CONTAMINANTS IN THE SUBSURFACE
SOURCE ZONE ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
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 study was supported by Contract Number DACA31-02-2-0001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of the Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09447-X (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-54664-8 (PDF)
Library of Congress Control Number 2004118026
Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation is available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
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. Wm. 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. Harvey V. Fineberg 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. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON SOURCE REMOVAL OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE SUBSURFACE
JOHN C. FOUNTAIN, Chair,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
LINDA M. ABRIOLA,
Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
LISA M. ALVAREZ-COHEN,
University of California, Berkeley
MARY JO BAEDECKER,
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia
DAVID E. ELLIS,
DuPont Engineering, Wilmington, Delaware
THOMAS C. HARMON,
University of California, Merced
NANCY J. HAYDEN,
University of Vermont, Burlington
PETER K. KITANIDIS,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
JOEL A. MINTZ,
Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
JAMES M. PHELAN,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
GARY A. POPE,
University of Texas, Austin
DAVID A. SABATINI,
University of Oklahoma, Norman
THOMAS C. SALE,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins
BRENT E. SLEEP,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JULIE L. WILSON,
EnviroIssues, Tualatin, Oregon
JOHN S. YOUNG,
Ministry of Health, Talpiot, Israel
KATHERINE L. YURACKO, YAHSGS,
Richland, Washington
NRC Staff
LAURA J. EHLERS, Study Director
STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Program Officer
ANITA A. HALL, Program Associate
JON Q. SANDERS, Senior Project Assistant (through April 2004)
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
RICHARD G. LUTHY, Chair,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
JOAN B. ROSE, Vice Chair,
Michigan State University, East Lansing
RICHELLE M. ALLEN-KING,
University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York
GREGORY B. BAECHER,
University of Maryland, College Park
KENNETH R. BRADBURY,
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison
JAMES CROOK,
Water Reuse Consultant, Norwell, Massachusetts
EFI FOUFOULA-GEORGIOU,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
PETER GLEICK,
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California
JOHN LETEY, JR.,
University of California, Riverside
CHRISTINE L. MOE,
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
ROBERT PERCIASEPE,
National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C.
JERALD L. SCHNOOR,
University of Iowa, Iowa City
LEONARD SHABMAN,
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
R. RHODES TRUSSELL,
Trussell Technologies, Inc., Pasadena, California
KARL K. TUREKIAN,
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
HAME M. WATT, Independent Consultant,
Washington, D.C.
JAMES L. WESCOAT, JR.,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
NRC Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director
LAURA J. EHLERS, Senior Program Officer
JEFFREY W. JACOBS, Senior Program Officer
WILLIAM S. LOGAN, Senior Program Officer
LAUREN E. ALEXANDER, Program Officer
STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Program Officer
M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Financial and Administrative Associate
ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Research Associate
PATRICIA JONES KERSHAW, Study/Research Associate
ANITA A. HALL, Program Associate
DOROTHY K. WEIR, Senior Program Assistant
Preface
Remediation of contaminated groundwater sites has been the subject of thousands of research studies (bench experiments) and both pilot and full-scale field projects over the past two decades, consuming billions of dollars; however, the effectiveness of such efforts is largely unknown. A landmark 1994 National Research Council (NRC) study, Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup, reviewed data on the performance of remediation projects available at that time and stated, “As a result of these studies, there is almost universal concern among groups with diverse interests in groundwater contamination…that the nation may be wasting large amounts of money on ineffective remediation efforts.”
A number of more recent studies by the NRC and government agencies have concluded that while various technologies have been demonstrated to be effective at removing contaminant mass from the subsurface under certain conditions, their performance is so site specific that it is difficult to make meaningful generalizations. It has also been concluded that restoration to drinking water standards is unlikely to be achieved at complex sites in a reasonable period of time (e.g., 100 years), particularly when there is a source zone (a highly contaminated area that is defined in Chapter 1) present. Hence, it is currently difficult to determine when and if remediation of source zones is appropriate.
The Army, like other branches of the military and many private industrial operations, has a large number of complex sites at which there is reason to expect that source zones are present. In view of the high cost of remediation of such sites (the Army’s remaining liability alone is estimated at almost $4 billion), the question of what source zone remediation can accomplish and whether it is appropriate for individual sites is critical.
This report, the result of a study undertaken at the request of the Army, develops a logical basis on which to evaluate source zone remediation on a site-specific basis. It puts the technical questions of technology selection and probable performance in the context of site characteristics, remediation objectives, and metrics. This structure reflects the fact that whether a remediation project “works” or not is a function of the objectives of the project, the technology selected, and the site characteristics.
The report discusses how the diverse aspects of stakeholder and regulatory concerns, site hydrogeology, technology selection, and performance monitoring can be incorporated in the decision-making process, and thus is intended to inform decision makers within the Army, the rest of the military, and many other government agencies and the private sector about potential options for their sites contaminated with dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and chemical explosives. The necessity of using a formal decision-making process derives from the influence of site-specific parameters on remediation performance, the public’s desire for aggressive remediation, the high cost of remediation, and the implausibility of complete restoration in most cases, as emphasized in earlier studies.
In developing this report, the committee benefited greatly from the input of Army liaisons and remedial project managers (RPMs) who provided valuable information on Army cleanup efforts and assisted the committee in collecting relevant data and information. In particular, we would like to thank Laurie Haines of the Army Environmental Center, who gave two presentations to the committee, helped distribute and collate a survey for Army RPMs, and collected a significant amount of information for the committee’s perusal over the last two years. The committee was fortunate to have received presentations from Susan Abston, Joe Petrasek, and Terry Delapaz, U.S. Army; Corinne Shia, SAIC; Greg Daloisio, Weston; Ken Goldstein, Malcolm Pirnie; Doug Rubingh and Tom Zondlo, Shaw E&I; John Blandamer, RSA; Wes Smith and Kira Lynch, Army Corps of Engineers; Ira May, Army Environmental Center; Hans Stroo, The Retec Group, Inc.; Erica Becvar, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence; Robert Siegrist, Colorado School of Mines; James Spain, U.S. Air Force; Hans Meinardus, INTERA; Charles Newell, Groundwater Services, Inc.; Suresh Rao, Purdue University; Lawrence Lemke, University of Michigan; and Tissa Illangasekare, Colorado School of Mines. Doug Karas of the Air Force Real Property Agency organized and ran a field trip of Kelly Air Force Base during the committee’s second meeting. The committee was ably served by the staff of the Water Science and Technology Board, including study directors Laura Ehlers and Stephanie Johnson and project assistants Jon Sanders and Anita Hall.
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with the procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC
in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The reviews and draft manuscripts remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Elizabeth Anderson, Sciences International, Inc.; John Hopkins, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Michael Kavanaugh, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.; Douglas Mackay, UC Davis; Jeffrey Marquesee, SERDP/ESTCP Program Office; Richard Martel, Université du Québec; Suresh Rao, Purdue University; William Walsh, Pepper Hamilton LLP; and Charles Werth, University of Illinois. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Randall Charbeneau, University of Texas. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee.
John Fountain, Chair