Ert Student Manual 3ppg 2012-01-09

United States Off ce of Solid Waste and December 2011
Environmental Protection Emergency Response www.epa.gov/superfund

Agency (5201G)
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

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 1

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

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

4
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-98-
005. 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.
6
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,
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,
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.
7
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.
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.
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.
8
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.
Washington, DC. 1994
THERMAL TREATMENT
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment.EPA/540/2-
90/014. 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.
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
9
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.
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 site-
specific 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

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


Land use
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

Facility description
Site address
General site operation
Physical setting
Area topography
Area land use
Site
Site is bounded to the south

by residential property

Site is bounded to the north

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

Land use
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.

Hydrogeology
Site is located on permeable sand and
gravel deposits in ancestral drainage
channels
Deep aquifer groundwater wells yield
500–1000 gpm
Site includes a shallow unconfined
aquifer and a deep confined aquifer
Site
Site

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

Land use
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

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 Nimrod Camping Trailer
1974 to 1980 Chem-Dyne Recycling Facility
1980 to present Chem-Dyne Trust
(remediation project)
Aerial photo
December, 1979
Chem-Dyne
Hamilton, OH

Sanborn Fire Insurance maps:

1927 Ford Motor Co. forge and
manufacturing facility
1950 Ford Motor Co. metal
stamping and wheel
manufacturing facility
1969 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.

Land use
identification

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

Contaminant susceptibility to treatment options
Removal Action
Stabilization

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


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)


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


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

Contaminant susceptibility to
treatment options
Contaminants detected at the Chem-Dyne

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


Land use
Potential exposure pathways and risk
estimation
identification
Groundwater (Chem-Dyne site)

Source Onsite hazardous materials
Fate-and- Through soil into shallow

transport and deep Great Miami River
mechanism Aquifers
Ingestion and/or dermal
Exposure route
contact
Residents using deep-aquifer
Receptors
groundwater

Surface Water (Chem-Dyne site)

Source Onsite hazardous materials
Fate-and-
Surface water runoff during
transport
heavy rains
mechanism
Direct contact (e.g. burned
Exposure route
feet)
Employees of adjacent
Receptors
business
Emissions (Chem-Dyne site)

Hazardous materials
Source
released by onsite activities
Fate-and-
Fugitive dust released into
transport
the air, migrating off site
mechanism
Exposure route Inhalation
Receptors Neighbors
Emissions
Exposure pathway:
contaminated
fugitive dust
migrated offsite to
neighboring habitats

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

Land use
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

Meteorological
Annual rainfall
Average temperature
Evapotransporation
Offsite information
Nearby population
Offsite land use
Zoning issues
Chem-Dyne Superfund Site

vs.
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site

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)

40000
Total VOCs Recovered
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

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

34
FATE AND TRANSPORT
OF CONTAMINANTS

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 CUP $1
TCE MILLION
+ =
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.

Volatilization Percolation
Runoff
Adsorption
Degradation Retardation
Vadose zone Diffusion Dispersion

Solubility
Capillary forces
Surface Water
Groundwater
Adsorption Retardation
Degradation Diffusion Dispersion
Surface
Subsurface
Distribution
Degradation
Physical state
Volatilization
Runoff
Solubility
Percolation

Solid Liquid Gas
Least Most
mobile mobile
Organic vs. Inorganic

Transition temperatures, e.g., melting point,
boiling point
Pressure
PHASE DIAGRAM
(mm Hg)
H2O
Solid Liquid
760
A B
17.5
C
Temperature 0ºC 20ºC 100ºC
(Not to scale)
LIQUID TEMPERATURE RANGE

-200ºC -100º 0º 20º 100º 200º 300º
0 to 100º
H2O
5.5 to 80.1º
Benzene
– 86 to 80º
MEK
– 87 to 87º
TCE
– 189.9 to – 42º
Propane
188 to 310º (decomposes @ 310º)
PCP
– 39.9 to 357º
Hg
Pb 327 to 1620º

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 @ 20ºc)

Benzene 80.0 MORE
VOLATILE
TCE 63.0
H2O 17.5
LESS
PCP .00011 VOLATILE
Function of:
Hydraulic gradient
"Cohesive forces" (e.g., internal friction)

Dynamic viscosity (µ): Indicates degree of

resistance to flow
Compound µ (centipoise @ 20ºc)

TCE .57 MOST
MOBILE
Benzene .65
H2O 1.0
Kerosene 2.5
LEAST
Phenol 8.5 MOBILE
+ +
Function of: H H
O–
Cohesive forces
Adhesive forces
Van der Waals
Polarity
Ionization
Pb(OH)2
Pb(OH)+1
Metal solubility (mobility)
Fe(OH)+2
Al(OH)3 Fe(OH)3
Al(OH)+2
Al(OH)4–1
pH (s.u.) 7

Function of:
Fluid height or "head"
Fluid density
Cohesive forces ("surface tension")
Adhesive forces ("wetting")
Kinematic viscosity (ν): Indicates degree of

resistance to downward flow (combines
density with dynamic viscosity)
Compound ν (centistokes @ 20ºc)
TCE .39 MOST
MOBILE
Benzene .74
LEAST
H2O 1.0 MOBILE
Function of:
Preferential pathways (channeling)
Macropores
Micropores
Solubility
Sorption
Volatility

Physical movement stops when matric

potential and hydrodynamic head are
balanced
Molecular movement continues as long
as relative concentration remains
"unbalanced"
Ped or
particle
Pore air
NAPL
Organic carbon
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.

Dispersion – Tendency for a Contaminant movement

solute to spread from the path
that it would be expected to
follow under advective transport
Soil particles
Dispersion and Diffusion
Contaminant movement
Soil particles
Percolation
Through
Saturated Zone
Soil
LNAPL
H2 O
Groundwater Dissolved
flow contaminant
DNAPL

Air Vapor pressure (VP)
Water Solubility (Sol.)
Water/Air Henry's Law (HL)
Water/soil Sorption (KOC, CEC)
HL = VP
Solubility
atm-m3
Compound VP (mmHg) Sol.(mg/L) HL mol
VC 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
PCP 0 00011 1 2 8 × 10 6
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)

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)

1.0 GW flow
chloride
Relative concentration in MW1
downgradient of source
Source MW1
carbon
tetrachloride
0.5
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 GW
limit for 15 years) 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.

48
CAPPING AND CONTAINMENT

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

Capping materials may include natural

or synthetic materials.
Ground Cap
Cap
Leachate Collection
System
Waste Material
6" Topsoil with vegetative cover
24" Clay
80 mil PVC Liner 30 mil PVC Liner
6" Gas-venting layer/soil cushion
5' Recompacted Clay
60 mil PVC Liner
24" Pea Gravel
Atlanta, GA
Hickory Ridge Landfill

Gas collection and

process system
Phoenix Golf Course
California Gulch Superfund Site

Courtesy US EPA Region 8

Explore alternative and more aesthetically-

pleasing 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

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

After capping

Virtual Forum Web Address:

www.merid.org/leadville
EPA Web Address:

www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/co

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

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

Monitoring Production
well well
Groundwater flow
Aquitard Keyed slurry

trench cutoff wall

Monitoring Production
well well
LNAPLs
Recovery
well
Groundwater
flow
Aquitard Hanging slurry

trench cutoff wall
Groundwater
flow
Wall Waste Drain
Soil
Stream
Groundwater
flow
Wall Waste
Soil
Extraction well
Stream

Soil
Grout
curtain
Contaminant
plume
Groundwater flow
Injection
tube

Injection tube Zone of influence
Straight web type Z-type
Deep arch web

type
T-fitting


BASIC WATER TREATMENT

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

pH
Control
Oil / Water Reactor Sand Air Carbon

Separator Tank Filter Stripper Contactor
Courtesy State of Washington, Department of Ecology
Water

Oil
Water
Sludge


Courtesy State of Washington, Department of Ecology

Physically separates volatile or semi-

volatile contaminants, usually
organics, from water
Process applies to volatile and semi-
volatile organics with a Henry's Law
Constant of >0.003 atm/mol/m3
Off-gas
treatment
Storage
tank
Effluent
Air treatment
blower
Snowflakes
Packing Saddles Packing Rings



aBsorption aDsorption

76
CHEMICAL REACTIONS
AND SEPARATIONS

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
79
Advantages
Removes dissolved heavy metals
Disadvantages
Produces metal sludge
Often produces high pH wastewater
Doesn't always work on
highly soluble metals
80
Chemical Chemical
precipitants flocculants/
settling aids
Flocculation
Flocculation paddles
well
Liquid
feed
Effluent
Baffle
Mixing tank
Flocculation Sludge
clarifier
Source: U.S. EPA 1991
81
Chemical reactions
Advantages
Reduces solubility of heavy metals
Oxidizes and destroys organics
Disadvantages
Unintended reactions
Acid feed Reducing agent feed Lime

slurry hopper
H+ SOX Ca
pH control (OH)2
Mixer
Chrome
wastewater Effluent
feed
Cr6+ Cr3+ -
Cr3++OH Cr(OH)3
Chrome reduction
tank
Hydroxide
Chrome sludge
precipitation
82
H2O2
O3
Effluent
UV
lamps
Influent
Microfiltration
Reverse osmosis
Ion exchange
83
Reverse Ultrafiltration Particle Filtration

Osmosis
Separation
Process Nanofiltration Microfiltration
Aqueous Sediment
Salt
Endotoxin Pyrogen Red Blood Cells

Relative
Size of Metal Ion Virus Bacteria
Common
Materials
Oil Emulsion
Lactose Colloidal Cryptosporidium

Silica
Microns 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000
Dredge, Fox River, WI
84
Microfiltration is a process whichremoves

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
85
Microfiltration Treatment System

Groundwater
To disposal
Filtrate Air
recirculation
Static Microfiltration Filter cake

mixer unit
Filter cake
storage
Used Tyvek®
Tyvek®
Lime slurry tank
ProFix slurry tank
Source: U.S. EPA 1991
86
Pressure
Contaminated
water
Treated
water
Concentrated
wastewater
87
NaOH
Storage caustic
soda Clarifier
tank
HCI
Sludge
Filters
Feed Reverse osmosis unit
tank
88
Removes dissolved metals via

transfer of ions
Uses resin beads
Removes low concentrations of

soluble metal
Recovers concentrated metal
streams for recycling
89
Suspended solids and organics

Regeneration chemicals are
hazardous
Acid Caustic
regenerant regenerant
Waste containing MX
Removal:
Removal:
OH–– [An(s)] + X– ➝
H+– [Cat(s)] + M+ ➝ X–– [An(s)] + OH–
M+– [Cat(s)] + H+
Cation Anion
exchanger exchanger
Regeneration:
Regeneration:
X–– [An(s)] + OH– ➝
M+– [Cat(s)] + H+ ➝ OH–– [An(s)] + X–
H+– [Cat(s)] + M+
Deionized effluent
Spent regenerant
90
SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

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
93
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
94
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
95
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
96
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
97
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

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.
98
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)
99
Upland sand-rich soils (preferred)

Engineered clay
Reactive/adsorptive materials: activated
carbon, apatite, coke, organoclay, zero-
valent 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
100
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

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
101
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)
102
Source: A = Jim Hahnenberg USEPA: B = Ernie Watkins USEPA: C = Ellicott Corporation
Debris Air or Gas

Removal Residue
Treatment
Sediment Contaminated
Removal Transport Staging Pretreatment Solids
Treatment
Contaminated
Solids
Solids
Water Effluent Disposal Disposal

Treatment and/or and/or
and/or Solids
Reuse Reuse
Disposal
103
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
104
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
105
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.
106
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
107
Cutterhead Dredge
& Piping
Piping Suction Pump

& Diesel Engine
Extended Ladder Cutterhead Dredge & Barge
108
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
109
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
110
BIOREMEDIATION

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.
112
Bioremediation
In-Situ Ex-Situ
Engineered Natural Attenuation
Bio-stimulation Bio-augmentation
Addition of oxygen Addition of Oxygen,

Nutrients & Bacteria
-Bio venting
-Bio-sparging Addition of Oxygen
& 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
113
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
114
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.
115
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
C5H7O2N
Metabolize soluble food
Reproduce by binary fission
Cellular composition: C5H7O2N C5H7O2N
70 – 90% water
10 – 30% dry mass
92% of dry mass composed of carbon, oxygen,
nitrogen, and hydrogen
116
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
SOURCE
HYDROGENS SOURCE
CARBON NUTRIENTS
Daughter
Cell
GROWTH
Parent
AND WATER
Cell CO2
REPRODUCTION
Daughter
Cell
117
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 co-
metabolism
Reductive dehalogenation
Inorganic compounds as electron
donors
118
C7H8 +9O2 → 7CO2 + 4H2O
Cell Growth
Donor Acceptorand Reproduction
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
119
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
120
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
121
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
122
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
123
Aerated Lagoon
124
Anaerobic Digester
Contaminated soil Slurry

Emission
control
Water Mixer Bioreactor Water

Centrifuge
Clean soil
Nutrients
Vapor treatment
Air
Injection
well
Extraction wells Extraction wells

Vadose zone
Groundwater
125
Pre-
treatment
Microbes Nutrients Oxygen
126
MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION

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).
129
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
130
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.
131
Residual NAPL
Water Plume of
table dissolved fuel
Methanogenesis hydrocarbons
Iron (III)
Denitrification Sulfate
Aerobic
reduction
reduction Groundwater
respiration 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
132
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
133
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.
134
Evidence of biotransformation is
supported by concentrations of cis-
DCE, vinyl chloride, and ethene,
daughter products of TCE reductive
dechlorination.
Samples collected near the source
show that 8–25% 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
135
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 Surface

drainage
Base:
572 gallon release of
gasoline containing Approximate extent of
MTBE above 2 ppb
MTBE (11/97)
Estimated groundwater
velocity is 400 ft/year N
W E
BTEX plume stops within S
50–100 feet from source
MTBE plume is 250 feet
wide and extends 1,700
feet from source 0 100 200
Scale: feet
Approximate extent of detectable

TPH / BTEX (11/97)
136
Natural biodegradation appears to have

affected the BTEX, but it had little or no
affect on the MTBE.
In general, simpler and naturally-
occurring 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.
137
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.
138
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
139
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?
140
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?
141
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
142
IN SITU TREATMENTS, PART ONE

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

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   
Air Sparging  
Permeable Reactive Barriers   
Chemical Oxidation  
Soil Flushing *    
Bioremediation *  
Phytoremediation *  
Immobilization *      
*Covered in other lectures
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological


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

Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Process draws fresh air through the

unsaturated zone, allowing flux, mass
transfer, and treatment.
Vapor Condensate
TreatmentTreatment
Vapor Blower
Blower
Condensate
Collection
Collection

Vapor Condensate
Treatment Blower Collection
Flux:
Contaminant vaporizes into the
introduced fresh air.
Vapor Condensate
Mass transfer:
Vapors move to one or more
extraction wells.
Vapor Condensate
Treatment:
Single- or multi-step process
extracts and treats vapors.

Success depends on:

Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
Site conditions
System design
Remediation manager can only control:

Soil properties
Site conditions
System design
Remediation manager can only control:

Soil properties
Site conditions (limited control)
System design

Success depends on:

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

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
Pv
KH =
C
Expresses the ability of a contaminant to

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

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:

Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

Coarse-grained Fine-grained
material (gravel) 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

Success depends on:

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


Subsurface conduits
Can short-circuit the SVE system
Surface caps
Impermeable seals that increase the radius of
influence and reduce surface water infiltration
Success depends on:

Soil properties
Site conditions
System design

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″ 5″ 0″
Radius of
influence
(ROI) is the
distance from
the extraction
well to well
points where
the applied
vacuum is
recognized

Homogeneous
Soil Type ROI (in feet)
Coarse sand >100
Fine sand 60–100
Silt 20–40
Clay <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 10–15 ft
Extraction wells are ideally spaced to achieve
an overlapping of the ROI
ROI
Extraction well
Area of contamination

Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE enhancements generally require

heating the soil.
Extraction well
Inlet well
Heat canisters
SVE enhancements generally

require heating the soil.
Extraction well
Inlet well
Heating blanket

SVE enhancements generally

require heating the soil.
Extraction well
Inlet well
Microwave probes
Heating the soil increases the volatility

of the contaminant: Temperature
10°C 20°C 40°C
Compound Henry’s Law Constant
TCE 328* 544 1370
Benzene 133 230 619

1,2-
30 51 134
Dichloroethane
Methylene
53 89 226
chloride
* atm m3/mole
Source: “In situ Treatment Technology” – E. Nyer
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological


Direct injection of air below the water table
Air-injection SVE wells

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:

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

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
Dissolved phase
Potential mounding and spreading

of contamination

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 system’s air withdrawal capacity

Treatment of extracted vapors from SVE

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

IN SITU TREATMENTS, PART TWO

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
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological

A permeable zone containing reactive

material that will intercept and treat
contaminated groundwater as it flows
under natural gradient conditions
Treated water
reactive barrier
Permeable
Contaminated plume
Groundwater flow
167
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
168
PRBs are effective in treating groundwater

contaminated with:
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Chlorinated solvents
Soluble metals
Treatable Organic Treatable Inorganic

Compounds Compounds
1,1,1-trichloroethane chromium
tetrachloroethene lead
trichloroethene uranium
cis-1,2-dichloroethene selenium
trans-1,2- cadmium
dichloroethene
vinyl chloride sulphate
benzene nitrate
freon 113 arsenic
Depends on:
Site characterization
System design
169
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.
170
Reaction of Fe0 in saturated state:
Fe0 → Fe+2 + 2e-
2 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.
171
H Cl H H
C C C C
Cl TCE Cl Cl DCE Cl
+(2e- + H+) +(2e-+ H+)
-(Cl- ) -(Cl-)
H H H H H H
C C C C H C C H
H VC
Cl H Ethene H H Ethane H
+(2e-+ H+) +(2e- + 2H+)
-(Cl-)
Cr+6 under typical aquifer

conditions is CrO42-
CrO42- 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
172
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.
173
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 Reactive material

PRB
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-and- Gate w/ reactive

gate PRB material
Funnel of
impermeable
Groundwater flow 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
174
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
175
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
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
176
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)
177
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
178
Potassium
permanganate PCE Water
4KMnO4 + 3C2Cl4 + 4H2O
→ 6CO2 + 4MnO2 + 4K+ + 12Cl- +

8H-
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
179
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
180
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)
181
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
182
Treatment Area / Injection System
Centrifugal
pumps with
pressure
release valve
Injection Manifold
183
Treatment Chemical Being Pumped
Bailer showing
sodium
permanganate
solution in well
immediately
offset from
injection well
184
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.
185
186
SOIL WASHING AND IMMOBILIZATION

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
189
In-situ soil flushing is the extraction of

contaminants from the soil with water
or other suitable aqueous solutions.
Spray
(1) Flushing Groundwater
additives treatment
Pump (5) Pump
(4)
Groundwater
extraction well
(3) Vadose
Water zone
table Contaminated area
Leachate
collection Groundwater
(2) zone
Low permeability zone
U.S. EPA 1991a
190
Soil Flushing
Water
Soluble (hydrophilic) organics
Octanol/water partition coefficient <10
Water with surfactant
Low solubility (hydrophobic) organics
191
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 × 10–3 cm/sec = effective soil flushing
<1 × 10–5 cm/sec = limited soil flushing
192
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
193
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
194
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 (mercury-
volatile, lead-nonvolatile)
Particle Size
Distribution Comments
>2 mm Oversize
pretreatment requirements
0.25–2 mm Effective soil washing
0.063–0.25 mm Limited soil washing
<0.063 mm Clay and silt fraction,
difficult soil washing
<1" soil
clean
>1" soil soil
sand
stones fines fines
195
CONTAMINATED POLYMER
SOIL
Centrifuges
Slurry
Water Sludge basin
Oversized
Surfactant
material Air Filter press
Concentrator
RETURNED TO SITE
Sludge
Clean sand
TO DISPOSAL
Froth flotation cells
Soil Washing
196
Soil Washing
197
Wastewater – treatment and recycle

Vapors – collect and treat
Oversize soils – return to site
Fines – further treatment
198
Soils, sludges, and sediments

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

Not for organics
Nondestructive
Physical
Chemical
Thermal
Biological
199
Solidification
Sludges and sediments
Clays, vermiculite, and saw dust
Stabilization
Cement technologies
Phosphate technologies
Matrix formation
200
New Hampshire Plating Company
Chemical binding of soluble metals to soil
Portec Pugmill
Reagent blending
201
Loading of treated soil
Blending using a backhoe
Mouat Industries
Columbus, Montana
Chemical reduction of hexavalent chrome (Cr+6)
202
Mouat Industries
Columbus, Montana
Traub Battery
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Traub Battery
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Pug mill used to blend
203
Vitrification
Primarily radioactive waste
Electrical resistance or
combustion heating
204
Contains as well as immobilizes

Treats large volume, such as
mine tailings
205
Mine Tailings Leadville, Colorado
Biosolids to be mixed with tailings
206
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
207
208
THERMAL TREATMENT

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 incinera-
tor 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
211
Thermal Treatment
Contaminant is destroyed
Established technology
Volume reduction
Best demonstrated available technology
Can be costly
Possible air pollution problems
Public disapproval
212
Thermal Treatment
Secondary Combustion
Chamber temp. at Stack
1800 to 2400 EF
Primary Combustion (seconds) Caustic
Chamber in presence of soluciton
oxygen at 800 to 1400 EF scrubber
(20 min)
Quencher
cools with
water to
400EF Induced
Ash Draft
Ash Fan
Collection Collection
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
213
Thermal Treatment
214
Thermal Treatment
Volatilizes contaminants
Condenses and/or treats vapors
Clean soil returned to the site
215
Thermal Treatment
216
Thermal Treatment
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
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
219
Thermal Treatment
Catalyst
Beds
220
PHYTOREMEDIATION

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

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. “phyto-
technologies” to meet environmental
remediation goals.
Phytotechnologies include containment in
addition to treatment or removal strategies.

Phytoremediation
Mechanism Description Clean up goals

Phytosequestation Plant ability to reduce the Containment (sequesters)
mobility of a contaminant
Rhizodegradation Phytochemicals extruded Remediation by
through roots enhance destruction (degrades)
microbial biodegradation
Phytohydraulics Plant affect on local hydrology Containment by
controlling hydrology
(sequesters)
Phytoextraction Uptake contaminants into the Remediation by removal
plant of plants (extracts)
Phytodegradation Uptake and break down Remediation by
contaminants within the plant destruction (degrades)
Phytovolatilization 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 Infiltration Seasonal
Fluctuations and Settling Floodplain Water
Zone Body
Considered a green technology and

sustainable
Solar-powered
Minimal air emissions, water discharge,
and secondary waste generation
Applicable for remote locations

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

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
1—3 mm
Surrounding
Roots
O2
Rhizosphere
O2
Root or E
Root Fragment
H2O
O2
Soil Microbes E
O2 E
O2
E = Exudates
(Nutrients)
E O2
H2 O 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

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.

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

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

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

PROCESS TESTING

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
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
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 WIND
TREATING
COMPOSITE SAMPLE TREATED
SAMPLE PILE
GRAB
SAMPLES COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
JAR GRAB
SAMPLES
WASTE
PILE
Media
Feed streams
Reagent streams
Treated materials
Waste streams
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)
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
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
242
Process Testing
MCS Unit
Closed
MCS Unit
Open
243
Process Testing
Monitoring
Shed
Emission
Stack
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
245
Process Testing
Stack emission test
Stack emission test
Stack emission test
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
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
248
TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

1. State the application, limitations, working mechanisms, advan-
tages and disadvantages of selecting presumptive remedies.
tages and disadvantages of selecting potential remedies.
tages and disadvantages of treatability studies.
tages 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

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

Soil vapor extraction

Low temperature desorption
Incineration
For organics and inorganics

For water and soil/sludges
Volatile organics
Semivolatile to non-volatile
organics
Pesticides

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

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

Used to verify that selected

remedies will actually meet clean-
up 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

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

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 Notice
z Foreword
z Report Documentation Page
z Acknowledgment
1 INTRODUCTION
z 1.1 Objectives
z 1.2 Background
z 1.3 How To Use This Document
z 1.4 Requirements To Consider Technology's Impact on Natural Resources
z 1.5 Cautionary Notes
z 1.6 On Line Survey
2 CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
z 2.1 Presumptive Remedies

z 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
z 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
z 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
{ 2.4.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Ground
{ 2.4.4 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Air
Emissions/Off-Gases
{ 2.4.5 Common Treatment Train for Halogenated VOCs
z 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,
{ 2.5.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated SVOCs in Ground
{ 2.5.4 Common Treatment Train for Nonhalogenated SVOCs
z 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,
{ 2.6.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated SVOCs in Ground
{ 2.6.4 Common Treatment Train for Halogenated SVOCs
z 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
z 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
z 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,
{ 2.9.4 Common Treatment Train for Radionuclides
z 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,
{ 2.10.4 Common Treatment Train for Explosives
3 TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
z 3.1 In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
z 3.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
z 3.3 In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
z 3.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
261
z 3.5 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
z 3.6 Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
z 3.7 Containment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
z 3.8 Other Treatment Technologies for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
z 3.9 In Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
z 3.10 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and
Leachate
z 3.11 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
z 3.12 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and
Leachate
z 3.13 Containment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
z 3.14 Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment
4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge Treatment Technologies
In Situ Biological Treatment
z 4.1 Bioventing
z 4.2 Enhanced Bioremediation
z 4.3 Phytoremediation
In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment
z 4.4 Chemical Oxidation

z 4.5 Electrokinetic Separation
z 4.6 Fracturing
z 4.7 Soil Flushing
z 4.8 Soil Vapor Extraction
z 4.9 Solidification/Stabilization
In Situ Thermal Treatment
z 4.10 Thermal Treatment
Ex Situ Biological Treatment
z 4.11 Biopiles
z 4.12 Composting
z 4.13 Landfarming
z 4.14 Slurry Phase Biological Treatment
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (Assuming Excavation)
z 4.15 Chemical Extraction

z 4.16 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation
z 4.17 Dehalogenation
z 4.18 Separation
z 4.19 Soil Washing
z 4.20 Solidification/Stabilization
Ex Situ Thermal Treatment (assuming excavation)
z 4.21 Hot Gas Decontamination

z 4.22 Incineration
z 4.23 Open Burn/Open Detonation
262
z 4.24 Pyrolysis
z 4.25 Thermal Desorption
z 4.26 Landfill Cap
z 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 4.29 Enhanced Bioremediation

z 4.30 Monitored Natural Attenuation
z 4.31 Phytoremediation
In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment
z 4.32 Air Sparging

z 4.33 Bioslurping
z 4.34 Chemical Oxidation
z 4.35 Directional Wells
z 4.36 Dual Phase Extraction
z 4.37 Thermal Treatment
z 4.38 Hydrofracturing Enhancements
z 4.39 In-Well Air Stripping
z 4.40 Passive/Reactive Treatment Walls
Ex Situ Biological Treatment
z 4.41 Bioreactors
z 4.42 Constructed Wetlands
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming pumping)
z 4.43 Adsorption/Absorption
z 4.44 Advanced Oxidation Processes
z 4.45 Air Stripping
z 4.46 Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC)/Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
z 4.47 Ground Water Pumping/Pump and Treat
z 4.48 Ion Exchange
z 4.49 Precipitation/Coagulation/Flocculation
z 4.50 Separation
z 4.51 Sprinkler Irrigation
Containment
z 4.52 Physical Barriers

z 4.53 Deep Well Injection
Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment
z 4.54 Biofiltration
263
z 4.55 High Energy Destruction
z 4.56 Membrane Separation
z 4.57 Oxidation
z 4.58 Scrubbers
z 4.59 Vapor Phase Carbon Adsorption
5 REFERENCES
z 5.1 Document Sources

z 5.2 Reference Document Listing by Author
z 5.3 Reference Web Site Listing
APPENDICES
z APPENDIX A: EPA Remediation and Characterization Innovative Technologies (EPA

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

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 HOUSTON, MISSOURI

On June 18, 1979, a Missouri PCP RELEASE
Department of Conservation agent
responded to a major fish kill at a
0.7 acre farm pond located near
Houston, Missouri. (See Figure 1, Jefferson
City
Location Map.) The agent St. Louis
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
Springfield
Chemical Company (Cairo Houston
Treating) located across U.S.
Highway 63 and up gradient from Van Buren
the farm pond.
An initial investigation showed the Figure 1: Location Map

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) 287

PAGE 3
288
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS
EXERCISE

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)
291
PRBs Exercise
Initial contaminant concentration (Co)

Target clean-up goal (Ceff)
Time of maximum concentration (tp)
Contaminant half life (t½)
Number of half-lives (N½)
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 (t½)
2.5 to 4
cm
discharge
sand
reactive
10 to 100 cm material
flow
sand sample
ports
input pump
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) Concentration (ppb)*

0 2633
0.5 1500
1.0 650
1.5 283
2.0 150
2.5 83
3.0 17
* ppb = parts per billion
tp = 0 hr
C0 = 2633
ppb
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 (t½) is the amount

of reaction time (in hours) needed for
the reactant material to reduce the
contaminant concentration in half.
t½ = -0.6931 / k
Where:
t½ = Half-life of contaminant (a time value)
-0.6931 = First order rate constant decay [ln (½)]
k = First order constant obtained from
graphing results of a column test
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) ln (C/Co)*

0 0
0.5 -0.5626
1.0 -1.3989
1.5 -2.2304
2.0 -2.8652
2.5 -3.4570
3.0 -5.0426
*Natural log (ln)  Concentration/effluent
concentration (rate constant equation)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

0
k = slope
TCE Concentration ln(C/C o)
-1
(-4.4) – (-1.5) -2.9
-1.5 =
3-1 2
-2
k = -1.45
-3
-4
-4.4
-5
Time (hr )
295
PRBs Exercise
First order rate constant (k) for

TCE as calculated from the
graph is:
k = -1.45
t½ = -0.6931 / k
t½ = -0.6931 / -1.45
TCE t½ = 0.478 hours
Where: t½ = Time (in hours)

-0.6931 = First order rate constant decay [ln (½)]
k = -1.45
Number of half-lives (N½) 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.
296
PRBs Exercise
To calculate the number of half-lives

needed (N½) 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

(N½) is:
N½ = ln (Ceff /Co) / ln½
Where:
Ceff = concentration of desired effluent
Co = concentration of influent
ln½ = rate constant decay
N½ = ln (5 ppb / 2633 ppb) / ln½
N½ = -6.266 / -0.6931
TCE N½ = 9.04 (a unit less number)
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 (N½) needed, times the half-life (t½):
td = N½  t½
Decay time equals the number of

half-lives (N½) times the half-life (t½):
td = N½  t½
using: N½ = 9.04
t½ = 0.478 hours
td = (9.04)(0.478 hours) = 4.32 hrs
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.
299
PRBs Exercise
TCE
(Initial Concentration 2650 µg/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).
300
PRBs Exercise

0 15
0.5 30
1.0 100
1.5 140
2.0 172
2.5 195
3.0 200
3.5 185
4.0 150
4.5 120
tp = 2.75 hr
C0 = 200 ppb
301
PRBs Exercise

0 0
0.5 0
1.0 0
1.5 0
2.0 0
2.5 0
3.0 0
3.5 -0.0779
4.0 -0.2876
4.5 -0.5108
* Natural log (ln) x Concentration/effluent concentration (Rate constant equation)
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0
-0.475 – (0)
k=
DCE Concentration ln(C/C o)
0 – 1.5
-0.25 -0.475
k=
1.5
k = -0.3167
-0.5
-0.475
-0.75
Time ( hr )
t½ = -0.6931 / k
k for DCE = -0.316
t½ = -0.6931 / -0.316
DCE t½ = 2.18 hours
302
PRBs Exercise
Using DCE Ceff = 5 ppb, and

DCE Co = 200 ppb, then:

N½ = ln (5 ppb/200 ppb) / ln½
N½ = -3.688 / -0.6931
DCE N½ = 5.32 (a unit less number)
Decay time (td) for DCE, using:
N½ = 5.32
t½ = 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
303
PRBs Exercise

0 0
0.5 10
1.0 55
1.5 97.5
2.0 142.5
2.5 160
3.0 155
3.5 125
4.0 120
4.5 115
Tp = 2.5 hr
C0 = 160 ppb
304
PRBs Exercise

0 0
0.5 0
1.0 0
1.5 0
2.0 0
2.5 0
3.0 -0.0317
3.5 -0.2468
4.0 -0.2876
4.5 -0.3302
* Natural log (ln) x Concentration/effluent concentration (Rate constant equation)
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0
-0.33 – (0)
k=
4.5 – 2.5
VC Concentration ln(C/C o)
-0.25
-0.33
-0.5
Time ( hr )
t½ = -0.6931 / k
k for VC = -0.16
t½ = -0.6931 / -0.16
VC t½ = 4.33 hours
305
PRBs Exercise
Using VC Ceff = 2 ppb, and

VC Co = 160 ppb, then:
N½ = ln (Ceff / Co) / ln½

N½ = ln (2 ppb / 160 ppb) / ln½
N½ = -4.38 / -0.6931
VC N½ = 6.32 (a unit less number)
Decay time (td) for VC, using:
N½ = 6.32
t½ = 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
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
307
PRBs Exercise
Groundwater velocity is the rate of movement of

the groundwater and is expressed as:
v = KI / n
Where: v = groundwater velocity in ft/day

K = aquifer hydraulic conductivity in ft/day
I = groundwater gradient, expressed in
ft/ft
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)
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
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
310
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESIGN EXERCISE

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
Tampa. (See Figure 1, Location Orlando
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,
when disposal was ceased, Miami
approximately 16 million gallons
of liquid waste were disposed in Figure 1: Location Map
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.)

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
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 A
Perched Groundwater Former Waste Former
and Contaminant Flow Oil Pond Septic Pond
Perched
Sand Water
Sand Tailings
Tailings Table
Sand
Clay Tailings
“Slimes”
Clay
“Slimes”
Unmined Clay Strata
Not to Scale
Figure 3: Site Cross Section

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” N
Settling Pond
Original Sand Tailings Dike
Waste Oil Pond
South
Clay “Slimes”
Settling Pond Septic
Pond
Well
Points
New Slurry Wall
Groundwater
Not to Scale Treatment
System
Figure 4: Groundwater Recovery System

315
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

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

317
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.

