environmental remediation technologies student manual

Off ce of Solid Waste andEmergency Response(5201G)

December 2011www.epa.gov/superfund

Environmental Remediation Technologies

Superfund

United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency

Student Manual

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 ................................... Successful Treatment Design

Section 2 ................................... Fate and Transport

Section 3 ................................... Capping and Containment

Section 4 ................................... Basic Water Treatment

Section 5 ................................... Chemical Reactions and Separations

Section 6 ................................... Sediment Remediation

Section 7 ................................... Bioremediation

Section 8 ................................... Monitored Natural Attenuation

Section 9 ................................... In-situ Treatments

Section 10 ................................. Soil Washing and Immobilization

Section 11 ................................. Thermal Treatment

Section 12 ................................. Phytoremediation

Section 13 ................................. Process Testing

Section 14 ................................. Technology Selection

Section 15 ................................. Exercises

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 3 DAYS

This introductory-level course provides participants with an overview of the treatment technologies most frequently used for cleanups of contaminated media. The emphasis of the course is on the technology description, applicability, and limitations of appropriate treatment technologies. It is intended for new On-Scene Coordinators, Remedial Project Managers, Waste Site Managers, and other environmental personnel interested in remediation.

Topics that are discussed include site characterization; fate and transport; technology screening; capping and containment; basic water treatment; chemical reactions and separations; in-situ treatments; sediment remediation; phytoremediation; bioremediation; soil washing and immobilization; thermal treatment; and process testing.

Training methods include lectures and group problem-solving exercises. Case studies are used to demonstrate applications of the treatment technologies. Group discussions relevant to the course are encouraged.

After completing the course, participants will be able to:

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

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

• Identify resources that describe innovative treatment technologies.

Note: Calculators are recommended.

Continuing Education Units: 1.9

Orientation and Introduction

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

presented byTetra Tech NUS, Inc.

for theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency'sEnvironmental Response Team

OSWER

U.S. EPA

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Superfund)

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Response TeamERT

Office of Superfund Remediationand Technology Innovation

OSRTI

Are offered tuition-free for environmental and response personnel from federal, state, and local agenciesVary in length from one to five daysAre conducted at EPA Training Centers the United States

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 InformationStudent Handouts

2



Parking

Classroom

Restrooms

Water fountains, snacks, refreshments

LunchTelephones

Emergency telephone numbers

Alarms and emergency exits

3

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. Washington, DC. 1998.

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, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1996.

BIOREMEDIATION U.S. EPA. 1992b. Engineering Bulletin: Rotating Biological Contractors. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

Wolfe, David W. Tales From the Underground: A Natural History of Subterranean Life. Perseus Publishing. Cambridge, MA. April, 2001.

Dupont, R. Ryan. Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Design and Application, Bioremediation. American Academy of Environmental Engineers.

U.S. EPA. Manual, Ground-water and Leachate Treatment Systems. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. January, 1995.

In Site Bioremediation When does it work? Committee on In Situ Bioremediation. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1993

Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Subcommittee on Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water Pollution Control Federation. Washington, DC. 1976.

U.S. EPA. Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 2001.

Norris, Robert D. et al. Handbook of Bioremediation. Lewis Publishers reprint of CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 1994.

PHYTOREMEDIATION Pivetz, B. E. Ground Water Issue-Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Ground Water at Hazardous Waste Sites. USEPA-ORD EPA/540/S-01/500. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 2001.

ITRC. Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document-Phytotechnology. ITRC Phytotechnologies Work Team. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group. Washington, DC. 2001.

U.S. EPA. Introduction to Phytoremediation. EPA/600/R-99/107. National Risk Management Research Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH. 2000.

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. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. 1990.

U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Flushing. EPA/540/2-91/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.1991a.

U.S. EPA. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing. (Quick Reference Fact Sheet). EPA/540/2-91/020B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. 199lb.

U.S. EPA. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA Solvent Extraction. (Interim Guidance). EPA/54O/2-92/016a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. 1992a.

U.S. EPA. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction. (Quick Reference Fact Sheet). EPA/5401R-92/016b. U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC.1992b.

U.S. EPA. Applications Analysis Report: Resources Conservation Company B.E.S.T.® Solvent Extraction Technology. EPA/540/AR-92/079. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. 1993.

U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Solvent Extraction. EPA/540/S-94/503. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.1994a.

U.S. EPA. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation: Technology Demonstration Summary: EPA RREL's Mobile Volume Reduction Unit.EPAI54O/SR-93/508. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH. 1994b.

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. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. 1994

THERMAL TREATMENT U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment.EPA/540/2-90/014. 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. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1994.

TECHNOLOGY SELECTION Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. Web address – http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html

U.S. EPA. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites. EPA 510-R-04-002. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 2004

U.S. EPA. Seminar Publication, Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA. Publication EPA/540/R-92/071a. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1992

U.S. EPA. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. EPA 540-F-93-035. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1993

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. Washington, DC. 1993.

Chu, C. Observations of Performance Test. WA#R1A00111, Trip Report. FCX Engineering. April 17, 2000.

WEBSITES

www.epa.gov

www.clu-in.org

www.frtr.gov

10

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

SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT DESIGN

11

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

13



Image Courtesy of USGS

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

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

14




General physical site descriptionRegional environmental setting

Land use




Facility descriptionSite addressGeneral site operation

Physical settingArea topographyArea 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

15



Facility descriptionSite addressGeneral site operation

Physical settingArea topographyArea land use

Site

Site is bounded to the south by residential property

16



Site is bounded to the north by the Ford Hydraulic Canal and, further north, by agricultural fields



Regional environmental settingLand use




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.

17



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

18



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




Land useContaminant information and site activities



Land use descriptionsLand use historyCurrent 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 TrustNo future use has been proposed at this time

19



Federal, state, and local operating permitsReported releases or spillsFacility RecordsPublic Records

Title historyCity directoriesAerial photographsSanborn Fire Insurance MapsLocal 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)

Chem-Dyne

Hamilton, OH

Aerial photoDecember, 1979

20



Sanborn Fire Insurance maps:1927 Ford Motor Co. forge and

manufacturing facility1950 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

Contaminant information and site activitiesPotential exposure pathways and risk estimation


21



This component of the CSM includes the following information:

Previous site activitiesContaminants of concernPotential contaminant source areasContaminant fate and transportContaminant susceptibility to treatment options


Previous site activitiesContaminants of concern

Potential contaminant source areas

Contaminant fate and transport

Contaminant susceptibility to treatment options

Removal Action

Stabilization

22



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 liquidExcavation of grossly contaminated soil


Previous site activities

Contaminants of concernPotential contaminant source areas



23



Identification from recordsLocal Emergency Planning CommitteeRCRA listingOperator knowledge

Identification by sample analysisField screeningTarget Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) analysisRegulatory agency-specific list

At the Chem-dyne site, many TCL and TAL hazardous materials were detected, including:

Volatile organic compounds (VOC)Semi-volatile organic compoundsPCBsTAL (metals)



Contaminants of concern

Potential contaminant source areasContaminant fate and transport


24



Areas where hazardous material is stored, used, or disposed, such as:

Drum padsAST & USTsWaste storage & Disposal areas

Hazardous material usage areas:Paint boothsPlating operationsTreating operationsPipe runs





Contaminant fate and transportContaminant susceptibility to treatment options

25



Relates how a contaminant reacts or travels through the environment to a receptorBased on the Contaminant characteristics:

VolatilitySolubility

Characteristics of the medium, using soil as an example, could include:

PermeabilityOrganic carbon contentGrain size distribution







Contaminants detected at the Chem-Dyne site included:

Volatile organic compoundsSemi-volatile organic compoundsPCBsTAL (metals)

26






Land use


Potential exposure pathways and risk estimationOn-going data evaluation and data gap identification

Groundwater (Chem-Dyne site)

Source Onsite hazardous materials

Fate-and-transport mechanism

Through soil into shallow and deep Great Miami River Aquifers

Exposure route Ingestion and/or dermal contact

Receptors Residents using deep-aquifer groundwater

27



Surface Water (Chem-Dyne site)

Source Onsite hazardous materials


Surface water runoff during heavy rains

Exposure route Direct contact (e.g. burned feet)

Receptors Employees of adjacent business

Emissions (Chem-Dyne site)

Source Hazardous materials released by onsite activities


Fugitive dust released into the air, migrating off site

Exposure route Inhalation

Receptors Neighbors

EmissionsExposure pathway: contaminated fugitive dust migrated offsite to neighboring habitats

28



Ensures that the selected remedial activities will protect human health and the environment.

Examples:Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA)Brownfield ProgramSite Specific Risk Assessment




Land use




As the CSM develops, data gaps may be identified and specific site information may need to be collected, such as:

Soil CharacteristicsHydrogeologic & geologic informationSurface water & sediment informationAdditional information

29



MeteorologicalAnnual rainfallAverage temperatureEvapotransporation

Offsite informationNearby populationOffsite land useZoning issues

Chem-Dyne Superfund Sitevs.

Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site

30



Remediation of Chem-Dyne included:Excavation of top 10 ft. of soil

Deeper contaminated soil remainedGroundwater pump-and-treat system through 25 wellsTreated groundwater through air stripperTreated 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 contaminationDischarged remaining half of the treated water Constructed impermeable cap to prevent surface water infiltration

Cost$11.6 million constructionApprox $18 million operation and maintenance (20 years)

31



0

10000

20000

30000

40000

1988 90 92 94 96 98 2000

Year

Tota

l VO

Cs R

ecov

ered

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

32



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 informationContaminant-specific informationTreatment options

33

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

Fate and Transport of Chemical Contaminants


Pour one cup of TCE onto the ground, and it will cost you $1 million to get it out.

WHY?

1 CUPTCE

$1 MILLION

+ =

Why would it cost so much?

Contaminant behavior is a function of the properties of both the contaminant and the environmental media.

Contaminant

Soil Air

Water

37



Degradation

Volatilization PercolationRunoff

RetardationAdsorption

DispersionDiffusion

Surface Water

Vadose zone

Degradation

Adsorption

Diffusion

Retardation

Dispersion

Groundwater

SolubilityCapillary forces

SurfaceSubsurfaceDistributionDegradation

Physical state

Volatilization

Runoff

Solubility

Percolation

38



Solid Liquid

Leastmobile

Mostmobile

Organic vs. Inorganic

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

Gas

PHASE DIAGRAM

0ºC 20ºC 100ºC

Pressure(mm Hg)

Temperature

17.5

760

H2O

Solid Liquid

A B

C

(Not to scale)

327 to 1620º

-100º-200ºC 0º 100º 200º 300º20º

0 to 100º

5.5 to 80.1º

– 87 to 87º

– 86 to 80º

– 39.9 to 357º

188 to 310º (decomposes @ 310º)

– 189.9 to – 42º

H2O

Benzene

MEK

TCE

Propane

PCP

Hg

Pb

LIQUID TEMPERATURE RANGE

39



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

TCE 63.0

H2O 17.5

PCP .00011

MORE VOLATILE

LESS VOLATILE

Function of:

Hydraulic gradient

"Cohesive forces" (e.g., internal friction)

40



Dynamic viscosity (µ): Indicates degree of resistance to flow

Compound µ (centipoise @ 20ºc)

TCE .57

Benzene .65

H2O 1.0

Kerosene 2.5

Phenol 8.5

MOST MOBILE

LEAST MOBILE

Function of:

Cohesive forces

Adhesive forces

Van der Waals

Polarity

Ionization

OHH

+

–

+

Met

al s

olu

bili

ty (

mo

bili

ty)

7pH (s.u.)

Pb(OH)+1Pb(OH)2

Fe(OH)3

Fe(OH)+2

Al(OH)3

Al(OH)+2

Al(OH)4–1

41



Function of:

Fluid height or "head"

Fluid density

Cohesive forces ("surface tension")

Adhesive forces ("wetting")

h

Compound ν (centistokes @ 20ºc)

TCE .39

Benzene .74

H2O 1.0

MOST MOBILE

LEAST MOBILE

Kinematic viscosity (ν): Indicates degree of resistance to downward flow (combines density with dynamic viscosity)

Function of:

Preferential pathways (channeling)

Macropores

Micropores

Solubility

Sorption

Volatility

42



Physical movement stops when matric potential and hydrodynamic head are balanced

Molecular movement continues as long as relative concentration remains "unbalanced"

Solubility

Organic carbon

NAPL

Pore water

Ped or particle

Pore air

Diffusion – Process whereby molecules move from a region of higher concentration to a region of lower concentration as a result of Brownian motion.

43



Contaminant movement

Soil particles

Dispersion – Tendency for a solute to spread from the path that it would be expected to follow under advective transport

Dispersion and Diffusion

Contaminant movement

Soil particles

PercolationThrough

Saturated Zone

DNAPL

DissolvedcontaminantGroundwater

flow

H2O

LNAPL

Soil

44



Air

Water

Water/Air

Water/soil

Vapor pressure (VP)

Solubility (Sol.)

Henry's Law (HL)

Sorption (KOC, CEC)

Compound VP (mmHg) Sol.(mg/L) HL

HL = VP Solubility

atm-m3

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

Function of:

Contaminant

Fraction of organic carbon in medium (fOC)

Properties of soil, e.g., structure, texture (KOC)

The degree of attraction between a non-polar chemical and the natural organic matter associated with an aquifer (retardation)

45



Function of:

Soil texture (e.g., clay, silt, sand)

Soil surface area (clay type, e.g., kaolinite)

Organic matter content

Total cations adsorbed on a unit mass of soil (centimoles/kg)

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)

46



chloride

carbon tetrachloride

PCE

1.0

0.5

0

200 400

Rel

ativ

e co

ncen

trat

ion

in M

W1

dow

ngra

dien

t of s

ourc

e

Time (days)0

GW flow

Source MW1

GWflow

What are you going to do?

Problem: Saturated soil contaminated with TCE (enough to contaminate groundwater to solubility limit for 15 years)

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.

What are you going to do?

47

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

Capping and Containment


Capping controls airborne contamination and surface water infiltrationContainment controls groundwater movement

ApplicationsSlows the movement of airborne or dustborne contaminants

Slows the movement of surface water into the ground

LimitationDoes not directly remediate contaminants

Makes soil recovery and further treatment difficult

51



Capping materials may include natural or synthetic materials.

24" Clay

6" Gas-venting layer/soil cushion

6" Topsoil with vegetative cover

30 mil PVC Liner

Waste Material

Cap

Cap

5' Recompacted Clay

24" Pea Gravel60 mil PVC Liner

Ground

80 mil PVC Liner

Leachate Collection System

Atlanta, GA Hickory Ridge Landfill

52



Gas collection and process system

Phoenix Golf Course

California Gulch Superfund SiteCourtesy US EPA Region 8

53



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 strategyDivert clean waterEnhance/ enlarge collection system for acid rock drainageGradually eliminate Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel use, with exception of emergency

54



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


55



After capping



56



Virtual Forum Web Address: www.merid.org/leadville

EPA Web Address: www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/co

57



Bioreactor landfills are designed and operated by increasing the moisture content of the waste to enhance degradation and stabilization

Primary advantagesEfficient utilization of permitted landfill capacityStabilization of waste in a shorter timeReduced leachate handling costReduced post closure care

Secondary AdvantagesPotential 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

58



Primary Disadvantages and Challenges Slope stability

Higher capital costsOperator skillsTemperature control in aerobic bioreactorsConfusion over regulations to permit bioreactorsLiner chemical compatibilityOdor controlDesign & construction of liquid handling systemsWaste heterogeneity

Subsurface walls to control groundwater movement

Slurry trench cutoff wall

Grout curtain

Sheet piling

ApplicationsSlows movement of groundwater-borne contaminants using subsurface walls

Can be used to dewater a site for remediation

LimitationsDoes not directly remediate contaminants

59



Production well

Monitoring well

Aquitard

Groundwater flow

Keyed slurry trench cutoff wall

60



Production well

Monitoring well

Aquitard

Groundwater flow

LNAPLs

Recovery well

Hanging slurry trench cutoff wall

Wall

Soil

Drain

Stream

Waste

Groundwater flow

Stream

Extraction well

Groundwater flow

Wall

Soil

Waste

61



Soil

Injection tube

Grout curtain

Contaminant plume

Groundwater flow

62



Zone of influenceInjection tube

Z-typeStraight web type

Deep arch web type

T-fitting

63


ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES 64



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

BASIC WATER TREATMENT

65

Basic Water Treatment


Treats most contaminantsHighly flexible and reliable

Could be very expensiveEnergy- and labor-intensiveRegulatory problems with dischargeFine-grained material a problem

67



Oil / Water Separator

Reactor Tank

Sand Filter

Reactor Tank

Air Stripper

Carbon Contactor

pH Control

Courtesy State of Washington, Department of Ecology

Water

68



Water

Oil

Sludge

69



Courtesy State of Washington, Department of Ecology

71



Physically separates volatile or semi-volatile contaminants, usually organics, from waterProcess applies to volatile and semi-volatile organics with a Henry's Law Constant of >0.003 atm/mol/m3

Storage tank

Off-gas treatment

Air blower

Effluent treatment

Packing Saddles Packing Rings

Snowflakes

72



aBsorption aDsorption

75



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

CHEMICAL REACTIONS

AND SEPARATIONS

77

Chemical Reactions and Separations


NeutralizationPrecipitationReductionOxidation

AdvantageEliminates corrosives

DisadvantagesProcess chemicals are hazardous

Generates a lot of heat

Heavy-duty process equipment may be needed

79



AdvantagesRemoves dissolved heavy metals

DisadvantagesProduces metal sludge

Often produces high pH wastewater

Doesn't always work on highly soluble metals

80



Chemicalprecipitants

Liquidfeed

Mixing tank

Chemicalflocculants/settling aids

FlocculationpaddlesFlocculation

well

Flocculationclarifier

Sludge

Baffle

Effluent

Source: U.S. EPA 1991

81



Chemical reactionsAdvantages

Reduces solubility of heavy metals

Oxidizes and destroys organics

DisadvantagesUnintended reactions

Acid feed

pH control Mixer

Reducing agent feed Limeslurry hopper

Effluent

Hydroxide sludgeChrome

precipitation

Chrome reduction tank

Chrome wastewaterfeed

SOX

Cr6+

Ca(OH)2

H+

Cr3+

Cr3++OH- Cr(OH)3

82



UV lamps

Influent

EffluentO3

H2O2

MicrofiltrationReverse osmosisIon exchange

83



SeparationProcess

Relative Size of

Common Materials

Microns 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000

ReverseOsmosis

Microfiltration

Ultrafiltration

Nanofiltration

Particle Filtration

AqueousSalt

Endotoxin Pyrogen

Metal Ion

Oil Emulsion

Lactose

Sediment

Red Blood Cells

Virus Bacteria

ColloidalSilica Cryptosporidium

Dredge, Fox River, WI

84



Microfiltration is a process which removes contaminants from a fluid by passing though a microporous membrane.

Typical microfiltrations membrane pore size range is 1 to 10 micrometers.

AdvantageRemoves very small particles

DisadvantagesDoes not remove dissolved contaminants

85



Source: U.S. EPA 1991

Filtraterecirculation

Lime slurry tankProFix slurry tank

Tyvek®Used Tyvek®

GroundwaterTo disposal

Air

Staticmixer

Filter cake

Filter cakestorage

Microfiltrationunit

Microfiltration Treatment System



86



Pressure

Contaminated water

Treatedwater

Concentratedwastewater

87



Sludge

FiltersReverse osmosis unitFeed

tank

Storagetank Clarifier

NaOHcausticsoda

HCI

88



Removes dissolved metals via transfer of ionsUses resin beads

Removes low concentrations of soluble metalRecovers concentrated metal streams for recycling

89



Suspended solids and organicsRegeneration chemicals are hazardous

Acid regenerant

Caustic regenerant

Removal:

OH–– [An(s)] + X– ➝X–– [An(s)] + OH–

Regeneration:

X–– [An(s)] + OH– ➝OH–– [An(s)] + X–

Removal:

H+– [Cat(s)] + M+ ➝M+– [Cat(s)] + H+

Regeneration:

M+– [Cat(s)] + H+ ➝H+– [Cat(s)] + M+

Waste containing MX

Deionized effluent

Spent regenerant

Anion exchanger

Cation exchanger

90

SEDIMENT REMEDIATION


1. Defi ne Sediments

2. List common sediment remedy options

3. List the advantages and disadvantages for the three common

sediment remedy options

91

Sediment Remediation


Define SedimentsList common sediment remedy optionsList 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:

PesticidesPCBsPAHsDissolved phase chlorinated hydrocarbons (to a lesser extent)

Source: USEPA 1999

93



Pipeline or outfall dischargesChemical spills Surface runoff: waste dumps, chemical storage, mines, agricultural or urban areas Air emissions: Power plants, incinerators, pesticide applicationsUpwelling of contaminated ground waterShips, ship maintenance & in-water structures

Source: USEPA 1999

Health impacts from eating fish/shellfish and recreationEcological impacts on wildlife and aquatic speciesLoss of recreational & subsistence fishingLoss of recreational swimming and boatingLoss of traditional cultural practices by Indian tribes, etc.

