Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup

From Concept to Commercialization

Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies

Water Science and Technology Board

Board on Radioactive Waste Management

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1997



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 R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup From Concept to Commercialization Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies Water Science and Technology Board Board on Radioactive Waste Management Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1997

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 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 82307, the U.S. Department of Energy under Agreement No. DE-FC01-94EW54069, and the Department of Defense under DACA87-94-C-0043. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Innovations in ground water and soil cleanup : from concept to commercialization / Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-309-06358-2 1. Hazardous waste site remediation. 2. Hazardous waste management industry—Technological innovations. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies. TD1030.I56 1997 628.5—dc21 97-21190 Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization is available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055 (1-800-624-6242; http://www.nap.edu). Cover art by Y. David Chung. Chung is a graduate of the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C. He has exhibited his work 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. Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization COMMITTEE ON INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES P. SURESH C. RAO, Chair, University of Florida, Gainesville RICHARD A. BROWN, Vice-Chair, Fluor Daniel GTI, Trenton, New Jersey RICHELLE M. ALLEN-KING, Washington State University, Pullman WILLIAM J. COOPER, University of North Carolina, Wilmington WILFORD R. GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley MICHAEL A. GOLLIN, Spencer & Frank, Washington, D.C. THOMAS M. HELLMAN, Bristol-Myers Squibb, New York, New York DIANE F. HEMINWAY, Citizens' Environmental Coalition, Medina, New York RICHARD G. LUTHY, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ROGER L. OLSEN, Camp Dresser & McKee, Denver, Colorado PHILIP A. PALMER, DuPont Specialty Chemicals, Wilmington, Delaware FREDERICK G. POHLAND, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ANN B. RAPPAPORT, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts MARTIN N. SARA, RUST Environment & Infrastructure, Oak Brook, Illinois DAG M. SYRRIST, Vision Capital, Boston Massachusetts BRIAN J. WAGNER, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California Staff JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Study Director ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Research Assistant (through May 14, 1997) ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD DAVID L. FREYBERG, Chair, Stanford University, California BRUCE E. RITTMANN, Vice-Chair, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois LINDA M. ABRIOLA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor JOHN BRISCOE, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM, The World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. WILFORD R. GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley EVILLE GORHAM, University of Minnesota, St. Paul THOMAS M. HELLMAN, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New York CHARLES D. D. HOWARD, Charles Howard & Associates, Ltd., Victoria, British Columbia, Canada CAROL A. JOHNSTON, University of Minnesota, Duluth WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., University of Colorado, Boulder JOHN W. MORRIS, J. W. Morris, Ltd., Arlington, Virginia CHARLES R. O'MELIA, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland REBECCA T. PARKIN, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-ITURBE, Texas A&M University, College Station FRANK W. SCHWARTZ, Ohio State University, Columbus HENRY J. VAUX, JR., University of California, Riverside Staff STEPHEN D. PARKER, Staff Director SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Senior Staff Officer GARY D. KRAUSS, Staff Officer M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Research Assistant ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair, Malcolm Pirnie, Oakland, California B. JOHN GARRICK, Vice-Chair, PLG, Inc., Newport Beach, California JOHN F. AHEARNE, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Duke University, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina JEAN M. BAHR, University of Wisconsin, Madison SOL BURSTEIN, Milwaukee, Wisconsin ANDREW P. CAPUTO, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. MELVIN W. CARTER, Atlanta, Georgia PAUL P. CRAIG, Sierra Club, Martinez, California MARY R. ENGLISH, University of Tennessee, Knoxville DARLEANE C. HOFFMAN, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Oakland, California JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C. ROBERT H. MEYER, Keystone Scientific, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado CHARLES McCOMBIE, NAGRA, Wettingen, Switzerland D. WARNER NORTH, Decision Focus, Inc., Mountain View, California PAUL SLOVIC, Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon BENJAMIN L. SMITH, Columbia, Tennessee Staff KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Staff Director ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer KARYANIL T. THOMAS, Senior Staff Officer THOMAS E. KIESS, Staff Officer SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate LISA J. CLENDENING, Administrative Associate REBECCA BURKA, Senior Project Assistant ROBIN L. ALLEN, Senior Project Assistant PATRICIA A. JONES, Senior Project Assistant ANGELA R. TAYLOR, Project Assistant ERIKA L. WILLIAMS, Research Assistant

