Advanced Diagnostic Tools
In the past decade, the advent of innovative diagnostic tools has improved site assessment and remediation practices. This chapter discusses five diagnostic tools that are particularly important for chlorinated solvent source zone remediation: multi-level monitoring systems; rock matrix characterization techniques; mass flux/mass discharge measurements; compound-specific isotope analysis; and molecular biological tools. The discussion includes descriptions of each diagnostic tool, a value of information analysis to help practitioners determine when the tools will be useful and cost effective, and practical recommendations for use of each tool.
KeywordsRock Matrix Life Cycle Cost Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Site Characterization Contaminant Distribution
The work summarized in this chapter was funded by ESTCP under project ER-0318. The authors would like to acknowledge project team members for their significant contribution to the project’s success. These include, in alphabetical order, Lisa Alvarez-Cohen (University of California, Berkeley), Michael Annable (University of Florida), John Cherry (University of Guelph), Murray Einarson (Haley and Aldrich), Ken Goldstein (The Louis Berger Group), Mark Goltz (Air Force Institute of Technology), Kirk Hatfield (University of Florida), Douglas Mackay (University of California, Davis), Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith), Daria Navon (ARCADIS), Beth Parker (University of Guelph), Suresh Rao (Purdue University), Kent Sorenson (CDM Smith) and Andrew Vitolins (ARCADIS).
- Bayer-Raich M, Jarsjo J, Liedl R, Ptak T, Teutsch G. 2004. Average contaminant concentration and mass flux in aquifers from time-dependent pumping well data - Analytical framework. Water Resour Res 40:W08303.Google Scholar
- Black WH, Smith HR, Patton FD. 1986. Multiple-level ground water monitoring with the MP system. Proceedings of the National Water Well Association’s Conference on Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods and Ground Water Instrumentation. Denver, CO, USA, October 15–17, pp 41–61.Google Scholar
- Buscheck TE. 2002. Mass Flux Estimates to Assist Decision-Making. Technical Bulletin. ChevronTexaco, Houston, TX, USA.Google Scholar
- Einarson M. 2006. Multi-level Groundwater Monitoring. In DM Nielsen, ed, Practical Handbook of Environmental Site Characterization and Ground-Water Monitoring, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 808–845.Google Scholar
- Farhat SK, Newell CJ, Nichols EM. 2005. Mass Flux Toolkit. Groundwater Services, Houston, TX, USA. http://www.gsi-net.com/en/software/free-software/mass-flux-toolkit.html. Accessed February 26, 2013.
- Feenstra S, Cherry J, Parker B. 1996. Conceptual Models for the Behavior of DNAPLs in the Subsurface. In Pankow J, Cherry J, eds, Dense Chlorinated Solvents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History, Behavior and Remediation. Waterloo Press, Waterloo, ON, Canada, pp 53–88.Google Scholar
- Hatfield K, Annable MD, Kuhn S, Rao PS, Campbell T. 2002. A new method for quantifying contaminant flux at hazardous waste sites. In Thornton SF, Oswald SE, eds, Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced Restoration of Groundwater Pollution. Internat Assoc Hydrological Sci Pub. No. 275, pp 25–32.Google Scholar
- Howard MH, Clingenpeel SR, Leiser OP, Rothermell JS, Watwood ME. 2005. Molecular and physiological characterization of aerobic TCE degradation potential. Proceedings, 8th In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, Baltimore, MD, USA, Paper No. G-31.Google Scholar
- Huang J, Close ME, Pang L, Goltz MN. 2004. Innovative method to measure flux of dissolved contaminants in groundwater. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Monterey, CA, USA, May 24–27. Battelle Press. Abstract No. 1D-08.Google Scholar
- Hurley JC, Parker BL. 2002. Rock core investigation of DNAPL penetration and TCE mobility in fractured sandstone. In Stolle D, Piggott AR, Crowder JJ, eds, Proceedings of the 55th Canadian Geotechnical and 3rd Joint IAH-CNC and CGS Groundwater Specialty Conferences, Ground and Water: Theory to Practice. Canadian Geotechnical Society. Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, October 20–23, 2001, pp 473–480.Google Scholar
- ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2004. Strategies for Monitoring the Performance of DNAPL Source Zone Remedies. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/DNAPLs-5.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2013.
- ITRC. 2010a. ITRC Technical Project Teams. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/2010TeamDescriptions.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2013.
- ITRC. 2010b. Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge. Int-DNAPL-1. www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/GetDocument?documentID=49. Accessed February 26, 2013.
- ITRC. 2011. Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Fact Sheets. EMD-1. Washington, DC: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Team. www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/EMD1.pdf . Accessed February 26, 2013.
- Kavanaugh M, Kresic N. 2008. Large Urban Groundwater Basins: Water Quality Threats and Aquifer Restoration. In Dimkic M, Brauch HJ, Kavanaugh M, eds, Groundwater Management in Large River Basins. IWA Publishing, London, UK, pp 520–600.Google Scholar
- Lebron CA, Phelan D, Heron G, Lachance J, Nielsen SG, Kueper BH, Rodriguez D, Wemp A, Baston D, Lacombe P, Chapelle FH. 2012. Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Removal from Fractured Rock Using Thermal Conductive Heating (TCH). Final Report ESTCP Project ER-200715. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
- Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011a. Guidance Report: Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
- Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011b. Final Report: Vandenberg Air Force Base, Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
- Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011c. Final Report: Fort Lewis, Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, Alexandria, VA, USA.Google Scholar
- Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011d. Final Report: Watervliet Arsenal, Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, Alexandria, VA, USA.Google Scholar
- Marchesi M, Aravena R, Otero N, Soler A, Gil I, Sra KS, Thomson NR, Mancini S. 2009. Assessment of in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) performance for chlorinated solvents contaminated groundwater using stable carbon isotope at laboratory and field scale. Geophysical Research Abstracts 11. EGU2009-10201-1. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009EGUGA..1110201M. Accessed February 26, 2013.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- Parker BL. 2007. Investigating contaminated sites on fractured rock using the DFN approach. Proceedings of the 2007 USEPA/NGWA Fractured Rock Conference: State of the Science and Measuring Success in Remediation. Portland, ME, USA, September 24–26, pp 150–168.Google Scholar
- Rao PSC, Jawitz JW, Enfield CG, Falta RW, Annable MD, Wood AL. 2001. Technology integration for contaminated site remediation: Clean-up goals and performance criteria. In Thornton SF, Oswald SE, eds, Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced Restoration of Groundwater Pollution. Internat Assoc Hydrological Sci Pub. No. 275, pp 571–578.Google Scholar
- Rodriquez DJ. 2012. Assessment of Thermal Heating for the Removal of Chlorinated Solvents from Fractured Bedrock. PhD Thesis. Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/1974/7515. Accessed February 26,2013 .Google Scholar
- Sale T, Newell C, Stroo H, Hinchee R, Johnson P. 2008. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Management of Chlorinated Solvents in Soils and Groundwater. ESTCP. Project ER-0530. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. http://www.estcp.org/Technology/upload/ER-0530-FAQ.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2013.
- SERDP (Strategic Environmental Research & Development Program). 2004. Annual Report: DNAPL Source Zone Initiative. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
- SERDP. 2005. Expert Panel Workshop Report: Research and Development Needs for the Environmental Remediation Application of Molecular Biological Tools. Retrieved from http://www.clu-in.org/products/tins/tinsone.cfm?num=68982420. Accessed February 28, 2013.
- SERDP. 2006. Expert Panel Workshop Report: Reducing the Uncertainty of DNAPL Source Zone Remediation. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
- USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Final OSWER Directive. EPA/540/R-99/009. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/directiv/d9200417.pdf. Accessed July 22, 2013.
- USEPA. 2003. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion. EPA/600/R-03/143. http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/600r03143.pdf. Accessed July 22, 2013.
- USEPA. 2008. A Guide for Assessing Biodegradation and Source Identification of Organic Ground Water Contaminants using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA). EPA 600/R-08/148. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08148.html Accessed May 9, 2013.
- USEPA. 2009. Amendment to the Record of Decision for the Commencement Bay – South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site, Operable Unit 1, Well 12A, Tacoma, Washington. USEPA Region 10, Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar
- van Dijk G. 2005. Bentonite usage hits new ground. GeoDrilling International, November, pp 36–39.Google Scholar