Economic effects of loss of fisheriesEconomic effects on development and property valuesEconomic effects on tourismIncreased costs of drinking water treatmentLoss or increased cost of commercial navigation

94



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

Sediment grab samplers: Surface sediment chemistryCoring devicesWater column probes: pH and DOSurface water samplers: Dissolved and particulate chemical concentrationsSemi-permeable membrane devices: Dissolved contaminants at the sediment-water interface

Benthic analysis: Population and diversityToxicity testing: Acute and long-term lethal effects on organismsTissue 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 recoveryIn situ cappingDredging & 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 processesBiodegradation, biotransformation, phytoremediation, biological stabilization

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

96



Human exposure is low (most important)Sediment bed is stable, cohesive, well-armoredContaminant concentrations decreasing on their own Contaminants are readily biodegradable or transform to lower toxicity forms Concentrations are low and cover diffuse areaContaminants 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 levelsSurface sediment

97



AdvantagesRelatively low implementation costsNon-invasive

LimitationsLeaves contaminants in placeSlower to reduce risks than active technologiesOften relies on institutional controls such as fish consumption advisories

Monitored natural recoveryIn situ cappingDredging & 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 organismsSand 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.

ChemicalGas 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 clayReactive/adsorptive materials: activated carbon, apatite, coke, organoclay, zero-valent iron and zeolite Geotextiles: reduce mixing and displacement of cap materialImpervious materials: geomembranes, clay, concrete, steel, or plastic

Source: USEPA 1998d

Source: Modified from U.S. EPA 1998d

100



Advantages Quickly reduce exposureLess infrastructure for material handling, dewatering, treatment & disposalLess expensive than dredging or excavationQuick to implement

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

Monitored natural recoveryIn situ cappingDredging & 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 handlingNavigational dredging is planned Water depth is adequateRisk reduction outweighs disturbanceContaminated sediment overlies clean sedimentContaminants cover discrete areas

Mechanical Dredging Clamshell: Wire supportedEnclosed bucket: Wire supported, watertightArticulated mechanical: Backhoe designs

Hydraulic DredgingCutterhead: pipeline dredge w/ cutterheadHorizontal auger: pipeline dredge with augerPlain suction: pipeline dredge w/ suctionPneumatic: 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

Air or Gas Residue

Treatment

TreatmentPretreatmentStagingTransportSediment Removal

DebrisRemoval

Water Effluent Treatment

and/or Disposal

Disposal and/or Reuse

Disposal and/or Reuse

Solids

Solids

ContaminatedSolids

Contaminated

Solids

103



Sheet piling & CofferdamsEarthen dams Geotubes, inflatable dams Rerouting the water body using temporary dams or pipesPermanent 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 uncertaintyLess limitation for water body uses

LimitationsComplex and costlyUncertainty of residual contamination Contaminant losses through re-suspension and volatilizationTemporary 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 plantFish consumption advisories have been in effect since 1976

105



Dredging and off-site disposal7-inch thick engineered cap of sand and armor stone3 to 6-inch sand cover where PCBs <2 ppmLong term monitoring for cap integrity and natural attenuation

Future Remedies by Year

Fox River MapPink = Dredging Areas

Dredged approximately 4 million cubic yards of sediment.

106



Fox River MapBlue = Capping Areas

Capped 415 acres

Fox River MapYellow/Brown = Sand Cover Areas

Approximately 495 acres sand capped

Capping Slope Diagram

7-inch thick sand and armor stone3-6 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 inchFurther hydrocyclone for fine grain sand removalThickening tanks using polymer addition for uniform flow & weir for water removalMembrane sediment cake press Conveyor to Transport off-site

Geotube Dewatering

Treated Sediment is Transported to landfill or TSCA landfill

Sand Filtration: fine vs. course sandBag FiltrationGAC FiltrationDiffuser 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



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.

BIOREMEDIATION

111

Principles of Bioremediation


Define bioremediation Describe a basic oxidation-reduction reactionList the different microbial metabolic processesList the basic ways that microbes demobilize contaminantsList three indicators of microbial activityList factors that may complicate bioremediation

The treatment or remediation of contaminated soils, sediments, and groundwater through microbial metabolism.

112



Bioremediation

Ex-Situ

Natural AttenuationEngineered

Bio-stimulation Bio-augmentation

Addition of Oxygen, Nutrients & Bacteria

Addition of oxygen-Bio venting-Bio-sparging Addition of Oxygen

& nutrients

In-Situ

Microbial metabolism is the basis of bioremediationIt 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:RespirationFermentationPhotosynthesis

114



Respiration process is either aerobic or anaerobicAerobic respiration uses oxygen as an electron acceptorAnaerobic 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.

BacteriaSingle-celled organismsMetabolize soluble foodReproduce by binary fissionCellular composition:

70 – 90% water10 – 30% dry mass

92% of dry mass composed of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen

C5H7O2N

C5H7O2NC5H7O2N

116



Favorable physical and chemical conditions are necessary for optimum bacteria metabolism.

Physical conditions include:pHTemperaturePhysical structure for support

GROWTHAND

REPRODUCTION

NUTRIENTS

WATERCO2

Chemical requirements include:

ENERGY SOURCE

CARBONSOURCECARBONHYDROGENS

ParentCell

DaughterCell

DaughterCell

117



Energy SourceChemical compounds (organic or inorganic)Sunlight and Substrates

Carbon SourceOrganic CompoundsCO2

NutrientsNitrogenPhosphorusTrace Nutrients (sulfur, potassium, and iron)

Organic and inorganic carbonOrganic compounds and CO2

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

nitrogen gas (N2)Various sources of phosphates (PO4

3-)Trace nutrients

Amino acids, sulfate, potassium, magnesium, and iron

Aerobic respirationAnaerobic respirationFermentationSecondary utilization and co-metabolismReductive dehalogenationInorganic compounds as electron donors

118



C7H8 +9O2 → 7CO2 + 4H2O

Cell Growth and ReproductionAcceptorDonor

EnzymesBiological catalystsAre not altered by the reactionReaction specific

C7H8 +9O2 → 7CO2 + 4H2O

ENZYME

Anaerobic RespirationInorganic 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 environmentOrganic contaminant serves as both electron donor and acceptorByproducts can be biodegraded by other species of microbes

Non-beneficial biotransformationThe 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 H2SOxygen is usually the electron acceptorCarbon is most commonly taken from atmospheric CO2 (Carbon Fixation)

Water chemistry changesDecrease in parent compound, electron acceptorIncrease in byproducts Presence of specific metabolic products

C7H8 + 9O2 7CO2 + 4H2O

121



Changes in native microbial communitiesGrowth of predators

Unavailability of the contaminant to the microbesToxicity of contaminant to microbesMultiple contaminants and natural organic chemicals

Incomplete degradation of contaminantsInability to remove contaminants to low concentrationsAquifer clogging

122



Aqueous ex-situ treatment systemsTrickling filtersAerated lagoonRotating Biological ContactorAnaerobic digester

Solid ex-situ treatment systemIn-situ treatment systems

Trickling Filters

123



Aerated Lagoon

Rotating Biological Contactor

Rotating Biological Contactor

124



Anaerobic Digester

Contaminated soil

Water

Slurry

Nutrients

Mixer BioreactorCentrifuge Water

Clean soil

Emission control

Vapor treatment

Vadose zoneGroundwater

Extraction wells Extraction wells

AirInjectionwell

125



Microbes

Pre-treatment

Nutrients Oxygen

126


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

MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION

127

Monitored Natural Attenuation


Define monitored natural attenuationUnderstand monitored natural attenuation processesReview case studies that show monitored natural attenuation processesUnderstand 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.

AdvantagesAn in-situ treatmentMay be a lower cost alternativeMay be effective as a final process to treat residual contaminants

DisadvantagesMay not be accepted by the regulatory

agency or publicMay not treat contaminant within a reasonable timeMay not treat desired contaminantsRequires 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



Water table

For example, biodegradation will continue as long as an adequate supply of electron acceptors is available.

Aerobic respiration

DenitrificationIron (III) reduction Sulfate

reduction

Residual NAPL

Methanogenesis

Plume of dissolved fuel hydrocarbons

Groundwater flow

The following case studies show examples of successful and common failures of MNA projects.

South Glen Falls, NY

Natural attenuation of a chlorinate solvent

St. Joseph, Michigan

No natural attenuation of a chlorinate solvent

Edwards Air Force Base

Vandenberg Air Force Base BTEX and MTBE release

Hudson River Sediment Incomplete natural attenuation of PCBs

Pinal Creek, Arizona Natural attenuation of inorganic compounds

Natural attenuation of PAHs following source removal

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 highestRapid 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 plumeDetection 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 dechlorinationtook place, complete breakdown of TCE and its daughter products did not occur.

Indicators of TCE reductive dechlorinationare:

Formation of cis-DCE, VC, and etheneLoss of COD in excess of what was needed for dechlorinationEvidence 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 Base:

572 gallon release of gasoline containing MTBE Estimated groundwater velocity is 400 ft/yearBTEX plume stops within 50–100 feet from source MTBE plume is 250 feet wide and extends 1,700 feet from source

N

E

S

W

Approximate extent of MTBE above 2 ppb

(11/97)

Surface drainage

Approximate extent of detectable TPH / BTEX (11/97)

0 100 200

Scale: feet

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 processesThe 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 ApplicabilityDetailed 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 characterizationEvaluation of time frame for meeting remediation objectivesLong-term performance monitoringA contingency plan

142



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.

IN SITU TREATMENTS, PART ONE

143

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

145



Increases treatment time

May be difficult to monitor results

May not treat all contamination

May cause contaminant to spread

Unsaturated Saturated

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological


Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

SVE – Enhancements

Air Sparging

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Bioremediation *

Phytoremediation *

Immobilization *

*Covered in other lectures


Physical

Chem

ical

Biological

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological




Air Sparging


Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Bioremediation *

Phytoremediation *

Immobilization *


146



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

147




Physical

Chem

ical

Biological

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological




Air Sparging


Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Bioremediation *

Phytoremediation *

Immobilization *


Process draws fresh air through the unsaturated zone, allowing flux, mass transfer, and treatment.

VaporTreatment Blower

CondensateCollection



148



Flux:

Contaminant vaporizes into the introduced fresh air.





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

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



149



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

150



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

151



Henry's Law Constant (KH)

Relationship between the contaminant's concentration in air and water

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

KH =Pv

C

Expresses the ability of a contaminant to volatilize from a dissolved phase into a vapor.

Approximately ≥ 10-3 atm m3/mole

152



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

153



Coarse-grainedmaterial (gravel)

Fine-grainedmaterial (silt)

Soil permeabilitySecond 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

154



Success depends on:


Soil properties

Site conditions

System design

Site conditions refer to above-ground and below-ground conditions, and include:

Depth to groundwater surfaceSubsurface conduitsSurface caps

Conditions affecting SVE system operation

A shallow or large seasonal variation of the groundwater surface

155




Subsurface conduitsCan short-circuit the SVE system


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

Success depends on:


Soil properties

Site conditions

System design

156



System design considerations should include:

Radius of influence (ROI)Blower sizeExtraction well design and spacingSystem enhancements

Suction ~20″ Hg Suction (inches Hg)10″ 0″

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

5″

157



HomogeneousSoil Type ROI (in feet)Coarse sandFine sandSiltClay

>10060–10020–40<20

Blowers induce subsurface air flow (vacuum)

Design considerations include:

Air-flow capacityAmount of vacuum producedMaintenance costs

Extraction wells are typically 2 in. to 4 in. in diameter, with a screen length of 10–15 ftExtraction wells are ideally spaced to achieve an overlapping of the ROI

ROI

Extraction well

Area of contamination

158




Physical

Chem

ical

Biological

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological




Air Sparging


Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Bioremediation *

Phytoremediation *

Immobilization *


SVE enhancements generally require heating the soil.

Heat canisters

Extraction wellInlet well


Heating blanket


159




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-Dichloroethane

30 51 134

Methylene chloride

53 89 226

* atm m3/moleSource: “In situ Treatment Technology” – E. Nyer


Physical

Chem

ical

Biological

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological




Air Sparging


Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Bioremediation *

Phytoremediation *

Immobilization *


160



Direct injection of air below the water table

Must be operated in conjunction with asoil-vapor extraction system

SVE wellsAir-injectionwells

Dissolved phase

Process can:

Strip volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from dissolved phaseVolatilize trapped or sorbed phase contaminantsEnhance aerobic biodegradation by direct injection of O2

Success depends on:Contaminant characteristicsSoil propertiesSystem design, including:

Air distribution (zone of influence)Air injection pressure and flow rates

161



In general, the radius of influence for air-sparging wells is between 5 feet and 10 feet.

Zone-of-Influence Considerations

Subtle geologic changes can greatly affect zone of influence

Silt layerDissolved phase

Dissolved phase


Potential mounding and spreading of contamination

162



Dissolved phase


Airflow paths may develop, creating air channels

Air injection pressure and flow rates aregeology-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 spargingperformanceInjection rates should be balanced with the SVE system’s air withdrawal capacity

163



Treatment of extracted vapors from SVE and air sparging systems can include:

Carbon adsorptionThermal oxidationCatalytic oxidationNo treatment

164



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.

IN SITU TREATMENTS, PART TWO

165




Physical

Chem

ical

Biological

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological




Air Sparging


Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Bioremediation *

Phytoremediation *

Immobilization *


A permeable zone containing reactive material that will intercept and treat contaminated groundwater as it flows under natural gradient conditions

Perm

eabl

e re

activ

e ba

rrie

r

Groundwater flowContaminated plume

Treated water

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 Compounds

Treatable Inorganic Compounds

1,1,1-trichloroethane chromium

tetrachloroethene lead

trichloroethene uranium

cis-1,2-dichloroethene selenium

trans-1,2-dichloroethene

cadmium

vinyl chloride sulphate

benzene nitrate

freon 113 arsenic

Depends on:Contaminant characteristics

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 H

Cl ClC C

DCE

H

H

HC C

H

Ethene

C CCl Cl

H Cl

TCE

C CH

H Cl

H

VC+(2e-+ H+)

-(Cl-)

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

+(2e- + 2H+)

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

C CHH

HH

EthaneH

H

Cr+6 under typical aquifer conditions is CrO4

2-

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 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

Continuous PRB

Groundwater flow

Reactive material

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

Funnel-and-gate PRB

Funnel of impermeable walls

Gate w/ reactive material

Groundwater flow

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

Chem

ical

Biological

Physical

Chem

ical

Biological




Air Sparging


Chemical Oxidation

Soil Flushing *

Bioremediation *

Phytoremediation *

Immobilization *


An excellent method for source destruction of fuel, solvents, and pesticides in either the saturated or unsaturated zone.

A treatment process where oxidizing chemicals are placed in direct contact with the contaminant, destroying or immobilizing the contaminant.

No waste generationMay be less expensive than other treatmentsLow operation and maintenance costsCan remediate contaminant source at many depthsUnobtrusive 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 SiteGrafton, Massachusetts

ISCO Case Study

180



Permanganate was selected because it is more stable than peroxide or ozone

Less fire/explosion hazardGreater 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 showingsodium

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

SOIL WASHING AND IMMOBILIZATION



1. Describe the in-situ soil fl ushing process.2. Describe the ex-situ soil washing process3. State the application, limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of immobilization technologies.

187

Soil Washing and Immobilization


In-situ soil flushingSoil washing

189



In-situ soil flushing is the extraction of contaminants from the soil with water or other suitable aqueous solutions.

U.S. EPA 1991a

Spray(1) Flushing

additives(5)

Groundwater treatment

(4)Pump Pump

Groundwaterzone

VadosezoneWater

table

Low permeability zone

Groundwater extraction well

(3)

Contaminated area

Leachatecollection

(2)

190



Soil Flushing

WaterSoluble (hydrophilic) organics

Octanol/water partition coefficient <10

Water with surfactantLow 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 requirementsGroundwater hydrology – critical in controlling the recovery of injected fluids and contaminants

Groundwater treatmentFlushing additives:

Reuse

Degradability

Underground Injection Control (UIC) permitNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Slurry walls or sheet piling for containmentBerms, dikes, or caps for surface water control

193



1-2 years as concentrations decreaseHydraulic control requiredHigh silt and clay content not applicableSurfactants or organic solvents removedBacteria and/or iron foulingAdditives 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 processContamination reduction by particle size separationMechanical washing and separation technique

194



Stand alone or treatment trainEffective for coarse sand and gravelDemonstrated 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" stones

cleansand

soil fines

<1" soil

soil fines

195



POLYMERCONTAMINATED SOIL

Sludge basin

Sludge Clean sand

Oversized material

RETURNED TO SITE

TO DISPOSAL

Concentrator

Air

Centrifuges

WaterSlurry

Filter press

Froth flotation cells

Surfactant

Soil Washing

196



Soil Washing

197



Wastewater – treatment and recycleVapors – collect and treatOversize soils – return to siteFines – further treatment

198



Soils, sludges, and sedimentsLead, cadmium, and similar heavy metalsLimits mobility (leachability)

Increases waste volumeNot for organicsNondestructive

PhysicalChemicalThermalBiological

199



SolidificationSludges and sedimentsClays, vermiculite, and saw dust

StabilizationCement technologiesPhosphate technologiesMatrix 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 IndustriesColumbus, Montana

Chemical reduction of hexavalent chrome (Cr+6)

202



Mouat IndustriesColumbus, Montana

Traub BatterySioux Falls, South Dakota

Pug mill used to blend

Traub BatterySioux Falls, South Dakota

203



VitrificationPrimarily radioactive wasteElectrical resistance or combustion heating

204



Contains as well as immobilizesTreats 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 sedimentsCan be used for radioactive and mixed wastesTreats large volume mine tailings

Increases waste volumeNot suitable for treating organicsRequires secondary containment

Disadvantages

207



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.

THERMAL TREATMENT

209

Thermal Treatment


Treat organic contaminated soils, sediments, and sludgesIncineration destroys contaminantsDesorption removes contaminants

Does not treat inorganicsMoisture contentBTU content

211

Thermal Treatment


Contaminant is destroyedEstablished technologyVolume reductionBest demonstrated available technology

Can be costlyPossible air pollution problemsPublic disapproval

212

Thermal Treatment


Stack

Ash Collection

Quencher cools with water to 400EF

Ash Collection

Primary CombustionChamber in presence of

oxygen at 800 to 1400 EF (20 min)

Secondary CombustionChamber temp. at 1800 to 2400 EF

(seconds) Caustic soluciton scrubber

InducedDraftFan

TimeTemperatureTurbulenceOxygen

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES214

Thermal Treatment


Volatilizes contaminantsCondenses and/or treats vaporsClean soil returned to the site

215

Thermal Treatment


Thermal Treatment


Less expensive than incinerationBroad applicationPublic acceptanceRecycling potential

Further waste treatment may be neededLimited soil pH rangeLimited moisture content

Thermal oxidizersCatalytic oxidizers

218

Thermal Treatment


Flue Gas Outlet

Air Inlet

Forced Draft Fan

Combustion Area

HeatExchanger

Flue Gas Inlet

Burner

Air

Flue Gas Flow

Flue Gas Flow

Air

Flue Gas

Air

Flue Gas Flow

Air

Flue Gas

219

Thermal Treatment


CatalystBeds

220



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.

PHYTOREMEDIATION

221

Phytoremediation


Define phytoremediation List six phytotechnologiesList the advantages and disadvantages of phytoremediation technologiesReview 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

223

Phytoremediation


Treatable organic contaminants include:petroleum hydrocarbons crude oil chlorinated compounds pesticides explosive compounds

Treatable inorganic contaminants include:salts metals radioactive materials

Phytoremediation can also be defined as the efficient use of plants to remove, detoxify or immobilize environmental contaminants.

Phytoremediation utilizes plants’ natural activities and processes, a.k.a. “phyto-technologies” to meet environmental remediation goals.

Phytotechnologies include containment in addition to treatment or removal strategies.

224

Phytoremediation


Mechanism Description Clean up goalsPhytosequestation Plant ability to reduce the

mobility of a contaminantContainment (sequesters)

Rhizodegradation Phytochemicals extruded through roots enhance microbial biodegradation

Remediation by destruction (degrades)

Phytohydraulics Plant affect on local hydrology Containment by controlling hydrology (sequesters)

Phytoextraction Uptake contaminants into the plant

Remediation by removal of plants (extracts)

Phytodegradation Uptake and break down contaminants within the plant

Remediation by destruction (degrades)

Phytovolatilization Uptake, translocation, and transpire volatile contaminants.

Remediation by removal 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.

High and Low Water Table Fluctuations

Infiltration and Settling

Zone

Seasonal Floodplain Water

Body

Agricultural or Urban Area

Groundwater Seep Zone

Considered a green technology and sustainable

Solar-powered

Minimal air emissions, water discharge, and secondary waste generation

Applicable for remote locations

225

Phytoremediation


Favorable public perception

Improved aesthetics

Can be used to supplement other remediation approaches or as a polishing step

Major limitations are depth, area, and time

Depth and area depend on the plant species that is suitable to the site (i.e., root penetration) as well as the site layout and soil characteristics

Time constraints: phytotechnologies generally take longer than other alternatives and are susceptible to seasonal and daily variations

RHIZOSPHERE

PLUME

226

Phytoremediation


Photosynthesis is the process in which plants use carbon dioxide to convert light energy into chemical energy.

Plants:uptake water and inorganic dissolved nutrients through the root systemsexude oxygen into the atmosphereexude a source of carbon and oxygen into the soil, greatly enhancing the growth of bacteria and fungi in the immediate vicinity surrounding the roots

E = Exudates(Nutrients)

Soil Microbes

Rhizosphere

O2

O2

O2

O2

O2

O2

O2

E

EE

EH2O H2O

H2O

Root or Root Fragment

Typically 1—3 mm Surrounding Roots

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

227

Phytoremediation


There are many factors to consider when evaluating phytoremediation as a potential site remedy.

ITRC developed Remedy Selection Decision Trees to aid with the evaluation process.

228

Phytoremediation


Design depends on site specific conditions such as:

ClimateDepth and concentration of the contaminant Commercial availability of plantsSoil conditions (nutrient content salinity)Site end use

232

Phytoremediation


Design cost depends on site specific issues such as:

Earthwork and laborPlant and planting costsSoil amendments Permits Site control (fencing or security)

O&M and Monitoring can last many yearsO&M issues may include:

Irrigation FertilizationWeed controlPest controlReplanting

233

Phytoremediation


Monitoring includes sampling plant material, and using a conventional remediation monitoring approach such as soil- or groundwater-sample collection and analysis.

Sampling is also conducted to determine if the plant or fruit is safe for consumption.

Introduction of non-native plantsIntegration into long-term landscaping use and aesthetic landscapingNative plants or plants grown from seed

234



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.

PROCESS TESTING

235

Process Testing


Verify clean-up goalsEnsure proper operation of unitEnsure ARARs are being metEnsure that public and environment are not being adversely impacted

StartupShakedownPerformance TestingProduction Testing

237

Process Testing


Initial operation on clean materialPrevent uncontrolled releaseEvaluate mechanical systemEvaluate controls/alarm system

Unit run at expected operating conditionsTest computer logic, alarms, monitoring equipment and auto shutoffsCalibrate sensors and monitorsRun unit for 23 of 24 hours to test mechanical soundness

Similar to startup, but using contaminated materialSystem optimizationOperating parameters checked against remediation resultsIdentify matrix specific problems

238

Process Testing


Intensive testing and sampling programMeet cleanup goalsCompliance with ARARsProtecting public healthEstablish operating parametersProof of performance (trial burn)

Strategy

TREATEDPILE

COMPOSITESAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLES

WIND

COMPOSITESAMPLEGRAB

SAMPLES

SAMPLEJAR

WASTE PILE

TREATINGSAMPLE

MediaFeed streamsReagent streamsTreated materialsWaste streams

239

Process Testing


EmissionsStackFugitive

StrategyGrabContinuous

Ambient AirWorkzoneFenceline

Performed on regular basis throughout productionEnsures that treated material meets clean-up goalsUsually 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 DesorberAgricultural supply and distribution centerDisposed of 5,000-10,000 pounds of DDT, DDE and chlordane in trenches

Performance test – Low-temperature Thermal DesorberAgricultural supply and distribution centerDisposed of 5,000-10,000 pounds of DDT, DDE and chlordane in trenches

Conduct preliminary testPerform ambient air samplingConduct meteorological monitoringProvide continuous emission monitoringCollect stack gas emission samples for particulate, HCl, Cl, VOCs, SVOCs, PCDD/PCDF analysesCollect pre- and post-treatment soil samples for analysis

241

Process Testing


Excavated from beneath concrete slabs and screened to remove debrisStaged in warehouse

Six Matrix Constituent Separators (MCS)Three condensersThree carbon adsorption unitsThree monitoring shedsAn emission stack

242

Process Testing


MCS Unit Closed

MCS Unit Open

243

Process Testing


MonitoringShed

EmissionStack

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


Sample recovery from media

Impingers

Failed CO due to continued high emissionsTwo options offered

Single stack test without considering COIf 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 COIf 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 installedU.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

Technology Selection


Presumptive remediesPotential remediesTreatability studiesTechnology searches

Wood treatment sitesMunicipal landfillsEx-situ groundwater treatmentVolatile organic compounds in soil

251



Pentachlorophenol, creosote, and/or chromated copper arsenateBiological treatment, incineration, and/or immobilization

ContainmentLandfill

Groundwater control

Leachate collection and treatment

Gas collection and treatment

LNAPL recoveryAir stripping, carbon adsorption, chemical precipitation, ion exchange

252



Soil vapor extractionLow temperature desorptionIncineration

For organics and inorganicsFor water and soil/sludges

Volatile organicsSemivolatile to non-volatile organicsPesticides

253



AqueousAir stripping, air sparging, bioslurping, or in situ biological treatment

Soils and sludgesSoils vapor extraction, soils heating, or bioventing

Thermal treatment or in situ biological treatment

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

Soils and sludgesSoils flushing, soil washing, chemical extraction

Thermal treatment, ex-situ biological treatment

AqueousUV oxidation, thermal, carbon adsorption, or biological treatment

Dehalogenation

Soils and sludgesThermal treatment, biological treatment, or dehalogenation

Chemical extraction

254



AqueousChemical treatment, ion exchange, or membrane separation

Soils and sludgesImmobilization, soil washing, chemical or biological extractionDewatering

Screening and remedy selection studiesPilot and full scale studies

Used when several remedies may workHelp identify which remedies, if any, meet site clean-up goalsHelp identify the need for the use of multiple remedies

255



Used to verify that selected remedies will actually meet clean-up goalsHelp determine design specifications and operating parameters

Literature searchesInternet searches

Presumptive remedies for CERCLA sitesEngineering bulletins for potential remediesTreatability studies under CERCLA

256



www.clu-in.orgwww.epareachit.orgwww.frtr.govwww.gwrtac.org

257

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

NoticeForewordReport Documentation PageAcknowledgment

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives1.2 Background1.3 How To Use This Document1.4 Requirements To Consider Technology's Impact on Natural Resources1.5 Cautionary Notes1.6 On Line Survey

2 CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES

2.1 Presumptive Remedies2.2 Data Requirements

2.2.1 Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge2.2.2 Data Requirements for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.2.3 Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases

2.3 Nonhalogenated Volatile Organic Compounds2.3.1 Properties and Behavior of Nonhalogenated VOCs2.3.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated VOCs in Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge2.3.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated VOCs in Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.3.4 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated VOCs in Air Emissions/Off-Gases2.3.5 Common Treatment Train for Nonhalogenated VOCs

2.4 Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds2.4.1 Properties and Behavior of Halogenated VOCs2.4.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Soil,

260

Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge 2.4.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.4.4 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated VOCs in Air Emissions/Off-Gases2.4.5 Common Treatment Train for Halogenated VOCs

2.5 Nonhalogenated Semivolatile Organic Compounds2.5.1 Properties and Behavior of Nonhalogenated SVOCs2.5.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated SVOCs in Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge 2.5.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Nonhalogenated SVOCs in Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.5.4 Common Treatment Train for Nonhalogenated SVOCs

2.6 Halogenated Semivolatile Organic Compounds2.6.1 Properties and Behavior of Halogenated SVOCs2.6.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated SVOCs in Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge 2.6.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Halogenated SVOCs in Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.6.4 Common Treatment Train for Halogenated SVOCs

2.7 Fuels 2.7.1 Properties and Behavior of Fuels2.7.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge2.7.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.7.4 Common Treatment Train for Fuels

2.8 Inorganics2.8.1 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 Leachate2.8.4 Common Treatment Train for Inorganics

2.9 Radionuclides2.9.1 Properties and Behavior of Radionuclides2.9.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Radionuclides in Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge 2.9.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Radionuclides in Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.9.4 Common Treatment Train for Radionuclides

2.10 Explosives2.10.1 Properties and Behavior of Explosives 2.10.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge2.10.2.1 Biological Treatment Technologies for Explosives2.10.2.2 Thermal Treatment Technologies for Explosives2.10.2.3 Other Treatment Technologies for Explosives2.10.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate2.10.4 Common Treatment Train for Explosives

3 TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES

3.1 In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge3.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge3.3 In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge3.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge

261

3.5 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge3.6 Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge3.7 Containment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge3.8 Other Treatment Technologies for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge3.9 In Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate 3.10 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate3.11 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate3.12 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate 3.13 Containment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate 3.14 Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment

4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES

Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge Treatment Technologies

In Situ Biological Treatment

4.1 Bioventing4.2 Enhanced Bioremediation4.3 Phytoremediation

In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment

4.4 Chemical Oxidation4.5 Electrokinetic Separation4.6 Fracturing4.7 Soil Flushing4.8 Soil Vapor Extraction4.9 Solidification/Stabilization

In Situ Thermal Treatment

4.10 Thermal Treatment

Ex Situ Biological Treatment

4.11 Biopiles4.12 Composting4.13 Landfarming4.14 Slurry Phase Biological Treatment

Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (Assuming Excavation)

4.15 Chemical Extraction4.16 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation4.17 Dehalogenation4.18 Separation4.19 Soil Washing4.20 Solidification/Stabilization

Ex Situ Thermal Treatment (assuming excavation)

4.21 Hot Gas Decontamination4.22 Incineration4.23 Open Burn/Open Detonation

262

4.24 Pyrolysis4.25 Thermal Desorption4.26 Landfill Cap4.27 Landfill Cap Enhancements/Alternatives

Other Treatment

4.28 Excavation, Retrieval, and Off-Site

Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate Treatment Technologies

In Situ Biological Treatment

4.29 Enhanced Bioremediation4.30 Monitored Natural Attenuation4.31 Phytoremediation

In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment

4.32 Air Sparging4.33 Bioslurping4.34 Chemical Oxidation4.35 Directional Wells4.36 Dual Phase Extraction4.37 Thermal Treatment4.38 Hydrofracturing Enhancements4.39 In-Well Air Stripping4.40 Passive/Reactive Treatment Walls

Ex Situ Biological Treatment

4.41 Bioreactors4.42 Constructed Wetlands

Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming pumping)

4.43 Adsorption/Absorption4.44 Advanced Oxidation Processes4.45 Air Stripping4.46 Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC)/Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption4.47 Ground Water Pumping/Pump and Treat4.48 Ion Exchange4.49 Precipitation/Coagulation/Flocculation4.50 Separation4.51 Sprinkler Irrigation

Containment

4.52 Physical Barriers4.53 Deep Well Injection

Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment

4.54 Biofiltration

263

5 REFERENCES

5.1 Document Sources5.2 Reference Document Listing by Author5.3 Reference Web Site Listing

APPENDICES

4.55 High Energy Destruction4.56 Membrane Separation4.57 Oxidation4.58 Scrubbers4.59 Vapor Phase Carbon Adsorption

APPENDIX A: EPA Remediation and Characterization Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT)

APPENDIX B: DOE Site Remediation Technologies by Waste Containment Matrix and Completed Site Demonstration Program Projects as of October 1996

APPENDIX C: Federal Data Bases and Additional Information Sources

APPENDIX D: Factors Affecting Treatment Cost and Performance

APPENDIX E: Description of Source Documents

APPENDIX F: List of Synonyms

264


1. Using problem solving skills, determine a method(s) to preventfurther release of the contaminants and remediate the site.

Time Limit: 1 hour

Student Materials Needed: Student workbookCalculatorPencil and pen

PENTACHLOROPHENOLRELEASE EXERCISE

285

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)PAGE 2

Pentachlorophenol Release Exercise

SITUATION

On June 18, 1979, a MissouriDepartment of Conservation agentresponded to a major fish kill at a0.7 acre farm pond located nearHouston, Missouri. (See Figure 1,Location Map.) The agentobserved a petroleum productcovering the farm pond which mostlikely caused the fish kill. Themost probable source of thepetroleum release was the CairoTreating Plant of HoustonChemical Company (CairoTreating) located across U.S.Highway 63 and up gradient fromthe farm pond.

An initial investigation showed thepetroleum product release occurred4 days prior to discovery of the fishkill. The unreported incident resulted from the failure of a 20,000-gallon above groundstorage tank located on the Cairo Treating property. (For more detailed site and operationdescription see Detail Box 1.) Approximately 15,000-gallons of a pentachlorophenol (PCP)and petroleum solution released when the undiked above ground storage tank collapsedshearing a bottom valve. The product, a 5% PCP and 95% petroleum mix, flowed into ashallow holding pit adjacent to an on-site building. (See Figure 2, Site Map.) The pitoverflowed into a storm water drainage ditch which flows into a small catch basin acrossU.S. Highway 63 from Cairo Treating. The released product then flowed into the farm pondcausing the fish kill. PCP contains dioxins and furans and is very toxic to human health and theenvironment.

DETAIL BOX 1SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONAL DETAILS

The Cairo Treating Plant blends PCP with petroleum which is then sold in bulk towood treatment facilities. Because PCP is toxic to micro organisms that attach towood 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 powderform and blended the PCP with petroleum. This solution, 5% PCP and 95%petroleum, is pressurized into the wood; however, wood treating was not done atthe Cairo Treating facility. The Cairo Treating Plant consisted of a small buildingused for the blending operation, two above ground storage tanks (a 20,000-gallonand 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 befouled with the PCP/petroleum blend.

JeffersonCity

St. Louis

Van Buren

HoustonSpringfield

Figure 1: Location Map

HOUSTON, MISSOURIPCP RELEASE

286

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (165.3)

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 BigPiney River, a source of drinking water for several area towns. Because there was very littlefreeboard on the pond and a threat of heavy rain, representatives from the federalgovernment (including the EPA, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and theFood and Drug Administration) and Missouri State agencies (including the Departments ofHealth, Conservation, Natural Resources, and Highways) arrived on-site the following dayto determine an immediate course of action and remediation plans.

HOUSTON MISSOURI PCP RELEASETABLE 1

• Farm pond dimensions: approximately 250 feet long, 122 feet wide, and anaverage 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

GROUP TASKS

The class will be divided into small groups, and each group will be required to complete thefollowing tasks. The findings of the tasks will be discussed as a class at the end of thisexercise.

1. Because of the possibility of a significant rainstorm, develop a short term plan forcontrolling 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 water3. Address other areas of concern resulting from the PCP release.

287

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

PRBs Exercise


This exercise will show the processes and calculations involved in determining:

Permeable reactive barrier (PRB) thicknessIn-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 selectionColumn tests determine contaminant half-life (t½)

10 to 100 cm

sand

sand

reactive material

flow

sample ports

discharge

2.5 to 4 cm

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 26330.5 15001.0 6501.5 2832.0 1502.5 833.0 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.

Where:

t½ = Half-life of contaminant (a time value)

-0.6931 = First order rate constant decay [ln (½)]

k = First order constant obtained fromgraphing results of a column test

t½ = -0.6931 / k

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 timeand Co = initial concentration

Time (hours) ln (C/Co)*0 00.5 -0.56261.0 -1.39891.5 -2.23042.0 -2.86522.5 -3.45703.0 -5.0426

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

k = slope

(-4.4) – (-1.5)=

-2.9

3 - 1 2

k = -1.45

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Time (hr )

TCE

Con

cent

ratio

nln

(C/C

o)

-1.5

-4.4

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 effluentCo = 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


Time (hours) Concentration (ppb)*0 150.5 301.0 1001.5 1402.0 1722.5 1953.0 2003.5 1854.0 1504.5 120


tp = 2.75 hr

C0 = 200 ppb

301

PRBs Exercise


Time (hours) ln (C/Co)*0 00.5 01.0 01.5 02.0 02.5 03.0 03.5 -0.07794.0 -0.28764.5 -0.5108

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

k = -0.4751.5

k = -0.3167

-0.475

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time (hr )

DC

E C

once

ntra

tion

ln(C

/Co) k = -0.475 – (0)

0 – 1.5

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


Time (hours) Concentration (ppb)*0 00.5 101.0 551.5 97.52.0 142.52.5 1603.0 1553.5 1254.0 1204.5 115


Tp = 2.5 hr

C0 = 160 ppb

304

PRBs Exercise


Time (hours) ln (C/Co)*0 00.5 01.0 01.5 02.0 02.5 03.0 -0.03173.5 -0.24684.0 -0.28764.5 -0.3302

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

k = -0.33 – (0) 4.5 – 2.5

-0.33

-0.5

-0.25

0

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time (hr )

VC C

once

ntra

tion

ln(C

/Co)

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 hrsDCE 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/dayK = aquifer hydraulic conductivity in ft/dayI = groundwater gradient, expressed in

ft/ftn = 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 velocityThe 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 / nWhere: K = 10 ft/day

n = 0.25I = 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


1. As a group, design a treatment system using one or more treatmentoptions that will meet the allowable discharge requirements.

Time Limit: 2 hours

Student Materials Needed: Student workbookCalculatorPencil and pen

TREATMENT SYSTEMDESIGN EXERCISE

311


Treatment System Design Exercise

INTRODUCTION

The Sydney Mines Sludge Ponds(Sydney Mines) Superfund site is aformer municipal liquid wastedisposal facility located inBrandon, Hillsborough county,Florida. Brandon is locatedapproximately 12 miles east ofTampa. (See Figure 1, LocationMap.) In 1973, the HillsboroughCounty Division of Public Utilitiesleased a portion of the abandonedphosphate strip mine andconstructed two small ponds for thedisposal of septic waste and oil andgrease wastes. From 1973 to 1982,when disposal was ceased,approximately 16 million gallonsof liquid waste were disposed inthe ponds. As a result of thedisposal activities, volatile organiccompounds and other contaminantshave been detected in the shallow groundwater aquifer. In the immediate area of SydneyMines, groundwater aquifers are the principle source of potable water. Because of theground water contamination, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER)and the county initiated closure and remediation activities at Sydney Mines. In 1986, thesite was proposed for listing on the National Priority List (NPL), and in 1989 it becamelisted 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 a1,700 acre open pit mine. The mine was operated by the American Cyanamid Co., and themain product was phosphate ore. In 1973, Hillsborough County constructed a 0.6 acre pondon an approximate 10 acre parcel which they leased from the owner. This pond acceptedseptic waste, grease trappings from commercial restaurants, waste automotive oil, industrialcutting oils, and other types of liquid wastes. In 1978, plans to expand other portions of theSydney Mines site to accept solid waste were rejected by the county. However, in 1979, theFDER granted a construction permit for the waste disposal activities, and a second largerpond (1.5 acres) was constructed. (See Figure 2, Site Map.) The second pond was used tocontain and separate the septic waste, therefore, separating the septic waste from the otherwaste. In 1980, FDER granted an operating permit. Each pond was constructed in areclaimed area of the former phosphate mine. For more detailed information on thereclaimed area and former mining operations. (See Detail Box 1.)

Tallahassee

BRANDON, FLORIDASYDNEY MINES SLUDGE PONDS

Figure 1: Location Map

Orlando

Tampa

BrandonSt. Petersburg

Miami

312



DETAIL BOX 1FORMER 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 werecreated using the sand tailings to construct dikes. These settling ponds were builtin areas that had been mined; however, the bottom of the ponds consisted of anundisturbed natural clay strata. Therefore, when filled, the clay “slimes” coverthe natural clay creating a very low permeable layer. The clay slime retentionponds were then covered with sand tailings ranging in thickness from 3 to 18 feet.

Not to Scale

Figure 2: Site Map

collection and analysis of surface water and groundwater samples as well as sedimentsample from a nearby surface stream. Detectable levels of organic compounds and abovebackground levels of metals were discovered in the groundwater in the area of the disposalponds. In 1981, the EPA further investigated and evaluated the site as a result of localcitizens inquiries regarding the potential impact to the local environmental and humanhealth. In September 1981, FDER denied the issuance of a second operation permit.

In 1979, with the issuance of the operating permit, the FDER and Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) listed Sydney Mines on their list of potential hazardous waste sites in theState of Florida. Because of the listing, the EPA monitored the site which included the

313



INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION AND CLOSURE PLANS

In November 1981, the site was closed to disposal activities. In June of 1982, the countyretained a consultant to assist in filing a closure plan with the FDER and conduct sitesampling activities. As a result of these and earlier sampling activities, contamination wasdetected 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 thesides and approximately 5 feet vertically or nearly to the clay slimes. The site investigationalso showed contaminated groundwater had migrated away from the immediate area of theponds. (See Figure 3, Site Cross Section.) Because of the very low permeability of the clayslimes, a perched water table developed in the former settling ponds. During the rainyseason, the shallow perched aquifer water level increased to a point where the clay slimesdid not cover the sand tailing dikes. Therefore, the contaminated groundwater flowedthrough the dikes into the surrounding area to the north clay slimes settling ponds.

The initial plans for site closure recommended the contaminated sediment adjacent theponds and pond sludge be incinerated on-site and the groundwater contamination be pumpedand treated on-site.

Figure 3: Site Cross Section

Not to Scale

Unmined Clay Strata

SandTailingsClay

“Slimes” Clay“Slimes”

SandTailings

PerchedWaterTable

SandTailings

Perched Groundwaterand Contaminant Flow

Former Waste Oil Pond

Former Septic Pond

A A

314



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 theconstruction of a new slurry wall to enclose the waste ponds and the installation of agroundwater pump-and-treat system. (See Figure 2, Site Map.) The new slurry wall wasconstructed 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 20immediately 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 wascollected using a vacuum pump. The water was delivered to an on-site groundwatertreatment system.

The area enclosed by the slurry wall is approximately 10 acres. The total depth of thetailings sand is 20 feet; however, the total depth of the tailings sand saturated with perchedgroundwater is 10 feet. The effective porosity (that porosity that will yield groundwater) is40 percent (0.4).

Figure 4: Groundwater Recovery System

Not to Scale

Original Sand Tailings Dike

NorthClay “Slimes” Settling Pond

N

SouthClay “Slimes” Settling Pond

Waste Oil Pond

SepticPond

New Slurry Wall

WellPoints

Groundwater Treatment

System

315



The next activity required a treatment train be designed to treat the groundwater from theon-site system. Design of an on-site groundwater treatment train will be the responsibilityof each student team. The following pages contain groundwater contaminant constituentsand chemical information, a list of conditions concerning the treatment, and four treatmentunit descriptions.

Construction costs, operation and maintenance costs per treatment unit, and efficiencies areprovided for each. With this information, conduct the following:

1. Using a saturated volume and the porosity given, calculate the amount of groundwater (ingallons) 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 specifieddischarge limits.

See Table 2.

4. Calculate the annual cost of treatment:a.. Spread construction cost over 5 yearsb. Flow rate is 200,000 gpd over 5 years

316



CONDITIONS

1. Treatment units were selected to meet the applicable and relevant orappropriate requirements (ARARs).

2. Unit design features such as size, retention time, overflow rates, and otherparameters were preselected. Design of the units themselves would be an effortbeyond the scope of this course.

3. Cost factors were calculated using averages, and only gross costs are provided forsimplicity. Actual cost-benefit comparisons are much more complex and would betoo time consuming for the course.

4. All removal efficiencies were arbitrarily selected from averages and would notnecessarily hold true for a specific wastestream.

5. The selection of appropriate treatment systems is much more complex than ispossible 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 importantaspects of the process.

INFORMATION

Influent Flow Rate100,000 to 200,000 GPD

Groundwater analytical results

See Table 1.

Benzene

Carbon tetrachloride

Chloroform

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

Methylene chloride

0.1 ppm

0.1 ppm

0.08 ppm

0.025 ppm

0.02 ppm

0.2 ppm

0.03 ppm

1 ppm

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

Toluene

Vinyl chloride

Pentachlorophenol

2,4-D

2,4,5-TP

Iron (mg/L)

0.05 ppm

0.1 ppm

0.5 ppm

0.05 ppm

0.2 ppm

0.5 ppm

0.03 ppm

7-45 ppm

TABLE 1. GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND MAXIMUM DESIGN CONCENTRATIONS

317



Duration of TreatmentFive years estimated duration would naturally vary for different treatment systems, but thetime has been established for the problem set in order to simplify comparisons.

Size1 acre = 43,560 ft2

Discharge (through an on-site irrigation system)Irrigation will be over the site, providing a flush of the contaminated area. Concentrationsof contaminants in the influent will decrease as treatment progresses. This decreasing loadwould make it necessary to design considerable flexibility of treatment into each unit. Forour purposes, assure that the design of each unit takes this need into account.

TABLE 2

Benzene


Chloroform

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene


Methylene chloride

0.005 ppm

0.005 ppm

0.0002 ppm*

0.81 ppm*

0.005 ppm

0.007 ppm

0.1 ppm

0.005 ppm


Trichloroethylene

Toluene

Vinyl chloride

Pentachlorophenol

2,4-D

2,4,5-TP

Iron (mg/L)

0.2 ppm

0.005 ppm

1 ppm

0.002 ppm

0.001 ppm

0.07 ppm

0.5 ppm

NA

Discharge LimitsSee Table 2. Discharge Limits are based on the National Primary Drinking WaterRegulations Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs).

* EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations for Tap WaterNA: not applicable

318



NA: not applicable

80

6.2

1.6

1.2

2

3.4

2.2

0.8

2

18.2

50

Trace

100

Trace

Trace

Volatile Organics

Benzene


Chloroform

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene


Methylene chloride


Trichloroethylene

Toluene

Vinyl chloride

Extractable Organics

Pentachlorophenol

Pesticides and PCBs

2,4-D

2,4,5-TP

CHEMICALHENRY’S LAW

CONSTANT(atm-m3/mol)

ADSORPTION*(mg compound/g carbon)

BIODEGRADATION

0.00559

0.0241

0.00278

0.00431

0.000978

0.0340

0.00656

0.00203

0.0144

0.0091

0.00637

0.0891

NA

NA

NA

Degradable

Degradable

Degradable

Degradable

Degradable

Degradable

Degradable

Refractory

Degradable

Refractory

Degradable

Degradable

Refractory

Degradable

Refractory/nondegradable

TABLE 3. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES

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.

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

319



R02/03

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 collectionsystem producing insoluble inorganic (metal) solids that may be removed by filtration.Design features including vessel size, residence time, air injection rate configuration, filterdesign, 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 beenoptimized for the problem.

Steam StrippingLimits: Organic compounds

Henry’s Law constant of 0.0004 atm-m3/mole or greaterVapor treatment unnecessary

Efficiency: 99%

Cost per 1000 gallons: $8.00

Unit design features optimized as part of this problem.

Carbon Adsorption

Limits: Low solubilityNonpolarAdsorptive capacity 50 mg/g carbonConcentration below 1%SS less than 50 ppmOil and grease less than 10 ppm

Efficiency: Varies with wastestream for the purpose of this exercise. If the compoundmeets 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 ratewill 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

320

R02/03



Biological Treatment

Limits: Compound degradableNontoxic concentrationsBOD 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 compoundsare arbitrarily selected at 30% for the problem.

CalculationsA. Water contentB. Filling time of holding tankC. Treatment unit selectionD. Construction cost of treatmentsystemE. Annual cost of treatment

321

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES)P


EXERCISE WORKSHEET

Volatile Organics

Benzene


Chloroform

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene


Methylene chloride


Trichloroethylene

Toluene

Vinyl chloride

Extractable Organics

Pentachlorophenol

2,4-D

2,4,5-TP

Other

Iron

CHEMICALCONCEN-TRATION

0.1 ppm

0.1 ppm

0.08 ppm

0.025 ppm

0.02 ppm

0.2 ppm

0.03 ppm

1 ppm

0.05 ppm

0.1 ppm

0.5 ppm

0.05 ppm

0.2 ppm

0.5 ppm

0.03 ppm

7-45 ppm

322

Environmental Remediation TechnologiesAcronyms

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A absorption coefficientAA atomic absorptionAA Assistant Administrator (EPA)AAQCD Ambient Air Quality Criteria Document (EPA, CAA)ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial HygienistsACHP Advisory Council on Historic PreservationACL alternate concentration limit (EPA, RCRA)ACO administrative consent orderADI acceptable daily intake (EPA)AEA Atomic Energy Act (NRC, ERDA, DOE)AG Attorney GeneralAHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (EPA, TSCA)AHPA Archaeological and Historical Preservation ActAIC acceptable intake for chronic exposure (EPA)AIHA American Industrial Hygiene AssociationAIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom ActAIS acceptable intake for subchronic exposure (EPA)AL action level (EPA)ALJ administrative law judgeANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemakingANSI American National Standards InstituteAO administrative orderAOC area of contaminationAOC area of concernAPA Administrative Procedure ActAPA Acid Precipitation ActAQCR air quality control regionAQMD air quality management districtAQUIRE acute aquatic toxicity values database (CIS)ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirementsARCS Alternative Remedial Contracting StrategyARPA Archaeological Resources Protection ActAT averaging time

323


ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryAWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria (EPA, CWA)AWQCD Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document (EPA, CWA)

B body weight of receptorBACT 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 MinesBMP best management practicesBOD biochemical (or biological) oxygen demandBPATT best practicable available technologyBPJ best professional judgmentBPT(CA) best practicable technology (currently available) (EPA, CWA)BRA baseline risk assessmentBQRA baseline quantitative risk assessmentBTC briefly tolerable concentration (NRC)BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenesBTX benzene, toluene, and xylenes

C corrosivity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)C concentration of a pollutant in the environmentCA corrective action (EPA, RCRA)CAA Clean Air ActCA/FO consent agreement/final orderCAG 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 areaCATEX categorical exclusion (EPA, NEPA)CCRIS Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System (NLM,

324


Toxnet)CDC Centers for Disease Control (HHS, PHS)CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability ActCERCLIS CERCLA Information SystemCERI Center for Environmental Research Information (EPA-ORD,

Cincinnati)CESARS Chemical Evaluation Search and Retrieval System (CIS)CEQ Council on Environmental QualityCESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generatorCFC ChlorofluorocarbonCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCHEMID Chemical Identification (includes SUPERLIST) (NLM, ELHILL)CHEMLINE Chemical Dictionary Online (NLM, ELHILL)CHEMTRAC Chemical emissions toxicity inventory database (EPA)CHEMTREC Chemical Transportation Emergency CenterCHRIS Chemical Hazard Response Information System (USCG)CHS CERCLA hazardous substanceCIL Chemical Inventory List (EPA, EPCRA)CIS Computer Information System (commercial user network)CMA Chemical Manufacturers AssociationCMI corrective measures implementation (EPA, RCRA)CMS corrective measures study (EPA, RCRA)CO compliance orderCO carbon monoxideCOD chemical oxygen demandCOE Corps of EngineersCP conventional pollutant (EPA, CWA)CP criteria pollutant (EPA, CAA)CPF cancer (carcinogenic) potency factorCPSC Consumer Product Safety CommissionCQAP construction quality assurance planCRA classification review area (EPA, SDWA)CRAVE carcinogen risk assessment verification endeavor (EPA, ECAO)CRP community relations plan(ning) (EPA, CERCLA)CRS Congressional Research Services

325


CSF cancer slope factorCTCP Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Gleason et at., CIS)CWA Clean Water ActCZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

D disposer, disposalD 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 planDE destruction efficiencyDEIS draft environmental impact statementDERA defense environmental restoration accountDERMAL dermal absorption and toxicity database (CIS)DERP defense environmental restoration programDIRLINE Directory of Information Resources Online (NLM)DMP data management planDMR discharge monitoring report (EPA, CWA)DNFA determination of no further action (EPA, RCRA)DOC U.S. Department of CommerceDOD U.S. Department of DefenseDOE U.S. Department of EnergyDOI U.S. Department of the InteriorDOJ U.S. Department of JusticeDOL U.S. Department of LaborDOR Determination of Release (EPA, RCRA)DOT U.S. Department of TransportationDQO data quality objective (EPA)DRE destruction removal efficiencyDW drinking waterDWCD Drinking Water Criteria Document (EPA, SDWA)DWHAS Drinking Water Health Advisory Summary (EPA, SDWA)

E toxicity characteristic hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)

326


EA environmental assessment (EPA, NEPA)EA endangerment assessmentEC50 median effective concentrationEcA ecological assessmentECAO Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (EPA)ED exposure durationED50 median effective doseEE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysisEEGL emergency exposure guidance level (NRC)EEL emergency exposure level (WHO)EERU Environmental Emergency Response UnitEF exposure frequencyEFD exposure frequency and durationEHS 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 orderEP extraction procedure (EPA, RCRA)EP-TOX extraction procedure toxicity (EPA, RCRA)EPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know ActEPTC extraction procedure toxicity characteristicsERCS Emergency Response Cleanup SystemERT Environmental Response TeamESA Endangered Species Act (FWS)ESD explanation of significant differences (EPA, CERCLA)ETICBACK Environmental Teratology Information Center Backfile (NLM,

Toxnet)ExA exposure assessment

327


F--- waste ID for nonspecific-source hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)FACA financial assurance for corrective action (EPA, RCRA)FCL final cleanup levelFCO Federal Coordinating OfficerFEIS final environmental impact statementFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFEPCA Federal Environmental Pesticide Control ActFFA federal facilities agreementFFCA federal facilities compliance agreementFFCM federal facilities compliance manualFFSRA federal facilities site remediation agreementFIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide ActFIT Field Investigation TeamFLPMA Federal Land Policy Management ActFOIA Freedom of Information ActFONSI finding of no significant impact (EPA, NEPA)FR Federal RegisterFRG final remediation goalsFRL final remediation level (EPA, CERCLA)FRSS Federal Register Search SystemFS feasibility study (EPA, CERCLA)FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control ActFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

G generatorG/Tp generator/transporterGAC granular activated carbonGACT generally available control technologyGC gas chromatograph(y)GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometryGENE-TOX genetic toxicology database (NLM, Toxnet)GIABS gastrointestinal absorption database (CIS)GOCO government-owned, contractor-operated facilityGSA Government Services AdministrationGW groundwater

328


GWA Groundwater Act of 1987GWPS groundwater protection standard (EPA, RCRA)GWQA groundwater quality assessment (EPA, RCRA)

H acute hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)HA hazard (or health) assessmentHAD Health Assessment Document (EPA) HAP hazardous air pollutant (EPA, CAA)HARM hazard assessment rating methodologyHASP health and safety planHAZINF Hazardous Chemical Information and Disposal Guide (U. of Alberta)HAZWOPER hazardous waste operations and emergency serviceHC hazardous constituent (EPA, RCRA)HC hydrocarbonsHCh 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 environmentHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesHHWE human health, welfare and the environmentHI hazard indexHM hazardous material (DOT, HMTA)HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (DOT)HQ hazard quotientHRS 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)

329


I ignitable hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)I intake rateIAG interagency agreement (EPA, CERCLA)IARC International Agency for Research on CancerICL initial cleanup levelIDLH immediately dangerous to life or health (NIOSH)IFB Invitation for BidsIHCS imminently hazardous chemical substance (EPA, TSCA)ILR individual lifetime riskIRIS Integrated Risk Information System (NLM, Toxnet)IRP installation restoration programIS interim status (EPA, RCRA)I&SE imminent and substantial endangermentISHOW 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 concentrationLD50 median lethal doseLDF land disposal facility (EPA, RCRA)LDU land disposal unit (EPA, RCRA)LEPC local emergency planning committee (EPA, EPCRA)LF landfillLFD local fire departmentLLRWPA Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy ActLOG P bioconcentration factors databaseLOIS loss of interim status (EPA, RCRA)LQG large quantity generatorLT lifetimeLTU land treatment unitLUST leaking underground storage tank(s)

MACT maximum achievable control technology (EPA, CAA)

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 practicableMF modifying factor (EPA)mg/kg milligrams per kilogrammg/l milligrams per literMOA memorandum of agreementMOS margin of safetyMPSRA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (EPA)MPS media protection standard (EPA)MSDS material safety data sheet (OSHA)MSHA Mining Safety and Health AdministrationMTD 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 ScienceNBAR nonbinding allocation of responsibilityNCA 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 AssociationNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNIH National Institute of HealthNIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and HealthNIPDWS national interim primary drinking water standards (EPA, SDWA)NLM National Library of Medicine (HHS, PHS)

331


NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)NOAEL no observed adverse effect levelNOD notice of deficiency (EPA, RCRA)NOEL no observed effect levelNOI notice of intent (to prepare an EIS)NONC notice of noncomplianceNOV notice of violationNOx nitrogen oxidesNPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (EPA, CWA)NPL National Priorities List (EPA, CERCLA)NRC Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNRC National Response CenterNRC National Research Council (NAS)NRDA natural resource damage assessmentNRT National Response TeamNSF National Science FoundationNSPS new source performance standards (EPA, CAA)NTIS National Technical Information ServiceNTP National Toxicology ProgramNWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act

O&G oil and greaseO&M operation and maintenanceOE 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)OOHM/TADS Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data System

(EPA)OMB Office of Management and BudgetO&MP operation and maintenance planO/O owner/operator (EPA, RCRA)ORD Office of Research and DevelopmentOSC On-Scene CoordinatorOSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL)

332


OSHA Occupational Safety and Health ActOSM 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 TeamPAC powdered activated carbonPAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsPCBs polychlorinated biphenylsPCDD polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

PCDF polychlorinated dibenzofuransPCP pentachlorophenolPDR Physicians' Desk ReferencePECMT preliminary evaluation of corrective measures technologyPEL permissible exposure limit (OSHA)PHRED Public Health Risk Evaluation Database (EPA)PSHA Public Service Health ActPHYTOTOX Terrestrial plant toxicology database (CIS)PI preliminary injunctionPIAT Public Information Assistance TeamPIC product(s) of incomplete combustionPIG program implementation guidancePIP public involvement planPL public lawPM project managerPMN premanufacture notices

333


PMP program management planPN public noticePNA polynuclear aromatic (use PAH)PNC public notice and opportunity of commentPOC point of compliance (EPA)POD point of departure (EPA)POE point of exposurePOHC principle organic hazardous constituentPOM polycyclic organic matterPOTW publically owned treatment works (EPA, CWA)PP priority pollutant (EPA, CWA)PP proposed plan (EPA, CERCLA)ppb parts per billionPPE personal protective equipmentPPIC Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (EPA)ppm parts per millionPPP pollution prevention planning (EPA)ppt parts per trillionPQL practical quantitation limitPR 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 CPFQAPP quality assurance project plan (EPA)QA/QC quality assurance/quality controlQRA quantitative risk assessmentQSAR 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

334


RA Regional AdministratorRACT reasonably available control technology (EPA, CAA)RAn risk analysisRAO remedial action objective (EPA, CERCLA)RAP remedial action planRBC rotating biological contactorRC risk communicationRCh risk characterizationRComp remedy completionRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRD remedial design (EPA, CERCLA)RD&D research, development and demonstrationRE risk evaluationREL recommended exposure limit (NIOSH)REMFIT Field Investigation Team for EPA Remedial ActionRFA 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 ProposalRI remedial investigation (EPA, CERCLA)RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility studyRIM regulatory interpretative memorandumRJ risk judgmentRM risk managementRME reasonable maximum exposure (EPA)RMI risk management implementation (EPA, RCRA)RMCL recommended maximum contaminant level (same as MCLG)RN risk negotiationRO reverse osmosisROD record of decision (EPA, CERCLA)

335


RP risk perceptionRP responsible party (EPA, CERCLA)RPAR rebuttable presumption against registration (EPA, FIFRA)RPJ risk perception and judgmentRPM Regional Project ManagerRQ reportable quantity (EPA, CERCLA)RR residual riskRR risk reductionRRC Regional Response CenterRRS risk reduction studiesRRT Regional Response TeamRS regulated substances (EPA, UST)RS remedy selectionRS risk substitutionRSD risk specific dose (EPA)RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (NLM, Toxnet)RU regulated unit (EPA, RCRA)RW remediation wasteRWMU remediation waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)

S storer, storageSAB Science Advisory BoardSARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSC specific conductanceSDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SERC State Emergency Response Commission (EPA, EPCRA)SES Senior Executive ServiceSF safety factor (EPA)SF slope factor (EPA)SHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSI sampling inspection (EPA, RCRA)SI site inspection (EPA, CERCLA)SI surface impoundmentSIC standard industrial classification (cede)SIP state implementation plan (EPA, CAA)

336


SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (EPA-ORD)SMCL secondary maximum contaminant levelSMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (DOI-OSM)SNARL suggested no adverse reaction levelSNC 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 generatorSSC Scientific Support CoordinatorSW solid waste (EPA, RCRA)SWDA Solid Waste Disposal ActSWMF solid waste management facility (EPA, RCRA)SWMU solid waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)

T toxicity hazardous waste code (EPA, RCRA)T treater, treatmentTA toxicity assessmentTAG technical assistance grant (EPA, CERCLA)TAR technical amendment to the regulationsTAT Technical Assistance TeamTBC advisory, criteria, or guidance to be considered (EPA, CERCLA)TC toxicity characteristic (EPA, RCRA)TCA trichloroethaneTCE trichloroethyleneTCh toxic chemical (EPA, EPCRA)TC50 median toxic concentrationTCDD 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinTCL toxic chemical list (EPA, EPCRA)TCL target cleanup level (EPA, RCRA)TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (EPA, RCRA)TD50 median toxic doseTDS total dissolved solidsT&E test and evaluation facilityTEGD Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (EPA, RCRA)

337


THM trihalomethaneTIP 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 volumeTOC total organic carbonTOX total organic halogenTOXLINE Toxicology Information Online (NLM, ELHILL)TOXLIT toxicology literature from special sources (NLM, ELHILL)TOXNET Toxicology Data Network (NLM, MEDLARS)Tp transporterTP 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 orderTS toxic substance (EPA, TSCA)TSCA Toxic Substances Control ActTSCATS Toxic Substances Control Act submissionsTSD treatment, storage, or disposalTSDF treatment, storage, or disposal facilityTSP total suspended particulatesTSS total suspended solidsTSS total settleable solidsTU temporary unit (EPA, RCRA)TUHC total unburned hydrocarbonsTV toxicity value

U--- waste ID for toxic commercial chemical productsUF uncertainty factorUIC Underground Injection Control Program (EPA, SDWA)ur3 use, reuse, recycle, reclaimUSC United States Code

338


USCA United States Code AnnotatedUSCG U.S. Coast GuardUSDW underground source of drinking water (EPA, SDWA)USGS United States Geological SurveyUST underground storage tank (EPA, RCRA)

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

W weight of receptorWHO World Health OrganizationWL warning letterWP waste pileWQA Water Quality ActWQC water quality criterion (EPA, CWA)WQS water quality standard (EPA, CWA)WWTU wastewater treatment unit (EPA, RCRA)

339

jeffry.weidner

Cross-Out