Engineering and Implementation Challenges for Chlorinated Solvent Remediation

  • Thomas J. Simpkin
  • Robert D. Norris
Part of the SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP)


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


Reductive Dechlorination Remediation Technology Groundwater Flow Direction Seepage Velocity Additional Characterization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2008. Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions. Bulletin ASTM E 2600. ASTM International, West Conshocken, PA, USA. 53 p.Google Scholar
  2. Azadpour-Keeley A, Wood LA, Lee TR, Mravik SC. 2004. Microbial responses to in situ chemical oxidation, six-phase heating, and steam injection remediation technologies in groundwater. Remediat J 14:5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbee GC. 2007. Fate of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the vadose zone and ground water. Ground Water Monitor Remediat 14:129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown SM, Lincoln DR, Wallace WA. 1988. Application of observational method to hazardous waste engineering. Am Soc Civ Eng J Manag Eng 6:479–500.Google Scholar
  5. Chapelle FC. 2001. Ground-Water Microbiology and Geochemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY, USA. 477 p.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman SW, Parker BL. 2005. Plume persistence due to aquitard back diffusion following dense nonaqueous phase liquid source removal or isolation. Water Resour Res 41:W12411.1-W12411.16.Google Scholar
  7. Chopra G, Dutta L, Nuttall E, Anderson W, Hatzinger P, Goltz MN. 2005. Investigation of methods to control biofouling during in situ bioremediation. In Alleman BC, Kelley ME, eds, Proceedings of the Eighth International In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA (on CD), Paper #A-22.Google Scholar
  8. Christians GL, Ash RE, Wilson DJ. 2006. PRB wall design optimization: Monte Carlo probabilistic approach saves $1,500,000. Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 22–25, Paper C-07. CD Proceedings: ISBN 1-57477-157-4.Google Scholar
  9. Cook MB, Friedland M. 2005. Remediation and future land use: Incorporating reuse considerations into Superfund activities. Remediat J 15:111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crumbling DM, Hayworth JS, Johnson RL, Moore M. 2004. The Triad approach: A catalyst for maturing remediation practices. Remediat J 15:3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis P, McMaster M, Hood E, Cox E, Major D. 2005. Observations from multiple bioaugmentation applications for chlorinated ethene remediation. Proceedings, In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, Baltimore, MD, USA, June 6-9, Abstract I-01.Google Scholar
  12. Dupont RR, Bruell CJ, Downey DC, Huling SG, Marley MC, Norris RD, Pivetz B. 1998. Bioremediation: Design and Application. Volume 1, Innovative Site Remediation Technology Series. American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Annapolis, MD, USA. 543 p.Google Scholar
  13. ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program). 2005. A Review of Biofouling Controls for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of Groundwater. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  14. Faris B, Vlassopoulos D, ITRC In Situ Bioremediation Team. 2003. A systematic approach to in situ bioremediation in groundwater. Remediat J 13:27–52.Google Scholar
  15. Feenstra SJ, Cherry JA. 1988. Subsurface contamination by dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) chemicals. Proceedings, International Groundwater Symposium, International Association of Hydrogeologists, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, May 1-4, pp 62–69.Google Scholar
  16. FRTR (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable). 2002. Remediation Technology Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0., Section 4.6, Fracturing. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein KJ, Vitolins AR, Navon D, Parker BL, Chapman S, Anderson GA. 2004. Characterization and pilot-scale studies for chemical oxidation remediation of fractured shale. Remediat J 14:19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenberg M, Burger J, Gochfield M, Kosson D, Lowrie K, Mayer H, Powers CW, Volz CD, Vyas V. 2005. End-state land uses, sustainability protective systems, and risk management: A challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship. Remediat J 16:91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirschorn SK, Dinglasan MJ, Edwards EA, Lacrampe-Couloume G, Sherwood Lollar B. 2007. Compound specific isotope analysis as a natural reaction probe to determine biodegradation mechanisms. Environ Microbiol 9:1982–1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2000. Addressing regulatory barriers: The heart of the ITRC mission. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Cooperation Work Group Quarterly Update. March. Accessed June, 13 2009.Google Scholar