TABLE 3. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES

HENRY’S LAW
CHEMICAL CONSTANT ADSORPTION* BIODEGRADATION
(atm-m3/mol) (mg compound/g carbon)
Volatile Organics
Benzene 0.00559 80 Degradable

Refractory/
Carbon tetrachloride 0.0241 6.2
nondegradable
Chloroform 0.00278 1.6 Degradable
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.00431 1.2 Degradable
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.000978 2 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 2 Degradable
Trichloroethylene 0.0091 18.2 Refractory
Toluene 0.00637 50 Degradable
Vinyl chloride 0.0891 Trace Refractory
Extractable Organics
Pentachlorophenol NA 100 Degradable
Pesticides and PCBs
2,4-D NA Trace Degradable
2,4,5-TP NA Trace Refractory
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.

319
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 Henry’s 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
Henry’s 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: $2.50 if used primary unit
$0.50 if used as a polish unit

R02/03
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) PAGE

321 11
R02/03
EXERCISE WORKSHEET
CONCEN-
CHEMICAL TRATION
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 ppm

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 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
P ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES) 322

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A absorption coefficient
AA atomic absorption
AA Assistant Administrator (EPA)
AAQCD Ambient Air Quality Criteria Document (EPA, CAA)
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACL alternate concentration limit (EPA, RCRA)
ACO administrative consent order
ADI acceptable daily intake (EPA)
AEA Atomic Energy Act (NRC, ERDA, DOE)
AG Attorney General
AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (EPA, TSCA)
AHPA Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act
AIC acceptable intake for chronic exposure (EPA)
AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act
AIS acceptable intake for subchronic exposure (EPA)
AL action level (EPA)
ALJ administrative law judge
ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AO administrative order
AOC area of contamination
AOC area of concern
APA Administrative Procedure Act
APA Acid Precipitation Act
AQCR air quality control region
AQMD air quality management district
AQUIRE acute aquatic toxicity values database (CIS)
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ARCS Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
AT averaging time
Environmental Remediation Technologies

Acronyms 323
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria (EPA, CWA)
AWQCD Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document (EPA, CWA)
B body weight of receptor

BACT best available control technology (EPA, CAA)
BAT(EA) best available technology (economically achievable) (EPA, CWA)
BCPCT best conventional pollutant control technology (EPA, CAA)
BCT best conventional technology (EPA, CWA)
BDAT best demonstrated available technology (EPA, RCRA)
BLM Bureau of Land Management (DOI)
BM Bureau of Mines
BMP best management practices
BOD biochemical (or biological) oxygen demand
BPATT best practicable available technology
BPJ best professional judgment
BPT(CA) best practicable technology (currently available) (EPA, CWA)
BRA baseline risk assessment
BQRA baseline quantitative risk assessment
BTC briefly tolerable concentration (NRC)
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
BTX benzene, toluene, and xylenes
C corrosivity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)

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

Acronyms 324
Toxnet)
CDC Centers for Disease Control (HHS, PHS)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CERI Center for Environmental Research Information (EPA-ORD,
Cincinnati)
CESARS Chemical Evaluation Search and Retrieval System (CIS)
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generator
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHEMID Chemical Identification (includes SUPERLIST) (NLM, ELHILL)
CHEMLINE Chemical Dictionary Online (NLM, ELHILL)
CHEMTRAC Chemical emissions toxicity inventory database (EPA)
CHEMTREC Chemical Transportation Emergency Center
CHRIS Chemical Hazard Response Information System (USCG)
CHS CERCLA hazardous substance
CIL Chemical Inventory List (EPA, EPCRA)
CIS Computer Information System (commercial user network)
CMA Chemical Manufacturers Association
CMI corrective measures implementation (EPA, RCRA)
CMS corrective measures study (EPA, RCRA)
CO compliance order
CO carbon monoxide
COD chemical oxygen demand
COE Corps of Engineers
CP conventional pollutant (EPA, CWA)
CP criteria pollutant (EPA, CAA)
CPF cancer (carcinogenic) potency factor
CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission
CQAP construction quality assurance plan
CRA classification review area (EPA, SDWA)
CRAVE carcinogen risk assessment verification endeavor (EPA, ECAO)
CRP community relations plan(ning) (EPA, CERCLA)
CRS Congressional Research Services
Acronyms 325
CSF cancer slope factor
CTCP Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Gleason et at., CIS)
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
D disposer, disposal
D dose of a pollutant in a receptor (mg/kg/day)
D--- waste ID for characteristic hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)
DAF dilution-attenuation factor (EPA, RCRA)
DART Development and Reproductive Toxicology (NLM, Toxnet)
DCQAP data collection quality assurance plan
DE destruction efficiency
DEIS draft environmental impact statement
DERA defense environmental restoration account
DERMAL dermal absorption and toxicity database (CIS)
DERP defense environmental restoration program
DIRLINE Directory of Information Resources Online (NLM)
DMP data management plan
DMR discharge monitoring report (EPA, CWA)
DNFA determination of no further action (EPA, RCRA)
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
DOL U.S. Department of Labor
DOR Determination of Release (EPA, RCRA)
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DQO data quality objective (EPA)
DRE destruction removal efficiency
DW drinking water
DWCD Drinking Water Criteria Document (EPA, SDWA)
DWHAS Drinking Water Health Advisory Summary (EPA, SDWA)
E toxicity characteristic hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)

Acronyms 326
EA environmental assessment (EPA, NEPA)
EA endangerment assessment
EC50 median effective concentration
EcA ecological assessment
ECAO Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (EPA)
ED exposure duration
ED50 median effective dose
EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis
EEGL emergency exposure guidance level (NRC)
EEL emergency exposure level (WHO)
EERU Environmental Emergency Response Unit
EF exposure frequency
EFD exposure frequency and duration
EHS extremely hazardous substance (EPA, EPCRA)
EIA environmental impact assessment (EPA, NEPA)
EIES Electronic Information Exchange System (EPA)
EIS environmental impact statement (study) (EPA, NEPA)
EMIC Environmental Mutagen Information Center (NLM, Toxnet)
EMICBACK 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

Acronyms 327
F--- waste ID for nonspecific-source hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)
FACA financial assurance for corrective action (EPA, RCRA)
FCL final cleanup level
FCO Federal Coordinating Officer
FEIS final environmental impact statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEPCA Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act
FFA federal facilities agreement
FFCA federal facilities compliance agreement
FFCM federal facilities compliance manual
FFSRA federal facilities site remediation agreement
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FIT Field Investigation Team
FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FONSI finding of no significant impact (EPA, NEPA)
FR Federal Register
FRG final remediation goals
FRL final remediation level (EPA, CERCLA)
FRSS Federal Register Search System
FS feasibility study (EPA, CERCLA)
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
G generator
G/Tp generator/transporter
GAC granular activated carbon
GACT generally available control technology
GC gas chromatograph(y)
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
GENE-TOX genetic toxicology database (NLM, Toxnet)
GIABS gastrointestinal absorption database (CIS)
GOCO government-owned, contractor-operated facility
GSA Government Services Administration
GW groundwater

