You are on page 1of 345

United States

Environmental Protection
Agency

Off ce of Solid Waste and


Emergency Response
(5201G)

December 2011
www.epa.gov/superfund

Superfund

Environmental Remediation
Technologies
Student Manual

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 ................................... Successful Treatment Design
Section 2 ................................... Fate and Transport
Section 3 ................................... Capping and Containment
Section 4 ................................... Basic Water Treatment
Section 5 ................................... Chemical Reactions and Separations
Section 6 ................................... Sediment Remediation
Section 7 ................................... Bioremediation
Section 8 ................................... Monitored Natural Attenuation
Section 9 ................................... In-situ Treatments
Section 10 ................................. Soil Washing and Immobilization
Section 11 ................................. Thermal Treatment
Section 12 ................................. Phytoremediation
Section 13 ................................. Process Testing
Section 14 ................................. Technology Selection
Section 15 ................................. Exercises
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES


3 DAYS
This introductory-level course provides participants with an overview of the treatment technologies most
frequently used for cleanups of contaminated media. The emphasis of the course is on the technology
description, applicability, and limitations of appropriate treatment technologies. It is intended for new
On-Scene Coordinators, Remedial Project Managers, Waste Site Managers, and other environmental
personnel interested in remediation.
Topics that are discussed include site characterization; fate and transport; technology screening; capping and
containment; basic water treatment; chemical reactions and separations; in-situ treatments; sediment
remediation; phytoremediation; bioremediation; soil washing and immobilization; thermal treatment; and
process testing.
Training methods include lectures and group problem-solving exercises. Case studies are used to demonstrate
applications of the treatment technologies. Group discussions relevant to the course are encouraged.
After completing the course, participants will be able to:

Evaluate appropriate techniques to assess, stabilize, and screen potential remedies for contaminated
sites.

Identify the processes and explain the limitations of the most frequently used treatment
technologies.

Identify resources that describe innovative treatment technologies.

Note:

Calculators are recommended.

Continuing Education Units: 1.9

Orientation and Introduction

presented by
Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Response Team

U.S. EPA

United States
Environmental Protection Agency

OSWER

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency


Response (Superfund)

OSRTI

Office of Superfund Remediation


and Technology Innovation

ERT

Environmental Response Team

Are offered tuition-free for


environmental and response personnel
from federal, state, and local agencies
Vary in length from one to five days
Are conducted at EPA Training Centers
the United States

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

Orientation and Introduction

Course Descriptions, Class Schedules, and


Registration Information are available at:
www.trainex.org
www.ertpvu.org

Evaluate appropriate techniques to


assess, stabilize, and screen for
potential remedies for contaminated
sites
Identify the processes and explain
the limitations of the most
frequently-used treatment
technologies
Identify resources that describe
innovative treatment technologies

Student Registration Card


Student Evaluation Form
Course Agenda
Student Manual
Facility Information
Student Handouts

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

Orientation and Introduction

Parking
Classroom
Restrooms
Water fountains, snacks, refreshments
Lunch
Telephones
Emergency telephone numbers
Alarms and emergency exits

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

Environmental Remediation Technologies - REFERENCES


SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT DESIGN
U.S. EPA. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. Washington, DC. October 1988.
Wong, Jimmy H. C. et al. Design of Remediation Systems. Lewis Publishers reprint of CRC
Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1997.
Nyer, Evan K. et al. In Situ Treatment Technology. Lewis Publishers reprint of CRC Press,
Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1996.
Rodriguez, Rey and Rosenfeld, Paul. Successful Remediation Technologies. National
Groundwater Association. Columbus, Ohio. October 2003.
Monroe, James S. and Wicander, Reed. Physical Geology, Exploring the Earth. West
Publishing Company. Saint Paul, MN. 1995
Heath, Ralph C. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Supply
Paper 2220. U.S. GPO. Washington, DC. 1987.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Technical and Regulatory Guidance for the
Triad Approach: A new Paradigm for Environmental Project Management. Interstate
Technology & Regulatory Council. Sampling, Characterization, and Monitoring Team.
Washington, DC. December 2003.
Dupont, R. Ryan et al. Bioremediation, Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Design and
Application. American Academy of Environmental Engineers. Annapolis, MD. 1997.
FATE AND TRANSPORT OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Brady, Wyle. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 8th ed. Macmillan Publishing Co. New
York, NY. 1974.
Dragun, James. The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials. 2nd ed. Amherst Scientific
Publishers. Amherst, MA. 1998.
Ney, Ronald. Where Did That Chemical Go? A Practical Guide to Chemical Fate and
Transport in the Environment. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, NY. 1990.
Schwarzenbach, Rene et al. Environmental Organic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York, NY. 1993.
U.S. EPA 1989. Transport and Fate of Contaminants in the Subsurface (Seminar
Publication). EPA/625/4-89/019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Center for
Environmental Research Information. Cincinnati, OH. 1989
U.S. EPA 1990. Subsurface Contamination Reference Guide. EPA/540/2-90/011. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC. 1990.
U.S. EPA 1991a. Assessing UST Corrective Action Technology - A Scientific Evaluation of
the Mobility and Degradability of Organic Contaminants in Subsurface Environments.
5

EPA/600/2-91/053. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and


Development. Washington, DC. 1991.
U.S. EPA 1991b. Seminar Publication - Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation.
EPA/625/4-91/026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, DC. 1991.
U.S. EPA 1999. Groundwater Issue: Fundamentals of Soil Science as Applicable to
Management of Hazardous Waste. EPA/540/5-98/500. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Research and Development/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, DC. 1999.
CAPPING AND CONTAINMENT
U.S. EPA. Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design, Construction, and Closure.
Pub. EPA/625/4-89/022. Center for Environmental Research Information. Office of R & D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH. 1989
U.S. EPA. Evaluation of Subsurface Engineering Barriers at Waste Sites. Pub. EPA542-R-98005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5102G). Washington, DC. 1998
BASIC WATER TREATMENT
Kemmer, Frank N. The NALCO Water Handbook. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
New York, NY. 1988.
CHEMICAL REACTIONS AND SEPARATIONS
U.S. EPA. E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company/Oberlin Filter Company Microfiltration
Technology. EPA/540/A5-90/007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH. 1991.
IN-SITU TREATMENTS; NATURAL ATTENUATION, SVE, AND AIR SPARGING.
National Research Council. Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC. 2000.
ITRC. Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Technical/Regulatory Guidelines, Natural
Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater: Principles and Practices. Interstate
Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group. Washington, DC. 1999
Wong, Jimmy H. C. and et al. Design of Remediation Systems. Lewis Publishers reprint of
CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1997.
Nyer, Evan K. and et al. In Situ Treatment Technology. Lewis Publishers reprint of CRC
Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1996.
IN-SITU TREATMENTS; PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS AND CHEMICAL OXIDATION
U.S. EPA. Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies for Contaminant Remediation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Washington, DC. 1998.

ITRC. Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Technical/Regulatory Guidelines, Technical


and Regulatory Guidance for In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group. Washington,
DC. 2001.
ITRC. Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Regulatory Guidance for Permeable Reactive
Barriers Designed to Remediate Chlorinated Solvents. Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Cooperation Work Group. Washington, DC. 1999.
Wong, Jimmy H. C. and et al. Design of Remediation Systems. Lewis Publishers reprint of
CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1997.
Nyer, Evan K. et al. In Situ Treatment Technology. Lewis Publishers reprint of CRC Press,
Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1996.
BIOREMEDIATION
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Engineering Bulletin: Rotating Biological Contractors. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
DC.
Wolfe, David W. Tales From the Underground: A Natural History of Subterranean Life.
Perseus Publishing. Cambridge, MA. April, 2001.
Dupont, R. Ryan. Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Design and Application,
Bioremediation. American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
U.S. EPA. Manual, Ground-water and Leachate Treatment Systems. Office of Research and
Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. January, 1995.
In Site Bioremediation When does it work? Committee on In Situ Bioremediation. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1993
Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Subcommittee on Operation of Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Water Pollution Control Federation. Washington, DC. 1976.
U.S. EPA. Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 2001.
Norris, Robert D. et al. Handbook of Bioremediation. Lewis Publishers reprint of CRC Press,
Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1994.
PHYTOREMEDIATION
Pivetz, B. E. Ground Water Issue-Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Ground Water
at Hazardous Waste Sites. USEPA-ORD EPA/540/S-01/500. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, DC. 2001.
ITRC. Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document-Phytotechnology. ITRC
Phytotechnologies Work Team. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work
Group. Washington, DC. 2001.
U.S. EPA. Introduction to Phytoremediation. EPA/600/R-99/107. National Risk Management
Research Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH. 2000.

Schnoor, J. L. Phytoremediation. TE-98-01. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies


Analysis Center. Pittsburgh, PA. 1997.
MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION
National Research Council. Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2001.
U.S. EPA. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank
Sites a Guide for Corrective Action Reviewers. EPA 510-R-04-002. Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington D. C. May 2004.
SOIL WASHING AND SOLVENT EXTRACTION
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Soil Washing Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/017. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. 1990.
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Flushing. EPA/540/2-91/021. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.1991a.
U.S. EPA. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing. (Quick
Reference Fact Sheet). EPA/540/2-91/020B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC. 199lb.
U.S. EPA. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA Solvent Extraction.
(Interim Guidance). EPA/54O/2-92/016a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. 1992a.
U.S. EPA. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction.
(Quick Reference Fact Sheet). EPA/5401R-92/016b. U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. Washington, DC.1992b.
U.S. EPA. Applications Analysis Report: Resources Conservation Company B.E.S.T. Solvent
Extraction Technology. EPA/540/AR-92/079. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office
of Research and Development. Washington, DC. 1993.
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Solvent Extraction. EPA/540/S-94/503. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC; and
Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.1994a.
U.S. EPA. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation: Technology Demonstration
Summary: EPA RREL's Mobile Volume Reduction Unit.EPAI54O/SR-93/508. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
1994b.

IMMOBILIZATION
U.S. EPA. Immobilization Technology Seminar: Speaker Slide Copies and Supporting
Information U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
Cincinnati, OH. 1990
U.S. EPA. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests,
Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and Field Activities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. 1989
U.S. EPA. Stabilization/Solidification of Organics and Inorganics. EPA/540/S-92/015. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 1993
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: In-situ Vitrification Treatment. EPA/540/S-94/504. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC. 1994
THERMAL TREATMENT
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment.EPA/540/290/014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH. 1990.
U.S. EPA. Superfund Engineering Issue: Issues Affecting the Applicability and Success of
Remedial/Removal Incineration Projects. EPA/540/2-91/004. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Research and Development. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, DC. 1991a.
U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies. 2nd Ed. ISBN: 0-86587-263-5. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. Government Institutes, Inc. Rockville, MD. 1991b.
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment. EPA/540/S-94/501. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1994.
TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. Web address http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html
U.S. EPA. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank
Sites. EPA 510-R-04-002. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 2004
U.S. EPA. Seminar Publication, Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA.
Publication EPA/540/R-92/071a. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of
Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1992
U.S. EPA. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. EPA 540-F-93-035.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1993

U.S. EPA. Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for
CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils. EPA 540-F-93-048. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1993
U.S. EPA. Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment technologies for
Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites. EPA/540/R-96/023. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1996
U.S. EPA. Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites.
EPA/540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and
Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1995
PROCESS TESTING
U.S. EPA. Innovative Site Remediation Technology-Design and Application-Thermal
Desorption Volume 6. EPA 542-B-93-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC. 1993.
Chu, C. Observations of Performance Test. WA#R1A00111, Trip Report. FCX Engineering.
April 17, 2000.
WEBSITES
www.epa.gov
www.clu-in.org
www.frtr.gov

10

SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT DESIGN

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this unit, students will be able to:
1. Understand the general principles of the Triad approach
2. Describe the key components of the conceptual site model

11

12

Successful Treatment Design

A successful treatment design requires a


clear understanding of specific site
conditions.
During many earlier environmental
restoration projects, the collection of sitespecific data proved to be a lengthy and
expensive process.

Clear project goals are established through


the use of:
Systematic Project Planning
Dynamic Work Strategies
Real-time Measurement Technologies

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

13

Successful Treatment Design

Initial investigation for


the source of the oil
release discovered high
Concentrations of a
chlorinated solvent
(TCE) north of the mill
building

Image Courtesy of USGS

In developing a CSM, key elements include:


General physical site description
Regional environmental setting
Land use
Contaminant information and site activities
Potential exposure pathways and risk estimation
On-going data evaluation and data gap
identification

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

14

Successful Treatment Design

In developing a CSM, key elements include:

General physical site description


Regional environmental setting
Land use
Contaminant information and site activities
Potential exposure pathways and risk estimation
On-going data evaluation and data gap
identification

Facility description
Site address
General site operation

Physical setting
Area topography
Area land use

Chem-Dyne general site


operations:
Operated from 1974 to
1980 on a 10-acre site
Stored, recycled, and
disposed of many types of
industrial chemical
wastes
Thousands of 55-gallon
drums

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

15

Successful Treatment Design

Facility description
Site address
General site operation

Physical setting
Area topography
Area land use

Site

Site is bounded to the south


by residential property

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

16

Successful Treatment Design

Site is bounded to the north


by the Ford Hydraulic Canal and,
further north, by agricultural fields

In developing a CSM, key elements include:


General physical site description

Regional environmental setting


Land use
Contaminant information and site activities
Potential exposure pathways and risk estimation
On-going data evaluation and data gap
identification

Geology
Site is located on the Great Miami River
alluvial deposits glacial outwash
materials consisting of poorly sorted,
poorly bedded silt and sand.
Depth of Ordovician limestone bedrock is
greater than 100 feet below the surface.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

17

Successful Treatment Design

Hydrogeology
Site is located on permeable sand and
gravel deposits in ancestral drainage
channels
Deep aquifer groundwater wells yield
5001000 gpm
Site includes a shallow unconfined
aquifer and a deep confined aquifer

Site

Site

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

18

Successful Treatment Design

Ecological Profile
Describes the physical
relationship of the
organisms on the
developed and
undeveloped portion
of the site and adjacent
off-site properties

In developing a CSM, key elements include:


General physical site description
Regional environmental setting

Land use
Contaminant information and site activities
Potential exposure pathways and risk estimation
On-going data evaluation and data gap
identification

Land use descriptions


Land use history
Current land use
The Triad approach works toward a
viable end use of the land. Current use
and proposed use are important.
Example Chem-Dyne site:
Currently a remediation project operated by
the Chem-Dyne Trust
No future use has been proposed at this time

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

19

Successful Treatment Design

Federal, state, and local operating permits


Reported releases or spills
Facility Records
Public Records
Title history
City directories
Aerial photographs
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Local agencies

Public records (title history & city directories):


1910 to 1960s

Ford Motor Co.

1960s to 1974
1974 to 1980
1980 to present

Nimrod Camping Trailer


Chem-Dyne Recycling Facility
Chem-Dyne Trust
(remediation project)

Aerial photo
December, 1979

Chem-Dyne
Hamilton, OH

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

20

Successful Treatment Design

Sanborn Fire Insurance maps:


1927
1950
1969

Ford Motor Co. forge and


manufacturing facility
Ford Motor Co. metal
stamping and wheel
manufacturing facility
Ward Manufacturing
(Nimrod Camping Trailer Division)

Local agency reports (ChemDyne):


Hamilton Fire Department reported
numerous fire responses. Firemen
became ill and fire hoses dissolved in
standing puddles.
Reports led to a health department and
Ohio EPA investigation.
Site operations were suspended in 1980.

In developing a CSM, key elements include:


General physical site description
Regional environmental setting
Land use

Contaminant information and site activities


Potential exposure pathways and risk estimation
On-going data evaluation and data gap
identification

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

21

Successful Treatment Design

This component of the CSM includes


the following information:
Previous site activities
Contaminants of concern
Potential contaminant source areas
Contaminant fate and transport
Contaminant susceptibility to
treatment options

This component of the CSM includes


the following information:
Previous site activities
Contaminants of concern
Potential contaminant source areas
Contaminant fate and transport
Contaminant susceptibility to treatment options

Removal Action

Stabilization

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

22

Successful Treatment Design

General rule at many sites:


80% of the contamination removed during
immediate remedial action often is
completed for 20% of the total project cost

Chem-Dyne:
Removal of drums and standing liquid
Excavation of grossly contaminated soil

This component of the CSM includes


the following information:
Previous site activities

Contaminants of concern
Potential contaminant source areas
Contaminant fate and transport
Contaminant susceptibility to treatment options

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

23

Successful Treatment Design

Identification from records


Local Emergency Planning Committee
RCRA listing
Operator knowledge

Identification by sample analysis


Field screening
Target Compound List (TCL) and Target
Analyte List (TAL) analysis
Regulatory agency-specific list

At the Chem-dyne site, many TCL and TAL


hazardous materials were detected,
including:
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Semi-volatile organic compounds
PCBs
TAL (metals)

This component of the CSM includes


the following information:
Previous site activities
Contaminants of concern

Potential contaminant source areas


Contaminant fate and transport
Contaminant susceptibility to treatment options

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

24

Successful Treatment Design

Areas where hazardous material is


stored, used, or disposed, such as:
Drum pads
AST & USTs
Waste storage & Disposal areas

Hazardous material usage areas:


Paint booths
Plating operations
Treating operations
Pipe runs

This component of the CSM includes


the following information:
Previous site activities
Contaminants of concern
Potential contaminant source areas

Contaminant fate and transport


Contaminant susceptibility to treatment options

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

25

Successful Treatment Design

Relates how a contaminant reacts or travels


through the environment to a receptor
Based on the Contaminant characteristics:
Volatility
Solubility

Characteristics of the medium, using soil as an


example, could include:
Permeability
Organic carbon content
Grain size distribution

This component of the CSM includes


the following information:
Previous site activities
Contaminants of concern
Potential contaminant source areas
Contaminant fate and transport

Contaminant susceptibility to
treatment options

Contaminants detected at the Chem-Dyne


site included:
Volatile organic compounds
Semi-volatile organic compounds
PCBs
TAL (metals)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

26

Successful Treatment Design

In developing a CSM, key elements include:


General physical site description
Regional environmental setting
Land use
Contaminant information and site activities

Potential exposure pathways and risk


estimation
On-going data evaluation and data gap
identification

Groundwater (Chem-Dyne site)


Source

Onsite hazardous materials

Fate-andtransport
mechanism

Through soil into shallow


and deep Great Miami River
Aquifers
Ingestion and/or dermal
contact

Exposure route
Receptors

Residents using deep-aquifer


groundwater

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

27

Successful Treatment Design

Surface Water (Chem-Dyne site)


Source

Onsite hazardous materials

Fate-andtransport
mechanism

Surface water runoff during


heavy rains

Exposure route

Direct contact (e.g. burned


feet)

Receptors

Employees of adjacent
business

Emissions (Chem-Dyne site)


Source

Hazardous materials
released by onsite activities

Fate-andtransport
mechanism

Fugitive dust released into


the air, migrating off site

Exposure route

Inhalation

Receptors

Neighbors

Emissions
Exposure pathway:
contaminated
fugitive dust
migrated offsite to
neighboring habitats

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

28

Successful Treatment Design

Ensures that the selected remedial activities


will protect human health and the
environment.
Examples:
Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA)
Brownfield Program
Site Specific Risk Assessment

In developing a CSM, key elements include:


General physical site description
Regional environmental setting
Land use
Contaminant information and site activities
Potential exposure pathways and risk estimation

On-going data evaluation and data gap


identification

As the CSM develops, data gaps may be


identified and specific site information
may need to be collected, such as:
Soil Characteristics
Hydrogeologic & geologic information
Surface water & sediment information
Additional information

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

29

Successful Treatment Design

Meteorological
Annual rainfall
Average temperature
Evapotransporation
Offsite information
Nearby population
Offsite land use
Zoning issues

Chem-Dyne Superfund Site


vs.
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

30

Successful Treatment Design

Remediation of Chem-Dyne included:


Excavation of top 10 ft. of soil
Deeper contaminated soil remained
Groundwater pump-and-treat system
through 25 wells
Treated groundwater through air stripper
Treated air stripper emissions through
granular activated carbon

Remediation of Chem-Dyne included:


Re-circulated half of the treated water into
unsaturated zone to further leach remaining soil
contamination
Discharged remaining half of the treated water
Constructed impermeable cap to prevent surface
water infiltration

Cost

$11.6 million construction


Approx $18 million operation and maintenance
(20 years)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

31

Successful Treatment Design

Total VOCs Recovered

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1988

90

92

94

96

98

2000

Year

Very similar to Chem-Dyne site:


Urban industrial waste recycling facility located in
Reading, Ohio
Operated from 1974 to 1981
Stored, treated, and incinerated hazardous wastes:
10,000 drums & gallons of waste onsite
Similar geology and hydrogeology

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

32

Successful Treatment Design

Excavation of all visibly contaminated soil to 4 bgs


Onsite thermal desorption of contaminated soil
SVE Treatment of unsaturated zone
Groundwater pump-and-treat system w/ GAC &
air stripping
Cost
$13.5 million construction
$6 million operation & maintenance (20 years)

On-track to reach cleanup goals

Triad approach supports the project goal of a


successful treatment design by combining:
Site-specific information
Contaminant-specific information
Treatment options

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

33

34

FATE AND TRANSPORT


OF CONTAMINANTS

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. Describe how chemicals travel through environmental media,
such as rock or soil, air, and water.
2. Describe how chemicals can become associated with (stored
by) various environmental media.
3. Describe chemical parameters which model (predict) the
distribution of contaminants among media.
4. Describe environmental conditions which promote or retard
the movement of chemicals in the subsurface.
5. Describe factors that affect organic chemical degradation.

35

36

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

$1
MILLION

1 CUP
TCE

Pour one cup of TCE onto the ground,


and it will cost you $1 million to get it out.

WHY?

Why would it cost so much?


Contaminant

Soil

Air

Water

Contaminant behavior is a function of the properties of


both the contaminant and the environmental media.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

37

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Percolation

Volatilization

Degradation
Vadose zone

Adsorption
Diffusion

Dispersion
Solubility

Capillary forces
Groundwater

Runoff

Retardation

Surface Water
Adsorption

Degradation

Retardation

Diffusion

Dispersion

Surface
Subsurface
Distribution
Degradation

Physical state
Volatilization
Runoff
Solubility
Percolation

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

38

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Solid

Gas

Liquid

Least
mobile

Most
mobile

Organic vs. Inorganic


Transition temperatures, e.g., melting point,
boiling point

PHASE DIAGRAM

Pressure
(mm Hg)

H2O
Solid

Liquid
A

760

17.5

C
Temperature

0C

20C

100C

(Not to scale)

LIQUID TEMPERATURE RANGE


-200C

-100

0 20

86 to 80

MEK

87 to 87

TCE

Hg
Pb

300

5.5 to 80.1

Benzene

PCP

200

0 to 100

H2O

Propane

100

189.9 to 42
188 to 310 (decomposes @ 310)
39.9 to 357
327 to 1620

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

39

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Function of:
Molecular weight
"Cohesive forces"
Van der Waals forces
Polarity

Temperature

Vapor Pressure (VP): Pressure exerted above a


compound in liquid or solid phase
Compound

VP (mmHg @ 20c)

Benzene

80.0

TCE

63.0

H2O

17.5

PCP

.00011

MORE
VOLATILE

LESS
VOLATILE

Function of:
Hydraulic gradient
"Cohesive forces" (e.g., internal friction)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

40

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Dynamic viscosity (): Indicates degree of


resistance to flow
Compound

(centipoise @ 20c)

TCE

.57

Benzene

.65

H2O

1.0

Kerosene

2.5

Phenol

8.5

MOST
MOBILE

LEAST
MOBILE

Function of:
Cohesive forces

Adhesive forces
Van der Waals
Polarity

Metal solubility (mobility)

Ionization

Pb(OH)+1

Pb(OH)2

Fe(OH)+2
Al(OH)3

Fe(OH)3

Al(OH)+2
Al(OH)41
pH (s.u.)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

41

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

h
Function of:
Fluid height or "head"
Fluid density
Cohesive forces ("surface tension")
Adhesive forces ("wetting")

Kinematic viscosity (): Indicates degree of


resistance to downward flow (combines
density with dynamic viscosity)
Compound

(centistokes @ 20c)

TCE

.39

Benzene

.74

H2O

1.0

MOST
MOBILE
LEAST
MOBILE

Function of:
Preferential pathways (channeling)
Macropores
Micropores

Solubility
Sorption
Volatility

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

42

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Physical movement stops when matric


potential and hydrodynamic head are
balanced
Molecular movement continues as long
as relative concentration remains
"unbalanced"

Ped or
particle

NAPL

Organic carbon

Pore air

Pore water
Solubility

Diffusion Process whereby molecules move


from a region of higher concentration to a
region of lower concentration as a result of
Brownian motion.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

43

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Dispersion Tendency for a


solute to spread from the path
that it would be expected to
follow under advective transport

Contaminant movement

Soil particles

Dispersion and Diffusion


Contaminant movement

Soil particles

Percolation
Through
Saturated Zone
Soil
LNAPL
H2 O
Dissolved
contaminant

Groundwater
flow
DNAPL

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

44

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Air

Vapor pressure (VP)

Water

Solubility (Sol.)

Water/Air

Henry's Law (HL)

Water/soil

Sorption (KOC, CEC)

HL =
Compound

VP
Solubility
atm-m3

Sol.(mg/L)

HL mol

2,300

1,100

6.9 10-1

Benzene

76

1,780

5.4 10-3

TCE

58

1,100

8.9 10-3

MEK

71.2

268,000

2.7 10-5

2 8 10 6

VC

VP (mmHg)

PCP

0 00011

The degree of attraction between a non-polar


chemical and the natural organic matter
associated with an aquifer (retardation)

Function of:
Contaminant
Fraction of organic carbon in medium (fOC)
Properties of soil, e.g., structure, texture
(KOC)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

45

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Total cations adsorbed on a unit mass of


soil (centimoles/kg)
Function of:
Soil texture (e.g., clay, silt, sand)
Soil surface area (clay type, e.g., kaolinite)
Organic matter content

Break down chemically (organics only)


Examples of degradation processes:
Hydrolysis
Redox
Biodegradation

Function of:
pH
Bond strengths of contaminant
Properties of attacking agent
Redox potential
"Hospitable" environment (biodegradation)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

46

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants

Relative concentration in MW1


downgradient of source

1.0

GW flow

chloride

Source

carbon
tetrachloride
0.5

MW1

PCE

0
0

Time (days)

200

400

What are you going to do?

Problem: Saturated soil


contaminated with TCE
(enough to contaminate
groundwater to solubility
limit for 15 years)

GW
flow

What are you going to do?


Problem: Chrome plating bath solutions have
been disposed into unlined lagoon (now dry).
Most of chromium has been adsorbed by
underlying clay soils.
Groundwater contamination was not detected.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

47

48

CAPPING AND CONTAINMENT

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. State the application, limitations, working mechanisms, advantages
and disadvantages of the following capping technologies:
a. Clay caps
b. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) multi-stage
caps
2. State the application, limitations, working mechanisms, advantages
and disadvantages of the following groundwater containment
technologies:
a. Slurry trench cutoff walls
b. Grout curtain walls

49

50

Capping and Containment

Capping controls airborne contamination


and surface water infiltration
Containment controls groundwater
movement

Applications
Slows the movement of airborne or
dustborne contaminants
Slows the movement of surface water
into the ground

Limitation
Does not directly remediate
contaminants
Makes soil recovery and further
treatment difficult

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

51

Capping and Containment

Capping materials may include natural


or synthetic materials.

Ground

Leachate Collection
System

Cap

Cap

Waste Material

80 mil PVC Liner


5' Recompacted Clay

6" Topsoil with vegetative cover


24" Clay
30 mil PVC Liner
6" Gas-venting layer/soil cushion

60 mil PVC Liner


24" Pea Gravel

Atlanta, GA
Hickory Ridge Landfill

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

52

Capping and Containment

Phoenix Golf Course

Gas collection and


process system

California Gulch Superfund Site


Courtesy US EPA Region 8

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

53

Capping and Containment

Explore alternative and more aestheticallypleasing ways to cover mine waste piles
with materials that will help preserve the
historic appearance of the mining
landscape
Water management strategy

Divert clean water


Enhance/ enlarge collection system for acid
rock drainage
Gradually eliminate Leadville Mine Drainage
Tunnel use, with exception of emergency

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

54

Capping and Containment

Alternative 1 Natural Face with Partial Cap


(preserve areas visible from Mineral Belt Trail/roads)

Alternative 2 Shotcrete with No Liner


on Slope
Alternative 2A Shotcrete with Liner
on Slope
Alternative 3 Inert Mine Waste Rock
with Liner
Alternative 4 Inert Mine Waste Rock
with Cribbing

Before capping

After capping

Before capping

After capping

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

55

Capping and Containment

After capping

Before capping

After capping

Before capping

After capping

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

56

Capping and Containment

Virtual Forum Web Address:

www.merid.org/leadville
EPA Web Address:

www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/co

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

57

Capping and Containment

Bioreactor landfills are designed and


operated by increasing the moisture
content of the waste to enhance
degradation and stabilization

Primary advantages
Efficient utilization of permitted
landfill capacity
Stabilization of waste in a shorter time
Reduced leachate handling cost
Reduced post closure care

Secondary Advantages
Potential for landfill gas can be a revenue stream
Promotes more sustainable waste management
Reduced air emissions containing VOC and
hazardous air pollutants
May possibly reduce long term costsReduced
toxicity of leachate and waste material
Consistency with sustainable landfill design

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

58

Capping and Containment

Primary Disadvantages and Challenges


Slope stability
Higher capital costs
Operator skills
Temperature control in aerobic bioreactors
Confusion over regulations to permit bioreactors
Liner chemical compatibility
Odor control
Design & construction of liquid handling systems
Waste heterogeneity

Subsurface walls to control


groundwater movement
Slurry trench cutoff wall
Grout curtain
Sheet piling

Applications
Slows movement of groundwater-borne
contaminants using subsurface walls
Can be used to dewater a site for
remediation

Limitations
Does not directly remediate contaminants

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

59

Capping and Containment

Monitoring
well

Production
well

Groundwater flow

Aquitard

Keyed slurry
trench cutoff wall

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

60

Capping and Containment

Monitoring
well

Production
well

LNAPLs

Recovery
well
Groundwater
flow
Aquitard

Groundwater
flow
Wall

Hanging slurry
trench cutoff wall

Waste

Drain

Soil

Stream

Groundwater
flow
Wall
Soil

Waste
Extraction well

Stream

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

61

Capping and Containment

Soil
Grout
curtain

Contaminant
plume
Groundwater flow
Injection
tube

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

62

Capping and Containment

Injection tube

Straight web type

Deep arch web


type

Zone of influence

Z-type

T-fitting

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

63

Capping and Containment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

64

BASIC WATER TREATMENT

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. State the advantages and disadvantages of basic water treatment
systems.
2. State the working mechanisms of the following basic water
treatment subsystems and/or components.
- Oil/water separators
- Iron removal systems
- Filters
- Clarifiers
- Air strippers
- Scale control systems
- Carbon adsorption units

65

66

Basic Water Treatment

Treats most contaminants


Highly flexible and reliable

Could be very expensive


Energy- and labor-intensive
Regulatory problems with discharge
Fine-grained material a problem

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

67

Basic Water Treatment

pH
Control

Oil / Water
Separator

Reactor
Tank

Sand
Filter

Air
Stripper

Carbon
Contactor

Courtesy State of Washington, Department of Ecology

Water

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

68

Basic Water Treatment

Oil

Water

Sludge

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

69

Basic Water Treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

70

Basic Water Treatment

Courtesy State of Washington, Department of Ecology

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

71

Basic Water Treatment

Physically separates volatile or semivolatile contaminants, usually


organics, from water
Process applies to volatile and semivolatile organics with a Henry's Law
Constant of >0.003 atm/mol/m3

Off-gas
treatment
Storage
tank

Air
blower

Effluent
treatment

Snowflakes

Packing Saddles

Packing Rings

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

72

Basic Water Treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

73

Basic Water Treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

74

Basic Water Treatment

aBsorption

aDsorption

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

75

76

CHEMICAL REACTIONS
AND SEPARATIONS

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. State the advantages and disadvantages and describe the working
mechanisms of the following chemical reaction systems:
- Neutralization systems
- Precipitation systems
- Reduction and oxidation systems
2. State the advantages and disadvantages and describe the working
mechanisms of the following separation systems:
- Microfiltration systems
- Reverse osmosis systems
- Ion exchange systems

77

78

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Neutralization
Precipitation
Reduction
Oxidation

Advantage

Eliminates corrosives

Disadvantages

Process chemicals are hazardous


Generates a lot of heat
Heavy-duty process equipment
may be needed

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

79

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Advantages

Removes dissolved heavy metals

Disadvantages

Produces metal sludge


Often produces high pH wastewater
Doesn't always work on
highly soluble metals

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

80

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Chemical
flocculants/
settling aids

Chemical
precipitants

Flocculation
paddles

Flocculation
well
Liquid
feed

Effluent
Baffle

Mixing tank
Flocculation
clarifier

Sludge

Source: U.S. EPA 1991

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

81

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Chemical reactions
Advantages

Reduces solubility of heavy metals


Oxidizes and destroys organics

Disadvantages

Unintended reactions

Acid feed

Reducing agent feed

H+

SOX
pH control

Mixer

Lime
slurry hopper

Ca
(OH)2

Chrome
wastewater
feed

Effluent

Cr6+

Cr3+

Cr3++OH Cr(OH)3

Chrome reduction
tank
Chrome
precipitation

Hydroxide
sludge

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

82

Chemical Reactions and Separations

H2O2
O3

Influent

Effluent

UV
lamps

Microfiltration
Reverse osmosis
Ion exchange

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

83

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Separation
Process

Reverse
Osmosis

Ultrafiltration

Nanofiltration

Particle Filtration
Microfiltration

Aqueous
Salt

Relative
Size of
Common
Materials

Sediment

Endotoxin Pyrogen

Metal Ion

Red Blood Cells

Virus

Bacteria

Oil Emulsion

Colloidal
Silica

Lactose

Microns 0.001

0.01

0.1

1.0

Cryptosporidium

10

100

1000

Dredge, Fox River, WI

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

84

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Microfiltration is a process which

removes
contaminants from a fluid by passing
though a microporous membrane.

Typical microfiltrations membrane pore


size range is 1 to 10 micrometers.

Advantage

Removes very small particles

Disadvantages

Does not remove dissolved


contaminants

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

85

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Microfiltration Treatment System


Groundwater

To disposal
Filtrate
recirculation

Air

Microfiltration Filter cake


unit

Static
mixer

Tyvek

Lime slurry tank

Filter cake
storage
Used Tyvek

ProFix slurry tank


Source: U.S. EPA 1991

Microfiltration Treatment System

Microfiltration Treatment System

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

86

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Pressure

Contaminated
water
Treated
water

Concentrated
wastewater

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

87

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Storage
tank

NaOH
caustic
soda

Clarifier

HCI

Feed
tank

Sludge
Filters

Reverse osmosis unit

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

88

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Removes dissolved metals via


transfer of ions
Uses resin beads

Removes low concentrations of


soluble metal
Recovers concentrated metal
streams for recycling

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

89

Chemical Reactions and Separations

Suspended solids and organics


Regeneration chemicals are
hazardous

Acid
regenerant

Caustic
regenerant

Waste containing MX
Removal:
H+ [Cat(s)] + M+
M+ [Cat(s)] + H+
Regeneration:
M+ [Cat(s)] + H+
H+ [Cat(s)] + M+

Removal:
OH [An(s)] + X
X [An(s)] + OH
Cation
exchanger

Anion
exchanger

Regeneration:
X [An(s)] + OH
OH [An(s)] + X
Deionized effluent
Spent regenerant

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

90

SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

Student Performance Objectives


1. Define Sediments
2. List common sediment remedy options
3. List the advantages and disadvantages for the three common
sediment remedy options

91

92

Sediment Remediation

Define Sediments
List common sediment remedy options
List the advantages and disadvantages
for the three common sediment
remedy options

Source: USEPA 1999

Sediments - The organic and inorganic


materials found at the bottom of a water
body. Clay, silt, sand, gravel, decaying
organic matter, shells & debris.
The most common sediment contaminants:
Pesticides
PCBs
PAHs
Dissolved phase chlorinated hydrocarbons
(to a lesser extent)
Source: USEPA 1999

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

93

Sediment Remediation

Pipeline or outfall discharges


Chemical spills
Surface runoff: waste dumps, chemical
storage, mines, agricultural or urban areas
Air emissions: Power plants, incinerators,
pesticide applications
Upwelling of contaminated ground water
Ships, ship maintenance & in-water
structures
Source: USEPA 1999

Health impacts from eating fish/shellfish


and recreation
Ecological impacts on wildlife and
aquatic species
Loss of recreational & subsistence fishing
Loss of recreational swimming and boating
Loss of traditional cultural practices by
Indian tribes, etc.

Economic effects of loss of fisheries


Economic effects on development and
property values
Economic effects on tourism
Increased costs of drinking water treatment
Loss or increased cost of commercial
navigation

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

94

Sediment Remediation

Source: Adapted from EPA Region 5, Sheboygan Harbor and River Site

Sediment grab samplers: Surface


sediment chemistry
Coring devices
Water column probes: pH and DO
Surface water samplers: Dissolved and
particulate chemical concentrations
Semi-permeable membrane devices:
Dissolved contaminants at the
sediment-water interface

Benthic analysis: Population and diversity


Toxicity testing: Acute and long-term lethal
effects on organisms
Tissue sampling: Bioaccumulation, modeling
trophic transfer potential, and estimating
food web effects
Caged fish/invertebrate studies: Change in
uptake of contaminants by biota

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

95

Sediment Remediation

Monitored natural recovery


In situ capping
Dredging & Excavation (most common)

Allows natural processes to contain, destroy, or

otherwise reduce the bioavailability or toxicity of the


contaminant in the sediment.

This remedy should include site specific cleanup

levels, remedial action objectives, and monitoring to


assess whether risk is being reduced as planned.

Physical processes
Sedimentation, advection, diffusion, dilution,
dispersion, bioturbation, volatilization

Biological processes
Biodegradation, biotransformation,
phytoremediation, biological stabilization

Chemical processes
Oxidation/reduction, sorption, or other
processes resulting in stabilization or reduced
bioavailability

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

96

Sediment Remediation

Human exposure is low (most important)


Sediment bed is stable, cohesive, well-armored
Contaminant concentrations decreasing on
their own
Contaminants are readily biodegradable or
transform to lower toxicity forms
Concentrations are low and cover diffuse area
Contaminants have low ability to bioaccumulate

Long-term decreasing trend of


contaminant concentrations in:
Higher trophic level biota
(piscivorous fish)
Water column (during low flow)
Sediment core contaminant levels
Surface sediment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

97

Sediment Remediation

Advantages
Relatively low implementation costs
Non-invasive

Limitations
Leaves contaminants in place
Slower to reduce risks than active technologies
Often relies on institutional controls such as
fish consumption advisories

Monitored natural recovery


In situ capping
Dredging & Excavation

In-situ capping is the placement of a

subaqueous covering or cap of clean


material over contaminated sediment.

In-situ capping is the placement of a

subaqueous covering or cap of clean


material over contaminated sediment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

98

Sediment Remediation

Caps reduce risks by:


Physical isolation:
Reduce exposure & bioturbation

Stabilization:
Contaminant & erosion protection to reduce
re-suspension

Chemical isolation:
Prevent dissolved and bound contaminants
from transporting into water column

Physical:
Population density of organisms
Sand cap consolidation through compression

Stabilization:
Potential erosion from bed shear stresses due to
river, tidal, and wave-induced currents,
turbulence generated by ships/vessels, etc.

Chemical
Gas generation due to anaerobic degradation
from organic content, can generate uplift
forces on the cap (especially w/ less
permeable cap material)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

99

Sediment Remediation

Upland sand-rich soils (preferred)


Engineered clay
Reactive/adsorptive materials: activated
carbon, apatite, coke, organoclay, zerovalent iron and zeolite
Geotextiles: reduce mixing and
displacement of cap material
Impervious materials: geomembranes, clay,
concrete, steel, or plastic

Source: USEPA 1998d

Source: Modified from U.S. EPA 1998d

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

100

Sediment Remediation

Advantages
Quickly reduce exposure
Less infrastructure for material handling,
dewatering, treatment & disposal
Less expensive than dredging or excavation
Quick to implement

Limitations
Risk of re-exposure if cap is disturbed
Cap materials may not promote native habitat

Monitored natural recovery


In situ capping
Dredging & Excavation

Dredging: Removal of contaminated


sediment while it is submerged
Excavation: Removal of contaminated
sediment after dewatering
Most often used treatment method at
Superfund sites
Both include transport, treatment and
disposal of impacted sediment and water

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

101

Sediment Remediation

Suitable disposal site is nearby


Suitable area for staging and handling
Navigational dredging is planned
Water depth is adequate
Risk reduction outweighs disturbance
Contaminated sediment overlies
clean sediment
Contaminants cover discrete areas

Mechanical Dredging
Clamshell: Wire supported
Enclosed bucket: Wire supported, watertight
Articulated mechanical: Backhoe designs

Hydraulic Dredging
Cutterhead: pipeline dredge w/ cutterhead
Horizontal auger: pipeline dredge with auger
Plain suction: pipeline dredge w/ suction
Pneumatic: Air operated submersible pump

Source: A = Cable Arm, Corp. B = Barbara Bergen, USEPA)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

102

Sediment Remediation

Source: A = Jim Hahnenberg USEPA: B = Ernie Watkins USEPA: C = Ellicott Corporation

Air or Gas
Residue
Treatment

Debris
Removal

Sediment
Removal

Transport

Staging

Pretreatment

Contaminated
Solids

Solids

Water Effluent
Treatment
and/or
Disposal

Solids

Disposal
and/or
Reuse

Treatment

Contaminated
Solids

Disposal
and/or
Reuse

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

103

Sediment Remediation

Sheet piling & Cofferdams


Earthen dams
Geotubes, inflatable dams
Rerouting the water body using temporary
dams or pipes
Permanent relocation of the water body

Example of
excavation
following isolation
using sheet piling

Source: Pine River/Velsicol, EPA Region 5

Advantages
Contaminant removal poses less risk
uncertainty
Less limitation for water body uses

Limitations
Complex and costly
Uncertainty of residual contamination
Contaminant losses through re-suspension and
volatilization
Temporary destruction of aquatic community

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

104

Sediment Remediation

Fox River, WI

5 Operable Units (OU) due


to large area of PCB
contamination

PCB in Sediment includes 39 miles of river


and 2700 square miles of Green Bay
PCBs from a large number of papermills
along the river producing and recycling
carbonless copy paper (9 PRPs)
PCBs released directly into the river or after
municipal treatment plant
Fish consumption advisories have been in
effect since 1976

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

105

Sediment Remediation

Dredging and off-site disposal


7-inch thick engineered cap of sand and
armor stone
3 to 6-inch sand cover where PCBs <2 ppm
Long term monitoring for cap integrity and
natural attenuation

Future Remedies by Year

Fox River Map


Pink = Dredging
Areas
Dredged
approximately 4
million cubic yards of
sediment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

106

Sediment Remediation

Fox River Map


Blue = Capping
Areas
Capped 415 acres

Fox River Map


Yellow/Brown = Sand
Cover Areas
Approximately 495 acres
sand capped

Capping Slope
Diagram
7-inch thick sand
and armor stone
3-6 inch sand
cover where
PCBs < 2 ppm

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

107

Sediment Remediation

Cutterhead Dredge
& Piping

Piping Suction Pump


& Diesel Engine

Extended Ladder Cutterhead Dredge & Barge

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

108

Sediment Remediation

Pipe flow to vibrating Screen of gravel


and debris > 1/8 inch
Further hydrocyclone for fine grain sand
removal
Thickening tanks using polymer addition
for uniform flow & weir for water removal
Membrane sediment cake press
Conveyor to Transport off-site

Treated Sediment is
Transported to
landfill or TSCA
landfill

Geotube
Dewatering

Sand Filtration: fine vs. course sand


Bag Filtration
GAC Filtration
Diffuser to discharge treated water back to
Fox River at ambient flow conditions to
avoid disruption

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

109

Sediment Remediation

EPA. 1998d. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments


(ARCS) Program Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of
Contaminated Sediments. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
Illinois. EPA 905/B-96/004. Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/iscmain.
USEPA. 1999. Introduction to Contaminated Sediments. EPA 823-F-99-006,
Office of Science and Technology
USEPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for
Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA-540-R-05-012. Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

110

BIOREMEDIATION

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. Discuss site considerations needed for the use of bioremediation
methods.
2. Discuss intrinsic and engineered bioremediation treatment methods
3. Discuss in-situ and ex-situ bioremediation treatment systems.

111

Principles of Bioremediation

Define bioremediation
Describe a basic oxidation-reduction reaction
List the different microbial metabolic processes
List the basic ways that microbes demobilize
contaminants
List three indicators of microbial activity
List factors that may complicate bioremediation

The treatment or remediation of


contaminated soils, sediments, and
groundwater through microbial
metabolism.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

112

Principles of Bioremediation

Bioremediation
In-Situ
Engineered
Bio-stimulation

Ex-Situ
Natural Attenuation
Bio-augmentation

Addition of Oxygen,
Addition of oxygen
Nutrients & Bacteria
-Bio venting
Addition
of
Oxygen
-Bio-sparging
& nutrients

Microbial metabolism is the basis of


bioremediation
It is the transformation of organic and
inorganic compounds by microscopic
organisms

The biochemical transformation that


occur in living organisms
How cells derive energy and basic
elements for reproduction
Energy and essential elements are
derived through oxidation-reduction
processes

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

113

Principles of Bioremediation

The breaking of chemical bonds and


transferring electrons from electron
donors to electron acceptors.

The organic contaminant often serves as


the electron donor, yielding electrons
(being oxidized) to microbial compounds
(being reduced) to stimulate cell growth
and reproduction.

The three modes of metabolism are:


Respiration
Fermentation
Photosynthesis

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

114

Principles of Bioremediation

Respiration process is either aerobic


or anaerobic
Aerobic respiration uses oxygen as an
electron acceptor
Anaerobic respiration uses a chemical
other than oxygen as an electron
acceptor such as nitrate, iron, sulfate,
and carbon dioxide

An organic compound is used as both


electron donor and electron acceptor,
converting the compound to
fermentation products such as alcohols,
organic acids, hydrogen, and carbon
dioxide.

The metabolic process where plants


convert radiant energy into chemical
energy, most often stored initially in
glucose.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

115

Principles of Bioremediation

The key microorganism involved in


bioremediation of organic and
inorganic compounds is bacteria.
Other microorganisms that may be
involved in bioremediation are
protozoans, fungi, and algae.

Bacteria
Single-celled organisms
Metabolize soluble food

C5H7O2N

Reproduce by binary fission


Cellular composition:
70 90% water
10 30% dry mass

C5H7O2N

C5H7O2N

92% of dry mass composed of carbon, oxygen,


nitrogen, and hydrogen

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

116

Principles of Bioremediation

Favorable physical and chemical conditions


are necessary for optimum bacteria
metabolism.

Physical conditions include:


pH
Temperature
Physical structure for support

Chemical requirements include:


ENERGY
CARBON
HYDROGENS SOURCE
CARBON
SOURCE

NUTRIENTS
Daughter
Cell

Parent
Cell

GROWTH
AND
REPRODUCTION

WATER
CO2
Daughter
Cell

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

117

Principles of Bioremediation

Energy Source
Chemical compounds (organic or inorganic)
Sunlight and Substrates

Carbon Source
Organic Compounds
CO2

Nutrients
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Trace Nutrients (sulfur, potassium, and iron)

Organic and inorganic carbon


Organic compounds and CO2

Ammonia (NH3), nitrate (NO3-), or


nitrogen gas (N2)
Various sources of phosphates (PO43-)
Trace nutrients
Amino acids, sulfate, potassium,
magnesium, and iron

Aerobic respiration
Anaerobic respiration
Fermentation
Secondary utilization and cometabolism
Reductive dehalogenation
Inorganic compounds as electron
donors

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

118

Principles of Bioremediation

C7H8 +9O2 7CO2 + 4H2O


Donor
Acceptorand Reproduction
Cell Growth

ENZYME

C7H8 +9O2

7CO2 + 4H2O

Enzymes
Biological catalysts
Are not altered by the reaction
Reaction specific

Anaerobic Respiration
Inorganic chemicals are used as electron
acceptors
Nitrate (NO3-), sulfate (SO42-)
Metals (Fe3+, Mn4+)
C02

Byproducts = nitrogen gas, hydrogen sulfide,


reduced forms of metals, and methane

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

119

Principles of Bioremediation

C7H8 + Nitrate (NO3-) CO2 + N2

Benzylsuccinic acid
Benzoyl Coenzyme-A

Can play an important role in an


anaerobic environment
Organic contaminant serves as both
electron donor and acceptor
Byproducts can be biodegraded by other
species of microbes

Non-beneficial biotransformation
The microorganism transforms the
contaminant but does not benefit
from the reaction

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

120

Principles of Bioremediation

Replacement of a halogen atom with an


hydrogen atom.
Electron donors include hydrogen and
low-molecular weight compounds.

Ammonium (NH4+ ), nitrite (NO2-),


reduced iron (Fe2+), reduced manganese
(Mn2+), and H2S
Oxygen is usually the electron acceptor
Carbon is most commonly taken from
atmospheric CO2 (Carbon Fixation)

Water chemistry changes

Decrease in parent compound, electron


acceptor
Increase in byproducts
Presence of specific metabolic products

C7H8 + 9O2

7CO2 + 4H2O

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

121

Principles of Bioremediation

Changes in native microbial communities


Growth of predators

Unavailability of the contaminant to the


microbes
Toxicity of contaminant to microbes
Multiple contaminants and natural
organic chemicals

Incomplete degradation of contaminants


Inability to remove contaminants to low
concentrations
Aquifer clogging

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

122

Principles of Bioremediation

Aqueous ex-situ treatment systems


Trickling filters
Aerated lagoon
Rotating Biological Contactor
Anaerobic digester

Solid ex-situ treatment system


In-situ treatment systems

Trickling Filters

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

123

Principles of Bioremediation

Aerated Lagoon

Rotating Biological Contactor

Rotating Biological Contactor

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

124

Principles of Bioremediation

Anaerobic Digester

Contaminated soil

Slurry
Emission
control

Water

Mixer

Bioreactor
Centrifuge

Water

Clean soil
Nutrients

Vapor treatment

Air
Injection
well

Extraction wells

Extraction wells
Vadose zone
Groundwater

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

125

Principles of Bioremediation

Pretreatment
Microbes

Nutrients

Oxygen

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

126

MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this unit, students will be able to:
1. Define monitored natural attenuation
2. Understand monitored natural attenuation processes
3. Review case studies that show monitored natural
attenuation processes
4. Understand two screening criteria for monitored natural
attenuation applicability

127

128

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Define monitored natural attenuation


Understand monitored natural
attenuation processes
Review case studies that show monitored
natural attenuation processes
Understand two screening criteria for
monitored natural attenuation
applicability

Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is

the reliance on natural attenuation


processes to achieve a site-specific
remediation objective within a time frame
that is reasonable compared to other
more active methods (EPA,1999).

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

129

Monitored Natural Attenuation

MNA is often used in conjunction with


or as a follow-up process to another
active remedial activity.

Advantages
An in-situ treatment
May be a lower cost alternative
May be effective as a final process to
treat residual contaminants

Disadvantages
May not be accepted by the regulatory
agency or public
May not treat contaminant within a
reasonable time
May not treat desired contaminants
Requires detailed site characterization
and continued monitoring

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

130

Monitored Natural Attenuation

The MNA natural processes are


biological, chemical, and physical
reactions.
Under favorable conditions, these
processes either transform
contamination to less harmful forms or
immobilize contaminants to reduce
risks.

Examples of natural processes include:


Biodegradation by subsurface microbes
Naturally occurring chemical reactions
Physical sorption to subsurface media
Natural dilution of contaminants*
Physical volatilization of contaminants
from the subsurface to the atmosphere*
* Not acceptable processes

Concerns
MNA is site and contaminant specific.
The success of MNA depends on many
natural environmental conditions
which will change as MNA proceeds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

131

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Residual NAPL
Water
table
Methanogenesis

Denitrification
Aerobic
respiration

Iron (III)
reduction

Plume of
dissolved fuel
hydrocarbons

Sulfate
reduction

Groundwater
flow

For example, biodegradation will continue as long as an


adequate supply of electron acceptors is available.

The following case studies show examples


of successful and common failures of MNA
projects.

South Glen Falls, NY

Natural attenuation of PAHs


following source removal

St. Joseph, Michigan

Natural attenuation of a
chlorinate solvent

Edwards Air Force Base

No natural attenuation of a
chlorinate solvent

Vandenberg Air Force Base

BTEX and MTBE release

Hudson River Sediment

Incomplete natural attenuation


of PCBs

Pinal Creek, Arizona

Natural attenuation of
inorganic compounds

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

132

Monitored Natural Attenuation

This case study shows the value of


source removal.
In the 1960s, coal tar generated from
an old manufactured gas plant was
excavated and reburied in a sand
sediment.
During the 30 years the coal tar was
left in place, an 200-foot by 1000-foot
contaminated plume developed.

The contaminated plume consisted of


PAHs including naphthalene from 0.01
ppm to >2 ppm.
In 1991, the coal tar-contaminated soil
was re-excavated, properly disposed,
backfilled with clean native soil.
Within 4 years of source removal, much
of the plume was below detectable levels.

Evidence that biodegradation was the


primary attenuation process that removed
much of the contamination are:
Depletion of oxygen at the center of the
plume where the concentrations were
the highest
Rapid growth of the microbial
population that consumed the
contamination

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

133

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Additional data that suggests natural


biodegradation reduced the
contamination once the source was
removed:

Increase of the protozoan population


(predator of bacteria) inside the plume
Detection of a unique transient
intermediary metabolite showing
biodegradation of the contaminants

TCE released from a former factory


contaminated the groundwater with
concentrations as high as 100 ppm.
A nearby disposal lagoon also leached a
large amount of organic matter into the
groundwater.

Microbial activity had completely


converted the organic matter into
methane, creating a reduced
environment that dechlorinated the TCE.
TCE biodegradation occurred because of
the high chemical oxygen demand (COD)
placed on the aquifer, as a result of the
organic matter that leached from the
nearby disposal lagoon.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

134

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Evidence of biotransformation is
supported by concentrations of cisDCE, vinyl chloride, and ethene,
daughter products of TCE reductive
dechlorination.
Samples collected near the source
show that 825% of the TCE had been
converted to ethene.

A site survey shows that the


conversion of the TCE to ethene was
most complete where methane
production and loss of nitrate and
sulfate by reduction were the highest.
Although extensive dechlorination
took place, complete breakdown of
TCE and its daughter products did not
occur.

Indicators of TCE reductive dechlorination


are:
Formation of cis-DCE, VC, and ethene
Loss of COD in excess of what was
needed for dechlorination
Evidence of anaerobic processes

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

135

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Between 1958 and 1967, approximately


5,500 gallons of TCE were released
creating a large groundwater plume
(about 2,800-feet by 2,100 feet).
Groundwater modeling shows the
contaminant had migrated from its source
area, however, no degradation of the TCE
had occurred.

Electron acceptors (nitrate and sulfate) are


present in the plume, but there is no
dissolved oxygen content or organic
material present.
The probable reason that there is no
biotransformation of the TCE is that no
primary substrate (organic material) is
present to create a reducing condition.

Vandenberg Air Force


Base:
572 gallon release of
gasoline containing
MTBE
Estimated groundwater
velocity is 400 ft/year
BTEX plume stops within
50100 feet from source
MTBE plume is 250 feet
wide and extends 1,700
feet from source

Surface
drainage

Approximate extent of
MTBE above 2 ppb
(11/97)

N
W

E
S

100 200

Scale: feet

Approximate extent of detectable


TPH / BTEX (11/97)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

136

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Natural biodegradation appears to have


affected the BTEX, but it had little or no
affect on the MTBE.
In general, simpler and naturallyoccurring organic compounds, such as
BTEX, are degradable. MTBE is notably
resistant to biodegradation because of
its stable molecular structure and its
reactivity with microbial membranes.

A PCB release contaminated a 200 mile stretch


of the Hudson River sediment from Hudson
Falls to Manhattan. Studies show an incomplete
natural attenuation of PCBs in the sediment.
Studies show aerobic microorganisms present
in the sediment. Active aeration pilot studies
show co-metabolism created a reduced
environment allowing the reductive
dechlorination of the PCB.

Potential for PCB biodegradation exists in the


Hudson River sediment, two requirements must
be fulfilled for natural attenuation:
A mixing of deep and shallow sediments must occur
to link aerobic and anaerobic process. This can
occur naturally, but there is no guarantee it will
occur often enough to achieve biodegradation.
Biodegradation must occur before the PCBs enter
the food chain, e.g., the bioaccumulation of PCB in
fish tissue.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

137

Monitored Natural Attenuation

A 1997 study showed significant


dechlorination of PCBs, but, even after
decades, complete dechlorination has
not occurred.
The rate of dechlorination is insufficient
to ensure that monitored natural
attenuation will meet regulatory
standards.

Acid drainage from copper mining in Pinal


Creek, Arizona area caused a 25-km plume of
metal contamination from several unlined
mine tailings ponds. It is suspected the pH of
the ponds were 2 to 3.
The acid part of the plume extended 12 km
with several metals having concentrations
above MCLs.
Many physical, chemical, and biological
processes have affected the metal
contaminants.

Physical dilution likely accounted for a 60%


contaminant concentration decrease for the first
2 km of the plume.
Chemical reaction of the acid plume with natural
carbonate material raised the pH to 5-6. This pH
raise caused precipitation or sorption of the iron,
copper, zinc, and other metals.
The neutralization reactions depleted the
carbonate allowing some metals to continue to
migrate to a discharge point in Pinal Creek. The
increase in pH and oxygen caused manganese
oxides to precipitate.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

138

Monitored Natural Attenuation

The precipitation of the manganese oxides


were enhanced by manganese-oxidizing
bacteria which resulted in about 20%
decrease of the dissolved manganese.
Concentrations of other dissolved metals
decrease because of sorption onto the
manganese oxides.
The natural process reduced the dissolved
metals in groundwater. But as the carbonate
material become depleted, the source may
overwhelm the natural attenuation capacity of
the aquifer.

The success of a project is based on:


The level of understanding of the
dominant attenuation processes
The probability that site-specific
conditions will result in an effective
natural attenuation

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

139

Monitored Natural Attenuation

A number of factors must be considered to


determine if MNA will be effective:
Initial Screening of MNA Applicability
Detailed Evaluation of MNA
Effectiveness

Do regulations allow MNA as a remedial


method?
Has the source been removed to the maximum
extent practical?
Is the plume shrinking such that remediation
will be achieved within a reasonable time?
Are there any receptors that could be affected
within a 2-year period?

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

140

Monitored Natural Attenuation

If the answer is "no" to any of the first three


questions or yes to the fourth question:
MNA is not a remedial option at the site

If the answer is yes" to the first 3 questions


and no to the fourth question:

MNA has the potential to be effective at the


site, but a detailed evaluation should be
conducted

Has the site been fully characterized in three


dimensions?
If groundwater is the issue, has the hydraulic
conductivity of the most permeable transport
zone been measured?
If groundwater is the issue, has the retarded
contaminant transport velocity been
estimated?
Have the geochemical parameters been
measured for all monitoring points?

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

141

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Have rate constants or degradation rates


been calculated?
Is the estimated time to achieve
remediation objective reasonable?
Is there no current or future threat to
potential receptors?
If yes to all above, then MNA may be
effective

Key components of a MNA corrective action


plan include:
Documentation of adequate source control
Comprehensive site characterization
Evaluation of time frame for meeting
remediation objectives
Long-term performance monitoring
A contingency plan

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

142

IN SITU TREATMENTS, PART ONE

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. Recognize the advantages and disadvantages of in-situ treatment.
2. Identify the different in-situ treatment methods for saturated and
unsaturated zones.
3. Describe the principles of natural attenuation, soil vapor
extraction, enhanced soil vapor extraction, and air sparging
treatment methods.
4. Understand the factors of a successful natural attenuation, soil
vapor extraction, enhanced soil vapor extraction, and air sparging
treatment system.

143

144

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

In place treatment of contaminants in soil,


sediment, or groundwater using physical,
chemical, or biological mechanisms.

Eliminates mass removal process


Reduces potential exposure
Reduces surface destruction
May reduce cost

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

145

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Increases treatment time


May be difficult to monitor results
May not treat all contamination
May cause contaminant to spread

Unsaturated

Saturated

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE Enhancements

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *

Phytoremediation *

Bioremediation *
Immobilization *

Air Sparging

*Covered in other lectures

Unsaturated

Saturated

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE Enhancements

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *

Phytoremediation *

Bioremediation *
Immobilization *

Air Sparging

*Covered in other lectures

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

146

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

An in situ method that relies on natural


processes to remediate contamination.

Relies on:
Volatilization of contaminant
Biological processes
Chemical processes

Success depends on:


Type and amount of contaminant
Size and depth of contaminated area
Favorable soil and groundwater conditions
Sufficient time

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

147

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Unsaturated

Saturated

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE Enhancements

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *

Phytoremediation *

Bioremediation *
Immobilization *

Air Sparging

*Covered in other lectures

Process draws fresh air through the


unsaturated zone, allowing flux, mass
transfer, and treatment.

Vapor
Vapor
Blower
TreatmentTreatment
Blower

Condensate
Collection

Condensate
Collection

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

148

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Vapor
Treatment

Blower

Condensate
Collection

Flux:
Contaminant vaporizes into the
introduced fresh air.

Vapor
Treatment

Blower

Condensate
Collection

Mass transfer:
Vapors move to one or more
extraction wells.

Vapor
Treatment

Blower

Condensate
Collection

Treatment:
Single- or multi-step process
extracts and treats vapors.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

149

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Success depends on:


Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

Remediation manager can only control:


Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

Remediation manager can only control:


Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions (limited control)
System design

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

150

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Success depends on:


Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

The single most important criterion for a


successful soil-vapor extraction (SVE)
system is the volatility of the contaminant.

Volatility of contaminant influenced by :


Primary factor
Henry's Law Constant

Secondary factors
Affinity to medium
Contaminant composition

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

151

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Henry's Law Constant (KH)

Relationship between the contaminant's


concentration in air and water
Function of vapor pressure (Pv) and its
solubility (C) in water

KH =

Pv
C

Expresses the ability of a contaminant to


volatilize from a dissolved phase into a
vapor.
Approximately 10-3 atm m3/mole

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

152

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Expresses the affinity of a soil to a


chemical compound.
KOC

A complex mix of contaminants

may impede the effectiveness of


an SVE system.

Success depends on:


Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

153

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Coarse-grained
material (gravel)

Fine-grained
material (silt)

Soil permeability
Second only to Henry's Law Constant for
success of an SVE system

Gravel

Silt

Soil permeability is affected by:


Soil type and heterogeneity

Soil permeability is affected by:


Soil type and heterogeneity
Soil moisture content
High soil moisture content will limit vapor
advection pathways
Optimum soil moisture is less than 10% by
weight

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

154

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Success depends on:


Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

Site conditions refer to above-ground


and below-ground conditions,
and include:
Depth to groundwater surface
Subsurface conduits
Surface caps

Conditions affecting SVE system operation


A shallow or large seasonal variation of the
groundwater surface

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

155

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Conditions affecting SVE system operation


Subsurface conduits
Can short-circuit the SVE system

Conditions affecting SVE system operation

Surface caps
Impermeable seals that increase the radius of
influence and reduce surface water infiltration

Success depends on:


Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

156

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

System design considerations


should include:

Radius of influence (ROI)


Blower size
Extraction well design and spacing
System enhancements

Suction ~20 Hg

Suction (inches Hg)


10

Radius of
influence
(ROI) is the
distance from
the extraction
well to well
points where
the applied
vacuum is
recognized

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

157

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Homogeneous
Soil Type
Coarse sand
Fine sand
Silt
Clay

ROI (in feet)


>100
60100
2040
<20

Blowers induce subsurface air flow (vacuum)


Design considerations include:
Air-flow capacity
Amount of vacuum produced
Maintenance costs

Extraction wells are typically 2 in. to 4 in. in


diameter, with a screen length of 1015 ft
Extraction wells are ideally spaced to achieve
an overlapping of the ROI

ROI
Extraction well
Area of contamination

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

158

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Unsaturated

Saturated

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE Enhancements

Air Sparging

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *

Phytoremediation *

Bioremediation *
Immobilization *

*Covered in other lectures

SVE enhancements generally require


heating the soil.
Inlet well

Extraction well

Heat canisters

SVE enhancements generally


require heating the soil.
Inlet well

Extraction well

Heating blanket

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

159

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

SVE enhancements generally


require heating the soil.
Extraction well

Inlet well

Microwave probes

Heating the soil increases the volatility


of the contaminant:
Temperature
10C
Compound

20C

40C

Henrys Law Constant

TCE

328*

544

1370

Benzene

133

230

619

1,2Dichloroethane

30

51

134

Methylene
chloride

53

89

226

* atm m3/mole
Source: In situ Treatment Technology E. Nyer

Unsaturated

Saturated

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE Enhancements

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *

Phytoremediation *

Bioremediation *
Immobilization *

Air Sparging

*Covered in other lectures

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

160

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Direct injection of air below the water table


Air-injection
wells

SVE wells

Dissolved phase

Must be operated in conjunction with a


soil-vapor extraction system

Process can:
Strip volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from dissolved phase
Volatilize trapped or sorbed phase
contaminants
Enhance aerobic biodegradation by
direct injection of O2

Success depends on:

Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
System design, including:
Air distribution (zone of influence)
Air injection pressure and flow rates

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

161

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

In general, the radius of influence


for air-sparging wells is between
5 feet and 10 feet.

Zone-of-Influence Considerations

Dissolved phase

Silt layer

Subtle geologic changes can greatly


affect zone of influence

Zone-of-Influence Considerations

Dissolved phase

Potential mounding and spreading


of contamination

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

162

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Zone-of-Influence Considerations

Dissolved phase

Airflow paths may develop, creating


air channels

Air injection pressure and flow rates are


geology-dependent.

Air pressure for:


Fine sediment = 12 to 120 in. H2O
(0.4 to 4 psi)
Coarse sediment = 1 to 10 in. H2O
(0.04 to 0.4 psi)

Higher injection pressures and flow rates do


not correspond to better air sparging
performance
Injection rates should be balanced with the
SVE systems air withdrawal capacity

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

163

In-situ Treatments, Part 1

Treatment of extracted vapors from SVE


and air sparging systems can include:
Carbon adsorption
Thermal oxidation
Catalytic oxidation
No treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

164

IN SITU TREATMENTS, PART TWO

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. Describe the advantages, disadvantages, and basic principle of
permeable reactive barriers as an in-situ treatment method.
2. Describe the advantages, disadvantages, and basic principle of
chemical oxidation as an in-situ treatment method.

165

166

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Unsaturated

Saturated

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE Enhancements

Air Sparging

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Phytoremediation *

Bioremediation *
Immobilization *

*Covered in other lectures

Contaminated plume

Permeable
reactive barrier

A permeable zone containing reactive


material that will intercept and treat
contaminated groundwater as it flows
under natural gradient conditions
Treated water

Groundwater flow

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

167

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Depending on the contaminant and the


PRB material, the contaminant may be:
Reduced to a nontoxic compound
through an oxidation-reduction
reaction
Chemically altered to a less soluble or
to an immobile compound
Physically adsorbed

Proven treatment for organic and


inorganic compounds
Passive system costs less
Does not disturb surface
development
Generates little waste

Does not treat all compounds


Must have predictable
hydrogeologic flow path
Difficult to construct > 50 ft.
below surface
Requires time

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

168

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

PRBs are effective in treating groundwater


contaminated with:
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Chlorinated solvents
Soluble metals

Treatable Organic
Compounds
1,1,1-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
trichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2dichloroethene
vinyl chloride
benzene
freon 113

Treatable Inorganic
Compounds
chromium
lead
uranium
selenium
cadmium
sulphate
nitrate
arsenic

Depends on:
Contaminant characteristics
Site characterization
System design

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

169

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

The capabilities of the reactive


material must match the
characteristics of the contaminant.

Zero-valent Iron (Fe0)


Biomass
Oxygen-releasing compounds
Air sparging curtain
pH modifiers
Granular activated carbon

The corrosion of the zero-valent iron


(Fe0) provides the source of electrons
that reduce compounds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

170

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Reaction of Fe0 in saturated state:


Fe0 Fe+2 + 2e2 H2O 2H+ + 2OH-

Reductive dechlorination
Chromium (Cr+6) reduction

The free electrons (2e-) from

the corrosion of Fe0, plus the


2H+ from the water, have the
ability to reduce (dechlorinate)
chlorinated volatile
compounds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

171

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Cl
C

Cl

TCE

Cl

Cl

DCE

H
+(2e-+ H+)
-(Cl-)

Cl

+(2e-+ H+)
-(Cl-)

H
H
H C C H
H Ethane H
H
+(2e- + 2H+)

H
C

Cl

+(2e- + H+)
-(Cl- )

C
VC

H
C

H
H

Ethene

Cr+6 under typical aquifer


conditions is CrO42CrO42- combined with the free
electrons and hydrogen atoms
reduces Cr+6 to a more stable Cr+3

Should include an understanding of:


Hydrogeology
Contaminant concentration
Geochemistry and microbiology

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

172

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Flow path and contaminant distribution


Aquifer characterization, i.e.,
permeability, gradient, porosity
Seasonal or other fluctuations
Stratigraphy and lithology

Concentration fluctuations must be


considered throughout the life of
the system.

Natural aquifer geochemical and


microbial conditions can affect the
system design and useful life of the PRB.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

173

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Naturally-dissolved calcium or iron


may precipitate and foul the PRB
Reducing environment may produce:
Iron-fouling bacteria (slime)
Sulfate-reducing bacteria which could
enhance bioremediation

Continuous
PRB

Reactive material

Groundwater flow

Continuous PRBs are large areas of


reactive material designed to assure no
bypass of contaminant
Often constructed by backfilling a trench
with reactive material or by injecting a
slurry of reactive material

Funnel-andgate PRB
Groundwater flow

Gate w/ reactive
material
Funnel of
impermeable
walls

Funnel-and-gate PRBs direct the groundwater


to a reactive zone using impermeable walls
Effective in "low" hydraulic-conductivity aquifers
Easier to replace or replenish reactive material

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

174

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

The PRB design selection is


determined by the groundwater
velocity and the required residence
time in the treatment zone

The groundwater velocity through the


PRB should be similar to the aquifer
groundwater velocity
Seasonal groundwater fluctuations
must be considered in design

PRB residence time depends on:


Contaminant type
Contaminant concentration

Required residence time is based on:


Laboratory test
Small field test

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

175

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Unsaturated

Saturated

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Physical

Chemical

Biological

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE Enhancements

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *

Phytoremediation *

Bioremediation *
Immobilization *

Air Sparging

*Covered in other lectures

A treatment process where oxidizing


chemicals are placed in direct contact
with the contaminant, destroying or
immobilizing the contaminant.
An excellent method for source destruction
of fuel, solvents, and pesticides in either the
saturated or unsaturated zone.

No waste generation
May be less expensive than
other treatments
Low operation and
maintenance costs
Can remediate contaminant
source at many depths
Unobtrusive to surface structures

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

176

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

May not reach migrated contaminants


Chemical oxidants are hazardous materials
Off-gassing of VOCs or chemicals can
collect onsite or nearby
Natural organic material (e.g. peat) may
short circuit the process
May resolubilize stable metals

Perchloroethene, trichloroethene,
dichloroethene, vinyl chloride
MTBE
Aromatic hydrocarbons

Saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons (e.g.,


octane, hexane)
Chlorinated alkanes
(e.g., chloroform, carbon tetrachloride)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

177

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Depends on:
Matching an oxidant to the
contaminant
Achieving adequate contact between
oxidant and contaminant
Assuring that the oxidant is not
consumed by other natural material

Potassium or sodium permanganate


Hydrogen peroxide
Ozone

Very effective oxidizing agent for


some chlorinated compounds
(e.g., PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC)
Has strong attraction to electrons
in the carbon-carbon double
bond

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

178

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Potassium
permanganate

PCE

4KMnO4 + 3C2Cl4 +

8H-

Water
4H2O

6CO2 + 4MnO2 + 4K+ + 12Cl- +

Dense aqueous solution capable of


following the flow paths of DNAPLs

Oxidant formed by mixing hydrogen


peroxide with iron (a metal catalyst),
commonly called "Fenton's Reagent"
H2O2 + Fe+2 Fe+3 + OH- + OH
The hydroxyl radicals (OH) are effective
oxidizing agents and are a particularly
good treatment for petroleum products

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

179

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Soils with high alkalinity (free


carbonate ions) react with Fenton's
Reagent
Low soil permeability

Strongest oxidant
Effective in treating chlorinated
VOCs, PAHs, and BTEX compounds

Fisherville Site
Grafton, Massachusetts
ISCO Case Study

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

180

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Permanganate was selected because it is


more stable than peroxide or ozone

Less fire/explosion hazard


Greater radius of impact through the glacial material
at the site

Permanganate selectively oxidizes carbon


double bonds
More efficient oxidizer of TCE;
More selective oxidizer so less likely it will be
consumed by natural organic material (i.e., peat) at
the site.

pH adjustment of aquifer is unnecessary

Treatability Study
On-Site Injection Testing
Installation of Temporary Dam in
Blackstone Canal
Full-Scale In Situ Chemical Oxidation
(ISCO)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

181

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Chemical Oxidant is 20% Sodium


Permanganate (NaMnO4) Solution
100 Injection Wells, 35 to 50 Feet Deep
1,244 lbs of (NaMnO4) per Injection Well
Three Injection Rounds, 50% of Total
Injected During First Round, 25% During
Subsequent Rounds

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

182

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Treatment Area / Injection System

Centrifugal
pumps with
pressure
release valve

Injection Manifold

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

183

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

Treatment Chemical Being Pumped

Bailer showing
sodium
permanganate
solution in well
immediately
offset from
injection well

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

184

In-situ Treatments, Part 2

The average concentrations in


overburden (4 ppm) was reduced to
less that 0.1 ppm.
The cleanup goals were achieved within
16 months for <$2 Million.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

185

186

SOIL WASHING AND IMMOBILIZATION

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. Describe the in-situ soil flushing process.
2. Describe the ex-situ soil washing process
3. State the application, limitations, advantages, and disadvantages
of immobilization technologies.

187

188

Soil Washing and Immobilization

In-situ soil flushing


Soil washing

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

189

Soil Washing and Immobilization

In-situ soil flushing is the extraction of

contaminants from the soil with water


or other suitable aqueous solutions.

Spray
(1)
Pump

Water
table

Flushing
additives
(5)

Groundwater
treatment
(4)

Groundwater
extraction well
(3)

Pump

Vadose
zone

Contaminated area

Leachate
collection
(2)

Groundwater
zone
Low permeability zone

U.S. EPA 1991a

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

190

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Soil Flushing

Water
Soluble (hydrophilic) organics
Octanol/water partition coefficient <10

Water with surfactant


Low solubility (hydrophobic) organics

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

191

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Acids, chelating agents, or


reducing agents
Metals
Inorganic metal salts

Volatile halogenated organics


(perchloroethylene, chloromethane)
Semivolatile nonhalogenated organics
(phenols, nitrobenzene)
Nonvolatile metals (arsenic, lead)

U.S. EPA 1991a

Permeability affects treatment time


and efficiency of contaminant removal
1 103 cm/sec = effective soil flushing
<1 105 cm/sec = limited soil flushing

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

192

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Moisture content affects flushing


fluid transfer requirements
Groundwater hydrology critical in
controlling the recovery of injected
fluids and contaminants

Groundwater treatment
Flushing additives:
Reuse
Degradability

Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit


National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
Slurry walls or sheet piling for containment
Berms, dikes, or caps for surface
water control

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

193

Soil Washing and Immobilization

1-2 years as concentrations decrease


Hydraulic control required
High silt and clay content not applicable
Surfactants or organic solvents removed
Bacteria and/or iron fouling
Additives may interfere with
wastewater treatment

Soil washing is a water-based process


for mechanically separating and
scrubbing soils ex-situ to remove
contaminants.

Onsite, ex-situ, water-based process


Contamination reduction by particle
size separation
Mechanical washing and
separation technique

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

194

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Stand alone or treatment train


Effective for coarse sand and gravel
Demonstrated contaminant removal
Halogenated volatile organics
(perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene)
Nonhalogenated volatile organics (phenols,
nitrobenzene)
Volatile and nonvolatile metals (mercuryvolatile, lead-nonvolatile)

Particle Size
Distribution

Comments

>2 mm
pretreatment

Oversize
requirements

0.252 mm

Effective soil washing

0.0630.25 mm

Limited soil washing

<0.063 mm

Clay and silt fraction,


difficult soil washing

<1" soil

>1"
stones

soil
fines

soil
fines

clean
sand

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

195

Soil Washing and Immobilization

POLYMER

CONTAMINATED
SOIL

Centrifuges
Slurry

Water

Sludge basin

Oversized
material
RETURNED TO SITE

Air

Surfactant

Filter press

Concentrator
Sludge

Clean sand
Froth flotation cells

TO DISPOSAL

Soil Washing

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

196

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Soil Washing

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

197

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Wastewater treatment and recycle


Vapors collect and treat
Oversize soils return to site
Fines further treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

198

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Soils, sludges, and sediments


Lead, cadmium, and similar
heavy metals
Limits mobility (leachability)

Increases waste volume


Not for organics
Nondestructive

Physical
Chemical
Thermal
Biological

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

199

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Solidification
Sludges and sediments
Clays, vermiculite, and saw dust

Stabilization
Cement technologies
Phosphate technologies
Matrix formation

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

200

Soil Washing and Immobilization

New Hampshire Plating Company

Chemical binding of soluble metals to soil

New Hampshire Plating Company

Portec Pugmill

New Hampshire Plating Company

Reagent blending

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

201

Soil Washing and Immobilization

New Hampshire Plating Company

Loading of treated soil

New Hampshire Plating Company

Blending using a backhoe

Mouat Industries
Columbus, Montana

Chemical reduction of hexavalent chrome (Cr+6)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

202

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Mouat Industries
Columbus, Montana

Traub Battery

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Traub Battery

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Pug mill used to blend

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

203

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Vitrification
Primarily radioactive waste
Electrical resistance or
combustion heating

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

204

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Contains as well as immobilizes


Treats large volume, such as
mine tailings

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

205

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Mine Tailings Leadville, Colorado

Biosolids to be mixed with tailings

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

206

Soil Washing and Immobilization

Stabilized Tailings

Advantages
Treats metals in soils, sludges,
and sediments
Can be used for radioactive and
mixed wastes
Treats large volume mine tailings

Disadvantages
Increases waste volume
Not suitable for treating organics
Requires secondary containment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

207

208

THERMAL TREATMENT

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. List the applications, limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of
thermal treatment.
2. Describe the design and working mechanisms of rotary kiln
incinerators.
3. Describe four combustion factors which are needed for an incinerator to properly operate.
4. Describe the design and working mechanisms of thermal desorption
systems.
5. Describe the design and working mechanisms of thermal and
catalytic oxidizers.

209

210

Thermal Treatment

Treat organic contaminated soils,


sediments, and sludges
Incineration destroys contaminants
Desorption removes contaminants

Does not treat inorganics


Moisture content
BTU content

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

211

Thermal Treatment

Contaminant is destroyed
Established technology
Volume reduction
Best demonstrated available technology

Can be costly
Possible air pollution problems
Public disapproval

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

212

Thermal Treatment

Primary Combustion
Chamber in presence of
oxygen at 800 to 1400 EF
(20 min)

Secondary Combustion
Chamber temp. at
1800 to 2400 EF
(seconds)

Stack
Caustic
soluciton
scrubber

Quencher
cools with
water to
400EF
Ash
Collection

Ash
Collection

Induced
Draft
Fan

Time
Temperature
Turbulence
Oxygen

Waste with greater than 5,000 Btu/lb


Moisture or aqueous wastes
Inorganics that are more than 5% alkali metals
Halogens
Volatile met

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

213

Thermal Treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

214

Thermal Treatment

Volatilizes contaminants
Condenses and/or treats vapors
Clean soil returned to the site

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

215

Thermal Treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

216

Thermal Treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

217

Thermal Treatment

Less expensive than incineration


Broad application
Public acceptance
Recycling potential

Further waste treatment may be needed


Limited soil pH range
Limited moisture content

Thermal oxidizers
Catalytic oxidizers

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

218

Thermal Treatment

Air Inlet
Flue Gas Outlet
Forced Draft Fan

Heat
Exchanger

Flue Gas Inlet

Combustion Area

Air

Flue Gas
Flow

Flue Gas
Flow

Burner

Air
Flue Gas

Air

Flue Gas
Flow

Air
Flue Gas

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

219

Thermal Treatment

Catalyst
Beds

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

220

PHYTOREMEDIATION

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. Define phytoremediation.
2. Describe the working mechanisms of phytoremediation systems.
3. State the advantages and disadvantages of phytoremediation
4. List the conditions under which this technology would be beneficial.

221

222

Phytoremediation

Define phytoremediation
List six phytotechnologies
List the advantages and
disadvantages of
phytoremediation technologies
Review phytoremediation
decision trees

A set of technologies that use plants for

remediating soils, sludges, sediments and


water contaminated with organic and
inorganic chemicals.

What is Phytoremediation? United Nations Environment Programme,


www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/freshwater/fms2/1.asp
Phytotechnology Technical and Regulatory Guidance and Decision Trees.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Feb. 2009, Washington, DC

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

223

Phytoremediation

Treatable organic contaminants include:


petroleum hydrocarbons
crude oil
chlorinated compounds
pesticides
explosive compounds

Treatable inorganic contaminants include:


salts
metals
radioactive materials

Phytoremediation can also be defined as the


efficient use of plants to remove, detoxify or
immobilize environmental contaminants.

Phytoremediation utilizes plants natural


activities and processes, a.k.a. phytotechnologies to meet environmental
remediation goals.

Phytotechnologies

include containment in
addition to treatment or removal strategies.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

224

Phytoremediation

Mechanism

Description

Clean up goals

Phytosequestation

Plant ability to reduce the


mobility of a contaminant
Phytochemicals extruded
through roots enhance
microbial biodegradation
Plant affect on local hydrology

Containment (sequesters)

Rhizodegradation
Phytohydraulics
Phytoextraction
Phytodegradation
Phytovolatilization

Remediation by
destruction (degrades)

Containment by
controlling hydrology
(sequesters)
Uptake contaminants into the Remediation by removal
plant
of plants (extracts)
Uptake and break down
Remediation by
contaminants within the plant destruction (degrades)
Uptake, translocation, and
Remediation by removal
transpire volatile contaminants. through plants (extracts)

Riparian buffers are vegetated areas that protect


adjacent water resources from NPS pollution.

These buffers can provide bank stabilization


and habitat for aquatic and other wildlife.
Agricultural or
Urban Area

Groundwater
Seep Zone

High and Low


Water Table
Fluctuations

Infiltration
and Settling
Zone

Seasonal
Floodplain

Water
Body

Considered a green technology and


sustainable

Solar-powered
Minimal air emissions, water discharge,

and secondary waste generation

Applicable for remote locations

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

225

Phytoremediation

Favorable public perception


Improved aesthetics
Can be used to supplement other

remediation approaches or as a
polishing step

Major limitations are depth, area, and time


Depth and area depend on the plant
species that is suitable to the site (i.e., root
penetration) as well as the site layout and
soil characteristics
Time constraints: phytotechnologies
generally take longer than other
alternatives and are susceptible to seasonal
and daily variations

RHIZOSPHERE
PLUME

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

226

Phytoremediation

Photosynthesis is the process in which plants


use carbon dioxide to convert light energy
into chemical energy.

Plants:

uptake water and inorganic dissolved nutrients


through the root systems
exude oxygen into the atmosphere
exude a source of carbon and oxygen into the
soil, greatly enhancing the growth of bacteria
and fungi in the immediate vicinity surrounding
the roots

Typically
13 mm
Surrounding
Roots

O2

Rhizosphere
Root or
Root Fragment

O2

Soil Microbes

O2

E = Exudates
(Nutrients)

O2

E
H2 O

H2O

O2

E
O2

O2

H2O

Photosynthesis:
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + light energy yields phytochemicals
(including carbohydrate) + 6 O2
Respiration:
Phytochemical (stored chemical energy) + O2 yields
carbohydrates + metabolic energy + CO2
Growth and metabolism:
Metabolic energy + cell biomass yields biomass
production and metabolism
End result: up to 20% of carbon produced by plant
goes into rhizosphere

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

227

Phytoremediation

There are many factors to consider

when evaluating phytoremediation as


a potential site remedy.

ITRC developed Remedy Selection


Decision Trees to aid with the
evaluation process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

228

229

230

231

Phytoremediation

Design depends on site specific


conditions such as:
Climate
Depth and concentration of
the contaminant
Commercial availability of plants
Soil conditions (nutrient content salinity)
Site end use

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

232

Phytoremediation

Design cost depends on site specific


issues such as:
Earthwork and labor
Plant and planting costs
Soil amendments
Permits
Site control (fencing or security)

O&M and Monitoring can last many years


O&M issues may include:
Irrigation
Fertilization
Weed control
Pest control
Replanting

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

233

Phytoremediation

Monitoring includes sampling plant


material, and using a conventional
remediation monitoring approach
such as soil- or groundwater-sample
collection and analysis.
Sampling is also conducted to

determine if the plant or fruit is safe


for consumption.

Introduction of non-native plants


Integration into long-term
landscaping use
and aesthetic landscaping
Native plants or plants grown
from seed

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

234

PROCESS TESTING

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. List and describe four reasons for performing process testing.
2. List and describe four phases of process testing.
3. Define grab and composite sampling as it applies to process testing.

235

236

Process Testing

Verify clean-up goals


Ensure proper operation of unit
Ensure ARARs are being met
Ensure that public and environment
are not being adversely impacted

Startup
Shakedown
Performance Testing
Production Testing

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

237

Process Testing

Initial operation on clean material


Prevent uncontrolled release
Evaluate mechanical system
Evaluate controls/alarm system

Unit run at expected operating conditions


Test computer logic, alarms, monitoring
equipment and auto shutoffs
Calibrate sensors and monitors
Run unit for 23 of 24 hours to test
mechanical soundness

Similar to startup, but using


contaminated material
System optimization
Operating parameters checked against
remediation results
Identify matrix specific problems

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

238

Process Testing

Intensive testing and sampling program


Meet cleanup goals
Compliance with ARARs
Protecting public health
Establish operating parameters
Proof of performance (trial burn)

Strategy

GRAB
SAMPLES

WIND

COMPOSITE
SAMPLE

TREATING
SAMPLE

TREATED
PILE
COMPOSITE
SAMPLE

SAMPLE
JAR

GRAB
SAMPLES

WASTE
PILE

Media
Feed streams
Reagent streams
Treated materials
Waste streams

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

239

Process Testing

Emissions
Stack

Fugitive

Strategy
Grab

Continuous

Ambient Air
Workzone
Fenceline

Performed on regular basis


throughout production
Ensures that treated material meets
clean-up goals
Usually done as a composite on a per
volume basis (i.e. a composite sample
each 500 cubic yard pile)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

240

Process Testing

Performance test Low-temperature


Thermal Desorber
Agricultural supply and distribution center
Disposed of 5,000-10,000 pounds of DDT,
DDE and chlordane in trenches

Performance test Low-temperature


Thermal Desorber
Agricultural supply and distribution
center
Disposed of 5,000-10,000 pounds of DDT,
DDE and chlordane in trenches

Conduct preliminary test


Perform ambient air sampling
Conduct meteorological monitoring
Provide continuous emission monitoring
Collect stack gas emission samples for
particulate, HCl, Cl, VOCs, SVOCs,
PCDD/PCDF analyses
Collect pre- and post-treatment soil
samples for analysis

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

241

Process Testing

Excavated from beneath concrete slabs


and screened to remove debris
Staged in warehouse

Six Matrix Constituent Separators


(MCS)
Three condensers
Three carbon adsorption units
Three monitoring sheds
An emission stack

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

242

Process Testing

MCS Unit
Closed

MCS Unit
Open

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

243

Process Testing

Monitoring
Shed

Emission
Stack

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

244

Process Testing

Scaffold by the emission


stack inside exclusion zone
Trailers for continuous
emissions monitoring
(CEM) and sample
recovery outside of
exclusion zone
Ambient air
sampling stations
Meteorological
sampling station

One sample collected from each of 12 trays and


composited into one sample for analysis

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

245

Process Testing

Stack emission test

Stack emission test

Stack emission test

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

246

Process Testing

Impingers

Sample recovery
from media

Failed CO due to continued high


emissions
Two options offered

Single stack test without considering CO


If result passes standard, full scale test
performed later after installation of
oxidizer or other equivalent system

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

247

Process Testing

Full scale stack emission test can be


performed without considering CO
If result passes standard, a CO treatment
unit and a CO monitor to ensure the
emission of CO is below the emission
limit established in the work plan would
be installed
U.S. EPA would then return, testing only
for CO

Option 2 was chosen

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

248

TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

Student Performance Objectives


Upon completion of this module you will be able to:
1. State the application, limitations, working mechanisms, advantages and disadvantages of selecting presumptive remedies.
2. State the application, limitations, working mechanisms, advantages and disadvantages of selecting potential remedies.
3. State the application, limitations, working mechanisms, advantages and disadvantages of treatability studies.
4. State the application, limitations, working mechanisms, advantages and disadvantages of technology searches.

249

250

Technology Selection

Presumptive remedies
Potential remedies
Treatability studies
Technology searches

Wood treatment sites


Municipal landfills
Ex-situ groundwater treatment
Volatile organic compounds in soil

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

251

Technology Selection

Pentachlorophenol, creosote, and/or


chromated copper arsenate
Biological treatment, incineration,
and/or immobilization

Containment
Landfill
Groundwater control
Leachate collection and treatment
Gas collection and treatment

LNAPL recovery
Air stripping, carbon adsorption,
chemical precipitation, ion
exchange

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

252

Technology Selection

Soil vapor extraction


Low temperature desorption
Incineration

For organics and inorganics


For water and soil/sludges

Volatile organics
Semivolatile to non-volatile
organics
Pesticides

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

253

Technology Selection

Aqueous
Air stripping, air sparging, bioslurping, or in
situ biological treatment

Soils and sludges


Soils vapor extraction, soils heating, or
bioventing
Thermal treatment or in situ biological
treatment

Aqueous
Carbon adsorption, UV oxidation, chemical or
electron beam destruction, and in situ
biological treatment

Soils and sludges


Soils flushing, soil washing, chemical extraction
Thermal treatment, ex-situ biological treatment

Aqueous
UV oxidation, thermal, carbon
adsorption, or biological treatment
Dehalogenation

Soils and sludges


Thermal treatment, biological
treatment, or dehalogenation
Chemical extraction

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

254

Technology Selection

Aqueous
Chemical treatment, ion exchange, or
membrane separation

Soils and sludges


Immobilization, soil washing,
chemical or biological extraction
Dewatering

Screening and remedy selection


studies
Pilot and full scale studies

Used when several remedies may


work
Help identify which remedies, if any,
meet site clean-up goals
Help identify the need for the use
of multiple remedies

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

255

Technology Selection

Used to verify that selected


remedies will actually meet cleanup goals
Help determine design
specifications and operating
parameters

Literature searches
Internet searches

Presumptive remedies for


CERCLA sites
Engineering bulletins for
potential remedies
Treatability studies under CERCLA

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

256

Technology Selection

www.clu-in.org
www.epareachit.org
www.frtr.gov
www.gwrtac.org

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

257

258

Home Page

You may access the information in this document in one of five ways:

259

Previous Section

Top Page

Screen Matrix

Table of Contents

Synonym List

Next Section

Table of Contents

PREFACE
z
z
z
z

Notice
Foreword
Report Documentation Page
Acknowledgment

1 INTRODUCTION

z
z
z
z
z
z

1.1 Objectives
1.2 Background
1.3 How To Use This Document
1.4 Requirements To Consider Technology's Impact on Natural Resources
1.5 Cautionary Notes
1.6 On Line Survey

2 CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES

z
z

2.1 Presumptive Remedies


2.2 Data Requirements
{ 2.2.1 Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
{ 2.2.2 Data Requirements for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.2.3 Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases
2.3 Nonhalogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
{ 2.3.1 Properties and Behavior of Nonhalogenated VOCs
{ 2.3.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated VOCs in Soil,
Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
{ 2.3.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated VOCs in Ground
Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.3.4 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated VOCs in Air
Emissions/Off-Gases
{ 2.3.5 Common Treatment Train for Nonhalogenated VOCs
2.4 Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
{ 2.4.1 Properties and Behavior of Halogenated VOCs
{ 2.4.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Soil,

260

Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge


2.4.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Ground
Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.4.4 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Air
Emissions/Off-Gases
{ 2.4.5 Common Treatment Train for Halogenated VOCs
2.5 Nonhalogenated Semivolatile Organic Compounds
{ 2.5.1 Properties and Behavior of Nonhalogenated SVOCs
{ 2.5.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated SVOCs in Soil,
Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
{ 2.5.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated SVOCs in Ground
Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.5.4 Common Treatment Train for Nonhalogenated SVOCs
2.6 Halogenated Semivolatile Organic Compounds
{ 2.6.1 Properties and Behavior of Halogenated SVOCs
{ 2.6.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated SVOCs in Soil,
Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
{ 2.6.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated SVOCs in Ground
Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.6.4 Common Treatment Train for Halogenated SVOCs
2.7 Fuels
{ 2.7.1 Properties and Behavior of Fuels
{ 2.7.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Soil, Sediment, Bedrock
and Sludge
{ 2.7.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Ground Water, Surface
Water, and Leachate
{ 2.7.4 Common Treatment Train for Fuels
2.8 Inorganics
{ 2.8.1 Properties and Behavior of Inorganics
{ 2.8.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Soil, Sediment,
Bedrock and Sludge
{ 2.8.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Ground Water,
Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.8.4 Common Treatment Train for Inorganics
2.9 Radionuclides
{ 2.9.1 Properties and Behavior of Radionuclides
{ 2.9.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Radionuclides in Soil, Sediment,
Bedrock and Sludge
{ 2.9.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Radionuclides in Ground Water,
Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.9.4 Common Treatment Train for Radionuclides
2.10 Explosives
{ 2.10.1 Properties and Behavior of Explosives
{ 2.10.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Soil, Sediment,
Bedrock and Sludge
{ 2.10.2.1 Biological Treatment Technologies for Explosives
{ 2.10.2.2 Thermal Treatment Technologies for Explosives
{ 2.10.2.3 Other Treatment Technologies for Explosives
{ 2.10.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Ground Water,
Surface Water, and Leachate
{ 2.10.4 Common Treatment Train for Explosives
{

3 TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES

z
z
z
z

3.1 In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.3 In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge

261

z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z

3.5 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.6 Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.7 Containment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.8 Other Treatment Technologies for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.9 In Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
3.10 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and
Leachate
3.11 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
3.12 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and
Leachate
3.13 Containment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
3.14 Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment

4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES


Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge Treatment Technologies
In Situ Biological Treatment
z
z
z

4.1 Bioventing
4.2 Enhanced Bioremediation
4.3 Phytoremediation

In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment


z
z
z
z
z
z

4.4 Chemical Oxidation


4.5 Electrokinetic Separation
4.6 Fracturing
4.7 Soil Flushing
4.8 Soil Vapor Extraction
4.9 Solidification/Stabilization

In Situ Thermal Treatment


z

4.10 Thermal Treatment

Ex Situ Biological Treatment


z
z
z
z

4.11 Biopiles
4.12 Composting
4.13 Landfarming
4.14 Slurry Phase Biological Treatment

Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (Assuming Excavation)


z
z
z
z
z
z

4.15 Chemical Extraction


4.16 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation
4.17 Dehalogenation
4.18 Separation
4.19 Soil Washing
4.20 Solidification/Stabilization

Ex Situ Thermal Treatment (assuming excavation)


z
z
z

4.21 Hot Gas Decontamination


4.22 Incineration
4.23 Open Burn/Open Detonation

262

z
z
z
z

4.24 Pyrolysis
4.25 Thermal Desorption
4.26 Landfill Cap
4.27 Landfill Cap Enhancements/Alternatives

Other Treatment
z

4.28 Excavation, Retrieval, and Off-Site

Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate Treatment Technologies


In Situ Biological Treatment
z
z
z

4.29 Enhanced Bioremediation


4.30 Monitored Natural Attenuation
4.31 Phytoremediation

In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment


z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z

4.32 Air Sparging


4.33 Bioslurping
4.34 Chemical Oxidation
4.35 Directional Wells
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction
4.37 Thermal Treatment
4.38 Hydrofracturing Enhancements
4.39 In-Well Air Stripping
4.40 Passive/Reactive Treatment Walls

Ex Situ Biological Treatment


z
z

4.41 Bioreactors
4.42 Constructed Wetlands

Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming pumping)


z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z

4.43 Adsorption/Absorption
4.44 Advanced Oxidation Processes
4.45 Air Stripping
4.46 Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC)/Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
4.47 Ground Water Pumping/Pump and Treat
4.48 Ion Exchange
4.49 Precipitation/Coagulation/Flocculation
4.50 Separation
4.51 Sprinkler Irrigation

Containment
z
z

4.52 Physical Barriers


4.53 Deep Well Injection

Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment


z

4.54 Biofiltration

263

z
z
z
z
z

4.55 High Energy Destruction


4.56 Membrane Separation
4.57 Oxidation
4.58 Scrubbers
4.59 Vapor Phase Carbon Adsorption

5 REFERENCES
z
z
z

5.1 Document Sources


5.2 Reference Document Listing by Author
5.3 Reference Web Site Listing

APPENDICES
z

APPENDIX A: EPA Remediation and Characterization Innovative Technologies (EPA


REACH IT)
APPENDIX B: DOE Site Remediation Technologies by
Waste Containment Matrix and Completed Site
Demonstration Program Projects as of October 1996
APPENDIX C: Federal Data Bases and Additional
Information Sources
APPENDIX D: Factors Affecting Treatment Cost and
Performance

APPENDIX E: Description of Source Documents

APPENDIX F: List of Synonyms

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

PENTACHLOROPHENOL
RELEASE EXERCISE

Student Performance Objectives


1. Using problem solving skills, determine a method(s) to prevent
further release of the contaminants and remediate the site.
Time Limit: 1 hour
Student Materials Needed: Student workbook
Calculator
Pencil and pen

285

Pentachlorophenol Release Exercise

SITUATION
On June 18, 1979, a Missouri
Department of Conservation agent
responded to a major fish kill at a
0.7 acre farm pond located near
Houston, Missouri. (See Figure 1,
Location Map.) The agent
observed a petroleum product
covering the farm pond which most
likely caused the fish kill. The
most probable source of the
petroleum release was the Cairo
Treating Plant of Houston
Chemical Company (Cairo
Treating) located across U.S.
Highway 63 and up gradient from
the farm pond.

HOUSTON, MISSOURI
PCP RELEASE

Jefferson
City

Springfield

St. Louis

Houston
Van Buren

Figure 1: Location Map


An initial investigation showed the
petroleum product release occurred
4 days prior to discovery of the fish
kill. The unreported incident resulted from the failure of a 20,000-gallon above ground
storage tank located on the Cairo Treating property. (For more detailed site and operation
description see Detail Box 1.) Approximately 15,000-gallons of a pentachlorophenol (PCP)
and petroleum solution released when the undiked above ground storage tank collapsed
shearing a bottom valve. The product, a 5% PCP and 95% petroleum mix, flowed into a
shallow holding pit adjacent to an on-site building. (See Figure 2, Site Map.) The pit
overflowed into a storm water drainage ditch which flows into a small catch basin across
U.S. Highway 63 from Cairo Treating. The released product then flowed into the farm pond
causing the fish kill. PCP contains dioxins and furans and is very toxic to human health and the
environment.

DETAIL BOX 1
SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONAL DETAILS
The Cairo Treating Plant blends PCP with petroleum which is then sold in bulk to
wood treatment facilities. Because PCP is toxic to micro organisms that attach to
wood fibers and other insects that may attach to wood products (such as termites),
the PCP acts as a preservative. Cairo Treating purchased bulk PCP in a powder
form and blended the PCP with petroleum. This solution, 5% PCP and 95%
petroleum, is pressurized into the wood; however, wood treating was not done at
the Cairo Treating facility. The Cairo Treating Plant consisted of a small building
used for the blending operation, two above ground storage tanks (a 20,000-gallon
and a 15,000-gallon), a small storm water holding pond, and a potable water well.
(See Figure 2, Site Map.) After the release, the on-site well was found to be
fouled with the PCP/petroleum blend.

PAGE 2

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3) 286

Pentachlorophenol Release Exercise

At the time of the initial investigation, no product flowed beyond the farm pond; however,
the spillway from the pond empties into Hog Creek. Hog Creek is a tributary of the Big
Piney River, a source of drinking water for several area towns. Because there was very little
freeboard on the pond and a threat of heavy rain, representatives from the federal
government (including the EPA, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Food and Drug Administration) and Missouri State agencies (including the Departments of
Health, Conservation, Natural Resources, and Highways) arrived on-site the following day
to determine an immediate course of action and remediation plans.

GROUP TASKS
The class will be divided into small groups, and each group will be required to complete the
following tasks. The findings of the tasks will be discussed as a class at the end of this
exercise.
1. Because of the possibility of a significant rainstorm, develop a short term plan for
controlling a possible release from the pond into Hog Creek.
2. Using the site data and conversion factors found in Table 1, determine the following:

Gallons of water in the farm pond

Given that 1/2 inch of product (PCP and petroleum) was floating on the pond,
calculate gallons of product on the farm surface

Calculate the percentage of the total 15,000 gallon release that collected on the pond
surface

Calculate the total grams of dissolved PCP in the pond water

Allowing a treated water discharge of 10 parts per billion, calculate the total number
of pounds of activated carbon needed to remove PCP from the pond water

3. Address other areas of concern resulting from the PCP release.

HOUSTON MISSOURI PCP RELEASE


TABLE 1
Farm pond dimensions: approximately 250 feet long, 122 feet wide, and an
average depth of 6.5 feet. Water temperature 68 F

Solubility of PCP in water at 68 F equals 14 mg/liter


Absorption capacity of selected carbon: 40 mg PCP/gram of carbon
Specific gravity of PCP: 1.98 gm/cubic centimeter
1 gallon = 3.77 liters
1 gallon = 0.1337 cubic feet
1 liter = 1.06 quarts
1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

PAGE 3
287

288

PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS


EXERCISE

Student Performance Objectives


1. Discuss the data collected from a permeable reactive barrier
treatability study.
2. Calculate the necessary design parameters for a permeable
reactive barrier.

289

290

PRBs Exercise

This exercise will show the processes and


calculations involved in determining:
Permeable reactive barrier (PRB) thickness
In-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO)
dosing requirements

W = v tr
Where:

W = PRB thickness (in feet)


tr = residence time (in hours or day)
v = groundwater velocity
(in feet/day)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

291

PRBs Exercise

Initial contaminant concentration (Co)


Target clean-up goal (Ceff)
Time of maximum concentration (tp)
Contaminant half life (t)
Number of half-lives (N)
Decay time (td)
Total residence time (tr)
Groundwater velocity (v)

For an effective PRB design, bench scale


treatability studies provide critical
information:

Batch tests are useful for reactive


material selection
Column tests determine contaminant
half-life (t)

2.5 to 4
cm

discharge
sand
reactive
material

flow

10 to 100 cm

sand
input

pump

sample
ports

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

292

PRBs Exercise

Column test results show TCE


concentrations at certain residence times
Graph column TCE concentrations versus
residence times to determine whether the
graph shows a first-order kinetic decay

Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0

Concentration (ppb)*
2633
1500
650
283
150
83
17

* ppb = parts per billion

tp = 0 hr
C0 = 2633
ppb

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

293

PRBs Exercise

Time of maximum TCE concentration (tp)*


and maximum concentration (Co) can be
read directly from the graph.
TCE tp = 0 hours
TCE Co = 2633 ppb
* Time of maximum concentration (tp) is that point in time
when the contaminant concentration within the PRB is at
its greatest.

Contaminant half-life (t) is the amount


of reaction time (in hours) needed for
the reactant material to reduce the
contaminant concentration in half.

t = -0.6931 / k
Where:
t = Half-life of contaminant (a time value)
-0.6931 = First order rate constant decay [ln ()]
k = First order constant obtained from
graphing results of a column test

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

294

PRBs Exercise

To obtain the first order rate constant (k),


graph the natural log of the column
concentration at a given time divided by the
initial concentration versus residence time
ln (C/Co)
then, calculate the slope of the line.
With C = concentration at given time
and Co = initial concentration

Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0

ln (C/Co)*
0
-0.5626
-1.3989
-2.2304
-2.8652
-3.4570
-5.0426

*Natural log (ln) Concentration/effluent


concentration (rate constant equation)

0.5

1.5

2.5

TCE Concentration ln(C/C o)

k = slope
-1

-2.9
(-4.4) (-1.5)
=
3-1
2

-1.5
-2

k = -1.45

-3

-4

-4.4
-5

Time (hr )

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

295

PRBs Exercise

First order rate constant (k) for

TCE as calculated from the


graph is:
k = -1.45

t = -0.6931 / k
t = -0.6931 / -1.45
TCE t = 0.478 hours
Where:

t = Time (in hours)


-0.6931 = First order rate constant decay [ln ()]
k = -1.45

Number of half-lives (N) is the number of


times the concentration must be reduced
by half to reach the target clean-up goal.
The number of half-lives value is
dimensionless.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

296

PRBs Exercise

To calculate the number of half-lives


needed (N) the:
Target clean-up goal concentration
[effluent concentration (Ceff)] must be
determined and
Initial or maximum contaminant
concentration (Co) must be known
Use the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 ppb
for TCE effluent concentration (Ceff = 5 ppb).

Formula to calculate the number of half-lives


(N) is:
N = ln (Ceff /Co) / ln
Where:
Ceff = concentration of desired effluent
Co = concentration of influent
ln = rate constant decay

N = ln (Ceff /Co) / ln
N = ln (5 ppb / 2633 ppb) / ln
N = -6.266 / -0.6931
TCE N = 9.04 (a unit less number)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

297

PRBs Exercise

Decay time (td) is the time in hours


needed for the PRB reactant material
to reduce the contaminant to the
desired target clean-up goal.

Decay time (td) is the number of half-

lives (N) needed, times the half-life (t):


td = N t

Decay time equals the number of

half-lives (N) times the half-life (t):


td = N t
using:

N = 9.04
t = 0.478 hours

td = (9.04)(0.478 hours) = 4.32 hrs

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

298

PRBs Exercise

Residence time (tr) equals the time of


maximum concentration (tp) plus the
decay time (td).
tr = tp + td

Residence time tr = tp + td
Using:

tp = 0 hours (from 1st graph)


td = 4.32 hours

tr = 0 hrs + 4.32 hrs = 4.32 hrs

The PRB thickness (W) must be designed to


treat all contaminants.
Therefore, the residence time for each

contaminant must be calculated and the


PRB thickness will be determined using the
greatest residence time.

Because the reduction of TCE produces 1,2


dichloroethene (DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC),
the residence time for each must calculated.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

299

PRBs Exercise

TCE
(Initial Concentration 2650 g/L)

DCE

VC

The following slides include the graphs and


calculations to determine the residence time
for 1,2 dichloroethene (DCE) and vinyl
chloride (VC).

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

300

PRBs Exercise

Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5

Concentration (ppb)*
15
30
100
140
172
195
200
185
150
120

* ppb = parts per billion

tp = 2.75 hr
C0 = 200 ppb

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

301

PRBs Exercise

Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5

ln (C/Co)*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.0779
-0.2876
-0.5108

* Natural log (ln) x Concentration/effluent concentration (Rate constant equation)

2.5

3.5

4.5

DCE Concentration ln(C/C o)

-0.25

k=

-0.475 (0)
0 1.5

k=

-0.475
1.5

k = -0.3167
-0.5

-0.475

-0.75

Time ( hr )

t = -0.6931 / k
k for DCE = -0.316
t = -0.6931 / -0.316
DCE t = 2.18 hours

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

302

PRBs Exercise

Using DCE Ceff = 5 ppb, and


DCE Co = 200 ppb, then:
N
N
N
DCE N

= ln (Ceff /Co) / ln
= ln (5 ppb/200 ppb) / ln
= -3.688 / -0.6931
= 5.32 (a unit less number)

Decay time (td) for DCE, using:


N = 5.32
t = 2.18 hours
td = (5.32)(2.18 hours) = 11.59 hrs

Residence time (tr) for DCE, using:


tp = 2.75 hours (from 1st graph)
td = 11.59 hours
tr = 2.75 hrs + 11.59 hrs = 14.34 hrs

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

303

PRBs Exercise

Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5

Concentration (ppb)*
0
10
55
97.5
142.5
160
155
125
120
115

* ppb = parts per billion

Tp = 2.5 hr
C0 = 160 ppb

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

304

PRBs Exercise

Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5

ln (C/Co)*
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.0317
-0.2468
-0.2876
-0.3302

* Natural log (ln) x Concentration/effluent concentration (Rate constant equation)

2.5

3.5

4.5

VC Concentration ln(C/C o)

k=

-0.33 (0)
4.5 2.5

-0.25

-0.33
-0.5

Time ( hr )

t = -0.6931 / k
k for VC = -0.16
t = -0.6931 / -0.16
VC t = 4.33 hours

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

305

PRBs Exercise

Using

VC Ceff = 2 ppb, and


VC Co = 160 ppb, then:
N
N
N
VC N

= ln (Ceff / Co) / ln
= ln (2 ppb / 160 ppb) / ln
= -4.38 / -0.6931
= 6.32 (a unit less number)

Decay time (td) for VC, using:


N = 6.32
t = 4.33 hours
td = (6.32)(4.33 hours) = 27.36 hrs

The residence time (tr) for VC, using:


tp = 2.5 hours (from 1st graph)
td = 27.36 hours
tr = 2.5 hrs + 27.36 hrs = 29.86 hrs

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

306

PRBs Exercise

The residence time (tr) for TCE, DCE and VC


are:
TCE tr = 4.34 hrs
DCE tr = 14.34 hrs
VC tr = 29.86 hrs
Therefore, the PRB thickness (W) will be
calculated using the VC residence time of
29.86 hrs.

The PRB thickness calculation is:


W = tr groundwater velocity (v)
Where: W = PRB thickness
tr = longest residence time
v = groundwater velocity

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

307

PRBs Exercise

Groundwater velocity is the rate of movement of


the groundwater and is expressed as:
v
Where:

ft/ft

= KI / n

v = groundwater velocity in ft/day


K = aquifer hydraulic conductivity in ft/day
I = groundwater gradient, expressed in
n = effective porosity, expressed in %

Groundwater aquifer parameters used to

calculate groundwater velocity (v), such as


hydraulic conductivity (K) and effective porosity
(n), are collected during the site assessment.

Groundwater gradient (I) can be calculated from


site groundwater elevation maps; however, the
groundwater gradient can change seasonally.

Aquifer hydraulic conductivity and effective


porosity are constant.

Groundwater velocity using the following


parameters is:
v = KI / n
v = (10 ft/day)(5 ft/100ft) / 0.25
v = 2 ft/day
Where:

K = 10 ft/day
I = 5 feet rise / 100-foot run (5 ft/100ft)
n = 25% (0.25)

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

308

PRBs Exercise

Calculate the PRB thickness using:


W = (tr)(v)
Where: VC tr = 29.86 hours
v = 2 ft/day
W = (29.86 hrs)(2 ft/day)(1day/24hrs)
W = 2.45 feet

Groundwater gradient may change


seasonally, which will effect the
groundwater velocity
The PRB thickness calculation must
account for that possible change

Recalculate the PRB thickness using a


change in the groundwater gradient of:
Gradient (I) = 10 ft / 100 ft

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

309

PRBs Exercise

Groundwater velocity (v) = KI / n


Where:

K = 10 ft/day
n = 0.25
I = 10 ft/ 100 ft

v = 4 ft/day
PRB thickness (W) = (Tr)(v)
W = (29.86 hrs)(4 ft/day)(1day/24hrs)

W = 4.9 feet

Change in the groundwater gradient


had a major effect on the PRB thickness
W (with I = 5 ft/100 ft) = 2.4 feet
W (with I = 10 ft/100 ft) = 4.9 feet

Important points for PRB design:


Half-lives are contaminant- and
reactant-specific
All contaminants and by-products must
be recognized and considered in the
design
PRB design must account for possible
groundwater fluctuations

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

310

TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESIGN EXERCISE

Student Performance Objectives


1. As a group, design a treatment system using one or more treatment
options that will meet the allowable discharge requirements.
Time Limit: 2 hours
Student Materials Needed: Student workbook
Calculator
Pencil and pen

311

Treatment System Design Exercise

INTRODUCTION

BRANDON, FLORIDA
SYDNEY MINES SLUDGE PONDS

The Sydney Mines Sludge Ponds


(Sydney Mines) Superfund site is a
former municipal liquid waste
Tallahassee
disposal facility located in
Brandon, Hillsborough county,
Florida. Brandon is located
approximately 12 miles east of
Orlando
Tampa. (See Figure 1, Location
Map.) In 1973, the Hillsborough
Tampa
County Division of Public Utilities
St. Petersburg
Brandon
leased a portion of the abandoned
phosphate strip mine and
constructed two small ponds for the
disposal of septic waste and oil and
grease wastes. From 1973 to 1982,
Miami
when disposal was ceased,
approximately 16 million gallons
Figure 1: Location Map
of liquid waste were disposed in
the ponds. As a result of the
disposal activities, volatile organic
compounds and other contaminants
have been detected in the shallow groundwater aquifer. In the immediate area of Sydney
Mines, groundwater aquifers are the principle source of potable water. Because of the
ground water contamination, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER)
and the county initiated closure and remediation activities at Sydney Mines. In 1986, the
site was proposed for listing on the National Priority List (NPL), and in 1989 it became
listed as a Superfund site. Remedial activities are continuing to date.

SITE HISTORY
Prior to the site being used as a permitted waste disposal facility, Sydney Mines was a
1,700 acre open pit mine. The mine was operated by the American Cyanamid Co., and the
main product was phosphate ore. In 1973, Hillsborough County constructed a 0.6 acre pond
on an approximate 10 acre parcel which they leased from the owner. This pond accepted
septic waste, grease trappings from commercial restaurants, waste automotive oil, industrial
cutting oils, and other types of liquid wastes. In 1978, plans to expand other portions of the
Sydney Mines site to accept solid waste were rejected by the county. However, in 1979, the
FDER granted a construction permit for the waste disposal activities, and a second larger
pond (1.5 acres) was constructed. (See Figure 2, Site Map.) The second pond was used to
contain and separate the septic waste, therefore, separating the septic waste from the other
waste. In 1980, FDER granted an operating permit. Each pond was constructed in a
reclaimed area of the former phosphate mine. For more detailed information on the
reclaimed area and former mining operations. (See Detail Box 1.)

PAGE 2

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

312

Treatment System Design Exercise

Not to Scale

Figure 2: Site Map


In 1979, with the issuance of the operating permit, the FDER and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) listed Sydney Mines on their list of potential hazardous waste sites in the
State of Florida. Because of the listing, the EPA monitored the site which included the
collection and analysis of surface water and groundwater samples as well as sediment
sample from a nearby surface stream. Detectable levels of organic compounds and above
background levels of metals were discovered in the groundwater in the area of the disposal
ponds. In 1981, the EPA further investigated and evaluated the site as a result of local
citizens inquiries regarding the potential impact to the local environmental and human
health. In September 1981, FDER denied the issuance of a second operation permit.

DETAIL BOX 1
FORMER MINING OPERATING SITE DESCRIPTION
The Sydney Mines operated during the 1930s and 1950s. During each period,
phosphate rich ore was excavated and the phosphate separated from the rock.
The waste products from this operation included phosphatic clay, called slimes,
and sand mine tailings. In order to contain the clay slimes, settling ponds were
created using the sand tailings to construct dikes. These settling ponds were built
in areas that had been mined; however, the bottom of the ponds consisted of an
undisturbed natural clay strata. Therefore, when filled, the clay slimes cover
the natural clay creating a very low permeable layer. The clay slime retention
ponds were then covered with sand tailings ranging in thickness from 3 to 18 feet.

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

PAGE 3
313

Treatment System Design Exercise

INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION AND CLOSURE PLANS


In November 1981, the site was closed to disposal activities. In June of 1982, the county
retained a consultant to assist in filing a closure plan with the FDER and conduct site
sampling activities. As a result of these and earlier sampling activities, contamination was
detected in the perched shallow aquifer and in the sand tailing surrounding the ponds.
Because the ponds were unlined, lateral seepage extended approximately 1 foot from the
sides and approximately 5 feet vertically or nearly to the clay slimes. The site investigation
also showed contaminated groundwater had migrated away from the immediate area of the
ponds. (See Figure 3, Site Cross Section.) Because of the very low permeability of the clay
slimes, a perched water table developed in the former settling ponds. During the rainy
season, the shallow perched aquifer water level increased to a point where the clay slimes
did not cover the sand tailing dikes. Therefore, the contaminated groundwater flowed
through the dikes into the surrounding area to the north clay slimes settling ponds.
The initial plans for site closure recommended the contaminated sediment adjacent the
ponds and pond sludge be incinerated on-site and the groundwater contamination be pumped
and treated on-site.

A
Perched Groundwater
and Contaminant Flow

Perched
Water
Table

Sand
Tailings

Sand
Tailings

Clay
Slimes

Former
Septic Pond

Former Waste
Oil Pond

Sand
Tailings
Clay
Slimes

Unmined Clay Strata

Not to Scale

Figure 3: Site Cross Section

PAGE 4

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

314

Treatment System Design Exercise

Groundwater Recovery and Treatment


In order to excavate the pond sludge and contaminated sand tailings that surround the ponds,
the elevation of the perched water table needed to be lowered. This required the
construction of a new slurry wall to enclose the waste ponds and the installation of a
groundwater pump-and-treat system. (See Figure 2, Site Map.) The new slurry wall was
constructed using a soil/bentonite slurry mixture and is 2 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep.
The wall keyed into the low permeable natural clay and into the original dike, therefore,
hydraulically isolating the pond area.
To de-water the containment area, 40 well points were installed, 20 inside and 20
immediately outside the new slurry wall and original dike. The well points (see Figure 4,
Groundwater Recovery System) were connected by a manifold system and groundwater was
collected using a vacuum pump. The water was delivered to an on-site groundwater
treatment system.
The area enclosed by the slurry wall is approximately 10 acres. The total depth of the
tailings sand is 20 feet; however, the total depth of the tailings sand saturated with perched
groundwater is 10 feet. The effective porosity (that porosity that will yield groundwater) is
40 percent (0.4).

North
Clay Slimes
Settling Pond

N
Original Sand Tailings Dike
Waste Oil Pond

South
Clay Slimes
Settling Pond
Well
Points

Septic
Pond

New Slurry Wall

Groundwater
Treatment
System

Not to Scale

Figure 4: Groundwater Recovery System

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

PAGE 5
315

Treatment System Design Exercise

The next activity required a treatment train be designed to treat the groundwater from the
on-site system. Design of an on-site groundwater treatment train will be the responsibility
of each student team. The following pages contain groundwater contaminant constituents
and chemical information, a list of conditions concerning the treatment, and four treatment
unit descriptions.
Construction costs, operation and maintenance costs per treatment unit, and efficiencies are
provided for each. With this information, conduct the following:
1. Using a saturated volume and the porosity given, calculate the amount of groundwater (in
gallons) that will require treatment.
2. If the groundwater pumps produce an average of 240 gpm (gallons per minute),
calculate the length of time needed to fill a 200,000-gallon pre-treatment holding tank.
3. Select a treatment unit or units to treat the groundwater waste stream to the specified
discharge limits.
See Table 2.
4. Calculate the annual cost of treatment:
a.. Spread construction cost over 5 years
b. Flow rate is 200,000 gpd over 5 years

PAGE 6

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

316

Treatment System Design Exercise

CONDITIONS
1. Treatment units were selected to meet the applicable and relevant or
appropriate requirements (ARARs).
2. Unit design features such as size, retention time, overflow rates, and other
parameters
were preselected. Design of the units themselves would be an effort
beyond the
scope of this course.
3. Cost factors were calculated using averages, and only gross costs are provided for
simplicity. Actual cost-benefit comparisons are much more complex and would be
too time consuming for the course.
4. All removal efficiencies were arbitrarily selected from averages and would not
necessarily hold true for a specific wastestream.
5. The selection of appropriate treatment systems is much more complex than is
possible to simulate in detail within the time constraints of this course. However,
every effort has been made to provide a problem that covers the most important
aspects of the process.

INFORMATION
Influent Flow Rate
100,000 to 200,000 GPD
Groundwater analytical results
See Table 1.
TABLE 1. GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION
AND MAXIMUM DESIGN CONCENTRATIONS
Benzene

0.1 ppm

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

0.05 ppm

Carbon tetrachloride

0.1 ppm

Trichloroethylene

0.1 ppm

Chloroform

0.08 ppm

Toluene

0.5 ppm

1,1-Dichloroethane

0.025 ppm

Vinyl chloride

0.05 ppm

1,2-Dichloroethane

0.02 ppm

Pentachlorophenol

0.2 ppm

1,1-Dichloroethene

0.2 ppm

2,4-D

0.5 ppm

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.03 ppm

2,4,5-TP

0.03 ppm

Methylene chloride

1 ppm

Iron (mg/L)

7-45 ppm

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

PAGE 7
317

Treatment System Design Exercise

Discharge Limits
See Table 2. Discharge Limits are based on the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs).

TABLE 2
Benzene

0.005 ppm

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

0.2 ppm

Carbon tetrachloride

0.005 ppm

Trichloroethylene

0.005 ppm

Chloroform

0.0002 ppm*

Toluene

1 ppm

1,1-Dichloroethane

0.81 ppm*

Vinyl chloride

0.002 ppm

1,2-Dichloroethane

0.005 ppm

Pentachlorophenol

0.001 ppm

1,1-Dichloroethene

0.007 ppm

2,4-D

0.07 ppm

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.1 ppm

2,4,5-TP

0.5 ppm

Methylene chloride

0.005 ppm

Iron (mg/L)

NA

NA: not applicable

* EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations for Tap Water

Duration of Treatment
Five years estimated duration would naturally vary for different treatment systems, but the
time has been established for the problem set in order to simplify comparisons.
Size
1 acre = 43,560 ft2
Discharge (through an on-site irrigation system)
Irrigation will be over the site, providing a flush of the contaminated area. Concentrations
of contaminants in the influent will decrease as treatment progresses. This decreasing load
would make it necessary to design considerable flexibility of treatment into each unit. For
our purposes, assure that the design of each unit takes this need into account.

PAGE 8

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

318

Treatment System Design Exercise

TABLE 3. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES


HENRYS LAW
CONSTANT
(atm-m3/mol)

ADSORPTION*
(mg compound/g carbon)

Benzene

0.00559

80

Carbon tetrachloride

0.0241

6.2

Chloroform

0.00278

1.6

Degradable

1,1-Dichloroethane

0.00431

1.2

Degradable

1,2-Dichloroethane

0.000978

Degradable

1,1-Dichloroethene

0.0340

3.4

Degradable

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.00656

2.2

Degradable

Methylene chloride

0.00203

0.8

Degradable

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

0.0144

Degradable

Trichloroethylene

0.0091

18.2

Refractory

Toluene

0.00637

50

Degradable

Vinyl chloride

0.0891

Trace

Refractory

NA

100

Degradable

2,4-D

NA

Trace

Degradable

2,4,5-TP

NA

Trace

Refractory

CHEMICAL

BIODEGRADATION

Volatile Organics
Degradable
Refractory/
nondegradable

Extractable Organics
Pentachlorophenol
Pesticides and PCBs

NA: not applicable


*Practical Technologies for Groundwater and Soil Remediation by E. Neyer

Construction Costs
Pretreatment unit:

$200,000

Air stripping unit:

$500,000

Steam stripping unit:

$750,000

Carbon adsorption unit:

$500,000

Rotation biological contactor unit: $600,000


Units are sized to accommodate 200,000 gpd, which is the design flow rate of our system.
Costs are generic and may not reflect actual system costs in an area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

PAGE 9
319

Treatment System Design Exercise

Pretreatment Unit
Limits:

Only removes inorganic metals, e.g., iron.

Efficiency: 99.7%.
Cost per 1000 gallons:

$0.10.

Using aeration, the pretreatment unit oxidizes the groundwater from the on-site collection
system producing insoluble inorganic (metal) solids that may be removed by filtration.
Design features including vessel size, residence time, air injection rate configuration, filter
design, filter type, and filter capacity have been optimized for this problem.
Air Stripping
Limits:

Compounds with a Henrys Law constant greater than 0.003 atm-m3 mole.

Efficiency: Removal to 98%, lower efficiencies for compounds out of limits.


Cost per 1000 gallons:

$0.40 exclusive of vapor treatment.

Design features such as tower fabrication, media selection, and air-to-water ratio have been
optimized for the problem.
Steam Stripping
Limits:

Organic compounds
Henrys Law constant of 0.0004 atm-m3/mole or greater
Vapor treatment unnecessary

Efficiency:

99%

Cost per 1000 gallons:

$8.00

Unit design features optimized as part of this problem.


Carbon Adsorption
Limits:

Low solubility
Nonpolar
Adsorptive capacity 50 mg/g carbon
Concentration below 1%
SS less than 50 ppm
Oil and grease less than 10 ppm

Efficiency:

Varies with wastestream for the purpose of this exercise. If the compound
meets the constraints in the limits listed above, the removal rate will be 90%. If
the
compound is below the 50 mg/g carbon limit, removal efficiency rate
will be 30%.
Do not consider regeneration for the exercise.
Cost per 1000 gallons:

PAGE 10

$2.50 if used primary unit


$0.50 if used as a polish unit

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

320

R02/03

Treatment System Design Exercise

Biological Treatment
Limits:

Compound degradable
Nontoxic concentrations
BOD greater than 50 mg/L

Efficiency:

Degradable compound removal 95%


Refractory compound removal 30%

Cost per 1000 gallons:

$0.30 first run

If a second or third biological treatment unit is added, the cost per 1,000 gallons increases to
$0.40. The extra cost is to add additional nutrients.
Unit is an RBC and has been sized for the problem. Removal rates of refractory compounds
are arbitrarily selected at 30% for the problem.
Calculations
A. Water content
B. Filling time of holding tank
C. Treatment unit selection
D. Construction cost of treatment
system
E. Annual cost of treatment

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)


R02/03

PAGE
321 11

Treatment System Design Exercise

EXERCISE WORKSHEET

CHEMICAL

CONCENTRATION

Volatile Organics
Benzene

0.1 ppm

Carbon tetrachloride

0.1 ppm

Chloroform

0.08 ppm

1,1-Dichloroethane

0.025 ppm

1,2-Dichloroethane

0.02 ppm

1,1-Dichloroethene

0.2 ppm

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.03 ppm


Methylene chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1 ppm
0.05 ppm

Trichloroethylene

0.1 ppm

Toluene

0.5 ppm

Vinyl chloride

0.05 ppm

Extractable Organics
Pentachlorophenol

0.2 ppm

2,4-D

0.5 ppm

2,4,5-TP

0.03 ppm

Other
Iron

7-45 ppm

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES)

322

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


A
AA
AA
AAQCD
ACGIH
ACHP
ACL
ACO
ADI
AEA
AG
AHERA
AHPA
AIC
AIHA
AIRFA
AIS
AL
ALJ
ANPRM
ANSI
AO
AOC
AOC
APA
APA
AQCR
AQMD
AQUIRE
ARAR
ARCS
ARPA
AT

absorption coefficient
atomic absorption
Assistant Administrator (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Criteria Document (EPA, CAA)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
alternate concentration limit (EPA, RCRA)
administrative consent order
acceptable daily intake (EPA)
Atomic Energy Act (NRC, ERDA, DOE)
Attorney General
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (EPA, TSCA)
Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act
acceptable intake for chronic exposure (EPA)
American Industrial Hygiene Association
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
acceptable intake for subchronic exposure (EPA)
action level (EPA)
administrative law judge
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
American National Standards Institute
administrative order
area of contamination
area of concern
Administrative Procedure Act
Acid Precipitation Act
air quality control region
air quality management district
acute aquatic toxicity values database (CIS)
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
averaging time

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

323

ATSDR
AWQC
AWQCD

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


Ambient Water Quality Criteria (EPA, CWA)
Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document (EPA, CWA)

B
BACT
BAT(EA)
BCPCT
BCT
BDAT
BLM
BM
BMP
BOD
BPATT
BPJ
BPT(CA)
BRA
BQRA
BTC
BTEX
BTX

body weight of receptor


best available control technology (EPA, CAA)
best available technology (economically achievable) (EPA, CWA)
best conventional pollutant control technology (EPA, CAA)
best conventional technology (EPA, CWA)
best demonstrated available technology (EPA, RCRA)
Bureau of Land Management (DOI)
Bureau of Mines
best management practices
biochemical (or biological) oxygen demand
best practicable available technology
best professional judgment
best practicable technology (currently available) (EPA, CWA)
baseline risk assessment
baseline quantitative risk assessment
briefly tolerable concentration (NRC)
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
benzene, toluene, and xylenes

C
C
CA
CAA
CA/FO
CAG
CAMU
CAP
CAP
CAPA
CATEX
CCRIS

corrosivity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)


concentration of a pollutant in the environment
corrective action (EPA, RCRA)
Clean Air Act
consent agreement/final order
Carcinogen Assessment Group (EPA, ORD)
corrective action management unit (EPA, RCRA)
corrective action plan (EPA, RCRA)
capacity assurance plan (EPA, CERCLA)
critical aquifer protection area
categorical exclusion (EPA, NEPA)
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System (NLM,

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

324

CDC
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERI
CESARS
CEQ
CESQG
CFC
CFR
CHEMID
CHEMLINE
CHEMTRAC
CHEMTREC
CHRIS
CHS
CIL
CIS
CMA
CMI
CMS
CO
CO
COD
COE
CP
CP
CPF
CPSC
CQAP
CRA
CRAVE
CRP
CRS

Toxnet)
Centers for Disease Control (HHS, PHS)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
CERCLA Information System
Center for Environmental Research Information (EPA-ORD,
Cincinnati)
Chemical Evaluation Search and Retrieval System (CIS)
Council on Environmental Quality
conditionally exempt small quantity generator
Chlorofluorocarbon
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical Identification (includes SUPERLIST) (NLM, ELHILL)
Chemical Dictionary Online (NLM, ELHILL)
Chemical emissions toxicity inventory database (EPA)
Chemical Transportation Emergency Center
Chemical Hazard Response Information System (USCG)
CERCLA hazardous substance
Chemical Inventory List (EPA, EPCRA)
Computer Information System (commercial user network)
Chemical Manufacturers Association
corrective measures implementation (EPA, RCRA)
corrective measures study (EPA, RCRA)
compliance order
carbon monoxide
chemical oxygen demand
Corps of Engineers
conventional pollutant (EPA, CWA)
criteria pollutant (EPA, CAA)
cancer (carcinogenic) potency factor
Consumer Product Safety Commission
construction quality assurance plan
classification review area (EPA, SDWA)
carcinogen risk assessment verification endeavor (EPA, ECAO)
community relations plan(ning) (EPA, CERCLA)
Congressional Research Services

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

325

CSF
CTCP
CWA
CZMA

cancer slope factor


Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Gleason et at., CIS)
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Act

D
D
D--DAF
DART
DCQAP
DE
DEIS
DERA
DERMAL
DERP
DIRLINE
DMP
DMR
DNFA
DOC
DOD
DOE
DOI
DOJ
DOL
DOR
DOT
DQO
DRE
DW
DWCD
DWHAS

disposer, disposal
dose of a pollutant in a receptor (mg/kg/day)
waste ID for characteristic hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)
dilution-attenuation factor (EPA, RCRA)
Development and Reproductive Toxicology (NLM, Toxnet)
data collection quality assurance plan
destruction efficiency
draft environmental impact statement
defense environmental restoration account
dermal absorption and toxicity database (CIS)
defense environmental restoration program
Directory of Information Resources Online (NLM)
data management plan
discharge monitoring report (EPA, CWA)
determination of no further action (EPA, RCRA)
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Labor
Determination of Release (EPA, RCRA)
U.S. Department of Transportation
data quality objective (EPA)
destruction removal efficiency
drinking water
Drinking Water Criteria Document (EPA, SDWA)
Drinking Water Health Advisory Summary (EPA, SDWA)

toxicity characteristic hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

326

EA
EA
EC50
EcA
ECAO
ED
ED50
EE/CA
EEGL
EEL
EERU
EF
EFD
EHS
EIA
EIES
EIS
EMIC
EMICBACK

environmental assessment (EPA, NEPA)


endangerment assessment
median effective concentration
ecological assessment
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (EPA)
exposure duration
median effective dose
engineering evaluation/cost analysis
emergency exposure guidance level (NRC)
emergency exposure level (WHO)
Environmental Emergency Response Unit
exposure frequency
exposure frequency and duration
extremely hazardous substance (EPA, EPCRA)
environmental impact assessment (EPA, NEPA)
Electronic Information Exchange System (EPA)
environmental impact statement (study) (EPA, NEPA)
Environmental Mutagen Information Center (NLM, Toxnet)
Environmental Mutagen Information Center Backfile (NLM,
Toxnet)
ENU
elementary neutralization unit (EPA, RCRA)
ENVIROFATE
bioconcentration and half-life factors database (CIS)
EO
executive order
EP
extraction procedure (EPA, RCRA)
EP-TOX
extraction procedure toxicity (EPA, RCRA)
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
EPTC
extraction procedure toxicity characteristics
ERCS
Emergency Response Cleanup System
ERT
Environmental Response Team
ESA
Endangered Species Act (FWS)
ESD
explanation of significant differences (EPA, CERCLA)
ETICBACK
Environmental Teratology Information Center Backfile (NLM,
Toxnet)
ExA
exposure assessment

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

327

F--FACA
FCL
FCO
FEIS
FEMA
FEPCA
FFA
FFCA
FFCM
FFSRA
FIFRA
FIT
FLPMA
FOIA
FONSI
FR
FRG
FRL
FRSS
FS
FWPCA
FWS

waste ID for nonspecific-source hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)


financial assurance for corrective action (EPA, RCRA)
final cleanup level
Federal Coordinating Officer
final environmental impact statement
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act
federal facilities agreement
federal facilities compliance agreement
federal facilities compliance manual
federal facilities site remediation agreement
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Field Investigation Team
Federal Land Policy Management Act
Freedom of Information Act
finding of no significant impact (EPA, NEPA)
Federal Register
final remediation goals
final remediation level (EPA, CERCLA)
Federal Register Search System
feasibility study (EPA, CERCLA)
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

G
G/Tp
GAC
GACT
GC
GC/MS
GENE-TOX
GIABS
GOCO
GSA
GW

generator
generator/transporter
granular activated carbon
generally available control technology
gas chromatograph(y)
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
genetic toxicology database (NLM, Toxnet)
gastrointestinal absorption database (CIS)
government-owned, contractor-operated facility
Government Services Administration
groundwater

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

328

GWA
GWPS
GWQA

Groundwater Act of 1987


groundwater protection standard (EPA, RCRA)
groundwater quality assessment (EPA, RCRA)

H
HA
HAD
HAP
HARM
HASP
HAZINF
HAZWOPER
HC
HC
HCh
HEA
HEA
HEAD
HEAST
HEED
HEEP
HH&E
HHS
HHWE
HI
HM
HMTA
HQ
HRS
HS
HSDB
HSWA
HW
HWMF
HWMU

acute hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)


hazard (or health) assessment
Health Assessment Document (EPA)
hazardous air pollutant (EPA, CAA)
hazard assessment rating methodology
health and safety plan
Hazardous Chemical Information and Disposal Guide (U. of Alberta)
hazardous waste operations and emergency service
hazardous constituent (EPA, RCRA)
hydrocarbons
hazardous chemical (OSHA)
health effects assessment (EPA)
health and environment assessment (EPA)
Health Effects Assessment Document (EPA)
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (EPA)
Health and Environment Effects Document (EPA)
Health and Environmental Effects Profile (EPA)
human health and the environment
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
human health, welfare and the environment
hazard index
hazardous material (DOT, HMTA)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (DOT)
hazard quotient
Hazard Ranking System (EPA, CERCLA)
hazardous substance (EPA, CWA)
Hazardous Substances Data Bank (NLM, Toxnet)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (EPA, RCRA)
hazardous waste (EPA, RCRA)
hazardous waste management facility (EPA, RCRA)
hazardous waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

329

I
I
IAG
IARC
ICL
IDLH
IFB
IHCS
ILR
IRIS
IRP
IS
I&SE
ISHOW
IUPAC

ignitable hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)


intake rate
interagency agreement (EPA, CERCLA)
International Agency for Research on Cancer
initial cleanup level
immediately dangerous to life or health (NIOSH)
Invitation for Bids
imminently hazardous chemical substance (EPA, TSCA)
individual lifetime risk
Integrated Risk Information System (NLM, Toxnet)
installation restoration program
interim status (EPA, RCRA)
imminent and substantial endangerment
Information System for Hazardous Organics in Water (CIS)
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists

K---

waste ID for specific-source hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)

LAER
LC50
LD50
LDF
LDU
LEPC
LF
LFD
LLRWPA
LOG P
LOIS
LQG
LT
LTU
LUST

lowest achievable emission rate (EPA, CAA)


median lethal concentration
median lethal dose
land disposal facility (EPA, RCRA)
land disposal unit (EPA, RCRA)
local emergency planning committee (EPA, EPCRA)
landfill
local fire department
Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act
bioconcentration factors database
loss of interim status (EPA, RCRA)
large quantity generator
lifetime
land treatment unit
leaking underground storage tank(s)

MACT

maximum achievable control technology (EPA, CAA)

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

330

MARPOL
MCL
MCLG
MCS
MEI
MEDLARS
MEP
MF
mg/kg
mg/l
MOA
MOS
MPSRA
MPS
MSDS
MSHA
MTD
MTR
MSW

Marine Pollution Treaty (USCG)


maximum contaminant level (EPA, SDWA)
maximum contaminant level goal (EPA, SDWA)
media cleanup standard (EPA, RCRA)
maximum exposed individual (EPA, RCRA)
Medial Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (NLM)
maximum extent practicable
modifying factor (EPA)
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
memorandum of agreement
margin of safety
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (EPA)
media protection standard (EPA)
material safety data sheet (OSHA)
Mining Safety and Health Administration
maximum tolerated dose (EPA)
minimum technology requirements (EPA, RCRA)
Municipal Solid Waste

NAAQS
NAS
NBAR
NCA
NCI
NCP

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (EPA, CAA)


National Academy of Science
nonbinding allocation of responsibility
Noise Control Act (EPA)
National Cancer Institute (NIH)
National (oil and hazardous substances) Contingency Plan
(CERCLA)
National Environmental Policy Act (all federal agencies)
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (EPA, CAA)
National Fire Protection Association
National Historic Preservation Act
National Institute of Health
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
national interim primary drinking water standards (EPA, SDWA)
National Library of Medicine (HHS, PHS)

NEPA
NESHAP(S)
NFPA
NHPA
NIH
NIOSH
NIPDWS
NLM

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

331

NOAA
NOAEL
NOD
NOEL
NOI
NONC
NOV
NOx
NPDES
NPL
NRC
NRC
NRC
NRDA
NRT
NSF
NSPS
NTIS
NTP
NWPA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)


no observed adverse effect level
notice of deficiency (EPA, RCRA)
no observed effect level
notice of intent (to prepare an EIS)
notice of noncompliance
notice of violation
nitrogen oxides
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (EPA, CWA)
National Priorities List (EPA, CERCLA)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Response Center
National Research Council (NAS)
natural resource damage assessment
National Response Team
National Science Foundation
new source performance standards (EPA, CAA)
National Technical Information Service
National Toxicology Program
Nuclear Waste Policy Act

O&G
O&M
OE
OECM
OERR
OGC
OHM/TADS

oil and grease


operation and maintenance
Office of Enforcement (EPA)
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (EPA)
Office of Emergency Response and Remediation (EPA, OSWER)
Office of General Counsel (EPA)O
Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data System
(EPA)
Office of Management and Budget
operation and maintenance plan
owner/operator (EPA, RCRA)
Office of Research and Development
On-Scene Coordinator
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL)

OMB
O&MP
O/O
ORD
OSC
OSHA

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

332

OSHA
OSM
OSW
OSWER
OTA
OTS
OU
OUST
OWPE

Occupational Safety and Health Act


Office of Surface Mining (DOI)
Office of Solid Waste (EPA, OSWER)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA)
Office of Technology Assessment (Congress)
Office of Toxic Substances (EPA, OPTS)
operable unit (EPA, CERCLA)
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (EPA)
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (EPA, OSWER)

P--PA
PAAT
PAC
PAH
PCBs
PCDD

waste ID for acutely hazardous commercial chemical products


(RCRA)
preliminary assessment (EPA, CERCLA)
Public Affair Assistance Team
powdered activated carbon
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyls
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

PCDF
PCP
PDR
PECMT
PEL
PHRED
PSHA
PHYTOTOX
PI
PIAT
PIC
PIG
PIP
PL
PM
PMN

polychlorinated dibenzofurans
pentachlorophenol
Physicians' Desk Reference
preliminary evaluation of corrective measures technology
permissible exposure limit (OSHA)
Public Health Risk Evaluation Database (EPA)
Public Service Health Act
Terrestrial plant toxicology database (CIS)
preliminary injunction
Public Information Assistance Team
product(s) of incomplete combustion
program implementation guidance
public involvement plan
public law
project manager
premanufacture notices

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

333

PMP
PN
PNA
PNC
POC
POD
POE
POHC
POM
POTW
PP
PP
ppb
PPE
PPIC
ppm
PPP
ppt
PQL
PR
PRAO
PRG
PRP
PSD

program management plan


public notice
polynuclear aromatic (use PAH)
public notice and opportunity of comment
point of compliance (EPA)
point of departure (EPA)
point of exposure
principle organic hazardous constituent
polycyclic organic matter
publically owned treatment works (EPA, CWA)
priority pollutant (EPA, CWA)
proposed plan (EPA, CERCLA)
parts per billion
personal protective equipment
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (EPA)
parts per million
pollution prevention planning (EPA)
parts per trillion
practical quantitation limit
preliminary review (EPA, RCRA)
preliminary remedial action objectives (EPA, CERCLA)
preliminary remediation goal (EPA, CERCLA)
potentially responsible party (EPA, CERCLA)
prevention of significant deterioration (EPA, CAA)

q, q*, q1
QAPP
QA/QC
QRA
QSAR

Same as SF and CPF


quality assurance project plan (EPA)
quality assurance/quality control
quantitative risk assessment
Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (Montana State Univ.)

R
R
RA
RA

reactivity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)


acceptable risk level (EPA)
remedial action (EPA, CERCLA)
risk assessment

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

334

RA
RACT
RAn
RAO
RAP
RBC
RC
RCh
RComp
RCRA
RD
RD&D
RE
REL
REMFIT
RFA
RfC
RfCdt
RfCs
RfD
RfDdt
RfDs
RFI
RFP
RI
RI/FS
RIM
RJ
RM
RME
RMI
RMCL
RN
RO
ROD

Regional Administrator
reasonably available control technology (EPA, CAA)
risk analysis
remedial action objective (EPA, CERCLA)
remedial action plan
rotating biological contactor
risk communication
risk characterization
remedy completion
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
remedial design (EPA, CERCLA)
research, development and demonstration
risk evaluation
recommended exposure limit (NIOSH)
Field Investigation Team for EPA Remedial Action
RCRA facility assessment (EPA, RCRA)
(Inhalation) reference concentration (generic or chronic) (EPA)
reference concentration (developmental/teratogenic) (EPA)
reference concentration (subchronic) (EPA)
(Oral) reference dose (generic or chronic) (EPA)
reference dose (developmental/teratogenic) (EPA)
reference dose (subchronic) (EPA)
RCRA facility investigation (EPA, RCRA)
Request for Proposal
remedial investigation (EPA, CERCLA)
remedial investigation/feasibility study
regulatory interpretative memorandum
risk judgment
risk management
reasonable maximum exposure (EPA)
risk management implementation (EPA, RCRA)
recommended maximum contaminant level (same as MCLG)
risk negotiation
reverse osmosis
record of decision (EPA, CERCLA)

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

335

RP
RP
RPAR
RPJ
RPM
RQ
RR
RR
RRC
RRS
RRT
RS
RS
RS
RSD
RTECS
RU
RW
RWMU

risk perception
responsible party (EPA, CERCLA)
rebuttable presumption against registration (EPA, FIFRA)
risk perception and judgment
Regional Project Manager
reportable quantity (EPA, CERCLA)
residual risk
risk reduction
Regional Response Center
risk reduction studies
Regional Response Team
regulated substances (EPA, UST)
remedy selection
risk substitution
risk specific dose (EPA)
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (NLM, Toxnet)
regulated unit (EPA, RCRA)
remediation waste
remediation waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)

S
SAB
SARA
SC
SDWA
SERC
SES
SF
SF
SHPO
SI
SI
SI
SIC
SIP

storer, storage
Science Advisory Board
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
specific conductance
Safe Drinking Water Act
State Emergency Response Commission (EPA, EPCRA)
Senior Executive Service
safety factor (EPA)
slope factor (EPA)
State Historic Preservation Officer
sampling inspection (EPA, RCRA)
site inspection (EPA, CERCLA)
surface impoundment
standard industrial classification (cede)
state implementation plan (EPA, CAA)

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

336

SITE
SMCL
SMCRA
SNARL
SNC
SNUR
SOLUB
SPCC
SQG
SSC
SW
SWDA
SWMF
SWMU

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (EPA-ORD)


secondary maximum contaminant level
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (DOI-OSM)
suggested no adverse reaction level
significant noncomplier (EPA)
significant new use rule (EPA, TSCA)
aqueous solubility database (Univ. of Arizona)
spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (plan) (EPA, CWA)
Small quantity generator
Scientific Support Coordinator
solid waste (EPA, RCRA)
Solid Waste Disposal Act
solid waste management facility (EPA, RCRA)
solid waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)

T
T
TA
TAG
TAR
TAT
TBC
TC
TCA
TCE
TCh
TC50
TCDD
TCL
TCL
TCLP
TD50
TDS
T&E
TEGD

toxicity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)


treater, treatment
toxicity assessment
technical assistance grant (EPA, CERCLA)
technical amendment to the regulations
Technical Assistance Team
advisory, criteria, or guidance to be considered (EPA, CERCLA)
toxicity characteristic (EPA, RCRA)
trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
toxic chemical (EPA, EPCRA)
median toxic concentration
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
toxic chemical list (EPA, EPCRA)
target cleanup level (EPA, RCRA)
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (EPA, RCRA)
median toxic dose
total dissolved solids
test and evaluation facility
Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (EPA, RCRA)

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

337

THM
TIP
TLV
TLV-C
TLV-STEL
TLV-TWA
TMV
TOC
TOX
TOXLINE
TOXLIT
TOXNET
Tp
TP
TPQ
TRI
TRIFACTS
TRO
TS
TSCA
TSCATS
TSD
TSDF
TSP
TSS
TSS
TU
TUHC
TV

trihalomethane
Toxicology Information Program (NLM)
threshold limit value (ACGIH)
TLVceiling (ACGIH)
TLVshort-term exposure limit (ACGIH)
TLVtime-weighted average (ACGIH)
toxicity, mobility, and volume
total organic carbon
total organic halogen
Toxicology Information Online (NLM, ELHILL)
toxicology literature from special sources (NLM, ELHILL)
Toxicology Data Network (NLM, MEDLARS)
transporter
toxic pollutant (EPA, CWA)
threshold planning quantity (EPA, EPCRA)
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (EPA, EPCRA, NLM, Toxnet)
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Fact Sheets (NLM, Toxnet)
temporary restraining order
toxic substance (EPA, TSCA)
Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act submissions
treatment, storage, or disposal
treatment, storage, or disposal facility
total suspended particulates
total suspended solids
total settleable solids
temporary unit (EPA, RCRA)
total unburned hydrocarbons
toxicity value

U--UF
UIC
ur3
USC

waste ID for toxic commercial chemical products


uncertainty factor
Underground Injection Control Program (EPA, SDWA)
use, reuse, recycle, reclaim
United States Code

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

338

USCA
USCG
USDW
USGS
UST

United States Code Annotated


U.S. Coast Guard
underground source of drinking water (EPA, SDWA)
United States Geological Survey
underground storage tank (EPA, RCRA)

VOA
VOC
VSI

volatile organic analyzer


volatile organic carbon (or compound)
visual site inspection (EPA, RCRA)

W
WHO
WL
WP
WQA
WQC
WQS
WWTU

weight of receptor
World Health Organization
warning letter
waste pile
Water Quality Act
water quality criterion (EPA, CWA)
water quality standard (EPA, CWA)
wastewater treatment unit (EPA, RCRA)

Environmental Remediation Technologies


Acronyms

339