of trichloroethylene. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36(10):2262–2268. Speitel, G. E., T. L. Engels, and D. C. McKinney. 2001. Biodegredation of RDX in unsaturated soil. Biorem. J. 5:1–11. Stegemeier, G. L., and H. J. Vinegar. 2001. Thermal conduction heating for in-situ thermal desorption of soils. Pp. 1–37 In: Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook. C. H. Oh (ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Stroo, H. F., M. Unger, C. H. Ward, M. C. Kavanaugh, C. Vogel, A. Leeson, J. Marqusee, and B. Smith. 2004. Remediating chlorinated solvent source zones. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37(11):225A–230A. Struse, A. M., R. L. Siegrist, H. E. Dawson, and M. A. Urynowicz. 2002. Diffusive transport of permanganate during in situ oxidation. J. Environ. Eng. 128(4):327–334. Szafranski, R., J. B. Lawson, G. J. Hirasaki, C. A. Miller, N. Akiya, S. King, R. E. Jackson, H. Meinardus, and J. Londergan. 1998. Surfactant/foam process for improved efficiency of aquifer remediation. Progr. Colloid Polym. Sci. 111:162–167. Tarr, M. A., M. E. Lindsey, J. Lu, and G. Xu. 2000. Fenton oxidation: bringing pollutants and hydroxyl radicals together. In: Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 22-25, 2000. Travis, B. J., and N. D. Rosenberg. 1997. Modeling in situ bioremediation of TCE at Savannah River: effects of product toxicity and microbial interactions on TCE degradation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31:3093–3102. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Potassium Permanganate. Innovative Technology Summary Report. DOE/EM-0496. Washington, DC: DOE Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Science and Technology. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. Hydrous pyrolysis Oxidation/Dynamic Underground Stripping. Innovative Technology Summary Report, DOE/EM-054. Washington, DC: DOE. van-Dijke, M. I. J., and S. E. A. T. M. Van der Zee. 1998. Modeling of air sparging in a layered soil: numerical and analytical approximations. Water Resources Research 34 (3):341–353. van-Dijke, M. I. J., S. E. A. T. M. Van der Zee, and C. J. Van Duijn. 1995. Multi-phase flow modeling of air sparging. Advan. Water Resour. 18(6):319–333. Vermeulen, F. E., F. S. Chute, and M. R. Cervenan. 1979. Physical modelling of the electromagnetic heating of oil sand and other earth-type and biological materials. Canadian Electrical Engineering Journal 4(4):19–28. Vinegar, H. J., E. P. de Rouffignac, G. L. Stegemeier, J. M. Hirsch, and F. G. Carl. 1998. In situ thermal desorption using thermal wells and blankets. In: The Proceedings of the First International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. G. B. Wickramanayake and R. E. Hinchee (eds.). Physical, Chemical and Thermal Technologies. Monterey, California, May 18–21, 1998. Vinsome, P. K. W., B. C. W. Mcgee, F. E. Vermeulen, and F. S. Chute. 1994. Electrical heating. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 33(9):29–35. Wattenbarger, R. A., and F. McDougal. 1988. Oil response to in-situ electrical resistance heating (ERH). Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 27(6):45–50. Watts, R. J., M. D. Udell, S. Kong, and S. W. Leung. 1999. Fenton-like soil remediation catalyzed by naturally occurring iron minerals. Environ. Eng. Sci. 16(1):93–103. White, P. D., and J. T. Moss. 1983. Thermal Recovery Methods. Oklahoma: PennWell Books.

OCR for page 178
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation Yan, Y. E, and F. Schwartz. 1999. Oxidative degradation and kinetics of chlorinated ethylenes by potassium permanganate. J. Contam. Hydrol. 37(3):343–365. Yang, Y. R., and P. L. McCarty. 1998. Competition for hydrogen within a chlorinated solvent dehalogenating anaerobic mixed culture. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:3591–3597. Yang, Y., and McCarty, P. L. 2000. Biologically enhanced dissolution of tetrachloroethene DNAPL. Environ. Sci. Technol 34:2979–2984. Zhang, H., and R W. Schwartz. 2000. Simulation of oxidative treatment of chlorinated compounds by permanganate. In: Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 22–25, 2000. Zoh, K., and K. D. Stenstrom. 2002. Fenton oxidation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) and octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX). Water Res. 36:1331–1341.