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chair, University of Virginia, Charlottesville PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania JAMES P. BRUCE, Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Ontario WILLIAM L. FISHER, University of Texas, Austin JERRY F. FRANKLIN, University of Washington, Seattle THOMAS E. GRAEDEL, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut DEBRA S. KNOPMAN, Progressive Foundation, Washington, D.C. KAI N. LEE, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts PERRY L. MCCARTY, Stanford University, California JUDITH E. MCDOWELL, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts RICHARD A. MESERVE, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. S. GEORGE PHILANDER, Princeton University, New Jersey RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park ELLEN K. SILBERGELD, University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida E-AN ZEN, University of Maryland, College Park Staff STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director MORGAN GOPNICK, Assistant Executive Director GREGORY H. SYMMES, Reports Officer JEANETTE SPOON, Acting Administrative Officer SANDI S. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate MARQUITA S. SMITH, Administrative Assistant/Technology Analyst

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization 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. William A. Wulf 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. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization Preface Analysts have estimated that the total cost of cleaning up some 300,000 to 400,000 contaminated sites, located on both public- and private-sector facilities, could reach approximately $500 billion to $1 trillion (see Chapter 1). Even if such a staggering cost were indeed incurred, there is no guarantee that available technologies will clean up all of these sites to meet legal requirements. Furthermore, innovative remediation technologies that hold considerable potential for providing enhanced soil and ground water cleanup are infrequently selected by waste site managers, remediation consultants, site owners, and regulators—all of whom may be risk averse and concerned about the possible failure of new technologies to deliver on their potential. In many cases, government agencies and corporations spend large sums on new technology development and testing, but site managers do not select the new technologies at federal or corporate sites. This paradoxical situation has produced a considerable debate among all parties concerning how to fix the waste site remediation problem. Two types of broad solutions to the problems of contaminated site remediation are receiving increasing attention. First, there are increasing attempts to prioritize sites that need immediate attention and then to reconsider the remediation end points based on site-specific risk assessments at sites judged to have low risks. A relaxation of cleanup goals is being sought at some sites. Some observers perceive this strategy as remediation of the regulations rather than the contaminated sites. Nevertheless, this risk-based, site-specific approach is increasingly popular among both government agencies and private companies confronted with budgetary constraints. But, several questions about the validity of this approach and how to implement it remain unanswered: Who is engaged in the

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization process of determining the criteria by which the sites are prioritized? How do we determine these less-stringent end points? How do we differentiate between risks as determined by professional risk assessors or by site owners and those perceived by residents near contaminated sites? The second type of solution being explored, and the one addressed in this report, is to promote the development and increased use of innovative remediation technologies. Attempts at remediation have historically favored established technologies: pump-and-treat systems for contaminated ground water and excavation followed by incineration or disposal for contaminated soil. Some would say that even though waste cleanup regulations per se do not specify the type of technology that must be used to meet regulatory cleanup requirements, implementation of the regulations has resulted in a "technology push" paradigm: that is, established technologies are used because they have been used before, so their performance characteristics are well known. Experience over the past two decades has revealed a repeating pattern at many sites, suggesting that this approach has led to less-than-optimal cleanups. The challenge is to create a new policy strategy that marshals appropriate economic and regulatory drivers to encourage innovation in ground water and soil cleanup and better environmental stewardship. This new approach for site remediation is based on a shift to a policy paradigm that relies on market demand rather than technology push. That is, the market (i.e., client needs for site cleanup) generates the strong forces necessary to propel remediation technology development and commercialization. The current market tends to force technology developers and service providers to seek out reluctant, risk-averse customers and investors. Instead, in the new market, clients (i.e., all types of remediation technology users) actively seek solutions based on new remediation technologies. The primary goal of remediation technology development under this new paradigm is to continually increase the diversity and number of technologies included on the menu of options considered by site owners, regulators, and consultants. Testing at several sites using consistent protocols and making cost and performance data available for peer review comprise the essential elements of technology development. Also, under the new paradigm the various stakeholders, particularly the concerned public living near contaminated sites, must be engaged very early in the evaluation of technologies for site cleanup. This report summarizes the extended deliberations of a committee of experts in contaminated site remediation and innovative technology commercialization. The 16 committee members represented a balance of viewpoints and included a representative of a public interest organization active in site remediation, a patent attorney, a venture capitalist, and a technology developer, as well as technical experts from universities, environmental consulting firms, and industry. At the committee's six meetings, invited guests representing government agencies, site owners, and technology developers presented to the committee their perspectives

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization on constraints and opportunities for using innovative technologies for site remediation. To these colleagues, who took time from their busy schedules to speak to us and provide valuable follow-up materials, the committee is extremely grateful. The diversity of backgrounds and expertise of the committee members and the wide range of opinions held by these members meant that my job as committee chair was to ensure that in its deliberations, the committee moved forward toward its final goal: a consensus view of what might be the new policy paradigm for selection of remediation technologies at sites with contaminated ground water and soil. During our debates, some committee members served as strong forces that pulled the committee in new directions. Other members provided the moderating influences. Still others ensured that the allure of new remediation technologies and financial incentives did not obscure our ultimate goal: responsible environmental stewardship. When asked to chair the committee, my immediate concern was that my research and teaching experience, which is focused on remediation technology development and testing in an academic setting with only an occasional foray into the consulting world, provided only half the expertise needed to guide our deliberations on commercialization of remediation technologies. It was clear that the committee required the experience and wisdom of a colleague with considerable experience in the ''real world" to provide the other half of the committee's leadership. Dick Brown agreed to co-chair the committee to offer his practical experience gained from two decades of developing and implementing remediation technologies at a large number of contaminated sites. I appreciate his advice and support. Another element responsible for the success of this project was the open-mindedness of committee members. Committee members not only articulated their own ideas and positions forcefully, but they also were able to listen objectively to others' ideas and positions and, based on these, were willing to transform their arguments into a consensus. I was fortunate to work with a committee in which the members were willing to listen to and thoughtfully consider others' opinions while maintaining a sense of humor if their own suggestions were not readily adopted. Given the many distractions of the committee members' daytime, paid jobs, it was not always easy to deliver on the commitments made during the inspiring moments of committee meetings. Thus, a disciplined organizer was essential for the successful conclusion of the committee's activities. Jackie MacDonald, the Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) staff officer who worked with the committee, ensured that the many exciting discussions at meetings were translated into written documents that could be reviewed by others and edited to produce a coherent document. But, Jackie was much more than a passive, behind-the-scenes coordinator; she actively participated in all of our discussions, and she offered insightful comments and input. She repeatedly edited our written contributions to crystallize a logical flow of ideas and to maintain consistency in our

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization arguments. That she carried out this arduous task while under the considerable stress of a family health crisis is a testimonial to her professionalism and dedication. Angie Brubaker provided the essential administrative support necessary for organizing committee meetings. She also used her considerable organizational and production skills to coordinate the preparation of the many drafts of this report. All of the committee members appreciated, as I do, Angie's help throughout the two year study period. Several sponsors were early believers in this project and elected to provide the generous financial support needed to launch this study. These sponsors discerned the need for a follow-on study to the 1994 WSTB report Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup (chaired by Mike Kavanaugh and staffed by Jackie MacDonald). On behalf of the WSTB and the committee, I thank Richard Scalf (retired) and Stephen Schmelling of the Environmental Protection Agency's R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory; Sherri Wasserman Goodman, deputy under secretary for environmental security at the Department of Defense, and Colonel James Owendoff, formerly with the Department of Defense; and Clyde Frank, deputy assistant secretary for technology development at the Department of Energy and Gary Voelker, Stephen C.T. Lien, and Stanley Wolf of the Department of Energy for their early insights and strong support of this project. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup was widely popular among government agencies, private-sector companies, remediation practitioners, and academic researchers. We can only hope that the standards set by that earlier WSTB report can be met by our efforts. As difficult and time-consuming as National Research Council committee activities can be, the reward at the end is always worth the effort: a confluence of diverse ideas of acknowledged experts, so that consensus advice is provided on how good science can influence regulations and serve public policy needs in a timely fashion. I am glad that I had yet another opportunity to participate in this rewarding process. P.S.C. Rao University of Florida Gainesville, Florida

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization Postscript: The following poem, which I composed for an early committee meeting, provides a vision of the goals sought by those working to develop and commercialize new remediation technologies. Imagine for a moment, a perfect world. A perfect world of remediation in which there was no need for regulatory push, the PRPs always take the high ground to clean up sites voluntarily, and they do not litigate to delay; A perfect world of remediation in which the sources can always be found with certainty, and the contaminant plumes always self remediate intrinsically or the presumptive remedy was indeed the best technology for the site; A perfect world of remediation in which the stakeholders' concerns were always addressed early and often, there were economies of scale up, there was no Valley of Death and the investors always made enough profits. Now, wake up, stop imagining and look around carefully remembering that imagining an ideal world is just an escape, from the real world. But, before you despair, ask yourself how and act to transform the real world into the one you just imagined.

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   CHALLENGES OF GROUND WATER AND SOIL CLEANUP   18     Sources of Ground Water and Soil Contamination   21     Types of Contaminated Sites   28     Limitations of Conventional Remediation Technologies   32     Use of Innovative Remediation Technologies   34     Barriers to Innovation   38     BOXES         The Underground Environment   24     Contaminant Transport Mechanisms   27     Contaminant Retention Mechanisms   28     Contaminant Transformation Mechanisms   29     Performance of Conventional Pump-and-Treat Systems   34 2   MARKET-BASED APPROACHES FOR STIMULATING REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT   42     Fate of Innovative Technology Vendors   43     Elements of the Remediation Technology Market   45     Regulatory Barriers to Innovation   46     Other Barriers to Innovation   54     Characteristics of Flourishing Technology Market   55     Creating Market Incentives for Remediation Technology Development   62     Conclusions   75     Recommendations   75

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization     BOXES         GRC Environmental: Cash Flow Problems Due to Slow Acceptance of an Innovative Remediation Technology   52     The Pharmaceutical Industry: How a High Level of Regulation Can Coexist with Innovation   57     Thermatrix, Inc.: Market Entry Through a Sector with Clear Regulatory Guidelines   58     Regenesis Bioremediation Products: Carefully Developed Business Plan   60     Geosafe: Financial Backing from Battelle Essential for Survival   64     Wichita Innovative Remediation Plan   65     SEC Requirements for Reporting of Environmental Liabilities   67     Corporate Environmental Accounting   68 3   STATE OF THE PRACTICE OF GROUND WATER AND SOIL REMEDIATION   80     What is Innovative Remediation Technology?   81     Availability of Information on Innovative Remediation Technologies   82     State of Innovative Remediation Technology Development   87     Cleanup of Petroleum Hydrocarbons   97     Cleanup of Chlorinated Solvents   113     Cleanup of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons   120     Cleanup of Polychlorinated Biphenyls   129     Cleanup of Inorganic Contaminants   134     Cleanup of Pesticides   144     Conclusions   153     Recommendations: Technology Information and Dissemination   154     Recommendations: Technology Research   155     BOXES         Innovations in Engineered In Situ Bioremediation   83     Innovations in Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)   86     A Glossary of Remediation Technologies   90     History of Development of Bioventing   110     Metallic Iron Barrier for In Situ Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents: Concept and Commercial Application   118     Biotreatment of PAHs in Extended Field Trials   126     Biostabilization of PCBs   134     Created Wetland for Cleanup of Metals   140 4   MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES   167     Stakeholder Criteria for Success   170     Technical Performance   182

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization     Commercial Attributes   191     Public and Regulatory Acceptance Attributes   194     Conclusions   197     Recommendations   197     BOXES         Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE); Technology Success Story   171     Pine Street Canal: Public Concern Leads to the Search for Innovative Technologies   178     The Triumph and Caldwell Trucking Superfund Sites: Communities Reject Aggressive Cleanup Remedies   180     New Bedford Harbor: Citizen Opposition Halts EPA's Cleanup Plan   182 5   TESTING REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES   201     Data for Proving Technology Performance   202     Selecting a Test Site   216     Site-to-Site Transfer of Technologies   227     Technology Performance Verification   240     Data Sharing Through Government and Industry Partnerships   245     Conclusions   246     Recommendations   247     BOXES         Use of Experimental Controls: Evaluating Bioventing at Hill and Tyndall Air Force Bases   209     Proving In Situ Stabilization/Solidification of Polychlorinated Biphenyls at the General Electric Co. Electric Service Shop, Florida   211     Proving In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents at Moffett Naval Air Station, California   214     Proving In Situ Mixed-Region Vapor Stripping in Low-Permeability Media at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio   216     Proving In Situ Cosolvent Flushing at Hill Air Force Base   218     Development of Passive-Reactive Barriers Based on Laboratory Studies   222     Development of Air Sparging Based on Field Applications Followed by Detailed Studies   226     NAPL Source Zone Mapping: Use of Tracer Techniques   229     State Regulatory Policies for Remediation Technology Testing   230     Selecting a Test Site for Side-By-Side Technology Comparisons   232     Technology Testing Under the Advanced Applied Technology Demonstration Facility Project   236

OCR for page R1
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization     Testing, Verification, and Regulatory Approval Programs for Remediation Technologies   242 6   COMPARING COSTS OF REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES   252     Limitations of Existing Cost Reporting Structures   252     Optimizing the Development and Reporting of Cost Data   254     Field Implementation Costs   268     Conclusions   268     Recommendations   269     BOXES         Present Cost Calculations: Government Versus Business   264     How Financial Assumptions Affect Technology Selection   266 APPENDIX A:   Data Bases Containing Information About Remediation Technologies   271 APPENDIX B:   Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff   278     INDEX   283