Acronyms 328
GWA Groundwater Act of 1987
GWPS groundwater protection standard (EPA, RCRA)
GWQA groundwater quality assessment (EPA, RCRA)
H acute hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)

HA hazard (or health) assessment
HAD Health Assessment Document (EPA)
HAP hazardous air pollutant (EPA, CAA)
HARM hazard assessment rating methodology
HASP health and safety plan
HAZINF Hazardous Chemical Information and Disposal Guide (U. of Alberta)
HAZWOPER hazardous waste operations and emergency service
HC hazardous constituent (EPA, RCRA)
HC hydrocarbons
HCh hazardous chemical (OSHA)
HEA health effects assessment (EPA)
HEA health and environment assessment (EPA)
HEAD Health Effects Assessment Document (EPA)
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (EPA)
HEED Health and Environment Effects Document (EPA)
HEEP Health and Environmental Effects Profile (EPA)
HH&E human health and the environment
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
HHWE human health, welfare and the environment
HI hazard index
HM hazardous material (DOT, HMTA)
HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (DOT)
HQ hazard quotient
HRS Hazard Ranking System (EPA, CERCLA)
HS hazardous substance (EPA, CWA)
HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank (NLM, Toxnet)
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (EPA, RCRA)
HW hazardous waste (EPA, RCRA)
HWMF hazardous waste management facility (EPA, RCRA)
HWMU hazardous waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)

Acronyms 329
I ignitable hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)
I intake rate
IAG interagency agreement (EPA, CERCLA)
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICL initial cleanup level
IDLH immediately dangerous to life or health (NIOSH)
IFB Invitation for Bids
IHCS imminently hazardous chemical substance (EPA, TSCA)
ILR individual lifetime risk
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System (NLM, Toxnet)
IRP installation restoration program
IS interim status (EPA, RCRA)
I&SE imminent and substantial endangerment
ISHOW Information System for Hazardous Organics in Water (CIS)
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists
K--- waste ID for specific-source hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)
LAER lowest achievable emission rate (EPA, CAA)

LC50 median lethal concentration
LD50 median lethal dose
LDF land disposal facility (EPA, RCRA)
LDU land disposal unit (EPA, RCRA)
LEPC local emergency planning committee (EPA, EPCRA)
LF landfill
LFD local fire department
LLRWPA Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act
LOG P bioconcentration factors database
LOIS loss of interim status (EPA, RCRA)
LQG large quantity generator
LT lifetime
LTU land treatment unit
LUST leaking underground storage tank(s)
MACT maximum achievable control technology (EPA, CAA)

Acronyms 330
MARPOL Marine Pollution Treaty (USCG)
MCL maximum contaminant level (EPA, SDWA)
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal (EPA, SDWA)
MCS media cleanup standard (EPA, RCRA)
MEI maximum exposed individual (EPA, RCRA)
MEDLARS Medial Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (NLM)
MEP maximum extent practicable
MF modifying factor (EPA)
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/l milligrams per liter
MOA memorandum of agreement
MOS margin of safety
MPSRA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (EPA)
MPS media protection standard (EPA)
MSDS material safety data sheet (OSHA)
MSHA Mining Safety and Health Administration
MTD maximum tolerated dose (EPA)
MTR minimum technology requirements (EPA, RCRA)
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard (EPA, CAA)

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

Acronyms 331
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)
NOAEL no observed adverse effect level
NOD notice of deficiency (EPA, RCRA)
NOEL no observed effect level
NOI notice of intent (to prepare an EIS)
NONC notice of noncompliance
NOV notice of violation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (EPA, CWA)
NPL National Priorities List (EPA, CERCLA)
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC National Response Center
NRC National Research Council (NAS)
NRDA natural resource damage assessment
NRT National Response Team
NSF National Science Foundation
NSPS new source performance standards (EPA, CAA)
NTIS National Technical Information Service
NTP National Toxicology Program
NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act
O&G oil and grease

O&M operation and maintenance
OE Office of Enforcement (EPA)
OECM Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (EPA)
OERR Office of Emergency Response and Remediation (EPA, OSWER)
OGC Office of General Counsel (EPA)O
OHM/TADS Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data System
(EPA)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
O&MP operation and maintenance plan
O/O owner/operator (EPA, RCRA)
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL)

Acronyms 332
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act
OSM Office of Surface Mining (DOI)
OSW Office of Solid Waste (EPA, OSWER)
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA)
OTA Office of Technology Assessment (Congress)
OTS Office of Toxic Substances (EPA, OPTS)
OU operable unit (EPA, CERCLA)
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks (EPA)
OWPE Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (EPA, OSWER)
P--- waste ID for acutely hazardous commercial chemical products

(RCRA)
PA preliminary assessment (EPA, CERCLA)
PAAT Public Affair Assistance Team
PAC powdered activated carbon
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
PCDF polychlorinated dibenzofurans

PCP pentachlorophenol
PDR Physicians' Desk Reference
PECMT preliminary evaluation of corrective measures technology
PEL permissible exposure limit (OSHA)
PHRED Public Health Risk Evaluation Database (EPA)
PSHA Public Service Health Act
PHYTOTOX Terrestrial plant toxicology database (CIS)
PI preliminary injunction
PIAT Public Information Assistance Team
PIC product(s) of incomplete combustion
PIG program implementation guidance
PIP public involvement plan
PL public law
PM project manager
PMN premanufacture notices

Acronyms 333
PMP program management plan
PN public notice
PNA polynuclear aromatic (use PAH)
PNC public notice and opportunity of comment
POC point of compliance (EPA)
POD point of departure (EPA)
POE point of exposure
POHC principle organic hazardous constituent
POM polycyclic organic matter
POTW publically owned treatment works (EPA, CWA)
PP priority pollutant (EPA, CWA)
PP proposed plan (EPA, CERCLA)
ppb parts per billion
PPE personal protective equipment
PPIC Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (EPA)
ppm parts per million
PPP pollution prevention planning (EPA)
ppt parts per trillion
PQL practical quantitation limit
PR preliminary review (EPA, RCRA)
PRAO preliminary remedial action objectives (EPA, CERCLA)
PRG preliminary remediation goal (EPA, CERCLA)
PRP potentially responsible party (EPA, CERCLA)
PSD prevention of significant deterioration (EPA, CAA)
q, q*, q1 Same as SF and CPF

QAPP quality assurance project plan (EPA)
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QRA quantitative risk assessment
QSAR Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (Montana State Univ.)
R reactivity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)

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

Acronyms 334
RA Regional Administrator
RACT reasonably available control technology (EPA, CAA)
RAn risk analysis
RAO remedial action objective (EPA, CERCLA)
RAP remedial action plan
RBC rotating biological contactor
RC risk communication
RCh risk characterization
RComp remedy completion
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD remedial design (EPA, CERCLA)
RD&D research, development and demonstration
RE risk evaluation
REL recommended exposure limit (NIOSH)
REMFIT Field Investigation Team for EPA Remedial Action
RFA RCRA facility assessment (EPA, RCRA)
RfC (Inhalation) reference concentration (generic or chronic) (EPA)
RfCdt reference concentration (developmental/teratogenic) (EPA)
RfCs reference concentration (subchronic) (EPA)
RfD (Oral) reference dose (generic or chronic) (EPA)
RfDdt reference dose (developmental/teratogenic) (EPA)
RfDs reference dose (subchronic) (EPA)
RFI RCRA facility investigation (EPA, RCRA)
RFP Request for Proposal
RI remedial investigation (EPA, CERCLA)
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
RIM regulatory interpretative memorandum
RJ risk judgment
RM risk management
RME reasonable maximum exposure (EPA)
RMI risk management implementation (EPA, RCRA)
RMCL recommended maximum contaminant level (same as MCLG)
RN risk negotiation
RO reverse osmosis
ROD record of decision (EPA, CERCLA)

Acronyms 335
RP risk perception
RP responsible party (EPA, CERCLA)
RPAR rebuttable presumption against registration (EPA, FIFRA)
RPJ risk perception and judgment
RPM Regional Project Manager
RQ reportable quantity (EPA, CERCLA)
RR residual risk
RR risk reduction
RRC Regional Response Center
RRS risk reduction studies
RRT Regional Response Team
RS regulated substances (EPA, UST)
RS remedy selection
RS risk substitution
RSD risk specific dose (EPA)
RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (NLM, Toxnet)
RU regulated unit (EPA, RCRA)
RW remediation waste
RWMU remediation waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)
S storer, storage
SAB Science Advisory Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SC specific conductance
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SERC State Emergency Response Commission (EPA, EPCRA)
SES Senior Executive Service
SF safety factor (EPA)
SF slope factor (EPA)
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SI sampling inspection (EPA, RCRA)
SI site inspection (EPA, CERCLA)
SI surface impoundment
SIC standard industrial classification (cede)
SIP state implementation plan (EPA, CAA)

Acronyms 336
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (EPA-ORD)
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (DOI-OSM)
SNARL suggested no adverse reaction level
SNC significant noncomplier (EPA)
SNUR significant new use rule (EPA, TSCA)
SOLUB aqueous solubility database (Univ. of Arizona)
SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (plan) (EPA, CWA)
SQG Small quantity generator
SSC Scientific Support Coordinator
SW solid waste (EPA, RCRA)
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
SWMF solid waste management facility (EPA, RCRA)
SWMU solid waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)
T toxicity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)

T treater, treatment
TA toxicity assessment
TAG technical assistance grant (EPA, CERCLA)
TAR technical amendment to the regulations
TAT Technical Assistance Team
TBC advisory, criteria, or guidance to be considered (EPA, CERCLA)
TC toxicity characteristic (EPA, RCRA)
TCA trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethylene
TCh toxic chemical (EPA, EPCRA)
TC50 median toxic concentration
TCDD 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCL toxic chemical list (EPA, EPCRA)
TCL target cleanup level (EPA, RCRA)
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (EPA, RCRA)
TD50 median toxic dose
TDS total dissolved solids
T&E test and evaluation facility
TEGD Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (EPA, RCRA)

Acronyms 337
THM trihalomethane
TIP Toxicology Information Program (NLM)
TLV threshold limit value (ACGIH)
TLV-C TLV–ceiling (ACGIH)
TLV-STEL TLV–short-term exposure limit (ACGIH)
TLV-TWA TLV–time-weighted average (ACGIH)
TMV toxicity, mobility, and volume
TOC total organic carbon
TOX total organic halogen
TOXLINE Toxicology Information Online (NLM, ELHILL)
TOXLIT toxicology literature from special sources (NLM, ELHILL)
TOXNET Toxicology Data Network (NLM, MEDLARS)
Tp transporter
TP toxic pollutant (EPA, CWA)
TPQ threshold planning quantity (EPA, EPCRA)
TRI Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (EPA, EPCRA, NLM, Toxnet)
TRIFACTS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Fact Sheets (NLM, Toxnet)
TRO temporary restraining order
TS toxic substance (EPA, TSCA)
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSCATS Toxic Substances Control Act submissions
TSD treatment, storage, or disposal
TSDF treatment, storage, or disposal facility
TSP total suspended particulates
TSS total suspended solids
TSS total settleable solids
TU temporary unit (EPA, RCRA)
TUHC total unburned hydrocarbons
TV toxicity value
U--- waste ID for toxic commercial chemical products

UF uncertainty factor
UIC Underground Injection Control Program (EPA, SDWA)
ur3 use, reuse, recycle, reclaim
USC United States Code

Acronyms 338
USCA United States Code Annotated
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USDW underground source of drinking water (EPA, SDWA)
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank (EPA, RCRA)
VOA volatile organic analyzer

VOC volatile organic carbon (or compound)
VSI visual site inspection (EPA, RCRA)
W weight of receptor
WHO World Health Organization
WL warning letter
WP waste pile
WQA Water Quality Act
WQC water quality criterion (EPA, CWA)
WQS water quality standard (EPA, CWA)
WWTU wastewater treatment unit (EPA, RCRA)

Acronyms 339

Ert Student Manual 3ppg 2012-01-09

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ert Student Manual 3ppg 2012-01-09

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Off ce of Solid Waste and December 2011

Environmental Protection Emergency Response www.epa.gov/superfund

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

After completing the course, participants will be able to:

• Identify resources that describe innovative treatment technologies.

Note: Calculators are recommended.

Continuing Education Units: 1.9

ERT Environmental Response Team

Are offered tuition-free for

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 1

Course Descriptions, Class Schedules, and

Evaluate appropriate techniques to

Student Registration Card

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 2

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 3

FATE AND TRANSPORT OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS

CAPPING AND CONTAINMENT

BASIC WATER TREATMENT

CHEMICAL REACTIONS AND SEPARATIONS

IN-SITU TREATMENTS; NATURAL ATTENUATION, SVE, AND AIR SPARGING.

IN-SITU TREATMENTS; PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS AND CHEMICAL OXIDATION

MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION

SOIL WASHING AND SOLVENT EXTRACTION

Student Performance Objectives

1. Understand the general principles of the Triad approach

2. Describe the key components of the conceptual site model

A successful treatment design requires a

Clear project goals are established through

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 13

Initial investigation for

Image Courtesy of USGS

In developing a CSM, key elements include:

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 14

In developing a CSM, key elements include:

Chem-Dyne general site

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 15

Site is bounded to the south

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 16

Site is bounded to the north

In developing a CSM, key elements include:

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 17

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 18

In developing a CSM, key elements include:

Land use descriptions

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 19

Federal, state, and local operating permits

Public records (title history & city directories):

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 20

Sanborn Fire Insurance maps: