National Academies Press: OpenBook

Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup (1994)

Chapter: Front Matter

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup

Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives

Water Science and Technology Board

Board on Radioactive Waste Management

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1994

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Agreement No. CR 818700-01-0, the U.S. Department of Energy under Agreement Nos. DE-AL01-89DP48070 and DE-AC01-89DP8070, Chevron USA, Inc., and the Coalition on Superfund.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Alternatives for ground water cleanup / Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-309-04994-6

1. Groundwater—Purification. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives.

TD426.A48 1994

363.73'94—dc20 94-29573

CIP

Cover art by Y. David Chung. Title design by Rumen Buzatov. Chung and Buzatov are graduates of the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C. Chung has exhibited widely throughout the country, including at the Whitney Museum in New York, the Washington Project for the Arts in Washington, D.C., and the Williams College Museum of Art in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

The cover illustration shows how the elements of weather, geography, and underground strata all combine to affect our ground water.

Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

First Printing, June 1994

Second Printing, July 1995

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

COMMITTEE ON GROUND WATER CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES

MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair,

ENVIRON Corporation, Emeryville, California

JAMES W. MERCER, Vice-Chair,

GeoTrans, Inc., Sterling, Virginia

LINDA M. ABRIOLA,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

CHARLES B. ANDREWS,

S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland

MARY JO BAEDECKER,

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

EDWARD J. BOUWER,

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

PATRICIA A. BUFFLER,

University of California, Berkeley

ROBERT E. CONNICK,

University of California, Berkeley

RICHARD A. CONWAY,

Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston, West Virginia

RALPH C. D'ARGE,

University of Wyoming, Laramie

LINDA E. GREER,

Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.

JOSEPH H. HIGHLAND,

ENVIRON Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey

DOUGLAS M. MACKAY,

Centre for Groundwater Research, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

GLENN PAULSON,

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, liaison to the Board on Radioactive Waste Management

LYNNE M. PRESLO,

ICF-Kaiser Engineers, Oakland, California

PAUL V. ROBERTS,

Stanford University, Stanford, California

WILLIAM J. WALSH,

Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Washington, D.C.

C. HERB WARD,

Rice University, Houston, Texas

MARCIA E. WILLIAMS,

Williams & Vanino, Inc., Los Angeles, California

Staff

JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Study Director

GREGORY K. NYCE, Senior Project Assistant

ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Project Assistant

GREICY AMJADIVALA, Project Assistant

GEORGE Z. HORNBERGER, Intern

CINDY F. KLEIMAN, Technical Consultant

GINO BIANCHI-MOSQUERA, Technical Consultant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

DANIEL A. OKUN, Chair,

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

A. DAN TARLOCK, Vice-Chair,

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago

J. DAN ALLEN,

Chevron USA, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana

PATRICK L. BREZONIK,

University of Minnesota, St. Paul

KENNETH D. FREDERICK,

Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

DAVID L. FREYBERG,

Stanford University, Stanford, California

WILFORD R. GARDNER,

University of California, Berkeley

WILLIAM L. GRAF,

Arizona State University, Tempe

THOMAS M. HELLMAN,

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New York

ROBERT J. HUGGETT,

College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia

CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Consultant,

Bethesda, Maryland

WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR.,

University of Colorado, Boulder

CAROLYN H. OLSEN,

Brown and Caldwell, Atlanta, Georgia

CHARLES R. O'MELIA,

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

STAVROS S. PAPADOPULOS,

S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland

BRUCE E. RITTMANN,

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

JOY B. ZEDLER,

San Diego State University, San Diego, California

Staff

STEPHEN D. PARKER, Staff Director

SARAH CONNICK, Senior Staff Officer

SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer

CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer

GARY D. KRAUSS, Staff Officer

JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Staff Officer

M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate

ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant

GREGORY K. NYCE, Senior Project Assistant

MARY BETH MORRIS, Senior Project Assistant

ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

CHRIS G. WHIPPLE, Chair,

Kaiser Engineers, Oakland, California

CHARLES FAIRHURST, Vice-Chair,

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

JOHN F. AHEARNE,

Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

COLIN J. ALLAN,

Whiteshell Laboratory, Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada

JEAN M. BAHR,

University of Wisconsin, Madison

LYNDA BROTHERS,

Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, Washington

SOL BURSTEIN,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

MELVIN W. CARTER,

Atlanta, Georgia

CARON CHESS,

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

E. WILLIAM COLGLAZIER,

National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

PAUL P. CRAIG,

University of California, Davis

B. JOHN GARRICK,

PLG, Inc., Newport Beach, California

ROBERT D. HATCHER,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

PERRY L. McCARTY,

Stanford University, Stanford, California

FRED W. McLAFFERTY,

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

H. ROBERT MEYER,

Keystone Scientific, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado

D. KIRK NORDSTROM,

U.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, Colorado

GLENN PAULSON,

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago

Staff

CARL A. ANDERSON, Staff Director

PETER B. MYERS, Staff Director, retired April 30, 1993

INA B. ALTERMAN, Senior Staff Officer

ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer

KARYANIL T. THOMAS, Senior Staff Officer

DANA CAINES, Administrative Associate

VERNA BOWEN, Administrative Assistant

LISA CLENDENING, Administrative Assistant

GAYLENE DUMOUCHEL, Administrative Assistant

REBECCA BURKA, Project Assistant

DENNIS DuPREE, Project Assistant

ELIZABETH LANDRIGAN, Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES

M. GORDON WOLMAN, Chair,

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

PATRICK R. ATKINS,

Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

PETER EAGLESON,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

EDWARD A. FRIEMAN,

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California

W. BARCLAY KAMB,

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

JACK E. OLIVER,

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

FRANK L. PARKER,

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

RAYMOND A. PRICE,

Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada

THOMAS C. SCHELLING,

University of Maryland, College Park

LARRY L. SMARR,

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

STEVEN M. STANLEY,

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL,

Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida

WARREN WASHINGTON,

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

EDITH BROWN WEISS,

Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.

Staff

STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director

STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director

MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director

JEANETTE SPOON, Administrative Officer

SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate

ROBIN ALLEN, Senior Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

Preface

"A little water clears us of this deed"

Macbeth, Act II, ii

Over the past 15 years, evidence has accumulated that the nation's ground water resource, which supplies more than 50 percent of the population's drinking water, is threatened not only by excessive overdrafts but also by contamination caused by past and present industrial, agricultural, and commercial activities. In the United States, it is estimated that more than 300,000 sites may have contaminated soil or ground water requiring some form of remediation (see Table 1-2 in Chapter 1). The potential cost of these remedial activities may be as large as $750 billion in 1993 dollars to be spent over the next 20 to 30 years (see Chapter 1). The magnitude of the problem may be equally significant in other industrialized countries.

The U.S. public response to this growing perception of a threatened resource with unknown human health and ecological impacts has generally been to demand restoration of the ground water to drinking water standards (although the cleanup goal varies with the site, as discussed in Chapter 6). This goal of restoration to drinking water standards is currently the primary driver of ground water remediation activities at most sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, also known as the Superfund act. Restoration to potable standards has also been the goal at other sites regulated under state laws and in some cases at sites regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The technological response to these statutory and regulatory demands over the past decade has almost exclusively been the application

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

of so-called "pump-and-treat" technology. Simply put, this technology involves extracting water from the ground below the water table using standard water-well technology. The extracted and contaminated water is then treated with established above-ground technologies such as air stripping or adsorption on granular activated carbon. In essence, pump-and-treat technology attempts to flush out the contaminants and to return the contaminated area to a condition in which water drawn from wells will meet drinking water standards without further treatment. However, in contrast to the suggestion from Lady Macbeth quoted above, a very large amount of water is often required to flush out even modest amounts of contaminants, and the amount of water required to rid a site of contamination is often unimaginably large. In essence, the United States has been conducting a large-scale national testing program to determine if restoration of contaminated aquifers is achievable within reasonable time frames and at an affordable cost.

The exact number of pump-and-treat systems currently in operation in the United States is unknown, but it may well exceed 3,000. A sufficient history of operation of this technology now exists to assess its efficacy. Unfortunately, and some would say not surprisingly, the effectiveness of this technology to restore contaminated aquifers seems quite limited. This has led to a widely held view that pump-and-treat is a failed technology and should be rejected as a technique for ground water remediation. Thus, the United States and other industrialized nations, as well as developing nations, are confronted with a major dilemma: how to protect human health and the environment from contaminated ground water without wasting resources pursuing technical strategies that appear unable to achieve agreed-upon societal goals. A further significant problem is how to convey these technical limitations to a public that has grown increasingly skeptical of technologists.

In response to this dilemma, the National Research Council (NRC) established a committee of experts to analyze the major technical and public policy issues arising from technical limits to aquifer remediation. The Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives was established through two boards within the NRC: the Water Science and Technology Board and the Board on Radioactive Waste Management. Financial support for this effort was provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Coalition on Superfund, and Chevron Corporation. The boards chose 19 experts to serve on the committee, representing a broad range of scientific and technical disciplines and stakeholders in the debate over ground water remediation.

The scope of the committee's charge included the following questions:

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
  • What are the capabilities of pump-and-treat systems?

  • What are the limits, if any, to contaminant removal from the subsurface?

  • What are the capabilities of alternative or innovative technologies for subsurface remediation, and what, if any, are the barriers to the use of these technologies?

  • What are the socioeconomic consequences of the possible failure of ground water remediation?

  • What are the possible alternative goals for ground water remediation, and what factors should be considered in setting those goals?

  • What policy alternatives should be pursued to reflect the technical limitations to aquifer remediation?

The committee undertook a thorough evaluation of existing information related to subsurface remediation. During nine meetings held over the past two years, the committee heard reports from numerous private and public groups on all aspects of ground water and soil remediation. Prominent among these were presentations by policy analysts from the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (including its Technology Innovation Office), technical specialists from the EPA's Ada, Oklahoma, ground water research laboratory, researchers working on DOE efforts to deal with ground water and soil contamination at DOE facilities, and DOE employees working on technology development for environmental restoration. The committee also solicited views of industry trade groups, consultants, contractors, impacted parties, and environmental groups. Finally, the committee relied on the in-depth experience and expertise of the committee members, most of whom are recognized leaders in the technical, economic, risk, and policy debates surrounding this complex subject.

Although the committee was able to review data from only a small number of sites (approximately 80) where pump-and-treat systems have been installed, there was strong consensus that these sites represented the range of conditions encountered at the majority of sites with contaminated ground water. One dominant characteristic that surfaced in all cases was the high degree of uncertainty associated with the task of subsurface remediation. These uncertainties begin with limitations on site characterization and the ability to identify the nature and extent of the contamination in complex, multilayered, and heterogeneous geologic environments, in which key physical, chemical, or biological characteristics can vary by orders of magnitude on the scale of centimeters. They end with uncertainties about the efficacy of any subsurface remediation technology selected for the task in the face of this highly uncertain hydrogeologic and geochemical environment. In between these end points, the

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

difficult selection of appropriate remedial actions becomes exceedingly complex due to uncertainties in analytical models used to predict the fate and transport of contaminants and uncertainties in the science of risk assessment. The problem becomes even more intractable when these uncertainties are injected into the litigious environment that exists in the United States. This unusual degree of uncertainty significantly complicates debates about the technical, institutional, and public policy strategies that should be pursued to resolve ground water contamination.

The document that follows provides in my view the most comprehensive treatment of the issues arising from technical and institutional limitations on ground water remediation yet available. Six subcommittees chaired by committee members prepared the various chapters in the report; lively debates characterized the later committee meetings as the members reviewed and discussed the subcommittees' chapters. Given the diversity of opinions and backgrounds of committee members, it was a pleasant surprise that we were able to reach a consensus on almost all issues. I wish to acknowledge the significant efforts by committee members, all of whom are heavily overcommitted but nevertheless found the time to make important contributions to the document under friendly but persistent prodding from the Water Science and Technology Board staff.

As with all such reports prepared under the auspices of the NRC, the success of the report is heavily dependent on the skills, dedication, and energy of the staff officer assigned to a committee. In this case, the Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives was extremely fortunate to have the services of Jackie MacDonald, whose contributions throughout the report are extensive. Aside from the overall management and tracking of each version of chapters or sections of chapters, Jackie demonstrated her very considerable editing skills in preparing or extensively rewriting significant sections of the report and in helping to make the report read in a consistent and comprehensible style, as opposed to sounding like a report written by 19 people. Jackie's attention to detail, persistence, enthusiasm, and commitment to hard work are inspiring, and much of the credit for the success of this document is owed to her.

Thanks are also due to several others who assisted in this project. Greg Nyce and Greicy Amjadivala efficiently managed logistical arrangements for the committee meetings. Angela Brubaker prepared the report manuscript for publication, improving the editorial details in numerous ways. Cindy Kleiman prepared technical reviews of the ecological risks of ground water contamination and analyses of alternative ground water cleanup goals. Gino Bianchi-Mosquera was responsible for much of the legwork in analyzing data from the sites listed in Appendix A and used to prepare the case studies in Chapter 3.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

Finally, I wish to again acknowledge the many long hours that committee members must have spent researching, writing, and revising their contributions. I have enjoyed immensely the opportunity to work with such a talented and articulate group of professionals. I hope the reader will agree that the committee has done its task well.

MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, CHAIR

COMMITTEE ON GROUND WATER CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

3

 

PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL PUMP-AND-TREAT SYSTEMS

 

80

   

How Pump-and-Treat Systems Work

 

81

   

Previous Studies of Pump-and-Treat Systems

 

82

   

Feasibility of Cleanup with Pump-and-Treat Systems

 

84

   

Categorizing Sites for Cleanup

 

89

   

Cleanup Times for Pump-and-Treat Systems

 

104

   

Improving System Performance Through Process Monitoring

 

113

   

Research Needs for Improving the Performance of Pump-and-Treat Systems

 

118

   

Conclusions

 

119

   

Notes

 

120

   

References

 

122

   

BOXES

 

 

   

Complete Restoration of Ground Water Contaminated with Gasoline—Service Station, Unidentified Location

 

93

   

Restoration of Ground Water Contaminated with Solvents—Salinas, California

 

94

   

The Reemergence of a Contaminant Plume After Cleanup—Dayton, New Jersey

 

96

   

Cleanup of Dissolved Contaminants and Isolation of the Contaminant Source—San Jose, California

 

98

   

Containment of DNAPLs in Fractured Rock—King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

 

100

   

Contaminant Stabilization with a Pump-and-Treat System—San Jose, California

 

102

   

Pumping and Treating a DNAPL Site—Ville Mercier, Province of Quebec

 

103

4

 

CAPABILITIES OF ENHANCED PUMP-AND-TREAT AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

 

125

   

Enhanced Pump-and-Treat Systems

 

126

   

Alternative Technologies

 

158

   

Importance of Combining Processes

 

164

   

Relative Effectiveness of Enhancements and Alternatives

 

164

   

Barriers to Implementation of Innovative Technologies

 

168

   

Research Needs for Advancing the Development of Innovative Cleanup Technologies

 

181

   

Educational Needs

 

184

   

Conclusions

 

185

   

Note

 

187

   

References

 

187

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×

Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2311.
×
Page R18
Next: Executive Summary »
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $87.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

There may be nearly 300,000 waste sites in the United States where ground water and soil are contaminated. Yet recent studies question whether existing technologies can restore contaminated ground water to drinking water standards, which is the goal for most sites and the result expected by the public.

How can the nation balance public health, technological realities, and cost when addressing ground water cleanup? This new volume offers specific conclusions, outlines research needs, and recommends policies that are technologically sound while still protecting health and the environment.

Authored by the top experts from industry and academia, this volume:

  • Examines how the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the subsurface environment, as well as the properties of contaminants, complicate the cleanup task.
  • Reviews the limitations of widely used conventional pump-and-treat cleanup systems, including detailed case studies.
  • Evaluates a range of innovative cleanup technologies and the barriers to their full implementation.
  • Presents specific recommendations for policies and practices in evaluating contamination sites, in choosing remediation technologies, and in setting appropriate cleanup goals.
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!