Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering and Implementation Challenges for Chlorinated Solvent Remediation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes

Part of the book series: SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology ((SERDP/ESTCP))

Abstract

This chapter identifies and discusses many of the challenges of evaluating, engineering (designing) and implementing in situ remediation technologies for chlorinated solvent plumes in groundwater. Most challenges discussed are not unique to a specific remediation technology, although there are technology-specific challenges. For example, adequate delivery of reagents is the most universal challenge because so many in situ remediation technologies rely on injecting treatment reagents into a subsurface that is often highly heterogeneous. The reagents used may be liquids, solids or gases, and the challenges associated with all three of these phases are unique to some extent. While this chapter cannot cover all of the challenges faced during in situ remediation, it is hoped that the discussion presented will enable the reader to extrapolate to other challenges not covered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Personal communications with Bruce A. Alleman, Brown and Caldwell; Richard A. Brown, ERM; Suthan S. Suthersan, ARCADIS; John T. Wilson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006).

References

  • ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2008. Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions. Bulletin ASTM E 2600. ASTM International, West Conshocken, PA, USA. 53 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azadpour-Keeley A, Wood LA, Lee TR, Mravik SC. 2004. Microbial responses to in situ chemical oxidation, six-phase heating, and steam injection remediation technologies in groundwater. Remediat J 14:5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbee GC. 2007. Fate of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the vadose zone and ground water. Ground Water Monitor Remediat 14:129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SM, Lincoln DR, Wallace WA. 1988. Application of observational method to hazardous waste engineering. Am Soc Civ Eng J Manag Eng 6:479–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle FC. 2001. Ground-Water Microbiology and Geochemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY, USA. 477 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman SW, Parker BL. 2005. Plume persistence due to aquitard back diffusion following dense nonaqueous phase liquid source removal or isolation. Water Resour Res 41:W12411.1-W12411.16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra G, Dutta L, Nuttall E, Anderson W, Hatzinger P, Goltz MN. 2005. Investigation of methods to control biofouling during in situ bioremediation. In Alleman BC, Kelley ME, eds, Proceedings of the Eighth International In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA (on CD), Paper #A-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christians GL, Ash RE, Wilson DJ. 2006. PRB wall design optimization: Monte Carlo probabilistic approach saves $1,500,000. Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 22–25, Paper C-07. CD Proceedings: ISBN 1-57477-157-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook MB, Friedland M. 2005. Remediation and future land use: Incorporating reuse considerations into Superfund activities. Remediat J 15:111–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crumbling DM, Hayworth JS, Johnson RL, Moore M. 2004. The Triad approach: A catalyst for maturing remediation practices. Remediat J 15:3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis P, McMaster M, Hood E, Cox E, Major D. 2005. Observations from multiple bioaugmentation applications for chlorinated ethene remediation. Proceedings, In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, Baltimore, MD, USA, June 6-9, Abstract I-01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupont RR, Bruell CJ, Downey DC, Huling SG, Marley MC, Norris RD, Pivetz B. 1998. Bioremediation: Design and Application. Volume 1, Innovative Site Remediation Technology Series. American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Annapolis, MD, USA. 543 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program). 2005. A Review of Biofouling Controls for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of Groundwater. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. http://www.estcp.org/Technology/upload/ER-0429-WhtPaper.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faris B, Vlassopoulos D, ITRC In Situ Bioremediation Team. 2003. A systematic approach to in situ bioremediation in groundwater. Remediat J 13:27–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra SJ, Cherry JA. 1988. Subsurface contamination by dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) chemicals. Proceedings, International Groundwater Symposium, International Association of Hydrogeologists, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, May 1-4, pp 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • FRTR (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable). 2002. Remediation Technology Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0., Section 4.6, Fracturing. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-5.html. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein KJ, Vitolins AR, Navon D, Parker BL, Chapman S, Anderson GA. 2004. Characterization and pilot-scale studies for chemical oxidation remediation of fractured shale. Remediat J 14:19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Burger J, Gochfield M, Kosson D, Lowrie K, Mayer H, Powers CW, Volz CD, Vyas V. 2005. End-state land uses, sustainability protective systems, and risk management: A challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship. Remediat J 16:91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschorn SK, Dinglasan MJ, Edwards EA, Lacrampe-Couloume G, Sherwood Lollar B. 2007. Compound specific isotope analysis as a natural reaction probe to determine biodegradation mechanisms. Environ Microbiol 9:1982–1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2000. Addressing regulatory barriers: The heart of the ITRC mission. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Cooperation Work Group Quarterly Update. March. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/Mar00.pdf. Accessed June, 13 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITRC. 2005. Permeable Reactive Barriers: Lessons Learned/New Directions. Prepared by the ITRC Permeable Reactive Barriers Team. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/PRB-4.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITRC. 2007. Triad Implementation Guide. Prepared by the ITRC Sampling, Characterization, and Monitoring Team. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/SCM-3.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RE, Dwarakanath V, Meinardus HW, Young CM. 2003. Mobility control: How injected surfactants and biostimulants may be forced into low-permeability units. Remediat J 13:59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson PC, Ettinger RA. 1991. Heuristic model for predicting the intrusion rate of contaminant vapors into buildings. Environ Sci Technol 25:1445–1452.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kansas DHE (Department of Health and Environment). 2007. Risk Based Standards for Kansas (RSK) Manual, 4th Version. KDHE Division of Environment, Bureau of Environmental Remediation, Topeka KS, USA. http://www.kdheks.gov/remedial/rsk_manual_page.htm. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitanidis PK, McCarty PL. 2010. Delivery and Mixing in the Subsurface: Processes and Design Principles for In Situ Remediation. SERDP and ESTCP Remediation Technology Monograph Series. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, NY, USA. In Preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenigsberg SS, Norris RD. 1999. Accelerated Bioremediation Using Slow Release Compounds. Selected Battelle Conference Papers: 1993–1999. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, San Clemente, CA, USA. 255 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenigsberg SS, Hazen TC, Peacock AD. 2005. Environmental biotechnology: A bioremediation perspective. Remediat J 15:5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livadas A. 2003. Injecting remediation compounds: How you inject is equally as important as what you inject. Remediat J 13:105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long CM, Borden RC. 2006. Enhanced reductive dechlorination in columns treated with edible oil emulsion. J Contam Hydrol 87:54–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mack J, Crumbling DM, Ellerbusch F. 2004. A data integration framework to support Triad projects. Remediat J 15:21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire TM, Newell CJ, Looney BB, Vangelas KM, Sink CH. 2004. Historical analysis of monitored natural attenuation: A survey of 191 chlorinated solvent sites and 45 solvent plumes. Remediat J 15:99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire TM, McDade JM, Newell CJ. 2006. Performance of DNAPL source depletion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent-impacted sites. Ground Water Monit Remediat 26:73–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan LA, Ficklen D, Knowles M. 2005. Site characterization to support permeable reactive barrier design. Remediat J 15:63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). 2008. Groundwater Risk Management Handbook. Prepared by NAVFAC Alternative Restoration Technology Team. http://www.ert2.org/ert2portal/DesktopDefault.aspx. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris B, Siegel L, Lester S, White H. 2004. Monitored natural attenuation forum: A panel discussion. Remediat J 14:113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris RD, Wilson DJ, Ellis DE, Sigrist R. 2000. Consideration of the effects of remediation technologies on natural attenuation. In Alleman BC, Leeson A, eds, Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents, Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Other Organic Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp 59–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Alternatives for Groundwater Cleanup. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 336 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. 1997. Innovations in Groundwater and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 310 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. 1999. Groundwater & Soil Cleanup: Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA, pp 140–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC, USA, pp 46–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pac T, Lewis R, Frazer J. 2005. Importance of delivery methods for remedial effectiveness. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27,p 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pankow JF, Cherry JA. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater. Waterloo Press, Portland, OR, USA. 525 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker LV, Clark CH. 2002. Study of Five Discrete Interval-Type Groundwater Sampling Devices. ERDC/CRREL TR-02-12. Prepared for the US Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck RB. 1969. Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics. Geotechnique 19:171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qui X, Stock MK, Davis JW. 2004. Remedial options for chlorinated volatile organics in a partially anaerobic aquifer. Remediat J 14:39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts AL, Ball WP, Searson P, Fairbrother H, Vikesland PJ, Klausen J, Kohn T, Kamath R, Zimmerman HJ, Burris D. 2002. Influence of Groundwater Constituents on Longevity of Iron-Based Permeable Barriers. Project CU-1125 Final Report. Prepared for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Arlington, VA, USA. http://www.estcp.org/viewfile.cfm?Doc=CU%2D1125%2DFR%2D01%2Epdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahl J. 2005. Effects of Chemical Oxidation of Tetrachloroethene and Trichloroethene on Microbial Activity. Masters Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, CO, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahl J, Crimi M, Munakata-Marr J, Siegrist RL. 2005. The impact of in situ chemical oxidation on biological processes in the treatment of chloroethenes. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27, p 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnell D. 2005. Application of pneumatic fracturing and media injection adjacent to/within structures. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27, p 86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro AM. 2001. Characterizing Ground-Water Chemistry and Hydraulic Properties of Fractured Rock Aquifers Using the Multifunction Bedrock-Aquifer Transportable Testing Tool (BAT3). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fact Sheet FS-075-01. http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/FS-075-01/fs-075-01.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist RL, Urynowicz MA, West OR, Crimi ML, Lowe KS. 2001. Principles and Practices of In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Permanganate. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp 114–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon S. 2004. Editor’s perspective: Hazardous site cleanup—A focus on Triad. Remediat J 15:1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater GF, Lollar BS, Sleep BE, Edwards EA. 2001. Variability in carbon isotopic fractionation during biodegradation of chlorinated ethenes: Implications for field applications. Environ Sci Technol 35:901–907.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stroo H, Leeson A, Shepard AJ, Koenigsberg SS, Casey CC. 2006. Monitored natural attenuation forum: Environmental remediation applications of molecular biological tools. Remediat J 16:125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sueker JK. 2001. Isotope applications in environmental investigations: Theory and use in chlorinated solvent and petroleum hydrocarbon studies. Remediat J 12:5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthersan SS. 1997. Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Baton, FL, USA, pp 27–70, 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthersan SS. 2002. Natural and Enhanced Remediation Systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 63–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talley JW. 2006. Roadblocks to the implementation of biotreatment strategies. In Talley JW, ed, Bioremediation of Recalcitrant Compounds. CRC Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd ed. Wiley-Interscience, Malden, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson NR, Xu X. 2005. Permanganate natural oxidant demand: Lessons learnt from a multi-site bench-scale study. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27, p 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997. Uncertainty Management: Expediting Cleanup Through Contingency Planning. DOE/EH/(CERCLA)-002. USDOE Office of Environmental Management/Office of Environment, Safety & Health, Washington, DC, USA. February.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9234.2-25, Interim Final. USEPA OSWER, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/gwdocs/techimp.htm. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 1995. Use of Risk-Based Decision-Making in UST Corrective Action Programs. USEPA OSWER Directive 9610.17. USEPA OSWER, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/oust/directiv/od961017.htm#Memo. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 1996. State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ Ground Water Remediation. EPA 542-R-96-001. USEPA Technology Innovation Office (TIO), Washington DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/regrpt.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 1999. Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites. EPA-542-R-99-006. USEPA OSWER TIO, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/ovopex.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. 2002. OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guide). EPA530-D-02-004. USEPA OSWER, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/correctiveaction/eis/vapor/complete.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner PG, Helmke MF. 2003. Chemical oxidation of tetrachloroethene in a fractured saprolite/bedrock aquifer. Remediat J 14:95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkin RT, Puls RW, Sewell GW. 2003. Long-term performance of permeable reactive barriers using zero-valent iron: Geochemical and microbiological effects. Ground Water 42:493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JT. 2003. Fate and Transport of MTBE and Other Gasoline Components. In Moyer E, Kostecki P, eds, MTBE Remediation Handbook. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA, USA, pp 19–61.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson BH, Wilson JT, Luce D. 2004. Design and interpretation of microcosm studies for chlorinated solvents in ground water. Proceedings, Symposium on Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Organics in Ground Water (EPA/540/R-96/500), Dallas, TX, USA, pp 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JT, Ross RR, Acree S. 2005. Using direct-push tools to map hydrostratigraphy and predict MTBE plume diving. Ground Water Monit Remediat 25:93–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CH2M HILL, Englewood, CO, 80112, USA

    Thomas J. Simpkin

  2. Brown and Caldwell, Golden, CO, 50401, USA

    Robert D. Norris

Authors
  1. Thomas J. Simpkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert D. Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. HydroGeoLogic, Inc., 11107 Sunset Hills Road, Reston, 20190-5309, Virginia, USA

    H.F. Stroo

  2. Dept. Environmental Science & Engin., Rice University, Main Street 6100, Houston, 77005-1892, Texas, USA

    C.H. Ward

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Simpkin, T.J., Norris, R.D. (2010). Engineering and Implementation Challenges for Chlorinated Solvent Remediation. In: Stroo, H., Ward, C. (eds) In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1401-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation