Site Characterization and ISCO Treatment Goals

  • Robert L. Siegrist
  • Tom Palaia
  • Wilson Clayton
  • Richard W. Lewis
Chapter
Part of the SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 3)

Scope

Site characterization methods to develop a conceptual site model (CSM) and enable screening and conceptual design of an in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) technology to achieve ISCO treatment goals.

Key Concepts

  • Development of a valid CSM is critical to enable effective screening and conceptual design of ISCO technologies.

  • Expedited site characterization approaches such as the Triad Approach are well suited to development of a CSM for ISCO.

  • Effective characterization for ISCO screening and conceptual design can be achieved by integrating technologies and methods spanning conventional to advanced diagnostics.

  • Site characterization for ISCO requires the same general level of understanding that is necessary to select, design, and implement other in situ treatment technologies, but with additional focus on subsurface hydrogeologic and geochemical conditions, including:
    • Reactivity of an oxidant with subsurface media (can control oxidant depletion rate)

    • Oxidation-reduction potential (can provide insight into oxidant persistence)

    • pH and alkalinity (can influence oxidation chemistry and free radical scavenging)

    • Presence of redox- and pH-sensitive metals (can result in post-treatment toxicity)

  • Treatment goals and operational endpoints need to be carefully established for an ISCO technology if it is to be successively deployed as a stand-alone remedy or as a component within a combined approach.

Keywords

Clay Permeability Porosity Migration Chromium 

References

  1. Aller L, Bennett TW, Hackett G, Petty RJ, Lehr JH, Sedoris H, Nielson DM, Denne JE. 1991. Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-water Monitoring Wells. EPA/600/4-89/034. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 221 p.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2004. Standard Guide for Accelerated Site Characterization for Confirmed or Suspected Petroleum Releases. ASTM E1912-98(2004). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. ASTM. 2007. Standard Test Method for Estimating the Permanganate Natural Oxidant Demand of Soil and Aquifer Solids. ASTM D7262-07. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  4. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry). 2009. 2007 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cercla/. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  5. Barcelona MJ, Gibb JP, Hellfrich JA, Garske EE. 1985. Practical Guide for Ground-water Sampling. EPA/600/2-85/104. USEPA Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, USA. 169 p.Google Scholar
  6. Bockelmann A, Ptak T, Teutsch G. 2001. An analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks site. J Contam Hydrol 53:429–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks MC, Wood AL, Annable MD, Hatfield K, Cho J, Holbert C, Rao PSC, Enfield CG, Lynch K, Smith KE. 2008. Changes in contaminant mass discharge from DNAPL source mass depletion: Evaluation at two field sites. J Contam Hydrol 102:140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown SM, Lincoln DR, Wallace WA. 1990. Application of the observational method to remediation of hazardous waste sites. J Manag Eng 6:479–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cressie NAC. 1991. Statistics for Spatial Data. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA. 900 p.Google Scholar
  10. Crumbling DM, Groenjes C, Lesnik B, Lynch K, Shockley J, VanEe J, Howe R, Keith L, McKenna G. 2001. Applying the concept of effective data to contaminated sites could reduce costs and improve cleanups. Environ Sci Technol 35:405A–409A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crumbling DM, Griffith J, Powell DM. 2003. Improving decision quality: Making the case for adopting next-generation site characterization practices. Remediation 13:91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson HE. 1997. Screening-Level Tools for Modeling Fate and Transport of NAPLs and Trace Organic Chemicals in Soil and Groundwater: SOILMOD, TRANS ID, and NAPLMOB; Colorado School of Mines: Golden, CO, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program). 2007. Field Demonstration and Validation of a New Device for Measuring Water and Solute Fluxes. ER-0114 Cost and Performance Report. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. April.Google Scholar
  14. Feenstra S, Mackay DM, Cherry JA. 1991. A method for assessing residual NAPL based on organic chemical concentrations in soil samples. Ground Water Monit Remediat 11:128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FRTR (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable). 2008. Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix, Version 1. http://www.frtr.gov/site/. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  16. FRTR. 2009. Statistical Analysis for Decision Support. http://www.frtr.gov/decisionsupport/FunctionalGroups/statistical_analysis.htm. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  17. Gavaskar A. 2002. Site-specific validation of in situ remediation of DNAPLS. In Siegrist RL, Satijn B (eds). Performance Verification of In Situ Remediation Technologies. EPA 542-R-02-002. pp 104–118.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons RD, Bhaumik D, Aryal S. 2009. Statistical Methods for Groundwater Monitoring. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA. 374 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert RO. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA. 320 p.Google Scholar
  20. Goltz MN, Kim S, Yoon H, Park J. 2007. Review of groundwater contaminant mass flux measurement. Environ Eng Res 12:176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guilbeault MA, Parker BL, Cherry JA. 2005. Mass and flux distributions from DNAPL zones in sandy aquifers. Ground Water 43:70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hatfield K, Annable MD, Cho J, Rao PSC, Klammler H. 2004. A direct passive method for measuring water and contaminant fluxes in porous media. J Contam Hydrol 75:155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewitt A. 1994. Losses of Trichloroethylene from Soil During Sample Collection, Storage and Laboratory Handling. Special Report 94-8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM. 1989. Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. 561 p.Google Scholar
  25. ITRC (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council). 2003. Technical and Regulatory Guidance for the Triad Approach: A New Paradigm for Environmental Project Management. SCM-1, December. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org. Accessed March 16, 2010.
  26. ITRC. 2006. The Use of Direct-push Well Technology for Long-term Environmental Monitoring in Groundwater Investigations. SCM-2. ITRC Sampling, Characterization and Monitoring Team, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org. Accessed March 16, 2010.
  27. ITRC. 2007. Triad Implementation Guide. SCM-3. ITRC Sampling, Characterization, and Monitoring Team, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org. Accessed March 16, 2010.
  28. Jackson DG Jr, Looney BB. 2001. Evaluating DNAPL Source and Migration Zones: M-area Settling Basin and the Western Sector of A/M Area, Savannah River Site (U). WSRC-TR-2001-00198. June 15. 52 p. http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001198/tr2001198.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2010.
  29. Keith LH. 1996. Principles of Environmental Sampling, 2nd ed. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA. 848 p.Google Scholar
  30. Kueper BH, Davies K. 2009. Assessment and Delineation of DNAPL Source Zones at Hazardous Waste Sites. USEPA Groundwater Issue Paper, EPA 600-R-09-119. USEPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 20 p.Google Scholar
  31. Lapham WW, Wilde FD, Koterba MT. 1997. Guidelines and Standard Procedures for Studies of Ground-water Quality: Selection and Installation of Wells, and Supporting Documentation. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4233. USGS, Reston, VA, USA. 110 p.Google Scholar
  32. Lowe KS, Gardner FG, Siegrist RL. 2002. Field evaluation of in situ chemical oxidation through vertical well-to-well recirculation of NaMnO4. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). 2008a. Groundwater Risk Management Handbook. NAVFAC Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA, USA. January.Google Scholar
  34. NAVFAC. 2008b. Detailed Hydraulic Assessment Using a High-Resolution Piezocone Coupled to the Geovis. TR-2291-ENV. Prepared by NAVFAC Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA, USA for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. 360 p.Google Scholar
  35. Nielson DM. 1991. Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring. CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 717 p.Google Scholar
  36. Oesterreich RC, Siegrist RL. 2009. Quantifying volatile organic compounds in porous media: Effects of sampling method attributes contaminant characteristics and environmental conditions. Environ Sci Technol 43:2891–2898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker BL, Cherry JA, Chapman SW, Guilbeault MA. 2003. Review and analysis of chlorinated solvent DNAPL distributions in five sandy aquifers. Vadose Zone J 2:116–137.Google Scholar
  38. Pohlmann KF, Alduino AJ. 1992. Groundwater Issue Paper: Potential Sources of Error in Ground-Water Sampling at Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/540/S-92/019. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Popek EA. 2003. Sampling and Analysis of Environmental Chemical Pollutants. Academic Press, San Francisco, CA, USA. 356 p.Google Scholar
  40. Schumacher BM, Minnich M. 2000. Extreme short-range variability in VOC-contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 34:3611–3616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SERDP (Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program) and ESTCP. 2006. SERDP and ESTCP Expert Panel Workshop: Reducing the Uncertainty of DNAPL Source Zone Remediation. SERDP/ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. June. 89 p.Google Scholar
  42. 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. 336 p.Google Scholar
  43. Siegrist RL, Lowe KS, Crimi ML, Urynowicz MA. 2006. Quantifying PCE and TCE in DNAPL source zones: Effects of sampling methods used for intact cores at varied contaminant levels and media temperatures. J Ground Water Monit Remediat 26:114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegrist RL, Petri B, Krembs F, Crimi ML, Ko S, Simpkin T, Palaia T. 2008. In Situ Chemical Oxidation for Remediation of Contaminated Ground Water. Summary Proceedings, ISCO Technology Practices Workshop (ESTCP ER-0623), Golden, CO, USA. March 7–8, 2007. 77 p. http://docs.serdp-estcp.org/. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  45. UK EA (United Kingdom Environment Agency). 2000. Secondary Model Procedure for the Development of Appropriate Soil Sampling Strategies for Land Contamination. R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR. Almondsbury, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
  46. USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Conceptual Site Models for Ordnance and Explosives (OE) and Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Projects. EM 1110-1-1200. USACOE, Washington, DC, USA. February 3.Google Scholar
  47. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. EPA 540/G-89/004. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA. October.Google Scholar
  48. USEPA. 1989. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User’s Guide, 2nd ed. EPA 600/8-69/046. March.Google Scholar
  49. USEPA. 1991. Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation. Seminar Publication. EPA 625/4-91/026. November.Google Scholar
  50. USEPA. 1992. Estimating Potential for Occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites. Publication 9355.4-07FS. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, USA. 10 p.Google Scholar
  51. USEPA. 1993. Subsurface Characterization and Monitoring Techniques: A Desk Reference Guide: Volume I: Solids and Ground Water Appendices A and B. EPA/625/R-93/003a.Google Scholar
  52. USEPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide, 2nd ed. Publication 9355.4-23. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA. July.Google Scholar
  53. USEPA and DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997. Uncertainty Management: Expediting Cleanup Through Contingency Planning. DOE/EH/(CERCLA)-002. February.Google Scholar
  54. USEPA. 2003. The DNAPL Cleanup Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion? EPA/600/R-03/143. December. 129 p.Google Scholar
  55. USEPA. 2005. Decision Support Tools-Development of a Screening Matrix for 20 Specific Software Tools. USEPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center, Washington, DC, USA. 24 p. http://www.frtr.gov/decisionsupport/PDF/DSTMatrixReport.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  56. USEPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. USEPA Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC, USA. February.Google Scholar
  57. USEPA. 2007. Management and Interpretation of Data under a Triad Approach. Technology Bulletin. EPA 542-F-07-001. 14 p. http://www.triadcentral.org/ref/ref/documents/epa542f07001.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  58. USEPA. 2008a. Environmental Technology Verification Program. Advanced Monitoring Systems Center. http://www.epa.gov/etv/centers/verifiedtechnologies.html. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  59. USEPA. 2008b. Characterization and Monitoring, Technology Descriptions and Selection Tools. USEPA Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN), Technology Integration and Information Branch. http://clu-in.org/char/technologies/. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  60. USEPA. 2008c. Triad Central Website. http://www.triadcentral.org/. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  61. USEPA. 2008d. Conceptual Site Model Checklist. http://www.triadcentral.org/ref/ref/documents/CSM_Checklist.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  62. USEPA. 2009. Environmental Fact Sheet: Commencement Bay South Tahoma Channel Superfund Site. USEPA Region 10, Seattle, WA, USA, May. 16 p.Google Scholar
  63. West OR, Siegrist RL, Mitchell TJ, Jenkins RA. 1995. Measurement error and spatial variability effects on characterization of volatile organics in the subsurface. Environ Sci Technol 29:647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yeskis D, Zavala B. 2002. Ground Water Forum Issue Paper: Ground-water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers. EPA/542/S-02/001. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA. 53 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Siegrist
    • 1
  • Tom Palaia
    • 2
  • Wilson Clayton
    • 3
  • Richard W. Lewis
    • 4
  1. 1.Colorado School of MinesGoldenUSA
  2. 2.CH2M HILLEnglewoodUSA
  3. 3.Aquifer Solutions, Inc.EvergreenUSA
  4. 4.Environmental Resources ManagementMansfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations