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 113
4
Current Capabilities to Remove
or Contain Contamination
INTRODUCTION
Part of the Committee’s statement of task was to discuss what is techni-
cally feasible in terms of removing a certain percentage of the total contami-
nant mass from the subsurface (and by association, reducing concentrations
of target chemicals below drinking water standards). These questions were
addressed comprehensively in the 2005 National Research Council (NRC)
report that focused on source removal technologies, and previous NRC
reports (NRC, 1994, 1997, 1999) provided professional judgment as to
the potential effectiveness of various remedial technologies. This chapter
reviews more recent data and reports on the ability of currently available
remedial technologies to meet remedial action objectives for groundwater
restoration. It is noted at the outset that poor design, poor application, and/
or improper post-application monitoring at some sites makes evaluation
of these technologies challenging, and reported performance results often
appear in non-peer-reviewed documents.
Since the 2005 NRC report, technologies have evolved and more
pilot-scale tests and full-scale remediation system performance data are
available to help determine technology effectiveness (e.g., Johnson et al.,
2009; Krembs et al., 2010; Stroo and Ward, 2010; Triplett Kingston et al.,
2010a,b; Siegrist et al., 2011; Stroo et al., 2012). Technical information
available for relevant case studies, however, is still often inadequate, par-
ticularly post-treatment monitoring, which severely constrains our ability to
reach definitive statements regarding the effectiveness of a particular tech-
nology to meet remedial action objectives (RAOs). Critical evaluations of
113
OCR for page 114
114 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
remedial technologies have been performed in the last six years for thermal
and in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) applications (Triplett Kingston et
al., 2009, 2010a,b; Siegrist et al., 2011). For dissolved chlorinated solvent
plumes, information on remedial technologies may be found in Stroo and
Ward (2010).
Based on what is known about the effectiveness of remediation tech-
nologies (as described in this chapter), the Committee concluded that re-
gardless of the technology used, the complete removal of contaminant mass
at complex sites is unlikely. Furthermore, the Committee discovered no
transformational remedial technology or combination of technologies that
can overcome the current challenges associated with restoring contaminated
groundwater at complex sites. At these sites, some amount of residual con-
tamination will remain in the subsurface after active remedial actions cease,
requiring long-term management.
To evaluate the effectiveness of remediation, performance metrics need
to be specified, along with monitoring to measure progress toward achiev-
ing the metrics. Performance metrics are discussed in several publications
(e.g., see EPA, 2003; NRC, 2005; Kavanaugh and Deeb, 2011). They in-
clude metrics that are commonly used and can be reliably measured, such
as (1) source mass removal and (2) change in dissolved concentrations, as
well as metrics that can be measured but are not commonly used, such as
(3) contaminant mass remaining, (4) change in dense nonaqueous phase
liquid (DNAPL) distribution (residual versus pooled), (5) change in DNAPL
composition and properties, and (6) physical, microbial, and geochemical
changes. Metrics that are under development include (7) changes in con-
taminant mass flux distribution, (8) change in contaminant mass discharge
rate downgradient from source areas, and (9) change in stable isotope
ratios. Change in contaminant mass discharge in particular is receiving
greater attention (see ITRC, 2010; CDM, 2009). The appropriate perfor-
mance metrics for a given site are both technology and site specific.
Conceptual Model
In this report, groundwater remedial technologies are categorized based
on their primary target: the contaminant source zone or the dissolved
groundwater plume (see Figure 4-1). The source zone can include (1) resid-
ual DNAPL, (2) pooled DNAPL, (3) sorbed contaminants, and (4) dissolved
contaminants that may have diffused into fine-grained media. All of these
compartments represent long-term continuing sources of contaminants to
the dissolved or aqueous plume. The dissolved plume is typically located
downgradient from the source, and may be extensive (i.e., miles in length
for recalcitrant chemicals). Chlorinated solvents—the primary recalcitrant
organic contaminants at complex sites—can occur in four phases (organic
OCR for page 115
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 115
DNAPL ZoneAqueous Plume
Source Zone Plume
Low Low
Phase/Zone Permeability Transmissive Transmissive Permeability
Vapor
NA NA
DNAPL
Aqueous
Sorbed
FIGURE 4-1 Conceptual model showing source zone and dissolved plume. The
lower portion of the figure shows the 14-compartment model with common con-
taminant fluxes between compartments (solid arrows are reversible fluxes, dashed
arrows are irreversible fluxes).
SOURCE: ESTCP (2011).
Figure 4-1
liquid, aqueous, solid-sorbed, and vapor) in the source zone and in three
phases in the plume (there is no DNAPL phase in plumes). Each of these
phases can occur in areas that can be classified as “transmissive” (mobile)
or “low permeability” (immobile). This has led to a 14-compartment con-
ceptual model depicting where contaminant mass could reside (Sale and
Newell, 2011), which is discussed further in Chapter 6 of this report.
Because remedy selection and effectiveness depend, in part, on the
contaminant mass distribution among phases and media (e.g., fine-grained
media versus more permeable media, vadose zone versus saturated zone,
DNAPL versus dissolved contaminants, etc.), a prerequisite for remediation
is thorough site characterization, including the development of a conceptual
site model that identifies, as much as possible, where DNAPL resides. As
noted in Stroo et al. (2012), “source remediation is only as effective as the
source delineation.” The technology reviews found in Triplett Kingston
OCR for page 116
116 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
FIGURE 4-2 Sites with P&T, in situ treatment, or MNA as part of the groundwater
remedy (FY 2005-2008).
SOURCE: EPA (2010a).
et al. (2009, 2010a,b) highlight the risks of inadequate site characteriza-
tion: approximately two-thirds of the 14 thermal remediation case studies
with sufficient data to evaluate technology performance ended up leaving
mass in place because the treatment zone was smaller than the actual con-
taminant source zone. The reader is referred to Chapter 6 and particularly
NRC (2005) for a more comprehensive discussion of site conceptual model
development.
Dissolved plume remedies include pump and treat (P&T), bioremedia-
tion (including phytoremediation), permeable reactive barriers (PRBs), con-
structed wetlands (at the discharge point), monitored natural attenuation
(MNA), and physical containment. As shown in Figure 4-2, MNA and P&T
were used as groundwater remedies, either alone or in combination, at 82
OCR for page 117
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 117
TABLE 4-1 Generic Contaminant Removal or Containment Technologies
and Common Applications
Technology Application
Thermal Source Zone
Chemical Oxidation Source Zone
Surfactant Flushing Source Zone
Cosolvent Flushing Source Zone
Pump & Treat Source Zone/Plume
Physical Containment Source Zone/Plume
Bioremediation Source Zone/Plume
Permeable Reactive Barrier Source Zone/Plume
Monitored Natural Attenuation Source Zone/Plume
percent of 164 Superfund facilities between 2005 and 2008. Several of the
dissolved plume remedial technologies also can be applied to source zones
(e.g., bioremediation, barriers, or hydraulic containment). A summary of
the technologies discussed in this chapter and their most common applica-
tion is provided in Table 4-1.
The goal of this chapter is to provide brief reviews of the major reme-
dial technologies used in current remediation practice that can be applied
to complex hazardous waste sites, particularly those with DNAPL source
zones and/or large downgradient dissolved plumes. These reviews discuss
our current knowledge regarding performance and limitations of the tech-
nologies, identify remaining gaps in knowledge, and provide case studies
supporting these assessments. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with
the material found in the NRC (2005) report, for which this chapter serves
primarily as an update. The well-established technologies of excavation,
soil vapor extraction/air sparging, and solidification/stabilization are not
discussed because they have been presented in prior publications, and mini-
mal advancements in these technologies have occurred during the past five
to ten years. However, because of the potential importance of containment
of source areas and plumes for long-term management, pump and treat for
hydraulic containment is discussed.
THERMAL TREATMENT
In situ thermal treatment technologies, including electrical resistance
heating (ERH), conductive heating, steam-based heating, radio frequency
heating (RFH), and in situ soil mixing combined with steam and hot air
injection, have continued to be developed and applied in the last five to ten
years (see Table 4-2 and Baker and Bierschenk, 2001; Beyke and Fleming,
2005; Davis, 1998; de Percin, 1991; EPA, 1995a,b, 1999; Farouq Ali and
OCR for page 118
118 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
TABLE 4-2 Summary of Thermal Technology Applications by
Technology Type (1988-2007)
Number of Number Since
Technology Applications Pilot-Scalea Full-Scalea Year 2000
Steam-Based 46 26 19 15
Electrical Resistance 87 23 56 48
Heating
Conduction 26 12 14 17
Other/Radio-Frequency 23 14 9 4
Total 182 75 98 84
aSome sites have an unknown application size and thus are not included in the pilot- and
full-scale count.
SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission, from Triplett Kingston (2008).
Meldau, 1979; Vinegar et al., 1999). All involve raising the temperature of
the subsurface to enhance the removal of contaminants by separate-phase
liquid extraction, mobilization, volatilization, and in situ destruction. Rela-
tive to other technologies, some in situ thermal treatment technologies (e.g.,
ERH) applications result in preferential heating and contaminant removal
from lower permeability media.
A review of the application of these technologies was conducted by
Triplett Kingston (2008) and Triplett Kingston et al. (2009, 2010a,b, 2012).
Data and documents from 182 thermal treatment applications conducted
between 1988 and 2007 were reviewed, including 87 ERH, 46 steam-
based heating, and 26 conductive heating applications. The applications
were categorized based on the hydrogeology of the site, using the five
generalized hydrogeologic scenarios developed in NRC (2005). These in-
clude relatively homogeneous and permeable unconsolidated sediments
(Scenario A), largely impermeable sediments with inter-bedded layers of
higher permeability material (Scenario B), largely permeable sediments with
inter-bedded lenses of low-permeability material (Scenario C), competent,
but fractured bedrock (Scenario D), and weathered bedrock, limestone,
sandstone (Scenario E). The majority (72 percent) of thermal remediation
applications reviewed were conducted in settings containing layers of high-
and low-permeability media (Scenarios B and C).
ERH applications accounted for about 50 percent of all thermal ap-
plications since 2000 and outnumbered each of the other technology ap-
plications by about a factor of 3; there also appeared to be increasing use
of conductive heating and decreasing use of steam-based heating (Table
4-2). These trends are reflective of underlying technical factors controlling
performance, as well as design and operating challenges and vendor avail-
OCR for page 119
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 119
ability. ERH is attractive for volatile and semi-volatile chemicals in hetero-
geneous settings because its ability to achieve targeted energy delivery is less
sensitive to subsurface heterogeneities than steam injection, and the energy
delivery and contaminant recovery systems are arguably less complex to
design and operate. Conductive heating has likely increased in use because
it is the only thermal technology that can achieve in situ temperatures sig-
nificantly greater than the boiling point of water and that is sometimes a
desired operating condition. The study did not provide remediation costs
because the cost data reviewed varied greatly and were thought to be unreli-
able, especially given some of the suboptimal designs.
Most relevant to this report are the post-treatment performance data
from in situ thermal treatment sites. Interestingly, post-treatment groundwa-
ter monitoring data that could be used to evaluate technology performance
were available for only 14 of the 182 sites (8 percent) reviewed by Triplett
Kingston et al. (2010a,b, 2012), reflecting the overall industry-wide lack of
sufficient post-treatment monitoring at many remediation sites. Most of the
sites for which adequate data were available correspond to hydrogeologic
setting Scenario C, with little or no performance data available for the other
settings. Table 4-3 presents the estimated order-of-magnitude reductions in
concentration and mass discharge for the 14 sites that had sufficient data
for the analysis. Note that mass reduction data are not provided in Table
4-3 because initial mass in place was rarely known with certainty. For six
of the 14 sites (43 percent), at least a 100-fold reduction in mass discharge
was observed. For five of the 14 sites, detailed analysis revealed that post-
treatment groundwater concentrations ranged from about 10 to 10,000
μg/L and source zone mass discharges ranged from about 0.1 to 100 kg/y.
The following factors should be considered in interpreting the widely
varying performance results shown in Table 4-3:
1. As noted by Johnson et al. (2009), the criteria or rationale used to
set the duration of treatment operation was usually not documented,
and “in most cases it appeared that the duration was determined
prior to start-up or may have been linked to a time–temperature
performance criterion (i.e., operate for two months once a target
temperature is reached in situ). There was little indication that the
duration of operation was selected based on mass removal-, ground-
water quality-, or soil concentration-based criteria” or performance
monitoring.
2. Triplett Kingston et al. (2010a,b, 2012) discovered that treatment
system footprints (areas treated) were often smaller than the source
zones that had been treated. The main reason for this was that the
pre-treatment extent of the source zone was larger than what it was
conceptualized to be at the time that the remediation system was
OCR for page 120
120
TABLE 4-3 Effect of Application of In Situ Thermal Technology on Dissolved Groundwater Concentrations and
Mass Discharge (Flux) from the Treatment Zone to the Aquifer
Mass Discharge Reduction
Heating Dissolved Groundwater
Site No. Technology Generalized Scenario/Site Concentration Reduction 1000×
1 ERH Generalized Scenario A(SDC) 10× ×
2 ERH Generalized Scenario Ba(SDC) <10× x x
3 ERH Generalized Scenario C 10× x
4 ERH Generalized Scenario Cb(SDC) >10× to <100× x
5 ERH Generalized Scenario Cc <10× x
6 ERH Generalized Scenario Cc <10× x x
7 ERH Generalized Scenario C <10× x
8 ERH Generalized Scenario C(SDC) 10× x
9 ERH Generalized Scenario C(SDC) 100× x
10 ERH Generalized Scenario C 1000× x
11 SEE Generalized Scenario C 100× x
12 SEE Generalized Scenario C 10× x
13 SEE Generalized Scenario Cc 10000× x x
14 SEE Generalized Scenario Db <10× x
NOTE: SDC, supplemental data collection site for this project. Site 1 = Hunter Army Airfield, Site 2 = Air Force Plant 4, Site 4 = Camp LeJeune
Site 89, Site 8 = Fort Lewis EGDY Area 3, Site 9 = NAS Alameda Site 5-1.
aMass discharge assessment involved two calculations using first only the post-treatment field investigation data and then the post-treatment field
investigation data supplemented with data from a set of monitoring wells that were directly in line with the field investigation transect.
bPilot application appeared to encompass the entire source zone based on documentation reviewed.
cSite used two different vertical intervals to calculate mass discharge: (1) only shallow geology and (2) shallow and deep geology.
SOURCE: Triplett Kingston et al. (2010b).
OCR for page 121
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 121
designed. This points to a need to consider uncertainty in, and veri-
fication of, source zone extent when designing thermal remediation
systems. It also suggests that decision makers and designers should
weigh the incremental costs of additional source zone characteriza-
tion data versus the costs of a larger system footprint and costs of
failure of achieving remedial goals. Triplett Kingston et al. (2010a,b)
found that sampling dissolved groundwater concentration transects
perpendicular to groundwater flow and immediately downgradient
of a source zone was a valuable approach for verifying source zone
width.
In summary, the data in Table 4-3 are indicative of state-of-the-practice
performance, but are likely not indicative of the technologies’ true capabili-
ties. Site No. 9 is probably most indicative of what thermal technologies can
achieve in simple geologic settings because of the way it was designed and
operated. At that site, dissolved chlorinated solvent concentrations were
reduced from >10,000 mg/L to <100 mg/L levels, with final concentrations
being <1 mg/L in many parts of the plume transect immediately downgradi-
ent of the source zone.
CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES
Chemical transformation processes used for the treatment of both or-
ganic and inorganic contaminants have advanced significantly since 2005.
There are three basic approaches to the use of abiotic chemical amendments
to treating groundwater: (1) ISCO, (2) chemical reduction (discussed in the
permeable reactive barriers section) using zero-valent iron (ZVI), bi-metallic
reductants (BMRs), and other reductants (e.g., iron minerals such as mag-
netite), and (3) newer methods like the application of ISCO in permeable
reactive barriers and the use of in situ generation of ozone using electrodes,
which are discussed in Chapter 6. In most cases chemical transformation
processes result in the formation of by-products that are either less toxic or
amenable to subsequent degradation or natural attenuation. In a few cases,
however, there is the potential to form undesirable and toxic by-products.
Thus, multiple approaches may be required to ensure that complete detoxi-
fication can occur at the targeted site. In many cases, chemical transforma-
tion requires the injection and delivery of a reactant-containing fluid to the
treatment zone, and is subject to the same limitations experienced by all
flushing technologies—most notably the bypassing contaminants stored in
low-permeability media.
OCR for page 122
122 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
In Situ Chemical Oxidation
ISCO relies upon the injection and activation of powerful chemical oxi-
dants into subsurface sites that react with contaminants and oxidize them
into carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, or other substances less deleterious
than the target contaminant. ISCO is relatively nonselective and capable of
remediating a broad spectrum of contaminants. The technology has limita-
tions including a finite amount of available oxidant, undesirable side reac-
tions (e.g., oxidation of naturally occurring substances and the formation of
precipitates), and the sometimes poor delivery of the oxidant into complex
subsurface media. Thus, each site must be assessed for its biogeochemical
complexity as well as hydrologic properties (e.g., fractured media, the pres-
ence of clay lenses, etc.) prior to implementing ISCO.
There are four oxidants routinely used in ISCO: catalyzed hydrogen
peroxide (CHP or Fenton’s reagent), persulfate, permanganate, and ozone
(see Table 4-4 for a summary of their application, advantages, and disad-
vantages). Two other oxidants have received limited usage (peroxone and
percarbonate). The number of ISCO applications has steadily increased for
all the major oxidants over the past decade (Krembs et al., 2010, 2011).
Siegrist et al. (2011) examined all aspects of ISCO remediation includ-
ing field applications, performance, and challenges at complex sites. High-
lights from that report include the fact that delivery of the oxidant can be
problematic, especially if more than one ingredient is required. Addition-
ally, there is a risk that ISCO treatment will mobilize other contaminants of
concern (e.g., chromate, selenate). Other limitations depend on the specific
oxidant used. For example, reduction of permanganate results in the for-
mation of manganese oxides that can alter aquifer permeability (although
paradoxically this can also benefit remediation if the manganese oxides’
high surface reactivity further attenuates contaminants through surface
mediated oxidation—Loomer et al., 2010). Persulfate leads to generation of
large amounts of sulfate, which can alter the biogeochemical environment
of the aquifer through the generation of reduced sulfur (and even lead to
an environment conducive to reductive dehalogenation). Lastly, the highly
reactive nature and short half-life (~20 minutes in water) of ozone render
it difficult to deliver in a stable form.
ISCO can be an effective treatment strategy, but like most other reme-
diation technologies its success is dependent upon the complexity of the
site and the nature of the contaminant. A 1999 ESTCP report summarizing
42 pilot- and full-scale ISCO projects deemed only 19 to be “successful.”
Another more recent but smaller evaluation of ISCO used at 29 chlorinated
solvent sites found that mass was reduced (1) by 55 to 95 percent with a
median reduction of 90 percent, and (2) by 75 to 90 percent with a median
OCR for page 123
TABLE 4-4 Chemicals Used in ISCO Applications, Including Advantages and Disadvantages
Specific ISCO Principal Oxidant Pathway Advantages Disadvantages
Catalyzed Hydrogen Hydroxyl radical (OH•) Fe+2
+ H 2O 2 ➞ Fe+3 + Highly non-selective Nonproductive side reactions,
Peroxide Propagation OH• + OH– oxidant, no fouling, cost, rapidly consumed,
(Fenton’s Reaction) temperature increase potential for excessive
heating, gas generation.
Permanganate MnO4– [Mn(VII)] MnO4– ➞ MnO2(s) Somewhat non-selective, Aquifer fouling from MnO2
(neutral pH) can be used in PRB (Ch. 6) precipitation, density issues,
toxic metals mobilization
Persulfate Sulfate radical (SO4•), Heat activated S2O8–2 Somewhat non-selective, Activation can be tricky (heat
reactive oxygen species ➞ 2SO4•. Base no fouling, fairly easy to or add sodium hydroxide),
(ROS) activated forms SO4• deliver quickly deactivates under
and ROS acidic conditions, persistence
in source dependent on
delivery duration and
groundwater flow
Ozone O3 From O2 using corona Non-selective toward Decomposes to oxygen
discharge ozone hydrocarbons, oxygenates quickly, delivered as a gas,
generator need for on-site generator,
continuous inputs
123
OCR for page 150
150 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Over the last two decades, remedial technologies have matured and
evolved, especially in the area of DNAPL source-zone remediation. Indeed,
development of the technologies discussed in this chapter has advanced to
the accepted-use stage (although many of the technology applications have
been at simple sites or only a small portion of a complex site). Summaries
of the effectiveness of source zone and plume technologies are provided
in Tables 4-11 and 4-12, respectively, drawing on results discussed in the
preceding sections.
Given Tables 4-11 and 4-12 and the best professional judgment of the
Committee, the capabilities of the technologies described in this chapter are
often not sufficient to meet the conventional objective of meeting MCLs
at complex sites, such that contamination is likely to remain in place fol-
lowing treatment for a large number of complex sites. That is, significant
technical limitations persist that make achievement of MCLs throughout
the aquifer unlikely at most complex groundwater sites for many decades.
Furthermore, future improvements in these technologies are likely to be
incremental, such that long-term monitoring and stewardship at sites with
groundwater contamination should be expected.
The Committee could identify only limited data upon which to base a
scientifically supportable comparison of remedial technology performance
for the technologies reviewed in this chapter. There have been a few well-
studied demonstration projects and lab-scale research studies, but adequate
performance documentation generated throughout the remedial history
at sites either is not available or does not exist for the majority of com-
pleted remediation efforts. This has hindered attempts to perform empirical
analyses of technology performance and how that relates to design param-
eters, operating conditions, monitoring and optimization plans, and site
characteristics. Furthermore, poor design, poor application, and/or poor
post-application monitoring at typical (i.e., non-research or demonstration)
sites makes determination of the best practicably achievable performance
difficult.
There is a clear need for publicly accessible databases that could be
used to compare the performance of remedial technologies at complex sites
(performance data could be concentration reduction, mass discharge reduc-
tion, cost, time to attain drinking water standards, etc.). The Committee
envisions a database with much more comprehensive performance data
than is found, for example, in the CERCLIS database of Superfund facili-
ties. To ensure that data from different sites can be pooled to increase the
statistical power of the database, a standardized technical protocol regard-
ing data collection and analysis would be needed, although it goes beyond
OCR for page 151
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 151
TABLE 4-11 Source Zone Technology Summaries
Technology Performance Comments
Thermal <10X to 100,000X Can be effective in heterogeneous media;
concentration and flux potentially high energy consumption;
reductiona limited number of vendors to perform
95 to 99+ percent mass work
reductionb
In Situ Chemical 55 to 90 percent mass Most applications have been at small
Oxidation reductionb sites in permeable media; applications
to DNAPL are very challenging
(potential for DNAPL mobilization and
contaminant bypassing); side reactions
could render ISCO less effective
Surfactant 65 to 90+ percent mass Can bypass contaminants in
Flushing recoveryc heterogeneous media; risk of
uncontrolled DNAPL mobilization and
migration; low IFT formulations suitable
for LNAPL recovery
Cosolvent 65 to 85 percent mass Can bypass contaminants in
Flushing recoveryc heterogeneous media; risk of
uncontrolled DNAPL mobilization and
migration; requires large volumes of
cosolvents thereby driving up costs
In Situ 60 to 90 percent mass Problematic conditions include pooled
Bioremediation reductionb DNAPL, the potential for high methane
levels, and groundwater velocity <10 ft/y
or >10 ft/d; potential for biofouling and
metals solubilization
NOTE: The summary table includes only those technologies for which significant new per-
formance information has become available since NRC (2005). For complete descriptions of
contaminant source remediation technologies, see NRC (2005).
aFrom Table 4-3.
bFrom Stroo et al. (2012).
cFrom Tables 4-7 and 4-8. Mass recovery percentages should be interpreted with caution
because initial mass in place is uncertain.
the scope of this report to provide the details of such a protocol. Federal
agencies with nationwide responsibility for complex sites (EPA, DoD, DOE)
should take the lead on developing such databases.
Additional independent reviews of source zone technologies are needed
to summarize their performance under a wide range of site characteristics.
Since NRC (2005), only thermal and ISCO technologies have undergone a
thorough, independent review. Other source zone technologies should also
be reviewed by an independent scientific group (e.g., SERDP/ESTCP, ITRC,
OCR for page 152
152 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
TABLE 4-12 Plume Technology Summaries
Technology Performance Comments
Pump & Treat Containment reduces or Assessing capture can require
eliminates downgradient extensive monitoring; long-
mass flux; some mass term management required
removal achieved with associated operation-and-
maintenance costs; extensive
guidance available; technology
is robust and flexible; treated
water can be used as resource
Physical Containment Can reduce or eliminate Needs natural low-
downgradient mass flux permeability bottom;
long-term monitoring and
maintenance required;
water management (and
possible treatment) inside
the containment area likely
required
Permeable Reactive Barrier Containment reduces or Usually needs natural
eliminates downgradient low-permeability bottom;
mass flux; some mass treatment occurs in the
removal achieved subsurface; treatment is
passive; monitoring can be
focused; barrier replacement
eventually required
Monitored Natural Significant mass reduction Often considered a polishing
Attenuation can be achieved, reducing step in treatment train; can
mass flux downgradient require extensive long-term
monitoring to ensure requisite
biogeochemical conditions
persist
or ASTM). Such reviews should include a description of the state of the
practice, performance metrics, and sustainability information of each type
of remedial technology so that there is a trusted source of information for
use in the remedial investigation/feasibility study process and optimization
evaluations.
Research is needed on how to better combine existing or new reme-
diation technologies to address complex contaminated sites. There is the
potential at most complex sites to combine multiple technologies in space
and time to cost-effectively remove/treat contamination in both the source
zone and the downgradient dissolved plume. However, additional research
is needed to examine combinations of in situ remediation technologies to
optimize removal and cost effectiveness.
OCR for page 153
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 153
REFERENCES
AATDF (Advanced Applied Technology Demonstration Facility). 1997. Technology Practices
Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents. Houston, TX: AATDF.
Abriola, L. M., C. D. Drummond, E. J. Hahn, T. C. G. Kibbey, L. D. Lemke, K. D. Pennell,
C. A. Ramsburg, and K. M. Rathfelder. 2005. A pilot-scale demonstration of surfactant-
enhanced PCE solubilization at the Bachman Road site (1) Site characterization and test
design. Environmental Science & Technology 39:1778-1790.
Albano, J., S. D. Comfort, V. Zlotnik, T. Halihan, M. Burbach, C. Chokejaroenrat, and W.
Clayton. 2010. In situ chemical oxidation of RDX-contaminated groundwater with
permanganate at the Nebraska Ordnance Plant. Ground Water Monitoring & Remedia-
tion 30(3):96-106.
Amos, B. K., R. C. Daprato, J. B. Hughes, K. D. Pennell, and F. E. Loffler. 2007. Effects of
the nonionic surfactant Tween 80 on microbial reductive dechlorination of chlorinated
ethenes. Environmental Science & Technology 41:1710-1716.
Baker, R. S., and J. M. Bierschenk. 2001. In-Situ Thermal Destruction Makes Stringent Soil
and Sediment Cleanup Goals Attainable. Proceedings of the Fourth Tri-Service Environ-
mental Technology Symposium, San Diego, CA. June 18-20, 2001.
Battelle and Duke Engineering & Services. 2001. Final Technical Report for Surfactant-
Enhanced DNAPL Removal at Site 88 Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Post Hueneme, California.
Beyke, G., and D. Fleming. 2005. In situ thermal remediation of DNAPL and LNAPL using
electrical resistance heating. Remediation Summer:5-22.
Bradley, P. M., and F. H. Chapelle. 2010. Biodegradation of chlorinated ethenes. Pp. 39-67
in In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. H. F. Stroo and C. H. Ward, Eds.
Springer. New York.
Brauner, J. S., D. C. Downey, and R. Miller. 2008. Using advanced analysis approaches to
complete long-term evaluations of natural attenuation processes on the remediation of
dissolved chlorinated solvent contamination. Final report for the Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program.
Brooks, M. C., M. D. Annable, P. S. C. Rao, K. Hatfield, J. W. Jawitz, W. R. Wise, A. L. Wood,
and C. G. Enfield. 2004. Controlled release, blind test of DNAPL remediation by ethanol
flushing. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 69:281-297.
Brown, R. A., J. T. Wilson, and M. Ferrey. 2007. Monitored Natural Attenuation Forum: The
case for abiotic MNA. Remediation Journal 17:127-137.
Butler, E. C., Y. Dong, X. Liang, T. Kuder, R. P. Philp, and L. R. Krumholz. 2009. Abiotic re-
ductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene in anaerobic environ-
ments. Final report for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.
CDM. 2009. Final Focused Feasibility Study, Well 12A Superfund Site, Tacoma, Washington,
EPA Region X. http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/sites/cb-stc/well12a_final_ffs_apr2009.
pdf.
Chamberlain, J., L. Michalczak, and S. Seneca. 2011. Design and installation of a perme-
able treatment wall at the West Valley Demonstration Project to mitigate expansion of
Strontium-90 contaminated groundwater. Waste Management 2011 Conference, Feb.
27–March 3, 2011.
Chapelle, F. H., P. M. Bradley, and C. C. Casey. 2005. Behavior of a chlorinated ethene plume
following source-area treatment with Fenton’s Reagent. Ground Water Monitoring &
Remediation 25(2):131-141.
OCR for page 154
154 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
Childs, J., E. Acosta, M. D. Annable, M. C. Brooks, C. G. Enfield, J. H. Harwell, M.
Hasegawa, R. C. Knox, P. S. C. Rao, D. A. Sabatini, B. Shiau, E. Szekeres, and A. L.
Wood. 2006. Field demonstration of surfactant-enhanced solubilization of DNAPL at
Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 82:1-22.
Christ, J. A., C. A. Ramsburg, L. M. Abriola, K. D. Pennell, and F. E. Löffler. 2005. Cou-
pling aggressive mass removal with microbial reductive dechlorination for remediation
of DNAPL source zones: A review and assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives
113(4):465-477. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.6932.
Coates, J. D., and L. A. Achenbach. 2004. Microbial perchlorate reduction: Rocket-fuelled
metabolism. Nature Reviews Microbiology 2:569-580.
Cope, N., and J. B. Hughes. 2001. Biologically-enhanced removal of PCE from NAPL source
zones. Environmental Science & Technology 35(10):2014-2020.
Costanza, J., K. E. Fletcher, F. E. Loffler, and K. D. Pennell. 2009. Fate of TCE in heated Fort
Lewis soil. Environmental Science & Technology 43:909-914.
Davis, E. L. 1998. Steam Injection for Soil and Aquifer Remediation. Ground Water Issue No.
EPA 540-S-97-505. Washington, DC: EPA.
Davis, G. B., and B. M. Patterson. 2003. Developments in permeable reactive barrier technol-
ogy. Pp. 205-226 in Bioremediation: A Critical Review. I. M. Head, L Singleton, and M.
G. Milner, eds. Horizon Scientific Press.
De Percin, P. R. 1991. Demonstration of in situ steam and hot-air stripping technology. Journal
of Air and Waste Management 41(6):873-877.
Delshad, M., G. A. Pope, L. Yeh, and F. J. Holzmer. 2000. Design of the surfactant flood at
Camp Lejeune. Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and
Recalcitrant Compounds. Monterey, CA, May 22-25, 2000. Pp. 203-210.
Dey, J. C., P. Rosenwinkel, and K. Wheeler. 2002. In situ remediation of MTBE utilizing
ozone. Remediation Journal 13(1):77-85.
Environmental Management Support, Inc. 2008. Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide
Emissions at Superfund Cleanups. Draft report prepared for EPA Office of Superfund Re-
mediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, D.C., EPA Contract EP W-07-037.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. KAI Radio Frequency Heating Technol-
ogy. EPA 540-R-94-528a. Washington, DC: EPA Government Printing Office.
EPA. 1995b. IITRI Radio Frequency Heating Technology. EPA 540-R-94-527a. Washington,
DC: EPA Government Printing Office.
EPA. 1998. Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers at Waste Sites. EPA 542-R-98-005.
Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 1999. Cost and Performance Report: Six Phase Heating (SPH) at a Former Manufactur-
ing Facility, Skokie Illinois. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Technical Innovation Office.
EPA. 2000. Superfund Reform Strategy, Implementation Memorandum: Optimization of fund-
lead ground water pump and treat (P&T) systems. OSWER 9283.1-13. Washington, DC:
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2002. Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems. EPA
542-R-02-009. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2003. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion?
EPA/600/R-03/143. Ada, OK: EPA NRMRL.
EPA. 2005a. Cost-Effective Design of Pump and Treat Systems. EPA 542-R-05-008. Washing-
ton, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2005b. Effective Contracting Approaches for Operating Pump and Treat Systems. EPA
542-R-05-009. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
OCR for page 155
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 155
EPA. 2005c. O&M Report Template for Ground Water Remedies (with Emphasis on Pump
and Treat Systems). EPA 542-R-05-010. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
EPA. 2007a. Options for Discharging Treated Water from Pump and Treat Systems. EPA
542-R-07-006. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2007b. Optimization Strategies for Long-Term Ground Water Remedies (with Particular
Emphasis on Pump and Treat Systems). EPA 542-R-07-007. Washington, DC: EPA Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2007c. A Cost Comparison Framework for Use in Optimizing Groundwater Pump and
Treat Systems. EPA 542-R-07-005. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
EPA. 2007d. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Twelfth Edi-
tion). Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2008. Ground Water Remedy Optimization Progress Report: 2006–2007. EPA 540/R-
08/004. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2010a. Superfund Remedy Report, Thirteenth Edition. EPA-542-R-10-004. Washington,
DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2010b. O&M Report Template for Ground Water Remedies (with Emphasis on Pump
and Treat Systems). EPA 542-R-05-010. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
EPA. 2010c. Summary of New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP. http://www.epa.gov/region5
superfund/npl/minnesota/MN7213820908.htm.
ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program). 1999. Technology Status
Review In Situ Oxidation. Washington, DC: ESTCP.
ESTCP. 2007. Biodegradation of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLS) through
Bioaugmentation of Source Areas—Dover National Test Site, Dover, Delaware. ESTCP
Project ER-0008, 101 pp.
ESTCP. 2011. In Situ Chemical Oxidation for Groundwater Remediation—Technology Prac-
tices Manual ESTCP Project ER-200623. Washington, DC: ESTCP.
Falta, R. W., C. M. Lee, S. E. Brame, 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.
Farouq Ali, S. M., and R. F. Meldau. 1979. Current steamflood technology. Journal of Petro-
leum Technology 31(10):1332-1342.
Ferrey, M. L., R. T. Wilkin, R. G. Ford, and J. T. Wilson. 2004. Nonbiological removal of
cis-dichloroethylene and 1,1-dichloroethylene in aquifer sediment containing magnetite.
Environmental Science & Technology 38:1746-1752.
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.
Friis, A. K., G. Heron, H. J. Albrechtsen, K. S. Udell, and P. L. Bjerg. 2006. Anaerobic de-
�������������������
chlorination and redox activities after full-scale electrical resistance heating (ERH) of a
TCE-contaminated aquifer. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 88:219-234.
Friis, A. K., H. J. Albrechtsen, G. Heron, and P. L. Bjerg. 2005. Redox processes and release
of organic matter after thermal treatment of a TCE-contaminated aquifer. Environmental
Science & Technology 39:5787-5795.
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 Na-
val Air Station Alameda, California. Pp. 219-226 in Treating Dense Nonaqueous-Phase
Liquids (DNAPLs): Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. G. B.
Wickramanayake et al. (eds.). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
OCR for page 156
156 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
Hesemann, J. R., and M. Hildebrandt. 2009. Successful unsaturated zone treatment of PCE
with sodium permanganate. Remediation Journal 19(2):37-48.
Holzmer, F. J., G. A. Pope, and L. Yeh. 2000. Surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation of
PCE-DNAPL in low-permeability sand. Second International Conference on Remedia-
tion of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds; Monterey, CA. May, 22-25, 2000.
Pp. 187-193.
Hood, E. D., D. W. Major, J. W. Quinn, W.-S. Yoon, A. Gavaskar, and E. A. Edwards. 2008.
Demonstration of enhanced bioremediation in a TCE source area at Launch Com-
plex 34, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation
28(2):98-107.
ITRC (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council). 2005. Permeable Reactive Barriers:
Lessons Learned/New Directions. PRB-4. Washington, DC: ITRC Permeable Reactive
Barriers Team. http://www.itrcweb.org/documents/prb-4.pdf.
ITRC. 2007. The Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline. Washington, DC: ITRC.
http://www.itrcweb.org/documents/VI-1.pdf.
IRTC. 2010. Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge. Washington, DC:
ITRC. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/MASSFLUX1.pdf.
ITRC. 2011. Permeable Reactive Barrier: Technology Update. PRB-5. Washington, DC: ITRC
PRB Technology Update Team.
Jain, V., and A. H. Demond. 2002. Conductivity reduction due to emulsification during sur-
factant enhanced-aquifer remediation. 1. Emulsion transport. Environmental Science &
Technology 36(24):5426-5433.
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. Environmental Science & Technology 32(4):523-530.
Jawitz, J. W., R. K. Sillan, M. D. Annable, P. S. C. Rao, and K. Warner. 2000. In situ alcohol
flushing of a DNAPL source zone at a dry cleaner site. Environmental Science & Tech-
nology 34:3722-3729.
Jawitz, J. W., M. D. Annable, P. S. C. Rao, R. D. Rhue. 2001. Evaluation of remediation per-
formance and cost for field-scale single-phase microemulsion (SPME) flushing. Journal
of Environmental Science Health A36:1437-1450.
Jefferis, S. A. 2008. Reactive transport in cut-off walls and implications for wall durability.
Geotechnical Special Publication 177(GeoCongress 2008):652-659.
Johnson, P. J., P. Dahlen, J. Triplett Kingston, E. Foote, and S. Williams. 2009. State-of-the-
Practice Overview: Critical Evaluation of State-of-the-Art In Situ Thermal Treatment
Technologies for DNAPL Source Zone Treatment. EXTCP Project ER-0312. May 2009.
Kavanaugh, M., and R. Deeb. 2011. Diagnostic Tools For Performance Evaluation of Innova-
tive In-Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP
Project ER-200318. Washington, DC: ESTCP.
Kennedy, L. G., J. W. Everett, and J. Gonzales. 2006. Assessment of biogeochemical natural at-
tenuation and treatment of chlorinated solvents, Altus Air Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma.
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 83(3-4):221-236.
Knox, R. C., D. A. Sabatini, J. H. Harwell, R. E. Brown, C. C. West, F. Blaha, and C.
Griffin. 1997. Surfactant remediation field demonstration using a vertical circulation
well. Ground Water 35(6):948-953.
Knox, R. C., B. J. Shau, D. A. Sabatini, and J. H. Harwell. 1999. Field demonstration studies
of surfactant-enhanced solubilization and mobilization at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. In
Innovative Subsurface Remediation. Brusseau M. L., D. A. Sabatini, J. S. Gierke, M. D.
Annable, eds. ACS Symposium Series 725, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
OCR for page 157
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 157
Krembs, F. J., R. L. Siegrist, M. L. Crimi, R. F. Furrer, and B. G. Petri. 2010. ISCO for
groundwater remediation: Analysis of field applications and performance. Ground Water
Monitoring & Remediation 30(4):42-53.
Krembs, F. J., W. S. Clayton, and M. C. Marley. 2011. Evaluation of ISCO field applications
and performance. Pp. 319-353 in In Situ Chemical Oxidation for Groundwater Reme-
diation. Siegrist, R. L., M. Crimi, and T. J. Simpkin, eds. New York: Springer Science +
Business Media, LLC. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7826-4.
Levine-Fricke-Recon. 2008. Cosolvent Flushing Pilot Test Report, Former Sages Dry Cleaner
December 4, 1998, LFR Project Number: 6006.10-08.
Liu, M. W., and D. Roy. 1995. Surfactant-induced interactions and hydraulic conductivity
changes in soil. Waste Management 15(7):463-470.
Lo, I. M., C. S. Lam, and K. C. Lai. 2006. Hardness and carbonate effects on the reactivity of
zero-valent iron for Cr(VI) removal. Water Research 40(3):595-605.
Londergan, J. T., H. W. Meinardus, P. E. Mariner, R. E. Jackson, C. L. Brown, V. Dwara-
kanath, G. A. Pope, J. S. Ginn, and S. Taffinder. 2001. DNAPL removal from a het-
erogeneous alluvial aquifer by surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation. Ground Water
Monitoring & Remediation 21:57-67.
Loomer, D. B., T. A. Al, V. J. Banks, B. L. Parker, and K. U. Mayer. 2010. Manganese valence
in oxides formed from in situ chemical oxidation of TCE by KMnO4. Environmental
Science & Technology 44(15):5934-5939.
Major, D. W., M. M. 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.
Environmental Science & Technology 36(23):5106-5116.
Martel R., P. J. Gelinas, and L. Saumure. 1998. Aquifer washing by micellar solutions: 3. Field
test at the Thouin Sand Pit (L’ Assomption, Quebec, Canada). Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology 30:33-48.
McDade, J. M., T. M. McGuire, and C. J. Newell. 2005. Analysis of DNAPL source-depletion
costs at 36 field sites. Remediation Journal 15(2):9-18.
McGuire, T., and J. B. Hughes. 2003. Effects of surfactants on the dechlorination of chlori-
nated ethenes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(11):2630-2638.
McGuire, T. M., J. M. McDade, and C. J. Newell. 2006. Performance of DNAPL source deple-
tion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent-impacted sites. Ground Water Monitoring &
Remediation 26(1):73-84.
MPCA. 2010. Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) Superfund Site. Minnesota Pol-
lution Control Agency. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/waste/waste-and-cleanup/
cleanup-programs-and-topics/topics/remediation-sites/twin-cities-army-ammunition-
plant-tcaap-superfund-site.html
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). 2004. Guidance for Optimizing Remedy
Evaluation, Selection, and Design.
Neuhauser, E. F., J. A. Ripp, N. A. Azzolina, E. L. Madsen, D. M. Mauro, and T. Taylor. 2009.
Monitored natural attenuation of manufactured gas plant tar mono- and polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons in ground water: A 14-year field study. Ground Water Monitoring
& Remediation 29(3):66-76.
Newell, C. J., I. Cowie, T. M. McGuire, and W. McNab. 2006. Multi-year temporal changes
in chlorinated solvent concentrations at 23 MNA sites. Journal of Environmental Engi-
neering 132(6):653-663.
NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Alternatives for Groundwater Cleanup. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1997. Innovations in Soil and Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
OCR for page 158
158 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
NRC. 1999. Groundwater and Soil Cleanup. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2000. Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
NRC. 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2007. Assessment of the Performance of Engineered Waste Containment Barriers.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pennell, K. D., G. A. Pope, and L. M. Abriola. 1996. Influence of viscous and buoyancy forces
on the mobilization of residual tetrachloroethylene during surfactant flushing. Environ-
mental Science & Technology 30(4):1328-1335.
Ramakrishnan, V., A. V. Ogram, and A. S. Lindner. 2005. Impacts of co-solvent flushing on
microbial populations capable of degrading trichloroethylene. Environmental Health
Perspectives 113(1):55-61.
Ramsburg, C. A., and K. D. Pennell. 2001. Experimental and economic assessment of two
surfactant formulations for source zone remediation at a former dry cleaning facility.
Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 21:68-82.
Ramsburg, C. A., L. M. Abriola, K. D. Pennell, F. E. Loffler, M. Gamache, B. K. Amos,
and E. A. Petroviskis. 2004. Stimulated microbial reductive dechlorination following
surfactant treatment at the Bachman road site. Environmental Science & Technology
38:5902-5914.
Ramsburg, C. A., K. D. Pennell, L. M. Abriola, G. Daniels, C. D. Drummond, M. Gamache,
H. U. Hsu, E. A. Petrovskis, C. M. Rathfelder, J. L. Ryder, and T. P. Yavaraski. 2005.
Pilot-scale demonstration of surfactant-enhanced PCE solubilization at the Bachman
Road site. 2. System operation and evaluation. Environmental Science & Technology
39(6):1791-1801.
Rao, P. H., M. He, X. Yang, Y.-C. Zhang, S.-Q. Sun, and J.-S. Wang. 2006. Effect of an
anionic surfactant on hydraulic conductivities of sodium- and calcium-saturated soils.
Pedosphere 16(5):673-680.
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 33:2673-2686.
Roote, D. S. 1998. Technology Status Report In Situ Flushing (TS-98-01). Pittsburgh, PA:
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center.
Sale, T. C., and C. Newell. 2011. Guide for Selecting Remedies for Subsurface Releases of
Chlorinated Solvents. ESTCP Project ER-200530.
Scherer, M. M., E. O’Loughlin, G. F. Parkin, R. Valentine, H. Al-Hosney, R. Handler, C. Just,
P. Larese-Casanova, T. Pasakarnis, and S. L. Smith. 2009. S.L. ER-1369 Sustainability
of Long-Term Abiotic Attenuation of Chlorinated Ethenes. Final report for the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program.
Seagren, E. A., B. E. Rittman, and A. J. Valocchi. 1993. Quantitative evaluation of flushing and
biodegradation for enhancing in situ dissolution of non-aqueous phase liquids. Journal
of Contaminant Hydrology 12(1-2):103-132.
Seagren, E. A., B. E. Rittmann, and A. J Valocchi. 1994. Quantitative evaluation of the en-
hancement of NAPL-pool dissolution by flushing and biodegradation. Environmental
Science & Technology 28(5):833-839.
Siegal, J., A. A. Rees, K. W. Eggers, and R. L. Hobbs. 2009. In situ chemical oxidation of
residual LNAPL and dissolved-phase fuel hydrocarbons and chlorinated alkenes in
groundwater using activated persulfate. Remediation Journal 19(2):19-35.
Siegrist, R. L., M. Crimi, T. J. Simpkin (eds). 2011. In Situ Chemical Oxidation for Remedia-
tion of Contaminated Groundwater. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
OCR for page 159
CURRENT CAPABILITIES TO REMOVE OR CONTAIN CONTAMINATION 159
Sleep, B. E., D. J. Seepersad, K. Mo, C. M. Heidorn, L. Hrapovic, P. L. Morrill, M. L.
McMaster, E. D. Hood, C. LeBron, B. Sherwood Lollar, D. W. Major, and E. A. Edwards.
2006. Biological enhancement of tetrachloroethene dissolution and associated microbial
community changes. Environmental Science & Technology 40(11):3623-3633.
Stroo, H. F., M. Unger, C. H. Ward, M. C. Kavanaugh, C. Vogel, A. Leeson, J. A. Marquesee
and B. P. Smith. 2003. Remediation of chlorinated solvent source zones. Environmental
Science & Technology 37:224A-230A.
Stroo, H. F., and C. H. Ward. 2010. In situ remediation of chlorinated solvent plumes. New
York: Springer.
Stroo, H. F., A. Leeson, J. A. Marquesee, P. C. Johnson, C. H. Ward, M. C. Kavanaugh,
T. C. Sale, C. J. Newell, K. D. Pennell, C. A. Lebron, and M. Unger. 2012. Chlorina-
ted ethene source remediation: Lessons learned. Environmental Science & Technology
46:6438-6447.
Thiruvenkatachari, R., S. Vigneswaran, and R. Naidu. 2008. Permeable reactive barrier for
groundwater remediation. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (Amsterdam,
Netherlands) 14(2):145-156.
Triplett Kingston, J. L. 2008. A Critical Evaluation of In Situ Thermal Technologies. Ph.D. Dis-
sertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University.
Triplett Kingston, J. L., P. R. Dahlen, P. C. Johnson, E. Foote, and S. Williams. 2009. State
of the Practice Overview: Critical Evaluation of State-of-the-Art In Situ Thermal Treat-
ment Technologies for DNAPL Source Zone Treatment. ESTCP Project ER-0314. May
2009. http://www.serdp.org/content/download/4577/67309/version/2/file/ER-0314-State-
of-the-Practice+Overview.pdf.
Triplett Kingston, J. L., P. Dahlen, and P. C. Johnson. 2010a. State-of-the-practice review of
in-situ thermal technologies. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 30(4):64-72.
Triplett Kingston, J. L., P. R. Dahlen, P. C. Johnson, E. Foote, and S. Williams. 2010b. Criti-
cal Evaluation of State-of-the-Art In Situ Thermal Treatment Technologies for DNAPL
Source Zone Treatment. ESTCP Project ER-0314. January 2010. http://www.serdp.org/
content/download/4576/67301/file/ER-0314-FR.pdf.
Triplett Kingston, J. L., P. R. Dahlen, and P. C. Johnson. 2012. Assessment of ground-
water quality improvements and mass discharge reductions at five in situ electri-
cal resistance heating remediation sites. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation.
DOI:10.1111/j.1745-6592.2011.01389.x
Vangelas, K. M., B. B. Looney, T. O. Early, T. Gilmore, F. H Chapelle, K. M. Adams, and
C. H. Sink. 2006. Monitored natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents—moving be-
yond reductive dechlorination. Remediation Journal 16(3):5-23.
Vinegar, H. J., G. L. Stegemeier, F. G. Carl, J. D. Stevenson, and R. J. Dudley. 1999. In Situ
Thermal Desorption of Soils Impacted with Chlorinated Solvents. Proceedings of the
Annual Meetings of the Air and Waste Management Association, Paper No. 99-450.
Wanaratna, P., C. Christodoulatos, and M. Sidhoum. 2006. Kinetics of RDX degradation by
zero-valent iron (ZVI). Journal of Hazardous Materials 136(1):68-74.
Wiedenmeir, T. H., H. S. Rifai, C. J. Newell, and J. T. Wilson. 1999. Natural Attenuation of
Fuel Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Wilson, J. T. 2010. Monitored natural attenuation of chlorinated solvent plumes. Chapter 11
in In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. H. Stroo and C. H. Ward (eds.).
New York: Springer.
Wymore, R. A., T. W. Macbeth, J. S. Rothermel, L. N. Peterson, L. O. Nelson, K. S. Sorenson,
N. Akladiss, and I. R. Tasker. 2006. Enhanced anaerobic bioremediation in a DNAPL
residual source zone: Test Area North case study. Remediation 16(4):5-22.
OCR for page 160
160 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES
Yang, Y., and P. L. McCarty. 2000. Biologically enhanced dissolution of tetrachloroethene
DNAPL. Environmental Science & Technology 34(14):2979-2984.
Yang, Y., and P. L. McCarty. 2002. Comparison between donor substrates for biologically
enhanced tetrachloroethene DNAPL dissolution. Environmental Science & Technology
36(15):3400-3404.
Yeh, D. H., K. D. Pennell, and S. G. Pavlostathis. 1999. Effect of Tween surfactants on metha-
nogenesis and microbial reductive dechlorination of hexachlorobenzene. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 18:1408-1416.
Zimmerman, J. B., T. C. G. Kibbey, M. A. Cowell, and K. F. Hayes. 1999. Partitioning of
ethoxylated nonionic surfactants into nonaqueous-phase organic liquids: Influence on
solubilization behavior. Environmental Science & Technology 33(1):169-176.
