4

Current Capabilities to Remove or Contain Contamination

INTRODUCTION

Part of the Committee’s statement of task was to discuss what is technically feasible in terms of removing a certain percentage of the total contaminant 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, particularly post-treatment monitoring, which severely constrains our ability to reach definitive statements regarding the effectiveness of a particular technology to meet remedial action objectives (RAOs). Critical evaluations of



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 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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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 113
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.