  21. ITRC. 2005. Permeable Reactive Barriers: Lessons Learned/New Directions. Prepared by the ITRC Permeable Reactive Barriers Team. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  22. ITRC. 2007. Triad Implementation Guide. Prepared by the ITRC Sampling, Characterization, and Monitoring Team. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson RE, Dwarakanath V, Meinardus HW, Young CM. 2003. Mobility control: How injected surfactants and biostimulants may be forced into low-permeability units. Remediat J 13:59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson PC, Ettinger RA. 1991. Heuristic model for predicting the intrusion rate of contaminant vapors into buildings. Environ Sci Technol 25:1445–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kansas DHE (Department of Health and Environment). 2007. Risk Based Standards for Kansas (RSK) Manual, 4th Version. KDHE Division of Environment, Bureau of Environmental Remediation, Topeka KS, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  26. Kitanidis PK, McCarty PL. 2010. Delivery and Mixing in the Subsurface: Processes and Design Principles for In Situ Remediation. SERDP and ESTCP Remediation Technology Monograph Series. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, NY, USA. In Preparation.Google Scholar
  27. Koenigsberg SS, Norris RD. 1999. Accelerated Bioremediation Using Slow Release Compounds. Selected Battelle Conference Papers: 1993–1999. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, San Clemente, CA, USA. 255 p.Google Scholar
  28. Koenigsberg SS, Hazen TC, Peacock AD. 2005. Environmental biotechnology: A bioremediation perspective. Remediat J 15:5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Livadas A. 2003. Injecting remediation compounds: How you inject is equally as important as what you inject. Remediat J 13:105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Long CM, Borden RC. 2006. Enhanced reductive dechlorination in columns treated with edible oil emulsion. J Contam Hydrol 87:54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mack J, Crumbling DM, Ellerbusch F. 2004. A data integration framework to support Triad projects. Remediat J 15:21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGuire TM, Newell CJ, Looney BB, Vangelas KM, Sink CH. 2004. Historical analysis of monitored natural attenuation: A survey of 191 chlorinated solvent sites and 45 solvent plumes. Remediat J 15:99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGuire TM, McDade JM, Newell CJ. 2006. Performance of DNAPL source depletion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent-impacted sites. Ground Water Monit Remediat 26:73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgan LA, Ficklen D, Knowles M. 2005. Site characterization to support permeable reactive barrier design. Remediat J 15:63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). 2008. Groundwater Risk Management Handbook. Prepared by NAVFAC Alternative Restoration Technology Team. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  36. Norris B, Siegel L, Lester S, White H. 2004. Monitored natural attenuation forum: A panel discussion. Remediat J 14:113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Norris RD, Wilson DJ, Ellis DE, Sigrist R. 2000. Consideration of the effects of remediation technologies on natural attenuation. In Alleman BC, Leeson A, eds, Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents, Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Other Organic Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp 59–64.Google Scholar
  38. NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Alternatives for Groundwater Cleanup. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 336 p.Google Scholar
  39. NRC. 1997. Innovations in Groundwater and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 310 p.Google Scholar
  40. NRC. 1999. Groundwater & Soil Cleanup: Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA, pp 140–147.Google Scholar
  41. NRC. 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC, USA, pp 46–65.Google Scholar
  42. Pac T, Lewis R, Frazer J. 2005. Importance of delivery methods for remedial effectiveness. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27,p 41.Google Scholar
  43. Pankow JF, Cherry JA. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater. Waterloo Press, Portland, OR, USA. 525 p.Google Scholar
  44. Parker LV, Clark CH. 2002. Study of Five Discrete Interval-Type Groundwater Sampling Devices. ERDC/CRREL TR-02-12. Prepared for the US Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Peck RB. 1969. Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics. Geotechnique 19:171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Qui X, Stock MK, Davis JW. 2004. Remedial options for chlorinated volatile organics in a partially anaerobic aquifer. Remediat J 14:39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts AL, Ball WP, Searson P, Fairbrother H, Vikesland PJ, Klausen J, Kohn T, Kamath R, Zimmerman HJ, Burris D. 2002. Influence of Groundwater Constituents on Longevity of Iron-Based Permeable Barriers. Project CU-1125 Final Report. Prepared for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Arlington, VA, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  48. Sahl J. 2005. Effects of Chemical Oxidation of Tetrachloroethene and Trichloroethene on Microbial Activity. Masters Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  49. Sahl J, Crimi M, Munakata-Marr J, Siegrist RL. 2005. The impact of in situ chemical oxidation on biological processes in the treatment of chloroethenes. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27, p 4.Google Scholar
  50. Schnell D. 2005. Application of pneumatic fracturing and media injection adjacent to/within structures. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27, p 86.Google Scholar
  51. Shapiro AM. 2001. Characterizing Ground-Water Chemistry and Hydraulic Properties of Fractured Rock Aquifers Using the Multifunction Bedrock-Aquifer Transportable Testing Tool (BAT3). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fact Sheet FS-075-01. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  52. Siegrist RL, Urynowicz MA, West OR, Crimi ML, Lowe KS. 2001. Principles and Practices of In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Permanganate. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp 114–118.Google Scholar
  53. Simon S. 2004. Editor’s perspective: Hazardous site cleanup—A focus on Triad. Remediat J 15:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slater GF, Lollar BS, Sleep BE, Edwards EA. 2001. Variability in carbon isotopic fractionation during biodegradation of chlorinated ethenes: Implications for field applications. Environ Sci Technol 35:901–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stroo H, Leeson A, Shepard AJ, Koenigsberg SS, Casey CC. 2006. Monitored natural attenuation forum: Environmental remediation applications of molecular biological tools. Remediat J 16:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sueker JK. 2001. Isotope applications in environmental investigations: Theory and use in chlorinated solvent and petroleum hydrocarbon studies. Remediat J 12:5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Suthersan SS. 1997. Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Baton, FL, USA, pp 27–70, 77–90.Google Scholar
  58. Suthersan SS. 2002. Natural and Enhanced Remediation Systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 63–130.Google Scholar
  59. Talley JW. 2006. Roadblocks to the implementation of biotreatment strategies. In Talley JW, ed, Bioremediation of Recalcitrant Compounds. CRC Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 33–50.Google Scholar
  60. Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd ed. Wiley-Interscience, Malden, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  61. Thomson NR, Xu X. 2005. Permanganate natural oxidant demand: Lessons learnt from a multi-site bench-scale study. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27, p 30.Google Scholar
  62. USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997. Uncertainty Management: Expediting Cleanup Through Contingency Planning. DOE/EH/(CERCLA)-002. USDOE Office of Environmental Management/Office of Environment, Safety & Health, Washington, DC, USA. February.Google Scholar
  63. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9234.2-25, Interim Final. USEPA OSWER, Washington, DC, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  64. USEPA. 1995. Use of Risk-Based Decision-Making in UST Corrective Action Programs. USEPA OSWER Directive 9610.17. USEPA OSWER, Washington, DC, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  65. USEPA. 1996. State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ Ground Water Remediation. EPA 542-R-96-001. USEPA Technology Innovation Office (TIO), Washington DC, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  66. USEPA. 1999. Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites. EPA-542-R-99-006. USEPA OSWER TIO, Washington, DC, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  67. USEPA. 2002. OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guide). EPA530-D-02-004. USEPA OSWER, Washington, DC, USA. Accessed June 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  68. Werner PG, Helmke MF. 2003. Chemical oxidation of tetrachloroethene in a fractured saprolite/bedrock aquifer. Remediat J 14:95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilkin RT, Puls RW, Sewell GW. 2003. Long-term performance of permeable reactive barriers using zero-valent iron: Geochemical and microbiological effects. Ground Water 42:493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson JT. 2003. Fate and Transport of MTBE and Other Gasoline Components. In Moyer E, Kostecki P, eds, MTBE Remediation Handbook. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA, USA, pp 19–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson BH, Wilson JT, Luce D. 2004. Design and interpretation of microcosm studies for chlorinated solvents in ground water. Proceedings, Symposium on Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Organics in Ground Water (EPA/540/R-96/500), Dallas, TX, USA, pp 21–28.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson JT, Ross RR, Acree S. 2005. Using direct-push tools to map hydrostratigraphy and predict MTBE plume diving. Ground Water Monit Remediat 25:93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Simpkin
    • 1
  • Robert D. Norris
    • 2
  1. 1.CH2M HILLEnglewoodUSA
  2. 2.Brown and CaldwellGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations